id|nct_id|outcome_id|non_inferiority_type|non_inferiority_description|param_type|param_value|dispersion_type|dispersion_value|p_value_modifier|p_value|ci_n_sides|ci_percent|ci_lower_limit|ci_upper_limit|ci_upper_limit_na_comment|p_value_description|method|method_description|estimate_description|groups_description|other_analysis_description|ci_upper_limit_raw|ci_lower_limit_raw|p_value_raw
95729532|NCT02192905|191429652|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-3.34|.63
95729533|NCT02192905|191429653|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|-0.0096|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.0096|-.0285|<0.001
95729534|NCT02192905|191429654|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean within-person percent weight change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.011||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.006|-.039|0.143
95729535|NCT02192905|191429655|OTHER|One-sample t-test testing the mean positive problem solving change from baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.07||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-5.11|.73
95729536|NCT01095003|191429685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||The final analysis of progression free survival was conducted once the required number of events(615 progressions or deaths) was reached.using the IRC assessment of date of progressions following the blinded radiological and clinical review of data. Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided.A stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the two treatment arms||0.99|0.71|0.0426
95729537|NCT01095003|191429686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.7657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.83|0.7657
95729538|NCT01095003|191429687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.103
95729539|NCT01095003|191429688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0089
95729540|NCT01333033|191429717|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95729541|NCT01816477|191429728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95792496|NCT02873689|191553810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.057
95918278|NCT01327547|191796078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.002||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0417|0.0376|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by hepatitis B virus (HBV) status and usage of protease inhibitor (PI) regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.0376|-0.0417|0.4598
95729542|NCT01816477|191429729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0872|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.0872
95729543|NCT01816477|191429729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6751|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.6751
95729544|NCT01816477|191429729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.1203
95729545|NCT01816477|191429729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 4.||||0.3582
95729546|NCT01816477|191429729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5||||0.0625
95729547|NCT01816477|191429729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.0484
95729548|NCT01816477|191429730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6465|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 1.||||0.6465
95729549|NCT01816477|191429730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9233|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 2.||||0.9233
95729550|NCT01816477|191429730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5788|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 3.||||0.5788
95729551|NCT01816477|191429730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1036|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between the groups for day 4.||||0.1036
95729552|NCT01816477|191429730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5314|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 5.||||0.5314
95729553|NCT01816477|191429730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Unequal Variance T-Test|||Comparison between groups for day 6.||||0.7166
95729554|NCT06331156|191429736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is greater than or equal to (\>=) -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.76|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||3.76|-3.14|
95729555|NCT06331156|191429736|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.3|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.30|-3.86|
95729556|NCT06331156|191429736|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group difference (Co-administration group minus Staggered group) in seroconversion rate is \>= -10% for the anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.99|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate for IPV at Month 3.5 between Co-administration group minus Staggered group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of IPV when co-administered with HRV PCV-free compared with IPV administered alone in terms of seroconversion rates 1-month post-Dose 3 of IPV (Month 3.5).||2.99|-2.63|
95792497|NCT02873689|191553811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.268
95859640|NCT02469870|191677203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.404
95729557|NCT05845645|191429745|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.8269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7535|0.9076|||||The geometric least square mean (GLSM) ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For normal gastric pH||0.9076|0.7535|
95729558|NCT05845645|191429745|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.7053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6427|0.7741|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.7741|0.6427|
95729559|NCT05845645|191429745|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7771|0.9361|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9361|0.7771|
95729560|NCT05845645|191429745|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.376|1.776|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.776|1.376|
95729561|NCT05845645|191429745|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.248|1.604|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.604|1.248|
95729562|NCT05845645|191429745|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7972|1.027|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.027|0.7972|
95729563|NCT05845645|191429746|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9052|1.003|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.003|0.9052|
95792498|NCT01949545|191553829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|144.43||||0.02232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.48|187.12|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||187.12|111.48|0.02232
95792499|NCT01949545|191553829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.08||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.59|168.06|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-last an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||168.06|94.59|0.1812
95729564|NCT05845645|191429746|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8758|0.9706|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9706|0.8758|
95729565|NCT05845645|191429746|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9191|1.019|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.019|0.9191|
95729566|NCT05845645|191429746|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.001|1.12|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.120|1.001|
95729567|NCT05845645|191429746|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9826|1.097|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.097|0.9826|
95729568|NCT05845645|191429746|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9273|1.037|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.037|0.9273|
95729569|NCT05845645|191429747|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.006|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.006|0.9011|
95729570|NCT05845645|191429747|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8762|0.9777|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||0.9777|0.8762|
95729571|NCT05845645|191429747|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9204|1.027|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Normal gastric pH||1.027|0.9204|
95729572|NCT05845645|191429747|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.116|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.116|0.9940|
95729573|NCT05845645|191429747|OTHER||GLSM ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.086|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Capsule 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.086|0.9710|
95729574|NCT05845645|191429747|OTHER||GLSM ratio|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9208|1.032|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as UCB0599: Encapsulated tablet 180 mg divided by UCB0599: Non-encapsulated tablet 180 mg.|For Elevated gastric pH||1.032|0.9208|
95729575|NCT02978326|191429759|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.5||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.5|-6.9|0.0028
95729576|NCT02978326|191429760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 3||-0.3|-5.1|0.0252
95729577|NCT02978326|191429760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 8||-0.8|-6.0|0.0106
95764001|NCT04386616|191498040|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.5058|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5058
95764002|NCT04386616|191498041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.72|0.64|0.8451
95764003|NCT04386616|191498041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.67|0.7267
95729578|NCT02978326|191429760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 21||-0.3|-6.0|0.0321
95729579|NCT02978326|191429760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the HAM-D Total Score at Day 45||-1.4|-6.7|0.0027
95729580|NCT02978326|191429761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.6||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 3||3.60|0.89|0.1004
95729581|NCT02978326|191429761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.45||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 8||4.45|1.20|0.0127
95729582|NCT02978326|191429761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.16||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 15||5.16|1.34|0.0049
95729583|NCT02978326|191429761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.64||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 21||3.64|0.94|0.0763
95729584|NCT02978326|191429761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.6||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Response at Day 45||4.60|1.13|0.0216
95729585|NCT02978326|191429762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|12.23||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 3||12.23|1.24|0.0200
95729586|NCT02978326|191429762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.13||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 8||4.13|0.89|0.0990
95729587|NCT02978326|191429762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.17||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 15||5.17|1.24|0.0110
95729588|NCT02978326|191429762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.19||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 21||3.19|0.79|0.1982
95729589|NCT02978326|191429762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With HAM-D Remission at Day 45||5.03|1.26|0.0091
95729590|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.7|-6.9|0.3832
95729591|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.2|-10.5|0.0415
95792500|NCT01949545|191553830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|151.84||||0.02137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.59|202.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||202.96|113.59|0.02137
95729592|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||0.2|-10.5|0.0606
95764004|NCT04386616|191498041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.79|0.63|0.8458
95729593|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.6|-12.1|0.0318
95729594|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Core: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.4|-13.0|0.0047
95729595|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||-2.1|-12.0|0.0053
95729596|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.1|-12.1|0.0181
95729597|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-4.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-4.2|-15.3|0.0007
95981024|NCT02060383|191935250|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.08|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (Cushing's vs. Acromegaly; baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|All Patients||0.08|-0.63|
95729598|NCT02978326|191429763|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.5|-11.5|0.0332
95981025|NCT02060383|191935250|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.95|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Cushing's Disease||0.95|-0.96|
95981026|NCT02060383|191935250|OTHER|There was no formal hypothesis testing planned in this study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||||Difference of adjusted mean change in HbA1c between the two arms based on an ANOVA model with treatment (Incretin, Insulin) and randomization stratification factors (baseline HbA1c \<7% vs ≥7%) as fixed effects.|Acromegaly||0.02|-0.74|
95981027|NCT00088907|191935257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
95729599|NCT02978326|191429763|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.5|-13.5|0.0048
95981028|NCT00088907|191935258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
95792501|NCT01949545|191553830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|143.53||||0.07247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.28|199.45|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least squares means, using log-transformed data, between the hepatic impairment cohort (test) and participants with normal hepatic function (reference).|To assess the effect of hepatic impairment relative to participants with normal hepatic function on AUC0-inf an ANOVA of the log-transformed plasma PK parameters was performed. The ANOVA model included hepatic impairment as a fixed effect.||199.45|103.28|0.07247
95792502|NCT06058390|191553933|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.14|0.91|
95918279|NCT01327547|191796079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0653|0.0319|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between MVC and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0319|-0.0653|
95981029|NCT03426787|191935260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.30216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.6531|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.6531|-18.95|<0.001
95981030|NCT03426787|191935261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4717||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9355|-0.00793|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00793|-0.9355|0.0463
95981031|NCT03426787|191935262|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.936|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4086|3.5365|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5365|-7.4086|>0.05
95981032|NCT04050670|191935268|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|0.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.970|0.935|
95981033|NCT04050670|191935268|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of AUC(0-∞) for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.01|0.972|
95981034|NCT04050670|191935269|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for thigh versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.909|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.909|0.818|
95918280|NCT01327547|191796079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0805|0.0452|||||CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regiment strata, is used to calculate the statistics. The point estimate and 95% CI are difference in proportions between maraviroc and placebo for the participants meeting secondary endpoint.|||0.0452|-0.0805|
95981035|NCT04050670|191935269|NON_INFERIORITY|A priori estimates for the 90% CI geometric least square means ratios of Cmax for the upper arm versus abdomen injection sites were from 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|0.971|||Linear mixed effects model|||||0.971|0.874|
95981036|NCT00525044|191935270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||ANOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Differences between the treatment groups with regard to the primary endpoint SPIDnorm was tested using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects.~Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.01|-0.12|0.0156
95981037|NCT00525044|191935271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0|-0.4|0.1280
95981038|NCT00525044|191935271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
95729600|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||2.0|-10.3|0.1840
95729601|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-0.1|-13.2|0.0462
95729602|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.6|-14.9|0.0150
95729603|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-1.0|-15.0|0.0245
95729604|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-2.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Bech-6: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-2.8|-16.0|0.0054
95729605|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 3||0.9|-10.1|0.0972
95729606|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 8||-1.4|-13.1|0.0155
95729607|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 15||-1.5|-13.4|0.0149
95729608|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.9||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 21||-0.9|-13.3|0.0250
95729609|NCT02978326|191429763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D subscale score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Meier: Change from Baseline in HAM-D Subscale Score at Day 45||-3.6|-15.3|0.0017
95729610|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.5|0.1569
95792503|NCT06058390|191553934|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.15|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.15|0.96|
95792504|NCT06058390|191553935|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.18|0.88|
95981039|NCT00525044|191935271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
95981040|NCT00525044|191935271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
95981041|NCT00525044|191935272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo)|"Analysis at 30 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.1280
95981042|NCT00525044|191935272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 60 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.4|0.0417
95981043|NCT00525044|191935272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 120 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||-0.1|-0.6|0.0054
95981044|NCT00525044|191935272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment differences (Ambroxol- Placebo|"Analysis at 180 min:~analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment and centre as fix effects and baseline as covariable are presented. Treatment differences are estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals."||0.0|-0.6|0.0201
95729611|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0376
95729612|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.6|0.1035
95981045|NCT00525044|191935273|OTHER|||||||0.9939|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.9939
95981046|NCT00525044|191935273|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.5552
95981047|NCT00525044|191935274|OTHER|||||||0.0343|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 1:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0343
95981048|NCT00525044|191935274|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Analysis at day 2:~P-value was calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for center."||||0.0119
95729613|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.2|-0.9|0.0037
95918281|NCT01327547|191796084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1484|0.1185|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 48 data presented here.||0.1185|-0.1484|
95918282|NCT01327547|191796084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1784|0.1274|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 96 data presented here.||0.1274|-0.1784|
95981049|NCT01817907|191935276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95729614|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Depressed Mood: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.8|0.0061
95729615|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.4|0.7878
95729616|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0498
95729617|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1719
95729618|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.7|0.0161
95729619|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Feelings of Guilt: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0191
95729620|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.2|0.2537
95729621|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.2|0.0018
95729622|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.2|0.2878
95729623|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.2594
95729624|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Suicide: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.0086
95729625|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.6|0.0424
95729626|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0207
95729627|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0010
95729628|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.0871
95729629|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early - Early Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.2|-0.4|0.5680
95729630|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.6|0.0143
95729631|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.6|0.0063
95918283|NCT01327547|191796084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2421|0.0761|||||Difference in proportion: CMH approach weighted by HBV status and usage of PI regimen strata was used to calculate the statistics.|A stratified analysis was conducted by summarizing the difference in proportions adjusted for the randomization strata formed by crossing levels of stratification variables. The CMH approach was used. No formal hypothesis test was performed. Week 144 data presented here.||0.0761|-0.2421|
95729632|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0042
95729633|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.6|0.0137
95729634|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Middle - Middle Night: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0099
95729635|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0507
95729636|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0205
95729637|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.5|0.1409
95729638|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY|MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.5|0.2021
95729639|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insomnia Early Hours - Morning: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.6|0.0117
95729640|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.2|-0.4|0.5511
95729641|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.5|0.4949
95729642|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0203
95729643|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.2076
95729644|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Work and Activities: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.8|0.0362
95729645|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.3|-0.1|0.3589
95729646|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.2|0.6991
95918284|NCT01327547|191796085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-41.12||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.72|10.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at week 48. Results are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||10.49|-92.72|0.1174
95729647|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.2|-0.2|0.9655
95729648|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.8699
95729649|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Retardation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.3715
95764005|NCT04386616|191498041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.81|0.64|0.7907
95792505|NCT06058390|191553936|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.09|0.88|
95792506|NCT06058390|191553937|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.13|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.13|0.87|
95792507|NCT06058390|191553938|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.08|||||Geometric mean is adjusted for covariates: randomized groups (Arms 1 and 2 of this endpoint), injection site (arm, thigh and abdomen) as categorical covariates and log transformed Baseline weight as continuous covariate.|Analysis was performed on the natural logarithms using a fixed-effects model.||1.08|0.87|
95792508|NCT03863353|191553939|SUPERIORITY||Rebression coefficient|2.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.4||Adjusted for repeated measures and effects of covariates|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis was tested using multivariable regression models (generalized estimating equation)||3.40|0.86|.001
95792509|NCT03863353|191553940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||adjusted for covariates|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model examined the effect of the intervention on the outcome (collapsed intentions/behaviors)||1.90|0.72|0.534
95855549|NCT05462756|191670699|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size provided \>99% statistical power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM), in insulin efsitora doses compared to insulin glargine, in a 1:1 randomization, a standard deviation (SD) of 1.1%, and a dropout rate of 15%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116||||||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|
95950769|NCT02607956|191873516|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.44
95764006|NCT04386616|191498042|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5273|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5273
95764007|NCT04386616|191498042|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6515|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.6515
95764008|NCT04386616|191498042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.91|0.71|0.5475
95764009|NCT04386616|191498042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.89|0.71|0.5652
95764010|NCT04386616|191498043|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3401|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.3401
95764011|NCT04386616|191498043|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4676|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the UTT1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4676
95764012|NCT04386616|191498043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.75|0.3408
95764013|NCT04386616|191498043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.29|0.76|0.3320
95764014|NCT04386616|191498044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|15.24|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||15.24|-7.57|
95764015|NCT04386616|191498044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|10.7|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.70|-11.46|
95764016|NCT04386616|191498044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.10|0.70|0.4804
95764017|NCT04386616|191498044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.71|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.71|0.56|0.9418
95792510|NCT02495389|191553942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7741|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|29.57|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) score after 12 weeks of therapy.||29.57|18.35|<.0001
95792511|NCT02495389|191553943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.04|-39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Urinary Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-39.20|-64.04|<.0001
95792512|NCT02495389|191553944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-18.27|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-18.27|-40.33|<.0001
95792513|NCT02495389|191553945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.35|-19.65|||t-test, 2 sided|A two-sided paired t-test was used for this analysis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in patients' baseline Colo-Rectal-Anal Distress Inventory score after 12 weeks of therapy.||-19.65|-44.35|<.0001
95792514|NCT00966433|191553946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.79|-13.61|.0051
95792515|NCT00966433|191553947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|2.97|.0001
95792516|NCT00966433|191553952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|-8.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-8.92|-18.88|.0001
95729650|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.4|0.0670
95792517|NCT01924533|191554049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.00|0.63|0.0262
95949860|NCT04405180|191871617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data|ANCOVA|||||||0.9017
95792518|NCT01924533|191554050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.4|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.40|0.2458
95792519|NCT01924533|191554051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.04|0.67|0.0645
95792520|NCT01924533|191554052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|1.29|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.29|0.42|0.2199
95855550|NCT05462756|191670700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) Mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed.||0.116|-0.140|0.855
95729651|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||-0.1|-0.5|0.0104
95792521|NCT01924533|191554053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.92|0.0548
95792522|NCT01924533|191554054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|23.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.23|0.95|0.0309
95792523|NCT01924533|191554055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.05|0.64|0.0716
95792524|NCT01924533|191554056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.34|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.16|0.34|0.0927
95792525|NCT03585270|191554067|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.072||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.396|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.2785).|||0.396|-0.426|0.7338
95792526|NCT03585270|191554068|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.341||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8644).|||0.642|-0.213|0.177
95792527|NCT03585270|191554069|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
95792528|NCT03585270|191554070|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|-0.254||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.8844).|||0.107|-0.760|0.1983
95792529|NCT03585270|191554071|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.119||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.425|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1706).|||0.425|-0.349|0.5591
95792530|NCT03585270|191554072|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.267||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.505|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.4580)|||0.505|-0.085|0.1179
95792531|NCT03585270|191554073|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|0.139||||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Homogeneity of the treatment effect across strata was investigated using the Breslow-Day test (p-value = 0.1685)|||0.457|-0.365|0.5217
95792532|NCT00323063|191554079|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
95792533|NCT03904693|191554085|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
95792534|NCT03904693|191554085|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.64|<0.0001
95792535|NCT03904693|191554086|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.04|||=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|49.08|||ANCOVA|||||49.08|-17.0|=0.3802
95792536|NCT03904693|191554086|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.37|||=|0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|51.59|||ANCOVA|||||51.59|-0.93|=0.0591
95792537|NCT02240667|191554168|OTHER|||||||0.8496|||||||stratified log-rank test|||Persistence in both treatment groups was compared by means of the stratified Log-rank test||||0.8496
95792538|NCT01578772|191554171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||0.1|-0.1|<0.05
95792539|NCT01578772|191554172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. All statistical tests are two-sided with nominal alpha level of 0.05.||||1.9|-1.3|<0.05
95792540|NCT04613518|191554195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|43.4||||||||43.4|-35.7|
95792541|NCT01076543|191554256|OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose in mg|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||"The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the traditional 3+3 design and was the maximum dose level such that less than 33% of the patients (i.e, \<1 of 3 or \<2 of 6) experience dose-limiting toxicity."|||||
95792542|NCT01076543|191554258|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||>0.10
95792543|NCT01076543|191554258|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 50% vs. 70% alternative.|The follicular subgroup did not reach its accrual goal and was closed.|||
95792544|NCT01076543|191554258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Binomial exact test.|The number of responders required to reject the null hypothesis was 16 or more.||Two-stage, minimax design was used to test the null hypothesis that the overall response rate was 30% vs. a 50% alternative.||||<0.10
95792545|NCT01211145|191554261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.5||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.50|0.75|.312
95792546|NCT01211145|191554261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.26||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.26|0.95|.071
95792547|NCT01211145|191554261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.39||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||3.39|1.40|<.001
95792548|NCT01211145|191554262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.91|0.70|.575
95792549|NCT01211145|191554262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.31||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.31|1.06|.032
95792550|NCT01211145|191554262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.95||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||1.95|0.91|.137
95792551|NCT01211145|191554263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.96|0.74|.458
95792552|NCT01211145|191554263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.03||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||3.03|1.09|.021
95855551|NCT05462756|191670701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.81|0.504
95792553|NCT01211145|191554263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.32|1.12|.010
95855552|NCT05462756|191670702|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.67||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||Negative binomial model||Relative rate is the ratio of the group means (Insulin Efsitora vs Insulin Glargine).|Group mean is determined by Negative Binomial Model using Number of episodes = Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as an offset variable.||1.01|0.44|0.058
95792554|NCT01211145|191554264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.84||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.84|0.64|.753
95792555|NCT01211145|191554264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.79||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.79|0.86|.145
95792556|NCT01211145|191554264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.04||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.04|0.91|.127
95792557|NCT01211145|191554265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||2.32|0.79|.274
95792558|NCT01211145|191554265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.67||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.91||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||2.91|0.96|.067
95792559|NCT01211145|191554265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||2.08|0.91|.127
95792560|NCT01211145|191554266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 0.5 mg/Placebo|||1.16|0.38|.153
95792561|NCT01211145|191554266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 2.5 mg/Placebo|||1.08|0.33|.087
95792562|NCT01211145|191554266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83||Unadjusted|Regression, Logistic||ZOMIG 5.0 mg/Placebo|||0.83|0.36|.004
95792563|NCT00791999|191554267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, treatment comparisons versus placebo for the two CDP870 dose groups, the CDP870 200 mg group the CDP870 400 mg, were performed. The ACR20 responder rate in the CDP870 100 mg group was used for the secondary analysis.||||<0.025
95792564|NCT00791999|191554268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Wald p-values(vs. placebo) for the comparison of the treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95981050|NCT04415658|191935277|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||80% power to detect a 10% increase in hearts transplanted||1.07|0.97|0.57
95792565|NCT00791219|191554286|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|6.47|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.77||||||||||-1.77|
95792566|NCT00791219|191554286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
95792567|NCT00791219|191554287|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|10.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.92|||||||To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||0.92|
95792568|NCT00791219|191554287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
95792569|NCT00791219|191554288|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority an upper bound 95% confidence interval approach comparing the difference between the cure rate in the Test and the Reference groups was used. If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure and Mycological Cure as appropriate, at Week 24 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|3.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.62||||||||||-10.62|
95792570|NCT00791219|191554288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||The ITT was used for all superiority testing. For the three primary endpoints and all four secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing||||<0.05
95792571|NCT00791219|191554291|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|-20|-0.57|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|||||||If the lower bound 95% confidence interval of the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test group compared to the Reference group considered a Therapeutic Cure, Clinical Cure or Mycological Cure as appropriate at Visit 7 was greater than -20 then non-inferiority was considered to have been demonstrated|||-12.91|
95792572|NCT00791219|191554292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||It the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure was statistically greater (p\<0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority was considered to have been demonstrated.|A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
95792573|NCT00791219|191554292|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0853|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test|||For the three primary endpoints and all four dichotomous secondary endpoints, if the difference between the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Test or Reference group was statistically greater (p \< 0.05) than the proportion of patients considered a cure in the Placebo group, then superiority of that treatment over placebo was considered to have been demonstrated. A one-sided continuity corrected Z-test was used for superiority testing.||||<0.05
95792574|NCT03204643|191554311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.54|0.06
95792575|NCT03204643|191554312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.70|0.76
95855553|NCT05462756|191670703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.461|0.886|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||0.886|-9.461|0.104
95918285|NCT01327547|191796085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-21.96||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.05|59.12|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||59.12|-103.05|0.5930
95792576|NCT03204643|191554313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.65|0.62
95792577|NCT03204643|191554314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.96|0.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.96|0.08
95729652|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
95729653|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.3|0.3157
95729654|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Agitation: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0077
95729655|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||-0.1|-0.8|0.0078
95729656|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.7|0.0372
95729657|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.7|0.0244
95729658|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.6|0.0993
95729659|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Psychic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.7|0.0185
95792578|NCT02175225|191554365|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.006|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.068|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.068||
95729660|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2471
95729661|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.1076
95729662|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.4|0.2782
95729663|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.4646
95729664|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Anxiety Somatic: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.5|0.1600
95918286|NCT01327547|191796085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-48.26||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.93|3.41|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||3.41|-99.93|0.0669
95764018|NCT04386616|191498044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.44|0.68|0.4988
95729665|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.5|0.0474
95729666|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.5|0.0446
95729667|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.1|-0.6|0.0093
95729668|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.2998
95729669|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0545
95792579|NCT02175225|191554366|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
95792580|NCT02175225|191554367|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56||||||||1.56|0.57|
95792581|NCT02175225|191554368|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than13% in favor of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.062|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.121|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference\[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.121||
95729670|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.2177
95792582|NCT02175225|191554369|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 12% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.086|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.156|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.156||
95792583|NCT02175225|191554370|OTHER|The alternative hypothesis, reflecting futility, is that the absolute treatment effect is less than 13% in favor of deferoxamine. In accordance with the futility design, futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if the upper bound on the risk difference was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this would be considered evidence of futility.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.029|||||Futility was evaluated via the one-sided 90% upper confidence bound (90% UCB) of the treatment effect (absolute adjusted risk difference \[AARD\]); if UCB was less than 13% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, this is considered evidence of futility.|||0.029||
95918287|NCT01327547|191796085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-65.28||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.07|30.5|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||30.50|-161.07|0.1799
95949861|NCT04405180|191871618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.4215|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.4215
95729671|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.4|0.2300
95764019|NCT04386616|191498044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.54|0.9043
95949862|NCT04405180|191871619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0||0.9024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||.9024
95949863|NCT04405180|191871620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.0||0.1646|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.1646
95792584|NCT02175225|191554371|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||The p value reflects the significance of the interaction term between treatment and onset to treatment time.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.83
95792585|NCT02175225|191554372|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||||The estimation parameter is the adjusted common odds ratio.|||1.67|0.72|
95792586|NCT02175225|191554373|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||||1.93|0.82|
95981051|NCT04415658|191935278|NON_INFERIORITY|Six percent margin, assuming 96% graft survival in control group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Non-inferiority analysis for thyroxine vs saline||6.0|-2.3|<0.001
95981052|NCT03523728|191935286|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|21.32|||=|0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|58.22|||linear mixed effect model|||||58.22|-5.77|=0.1367
95981053|NCT03523728|191935286|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|0.34|||=|0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|33.36|||linear mixed effect model|||||33.36|-24.57|=0.9812
95981054|NCT03523728|191935287|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|101.32|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.63|233.72|||linear mixed effect model|||||233.72|35.63|=0.0005
95981055|NCT03523728|191935287|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|104.17|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.54|236.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||236.45|39.54|=0.0002
95981056|NCT03523728|191935288|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|51.01|||=|0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|125.45|||linear mixed effect model|||||125.45|7.01|=0.0197
95981057|NCT03523728|191935288|SUPERIORITY||Relative difference|46.36|||=|0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|119.01|||linear mixed effect model|||||119.01|3.21|=0.0337
95792587|NCT02175225|191554376|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.97|||||Confidence interval is exact (rather than asymptotic) due to small number of events.|||14.97|0.0|
95981058|NCT03523728|191935290|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.556|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.556|-0.342|=0.6374
95981059|NCT03523728|191935290|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.185|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.185|-0.689|=0.2560
95792588|NCT02175225|191554377|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||||Confidence interval constructed only for all cause owing to small number of events caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome.|||1.54|0.51|
95792589|NCT02175225|191554378|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.35||||||||5.35|0.63|
95981060|NCT03523728|191935291|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|0.747|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.747|-0.971|=0.7900
95981061|NCT03523728|191935291|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.5|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.500|-0.808|=0.6322
95981062|NCT03523728|191935292|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.839|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.839|-0.506|=0.6245
95981063|NCT03523728|191935292|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.281|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.281|-1.044|=0.2567
95981064|NCT03523728|191935293|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.485|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.485|-2.232|=0.2023
95981065|NCT03523728|191935293|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.537|||Mixed effect model with repeated measure|||||0.537|-1.610|=0.3205
95981066|NCT01540825|191935328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1831|1.3112|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (powder in bottle (PIB)) for Cmax was analysed.||1.3112|1.1831|
95981067|NCT01540825|191935330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1195|1.2057|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC 0- tz was analysed.||1.2057|1.1195|
95792590|NCT02668640|191554395|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0002
95981068|NCT01540825|191935331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.1941|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of BI 113608 (PIB) for AUC0-inf was analysed||1.1941|1.1080|
95764020|NCT04386616|191498045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8007|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8007
95792591|NCT02668640|191554396|OTHER||||||=|0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||=0.0006
95792592|NCT02668640|191554397|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 12||||<0.0001
95764021|NCT04386616|191498045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8633|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.8633
95764022|NCT04386616|191498046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|9.12|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.12|-16.31|
95792593|NCT02668640|191554397|OTHER||||||=|0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 12||||=0.1233
95792594|NCT02668640|191554397|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in PCS T-score at Week 24||||<0.001
95792595|NCT02668640|191554397|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median change from baseline in MCS T-score at Week 24||||=0.001
95792596|NCT02668640|191554398|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
95792597|NCT02668640|191554398|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change From Baseline in EQ-5D-3L Index Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
95729672|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.7|0.0001
95729673|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0151
95729674|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||General Somatic Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.5|0.0502
95729675|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.3|0.3659
95729676|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.2|-0.3|0.6003
95981069|NCT01641237|191935335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
95981070|NCT01641237|191935335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3748||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %SMHR as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.3748
95981071|NCT01641237|191935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||5.43|-1.09|0.1898
95993524|NCT00348140|191963290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.465
95729677|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.5|0.0785
95729678|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.4|0.3668
95729679|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Genital Symptoms: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.4|0.1827
95729680|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.1|-0.4|0.1327
95729681|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.4|0.0993
95729682|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||-0.2|-0.6|0.0002
95792598|NCT02668640|191554399|OTHER||||||=|0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0137
95949864|NCT04405180|191871621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.9814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.9814
95949865|NCT04405180|191871622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6217
95949866|NCT04405180|191871623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7981|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.7981
95981072|NCT01641237|191935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no dose-response relationship between %SMHR and fluoride concentration in the dentifrice.||8.86|2.35|0.0009
95729683|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||-0.1|-0.5|0.0056
95729684|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Hypochondriasis: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
95729685|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.3|0.1305
95729686|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.1|-0.2|0.6638
95729687|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.1|-0.2|0.4341
95729688|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.1|-0.1|0.9085
95729689|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Loss of Weight According to Patient: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.1|-0.3|0.1820
95729690|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 3||0.0|-0.1|0.1593
95729691|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 8||0.0|-0.1|0.6555
95729692|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 15||0.0|-0.1|0.0170
95729693|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 21||0.0|-0.1|0.0188
95729694|NCT02978326|191429764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Insight: Change From Baseline in HAM-D Individual Item Score at Day 45||0.0|-0.2|0.0726
95729695|NCT02978326|191429765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 3||0.4|-6.5|0.0791
95764023|NCT04386616|191498046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|0.67|||||The difference in percentage of participants was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||0.67|-24.67|
95764024|NCT04386616|191498046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.41|0.53|0.5560
95792599|NCT02668640|191554399|OTHER||||||=|0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in Overall Work Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0607
95792600|NCT02668640|191554400|OTHER||||||=|0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 12||||=0.0026
95792601|NCT02668640|191554400|OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Median Change from Baseline in WPAI Activity Impairment Score at Week 24||||=0.0001
95729696|NCT02978326|191429765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|1.86|-7.7|-0.3||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 8||-0.3|-7.7|0.0322
95729697|NCT02978326|191429765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MADRS Total Score at Day 15||-0.8|-8.3|0.0180
95729698|NCT02978326|191429765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.5||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 21||-0.5|-8.1|0.0271
95792602|NCT04414787|191554416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (\~1 week post-randomization)||6.21|-6.21|1.00
95792603|NCT04414787|191554417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.72|-1.83|0.95
95792604|NCT04414787|191554418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||1.86|-1.28|0.72
95981073|NCT01641237|191935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.43||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.68||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment and the subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||6.68|0.18|0.0389
95981074|NCT01641237|191935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|13.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||13.13|6.58|<0.0001
95792605|NCT04414787|191554419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 4 (3 months post-randomization)||5.14|-2.44|0.48
95792606|NCT04414787|191554420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (target \~1 week post-randomization)||1.2|0.20|0.12
95981075|NCT01641237|191935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.96||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||10.96|4.41|<0.0001
95981076|NCT01641237|191935336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.25||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.53||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||7.53|0.98|0.0112
95729699|NCT02978326|191429765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.2||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MADRS Total Score at 45||-2.2|-9.4|0.0018
95729700|NCT02978326|191429766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.81||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 3||2.81|0.70|0.3372
95792607|NCT04414787|191554421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95792608|NCT04414787|191554422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95792609|NCT04414787|191554423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95792610|NCT05093933|191554424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.04|0.83|0.219
95792611|NCT05093933|191554425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||0.97|0.71|0.020
95792612|NCT05093933|191554426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.10|0.82|0.509
95792613|NCT05093933|191554427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Andersen-Gill Model||Based on an Andersen-Gill model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.02|0.80|0.094
95792614|NCT05093933|191554428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||1.02|0.82|0.116
95729701|NCT02978326|191429766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.47||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 8||3.47|0.91|0.0935
95729702|NCT02978326|191429766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.28||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 15||4.28|1.09|0.0276
95729703|NCT02978326|191429766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.54||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment: Baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 21||3.54|0.91|0.0920
95729704|NCT02978326|191429766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.51||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With CGI-I Response at Day 45||3.51|0.88|0.1109
95729705|NCT02978326|191429767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 3||-0.6|-5.7|0.0169
95729706|NCT02978326|191429767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 8||-1.8|-7.0|0.0010
95729707|NCT02978326|191429767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.1||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 15||-1.1|-6.7|0.0063
95792615|NCT05093933|191554429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|Based on a Cox proportional hazard model controlling for the randomization stratification factor (NYHA FC)|||0.97|0.74|0.015
95729708|NCT02978326|191429767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.8||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 21||-0.8|-6.2|0.0119
95792616|NCT05093933|191554433|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.2|-0.4|0.512
95729709|NCT02978326|191429767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.4||MMRM was used for estimation with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in HAM-A Total Score at Day 45||-2.4|-7.5|0.0002
95729710|NCT02978326|191429768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.53||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 3||3.53|0.87|0.1145
95729711|NCT02978326|191429768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.3||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 8||3.30|0.89|0.1069
95729712|NCT02978326|191429768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.27||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 15||5.27|1.36|0.0045
95729713|NCT02978326|191429768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.93||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 21||3.93|1.03|0.0421
95729714|NCT02978326|191429768|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.03||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Response at Day 45||4.03|0.99|0.0541
95792617|NCT05093933|191554434|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.6|0.6|0.007
95792618|NCT05093933|191554435|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.6|0.0|0.045
95792619|NCT04112368|191554436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.02|-.02|<.001
95729715|NCT02978326|191429769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.38||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 3||7.38|1.09|0.0326
95729716|NCT02978326|191429769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.79||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 8||2.79|0.68|0.3749
95729717|NCT02978326|191429769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.92||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 15||4.92|1.26|0.0087
95729718|NCT02978326|191429769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.31||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 21||4.31|1.10|0.0257
95729719|NCT02978326|191429769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.09||Generalized estimating equations for binary response model was used for estimation with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction.|GEE for binary response model|||Percentage of Participants With MADRS Remission at Day 45||4.09|1.06|0.0339
95729720|NCT02974153|191429782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.45|<0.0001
95729721|NCT02974153|191429782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.88|<0.0001
95729722|NCT02974153|191429783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|12.0|<0.0001
95792620|NCT04112368|191554437|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.82|.04|.026
95792621|NCT04112368|191554438|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2+P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.00|-.18|.052
95918288|NCT01327547|191796085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-27.71||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.71|35.29|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD4+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||35.29|-90.71|0.3859
95729723|NCT02974153|191429783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.8|0.0001
95729724|NCT02974153|191429784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|15.0|<0.0001
95729725|NCT02974153|191429784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
95729726|NCT02974153|191429785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|14.9|<0.0001
95792622|NCT01248416|191554506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.006
95792623|NCT01248416|191554508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.906
95792624|NCT01248416|191554509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
95792625|NCT01248416|191554511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95792626|NCT01248416|191554512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95792627|NCT01248416|191554513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95949867|NCT04405180|191871624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6677|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.6677
95729727|NCT02974153|191429785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|11.1|<0.0001
95729728|NCT02974153|191429786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95729729|NCT02974153|191429786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95729730|NCT02974153|191429787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.88|<0.0001
95729731|NCT02974153|191429787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.66|<0.0001
95729732|NCT02974153|191429788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
95729733|NCT02974153|191429788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.76|0.0010
95729734|NCT02974153|191429789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-7.77|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-7.77|-14.22|<0.0001
95729735|NCT02974153|191429789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-5.05|||Repeated Measures Model|||||-5.05|-11.48|<0.0001
95729736|NCT02292238|191429817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8691|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5727||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||Power was calculated based on expected difference in change on the ADAS-Cog of 3 points between the treatment and control groups. Estimates based on using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 4, enrolling 29 patients per group, (N = 58) suggest 80% power to detect a mean change of 3 between treatment and placebo.||||0.125
95729737|NCT02292238|191429818|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00184|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0225||0.7529|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.7529
95729738|NCT02292238|191429819|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8176||0.3687|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.3687
95729739|NCT02292238|191429820|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8988||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.4850
95729740|NCT02292238|191429821|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3097||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.0337
95729741|NCT02292238|191429822|OTHER|Univariable (unadjusted) and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6161|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6812||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Equal variance t-test.||||||0.315
95729742|NCT00491504|191429852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as effect and Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.625
95729743|NCT02041702|191429861|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Ratio|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|Clopper-Pearson CI for the binomial proportion|The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than 90%.|The hypothesis was: H0: P≤ 90% vs H1: P\>90% P: The proportion of subjects free from MRI scan related complications at 1 month post MRI scan in cardiac MRI scan group||100|97.6|<0.01
95792628|NCT02014272|191554515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|98.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||98.94|92.07|
95729744|NCT02041702|191429862|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-0.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.8|||Farrington-Manning Test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL\>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI scan group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control group for the change in right atrial capture threshold @0.5ms at 1month post MRI compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||3.8|-5.6|0.0007
95729745|NCT02041702|191429863|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-1.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RV capture threshold value @0.5ms at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||2.8|-6.2|0.0012
95729746|NCT02041702|191429864|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|-2.7||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|4.3|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was:H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in MRI Scan Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in Control Group for change in RA sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||4.3|-9.8|0.0446
95729747|NCT02041702|191429865|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% CI for difference in success rate between 2 groups was calculated by Farrington-Manning method.|Ratio Difference|2.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|8.4|||Farrington-Manning test||The null hypothesis would be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|"The hypothesis was: H0: PMRI - PCTRL≤ -10% vs H1: PMRI - PCTRL \>-10%~* PMRI: the success rate in the Cardiac MRI Scan Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit~* PCTRL: the success rate in the Control Group for change in RV sensing amplitude at 1-Month post MRI scan visit compared to pre-MRI scan value collected at MRI scan visit"||8.4|-3.2|0.0002
95949868|NCT04405180|191871625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.3745
95949869|NCT04405180|191871626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|243.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.0||0.5496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline value of outcome as a covariate using general linear (mixed) models and with multiple imputation for missing data||||0.5496
95949870|NCT00700999|191871632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.38|.001
95949871|NCT00700999|191871632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.99|-.84|.869
95949872|NCT00960206|191871647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.0832
95949873|NCT00960206|191871647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657|||||||Log Rank|||To compare the Kaplan-Meier survivorship between the two systems||||0.1657
95949874|NCT00960206|191871648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3701|||||||Fisher Exact|||To compare the # of cases at 10 years for those that have a HHS ≥ 80 to those that have \< 80 for all three arms||||0.3701
95949875|NCT00960206|191871650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years satisfied with their total hip replacement for all three groups||||0.6011
95981077|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
95981078|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for %RER as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0002
95981079|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.18|39.59||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||39.59|25.18|<0.0001
95981080|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|38.67||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||38.67|24.25|<0.0001
95981081|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.02||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||28.02|13.60|<0.0001
95981082|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.1||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||8.10|-6.25|0.8000
95981083|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.57||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|18.74||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||18.74|4.40|0.0017
95981084|NCT01641237|191935337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|17.81||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||17.81|3.48|0.0038
95981085|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for linear dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||<0.0001
95981086|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusted Mean and SE were calculated from ANOVA model with treatment and period as factors, and subject as a random factor.||Test for quadratic dose-response relationship was performed for EFU as a function of fluoride concentration.||||0.0008
95981087|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
95981088|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.85||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.85|1.36|<0.0001
95981089|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.86|0.38|<0.0001
95949876|NCT00960206|191871650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the # of cases at 10 years for having pain in their hip for all three groups||||0.2060
95949877|NCT01736475|191871651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of means|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Regression, Negative binomial|||Ratio Annualized Bleeding Rate (ABR) Prophylaxis/On-demand: Prophylaxis treatment w ill be considered to be successful if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the ratio between treatment regimen does not exceed 0.5 (corresponding to a 50% reduction of the mean ABR compared to the on-demand treatment). H01: μ1 ≥0.5\*μ2 Ha1: μ1\<0.5\*μ2 w here μ1 and μ2 are the mean ABRs in on prophylaxis and on-demand, respectively||0.19|0.06|<0.0001
95949878|NCT03242863|191871690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95949879|NCT03242863|191871691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
95949880|NCT03242863|191871692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95981090|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||0.29|-0.19|0.6680
95981091|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.28|0.80|<0.0001
95981092|NCT01641237|191935338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, while subject was random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments, being compared.||1.23|0.75|<0.0001
95981093|NCT01205230|191935345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square geometric means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|1.99|||||Ratio of least square (LS) geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.99|1.39|
95981094|NCT01205230|191935345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.7|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.70|0.52|
95981095|NCT01205230|191935346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.86|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Ketoconozole : Pazopanib alone)|||1.86|1.14|
95981096|NCT01205230|191935346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS geometric means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.67|||||Ratio of LS geometric means (Pazopanib + Esomeprazole : Pazopanib alone)|||0.67|0.50|
95981097|NCT01205230|191935347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.06||||||||0.06|-1.06|
95981098|NCT01205230|191935347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.44||||||||2.44|-0.10|
95981099|NCT01011439|191935371|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||Fisher Exact|||H0:p\</=17% vs. H1:p\>17%, with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 33% or higher; Power=80%; Alpha(1-sided)=5%, 54 evaluable patients are required for a Simon optimal two stage design trial. If at least 4 successes among the first 17 evaluable patients are observed in the 1st stage, patients' enrollment proceed up to the final analysis where at least 14/54 successes (PFS-3 rate ≥ 25.9%) must be required to reject the null hypothesis.||0.59|0.31|<0.001
95981100|NCT03861936|191935381|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
95981101|NCT03861936|191935381|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|84.0||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.0|55.1|<.0001
95981102|NCT03861936|191935387|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|63.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|33.1|<.0001
95729748|NCT06394973|191429869|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
95729749|NCT06394973|191429869|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
95729750|NCT01488578|191429874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95949881|NCT03242863|191871693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95981103|NCT03861936|191935387|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|61.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.8|29.5|<.0001
95981104|NCT03861936|191935388|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|70.8||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|39.6|<.0001
95729751|NCT01488578|191429877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.032
95729752|NCT01488578|191429878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95729753|NCT01488578|191429879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95729754|NCT01488578|191429880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95729755|NCT01488578|191429881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||The Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit TEST|||||||<0.001
95729756|NCT01488578|191429883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.006
95729757|NCT01488578|191429884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95729758|NCT01488578|191429885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.015
95949882|NCT02834624|191871694|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Sample size calculations used a Chi-square for independence, u = 1, p =.05, power = .80, effect size = .60, which required 22 total subjects.||||<.05
95949883|NCT02834624|191871696|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
95949884|NCT05066230|191871697|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|31.3|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||48.1|31.3|<0.0001
95949885|NCT05066230|191871698|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-26.2|-11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-11.2|-26.2|<0.0001
95729759|NCT01488578|191429886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95729760|NCT01488578|191429887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95918289|NCT01327547|191796085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-31.86||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.93|75.21|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD8+ cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, hepatitis B virus status (HBV), Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen.||75.21|-138.93|0.5571
95918290|NCT01327547|191796086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-56.06||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.2|-10.92|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||-10.92|-101.20|0.0153
95918291|NCT01327547|191796086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-44.93||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|7.87|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||7.87|-97.72|0.0947
95918292|NCT01327547|191796086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-29.75||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.74|34.24|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for CD38 expression on CD4 and CD8 cells for Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||34.24|-93.74|0.3595
95918293|NCT01327547|191796087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.53||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|4.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||4.05|-9.11|0.4476
95918294|NCT01327547|191796087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.67||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.96|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.96|-0.61|0.3012
95981105|NCT03861936|191935388|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|60.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|76.7||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.7|45.1|<.0001
95729761|NCT01533428|191429911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level||-0.8|-12.3|0.025
95729762|NCT01533428|191429912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.2|-12.9|0.018
95729763|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 2.||2.3|-10.4|0.208
95918295|NCT01327547|191796087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.92||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.17|||ANCOVA|||The above analysis is for C-reactive protein cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||3.17|-1.33|0.4196
95918296|NCT01327547|191796088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|49.26||Not specifed.|ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||49.26|-48.66|0.9904
95918297|NCT01327547|191796088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|10.87||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|84.18|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||84.18|-62.44|0.7697
95918298|NCT01327547|191796088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-24.49||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.21|63.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for D-Dimer cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||63.23|-112.21|0.5816
95729764|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 3.||-0.4|-13.1|0.036
95729765|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 4.||-0.8|-13.5|0.027
95764025|NCT04386616|191498046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.00|0.38|0.0502
95764026|NCT04386616|191498046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.60|0.51|0.7002
95729766|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 5.||-1.0|-13.6|0.024
95729767|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 6.||0.0|-12.6|0.051
95729768|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 7.||-1.8|-14.4|0.012
95729769|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 8.||-0.8|-13.5|0.026
95729770|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 9.||-0.6|-13.2|0.032
95729771|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 10.||-1.2|-13.9|0.020
95729772|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 11.||-1.1|-13.7|0.022
95729773|NCT01533428|191429913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparison of capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline to Week 12.||-2.7|-15.3|0.005
95729774|NCT01533428|191429915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.2|0.9|0.108
95792629|NCT02014272|191554515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|107.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||107.75|99.33|
95981106|NCT03861936|191935389|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|70.5||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.5|37.9|<.0001
95729775|NCT01533428|191429915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 30% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.4|1.0|0.050
95729776|NCT01533428|191429916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-8. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.1|0.7|0.403
95792630|NCT02014272|191554516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.13|101.01||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||101.01|83.13|
95918299|NCT01327547|191796089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|498.04||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.33|1613.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 48. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1613.41|-617.33|0.3786
95950770|NCT02607956|191873517|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.3|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.3|-7.4|
95950771|NCT02607956|191873517|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.74
95729777|NCT01533428|191429916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis of regression logistics model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Percentage of participants with 50% reduction in average daily pain score assessed in Weeks 2-12. The comparison of the odds ratio of capsaicin 8% to placebo for percent change from baseline was performed using a logistic regression model.||2.0|0.7|0.446
95729778|NCT01533428|191429917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.072
95729779|NCT01533428|191429918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.075
95729780|NCT01533428|191429919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for counts by category using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||0.169
95729781|NCT01533428|191429920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 8 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||5.0|-1.6|0.320
95729782|NCT01533428|191429920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 12 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||4.5|-2.1|0.473
95729783|NCT01533428|191429920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||The statistical comparison between Baseline and Week 2 was made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||2.2|-4.4|0.514
95729784|NCT01533428|191429921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.7|-0.5|0.719
95729785|NCT01533428|191429921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.3|-0.8|0.334
95981107|NCT03861936|191935389|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|65.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|30.1|<.0001
95981108|NCT03861936|191935390|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|83.1||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.1|54.5|<.0001
95729786|NCT01533428|191429921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.7|0.726
95729787|NCT01533428|191429922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 2 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.5|-0.6|0.841
95729788|NCT01533428|191429922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 8 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.2|-0.9|0.171
95729789|NCT01533428|191429922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment, gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||Comparing the difference between capsaicin 8% and placebo for change from Baseline at Week 12 was completed using ANCOVA model.||0.4|-0.7|0.595
95918300|NCT01327547|191796089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|348.7||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-539.61|1237.01|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 96. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1237.01|-539.61|0.4388
95981109|NCT03861936|191935390|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|69.6||P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on CMH model stratified by baseline MMPS Grade (4 or 5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.6|34.8|<.0001
95729790|NCT01533428|191429924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-0.9|-17.2|0.030
95729791|NCT01533428|191429924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model including treatment,gender, pain score at baseline, HbA1c at screening and site as factors/covariates.||All statistical comparisons were made using two-sided tests at the 5% significance level.||-1.5|-17.4|0.020
95729792|NCT03977584|191429938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00993||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.0068|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: GTP1 PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + Interactive Voice or Web Response System (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined Clinical Dementia Rating Global Score.||0.0068|-0.0327|0.1953
95729793|NCT00663871|191429968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.27|0.59
95729794|NCT00663871|191429969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.24|0.21
95918301|NCT01327547|191796089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-173.57||||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2060.81|1713.68|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is for TGF-beta cells at Week 144. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1713.68|-2060.81|0.8559
95918302|NCT01327547|191796090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 48 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.28|-0.22|0.8024
95981110|NCT03861936|191935391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.54||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.54|-7.10|<.0001
95981111|NCT03861936|191935391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-4.47||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-4.47|-7.15|<.0001
95729795|NCT00663871|191429970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Negative Affect scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||1.50|0.69|0.92
95729796|NCT00663871|191429971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.44||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-1.21|0.86
95729797|NCT00663871|191429972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.94||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-1.57|0.63
95729798|NCT00663871|191429973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.61||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.25|0.50
95729799|NCT00663871|191429974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.88||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.23|0.25
95729800|NCT00663871|191429975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.92||The model included effects of treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-1.83|0.52
95918303|NCT01327547|191796090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 96 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.43|-0.12|0.2660
95918304|NCT01327547|191796090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.15||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.41|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS mean|The above analysis is change for baseline in Log10 plasma HCV RNA at 144 Weeks. Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.41|-0.12|0.2855
95729801|NCT00663871|191429976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.24||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time. The Type A personality scores were categorized by quartiles of the baseline measures.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling was used with a multinomial distribution with cumulative link.||||2.24|0.67|0.52
95729802|NCT00663871|191429977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.68
95729803|NCT00663871|191429978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.41|0.16
95729804|NCT00663871|191429979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.24|0.59
95729805|NCT00663871|191429980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.06|0.35
95729806|NCT00663871|191429981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.18|0.74
95729807|NCT00663871|191429982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The model included effects for treatment (fish oil, placebo), time (baseline, post-intervention), and interaction terms of treatment with time.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.27|0.28
95729808|NCT00663871|191429983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.39|-0.09|0.76
95729809|NCT00663871|191429984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.30|-0.18|0.62
95729810|NCT00663871|191429985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||standardized mean difference|0.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|||||0.26|-0.21|0.42
95729811|NCT00663871|191429986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized mean difference|-0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Repeated Measures MANOVA|Repeated Measures MANOVA||||0.18|-0.30|0.54
95981112|NCT03861936|191935392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-6.13||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.12|<.0001
95981113|NCT03861936|191935392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-6.69||The change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with study intervention and investigator site as factors and baseline MMPS Grade as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-6.69|-9.83|<.0001
95981114|NCT00789750|191935436|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
95981115|NCT00789750|191935437|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
95981116|NCT00789750|191935438|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
95729812|NCT00582309|191429989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Original Power Analysis: The expected differences in mean blood glucose concentration between groups are \> 30 mg/dL. Assuming two-tailed alpha of .05, a standard deviation of approximately 40, and a one-to-one allocation and no subject attrition, fifty patients per treatment group (150 total) will be sufficient to achieve 90% power for group mean comparisons allowing for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All results obtained by ANOVA are verified by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Statistical significance will be judged by P-values \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Demographic and baseline measurements are reported as either means and standard deviations or as frequency and percentages. These and the outcome measures are compared among the three groups by 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for means or by Fisher's Exact test for frequencies as appropriate. If there is an overall significant difference, the post hoc multiple comparisons will be done by Fisher's least significant difference method.||||<0.05
95729813|NCT00862979|191430007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
95729814|NCT00862979|191430008|OTHER|difference||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 6 to Month 9||||0.203
95729815|NCT00862979|191430008|OTHER|difference||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Month 9 to Month 18||||0.002
95729816|NCT00862979|191430010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-8.3|-19.6|<.0001
95981117|NCT00789750|191935439|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-0.20|-0.51|<0.001
95981118|NCT00789750|191935440|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
95981119|NCT00789750|191935441|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-7.49|-21.93|<0.0001
95981120|NCT00789750|191935442|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
95981121|NCT00789750|191935443|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95981122|NCT00789750|191935444|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
95729817|NCT00862979|191430010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 18||-6.1|-16.5|<.0001
95729818|NCT00862979|191430012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95729819|NCT00976664|191430013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0007
95981123|NCT00789750|191935445|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95981124|NCT00789750|191935446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-12.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-12.18|-20.62|<0.001
95981125|NCT00789750|191935447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.39|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||4.39|-0.75|0.1652
95981126|NCT00789750|191935448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-6.16|-13.44|<0.0001
95729820|NCT00976664|191430013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in VAS for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed via the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.3913
95729821|NCT00976664|191430014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 6-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.002
95729822|NCT00976664|191430014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Group differences in ODI for low back pain from randomization visit to 12-week visit were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sums test.||||||.0336
95764027|NCT04386616|191498046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||0.99|0.32|0.0448
95764028|NCT04386616|191498047|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.4845|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.4845
95764029|NCT04386616|191498047|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.057|||||||Van Elteren||Median difference was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.0570
95764030|NCT04386616|191498048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.88|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.88|0.76|0.4456
95729823|NCT02688400|191430015|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of Diacerein versus Celecoxib was assessed by computing the difference in the adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2) in WOMAC Pain subscale score after 182 days of treatment between Diacerein and Celecoxib treatment groups from a MMRM.~Assuming that:~* Non inferiority margin of 10 points for the absolute change in WOMAC Pain Subscale Score (scale 0-100)~* SD of 26 in the two treatment groups,~* Type I error: α = 0.025 (one-sided condition) and power equal to 90%"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.18||MMRM. Non-inferiority claim:Diacerein to be non-inferior to Celecoxib if upper bound of the the difference in the adjusted mean change was inferior to 5 cm on the PPS.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.18||<0.025
95729824|NCT02688400|191430016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95729825|NCT02688400|191430017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95729826|NCT02688400|191430018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95729827|NCT02688400|191430019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95729828|NCT02688400|191430020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95729829|NCT02688400|191430021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95729830|NCT02688400|191430022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95729831|NCT02688400|191430023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95792631|NCT02014272|191554516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|107.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|120.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||120.47|96.07|
95729832|NCT02396381|191430057|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|1.1|5.09|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of HDL-C for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||5.09|1.10|<0.001
95729833|NCT02396381|191430058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.717|-0.123|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of WBC for THS-use is lower than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≥ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \< 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||-0.123|-0.717|0.001
95729834|NCT02396381|191430059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.28||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|96.875|0.145|2.42|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach||"The analysis will test if the mean level of FEV1 for THS-use is greater than for CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XTHS - XCC \> 0.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||2.42|0.145|0.008
95729835|NCT02396381|191430060|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|2.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.426|6.04|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of sICAM-1 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||6.04|-0.426|0.030
95729836|NCT02396381|191430061|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|4.74||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-7.5|15.6|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 11-DTX-B2 will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||15.6|-7.5|0.193
95729837|NCT02396381|191430062|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|6.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|96.875|-0.216|13.3|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of 8-epi-PGF2α will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||13.3|-0.216|0.018
95764031|NCT04386616|191498048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.48|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.57|0.7213
95859641|NCT02469870|191677204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.246
95859642|NCT02469870|191677205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.007
95859643|NCT02469870|191677206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test||||.045
95729838|NCT02396381|191430063|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|33.7|51.9|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis of Total NNAL will test if the mean level of this clinical risk endpoint for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||51.9|33.7|<0.001
95729839|NCT02396381|191430064|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.875|24.5|39.0|||Hailperin-Rüger|p-value less than 1.5625% would be considered statistically significant, following test multiplicity adjustment using the Hailperin-Rüger approach|Derived as 1 - LS Mean Ratio (THS / CC)|"The analysis will test if the mean level of COHb for THS-use is lower relative to CC-use. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XTHS / XCC ≥ 1.0~HA: XTHS / XCC \< 1.0~where XTHS and XCC are the adjusted geometrical means of THS-use and CC-use. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 1.5625% (one-sided test)."||39|24.5|<0.001
95729840|NCT03197064|191430065|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.35
95729841|NCT03197064|191430065|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.47
95729842|NCT03197064|191430065|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.066
95729843|NCT03197064|191430066|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.72
95729844|NCT03197064|191430066|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.72
95729845|NCT03197064|191430066|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.78
95729846|NCT03197064|191430067|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.93
95729847|NCT03197064|191430067|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.39
95729848|NCT03197064|191430067|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.08
95918305|NCT01327547|191796091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.23|-0.93|0.7778
95729849|NCT03197064|191430068|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.42
95981127|NCT00789750|191935449|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.01||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.5|||ANCOVA||The treatment difference and its 95% confidence interval are estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator and Moses method. The parameter dispersion Type is actually IQR of the Median Difference.|Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||17.5|5.3|0.0004
95729850|NCT03197064|191430068|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.37
95729851|NCT03197064|191430068|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in right lower extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.49
95729852|NCT03197064|191430069|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 30 minutes post-dose||||0.386
95729853|NCT03197064|191430069|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 60 minutes post-dose||||0.388
95729854|NCT03197064|191430069|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in left upper extremity amplitude between baseline (pre-dose) and 90 minutes post-dose||||0.247
95729855|NCT00395226|191430072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.62||The a priori significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA used group as a factor and baseline rosacea severity score as a covariate.|The effect of zinc sulfate treatment on rosacea severity score was estimated with baseline rosacea severity score included in the regression model|"The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that the zinc sulfate arm is superior to placebo arm."||1.62|-0.47|0.2840
95729856|NCT02059993|191430074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to assess a minimum reduction of 5 ± 5 mm Hg in systolic BPafter CPAP treatment, assuming an alpha error of 5% and a statistical power of 80%.||||<0.05
95729857|NCT02059993|191430075|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95729858|NCT02655237|191430077|NON_INFERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between Relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group (Relugolix 40 mg group - leuprorelin group), using Farrington and Manning (FM) method. If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was greater or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, then the non-inferiority of Relugolix 40 mg to leuprorelin was concluded.|Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.098|8.346|||Farrington and Manning (FM)||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||8.346|-10.098|0.0013
95729859|NCT02655237|191430078|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.953|44.134|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||44.134|20.953|
95792632|NCT02014272|191554517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|99.43||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||99.43|92.54|
95729860|NCT02655237|191430079|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.337|-2.883|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-2.883|-18.337|
95729861|NCT02655237|191430080|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and leuprorelin group, using FM method with the non-inferiority margin of -15%. The confidence interval was presented in a descriptive manner and not for the purpose of statistical inference.|Difference in percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.418|-5.118|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|||-5.118|-21.418|
95729862|NCT02655237|191430081|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-12.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.778|-4.33|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-4.330|-19.778|
95729863|NCT02655237|191430081|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.916|6.819|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.819|-11.916|
95729864|NCT02655237|191430081|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.141|12.529|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||12.529|-3.141|
95729865|NCT02655237|191430081|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.433|10.605|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||10.605|-3.433|
95729866|NCT02655237|191430081|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.319|11.245|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||11.245|-3.319|
95729867|NCT02655237|191430082|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.786|-9.509|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2||-9.509|-20.786|
95729868|NCT02655237|191430082|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.291|-3.246|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||-3.246|-17.291|
95729869|NCT02655237|191430082|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.996|5.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.209|-6.996|
95729870|NCT02655237|191430082|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.964|5.076|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||5.076|-6.964|
95729871|NCT02655237|191430082|OTHER|The mean differences in the percent changes from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.206|7.935|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||7.935|-6.206|
95729872|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.381|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||0.381|0.015|
95729873|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.333|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||0.333|-0.135|
95729874|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.323|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||0.323|-0.189|
95729875|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.251|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||0.251|-0.275|
95729876|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.18|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||0.180|-0.386|
95729877|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.209|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||0.209|-0.385|
95729878|NCT02655237|191430083|OTHER|The mean differences in the change from baseline between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin groups and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|-0.199|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow up (up to Week 28)||-0.199|-0.787|
95729879|NCT02655237|191430084|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.174|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 6 to 12||0.174|-0.032|
95981128|NCT00789750|191935450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.23|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||5.23|1.58|0.0003
95729880|NCT02655237|191430084|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.197|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 2 to 6||0.197|-0.089|
95729881|NCT02655237|191430084|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.086|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 18 to 24||0.086|-0.060|
95729882|NCT02655237|191430084|OTHER|Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was calculated between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.099|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|For 6 Weeks Before the Final Dose (up to Week 24)||0.099|-0.063|
95729883|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.43|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||1.43|-6.39|
95792633|NCT02014272|191554517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.76|106.19||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0 - ∞) of isoniazid was analyzed using mixed effects model with sequence,period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals(CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios,where FDC tablet were test and single drugs were reference.Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||106.19|98.76|
95792634|NCT03845894|191554589|NON_INFERIORITY|There have been no studies to evaluate pain scores ISB w/ plain bupi+adjuvants. Power to detect difference at least 0.4 on the VAS scale. Threshold for inferiority is difference \>=2 points on the VAS scale. Will use two-sample t test with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1. Postop opioid consumption, total post-op opioid @ 1st 48 hours in oxycodone equivalents. Mean opioid consumption per cohort is calculated, \& the cohorts compared for statistical difference with two-sample t test, with α= 0.05 and β= 0.1.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95792635|NCT03238417|191554595|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance comparing change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 12 month.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-3.3|0.623
95792636|NCT03238417|191554596|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-value is from the interaction term of EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||1.8|-2.8|0.678
95792637|NCT03238417|191554597|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 12-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 12-month||0.35|-0.17|0.364
95792638|NCT03238417|191554598|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We adjusted our analysis with non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||P-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change from baseline to 24-month, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender awareness score between EBQI and control from baseline to 24-month||0.10|-0.33|0.29
95792639|NCT03238417|191554599|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.13||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Difference-in-Differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.13|-1.52|0.10
95792640|NCT03238417|191554600|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using logistic regression. The number of activities were recoded into 0 vs 1+ activities. The model was adjusted for age, how often they saw women patients in the past year, location of practice in primary care or women's health clinic, and having had any type of quality improvement training. We also adjusted for non-response weights.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.29||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time, adjusted for non-response weights and characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of involving in one or more quality improvement activities, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|||0.29|-1.25|0.22
95918306|NCT01327547|191796091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.10|-0.10|0.9991
95729884|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-1.31|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||-1.31|-6.68|
95729885|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.36|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||2.36|-1.99|
95729886|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.28|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||3.28|-0.68|
95729887|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.32|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||2.32|-1.80|
95729888|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.52|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.52|-1.48|
95729889|NCT02655237|191430085|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||5.77|1.08|
95729890|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.34|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 4||6.34|-1.66|
95918307|NCT01327547|191796091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.02||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.11|-0.16|0.7275
95981129|NCT00789750|191935451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|-5.78|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||-5.78|-11.75|<0.0001
95729891|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.77|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 8||5.77|-0.37|
95729892|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.61|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 12||3.61|-1.84|
95729893|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.79|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 16||2.79|-2.61|
95729894|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.41|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 20||3.41|-1.74|
95729895|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.71|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Week 24||2.71|-2.07|
95729896|NCT02655237|191430086|OTHER|The mean differences in the observed values between relugolix 40 mg and leuprorelin group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each visit.|Mean Difference (Each Visit)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.09|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Leuprorelin|Follow-Up (up to Week 28)||1.09|-3.96|
95729897|NCT03335371|191430106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.39|<0.0001
95729898|NCT02649231|191430143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.75||||||Confirmed alcohol relapse by drug condition at 6 months using the Alcohol Timeline-Followback. Logistic regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and alcohol education).||1.75|0.28|
95729899|NCT02649231|191430144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.0||||||Linear regression modelling was used to compare the ketamine group with the placebo group (combined across therapy and psychoeducation). Only participants with a minimum of 159 days of completed drinking self-report data were included in the main ITT analysis as this was the shortest duration of time before any participant completed the 6 month (23-25 week) follow up in the study. Reporting time was capped at 180 days.||19.0|1.1|
95855554|NCT05462756|191670704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|4.101|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined using ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||4.101|-1.404|0.337
95729902|NCT04471428|191430201|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.3668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.156|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||1.156|0.676|0.3668
95729903|NCT04471428|191430201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.182|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.182|0.696|0.4709
95729904|NCT04471428|191430202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.923|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||0.923|0.585|0.0079
95729905|NCT04471428|191430202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.915|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified analysis||0.915|0.583|0.0061
95729906|NCT04471428|191430203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||5.84|-8.85|0.6846
95729907|NCT04471428|191430203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.63|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis; stratification factors- histology, prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.63|0.47|
95729908|NCT04471428|191430203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.51||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|5.84|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||5.84|-8.85|0.7216
95729909|NCT04471428|191430203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||||Odds ratios were estimated by logistic regression. 95% CIs was computed using the Wald method.|Unstratified Analysis||1.62|0.47|
95729910|NCT04471428|191430205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.16|0.59|0.2700
95918308|NCT01327547|191796092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.30|-0.15|0.5201
95729911|NCT04471428|191430205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.17|0.60|0.3031
95729912|NCT04471428|191430206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratification factors include histology, and prior NSCLC treatment regimens||1.79|0.86|0.2408
95918309|NCT01327547|191796092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.13|-0.28|0.4657
95918310|NCT01327547|191796092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.20|-0.25|0.8087
95918311|NCT01327547|191796093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.63|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.63|-4.31|0.1417
95918312|NCT01327547|191796093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.14|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 96 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||1.14|-4.01|0.2679
95981130|NCT00789750|191935452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||2.9|-4.1|0.7286
95729913|NCT04471428|191430206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.81|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||1.81|0.88|0.1992
95729914|NCT04471428|191430207|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|15.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|25.59|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 6 months||25.59|6.12|0.0014
95918313|NCT01327547|191796093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.48||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.49|||ANCOVA||Difference in LS Mean|Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Week 144 as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment (Maraviroc or placebo), baseline value of the response variable, HBV, PI-based regimen.||0.49|-3.45|0.1366
95918314|NCT03918239|191796099|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.181|||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.181|0.986|
95981131|NCT00789750|191935453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||0.0|-0.4|0.0653
95981132|NCT00789750|191935454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference = Colesevelam - Placebo||1.3|-1.5|0.8862
95729915|NCT04471428|191430207|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.32||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.21|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in PFS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||13.21|-0.56|0.0719
95729916|NCT04471428|191430208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.85||||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.92|||z-test||The 95% CI for the difference in OS rates were estimated using the normal approximation method, with standard errors computed using the Greenwood method.|At 1 year||9.92|-11.63|0.8767
95729917|NCT00455533|191430262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8921||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8921
95729918|NCT00455533|191430262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.60|0.8966
95729919|NCT00455533|191430262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in pCR|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7|||||The difference in pCR rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.7|-7.9|
95729920|NCT00455533|191430265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6186||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6186
95729921|NCT00455533|191430265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.56|0.5806
95729922|NCT00455533|191430265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|6.0|||||The difference in pCR/RCB-I rates and the confidence interval computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird stratified by tumor size at baseline, estrogen receptor status, and clinical response to AC.|||6.0|-11|
95918315|NCT03918239|191796100|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.179||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.179|0.987|
95729923|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 (209993\_at)||||0.4115
95729924|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.1629
95729925|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5074
95729926|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.5530
95729927|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1845||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1845
95729928|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3538||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.3538
95792641|NCT03238417|191554601|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences in outcome between EBQI and control groups over 12 month period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||5.4|-7.1|0.788
95918316|NCT03918239|191796101|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.044|1.281||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect variable.||1.281|1.044|
95981133|NCT01299376|191935480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-squares Means|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.2|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-4.2|-7.5|<0.001
95729929|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9751||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9751
95792642|NCT03238417|191554602|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for differences in outcomes between EBQI and control arms from baseline to 24 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.35||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and control arms.|ANOVA|||||4.35|-7.35|0.61
95981134|NCT01299376|191935491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-7.7||Model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-7.7|-12.8|<0.001
95981135|NCT00240981|191935492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|215.6||The unadjusted analysis using two-sample Student's t-tests of equal change in the trial groups, allowing unequal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||215.6|43.9|0.003
95729930|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.8874
95729931|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.6907
95729932|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8052||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.8052
95729933|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.5031
95729934|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7588||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.7588
95729935|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.1542
95729936|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0235
95729937|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3612||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.3612
95792643|NCT03238417|191554603|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|21.11||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||21.11|-21.45|0.987
95918317|NCT01702428|191796116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||0.58|-1.69|
95918318|NCT01702428|191796116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.98|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.98|-0.35|
95729938|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1840
95729939|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0942
95792644|NCT03238417|191554604|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|17.08||The p-value reflects the interaction terms between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||17.08|-24.89|0.708
95792645|NCT03238417|191554605|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|13.4||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||13.40|-22.43|0.613
95729940|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5327||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.5327
95729941|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8847
95792646|NCT03238417|191554606|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|20.13||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||20.13|-18.26|0.922
95792647|NCT03238417|191554607|NON_INFERIORITY|two-way ANOVA testing change in a composite score of gender-neutral preventive care between EBQI and control arms over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.89||The p-value represents the interaction term between EBQI and control.|ANOVA|||||4.89|-3.74|0.789
95729942|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8947||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8947
95950772|NCT02607956|191873518|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.17|-0.01|0.081
95950773|NCT02607956|191873519|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.15|-0.03|0.18
95729943|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4085||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.4085
95729944|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.1119
95729945|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0250
95729946|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3569||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.3569
95729947|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4103||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.4103
95792648|NCT03238417|191554608|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcomes over time between EBQI and control groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.33||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|The analysis is adjusted for EBQI and time.||||3.33|-6.60|0.51
95792649|NCT03238417|191554609|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA testing for change in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.9||The p-value reflects the interaction between EBQI and time|ANOVA|||||19.9|-13.7|0.711
95792650|NCT03238417|191554610|NON_INFERIORITY|ANOVA comparing changes in outcome over time between EBQI and control arms|Mean Difference (Net)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|26.1||The p-value reflects the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||26.1|-9.1|0.335
95792651|NCT03238417|191554611|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing for change in outcome between EBQI and control groups from baseline to 12 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|11.1||P-value is from the interaction term between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||11.1|-38.7|0.268
95792652|NCT03238417|191554612|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of Variance testing the differences between EBQI and control from baseline and 24 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.6||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.3||P-value is from the interaction between EBQI and time.|ANOVA|||||25.3|-25.6|0.991
95792653|NCT01474486|191554629|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95792654|NCT04275336|191554637|OTHER||H value|1.344||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.511
95792655|NCT04275336|191554638|OTHER||H value|5.272||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.072
95792656|NCT04275336|191554639|OTHER||H value|0.198||||0.906|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
95918319|NCT01702428|191796116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration ≥200 mIU/mL.||1.50|-0.98|
95950774|NCT02607956|191873520|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.09||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.18|0.00|0.054
95729948|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1490
95729949|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.5590
95729950|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4796||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.4796
95729951|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2794||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2794
95729952|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1646
95729953|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0782
95729954|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.1407
95792657|NCT04275336|191554640|OTHER||H value|6.679||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
95792658|NCT04275336|191554641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.844
95729955|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2369
95729956|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.7756
95792659|NCT04275336|191554642|OTHER||H value|1.651||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.438
95792660|NCT04275336|191554643|OTHER||H value|0.341||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.843
95792661|NCT04275336|191554644|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
95792662|NCT01103323|191554710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.005178||95.0|0.636|0.942||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 432 death events at 2nd IA, the pre-specified alpha (false positive rate) for this analysis was 0.009279 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 33.3% increase in median OS (i.e. hazard ratio of 0.75, Regorafenib / Placebo). Assuming 1-sided overall alpha of 0.025, randomization ratio of 2:1 for Regorafenib and Placebo, and 2 formal interim analyses of OS using an O'Brien-Fleming-type error spending function, a total of 582 death events were required for primary completion. Results based on 2nd planned formal IA with 432 total events.||0.942|0.636|0.005178
95792663|NCT01103323|191554711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.419|0.582||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo)|Two treatment groups compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by same stratification factors as randomization. Hazard ratio (Regorafenib / Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval calculated using Cox model, stratified by same factors.||0.582|0.419|<0.000001
95792664|NCT01103323|191554712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.6||||0.188432||95.0|-1.74|0.53||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||0.53|-1.74|0.188432
95792665|NCT01103323|191554713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.94|||<|1e-06||95.0|-32.06|-19.82||Comparison based on pre-specified alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference = Placebo - Regorafenib 160 mg|Two treatment groups compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for same stratification factors as at randomization.||-19.82|-32.06|<0.000001
95792666|NCT04536701|191554732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total DASS score reported.||||0.444
95792667|NCT04536701|191554732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depressive Mood DASS score reported||||0.8378
95792668|NCT04536701|191554732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety DASS score reported||||0.4087
95729957|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2623||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2623
95729958|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.3147
95729959|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2885||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.2885
95729960|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7187||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.7187
95729961|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.6017
95729962|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.4500
95729963|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0952||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0952
95729964|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7069||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.7069
95729965|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.4767
95729966|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6191||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6191
95729967|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.5276
95729968|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.3323
95729969|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1025
95729970|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1715
95729971|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.1070
95792669|NCT04536701|191554732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stress DASS score reported||||0.4124
95792670|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total RMBPC frequency reported||||0.0508
95792671|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of disruptive symptoms on RMBP reported||||0.026
95792672|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of depressive symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.1861
95792673|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Frequency of memory symptoms on RMBPC reported||||0.9535
95792674|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction total is reported||||0.0411
95792675|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction disruptive symptoms is reported||||0.0058
95792676|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction depressive symptoms is reported||||0.2527
95792677|NCT04536701|191554733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||RMBPC reaction memory symptoms||||0.3542
95792678|NCT04536701|191554734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3857|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3857
95792679|NCT04536701|191554735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) total reported||||0.7213
95792680|NCT04536701|191554735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Observing reported||||0.6075
95792681|NCT04536701|191554735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Describing reported||||0.4136
95729972|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2751
95729973|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0276
95729974|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1689||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1689
95792682|NCT04536701|191554735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Acting with Awareness reported||||0.8378
95792683|NCT04536701|191554735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonjudging reported||||0.7193
95792684|NCT04536701|191554735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FFMQ Nonreactivity reported||||0.4145
95792685|NCT04536701|191554736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5368
95792686|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Total reported||||0.2845
95918320|NCT01702428|191796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
95729975|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0769||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0769
95792687|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Problem Solving is reported||||0.1386
95792688|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Communication is reported||||0.7551
95792689|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Roles is reported||||0.7213
95729976|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1058
95729977|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6406||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.6406
95729978|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.1733
95729979|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2631
95729980|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.2170
95729981|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0868||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0868
95729982|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1117
95792690|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Responsiveness is reported||||0.3233
95792691|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Affective Involvement is reported||||0.2832
95792692|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD Behavior Control is reported||||0.6831
95792693|NCT04536701|191554737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAD General Functioning is reported||||0.6075
95792694|NCT04275973|191554789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||No Intervention vs AFO||||0.649
95792695|NCT04275973|191554789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||No Intervention vs FES||||0.513
95792696|NCT04275973|191554789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AFO vs FES||||0.617
95792697|NCT00944710|191554821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.0|||Binomial regression|adjusted for visual acuity at randomization||||30|-10|0.33
95792698|NCT00944710|191554826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.|Positive values favor the Intensified Treatment group|The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||0.12|-0.01|0.12
95792699|NCT00944710|191554834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in fellow-eye visual acuity change at the 12-week exam was evaluated using an ANCOVA model, adjusting for the fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization.||0.43|-0.23|0.55
95792700|NCT00944710|191554843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.23
95729983|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4943||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 (208601\_s\_at)||||0.4943
95729984|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.5190
95729985|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7350
95729986|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.3820
95729987|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.9290
95792701|NCT00944710|191554844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 12-week Randot Preschool Stereoacuity scores was compared between treatment groups using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.66
95792702|NCT03044314|191554845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: inhalation with iNO (the gold standard) would provide greater response than the comparator (iloprost).||||0.148
95792703|NCT03044314|191554847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that fewer patients receiving iloprost (new agent) would respond compared to iNO (the gold standard).||||0.346
95729988|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.0699
95729989|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3515||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.3515
95729990|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2128
95729991|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.1275
95729992|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2158
95792704|NCT00264147|191554862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||<0.001
95729993|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0266
95792705|NCT00264147|191554862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|Cochran-Armitage trend test|A step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling were used for the trend test.||||||0.057
95950775|NCT02607956|191873521|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-23.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|4.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4|-49|0.096
95729994|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.3636
95729995|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9479||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.9479
95729996|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.3753
95792706|NCT00264147|191554862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|18.53||||||95.0|7.84|28.65|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||28.65|7.84|
95792707|NCT00264147|191554862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|10.0||||||95.0|-0.66|20.46|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||20.46|-0.66|
95792708|NCT00264147|191554862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|9.18||||||95.0|-1.25|19.39|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||19.39|-1.25|
95792709|NCT00264147|191554862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentage of patients|6.49||||||95.0|-3.76|16.61|||||CI based on the Wilson's score method.|||16.61|-3.76|
95792710|NCT00264147|191554863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.002
95792711|NCT00264147|191554863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.221
95792712|NCT00264147|191554863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||||95.0|-6.44|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-6.44|
95792713|NCT00264147|191554863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||95.0|-3.91|0.93||||||||0.93|-3.91|
95792714|NCT00264147|191554863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||||95.0|-5.13|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-5.13|
95792715|NCT00264147|191554863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-4.88|-0.12||||||||-0.12|-4.88|
95792716|NCT00264147|191554864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.001
95792717|NCT00264147|191554864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.125||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.125
95729997|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5477||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5477
95729998|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.4760
95729999|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3314
95730000|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1005||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1005
95730001|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1180
95730002|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1580
95730003|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.4385
95730004|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7324||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.7324
95792718|NCT00264147|191554864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||||95.0|-3.64|-0.84||||||||-0.84|-3.64|
95792719|NCT00264147|191554864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-2.44|0.41||||||||0.41|-2.44|
95792720|NCT00264147|191554864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||||95.0|-2.63|0.18||||||||0.18|-2.63|
95792721|NCT00264147|191554864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||||95.0|-1.89|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.89|
95792722|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95792723|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95792724|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95792725|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.023
95792726|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.16||||||95.0|-19.38|-8.95||||||||-8.95|-19.38|
95792727|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21||||||95.0|-14.52|-3.9||||||||-3.90|-14.52|
95792728|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87||||||95.0|-14.11|-3.63||||||||-3.63|-14.11|
95792729|NCT00264147|191554865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05||||||95.0|-11.27|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-11.27|
95792730|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95792731|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95730005|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2657||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.2657
95792732|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95792733|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
95730006|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.5637
95730007|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4473||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.4473
95730008|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3292||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3292
95730009|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.2054
95792734|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||||95.0|-0.77|-0.35||||||||-0.35|-0.77|
95792735|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-0.55|
95918321|NCT01702428|191796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.90|
95918322|NCT01702428|191796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
95918323|NCT01702428|191796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.06|0.91|
95918324|NCT01702428|191796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.95|
95730010|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5226||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.5226
95730011|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.1720
95730012|NCT00455533|191430266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.3346
95792736|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.61|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.61|
95792737|NCT00264147|191554866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||||95.0|-0.46|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.46|
95792738|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||<0.001
95792739|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.018
95792740|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.017
95792741|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Overall alpha=0.05 for multiple comparisons with a step-down procedure (p-values subsequent to the first non-significant p-value were not reported).|ANCOVA|Based on a trend test with a step-down procedure and Abelson-Tukey scaling.||||||0.080
95792742|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44||||||95.0|-19.62|-9.26||||||||-9.26|-19.62|
95730013|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5604||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5604
95730014|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.2715
95730015|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5268||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 209993\_at||||0.5268
95730016|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6058
95730017|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1918||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.1918
95792743|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||||95.0|-11.52|-0.92||||||||-0.92|-11.52|
95792744|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32||||||95.0|-11.53|-1.12||||||||-1.12|-11.53|
95792745|NCT00264147|191554867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||||95.0|-9.81|0.55||||||||0.55|-9.81|
95918325|NCT01702428|191796117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.09|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.09|0.94|
95918326|NCT01702428|191796118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.09|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.09|-1.05|
95918327|NCT01702428|191796118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.81|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.81|-0.50|
95918328|NCT01702428|191796118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.79|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥10 EU/mL.||1.79|-0.53|
95949886|NCT05066230|191871699|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|5.6||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.02|1.6|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53), HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||9.5|1.6|0.0058
95730018|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ABCB1 /// ABCB4 209994\_s\_at||||0.6712
95730019|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9195||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.9195
95730020|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.7021
95730021|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 211851\_x\_at||||0.3910
95730022|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2909||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2909
95730023|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3336||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.3336
95792746|NCT02563899|191554893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|39.9||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-30%||39.9|-42.2|
95792747|NCT02563899|191554893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|42.2||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD vs Vehicle: \<=-50%||42.2|-39.9|
95792748|NCT02563899|191554893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|44.0||||||Umeclidinium, 2 mg/cm\^2 of 1.85%, OD Vs Vehicle: \<=-70%||44.0|-25.2|
95792749|NCT02563899|191554895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in treatment|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|62.6||||||||62.6|-8.5|
95730024|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||BRCA1 204531\_s\_at||||0.2360
95730025|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0281
95730026|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0434
95730027|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203719\_at||||0.0283
95730028|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0151
95730029|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1999||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.1999
95730030|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||ERCC1 203720\_s\_at||||0.0146
95730031|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.1185
95792750|NCT01190813|191554898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|11.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact|It was not possible to adjust for baseline VA in these secondary analyses due to the small number of subjects meeting secondary outcome criteria.|Treatment group difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|A sample size of 129 participants provided 80% power with 1-sided type I error rate of 5% to reject the hypothesis of no difference between groups if the proportion improved was 30% in the levodopa group compared with 10% in the placebo group.||28|-7|0.06
95792751|NCT01190813|191554901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|18.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||18|-17|
95792752|NCT01190813|191554902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|10.0||||||||10|-25|
95792753|NCT01190813|191554903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|13.0|||||Levodopa - Placebo|||13|-22|
95792754|NCT01190813|191554911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|||1.3|-1.9|0.65
95730032|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8705||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.8705
95730033|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204315\_s\_at||||0.0284
95730034|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0399||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0399
95918329|NCT01702428|191796119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.00|0.87|
95730035|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0136
95730036|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204317\_at||||0.0576
95792755|NCT01190813|191554913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.6|0.44
95792756|NCT01190813|191554915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-1.2|0.20
95792757|NCT01190813|191554917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95792758|NCT01190813|191554921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3||The alpha level was set to 0.0485 for the primary analysis to adjust for alpha spending of 0.015 for one interim analysis for efficacy conducted when outcome data were available for 50% of participants.|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as Levodopa - Placebo|With 129 participants, assuming a 1-sided type I error rate of 4.85%, there was 96% power to detect a difference in mean visual acuity between treatment groups at 18 weeks adjusted for baseline and for 1 interim analysis for futility if the true difference was 5 letters with SD of 7 letters and 82% power if the true difference was 3.75 letters||3.3|-0.4|0.06
95730037|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2245||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.2245
95730038|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1388||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.1388
95730039|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 215942\_s\_at||||0.0692
95730040|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.1058
95730041|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.2688
95730042|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 204318\_s\_at||||0.0192
95730043|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0033
95792759|NCT01121263|191555000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.8||95.0|0.666|1.697|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|The Cox model was weighted by propensity score to adjust for differences in baseline risk between the two groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.697|0.666|0.80
95730044|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2053||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.2053
95730045|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||GTSE1 211040\_x\_at||||0.0032
95792760|NCT01121263|191555001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.53||95.0|0.556|1.355|||Regression, Cox||The Cox proportional hazards regression model was weighted by the propensity score to account for the difference in baseline risk between groups.|This applies to any MACCE||1.355|0.556|0.53
95792761|NCT06831344|191555006|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM Percentage (%)|113.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.86|122.33|||||Geometric least square mean (GLSM) ratios were calculated by taking antilog of difference of least square means and associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) from linear mixed effect model analyzing natural logarithms of corresponding PK parameters.|||122.33|104.86|
95730046|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6783||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.6783
95730047|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.1630
95730048|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2944||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 209792\_s\_at||||0.2944
95730049|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3727||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.3727
95950776|NCT02607956|191873522|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-47.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|-12.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||-12|-81|0.008
95730050|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8796||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8796
95730051|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK10 215808\_at||||0.8344
95730052|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2700
95950777|NCT02607956|191873523|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-14.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|25.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||25|-52|0.48
95950778|NCT04012970|191873534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.05
95730053|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2624||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.2624
95730054|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK5 222242\_s\_at||||0.0830
95730055|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0849
95792762|NCT06831344|191555006|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|107.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.67|116.28|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||116.28|99.67|
95792763|NCT06831344|191555006|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.68|109.3|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||109.30|93.68|
95792764|NCT06831344|191555006|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|105.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|114.43|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||114.43|98.08|
95792765|NCT06831344|191555006|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|102.67|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.67|88.00|
95792766|NCT06831344|191555006|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|113.08|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.08|96.93|
95981136|NCT00240981|191935492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|129.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|215.4||Adjusted analysis used multiple linear regression, with adjustment for baseline total score on the Short Physical Performance Battery, and self-report of limitations in mobility.|Regression, Linear|||||215.4|43.5|0.004
95792767|NCT06831344|191555007|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|114.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.46|122.24|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||122.24|107.46|
95792768|NCT06831344|191555007|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|110.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.14|117.33|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||117.33|103.14|
95730056|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6578||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.6578
95792769|NCT06831344|191555007|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|113.06|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.06|99.39|
95792770|NCT06831344|191555007|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|103.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.39|110.78|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||110.78|97.39|
95792771|NCT06831344|191555007|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|102.37|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.37|89.99|
95981137|NCT00240981|191935493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|55.8||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||55.8|13.2|0.002
95730057|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||KLK6 204733\_at||||0.0396
95730058|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1657||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1657
95730059|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.0675
95918330|NCT01702428|191796119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.97|
95918331|NCT01702428|191796119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.00|
95918332|NCT01702428|191796119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.19|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.19|1.04|
95918333|NCT01702428|191796119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.03|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.03|0.90|
95918334|NCT01702428|191796119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to mumps.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.96|0.84|
95918335|NCT01702428|191796120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.58|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||1.58|-1.3|
95918336|NCT01702428|191796120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.86|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.86|-1.86|
95918337|NCT01702428|191796120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot difference in seroresponse rates should be within the \[-5%;5%\] margin for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.74|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the pair-wise differences in seroresponse.|Difference between groups (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group minus INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) in percentage of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥10 IU/mL.||0.74|-2.02|
95918338|NCT01702428|191796121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||"Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.~."||1.15|1.01|
95792772|NCT06831344|191555007|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.87|104.51|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||104.51|91.87|
95792773|NCT06831344|191555008|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|114.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.28|121.17|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||121.17|107.28|
95918339|NCT01702428|191796121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L1 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.94|
95981138|NCT00240981|191935493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|56.2||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||56.2|13.1|0.002
95950779|NCT04012970|191873534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
95950780|NCT04012970|191873535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
95950781|NCT04012970|191873535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Stiffness change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.01
95950782|NCT04012970|191873536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
95950783|NCT04012970|191873536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
95981139|NCT00240981|191935494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|26.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.7|-9.2|0.34
95950784|NCT04012970|191873537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
95792774|NCT06831344|191555008|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|109.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.49|116.9|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||116.90|103.49|
95792775|NCT06831344|191555008|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.24|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||113.24|100.26|
95792776|NCT06831344|191555008|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|110.86|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||110.86|98.15|
95918340|NCT01702428|191796121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
95918341|NCT01702428|191796121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L2 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L3 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.99|0.87|
95918342|NCT01702428|191796121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L1 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.07|0.93|
95918343|NCT01702428|191796121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For each pair-wise comparison, the 2-sided 95% CI on the lot ratio should be within the \[0.67;1.5\] margin for antibodies to measles.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC of each INV\_MMR lots pair was computed using ANOVA (3 INV\_MMR lot groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR\_L3 Group divided by INV\_MMR\_L2 Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||1.15|1.01|
95918344|NCT01702428|191796122|NON_INFERIORITY|The Lower Limit (LL) of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to measles virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.25|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-measles antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.25|-0.68|
95981140|NCT00240981|191935494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|26.2||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||26.2|-9.9|0.37
95792777|NCT06831344|191555008|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.77|102.53|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||102.53|90.77|
95792778|NCT06831344|191555008|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|104.05|||||GLSM ratios were calculated by taking the antilog of the difference of least square means and associated 90% CIs from the linear mixed effect model analyzing the natural logarithms of the corresponding PK parameters.|||104.05|92.11|
95981141|NCT00240981|191935495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.1|0.69
95792779|NCT02997163|191555040|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|157.26||||||||157.26|80.06|
95950785|NCT04012970|191873537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Tone change ran with covariates (baseline stiffness, BMI, ODI, waist circumference, height and gender).||||<0.05
95950786|NCT04012970|191873538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.01
95950787|NCT04012970|191873539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|2-way, repeated measures||||||<0.001
95792780|NCT02997163|191555040|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.03|198.42||||||||198.42|103.03|
95792781|NCT02997163|191555040|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|263.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.88|369.06||||||||369.06|187.88|
95792782|NCT02997163|191555041|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.4|166.01||||||||166.01|74.40|
95950788|NCT01326455|191873548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Lancaster et. al. (2004) quoted the number 30 as a general sample size for a pilot study. Each arm of this study had 25 people (due to time constraints), giving a total of 75 people. The data were analyzed using t-tests for equality of means, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and chi-square. Significance was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.25
95950789|NCT01326455|191873549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95950790|NCT01326455|191873550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95950791|NCT01326455|191873550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95950792|NCT01326455|191873550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.144
95950793|NCT01326455|191873551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.372
95950794|NCT01326455|191873552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.468
95792783|NCT02997163|191555041|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|194.25||||||||194.25|89.12|
95792784|NCT02997163|191555041|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|189.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.74|282.8||||||||282.80|126.74|
95792785|NCT02997163|191555042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.85|167.7||||||||167.70|83.85|
95730060|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1071||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201476\_s\_at||||0.1071
95792786|NCT02997163|191555042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|139.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|195.06||||||||195.06|99.53|
95792787|NCT02997163|191555042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|286.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.66|405.33||||||||405.33|202.66|
95792788|NCT02997163|191555043|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.74|172.99||||||||172.99|79.74|
95792789|NCT02997163|191555043|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|128.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.05|186.72||||||||186.72|88.05|
95792790|NCT02997163|191555043|SUPERIORITY||Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|206.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.91|303.51||||||||303.51|139.91|
95792791|NCT02990000|191555071|SUPERIORITY|We used the Optimal Design program to determine the minimum numbers of therapists and patients needed to detect a moderate effect of condition (standardized difference between change rates = .50). Based on this a priori power analysis, we will need a total of 44 therapists and 211 patients to achieve a power of .80 to detect moderate condition effects. Factoring in a 25% dropout rate, enrolling 281 patients should provide sufficient statistical power.|condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.03|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the TOP-CS average z-scores. Given that higher TOP-CS z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.03|-0.05|.02
95792792|NCT02990000|191555072|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the SCL-10 total score. Given that higher SCL-10 scores indicate greater psychological distress, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.02|-0.30|.03
95792793|NCT02990000|191555073|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the patient-rated WAI. Given that higher WAI scores indicate better quality therapeutic alliances, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in alliance during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.21|-0.33|.65
95792794|NCT02990000|191555074|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the OE subscale of the CEQ. Given that higher OE scores indicate more optimistic expectations, positive slopes indicate a weekly increase in OE during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||0.07|-0.17|.41
95792795|NCT02990000|191555075|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on weekly change rate|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.006|||3-level hierarchical linear model|||To account for the nested nature of the data (time points nested within patients nested within therapists), a 3-level hierarchical linear model was used to test the effect of condition (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0) on weekly during-treatment change on the log-transformed TOP-CS domain-specific z-scores. Given that higher z-scores indicate greater impairment, negative slopes indicate a weekly decrease in impairment during treatment (i.e., a better outcome or more improvement).||-0.006|-0.01|.01
95792796|NCT02990000|191555076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||Multilevel logistic regression analysis with patients nested within therapists (Scientific Match = 1; Pragmatic Match = 0). Statistically significant odds ratios that are greater than 1 would indicate that patients in the Scientific Match Condition were more likely to discontinue treatment early, whereas odds ratios that are less than 1 would indicate the opposite.||||.48
95981142|NCT00240981|191935495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-1.1|0.71
95792797|NCT02990000|191555077|SUPERIORITY||condition effect on satisfaction|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.31|||2-level hierarchical linear model|||Due to the nested nature of the data (patients nested within therapists), we used a two-level hierarchical linear model to test the effect of condition on provider satisfaction at posttreatment. Because higher values indicate more satisfaction, a positive condition effect would indicate that Scientific Match patients were more satisfied than Pragmatic Match patients, whereas a negative condition effect would indicate the opposite.||1.31|-0.57|.44
95792798|NCT01507181|191555108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95792799|NCT01507181|191555109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95792800|NCT01507181|191555110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Statistics are calculated by comparing 24-h scores using separate ANCOVAs and controlling for baseline severity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95981143|NCT00240981|191935496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.135|-0.035|0.26
95981144|NCT00240981|191935496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.133||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||0.133|-0.037|0.27
95981145|NCT00240981|191935497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|60.1||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.1|0.3|0.05
95792801|NCT01669434|191555116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||||0.97|0.67|0.03
95792802|NCT01669434|191555117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.60|0.23|0.44
95792803|NCT01669434|191555118|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.99|||Fisher Exact|||||2.99|0.48|1.0
95792804|NCT01669434|191555119|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.81|1.0
95792805|NCT01669434|191555120|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34|||Fisher Exact|||||3.34|1.14|0.01
95792806|NCT01669434|191555121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.28|0.02
95792807|NCT02860988|191555122|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
95792808|NCT02860988|191555123|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.88
95792809|NCT02860988|191555124|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.89
95792810|NCT02860988|191555125|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.26||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.61
95792811|NCT02860988|191555126|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.61||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
95792812|NCT02860988|191555127|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
95792813|NCT02860988|191555128|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
95792814|NCT02860988|191555129|OTHER|Two-sided tests versus a margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
95792815|NCT00737048|191555130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.06|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
95792816|NCT00737048|191555130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Least Signiﬁcant Diﬀerence Method|||Statistical Analysis 2 for Total pain relief based on numerical rating scale score||||<0.0001
95792817|NCT02089347|191555183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.61||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-booster response for Diphtheria.||4.61|-0.31|
95792818|NCT02089347|191555183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by the data if lower bound ot the two-sided 95% is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.84||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination booster response for tetanus||10.84|3.32|
95792819|NCT02089347|191555184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%|Wilson score method|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|3.15||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Diphtheria post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||3.15|-0.61|
95792820|NCT02089347|191555184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is supported by a data if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -10%.|Wilson score method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.14||||||Non-inferiority comparison of Tetanus post-vaccination seroprotection rates at ≥ 0.1 IU/mL||2.14|-1.09|
95792821|NCT01249131|191555212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|107.0|||||LS mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||107|83.9|
95792822|NCT01249131|191555212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|124.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124|98.2|
95792823|NCT01249131|191555213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|111.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||111|84.2|
95792824|NCT01249131|191555213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|123.0|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||123|93.8|
95792825|NCT02265510|191555232|OTHER|Descriptive Statistics|||||||||||||||||The analysis of the primary endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792826|NCT02265510|191555233|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for ORR were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
95792827|NCT02265510|191555234|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Confidence Intervals for response were calculated based on the exact method for binomial distributions. There were no comparison between treatment groups.|||
95792828|NCT02265510|191555235|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792829|NCT02265510|191555236|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792830|NCT02265510|191555237|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792831|NCT02265510|191555238|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792832|NCT02265510|191555239|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792833|NCT02265510|191555240|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792834|NCT02265510|191555241|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792835|NCT02265510|191555242|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the endpoint was descriptive i.e. no statistical hypothesis test was performed.|||
95792836|NCT03093181|191555279|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.12||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.56||From Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||5.56|0.68|0.0128
95792837|NCT03093181|191555279|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.96||From ANCOVA with treatment main effect, age stratum and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment (test product) minus second named treatment (negative control) such that a positive value favors the first named treatment (test product).|||3.96|-0.95|0.2262
95792838|NCT03093181|191555281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||3.15|1.08|0.0243
95792839|NCT03093181|191555281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.78|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||1.78|0.61|0.8931
95792840|NCT03093181|191555281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.25|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||3.25|1.12|0.0181
95792841|NCT03093181|191555281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.63|||Odds Ratio|||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||1.63|0.55|0.8319
95792842|NCT03093181|191555282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0279
95792843|NCT03093181|191555282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Polarised Image.||0.14|-0.12|0.8887
95792844|NCT03093181|191555282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.28|0.02|0.0224
95792845|NCT03093181|191555282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA= average rate over all raters including effects of treatment and age stratum.||Analysis of Lay Person Assessment Non-Polarised Image.||0.12|-0.15|0.8253
95792846|NCT04210986|191555287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.02||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for fisetin group, relative to the placebo group.|Null hypothesis: no difference in proportion of participants experiencing any TEAE between Fisetin and Placebo groups.||4.02|0.25|>0.9
95792847|NCT04210986|191555288|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-3.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||3.6|-10.6|0.9728
95792848|NCT04210986|191555288|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-2.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||2.8|-7.8|0.9728
95792849|NCT04210986|191555288|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-20.5||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||-3.3|-37.7|0.0829
95792850|NCT04210986|191555288|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.5||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Contrast of LS Means|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||||0.9728
95730061|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0142
95918345|NCT01702428|191796123|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to measles virus at Day 42.||1.05|0.93|
95981146|NCT00240981|191935497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.3||Adjusted|Regression, Linear|||||59.3|0.2|0.05
95730062|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2465||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.2465
95730063|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||RRM1 201477\_s\_at||||0.0031
95792851|NCT04210986|191555289|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|2.52|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|54.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 14 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||54.5|-49.4|>0.99
95792852|NCT04210986|191555289|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|11.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|58.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 45 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||58.8|-36.8|>0.99
95792853|NCT04210986|191555289|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-40.3||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.6|17.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||17.1|-97.6|0.6594
95792854|NCT04210986|191555289|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-6.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|31.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||31.7|-45.5|>0.99
95792855|NCT04210986|191555290|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|10.5||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|33.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||33.9|-12.9|0.7480
95792856|NCT04210986|191555290|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.6||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|21.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||21.1|-22.2|0.9572
95792857|NCT04210986|191555291|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.47|>0.99
95792858|NCT04210986|191555291|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.07|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.47|-0.33|>0.99
95792859|NCT04210986|191555292|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.37|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.87|-1.61|>0.99
95792860|NCT04210986|191555292|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.16|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.13|-0.80|>0.99
95792861|NCT04210986|191555293|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.022||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.045|0.130
95981147|NCT00240981|191935499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5||Month 3 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|1.2|0.2
95981148|NCT00240981|191935499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2||Month 6 Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|0.4|<.0001
95792862|NCT04210986|191555293|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.024||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.002|-0.049|0.130
95792863|NCT04210986|191555294|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.22||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.40|-0.84|0.9584
95792864|NCT04210986|191555294|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.12||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.69|0.9584
95792865|NCT04210986|191555295|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.88||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|8.84||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||8.84|-5.07|0.5905
95792866|NCT04210986|191555295|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|3.86||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|10.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||10.79|-3.08|0.5414
95792867|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.05|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 3 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.85|-0.75|>0.99
95792868|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.44|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.34|-0.45|>0.99
95792869|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.54||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.54|-0.70|>0.99
95918346|NCT01702428|191796124|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to mumps virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.96|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-mumps antibody concentration at Day 42.||1.96|-0.1|
95918347|NCT01702428|191796125|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.99|
95918348|NCT01702428|191796126|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-5% for antibodies to rubella virus.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.15|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-rubella antibody concentration at Day 42.||-0.15|-2.00|
95918349|NCT01702428|191796127|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to measles virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.92|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.92|0.83|
95981149|NCT00240981|191935500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||3 Months Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.002
95730064|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1231||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.1231
95792870|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.06|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.78||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.78|-0.91|>0.99
95792871|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.47|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 15 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.56|-1.50|>0.99
95792872|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.77||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.77|-1.16|>0.99
95792873|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.19|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.96||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 21 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.96|-0.58|>0.99
95792874|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.97||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 24 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.97|-0.76|>0.99
95792875|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.01|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 27 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.76|-0.74|>0.99
95792876|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.38|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 30 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.44|-1.20|>0.99
95792877|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.89||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 33 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.89|-0.69|>0.99
95792878|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 36 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-1.02|>0.99
95792879|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 39 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.92|-0.70|>0.99
95792880|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.62|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|DAY 42 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.13|-1.36|>0.99
95981150|NCT00240981|191935500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.2||6 Month Measures|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-2.8|<.0001
95730065|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.0849
95792881|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.23|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 7 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.55|-1.01|>0.99
95792882|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 8 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.49|-0.89|>0.99
95792883|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.02|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 9 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.67|-0.63|>0.99
95792884|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.17|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 10 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.61|-0.95|>0.99
95792885|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.42|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 11 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.34|-1.18|>0.99
95792886|NCT04210986|191555296|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.35|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.71||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|WEEK 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||0.71|-1.41|>0.99
95918350|NCT01702428|191796128|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of 2-sided 95 % CI for the difference in seroresponse (pooled INV\_MMR Group minus pooled COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥-10% for antibodies to VZV.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.29|||||Asymptotic standardized 95% CIs for the difference in seroresponse rate.|In US sub-cohort: Difference in percentage (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) of subjects with anti-VZV antibody concentration at Day 42.||4.29|-1.31|
95792887|NCT04210986|191555297|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|1.86||||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.82||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||6.82|-3.09|0.9106
95792888|NCT04210986|191555297|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-4.2||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|1.53||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||1.53|-9.93|0.4424
95981151|NCT00240981|191935501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||Unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.05|0.24
95918351|NCT01702428|191796129|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.67 for antibodies to VZV.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to VZV virus at Day 42.||1.08|0.95|
95918352|NCT01702428|191796131|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) was ≥0.5 for antibodies to HAV virus.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_ MMR) was computed using ANOVA (vaccine groups \& country as fixed effects) on log-transformed concentrations.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for antibodies to HAV virus at Day 42.||1.11|0.86|
95730066|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 211714\_x\_at||||0.2740
95981152|NCT00240981|191935501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.209||Adjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||0.209|-0.030|0.14
95981153|NCT00766090|191935502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.153|||ANCOVA|||||0.153|0.064|<0.001
95918353|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 1 antibody at Day 42.||1.05|0.85|
95918354|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 3 antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.91|
95918355|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 4 antibody at Day 42.||0.98|0.79|
95918356|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 5 antibody at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
95918357|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6A antibody at Day 42.||1.11|0.92|
95918358|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 6B antibody at Day 42.||1.09|0.89|
95918359|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 7F antibody at Day 42.||1.03|0.86|
95918360|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 9V antibody at Day 42.||1.08|0.90|
95918361|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 14 antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.81|
95918362|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 18C antibody at Day 42.||1.02|0.84|
95918363|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19A antibody at Day 42.||1.07|0.87|
95918364|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 19F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.87|
95918365|NCT01702428|191796132|NON_INFERIORITY|The LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over COM\_MMR Group) should be ≥0.5 for antibodies to for antibodies to PS serotypes.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANCOVA|95% CI for GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group over the COM\_MMR Group) was computed using an ANCOVA model: Adjustment for baseline concentration-pooled variance.||In US sub-cohort: Adjusted GMC ratio (INV\_MMR Group divided by COM\_MMR Group) for anti-PnPS 23F antibody at Day 42.||1.06|0.85|
95918366|NCT02771210|191796149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|0.87|0.136
95949887|NCT05066230|191871700|SUPERIORITY||Difference of weighted percentages|-6.5||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-11.8|-1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by baseline DRSS level (≤level 47 vs. ≥level 53) and HbA1c level (≤8.5% vs. \>8.5%).|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||-1.3|-11.8|0.0149
95949888|NCT02507297|191871712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.367
95918367|NCT01027364|191796200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 95% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.24|0.11|<0.001
95918368|NCT01027364|191796200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||A hierarchical approach was applied to the comparison of the annualized bleeding rates between the prophylaxis arms and the episodic arm.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between any prevention regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations.||0.20|0.08|<0.001
95918369|NCT03230864|191796203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The mean changes from randomization in PANNS total score was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model will include the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed covariates of baseline scores and baseline scores-by-visit interaction. An unstructured (co)variance structure will be used to model the within-patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||11.65|-0.70|0.0809
95918370|NCT00267111|191796224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that topical amethocaine gel 4% would reduce the pain from IM injection. The sample size was based on the pain scores obtained from a previous study that compared pain response during IM injection. To achieve a clinically significant reduction in pain scores by 20% between groups with 80% power and an alpha value of \< 0.05, we estimated sample size of 49 neonates in each group. A total of 110 neonates were enrolled to account for possible dropouts and missing data.||||< 0.05
95918371|NCT00267111|191796225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v12, USA). Pain scores were compared between groups by means of the Student t-test. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that parents and nurses will report lower pain scores as assessed by visual analogue scale in topical amethocaine gel 4% compared to placebo group. This was a secondary outcome and no power calculation was performed.||||<0.05
95918372|NCT02368002|191796226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||2 df re-random\*time interaction tested if baseline to 6M or 18M PCM and ABT weight changes differed; primary hypothesis tests were 2 planned contrasts estimating baseline to 6M (H1a, expected neg) and 18M (H1b, expected pos) PCM vs. ABT weight change|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, TRA timing, sex, weight loss rate.||H1 predicted that suboptimal responders re-randomized to PCM would lose more weight at 6m (H1a) while those re-randomized to ABT would lose more weight at 18m (H1b). A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed re-randomization, measurement time, the re-randomization by measurement time interaction and covariate parameters.|The primary hypothesis tests were two planned contrasts that estimated weight change from baseline to 6M and 18M relative to baseline in PCM relative to ABT. A mixed linear model predicted weight changes between baseline and post-baseline for suboptimal responders, and this model included two a priori simple effects tests resulting in two mean differences, confidence intervals, and p-values. H1a: -2.7 lbs; 95% CI: -5.8, 0.5; p=0.09. H1b: -1.0 lbs; 95% CI: -4.2, 2.2; p=0.53|||0.25
95918373|NCT02368002|191796227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included a random participant intercept. Fixed covariates were baseline weight, sex, TRA result (PCM, ABT, responder, pre-TRA quit).||Hypothesis 2 predicted that among all participants, those randomized to Early TRA would lose more weight at 6 and 18 months than those randomized to Late TRA. A mixed linear model predicted weight change from fixed treatment response assessment timing and covariate parameters.||2.3|-2.4|0.96
95918374|NCT02743793|191796247|OTHER|No test was performed.|Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|87.9|||||Percent of participants that remained tolerant during study participation.|||87.9|21.3|
95918375|NCT02058290|191796326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95918376|NCT02058290|191796327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2612
95918377|NCT02058290|191796328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
95918378|NCT02262260|191796351|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in BCVA at month 12 from the baseline visit were determined for both treatment groups, and a comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test."||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95918379|NCT02262260|191796352|NON_INFERIORITY|"In order to demonstrate that the wait and extend regimen of ranibizumab is non-inferior to the posology described in the prescribing information, mean change in Central Retinal Thickness determined with Optical Coherence Tomography for both eyes were calculated for both groups and were compared using the Mann Whitney u test."||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
95918380|NCT02262260|191796355|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
95918381|NCT02262260|191796356|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test.||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
95918382|NCT02262260|191796357|NON_INFERIORITY|comparison was made between the two groups using the Independent Samples t-test||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.466
95918383|NCT02090634|191796358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Cliff's d = 0.01; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to ARV medications.||||0.95
95918384|NCT02090634|191796358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Cliff's d = -0.13; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall adherence to PSY medications.||||0.43
95918385|NCT02090634|191796359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Cliff's d = 0.37; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for ARV medications.||||0.02
95918386|NCT02090634|191796359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Cliff's d = 0.14; calculated to estimate the effect size for between-group comparisons with non-parametric data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We conducted Wilcoxon rank sum (Mann-Whitney) tests in order to examine group (i.e., iTAB vs. CTRL) differences on overall dose timing windows for PSY medications.||||0.42
95918387|NCT03757234|191796360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.9|-12.4|
95918388|NCT03757234|191796360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|5.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.3|-34.8|
95918389|NCT03757234|191796360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|8.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.2|-30.6|
95918390|NCT03757234|191796360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|11.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.8|-22.4|
95918391|NCT03757234|191796361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-23.6|
95918392|NCT03757234|191796361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|-6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-6.0|-71.3|
95918393|NCT03757234|191796361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|15.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||15.1|-40.8|
95918394|NCT03757234|191796361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from levofloxacin (omadacycline minus levofloxacin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.1|-62.6|
95730067|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2383
95792889|NCT04210986|191555297|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-0.03||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|MONTH 18 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.||5.48|-5.55|0.9901
95918395|NCT01861457|191796371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95918396|NCT01861457|191796372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95918397|NCT01567865|191796378|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|9.66||||||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||9.66|-5.97|
95730068|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.0644
95918398|NCT01567865|191796378|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||4.98|-9.92|<0.05
95949889|NCT02507297|191871712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.48
95949890|NCT02507297|191871713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.136
95949891|NCT02507297|191871713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.324
95949892|NCT02507297|191871714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.916
95949893|NCT02507297|191871714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.752
95949894|NCT02507297|191871715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 8 weeks after baseline||||.568
95792890|NCT04210986|191555298|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|0.69|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.95|32.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 6 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||32.3|-30.95|>0.99
95792891|NCT04210986|191555298|SUPERIORITY||Contrast of LS Means|-11.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|24.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P-values adjusted for the number of post-intervention assessments via Holm-Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (mmrm). Baseline measurement included as covariate. Random intercept and slope. Kenward-Roger DF.|Direction of Estimation Parameter: Placebo - Fisetin|"MONTH 12 ASSESSMENT. Null hypothesis: no difference in baseline-adjusted least squares means between Fisetin and Placebo groups at each post-intervention assessment.~A priori power calculation was based a standardized mean difference effect size of SMD=0.73 (Mackay, et al, 2018, Osteoarthritis and Cartilage)."||24.2|-46.9|>0.99
95792892|NCT04210986|191555299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.21||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox proportional hazards model constructed. Score (log rank) test to assess between group difference in hazard rate.|Hazard ratio expresses the hazard rate of the Fisetin group in the numerator and the hazard rate of the Placebo group in the denominator|With only 4 participants that converted to an alternative treatment modality, this analysis is underpowered.||4.21|0.05|0.474
95792893|NCT00324155|191555310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||1.740|0.799|0.4067
95792894|NCT00324155|191555318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.872||p-value was via stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio via stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Analysis stratified for metastasis stage (M0 vs M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1) recorded at randomization.||0.872|0.588|0.0009
95792895|NCT05412134|191555342|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared|||Repetition adherence||||0.333
95792896|NCT05412134|191555342|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Chi-squared|||Session adherence||||0.626
95792897|NCT05412134|191555343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.416
95792898|NCT05412134|191555344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
95792899|NCT05412134|191555345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
95792900|NCT05412134|191555346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
95792901|NCT05412134|191555348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
95792902|NCT04664205|191555368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95792903|NCT04664205|191555369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.069
95792904|NCT04664205|191555370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.478
95792905|NCT03444584|191555384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-143.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.2|-87.98|||ANCOVA|||||-87.98|-198.20|<0.0001
95792906|NCT03444584|191555385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||||-14.10|-30.24|<0.0001
95792907|NCT00596271|191555502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. IC51+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for anti- JEV neutralizing antibody at day 56. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis||||<0.0001
95792908|NCT00596271|191555506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority of the combined administration is postulated, if the lower bounds of both twosided 95% confidence intervals for the GMT ratios (of combined vaccination over single vaccination) are \> 1/2.~This procedure is equivalent to the approach based on a 1-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% for each comparison with the null hypothesis H0 : ratio ≤ 0.5 versus the alternative hypotheses H1 : ratio \> 0.5."|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis will compare the IC51+HAVRIX vs. HAVRIX+Placebo group in terms of the GMT for HAV antibody at day 28. An observed cases approach will be applied for the primary analysis.||||<0.0001
95792909|NCT00767572|191555525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-post brachial artery diameter changes do not differ between placebo and atorvastatin||||>0.05
95792910|NCT01687218|191555535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the Daily Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.44|0.73|0.88
95792911|NCT01687218|191555535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||It shows the rate ratio (RR) based on a GEE model comparing the RAI Rectal regimen with the Oral regimen and controlling for period in the model.|Since some participants have more than one safety event per period of treatment regimen, a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with a Poisson (log) link, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust standard errors were used.||1.21|0.64|0.43
95949895|NCT02507297|191871715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks postpartum||||.568
95949896|NCT02507297|191871716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.486
95981154|NCT00766090|191935502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.142|||ANCOVA|||||0.142|0.054|<0.001
95792912|NCT01687218|191555536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.50|0.15|<0.0001
95792913|NCT01687218|191555536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.70|0.20|0.002
95792914|NCT01687218|191555537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.08|0.29|0.08
95792915|NCT01687218|191555537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.56|0.37|0.46
95792916|NCT01687218|191555538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||0.65|0.22|0.0004
95792917|NCT01687218|191555538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables were used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. The oral arm and period 1 were used as the reference group in each of the models.||1.25|0.39|0.23
95792918|NCT01687218|191555539|OTHER||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the daily rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.30|-1.53|<0.001
95792919|NCT01687218|191555539|OTHER||Slope|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||This comparison is between the RAI rectal and oral (reference) groups for tenofovir levels in blood plasma, log10 ng/mL.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-1.70|-1.95|<0.001
95792920|NCT01687218|191555540|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.83|0.49|<0.001
95949897|NCT01366976|191871717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that acetaminophen would reduce peak isofuran concentrations by 22 pg/mL (40% reduction from peak concentrations). If the true difference in the acetaminophen and placebo group means is 22 pg/mL (SD=30 pg/mL), we would need to study 30 experimental subjects and 30 control subjects to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the acetaminophen and placebo groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8.||||0.05
95981155|NCT00766090|191935502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.161|||ANCOVA|||||0.161|0.014|0.020
95730069|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2866||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 212320\_at||||0.2866
95792921|NCT01687218|191555540|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.15|-0.46|0.31
95792922|NCT01687218|191555541|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only were used in this analysis.||0.50|0.10|0.004
95949898|NCT01366976|191871719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95792923|NCT01687218|191555541|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||-0.47|-0.92|<0.001
95792924|NCT01687218|191555542|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.50|-2.82|<0.001
95792925|NCT01687218|191555542|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality for the following analysis.||-2.49|-2.81|<0.001
95792926|NCT01687218|191555543|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
95792927|NCT01687218|191555543|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. End period visits only are used in this analysis.||-0.80|-1.01|<0.001
95792928|NCT01687218|191555544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.84|-2.16|<0.001
95792929|NCT01687218|191555544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality. Mid period and end period visits only are used in this analysis.||-1.74|-2.07|<0.001
95792930|NCT01687218|191555545|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.72|0.35|<0.001
95792931|NCT01687218|191555545|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used to compare the three treatment regimens within participants over time using the oral regimen as the reference group. The models included fixed effects for treatment regimen and period and random effects for participant within sequence. The log 10 transformation was used in the mixed effects models for all PK results to achieve normality.||0.31|-0.28|0.92
95918399|NCT01567865|191796378|EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots of new GMP facility LJEVac would be considered equivalent (i.e., the SP does not differ between lots by ≥10%) if all 3 null hypotheses are rejected, and the alternate hypotheses are accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|3.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypotheses: each new lot does not differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. With a total study population of only 772 subjects, the power of the study to test lot-to-lot consistency declined from 90% to 85%."||3.31|-11.94|<0.05
95918400|NCT01567865|191796378|NON_INFERIORITY|The new GMP facility lots will be considered non-inferior (i.e., equivalent) to the existing facility lot if the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|The 95% CI for the difference in rates is calculated based on the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.||"Null hypothesis: reference lot vs. Lot 1, 2, and 3 combined do differ in seroprotection (SP) rates among each other by more than 10%.~Slower than anticipated enrollment resulted in a smaller number of subjects with antibody response data for analysis. Consequently, additional power estimates were made in anticipation of the occurrence of smaller sample sizes. The power of the study to test non-inferiority of the combined new lots compared to the reference lot dropped from 99% to 87%."||3.1|-9.74|<0.05
95918401|NCT00383240|191796409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95981156|NCT00766090|191935502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FF 100 µg BID was greater than -110 milliliters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.035|0.641
95981157|NCT00766090|191935502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.205|||ANCOVA|||||0.205|0.059|<0.001
95981158|NCT02653300|191935672|OTHER|||||||0.03125|||||||Sign test|||||||0.03125
95981159|NCT02247960|191935679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95981160|NCT01910116|191935692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming that an improvement in AUSCAN pain score of \>10 is clinically meaningful, and assuming an alpha level of 0.05 (two-tailed), a power of 0.80, and a dropout rate of 20%, the sample size calculation revealed that 220 patients should be enrolled.||||0.014
95918402|NCT00383240|191796409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918403|NCT00383240|191796409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918404|NCT00383240|191796409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.491
95918405|NCT00383240|191796409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
95918406|NCT00383240|191796409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95918407|NCT00383240|191796410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
95918408|NCT00383240|191796410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918409|NCT00383240|191796410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918410|NCT00383240|191796410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918411|NCT00383240|191796410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918412|NCT00383240|191796410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
95918413|NCT00383240|191796412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
95918414|NCT00383240|191796412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95981161|NCT01910116|191935693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95981162|NCT01910116|191935694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95918415|NCT00383240|191796412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918416|NCT00383240|191796412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918417|NCT00383240|191796412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918418|NCT00383240|191796412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.738
95981163|NCT01910116|191935695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95981164|NCT01910116|191935696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.728
95981165|NCT01910116|191935697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
95918419|NCT00383240|191796413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-Value for endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95918420|NCT00383240|191796413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918421|NCT00383240|191796413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918422|NCT00383240|191796413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95918423|NCT00383240|191796413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95918424|NCT00383240|191796413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-Value for Endpoint|ANCOVA|||||||0.601
95918425|NCT02708433|191796420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.57|-0.49|0.74
95918426|NCT02708433|191796421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.52|-0.89|0.5
95918427|NCT01518946|191796423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|521.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.2|917.7|||ANOVA|||||917.7|124.2|0.0131
95918428|NCT04834362|191796441|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
95918429|NCT04834362|191796442|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95918430|NCT04834362|191796443|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
95918431|NCT04834362|191796444|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.729
95918432|NCT03390036|191796470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8106
95918433|NCT03390036|191796471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3007
95918434|NCT03390036|191796472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6354
95918435|NCT03390036|191796473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5754
95918436|NCT03390036|191796474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4759
95918437|NCT03390036|191796475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5596|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5596
95918438|NCT03390036|191796476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4551
95918439|NCT03390036|191796477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7931
95918440|NCT06017999|191796478|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-153.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.8|-132.91|||ANCOVA|||||-132.91|-173.80|<0.0001
95918441|NCT06017999|191796479|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|-131.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.13|-110.16|||ANCOVA|||||-110.16|-153.13|<0.0001
95918442|NCT04397523|191796497|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.00000|ANOVA|df 2||||||0.05
95918443|NCT04397523|191796502|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Chi- square = 24.98174, p = 0.00000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Overall survival between the three WHO score groups 3, 4 and 5||||0.05
95918444|NCT04397523|191796502|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p=0.000|Chi-squared|df = 2||Correlation of mortality versus WHO disease progression score of patients||||0.05
95918445|NCT04397523|191796502|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||p = 0.000|Chi-squared|df = 1||Correlation of mortality versus stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)||||0.05
95981166|NCT01910116|191935698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
95981167|NCT01910116|191935699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
95981168|NCT01910116|191935700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
95981169|NCT01910116|191935701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
95981170|NCT01910116|191935703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95981171|NCT01910116|191935704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95981172|NCT01910116|191935705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95918446|NCT05462652|191796509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-3.68|<0.001
95918447|NCT05462652|191796510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Chi-squared|||"Missing values imputed with multiple imputation.~P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test."||31.0|9.1|<0.001
95918448|NCT05462652|191796511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions z-test|15.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.6|||Chi-squared|||P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||25.6|5.3|0.003
95918449|NCT05462652|191796512|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion z-test|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.4|||Chi-squared|||Missing values imputed with multiple imputation. P-values are obtained from a Pearson Chi-Squared test; differences and 95% CIs are obtained from a difference in proportions Z- test.||36.4|13.0|<0.001
95918450|NCT01744496|191796521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.34|-1.87|0.172
95918451|NCT01744496|191796523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.46|-15.56|0.038
95918452|NCT01744496|191796524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.73|-2.76|0.247
95918453|NCT01744496|191796525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||0.70|-1.85|0.371
95918454|NCT01744496|191796526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to the End of Treatment containing treatment and region as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.||||3.13|-8.76|0.346
95918455|NCT04267614|191796588|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918456|NCT04267614|191796589|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95730070|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.1259
95918457|NCT04267614|191796590|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918458|NCT04267614|191796591|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918459|NCT02593032|191796592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the calculated p-value, not a threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918460|NCT04844918|191796596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.5|-18.7|<0.001
95918461|NCT04844918|191796596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-23.6|<0.001
95918462|NCT04844918|191796597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|119.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|492.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||492.67|29.06|<0.001
95918463|NCT04844918|191796597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.03|654.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||654.53|36.03|<0.001
95918464|NCT04844918|191796598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.62|68.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.28|8.62|<0.001
95918465|NCT04844918|191796598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|110.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.89|13.21|<0.001
95981173|NCT01910116|191935706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95918466|NCT04844918|191796599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|-11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.09|-18.91|<0.001
95918467|NCT04844918|191796599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.05|-16.56|<0.001
95918468|NCT04844918|191796600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-41.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.77|-69.74|<0.001
95918469|NCT04844918|191796600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-51.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.43|-78.20|<0.001
95918470|NCT04844918|191796601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.7|-50.0|<0.001
95918471|NCT04844918|191796601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.9|-52.7|<0.001
95918472|NCT04844918|191796602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-35.7|||ANCOVA|||||-35.7|-53.0|<0.001
95918473|NCT04844918|191796602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-41.9|||ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.8|<0.001
95918474|NCT04844918|191796603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|89.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.14|7.25|<0.001
95918475|NCT04844918|191796603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.73|392.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||392.24|12.73|<0.001
95918476|NCT04844918|191796604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|30.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.20|2.86|<0.001
95918477|NCT04844918|191796604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|51.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.37|4.78|<0.001
95918478|NCT04844918|191796605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|80.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.88|9.35|<0.001
95918479|NCT04844918|191796605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|120.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||120.57|13.27|<0.001
95981174|NCT01910116|191935707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
95981175|NCT01910116|191935708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.174
95981176|NCT01910116|191935709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.124
95918480|NCT04844918|191796606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|185.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.39|745.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||745.16|46.39|<0.001
95918481|NCT04844918|191796606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|318.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.49|1357.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1357.79|74.49|<0.001
95918482|NCT04844918|191796607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.64|538.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||538.74|18.64|<0.001
95918483|NCT04844918|191796607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|286.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.68|1622.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1622.06|50.68|<0.001
95918484|NCT04844918|191796608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-16.8|<0.001
95918485|NCT04844918|191796608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.0|-21.6|<0.001
95918486|NCT04844918|191796609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-6.1|<0.001
95918487|NCT04844918|191796609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-8.0|<0.001
95918488|NCT04844918|191796610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-42.9|<0.001
95918489|NCT04844918|191796610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-47.8|<0.001
95918490|NCT04844918|191796611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.9|-32.6|<0.001
95918491|NCT04844918|191796611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-26.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.2|-36.7|<0.001
95918492|NCT04844918|191796612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.16|0.004
95918493|NCT04844918|191796612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.15|0.006
95730071|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0718||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.0718
95918494|NCT04844918|191796613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|188.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||188.55|4.31|<0.001
95918495|NCT04844918|191796613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|383.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||383.88|8.68|<0.001
95918496|NCT04844918|191796614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-13.8|<0.001
95918497|NCT04844918|191796614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.0|-17.7|<0.001
95918498|NCT04844918|191796615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
95918499|NCT04844918|191796615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-0.77|<0.001
95918500|NCT04844918|191796616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.74|
95918501|NCT04844918|191796616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.81||||||||-2.81|-6.29|
95918502|NCT04844918|191796617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-17.0|<0.001
95918503|NCT04844918|191796617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.7|<0.001
95918504|NCT04844918|191796618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-9.3|<0.001
95918505|NCT04844918|191796618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-9.7|<0.001
95918506|NCT04844918|191796619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.2|0.022
95918507|NCT04844918|191796619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|1.1|<0.001
95918508|NCT04844918|191796620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.7|7.4|<0.001
95918509|NCT04844918|191796620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|5.4|<0.001
95918510|NCT04844918|191796621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|0.00|0.099
95918511|NCT04844918|191796621|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.236
95918512|NCT00183456|191796622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.63|0.13|<0.01
95918513|NCT00183456|191796623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.89|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.89|1.22|0.05
95918514|NCT00183456|191796624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.84|0.16|0.05
95918515|NCT00183456|191796625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||5.64|1.41|0.01
95918516|NCT00183456|191796626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.68|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.68|0.09|0.01
95918517|NCT00183456|191796627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.87|0.25|0.05
95918518|NCT00183456|191796628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.77|0.21|0.01
95918519|NCT00183456|191796629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.79|0.14|0.05
95918520|NCT00183456|191796630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.64|0.14|0.01
95918521|NCT00183456|191796631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.65|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||4.65|1.25|0.01
95949899|NCT00307489|191871721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.544
95792932|NCT01687218|191555546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||0.63|0.19|0.0005
95918522|NCT02065570|191796666|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|0.3||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.8|-8.1|0.939
95918523|NCT02065570|191796667|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.7|-5.3|0.462
95918524|NCT02065570|191796669|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.6||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.8||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||12.8|-3.6|0.269
95918525|NCT02065570|191796670|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.7|-5.1|0.610
95918526|NCT02065570|191796671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||19.6|2.9|0.008
95918527|NCT02065570|191796672|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.0||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||18.2|-6.2|0.336
95918528|NCT02065570|191796673|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.5||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-6.1|0.694
95918529|NCT02065570|191796674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.8||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.3|205.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||205.9|-192.3|0.946
95918530|NCT02065570|191796675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.0||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-3.5|0.293
95918531|NCT02065570|191796676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||8.6|-2.7|0.304
95918532|NCT02065570|191796677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||9.1|-0.7|0.092
95918533|NCT02065570|191796678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||10.2|-2.9|0.278
95918534|NCT02065570|191796679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.5|-4.1|0.353
95918535|NCT02065570|191796680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.0||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||16.0|1.8|0.015
95918536|NCT02065570|191796681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.1||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|||11.1|-4.4|0.394
95918537|NCT02065570|191796682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.6||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.2||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||11.2|-4.0|0.349
95918538|NCT02065570|191796683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|15.3||Adjusted for previous infliximab use (or prior anti-TNF use for participants randomized under original protocol), hs-CRP at Baseline (\<10 mg/L, \>=10 mg/L) and Crohn's disease severity at Baseline (CDAI ≤ 300, CDAI \> 300).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose)|||15.3|-0.1|0.054
95918539|NCT02733042|191796699|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm B, ibrutinib 420 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for CLL/SLL participants and ibrutinib 560 mg was confirmed as the RP2D for MCL participants.|||
95918540|NCT02733042|191796699|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The safety review committee identified a preliminary recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for each dose finding cohort based on an integrated assessment of the safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and preliminary efficacy (as available).|For Arm C the RP2D was confirmed as rituximab 375 mg/m² + bendamustine 70 mg/m².|||
95918541|NCT05033080|191796726|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI).|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.7|< 0.0001
95918542|NCT05033080|191796727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-6.3|-10.5|< 0.0001
95918543|NCT05033080|191796728|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.15|1.55|< 0.0001
95918544|NCT05033080|191796729|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
95918545|NCT04159415|191796755|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||2.3|-1.9|
95918546|NCT04159415|191796756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|97.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) based on treatment group difference (R4461 Low dose vs. placebo) of the LS means using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model|||97.5|-21.3|
95918547|NCT04159415|191796757|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|56.9|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from ANCOVA model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||56.9|-56.9|
95918548|NCT04159415|191796758|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|103.2|||||Combined estimate for adjusted mean difference (SE) vs Placebo obtained by combining adjusted means and SE from robust regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets.|||103.2|-67.6|
95918549|NCT00337662|191796759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Between-group p-values for each baseline to post-baseline visit were the same, p\<0.001.|Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95918550|NCT00337662|191796760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 3 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.266
95918551|NCT00337662|191796760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 4 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.884
95918552|NCT00337662|191796760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 6 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.151
95918553|NCT00337662|191796760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 8 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.216
95918554|NCT00337662|191796760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Change from Week 2 to Week 12 p-value|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated-Measures|||||||0.020
95918555|NCT00337662|191796761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95918556|NCT00337662|191796762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.604
95918557|NCT00337662|191796763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95918558|NCT00337662|191796764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
95918559|NCT00337662|191796765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.474
95918560|NCT00337662|191796766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
95918561|NCT00337662|191796766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.125
95918562|NCT00337662|191796767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||All comparisons between EO-RIS and NEO-RIS and between NEO-RIS and NEO-OLZ had p-values greater than 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95918563|NCT00337662|191796768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.355
95918564|NCT00337662|191796768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0|||||ANOVA|p-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.244
95918565|NCT00337662|191796769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.998
95918566|NCT00337662|191796769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.505
95918567|NCT00337662|191796770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.266
95918568|NCT00337662|191796770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is from ANOVA with treatment and pooled investigator in the model.||||||0.015
95918569|NCT00337662|191796771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.140
95918570|NCT00337662|191796771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
95918571|NCT00337662|191796772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.254
95918572|NCT00337662|191796772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.||||||0.299
95918573|NCT00337662|191796773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.291
95918574|NCT00337662|191796773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.259
95918575|NCT00337662|191796774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.209
95918576|NCT00337662|191796774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.411
95918577|NCT00337662|191796775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.544
95918578|NCT00337662|191796775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.386
95918579|NCT00337662|191796776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
95981177|NCT01910116|191935710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
95730072|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB 209026\_x\_at||||0.3170
95918580|NCT00337662|191796776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||P-values (Change from Baseline) are based on Type III sums of squares from ANOVA model: change = group pooled investigator.|ANOVA|||||||0.143
95918581|NCT03662360|191796784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations in scores (T3 - T1) regarding the two interest groups of patients (control and treated).||||<0.001
95918582|NCT03662360|191796785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney test has been used to evaluate the statistical significance of the difference between the variations scores in T3 and T1, concerning the distress of the professional caregivers in the two intereste groups of patients||||<0.01
95918583|NCT01233609|191796799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-150.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 830|Right eye and Left Eye within each of the 2 treatment groups (Placebo and Valproic Acid) were combined to estimate the difference|||||0.035
95918584|NCT01233609|191796800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
95918585|NCT01233609|191796801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
95918586|NCT01233609|191796802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
95981178|NCT01910116|191935711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
95918587|NCT02049710|191796804|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||||||Summation scores are reported across 3 items measured on a 5-point scale from 1(not at all sure)to5(very sure), which loaded together on a principal components analysis of the baseline data.The summation score thus represents a theoretical range from 3 to 15.The 3 items were as follows:Indicate How Sure You are that You Would be Able to Perform Each of the Following:a)Get the money needed to buy condoms b)Walk into a store\&buy condoms c)Find a place to get condoms for free(Cronbach alpha-0.72)||15|3|
95918588|NCT03677128|191796849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95918589|NCT03677128|191796849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95918590|NCT00377741|191796914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for AUC(0-tau)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.55||||||||1.55|0.98|
95918591|NCT00377741|191796915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean exposure ratio for Cmax|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||||||||1.42|0.88|
95918592|NCT00883103|191796969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95918593|NCT02254421|191796979|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.57||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values and stratification factors.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.62|0.94
95918594|NCT02254421|191796980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with stratification factors as covariates.|Negative binomial|||||||0.84
95918595|NCT02254421|191796981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
95918596|NCT02254421|191796982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value was calculated from the CMH test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.19
95918597|NCT00179010|191797000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.854
95918598|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
95918599|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95918600|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||0.0002
95918601|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95918602|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95918603|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 1.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95918604|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95918605|NCT03748979|191797009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was obtained using MMRM analysis. The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group on Day 7.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95918606|NCT00906503|191797033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|31.1||||||||31.1|0.06|
95918607|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.0341|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0341
95918608|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day -3||||0.0636
95918609|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.0487|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.0487
95918610|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.3498|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 1||||0.3498
95918611|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.0096
95981179|NCT01910116|191935712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95918612|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.1374|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 8||||0.1374
95918613|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.0065
95918614|NCT02001974|191797045|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y Cmax at Day 21||||0.1470
95981180|NCT01910116|191935713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
95981181|NCT01910116|191935714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95918615|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0015
95918616|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day -3||||0.0176
95918617|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.0048
95918618|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 1||||0.2083
95918619|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.0111
95918620|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.1441|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 8||||0.1441
95918621|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.0283
95918622|NCT02001974|191797046|OTHER|||||||0.1331|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243 Cmax at Day 21||||0.1331
95918623|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0097
95918624|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day -3||||0.0354
95918625|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.0200
95918626|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.2134|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2134
95918627|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0235
95918628|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 8||||0.0964
95918629|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.0314|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0314
95918630|NCT02001974|191797047|OTHER|||||||0.0773|||||||ANOVA|||DF2188Y, Cmax, Day 21||||0.0773
95918631|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.1016|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.1016
95918632|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.2001|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day -3||||0.2001
95918633|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.0802|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.0802
95918634|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.4728|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.4728
95918635|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0355
95918636|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1709
95918637|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.0685|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.0685
95918638|NCT02001974|191797048|OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 21||||0.3189
95918639|NCT02001974|191797049|OTHER|||||||0.2375|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, Cmax, Day 1||||0.2375
95918640|NCT02001974|191797049|OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 1||||0.3608
95918641|NCT02001974|191797049|OTHER|||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.0442
95918642|NCT02001974|191797049|OTHER|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||Cmax, ibuprofen, Day 8||||0.1067
95918643|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0134
95918644|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.0799|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.0799
95918645|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.0241
95918646|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.01384|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.01384
95918647|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0091
95918648|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.5687|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.5687
95918649|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0058
95918650|NCT02001974|191797055|OTHER|||||||0.3667|||||||ANOVA|||DF1681Y, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.3667
95918651|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0029
95918652|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day -3||||0.0349
95918653|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.0119
95918654|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 1||||0.2100
95918655|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.0165|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.0165
95918656|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 8||||0.1496
95918657|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.0321
95918658|NCT02001974|191797056|OTHER|||||||0.1404|||||||ANOVA|||DF2243Y - AUC0-8 - Day 21||||0.1404
95918659|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0081
95918660|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day -3||||0.0640
95918661|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.0397|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.0397
95918662|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.1898|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 1||||0.1898
95918663|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.0250
95918664|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 8||||0.1605
95918665|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.0786|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.0786
95918666|NCT02001974|191797057|OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||ANOVA|||AUC0-8 for DF2188Y, Day 21||||0.2652
95918667|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.1335|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.1335
95918668|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.2658|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day -3||||0.2658
95918669|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.1063|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1063
95918670|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.4959|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.4959
95981182|NCT01910116|191935715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.186
95981183|NCT01910116|191935716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
95918671|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0452
95918672|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.2223
95918673|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 21||||0.0737
95918674|NCT02001974|191797058|OTHER|||||||0.2804|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day21||||0.2804
95918675|NCT02001974|191797059|OTHER|||||||0.1449|||||||ANOVA|||Paclitaxel, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1449
95918676|NCT02001974|191797059|OTHER|||||||0.1338|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 1||||0.1338
95918677|NCT02001974|191797059|OTHER|||||||0.0633|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.0633
95918678|NCT02001974|191797059|OTHER|||||||0.6939|||||||ANOVA|||Ibuprofen, AUC0-8, Day 8||||0.6939
95918679|NCT01284140|191797088|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|The null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was not rejected for the Usual Care group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Usual Care group.||||0.37
95918680|NCT01284140|191797088|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Extra sum-of-squares F test|This result suggests that the best-fit values for amplitude and phase are different between Day 1 and Day 3 in the Sleep Promotion group.||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. Model parameters of acrophase and amplitude and their standard errors were derived from these curves. Using the extra sum-of-squares F test, the null hypothesis that model parameters of amplitude and phase were the same on Day 1 and Day 3 was tested for the Sleep promotion group.||||0.0074
95918681|NCT01284140|191797089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95918682|NCT01284140|191797090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nonlinear regression using the least-squares approach was used to fit a single 24-hour cosine curve to all normalized data in each group on each day of 24-hour urine collection. This resulted in 4 separate best-fit curves. The model parameter of amplitude was derived from the best-fit curves.||||0.03
95918683|NCT03192215|191797118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.64|0.99
95918684|NCT03192215|191797119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.59|0.72
95918685|NCT03192215|191797120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.76|0.67
95918686|NCT03192215|191797121|SUPERIORITY||Difference of annual rate.|-0.011||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|-0.003|||Exact Binomial Test|||||-0.003|-0.018|.02
95918687|NCT03192215|191797122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||||3.52|0.29|0.98
95918688|NCT03192215|191797123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.63|0.35
95918689|NCT00119262|191797125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95918690|NCT00119262|191797126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
95918691|NCT03560245|191797195|EQUIVALENCE|"The change from baseline to Week 13 in the SIB total score was summarized descriptively and compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline SIB total score.~If the normality assumption was not met, a non-parametric method or a rank-ANCOVA analysis (i.e., an ANCOVA analysis on rank-transformed data) was to be used."||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3730
95918692|NCT00882921|191797207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.873||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|11.296|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ vs Ab-||11.296|0.731|0.1309
95918693|NCT00882921|191797207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.082||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|7.706|||Negative Binomial Model|||The groups compared are Ab+ (age adjusted) vs Ab- (age adjusted)||7.706|0.563|0.2718
95918694|NCT02555371|191797274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.86|0.45|0.004
95918695|NCT02555371|191797275|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 12 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
95918696|NCT02555371|191797275|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 24 has been presented.|||0.20|0.12|<0.001
95918697|NCT02555371|191797275|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 36 has been presented.|||0.24|0.15|<0.001
95981184|NCT01910116|191935717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
95981185|NCT01910116|191935718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.604
95981186|NCT01910116|191935719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
95981187|NCT01910116|191935720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
95918698|NCT02555371|191797275|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using ratio of mepolizumab to placebo and its 95% confidence interval at Week 52 has been presented.|||0.20|0.13|<0.001
95918699|NCT02555371|191797276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.88|0.49|0.005
95918700|NCT02555371|191797277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Treatment comparison between mepolizumab 100 mg SC and placebo using hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||3.51|0.50|0.570
95918701|NCT02609659|191797292|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the 3-DAA + RBV 600 mg treatment group as compared with the historical rate for 3-DAA + weight-based RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 92% to achieve noninferiority.|percentage of participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.4||||||||95.4|83.7|
95918702|NCT02819479|191797360|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 8.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF RADIATION NECROSIS: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.012
95918703|NCT02819479|191797360|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,14) = 3.29||CHANGE IN VOLUME OF CEREBRAL EDEMA: To explore durability of radiographic responses, we invoked a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.09
95918704|NCT02819479|191797361|OTHER||eta^2|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 2.74||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) TOTAL SCORES were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance)||||0.02
95918705|NCT02819479|191797362|OTHER||eta^2|0.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,34) = 3.17||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) DAYS OF HEADACHE were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.019
95918706|NCT02819479|191797363|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5,35) = 3.96||To explore durability of clinical response, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) MIDAS PAIN LEVEL data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.0006
95918707|NCT02819479|191797364|OTHER||eta^2|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(5, 35) = 2.98||To explore durability of clinical response, Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) scores were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.02
95981188|NCT01910116|191935721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.485
95918708|NCT02819479|191797365|OTHER||eta^2|0.19||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,14) = 1.62||To explore durability of clinical response, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (KPS) data were analyzed using a linear mixed model in which we addressed heterogeneity of time points by fitting the most appropriate model among compound symmetry, Huyhn-Felt structure, and an unstructured covariance matrix (multivariate analysis of variance).||||0.23
95918709|NCT02819479|191797366|OTHER||Pearson's r|-0.199||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Z = -0.889||Wilcoxon signed rank test (2-sided) was used to compare the total number of days on steroids in the 12 months prior versus the 12 months immediately following single dose IA Avastin (bevacizumab).||||0.374
95918710|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.153||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.451||DIGITS FORWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS FORWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.660
95918711|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.602||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 3.78||DIGITS BACKWARD: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DIGITS BACKWARD variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.100
95918712|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.532||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 2.847||NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS SPEED variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.149
95918713|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.721||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 6.470||NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS ERRORS variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.041
95981189|NCT01910116|191935722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95981190|NCT01910116|191935723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
95918714|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.566||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F (2,5) = 3.256||NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NUMBERS \& LETTERS EFFICIENCY variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.124
95918715|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.042||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.110||NAMING: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the NAMING variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.898
95918716|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.107||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.299||LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.754
95918717|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.751||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 7.556||LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the LIST LEARNING LIST LONG DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.031
95918718|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.289||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.018||SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.426
95918719|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.361||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 1.412||SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the SHAPE LEARNING DELAYED RECOGNITION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.326
95918720|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.247||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT IMMEDIATE RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.790
95918721|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.239||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.786||STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the STORY LEARNING PHRASE UNIT DELAYED RECALL variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.505
95981191|NCT01910116|191935724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
95981192|NCT01910116|191935725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
95918722|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.636||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 4.362||DESIGN CONSTRUCTION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the DESIGN CONSTRUCTION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.080
95918723|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.693||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 5.654||MAZES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the MAZES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.052
95918724|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.013||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.033||CATEGORIES: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the CATEGORIES variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.968
95918725|NCT02819479|191797367|OTHER||partial eta^2|0.261||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|One way Repeat Meas ANOVA|F(2,5) = 0.884||WORD GENERATION: To explore post-operative change in Neurocognitive performance after intra-arterial bevacizumab, repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the WORD GENERATION variable across 3 time points (BL, 3 months, 12 months) where IQ was placed in the model as covariate.||||0.469
95918726|NCT02802020|191797379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"We hypothesized that pain reduction (as defined in Study endpoints above) would be achieved in a performance goal of at least 53% of patients receiving the study SEMS. Assuming an observed pain reduction rate of 75% and using an exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, 43 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%."||||0.999
95918727|NCT02802020|191797380|SUPERIORITY|we hypothesized that the proportion of patients reporting one or more related SAE(s) would be below a performance goal of 32%. Assuming an observed SAE rate of 15% and using an exact test with one-sided alpha of 0.025, 57 patients were required to obtain power of at least 80%.||||||0.513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.513
95918728|NCT00506285|191797386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,47)=26.7, p=.001||||||.001
95918729|NCT00506285|191797387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|mixed models analysis||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||F(1,47)=24.8, p=.001|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95918730|NCT02451930|191797452|OTHER|||||||0.4491|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4491
95981193|NCT01910116|191935726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
95981194|NCT01910116|191935727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.060
95918731|NCT05454449|191797471|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95918732|NCT05454449|191797472|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95918733|NCT05454449|191797473|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
95918734|NCT05454449|191797474|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95918735|NCT05454449|191797475|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95918736|NCT05454449|191797476|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95918737|NCT05454449|191797477|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95918738|NCT03249376|191797523|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.83|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.83|-6.34|<0.0001
95918739|NCT03249376|191797524|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.51|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.51|-1.37|<0.0001
95918740|NCT03249376|191797525|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.69|||ANCOVA|||||7.69|1.42|0.005
95918741|NCT03268590|191797526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918742|NCT03268590|191797527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918743|NCT03268590|191797528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95918744|NCT01154036|191797532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.7||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-8.7|-16.6|<0.001
95918745|NCT01154036|191797532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimate|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.4||The primary hypotheses were tested at 0.045, applying Hochberg's procedure.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.4|-12.9|<0.001
95918746|NCT01154036|191797533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-5.1||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.1|-15.9|<0.001
95918747|NCT01154036|191797533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.5||The secondary hypotheses were tested at an adaptive alpha level depending on the hypotheses testing result of the primary hypotheses.|Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-5.5|-13.6|<0.001
95918748|NCT01154036|191797534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.89|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.89|1.62|<0.001
95918749|NCT01154036|191797534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||2.67|1.17|0.007
95918750|NCT01154036|191797535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.73|||Logistic regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||4.73|1.55|<0.001
95918751|NCT01154036|191797535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.63|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||3.63|1.56|<0.001
95918752|NCT01154036|191797536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|19.62|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||19.62|4.56|<0.001
95918753|NCT01154036|191797536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.82|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||6.82|2.23|<0.001
95918754|NCT01154036|191797537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|211.83|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||211.83|3.64|0.001
95918755|NCT01154036|191797537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|17.56|||Logistic Regression Model|Logistic regression model included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C (where baseline LDL-C was fitted as 3 categories based on tertiles)||||17.56|2.85|<0.001
95918756|NCT01154036|191797538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.4|-9.7|<0.001
95918757|NCT01154036|191797538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-8.3|<0.001
95918758|NCT01154036|191797539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.0|-10.7|<0.001
95918759|NCT01154036|191797539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-10.2|<0.001
95949900|NCT00307489|191871722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.208
95918760|NCT01154036|191797540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-2.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||3.5|-7.8|0.466
95918761|NCT01154036|191797540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-4.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||0.5|-10.3|0.081
95918762|NCT01154036|191797541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-2.8||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.7|-10.2|0.466
95918763|NCT01154036|191797541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squarres Means|-7.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||-1.6|-12.6|0.011
95918764|NCT01154036|191797542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M--estimates|1.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||4.0|-0.5|0.133
95918765|NCT01154036|191797542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.6|-2.7|0.610
95918766|NCT01154036|191797543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||2.1|-4.2|0.520
95918767|NCT01154036|191797543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.7||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.7|-3.1|0.567
95918768|NCT01154036|191797544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.8|-8.8|0.003
95918769|NCT01154036|191797544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.0|-7.7|0.011
95918770|NCT01154036|191797545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.3||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.5|-9.2|0.079
95918771|NCT01154036|191797545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.1|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.1|-11.4|<0.001
95918772|NCT01154036|191797546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|1.6||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.8|-0.6|0.156
95918773|NCT01154036|191797546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-0.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.2|-2.9|0.425
95918774|NCT01154036|191797547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|0.5||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||3.6|-2.5|0.739
95918775|NCT01154036|191797547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||1.3|-3.3|0.410
95918776|NCT01154036|191797548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.6|-13.6|<0.001
95918777|NCT01154036|191797548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-4.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.3|-10.9|<0.001
95918778|NCT01154036|191797549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.5|-14.0|<0.001
95918779|NCT01154036|191797549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.2|-13.5|0.001
95918780|NCT01154036|191797550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
95918781|NCT01154036|191797550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-4.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-1.9|-7.8|0.001
95918782|NCT01154036|191797551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.8|-11.0|<0.001
95918783|NCT01154036|191797551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
95918784|NCT01154036|191797552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-9.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-9.3|-18.1|<0.001
95918785|NCT01154036|191797552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.6|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.6|-11.9|<0.001
95918786|NCT01154036|191797553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.9|-15.8|<0.001
95792933|NCT01687218|191555546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.81|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||Oral regimen is the reference group.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models with a binomial (logit) link, an exchangeable correlation structure and robust errors and with treatment regimen and period as independent variables was used to compare the three treatment regimens for the acceptability endpoints. Because the distribution of the adherence percentages were skewed, we did not use a linear mixed effects model as originally planned. Instead, we dichotomized the adherence percentage into\<80% adherence versus\>80% adherence.||1.81|0.43|0.74
95918787|NCT01154036|191797553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.5|<0.001
95918788|NCT01154036|191797554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.5|-10.0|<0.001
95918789|NCT01154036|191797554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-3.5||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.0|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||0.0|-7.1|0.052
95918790|NCT01154036|191797555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-5.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.8|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-0.8|-10.8|0.024
95918791|NCT01154036|191797555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.3|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.3|-9.9|0.002
95918792|NCT01154036|191797556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-6.4|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-6.4|-14.9|<0.001
95918793|NCT01154036|191797556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-2.2|-10.2|0.002
95918794|NCT01154036|191797557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.9|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-3.9|-14.8|<0.001
95918795|NCT01154036|191797557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in M-estimates|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.2|||Multiple Imputation Robust Regression|M-Estimates, 95% CI, and p-value obtained from a robust regression model with terms for treatment and baseline values, after imputing missing values||||-4.2|-12.6|<0.001
95918796|NCT01154036|191797558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-3.9||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||11.1|-18.9|0.613
95918797|NCT01154036|191797558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-1.5||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||12.6|-15.7|0.831
95918798|NCT01154036|191797559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||6.4|-32.6|0.187
95918799|NCT01154036|191797559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|4.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Geometric mean percent changes from baseline were calculated based on back-transformation via exponentiation of the model-based least square means||||4.4|-27.7|0.153
95949901|NCT00307489|191871723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.712
95918800|NCT03954158|191797578|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.7|0.0071
95918801|NCT03954158|191797578|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-3.3|0.0029
95918802|NCT03954158|191797578|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|0.0250
95918803|NCT03954158|191797578|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean of difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-3.3|0.0014
95918804|NCT03954158|191797579|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-2.0|
95918805|NCT03954158|191797579|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||||||Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-2.1|
95918806|NCT03954158|191797580|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-3.1|
95918807|NCT03954158|191797580|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.7|
95918808|NCT03954158|191797580|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.2|
95918809|NCT03954158|191797580|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.8|
95918810|NCT03954158|191797580|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-1.5|
95918811|NCT03954158|191797580|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.2|
95918812|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-0.9|
95918813|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.9|
95918814|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-0.8|
95918815|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-0.8|
95918816|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.4|
95918817|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.3|
95918818|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-1.4|
95918819|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
95918820|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.2|
95918821|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-1.4|
95949902|NCT00307489|191871724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.988
95918822|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-0.5|
95918823|NCT03954158|191797581|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, visit, dosing regimen-by-visit interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
95918824|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-1.0|
95918825|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.7|
95918826|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.7|-0.5|
95918827|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
95918828|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-0.9|
95918829|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.9|
95918830|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.1|
95918831|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
95918832|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.4|-0.6|
95918833|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.9|
95918834|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.5|
95918835|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.1|
95918836|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.1|
95918837|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.1|
95918838|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-0.6|
95918839|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
95918840|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
95918841|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.3|-0.6|
95918842|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.0|
95918843|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.3|
95918844|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.6|
95918845|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.4|
95730073|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7844||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.7844
95730074|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4688||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.4688
95730075|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8553||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB1 208601\_s\_at||||0.8553
95730076|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6926||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.6926
95730077|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2222||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.2222
95918846|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
95918847|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.6|-0.7|
95918848|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.9|-2.3|
95730078|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4676||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A 204141\_at||||0.4676
95730079|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.2036
95730080|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4197||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.4197
95918849|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
95918850|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
95918851|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.7|
95918852|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: MMRM included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.3|
95730081|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2A /// TUBB2B 209372\_x\_at||||0.0776
95730082|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4076||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.4076
95730083|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.0629
95792934|NCT02084511|191555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|131.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||131.1|-76.3|
95730084|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2B 214023\_x\_at||||0.2547
95918853|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.7|
95949903|NCT00307489|191871725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
95730085|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.7125
95730086|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6001||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.6001
95730087|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5398||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 208977\_x\_at||||0.5398
95730088|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.3970
95730089|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5085||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.5085
95730090|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB2C 213726\_x\_at||||0.1213
95730091|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.0999
95918854|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.0|
95918855|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
95918856|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.9|
95918857|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-1.8|
95918858|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.0|
95918859|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.3|
95918860|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-1.9|
95730092|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1201||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1201
95730093|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB4 212664\_at||||0.1172
95730094|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6596||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.6596
95730095|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3289||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3289
95792935|NCT02084511|191555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|157.1|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||157.1|-50.2|
95730096|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3657||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TUBB6 209191\_at||||0.3657
95730097|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0275
95918861|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-1.8|
95949904|NCT00307489|191871726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.109
95792936|NCT02084511|191555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.3|-70.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-70.9|-278.3|
95792937|NCT02084511|191555558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.4|-44.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-44.7|-252.4|
95730098|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3946||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.3946
95918862|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.5|
95792938|NCT02084511|191555559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.7|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.7|-2.3|
95792939|NCT02084511|191555559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||5.0|-3.0|
95792940|NCT02084511|191555559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-2.2|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.2|-10.3|
95792941|NCT02084511|191555559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||-2.9|-11.0|
95792942|NCT02084511|191555560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|27.8|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||27.8|-16.0|
95918863|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of day, and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.8|-2.2|
95792943|NCT02084511|191555560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|42.5|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||42.5|-1.3|
95792944|NCT02084511|191555560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.6|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||8.6|-35.2|
95792945|NCT02084511|191555560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|23.3|||||Mean difference (final values) is actually the Least square mean|ANCOVA model was used with 'treatment' as fixed effect, 'patient baseline pain intensity (BPI)' as continuous covariate and the residual error term.||23.3|-20.6|
95792946|NCT02084511|191555561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.2503
95792947|NCT02084511|191555561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.1851
95949905|NCT00307489|191871727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for baseline HBeAg and prior lamivudine use.||||||0.952
95949906|NCT00307489|191871728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.655
95949907|NCT00307489|191871729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
95949908|NCT00307489|191871730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
95949909|NCT00307489|191871731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.103
95949910|NCT00307489|191871732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|van Elteren|||||||0.999
95949911|NCT00307489|191871733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.781
95949912|NCT00307489|191871734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.936
95949913|NCT00307489|191871735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.784
95949914|NCT00307489|191871736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.703
95949915|NCT00307489|191871737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
95949916|NCT00307489|191871738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Controlling for baseline HBeAg status and prior lamivudine use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.254
95949917|NCT00307489|191871739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.878
95949918|NCT03137784|191871766|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
95792948|NCT02084511|191555561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0167
95792949|NCT02084511|191555562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.4150
95792950|NCT02084511|191555562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.3093
95792951|NCT02084511|191555562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Log rank test used to evaluate the difference between each active treatment and placebo.||||0.0074
95730099|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 202589\_at||||0.0074
95730100|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2341||95.0||||P Value 1 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment: ER) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2341
95730101|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0933||95.0||||P Value 2 is from the likelihood ratio test between the full model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker: Treatment) and the reduced model: (PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker + Treatment)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.0933
95792952|NCT00461734|191555564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4347|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.4347
95792953|NCT00461734|191555565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||two-sided z-test|||||||0.338
95918864|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effect of visit, and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.5|
95792954|NCT00461734|191555566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2257
95792955|NCT00461734|191555567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5480
95792956|NCT00461734|191555568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8868
95918865|NCT03954158|191797582|OTHER||Difference of least square mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen, day, dosing regimen-by-day interaction, and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.4|
95981195|NCT02289352|191935728|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test product to the Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|5.33||||||||5.33|-6.49|
95981196|NCT02289352|191935728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95792957|NCT00461734|191555569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6151
95792958|NCT00461734|191555573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0525
95792959|NCT00461734|191555574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1852
95792960|NCT00461734|191555576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9719
95792961|NCT00461734|191555577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8779
95792962|NCT02008526|191555650|SUPERIORITY||F|1.16||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.3137
95792963|NCT02008526|191555651|SUPERIORITY||F|0.16||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 Degrees of Freedom||||||0.8494
95792964|NCT02669849|191555677|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.69|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||3.69|-5.08|0.7519
95792965|NCT04745351|191555695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test, stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.321|0.504|0.6132
95792966|NCT04745351|191555696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.388||P-value was calculated from stratified log-rank test stratified by the baseline stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.388|0.497|0.3881
95792967|NCT04745351|191555697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.207||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cox model with death as the competing risk and baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||2.207|0.493|0.9116
95792968|NCT04745351|191555700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8541||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.8541
95792969|NCT04745351|191555701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974||||||P-value was analysed from proportional odds model including treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||||0.4974
95792970|NCT04745351|191555702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283||||||P-value was calculated based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4283
95792971|NCT04745351|191555703|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.89||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.091||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.091|0.731|0.2773
95792972|NCT04745351|191555704|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.97||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.155||The treatment effect p-value was calculated using CMH analysis including baseline stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.819|0.7538
95792973|NCT03499795|191555707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8633|||||||Clopper-Pearson|P-value was calculated based on the exact method of Clopper-Pearson and superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value is \<0.05.||||||0.8633
95792974|NCT00879190|191555722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95792975|NCT00879190|191555723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95792976|NCT00879190|191555724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
95792977|NCT00723229|191555731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||Regression, poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||The trial had 80% power to detect a 35% reduction in genital shedding rates for acyclovir 400 mg twice daily.||0.25|0.17|<0.001
95792978|NCT00723229|191555731|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seronegative individuals.||0.08|0.03|<0.001
95981197|NCT02289352|191935728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95730102|NCT00455533|191430267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||P Value 3 is the contrast of the interaction between treatment and biomarker expression within ER Negative subjects from the full model:(PCR/RCB1 \~ Biomarker : Treatment : ER)|Regression, Logistic|p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison||TYMS 217684\_at||||0.2016
95730103|NCT00455533|191430268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.017|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.017|-0.27|
95730104|NCT00455533|191430268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.197|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker STatus||0.197|-0.064|
95730105|NCT00455533|191430268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|0.046|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.046|-0.152|
95730106|NCT00455533|191430268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.37|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.37|-0.13|
95918866|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-1.0|
95918867|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
95918868|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-0.5|
95918869|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.6|
95918870|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
95730107|NCT00455533|191430269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.258|0.22|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto/Negative Biomarker Status||0.22|-0.258|
95730108|NCT00455533|191430269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference (bootstrap method)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.137|0.155|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.155|-0.137|
95730109|NCT00455533|191430269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.053|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.053|-0.167|
95730110|NCT00455533|191430269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.227|0.309|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.309|-0.227|
95730111|NCT00455533|191430270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.482|-0.094|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||-0.094|-0.482|
95730112|NCT00455533|191430270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (boostrap method)|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.073|0.291|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.291|-0.073|
95730113|NCT00455533|191430270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootstrap method)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.236|0.067|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Membrane Threshold/Negative Biomarker Status||0.067|-0.236|
95730114|NCT00455533|191430270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (bootsrap method)|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.218|0.469|||||ixabepilone - paclitaxel|Mem+Cyto Threshold/Positive Biomarker Status||0.469|-0.218|
95918871|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
95730115|NCT00095199|191430285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.21|0.87|0.756
95730116|NCT00095199|191430285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median PFS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favours Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.13|0.73|0.391
95918872|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.1|
95918873|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.8|-0.8|
95918874|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.9|
95949919|NCT03137784|191871766|OTHER||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.132|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.132|0.047|<0.001
95730117|NCT00095199|191430286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.20|0.86|0.864
95764032|NCT04386616|191498048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.96|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.96|0.77|0.3963
95918875|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.2|
95918876|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
95918877|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.8|
95918878|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
95918879|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-0.9|
95918880|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
95918881|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.9|-1.0|
95918882|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.7|-1.0|
95918883|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.2|
95792979|NCT00723229|191555731|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for period effects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||Regression, Poisson|||Among HIV seropositive individuals.||0.6|0.4|<0.001
95918884|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.3|
95993525|NCT00348140|191963290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.3|-0.2|0.596
95918885|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.4|
95918886|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-0.5|
95918887|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.2|
95918888|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.4|-1.2|
95918889|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.2|
95918890|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.3|
95918891|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.6|-1.0|
95918892|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.8|
95981198|NCT02289352|191935729|EQUIVALENCE|"The secondary efficacy variable is the proportion of patients with a clinical response of treatment success on Day 1.~If the 90% confidence interval for the absolute difference between the proportion of patients considered a treatment success (at least a 2-grade improvement on both the CEA and PSA over 6 hours+/-10 minutes) in the Test and Reference groups is contained within the range \[-20%, 20%\], then bioequivalence of the Test to Reference product is considered to have been demonstrated."|Mean Difference (Net)|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|15.41||||||||15.41|-1.54|
95981199|NCT02289352|191935729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95981200|NCT02289352|191935729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0045
95981201|NCT03606980|191935730|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant. A 95% confidence interval was computed using logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.11||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|9.005|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||9.005|1.073|0.0366
95981202|NCT03606980|191935730|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.215|14.273|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||14.273|1.215|0.0232
95981203|NCT03606980|191935730|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|4.615|||Cox proportional hazards analysis|||||4.615|0.389|0.64
95981204|NCT03606980|191935731|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
95918893|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.6|
95918894|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.4|
95918895|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
95981205|NCT03606980|191935732|EQUIVALENCE|p\<00.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95981206|NCT03606980|191935733|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
95981207|NCT03606980|191935734|EQUIVALENCE|All statistical tests were performed using the SAS Studio. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.57
95764033|NCT04386616|191498048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.58|0.60|0.9174
95981208|NCT01849497|191935735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-16.3|
95981209|NCT01849497|191935736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|2.99||||||||2.99|-10.38|
95764034|NCT04386616|191498049|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.49|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.49|-4.51|
95918896|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-1.9|
95918897|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
95918898|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.0|
95918899|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.5|
95981210|NCT00307333|191935741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95981211|NCT00307333|191935742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95981212|NCT00307333|191935743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95981213|NCT00307333|191935744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||||HR = hazard for intervention / hazard for control|||0.99|0.61|
95981214|NCT00228566|191935764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Responders = 201/241|83.4||||||95.0|78.7|88.1|||Descriptive Statistics||The Overall Endpoint includes the last postbaseline value for each patient in the full analysis set, regardless of evaluation period. The Number of Responders (at least minimal improvement) at this Overall Endpoint equaled a total of 201 patients.|This was an open label study, with all patients receiving treatment with armodafinil||88.1|78.7|
95981215|NCT02229539|191935777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.02
95981216|NCT02229539|191935777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.004
95981217|NCT02022085|191935917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 6 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
95981218|NCT02022085|191935917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 12 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
95981219|NCT02022085|191935917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 24 months with Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
95981220|NCT02022085|191935918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 24 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
95981221|NCT02022085|191935919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 12 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
95764035|NCT04386616|191498049|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.31|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||9.31|-4.58|
95918900|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.2|-1.5|
95918901|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-1.1|
95918902|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.4|-1.4|
95918903|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.1|
95918904|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
95918905|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
95918906|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures includes the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure AR1 is used.||0.5|-1.2|
95918907|NCT03954158|191797583|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.0|
95918908|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-0.9|
95918909|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Change at Day 2, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-0.6|
95792980|NCT02900352|191555740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
95918910|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||Change at Day 2, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-0.8|
95918911|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-0.9|
95918912|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||||||Change at Day 3, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.0|-1.5|
95918913|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||||||Change at Day 3, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.6|
95918914|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.1|
95918915|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||||||Change at Day 4, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.1|-1.5|
95918916|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||||||Change at Day 4, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-2.4|
95918917|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-2.2|
95918918|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||Change at Day 5, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.5|-1.3|
95918919|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||||||Change at Day 5, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||1.2|-1.7|
95918920|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
95918921|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5||||||Change at Day 6, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-1.4|
95949920|NCT03137784|191871767|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.203|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.203|0.127|<0.001
95918922|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Change at Day 6, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.8|-1.7|
95918923|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.0|
95918924|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||||||Change at Day 7, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.1|
95918925|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||Change at Day 7, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.6|-1.9|
95918926|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.0|
95981222|NCT02022085|191935920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All comparisons to the Unaided situation were p=\<0.0001.|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Baha Attract after 6 months vs Unaided situation Pre-Op||||<0.0001
95981223|NCT02022085|191935921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 6 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
95918927|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||||||Change at Day 8, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.4|
95918928|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||||||Change at Day 8, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.7|-1.9|
95918929|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.3|
95918930|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||||||Change at Day 9, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-1.9|
95918931|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||||||Change at Day 9, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.2|-2.4|
95918932|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
95918933|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7||||||Change at Day 10, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.5|
95918934|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||||||Change at Day 10, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.2|-2.6|
95918935|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
95918936|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1||||||Change at Day 11, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.2|
95918937|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5||||||Change at Day 11, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.5|-2.2|
95918938|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.0|-2.9|
95918939|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||||||Change at Day 12, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.7|-2.4|
95918940|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||||||Change at Day 12, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.9|
95918941|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.3|-2.5|
95918942|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Change at Day 13, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.4|
95981224|NCT02022085|191935921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 12 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
95981225|NCT02022085|191935921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in Noise, 24 months Baha Attract vs Unaided||||<0.0001
95918943|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5||||||Change at Day 13, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.5|-3.0|
95918944|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.6|-2.5|
95918945|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.4||||||Change at Day 14, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.4|-2.8|
95918946|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||||||Change at Day 14, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||0.1|-2.5|
95918947|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.4|
95918948|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Least squares mean of difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3||||||Change at Day 15, Intra-participant: Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures included the fixed effect of day and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.3|-2.2|
95918949|NCT03954158|191797584|OTHER||Difference of least squares mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1||||||Change at Day 15, Inter-participant: Mixed effect model for repeated measures included the fixed effects of dosing regimen day dosing regimen-by-day interaction and baseline value and the covariance structure UN was used.||-0.1|-2.8|
95918950|NCT02694640|191797604|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered to detect significant between-group differences in mean min/week MVPA at follow-up.|effect size|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made|Regression, Linear||Effect size refers to between-group difference at follow-up.|A series of longitudinal mixed effects models with subject-specific intercepts were used to examine between-group differences in mean min/week of self reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||<.05
95918951|NCT02694640|191797605|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
95918952|NCT04076020|191797609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Results presented from Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with PDC as the dependent variable.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) at 12 months. A sample size of 119 in each study arm enabled us to detect a minimum difference in PDC of 11.7% with 85% power (assuming a standard deviation=30%). Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.99
95981226|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
95764036|NCT04386616|191498049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.74|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.74|0.57|0.4336
95764037|NCT04386616|191498049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.68|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.68|0.56|0.4543
95918953|NCT04076020|191797609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of days covered (PDC) analyzed as a binary variable with optimal adherence determined as ≥0.80) variables using logistic regression and adjustment for trial stratification factors. Our power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||<0.05
95918954|NCT04076020|191797610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Difference in self-reported adherence reported across baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-month visits using generalized estimating equations and adjusted for trial stratification factors.||||<0.05
95918955|NCT03537261|191797621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.1|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||13.1|-1.4|0.11
95918956|NCT03537261|191797622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||3.0|-7.4|0.40
95918957|NCT03537261|191797623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression controlling for score at screening visit|(P-CPI training change) - (waitlist change)|||4.2|-2.9|0.72
95918958|NCT01183650|191797726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.32|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.32|0.84|
95792981|NCT02900352|191555741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
95792982|NCT02900352|191555742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||.054
95918959|NCT01183650|191797726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.0|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.00|0.64|
95918960|NCT01183650|191797726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.64|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.64|1.05|
95918961|NCT01183650|191797726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.24|0.79|
95918962|NCT01183650|191797727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18|||||Day 1 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means(Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.18|0.81|
95918963|NCT01183650|191797727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.97|||||Day 10 Tadalafil Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||0.97|0.67|
95918964|NCT01183650|191797727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.67|||||Day 1 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.67|1.07|
95918965|NCT01183650|191797727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29|||||Day 10 Metabolite IC710 Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (Japanese/Caucasian)|||1.29|0.83|
95918966|NCT01183650|191797728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese Participants||||||
95981227|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
95981228|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
95981229|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
95730118|NCT00095199|191430286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method estimated median OS time. HR was calculated with unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.41|0.90|0.307
95918967|NCT01183650|191797728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tadalafil Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian Participants||||||
95918968|NCT01183650|191797728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.83||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Japanese participants||||||
95918969|NCT01183650|191797728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.02||||||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Metabolite IC710 Median Difference (Day 1 - Day 10) in Caucasian participants||||||
95918970|NCT01380990|191797729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918971|NCT01380990|191797729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918972|NCT01380990|191797729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918973|NCT01380990|191797729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95918974|NCT01380990|191797729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95918975|NCT01380990|191797729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95918976|NCT01380990|191797730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918977|NCT01380990|191797730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918978|NCT01380990|191797730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918979|NCT01380990|191797730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95918980|NCT01380990|191797730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95918981|NCT01380990|191797730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95981230|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
95981231|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
95981232|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 50dB||||<0.0001
95981233|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 65dB||||<0.0001
95918982|NCT01380990|191797735|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study subjects group."||||= 0.002
95918983|NCT01380990|191797735|OTHER|Model includes fixed effects for visit and Baseline, subject as random effect, with compound symmetry covariance structure. Observations with a value of 0 were imputed as 0.01. Model analyses log transformed data, so the adjusted mean refers to the geometric mean ratio between Month 12 and Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MMRM Analysis of Change from Baseline to Month 12 in Log-Transformed CD3+ T Cell count (OTL-101\*) for OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects group."||||< 0.001
95918984|NCT01380990|191797740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||||
95918985|NCT01380990|191797740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||48.25|-22.41|
95918986|NCT01380990|191797740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|34.23||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||34.23|-28.10|
95918987|NCT01380990|191797740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||||
95918988|NCT01380990|191797740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.01|48.25||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||48.25|-10.01|
95918989|NCT01380990|191797740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|33.87||||||Percentage of patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with OS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||33.87|-12.91|
95918990|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.645
95918991|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.299
95918992|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.2
95918993|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.028
95918994|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.259|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.259
95918995|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.044
95918996|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|61.97||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||61.97|-32.05|
95918997|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|65.87||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||65.87|-10.72|
95918998|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|54.59||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study subjects.||54.59|-15.24|
95918999|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.54||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||63.54|-13.70|
95919000|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|68.45||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||68.45|2.29|
95919001|NCT01380990|191797741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|28.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|56.36||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all historical controls) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 3-years post-treatment with OTL-101\* (on-study and CUP). Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101\* on-study and CUP subjects.||56.36|2.04|
95919002|NCT01009047|191797743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.76||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.76|-3.46|0.935
95919003|NCT01009047|191797744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|4.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||4.00|-4.68|0.877
95919004|NCT01009047|191797745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.59||Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.55|0.341
95919005|NCT01009047|191797745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.53||Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.06|0.723
95919006|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||||||Change at Day 56: Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.351
95919007|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||||||Change at Day 182:Positive Symptoms - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
95919008|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.965||||||Change at Day 56: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.965
95919009|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||||||Change at Day 182: Disorganized thoughts - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.766
95919010|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||||||Change at Day 56: Uncontrolled hostility/ excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.984
95919011|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||||||Change at Day 182: Uncontrolled Hositility/ Excitement - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.985
95919012|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||Change at Day 56: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
95981234|NCT02022085|191935922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in quiet at 80dB||||<0.0001
95981235|NCT02022085|191935923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.38
95981236|NCT02022085|191935923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.84
95919013|NCT01009047|191797746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||||||Change at Day 182: Anxiety/ depression - ANCOVA model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.745
95919014|NCT01009047|191797748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||||||Generalized Cochran- Mantel- Haenszel test for row mean score differences controlling for country was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.296
95919015|NCT01009047|191797749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Change at Day 56: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
95919016|NCT01009047|191797749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||||||Change at Day 182: ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value (unranked) as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||||0.914
95919017|NCT01009047|191797750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.67||Change at Day 56: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups(paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||2.67|-2.34|0.895
95919018|NCT01009047|191797750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.89||Change at Day 182: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (paliperidone ER, aripiprazole) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|-2.64|0.705
95919019|NCT01009047|191797751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||Day 56: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.119
95919020|NCT01009047|191797751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||||||Day 182: Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean score differences was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.444
95919021|NCT02731313|191797752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90||||||0.7436|||||||Kappa-test p-value, 2 sided|||Rationale for the determination of the number of samples:The following hypotheses were considered: two-sided risk alpha = 5%, power (1 - beta) = 90%, a success rate (rate of positive HER-2 status) = 17%, null hypothesis (H0): kappa coefficient = 0.90. 359 samples would allow determining a first estimate of the 0.90 coefficient of correlation kappa. The total number of samples, which had to be included in this study was 395, considering a 10% rate of non-evaluable samples.||||0.7436
95919022|NCT04147260|191797799|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.20|-0.03|
95919023|NCT04147260|191797799|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.16|-0.07|
95981237|NCT02022085|191935923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband: change in PTA4||||0.89
95919024|NCT04147260|191797799|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.14|0.572
95919025|NCT04147260|191797799|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.07|0.315
95919026|NCT04147260|191797799|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.05|-0.18|0.286
95919027|NCT04147260|191797799|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.31|0.00|0.057
95919028|NCT04147260|191797800|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.49|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.49|-0.02|
95919029|NCT04147260|191797800|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.20|
95919030|NCT04147260|191797800|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.31|-0.72|<0.001
95919031|NCT04147260|191797800|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.8||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.80|0.24|<0.001
95919032|NCT04147260|191797800|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.09||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-0.09|-0.62|0.010
95919033|NCT04147260|191797800|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.93||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.93|0.24|0.001
95919034|NCT04147260|191797801|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.1|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.10|-0.05|
95919035|NCT04147260|191797801|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.08|-0.08|0.998
95919036|NCT04147260|191797801|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.13|-0.08|0.618
95949921|NCT03137784|191871767|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.206|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.206|0.129|<0.001
95949922|NCT03137784|191871768|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.212|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.212|0.141|<0.001
95949923|NCT03137784|191871768|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.215|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.215|0.144|<0.001
95949924|NCT03137784|191871769|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.173|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.173|0.106|<0.001
95981238|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.34
95949925|NCT03137784|191871769|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.179|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.179|0.112|<0.001
95949926|NCT03137784|191871770|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.201|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.201|0.127|<0.001
95949927|NCT03137784|191871770|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.211|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.211|0.137|<0.001
95949928|NCT03137784|191871771|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.036||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.077|-0.004|0.079
95949929|NCT03137784|191871771|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|0.058||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.099|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.099|0.017|0.006
95981239|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0004
95981240|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
95981241|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.64
95981242|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.039
95981243|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.012
95981244|NCT02022085|191935924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 6 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||<0.0001
95981245|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.11
95981246|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.066
95981247|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.71
95981248|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.78
95981249|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.015
95981250|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.035
95981251|NCT02022085|191935925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 12 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0013
95981252|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||250Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
95981253|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.26
95981254|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.22
95981255|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.57
95981256|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
95981257|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.064
95981258|NCT02022085|191935926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz: 24 months with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.0051
95981259|NCT02022085|191935927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.46
95981260|NCT02022085|191935927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.19
95981261|NCT02022085|191935927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Speech in Noise with Baha Attract vs Softband||||0.31
95981262|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.43
95981263|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.16
95981264|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.65
95981265|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.93
95981266|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.094
95981267|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||12 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.44
95981268|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 50dB||||0.021
95981269|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 65dB||||0.024
95981270|NCT02022085|191935928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months Speech in Quiet at 80dB||||0.59
95981271|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
95981272|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Vision||||0.88
95981273|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Hearing||||0.020
95981274|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Speech||||0.039
95981275|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
95981276|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Dexterity||||0.38
95981277|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Emotion||||0.43
95981278|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Cognition||||0.85
95981279|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months change in Pain||||0.25
95981280|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Comprehensive health state||||0.088
95981281|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Vision||||0.63
95981282|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Hearing||||0.045
95919037|NCT04147260|191797801|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.23|-0.10|
95919038|NCT04147260|191797801|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.23|-0.10|0.451
95919039|NCT04147260|191797801|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.22|-0.22|1.000
95919040|NCT04147260|191797802|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.36|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.36|-0.15|
95919041|NCT04147260|191797802|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.16|0.446
95919042|NCT04147260|191797802|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.35||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.35|-0.34|0.972
95919043|NCT04147260|191797802|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.60|-0.02|
95919044|NCT04147260|191797802|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.56||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.56|-0.04|0.091
95919045|NCT04147260|191797802|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.38|0.880
95981283|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Speech||||0.016
95981284|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Ambulation||||0.25
95981285|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test|Fisher's non-parametric permutation test failed to approximate p value so Wilcoxan Signed Rank Test instead||24 months change in Dexterity||||0.50
95981286|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Emotion||||0.29
95981287|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Cognition||||0.92
95981288|NCT02022085|191935929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months change in Pain||||0.020
95981289|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Ease of communication||||<0.0001
95981290|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Background noise||||<0.0001
95981291|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Reverberation||||<0.0001
95981292|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Aversiveness||||0.69
95981293|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6 months: Global||||<0.0001
95981294|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Ease of communication||||<0.001
95981295|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Background noise||||<0.001
95981296|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Reverberation||||<0.001
95981297|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Aversiveness||||0.84
95981298|NCT02022085|191935930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||24 months: Global||||<0.001
95981299|NCT02022085|191935931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
95981300|NCT02022085|191935931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
95981301|NCT02022085|191935931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 6 months||||<0.0001
95981302|NCT02022085|191935931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
95981303|NCT02022085|191935931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Spatial: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
95981304|NCT02022085|191935931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Qualities: Change from pre-op to 24 months||||<0.0001
95981305|NCT03383289|191935942|SUPERIORITY||Beta estimate of the percent who fell|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MIANALYZE was used to model missing data. Models were adjusted for the design effects of clustering.||||||0.4170
95981306|NCT03383289|191935944|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.998|||paired t test|||Analysis of adjusted mean differences using a paired t test procedure||-0.998|-1.708|<0.001
95981307|NCT03383289|191935945|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.6364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1797|1.0931|||Poisson regression|||||1.0931|0.1797|0.0064
95981308|NCT03383289|191935945|SUPERIORITY||Estimated log mean|-4.0168||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5827|-2.4509|||Poisson regression|||||-2.4509|-5.5827|0.001
95981309|NCT03383289|191935946|OTHER|adjusted mean differences from paired t tests|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|-0.138|||paired t test|||||-0.138|-0.774|0.005
95981310|NCT01195090|191935956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in A1C were determined using an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with the factor 'treatment' and baseline A1C as covariate.||0.08|-0.58|0.165
95981311|NCT01195090|191935972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square test|Chi-Square|0.0034||||0.954||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test for percentages of patient achieving an A1C \<7%||||0.954
95981312|NCT01312038|191936006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.93|||||||Paired T-test|df=34||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of -200 daPa.||||=0.93
95981313|NCT01312038|191936006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39|||||||Paired T-test|df = 31||Comparison of the simethicone and placebo groups with respect to the difference between the pre-post treatment FGE at ME-pressure chamber gradient of 200 daPa.||||=0.39
95981314|NCT02665052|191936018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||The primary analysis was a two sample t-test (alpha=0.05) of the mean WMFT log-time change at 6 weeks. The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||78 participants were needed to generate a sample size of 22 per group and provide 80% power to detect a between group difference in mean Wolf time change (6 week - baseline) based on an a priori assumption of a mean change of 0 and 7.4 seconds respectively for the delayed entry usual care control and home-based BATRAC group; a SD of 7.6 and discontinuation rate of 15%.||||0.64
95981315|NCT02665052|191936019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The lab-based group had significant within group mean Fugl-Meyer (FM) change at week 6.|ANOVA|Dunnett's adjustments were used to compare the active intervention changes to the delayed-entry usual care control group.||Within group changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance.||||0.01
95981316|NCT02665052|191936019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||FM change was analyzed using analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's adjustment for between group comparisons in the home-based BATRAC group compared to the delayed-entry control.||||0.97
95981317|NCT02665052|191936020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Within group SIS hand changes from baseline to week 6 were assessed using analysis of variance followed by comparisons to the delayed-entry usual care control using Dunnett's adjustment.||||0.31
95981318|NCT02234284|191936021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.43|-.15|.35
95981319|NCT02234284|191936022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.65|-.13|.20
95981320|NCT02234284|191936023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of exacerbations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.07|-0.49|.13
95730119|NCT00095199|191430287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.26||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.26|0.78|0.200
95981321|NCT02234284|191936024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|25.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.|Value is for mean distance (in meters) of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean distance in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|25.26|-8.18|.32
95981322|NCT02234284|191936025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.83|-.23|.27
95981323|NCT02234284|191936026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||.68|.07|.02
95981324|NCT02234284|191936027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean score of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.12|-2.78|.40
95981325|NCT02234284|191936028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for mean percent predicted of participants in Health Coached arm minus mean percent predicted in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||3|-3|.98
95981326|NCT02234284|191936029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||10.2|-33.3|.30
95981327|NCT02234284|191936030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for mean number of days for participants in Health Coached arm minus mean score in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|||0.62|-2.07|.29
95981328|NCT02234284|191936031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||59.8|19.6|<.001
95981329|NCT02234284|191936032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.2|-9.5|.38
95993526|NCT00348140|191963290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.452
95993527|NCT00348140|191963290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.2|-0.4|0.429
95919046|NCT04147260|191797803|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||-0.01|-0.15|
95919047|NCT04147260|191797803|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.06|-0.09|0.757
95919048|NCT04147260|191797803|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.03|-0.17|0.158
95919049|NCT04147260|191797803|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.22|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.22|-0.12|
95919050|NCT04147260|191797803|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.25|-0.09|0.330
95919051|NCT04147260|191797803|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.19||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.19|-0.26|0.754
95919052|NCT04147260|191797804|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.52|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.52|0.09|
95919053|NCT04147260|191797804|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.38||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.38|-0.06|0.151
95919054|NCT04147260|191797804|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.44||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.44|-0.15|0.319
95919055|NCT04147260|191797804|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 90% CI with an acceptance range of -0.4 to 0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values||0.42|-0.04|
95919056|NCT04147260|191797804|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.09|0.246
95919057|NCT04147260|191797804|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||0.36|-0.25|0.704
95919058|NCT04147260|191797805|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.929||0.692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.92|7.99||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.99|-11.92|0.692
95919059|NCT04147260|191797805|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.048||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.14|6.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||6.21|-10.14|0.630
95919060|NCT04147260|191797805|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.07|11.07||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.07|-11.07|1.000
95919061|NCT04147260|191797805|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.55|7.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.66|-10.55|0.751
95981330|NCT02234284|191936033|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.||Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||13.4|-9.4|.73
95981331|NCT02234284|191936034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||20.8|-14.0|.70
95981332|NCT02234284|191936035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||5.3|-5.5|.97
95981333|NCT02234284|191936036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of outpatient visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||1.28|-0.32|.52
95981334|NCT02234284|191936037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for rate of COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.22|-0.32|.78
95981335|NCT02234284|191936038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related ED visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.40|-0.56|.80
95981336|NCT02234284|191936039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of COPD-related hospital visits for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.06|-0.32|.35
95981337|NCT02234284|191936040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for rate of non-COPD-related hospitalizations for participants in Health Coached arm minus rate for Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||0.04|-0.20|.37
95764038|NCT04386616|191498049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||3.97|0.54|0.4900
95993528|NCT00348140|191963291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.386
95993529|NCT00348140|191963291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.999
95981338|NCT02234284|191936041|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportion|-18.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Outcomes were by group assignment (intention to treat) using generalized linear models adjusted for baseline levels of variable and clustering.|Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||-4.8|-33.1|.01
95981339|NCT02234284|191936042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Value is for proportion (%) of participants in Health Coached arm minus proportion in Usual Care, adjusted for baseline values and for clustering.|Outcomes were compared by group assignment using generalized linear models (GLMs) with a normal distribution for continuous outcomes), Poisson distribution for count outcomes (e.g. exacerbations and hospitalizations), and binomial distribution for binary outcomes. In all models, baseline levels of the outcome were entered as a predictor and follow-up levels as the dependent variable, with use of a robust standard error to account for clustering.||25.9|3.3|.01
95981340|NCT03334409|191936091|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95981341|NCT03334409|191936092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
95981342|NCT03334409|191936093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
95981343|NCT03334409|191936094|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95981344|NCT03334409|191936095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
95981345|NCT03334409|191936096|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95981346|NCT01241552|191936102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.7||||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.5|-8.6|0.3182
95981347|NCT01241552|191936102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.9|0.0003
95981348|NCT01241552|191936102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-5.9|-17.4|< 0.0001
95981349|NCT01241552|191936102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-3.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-3.4|-16.9|0.0013
95981350|NCT01241552|191936102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||3.9|-6.7|0.2997
95981351|NCT01241552|191936103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-8.3||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-0.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.2|-16.3|0.9775
95981352|NCT01241552|191936103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|4.8||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||11.7|-2.1|0.0861
95981353|NCT01241552|191936103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|3.5||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.4|-3.5|0.1646
95981354|NCT01241552|191936103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|19.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||19.7|3.5|0.0025
95981355|NCT01241552|191936103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.4||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.5|-8.3|0.6532
95981356|NCT01241552|191936104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.7||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.7|-6.9|0.6505
95981357|NCT01241552|191936104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-3.8|-17.7|0.0013
95981358|NCT01241552|191936104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-18.6|0.0006
95981359|NCT01241552|191936104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-3415 + SOC|||-5.2|-22.5|0.0007
95981360|NCT01241552|191936104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-1.0||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.8||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient).|Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - MK-6072 + SOC|||5.8|-7.7|0.3906
95981361|NCT01241552|191936105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||12.8|-2.5|0.185
95981362|NCT01241552|191936105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.4||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.1|-3.3|0.323
95981363|NCT01241552|191936105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.5|-9.1|0.507
95981364|NCT01241552|191936106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.7|-1.5|0.246
95981365|NCT01241552|191936106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||6.8|-0.3|0.069
95981366|NCT01241552|191936106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-2.1|0.464
95981367|NCT01241552|191936107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||14.7|0.9|0.027
95981368|NCT01241552|191936107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||7.2|-4.1|0.594
95981369|NCT01241552|191936107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||0.0|-10.6|0.051
95981370|NCT01241552|191936108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-0.3|0.115
95981371|NCT01241552|191936108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.170
95981372|NCT01241552|191936108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placeb + SOC|||1.6|-0.9|0.544
95981373|NCT01241552|191936109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||2.4|-0.5|0.192
95981374|NCT01241552|191936109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-0.7|0.311
95981375|NCT01241552|191936109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|> 0.999
95981376|NCT01241552|191936110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.7|-1.0|
95981377|NCT01241552|191936110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.5|0.2|
95981378|NCT01241552|191936110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.2|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.6|
95981379|NCT01241552|191936111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|3.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-16.8|
95981380|NCT01241552|191936111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-9.6|-26.3|
95981381|NCT01241552|191936111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-7.7|-24.5|
95792983|NCT02900352|191555743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
95981382|NCT01241552|191936112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|8.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||8.6|-20.1|
95981383|NCT01241552|191936112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-25.5|
95981384|NCT01241552|191936112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-1.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.6|-26.8|
95981385|NCT01241552|191936113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|21.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||21.0|-16.9|
95981386|NCT01241552|191936113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-1.4|-28.3|
95981387|NCT01241552|191936113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.9|-26.2|
95981388|NCT01241552|191936114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|10.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||10.0|-30.1|
95981389|NCT01241552|191936114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-6.1|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-6.1|-43.7|
95981390|NCT01241552|191936115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|3.9|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||3.9|-24.9|
95981391|NCT01241552|191936115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-0.5|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-0.5|-24.7|
95981392|NCT01241552|191936115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-4.0|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.0|-27.8|
95981393|NCT01241552|191936116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.6|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-23.2|
95981394|NCT01241552|191936116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.4|||||Percentage Difference: MK-6072 + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||1.4|-23.2|
95981395|NCT01241552|191936116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-4.7|||||Percentage Difference: MK-3415A + SOC - Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-28.4|
95981396|NCT02606461|191936123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7026||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5191|0.9509|||Log Rank|||||0.9509|0.5191|0.0114
95981397|NCT02606461|191936125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.1521||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5357|2.4778|||Log Rank|||||2.4778|0.5357|0.6051
95981398|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|9.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #1: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEU/ARB).||9.7|7.0|<0.001
95981399|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|9.6|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #2: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with beta-blockers.||9.6|7.7|<0.001
95981400|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative improvement (%)|79.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|89.0|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #3: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with aldosterone receptor antagonists.||89.0|70.5|<0.001
95981401|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #4: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with anticoagulation for AF.||4.2|-2.2|0.546
95981402|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|91.7|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #5: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-P/CRT-D).||91.7|72.2|<0.001
95981403|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|65.1|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #6: relative change in % of eligible patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or CRT-D.||65.1|59.1|<0.001
95981404|NCT00303979|191936163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Improvement (%)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|16.8|||a large sample test (z-test)|||Performance Measure #7: relative change in % of eligible patients with HF education.||16.8|12.6|<0.001
95981405|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|39.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: Relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||39.8|-1.1|0.004
95981406|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||10.2|5.1|<0.001
95981407|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||35.5|24.6|<0.001
95981408|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|1.0||||0.513||95.0|-3.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||5.5|-3.6|0.513
95981409|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|58.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||58.8|37.9|<0.001
95981410|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|70.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|80.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||80.8|61.0|<0.001
95981411|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||74.2|27.1|<0.001
95981412|NCT00303979|191936165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: The relative change at 24 months compared with baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||22.0|16.3|<0.001
95981413|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||25.9|-5.4|0.197
95981414|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||21.7|-0.5|0.061
95981415|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||3.4|-5.7|0.622
95764039|NCT04386616|191498049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||4.28|0.58|0.3595
95981416|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||12.4|0.0|0.05
95981417|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|-1.8||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||7.7|-11.2|0.711
95981418|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||22.0|6.9|<0.001
95981419|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|53.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||53.8|23.2|<0.001
95981420|NCT00303979|191936166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort B (6 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||9.0|4.2|<0.001
95730120|NCT00095199|191430287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.74|0.52|0.683
95981421|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #1: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ACEI/ARB for the aggregate practices.||26.3|-5.3|0.190
95981422|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|14.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|28.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #2: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in beta-blockers for the aggregate practices.||28.4|0.1|0.048
95981423|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|5.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #3: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in aldosterone antagonist for the aggregate practices.||15.4|-3.9|0.240
95981424|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|6.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #4: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in anticoagulation for AF for the aggregate practices.||13.0|0.5|0.033
95981425|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|9.3||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #5: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in CRT-P/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||19.8|-1.3|0.085
95981426|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #6: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in ICD/CRT-D for the aggregate practices.||25.8|9.3|<0.001
95981427|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|85.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Performance Measure #7: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in HF education for the aggregate practices.||85.2|33.9|<0.001
95981428|NCT00303979|191936167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Relative Change (%)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Composite Score: the relative change of Cohort C (18 months) compared with Cohort A at baseline in composite score for the aggregate practices.||13.6|7.6|<0.001
95981429|NCT04166383|191936223|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P≤0.10 (alpha 0.1); power = 90% (beta 0.1)|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.10
95981430|NCT03044886|191936228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.576
95981431|NCT03044886|191936229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.489
95981432|NCT03044886|191936230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
95981433|NCT03044886|191936230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.041
95981434|NCT03044886|191936231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.710
95981435|NCT03044886|191936232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.340
95981436|NCT03044886|191936233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
95981437|NCT03044886|191936233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.038
95981438|NCT03044886|191936234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.521
95981439|NCT03044886|191936235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.742
95981440|NCT03044886|191936236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||<0.05
95981441|NCT03044886|191936236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.073
95981442|NCT03044886|191936237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.348
95981443|NCT03044886|191936238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.685
95981444|NCT03044886|191936239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine difference between groups.||||0.075
95981445|NCT03044886|191936239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Neuman-Keuel test were carried out to determine changes from 3 month to 6 month of all groups.||||0.083
95981446|NCT01159912|191936259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.036|0.009
95981447|NCT01159912|191936259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.145||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.257|||ANCOVA|||||0.257|0.033|0.011
95981448|NCT02374021|191936267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.19|0.79
95981449|NCT02374021|191936268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.14|0.05
95981450|NCT02374021|191936269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.11|0.05
95981451|NCT02374021|191936270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.05
95981452|NCT02374021|191936271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.05
95981453|NCT01704287|191936281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1); lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% Upper Limit of Normal (ULN)\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
95981454|NCT01704287|191936281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.6||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|||0.60|0.37|<0.0001
95981455|NCT01704287|191936281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|||1.05|0.66|0.1247
95981456|NCT01704287|191936282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.67|0.1173
95981457|NCT01704287|191936282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.96|0.57|0.0106
95981458|NCT01704287|191936282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.12|0.67|0.2905
95981459|NCT01704287|191936283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.10|0.68|0.1146
95981460|NCT01704287|191936283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.90|0.55|0.0023
95981461|NCT01704287|191936283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.07|0.66|0.1490
95981462|NCT01704287|191936284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1-Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.28|0.66|0.3113
95981463|NCT01704287|191936284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||0.99|0.50|0.0208
95981464|NCT01704287|191936284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Positive Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.00|0.50|0.0496
95981465|NCT01704287|191936284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.76|0.65|0.6043
95981466|NCT01704287|191936284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=ICC|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.04|0.37|0.0335
95981467|NCT01704287|191936284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|PD-L1 Negative Participants|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.13||Two-sided p-value based on stratified log rank test|Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg|Cox regression model with treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1); LDH levels (normal vs. elevated LDH levels \[≥110% ULN\]); \& BRAF mutational status (mutant vs. wild-type)||1.13|0.44|0.1504
95981468|NCT02615470|191936311|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||A priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.202
95981469|NCT02615470|191936312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
95981470|NCT02615470|191936313|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.322||||||a priori alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.322
95981471|NCT04490395|191936320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.62|-0.26|0.044
95981472|NCT04490395|191936321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-0.15|0.056
95981473|NCT04490395|191936322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|-1.75|0.377
95981474|NCT04490395|191936323|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects change over time|F test (1,15) df|1.381||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Change over time||Only 9 cases had any data available per group, and some had missing values and were not included in each analysis.|Within subjects change over time.|||0.258
95981475|NCT04490395|191936323|SUPERIORITY|Between group analysis|F test (1,15) df|0.246||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||||Between group analysis|||0.627
95981476|NCT04490395|191936323|SUPERIORITY||F test (1,15) df|0.005||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Time x Condition interaction|Time x Condition interaction|||0.947
95981477|NCT04490395|191936324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.85|0.038
95981478|NCT04490395|191936325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-6.05|0.07
95981479|NCT04490395|191936326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-1.19|0.43
95764040|NCT04386616|191498050|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|12.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||12.26|-5.42|
95981480|NCT04490395|191936327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-.194|0.72
95981481|NCT04490395|191936328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.35|0.341
95981482|NCT04490395|191936329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-2.35|0.25
95981483|NCT00938717|191936330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.84||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||8.84|2.44|<0.0001
95981484|NCT00938717|191936331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.03||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||7.03|2.50|<0.0001
95981485|NCT00938717|191936332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.6||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data.||3.60|1.91|<0.0001
95764041|NCT04386616|191498050|OTHER||Difference in Mortality Rates|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.26|||||The difference in mortality rates is calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||10.26|-6.89|
95792984|NCT02900352|191555744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.889
95981486|NCT00938717|191936333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|4.49||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.49|2.22|<0.0001
95981487|NCT01809132|191936344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||.30
95981488|NCT01809132|191936345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the observational subject was lost to follow-up||||.42
95981489|NCT01809132|191936346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
95981490|NCT01809132|191936347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
95981491|NCT03349775|191936348|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-8.32|0.35
95981492|NCT03349775|191936349|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.92|-1.65|0.37
95981493|NCT04013789|191936351|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was set at 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model||DACP FreshTech minus DACP|||0.03||
95981494|NCT01488279|191936353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|480.8||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1147.6|1126.0|||ANOVA|||2X2 crossover design with baseline values. To compare the means between Sitagliptin and Placebo, a sequential three step testing process used. The results of the third step, the direct treatment comparisons are presented.||1126.0|-1147.6|.983
95981495|NCT01488279|191936356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.585|4.568|||ANOVA|||||4.568|-4.585|.997
95981496|NCT01488279|191936357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.9||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.9|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.0|-156.9|.460
95981497|NCT03593850|191936359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95981498|NCT03593850|191936360|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
95981499|NCT03593850|191936361|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis was performed according to pre-defined significant difference of p \< 0.01||||||0.802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.802
95981500|NCT03593850|191936362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95981501|NCT03593850|191936362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.429||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: group, covariates: pain before (VAS2), age in years, age at menarche, duration of menses, usual pain, anxiety before, hours with pain.|||Adjusted means: music 3.131 (99% CI 2.62, 3.999) and silence 4.56 (99% CI 3.581, 5.538), F= 8.44, R-square 54.5%|||0.006
95981502|NCT03593850|191936363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95981503|NCT03593850|191936363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.721||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factor: Groups Covariates: Pain before, pain after, age, age menarche, menses duration, usual pain, anxiety before, anxiety after, hours pain|Adjusted means: music 2.58 (99% CI 1.339, 3.829), and silence 3.305 (1.728, 4.881); F 0.827, R-square 27.2%|||||0.370
95981504|NCT03593850|191936364|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377
95981505|NCT03593850|191936365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95981506|NCT03593850|191936366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
95981507|NCT03593850|191936367|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups was pre-defined as p \> 0.01||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
95981508|NCT03593850|191936368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95981509|NCT03593850|191936369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95981510|NCT03593850|191936370|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
95981511|NCT03593850|191936371|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
95981512|NCT03593850|191936372|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954
95981513|NCT03593850|191936373|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between groups determined by pre-deined p \> 0.01||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
95981514|NCT03593850|191936374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
95981515|NCT03593850|191936375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
95981516|NCT03593850|191936376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
95981517|NCT03593850|191936377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
95981518|NCT00003895|191936378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Post versus Pre-treatment % g209-2M-specific t-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95981519|NCT00003895|191936378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Post versus Pre-Treatment %g209-2M-specific T-cells|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95981520|NCT00003895|191936378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Arm A Versus Arm B|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95981521|NCT01380730|191936379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.48|-60.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.72|-71.48|<0.001
95981522|NCT01380730|191936379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-54.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.88|-65.61|<0.001
95981523|NCT01380730|191936379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.18|-36.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.45|-47.18|<0.001
95981524|NCT01380730|191936379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-44.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.62|-56.04|<0.001
95981525|NCT01380730|191936379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|-44.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.31|-55.69|<0.001
95981526|NCT01380730|191936379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-36.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.13|-47.55|<0.001
95981527|NCT01380730|191936380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.5|-87.0|<0.001
95792985|NCT02900352|191555745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.482
95981528|NCT01380730|191936380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-69.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-69.6|-85.2|<0.001
95981529|NCT01380730|191936380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-43.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.0|-58.5|<0.001
95981530|NCT01380730|191936380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.6|<0.001
95981531|NCT01380730|191936380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-53.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-53.7|-68.5|<0.001
95981532|NCT01380730|191936380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-43.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.1|-58.0|<0.001
95981533|NCT01380730|191936381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.37|-56.43||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.43|-66.37|<0.001
95981534|NCT01380730|191936381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.37|-50.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.47|-60.37|<0.001
95981535|NCT01380730|191936381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-33.48||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.48|-43.39|<0.001
95981536|NCT01380730|191936381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|-42.44||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.44|-52.72|<0.001
95981537|NCT01380730|191936381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.92|-40.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.67|-50.92|<0.001
95981538|NCT01380730|191936381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-32.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-32.65|-42.94|<0.001
95981539|NCT01380730|191936382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-51.61||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.61|-61.28|<0.001
95981540|NCT01380730|191936382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-45.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.33|-54.97|<0.001
95981541|NCT01380730|191936382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.56|-29.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.92|-39.56|<0.001
95981542|NCT01380730|191936382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.16|-36.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.90|-47.16|<0.001
95981543|NCT01380730|191936382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.88|-35.66||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.66|-45.88|<0.001
95981544|NCT01380730|191936382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.51|-29.25||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.25|-39.51|<0.001
95981545|NCT01380730|191936383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.18|-43.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.29|-52.18|<0.001
95981546|NCT01380730|191936383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-38.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.94|-47.81|<0.001
95981547|NCT01380730|191936383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-26.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.97|-35.83|<0.001
95981548|NCT01380730|191936383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-31.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.32|-39.99|<0.001
95981549|NCT01380730|191936383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.29|-31.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.65|-40.29|<0.001
95981550|NCT01380730|191936383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-23.39||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-23.39|-32.06|<0.001
95792986|NCT02900352|191555746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95981551|NCT01380730|191936384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.23|-48.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.65|-58.23|<0.001
95981552|NCT01380730|191936384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.08|-42.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.52|-52.08|<0.001
95981553|NCT01380730|191936384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.53|-29.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.97|-39.53|<0.001
95981554|NCT01380730|191936384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-37.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.50|-48.36|<0.001
95981555|NCT01380730|191936384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81|-36.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.98|-47.81|<0.001
95981556|NCT01380730|191936384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-28.33||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factors.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.33|-39.20|<0.001
95981557|NCT01509079|191936434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
95981558|NCT05111041|191936448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|3.309||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.309|0.302|1.000
95981559|NCT05111041|191936449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|2.972||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.972|0.215|0.7389
95981560|NCT05111041|191936451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|3.602||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.474|0.6058
95981561|NCT05111041|191936452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|2.866||||||||2.866|0.349|
95981562|NCT05111041|191936453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.823||Not adjusted for multiple outcomes due to exploratory nature of the study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.823|0.465|0.5925
95981563|NCT01179672|191936454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
95981564|NCT01179672|191936455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12-week endpoint in night pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.95|0.008
95981565|NCT01179672|191936455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value is for mean change from baseline to 12 week endpoint in worst pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-1.00|0.017
95981566|NCT01179672|191936456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.90|0.016
95981567|NCT01179672|191936457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.48|0.081
95981568|NCT01179672|191936458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.40|0.034
95981569|NCT01179672|191936459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment, pooled investigator and baseline.||||-0.16|-2.07|0.022
95981570|NCT01179672|191936460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.014
95981571|NCT01179672|191936460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.006
95981572|NCT01179672|191936460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.193
95981573|NCT01179672|191936461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for ≥30% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.003
95981574|NCT01179672|191936461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for ≥50% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.001
95981575|NCT01179672|191936461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||||||P-value is for ≥75% reduction in 24-hour BPI-Severity average pain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was stratified by pooled investigator.||||||0.168
95981576|NCT01179672|191936462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
95981577|NCT01179672|191936463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-2.33|0.020
95981578|NCT02319668|191936468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean difference|0.2||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.58|-0.18|0.2965
95993530|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||2.5|-0.2|0.090
95993817|NCT01763164|191963424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.06|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test and Cox PH model were stratified by American joint committee on cancer stage, prior line immunotherapy and ECOG performance status. P-value was one tailed and was based on the log-rank score test. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.||4.06|1.19|0.995
95981579|NCT00365456|191936497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0045||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.021||No multiplicity correction of the significance level was performed as only one primary endpoint was planned.|ANCOVA|Estimation allowing for unequal variance in the two treatment groups and robust estimates for the standard errors were obtained.||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment group, stratum and pooled centre as fixed effects and log (BMD at Baseline III (month 24)) as a covariate (log-normally distributed data assumed). Least square mean change from baseline III (month 24), 95% confidence interval and p-value for the treatment effect (PTH (1-84) vs. Risedronate) was calculated. Superiority was claimed if lower limit of the interval was above 1. Results were back-transformed from the log scale.||1.021|1.003|0.010
95981580|NCT04754802|191936500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-3.2|.5063
95981581|NCT04754802|191936501|SUPERIORITY||Other|-0.015||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.107|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|Wald Normal Approximation (Z) for difference between two proportions||||0.107|-0.137|.8077
95981582|NCT01495858|191936502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3047
95981583|NCT01495858|191936503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1677|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1677
95981584|NCT01495858|191936504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
95981585|NCT01495858|191936505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2764|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2764
95981586|NCT01495858|191936506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95981587|NCT01495858|191936507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
95981588|NCT01495858|191936508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0145
95981589|NCT01495858|191936509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
95981590|NCT01495858|191936510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
95981591|NCT01495858|191936511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0305
95981592|NCT01495858|191936512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0176
95981593|NCT01495858|191936513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95981594|NCT01495858|191936514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
95981595|NCT01495858|191936515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95981596|NCT01495858|191936516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
95981597|NCT01495858|191936517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
95981598|NCT01495858|191936518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
95981599|NCT01495858|191936519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3707|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3707
95981600|NCT01495858|191936520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
95981601|NCT01495858|191936522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3765
95981602|NCT05215262|191936538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|0.04|0.04
95981603|NCT05215262|191936538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-1.59|0.82
95981604|NCT05215262|191936538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference-in-differences results, comparing GSES scores between the Intervention and Standard of Care groups at the three-month time point.||4.23|-0.89|0.20
95981605|NCT00718549|191936552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.028
95981606|NCT00718549|191936552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.033||95.0|0.187|0.933|||Cox's proportional hazards regression|||Univariate comparison||0.933|0.187|0.033
95981607|NCT00718549|191936552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.052||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.972|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison||1.972|0.001|0.111
95981608|NCT00718549|191936553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.654||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|28.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate Comparison||28.337|0.674|0.155
95981609|NCT00718549|191936554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 129: Univariate comparison||4.114|0.073|0.634
95981610|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|3.92|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||3.920|0.151|0.752
95981611|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|2.158|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.158|0.002|0.128
95981612|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.282||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|240.864|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||240.864|0.022|0.728
95981613|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|26.275||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|666.708|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||666.708|1.036|0.048
95981614|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|9.1|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||9.100|0.005|0.417
95981615|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.197||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|1.647|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||1.647|0.024|0.134
95981616|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.373||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|1568.717|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||1568.717|0.045|0.426
95981617|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.438||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|50.334|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||50.334|0.004|0.733
95981618|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.621||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|34.422|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||34.422|0.200|0.463
95981619|NCT00718549|191936555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.122|||Cox's proportional hazards model|||Multivariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||5.122|0.016|0.397
95981620|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.531|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.531|0.393|0.969
95981621|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.488|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||1.488|0.183|0.260
95981622|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|1.242|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||1.242|0.177|0.121
95981623|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.957|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||0.957|0.137|0.045
95981624|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.809||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|163.316|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||163.316|1.655|0.040
95981625|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.921||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.851|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||2.851|0.287|0.887
95981626|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|6.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||6.839|0.186|0.936
95981627|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|5.012|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||5.012|0.719|0.199
95981628|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.668||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|5.649|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.649|0.566|0.375
95981629|NCT00718549|191936556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|7.275|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||7.275|0.173|0.961
95981630|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|10.189|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||10.189|0.237|0.768
95981631|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|3.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||3.653|0.086|0.657
95981632|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|34.486|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||34.486|0.229|0.655
95981633|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.635||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||3.730|0.117|0.595
95981634|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|8.102|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: ZAP-70 Expression Negative versus Positive||8.102|0.164|1.000
95981635|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|6.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||6.636|0.093|0.882
95981636|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|4.405|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 17p No versus Yes||4.405|0.005|0.216
95981637|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.361||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.971|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||2.971|0.017|0.396
95764042|NCT04386616|191498050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.80|0.66|0.4067
95981638|NCT00718549|191936557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|6.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||6.572|0.103|0.776
95981639|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|2.114|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||2.114|0.131|0.357
95981640|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.694||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||2.800|0.138|0.623
95981641|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|28.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||28.158|0.901|0.097
95981642|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|89.588|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||89.588|0.484|0.233
95981643|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.681|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||3.681|0.161|0.826
95981644|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|5.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||5.581|0.246|0.933
95981645|NCT00718549|191936558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.727||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.779|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||15.779|0.080|0.794
95981646|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|41.751|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Age \<60 years versus Age \>/=60 years||41.751|0.225|0.591
95981647|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|9.222|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Sex: Female versus Male||9.222|0.147|0.796
95981648|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|69.479|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Beta-2-Microglobulin \>/= Median Value versus Beta-2-Microglobulin \<Median Value||69.479|0.375|0.338
95981649|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|29.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: CD38 Expression Negative versus Positive||29.008|0.201|0.486
95981650|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|4.722|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 13q No versus Yes||4.722|0.074|0.691
95981651|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.563|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 11q No versus Yes||13.563|0.212|0.691
95981652|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|24.621|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Cytogenetic abnormality 12q No versus Yes||24.621|0.076|1.000
95981653|NCT00718549|191936559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|22.791|||Regression, Logistic|||Univariate Comparison: Rai Stage: I or II versus Rai Stage: III or IV||22.791|0.099|1.000
95981654|NCT01576172|191936579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95981655|NCT01576172|191936580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.39 on 112.7 degrees of freedom (Satterthwaite)||||||0.70
95981656|NCT01576172|191936581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95981657|NCT01576172|191936582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
95981658|NCT01576172|191936583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95981659|NCT03496324|191936584|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% confidence interval (CI) (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|94.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|103.38||||||||103.38|85.81|
95981660|NCT03496324|191936584|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for Cmax.|Geometric Least Square Mean|111.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.84|120.07||||||||120.07|103.84|
95981661|NCT03496324|191936585|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|101.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|107.16||||||||107.16|96.28|
95981662|NCT03496324|191936585|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated between NfC® and Algifor® Junior if each 90% CI (rounded to 2 decimal places) for the ratio between least square geometric means (test / reference) lay within 80% and 125% for AUC0-t.|Geometric Least Square Mean|104.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.4|107.63||||||||107.63|101.4|
95981663|NCT02092350|191936592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||The primary hypothesis was that the SVR12 rate in the Immediate Treatment plus Intensive PK arm would be \>45%.||||0.001
95981664|NCT00239226|191936597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.93||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
95981665|NCT01958788|191936610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
95981666|NCT01958788|191936610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981667|NCT01958788|191936610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981668|NCT01958788|191936611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
95981669|NCT01958788|191936611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981670|NCT01958788|191936611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981671|NCT01958788|191936612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment follow-up||||
95981672|NCT01958788|191936612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981673|NCT01958788|191936612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981674|NCT01958788|191936613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
95981675|NCT01958788|191936613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981676|NCT01958788|191936613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981677|NCT01958788|191936614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
95981678|NCT01958788|191936614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981679|NCT01958788|191936614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981680|NCT01958788|191936615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
95981681|NCT01958788|191936615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981682|NCT01958788|191936615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981683|NCT01958788|191936616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pre-posttreatment effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to posttreatment||||
95981684|NCT01958788|191936616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Pretreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from pretreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95981685|NCT01958788|191936616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cohen's d effect size|||Posttreatment to 6-month follow-up effect size estimation using Cohen's d: a calculation of the relative magnitude of the effect from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up||||
95919062|NCT04147260|191797805|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|9.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.52|-6.17|0.669
95919063|NCT04147260|191797805|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.123||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.44|7.21||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||7.21|-13.44|0.546
95919064|NCT04147260|191797806|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.385||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|10.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.54|-35.44|0.281
95919065|NCT04147260|191797806|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.02|2.74||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.74|-35.02|0.092
95919066|NCT04147260|191797806|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.662||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.88|29.27||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||29.27|-21.88|0.772
95919067|NCT04147260|191797806|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.255||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.93|18.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.50|-34.93|0.539
95919068|NCT04147260|191797806|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.424||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.74|18.31||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||18.31|-27.74|0.682
95919069|NCT04147260|191797806|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.03||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|26.79||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||26.79|-33.79|0.817
95919070|NCT04147260|191797807|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.327||0.891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.49|10.02||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||10.02|-11.49|0.891
95919071|NCT04147260|191797807|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.42|5.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.25|-12.42|0.417
95919072|NCT04147260|191797807|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|14.82||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.82|-9.11|0.633
95919073|NCT04147260|191797807|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|15.62||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||15.62|-2.05|0.129
95919074|NCT04147260|191797807|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.33|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-5.33|0.548
95919075|NCT04147260|191797807|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.51|14.52||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.52|-5.51|0.370
95981686|NCT00962390|191936617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4678
95981687|NCT00962390|191936617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.1|-0.5|0.4892
95981688|NCT00962390|191936617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Statistical testing was 2-sided and the 5% significant level was used.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and site.|S-equol treatment group minus placebo group.|Week 4, Treatment Effect||1.0|-0.8|0.8185
95981689|NCT02367066|191936648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.90|0.02
95981690|NCT02367066|191936649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.92|0.06
95981691|NCT02367066|191936650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|1.03||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.96|0.41
95981692|NCT02367066|191936651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.99||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.85|0.06
95981693|NCT02367066|191936652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.13||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.99|0.18
95981694|NCT02367066|191936653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|0.98||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.89|0.04
95981695|NCT02367066|191936655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS MEan Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.06||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.91|0.37
95981696|NCT02367066|191936657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.04||1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|1.00|0.06
95764043|NCT04386616|191498050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.46|0.56|0.6728
95981697|NCT02367066|191936658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03||2-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.45
95981698|NCT03492554|191936675|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Specificity = 92% H1: Specificity \> 92 Under the assumption that the true population specificity is 96.5%, 226 subjects who were diagnosed with SR based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject its null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms approximately 300 subjects with no known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
95981699|NCT03492554|191936676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial test|||H0: Sensitivity = 90% H1: Sensitivity \> 90% Under the assumption that the true population sensitivity is 95%, 231 subjects who were diagnosed with AF based on the 12-lead ECG reference strip and where the device algorithm classification produced a result of AF or SR was calculated to provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis, using a one-sided type I error of 0.025. To obtain readable waveforms, a minimum of 260 subjects with a known diagnosis of AF were enrolled.||||<0.0001
95981700|NCT03492554|191936677|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of visual display= 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of visual display\> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of visual display was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
95981701|NCT03492554|191936678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1 sided exact binomial|||H0: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude = 0.8 H1: agreement proportion of R wave amplitude \> 0.8 Under the assumption that the true population agreement proportion of R wave amplitude was 90%, 88 subjects would provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error of 0.05. To account for obtaining readable waveforms, approximately 140 subjects (70 SR; 70 AF) were randomly selected.||||<0.0001
95981702|NCT03591354|191936750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95981703|NCT03044249|191936872|SUPERIORITY||Response Ratio|4.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|25.0|||Fisher Exact|||||25|-18|0.48
95981704|NCT03044249|191936874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.16|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-11.16|0.14
95981705|NCT03044249|191936875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-4.47|0.37
95981706|NCT03044249|191936879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|-2.00|0.94
95981707|NCT00955279|191936881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.543
95981708|NCT00955279|191936881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.126
95981709|NCT00955279|191936882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.896
95981710|NCT00955279|191936882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.063
95981711|NCT00955279|191936883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.374
95981712|NCT00955279|191936883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Linear Contrasts Test|||||||0.073
95981713|NCT00955279|191936884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1931
95981714|NCT00955279|191936884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2772
95981715|NCT00955279|191936885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.451
95981716|NCT00955279|191936885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||Linear Contrast Test|||||||0.546
95981717|NCT02663271|191936886|SUPERIORITY|We used one-sample log rank test to compare to historical control.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95981718|NCT00617604|191936890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-2.5|
95981719|NCT00617604|191936891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.1|
95981720|NCT00617604|191936892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.1||||||||10.1|-4.0|
95981721|NCT00617604|191936893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.6|
95981722|NCT00617604|191936894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|4.7||||||||4.7|-14.9|
95981723|NCT00617604|191936895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.5|0.0||||||||0.0|-18.5|
95981724|NCT00617604|191936896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.8||||||||3.8|-7.6|
95981725|NCT00617604|191936897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.2|
95981726|NCT00617604|191936898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.0||||||||5.0|-1.3|
95981727|NCT00617604|191936899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-1.2|
95981728|NCT00617604|191936901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|7.2||||||||7.2|-3.3|
95981729|NCT00617604|191936906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.6||||||||14.6|-2.7|
95981730|NCT00617604|191936907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|2.2||||||||2.2|-11.2|
95981731|NCT00617604|191936908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|14.7||||||||14.7|-4.4|
95981732|NCT04029961|191936913|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
95981733|NCT04029961|191936914|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
95981734|NCT04029961|191936915|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
95981735|NCT04029961|191936916|OTHER|Multivariate regression model and intra-arm differences in measure scores between time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Multivariate regression was adjusted for covariates of study site, highest education level, prior chemotherapy, age, \& T stage. Random effects was adjusted for multiple measurements. Multiplicity corrections were conducted via Holm-Sidak method.|multivariate regression|||||||<0.05
95981736|NCT04029961|191936917|OTHER|"A univariate analysis comparing the proportion of each arm that indicated an item was met, evaluated for each item at each time point."|||||<|0.05|||||||Univariate analysis|||"The statistical test described below was only performed on the top 10 items on the scale rated the highest in importance by participants. The top 10 items were determined by computing the mean rating for each item (participants gave each item a rating from '1' - '9' with higher values representing greater importance) and selecting the 10 items with the largest mean values, excluding the item the radiation oncologist who will be treating me as that item was not addressed in either intervention."||||<0.05
95981737|NCT03086265|191936918|OTHER|||||||0.7934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7934
95981738|NCT03086265|191936927|OTHER|||||||0.6876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6876
95981739|NCT03086265|191936928|OTHER|||||||0.7549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7549
95981740|NCT03086265|191936929|OTHER|||||||0.6479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6479
95981741|NCT03086265|191936930|OTHER|||||||0.8322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8322
95981742|NCT03086265|191936932|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
95981743|NCT03086265|191936933|OTHER|||||||0.3346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3346
95981744|NCT03086265|191936934|OTHER|||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5513
95981745|NCT03086265|191936935|OTHER|||||||0.1927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1927
95981746|NCT03086265|191936936|OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6483
95981747|NCT03086265|191936937|OTHER|||||||0.5625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5625
95981748|NCT03086265|191936938|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2827
95981749|NCT03086265|191936939|OTHER|||||||0.8426|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8426
95981750|NCT03086265|191936940|OTHER|||||||0.9856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9856
95981751|NCT03086265|191936941|OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8112
95981752|NCT03086265|191936942|OTHER|||||||0.6587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6587
95981753|NCT03086265|191936943|OTHER|||||||0.4143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4143
95981754|NCT03086265|191936944|OTHER|||||||0.4324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4324
95981755|NCT03086265|191936945|OTHER|||||||0.7221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of preoperative scores.||||0.7221
95981756|NCT03086265|191936945|OTHER|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of postoperative scores.||||0.0336
95981757|NCT03184077|191936966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95981758|NCT03184077|191936967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95981759|NCT03184077|191936968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||This is a calculated p value|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95981760|NCT04136184|191936969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.7593||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9552|-18.5635|||MMRM|||||-18.5635|-30.9552|0.00000001
95981761|NCT04136184|191936970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-19.7352||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6301|-13.8403|||MMRM|||||-13.8403|-25.6301|0.00000001
95981762|NCT04136184|191936971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-70.42||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.17|-65.66|||MMRM|||||-65.66|-75.17|0.00000001
95981763|NCT04136184|191936972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-66.65||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-61.71|||MMRM|||||-61.71|-71.59|0.00000001
95981764|NCT04136184|191936973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3542||||0.00012203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8691|-4.8394|||MMRM|||||-4.8394|-13.8691|0.00012203
95981765|NCT04136184|191936974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.8202||||1.873e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8927|-6.7477|||MMRM|||||-6.7477|-16.8927|0.00001873
95981766|NCT04136184|191936975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.00052447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.8|||MMRM|||Week 35||-1.80|-6.08|0.00052447
95981767|NCT04136184|191936975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.21||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-5.76|||MMRM|||Week 66||-5.76|-10.65|0.00000001
95981768|NCT04136184|191936976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.305||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.195|7.416|||MMRM|||||7.416|3.195|0.00000558
95981769|NCT04136184|191936977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.02407897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.02407897
95981770|NCT04136184|191936978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|82.6991||||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6431|110.7551|||MMRM|||||110.7551|54.6431|0.00000020
95981771|NCT01499953|191936983|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses for non-inferiority test using ∆=4.5% for the difference between incidence rates were H0: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux ≥ 4.5%, H1: πrivaroxaban-πfondaparinux \< 4.5% where πfondaparinux and πrivaroxaban were the incidence rates of CIAC confirmed VTE complications up to Day 45 in the treatment groups. Rejection of the null hypothesis would have concluded that rivaroxaban was not inferior to fondaparinux. To calculate the p-value, an asymptotic test for non-inferiority was used.||||||0.0252|||||||asymptotic test for non-inferiority|||||||0.0252
95981772|NCT03734016|191936998|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.04|<0.0001
95981773|NCT03734016|191936998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0035
95981774|NCT03734016|191936999|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority testing for ORR was performed using a stratified Wald test based on the stratified Mantel-Haenszel response ratio estimate against the non-inferiority margin of 0.8558 on the log scale.|Response ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Response ratio is the estimated ratio of the overall response rate of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.22|1.05|<0.0001
95981775|NCT03734016|191936999|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was performed using a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0007
95981776|NCT03734016|191937000|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested with a non-inferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Stratified Wald test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
95981777|NCT03734016|191937000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
95981778|NCT03734016|191937001|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was tested with a noninferiority margin (hazard ratio) of 1.33 with the use of a stratified Wald test based on the four randomization stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)|Stratified Wald test||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
95981779|NCT03734016|191937001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (age, geographic region, refractory status, and 17p deletion and TP53 mutation status)||||||0.0024
95981780|NCT03734016|191937002|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.6|||Chi-squared||Rate difference is the zanubrutinib rate minus the ibrutinib rate.|||-3.6|-12.4|0.0004
95981781|NCT03734016|191937005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||0.72|0.41|
95981782|NCT03734016|191937008|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11|||||Hazard ratio is the ratio of the hazard of the zanubrutinib arm divided by that of the ibrutinib arm.|||1.11|0.51|
95981783|NCT03734016|191937009|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 24. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.77|0.23|0.0338
95981784|NCT03734016|191937009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL at Week 48. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.06|-1.37|0.3304
95981785|NCT03734016|191937009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||4.12|-0.47|0.1189
95981786|NCT03734016|191937009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.44|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.44|-1.15|0.3274
95981787|NCT03734016|191937009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||3.66|-2.40|0.6821
95981788|NCT03734016|191937009|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Role Functioning Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.00|-1.40|0.2701
95981789|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.87|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.87|-4.70|0.1778
95981790|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Fatigue Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.62|-3.32|0.8174
95981791|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.89|-1.48|0.6294
95981792|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.96|-1.99|0.4933
95981793|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.43||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.66|-4.51|0.3643
95981794|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.77|-5.62|0.1363
95981795|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 24.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.84|-4.01|0.2001
95981796|NCT03734016|191937010|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||"Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 Diarrhoea Symptom Scale at Week 48.~A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes the repeated measurement of the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and the treatment arm by assessment timepoint interaction, and baseline score as a covariate with an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.43|-4.12|0.1121
95981797|NCT02273726|191937030|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.591|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.591|0.365|<0.0001
95981798|NCT02273726|191937031|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was established when the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference of LS means between the 2 treatment groups using the MMRM model lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.687|0.404|<0.0001
95981799|NCT02273726|191937032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.3||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||14.3|0.9|
95981800|NCT02273726|191937033|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||9.7|-4.3|
95981801|NCT02273726|191937034|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-11.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-11.695|-17.640|<0.0001
95981802|NCT02273726|191937035|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.869||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with MI||Treatment comparison was made using the MI strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and other randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.869|0.503|<0.0001
95981803|NCT02273726|191937036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.975||0.00091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.842|-6.445||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-6.445|-33.842|0.00091
95981804|NCT02273726|191937037|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|0.97|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening Hb (≤10.5 vs. \>10.5 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.970|0.466|0.0337
95981805|NCT02273726|191937038|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, ESA dependent incident dialysis within ≤4 months vs. \>4 months of starting dialysis when randomized, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||2.142|-0.760|0.3500
95981806|NCT03697720|191937046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Paired t-tests were used to compare worst menstrual pain rating across diary day (0-10 numeric rating scale) from baseline and at 6-8 maths followup.||||<0.0001
95981807|NCT03697720|191937047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||.119
95981808|NCT02414399|191937057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.29||Alpha =0.045 (to account for .005 alpha spending at interim analysis)|Regression, Cox||azithromycin is the numerator and placebo is the denominator|Death or rehospitalization||1.29|.64|0.58
95981809|NCT02414399|191937057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Regression, Cox||Azithromycin-numerator and placebo-denominator|Death alone||1.58|0.39|0.49
95981810|NCT02414399|191937057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.47|||Regression, Cox||numerator-azithromycin denominator-placebo|Rehospitalization alone||1.47|.70|.94
95981811|NCT02414399|191937065|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||M0||||0.77
95981812|NCT02414399|191937065|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3||||0.088
95981813|NCT02414399|191937065|SUPERIORITY|We modelled azithromycin resistance in E coli at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months of follow-up by randomisation group using generalised estimating equations with a Poisson link and exchangeable correlation structure, including site in the model. Models included an interaction term between randomisation group and follow-up timepoint (month 3 or month 6) to test whether an effect on resistance waned with time.||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||M6||||0.44
95981814|NCT02573870|191937110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p-values were not presented as non-inferiority was assessed by confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|1.663|||||Treatment difference is calculated as active minus placebo and the non-inferiority bound was 10 bpm for Day 42|||1.663|-6.153|
95981815|NCT01756040|191937116|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intestinal permeability as measured by urinary lactulose/rhamnose ratio would be higher in the lower gestational age (\<29 weeks) compared to the more mature infants (≥29 weeks gestation) at postnatal age 7-10 days.||||0.932
95981816|NCT01756040|191937117|OTHER|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that stool A1AT would be higher in infants with high IP as measured by urinary La/Rh compared to those with low IP.||||0.316
95981817|NCT01756040|191937118|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The significance value was estimated using Bayesian goodness-of-fit p-value to assess the significance of the association of the relative abundance of Clostridiales and IP categories. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Bayesian goodness of fit|||||||0.011
95981818|NCT01756040|191937119|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh ratio ≤0.05) would have been fed breastmilk for longer duration than infants with impaired barrier function (La/Rh\>0.05).||||0.0023
95981819|NCT01756040|191937120|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95764044|NCT04386616|191498050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.87|0.62|0.5495
95981820|NCT01756040|191937121|OTHER|||||||0.461||||||A priori threshold \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.461
95981821|NCT01756040|191937122|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that infants with impaired barrier function as measured by high urinary La/Rh (\>0.05) ratio at 7-10 days of age would require longer time to reach full enteral feedings than infants with normal barrier function (La/Rh≤0.05)||||0.019
95981822|NCT02081534|191937126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95981823|NCT01825057|191937162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0009
95981824|NCT01825057|191937162|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Order One - See One|||||<0.0001
95981825|NCT01825057|191937162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.178||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|degrees of freedom = 2|mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.4983
95981826|NCT01825057|191937163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method.|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0217
95981827|NCT01825057|191937163|SUPERIORITY|mean difference is Order One - See One|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0126
95981828|NCT01825057|191937163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference is Do One - See One|||||0.4231
95981829|NCT01825057|191937164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.0091
95981830|NCT01825057|191937164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0196
95981831|NCT01825057|191937164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.2832
95981832|NCT01825057|191937165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||0.1566
95981833|NCT01825057|191937165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Order One - See One|||||0.0982
95981834|NCT01825057|191937165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.6631
95764045|NCT04386616|191498050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The odds ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.71|0.57|0.5551
95981835|NCT01825057|191937166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||Mean difference = Order One - Do One|||||.1327
95981836|NCT01825057|191937166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||||mean difference = Order One - See One|||0.4097
95981837|NCT01825057|191937166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner method|Kruskal-Wallis||mean difference = Do One - See One|||||0.8779
95981838|NCT01480284|191937177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was judged based on the one-sided test of the model, y(Δ) = Baseline + Group ( Δ= -1.0). The adjusted mean values of the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated, and the adjusted mean value and two-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the TDF group and the ETV group were calculated. Non-inferiority was also to be confirmed when the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the non-inferiority limit value of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||p-value was compared with the significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.28|<0.0001
95981839|NCT01480284|191937178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||||CI and estimate difference is provided for change from Baseline in serum HBV DNA level at Week 48.|||0.39|-0.40|
95981840|NCT02716675|191937207|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|26.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|51.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||51.8|-11.7|0.15
95981841|NCT02716675|191937207|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|52.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||52.0|-25.5|
95981842|NCT02716675|191937207|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|58.0||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||58.0|-13.9|
95981843|NCT02716675|191937209|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|73.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|89.9||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||89.9|27.6|
95981844|NCT02716675|191937209|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.3|67.8||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||67.8|-174.3|
95981845|NCT02716675|191937209|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|50.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||50.3|-68.1|
95981846|NCT00290290|191937212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85|||Log Rank|||The average baseline rate of surgical-site infection at the six participating hospitals was 14% after clean-contaminated surgery with povidone-iodine skin preparation, and we estimated that substituting chlorhexidine-alcohol for povidone-iodine would reduce this rate to 7%. Therefore, we planned to enroll approximately 430 patients in each study group who could be evaluated in order for the study to have 90% power to detect a significant difference in the rates of surgical-site infection.||0.85|0.41|0.004
95981847|NCT02015442|191937213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. treatment period||||0.390
95981848|NCT02015442|191937213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.204
95981849|NCT02015442|191937214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.001
95981850|NCT02015442|191937214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs treatment||||0.244
95981851|NCT02015442|191937214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.244
95981852|NCT00701090|191937274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%, i.e., Sitagliptin was declared non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between group difference (sitagliptin minus glimepiride) was less than 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||||ANCOVA model with terms: treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c.|||0.16|-0.03|
95981853|NCT00701090|191937275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.7|||||ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||6.7|-0.9|
95981854|NCT00701090|191937276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||Miettinen &Nurminen method||Miettinen \&Nurminen method was used for the 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
95981855|NCT00701090|191937277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA model terms: treatment, country, and baseline.|||-1.6|-2.3|<0.001
95764046|NCT04386616|191498051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.4|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.40|0.71|0.3831
95981856|NCT00701090|191937278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.9|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.90|0.47|
95981857|NCT00701090|191937279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||The parameter estimate and 95% CI represent the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 30 in the Sitagliptin group vs. the Glimepiride group, computed using a logistic regression model controlling for treatment, country and baseline A1C.|||0.95|0.47|
95981858|NCT00324753|191937306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value based on a test of any treatment difference by site.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was run using the xtlogit command in Stata and was adjusted for all of the reported baseline characteristics.||||||.005
95981859|NCT02170779|191937318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95981860|NCT02170779|191937319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
95981861|NCT02170779|191937320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8434
95981862|NCT02170779|191937321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.638
95981863|NCT02170779|191937322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
95981864|NCT02170779|191937323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis refers to the physical component of the MSIS-29||||0.144
95981865|NCT02170779|191937323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This refers to the psychological analysis for the MSIS-29.||||0.953
95981866|NCT02170779|191937324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.915
95981867|NCT02170779|191937325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
95981868|NCT02170779|191937326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95981869|NCT00953719|191937329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The prospectively planned primary endpoint analysis was a non-inferiority test of covariate adjusted 24 month or later Harris Hip score means with a 5 point non-inferiority margin. A prospective power analysis with an anticipated Harris Hip score standard deviation of 10.08 (for both treatment groups) indicated that sample sizes of 134 and 67 would provide approximately 95% statistical power for this non-inferiority test with a type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||ANCOVA||||||-1.40|<0.001
95981870|NCT00953719|191937335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.952||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|SAS PROC MIXED was used with an ante-dependence covariance structure.||A repeated measurements longitudinal model of Harris Hip scores was carried out to compare Harris Hip results between treatment groups across time.||||0.952
95981871|NCT04666350|191937349|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.025||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.109|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.109|-0.160|0.711
95981872|NCT04666350|191937349|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.016||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.107|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in oocyte prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.107|-0.139|0.795
95981873|NCT04666350|191937350|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.7||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.70|0.21|0.019
95981874|NCT04666350|191937350|OTHER||Relative Rate|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||Difference between days was evaluated using zero inflated Poisson regression models having as outcome the number of oocysts, as offset the number of surviving mosquitoes, and adjusted by subject.|Poisson Regression|||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1.||0.45|0.11|0.003
95981875|NCT04666350|191937351|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.023||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.118|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DSFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DSFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.118|-0.164|0.750
95981876|NCT04666350|191937351|OTHER||Combined Difference in Prevalence|-0.031||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.117|||Other|The p-value is estimated assuming the combined difference over the square root of the weighted variance follows a normal distribution.||Comparison of DMFA Day 2 versus Day 1. For each participant, the difference in sporozoite prevalence using DMFA on Day 1 versus Day 2 was estimated. To evaluate the hypothesis that the average mean difference in the prevalence between two assays within the same subject is zero, combined estimates (weighted mean and variance) were obtained using as weight the inverse of the variance of each paired difference obtained from the Agresti and Caffo method.||0.117|-0.178|0.681
95981877|NCT02463071|191937353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-16.88|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-16.88|-36.55|<0.0001
95981878|NCT02463071|191937353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline TG and statin usage were included as covariates.||||-22.92|-42.93|<0.0001
95981879|NCT01624259|191937375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a serial gatekeeping strategy.~This calculation assumed a 0 difference in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 1.5-mg arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide, 0.4% margin of noninferiority, common Standard Deviation (SD) of 1.3% for change from baseline in HbA1c, 0.05 two-sided significance level, and 25% dropout rate at 26 weeks."|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment).|Mixed Models Analysis|||To show noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide with 90% power, 222 completers (444 total) at 26 weeks were required. Noninferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 relative to 1.8 mg liraglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in HbA1c between the 1.5 mg LY2189265 arm and 1.8 mg liraglutide arm was below 0.4%.||0.07|-0.19|<0.001
95981880|NCT01624259|191937375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||1-sided raw p-value (no multiplicity adjustment)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||0.07|-0.19|0.186
95981881|NCT01624259|191937376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.26||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model at 26 weeks.||1.26|0.17|0.010
95981882|NCT01624259|191937377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.05|0.013
95981883|NCT01624259|191937378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|4.56||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison from ANCOVA model.||4.56|-5.69|0.828
95981884|NCT01624259|191937379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|1.41||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value from pairwise comparison of LS means at 26 weeks from REML-based MMRM.||||1.41|-5.91|0.228
95981885|NCT01624259|191937380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.86||P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels ≤6.5%||1.86|0.81|0.322
95981886|NCT01624259|191937380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|P-value of treatment comparison at Week 26 is from repeated generalized linear mixed model (GLM model).||Treatment comparison for HbA1c levels \<7.0%.||1.63|0.64|0.925
95981887|NCT01624259|191937381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|6.92|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||||6.92|-4.06|0.608
95981888|NCT00683163|191937408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in percent change from baseline (Concurrent - Sequential)||9.2|-11.5|0.82
95981889|NCT04096274|191937432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
95981890|NCT04096274|191937433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
95981891|NCT04096274|191937434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.188
95981892|NCT04096274|191937435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.782
95981893|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.28||||||A/H1N1: 60-64 years||2.28|1.58|
95981894|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.08||||||A/H3N2: 60-64 years||2.08|1.38|
95981895|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.74||||||B1: 60-64 years||1.74|1.30|
95981896|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.04||||||B2: 60-64 years||2.04|1.53|
95981897|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.15||||||A/H1N1: \>=65 years||2.15|1.44|
95981898|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.65||||||A/H3N2: \>=65 years||2.65|1.74|
95981899|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.79||||||B1: \>=65 years||1.79|1.34|
95981900|NCT04024228|191937450|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs was above 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.03||||||B2: \>=65 years||2.03|1.52|
95764047|NCT04386616|191498051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.15|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.15|0.65|0.5925
95919076|NCT04147260|191797808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.379||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|11.66||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||11.66|-30.26|0.375
95919077|NCT04147260|191797808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.524||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|5.73||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.73|-28.70|0.185
95919078|NCT04147260|191797808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.544||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.12|25.5||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||25.50|-21.12|0.851
95919079|NCT04147260|191797808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.405||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.59|-7.69||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-7.69|-45.59|0.007
95919080|NCT04147260|191797808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.106||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.34|1.33||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||1.33|-31.34|0.071
95919081|NCT04147260|191797808|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.664||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.13|9.86||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.86|-33.13|0.281
95919082|NCT04147260|191797809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.69|8.0||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.00|-13.69|0.599
95919083|NCT04147260|191797809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|9.9||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||9.90|-7.92|0.824
95919084|NCT04147260|191797809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.973||0.525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|8.23||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||8.23|-15.90|0.525
95919085|NCT04147260|191797809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.867||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.84|5.84||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||5.84|-21.84|0.250
95919086|NCT04147260|191797809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|17.12||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||17.12|-6.74|0.386
95919087|NCT04147260|191797809|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.88|2.51||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||2.51|-28.88|0.097
95919088|NCT04147260|191797810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.842||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.83|14.81||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||14.81|-12.83|0.885
95919089|NCT04147260|191797810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.55|40.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||40.25|17.55|<0.001
95919090|NCT04147260|191797810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.28|-12.54||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-12.54|-43.28|<0.001
95981901|NCT04196803|191937474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||<0.05
95981902|NCT04196803|191937475|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
95981903|NCT04196803|191937476|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||>0.05
95981904|NCT04196803|191937477|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear model adjusted for age, sex, and baseline level||||||=0.08
95981905|NCT03600142|191937496|NON_INFERIORITY|For WLHIV (n=55), chi-square tests were used to assess differences between conditions in the proportion of participants who were retained in HIV care at 3 months post enrollment.||||||0.963|||||||Chi-squared|||We were aware that our resources of time and funding would not be sufficient to detect a significant difference in the HIV care outcome, and that we would only be able to detect observational signals of impact. We aimed for a minimum of 50 WLHIV, which is considered an adequate sample to assess feasibility and acceptability in a pilot intervention study. Given an estimated 5% HIV prevalence among women presenting for ANC, this required us to enroll 1000 female participants.||||0.963
95981906|NCT02248259|191937511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.522|128.376|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.376|100.522|
95981907|NCT02248259|191937511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.839|99.452|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.452|77.839|
95919091|NCT04147260|191797810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.041||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.33|-3.92||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-3.92|-36.33|0.016
95919092|NCT04147260|191797810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.931||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.53|32.46||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||32.46|4.53|0.011
95919093|NCT04147260|191797810|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with unstructured (UN) covariance matrix on photosensitivity index (PI) values|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-20.25||P-value is for testing Least Squares Mean Difference=0|Linear mixed model|Treatment, time, and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects and subject as a random effect||||-20.25|-57.00|<0.001
95919094|NCT01088529|191797819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.432||||0.2148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|2.386|||Chi-squared|||||2.386|0.859|0.2148
95919095|NCT01088529|191797820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.477||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.205|1.109|||Fisher Exact|||||1.109|0.205|0.1796
95919096|NCT01088529|191797821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|6.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.701|15.753|||Chi-squared|||||15.753|2.701|<0.0001
95919097|NCT00654940|191797981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||||80.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of pregabalin - placebo: mixed effects analysis of covariance model fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect, and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||-0.41|-1.21|
95919098|NCT00654940|191797982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.493||||80.0|-3.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|||Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory treatment comparison: Pregabalin - Placebo. Total score was analyzed using a mixed effect analysis of covariance model based on the full analysis set (FAS), accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||2.78|-3.82|
95919099|NCT00654940|191797983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29000.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17000.0||||80.0|6100.0|51000.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference in least squares means Pregabalin-Placebo. Model of day (8 am to 8 pm) total activity score at end of treatment. Mixed effects analysis of covariance model was fitted on the full analysis set population, accounting for period and treatment effects. Subject was fitted as a random effect and baseline was fitted as two covariates.||51000|6100|
95919100|NCT01682538|191797984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|0.81|
95919101|NCT01682538|191797985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.85|
95919102|NCT01682538|191797986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25).|Ratio of geometric means|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.96|
95919103|NCT01682538|191797987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence (no food effect) was established if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio was completely within the acceptance range (0.80 - 1.25)|Ratio of geometric means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.90|0.71|
95919104|NCT01852162|191798014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with a general linear model, using the corresponding baseline PD value as a covariate, was used to evaluate the comparisons between dabigatran and placebo at 7 days.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a 20% relative difference in TRAP induced MPA between dabigatran and placebo with a common standard deviation of 10%, 13 patients with available data needed to be randomized to obtain a 95% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||||<0.05
95919105|NCT01500226|191798019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
95981908|NCT02248259|191937511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.636|94.021|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||94.021|84.636|
95981909|NCT02248259|191937511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.592|97.396|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis of CD 13896||97.396|88.592|
95981910|NCT02248259|191937511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.796|103.584|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.584|95.796|
95981911|NCT02248259|191937511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|110.278|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.278|98.783|
95981912|NCT02248259|191937512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|93.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.377|108.217|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||108.217|80.377|
95981913|NCT02248259|191937512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.482|97.141|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||97.141|60.482|
95981914|NCT02248259|191937512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|78.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.304|92.052|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||92.052|67.304|
95981915|NCT02248259|191937512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|95.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.092|111.964|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||111.964|81.092|
95981916|NCT02248259|191937512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.731|93.309|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||93.309|80.731|
95981917|NCT02248259|191937512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.764|125.812|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||125.812|91.764|
95981918|NCT02248259|191937513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|128.427|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||128.427|100.505|
95981919|NCT02248259|191937513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|87.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.763|99.37|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for BI 409306||99.370|77.763|
95981920|NCT02248259|191937513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.478|93.859|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||93.859|84.478|
95981921|NCT02248259|191937513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.278|96.889|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 13896||96.889|88.278|
95981922|NCT02248259|191937513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.791|103.583|||||Ratio calculated as extensive metabolisers test treatment divided by extensive metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||103.583|95.791|
95981923|NCT02248259|191937513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence range was 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|104.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.861|110.336|||||Ratio calculated as poor metabolisers test treatment divided by poor metabolisers: ref. treatment|Analysis for CD 14084||110.336|98.861|
95981924|NCT01180478|191937523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Log Rank|||The expected recurrence rate in the WL-assisted TURBT group was 35%.14 To detect a clinically relevant difference in recurrence detection rates ≥10% at a 5% significance level and a power of 80%, the required sample size per treatment was calculated to be 329 patients (658 patients in total).||||0.585
95981925|NCT01180478|191937524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.742
95981926|NCT01180478|191937525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|The analysis was performed by using the Fisher exact test, because the criteria for using the Chi square test were not met.||The statistical analyses refers to comparison of the different 8 categories (one variable) mentioned of the Clavien grading of perioperative complications between Narrow Band Imaging and White Light Trans Urethral Resection.||||0.170
95981927|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Bleeding' between NBI and WL||||0.311
95981928|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the numbers in 'Fever' between NBI and WL||||0.666
95981929|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'UTI' between NBI and WL||||0.569
95981930|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Bladder cramps' between NBI and WL||||0.111
95981931|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'DVT' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had DVT. Therefore, the p-value is not available|||
95981932|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'CVA/TIA' between NBI and WL||||0.500
95981933|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison in the number of 'Lung embolism' between NBI and WL|Non of the participants/patients had a lung embolism. Therefore, no p-value was available|||
95981934|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Sepsis' between NBI and WL||||0.500
95919106|NCT01500226|191798020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.6|0.9|0.143
95919107|NCT01500226|191798021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
95919108|NCT04212169|191798030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.981||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.67|16.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||16.22|-13.67|0.888
95919109|NCT04212169|191798030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.756||0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.36|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||22.10|-10.36|0.549
95919110|NCT04212169|191798030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.014||0.807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|9.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences less than 0 favours MEDI3506|||9.95|-13.38|0.807
95919111|NCT04212169|191798032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|9.94|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||9.94|0.19|0.6396
95919112|NCT04212169|191798032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|6.38|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||6.38|0.03|0.9999
95919113|NCT04212169|191798032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|10.49|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||10.49|0.91|0.0935
95919114|NCT04212169|191798034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|119.65|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than one favour MEDI3506|||119.65|0.08|0.4450
95919115|NCT04212169|191798034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|28.0|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||28.0|0.0|0.9999
95919116|NCT04212169|191798034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|130.35|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio greater than 1 favours MEDI3506|||130.35|0.75|0.1132
95919117|NCT01115998|191798108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori alpha level was \< 0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.02
95919118|NCT01115998|191798108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self-care functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.52
95919119|NCT01115998|191798108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function functional skills~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
95919120|NCT01115998|191798108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Mobility care giver assistance.~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.03
95919121|NCT01115998|191798108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|The a priori alpha level was 0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||"Self-care caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||.006
95919122|NCT01115998|191798108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Social function caregiver assistance~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.45
95919123|NCT01115998|191798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Adaptive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.92
95919124|NCT01115998|191798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Cognitive total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.38
95919125|NCT01115998|191798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||90.0||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Communication total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.42
95919126|NCT01115998|191798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Motor total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.57
95919127|NCT01115998|191798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Personal-social total~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.69
95919128|NCT01115998|191798109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori alpha level was \<0.10 and it was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"BID total score~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||0.28
95981935|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison in the number of 'Acute Abdomen' between NBI and WL||||1.000
95981936|NCT01180478|191937526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison in the number of 'Other perioperative complication' between NBI and WL||||0.170
95981937|NCT01180478|191937527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.553
95981938|NCT02807480|191937528|OTHER|Correlation between conflict approach behavior and GAD-7 scores at baseline|Pearson correlation|0.23||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.088
95981939|NCT02807480|191937528|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline response time during conflict with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.134
95981940|NCT02807480|191937528|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline striatum response to points (reward) with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.032
95981941|NCT02807480|191937528|OTHER||Pearson correlation|-0.12||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right amygdala activity during negative images with baseline GAD7 scores||||0.375
95981942|NCT02807480|191937528|OTHER||Pearson correlation|0.06||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||Correlation of baseline right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with baseline GAD-7 scores.||||.651
95981943|NCT02807480|191937528|OTHER|Correlation of baseline striatum response to negative pictures with baseline GAD-7 scores.|Pearson correlation|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||.008
95981944|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear||Those with lower levels of baseline left amygdala response to positive picture outcomes had favorable GAD symptom improvements in BA and limited GAD symptom improvements in EXP.|Assess left amygdala response to positive picture decision outcomes as a predictor of GAD-7 symptom improvement: time x L. Amyg x treatment-arm interaction||-0.41|-2.62|.007
95981945|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||Baseline approach behavior during conflict trials predicting trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effect||0.97|-0.24|0.238
95981946|NCT02807480|191937529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline approach behavior on conflict trials and the trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||0.37|-1.36|.262
95981947|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|2.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.19|||Regression, Linear|||relationship between baseline response time on conflict trials and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time main effects||6.19|-1.44|.222
95981948|NCT02807480|191937529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.02|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of GAD-7 symptoms: time x treatment interaction effect||6.02|-6.48|.942
95981949|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|-0.05||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.1|-1.2|.932
95981950|NCT02807480|191937529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effects||1.53|-1.7|.922
95981951|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||.99|-.99|.998
95981952|NCT02807480|191937529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.57|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction||.57|-2.34|.234
95981953|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|-0.03||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decisions with GAD-7 trajectory: time main effects||1.47|-1.53|.967
95981954|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.91|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during conflict decision-making with GAD-7 trajectory: time x treatment interaction effect||2.91|-1.43|0.504
95981955|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.84|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_Change interaction||4.84|-8.21|0.612
95981956|NCT02807480|191937529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.08||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|13.92|||Regression, Linear|||change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RTpost-RTpre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over 10 sessions: RT\_Change x Time x Treatment interaction||13.92|-3.76|.259
95981957|NCT02807480|191937529|OTHER||Slope|-0.53||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.30|-1.35|.209
95981958|NCT02807480|191937529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) in predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change x Treatment interaction||2.73|0.33|0.013
95981959|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of the linear trajectory of symptom change over time: time x EC interaction||-0.84|-5.06|0.006
95981960|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.36|||Regression, Linear|||Assess avoidance behavior on conflict trials as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x avoidance interaction||-0.36|-1.68|0.003
95981961|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0071.|Regression, Linear|||Assess left dlPFC response to baseline negative picture decision outcomes as a predictor of PROMIS Anxiety symptom improvement: time x L. dlPFC interaction||-0.87|-2.89|.007
95981962|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|1.02||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms||1.68|0.36|.003
95981963|NCT02807480|191937530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.4|-1.48|.258
95981964|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|5.69|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||5.69|-3.08|.56
95981965|NCT02807480|191937530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|5.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT (response time) during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Anxiety symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||5.41|-8.95|.629
95981966|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS ANXIETY trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.09|-1.51|0.75
95981967|NCT02807480|191937530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.27||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.09|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.09|-0.54|.169
95764048|NCT04386616|191498051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.05|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.05|0.60|0.7487
95919129|NCT01115998|191798110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Reactive scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
95919130|NCT01115998|191798110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||"Self Initiated Scale~Null hypothesis: The change scores of children in the power mobility and control groups will not differ from baseline to 12 months."||||>0.10
95919131|NCT01646320|191798113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0964|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.53||Tested at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.53|-0.91|<0.0001
95919132|NCT01646320|191798114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-19.6|-35.4|<0.0001
95919133|NCT01646320|191798115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.493|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-24.7||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-24.7|-46.3|<0.0001
95919134|NCT01646320|191798116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.89||Secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Longitudinal Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.89|-2.12|<0.0001
95919135|NCT01646320|191798117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|34.4||Secondary end points are tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||34.4|16.7|<0.0001
95919136|NCT00479037|191798138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|360.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|256.5|494.3||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||494.3|256.5|<0.0001
95919137|NCT00479037|191798139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|127.1||P-values corresponding to the tests of treatment effect for the primary endpoints were adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||127.1|63.8|<0.0001
95919138|NCT00479037|191798140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|191.8||P-value corresponding to the tests of treatment effect was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|||The bone marker values were log-transformed for the primary analysis as they were heavily skewed. Changes in log-transformed bone marker values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as fixed effects and the baseline bone marker value as a covariate. An F-test was used to test the effect of treatment and the least square means were computed to assess the clinical difference between treatment groups.||191.8|94.8|<0.0001
95919139|NCT00581256|191798141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Perfusion Defect (PD) increase of greater than 5% for a 2.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.6
95919140|NCT00581256|191798141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||A PD increase of greater than 10% for a 1.5 SD threshold was considered significant.||||0.46
95919141|NCT03220737|191798196|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
95919142|NCT03220737|191798197|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
95919143|NCT03220737|191798198|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was based on the lower confidence limit and did not entail a comparative group. The requirement was for the lower limit of the 98.3% CI be at least 70%. Multiplicity adjustment due to coprimary endpoints allotted alpha=0.017 to this endpoint resulting in a 98.3% confidence interval.|Proportion|0.985|||||ONE_SIDED|98.3|0.7||||||||||0.7|
95919144|NCT03220737|191798199|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|2.4|7.1|||||Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions|||7.1|2.4|
95981968|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||1.31|-1.00|0.792
95981969|NCT02807480|191937530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||0.96|-2.41|.396
95981970|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-1.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.4|-2.7|.009
95981971|NCT02807480|191937530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Anxiety trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||1.84|-1.28|0.724
95981972|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-4.99||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||2.80|-12.79|.209
95981973|NCT02807480|191937530|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|23.13|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||23.13|2.23|0.017
95981974|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.43|-1.59|.259
95981975|NCT02807480|191937530|OTHER||Slope|1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.54|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.54|-0.39|.150
95981976|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-3.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Assess emotional conflict, a computational parameter reflecting avoidance relative to reward value, as a predictor of PROMIS Depression scores. Time x EC interaction.||-1.47|-5.57|0.001
95981977|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline left dlPFC response to negative pictures as a predictor of PROMIS depression symptom improvement: time x L. dlFPC interaction.||-0.95|-2.91|<.001
95981978|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-2.02||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.13||Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline striatum response to monetary outcomes as a predictor of improvement in depressive symptoms: time x treatment x striatum interaction.||-0.13|-3.9|.036
95981979|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.58||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was p\<.0125.|Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x approach behavior interaction||-0.58|-1.85|<.001
95981980|NCT02807480|191937531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.00|-1.81|.049
95981981|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.81|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x RT interaction||4.81|-3.6|.778
95981982|NCT02807480|191937531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PROMIS Depression symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||8.31|-5.56|.696
95981983|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.71|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||1.71|-0.84|.503
95981984|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||.22|-2.02|.114
95981985|NCT02807480|191937531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.11|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||2.11|-1.15|.561
95981986|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-1.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||-0.42|-2.66|.007
95981987|NCT02807480|191937531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.65||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.17|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PROMIS Depression trajectory: time x treatment dlPFC interaction||2.17|-0.87|0.403
95981988|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|5.73|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.73|-8.76|0.681
95981989|NCT02807480|191937531|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.61||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|15.46|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.46|-4.24|.264
95981990|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|-0.43||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.51|-1.38|.367
95981991|NCT02807480|191937531|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of GAD-7 scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||2.25|-0.50|.211
95981992|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS score: time x approach behavior interaction||1.41|0.08|0.028
95981993|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x approach behavior interaction||0.39|-1.49|0.251
95981994|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|-0.26||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x RT interaction||3.96|-4.49|0.902
95981995|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.23||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.01|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of SDS symptoms: time x treatment x RT interaction||9.01|-4.55|.519
95981996|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|-0.64||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x striatum interaction effects||0.64|-1.92|.326
95981997|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.26||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.05|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x striatum interaction effects||3.05|-0.53|.168
95981998|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|-0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x amygdala interaction||0.35|-1.34|.248
95981999|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment amygdala interaction||1.44|-0.84|0.603
95982000|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x dlPFC interaction||0.18|-1.89|.107
95982001|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with SDS trajectory: time x treatment x dlPFC interaction||1.80|-1.47|0.846
95982002|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|-2.26||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|5.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x RT\_change interaction||5.37|-9.89|.561
95982003|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.45||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.7|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x RT\_change interaction||15.70|-4.80|.297
95982004|NCT02807480|191937532|OTHER||Slope|-0.18||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS cores over the 10 sessions: Time x Behavior\_change interaction||0.79|-1.15|.712
95982005|NCT02807480|191937532|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of SDS scores over the 10 sessions: Time x Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||1.97|-0.84|0.431
95982006|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|-6.42||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.3|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: approach behavior main effect||5.30|-18.15|.276
95982007|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.69||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|23.5|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment PSWQ score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||23.50|-12.12|.520
95982008|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|-50.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.65|27.65|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: RT main effect||27.65|-127.65|.199
95982009|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|93.87||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|236.88|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and trajectory of PSWQ score: treatment x RT interaction||236.88|-4.14|.191
95982010|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|27.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|50.26|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ trajectory: striatum main effect||50.26|4.45|0.021
95982011|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.47||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.94|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||27.00|-37.94|.734
95982012|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|-9.79||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|6.53|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: amygdala main effect||6.53|-26.11|.231
95982013|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.55||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|41.58|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment amygdala interaction||41.58|-24.48|.602
95982014|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|-19.29||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.07|23.68|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||23.68|-62.07|.369
95982015|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.12||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|54.29|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with PSWQ post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||54.29|-36.05|.684
95982016|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|9.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|37.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||37.59|-18.39|.487
95982017|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-46.34||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-4.18|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||-4.18|-88.5|.033
95982018|NCT02807480|191937533|OTHER||Slope|39.53||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|173.85|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||173.85|-94.2|.546
95982019|NCT02807480|191937533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-89.96||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.39|147.67|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of PSWQ scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||147.67|-327.39|.443
95982020|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|-1.01||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: approach behavior main effect||1.19|-3.22|.357
95982021|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average approach behavior during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x approach behavior interaction||3.47|-2.74|.812
95982022|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|2.01||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|20.45|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: RT main effect||20.45|-16.42|.826
95982023|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.89||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|25.64|||Regression, Linear|||Relationships between baseline average RT during conflict trials on the AAC and post-treatment BDI-II score: treatment x RT interaction||25.64|-31.42|.838
95982024|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|-0.68||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: striatum main effect||4.14|-5.51|.776
95982025|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|6.4|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of striatum activity during points outcomes (reward) with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x striatum interaction effects||6.40|-7.79|.844
95982026|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|0.88||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.79|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: amygdala main effect||5.79|-4.03|.719
95982027|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.07|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right amygdala activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x amygdala interaction||4.07|-8.74|.464
95982028|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|5.91||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|13.75|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: dlPFC main effect||13.75|-1.93|.135
95982029|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.09||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|2.47|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship of right dlPFC activity during negative images with BDI-II post-treatment: treatment x dlPFC interaction||2.47|-14.65|.158
95982030|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|1.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.11|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II cores over the 10 sessions: Behavior\_change main effect||7.11|-4.78|.690
95982031|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.37||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||Change in behavior (AAC conflict post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x Behavior\_change interaction||6.25|-8.99|.715
95982032|NCT02807480|191937534|OTHER||Slope|5.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|36.65|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: RT\_change main effect||36.65|-26.38|.740
95982033|NCT02807480|191937534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.98||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|46.14|||Regression, Linear|||Change in conflict arbitration response time (AAC conflict RT post-pre) predicting trajectories of BDI-II scores over the 10 sessions: Treatment x RT\_change interaction||46.14|-48.10|.966
95982034|NCT00857532|191937612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Attention correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 attention score."||||0.021
95982035|NCT00857532|191937612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Initiation/Perseveration correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 initiation/perseveration score."||||0.077
95982036|NCT00857532|191937612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Construction correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 construction score."||||0.364
95982037|NCT00857532|191937612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Conceptualization correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 conceptualization score."||||0.266
95982038|NCT00857532|191937612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Memory correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 memory score."||||0.152
95982039|NCT00857532|191937612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for DRS-2 Total correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and DRS-2 total score."||||0.041
95982040|NCT00857532|191937613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0411||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Amyloid beta correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and amyloid beta."||||0.0411
95982041|NCT00857532|191937613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and tau."||||0.5800
95982042|NCT00857532|191937613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8164||95.0|||||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation|||"P-value for Phospho-Tau correlation coefficient. Null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between florbetapir SUVR and phospho-tau."||||0.8164
95982043|NCT02687542|191937614|OTHER|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Bayesian Dose Reponse Estimate|-0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.713|0.304||Bayesian Predictive Test for Emax (the additive increase over Placebo in the response of PF-06649751 at a theoretically infinite dose) Monotonicity|Bayesian Dose Response Analysis|Estimate and 90% credible interval of Bayesian dose response difference from placebo||||0.304|-1.713|0.5776
95982044|NCT01858532|191937658|OTHER||||||=|0.029|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.029
95982045|NCT01858532|191937658|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.878|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.878|0.488|=0.005
95982046|NCT01858532|191937659|OTHER||||||=|0.289|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||=0.289
95982047|NCT01858532|191937659|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.060|0.573|0.112
95982048|NCT01858532|191937660|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.089
95982049|NCT01858532|191937660|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.801||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.999|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.999|0.642|0.049
95982050|NCT01858532|191937661|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||0.89|0.58|0.002
95982051|NCT01858532|191937662|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||The endpoint was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test for treatment comparison.||||0.446
95982052|NCT01858532|191937662|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.215|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with pre-specified covariates adjusted was used to estimate the hazard ratio of atrasentan to placebo and its 95% confidence interval.||1.215|0.643|0.447
95982053|NCT01735279|191937697|OTHER|Test t Student|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95982054|NCT01735279|191937697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95982055|NCT01735279|191937697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95982056|NCT01735279|191937697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95982057|NCT00119041|191937700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.153|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at baseline||||>0.153
95982058|NCT00119041|191937700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.025 using Bonferroni correction for 2 statistical tests.||Comparisons were made between the intervention and control groups at 18 months||||>0.25
95982059|NCT04784897|191937702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9289||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6585|1.3102|||Log Rank|||Main comparison is between Brilacidin 5-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.3102|0.6585|0.7273
95982060|NCT04784897|191937702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8968||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5464|1.472|||Log Rank|||Secondary comparison between Brilacidin 3-dose and Pooled Placebo||1.4720|0.5464|0.5975
95982061|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
95982062|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Exponential model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
95982063|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax1 model fit|Model Assumption: 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
95982064|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Emax2 model fit|Model Assumption: 70% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
95993531|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||1.3|-1.3|0.957
95982065|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|Covariate adjusted fixed effect estimates of mean percentage change in body weight at Week 46 for each treatment group with associated covariance matrix were extracted from the MMRM (including fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors) and used as input for the MCP-Mod.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod - Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model Assumption: 50% of maximum effect achieved at dose 2.4 mg, 90% of maximum effect achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different potential dose-response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 2.5%).||||<0.0001
95982066|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-0.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.41|-6.33|0.0257
95982067|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-6.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation as used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-6.81|-12.57|<.0001
95982068|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-7.49||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.49|-13.32|<.0001
95982069|NCT04667377|191937730|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.24|-15.00|<.0001
95982070|NCT04667377|191937731|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.84||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||6.84|1.57|0.0015
95982071|NCT04667377|191937731|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|19.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||19.46|4.00|<.0001
95982072|NCT04667377|191937731|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|16.41||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||16.41|3.41|<.0001
95993532|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||2.2|-0.9|0.395
95919145|NCT03220737|191798200|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-0.3|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.3|
95919146|NCT03220737|191798201|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined using the Newcombe method of determining the difference between two independent binomial distributions. Multiple comparison adjustment for co-primary endpoints allotted alpha=0.033 to this comparison. The lower limit of the 96.7% CI needed to be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.7|-1.1|6.4||||||||6.4|-1.1|
95919147|NCT03220737|191798202|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95919148|NCT03220737|191798203|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95919149|NCT03220737|191798204|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95919150|NCT03220737|191798208|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95919151|NCT03220737|191798209|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to compare Vaxchora vaccine to placebo on the percent of subjects who seroconverted. For Vaxchora vs placebo within each cohort at each Day on study timepoint, the p-value was the same (p\<0.0001).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95919152|NCT00684983|191798220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis of the primary endpoint, PFS, will be performed using Cox regression with treatment group as a single covariate.||1.89|0.58|.89
95919153|NCT00684983|191798221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|0.5|0.93
95919154|NCT00684983|191798222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|.53|.66
95919155|NCT00684983|191798224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|.09|.26
95919156|NCT00672958|191798232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.01||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value for change from baseline in HAMD-24 at Week 6 \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-D24 as a covariate.||Change from Baseline in HAM-D24 total score at Week 6 was tested at significance level 0.05. To control for multiplicity, subsequent endpoints were to be tested in a sequential testing procedure at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint in a sequence was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints in that sequence.||1.01|-2.48|0.407
95919157|NCT00672958|191798233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 1.||1.10|-0.97|0.901
95919158|NCT00672958|191798233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.59|-1.07|0.701
95919159|NCT00672958|191798233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.76|-2.11|0.356
95919160|NCT00672958|191798233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 4||1.19|-1.85|0.670
95919161|NCT00672958|191798233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Week 5||0.79|-2.52|0.304
95919162|NCT01558674|191798258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.0|-59.1|||Linear mixed effect model||8-mg MK-7145 LS Mean minus Furosemide LS Mean|||-59.1|-138.0|
95919163|NCT01558674|191798260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.22|||Mixed Linear Effects Model||GMR = Geometric mean (GM) MK-7145 8 mg divided by GM Furosemide|||1.22|0.99|
95919164|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|2.69||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||2.69|-1.23|
95919165|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|2.29||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||2.29|-1.32|
95919166|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|2.08||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.08|-1.76|
95919167|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|2.35||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.35|-1.09|
95982073|NCT04667377|191937731|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 5% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|24.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||24.31|4.77|<.0001
95982074|NCT04667377|191937732|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|1.29|0.0120
95982075|NCT04667377|191937732|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|25.86||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||25.86|4.36|<.0001
95982076|NCT04667377|191937732|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|23.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||23.79|4.02|<.0001
95982077|NCT04667377|191937732|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 10% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|35.55||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||35.55|5.91|<.0001
95982078|NCT04667377|191937733|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.02||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||8.02|0.56|0.2654
95993533|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-2.5|0.275
95993534|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||3.4|0.1|0.039
95982079|NCT04667377|191937733|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|30.95||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||30.95|2.89|0.0002
95982080|NCT04667377|191937733|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|38.36||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||38.36|3.62|<.0001
95982081|NCT04667377|191937733|OTHER|"Missing body weight measurements were multiply imputed using MMRM with treatment, gender, baseline body weight as factors. Percentage change in body weight from baseline to Week 46 and Body weight loss ≥ 15% at Week 46 (yes/no) were derived per participant in each of the 1000 imputed datasets. Each dataset was analysed by a logistic regression. Multiple estimates from multiple imputation runs were summarised using Rubin's method."|Odds Ratio (OR)|21.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|68.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment group and gender as factors and baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Logistic regression after multiple imputation. Analysis based on all available post-baseline body weight measurements (on-treatment (first intake of study drug until 28 days after last intake of study drug) and off-treatment), except those for participants who discontinued treatment early due to COVID-19. For these participants only on-treatment values were used.||68.28|6.47|<.0001
95982082|NCT04667377|191937734|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-1.61|-7.44|0.0025
95982083|NCT04667377|191937734|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-9.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-9.19|-14.94|<.0001
95982084|NCT04667377|191937734|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.07||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-10.07|-15.85|<.0001
95982085|NCT04667377|191937734|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline body weight as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-15.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-12.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo at week 46.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-12.90|-18.67|<.0001
95982086|NCT04667377|191937735|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.98|-7.74|0.0116
95982087|NCT04667377|191937735|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-7.66||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.66|-14.39|<.0001
95982088|NCT04667377|191937735|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|-7.67||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-7.67|-14.33|<.0001
95982089|NCT04667377|191937735|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline waist circumference as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|-8.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-8.71|-15.39|<.0001
95982090|NCT04667377|191937736|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|0.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.35|-7.82|0.0733
95982091|NCT04667377|191937736|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|1.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.53|-9.71|<.0072
95982092|NCT04667377|191937736|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.17||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.17|-10.23|0.0027
95982093|NCT04667377|191937736|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline systolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|-2.06||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-2.06|-10.25|0.0033
95982094|NCT04667377|191937737|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.05||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.05|-3.92|0.2569
95982095|NCT04667377|191937737|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.00|-4.97|0.0495
95982096|NCT04667377|191937737|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 -placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.01|-4.90|0.0506
95982097|NCT04667377|191937737|OTHER|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline diastolic blood pressure as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, gender, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors, using visit as repeated measures and an unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 - placebo.|No formal hypotheses were tested.||-0.46|-5.40|0.0202
95982098|NCT01671111|191937753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.0560
95982099|NCT01671111|191937754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1232
95982100|NCT01671111|191937755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1319
95982101|NCT01671111|191937756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.8061
95982102|NCT01671111|191937757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.2297
95982103|NCT01671111|191937758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint versus baseline.|paired t-test|||||||0.1248
95982104|NCT04556136|191937767|NON_INFERIORITY|This non-inferiority study was designed to demonstrate the ability of the phototherapy kiosk to safely administer UVB radiation to participants with varying levels of 25(OH)D and achieve comparable levels of serum 25(OH)D in a similar population of adults randomized to receive RDA of 600 IU vitamin D oral supplementation daily. It is important to evaluate device equivalence to standard of care in the maintenance of sufficient levels of vitamin D in adults 18 - 70 years old.||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect sizes for significant differences were included as eta squared (ŋ2) values.||The intent-to-treat analysis plan was carried out with all available subject data points. No interim analysis was performed. Exploratory data analyses were conducted on serum vitamin D levels of participants assigned to either the oral supplementation or kiosk group. Analysis was restricted to participants with valid baseline serum vitamin D data and at least one follow-up blood draw. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.01
95982105|NCT01353079|191937810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.834|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-1.298|<0.05
95982106|NCT01353079|191937811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.388|-0.326|||ANCOVA|||||-0.326|-1.388|<0.05
95982107|NCT01353079|191937812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.771|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||||-0.329|-1.213|<0.05
95982108|NCT01353079|191937813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.788|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.284|||ANCOVA|||||-0.284|-1.291|<0.05
95982109|NCT00688155|191937824|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Physical activity training versus no physical activity training;|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training vs no physical activity training||||0.66
95982110|NCT00688155|191937824|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of mean differences from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for physical activity training is 0.55|ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training||||0.55
95982111|NCT00688155|191937824|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.95
95982112|NCT00688155|191937824|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.48
95982113|NCT00688155|191937826|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided tests of marginal means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of physical activity training versus no physical activity training.||||0.23
95982114|NCT00688155|191937826|EQUIVALENCE|Two Sided Test of Mean Difference from baseline|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Marginal comparisons of cognitive training versus no cognitive training||||0.42
95764049|NCT04386616|191498051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.21|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||2.21|0.63|0.6092
95982115|NCT00445224|191937841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.041
95982116|NCT00445224|191937842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for group and time||||.049
95982117|NCT04391036|191937843|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||This was a paired analysis comparing successful insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test statistic is based on the discordant pairs (number of participants with high successful, low unsuccessful versus low successful, high unsuccessful).||||>.99
95982118|NCT04391036|191937844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||This was a paired analysis comparing difficulty of insertion of the high and low Eudragit® Films. The McNemar's test is based on discordant pairs (high was not difficult, low was difficult versus low was not difficult, high was difficult).|McNemar|||||||.45
95982119|NCT04391036|191937845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|This was an overall Fisher's exact test so the analysis applies to all categories.||||||.26
95982120|NCT00457015|191937883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS Score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.010
95982121|NCT00457015|191937884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Blocked Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the nonparametric Blocked Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.003
95982122|NCT00457015|191937885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis using the Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.102
95982123|NCT01462435|191937904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|446.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.2935|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|206.567|687.324|||ANCOVA|||||687.324|206.567|<0.001
95982124|NCT01462435|191937904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|316.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.5971||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.136|555.155|||ANCOVA|||||555.155|77.136|0.010
95982125|NCT01462435|191937904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|313.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.5676||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.202|554.037|||ANCOVA|||||554.037|72.202|0.011
95982126|NCT01462435|191937905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
95982127|NCT01462435|191937905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
95982128|NCT01462435|191937905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
95982129|NCT01462435|191937906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95982130|NCT01462435|191937906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95982131|NCT01462435|191937906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
95982132|NCT01462435|191937907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95982133|NCT01462435|191937907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95982134|NCT01462435|191937907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95982135|NCT01462435|191937908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95982136|NCT01462435|191937908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
95982137|NCT01462435|191937908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95982138|NCT01462435|191937909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95982139|NCT01462435|191937909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
95982140|NCT01462435|191937909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
95982141|NCT01462435|191937910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95982142|NCT01462435|191937910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95982143|NCT01462435|191937910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95982144|NCT01462435|191937911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95982145|NCT01462435|191937911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95982146|NCT01462435|191937911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95982147|NCT02114164|191937970|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95982148|NCT02114164|191937971|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95982149|NCT02114164|191937972|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95982150|NCT02114164|191937972|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
95982151|NCT02114164|191937972|OTHER|||||||0.712||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
95982152|NCT02114164|191937973|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95982153|NCT02114164|191937973|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95982154|NCT02114164|191937973|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95982155|NCT02114164|191937974|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Comparison at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95982156|NCT02114164|191937974|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Comparison at 60 minutes|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95982157|NCT02114164|191937974|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Comparison at end of procedure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95982158|NCT02114164|191937975|OTHER|Number of interventions required by the anesthesiologists were compared between the AirSeal and standard Endopath groups using zero-inflated Poisson regression||||||0.41|||||||Zero-inflated Poisson regression|||||||0.41
95982159|NCT02114164|191937976|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95982160|NCT02114164|191937977|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95982161|NCT00257725|191937988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
95982162|NCT00257725|191937989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
95982163|NCT00257725|191937990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
95982164|NCT00514514|191937991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|2.82|< 0.0001
95982165|NCT01206062|191938036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.64|<0.001
95982166|NCT01206062|191938037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.60|0.003
95982167|NCT01206062|191938038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.34|0.58
95982168|NCT01206062|191938040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.67|.10
95982169|NCT01901575|191938043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.15|0.65|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||"null hypothesis:~Remifentanil IVPCA sedation in patients undergoing ablation of the idiopathic ventricular tachycardia does not cause suppression of PVC's"||0.8|0.65|0.05
95982170|NCT04746833|191938085|EQUIVALENCE|mean of Summit will be equal to mean of control||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
95982171|NCT04746833|191938086|OTHER|||||||||||||||||descriptive statistic of system use|simple descriptive findings for evaluation of feasibility of the Sumit app|||
95982172|NCT04746833|191938087|EQUIVALENCE|standard null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
95982173|NCT00806195|191938133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for this difference in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days after any vaccination (PMenACWY+Routine Vaccines-PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥ 6%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered noninferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to severe systemic reactions if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY-CRM197 vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during the first 7 days (days 1-7) after any vaccination was \<6%.||6.4|-0.8|
95982174|NCT00806195|191938134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was ≥5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.5|-0.9|
95982175|NCT00806195|191938134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis associated with the SAE safety objective was that the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the MenACWY and routine vaccine groups in the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one SAE (PMenACWY + Routine Vaccines - PRoutine Vaccines) was \<5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||MenACWY-CRM 197 administered concomitantly with routine vaccines was considered non inferior to routine vaccines alone with respect to serious adverse events if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY vaccine plus routine vaccines group minus routine vaccines only group) of the proportion of subjects experiencing at least one serious adverse event was \<5%.||1.3|-0.8|
95982176|NCT03634397|191938137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.14||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear||The delta values of the outcome from baseline 2 to post-treatment 1 were directly modeled using linear regression with adjustment for age, female sex, and the hemisphere affected by the stroke.|||9.14|2.31|<.05
95982177|NCT03634397|191938139|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.24||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.||||4.24|-2.58|<.05
95982178|NCT03634397|191938140|OTHER|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.53||P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|Regression, Linear|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|P-values include adjustment for age, female sex, and hemisphere of brain affected by stroke.|||4.53|-2.29|<.05
95982179|NCT03901105|191938161|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.785||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline CDR-SB score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.785|1.028|0.0313
95982180|NCT03901105|191938162|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.886||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for MMSE CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.886|0.962|.0833
95982181|NCT03901105|191938162|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.796||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for ADAS-Cog11 CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.796|1.122|.0141
95982182|NCT03901105|191938162|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.776||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for FAQ CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||1.776|0.984|.0639
95982183|NCT03901105|191938162|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|2.02||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|log linear model|Adjusted for treatment arm (lanabecestat 20 mg, 50 mg, or placebo), baseline age, years of education (categorical), and baseline score.|τAD++ scans represent the numerator for risk, and τAD+/τAD- scans represent the denominator|Risk ratio for CDR Global CMD. Scan results were grouped into τAD++ vs. non-τAD++ (τAD+ and τAD-) for the analysis||2.020|0.815|.2814
95982184|NCT03901105|191938163|OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between CDR-SB least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||.0305
95982185|NCT03901105|191938163|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between MMSE least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||<0.0001
95982186|NCT03901105|191938163|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between ADAS-Cog11 least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0006
95982187|NCT03901105|191938163|OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline clinical score, age, years of education (categorical), and treatment arm (lanabecestat - 20mg or 50mg - or placebo).||MMRM testing the difference between FAQ least squares mean changes of tAD++ and Non-tAD++ (tAD+ and tAD-). The unstructured covariance structure (UN) was used.||||0.0097
95982188|NCT01911442|191938165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference and the associated 95% Cl and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||3.0|-5.6|0.5463
95982189|NCT01911442|191938165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures.||2.2|-6.1|0.3592
95982190|NCT01911442|191938166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1755|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is due to rounding. the LSM for Lurasidone 20 mg/d at week 6 was -1.069 vs -0.734 for placebo group. So the LSM of the treatment difference between Lurasidone 20 mg/d and placebo was 0.335 if 3 decimals are reported.|||||0.1755
95982191|NCT01911442|191938166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2402
95982192|NCT01846728|191938178|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95982193|NCT01846728|191938179|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
95982194|NCT01846728|191938180|OTHER|Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95982195|NCT01846728|191938181|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.98
95982196|NCT01846728|191938182|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Because this was a pilot study, the study was not powered to detect differences over time. the study was performed to generate preliminary data on means and standard deviations||||0.66
95982197|NCT00496730|191938221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95982198|NCT00496730|191938222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95982199|NCT00496730|191938223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95982200|NCT03962738|191938239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|2.17|<0.001
95982201|NCT03962738|191938240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||<.001
95982202|NCT03962738|191938241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|1.03|0.037
95982203|NCT03962738|191938241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.17|2.16|<0.001
95982204|NCT03962738|191938241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.62|1.89|<0.001
95982205|NCT03962738|191938242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.81|0.197
95982206|NCT03962738|191938242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|1.01|0.044
95982207|NCT03962738|191938242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|1.08|0.023
95982208|NCT03962738|191938243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|0.73|0.268
95982209|NCT03962738|191938243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.82|1.26|0.006
95982210|NCT03962738|191938243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.50|<0.001
95982211|NCT03962738|191938244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.61|0.535
95982212|NCT03962738|191938244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|1.04|0.036
95982213|NCT03962738|191938244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.12|0.018
95982214|NCT03962738|191938245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|0.76|0.199
95982215|NCT03962738|191938245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.32|0.77|0.305
95982216|NCT03962738|191938245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.71|0.426
95982217|NCT03962738|191938246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.87|0.135
95982218|NCT03962738|191938246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.95|0.080
95982219|NCT03962738|191938246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.98|0.061
95982220|NCT03962738|191938247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.71|0.342
95982221|NCT03962738|191938247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.76|0.377
95982222|NCT03962738|191938247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.63|0.862
95982223|NCT03962738|191938249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|0.75|0.112
95982224|NCT03962738|191938249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.55|2.68|<0.001
95982225|NCT03962738|191938249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|34.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.55|3.01|<0.001
95982226|NCT03962738|191938250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.46|0.343
95982227|NCT03962738|191938250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|1.37|<0.001
95982228|NCT03962738|191938250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|1.42|<0.001
95982229|NCT03962738|191938251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.62|0.605
95982230|NCT03962738|191938251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.12|0.015
95982231|NCT03962738|191938251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.74|0.432
95982232|NCT03962738|191938252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.79|0.166
95982233|NCT03962738|191938252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.68|0.396
95982234|NCT03962738|191938252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.81|0.181
95982235|NCT03962738|191938253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.79|0.233
95982236|NCT03962738|191938253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.94|0.092
95982237|NCT03962738|191938253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|1.11|0.017
95982238|NCT03962738|191938254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
95982239|NCT03962738|191938254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.240
95982240|NCT03962738|191938254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.548
95982241|NCT03962738|191938255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.719
95982242|NCT03962738|191938255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.823
95982243|NCT03962738|191938255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.612
95982244|NCT03962738|191938256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.04|0.037
95982245|NCT03962738|191938256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.06|1.75|<.001
95982246|NCT03962738|191938256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.06|2.11|<.001
95982247|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.162
95982248|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.356
95982249|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.696
95982250|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.914
95982251|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.226
95982252|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.310
95982253|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.684
95982254|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.864
95982255|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.412
95982256|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.025
95982257|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Work Functioning||||0.619
95982258|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.824
95982259|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||Energy and Vitality||||0.476
95982260|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings and Concerns||||0.352
95982261|NCT03962738|191938257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms||||0.044
95982262|NCT00509067|191938259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||alpha set at P \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 4, 8, 12, 16 wks) x Treatment (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 33)=0.01.||||||0.93
95982263|NCT00509067|191938260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16 weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48..||||||0.23
95982264|NCT00509067|191938260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||alpha set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Time (0, 8, 16, weeks) x Group (Drug, Placebo) Effect: F(1, 32.8)=1.48.||||||0.23
95982265|NCT00117598|191938273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.63|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|Two null hypotheses (Ho) tested: 1. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/75 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. 2. PFS distributions for temsirolimus 175/25 mg and investigator's choice treatment groups are identical. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that PFS distributions differed.||0.63|0.25|<0.0001
95982266|NCT00117598|191938273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
95982267|NCT00117598|191938274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
95982268|NCT00117598|191938274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6179
95982269|NCT00117598|191938275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.28|0.46|0.3053
95982270|NCT00117598|191938275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.9515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.62|0.60|0.9515
95982271|NCT00117598|191938276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.01|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||9.01|0.14|
95982272|NCT00117598|191938276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.3|||||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||13.3|0.10|
95982273|NCT00117598|191938278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.56|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.56|0.23|<0.0001
95982274|NCT00117598|191938278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
95982275|NCT00117598|191938279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||0.67|0.23|0.0004
95982276|NCT00117598|191938279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.04|||Log Rank||HR from a cox model adjusted for baseline stratification factors|||1.04|0.40|0.0712
95982277|NCT00545064|191938282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.001||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 score = 7"||7.0|-0.6|0.001
95982278|NCT00545064|191938282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.097||95.0|-0.6|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in GSS-SYMP-6 = 0"||7.0|-0.6|0.097
95982279|NCT00545064|191938285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = -4"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
95982280|NCT00545064|191938285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.3|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The change is the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.~Null Hypothesis: change in IOP = 0"||-10.7|-12.3|<0.001
95982281|NCT02456662|191938291|SUPERIORITY|Based on previous work as well as anecdotal data from our clinic population, we expect vomiting to occur in approximately 30% of our patients who take their doxycycline the night before their procedure. To have 80% power to detect a 50% decrease in nausea and vomiting, we will need 122 patients in each arm of the study.||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00
95982282|NCT00074581|191938312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.07) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 93% lower risk of infection among all linked partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.22|0.02|<0.0001
95982283|NCT00074581|191938313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio estimate presented (0.31) is a comparison of the early-ART arm (numerator) to the delayed-ART arm (denominator), thus indicating a 69% lower risk of infection among all partner infections, during the entire study.|||0.53|0.19|<0.0001
95982284|NCT02303704|191938369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|two compare two independent quantitative groups||Null hypothesis was there is no significant difference between the means of two groups||||<0.05
95982285|NCT02303704|191938370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95982286|NCT02303704|191938371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to check the equality of means|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|To compare the means between the two groups, to find out the significant difference between Group I and II.||Null Hypothesis: The dose of nor-adrenaline on weaning from CPB is same for Group I and II.||||<0.05
95982287|NCT02303704|191938372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|to chek the equality of means between the two groups|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95982288|NCT02303704|191938373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p- value less than 0.05 was considered as significant difference in proportion between the two groups|Chi-squared|two compare the qualitative data between two groups||Null Hypothesis:The proportion of IABP use is same between the two groups||||<0.05
95982289|NCT02303704|191938374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered to be significant i.e. operative mortality is not same between the two groups|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test was used because 1 cell (25%) have expected count less than 5.||Null Hypothesis: Operative mortality ratio is same in both groups||||<0.05
95982290|NCT04456764|191938394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Test for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.55
95982291|NCT04456764|191938395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|random agency and a random participant effect||||||0.12
95982292|NCT04456764|191938396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.0986
95982293|NCT04456764|191938397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.51
95982294|NCT04456764|191938398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.04
95982295|NCT04456764|191938399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for clustering.||||||0.02
95982296|NCT04360551|191938401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
95982297|NCT04360551|191938402|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.5
95982298|NCT03496012|191938413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|2.9|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|15.0|||Fisher's Exact|||||15|-3.1|=0.354
95982299|NCT03496012|191938413|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|4.6|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Fisher's Exact|||||12.8|-1.4|=0.245
95982300|NCT03496012|191938415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|32.2||||||||32.2|5.3|
95982301|NCT03496012|191938415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.0||||||||23|3.5|
95982302|NCT03496012|191938416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|21.0||||||||21|-17.2|
95982303|NCT03496012|191938416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|30.1||||||||30.1|0.3|
95982304|NCT03227471|191938437|OTHER|||||||0.9943||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9943
95982305|NCT03227471|191938437|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982306|NCT03227471|191938437|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||< 0.0001
95982307|NCT03227471|191938437|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982308|NCT03227471|191938438|OTHER|||||||0.8869||||||P value within treatment.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8869
95982309|NCT03227471|191938438|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982310|NCT03227471|191938439|OTHER|||||||0.6407||||||P value within treatment|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.6407
95982311|NCT03227471|191938439|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982312|NCT03227471|191938454|OTHER|||||||0.5802||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.5802
95982313|NCT03227471|191938454|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982314|NCT03227471|191938454|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982315|NCT03227471|191938454|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982316|NCT03227471|191938455|OTHER|||||||0.8712||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8712
95982317|NCT03227471|191938455|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982318|NCT03227471|191938456|OTHER|||||||0.8359||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.8359
95982319|NCT03227471|191938456|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982320|NCT03227471|191938457|OTHER|||||||0.9453||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.9453
95982321|NCT03227471|191938457|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982322|NCT03227471|191938457|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982323|NCT03227471|191938457|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982324|NCT03227471|191938458|OTHER|||||||0.7849||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7849
95982325|NCT03227471|191938458|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982326|NCT03227471|191938459|OTHER|||||||0.7356||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.7356
95982327|NCT03227471|191938459|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982328|NCT03227471|191938460|OTHER|||||||0.394||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.3940
95982329|NCT03227471|191938460|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0003
95982330|NCT03227471|191938460|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982331|NCT03227471|191938460|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982332|NCT03227471|191938461|OTHER|||||||0.4757||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.4757
95982333|NCT03227471|191938461|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982334|NCT03227471|191938462|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0070
95982335|NCT03227471|191938462|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value within treatment. These are nominal p-values without multiplicity control.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95982336|NCT00736255|191938465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null Hypothesis:LDX and NRT will not facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~Alternate Hypothesis: LDX and NRT will facilitate smoking cessation compared to NRT and placebo.~This is a one tailed, proof of concept study so there is no formal power analysis, however if we see a signal for treatment effect, we would like to do further investigation by conducting a separate trial."||||0.54
95982337|NCT01251653|191938485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|81.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.3||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.863|147.205|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.205|44.863|0.4815
95982338|NCT01251653|191938485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|95.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.139|108.077|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.077|84.139|0.0149
95982339|NCT01251653|191938485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|88.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.778|94.964|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.964|81.778|0.0208
95982340|NCT01251653|191938486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|141.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.848|172.495|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Gemcitabine vs. Afatinib without Gemcitabine was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||172.495|115.848|0.8715
95982341|NCT01251653|191938486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|77.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.516|87.473|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||87.473|68.516|0.6805
95982342|NCT01251653|191938486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|83.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.794|94.217|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Afatinib with Docetaxel vs. Afatinib without Docetaxel was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||94.217|74.794|0.2327
95982343|NCT01251653|191938487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|136.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|165.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||165.29|112.09|0.7759
95982344|NCT01251653|191938488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|118.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.3359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.81|147.88|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Gemcitabine with Afatinib vs. Gemcitabine without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||147.88|94.81|0.3359
95982345|NCT01251653|191938491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|93.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.5||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.352|107.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||107.890|81.352|0.0349
95982346|NCT01251653|191938491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.053|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||118.760|81.053|0.0405
95982347|NCT01251653|191938492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|90.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.566|104.901|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.901|78.566|0.0728
95982348|NCT01251653|191938492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Ratio of adjusted gmeans in percentage|85.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.9||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.561|112.138|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Docetaxel with Afatinib vs. Docetaxel without Afatinib was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||112.138|65.561|0.3294
95982349|NCT02232802|191938497|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.28|102.65|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison for Anti-FXa||102.65|96.28|
95982350|NCT02232802|191938497|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, Cmax was subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|91.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.65|96.73|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Statistical comparison on Anti-FIIa||96.73|86.65|
95982351|NCT02232802|191938498|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean difference ratio|102.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.67|105.15|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa statistical comparison||105.15|100.67|
95982352|NCT02232802|191938498|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-t values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|least square mean difference ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.72|97.25|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||97.25|87.72|
95982353|NCT02232802|191938499|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.68|106.9|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXA comparison||106.9|101.68|
95982354|NCT02232802|191938499|EQUIVALENCE|Following logarithmic transformation, AUC0-inf values were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA), including fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|least square mean ratio|90.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.38|95.8|||||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||95.8|85.38|
95982355|NCT02232802|191938500|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FXa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.7642
95982356|NCT02232802|191938500|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % non-parametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|least square mean ratio|0.0||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Geometric least square means are being compared.|Anti-FIIa comparison||0.5|-0.5|0.9464
95982357|NCT02232802|191938506|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|103.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.22|106.73||||||||106.73|101.22|
95982358|NCT02232802|191938507|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.93|113.46||||||||113.46|103.93|
95982359|NCT02232802|191938508|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.51|108.28||||||||108.28|97.51|
95982360|NCT02232802|191938509|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|114.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.29|129.08||||||||129.08|102.29|
95982361|NCT02232802|191938510|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.8554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|= 0.8554
95982362|NCT02232802|191938511|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|geometric least square mean ratio|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.27|102.47||||||||102.47|99.27|
95982363|NCT02232802|191938512|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|105.6||||||||105.6|85.7|
95982364|NCT02232802|191938513|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.5|-0.25|= 0.6857
95982365|NCT02232802|191938519|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|111.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.89|117.17||||||||117.17|105.89|
95982366|NCT02232802|191938520|EQUIVALENCE|Results obtained using a fixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment and subject nested within sequence|Geometric least square mean ratio|113.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.47|120.53||||||||120.53|107.47|
95982367|NCT02232802|191938525|EQUIVALENCE|An assessment of tmax was performed using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test. In addition, a 95 % nonparametric CI was constructed for the median difference in tmax based on the method of Campbell and Gardner.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is the difference between median tmax in Test IMP versus Reference IMP arms.|||0.13|-0.13|= 0.9217
95919168|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|2.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.25|-1.88|
95982368|NCT00885703|191938527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Testing discontinuation of any dose Fluconazole (pooled by treatment and dose) versus discontinuation of Ampho B (pooled). The null hypothesis is the two treatments have the same proportion of discontinuation.||||0.0012
95982369|NCT00885703|191938528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among 4 treatment arms, comparison of three categorical groups: (CM negative, CM negative after switching treatment, and CM Positive/Died/Lost to Follow-up) at week 10. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have no differences at week 10.||||0.012
95919169|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||2.37|-1.47|
95982370|NCT00885703|191938529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in quantitative CSF culture among 4 treatment arms. The null hypothesis is the 4 treatment arms have the same change in CSF culture from entry to week 2.||||0.019
95982371|NCT00885703|191938530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1200mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.0894
95982372|NCT00885703|191938530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 1600mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.4828
95982373|NCT00885703|191938530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1766||||||Analysis did not adjust for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival from entry to week 24 between Fluconazole 2000mg arm and Ampho B arm. The null hypothesis is there is no difference in survival between these two arms.||||0.1766
95982374|NCT00937937|191938543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||1-year overall survival estimate|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49||||||one-year overall survival estimate.||0.49|0.27|
95982375|NCT00937937|191938544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6-month PFS estimate|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||||||6-month PFS estimate.||0.15|0.03|
95982376|NCT05368961|191938587|OTHER|Null hypothesis; there is no difference in anxiety scores between usual care and distraction||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95982377|NCT00139776|191938595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||"Null hypothesis for primary outcome is that there is no difference in the number of flares observed between the 2 treatment arms of celecoxib 200mg continuous use and celecoxib 200mg intermittent use.~Sample size calculation: Sufficient number of participants were randomized to provide at least 80% power to detect an estimated effect size of 0.2 using a 2-sided t-test at a 0.05 significant level."||||<0.0001
95982378|NCT00139776|191938596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis||||<0.0001
95982379|NCT00139776|191938597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
95982380|NCT00139776|191938598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
95982381|NCT00139776|191938599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
95982382|NCT00139776|191938599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||<0.001
95764050|NCT01377012|191498062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
95982383|NCT00139776|191938599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||<0.001
95982384|NCT00139776|191938599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.003
95982385|NCT00139776|191938599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.022
95982386|NCT00139776|191938599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.047
95982387|NCT00139776|191938600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 4||||<0.001
95982388|NCT00139776|191938600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 8||||0.001
95982389|NCT00139776|191938600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 12||||0.096
95982390|NCT00139776|191938600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 16||||0.338
95764051|NCT01377012|191498062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.4|0.0004
95982391|NCT00139776|191938600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.832||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 20||||0.832
95982392|NCT00139776|191938600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Week 24||||0.972
95982393|NCT00139776|191938601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046||95.0||||Overall p-value Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.0046
95982394|NCT00139776|191938602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0102
95982395|NCT00139776|191938603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0012
95982396|NCT00139776|191938604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Treatment as fixed effect||||||<0.0001
95982397|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Total WOMAC score||||<0.001
95982398|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|0.21|2.99|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Continuous use||2.99|0.21|
95982399|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||||95.0|3.6|6.38|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|Total WOMAC score - Intermittent use||6.38|3.60|
95982400|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
95982401|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.06|0.67|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Continuous use||0.67|0.06|
95982402|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||95.0|0.88|1.49|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC pain subscale - Intermittent use||1.49|0.88|
95982403|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||0.004
95982404|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.02|0.25|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Continuous use||0.25|-0.02|
95982405|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|0.26|0.53|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC stiffness subscale - Intermittent use||0.53|0.26|
95982406|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||0.002
95982407|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|0.13|2.14|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Continuous use||2.14|0.13|
95982408|NCT00139776|191938605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||||95.0|2.42|4.43|||||Change in LSmean (score at end of Period III minus score at start of Period III)|WOMAC physical function subscale - Intermittent use||4.43|2.42|
95982409|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2712||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep disturbance||||0.2712
95982410|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Snoring||||0.8737
95982411|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7703||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Awaken short of breath||||0.7703
95982412|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Quantity of sleep||||0.3769
95982413|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4075||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep adequacy||||0.4075
95982414|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5854||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Somnolence||||0.5854
95982415|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8358||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index I||||0.8358
95982416|NCT00139776|191938606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5878||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Sleep problems index II||||0.5878
95982417|NCT00139776|191938607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC total score||||<0.001
95982418|NCT00139776|191938607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC pain subscale||||<0.001
95982419|NCT00139776|191938607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC stiffness subscale||||<0.001
95982420|NCT00139776|191938607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||WOMAC physical function subscale||||<0.001
95982421|NCT00139776|191938608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1437||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|by general association||Analysis across all 3 sleep scores for Period III||||0.1437
95982422|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical function||||<0.0001
95982423|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role physical||||<0.0001
95982424|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Bodily pain||||<0.0001
95982425|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||General health||||0.3097
95982426|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Vitality||||0.0139
95982427|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1303||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Social functioning||||0.1303
95982428|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Role emotional||||0.1404
95982429|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4015||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental health||||0.4015
95982430|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Physical component summary||||<0.0001
95982431|NCT00139776|191938609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0301||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||Mental component summary||||0.0301
95982432|NCT02161575|191938621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-20.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Confidence Interval for the Median Change form Baseline||The null hypothesis was that the change in CSRT from baseline to Day 90 was zero||-20.50|-59.50|<0.0001
95982433|NCT01478360|191938644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.617|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.285|-0.617|0.5392
95982434|NCT01010633|191938666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.9|||Chi-squared|||||22.9|5.7|<0.001
95982435|NCT01010633|191938668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|21.4|<0.001
95993535|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.6|-1.8|0.895
95982436|NCT00097773|191938678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66||There was no significant interaction with ciprofloxacin in this analysis.|Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|The primary analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation requiring IV antibiotics or hospitalization. Assuming a total sample size of 300 (150 per group), the study provided 80% power to detect at least a 40% reduction in the risk of exacerbation in the cycled group as compared to the culture-based group at the two-sided alpha level of 5%.||1.66|0.54|0.86
95982437|NCT00097773|191938678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.54|||Regression, Cox||risk of exacerbation comparing oral cipro to oral placebo|A secondary comparison was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.54|0.82|0.20
95982438|NCT00097773|191938679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.28||95.0|0.49|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|odds of a positive culture comparing cycled therapy to culture-based therapy|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cycled and culture-based treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.23|0.49|0.28
95982439|NCT00097773|191938679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||odds of a positive culture comparing the cipro group to the placebo group|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between pooled cipro and placebo treatment groups in the odds of a Pa positive culture over the 18 month study.||1.71|0.71|0.67
95982440|NCT00097773|191938680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Regression, Cox|No interaction with ciprofloxacin usage was observed.|Hazard ratio comparing cycled to culture based therapy|The analysis compared the pooled Cycled Therapy group (n=152) vs. the Pooled culture-based therapy group (n=152). The null hypothesis was no difference between groups in the risk of pulmonary exacerbation.||1.11|0.58|0.18
95982441|NCT00097773|191938680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio comparing cipro to placebo.|This analysis was between the pooled oral cipro (n=152)and pooled placebo groups (n=152. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||1.78|0.94|0.12
95982442|NCT02790138|191938689|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.5||The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||The Placebo IV and Vedolizumab IV 300 mg groups were analyzed using Fisher's Exact Test at Week 14.||37.5|4.9|0.013
95982443|NCT02790138|191938690|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|17.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|35.1||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||||35.1|0.3|=0.043
95982444|NCT02790138|191938691|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|25.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|41.4||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test|||Week 14||41.4|8.0|=0.004
95982445|NCT02790138|191938691|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.6|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.0||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34.||37.0|1.9|=0.027
95982446|NCT02790138|191938692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.4|||||Hazard ratio for achieving PDAI remission.|||9.4|1.7|
95982447|NCT02790138|191938693|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|29.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|47.6||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 14||47.6|8.0|=0.003
95982448|NCT02790138|191938693|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|21.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|39.8||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Chi-squared Test|||Week 34||39.8|1.9|=0.026
95982449|NCT02790138|191938694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|2.02|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.93||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.93|1.11|=0.002
95982450|NCT02790138|191938694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.49||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.49|0.92|=0.020
95982451|NCT02790138|191938695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.34|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.94||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.94|0.74|=0.191
95982452|NCT02790138|191938695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.07|||=|0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.54||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.54|0.60|=0.766
95982453|NCT02790138|191938696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.57|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.31||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.31|0.83|=0.055
95982454|NCT02790138|191938696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.48|||=|0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.16|0.79|=0.095
95982455|NCT02790138|191938697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.14|||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.67||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||1.67|0.61|=0.575
95982456|NCT02790138|191938697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.21|||=|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.78|0.65|=0.403
95982457|NCT02790138|191938697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.6|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.34||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||2.34|0.85|=0.047
95982458|NCT02790138|191938698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.44|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.12||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 14||2.12|0.77|=0.119
95982459|NCT02790138|191938698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.15|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.69||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 22||1.69|0.62|=0.542
95982460|NCT02790138|191938698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Estimator|1.22|||=|0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78||No multiplicity adjustment for inferential testing for secondary endpoints was preplanned, p-values from these tests are presented as nominal p-values. The significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test comparing change from Baseline to relevant visits.Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator,95% CI are presented.||Change from Baseline at Week 34||1.78|0.65|=0.404
95982461|NCT04305275|191938706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.0|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||0.00|-2.14|0.0491
95982462|NCT04305275|191938707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.01|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.01|-1.60|0.0468
95982463|NCT04305275|191938707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.46|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||0.46|-1.41|0.3124
95792987|NCT00386334|191555750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95982464|NCT04305275|191938707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.81|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||0.81|-1.61|0.5148
95982465|NCT04305275|191938707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.91|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||0.91|-1.45|0.6452
95982466|NCT04305275|191938707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||0.20|-1.73|0.1171
95982467|NCT04305275|191938707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.73|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||1.73|-0.50|0.2724
95982468|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.21|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||1.21|-1.42|0.8784
95982469|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||2.30|-0.44|0.1795
95982470|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.17|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.17|-2.15|0.5588
95792988|NCT00386334|191555753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0014
95982471|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||0.5036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.13|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.13|-1.06|0.5036
95982472|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.79|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||1.79|-1.15|0.6636
95982473|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.15|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.15|-0.87|0.3999
95982474|NCT04305275|191938708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.776||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.22|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||2.22|-0.88|0.3933
95982475|NCT04305275|191938709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.167||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-0.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||-0.47|-5.14|0.0193
95982476|NCT04305275|191938709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15||-0.40|-5.51|0.0243
95982477|NCT04305275|191938709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||-0.14|-4.98|0.0385
95982478|NCT04305275|191938709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.08|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||1.08|-3.81|0.2682
95982479|NCT04305275|191938709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.59|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||3.59|-1.34|0.3649
95982480|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.9|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 8||0.90|-3.41|0.2478
95982481|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.47|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, Pre-dose||1.47|-3.29|0.4486
95982482|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.352||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.19|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 5 Hours Post-dose||1.19|-4.22|0.2662
95919170|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|1.92||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||1.92|-1.99|
95982483|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.57|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 15, 8 Hours Post-dose||2.57|-2.56|0.9965
95982484|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.2|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 22||2.20|-2.68|0.8437
95982485|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.14|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 29||2.14|-2.78|0.7960
95982486|NCT04305275|191938710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.52|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, \& timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||Change From Baseline at Day 42||4.52|0.05|0.0456
95982487|NCT01022242|191938713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8861
95982488|NCT02243865|191938723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6938|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||||||0.6938
95982489|NCT02243865|191938724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 1st month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.6557
95982490|NCT02243865|191938724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 2nd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.515
95982491|NCT02243865|191938724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the 3rd month of the three month post treatment investigation duration||||0.3256
95982492|NCT02243865|191938724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4086|||||||ANCOVA|In the analyses the baseline value was used as a covariate in order to adjust for initial differences at treatment start.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline in number of migraine days during the final four weeks of the three month post treatment investigation duration.||||0.4086
95982493|NCT03654976|191938732|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31|||Negative binomial regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The number of clinically relevant asthma exacerbations was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time in years in the efficacy period as offset. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||1.31|0.60|0.5412
95982494|NCT03654976|191938733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7713||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.44|0.41|0.4156
95982495|NCT03654976|191938734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8477||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Marginal logistic regression||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|A marginal logistic regression model with a generalized estimating approach was analyzed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit is included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.26|0.57|0.4146
95982496|NCT03654976|191938735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.7|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||12 SQ-HDM - placebo|A 'mixed-effect model repeated measurement' model was analysed using treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. Baseline visit was included as a covariate. No missing data approach was applied.||1.70|-1.47|0.8829
95982497|NCT03654976|191938736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.96|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||3.96|1.29|0.0044
95982498|NCT03654976|191938737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.62||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.74|||Generalised linear mixed model||12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet as the numerator and placebo SLIT-tablet as the denominator.|The odds of having an improved outcome was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included treatment, age group (\<12 years, \>=12 years) and region (west: DEU, ESP, FRA, GBR and USA; central: POL; east: BGR, HUN and RUS) as fixed factors. No missing data approach was applied.||2.74|0.96|0.0698
95982499|NCT01660451|191938748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|45.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.49|61.06||0.0001|Exact binomial test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||61.06|30.49|0.0001
95982500|NCT01660451|191938748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.83|39.57||0.0001|Exact binominal test|P-value was based on the original patients in the aggressive arm (for the first 34 patients), not including the additional recruited patients.||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||39.57|16.83|0.0001
95982501|NCT01660451|191938749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|59.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|67.32||0.001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||67.32|50.60|<0.0001
95982502|NCT01660451|191938750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|46.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.54|62.66||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||62.66|31.54|0.0001
95982503|NCT01660451|191938750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|31.25||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.35|43.97||0.0001|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 5%.||43.97|20.35|0.0001
95982504|NCT01660451|191938751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response rate|51.41||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.88|59.87||0.01|Exact binominal test|||Response rate was statistically compared by exact binomial test if higher than 40%.||59.87|42.88|0.0039
95982505|NCT01660451|191938762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||2.5|0.5|
95982506|NCT01660451|191938763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||||||Hodges-Lehmann-estimate was used to calculate change to Week 16 and 95% confidence interval.||3.2|-0.7|
95982507|NCT01034540|191938784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.959||||||Values were not normally distributed, thus analyses were performed on ranked values and medians (IQL) are presented.|ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||An evaluable sample of 19 subjects provided 80% power (5% alpha-level, 2-tailed) to detect a 2.1 unit difference between control and active in MISI, assuming a 3.0 unit standard deviation (SD). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess responses to treatment. Initial repeated measures models contained terms of treatment period, and sequence as fixed effects, with subject modeled as random effect; models were reduced until only significant terms or treatment remained.||||0.959
95982508|NCT01034540|191938785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).||||||0.037
95982509|NCT01034540|191938785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||||||All tests of statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|||||||0.073
95982510|NCT03805750|191938800|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.52
95982511|NCT00698997|191938823|OTHER|Non- equivalence.|slope difference|1.01||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Change-over-Time was modeled as a linear within-subject effect of time across all observed data for each participant. We fit splines to manage the differing lengths of time in parent-training versus direct treatment. In all analyses, site was included as a categorical covariate to account for potential differences. Effect sizes were reported following Cohen's recommendations as f2.||||.03
95982512|NCT05314712|191938852|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model (repeated measures model) of sleep trouble||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. Under the assumption that the likert scale data was treated as continuous, the data was analyzed using a linear mixed model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final sleep trouble model included the covariates timing of survey, DASS scale, and indicator variable if child played outside.|||
95982513|NCT05314712|191938852|OTHER|Mixed effects linear regression model of hours slept||||||||||||There was no hypothesis test. All participants received the 7-week intervention - there was no comparison group. A variable selection approach (AIC) was used for including the final variables in the model.||||Since all participants in this pilot study received in the intervention and data was collected pre and post intervention, there was no hypothesis test. The data was analyzed using a mixed effects linear regression model. Variables in final model were included after variable selection (details below).|Using an exhaustive search of all models (dredge) that could be formed from predictor variables partner sleep rating, perceived stress, DASS scale, 8-item diet scale, amount of screen time, amount of time between bed time and wake time, amount of time to fall asleep, hours of sleep, sleep rating score, indicator variable if the child played outside, bed time, and wake time, adult height in inches, adult BMI, adult's highest education attained, the number of children in the household, grade of the child, child height in inches, child BMI, age of the child, and gender of the child, requiring the the timing of the survey be in the model, and accounting for repeated measurements over time, using AIC as the selection criterion we looked for the model with the smallest AIC value. The final model for hours slept included the covariates number of children in the household, indicator variable if child played outside, and baseline hours slept.|||
95982514|NCT01798589|191938927|OTHER|Bioequivalence is assessed based on concordance between the 2 allergen using Kappa statistic|Concordance|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|90.2||||||||90.2|41.6|
95982515|NCT01439282|191938958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108||||||1-side P value was obtained|1-sample binomial test|||||||0.1080
95982516|NCT03670953|191938974|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.97||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Good on time as outcome, baseline Good on time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||0.97|0.09|0.0194
95982517|NCT03670953|191938975|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||"LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in Off time as outcome, baseline Off time as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction."|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||-0.06|-0.90|0.0252
95982518|NCT03670953|191938976|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Percent difference|10.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|18.3||"P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled center comparing the percentage of Much or Very Much Improved participants between the treatment groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.5|0.0015
95982519|NCT03670953|191938977|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||LSM, SE, CI and p-value from a MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III Score as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect and a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||1.7|-1.8|0.9587
95982520|NCT03670953|191938978|SUPERIORITY|2-sided at a significance level of alpha = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||LSM, SE, CI \& p-value from MMRM with CFB in MDS-UPDRS Part II \& III Scores as outcome, baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II and III Scores as a covariate, treatment and visit as fixed effects, pooled center as random effect \& a treatment-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|The degree-of-freedom of the denominator is estimated using the Kenward-Roger method. Unstructured covariance structure is assumed.||||2.1|-2.2|0.9668
95993536|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||2.3|-2.1|0.914
95792989|NCT00386334|191555756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95792990|NCT00386334|191555759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0005
95982521|NCT00054704|191938979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|0.934||A linear mixed model included drug, visit and their interaction as fixed factors. Subject was a random factor. The test here is for the main effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline score was a covariate. Restricted maximum likelihood estimates were used with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||The primary intent of this study was to compare the efficacy of riluzole to placebo in the treatment of overall depressive symptomatology of bipolar disorder subjects who were acutely depressed. Data from 8 riluzole and 11 placebo participants were analyzed due to missing data for one riluzole patient.||0.934|-12.590|.086
95982522|NCT01469182|191939003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|9.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||16.7|3.1|0.005
95982523|NCT01469182|191939004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.2|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||8.2|2.9|<0.001
95982524|NCT01469182|191939005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.5|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||10.5|5.5|<0.001
95982525|NCT01469182|191939006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||13.6|6.6|<0.001
95982526|NCT01469182|191939007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||7.4|3.3|<0.001
95982527|NCT01469182|191939008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.17||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||1.9|-2.1|0.861
95982528|NCT01469182|191939009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15||||0.344||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.3|-1.5|0.344
95982529|NCT01469182|191939010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.99||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||3.0|-1.5|0.382
95982530|NCT01469182|191939011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Baseline asthmatic status as the factor||||4.4|0.3|0.029
95982531|NCT02187471|191939015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||Difference of means|||||0.23|-0.52|0.4601
95982532|NCT02187471|191939015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.03|||Difference of means|||||-0.03|-0.77|0.0350
95982533|NCT02187471|191939015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.37|||Difference of means|||||-0.37|-1.12|0.0001
95982534|NCT02187471|191939015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98|||Difference of means|||||0.98|0.22|0.0019
95982535|NCT02187471|191939015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.72|||Difference of means|||||0.72|-0.04|0.0761
95982536|NCT02187471|191939017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.68|||Difference of means|||||1.68|-4.86|0.3407
95982537|NCT02187471|191939017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.15|||Difference of means|||||-2.15|-8.69|0.0012
95982538|NCT02187471|191939017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-1.13|||Difference of means|||||-1.13|-7.66|0.0083
95982539|NCT02187471|191939017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.09|||Difference of means|||||6.09|-0.48|0.0946
95982540|NCT02187471|191939017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.24|||Difference of means|||||2.24|-4.30|0.5384
95982541|NCT02187471|191939019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.0030
95792991|NCT00386334|191555762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95982542|NCT02187471|191939019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
95982543|NCT02187471|191939019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|0.0001
95982544|NCT02187471|191939019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3562
95982545|NCT02187471|191939019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0862
95982546|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.5183
95982547|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.9|0.2669
95982548|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.4630
95982549|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9280
95982550|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.7|0.7089
95982551|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0|-1.1|0.0669
95982552|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0081
95982553|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-1.0|0.0867
95982554|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.6|0.9066
95982555|NCT02187471|191939020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3509
95982556|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6203||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.404|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.404|0.970|0.0004
95982557|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.265|3.701|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||3.701|1.265|<0.0001
95982558|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||3.840|1.401|<0.0001
95982559|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6245||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.659|0.792|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.792|-1.659|0.4877
95982560|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|1.089|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.089|-1.364|0.8263
95982561|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7345||0.7567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.213|1.669|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.669|-1.213|0.7567
95982562|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7349||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|2.735|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.735|-0.149|0.0787
95982563|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7358||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|2.129|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.129|-0.758|0.3516
95982564|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7372||0.5344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.905|0.988|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.988|-1.905|0.5344
95982565|NCT02187471|191939021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7379||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.055|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.055|-0.840|0.4107
95982566|NCT02187471|191939022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0066|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||||0.0471|-0.0066|0.1394
95982567|NCT02187471|191939022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01369||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.048|||ANCOVA|||||0.0480|-0.0058|0.1237
95792992|NCT00386334|191555765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95982568|NCT02187471|191939022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01371||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0655|||ANCOVA|||||0.0655|0.0117|0.0049
95982569|NCT02187471|191939022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454|0.0086|||ANCOVA|||||0.0086|-0.0454|0.1824
95982570|NCT02187471|191939022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01378||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0446|0.0095|||ANCOVA|||||0.0095|-0.0446|0.2036
95982571|NCT02187471|191939023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.87|0.0006
95982572|NCT02187471|191939023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.20|<0.0001
95982573|NCT02187471|191939023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.27|<0.0001
95982574|NCT02187471|191939023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.0158
95982575|NCT02187471|191939023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.25|0.6819
95982576|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
95982577|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.2005
95982578|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.0|0.0010
95982579|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.0|0.2|0.0030
95982580|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3351
95982581|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
95982582|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0782
95982583|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0068
95982584|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0169
95982585|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1481
95982586|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
95982587|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.8|0.0088
95982588|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
95982589|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
95982590|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3064
95982591|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
95982592|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.7|0.0868
95982593|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0004
95982594|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|0.1|0.0271
95982595|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6838
95982596|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.454|-1.129|<0.0001
95982597|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.007|-0.667|0.0552
95982598|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.275|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.275|-0.950|0.0004
95982599|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1729||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.801|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.801|0.122|0.0077
95982600|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.518|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.518|-0.161|0.3014
95982601|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||14.3|4.9|<0.0001
95982602|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||13.2|3.8|0.0004
95982603|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||15.1|5.7|<0.0001
95982604|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.6|-5.8|0.6449
95982605|NCT02187471|191939025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.5|-3.9|0.7340
95982606|NCT02187471|191939026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.4816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.060|0.4816
95982607|NCT02187471|191939026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.020|-.109|0.0044
95982608|NCT02187471|191939026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.030|-0.119|0.0010
95982609|NCT02187471|191939026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|0.014|0.0094
95982610|NCT02187471|191939026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.034|0.6527
95982611|NCT01785160|191939027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability (No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|272.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|67.9||0.9999||95.0|199.69|370.66||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||370.66|199.69|0.9999
95982612|NCT01785160|191939028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability(No formal testing was performed)|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|245.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.1||0.9973||95.0|168.46|358.404||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Raltegravir plus Faldaprevir and Raltegravir for the category Raltegravir||358.404|168.460|0.9973
95982613|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0034
95982614|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.2600
95982615|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated measures Analysis of Variance|||60 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0001
95982616|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0039
95982617|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9300
95982618|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||90 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0031
95982619|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0190
95982620|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.9200
95982621|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||120 minutes after study drug injection.||||0.0150
95982622|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0950
95982623|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.6000
95982624|NCT00916357|191939029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Peak postprandial glucose (PPG) values.||||0.0310
95982625|NCT00916357|191939030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982626|NCT00916357|191939030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1800
95982627|NCT00916357|191939030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982628|NCT00916357|191939031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0045
95982629|NCT00916357|191939031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.4800
95982630|NCT00916357|191939031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0006
95982631|NCT00916357|191939032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982632|NCT00916357|191939032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0016
95982633|NCT00916357|191939032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.1000
95982634|NCT00916357|191939033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone + Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982635|NCT00916357|191939033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.3000
95982636|NCT00916357|191939033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982637|NCT00916357|191939034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982638|NCT00916357|191939034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.7700
95982639|NCT00916357|191939034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.0001
95982640|NCT00916357|191939035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0100
95982641|NCT00916357|191939035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8200
95982642|NCT00916357|191939035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.0056
95982643|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.064
95982644|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.47
95982645|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>160 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.012
95982646|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.099
95982647|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
95982648|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \>140 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.020
95982649|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.13
95982650|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.41
95982651|NCT00916357|191939036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Participants with blood glucose (BG) \<70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)||||0.46
95982652|NCT00916357|191939037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.016
95982653|NCT00916357|191939037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.8800
95982654|NCT00916357|191939037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.011
95982655|NCT00916357|191939039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
95982656|NCT00916357|191939039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.1800
95982657|NCT00916357|191939039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 10% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
95982658|NCT00916357|191939039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
95982659|NCT00916357|191939039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humulin-R + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||0.7200
95982660|NCT00916357|191939039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog + recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) and Humulin-R + rHuPH20.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||Analysis for 50% of exposure (area under the curve \[AUC\])||||<0.0001
95982661|NCT01101438|191939057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.93
95982662|NCT01101438|191939058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.87|0.94
95982663|NCT01101438|191939059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.83|0.88
95982664|NCT00709111|191939072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||The p-value is one-sided with a nominal level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank, 1-sided|||The change in CD4+ T-cell count from baseline to week 24 was compared against the null hypothesis of change \<20 cells/mm\^3. The study was powered to yield 80% power to show that there was \>=20 cells/mm\^3 increase in CD4+ T-cell count assuming an underlying change in CD4+ T-cell counts induced by MVC of 50 cells/mm\^3, a standard deviation of 60 cells/mm\^3 around the mean CD4+ T-cell count change, 10% lost-to-follow-up or premature MVC discontinuation rate, and one-sided type 1 error of 0.05.||||0.97
95982665|NCT05714982|191939143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982666|NCT05714982|191939143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||General linear model|||||||.78
95982667|NCT05714982|191939144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982668|NCT05714982|191939144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||General linear model|||||||.66
95982669|NCT05714982|191939145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982670|NCT05714982|191939145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982671|NCT05714982|191939146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
95982672|NCT05714982|191939146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||General linear model|||||||.95
95982673|NCT05714982|191939147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982674|NCT05714982|191939147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982675|NCT05714982|191939148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.0001
95982676|NCT05714982|191939148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982677|NCT05714982|191939149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982678|NCT05714982|191939149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
95982679|NCT05714982|191939150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||General linear model|||||||.03
95982680|NCT05714982|191939150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
95982681|NCT05714982|191939151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear model|||||||.61
95982682|NCT05714982|191939151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||General linear model|||||||.68
95982683|NCT05714982|191939152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||General linear model|||||||.4
95982684|NCT05714982|191939152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
95982685|NCT05714982|191939153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||.001
95982686|NCT05714982|191939153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||General linear model|||||||.9
95982687|NCT05714982|191939154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||||1.2|.73|
95982688|NCT05714982|191939154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||||1.2|.69|
95982689|NCT05714982|191939155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||||||||.9|.3|
95982690|NCT05714982|191939155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|.6|
95982691|NCT05714982|191939156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||General linear model|||||||.02
95982692|NCT05714982|191939156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||.5
95982693|NCT05714982|191939157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General linear model|||||||<.001
95982694|NCT05714982|191939157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||General linear model|||||||.004
95982695|NCT05714982|191939158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||General linear model|||||||0.3
95982696|NCT05714982|191939158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||General linear model|||||||0.5
95982697|NCT05714982|191939159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1||||||||2.1|.99|
95982698|NCT05714982|191939159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
95982699|NCT00674583|191939179|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Menjugate Group) in the percentages of subjects with vaccine response to rSBA-MenC is greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.75||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix group compared to the Menjugate group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix group minus Menjugate group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||5.75|-5.25|
95982700|NCT04223843|191939189|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.425|||ANCOVA|Model included fixed categorical effects of treatment and the fixed continous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.425|0.246|<0.0001
95982701|NCT04223843|191939189|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.409|||ANCOVA|Model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the fixed continuous effect of baseline FEV1 AUC0-3h.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean FEV1 AUC0-3h change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.409|0.233|<0.0001
95982702|NCT04223843|191939190|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.286|0.117|<0.0001
95982703|NCT04223843|191939190|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures including fixed categorial effect of treatment at each visit and fixed continuous effect of baseline at each visit.|Difference = (Tio+Olo) - (Placebo)|H0: There is no difference in the mean trough FEV1 change from baseline between Tio+Olo and matching placebo.||0.299|0.135|<0.0001
95982704|NCT00922480|191939191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
95982705|NCT00922480|191939192|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
95982706|NCT02446314|191939198|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||= .04
95982707|NCT02446314|191939199|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
95982708|NCT02446314|191939200|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
95982709|NCT02446314|191939201|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
95982710|NCT02446314|191939202|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Linear Mixed Model / Baseline Covariate|||||||> .05
95982711|NCT01131676|191939203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|Primary objective was to establish the non-inferiority of All empagliflozin relative to placebo for time to first 3-point MACE. A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||0.99|0.74|<0.0001
95982712|NCT01131676|191939203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.74|0.99||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.99|0.74|0.0382
95982713|NCT01131676|191939204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||One-sided test with alpha = 0.0249|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|<0.0001
95993537|NCT00348140|191963292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||1.3|-3.2|0.430
95982714|NCT01131676|191939204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.78|1.01||Two-sided test with alpha=0.0498|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|A 4-step hierarchical testing strategy was followed for the non-inferiority test of the primary endpoint and then the key secondary endpoint, each at a margin of 1.3, followed by test of superiority of primary and key secondary endpoints.||1.01|0.78|0.0795
95982715|NCT01131676|191939205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.33||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||2.33|0.70|0.4172
95982716|NCT01131676|191939206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.85|0.50|0.0017
95982717|NCT01131676|191939207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||1.04|0.87|0.2547
95982718|NCT01131676|191939208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.72|0.54|<0.0001
95982719|NCT01131676|191939209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7||Two-sided test with alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, age, gender, categorised BMI, HbA1c, eGFR and geographical region.|All Empagliflozin divided by Placebo|||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
95982720|NCT01970488|191939210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of PASI percent improvement from baseline to Week 16 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of ± 15.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|3.02||||||||3.02|-7.39|
95982721|NCT01286454|191939246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.69|120.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||120.47|102.69|
95982722|NCT01286454|191939246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.16|111.64||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||111.64|95.16|
95982723|NCT01286454|191939246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|70.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.52|76.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||76.74|64.52|
95982724|NCT01286454|191939246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|113.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.91|121.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||121.74|105.91|
95982725|NCT01286454|191939247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|112.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.85|122.52||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||122.52|103.85|
95982726|NCT01286454|191939247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|112.65||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||112.65|95.48|
95982727|NCT01286454|191939247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|66.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.56|72.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||72.63|61.56|
95982728|NCT01286454|191939247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|28.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.09|30.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||30.78|26.09|
95982729|NCT01286454|191939247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|114.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|122.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||122.97|106.99|
95982730|NCT01286454|191939248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|259.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.48|290.7||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg IR-BIC Fasted was test.||290.70|231.48|
95982731|NCT01286454|191939248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|134.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.31|151.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||151.09|120.31|
95982732|NCT01286454|191939248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|48.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.35|54.44||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 15% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||54.44|43.35|
95982733|NCT01286454|191939248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|14.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.83|16.11||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg ER Tablet Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 20% ER-BIC Fasted was test.||16.11|12.83|
95982734|NCT01286454|191939248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|171.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.82|187.78||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of 5-HMT was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fasted was reference and Fesoterodine 4 mg 10% ER-BIC Fed was test.||187.78|115.82|
95982735|NCT01898689|191939275|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori equivalence region for the difference in means between the two concentrations was specified as +10 mA. This value was considered the minimal clinically relevant current since it approximates the tolerated electrical current range at baseline of the general population-in other words, natural variability and therefore a relatively small amount of current to detect.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|8.5||"P-values from the TOST procedure were 0.02 and 0.03 for the mean being inside the lower and upper boundaries, respectively.~(estimated mean difference of 0.2 mA; 90% CI 28.2 to 8.5)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses were thus:~H0: m0.1%-m0.4% ≤ -10 or m0.1%-m0.4% ≥ 10 and Ha: -10 , m0.1%-m0.4% , 10 where m0.1% and m0.1% are the population means for tolerance to current under 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine, respectively.~With 24 evaluable subjects, we had 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect equivalence of 0.1% and 0.4% ropivacaine concentration on the mean tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation"||8.5|-8.2|0.02
95982736|NCT00529451|191939291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.25||||||||-1.25|-3.63|
95982737|NCT00529451|191939292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.34||||||||0.34|-2.06|
95982738|NCT00529451|191939293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.25 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.67|
95982739|NCT01289821|191939294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|43.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.19|55.09|||One-sample exact binomial test|||"Null hypothesis: True probability p of objective tumor response does not exceed p0, p0=0.4. H0: p\<=0.4 One-sided type I error probability of alpha=10%"||55.09|33.19|0.36
95982740|NCT01500525|191939321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
95982741|NCT04688775|191939322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in the Number of Weekly Attacks: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo||2.6|-1.3|0.5048
95982742|NCT04688775|191939327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.96|0.0772
95982743|NCT01721876|191939351|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided test of the hypothesis was performed at a 0.05 level of significance. An odds ratio (OR) = 1 would indicate that the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine is equal to the odds of achieving CR+CRi with Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine , whereas an OR ≠ 1 would indicate the opposite. H0, CR+CRi: OR = 1 vs. Ha, CR+CRi: OR ≠ 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8751||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2432|2.8281|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common odds ratio is calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate adjusting for the two stratification factors (baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and type of AML). If odds ratio is above 1 then it favours Volasertib+Low-dose Cytarabine.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||2.8281|1.2432|0.0024
95993538|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.583
95993539|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 8||0.6|-1.1|0.631
95993540|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.1|-0.8|0.812
95982744|NCT01721876|191939352|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.7571
95982745|NCT01721876|191939353|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine was tested against 1. The null hypothesis, H0,OS, was that the hazards are equal between Volasertib + Low-dose Cytarabine and Placebo + Low-dose Cytarabine, whereas the alternative hypothesis, Ha,OS, was that the hazards are not equal between the 2 treatment arms. H0, OS: HR = 1 vs. Ha, OS: HR ≠ 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||P-value is calculated from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and type of AML (denovo vs. secondary).|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|This analysis was exploratory and descriptive.||1.2|0.8|0.6718
95982746|NCT01721876|191939354|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG and type of AML. If hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours volasertib.|||2.7|0.7|
95982747|NCT02347488|191939355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|3.32|||ANCOVA|||Average displacement difference in cm, tape vs. tube-holder. 17 participants was the estimated enrollment needed to detect a difference of 1 SD from the mean between the 2 fixation techniques at 80% power; additional enrollment was included to increase the power of results and to include a larger variety of patients undergoing different surgical procedures.||3.32|2.88|<0.001
95982748|NCT00282295|191939367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.17||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||4.17|0.79|
95982749|NCT00282295|191939367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.48||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared toBoostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations equal to or greater than (≥) 1.0 IU/mL one month after vaccination.||1.48|-1.4|
95982750|NCT00282295|191939368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than (\>) the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) geometric mean antibody concentrations (GMCs) one month after vaccination.||1.03|0.84|
95982751|NCT00282295|191939368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-filamentous hemagglutinin (anti-FHA) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.84|0.69|
95982752|NCT00282295|191939368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of 0.67|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) GMCs one month after vaccination.||0.72|0.54|
95982753|NCT00282295|191939369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PT one month after vaccination.||1.15|-9.91|
95982754|NCT00282295|191939369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.15||||||Non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to FHA one month after vaccination.||0.15|-7.03|
95982755|NCT00282295|191939369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was \> the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in booster response rate|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.25||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Menactra™ vaccine compared to Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a booster response to PRN one month after vaccination.||-1.25|-5.25|
95982756|NCT00282295|191939370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.43||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccinecompared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup A one month after vaccination.||4.43|-4.85|
95982757|NCT00282295|191939370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|5.16||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine responseto meningococcal serogroup C one month after vaccination.||5.16|-1.69|
95993541|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 16||1.0|-0.9|0.952
95982758|NCT00282295|191939370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.82||||||95.0|-2.58|6.25||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup Y one month after vaccination.||6.25|-2.58|
95982759|NCT00282295|191939370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority objective was demonstrated if the lower limit was greater than the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45||||||Non-inferiority of Menactra™ vaccine co-administered with Boostrix® vaccine compared to Menactra™ vaccine administered alone at Month 0 with respect to a vaccine response to meningococcal serogroup W-135 one month after vaccination||6.45|0.96|
95982760|NCT04376827|191939394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.41|||log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||1.41|0.27|0.7807
95982761|NCT04376827|191939395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|3.85|||long-rank test||Hazard ratio and 80% CI: estimated by Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline UPCR level (\<3 mg/mg and \>=3 mg/mg).|||3.85|0.62|0.4654
95982762|NCT00346073|191939448|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.84||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.84|-1.47|
95982763|NCT00346073|191939448|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 0.1 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0.11|-0.9|
95982764|NCT00346073|191939449|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective of non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), between the two groups (Boostrix Group - Adacel Group) were greater than or equal to (≥) -10%|Difference in percentage|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.0||||||The non-inferiority of Boostrix® vaccine compared to Adacel™ vaccine, with respect to the percentage of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibody concentrations greater than or equal to (≥) 1.0 IU/mL, one month after vaccination.||0|-1.97|
95982765|NCT00346073|191939451|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.9|79.3||||||"Demonstration that anti-PT booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||79.3|74.9|
95982766|NCT00346073|191939451|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|97.7||||||"Demonstration that anti-FHA booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||97.7|95.8|
95982767|NCT00346073|191939451|SUPERIORITY||Booster response|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|94.4||||||"Demonstration that anti-PRN booster response occurred in at least 80% of adults receiving a single dose of Boostrix® vaccine, one month after vaccination.~Criterion for evaluation: one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with a booster response was greater than or equal to (≥) 80%."||94.4|91.8|
95982768|NCT00980200|191939463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.140|0.049|<0.001
95982769|NCT00980200|191939463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.095|<0.001
95982770|NCT00980200|191939463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.057|<0.001
95982771|NCT00980200|191939463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.170|0.080|<0.001
95792993|NCT00386334|191555768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95982772|NCT02318667|191939499|OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0074
95982773|NCT02318667|191939500|OTHER|||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1506
95982774|NCT00549939|191939591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95982775|NCT00549939|191939591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
95982776|NCT00549939|191939593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|1.29||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||1.29|-13.72|0.1040
95982777|NCT00549939|191939593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|0.39||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-14.51|0.1040
95993542|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Week 24||0.2|-2.1|0.117
95982778|NCT00549939|191939594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|3.53||P-values was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor LPP was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor LPP as covariate."||3.53|-26.27|0.1338
95982779|NCT00549939|191939594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference versus Placebo|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|0.47||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-29.10|0.1152
95982780|NCT00549939|191939596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Change in detrusor compliance was analyzed using a three-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including 3 variables as fixed effects:~* treatment group (alfuzosin 0.1 mg/kg/day, alfuzosin 0.2 mg/kg/day or placebo),~* age/formulation group (2-7 years of age on solution, 8-16 years of age on solution or 8-16 years of age on tablets),~* anticholinergic/antimuscarinic use (yes or no),~and using centered baseline detrusor compliance as covariate."||||0.7889
95982781|NCT00549939|191939596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7889||||||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7889
95982782|NCT01360554|191939599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.093||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG).|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS, baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.093|0.797|0.195
95982783|NCT01360554|191939600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.268||One-sided P-value|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.268|0.848|0.643
95982784|NCT01360554|191939601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.035||Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|One-sided P-value|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.035|0.780|0.069
95982785|NCT01360554|191939602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.267||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.267|0.881|0.728
95982786|NCT01360554|191939603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.188||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status, KRAS status, and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.188|0.887|0.638
95982787|NCT01360554|191939604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.312||One-sided P-value.|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Stratified by EGFR status and baseline ECOG.|The HR (Dacomitinib arm versus erlotinib arm) and 95% CI were estimated from stratified Cox regression with EGFR status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.|||1.312|0.886|0.775
95982788|NCT01360554|191939612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.9357||||||95.0|-4.278|0.407|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.407|-4.278|
95982789|NCT01360554|191939612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.8067||||||95.0|-1.312|2.926|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.926|-1.312|
95982790|NCT01360554|191939612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|0.73||||||95.0|-1.575|3.035|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.035|-1.575|
95982791|NCT01360554|191939612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.5289||||||95.0|-0.756|3.814|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.814|-0.756|
95982792|NCT01360554|191939612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2219||||||95.0|-1.975|4.419|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.419|-1.975|
95982793|NCT01360554|191939612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.497||||||95.0|-4.575|1.581|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.581|-4.575|
95982794|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|1.2851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|4.986|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Appetite loss. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.986|-2.416|
95982795|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-5.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.432|-3.414|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.414|-8.432|
95982796|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|20.2564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.874|23.639|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||23.639|16.874|
95982797|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.719|-1.381|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Dysponea. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.381|-7.719|
95982798|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.6584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.442|1.125|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.125|-4.442|
95982799|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.1469||||||95.0|-3.056|2.762|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.762|-3.056|
95982800|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.8711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|-1.745|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.745|-7.998|
95982801|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.4924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|1.5|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.500|-2.485|
95982802|NCT01360554|191939613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.3096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.646|3.265|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Pain. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.265|-2.646|
95982803|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|2.6381||||||95.0|0.172|5.104|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Trouble Swallowing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||5.104|0.172|
95982804|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-4.2504||||||95.0|-7.178|-1.322|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Coughing as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.322|-7.178|
95982805|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model|-1.0764||||||95.0|-3.997|1.845|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Haemoptysis as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.845|-3.997|
95982806|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|9.3545||||||95.0|6.211|12.497|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Sore Mouth as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||12.497|6.211|
95982807|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1762||||||95.0|-3.56|1.208|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Shortness of Breath as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.208|-3.560|
95982808|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.6378||||||95.0|-3.684|2.408|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Peripheral Neuropathy as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.408|-3.684|
95982809|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.3637||||||95.0|-4.546|1.819|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Alopecia as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.819|-4.546|
95982810|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.2163||||||95.0|-3.885|1.452|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Chest as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.452|-3.885|
95982811|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.1475||||||95.0|-3.902|1.607|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain in Arm or Shoulder as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.607|-3.902|
95982812|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-1.0687||||||95.0|-4.488|2.351|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Pain Other Parts as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.351|-4.488|
95982813|NCT01360554|191939614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|0.0322||||||95.0|-4.847|4.911|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for Any Med for Pain as Assessed by the EORTC-QLQ-LC13. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.911|-4.847|
95982814|NCT01360554|191939615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Repeated measures mixed-effects model.|-0.3886||||||95.0|-2.413|1.636|||||This analysis represents the mean difference between the dacomitinib arm (Arm A) and the erlotinib arm (Arm B).|Analysis presented for EQ-5D VAS. Mean difference was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects). Confidence intervals provided were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.636|-2.413|
95982815|NCT00111800|191939616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.58|0.061
95982816|NCT00111800|191939616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.24|-0.82|<0.001
95993543|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.1|-2.1|0.074
95982817|NCT00111800|191939616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.16|-0.74|0.002
95982818|NCT00111800|191939616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.50|-1.09|<0.001
95982819|NCT00111800|191939616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.55|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.55|-1.13|<0.001
95982820|NCT00111800|191939618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.37|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.37|-1.18|0.306
95982821|NCT00111800|191939618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.04|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.04|-1.56|0.039
95792994|NCT00386334|191555771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95792995|NCT00386334|191555774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95792996|NCT00386334|191555777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95792997|NCT00386334|191555780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1175||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.1175
95792998|NCT00386334|191555783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0717
95982822|NCT00111800|191939618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.17|-1.34|0.130
95982823|NCT00111800|191939618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
95982824|NCT00111800|191939618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.46|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.46|-1.99|0.002
95982825|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.95|0.21|0.909
95982826|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.92|0.27|0.852
95982827|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.83|0.30|0.795
95792999|NCT00386334|191555786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1182
95793000|NCT00386334|191555789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.3010
95793001|NCT00386334|191555792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.7800
95793002|NCT00386334|191555795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0803
95793003|NCT00386334|191555798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2643
95793004|NCT00386334|191555801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0765
95982828|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.77|0.74|0.135
95982829|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|12.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<=6.5%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||12.37|0.85|0.085
95982830|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.36|0.36|0.866
95982831|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.76|0.69|0.202
95982832|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.13|0.35|0.941
95982833|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.13|0.76|0.152
95982834|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c \<7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.52|1.11|0.032
95982835|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||1.50|0.14|0.198
95982836|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||3.85|0.53|0.481
95982837|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||2.78|0.36|0.991
95982838|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.48|1.41|0.008
95982839|NCT00111800|191939620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for HbA1c reduction \>=0.7%. A closed test procedure was used,P an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.24|0.76|0.161
95982840|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.30|0.50|0.380
95982841|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.11|0.72|0.145
95982842|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.26|0.906
95982843|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.91|0.41|0.509
95982844|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|11.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG \<7mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||11.14|0.89|0.077
95982845|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||5.72|0.63|0.254
95982846|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.62|0.55|0.396
95982847|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.00|0.45|0.590
95982848|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.13|1.15|0.026
95982849|NCT00111800|191939621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for FPG reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||8.30|1.08|0.034
95982850|NCT00111800|191939622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.057||95.0|-30.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.5|-30.2|0.057
95982851|NCT00111800|191939622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.4||||0.003||95.0|-37.1|-7.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-7.6|-37.1|0.003
95982852|NCT00111800|191939622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-43.9|-14.5|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-14.5|-43.9|<0.001
95982853|NCT00111800|191939622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-24.6|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-24.6|-54.6|<0.001
95982854|NCT00111800|191939622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-23.9|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-23.9|-53.8|<0.001
95982855|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.66|15.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||15.65|-32.66|0.489
95982856|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.18||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|37.72|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||37.72|-9.37|0.237
95982857|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.31||||0.534||95.0|-15.79|30.42|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||30.42|-15.79|0.534
95982858|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|29.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||29.17|-18.64|0.665
95982859|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.74||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|36.65|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for fasting serum insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||36.65|-11.18|0.295
95982860|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|9.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 2.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.94|-3.32|0.327
95982861|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.06||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|9.44|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 7.5 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.44|-3.31|0.345
95793005|NCT00386334|191555804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.2967
95982862|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 15 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||6.00|-6.70|0.914
95982863|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|4.29|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 30 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||4.29|-8.71|0.504
95982864|NCT00111800|191939624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|9.22|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin.|Placebo versus DEN 45 mg for pro-insulin. A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||9.22|-3.71|0.403
95982865|NCT00111800|191939627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 2.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.08|-0.02|0.286
95982866|NCT00111800|191939627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 7.5 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.03|-0.07|0.457
95982867|NCT00111800|191939627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 15 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.136
95982868|NCT00111800|191939627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 30 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||-0.01|-0.11|0.021
95982869|NCT00111800|191939627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of placebo and DEN 45 mg.|A closed test procedure was used, in an hierarchical manner, that is, test was applied sequentially where testing does not proceed to the next step unless the previous test was found to be significant.||0.01|-0.09|0.094
95982870|NCT02752035|191939655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.329|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.329|0.570|0.523
95982871|NCT02752035|191939656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.393|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Stratification factors were age group per IRT, risk groups and baseline FLT3 mutation status, with potential of strata pooling.||1.393|0.635|0.787
95982872|NCT02752035|191939658|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|23.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.0|-6.5|0.249
95982873|NCT02752035|191939659|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|50.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.0|16.6|<0.001
95982874|NCT02752035|191939660|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.1||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.1|-0.1|0.049
95982875|NCT02752035|191939661|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|32.4||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|1.1|0.032
95982876|NCT02752035|191939662|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|-29.8|0.340
95982877|NCT02752035|191939663|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|50.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|100.0||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factor was age group per interactive response technology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|-61.0|0.221
95982878|NCT02752035|191939664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.58|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|||1.580|0.451|0.592
95982879|NCT02752035|191939665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|1.658|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR/CRh.||1.658|0.198|0.300
95982880|NCT02752035|191939665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.504|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CR.||1.504|0.113|0.171
95982881|NCT02752035|191939665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.62|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRc||1.620|0.295|0.383
95982882|NCT02752035|191939665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001||Upper limit of 95% confidence interval was not estimable due to insufficient number of participants.||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of CRh.|||0.001|0.998
95982883|NCT02752035|191939665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.229|||Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting age group per IRT.|Analysis reported for duration of response.||1.229|0.321|0.174
95982884|NCT02752035|191939666|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Using analysis of covariance including treatment, age group per IRT and baseline score as covariate.|Least square mean difference and P-value were calculated using AZA as reference.|||2.0|-1.1|0.560
95982885|NCT02887404|191939682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-6|0.92
95982886|NCT02887404|191939683|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 15. The significance level for non-inferiority was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||3|-21|<0.001
95982887|NCT02887404|191939683|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.0|5.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice.|Hodges-Lehmann estimator|||||5|-23|0.175
95982888|NCT02887404|191939684|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 The significance level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||This is a joint hypothesis testing. We tested non-inferiority on both secondary outcomes. If both showed significant non-inferiority, we tested superiority on both outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||1|-0.8|<0.001
95982889|NCT02887404|191939684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.8|0.094
95982890|NCT02887404|191939702|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 9; significance level was 0.025|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.1|-0.3|<0.001
95982891|NCT02887404|191939702|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.1||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Wilcoxon sum rank test|||||0.1|-0.3|0.171
95982892|NCT02887404|191939703|NON_INFERIORITY|Delta: 1 significance level: 0.025|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||||The superiority test (this is a joint-hypothesis testing) showed a mean difference of -0.5 between treatment and control group with 97.5% CI of (-1.0, 0.0) and p-value of 0.025. The significance level was 0.025.|-0.1|-1.0|<0.001
95982893|NCT02887404|191939703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|0.0||We adjusted for two outcomes for the superiority testing only, using a significance criterion of 0.0125 for each outcome (i.e., 0.025/2, Bonferroni correction), since superiority on either outcome would suffice|Regression, Linear|||||0.0|-1.0|0.025
95982894|NCT01226459|191939716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Intent to Treat (ITT) population defined as all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group who received dispensed investigational product. Four participants in vehicle group and 3 participants in foam group had no hair information at Baseline. Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 24 data.||13.1|5.0|<0.0001
95982895|NCT01226459|191939717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is of the change from baseline to week 12 data.||14.7|7.0|<0.0001
95982896|NCT01226459|191939718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04|||ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
95982897|NCT03770091|191939719|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA performed||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
95982898|NCT03770091|191939720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
95982899|NCT03770091|191939721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95982900|NCT03770091|191939722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
95982901|NCT03770091|191939723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
95982902|NCT01092143|191939731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.65||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|6.323||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.323|-0.157|0.0311
95982903|NCT01092143|191939731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.589|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|6.732||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, trea||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||6.732|0.447|0.0126
95982904|NCT01092143|191939731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.977|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|7.197||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||7.197|0.756|0.0078
95982905|NCT01092143|191939731|OTHER||Adjusted mean treatment differences|8.619|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.684|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.312|11.927||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with fluticasone propionate 110 mcg 2 puffs b.i.d. compared with those treated with placebo, after 6 weeks.||11.927|5.312|<.0001
95982906|NCT01092143|191939731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.536|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.653||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.783|-2.29||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 50 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-2.290|-8.783|0.9996
95982907|NCT01092143|191939731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-5.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.185|-1.875||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 200 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.875|-8.185|0.9991
95982908|NCT01092143|191939731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-4.643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.647||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|-1.408||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||Superiority in mean trough FEV1 % predicted change from baseline in patients treated with BI 671800 400 mg b.i.d. compared with those treated with fluticasone propionate 220 mcg b.i.d., after 6 weeks.||-1.408|-7.877|0.9975
95982909|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.295||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.295|-0.149|0.7413
95982910|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.136||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.136|-0.296|0.2335
95982911|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.061|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.16||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.160|-0.282|0.2933
95982912|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.116||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.561|-0.105||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.105|-0.561|0.0021
95982913|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.406|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.114||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.63||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.630|0.183|0.9998
95982914|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.253|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.47||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.470|0.037|0.9890
95982915|NCT01092143|191939732|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|0.272|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.494||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.494|0.050|0.9918
95982916|NCT01843972|191939749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|97.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.963|119.809|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||119.809|79.963|
95982917|NCT01843972|191939749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|111.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.596|139.576|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||139.576|88.596|
95982918|NCT01843972|191939750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.593|127.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||127.351|80.593|
95982919|NCT01843972|191939750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|92.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.662|125.119|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||125.119|68.662|
95982920|NCT01843972|191939751|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8265|1.2201|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2201|0.8265|
95982921|NCT01843972|191939752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|0.9686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8107|1.1266|||Regression, Linear|||Dose proportionality of BI 691751 was explored using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||1.1266|0.8107|
95793006|NCT00386334|191555807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0634
95982922|NCT01843972|191939753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|95.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.414|122.511|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' divided by the geometric mean of 'BI 691751 solution (part II)'.|Only extensive CYP2D6 metabolisers were selected: 12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)' and 7 (all investigated) subjects of group 'BI 691751 solution (part II) '.||122.511|74.414|
95982923|NCT01843972|191939753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.376|142.894|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of the poor metabolisers divided by the geometric mean of the extensive metabolisers.|Comparison of poor metabolisers (5 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet poor metabolizers (part II)') and extensive metabolisers (12 (all) subjects of group 'BI 691751 tablet extensive metabolizers (part II)').||142.894|84.376|
95982924|NCT01843972|191939753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was non-confirmatory testing.|Slope|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.179|||Regression, Linear|||||1.1790|0.833|
95982925|NCT02774616|191939760|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0004|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Ilivia ICD family until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0004
95982926|NCT02774616|191939761|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the complication-free rate is greater than 90.0% in the population.||||||0.0019|||||||exact binomial|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Plexa ICD lead until the 6-month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||||0.0019
95982927|NCT02774616|191939763|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular sensing of all patients in which a sensing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined: Ho: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate sensing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%|||||<|0.0001||||||A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate sensing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|exact binomial|||||||<0.0001
95982928|NCT02774616|191939764|NON_INFERIORITY|A rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho) would demonstrate evidence that the rate of appropriate pacing is greater than 93.0% in the population.|||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|||"This secondary hypothesis evaluates the rate of appropriate right ventricular pacing of all patients in which a pacing measurement was performed. The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant ≤ 93.0% Ha: Rate of appropriate pacing through 3 months post-implant \> 93.0%"||||<0.0001
95982929|NCT01854645|191939769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
95982930|NCT01854645|191939769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
95982931|NCT01854645|191939769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
95982932|NCT01854645|191939769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
95982933|NCT01854645|191939769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
95982934|NCT01854645|191939769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
95982935|NCT05293743|191939778|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.82.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.67
95982936|NCT05293743|191939778|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.23||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3.70.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions between the control arm and the experimental arm during the study's intervention period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.23
95982937|NCT05293743|191939779|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.86||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.68.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by parent-reported brace logs.||||0.86
95982938|NCT05293743|191939779|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis uses Welch's t-tests to calculate statistical significance, given the different variances and sample sizes of the populations.||||||0.21||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 6.94.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in brace adherence fractions when the experimental arm is wearing the Dynamic Bar versus the Standard Bar during the study period. In this test, brace wear was measured by iButton temperature sensors.||||0.21
95982939|NCT00427349|191939786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||one sample binomial test|The study result was compared to a null hypothesis of 20% 4-month progression free survival rate using one sample binomial test||The null hypothesis is that the 4-month progression free survival rate is 20%. Alternatively, AMG 706 will be considered worthy of further study if its true progression-free survival rate is 40% or better at 4 months (alternative hypothesis).||||<0.001
95982940|NCT00493220|191939790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|111.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.57|115.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||115.12|108.57|
95982941|NCT00493220|191939790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (natural log-transformed)|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.06|62.62|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||62.62|59.06|
95982942|NCT00493220|191939790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|54.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.82|56.01|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||56.01|52.82|
95982943|NCT00493220|191939791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.75|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||HYLENEX SC minus Placebo SC|||-0.75|-1.25|<0.01
95982944|NCT00493220|191939791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.71|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||1.71|1.27|<0.01
95982945|NCT00493220|191939791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.26|2.76|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Placebo SC minus Intravenous|||2.76|2.26|<0.01
95982946|NCT00493220|191939792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|105.12|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||105.12|98.95|
95982947|NCT00493220|191939792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|110.07|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.07|103.61|
95982948|NCT00493220|191939792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|107.92|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||107.92|101.59|
95982949|NCT00493220|191939793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 95% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.64|104.98|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Placebo SC|||104.98|98.64|
95982950|NCT00493220|191939793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|106.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.67|110.33|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||HYLENEX SC/Intravenous|||110.33|103.67|
95982951|NCT00493220|191939793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence = 90% confidence interval of least squares mean (LSM) within 80%-125%|LSM ratio (%; ln-transformed)|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|108.42|||Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure||Placebo SC/Intravenous|||108.42|101.87|
95982952|NCT03023930|191939807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||<0.001
95982953|NCT03023930|191939808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Logistic|proc logistic||||||0.011
95982954|NCT00290186|191939837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.539||95.0|-1.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.3|-1.5|0.539
95982955|NCT00290186|191939838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.8|-1.6|0.921
95982956|NCT00290186|191939839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.945
95982957|NCT00290186|191939840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-5.1|0.342
95982958|NCT00290186|191939841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||8.6|-1.6|0.149
95982959|NCT00290186|191939842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||5.1|-3.0|0.685
95982960|NCT00290186|191939843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.0|-2.4|0.584
95982961|NCT00290186|191939844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||3.7|-1.5|0.498
95982962|NCT00290186|191939845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.2|-2.3|0.945
95982963|NCT00290186|191939846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.4|-2.1|0.932
95982964|NCT00290186|191939847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||4.7|-0.2|0.051
95982965|NCT00290186|191939848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||2.8|-4.0|0.648
95982966|NCT00290186|191939849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||1.4|-4.7|0.473
95982967|NCT00290186|191939850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|114.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||114|-22|0.157
95982968|NCT00290186|191939851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: positive values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||13|-15|0.876
95982969|NCT00290186|191939852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.0|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||41|-198|0.167
95982970|NCT00290186|191939853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.0|77.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group difference: negative values represent greater improvement in HBO group.||77|-153|0.468
95982971|NCT00807742|191939854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.606
95982972|NCT00807742|191939855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.63|||Chi-squared|||||2.63|0.57|.290
95982973|NCT00807742|191939856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.23|||Chi-squared|||||8.23|0.49|.32
95982974|NCT00807742|191939857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.45|||Chi-squared|||||8.45|0.51|.298
95982975|NCT00807742|191939858|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.71|<.001
95982976|NCT00807742|191939859|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.38|.199
95982977|NCT00807742|191939860|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.12||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.57|.148
95982978|NCT00807742|191939861|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size d|-0.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.40|.249
95982979|NCT00807742|191939862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|0.59|0.402
95982980|NCT00807742|191939863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.49|.772
95982981|NCT00807742|191939864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.60|.910
95982982|NCT00807742|191939865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62|||Chi-squared|||||1.62|0.54|.812
95982983|NCT00807742|191939866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Chi-squared|||||1.65|0.36|.490
95982984|NCT00807742|191939867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Chi-squared|||||2.06|0.67|.511
95982985|NCT00807742|191939868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.72|.499
95982986|NCT00807742|191939869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.58|.876
95982987|NCT00807742|191939870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.59|.001
95982988|NCT00807742|191939871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.25||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.46|.069
95982989|NCT00807742|191939872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.16||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.40|.202
95919171|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|4.43||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||4.43|0.35|
95982990|NCT00807742|191939873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size d|-0.17||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.42|.199
95793007|NCT00386334|191555810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons not applied due to only two treatments in the study.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and site type as fixed effects and the baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95982991|NCT01877915|191939887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.05|0.84|0.270
95982992|NCT01877915|191939893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.59|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 (Fatal Bleeding)||2.59|0.41|0.951
95982993|NCT01877915|191939893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 2 (Bleeding in Critical Space with Potential for Permanent Disability)||1.34|0.33|0.253
95793008|NCT05222880|191555833|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.00 logMAR was used for distance.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|-0.08||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Distance.||-0.08|-0.12|
95982994|NCT01401842|191939932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on lumbar extension muscular strength (Nm) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.001
95982995|NCT01401842|191939933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.871
95982996|NCT01401842|191939934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the primary hypothesis, differences at follow-up between the two groups on core muscular endurance (seconds) were analyzed using linear mixed-effects regression models, accounting for the effects of cluster (platoon) and adjusting for baseline measures. The linear mixed-effects model treats the data as two levels (level 1 for individuals, level 2 for clusters), while also taking into account between-cluster variation.||||0.021
95982997|NCT06098248|191939952|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.05 for sensitivity. A power calculation was conducted assuming a 30% missing data rate, with final missing data at approximately 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.4049|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0164||A one-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for the non-inferiority tests.|McNemar|McNemar's test was chosen due to paired nominal data (specimens tested by both methods). Degrees of freedom = 1|Lower Limit reflects estimated value due to 1-sided CI requirement and system constraints. True lower bound is theoretically -∞.|We performed a paired comparison within the same participant population, evaluating both cCeLL - Ex vivo and Frozen Section on each specimen.|If any secondary analyses could not fit into the above format (e.g., AUC analysis, time efficiency), they were reported as descriptive statistics rather than hypothesis testing|0.0164||<0.4049
95982998|NCT06098248|191939953|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.10 for specificity|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4103|<|0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1628|0.0557||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 was used for the non-inferiority tests.|McNemar|McNemar's test was chosen due to paired nominal data (specimens tested by both methods). Degrees of freedom = 1|Lower Limit reflects estimated value due to 1-sided CI requirement and system constraints. True lower bound is theoretically -∞.|We performed a paired comparison within the same participant population, evaluating both cCeLL - Ex vivo and Frozen Section on each specimen.|f any secondary analyses could not fit into the above format (e.g., AUC analysis, time efficiency), they were reported as descriptive statistics rather than hypothesis testing|0.0557|-0.1628|<0.3075
95982999|NCT01263483|191939967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.166|-0.838||||||||-0.838|-1.166|
95983000|NCT01263483|191939967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.796||||||||-0.796|-1.097|
95983001|NCT01263483|191939968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.123||||||||-0.123|-0.229|
95983002|NCT01263483|191939968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.133||||||||-0.133|-0.247|
95983003|NCT01263483|191939969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.334||||||||-0.334|-0.507|
95983004|NCT01263483|191939969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.324||||||||-0.324|-0.504|
95983005|NCT01263483|191939970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|-0.605||||||||-0.605|-0.871|
95983006|NCT01263483|191939970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.875|-0.623||||||||-0.623|-0.875|
95983007|NCT01263483|191939971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-5.52||||||||-5.52|-18.50|
95983008|NCT01263483|191939971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|-8.73||||||||-8.73|-21.93|
95983009|NCT01263483|191939972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|-8.27||||||||-8.27|-23.02|
95983010|NCT01263483|191939972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|-14.38||||||||-14.38|-29.68|
95983011|NCT01263483|191939973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-10.5||||||||-10.50|-26.09|
95983012|NCT01263483|191939973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-11.34||||||||-11.34|-27.34|
95983013|NCT01263483|191939974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-5.6||||||||-5.60|-21.46|
95983014|NCT01263483|191939974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-4.41||||||||-4.41|-21.53|
95983015|NCT01263483|191939975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.104||||||||0.104|-0.304|
95983016|NCT01263483|191939975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.167||||||||0.167|-0.239|
95983017|NCT01263483|191939976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.292||||||||0.292|-0.267|
95983018|NCT01263483|191939976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.264|
95983019|NCT01263483|191939977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.191||||||||0.191|-0.268|
95983020|NCT01263483|191939977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.115||||||||0.115|-0.261|
95983021|NCT01263483|191939978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.252||||||||0.252|-0.183|
95983022|NCT01263483|191939978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.288||||||||0.288|-0.124|
95983023|NCT01263483|191939979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.28|-21.8||||||||-21.80|-41.28|
95983024|NCT01263483|191939979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-22.57||||||||-22.57|-44.88|
95983025|NCT01263483|191939980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.67|-50.09||||||||-50.09|-90.67|
95983026|NCT01263483|191939980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.1|-51.88||||||||-51.88|-93.10|
95983027|NCT01263483|191939981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.229|11.958||||||||11.958|2.229|
95983028|NCT01263483|191939981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|8.455||||||||8.455|-0.521|
95983029|NCT01263483|191939982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|1.144||||||||1.144|-0.045|
95983030|NCT01263483|191939982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|1.09||||||||1.090|-0.233|
95983031|NCT01263483|191939983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-36.65|
95983032|NCT01263483|191939983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-2.27||||||||-2.27|-37.82|
95983033|NCT02577406|191939986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory|||1.10|0.67|0.2288
95983034|NCT02577406|191939987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.14||p-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing the response rates between the AG-221 group and the combined CCR group with stratification factors of prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio from logistic regression|||11.14|3.32|<0.0001
95983035|NCT02577406|191939988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status.|||0.95|0.55|0.0200
95983036|NCT02577406|191939994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95983037|NCT02577406|191939995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95983038|NCT02577406|191939996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95983039|NCT02577406|191939998|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67|||Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior intensive therapy for AML and primary refractory status|||0.67|0.41|<0.0001
95983040|NCT02101515|191940017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.93||||||||0.93|0.22|
95983041|NCT02101515|191940019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.4||||||||8.40|0.67|
95983042|NCT02101515|191940020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
95983043|NCT02101515|191940021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.62||||||||5.62|1.30|
95983044|NCT02101515|191940022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.92||||||||13.92|0.06|
95983045|NCT02101515|191940024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|42.9||||||||42.90|0.68|
95983046|NCT02101515|191940026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54||||||||1.54|0.46|
95983047|NCT02101515|191940027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.49||||||||1.49|0.39|
95983048|NCT02101515|191940029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95983049|NCT02101515|191940033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.77||||||||2.77|0.03|
95983050|NCT02901574|191940034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|10.3||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-2.55|0.24
95983051|NCT04206605|191940046|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.71|=0.899
95983052|NCT04206605|191940047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.114||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.114|-0.153|=1.000
95983053|NCT04206605|191940048|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.96|||=|0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.62|=0.852
95983054|NCT04206605|191940049|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.72|=0.660
95983055|NCT04206605|191940050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.063||P-value was from the corresponding Mantel-Haenszel estimate for the common risk difference from CMH test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.063|-0.280|=0.250
95983056|NCT04206605|191940052|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|||=|0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.61||P-value was from Wald-based chi-square test; unadjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared|||||1.61|0.58|=0.896
95983057|NCT04206605|191940054|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.498
95983058|NCT04206605|191940055|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||P-value comparing lanadelumab to placebo was from a log rank test stratified by baseline strata.|Log Rank|||||||=0.184
95983059|NCT03418129|191940072|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2176||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.2852
95983060|NCT03418129|191940072|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2132||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcome at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Resulting slopes capture change in outcome from baseline to follow-up, with relaxation set as the comparison.|||||0.8861
95983061|NCT03418129|191940073|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09424||0.6842|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.6842
95983062|NCT03418129|191940073|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09427||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Multilevel modeling was used to model outcomes at two time points (3-month follow-up and baseline) and across three treatment groups (Mindfulness, Neurofeedback, and Relaxation).|||||0.132
95983063|NCT03418129|191940074|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.4542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4542
95983064|NCT03418129|191940074|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2454||0.1261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1261
95983065|NCT00053703|191940075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95983066|NCT01940471|191940082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 288 and 576 participants in the TDF and TAF groups, respectively, were planned to give 84% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF - TDF) in the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 69%. Missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||2.6|-9.8|
95983067|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|2.12|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP 1 h postdose analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.12|-1.65|
95983068|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.079|3.69|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1.5 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.69|-0.0790|
95983069|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.446|3.32|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.32|-0.446|
95983070|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|2.35|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 3 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.35|-1.42|
95983071|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|2.59|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.59|-1.18|
95983072|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|1.1|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 6 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||1.10|-2.68|
95983073|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.182|3.6|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 12 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||3.60|-0.182|
95983074|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.921|2.85|||||LS mean difference (LY3009104 minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 24 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||2.85|-0.921|
95983075|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|14.5|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 1 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||14.5|10.0|
95983076|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|13.3|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 2 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.3|8.74|
95983077|NCT01536951|191940088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.87|13.4|||||LS mean difference (moxifloxacin minus placebo) of change in QTcP at 4 h postdose was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline QTc, treatment, time, period, sequence, treatment-by-time, participant, and participant-by-period.|||13.4|8.87|
95983078|NCT00545402|191940103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2611
95983079|NCT00545402|191940105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7091
95983080|NCT00397033|191940109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.001
95983081|NCT00397033|191940109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.008
95983082|NCT00397033|191940110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-5.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.7|-5.1|<0.001
95983083|NCT00397033|191940110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.217||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.217
95983084|NCT00397033|191940111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.108||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-2.3|0.108
95983085|NCT00397033|191940111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.43||95.0|-1.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.7|-1.7|0.430
95983086|NCT00397033|191940112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.008||95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-6.7|0.008
95983087|NCT00397033|191940112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.175||95.0|-4.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.9|-4.8|0.175
95983088|NCT00397033|191940113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.001||95.0|-4.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.1|-4.6|0.001
95983089|NCT00397033|191940113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.209||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-2.8|0.209
95983090|NCT00397033|191940115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.032||95.0|-6.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-6.5|0.032
95983091|NCT00397033|191940115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.013||95.0|-6.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.8|-6.8|0.013
95983092|NCT00397033|191940116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.232||95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-2.0|0.232
95983093|NCT00397033|191940116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.31||95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.6|-1.8|0.310
95983094|NCT00397033|191940117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004||95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.6|-3.1|0.004
95983095|NCT00397033|191940117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.269||95.0|-1.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.9|0.269
95983096|NCT00397033|191940118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-1.0|-3.2|<0.001
95983097|NCT00397033|191940118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.314||95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.5|-1.7|0.314
95983098|NCT00397033|191940119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.071||95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.8|0.071
95983099|NCT00397033|191940119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.099||95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.1|-1.7|0.099
95983100|NCT00397033|191940121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
95983101|NCT00397033|191940121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.6|0.083
95983102|NCT00397033|191940122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.003||95.0|-13.8|-2.9||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER high dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.9|-13.8|0.003
95983103|NCT00397033|191940122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.187||95.0|-9.0|1.8||The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity.|ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|One of the primary pairwise comparisons was paliperidone ER low dose vs. placebo. The Hochberg step-up procedure was used to address multiplicity. P-value for between treatment group comparisons is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-9.0|0.187
95983104|NCT00397033|191940123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher Scores indicate worsening.|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95983105|NCT00397033|191940123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029||95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.0|-0.7|0.029
95983106|NCT00397033|191940125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) High Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||-3.7|-9.9|<0.001
95983107|NCT00397033|191940125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.066||95.0|-5.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed-effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) Low Dose - Placebo on the Change Scores. Higher scores indicate worsening.|||0.2|-5.8|0.066
95983108|NCT00382018|191940126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ration of overall survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1.||1.47|0.69|0.98
95983109|NCT00382018|191940127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio of progression free survival compared Arm C2 to Arm C1||1.32|0.64|0.64
95983110|NCT01806857|191940132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0003
95983111|NCT01806857|191940136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Random Effects Model|||||||0.0001
95983112|NCT01020591|191940148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power and sample size calculations, based on the ability to detect treatment and evaluation group differences, were performed on Minitab™ V.15. 40 participants were estimated to be required for group allocation (20 in each group: evaluation;evaluation and treatment)for 80% power in at least 3 out of the 4 outcome measures. After 30 subjects, analysis determined that there would be no further statistically significant changes in results therefore, data collection was stopped at 30 subjects.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A two factor mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Group (Evaluation vs. Treatment) with repeated measures (pre vs. post test) was employed to test for main effects and all interactions for the Resistive Index||||<0.05
95983113|NCT05082376|191940170|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||8.8|6.6|<0.0001
95983114|NCT05082376|191940170|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|7.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment.||7.9|5.8|<0.0001
95983115|NCT05082376|191940170|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment.||6.2|4.0|<0.0001
95983116|NCT05082376|191940170|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment.||5.8|3.6|<0.0001
95983117|NCT02568475|191940172|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous scale: score compares results before and after intervention without a cut parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.12|0.059|0.046
95983118|NCT02568475|191940173|OTHER|This is a continuous scale with no clinical cut score/value. We tested mean differences between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.6|2.9|0.001
95983119|NCT00262522|191940177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by dosing regimen was used to assess the null hypothesis of no difference between the tablet and soft gel capsule (SGC). Sample size was 600 subjects (150 each in the 4 groups). Based on a projected 48% reporting treatment-emergent diarrhea in the QD arm and 32% in the BID arm within the SGC group, with a 12% reduction in the corresponding tablet groups, this sample size provided 80% power to determine a difference between the tablet and SGC.||||>0.100
95983120|NCT00262522|191940178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|1.3||||0.715||95.0|-5.1|7.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||7.8|-5.1|0.715
95983121|NCT00262522|191940179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (QD minus BID, based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|percentage of subjects responding|-4.3||||0.249||95.0|-11.5|2.8|||normal approx. to the binomial distr.|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 subjects (300 subjects in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided over 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||2.8|-11.5|0.249
95983122|NCT00262522|191940180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
95983123|NCT04085523|191940181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6004|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.6004
95983124|NCT04085523|191940181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7022|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.7022
95983125|NCT04085523|191940181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0849
95983126|NCT04085523|191940181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0218|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model using treatment (dose groups and pooled placebo) and sex as fixed effects, and baseline age and baseline height SDS as the covariates.||||= 0.0218
95983127|NCT04722042|191940187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of word recognition over time (activation, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between groups (default versus place-based)||||0.557
95983128|NCT04722042|191940188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking over time (1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-activation) between the groups (default versus place-based)||||0.208
95983129|NCT04722042|191940189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of spatial release from masking between the groups over time||||0.126
95983130|NCT04722042|191940190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||comparison of perceived benefit between the groups over time||||0.369
95983131|NCT04722042|191940191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95983132|NCT04722042|191940192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95983133|NCT04722042|191940193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95983134|NCT05314517|191940194|OTHER||Stratified Common Risk Difference|14.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|-1.0|0.1244
95983135|NCT04714073|191940220|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|218.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.06|246.72|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||246.72|194.06|
95983136|NCT04714073|191940221|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|156.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.04|180.89|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||180.89|135.04|
95983137|NCT04714073|191940222|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|223.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.61|250.66|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratio (%): BI 706321 + Itraconazole (Test Treatment(T))/BI 706321 alone (Reference Treatment (R)).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||250.66|198.61|
95983138|NCT00449670|191940305|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.66|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 2).||1.01|0.66|
95983139|NCT00449670|191940305|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 3).||1.06|0.69|
95983140|NCT00449670|191940305|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 1 and Lot 4).||1.05|0.68|
95983141|NCT00449670|191940305|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 3).||1.3|0.85|
95983142|NCT00449670|191940305|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 2 and Lot 4).||1.29|0.84|
95983143|NCT00449670|191940305|EQUIVALENCE|The lot-to-lot consistency 21 days after Dose 2 was demonstrated if, for all pairs of lots, the two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/Vietnam/1194/2004 HI antibody GMT was within the \[0.5 ; 2\] clinical limit interval.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Demonstration of the consistency of the immune response (in terms of geometric mean titer \[GMT\] ratio for anti-hemagglutinin (anti-HA) antibody response against the A/Vietnam/1194/2004 strain 21 days after the second vaccination) elicited by two compositions of H5N1 adjuvanted vaccine (Lot 3 and Lot 4).||1.23|0.8|
95983144|NCT00847145|191940348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off levels for the vaccine antigen measles is ≥255 mIU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the measles antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Measles antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
95983145|NCT00847145|191940348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen mumps is ≥10 Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay(ELISA) Antibody (Ab) units to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B(2a), if for the mumps antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for Mumps antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-5|
95983146|NCT00847145|191940348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the vaccine antigen rubella is ≥10 IU/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the rubella antigen(two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for rubella antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-4|
95983147|NCT00847145|191940348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off value for the vaccine antigen varicella is ≥1.25 gpELISA units/mL to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M(1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2a), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off level for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
95983148|NCT00847145|191940348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified cut-off level for the varicella vaccine antigen is ≥5 gp ELISA units/ml (seroprotection) to be greater than -10%.|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0||||||The immunogenicity in 12B12M (1a) group was considered non-inferior to that in group 12M13B15B (2), if for the varicella antigen (two months after the MMRV vaccine), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentages of the subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the specified cut-off value for varicella antigen was greater than -10%.||7|-11|
95983149|NCT02603120|191940406|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48, between B/F/TAF group and ABC/DTG/3TC group. Sample size was based on assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Wk 48 and that the non-inferiority margin is 4%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|2.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.8|-1.0|
95983150|NCT02603120|191940406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95983151|NCT02603120|191940407|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to ABC/DTG/3TC if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -ABC/DTG/3TC group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-5.5|2.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||2.6|-5.5|
95983152|NCT02603120|191940407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.59
95983153|NCT02603120|191940408|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3|-67|0.031
95983154|NCT02603120|191940410|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.276||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.827|||ANOVA|||||0.827|-0.275|0.33
95983155|NCT02603120|191940412|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.143||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.248|||ANOVA|||||0.248|-0.534|0.47
95983156|NCT01761292|191940465|OTHER||mean|13.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5657|16.2466||The paired t-test or non-parametric signed rank test for 2 means (paired observations) (as is appropriate) was applied for testing the statistical significance of the Change From Baseline to End of Study. MFA% P \< 0.05 was set as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.2466|11.5657|<0.0001
95983157|NCT01761292|191940466|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95983158|NCT05611671|191940486|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|21.18||||||||21.18|-7.76|
95983159|NCT05611671|191940486|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|13.17||||||||13.17|-13.99|
95983160|NCT05611671|191940486|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|5.88||||||||5.88|-19.74|
95983161|NCT05611671|191940487|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|22.86||||||||22.86|-8.77|
95983162|NCT05611671|191940487|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|14.88||||||||14.88|-16.74|
95983163|NCT05611671|191940487|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|18.92||||||||18.92|-12.78|
95983164|NCT00253643|191940491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|||||Utilized a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on FAS summary scores||||0.1521
95983165|NCT00253643|191940492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model to assess the effect of time (pre vs. post) and treatment (GTFO, GT, FO and Placebo) on Ki-67||||0.1573
95983166|NCT02605187|191940494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.882
95983167|NCT02605187|191940494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.565
95983168|NCT02605187|191940494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at rest 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.022
95983169|NCT02605187|191940494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of pain at movement 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all the means are the same.||||0.140
95983170|NCT02605187|191940495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.311
95983171|NCT02605187|191940495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Final parameter estimates would be considered significant at P \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of opioid use 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.008
95983172|NCT02605187|191940496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.092
95983173|NCT02605187|191940496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of presence of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.269
95983174|NCT02605187|191940497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.006
95983175|NCT02605187|191940497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of pruritus score 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.296
95983176|NCT02605187|191940498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.759
95983177|NCT02605187|191940498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need medical treatment of pruritus 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.761
95983178|NCT02605187|191940499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.281
95983179|NCT02605187|191940500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score 24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.786
95983180|NCT02605187|191940500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of nausea score at 48 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.985
95983181|NCT02605187|191940501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 0-24 hours after delivery.||||0.057
95983182|NCT02605187|191940501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of participants who need nausea treatment from 24-48 hours after delivery.||||0.246
95983183|NCT02605187|191940502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of average number of vomiting episodes 0-24 hours after delivery. Null Hypothesis: all means are equal||||0.226
95983184|NCT02605187|191940503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
95983185|NCT02605187|191940504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 24 hours after delivery.||||0.019
95983186|NCT02605187|191940504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of satisfaction with pain medication 48 hours after delivery.||||0.873
95983187|NCT02113436|191940505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-0.97||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-2.47|0.206
95983188|NCT02113436|191940506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least sqaure means|-0.49||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.29|0.235
95983189|NCT02113436|191940507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Sqaure means|-0.48||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.27|0.236
95983190|NCT02113436|191940508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.6||||||||1.60|0.14|
95983191|NCT02113436|191940509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.0|0.041
95983192|NCT02113436|191940510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.06||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.20|0.335
95983193|NCT02113436|191940511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|||||8.6|-3.3|0.389
95983194|NCT01111851|191940599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.01|0.99|
95983195|NCT01111851|191940600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.02|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.02|0.98|
95983196|NCT01111851|191940601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.03|0.97|
95983197|NCT01111851|191940602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio of the LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.66|||||"The point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were generated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[aprepitant~165 mg/fosaprepitant 150 mg\]."|||1.66|0.50|
95983198|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.591
95983199|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.032
95983200|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants administered the CPSS-V to at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||One of the primary TF-CBT adoption outcomes (defined as administered CPSS-V) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student at the end of the sustainment phase, or they did not. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.054
95983201|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student at the beginning of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not at the beginning of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.98
95983202|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.068
95983203|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants started TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as started TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.165
95983204|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student by the end of the active phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the active phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.191
95983205|NCT04451161|191940627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||We performed a chi-squared analysis comparing the study groups (BASIS vs. Attention Control) on whether participants completed TF-CBT with at least one student at the end of the sustainment phase.|Chi-squared|||The primary TF-CBT adoption outcome (defined as completed TF-CBT) was binary: either the participant adopted at least one of these components with a student, or they did not by the end of the sustainment phase. A chi-squared test was used as a superiority test to determine whether participants in the BASIS group had higher TF-CBT adoption rates compared to the Attention Control group.||||0.86
95993544|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.3|-2.4|0.141
95993545|NCT00348140|191963293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.7|-2.1|0.331
95729087|NCT00094302|191428303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.39
95793009|NCT05222880|191555833|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for Intermediate.|Mean Population Estimate|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Intermediate.||-0.02|-0.06|
95793010|NCT05222880|191555833|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 0.17 logMAR was used for near.|Mean Population Estimate|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.09||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% Individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 48 subjects were required to test the primary hypothesis for Near.||0.09|0.05|
95793011|NCT05222880|191555834|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 36 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 14 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
95793012|NCT05222880|191555834|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
95919172|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||2.12|-1.57|
95919173|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.37||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||3.37|-1.15|
95793013|NCT05222880|191555835|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0076|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0076|0.0000|
95855555|NCT05462756|191670705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|3.508|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||3.508|-0.327|0.104
95983206|NCT04451161|191940628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|8.915||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||8.915|-2.064|0.22
95983207|NCT04451161|191940628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|10.443||Mixed model analysis was used (the students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing trauma PTSD symptoms (measured using CPSS-V) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT reduced trauma-related PTSD symptoms over time, as measured by CPSS-V scores (higher scores indicate greater symptom severity).||10.443|-.502|0.075
95983208|NCT04451161|191940629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.855|2.904||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if BASIS+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the BASIS group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||2.904|-.855|0.284
95983209|NCT04451161|191940629|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.786||Mixed model analysis was used (students were clustered under the providers who recruited them) to understand if AC+TF-CBT has a greater effect on decreasing negative mood and feelings symptoms (measured using SMFQ) over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the AC group (receiving TF-CBT) against Enhanced Treatment as Usual to evaluate whether TF-CBT decreased children's negative moods and feelings due to their trauma (higher score indicates more negative mood and feelings).||3.786|.03|.046
95983210|NCT03437564|191940662|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between the formulations (dosing of one Vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two Vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.026|||ANOVA|||||1.026|0.967|
95793014|NCT05222880|191555836|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Proportion|0.0018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0078|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.02 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.0078|0.0000|
95919174|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.14||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.14|-1.52|
95729088|NCT00094302|191428303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.01
95730121|NCT00095199|191430288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.62|0.86|0.310
95730122|NCT00095199|191430288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.4||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.40|0.93|0.100
95730123|NCT00095199|191430289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.06|0.46|0.091
95730124|NCT00095199|191430289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.5||The 2-sided unstratified Mantel Haenszel test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Mantel Haenszel|HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.50|0.72|0.361
95764052|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.8|-17.6|0.9449
95793015|NCT05222880|191555837|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 41 CLUE Points was used for Hyperopes.|Mean Population Estimate|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|45.2|59.4||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 16 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Hyperopes.||59.4|45.2|
95793016|NCT05222880|191555837|SUPERIORITY|A superiority Margin of 46 CLUE Points was used for Myopes.|Mean Population Estimate|63.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|58.0|68.6||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 15 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for Myopes.||68.6|58.0|
95793017|NCT05222880|191555838|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 52 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|68.1|77.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 11 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores.||77.1|68.1|
95730125|NCT00095199|191430290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.74|0.77|0.472
95730126|NCT00095199|191430290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimated time to symptomatic progression. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||1.27|0.42|0.272
95730127|NCT00095199|191430291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.36||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||3.36|0.74|0.236
95730128|NCT00095199|191430291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.18||The 2-sided unstratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level.|Log Rank|The Kaplan-Meier method estimated duration of response. HR was calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. HR\<1 favors Cetuximab arm||The Pemetrexed comparisons (Cetuximab + Pemetrexed vs Pemetrexed) were considered the primary comparisons. The Docetaxel comparisons (Cetuximab + Docetaxel vs Docetaxel) were considered supportive as Docetaxel comparisons remained underpowered by design. No tests were conducted to compare participants who received Docetaxel to those who received Pemetrexed.||2.18|0.42|0.887
95730129|NCT00955747|191430343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All tests will be two-tailed. Unless specified otherwise, p-values less than or equal to O.050, when rounded to four decimal places,will be considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
95730130|NCT05328375|191430366|OTHER||Mean|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.62||||||The estimate is based on the number of participants enrolled per month over the 11-month recruitment period of the trial. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.62|
95730131|NCT05328375|191430367|OTHER||Mean|0.87|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.66||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by THCR participants. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.66|
95730132|NCT05328375|191430368|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Telehealth-enhanced Hybrid CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
95730133|NCT05328375|191430368|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||The estimate is based on the proportion of participants in the Traditional CR arm who attended at least one cardiac rehabilitation session after randomization. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.55|
95730134|NCT05328375|191430369|OTHER||Mean|0.69|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.4||||||The estimate is based on the mean proportion of cardiac rehabilitation sessions completed by participants in the Traditional CR arm. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was computed.||||0.40|
95730135|NCT05328375|191430370|OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.55||||||Adequate feasibility was defined as a mean score ≥4 across four post-program items. A 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit was calculated.||||0.55|
95730136|NCT01739790|191430377|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95730137|NCT01893905|191430378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0307|||||||Pocock approach|||||||<0.0307
95730138|NCT01691508|191430383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.56|||Proportional odds model|||||4.56|1.25|0.008
95730139|NCT01027143|191430416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95730140|NCT03068273|191430424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1460
95730141|NCT03068273|191430424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95730142|NCT03068273|191430424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.331|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95730143|NCT03068273|191430425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
95730144|NCT03068273|191430426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.775||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0404
95730145|NCT03068273|191430427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2680
95730146|NCT03068273|191430428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.839||0.0403|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0403
95730147|NCT02637557|191430442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.952||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.222|8.318||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.318|-14.222|0.6065
95730148|NCT02637557|191430442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.036||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.318|2.245||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.245|-20.318|0.1160
95919175|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|6.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 5 min||6.78|2.84|
95730149|NCT02637557|191430442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.943||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.334|-0.551||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.551|-23.334|0.0400
95730150|NCT02637557|191430442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0225
95730151|NCT02637557|191430443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.711||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.028|6.606||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.606|-14.028|0.4795
95730152|NCT02637557|191430443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.739||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.066|7.588||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.588|-13.066|0.6020
95730153|NCT02637557|191430443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.602||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|1.826||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.826|-19.030|0.1055
95730154|NCT02637557|191430443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1387||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1387
95730155|NCT02637557|191430444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.299||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.299|-0.415|0.7488
95730156|NCT02637557|191430444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.103||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.611|0.1627
95730157|NCT02637557|191430444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.417||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|-0.056||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.056|-0.777|0.0237
95730158|NCT02637557|191430444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.0130
95730159|NCT02637557|191430445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.265||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.265|-0.369|0.7470
95730160|NCT02637557|191430445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.27||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.270|-0.364|0.7699
95730161|NCT02637557|191430445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.064||P-value based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.577|0.1157
95730162|NCT02637557|191430445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374||||||Dose trend test performed using linear contrast statement.|trend test|||||||0.1374
95730163|NCT02637557|191430446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.77||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.77|0.47|0.7903
95730164|NCT02637557|191430446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.71||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.71|0.70|0.3518
95730165|NCT02637557|191430446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.26||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.83|0.1544
95730166|NCT02637557|191430447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.23||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.25|0.1489
95730167|NCT02637557|191430447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.19|0.51|0.8891
95730168|NCT02637557|191430447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the odds ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.76|0.2237
95730169|NCT02637557|191430448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.18|0.48|0.6566
95730170|NCT02637557|191430448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.98||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.98|0.81|0.1280
95730171|NCT02637557|191430448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.91||Odds ratio, 95% CI (Confidence Interval) for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for esophagitis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.79|0.1463
95730172|NCT02637557|191430449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.279|0.683||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.683|-1.279|0.5504
95730173|NCT02637557|191430449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.252||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|1.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.244|-0.741|0.6177
95730174|NCT02637557|191430449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|1.513||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.513|-0.488|0.3138
95730175|NCT02637557|191430450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|0.935||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.935|-0.897|0.9675
95730176|NCT02637557|191430450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|1.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.345|-0.507|0.3741
95730177|NCT02637557|191430450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.461||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|1.385||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.385|-0.464|0.3275
95793018|NCT05222880|191555839|SUPERIORITY|A Superiority margin of 53 CLUE points was used|Mean Population Estimate|67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|63.0|72.1||||||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1% individually) with at least 80% statistical power, that 17 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores.||72.1|63.0|
95730178|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.272||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.272|-0.226|0.8560
95730179|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.373||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.373|-0.126|0.3301
95730180|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.8845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.233||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.233|-0.270|0.8845
95730181|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.303|-0.262|0.8879
95730182|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.299||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.299|-0.266|0.9072
95730183|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.177||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.177|-0.393|0.4573
95730184|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.251|-0.350|0.7476
95730185|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.239||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.239|-0.362|0.6873
95730186|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.258||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.045|-0.562|0.0952
95730187|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.291||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.291|-0.326|0.9111
95730188|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.313||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.313|-0.304|0.9772
95730189|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.235||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.546|0.1390
95730190|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.316||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.316|-0.349|0.9215
95730191|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.055||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.278||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.278|-0.388|0.7453
95730192|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.393||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.057||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.057|-0.729|0.0220
95730193|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.053||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.387||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.387|-0.282|0.7561
95730194|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.263||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.263|-0.406|0.6758
95730195|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.01||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.010|-0.686|0.0434
95730196|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.392|-0.308|0.8123
95730197|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.306||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.306|-0.394|0.8038
95730198|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.053|-0.654|0.0954
95730199|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.275||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.275|-0.430|0.6649
95730200|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.262||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.091|-0.614|0.1448
95730201|NCT02637557|191430451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.403||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.759|0.0264
95730202|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.102||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.347||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.347|-0.143|0.4137
95730203|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.147||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.392||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.392|-0.098|0.2395
95730204|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.036||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.212||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.212|-0.284|0.7729
95730205|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.079||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.363||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.363|-0.205|0.5824
95730206|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.028||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.312||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.312|-0.256|0.8466
95730207|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.118||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.169||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.169|-0.405|0.4192
95730208|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.264||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.264|-0.333|0.8192
95793019|NCT05222880|191555840|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.985|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0071|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.959|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.98 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 2000 replicating trials, that 92 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 80% with 99% central posterior credible.||0.997|0.959|
95730209|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.226|-0.372|0.6320
95730210|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.043|-0.647|0.0254
95730211|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.266||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.266|-0.360|0.7689
95730212|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.117||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.196||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.196|-0.430|0.4631
95730213|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.019||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.019|-0.615|0.0651
95730214|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.271|-0.392|0.7197
95730215|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.097||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.234||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.234|-0.428|0.5649
95730216|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.422||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.087||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.087|-0.757|0.0138
95730217|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.388|-0.269|0.7202
95730218|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.236||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.236|-0.421|0.5784
95730219|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.376||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.044||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.044|-0.708|0.0266
95730220|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.293|-0.391|0.7770
95730221|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.114||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.228|-0.456|0.5121
95730222|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.02||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.020|-0.711|0.0384
95730223|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.245||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.245|-0.431|0.5876
95730224|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.636|0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.040|-0.636|0.0842
95730225|NCT02637557|191430452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.452||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.110|-0.793|0.0098
95730226|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.054||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.301||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.301|-0.193|0.6663
95730227|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.148||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.396||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.396|-0.100|0.2400
95730228|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.227||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.227|-0.273|0.8560
95793020|NCT01077323|191555865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||1.28|0.59|
95793021|NCT01077323|191555866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||||ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.Rate ratios adjusted for propensity score of exenatide initiation using Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||1.5|0.8|
95730229|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.335||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.335|-0.232|0.7209
95730230|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.013||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.271||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.271|-0.297|0.9283
95730231|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.162||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.124||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.124|-0.449|0.2659
95730232|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.298||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.298|-0.310|0.9680
95730233|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.180|-0.429|0.4213
95730234|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.004||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.004|-0.618|0.0471
95730235|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.288|-0.337|0.8769
95730236|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.254|-0.372|0.7109
95730237|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.254||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.062||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.062|-0.570|0.1146
95730238|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.048||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.378||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.378|-0.281|0.7736
95730239|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.310|-0.350|0.9059
95793022|NCT01077323|191555867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.09|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.09|0.36|
95730240|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.034||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.034|-0.633|0.0779
95730241|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.412||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.412|-0.241|0.6068
95730242|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.024||||0.8838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.303||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.303|-0.352|0.8838
95730243|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.323||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.008|-0.653|0.0556
95730244|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.051||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.287||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.287|-0.389|0.7673
95730245|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.289|-0.389|0.7709
95730246|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.043|-0.728|0.0273
95730247|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.289|-0.378|0.7950
95793023|NCT01077323|191555868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Ratio (ARR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25|||||"ARR equals adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in exenatide cohort divided by adjusted incidence of acute pancreatitis in OAD cohort.~Adjusted incidence rates were calculated using a Poisson regression model adjusted for propensity score."|||2.25|0.86|
95730248|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.236||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.098||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.098|-0.570|0.1656
95730249|NCT02637557|191430453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.385||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.048||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.048|-0.722|0.0254
95730250|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.3||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.300|-0.114|0.3788
95730251|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.397||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.397|-0.020|0.0761
95730252|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.189||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.189|-0.232|0.8415
95730253|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.294||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.294|-0.190|0.6719
95730254|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.007||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.237|0.9549
95730255|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.149||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.149|-0.342|0.4408
95730256|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.253||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.253|-0.262|0.9736
95730257|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.114||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.114|-0.405|0.2703
95730258|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.351||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.089|-0.612|0.0087
95730259|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.243|-0.295|0.8480
95730260|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.073||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.344|0.5966
95730261|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.324||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.051||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.051|-0.596|0.0203
95730262|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.025||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.244||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.244|-0.294|0.8540
95730263|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.250|-0.293|0.8757
95730264|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.059||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.059|-0.605|0.0174
95730265|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.078||||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.358||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.358|-0.202|0.5831
95730266|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.078||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.204||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.204|-0.360|0.5859
95730267|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.291||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.007||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.007|-0.575|0.0447
95730268|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.093||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.388||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.388|-0.203|0.5365
95730269|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.241|-0.355|0.7067
95793024|NCT02984982|191555869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|1.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Standard of Care vs Alirocumab|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed categorical effects of treatment arm and randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline normalized TAV.||1.04|-4.32|0.2279
95730270|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.317||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.017|-0.616|0.0386
95730271|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042||||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.336||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.336|-0.253|0.7804
95730272|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.125||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.171||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.171|-0.422|0.4064
95730273|NCT02637557|191430454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.333||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.035|-0.632|0.0289
95730274|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.167|0.7207
95730275|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.133|-0.275|0.4946
95730276|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.129||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.129|-0.283|0.4596
95730277|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.067||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.315||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.315|-0.182|0.5987
95730278|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.122||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.127||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.127|-0.372|0.3348
95793025|NCT02616783|191555905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.427|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.517|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||3.517|1.337|<0.001
95793026|NCT02616783|191555906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.036|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.904|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.904|1.168|<0.001
95730279|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.19||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.190|-0.313|0.6288
95730280|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.048||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.216|-0.312|0.7193
95730281|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.006||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.006|-0.534|0.0452
95730282|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.014||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.014|-0.519|0.0635
95730283|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.156||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.156|-0.409|0.3800
95730284|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.053||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.053|-0.620|0.0200
95730285|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.043||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.043|-0.614|0.0244
95730286|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.2||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.200|-0.392|0.5232
95730287|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.282||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|0.015||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.015|-0.579|0.0623
95730288|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.255||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.045||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.045|-0.554|0.0951
95730289|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.243||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.243|-0.363|0.6985
95730290|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.373||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.069||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.069|-0.677|0.0163
95793027|NCT02616783|191555907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.749|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.771|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline spine BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.771|0.726|<0.001
95730291|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.345||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.039||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.039|-0.652|0.0273
95730292|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.25||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.250|-0.362|0.7187
95730293|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.017||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.017|-0.596|0.0640
95730294|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|-0.175||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.175|-0.793|0.0023
95730295|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.22||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.220|-0.378|0.6033
95730296|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.05||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.050|-0.650|0.0222
95730297|NCT02637557|191430455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.482||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.18||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.180|-0.785|0.0019
95730298|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.357||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.357|-0.072|0.1922
95730299|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.072||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.288||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.288|-0.143|0.5091
95730300|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.037||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.254||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.254|-0.181|0.7394
95730301|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.334||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.334|-0.189|0.5845
95730302|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.228||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.228|-0.296|0.7959
95730303|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.249||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.249|-0.280|0.9086
95730304|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.173||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.173|-0.333|0.5334
95730305|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.212||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.042||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.042|-0.466|0.1020
95730306|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.100|-0.613|0.0066
95730307|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.145||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.145|-0.399|0.3586
95730308|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.348||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.075||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.075|-0.621|0.0128
95730309|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.384||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.109||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.109|-0.660|0.0064
95730310|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.076||||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.218|-0.369|0.6124
95730311|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.071||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.071|-0.518|0.1365
95730312|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.355||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.058|-0.652|0.0193
95730313|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.258||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.258|-0.333|0.8046
95730314|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.023||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.023|-0.616|0.0350
95730315|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.392||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.691|-0.093||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.093|-0.691|0.0105
95730316|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.094||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.214||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.214|-0.403|0.5482
95730317|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.068||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.068|-0.687|0.0170
95730318|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.469||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|-0.157||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.157|-0.781|0.0034
95730319|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.202||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.202|-0.388|0.5346
95730320|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.336||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.040|-0.632|0.0262
95730321|NCT02637557|191430456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.545||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|-0.246||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.246|-0.843|0.0004
95730322|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.284||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.284|-0.088|0.3007
95730323|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.143||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.328||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.328|-0.042|0.1295
95730324|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.159||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.159|-0.216|0.7671
95730325|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.238|-0.217|0.9308
95730326|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.051||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.277||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.277|-0.176|0.6595
95730327|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.102||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.102|-0.356|0.2771
95730328|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.031||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.031|-0.436|0.0887
95793028|NCT02616783|191555908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.351|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.099|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|The 95% CIs were calculated using the ANOVA model with baseline hip BMD score, sex, and treatment as fixed effects.|||2.099|0.602|<0.001
95793029|NCT02616783|191555909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.6||P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact||Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||1.6|-11.8|0.18
95730329|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.022||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.022|-0.443|0.0758
95730330|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.298||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.063||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.063|-0.534|0.0132
95730331|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.160|-0.332|0.4903
95730332|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.176||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.176|-0.313|0.5824
95730333|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.215||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.033|-0.463|0.0885
95730334|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.13||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.130|-0.352|0.3652
95730335|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.131||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.131|-0.348|0.3739
95730336|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.027||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.027|-0.512|0.0294
95730337|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.102||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.351|0.4236
95730338|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.144||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.144|-0.353|0.4071
95730339|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.259||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.008||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.008|-0.510|0.0434
95730340|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.147||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.147|-0.354|0.4172
95730341|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.321|0.5759
95730342|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.033||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.033|-0.538|0.0271
95730343|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.115|-0.395|0.2804
95730344|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.035||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.035|-0.472|0.0913
95730345|NCT02637557|191430457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.123||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.123|-0.637|0.0039
95730346|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.128||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.319||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.319|-0.064|0.1902
95793030|NCT02616783|191555910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL were from the Fisher exact test.|Differences in percentages and 95% CI were generated based on exact method.|||9.3|-8.5|1.00
95730347|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.292||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.292|-0.091|0.3021
95730348|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.028||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.165||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.165|-0.221|0.7750
95730349|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.099||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.33||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.330|-0.133|0.4022
95730350|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.293||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.293|-0.169|0.5971
95730351|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.188|-0.279|0.7024
95730352|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.115||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.111||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.111|-0.342|0.3173
95730353|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.076||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.076|-0.378|0.1906
95730354|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.046|-0.412|0.1177
95730355|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.198||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.198|-0.297|0.6936
95793031|NCT02616783|191555911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|52.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|106.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in least square means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||106|-1|0.053
95730356|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.152||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.152|-0.343|0.4466
95730357|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.155||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.095||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.095|-0.405|0.2225
95730358|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.193||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.193|-0.297|0.6764
95730359|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.061||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.184||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.184|-0.306|0.6243
95730360|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.156||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|0.091||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.091|-0.403|0.2151
95730361|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.16||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.160|-0.351|0.4611
95730362|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.116||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.116|-0.394|0.2849
95730363|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.03||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.030|-0.485|0.0833
95730364|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.242||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.242|-0.277|0.8955
95730365|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.207|-0.312|0.6916
95730366|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.103||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.103|-0.421|0.2345
95730367|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.218||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.218|-0.304|0.7466
95730368|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.176||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.084||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.084|-0.437|0.1843
95730369|NCT02637557|191430458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.003||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.003|-0.531|0.0471
95730370|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.088||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.265||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.265|-0.088|0.3258
95793032|NCT02616783|191555912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|57.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|115.0|||ANOVA|The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||||115|0|0.051
95730371|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084||||0.3483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.261||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.261|-0.092|0.3483
95730372|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.022||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.201|-0.156|0.8055
95730373|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.103||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.326||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.326|-0.119|0.3627
95730374|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.087||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.31||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.310|-0.135|0.4404
95730375|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.226||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.226|-0.224|0.9939
95730376|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.128||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.1||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.100|-0.356|0.2716
95793033|NCT01791985|191555920|OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Proportion of change in tumour size at 12 weeks (or progression if prior to week 12), when used in combination with either anastrozole or letrozole in ER positive breast cancer patients who have progressed on treatment with either anastrozole or letrozole in any setting||||
95730377|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.116||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.112||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.112|-0.345|0.3175
95730378|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.021|-0.483|0.0325
95730379|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.169||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.077||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.077|-0.415|0.1769
95730380|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.058||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.058|-0.434|0.1343
95730381|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.295||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|-0.046||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.046|-0.544|0.0203
95730382|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415|0.11||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.110|-0.415|0.2543
95730383|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.142||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.121||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.121|-0.405|0.2892
95730384|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.306||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.04||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.040|-0.571|0.0243
95730385|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.194||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.194|-0.312|0.6471
95730386|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.148||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.148|-0.359|0.4123
95730387|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.278||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.021||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.021|-0.534|0.0338
95730388|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.172||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.172|-0.362|0.4841
95730389|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.115|-0.419|0.2627
95730390|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.311||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.041||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.041|-0.581|0.0241
95793034|NCT02439164|191555931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|32.87|||t-test, 2 sided|bonferroni correction was used for post hoc analysis, P value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|this described the difference during midazolam sedation between the glioma and control group without dividing into subgroups.||Oneway Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference among hands in a certain time point. General linear model for repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the time difference of test before and after drug administration,|32.87|14.16|<0.01
95730391|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.355|0.4881
95730392|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.099||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.099|-0.427|0.2205
95730393|NCT02637557|191430459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.433||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.168||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.168|-0.699|0.0015
95730394|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.238||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.238|-0.152|0.6653
95730395|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.345||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.345|-0.046|0.1327
95730396|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.241||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.241|-0.155|0.6697
95730397|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.8598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.251||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.251|-0.210|0.8598
95730398|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.344||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.344|-0.118|0.3354
95730399|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.055||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.289||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.289|-0.179|0.6429
95730400|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.101||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.135||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.135|-0.336|0.4010
95730401|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.129||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.106||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.106|-0.364|0.2821
95730402|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.089|-0.388|0.2189
95730403|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.093||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.161||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.161|-0.346|0.4717
95730404|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.158||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.158|-0.349|0.4572
95730405|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.165||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.092||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.092|-0.422|0.2064
95730406|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.088||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.164||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.164|-0.339|0.4932
95730407|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.069||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.183||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.183|-0.321|0.5897
95730408|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.089||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||0.089|-0.421|0.2014
95730409|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.044||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.215||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.215|-0.304|0.7384
95730410|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.043||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.216||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.216|-0.303|0.7423
95730411|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.141||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.122||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.122|-0.404|0.2923
95730412|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.188||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.188|-0.359|0.5388
95730413|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.281||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.281|-0.266|0.9565
95730414|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.099||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.179||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.179|-0.376|0.4848
95730415|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.164||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.117||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.117|-0.445|0.2523
95730416|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.112||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.170|-0.393|0.4356
95730417|NCT02637557|191430460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.086||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.086|-0.485|0.1706
95730418|NCT02637557|191430461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.115||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.115|-0.155|0.7689
95730419|NCT02637557|191430461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.17||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.170|-0.103|0.6287
95730420|NCT02637557|191430461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.207||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.207|-0.066|0.3106
95730421|NCT02637557|191430462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.101||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.100|0.9961
95730422|NCT02637557|191430462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008||||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.094||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.109|0.8829
95730423|NCT02637557|191430462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.201||P-values are based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for treatment group and esophagitis stratum and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.201|-0.001|0.0527
95730424|NCT02207231|191430473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
95730425|NCT02207231|191430474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
95730426|NCT02207231|191430475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
95730427|NCT02207231|191430475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
95793035|NCT03118934|191555959|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.5. With a sample size of 80/group, there was approximately 83% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in fit with assumed standard deviation of 0.6 and expected difference of 0.25 (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
95730428|NCT02207231|191430476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
95730429|NCT02207231|191430476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
95730430|NCT02207231|191430477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 24||||< 0.001
95730431|NCT02207231|191430477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Week 48||||< 0.001
95793036|NCT04232839|191555960|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|91.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.7|80.3|
95730432|NCT02207231|191430478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730433|NCT02207231|191430479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.7|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||25.7|12.9|< 0.001
95730434|NCT02207231|191430479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730435|NCT02207231|191430480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10.0%|Difference in Percentage|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|31.0|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||31.0|17.0|< 0.001
95730436|NCT02207231|191430480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730437|NCT02207231|191430481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Difference in percentage|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|23.8|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.8|12.4|< 0.001
95730438|NCT02207231|191430481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730439|NCT02207231|191430482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730440|NCT02207231|191430483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730441|NCT02207231|191430484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95730442|NCT00992407|191430504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Personal and Social Performance (PSP) Scale Score at Week 52||6.3|-7.5|0.8595
95730443|NCT00992407|191430505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Score at Week 52||12.2|-9.6|0.8118
95730444|NCT00992407|191430514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.8|||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline in Psychosocial Well-being Index (PWI) Score at Week 52||24.8|-4.8|0.1768
95730445|NCT00992407|191430515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|12.2|||Student's t-test|||||12.2|-12.8|0.9569
95730446|NCT00992407|191430516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% of power and 0.05 of significance level was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-5.5|0.5294
95730447|NCT01521559|191430535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|40.1||P-value was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; Difference and confidence interval were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by regions (Japan vs North America) and baseline BCVA (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200).|||40.1|13.0|0.0003
95730448|NCT01521559|191430536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group. P-value, Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||14.0|7.1|<0.0001
95730449|NCT01521559|191430537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-148.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.8|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||-117.4|-179.8|<0.0001
95730450|NCT01521559|191430538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Difference was IAI group minus laser group; P-value, Point estimate, and 95% CI, were based on an ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and treatment group, region, and baseline Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA ≤20/200 and BCVA \>20/200) as fixed factors.||5.5|-0.3|0.0833
95730451|NCT03238677|191430577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of biofeedback at 10 weeks||3.1|-23.2|.132
95730452|NCT03238677|191430577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of Practice Distribution at 10 weeks||-1.5|-25.9|.028
95730453|NCT03238677|191430577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect comparing telepractice vs face-to-face treatment||5.0|-24.9|.187
95730454|NCT03238677|191430577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.22||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction of biofeedback and practice distribution at 10 weeks|η2 =.054|46.3|-5.8|.125
95730455|NCT00571428|191430632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||||90.0|-0.015|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, predose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.037|-0.015|
95730456|NCT00571428|191430633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||||90.0|0.035|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.090|0.035|
95730457|NCT00571428|191430634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||||90.0|-0.079|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.008|-0.079|
95730458|NCT00571428|191430635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies has to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||90.0|-0.086|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit Number are fixed effects; subjects within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||0.026|-0.086|
95793037|NCT04232839|191555960|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.0|77.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.6|68.0|
95919176|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|3.73||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 10 min||3.73|0.12|
95730459|NCT00571428|191430640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.694||||||90.0|0.525|2.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect.||||2.862|0.525|
95730460|NCT00571428|191430641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined a priori such that 90%CI for the difference between therapies had to fall entirely within +/- 0.07L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||||90.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, treatment sequence, pre-dose FEV1, \& Visit number are fixed effects; subject within treatment sequence is a random effect||||0.090|0.015|
95730461|NCT04543136|191430646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|94.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||94.5|-4.5|0.074
95730462|NCT04543136|191430646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|109.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||109.1|8.5|0.022
95730463|NCT04543136|191430646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|36.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||36.6|-64.2|0.587
95730464|NCT04543136|191430647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|104.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||104.4|5.3|0.030
95730465|NCT04543136|191430647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|111.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||111.2|12.5|0.015
95730466|NCT04543136|191430647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|42.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||42.5|-56.5|0.780
95730467|NCT04543136|191430648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-37.9|0.281
95730468|NCT04543136|191430648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|31.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.7|-18.3|0.597
95730469|NCT04543136|191430648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|5.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||5.0|-45.1|0.116
95730470|NCT04543136|191430649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|27.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||27.9|-21.2|0.787
95730471|NCT04543136|191430649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|31.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||31.3|-17.6|0.576
95730472|NCT04543136|191430649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|21.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.0|-28.1|0.775
95855556|NCT05462756|191670706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|1.36|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Baseline + Country + Personal Use of CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares). Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at Week 22-Week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach. A total of 100 datasets were imputed with one for each of the 100 datasets imputed at Baseline.||1.360|-4.358|0.304
95730473|NCT04543136|191430650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.52||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.52|-0.70|0.766
95730474|NCT04543136|191430650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.06|-1.30|0.032
95730475|NCT04543136|191430650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.21||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.21|-0.03|0.063
95730476|NCT04543136|191430651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.12|0.213
95730477|NCT04543136|191430651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-0.16|0.291
95730478|NCT04543136|191430651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-0.31|0.868
95730479|NCT04543136|191430652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.55|-0.35|0.661
95730480|NCT04543136|191430652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.17|-0.75|0.218
95730481|NCT04543136|191430652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.85|-0.08|0.100
95730482|NCT04543136|191430653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.54||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.54|-0.80|0.701
95730483|NCT04543136|191430653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.96|0.438
95730484|NCT04543136|191430653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.83||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.83|-0.55|0.689
95730485|NCT04543136|191430654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-0.92|0.309
95730486|NCT04543136|191430654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.10|0.109
95730487|NCT04543136|191430654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.79|-0.43|0.555
95855557|NCT05462756|191670707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model with BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||0.95|-0.48|0.523
95730488|NCT04543136|191430655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.31|-0.35|0.896
95730489|NCT04543136|191430655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.16|-0.49|0.320
95730490|NCT04543136|191430655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-0.19|0.390
95730491|NCT04543136|191430656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.51|0.802
95730492|NCT04543136|191430656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.05|-0.85|0.082
95730493|NCT04543136|191430656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.11|0.137
95730494|NCT04543136|191430657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.46|-0.89|0.525
95730495|NCT04543136|191430657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.11|-1.24|0.098
95730496|NCT04543136|191430657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|-0.33|0.306
95730497|NCT02260492|191430693|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence test compares the Test/Reference with confidence bounds set at standard 80-125%.~Superiority test compares Test with Placebo (p\<0.05) Superiority test compares Reference with Placebo (p\<0.05) (p\<0.05)"|Test/Reference|1.0799|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||"Primary analyses were conducted on BL subtracted values (pre-dose - post-dose). The two one-sided tests method of interval analysis is standard for bioequivalence testing and employs 2 sets of one-sided hypotheses as follows, performed at the 5% alpha level:~H01: uT-uR \< -0.20 uR vs. Ha1: -0.20 uR \</= uT- uR (the lower tail) and H02: uT-uR \>0.25 uR vs. Ha2: uT- uR \</=0.25 uR (the upper tail) When uT is the LSM SOLIS, uR is the LSM of ADVAIR DISKUS"|"Day 1 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.004 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.012"|1.25|.8|<0.05
95730498|NCT02260492|191430694|EQUIVALENCE|Standard bioequivalence 90% confidence bounds set at 0.8-1.25.|Test/Reference|1.0475|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANOVA|||Same as the Day 1 analyses|"Week 4 superiority to placebo:~Solis vs. Placebo p=0.019 Advair vs. Placebo p=0.035"|1.25|.8|<0.05
95730499|NCT03482713|191430699|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.93|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.93|-0.34|
95730500|NCT03482713|191430700|OTHER||Difference least squares mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.88|||||Based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, gender and the log-transformed baseline.|||1.88|-0.35|
95730501|NCT04634409|191430709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.009273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.009273
95730502|NCT04634409|191430709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.000271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.18|0.000271
95730503|NCT04634409|191430709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.000257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.10|0.000257
95730504|NCT04634409|191430709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.013378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.23|0.013378
95793038|NCT04232839|191555960|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|98.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.8|86.5|
95730505|NCT04634409|191430709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.000318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.52|0.11|0.000318
95730506|NCT04634409|191430709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.140563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.09|0.140563
95730507|NCT04634409|191430710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.000835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.12|0.000835
95730508|NCT04634409|191430711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.097231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.28|0.097231
95730509|NCT04634409|191430711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.13236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.30|0.132360
95730510|NCT04634409|191430717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|15.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.57|0.02|0.769
95730511|NCT04634409|191430717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|0.01|0.494
95730512|NCT04634409|191430717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|0.02|0.671
95730513|NCT04634409|191430717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.27|0.02|0.663
95730514|NCT04634409|191430717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.76|0.02|0.680
95730515|NCT04634409|191430717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|67.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.88|0.09|0.584
95730516|NCT04634409|191430719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.06|0.17|0.979
95730517|NCT04634409|191430719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|0.27|0.675
95730518|NCT04634409|191430722|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.17|0.009
95730519|NCT04634409|191430722|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.06|0.002
95730520|NCT04634409|191430722|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.72|0.263
95730521|NCT04634409|191430722|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.41||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.87|0.083
95730522|NCT04634409|191430722|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.35|<0.001
95730523|NCT04634409|191430722|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.52|0.149
95730524|NCT04634409|191430723|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
95730525|NCT04634409|191430724|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.70|0.606
95730526|NCT04634409|191430724|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.93|0.170
95730527|NCT04634409|191430730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.53|0.890
95730528|NCT04634409|191430730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.89|0.141
95730529|NCT04634409|191430730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.67|0.603
95730530|NCT04634409|191430730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.00|0.048
95730531|NCT04634409|191430730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.69|0.533
95730532|NCT04634409|191430730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.40|0.869
95730533|NCT04634409|191430731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.72|0.374
95730534|NCT04634409|191430732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.13|0.015
95730535|NCT04634409|191430732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.78|0.317
95730536|NCT04634409|191430735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.94|0.082
95855558|NCT05462756|191670708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-14.50|-55.57|<0.001
95730537|NCT04634409|191430735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.11|0.018
95730538|NCT04634409|191430735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.09|0.021
95730539|NCT04634409|191430735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.16|0.011
95730540|NCT04634409|191430735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.60|1.30|0.003
95730541|NCT04634409|191430735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.48|0.52|0.546
95730542|NCT04634409|191430736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.60|0.888
95730543|NCT04634409|191430737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|1.13|0.014
95730544|NCT04634409|191430737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.98|0.057
95730545|NCT03708211|191430749|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.9359|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8084|1.0835||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.0835|0.8084|
95730546|NCT03708211|191430750|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8992|1.1201||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1201|0.8992|
95730547|NCT03708211|191430751|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9033|1.1227||||||Following log-transformation, PK parameters were analyzed by ANOVA fitting terms for treatment group, sequence and period. Participants within sequence were treated as a random effect. The obtained point estimates and adjusted 90% CIs for difference in treatment were exponentially back transformed to provide point and confidence interval estimates for the ratios of interest appropriately.||1.1227|0.9033|
95730548|NCT00097695|191430762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS was used to calculate statistical significance between p- vs icatibant group and placebo group.||||||0.142
95730549|NCT00097695|191430763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to onset is calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS is used.||||||< 0.001
95730550|NCT00097695|191430764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log-rank test of SAS used.||||||= 0.079
95730551|NCT03471078|191430789|OTHER|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested between avatrombopag and placebo using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel 2-sided test at α=0.05, adjusting for the number of eligible chemotherapy agents as collected in IWRS (1 or ≥2 permissible chemotherapy agents).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-21.7|0.7186
95730552|NCT03471078|191430790|OTHER|||||||0.8372|||||||Van Elteren Test|||||||0.8372
95730553|NCT00234078|191430793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.385
95730554|NCT00234078|191430794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.601
95730555|NCT00234078|191430795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
95730556|NCT00234078|191430795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95730557|NCT00234078|191430795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
95730558|NCT00234078|191430796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95730559|NCT00234078|191430796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95730560|NCT00234078|191430796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95730561|NCT05381948|191430814|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.199||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.24|-2.48|0.919
95730562|NCT05381948|191430814|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.02|||MMRM|||||2.02|-2.63|0.795
95730563|NCT00757601|191430837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 AUC (0-∞).~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) of the fed state divided by the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.03||||||95.0|||||Mixed-Effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean AUC (0-∞) for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
95730564|NCT00757601|191430838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To assess the effect of food at the 30 mg dose, a point estimate was constructed for the geometric mean ratio for the fed/fasted states (GMR\[fed/fasted\]) of MK1006 Cmax.~The GMR (fed/fasted) was calculated using the geometric mean Cmax of the fed state divided by the geometric mean Cmax fasted state.~A GMR (fed/fasted) point estimate value within 20% of unity (1.00) was considered consistent with an absence of a clinically significant food effect."|Geometric Mean Ratio (fed/fasted)|1.14||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect Model|||A linear mixed-effect model was used to estimate the geometric mean Cmax for MK1006 at every dose level.||||
95730565|NCT02750761|191430857|OTHER|Bioavailability: Geometric least squares mean ratio between the Oral Group's and IV Group's dose normalized AUC from time zero to infinity.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||||The Oral Group represented the numerator in the bioavailability ratio, and the IV Group represented the denominator.|||1.35|0.93|
95730566|NCT01966042|191430881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test (n=13)|||||||< 0.001
95730567|NCT00698685|191430885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||actuarial probability of engraftment|70.0||||||95.0|||||||Actuarial probability of engraftment at day +100 is calculated according to the product-limit estimate method.|||||
95730568|NCT04684524|191430893|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-5.35|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-5.35|-9.38|<0.0001
95730569|NCT04684524|191430894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.18|<0.0001
95730570|NCT04684524|191430895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.41|-3.31|<0.0001
95730571|NCT04684524|191430896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-3.43|-7.48|<0.0001
95730572|NCT04684524|191430897|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.32|-3.04|<0.0001
95730573|NCT04684524|191430898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.46||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.71|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||8.71|0.22|0.0392
95730574|NCT04684524|191430899|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-0.49|-1.29|<0.0001
95730575|NCT04684524|191430900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.72|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.72|-3.82|<0.0001
95730576|NCT04684524|191430901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-1.02|-1.77|<0.0001
95730577|NCT04684524|191430902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-7.74|-26.86|0.0004
95730578|NCT04684524|191430903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|-27.03|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-27.03|-45.59|<0.0001
95730579|NCT04684524|191430904|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.42|-11.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Risk difference was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel estimate and confidence limits, with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years) and region (Americas and Asia) and the Sato variance estimator.||-11.79|-46.42|0.0010
95730580|NCT04684524|191430905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-5.07|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-5.07|-25.15|0.0032
95730581|NCT04684524|191430906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.82|-48.61|||ANCOVA|||Each of the imputed complete data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, time from last surgery (\<=2 years, \>2 years), and region (Americas and Asia) as covariates.||-48.61|-112.82|<0.0001
95730582|NCT04799158|191430931|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.84|35.55|||Fisher Exact|||||35.55|21.84|<0.0001
95730583|NCT04799158|191430931|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.28|40.23|||Fisher Exact|||||40.23|26.28|<0.0001
95730584|NCT04799158|191430931|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|49.42|||Fisher Exact|||||49.42|35.92|<0.0001
95730585|NCT04799158|191430932|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|37.09|||Fisher Exact|||||37.09|23.41|<0.0001
95730586|NCT04799158|191430932|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|31.05|||Fisher Exact|||||31.05|16.67|<0.0001
95730587|NCT04799158|191430932|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|44.35|||Fisher Exact|||||44.35|31.00|<0.0001
95730588|NCT04799158|191430933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1771
95730589|NCT04799158|191430933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1551
95855559|NCT05462756|191670709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-4.30|-10.79|<0.001
95730590|NCT04799158|191430933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0094
95730591|NCT04799158|191430934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3395
95730592|NCT04799158|191430934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4882
95730593|NCT04799158|191430934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0722
95730594|NCT04799158|191430935|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-3.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|16.52|||Fisher Exact|||||16.52|-24.41|0.8300
95730595|NCT04799158|191430935|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|1.4|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|22.16|||Fisher Exact|||||22.16|-19.28|>0.9999
95730596|NCT04799158|191430935|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.3|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|22.88|||Fisher Exact|||||22.88|-18.22|>0.9999
95730597|NCT04799158|191430936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4684|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4684
95730598|NCT04799158|191430936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6560
95730599|NCT04799158|191430936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6324|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6324
95730600|NCT04799158|191430937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9896
95730601|NCT04799158|191430937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6916|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6916
95730602|NCT04799158|191430937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9316|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9316
95730603|NCT03740165|191430938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.83|0.53|0.0002
95730604|NCT03740165|191430938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.19|0.77|0.3339
95730605|NCT03740165|191430939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.84|0.61|<0.0001
95730606|NCT03740165|191430939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.18|0.87|0.5527
95730607|NCT03740165|191430940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4314
95730608|NCT03740165|191430940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.72|0.3107
95730609|NCT03740165|191430941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.25|0.87|0.6716
95730610|NCT03740165|191430941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.89|0.7448
95730611|NCT03740165|191430942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.86|0.50|0.0012
95730612|NCT03740165|191430942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.27|0.75|0.4366
95730613|NCT03740165|191430943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.89|0.61|0.0008
95730614|NCT03740165|191430943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.27|0.88|0.7174
95730615|NCT03740165|191430944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.00|0.62|0.0228
95730616|NCT03740165|191430944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.22|0.77|0.3935
95730617|NCT03740165|191430945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.03|0.74|0.0573
95730618|NCT03740165|191430945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7234
95855560|NCT05462756|191670710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.81|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||-39.20|-107.81|<0.001
95730619|NCT03740165|191430946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.26||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.97|-2.44|0.8481
95730620|NCT03740165|191430946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.1||||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||1.66|-3.87|0.4335
95730621|NCT03740165|191430947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.14||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.44|-2.15|0.9024
95730622|NCT03740165|191430947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with scores as response variable; covariates for treatment by time interaction and stratification factors (debulking surgery \[planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary\], bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 CPS)|||2.31|-2.47|0.9478
95764053|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.4||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.4|-17.6|0.9646
95764054|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|18.3||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||18.3|-10.9|0.6219
95730623|NCT03740165|191430948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.17|0.73|0.2644
95730624|NCT03740165|191430948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by surgery (planned interval debulking versus R0 following primary debulking versus R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (yes versus no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary debulking), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs CPS≥10)|||1.14|0.71|0.1953
95730625|NCT03740165|191430949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5188
95730626|NCT03740165|191430949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.30|0.77|0.5091
95730627|NCT03740165|191430950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
95730628|NCT03740165|191430950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.70|0.0981
95730629|NCT03740165|191430951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||0.80|0.59|<0.0001
95730630|NCT03740165|191430951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.06|0.79|0.1206
95730631|NCT03740165|191430952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0316||95.0|0.63|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.01|0.63|0.0316
95793039|NCT04232839|191555960|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|76.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|81.8|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =13.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||81.8|71.6|
95730632|NCT03740165|191430952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4441||95.0|0.78|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.24|0.78|0.4441
95730633|NCT03740165|191430953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0853||95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.05|0.76|0.0853
95730634|NCT03740165|191430953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7165||95.0|0.89|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.23|0.89|0.7165
95730635|NCT03740165|191430954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.08|0.71|0.1029
95730636|NCT03740165|191430954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary) and bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||1.36|0.90|0.8231
95730637|NCT03740165|191430955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0442||95.0|0.76|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.02|0.76|0.0442
95730638|NCT03740165|191430955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.9565||95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by debulking surgery (planned interval vs R0 following primary vs R1 following primary), bevacizumab use (Yes vs No), and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||1.31|0.98|0.9565
95730639|NCT03740165|191430956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.4||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No)|||11.5|-1.9|0.0644
95730640|NCT03740165|191430957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.7||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|t-test, 1 sided||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by bevacizumab use (Yes vs No) and PD-L1 CPS (\<10 vs ≥10)|||7.3|-0.3|0.0318
95730641|NCT03049618|191430965|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95730642|NCT03049618|191430966|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95730643|NCT03049618|191430967|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
95730644|NCT03049618|191430968|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95730645|NCT03049618|191430970|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95730646|NCT03049618|191430971|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95730647|NCT03049618|191430972|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95730648|NCT03049618|191430973|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
95730649|NCT03049618|191430975|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95730650|NCT03049618|191430976|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95730651|NCT03049618|191430977|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95730652|NCT03049618|191430978|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.96
95730653|NCT00936975|191430980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7644|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE||GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|This was an exploratory study and no a priori assumptions were employed.||||<0.001
95730654|NCT00936975|191430981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|GEE|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|the difference in Patlak flux in tumor bone between baseline and 12 weeks, accounting for the fact that each participant could contribute more than one tumor bone.||||0.1945
95730655|NCT00936975|191430982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.32
95730656|NCT00936975|191430982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6943|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: No difference in uptake b/w normal \& tumor bones||||<0.001
95730657|NCT00936975|191430983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.16
95730658|NCT00936975|191430984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.53
95730659|NCT00936975|191430984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: influx(Ki) is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.1095
95730660|NCT00936975|191430985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE was used to model the change, accounting for 37 bones in 12 patients measured at 2 time points.|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|||||0.0033
95730661|NCT00936975|191430985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0097||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations|Age was included in the model as a confounder|GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for the multiple (clustered) bone measurement values within a patient and to adjust for age so that appropriate SE estimates (and thus p-values) were produced.|H0: Change Patlak Flux from TP1 to TP2 is the same in normal and tumor bones||||0.0670
95730662|NCT00936975|191430985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|32.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6956||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||GEEs were used to model the change in tumor uptake between baseline and 12 weeks. GEEs were used to adjust for the correlation of 37 tumors in 12 patients measured at 2 time points and to adjust for age as a confounder.|Generalized estimating equations||Estimated value is the slope of the Normal bone. Tumor Bone was used as reference category. GEEs, rather than a simple mean difference, were used to account for clustering and correlation of bone measurement values within a patient|H0: %Change in Patlak Flux between timepoint 1 and 2 is the same for Normal and Tumor bones||||0.0278
95730663|NCT00926289|191430988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-6.4|-10.6|<0.0001
95730664|NCT00926289|191430989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
95730665|NCT00926289|191430990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-4.7|-8.8|<0.0001
95793040|NCT04232839|191555960|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|133.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|151.9|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.6.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||151.9|117.2|
95730666|NCT00926289|191430991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, country with the continuous covariates of baseline and baseline-by-week interaction||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
95730667|NCT00926289|191430992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.74|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.21|1.74|<0.0001
95730668|NCT00926289|191430993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.12|1.70|<0.0001
95730669|NCT00926289|191430994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.6|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.01|1.60|<0.0001
95730670|NCT00926289|191430995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.46|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.73|1.46|<0.0001
95730671|NCT00926289|191430996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.48|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.76|1.48|<0.0001
95730672|NCT00926289|191430997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005||95.0|1.28|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline and fixed effect country||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||2.37|1.28|0.0005
95730673|NCT00926289|191430998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.76|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (SBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.26|1.76|<0.0001
95730674|NCT00926289|191430999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.78|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline (DBP), treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.29|1.78|<0.0001
95730675|NCT00926289|191431000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||4.04|1.70|<0.0001
95730676|NCT00926289|191431001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.57|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for continuous covariate of baseline, treatment and country as fixed effects.||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||3.16|1.57|<0.0001
95730677|NCT00926289|191431002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren test stratified for country|||T80+HCTZ25 versus T80 monotherapy||||<0.0001
95730678|NCT01199601|191431010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Information provided for crude analysis results; adjustment for significant baseline differences between groups did not change results substantially.||Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||1.23|1.02|<0.05
95730679|NCT01199601|191431011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear|Outcomes were assessed by crude and adjusted risk ratios with log-binomial generalized linear models.||||1.18|1.02|<0.05
95730680|NCT01199601|191431012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|The crude analysis result is provided as the odds ratio did not change substantially when adjusted for possible confounders.||||1.25|1.01|0.05
95730681|NCT01364870|191431048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The p value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for the multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.016
95730682|NCT01364870|191431049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was adjusted using Bonferroni's method to account for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||There were instances of missing data due to patient time restraints and patient refusal.||||0.008
95793041|NCT04232839|191555960|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|127.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.2.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||127.6|102.3|
95730683|NCT00601484|191431052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.203|-0.51||||||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.510|-2.203|
95730684|NCT00601484|191431053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.363|0.011||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.011|-1.363|
95730685|NCT00601484|191431053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.969|-0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.297|-1.969|
95730686|NCT00601484|191431053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.09||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.090|-1.790|
95730687|NCT00601484|191431053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.356|0.457||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.457|-1.356|
95730688|NCT00601484|191431054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.727|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.954|2.601||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.601|-19.954|
95730689|NCT00601484|191431054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.948|-3.523||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.523|-31.948|
95730690|NCT00601484|191431054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.347|-6.971||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.971|-34.347|
95730691|NCT00601484|191431054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.612|2.452||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.452|-29.612|
95730692|NCT00601484|191431054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.807|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.58|7.08||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.080|-22.580|
95730693|NCT00601484|191431055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.768|0.65||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.650|-1.768|
95730694|NCT00601484|191431055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.723|0.297||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.297|-2.723|
95730695|NCT00601484|191431055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.311|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.682|0.752||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.752|-3.682|
95730696|NCT00601484|191431055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.198||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.198|-1.110|
95730697|NCT00601484|191431055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.904|0.922||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.922|-2.904|
95730698|NCT00601484|191431056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.65|4.826||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.826|-13.650|
95730699|NCT00601484|191431056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.041|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.493|3.192||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.192|-20.493|
95730700|NCT00601484|191431056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.089|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.775|7.343||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.343|-26.775|
95730701|NCT00601484|191431056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.95|16.465||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.465|-8.950|
95730702|NCT00601484|191431056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.299|4.851||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.851|-22.299|
95730703|NCT00601484|191431057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.776|1.265||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.265|-0.776|
95793042|NCT04232839|191555961|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|91.4|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||91.4|80.0|
95730704|NCT00601484|191431057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.044||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.044|-1.220|
95730705|NCT00601484|191431057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.124|2.269||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.269|-1.124|
95730706|NCT00601484|191431057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.441|1.988||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.988|-1.441|
95730707|NCT00601484|191431057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.307|2.283||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.283|-0.307|
95730708|NCT00601484|191431058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.05|5.76||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.76|-9.05|
95730709|NCT00601484|191431058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.65|4.24||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.24|-12.65|
95730710|NCT00601484|191431058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.96|7.9||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||7.90|-8.96|
95730711|NCT00601484|191431058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.57|8.28||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||8.28|-11.57|
95730712|NCT00601484|191431058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|13.02||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||13.02|-6.82|
95730713|NCT00601484|191431059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.414|0.983||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.983|-2.414|
95730714|NCT00601484|191431059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.548|2.384||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.384|-1.548|
95730715|NCT00601484|191431059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|2.693||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||2.693|-0.075|
95730716|NCT00601484|191431059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.178|1.512||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.512|-2.178|
95730717|NCT00601484|191431059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.038|4.112||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.112|0.038|
95730718|NCT00601484|191431060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.33|18.68||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||18.68|-33.33|
95730719|NCT00601484|191431060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.12|41.18||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||41.18|-14.12|
95730720|NCT00601484|191431060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|19.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|38.1||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||38.10|0.00|
95730721|NCT00601484|191431060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.95|32.73||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||32.73|-30.95|
95730722|NCT00601484|191431060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|34.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.57|70.0||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||70.00|-4.57|
95730723|NCT00601484|191431061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|0.61||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.610|-0.529|
95793043|NCT04232839|191555961|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|77.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||77.1|67.4|
95730724|NCT00601484|191431061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.077|0.043||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.043|-1.077|
95730725|NCT00601484|191431061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.835|0.396||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.396|-0.835|
95730726|NCT00601484|191431061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.718|0.273||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.273|-0.718|
95730727|NCT00601484|191431061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.044|0.445||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.445|-1.044|
95730728|NCT00601484|191431062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.56|5.37||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||5.37|-27.56|
95730729|NCT00601484|191431062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-22.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.39|0.0||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-56.39|
95730730|NCT00601484|191431062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.44|0.0||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-40.44|
95730731|NCT00601484|191431062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-14.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.71|0.0||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||0.00|-50.71|
95730732|NCT00601484|191431062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-8.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.87|4.64||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\]) as stratification variable.||4.64|-36.87|
95730733|NCT00601484|191431063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.852|26.044||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||26.044|-15.852|
95730734|NCT00601484|191431063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.216|25.764||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||25.764|-17.216|
95730735|NCT00601484|191431063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.741|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.917|20.307||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.307|-25.917|
95730736|NCT00601484|191431063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.626|20.162||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||20.162|-21.626|
95730737|NCT00601484|191431063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.858|34.868||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||34.868|-13.858|
95730738|NCT00601484|191431064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.049|15.316||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.316|-8.049|
95730739|NCT00601484|191431064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.353|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.153|15.533||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||15.533|-9.153|
95730740|NCT00601484|191431064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.651|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.806|11.932||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.932|-13.806|
95730741|NCT00601484|191431064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.543|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.901|19.486||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||19.486|-5.901|
95793044|NCT04232839|191555961|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|98.6|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||98.6|86.3|
95730742|NCT00601484|191431064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.221|18.765||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||18.765|-9.221|
95730743|NCT00601484|191431065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|-0.182||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.182|-1.546|
95730744|NCT00601484|191431065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.196|-0.57||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.570|-2.196|
95730745|NCT00601484|191431065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|-0.388||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.388|-2.204|
95730746|NCT00601484|191431065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.032|-0.172||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.172|-2.032|
95730747|NCT00601484|191431065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.878|-0.152||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.152|-1.878|
95730748|NCT00601484|191431066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.757|-2.718||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-2.718|-29.757|
95730749|NCT00601484|191431066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.846|-11.075||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-11.075|-44.846|
95730750|NCT00601484|191431066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-25.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.508|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.079|-6.369||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-6.369|-45.079|
95730751|NCT00601484|191431066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.017|0.902||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.902|-40.017|
95730752|NCT00601484|191431066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.124|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.633|-3.171||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-3.171|-40.633|
95730753|NCT00601484|191431067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.942|-0.057||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.057|-2.942|
95730754|NCT00601484|191431067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.458|-0.705||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.705|-3.458|
95730755|NCT00601484|191431067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.265|-0.004||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.004|-4.265|
95730756|NCT00601484|191431067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.029|1.124||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.124|-4.029|
95730757|NCT00601484|191431067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.293|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.419|-0.063||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.063|-4.419|
95730758|NCT00601484|191431068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|11.32||||||Week 2: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||11.32|-27.32|
95730759|NCT00601484|191431068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.04|4.37||||||Week 4: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||4.37|-42.04|
95730760|NCT00601484|191431068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.58|0.67||||||Week 6: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||0.67|-51.58|
95730761|NCT00601484|191431068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.71|17.33||||||Week 10: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||17.33|-41.71|
95730762|NCT00601484|191431068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman median difference|-21.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.76|7.92||||||Week 16: Van elteren test was used to compare the percent change from baseline between tanezumab and placebo using baseline average daily pain score (moderate \[4 to less than 7\] or severe \[greater than or equal to 7\] as stratification variable.||7.92|-54.76|
95730763|NCT00601484|191431069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|-0.04||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.040|-0.591|
95730764|NCT00601484|191431069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.02||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.020|-0.734|
95730765|NCT00601484|191431069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|-0.015||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.015|-0.724|
95730766|NCT00601484|191431069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.806|-0.005||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.005|-0.806|
95730767|NCT00601484|191431069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.223||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.223|-0.470|
95730768|NCT00601484|191431070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.468|-1.209||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-1.209|-29.468|
95730769|NCT00601484|191431070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.102|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.608|1.665||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.665|-35.608|
95730770|NCT00601484|191431070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.358|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.476|-0.613||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||-0.613|-35.476|
95730771|NCT00601484|191431070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.418|3.46||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||3.460|-42.418|
95730772|NCT00601484|191431070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.174|7.849||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||7.849|-26.174|
95730773|NCT00601484|191431071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.394|0.03||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.030|-1.394|
95730774|NCT00601484|191431071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.149|0.468||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.468|-1.149|
95730775|NCT00601484|191431071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.443|0.156||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.156|-1.443|
95730776|NCT00601484|191431071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.046|0.931||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.931|-1.046|
95730777|NCT00601484|191431071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.876|0.592||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.592|-1.876|
95730778|NCT00601484|191431072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-34.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.879|4.375||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||4.375|-72.879|
95730779|NCT00601484|191431072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-30.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.23|13.285||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||13.285|-75.230|
95730780|NCT00601484|191431072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-37.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.62|16.265||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||16.265|-90.620|
95730781|NCT00601484|191431072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.604|86.142||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||86.142|-74.604|
95730782|NCT00601484|191431072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-21.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.862|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-164.142|121.438||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||121.438|-164.142|
95730783|NCT00601484|191431075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.562|0.081||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.081|-2.562|
95730784|NCT00601484|191431075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.782|0.535||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.535|-2.782|
95730785|NCT00601484|191431075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.036|0.819||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.819|-3.036|
95730786|NCT00601484|191431075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.534|1.221||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.221|-1.534|
95730787|NCT00601484|191431075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.398|1.32||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||1.320|-2.398|
95730788|NCT00601484|191431076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.718|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.25|0.277||||||Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||0.277|-22.250|
95730789|NCT00601484|191431076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.001|6.132||||||Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||6.132|-23.001|
95730790|NCT00601484|191431076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.737|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.602|8.327||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.327|-24.602|
95730791|NCT00601484|191431076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.406|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.948|11.04||||||Week 10: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||11.040|-13.948|
95730792|NCT00601484|191431076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.352|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.884|8.234||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age, gender, BMI, baseline severity of pain and concomitant medications (amitriptyline, pentosan polysulfate sodium, hydroxyzine) use.||8.234|-23.884|
95730793|NCT00601484|191431077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|15.007||||||Week 6: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||15.007|1.709|
95730794|NCT00601484|191431077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|9.795||||||Week 16: Analysis was based on proportional odds analysis, to determine the odds ratio for the odds of responding (compared to not responding) on Tanezumab vs placebo.||9.795|0.756|
95730795|NCT03504852|191431098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|27.98||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||27.98|7.45|0.0003
95730796|NCT03504852|191431098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.78||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|1.44|0.0003
95730797|NCT03504852|191431099|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.28||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|18.2||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||18.20|-1.65|0.0498
95730798|NCT03504852|191431099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.47||One-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.92|0.0498
95730799|NCT00745251|191431101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0084|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.84|||ANCOVA|||||-4.84||0.0084
95730800|NCT00745251|191431102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-9.37|0.0006
95730801|NCT02928848|191431103|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-week) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in overall language ability, as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ), that endures over time.||||0.14
95730802|NCT02928848|191431104|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) with Condition (active, sham) and time point (baseline, 0-weeks) as within-subject factors. Analysis tests whether active vs. sham stimulation confers a greater improvement in naming ability, as measured by the naming subtest of the WAB, that endures over time.||||.02
95730803|NCT01463683|191431123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Incidence of seroprotection with V232-2XP SC is non-inferior to V232-1XP SC if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference is greater than -10%|Difference in percentage of participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.6|1.9|
95730804|NCT01463683|191431124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||11.9|-2.0|0.162
95730805|NCT01463683|191431124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||21.6|1.1|0.028
95730806|NCT01463683|191431124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.0||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||16.8|-4.0|0.246
95730807|NCT01463683|191431125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.4|-3.8|0.659
95730808|NCT01463683|191431125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.6||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.2|-7.7|0.459
95730809|NCT01463683|191431125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.0|-7.1|0.686
95730810|NCT03384745|191431131|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 25 (48.1% \[34.0-62.4\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 30mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
95730811|NCT03384745|191431131|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 44 (84.6% \[71.9-93.1\], p\<0.0001) of 52 participants in the M1095 60mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
95764055|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.8||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|24.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||24.1|-6.4|0.2554
95730812|NCT03384745|191431131|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the M1095 120mg normal load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
95730813|NCT03384745|191431131|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 45 (88.2% \[76.1-95.6\], p\<0.0001) of 51 participants in the M1095 120mg augmented load treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
95730814|NCT03384745|191431131|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 300 subjects has 99% power to detect a statistically significant difference between any treatment arm and placebo in the IGA score of 0 or 1 rate at Week 12, with a two-sided, unadjusted type I error of 0.05. Calculations assume IGA score 0 or 1 rates \>88% for study drug and \<=7% for placebo.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypotheses were tested at Week 12 (individual M1095 treatment arms would not be different from placebo with respect to achievement of IGA scores of 0 or 1). The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using a non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing values. Primary treatment comparisons versus placebo were made with the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by actual prior biologic use (yes/no) and body weight (\<=90; \>90kg).|At Week 12, none (0.0% \[95% CI 0.0-6.8\]) of the 52 participants in the placebo group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 versus 41 (77.4% \[63.8-87.7\], p\<0.0001) of 53 participants in the secukinumab 300mg treatment group. Odds ratio could not be calculated due to the placebo group containing no responders.|||<0.0001
95730815|NCT01497938|191431157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used for sample size calculation. sample size is based on two-sample t test with one-sided type 1 error of 2.5%. Assuming a same mean of change in A1C for the treatment arm and control arm and a common standard deviation of 1% for both treatment groups, it showed that a total of 200 subjects will provide over 80% power to detect the non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15||
95730816|NCT01497938|191431158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-588.0|||<|0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.025
95730817|NCT00365352|191431159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0015||95.0|-5.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was adjusted for Baseline value, treatment pooled sites, and treatment by pool site interaction.|||-1.3|-5.6|0.0015
95730818|NCT00365352|191431160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.287||||0.0001||95.0|2.338|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used with treatment and pooled center as explanatory factors.||||7.861|2.338|0.0001
95730819|NCT02683187|191431186|EQUIVALENCE|Insulin secretion, determined by insulin or C-peptide values in the 10 minutes after arginine infusion will be compared as a repeated measure for each subject in a 2 x 2 analysis of sitagliptin/placebo and Exendin-9/saline.|Median Difference (Final Values)|371.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
95730820|NCT03626857|191431187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
95730821|NCT03626857|191431188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
95730822|NCT05665595|191431195|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8|||||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma risk-based stage (IIB/IIC/clinical IIB and IIC/IIIA/IIIB vs IIIC/IIID/IV) and region of enrollment (Asia vs ROW).|||1.80|0.87|
95730823|NCT00076102|191431240|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||The reported F statistic and p-value are representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Adaptive Behavior.|ANOVA|||F=5.45 under the null hypothesis||||0.0301
95730824|NCT00076102|191431240|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Emotional Functioning.|ANOVA|||F = 6.56 under the null hypothesis||||0.0186
95793045|NCT04232839|191555961|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|80.7|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =14.0.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment' (formulation). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was to be considered as random, while the other effects were to be considered as fixed.||80.7|70.6|
95730825|NCT00076102|191431240|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in the Parent proxy Form and the Child Self-Report Form response for Medical/Physical Status.|ANOVA|||F=11.23 under the null hypothesis||||0.0032
95730826|NCT00076102|191431241|OTHER|||||||0.6263|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.25 under the null hypothesis||||0.6263
95730827|NCT00076102|191431241|OTHER|||||||0.3625|||||||ANOVA|||F= 0.87 under the null hypothesis||||0.3625
95730828|NCT00076102|191431241|OTHER|||||||0.5877|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.31 under the null hypothesis||||0.5877
95730829|NCT00076102|191431241|OTHER|||||||0.2767|||||||ANOVA|||F=1.27 under the null hypothesis||||0.2767
95730830|NCT00076102|191431241|OTHER|||||||0.8466|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.04 under the null hypothesis||||0.8466
95730831|NCT00076102|191431241|OTHER|||||||0.6774|||||||ANOVA|||F=0.18 under the null hypothesis||||0.6774
95730832|NCT02122796|191431256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
95730833|NCT02122796|191431257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
95730834|NCT02122796|191431259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Means of pre- and post-treatment measurements were compared using paired, two-sided Student's t tests. P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.|t-test, 2 sided|P values were calculated comparing acupuncture and control mean change scores using unpaired two-sided Student's t tests.||||||<0.01
95730835|NCT02708290|191431260|OTHER|Participants in the MITA group were matched to those in Control (treatment-as-usual) group using propensity score analysis based on age and all four ATEC subscales at baseline. Least squares means were calculated for all subscales at all visits.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"The concept of a Visit was developed by dividing the three-year-long observation interval into 3-month periods. All evaluations were mapped into 3-month-long bins (Reference: Mahapatra, S. et al. Autism Dev. Disord. 2018, 1). It was then hypothesized that there was a three-way interaction between an age group, Visit, and treatment. This hypothesis was modeled by applying the Linear Model with repeated measures, where a three-way interaction term was introduced to test the hypothesis."||||<0.0001
95730836|NCT01545076|191431271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-24.6|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-6.21|||Fisher Exact|||||-6.21|-40.7|=0.007
95730837|NCT01545076|191431271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-12.2|-46.0|<0.001
95730838|NCT01545076|191431272|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|=0.005
95730839|NCT01545076|191431272|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||0|-1|<0.001
95730840|NCT01545076|191431273|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||14|2|=0.004
95730841|NCT01545076|191431273|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||11.7|0.7|=0.014
95730842|NCT01545076|191431274|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.003
95730843|NCT01545076|191431274|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||4|1|=0.002
95730844|NCT01545076|191431275|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|0|=0.03
95793046|NCT04232839|191555961|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|134.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.6|153.0|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =17.9.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||153.0|117.6|
95730845|NCT01545076|191431275|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||9|2|<0.001
95730846|NCT00797108|191431327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|55.3||||||Two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||55.3|-4.0|
95730847|NCT00797108|191431327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Cure Difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.1|57.9||||||Two-sided 80% CI for the difference in the clinical cure response rates between treatement group and the comparator was formed using the exact methods.||57.9|-13.1|
95730848|NCT00520741|191431337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.355|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the lower bound of the 95 % prediction interval for the historical-control of 0.653; hereafter referred to as the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.355|0.246|
95730849|NCT00520741|191431339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predicted exit rate at 112 days|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.378|||Kaplan-Meier|Subjects who dropped out due to non-exit criteria reasons over the 10 % censoring maximum were to be counted as an exit.||The upper limit of the Confidence Interval for the estimate of the Lacosamide (LCM) 400 mg/day exit rate was compared with the historical-control exit rate. The LCM 400 mg/day dose group would be declared an effective conversion to monotherapy treatment if the upper 95 % confidence limit for the estimate of the exit rate was less than 0.653.||0.378|0.268|
95730850|NCT03702621|191431354|OTHER|P values are from mixed model least squares (LS) means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.54
95730851|NCT03702621|191431355|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95730852|NCT03702621|191431356|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.98||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.98
95730853|NCT03702621|191431357|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.94||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||0.94
95730854|NCT03702621|191431358|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||0.86
95730855|NCT03702621|191431359|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1||||||P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Sidak adjustment||||||1.0
95730856|NCT03702621|191431360|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95730857|NCT03702621|191431361|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95730858|NCT03702621|191431362|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
95730859|NCT03702621|191431363|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95730860|NCT03702621|191431364|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95730861|NCT03702621|191431365|OTHER|P values are from mixed model LS means differences with Sidak adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95730862|NCT02456532|191431395|OTHER|analyses of variance comparing the three treatment gropus|||||=|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.05
95730863|NCT02456532|191431396|OTHER|ANOVA|||||=|0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.643
95730864|NCT01860976|191431397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of Difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|8.7|<0.001
95730865|NCT00810368|191431424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||2-tailed paired Student's t-tests between Week 0 and Week 12 responses (above) were anticipated to show significant benefits with carnosine treatment but no change with placebo. There were no corrections for multiple comparisons in the reported data.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Description of Power Calculation: The planned sample size completing each arm was based on individual incremental improvements in the primary outcomes of : A) CFS Severity Scores (Baraniuk et al., Annals Allergy Astma Immunol, 1998), B) Instantaneous Fatigue (Kim et al. Journal of Rehab Res Dev, 2010), and C) increased accuracy of 4/35 letters for 2 back working memory task (Owen, Human Brain Mapping, 2005).||||0.30
95730866|NCT00810368|191431424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95730867|NCT00810368|191431425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Fisher's Exact Test, we determined whether there was a significant difference in the number of participants complaining of IBS symptoms.|Fisher Exact|2 by 2 Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.018
95730868|NCT00810368|191431426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0018
95730869|NCT00810368|191431426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95730870|NCT00810368|191431428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95730871|NCT00810368|191431429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95730872|NCT00810368|191431430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95730873|NCT01024738|191431431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95730874|NCT03267264|191431448|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.7||||||||24.7|10.3|
95793047|NCT04232839|191555961|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|128.1|||||Test/reference, intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) =16.1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, including effects accounting for 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' were to be considered as random, while the effect 'treatment' was to be considered as fixed.||128.1|102.9|
95730875|NCT03267264|191431449|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|44.3||||||||44.3|16.8|
95730876|NCT03267264|191431449|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|37.1||||||||37.1|4.1|
95730877|NCT03267264|191431449|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|overal mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.5||||||||19.5|-7.2|
95793048|NCT03217591|191555963|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-16.0|||=|0.2142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 20 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated confidence intervals (CIs) were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||5.8|-33.3|=0.2142
95793049|NCT03217591|191555963|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-14.6|||=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.7|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat 40 mg. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||8.3|-32.7|=0.2718
95730878|NCT03267264|191431449|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|26.7||||||||26.7|-1.1|
95730879|NCT03267264|191431450|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall mean|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.7||||||Overall Comfort||24.7|11.3|
95730880|NCT03267264|191431450|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|21.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||21.8|9.9|
95730881|NCT03267264|191431450|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.1||||||Injection Pain||22.1|8.9|
95730882|NCT03267264|191431450|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.7||||||Ease of Use||25.7|13.8|
95730883|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.7||||||Overall Comfort||40.7|14.9|
95730884|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|31.6||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick injury||31.6|8.9|
95730885|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.8||||||Injection Pain||28.8|3.4|
95730886|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|42.1||||||Ease of Use||42.1|19.3|
95730887|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|36.1||||||Overall Comfort||36.1|5.3|
95793050|NCT03217591|191555963|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean change (%)|-15.3|||=|0.1736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between placebo and praliciguat overall. Geometric mean change (%) and the associated CIs were derived as 100×\[exp(Least Squares Mean Change)-1\].||3.6|-30.7|=0.1736
95793051|NCT04249427|191555970|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in mean number of days with significant mid-facial pain in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
95793052|NCT04249427|191555971|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in SNOT-22 score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
95793053|NCT04249427|191555972|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Physical Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95793054|NCT04249427|191555973|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Usual Activities as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95793055|NCT04249427|191555974|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Social Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.058|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.058
95730888|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|32.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a needle stick||32.8|6|
95730889|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|33.7||||||Injection Pain||33.7|3.6|
95730890|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9||||||Ease of Use||31.9|4.9|
95730891|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|20.9||||||Overall Comfort||20.9|-4.0|
95730892|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.8||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle stick injury||23.8|1.9|
95730893|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.4||||||Injection Pain||19.4|-5.3|
95730894|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.8||||||Ease of Use||28.8|6.7|
95730895|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.1||||||Overall Comfort||28.1|2.1|
95730896|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.4||||||Anxiety Associated with a Needle Stick Injury||22.4|-0.5|
95730897|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|33.1||||||Injection Pain||33.1|7.4|
95730898|NCT03267264|191431451|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> -10mm, we can conclude in non-inferiority.|Overall Mean|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|23.5||||||Eae of Use||23.5|0.5|
95793056|NCT04249427|191555975|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Emotional Function as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95793057|NCT04249427|191555976|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in Overall Impact (global) as Measured by Migraine Function Impact in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.0036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0036
95793058|NCT04249427|191555977|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant nasal congestion in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95730899|NCT03522948|191431480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-0.71||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject t-test||||.03
95730900|NCT03522948|191431481|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||d = -0.51|||0.23
95730901|NCT03522948|191431482|SUPERIORITY||t-test|1.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||GSAB self-efficacy||2.41|-0.69|<.05
95730902|NCT03522948|191431483|SUPERIORITY||t-test|2.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of GSAB self-efficacy subscale for condom use||3.41|0.31|<.05
95730903|NCT01325207|191431515|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) was determined to be 80mg IT every two weeks. This is based on no DLTs being seeing in Cohorts 1-4 with lower doses and 1 DLT out of 7 patients observed at 80mg IT in Cohort 5.|||
95730904|NCT04309474|191431539|OTHER|A statistical test was not performed.|Area under the curve (AUC)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|2.175|||||"AUC analyses based on trapezoidal rule using contrast derived from MMRM with stratification factors, treatment, visit, and a treatment by visit interaction included in the model.~Posterior probability that the difference in AUC exceeds 0.6 = 0.557"|||2.175|-0.764|
95730905|NCT04309474|191431540|OTHER|A statistical test was not performed.|Odds Ratio of LS Means|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.24|||||Point estimate for responder rate (defined as having an mRS score of 0, 1, or 2), odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM).|||4.24|0.71|
95730906|NCT00319956|191431555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95730907|NCT02607800|191431559|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 was greater than -5%. If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -5% (ie, the noninferiority null hypothesis was rejected), a 2-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was to be used to test for the superiority of SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks over SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at a significance level of 0.05.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||-0.4|-6.0|
95730908|NCT01656889|191431565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the chi-squared proportion of wounds closed in each group.||||||0.5896
95730909|NCT01656889|191431566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||.3675
95730910|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 01||||0.6426
95730911|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3843|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 02||||.3843
95730912|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 03||||0.2792
95730913|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 04||||0.1502
95793059|NCT04249427|191555978|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change of average number of days per month with significant significant rhinorrhea in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95730914|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 05||||0.3823
95730915|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 06||||0.5528
95730916|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02913|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 07||||.02913
95730917|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 08||||0.3896
95730918|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 09||||0.3989
95730919|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 10||||0.8682
95730920|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 11||||0.8083
95855561|NCT05462756|191670711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Variance-covariance structure was set as compound symmetry.||5.58|1.49|<0.001
95730921|NCT01656889|191431567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Week 12||||0.6687
95730922|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.3601
95730923|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.9398
95730924|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.905
95730925|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 04||||0.4471
95730926|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.3004
95730927|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1815
95730928|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.399
95730929|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.8027
95730930|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.4913
95730931|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5227
95730932|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.7032
95730933|NCT01656889|191431569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9366
95730934|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 01||||0.9853
95730935|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 02||||0.7083
95730936|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 03||||0.6744
95730937|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2891
95730938|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9923|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 05||||0.9923
95730939|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 06||||0.1775
95730940|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 07||||0.499
95730941|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 08||||0.4423
95730942|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 09||||0.5138
95730943|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3409
95730944|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 11||||0.6358
95730945|NCT01656889|191431570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6753
95730946|NCT01656889|191431571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||< 0.05
95730947|NCT01202747|191431583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0005
95730948|NCT02114307|191431590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95730949|NCT02114307|191431591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0023
95730950|NCT02114307|191431591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test Group - 6 week Time Point - Pre-stimulation versus Post-Stimulation||||0.0815
95730951|NCT02114307|191431592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.127
95730952|NCT03387033|191431600|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.005
95730953|NCT03387033|191431601|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
95730954|NCT03387033|191431602|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.05
95730955|NCT01546987|191431635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that seventy events with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 70% power (at one-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 40% reduction in the assumed rate control arm rate of is 0.08/year.||1.48|0.47|0.55
95730956|NCT01546987|191431636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.055 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 28% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 33% reduction in failure rate.||1.31|0.38|0.27
95730957|NCT01546987|191431637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.4|||Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|||3.40|1.54|<0.001
95730958|NCT01546987|191431638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.33|0.99
95730959|NCT01546987|191431639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.75||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT arm|Revised protocol due to early accrual closure (September 2014) computes that 5-year survival of 78% and annual hazard rate of 0.02 for ADT + RT arm, with five years of additional follow-up after early accrual closure provides 32% power (at two-sided alpha = 0.05) to detect a 50% reduction in failure rate.||1.75|0.29|0.48
95793060|NCT04249427|191555979|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change in doses of rescue pain medications in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95855562|NCT05462756|191670712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Group mean was reported and determined by Negative binomial method using Baseline hypoglycemia rate + Hemoglobin A1c at Baseline (%) + Treatment, with log (exposure in days/365.25) as variables.||1.44|0.85|0.442
95730960|NCT01546987|191431640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = ADT + RT|||1.63|0.45|0.65
95730961|NCT01546987|191431642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.76
95730962|NCT01546987|191431643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Bowel domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.44
95730963|NCT01546987|191431643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Urinary domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.13
95730964|NCT01546987|191431643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Sexual domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.50
95730965|NCT01546987|191431643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Hormonal domain\] One hundred thirty evaluable participants (arms combined), provides 81% power to detect a moderate effect size of 0.5 using a two-sample test of the difference in means with a two-sided type I error of 0.05.||||0.96
95730966|NCT01546987|191431654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.89|||Log Rank||Reference arm = ADT + RT arm|||0.89|0.29|0.0104
95730967|NCT02270736|191431669|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||MMRM|||Least square mean (LS-Mean) is from a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.03|-0.1|= 0.0012
95730968|NCT02270736|191431670|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM|||LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline Modified Teacher Drooling Scale (mTDS) score as covariate.||0.53|0.02|= 0.032
95730969|NCT02270736|191431672|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.05|-0.12|<0.0001
95793061|NCT04249427|191555980|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the change from baseline in mean daily pain score in Erenuman group differs from that in Placebo group.||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
95855563|NCT05462756|191670713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean was determined by MMRM model using BASELINE + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-0.32|0.543
95730970|NCT02270736|191431672|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.06|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline uSFR score as covariate.||-0.06|-0.14|<0.0001
95730971|NCT02270736|191431673|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.63|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 8: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.63|0.17|=0.0008
95730972|NCT02270736|191431673|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LS-mean) difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.66|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis at Week 12: LS-Mean is from a MMRM analysis model with treatment group, pooled investigation sites, and age groups as fixed factors, visit\*treatment as interaction term, visit as repeated factor, and baseline mTDS score as covariate.||0.66|0.14|=0.0026
95730973|NCT00262600|191431678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.74|1.1||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 110 mg to warfarin||1.10|0.74|<.0001
95730974|NCT00262600|191431678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.52|0.81||p-value for protocol specified margin of 1.46|Regression, Cox|||Non-inferiority comparison of dabigatran 150 mg to warfarin||0.81|0.52|<.0001
95730975|NCT00262600|191431679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.2206||95.0|0.83|1.04||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.04|0.83|0.2206
95730976|NCT00262600|191431679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.0015||95.0|0.74|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.93|0.74|0.0015
95730977|NCT00262600|191431680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.7508||95.0|0.87|1.11||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||1.11|0.87|0.7508
95730978|NCT00262600|191431680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.0093||95.0|0.74|0.96||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||||0.96|0.74|0.0093
95730979|NCT00262600|191431681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0026||95.0|0.7|0.93||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||0.93|0.70|0.0026
95730980|NCT00262600|191431681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.3146||95.0|0.81|1.07||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis is for adjudicated major bleeds||1.07|0.81|0.3146
95730981|NCT00262600|191431682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.45||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.45|0.19|<0.0001
95730982|NCT00262600|191431682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Regression, Cox|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Cox regression analysis with treatment in the model.||Analysis of ICH||0.60|0.28|<0.0001
95793062|NCT01091246|191555981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16|||Bootstrapping|||A/H1N1: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H1N1 strain||1.16|0.98|
95730983|NCT02433665|191431698|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point for this study was a comparison between fixed-dose and customized-dose contrast material injection CT protocols for vascular and parenchymal enhancement by using a noninferiority approach. The limit of noninferiority was set at 0.1 before the initiation of the study on the basis of a similar study that examined contrast media dose optimization for CT angiography examinations.|Odds Ratio, log|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.38|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95730984|NCT03194464|191431699|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established at p \<.05 (non-adjusted).|ANOVA|||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by less affected hand exercise to task-failure and to determine the time course and recovery of this effect.||||0.15
95730985|NCT03194464|191431700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Statistical Significance established as p \<.05|ANOVA|Repeated-Measures ANOVA||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if intracortical inhibition, as measured by SICI, in the ipsilesional hemisphere was altered by repeated sessions of less affected hand exercise to task-failure. Pre-exercise SICI was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.83
95730986|NCT03194464|191431701|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.204
95730987|NCT03194464|191431702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||statistical significance was established a priori at p \<.05|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA comparing Session8 vs. Session1 performance||We performed repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) to determine if motor dexterity, as measured by the BBT, was improved by repeated sessions of non-paretic hand exercise to task-failure. BBT performance was compared between Session1 and Session8.||||.004
95730988|NCT03365375|191431724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95730989|NCT02483975|191431736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.0505||||||||1.0505|0.8040|
95730990|NCT02483975|191431737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of each dose of fluticasone furoate 50 µg versus placebo was greater than 0.8.|Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8096|1.062||||||||1.0620|0.8096|
95730991|NCT02483975|191431738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||||1.06|0.81|
95730992|NCT02483975|191431739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||||1.03|0.61|
95730993|NCT02483975|191431740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square Geometric Mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||||1.07|0.72|
95730994|NCT02684578|191431751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects regression|||||||0.39
95730995|NCT02684578|191431752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.97
95730996|NCT02684578|191431753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Linear mixed-effects|||||||0.12
95730997|NCT00626925|191431767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95730998|NCT00626925|191431768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95730999|NCT00626925|191431770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95731000|NCT00626925|191431771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95731001|NCT00626925|191431772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95731002|NCT00626925|191431773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95731003|NCT00626925|191431774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95731004|NCT00625807|191431779|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||Cohen's d = 0.5|ANOVA|||ANOVA for group by time interaction||||> 0.1
95731005|NCT00625807|191431780|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.103
95793063|NCT01091246|191555981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Bootstrapping|||A/H3N2: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata + FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for A/H3N2 strain||1.14|0.94|
95731006|NCT00625807|191431781|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change pre to week 8||||.022
95731007|NCT00625807|191431781|OTHER|within group change from pre to week 8|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95731008|NCT00625807|191431782|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.015
95731009|NCT00625807|191431782|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.53
95731010|NCT00625807|191431783|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to week 8||||.06
95731011|NCT00625807|191431783|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||within group change from pre to post||||<.001
95731012|NCT00108732|191431795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.3|75.3||||||||75.3|48.3|
95731013|NCT00108732|191431796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|7.2||||||||7.2|0|
95731014|NCT00108732|191431797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|0.45||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test the difference between day 4 PSA and day 15 PSA.||||||0.003
95731015|NCT00108732|191431798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of difference|-0.04||||0.02||95.0||||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the difference between pre and post-treatment PSA slopes assessed by multiple PSA values on natural log scale using a piecewise linear model with a common knot point at the date of registration.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
95731016|NCT01901055|191431809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||F-test statistics for group X time = 4.27|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|Statistical analyses were revised from the original protocol for reporting results at 24 week because unable to recruit an adequate sample size at this time point of participants originally on CPAP for 24 weeks and those who were in the original sham-CPAP group who crossed over to CPAP and completed 24 weeks of treatment.||0.04|-0.68|0.017
95731017|NCT01901055|191431810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|5.09||F test statistics for group X time = 1.20|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||5.09|-38.66|0.307
95731018|NCT01901055|191431811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.35||F test statistics for group X time = 0.31|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-0.85|0.732
95731019|NCT01901055|191431812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|8.92||F test statistics for group X time = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||8.92|-1.62|0.919
95731020|NCT01901055|191431813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.96||F-test statistics for group X time = 2.12|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.96|-1.18|0.125
95731021|NCT01901055|191431814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|529.1||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-936.1|1137.5||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.45|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1137.50|-936.10|0.639
95731022|NCT01901055|191431815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.35||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.78|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||0.35|-1.61|0.461
95731023|NCT01901055|191431816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|10.86||F-test statistics for group X time= 0.25|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||10.86|-4.78|0.776
95731024|NCT01901055|191431817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.89||F-test statistics for group X time = 0.98|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.89|-1.24|0.378
95731025|NCT01901055|191431818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|17.56||F-test statistics for group X time = 1.57|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||17.56|-11.19|0.213
95731026|NCT01901055|191431819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.28||F-test statistics for group X time = 5.66|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Active CPAP - Sham CPAP|||1.28|-1.27|0.005
95731027|NCT01807871|191431820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95731028|NCT01807871|191431822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of number of participants who reported removing the nicotine patch due to a side effect||||0.24
95731029|NCT03019965|191431837|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02|||Chi-squared||||The efficacy of the maneuver was evaluated by calculating the absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat.|1.02|0.87|0.156
95731030|NCT03019965|191431838|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.98||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|28.45|||Chi-squared|||||28.45|0.31|0.722
95731031|NCT01915732|191431843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-7.4|0.002
95731032|NCT01915732|191431844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-7.3|<0.001
95731033|NCT01915732|191431845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
95731034|NCT01915732|191431846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
95731035|NCT01915732|191431847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.1|-1.8|0.077
95731036|NCT01915732|191431847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.1|-5.7|0.004
95731037|NCT01915732|191431848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.1|-2.0|0.028
95731038|NCT01915732|191431848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-1.2|-5.5|0.002
95731039|NCT01915732|191431849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||0.00|-0.06|0.080
95731040|NCT01915732|191431849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.02|-0.12|0.004
95731041|NCT01915732|191431849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Statisticial data for the category=Total.|||-0.02|-0.09|0.003
95731042|NCT01915732|191431850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=IL.|||-0.00|-0.07|0.025
95731043|NCT01915732|191431850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=NIL.|||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
95731044|NCT01915732|191431850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Statistical data for the category=Total.|||-0.03|-0.10|<0.001
95731045|NCT01915732|191431851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95731046|NCT01915732|191431852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95731047|NCT01890915|191431863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms secondary to spinal cord injury, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have a significant rise in core temperature after exposure to warm ambient temperatures, while control subjects were hypothesized to maintain constant core temperature.~Percent change in core temperature of subjects in each group were compared to determine if they were significantly different from baseline to warm exposure."||||0.0001
95731048|NCT01890915|191431864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would demonstrate a change in cognitive performance after heat exposure if they had demonstrated a significant increase in core body temperature - as was hypothesized in our primary hypothesis. Cognitive performance was measured, in part, by Interference T-scores derived from the Stroop Color and Word Test.||||0.006
95731049|NCT01890915|191431865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Due to impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, subjects with tetraplegia were hypothesized to have diminished increases in sweat rate in comparison to controls after heat exposure.||||0.015
95731050|NCT01569451|191431867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0493
95731051|NCT01569451|191431868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|||||||Peto|||||||0.0268
95731052|NCT01569451|191431869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0189
95731053|NCT01569451|191431870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3167|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3167
95731054|NCT01569451|191431871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0940
95731055|NCT01569451|191431872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3507
95731056|NCT01569451|191431873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95731057|NCT01569451|191431874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.4904
95731058|NCT01569451|191431875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4073
95731059|NCT01569451|191431876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8677
95731060|NCT01569451|191431877|OTHER|Mean difference between treatment groups.||||||0.3974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3974
95731061|NCT00635154|191431878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|1.8||||||95.0|0.5|10.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses to Anakinra alone was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||10|0.5|
95731062|NCT01984242|191431891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.69|0.9819
95731063|NCT01984242|191431891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.71|||Log Rank|||||1.71|0.82|0.3580
95731064|NCT01984242|191431893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0952||95.0|0.38|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.38|0.0952
95731065|NCT01984242|191431893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.67|||Log Rank|||||1.67|0.63|0.9172
95731066|NCT01984242|191431895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.26|0.0153
95731067|NCT01984242|191431895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.48|0.5545
95731068|NCT01984242|191431897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.28|0.0086
95731069|NCT01984242|191431897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7675||95.0|0.56|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.7675
95731070|NCT01984242|191431899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1973||95.0|0.44|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.44|0.1973
95731071|NCT01984242|191431899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.65|0.7738
95731072|NCT01984242|191431901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.083||95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.43|0.0830
95731073|NCT01984242|191431901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.70|0.7141
95731074|NCT01984242|191431903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2541||95.0|0.59|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.59|0.2541
95793064|NCT01091246|191555981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% CIs were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37||||||B/Yamagata: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Yamagata) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Yamagata strain||1.37|1.07|
95731075|NCT01984242|191431903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.86|0.3103
95731076|NCT01984242|191431905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.37|0.0351
95731077|NCT01984242|191431905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9769||95.0|0.64|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.64|0.9769
95731078|NCT01984242|191431906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.97||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|16.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.62|-10.68|0.6492
95855564|NCT05462756|191670714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean was determined by ANCOVA model using Country + Personal Use CGM or FGM at Randomization + Hemoglobin A1c Stratum at Baseline + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||4.0|-0.3|0.099
95855565|NCT02066181|191670717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.7||||Log Rank||||||5.7|<0.001
95731079|NCT01984242|191431906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.47||||0.5433||95.0|-16.63|9.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.69|-16.63|0.5433
95731080|NCT01984242|191431907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|38.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.94|-0.28|0.0141
95731081|NCT01984242|191431907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.11||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.24|-17.02|0.8719
95731082|NCT01984242|191431908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.98||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.00|-12.04|0.8068
95731083|NCT01984242|191431908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.37||||0.1321||95.0|-22.61|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.87|-22.61|0.1321
95731084|NCT01984242|191431909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|39.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.44|-0.10|0.0199
95731085|NCT01984242|191431909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.41||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|-20.50|0.7836
95731086|NCT01984242|191431910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.96||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|18.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.15|-10.23|0.6231
95731087|NCT01984242|191431910|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.42||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|-21.86|0.1816
95731088|NCT01984242|191431911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|41.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.89|2.11|0.0111
95731089|NCT01984242|191431911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.22||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|16.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.19|-20.63|0.8209
95731090|NCT01984242|191431913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0863||95.0|0.5|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.50|0.0863
95731091|NCT01984242|191431913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.77|0.5922
95731092|NCT01984242|191431915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0021||95.0|0.25|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.25|0.0021
95731093|NCT01984242|191431915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.56|0.6566
95731094|NCT01984242|191431923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.80|0.2867
95731095|NCT01984242|191431923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8039||95.0|0.65|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.65|0.8039
95731096|NCT01984242|191431925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.47|0.7879
95731097|NCT01984242|191431925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.52|0.9065
95731098|NCT02660242|191431949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model w/ repeated measures to account for correlation from cross-over design and multiple measures, adjusting for baseline glucose and period.||The mini-dose glucagon (MDG) condition was compared with each of the conditions. In the event that exercise was terminated early due to glucose \<70 mg/dL and the participant was treated for hypoglycemia (or if participant was treated for hypoglycemia during early recovery \[prior to the meal\]), the nadir glucose value was carried forward through the end of early recovery.||||<0.001
95731099|NCT02660242|191431950|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.99
95731100|NCT02660242|191431951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for subject effect, exercise session, and baseline blood glucose||||||0.15
95731101|NCT02660242|191431952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.99
95731102|NCT02660242|191431953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.43
95731103|NCT02660242|191431954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.16
95731104|NCT02660242|191431955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.69
95731105|NCT02660242|191431956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.67
95731106|NCT02660242|191431957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.84
95731107|NCT02660242|191431958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.63
95731108|NCT02660242|191431959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.24
95731109|NCT02660242|191431960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Accounted for correlation due to cross-over design and adjusted for exercise session||||||0.26
95731110|NCT00386009|191431967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.068
95731111|NCT00386009|191431968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.626
95919177|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|2.12||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 20 min||2.12|-1.71|
95731112|NCT00386009|191431969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
95731113|NCT00386009|191431970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.837
95731114|NCT00386009|191431971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.400
95731115|NCT00386009|191431972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.864
95731116|NCT00386009|191431973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.340
95731117|NCT00386009|191431974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
95731118|NCT00386009|191431975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
95731119|NCT00386009|191431976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.427
95731120|NCT00386009|191431977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.838
95731121|NCT00386009|191431978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.090
95731122|NCT00386009|191431979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.113
95731123|NCT00386009|191431982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 12 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95731124|NCT01089647|191431986|OTHER||||||=|0.946|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons at follow-up were made using a stepwise multivariable logistic model.||||=0.946
95731125|NCT01626079|191432000|NON_INFERIORITY|Two thousand (2000) simulations were performed to calculate sample size and power for the primary safety endpoint. Assuming 22% mortality and 7.5% attrition at 12 months, a total of 305 subjects in the Device group will provide \> 95% power to reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided significance level of 5%.|Kaplan Meier|0.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.948||||Z test Using Kaplan Meier Survival|P-value calculated from Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estimate together with Greenwood method estimated variance|||||0.948|<0.0001
95731126|NCT01626079|191432033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Joint Fraility Model|||||0.96|0.60|<0.02
95731127|NCT01626079|191432034|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.04|||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Analysis|||||2.04|1.29|<0.0001
95731128|NCT02129348|191432338|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Lithium will significantly reduce agitation/aggression compared to placebo. In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.7|-1.4|0.53
95731129|NCT02129348|191432339|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were computed.|Change in both NPI core score (≥30% versus \<30%) and CGI behavior change (1 or 2 versus ≥3) were required for response; these two measures were then analyzed separately. A x² test was used to identify whether there was a change in NPI core scores and CGI scores from baseline to week 12.||6.13|0.73|0.26
95731130|NCT02129348|191432340|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|1.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.04||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||CGI behavior change scores were categorized into responders versus non-responders (1 or 2 versus ≥3) using the last variable observation for drop-outs. A x² test was used to identify the percentage of participants in each group, lithium versus placebo, that improved from baseline to week 12.||5.04|0.64|0.25
95793065|NCT01091246|191555981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the strain specific HAI antibody GMT ratios (FluMist divided by Q/LAIV) to the noninferiority margin of 1.5. If the upper bounds of 95% confidence intervals were ≤ 1.5 for all 4 strains, the immunologic noninferiority of Q/LAIV compared to FluMist was declared.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||||||B/Victoria: The statistical hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint for Q/LAIV was: H0: Rj \> 1.5, for any j HA: Rj ≤ 1.5, for all j Where Rj was any of the 4 strain-specific post immunogenicity dose GMT ratios: (FluMist/B/Victoria) / (Q/LAIV) for B/Victoria strain||1.18|0.93|
95731131|NCT02129348|191432341|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||5.1|-1.1|0.21
95731132|NCT02129348|191432342|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||2.4|-2.6|0.91
95731133|NCT02129348|191432343|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= -0.02 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.4|-1.5|0.94
95731134|NCT02129348|191432344|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||0.8|-0.4|0.63
95731135|NCT02129348|191432345|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|3.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect size (d)= 0.44 (Cohen's D)|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||8.4|-2.1|0.24
95731136|NCT02129348|191432346|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.01|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||1.8|-1.7|0.96
95731137|NCT02129348|191432347|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect Difference|2.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d=0.35|In intent-to-treat analyses, linear mixed effect models (MEM) were used to estimate means of change scores (baseline versus 12 weeks) by treatment group, lithium versus placebo, for continuous outcomes. The MEM method was used to incorporate all time-points of assessment and deal with missing data for participants who did not reach the 12-week time-point.||6.6|-2.3|0.35
95731138|NCT01055223|191432375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.78|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.78|1.13|
95731139|NCT01055223|191432375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.52|0.93|
95731140|NCT01055223|191432375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.98|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||2.98|0.78|
95731141|NCT01055223|191432375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.89|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||2.89|0.74|
95731142|NCT01055223|191432375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.14|||||Undadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||22.14|0.18|
95731143|NCT01055223|191432375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|15.5|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.50|0.12|
95793066|NCT00369343|191556030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.53|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) used baseline as a covariate and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus placebo adjusted mean change.|||6.11|2.53|<0.001
95731144|NCT01055223|191432376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.89|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.89|1.05|
95731145|NCT01055223|191432376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.65|0.88|
95731146|NCT01055223|191432376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||3.60|0.69|
95731147|NCT01055223|191432376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||3.81|0.70|
95731148|NCT01055223|191432376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731149|NCT01055223|191432376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
95731150|NCT01055223|191432377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||1.79|0.92|
95731151|NCT01055223|191432377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.45|0.71|
95731152|NCT01055223|191432377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.90|0.10|
95731153|NCT01055223|191432377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.54|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.54|0.08|
95731154|NCT01055223|191432377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.93|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||21.93|0.18|
95731155|NCT01055223|191432377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|12.36|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||12.36|0.09|
95731156|NCT01055223|191432378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.88|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||1.88|0.80|
95731157|NCT01055223|191432378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.57|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||1.57|0.62|
95731158|NCT01055223|191432378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731159|NCT01055223|191432378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
95731160|NCT01055223|191432378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731161|NCT01055223|191432378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates|||0.00|0.00|
95731162|NCT01055223|191432379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|19.45|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||19.45|1.53|
95731163|NCT01055223|191432379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.86|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||15.86|0.64|
95731164|NCT01055223|191432379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731165|NCT01055223|191432379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
95731166|NCT01055223|191432379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731167|NCT01055223|191432379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
95731168|NCT01055223|191432380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|80.35|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone.|||80.35|0.66|
95731169|NCT01055223|191432380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|96.47|||||Adjusted Odds Ratio. Reference group: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosponates.|||96.47|0.03|
95731170|NCT01055223|191432380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference Group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731171|NCT01055223|191432380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
95731172|NCT01055223|191432380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio. Small numbers model didn't converge. Reference group: TZD alone.|||0.00|0.00|
95731173|NCT01055223|191432380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Small numbers model didn't converge. Ref grp: TZD alone. Adjusted: age, liver disease, angina, renal and heart failure, asthma, stroke, epilepsy, RA, antihypertensives, statins, corticosteroids, antiepileptics, benzodiazepines, HRT, bisphosphonates.|||0.00|0.00|
95731174|NCT02275364|191432390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.32|18.25||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||18.25|12.32|<0.0001
95731175|NCT02275364|191432391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|4.57||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||4.57|-6.43|0.7366
95731176|NCT02275364|191432392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1533.74||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|794.16|2273.32||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2273.32|794.16|0.0004
95731177|NCT02275364|191432393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.14||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||2.14|-3.06|0.7278
95731178|NCT02275364|191432394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|191.72||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.62|462.06||Obtained from ANOVA model with Treatment and Period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||462.06|-78.62|0.1639
95731179|NCT02275364|191432395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Obtained from ANOVA with treatment, period and region of interest as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|ANOVA||Adjusted Mean Difference is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of Test Nasal Strip minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Strip.|||0.07|-0.03|0.4621
95731180|NCT02581345|191432425|EQUIVALENCE|Per Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the equivalence testing was made using 90% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 18%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.072||||||||0.072|-0.043|
95731181|NCT02581345|191432425|EQUIVALENCE|Per European Medicines Agency (EMA), the equivalence testing was made using 95% confidence interval and an equivalence margin of 15%|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.082||||||||0.082|-0.054|
95731182|NCT02581345|191432426|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale was calculated using stratified Newcombe method.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.048|
95731183|NCT02581345|191432427|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.061|
95731184|NCT02581345|191432427|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.069|
95731185|NCT02581345|191432430|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are: \[-0.18;+0.18\] for 90% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.149||||||||0.149|0.010|
95793067|NCT00369343|191556031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||DVS SR compared to Placebo for CGI-I scores of either 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95731186|NCT02581345|191432430|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing of equivalence was performed for the comparison between M923 and EU RPP using the secondary efficacy outcome measures. Confidence Interval for difference in proportion in original scale calculated using stratified Newcombe method. Protocol defined margins are:\[-0.15;+0.15\] for 95% confidence interval.|Difference in proportion (M923 - EU RPP)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.004|
95731187|NCT03480425|191432476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-2.4|<0.05
95731188|NCT03292653|191432493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||7.93|-5.4|0.736
95731189|NCT03292653|191432493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|5.18|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic, ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.18|-7.22|0.7694
95731190|NCT03292653|191432494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.01|-0.09|0.184
95793068|NCT00369343|191556032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.132||||0.008||95.0|1.22|3.74||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||3.74|1.22|0.008
95793069|NCT00369343|191556033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125|||<|0.001||95.0|1.85|5.27||DVS SR compared with Placebo.|Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|Adjusted odds ratio of DVS SR to Placebo. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|||5.27|1.85|<0.001
95731191|NCT03292653|191432494|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.3397
95731192|NCT03292653|191432495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.79|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||-0.35|-33.79|0.094
95731193|NCT03292653|191432495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.65|3.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.46|-27.65|0.1878
95731194|NCT03292653|191432496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|5.8|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||5.8|-15.45|0.4269
95731195|NCT03292653|191432496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.24|3.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||3.52|-16.24|0.2684
95731196|NCT03292653|191432497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|847.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|576.98||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.46|1904.86|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1904.86|-210.46|0.1761
95731197|NCT03292653|191432497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|489.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|579.35||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-572.68|1551.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline plasma volume as the covariate.||1551.34|-572.68|0.4202
95731198|NCT03292653|191432498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|13.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|28.53|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||28.53|-1.03|0.1242
95731199|NCT03292653|191432498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.49|13.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline erythropoietin as the covariate.||13.30|-13.49|0.9903
95731200|NCT03292653|191432499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-150.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.09||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-353.57|51.78|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||51.78|-353.57|0.2121
95731201|NCT03292653|191432499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.88||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-174.4|163.87|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and stratification factors of baseline participant status (diabetic/non-diabetic), ejection fraction status (reduced/preserved) with baseline NT-proBNP as the covariate.||163.87|-174.4|0.9574
95731202|NCT00502775|191432512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.6||Symptom scores were grouped in 3 families: nasal, ocular, instantaneous. Within each family, results of hypothesis tests were adjusted using Hochberg's method.|ANCOVA|No other strata or covariates, other than investigator, were defined.|Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Fexofenadine|The primary efficacy measure, mean change from baseline over the two-week treatment period in NSS compared between fluticasone furoate and fexofenadine, was assessed at a significance level of α=0.05. If the null hypothesis of this comparison was rejected, then the secondary measures were subject to hypothesis testing. The study was powered at 90%.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.001
95731203|NCT00502775|191432512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fluticasone Furoate - Mean Change in Placebo|||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95731204|NCT00502775|191432512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.374||95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in Fexofenadine - Mean Change in Placebo|||0.5|-0.2|0.374
95731205|NCT02016300|191432525|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.162
95731206|NCT02016300|191432525|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.094
95793070|NCT00369343|191556034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.24|4.23||Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||4.23|1.24|<0.001
95731207|NCT02016300|191432525|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.043
95731208|NCT02016300|191432526|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.387
95731209|NCT02016300|191432526|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.340
95731210|NCT02016300|191432526|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.179
95731211|NCT02016300|191432527|OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.729
95731212|NCT02016300|191432527|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.958
95731213|NCT02016300|191432527|OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.634
95731214|NCT02016300|191432528|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 6.||||0.733
95731215|NCT02016300|191432528|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.666
95731216|NCT02016300|191432528|OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.854
95731217|NCT02016300|191432529|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.774
95731218|NCT02016300|191432529|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.414
95731219|NCT02016300|191432530|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.064
95731220|NCT02016300|191432530|OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.276
95731221|NCT02016300|191432531|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 12.||||0.020
95731222|NCT02016300|191432531|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference between baseline and month 24.||||0.091
95731223|NCT00655642|191432532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the aforementioned values, we calculated a sample size for each treatment arm of 131 patients. We increased this sample estimate to 150 per treatment arm (total of 600 patients) to account for anticipated study attrition. Based on an unplanned interim conditional power futility analysis done at 30% information fraction, the decision was made to end the trial early.The futility analysis found the observed differences were far less than what was deemed clinically important.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.16||||||Being aware of the multiple comparison issues, we deliberately chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|We computed the effect of the 3 treatments relative to ondansetron.|Change in VAS score was calculated as (VAS 30 min - VAS baseline). We calculated the differences in median VAS reductions for each arm relative to ondansetron.|The null hypothesis is that ondanestron is not more effective in reducing nausea than metoclopramide, promethazine or isotonic normal saline. The sample size was chosen to detect a 12-mm difference in VAS improvement between ondanestron and any other treatment arm (assuming a SD of 25mm) at 90% power and 0.01 alpha significance level. We chose the 0.01 alpha level following a Bonferroni type of correction so that the overall type I error rate is about 0.05.||||0.16
95731224|NCT04908748|191432543|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-32.2|< 0.0001
95731225|NCT02362594|191432617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.43|0.74||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.74|0.43|<0.0001
95793071|NCT00369343|191556035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.18|-0.06||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment and site as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo adjusted mean score minus DVS SR adjusted mean score.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
95731226|NCT02362594|191432618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of RFS time-to-event distribution between the 2 treatment arms (PD-L1-positive participants) was based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by stage (IIIA \[\>1 mm metastasis\] vs. IIIB vs. IIIC 1-3 nodes vs. IIIC ≥4 nodes) as indicated at randomization.||0.69|0.42|<0.0001
95731227|NCT00818883|191432635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.9||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.9|-8.3|<0.001
95731228|NCT00818883|191432635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.5|-2.5||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.5|-7.5|<0.001
95793072|NCT00369343|191556042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||100mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.553
95793073|NCT00369343|191556042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||t-test adjusted by multiple comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||200mg vs. Placebo (0mg) post taper||||0.034
95731229|NCT00818883|191432636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.2||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.2|-5.2|<0.001
95731230|NCT00818883|191432636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||Overall type I error rate controlled using stepwise testing procedure. First treatment test done at Week 6. If statistically significant at significance level of 5%, then treatment comparison at Week 10 was performed. Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.3|-4.1|<0.001
95731231|NCT00818883|191432637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-4.2|-10.5|<0.001
95731232|NCT00818883|191432637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.7|-6.8|0.001
95793074|NCT01062308|191556043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|-11.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-22.6|0.03
95731233|NCT00818883|191432638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.3|-6.3|<0.001
95731234|NCT00818883|191432638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-0.7|-4.2|0.006
95731235|NCT00818883|191432639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-3.2|-8.4|<0.001
95731236|NCT00818883|191432639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-2.0|-6.4|<0.001
95731237|NCT00818883|191432640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 6 data.||-2.1|-5.5|<0.001
95731238|NCT00818883|191432640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate was performed using Week 10 data.||-1.1|-4.1|<0.001
95731239|NCT00266409|191432672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1143||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.1143
95731240|NCT00266409|191432672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4544||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.4544
95731241|NCT00266409|191432673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0173
95731242|NCT00266409|191432673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0516||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate||||0.0516
95731243|NCT00266409|191432674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0361
95731244|NCT00266409|191432674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0366
95731245|NCT00266409|191432675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7390
95731246|NCT00266409|191432675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6735||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6735
95731247|NCT00266409|191432676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4261
95731248|NCT00266409|191432676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0231||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0231
95793075|NCT01062308|191556044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from baseline to day 30|6.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|-2.7|0.16
95731249|NCT00266409|191432677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
95731250|NCT00266409|191432677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187||95.0||||P-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2187
95731251|NCT00266409|191432678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1456||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1456
95731252|NCT00266409|191432678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3618||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3618
95731253|NCT00266409|191432679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3535
95731254|NCT00266409|191432679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5660
95731255|NCT00266409|191432680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3414||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3414
95731256|NCT00266409|191432680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7344
95731257|NCT00266409|191432681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1197||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1197
95731258|NCT00266409|191432681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4416||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline total HAM-A score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4416
95731259|NCT00266409|191432682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0350
95731260|NCT00266409|191432682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4205||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.4205
95731261|NCT00266409|191432683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2645||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.2645
95731262|NCT00266409|191432683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5369
95731263|NCT00266409|191432684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9988||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9988
95731264|NCT00266409|191432684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7729||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7729
95731265|NCT00266409|191432685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7338||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7338
95731266|NCT00266409|191432685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0897||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.0897
95731267|NCT00266409|191432686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6501||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6501
95731268|NCT00266409|191432686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8196||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8196
95731269|NCT00266409|191432687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6404
95731270|NCT00266409|191432687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8263
95731271|NCT00266409|191432688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6946||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.6946
95731272|NCT00266409|191432688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9629||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9629
95731273|NCT00266409|191432689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.8617
95731274|NCT00266409|191432689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.7555
95731275|NCT00266409|191432690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5836||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.5836
95731276|NCT00266409|191432690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9096||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis refers to test of differences in response rates.||||0.9096
95731277|NCT00266409|191432691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0002
95731278|NCT00266409|191432691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0006
95731279|NCT00266409|191432692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint, CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0255
95731280|NCT00266409|191432692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0065
95919178|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.15||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 30 min||2.15|-1.29|
95731281|NCT00266409|191432693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0370
95731282|NCT00266409|191432693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9569||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.9569
95731283|NCT00266409|191432694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0978
95731284|NCT00266409|191432694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7096||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.7096
95731285|NCT00266409|191432695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0001
95731286|NCT00266409|191432695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0003
95731287|NCT00266409|191432696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0025
95731288|NCT00266409|191432696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0101
95731289|NCT00266409|191432697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0095
95731290|NCT00266409|191432697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0390
95731291|NCT00266409|191432698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0160
95731292|NCT00266409|191432698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1024
95731293|NCT00266409|191432699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0761
95731294|NCT00266409|191432699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0376
95793076|NCT00492726|191556073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreement with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-3.8||||||95.0|-7.9|0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||0.4|-7.9|
95731295|NCT00266409|191432700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1196
95731296|NCT00266409|191432700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint.CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0029
95731297|NCT00266409|191432701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6323||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.6323
95731298|NCT00266409|191432701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5533||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.5533
95731299|NCT00266409|191432702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.1705
95731300|NCT00266409|191432702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3196||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.3196
95731301|NCT00266409|191432703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.0419
95731302|NCT00266409|191432703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2541||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||van Elteren test stratified by CGI-Severity score at baseline and testing between treatment differences in percentages based on non-missing responses within a timepoint. CGI-Severity score categorizes severity at baseline as normal,not at all ill, borderline mentally ill, mildly ill, moderately ill, markedly ill, severely ill, among the most extremely ill.||||0.2541
95731303|NCT00266409|191432704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0677
95731304|NCT00266409|191432704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0273
95731305|NCT00266409|191432705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5153
95731306|NCT00266409|191432705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0122
95731307|NCT00266409|191432706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4648||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4648
95731308|NCT00266409|191432706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5502||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5502
95731309|NCT00266409|191432707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9093
95731310|NCT00266409|191432707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1354
95731311|NCT00266409|191432708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7434
95731312|NCT00266409|191432708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1148
95731313|NCT00266409|191432709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9346||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9346
95793077|NCT00492726|191556074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in improvement rates (in %)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||2.7|-0.4|
95793078|NCT00492726|191556075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
95731314|NCT00266409|191432709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2709||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2709
95731315|NCT00266409|191432710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
95731316|NCT00266409|191432710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2513||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2513
95731317|NCT00266409|191432711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
95731318|NCT00266409|191432711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5461||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
95731319|NCT00266409|191432712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0722||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0722
95731320|NCT00266409|191432712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4639||95.0||||P-values based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A insomnia subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4639
95731321|NCT00266409|191432713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0075
95731322|NCT00266409|191432713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAM-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1641
95731323|NCT00266409|191432714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0932
95731324|NCT00266409|191432714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
95731325|NCT00266409|191432715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7896||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7896
95731326|NCT00266409|191432715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9651||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9651
95731327|NCT00266409|191432716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8280
95731328|NCT00266409|191432716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0936||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0936
95731329|NCT00266409|191432717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3539||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3539
95731330|NCT00266409|191432717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4672||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4672
95731331|NCT00266409|191432718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2550
95731332|NCT00266409|191432718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3125
95731333|NCT00266409|191432719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3174||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3174
95731334|NCT00266409|191432719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.9427
95731335|NCT00266409|191432720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3252||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3252
95731336|NCT00266409|191432720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6090
95731337|NCT00266409|191432721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1247
95731338|NCT00266409|191432721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8430
95731339|NCT00266409|191432722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1031
95731340|NCT00266409|191432722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0543
95731341|NCT00266409|191432723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0508||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0508
95731342|NCT00266409|191432723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0871||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0871
95731343|NCT00266409|191432724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.8318
95731344|NCT00266409|191432724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.5375
95793079|NCT00492726|191556076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.5||||||95.0|-5.0|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-5.0|
95793080|NCT00492726|191556077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-8.8|1.0|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without superinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.0|-8.8|
95731345|NCT00266409|191432725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
95731346|NCT00266409|191432725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0422
95731347|NCT00266409|191432726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1164||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1164
95731348|NCT00266409|191432726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1935
95731349|NCT00266409|191432727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1244||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1244
95731350|NCT00266409|191432727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6182
95731351|NCT00266409|191432728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4589
95731352|NCT00266409|191432728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.3930
95731353|NCT00266409|191432729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4450
95731354|NCT00266409|191432729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2924||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2924
95731355|NCT00266409|191432730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A somatic subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.2184
95731356|NCT00266409|191432730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281||95.0||||P-value based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HAMA-A psychic factors subscore as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1281
95731357|NCT00266409|191432731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6602||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.6602
95731358|NCT00266409|191432732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5544
95731359|NCT00266409|191432733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9269||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9269
95731360|NCT00266409|191432734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5271||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5271
95731361|NCT00266409|191432735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1447||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.1447
95731362|NCT00266409|191432736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9375||95.0||||P-value from a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9375
95731363|NCT00266409|191432737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.9883
95731364|NCT00266409|191432738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3093||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.3093
95731365|NCT00266409|191432739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5824||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||test of difference in percentage of subjects reporting any panic attack||||0.5824
95731366|NCT00266409|191432740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.044
95731367|NCT00266409|191432740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6587||95.0|||||Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This analysis refers to the test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the survival distribution function between the treatment groups.||||0.6587
95731368|NCT00982553|191432742|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||||1.00|0.62|
95731369|NCT00982553|191432743|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86||||||||1.86|0.73|
95731370|NCT00982553|191432744|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||||1.18|0.87|
95731371|NCT00982553|191432745|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.85||||||||1.85|0.36|
95731372|NCT04087395|191432746|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided paired student t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95731373|NCT02796664|191432755|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.462|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and cerebral ischemic events including ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. The number of participants who suffered ischemic stroke and the number of paticipants who suffered transient ischemic attack were analyzed together to test the null hypothesis in two by two table.||||0.462
95731374|NCT02796664|191432756|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and modified Rankin Scale at follow-up.||||0.34
95731375|NCT02796664|191432757|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in steno-occlusive lesion.||||0.13
95731376|NCT02796664|191432757|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and flow change in collateral vessel.||||0.17
95731377|NCT02796664|191432758|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and periventricular white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.74
95731378|NCT02796664|191432758|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and deep white matter lesions at follow-up.||||0.95
95731379|NCT02796664|191432759|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and parenchymal ischemic lesions at follow-up.||||0.23
95731380|NCT02796664|191432760|OTHER|Equality test||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between ginseng administration and drug compliance at follow-up.||||0.79
95731381|NCT00865709|191432773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.231||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PFS events would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing the null hypothesis H0: HR ≥ 1 versus the alternative hypothesis H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all subjects who were randomized to treatment.||1.231|0.635|0.2309
95731382|NCT00865709|191432775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.174||1-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, stratified by factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Log Rank||The relative risk (sorafenib to placebo) was estimated by the hazard ratio from stratified Cox regression with a 95% confidence interval.|A sample size of 120 PDs would provide a \> 85% power at a target HR = 0.65 between sorafenib and matching placebo, with a 1-sided alpha = 0.10, for testing H0: HR ≥ 1 versus H1: HR \< 1 based on the log-rank test. The test was conducted using the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all subjects who were randomized).||1.174|0.586|0.1437
95731383|NCT00865709|191432776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||1-sided p-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors of # metastatic sites and liver metastasis determined by Principal Investigator|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of subjects achieving overall response (CR or PR), when confirmation of response was not required, was estimated with a 95% confidence interval for each treatment group. The treatment groups were compared with respect to overall response rate using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||0.023
95731384|NCT00720122|191432809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00653||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0081|0.0193|||Paired t-test|||A paired t-test was performed. The null hypothesis was that bone density would decrease over 6 months in females with anorexia nervosa, as observed in life course studies.||0.0193|-0.0081|0.40
95731385|NCT00329602|191432820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.039
95731386|NCT00329602|191432820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for Week 26.|Repeated Measures Mixed Model|Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group.||||||0.023
95731387|NCT02579096|191432835|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority bound of 8% was established during the trial design; a one-sided alpha level was set at 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sided null hypothesis posited that allopurinol was inferior to febuxostat. The proportions of participants with ≥ 1 gout flare during phase 3 were compared between the two treatments.||-1.2||<0.001
95731388|NCT02097121|191432876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|=|0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.203|1.243|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||1.243|-3.203|= 0.3802
95731389|NCT02097121|191432876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154|=|0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|2.712|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group as factor. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was used."||2.712|-1.921|= 0.733
95731390|NCT02097121|191432877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|3.713|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||3.713|-2.082|= 0.5743
95731391|NCT02097121|191432877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455|=|0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|5.078|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||5.078|-0.769|= 0.1451
95731392|NCT02097121|191432878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.205|2.551|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.551|-3.205|= 0.8206
95731393|NCT02097121|191432878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|=|0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|2.95|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||2.95|-2.807|= 0.9604
95731394|NCT02097121|191432880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.175|=|0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.207|79.873|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||79.873|-9.207|= 0.1174
95731395|NCT02097121|191432880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.722|=|0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.536|81.76|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||81.76|-13.536|= 0.1567
95731396|NCT02097121|191432881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|=|0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.553|6.909|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||6.909|-9.553|= 0.7481
95731397|NCT02097121|191432881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|=|0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|10.498|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||10.498|-6.799|= 0.6691
95731398|NCT02097121|191432882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343|=|0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.661|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.661|-0.721|= 0.9297
95764056|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.8||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|26.1||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.1|-4.5|0.1658
95919179|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.53||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1 hour||2.53|-1.60|
95731399|NCT02097121|191432882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|=|0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.022|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented.||0.413|-1.022|= 0.3976
95731400|NCT02097121|191432883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|=|0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.904|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.904|-0.311|= 0.3309
95731401|NCT02097121|191432883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|=|0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|1.024|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||1.024|-0.245|= 0.2235
95731402|NCT02097121|191432884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|=|0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.67|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.67|-0.434|= 0.6689
95731403|NCT02097121|191432884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|=|0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.729|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with study baseline value as covariate, and treatment group and stratification (baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes \[a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period\]) as factors. A hierarchical analysis strategy to adjust for multiplicity was not implemented."||0.729|-0.431|= 0.6076
95731404|NCT02097121|191432885|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|15.5|||=|0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|46.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 100 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 100 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||46.19|-18.94|= 0.6092
95731405|NCT02097121|191432885|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference %|17.6|||=|0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment Difference of 50 U versus 25 U~Pairwise comparisons of 50 U versus 25 U of BOTOX up to Week 12 in Treatment Cycle 1 was evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by baseline daytime urinary urgency incontinence episodes (a total of ≤ 6 episodes or \> 6 episodes over the 2-day diary collection period)."||48.9|-16.2|= 0.4824
95731406|NCT01200394|191432936|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.843||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.975||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than 0% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio and corresponding 95% credible intervals were calculated.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic blood pressure (BP) as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||0.975|0.728|0.9889
95731407|NCT01200394|191432936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|||||Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as P-value) that PF-00489791 has a greater than or equal to 20% reduction in UACR compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework on normal logarithmic scale with treatment as fixed effect, baseline UACR and baseline supine systolic BP as covariate. Values were back-transformed from log scale. Model used informative prior distribution for placebo.||||0.2402
95731408|NCT01200394|191432937|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8759||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7727|0.9927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9927|0.7727|0.0382
95731409|NCT01200394|191432937|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8311||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7208|0.9584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9584|0.7208|0.0112
95731410|NCT01200394|191432937|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8816||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7427|1.0465|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0465|0.7427|0.1490
95731411|NCT01200394|191432938|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8565||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.9847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9847|0.7450|0.0297
95731412|NCT01200394|191432938|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8524||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7376|0.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9850|0.7376|0.0305
95731413|NCT01200394|191432938|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7937||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6717|0.9378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9378|0.6717|0.0068
95731414|NCT01200394|191432938|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8634||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.0368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0368|0.7190|0.1151
95731415|NCT01200394|191432939|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9816||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9434|1.0214|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0214|0.9434|0.3585
95731416|NCT01200394|191432939|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9939||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9577|1.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0315|0.9577|0.7475
95731417|NCT01200394|191432939|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9866||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9488|1.0259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0259|0.9488|0.4972
95731418|NCT01200394|191432939|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0024||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9588|1.0481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.0481|0.9588|0.9146
95731419|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.84|-7.94|<0.0001
95731420|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.04|-5.38|<0.0001
95731421|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 0: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||-2.72|-6.46|<0.0001
95731422|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4056||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.24|-3.29|0.7093
95731423|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9089||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.20|-1.39|0.6564
95731424|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0334||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 3: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.87|-2.20|0.8763
95731425|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4926||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.46|-3.42|0.7491
95793081|NCT00492726|191556078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference in bact. success rates (in %)|-3.8||||||95.0|-9.0|1.5|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group. Presumed eradications and eradications without super- or reinfection were considered bacteriological successes.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.5|-9.0|
95731426|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9235||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.35|-2.29|0.6141
95731427|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0582||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 6: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.42|-2.75|0.5281
95731428|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8764||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||4.50|-2.90|0.6695
95731429|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.49|-2.74|0.5607
95731430|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2722||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 12: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.23|-2.78|0.8297
95731431|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7065||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Systolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||3.87|-2.85|0.7644
95731432|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9917||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Diastolic BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.61|-1.30|0.5123
95731433|NCT01200394|191432940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1355||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supine Mean BP, Week 16: MMRM model included baseline, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.70|-1.77|0.6838
95731434|NCT01200394|191432942|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9282||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7297|1.1807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.1807|0.7297|0.5422
95731435|NCT01200394|191432942|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7998||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6402|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||0.9990|0.6402|0.0490
95731436|NCT01200394|191432942|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0435||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8211|1.3262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.3262|0.8211|0.7264
95731437|NCT01200394|191432942|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1154||||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8761|1.4201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: MMRM on normal logarithmic scale with change from baseline as response variable and baseline, baseline supine systolic BP, visit, treatment, baseline by visit interaction and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate variances and covariance within participant across time points. Values were back-transformed from log scale.||1.4201|0.8761|0.3733
95793082|NCT00492726|191556079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-2.9||||||95.0|-7.6|1.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator).||1.9|-7.6|
95731438|NCT01835145|191432966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||A one-sided chi-squared test for a difference in PFS4 rates will be used to test for a difference between arms.||||0.70
95731439|NCT01658943|191432996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
95731440|NCT04947579|191433015|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|2.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||22.7|-18.2|0.829
95731441|NCT04947579|191433015|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|7.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||27.5|-13.8|0.512
95731442|NCT04947579|191433016|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|3.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||21.0|-14.9|0.725
95731443|NCT04947579|191433016|SUPERIORITY||Stratfied difference|12.2||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||30.5|-7.2|0.219
95731444|NCT04947579|191433017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.16|-0.50|0.299
95731445|NCT04947579|191433017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.22|-0.45|0.488
95731446|NCT04947579|191433018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.79|-0.76|0.970
95731447|NCT04947579|191433018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||0.61|-0.95|0.668
95731448|NCT04947579|191433019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.88|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||0.88|-0.77|0.890
95731449|NCT04947579|191433019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.08|-0.57|0.545
95731450|NCT04947579|191433020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.7|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||1.70|-2.26|0.778
95731451|NCT04947579|191433020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.03|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.03|-3.02|0.330
95731452|NCT04947579|191433021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.28|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 60 mg - Placebo|||2.28|-3.93|0.600
95731453|NCT04947579|191433021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.87|||Longitudinal data analysis model||CC99677 150 mg - Placebo|||1.87|-4.49|0.416
95731454|NCT04947579|191433022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.741||||95.0|-27.31|14.79||||||||14.79|-27.31|
95793083|NCT01621009|191556087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.36|.78|>0.05
95793084|NCT01621009|191556087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|.52|>0.05
95793085|NCT02322749|191556088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.25|10.53|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||10.53|8.25|
95919180|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.81||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||0.81|-3.03|
95731455|NCT04947579|191433022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-36.57|
95731456|NCT04947579|191433022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|7.65||||||||7.65|-31.96|
95731457|NCT02999178|191433044|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|106.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|148.5||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Fixed effects: Treatment, HRCT fibrotic pattern, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions.~Random effects: time, intercept."|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||148.50|65.42|<.0001
95731458|NCT02999178|191433045|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.81|185.59||Treatment comparison of slopes was assessed through the treatment-by-time interaction coefficient. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Treatment, baseline FVC (mL), treatment-by-time, baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects: time, intercept.|Difference of adjusted annual rates of decline was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|The decrease in FVC was assumed to be linear within each participant over 52 weeks. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with unstructured covariance matrix. The within participant error was assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a common variance. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors (SEs).||185.59|70.81|<.0001
95731459|NCT02999178|191433046|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||2.98|-0.31|0.1115
95731460|NCT02999178|191433047|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.74|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects: baseline K-BILD Total score, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||3.74|-0.68|0.1747
95731461|NCT02999178|191433048|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.34|0.48|0.3948
95731462|NCT02999178|191433049|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.24|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.24|0.36|0.1985
95731463|NCT02999178|191433050|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.86|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.86|0.47|0.8544
95731464|NCT02999178|191433051|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||1.47|0.32|0.3291
95731465|NCT02999178|191433054|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern.|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by HRCT fibrotic pattern, was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.85|0.49|0.0017
95731466|NCT02999178|191433055|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Log Rank||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.89|0.45|0.0081
95731467|NCT02999178|191433056|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.96|0.52|
95731468|NCT02999178|191433057|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.94|0.43|
95731469|NCT02999178|191433058|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred and binary covariate HRCT fibrotic pattern.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.68|0.36|
95731470|NCT02999178|191433059|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with continuous covariate baseline FVC % pred.|Ratio calculated as Nintedanib divided by Placebo.|||0.69|0.31|
95731471|NCT02999178|191433060|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.92|-6.14|
95731472|NCT02999178|191433061|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-0.88|-7.48|
95793086|NCT02322749|191556089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|24.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.62|26.03|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||26.03|22.62|
95731473|NCT02999178|191433062|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, HRCT fibrotic pattern, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.53|-9.65|
95731474|NCT02999178|191433063|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted mean difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-2.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: baseline, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, random effect: participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Nintedanib - Placebo.|||-2.71|-11.86|
95731475|NCT05920161|191433064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
95731476|NCT05920161|191433064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.068
95731477|NCT05920161|191433065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.281
95793087|NCT02322749|191556090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals for both AUC and Cmax were entirely contained within the limits 80.00% to 125.00% then bioequivalence was concluded.|Geometric LS mean ratio|22.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.65|23.69|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||23.69|20.65|
95731478|NCT05920161|191433065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-group A - B (null \>0)||||0.645
95731479|NCT05920161|191433065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison||||0.245
95731480|NCT05920161|191433066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.143
95731481|NCT05920161|191433066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||above chance 0.5|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.797
95731482|NCT05920161|191433066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95731483|NCT05920161|191433067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A condition||||<0.0001
95731484|NCT05920161|191433067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||B condition||||<0.0001
95731485|NCT05920161|191433067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||X condition||||<0.0001
95731486|NCT05920161|191433068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.000
95731487|NCT05920161|191433068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
95731488|NCT05920161|191433069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.083
95731489|NCT05920161|191433069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.088
95731490|NCT00863746|191433070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9934||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|1.1735||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||1.1735|0.8409|0.4687
95731491|NCT00863746|191433071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5139|0.7165||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.7165|0.5139|<0.0001
95731492|NCT00863746|191433072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.2263|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1575|0.2952|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.2952|0.1575|<0.000001
95731493|NCT00863746|191433073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH-adjusted difference in proportions|0.039||||0.000876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0137|0.0642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||||0.0642|0.0137|0.000876
95731494|NCT00863746|191433074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4526|0.6492||p-value of one-sided test (significance level 2.5%)|Log Rank|stratified by region, number of prior treatments, presence brain mets at baseline, prior EGFR inhibitor treatment||Test for superiority of Sorafenib over Placebo||0.6492|0.4526|<0.0001
95731495|NCT00863746|191433075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3121||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3121
95731496|NCT00863746|191433076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2948||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2948
95731497|NCT00863746|191433077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8344||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8344
95731498|NCT00863746|191433078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1438||||||p-value for test of treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1438
95731499|NCT00863746|191433079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9228||||||p-value for treatment effect equal to 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9228
95731500|NCT00442936|191433169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.66|1.40|<0.001
95731501|NCT00442936|191433169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|6.0|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||6.00|2.42|<0.001
95731502|NCT00442936|191433170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.95|2.02|<0.001
95793088|NCT02322749|191556091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.42|14.65|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.65|11.42|
95793089|NCT02322749|191556092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.44|28.09|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||28.09|24.44|
95731503|NCT00442936|191433170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.79|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.79|2.47|<0.001
95731504|NCT00442936|191433171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.54|<0.001
95731505|NCT00442936|191433171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|1.89|<0.001
95731506|NCT00442936|191433172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.82|1.49|<0.001
95731507|NCT00442936|191433172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.25|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.25|1.73|<0.001
95731508|NCT00442936|191433173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.39|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.39|1.25|<0.001
95793090|NCT02322749|191556093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.02|25.3|||||Selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||25.30|22.02|
95793091|NCT02322749|191556094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|9.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|10.97|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect|||10.97|8.5|
95731509|NCT00442936|191433173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.13|1.13|0.006
95731510|NCT00442936|191433174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|1.47|0.002
95731511|NCT00442936|191433174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.51|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||10.51|3.15|<0.001
95731512|NCT00442936|191433175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.97|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.97|1.07|0.026
95731513|NCT00442936|191433175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.35|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.35|2.08|<0.001
95731514|NCT00442936|191433176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.47|1.13|0.021
95731515|NCT00442936|191433176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|9.76|||Regression, Logistic||From logistic model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||9.76|2.78|<0.001
95731516|NCT03879239|191433183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM1 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0011
95731517|NCT03879239|191433183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Responder Rate on Weekly CSBM2 in the ITT (Intention to Treat) analysis set. (For details, refer to the primary outcome description).|Chi-squared|||||||0.0085
95731518|NCT00243932|191433209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0|||||futility (non-superiority)|||Null hypothesis: 2,700mg CoQ10 is at least 20% superior to placebo.||||0.14
95731519|NCT01047345|191433225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.2|0.5|0.026
95731520|NCT01047345|191433226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.8|-2.8|
95731521|NCT01047345|191433227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.9|-1.5|
95731522|NCT01047345|191433228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-1.7|
95793092|NCT02322749|191556094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.45|14.86|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.86|11.45|
95793093|NCT02322749|191556095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|13.05|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment B to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||13.05|9.80|
95731523|NCT01047345|191433229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|13.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||13.1|7.5|
95731524|NCT01047345|191433230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the proportion of participants seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 31||100.0|98.9|<0.001
95731525|NCT01047345|191433230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 33||100.0|98.9|<0.001
95731526|NCT01047345|191433230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|98.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|99.2||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 45||99.2|96.7|<0.001
95731527|NCT01047345|191433230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 52||100.0|98.6|<0.001
95793094|NCT02322749|191556095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.07|14.8|||||N-desmethyl selumetinib: Ratio of Treatment C to Treatment A based on a linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and volunteer nested within sequence as a random effect.|||14.80|11.07|
95793095|NCT01409239|191556096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum was used to determine differences between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Since this was a pilot study no formal power analysis was possible. It was hypothesized that IV insulin would be associated with lower LF/HF HRV.||||0.05
95731528|NCT01047345|191433230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0||statistical criterion of acceptability required that the lower bound of the 95% CI for the proportion of subjects seroconverting be greater than 90%|Clopper-Pearson|||Anti-HPV 58||100.0|98.9|<0.001
95731529|NCT00449150|191433275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.198||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-1.38|0.7424
95731530|NCT00449150|191433275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|0.055||||0.926||95.0|-1.1|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|-1.10|0.926
95731531|NCT00449150|191433275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means estimate|-0.252||||0.6699||95.0|-1.41|0.91|||ANOVA|||||0.91|-1.41|0.6699
95731532|NCT03312257|191433277|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.21|-0.14|0.70
95731533|NCT03312257|191433278|OTHER|Repeated measures analyses using mixed linear models in STATA (version 15) were undertaken to model myopia progression (primary outcome) and axial elongation (secondary outcome) to account for the clusters of correlated data due to repeated participant outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.002|||Repeated measures analyses|||||0.002|-0.16|0.054
95731534|NCT03552757|191433279|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-5.15|||ANCOVA|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-5.15|-7.28|<0.0001
95731535|NCT03552757|191433279|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-6.58|||MMRM|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-6.58|-8.56|<0.0001
95731536|NCT03552757|191433280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from in-trial observation period. Week 68 responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||6.64|3.58|<0.0001
95731537|NCT03552757|191433280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|11.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Results are based on the data from on-treatment observation period. All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a MMRM with randomised treatment, stratification groups (OAD treatment status and HbA1c category at screening) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||11.97|6.31|<0.0001
95731538|NCT00860405|191433320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a coefficient of variation of 0.363 and a desired power of 90 % with a type I level of 2.5 %, N=11 patients per treatment group were needed. The power was calculated by means of the software SAS, version 9.1.3, PROC POWER. Nevertheless, more patients were required for the assessment of safety, therefore 2 × 30 patients were planned to be included in this study.|Ratio of LS-means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||Null hypothesis tested by calculating a 2-sided 95% CI for ratio of LS-means μVoluven/μHSA based on ANOVA incl.treatment+centre as effects. If 95% CI was within equivalence range(0.55, 1.82), significant equivalence was concluded (Type I error: 2.5%)|ANOVA|Primary endpoint specified + analysed for PP and ITT population. Confirmatory analysis based on PP population only, no adjustment for multiplicity.|Considered ratio: μVoluven/μHSA = LS-mean of Voluven®/LS-mean of HSA 5%|The aim of the study was to prove equivalence, i.e. H0: μVoluven/μHSA ≤ 0.55 or μVoluven/μHSA ≥ 1.82 H1: 0.55 \< μVoluven/μHSA \< 1.82 where μVoluven was the mean infused volume of Voluven® and μHSA was the mean infused volume of HSA 5%.||1.16|0.84|
95731539|NCT00995553|191433329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Working Memory Index||||.06
95731540|NCT00995553|191433329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MATRICS Attention Index||||.09
95731541|NCT00995553|191433330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
95731542|NCT02465567|191433341|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
95731543|NCT02465567|191433341|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0027
95731544|NCT02465567|191433341|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.83|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.83|0.69|<0.0001
95731545|NCT02465567|191433341|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.95|0.79|0.0020
95731546|NCT02465567|191433342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.959|||Regression, Cox|||||0.959|0.807|0.0035
95731547|NCT02465567|191433342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.814|0.057
95731548|NCT02465567|191433342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.944|||Regression, Cox|||||0.944|0.794|0.0011
95731549|NCT02465567|191433342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.951|||Regression, Cox|||||0.951|0.801|0.0019
95731550|NCT02465567|191433343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.34|-0.68|<0.0001
95793096|NCT00485836|191556113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|11.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.7|15.3||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||15.3|7.7|<0.0001
95731551|NCT02465567|191433343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.20|-0.54|<0.0001
95731552|NCT02465567|191433343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-0.53|<0.0001
95731553|NCT02465567|191433343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Linear Repeated Measures|||||-0.05|-0.39|0.0127
95731554|NCT02465567|191433344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.539|1.199|<0.0001
95731555|NCT02465567|191433344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.410|1.100|0.0005
95731556|NCT02465567|191433344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.454|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.454|1.133|<0.0004
95731557|NCT02465567|191433344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.177||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.333|1.039|0.0103
95731558|NCT02465567|191433345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.870|0.340|0.0111
95731559|NCT02465567|191433345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.296|||Regression, Cox|||||1.296|0.472|0.3401
95731560|NCT02465567|191433345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.201|||Regression, Cox|||||1.201|0.518|0.2690
95731561|NCT02465567|191433345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.796|||Regression, Cox|||||1.796|0.716|0.5918
95731562|NCT02465567|191433346|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.03|0.69|0.6552
95731563|NCT02465567|191433346|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.97|0.66|0.0221
95731564|NCT02465567|191433346|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.08|0.72|0.2157
95731565|NCT02465567|191433346|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.01|0.69|0.0647
95731566|NCT01807637|191433361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95731567|NCT01807637|191433362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95731568|NCT01807637|191433363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95731569|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.060|<0.001
95731570|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.077|<0.001
95731571|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.162|0.027|0.006
95731572|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|0.074|<0.001
95731573|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.259|0.113|<0.001
95731574|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.151|0.008|0.030
95731575|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.204|0.064|<0.001
95731576|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.242|0.101|<0.001
95731577|NCT00950807|191433364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.173|0.037|0.003
95731578|NCT00320112|191433367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||no differences between arms in baseline characteristics at \<0.1 level, further analyses adjusted for variables that could influence the outcome like insulin use, age, commodities. because no differences in results, unadjusted analyses are reported.|Regression, Linear|we used STATA 11's xtmixed command, which fits multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models, with clustering by assigned pairs.||||||0.004
95731579|NCT00320112|191433368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||this is a priori design|Regression, Linear|||||||.91
95731580|NCT00320112|191433369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
95731581|NCT00320112|191433370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95731582|NCT02566135|191433396|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4628||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6401|3.3428|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Chi square test was applied to see weather there is a statistical significant difference between group I and group C for attempt for supraglottic airway insertion.||3.3428|0.6401|0.5033
95731583|NCT02566135|191433397|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8972|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4858|1.6569|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We had applied chi square to see the statistical significant difference between group I and group C for number of attempt for ventilating bougie insertion.||1.6569|0.4858|>0.05
95731584|NCT02566135|191433398|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95731585|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at base line among the group I and group C.||||0.44
95731586|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute is measured following Dexmedetomidine injection among the group I and group C.||||0.58
95731587|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following induction of anaesthesia among the group I and group C.||||0.16
95731588|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following supraglottic airway insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.22
95731589|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured following ventilating bougie insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.059
95731590|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER||||||>|0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured at endotracheal intubation among the group I and group C.||||>0.33
95731591|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 3 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.63
95731592|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 5 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.29
95731593|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 7 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.18
95731594|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 10 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.98
95731595|NCT02566135|191433399|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate beats per minute measured after 15 minute of ETT insertion among the group I and group C.||||0.49
95731596|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.24
95731597|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.11
95731598|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction os anaesthesia between group I and group C.||||0.07
95731599|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.85
95731600|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.055
95731601|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared at ETT insertion time between group I and group C.||||0.71
95731602|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.20
95731603|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.86
95731604|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.68
95731605|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.98
95731606|NCT02566135|191433400|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after ETT insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
95731607|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared at base line between group I and group C.||||0.34
95731608|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following Dexmedetomidine injection between group I and group C.||||0.27
95731609|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following induction of anaesrthesia between group I and group C.||||0.22
95731610|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following supraglottic airway insertion between group I and group C.||||0.96
95731611|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared following ventilating bougie insertion between group I and group C.||||0.71
95731612|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared the time of endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.55
95731613|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 3 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
95731614|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 5 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.49
95731615|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 7 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.76
95731616|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 10 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.69
95731617|NCT02566135|191433401|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure measured and compared 15 minutes after endotracheal tube insertion between group I and group C.||||0.81
95731618|NCT02566135|191433402|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We had compared time of insertion for supraglottic airway between group I and group C.||||<0.0001
95731619|NCT02566135|191433403|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95731620|NCT00429923|191433412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0014
95731621|NCT00662129|191433475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95731622|NCT00966953|191433482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95731623|NCT01734772|191433483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|149.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.6||0.9456||90.0|124.388|179.383||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||179.383|124.388|0.9456
95731624|NCT01734772|191433483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|126.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.5481||90.0|107.363|148.967||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||148.967|107.363|0.5481
95731625|NCT01734772|191433483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|127.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.5665||90.0|108.047|149.295||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.295|108.047|0.5665
95731626|NCT01734772|191433484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|164.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.9||0.9841||90.0|133.945|202.619||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||202.619|133.945|0.9841
95731627|NCT01734772|191433484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|geometric Mean Ratio|128.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.6003||90.0|106.37|155.495||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||155.495|106.370|0.6003
95731628|NCT01734772|191433484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|gMean Ratio|123.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.4656||90.0|102.695|149.288||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA|Adjustment for effects 'subject' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|||149.288|102.695|0.4656
95731629|NCT00996736|191433538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is less than 1.5 lines logMAR acuity. (Adjusted three-month visual acuity confidence bounds for the difference between the voriconazole and natamycin groups which meet or exceed 0.15 logMAR units would not permit noninferiority to be declared.) Note that this design also allows declaration of superiority (2-sided alpha of 0.05, corrected for an interim analysis).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.006
95731630|NCT01508936|191433572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference|0.3007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|||||The interaction was tested at the significance level 0.10 using the FAS|Regression, Linear||Active - Placebo|The primary analysis was the linear regression model with model effects including treatment (reslizumab or placebo), blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count. A significant treatment by baseline eosinophil interaction would indicate that treatment difference varies by the baseline eosinophil count.||||0.2407
95731631|NCT01508936|191433573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0417||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.158||Statistical significance level is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|treatment, blood eosinophil count at baseline, and the interaction of treatment and eosinophil count as fixed effects.|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.158|-0.006|0.0697
95731632|NCT01508936|191433574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0762||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.027||significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Fixed effects for treatment, hx of asthma exacerbation, sex, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit; covariates for height and baseline value|Active - Placebo|"The change from baseline over the 16 week treatment period was measured for the key secondary variables of:~* Lung function as measured by FEV1~* ACQ~Testing of the key secondary variables was performed using the sequential testing procedure in the order as specified above at the alpha level of 0.05."||0.027|-0.273|0.1072
95731633|NCT02841709|191433633|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
95731634|NCT02841709|191433633|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||4.0|-14.7|0.258
95731635|NCT02841709|191433633|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.0|||Linear mixed effects model||Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the LS Mean|||-9.0|-27.8|<0.001
95731636|NCT02841709|191433633|OTHER||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-22.2|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-22.2|-40.9|<0.001
95731637|NCT02841709|191433633|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-38.5|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-38.5|-57.2|<0.001
95731638|NCT01210001|191433635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.27|-0.69|<0.0001
95731639|NCT01210001|191433635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.82|-0.4||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
95731640|NCT01210001|191433636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.81|-15.15||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-15.15|-31.81|<0.0001
95731641|NCT01210001|191433636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.73|-20.19||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in FPG was the second step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-20.19|-36.73|<0.0001
95731642|NCT01210001|191433637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.64|-1.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-1.27|-2.64|<0.0001
95731643|NCT01210001|191433637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.49|-1.13||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa versus placebo change from baseline in body weight was the third step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline, baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-1.13|-2.49|<0.0001
95731644|NCT01210001|191433638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.21||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.21|-0.69|<0.0001
95731645|NCT01210001|191433638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.36||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empa vs placebo change from baseline in HbA1c for pio+met background only was the fourth step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal function at baseline and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.36|-0.83|<0.0001
95793097|NCT00485836|191556113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|13.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.3|17.4||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||17.4|10.3|<0.0001
95731646|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.2|1.0||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-2.2|
95731647|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.0|3.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥16 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-4.0|
95731648|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.6|
95731649|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.6|
95731650|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.0|2.9||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥31 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.9|-5.0|
95731651|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.4||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.4|-1.5|
95731652|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.8|1.0||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥40 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.0|-7.8|
95731653|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.6|5.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.0|-3.6|
95731654|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.2||||||95.0|-9.1|2.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||2.4|-9.1|
95731655|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-8.2|9.5||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||9.5|-8.2|
95731656|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|1.6||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentages between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.6|-1.8|
95731657|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.5||||||95.0|-8.3|0.8||||||For Diptheria the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||0.8|-8.3|
95731658|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.9|7.1||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||7.1|-3.9|
95731659|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||1.7|-2.3|
95731660|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.0|2.8||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups ( 13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.8|-5.0|
95731661|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|2.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.9|-1.6|
95731662|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
95731663|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.7||||||95.0|-7.3|1.8||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥21 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.8|-7.3|
95731664|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
95731665|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.6|
95731666|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.3|4.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥162 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.1|-4.3|
95731667|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
95731668|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-4.7|3.7||||||For Pertactin the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥106 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.7|-4.7|
95731669|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.0|2.0||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-3.0|
95731670|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-0.8|4.2||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 μg/mL threshold was calculated||4.2|-0.8|
95731671|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|4.0||||||95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||8.7|-0.4|
95731672|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-2.3|
95731673|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.0||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.3|
95731674|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|3.8||||||95.0|-1.7|10.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||10.9|-1.7|
95731675|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
95731676|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
95731677|NCT00366899|191433681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the two groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.4|2.1||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1:8 threshold was calculated.||2.1|-2.4|
95731678|NCT00366899|191433682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.87|1.1||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.87|
95731679|NCT00366899|191433682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.92|1.16||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.92|
95731680|NCT00366899|191433682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.87|1.17||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.87|
95731681|NCT00366899|191433682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.89|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.89|
95731682|NCT00366899|191433682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.83|1.07||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.83|
95731683|NCT00366899|191433682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.07||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.82|
95731684|NCT00366899|191433685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC)/geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.72|1.27||||||For Hepatitis b the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.27|0.72|
95731685|NCT00366899|191433685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.54|0.96||||||For Hepatitis b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.54|
95731686|NCT00366899|191433686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.75|1.3||||||or Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.75|
95731687|NCT00366899|191433686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.81|1.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.30|0.81|
95731688|NCT00366899|191433687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.65|0.94||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.65|
95731689|NCT00366899|191433687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.67|
95731690|NCT00366899|191433687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.63|0.89||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.63|
95731691|NCT00366899|191433687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.25||||||95.0|0.88|1.79||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.79|0.88|
95731692|NCT00366899|191433688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.7|1.08||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.70|
95731693|NCT00366899|191433688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.74|1.22||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.74|
95731694|NCT00366899|191433688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.13||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.68|
95731695|NCT00366899|191433688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.86||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.55|
95731696|NCT00366899|191433688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.68|1.07||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.68|
95731697|NCT00366899|191433688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC/GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.51|0.83||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.83|0.51|
95731698|NCT00414466|191433701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.802
95731699|NCT00414466|191433701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.874
95731700|NCT00414466|191433701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided.|Williams test for minimum effective dose|||Williams' test for Minimum Effective Dose was used to compare each active group to the placebo.||||0.899
95731701|NCT00414466|191433702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95731702|NCT00414466|191433702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95731703|NCT00414466|191433702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95731704|NCT00414466|191433703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
95731705|NCT00414466|191433703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95731706|NCT00414466|191433703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, two-sided. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
95731707|NCT04526210|191433706|OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9415|1.0205||||||||1.0205|0.9415|
95731708|NCT04526210|191433707|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9344|1.0244||||||||1.0244|0.9344|
95731709|NCT04526210|191433708|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9368|1.0269||||||||1.0269|0.9368|
95793098|NCT00485836|191556114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|18.8|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||39.7|18.8|<0.0001
95731710|NCT00090857|191433716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.15
95731711|NCT00090857|191433717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.70
95731712|NCT00090857|191433718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density between arms was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.03
95731713|NCT00090857|191433719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size for a detectable difference in the within participant change in bone density was calculated using standard deviations of one year change in bone density. Control estimates were 2.8% for spine and 3.85% for femoral neck. With 100 patients and 2:1 randomization (67 letrozole: 33 placebo), using a 1-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with size 0.05, there is 80% power to detect as significant a true difference in change in the spine of 1.6% and in the femoral neck of 2.27%.||||0.06
95731714|NCT00090857|191433720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
95731715|NCT00090857|191433721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95731716|NCT00090857|191433722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95731717|NCT00090857|191433723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
95731718|NCT00090857|191433724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
95731719|NCT00090857|191433725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
95731720|NCT00090857|191433726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.58
95731721|NCT00090857|191433727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
95731722|NCT05097326|191433731|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of total contractions||||0.44
95731723|NCT05097326|191433731|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Analysis of contractions per hour||||0.02
95731724|NCT05097326|191433732|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 hours after labor induction||||0.04
95731725|NCT05097326|191433732|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of uterine tachysystole of total labor duration||||0.17
95731726|NCT05097326|191433733|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95731727|NCT05097326|191433734|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95731728|NCT05097326|191433735|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at complete cervical dilation||||0.04
95731729|NCT05097326|191433736|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at postpartum transfer||||0.04
95731730|NCT05097326|191433737|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
95731731|NCT05097326|191433738|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95731732|NCT05097326|191433739|OTHER|||||||1||||||a p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95731733|NCT05097326|191433740|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95731734|NCT05097326|191433741|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||a p-value \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||1 minute APGAR score||||0.17
95731735|NCT05097326|191433741|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||APGAR score at 5 minutes||||1
95731736|NCT05097326|191433742|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95731737|NCT01244126|191433760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA by ranks|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The primary outcome of the study was the maximum postoperative FLACC pain score.||||0.21
95731738|NCT01244126|191433761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kruskall Wallis ANOVA|0.34||||0.34||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskall Wallis test||||0.34
95731739|NCT02753842|191433779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.26||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing fitted to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||2.26|0.52|<0.05
95731740|NCT02753842|191433780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A single item assessed whether participants preferred fitted condoms or standard condoms at the end of the study (the item word viewed by participants used the blinded identifiers of each condom type).||1.38|0.92|>0.05
95731741|NCT02753842|191433782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.24|||logistic mixed effects model|||We assessed clinical condom failure for anal sex, comparing anal sex acts with fitted condoms to anal sex acts with standard condoms.||3.24|0.27|>0.05
95731742|NCT02753842|191433783|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||The a priori threshold was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing thin to standard condoms, the null hypothesis was no difference in pleasure.||1.94|0.18|<0.05
95731743|NCT05216081|191433784|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|69.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|76.2||||||||76.2|61.5|
95731744|NCT05216081|191433785|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.8||||||||99.8|94.7|
95731745|NCT05216081|191433787|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|24.2||||||||24.2|10|
95731746|NCT05216081|191433790|OTHER||Percentage who self-disclosed|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|78.6||||||||78.6|32.6|
95731747|NCT05216081|191433791|OTHER||Percentage substantiated by socialworker|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|89.8||||||||89.8|50.5|
95731748|NCT01882647|191433800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
95731749|NCT01882647|191433801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
95731750|NCT01882647|191433802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
95731751|NCT01882647|191433803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.01
95731752|NCT00290745|191433806|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||0.07
95731753|NCT00290745|191433807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Tumor volume between baseline and Month 6||||<0.001
95731754|NCT00290745|191433810|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.538
95731755|NCT00290745|191433811|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
95731756|NCT00290745|191433812|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
95731757|NCT00290745|191433813|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95731758|NCT00290745|191433814|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.906
95731759|NCT03499964|191433820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.0001
95731760|NCT03499964|191433822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95731761|NCT01193608|191433885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|113.53||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.3|397.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||397.35|-170.30|0.599
95731762|NCT01193608|191433887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|48.85||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|109.48|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||109.48|-11.79|0.297
95731763|NCT01193608|191433889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|-15.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.54|23.02|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||23.02|-53.54|0.600
95731764|NCT01193608|191433891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|1.23||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided||One sample paired t-test|Change from baseline, within group||4.35|-1.89|0.603
95731765|NCT01249664|191433912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.4||No adjustment on P value, this is for the primary efficacy analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including treatment groups and country (country designations) as fixed effects and baseline BCVA as a covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham.||17.4|10.8|<0.0001
95731766|NCT01249664|191433913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|29.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|44.0||No adjustment on P value, since this test was only conducted formally under the primary efficacy evaluation was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method at level 5% weight-adjusted by country (country designations) was used to conduct the superiority test.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested.||44.0|14.4|0.0001
95731767|NCT01249664|191433914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|9.4|<0.0001
95731768|NCT01249664|191433915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|35.0|<0.001
95731769|NCT01249664|191433916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.8|80.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.3|47.8|<0.001
95731770|NCT01249664|191433917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|21.0||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|1.9|0.0308
95731771|NCT01249664|191433918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|27.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|7.2|0.0075
95731772|NCT01249664|191433919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|61.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.6|23.7|<.0001
95731773|NCT01249664|191433920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-6.5||||0.1478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-15.2|0.1478
95731774|NCT01249664|191433921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-11.0|-40.6|0.0006
95731775|NCT01249664|191433922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-16.3|-48.1|<0.0001
95731776|NCT01249664|191433923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-5.3||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|-14.4|0.2446
95731777|NCT01249664|191433924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-21.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.0|-35.9|0.0035
95731778|NCT01249664|191433925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|-25.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.1|-41.3|0.0012
95731779|NCT01249664|191433926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-108.9|<0.0001
95731780|NCT01249664|191433927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-29.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-60.4|0.0650
95731781|NCT01249664|191433928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.4808|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.3626|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3626|-0.5990|<0.0001
95731782|NCT01249664|191433929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1346||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0167|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0167|-0.2525|0.0256
95731783|NCT01249664|191433930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.0045||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0579|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.0490|-0.0579|0.8690
95731784|NCT01249664|191433931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|5.21||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.18|||ANCOVA|||||9.18|1.25|0.0104
95731785|NCT01249664|191433933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6648|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8056|-0.5239|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5239|-0.8056|<0.0001
95731786|NCT00864097|191433982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.81|0.039
95731787|NCT00864097|191433982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.011
95731788|NCT00864097|191433982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
95731789|NCT00864097|191433983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.12|-0.91|0.010
95731790|NCT00864097|191433983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.23|-1.03|0.002
95731791|NCT00864097|191433983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.30|-1.10|<0.001
95731792|NCT00864097|191433984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.32|0.022
95731793|NCT00864097|191433984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.020
95731794|NCT00864097|191433984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
95731795|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.34|-0.32|0.957
95731796|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.31|0.899
95731797|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.72|0.06|0.022
95731798|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.00|-0.70|0.052
95731799|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
95731800|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.13|-0.84|0.008
95731801|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.72|0.058
95731802|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|<0.001
95793099|NCT00485836|191556114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|19.6|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||40.9|19.6|<0.0001
95731803|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.38|-1.12|<0.001
95731804|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.91|0.007
95731805|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.41|-1.18|<0.001
95731806|NCT00864097|191433985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
95731807|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.35|-0.25|0.754
95731808|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.25|-0.36|0.706
95731809|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.48|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.48|-0.13|0.266
95731810|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.12|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.12|-0.58|0.195
95731811|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.36|-1.07|<0.001
95731812|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.78|0.019
95731813|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.08|-0.64|0.126
95731814|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
95731815|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
95731816|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.007
95731817|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.44|-1.21|<0.001
95731818|NCT00864097|191433986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.25|-1.02|0.001
95731819|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.05|-0.22|0.200
95731820|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.11|-0.15|0.754
95731821|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||At Week 2: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.18|-0.08|0.449
95731822|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||0.01|-0.27|0.062
95731823|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
95731824|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
95731825|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.31|0.032
95731826|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.19|-0.48|<0.001
95731827|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 8: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.16|-0.45|<0.001
95731828|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.01|-0.30|0.038
95731829|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.07|-0.37|0.003
95731830|NCT00864097|191433987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12: LS means were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect, baseline value, and index joint as covariates and study site as random effect.||-0.03|-0.33|0.016
95731831|NCT00659607|191434100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
95731832|NCT00659607|191434101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2669
95731833|NCT00659607|191434102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9674|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9674
95731834|NCT00659607|191434103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9207|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9207
95731835|NCT00659607|191434104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8249
95731836|NCT00659607|191434105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test for paired observations|||||||<0.0001
95731837|NCT00659607|191434107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.121|4.151|||Chi-squared||The estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based on the logistic regression analysis|||4.151|1.121|0.0003
95731838|NCT00659607|191434108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|6.776|||Chi-squared||The Estimation of Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Interval based the logistic regression analysis|||6.776|1.642|<0.0001
95731839|NCT00659607|191434109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0075
95731840|NCT00659607|191434110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
95731841|NCT00659607|191434111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0393
95731842|NCT00659607|191434112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0245
95731843|NCT02364557|191434135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.71|1.17||One-side significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = SOC arm|Assuming an increase in median PFS from 10.5 to 19 months (HR: 0.55), 69 events provide \>90% power to conclude superiority with 1-sided α = 0.15.||1.17|0.71|0.36
95793100|NCT00485836|191556115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.0019||95.0|4.3|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||18.2|4.3|0.0019
95731844|NCT02364557|191434138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level = SOC arm|||1.61|0.59|0.91
95793101|NCT00485836|191556115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||20.1|7.2|<0.0001
95731845|NCT02364557|191434140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = CTCs Absent|||2.02|0.54|0.90
95731846|NCT00117949|191434176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95731847|NCT00117949|191434176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|84.0||||||95.0|35.0|112.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response.||112|35|
95731848|NCT00117949|191434176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|98.0||||||95.0|70.0|126.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||126|70|
95731849|NCT00117949|191434176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median days to insufficient T response|35.0||||||95.0|14.0|98.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to meet insufficient testosterone (T) response||98|14|
95731850|NCT00117949|191434177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Participants not castrated were censored as of the days from dosing for the last available observation.||||||0.003
95731851|NCT00117949|191434177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|3.0|7.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the median time to testosterone castration.||7|3|
95731852|NCT00117949|191434177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to castration (days)|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|3.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to testosterone castration.||3|1|
95731853|NCT00117949|191434178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||0|0|
95731854|NCT00117949|191434178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.7||||||95.0|22.0|63.4||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||63.4|22|
95731855|NCT00117949|191434178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|61.6||||||95.0|41.8|81.3||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||81.3|41.8|
95731856|NCT00117949|191434178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6||||||95.0|15.8|55.5||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the percentage of participants with sufficient testosterone suppression.||55.5|15.8|
95731857|NCT00117949|191434179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test.|||||||0.181
95731858|NCT00117949|191434179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.0||||||95.0|0.3|44.5||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||44.5|0.3|
95731859|NCT00117949|191434179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.8||||||95.0|48.9|87.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||87.4|48.9|
95793102|NCT00485836|191556116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|41.6|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||62.3|41.6|<0.0001
95731860|NCT00117949|191434179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.2||||||95.0|57.8|92.9||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||92.9|57.8|
95731861|NCT00117949|191434179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.2||||||95.0|32.8|74.4||||||Kaplan Meier-estimates of the percentage of participants with testostestone serum levels below 0.5 ng/mL for at least 28 days.||74.4|32.8|
95731862|NCT00117949|191434180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.046
95731863|NCT00117949|191434180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
95731864|NCT00117949|191434180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|14.0||||||95.0|14.0|28.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||28|14|
95731865|NCT00117949|191434180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|28.0||||||95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 50% reduction in PSA||41|14|
95731866|NCT00117949|191434181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.926
95731867|NCT00117949|191434181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|56.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||56|35|
95731868|NCT00117949|191434181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|84.0||||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||84|35|
95731869|NCT00117949|191434181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days|56.0||||||95.0|35.0|100.0|||||The upper confidence interval limit could not be calculated. For technical reasons it has been entered as 100.|Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time (days) to 90% reduction in PSA.||100|35|
95731870|NCT02708277|191434190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95731871|NCT02708277|191434191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
95731872|NCT02708277|191434192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
95731873|NCT02708277|191434193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95731874|NCT02739984|191434194|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.16|-60.12|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-60.12|-68.16|<0.0001
95793103|NCT00485836|191556116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|54.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|44.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||64.1|44.0|<0.0001
95731875|NCT02739984|191434195|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.56|-48.71|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.71|-57.56|<0.0001
95731876|NCT02739984|191434196|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-62.2|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-62.2|-72.1|<0.0001
95731877|NCT02739984|191434197|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-50.5|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-50.5|-61.0|<0.0001
95731878|NCT02739984|191434198|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-52.85|-60.28|<0.0001
95793104|NCT00485836|191556117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-272.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-329.9|-214.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-214.5|-329.9|<0.0001
95731879|NCT02739984|191434199|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-42.15|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-42.15|-50.42|<0.0001
95731880|NCT02739984|191434200|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-48.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-48.85|-56.10|<0.0001
95731881|NCT02739984|191434201|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-38.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.11|-46.13|<0.0001
95731882|NCT02739984|191434202|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-38.22|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-38.22|-43.90|<0.0001
95731883|NCT02739984|191434203|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-30.6|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-30.60|-36.87|<0.0001
95731884|NCT02739984|191434204|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|77.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||83.5|70.0|<0.0001
95731885|NCT02739984|191434205|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|69.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|75.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||75.7|60.4|<0.0001
95731886|NCT02739984|191434206|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|87.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||87.4|77.7|<0.0001
95731887|NCT02739984|191434207|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|70.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Placebo|||70.3|57.7|<0.0001
95731888|NCT02739984|191434208|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-32.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-32.90|-48.11|<0.0001
95731889|NCT02739984|191434209|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-25.53|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-25.53|-39.58|<0.0001
95731890|NCT02739984|191434210|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-12.54|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-12.54|-25.95|<0.0001
95731891|NCT02739984|191434211|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.8|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-5.80|-21.60|<0.0001
95731892|NCT02739984|191434212|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|12.64|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||12.64|6.95|<0.0001
95731893|NCT02739984|191434213|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|10.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||10.56|4.19|<0.0001
95731894|NCT02739984|191434214|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.91|-11.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-11.21|-22.91|<0.0001
95793105|NCT00485836|191556117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-283.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-337.8|-229.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-229.8|-337.8|<0.0001
95731895|NCT02739984|191434215|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|-6.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Placebo|||-6.56|-20.09|<0.0001
95731896|NCT00539539|191434218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in cluster-specific rates of ROSC.||0.05|-0.04|0.96
95731897|NCT00539539|191434219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average difference in cluster-specific rates.||3.4|-4.9|0.71
95731898|NCT00539539|191434220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|By-cluster difference in outcome rates.||Average change in cluster-specific risk difference.||0.009|-0.039|0.21
95731899|NCT00539539|191434221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Difference in means, adjusted for cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in average CPR fraction.||3.4|0.4|0.016
95731900|NCT00539539|191434222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization by cluster.||Cluster adjusted difference in means.||2.7|0.5|0.005
95731901|NCT00539539|191434223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.0|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average compression rate.||-3.0|-6.4|<0.001
95731902|NCT00539539|191434224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in the average rate.||-1.5|-5.2|<0.001
95731903|NCT00539539|191434225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||Cluster adjusted difference in average rate.||0.7|-0.5|0.73
95731904|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||||Day 7|||-0.1|-1.2|
95731905|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7|||||Day 15|||-0.7|-2.0|
95731906|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.7|||||Day 29|||-1.7|-3.2|
95731907|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||||Day 43|||-2.1|-3.7|
95731908|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.4|||||Day 57|||-2.4|-4.0|
95731909|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.9|||||Day 85|||-2.9|-4.7|
95731910|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.5|||||Day 113|||-3.5|-5.4|
95731911|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.8|||||Day 141|||-3.8|-5.8|
95731912|NCT00767325|191434228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.9|||||Day 169|||-3.9|-5.8|
95731913|NCT05771428|191434293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.83|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.83|-1.87|0.9819
95731914|NCT05771428|191434293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.42|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.42|-2.25|0.6545
95731915|NCT05771428|191434293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.08|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||2.08|-1.58|0.7860
95731916|NCT03900624|191434295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
95731917|NCT03900624|191434296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
95731918|NCT03900624|191434297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.725
95731919|NCT02424188|191434314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.4||||||||15.4|2.3|
95731920|NCT02424188|191434315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|1.2|
95731921|NCT02424188|191434316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.5||||||6 month comparison||17.5|1.3|
95731922|NCT02424188|191434316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|48.6||||||12 month||48.6|2.4|
95731923|NCT02424188|191434318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||||||6 months||2.3|-1.7|
95731924|NCT02424188|191434318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.7||||||18 months||4.7|-1.5|
95731925|NCT02424188|191434319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||||||||1.5|-0.6|
95731926|NCT02424188|191434321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-30.2|
95731927|NCT02777528|191434346|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.60, then the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 1-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.60 (i.e. 60%), derived from outcomes from a systematic review of hybrid TEVAR repair literature.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 50 patients."||||
95731928|NCT00453362|191434348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||0.87|0.11|0.017
95731929|NCT00453362|191434350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.42||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have a prolonged PFS compared to FDG Progressive Disease.||1.42|0.06|0.076
95731930|NCT00453362|191434352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged PFS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||0.73|0.04|0.008
95731931|NCT00453362|191434353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. Alternative hypothesis is that FLT responders would have prolonged PFS compared to FLT Progressive Disease.||||0.049
95731932|NCT00453362|191434354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FDG Responders and FDG Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Non-Responders.||1.16|0.11|0.073
95731933|NCT00453362|191434357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.21||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FDG Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Overall Survival between FDG Responders and FDG Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FDG Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FDG Progressive Disease.||3.21|0.14|0.618
95731934|NCT00453362|191434358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.57||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Non-Responders.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Non-Responders. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Non-Responders.||1.57|0.09|0.163
95731935|NCT00453362|191434359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.16||This comparison is for hypothesis generation, rather than hypothesis testing. Thus the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the interpretation of p-value should be with caution.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazard Model. The hazard ratio is relative to FLT Progressive Disease.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in OS between FLT Responders and FLT Progressive Disease. The alternative hypothesis is that FLT Responders would have prolonged OS compared with FLT Progressive Disease.||3.16|0.04|0.327
95731936|NCT04885296|191434361|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.0|-2.2|
95731937|NCT04885296|191434362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||2.3|-4.0|
95731938|NCT04885296|191434363|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference (Test - Control) was greater than -5. A 5-point increase in an average CLUE score translates into 10% shift in the distribution of scores for population of soft disposable contact lens wearers.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.7|-4.7|
95731939|NCT00153803|191434364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.65|0.165
95731940|NCT00153803|191434365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.85|0.32
95731941|NCT01108094|191434381|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker from baseline to 1 month, for Cohort A1 (vismodegib-naive patients, n = 8).~Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post-itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.04
95731942|NCT01108094|191434381|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - Cohort A, vismodegib-naive (n = 8) vs control patients Unpaired analysis shows percent change between individual tumors from control patients and itraconazole treated patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month of treatment."||||0.079
95731943|NCT01108094|191434381|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percent change in Ki67 tumor proliferation biomarker - baseline vs 1 month - control patients Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline and after 1 month in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Ki67 levels and the mean Ki67 levels after 1 month."||||0.652
95731944|NCT01108094|191434382|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Percentage change in GLI1 messenger RNA (mRNA) expression Paired analysis of tumors shows percent change between baseline (prior to treatment) and post itraconazole treatment in individual patients.~% change was calculated from the difference between the mean of baseline Gli levels and the mean Gli level after 1 month of treatment."|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||0.028
95731945|NCT01108094|191434383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|30.0||||||Only tumors from 4 patients from cohort A (n = 42 BCCs) and all tumors from the 4 patients (n = 14 BCCs) in cohort B were observed for tumor size change. Percent change in tumor area from both cohorts (eight patients total with 57 tumors) was calculated only.||30|18.2|
95731946|NCT01108094|191434383|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Average tumor size reductions were compared between Cohort A1 and Cohort B.||||0.435
95731947|NCT02564263|191434442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||0.96|0.63|0.00894
95731948|NCT02564263|191434443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||0.94|0.52|0.00855
95731949|NCT02564263|191434444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction \[EGJ\])|||1.05|0.75|0.0531
95731950|NCT02564263|191434445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified maximum weighted log rank test: the maximum of the log-rank test statistic \& a weighted log-rank Fleming-Harrington (0,1) test statistic|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||1.31|0.94|0.287
95731951|NCT02564263|191434446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||11.2|1.7|0.0037
95731952|NCT02564263|191434447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||1.13|0.75|0.216
95731953|NCT02564263|191434448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type 1 adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||0.97|0.54|0.015
95731954|NCT02564263|191434449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW)|||15.8|3.0|0.0022
95731955|NCT02564263|191434450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|15.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs RoW) \& tumor histology (SCC vs adenocarcinoma/Siewert type I adenocarcinoma of the EGJ)|||24.7|6.2|0.0006
95731956|NCT03311646|191434453|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.4||alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p-value: p=0.27|1.4|-1.27|0.92
95731957|NCT03311646|191434454|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.66||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of cigarette per day during VLNC condition to cigarette per day during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.23|2.66|-0.41|0.15
95731958|NCT03311646|191434455|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference=VLNC-NNC|Comparison of Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during VLNC condition to Minnesota Nicotine Withdrawal Scale during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.95|4.60|1.77|<0.001
95919181|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|0.78||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 2 hours||0.78|-3.13|
95993546|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||11.2|-2.9|0.251
95731959|NCT03311646|191434456|OTHER|A linear mixed-model was used. The model included terms for cigarette nicotine content (VLNC/NNC), time, cohort, a random effect for subject, and a nicotine content x time interaction. Interaction was dropped when nonsignificant. Reported below is the effect of nicotine content as well as the interaction p-value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.5||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = VLNC-NNC|Comparison of carbon monoxide during VLNC condition to carbon monoxide during the NNC (baseline) condition.|Interaction p=0.94|2.5|-2.0|0.84
95731960|NCT00067236|191434457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Changes from baseline in efficacy parameters at Day 90.||||0.4239
95731961|NCT02606500|191434521|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
95731962|NCT02606500|191434522|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5
95731963|NCT02606500|191434523|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3
95731964|NCT02606500|191434524|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that Elonva 150 mcg is non-inferior for COH in obese women.||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9
95731965|NCT02606500|191434525|NON_INFERIORITY|We presumed Elonva 150 mcg in obese and normal weighing women yields comparable biochemical pregnancy rates.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4
95731966|NCT00721409|191434543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.488||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.748||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors per randomization and Part.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Stratified analysis was presented above.||0.748|0.319|0.0004
95731967|NCT00721409|191434543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
95731968|NCT00721409|191434543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.853||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ=1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus letrozole:letrozole alone hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole. Unstratified analysis was presented above.||0.853|0.303|0.0046
95731969|NCT00721409|191434556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.294||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by Part (α = 0.10).|Log Rank|||Stratified analysis was presented above. Hazard ratio was assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||1.294|0.623|0.2812
95731970|NCT00721409|191434556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.527||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.527|0.458|0.2803
95731971|NCT00721409|191434556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48||1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above.||1.480|0.590|0.3875
95731972|NCT00721409|191434557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.97||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||2.97|0.76|0.1347
95731973|NCT00721409|191434557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.84||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.84|0.74|0.0849
95731974|NCT00721409|191434557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.76||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||2.76|0.48|0.4515
95731975|NCT00721409|191434558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.08||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Objective Response CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||4.08|0.91|0.0471
95731976|NCT00721409|191434558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.66||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||8.66|0.65|0.1180
95731977|NCT00721409|191434558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||4.54|0.65|0.1631
95731978|NCT00721409|191434560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.98||1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test (1-sided, α =0.10).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR CI was calculated using the exact Clopper-Pearson method. The stratified analysis presented above was based on CMH test stratified by Part. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib + letrozole arm.||6.98|1.48|0.0009
95731979|NCT00721409|191434560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.9||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||13.90|1.30|0.0065
95731980|NCT00721409|191434560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.7||Chi-square test was used (1-sided, α=0.10)|Chi-squared|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Exact CI was based on Clopper-Pearson method.||7.70|0.89|0.0442
95793106|NCT00485836|191556118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.8||||0.0019||95.0|2.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.4|2.1|0.0019
95731981|NCT00721409|191434561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|0.601||1-sided p-value is from the stratified log-rank test (α =0.10).|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI. Hazard ratio was based on assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib + letrozole.||0.601|0.265|<0.0001
95731982|NCT00721409|191434561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.572||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.572|0.156|<0.0001
95731983|NCT00721409|191434561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.822||1-sided p-value is from unstratified log-rank test (α=0.10).|Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis was presented above. Kaplan-Meier method was applied for median and 95% CI.||0.822|0.288|0.0030
95731984|NCT00721409|191434562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.0|-0.7|0.6900
95731985|NCT00721409|191434562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.2|-1.8|0.7125
95731986|NCT00721409|191434562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.5|-0.6|0.4012
95731987|NCT00721409|191434563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.3|-0.5|0.3346
95731988|NCT00721409|191434563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Interference Scale.||1.9|-1.0|0.5630
95731989|NCT00721409|191434563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6||P-values are based on 2-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Pain Severity Scale.||1.6|-0.7|0.4427
95731990|NCT01439165|191434572|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Comparison of anti-tetanus seroprotection rate between the two groups||1.2|-0.4|
95731991|NCT01439165|191434572|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroprotection rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Comparison of anti-diphtheria seroprotection rates between the two groups||2.1|-0.3|
95731992|NCT01439165|191434573|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.7||||||Comparison of the anti-tetanus booster response rates between the two groups||-1.7|-12.0|
95731993|NCT01439165|191434573|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) in Adacel-Td Adsorbed|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||||||Comparison of the anti-diphteria booster response rates between the two groups||4.0|-5.4|
95731994|NCT01439165|191434574|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||Comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid GMCs between Adacel and historical control groups||1.18|0.92|
95731995|NCT01439165|191434574|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|6.05||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||6.05|4.51|
95731996|NCT01439165|191434574|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.51||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||3.51|2.46|
95731997|NCT01439165|191434574|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups is \> 0.66|GMC Ratio (Adacel/Historical Control)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||||||Comparison of the post-vaccination anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) GMCs between Adacel and historical Control groups||2.60|1.84|
95731998|NCT01439165|191434575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|18.73||||||comparison of anti-pertussis toxoid booster response rates was performed between the Adacel and historical groups||18.73|13.27|
95731999|NCT01439165|191434575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10%|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.34||||||Comparison of the anti-FHA booster response rates between the Adacel and historical groups||-1.34|-7.23|
95732000|NCT01439165|191434575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-15.6||||||Comparison of the anti-Pertactin booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-15.6|-21.7|
95732001|NCT01439165|191434575|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of booster response rates between groups is \> -10% .|Difference (%) Adacel-Expected Booster|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-16.0||||||Comparison of the anti-Fimbriae (types 2 and 3) booster response rates between Adacel and historical groups||-16.0|-22.3|
95732002|NCT01880073|191434589|OTHER||Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||||||||1.00|0.74|
95732003|NCT01880073|191434590|OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||||||||0.26|0.00|
95732004|NCT00755196|191434593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||0.23
95732005|NCT01604850|191434604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-10.3||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization stratification factor (ie, presence/absence of cirrhosis, genotype 2 or 3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 100 subjects in each group would provide over 97% power to detect at least 20% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed null rate of 25% using 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||-10.3|-34.4|< 0.001
95732006|NCT01703832|191434618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1233||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.1233
95732007|NCT01703832|191434619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5153||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.5153
95732008|NCT03179345|191434649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.016|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within Sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.016|-0.266|0.0275
95732009|NCT03179345|191434649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
95732010|NCT03179345|191434650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.024|-0.227|0.1103
95732011|NCT03179345|191434650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.245|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.245|-0.006|0.0611
95732012|NCT03179345|191434651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9946
95732013|NCT03179345|191434651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.04|-0.01|0.1673
95732014|NCT03179345|191434651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.03|-0.02|0.6208
95732015|NCT03179345|191434652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.8|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||4.80|-5.59|0.8799
95732016|NCT03179345|191434652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.45|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||5.45|-4.97|0.9277
95732017|NCT03179345|191434652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.73||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|1.49|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.49|-8.94|0.1587
95732018|NCT03179345|191434653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.03|0.7111
95732019|NCT03179345|191434653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.02|0.9048
95732020|NCT03179345|191434653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.01|-0.03|0.3262
95732021|NCT03179345|191434654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.26|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.26|-2.18|0.5950
95732022|NCT03179345|191434654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.06|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.06|-1.40|0.7057
95732023|NCT03179345|191434654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||2.10|-1.36|0.6741
95732024|NCT03179345|191434655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0070
95732025|NCT03179345|191434655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.05|-0.02|0.5183
95732026|NCT03179345|191434655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0175||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.02|-0.05|0.5084
95732027|NCT03179345|191434656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.124|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.124|-0.104|0.1026
95732028|NCT03179345|191434656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.523|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.523|-0.711|0.7634
95732029|NCT03179345|191434656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|1.127|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.127|-0.107|0.1041
95732030|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|-0.051|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||-0.051|-0.521|0.0177
95732031|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.222|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.222|-0.536|0.4120
95732032|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.27|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.270|-0.362|0.7724
95732033|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.18|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.180|-0.423|0.4255
95732034|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.262|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in activities||0.262|-0.229|0.8925
95732035|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.063|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.063|-0.487|0.1293
95732036|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.014|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.014|-0.266|0.0304
95732037|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.217|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.217|-0.384|0.5811
95993547|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 12||13.2|-1.4|0.113
95732038|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.024|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.024|-0.220|0.1144
95732039|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.135|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.135|-0.352|0.3774
95732040|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.727|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.727|-0.613|0.8658
95732041|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.216|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.216|-0.179|0.8543
95732042|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.231|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.231|-0.537|0.4294
95732043|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.357|0.132|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.132|-0.357|0.3613
95732044|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.212|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.212|-0.305|0.7201
95732045|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|0.023|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.023|-0.448|0.0767
95732046|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.165|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.165|-0.597|0.2618
95732047|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.269|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.269|-0.366|0.7633
95732048|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.105|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.105|-0.502|0.1968
95732049|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.197|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.197|-0.296|0.6891
95732050|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.106|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.106|-0.447|0.2229
95732051|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.054|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||0.054|-0.197|0.2591
95732052|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.246|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.246|-0.359|0.7099
95732053|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.092|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.092|-0.154|0.6215
95732054|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.187|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.187|-0.302|0.6422
95732055|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|0.19|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.190|-1.157|0.1574
95732056|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.282|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.282|-0.115|0.4039
95732057|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.076|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.076|-0.695|0.1145
95732058|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.119|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.119|-0.372|0.3083
95732059|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.0776|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Motivation||0.0776|-0.443|0.1638
95732060|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.157|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Vision||0.157|-0.314|0.5101
95732061|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.149|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Energy Level||0.149|-0.614|0.2285
95732062|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.436|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Memory||0.436|-0.200|0.4612
95732063|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.402|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Walking Balance||0.402|-0.205|0.5190
95732064|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.223|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Interest in Activities||0.223|-0.271|0.8479
95732065|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.238|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Coordination||0.238|-0.316|0.7808
95732066|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.045|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Tremor||-0.045|-0.296|0.0083
95732067|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.201|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Concentration||0.201|-0.404|0.5068
95732068|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.055|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Speech||0.055|-0.191|0.2725
95732069|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.284|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Forgetfulness||0.284|-0.206|0.7498
95732070|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.826|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Sleepiness||0.826|-0.522|0.6554
95732071|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.28|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Moodiness||0.280|-0.116|0.4143
95732072|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|0.33|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Alertness||0.330|-0.441|0.7761
95732073|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.251|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|Attention Span||0.251|-0.241|0.9697
95732074|NCT03179345|191434657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.174|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Motivation|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|0.174|-0.346|0.5118
95732075|NCT03179345|191434658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|0.947|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.947|-1.178|0.8293
95793107|NCT00485836|191556118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.9||||0.0099||95.0|1.2|8.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||8.6|1.2|0.0099
95732076|NCT03179345|191434658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
95732077|NCT03179345|191434659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|0.581|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||0.581|-1.556|0.3666
95732078|NCT03179345|191434659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|1.049|||ANOVA|Mixed model including terms for sequence, study treatment, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|SE of difference estimated by dividing width of 95% CI by 4.|||1.049|-1.089|0.9705
95732079|NCT01458405|191434664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453||||||Repeated measures multivariable linear regression with Baseline as a covariate and unstructured covariance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.6453
95732080|NCT00282256|191434723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for AUC0-24 was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|112.1|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||112.1|90.8|
95732081|NCT00282256|191434725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for Cmin was found to lie entirely within the 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|102.2|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (defined as Day 7) and for tacrolimus MR (defined as Day 14). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||102.2|82.6|
95732082|NCT02674334|191434764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.82||P-values were not adjusted for multiple inferences|ANOVA|Continuous responses were tested using RCB ANOVA.||||2.82|-.49|0.165
95732083|NCT00235456|191434768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.38|0.04
95732084|NCT00235456|191434769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95732085|NCT00235456|191434770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95732086|NCT00235456|191434771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95732087|NCT00235456|191434772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95732088|NCT00235456|191434773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95732089|NCT00661999|191434785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.39
95732090|NCT00661999|191434785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the primary hematopoietic response endpoint through Fisher's exact test, if the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.73
95732091|NCT00661999|191434787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.7250
95732092|NCT00661999|191434787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 15% in the true percentage of patients that need transfusion was at least 30% in the superior group, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.8700
95732093|NCT00661999|191434788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.6639
95732094|NCT00661999|191434788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.5660
95732095|NCT00661999|191434789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.1124
95732096|NCT00661999|191434789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in average hemoglobin levels through two-sided alternative, with a 2.5% type I error rate.||||0.2051
95732097|NCT00661999|191434790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
95732098|NCT00661999|191434792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.61
95732099|NCT00661999|191434792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.44
95732100|NCT00661999|191434793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.62
95732101|NCT00661999|191434793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.30
95793108|NCT00485836|191556119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.3||||0.0002||95.0|3.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||9.5|3.1|0.0002
95732102|NCT00661999|191434794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.19
95732103|NCT00661999|191434794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.17
95732104|NCT00661999|191434795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.73
95732105|NCT00661999|191434795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||With 176 evaluable participants per treatment arm, there would have been \>=80% power to detect a difference across two treatment arms of 33% of the standard deviation in participant QOL through t-test/Wilcoxon test, with a 2.5% type I error rate. A 10 points shift on a 0-100 point scale in QOL measures is generally considered clinically relevant and specifically important in the use of UNISCALE, BFI and FACT-An.||||0.83
95732106|NCT00661999|191434796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3852
95732107|NCT00661999|191434796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0663
95732108|NCT00661999|191434796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3220
95732109|NCT00661999|191434797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 1 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1826
95732110|NCT00661999|191434797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0113
95732111|NCT00661999|191434797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0||||Test Comparison for week 16 level|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3358
95732112|NCT00661999|191434798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9022||95.0||||Test comparison for Baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9022
95732113|NCT00661999|191434798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 7 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
95732114|NCT00661999|191434798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Test Comparison for Week 16 Level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0022
95732115|NCT00661999|191434799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1137
95732116|NCT00661999|191434799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8042||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8042
95732117|NCT00661999|191434799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2016||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2016
95732118|NCT00661999|191434800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1139||95.0||||Test comparison for baseline level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1139
95732119|NCT00661999|191434800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||Test comparison for week 7 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0424
95732120|NCT00661999|191434800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2025||95.0||||Test comparison for week 16 level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2025
95732121|NCT01566409|191434832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The required sample size was based on a projected treatment success in the PEG group of 60%. With a power in excess of 80% and a critical level of significance of 0.05, 45 children were needed in each group to detect a 50% reduction in treatment effect in the placebo group, corresponding to 30% recovers without active maintenance treatment. Because of an expected drop-out rate of 25%, we aimed at including 115 children.||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.024
95732122|NCT03309956|191434834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||||||0.23
95793109|NCT00485836|191556119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0199||95.0|0.7|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.7|0.0199
95732123|NCT02532764|191434899|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|12.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|26.35||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||26.35|-0.54|0.0592
95732124|NCT02532764|191434899|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|19.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|32.64||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||32.64|5.62|0.0074
95732125|NCT02532764|191434899|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|14.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|27.83||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||27.83|0.64|0.0408
95732126|NCT02532764|191434899|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|17.6||p-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||17.60|-10.69|0.6193
95732127|NCT02532764|191434901|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|23.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|44.04||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||44.04|2.29|0.0321
95732128|NCT02532764|191434901|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|46.96||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||46.96|7.64|0.0100
95732129|NCT02532764|191434901|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|38.64||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||38.64|1.68|0.0346
95732130|NCT02532764|191434901|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|30.16||p-values are presented for Day 33.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline CFQ-R RSS as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||30.16|-8.47|0.2485
95732131|NCT02532764|191434903|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.79||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariate||10.79|-2.30|0.1938
95732132|NCT02532764|191434903|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|9.29||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||9.29|-3.79|0.3943
95732133|NCT02532764|191434903|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.07||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||7.07|-6.01|0.8688
95793110|NCT01115452|191556140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32||||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|7.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||7.50|-8.14|0.9347
95732134|NCT02532764|191434903|SUPERIORITY||difference vs placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|6.39||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-model analysis was performed with repeated time measures on the change from baseline ppFEV1 as outcome variable and including treatment, baseline ppFEV1 value, time and interaction between time and treatment as covariates.||6.39|-7.41|0.8813
95732135|NCT02532764|191434905|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|19.25||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|1.13|0.0301
95732136|NCT02532764|191434905|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|16.37||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.37|-0.39|0.0601
95732137|NCT02532764|191434905|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.41||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.41|-4.40|0.3580
95732138|NCT02532764|191434905|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|11.55||P-values are presented for Day 33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|-5.13|0.4224
95732139|NCT02906709|191434906|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.66|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-0.66|-1.15|<0.001
95732140|NCT02906709|191434907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.8|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|21.8|-8.4|
95732141|NCT02906709|191434909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.4|||||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-12.8|
95732142|NCT02906709|191434911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-5.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|-5.4|-24.5|0.002
95732143|NCT02906709|191434912|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|5.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.5|-0.7|0.065
95732144|NCT02906709|191434913|SUPERIORITY||Percent Between-group Rate Difference|1.6||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||The estimated response rates and effective sample sizes were used to obtain the confidence intervals (CIs) for within-group response rates via the Wilson score method. The CI were calculated via the stratified (non-combination prior AHA therapy status) Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|5.8|-4.7|0.334
95732145|NCT02906709|191434914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on a Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis model with terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status and time by treatment by prior AHA status with the restriction of a common baseline mean between two treatment groups.|4.0|2.3|<0.001
95732146|NCT04424407|191434940|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.008
95732147|NCT04424407|191434940|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.08
95732148|NCT04424407|191434940|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Conscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Conscious Anger \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.49
95732149|NCT04424407|191434941|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Fear \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
95732150|NCT04424407|191434941|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (3) in the Nonconscious Faces task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Nonconscious Threat \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.99
95732151|NCT04424407|191434942|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Negative \> Neutral amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
95793111|NCT01115452|191556141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.24||Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.24|-8.20|0.9963
95732152|NCT04424407|191434942|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of contrasts (2) in the Emotion Regulation Scenes task. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Emotion Regulation Scenes task Look Negative \> Decrease Negative amygdala reactivity was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.65
95732153|NCT04424407|191434943|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
95732154|NCT04424407|191434943|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-dmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.86
95732155|NCT04424407|191434943|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-pACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
95732156|NCT04424407|191434943|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-sgACC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
95732157|NCT04424407|191434943|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||P-values from linear mixed effects models were False Discovery Rate-adjusted (Benjamini-Hochberg method) for the number of mPFC regions (5). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of amygdala-vmPFC connectivity from the Conscious Fear \> Neutral task/contrast was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time on connectivity. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.83
95732158|NCT04424407|191434944|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in depression symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
95732159|NCT04424407|191434945|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep efficiency was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.002
95732160|NCT04424407|191434946|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in suicidal ideation score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
95732161|NCT04424407|191434947|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are uncorrected from ordinal logistic regression model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A significant p-value here means that treatment was associated with reduced odds of being in a higher risk category.||Analysis of change in suicidal risk was done by applying ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds model) testing the effect of treatment-time on the probability of being in a higher risk category. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.03
95732162|NCT04424407|191434953|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in sleep onset latency (PSG) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.28
95732163|NCT04424407|191434954|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in number of awakenings derived from PSG was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.33
95732164|NCT04424407|191434955|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in wake after sleep onset (WASO) was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.013
95732165|NCT04424407|191434956|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG TST was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.66
95732166|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Delta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.96
95919182|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|0.71||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 3 hours||0.71|-3.36|
95732167|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Theta absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.23
95732168|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Alpha absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.11
95732169|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Sigma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.44
95732170|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-1 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.68
95732171|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Beta-2 absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.74
95732172|NCT04424407|191434957|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in PSG Gamma absolute power was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.84
95732173|NCT04424407|191434958|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in insomnia symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
95732174|NCT04424407|191434959|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Mental Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
95732175|NCT04424407|191434959|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in SF-36 Physical Component Score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||0.94
95732176|NCT04424407|191434960|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are uncorrected from linear mixed effects models. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change in anxiety symptom severity score was done by applying linear mixed effects models testing the effect of treatment-time. Random intercepts at the individual participant level are included to account for the clustering of observations within individuals across time. All statistical models include age and sex as covariates of non-interest.||||<0.0001
95732177|NCT00497796|191434968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on the ICH guidance, the hypothesis of non-inferiority can be tested using a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval's (CI) upper bound comparing with the non-inferiority margin of 5% (0.05).|Rate difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.119|||||Rate difference is the rate of maribavir minus the rate of ganciclovir|||0.119|-0.038|
95732178|NCT00497796|191434968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.586||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|3.69||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.690|0.682|0.2754
95793112|NCT01115452|191556141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|12.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.25|-4.45|0.3582
95855566|NCT02141295|191670735|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.39||log-rank|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median PFS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median PFS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.39|0.60|= 0.6753
95732179|NCT00497796|191434969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|3.02||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of the pp65 antigenemia assay||3.020|1.065|0.0283
95732180|NCT00497796|191434969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.338|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||3.900|1.338|0.0024
95732181|NCT00497796|191434969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.177||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.767||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||3.767|1.259|0.0053
95732182|NCT00497796|191434969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.377||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||2.377|0.811|0.2339
95732183|NCT00497796|191434970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.14|||Log Rank||Maribavir versus ganciclovir; Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe) + treatment.|Analysis of time to onset||3.14|1.62|<0.0001
95732184|NCT00497796|191434971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.0008
95732185|NCT00497796|191434971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.3742
95732186|NCT00497796|191434972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
95732187|NCT00497796|191434973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.179|7.494||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||7.494|2.179|<0.0001
95732188|NCT00497796|191434973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|12.213||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||12.213|3.404|<0.0001
95732189|NCT00497796|191434973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.342|10.843||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||10.843|3.342|<0.0001
95793113|NCT01115452|191556141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.88||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|12.22||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.22|-4.46|0.3600
95855567|NCT02141295|191670738|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.49|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate median OS for each treatment arm and the 95% CIs for median OS were computed using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. The stratified Cox proportional hazard was used to estimate the hazard ratio (i.e., the magnitude of the treatment effect) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. The stratification factors are number of metastatic sites (1 vs. \>1) and country/region (USA vs rest of the world).||1.49|0.49|= 0.5740
95855568|NCT00071890|191670757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95855569|NCT00071890|191670758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Biphasic decline of CD4 after week 24 : first slope before W32 and weaker decline until W168.Slopes significantly different (all p values ≤0.0001) between the 2 groups, more pronounced in the IL-2 groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
95855570|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
95732190|NCT00497796|191434973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.146|30.069||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for receipt of induction ALA and geographic region (US or Europe).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus ganciclovir|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||30.069|4.146|<0.0001
95732191|NCT03249584|191434988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An improvement from baseline to 3 months post radiofrequency ablation in worst pain score will be demonstrated with an outcome which is statistically lower than zero.||||<0.0001
95732192|NCT02899338|191434990|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using the analysis of variance (ANOVA)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|101.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.31|113.29|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Comparison AI versus PFS||113.29|91.31|
95732193|NCT02899338|191434991|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|106.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||106.43|94.17|
95732194|NCT02899338|191434992|EQUIVALENCE|The relative bioavailability of BI 695501 using AI (A) compared with BI 695501 using PFS (B) was estimated, in an exploratory manner, by the ratios of the geometric means (A/B) using ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|116.53|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and baseline body weight.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Inter-individual gCV|Comparison AI versus PFS||116.53|91.38|
95732195|NCT06179108|191434994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0009
95732196|NCT06179108|191434994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Hochberg's step-down procedure was adopted to control type I error across the 50 and 75 mg arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||0.0022
95732197|NCT06179108|191434994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline total PANSS score.||||||.0017
95732198|NCT06179108|191434995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0008
95732199|NCT06179108|191434995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0048
95732200|NCT06179108|191434995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment group, pooled study site, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline CGI-S score.||||||0.0026
95732201|NCT00765648|191434996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-0.6|||Chi-squared|||||-0.6|-18.0|0.04
95732202|NCT00765648|191434997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95732203|NCT00765648|191434998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95732204|NCT00765648|191434999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
95732205|NCT00765648|191435000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95732206|NCT00765648|191435001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95732207|NCT03130699|191435094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment and language.||||0.95
95732208|NCT03130699|191435095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.37
95732209|NCT03130699|191435096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.26
95732210|NCT03130699|191435097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.90
95732211|NCT03130699|191435098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.21
95732212|NCT03130699|191435099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for age, gender, employment, and language.||||0.30
95732213|NCT03130699|191435100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.90
95732214|NCT03130699|191435101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.72
95732215|NCT03130699|191435102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.61
95732216|NCT03130699|191435103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.49
95732217|NCT03130699|191435104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.96
95732218|NCT03130699|191435105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.64
95732219|NCT03130699|191435106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.87
95732220|NCT03130699|191435107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.58
95732221|NCT03130699|191435108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.25
95732222|NCT03130699|191435109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for this outcome. Unstandardized regression coefficients represent logit coefficients.||||0.11
95732223|NCT03130699|191435110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.76
95732224|NCT03130699|191435111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.05
95732225|NCT03130699|191435112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.63
95732226|NCT03130699|191435113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses is controlled for income.||||0.63
95732227|NCT03130699|191435114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.002
95732228|NCT03130699|191435115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses controlled for income.||||0.008
95732229|NCT01199861|191435120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|41.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
95764057|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|19.4||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||19.4|-12.9|0.6963
95732230|NCT01199861|191435120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-35.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
95732231|NCT01199861|191435120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|44.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo three weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
95732232|NCT01199861|191435121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|38.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/California/7/09 (H1N1) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
95732233|NCT01199861|191435121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|-28.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
95732234|NCT01199861|191435121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Inhibition|48.0||||||95.0|||||||One minus the back-transformed estimate for the treatment difference was interpreted as the relative inhibition of an immune response caused by fingolimod 0.5 mg compared to placebo; it was presented as a percentage and referred to as 'inhibition'.|The inhibition of an immune response to the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain of the seasonal influenza vaccine was assessed by the relative difference of the geometric mean antibody titer ratio on fingolimod as compared to placebo six weeks after a single dose of seasonal influenza vaccine.||||
95732235|NCT04817891|191435123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95732236|NCT04817891|191435124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p value for the Ventral Attention Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
95732237|NCT04817891|191435124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||p value for the Cingulo Opercular Network (network segregation)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
95732238|NCT04817891|191435125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
95732239|NCT04817891|191435126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.168
95732240|NCT05097989|191435139|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.5|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-37.5|0.2422
95732241|NCT05097989|191435139|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.0||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.3|74.4|||ANCOVA|||||74.4|-49.3|0.8701
95793114|NCT01115452|191556142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91||||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|7.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.30|-9.13|0.8265
95855571|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-12 Months||||0.4889
95732242|NCT06052566|191435153|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.54||||||||1.54|0.61|
95732243|NCT06052566|191435153|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.71||||||||1.71|0.63|
95732244|NCT06052566|191435154|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.65||||||||1.65|0.60|
95732245|NCT06052566|191435154|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||||||||1.65|0.53|
95732246|NCT06052566|191435155|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.21||||||||1.21|0.44|
95732247|NCT06052566|191435155|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.53||||||||1.53|0.47|
95732248|NCT01822548|191435162|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model (GLM)||||||<0.05
95732249|NCT01822548|191435162|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.362|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.695|||ANOVA|adjustment for baseline value of EPC||||0.695|0.028|<0.05
95732250|NCT01822548|191435163|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.224|||ANOVA|||||0.224|-0.358|<0.05
95732251|NCT01046253|191435165|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|97.4|
95732252|NCT01046253|191435166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|93.3|
95855572|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4889|||||||Fisher Exact|||MI at 0-18 Months||||0.4889
95855573|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
95732253|NCT01046253|191435167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|92.8|
95732254|NCT05905783|191435168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|2.2|0.0183
95732255|NCT05905783|191435169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.7|0.0007
95732256|NCT05905783|191435170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|6.1|0.0008
95732257|NCT05905783|191435171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|0.2|0.0462
95732258|NCT05905783|191435172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|-14.3|0.6285
95732259|NCT05905783|191435173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.88|-3.44|0.0011
95732260|NCT05905783|191435174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.7|9.6|0.0013
95732261|NCT05905783|191435175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.6|2.1|0.0245
95732262|NCT01048333|191435190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|1.31|0.002
95732263|NCT01048333|191435190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.534||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|12.02|||Regression, Cox|||||12.02|3.55|0.001
95732264|NCT01048333|191435190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.127||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.52|||Regression, Cox|||||5.52|1.77|0.001
95732265|NCT01396044|191435192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95732266|NCT01396044|191435193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
95732267|NCT01396044|191435194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
95732268|NCT01396044|191435195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95732269|NCT01396044|191435196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95732270|NCT01396044|191435198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95732271|NCT03008460|191435207|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the adjusted treatment difference was higher than -15%.|Adjusted treatment difference|-7.61||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.45|3.24||P-value for non-inferiority was estimated from the adjusted treatment difference.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a logistic regression model, including treatment and country as covariates.||3.24|-18.45|0.0907
95732272|NCT03008460|191435208|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||-0.01|-0.36|0.0428
95732273|NCT03008460|191435209|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.07||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12|||ANOVA|||"Left colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.12|-0.25|0.4676
95732274|NCT03008460|191435209|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.09||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANOVA|||"Transverse colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.08|-0.25|0.3076
95732275|NCT03008460|191435209|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.24||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANOVA|||"Right colon:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||-0.05|-0.44|0.0155
95732276|NCT03008460|191435209|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.07|||ANOVA|||"Global score:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||0.07|-0.79|0.0975
95732277|NCT03008460|191435210|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.3847||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||2.4|0.8|0.2428
95732278|NCT03008460|191435211|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|24.0219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|45.9|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||45.9|12.6|<0.0001
95732279|NCT03008460|191435212|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.0022||||0.9257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||CMH chi-square|||Analysis was performed using CMH chi-square method (using the general association statistic), stratified on country.||1.1|1.0|0.9257
95732280|NCT03008460|191435214|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|-0.93||||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.47|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.47|-3.32|0.4459
95732281|NCT03008460|191435215|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.03|0.40|<0.0001
95732282|NCT03008460|191435216|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|1.22||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.05|||ANOVA|||"Dose 1:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||4.05|-1.60|0.3945
95855574|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
95732283|NCT03008460|191435216|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|6.38||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|11.12|||ANOVA|||"Dose 2:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||11.12|1.65|0.0085
95732284|NCT03008460|191435216|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference rate|7.48||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.5|||ANOVA|||"Global:~Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using a 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates."||12.50|2.46|0.0036
95732285|NCT03008460|191435219|OTHER||Adjusted treatment difference|1.05||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of the treatment difference (Eziclen®/Izinova® minus Klean-Prep®) was performed using 2-way ANOVA, including treatment and country as covariates.||1.69|0.41|0.0015
95732286|NCT02768298|191435229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.21|0.2327
95732287|NCT02768298|191435230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.68|0.6247
95732288|NCT02768298|191435231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.52|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||0.52|-2.98|0.1678
95732289|NCT02768298|191435231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.43|||ANCOVA|||3 months||2.43|-0.77|0.3052
95732290|NCT02768298|191435232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.32|||ANCOVA|||6 weeks||4.32|-2.58|0.6181
95732291|NCT02768298|191435232|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|7.48|||ANCOVA|||3 months||7.48|-0.93|0.1254
95732292|NCT02768298|191435233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Borg value dyspnea||0.33|-0.93|0.3432
95732293|NCT02768298|191435233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Borg value fatigue||0.65|-0.34|0.5319
95919183|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.0||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 4 hours||1.00|-2.69|
95732294|NCT02130466|191435237|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||||Cox regression model|||0.74|0.29|
95855575|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
95732295|NCT02130466|191435244|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||Cox regression model|||0.95|0.38|
95732296|NCT04529109|191435305|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Proportion|0.9998|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Bayesian Binary model||Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval.|||1.000|0.999|
95732297|NCT01611090|191435306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.286|||Log Rank|||||0.286|0.183|< 0.0001
95732298|NCT03968224|191435324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732299|NCT03968224|191435325|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732300|NCT03968224|191435326|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732301|NCT03968224|191435327|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732302|NCT04533646|191435331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Means testing||||comparison of means test was performed|||<0.01
95732303|NCT00770315|191435339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-1.98|0.2192
95732304|NCT00770315|191435339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.36|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.36|-2.80|0.0113
95732305|NCT00770315|191435339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.79|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.79|-3.30|0.0015
95732306|NCT00770315|191435340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.13|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.13|-1.88|0.0878
95732307|NCT00770315|191435340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.28|-2.29|0.0125
95732308|NCT00770315|191435340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.88|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.88|-2.95|0.0003
95732309|NCT00770315|191435341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.45|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.45|-0.96|0.4781
95732310|NCT00770315|191435341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.21|-1.21|0.1695
95732311|NCT00770315|191435341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.21|-1.67|0.0118
95732312|NCT00770315|191435342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-0.93|0.2622
95732313|NCT00770315|191435342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.20|-0.99|0.1914
95732314|NCT00770315|191435342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.35|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.35|-1.57|0.0021
95855576|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7381|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-6 Months||||0.7381
95855577|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
95732315|NCT00770315|191435343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.25|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.25|-1.26|0.1900
95732316|NCT00770315|191435343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.84|0.0053
95732317|NCT00770315|191435343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.89|0.0058
95732318|NCT02086188|191435363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1911
95732319|NCT02086188|191435364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4271
95732320|NCT02086188|191435365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1723|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1723
95732321|NCT02086188|191435366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6340
95732322|NCT02086188|191435367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0091
95732323|NCT04349917|191435381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
95732324|NCT04349917|191435382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.579
95732325|NCT04349917|191435382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.034
95732326|NCT04349917|191435383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG regular task||||0.296
95732327|NCT04349917|191435383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for reconfiguration between rest and GNG reward task||||0.169
95732328|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.118
95732329|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.022
95732330|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.220
95732331|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.496
95732332|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.343
95732333|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in rest modularity vs change in GNG reward RT variability||||0.988
95732334|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular commission rate||||0.892
95732335|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs change in GNG regular omission rate||||0.473
95732336|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG regular modularity vs Change in GNG regular RT Variability||||0.409
95732337|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward commission rate||||0.351
95732338|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs change in GNG reward omission rate||||0.238
95732339|NCT04349917|191435384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Pearson correlation|||Change in GNG reward modularity vs Change in GNG reward RT Variability||||0.909
95732340|NCT04349917|191435385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.806
95732341|NCT04349917|191435385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.003
95732342|NCT04349917|191435386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.093
95732343|NCT04349917|191435386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
95732344|NCT04349917|191435387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG regular task||||0.075
95732345|NCT04349917|191435387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for GNG reward task||||0.0001
95732346|NCT02419313|191435418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
95732347|NCT02419313|191435419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
95732348|NCT02419313|191435420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0105
95732349|NCT02428699|191435432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.53|||ANCOVA|Subject as random effect,treatment and period as fixed effects,subject and period level baseline values for plasma total and free acids as covariates|Difference is test minus reference such that a positive difference favors the test treatment.|||7.53|2.79|<.0001
95732350|NCT03127137|191435451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
95732351|NCT03127137|191435452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.86||||||||2.86|.82|
95732352|NCT00771537|191435455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 1-sided message group accepted testing at a lower rate (79.4%) than those in the control group (87.4%).|||.96|.50|0.05
95732353|NCT00771537|191435455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided trivial group were no different in their acceptance rate of HIV testing (81.3%) than women in the control group (87.4%).|||1.04|.54|.10
95732354|NCT00771537|191435455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Women in the 2-sided major group were no different in rates of accepting HIV testing (83.9%) than women in the control group (87.4%)|||1.30|.65|.63
95732355|NCT00771537|191435456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|2.56|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = (1,978)|There was no significant effect for the 1-sided message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-way Analysis of Variance||2.56|2.42|<.60
95732356|NCT00771537|191435456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|2.58|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,1028)|There was no significant effect for the 2-sided trivial message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.58|2.44|<.25
95855578|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Major amputation at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
95732357|NCT00771537|191435456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Marginal Means|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.54|||ANOVA||There was no significant effect for the 2-sided major message compared to the control group on Willingness to Participate in an HIV vaccine clinical trial.|One-Way Analysis of Variance||2.54|2.40|<.91
95732358|NCT04084483|191435472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2175|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2175
95732359|NCT04084483|191435473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3852
95732360|NCT04084483|191435474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2980
95732361|NCT04084483|191435475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0634
95732362|NCT04084483|191435476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7388|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.7388
95732363|NCT04084483|191435476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||ANCOVA|||Corneal Sum||||0.3717
95732364|NCT04084483|191435476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.3164
95732365|NCT04084483|191435476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||ANCOVA|||Conjunctival Sum||||0.1953
95732366|NCT04084483|191435476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.4645
95732367|NCT04084483|191435476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2135|||||||ANCOVA|||Total Eye Sum||||0.2135
95732368|NCT04084483|191435477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5990
95732369|NCT04084483|191435477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2122|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2122
95732370|NCT04084483|191435478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9146
95732371|NCT04084483|191435478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8494|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8494
95732372|NCT04084483|191435479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4747|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4747
95732373|NCT04084483|191435479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5619
95732374|NCT04084483|191435480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5985|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5985
95732375|NCT04084483|191435480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7626|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7626
95732376|NCT04084483|191435481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8330
95732377|NCT04084483|191435481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2777
95732378|NCT04084483|191435482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9829
95732379|NCT04084483|191435482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8675|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8675
95732380|NCT04084483|191435483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5836|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5836
95732381|NCT04084483|191435483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2352|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2352
95732382|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7367|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.7367
95732383|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3865|||||||ANCOVA|||Ocular Discomfort||||0.3865
95732384|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8796|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.8796
95732385|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3515|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning||||0.3515
95732386|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.6338
95732387|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4685|||||||ANCOVA|||Dryness||||0.4685
95732388|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4757|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.4757
95732389|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8803|||||||ANCOVA|||Grittiness||||0.8803
95732390|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8529|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.8529
95732391|NCT04084483|191435484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7713|||||||ANCOVA|||Stinging||||0.7713
95732392|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.1380
95732393|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3334|||||||ANCOVA|||Burning/Stinging||||0.3334
95732394|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.1008
95732395|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||ANCOVA|||Itching||||0.4582
95732396|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.1511
95732397|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2555|||||||ANCOVA|||Foreign Body Sensation||||0.2555
95732398|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.1546
95732399|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||ANCOVA|||Blurry Vision||||0.0495
95732400|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5791|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.5791
95732401|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||Eye Dryness||||0.0736
95732402|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.3666
95732403|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|||Photophobia||||0.0390
95732404|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.0655
95732405|NCT04084483|191435485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain||||0.1947
95732406|NCT04084483|191435486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9274
95732407|NCT04084483|191435486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0888
95732408|NCT02194998|191435487|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
95732409|NCT02194998|191435487|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
95732410|NCT02194998|191435487|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
95732411|NCT02194998|191435487|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR12 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
95732412|NCT02194998|191435500|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort A's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
95732413|NCT02194998|191435500|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort B's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.47
95732414|NCT02194998|191435500|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.01||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort C's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||<0.01
95855579|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
95732415|NCT02194998|191435500|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided exact binomial test was used against a null rate of 70% at a significance level of 5%.||||||0.24||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|One-Sided Exact Binomial Test|||Null Hypothesis: Cohort D's SVR24 rate \<= 70%.||||0.24
95732416|NCT01345019|191435501|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-stage approach was used for the non-inferiority test. First, the fixed margin approach was used to ensure denosumab has an effect greater than placebo (ie, the non-inferiority margin M1, ie, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval 1.28, is ruled out). Next, a synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserved at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid (HR \[95% CI\] of 1.48 \[1.28, 1.71\] for placebo vs zoledronic acid.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab|||1.14|0.85|0.010
95732417|NCT01345019|191435504|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|Based on a log rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.||||||0.82
95732418|NCT01345019|191435505|SUPERIORITY|The statistical inferences of the treatment effect on secondary efficacy endpoints (time to the first on study SRE \[superiority\] and time to first and subsequent on study SRE \[superiority, multiple event analysis\]) were to be conducted if denosumab was determined to be non-inferior to zoledronic acid. To control the overall type I error for multiple comparisons at a significant level of 0.05, these secondary efficacy endpoints were tested simultaneously using the Hochberg procedure.|Rate ratio|1.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Andersen-Gill model|Based on an Andersen-Gill model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|A rate ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.15|0.89|0.84
95732419|NCT01345019|191435507|SUPERIORITY|If superiority of denosumab over zoledronic acid was established for both time to first SRE and time to first and subsequent SRE, the additional secondary endpoint (overall survival) was to be tested at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio (denosumab:zoledronic acid) \< 1 favors denosumab.|The survival function of time to death for each treatment group was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and the hazard ratio of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and its 2-sided 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors and including treatment groups, age, race group, geographic region, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline risk per cytogenetic based prognosis, and baseline ECOG as independent variables.||1.16|0.70|0.41
95732420|NCT00023309|191435514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0294||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the treatment effect between the two groups||||0.0294
95732421|NCT00023309|191435515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0325
95732422|NCT00023309|191435516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0049
95732423|NCT00023309|191435517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0157
95732424|NCT00023309|191435518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0913||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in treatment effect at week 196||||0.0913
95732425|NCT02731157|191435527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
95732426|NCT00832377|191435568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 peak IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95732427|NCT00832377|191435569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 trough IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95732428|NCT00832377|191435570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 12 8-HR IOP vs. baseline|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95732429|NCT01050647|191435573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95732430|NCT01050647|191435574|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95732431|NCT01050647|191435575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95732432|NCT01050647|191435576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95732433|NCT01050647|191435577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95732434|NCT03661528|191435693|OTHER||Percentage proportion difference|13.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|4.6|0.0032
95732435|NCT03661528|191435694|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-185.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.93|-172.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis presented for ANCOVA based on ranks.||||-172.05|-199.93|<0.0001
95732436|NCT00486837|191435696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.197
95732437|NCT05630547|191435777|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio to Baseline|0.986||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.103|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed categorical effects of the treatment group, multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical subtype (relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis \[RRMS\], secondary progressive multiple sclerosis \[SPMS\], or primary progressive multiple sclerosis \[PPMS\]), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, log-transformed baseline sNfL levels and log-transformed baseline sNfL levels-by-visit interaction.||1.103|0.881|0.8042
95732438|NCT00977470|191435792|EQUIVALENCE|All enrolled patients will be included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analyses. Based on historical patients with EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib, we expect median progression-free survival on the erlotinib-alone arm to be approximately 9 months. This trial can detect a difference in proportions alive without progression at 9 months from 50% in the erlotinib arm to 77% in the erlotinib plus HCQ arm, using an alpha of 0.15 and power of 85%, using the two-sided Likelihood Ratio test.||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
95732439|NCT05065502|191435799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.206||Significance level is set at 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Between-arm difference at 13-18 months post-baseline, controlling for rates 1-6 months pre-baseline|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs of post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for use in pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), averaged across three studies.||0.206|-0.728|0.273
95732440|NCT05065502|191435800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0245|0.0272||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.0272|-0.0245|
95732441|NCT05065502|191435801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|69.3|||||Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period.|Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in medication costs from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||69.3|-23.3|
95732442|NCT05065502|191435802|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.599|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.122||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of medication note reviews from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).|"Medication reviews per 1,000 patients (outcome multiplied by 1,000).~Statistical Assumptions for Valid Inference of a typical Difference-in-Difference model were not met, Estimate computed from modelling Post-period, and adjusting for Pre-period."|-0.122|-1.080|
95732443|NCT05065502|191435803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09073|0.01561||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in count of inappropriate use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18)||0.01561|-0.09073|
95732444|NCT05065502|191435804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.2||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use from 6-months pre-baseline period to 6-month post-intervention period (months 13 to 18).||1.20|-1.44|
95732445|NCT05065502|191435805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of of high-risk DOAC use attributable to chronic kidney disease for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6), ), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.42|-0.83|
95732446|NCT05065502|191435806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.72||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to weight for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.72|-0.08|
95732447|NCT05065502|191435807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of high-risk DOAC use attributable to mis-dosing for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.33|-0.70|
95732448|NCT05065502|191435808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02415|0.04429||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of CBTI receipt for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6)||0.04429|-0.02415|
95732449|NCT05065502|191435811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21014|0.04275||||||Between group comparison is done using between-arm difference (as 'AD+LEAP' minus 'AD only') in within-arm change in proportion of PIMs for the post-intervention period (months 13 to 18), controlling for the pre-baseline period (months 0 to 6).||0.04275|-0.21014|
95732450|NCT05065502|191435812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.42||||||||0.420|-0.216|
95732451|NCT05065502|191435813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.477||||||||0.477|-0.555|
95732452|NCT05065502|191435814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.452||||||||0.452|-0.250|
95732453|NCT05065502|191435815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.339|
95732454|NCT00796822|191435821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was determined based on a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error. Using the results from our pilot trial, we conservatively estimated a predicted absolute change in FMD of 3.5% with PTX (assuming no change with placebo) and we assumed a common standard deviation of 2.6%. A sample size of 10 per group was estimated to provide at least 80% power to detect this effect size. Allowing for a 20% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 13 subjects per group.||3.28|-1.53|0.44
95732455|NCT00796822|191435822|SUPERIORITY|There was no formal power calculation for this outcome measure as the study was powered on the primary outcome measure.|Median Difference (Net)|149.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|151.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|281.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||281.9|16.4|0.03
95732456|NCT03682900|191435827|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||A one tailed test was used, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group. The criterion for significance was p \<. 05.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||= .000
95732457|NCT03682900|191435828|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition||||= .000
95732458|NCT03682900|191435829|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.044
95732459|NCT03682900|191435830|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||=.033
95855580|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-12 Months||||0.4591
95855581|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||Fisher Exact|||Revascularization at 0-18 Months||||0.4591
95732460|NCT03682900|191435831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732461|NCT03682900|191435832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732462|NCT03682900|191435833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732463|NCT03682900|191435834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"The a prior threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05; one tailed test, as the intervention is expected to be superior than the control group.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732464|NCT03682900|191435835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732465|NCT03682900|191435836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732466|NCT03682900|191435837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732467|NCT03682900|191435838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732468|NCT03682900|191435839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a gneral linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732469|NCT03682900|191435840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlayzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools within condition.||||<.001
95793115|NCT01115452|191556142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|7.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.45|-9.25|0.8314
95793116|NCT01115452|191556142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|8.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.35|-8.33|0.9978
95793117|NCT01115452|191556143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.44|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.44|-4.00|0.3122
95732470|NCT03682900|191435841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. Apriori, a p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed uisng a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732471|NCT03682900|191435842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is a priori considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732472|NCT03682900|191435843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732473|NCT03682900|191435844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732474|NCT03682900|191435845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were anlyzed using a general linear model mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732475|NCT03682900|191435846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732476|NCT03682900|191435847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schols and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732477|NCT03682900|191435848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||All probabilities for secondary outcomes were listed as p = .000 within the analysis program. A p value of \< .05 is considered significant. All statistical tests are one-tailed. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed using a general linear mixed model with students nested within schools and schools nested within condition.||||<.001
95732478|NCT02809183|191435869|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Pooled Placebo treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.9|0.5547
95732479|NCT02809183|191435869|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.0||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID group = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 1.5g TRC101 BID treatment group = 0 mEq/L.||4.0|2.4|< 0.0001
95732480|NCT02809183|191435869|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8||The null hypothesis is the 3g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|2.2|< 0.0001
95732481|NCT02809183|191435869|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.5||The null hypothesis is the 4.5g TRC101 BID treatment group mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.9|< 0.0001
95732482|NCT02809183|191435870|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.5||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5|2.3|< 0.0001
95732483|NCT02809183|191435870|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.3||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|2.2|< 0.0001
95732484|NCT02809183|191435870|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.0||The null hypothesis is the difference between the treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|2.9|< 0.0001
95732485|NCT02809183|191435871|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the Combined TRC101 treatment group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|3.0|< 0.0001
95732486|NCT02809183|191435872|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.4||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (Combined TRC101 - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|2.8|< 0.0001
95732487|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
95732488|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
95732489|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0074||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (1.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
95732490|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0012||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0012
95732491|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0032||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
95732492|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0013||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
95732493|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
95732494|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
95732495|NCT02809183|191435873|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0006||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (4.5g TRC101 BID - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0006
95732496|NCT02809183|191435874|OTHER|Single-group test|Group LS mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.2||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline within the 6g TRC101 QD group = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|2.7|<0.0001
95732497|NCT02809183|191435875|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.7||The null hypothesis is the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|2.6|<0.0001
95732498|NCT02809183|191435876|OTHER|Two-group test|Difference between group LS means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (3g TRC101 BID - 6g TRC101 QD) in the mean change from baseline = 0 mEq/L.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.4214
95732499|NCT02809183|191435877|OTHER|Two-group test|||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 2 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
95732500|NCT02809183|191435877|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 3 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
95732501|NCT02809183|191435877|OTHER|Two-group test||||||0.0003||||||The null hypothesis is that the difference between treatment groups (6g TRC101 QD - Pooled Placebo) in the proportion of subjects whose serum bicarbonate increased from baseline to Day 15 by =\> 4 mEq/L = 0.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
95732502|NCT03587207|191435893|OTHER|rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S is to be declared statistically inferior if the 2-sided 80% CIs of the between group ratio of the GMT with rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D as control is lower than 1 at 1 month after last vaccination. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.1|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after last vaccination.||1.10|0.83|
95732503|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.20|0.84|
95732504|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|1.05||||||80.0|0.88|1.26|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.26|0.88|
95732505|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D groups|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.64|
95732506|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.66|
95793118|NCT01115452|191556143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|7.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.08|-9.62|0.7646
95855582|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-6 Months||||>0.999
95732507|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.14|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||1.14|0.74|
95732508|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.27|0.78|
95732509|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.18|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.18|0.79|
95732510|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.19|0.69|
95732511|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
95732512|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA)strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.95|0.66|
95732513|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.97|0.65|
95732514|NCT03587207|191435894|NON_INFERIORITY|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.88|0.60|
95732515|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.69|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogrpoup A, one month after last vaccination.||0.69|0.45|
95732516|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||1.52|0.94|
95732517|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||1.29|0.87|
95732518|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.55|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||1.55|0.90|
95732519|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459(fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
95732520|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.75|
95732521|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.96|0.64|
95793119|NCT01115452|191556143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.49||||0.1957||95.0|-13.83|2.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.85|-13.83|0.1957
95855583|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-12 Months||||>0.999
95919184|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.32||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 8 hours||0.32|-4.19|
95732522|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.58|
95732523|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9|4.47|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.47|2.90|
95732524|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.28|5.31|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.31|3.28|
95855584|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||All-cause death at 0-18 Months||||>0.999
95855585|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.5136
95732525|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.52|3.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.73|2.52|
95732526|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|2.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.65|1.53|
95732527|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.22|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.22|0.85|
95793120|NCT01115452|191556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.35||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.92|-9.62|0.7472
95732528|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratios for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.04|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.04|0.71|
95732529|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.24|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.24|0.82|
95732530|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.09|0.73|
95732531|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup A-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.15|4.88|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||4.88|3.15|
95732532|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.3|5.34|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||5.34|3.30|
95732533|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6|3.87|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.87|2.60|
95732534|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group and MenACWY group.|Geometric mean ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.68|2.92|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||2.92|1.68|
95732535|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M14459- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.25|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after last vaccination.||1.25|0.87|
95732536|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.86|0.59|
95732537|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.76|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.76|0.50|
95732538|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after last vaccination.||0.63|0.42|
95732539|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratios for comparison between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.62|2.51|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after last vaccination.||2.51|1.62|
95855586|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||0.7575
95732540|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.92|6.35|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after last vaccination.||6.35|3.92|
95732541|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratios for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.66|3.96|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after last vaccination.||3.96|2.66|
95732542|NCT03587207|191435894|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and MenACWY group|Geometric mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.81|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus MenACWY study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after last vaccination.||3.12|1.81|
95732543|NCT03587207|191435898|OTHER|Between group ratio is calculated as GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S Group over GMT for rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group. 80% CI are obtained from Analysis of Covariance model fitted to pooled Serogroup B Strains. The following ANCOVA model is used: fixed-effect model including age strata, study group, strain and center as fixed effects. The pre vaccination (Baseline) log-transformed titer with centering at zero is included as a continuous covariate.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|An interaction between strain and pre-vaccination log transformed titer is included in the model to fit to the serogroup B test strain data only.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the pooled B strains, one month after first vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
95732544|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.63|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.63|1.02|
95732545|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.75|
95732546|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.29|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.29|0.80|
95983211|NCT03437564|191940663|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between the formulations (dosing of one vortioxetine 20 mg tablet - dosing of two vortioxetine 10 mg tablets) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The shown data were anti-logs of LS means difference and CI. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.|Point Estimate|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.008|||ANOVA|||||1.008|0.937|
95983212|NCT04037748|191940674|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|95.6||||||||95.6|86.3|
95732547|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.36|0.87|
95732548|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.58|
95732549|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D Group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.62|
95732550|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
95855587|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Death)||||>0.999
95732551|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.08|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Immune interference due to stress to lymph nodes (lymph-node effect) in rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.08|0.54|
95732552|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M14459 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
95855588|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-6 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||0.7575
95732553|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|96217 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.9|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.90|0.58|
95732554|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.61|
95732555|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.07|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.07|0.68|
95732556|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup A- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.62|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup A, one month after first vaccination.||0.62|0.35|
95732557|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup C- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup C, one month after first vaccination.||1.65|0.91|
95732558|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup W- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.04|1.72|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup W, one month after first vaccination.||1.72|1.04|
95793121|NCT01115452|191556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.66||||0.8767||95.0|-7.75|9.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.08|-7.75|0.8767
95983213|NCT04037748|191940675|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.2|99.5||||||||99.5|88.2|
95732559|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|Serogroup Y- Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S group.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.38|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||Other unknown interference in MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S study groups, on the Meningitis serogroup Y, one month after first vaccination.||1.38|0.70|
95732560|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.32|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.32|0.83|
95732561|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.0|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.00|0.64|
95732562|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.13|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.13|0.69|
95855589|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-12 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
95855590|NCT02144610|191670763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||0-18 Months (Major Amputation or Revascularization)||||>0.999
95732563|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_S group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.19|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_S versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.19|0.76|
95732564|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M14459 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.64|
95732565|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|96217 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.09|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.09|0.69|
95855591|NCT02144610|191670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.514
95983214|NCT04037748|191940677|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|100.0||||||||100.0|94.7|
95983215|NCT04037748|191940678|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|97.8||||||||97.8|92.0|
95732566|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain -Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.12|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.12|0.68|
95732567|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of rMenBOMV\_ACWY\_D group and rMenBOMV group|Geometrical mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to rMenBOMV+ACWY\_D versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.10|0.70|
95732568|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M14459 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M14459 (fHbp)strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.15|0.71|
95732569|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|96217 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.73|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B 96217 (NadA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.73|0.47|
95732570|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|NZ98/254 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.89|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B NZ98/254 (PorA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||0.89|0.54|
95732571|NCT03587207|191435899|OTHER|M07-0241084 strain-Between group ratio for comparison of MenABCWY group and rMenBOMV group|Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.03|||ANCOVA|The model is fitted to each serogroup/strain separately.||To investigate possible effects on the immune response based on strains common to MenABCWY versus rMenBOMV study groups, on the Meningitis B M07-0241084 (NHBA) strain, one month after first vaccination.||1.03|0.65|
95732572|NCT02099461|191435920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.15||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.441|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.441|-0.136|0.2966
95732573|NCT02099461|191435920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.13|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.130|-0.447|0.2769
95732574|NCT02099461|191435920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.09||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.191|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.191|-0.373|0.5238
95732575|NCT02099461|191435920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.098|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 60 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.098|-0.720|0.1343
95732576|NCT02099461|191435920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.161|||ANCOVA||Denosumab 120 mg - Placebo|An ANCOVA analysis was performed on the log ratio of post-baseline to Baseline Ki-67 index. Independent variables included treatment, stratification factor, and log transformed baseline Ki-67 index.||0.161|-0.646|0.2345
95983216|NCT04261504|191940679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold p\<0.05.|threshold-free cluster enhancement|||||||0.03
95732577|NCT00890981|191435931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0766||95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms with treatment-by-time interaction||7.8|-0.4|0.0766
95732578|NCT00890981|191435932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1648||95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.6|0.1648
95732579|NCT00890981|191435933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0228||95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.7|0.1|0.0228
95732580|NCT00890981|191435934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.656||95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model includes linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.0|-2.5|0.6560
95732581|NCT00890981|191435935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0594||95.0|-0.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.7|-0.1|0.0594
95983217|NCT01202279|191940699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
95983218|NCT01202279|191940700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
95732582|NCT00890981|191435936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0032||95.0|0.9|4.3|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||4.3|0.9|0.0032
95732583|NCT00890981|191435937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2897||95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear, quadratic and cubic time terms but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.2|-0.4|0.2897
95732584|NCT00890981|191435938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.0067||95.0|1.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||6.7|1.1|0.0067
95732585|NCT00890981|191435939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0184||95.0|0.4|3.8|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.8|0.4|0.0184
95732586|NCT00890981|191435940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.0911||95.0|-0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|-0.3|0.0911
95732587|NCT00890981|191435941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0035||95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was fit with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||3.5|0.7|0.0035
95732588|NCT00890981|191435942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.1||||0.0591||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0591
95732589|NCT00890981|191435943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Denosumab to Placebo|1.2||||0.0079||95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA based on the log transformed actual values with main effects for randomized treatment in study 20050179, baseline value, time since last subcutaneous dose of denosumab or placebo in study 20050179 as a continuous variable, and the age stratification from 20050179. Model included linear time term but without treatment-by-time interaction.||1.3|1.0|0.0079
95732590|NCT03290326|191435959|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of 40Hz tACS on EEG gamma-band spectral power. Power changes were expressed as percentage relative power variations, accordingly with the event-related synchronization/desynchronization (ERS/ERD) index.||||< 0.01
95732591|NCT00581139|191435979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
95732592|NCT00581139|191435981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
95732593|NCT00581139|191435982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
95732594|NCT00581139|191435983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
95732595|NCT00581139|191435984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||.02
95732596|NCT00581139|191435985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
95732597|NCT00581139|191435986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
95732598|NCT01124149|191435996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|1.76|<0.001
95732599|NCT01124149|191435997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.44|<0.001
95732600|NCT01644500|191436014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
95732601|NCT01644500|191436014|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
95855592|NCT02144610|191670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.445
95732602|NCT01644500|191436015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.8|4.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
95732603|NCT01644500|191436015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||Treatment comparison for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.3|1.0|<0.001
95732604|NCT01644500|191436015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||4.5|1.8|<0.001
95732605|NCT01644500|191436015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||2.5|1.1|0.192
95732606|NCT01644500|191436016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.15|<0.001
95732607|NCT01644500|191436016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.70|0.022
95732608|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
95855593|NCT02144610|191670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.863
95855594|NCT02144610|191670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.111
95855595|NCT02144610|191670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.153
95732609|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.304
95732610|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.92||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.80|<0.001
95732611|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.11||Treatment comparison for morning (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.99|0.015
95732612|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.10|<0.001
95732613|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31||Treatment comparison for midday (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.43|0.740
95732614|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.13||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.99|<0.001
95732615|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.39||Treatment comparison of midday (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.24|<0.001
95732616|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.00|<0.001
95732617|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.25||Treatment comparison for evening (pre-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.41|0.638
95732618|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.87||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-1.68|<0.001
95983219|NCT01984164|191940714|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect size|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.7|||||effect size p-value = 0.008|All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat principle. Results are provided as adjusted least-square means with SE and effect size (ES) estimates (calculated from mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) as the adjusted difference in cognitive change between the 2 groups over the study period).||-3.7|-23.6|
95732619|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Treatment comparison for evening (2 hours post-prandial) meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.85|0.030
95732620|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.82||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.56|<0.001
95732621|NCT01644500|191436017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.03|<0.001
95732622|NCT01644500|191436018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
95732623|NCT01644500|191436018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for all hypoglycemic episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
95732624|NCT01644500|191436018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.008
95732625|NCT01644500|191436018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparison for nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes. Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes are rounded off to 2 decimal places.|Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.006
95732626|NCT01644500|191436019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95732627|NCT01644500|191436019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95732628|NCT01644500|191436020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|23.55|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2-%B||23.55|11.27|<0.001
95793122|NCT01115452|191556144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.6367||95.0|-6.39|10.42||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.42|-6.39|0.6367
95732629|NCT01644500|191436020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.92||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.06|||ANCOVA|||Insulin HOMA2%B||14.06|1.78|0.012
95732630|NCT01644500|191436020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|21.06|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||21.06|11.81|<0.001
95732631|NCT01644500|191436020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|14.62|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%B||14.62|5.36|<0.001
95732632|NCT01644500|191436021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|6.51|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||6.51|-5.83|0.913
95732633|NCT01644500|191436021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.03|||ANCOVA|||Insulin-Based HOMA2%S||3.03|-9.30|0.318
95732634|NCT01644500|191436021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|3.49|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||3.49|-6.27|0.576
95732635|NCT01644500|191436021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||C-Peptide-Based HOMA2-%S||-1.89|-11.68|0.007
95732636|NCT01644500|191436024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
95732637|NCT01644500|191436024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparison for SBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.245
95732638|NCT01644500|191436024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
95732639|NCT01644500|191436024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparison for DBP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.619
95732640|NCT01644500|191436025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95732641|NCT01644500|191436025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
95732642|NCT01644500|191436028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95732643|NCT01644500|191436028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95732644|NCT01644500|191436029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95732645|NCT01644500|191436029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95732646|NCT00048568|191436035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|36.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response.|The study had a 99% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 between the 2 groups at the 5% level.||36.7|19.8|<0.001
95732647|NCT00048568|191436036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|32.9||Based on the hierarchical testing procedure for the co-primary measures, the study had 98% power to detect 18% difference in HAQ response rate between the two arms at the 5% level.|Chi-squared, Corrected|This model includes treatment as the main factor and baseline value as a covariate.|Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving HAQ response at Day 365.|||32.9|15.9|<0.001
95732648|NCT00048568|191436037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Nonparametric ANCOVA|The rank of the change from baseline=dependent variable, treatment=the main factor, rank of baseline value as covariate.||||||0.029
95732649|NCT00048568|191436041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|41.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 20 response at Day 365.|||41.7|25.1|<0.001
95732650|NCT00048568|191436043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|31.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 169.|||31.1|15.0|<0.001
95732651|NCT00048568|191436044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 50 response at Day 365.|||38.5|21.8|<0.001
95732652|NCT00048568|191436046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving ACR 70 response at Day 169.|||19.5|7.0|<0.001
95732653|NCT00048568|191436047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||29.8|15.6|<0.001
95732654|NCT00048568|191436049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving MCR.|||17.2|7.3|<0.001
95732655|NCT00048568|191436050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 169|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.91|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 169.|||-0.91|-1.38|<0.001
95732656|NCT00048568|191436050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference on Day 365|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA on Day 365.|||-1.16|-1.63|<0.001
95732657|NCT00048568|191436054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 169|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.57|2.64|<0.001
95732658|NCT00048568|191436054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference at Day 365|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.62|||ANCOVA|||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.62|2.69|<0.001
95732659|NCT00048568|191436055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|5.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated difference between ABA + MTX and MTX + PLA is the estimated difference between ABA+MTX and MTX + PLA in the proportion of participants achieving extended MCR.|||9.0|2.4|0.002
95732660|NCT04099888|191436241|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
95732661|NCT04099888|191436242|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||OS was analyzed using the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis set, which included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and had a RECIST assessment at baseline. Kaplan Meier Curve (KM) analysis of OS was completed for the mITT population, but the number of events was too small to draw any conclusions.|The HR was estimated using an unstratified cox-proportional hazards model using the Efron approach for handling ties (Efron 1977), together with the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the HR based on the Wald method. The effect of treatment is summarized by the hazard ratio (HR) together with its corresponding 95% Wald CI for the mITT population. No p-value will be reported.|||
95732662|NCT04099888|191436243|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||BOR is summarized by randomized treatment group using the mITT analysis set.|The BOR is the best response recorded from the start of the treatment until disease progression or until the last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression. If a patient received subsequent anti-cancer therapy prior to progression, then BOR was calculated up to the point of starting the anti-cancer therapy.|||
95732663|NCT04099888|191436244|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The ORR is calculated as the proportion of patients who have at least one visit response with a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). Objective responses do not require confirmation in a randomized study. Data obtained up until progression, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression, will be included in the analysis of ORR. Data obtained up until progression or subsequent therapy, or last evaluable assessment in the absence of progression or subsequent therapy, will be included in the analysis of ORR.|||
95855596|NCT02144610|191670764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||0.002
95855597|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (right brachial)||||0.733
95855598|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (right brachial)||||0.808
95732664|NCT04099888|191436245|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The DoR was calculated only for those with a documented response of CR or PR and is defined as the time from the date of first documented tumor response until the first date of documented disease progression or death, whichever is earlier.|DoR is listed only. In Arm A, the duration of response was 169 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm A, the events were censored at 260 and 264 days, respectively. In Arm B, the duration of response was 85 days in 1 participant before radiological progression was seen. In the other 2 participants in Arm B, the events were censored at 1 day due to the early termination of the study.|||
95732665|NCT04099888|191436246|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||DCR is reported and includes any patient with a best response of stable disease, PR or CR.|The DCR and associated exact 95% CI is summarized for the mITT population. This was repeated for DCR-6, defined as the proportion of patients with CR, PR or SD at 6 months (recorded at least 24 weeks (+/-1 week) after randomization of study treatment and prior to any PD event).|||
95732666|NCT04099888|191436247|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Change in tumor size in percentage was summarized for the subset of patients in the mITT analysis set who had measurable disease at baseline.|Tumor size is defined as the sum of the longest diameters (SoDs) of the RECIST 1.1 target lesions. Change in tumor size is defined as the best overall percentage change in tumor size from baseline. Percentage change in tumor size was determined for patients with measurable disease at baseline and was derived at each visit by the percentage change in the SoDs of target lesions compared to baseline.|||
95732667|NCT04099888|191436248|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety, including the incidence and characteristics of biliary/loco-regional tumour-related events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
95732668|NCT04099888|191436249|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Safety events leading to hospitalisation and/or interventions, will be summarised descriptively.|||
95732669|NCT04099888|191436253|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||As this study was terminated early, a reduced statistical analysis was conducted, and the HRQoL analyses were not conducted.|||
95732670|NCT03952143|191436258|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.07|0.321
95732671|NCT03952143|191436259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-21.9|<0.001
95732672|NCT03952143|191436260|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-12.6|||ANCOVA|||||-12.6|-30.9|<0.001
95732673|NCT03952143|191436261|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.86||||||||2.86|0.02|
95732674|NCT03952143|191436262|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.66||||||For ≤30 minutes post meal||1.66|0.49|
95732675|NCT03952143|191436262|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31||||||For ≤ 1 hour post meal||2.31|0.79|
95732676|NCT03952143|191436262|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42||||||For \>1 to ≤2 hours post meal||2.42|1.06|
95732677|NCT03952143|191436262|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.23||||||For ≤2 hours post meal||2.23|1.05|
95732678|NCT03952143|191436262|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||For \>2 to ≤4 hours post meal||1.39|0.69|
95732679|NCT03952143|191436262|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.57||||||For ≤4 hours post meal||1.57|0.84|
95732680|NCT03952143|191436263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.53||||||||0.53|-1.10|
95732681|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2||||||For Morning Premeal||7.2|-2.8|
95732682|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0||||||For Morning 1-hour Postmeal||2.0|-12.6|
95732683|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.7||||||For Morning 2-hour Postmeal||1.7|-12.5|
95732684|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.1||||||For Midday Premeal||10.1|-1.8|
95732685|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.1||||||For Midday 1-hour Postmeal||8.1|-5.7|
95732686|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||||||For Midday 2-hour Postmeal||8.9|-5.1|
95732687|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.6||||||For Evening Premeal||20.6|7.6|
95732688|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.1||||||For Evening 1-hour Postmeal||9.1|-5.1|
95732689|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||||||For Evening 2-hour Postmeal||6.8|-7.3|
95732690|NCT03952143|191436264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1||||||For Bedtime||8.1|-4.7|
95732691|NCT03952143|191436265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.4||||||For Total Daily Insulin Dose||5.4|0.1|
95732692|NCT03952143|191436265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||For Daily Basal Insulin Dose||1.5|0.0|
95732693|NCT03952143|191436265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||||||For Daily Prandial Insulin Dose||4.5|-0.5|
95732694|NCT03952143|191436266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.52|0.69|0.924
95732695|NCT03952143|191436266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.49|0.64|0.908
95732696|NCT01866319|191436267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.46|<0.00001
95732697|NCT01866319|191436267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.72|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||0.72|0.47|<0.00001
95732698|NCT01866319|191436267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.75869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1)||1.21|0.77|0.75869
95855599|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (right brachial)||||0.487
95855600|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (right brachial)||||0.216
95732699|NCT01866319|191436268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.00052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.83|0.47|0.00052
95732700|NCT01866319|191436268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||0.90|0.52|0.00358
95732701|NCT01866319|191436268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.51319||95.0|0.67|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1).||1.22|0.67|0.51319
95732702|NCT01866319|191436269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|16.1||||0.00013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.5|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||24.5|7.8|0.00013
95732703|NCT01866319|191436269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|17.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|25.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||25.6|9.5|0.00002
95732704|NCT01866319|191436269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-1.1||||0.82636||95.0|-10.6|8.6|||Miettinen & Nurmimen|||Statistical testing was stratified by line of therapy (1st vs. 2nd), PD-L1) status (positive vs. negative) and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1)||8.6|-10.6|0.82636
95732705|NCT02724800|191436271|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 3.43|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.6||a priori|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-0.9|<0.05
95732706|NCT02724800|191436278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732707|NCT02724800|191436281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732708|NCT01041781|191436287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.5346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.367|||Log Rank|||||1.367|0.853|0.5346
95983220|NCT02504554|191940745|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing since this was an exploratory study.~the p-value listed is the actual result from analysis of the study data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank analysis of symptoms at 10 weeks (end of treatment) vs. baseline||||<0.001
95732709|NCT01041781|191436291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0049
95732710|NCT01041781|191436292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0131
95732711|NCT01041781|191436293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0322
95732712|NCT01629381|191436294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.4|-11.3|0.03
95732713|NCT01629381|191436296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.1|-11.7|0.03
95732714|NCT01629381|191436297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|-8.0|0.53
95732715|NCT02096718|191436298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.743|156.045|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||156.045|95.743|
95732716|NCT02096718|191436298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|149.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.266|213.671|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.671|105.266|
95732717|NCT02096718|191436299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|101.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.931|140.309|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||140.309|72.931|
95732718|NCT02096718|191436299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|121.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|163.162|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||163.162|90.790|
95855601|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (right brachial)||||0.896
95983221|NCT02504554|191940746|OTHER|paired 2-sided t-test comparing baseline and 10 weeks (end of treatment)|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||||||<0.001
95732719|NCT02096718|191436300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|122.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.141|155.928|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for moderate vs. normal matched with moderate patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||155.928|96.141|
95732720|NCT02096718|191436300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of gmeans|150.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.626|213.25|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability comparison of afatinib for severe vs. normal matched with severe patients was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Inter individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The ANOVA model was fitted using log-transformed values. The difference between the expected means of each comparison was estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate), and 2-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (gMean), and interval estimates for the intersubject ratio of the gMeans for each renal function group.||213.250|105.626|
95983222|NCT02504554|191940748|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~The p-value listed is the result for the actual analysis of the data."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing the baseline score vs. the score at 10 weeks (end of treatment).||||<0.001
95732721|NCT06354270|191436301|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.85|-1.29|<0.0001
95732722|NCT06354270|191436302|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.14|43.29|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||43.29|30.14|<0.0001
95732723|NCT06354270|191436303|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
95732724|NCT06354270|191436304|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|18.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|||18.52|10.09|<0.0001
95732725|NCT06354270|191436305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-0.83|0.1960
95732726|NCT06354270|191436305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.28|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.28|-1.08|0.2287
95732727|NCT06354270|191436305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.22|-0.89|0.2350
95732728|NCT06354270|191436305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.21|-1.09|0.1818
95732729|NCT06354270|191436305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.17|-1.25|0.1316
95732730|NCT06354270|191436305|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.05|-1.60|0.0658
95732731|NCT06354270|191436306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|10.83|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||10.83|-8.45|0.8072
95732732|NCT06354270|191436306|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|12.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||12.52|-11.96|0.9641
95732733|NCT06354270|191436307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.35|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.35|-0.63|0.2538
95732734|NCT06354270|191436307|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.51|-2.15|0.7311
95732735|NCT06354270|191436308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|5.06|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.06|-3.51|0.7202
95732736|NCT06354270|191436308|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.532||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|4.98|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||4.98|-5.06|0.9859
95983223|NCT02504554|191940749|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the study results."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing scores at baseline vs. 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||<0.001
95732737|NCT06354270|191436309|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.09|-2.00|0.5586
95732738|NCT06354270|191436309|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.75|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.75|-2.06|0.8730
95732739|NCT06354270|191436310|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.05|-3.43|0.6191
95732740|NCT06354270|191436310|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.21|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.21|-3.41|0.9521
95732741|NCT06354270|191436311|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.26|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.26|-0.89|0.3887
95732742|NCT06354270|191436311|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||2.84|-1.08|0.3730
95732743|NCT06354270|191436312|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.46|-0.08|0.1591
95732744|NCT06354270|191436312|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.42|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.42|-0.15|0.3429
95732745|NCT06354270|191436313|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.20|-1.43|0.1360
95732746|NCT06354270|191436313|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.4|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test toothpaste minus Reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.40|-1.31|0.2914
95732747|NCT02933866|191436335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2961
95983224|NCT02504554|191940751|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"no adjustment for multiple comparisons~the p-value listed is the actual result for the analysis of the study data"|t-test, 2 sided|||2-sided t-test comparing the group at baseline vs. 18 weeks (8 weeks after end of treatment)||||<0.001
95732748|NCT00918567|191436336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p \< .10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey-Kramer adjustments for post-hoc differences of least squares comparisons||||||<.05
95732749|NCT00918567|191436337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also examined marginal effects, defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732750|NCT00918567|191436338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732751|NCT00918567|191436339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also estimated marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732752|NCT00918567|191436340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732753|NCT00918567|191436341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects defined as p\<.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95732754|NCT00918567|191436342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732755|NCT00918567|191436343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95732756|NCT00918567|191436344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732757|NCT00918567|191436345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effect (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732758|NCT00918567|191436346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Also tested marginal effects (p\<.10)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95732759|NCT04646109|191436357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.43
95732760|NCT04646109|191436358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95732761|NCT04646109|191436359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95732762|NCT04646109|191436360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95732763|NCT04646109|191436361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95732764|NCT04646109|191436362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95983225|NCT02504554|191940752|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare scores at baseline vs. at 10 weeks (end of treatment)||||0.002
95732765|NCT04646109|191436363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95732766|NCT04646109|191436366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.10
95732767|NCT04646109|191436367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95732768|NCT04646109|191436368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95732769|NCT04646109|191436369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95732770|NCT04646109|191436370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95732771|NCT04646109|191436371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95732772|NCT04646109|191436372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95732773|NCT04646109|191436373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95732774|NCT04646109|191436374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||A p\<0.05 value was considered statistically significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95732775|NCT01988922|191436413|OTHER|Differences between CYP2B6\*1/\*1, CYP2B6\*1/\*6, and CYP2B6\*6/\*6 genotypes for pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons (Sigmaplot 12.5; Systat Software, Inc, USA). Nonnormal data were log transformed for analysis but reported as the nontransformed results.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
95732776|NCT01347710|191436418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
95732777|NCT01347710|191436419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients under going pharmacologic stress|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar's (chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
95732778|NCT01347710|191436419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in females|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
95732779|NCT01347710|191436419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients with BMI \>/=30|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
95732780|NCT01347710|191436420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in patients undergoing pharmacologic stress|Z test|z test for non inferiority for specificity||||||0.891
95732781|NCT01347710|191436420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule in female patients|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.546
95732782|NCT01347710|191436420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule BMI \>/=30|z test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.538
95732783|NCT01347710|191436421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|McNemar|Two-sided McNemar (chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LAD||||||<0.001
95732784|NCT01347710|191436421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; LCX||||||<0.001
95732785|NCT01347710|191436421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; RCA||||||<0.001
95732786|NCT01347710|191436421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity; Non-LAD||||||<0.001
95732787|NCT01347710|191436422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LAD||||||.379
95732788|NCT01347710|191436422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; LCX|Z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; LCX||||||.358
95855602|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at last observation carried forward (LOCF) (right brachial)||||0.167
95855603|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (left brachial)||||0.378
95732789|NCT01347710|191436422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; RCA|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; RCA||||||.442
95732790|NCT01347710|191436422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI and SPECT MPI for majority rule in the localization of coronary artery disease; Non-LAD|z Test|z test for non-inferiority for specificity; non-LAD||||||.984
95732791|NCT01347710|191436423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of sensitivity for flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI for majority rule; multivessel disease|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi squared) test superiority||||||<0.001
95732792|NCT01347710|191436424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value of specificity for comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI in detecting multivessel disease|z test|p-Value based on one-sided z test for non-inferiority||||||0.827
95732793|NCT01347710|191436425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for sensitivity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality of excellent or good|McNemar|p-Value based on two-sided McNemar's (Chi-squared) test superiority for sensitivity||||||<0.001
95732794|NCT01347710|191436426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study protocol number BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.945|ONE_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs. SPECT MPI|Z Test|one-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||.945
95732795|NCT01347710|191436427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Systematic review of literature and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy of SPECT MPI to evaluate the performance criteria of SPECT MPI in studies with various levels of control. Analysis of study BMS747158-201. Non-inferiority margin (delta) = 7%||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for specificity comparison of flurpiridaz F18 PET MPI vs SPECT MPI for majority rule; image quality excellent/good|z Test|p-Value based on on-sided z test for non-inferiority for specificity||||||0.954
95732796|NCT01347710|191436428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95732797|NCT01347710|191436429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|p-Values are from 2-sided McNemar's test of comparison in proportion of patients with definitely diagnositic certainty between PET and SPECT||||||<0.001
95732798|NCT02003183|191436452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to the Amygdala.||||<0.02
95732799|NCT00406848|191436465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in changes from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13 on the HAMD-17 Maier subscale between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.397
95732800|NCT00406848|191436466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.115
95732801|NCT00406848|191436466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo on change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
95732802|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.773
95732803|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 total score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.084
95732804|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||p-value is for Maier subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.059
95732805|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.488
95732806|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for HAMD-17 Bech subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.048
95855604|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (left brachial)||||0.390
95732807|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.529
95855605|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (left brachial)||||0.521
95855606|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (left brachial)||||0.044
95732808|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value is for Core Mood subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.027
95732809|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.749
95732810|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||p-value is for Anxiety/Somatization subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.296
95732811|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.984
95732812|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||p-value is for Sleep subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.930
95732813|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.934
95732814|NCT00406848|191436467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||p-value is for Retardation subscale change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.123
95732815|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.034
95732816|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain - Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.100
95732817|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.009
95732818|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.126
95993548|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||10.2|-7.1|0.723
95732819|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
95732820|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
95732821|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.016
95732822|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.058
95855607|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (left brachial)||||0.423
95732823|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.011
95732824|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with General Activity Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.060
95732825|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
95732826|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Mood Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
95855608|NCT02144610|191670767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline at LOCF (left brachial)||||0.989
95855609|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.803
95855610|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.668
95732827|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.019
95732828|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Walking Ability Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.040
95732829|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
95732830|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Normal Work Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.014
95732831|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
95732832|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Relations with Other People Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.010
95732833|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.015
95732834|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Sleep Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.005
95732835|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
95732836|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Enjoyment of Life Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
95993549|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 24||13.2|-6.3|0.482
95732837|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
95732838|NCT00406848|191436468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Average Interference Score Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
95732839|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.005
95732840|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||p-value is for Overall Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.204
95732841|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.078
95732842|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||p-value is for Headaches Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.147
95732843|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.007
95732844|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for Back Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.013
95732845|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.124
95855611|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.789
95855612|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.280
95855613|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis Pedis)||||0.324
95855614|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.759
95732846|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||p-value is for Shoulder Pain Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.231
95732847|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.006
95732848|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Interference with Daily Activities Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit||||||0.019
95732849|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 13 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.002
95732850|NCT00406848|191436469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Time in Pain While Awake Week 25 main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.036
95732851|NCT00406848|191436470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||0.214
95732852|NCT00406848|191436470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for PGI-I at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: PGI-I = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit||||||.063
95732853|NCT00406848|191436471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.162
95732854|NCT00406848|191436471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change =Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||.009
95732855|NCT00406848|191436472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.555
95732856|NCT00406848|191436472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||.785
95732857|NCT00406848|191436473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.255
95732858|NCT00406848|191436473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||0.038
95732859|NCT00406848|191436474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 remission (HAMD17 ≤ 7).|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.706
95732860|NCT00406848|191436474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission HAMD17 ≤ 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.694
95732861|NCT00406848|191436474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||p-values for Week 13 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.864
95732862|NCT00406848|191436474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||p-values for Week 25 Remission - HAMD17 ≤ 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Remission = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.817
95732863|NCT00406848|191436475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.664
95732864|NCT00406848|191436475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for probability of response at Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model:Response = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.310
95732865|NCT00406848|191436477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)analysis model: Onset = Treatment + Visit + Baseline + Treatment\*Visit.||||||0.036
95732866|NCT00406848|191436478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.637
95732867|NCT00406848|191436478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.001
95732868|NCT00406848|191436478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.452
95732869|NCT00406848|191436478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic BP change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.193
95732870|NCT00406848|191436479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.121
95732871|NCT00406848|191436479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||p-value is for change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.038
95732872|NCT00406848|191436480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.003
95732873|NCT00406848|191436480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||p-value is for Weight change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline + Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.127
95732874|NCT00406848|191436481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||p-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
95732875|NCT00406848|191436481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for Pulse.|Fisher Exact|||Pulse||||1.00
95732876|NCT00406848|191436481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure|Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
95732877|NCT00406848|191436481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (gain)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.235
95732878|NCT00406848|191436481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||p-value is for Weight Change (loss)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.813
95732879|NCT00406848|191436482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||p-value is for Sustained Hypertension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.668
95732880|NCT00406848|191436482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||p-value is for Orthostatic Hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
95732881|NCT00406848|191436484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.003
95732882|NCT00406848|191436484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Platelet Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
95732883|NCT00406848|191436485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 13.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
95732884|NCT00406848|191436485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Uric Acid change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||<0.001
95732885|NCT00406848|191436486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||p-value is for Erythrocyte Count change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.014
95732886|NCT00406848|191436487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Hemoglobin change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.019
95732887|NCT00406848|191436487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||p-value is for Mean Cell Hemoglobin Concentration change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.048
95732888|NCT00406848|191436488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||p-value is for Chloride change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.040
95732889|NCT00406848|191436488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting Glucose change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator||||||0.036
95732890|NCT00406848|191436489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
95732891|NCT00406848|191436490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for QT Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.815
95732892|NCT00406848|191436490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0||||p-value is for QTcF Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.721
95732893|NCT00406848|191436490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p-value is for QTcB Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.376
95732894|NCT00406848|191436490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||p-value is for PR Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.065
95732895|NCT00406848|191436490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.110
95732896|NCT00406848|191436491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤7 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
95732897|NCT00406848|191436491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value is for Successful Treatment Outcome defined with HAMD-17 ≤10 criteria.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
95732898|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.511
95732899|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||p-value is for Composite Cognitive Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.300
95732900|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.922
95732901|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for Learning Trials Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.190
95732902|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.850
95732903|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||p-value is for Delayed Recall Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.158
95732904|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.099
95732905|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||p-value is for SDST Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.141
95732906|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.379
95732907|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||p-value is for 2DCT Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.858
95855615|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.414
95732908|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 9.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.591
95732909|NCT00406848|191436492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||p-value is for Trail Making Test Score change from baseline (Week 1) to Week 25.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment+Pooled Investigator+Baseline||||||0.242
95732910|NCT01355081|191436497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.467|0.413|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||0.413|-4.467|0.1031
95732911|NCT01355081|191436497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.461|1.387|||ANCOVA|Change in MADRS total score as a dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||||1.387|-3.461|0.4008
95732912|NCT03629249|191436503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
95732913|NCT03629249|191436503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.734
95732914|NCT03629249|191436504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.665
95732915|NCT03629249|191436504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
95732916|NCT02719522|191436537|SUPERIORITY|The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%|||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||The primary safety objective was to determine if the 2-sided 95% upper confidence interval of the primary safety endpoint was below the threshold of 15%. Missing safety data for subjects who were lost to FU without any evidence of a major stroke/death were imputed in the analysis using multiple imputation. Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to completion and had experienced a major stroke or death were counted towards the primary safety endpoint as having experienced the event.||||<0.001
95732917|NCT01868009|191436551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The response was analyzed and adjusted for study inhaler use sequence and preference question version. The method accounted for participants who indicated no preference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95732918|NCT00860028|191436573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95732919|NCT00860028|191436574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||General Linear Model|||||||0.06
95732920|NCT00860028|191436575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95732921|NCT00936390|191436622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 5-year overall survival rate from 90% (radiation alone arm) to 93.3% (radiation and androgen deprivation arm). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, this translates to a 34% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.66) in the yearly death rate. At least 218 deaths provide 85% power with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 85% power.||1.11|0.65|0.22
95732922|NCT00936390|191436623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
95732923|NCT00936390|191436623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
95732924|NCT00936390|191436624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.9||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.90|0.22|0.020
95732925|NCT00936390|191436624|SUPERIORITY|Cumulative incidence model||||||0.021||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||||||0.021
95732926|NCT00936390|191436626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.57||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.57|0.11|<0.001
95732927|NCT00936390|191436626|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
95732928|NCT00936390|191436627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.80|0.01|0.0073
95732929|NCT00936390|191436627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.007
95732930|NCT00936390|191436628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||1.20|0.70|0.52
95732931|NCT00936390|191436628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.56
95732932|NCT00936390|191436629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.95|0.41|0.025
95732933|NCT00936390|191436629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||0.025
95732934|NCT00936390|191436631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95732935|NCT00936390|191436632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is one-sided)|Gray's test||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|||1.53|0.89|0.13
95732936|NCT00936390|191436633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Log Rank||Reference level = radiation therapy alone arm|Cause-specific hazard model||0.70|0.39|<0.001
95732937|NCT00936390|191436633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level 0.025 (reported p-value is two-sided)|Gray's test|||Cumulative incidence model||||<0.001
95732938|NCT00936390|191436634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.38
95732939|NCT00936390|191436634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.032
95732940|NCT00936390|191436634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.87
95732941|NCT00936390|191436634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.67
95732942|NCT00936390|191436635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.58
95732943|NCT00936390|191436635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||0.31
95732944|NCT00936390|191436635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.36
95732945|NCT00936390|191436635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.88
95732946|NCT00936390|191436636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
95732947|NCT00936390|191436636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
95732948|NCT00936390|191436636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||<0.001
95732949|NCT00936390|191436636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.18
95732950|NCT00936390|191436637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||<0.001
95732951|NCT00936390|191436637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Six months post-RT||||<0.001
95732952|NCT00936390|191436637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.0014
95732953|NCT00936390|191436637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.90
95732954|NCT00936390|191436638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.046
95732955|NCT00936390|191436638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months post-RT||||0.82
95732956|NCT00936390|191436638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One year post-RT||||0.82
95732957|NCT00936390|191436638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Five years post-RT||||0.79
95732958|NCT02518685|191436658|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|8.81|||multiple imputations|||||8.81|4.54|<0.0001
95732959|NCT02518685|191436659|SUPERIORITY|Statistical success criterion for achieving the performance standard of (≥ 50%) of proportion of TPS subjects who have 5% or more TBL at the 12-Month Follow-up|Proportion of Subjects|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|74.3|||Wilson's Midpoint Estimate|||||74.3|59.3|<0.0001
95732960|NCT02028715|191436708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96535||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3904|17.50042|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||17.50042|-6.39040|.356
95732961|NCT02028715|191436709|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98569||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49963|25.53599|||t-test for Equality of Means|||||25.53599|-2.49963|.105
95732962|NCT02028715|191436710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
95732963|NCT02028715|191436711|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|||||||.643
95732964|NCT02028715|191436712|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||.217
95732965|NCT02028715|191436713|SUPERIORITY|Within subjects Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of time, sphericity assumed, was used for pain, nausea, bloating and pruritus.||||||0.647|||||||ANOVA|||||||.647
95732966|NCT02028715|191436714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.695||||||||.695|-.587|
95855616|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.886
95732967|NCT02252562|191436732|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized a potential 66% reduction from a baseline incidence of 0.16 on the basis of prior interventions, but we assumed for power considerations a more conservative reduction of 40% from a baseline incidence of 0.12 averaged across all patients in each arm. Assuming a 10% loss to follow-up, we required 1,600 patients per group for a power of 0.9 with a type 1 error of .05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||fixed effects univariable analysis|||||1.40|0.82|
95732968|NCT02319148|191436737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|105.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|120.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||120.34|92.11|
95732969|NCT02319148|191436737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.96|105.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.77|80.96|
95732970|NCT02319148|191436737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.86|132.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.92|101.86|
95732971|NCT02319148|191436738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.57|103.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||103.46|78.57|
95732972|NCT02319148|191436738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|122.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.07|92.70|
95732973|NCT02319148|191436738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||116.66|88.68|
95732974|NCT02319148|191436739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|104.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.94|79.49|
95732975|NCT02319148|191436739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|122.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||122.91|93.10|
95732976|NCT02319148|191436739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.42|117.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.93|89.42|
95732977|NCT00048048|191436775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.425|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ Week||1.425|0.534|
95732978|NCT00048048|191436775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.307|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X/ 2Week||1.307|0.395|
95732979|NCT00048048|191436775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.377|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This regression was on the three conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb. This was not pre-specified.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1X /3 Week||1.377|0.488|
95855617|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Posterior Tibial)||||0.114
95855618|NCT02144610|191670768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Posterior Tibial)||||0.051
95732980|NCT01029353|191436800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates.||1.14|0.87|
95732981|NCT01029353|191436800|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Pre-specified threshold = 0.05|Robust Poisson regression|||A frequentist analysis. Using Robust Poisson regression with log link and center as repeated measure, and effect coding, test for an interaction between treatment (Initial Laparotomy/Initial Peritoneal Drain) and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) as covariates. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-operative diagnosis as covariates.||||0.03
95732982|NCT01029353|191436800|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.82, 1.11).|||
95732983|NCT01029353|191436800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariate.|A frequentist analysis. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-operative diagnosis (Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) or Isolated Intestinal Perforation (IP)) covariates.||1.26|0.75|
95732984|NCT01029353|191436801|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.45|0.69|
95732985|NCT01029353|191436801|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|||||||||||||||||Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.69, 1.30).|||
95732986|NCT01029353|191436802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis. Estimate based on model fit using only data from study survivors.||1.34|0.78|
95732987|NCT01029353|191436802|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis among study survivors. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.99, 95% credible interval of (0.78, 1.25).|||
95732988|NCT01029353|191436803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.06|0.66|
95732989|NCT01029353|191436803|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.02).|||
95732990|NCT01029353|191436804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.18|0.89|
95764058|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.0||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|26.8||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.8|-6.8|0.2441
95855619|NCT02144610|191670769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.211
95732991|NCT01029353|191436804|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.98, 95% credible interval of (0.84, 1.15).|||
95732992|NCT01029353|191436805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.31|0.64|
95732993|NCT01029353|191436805|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.86, 95% credible interval of (0.64, 1.16).|||
95732994|NCT01029353|191436806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.69|
95732995|NCT01029353|191436806|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.92, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.25).|||
95732996|NCT01029353|191436807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.63|0.35|
95732997|NCT01029353|191436807|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.51, 95% credible interval of (0.37, 0.69).|||
95732998|NCT01029353|191436808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.36|1.04|
95732999|NCT01029353|191436808|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.45, 95% credible interval of (0.92, 2.31).|||
95733000|NCT01029353|191436809|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.5|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||3.50|0.71|
95733001|NCT01029353|191436809|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.31, 95% credible interval of (0.66, 2.62).|||
95855620|NCT02144610|191670769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.036
95855621|NCT02144610|191670769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.725
95733002|NCT01029353|191436810|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A frequentist analysis.|This analysis used model identical to other by treatment analyses for binary outcome. RR estimated from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates. However, adjusted RR estimates could not be calculated due to the iteration limit being excessed in PROC GENMOD.|||
95733003|NCT01029353|191436810|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.16, 95% credible interval of (0.50, 2.65).|||
95733004|NCT01029353|191436811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.20|0.34|
95733005|NCT01029353|191436811|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.93, 95% credible interval of (0.45, 1.91).|||
95733006|NCT01029353|191436812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.42|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.42|0.37|
95733007|NCT01029353|191436812|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.75, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.16).|||
95733008|NCT01029353|191436813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.15|0.70|
95733009|NCT01029353|191436813|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.91, 95% credible interval of (0.65, 1.27).|||
95733010|NCT01029353|191436814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.36|||||RR: Initial Laparotomy over Peritoneal Drain. RR from robust Poisson regression with log link, reference cell coding, center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||1.36|0.44|
95733011|NCT01029353|191436814|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.49, 1.33).|||
95733012|NCT01029353|191436815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|0.75|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||0.75|-12.77|
95855622|NCT02144610|191670769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.468
95855623|NCT02144610|191670769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.854
95919185|NCT03657264|191798272|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval was expected lower to the margin of 10 milliseconds for all tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|2.04||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|Each timepoint was tested through a separate model.||For the timepoint 24 hours||2.04|-1.62|
95733013|NCT01029353|191436815|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -2.68, 95% credible interval of (-7.11, 1.83).|||
95733014|NCT01029353|191436816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-0.46|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||-0.46|-17.05|
95733015|NCT01029353|191436816|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -3.23, 95% credible interval of (-8.08, 1.68).|||
95733016|NCT01029353|191436817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|22.27|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||22.27|-9.09|
95733017|NCT01029353|191436817|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was 1.65, 95% credible interval of (-3.97, 7.23).|||
95733018|NCT01029353|191436818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|7.91|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||7.91|-13.02|
95733019|NCT01029353|191436818|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -0.71, 95% credible interval of (-5.89, 4.48).|||
95733020|NCT01029353|191436819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|2.63|||||Mean Difference (MD): Laparotomy minus Drain. MD from mixed model using PROC MIXED in SAS, center as random effect, and reference cell coding. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, and pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP) as covariates.|A frequentist analysis.||2.63|-30.54|
95733021|NCT01029353|191436819|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using a hierarchical linear regression. The SAS procedure PROC MCMC with reference cell coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, and baseline risk of death or NDI were binary covariates. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=1000), treatment, baseline risk, and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=10), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). The posterior median difference Initial Laparotomy minus Initial Drainage was -1.78, 95% credible interval of (-7.44, 3.87).|||
95733022|NCT01029353|191436820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.64|
95733023|NCT01029353|191436820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.31|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.31|0.95|
95855624|NCT02144610|191670769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.233
95855625|NCT02144610|191670770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.268
95855626|NCT02144610|191670770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.320
95733024|NCT01029353|191436820|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.81, 95% credible interval of (0.63, 1.00). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.09, 95% credible interval of (0.90, 1.33).|||
95733025|NCT01029353|191436821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.13|0.52|
95733026|NCT01029353|191436821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.06|0.79|
95733027|NCT01029353|191436821|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.82, 95% credible interval of (0.53, 1.20). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.18, 95% credible interval of (0.74, 1.87).|||
95733028|NCT01029353|191436822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.27|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.27|0.42|
95733029|NCT01029353|191436822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.45|0.85|
95764059|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.0||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||21.0|-10.7|0.5229
95764060|NCT03449446|191498071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.4||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|26.9||The p-value between each pair of treatment groups presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel||The percentage difference and 95% C.I. presented were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline diabetes mellitus status and baseline cirrhosis status as stratification factors.|||26.9|-6.0|0.2149
95764061|NCT00143390|191498113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.317|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.317|0.771|
95764062|NCT00143390|191498114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of exemestane to anastrozole was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (exemestane/anastrozole) was ≤1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.374|||||Disease sites, use of postoperative adjuvant antiestrogen agents therapy, and pamidronate disodium were covariates for adjustment.|95% Confidence Interval based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method||1.374|0.816|
95764063|NCT04208750|191498151|OTHER|Difference between independent proportions||||||||||||||||Added the number of participants from each study arm who preferred each refraction type and then converted it to the proportions|For each outcome, we compared the proportion of participants from both study arms who preferred the VR800 refraction to the proportion of participants who preferred the Standard refraction using a 2-sample test for equality of proportions.|||
95793123|NCT01115452|191556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.95||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|6.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.32|-10.22|0.6417
95793124|NCT01115452|191556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|8.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.85|-7.99|0.9200
95793125|NCT01115452|191556145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.38||||0.5766||95.0|-6.02|10.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.78|-6.02|0.5766
95793126|NCT01115452|191556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.58||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|4.68||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.68|-11.65|0.3930
95793127|NCT01115452|191556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.71|-10.12|0.6896
95793128|NCT01115452|191556146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustes mean difference|1.88||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|10.28||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.28|-6.52|0.6591
95793129|NCT01115452|191556147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.08||||0.6301||95.0|-10.6|6.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.45|-10.60|0.6301
95793130|NCT01115452|191556147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.76||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|6.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.93|-10.46|0.6888
95855627|NCT02144610|191670770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.315
95733030|NCT01029353|191436822|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Pre-operative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.76, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.18). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.08, 95% credible interval of (0.83, 1.42).|||
95733031|NCT01029353|191436823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.05|0.47|
95733032|NCT01029353|191436823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.19|0.76|
95733033|NCT01029353|191436823|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.73, 95% credible interval of (0.52, 0.96). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.95, 95% credible interval of (0.68, 1.32).|||
95733034|NCT01029353|191436824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.06|0.61|
95733035|NCT01029353|191436824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.37|1.01|
95733036|NCT01029353|191436824|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.80, 95% credible interval of (0.61, 1.01). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.15, 95% credible interval of (0.94, 1.42).|||
95733037|NCT01029353|191436825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.01|0.46|
95733038|NCT01029353|191436825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.01|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.01|0.74|
95733039|NCT01029353|191436825|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.72, 95% credible interval of (0.48, 1.05). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.12, 95% credible interval of (0.71, 1.76).|||
95733040|NCT01029353|191436826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.04|0.51|
95733041|NCT01029353|191436826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.93|0.82|
95733042|NCT01029353|191436826|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis. Within pre-operative diagnosis, Initial Laparotomy and Initial Peritoneal Drain were compared using log-binomial regression. Pre-operative diagnosis levels were NEC and IP. PROC MCMC with effect coding was used. Center (random effect), treatment, pre-operative diagnosis, baseline risk, and the treatment by Preoperative diagnosis were the covariates. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) characteristics: three chains, 10000 tunings, 10000 burn-ins, 1000000 samples, thinning=20.|Priors for model parameters: intercept = Normal(mean=0, variance=100), baseline risk and preop diagnosis parameters = Normal(mean=0, variance=1), treatment and the interaction term = Normal(mean=0, variance=0.31416), random effect standard deviation = Half-Normal(mean=0, variance=10). For the NEC pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 0.77, 95% credible interval of (0.51, 1.14). For the IP pre-operative diagnosis, the posterior median relative risk of Initial Laparotomy over Initial Drainage was 1.17, 95% credible interval of (0.76, 1.81).|||
95733043|NCT01029353|191436827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||0.89|0.31|
95733044|NCT01029353|191436827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.66|0.29|
95733045|NCT01029353|191436828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.57|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.57|0.58|
95733046|NCT01029353|191436828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.5|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.50|1.06|
95733047|NCT01029353|191436829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.55|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||7.55|0.84|
95733048|NCT01029353|191436829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.88|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.88|0.38|
95733049|NCT01029353|191436830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.86|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||3.86|0.82|
95733050|NCT01029353|191436830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.2|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||3.20|0.42|
95764064|NCT02201277|191498165|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Fisher's exact test was used to determine if there was a difference in the numbers of filters with penetration for each type. The numbers were not powered enough to make extensive tests in this area meaningful.||||1.0
95764065|NCT02201277|191498165|EQUIVALENCE|rate of penetration||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.0
95855628|NCT02144610|191670770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.327
95855629|NCT02144610|191670770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.643
95855630|NCT02144610|191670770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.740
95855631|NCT02144610|191670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.147
95733051|NCT01029353|191436831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.05|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||8.05|0.35|
95733052|NCT01029353|191436831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.44|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.44|0.10|
95733053|NCT01029353|191436832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||2.69|0.62|
95733054|NCT01029353|191436832|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.32|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.32|0.27|
95733055|NCT01029353|191436833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||1.36|0.41|
95733056|NCT01029353|191436833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.42|0.69|
95733057|NCT01029353|191436834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.45|0.04|
95733058|NCT01029353|191436834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.49|||||The model was fit using PROC GENMOD in SAS, using center as the repeated effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a robust Poisson regression model, with log link and center as repeated measure. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy over drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||1.49|0.44|
95733059|NCT01029353|191436835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.6|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.60|-14.10|
95733060|NCT01029353|191436835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|0.13|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||0.13|-15.84|
95733061|NCT01029353|191436836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|4.01|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||4.01|-27.15|
95733062|NCT01029353|191436836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|2.2|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||2.20|-17.46|
95733063|NCT01029353|191436837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|26.83|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||26.83|-18.84|
95733064|NCT01029353|191436837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|31.38|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||31.38|-13.29|
95733065|NCT01029353|191436838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.62|18.36|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||18.36|-24.62|
95733066|NCT01029353|191436838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|9.63|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to infants with IP.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||9.63|-14.42|
95733067|NCT01029353|191436839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|11.55|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to NEC.||11.55|-48.41|
95733068|NCT01029353|191436839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.96|8.06|||||The model was fit using PROC MIXED in SAS, using center as the random effect. Effect coding was used to represent the binary covariates.|This by treatment and by pre-operative diagnosis secondary analysis was completed by using a mixed linear regression model, using center as the random effect. Model included treatment, baseline risk of death or NDI, pre-op diagnosis (NEC/IP), and treatment by pre-op diagnosis as covariates. Reported results in this analysis restricted to model based treatment effect estimate (laparotomy minus drain) when pre-operative diagnosis is equal to IP.||8.06|-31.96|
95733069|NCT04538170|191436841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance|Fisher Exact|||Preliminary work showed that approximately 25% of patients report phantom pain after orchidectomy. A difference of 20% between the GAC and ORC groups was considered relevant. Power was set to 80% and the significance level to 5%, resulting in a minimum of 40 women to be recruited, which was fulfilled.||||0.013
95733070|NCT00849901|191436846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95733071|NCT00262223|191436858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.6||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.23|||Generalized Estimating Equations|Negative binomial models with log link were applied to the alcohol consumption measure.||Between group analyses were conducted of time-by-treatment interaction that included the four study time points (baseline, end-of-treatment, 6-mos and 12-mos).||4.23|0.61|0.34
95733072|NCT00262223|191436859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Parameter Estimate|-16.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.18|-1.13||A trend-level time-by-treatment interaction (p = .096) was probed for simple effects, which revealed a significantly greater reduction in CAPS scores at end-of-treatment in the SS+Sertraline group relative to the SS+Placebo group.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were utilized to model PTSD outcomes. This method is an extension of the generalized linear model that handles correlated data arising from repeated measurements, requires no parametric distribution assumption, and provides robust inference with respect to misspecification of the within-subject correlation. A temporal within-subjects autoregressive \[AR(1)\] correlation matrix was used to model participants across timepoints.||-1.13|-31.18|0.04
95733073|NCT03828734|191436860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.263
95733074|NCT03828734|191436861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-06|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.000001
95733075|NCT03828734|191436862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
95733076|NCT00437658|191436868|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.7|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||12.7|-13.4|0.9630
95733077|NCT00437658|191436868|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|-12.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.8|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rate = elogolix - DMPA-SC|||1.8|-26.7|0.1010
95733078|NCT00437658|191436869|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|9.5||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|24.2|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||24.2|-5.2|0.2048
95733079|NCT00437658|191436869|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical non-inferiority was defined when the lower bound of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the difference between an elagolix dose and DMPA-SC in the response rate was no less than -20% at week 24 for both dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain.|Difference in response rates|0.5||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.0|||Pearson chi-squared||Difference in response rates = elagolix - DMPA-SC|||16.0|-15.1|0.9544
95793131|NCT01115452|191556147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.32||||0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.00|-8.37|0.9428
95793132|NCT01115452|191556148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.58||||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.95||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.95|-11.10|0.5504
95793133|NCT01115452|191556148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.60|-10.80|0.6340
95733080|NCT00437658|191436872|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-4.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.8|-6.2|< 0.0001
95793134|NCT01115452|191556148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.48||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.16|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.16|-8.20|0.9127
95793135|NCT01115452|191556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.15||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|6.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.38|-10.67|0.6192
95793136|NCT01115452|191556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6||||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.30|-8.10|0.8912
95793137|NCT01115452|191556149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.75||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|11.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.43|-5.93|0.5321
95855632|NCT02144610|191670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.032
95733081|NCT00437658|191436872|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-4.5|-5.8|< 0.0001
95733082|NCT00437658|191436872|OTHER||Least squares mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-4.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.6|-6.0|< 0.0001
95855633|NCT02144610|191670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.709
95919186|NCT03657264|191798273|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|6.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1 hour||6.66|2.58|
95733083|NCT00437658|191436873|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-4.0|-5.1|<0.0001
95733084|NCT00437658|191436873|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.0|<0.0001
95733085|NCT00437658|191436873|OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in total CPSSS excluding dyspareunia at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-3.9|-5.1|< 0.0001
95733086|NCT00437658|191436874|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
95733087|NCT00437658|191436874|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.2|-1.6|< 0.0001
95733088|NCT00437658|191436874|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dysmenorrhea at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-1.4|-1.9|< 0.0001
95733089|NCT00437658|191436875|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
95733090|NCT00437658|191436875|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
95733091|NCT00437658|191436875|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in dyspareunia at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.5|-1.1|< 0.0001
95733092|NCT00437658|191436876|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
95733093|NCT00437658|191436876|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
95733094|NCT00437658|191436876|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group analysis of change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain at week 24.~Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction."||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95733095|NCT00437658|191436877|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
95733096|NCT00437658|191436877|OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
95733097|NCT00437658|191436877|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic tenderness at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95733098|NCT00437658|191436878|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.0|< 0.0001
95733099|NCT00437658|191436878|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95733100|NCT00437658|191436878|OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in pelvic induration at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
95793138|NCT01115452|191556150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.37||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|4.63||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||4.63|-11.37|0.4055
95793139|NCT01115452|191556150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.74||||0.8573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|8.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.91|-7.42|0.8573
95793140|NCT01115452|191556150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|12.27||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.27|-4.03|0.3193
95793141|NCT01115452|191556151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.23||||0.4264||95.0|-4.77|11.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||11.23|-4.77|0.4264
95793142|NCT01115452|191556151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.04||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|9.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.21|-7.42|0.8008
95793143|NCT01115452|191556151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.18||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||5.97|-10.33|0.5969
95919187|NCT03657264|191798273|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|11.66||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 1.5 hours||11.66|7.14|
95793144|NCT01115452|191556152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.14||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|2.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||2.86|-13.14|0.2059
95793145|NCT01115452|191556152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.77||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.77|-8.56|0.9248
95793146|NCT01115452|191556152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.75||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||12.90|-3.40|0.2508
95793147|NCT01115452|191556153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.12||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|9.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.10|-6.86|0.7822
95793148|NCT01115452|191556153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.44||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|9.41||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.41|-6.52|0.7208
95793149|NCT01115452|191556154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.36||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|6.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus 2.5% potassium nitrate solution. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||6.46|-9.18|0.7318
95793150|NCT01115452|191556154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.05||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||9.03|-6.93|0.7949
95793151|NCT01115452|191556154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.41||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|10.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||10.37|-5.56|0.5507
95855634|NCT02144610|191670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.771
95733101|NCT00437658|191436879|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-25.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-25.4|-39.2|< 0.0001
95733102|NCT00437658|191436879|OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-26.4||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-26.4|-39.4|< 0.0001
95733103|NCT00437658|191436879|OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-28.6||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-28.6|-43.0|< 0.0001
95733104|NCT00437658|191436880|OTHER||Least squares mean|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-13.1||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-13.1|-23.3|< 0.0001
95733105|NCT00437658|191436880|OTHER||Least squares mean|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-18.5||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in monthly mean VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-18.5|-28.3|< 0.0001
95733106|NCT00437658|191436880|OTHER||Least squares mean|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-12.7||P-value for test of null hypothesis that the treatment group least squares mean is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline in peak VAS for pelvic pain at week 24. Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures (MERM) analysis of covariance model which included fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for patient, and terms for baseline value and the baseline-by-time interaction.||-12.7|-23.1|< 0.0001
95733107|NCT04276883|191436893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95733108|NCT04276883|191436893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95733109|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733110|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 120 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733111|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733112|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733113|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733114|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733115|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733116|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95733117|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0006
95733118|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0028
95733119|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0070
95733120|NCT04276883|191436894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0092
95733121|NCT01430741|191436932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in service intensity among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.04
95733122|NCT01430741|191436933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in alcohol dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.21
95733123|NCT01430741|191436933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in drug dependence among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.07
95733124|NCT01430741|191436934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared mental health inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.14
95733125|NCT01430741|191436934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared medical inpatient hospitalizations among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.19
95733126|NCT01430741|191436935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Compared changes in mental health emergency department visits among Veterans served by case managers in the GTO group relative to the comparison group of Veterans, by fitting a series of mixed-effects regression models. Final mixed-effect models for all outcomes included fixed terms for group (GTO group vs. comparison), time, group x time interaction as well as control covariates.||||=.24
95733127|NCT01430741|191436936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.481|||||||Regression, Cox|||We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to estimate the extent and timing of negative housing exits over time and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the relationship between membership in the GTO group and risk of experiencing a negative housing exit, adjusting for a set of relevant covariates.||||=.481
95733128|NCT06176768|191436964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|0.3|0.316
95733129|NCT06176768|191436965|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||3.60|-17.15|0.175
95733130|NCT06176768|191436966|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|2.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||2.35|-7.06|0.311
95733131|NCT03006978|191436975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
95733132|NCT03006978|191436976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
95733133|NCT03006978|191436977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
95733134|NCT03006978|191436978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
95733135|NCT03006978|191436979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Simple mixed effects linear models|||||||<0.0001
95733136|NCT01395030|191436982|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Analysis was performed using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA version 19.0.24, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) implemented in GenePattern (Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA) by uploading expression array data to this cloud-computing genomics platform. The specific details of this statistical approach can be found in the following publicly available references:~Reich M, Liefeld T, Gould J, Lerner J, Tamayo P, Mesirov JP. GenePattern 2.0 Nature Genetics 38 no. 5 (2006): pp500-501~Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK, Mukherjee S, Ebert BL, Gillette MA, Paulovich A, Pomeroy SL, Golub TR, Lander ES, Mesirov JP. Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. PNAS. 2005;102(43);15545-15550."|||
95733137|NCT04977336|191436998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3706
95733138|NCT04977336|191436998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5379
95733139|NCT04977336|191436998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3859
95733140|NCT04977336|191436998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0251
95733141|NCT04977336|191436999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2318
95733142|NCT04977336|191436999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7615
95793152|NCT01115452|191556155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Investigator applied the participants with 5% potassium nitrate solution on each of the three individual sensitive tooth for two minutes (mins), in each of the five day treatment period|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.10|-8.54|0.8549
95793153|NCT01115452|191556155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.15||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|7.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||7.83|-8.13|0.9705
95793154|NCT01115452|191556155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.57||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|8.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, treatment application site and assessment time were fixed factors, baseline VAS was a covariate and participant was a random factor.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 2.5% potassium nitrate solution minus water. Negative difference favored 2.5% potassium nitrate solution.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments.||8.54|-7.39|0.8867
95855635|NCT02144610|191670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.830
95855636|NCT02144610|191670771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.033
95855637|NCT02144610|191670772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||ANCOVA|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.105
95733143|NCT04977336|191436999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3870
95733144|NCT04977336|191436999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0823
95919188|NCT03657264|191798273|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.92|13.17||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 2 hours||13.17|7.92|
95733145|NCT04977336|191437000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9986
95733146|NCT04977336|191437000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4446
95733147|NCT04977336|191437000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5978
95733148|NCT04977336|191437000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0479
95733149|NCT04977336|191437001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9895
95733150|NCT04977336|191437001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2731
95733151|NCT04977336|191437001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6492|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6492
95733152|NCT04977336|191437001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5119
95733153|NCT04977336|191437002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3158
95733154|NCT04977336|191437002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3247
95733155|NCT04977336|191437002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8424
95855638|NCT02144610|191670772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.557
95733156|NCT04977336|191437002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2312
95733157|NCT01600495|191437007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95733158|NCT01600495|191437008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95733159|NCT01600495|191437010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||<0.01
95733160|NCT04591626|191437013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.14|<0.001
95733161|NCT04591626|191437014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|22.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.28|5.35|<0.001
95733162|NCT04591626|191437015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.77|<0.001
95733163|NCT04591626|191437016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.08|-20.57|<0.001
95733164|NCT04591626|191437017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using Logistic Regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
95733165|NCT04591626|191437018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.48|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model: Variable = Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||13.48|4.27|<0.001
95733166|NCT04591626|191437019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.95|||Regression, Logistic||OR was determined using logistic regression model with Baseline HbA1c value + OAM use + Treatment as variables.|||7.95|2.64|<0.001
95733167|NCT04591626|191437020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-33.0|<0.001
95733168|NCT04591626|191437021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-6.86|0.006
95733169|NCT01606306|191437027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Rank-ordered logistic regression (ROLR) was used to model the probability of best response for each treatment and bootstrapping was used to calculate confidence intervals.|rank-order logistic regression|ROLR is in the class of Discrete Choice models, which seek to estimate the probability that an individual responds best to a specific treatments.||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability to yield the best response as defined by the criteria defining the primary outcome. A sample size of 300 participants was selected to test the primary null hypothesis of all three treatments having equal probability (one-third) to yield the best response with statistical power of at least 0.90 if any one of the three treatments actually has probability of at least one-half to yield the best response.|The probabilistic construct of the Discrete Choice (DC) model does not reflect individual behavior that is intrinsically probabilistic, but rather population heterogeneity. DC models rely on stochastic assumptions to account for unobserved factors related to the treatments themselves and to characteristics of study participants. Specifically, that each treatment has an underlying utility that may differ from one individual to another. Mathematically, these utilities are represented by U\_t, where t denotes the treatment. Utility can be thought of as a latent variable quantifying treatment response where higher values indicate better response. The U\_t can be used to find the probability (P) of best response for each treatment by the following equation: P\_t = exp(U\_t) / \[exp(U\_A) + exp(U\_B) + exp(U\_C)\], where A, B, and C, denote the three study treatments. The primary analysis tested whether the three treatments have equal utility and, thus, equal probability of best response.|||<0.0001
95733170|NCT00970281|191437028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that included treatment and site as a factor.|ANOVA|||Sample size of at least 45 participants per group was necessary to verify decreases in PANSS-EC total score were significantly greater in olanzapine group than placebo group using a t-test with a power of 90% and a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.001
95733171|NCT00970281|191437029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||This is the p-value for 0.25 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
95733172|NCT00970281|191437029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.50 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95733173|NCT00970281|191437029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95733174|NCT00970281|191437029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after first IM injection.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95733175|NCT00970281|191437030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
95733176|NCT00970281|191437031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95733177|NCT00970281|191437032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 0.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.167
95733178|NCT00970281|191437032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
95733179|NCT00970281|191437032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 1.5 hour after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95733180|NCT00970281|191437032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 2 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95733181|NCT00970281|191437032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 24 hours after the first IM injection.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
95733182|NCT00970281|191437033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the p-value for Parkinsonism.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95733183|NCT00159965|191437034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|1.396|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Between-group seizure change. The primary hypothesis of this pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess the magnitude of seizure frequency reduction by treatment, comparing placbo to sertraline. The alternative hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||1.396|-0.051|0.29
95733184|NCT00159965|191437034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|-0.073|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with sertraline will show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||-0.073|-1.139|0.03
95733185|NCT00159965|191437034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.571|||Overdispersed Poisson Regression|||Within-group seizure change. The hypothesis is that patients treated with placebo will not show a significant decrease in seizures from baseline to exit.||0.571|-0.431|0.78
95733186|NCT00159965|191437035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733187|NCT00159965|191437036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733188|NCT00159965|191437037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733189|NCT00159965|191437038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733190|NCT00159965|191437039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733191|NCT00159965|191437040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733192|NCT00159965|191437041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733193|NCT00159965|191437042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733194|NCT00159965|191437043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733195|NCT00159965|191437044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733196|NCT00159965|191437045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733197|NCT00159965|191437046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733198|NCT00159965|191437047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95733199|NCT03676803|191437048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Firmicutes abundance between groups.||||0.033
95793155|NCT00288912|191556159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-1.0|0.007
95793156|NCT00288912|191556159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Primary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 pain score than usual care or health education control. Sample size estimate based on detecting 0.57 point (14%) difference between groups. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.1|-0.8|0.105
95793157|NCT00288912|191556160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.0|-0.5|0.093
95793158|NCT00288912|191556160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 function score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.2|-0.2|0.43
95793159|NCT00288912|191556161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.78
95793160|NCT00288912|191556161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in AIMS2 affect score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.4|-0.3|0.79
95793161|NCT00288912|191556162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.8|0.0|0.043
95793162|NCT00288912|191556162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference (final values) is based on differences in the outcome between study groups at 12-month follow-up, in the context of the mixed models.|Secondary hypothesis: OA self-management intervention results in greater improvement in arthritis self-efficacy score than usual care or health education control. Analyses were linear mixed models, intent-to-treat basis.||0.7|0.0|0.066
95793163|NCT00607893|191556163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23|||Regression, Linear||F2-isoprostanes/Cr was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.23|-0.090|0.38
95733200|NCT03676803|191437048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline changes in phylum Bacteroidetes abundance between groups.||||0.097
95793164|NCT00607893|191556164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|21.07|||Regression, Linear|||||21.07|-17.42|0.85
95793165|NCT00607893|191556165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|-2.60|0.92
95919189|NCT03657264|191798273|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.7|12.95||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 3 hours||12.95|7.70|
95733201|NCT03676803|191437049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in mixed spices intervention group||||0.49
95733202|NCT03676803|191437049|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 2 weeks minus baseline in placebo group||||0.53
95793166|NCT00607893|191556166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.91|||Regression, Linear|||||0.91|-0.48|0.55
95793167|NCT00607893|191556167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92|||Regression, Linear|||||0.92|-0.16|0.17
95793168|NCT00607893|191556168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||||5.07|-0.26|0.076
95793169|NCT00607893|191556169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear||sIL-6R was log-transformed before analysis. The estimation parameter shows the log-transformed mean difference of the absolute change between groups, while the least square means of two groups are transformed back for presentation.|||0.11|0.010|0.019
95793170|NCT00607893|191556170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-0.64|0.68
95793171|NCT00607893|191556171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.31|||Regression, Linear|||||6.31|-3.60|0.59
95793172|NCT00607893|191556172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.81|||Regression, Linear|||||10.81|3.04|<0.001
95793173|NCT00977197|191556174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.008
95793174|NCT00977197|191556175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.009
95793175|NCT00977197|191556176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender; rank scale.||||||0.389
95793176|NCT00977197|191556177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.049
95793177|NCT00977197|191556178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.044
95793178|NCT00977197|191556179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Intent to treat analysis, not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.350
95793179|NCT00977197|191556180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.020
95793180|NCT00977197|191556181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.024
95793181|NCT00977197|191556182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.||||||0.417
95793182|NCT00977197|191556183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender, rank scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95793183|NCT00977197|191556184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Intent to Treat analysis; adjusted for age and gender.||||||0.016
95793184|NCT00977197|191556185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||Intent to Treat analysis; not adjusted for age and gender.|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
95793185|NCT00250588|191556195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.4||Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||7.4|0.63|0.05
95793186|NCT00250588|191556195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|6.4||Bonferroni adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for child's age, race/ethnicity, Spanish, mother's education.||The primary effects of interest, condition and condition by time are fixed effects. PedsQL™ scores were analyzed as continuous normal outcomes with mixed effects regression models, which accounts for repeated measures over time for T2 and T3. Independent variables included baseline measure, time, asthma severity, condition, and condition by time interaction. We report the differences across groups in the adjusted mean changes over time.||6.4|-0.21|0.05
95793187|NCT00250588|191556196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education||||1.38|0.18|0.21
95793188|NCT00250588|191556196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.83||adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, Spanish language and mother's education|Regression, Logistic|||||2.83|0.53|0.85
95793189|NCT00250588|191556197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|All analyses accounted for repeated measures and included the same terms in the model described previously.||Symptom frequency and utilization were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), with appropriate distribution and link functions. Nighttime symptoms is a dichotomous outcome and a logistic model was constructed.||0.82|0.13|0.011
95793190|NCT02449434|191556198|OTHER|Using the presence or absence of severe erosive wear as the dependent variable, the unadjusted, sex-and-age- adjusted and fully adjusted associations of the included variables with erosive tooth wear were estimated using unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios (OR).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Only results from fully adjusted regression models will be deemed as significant|Regression, Logistic|Unconditional binary logistic regression and reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals||A minimum sample size of 490 participants (245 in each group) was needed. This calculation assumed the proportion of adults with high dietary acid intake (3+ times/day) was 55% among cases and 40% among controls (expected odds ratio of 2.25), case- control ratio of 1-to-1, 90% statistical power and 95% significance level.||||<0.05
95793191|NCT02662569|191556200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-65.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.16|-75.43|<0.0001
95793192|NCT02662569|191556200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.67|-65.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-65.41|-74.67|<0.0001
95793193|NCT02662569|191556201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.61|-65.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-65.93|-77.61|<0.0001
95793194|NCT02662569|191556201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.97|-59.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-59.89|-69.97|<0.0001
95793195|NCT02662569|191556202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-56.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.9|-68.2|<0.0001
95793196|NCT02662569|191556202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.8|-68.4|<0.0001
95793197|NCT02662569|191556203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-57.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-57.6|-69.7|<0.0001
95793198|NCT02662569|191556203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-53.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-53.3|-64.3|<0.0001
95793199|NCT02662569|191556204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-56.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.29|-65.51|<0.0001
95793200|NCT02662569|191556204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-55.29|-63.52|<0.0001
95793201|NCT02662569|191556205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.82|-56.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-56.45|-66.82|<0.0001
95793202|NCT02662569|191556205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-49.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.74|-58.70|<0.0001
95793203|NCT02662569|191556206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.93|-60.93|<0.0001
95793204|NCT02662569|191556206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.52|-51.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.18|-58.52|<0.0001
95793205|NCT02662569|191556207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.59|-52.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-52.54|-61.59|<0.0001
95793206|NCT02662569|191556207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.31|-45.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-45.53|-53.31|<0.0001
95793207|NCT02662569|191556208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|-38.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.10|-44.95|<0.0001
95793208|NCT02662569|191556208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.47|-36.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-36.53|-42.47|<0.0001
95793209|NCT02662569|191556209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.02|-38.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-38.42|-46.02|<0.0001
95793210|NCT02662569|191556209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.12|-32.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.67|-39.12|<0.0001
95793211|NCT02662569|191556210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.64|-40.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-40.54|-47.64|<0.0001
95793212|NCT02662569|191556210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-40.44|-46.90|<0.0001
95793213|NCT02662569|191556211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.97|-47.90|<0.0001
95793214|NCT02662569|191556211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-37.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.04|-44.08|<0.0001
95793215|NCT02662569|191556212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.15|-54.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.25|-62.15|<0.0001
95793216|NCT02662569|191556212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-52.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-52.93|-60.53|<0.0001
95793217|NCT02662569|191556213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.59|-53.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.84|-62.59|<0.0001
95793218|NCT02662569|191556213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-47.59|-55.81|<0.0001
95793219|NCT02662569|191556214|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||74.8|60.4|<0.0001
95793220|NCT02662569|191556214|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|77.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||77.9|64.1|<0.0001
95733203|NCT04603937|191437163|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-6.65|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.81|-6.65|> 0.9999
95793221|NCT02662569|191556215|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||73.9|58.9|<0.0001
95793222|NCT02662569|191556215|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|75.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by entry statin therapy and geographic region.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||75.3|60.6|<0.0001
95793223|NCT02662569|191556216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.64|-18.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-18.40|-92.64|<0.0001
95793224|NCT02662569|191556216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.82|-37.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-37.72|-63.82|<0.0001
95793225|NCT02662569|191556217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.89|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-14.03|-110.89|<0.0001
95993550|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||12.6|-9.5|0.785
95733204|NCT04603937|191437164|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
95733205|NCT04603937|191437165|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e the non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference of weighted percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-1.4|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||3.9|-1.4|<0.0001
95733206|NCT02585258|191437187|SUPERIORITY||mean difference over 2-years|-0.37|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.23||one-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis||placebo is reference. Negative difference is beneficial, means lower disease activity in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.23||<0.0001
95733207|NCT02585258|191437188|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.04|||one-sided|GEE||prednisolone/placebo|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors|||1.04|0.02
95733208|NCT02585258|191437189|SUPERIORITY||mean differences over 2 years|-1.67||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.68||one-sided|Regression, Linear||placebo is reference. Negative difference means less damage progression in prednisolone group.|mixed model reports the effect of treatment, adjusted for stratification factors||-0.68||0.003
95733209|NCT00977106|191437205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
95733210|NCT00977106|191437206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||||||Between-group test (equal variances)|Student t-test|||Change at Week 1||||0.377
95733211|NCT00977106|191437206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (unequal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.276
95733212|NCT00977106|191437208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Student t-test|Between-group test (equal variances)||Change at Week 4||||0.502
95733213|NCT00977106|191437210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Between placebo and TCZ groups test (Equal Variances) at week 4|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
95733214|NCT00977106|191437212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.692
95733215|NCT00977106|191437212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.019
95733216|NCT00977106|191437213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 1||||0.137
95733217|NCT00977106|191437213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change at Week 4||||0.043
95733218|NCT03765502|191437264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
95733219|NCT03765502|191437265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Crossover design: paired test||||||<.0001
95733220|NCT00683020|191437271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.9|0.1|0.03
95733221|NCT00683020|191437272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||3.6|-0.9|0.23
95733222|NCT00683020|191437273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Days in comparison groups are not equal.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Negative Binomial Models|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.3|0.25
95733223|NCT00683020|191437274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportions in comparison groups are not equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values.||||1.4|0.2|0.18
95733224|NCT00683020|191437275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.5|0.1|0.008
95733225|NCT00683020|191437276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.2|-0.2|0.87
95733226|NCT00683020|191437277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.2|-2.1|0.49
95733227|NCT00683020|191437278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.6|-3.0|0.54
95733228|NCT00683020|191437279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.4|-0.4|0.11
95733229|NCT00683020|191437280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||0.1|-0.6|0.13
95733230|NCT00683020|191437281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||5.1|-3.8|0.78
95733231|NCT00683020|191437282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean changes in comparison groups are not equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values.||||4.9|-0.6|0.13
95793226|NCT02662569|191556217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-28.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-28.77|-61.87|<0.0001
95793227|NCT02662569|191556218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-10.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-10.14|-25.89|0.0002
95793228|NCT02662569|191556218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-9.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-9.58|-21.69|<0.0001
95793229|NCT02662569|191556219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-8.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-8.19|-24.63|0.0002
95793230|NCT02662569|191556219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|-5.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.86|-18.76|<0.0001
95793231|NCT02662569|191556220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.33|3.36|0.0003
95793232|NCT02662569|191556220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||10.65|5.10|<0.0001
95793233|NCT02662569|191556221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|9.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||9.27|2.49|0.0003
95793234|NCT02662569|191556221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|11.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.25|5.03|<0.0001
95793235|NCT02662569|191556222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-20.17|-34.20|<0.0001
95793236|NCT02662569|191556222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-18.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, entry statin therapy and geographic region, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-18.14|-29.88|<0.0001
95793237|NCT02295644|191556267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Interaction test of duty cycle and intensity for self reported pain score|ANOVA|||||||0.17
95793238|NCT02295644|191556267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Main effect of duty cycle on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||0.14
95793239|NCT02295644|191556267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Main effect of intensity on self reported pain score.|ANOVA|||||||1.0
95793240|NCT02295644|191556268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||.24
95793241|NCT02295644|191556268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Main effect for intensity.|ANOVA|||||||0.019
95793242|NCT02295644|191556268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||0.17
95793243|NCT02295644|191556269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main effect for duty cycle.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
95793244|NCT02295644|191556269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||ANOVA|||Main effect for intensity.||||0.475
95793245|NCT02295644|191556269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Interaction of intensity and duty cycle.||||.178
95793246|NCT00477685|191556282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the postoperative intraocular pressure at 90 days equals the preoperative intraocular pressure at baseline.||||0.01
95793247|NCT01038687|191556324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
95793248|NCT01038687|191556324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.18
95793249|NCT01038687|191556324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.04
95793250|NCT01038687|191556325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.81
95793251|NCT01038687|191556325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.89
95793252|NCT01038687|191556325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.76
95793253|NCT01038687|191556326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
95793254|NCT01038687|191556326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.058
95793255|NCT01038687|191556326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.164
95793256|NCT01038687|191556327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
95793257|NCT01038687|191556327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg vs placebo||||0.98
95793258|NCT01038687|191556327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.079
95793259|NCT01038687|191556328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
95793260|NCT01038687|191556328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.32
95793261|NCT01038687|191556328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.034
95793262|NCT01038687|191556329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95793263|NCT01038687|191556329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
95793264|NCT01038687|191556329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.001
95793265|NCT01038687|191556330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
95793266|NCT01038687|191556330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.99
95793267|NCT01038687|191556330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg vs placebo||||0.103
95793268|NCT01038687|191556331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95793269|NCT01038687|191556331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
95793270|NCT01038687|191556331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.001
95793271|NCT01038687|191556332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95793272|NCT01038687|191556332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Dunnett's test|||15mg dose vs placebo||||0.053
95949930|NCT03137784|191871773|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|25.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.22|31.79|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||31.79|19.22|<0.001
95793273|NCT01038687|191556332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Dunnett's test|||20mg dose vs placebo||||0.002
95793274|NCT02783911|191556333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.808
95793275|NCT02314728|191556334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95793276|NCT02314728|191556335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||NICU admission||||0.60
95793277|NCT02314728|191556335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||histologic chorioamnionitis||||0.13
95793278|NCT02343224|191556340|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|76.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of event-free survival among study participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|52.1|
95793279|NCT02343224|191556341|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|100.0||||||This Kaplan-Meier estimate is the conditional probability of overall survival among participants at 12 and 24 months.||100|50.3|
95793280|NCT01614470|191556342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.678|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2559|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.1000|7.2559|<0.0001
95793281|NCT01614470|191556343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3366|0.9881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9881|0.3366|<0.0001
95793282|NCT01614470|191556345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.1667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9527|-41.3807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.3807|-56.9527|<0.0001
95793283|NCT01614470|191556348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.6105||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4874|14.7336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7336|4.4874|0.0004
95793284|NCT04622969|191556362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95793285|NCT04622969|191556364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.56
95793286|NCT04622969|191556368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.99
95793287|NCT04622969|191556370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95793288|NCT04622969|191556372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.802|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
95793289|NCT04622969|191556374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.062
95793290|NCT04622969|191556374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.78
95793291|NCT01251042|191556379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Information about the size of the standard deviation (SD) for the change was obtained from an earlier study. The SD for the change from pre-operation until 24 hours after start of transfusion was 0.2305. Due to the imprecise measuring device (if values below 0.3 g/l) and the large SD, a non-inferiority margin (∆) of 0.2 g/l was decided to be used in this study, resulting in a total number of 42 evaluable subjects, i.e. 21 subjects per group.||||||0.6294||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6294
95793292|NCT03886272|191556388|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|112.96||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|124.26||P-value for ratio outside 80% -125%.|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as: T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2|Relative bioavailability||124.26|102.70|0.0413
95793293|NCT03886272|191556388|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|115.49||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|126.74||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative bioavailability||126.74|105.23|0.0776
95855639|NCT02144610|191670772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Activities (LOCF)||||0.940
95855640|NCT02144610|191670772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|||Social (LOCF)||||0.905
95855641|NCT02144610|191670772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||ANCOVA|||Emotional Functioning (LOCF)||||0.782
95793294|NCT03886272|191556388|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|78.05||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.71|87.38||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as Tc3/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||87.38|69.71|0.6443
95793295|NCT03886272|191556388|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|45.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.05|51.48||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative bioavailability||51.48|41.05|1.00
95793296|NCT03886272|191556389|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|144.62||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.82|167.57||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1|Relative bioavailability||167.57|124.82|0.9485
95793297|NCT03886272|191556389|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|129.69||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.51|140.73||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted geometric mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 12.2.|Relative Bioavailability||140.73|119.51|0.7813
95793298|NCT03886272|191556389|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|75.09||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.58|87.32||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||87.32|64.58|0.7616
95793299|NCT03886272|191556389|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|41.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.61|48.25||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation = 23.5.|Relative Bioavailability||48.25|35.61|1.00
95793300|NCT03886272|191556390|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T1/R1)[%]|111.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|120.01||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T1/R1. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||120.01|102.87|0.0092
95793301|NCT03886272|191556390|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (T2/R2)[%]|114.13||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.58|124.56||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T2/R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.0.|Relative Bioavailability||124.56|104.58|0.0442
95793302|NCT03886272|191556390|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3c/R3) [%]|80.1||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.54|89.68||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as = T3c/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||89.68|71.54|0.4928
95793303|NCT03886272|191556390|OTHER||Adj. Geometric Mean Ratio (T3u/R3) [%]|48.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|54.69||P-value for ratio outside 80% - 125%.|ANOVA|The model included fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. 'Subjects within sequences' is included as random effect.|The Adjusted Geometric Mean is geometric mean adjusted by treatment. Ratio is calculated as T3u/R3. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.6.|Relative Bioavailability||54.69|43.60|1.00
95793304|NCT02848664|191556409|OTHER|Same DOSS score before and after device use for 3 months or improved DOSS score after device use for 3 months|||||<|0.025||||||p values adjusted for multiple comparisons (two outcome measures)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Examined change in DOSS for each participant from before to after three months of device use. Examined numbers of participants who showed either worsening of DOSS, no improvement in DOSS or improvement of DOSS.||||<0.025
95793305|NCT02848664|191556410|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the level of swallowing handicap is changed following device use|Mean Difference (Net)|22.571||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.003|39.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.140|6.003|0.016
95793306|NCT02848664|191556411|EQUIVALENCE|whether the degree of laryngeal elevation relative to hyoid elevation became greater or less after device use for 3 months||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95793307|NCT02848664|191556412|EQUIVALENCE|pairwise comparison within subject comparing baseline with 3 months post device use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.78||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.751|-4.809|||ANOVA|||||-4.809|-100.751|0.037
95793308|NCT02849080|191556413|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Pattern mixture model||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||6.70|2.89|<0.0001
95855642|NCT02144610|191670772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||ANCOVA|||Composite Overall (LOCF)||||0.802
95855643|NCT02144610|191670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.941
95793309|NCT02849080|191556413|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Logistic||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on multiple imputation, imputing sequentially using post-baseline measurements up to and including week 52. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||8.68|3.54|<0.0001
95793310|NCT02849080|191556414|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 52 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.2|-2.6|<0.0001
95793311|NCT02849080|191556414|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide flex - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 52. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.5|-2.9|<0.0001
95793312|NCT02849080|191556431|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.39||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.39|0.09|<0.0001
95793313|NCT02849080|191556432|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.91|0.37|0.0175
95793314|NCT02849080|191556451|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.4381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.50|0.39|0.4381
95793315|NCT02849080|191556452|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.09||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide flex- Switch / Sitagliptin 100 mg- Switch|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.09|0.20|0.0790
95793316|NCT02155985|191556486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.8||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((300 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||8.8|-5.5|0.70
95793317|NCT02155985|191556486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|13.3||While there are co-primary comparisons, due to the pilot nature of the study, no adjustment to the 0.05 type I error was made.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is the percent difference in mean fold changes = ((100 mg mean fold change / placebo mean fold change) - 1) \* 100.|Paired differences between the two aspirin arms and placebo were estimated in a single linear regression model using linear combinations of the estimated means.||13.3|-1.7|0.14
95793318|NCT00402727|191556513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set to 10% in the protocol, in agreeance with FDA recommendations. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning. Estimation was performed to achieve 85% power, based on the equivalence delta of 10%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-5.3|
95793319|NCT00402727|191556514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of cure rates (in percent)|1.3||||||95.0|-3.8|6.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||6.3|-3.8|
95793320|NCT00402727|191556515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||0.6|-1.6|
95793321|NCT00402727|191556516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of improvement rates (in %)|1.4||||||95.0|-1.3|3.9|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||3.9|-1.3|
95793322|NCT00402727|191556517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|2.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.4|-3.1|
95793323|NCT00402727|191556518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of resolution rates (in %)|1.6||||||95.0|-2.4|5.3|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.3|-2.4|
95793324|NCT00402727|191556519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.5||||||95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-1.4|-17.0|
95793325|NCT00402727|191556520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-8.6||||||95.0|-17.6|-0.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.4|-17.6|
95793326|NCT00402727|191556521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||1.4|-9.5|
95793327|NCT00402727|191556522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-5.6||||||95.0|-11.4|-0.8|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||-0.8|-11.4|
95793328|NCT00402727|191556523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-0.1||||||95.0|-6.9|5.4|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||5.4|-6.9|
95993551|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|13.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 36||13.8|-9.4|0.711
95793329|NCT00402727|191556524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variable.|Difference of eradication rates (in %)|-2.9||||||95.0|-9.3|2.2|||||A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al.||2.2|-9.3|
95793330|NCT04794751|191556528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.002|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Distance (4m)||0.002|-0.039|
95793331|NCT04794751|191556528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.018|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Intermediate (64cm)||0.018|-0.032|
95793332|NCT04794751|191556528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference between the Test and Control was below 0.05 logMAR.|least-square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.015|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Near (40cm)||0.015|-0.034|
95793333|NCT04794751|191556529|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the least-square mean difference was greater than -5.|least-square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||4.8|-4.6|
95793334|NCT02360488|191556530|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial aimed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 30% of the change in Fugl-Meyer score in the In-Clinic group. Under these assumptions at alpha=0.05 and assuming SD=3.8 points, 124 subjects would need to be enrolled to provide 85% power; this sample was pursued independent of subject dropouts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.26|||Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for study site, age, time post-stroke, stroke subtype, and baseline Fugl-Meyer score.||||2.26|-2.14|.96
95793335|NCT01328964|191556538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.974||The p-value is a comparison of the combined hospitalization/emergency department visit endpoint|Regression, Cox|||||0.974|0.51|<0.0001
95793336|NCT01328964|191556539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.0||P-value is based on the differences in the total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-9|-19|<0.001
95793337|NCT01328964|191556540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.999||P-value is based on the comparison of combined endpoint of hospitalization/emergency department visits|Regression, Cox|||||0.999|0.565|0.0495
95793338|NCT01328964|191556541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-27.0||P-value is based on difference in total monthly asthma costs|Regression, Linear|||||-27|-28|<0.0001
95793339|NCT01257347|191556554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<=|0.001||||||We included a stopping rule in which recruitment would be stopped at the midpoint for futility if the z-score was negative or for efficacy if the z-score was positive and the p-value ≤ 0.001.|GEE model|GEE models (logit link) with clinician as the cluster variable, appropriateness of management as outcome, intervention group as explanatory variable.||The sample size was calculated to have sufficient power to detect meaningful differences in appropriateness of clinician management between intervention and control groups. Each patient-clinician encounter was treated as independent and the sample size was inflated to account for the design effect (DE) of clustering of patients within clinician. GEE stands for generalized estimating equation.||||<=0.001
95793340|NCT03669588|191556607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.951|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.213|11.528|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese versus (vs) non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||11.528|2.213|<0.0001
95793341|NCT03669588|191556608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.179|31.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the AChR-Ab seropositive population, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline QMG total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||31.200|4.179|<0.0001
95793342|NCT03669588|191556609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.699|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|7.578|||Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis with a 2-sided exact test (using logistic regression) at the 2-sided 5% significance level in the overall population, stratified by AChR-Ab status (seropositive vs seronegative), Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment, with cycle baseline MG-ADL total score as covariate.~The treatment effect was presented as the odds ratio. An odds ratio of more than 1 represents a higher response rate for ARGX-113 compared to placebo."||7.578|1.854|<0.0001
95793343|NCT03669588|191556610|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|22.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.949|33.181|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in the AChR-Ab seropositive population with treatment, baseline MG-ADL total score, Japanese vs non-Japanese, and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment as the covariates.||33.181|10.949|0.0001
95793344|NCT03669588|191556611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis was performed in the AChR-Ab seropositive population and the p-value was calculated using the log-rank test, stratified by Japanese vs non-Japanese and NSID vs no NSID as concomitant gMG treatment.||||0.2604
95793345|NCT00737178|191556627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
95793346|NCT00737178|191556629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95793347|NCT02034006|191556630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.44|223.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of active leakage.||223.42|23.44|<0.0001
95793348|NCT02034006|191556636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|27.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of macular edema.||27.36|3.18|<0.0001
95793349|NCT02034006|191556637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|42.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of cysts.||42.67|3.76|<0.0001
95793350|NCT02034006|191556638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|213.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of intra-retinal fluid.||213.50|11.62|<0.0001
95793351|NCT02034006|191556639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield thickness vs previous visit.||1.00|0.99|0.1514
95793352|NCT02034006|191556640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Change in Central subfield volume vs previous visit.||5.63|0.00|0.1265
95793353|NCT02034006|191556642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|30.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Presence vs. absence of clinically significant abnormalities.||30.23|1.58|0.0103
95793354|NCT02034006|191556643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 5 letters vs. Gain \>= 5 letters.||5.33|0.90|0.0854
95793355|NCT02034006|191556644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Gain \< 10 letters vs. Gain \>= 10 letters.||5.17|1.23|0.0114
95793356|NCT02034006|191556645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Improved vs. No change. For retreated subjects, the last scheduled assessment prior to the first retreatment was considered. For subjects treated only once, the last scheduled assessment available was considered.||0.91|0.25|0.0049
95793357|NCT02034006|191556645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|44.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Change from baseline in BCVA: Worsened vs. No change||44.52|0.69|0.0461
95793358|NCT02470741|191556653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.85||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|Null hypotheses: Letrozole is not associated with an improvement in the UFSQOL Overall Score.||9.23|-32.92|0.24
95793359|NCT01898078|191556663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Cmax plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric means.||1.12|0.85|
95793360|NCT01898078|191556664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.34|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC(last) plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean.||1.34|1.01|
95793361|NCT01898078|191556665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.39|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log(PK parameter) with fixed terms for the treatment effect, sequence effect, period effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|The confidence intervals are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed AUC∞ plain values (difference = Fed/Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the confidence intervals for the ratio of the geometric mean||1.39|0.96|
95793362|NCT02369653|191556702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0403
95793363|NCT02369653|191556703|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
95793364|NCT00316004|191556769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.55
95793365|NCT00316004|191556770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥4.||||0.59
95793366|NCT00316004|191556771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three groups.||||0.67
95793367|NCT00316004|191556772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent prevalence of poor outcome between the three treatment groups among patients with head AIS≥2.||||0.57
95793368|NCT00316004|191556773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|Adjusted for multiple imputations||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients at any level of disability between the three groups.||||.84
95793369|NCT00316004|191556774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
95793370|NCT00316004|191556775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive on the day discharged from the hospital after injury between the three groups.||||0.88
95793371|NCT00316004|191556776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were alive and free of ARDS from the day of injury to the 28th day after injury between the three groups.||||0.91
95793372|NCT00316004|191556777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.81
95793373|NCT00316004|191556778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.77
95793374|NCT00316004|191556779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.76
95855644|NCT02144610|191670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.584
95793375|NCT00316004|191556780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|The numbers differ from the JAMA manuscript because of typos and version control issues that were discovered after publication.||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.43
95793376|NCT00316004|191556781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with any nosocomial infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
95793377|NCT00316004|191556781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with pneumonia through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.3
95793378|NCT00316004|191556781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with bloodstream infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.04
95793379|NCT00316004|191556781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with urinary tract infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.06
95793380|NCT00316004|191556781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with wound infections through hospital stay between the three groups.||||0.88
95793381|NCT00316004|191556782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.68
95793382|NCT00316004|191556783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares averages across all three treatment groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.43
95793383|NCT00316004|191556784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died during hospitalization between the three groups.||||0.88
95793384|NCT00316004|191556784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to home between the three groups.||||0.26
95793385|NCT00316004|191556784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to inpatient rehabilitation facilities between the three groups.||||0.16
95793386|NCT00316004|191556784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test compares proportions across all three treatment groups.|test for differences in proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who were discharged alive from the hospital to skilled nursing facilities between the three groups.||||0.17
95793387|NCT01329198|191556837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean change in YGTSS scores from Baseline to 6 Months across all study participants presented.|||||0.013
95793388|NCT01004614|191556839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|98.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.09|104.46|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||104.46|93.09|
95793389|NCT01004614|191556839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|105.45|||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed AUCt was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||105.45|97.28|
95855645|NCT02144610|191670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.100
95855646|NCT02144610|191670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.916
95855647|NCT02144610|191670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.486
95855648|NCT02144610|191670773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.835
95793390|NCT01004614|191556840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.28|106.28||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.28|92.28|
95793391|NCT01004614|191556840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two formulations was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCt and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratios of adjusted geometric mean|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|106.0||||Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and formulation as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (test - reference) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||106.00|95.93|
95793392|NCT02530385|191556846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95793393|NCT02530385|191556847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
95793394|NCT02530385|191556848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
95793395|NCT02530385|191556849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
95793396|NCT02530385|191556850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95793397|NCT01569022|191556852|EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint of the study was tested by comparing difference in residual AHI using the paired t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95793398|NCT01569022|191556853|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ESS||||0.97
95793399|NCT01569022|191556853|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCL||||0.98
95793400|NCT01569022|191556853|EQUIVALENCE|t-test assuming non unequal variance||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PSQI||||0.31
95793401|NCT01569022|191556854|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95793402|NCT01569022|191556855|EQUIVALENCE|t test assuming unequal variance|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95793403|NCT00644059|191556863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.66|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
95793404|NCT00644059|191556866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|81.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.24|93.16|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||93.16|49.24|
95793405|NCT00644059|191556866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.92|98.94|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||98.94|80.92|
95793406|NCT00644059|191556866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.73|0.13|
95793407|NCT00644059|191556866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||0.38|0.02|
95793408|NCT00644059|191556867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine Efficacy|79.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|90.42|||Poisson Regression Model|||"Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the population average incidence of influenza.~Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)"||90.42|54.78|
95793409|NCT00644059|191556867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.35|97.24|||Poisson Regression Model|||Absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as (1- the relative risk)100%. Relative Risk for virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza illness in the TIV-adj group vs. the non-flu control group. VE denotes the vaccine efficacy, i.e. 1-Itest/Inon-flu ctrl, where I stands for the incidence of influenza. Absolute efficacy of TIV-adj is at most 40% (i.e. the probability of an influenza in the test group relative to that in the non-flu vaccine group is at least 0.6)||97.24|77.35|
95855649|NCT01357850|191670785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0119||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0768|0.1005|||ANOVA|||||0.1005|-0.0768|0.7873
95793410|NCT00644059|191556867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.21|83.28|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||83.28|23.21|
95793411|NCT00644059|191556867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|85.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.95|94.99|||Poisson Regression Model|||Relative efficacy for TIV-adj was to be calculated as VE = (1-Itest/Ictrl)100%, where I is the incidence of influenza, i.e. percentage of subjects with virus-confirmed symptomatic influenza A or B illness, in the investigational agent (TIV-adj) group or in the flu vaccine control group.||94.99|58.95|
95793412|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.02|0.67|
95793413|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|7.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.42|
95793414|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||21|11|
95793415|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|8.68|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay||8.68|4.83|
95793416|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.21|0.85|
95793417|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|12.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||12|7.76|
95793418|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||20|12|
95793419|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|6.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||6.65|3.64|
95793420|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.91|
95793421|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.9|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.9|1.19|
95793422|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|8.53|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||8.53|5.72|
95793423|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[B/Florida/2006]|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.5|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||3.5|2.44|
95793424|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.04|0.64|
95793425|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.78|0.83|
95793426|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1]|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||11|5.33|
95793427|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.55|2.4|
95793428|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.1|0.74|
95793429|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT[A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.51|||GMT|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.51|2.78|
95993552|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.2|-7.2|0.484
95793430|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||16|10|
95793431|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||4.95|2.61|
95793432|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1|1|
95793433|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.11|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.11|1.02|
95793434|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.92|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.92|1.57|
95793435|NCT00644059|191556873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<36 months by HI assay.||1.08|0.92|
95793436|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.19|0.78|
95793437|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|8.76|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.76|4.69|
95793438|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|11.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||11|6.36|
95993553|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q1 Week 48||15.4|-8.5|0.572
95793439|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1)]|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.65|3.38|
95793440|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of Geometric Mean Titers GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.35|0.82|
95793441|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|8.73|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||8.73|4.72|
95793442|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||10|6.2|
95793443|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2)]|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Brisbane/2007 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.05|2.42|
95793444|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.05|0.9|
95793445|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.93|1.26|
95793446|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|5.88|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||5.88|4.25|
95793447|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Florida/2006]|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Florida/2006 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.93|2.22|
95793448|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day1 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|0.75|
95793449|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.51|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||2.51|1.17|
95793450|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|7.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||7.63|4.08|
95793451|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1)]|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Solomon Islands/2006 (A/H1N1) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.2|2.3|
95793452|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.3|0.74|
95793453|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.49|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||4.49|2.19|
95793454|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|9.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||9.82|5.51|
95793455|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2)]|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain A/Wisconsin/2009 (A/H3N2) in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||3.55|2|
95793456|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 1 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.01|0.98|
95793457|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 29 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.22|1.05|
95793458|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|1.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 50 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.97|1.63|
95793459|NCT00644059|191556876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT [B/Brisbane/2008]|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate superiority of immunogenicity of TIV-adj compared to Flu-control on Day 181 for strain B/Brisbane/2008 in terms of GMTs in subjects aged 6 to \<72 months by HI assay.||1.17|1|
95793460|NCT02497469|191556912|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|15.0|2.5|0.0061
95793461|NCT02497469|191556913|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (Yes/No) and prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|18.5|5.3|0.0005
95793462|NCT02497469|191556914|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.3||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||P-value of the adjusted difference was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior use of TNF-alpha antagonist (Yes/No) or the Fisher's exact method if the numerator was \<=5.|0.4|-18.9|0.0641
95793463|NCT03558516|191556917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.315
95793464|NCT03558516|191556918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
95793465|NCT03558516|191556919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
95793466|NCT02065557|191556934|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
95793467|NCT02065557|191556934|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
95793468|NCT02065557|191556934|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.382
95793469|NCT02065557|191556934|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
95793470|NCT02065557|191556934|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||< 0.001
95793471|NCT02065557|191556934|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for I-SD+I-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (I-HD, I-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (19.83%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (ITT-E) population for the induction period. The ITT-E population was a subpopulation of the ITT population, which consisted of all participants who received at least one SC injection of the study medication during the induction period. Participants who received open-label high induction dose, because they enrolled after Protocol Amendment 4 was released, were excluded from the ITT-E population.||||0.344
95793472|NCT02065557|191556935|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793473|NCT02065557|191556935|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793474|NCT02065557|191556935|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
95793475|NCT02065557|191556935|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793476|NCT02065557|191556935|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793477|NCT02065557|191556935|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (18.37%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
95793478|NCT02065557|191556936|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793479|NCT02065557|191556936|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95855650|NCT01357850|191670785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0678||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1356|||ANOVA|||||0.1356|0.0000|0.0499
95793480|NCT02065557|191556936|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.008||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|Chi-squared|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.008
95793481|NCT02065557|191556936|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793482|NCT02065557|191556936|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793483|NCT02065557|191556936|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.038||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (26.10%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.038
95793484|NCT02065557|191556937|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793485|NCT02065557|191556937|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793486|NCT02065557|191556937|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
95793487|NCT02065557|191556937|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793488|NCT02065557|191556937|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793489|NCT02065557|191556937|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (22.03%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
95793490|NCT02065557|191556938|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95855651|NCT01357850|191670785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0467||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0204|0.1137|||ANOVA|||||0.1137|-0.0204|0.1666
95855652|NCT01357850|191670786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.89||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3172.05|3441.83|||ANOVA|||||3441.83|-3172.05|0.9343
95793491|NCT02065557|191556938|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793492|NCT02065557|191556938|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
95793493|NCT02065557|191556938|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793494|NCT02065557|191556938|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||< 0.001
95793495|NCT02065557|191556938|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.292||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (14.79%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.292
95793496|NCT02065557|191556939|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.382||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.382
95793497|NCT02065557|191556939|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
95793498|NCT02065557|191556939|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||1||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||1.000
95793499|NCT02065557|191556939|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.344||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.344
95919190|NCT03657264|191798273|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the adjusted confidence interval was expected upper to the margin of 5 milliseconds.|Least Squares Mean Difference|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.05|13.25||p-value is not shown, as this is a non-inferiority study.|ANCOVA|As multiple timepoints were examined separately, the overall type I error rate needed to be adjusted.||For the timepoint 4 hours||13.25|8.05|
95919191|NCT02471404|191798279|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% CI of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.2986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2986|0.0294|
95919192|NCT02471404|191798279|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin was determined to be 0.30% (in absolute terms). A difference of ≤0.30%, in HbA1c change from b/l to wk 52 between the treatment groups was considered clinically equivalent. NI was assessed using the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval of adjusted mean difference between dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin and glimepiride.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3443|-0.0825||(superiority)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0825|-0.3443|0.001
95919193|NCT02471404|191798280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.97|-6.45|<0.001
95919194|NCT02471404|191798280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.56|-6.21|<0.001
95919195|NCT02471404|191798281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-5.93|<0.001
95919196|NCT02471404|191798281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.29|-5.52|<0.001
95919197|NCT02471404|191798282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.43|0.374
95919198|NCT02471404|191798282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.88|<0.001
95919199|NCT02471404|191798283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|0.67|0.777
95919200|NCT02471404|191798283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||||0.57|0.23|<0.001
95919201|NCT00305864|191798286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Log Rank|One-sided||A one-sided one-sample log-rank test at significance level of 0.10 was predicted to have 85% power to detect a survival difference against the historical control (13.7 vs. 18.5 months) with 60 deaths.||||0.27
95919202|NCT02204293|191798288|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.||||||0.1811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1811
95919203|NCT02204293|191798303|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|19.9||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|51.3|||Fisher Exact|||||51.3|-15.0|0.3175
95855653|NCT01357850|191670786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1278.77||||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1398.13|3955.68|||ANOVA|||||3955.68|-1398.13|0.3375
95919204|NCT02204293|191798304|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|31.7||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|61.8|||Fisher Exact|||||61.8|-2.9|0.0922
95919205|NCT02204293|191798305|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.0||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|61.1|||Fisher Exact|||||61.1|-1.5|0.0858
95919206|NCT02204293|191798306|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|32.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|-0.7|0.075
95919207|NCT02204293|191798307|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
95919208|NCT02204293|191798308|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|29.2|||Fisher Exact|||||29.2|-18.8|1
95919209|NCT02204293|191798309|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|24.8||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-ESR Response||54.2|-8.0|0.1642
95919210|NCT02204293|191798309|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|25.2||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|55.1|||Fisher Exact|||EULAR DAS28-CRP Response||55.1|-9.1|0.1756
95919211|NCT02204293|191798310|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|35.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) LDA||35.0|-27.7|1
95919212|NCT02204293|191798310|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|26.5||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|56.0|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) LDA||56.0|-6.6|0.1642
95855654|NCT01357850|191670786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|772.7||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1887.77|3433.17|||ANOVA|||||3433.17|-1887.77|0.5582
95919213|NCT02204293|191798311|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|21.6||||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|49.9|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (ESR) remission||49.9|-8.1|0.2285
95919214|NCT02204293|191798311|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|27.1||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|54.6|||Fisher Exact|||DAS28 (CRP) Remission||54.6|-4.6|0.1212
95919215|NCT02204293|191798311|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test with a two-tailed level of significance of α = 0.05.|Difference in Response Rates|16.0||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|43.4|||Fisher Exact|||Extended Remission||43.4|-12.6|0.4018
95919216|NCT00614198|191798354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori p threshold set for stage 1 (baseline - 8m; p\<0.01) or (baseline - 12 months, p\<0.05) in order to progress to stage 2 (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months).|Mixed Models Analysis|||1st stage analysis (baseline-8m or 12m) used a repeated measures model for all assessment measures. Model included baseline, age, time and time\*treatment interaction. Results informed 2nd stage (8 or 12 months - 20 or 24 months). 2nd stage analysis based on various statistical scenarios (baseline vs 12 months on intervention, 12 months of no intervention vs 12 on intervention, baseline vs 24 months on intervention). No ADOS assessments were used at 12 months because of risk of practice effects.||||<0.01
95919217|NCT01225835|191798356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95919218|NCT01225835|191798356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \< 39 years||||0.015
95919219|NCT01225835|191798356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Age \>= 39 years||||0.027
95919220|NCT01225835|191798358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95919221|NCT01225835|191798359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95919222|NCT01225835|191798360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
95919223|NCT01225835|191798361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Level of significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95919224|NCT01225835|191798362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95919225|NCT01225835|191798364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
95919226|NCT01225835|191798365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.871
95919227|NCT01225835|191798366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95919228|NCT01225835|191798367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
95919229|NCT01225835|191798368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
95919230|NCT01225835|191798369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
95919231|NCT01225835|191798370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
95919232|NCT01225835|191798371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
95919233|NCT01225835|191798372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The significance level is 0.05. P-values are not adjusted for multiple tests and have to be interpreted exploratively.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95919234|NCT04779242|191798430|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in early clinical success rate between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.8|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||6.8|-3.0|
95919235|NCT04779242|191798431|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups.|Percentage difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.4|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||3.4|-6.9|
95919236|NCT04779242|191798432|OTHER|Difference was observed difference in overall clinical success rate at PTE between the omadacycline and moxifloxacin groups|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.0|||||95% CI is constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|||2.0|-5.7|
95919237|NCT01757067|191798433|OTHER|The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||||||||||||||||The previously stated primary and secondary endpoints cannot be calculated as the study was halted prematurely due to lack of enrollment. Only the reported EF data was collected. This makes further statistical analyses impossible.|||
95919238|NCT04230980|191798471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean NRS-11 score at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||-0.24|-2.02|0.01
95919239|NCT04230980|191798472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of mean difference is Gabapentin arm minus placebo arm.|Mean number of opioid tablets taken at post-operative day 7 (compared between the two arms).||0.03|-0.13|0.19
95919240|NCT01994720|191798498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||In order to address the issue of multiple testing, a hierarchical test sequence will be used. Tested at 4.98% level.|Regression, Cox|||Composite of stroke/MI/death||1.01|0.78|0.0670
95919241|NCT01994720|191798499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||If the treatment effect on the primary efficacy variable is significant at the 4.98% level, the secondary efficacy variable will be tested in a confirmatory sense. Otherwise it will be tested in an exploratory manner.|Regression, Cox|||Ischemic stroke||1.00|0.76|0.0462
95919242|NCT01994720|191798500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.79|0.0928
95919243|NCT01994720|191798501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.78|0.0771
95919244|NCT01994720|191798502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||||1.67|0.83|0.3641
95919245|NCT01994720|191798503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.75|0.4828
95919246|NCT01994720|191798504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.67|0.5457
95919247|NCT01994720|191798505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.85|0.1393
95919248|NCT01994720|191798506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.75|0.0342
95919249|NCT01994720|191798507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.06|||Regression, Cox|||||2.06|0.55|0.8557
95919250|NCT01994720|191798508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.77|0.2126
95919251|NCT01994720|191798514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||PLATO Major bleeding||1.34|0.52|0.4511
95919252|NCT01994720|191798515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.53|<0.0001
95919253|NCT01794117|191798525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.033
95919254|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||-0.6|-31.2|0.362
95919255|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS mean change|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.3|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.3|-24.8|0.729
95919256|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-7.1|-25.8|0.173
95919257|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|Least Square Mean Change|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B)||-8.5|-21.3|0.185
95919258|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs placebo||-16.3|-46.9|0.020
95919259|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean Change|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-14.5|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-14.5|-50.6|0.030
95919260|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-0.4|-26.3|0.456
95919261|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|4.4|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||4.4|-19.5|0.966
95919262|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.2|-21.4|0.275
95919263|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-5.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-5.9|-17.6|0.304
95919264|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B) FAS|LS Mean change|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-9.8|-24.5|0.057
95919265|NCT02855164|191798530|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: ALT (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A + B + C) FAS|LS Mean change|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A + B + C)||-15.6|-30.5|0.003
95919266|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||3.0|-22.9|0.722
95919267|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part A)||9.5|-14.0|0.468
95919268|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||-1.0|-16.7|0.774
95919269|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B)||4.9|-6.0|0.136
95919270|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-8.2|-23.9|0.145
95919271|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Part C)||-6.4|-24.2|0.236
95919272|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.4|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||4.4|-18.7|0.788
95919273|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|11.0|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||11.0|-10.2|0.413
95919274|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||1.0|-13.4|0.833
95919275|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||7.3|-3.2|0.068
95919276|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||6.5|-6.6|0.269
95919277|NCT02855164|191798531|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: AST (U/L) change from baseline up to EOT (Parts A+B+C) Full analysis set (FAS)|LS Mean change|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor vs placebo (Parts A+B+ C)||2.9|-10.5|0.777
95919278|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.174||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.66|4.7|||ANCOVA|||10 microgramsof Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||4.70|-19.66|0.853
95919279|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part A||-2.91|-25.24|0.232
95949931|NCT03137784|191871773|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|24.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|30.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||||30.59|17.99|<0.001
95919280|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-7.64|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.64|-22.45|0.077
95919281|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline|LS Mean change|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-7.44|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B||-7.44|-17.23|0.141
95919282|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12|LS Mean change|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.58|-20.92|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-20.92|-41.58|<0.001
95919283|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-39.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.37|-29.71|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Part C||-29.71|-49.37|<0.001
95919284|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.88|||ANCOVA|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||2.88|-19.06|0.872
95919285|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.198||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-3.91|-24.36|0.465
95919286|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.078||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-8.29|||ANCOVA|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.29|-21.75|0.228
95919287|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|-8.08|||ANCOVA|||90 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-8.08|-17.04|0.370
95919288|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-18.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.517||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-12.91|||ANCOVA|||140 micrograms - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-12.91|-24.51|0.029
95919289|NCT02855164|191798532|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA: Relative change in percentage of fat in the liver from baseline to Week 12 (Parts A+B+C)|LS Mean change|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|-28.64|||ANCOVA|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor - Change in percentage of fat in the liver Parts A+B+C||-28.64|-40.13|<0.001
95919290|NCT02855164|191798533|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.59|-2.99|0.010
95919291|NCT02855164|191798533|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.34|-1.90|0.237
95919292|NCT02855164|191798533|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.31|-1.80|0.037
95919293|NCT02855164|191798533|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts A + B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.65|-1.65|0.007
95919294|NCT02855164|191798533|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.14|-7.05|0.053
95919295|NCT02855164|191798533|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in weight from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-3.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-3.91|-7.87|0.013
95919296|NCT02855164|191798534|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.23|-1.05|0.006
95919297|NCT02855164|191798534|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.09|-0.67|0.177
95919298|NCT02855164|191798534|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.10|-0.61|0.032
95919299|NCT02855164|191798534|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.25|-0.59|0.003
95919300|NCT02855164|191798534|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.24|-2.51|0.015
95919301|NCT02855164|191798534|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in BMI from baseline to EOT (Parts C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||-1.46|-2.75|0.004
95919302|NCT02855164|191798535|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.03|0.530
95919303|NCT02855164|191798535|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.857
95919304|NCT02855164|191798535|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part A) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.02|0.262
95919305|NCT02855164|191798535|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Parts A+B) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||90 micrograms of Tropifexor (Parts A + B) vs Placebo||0.01|0.00|0.323
95919306|NCT02855164|191798535|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||140 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.01|-0.02|0.100
95919307|NCT02855164|191798535|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis: Change in WTH ratio from baseline to EOT (Part C) (Full analysis set)|LS Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||200 micrograms of Tropifexor (Part C) vs Placebo||0.00|-0.03|0.693
95919308|NCT02855164|191798547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.223|-0.214|1.0000
95919309|NCT02855164|191798547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (total score)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
95919310|NCT02855164|191798548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.246|-0.191|0.8070
95919311|NCT02855164|191798548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.052||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (FDA)||0.273|-0.173|0.6233
95919312|NCT02855164|191798549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.233|-0.214|1.0000
95919313|NCT02855164|191798549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.029||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At least one point improvement in fibrosis (NASH CRN staging) without worsening of steatohepatitis (EMA)||0.251|-0.196|0.8074
95919314|NCT02855164|191798550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.252|-0.184|0.7028
95919315|NCT02855164|191798550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.129||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (diagnostic category) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.345|-0.098|0.1713
95919316|NCT02855164|191798551|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Resolution of steatohepatitis (FDA, EMA) without worsening of fibrosis (NASH CRN staging)||0.278|-0.168|0.2033
95919317|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.9||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||3.9|-3.8|
95919318|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.7|-7.1|
95919319|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.1||||||95.0|-13.4|5.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||5.1|-13.4|
95919320|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.3||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-3.2|
95919321|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 17 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.1|-4.5|
95919322|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
95919323|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
95919324|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|4.8||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||4.8|-7.9|
95855655|NCT01357850|191670787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|-5.43|0.2256
95919325|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-3.2|
95919326|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.1||||||95.0|-10.0|3.4||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 15 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.4|-10.0|
95919327|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-0.5|7.6||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 2.2 EU/mL threshold was calculated||7.6|-0.5|
95919328|NCT00384059|191798552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.0||||||95.0|-4.1|6.5||||||For Pertussis FIM the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||6.5|-4.1|
95919329|NCT00384059|191798553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.3||||||95.0|-19.7|8.8||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.8|-19.7|
95919330|NCT00384059|191798553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.0|8.1||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 titer was calculated||8.1|-8.0|
95919331|NCT00384059|191798554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.5|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-3.5|
95919332|NCT00384059|191798554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.3|2.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||2.8|-5.3|
95919333|NCT00384059|191798555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.68|
95919334|NCT00384059|191798556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.54|1.08||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.54|
95919335|NCT00384059|191798557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.82|1.16||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.16|0.82|
95919336|NCT00384059|191798557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.83|1.17||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.83|
95919337|NCT00384059|191798557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.26||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.26|0.80|
95793500|NCT02065557|191556939|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.559||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.559
95919338|NCT00384059|191798557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.23||||||For Pertussis FIM the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.81|
95919339|NCT00384059|191798558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.83|1.53||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.53|0.83|
95919340|NCT00384059|191798563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration|0.85||||||95.0|0.48|1.49||||||For Meningococcal C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.49|0.48|
95919341|NCT00777803|191798584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe confidence interval for proportions (paired data) was applied. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval of the difference in response rates between groups was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -15%.|difference of response rates|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Difference of response rates = response rate in IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) - response rate in OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®)|Null Hypothesis: Response rate of IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®/Bocouture®) minus the response rate of OnabotulinumtoxinA (Vistabel®) is lower or equal -15% (non-inferiority margin).||7.1|-3.2|
95919342|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.43|0.99|
95919343|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenA titers.||1.21|0.84|
95919344|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.51|0.93|
95919345|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenC titers.||1.06|0.66|
95919346|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.64|0.97|
95919347|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenW-135 titers.||1.07|0.63|
95919348|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.24|0.89|
95919349|NCT01755689|191798598|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criteria: the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of rSBA GMTs had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix Group in terms of rSBA-MenY titers.||1.12|0.80|
95919350|NCT01755689|191798599|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.15|0.81|
95919351|NCT01755689|191798599|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix (0,1,6-Month) Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.29|0.92|
95919352|NCT01755689|191798599|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-16, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-16 titers.||1.43|1.01|
95919353|NCT01755689|191798599|NON_INFERIORITY|For HPV-18, one month after the third dose of Cervarix, the UL of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group GMT ratio had to be below the pre-defined limit of 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Boostrix+Cervarix Group versus Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group in terms of HPV-18 titers.||1.41|1.00|
95919354|NCT01755689|191798600|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-D the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.81||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-D titers.||0.81|-6.90|
95855656|NCT01357850|191670787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.32|||ANOVA|||||2.32|-4.22|0.5647
95855657|NCT01357850|191670787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.79|||ANOVA|||||2.79|-2.44|0.8942
95919355|NCT01755689|191798600|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-T the LL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix +Cervarix Group) had to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference between groups|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.08||||||The group difference of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group and Boostrix+Cervarix Group in terms of Anti-T titers.||1.08|-2.23|
95919356|NCT01755689|191798601|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PRN the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PRN titers.||1.87|1.25|
95919357|NCT01755689|191798601|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-FHA the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-FHA titers.||1.93|1.42|
95919358|NCT01755689|191798601|NON_INFERIORITY|For anti-PT the UL of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the adjusted group ratio of GMCs (Nimenrix+Cervarix+Boostrix Group/Boostrix+Cervarix Group) had to be less than or equal to the pre-defined limit of 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted GMT ratio of the Nimenrix+Cervarix Group versus Boostrix+ Cervarix Group in terms of anti-PT titers.||1.61|1.20|
95919359|NCT00322868|191798624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum white cell count||||||0.2772
95919360|NCT00322868|191798625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum neutrophil count||||||0.2467
95919361|NCT00322868|191798626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in sputum percent neutrophils||||||0.0288
95919362|NCT00322868|191798627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum active elastase||||||0.50
95919363|NCT00322868|191798628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum TNFα||||||0.62
95919364|NCT00322868|191798629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-1ß||||||0.50
95919365|NCT00322868|191798630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-6||||||0.55
95919366|NCT00322868|191798631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test analysis of the intra-subject change in log10 sputum IL-8||||||0.75
95919367|NCT00962585|191798662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model (Analysis of covariance): Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.~The ANCOVA procedure was used to test the following hypotheses:~H0: μ1 = μp versus HA: μ1 ≠ μp where μ1 and μp denote the mean frequency of MSVS (at Week 4 in case of primary efficacy endpoint), adjusted for Baseline MSVS values, in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively."||||0.5730
95919368|NCT00962585|191798662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|12.32|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.32|-10.06|>0.05
95919369|NCT00962585|191798662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|6.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|17.84|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||17.84|-3.87|>0.05
95919370|NCT00962585|191798662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.04|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.04|-10.16|>0.05
95919371|NCT00962585|191798663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Model: Week 4 = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||"\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7~1-week period = remaining days of the period since the last visit (i.e. period following first 7 days, as per CRF)"||||0.7364
95919372|NCT00962585|191798663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.19|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|12.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||12.01|-12.38|>0.05
95919373|NCT00962585|191798663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|4.77|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|16.48|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||16.48|-6.94|>0.05
95855658|NCT03077412|191670812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|50.0|||||The 90% exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||50.0|-9.9|
95919374|NCT00962585|191798663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.63|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|10.15|||Pair-wise comparisons|||||10.15|-13.41|>0.05
95919375|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1 and 2.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|"Mixed Model: MSVS = Baseline (MSVS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks~Difference Between Means: S-equol treatment group - Placebo"||\# of MSVS per week at each protocol visits = (# of Moderate+Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7.||||0.1217
95919376|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-3.77|||>|0.05||95.0|-12.69|5.16|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||5.16|-12.69|>0.05
95919377|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|9.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||18.60|0.79|<0.05
95919378|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|1.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|10.36|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||10.36|-7.73|>0.05
95919379|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.7|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|4.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||4.96|-18.36|>0.05
95919380|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|15.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||15.14|-8.01|>0.05
95919381|NCT00962585|191798664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.91|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|12.58|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||12.58|-10.77|>0.05
95919382|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 1, 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: Severity of VMS = Baseline (severity of VMS) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Severity of VMS per week at each protocol visits = (Sum of scores of Mild, Moderate, Severe hot flushes)/(Current protocol visit date-Previous protocol visit date (days)) x 7, where severity of vasomotor symptoms are scored as: 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe.||||0.1609
95919383|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.34|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|13.73|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||13.73|-26.41|>0.05
95919384|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|25.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|45.69|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||45.69|5.64|<0.05
95919385|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|2.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|22.39|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 1, Treatment Effect||22.39|-18.21|>0.05
95919386|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-16.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|11.01|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||11.01|-43.29|>0.05
95919387|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|8.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|35.65|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||35.65|-18.19|>0.05
95919388|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|26.5|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||26.50|-27.80|>0.05
95919389|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|25.3|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.30|-28.68|>0.05
95919390|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|16.15|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|42.71|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||42.71|-10.40|>0.05
95919391|NCT00962585|191798665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|25.6|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||25.60|-28.18|>0.05
95919392|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal pH) = Baseline (Vaginal pH) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.2211
95919393|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.21|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.12|-0.53|>0.05
95919394|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.09|-0.55|>0.05
95919395|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||0.35|-0.28|>0.05
95919396|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.02|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.02|-0.54|>0.05
95919397|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.13|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.14|-0.40|>0.05
95919398|NCT00962585|191798666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.03|-0.51|>0.05
95919399|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Vaginal Maturation Index) = Baseline (Vaginal Maturation Index) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||Vaginal maturation index = 0.2 x (% parabasal cells) + 0.6 x(% intermediate cells) + 1.0 x (% superficial cells)||||0.6375
95919400|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|6.42|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.42|-9.57|>0.05
95919401|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.46|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.46|-9.63|>0.05
95855659|NCT03077412|191670812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.5|34.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||34.3|-26.5|
95855660|NCT03077412|191670813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|57.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||57.3|-1.3|
95919402|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-1.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.47|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||6.47|-9.66|>0.05
95919403|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|6.11|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||6.11|-6.73|>0.05
95919404|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-6.14|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|0.07|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||0.07|-12.36|>0.05
95919405|NCT00962585|191798667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|3.28|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||3.28|-9.05|>0.05
95919406|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05. Treatment effect averaged across Weeks 2 and 4.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Mixed Model: (Estradiol) = Baseline (Estradiol) + Treatment + Site + Weeks + Treatment x Weeks||||||0.0681
95919407|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|35.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|68.9|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||68.90|1.75|>0.05
95919408|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|3.61|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|36.34|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||36.34|-29.12|>0.05
95919409|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-4.58|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.39|28.23|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 2, Treatment Effect||28.23|-37.39|>0.05
95919410|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|22.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|67.8|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||67.80|-23.56|>0.05
95919411|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|7.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|52.29|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||52.29|-36.70|>0.05
95919412|NCT00962585|191798668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-22.74|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|21.96|||Pair-wise comparisons|||Week 4, Treatment Effect||21.96|-67.44|>0.05
95919413|NCT00962585|191798672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0475
95919414|NCT00962585|191798672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0258
95919415|NCT00962585|191798672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0281
95919416|NCT00962585|191798672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.0645
95919417|NCT00962585|191798673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0097
95919418|NCT00962585|191798674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.4352
95919419|NCT00962585|191798674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.2600
95919420|NCT00962585|191798674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol treatment group versus Placebo: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.7037
95919421|NCT00962585|191798674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All three S-equol treatment arms were aggregated and compared to placebo.||||0.7155
95919422|NCT00962585|191798675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381||||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test: S-equol groups combined versus Placebo: Change from Baseline at Week 4||||||0.0381
95919423|NCT01950273|191798680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) mean ratio|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.42|106.29|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||106.29|75.42|
95919424|NCT01950273|191798681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|94.6||||||90.0|85.04|105.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.23|85.04|
95919425|NCT01950273|191798682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|89.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|104.23|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||104.23|77.62|
95919426|NCT01950273|191798683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard equivalence limit 80% to 125%.|Least Squares (LS) means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|105.42|||||Ratio of the adjusted geometric means calculated as (LS mean ratio of BI 695500/Rituximab (MabThera®)).|||105.42|90.45|
95919427|NCT01950273|191798684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|249.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-210.6|709.0|||||Mean difference calculated as BI 695500-Rituximab (MabThera®).|||709|-210.6|
95919428|NCT01950273|191798686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|11.1|||||Difference in ORR calculated as ORR (BI695500) - ORR (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||11.1|-29.4|
95855661|NCT03077412|191670813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|38.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||38.1|-22.5|
95855662|NCT03077412|191670814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|2.49|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.49|0.64|
95919429|NCT01950273|191798687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|22.1|||||Difference in TEAE incidence calculated as BI695500 - TEAE incidence (MabThera®). The confidence interval represented is 95% difference in proportions.|||22.1|-18.0|
95919430|NCT02264574|191798693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.367|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.367|0.145|<0.0001
95919431|NCT02264574|191798694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.307|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||0.307|0.046|< 0.0001
95919432|NCT02264574|191798695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5253
95919433|NCT02264574|191798696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.5465
95919434|NCT02264574|191798697|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.208||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.373|||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.373|1.062|0.0035
95919435|NCT02264574|191798698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.772|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||1.772|0.479|0.8057
95919436|NCT02264574|191798699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0835|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR Preferred Term~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.0835
95919437|NCT02264574|191798699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1944|||||||Fisher Exact|||"IRR By Customized SMQ~To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record."||||0.1944
95919438|NCT02264574|191798700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.0045
95919439|NCT02264574|191798701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||To preserve the study wise type I error rate of 0.05, the primary and secondary endpoints were tested based on serial gatekeeping testing procedure at the two-sided significance level of 0.05 according to the hierarchical order of the primary analysis outcome measures presented in this record.||||0.8590
95919440|NCT02264574|191798702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.282|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.282|0.102|< 0.0001
95919441|NCT02264574|191798703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
95919442|NCT02264574|191798704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1612
95919443|NCT02264574|191798705|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.125||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.25|||Chi-squared|||||1.250|1.013|0.0273
95793501|NCT02065557|191556939|SUPERIORITY|one-sample two-sided Chi-square test||||||0.815||||||Adjusted p-value from a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, testing co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints 1st for M-SD+M-HD, then for individual adalimumab dose groups (M-HD, M-SD) against the respective external placebo rate (24.08%)|rejective multiple test procedure|controlling familywise Type I error of 5% in a strong sense||Efficacy analysis was based on the modified Intent-To-Treat-Efficacy (mITT-E) population for the maintenance period. The mITT-E population was a subpopulation of the mITT population, where participants in M-PL arm were excluded.||||0.815
95919444|NCT02264574|191798706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.973|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.973|0.595|0.7934
95919445|NCT02264574|191798707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0050
95919446|NCT02264574|191798708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.389|||Log Rank|The treatment effect was tested with an unstratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.389|0.162|< 0.0001
95919447|NCT00432679|191798709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||Change from Baseline in HbA1c = Treatment+ Baseline HbA1c+ Gender+ body mass index (BMI)|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
95919448|NCT00432679|191798710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.1|||Unpaired t-test|||||-12.1|-32.1|<0.001
95919449|NCT00432679|191798711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8102||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|2.319|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.319|-0.883|0.377
95919450|NCT00432679|191798712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.094||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|2.09|||Unpaired t-test|||||2.09|-6.18|0.330
95919451|NCT00432679|191798713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.925|||Unpaired t-test|||||0.925|-0.945|0.983
95919452|NCT00432679|191798714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.556||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|15.248|||Unpaired t-test|||||15.248|1.191|0.022
95919453|NCT00432679|191798715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|9.91|||Unpaired t-test|||||9.91|6.52|<0.001
95919454|NCT00432679|191798716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.35|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of leptin.|||1.35|-0.05|0.069
95919455|NCT00432679|191798716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-888.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.96||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2477.7|700.1|||Unpaired t-test||Comparison of hs-CRP|||700.1|-2477.7|0.271
95919456|NCT00432679|191798717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, decrease by 0.7%|||54.1|27.1|
95919457|NCT00432679|191798717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.8|||||Comparison of HbA1c, fell below 6.5%|||13.8|-0.3|
95919458|NCT00432679|191798717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|54.1|||||Comparison of HbA1c, satisfied either 1 or 2|||54.1|27.1|
95919459|NCT00432679|191798717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|36.6|||||Comparison of FPG, decrease of 30 milligrams per decilliter|||36.6|9.5|
95919460|NCT00432679|191798717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|18.9|||||Comparison of FPG, fell below 126 milligrams per deciliter|||18.9|-5.1|
95919461|NCT00432679|191798717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|35.3|||||Comparison of FPG, satisfied either 1 or 2|||35.3|5.6|
95919462|NCT01448044|191798768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|38.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.703|55.997||The pvalue was based on the CochranMantelHaenszel (CMH) test, stratified by IL28B host genotype, geography, and baseline cirrhosis status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.997|21.703|<0.0001
95919463|NCT00507026|191798776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919464|NCT00507026|191798776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919465|NCT00507026|191798777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919466|NCT00507026|191798777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919467|NCT00507026|191798778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919468|NCT00507026|191798778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919469|NCT00507026|191798779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919470|NCT00507026|191798779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919471|NCT00507026|191798780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919472|NCT00507026|191798780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95919473|NCT00918749|191798806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.568|3.372|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||A two group t-test with a 0.100 one-sided significance level would have 96% power to detect the difference between a risedronate 150 mg IRBB mean, µ1, of -46.000 and a risedronate 75 mg DRFB mean, µ2, of -29.900 (a difference in means of -16.100), assuming that the common SD was 28.000, with sample sizes of 60 per group, respectively. Estimates were based on Study 2005107 (35 mg DR once a week Phase 2 study). The sample size calculation was not adjusted for multiplicity.||3.372|-10.568|0.3946
95919474|NCT00918749|191798806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.241||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.208|-5.185|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-5.185|-19.208|0.0045
95793502|NCT01462942|191556940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.160|0.090|<0.0001
95793503|NCT01462942|191556940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.069||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.105|0.034|0.0001
95919475|NCT00918749|191798807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.421|12.952|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.952|-3.421|0.3372
95919476|NCT00918749|191798807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.427|7.991|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.991|-8.427|0.9650
95919477|NCT00918749|191798808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.269||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|7.447|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||7.447|-6.670|0.9276
95919478|NCT00918749|191798808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.313||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.917|-3.657|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||-3.657|-17.917|0.0133
95919479|NCT00918749|191798809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.813|29.868|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.868|-0.813|0.1192
95919480|NCT00918749|191798809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.343||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|29.659|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||29.659|-1.230|0.1298
95919481|NCT00918749|191798810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.093||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.956|11.193|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.193|-8.956|0.8546
95919482|NCT00918749|191798810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.126||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.522|2.737|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||2.737|-17.522|0.2291
95919483|NCT00918749|191798811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.046||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.452|20.462|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||20.462|-9.452|0.5436
95919484|NCT00918749|191798811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.959|14.132|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||14.132|-15.959|0.9201
95919485|NCT00918749|191798812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|9.807|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||9.807|-3.590|0.4440
95919486|NCT00918749|191798812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.063||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.874|11.559|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||11.559|-1.874|0.2349
95919487|NCT00918749|191798813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.189|12.12|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.120|-2.189|0.2527
95919488|NCT00918749|191798813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.301|12.153|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||12.153|-2.301|0.2613
95919489|NCT00918749|191798814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.609|8.148|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||8.148|-5.609|0.7606
95919490|NCT00918749|191798814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.744|4.095|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and center.||||4.095|-9.744|0.5006
95919491|NCT04285229|191798840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|21.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.76|2.68|<0.001
95919492|NCT04285229|191798841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|16.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.90|2.42|<0.001
95919493|NCT04285229|191798842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.31|0.006
95919494|NCT04285229|191798843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.38|<0.001
95919495|NCT04285229|191798844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.04|<0.001
95919496|NCT04285229|191798845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.43|0.002
95919497|NCT04285229|191798846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-10.85|<0.001
95919498|NCT04285229|191798847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.17|1.07|0.001
95919499|NCT04285229|191798848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.79|-1.77|0.660
95919500|NCT04285229|191798849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.59|-15.91|<0.001
95919501|NCT04285229|191798850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.57|<0.001
95919502|NCT04285229|191798851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.54|0.086
95919503|NCT04285229|191798852|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.71|<0.001
95919504|NCT04033991|191798881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919505|NCT04033991|191798881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919506|NCT04033991|191798882|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919507|NCT04033991|191798882|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0068
95793504|NCT01462942|191556941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.119|0.051|<0.0001
95919508|NCT04033991|191798884|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95855663|NCT03077412|191670814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.75|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||1.75|0.47|
95919509|NCT04033991|191798884|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0004
95919510|NCT04033991|191798885|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919511|NCT04033991|191798885|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0014
95919512|NCT04033991|191798890|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919513|NCT04033991|191798890|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919514|NCT04033991|191798891|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||<0.0001
95919515|NCT04033991|191798891|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Log Rank|||Data were compared statistically across all 3 categories (favorable, intermediate and poor).||||0.0094
95919516|NCT00577720|191798900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.964||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.964|1.091|
95919517|NCT00577720|191798900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.066||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.066|1.139|
95919518|NCT00577720|191798900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.177|2.086||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||2.086|1.177|
95919519|NCT00577720|191798900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.321||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.321|0.867|
95919520|NCT00577720|191798900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.267||||||For power calculations, assumed that variability in test treatment groups is no more than 50% higher than reference group. If true ratio of CTX is 0.65, the power to detect this departure from a ratio of 1.0 in the primary analysis is 0.88.||1.267|0.824|
95919521|NCT00577720|191798901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.208|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.099||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.099|0.749|
95919522|NCT00577720|191798901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|2.003||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.003|0.665|
95919523|NCT00577720|191798901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|2.404||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.404|0.913|
95919524|NCT00577720|191798901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.752||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.752|0.797|
95919525|NCT00577720|191798901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mg DRBB)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.99||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.990|0.828|
95919526|NCT00577720|191798902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 35 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.316|2.993||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||2.993|0.316|
95919527|NCT00577720|191798902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRBB/35 mg IRBB)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|5.429||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||5.429|0.929|
95919528|NCT00577720|191798902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg IRBB)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|4.718||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.718|0.801|
95919529|NCT00577720|191798902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/35 mg DRFB)|1.668|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|4.668||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||4.668|0.856|
95919530|NCT00577720|191798902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (LS Mean 50 mg DRFB/50 mgDRBB)|0.868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|1.488||||||The target numbers of subjects assessable for the primary analysis are 70 in the 50 mg DRFB group and 35 in the 35 mg IRBB group. Sample sizes are determined to provide adequate power for the primary comparison (ie, serum CTX for 50 mg DRFB vs. 35 mg IRBB).||1.488|0.504|
95919531|NCT00846742|191798910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of proportion of patients' complete response rate between HOD99 (NCT number: NCT00145600) and HOD08|Exact Binominal Test|||The proportion of patients' complete response rate was provided with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.0003
95919532|NCT00846742|191798915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.159|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure with a 1-year increase in age.|||1.159|0.810|0.732
95919533|NCT00846742|191798916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing males to females.|Male vs. Female, with Female as the reference level||0.000|0.000|<0.001
95919534|NCT00846742|191798917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|30101.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3329.573|272135.5|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Stage IIA to Stage IA.|Stage IIA vs. Stage IA, with Stage IA as the reference level||272135.500|3329.573|<0.001
95919535|NCT00846742|191798918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|34027.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4072.872|284291.6|||Fine-Gray model||The sub-distribution hazard ratio for the 2-year cumulative incidence of local failure comparing Classical (all combined) to Nodular Lymphocyte Predominant Hodgkin Lymphoma.|Classical (all combined) vs. Nodular lymphocyte predominant, with Nodular lymphocyte predominant as the reference level||284291.600|4072.872|<0.001
95919536|NCT00846742|191798919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.461
95793505|NCT01462942|191556941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.053||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by pre- and post-bronchodilator, age, and baseline FEV1 as covariates, and treatment group, sex, and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.087|0.019|0.0022
95919537|NCT00846742|191798919|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||1.000
95919538|NCT00846742|191798919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 Participants and HOD99 Participants||||0.836
95919539|NCT00846742|191798921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.384
95919540|NCT00846742|191798921|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year OS between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||1.000
95919541|NCT00846742|191798921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Gray's test|||Comparing the 2-year CI of Local Failure between HOD08 - CR and HOD99 - CR||||0.386
95919542|NCT00846742|191798922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Log Rank|||Comparing the 2-year EFS of patients treated without and with RT||||0.986
95919543|NCT04793464|191798929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.26
95919544|NCT04793464|191798930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Ratio of Means||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.02
95793506|NCT01462942|191556942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.859|0.728|<0.0001
95919545|NCT04793464|191798931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.68
95919546|NCT04793464|191798932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Logistic regression||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
95919547|NCT04793464|191798933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.77
95919548|NCT04793464|191798934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.66
95919549|NCT04793464|191798935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||.44
95919550|NCT04793464|191798936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number analyzed is the number of participants with valid baseline and follow-up data.||||0.017
95919551|NCT00405704|191798975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95919552|NCT00405704|191798976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
95919553|NCT00405704|191798977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.37
95919554|NCT00405704|191798978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.94
95919555|NCT00405704|191798979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
95919556|NCT00405704|191798980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
95919557|NCT00405704|191798981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95919558|NCT00405704|191798982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95919559|NCT02696902|191798983|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|-23.7||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.8|16.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||||16.8|-83.8|0.491
95919560|NCT02718417|191799022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.946||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.946|1.051|0.9890
95919561|NCT02718417|191799022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.565||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||1.565|0.832|0.7935
95919562|NCT02718417|191799023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.08||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.080|0.760|0.8848
95919563|NCT02718417|191799023|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.111||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model stratified by the randomization strata and a stratified log-rank test.||||3.111|0.776|0.8953
95793507|NCT01462942|191556942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted by BDI baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||1.730|0.593|<0.0001
95919564|NCT02718417|191799024|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.578||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.578|0.935|0.9278
95919565|NCT02718417|191799024|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.189||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|||||1.189|0.688|0.2367
95919566|NCT02080520|191799104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
95919567|NCT02080520|191799105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
95919568|NCT02080520|191799106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95919569|NCT04102540|191799157|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|57.39||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|163.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||163.7|-48.9|0.283
95919570|NCT04102540|191799157|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median CD4 count at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median CD4 count following the exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|60.83||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|151.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of CD4 count between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||151.2|-29.5|0.1823
95919571|NCT04102540|191799158|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-42.0||||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.8|255.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression||This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||255.8|-339.8|0.7795
95919572|NCT04102540|191799158|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median viral load at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median viral load following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|-63.0||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.1|170.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|||Statistical analysis of viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.|This is the difference in median viral load between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|170.1|-296.1|0.5971
95919573|NCT04102540|191799159|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-Related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||3.0|1.2|<.0001
95949932|NCT03137784|191871774|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|36.82|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||36.82|25.07|<0.001
95793508|NCT01462942|191556943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.653||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.082|1.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||1.776|-3.082|0.5980
95919574|NCT04102540|191799159|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median HIV-related knowledge score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median HIV-related knowledge score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median HIV-related knowledge score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of HIV-related knowledge scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||2.8|1.2|<.0001
95919575|NCT04102540|191799161|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||0.7|-0.7|0.9879
95919576|NCT04102540|191799161|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median self-efficacy to manage HIV scale scores between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||1.4|-0.2|0.1550
95919577|NCT04102540|191799162|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.52||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 2 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||4.52|0.30|0.8190
95919578|NCT04102540|191799162|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.43||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|In this model, the odds ratio estimate is for the odds of being non-adherent at exposure 3 relative to the odds of being non-adherent at baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants adherence as adherent or non-adherent."||1.43|0.07|0.1332
95919579|NCT04102540|191799163|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of good health at exposure 2 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 2 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||5.46|0.57|0.3160
95919580|NCT04102540|191799163|OTHER|In this model, the null hypothesis was that the odds of having good health at baseline/exposure 1 were exactly equal to the odds of having good health at exposure 3 giving an odds ratio of one for the null hypothesis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.93||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|This model included random effects for subjects.|This is the estimated odds ratio of having good health at exposure 3 relative to baseline/exposure 1.|"For analysis, we dichotomized participants' responses into the following categories: good vs bad health, where good included participant responses: excellent, very good, good, and bad included the participant responses: more or less and bad."||3.93|0.32|0.8609
95919581|NCT04102540|191799164|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 2 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|9.13||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2.|Statistical analysis of current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 2 to the intervention.||18.6|-0.3|0.0572
95949933|NCT03137784|191871774|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.47|35.26|||Linear Mixed Model||LS Mean of change from baseline in mean morning PEF is calculated with the ANCOVA model using treatment, stratification group, dosing schedule, gender, center grouping, smoking status, and baseline mean morning PEF as covariates|||35.26|23.47|<0.001
95793509|NCT01462942|191556943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.828||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.604|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by SGRQ baseline score and age as covariates, with treatment group, gender, smoking-status, visit, and group-by-visit as fixed effect factors||||0.604|-4.259|0.1406
95949934|NCT03137784|191871775|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.00|-0.31|0.053
95793510|NCT04465422|191556956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Anaiysis 1 is according to Occupational Performance History Interview - II (OPHI-II) total score.||5.55|1.65|<0.001
95919582|NCT04102540|191799164|OTHER|In this analysis, our null hypothesis was that the median current health status at baseline/exposure 1 was exactly equivalent to the median current health status following exposure 3 to the intervention.|Median Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05.|Quantile Regression|Random intercepts for subjects were included in the model.|This is the difference in median current health status between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3.|Statistical analysis of self-efficacy to manage HIV scale score between baseline/exposure 1 and exposure 3 to the intervention.||25.1|1.1|0.0332
95919583|NCT01567163|191799170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio geometric least squares (LS) means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric LS means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of geometric LS means is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.10|0.84|
95919584|NCT01567163|191799172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||The ratio of geometric least squares means was calculated using a mixed effect model adjusted for cycle, participant and random error. Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.|||1.55|0.84|
95919585|NCT03405662|191799176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
95919586|NCT03405662|191799177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.29
95919587|NCT03405662|191799178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.07
95919588|NCT03405662|191799179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.23
95919589|NCT03405662|191799180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
95919590|NCT03405662|191799181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.13
95919591|NCT03405662|191799182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
95919592|NCT03405662|191799183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.68
95919593|NCT03405662|191799184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.86
95919594|NCT03405662|191799185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.32
95919595|NCT01177813|191799186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.57||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.57|-0.90|<0.0001
95919596|NCT01177813|191799186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|-0.69||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-0.69|-1.01|<0.0001
95793511|NCT04465422|191556956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Occupational Identity(range 11\~44；higher scores indicates better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Identity scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client has internalized a positive occupational identity (i.e., has values, interests, and confidence; sees self in various occupational roles; has an image of the kind of life desired)||2.37|0.23|0.019
95919597|NCT01177813|191799187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.38||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.38|-2.48|<0.0001
95919598|NCT01177813|191799187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region,and renal function at baseline as fixed effects,baseline body weight and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate||-1.60|-2.70|<0.0001
95919599|NCT01177813|191799188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic Blood Pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-5.2|0.0231
95919600|NCT01177813|191799188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|-0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for Systolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline SBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||-0.9|-6.0|0.0028
95919601|NCT01177813|191799188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|0.9||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.9|-2.1|0.3987
95919602|NCT01177813|191799188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.0||Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25mg minus placebo|ANCOVA|||"Comparison for diastolic blood pressure~Model was adjusted for treatment,geographical region, and renal function at baseline as fixed effects, baseline DBP and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate"||0.0|-3.0|0.0296
95855664|NCT03077412|191670815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.01|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||4.01|0.87|
95855665|NCT03077412|191670815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.92|||||Hazard ratio was derived from Cox Proportional-Hazards model.|||2.92|0.65|
95919603|NCT04827134|191799199|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8344|0.9282|||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9282|0.8344|
95919604|NCT04827134|191799199|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8168|0.9007|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9007|0.8168|
95919605|NCT04827134|191799199|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8316|0.9566|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9566|0.8316|
95919606|NCT04827134|191799200|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8744|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8293|0.9219|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9219|0.8293|
95919607|NCT04827134|191799200|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8567|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8159|0.8995|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8995|0.8159|
95919608|NCT04827134|191799200|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8202|0.9438|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9438|0.8202|
95793512|NCT04465422|191556956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Occupational Competence(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate better performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Competence scale is designed to measure the degree to which a client is able to sustain a pattern of occupational behavior that is productive and satisfying.||2.11|0.38|0.006
95919609|NCT04827134|191799201|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6598|0.7643|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7643|0.6598|
95919610|NCT04827134|191799201|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.4503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3976|0.51|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte ABC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5100|0.3976|
95919611|NCT04827134|191799201|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.6373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5594|0.726|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fed with Cohort 1: TRIUMEQ (DTG/ABC/3TC) Fasted.|||0.7260|0.5594|
95919612|NCT04827134|191799202|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8834|0.9472|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9472|0.8834|
95919613|NCT04827134|191799202|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8847|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8303|0.9426|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-inf) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9426|0.8303|
95919614|NCT04827134|191799203|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.9163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8862|0.9475|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9475|0.8862|
95919615|NCT04827134|191799203|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.8806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8251|0.9398|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter AUC(0-t) for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.9398|0.8251|
95919616|NCT04827134|191799204|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.7284|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6576|0.8068|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte DTG to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.8068|0.6576|
95919617|NCT04827134|191799204|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.5191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4535|0.5943|||||An analysis of variance was performed on parameter Cmax for Analyte 3TC to compare treatment arms Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fed with Cohort 2: DOVATO (DTG/3TC) Fasted.|||0.5943|0.4535|
95919618|NCT02571439|191799266|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95919619|NCT02571439|191799267|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95919620|NCT02571439|191799268|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
95919621|NCT02571439|191799269|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.46
95919622|NCT02571439|191799270|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
95919623|NCT02571439|191799271|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
95919624|NCT02571439|191799272|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95919625|NCT02571439|191799273|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.87
95919626|NCT02571439|191799274|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95919627|NCT02571439|191799275|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.91
95919628|NCT03088137|191799303|EQUIVALENCE|Study power of at least 80% at a significance level (alpha error) 5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/- 3.4 oocytes for the relevant population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.546|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.297||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.026|3.116|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.116|-2.026|0.002
95919629|NCT03088137|191799304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.709|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.067||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|2.824|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.824|-1.405|0.806
95919630|NCT03088137|191799305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.129||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.455|2.019|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.019|-2.455|0.617
95919631|NCT03088137|191799306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.723|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.723|-2.995|0.445
95919632|NCT03088137|191799307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.623
95919633|NCT03088137|191799308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.8||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|113.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||113.6|-83.9|0.488
95919634|NCT03088137|191799309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.416|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.416|-0.379|0.629
95919635|NCT03088137|191799310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.644
95919636|NCT03088137|191799313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|17.0|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||17.0|-21.0|0.833
95919637|NCT03088137|191799314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|11.9|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions.||11.9|-24.3|0.507
95919638|NCT02216422|191799315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|90.4|
95919639|NCT03216902|191799347|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
95919640|NCT03216902|191799347|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
95919641|NCT03216902|191799347|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
95919642|NCT03216902|191799347|SUPERIORITY|Claim superiority of DE-126 compare to Placebo at 3 timepoints (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00)|||||<|0.0001||||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg step-up procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||This endpoint is to test if one of four concentrations of DE-126 is superior to the placebo in lowering IOP at each specified timepoint (9:00, 13:00 and 17:00) at Week 6 compared to baseline. Therefore, 0.005% Latanoprost group is not included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
95919643|NCT01850082|191799359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.47
95919644|NCT01850082|191799360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.821
95919645|NCT01850082|191799361|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95919646|NCT01850082|191799362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.724|0.517
95919647|NCT02258464|191799370|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.745||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.504|1.102||The SSE-FS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that both treatment groups have the same SSE-FS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of SSE-FS time in radium-223 dichloride is different from the placebo group||1.102|0.504|0.3339
95919648|NCT02258464|191799371|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.888||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.576|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.370|0.576|0.7259
95919649|NCT02258464|191799372|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.932||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.513|1.693|||Log Rank|||||1.693|0.513|0.8785
95919650|NCT02258464|191799373|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.824||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.556|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.220|0.556|0.5240
95919651|NCT02258464|191799374|OTHER||Difference (Radium 223 - Placebo) %|11.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|-2.7|0.345
95764066|NCT02972892|191498173|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|15.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||15.01|6.89|<.001
95919652|NCT02258464|191799375|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|0.968||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.657|1.425|||Log Rank|||||1.425|0.657|0.9128
95919653|NCT02258464|191799376|OTHER||Hazard ratio (Radium 223/Placebo)|1.023||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.753|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.753|0.9227
95919654|NCT00932646|191799379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.139|<0.0001
95919655|NCT00932646|191799379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.140|<0.0001
95919656|NCT00932646|191799379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.124|<0.0001
95919657|NCT00932646|191799380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.114|<0.0001
95919658|NCT00932646|191799380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.116|<0.0001
95919659|NCT00932646|191799380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.125|<0.0001
95919660|NCT00932646|191799381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.149|<0.0001
95949935|NCT03137784|191871775|OTHER|Treatment difference|Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|-0.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|||||0.05|-0.27|0.163
95919661|NCT00932646|191799381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
95919662|NCT00932646|191799381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
95919663|NCT00932646|191799382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.154|<0.0001
95919664|NCT00932646|191799382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.158|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.158|<0.0001
95919665|NCT00932646|191799382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.255|0.178|<0.0001
95919666|NCT00932646|191799383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003||95.0|0.045|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.045|0.0003
95919667|NCT00932646|191799383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.051|0.0001
95919668|NCT00932646|191799383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0026||95.0|0.028|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.132|0.028|0.0026
95919669|NCT00932646|191799384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.195|<0.0001
95919670|NCT00932646|191799384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.190|<0.0001
95919671|NCT00932646|191799384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.291|0.179|<0.0001
95919672|NCT00932646|191799385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.101|<0.0001
95919673|NCT00932646|191799385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.096|<0.0001
95919674|NCT00932646|191799385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.284|0.162|<0.0001
95919675|NCT00932646|191799386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.155|<0.0001
95793513|NCT04465422|191556956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Occupational Behavior Settings(range 9\~36；higher scores indicate greater performance), a sub-domain of OPHI-II. The Occupational Behavior Settings scale addresses the impact of the environment on the person's occupational life.||1.35|-0.19|0.136
95919676|NCT00932646|191799386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.150|<0.0001
95919677|NCT00932646|191799386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.281|0.176|<0.0001
95919678|NCT00932646|191799387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.365|0.233|<0.0001
95919679|NCT00932646|191799387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.236|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.369|0.236|<0.0001
95919680|NCT00932646|191799387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.271|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.405|0.271|<0.0001
95919681|NCT00932646|191799388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0163||95.0|0.024|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.024|0.0163
95919682|NCT00932646|191799388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0118||95.0|0.031|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.031|0.0118
95919683|NCT00932646|191799388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0076||95.0|0.04|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.256|0.040|0.0076
95919684|NCT00932646|191799389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.082|<0.0001
95919685|NCT00932646|191799389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.084|<0.0001
95919686|NCT00932646|191799389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.119|<0.0001
95919687|NCT02611830|191799407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.0||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.0|19.7|<0.001
95919688|NCT02611830|191799408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|49.3||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|22.1|<0.001
95919689|NCT02611830|191799409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|50.9||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by randomization strata according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-α antagonist failure/concomitant immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.9|21.2|<0.001
95919690|NCT02611830|191799410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|25.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||25.7|-6.6|0.076
95919691|NCT02611830|191799411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|43.7||P-value was calculated by Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||43.7|-4.5|0.067
95919692|NCT02559609|191799418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1||||.028
95919693|NCT02559609|191799419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1)||||.027
95919694|NCT02559609|191799420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) was compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.66
95919695|NCT02559609|191799421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.89
95919696|NCT02559609|191799422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|df = 1||Group A/B (contrast -1) compared to Group C/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 2.||||.58
95919697|NCT02559609|191799423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group A/C (contrast -1) compared to Group B/D (contrast 1) to test Aim 1.||||.024
95919698|NCT00064025|191799441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.701
95793514|NCT04465422|191556957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is based on Lawton Instrumental Activities Daily Living (range 0\~23；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||2.25|-3.90|0.592
95919699|NCT00064025|191799442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
95919700|NCT00064025|191799443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.001
95919701|NCT01370603|191799444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence was declared if the 97.5% expanded confidence interval for the mean difference between the fixed-dose combination and co-administration in percent change from baseline was contained within ±4%.|Difference in Least-squares means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.08% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||1.4|-1.9|
95919702|NCT01370603|191799445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.4|
95793515|NCT04465422|191556957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is based on Comprehensive Occupational Therapy Evaluation Scale (range 20\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||7.23|-2.29|0.302
95919703|NCT01370603|191799446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|
95919704|NCT01370603|191799447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|
95919705|NCT01370603|191799448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.9|
95919706|NCT01370603|191799449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|4.9|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.9|-4.9|
95919707|NCT02036515|191799450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
95919708|NCT02036515|191799450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
95919709|NCT02036515|191799451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.2||||||||5.2|-16.5|
95919710|NCT02036515|191799451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.1|
95919711|NCT02036515|191799452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6||||||||5.6|-4.4|
95919712|NCT02036515|191799452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.9|
95919713|NCT02036515|191799453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenc in least squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.76|-17.54|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-17.54|-32.76|<0.001
95919714|NCT02036515|191799453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.66|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-23.66|-38.90|<0.001
95919715|NCT02036515|191799454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.4|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.40|-2.65|<0.001
95919716|NCT02036515|191799454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.09|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.09|-2.35|<0.001
95919717|NCT02036515|191799455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||5.72|1.74|<0.001
95919718|NCT02036515|191799455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted with terms for treatment, baseline A1C, baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication.||||8.02|2.44|<0.001
95919719|NCT02036515|191799456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.93||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.49|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-0.49|-5.36|0.019
95919720|NCT02036515|191799456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.5|||cLDA|Model is fitted with effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, effects for baseline eGFR and prior antihyperglycemic medication||||-1.50|-6.39|0.002
95919721|NCT02036515|191799457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.54||||||||-0.54|-0.98|
95793516|NCT04465422|191556957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is based on Personal and Social Performance scale (range 1\~100；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||6.82|-6.25|0.931
95855666|NCT03077412|191670816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.6|21.3|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||21.3|-55.6|
95919722|NCT02036515|191799457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61||||||||-0.61|-1.05|
95919723|NCT02036515|191799458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|-21.09||||||||-21.09|-36.44|
95919724|NCT02036515|191799458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.85||||||||-21.85|-37.30|
95919725|NCT02036515|191799459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.59||||||||-1.59|-3.43|
95919726|NCT02036515|191799459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.95||||||||-0.95|-2.81|
95919727|NCT02036515|191799460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.64||||||||6.64|1.98|
95919728|NCT02036515|191799460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.28||||||||7.28|2.22|
95919729|NCT02036515|191799461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|-2.15||||||||-2.15|-7.82|
95919730|NCT02036515|191799461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.07||||||||-2.07|-7.76|
95919731|NCT02036515|191799462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.97|
95919732|NCT02036515|191799462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.11|
95919733|NCT02036515|191799463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.84||||||||0.84|-2.82|
95919734|NCT02036515|191799463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.99||||||||0.99|-2.69|
95919735|NCT02036515|191799464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-9.4||||||||-9.4|-21.9|
95919736|NCT02036515|191799464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.5||||||||-8.5|-21.3|
95919737|NCT02036515|191799465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-19.4||||||||-19.4|-38.3|
95919738|NCT02036515|191799465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-18.4||||||||-18.4|-37.5|
95919739|NCT02036515|191799469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|18.68||||||||18.68|6.83|
95919740|NCT02036515|191799469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.88||||||||17.88|5.94|
95919741|NCT02036515|191799470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.03||||||||19.03|6.54|
95919742|NCT02036515|191799470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|12.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|19.18||||||||19.18|6.54|
95919743|NCT02036515|191799472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.04|
95919744|NCT02036515|191799472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
95919745|NCT02036515|191799473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
95919746|NCT02036515|191799473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.07|
95919747|NCT01216293|191799474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.2|7.0|
95919748|NCT01216293|191799474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|30.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||30.4|6.7|
95919749|NCT01216293|191799475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|27.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.749|42.957|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||42.957|12.749|
95919750|NCT01216293|191799475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|22.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.357|35.714|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||35.714|8.357|
95919751|NCT01216293|191799476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|34.4|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||34.4|4.0|
95919752|NCT01216293|191799476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|28.3|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||28.3|-2.7|
95919753|NCT01216293|191799477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.78|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.78|0.40|
95919754|NCT01216293|191799477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.86|||||Difference estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimation, and corresponding 95% CIs calculated using Moses method.|||12.86|0.59|
95919755|NCT02218203|191799502|OTHER|We report the interaction between the lidocaine dose response and dextromethorphan dose response. The type of statistical test was a linear regression model with Chi-square test.|Lidocaine dose*dextromethorphan dose|0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.0081|||Pearson's Chi-squared test||The estimated value is an estimated interaction term, and not a P-value.|We performed a lidocaine dose response clinical trial nested within a dextromethorphan clinical trial to evaluate a potential interaction between lidocaine dose and dextromethorphan dose (pain intensity; Gracely scale).||0.0081|0.0004|0.0322
95919756|NCT05567952|191799506|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.705|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.093|-0.316|||MMRM|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction; an unstructured (co) variance structure was used.||-0.316|-1.093|= 0.0004
95919757|NCT05567952|191799507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.235|||=|0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.551|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (less than or equal to \[\<=6\] months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.551|0.983|= 0.0697
95919758|NCT05567952|191799508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.385|||COX proportional hazard ratio|||Analysis was based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model which included treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 RNA level (\< 4 log10 copies/mL or \>= 4 log10 copies/mL) and time since the last vaccination (\<=6 months, \> 6 months or unvaccinated) as appropriate.||1.385|0.848|= 0.5202
95919759|NCT05160025|191799534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent with correction (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) other-competition \> feedback (p \< 0.001) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95919760|NCT05160025|191799537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"rmANOVA p = 0.111~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||0.111
95919761|NCT05160025|191799540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"rmANOVA \< 0.001~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.003) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95919762|NCT05160025|191799543|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"rmANOVA p \> 0.05 with a partial eta squared effect size = 0.073~post hoc paired t-tests not performed"|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
95919763|NCT05160025|191799548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||"rmANOVA = 0.004~post hoc paired t-tests or nonparametric equivalent corrected (x3) indicated the following: self-competition \> feedback (p = 0.007) other-competition \> feedback (p = 0.002) self-competition = other-competition (p \> 0.05)"|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95919764|NCT05160025|191799556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
95919765|NCT05160025|191799557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||ranking compared to expected value for each condition and the p-value was adjusted for 3 comparisons for each condition: self-competition (p \> 0.05) other-competition (p \> 0.05) feedback (p \> 0.05)|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
95919766|NCT03615482|191799562|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Erythema||2.7|-4.5|0.617
95919767|NCT03615482|191799562|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Pain||2.6|-7.8|0.320
95919768|NCT03615482|191799562|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Injection-Site Swelling||2.0|-6.2|0.310
95919769|NCT03615482|191799563|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Arthralgia||1.2|-5.8|0.205
95919770|NCT03615482|191799563|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Fatigue||2.3|-8.0|0.273
95919771|NCT03615482|191799563|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Headache||2.6|-6.9|0.372
95919772|NCT03615482|191799563|OTHER|Difference in Percent vs. Non-concomitant Group|Difference in Percent|2.4||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values were calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Myalgia||7.1|-2.4|0.329
95919773|NCT03615482|191799564|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.6|
95919774|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including all vaccinated participants.||Serotype 1||0.82|0.54|0.004
95919775|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3||1.09|0.81|<0.001
95919776|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4||1.01|0.69|<0.001
95919777|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5||0.98|0.64|<0.001
95919778|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A||1.00|0.71|<0.001
95919779|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B||1.04|0.74|<0.001
95919780|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F||0.99|0.75|<0.001
95919781|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V||1.15|0.86|<0.001
95919782|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14||1.08|0.77|<0.001
95919783|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.68|<0.001
95919784|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A||0.95|0.73|<0.001
95919785|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F||1.17|0.89|<0.001
95919786|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F||0.91|0.64|<0.001
95793517|NCT04465422|191556957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is based on Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (range 1\~10；the higher scores indicate greater performance) total scores.||1.69|-1.73|0.981
95919787|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F||1.03|0.70|<0.001
95919788|NCT03615482|191799565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F||0.96|0.72|<0.001
95919789|NCT03615482|191799566|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H1N1||1.25|0.94|<0.001
95919790|NCT03615482|191799566|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||H3N2||1.17|0.90|<0.001
95919791|NCT03615482|191799566|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Victoria||1.08|0.86|<0.001
95919792|NCT03615482|191799566|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the estimated GMT ratio (Concomitant Group/Nonconcomitant Group) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were estimated from a cLDA model.||B-Yamagata||1.13|0.90|<0.001
95919793|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.67|
95919794|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||Serotype 3||0.99|0.76|
95919795|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 4||0.91|0.68|
95919796|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 5||1.02|0.77|
95919797|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87||||||Serotype 6A||0.87|0.61|
95919798|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 6B||0.91|0.64|
95919799|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||||||Serotype 7F||1.01|0.76|
95919800|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 9V||1.03|0.79|
95919801|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 14||0.99|0.73|
95919802|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||||||Serotype 18C||0.91|0.68|
95919803|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 19A||1.02|0.78|
95919804|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||||||Serotype 19F||1.03|0.77|
95919805|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 22F||0.89|0.65|
95919806|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 23F||0.98|0.70|
95919807|NCT03615482|191799567|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||||||Serotype 33F||0.99|0.75|
95993554|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||17.3|-3.6|0.197
95919808|NCT01603940|191799575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.616
95919809|NCT01603940|191799576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95919810|NCT01603940|191799577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
95919811|NCT02892409|191799595|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|105.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.051|167.183||||||||167.183|66.051|
95919812|NCT02892409|191799596|EQUIVALENCE|LS Mean Ratio (TAK-438/Lansoprazole), 95% CI of the ratio were obtained by taking the anti-log of the difference or confidence limits of difference between the LS means of test and reference on the natural logarithmic scale.|LS Mean Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.137|130.569||||||||130.569|67.137|
95919813|NCT03123263|191799598|OTHER|Repeated measures one sided ANOVA was used to analyze changes in ejection fraction over time.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|F (2,98) =13.974||||||<0.0005
95919814|NCT00390455|191799648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis then is that the hazard ratio of the two treatment arms is 1.0; the alternative hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of the control to the experimental regimen is 1.5 (0.67). The test of these hypotheses is one-sided (alpha = 0.025), and interim analyses will be used to stop for futility and superiority. Under these assumptions, there is at least 90% power to detect the stated difference in median PFS between the two treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Tests were stratified by prior tamoxifen therapy (yes/no) and bone disease only (yes/no).|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.82|0.37
95919815|NCT00594932|191799675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||superiority|4.0|||=|0.041||||||This was the primary endpoint therefore no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|Fisher Exact|||this is a categorical assessment. Prespecified. Fishers exact test. Significant is calculated as \< 0.05||||=0.041
95919816|NCT01751113|191799696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.219|1.100|<0.001
95919817|NCT01751113|191799696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|1.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.355|1.224|<0.001
95919818|NCT01751113|191799697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.902|0.812|<0.001
95919819|NCT01751113|191799697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC ratio|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.816|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.816|0.735|<0.001
95919820|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.263|1.104|<0.001
95919821|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.303|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||1.393|1.219|<0.001
95919822|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.175|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.099|1.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.257|1.099|<0.001
95919823|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||1.432|1.253|<0.001
95919824|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.231|1.076|<0.001
95919825|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.217|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||1.391|1.217|<0.001
95919826|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.141|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.220|1.067|<0.001
95919827|NCT01751113|191799698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|1.325|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||1.325|1.159|<0.001
95919828|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.846|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.905|0.792|<0.001
95919829|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.819|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 30 minutes|||0.819|0.717|<0.001
95919830|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.909|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.909|0.795|<0.001
95919831|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.746|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 75 minutes|||0.798|0.698|<0.001
95919832|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.928|0.812|<0.001
95919833|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 120 minutes|||0.822|0.719|<0.001
95919834|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.877|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.938|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.938|0.820|<0.001
95919835|NCT01751113|191799699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for 240 minutes|||0.865|0.757|<0.001
95919836|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.198|0.116|<0.001
95919837|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.159|0.077|<0.001
95919838|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.082||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.133|0.031|0.002
95919839|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.186|0.084|<0.001
95919840|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|0.004|0.035
95919841|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|0.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.114|0.015|0.011
95919842|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.107||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.028|-0.187|0.009
95919843|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.102||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.023|-0.180|0.012
95919844|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.013||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.040|-0.066|0.632
95919845|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.014||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.038|-0.067|0.596
95919846|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.065||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.007|-0.123|0.028
95919847|NCT01751113|191799700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.075||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||-0.018|-0.133|0.010
95919848|NCT01751113|191799701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.032|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.023|<0.001
95919849|NCT01751113|191799701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.017|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.026|0.008|<0.001
95919850|NCT01751113|191799702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.835|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.905|0.770|<0.001
95919851|NCT01751113|191799702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|0.803|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.869|0.741|<0.001
95919852|NCT01751113|191799703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.301|1.108|<0.001
95919853|NCT01751113|191799703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specific airway conductance ratio|1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.352|1.153|<0.001
95919854|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.236|0.086|<0.001
95919855|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FEV1|0.103||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1|||0.178|0.028|0.008
95919856|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.104||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.209|0.000|0.051
95919857|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of FVC|0.148||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FVC|||0.253|0.043|0.006
95919858|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.104|-0.120|0.890
95919859|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of IC|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for IC|||0.103|-0.118|0.890
95919860|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.103|-0.355|<0.001
95919861|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of RV|-0.189||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for RV|||-0.064|-0.314|0.003
95919862|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.101||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||0.002|-0.204|0.055
95919863|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TLC|-0.105||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TLC|||-0.003|-0.206|0.044
95919864|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.092||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.013|-0.197|0.085
95919865|NCT01751113|191799704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference of TGV|-0.091||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for TGV|||0.012|-0.195|0.083
95919866|NCT01751113|191799705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.027|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.041|0.014|<0.001
95919867|NCT01751113|191799705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||FEV1/FVC ratio|0.008||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical data for FEV1/FVC ratio|||0.021|-0.005|0.223
95919868|NCT00924469|191799707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.61||||0.0216||90.0|0.429|0.865||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.865|0.429|0.0216
95764067|NCT02972892|191498174|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.|Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.25|57.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device was performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for both EtAA.||57.95|46.25|<.001
95919869|NCT00924469|191799708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.43||||0.1423||90.0|0.956|2.145||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for testosterone concentration at Week 24||2.145|0.956|0.1423
95919870|NCT00924469|191799708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.82||||0.6639||90.0|0.386|1.746||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 24||1.746|0.386|0.6639
95919871|NCT00924469|191799709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.239|0.418||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.418|0.239|<0.0001
95919872|NCT00924469|191799709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.5061||90.0|0.828|1.554||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.554|0.828|0.5061
95919873|NCT00924469|191799709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.017|0.05||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.050|0.017|<0.0001
95919874|NCT00924469|191799709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.79||||0.5767||90.0|0.398|1.581||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for DHEA concentration at Week 24||1.581|0.398|0.5767
95919875|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.097|0.207||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 1 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 12||0.207|0.097|<0.0001
95919876|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.4364||90.0|0.571|1.225||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for serum testosterone concentration at Week 24||1.225|0.571|0.4364
95919877|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.75||||0.1515||90.0|0.54|1.044||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 3 for serum DHT concentration at Week 12||1.044|0.540|0.1515
95919878|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.84||||0.3965||90.0|0.589|1.188||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 4 for serum DHT concentration at Week 24||1.188|0.589|0.3965
95919879|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42||||0.0003||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 5 for serum Androsterone concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|0.0003
95919880|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2494||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 6 for serum androsterone concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2494
95919881|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.023|0.073||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 7 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 12||0.073|0.023|<0.0001
95919882|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.24||||0.5144||90.0|0.717|2.137||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 8 for serum DHEA concentration at Week 24||2.137|0.717|0.5144
95919883|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.055|0.189||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 9 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 12||0.189|0.055|<0.0001
95919884|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.55||||0.1329||90.0|0.286|1.06||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 10 for serum DHEA-glucuronide concentration at Week 24||1.060|0.286|0.1329
95919885|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.01|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.008|0.028||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 11 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 12||0.028|0.008|<0.0001
95919886|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.2||||0.7061||90.0|0.53|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 12 for serum DHEA-sulfate concentration at Week 24||2.730|0.530|0.7061
95919887|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.29|0.615||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 13 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 12||0.615|0.290|<0.0001
95919888|NCT00924469|191799710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.22||||0.2673||90.0|0.916|1.625||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor and Baseline androgen.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis 14 for serum delta-4-androstenedione concentration at Week 24||1.625|0.916|0.2673
95919889|NCT00924469|191799711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|25.533|||<|0.0001||90.0|4.989|130.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for PSA response at Week 12||130.680|4.989|<0.0001
95919890|NCT00924469|191799711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.131||||0.2319||90.0|0.956|1.337|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 2 for PSA response at Week 24||1.337|0.956|0.2319
95919891|NCT00924469|191799712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|2.744||||0.3427||90.0|1.018|5.015|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis 1 for CR at Week 24||5.015|1.018|0.3427
95919892|NCT00924469|191799715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|0.17|||<|0.0001||90.0|0.098|0.289||Test for no difference of natural log transformed values between treatments was calculated using two-way ANOVA adjusting for Baseline risk factor.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis 2 for DHT concentration at Week 12||0.289|0.098|<0.0001
95919893|NCT01651936|191799719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.52||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.50|-1.54|0.308
95919894|NCT01651936|191799720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|-0.26||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.01|-23.52|0.91
95919895|NCT01651936|191799722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|8.46||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|27.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.32|-10.40|0.468
95919896|NCT01651936|191799724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
95733232|NCT03227445|191437316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|54.28|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||"There are three intercurrent events identified which could impact upon the estimand of interest:~* The participant could withdraw from randomised study device sequence and therefore withdraw from the study~* The participant could change their standard COPD maintenance medication device to one delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER; these subjects should have been withdrawn from the study according to the protocol.~* The participant could attend the visit without the device/s they were randomised to, in which case correct use cannot be assessed as described in the protocol.~Rescue Medication use and change to maintenance COPD medication which is not delivered via ELLIPTA, DISKUS or HANDIHALER are not considered intercurrent events"|54.28|1.97|<0.001
95733233|NCT03227445|191437318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
95733234|NCT03227445|191437323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.||||3.45|<0.001
95919897|NCT03875911|191799799|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was used to analyze equivalence between arms||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
95919898|NCT03875911|191799800|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence calculated using ANOVA||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95919899|NCT03875911|191799801|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was assessed using ANOVA||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95919900|NCT03875911|191799802|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
95919901|NCT03875911|191799803|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence determined by ANOVA||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95919902|NCT03875911|191799804|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined using ANOVA||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
95919903|NCT02293837|191799835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52; Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 mAUC.||||0.277
95919904|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.499
95919905|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.267
95919906|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.226
95919907|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.758
95919908|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.341
95919909|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
95919910|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.689
95919911|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.400
95919912|NCT02293837|191799836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.969
95919913|NCT02293837|191799837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.679
95919914|NCT02293837|191799837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.373
95919915|NCT02293837|191799837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was 2-hour C-peptide mAUC and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.395
95919916|NCT02293837|191799838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.176
95919917|NCT02293837|191799838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.285
95919918|NCT02293837|191799838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.435
95919919|NCT02293837|191799838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.931
95733235|NCT03227445|191437324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Estimand: Composite)||||||<0.001
95919920|NCT02293837|191799838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.280
95919921|NCT02293837|191799838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in mAUC from screening and covariates of treatment, screening mAUC, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104. Only participants \>=12 years old had the 4-hour MMTT performed.||||0.985
95919922|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.762
95733236|NCT03227445|191437325|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Primary Estimand: Hypothetical)||||||<0.001
95733237|NCT03227445|191437326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Sensitivity Analyses (Supplementary Composite Estimand)||||||<0.001
95733238|NCT03227445|191437327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|24.55|||stratified exact logistic model||Participants included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option was included in the exact statement and period included as fixed effects.|||24.55|2.08|<0.001
95733239|NCT00365300|191437328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95919923|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.640
95919924|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.145
95919925|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.033
95919926|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in avg insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline avg insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.591
95919927|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.810
95919928|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.178
95919929|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.430
95919930|NCT02293837|191799839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in average insulin use per kg from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline average insulin use per kg, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.149
95919931|NCT02293837|191799840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.103
95919932|NCT02293837|191799840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.452
95919933|NCT02293837|191799840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was average insulin use per kg and covariates were treatment, study week, age, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept and study week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.091
95919934|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.154
95919935|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.193
95919936|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.397
95919937|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.125
95919938|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.705
95919939|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.378
95919940|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.035
95919941|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.262
95919942|NCT02293837|191799841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with outcome variable of change in HbA1c from baseline and covariates of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and age.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||||0.338
95919943|NCT02293837|191799842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.493
95919944|NCT02293837|191799842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.659
95919945|NCT02293837|191799842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||P-value is for group difference in time trends from a longitudinal mixed effects model. Response variable was HbA1c and covariates were treatment, study week, spline week (at week 4), age, treatment\*spline week, treatment\*study week, age\*study week.|Longitudinal mixed model|Random within-subject effects for intercept, study week, and spline week were included assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||Screening to Week 104||||0.407
95919946|NCT02293837|191799843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.634
95733240|NCT00324168|191437342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.068|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for enrollment BSCVA||||0.068|-0.085|0.82
95733241|NCT00324168|191437343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||||0.15|-0.09|0.40
95919947|NCT02293837|191799843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
95919948|NCT02293837|191799843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.329
95919949|NCT02293837|191799843|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||1.000
95919950|NCT02293837|191799843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 52||||0.847
95919951|NCT02293837|191799843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with a hypoglycemic event between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline to Week 104/End of Study||||0.858
95919952|NCT02293837|191799844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.296
95919953|NCT02293837|191799844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.145
95919954|NCT02293837|191799844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.027
95919955|NCT02293837|191799845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.547
95919956|NCT02293837|191799845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 52||||0.551
95919957|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.27||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||0.04|-0.58|0.087
95919958|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.52|-1.15|<0.001
95919959|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.08|-0.69|0.014
95919960|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.99|<0.001
95919961|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.93||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.93|-1.55|<0.001
95919962|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.66||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.66|-1.28|<0.001
95919963|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.78||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.78|-1.39|<0.001
95919964|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.39|-1.01|<0.001
95993555|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 12||18.4|-3.5|0.183
95733242|NCT00324168|191437344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.07|0.873
95919965|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo. The normality assumption required for validity of ANCOVA was violated due to a biologically implausible extreme outlier. See below for results using robust regression.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
95919966|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.36||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.09||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.09|-0.62|0.008
95919967|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.6||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.60|-1.13|<0.001
95919968|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.36||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.10|-0.63|0.007
95919969|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
95919970|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.99||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.99|-1.52|<0.001
95919971|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.63||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.63|-1.16|<0.001
95919972|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.74||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.74|-1.26|<0.001
95919973|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.37||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.37|-0.90|<0.001
95733243|NCT00324168|191437345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.76|0.44
95919974|NCT01076088|191799846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||Comparing co-administration with individual components. This is a post-hoc analysis using robust regression, a valid method in the presence of outliers.|Regression, Robust|The Robust Regression model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline A1C.||||-0.12|-0.65|0.004
95919975|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-18.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-3.29||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-3.29|-33.75|0.017
95919976|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-61.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.61|-46.07||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-46.07|-76.61|<0.001
95919977|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-31.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|-16.28||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-16.28|-46.49|<0.001
95919978|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-48.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-33.67||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-33.67|-64.21|<0.001
95919979|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-87.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.87|-72.27||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-72.27|-102.87|<0.001
95733244|NCT00324168|191437346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95733245|NCT00324168|191437347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||||0.05|-0.12|0.39
95733246|NCT00324168|191437348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.78||95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.78
95919980|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-69.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.41|-53.7||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-53.70|-84.41|<0.001
95919981|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-75.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.47|-59.87||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-59.87|-90.47|<0.001
95919982|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.99|-28.58||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-28.58|-58.99|<0.001
95919983|NCT01076088|191799847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-10.84||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline 2-H PMG.||||-10.84|-41.62|<0.001
95919984|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.11||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|0.64||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. metformin 850 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||0.64|-16.86|0.069
95919985|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-25.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-17.04||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-17.04|-34.72|<0.001
95919986|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.72||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|3.0||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. metformin 500 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||3.00|-14.44|0.198
95919987|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-17.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-8.72||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. sitagliptin 100 mg|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-8.72|-26.33|<0.001
95919988|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-35.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.56|-27.06||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-27.06|-44.56|<0.001
95919989|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-19.0||Pairwise comparison, metformin 850 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-19.00|-36.40|<0.001
95919990|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-27.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|-18.73||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 50 mg + metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-18.73|-36.18|<0.001
95919991|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.42|-13.04||Pairwise comparison, metformin 500 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-13.04|-30.42|<0.001
95919992|NCT01076088|191799848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.93||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-1.14||Pairwise comparison, sitagliptin 100 mg vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (yes/no) and a covariate for baseline FPG.||||-1.14|-18.72|0.027
95919993|NCT05515679|191799853|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using a paired sample t-test (two tailed), we wished to examine whether there was an increase in Constructive Engagement and Pleasure and a reduction in Passive Engagement, Distracted Engagement, and Non-Engagement, from baseline to treatment. With an anticipated PWD sample of 24, and using means and standard deviations from the PI's previous studies, we calculated a power of 90% to detect effects (alpha = .05; one-tailed test). (3) PWD and staff report high satisfaction wi||.94|.51|<0.01
95919994|NCT05515679|191799854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.59|.017
95919995|NCT05515679|191799855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.43|.008
95919996|NCT05515679|191799856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.30|0.053
95919997|NCT05515679|191799857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.79|.54|<.01
95919998|NCT05515679|191799858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.60|2.62|<.001
95733247|NCT00324168|191437349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||Nocardia spp||0.35|-.011|0.30
95733248|NCT00324168|191437349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|-0.12|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Streptococcus pneumoniae||0.10|-0.12|0.86
95733249|NCT00324168|191437349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||Moraxella spp||0.55|-0.34|0.65
95733250|NCT00324168|191437349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Pseudomonas aeruginosa||0.13|-0.20|0.67
95733251|NCT00324168|191437350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||\<20/40||0.25|-0.08|0.33
95919999|NCT05515679|191799859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.58|-1.55|<.001
95920000|NCT05515679|191799860|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|0.97|.022
95920001|NCT05515679|191799861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.44|-2.90|.551
95920002|NCT05515679|191799862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||37.2|17.7|<.001
95920003|NCT01058863|191799866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.42|0.88|<0.0001
95920004|NCT01058863|191799866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.24|0.70|<0.0001
95920005|NCT01058863|191799866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level..||1.35|0.81|<0.0001
95920006|NCT01058863|191799866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline FEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||1.15|0.61|<0.0001
95920007|NCT01058863|191799867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.21|40.74||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.74|26.21|<0.0001
95920008|NCT01058863|191799867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.47|34.99||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||34.99|20.47|<0.001
95920009|NCT01058863|191799867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.686|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.84|40.35||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||40.35|25.84|<0.0001
95733252|NCT00324168|191437350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||20/40 to 20/800||0.11|-0.09|0.85
95733253|NCT00324168|191437350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Regression, Linear|||CF or worse||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
95733254|NCT00324168|191437351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||\>0-33%||0.17|-0.05|0.31
95993556|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||22.6|-2.6|0.121
95920010|NCT01058863|191799867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|32.85||Significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|Fixed effects of baseline PPFEV1 as a covariate, sequence, treatment group, period, and center, and random effect for subject within sequence.||Of interest was the mean difference between each active group and placebo at each dose level. Analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level in this sequence: Albuterol Spiromax 180 mcg versus placebo; Albuterol Spiromax 90 mcg versus placebo, ProAir HFA 180 mcg versus placebo, and ProAir HFA 90 mcg versus placebo. If a test was not significant, no further tests were done. This sequential procedure preserved the error rate for the family of tests at the 0.05 level.||32.85|18.36|<0.0001
95920011|NCT05108649|191799889|OTHER|We treated the exposure as a four-level categorical variable with control messaging + NNC cigarettes as the control condition.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA compared scale scores across the conditions.||||||0.0008
95920012|NCT05108649|191799890|OTHER|||||||0.9804|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9804
95920013|NCT05108649|191799891|OTHER|||||||0.6579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6579
95920014|NCT05108649|191799892|OTHER|||||||0.4208|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4208
95920015|NCT05108649|191799893|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.245
95920016|NCT05108649|191799894|OTHER|||||||0.6396|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6396
95920017|NCT05108649|191799895|OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0235
95920018|NCT05108649|191799896|OTHER|||||||0.3564|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3564
95733255|NCT00324168|191437351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||\>33%-67%||0.14|-0.13|0.94
95920019|NCT05108649|191799897|OTHER|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
95920020|NCT05108649|191799898|OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2304
95733256|NCT00324168|191437351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||\>67%-100%||0.01|-0.31|0.07
95733257|NCT00324168|191437352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||0-1.90 mm||0.20|-0.10|0.53
95733258|NCT00324168|191437352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||1.91-2.70 mm||0.16|-0.15|0.95
95920021|NCT01952301|191799905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis of the study evaluated whether CM was not inferior to Control in the generation of KT width from baseline to 6 months. A paired t-test was used to test for non-inferiority, using a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 mm.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95920022|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.064|-0.026|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.026|-0.064|
95920023|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.025|0.02|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.020|-0.025|
95920024|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.033|0.013|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.013|-0.033|
95920025|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.044|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||0.004|-0.044|
95920026|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.048|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.003|-0.048|
95920027|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||||90.0|-0.05|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.004|-0.050|
95920028|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.047|0.007|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.007|-0.047|
95920029|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.054|0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.002|-0.054|
95920030|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.021|0.034|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.034|-0.021|
95920031|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||90.0|-0.016|0.044|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.044|-0.016|
95920032|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||||90.0|-0.002|0.055|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.055|-0.002|
95920033|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.04|0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.032|-0.040|
95920034|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.07|0.004|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.004|-0.070|
95920035|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.077|-0.002|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||-0.002|-0.077|
95920036|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.003|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.003|-0.075|
95920037|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.058|0.022|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.022|-0.058|
95920038|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.034|0.048|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.048|-0.034|
95920039|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.055|0.033|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.033|-0.055|
95920040|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.058|0.029|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.029|-0.058|
95920041|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.061|0.03|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.030|-0.061|
95920042|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.044|0.043|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.043|-0.044|
95920043|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.051|0.04|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.040|-0.051|
95920044|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.042|0.058|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline pulmonary function tests (PFTs), center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.058|-0.042|
95920045|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||90.0|-0.03|0.077|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.077|-0.030|
95920046|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.042|0.035|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.035|-0.042|
95920047|NCT00136916|191799914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.023|0.062|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||0.062|-0.023|
95733259|NCT00324168|191437352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||2.71-4.06 mm||0.18|-0.12|0.70
95733260|NCT00324168|191437352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||4.07-8.90 mm||0.01|-0.31|0.07
95733261|NCT01682083|191437363|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.58|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis, H0: λ = 1 or reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis, HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) of combination therapy relative to placebo.||0.58|0.39|< 0.0001
95733262|NCT01682083|191437364|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with dabrafenib + trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|the two-sided threshold for significance at this first interim analysis was p=0.000019||Hazard ratio is obtained from the stratified Pike estimator.||0.79|0.42|0.006
95920048|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||||90.0|-0.215|-0.023|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M3||-0.023|-0.215|
95920049|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||||90.0|-0.133|0.087|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M6||0.087|-0.133|
95920050|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||||90.0|-0.104|0.124|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M9||0.124|-0.104|
95920051|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.033|0.214|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M12||0.214|-0.033|
95920052|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||||90.0|-0.081|0.185|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M15||0.185|-0.081|
95920053|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|-0.054|0.234|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M18||0.234|-0.054|
95920054|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||||90.0|-0.073|0.208|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M21||0.208|-0.073|
95920055|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||||90.0|-0.058|0.257|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|M24||0.257|-0.058|
95920056|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|-0.143|0.154|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M3||0.154|-0.143|
95920057|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|-0.119|0.19|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|FU M6||0.190|-0.119|
95920058|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.2|0.161|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M1||0.161|-0.200|
95920059|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.101|0.263|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M3||0.263|-0.101|
95920060|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||||90.0|-0.038|0.32|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M6||0.320|-0.038|
95920061|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||||90.0|-0.041|0.342|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M9||0.342|-0.041|
95920062|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||||90.0|-0.09|0.298|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M12||0.298|-0.090|
95920063|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||||90.0|-0.132|0.279|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M15||0.279|-0.132|
95920064|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.111|0.284|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M18||0.284|-0.111|
95920065|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.141|0.27|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M21||0.270|-0.141|
95920066|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||||90.0|-0.156|0.249|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M24||0.249|-0.156|
95920067|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.138|0.272|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M27||0.272|-0.138|
95920068|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||||90.0|-0.171|0.264|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M30||0.264|-0.171|
95920069|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.319||||90.0|-3.92|23.569|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M33||23.569|-3.920|
95920070|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||||90.0|-0.316|0.337|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext M36||0.337|-0.316|
95920071|NCT00136916|191799920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||||90.0|-0.245|0.292|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline HbA1c, and center.|Ext FU M3||0.292|-0.245|
95920072|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||||90.0|-19.07|-5.71|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M3||-5.710|-19.07|
95920073|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795||||90.0|-22.11|-6.312|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M6||-6.312|-22.11|
95733263|NCT01682083|191437365|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.65|0.40|
95733264|NCT01682083|191437366|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Dabrafenib + Trametinib compared with Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.57||||||Hazard ratio is estimated using Pike estimator.||0.57|0.39|
95920074|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||||90.0|-19.07|-2.852|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M12||-2.852|-19.07|
95920075|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.052||||90.0|-20.89|-4.232|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|M24||-4.232|-20.89|
95920076|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.867||||90.0|-80.69|47.019|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M3||47.019|-80.69|
95920077|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.173||||90.0|-9.257|14.412|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|FU M6||14.412|-9.257|
95920078|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||||90.0|-19.37|0.45|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M1||0.450|-19.37|
95920079|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.446||||90.0|-20.11|1.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M3||1.153|-20.11|
95920080|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.785||||90.0|-21.95|0.438|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M6||0.438|-21.95|
95920081|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.154||||90.0|-16.98|3.328|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M9||3.328|-16.98|
95920082|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||||90.0|-19.15|4.579|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M12||4.579|-19.15|
95920083|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.219||||90.0|-13.76|10.066|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M15||10.066|-13.76|
95920084|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||||90.0|-20.83|2.79|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M18||2.790|-20.83|
95920085|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.217||||90.0|-18.99|4.834|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M21||4.834|-18.99|
95920086|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.329||||90.0|-24.63|-0.429|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M24||-0.429|-24.63|
95920087|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.895||||90.0|-30.45|-7.685|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M27||-7.685|-30.45|
95920088|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.223||||90.0|-15.15|8.705|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M30||8.705|-15.15|
95920089|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.625||||90.0|-21.09|4.107|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M33||4.107|-21.09|
95920090|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.906||||90.0|-36.66|-7.105|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext M36||-7.105|-36.66|
95920091|NCT00136916|191799921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||||90.0|-19.16|9.812|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline fasting plasma glucose, and center.|Ext FU M3||9.812|-19.16|
95920092|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||||90.0|-0.416|0.299|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M3||0.299|-0.416|
95920093|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||||90.0|-1.224|-0.246|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M6||-0.246|-1.224|
95920094|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.251|-0.032|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M12||-0.032|-1.251|
95920095|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||||90.0|-2.12|-0.589|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|M24||-0.589|-2.120|
95920096|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||||90.0|-2.086|-0.52|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M3||-0.520|-2.086|
95920097|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||||90.0|-2.539|-0.575|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|FU M6||-0.575|-2.539|
95920098|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||||90.0|-1.898|0.09|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M1||0.090|-1.898|
95920099|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||||90.0|-2.225|-0.334|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M3||-0.334|-2.225|
95920100|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||||90.0|-1.909|0.241|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M6||0.241|-1.909|
95920101|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-2.08|0.078|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M9||0.078|-2.080|
95920102|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676||||90.0|-2.431|-0.2|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M12||-0.200|-2.431|
95920103|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||||90.0|-2.661|-0.363|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M15||-0.363|-2.661|
95920104|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||||90.0|-2.824|0.198|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M18||0.198|-2.824|
95920105|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||||90.0|-3.891|-0.907|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M21||-0.907|-3.891|
95733265|NCT00959660|191437372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
95920106|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||||90.0|-2.867|-0.265|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M24||-0.265|-2.867|
95920107|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||||90.0|-4.439|-1.001|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M27||-1.001|-4.439|
95920108|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||||90.0|-2.755|-0.047|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M30||-0.047|-2.755|
95733266|NCT00959660|191437372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analysis with Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||<0.001
95733267|NCT00959660|191437373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.004
95920109|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||||90.0|-3.781|-0.782|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M33||-0.782|-3.781|
95920110|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||||90.0|-4.932|-0.599|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext M36||-0.599|-4.932|
95920111|NCT00136916|191799922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||||90.0|-3.12|-0.153|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline weight, and center.|Ext FU M3||-0.153|-3.120|
95920112|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.466|-0.037|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M3||-0.037|-0.466|
95920113|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||||90.0|-0.323|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M6||0.134|-0.323|
95920114|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||||90.0|-0.158|0.325|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M9||0.325|-0.158|
95920115|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||||90.0|-0.524|-0.009|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M12||-0.009|-0.524|
95920116|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||||90.0|-0.453|0.091|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M15||0.091|-0.453|
95920117|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||||90.0|-0.427|0.145|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M18||0.145|-0.427|
95920118|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||||90.0|-0.445|0.134|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M21||0.134|-0.445|
95920119|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||||90.0|-0.193|0.431|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|M24||0.431|-0.193|
95920120|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||||90.0|0.322|0.911|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M1||0.911|0.322|
95920121|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||||90.0|0.051|0.657|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M3||0.657|0.051|
95920122|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||||90.0|0.011|0.626|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|FU M6||0.626|0.011|
95920123|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||||90.0|-0.227|0.5|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M1||0.500|-0.227|
95920124|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||||90.0|-0.289|0.485|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M3||0.485|-0.289|
95920125|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||||90.0|-0.576|0.172|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M6||0.172|-0.576|
95920126|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||||90.0|-0.18|0.669|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M9||0.669|-0.180|
95920127|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||||90.0|-0.284|0.535|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M12||0.535|-0.284|
95920128|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||||90.0|-0.395|0.441|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M15||0.441|-0.395|
95733268|NCT00959660|191437373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||||||0.43
95920129|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.262|0.554|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M18||0.554|-0.262|
95920130|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||||90.0|-0.138|0.78|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M21||0.780|-0.138|
95920131|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.419|0.506|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M24||0.506|-0.419|
95920132|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||||90.0|-0.279|0.659|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M27||0.659|-0.279|
95920133|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-0.579|0.346|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M30||0.346|-0.579|
95920134|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||||90.0|-0.189|0.714|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M33||0.714|-0.189|
95733269|NCT00959660|191437374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||<0.001
95733270|NCT00959660|191437374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Body Fat Mass||||0.001
95920135|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||||90.0|-0.37|0.904|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext M36||0.904|-0.370|
95920136|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||||90.0|-0.003|0.802|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height. Ext M36 (LOCF) based on data in the extension phase only.|Ext M36 LOCF||0.802|-0.003|
95920137|NCT00136916|191799928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||||90.0|0.137|1.102|||||Adjusted Primary Analysis Model includes terms of treatment, baseline PFTs, center, age, sex, and height.|Ext FU M3||1.102|0.137|
95920138|NCT01012973|191799996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value shows Eylea showed a higher BCVA total score compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis of difference of Eylea minus Sham of 0 was tested. In the database close after Week 24, basis for primary efficacy evaluation, 56 Sham / 96 Eylea subjects were considered as week 24 completers.||52.1|24.4|<.0001
95920139|NCT01012973|191799997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.7||As primary efficacy evaluation was significant, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusting for region and baseline BCVA category as fixed factors.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A positive value indicates Eylea showed a higher change in BCVA total score until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in BCVA total letter score between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in BCVA letter score was to be tested first in this sequence.||18.7|10.8|<.0001
95920140|NCT01012973|191799998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) means|-239.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.31|-192.53||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in BCVA until week 24, and this p-value was below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did continue with next secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category, baseline central retinal thickness added as covariate.|The difference is calculated as Eylea minus Sham. A negative value indicates Eylea showed a higher reduction in change in central retinal thickness until week 24 compared to Sham.|Null hypothesis was equality in change from baseline to Week 24 in central retinal thickness between Eylea and Sham. If primary efficacy was successful, secondary efficacy end points were to be tested in a pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure. Change in central retinal thickness was to be tested at second place in this sequence.||-192.53|-286.31|<.0001
95920141|NCT01012973|191799999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted Difference|-1.5||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4||As fixed sequence testing did reject nullhypothesis of change from baseline in CRT until week 24, and this p-value was not below significance level of two-sided \<.05, the fixed sequence testing did end with this evaluation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by region and baseline BCVA category.||Nullhypothesis of no difference in development of neovascularizations between Eylea and Sham group was tested. (Any neovascularization)||4.4|-7.4|0.5947
95920142|NCT01012973|191800000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.8|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||6.8|1.7|
95920143|NCT01012973|191800001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.09|||||As the fixed sequence of secondary endpoints stopped with proportion of neovascularizations developed until week 24, 95% confidence interval is only of descriptive nature.|||0.09|-0.002|
95920144|NCT02040090|191800006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We will reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 5% significance level, and conclude that Cp \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 90% binomial confidence interval (CI) exceeds0.1. A sample size of 53 in each group provides 80% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.031||||||The null hypothesis was that Cp ≤ -0.1.||0.031|-0.082|
95920145|NCT03257995|191800007|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1861|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1293|0.2429|||ANOVA|||||0.2429|0.1293|<0.001
95920146|NCT03257995|191800007|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0898|0.2029|||ANOVA|||||0.2029|0.0898|<0.001
95920147|NCT03257995|191800007|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0942|0.0147|||ANOVA|||||0.0147|-0.0942|
95920148|NCT03257995|191800013|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.33|-0.83|0.823
95920149|NCT03257995|191800013|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-0.82|0.801
95920150|NCT03257995|191800013|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.73|-0.50|0.984
95920151|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1482|0.2872|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||0.2872|0.1482|<0.001
95920152|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.3417|||ANOVA|||15min||0.3417|0.2030|<0.001
95920153|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2036|0.3423|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3423|0.2036|<0.001
95920154|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1915|0.3302|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3302|0.1915|<0.001
95920155|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3188|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3188|0.1800|<0.001
95733271|NCT00959660|191437374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||<0.001
95920156|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1578|0.2968|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.2968|0.1578|<0.001
95920157|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1697|0.3096|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3096|0.1697|<0.001
95920158|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1742|0.3144|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.3144|0.1742|<0.001
95733272|NCT00959660|191437374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Total Non-Bone Lean Mass||||0.25
95733273|NCT00959660|191437375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||<0.001
95920159|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1563|0.2997|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2997|0.1563|<0.001
95920160|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1237|0.2671|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2671|0.1237|<0.001
95920161|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1502|0.2889|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2889|0.1502|<0.001
95920162|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2684|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1988|0.338|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3380|0.1988|<0.001
95920163|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1879|0.3266|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3266|0.1879|<0.001
95920164|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1656|0.304|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3040|0.1656|<0.001
95920165|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1852|0.3239|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.3239|0.1852|<0.001
95920166|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.3017|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.3017|0.1627|<0.001
95920167|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1627|0.302|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.3020|0.1627|<0.001
95920168|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1359|0.2755|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2755|0.1359|<0.001
95920169|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0912|0.2337|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2337|0.0912|<0.001
95920170|NCT03257995|191800014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.2505|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2505|0.1080|<0.001
95920171|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<.001
95920172|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|10.6|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.6|6.4|<.001
95920173|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|10.7|||ANOVA|||at 30||10.7|6.5|<0.001
95855667|NCT03077412|191670816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Percentages|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|24.1|||||The 90% exact CI was calculated based on binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson method).|||24.1|-51.0|
95920174|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.1|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||10.1|6.0|<0.001
95920175|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
95920176|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.1|5.0|<0.001
95920177|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
95920178|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.7|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||9.7|5.5|<0.001
95920179|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|9.1|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||9.1|4.8|<0.001
95920180|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.6|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.6|4.2|<0.001
95920181|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.2|||ANOVA|||at 5 min||9.2|5.0|<0.001
95920182|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.4|||ANOVA|||at 15 min||10.4|6.2|<0.001
95920183|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.2|||ANOVA|||at 30 min||10.2|6.0|<0.001
95920184|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 1 hour||9.4|5.3|<0.001
95920185|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||at 2 hours||9.9|5.7|<0.001
95920186|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.4|||ANOVA|||at 4 hours||9.4|5.2|<0.001
95920187|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|9.5|||ANOVA|||at 8 hours||9.5|5.3|<0.001
95920188|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.4|||ANOVA|||at 12 hours||8.4|4.2|<0.001
95920189|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 15 min||7.2|2.9|<0.001
95920190|NCT03257995|191800015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||ANOVA|||at 23 hours 45 min||8.0|3.7|<0.001
95920191|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1866|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2611|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2611|0.1121|<0.001
95920192|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1506|0.2992|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2992|0.1506|<0.001
95920193|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1661|0.3148|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3148|0.1661|<0.001
95920194|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.2817|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2817|0.1330|<0.001
95920195|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2545|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2545|0.1059|<0.001
95920196|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0876|0.2366|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2366|0.0876|<0.001
95920197|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1239|0.2742|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2742|0.1239|<0.001
95920198|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.2501|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2501|0.0994|<0.001
95920199|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1856|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1081|0.2631|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.2631|0.1081|<0.001
95920200|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0709|0.2259|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2259|0.0709|<0.001
95920201|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1386|0.2873|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2873|0.1386|<0.001
95920202|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1426|0.292|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.2920|0.1426|<0.001
95920203|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1632|0.3118|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3118|0.1632|<0.001
95920204|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1272|0.2754|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.2754|0.1272|<0.001
95920205|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1262|0.2749|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.2749|0.1262|<0.001
95920206|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1201|0.2691|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.2691|0.1201|<0.001
95920207|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1937|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.2684|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.2684|0.1190|<0.001
95920208|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.2369|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.2369|0.0870|<0.001
95920209|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.2018|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.2018|0.0480|<0.001
95920210|NCT03257995|191800016|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0777|0.2315|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.2315|0.0777|<0.001
95920211|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.0|3.1|<0.001
95920212|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.9|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.9|4|<0.001
95920213|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|8.5|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.5|4.6|<0.001
95920214|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
95920215|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.7|||ANOVA|||2 hour||6.7|2.8|<0.001
95920216|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour||6.3|2.3|<0.001
95920217|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7|3|<0.001
95920218|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.5|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.5|2.5|<0.001
95920219|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||6.7|2.6|<0.001
95920220|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.2|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.2|2.0|<0.001
95920221|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||5 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
95920222|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||15 min||7.8|3.9|<0.001
95920223|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|8.3|||ANOVA|||30 min||8.3|4.4|<0.001
95920224|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||1 hour||7.5|3.5|<0.001
95920225|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.4|||ANOVA|||2 hour||7.4|3.5|<0.001
95920226|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour||7.0|3.1|<0.001
95920227|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||8 hour||7.0|3.0|<0.001
95920228|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour||6.2|2.2|<0.001
95920229|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||5.0|1.0|0.004
95920230|NCT03257995|191800017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||6.1|2.1|<0.001
95920231|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0139|0.0359|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0359|0.0139|<.001
95920232|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.044|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0440|0.0220|<.001
95920233|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.0416|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0416|0.0197|<0.001
95920234|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0214|0.0434|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0434|0.0214|<0.001
95920235|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
95920236|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0215|0.0435|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0435|0.0215|<0.001
95920237|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0311|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.0422|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0422|0.0200|<0.001
95920238|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0248|0.047|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0470|0.0248|<0.001
95920239|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0211|0.044|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0440|0.0211|<0.001
95920240|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0187|0.0415|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0415|0.0187|<0.001
95920241|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0222|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.0332|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.0332|0.0113|<0.001
95920242|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0344|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0234|0.0454|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.0454|0.0234|<0.001
95920243|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0399|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.0399|0.0180|<0.001
95920244|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0169|0.0387|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.0387|0.0169|<0.001
95920245|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0228|0.0447|||ANOVA|||2 hour||0.0447|0.0228|<0.001
95920246|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0168|0.0387|||ANOVA|||4 hour||0.0387|0.0168|<0.001
95920247|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0316|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0206|0.0426|||ANOVA|||8 hour||0.0426|0.0206|<0.001
95920248|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0175|0.0396|||ANOVA|||12 hour||0.0396|0.0175|<0.001
95920249|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0281|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0167|0.0394|||ANOVA|||23 hour 15 min||0.0394|0.0167|<0.001
95920250|NCT03257995|191800018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|0.0379|||ANOVA|||23 hour 45 min||0.0379|0.0152|<0.001
95920251|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1059|0.2952|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2952|0.1059|<0.001
95920252|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2923|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3867|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3867|0.1979|<0.001
95920253|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2657|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1713|0.3601|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3601|0.1713|<0.001
95920254|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1808|0.3696|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3696|0.1808|<0.001
95920255|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875|0.3763|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3763|0.1875|<0.001
95920256|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1874|0.3766|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3766|0.1874|<0.001
95920257|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1585|0.3492|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3492|0.1585|<0.001
95920258|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1732|0.3643|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.3643|0.1732|<0.001
95920259|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2453|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1473|0.3434|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3434|0.1473|<0.001
95983226|NCT02109562|191940753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7261||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.982|-2.314||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.314|-9.982|0.0004
95993557|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 24||19.3|-5.8|0.291
95920260|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1862|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0882|0.2842|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2842|0.0882|<0.001
95920261|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1956|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1012|0.2899|||ANOVA|||5 min||0.2899|0.1012|<0.001
95920262|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1979|0.3875|||ANOVA|||15 min||0.3875|0.1979|<0.001
95920263|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.3667|||ANOVA|||30 min||0.3667|0.1780|<0.001
95920264|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2386|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1445|0.3328|||ANOVA|||1 hour||0.3328|0.1445|<0.001
95920265|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2986|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2042|0.393|||ANOVA|||2 hours||0.3930|0.2042|<0.001
95920266|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1715|0.3607|||ANOVA|||4 hours||0.3607|0.1715|<0.001
95920267|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1609|0.3506|||ANOVA|||8 hours||0.3506|0.1609|<0.001
95920268|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1036|0.2938|||ANOVA|||12 hours||0.2938|0.1036|<0.001
95920269|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2044|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1071|0.3017|||ANOVA|||23 hours 15 min||0.3017|0.1071|<0.001
95920270|NCT03257995|191800019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1023|0.297|||ANOVA|||23 hours 45 min||0.2970|0.1023|<0.001
95920271|NCT03257995|191800020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2476|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1857|0.3095|||ANOVA|||||0.3095|0.1857|<.001
95920272|NCT03257995|191800020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|0.3066|||ANOVA|||||0.3066|0.1830|<.001
95920273|NCT03257995|191800020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.059|||ANOVA|||||0.0590|-0.0647|
95920274|NCT03257995|191800021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.009
95920275|NCT03257995|191800021|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11|||ANOVA|||||0.11|-0.73|0.008
95920276|NCT03257995|191800022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|40.3|||ANOVA|||||40.3|25.6|<0.001
95920277|NCT03257995|191800022|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|38.2|||ANOVA|||||38.2|23.5|<0.001
95920278|NCT02138747|191800037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-0.93||p-value based on the ANOVA model|ANOVA|||Tolerability score was analyzed using the ANOVA model (Model #1), with sequence group, study period, period-by-sequence interaction, gender and treatment group as factors, and subject-within-sequence as a random term. p-value based on the ANOVA model. Difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference =tolterodine ER -mirabegron). A negative difference indicates better reported tolerability with mirabegron than with tolterodine ER.||-0.93|-4.86|0.004
95920279|NCT02138747|191800038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P value was obtained using Mainland-Gart test to compare the proportion of preference for each treatment group. The denominator excluded patients with No Preference.|Mainland-Gart|||Participants who selected Mirabegron or Tolterodine ER were included in the denominator and participants with No Preference were excluded. Comparison was between Mirabegron vs Tolterodine ER.||||0.77
95920280|NCT02138747|191800047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.49||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.49|-0.39|0.971
95920281|NCT02138747|191800048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.5||Adjusted P value was generated from the ANCOVA model for the period-by-treatment interaction.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference vs mirabegron where difference used mirabegron as the reference (difference = tolterodine ER - mirabegron).||0.50|-0.28|0.211
95920282|NCT00653263|191800050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for the continuous baseline characteristics.For data with 5 time points (baseline and weeks 1 through 4), hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point For data with 3 time points hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between baseline and wk 2, wk 2 and wk 4, as well as between baseline and wk 4.||||<0.05
95920283|NCT00653263|191800051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
95920284|NCT00653263|191800052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Means and ranges were computed for continuous baseline(BL)characteristics.For longitudinal data,Proc GLIMMIX in SAS was used to fit a Mixed Model with Random Intercept.For data with 5 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and each subsequent time point as well as differences between each time point. For data with 3 time points, hypothesis tests were performed to test for a differences between BL and wk 2,wk 2and wk 4,as well as between BL and wk 4.||||<0.05
95920285|NCT03786094|191800082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.85|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.85|0.4450
95920286|NCT03786094|191800083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.81|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided||HR and associated 2-sided 96% CI are estimated by a Cox proportional hazards model stratified for randomization stratification factors including a fixed effect term for treatment arm.|||1.41|0.81|0.6158
95920287|NCT03786094|191800084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.66|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.77|0.66|0.6126
95920288|NCT01857622|191800130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no statistical test||||26.8|-14.7|
95920289|NCT01857622|191800130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|25.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.2|-15.4|
95920290|NCT00518713|191800229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0120
95920291|NCT00518713|191800229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0015
95920292|NCT00518713|191800229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95920293|NCT00518713|191800230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0027
95920294|NCT00518713|191800230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95920295|NCT00518713|191800230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95920296|NCT00518713|191800231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1041
95920297|NCT00518713|191800231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2207
95920298|NCT00518713|191800231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0025
95920299|NCT00518713|191800232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1469
95920300|NCT00518713|191800232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0161
95920301|NCT00518713|191800232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0024
95920302|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.1324
95920303|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0026
95920304|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 25% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0004
95920305|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.3383
95920306|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0159
95920307|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 50% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95920308|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0279
95920309|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0010
95920310|NCT00518713|191800233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||≥ 75% reduction. ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95920311|NCT00518713|191800240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.7210
95920312|NCT00518713|191800240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2505||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.2505
95920313|NCT00518713|191800240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0924||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0924
95920314|NCT00518713|191800241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0414
95920315|NCT00518713|191800241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||0.0044
95920316|NCT00518713|191800241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with the percent reduction in drop seizures as the dependent variable and treatment, pooled center, and baseline drop seizure rate as the independent variables. A step-down procedure used, starting with the high dose versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95920317|NCT01644474|191800249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-23.0|-40.2|<0.0001
95920318|NCT01644474|191800250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-21.2|-35.7|<0.0001
95920319|NCT01644474|191800251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.3|<0.0001
95920320|NCT01644474|191800252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-17.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.4|-33.5|<0.0001
95920321|NCT01644474|191800253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.7|-24.7|<0.0001
95920322|NCT01644474|191800254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-19.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.8|-31.5|<0.0001
95920323|NCT01644474|191800255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-32.4|<0.0001
95920324|NCT01644474|191800256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-13.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.5|-23.1|<0.0001
95920325|NCT01644474|191800257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|139.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||139.0|8.7|<0.0001
95920326|NCT01644474|191800258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|556.0||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||556.0|8.8|0.0001
95920327|NCT01644474|191800259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|-14.8|0.4013
95920328|NCT04039503|191800267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
95920329|NCT04039503|191800267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-1.88|<0.001
95920330|NCT04039503|191800268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.52|<0.001
95920331|NCT04039503|191800269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-9.4|<0.001
95920332|NCT04039503|191800269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-11.5|<0.001
95920333|NCT04039503|191800269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-14.2|<0.001
95920334|NCT04039503|191800270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.23|93.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.70|15.23|<0.001
95920335|NCT04039503|191800270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.02|333.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.62|30.02|<0.001
95920336|NCT04039503|191800270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|110.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.83|16.92|<0.001
95920337|NCT04039503|191800271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-29.5|<0.001
95733274|NCT00959660|191437375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis for Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Subcutaneous Fat||||0.26
95733275|NCT00959660|191437375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effects analyses with Diet vs. No Diet.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||<0.001
95920338|NCT04039503|191800271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.0|-36.0|<0.001
95920339|NCT04039503|191800271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.6|-35.9|<0.001
95920340|NCT04039503|191800273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|38.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.93|7.55|<0.001
95920341|NCT04039503|191800273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.87|62.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.55|11.87|<0.001
95920342|NCT04039503|191800273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|193.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||193.44|32.76|<0.001
95920343|NCT04039503|191800274|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.8||||||||-22.8|-46.0|
95920344|NCT04039503|191800274|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.1||||||||-26.1|-48.3|
95920345|NCT04039503|191800274|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-49.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-39.4||||||||-39.4|-57.7|
95920346|NCT04039503|191800277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.00|3.93|<0.001
95920347|NCT04039503|191800277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.52|99.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.49|10.52|<0.001
95920348|NCT04039503|191800277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|173.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||173.26|18.27|<0.001
95733276|NCT00959660|191437375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Main effects analysis of Exercise vs. No Exercise.|ANCOVA|Least Square Mean at follow up adjusted for the following covariates: baseline measure of the outcome measure, sex, and beta blocker usage.||Thigh Skeletal Muscle||||0.26
95733277|NCT01328093|191437391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||<0.001
95920349|NCT01268059|191800317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.205||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval ( CIs) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|||4.5|1.1|0.027
95920350|NCT01268059|191800319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.487
95920351|NCT01268059|191800319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||||||The 2-sided p-value was calculated by adjusting for the stratification factors histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment effect Carboplatin/Paclitaxel + MEDI-575 versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel.||||0.386
95920352|NCT01268059|191800322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||7.4|1.2|
95920353|NCT01268059|191800322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||4.3|0.3|
95920354|NCT01268059|191800323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||2.4|0.7|
95920355|NCT01268059|191800323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||||The 95% confidence interval calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model stratified by histology, disease stage, and ECOG performance status.|||10.8|0.4|
95920356|NCT03660943|191800336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.27|-4.42|0.0833
95920357|NCT03660943|191800337|SUPERIORITY|The number of NPRS subjects differed from the WOMAC outcomes because of differences in missing data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.91|0.0935
95920358|NCT03660943|191800338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.23|-2.22|0.0163
95920359|NCT03660943|191800339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMRM analysis included the change from study baseline in scores as the dependent variable, with terms for treatment, pooled study center, study baseline K-L grade category for the index knee, study baseline BMI category, study baseline OA type (unilateral or bilateral knee OA), sex, study visit, treatment by visit interaction, and study baseline score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.03|-16.01|0.0509
95920360|NCT03850444|191800340|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.38|
95920361|NCT03850444|191800341|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.95|0.41|
95920362|NCT03850444|191800342|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.94|0.45|
95920363|NCT03850444|191800343|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.28|0.57|
95920364|NCT03850444|191800344|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.39|0.70|
95920365|NCT03850444|191800345|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.35|0.74|
95920366|NCT03850444|191800346|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||31.6|1.8|
95920367|NCT03850444|191800347|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.7|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||23.7|-1.4|
95920368|NCT03850444|191800348|OTHER||Difference in Percentage (DP)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.9|||||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||18.9|-3.0|
95920369|NCT03699124|191800351|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.073||||||||1.073|0.816|
95920370|NCT03699124|191800351|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.287||||||||1.287|0.967|
95920371|NCT03699124|191800351|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two lot groups is demonstrated if the confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs lies within the interval \[½, 2\]. For the trial to be successful, all three lot group comparisons must be equivalent by this definition.|GMT Ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.191||||||||1.191|0.915|
95920372|NCT02107274|191800369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920373|NCT02107274|191800369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Sputum volume were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920374|NCT02107274|191800370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920375|NCT02107274|191800370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p valu of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"SGRQ scores were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables"||||<0.01
95920376|NCT02107274|191800371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920377|NCT02107274|191800371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||"FEV1 values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920378|NCT02107274|191800372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920379|NCT02107274|191800372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||"FVC values were compared between Visit 6 (Week 12) and Visit 3 (Baseline), Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 3 (Baseline), as well for Visit 8 (Week 24) and Visit 6 (Week 12).~Independent t-test was applied for study end points which were numerical variables."||||<0.01
95920380|NCT03251144|191800378|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95920381|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4||||||Unmasked minus masked||1.4|-2.2|
95920382|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.5|-1.5|
95920383|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||||||Unmasked minus masked||2.2|-0.1|
95920384|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.5||||||Unmasked minus masked||3.5|0.2|
95920385|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.2|-3.3|
95920386|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.1|-1.9|
95733278|NCT01328093|191437392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% increase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
95920387|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Partial masked minus masked||2.7|-2.9|
95733279|NCT01328093|191437392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ≥7% decrease.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95920388|NCT01155726|191800382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Partial masked minus masked||1.9|-1.1|
95920389|NCT02971891|191800440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1789
95920390|NCT05199233|191800468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
95920391|NCT05199233|191800469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The mean change from baseline was compared to zero using a one-sample t-test.||||||<0.001
95920392|NCT00688259|191800470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
95920393|NCT00688259|191800471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.09
95920394|NCT00688259|191800472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.46
95920395|NCT00688259|191800473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.55
95920396|NCT00688259|191800474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
95920397|NCT00688259|191800475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
95920398|NCT02144519|191800496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.00|1.18|0.008
95920399|NCT02144519|191800497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.95|1.45|0.003
95920400|NCT05126459|191800504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events during sedation.||||0.016
95920401|NCT05126459|191800505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Musculo skeletal related sedation related events at 8 hours after sedation.||||0.211
95920402|NCT05126459|191800506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.374
95920403|NCT05126459|191800507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens.||||0.55
95920404|NCT05126459|191800508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens 8 hours after sedation.||||0.16
95920405|NCT05126459|191800509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in GI reaction between the 3 regimens at 24 hours after sedation.||||0.012
95920406|NCT04496167|191800510|OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|1.386||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.804|7.577||Considered significant if p-value is less than 0.05.|MMRM||"The model included treatment, visit and interaction of treatment, visit as fixed effects, Baseline as a covariate, and repeated measures with visit/participant.~Treatment difference: EN3835 - Placebo"|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was performed to estimate the change from Baseline treatment effect of the adapted ASES composite score in the affected shoulder comparing EN3835 to placebo treatment.||7.577|-4.804|0.659
95920407|NCT00318149|191800567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS25 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.7|1.16||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS25 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.16|0.7|
95920408|NCT00318149|191800567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS50 Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.71|1.56||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS50 administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.56|0.71|
95920409|NCT00318149|191800567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01B Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.38||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01B administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.38|0.79|
95920410|NCT00318149|191800567|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.75% confidence interval (CI) on geometric mean ratio of influenza-specific T-cells (between Fluarix 18-40 Y Group and Fluarix-AS01E Group) was smaller than (\<) 2.0.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.79|1.44||||||Demonstration of non inferiority of the influenza adjuvanted vaccine Fluarix-AS01E administered to elderly subjects (aged 65 years and older) as compared to the licensed influenza vaccine Fluarix administered to adults (aged 18-40 years) in terms of frequency of influenza-specific CD4 T-cells producing at least 2 different cytokines (CD40L, IL-2, TNF-α or IFN-γ), 21 days post-vaccination.||1.44|0.79|
95920411|NCT00598481|191800581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||One-sided Poisson-regression|||||||0.005
95920412|NCT00598481|191800582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.19||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 1 year post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.19|1.45|0.003
95920413|NCT00598481|191800582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.25||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 2 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||11.25|2.63|<0.001
95920414|NCT00598481|191800582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|13.64||P value related to geometric mean ratio at 3 years post gene therapy compared to baseline|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||13.64|3.08|<0.001
95920415|NCT03055832|191800583|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.56||||||||3.56|-3.82|
95920416|NCT03055832|191800584|NON_INFERIORITY|"This study provides a combined power of co-primary endpoints of 88% given the following primary endpoint assumptions:~* MGS non-inferiority delta of 5 points and standard deviation of 8 points provides power of 93.9%~* TBT non-inferiority delta of 2.5 seconds and standard deviation of 4 seconds, provides a TBT primary endpoint power of 93.9%~* Power that both endpoitns are significant, assuming independence was 0.939\^2 = 0.882 or 88.2% power."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.97|
95920417|NCT03055832|191800585|OTHER|A formal hypothesis was not proposed for this endpoint and therefore a power calculation was not performed. A Fisher's Exact test was performed post hoc to determine if a significant difference existed between the two arms.||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95920418|NCT03055832|191800586|NON_INFERIORITY|A standard deviation of 14 was assumed based on pilot data and the non-inferiority delta was set to 7. The chosen sample size and alpha = 0.025 provides 80% power for this endpoint|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|2.59||||||All questions||2.59|-8.75|
95920419|NCT01991197|191800599|SUPERIORITY||U value|43.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
95920420|NCT01991197|191800602|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95920421|NCT01991197|191800605|SUPERIORITY||U|29.5||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
95920422|NCT04179461|191800640|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the CASI was captured at clinical visits. 3. A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.52||||||Change in CASI score from V1 to V3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The modified CASI score incorporates key asthma outcomes such as symptoms, healthcare utilization, and medication dose.||||0.52
95920423|NCT04179461|191800641|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.45||||||The change in ACT score from V1 to V2 (the period between V1 and V2).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95920424|NCT04179461|191800641|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data. Data for the c-ACT/ACT was captured at clinical visits and from monthly phone calls. Because c-ACT/ACT could vary through time, we calculated the average c-ACT/ACT between V1-V2 and V2-V3. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.01||||||The change in ACT score from V1-V2 to V2-V3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95920425|NCT04179461|191800642|EQUIVALENCE|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for pairwise comparison between visits for continuous data and the Bowker's test was used to compare categorical FEV1-FVC data. Data analysis was performed in SAS version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC). A level of statistical significance was established at \< 0.05.||||||0.27||||||The Change in FEV1/FVC from Visit 1 to Visit 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95920426|NCT04179461|191800643|EQUIVALENCE|Intervention adherence and end of study adherence were each calculated based on the 30 days prior to end of intervention and V3, respectively, in order to assess a consistent timeframe. The paired Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted to compare controller inhaler adherence during baseline, adherence intervention, and end of study.||||||0.17||||||Change between baseline (V1) to end of study (V3)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95920427|NCT02923895|191800644|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.128||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.128|-1.500|<.0001
95920428|NCT01374802|191800681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|131.13|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||131.13|101.36|
95920429|NCT01374802|191800682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|87.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.609|112.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||112.630|68.609|
95920430|NCT01374802|191800683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|128.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.724|142.489|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Faldaprevir+DRV/r : DRV/r) of Darunavir||142.489|115.724|
95920431|NCT00050089|191800714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.165||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.585|||Log Rank||The comparison was Mega-ART (intensification) vs Standard-ART (standard).|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.585|0.856|0.69
95920432|NCT00050089|191800715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.275|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank analysis was performed.||1.275|0.674|0.49
95920433|NCT00050089|191800716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified Log-rank test was used to compare the four treatment||||0.87
95920434|NCT00050089|191800717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Log Rank||The comparison was Standard-ART (standard) vs Mega-ART (intensification)|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison||1.35|0.75|0.92
95920435|NCT00050089|191800718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Log Rank||The comparison was ARDFP (interruption) vs No ARDFP (continuation) of ART|Time-to-event (Kaplan-Meier) and stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison.||1.46|0.8|0.68
95920436|NCT02044458|191800729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
95920437|NCT02044458|191800730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
95733280|NCT01328093|191437393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.353||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.353
95920438|NCT02044458|191800731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
95733281|NCT01328093|191437394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.698||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.698
95920439|NCT04145349|191800732|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.25|1.69|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.864|1.69|0.25|
95920440|NCT03280563|191800741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|21.14||||||||21.14|-21.14|
95920441|NCT03280563|191800741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|42.88||||||||42.88|-9.03|
95920442|NCT03280563|191800741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|50.09||||||||50.09|-36.76|
95920443|NCT03280563|191800741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|20.73||||||||20.73|-27.39|
95920444|NCT03280563|191800741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|39.34||||||||39.34|-6.71|
95920445|NCT03280563|191800742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.66||||||||1.66|0.50|
95920446|NCT03280563|191800742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2||||||||1.20|0.35|
95920447|NCT03280563|191800742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.48||||||||3.48|0.45|
95920448|NCT03280563|191800742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.23||||||||3.23|0.74|
95920449|NCT03280563|191800742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88||||||||0.88|0.28|
95920450|NCT03280563|191800744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
95920451|NCT03280563|191800744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
95920452|NCT03280563|191800744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.34||||||||9.34|0.55|
95920453|NCT03280563|191800744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.01||||||||2.01|0.28|
95920454|NCT03280563|191800744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||||1.46|0.35|
95920455|NCT03280563|191800745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|29.48||||||||29.48|-30.98|
95920456|NCT03280563|191800745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|46.23||||||||46.23|-10.84|
95920457|NCT03280563|191800745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|50.33||||||||50.33|-26.63|
95920458|NCT03280563|191800745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|37.95||||||||37.95|-16.96|
95920459|NCT03280563|191800746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.9||||||||7.90|0.15|
95920460|NCT03280563|191800746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.2||||||||4.20|0.15|
95920461|NCT03280563|191800746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.84||||||||3.84|0.15|
95920462|NCT05220501|191800767|NON_INFERIORITY|The justification of the noninferiority margin is based on review of 11 studies reporting on the benefit of multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy over systematic biopsy. The differences between the multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy and systematic biopsy were tabulated and found to range from 5%to 18%. Panel selected 10% noninferiority and a 1-sided α of .025 as a reasonable threshold that would demonstrate clinically similar outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||Jeffreys interval|||||||<0.001
95920463|NCT00802841|191800772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3106
95920464|NCT01866475|191800780|NON_INFERIORITY|This study is designed to test the hypothesis that the IO device has no greater than a 4 percent infection rate. Equivalently, we define success as having at least a 96 percent infection free 48-hour placement.|||||||||||||||||The historical data for the device suggests an infection rate of 0.6 percent per 48 hours or a success rate of 99.4 percent. The formal objective in the design is to reject the one-sided null hypothesis that the success rate is no higher than 96 percent. The analysis will use the exact binomial test and will tolerate a Type I Error rate of 0.05 or less. If we assume a 99.4 percent success rate, the study will have 84 percent power with a sample size of 117 to reject the null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is rejected, we conclude that the infection rate is less than 4 percent.|||
95920465|NCT05675709|191800847|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
95920466|NCT05675709|191800848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
95920467|NCT05675709|191800849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||.05
95920468|NCT01254565|191800855|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-76.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.9|-50.0|||ANOVA|A rank analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-50.0|-86.9|<0.0001
95920469|NCT01254565|191800855|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level (1-sided).|LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-13.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 pg/mL or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||The hypothesis for this study (Cohorts 2 and 3) was that intravenous administration of etelcalcetide is superior to placebo for the reduction of PTH after TIW dosing in hemodialysis patients with secondary HPT. This hypothesis was tested in Cohorts 2 and 3 by comparing the mean percent changes from baseline in pre-hemodialysis PTH levels collected during the efficacy phase between the etelcalcetide and placebo groups within each cohort.||-13.6|-59.8|0.0032
95920470|NCT01254565|191800856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95920471|NCT01254565|191800856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
95920472|NCT01254565|191800857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95920473|NCT01254565|191800857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0730
95920474|NCT01254565|191800858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-8.4|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-8.4|-16.4|< 0.0001
95920475|NCT01254565|191800858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.0|-12.8|0.0235
95920476|NCT01254565|191800859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|5.7|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.7|-18.6|0.2255
95920477|NCT01254565|191800859|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-21.8||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||5.9|-29.8|0.1751
95920478|NCT01254565|191800860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-4.9|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-4.9|-26.8|0.0112
95920479|NCT01254565|191800860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-1.6|||ANOVA|A rank ANOVA model with treatment and screening PTH (\< 600 or ≥ 600 pg/mL) as factors.||||-1.6|-39.3|0.0554
95920480|NCT03354637|191800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|27.0||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||27.00|0.77|0.038
95920481|NCT03354637|191800890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.784||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.55||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Since this was the first multicenter study evaluating the effect of ATI-50002 Topical Solution in subjects with stable patchy alopecia areata, the sample size was based upon feasibility issues rather than a formal power calculation. Planned data from 120 subjects, utilizing LOCF for missing data, provides 80% power to detect a 24-point difference in percent change from baseline in SALT score between any two treatment groups. This power computation is based upon assumed standard deviation of 38%.||22.55|-3.90|0.166
95920482|NCT03354637|191800891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|19.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.17|-5.97|0.302
95920483|NCT03354637|191800891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.90|-9.44|0.616
95920484|NCT03354637|191800892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.074||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.30|-1.26|0.125
95920485|NCT03354637|191800892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.107||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.36|-2.30|0.234
95920486|NCT03354637|191800893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.131||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-4.39|0.607
95920487|NCT03354637|191800893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.165||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-6.06|0.981
95920488|NCT03354637|191800894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|0.4|0.620
95920489|NCT03354637|191800894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|0.5|0.366
95733282|NCT01328093|191437395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.924||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.924
95733283|NCT01328093|191437396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.045||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.045
95733284|NCT01328093|191437396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.032||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.032
95920490|NCT03354637|191800895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.0|0.157
95920491|NCT03354637|191800895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|0.1|0.353
95733285|NCT01328093|191437396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.509||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.509
95733286|NCT01328093|191437396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.040
95920492|NCT03354637|191800896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
95920493|NCT03354637|191800896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
95920494|NCT03354637|191800897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|0.3|0.435
95920495|NCT03354637|191800897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.2|0.370
95920496|NCT03354637|191800898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|0.6|0.333
95920497|NCT03354637|191800898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|0.5|0.388
95920498|NCT03354637|191800899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
95920499|NCT03354637|191800899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
95920500|NCT03354637|191800900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.602
95920501|NCT03354637|191800900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
95920502|NCT03354637|191800901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
95920503|NCT03354637|191800901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
95920504|NCT03354637|191800903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
95920505|NCT03354637|191800903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
95920506|NCT03354637|191800905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
95920507|NCT03354637|191800905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
95920508|NCT03354637|191800906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
95920509|NCT03354637|191800906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
95920510|NCT03226457|191800971|OTHER|Details of the power calculation are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739|||||=|0.005||||||(calculated)|ANCOVA|||"Details on the statistical analysis are published in the Circulation, DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048739~Analyses were performed on the primary and secondary measures comparing empagliflozin versus placebo and assessed by 2-way analysis of covariance correcting for treatment order, baseline value, and any percentage change in furosemide dose at the visit. Data for continuous outcome measures were assessed for normality before analysis."||||= 0.005
95920511|NCT01656759|191801021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95920512|NCT01656759|191801022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95920513|NCT01656759|191801024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95920514|NCT04707391|191801027|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.38|3.5||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.50|-4.38|
95920515|NCT04707391|191801027|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.14|3.98||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.98|-4.14|
95920516|NCT04707391|191801027|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.73|4.89||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups W at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||4.89|-2.73|
95920517|NCT04707391|191801027|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers between MenABCWY group and MenACWY group was above -10% for each serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.93|3.91||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the second MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.91|-3.93|
95920518|NCT04707391|191801028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in the 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup A.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.59|0.47||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups A at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||0.47|-5.59|
95920519|NCT04707391|191801028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup C.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.76|2.94||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups C at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.94|-2.76|
95920520|NCT04707391|191801028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup W.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-2.41|3.25||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroupsW at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||3.25|-2.41|
95920521|NCT04707391|191801028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval(CI) for the difference in percenatge of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers (p\_MenABCWY- p\_MenACWY) is above -10% for serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-3.62|2.09||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine, compared to MenACWY vaccine given to healthy participants, previously primed with a MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroups Y at 1 month after the first MenABCWY vaccination (0,6-months) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination (single dose).||2.09|-3.62|
95993558|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|22.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||22.9|-8.9|0.389
95733287|NCT01328093|191437397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.601||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.601
95733288|NCT01328093|191437398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.322||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.322
95920522|NCT03785340|191801062|SUPERIORITY|"The endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found:~1. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score~2. Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores~3. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in SANDE score~4. Change from baseline to 2 weeks (Day 14) in Lissamine Green conjunctival staining scores"|Least squares mean difference|-0.844||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|4.134|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Change from baseline to 4 weeks (Day 28) in SANDE score; OCU-310 vs. Placebo|Four endpoints (two primary and two secondary) were to be tested in a fixed sequence, proceeding to the next endpoint until a p-value \>0.05 was found. The analysis of the four outcomes employed a repeated measures mixed model with mean change from baseline score at the stated time point as the response with baseline score as a covariate and treatment, visit, and their interaction as fixed effects. The least squares mean difference (OCU 310 - placebo) at the stated time point was tested.||4.134|-5.823|0.739
95920523|NCT02341144|191801094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95920524|NCT02341144|191801095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95920525|NCT02341144|191801096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95920526|NCT02341144|191801097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95920527|NCT02341144|191801098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95920528|NCT01406717|191801148|OTHER||ANCOVA|0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31377|0.31418||||||||0.31418|-0.31377|
95920529|NCT01406717|191801149|OTHER||ANCOVA|5.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7565|18.5535||||||||18.5535|-6.7565|
95920530|NCT01406717|191801150|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95920531|NCT01406717|191801152|OTHER|||||||0.6318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6318
95920532|NCT01406717|191801153|OTHER|||||||0.4887|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4887
95920533|NCT01406717|191801154|OTHER|||||||0.3813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3813
95920534|NCT01406717|191801155|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9900
95920535|NCT01406717|191801156|OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
95920536|NCT01406717|191801157|OTHER|||||||0.6098|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.6098
95920537|NCT01406717|191801158|OTHER|||||||0.7324|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7324
95920538|NCT01406717|191801159|OTHER|||||||0.2984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2984
95920539|NCT02275533|191801160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.56||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.56|0.54|0.38
95920540|NCT02275533|191801161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.51||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.40|0.23
95920541|NCT02275533|191801163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95920542|NCT01168674|191801172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The report is of the mean MADRS difference between ziprasidone versus placebo after linear mixed regression, correcting for confounding effects of order of treatment as well as other identified potential confounders.|Linear mixed effects regression model||||0.48
95920543|NCT01556763|191801183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.10
95920544|NCT01556763|191801184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.07
95920545|NCT01556763|191801185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.02
95920546|NCT01556763|191801186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline value was the covariate and all values obtained during the treatment period were averaged together. This value was adjusted by regression against the baseline and estimation of a new value as if all subjects possessed the same baseline.||||=0.008
95920547|NCT02584855|191801187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
95920548|NCT02584855|191801188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|-32.3||||||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment, geographic region, and cDMARD use at the time of double-blind randomization .||-32.3|-58.8|
95920549|NCT02584855|191801191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
95920550|NCT02584855|191801192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
95920551|NCT02584855|191801193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
95920552|NCT02584855|191801194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
95920553|NCT02584855|191801195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Log Rank Test adjusting for geographic region and cDMARD use at the time of double blind randomization.||||<0.001
95920554|NCT01607411|191801215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.58||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||7.58|3.60|<0.0001
95920555|NCT01607411|191801215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.35||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||6.35|2.37|<0.0001
95920556|NCT01607411|191801215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.16||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.15||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||5.15|1.17|0.0021
95920557|NCT01607411|191801216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.23||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|3.22||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.22|-0.76|0.2225
95920558|NCT01607411|191801216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.43||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||4.43|0.44|0.0168
95920559|NCT01607411|191801216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.19||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||3.19|-0.79|0.2352
95920560|NCT01607411|191801217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|39.24||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.24|30.07|<0.0001
95920561|NCT01607411|191801217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|34.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.28|39.44||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||39.44|30.28|<0.0001
95920562|NCT01607411|191801217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|28.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|33.13||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||33.13|23.97|< 0.0001
95920563|NCT01607411|191801217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|4.38||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||4.38|-4.79|0.9292
95920564|NCT01607411|191801217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|10.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.69|1.52|0.0094
95920565|NCT01607411|191801217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.31||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.89||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||10.89|1.72|0.0073
95920566|NCT01607411|191801218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random factor|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.98|0.58|<0.0001
95920567|NCT01607411|191801218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.99|0.58|<0.0001
95920568|NCT01607411|191801218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.69|0.29|< 0.0001
95920569|NCT01607411|191801218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.20|-0.21|0.9631
95920570|NCT01607411|191801218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.49|0.09|0.0047
95920571|NCT01607411|191801218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||No adjustment was required for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified|ANOVA|The fixed factors for ANOVA were study period and treatment and the subject was random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels||0.50|0.10|0.0040
95920572|NCT03844321|191801225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1607|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.19|-0.24|.820
95920573|NCT03844321|191801225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1147|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|We used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly WHO-5 scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks. This model accounts for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing assessment scores. The model includes a random slope and intercept, and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.||0.02|-0.18|.110
95920574|NCT03844321|191801226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.03||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df= 1726|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.07|.284
95920575|NCT03844321|191801226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1018|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PSS scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.394
95920576|NCT03844321|191801227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1591|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.09|-0.04|.431
95920577|NCT03844321|191801227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1159|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Depression Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.08|0.02|<.001
95920578|NCT03844321|191801228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.01||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1601|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.02|-0.05|.399
95733289|NCT01328093|191437398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.099||95.0||||P-value is for ER/Facility (Non-Psych) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.099
95733290|NCT01328093|191437398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.787||95.0||||P-value is for Outpatient (Non-Psych or Dentist) visits. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.787
95920579|NCT03844321|191801228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.02||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1171|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Emotional Distress-Anxiety Short Form scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|0.00|.048
95920580|NCT03844321|191801229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.02||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1560|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.03|-0.06|.488
95920581|NCT03844321|191801229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|0.01||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1179|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly PROMIS: Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Short Form scores (reverse scored) in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||0.03|-0.01|.446
95920582|NCT03844321|191801230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.04||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1618|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used a linear mixed effects model to examine the difference in effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores in Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy conditions from baseline to 8 weeks.||0.07|-0.16|.469
95920583|NCT03844321|191801230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|-0.06||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||A two-sided significance level of .05 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1067|Slope estimate = difference in slopes between conditions (Mindfulness Light vs. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy) during time frame.|As with the primary outcome, we used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of time on weekly FFMQ scores across both intervention conditions from baseline to 20 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|.033
95920584|NCT03844321|191801231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.046
95920585|NCT03844321|191801231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Age measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.275
95920586|NCT03844321|191801232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.977
95920587|NCT03844321|191801232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PSS measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.341
95920588|NCT03844321|191801233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.885
95920589|NCT03844321|191801233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDD measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.319
95733291|NCT01328093|191437399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.892||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.892
95920590|NCT03844321|191801234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.838
95920591|NCT03844321|191801234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: EDA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.890
95920592|NCT03844321|191801235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.425
95920593|NCT03844321|191801235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||PROMIS: APRA measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.733
95920594|NCT03844321|191801236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.582
95920595|NCT03844321|191801236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FFMQ measured at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.666
95920596|NCT03844321|191801237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.355
95920597|NCT03844321|191801237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of psychiatric illness at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.361
95920598|NCT03844321|191801238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.640
95920599|NCT03844321|191801238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Presence of medical problems at the beginning of the intervention period was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.396
95733292|NCT01328093|191437400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.630
95733293|NCT01328093|191437401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.679||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.679
95920600|NCT03844321|191801239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.004
95920601|NCT03844321|191801239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of sessions completed was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.291
95920602|NCT03844321|191801240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.603
95920603|NCT03844321|191801240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Level of education was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.333
95920604|NCT03844321|191801241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.224
95920605|NCT03844321|191801241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Race was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.885
95920606|NCT03844321|191801242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.490
95920607|NCT03844321|191801242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sex was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.266
95920608|NCT03844321|191801243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 8.||||.928
95920609|NCT03844321|191801243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||Reported p-value is for estimated weekly change in WHO-5 score by treatment by moderator interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ethnicity was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between treatment and weekly WHO-5 scores. We added a main effect for the moderator, as well as treatment by time, moderator by time, and treatment by moderator by time interactions to the linear mixed model and used a likelihood ratio test to compare this interaction model to one without the three-way interaction. These analyses were completed over Baseline to Week 20.||||.307
95920610|NCT03531905|191801292|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-45.8|<0.001
95733294|NCT01328093|191437402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.055||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.055
95920611|NCT03531905|191801292|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||||-13.4|-25.7|<0.001
95920612|NCT03531905|191801292|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
95920613|NCT03531905|191801293|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-26.2|<0.001
95733295|NCT01328093|191437403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.891||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. The treatment comparison was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Type III Tests|||||||0.891
95920614|NCT03531905|191801294|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.97|-17.67|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-17.67|-55.97|<0.001
95920615|NCT03531905|191801294|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.92|-9.62|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-9.62|-48.92|0.005
95920616|NCT03531905|191801294|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|13.76|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||13.76|-30.51|0.480
95920617|NCT03531905|191801295|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-27.5|||ANCOVA|||||-27.5|-38.6|<0.001
95920618|NCT03531905|191801295|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-20.8|<0.001
95920619|NCT03531905|191801295|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||||-12.4|-23.3|<0.001
95920620|NCT03531905|191801296|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-31.7|<0.001
95920621|NCT03531905|191801296|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9.0|-17.8|<0.001
95920622|NCT03531905|191801296|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-18.2|<0.001
95920623|NCT03531905|191801297|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-32.6|<0.001
95920624|NCT03531905|191801297|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.4|-18.1|<0.001
95920625|NCT03531905|191801297|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||||-9.1|-19.7|<0.001
95920626|NCT03531905|191801298|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|6.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||6.79|-14.55|0.457
95920627|NCT03531905|191801298|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-4.93|0.351
95920628|NCT03531905|191801298|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-17.92|0.068
95733296|NCT01328093|191437405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
95733297|NCT01328093|191437405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Treatment-Emergent Suicidal Behavior.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
95733298|NCT04421508|191437407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6316
95920629|NCT03531905|191801299|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-10.1|0.007
95920630|NCT03531905|191801299|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
95920631|NCT03531905|191801299|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5|||ANCOVA|||||5.5|-2.8|0.517
95920632|NCT03531905|191801300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95920633|NCT03531905|191801300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
95920634|NCT03531905|191801300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95920635|NCT03531905|191801301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95920636|NCT03531905|191801301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95920637|NCT03531905|191801303|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-3.9|0.877
95920638|NCT03531905|191801303|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-2.8|0.669
95920639|NCT03531905|191801303|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.6|0.556
95920640|NCT03531905|191801304|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-6.7|0.589
95920641|NCT03531905|191801304|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-8.6|0.904
95920642|NCT03531905|191801304|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.2|||ANCOVA|||||11.2|-7.3|0.676
95920643|NCT03531905|191801306|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.95||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|11.7|||ANCOVA|||||11.7|-43.4|0.258
95920644|NCT03531905|191801306|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|27.7|||ANCOVA|||||27.7|-26.8|0.972
95920645|NCT03531905|191801306|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.68||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|-43.3|0.235
95920646|NCT05305040|191801308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.09|0.5603
95920647|NCT02054247|191801311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
95920648|NCT02054247|191801312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
95920649|NCT02054247|191801313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.125
95920650|NCT02054247|191801314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
95920651|NCT01195675|191801315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.87|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.87|-0.69|
95920652|NCT01195675|191801316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||1.71|-0.38|
95920653|NCT01195675|191801317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.93|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.93|-1.23|
95920654|NCT01195675|191801318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.73|14.11|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, period, treatment sequence, baseline and subject within sequence.|Non-confirmatory testing. Mean difference = Moxifloxacin minus placebo.|||14.11|10.73|<0.0001
95920655|NCT01195675|191801319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|4.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||4.67|-0.34|
95920656|NCT01195675|191801320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo. Non-confirmatory testing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|3.53|||Repeated measures analysis|Based on repeated measured analysis with terms for subject, baseline, period, treatment, time, baseline by time, period by time and treatment by time.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||3.53|-0.35|
95920657|NCT01195675|191801321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Empa vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|0.94|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and baseline.|Mean difference = Empa minus placebo|Non-inferiority margin: 10ms||0.94|-1.39|
95920658|NCT02424344|191801325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.125||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.01|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by baseline and age as covariates, and treatment group, sex and smoking-status as fixed effect factors||||0.010|-0.259|0.069
95920659|NCT04730947|191801328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
95920660|NCT04730947|191801329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95920661|NCT04730947|191801330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95920662|NCT04730947|191801331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95920663|NCT04730947|191801332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95920664|NCT04730947|191801333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95920665|NCT04730947|191801334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
95920666|NCT04730947|191801335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
95920667|NCT04730947|191801336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
95920668|NCT05257837|191801367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95920669|NCT05257837|191801368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95920670|NCT05257837|191801369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
95920671|NCT05257837|191801371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.217
95920672|NCT05257837|191801372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.745
95920673|NCT03639675|191801390|OTHER||Mean change|-8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-4.4|||one-sample t-statistics|||||-4.4|-12.2|0.0004
95920674|NCT04731714|191801423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.0104
95920675|NCT04731714|191801424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.079
95920676|NCT04731714|191801425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.9222
95920677|NCT04731714|191801426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.7995
95920678|NCT04731714|191801427|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||rhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.3140
95920679|NCT04731714|191801427|OTHER|||||||0.239||||||arrhythmic days|Friedman Test|See publication for further details||||||0.239
95920680|NCT04731714|191801431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8844|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|See publication for details||||||0.8844
95920681|NCT04731714|191801433|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||binomial|One-sided||||||0.73
95920682|NCT02033993|191801449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.23||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.68|0.31
95920683|NCT02033993|191801450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.70|0.40
95920684|NCT02033993|191801451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.59|0.76|0.28
95920685|NCT02033993|191801452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.46|0.54
95920686|NCT01676220|191801482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.174||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.174|-0.090|
95920687|NCT01676220|191801483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan).||1.20|0.66|0.4536
95920688|NCT01676220|191801484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.605||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline preinjection SMPG value and baseline preinjection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.605|-0.275|
95920689|NCT00065468|191801511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and Interferon Alfa (IFN)-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.97|0.63|0.0252
95920690|NCT00065468|191801511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2 null hypotheses (Ho) were tested: 1) Survival distributions for temsirolimus alone and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. 2) Survival distributions for temsirolimus in combination with IFN and IFN-alone treatment groups were identical. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) for each test was that the survival distributions differed.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||1.15|0.75|0.4902
95920691|NCT00065468|191801512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.74||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.91|0.60|0.0042
95920692|NCT00065468|191801512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.94|0.62|0.0107
95920693|NCT00065468|191801513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1361
95920694|NCT00065468|191801513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.1062
95920695|NCT00065468|191801514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||<0.0001
95920696|NCT00065468|191801514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||||0.0011
95920697|NCT00065468|191801516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
95920698|NCT00065468|191801516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior nephrectomy and region||||0.89|0.60|0.0020
95920699|NCT03486899|191801547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.52|0.88|0.055
95920700|NCT03486899|191801547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|0.61|0.245
95920701|NCT03486899|191801547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.10|0.71|0.129
95920702|NCT03486899|191801548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
95920703|NCT03486899|191801548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
95733299|NCT04421508|191437407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|3.977||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model modelling the response using the covariates treatment, age, number of co-morbidities and baseline oxygem level|Regression, Logistic|||||3.977|0.567|0.4127
95920704|NCT03486899|191801548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.48|0.75|0.079
95920705|NCT03486899|191801549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.47|0.63|0.180
95920706|NCT03486899|191801549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.20|0.38|0.612
95920707|NCT03486899|191801549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.81|0.079
95920708|NCT03486899|191801550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.15|0.038
95920709|NCT03486899|191801550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.22|0.256
95920710|NCT03486899|191801550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.73|0.25|0.296
95920711|NCT03486899|191801551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
95920712|NCT03486899|191801551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
95920713|NCT03486899|191801551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
95920714|NCT03486899|191801552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.80|0.22|0.718
95920715|NCT03486899|191801552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.87|0.05|0.632
95920716|NCT03486899|191801552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|0.01|0.293
95920717|NCT03486899|191801553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.12|0.73|0.101
95920718|NCT03486899|191801553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.17|0.36|0.587
95920719|NCT03486899|191801553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
95920720|NCT03486899|191801554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
95733300|NCT04421508|191437415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6635
95920721|NCT03486899|191801554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.10|0.43|0.381
95920722|NCT03486899|191801554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|0.53|0.214
95920723|NCT03486899|191801555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.21|0.83|0.060
95920724|NCT03486899|191801555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.92|0.53|0.276
95920725|NCT03486899|191801555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.20|0.45|0.371
95920726|NCT03486899|191801556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.87|0.62|0.242
95920727|NCT03486899|191801556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|0.37|0.803
95920728|NCT03486899|191801556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.46|0.56|0.350
95920729|NCT02397460|191801559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects on Emax following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who were healthy or had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
95920730|NCT02397460|191801560|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment effects following capsaicin challenge were modeled for dose. dependence and were estimated on the basis of disease status for participants who had chronic cough and received gefapixant 50 mg, gefapixant 300 mg, or placebo.||||< 0.0001
95920731|NCT01767129|191801610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.02|48.23|||ANOVA|The standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The least squares (LS) mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.23|-215.02|0.1907
95920732|NCT01767129|191801611|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.28|27.42|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||27.42|-65.28|0.3880
95920733|NCT01767129|191801612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.9||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1022.79|1366.64|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||1366.64|-1022.79|0.7574
95920734|NCT01767129|191801613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.63|178.3|||ANOVA|The standard ANOVA model for a 2-period crossover trial was used. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||178.30|-80.63|0.4203
95920735|NCT01767129|191801614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part I||0.27|-2.41|0.1067
95920736|NCT01767129|191801614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.09|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part II||3.09|-2.64|0.8650
95920737|NCT01767129|191801614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|0.27|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part IV||0.27|-4.94|0.0745
95920738|NCT01767129|191801615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.24|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 1||0.24|-8.10|0.0625
95920739|NCT01767129|191801615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Part 2||1.07|-3.74|0.2474
95920740|NCT01767129|191801616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.01|||ANOVA|Change from Day 1 values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||3.01|-3.10|0.9764
95920741|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|6.36|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Mobility||6.36|-9.94|0.6359
95920742|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.87|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Activities of Daily Living||-1.87|-15.20|0.0167
95920743|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.56|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Emotional Well Being||1.56|-16.54|0.0959
95920744|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|8.83|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Stigma||8.83|-16.72|0.5108
95920745|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|1.42|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Social support||1.42|-21.06|0.0806
95920746|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|7.03|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Cognitive impairment (Cognitions)||7.03|-15.66|0.4205
95920747|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|1.53|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Communication||1.53|-13.63|0.1065
95920748|NCT01767129|191801617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.51|9.19|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Bodily discomfort||9.19|-19.51|0.4456
95920749|NCT01767129|191801618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-1.07|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||-1.07|-11.72|0.0233
95920750|NCT01767129|191801619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.31|||ANOVA|Change from Screening values were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||0.31|-1.39|0.1930
95920751|NCT01767129|191801620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.01|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Dyskinesia||0.01|-2.17|0.0511
95920752|NCT01767129|191801620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.91|||ANOVA|Change were compared using ANOVA for a 2-period crossover trial. Factors in the model were participant, treatment, and period.|The LS mean difference was calculated as the AVP-923-45 LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|Other symptoms||0.91|-0.70|0.7745
95920753|NCT04675242|191801621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the proportion of study eyes with complete cure||15.3|-11.5|0.4434
95920754|NCT04675242|191801622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the change from baseline between treatment groups||2.1|-9.5|0.2105
95920755|NCT04675242|191801623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline eye dryness VAS score||Difference in the mean change from baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5936
95920756|NCT05822921|191801647|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.871
95920757|NCT05822921|191801648|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
95920758|NCT05822921|191801649|OTHER|Independent t-test was used.||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
95920759|NCT00544544|191801651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95920760|NCT00544544|191801652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95920761|NCT00544544|191801653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
95920762|NCT00544544|191801654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95920763|NCT01053637|191801681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Pain at 5 minutes using Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale validated in the younger population. Using a 2-point difference in CHEOPS pain scale as a clinically significant change, 34 patients were required in the younger 2- to 7 group.|Fisher Exact|||Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale, for children 2-7 years. This score ranks 6 categories: Cry, Facial expression, Verbal Response, Torso movement, Touch, and Leg movement. The scale varies by each category from 0-2 or 1-2 or 1-3; such that a minimum score is 4 (no pain) and a maximum score is 13 signifying greatest or worst pain.||||0.05
95920764|NCT01053637|191801682|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. Higher numbers indicated higher state anxiety. State Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC) scores pre vs. post procedure for matched pairs. A lower STAIC score indicates less anxiety and a greater score indicates more anxiety based on Likert-type scales and analyzed using nonparametric testing.||||0.05
95920765|NCT02102464|191801690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.0|8.0|<0.0001
95920766|NCT02102464|191801691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-5.2|-10.2|<0.0001
95920767|NCT02102464|191801692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.4|2.5|<0.0001
95920768|NCT01778062|191801697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95920769|NCT00950937|191801701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
95920770|NCT00950937|191801701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920771|NCT00950937|191801701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920772|NCT00950937|191801702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
95920773|NCT00950937|191801702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920774|NCT00950937|191801702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920775|NCT00950937|191801703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
95920776|NCT00950937|191801703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920777|NCT00950937|191801703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920778|NCT00950937|191801704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
95920779|NCT00950937|191801704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920780|NCT00950937|191801704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920781|NCT00950937|191801705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
95920782|NCT00950937|191801705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920783|NCT00950937|191801705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920784|NCT00950937|191801706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was utilized to compare the three moments: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance.||||||<0.05
95920785|NCT00950937|191801706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920786|NCT00950937|191801706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Friedman Test|Friedman to compare: baseline vs. aerobic, baseline vs. resistance and aerobic vs. resistance. Wilcoxon was applied to locate the differences||||||<0.05
95920787|NCT00950937|191801707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was utilized to compare the two groups (HIV group and Control group)||||||<0.05
95920788|NCT04445155|191801714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
95920789|NCT04445155|191801716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||"Null Hypothesis: The means of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The means of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.011
95920790|NCT04445155|191801717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
95920791|NCT04445155|191801717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.008
95920792|NCT04445155|191801718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
95920793|NCT04445155|191801718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.002
95920794|NCT04445155|191801719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||<0.001
95920795|NCT04445155|191801719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||"Null Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are the same at baseline and immediately post-intervention.~Alternative Hypothesis: The distributions of the scores are different at baseline and immediately post-intervention."||||0.125
95920796|NCT04213846|191801726|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.07|0.81|0.34
95920797|NCT04213846|191801726|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.30|0.91|0.37
95920798|NCT04213846|191801726|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.85|0.80
95993559|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 36||12.6|-15.0|0.865
95920799|NCT04213846|191801727|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.88|0.75
95920800|NCT04213846|191801727|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.25|0.86|0.72
95920801|NCT04213846|191801727|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, college type and used a Poisson error distribution. Peak eBAC multiplied by 100 and rounded up to the nearest integer.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.21|0.85|0.91
95920802|NCT04213846|191801728|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||0.99|0.69|0.04
95920803|NCT04213846|191801728|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.23|0.77|0.84
95920804|NCT04213846|191801728|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.22|0.73|0.34
95920805|NCT04213846|191801729|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 1-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 1-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 1-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.16|0.82|0.78
95920806|NCT04213846|191801729|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 6-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 6-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 6-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.75|0.27
95920807|NCT04213846|191801729|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=408 with a Condition × 12-Month Follow-Up interaction. Assessment-only control was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 12-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.20|0.84|0.95
95920808|NCT04213846|191801730|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear model was estimated using a sample of N=346.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controlled for sex, age, and college type (2-year vs. 4-year) and used a negative binomial error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 12-Month Follow-Up for intervention versus assessment-only control reported in this section.||1.08|0.89|0.69
95920809|NCT05516342|191801750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95920810|NCT05516342|191801751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95920811|NCT05516342|191801752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95920812|NCT05516342|191801753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95920813|NCT05516342|191801754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95920814|NCT05516342|191801755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95920815|NCT05516342|191801756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
95920816|NCT05516342|191801757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
95920817|NCT05516342|191801758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95920818|NCT02401529|191801776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
95920819|NCT02401529|191801777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
95920820|NCT02401529|191801778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
95920821|NCT02401529|191801779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
95920822|NCT02401529|191801780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
95920823|NCT02401529|191801781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
95920824|NCT02401529|191801782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95920825|NCT02401529|191801783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
95920826|NCT02401529|191801784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
95920827|NCT02401529|191801785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
95920828|NCT05310084|191801827|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate-administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of concentrations (coadmin group-separate admin group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|||0.89|0.77|
95920829|NCT05310084|191801828|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Austria||1.04|0.77|
95920830|NCT05310084|191801828|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|B/Phuket||1.13|0.89|
95920831|NCT05310084|191801828|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H1N1 A/Victoria||1.09|0.83|
95920832|NCT05310084|191801828|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared for an influenza strain if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (coadministration group to separate administration group) was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||GMRs and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating LSmeans difference of logarithms of titers (coadministration group-separate administration group), corresponding CIs based on analysis of log transformed assay results using a linear regression model|H3N2 A/Darwin||1.09|0.85|
95920833|NCT05153174|191801894|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
95920834|NCT05153174|191801895|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 to reject null hypothesis of equivalence||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
95920835|NCT01033643|191801903|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|2.36|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or geometric mean ratio (GMR) was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
95920836|NCT01033643|191801904|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.62|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
95920837|NCT01033643|191801906|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.9|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
95920838|NCT01033643|191801906|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
95920839|NCT01033643|191801907|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.91|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 10) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 1).|||||
95920840|NCT01033643|191801908|OTHER||Accumulation or Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38|||||||||||||Accumulation ratio or GMR was calculated as last day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 13) divided by the first day of multiple dosing of MK-3614 (Day 4).|||||
95920841|NCT01033643|191801915|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.53|1.2||||||||1.20|-9.53|
95920842|NCT01033643|191801915|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|10.97||||||||10.97|-1.41|
95920843|NCT01033643|191801915|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.37|1.42||||||||1.42|-8.37|
95920844|NCT01033643|191801915|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|8.42||||||||8.42|-1.37|
95920845|NCT01033643|191801916|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|7.36||||||||7.36|-6.91|
95920846|NCT01033643|191801916|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|5.47||||||||5.47|-8.79|
95920847|NCT01033643|191801916|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|9.25||||||||9.25|-5.02|
95920848|NCT01033643|191801916|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|6.94||||||||6.94|-9.41|
95920849|NCT01033643|191801917|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.29|7.79||||||||7.79|-9.29|
95920850|NCT01033643|191801917|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.32|6.86||||||||6.86|-14.32|
95920851|NCT01033643|191801917|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.88|9.2||||||||9.20|-7.88|
95920852|NCT01033643|191801917|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-9.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.54|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-19.54|
95920853|NCT01033643|191801918|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.36|7.32||||||||7.32|-9.36|
95920854|NCT01033643|191801918|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|8.22||||||||8.22|-12.47|
95920855|NCT01033643|191801918|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.87|7.81||||||||7.81|-8.87|
95920856|NCT01033643|191801918|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-10.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.83|-1.04||||||||-1.04|-19.83|
95920857|NCT01033643|191801919|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.04||||||||3.04|-6.50|
95920858|NCT01033643|191801919|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|0.54||||||||0.54|-9.00|
95920859|NCT01033643|191801919|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|3.72||||||||3.72|-5.82|
95920860|NCT01033643|191801919|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|7.46||||||||7.46|-3.46|
95920861|NCT01033643|191801920|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.37|1.64||||||||1.64|-9.37|
95920862|NCT01033643|191801920|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-14.03|
95920863|NCT01033643|191801920|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|4.18||||||||4.18|-6.83|
95920864|NCT01033643|191801920|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.45|3.96||||||||3.96|-8.45|
95920865|NCT01033643|191801921|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.43||||||||2.43|-7.92|
95920866|NCT01033643|191801921|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.09|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-13.09|
95920867|NCT01033643|191801921|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|4.44||||||||4.44|-5.91|
95920868|NCT01033643|191801921|OTHER|Linear Model|Mean Difference from Placebo|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.64|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.64|
95920869|NCT01033643|191801922|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.87|0.47|
95920870|NCT01033643|191801922|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.87|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||0.87|0.26|
95920871|NCT01033643|191801922|OTHER|Linear Model|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.79|||||GMR was calculated as MK-3614 Dose divided by Placebo|||1.79|0.51|
95920872|NCT03527277|191801928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender||||3.5|-4.0|0.88
95920873|NCT03527277|191801929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||2.3|-3.7|0.65
95920874|NCT03527277|191801930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||3.4|-3.7|0.92
95920875|NCT03527277|191801931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.6|-3.3|0.81
95920876|NCT03527277|191801932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Effect of group with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
95920877|NCT03527277|191801933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||-2.1|-4.7|<0.0001
95920878|NCT03527277|191801934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.31|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.31|-0.74|0.42
95920879|NCT03527277|191801935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.76|-0.23|0.28
95920880|NCT03527277|191801936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|24.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment of gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||24.7|-42.9|0.59
95920881|NCT03527277|191801937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.08|-0.21|0.35
95920882|NCT03527277|191801938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||||0.59|-0.61|0.97
95920883|NCT03527277|191801939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for BMI, outcome at baseline and gender.||-5.4|-22.4|0.002
95920884|NCT03527277|191801940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||1.8|-17.6|0.11
95920885|NCT03527277|191801941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23340.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8284.0|38396.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||38396|8284|0.0032
95920886|NCT03527277|191801942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5558.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2680.0|8437.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||8437|2680|0.0003
95920887|NCT03527277|191801943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3824.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1611.0|6036.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline||||6036|1611|0.0012
95920888|NCT03527277|191801944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19522.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7353.0|31691.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||31691|7353|0.0023
95920889|NCT03527277|191801945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21881.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11307.0|32455.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||32455|11307|0.0001
95920890|NCT03527277|191801946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9666.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4808.0|14524.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||14524|4808|0.0002
95920891|NCT03527277|191801947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3413.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1456.0|5370.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5370|1456|0.0011
95920892|NCT03527277|191801948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|55.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||55.1|-32.0|0.59
95920893|NCT03527277|191801949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|147.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||147.9|1.3|0.046
95920894|NCT03527277|191801950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome and BMI at baseline.||Effect of group on change in outcome with adjustment for BMI, Outcome at baseline and gender.||1.3|-0.7|0.56
95920895|NCT03527277|191801951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.35|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||0.35|-1.94|0.17
95920896|NCT03527277|191801952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||3.0|-1.9|0.65
95920897|NCT03527277|191801953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.6|-0.5|0.88
95920898|NCT03527277|191801954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||5.7|-4.4|0.81
95920899|NCT03527277|191801955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change with adjustment for gender and BMI and outcome at baseline.||||2.9|-4.4|0.69
95920900|NCT03527277|191801956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of outcome with adjustment for gender and outcome at baseline.||||0.1|-1.0|0.10
95920901|NCT03527277|191801957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Effect of group on change of Outcome with adjustment for outcome at baseline.||||1.2|-2.1|0.55
95920902|NCT00826280|191801958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920903|NCT00826280|191801958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920904|NCT00826280|191801958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920905|NCT00826280|191801958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9328||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.9328
95920906|NCT00826280|191801959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0011
95920907|NCT00826280|191801959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0034||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0034
95920908|NCT00826280|191801959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920909|NCT00826280|191801959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5902||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5902
95920910|NCT00826280|191801960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0037
95920911|NCT00826280|191801960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0089
95920912|NCT00826280|191801960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.0016
95920913|NCT00826280|191801960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5654||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||0.5654
95920914|NCT00826280|191801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value is from the primary analysis using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920915|NCT00826280|191801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920916|NCT00826280|191801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||<0.001
95920917|NCT00826280|191801961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4246||95.0||||The unadjusted P-Values for pairwise differences should be used for interpretation only if the treatment effect's P-Value ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||P-Value applies to 'Double-Blind - Baseline (Day 5 - Day 3)'.||||.4246
95950483|NCT00092456|191872678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANCOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
95920918|NCT02096081|191802003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. The hypothesis testing procedure to test the equivalence of the two products is as follows:~Ho (null): D ≤ -∆ OR D ≥ ∆ versus Ha (alternate): -∆ \< D \< ∆, where ∆ is the margin of equivalence = 0.15."|Difference in proportions of response|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then Ho is rejected in favor of Ha (i.e., equivalence of incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA can be concluded); otherwise, treatment equivalence cannot be concluded.|With assumptions of an alpha of 5%, an equivalence margin of 15% for each side, the real response rate expected as 90% for incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA at day 30 and a 1:1 allocation ratio, a total of 225 subjects were needed to achieve a statistical power of 90% in order to make an equivalence conclusion at day 30. Results are based on the Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval. To account for exclusions from the PPS of about 10%, approximately 250 subjects were enrolled.||0.6|-7.5|
95920919|NCT02096081|191802004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||1.5|-12.1|
95920920|NCT02096081|191802005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.6|-10.6|
95920921|NCT02096081|191802006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|7.1|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||7.1|-17.4|
95920922|NCT02096081|191802007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 1 month was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.2|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||3.2|-8.5|
95920923|NCT02096081|191802008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 2 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.3|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||5.3|-11.0|
95920924|NCT02096081|191802009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 3 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.5|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||9.5|-12.4|
95920925|NCT02096081|191802010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This secondary analysis was performed for exploratory purposes. The analysis of response defined as the difference (D) in response rates between two treatment groups at 4 months was as follows: D = response rate in the incobotulinumtoxinA group minus the response rate in the onabotulinumtoxinA group.|Difference in proportion of responders|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|10.7|||||If the confidence interval lies within the limits of ±0.15, then both incobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA have similar efficacy profiles.|The study was not powered for this secondary endpoint.||10.7|-14.4|
95920926|NCT02886728|191802017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||15.6|3.6|<0.001
95920927|NCT02886728|191802017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||16.1|1.5|0.017
95920928|NCT02886728|191802017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||14.1|-0.7|0.058
95920929|NCT02886728|191802018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.27|<0.001
95920930|NCT02886728|191802018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.03|-0.23|0.009
95920931|NCT02886728|191802018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.20|0.032
95920932|NCT02886728|191802019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||31.7|18.3|<0.001
95920933|NCT02886728|191802019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.8|5.0|<0.001
95920934|NCT02886728|191802019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.6|5.0|<0.001
95920935|NCT02886728|191802020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.02|-0.61|0.068
95920936|NCT02886728|191802020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.10|-0.67|0.14
95920937|NCT02886728|191802020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-0.94|0.006
95920938|NCT02886728|191802021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.8|<0.001
95983227|NCT02109562|191940753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.045|-3.429||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.429|-11.045|<0.0001
95920939|NCT02886728|191802021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.2|0.021
95920940|NCT02886728|191802021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.5|0.24
95920941|NCT02886728|191802022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.0|0.056
95920942|NCT02886728|191802022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-0.3|0.10
95920943|NCT02886728|191802022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-1.3|0.67
95920944|NCT02886728|191802023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.27|-1.03|<0.001
95920945|NCT02886728|191802023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.16||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.16|-1.09|0.008
95920946|NCT02886728|191802023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, campaign groups, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
95920947|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|31.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||31.7|19.3|<0.001
95920948|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||28.5|12.8|<0.001
95920949|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||30.8|15.1|<0.001
95920950|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||35.6|22.1|<0.001
95920951|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||30.7|13.6|<0.001
95920952|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|27.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.5|10.5|<0.001
95920953|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.8|10.8|<0.001
95920954|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.7|4.5|0.002
95920955|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.1|4.0|0.002
95920956|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.5|0.9|0.016
95920957|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.0|-2.7|0.18
95920958|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.6|0.3|0.030
95920959|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|6.7|<0.001
95920960|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.6|3.7|0.003
95920961|NCT02886728|191802024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.8|5.1|<0.001
95950484|NCT00805792|191872747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
95920962|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|13.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.9|6.2|<0.001
95920963|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||10.9|1.7|0.001
95920964|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||18.9|7.7|<0.001
95920965|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.4|14.5|<0.001
95920966|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.0|4.8|<0.001
95920967|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|23.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.2|9.4|<0.001
95920968|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||31.5|18.1|<0.001
95920969|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||24.5|7.7|<0.001
95920970|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|25.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.7|9.0|<0.001
95920971|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.8|8.9|<0.001
95920972|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||20.0|2.7|0.006
95920973|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||21.0|3.9|0.002
95920974|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||19.0|5.1|<0.001
95920975|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.7|0.090
95920976|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||18.6|1.4|0.014
95920977|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|7.0|<0.001
95920978|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||19.7|2.5|0.008
95920979|NCT02886728|191802025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||21.6|4.6|0.001
95920980|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||4.5|0.3|0.018
95920981|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||3.6|-1.2|0.17
95920982|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.8|0.3|0.004
95920983|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||13.1|5.2|<0.001
95920984|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||6.6|-1.7|0.18
95920985|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||12.6|2.5|<0.001
95920986|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||25.5|13.9|<0.001
95920987|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||21.1|6.6|<0.001
95920988|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||23.1|8.5|<0.001
95920989|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||24.4|11.2|<0.001
95920990|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.9|<0.001
95920991|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.2|5.8|<0.001
95920992|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||20.5|6.9|<0.001
95920993|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||13.3|-3.3|0.20
95920994|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|15.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||15.7|-1.0|0.056
95920995|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|24.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||24.8|11.3|<0.001
95920996|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.6|1.9|0.010
95920997|NCT02886728|191802026|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|23.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.8|7.0|<0.001
95920998|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
95920999|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.28|<0.001
95921000|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.24|<0.001
95921001|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.35|<0.001
95950485|NCT00805792|191872748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
95950486|NCT00805792|191872749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The statistical significance of the change was assessed by the P value associated with estimated regression coefficient (beta coefficient or slope).||||<.001
95950487|NCT01345253|191872753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement (C) levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.82|1.40|0.0001
95921002|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.06||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.06|-0.23|<0.001
95921003|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.29|<0.001
95921004|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.20|-0.35|<0.001
95921005|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
95921006|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
95921007|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.05||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.05|-0.22|0.002
95921008|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.17|0.23
95921009|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.04|-0.16|0.24
95921010|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.25|<0.001
95921011|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.01|-0.20|0.077
95921012|NCT02886728|191802027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and subjects being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.22|0.039
95921013|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
95993560|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||19.6|-11.3|0.596
95921014|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
95921015|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
95921016|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-7.0|<0.001
95921017|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.0|<0.001
95921018|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
95921019|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
95921020|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
95921021|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-6.0|<0.001
95921022|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921023|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.005
95921024|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
95733301|NCT03980483|191437417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.19|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||2.21|1.19|0.0023
95921025|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.063
95921026|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-1.0|0.64
95921027|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921028|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921029|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-2.0|0.095
95921030|NCT02886728|191802028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921031|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921032|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|0.002
95921033|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
95921034|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
95921035|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
95921036|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
95793518|NCT01419314|191557036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.33|52.05|||ANOVA|Sphericity was not tenable for the factor pain scores, degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates, df (1.71,56.46).||A repeated measure ANOVA was performed to evaluate the contrasts of interest.||52.05|38.33|0.001
95921037|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921038|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921039|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
95921040|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
95921041|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
95921042|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95921043|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|<0.001
95921044|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-1.0|0.12
95733302|NCT03980483|191437417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.02|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||1.89|1.02|0.0362
95733303|NCT03980483|191437417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.62|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.37|1.62|<0.0001
95921045|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.019
95921046|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
95921047|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-1.0|0.032
95921048|NCT02886728|191802029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|<0.001
95921049|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
95921050|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
95921051|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-10.0|<0.001
95921052|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-15.0|<0.001
95921053|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.001
95921054|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921055|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
95733304|NCT03980483|191437417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.5|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.95|0.50|0.0230
95921056|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.009
95921057|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.003
95921058|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
95921059|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.11
95921060|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-8.0|0.066
95921061|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921062|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.40
95921063|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.24
95921064|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
95921065|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.17
95921066|NCT02886728|191802030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-10.0|0.008
95921067|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
95921068|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
95921069|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921070|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-13.0|<0.001
95921071|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921072|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921073|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
95921074|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-9.0|<0.001
95921075|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-8.0|0.001
95921076|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
95793519|NCT01419314|191557036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.39||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test contrasting pain scores from baseline to week six of the trial-Splint group. The statistical power for the within splint intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.99.|Null hypothesis: Is there a difference in baseline pain scores compared to those at week 6 in the splinting group?||23.39|8.80|<0.0005
95921077|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.007
95921078|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.046
95921079|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.002
95921080|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-4.0|0.44
95921081|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-5.0|0.21
95921082|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-7.0|<0.001
95921083|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.029
95921084|NCT02886728|191802031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-6.0|0.010
95921085|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
95921086|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921087|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
95921088|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
95921089|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921090|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-13.0|<0.001
95921091|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
95921092|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-9.0|0.019
95921093|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-10.0|0.007
95921094|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
95921095|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-7.0|0.13
95921096|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-8.0|0.047
95921097|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-11.0|<0.001
95921098|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-6.0|0.34
95921099|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-6.0|0.46
95921100|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-12.0|<0.001
95921101|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-9.0|0.030
95921102|NCT02886728|191802032|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-12.0|<0.001
95921103|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-8.85||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.85|-12.71|<0.001
95921104|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-6.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.39|-11.13|<0.001
95921105|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.29||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.29|-12.00|<0.001
95921106|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-8.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.19|-11.65|<0.001
95921107|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|-6.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.21|-10.47|<0.001
95921108|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-5.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.21|-9.45|<0.001
95921109|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-4.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.39|-7.56|<0.001
95921110|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.27||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.27|-6.14|<0.001
95921111|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-2.39||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.39|-6.29|<0.001
95921112|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.31||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.31|-7.24|<0.001
95921113|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.89|-5.68|0.007
95921114|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.20|-7.02|<0.001
95921115|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.53|-5.35|<0.001
95921116|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.09||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.09|-5.72|0.004
95921117|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.19|-4.44|0.072
95733305|NCT03980483|191437417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.82|0.43|0.0013
95921118|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-3.24||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.24|-6.34|<0.001
95921119|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.13|-4.88|0.002
95921120|NCT02886728|191802033|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.89||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.89|-5.65|<0.001
95921121|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||26.7|12.8|<0.001
95921122|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|25.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||25.0|7.6|<0.001
95921123|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||20.4|3.0|0.004
95921124|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||25.2|11.7|<0.001
95921125|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|-1.6|0.083
95921126|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||23.1|6.4|<0.001
95921127|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||16.7|4.4|<0.001
95921128|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.6|-3.1|0.22
95921129|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||12.1|-3.6|0.25
95921130|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||8.9|-3.5|0.35
95921131|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||12.1|-2.9|0.20
95921132|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||10.6|-4.5|0.36
95921133|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||12.8|-0.2|0.043
95921134|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.2|1.6|0.015
95921135|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||14.4|-1.5|0.085
95921136|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||16.6|3.2|0.002
95921137|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|18.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||18.7|2.3|0.010
95921138|NCT02886728|191802034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||17.8|1.4|0.014
95921139|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
95921140|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
95921141|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
95921142|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
95921143|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
95921144|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
95921145|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.0|<0.001
95921146|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
95855668|NCT02904954|191670817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|66.6||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the MPR proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the MPR proportion between the two arms.||66.6|26.7|0.0001
95921147|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
95921148|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
95921149|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
95950488|NCT01345253|191872754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, Baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.83|1.41|0.0001
95921150|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
95921151|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
95921152|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-0.4|0.033
95921153|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
95921154|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
95921155|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
95921156|NCT02886728|191802035|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
95921157|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|24.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||24.4|13.1|<0.001
95983228|NCT02109562|191940754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.143||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 90 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.143|-0.557|0.0002
95733306|NCT03980483|191437420|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5 % Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-18.6|-2.3|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-2.3|-18.6|
95855669|NCT02904954|191670818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis comparing the two arms.||||0.89
95921158|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||18.6|4.7|<0.001
95921159|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|27.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||27.3|12.5|<0.001
95921160|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|33.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||33.9|20.5|<0.001
95921161|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||30.1|13.2|<0.001
95921162|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||27.9|11.1|<0.001
95921163|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||29.4|15.8|<0.001
95921164|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|25.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||25.2|8.1|<0.001
95921165|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24||22.4|5.3|<0.001
95921166|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.2|14.6|<0.001
95921167|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.9|3.7|0.003
95921168|NCT02886728|191802036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||26.5|9.7|<0.001
95921169|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||9.1|3.4|<0.001
95921170|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||6.7|0.1|0.010
95921171|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2||13.6|4.5|<0.001
95921172|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||16.1|7.4|<0.001
95983229|NCT02109562|191940754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.19||For evaluation of treatment differences, compare against a 1-sided adjusted P value with significance at \<0.025. The P values have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's procedure.|repeated measure linear regression model||RBP-7000 120 mg - Placebo|Estimates, standard errors (SE), 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs), and -1-sided P values are based on a repeated-measures linear regression model of the change from baseline score, with fixed effects for visit as a categorical variable, baseline score, treatment and treatment by visit interaction, assuming an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.190|-0.602|<0.0001
95733307|NCT03980483|191437420|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 97.5% CI in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.975|-21.2|-4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 97.5% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-4.8|-21.2|
95733308|NCT01239121|191437526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-0.27|0.175
95733309|NCT01239121|191437527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|.49|0.964
95733310|NCT05150964|191437529|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The hearing aid fitting prescription will have no effect on the speech reception thresholds."||||<0.05
95921173|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||15.8|4.5|<0.001
95921174|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|20.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4||20.8|8.6|<0.001
95921175|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|28.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||28.8|16.4|<0.001
95921176|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||22.5|7.1|<0.001
95921177|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12||20.0|4.9|<0.001
95921178|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||25.1|11.4|<0.001
95983230|NCT02044133|191940762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95921179|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||16.1|-0.8|0.056
95733311|NCT05150964|191437529|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05, Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (NAL/National Acoustic Laboratory or DSL/Desired Sensation Level) and ASG (Adaptive Situational Gain) setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the speech reception threshold."||||>0.05
95733312|NCT05150964|191437530|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
95733313|NCT05150964|191437530|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: The presentation level will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
95733314|NCT05150964|191437530|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null Hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on the Word Recognition Scores."||||<0.05
95921180|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36||17.4|0.5|0.023
95921181|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|28.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||28.7|15.1|<0.001
95921182|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||20.0|3.1|0.004
95733315|NCT05150964|191437531|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||<0.05
95733316|NCT05150964|191437531|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
95733317|NCT05150964|191437531|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on multi-word recognition scores."||||>0.05
95921183|NCT02886728|191802037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52||23.1|6.3|<0.001
95921184|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-7.3|<0.001
95921185|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-6.4|<0.001
95921186|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.7|<0.001
95921187|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
95921188|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
95921189|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-7.8|<0.001
95921190|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.3|<0.001
95921191|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-6.1|<0.001
95921192|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-6.8|<0.001
95921193|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
95921194|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.3|-4.3|<0.001
95921195|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.4|<0.001
95921196|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.001
95921197|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.8|-2.0|0.36
95921198|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-3.3|0.009
95733318|NCT05150964|191437532|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
95921199|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-4.5|<0.001
95921200|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.1|-2.7|0.042
95921201|NCT02886728|191802040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.7|<0.001
95921202|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.2|-8.5|<0.001
95921203|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.3|-7.3|<0.001
95921204|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.7|-8.8|<0.001
95921205|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.001
95921206|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.1|-8.2|<0.001
95921207|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-8.5|<0.001
95921208|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-8.0|<0.001
95921209|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-6.5|<0.001
95950489|NCT01345253|191872755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio (95% CI) and p-value were estimated by a logistic regression model with independent variables treatment group, country, baseline SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 vs. \>=10) and complement levels (low C3 and/or C4 vs. no low C3 or C4).|||2.74|1.13|0.0116
95950490|NCT01345253|191872756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0288|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0288
95950491|NCT01345253|191872757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||Regression, Cox|||||0.73|0.34|0.0004
95950492|NCT03693989|191872779|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.065
95950493|NCT03693989|191872780|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
95921210|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-7.4|<0.001
95921211|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.4|-5.9|<0.001
95921212|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.6|<0.001
95921213|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.9|-4.9|<0.001
95921214|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-3.8|<0.001
95921215|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.6|-2.4|0.23
95921216|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-3.6|0.005
95921217|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.6|-5.0|<0.001
95921218|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-3.1|0.021
95921219|NCT02886728|191802041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.4|-4.3|<0.001
95921220|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||12.9|2.2|0.006
95921221|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||11.6|-1.8|0.16
95793520|NCT01419314|191557036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|7.47||Bonferroni adjustment for significance\<0.013.|t-test, 2 sided|df(35)|The statistical power for the between intervention contrast was calculated to be 0.26|Null Hypothesis: There is not difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week three.||7.47|-13.93|0.155
95793521|NCT01419314|191557036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|3.85|||t-test, 2 sided|df(35)||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in pain scores between the liner and splint applications at week six.||3.85|-23.20|0.155
95793522|NCT01721447|191557062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95921222|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.1|1.1|0.029
95921223|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.6|1.6|0.015
95921224|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||12.2|-3.9|0.33
95921225|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||17.9|2.5|0.013
95921226|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||7.6|-0.3|0.074
95921227|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||6.9|-3.1|0.49
95921228|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.53)||8.9|-0.2|0.075
95921229|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||16.2|4.3|<0.001
95921230|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||15.2|0.7|0.045
95921231|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0.5||14.0|-1.1|0.100
95921232|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||16.7|3.2|0.004
95921233|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||14.0|-2.9|0.25
95921234|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= 0||15.0|-2.0|0.14
95921235|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||12.3|2.8|0.002
95921236|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||13.6|2.9|0.008
95921237|NCT02886728|191802042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups, stratification factors and campaign groups in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52 for Change in mTSS \<= SDC (1.77)||8.9|-3.9|0.47
95921238|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.4|<0.001
95921239|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.7|0.001
95950494|NCT03693989|191872781|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.621
95793523|NCT01721447|191557063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95921240|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.3|<0.001
95921241|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.8|2.7|<0.001
95921242|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|0.5|0.008
95921243|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.023
95921244|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.6|0.003
95921245|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.8|0.38
95921246|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.8|-1.0|0.59
95921247|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|1.6|<0.001
95921248|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.3|0.11
95921249|NCT02886728|191802044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.17|0.071
95921250|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.6|<0.001
95921251|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|0.1|0.032
95950495|NCT03693989|191872782|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.246|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
95950496|NCT03693989|191872783|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
95793524|NCT00843492|191557064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.15|<0.001
95921252|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.0|<0.001
95921253|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|0.2|0.023
95921254|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|-0.1|0.065
95921255|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.4|0.15
95921256|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.0|0.73
95921257|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.2|-0.8|0.37
95921258|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.4|-1.7|0.83
95921259|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|-0.1|0.073
95921260|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.2|0.090
95921261|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.2|-1.9|0.68
95921262|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.6|0.30
95921263|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-1.3|0.69
95921264|NCT02886728|191802046|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.5|-1.7|0.95
95921265|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.4|2.1|<0.001
95921266|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
95921267|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|1.3|<0.001
95921268|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.5|1.0|<0.001
95921269|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.13
95921270|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|0.1|0.032
95921271|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.2|0.028
95921272|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|-0.4|0.15
95921273|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.3|-0.9|0.41
95921274|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.1|0.3|0.017
95921275|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.6|-0.7|0.27
95921276|NCT02886728|191802048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.9|-0.5|0.15
95921277|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|6.0|<0.001
95921278|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|1.0|0.006
95921279|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|3.0|<0.001
95921280|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|<0.001
95921281|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.089
95921282|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-1.0|0.18
95921283|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|1.0|0.003
95921284|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|0.0|0.049
95921285|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-4.0|0.84
95921286|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|2.0|<0.001
95921287|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.0|-0.0|0.078
95921288|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 36. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-2.0|0.39
95921289|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.004
95921290|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg + MTX vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-3.0|0.45
95921291|NCT02886728|191802051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg Monotherapy vs MTX Monotherapy at Week 52. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-4.0|0.85
95921292|NCT01196104|191802060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study terminated early due to business reasons, results are not properly powered.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4901|0.3956|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate||0.3956|-0.4901|0.8283
95921293|NCT02724020|191802091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.36|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.36|0.75|=0.388
95921294|NCT02724020|191802091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.52|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.52|0.75|0.667
95921295|NCT02724020|191802093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.49|0.89|0.212
95921296|NCT02724020|191802093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Stratified Log-rank Test||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicated an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.98|0.77|0.546
95921297|NCT02724020|191802094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||3.05|0.81|=0.156
95921298|NCT02724020|191802094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.79|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportion hazard model adjusted for prior lines of therapy and the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage compared to Everolimus.|||2.79|0.72|0.667
95921299|NCT02724020|191802095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.22|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI were obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|As prespecified in the protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only.|As prespecified in protocol, the statistical analysis was performed between arms - Arm A: Single-agent Everolimus 10 mg QD and Arm C: Combination of MLN0128 4 mg QD + MLN1117 200 mg QD only for this outcome measure.|2.22|0.08|
95921300|NCT02724020|191802096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.69|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.69|0.24|
95921301|NCT02724020|191802096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.21|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||2.21|0.28|
95921302|NCT02724020|191802097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.38|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.38|0.16|
95921303|NCT02724020|191802097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Odds ratio and 95% CI was obtained using a stratified CMH model with prior lines of therapy and the international metastatic renal cell carcinoma database consortium risk category.|||1.80|0.20|
95921304|NCT01232556|191802191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||A one sided 0.025 level testing plan was specified with two interim analyses and final testing level at one-sided 0.023.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline Secondary International Prognostic Index (sIPI), and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Primary null hypothesis: Equality of survival distributions. Sample size sufficient to have power 0.96 for an experimental/control hazard ratio of 0.6.||1.44|0.82|0.708
95921305|NCT01232556|191802192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|Second comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||1.19|0.72|0.271
95921306|NCT01232556|191802193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.843
95921307|NCT01232556|191802194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||||||An hierarchical testing strategy was specified for OS, PFS and response. PFS could be tested at the 0.023 level if the OS test result were positive. Response could be tested if both the OS and PFS test results were positive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.||Third comparison in hierarchical testing strategy was used for power calculation.||||0.714
95921308|NCT01232556|191802195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.25|||Log Rank|From one sided stratified log-rank test.|From stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The stratification factors are pre-randomization investigator choice, baseline sIPI, and best response to most recent chemo therapy.|DOR was not part of the formal hypothesis testing strategy.||1.25|0.47|0.142
95921309|NCT01232556|191802196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.06|-0.02|0.2892
95921310|NCT01232556|191802197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed effects model with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||7.74|-1.52|0.1879
95921311|NCT01473420|191802199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||||||Least square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.24|-0.17|
95921312|NCT01473420|191802200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|9.82||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||9.82|-14.51|
95921313|NCT01473420|191802201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8338|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.8338
95921314|NCT01473420|191802202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6895|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.6895
95921315|NCT01473420|191802203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.||||||0.9177
95921316|NCT00738530|191802227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.76|0.3360
95793525|NCT00794664|191557071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Enrollment was to be conducted such that at least 51 patients were randomized to allow for potential exclusions from an analysis set.||||<0.001
95921317|NCT00738530|191802229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0004
95921318|NCT00738530|191802230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.62|0.0002
95921319|NCT00738530|191802232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.66|0.0023
95921320|NCT00738530|191802233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.6|||Chi-squared|||||26.6|13.2|<.0001
95921321|NCT03990363|191802290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0648
95921322|NCT03990363|191802290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6296|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.6296
95921323|NCT03990363|191802290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Model|||||||0.0263
95921324|NCT00556374|191802300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratification factors are hospital type, prior use of aromatase inhibitor, and baseline lumbar spine BMD.|From the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the independent variable and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer fracture-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|The efficacy clinical hypothesis is that denosumab, when administered subcutaneously at a dose of 60 mg every 6 months, will be considered efficacious in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer receiving AIT if the rate of first clinical fracture in denosumab-treated patients is lower than that in placebo-treated patients. It is anticipated that denosumab will reduce the rate by 30% compared with placebo (ie, the true hazard ratio of denosumab compared with placebo is 0.70).||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
95921325|NCT00556374|191802301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.04|11.01||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||11.01|9.04|<0.0001
95921326|NCT00556374|191802302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|7.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|8.97||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||8.97|6.87|<0.0001
95921327|NCT00556374|191802303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference from Placebo|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|7.39||The Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment group as the independent variable and adjusted for baseline value and the randomization stratification factors.||||7.39|5.62|<0.0001
95921328|NCT00556374|191802304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.85|0.33|0.0088
95921329|NCT00556374|191802305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment groups as the independent variable and stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor denosumab.|||0.84|0.34|0.0070
95921330|NCT00556374|191802306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.816||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Stratified by randomization strata (hospital type, use of aromatase inhibitor, baseline lumbar spine BMD).|From the Cox Proportional hazards model with treatment fitted as a covariate and stratified by randomization strata. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.66|0.0515
95950497|NCT03693989|191872784|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95921331|NCT00556374|191802307|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of BMFS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.997|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer bone metastases-free time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||0.997|0.654|
95921332|NCT00556374|191802308|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of OS was conditional on the outcome of DFS due to hierarchical testing strategy, therefore p-value not reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.013|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer overall survival time for denosumab relative to placebo.|||1.013|0.635|
95921333|NCT03277378|191802342|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level.||||||0.0003|||||||Farrington- Manning non-inferioirty test|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: AB - TB ≤ -15% H1: AB - TB \> -15% where AB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 1 (AB) TB = permanent system qualification rate of Group 2 (TB)"||||0.0003
95921334|NCT03277378|191802343|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||"The hypothesis was formally addressed as:~H0: P ≤ 60% H1: P \> 60% where P= percentage of physician prefer anatomic placement over targeted placement.~The analysis population included physicians who have performed both placement procedures. The hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level."||||0.2500
95921335|NCT02404493|191802377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921336|NCT02404493|191802377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.023
95983231|NCT04272892|191940763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||<|0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||p values are calculated for original data (complete case) and each of the 5 imputed datasets. The p value range was 0.002 - 0.020. This is not multiple statistical analyses- it is just one with multiple imputations.|ANCOVA|Degrees of freedom for original data (complete case): 1,64. Degrees of freedom for imputed datasets: 1,80||||||<0.021
95793526|NCT00794664|191557073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95921337|NCT02404493|191802377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|422.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|122.905||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.435|679.186||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||679.186|166.435|0.003
95921338|NCT02404493|191802378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921339|NCT02404493|191802378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.754
95921340|NCT02404493|191802378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.21||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.23|92.373||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||92.373|12.230|0.013
95921341|NCT02404493|191802379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921342|NCT02404493|191802379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.271
95921343|NCT02404493|191802379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.046|268.854||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||268.854|67.046|0.002
95921344|NCT02404493|191802380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
95921345|NCT02404493|191802380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.260
95921346|NCT02404493|191802380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|221.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.674||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.254|432.68||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||432.680|11.254|0.040
95921347|NCT02404493|191802381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921348|NCT02404493|191802381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.220
95921349|NCT02404493|191802381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.461||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.712|337.291||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||337.291|50.712|0.011
95921350|NCT02404493|191802382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
95733319|NCT05150964|191437532|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescription will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||<0.05
95733320|NCT05150964|191437532|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Nonword Detection scores."||||>0.05
95733321|NCT05150964|191437533|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: The ASG setting will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
95733322|NCT05150964|191437533|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Presentation level will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
95733323|NCT05150964|191437533|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance was indicated by p \<. 05 and Cohen's d was calculated to indicate effect size.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A Linear Mixed Model Analysis was performed. The hearing aid prescription (DSL, NAL) and ASG setting (on, off) were entered as fixed factors while the individual participants were entered as a random factor. An additional fixed factor of presentation level (40, 70 dB SPL) was added to the analyses.~Null hypothesis: Hearing aid prescripton will have no effect on Rapid Word Learning scores."||||>0.05
95733324|NCT01014728|191437549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.937
95733325|NCT01014728|191437550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95793527|NCT00794664|191557075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95793528|NCT00794664|191557077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95793529|NCT00794664|191557079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
95921351|NCT02404493|191802382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.060
95921352|NCT02404493|191802382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|134.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.567||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.266|302.063||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||302.063|-32.266|0.107
95921353|NCT02404493|191802383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.692
95921354|NCT02404493|191802383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.541
95733326|NCT01014728|191437551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
95733327|NCT03657160|191437552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.27|<0.001
95733328|NCT03657160|191437553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.37|0.0043
95733329|NCT03657160|191437554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.39|0.0204
95733330|NCT03657160|191437555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.22|0.0668
95733331|NCT03657160|191437556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.34|0.1458
95733332|NCT03657160|191437557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.46|0.0105
95733333|NCT00686959|191437565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.79|0.831
95793530|NCT00794664|191557081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95793531|NCT00794664|191557083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.032||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.032
95793532|NCT00794664|191557085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95921355|NCT02404493|191802383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.502||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.502|-0.250|0.492
95921356|NCT02404493|191802384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.017
95921357|NCT02404493|191802384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.223
95921358|NCT02404493|191802384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.331||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.331|-0.635|0.518
95921359|NCT02404493|191802385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.005
95921360|NCT02404493|191802385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.821
95921361|NCT02404493|191802385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.435|0.032||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.032|-1.435|0.060
95921362|NCT02404493|191802386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.007
95733334|NCT00686959|191437566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.71|0.130
95733335|NCT00686959|191437567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.458
95921363|NCT02404493|191802386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.051
95921364|NCT02404493|191802386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.375||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.375|-0.410|0.926
95921365|NCT02404493|191802387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.580
95793533|NCT00794664|191557087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
95921366|NCT02404493|191802387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.363
95921367|NCT02404493|191802387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.286||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.286|-0.531|0.539
95921368|NCT02404493|191802388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.055
95921369|NCT02404493|191802388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.076
95921370|NCT02404493|191802388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|0.449||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.449|-0.672|0.682
95921371|NCT02404493|191802389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
95733336|NCT00686959|191437570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed within the radiation treatment field||||0.132
95733337|NCT00686959|191437570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed inside thorax, outside of radiation field||||0.337
95733338|NCT00686959|191437570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Relapsed distant disease||||0.457
95733339|NCT00686959|191437571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.150
95793534|NCT00794664|191557089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
95733340|NCT01062256|191437588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.10|0.64|0.216
95733341|NCT01062256|191437588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.18|0.72|0.513
95733342|NCT01062256|191437588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 4-hour postdose period.||1.38|0.87|0.459
95733343|NCT01062256|191437589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.09|0.65|0.195
95733344|NCT01062256|191437589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.16|0.71|0.438
95733345|NCT01062256|191437589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34||p-values calculated from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)as the offset parameter.|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of number of cough bouts over 2-hour postdose period.||1.34|0.87|0.497
95733346|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.12|0.64|0.250
95921372|NCT02404493|191802389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.025
95921373|NCT02404493|191802389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.514||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.514|-0.509|0.991
95733347|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.25|0.75|0.802
95733348|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts within 15 minutes postdose||1.39|0.94|0.188
95733349|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.04||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.04|0.58|0.091
95733350|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.19|0.69|0.465
95733351|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 15 and 30 minutes postdose||1.46|0.92|0.207
95921374|NCT02404493|191802390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95793535|NCT02557399|191557101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.83||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.78||The analysis method was mixed model repeated measures analysis with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.78|-11.88|0.008
95921375|NCT02404493|191802390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95950498|NCT03693989|191872785|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.300
95733352|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.06|0.62|0.122
95733353|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.07|0.66|0.165
95733354|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 30 and 45 minutes postdose||1.32|0.83|0.711
95733355|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.11|0.64|0.215
95733356|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.16|0.67|0.367
95733357|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 45 and 60 minutes postdose||1.35|0.82|0.687
95733358|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.32|0.67|0.730
95733359|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.39|0.74|0.923
95733360|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 60 and 75 minutes postdose||1.40|0.83|0.573
95733361|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.16|0.61|0.289
95733362|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.18|0.64|0.379
95733363|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 75 and 90 minutes postdose||1.37|0.79|0.785
95733364|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.60|0.194
95733365|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.11|0.62|0.212
95733366|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 90 and 105 minutes postdose||1.34|0.77|0.901
95733367|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.23|0.70|0.600
95733368|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.29|0.74|0.853
95950499|NCT03693989|191872786|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
95921376|NCT02404493|191802390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.6||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.600|-0.214|0.334
95921377|NCT02404493|191802391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.169
95921378|NCT02404493|191802391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.778|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-0.778|0.317
95921379|NCT02404493|191802392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921380|NCT02404493|191802392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.182
95921381|NCT02404493|191802392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.069||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.069|-0.931|0.027
95921382|NCT02404493|191802393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921383|NCT02404493|191802393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.080
95921384|NCT02404493|191802393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.574||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.574|-0.824|0.699
95921385|NCT02404493|191802394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95733369|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 105 and 120 minutes postdose||1.39|0.79|0.736
95733370|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.30|0.70|0.744
95921386|NCT02404493|191802394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.058
95921387|NCT02404493|191802394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.857||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.857|-0.607|0.711
95921388|NCT02404493|191802395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.006
95921389|NCT02404493|191802395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.012
95921390|NCT02404493|191802395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.424||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.424|-0.391|0.932
95921391|NCT02404493|191802396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
95921392|NCT02404493|191802396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921393|NCT02404493|191802396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.547||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.547|-0.410|0.767
95921394|NCT02404493|191802397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95921395|NCT02404493|191802397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|One sample t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
95921396|NCT02404493|191802397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.37||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.370|-0.650|0.571
95921397|NCT00462644|191802499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95921398|NCT00462644|191802500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95921399|NCT00462644|191802501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95921400|NCT00462644|191802502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality was tested using the Kolmogorow-Smirnov test.||||0.022
95921401|NCT00462644|191802503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95921402|NCT00462644|191802504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95921403|NCT03317379|191802506|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.17|.80
95733371|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.33|0.72|0.904
95733372|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 120 and 135 minutes postdose||1.39|0.77|0.828
95793536|NCT02557399|191557102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.25||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1|||4.35|-4.85|0.916
95921404|NCT03317379|191802506|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.10|.32
95921405|NCT03317379|191802507|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
95921406|NCT03317379|191802507|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-.07|0.28
95921407|NCT03317379|191802508|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.16||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|0.06|0.03
95921408|NCT03317379|191802508|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.27|0.09|0.02
95921409|NCT03317379|191802509|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.42||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.02|0.08
95921410|NCT03317379|191802509|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41||.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.04|0.12
95921411|NCT03317379|191802510|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.74||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.14|0.18
95921412|NCT03317379|191802510|SUPERIORITY||estimate of fixed effects|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.62||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.30|0.50
95921413|NCT06403605|191802521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Adjusted p value in the mITT analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95921414|NCT06403605|191802521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted p value in the PP analysis population.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
95921415|NCT06403605|191802522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Adjusted p-value in the mITT population.|Log Rank|||||||0.049
95921416|NCT06403605|191802522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Adjusted p value in the PP population.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
95921417|NCT06403605|191802525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95921418|NCT02028884|191802542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by Baseline annualized relapse rate (ARR: 1, \> 1) and geographic region (Asia, EU/Other).||0.88|0.16|0.0184
95921419|NCT02028884|191802543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|13.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||13.033|-0.280|0.0602
95921420|NCT02028884|191802544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.752|0.574|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||0.574|-4.752|0.1224
95921421|NCT01152554|191802656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.54|0.697
95733373|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.08|0.59|0.147
95733374|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.16|0.65|0.345
95733375|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 135 and 150 minutes postdose||1.44|0.83|0.532
95733376|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.15|0.61|0.261
95733377|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.24|0.69|0.601
95921422|NCT01152554|191802657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.57|0.45|0.582
95921423|NCT01439711|191802662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95921424|NCT01439711|191802663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95921425|NCT01272011|191802674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-way RMANOVA Student-Newman-Keuls|||Daily acute and cumulative Pre vs Post comparisons||||<0.001
95921426|NCT01272011|191802675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of AF vs. Resistance||||<0.05
95921427|NCT01272011|191802675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA and Student-Neuman-Keuls|||Compared outcomes from Baseline versus Post-Day 10 IH for mean slope of of Pressure vs. Resistance||||<0.05
95733378|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 150 and 165 minutes postdose||1.47|0.84|0.470
95733379|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.32|0.71|0.834
95733380|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.43|0.81|0.628
95793537|NCT02557399|191557102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.42||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4|||-1.42|-10.29|0.010
95921428|NCT00848211|191802684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
95921429|NCT00848211|191802686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
95921430|NCT02916862|191802728|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were done for Aim 1, so the main analysis was done only between SCF and placebo. Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.53||We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.|ANCOVA|We adjusted the models for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height.||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the primary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo (AIM 1), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.53|-2.12|0.377
95921431|NCT02916862|191802728|SUPERIORITY|Significance was set at a p value \<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.366|5.266|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in whole-body BMC after one year of supplement (SCF+calcium) vs placebo+calcium (AIM 2), we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||5.266|-1.366|0.245
95921432|NCT02916862|191802729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.655||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|8.143|||ANCOVA|||The main analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. For the secondary analysis, percent change from baseline in lumbar BMC after one year of supplement (SCF) vs placebo, we used analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline age, sex, Tanner stage (puberty status), percent change in weight, and percent change in height. Effects were considered significant at the alpha level of 0.05.||8.143|-0.765|0.05
95733381|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 165 and 180 minutes postdose||1.48|0.83|0.481
95733382|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.37|0.65|0.749
95733383|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.35||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.35|0.70|0.857
95733384|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 180 and 195 minutes postdose||1.41|0.76|0.847
95733385|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.09|0.54|0.146
95733386|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.29|0.69|0.702
95733387|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 195 and 210 minutes postdose||1.69|0.88|0.228
95921433|NCT02916862|191802729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.535||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|2.435|||ANCOVA|||||2.435|-7.680|0.05
95733388|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.09|0.51|0.130
95733389|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.21|0.60|0.371
95733390|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 210 and 225 minutes postdose||1.58|0.82|0.430
95733391|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.13|0.51|0.177
95733392|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.28|0.64|0.580
95733393|NCT01062256|191437590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.7||p-values from Poisson regression model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), site, and baseline of cough bouts terms with log(exposure time)|Poisson regression model|||Pairwise comparison of the number of cough bouts between 225 and 240 minutes postdose||1.70|0.84|0.333
95733394|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.08|0.264
95733395|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.14|-0.20|0.737
95733396|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 1 hour postdose||0.01|-0.27|0.078
95733397|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.36|-0.04|0.125
95950500|NCT03693989|191872787|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.346|||||||Fisher Exact|||burning eyes comparison||||0.346
95921434|NCT04770220|191802735|OTHER|"For the primary efficacy outcome of ADAS-Cog 13, this study has \>90% power to detect a 3.0-point difference between the active ALZ-801 treatment and the placebo in the CBL to Week 78. An increase in ADAS-Cog scores denotes cognitive worsening.~The primary analysis population was the full analysis set (FAS). The FAS included all study subjects who received at least one dose of the study drug and had at least one baseline assessment and any post baseline efficacy assessment."|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was two-sided at the α=0.05 significance level. Between-treatment group comparison (effect in ALZ-801 minus effect in placebo): LSM difference and p-value.|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The null hypothesis was change from baseline (CBL) of ADAS-Cog13 in the ALZ-801 arm was not different from the placebo arm. The alternative hypothesis was that the CBL of ADAS-Cog13 in ALZ-801 arm was different.~A Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model was used with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age group, disease severity based on baseline MMSE (≤ 26 vs. \> 26), concomitant AD medications, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline ADAS-Cog 13 values as covariates."||||0.6058
95921435|NCT04770220|191802737|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The A-IADL-W is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.9966
95921436|NCT04770220|191802738|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|"The CDR-SB is one of 2 key secondary endpoints. The key secondary efficacy endpoints were to be compared only after the comparison of the primary endpoint has reached statistical significance. Because the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance, the comparisons for the key secondary endpoints are descriptive only.~The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the key secondary endpoints."||||0.3090
95921437|NCT04770220|191802739|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.2763
95921438|NCT04770220|191802740|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|Nominal (descriptive only)|ALZ-801 minus placebo|The same MMRM method applied to the primary efficacy endpoint was used to evaluate the between-treatment difference for the additional secondary endpoints. The hypothesis testing was done without control for type I errors due to multiple comparisons, and the p-value was considered nominal.||||0.4484
95921439|NCT04770220|191802741|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|73.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.711||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo.|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0174
95921440|NCT04770220|191802742|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0020
95921441|NCT04770220|191802743|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0040
95921442|NCT04770220|191802744|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2821.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1366.533||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0400
95921443|NCT04770220|191802745|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1157.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|367.0||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0018
95921444|NCT04770220|191802746|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000111||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000432|0.00000037||Nominal p-value|MMRM||ALZ-801 minus placebo|Analysis of the DTI-MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline DTI-MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||0.00000037|-0.0000432|0.054
95921445|NCT04770220|191802747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0000228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000829||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000391|-0.0000065||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||-0.0000065|-0.0000391|0.0064
95733398|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.24|-0.16|0.688
95733399|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 2 hour postdose||0.05|-0.29|0.166
95921446|NCT04770220|191802748|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00472||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001469|0.01876||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.01876|0.0001469|0.0465
95921447|NCT04770220|191802749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0416
95921448|NCT04770220|191802750|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.3945
95921449|NCT04770220|191802751|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2682
95733400|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.35|-0.09|0.233
95733401|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.19|-0.24|0.848
95921450|NCT04770220|191802752|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2178
95921451|NCT04770220|191802753|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0533
95921452|NCT04770220|191802754|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.6854
95921453|NCT04770220|191802755|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0161
95921454|NCT04770220|191802756|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.8387
95921455|NCT04770220|191802757|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|1.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||1.845|-0.103|0.0795
95733402|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 3 hour postdose||0.03|-0.33|0.093
95921456|NCT04770220|191802758|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.845||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||0.845|-1.070|0.8169
95921457|NCT04770220|191802759|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|108.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.46||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0042
95921458|NCT04770220|191802760|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.42||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1145
95921459|NCT04770220|191802761|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||< 0.0001
95921460|NCT04770220|191802762|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0985
95921461|NCT04770220|191802763|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0002
95921462|NCT04770220|191802764|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0699
95733403|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.34|-0.14|0.406
95921463|NCT04770220|191802765|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3843.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1726.729||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0267
95921464|NCT04770220|191802766|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2164.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1457.282||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1386
95921465|NCT04770220|191802767|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1312.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|437.0||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0029
95921466|NCT04770220|191802768|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1057.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|386.0||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.0065
95921467|NCT04770220|191802769|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.801||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||Analysis of the volumetric MRI outcomes were performed using the same MMRM approach described for analysis of the primary clinical endpoint. The MMRM model included treatment, the use of concomitant AD medications (AChEI or none), age group (50 through 65 years or \> 65 years), gender, disease severity based on baseline MMSE, baseline volumetric MRI value, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. The MRI magnet strength (1.5 or 3 Tesla) was also included as a covariate in the model.||||0.0966
95921468|NCT04770220|191802770|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|137.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.257||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.2200
95921469|NCT04770220|191802771|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|157.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.523||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value|MMRM|||||||0.1005
95921470|NCT04894903|191802772|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68||This is the calculated p-value. We used an alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline number of gaps||||0.68|0.30|<0.001
95921471|NCT04894903|191802774|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.20|0.29
95921472|NCT04894903|191802775|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.24|0.74
95921473|NCT04894903|191802776|OTHER||beta coefficient|-0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.60|0.88
95921474|NCT04894903|191802777|OTHER||beta coefficient|-1.24||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-3.19|0.21
95921475|NCT04894903|191802780|OTHER||beta coefficient|0.47||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.27|0.21
95921476|NCT02107443|191802804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95733404|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.24|-0.24|0.991
95733405|NCT01062256|191437591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.09||p-values from ANOVA model with treatment, gender, time stratum (dosing before or at 3:00 pm, or after 3:00 pm), and site terms.|ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison of change from baseline in cough severity at 4 hour postdose||0.09|-0.30|0.306
95921477|NCT02107443|191802805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
95921478|NCT02107443|191802807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-values is for 4-6 weeks.|The above values are for 4-6 weeks.|||1.98|0.12|0.03
95921479|NCT02107443|191802807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for is for 3 months.|The above values are for 3 months|||1.77|-0.11|.08
95921480|NCT02107443|191802807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above p-value is for 6 months|The above values are for 6 months.|||1.59|-0.36|0.20
95921481|NCT00519636|191802819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP) compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FFNS/FPNS) \& 2 (Placebo FF/FP).||-0.3|-1.3|<0.001
95921482|NCT00519636|191802819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.014||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo.|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS) \& 2 (Placebo FP/FF) compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 (FPNS/FFNS)\& 2 (Placebo FP/FF).||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
95921483|NCT00519636|191802820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximate to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||||||<0.001
95921484|NCT01706965|191802927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA, controlling for baseline PANSS total||||.38
95921485|NCT01706965|191802928|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA, controlled for baseline MATRICS||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||.99
95733406|NCT01062256|191437592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|0.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.39|-0.09|0.254
95793538|NCT02557399|191557102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-2.35||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|1.72||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8|||1.72|-6.42|0.257
95921486|NCT01563978|191802934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|2.93||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.45|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.45|0.40|0.023
95921487|NCT01563978|191802935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||||5.03|2.04|<0.001
95921488|NCT01563978|191802936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.08|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime SBP (Day 28)||6.08|0.53|0.020
95921489|NCT01563978|191802936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.42|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean daytime DBP (Day 28)||5.42|2.08|<0.001
95921490|NCT01563978|191802936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.07||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.11|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time SBP (Day 28)||5.11|-0.96|0.179
95921491|NCT01563978|191802936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.14|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean night-time DBP (Day 28)||5.14|1.13|0.002
95921492|NCT01563978|191802937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.11||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.81|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake SBP (Day 28)||5.81|0.41|0.024
95921493|NCT01563978|191802937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.22|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean awake DBP (Day 28)||5.22|2.10|<0.001
95921494|NCT01563978|191802938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean treatment difference|1.99||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.2|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping SBP||5.20|-1.22|0.223
95733407|NCT01062256|191437592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.01||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.23|-0.25|0.949
95950501|NCT03693989|191872787|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.489|||||||Fisher Exact|||Itching eyes comparison||||0.489
95921495|NCT01563978|191802938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.93|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in mean sleeping DBP||4.93|0.81|0.007
95921496|NCT01563978|191802939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.69|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic SBP (Day 29)||5.69|-1.20|0.200
95921497|NCT01563978|191802939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.68|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in clinic DBP (Day 29)||4.68|0.05|0.046
95921498|NCT01563978|191802940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.03|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home SBP (Week 4)||9.03|3.60|<0.001
95921499|NCT01563978|191802940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|6.25|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average pre-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.25|2.91|<0.001
95921500|NCT01563978|191802941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|10.16|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home SBP (Week 4)||10.16|4.29|<0.001
95921501|NCT01563978|191802941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.59|||ANCOVA|Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)||Change from baseline in weekly average post-dose home DBP (Week 4)||6.59|2.90|<0.001
95921502|NCT01563978|191802943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08||Inc. baseline (covariate); treatment, region, prior failure to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug \& baseline antihypertensive use (factors)|ANCOVA|||Improvement from baseline at Day 29. Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any dose of background disease modifying antirheumatic drug increased or any other RA treatment initiated including DMARDs, anti-TNFs or other biologics, or receiving any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.08|0.40|<0.001
95921503|NCT01824472|191802963|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference compared across 3 groups|0.43||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||"Kruskal-Wallis test implemented as PROC NPAR1WAY in Statistical Analysis System (SAS v9.4) for a single groupwise comparison. The mean difference (baseline to follow-up) was determined for each group, and this was compared across all 3 groups."|||||0.8
95921504|NCT01815736|191802964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|2.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.01|-0.3|5.6||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.01% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.6|-0.3|0.051
95921505|NCT01815736|191802964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7||The p-value for the superiority test used a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by prior treatment regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.7|1.6|<0.001
95921506|NCT01815736|191802965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|2.459||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.459|1.697|<0.001
95921507|NCT01815736|191802965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.807|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|2.126||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.126|1.488|<0.001
95921508|NCT01815736|191802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.551|2.39||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut||2.390|1.551|<0.001
95921509|NCT01815736|191802966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.549|2.452||P-value was from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the ANOVA model including treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects.|All Participants||2.452|1.549|<0.001
95921510|NCT01815736|191802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.03||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|NDA Data Cut||-0.03|-0.07|<0.001
95733408|NCT01062256|191437592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||weighted Goodman-Kruskal Gamma statistic|-0.12||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||p-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores, controlling for gender, time stratum, and site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparison of global evaluation of study medication.||0.08|-0.32|0.256
95733409|NCT02458469|191437634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
95733410|NCT02458469|191437634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.015
95733411|NCT02458469|191437634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Student-Newman-Keuls Method|||||||0.231
95733412|NCT02458469|191437635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
95733413|NCT03561883|191437636|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.062||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.146|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.146|-0.270|0.5566
95921511|NCT01815736|191802967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02||P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including study treatment and prior treatment regimen as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.|All Participants||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
95733414|NCT03561883|191437637|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.159|||MMRM|||Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.159|-0.176|0.9226
95733415|NCT03561883|191437638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.5|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||9.5|-6.9|
95733416|NCT03561883|191437638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.48|0.76|0.7424
95921512|NCT01815736|191802968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NDA Data Cut||||<0.001
95733417|NCT03561883|191437639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion Ratio|1.171||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.714||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.714|0.800|0.4164
95733418|NCT03561883|191437639|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion|Difference in Proportion Ratio|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.123|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.123|-0.054|
95733419|NCT01968382|191437667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3198
95733420|NCT01968382|191437670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8462|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8462
95733421|NCT01993875|191437728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
95733422|NCT01993875|191437729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the SBM rate as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and baseline rate as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1290
95733423|NCT01993875|191437730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
95733424|NCT01993875|191437731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2177||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean stool consistency score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline consistency score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2177
95733425|NCT01993875|191437732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline straining score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
95733426|NCT01993875|191437733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0664||||||Treatment p-value is from an ANCOVA using the mean straining score as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline mean score as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0664
95733427|NCT02848326|191437734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.37||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.93|0.0039
95733428|NCT02848326|191437734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.27||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-1.55|0.0056
95921513|NCT01815736|191802968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value comparing the 2 treatment groups was from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All Participants||||<0.001
95733429|NCT02848326|191437734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.06||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-1.35|0.0325
95733430|NCT02848326|191437734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.56||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.56|-2.21|0.0010
95733431|NCT02848326|191437734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.49||MMRM model included baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.49|-2.09|0.0016
95733432|NCT02848326|191437735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-2.23|0.0014
95733433|NCT02848326|191437735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.55||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.55|-1.94|0.0005
95983232|NCT04272892|191940764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|5.822|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of score at 8 week follow up with baseline score as covariate, effect of group||||5.822|-.106|0.059
95733434|NCT02848326|191437735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.24||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.24|-1.64|0.0087
95733435|NCT02848326|191437735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.41|-2.20|0.0044
95733436|NCT02848326|191437735|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.53||MMRM model included baseline monthly headache days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.53|-2.26|0.0017
95733437|NCT02848326|191437736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.31||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measures with fixed factors(treatment group,visit), covariates(baseline migraine days), interactions(treatment group;baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.31|0.98|0.0617
95733438|NCT02848326|191437736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.08|1.02|0.0369
95733439|NCT02848326|191437736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.03||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.03|1.00|0.0512
95733440|NCT02848326|191437736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measures|||||2.91|1.15|0.0113
95733441|NCT02848326|191437736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.18||GLMM for repeated measures with fixed factors (treatment group, visit), covariates (baseline migraine days), interactions (treatment group by visit; baseline migraine days by visit) with an unstructured covariance matrix.|GLMM for repeated measure|||||3.18|1.30|0.0019
95733442|NCT02848326|191437737|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.6||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.60|-1.99|0.0002
95733443|NCT02848326|191437737|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.87||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-2.01|<0.0001
95733444|NCT02848326|191437737|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
95733445|NCT02848326|191437737|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.62||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.62|-2.08|0.0003
95733446|NCT02848326|191437737|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.52||MMRM model included baseline monthly acute medication use days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms.|MMRM|||||-0.52|-1.93|0.0007
95733447|NCT01494506|191437738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||1.28|0.77|0.9416
95733448|NCT01494506|191437738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|Unstratified logrank test.||||0.92|0.49|0.012
95983233|NCT04272892|191940765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||6.0|-3.5|0.596
95921514|NCT01815736|191802969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||7.0|0.4|0.017
95921515|NCT01815736|191802970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: The E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|NDA Data Cut||5.3|-1.7|0.29
95921516|NCT01815736|191802970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|3.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|All Participants||6.3|0.1|0.031
95921517|NCT01815736|191802971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% worse than the Stay on Baseline Regimen group; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% worse than the in Stay on Baseline Regimen group.|Difference in percentages|5.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.0||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by the prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportion adjusted by the prior treatment regimen.|||9.0|1.6|0.003
95921518|NCT01815736|191802972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|26.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. FTC/TDF+3rd Agent) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|NDA Data Cut: Change at Week 48||26|-14|0.56
95921519|NCT01815736|191802972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|11.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|29.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs.SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|All Participants: Change at Week 48||29|-8|0.26
95921520|NCT01815736|191802973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|18.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|38.0||P-values were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including treatment (E/C/F/TAF vs. SBR) and prior treatment regimen (STB, ATR, ATV/boosted+TVD) as fixed effects.|||38|-2|0.074
95921521|NCT01671748|191803034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|18.6||ANCOVA was used to analyse differences between the NLFU+SOC and SOC arms of the primary endpoint, percentage change in wound area from baseline (week 5) to final visit (week 13). Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect a difference in the change in wound area of 20% between the two arms with a two sided significance level and power of 90%. A standard deviation of 17.5% came from published literature. A minimum of 17 patients in each arm was required.||18.6|-33.4|0.565
95921522|NCT01671748|191803035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in HRQoL from week 1 to week 13 (with week 1 HRQoL score as the covariate).||||0.490
95921523|NCT01671748|191803036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.08||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|1.06|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used for change in pain score (VAS) from week 5 to week 13 (covariate was baseline pain score).||1.06|-19.23|0.078
95921524|NCT01671748|191803037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in number of infections were not normally distributed and differences between the arms were tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.346
95921525|NCT01671748|191803039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|Patients' baseline (week 5) wound area was used as the covariate.||||2.9|-4.7|0.618
95921526|NCT04191135|191803041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.33|0.72|0.4556
95950502|NCT03693989|191872787|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||foreign body sensation eyes comparison||||0.497
95733449|NCT01494506|191437739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.100
95733450|NCT01494506|191437739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.41|<0.001
95733451|NCT01494506|191437740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0264||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.058|||Fisher Exact|||||0.058|-0.005|0.214
95733452|NCT01494506|191437740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.12|||Fisher Exact|||||0.120|0.018|0.010
95921527|NCT04191135|191803042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|Log Rank||Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.40|0.64|0.3903
95921528|NCT04191135|191803043|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.43|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.43|0.59|
95921529|NCT04191135|191803044|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and BRCA status (BRCAm versus BRCAwt).|||1.76|0.53|
95921530|NCT04191135|191803045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.48|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||1.48|0.33|
95921531|NCT04191135|191803046|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37|||||Estimate based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR or PR versus SD) and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS≥1 vs CPS\<1).|||2.37|0.28|
95921532|NCT04191135|191803047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.28||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|1.12|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||1.12|-7.69|0.1430
95921533|NCT04191135|191803048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.56|-4.89|0.9454
95921534|NCT04191135|191803049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.08||||0.4351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|7.31|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||7.31|-3.16|0.4351
95921535|NCT04191135|191803050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.93||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||4.06|-2.20|0.5588
95921536|NCT04191135|191803051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.28|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.28|-4.03|0.8408
95921537|NCT04191135|191803052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|8.95|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||8.95|-11.63|0.7950
95921538|NCT04191135|191803053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.82||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.62|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||11.62|-1.97|0.1597
95921539|NCT04191135|191803054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.52||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|12.49|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.49|-7.45|0.6138
95921540|NCT04191135|191803055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|3.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||3.83|-7.02|0.5567
95921541|NCT04191135|191803056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.56||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.32|||cLDA|cLDA model with PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors as covariates.||||12.32|-1.20|0.1050
95921542|NCT04191135|191803057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.00676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||2.71|1.16|0.00676
95733453|NCT01494506|191437741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test.||||1.03|0.65|0.1008
95921543|NCT04191135|191803058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.69|0.61|0.96425
95921544|NCT04191135|191803059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.71|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||1.71|0.69|0.74965
95921545|NCT04191135|191803060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.10502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.53|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and BRCA Status (BRCAm versus wild type BRCA gene).|||3.53|0.88|0.10502
95921546|NCT04191135|191803061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.0|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||3.00|0.57|0.50190
95921547|NCT04191135|191803062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.47384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.97|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||1.97|0.24|0.47384
95793539|NCT02557399|191557102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.24||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|0.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12|||0.16|-6.64|0.062
95921548|NCT04191135|191803063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.81463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.38|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||2.38|0.33|0.81463
95921549|NCT04191135|191803064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.67255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.82|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test|Estimate via stratified Cox model with Efron's handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by response to the induction therapy (CR/PR versus SD), and tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1).|||8.82|0.24|0.67255
95733454|NCT01494506|191437741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||0.78|0.45|0.0002
95733455|NCT01494506|191437742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.82
95733456|NCT01494506|191437742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
95733457|NCT01494506|191437743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95733458|NCT01494506|191437743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95733459|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.6388
95733460|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8445||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Global Health Status||||0.8445
95733461|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.6388
95733462|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9435||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Physical Functioning||||0.9435
95733463|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.2654
95733464|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Role functioning||||0.7674
95733465|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.1628
95921550|NCT02941146|191803083|OTHER||sucess proportion|64.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|87.2||||||||87.2|35.1|
95950503|NCT03693989|191872787|OTHER|The study analysis was comparative, it was only sought to determine if the difference between treatments is statistically significant or not.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||blurred vision comparison||||1.000
95950504|NCT03403153|191872841|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95733466|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Emotional Functioning||||0.6712
95733467|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7738||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.7738
95733468|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Cognitive Functioning||||0.6712
95733469|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.3408
95733470|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Social Functioning||||0.6712
95733471|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6766
95733472|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Fatigue||||0.6712
95733473|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.6388
95733474|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting||||0.7674
95733475|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4993||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.4993
95733476|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Pain||||0.6712
95733477|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2654||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.2654
95733478|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Dyspnoea||||0.6712
95950505|NCT03403153|191872842|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
95950506|NCT03403153|191872843|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
95921551|NCT02459587|191803087|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person. VCL contacts with and without suicide ideation were combined, due to low counts.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.92||2-tailed P-value above was calculated from type III test.|Regression, Cox|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates.|Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.218 (SEM=0.222)|||1.92|0.80|0.33
95921552|NCT02459587|191803088|SUPERIORITY|Survival analysis using start/stop counting method to identify time until event, structured to allow for multiple events per person.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7||All tests of significance were 2-tailed. P-value above is type III. No covariates.|Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was structured to allow multiple events per person. No covariates. HR based on parameter estimate = -0.660 (SEM=0.153)|||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
95921553|NCT02459587|191803089|SUPERIORITY|Two binary variables were derived from Treatment Services Review responses to identify any general mental health service utilization, one binary variable for Baseline and another for any outpatient mental health service utilization at any time point in the 1 year follow-up period. The Baseline variable was included as a main-effects covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|1.146||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.176|||Regression, Logistic|Bivariate logistic, adjusted for (1) if any general outpatient mental heath visits at baseline (0) otherwise||||2.176|0.604|0.66
95921554|NCT02967016|191803095|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative Steps 6 h||||0.002
95921555|NCT02967016|191803095|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 12 h||||.0002
95921556|NCT02967016|191803095|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 24 h||||.0006
95921557|NCT02967016|191803095|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 36 h||||0.0006
95921558|NCT02967016|191803095|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Cumulative steps 48 h||||0.03
95921559|NCT02967016|191803096|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 6 h||||0.06
95921560|NCT02967016|191803096|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 12 h||||.30
95921561|NCT02967016|191803096|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 24 h||||.002
95921562|NCT02967016|191803096|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest 36 h||||0.003
95921563|NCT02967016|191803096|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest at 48 h||||.02
95921564|NCT02967016|191803097|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 6 h||||.43
95921565|NCT02967016|191803097|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 12 h||||.24
95921566|NCT02967016|191803097|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 24 h||||.012
95921567|NCT02967016|191803097|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 36 h||||<0.0001
95921568|NCT02967016|191803097|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction with pain control 48 h||||.0005
95921569|NCT02037061|191803115|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95921570|NCT00519779|191803138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value, visit, gender, SAD||||0.18|-0.18|0.97
95921571|NCT00519779|191803139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.011|-0.44|0.04
95921572|NCT00519779|191803140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.002|-0.15|0.06
95921573|NCT00519779|191803141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.30|0.04
95921574|NCT00519779|191803142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.33|0.08
95921575|NCT00519779|191803143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.26|0.93
95921576|NCT01207934|191803154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||ANOVA for reapeated measures was used to compare the three groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in glucose disposal between the three groups (placebo, low dose leptin, and high dose leptin). Power calculations were done showing that 6 subjects in each arm was enough to detect a 35% between group difference in glucose disposal at the 0.05 level with 80% power.||||>0.05
95733479|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.7617
95733480|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Insomnia||||0.6712
95921577|NCT01207934|191803155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T-tests compared pre and post-treatment values.||The null hypothesis is that treatment would not effect plasma leptin levels.||||<0.01
95921578|NCT01207934|191803155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that plasma leptin levels would be equal after treatment in the placebo and high-dose leptin groups.||||<0.01
95921579|NCT02954575|191803165|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.76||versus mean TABR \>29|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean annualized bleeding rate (ABR) in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 29 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the TABR reported in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 58.1 BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the TABR was also analyzed.||2.76|1.64|<0.0001
95921580|NCT02954575|191803166|OTHER||Poisson test estimate|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.08||versus mean SABR \>19.1|Poisson test estimate|||A confirmative one-sided, one-sample Poisson test was used to test whether the mean SABR in patients treated prophylactically with Wilate was below the threshold of 19.1 BEs per patient year (alpha = 2.5%). This threshold corresponds to 50% of the SABR in the GENA-01 study (NCT00989196), which observed 38.2 spontaneous BEs per patient per year. A corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the SABR was also analyzed.||2.08|1.13|<0.0001
95950507|NCT03403153|191872844|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
95921581|NCT02954575|191803167|OTHER||Generalized estimation equation|84.21||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|92.52|||Confirmatory data analysis|||"Confirmatory statistical testing tested the null hypotheses that the percentage of success is ≤70% (alternative hypothesis: percentage \>70%); the test procedure based on the generalized estimation equation took into account several BEs in one patient as correlated repeated measurements (alpha = 2.5%). Thus, π denotes the proportion of success and the following pair of hypotheses was tested:~H0: π ≤ 0.7 vs. H1: π \> 0.7"||92.52|72.13|0.0096
95921582|NCT02954575|191803173|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0346
95921583|NCT02954575|191803174|OTHER|||||||0.4244|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4244
95921584|NCT02954575|191803176|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11||||||||16.11|0|
95921585|NCT00087490|191803210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||11.5|-3.0|0.249
95921586|NCT00087490|191803211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|3.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-1.7|0.168
95921587|NCT00087490|191803212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||14.2|0.1|0.048
95921588|NCT00087490|191803213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|4.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|10.3|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||10.3|-0.7|0.090
95921589|NCT00087490|191803214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|6.6||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.0|-1.9|0.127
95921590|NCT00087490|191803215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|16.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|24.2|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||24.2|9.0|0.000
95921591|NCT00087490|191803216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|7.7||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.4|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||15.4|-0.0|0.051
95921592|NCT00087490|191803217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Linezolid was claimed non-inferior to vancomycin if the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in cure rate is greater than the FDA suggested boundary of delta= -0.10.|Percent Difference|15.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.8|||Chi-squared|||The percent difference was calculated by percentage of participants cured in linezolid arm minus the percentage of participants cured in vancomycin arm along with 2-sided 95% CI.||21.8|8.2|0.000
95921593|NCT00087490|191803220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.022
95733481|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.9123
95921594|NCT00087490|191803221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = 0.05 was the level of significance if the null hypothesis was rejected.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the treatment groups.||||0.016
95921595|NCT00087490|191803222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
95921596|NCT00087490|191803223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000
95733482|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Appetite loss||||0.6712
95793540|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.08||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|1.25||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.25|-11.41|0.115
95950508|NCT03403153|191872845|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
95733483|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.7617
95950509|NCT03403153|191872846|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
95950510|NCT03403153|191872847|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.01
95921597|NCT03862482|191803225|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 35 Brånemark® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.49|-1.22|<0.05
95921598|NCT03862482|191803225|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.64||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Swede-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-0.64|-1.35|<0.05
95921599|NCT03862482|191803225|EQUIVALENCE|Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC, two-way mixed-effect model) assessed inter- and intra-examiner reliability of bone level measurement on 20 radiographs. Dahlberg measurement error. Two-way, mixed effect model|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.41||Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA. Dahlberg measurement error||Total 36 Screw-Vent® implants analyzed for all Configurations. Size difference expected 0.95 bone level change between B/SW/SC. Sample size 16 participants ensured 80% power to reject null hypothesis (two-sided Bonferroni-adjusted α level 0.017, pairwise comparisons between implant groups). Repeated measures ANOVA. Mixed models, repeated measures within subject. Implant type/site/configuration independent variables (length covariate). (B/SW/SC lengths compared with Kruskal-Wallis test)||-1.41|-2.13|<0.05
95921600|NCT02300311|191803232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.849|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.454|-1.244||The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo).|"PID8 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 8 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 hours."||-1.244|-2.454|<0.0001
95921601|NCT02300311|191803233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|-0.851||The statistical model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, time and treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|REML based repeated measures approach|restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|"PID4 utilised a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures approach, using all available longitudinal pain intensity observations at each post-baseline time up to 4 hours.~The statistical model was applied to the analysis of change from baseline in pain intensity at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours."||-0.851|-1.832|<0.0001
95921602|NCT02300311|191803234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.712|-2.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using the fixed, categorical effects of treatment and country as well as the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Differences between the treatment group effects (Finalgon® cream - placebo)|The difference of average pain intensity from pre-dose baseline on the last individual treatment day was analysed using ANCOVA.||-2.205|-3.712|<0.0001
95921603|NCT02300311|191803235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.342|24.199|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression models adjusting for the continuous covariate 'baseline PI' and the categorical variable 'country' was performed.|Odds ratio of (Finalgon® cream / placebo)|"For the analysis of the repeated multinomial efficacy endpoint 'patient assessment of efficacy' on the last individual treatment day, ordinal logistic regression models is used.~Only non-missing data is analysed in the statistical model."||24.199|5.342|<0.0001
95921604|NCT02531438|191803250|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||3.8|-7.1|
95921605|NCT02531438|191803251|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.4|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||7.4|-2.4|
95733484|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Constipation||||0.6712
95733485|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.1628
95733486|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6712||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Diarrhoea||||0.6712
95733487|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6388||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.6388
95921606|NCT02531438|191803252|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus moxifloxacin.|||6.8|-1.7|
95921607|NCT00994279|191803272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that the two arms will not differ in retention at 14 weeks.||||.53
95921608|NCT00994279|191803273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that the two groups would not differ in fatigue at 10 weeks.||||.98
95921609|NCT01606189|191803276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.18|-0.98|0.005
95921610|NCT01606189|191803276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.24|||ANOVA|||Box Scale-11 pain scores were compared between treatment groups using an ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.24|-1.03|0.002
95921611|NCT01606189|191803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.04|-0.37|0.017
95921612|NCT01606189|191803277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.16|||ANOVA|||Sleep disturbance scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep disturbance Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.16|-0.49|<0.001
95921613|NCT01606189|191803278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.55||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.01|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.01|0.09|0.019
95921614|NCT01606189|191803278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||ANOVA|||Sleep quality scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Sleep Quality Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.24|0.33|0.001
95921615|NCT01606189|191803279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.55||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.55|-3.64|0.146
95921616|NCT01606189|191803279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Total pain intensity scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Total Pain Intensity Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.10|-4.29|0.040
95921617|NCT01606189|191803280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.28||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|1.21|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||1.21|-15.78|0.092
95921618|NCT01606189|191803280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.99||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Intensity of Pain scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Intensity of Pain Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.57|-17.41|0.037
95921619|NCT01606189|191803281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1222.0||||0.328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.328
95921620|NCT01606189|191803281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mann-Whitney U statistic|1200.5||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain at present was analysed using the Mann-Whitney test with a correction for ties. Results were presented in terms of the sums of the ranks for the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U statistic and the associated p-value.||||0.560
95921621|NCT01606189|191803282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.75||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|0.83|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.83|-4.32|0.181
95921622|NCT01606189|191803282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.43||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.98|||ANOVA|||Pain Disability Index scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: Pain Disability Index Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||2.98|-2.12|0.739
95921623|NCT01606189|191803283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.45|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||-0.45|-4.01|0.015
95921624|NCT01606189|191803283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.21||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.56|||ANOVA|||12-Item General Health Questionnaire scores were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA. The model included factors for patient, treatment and period. The significance of the overall treatment effect was assessed using the F-test from the ANOVA. The model used was as follows: 12-Item General Health Questionnaire Score = Patient + Treatment + Period||0.56|-2.97|0.178
95921625|NCT01438229|191803286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95921626|NCT04320615|191803315|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||Van Elteren Test|||||0.0|-2.5|0.3600
95921627|NCT04320615|191803316|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.448||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|1.01|0.0443
95921628|NCT04320615|191803317|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.97|0.0820
95921629|NCT04320615|191803318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|1.02|0.0370
95921630|NCT04320615|191803319|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-6.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|-13.8|0.0996
95921631|NCT04320615|191803319|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-8.9||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0|-20.7|0.1355
95921632|NCT04320615|191803320|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.0|||Van Elteren test|||||13.0|-2.8|0.3202
95921633|NCT04320615|191803321|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-5.7||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2|-13.7|0.1514
95921634|NCT04320615|191803321|OTHER||Weighted % difference|-14.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.0|-28.6|0.0290
95921635|NCT04320615|191803322|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.9|||Van Elteren test|||||2.9|-15.0|0.0454
95921636|NCT04320615|191803323|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-2.0|0.0548
95921637|NCT04320615|191803324|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1627
95921638|NCT04320615|191803325|OTHER||Weighted % difference|0.3||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.2|-7.6|0.9410
95921639|NCT04320615|191803326|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.307||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.72|||Log Rank|||||1.72|1.00|0.0528
95921640|NCT04320615|191803327|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.5|||Van Elteren test|||||0.5|-9.0|0.0477
95921641|NCT00550173|191803349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Overall; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||||0.003
95921642|NCT00550173|191803349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.81|0.40|0.002
95921643|NCT00550173|191803349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.85||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Primary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||0.85|0.39|0.005
95921644|NCT00550173|191803349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.99||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||If global test across 3 arms is significant at a 2-sided 0.2 level, then conduct 2-sided pairwise tests between combination and each single agent under the global model. Significance is claimed only if both the global and pairwise tests p\<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||Secondary Analysis; Global null hypothesis was rejected at 2-sided 0.2 significance level.||1.40|0.70|0.959
95921645|NCT00550173|191803350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||<0.001
95921646|NCT00550173|191803350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||4.09|1.07|0.031
95921647|NCT00550173|191803350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|18.48|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||18.48|3.19|<0.001
95921648|NCT00550173|191803350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.66|0.11|0.004
95921649|NCT00550173|191803351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.194
95921650|NCT00550173|191803351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.67|0.69|0.747
95921651|NCT00550173|191803351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.13|0.49|0.168
95921652|NCT00550173|191803351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.21|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.21|0.94|0.094
95921653|NCT00550173|191803353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.306
95921654|NCT00550173|191803353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||3.18|0.87|0.127
95921655|NCT00550173|191803353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.71|0.72|0.318
95921656|NCT00550173|191803353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||2.22|0.63|0.599
95921657|NCT00550173|191803354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||||0.013
95921658|NCT00550173|191803354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.|Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.87|0.41|0.007
95921659|NCT00550173|191803354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||1.38|0.62|0.700
95921660|NCT00550173|191803354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Model is adjusted to covariates ECOG PS (0/1 vs.2), histological subtype (adeno vs. non-adeno), race (East Asian and non-East Asian) and gender.||||0.94|0.44|0.023
95921661|NCT00550173|191803355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.040
95921662|NCT00550173|191803355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.27|0.241
95921663|NCT00550173|191803355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.14|0.011
95921664|NCT00550173|191803355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.83|0.128
95921665|NCT01875861|191803371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.38||||||Because of data discontinuity, assumptions for time series analysis did not hold. Repeated measures regression models were developed to compare overall weight monitoring rates at baseline across the implementation phases.||1.38|1.02|
95921666|NCT01875861|191803372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.39||||||See comments about time series analysis for primary outcome measure. Repeated measures regression analysis of the likelihood of monitoring for each time period was conducted.||1.39|1.03|
95921667|NCT02325713|191803384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.7|110.6||||||||110.6|83.7|
95921668|NCT02325713|191803384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|22.0||||||||22.0|15.3|
95921669|NCT02325713|191803384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|222.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.8|265.6||||||||265.6|186.8|
95921670|NCT02325713|191803384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|238.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|198.7|285.3||||||||285.3|198.7|
95921671|NCT02325713|191803384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|98.3||||||||98.3|68.5|
95921672|NCT04684914|191803399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
95921673|NCT04684914|191803399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
95921674|NCT04684914|191803400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3029
95921675|NCT04684914|191803400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4881
95921676|NCT04684914|191803401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4169
95921677|NCT04684914|191803401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5495
95921678|NCT00904150|191803458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of PR PROGINS polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.513
95921679|NCT00904150|191803459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 G594a polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.75
95733488|NCT01494506|191437744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7308||||||For each experimental arm comparison p-values were adjusted for multiple domain comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Financial difficulties||||0.7308
95733489|NCT00420303|191437755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47||||0.029||95.0|-32.93|-2.01|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate||Comparison of adjusted means||-2.01|-32.93|0.029
95733490|NCT00420303|191437756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.02||95.0|1.44|69.26|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||||69.26|1.44|0.02
95733491|NCT00420303|191437757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||||||0.007
95921680|NCT00904150|191803460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.434||||0.002743||95.0|0.24|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of TNF genotype frequencies between groups||0.75|0.24|0.002743
95921681|NCT00904150|191803461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.02462||95.0|0.49|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of distribution of SYNE1 genotype frequencies between groups||0.95|0.49|0.02462
95921682|NCT00904150|191803462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis is of the distribution of Estrogen receptor 1 C325G polymorphism frequencies between groups||||0.18
95921683|NCT00904150|191803463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
95921684|NCT00904150|191803464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
95921685|NCT04471792|191803465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||P=0.380 comparing creatine vs. placebo|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for pre vs. post values and for the difference between creatine vs. placebo||||||0.38
95921686|NCT04471792|191803466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||p=0.883 when comparing effect of creatine to palcebo on rate/change in reperfusion slope|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA, pre vs. post differences and creatine vs. placebo differences were examined||||||0.883
95793541|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-8.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.35|-2.51||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.51|-14.35|0.005
95921687|NCT04471792|191803466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.883
95921688|NCT03824535|191803467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis applies to the row 'Specificity' in the Outcome Measure data table.||||0.02
95921689|NCT03824535|191803468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95921690|NCT03824535|191803468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95921691|NCT03824535|191803468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was predefined as p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95921692|NCT07083843|191803489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|5.36|||paired sample T-test.|Degree of freedom = 25||Data was analyzed using SPSS v22.0., Descriptive statistics will summarize baseline variables. Paired t-test will assess pre- vs. post - intervention scores within groups, and between-group differences will be compared, the null hypothesis states there is no difference between intervention and control groups. A two-tailed P\< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.||5.36|2.87|0.05
95921693|NCT07083843|191803490|SUPERIORITY|A superiority analysis was performed to compare depression and anxiety scores between the intervention and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.192|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|3.238|||paired sample T-test.|degree of freedom= 25||data were processed and analyzed using the SPSS software, version 22.0. The descriptive statistics were calculated, including frequencies and percentages for categorical data, and means and standard deviations for numerical variables. A paired t-test was used to assess the change in the psychological level before and after the intervention program. All hypothesis testing was done at the 5% level of significance||3.238|0.986|0.05
95921694|NCT01450943|191803502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.712595||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9141|8.4839|||Fisher Exact|||||8.4839|0.9141|0.0517
95921695|NCT01450943|191803503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812339||||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2543|2.5224|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5224|0.2543|0.7974
95921696|NCT00951561|191803532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation is performed in nQuery version 5.0 with the following stipulations: alpha is 0.05; response for both ibuprofen and Vipon is 85%; delta is 10%; no difference in response rates is expected between the two treatment arms, and power is 80%. This calculation is performed for an equivalence/non-inferiority primary analysis.|Difference in % of Uses from Mixed Model|-1.6|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95921697|NCT02092987|191803533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction term|||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis testing in changes in mean from baseline to follow-up were were conducted primarily with mixed models. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using ANOVA.||||0.70
95921698|NCT02092987|191803534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||comparison of arms using mixed models|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95921699|NCT02092987|191803535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95921700|NCT02092987|191803536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95921701|NCT02092987|191803537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
95921702|NCT02092987|191803538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95921703|NCT02092987|191803539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95921704|NCT02373813|191803548|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|33.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||33.9|7.6|0.004
95921705|NCT02373813|191803549|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|40.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.5|7.9|0.006
95921706|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.48|0.58
95921707|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.31|-0.37|0.85
95921708|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.67|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.67|-5.89|0.12
95921709|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.16|-5.12|0.037
95921710|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.13|-4.80|0.063
95921711|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.01|-3.27|0.64
95921712|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.15|-3.09|0.031
95921713|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.35|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.35|-3.20|0.015
95921714|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.45|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.45|-2.55|0.58
95921715|NCT02373813|191803550|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.17|-1.99|0.020
95921716|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.77|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.77|-5.68|0.13
95921717|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.06|-4.99|0.045
95921718|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.20|-4.75|0.071
95921719|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|2.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.00|-3.28|0.63
95921720|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-3.11|0.037
95921721|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.39|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.39|-3.30|0.013
95921722|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.53|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.53|-2.54|0.62
95921723|NCT02373813|191803551|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.22|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.22|-2.02|0.015
95921724|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.26|-0.19|0.75
95921725|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.27|-0.11|0.43
95921726|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.00|-0.91|0.049
95921727|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.04|-0.77|0.032
95921728|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.11|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.11|-0.58|0.18
95921729|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.51|-0.24|0.48
95921730|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.18|-0.51|0.35
95921731|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.12|-0.41|0.28
95921732|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.21|-0.44|0.48
95921733|NCT02373813|191803552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.24|-0.26|0.92
95921734|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.91|0.032
95921735|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.15|-0.78|0.005
95921736|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.01|-0.63|0.058
95921737|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.38|-0.29|0.78
95921738|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.14|-0.49|0.27
95921739|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.03|-0.47|0.078
95921740|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||0.20|-0.43|0.47
95921741|NCT02373813|191803553|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.13|-0.33|0.39
95921742|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.15|-0.09|0.60
95921743|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.10|-0.10|0.97
95921744|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.01|-0.82|0.044
95921745|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||-0.14|-0.76|0.004
95921746|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.66|0.009
95921747|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
95921748|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||0.00|-0.47|0.046
95921749|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-0.49|0.006
95921750|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.10|-0.40|0.25
95921751|NCT02373813|191803554|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.03|-0.37|0.021
95921752|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.04|-0.82|0.030
95921753|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-0.72|0.005
95921754|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.15|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.15|-0.69|0.002
95921755|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||0.16|-0.46|0.34
95921756|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
95921757|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.10|-0.51|0.004
95921758|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||0.05|-0.43|0.12
95921759|NCT02373813|191803555|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
95921760|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.02|-0.62|0.067
95921761|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23|||two sample t-test|||Baseline||0.23|-0.41|0.59
95921762|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.13||95.0|-5.66|0.74|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.74|-5.66|0.13
95921763|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.09|||two sample t-test|||Week 12||0.09|-4.76|0.059
95921764|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.5|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||-0.50|-4.95|0.017
95921765|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.15|||two sample t-test|||Week 24||2.15|-3.04|0.74
95921766|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.08|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.08|-3.03|0.039
95921767|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.23|||two sample t-test|||Week 36||-0.23|-3.10|0.023
95921768|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.52|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||1.52|-2.43|0.65
95921769|NCT02373813|191803556|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||two sample t-test|||Week 48||-0.19|-1.94|0.017
95921770|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.18||95.0|-5.29|1.0|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||1.00|-5.29|0.18
95921771|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 12||0.16|-4.63|0.067
95921772|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||-0.17|-4.62|0.035
95921773|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.23|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 24||2.23|-2.91|0.79
95921774|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.2|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||0.20|-2.75|0.090
95921775|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.17|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 36||-0.17|-3.06|0.029
95921776|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.81|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||1.81|-2.15|0.86
95921777|NCT02373813|191803557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||two sample t-test|||Change at Week 48||-0.16|-1.88|0.021
95921778|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||6.6|-6.5|1.00
95921779|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||2.6|-10.4|0.38
95921780|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|40.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||40.0|9.0|0.007
95921781|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||27.6|0.4|0.063
95921782|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|39.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||39.8|6.7|0.012
95921783|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|31.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||31.5|4.1|0.018
95921784|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||35.9|2.1|0.044
95733492|NCT01136382|191437769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.7||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||19.7|7.5|<0.0001
95733493|NCT01136382|191437770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11||To address multiplicity, a step-down procedure was used. If the treatment difference for the primary variable, morning PEF, was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the key secondary variable, FEV1, was tested at the 0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.11|0.02|0.0047
95733494|NCT01136382|191437771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||16.7|4.9|0.0004
95733495|NCT01136382|191437772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.08|0.00|0.0673
95733496|NCT01136382|191437773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||0.19|0.01|0.0216
95733497|NCT01136382|191437774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09||Analysis for change in daytime asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.31|0.0004
95733498|NCT01136382|191437774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||Analysis for change in total asthma symptom score from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.55|0.0015
95921785|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||33.2|5.8|0.010
95921786|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.5||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||42.5|8.9|0.005
95921787|NCT02373813|191803558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|35.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||35.2|7.9|0.004
95733499|NCT01136382|191437775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.26|0.0079
95733500|NCT01136382|191437776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.1||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.1|-8.2|0.0095
95733501|NCT01136382|191437776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.7||Analysis for change in nighttime awakenings with reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-1.7|-6.2|0.0007
95733502|NCT01136382|191437777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Analysis for change in daytime reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
95733503|NCT01136382|191437777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Analysis for change in total reliever medication use from baseline to treatment period average.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
95921788|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|27.6||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||27.6|-5.4|0.25
95921789|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Baseline||13.8|-12.5|1.00
95921790|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|14.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||14.9|-11.6|0.98
95921791|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|16.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 12||16.2|-6.2|0.48
95921792|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|25.7||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||25.7|-3.1|0.16
95921793|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.9||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||11.9|-9.0|0.94
95921794|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|27.0||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||27.0|-2.1|0.12
95921795|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.8||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 36||16.8|-5.2|0.40
95921796|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.4||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||20.4|-9.8|0.63
95921797|NCT02373813|191803559|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.2||The risk difference and its p-value were estimated from the Chi-squared test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 48||4.2|-18.0|0.31
95921798|NCT02373813|191803561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95921799|NCT02373813|191803561|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95921800|NCT02373813|191803562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.31
95921801|NCT02373813|191803562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||P-value was based on the Log-rank test for overall difference on disease-worsening event between two groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.51
95921802|NCT02373813|191803563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|-15.2|0.58
95921803|NCT00354029|191803564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95921804|NCT05176353|191803565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.86
95921805|NCT05176353|191803566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.05
95921806|NCT05176353|191803567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.59
95921807|NCT05176353|191803568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
95921808|NCT05176353|191803569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.20
95921809|NCT05176353|191803570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||0.03
95921810|NCT05176353|191803571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Z-score test for person-time rates|||||||<0.01
95921811|NCT05176353|191803572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
95921812|NCT04365413|191803610|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95921813|NCT04365413|191803611|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95921814|NCT03019458|191803631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons but rather it is the priori threshold for statistical significance at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|We adjusted for baseline Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), MGH-Swallowing Screening Test (MGH-SST), and the Burkes-Fahn-Marsden Dysonia Scale (BFM).||||||0.084
95921815|NCT01561079|191803639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p values were not adjusted for multiplicity The a priori threshold = .05|Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The p-value was calculated||||||0.001
95921816|NCT01561079|191803640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||<.002
95921817|NCT01561079|191803641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||0.0001
95921818|NCT01561079|191803642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|The reported p-value was calculated||||||.008
95921819|NCT01561079|191803643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.002
95921820|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|91.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||91.0|-41.0|0.456
95921821|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|74.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|143.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||143.4|6.0|0.033
95921822|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|30.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|88.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||88.0|-26.8|0.295
95921823|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|110.6||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||110.6|-21.8|0.188
95921824|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|38.8||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|96.5||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||96.5|-18.9|0.187
95921825|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|60.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg|||60.1|-77.8|0.801
95921826|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|35.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|93.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||93.1|-22.7|0.233
95733504|NCT01136382|191437778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to treatment period average was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, age group (\<8 years and ≥8 years of age) and country with baseline as a covariate.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
95733505|NCT01136382|191437779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
95733506|NCT00963482|191437780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.111||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to only two groups p\<.05, two-tailed|Chi-squared|||"H0: EG is equal in smoking quit rates compared to CG. H1: EG is superior in smoking quit rates compared to CG"||||=.111
95733507|NCT00485472|191437866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.36||||0.5438||95.0|-5.3|10.02|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||10.02|-5.30|0.5438
95733508|NCT00485472|191437867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.83||||0.2022||95.0|-2.62|12.28|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||12.28|-2.62|0.2022
95733509|NCT00485472|191437868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.665||95.0|-6.36|9.93|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||9.93|-6.36|0.6650
95733510|NCT00485472|191437869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.74||||0.3445||95.0|-11.65|33.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA analysis includes treatment and pooled site as factors and baseline score as covariate.||33.13|-11.65|0.3445
95733511|NCT00485472|191437871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0418||95.0|0.245|0.974|||Likelihood ratio test|||Analysis of 'response' based on a likelihood ratio test with treatment and pooled site as factors.||0.974|0.245|0.0418
95733512|NCT04455633|191437893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||MMRM model|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.18|-1.16|0.007
95733513|NCT04455633|191437893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.05|||MMRM model|||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization stratum of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.05|-1.06|0.030
95733514|NCT04455633|191437894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|20.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||20.76|-1.55|0.091
95733515|NCT04455633|191437894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.95|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||9.40|-10.95|0.883
95733516|NCT04455633|191437895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.8||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|13.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||13.73|-4.11|0.289
95733517|NCT04455633|191437895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|7.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of responders were analyzed using the CMH test stratified by the randomization factor of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe). The 95% CI are calculated using the asymptotic Wald method. Missing observations at Week 6 are imputed as nonresponses.||7.16|-8.85|0.837
95793542|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-4.33||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-4.33|-14.42|<0.001
95733518|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.32|0.014
95733519|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.13|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Worst: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its worst score as a covariate.||-0.13|-1.27|0.017
95733520|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.15|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.15|-1.33|0.015
95733521|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain at its Least: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain at its least score as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.27|0.020
95733522|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.27|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||-0.27|-1.48|0.005
95921827|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|69.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|114.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||114.4|24.5|0.003
95921828|NCT01323660|191803659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|65.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|111.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||111.3|20.3|0.005
95921829|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.203|0.086|<0.001
95921830|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.318|0.193|<0.001
95921831|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001||95.0|0.061|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.163|0.061|<0.001
95921832|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.157|0.041|<0.001
95921833|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.183|0.081|<0.001
95921834|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.006||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.067|-0.055|0.849
95921835|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.201|0.098|<0.001
95921836|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.202|<0.001
95921837|NCT01323660|191803660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.261|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.303|0.220|<0.001
95921838|NCT00180674|191803667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test|||||||0.043
95921839|NCT04227340|191803676|OTHER|The count, percentage and confidence interval will be calculated for allogeneic HCT patients who receive PBM and develop Grade 3 mucositis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.356|||||Odds of grade 3 in Allogeneic group compared to historical rates. The study efficacy of mucositis reduction by 20% with an estimation of 51% developing grade 3 mucositis.|The count, percentage and confidence interval were calculated for allogeneic HCT participants who receive PBM and developed Grade 3 mucositis. Whether the percentage of the prospective sample is significantly different from the estimated rate of 71% was accessed.||0.356|0.091|
95921840|NCT04227340|191803677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcox Rank Sum|||||||0.03
95793543|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-6.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-2.16||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-2.16|-11.21|0.004
95921841|NCT04227340|191803679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95921842|NCT04227340|191803681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95921843|NCT04227340|191803683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
95921844|NCT04227340|191803685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95921845|NCT04003974|191803712|OTHER|Mean DUX4 activity was derived for each participant at each time point (Baseline and post-Baseline) based on normalized gene expression values for the 6-gene panel. Changes from Baseline to post-Baseline were analyzed using an ANCOVA model.|Least square mean difference|0.4284||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0376|1.8945|||ANCOVA||Results are expressed as difference in Least-Squares (LS) means of the changes from Baseline to post-Baseline in DUX4 activity for each group, losmapimod and placebo.|||1.8945|-1.0376|0.5621
95921846|NCT03248440|191803731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.579
95921847|NCT03248440|191803732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.082
95921848|NCT04081298|191803746|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05. (feasibility assessment)|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.24
95921849|NCT04081298|191803747|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired t-test|||||||0.43
95921850|NCT04081298|191803748|EQUIVALENCE|McNemar's test evaluates equivalence between nominal groups. Power not calculated as this is a feasibility study with small sample size.||||||0.1|||||||McNemar|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.10
95921851|NCT04081298|191803749|EQUIVALENCE|feasibility assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.5 (feasibility assessment)|paired-sample t-test|||||||0.20
95921852|NCT04081298|191803750|EQUIVALENCE|paired sample t-test (feasibility assessment)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired sample t-test|||||||0.71
95921853|NCT04081298|191803751|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.94|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Single arm pre-post comparison at baseline and 3-month follow-up (feasibility study)||||0.94
95921854|NCT04081298|191803752|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.03|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.03
95921855|NCT04081298|191803753|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis is an equivalence analysis of change (H1) in mean value from baseline to 3 month follow-up using a paired-sample t-test. Power was not calculated for this analysis because this is a feasibility study. The sample size is not large enough to approach appropriate power.||||||0.36|||||||paired-sample t-test|||||||0.36
95921856|NCT02059161|191803754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for declaring non-inferiority was for the upper bound of the 95% CI to lie below 0.4%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.19|-0.11|
95921857|NCT02059161|191803755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||4.0|-11.8|
95921858|NCT02059161|191803756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||10.1|-16.1|
95921859|NCT02059161|191803759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.14|-0.18|
95921860|NCT02059161|191803760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|1.16|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.16|-4.69|
95921861|NCT02059161|191803761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.06|
95921862|NCT02059161|191803762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||22.2|-3.0|
95921863|NCT02059161|191803763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-9.8|
95921864|NCT02059161|191803764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-12.8|
95921865|NCT02059161|191803766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.39|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.39|-4.92|
95921866|NCT02059161|191803767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.05|
95921867|NCT02059161|191803768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.9|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.9|-19.7|
95921868|NCT02059161|191803770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.2|||||Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||8.2|-8.9|
95921869|NCT02059161|191803771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|2.4|||||Longitudinal data analysis including terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||2.4|-18.6|
95921870|NCT02059161|191803772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C < 7.0%)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|8.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||8.1|-9.7|
95733523|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.11|||MMRM model|||Pain Right Now: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain right now score as a covariate.||0.11|-1.07|0.111
95733524|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.35|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.87|0.399
95733525|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.36|||MMRM model|||Interference score averaged Over Questions 9A - G: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline pain interference score as a covariate.||0.36|-0.83|0.441
95921871|NCT02059161|191803772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in %s (A1C <6.5%)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.6|
95921872|NCT02059161|191803773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 7.0%)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||9.1|-8.7|
95921873|NCT02059161|191803773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (A1C < 6.5%)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||2.8|-11.5|
95921874|NCT02059161|191803774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.48|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.48|-2.33|
95921875|NCT02059161|191803775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Means Squares|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.02|-0.02|
95921876|NCT02059161|191803776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.69|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.69|-3.69|
95921877|NCT02059161|191803777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
95921878|NCT02059161|191803778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.04|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||1.04|-2.52|
95921879|NCT02059161|191803779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.03|
95921880|NCT02059161|191803780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.83|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.83|-3.34|
95921881|NCT02059161|191803781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||||Longitudinal data analysis model included terms for treatment, time, prior insulin status (intermediate-acting, or long-acting insulin), and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior insulin status.|||0.01|-0.04|
95921882|NCT02013687|191803785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95921883|NCT02013687|191803785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance of IgG values at study day 196 as compared to day 0 (pre-immune).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95921884|NCT02013687|191803786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95921885|NCT02013687|191803786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
95921886|NCT02013687|191803787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95921887|NCT02013687|191803787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95921888|NCT01657032|191803793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between the study groups were considered significant when the P value was \<0.05.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95921889|NCT01782326|191803804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was designed to have \>95% power to rule out a 1.15-fold increase in the rate exacerbations for QVA149 vs. salmeterol/fluticasone.|Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear model||If the upper limit of the confidence interval was \<1.15 then non-inferiority of QVA149 compared to SFC could be claimed|||0.96|0.83|
95921890|NCT01782326|191803804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Generalized linear method||If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority of QVA149A compared to SFC in reducing exacerbation rate could be claimed if the upper limit of the same CI was less than 1.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
95921891|NCT01782326|191803805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
95921892|NCT01782326|191803806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91|||Generalized linear model|||||0.91|0.75|<0.001
95921893|NCT01782326|191803807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||||0.86|0.70|<0.001
95921894|NCT01782326|191803812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.74|0.256
95921895|NCT01782326|191803813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.69|0.008
95921896|NCT01782326|191803814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.66|0.046
95921897|NCT01782326|191803815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.10|0.38|0.790
95921898|NCT03389893|191803847|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.131|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator.|||0.131|0.008|<0.001
95921899|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||0.80|0.09|0.019
95921900|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||1.51|0.09|0.165
95921901|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||0.27|0.02|<0.001
95921902|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||0.25|0.02|<0.001
95921903|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||0.55|0.05|0.004
95921904|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||1.80|0.08|0.216
95733526|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.49|-0.87|0.575
95733527|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.61|||MMRM model|||General Activity: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline general activity score as a covariate.||0.61|-0.71|0.880
95733528|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.71|-0.73|0.978
95733529|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||MMRM model|||Mood: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline mood score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.65|0.877
95733530|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.07|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.07|-1.32|0.079
95733531|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.2|||MMRM model|||Walking Ability: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline walking ability score as a covariate.||0.20|-1.16|0.163
95733532|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.73|0.875
95733533|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62|||MMRM model|||Normal Work: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline normal work score as a covariate.||0.62|-0.69|0.914
95733534|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.12|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||1.12|-0.26|0.219
95921905|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||1.13|0.05|0.071
95921906|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.85|0.13|0.022
95733535|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.87|||MMRM model|||Relations with Other People: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline relations with other people score as a covariate.||0.87|-0.47|0.551
95733536|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.3|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.30|-1.63|0.005
95793544|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.89||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs|||-0.89|-8.10|0.015
95921907|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.76|0.08|0.015
95793545|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|2.71||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||8.80|-3.38|0.382
95921908|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||0.41|0.04|<0.001
95921909|NCT03389893|191803848|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.16||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||0.58|0.04|0.006
95921910|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 3||2.82|0.23|0.724
95921911|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.27||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 7||0.89|0.08|0.033
95921912|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.36||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 14||1.10|0.12|0.073
95921913|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 21||2.29|0.23|0.579
95921914|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 28||0.53|0.05|0.003
95921915|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 42||1.81|0.15|0.297
95921916|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 77||2.12|0.11|0.326
95921917|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is numerator and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is denominator|Day 112||2.42|0.11|0.401
95921918|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||2.40|0.28|0.705
95921919|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.08|0.25|0.538
95921920|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 77 / Day 42||3.34|0.25|0.892
95921921|NCT03389893|191803849|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is numerator and Day 42 is denominator|Day 112 / Day 42||2.56|0.21|0.624
95921922|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference.)|Day 3, Lesional||-1.63|-17.44|0.019
95921923|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Lesional||9.32|-11.47|0.837
95921924|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Lesional||7.92|-6.98|0.900
95921925|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Lesional||1.82|-13.76|0.130
95921926|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Lesional||0.56|-14.76|0.069
95921927|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Lesional||-0.73|-15.25|0.032
95921928|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||7.28|-9.37|0.803
95921929|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Lesional||9.34|-9.02|0.972
95921930|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||6.12|-6.66|0.933
95921931|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||4.45|-8.10|0.563
95921932|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Lesional||0.73|-14.88|0.075
95921933|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Lesional||-2.48|-17.19|0.010
95921934|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 3, Non-lesional||6.23|-4.86|0.805
95921935|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7, Non-lesional||7.15|-2.44|0.329
95921936|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14, Non-lesional||5.60|-5.39|0.970
95921937|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21, Non-lesional||1.56|-8.18|0.180
95921938|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28, Non-lesional||1.94|-5.45|0.342
95921939|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42, Non-lesional||1.47|-5.81|0.234
95921940|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Non-lesional||2.07|-6.27|0.316
95921941|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112, Non-lesional||1.59|-5.37|0.276
95921942|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||1.06|-4.19|0.237
95921943|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||-0.77|-5.30|0.010
95921944|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42, Non-lesional||2.65|-3.57|0.770
95921945|NCT03389893|191803850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42, Non-lesional||0.56|-4.84|0.117
95921946|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.05||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|182.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||182.12|-12.02|0.085
95921947|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.91||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.13|105.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||105.32|-149.13|0.733
95921948|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.5||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.6|24.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||24.61|-189.60|0.129
95793546|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-5.69||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|0.78||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.78|-12.17|0.085
95921949|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.11|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||2.89|-187.11|0.057
95921950|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.76||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.52|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||34.00|-131.52|0.242
95921951|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.24|41.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||41.49|-150.24|0.262
95921952|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.79|53.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||53.86|-99.79|0.546
95921953|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.34|42.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||42.75|-86.34|0.503
95921954|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.01|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-4.98|-123.01|0.034
95921955|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|66.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 77 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77 / Day 42||66.04|-86.63|0.789
95921956|NCT03389893|191803851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.9||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.82|-17.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Day 112 is minuend and Day 42 is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112 / Day 42||-17.98|-149.82|0.014
95921957|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 7||0.77|-0.92|0.860
95921958|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 14||0.41|-0.85|0.488
95921959|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 21||0.20|-1.30|0.144
95921960|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 28||0.30|-1.00|0.279
95921961|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 42||0.50|-1.09|0.461
95921962|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 77, Lesional||0.30|-0.84|0.345
95921963|NCT03389893|191803852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is minuend and Placebo+Open Label Extension and Follow-Up arm is subtrahend. (Minuend - subtrahend=difference).|Day 112||0.23|-0.77|0.275
95921964|NCT00958009|191803877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean positive response|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>0.50.|||0.93|0.80|
95921965|NCT01925170|191803893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the two groups for all densities, significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||<0.001
95921966|NCT01925170|191803893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of two groups for all densities; significant difference p ≤ 0.05.||||0.004
95921967|NCT01925170|191803894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
95921968|NCT01925170|191803894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.0001
95921969|NCT01925170|191803895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
95921970|NCT01925170|191803895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||0.004
95921971|NCT01925170|191803896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||< 0.001
95921972|NCT01925170|191803896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
95921973|NCT01925170|191803897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
95921974|NCT01925170|191803897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<0.001
95921975|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was the that proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at one year were the same between the two groups.||1.07|0.95|0.79
95921976|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 183 days were the same between the two groups.||1.12|0.96|0.307
95921977|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 90 days were the same between the two groups.||1.16|0.95|0.375
95921978|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled at 42 days were the same between the two groups.||1.26|0.94|0.265
95921979|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among females were the same between the two groups.||1.15|0.97|0.237
95921980|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among males were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.89|0.487
95921981|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \<= 64 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.27|0.78|0.952
95921982|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among age 65 - 74 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.91|0.696
95921983|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age 75 - 84 yrs were the same between groups.||1.13|0.94|0.584
95921984|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among age \>= 85 yrs were the same between the two groups.||1.14|0.87|0.911
95921985|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of the patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC of 2-3 were the same between the two groups.||1.10|0.88|0.746
95921986|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score of 4-5 were the same between the two groups.||1.19|0.98|0.109
95983234|NCT04272892|191940766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|8.612|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep fragmentation at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||8.612|.431|0.031
95921987|NCT03259373|191803926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the proportions of patients with at least one OAC filled among those with a CHADS-VASC score \>=6 were the same between the two groups.||1.05|0.84|0.244
95921988|NCT03259373|191803927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.79|0.300
95921989|NCT03259373|191803928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.83|0.93|0.122
95921990|NCT03259373|191803929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.13|0.85|0.760
95921991|NCT03259373|191803930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.14|0.86|0.760
95921992|NCT03259373|191803931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.08|0.88|0.616
95921993|NCT03259373|191803932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.15|0.87|0.992
95921994|NCT03259373|191803933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.07|0.95|0.808
95921995|NCT03259373|191803934|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.853
95921996|NCT03259373|191803935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||1.06|0.82|0.303
95921997|NCT03259373|191803936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||There were one or two sites that had no adverse events or just one event in either or both arms, so there was no estimated effect size/variance from the multivariable models at the site level. Therefore, depending on the specific outcome, either one or two sites did not contribute to the fixed-effect meta-analysis as there was no estimated effect size or variance to include in the meta-analysis.||1.16|0.91|0.649
95921998|NCT03259373|191803937|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.587
95733537|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Sleep: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline sleep score as a covariate.||-0.39|-1.68|0.002
95733538|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.69|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.69|-0.73|0.955
95921999|NCT03259373|191803937|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-0.4655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.613
95922000|NCT03259373|191803937|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.515
95922001|NCT03259373|191803937|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.018
95922002|NCT03259373|191803937|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.956
95922003|NCT03259373|191803938|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.279
95922004|NCT03259373|191803938|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Mean Difference (%)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||fixed-effect meta-analysis|||||||0.143
95950511|NCT00113529|191872855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||55.1|21.5|
95950512|NCT00113529|191872861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|82.4||||||95.0|64.9|91.7||||||||91.7|64.9|
95922005|NCT02550873|191803939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||"The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions:~Normal distribution Homogeneity of variance the same in both arms, and for both types of patients Randomization ratio PRM-151:placebo = 2:1 Expected value for patients on pirfenidone or nintedanib = -1.5 Expected value for patients on no other treatment = -3 Expected value for patients on PRM-151 ≥ 0.75 Standard deviation = 5 75% of patients on a stable dose of pirfenidone or nintedanib α=0.10 two-sided Power = 80%"||3.5|1.1|0.0014
95922006|NCT02550873|191803940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|45.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||45.1|17.4|0.0002
95922007|NCT02550873|191803941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.98||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|214.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||214.7|-27.7|0.2032
95922008|NCT02550873|191803942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.33||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|108.8||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||108.8|-45.0|0.4927
95922009|NCT02550873|191803943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|4.3||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||4.3|-2.2|0.5835
95922010|NCT02550873|191803944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.28||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.3|213.5||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||213.5|-126.3|0.6707
95922011|NCT02550873|191803945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|1.9||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||1.9|-4.4|0.52
95922012|NCT02550873|191803946|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0001||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Pearson's correlation|||||||0.0001
95922013|NCT02550873|191803946|OTHER|Correlation analysis||||||0.0069|||||||Pearson's correlation|||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.||||0.0069
95922014|NCT02550873|191803947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4179||||||P-Value for decline in % Predicted FVC ≥ 5%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.4179
95922015|NCT02550873|191803947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||P-Value for decline in % predicted FVC ≥ 10%. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.2184
95922016|NCT02550873|191803948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7773||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 100 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.7773
95922017|NCT02550873|191803948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5976||||||P-Value for decline in FVC ≥ 200 mL. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.5976
95922018|NCT02550873|191803949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-Value for increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 5%. P-Value for an increase in % predicted FVC ≥ 10% not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.29
95922019|NCT02550873|191803950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508||||||P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 100 mL. P-Value for increase in FVC ≥ 200 mL not reported. This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.0508
95922020|NCT02550873|191803951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6308||||||This study was not powered to test hypotheses beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.6308
95922021|NCT02550873|191803952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1846||||||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction||||||0.1846
95922022|NCT02550873|191803953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept; dependent variable=raw values at each time point; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||1.7|-2.6|0.7424
95922023|NCT02550873|191803963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|114.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.1||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.2|207.1||This study was not powered to test hypothesis beyond the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercept and slope; dependent variable=raw values; explanatory variables=stratum, treatment, time and treatment by time interaction.||||207.1|22.2|0.0416
95922024|NCT04951479|191803982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of KOOS Pain score pre and 6 months post embolization||||0.00041
95733539|NCT04455633|191437896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||MMRM model|||Enjoyment of Life: change from baseline was analyzed using MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the baseline enjoyment of life score as a covariate.||0.59|-0.79|0.777
95733540|NCT04455633|191437898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
95733541|NCT04455633|191437898|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model was used for the analysis with treatment and the randomization stratum of baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as fixed covariates.||0.17|-0.48|0.351
95733542|NCT01492361|191437913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||The 2-sided alpha level for the primary analysis was adjusted to 0.0437 from 0.05 to account for the two interim analyses based on a group sequential design with O'Brien-Fleming boundaries generated using the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region||||0.83|0.68|0.00000001
95733543|NCT01492361|191437914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||6e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.83|0.65|0.0000006
95733544|NCT01492361|191437915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.66|<0.0001
95733545|NCT01492361|191437916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
95733546|NCT01492361|191437917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.78|0.55|<0.0001
95733547|NCT01492361|191437918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.98|0.66|0.0315
95733548|NCT01492361|191437919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.87|0.53|0.0018
95922025|NCT04951479|191803983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95922026|NCT04951479|191803984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95922027|NCT04951479|191803985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.00797
95922028|NCT04060680|191803989|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) for the major complication free rate at 6 months is 0.79. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication through 182 days post implant exceeds 0.79, the primary safety objective will be met. The freedom from the first major EV ICD System/procedure-related complication was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Major complication-free rate|92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|95.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|Kaplan-Meier method|||The primary safety objective is to demonstrate the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 6 months post-implant exceeds an OPC of 79%. H0: p ≤ 0.79 HA: p \> 0.79, where p denotes the 6-month (182 days) freedom from major EV ICD System/procedure-related complications rate.||95.0|89.0|<0.0001
95733549|NCT01492361|191437920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.93|0.55|0.0129
95733550|NCT01492361|191437921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
95733551|NCT01492361|191437922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||Prespecified secondary end points were tested in a hierarchical fashion, in the order listed here, at the final alpha level of 0.0437.|Log Rank|Stratified by CV risk category, use of ezetimibe, and geographical region.||||1.02|0.74|0.0915
95733552|NCT01475838|191437928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the PI+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|6.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||13.7|0.4|0.025
95733553|NCT03831048|191437932|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis of this endpoint will be performed using a linear probability model, with the following terms in the model: (1) treatment; and (2) the known donor and recipient risk factors listed above. Variables that make the model fail to converge will be dropped from the model. The test will be conducted at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.034||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Regression, Linear|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for the primary endpoint are as follows:~H0: pSOC - pDCD ≥ 0.20 vs. H1: pSOC - pDCD \< 0.20 where pDCD and pSOC represent the true survival proportions at the six months follow-up visit for DCD and SOC heart transplant patients, respectively."||0.034|-0.098|<0.0001
95950513|NCT00113529|191872870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.075
95733554|NCT03831048|191437933|OTHER|No hypothesis test.||||||||||||||||No null hypothesis test.|No statistical hypothesis testing. This endpoint will be summarized for the OCS Heart Population using counts and percentages and an exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage based on the binomial distribution. It will also be summarized for the modified OCS Heart Population, defined as the number of DCD hearts that were successfully transplanted after preservation and assessment on the OCS divided by the total number of DCD donor hearts that were instrumented on the OCS.|||
95733555|NCT01027780|191437956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Please note that this analysis tested the differences between groups following the intervention.|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.007
95733556|NCT01027780|191437957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Note that this is the p value for differences between groups immediately following the intervention|GEE|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach was used to assess robustness of population parameters, such as treatment effects.||||||.04
95733557|NCT01027780|191437958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Difference between groups following intervention|ANOVA|||||||.03
95733558|NCT00637299|191437984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95733559|NCT00637299|191437985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95733560|NCT00262964|191438003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in hepatic insulin sensitivity between normal and high IHTG subjects||||<0.019
95922029|NCT04060680|191803990|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified OPC for the EV ICD defibrillation testing success at implant is 0.88. If the lower confidence bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the proportion of EV ICD patients achieving defibrillation testing success at implant exceeds 0.88, the primary efficacy objective will be met. The primary efficacy objective will be evaluated using a one-proportion binomial exact test along with a two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence bound.|Proportion|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|99.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||The primary efficacy is to demonstrate the EV ICD defibrillation testing success rate at implant is greater than an OPC of 88%. H0: p ≤ 0.88 HA: p \> 0.88, where p denotes the probability of EV ICD defibrillation success at implant.||99.6|96.6|<0.0001
95733561|NCT00262964|191438004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that VLDL-TG production would not differ between the two groups.||||<0.001
95733562|NCT00262964|191438005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was no difference in skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity between groups.||||<0.001
95733563|NCT00262964|191438006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in adipose tissue insulin sensitivity due to IHTG levels.||||<0.002
95733564|NCT00262964|191438007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate any difference between the two groups. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage would be the same before and after treatment for subjects receiving fenofibrate.||||.301
95793547|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.89||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|1.88||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.88|-9.67|0.186
95733565|NCT00262964|191438007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Treatment effects determined by repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant interactions between time and group were found, a Student's t-test was used.||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. The null hypothesis was that the IHTG percentage for the NAFLD-niacin group at baseline and post-treatment would not change.||||.315
95733566|NCT00262964|191438008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||a Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 16 weeks on niacin in subjects with NAFLD.||||0.708
95950514|NCT00113529|191872870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.749
95950515|NCT00113529|191872870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.834
95733567|NCT00262964|191438008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||A P-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||A Student's t-test for paired samples was used to evaluate the effect of treatment. Null hypothesis was that VLDL-apoB would be the same before and after 8 weeks on fenofibrate in subjects with NAFLD.||||.022
95733568|NCT00262964|191438009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.020
95733569|NCT00262964|191438009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis was that niacin would not change the VLDL-Tg clearance rate||||.358
95733570|NCT00262964|191438010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that fenofibrate would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||0.758
95733571|NCT00262964|191438010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that niacin would not effect VLDL-Tg production rates.||||.023
95733572|NCT00262964|191438011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.024
95733573|NCT00262964|191438011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect VLDL-Tg concentration. We compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||<0.001
95733574|NCT00262964|191438012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. We compare the baseline and post-treatment results for adipose tissue insulin sensitivity in the subjects who received fenofibrate.||||.768
95733575|NCT00262964|191438012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance was set for p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect adipose tissue insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the baseline and post-treatment adipose tissue insulin sensitivity results for subjects who received a 16 week course of niacin||||.019
95733576|NCT00262964|191438013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results in subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.318
95733577|NCT00262964|191438013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results for subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.025
95733578|NCT00262964|191438014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that fenofibrate would not affect hepatic insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving an 8 week course of fenofibrate.||||.419
95733579|NCT00262964|191438014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that niacin would not affect skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity. Here we compare the pre and post-treatment results of subjects receiving a 16 week course of niacin.||||.018
95733580|NCT00259012|191438032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.087
95922030|NCT03077620|191804027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.256||Poor sleepers compared to good sleepers with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is poor sleepers minus good sleepers.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.256|-0.017|0.05
95922031|NCT03077620|191804028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.087||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.087|-0.078|0.05
95733581|NCT00259012|191438032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.019
95733582|NCT00259012|191438033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.255
95733583|NCT00259012|191438033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline.||||0.031
95733584|NCT00259012|191438034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.099
95733585|NCT00259012|191438034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.016
95922032|NCT03077620|191804028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.117||After corrected for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni test, treatment groups 1 and 2 compared to placebo with Compound Symmetry covariance structure. Mean difference is placebo minus treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.117|-0.051|0.05
95922033|NCT00929305|191804116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95922034|NCT00929305|191804119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95950516|NCT00113529|191872870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
95733586|NCT00259012|191438035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.347
95733587|NCT00259012|191438035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.012
95733588|NCT00259012|191438036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.339
95733589|NCT00259012|191438036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.003
95733590|NCT00259012|191438037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.982
95733591|NCT00259012|191438037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.534
95733592|NCT00259012|191438038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.166
95733593|NCT00259012|191438038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.119
95733594|NCT00259012|191438039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.387
95733595|NCT00259012|191438039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparison between steady state and baseline||||0.021
95733596|NCT02158494|191438042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 2 weeks||||0.41
95733597|NCT02158494|191438042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 14 weeks||||0.47
95733598|NCT02158494|191438042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value for Sensory Organization Test results at 26 weeks||||0.99
95733599|NCT01939197|191438085|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-inferiority of the percentage of participants in the GT1 Analysis Group in Part 2 achieving SVR12 compared to the historical SVR12 rate for sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (a non-inferiority threshold of the lower bound of the 95% CI of 74%).|||||||||||||||||"The historical SVR rate, as reported in the PHOTON-1 study, for sofosbuvir and RBV in HCV/HIV-1 coinfected adults is 76% (87/114) with a 95% confidence interval of (67%, 84%).~Reference: Sulkowski MS, Naggie S, Lalezari J, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for hepatitis C in patients with HIV coinfection. JAMA. 2014;312(4):353-61."|||
95733600|NCT01939197|191438086|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95733601|NCT01939197|191438087|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The Fisher exact test was performed as prespecified on the SAP but the p-value couldn't be calculated because SVR12 rates in both arms were 100%, hence p-value appeared as not available."|||
95733602|NCT02545998|191438110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
95733603|NCT02545998|191438111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95733604|NCT02545998|191438112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95733605|NCT02545998|191438113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
95733606|NCT02545998|191438114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
95733607|NCT02545998|191438115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Sign test|||||||0.264
95793548|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-0.59||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|4.44||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.44|-5.61|0.818
95922035|NCT01796665|191804120|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|92.5|
95922036|NCT01796665|191804121|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|110.5|||Fieller's method|||||110.5|92.9|
95922037|NCT01796665|191804122|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.23|-1.13|||Fieller's method|||||-1.13|-13.23|
95922038|NCT02331940|191804123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
95733608|NCT00577460|191438124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX ER versus Placebo||||0.0039
95733609|NCT00577460|191438124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment and country and covariate OL baseline||PPX IR versus Placebo||||0.0001
95733610|NCT00577460|191438127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5590
95733611|NCT00577460|191438127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1289
95733612|NCT00577460|191438129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1073
95733613|NCT00577460|191438129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8694||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8694
95733614|NCT00577460|191438130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0009
95922039|NCT05458102|191804127|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|560.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|414.0|757.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||757|414|
95922040|NCT05458102|191804127|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|189.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||189|99.5|
95922041|NCT05458102|191804128|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|433.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|347.0|540.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||540|347|
95922042|NCT05458102|191804128|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.5|150.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||150|93.5|
95733615|NCT00577460|191438130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0573
95733616|NCT00577460|191438131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.6434
95733617|NCT00577460|191438131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.2469
95733618|NCT00577460|191438132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.9741
95733619|NCT00577460|191438132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.7620
95733620|NCT00577460|191438136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0831
95733621|NCT00577460|191438136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0759
95733622|NCT00577460|191438137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.1713
95733623|NCT00577460|191438137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0130
95733624|NCT00577460|191438138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0015
95733625|NCT00577460|191438138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0002
95733626|NCT00577460|191438139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.8760
95733627|NCT00577460|191438139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.5113
95733628|NCT00577460|191438140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0148
95733629|NCT00577460|191438140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, country and baseline as a covariate||||||0.0201
95922043|NCT05458102|191804129|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|752.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|525.0|1080.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||1080|525|
95922044|NCT05458102|191804129|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.3|172.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||172|80.3|
95922045|NCT05458102|191804131|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.5|103.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||103|45.5|
95922046|NCT05458102|191804131|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.5|101.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||101|42.5|
95922047|NCT05458102|191804135|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|138.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||138|104|
95922048|NCT05458102|191804135|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|128.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) mixed-effects ANOVA model was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameter under evaluation.|||128|95.4|
95922049|NCT05642000|191804142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.454|-0.079|
95922050|NCT02403674|191804145|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|3.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.951|9.026|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.026|-1.951|
95922051|NCT02403674|191804146|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-22.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Dizziness difference||-22.5|-34.0|<0.001
95922052|NCT02403674|191804146|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-7.9||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Sleep disorders and disturbances difference||-7.9|-19.1|<0.001
95922053|NCT02403674|191804146|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-3.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.3||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Altered sensorium difference||-0.3|-7.6|0.033
95922054|NCT02403674|191804147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|10.042|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||10.042|-2.412|
95922055|NCT02403674|191804148|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10.|Difference in percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.7|-1.5|
95922056|NCT02403674|191804149|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the mean treatment difference was greater than -10|Difference in percentages|3.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|9.593|||||The 95% CIs for difference in percentages were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method for each stratum (HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|||9.593|-3.057|
95922057|NCT02403674|191804150|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA®) was a positive value.|Difference in mean %change from baseline|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.3|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||36.3|-16.1|
95922058|NCT02403674|191804151|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when group difference (MK-1439A-ATRIPLA) was a positive value|Diff in mean % change from baseline|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|48.2|||||The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|||48.2|-18.7|
95922059|NCT02403674|191804152|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.1|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-3.1|-13.0|
95922060|NCT02403674|191804153|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 AE(s)|Difference in percentages|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.5|||||95% CIs were calculated with the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.5|-6.9|
95922061|NCT02403674|191804154|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Depression and suicide/self-injury difference||0.8|-5.9|<0.001
95922062|NCT02403674|191804154|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared when the 1-sided p-value comparing treatment difference was \<0.02497.|Difference in percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||2-sided P-value|t-test, 2 sided||95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Psychosis and psychotic disorders difference||0.5|-2.5|<0.001
95922063|NCT02403674|191804155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-6.49|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-6.49|-13.53|<0.0001
95922064|NCT02403674|191804156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-17.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-13.16|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-13.16|-20.89|<0.0001
95922065|NCT02403674|191804157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-23.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.57|-19.32|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-19.32|-27.57|
95922066|NCT02403674|191804158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-35.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.1|-24.82|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-24.82|-47.10|
95922067|NCT02403674|191804159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean %change from baseline|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-4.96|||||95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level and treatment.|||-4.96|-7.97|
95950517|NCT00113529|191872870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.332
95733630|NCT02016170|191438160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor 90 mg bid MD and prasugrel 10 mg qd MD and a common standard deviation of 60 PRU, a sample size of 24 patients per group allowed for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|5.0||||||||5|-41|
95733631|NCT02016170|191438161|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean PRU between prasugrel and ticagrelor (two arms combined).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0||||||||-4|-18|
95733632|NCT01402947|191438209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.100|0.933|
95733633|NCT01402947|191438210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.117|||ANOVA|||||1.117|0.893|
95733634|NCT02405195|191438231|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA throughout measurement period (before, during and after CPB).||||0.638
95733635|NCT02405195|191438232|OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.972
95733636|NCT02405195|191438233|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons was used|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.001
95733637|NCT02937701|191438237|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.96||||||For the primary analysis of ACR20, the response difference (RD) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimate and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of RD were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA).||15.96|2.67|
95922068|NCT01276535|191804215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
95733638|NCT02937701|191438237|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|15.92|||||Response Difference is based on a generalized linear model with actual stratification variables (geographic region and prior biologic use for RA) as covariates in the model.|A sensitivity analysis with the RD estimate and CIs for RD of ACR20 estimated using a generalized linear model with geographic region and prior biologic use for RA as covariates was also conducted.||15.92|2.67|
95733639|NCT02937701|191438237|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence for the primary endpoint was to be evaluated sequentially by first comparing the 2-sided 90% CI for RD of ACR20 at week 22 between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-15%, 15%). If the first test was successful, RD of ACR20 at week 22 was to be further evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI between ABP 710 and infliximab with an equivalence margin of (-12%, 15%).|Response Difference|7.184|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|13.62|||||The ACR core set includes tender joint count, swollen joint count, subject's global health assessment, investigator's global health assessment, subject's assessment of disease related pain, HAQ-DI, and CRP.|A post-hoc analysis was conducted to adjust for the impact of random imbalance in baseline demographic and disease characteristics between the 2 treatment groups. The MH estimate of RD and corresponding CIs were estimated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance method with stratification factors geographic region and prior biologic use, and adjustment for baseline covariates (ACR core set, age, use of oral corticosteroid, use of NSAID, body mass index categories, and methotrexate dose).||13.620|0.748|
95733640|NCT02937701|191438238|OTHER||Response Difference|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|14.81||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||14.81|1.15|
95733641|NCT02937701|191438238|OTHER||Response Difference|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|11.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.64|-1.80|
95733642|NCT02937701|191438238|OTHER||Response Difference|9.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|12.87||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.87|-0.51|
95733643|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.26|11.73||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.73|-5.26|
95733644|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|17.97||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.97|-1.18|
95733645|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.61|11.7||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.70|-4.61|
95733646|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|13.4||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.40|-5.40|
95733647|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.34|9.4||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.40|-7.34|
95733648|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.86|12.34||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||12.34|-6.86|
95733649|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|-3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.27|5.17||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||5.17|-12.27|
95733650|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.89|11.08||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||11.08|-8.89|
95733651|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|3.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.29|-13.24|
95733652|NCT02937701|191438239|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.01|8.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.04|-11.01|
95733653|NCT02937701|191438240|OTHER||Response Difference|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|9.38||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.38|-0.56|
95733654|NCT02937701|191438240|OTHER||Response Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|7.94||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.94|-4.71|
95733655|NCT02937701|191438240|OTHER||Response Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|9.03||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.03|-4.45|
95793549|NCT02557399|191557103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percent|-3.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|0.35||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.35|-7.92|0.073
95733656|NCT02937701|191438240|OTHER||Response Difference|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|13.83||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.83|0.27|
95733657|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|7.62||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.62|-10.40|
95733658|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.28|13.67||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.67|-7.28|
95733659|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|15.48||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||15.48|-2.62|
95733660|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|21.03||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||21.03|0.12|
95733661|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|9.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.59|-8.54|
95733662|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|13.39||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.39|-7.62|
95950518|NCT00113529|191872871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.473
95733663|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.11|7.93||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.93|-10.11|
95733664|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|16.54||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||16.54|-4.44|
95733665|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.39|3.71||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||3.71|-14.39|
95793550|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.4|-4.6|0.961
95793551|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.2||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.2|-11.2|0.015
95793552|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.1|-9.2|0.044
95793553|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||3.5|-4.9|0.747
95793554|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.8||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline TLs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.8|-5.3|0.338
95793555|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-3.8|0.068
95922069|NCT01276535|191804216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is made of the combined application of the Erchonia MLS and the Erchonia THL. Results are analyzed at 6 weeks relative to Baseline.||||<0.01
95922070|NCT01106976|191804217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0012||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test. Hypothesis of significant cholinergic interval changes over the study interval period.||||0.0009
95793556|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.1|-4.8|0.002
95793557|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.0||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-1.0|-4.3|0.002
95793558|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.4|-3.4|0.012
95793559|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.1|-2.4|0.078
95950519|NCT00113529|191872871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.286
95950520|NCT00113529|191872871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.277
95950521|NCT00113529|191872871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.956
95950522|NCT00113529|191872871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.278
95950523|NCT00113529|191872872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.275
95793560|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||5.7|-2.1|0.367
95793561|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.1||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.1|-7.4|0.148
95793562|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.9||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||1.9|-5.9|0.314
95793563|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||4.7|-2.3|0.494
95793564|NCT02557399|191557104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with treatment, center, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline non-ILs counts, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||2.3|-3.5|0.684
95793565|NCT02557399|191557105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1.The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.6|0.1|0.047
95793566|NCT02557399|191557105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.3|-1.3|0.185
95793567|NCT02557399|191557105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.9|-2.5|0.251
95793568|NCT02557399|191557105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||18.0|2.4|0.006
95950524|NCT00113529|191872872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.227
95793569|NCT02557399|191557105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|20.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.4|0.9|0.022
95793570|NCT02557399|191557106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||4.3|-0.7|0.129
95793571|NCT02557399|191557106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.9|-3.4|0.612
95793572|NCT02557399|191557106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.2||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.2|1.1|0.016
95793573|NCT02557399|191557106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.5|0.3|0.034
95950525|NCT00113529|191872872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.029
95950526|NCT00113529|191872872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||1.000
95950527|NCT00113529|191872872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||1.000
95950528|NCT00113529|191872873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.435
95922071|NCT02851511|191804221|SUPERIORITY|tDCS vs. sham superiority with cognitive training will be tested based on the 320 participants who are assigned to the two cognitive training arms. The effects of tDCS on changes in NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Composite Score (NIHTB FCC) from baseline to 3-month follow-up are estimated by linear regression models, with missing outcomes predicted by regression models that include demographic and baseline characteristics.|Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.56||Formal statistical inference of the tDCS effect was based on the inverse-normal combination of two p-values, one from the Phase I data (N=42) and the other from the Phase II data (N=292).|Regression, Linear|||"Null hypothesis: The combination of cognitive training (12 weeks) and active stimulation (over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) will not lead to beneficial changes on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.~The study is designed to have at least 90% power to detect a difference of effect size 0.42 between cognitive training+tDCS and cognitive training+sham, using a normal inverse combination test at one-sided 0.025 level."||1.56|-0.91|<0.05
95733666|NCT02937701|191438241|OTHER||Response Difference|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|13.37||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.37|-7.51|
95733667|NCT02937701|191438242|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|0.83||||||The response difference at week 2 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||0.83|-5.84|
95733668|NCT02937701|191438242|OTHER||Response Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|2.64||||||The response difference at week 6 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||2.64|-7.47|
95733669|NCT02937701|191438242|OTHER||Response Difference|5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|10.91||||||The response difference at week 14 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.91|-0.01|
95733670|NCT02937701|191438242|OTHER||Response Difference|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|10.34||||||The response difference at week 22 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.34|-1.21|
95733671|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.12|8.02||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||8.02|-8.12|
95733672|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.39|9.28||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 30 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.28|-9.39|
95733673|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|9.51||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||9.51|-7.00|
95733674|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|7.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|17.22||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 34 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.22|-2.39|
95733675|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.03|7.59||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.59|-9.03|
95733676|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.41|13.14||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 38 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||13.14|-6.41|
95733677|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.98|7.66||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||7.66|-8.98|
95733678|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|17.68||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 46 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||17.68|-2.13|
95733679|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.29||||||The response difference (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||10.29|-6.81|
95733680|NCT02937701|191438243|OTHER||Response Difference|12.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|22.04||||||The response difference (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) at week 50 was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate; 90% confidence intervals were estimated from the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors (geographic region and prior biologic use).||22.04|1.74|
95733681|NCT02937701|191438244|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.007||||||Week 2 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.007|-0.20|
95793574|NCT02557399|191557106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||21.3|1.4|0.018
95922072|NCT00839982|191804234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Hypothesis: achieving CR provides an overall longer survival.|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95922073|NCT03566680|191804272|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922074|NCT03566680|191804273|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922075|NCT03566680|191804274|EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922076|NCT03566680|191804275|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95733682|NCT02937701|191438244|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.16||||||Week 6 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.16|-0.17|
95733683|NCT02937701|191438244|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.14||||||Week 14 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.14|-0.21|
95733684|NCT02937701|191438244|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.17||||||Week 22 difference between means (ABP 710 minus infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.17|-0.20|
95733685|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.4||||||Week 30 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.40|-0.08|
95733686|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||||||Week 30 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.28|-0.27|
95733687|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Week 34 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.35|-0.12|
95733688|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.24||||||Week 34 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.30|
95733689|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.3||||||Week 38 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.30|-0.18|
95733690|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 38 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.20|-0.36|
95733691|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.37||||||Week 46 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.37|-0.14|
95733692|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Week 46 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.25|-0.34|
95733693|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.24||||||Week 50 difference between means (ABP 710/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.24|-0.24|
95733694|NCT02937701|191438245|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.08||||||Week 50 difference between means (Infliximab/ABP 710 minus Infliximab/Infliximab) and 90% CIs for difference between means were based on ANCOVA model with the DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and adjusted for the baseline DAS28-CRP measurement and the actual stratification factors: geographic region and prior biologic use for RA.||0.08|-0.47|
95733695|NCT00705536|191438254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0006
95733696|NCT00705536|191438254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95922077|NCT03566680|191804276|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95922078|NCT03566680|191804277|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95922079|NCT01818700|191804288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||10|-10|<0.05
95922080|NCT02240680|191804301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, daily basal insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment , week and treatment by week interaction linear covariates baseline HbA1c , baseline daily basal insulin and baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-0.46|-0.81|< 0.0001
95922081|NCT02240680|191804302|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For any hypoglycemia event accompanied by prespecified glucose value||2.491|0.861|0.1594
95922082|NCT02240680|191804302|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.188|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error for odds ratio.|For glucose value \< 54mg/dL according American Diabetes Association definition of clinically significant hypoglycaemia||2.188|0.604|0.6720
95922083|NCT02240680|191804303|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|10.206|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||10.206|2.468|< 0.0001
95922084|NCT02240680|191804304|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.485|8.848|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||8.848|2.485|< 0.0001
95922085|NCT02240680|191804305|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.302|6.048|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c and baseline daily basal insulin dose as linear covariates was applied.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually standard error of odds ratio|||6.048|2.302|< 0.0001
95922086|NCT02240680|191804306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM) included treatment, week and interaction as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c, FPG, daily insulin dose as covariates|Adjusted mean of all differences between HbA1c at baseline and after 24 weeks. It is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline daily basal insulin, baseline FPG and baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).|-2.0|-21.0|0.0178
95922087|NCT03633903|191804307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This applies to the change from row 1 to row 3 (e.g., baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up timepoint pre TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95922088|NCT03633903|191804307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~This is for the difference from row 1 to row 2 (baseline pre versus baseline post TSST-C)"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95922089|NCT03633903|191804307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"The reported p-value was calculated and is not indicating a threshold for significance.~Comparing row 1 and row 4 (baseline pre TSST-C versus follow-up post TSST-C)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95922090|NCT03633903|191804308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (CRP biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.39
95922091|NCT03633903|191804308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (IL-6 biomarker) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.95
95922092|NCT03633903|191804309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||the calculated p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparing group differences (symptoms of anxiety/depression) in mindfulness versus control at baseline versus follow-up timepoints.||||.08
95922093|NCT02987829|191804310|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Determination of the maximum tolerated dose.|One dose limiting toxicity occurred at 320 mg daily of grade 3 QTc prolongation therefore the 280 mg dose was determined to be the maximum tolerated dose and selected as the phase 2 dose.|||
95922094|NCT00558753|191804335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95922095|NCT00558753|191804336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|10.3||||0.0013||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||For 3 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0013
95922096|NCT00558753|191804336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Independence: Chi-squared|6.05||||0.0139|||||||Chi-squared|||For 6 month followup on incidence of neuropathic pain.||||0.0139
95922097|NCT00558753|191804337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2||||0.0133||95.0||||Test of condition(Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with main effects and time by condition interaction.||Mixed model test of condition (Placebo v Pregabalin) main effect.||||0.0133
95922098|NCT00558753|191804337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|1.04||||0.3097||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 1-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.3097
95922099|NCT00558753|191804337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.1||||0.0247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 2-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0247
95922100|NCT00558753|191804337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|3.11||||0.0786||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 3-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0786
95922101|NCT00558753|191804337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Interaction Slice F-value|5.04||||0.0254||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of Condition Effect (Placebo v Pregabalin) at the 30-day post surgery time point (Slice)||||0.0254
95922102|NCT00483262|191804338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||>= grade 3 adverse event proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98|||||Estimated proportion of patients with a adverse event of grade 3 or higher.|Single Arm Study||.98|.72|
95793575|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||12.3|-4.5|0.379
95793576|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.7||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.1||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||15.1|-5.7|0.409
95793577|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||17.0|-3.1|0.180
95793578|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||7.7|-8.8|0.810
95793579|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|9.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for TLs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||9.0|-5.2|0.648
95793580|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|19.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||19.6|-1.3|0.048
95793581|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.6||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||20.6|1.8|0.016
95793582|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||16.9|0.4|0.044
95793583|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.6||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||11.0|-3.8|0.345
95793584|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.7|-3.5|0.424
95793585|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 1 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||5.5|-9.4|0.527
95793586|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||13.4|-6.7|0.584
95922103|NCT00483262|191804338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||toxicity grade >=3 proportion|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.89|||||No comparison. Estimate the proportion of patients with grade 3 or higher toxicity.|Phase II toxicity||.89|.66|
95922104|NCT00483262|191804339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.28|||||Response of PR or better|Phase I part of this phase I/II study||.28|.02|
95922105|NCT00483262|191804339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate of PR or better|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.47|||||Response of PR or better|Phase II part of this phase I/II study.||0.47|0.21|
95922106|NCT02303574|191804409|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.391||||||||1.391|1.183|
95922107|NCT02303574|191804409|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|90.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|98.31||||||||98.31|83.72|
95793587|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.9||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.3||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||14.3|-6.5|0.519
95793588|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.8||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.5||The P-values are based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||8.5|-10.1|0.766
95793589|NCT02557399|191557107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.5||The P-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12 for non-ILs. The participants with missing data at a visit were included in the denominator (n) at the visit. That is, those participants were treated as non-responder at the visit.|||10.5|-5.8|0.666
95793590|NCT02557399|191557111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 2. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
95793591|NCT02557399|191557111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 4. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.04|-0.40|0.017
95793592|NCT02557399|191557111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 8. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||-0.03|-0.41|0.024
95793593|NCT02557399|191557111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison between DUAC and ADA 0.1% +CLDM 1% at Week 12. A negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Duac relative to ADA+CLDM.|||0.02|-0.36|0.080
95793594|NCT00490919|191557153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Double-blind analysis (comparison between BTDS and placebo TDS) at week 12 of the double-blind phase.|Missing average pain over the last 24 hours scores after treatment discontinuation were imputed using BOCF for adverse event-related withdrawals and LOCF for withdrawals due to other reasons.||-0.14|-1.02|.0104
95922108|NCT02303574|191804410|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
95922109|NCT02303574|191804410|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
95793595|NCT00490919|191557154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.048||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||Mean comparison from weeks 2-12 of the double-blind phase.|||0.048|-0.296|.1586
95793596|NCT00490919|191557155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-1.25||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holms methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects general linear model with repeated measures.|Treatment comparison over Weeks 4, 8, and 12.|The primary comparison between groups was based on estimates and contrasts for the weeks 4, 8, and 12 mean values.||-1.25|-7.55|.0062
95793597|NCT02100124|191557157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.56|1.0
95793598|NCT02100124|191557157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.70|1.0
95793599|NCT02100124|191557157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.82|0.53
95793600|NCT02100124|191557158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.71|0.48
95793601|NCT02100124|191557158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.87|1.0
95922110|NCT02303574|191804410|OTHER|Time dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
95793602|NCT02100124|191557158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.99|0.07
95793603|NCT02100124|191557159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.84|1.0
95793604|NCT02100124|191557159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.82|1.0
95793605|NCT02100124|191557159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.79|1.0
95793606|NCT02100124|191557160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.83|1.0
95793607|NCT02100124|191557160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.81|1.0
95793608|NCT02100124|191557160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.75|1.0
95793609|NCT04350827|191557175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.433
95793610|NCT04265261|191557179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.19||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|14.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.23|-11.86|0.8586
95922111|NCT02303574|191804411|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9513|1.504||||||||1.504|0.9513|
95922112|NCT02303574|191804411|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|159.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.61|180.7||||||||180.70|140.61|
95922113|NCT02303574|191804411|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|151.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.23|166.74||||||||166.74|138.23|
95922114|NCT02303574|191804411|OTHER|ime dependency was assessed via linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effects of dose level, day and dose-level-by-day interaction.|Ratio (%)|158.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.67|171.67||||||||171.67|146.67|
95922115|NCT02303574|191804412|OTHER||Slope|1.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|1.406||||||Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.||1.406|1.198|
95922116|NCT02303574|191804412|OTHER|Effect of food analysis by linear mixed effects ANOVA model with fixed effect of fasting status.|Ratio (%)|64.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.07|74.7||||||||74.70|55.07|
95922117|NCT02303574|191804413|OTHER|Dose proportionality was analyzed by power model. Slope parameter was obtained via linear least squares.|Slope|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9285|1.385||||||||1.385|0.9285|
95922118|NCT00410384|191804455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.19||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.19|1.08|0.0167
95922119|NCT00410384|191804455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.94|0.95|0.0889
95922120|NCT00410384|191804456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.87|0.92|0.1323
95922121|NCT00410384|191804456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was adjusted for baseline stratification factors.|||1.91|0.94|0.1050
95922122|NCT00410384|191804457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.32|1.15|0.0063
95922123|NCT00410384|191804457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||1.96|0.97|0.0740
95922124|NCT00410384|191804458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.7962
95922125|NCT00410384|191804458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9703|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.9703
95922126|NCT00410384|191804459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6583|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.6583
95922127|NCT00410384|191804459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3762|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis adjusted for baseline PCS and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.3762
95922128|NCT00410384|191804460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||2.74|0.65|0.4253
95922129|NCT00410384|191804460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for baseline prednisone dose and baseline stratification factors.||||3.13|0.78|0.2081
95922130|NCT01670500|191804468|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.2|0.39|
95922131|NCT01670500|191804469|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.1|||||The risk ratio is comparing cisplatin to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC)|||1.1|.5|
95922132|NCT01923428|191804480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95922133|NCT02487446|191804493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||p-value unadjusted|Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|0.139
95922134|NCT02487446|191804494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00778|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0269|0.0038||||||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||0.0038|-0.0269|
95922135|NCT02487446|191804495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0361|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0361|
95922136|NCT02487446|191804496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0108|0.0209||||||||0.0209|-0.0108|
95733697|NCT00705536|191438255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95733698|NCT00705536|191438255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95733699|NCT00705536|191438256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0059
95733700|NCT00705536|191438256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0105
95733701|NCT00705536|191438257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95733702|NCT00705536|191438257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95733703|NCT00705536|191438258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3019||||||Treatment comparison for Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.3019
95950529|NCT00113529|191872873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.722
95950530|NCT00113529|191872873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.645
95793611|NCT04265261|191557179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.93||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.31|-15.18|0.6388
95793612|NCT03427892|191557204|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
95793613|NCT03427892|191557205|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.93||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.93
95793614|NCT03427892|191557206|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.49||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is RAVLT Score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.49
95793615|NCT03427892|191557206|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.56||||||Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.Reported is delay score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.56
95793616|NCT03427892|191557207|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.221||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. Reported is CW score.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.221
95802471|NCT03300336|191578215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.33||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||5.33|-2.70|0.52
95922137|NCT03706690|191804513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.986|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression (PD-L1 \<1% versus \[vs\] PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (concurrent \[c\]CRT vs sequential \[s\]CRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.986|0.578|0.038
95922138|NCT03706690|191804514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.166|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.166|0.656|0.346
95922139|NCT03706690|191804514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.162|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.162|0.663|0.346
95922140|NCT03706690|191804515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.966|||Log Rank|Analysis performed using stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT).||The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs PD-L1\>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||0.966|0.575|0.026
95950531|NCT00113529|191872873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.140
95950532|NCT00113529|191872873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.046
95950533|NCT00113529|191872874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
95950534|NCT00113529|191872874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
95950535|NCT00113529|191872874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
95950536|NCT00113529|191872874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
95950537|NCT00113529|191872874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
95733704|NCT00705536|191438259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0401
95733705|NCT00705536|191438259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95733706|NCT00705536|191438260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog +rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95733707|NCT00705536|191438260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95733708|NCT00705536|191438262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||||||Treatment comparison of Humalog alone and Humalog + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.5589
95733709|NCT00705536|191438262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||||||Treatment comparison of Humulin-R alone and Humulin-R + rHuPH20 using a pairwise t-test.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
95733710|NCT02289963|191438268|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-63.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-55.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/ Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-55.2|-71.6|<0.0001
95733711|NCT02289963|191438269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-58.4||Threshold for significance was at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-58.4|-73.9|<0.0001
95733712|NCT02289963|191438270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-56.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.3|-68.8|<0.0001
95733713|NCT02289963|191438271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.2|-57.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.0|-69.2|<0.0001
95733714|NCT02289963|191438272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-39.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.7|-53.0|<0.0001
95733715|NCT02289963|191438273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.1|-55.3|<0.0001
95733716|NCT02289963|191438274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-44.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-58.4|<0.0001
95733717|NCT02289963|191438275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-47.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-60.6|<0.0001
95733718|NCT02289963|191438276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-30.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.1|-40.3|<0.0001
95733719|NCT02289963|191438277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-41.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.0|-51.2|<0.0001
95733720|NCT02289963|191438278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-46.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.1|-56.4|<0.0001
95922141|NCT03706690|191804517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.607|||Regression, Logistic|||For mITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.607|0.891|0.128
95922142|NCT03706690|191804517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.638|||Regression, Logistic|||For ITT set. The comparison was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.||2.638|0.915|0.105
95922143|NCT03706690|191804520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.138|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.138|0.648|0.275
95922144|NCT03706690|191804520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.122|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.122|0.648|0.241
95922145|NCT03706690|191804521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.578|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For mITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.578|0.726|0.769
95922146|NCT03706690|191804521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.539|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT).||For ITT set. The hazard ratio and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for the level of PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 \<1% vs. PD-L1 \>=1%) and prior therapy (cCRT vs. sCRT), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.539|0.726|0.812
95922147|NCT02711826|191804530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
95922148|NCT02711826|191804531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.700
95922149|NCT02711826|191804532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
95922150|NCT01345292|191804602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|14.5||If Sensodyne is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Sensodyne and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.50|8.37|<0.001
95922151|NCT01345292|191804602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|11.42||If Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse is better than Crest Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouth Rinse and Crest Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.42|5.24|<0.001
95922152|NCT01345292|191804603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.65|1.45|<0.001
95922153|NCT01345292|191804603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.02|0.80|0.004
95922154|NCT01345292|191804604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.091||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.06|-6.19|0.324
95922155|NCT01345292|191804604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.31|-8.56|0.035
95922156|NCT01345292|191804605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-3.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.52|-13.6|<0.001
95950538|NCT00113529|191872874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
95950539|NCT00113529|191872875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
95922157|NCT01345292|191804605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.13|-15.2|<0.001
95922158|NCT01345292|191804606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.43|-9.38|0.032
95922159|NCT01345292|191804606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|1.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.09|-7.93|0.136
95922160|NCT01345292|191804607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.508|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.23|-16.1|<0.001
95922161|NCT01345292|191804607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.527|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.25|-15.2|<0.001
95922162|NCT01345292|191804608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.71|-5.22|0.533
95922163|NCT01345292|191804608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.69|-5.29|0.522
95922164|NCT01345292|191804609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.94|-13.1|<0.001
95922165|NCT01345292|191804609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.51|-10.8|0.010
95922166|NCT01207908|191804610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.1|-37.1|0.53
95922167|NCT01207908|191804611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.55|-3.78|<0.0001
95922168|NCT01207908|191804612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-1.26|0.53
95855670|NCT02904954|191670819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|62.3||Testing at alpha = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test performed to compare the objective clinical response proportion between the two treatment arms. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the objective clinical response proportion between the two arms. Objective clinical response proportion is defined as the proportion of patients in each arm who have complete response or partial response.||62.3|24.4|0.0001
95922169|NCT01161160|191804704|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence criteria were fulfilled if the 2-sided 95% confidence limits on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was within the interval 0.5 to 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.26||||||To demonstrate the immunological equivalence of HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Quebec (Arepanrix™) and HA antigen adjuvanted with AS03B manufactured in Dresden (Pandemrix™), 21 days after vaccination.||1.26|0.73|
95922170|NCT00984282|191804753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||stratified by age group (\< 60 years, \>= 60 years) and region (Europe, North-America, Asia)|Log Rank|||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified one-sided log rank test with an overall alpha of 0.01 stratified by age group and region. The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS times in the sorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to the Lehmann alternative, which is equivalent to the assumption of proportional hazards of the treatment arms.||||<0.0001
95922171|NCT00984282|191804753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.758|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.758|0.454|
95922172|NCT00984282|191804754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2892|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||0.2892
95922173|NCT00984282|191804754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.208|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||1.208|0.713|
95922174|NCT00984282|191804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|stratified by age group and region||||||<0.0001
95922175|NCT00984282|191804755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.724|||Regression, Cox|stratified by age group and region||||0.724|0.429|
95922176|NCT00984282|191804756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of response rates|11.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of disease control rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||19.4|3.9|0.0015
95922177|NCT00984282|191804757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5||stratified by age group and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference of response rates sorafenib minus placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval stratified by age group and region|||16.5|7.0|<0.0001
95922178|NCT04004208|191804763|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 5%. Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.162||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.162|-0.08|
95922179|NCT04004208|191804764|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.046||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.046|-0.11|
95922180|NCT04004208|191804765|OTHER|Confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval based on the Bayesian analysis.|Difference in proportions|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.175||||||Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior distributions. Calculation of two-sided 90% credible interval for the treatment difference (aflibercept - laser photocoagulation).||0.175|0.019|
95922181|NCT00372567|191804797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.235|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||No hypothesis tested.||2.235|0.484|
95922182|NCT00372567|191804798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.41|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||12.41|0.640|
95922183|NCT00372567|191804800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|2.088|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.088|0.505|
95922184|NCT00372567|191804801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||13.0|0.4|
95922185|NCT00372567|191804804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|11.15|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model stratified by previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||11.15|1.057|
95922186|NCT00372567|191804805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||2.3|0.1|
95922187|NCT00372567|191804806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified for previous imatinib treatment status (less than 6 months of treatment with imatinib and greater than or equal to 6 months).||||3.8|0.5|
95922188|NCT02118714|191804824|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.7|41.6||||||||41.6|10.7|
95922189|NCT02118714|191804824|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|49.9||||||||49.9|6.8|
95922190|NCT02118714|191804825|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|28.4||||||||28.4|3.2|
95922191|NCT02118714|191804825|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4||||||||36.4|1.5|
95922192|NCT02400307|191804836|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.8|108.1||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.10|48.80|
95922193|NCT02400307|191804837|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.49|124.04||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||124.04|79.49|
95922194|NCT02400307|191804838|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.54|108.07||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.07|48.54|
95922195|NCT02400307|191804839|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.24|123.74||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||123.74|79.24|
95950540|NCT00113529|191872875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
95950541|NCT00113529|191872875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
95950542|NCT00113529|191872875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
95922196|NCT02400307|191804840|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.56|108.3||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||108.30|59.56|
95922197|NCT02400307|191804841|EQUIVALENCE|For the power and sample size analysis, it was assumed that a one-sided t-test was performed at an alpha level of 0.05 and the inter-subject standard deviations for the three natural log scale PK parameters are 0.466 or smaller (based on another Gilead study) and the expected difference was 0.|GLSM Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|137.85||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each group will provide at least 88% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe impairment have at least 100% increase in bictegravir AUCinf, AUClast, or Cmax compared to participants with normal renal function.||137.85|87.46|
95922198|NCT01052662|191804844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00356|=|0.00874|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Z = -2.62209|We modeled the mean proportion of weekly opioid use using a mixed-effect linear regression approach to assess the treatment effect, the time effect and the interaction of time x treatment effect while adjusting for the baseline mean proportion of weekly opioid use with baseline COWS, Addiction Severity Index (ASI) psychiatric and legal composite scores as covariates.||||=0.00874
95922199|NCT01052662|191804845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
95922200|NCT01052662|191804846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|||||These results are using survival curve estimates to first positive urine toxicology for any opioid. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used to perform our survival event analyses.|Log Rank|||||||1.2
95922201|NCT00755755|191804877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|83.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||83.2|55.1|<0.001
95922202|NCT00755755|191804877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|84.0||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustment for randomization strata|Confidence intervals with the use of Newcombe-Wilson score method (uncorrected)|||84.0|56.2|<0.001
95922203|NCT00755755|191804878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p-values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-8.2|-36.1|0.002
95922204|NCT00755755|191804878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-5.2||As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs Placebo, Bonferroni correction used with p values doubled (threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Use of the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with adjustment for randomization strata|Hodges-Lehmann point estimator with corresponding Moses confidence interval.|||-5.2|-33.0|0.006
95922205|NCT00783718|191804887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary comparison of the Induction Phase was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level, with stratification according to the stratification factors (concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and previous exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator \[6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine\] use).||31.7|11.6|< 0.0001
95922206|NCT00783718|191804888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|37.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||37.2|14.9|< 0.0001
95922207|NCT00783718|191804888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both P-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the P-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other P-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the P-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||40.4|17.9|< 0.0001
95950543|NCT00113529|191872875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
95950544|NCT00113529|191872875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
95950545|NCT00113529|191872876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
95950546|NCT00113529|191872876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
95950547|NCT00113529|191872876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
95733721|NCT02289963|191438279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-31.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||-31.9|-39.7|<0.0001
95922208|NCT00783718|191804889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||18.3|4.7|0.0009
95922209|NCT00783718|191804890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0012||95.0|6.4|25.9||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); and 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially (closed sequential method). The first secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the primary comparison was significant and the second key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the first secondary endpoint was significant for vedolizumab.||25.9|6.4|0.0012
95922210|NCT00783718|191804891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|44.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||44.7|20.8|< 0.0001
95922211|NCT00783718|191804891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|40.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||40.3|16.7|< 0.0001
95922212|NCT00783718|191804892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.8||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||43.8|20.3|< 0.0001
95922213|NCT00783718|191804892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|48.3||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||48.3|24.4|< 0.0001
95922214|NCT00783718|191804893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||20.5|3.1|0.0079
95922215|NCT00783718|191804893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.4||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.4|6.2|0.0009
95950548|NCT00113529|191872876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
95802472|NCT03300336|191578216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 18 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||6.25|-3.14|0.66
95922216|NCT00783718|191804894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|31.3||P-value based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||31.3|3.9|0.0120
95922217|NCT00783718|191804894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|46.2||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with 3 stratification factors: concomitant use of oral corticosteroids; previous exposure to TNFα antagonists or concomitant immunomodulator use; enrollment in Cohort 1 or 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% for the 2 dose regimen comparisons for each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used as described for the primary outcome measure. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary endpoints were also performed sequentially. The first was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next endpoint was tested only if the previous endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||46.2|16.6|< 0.0001
95922218|NCT02507219|191804920|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000055||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00011|0.00022|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is percent signal change per milligram of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the left amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.00022|-0.00011|0.512
95922219|NCT02507219|191804920|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00012||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is the percent signal change per mg of ibuprofen.|A linear mixed effects model was run for the right amygdala with contrast and percent signal change between faces and shapes as the dependent variable and ibuprofen dose as a continuous predictor. Each subject had up to 3 visits and each visit contained 3 contrasts (happy - shape, angry - shape, fearful - shape) so subject and drug were used as random effects. Drug was nested inside of subject.||0.000067|-0.00030|0.221
95922220|NCT02320721|191804936|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.129||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||0.129|-0.092|
95922221|NCT02320721|191804937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Relative risk|1.01||||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with randomization strata (screening HbA1c \[\<8.0%; ≥8.0%\], previous use of insulin \[naive, pre-treated\], use of sulfonylurea or meglitinides at screening \[yes, no\]), following multiple imputation procedure for missing data.||1.153|0.890|0.8415
95922222|NCT03173248|191804948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69||P-value is calculated from the one-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox's proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (AML status and geographic region) with placebo + azacitidine as the denominator.|||0.69|0.16|0.0011
95922223|NCT02624778|191804999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.21|0.309
95922224|NCT02624778|191804999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.27|0.061
95922225|NCT02624778|191804999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.41|0.053
95922226|NCT02624778|191804999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
95922227|NCT02624778|191804999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.51|<0.001
95922228|NCT02624778|191804999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.46|<0.001
95922229|NCT05541497|191805006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.37||||||||3.37|0.68|
95922230|NCT05541497|191805007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.13||||||||3.13|0.59|
95922231|NCT04091672|191805008|NON_INFERIORITY|"The one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (97.5% CI) was calculated for the difference (Control-RECELL) in percentages of subjects with confirmed treatment area closure.~The calculation used the normal approximation taking correlation into account. In order for the null hypothesis to be rejected and the non-inferiority of RECELL to be established, the upper limit of the 97.5% CI had to be less than 10%."||||||0.005|||||||1-sided z-test of proportions|alpha=0.025||||||.005
95922232|NCT04091672|191805009|SUPERIORITY|A geometric mean ratio (GMR of ratios) 95% CI with a lower bound exceeding 1 would indicate superiority of RECELL over Control with respect to this endpoint.||||||0.001|||||||GMR of ratios|||||||0.001
95950549|NCT00113529|191872876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
95733722|NCT02289963|191438280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|119.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||119.4|18.4|<0.0001
95855671|NCT00753506|191670831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.59|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analaysis of variance||||>0.10
95922233|NCT00231179|191805020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes were established when the trial was first developed. For all power calculations, we set alpha = .05 and beta = .20 and specified 2-tailed tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.13||Bonferroni corrections were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared scores for verbal, performance, and full scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ).||2.13|0.31|0.59
95922234|NCT00231179|191805021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Please see earlier power calculation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95922235|NCT00231179|191805022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95922236|NCT00231179|191805023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95922237|NCT00231179|191805024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See previous.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95922238|NCT01955382|191805032|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95922239|NCT02949271|191805045|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95922240|NCT02949271|191805046|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95922241|NCT02949271|191805048|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95922242|NCT02949271|191805049|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95922243|NCT02949271|191805050|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
95922244|NCT02949271|191805051|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95922245|NCT02949271|191805052|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95922246|NCT02949271|191805053|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95922247|NCT02949271|191805055|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95922248|NCT00495469|191805089|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.003||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.003
95922249|NCT00495469|191805089|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.047||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.047
95922250|NCT00495469|191805089|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.006||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.006
95922251|NCT00495469|191805089|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response||||||0.085||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||||0.085
95922252|NCT00495469|191805089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.085
95922253|NCT00495469|191805089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.16||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.16|-0.95|0.006
95733723|NCT02289963|191438281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|210.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||210.8|23.3|<0.0001
95922254|NCT00495469|191805089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.05|-0.73|0.084
95922255|NCT00495469|191805089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.28|-1.05|0.001
95922256|NCT00495469|191805089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.20|-0.97|0.003
95922257|NCT00495469|191805089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.20|-0.58|0.337
95922258|NCT00495469|191805091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.04|-1.67|0.039
95922259|NCT00495469|191805091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.23|-1.89|0.013
95922260|NCT00495469|191805091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.19||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.19|-1.46|0.131
95922261|NCT00495469|191805091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.13|-1.77|0.023
95922262|NCT00495469|191805091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-0.32|-1.95|0.007
95922263|NCT00495469|191805091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.32||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||0.32|-1.34|0.223
95922264|NCT00495469|191805092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-7.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-7.4|-40.9|0.005
95922265|NCT00495469|191805092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-17.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-17.4|-52.5|<0.001
95922266|NCT00495469|191805092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.9|0.001
95922267|NCT00495469|191805092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-19.5||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-19.5|-53.6|<0.001
95922268|NCT00495469|191805092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-12.7||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||-12.7|-46.3|0.001
95922269|NCT00495469|191805092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|3.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||||3.4|-31.0|0.114
95922270|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.06|0.27|0.757
95922271|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.01|0.31|0.580
95922272|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||5.73|0.22|0.881
95922273|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.75|0.44|0.382
95922274|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.68||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<=6.5%)||8.68|0.42|0.409
95922275|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<=6.5%)||6.29|0.24|0.795
95922276|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.95||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||3.95|0.36|0.765
95922277|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.09||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||9.09|0.82|0.100
95922278|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||4.30|0.38|0.687
95922279|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.52||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.52|0.50|0.409
95922280|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.15||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7%)||9.15|0.86|0.086
95922281|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.88||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7%)||5.88|0.52|0.369
95922282|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.40|0.74|0.160
95922283|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||11.42|1.31|0.014
95922284|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.44||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||6.44|0.73|0.162
95922285|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.17||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||12.17|1.38|0.011
95855672|NCT02492763|191670834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.11|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.11|-0.88|0.126
95922286|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|15.73||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||15.73|1.79|0.003
95922287|NCT00495469|191805093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.49||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction\>=0.7%)||5.49|0.63|0.264
95922288|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||5.28|0.46|0.480
95922289|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|16.46||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.46|1.44|0.011
95922290|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.96||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.96|0.85|0.087
95922291|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.78||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||9.78|0.87|0.082
95922292|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||13.27|1.20|0.024
95922293|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7 mmol/L)||16.66|1.41|0.012
95922294|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.54||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||5.54|0.62|0.270
95922295|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.72||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.72|1.04|0.043
95922296|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.53||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.53|0.72|0.169
95922297|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||9.36|1.04|0.042
95922298|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.06||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||11.06|1.23|0.020
95922299|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (\<7.8 mmol/L)||6.24|0.67|0.211
95922300|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 100 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||13.75|0.61|0.179
95922301|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|20.87||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||20.87|1.17|0.030
95922302|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.86||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 500 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||12.86|0.69|0.142
95922303|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|25.83||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 1000 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||25.83|1.49|0.012
95922304|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|54.0||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GSK189075 250 mg BID: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||54.00|3.14|<0.001
95922305|NCT00495469|191805094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.99||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs Pioglitazone 30 mg QD: Responders (reduction \>=1.7 mmol/L)||27.99|1.56|0.010
95922306|NCT00495469|191805095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.59|-0.19|0.318
95922307|NCT00495469|191805095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.73|0.131
95922308|NCT00495469|191805095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.24|-0.54|0.452
95922309|NCT00495469|191805095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.36||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.36|-0.44|0.845
95793617|NCT03427892|191557207|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.306||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Reported is Inter. score|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.306
95855673|NCT02492763|191670834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.08|0.11|0.017
95922310|NCT00495469|191805095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.23|-0.58|0.393
95922311|NCT00495469|191805095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.03|-0.76|0.072
95922312|NCT00495469|191805096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.30|-0.40|0.767
95922313|NCT00495469|191805096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.27|-0.46|0.604
95922314|NCT00495469|191805096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.48||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.48|-0.23|0.483
95922315|NCT00495469|191805096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.37|-0.35|0.956
95922316|NCT00495469|191805096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.6||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.60|-0.12|0.185
95922317|NCT00495469|191805096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.39|-0.32|0.863
95922318|NCT00495469|191805097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|-0.46|0.348
95793618|NCT03427892|191557208|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.07||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor. The above reported is TMT A.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.07
95793619|NCT03427892|191557208|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.19||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.The above reported is TMT B.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.19
95793620|NCT03427892|191557209|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
95793621|NCT03427892|191557210|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.022||||||To analyze separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, week 4, week 8) was included as the within-subject factor.Above is from baseline to week 8 for C-SSRS AA, IA, and ABA.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures (ANOVA) were performed. Time (baseline, wk 4, wk 8) included as within-subject factor. Above is for C-SSRS AA,IA, and ABA.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.022
95793622|NCT03427892|191557210|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.163||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.163
95793623|NCT03427892|191557211|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.133||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.133
95802473|NCT03300336|191578217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.7||a priori threshold for significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect.. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care group: 5 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 14 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.70|-4.74|0.81
95922319|NCT00495469|191805097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.31|-0.33|0.952
95793624|NCT03427892|191557212|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
95793625|NCT03427892|191557213|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.002||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.002
95793626|NCT03427892|191557214|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.005||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.005
95793627|NCT03427892|191557215|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.|||||<|0.001||||||To analyze mood symptoms, cognitive performance, and side effects, separate one-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, and wk 8) was included as the within-subject factor.|ANOVA|One-way repeated measures analyses of variance (ANVOA) were performed. Time (bsl, wk 4, wk8) was included as the within-subject factor.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||<.001
95793628|NCT03427892|191557216|OTHER|Within subjects design; single group. Intent-to-treat (ITT) sample was used in the analysis, such that all participants who completed the baseline visit and at least one post-baseline assessment were included in the analysis.||||||0.295||||||Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another. Baseline to week 8 is reported above.|t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons were also performed to determine which time points were significantly different from one another.||Primary Aim is to determine if brexpiprazole is associated with a reduction in depressive symptom severity in bipolar disorder outpatients. A sample size of 17 provides 80% power for a paired t-test to compare baseline to exit change scores on the MADRS of 7 (SD 10) (a more conservative change than with even the low 1 mg dose of brexpiprazole in Thase et. al. (2015)) with alpha=.05. A sample size of n=20 will allow for some early withdrawals without postbaseline data (10).||||.295
95793629|NCT01258374|191557279|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The PK paramaters reported as geometric means, were calculated using noncompartmental modelinf techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA)|Noncompartmental modeling techniques||||The pharmacokinetic parameters calculated for DRV, RTV and RAL were trough plasma concentration (C trough), defined as the concentration at 24 or 12 h after observed dose, the maximum observed plasma concentration (C max), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 H (AUC 0-24) or 0 to 12 h (AUC 0-12) and the elimination half-life (t1/2). AUC and t1/2 were calculated using non using noncompartmental modeling techniques (WinNolin; Pharsight Corporation, Mountain View, CA). All of these PK parameters are reported as geometric means.|||<0.01
95793630|NCT01926028|191557306|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|0.17|0.03
95793631|NCT01926028|191557307|EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of patients in each group was summarized with point estimates and their 95% confidence interval|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.27|0.10
95793632|NCT00427934|191557317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.73||||0.79||90.0|-15.13|8.68|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||8.68|-15.13|0.790
95793633|NCT00427934|191557317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.43||||0.477||90.0|-13.67|11.64|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||11.64|-13.67|0.477
95922320|NCT00495469|191805097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.42||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.42|-0.21|0.523
95793634|NCT00427934|191557317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.03||||0.37||90.0|-12.85|16.77|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||16.77|-12.85|0.370
95793635|NCT00427934|191557317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|8.66||||0.175||90.0|-7.07|22.03|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||22.03|-7.07|0.175
95793636|NCT00427934|191557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.42||90.0|-6.34|6.01|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 1||6.01|-6.34|0.420
95793637|NCT00427934|191557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 2||7.95|-5.08|0.258
95793638|NCT00427934|191557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.46||||1||90.0|-14.39|3.42|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||3.42|-14.39|1.000
95793639|NCT00427934|191557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.899||90.0|-13.56|7.92|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.92|-13.56|0.899
95793640|NCT00427934|191557318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3||||0.489||90.0|-11.24|10.96|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||10.96|-11.24|0.489
95793641|NCT00427934|191557319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 4||1.28|-13.59|1.000
95922321|NCT00495469|191805097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.34|0.889
95922322|NCT00495469|191805097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.56|-0.07|0.124
95922323|NCT00495469|191805097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.4||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.40|-0.22|0.581
95922324|NCT00495469|191805098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.10|-0.05|0.518
95793642|NCT00427934|191557319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.6||||0.258||90.0|-5.08|7.95|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 8||7.95|-5.08|0.258
95793643|NCT00427934|191557319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.03||||1||90.0|-13.59|1.28|||Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|Week 12||1.28|-13.59|1.000
95793644|NCT00427934|191557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.335||90.0|-0.79|2.99||This analysis was carried out using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.99|-0.79|0.335
95793645|NCT00427934|191557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.816||90.0|-1.82|2.41||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.41|-1.82|0.816
95793646|NCT00427934|191557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.996||90.0|-2.35|2.36||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.36|-2.35|0.996
95793647|NCT00427934|191557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.263||90.0|-3.98|0.76||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.76|-3.98|0.263
95793648|NCT00427934|191557320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.294||90.0|-3.82|0.85||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline tender/painful joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.85|-3.82|0.294
95793649|NCT00427934|191557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7||90.0|-1.7|1.06||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||1.06|-1.70|0.700
95793650|NCT00427934|191557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.799||90.0|-1.45|1.97||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||1.97|-1.45|0.799
95922325|NCT00495469|191805098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.11|-0.04|0.352
95922326|NCT00495469|191805098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.16|0.01|0.026
95922327|NCT00495469|191805098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.01|0.069
95922328|NCT00495469|191805098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.13|-0.02|0.154
95922329|NCT00495469|191805098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|0.03|0.005
95793651|NCT00427934|191557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.867||90.0|-1.35|1.66||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.66|-1.35|0.867
95793652|NCT00427934|191557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.167||90.0|-3.17|0.28||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.28|-3.17|0.167
95793653|NCT00427934|191557321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.966||90.0|-1.91|1.81||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA baseline swollen joint count as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.81|-1.91|0.966
95793654|NCT00427934|191557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.925||90.0|-6.41|5.72||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||5.72|-6.41|0.925
95793655|NCT00427934|191557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.239||90.0|-12.62|2.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.11|-12.62|0.239
95793656|NCT00427934|191557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.872||90.0|-6.79|8.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||8.25|-6.79|0.872
95793657|NCT00427934|191557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.745||90.0|-9.91|6.65||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.65|-9.91|0.745
95793658|NCT00427934|191557322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.644||90.0|-10.14|5.71||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline patient's assessment of arthritis pain as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||5.71|-10.14|0.644
95793659|NCT00427934|191557323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.524||90.0|-8.49|3.77||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||3.77|-8.49|0.524
95793660|NCT00427934|191557323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.338||90.0|-10.8|2.87||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||2.87|-10.80|0.338
95793661|NCT00427934|191557323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.83||90.0|-8.55|6.58||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||6.58|-8.55|0.830
95793662|NCT00427934|191557323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68||||0.118||90.0|-15.76|0.4||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.40|-15.76|0.118
95793663|NCT00427934|191557323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.712||90.0|-9.73|6.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.18|-9.73|0.712
95793664|NCT00427934|191557324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.54||90.0|-0.28|0.13||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.13|-0.28|0.540
95793665|NCT00427934|191557324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.757||90.0|-0.28|0.19||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.19|-0.28|0.757
95793666|NCT00427934|191557324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.767||90.0|-0.31|0.21||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.21|-0.31|0.767
95793667|NCT00427934|191557324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.112||90.0|-0.52|0.01||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.01|-0.52|0.112
95793668|NCT00427934|191557324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.49||90.0|-0.42|0.17||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.17|-0.42|0.490
95793669|NCT00427934|191557325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.464||90.0|-0.19|0.07||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.07|-0.19|0.464
95793670|NCT00427934|191557325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.068||90.0|-0.35|-0.02||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.35|0.068
95793671|NCT00427934|191557325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.532||90.0|-0.23|0.11||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.11|-0.23|0.532
95793672|NCT00427934|191557325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.063||90.0|-0.41|-0.03||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.03|-0.41|0.063
95793673|NCT00427934|191557325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.396||90.0|-0.36|0.12||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with HAQ-DI as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.12|-0.36|0.396
95922330|NCT00495469|191805099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.58|0.143
95922331|NCT00495469|191805099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.46|0.495
95793674|NCT00427934|191557326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.481||90.0|-7.36|2.96||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.96|-7.36|0.481
95793675|NCT00427934|191557326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.698||90.0|-4.34|6.99||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.99|-4.34|0.698
95793676|NCT00427934|191557326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.233||90.0|-1.79|11.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.10|-1.79|0.233
95793677|NCT00427934|191557326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48||||0.32||90.0|-2.29|9.25||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||9.25|-2.29|0.320
95793678|NCT00427934|191557326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.912||90.0|-5.81|6.64||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with CRP as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.64|-5.81|0.912
95793679|NCT00427934|191557327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.653||90.0|-0.31|0.18||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.18|-0.31|0.653
95793680|NCT00427934|191557327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.703||90.0|-0.41|0.26||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.26|-0.41|0.703
95793681|NCT00427934|191557327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.968||90.0|-0.37|0.39||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.39|-0.37|0.968
95793682|NCT00427934|191557327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.21||90.0|-0.72|0.1||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.10|-0.72|0.210
95793683|NCT00427934|191557327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.696||90.0|-0.53|0.33||This analysis was carried out using ANCOVA with baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) as the covariate, treatment, country as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.33|-0.53|0.696
95922332|NCT00495469|191805099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.14||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.14|-0.52|0.261
95793684|NCT00427934|191557329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.09||||0.155||90.0|-6.16|21.83||p-value (one-sided) was based on Barnard exact test if more than 20% of expected cell counts were \< 5 otherwise Pearson chi-square test.|Barnard/Pearson chi-square test||Percentage Difference = maraviroc responders divided by the number of maraviroc participants analyzed minus placebo responders divided by the number of placebo participants analyzed.|||21.83|-6.16|0.155
95793685|NCT00427934|191557335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.698||90.0|-1.87|3.01||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.01|-1.87|0.698
95793686|NCT00427934|191557335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.344||90.0|-4.62|1.26||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||1.26|-4.62|0.344
95793687|NCT00427934|191557336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.734||90.0|-2.71|4.11||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||4.11|-2.71|0.734
95793688|NCT00427934|191557336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.818||90.0|-3.5|4.62||This analysis was carried out ANCOVA with baseline SF-36 score as the covariate, treatment, region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.62|-3.50|0.818
95793689|NCT00427934|191557337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
95793690|NCT00427934|191557338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9826
95793691|NCT02351934|191557342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.564
95793692|NCT02351934|191557343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.675
95793693|NCT02351934|191557344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.125
95793694|NCT02351934|191557346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.595
95793695|NCT02351934|191557347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.985
95793696|NCT03312738|191557348|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.71||||||||0.71|0.40|
95793697|NCT03312738|191557349|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67||||||||0.67|0.32|
95793698|NCT03312738|191557350|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.89||||||||1.89|0.69|
95793699|NCT04539275|191557394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||||0.14|-0.15|1.00
95793700|NCT04539275|191557395|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Log Rank|||||1.78|0.65|0.749
95793701|NCT04539275|191557396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.23|||Log Rank|||||4.23|0.21|0.943
95793702|NCT04539275|191557397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.25|0.4014
95793703|NCT04539275|191557398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.96|||Log Rank|||||1.96|0.18|0.3762
95793704|NCT04539275|191557399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||||0.09|-0.17|0.6867
95793705|NCT04539275|191557400|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.68|0.6494
95793706|NCT04539275|191557401|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.59|0.9338
95793707|NCT04539275|191557405|SUPERIORITY||Improvement Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.70|0.5682
95793708|NCT04539275|191557407|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|-2.3|0.8642
95922333|NCT00495469|191805099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.20|-0.46|0.446
95793709|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
95793710|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
95793711|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
95793712|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that the mean change in CNS-LS score from Baseline to Day 90 visit is equal to zero.||||<0.0001
95793713|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.45|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||1.45|-1.37|
95793714|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.68|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.68|-0.46|
95793715|NCT01799941|191557411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.69|||||A positive estimate indicates a smaller change in the first group. Observations used =261.|||2.69|-0.39|
95793716|NCT01799941|191557412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95922334|NCT00495469|191805099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.38|-0.29|0.783
95922335|NCT00495469|191805099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.21|-0.46|0.454
95922336|NCT00495469|191805100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.22|-0.59|0.363
95793717|NCT01799941|191557412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95793718|NCT01799941|191557412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95793719|NCT01799941|191557412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95793720|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793721|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793722|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793723|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 assessment||||<0.0001
95793724|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793725|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793726|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 30 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793727|NCT01799941|191557413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Day 90 versus Baseline||||<0.0001
95793728|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.445|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regreesion Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 30 assessment||0.445|0.407|<0.0001
95793729|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.293|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 854, Number of participants = 298|Day 90 assessment||0.293|0.262|<0.0001
95793730|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.534|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 30 assessment||0.534|0.469|<0.0001
95793731|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.349|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 318, Number of participants = 108|Day 90 assessment||0.349|0.299|<0.0001
95793732|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.383|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 30 assessment||0.383|0.323|<0.0001
95793733|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.282|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 297, Number of participants = 103|Day 90 assessment||0.282|0.231|<0.0001
95793734|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.425|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 30 assessment||0.425|0.352|<0.0001
95793735|NCT01799941|191557415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.245|||Mixed Effects Poisson Regression Model||Number of observations = 239, Number of participants = 87|Day 90 assessment||0.245|0.189|<0.0001
95793736|NCT01799941|191557418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95793737|NCT01799941|191557418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95793738|NCT01799941|191557418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95922337|NCT00495469|191805100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-0.76|0.111
95922338|NCT00495469|191805100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.04|-0.77|0.080
95922339|NCT00495469|191805100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.18|-0.64|0.267
95922340|NCT00495469|191805100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.29|-0.54|0.549
95793739|NCT01799941|191557418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95793740|NCT01603602|191557448|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.379||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.379|-0.938|<0.001
95793741|NCT01603602|191557448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.992|-0.426||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||-0.426|-0.992|<0.001
95793742|NCT01603602|191557449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.511||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.511|-0.082|0.155
95793743|NCT01603602|191557449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.523||MMRM model with baseline MAS-B score as covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure, stratified by age and principal muscle group categories.|MMRM|||||0.523|-0.079|0.147
95793744|NCT01603602|191557450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.091||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|-0.861|0.111
95793745|NCT01603602|191557450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|0.051||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score of finger flexor muscle group as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.933|0.078
95793746|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.305||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.305|-0.498|0.636
95793747|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|0.318||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.318|-0.502|0.658
95922341|NCT00495469|191805100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.01|-0.81|0.056
95922342|NCT00495469|191805101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.66||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.66|-1.65|0.396
95793748|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.635||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.635|-0.162|0.243
95793749|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.576||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.576|-0.237|0.412
95793750|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.361||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.361|-0.408|0.904
95793751|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.135||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.135|-0.641|0.200
95793752|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.978||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.978|0.210|0.003
95793753|NCT01603602|191557451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.58||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B score as a covariate; factors of age, principal muscle group, treatment, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age and principal muscle group were represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.580|-0.194|0.327
95793754|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.089|27.293||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||27.293|-3.089|0.117
95793755|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.41||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.717|23.527||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Elbow||23.527|-6.717|0.273
95922343|NCT00495469|191805101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.33||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.33|-2.70|0.013
95922344|NCT00495469|191805101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.26||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.26|-2.61|0.017
95950550|NCT00113529|191872876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
95793756|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.958|26.458||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||26.458|2.958|0.015
95793757|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.85||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|23.504||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Elbow||23.504|0.203|0.046
95793758|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.801|33.137||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||33.137|8.801|<0.001
95793759|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.35||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|23.362||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Elbow||23.362|-0.662|0.064
95793760|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.317|27.178||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||27.178|3.317|0.013
95793761|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.488|18.934||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Elbow||18.934|-4.488|0.225
95793762|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|15.236||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||15.236|-6.239|0.409
95793763|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|14.419||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Elbow||14.419|-6.690|0.470
95793764|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.962|4.706||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||4.706|-16.962|0.263
95793765|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.846|-3.36||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2, Wrist||-3.360|-25.846|0.012
95793766|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.277|1.996||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||1.996|-23.277|0.098
95922345|NCT00495469|191805101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.28||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||-0.28|-2.61|0.015
95793767|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|0.068||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4, Wrist||0.068|-26.260|0.051
95793768|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.031|-4.189||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||-4.189|-30.031|0.010
95793769|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.622|2.131||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6, Wrist||2.131|-24.622|0.098
95793770|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.888|-5.537||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-5.537|-29.888|0.005
95793771|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.293|-3.194||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8, Wrist||-3.194|-28.293|0.015
95793772|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-2.492||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-2.492|-28.010|0.020
95793773|NCT01603602|191557452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.52||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.797|-0.243||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12, Wrist||-0.243|-26.797|0.046
95793774|NCT03073486|191557462|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.2301
95922346|NCT00495469|191805101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.08||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||0.08|-2.26|0.069
95922347|NCT00495469|191805101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.2||Pairwise comparison not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change = Baseline + Treatment||||2.20|-0.15|0.086
95922348|NCT05677867|191805137|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.08|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.08|92.92|
95922349|NCT05677867|191805138|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Adjusted Means|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.77|102.17|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||102.17|92.77|
95922350|NCT05677867|191805139|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|110.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios. Formulation A was the Reference treatment while Formulation B was the Test treatment.||110.18|81.40|
95922351|NCT02680756|191805162|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-0.28|0.298
95922352|NCT02680756|191805163|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided CI for difference in the proportions of Hb responders (risk difference for ferric maltol - IV iron) between the two treatment groups, and comparing the LCL of this CI to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 20%. The CI was calculated using the Delta Method approach based on a logistic regression model, adjusted for treatment group, baseline Hb (below the observed median or at least the observed median), and IBD subgroup (UC or CD).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.341
95922353|NCT02374957|191805184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.26
95922354|NCT02374957|191805185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.17
95922355|NCT02374957|191805186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.027
95922356|NCT02374957|191805187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EQ5D visual analog score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EQ5D visual analog score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.014
95922357|NCT02374957|191805188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: six-week change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over initial six weeks (two-sided test)."||||0.82
95922358|NCT02374957|191805189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: three-month change in EACH Q sum score is the same between the two arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm experiences more change in EACH Q sum score than the other over three months (two-sided test)."||||0.61
95922359|NCT02374957|191805190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||"Null hypothesis: time to patency-failure (graft occlusion) is the same between treatment arms.~Alternate hypothesis: one arm differs from the other in durability of graft patency (two-sided test)."||||0.26
95922360|NCT03635112|191805198|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.62|39.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||39.11|-40.62|0.970
95922361|NCT03635112|191805198|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|26.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||26.19|-52.46|0.510
95922362|NCT03635112|191805199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.135|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.135|-0.277|0.5102
95922363|NCT03635112|191805199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.02||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.218|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.218|-0.181|0.8591
95922364|NCT03635112|191805200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.13||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.061|-0.322|0.1805
95922365|NCT03635112|191805200|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.01||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.184|-0.204|0.9215
95922366|NCT03635112|191805201|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.6|0.316
95922367|NCT03635112|191805201|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-3.2|0.988
95922368|NCT03635112|191805202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.11||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.059|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.059|-0.270|0.1828
95922369|NCT03635112|191805202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.06||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.244|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.244|-0.133|0.5785
95922370|NCT03635112|191805203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.07||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.095|-0.225|0.3776
95793775|NCT03073486|191557463|OTHER|||||||0.6888|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.6888
95793776|NCT03073486|191557464|OTHER|||||||0.1361|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.1361
95793777|NCT01178294|191557472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||Summary statistics for the percentage of participants with serious bleeding episodes responsive at 24 hours after the initiation of treatment are presented, along with the 95% confidence interval (two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval).||||<0.001
95793778|NCT02965924|191557517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95793779|NCT00572832|191557535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The formula used for calculating sample size for the treatment arm (NT) is NT = (1 + 1/u) (Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMC) -δ0\] where u is the ratio of the size of the control and treatment arms, one sided alpha that is divided by 4, a non-inferiority margin (δ0 of natural log 0.5), the expected ratio of geometric mean concentrations RGMC set at 0.8, and a standard deviation of 1.26 (the largest for HPV-16). The calculated sample size for a power of 80% was 75 participants in each arm.||||||0.025||95.0||||Non-inferiority was tested against a one-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type. Results: GMT ratios were 2.23, 3,17, 2.14, and 1.68 for types 6,11,16,\& 18.|ANOVA|Log transformed the data and calculated GMTs. Tested if post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||Non-inferiority tested against 1-sided null hypothesis (alpha=.025) that the post Dose 3 GMT ratio of the Alternate to Standard schedule was ≤ 0.5 for each HPV type||||.025
95793780|NCT02175121|191557580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.49|-29.16||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-29.16|-51.49|<0.0001
95793781|NCT02175121|191557580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.08|-33.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-33.99|-57.08|<0.0001
95793782|NCT02175121|191557580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.92|-57.65||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-57.65|-79.92|<0.0001
95793783|NCT02175121|191557580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.46|-56.78||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values is derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-56.78|-79.46|<0.0001
95922371|NCT03635112|191805203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.04||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.111|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square Test|||||0.111|-0.189|0.6063
95733724|NCT02289963|191438282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.883|-25.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.338|-41.883|<0.0001
95733725|NCT02289963|191438283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.4|2.6|0.0029
95733726|NCT02289963|191438284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.515||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|4.219||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo Q2W|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.219|-13.250|0.3110
95733727|NCT00549718|191438343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95733728|NCT00549718|191438344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95733729|NCT01507051|191438355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|2.793|||<|0.0001||90.0|2.633|2.962|||ANOVA|||||2.962|2.633|<0.0001
95733730|NCT01507051|191438356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio|6.151|||<|0.0001||90.0|5.598|6.759|||ANOVA|||||6.759|5.598|<0.0001
95733731|NCT01507051|191438383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.17||||0.5008||95.0|82.2|110.2|||ANOVA|||||110.2|82.20|0.5008
95733732|NCT01507051|191438384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|99.46||||0.9429||95.0|85.47|115.7|||ANOVA|||||115.7|85.47|0.9429
95733733|NCT01507051|191438385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|100.4||||0.9525||95.0|88.0|114.5|||ANOVA|||||114.5|88.00|0.9525
95733734|NCT01507051|191438386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS-Mean Ratio (%)|95.87||||0.4397||95.0|85.99|106.9|||ANOVA|||||106.9|85.99|0.4397
95733735|NCT01101022|191438412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-15.9|<0.0001
95733736|NCT01101022|191438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.7|||ANCOVA|||Performance and Daily Functioning||29.7|13.5|<0.0001
95733737|NCT01101022|191438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Daily Interference||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
95733738|NCT01101022|191438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Bother/Concern||20.7|6.3|0.0003
95733739|NCT01101022|191438413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.9|||ANCOVA|||Relationships/Communication||14.9|0.8|0.0302
95733740|NCT01101022|191438414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-1.9|-7.8|0.0016
95922372|NCT03890120|191805216|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-1.4||||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.3|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference of cilofexor and placebo,95% confidence interval(CI),and P value(1-sided)were obtained by the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method,with baseline ursodeoxycholic acid(UDCA)use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||12.3|-15.2|0.4186
95922373|NCT03890120|191805221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-4.0||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM,95% CI and P-value(1-sided) were obtained by an analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with change at Week 96 as dependent variable,baseline value of outcome measure,baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||21|-28|0.3884
95922374|NCT03890120|191805222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1|-20|0.0390
95922375|NCT03890120|191805223|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.4|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||6.4|-11.6|0.2845
95922376|NCT03890120|191805224|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.1||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||13.5|-5.3|0.1978
95922377|NCT03890120|191805225|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.9||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|21.2|||Mantel Haenszel||The difference between cilofexor and Placebo, 95% CI, and the p-value (1-sided) were obtained by the stratum-adjusted MH method, with baseline UDCA use and Ludwig fibrosis stage as stratification factors.|||21.2|-3.5|0.0797
95922378|NCT03890120|191805226|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||3|-1|0.7275
95922379|NCT03890120|191805227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||0.14|-0.20|0.3636
95922380|NCT03890120|191805228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA||The LSM, 95% CI and P-value (1-sided) were obtained by ANCOVA model to evaluate change at Week 96 as the dependent variable, baseline value of the outcome measure, baseline UDCA use, and baseline Ludwig fibrosis stage as independent variables.|||1.5|-2.2|0.3595
95922381|NCT03283553|191805231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.264
95922382|NCT03283553|191805232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.555
95922383|NCT03283553|191805233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.619
95922384|NCT03283553|191805234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months compared to baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Complete illness understanding at 9 months was compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.532
95922385|NCT03283553|191805235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Satisfaction with cancer care at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.108
95922386|NCT03283553|191805236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||P-value represents interaction for differential changes between time point (9 months vs baseline) and group assignment.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Symptoms of anxiety at 9 months were compared to baseline using logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and an exchangeable correlation specification. Each model included group assignment, time (9 months versus baseline), their interaction, and covariates.||||0.405
95922387|NCT03283553|191805237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.412
95950551|NCT00113529|191872877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
95733741|NCT01101022|191438414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-0.2|-6.0|0.0355
95793784|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-6.6||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-6.60|-25.90|0.0060
95793785|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.81|-17.15||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-17.15|-36.81|<0.0001
95793786|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-30.0||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-30.00|-49.20|<0.0001
95793787|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.46|-36.98||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||-36.98|-56.46|<0.0001
95793788|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.89|-18.25||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-18.25|-35.89|<0.0001
95793789|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.21|-27.14||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-27.14|-45.21|<0.0001
95793790|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.29|-42.65||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-42.65|-60.29|<0.0001
95793791|NCT02175121|191557581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.12|-48.22||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||-48.22|-66.12|<0.0001
95793792|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.13||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|29.62||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||29.62|-3.91|0.2063
95922388|NCT03283553|191805238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||P-value represents the significance of the term for group assignment.|Regression, Linear|Adjusts for baseline patient education, care partner gender, and patient disease stage.||Quality of communication at 9 months was compared to baseline using linear regression models with the difference in the score as the outcome and a term for group assignment as the main independent variable.||||0.872
95793793|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.33||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|30.11||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||30.11|-4.05|0.2087
95793794|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|22.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||22.30|-11.11|0.5802
95793795|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|31.59||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||31.59|-2.32|0.1553
95793796|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|10.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.47|-14.87|0.7741
95793797|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|12.47||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||12.47|-13.28|0.9588
95793798|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.17|14.01||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.01|-11.17|0.8523
95855674|NCT02492763|191670834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.10|-1.12|0.018
95922389|NCT03283553|191805239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who were registered during the 9-month follow up period.||||||<0.001
95922390|NCT03283553|191805240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||0.003
95922391|NCT03283553|191805241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.||||||<0.001
95922392|NCT03283553|191805242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
95922393|NCT03283553|191805243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P-value assess between-group differences in proportion of participants who used a patient portal feature at least once during 9-month follow up.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
95922394|NCT01813422|191805272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline PAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-0.640|-1.375|< 0.0001
95922395|NCT01813422|191805273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.247|-2.531|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for the treatment group, the geographic region stratification factor, and baseline TAV.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-2.531|-7.247|< 0.0001
95922396|NCT01813422|191805274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||23.5|10.3|< 0.0001
95922397|NCT01813422|191805275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|12.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by geographic region.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||19.1|5.8|0.0002
95922398|NCT00811187|191805284|SUPERIORITY|\[Not Specified\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Treatment pain difference= Lidocaine (0.97) - Placebo (3.00).|A sample size calculation and power analysis was conducted using PS Power and Sample Size Calculations 2.1.30 (Vanderbilt University, Department of Biostatistics, Nashville, TN) to determine necessary sample size.||||<.001
95922399|NCT00083174|191805364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.7|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between two groups. The sample size estimate was based on an assumption of annual invasive breast cancer rate of 0.60% in the placebo group and 0.21% in exemestane group, a relative reduction of 65% with exemestane. To detect this with a two-sided 5% level and 90% power, a total of 38 cases of invasive breast cancer were required, projected to occur when 4560 women were randomly assigned in a 3-year period and then followed for an additional 1.2 years.||0.70|0.18|0.002
95922400|NCT00083174|191805365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.27|0.004
95922401|NCT00083174|191805366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.11|0.07
95922402|NCT03582137|191805371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8049||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8839|2.2741|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2741|-5.8839|0.3785
95922403|NCT03582137|191805375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4254||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4018|3.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5510|-12.4018|0.2712
95922404|NCT03582137|191805376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3133||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5414|5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1680|-4.5414|0.8974
95922405|NCT03582137|191805377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1505||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|0.5892|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5892|-0.2882|0.4643
95922406|NCT03582137|191805378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1188||||0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6019|0.3644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3644|-0.6019|0.6245
95922407|NCT03582137|191805384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3341||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5749|0.9068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9068|-1.5749|0.5921
95922408|NCT03582137|191805385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9352||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4372|4.3076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3076|-0.4372|0.1016
95733742|NCT01101022|191438414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-2.7|-8.7|0.0003
95922409|NCT03582137|191805386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.686||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3733|40.7452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.7452|-1.3733|0.0661
95922410|NCT03582137|191805387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2214||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9381|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-6.9381|0.0880
95922411|NCT03582137|191805388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9836||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2093|4.2421|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2421|-14.2093|0.2827
95922412|NCT03582137|191805389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.576||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3697|4.5216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.5216|-3.3697|0.7703
95922413|NCT03582137|191805390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8834||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2172|0.4504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4504|-2.2172|0.1874
95922414|NCT03582137|191805393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2993||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5533|3.1519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1519|-0.5533|0.1646
95922415|NCT03582137|191805394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7519||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9082|0.4045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4045|-3.9082|0.1093
95922416|NCT03582137|191805395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3532||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6511|3.3576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3576|-0.6511|0.1819
95922417|NCT03582137|191805396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9667||||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6287|2.5621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5621|-0.6287|0.2282
95922418|NCT03582137|191805397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2614||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3002|0.7775|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7775|-1.3002|0.6167
95922419|NCT03582137|191805398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3067||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6765|3.2899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2899|-2.6765|0.8378
95922420|NCT03582137|191805400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3237||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.8353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8353|-0.1880|0.2103
95922421|NCT03582137|191805401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3015|2.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2934|-3.3015|0.7197
95922422|NCT03582137|191805402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6158||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|5.4373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4373|-0.2058|0.0686
95922423|NCT03582137|191805403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7891||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8523|7.4304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4304|-1.8523|0.2339
95922424|NCT03582137|191805404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9536||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1655|7.0727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.0727|-5.1655|0.7557
95922425|NCT03582137|191805406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05126||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9086|1.0111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0111|-0.9086|0.9150
95733743|NCT01101022|191438415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||-4.0|-12.7|0.0002
95733744|NCT01101022|191438415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-7.0|-16.3|<0.0001
95733745|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-4.1|-12.6|0.0001
95733746|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-2.5|-10.8|0.0018
95733747|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||-1.5|-8.8|0.0056
95733748|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||Sef-monitor||-4.1|-12.3|0.0001
95733749|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-5.4|-13.2|<0.0001
95733750|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-6.6|-16.0|<0.0001
95733751|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-6.4|-15.4|<0.0001
95733752|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-4.7|-14.0|0.0001
95733753|NCT01101022|191438416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-5.3|-12.5|<0.0001
95733754|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
95733755|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Shift||-1.5|-8.0|0.0045
95733756|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control||1.5|-4.0|0.3605
95733757|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor||0.8|-5.1|0.1468
95733758|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Initiate||-2.7|-8.3|0.0002
95733759|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Working memory||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
95733760|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize||-1.9|-7.9|0.0015
95733761|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor||-2.9|-9.7|0.0003
95733762|NCT01101022|191438417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials||-0.4|-5.9|0.0234
95733763|NCT01101022|191438418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-14.9|<0.0001
95733764|NCT01101022|191438421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95733765|NCT01101022|191438422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||Living with ADHD||12.7|5.4|<0.0001
95733766|NCT01101022|191438422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.5|||ANCOVA|||General Well-being||15.5|6.0|<0.0001
95733767|NCT01101022|191438423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Question 1||1.0|0.1|0.0184
95733768|NCT01101022|191438423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Question 4||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
95733769|NCT01101022|191438424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-9.0|0.0019
95733770|NCT01101022|191438425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Inattention/Memory Problems||-1.9|-8.2|0.0017
95733771|NCT01101022|191438425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hyperactivity/Restlessness||-0.7|-7.5|0.0174
95733772|NCT01101022|191438425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Impulsivity/Emotional Liability||-1.1|-6.8|0.0063
95733773|NCT01101022|191438425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Problems with Self-concept||-1.3|-7.5|0.0059
95733774|NCT01101022|191438426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|33.6|||ANCOVA|||Life Productivity||33.6|8.4|0.0016
95733775|NCT01101022|191438426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.5|||ANCOVA|||Psychological Health||22.5|1.6|0.0242
95733776|NCT01101022|191438426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.8|||ANCOVA|||Life Outlook||20.8|4.2|0.0038
95733777|NCT01101022|191438426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Relationships||18.0|-3.4|0.1752
95733778|NCT01101022|191438426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||23.6|5.9|0.0015
95733779|NCT00722124|191438453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.615
95793799|NCT02175121|191557582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|19.08||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.08|-6.49|0.4166
95793800|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|5.93||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.93|-4.73|0.8516
95793801|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|9.42||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||9.42|-1.48|0.2303
95793802|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|6.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.52|-4.15|0.7132
95793803|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|15.16||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||15.16|4.32|0.0034
95793804|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.89|3.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||3.92|-5.89|0.7394
95793805|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|5.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.53|-4.50|0.8652
95793806|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-4.30|0.8370
95793807|NCT02175121|191557583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|14.58||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||14.58|4.60|0.0018
95793808|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|4.91||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||4.91|-9.15|0.6182
95793809|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|8.84||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.84|-5.52|0.7028
95793810|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.33|6.73||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.73|-7.33|0.9445
95793811|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|16.21||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.21|1.93|0.0373
95793812|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.25|6.67||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.67|-7.25|0.9448
95793813|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.74|7.49||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.49|-6.74|0.9312
95922426|NCT03582137|191805407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6699||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3316|1.9918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9918|-3.3316|0.6164
95922427|NCT03582137|191805408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1358||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0028|0.7312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7312|-1.0028|0.7550
95922428|NCT03582137|191805409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09605||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6449|1.4528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4528|-1.6449|0.9016
95922429|NCT03582137|191805410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3217||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8584|6.2151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2151|-6.8584|0.9219
95922430|NCT03582137|191805411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02897||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02857|0.08651|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08651|-0.02857|0.3178
95922431|NCT03582137|191805416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2288||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|1.7825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7825|-1.3250|0.7693
95922432|NCT03582137|191805417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8121||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3743|1.7501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7501|-3.3743|0.5285
95922433|NCT03582137|191805418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02525||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7717|0.7212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7212|-0.7717|0.9463
95922434|NCT03582137|191805419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3042||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0817|0.4732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4732|-1.0817|0.4362
95922435|NCT03582137|191805420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06489||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5957|1.4659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4659|-1.5957|0.9327
95922436|NCT03582137|191805423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2763||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.4354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4354|-0.9880|0.4401
95922437|NCT03582137|191805424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8319||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6835|6.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.0197|-7.6835|0.8085
95922438|NCT03582137|191805426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02673||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2757|1.3292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3292|-1.2757|0.9674
95922439|NCT03582137|191805428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.92||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.51|11.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.68|-105.51|0.1128
95922440|NCT01163149|191805452|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-302.05||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-626.4|-59.2||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||PLP Change from Baseline to Week 24||-59.20|-626.40|0.0285
95922441|NCT01163149|191805453|SUPERIORITY|If p-values were less than 0.05 and the Hodges-Lehman-Sen estimate favored asfotase alfa (eg, it had a negative sign indicating the between-group differences in change from Baseline favored treated patients), then superiority over control was claimed.|Hodges-Lehman-Sen|-1.825||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.23||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group.|PPi Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.230|-3.210|0.0715
95922442|NCT01163149|191805455|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.91||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|1.78||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||1.780|-3.320|0.3301
95733780|NCT00722124|191438453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.826
95733781|NCT05628675|191438454|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.96||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on MAAS||0.96|-0.33|
95733782|NCT05628675|191438454|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.42||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on MAAS||1.42|0.02|
95733783|NCT05628675|191438455|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.01||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on P-PRFQ||1.01|-0.29|
95733784|NCT05628675|191438455|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.17||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on P-PRFQ||1.17|-0.20|
95733785|NCT05628675|191438456|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.21||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 2 on EPDS||2.21|0.75|
95733786|NCT05628675|191438456|OTHER||Effect size (Hedge's g)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.88||||||Effect size calculation from Time 1 to Time 3 on EPDS||2.88|1.28|
95733787|NCT03203447|191438475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|3.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.6|-17.9|0.191
95733788|NCT00445003|191438478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.0||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparison|||9.0|2.2|<.001
95733789|NCT00445003|191438478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1||adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between two study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||10.1|3.2|<.001
95733790|NCT00445003|191438480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-6.0||Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-6|-64|<.01
95733791|NCT00445003|191438480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-71.0||adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-71|-128|<.001
95733792|NCT00445003|191438482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.5||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||7.5|-3.7|0.44
95733793|NCT00445003|191438482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8||Adjusted for baseline visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||6.8|-4.4|0.63
95922443|NCT01163149|191805455|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|1.33||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.12||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||3.120|-1.360|0.3827
95793814|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|6.85||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.85|-7.07|0.9791
95793815|NCT02175121|191557584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.26|19.41||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||19.41|5.26|0.0044
95793816|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.78|8.33||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||8.33|-4.78|0.6553
95793817|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|11.3||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||11.30|-2.09|0.2569
95793818|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|14.18||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||14.18|1.09|0.0553
95793819|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.26|19.53||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||19.53|6.26|0.0016
95793820|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.8717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|6.51||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||6.51|-5.35|0.8717
95793821|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|7.26||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.26|-4.86|0.7430
95793822|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|10.48||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||10.48|-1.36|0.2041
95793823|NCT02175121|191557585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.92|20.92||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||20.92|8.92|<0.0001
95793824|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|6.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||6.87|-6.62|0.9750
95793825|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|10.87||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||10.87|-2.90|0.3396
95793826|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|5.24||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||5.24|-8.23|0.7142
95793827|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|16.63||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 14.||16.63|2.94|0.0192
95793828|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|5.52||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.52|-7.20|0.8277
95922444|NCT01163149|191805455|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-77.1||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-917.44|-1.74||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMC Change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.740|-917.440|0.0485
95922445|NCT01163149|191805456|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0125||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.039||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Hip Total Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0390|-0.0400|0.7357
95922446|NCT01163149|191805456|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|0.0255||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.041||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Lumbar Spine BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0410|-0.0090|0.2439
95922447|NCT01163149|191805456|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|-0.0315||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.012||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Whole Body BMD Change from Baseline to Week 24||0.0120|-0.0590|0.1222
95922448|NCT01163149|191805457|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann-Sen|44.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|114.0||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon rank-sum||Estimate and exact confidence interval are from Hodges-Lehmann-Sen method for location shift in distribution between the treatment group and the control group|Week 24 Change from Baseline||114.0|-73.0|0.1303
95922449|NCT01253980|191805472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.11|>0.50
95922450|NCT01700530|191805473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95922451|NCT05489224|191805532|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined margin: -0.6 to 0.5|Treatment difference and 90% CI|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||||0.10|-0.30|
95922452|NCT00729690|191805562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4742||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For 1st 24 hours NRS AUC Pain scores||||0.4742
95922453|NCT00729690|191805563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.7596
95922454|NCT00729690|191805564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4321
95922455|NCT00729690|191805565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9361
95922456|NCT04672460|191805597|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|105.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||111.70|99.00|
95922457|NCT04672460|191805598|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.05|149.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment A were reference; treatment B were test.||149.27|125.05|
95922458|NCT04672460|191805599|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.82|94.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||94.58|81.82|
95793829|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.93|7.06||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||7.06|-5.93|0.8857
95922459|NCT04672460|191805600|OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|58.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.55|65.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B were reference; treatment C were test.||65.84|51.55|
95793830|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|5.79||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||5.79|-6.93|0.8824
95793831|NCT02175121|191557586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|15.69||Two-sided p-values are from MMRM with baseline value, time, treatment group, study day, statin use and treatment interaction as fixed effects. Subject was used as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test for Day 28.||15.69|2.77|0.0192
95922460|NCT03575962|191805608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
95922461|NCT03575962|191805609|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1556|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.35||||||||1.35|0.99|
95922462|NCT00762463|191805642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean difference calculated as LS mean change for Celecoxib 200 mg once daily minus LS mean change for Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<10 mm.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); factors: treatment group and study center; covariate: baseline Patient's Assessment of Global Pain Intensity score.||"Null hypothesis: Least Squares (LS) mean difference between Celecoxib 200 mg once daily versus Diclofenac SR 75 mg once daily on change in Global Pain Intensity from baseline to Week 6 was at least 10 mm. Corresponding alternative hypothesis: This difference was \<10 mm.~For the non-inferiority test, power was 80% and significance level was 0.025 (1-sided)."||8.8|-2.2|0.0085
95922463|NCT00762463|191805644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||4.2|-5.6|0.7849
95793832|NCT00931632|191557602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.427
95922464|NCT00762463|191805644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.8|-2.6|0.3223
95922465|NCT00762463|191805646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.17|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.17|-0.15|0.8938
95922466|NCT00762463|191805646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.31|0.01|0.0426
95922467|NCT00762463|191805646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.29|-0.05|0.1502
95793833|NCT04356937|191557615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|0.38|0.64
95793834|NCT04356937|191557616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.10|0.59|0.73
95793835|NCT04356937|191557617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.69
95793836|NCT04817189|191557653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.49|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the probability to experience a per cycle complete response between the treatment arms."|2.49|1.12|<0.05
95793837|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Sleep ≥ 7 h, compared to Sleep \< 7 h.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of \< 7 h of sleep the night before chemotherapy increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.17|0.68|0.412
95793838|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Without history, compared to With history.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of History of any nausea and vomiting such as motion sickness, vestibular dysfunction, … increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.80|0.71|0.592
95793839|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anticipatory, compared to Anticipatory.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anticipatory nausea and/or vomiting increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.65|0.80|0.458
95793840|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No anxiety, compared to Anxiety.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Anxiety over the past 24hrs increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.56|0.75|0.663
95793841|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.68|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to \< 10 units per week, compared to \>= 10 units per week.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Alcohol intake (\>= 10 units per week vs \< 10 units per week) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratio."||1.68|0.46|0.691
95793842|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.14|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Male, compared to Female.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Gender increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||2.14|1.02|0.037
95922468|NCT00762463|191805648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.1|-0.2|0.5945
95793843|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to No fatigue experience, compared to Fatigue experience.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Fatigue experience (symptom) increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.42|0.84|0.514
95793844|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||generalized linear model||Reference category is set to Non smoker, compared to Former smoker or smoker.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Smoking status increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||1.08|0.52|0.127
95793845|NCT04817189|191557655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||generalized linear model||The OR was calculated as the change in weight per 10 kg.|"The hypothesis states that the potential risk factor of Weight increases the risk of CINV, defined as any occurrence of nausea or a vomiting episode.~This potential risk factor was included in the generalized linear model as covariate, and its effect was evaluated using odds ratios."||0.97|0.77|0.014
95793846|NCT04817189|191557662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.96|||generalized linear model||||"The model-based statistics were used to calculate the difference in the score per cycle between the treatment arms."|6.96|0.05|<0.05
95793847|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - acute phase|||0.01|-0.13|<0.05
95793848|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - delayed phase|||-0.12|-0.50|<0.05
95793849|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||generalized linear model||||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 2|-0.02|-0.21|<0.05
95793850|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 3|||0.04|-0.17|<0.05
95793851|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 4|||0.05|-0.16|<0.05
95793852|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - Day 5|||0.05|-0.13|<0.05
95793853|NCT04817189|191557673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||generalized linear model||Number of vomiting episodes - overall phase|||-0.14|-0.60|<0.05
95922469|NCT00762463|191805648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.3427
95922470|NCT00762463|191805648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.1|0.6522
95922471|NCT00762463|191805650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.3|0.9358
95922472|NCT00762463|191805650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.5916
95922473|NCT00762463|191805650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.7|-0.1|0.1790
95922474|NCT00762463|191805652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.5|-0.3|0.6335
95922475|NCT00762463|191805652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.6|-0.2|0.2729
95922476|NCT00762463|191805652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.8|-0.1|0.1559
95922477|NCT00762463|191805655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.0|0.1111
95922478|NCT00762463|191805655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||7.9|-2.9|0.3574
95922479|NCT00762463|191805655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||9.5|-1.4|0.1464
95922480|NCT00762463|191805657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||1.8|-1.7|0.9641
95922481|NCT00762463|191805657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7749
95922482|NCT00762463|191805657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.2|-1.6|0.7529
95950552|NCT00113529|191872877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
95950553|NCT00113529|191872877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
95793854|NCT00720278|191557686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-2.98|-1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.14|-2.98|<0.001
95793855|NCT00720278|191557686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001||95.0|-3.91|-2.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-2.09|-3.91|<0.001
95793856|NCT00720278|191557687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.479|<|0.001||95.0|-2.72|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.84|-2.72|<0.001
95793857|NCT00720278|191557687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4735|<|0.001||95.0|-3.6|-1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.74|-3.60|<0.001
95922483|NCT00762463|191805659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 2. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.2|-0.2|0.8780
95922484|NCT00762463|191805659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 4. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.1|0.2202
95922485|NCT00762463|191805659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to Week 6. The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||0.4|-0.2|0.5340
95922486|NCT00762463|191805661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.9|-4.3|0.7003
95922487|NCT00762463|191805663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|2.94|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group and investigational centers as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||The p-value is for the null hypothesis test H0: u1=u2 vs. H1: u1 is not equal to u2.||2.94|-5.82|0.5183
95922488|NCT03815916|191805681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3865||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the mean change in the average NAD+/NADH brain ratio from baseline to Week 12 using a partial volume coil 31P-MRS data on the Per Protocol Treatment Population. A paired t-test will be used to analyze the mean change from baseline.||||0.1077
95922489|NCT01341080|191805728|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.15||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.61|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Efficacy was measured as a change on the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) from baseline to the end of study after 8 weeks on drug. The BBS has a scale range of 0-56, with 56 indicating normal balance. To evaluate efficacy, repeated measures analysis of variance was run on BBS scores. The scale score was the dependent measure, time point (baseline or end of study) was the repeat measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significance was defined as alpha \<0.05.||4.61|-4.01|0.05
95922490|NCT01341080|191805729|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.53|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the FAB scores. Scale cores was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.53|-1.39|0.05
95922491|NCT01341080|191805730|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis or variance|||Change in cognitive functioning was measured in part with the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) from Baseline to 8 weeks on drug. Repeated analysis of variance was run on the MMSE scores. Scale score was the dependent measure, time point (Baseline or end of study) was the repeated measure, and treatment group (varenicline or sugar pill) was the independent measure. Significant was defined as \<0.05.||1.40|-0.40|0.05
95922492|NCT02002819|191805741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.18|0.55
95922493|NCT02002819|191805742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.8|||ANOVA|||||6.8|-1.0|0.14
95922494|NCT02002819|191805743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-3.4|.43
95922495|NCT02002819|191805744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.63
95922496|NCT02002819|191805745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|-1.1|0.90
95793858|NCT00720278|191557688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.376|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.418||0.001||95.0|-2.2|-0.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-0.56|-2.20|0.001
95922497|NCT02002819|191805746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.80
95922498|NCT02002819|191805747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-3.6|0.46
95922499|NCT02002819|191805748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.40
95922500|NCT02002819|191805749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.7|||ANOVA|||||14.7|0.2|0.046
95922501|NCT02002819|191805750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.7|||ANOVA|||||2.7|-7.8|.30
95922502|NCT02002819|191805751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|16.0|||Cohen f|||||16.0|-8.5|0.52
95922503|NCT02002819|191805752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.4|||ANOVA|||||2.4|-1.0|0.40
95922504|NCT02002819|191805753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.1|0.63
95922505|NCT02002819|191805755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.3|.15
95922506|NCT01950260|191805759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95922507|NCT01950260|191805760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
95922508|NCT01950260|191805761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
95950554|NCT00113529|191872877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
95950555|NCT00113529|191872877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
95950556|NCT00113529|191872877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
95950557|NCT00113529|191872878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
95950558|NCT00113529|191872878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.854
95922509|NCT00562965|191805772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|A 2-sided 5% significance level on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was used.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|To detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 with 85% power using a 2-sided log-rank test at the 5% significance level, it was planned that approximately 978 participants were needed to be randomized but due to premature termination only 29 participants were randomized.||1.02|0.04|0.0358
95922510|NCT00562965|191805773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
95922511|NCT00562965|191805774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard regression model|Stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model was utilized.|In this regression model, treatment arm was the covariate and the strata (number of prior regimens, investigator's choice of therapy and geographical region) over which participants were stratified prior to randomization were the variables.|||1.81|0.05|0.1727
95922512|NCT03432533|191805799|NON_INFERIORITY|Conclusions for the primary efficacy hypothesis of efficacy of self-administration of romosozumab by AI/Pen compared with HCP-administered romosozumab by PFS at lumbar spine BMD at Month 6 was made using a 1-sided test with type 1 error rate of 0.025 and noninferiority margin of -2.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.3|0.84
95922513|NCT01648283|191805804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95922514|NCT02444143|191805822|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95922515|NCT02444143|191805823|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95922516|NCT00162942|191805824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.858
95922517|NCT00162942|191805826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.813
95922518|NCT00162942|191805827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95922519|NCT00162942|191805828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.670
95922520|NCT00162942|191805829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.977
95922521|NCT00162942|191805830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
95922522|NCT00162942|191805831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
95793859|NCT00720278|191557688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.432|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4145|<|0.001||95.0|-3.24|-1.62|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 14||-1.62|-3.24|<0.001
95922523|NCT00162942|191805832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0773
95922524|NCT00162942|191805833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.261
95922525|NCT00162942|191805834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
95793860|NCT01075048|191557699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3815
95922526|NCT00162942|191805835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
95922527|NCT00162942|191805836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
95922528|NCT00162942|191805837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.222
95922529|NCT00162942|191805838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
95793861|NCT01075048|191557699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1900
95793862|NCT01075048|191557699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1986|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1986
95922530|NCT00162942|191805839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
95922531|NCT00162942|191805840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
95922532|NCT00162942|191805841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0632
95922533|NCT00162942|191805841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0504
95922534|NCT00162942|191805842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8265
95922535|NCT00162942|191805843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0676
95922536|NCT00162942|191805843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact (Mid-P-Value)|||||||0.0506
95922537|NCT00162942|191805844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8721||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8721
95922538|NCT00162942|191805845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0289
95922539|NCT00162942|191805846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8618
95922540|NCT01167023|191805849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.304||95.0||||Pain rate was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline pain intensity, treatment group, and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.304
95922541|NCT01167023|191805851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.051|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time, and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
95922542|NCT01167023|191805852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.244||95.0||||Average pain intensity was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with baseline intensity, treatment group and stratification variable sickle-cell genotype as explanatory variables.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||0.244
95922543|NCT01167023|191805853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-128.3|||<|0.001||95.0||||A mixed-effects model repeated measures analysis with baseline measurement, stratification variable sickle cell genotype, treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference is for 5 mg prasugrel minus placebo.|||||<0.001
95922544|NCT03419780|191805859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922545|NCT03419780|191805860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95922546|NCT03419780|191805861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95793863|NCT01075048|191557699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2617
95793864|NCT01075048|191557700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4488|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4488
95793865|NCT01075048|191557700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.2887
95793866|NCT01075048|191557700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon|||||||0.1851
95793867|NCT01075048|191557700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2495|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.2495
95793868|NCT01075048|191557702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2804|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 12 Oct 2012||||0.2804
95793869|NCT01075048|191557702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2469|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 29 Mar 2013||||0.2469
95793870|NCT01075048|191557702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 25 Jul 2013||||0.1334
95793871|NCT01075048|191557702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2159|||||||Log Rank|||OS data cutoff as of 20 Feb 2015||||0.2159
95983235|NCT04272892|191940767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||9.1|-7.8|0.885
95793872|NCT01079780|191557737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95793873|NCT01079780|191557738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95793874|NCT01079780|191557740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
95793875|NCT01663623|191557777|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.59||Cox proportional Hazards (Wald Chi Square)|Cox Proportional Hazards model|Analysis was adjusted for ANCA type, disease stage at induction and induction regimen|Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with covariates treatment group, Actual ANCA type, Actual disease stage at induction and Actual induction regimen.|||2.59|0.44|0.884
95793876|NCT00447083|191557791|OTHER|||||||0.1811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1811
95793877|NCT03363906|191557795|SUPERIORITY||Ratio Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.04||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.949|0.473
95793878|NCT03363906|191557796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|0.993|0.119
95793879|NCT00676143|191557797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22||Primary variable ADAS-Cog/11 total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 2.21 point advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the ADAS-Cog/11 total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||1.22|-1.18|0.979
95793880|NCT00676143|191557798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.6||Primary variable DAD total score had to reach statistical significance, p-values had to reach p \<=0.05, in order to be declared effective.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in DAD total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants in each group gave 90% power to detect a 5.39 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on the DAD total score, at the primary time point (Week 78). This calculation was based on a two-sided test with an alpha of 0.05."||2.60|-2.51|0.973
95793881|NCT00676143|191557799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in PIB PET SUVr was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.152 unit advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||0.03|-0.17|0.159
95793882|NCT00676143|191557800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in CSF phospho-tau was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The analysis was based on the treatment difference estimated at Week 71 based on appropriate contrasts or LS means. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 13-ng/L advantage in phospho-tau for the bapineuzumab group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05.||4.13|-6.89|0.620
95793883|NCT00676143|191557801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.~The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 4.15-cm3 advantage for the bapineuzumab group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05."||1.63|-1.89|0.884
95793884|NCT00676143|191557802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||1.45|-0.97|0.700
95793885|NCT00676143|191557803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Difference: Bapineuzumab - Placebo||2.78|-2.61|0.949
95793886|NCT00676143|191557804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.684
95793887|NCT00676143|191557805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
95793888|NCT00676143|191557806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.191
95793889|NCT00676143|191557807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.478
95793890|NCT00676143|191557808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.13|-0.41|0.462
95793891|NCT00676143|191557810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
95793892|NCT00676143|191557812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
95793893|NCT00676143|191557813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures.||0.24|-0.55|0.448
95983236|NCT04272892|191940768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of wake after sleep onset at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||17|-1|0.077
95983237|NCT04272892|191940769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of sleep onset latency (median of 7 nights) at end of intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||18|2|0.014
95793894|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||0.5152
95793895|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1 (Visit 2)||||1.0000
95793896|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
95793897|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2 (Visit 3)||||1.0000
95793898|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
95793899|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 9 (Visit 4)||||1.0000
95793900|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||1.0000
95793901|NCT02737722|191557849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 15 (Visit 5)||||0.3636
95793902|NCT02737722|191557850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.172
95922547|NCT03419780|191805862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95793903|NCT02737722|191557850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.365
95793904|NCT02737722|191557850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.619
95793905|NCT02737722|191557851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.432
95793906|NCT02737722|191557851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.435
95793907|NCT02737722|191557851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.715
95793908|NCT02737722|191557852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
95793909|NCT02737722|191557852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
95793910|NCT02737722|191557852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
95733794|NCT00445003|191438485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
95733795|NCT00445003|191438485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3||adjusted for baseline retinal volume, optical coherence tomography retinal thickness and visual acuity, number of planned panretinal photocoagulation sittings, and correlation between 2 study eyes|ANCOVA||adjusted for multiple comparisons|||-1.3|-2.1|<.001
95793911|NCT02737722|191557853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
95793912|NCT02737722|191557853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
95793913|NCT02737722|191557853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
95793914|NCT02737722|191557854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.361
95793915|NCT02737722|191557854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.519
95793916|NCT02737722|191557854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.153
95793917|NCT02737722|191557855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
95793918|NCT02737722|191557855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
95793919|NCT02737722|191557855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
95793920|NCT02737722|191557857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
95793921|NCT02737722|191557857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.464
95793922|NCT02737722|191557857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.465
95793923|NCT01026493|191557861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-NAIVE|||1.48|0.66|0.95
95793924|NCT01026493|191557861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.53|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = Arm 1/BEV-FAILURE|||1.53|0.57|0.93
95793925|NCT03154086|191557931|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.077|||ANOVA|||||1.077|0.5940|0.204
95793926|NCT03154086|191557932|OTHER||Ratio|0.7325||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5267|1.019|||ANOVA|||||1.019|0.5267|0.118
95793927|NCT03154086|191557933|OTHER||Ratio|0.6502||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3876|1.091|||ANOVA|||||1.091|0.3876|0.157
95793928|NCT03555149|191557939|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
95793929|NCT03555149|191557939|OTHER||Difference in Overall Response Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|25.25|||||The difference in ORR was calculated as the experimental arm (Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928) subtracted from the control arm (Regorafenib).|||25.25|-11.92|
95793930|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.73||||||||2.73|0.67|
95793931|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.88||||||||4.88|1.08|
95793932|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18||||||||2.18|0.29|
95793933|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.24||||||||6.24|0.64|
95793934|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.63||||||||3.63|0.83|
95793935|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63||||||||1.63|0.39|
95793936|NCT03555149|191557940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|33.82||||||||33.82|0.94|
95793937|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.93||||||Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.93|0.71|
95793938|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||||||Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.81|0.68|
95793939|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.72||||||Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||2.72|0.30|
95793940|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.84||||||Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||3.84|0.42|
95922548|NCT03419780|191805863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95922549|NCT03419780|191805864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95922550|NCT03419780|191805865|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95950559|NCT00113529|191872878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.230
95793941|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.88||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.88|0.39|
95793942|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.96||||||Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||1.96|0.43|
95793943|NCT03555149|191557941|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.85||||||Atezolizumab + LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) Hazard Ratio for OS||24.85|0.33|
95793944|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
95793945|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.78|16.79||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.79|-49.78|
95793946|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-14.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.37|15.47||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||15.47|-44.37|
95793947|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.14||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Imprime PGG + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||11.14|-32.25|
95793948|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|16.87||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||16.87|-38.62|
95793949|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-23.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|9.78||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||9.78|-56.10|
95793950|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.19|23.62||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||23.62|-39.19|
95793951|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|29.63||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Isatuximab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||29.63|-24.08|
95793952|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
95793953|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|16.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|58.07||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||58.07|-24.39|
95793954|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|18.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|72.3||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||72.30|-34.53|
95793955|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|57.08||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Selicrelumab + Bevacizumab vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||57.08|-38.19|
95793956|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|36.28||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.28|-54.70|
95793957|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.74|40.43||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.43|-66.74|
95793958|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.26|38.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||38.36|-57.26|
95793959|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|53.73||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Idasanutlin vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||53.73|-38.18|
95793960|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|21.56||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||21.56|-32.03|
95793961|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|40.6||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.60|-23.33|
95793962|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|40.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||40.06|-29.19|
95793963|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|36.06||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||36.06|-22.64|
95793964|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.31|26.22||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||26.22|-21.31|
95793965|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|10.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|41.34||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 6 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||41.34|-20.99|
95793966|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|31.36||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 12 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||31.36|-33.59|
95793967|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|9.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|37.94||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 18 months for the Atezolizumab + Regorafenib + AB928 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||37.94|-19.06|
95793968|NCT03555149|191557942|OTHER||Difference in OS Event-Free Rate|15.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|32.19||||||Difference in OS event-free rate at 3 months for the Atezolizumab +LOAd703 vs. Regorafenib (Control) arms||32.19|-0.61|
95802474|NCT03300336|191578218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.32||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 0 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 5 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||2.32|0.55|0.74
95922551|NCT01027871|191805866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.17||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.52||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.52|-0.18|0.433
95922552|NCT01027871|191805867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.19||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.59|0.388
95922553|NCT01027871|191805868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.03|-0.21|0.197
95922554|NCT01027871|191805869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.609
95922555|NCT01027871|191805869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.314
95922556|NCT01027871|191805870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.375
95793969|NCT01041859|191557964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.493||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, dose level, and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate|ANCOVA||Mean Difference is least squares mean change in DB Tapentadol ER group minus least squares mean change in DB Placebo group (based on ANCOVA model)|The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 1.0 with an SD of 2.6, 144 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a DB treatment group for the study was 300.||-0.493|-1.415|<0.001
95793970|NCT02027025|191557981|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|-1.73|0.4532
95793971|NCT02027025|191557981|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.76|0.4704
95793972|NCT02027025|191557982|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.56|0.3013
95922557|NCT01027871|191805870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
95922558|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.43||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P- value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.92|0.144
95793973|NCT02027025|191557982|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.58|0.2994
95922559|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.20|-0.70|0.360
95793974|NCT02027025|191557983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3815|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3815
95793975|NCT02027025|191557983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7491
95793976|NCT02027025|191557984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8991|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8991
95793977|NCT02027025|191557984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8829
95793978|NCT00720499|191558019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.031|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.031|-0.035|0.8937
95793979|NCT00720499|191558020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.061|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.061|-0.015|0.2425
95922560|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.72|0.342
95922561|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG"|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.56|0.654
95922562|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.23||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.23|-0.73|0.387
95922563|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.21||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.21|-0.79|0.339
95922564|NCT01027871|191805871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.1||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.50|-0.30|0.676
95793980|NCT00720499|191558022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.021|-0.010|0.5198
95793981|NCT00720499|191558022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.051|-0.011|0.2110
95793982|NCT00720499|191558022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.027|-0.029|0.9368
95793983|NCT00720499|191558023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.014|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.014|-0.027|0.5339
95793984|NCT00720499|191558023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.058|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.058|-0.015|0.2408
95793985|NCT00720499|191558023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.7139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.042|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.042|-0.029|0.7139
95793986|NCT00720499|191558024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.034|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.034|-0.026|0.7906
95793987|NCT00720499|191558025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.067|0.8473
95922565|NCT01027871|191805873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
95793988|NCT00720499|191558026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.029|0.2944
95793989|NCT00720499|191558026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.066|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.066|-0.046|0.7180
95793990|NCT00720499|191558028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.032|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed)||0.032|-0.029|0.9384
95793991|NCT00720499|191558028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.088|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.088|-0.014|0.1583
95793992|NCT00720499|191558028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.082|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.082|-0.025|0.2914
95793993|NCT00720499|191558029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.094|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.094|-0.024|0.2485
95793994|NCT00720499|191558030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.130|-0.039|0.2875
95793995|NCT00720499|191558031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.038||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.046|5.015|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.015|-3.046|0.6299
95793996|NCT00720499|191558031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.156||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.553|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||12.553|0.070|0.0475
95922566|NCT01027871|191805874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.804
95922567|NCT01027871|191805876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.937||90.0|-0.16|0.14||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.14|-0.16|0.937
95950560|NCT00113529|191872878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.067
95950561|NCT00113529|191872878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.164
95793997|NCT00720499|191558031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|6.833|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.833|-3.729|0.5620
95922568|NCT01027871|191805876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.03||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.1||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY Combined - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.10|-0.16|0.687
95922569|NCT01027871|191805878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.07||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-0.87|0.159
95922570|NCT01027871|191805878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.29|-0.62|0.542
95922571|NCT01027871|191805879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.13||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.16|0.880
95922572|NCT01027871|191805879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.03||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.03|-0.32|0.045
95922573|NCT01027871|191805880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.273
95922574|NCT01027871|191805880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
95793998|NCT00720499|191558032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.812|4.454|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||4.454|-4.812|0.9391
95793999|NCT00720499|191558032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.559||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|13.52|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||13.520|-0.560|0.0709
95922575|NCT01027871|191805880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.879
95922576|NCT01027871|191805880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
95922577|NCT01027871|191805881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
95922578|NCT01027871|191805881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.569
95922579|NCT01027871|191805881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
95922580|NCT01027871|191805881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95922581|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.26||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.67||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.67|-0.16|0.305
95922582|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.14||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.26|-0.54|0.571
95922583|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.26||||0.454||90.0|-0.85|0.32||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.32|-0.85|0.454
95922584|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.26||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.26|-1.40|0.016
95922585|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.07||||0.838||90.0|-0.61|0.48||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.48|-0.61|0.838
95950562|NCT00113529|191872878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
95950563|NCT00113529|191872879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.734
95794000|NCT00720499|191558032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.134||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.298|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||9.298|-3.100|0.3245
95794001|NCT00720499|191558033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.914|8.514|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.514|-9.914|0.8808
95794002|NCT00720499|191558034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.429|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.429|-3.190|0.6081
95794003|NCT00720499|191558034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.342||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.296|5.973|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.973|-3.296|0.5686
95794004|NCT00720499|191558034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.294||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.888|5.194|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||5.194|-3.888|0.7765
95794005|NCT00720499|191558034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.379|6.686|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.686|-3.379|0.5166
95794006|NCT00720499|191558035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.585||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|8.418|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||8.418|-1.813|0.2037
95794007|NCT00720499|191558035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|6.813|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.813|-4.027|0.6118
95794008|NCT00720499|191558035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.251|6.64|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||6.640|-3.251|0.4988
95922586|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|-0.16||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.16|-1.22|0.033
95794009|NCT00720499|191558035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.478||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.944|3.865|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||3.865|-5.944|0.6757
95794010|NCT00720499|191558036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.169|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 1. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.169|-0.147|0.8901
95794011|NCT00720499|191558036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 2. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.050|-0.290|0.1647
95794012|NCT00720499|191558036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.176|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 3. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.176|-0.180|0.9822
95794013|NCT00720499|191558036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.137|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test Week 4. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.137|-0.218|0.6542
95794014|NCT00720499|191558037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.115|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Based on a ANCOVA with terms for treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.115|-0.342|0.3269
95922587|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.95|0.229
95950564|NCT00113529|191872879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.462
95729476|NCT04281485|191429249|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|5.24|-1.22|=0.2190
95950565|NCT00113529|191872879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.423
95733796|NCT00528606|191438487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing treatment groups, stratified by baseline severity group and joint type.||||<0.001
95733797|NCT01710657|191438516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.6||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||47.6|30.5|<0.001
95733798|NCT01710657|191438516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Reduction over Placebo|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|38.7||Significant at the 0.05 level. This testing procedure is considered a closed testing procedure and no adjustment of the significance level was necessary.|ANCOVA|||"To avoid inflation of Type I error, hypothesis testing followed predefined hierarchical procedure starting LCM 400 mg/day treatment group versus the placebo group.~If the test was not statistically significant, the procedure stopped and no Groups were declared different from placebo. If the test was statistically significant, the treatment group was considered different from placebo and the procedure continued with the LCM 200 mg/day treatment group."||38.7|18.7|< 0.001
95733799|NCT02334722|191438526|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7824
95733800|NCT01171690|191438759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Matched pairs t test|||Matched pairs||||0.01
95733801|NCT00891293|191438779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.01||0.9999||95.0|-2.8|9.4|||ANOVA||Difference Between Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111860/OM5X End-of-Treatment and Percent Change from LOV111859/OM5 Baseline to LOV111821/OM5XX End-of-Treatment|For the MITT analysis, the method of last observation carried forward (LOCF) was applied. The LOCF is the value of a previous non-baseline visit (post-enrollment) carried forward to the subsequent visit, if missing.||9.4|-2.8|0.9999
95733802|NCT00440557|191438788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||||95.0|-0.38|0.037||This comparison between QW and TIW was performed prior to comparing Q2W with TIW in the statistical analysis 2 according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment (tX) through Week 22 in the QW group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||0.037|-0.380|
95733803|NCT00440557|191438788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in Hb from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 of -0.3 g/dL between standard-tx group (TIW) and test-tx group (QW), a pooled standard deviation of 1.7 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 250 participants (125 per group) will provide 90% power to demonstrate that the test treatment group is not inferior to the standard-treatment group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||||95.0|-0.641|-0.221||Since the non-inferiority was declared in the statistical analysis 1, this comparison between Q2W and TIW was then performed according to a planned stepdown procedure for controlling multiplicity.||||The null hypothesis is the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to the average of the last 8 weeks of treatment through Week 22 in the Q2W group is not lower than that of the TIW group by more than 1 g/dL.||-0.221|-0.641|
95733804|NCT00440557|191438789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-7.8||||||95.0|-17.2|1.7||||||||1.7|-17.2|
95733805|NCT00440557|191438789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-15.0||||||95.0|-25.0|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-25.0|
95733806|NCT00440557|191438790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.26||||||95.0|-0.564|0.043|||ANOVA|||||0.043|-0.564|
95733807|NCT00440557|191438790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.45||||||95.0|-0.755|-0.147|||ANOVA|||||-0.147|-0.755|
95733808|NCT00440557|191438791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.9||||||95.0|-9.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-9.5|
95733809|NCT00440557|191438791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.4|0.3||||||||0.3|-11.4|
95733810|NCT00440557|191438792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.7||||||95.0|-14.2|8.7||||||||8.7|-14.2|
95733811|NCT00440557|191438792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.9||||||95.0|-21.7|1.8||||||||1.8|-21.7|
95733812|NCT00440557|191438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.6||||||95.0|-9.6|14.8||||||||14.8|-9.6|
95733813|NCT00440557|191438793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.0||||||95.0|-15.0|9.0||||||||9.0|-15.0|
95733814|NCT00440557|191438794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03||||||95.0|-0.21|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.270|-0.210|
95733815|NCT00440557|191438794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.07||||||95.0|-0.315|0.166|||ANOVA|||||0.166|-0.315|
95733816|NCT00440557|191438795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.8||||||95.0|-16.0|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-16|
95733817|NCT00440557|191438795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-10.0||||||95.0|-18.0|-3.2||||||||-3.2|-18.0|
95733818|NCT01973348|191438807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 12 subjects per group has been shown to be effective for estimating within-group means and variances when little prior data is available.(Julius, 2005) Based on collected data from 34 subjects and effective size difference of 0.1, we reestimate this study as a noninferiority trial with continuous outcome and power calculated as approximately 80%.||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
95733819|NCT02672553|191438932|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95794015|NCT00720499|191558038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.171|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 15. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.171|-0.181|0.9557
95794016|NCT00720499|191558038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.14|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Olo 5 µg + Tio 5 µg minus Olo 2 µg + Tio 5 µg|Test day 29. Based on a ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, centre, patient within centre and period (all effects fixed).||0.140|-0.178|0.8096
95794017|NCT00457730|191558048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95794018|NCT00457730|191558049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95794019|NCT00457730|191558050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
95794020|NCT01100502|191558051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.40|0.001
95794021|NCT00828711|191558055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of MVI 100 and MVI 200 based on the proportion of vaginal deliveries within 24 hours. A minimum sample size of approximately 120 subjects per arm would provide 84 subjects per arm with vaginal delivery, which would ensure \>80% power (with two-sided alpha of 5%) to detect a 20% improvement in the proportion of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours||||0.057
95794022|NCT00828711|191558056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-563.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.018
95794023|NCT00828711|191558058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-8.46||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.153
95794024|NCT00828711|191558059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.37||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||0.65
95794025|NCT00828711|191558060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for site effect|MVI 200 - MVI 100|||||<.001
95794026|NCT00828711|191558062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-368.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - MVI 100|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdraw consent prior to delivery will be censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||0.007
95794027|NCT00251758|191558066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95794028|NCT00251758|191558066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95794029|NCT00251758|191558066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
95794030|NCT00251758|191558068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
95794031|NCT00251758|191558068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95794032|NCT00251758|191558068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
95794033|NCT01387269|191558118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
95794034|NCT01387269|191558119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.1475
95794035|NCT01387269|191558120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0004
95794036|NCT01387269|191558121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0544
95794037|NCT01387269|191558122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
95794038|NCT00721799|191558143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.08
95794039|NCT00721799|191558143|OTHER||C-statistic|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
95794040|NCT00721799|191558144|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
95794041|NCT00721799|191558144|OTHER||C-statistic|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
95794042|NCT00721799|191558145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
95794043|NCT00721799|191558145|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.02
95794044|NCT00721799|191558146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.73
95794045|NCT00721799|191558146|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
95794046|NCT00721799|191558147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.78
95794047|NCT00721799|191558147|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
95794048|NCT00721799|191558148|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
95794049|NCT00721799|191558148|OTHER||C-statistic|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.05
95794050|NCT00721799|191558149|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
95794051|NCT00721799|191558149|OTHER||C-statistic|0.58||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
95794052|NCT00721799|191558150|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.58
95794053|NCT00721799|191558150|OTHER||C-statistic|0.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
95794054|NCT00721799|191558151|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.89
95794055|NCT00721799|191558151|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.42
95794056|NCT00721799|191558152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.43
95794057|NCT00721799|191558152|OTHER||C-statistic|0.47||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.80
95794058|NCT00721799|191558153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.01
95794059|NCT00721799|191558153|OTHER||C-statistic|0.69||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.07
95922588|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.27||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.27||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.27|-0.80|0.412
95794060|NCT00721799|191558154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
95794061|NCT00721799|191558154|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.25
95794062|NCT00721799|191558155|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
95794063|NCT00721799|191558155|OTHER||C-statistic|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.27
95794064|NCT00721799|191558156|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
95794065|NCT00721799|191558156|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
95794066|NCT00721799|191558157|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.41
95794067|NCT00721799|191558157|OTHER||C-statistic|0.54||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.69
95794068|NCT00721799|191558158|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
95794069|NCT00721799|191558158|OTHER||C-statistic|0.64||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.18
95794070|NCT00721799|191558159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
95794071|NCT00721799|191558159|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
95794072|NCT00721799|191558160|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.06
95794073|NCT00721799|191558160|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.04
95794074|NCT00721799|191558161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
95794075|NCT00721799|191558161|OTHER||C-statistic|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
95794076|NCT00721799|191558162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.92
95794077|NCT00721799|191558162|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.84
95794078|NCT00721799|191558163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.76
95794079|NCT00721799|191558163|OTHER||C-statistic|0.45||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
95794080|NCT00721799|191558164|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
95794081|NCT00721799|191558164|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
95794082|NCT00721799|191558165|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
95794083|NCT00721799|191558165|OTHER||C-statistic|0.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.35
95794084|NCT00721799|191558166|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.48
95794085|NCT00721799|191558166|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
95794086|NCT00721799|191558167|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.67
95794087|NCT00721799|191558167|OTHER||C-statistic|0.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.11
95794088|NCT00721799|191558168|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.40
95794089|NCT00721799|191558168|OTHER||C-statistic|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.88
95794090|NCT00721799|191558169|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.01
95794091|NCT00721799|191558169|OTHER||C-statistic|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.03
95794092|NCT00721799|191558170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.26
95794093|NCT00721799|191558170|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
95794094|NCT00721799|191558171|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.37
95794095|NCT00721799|191558171|OTHER||C-statistic|0.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.46
95794096|NCT00721799|191558172|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.90
95794097|NCT00721799|191558172|OTHER||C-statistic|0.52||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.87
95794098|NCT00721799|191558173|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.36
95794099|NCT00721799|191558173|OTHER||C-statistic|0.56||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.63
95794100|NCT00721799|191558174|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.20
95794101|NCT00721799|191558174|OTHER||C-statistic|0.63||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.24
95794102|NCT01296412|191558239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sitagliptin-based treatment paradigm was to be declared non-inferior to the liraglutide-based treatment paradigm in lowering A1C at Week 26 if the upper bound of 95% confidence intervals of between group difference was less than the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.23|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||0.23|-0.05|
95950566|NCT00113529|191872879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.510
95922589|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.15||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.38||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.38|-0.68|0.642
95922590|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.16||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.36||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.36|-0.67|0.614
95733820|NCT02672553|191438933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2077
95733821|NCT02480764|191438965|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4512||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.782|0.918||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.918|-4.782|0.184
95733822|NCT02480764|191438965|NON_INFERIORITY|A test for noninferiority was done using a margin of 1.5 mm Hg. A test for significant difference was performed at 5% level.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4344||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.502|-0.868||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic SBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.868|-6.502|0.010
95733823|NCT02480764|191438966|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9455||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|0.397||Change at Week 8: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.397|-3.316|0.123
95733824|NCT02480764|191438966|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9354||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.659|-0.985||Change at 8 Week: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA model, with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough sitting clinic DBP as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-4.659|0.003
95733825|NCT02480764|191438967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.347||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.347|0.571|0.548
95733826|NCT02480764|191438967|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2136||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.501||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.501|0.638|0.921
95733827|NCT02480764|191438968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2805||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.759||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.759|0.607|0.904
95733828|NCT02480764|191438968|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.823||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.823|0.633|0.790
95733829|NCT02480764|191438969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1916||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.367||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.367|0.594|0.624
95733830|NCT02480764|191438969|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.674||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.674|0.726|0.647
95733831|NCT02480764|191438970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.284||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.284|0.537|0.404
95733832|NCT02480764|191438970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.447||Clinic SBP \<140 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.606|0.768
95733833|NCT02480764|191438970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2837||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.784||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.784|0.620|0.852
95733834|NCT02480764|191438970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2788||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.763||Clinic DBP \<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.763|0.620|0.868
95733835|NCT02480764|191438970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2244||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.59||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.590|0.684|0.847
95733836|NCT02480764|191438970|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2517||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.785||Clinic SBP\<140 mm Hg and DBP\<90 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.785|0.769|0.460
95733837|NCT02480764|191438971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3333||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|2.307||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.307|0.958|0.077
95733838|NCT02480764|191438971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4229||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|2.951||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.951|1.241|0.003
95922591|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.07|-1.07|0.147
95794103|NCT01296412|191558240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment paradigm and a covariate for baseline value.||||11.4|0.5|
95794104|NCT01296412|191558241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-1.5|-17.4|
95794105|NCT01296412|191558242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.7|-12.7|
95794106|NCT02160626|191558243|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95794107|NCT02160626|191558243|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
95794108|NCT02160626|191558244|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
95794109|NCT02160626|191558244|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA will be performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate.||||0.0001
95794110|NCT02160626|191558245|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||"Secondary efficacy analyses will also be conducted based on the proportion of subjects who have at least 3 of 4 target lesions judged to be clear on the PLA (PLA=0) at Visit 8.~A separate comparison will be made between each active treatment group and the vehicle treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by site."||||0.0016
95794111|NCT02160626|191558245|OTHER|For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004||||||For all analyses, two-tail alpha will be set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
95733839|NCT02480764|191438971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3414||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.28||Clinic DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.280|0.893|0.137
95794112|NCT05471505|191558246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.787|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.787|0.719|<0.001
95794113|NCT05471505|191558247|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.813|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.813|0.687|<0.001
95794114|NCT05471505|191558248|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|0.958|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.958|0.862|<0.001
95950567|NCT00113529|191872879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.608
95733840|NCT02480764|191438971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4816||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|3.22||Clinic DBP \<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough DBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.220|1.263|0.003
95950568|NCT00113529|191872879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.121
95950569|NCT00113529|191872880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.910
95733841|NCT02480764|191438971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3407||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|2.276||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.276|0.891|0.140
95733842|NCT02480764|191438971|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4136||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|2.797||Clinic SBP\<130 mm Hg and DBP\<80 mm Hg: P-value was calculated using logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline trough SBP as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.797|1.118|0.015
95733843|NCT03117569|191438972|NON_INFERIORITY|A total of 375 participants (2:1 randomisation) were planned for enrolment and evaluation as ITT population. Under the assumption that SVR12 rate would be 96% in both arms, the study had 80% power to show non-inferiority of the simplified monitoring strategy with a lower confidence bound for SVR12 in the simplified monitoring arm greater than 90% or with a lower confidence bound for the difference (simplified arm minus standard arm) in SVR12 greater than -6%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-8.2|<0.05
95733844|NCT03633721|191438986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.17
95733845|NCT03633721|191438987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.18
95733846|NCT03633721|191438988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis Being Tested in 2 way ANOVA is that the difference in the change from Baseline to the Average of 15 and 60 minutes post baseline while on cannabis Vs. the change while on placebo (i.e. the last row in the outcomes) is greater for HIV+ subjects than for HIV- subjects.||||0.72
95733847|NCT01475474|191438991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in ABL different from zero||||<0.001
95733848|NCT01475474|191438992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test used to evaluate median Percent Change-from-Baseline in Wexner score||||<0.001
95733849|NCT01030965|191438993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.229|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.229|0.088|<0.001
95733850|NCT01030965|191438993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.238|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.238|0.099|<0.001
95733851|NCT01030965|191438993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||||0.220|0.080|<0.001
95922592|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.42||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.13|-0.98|0.210
95922593|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.28||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.31||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.31|-0.86|0.438
95922594|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|-0.13||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||-0.13|-1.28|0.043
95922595|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.24||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.72||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.72|-0.23|0.403
95922596|NCT01027871|191805882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for 0300 hours BG."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.75|0.314
95922597|NCT01027871|191805884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
95922598|NCT01027871|191805884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
95922599|NCT01027871|191805885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.561
95922600|NCT01027871|191805885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.518
95922601|NCT01027871|191805886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.18|-0.20|0.938
95733852|NCT00993187|191439003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
95922602|NCT01027871|191805886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.19||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for baseline."|ANOVA||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.19|-0.18|0.972
95922603|NCT01027871|191805886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.15||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 1 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.15|-0.16|0.927
95922604|NCT01027871|191805886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.1||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.~P-value is for Week 12."|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Squares Mean Difference = LY2605541 Algorithm 2 - Insulin Glargine; and 90% confidence interval (CI) = 90% CI of the least squares mean difference.|||0.05|-0.25|0.293
95922605|NCT04640571|191805923|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin AUC value is larger after metformin than after placebo.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95922606|NCT04640571|191805924|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if pravastatin Cmax value is larger after metformin than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922607|NCT04640571|191805925|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922608|NCT04640571|191805926|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922609|NCT04640571|191805927|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922610|NCT04640571|191805928|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if acyclovir Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922611|NCT04640571|191805929|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA AUC value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922612|NCT04640571|191805930|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if CDCA Cmax value is reduced after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922613|NCT04640571|191805931|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat AUC value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922614|NCT04640571|191805932|EQUIVALENCE|Simple one-way t-test to assess if enalaprilat Cmax value is increased after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922615|NCT04640571|191805933|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922616|NCT04640571|191805934|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95950570|NCT00113529|191872880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.020
95922617|NCT04640571|191805935|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid AUC value is reduced after metformin than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922618|NCT04640571|191805936|EQUIVALENCE|For each of 15 endogenous bile acid, simple one-way t-test to assess if endogenous bile acid Cmax value is larger after polysorbate 80 than after placebo.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922619|NCT02820051|191805937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample was calculated with alpha 0.05, beta 0.20, standard deviation of 7.3,8 minimum PtcCO2 difference to detect of 5 mmHg, loss to follow-up estimated 0.20, and two-tails. According to the above, the sample size was 42 patients per group.|We tested normal distribution with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Data are shown as means and standard deviations for variables with normal distribution and as medians and interquartile ranges for non-normal variables. We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05. The analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).|||0.281
95950571|NCT00113529|191872880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
95733853|NCT00993187|191439006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-30.0|<0.001
95733854|NCT00993187|191439007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-23.0|<0.001
95733855|NCT00993187|191439008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.20|<0.001
95733856|NCT00993187|191439009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|41.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|51.0|||ANCOVA|||||51.0|30.0|<0.001
95733857|NCT03422653|191439037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.3|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.30|1.72|<0.001
95733858|NCT03422653|191439038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
95733859|NCT03422653|191439039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-8.0|<0.001
95733860|NCT03422653|191439040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.76|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||4.76|1.75|<0.001
95733861|NCT00840632|191439056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|93.26||||||90.0|83.39|104.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.31|83.39|
95733862|NCT00840632|191439057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.35||||||90.0|92.08|109.36|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.36|92.08|
95733863|NCT00840632|191439058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.17||||||90.0|92.71|106.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.08|92.71|
95733864|NCT00840632|191439059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.93||||||90.0|99.8|106.15|||||Informational Purposes Only|||106.15|99.80|
95733865|NCT00840632|191439060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.24||||||90.0|98.11|102.43|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.43|98.11|
95733866|NCT00840632|191439061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.1||||||90.0|98.12|102.12|||||Informational Purposes Only|||102.12|98.12|
95733867|NCT02055963|191439069|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.98
95733868|NCT01287013|191439082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95733869|NCT01287013|191439083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95733870|NCT01287013|191439084|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.04
95733871|NCT01287013|191439085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95733872|NCT01287013|191439086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.67
95733873|NCT03247556|191439087|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0082
95733874|NCT03247556|191439087|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-7.3|0.0712
95733875|NCT03247556|191439088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0051
95733876|NCT03247556|191439088|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||0.1|-0.6|0.0995
95733877|NCT03247556|191439089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.3|0.1377
95733878|NCT03247556|191439089|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.7|0.3130
95733879|NCT03247556|191439090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.0698
95733880|NCT03247556|191439090|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9756
95733881|NCT03247556|191439091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|29.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.3|1.3|0.0349
95922620|NCT02820051|191805938|SUPERIORITY|We used the t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, ANOVA, or chi-square as indicated. We defined a statistically significant difference as a P value \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95922621|NCT02820051|191805939|SUPERIORITY|T test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95922622|NCT04883346|191805990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 32 degrees of freedom (one participant did not have baseline DEXA data so could not be included.||||||<0.001
95922623|NCT04883346|191805991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom.||||||<0.001
95922624|NCT04883346|191805992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
95922625|NCT04883346|191805993|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, 33 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
95922626|NCT04529538|191806002|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|1.838|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of Type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||1.838|0.252|
95922627|NCT04529538|191806003|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|6.833|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||6.833|0.232|
95794115|NCT05471505|191558249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.067|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.067|0.842|0.378
95922628|NCT04529538|191806003|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|6.528|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 1 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.528|0.603|
95922629|NCT04529538|191806004|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|3.828|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||3.828|0.639|
95922630|NCT04529538|191806005|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.163|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 29||4.163|0.772|
95922631|NCT04529538|191806005|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.34|||||GMT ratios (nOPV/mOPV) were estimated via a linear model of the log₂ neutralizing antibody titer as a function of group with a fixed parameter for site and a covariate for the baseline log₂ neutralizing antibody titer level.|Comparison of type 3 neutralizing antibody GMT at Day 57||6.340|0.994|
95922632|NCT04529538|191806006|OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|22.72|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-Group Seroconversion Rate (4-fold rise) in Neutralizing Antibody Titers||22.72|-27.67|>0.999
95922633|NCT04529538|191806007|OTHER||Rate Difference|-2.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|20.86|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||20.86|-20.47|>0.999
95922634|NCT04529538|191806007|OTHER||Rate Difference|8.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|30.57|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||30.57|-5.71|0.263
95733882|NCT03247556|191439091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.0|-0.9|0.0698
95922635|NCT04529538|191806008|OTHER||Rate Difference|14.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|40.45|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after vaccination||40.45|-8.30|0.224
95733883|NCT03247556|191439092|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.6|0.1259
95733884|NCT03247556|191439092|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.8|0.7417
95733885|NCT03247556|191439093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.0|-3.8|0.0484
95922636|NCT04529538|191806009|OTHER||Rate Difference|9.8||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|35.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after first dose.||35.19|-7.29|0.275
95922637|NCT04529538|191806009|OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|44.93|||Fisher Exact||Rate Difference = nOPV - mOPV|Between-group comparison of seroconversion rate (4-fold rise) in neutralizing antibody titers 28 days after 2nd dose.||44.93|-1.27|0.100
95922638|NCT03437668|191806020|SUPERIORITY|To test for a differential treatment effect, we fit a linear mixed with group, time, and a group by time interaction as the predictors and random intercepts to account for the correlations induced by the repeated measurements within subjects. Given the form of the trajectories and the small sample size, we chose to treat time as continuous to minimize the number of degrees of freedom and the risk of overfitting.|Slope|-0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the interaction of time and treatment group in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
95922639|NCT04955626|191806033|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.5|98.3||||||2-Sided CI for Relative vaccine efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||98.3|89.5|
95922640|NCT04955626|191806034|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|97.9||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||97.9|88.5|
95922641|NCT04955626|191806035|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|63.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|73.5||||||2-Sided CI for Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||73.5|51.1|
95922642|NCT04955626|191806036|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|72.2||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||72.2|49.5|
95922643|NCT04955626|191806074|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.22||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||2.22|1.39|
95922644|NCT04955626|191806075|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||34.3|11.1|
95922645|NCT04955626|191806076|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.78||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.78|2.18|
95922646|NCT04955626|191806077|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.38||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||3.38|2.06|
95922647|NCT04955626|191806078|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.3||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||40.3|17.2|
95922648|NCT04955626|191806079|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|33.2||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||33.2|8.3|
95922649|NCT04955626|191806080|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration (GMR)|9.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|12.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]) and the corresponding CI (based on the student t distribution).||12.53|7.90|
95922650|NCT04955626|191806081|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||13.8|-3.0|
95922651|NCT04955626|191806088|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.0||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||3.00|1.65|
95922652|NCT04955626|191806088|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.16||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||4.16|2.38|
95922653|NCT04955626|191806088|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.08|1.17|
95922654|NCT04955626|191806088|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||2.68|1.45|
95922655|NCT04955626|191806089|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|29.7||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||29.7|9.3|
95922656|NCT04955626|191806089|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.5||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||38.5|19.4|
95922657|NCT04955626|191806089|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.9||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||24.9|4.0|
95922658|NCT04955626|191806089|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4||||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 μg\]). 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||21.4|0.1|
95922659|NCT04955626|191806097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.40|
95922660|NCT04955626|191806097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.43|0.93|
95922661|NCT04955626|191806097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.55||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.55|1.22|
95922662|NCT04955626|191806097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\]- BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.89|0.76|
95950572|NCT00113529|191872880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.509
95922663|NCT04955626|191806097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.53||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.53|1.20|
95922664|NCT04955626|191806098|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.42|0.40|
95922665|NCT04955626|191806098|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.58|0.47|
95922666|NCT04955626|191806098|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.95|0.57|
95922667|NCT04955626|191806098|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.09|0.61|
95922668|NCT04955626|191806098|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.50|0.73|
95922669|NCT04955626|191806099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.56|0.58|
95922670|NCT04955626|191806099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.93|0.77|
95922671|NCT04955626|191806099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.71|
95922672|NCT04955626|191806099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.73|
95922673|NCT04955626|191806099|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.37|0.94|
95922674|NCT04955626|191806100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.03|0.24|
95922675|NCT04955626|191806100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.76|0.90|
95922676|NCT04955626|191806100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.5||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.50|0.84|
95922677|NCT04955626|191806100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.59|0.85|
95922678|NCT04955626|191806100|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.20|0.76|
95922679|NCT04955626|191806101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.95||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||0.95|0.26|
95950573|NCT00113529|191872880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.883
95794116|NCT05471505|191558250|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.294|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.294|0.229|<0.001
95922680|NCT04955626|191806101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.43||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.43|0.41|
95922681|NCT04955626|191806101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.84|0.52|
95950574|NCT00113529|191872880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.582
95950575|NCT00113529|191872881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 1||||0.428
95733886|NCT03247556|191439093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||0.7|-3.1|0.2084
95733887|NCT03247556|191439093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.0|-5.1|0.0042
95733888|NCT03247556|191439093|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||0.5|-3.6|0.1392
95733889|NCT03247556|191439094|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.0|0.3810
95733890|NCT03247556|191439094|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.3|0.0432
95733891|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.1433
95733892|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0114
95733893|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0008
95733894|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0197
95733895|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0573
95733896|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0105
95733897|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0004
95733898|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.2573
95733899|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.1650
95733900|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0372
95733901|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1711|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.1711
95733902|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1428|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.1428
95733903|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2148|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.2148
95733904|NCT03247556|191439095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7||||0.0662
95733905|NCT01297348|191439118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported for current users.||3.29|1.23|
95733906|NCT01297348|191439118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|22.8||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||22.80|0.39|
95733907|NCT01297348|191439118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.02||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for current users.||6.02|2.02|
95733908|NCT01297348|191439118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|27.47||||||Incidence rate ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) along with corresponding 95% CI was reported for past users.||27.47|0.34|
95733909|NCT01297348|191439119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.67||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/EE-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||2.67|0.85|
95733910|NCT01297348|191439119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.54||||||Current user, case and matched control: Odds ratio (Lybrel/Levo-20) and 95% CI were estimated using conditional logistic regression, conditional on matching factors (age, calendar time, exposure status and database).||6.54|0.98|
95733911|NCT02495857|191439120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
95733912|NCT02495857|191439121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.25|62.11||||||||62.11|10.25|
95733913|NCT02495857|191439122|EQUIVALENCE|From baseline to week 26 visit, change in the WOMAC stiffness score was evaluated.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|8.49||||||||8.49|-13.61|
95733914|NCT00377260|191439131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical treatment failures by the on-therapy visit.||||< .001
95733915|NCT00377260|191439132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of clinical failures by the end of therapy.||||< .001
95733916|NCT00377260|191439133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||.02
95794117|NCT05471505|191558251|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.840|0.700|<0.001
95794118|NCT05471505|191558252|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|0.99|||COX Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.990|0.877|0.022
95794119|NCT01677286|191558306|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|171.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|328.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||BNP pg/mL, baseline versus end study values||328|14.1|0.035
95794120|NCT01677286|191558307|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Mean outcome change|0.0072||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.0234|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 12||Troponin I ng/mL, baseline versus end study levels.||0.0234|-0.009|0.340
95794121|NCT01677286|191558308|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|-7.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Creatinine clearance, baseline versus end study levels.||-1.67|-13.12|0.017
95794122|NCT01677286|191558309|OTHER|P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiple testing|Change in outcome measure|0.091||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 10||Proteinuria (g/24 hours), baseline versus end study levels.||0.466|-0.285|0.603
95794123|NCT00408499|191558310|OTHER|Maximum tolerated dose was derived from toxicity data obtained from dose level 1-4.|Maximum tolerated dose|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose was determined to be dose level 4: 150 mg Erlotinib, 250 mg/m2 Cetuximab|||||
95794124|NCT04596293|191558314|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95794125|NCT04596293|191558314|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95794126|NCT04596293|191558315|OTHER|||||||0.6351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6351
95794127|NCT04596293|191558315|OTHER|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
95794128|NCT04596293|191558316|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95794129|NCT04596293|191558316|OTHER|||||||0.6594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6594
95794130|NCT04596293|191558317|OTHER|||||||0.5808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
95794131|NCT04596293|191558317|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2143
95794132|NCT01287936|191558327|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
95794133|NCT01287936|191558329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.004
95794134|NCT02683109|191558358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the Tio+Olo FDC versus the Tio/Olo free combination was tested at the one-sided α-level of 0.025 using a non-inferiority margin of 0.1 L.|Adjusted mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.067|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was conducted using an Analysis of Covariance \[ANCOVA\] model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.067|-0.020|<0.0001
95794135|NCT02683109|191558359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.073|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.073|-0.061|0.8648
95794136|NCT02683109|191558360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.384|0.729|||ANCOVA|||The secondary analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model including treatment as fixed categorical effect and baseline as continuous covariate.||0.729|-1.384|0.5420
95794137|NCT01125930|191558361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.93
95794138|NCT01125930|191558362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.79
95794139|NCT01125930|191558363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.94
95794140|NCT01125930|191558363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.57
95794141|NCT01125930|191558363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
95794142|NCT01125930|191558363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.38
95794143|NCT01125930|191558363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.24
95794144|NCT01125930|191558364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess photodamage.||||0.87
95794145|NCT01125930|191558365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea.||||1.00
95950576|NCT00113529|191872881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.075
95922682|NCT04955626|191806101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.8||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.80|0.51|
95922683|NCT04955626|191806101|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.34||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.34|0.38|
95922684|NCT04955626|191806102|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.37|0.38|
95922685|NCT04955626|191806102|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.21||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.21|0.65|
95922686|NCT04955626|191806102|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.02||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.02|0.88|
95922687|NCT04955626|191806102|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.39||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.39|0.68|
95922688|NCT04955626|191806102|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.67|0.76|
95922689|NCT04955626|191806103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.25||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.25|0.21|
95922690|NCT04955626|191806103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.88||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.88|0.88|
95922691|NCT04955626|191806103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.06||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.06|1.24|
95922692|NCT04955626|191806103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.62||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.62|0.64|
95922693|NCT04955626|191806103|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.67||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.67|0.64|
95922694|NCT04955626|191806104|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.09|0.25|
95922695|NCT04955626|191806104|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.49|
95922696|NCT04955626|191806104|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.68|0.63|
95922697|NCT04955626|191806104|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.59|0.38|
95922698|NCT04955626|191806104|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.36||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.36|0.32|
95794146|NCT01125930|191558365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.62
95794147|NCT01125930|191558365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
95794148|NCT01125930|191558365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||1.00
95794149|NCT01125930|191558365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess ocular manifestations of rosacea||||0.45
95794150|NCT01125930|191558366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
95794151|NCT01125930|191558366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
95794152|NCT01125930|191558366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
95794153|NCT01125930|191558366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||0.53
95794154|NCT01125930|191558366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess phymatous changes of rosacea.||||1.00
95794155|NCT01125930|191558367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
95922699|NCT04955626|191806105|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||1.76|0.32|
95794156|NCT01125930|191558367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.41
95794157|NCT01125930|191558367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.66
95794158|NCT01125930|191558367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.92
95794159|NCT01125930|191558367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values to address non-normality of data.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||0.80
95950577|NCT00113529|191872881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||1.000
95794160|NCT01125930|191558368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TAC1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.003
95794161|NCT01125930|191558368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCR4 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.35
95794162|NCT01125930|191558368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of CXCL12 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.68
95794163|NCT01125930|191558368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of TNFa at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.76
95950578|NCT00113529|191872881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.019
95950579|NCT00113529|191872881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.124
95922700|NCT04955626|191806105|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.85||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.85|0.74|
95922701|NCT04955626|191806105|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.91||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.91|0.92|
95922702|NCT04955626|191806105|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.33||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.33|0.43|
95922703|NCT04955626|191806105|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.04||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.04|0.39|
95922704|NCT04955626|191806106|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.12|0.31|
95922705|NCT04955626|191806106|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|14.07||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||14.07|1.49|
95922706|NCT04955626|191806106|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|22.76||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||22.76|2.34|
95922707|NCT04955626|191806106|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.1||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.10|0.72|
95922708|NCT04955626|191806106|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.03||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.03|0.41|
95922709|NCT04955626|191806107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.70|0.38|
95922710|NCT04955626|191806107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.20|0.76|
95922711|NCT04955626|191806107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.94||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||7.94|1.13|
95922712|NCT04955626|191806107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||4.75|0.68|
95922713|NCT04955626|191806107|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.24||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||2.24|0.32|
95922714|NCT04955626|191806108|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.12||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||5.12|0.44|
95922715|NCT04955626|191806108|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|10.46||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||10.46|0.99|
95922716|NCT04955626|191806108|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|21.27||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 OMI \[60 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||21.27|1.96|
95950580|NCT00113529|191872881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.055
95794164|NCT01125930|191558369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||1.00
95794165|NCT01125930|191558369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of COL-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.25
95794166|NCT01125930|191558369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-1 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.41
95794167|NCT01125930|191558369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-3 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.02
95794168|NCT01125930|191558369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons of MMP-9 at Week 24 visit were made using fold change data.||||0.61
95794169|NCT01125930|191558370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||1.00
95794170|NCT01125930|191558370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.44
95794171|NCT01125930|191558370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.41
95794172|NCT01125930|191558370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess redness.||||0.94
95794173|NCT01125930|191558371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
95794174|NCT01125930|191558372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.13
95794175|NCT01125930|191558373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other.||||1.00
95794176|NCT01125930|191558374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.75
95794177|NCT01125930|191558375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.68
95794178|NCT01125930|191558376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 24 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.77
95794179|NCT01125930|191558377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.41
95794180|NCT01125930|191558377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||1.00
95794181|NCT01125930|191558377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.96
95794182|NCT01125930|191558377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess telangiectasia.||||0.91
95794183|NCT01125930|191558378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
95983238|NCT04272892|191940770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score post-intervention with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.5|.18|0.03
95794184|NCT01125930|191558378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
95794185|NCT01125930|191558378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.15
95794186|NCT01125930|191558378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess facial edema.||||0.29
95794187|NCT01125930|191558379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.54
95794188|NCT01125930|191558379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.06
95794189|NCT01125930|191558379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.02
95794190|NCT01125930|191558379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess dry skin.||||0.09
95794191|NCT01125930|191558380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.18
95794192|NCT01125930|191558380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
95794193|NCT01125930|191558380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.70
95794194|NCT01125930|191558380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparison at Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have different values than the other.||||0.35
95794195|NCT01125930|191558381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.80
95794196|NCT01125930|191558381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.31
95794197|NCT01125930|191558381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.25
95794198|NCT01125930|191558381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial burning.||||0.46
95794199|NCT01125930|191558382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.41
95794200|NCT01125930|191558382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.05
95794201|NCT01125930|191558382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.16
95922717|NCT04955626|191806108|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.89||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||6.89|0.63|
95794202|NCT01125930|191558382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to assess self-reported facial stinging.||||0.14
95794203|NCT01125930|191558383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.36
95794204|NCT01125930|191558383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.88
95794205|NCT01125930|191558383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.18
95794206|NCT01125930|191558383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an overall self-assessment of product tolerance.||||0.17
95794207|NCT01125930|191558384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.21
95794208|NCT01125930|191558384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||<0.01
95922718|NCT04955626|191806108|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.17||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of baseline assay results (log scale) and vaccine group.||3.17|0.28|
95922719|NCT04955626|191806133|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-358.6|100.0||||||||100.0|-358.6|
95794209|NCT01125930|191558384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.04
95794210|NCT01125930|191558384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial stinging upon product application.||||0.10
95794211|NCT01125930|191558385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||1.00
95794212|NCT01125930|191558385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.02
95922720|NCT04955626|191806134|OTHER||Adjusted Surveillance Time|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.5|100.0||||||2-Sided CI for RVE is derived based on the Clopper and Pearson method adjusted for surveillance time.||100.0|-355.5|
95794213|NCT01125930|191558385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 12 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.08
95794214|NCT01125930|191558385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial itching upon product application.||||0.15
95922721|NCT04955626|191806143|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[15 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[15 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.20|0.82|
95922722|NCT04955626|191806143|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the titers (BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\] + BNT162b2 OMI \[30 mcg\] - BNT162b2 \[30 mcg\]) and the corresponding CIs based on the student t distribution.||1.58|1.07|
95922723|NCT03714022|191806153|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.058|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.058|0.941|
95922724|NCT03714022|191806154|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.976|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.976|0.884|
95922725|NCT03714022|191806156|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.983|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||0.983|0.891|
95922726|NCT03714022|191806157|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means are contained within 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.001|||||Cohort A vs Cohort B|||1.001|0.915|
95922727|NCT01449721|191806176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||2-sample z-test|z-test for differences in proportions||Null hypothesis: In patients with moderate severity sepsis, there is no change in the incidence of organ dysfunction within 72 hours associated with the use of an empiric fluid resuscitation algorithm.||||0.064
95922728|NCT04447820|191806195|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3084|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.3084
95922729|NCT04447820|191806195|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.5930
95922730|NCT04447820|191806196|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9788|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9788
95922731|NCT04447820|191806196|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1314|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1314
95922732|NCT04447820|191806197|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.884|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.8840
95922733|NCT04447820|191806197|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.1202|||||||MMRM analysis|||||||0.1202
95922734|NCT04447820|191806198|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.9353|||||||MMRM|||||||0.9353
95922735|NCT04447820|191806198|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3099|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3099
95922736|NCT04447820|191806199|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2098|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2098
95922737|NCT04447820|191806199|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.3688|||||||MMRM|||||||0.3688
95922738|NCT04447820|191806200|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.5647|||||||MMRM|||||||0.5647
95922739|NCT04447820|191806200|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.217|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2170
95794215|NCT01125930|191558386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 2 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.67
95794216|NCT01125930|191558386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 6 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.18
95794217|NCT01125930|191558386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 21 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.02
95794218|NCT01125930|191558386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test with exact p-values.||Group comparisons were done at the Week 18 visit. The null hypothesis that the two groups are the same, was tested against the alternative hypothesis that one group tended to have larger values than the other over the ordinally scaled categories used to provide an assessment of skin irritation by facial burning upon product application.||||0.42
95794219|NCT02741284|191558387|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of 30% (mean difference \<1.0 mmol/l) was pre-specified as it corresponds to an upper umbilical artery lactate cut-off value of 4.5 mmol/L, above which there is an increased risk of neonatal morbidity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.5|0.69
95794220|NCT02741284|191558388|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin 30%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||pH||0.03|-0.01|<0.05
95794221|NCT02741284|191558389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery||1.48|0.07|<0.05
95794222|NCT02741284|191558389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean delivery for non reassuring fetal status||0|0|<0.05
95794223|NCT02741284|191558389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|45.2|||Chi-squared|||Operative vaginal delivery||45.20|0.71|<0.05
95794224|NCT02741284|191558390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-5.4|0.44
95794225|NCT02741284|191558391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-9.6|0.06
95922740|NCT04447820|191806201|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.2562|||||||MMRM|||||||0.2562
95794226|NCT02741284|191558392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.0|0.99
95794227|NCT02419807|191558471|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as the difference in the proportions of nodes flagged between the Tc and ICG methods falling within an interval (-δ, +δ), where δ is taken to be 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.151||||||||0.151|0.036|
95794228|NCT01935089|191558474|OTHER|"Hypothesis: 20 weeks of treatment (baseline week 3 to endpoint week 24) will result in a change in the levels of integrated HIV-1 DNA (copies/CD4 T cell Variable name: intDNA).~Test if the mean difference (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) is significantly different from zero (i.e. no change) Null hypothesis: Mean (IntDNA wk24 - IntDNAwk3) = 0; reject if p\<0.05"||||||0.0797||||||significant if \<0.05|signed rank test|||||||0.0797
95794229|NCT01829347|191558528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.133|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.133|0.085|0.076
95794230|NCT01829347|191558529|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95794231|NCT03435055|191558530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that the results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.001
95794232|NCT03435055|191558531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test were conducted on subject specific beta maps to identify changes in connectivity associated with nitrous oxide in SPM12. Hypothesis was that results would be deemed significant at false discovery rate (FDR) cluster level corrected p \< 0.05 derived from a voxel-wise uncorrected p-value \< 0.001.||||0.006
95794233|NCT03435055|191558532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t tests were conducted to determine whether changes in stimulus intensity: post stimulus at baseline and under subanesthetic dose of nitrous oxide. Statistical tests were completed in SPSS 26 and determined by p \< 0.05.||||<0.01
95983239|NCT04272892|191940771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|4.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of PHQ9 score at 8 week follow up with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.44|.149|0.036
95794234|NCT03435055|191558533|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0622|||||||Paired t-test|||Delta||||0.0622
95794235|NCT03435055|191558533|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.0292|||||||Paired t-test|||Theta||||0.0292
95794236|NCT03435055|191558533|OTHER|Paired T-test comparing baseline to nitrous||||||0.5905|||||||Paired t-test|||Alpha comparison||||0.5905
95922741|NCT04447820|191806201|NON_INFERIORITY|Approximately 90 participants were planned. Assuming an effect size delta = 0, pooled SD = 21.38, an alpha = 0.05 (1-sided), and a non-inferiority limit of 15%, a sample size of 26 patients per treatment group provided a power of 0.80. In the case that the actual effect size delta was 10%, the power was then 0.2. If the real effect was different, the result less likely showed non-inferiority. To account for any potential drop off, 30 participants in each treatment group, were planned.||||||0.4268|||||||MMRM|||||||0.4268
95922742|NCT01823341|191806233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922743|NCT01823341|191806234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95922744|NCT01823341|191806234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95922745|NCT01823341|191806235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922746|NCT01823341|191806235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95922747|NCT01823341|191806236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922748|NCT01823341|191806236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95922749|NCT01823341|191806237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95922750|NCT01823341|191806237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95922751|NCT01823341|191806238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95922752|NCT01823341|191806238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95922753|NCT01823341|191806239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95922754|NCT01823341|191806239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95922755|NCT01823341|191806240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95922756|NCT01823341|191806240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95922757|NCT01823341|191806241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95922758|NCT01823341|191806241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95922759|NCT01823341|191806242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95922760|NCT01823341|191806242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95922761|NCT03253653|191806260|OTHER||z score|1.578||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.115
95922762|NCT03253653|191806261|OTHER||z|0.497||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||z||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.619
95922763|NCT03253653|191806262|OTHER||z|1.72||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.085
95922764|NCT03253653|191806263|OTHER||z|6.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||<0.001
95922765|NCT03253653|191806264|OTHER||z|-1.144||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in systolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in biomarker levels for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.253
95922766|NCT03253653|191806265|OTHER||z|-1.004||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) significantly different from the pre-to-post change in diastolic blood pressure for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.315
95922767|NCT03253653|191806266|OTHER||z|3.089||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcox and signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects tests, to determine whether the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Charcoal-heated tobacco smoking session (n=50) was significantly different from the pre-to-post change in heart rate for the Electric Head-heated tobacco smoking session (using the same 50 participants after a weeklong washout period).|||0.002
95922768|NCT03253653|191806267|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
95922769|NCT03253653|191806268|OTHER||z|-4.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
95922770|NCT03253653|191806269|OTHER||z|-2.569||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the 1-HOP metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||.010
95922771|NCT03253653|191806270|OTHER||z|-7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
95922772|NCT03253653|191806271|OTHER||z|-1.304||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.192
95922773|NCT03253653|191806272|OTHER||z|-2.136||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.033
95922774|NCT03253653|191806273|OTHER||z|-1.22||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.223
95922775|NCT03253653|191806274|OTHER||z|-7.024|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||<0.001
95922776|NCT03253653|191806275|OTHER||z|-1.248||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the SPMA metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.212
95922777|NCT03253653|191806276|OTHER||z|-2.721||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the cotinine metabolite after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.007
95922778|NCT03253653|191806277|OTHER||z|2.778||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of exhaled carbon monoxide after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.006
95922779|NCT03253653|191806278|OTHER||z|-0.832||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of systolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.406
95922780|NCT03253653|191806279|OTHER||z|-1.467||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U ranksum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of diastolic blood pressure after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.142
95922781|NCT03253653|191806280|OTHER||z|-0.596||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the heart rate after a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.551
95922782|NCT03253653|191806281|OTHER||z|-0.787||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.431
95794237|NCT01668797|191558556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.||The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 1:1 (brexpiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio.||||<0.0001
95922783|NCT03253653|191806282|OTHER||z|-0.652||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.515
95922784|NCT03253653|191806283|OTHER||z|-2.394||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0. 017
95922785|NCT03253653|191806284|OTHER||z|-1.286||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.199
95922786|NCT03253653|191806285|OTHER||z|-3.091||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U rank sum test||||We used the Mann-Whitney U rank sum test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for between-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level for n=25 non-smokers.|||0.002
95922787|NCT03253653|191806286|OTHER||z|0.13||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.896
95922788|NCT03253653|191806287|OTHER||z|-0.362||||0.717|TWO_SIDED||||||The Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.717
95922789|NCT03253653|191806288|OTHER||z|2.233||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.026
95922790|NCT03253653|191806289|OTHER||z|0.383||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.702
95922791|NCT03253653|191806290|OTHER||z|2.244||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||||We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test (two-tailed alpha level p \< 0.05), appropriate for within-subjects analyses, to determine whether level of the furan metabolite post a tobacco smoking session for n=50 smokers differed from the level pre the tobacco smoking session.|||0.025
95922792|NCT01251614|191806299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||-3.7|-47.2|0.027
95922793|NCT01251614|191806300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-20.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||"The a priori defined order of the statistical hypotheses was as follows:~1. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX for the percentage of participants achieving a ≥ PASI 75 response at Week 16.~2. Superiority of adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg versus MTX, for the percentage of participants achieving a PGA cleared or minimal at Week 16.~This order was adhered to for confirmatory testing, all statistical tests were at a level of significance of 5% and the overall type I error was preserved."||2.2|-42.2|0.083
95922794|NCT01251614|191806301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||12.3|-26.9|0.466
95922795|NCT01251614|191806302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.3|-29.1|0.056
95922796|NCT01251614|191806303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.7|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||4.70|-1.48|0.304
95922797|NCT01251614|191806304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.82|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (p-value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||-2.82|-14.94|0.005
95922798|NCT01251614|191806305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|4.0|||Chi-squared|||"The difference between the combined adalimumab 0.8 mg/kg + MTX groups versus the adalimumab 0.4 mg/kg group.~Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were to be 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank."||4.0|-60.6|0.113
95922799|NCT01251614|191806306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.17|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.17|0.66|0.343
95922800|NCT01251614|191806306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.21|||Log Rank|||Statistical comparisons for the ranked secondary endpoints were carried out in hierarchical order. All statistical tests were 2-sided with the significance level of 5%. Statistically significant results (P value ≤ 0.05) must have been achieved for a comparison in the higher rank in order to initiate the next comparison in the lower rank.||3.21|0.71|0.276
95922801|NCT03371108|191806337|EQUIVALENCE|The determination of equivalence was defined by the US-FDA as a confidence interval that was contained within the equivalence limits of +/- 10.7.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|3.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||3.5|-7.6|
95922802|NCT01257503|191806364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in same participant||change in runny nose||||.86
95922803|NCT01257503|191806364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in sneeze||||.89
95922804|NCT01257503|191806364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in cough||||.45
95922805|NCT01257503|191806364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant||change in congestion||||.82
95922806|NCT01257503|191806365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in irritability||||.61
95922807|NCT01257503|191806365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in lethargy||||.97
95922808|NCT01257503|191806365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in fussiness||||.79
95922809|NCT01257503|191806365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Generalized estimating equations used to account for multiple doses in single participant.||change in appetite||||.81
95922810|NCT01257503|191806366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 1||||.16
95794238|NCT01668797|191558557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage of participants with impending relapse in treatment groups (Brexpiprazole and placebo) in final analysis for participants meeting at least one of the criteria.||||<0.0001
95794239|NCT01668797|191558558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2296|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||0.2296
95794240|NCT01668797|191558558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2051|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||0.2051
95794241|NCT01668797|191558558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||||0.7354
95794242|NCT01668797|191558558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||||0.1977
95794243|NCT01668797|191558558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8734|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||||0.8734
95794244|NCT01668797|191558558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis at Last Visit.||||0.0007
95794245|NCT01668797|191558559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 6.||0.23|-6.82|0.0664
95794246|NCT01668797|191558559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 12.||-0.52|-10.1|0.0301
95794247|NCT01668797|191558559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 24.||-0.68|-8.86|0.0226
95794248|NCT01668797|191558559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 36.||-1.59|-10.5|0.0086
95794249|NCT01668797|191558559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of treatment comparisons at Week 52.||5.46|-18.1|0.2800
95794250|NCT01668797|191558559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits||-1.82|-7.01|0.0011
95922811|NCT01257503|191806366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 2||||.70
95794251|NCT01668797|191558560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.23|-6.31|0.0683
95794252|NCT01668797|191558560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.90|-9.20|0.0174
95794253|NCT01668797|191558560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-3.18|-12.0|0.0008
95794254|NCT01668797|191558560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-3.59|-12.4|0.0005
95794255|NCT01668797|191558560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.41|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-3.41|-12.5|0.0007
95794256|NCT01668797|191558561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.00|-2.23|0.0507
95794257|NCT01668797|191558561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.50|-3.24|0.0080
95794258|NCT01668797|191558561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-2.89|0.0215
95794259|NCT01668797|191558561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.58|-3.19|0.0053
95794260|NCT01668797|191558561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.22|-5.20|0.339
95794261|NCT01668797|191558561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.88|-2.32|< 0.0001
95794262|NCT01668797|191558562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-2.10|0.1093
95794263|NCT01668797|191558562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.47|-3.25|0.0089
95794264|NCT01668797|191558562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.22|-4.26|0.0005
95794265|NCT01668797|191558562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.44|-4.43|0.0001
95794266|NCT01668797|191558562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-1.66|-4.70|<0.0001
95794267|NCT01668797|191558563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.29|-1.66|0.1650
95794268|NCT01668797|191558563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.42|-1.97|0.2001
95794269|NCT01668797|191558563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.16|-2.07|0.0939
95794270|NCT01668797|191558563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.35|-2.44|0.1396
95922812|NCT01257503|191806366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status day 3||||.77
95922813|NCT01257503|191806366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||functional status at 7-10 day follow-up||||.41
95922814|NCT01257503|191806367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 1||||.10
95922815|NCT01257503|191806367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 2||||.28
95794271|NCT01668797|191558563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.00|-4.14|0.8470
95794272|NCT01668797|191558563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.3|-1.24|0.2258
95794273|NCT01668797|191558564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.65|0.0981
95794274|NCT01668797|191558564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.15|-2.30|0.0264
95794275|NCT01668797|191558564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.42|-2.69|0.0078
95794276|NCT01668797|191558564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.38|-2.77|0.0101
95794277|NCT01668797|191558564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||0.01|-2.50|0.0516
95794278|NCT01668797|191558565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.53|0.0279
95794279|NCT01668797|191558565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0117
95794280|NCT01668797|191558565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-0.64|0.0105
95794281|NCT01668797|191558565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.25|-0.87|0.0007
95794282|NCT01668797|191558565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.06|-1.09|0.0780
95794283|NCT01668797|191558565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.15|-0.54|0.0006
95922816|NCT01257503|191806367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status day 3||||.26
95922817|NCT01257503|191806367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||health status at follow-up||||.88
95922818|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 1||||.02
95794284|NCT01668797|191558566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.03|-0.47|0.0284
95794285|NCT01668797|191558566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.11|-0.62|0.0056
95794286|NCT01668797|191558566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.76|0.0002
95794287|NCT01668797|191558566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-0.82|<.0001
95794288|NCT01668797|191558566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.26|-0.79|0.0002
95794289|NCT01668797|191558567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.60|0.0387
95794290|NCT01668797|191558567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-0.75|0.0185
95794291|NCT01668797|191558567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.24|-0.97|0.0010
95794292|NCT01668797|191558567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0004
95794293|NCT01668797|191558567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
95794294|NCT01668797|191558568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||5.49|-3.47|0.6525
95794295|NCT01668797|191558568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|14.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||14.87|-2.71|0.1677
95794296|NCT01668797|191558568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||9.5|-2.41|0.2347
95794297|NCT01668797|191558569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.17|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||7.17|0.40|0.0285
95794298|NCT01668797|191558569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||8.18|1.31|0.0071
95794299|NCT01668797|191558570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||4.88|-1.65|0.3290
95922819|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 1 assessment 2||||.01
95922820|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 2 assessment 1||||.25
95922821|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 2 assessment 2||||.15
95922822|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 1||||.88
95922823|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score day 3 assessment 2||||.35
95922824|NCT01257503|191806368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||cold score at 7-10 day follow-up||||.36
95922825|NCT01764386|191806373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||||-7.15|-9.88|<0.0001
95794300|NCT01668797|191558570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||6.54|-1.22|0.1765
95794301|NCT01668797|191558570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||8.63|0.38|0.0331
95794302|NCT01668797|191558570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|11.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||11.82|-0.06|0.0522
95794303|NCT01668797|191558570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||6.92|0.41|0.0281
95794304|NCT01668797|191558571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||6.86|0.90|0.0111
95794305|NCT01668797|191558571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||8.62|2.10|0.0014
95794306|NCT01668797|191558571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|10.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||10.00|3.61|<.0001
95794307|NCT01668797|191558571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||9.83|3.28|0.0001
95794308|NCT01668797|191558572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
95794309|NCT01668797|191558573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.17|-1.02|0.1577
95794310|NCT01668797|191558573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.28|-1.61|0.1685
95794311|NCT01668797|191558573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.42|-1.43|0.2815
95794312|NCT01668797|191558573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.12|-2.16|0.0286
95794313|NCT01668797|191558573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.51|-2.58|0.1803
95794314|NCT01668797|191558573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.17|-1.12|0.0077
95794315|NCT01668797|191558574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.21|-1.06|0.1852
95794316|NCT01668797|191558574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.21|-1.47|0.1430
95794317|NCT01668797|191558574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.09|-2.06|0.0323
95794318|NCT01668797|191558574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0071
95794319|NCT01668797|191558574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.52|0.0023
95794320|NCT01668797|191558575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.14|-2.54|0.0288
95922826|NCT01764386|191806374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|116.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||116.3|16.6|<0.0001
95794321|NCT01668797|191558575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.44|-3.60|0.0128
95794322|NCT01668797|191558575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.03|-3.15|0.0462
95794323|NCT01668797|191558575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.64|-3.94|0.0074
95794324|NCT01668797|191558575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52||-0.75|-6.05|0.0136
95794325|NCT01668797|191558575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.97|-2.84|0.0001
95794326|NCT01668797|191558576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.09|-2.26|0.0695
95794327|NCT01668797|191558576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.49|-3.38|0.0089
95794328|NCT01668797|191558576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.27|-4.39|0.0004
95794329|NCT01668797|191558576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-1.54|-4.63|0.0001
95794330|NCT01668797|191558576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-1.89|-4.99|<0.0001
95794331|NCT01668797|191558577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.35|-1.66|0.1969
95794332|NCT01668797|191558577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.43|-2.04|0.2007
95794333|NCT01668797|191558577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.03|-2.30|0.0436
95922827|NCT01764386|191806375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|76.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.7|6.0|<0.0001
95922828|NCT01764386|191806377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-7.24|||ANCOVA|||||-7.24|-10.07|<0.0001
95794334|NCT01668797|191558577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.04|-2.97|0.0444
95794335|NCT01668797|191558577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||5.02|-4.40|0.8927
95794336|NCT01668797|191558577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.31|-1.34|0.2154
95794337|NCT01668797|191558578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.07|-1.78|0.0707
95794338|NCT01668797|191558578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.14|-2.35|0.0276
95794339|NCT01668797|191558578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.45|-2.72|0.0065
95794340|NCT01668797|191558578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.42|-2.84|0.0085
95794341|NCT01668797|191558578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.07|-2.52|0.0630
95794342|NCT01668797|191558579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.31|-1.33|0.2251
95794343|NCT01668797|191558579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.07|-2.19|0.0368
95794344|NCT01668797|191558579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-0.56|-2.51|0.0024
95794345|NCT01668797|191558579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.15|-2.80|0.0293
95794346|NCT01668797|191558579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||3.17|-3.32|0.9632
95794347|NCT01668797|191558579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.34|-1.63|0.0029
95794348|NCT01668797|191558580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.14|-1.44|0.1062
95794349|NCT01668797|191558580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||-0.42|-2.33|0.0051
95794350|NCT01668797|191558580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||-1.01|-3.08|0.0001
95794351|NCT01668797|191558580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.89|-3.00|0.0004
95794352|NCT01668797|191558580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.56|-2.81|0.0035
95794353|NCT01668797|191558581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.13|-0.85|0.1465
95794354|NCT01668797|191558581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.27|0.2154
95794355|NCT01668797|191558581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.35|-1.23|0.2696
95794356|NCT01668797|191558581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.19|-1.95|0.0179
95794357|NCT01668797|191558581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.18|-2.46|0.0875
95794358|NCT01668797|191558581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0021
95794359|NCT01668797|191558582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-0.86|0.2135
95794360|NCT01668797|191558582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.29|-1.13|0.2437
95794361|NCT01668797|191558582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.05|-1.66|0.0635
95794362|NCT01668797|191558582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||-0.22|-1.92|0.0144
95794363|NCT01668797|191558582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||-0.39|-2.12|0.0046
95794364|NCT01668797|191558583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||0.19|-1.14|0.1640
95794365|NCT01668797|191558583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.55|-1.04|0.5466
95794366|NCT01668797|191558583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.87|-0.81|0.9417
95794367|NCT01668797|191558583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.76|-1.25|0.6257
95794368|NCT01668797|191558583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||1.21|-1.68|0.7437
95794369|NCT01668797|191558583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at across visits.||0.28|-0.62|0.4506
95922829|NCT01764386|191806378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.50|-7.14|<0.0001
95922830|NCT01764386|191806379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-29.5|0.0019
95922831|NCT01764386|191806380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|5.73|||ANCOVA|||||5.73|-5.96|0.9686
95922832|NCT01764386|191806381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.06|||ANCOVA|||||6.06|1.99|0.0001
95922833|NCT01764386|191806382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-4.9|0.1706
95922834|NCT01764386|191806383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-2.6|0.7160
95922835|NCT01764386|191806384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.3|0.0913
95922836|NCT01764386|191806385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-7.2|0.0016
95922837|NCT01764386|191806386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-6.2|0.0004
95922838|NCT01764386|191806387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.7|0.0003
95922839|NCT01764386|191806388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||||-6.0|-9.8|<0.0001
95922840|NCT01764386|191806389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
95922841|NCT01764386|191806390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|21.36|||ANCOVA|||||21.36|13.45|<0.0001
95922842|NCT02688621|191806429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to detect a 2.2-kg group weight loss difference between groups with a standard deviation of 5.8 kg,4,5 a 5% Type I error rate, and 80% power. To adjust for possible clustering effects in this nested design, the adjusted variance estimate was increased to 7.67, calculated using a conservative intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.05.||||<.01
95922843|NCT01996644|191806444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
95922844|NCT05349864|191806453|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|120.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.76|131.75||||||||131.75|109.76|
95922845|NCT05349864|191806454|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|116.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.91|137.95||||||||137.95|97.91|
95922846|NCT05349864|191806455|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment B, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|206.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.14|250.15||||||||250.15|171.14|
95922847|NCT05349864|191806456|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.36|161.19||||||||161.19|114.36|
95922848|NCT05349864|191806457|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.11|180.41||||||||180.41|106.11|
95922849|NCT05349864|191806458|EQUIVALENCE|Using data from Treatment A and Treatment C, natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model, and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI for the ratios.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|236.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.12|294.38||||||||294.38|190.12|
95922850|NCT02359435|191806477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.016|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95922851|NCT04541186|191806504|SUPERIORITY||Median Percent Change Difference|-43.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.08|-30.31||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren test|Nonparametric analysis stratified by baseline TG level and background lipid therapy to test the treatment difference using pooled data.|The location shift and Hodges-Lehmann 95% confidence interval were based on Hodges-Lehman estimation. Placebo group is the reference group, and the comparison was performed in pooled pegozafermin treatment group vs. placebo pooled.|||-30.31|-57.08|<0.001
95922852|NCT04541186|191806505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline TG level and lipid modifying therapy use.||||||<0.001
95922853|NCT04541186|191806506|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.425||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|-5.07||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of non-HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-5.07|-30.67|0.007
95983240|NCT04272892|191940772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||3.25|-0.03|0.054
95794370|NCT01668797|191558584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||-0.06|-1.32|0.0467
95794371|NCT01668797|191558584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||0.22|-1.33|0.1599
95794372|NCT01668797|191558584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 24.||0.19|-1.35|0.1417
95794373|NCT01668797|191558584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 36.||0.06|-1.47|0.0724
95794374|NCT01668797|191558584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 52.||0.03|-1.47|0.0608
95794375|NCT02111083|191558598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.01||||||||1.01|0.965|
95794376|NCT02111083|191558599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|0.919||||||||0.919|0.828|
95794377|NCT02111083|191558600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.375||||||||0.375|0|
95794378|NCT02111083|191558601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.02||||||||1.02|0.954|
95794379|NCT02111083|191558602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.0||||||||1.00|0.901|
95794380|NCT02111083|191558603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least squares means|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.164|0.685||||||||0.685|0.164|
95794381|NCT02111083|191558604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.01||||||||1.01|0.975|
95922854|NCT04541186|191806506|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.888||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|-2.01||Significant level of 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of ApoB comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||-2.01|-21.48|0.019
95922855|NCT04541186|191806506|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.519||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|22.68||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of LDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||22.68|-19.21|0.870
95922856|NCT04541186|191806506|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.182||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|31.7||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of HDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||31.70|-0.89|0.064
95733917|NCT00377260|191439134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children who develop worsening symptoms within the first 3 days of treatment.||||.24
95794382|NCT01259245|191558617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.012||Regression coefficients from ANCOVA for Tai Chi intervention (PRP as reference) at 6 months after adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable, age, sex, BMI, smoking and education|ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.046|0.252
95794383|NCT01259245|191558618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.442||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.447|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and smoking||power0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.447|-0.438|0.984
95794384|NCT01259245|191558619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.433||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.061|4.805|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, education, BMI and education||power of 0.80 for a medium effect size at 5% level of significance||4.805|-4.061|0.869
95794385|NCT01259245|191558620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.706||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.001|3.411|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium size effect at 5% level of significance||3.411|-6.001|0.588
95794386|NCT01259245|191558621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.477||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.627|2.327|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.327|-6.627|0.345
95794387|NCT01259245|191558622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.062||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.753|2.372|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||2.372|-5.753|0.413
95794388|NCT01259245|191558623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.049|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|21.939|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||21.939|4.159|0.004
95794389|NCT01259245|191558624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.226||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.184|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.184|-0.100|0.560
95794390|NCT01259245|191558625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.128|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||0.128|-0.054|0.425
95794391|NCT01259245|191558626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI, education and smoking||power of 0.80 for medium effect size at 5% level of significance||6.8|-3.5|0.528
95855675|NCT02492763|191670834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.37||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.87|-0.13|0.146
95922857|NCT04541186|191806507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Significant level = 0.05|van Elteren Test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-C comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.006
95922858|NCT04541186|191806507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Significant level of 0.05|van Elteren test|||Nonparametric analysis of VLDL-TG comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.002
95922859|NCT04541186|191806508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of fasting plasma glucose comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.809
95794392|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.05 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.00 to 1.10).|GMC ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 1."||0.18|0.14|
95794393|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1106 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.45 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.38 to 1.53).|GMC ratio|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.25||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 4."||0.25|0.2|
95794394|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.70 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.62 to 1.78).|GMC ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 5."||0.29|0.23|
95794395|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.33 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.30 to 0.36).|GMC ratio|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 6B."||0.23|0.16|
95794396|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1107 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.72 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.64 to 1.80).|GMC ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.31||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 7F."||0.31|0.25|
95794397|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1103 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.32 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.25 to 1.38).|GMC ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.27||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 9V."||0.27|0.22|
95794398|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1100 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 2.90 µg/mL with 95% CI = (2.75 to 3.05).|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 14."||0.33|0.25|
95802475|NCT03300336|191578219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 14 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 33 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.06|-0.03|0.40
95794399|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.66 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.56 to 1.77).|GMC ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 18C."||0.12|0.09|
95794400|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1104 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 1.84 µg/mL with 95% CI = (1.71 to 1.98).|GMC ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.12||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 19F."||0.12|0.09|
95794401|NCT01027845|191558657|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparability to the 105553 study in terms of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) on the GMC ratios (GMCs from 105553 10Pn Group over GMCs from 10Pn Group) were below a limit of 2-fold for all 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes. Number of participants analysed =1102 in the 105553 10Pn Group; GMC= 0.53 µg/mL with 95% CI = (0.50 to 0.57).|GMC ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.29||||||"Immune response of Synflorix vaccine tested between subjects of the 10Pn Group of the study and healthy European subjects from the 10PN-PD-DIT-001 (105553) study (with following indication: 3-dose primary vaccination of infants between 6 to 12 weeks of age at the time of the first vaccination with Synflorix), that formed the 105553 10Pn Group.~At 1 month after primary immunization (post-dose 3), ELISA GMC ratio (105553 10Pn Group over 10Pn Group) was calculated for pneumococcal serotype 23F."||0.29|0.21|
95794402|NCT01123655|191558721|EQUIVALENCE|P less than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.||||||0.5179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Specified to be a reduction from baseline values of net IFNƔ concentration of ≥ 25% in αl(ll)-stimulated PBMC culture supernatants (calculated as αI(II)-IFNƔ-PBS IFNƔ in patients receiving APL A12 compared to placebo.||||0.5179
95794403|NCT01123655|191558721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the APL treated groups is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.0114|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.0114
95794404|NCT01123655|191558721|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that the response rate in the placebo group is not significantly difference from the 50% spontaneous response rate.||||||0.4142|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.4142
95794405|NCT01123655|191558723|EQUIVALENCE|P greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable for baseline and follow-up data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95794406|NCT01123655|191558724|EQUIVALENCE|p value greater than 0.05 was the criteria for equivalence.|||||>|0.05||||||P value is applicable to IL-17a, IL-10, IL-1b, IL-9, IL-13, IL-5, IL-21, IL-6, TNFa, TGFb, MIP3a.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95794407|NCT06494761|191558786|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|127.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.1|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.10|96.90|
95794408|NCT06494761|191558786|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.35|153.39|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.2|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.39|110.35|
95794409|NCT06494761|191558787|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|117.9|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.90|98.57|
95794410|NCT06494761|191558787|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|116.93|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.4|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||116.93|95.41|
95922860|NCT04541186|191806508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of adiponectin comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||<0.001
95922861|NCT04541186|191806508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Significant level = 0.05|MMRM|||MMRM analysis of body weight comparison between pegozafermin pooled versus placebo pooled group.||||0.973
95922862|NCT04541186|191806509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Significant level = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95922863|NCT00058058|191806523|OTHER|Estimation of diagnostic yield|Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 based on Final BI-RADS||0.042|0.020|
95794411|NCT06494761|191558788|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.96|122.72|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 24.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||122.72|75.96|
95794412|NCT06494761|191558788|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.86|130.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||130.20|61.86|
95794413|NCT06494761|191558789|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|129.84|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 16.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||129.84|105.56|
95794414|NCT06494761|191558789|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|144.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.53|168.71|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.9|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||168.71|123.53|
95794415|NCT06494761|191558790|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.92|121.52|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.1|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||121.52|100.92|
95794416|NCT06494761|191558790|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|117.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.3|126.81|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.81|108.30|
95794417|NCT06494761|191558791|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.9|126.3|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 77.6|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||126.30|49.90|
95794418|NCT06494761|191558791|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|62.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.69|86.2|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 49.1|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||86.20|44.69|
95802508|NCT02864914|191578404|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.65|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.65|0.43|
95922864|NCT00058058|191806523|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.044|0.021|
95922865|NCT00058058|191806523|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up and a completed biopsy procedure||0.042|0.020|
95922866|NCT00058058|191806523|OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.042||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.042|0.020|
95794419|NCT06494761|191558792|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|110.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.58|127.24|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.5|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 1) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.24|96.58|
95794420|NCT06494761|191558792|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.7|153.59|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 25.8|The relative bioavailability of Repaglinide was assessed by comparing Repaglinide administered after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 3) to Repaglinide administered alone (Reference Treatment 1). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||153.59|109.70|
95794421|NCT06494761|191558793|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.79|119.41|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 14.3|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.41|98.79|
95794422|NCT06494761|191558793|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|106.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.49|117.73|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.9|The relative bioavailability of midazolam was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||117.73|95.49|
95794423|NCT06494761|191558794|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.9|146.35|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.9|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole with a single dose of zongertinib (Test Treatment 2) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||146.35|79.90|
95794424|NCT06494761|191558794|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.01|127.53|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 38.5|The relative bioavailability of omeprazole was assessed by comparing Midazolam + Omeprazole after multiple doses of zongertinib (Test Treatment 4) to Midazolam + Omeprazole (Reference Treatment 2). The ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) with 90% two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. The log-transformed difference (log\[T\]-log\[R\]) was estimated using least squares means from ANOVA and then back-transformed to the original scale.||127.53|75.01|
95794425|NCT04609514|191558802|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.51
95794426|NCT04609514|191558803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.001
95794427|NCT04609514|191558808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||A robust Yuen's test was conducted with an apriori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance. No covariates were introduced in the model.|Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.39
95794428|NCT04609514|191558809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Robust Yuen's test|||||||0.40
95922867|NCT00058058|191806523|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 on the initial MRI scan||0.043|0.021|
95922868|NCT00058058|191806523|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.043||||||Diagnostic Yield is defined as the likelihood that a test or procedure will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis. For this analysis, a Positive Test is defined as a score of BI-RADS 0, 3, 4 or 5 based on initial MRI and subsequent work-up||0.043|0.021|
95794429|NCT04609514|191558810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.478
95794430|NCT04609514|191558811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction.||||||0.51
95794431|NCT04609514|191558813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.119|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.119|0.23|0.8392
95794432|NCT04609514|191558814|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction.||||||1.00
95794433|NCT01618968|191558819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.61|134.7||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration AUC(0-inf).||134.70|121.61|
95794434|NCT01618968|191558819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|125.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.43|131.84||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following oral administration to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-Inf).||131.84|119.43|
95794435|NCT01618968|191558819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|101.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.41|104.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the AUC(0-inf)||104.36|99.41|
95983241|NCT04272892|191940773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of GAD7 at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.87|-.70|0.229
95794436|NCT01618968|191558820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.28|134.36||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||134.36|121.28|
95794437|NCT01618968|191558820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|125.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.16|131.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||131.55|119.16|
95794438|NCT01618968|191558820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.39|104.31||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the area under the curve from time zero to the 24 hour concentration AUC(0-24)||104.31|99.39|
95794439|NCT01618968|191558821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference ratio|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.42|104.06||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the abdomen using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||104.06|86.42|
95794440|NCT01618968|191558821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability comparisons were performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|82.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.16|88.55||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of methotrexate (MTX) following oral administration to that obtained after subcutaneous (SC) injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||88.55|76.16|
95794441|NCT01618968|191558821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of bioequivalence was performed at each dose level.|Test / Reference Ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|122.86||||||To compare the relative bioavailability of MTX following SC injection into the abdomen to that obtained after SC injection into the thigh using the VIBEX MTX device by measuring the maximum observed concentration (Cmax)||122.86|108.83|
95794442|NCT02753881|191558835|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicin.||||.036
95794443|NCT02753881|191558835|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for dose normalized doxorubicinol.||||0.002
95794444|NCT02753881|191558837|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicin.||||0.023
95794445|NCT02753881|191558837|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Two-sided p-values \<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To achieve high probability (80% power) to detect 50% change with 5% significance level, calculated total sample size was 30 participants for time-concentration-curves for doxorubicinol.||||0.041
95794446|NCT02858908|191558846|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6696||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.334|-0.0051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||-0.0051|-1.3340|0.0484
95794447|NCT02858908|191558846|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6449||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3094|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete 10-metre walk/run test at the preferred speed||0.0195|-1.3094|0.0565
95794448|NCT02858908|191558847|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9102||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1526|2.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||2.9730|-1.1526|0.3732
95794449|NCT02858908|191558847|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3897||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4525|0.6731|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in grip strength (kg)||0.6731|-3.4525|0.1782
95855676|NCT02492763|191670834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.48||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.48|-1.49|<0.001
95855677|NCT02492763|191670837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.6|-12.1|0.301
95922869|NCT00058058|191806524|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05004|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7567|0.9809||||||"Sensitivity estimate - estimates the P(T+\|D+) where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9809|0.7567|
95922870|NCT00058058|191806524|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.8782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8555|0.8985||||||"Specificity - estimates the P(T-\|D-) of MRI where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.8985|0.8555|
95922871|NCT00058058|191806524|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.2083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1452|0.2839||||||"PPV estimate - estimates the P(D+\|T+), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)."||0.2839|0.1452|
95922872|NCT00058058|191806524|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.9964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9894|0.9993||||||"B. NPV Analysis for ALL Cases in Analysis Set NPV estimate - estimates the P(D-\|T-), where the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram is the test (T) and cancer in the contralateral breast is the Disease status(D)"||0.9993|0.9894|
95794450|NCT02858908|191558848|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0213||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3368|0.2941|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.2941|-0.3368|0.8886
95794451|NCT02858908|191558848|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0152||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3003|0.3307|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in FVC (litres)||0.3307|-0.3003|0.9204
95794452|NCT02858908|191558849|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|-42.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.0|2178.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||2178.50|-1270.00|1.0000
95794453|NCT02858908|191558849|OTHER|The exact Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to test for a change in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g) from baseline to end of treatment|Median Difference (Net)|426.75||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-289.5|1198.5|||ANCOVA||Hodges-Lehmann estimates for the median and confidence intervals are presented|Changes from baseline to week 12 in the DXA scan total lean muscle mass (g)||1198.50|-289.50|0.3125
95794454|NCT02858908|191558851|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.7||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.7|2.6|0.0030
95794455|NCT02858908|191558851|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.6||The p-value is presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in Clinical Global Impression Global Improvement Scale (CGI-I)||3.6|2.4|0.0009
95794456|NCT02858908|191558852|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||0.066|-0.330|0.1857
95794457|NCT02858908|191558852|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the weekly total number of 3 minute bouts of activity per hour wear time||-0.102|-0.549|0.0054
95794458|NCT02858908|191558855|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.162||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.731|-0.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||-0.593|-3.731|0.0111
95794459|NCT02858908|191558855|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|0.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the time taken (seconds) to complete the nine hole peg test for the dominant arm||0.614|-2.525|0.2088
95922873|NCT00058058|191806524|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.044||||||B. Diagnostic Yield for ALL Cases in Analysis Set Diagnostic Yield - estimates the likelihood that the MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram will provide the information needed to establish a diagnosis||0.044|0.021|
95922874|NCT00058058|191806525|OTHER||ROC analysis|0.9355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8956|0.9753|||||exact CI|ROC analysis - estimates the accuracy of MRI within 90 days of a negative mammogram to detect cancer in the contralateral breast||0.9753|0.8956|
95794460|NCT02858908|191558856|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||0.18|-3.71|0.0728
95794461|NCT02858908|191558856|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the subject top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.04|-3.94|0.0456
95794462|NCT02858908|191558856|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.80|-4.03|0.0058
95794463|NCT02858908|191558856|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the caregiver top three concerns VAS total score (cm)||-0.34|-3.56|0.0208
95794464|NCT02858908|191558857|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||-0.017|-0.092|0.0068
95794465|NCT02858908|191558857|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the OSU Autism Rating Scale - DSM-IV (OARS-4) total impairment mean||0.028|-0.047|0.6090
95794466|NCT02858908|191558858|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.7||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||3.7|3.0|0.0011
95794467|NCT02858908|191558858|OTHER|A mixed effect model repeated measure (MMRM) was fitted to the observed values at week12 in OSU CGI-I. The model included dose group and visit as fixed effects, and the treatment-by-visit interaction. F-tests from PROC MIXED were based on Kenward-Roger's adjusted degrees of freedom. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for the repeated visits within subject.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.4||p-values are presented for the comparison of adjusted Least Square Means to a score of 4, representing 'No change'|Mixed Models Analysis|||Observed value at week 12 in OSU global improvement scale for autism (OSU CGI-I)||4.4|3.6|1.0000
95794468|NCT02858908|191558859|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-3.47|-8.35|<0.0001
95855678|NCT02492763|191670837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.2||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.1|0.573
95922875|NCT00790062|191806538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|0.63|0.670
95855679|NCT02492763|191670837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|-2.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-12.4|0.295
95922876|NCT03613129|191806541|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95922877|NCT03613129|191806541|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
95922878|NCT03613129|191806541|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95794469|NCT02858908|191558859|OTHER|Analysis of change in efficacy variables from baseline to week 12 were performed using mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline value as a covariate, dose group and visit as fixed effects and a treatment-by-visit interaction. Adjusted least square mean estimates were produced by dose group and study visit and were presented with two-sided 95% confidence intervals and p-values.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline at week 12 in the clinician-completed domain specific causes for concern VAS total score (cm)||-0.83|-5.71|0.0116
95794470|NCT02858908|191558860|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||4.3|-6.5|0.6631
95794471|NCT02858908|191558860|OTHER|An ANCOVA was fitted to the change in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test age-based standard score from baseline to end of treatment. The model included the baseline value as a covariate and dose group as a fixed effect.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is an adjusted Least Square Mean|Change from baseline to week 12 in the peabody picture vocabulary test age-based standard score||5.2|-5.5|0.9546
95794472|NCT01265498|191558893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status.|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.8|1.3|0.0002
95794473|NCT01265498|191558894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|0.9|0.08
95794474|NCT01265498|191558895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.7|1.1|0.004
95794475|NCT01265498|191558896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.01
95794476|NCT01265498|191558897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
95794477|NCT01265498|191558898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.1|1.0|0.03
95794478|NCT01265498|191558899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.0|-0.5|0.03
95922879|NCT03613129|191806541|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.451
95794479|NCT01265498|191558900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.3|1.2|0.001
95794480|NCT01265498|191558901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
95794481|NCT01265498|191558902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||2.2|1.1|0.006
95794482|NCT01265498|191558903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0006
95794483|NCT01265498|191558904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p values and relative benefit were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic and diabetes status|obeticholic acid vs. placebo|||1.7|0.6|0.90
95794484|NCT01265498|191558905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-0.1|0.59
95794485|NCT01265498|191558906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-11|-28|<0.0001
95794486|NCT01265498|191558907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-6|-18|0.0001
95794487|NCT01265498|191558908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||24|13|<0.0001
95794488|NCT01265498|191558909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-14|-35|<0.0001
95922880|NCT03613129|191806541|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing 28-day pre-treatment mean TDSS and 28-day post-treatment mean TDSS||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
95922881|NCT03613129|191806542|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95794489|NCT01265498|191558910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.002
95794490|NCT01265498|191558911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.60|0.16|0.0009
95794491|NCT01265498|191558912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.10|0.01
95794492|NCT01265498|191558913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.65|0.26|<0.0001
95794493|NCT01265498|191558914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.30|-0.35|0.88
95794494|NCT01265498|191558915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.8|0.72
95794495|NCT01265498|191558916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.01|-0.01|0.71
95794496|NCT01265498|191558917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.4|-1.8|0.002
95794497|NCT01265498|191558918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.4|-0.2|0.40
95794498|NCT01265498|191558919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||26|7|0.001
95794499|NCT01265498|191558920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.1|-1.4|0.03
95794500|NCT01265498|191558921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.04|0.00|0.04
95794501|NCT01265498|191558922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.05|-0.03|0.53
95794502|NCT01265498|191558923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||5.0|0.2|0.03
95794503|NCT01265498|191558924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||29|0|0.05
95794504|NCT01265498|191558925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.2|-1.2|0.13
95794505|NCT01265498|191558926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.6|-0.5|0.31
95794506|NCT01265498|191558927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.16
95794507|NCT01265498|191558928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.01|-0.04|0.002
95794508|NCT01265498|191558929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.8|-0.2|0.26
95794509|NCT01265498|191558930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|69.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||69|6|0.02
95794510|NCT01265498|191558931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||23|3|0.01
95794511|NCT01265498|191558932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2.6|-1.7|0.71
95794512|NCT01265498|191558933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
95855680|NCT02492763|191670837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Liraglutide|2.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.2|-8.4|0.587
95794513|NCT01265498|191558934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||-0.2|-1.3|0.01
95794514|NCT01265498|191558935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1.5|-2.2|0.70
95794515|NCT01265498|191558936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0.02|-0.01|0.57
95794516|NCT01265498|191558937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||0|-7|0.05
95794517|NCT01265498|191558938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||1|-4|0.23
95794518|NCT01265498|191558939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||3|-1|0.22
95794519|NCT01265498|191558940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 72 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome|obeticholic acid vs placebo|||2|-3|0.65
95794520|NCT03114150|191558956|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group, learning rate, and session.|We tested the prediction that learning rate would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.01|-.04|<.05
95794521|NCT03114150|191558957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of exercise condition (intensity) and session.|We tested the prediction that hippocampal-cortical functional connectivity would change more for the moderate-to-vigorous acute condition compared to the light intensity condition. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.||.02|-.01|<.05
95794522|NCT03114150|191558958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustments for degrees of freedom||We tested the prediction that functional connectivity strength would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, according to our statistical analysis plan.|Parameter is the interaction term for the interaction of group and session.|.02|-.03|<.05
95794523|NCT03114150|191558959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Residualized change model, as reported in our protocol paper.||We tested the prediction that cardiorespiratory fitness would increase more so for the moderate-to-vigorous training group compared to the light intensity training group. This prediction was tested with a linear mixed model, as reported in our protocol paper.||2.59|.27|<.05
95794524|NCT00368251|191558984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.15|||=|0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|24.96||All hypotheses are tested at the 5 % level. The multiplicity scheme (hierarchical testing procedure) assures strong control of the type I error at the 5 % level.|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo was calculated.|"The first hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day.~The second hypothesis for the primary efficacy variable compares placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. However, this second hypothesis will only be tested when all the hypotheses for placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day are significant for the primary three UMRS related secondary endpoints.~The hypotheses will be tested using nonparametric analysis. The study was designed to have 80 % power."||24.96|-26.12|=0.942
95794525|NCT00368251|191558984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|-18.05|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|4.86||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint and the three UMRS related secondary endpoints comparing placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day are significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||4.86|-39.31|=0.105
95794526|NCT00368251|191558985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|1.24|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|31.06||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Primary Outcome testing Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann(unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|If primary efficacy is proven for Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the following secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 150 mg/day. The testing scheme will be hierarchical, thus statistical significance at 5 % on BRV 150 mg/day on a secondary endpoint is needed to continue testing BRV 150 mg/day at 5 % significance level for the next secondary endpoint.||31.06|-21.90|=0.672
95794527|NCT00368251|191558985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|18.75||Tested at the 5 % level - given the primary endpoint testing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intevals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|"In case the three endpoints are significant for placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day, the primary endpoint will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day. In case of significance, the three UMRS related secondary endpoints will be tested for Placebo versus BRV 5 mg/day, provided the previous is significant at 5 %. Secondary endpoints are tested in the following order:~* Functional Disability~* Stimulus Sensitivity~* Myoclonus Patient Questionnaire"||18.75|-33.33|=0.806
95922882|NCT03613129|191806542|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
95922883|NCT03613129|191806542|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95922884|NCT03613129|191806542|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95922885|NCT03613129|191806542|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment PCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment PCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
95922886|NCT03613129|191806543|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.587|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.587
95922887|NCT03613129|191806543|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
95922888|NCT03613129|191806543|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
95922889|NCT03613129|191806543|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
95794528|NCT00368251|191558986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|100.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Willcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||100.00|-25.00|=0.549
95794529|NCT00368251|191558986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|0.0|||=|0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|66.67||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||66.67|-50.00|=0.654
95794530|NCT00368251|191558987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|14.29|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|39.39||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 150 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||39.39|-1.76|=0.037
95794531|NCT00368251|191558987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann-estimator of difference|10.0|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|30.0||Tested at the 5 % level - given the Functional Disability Score comparing Placebo versus Brivaracetam (BRV) 5 mg/day is significant at the 5 % level (hierarchical testing procedure).|stratified Wilcoxon Test|Estimates and confidence intervals are obtained from Hodges-Lehmann (unstratified).|Difference versus Placebo.|||30.00|-5.56|=0.111
95794532|NCT00368251|191558988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||||||=0.931
95794533|NCT00368251|191558988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.253||||||The Global Evaluation Scale by Investigator (I-GES) was compared between placebo and each dose at 5 % significance level independently from the previous secondary endpoints.|Stratified Wilcoxon test|||P-value for pairwise comparison of each Brivaracetam dose versus Placebo.||||=0.253
95922890|NCT03613129|191806543|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing pre-treatment MCS (at Visit 3) and post-treatment MCS (at Visit 6)||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
95922891|NCT02334306|191806544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||0.7|-3.6|0.262
95922892|NCT02334306|191806545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For plasma cell levels||1.64|0.52|0.820
95922893|NCT02334306|191806545|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.28|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For TFH cells||1.28|0.33|0.291
95922894|NCT02334306|191806546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For total plasma cells||1.18|0.65|0.440
95922895|NCT02334306|191806546|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.7|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For CD4/ICOS TFH cells||0.70|0.26|0.008
95922896|NCT02334306|191806546|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.59|||ANCOVA||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval, SE (log), and p-value.|For PD-1/ICOS TFH cells||1.59|0.64|0.972
95922897|NCT02334306|191806548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference for MEDI5872 210 mg:Placebo was calculated with associated 90% confidence interval and p-value.|||1.6|-0.8|0.574
95922898|NCT02334306|191806549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI \[3\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
95922899|NCT02334306|191806549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in precentages|25.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|50.9|||Fisher Exact|||ESSDAI\[4\]||50.9|-3.1|0.252
95922900|NCT00711646|191806558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.517||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline 11-point Numerical Rating Scale spasticity score as a covariate.||-0.004|-1.029|0.048
95922901|NCT00711646|191806559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Ashworth Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Ashworth Scale score as a covariate.||0.07|-0.29|0.218
95983242|NCT04272892|191940774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at post-intervention, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||2.73|-5.51|0.502
95922902|NCT00711646|191806560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean spasm frequency score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline spasm frequency score as a covariate.||0.06|-0.39|0.141
95794534|NCT01373164|191558994|SUPERIORITY|The planned primary analysis for this study utilized a Bayesian exponential-likelihood model, incorporating historical overall survival (OS) data from 2 studies (Oettle et al. 2005; Saif et al. 2009). The primary analysis was performed using strong borrowing from the historical data. The model was estimated to borrow approximately 37 events from the historical studies.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.085|||Bayesian Analysis|Primary comparison was to be considered successful if there was at least 0.85 posterior probability that the hazard ratio (HR) for OS of LY+Gem is \<1.|This is a Credible Interval estimated from the Bayesian analysis.|||1.085|0.590|
95794535|NCT01587885|191559007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.548|||<|0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0480
95794536|NCT01499511|191559022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.624
95794537|NCT01499511|191559023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95794538|NCT01499511|191559024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.304
95794539|NCT01499511|191559025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.641
95794540|NCT01499511|191559026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.915
95794541|NCT02202252|191559029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.490
95794542|NCT02202252|191559030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95794543|NCT02202252|191559031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.819
95794544|NCT04459338|191559032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All continuous data are summarized as means ± SEM. Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated using the trapezoidal rule. A paired, two-way Student t-test (parametric) or a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (non-parametric) was used to examine differences between study days. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
95922903|NCT00711646|191806561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|10.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||10.07|-7.47|0.766
95922904|NCT00711646|191806562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|8.46||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|23.66|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||23.66|-6.74|0.349
95922905|NCT00711646|191806564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.86||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.78|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean Motricity Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Motricity Index score as a covariate.||7.78|-0.06|0.054
95794545|NCT02932943|191559040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.72|-1.07|0.6482
95794546|NCT02932943|191559041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.87|-1.61|0.5590
95794547|NCT02932943|191559042|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.95|-1.53|0.8131
95794548|NCT02932943|191559043|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.21|-2.05|0.6108
95922906|NCT02390557|191806582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||we had a prior hypothesis that the survey intervention would be associated with a larger increase in perceived quality of health care compared with control from Wave 1 to Wave 2||||0.074
95794549|NCT00853385|191559069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.18|35.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||35.31|13.18|<0.0001
95794550|NCT00853385|191559069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|34.29||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.29|12.16|<0.0001
95794551|NCT00853385|191559069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.93||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.96||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||29.96|7.90|0.0007
95794552|NCT00853385|191559070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.25|-0.50|<0.0001
95922907|NCT02390557|191806582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||We compared change in perception of quality of health care between Control v YES Health, wave 1 v Wave 2||||.069
95922908|NCT01360840|191806583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39||||||||1.39|0.57|
95922909|NCT01360840|191806583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.26||||||||1.26|0.52|
95922910|NCT01360840|191806584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.31||||||||2.31|0.52|
95922911|NCT01360840|191806584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15||||||||2.15|0.47|
95794553|NCT00853385|191559070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
95794554|NCT00853385|191559070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<0.0001
95794555|NCT00853385|191559071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|16.73||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||16.73|6.08|<0.0001
95794556|NCT00853385|191559071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.12||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|9.26||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.26|0.98|0.0151
95794557|NCT00853385|191559071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.65||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9||Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of adalimumab to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.90|1.40|0.0091
95794558|NCT02330341|191559136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.380
95794559|NCT02330341|191559136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of postprandial glucose on placebo group||||0.695
95922912|NCT01360840|191806585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44||||||||1.44|0.58|
95794560|NCT02330341|191559137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.110
95794561|NCT02330341|191559137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.910
95794562|NCT02330341|191559138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.010
95794563|NCT02330341|191559138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of glucosylated hemoglobin on placebo group||||0.938
95794564|NCT02330341|191559139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.733
95794565|NCT02330341|191559139|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||1.0
95794566|NCT02330341|191559140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.03
95794567|NCT02330341|191559140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.900
95794568|NCT02330341|191559141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.519
95794569|NCT02330341|191559141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.922
95794570|NCT02330341|191559142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.605
95794571|NCT02330341|191559142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of weight on placebo group||||0.105
95794572|NCT02330341|191559143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.687
95922913|NCT01360840|191806585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.27||||||||1.27|0.52|
95922914|NCT00920686|191806599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6407|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6407
95794573|NCT02330341|191559143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.021
95794574|NCT02330341|191559144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.339
95794575|NCT02330341|191559144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.246
95794576|NCT02330341|191559145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.775
95794577|NCT02330341|191559145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.195
95794578|NCT02330341|191559146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.040
95794579|NCT02330341|191559146|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||1.000
95794580|NCT02330341|191559147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.021
95794581|NCT02330341|191559147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.080
95794582|NCT02330341|191559148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.465
95794583|NCT02330341|191559148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.574
95794584|NCT02330341|191559149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.480
95794585|NCT02330341|191559149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.383
95983243|NCT04272892|191940775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of SIS index at 8 week follow up, with baseline as covariate, effect of group||||4.0|-3.63|0.924
95794586|NCT02330341|191559150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.034
95794587|NCT02330341|191559150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.080
95794588|NCT02330341|191559151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.017
95794589|NCT02330341|191559151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.082
95794590|NCT02330341|191559152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Artemisia Dracunculus group||||0.170
95794591|NCT02330341|191559152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure placebo group||||0.199
95794592|NCT01225055|191559201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.84
95794593|NCT01225055|191559201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
95794594|NCT01225055|191559201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.26
95794595|NCT01225055|191559202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.64
95794596|NCT01225055|191559202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
95794597|NCT01225055|191559202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.09
95794598|NCT01225055|191559203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.72
95794599|NCT01225055|191559203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.58
95922915|NCT03006341|191806608|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.81|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with bleeding history or predisposition as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
95983244|NCT05318937|191940777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.9934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|4.09||The p-value was obtained using a MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||4.09|-4.13|0.9934
95794600|NCT01225055|191559203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.44
95794601|NCT01225055|191559204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.02
95794602|NCT01225055|191559204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.10
95794603|NCT01225055|191559204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
95794604|NCT01225055|191559205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
95794605|NCT01225055|191559205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.34
95794606|NCT01225055|191559205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.20
95794607|NCT01225055|191559206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.00
95794608|NCT01225055|191559206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.01
95794609|NCT01225055|191559206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||calculated p-value indicating the effect of different treatment groups and time points|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.04
95794610|NCT00808340|191559213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4143|0.1644|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1644|-0.4143|
95794611|NCT00808340|191559213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6587|-0.07996|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as balafilcon A multifocal minus senofilcon A multifocal prod.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.07996|-0.6587|
95794612|NCT00808340|191559214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2485|0.3302|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.3302|-0.2485|
95794613|NCT00808340|191559214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1464|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7502|-0.1714|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.1714|-0.7502|
95794614|NCT00808340|191559215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.08153|0.02271|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.02271|-0.08153|
95794615|NCT00808340|191559215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02656|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1198|-0.01553|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senfilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||-0.01553|-0.1198|
95794616|NCT00808340|191559216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.1183|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus senofilcon A multifocal test.|Alternative hyposthesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to senofilcon A multifocal test.||0.1183|-0.779|
95794617|NCT00808340|191559216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2243|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6767|0.2206|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A multifocal prod minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternativie hypothesis is that senofilcon A multifocal prod is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.2206|-0.6767|
95794618|NCT03040726|191559217|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95794619|NCT03040726|191559218|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95794620|NCT03040726|191559219|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95794621|NCT03040726|191559220|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95794622|NCT00062166|191559228|NON_INFERIORITY|Time dependent risk for requiring an intervention for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET), among 63 patients with PNETs with diameter \>1.2 and \<3 cm, and a known position of germline VHL pathogenic variant (n=63). Comparison between exon 3 vs exon 1 and 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||||9.1|1.2|0.02
95855681|NCT02492763|191670838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|10.37|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|10.37|3.42|
95922916|NCT03006341|191806610|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.02|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression model with serum creatinine as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
95922917|NCT03006341|191806612|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.04|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with duration of atrial fibrillation as dependent and treatment groups and claims based variables as independent variables|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
95922918|NCT03006341|191806618|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.88|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with diabetes as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
95922919|NCT03006341|191806619|OTHER||C-Statistic|0.69|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with hyperlipidemia as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The C-statistic can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|"The concordance statistic is equal to the area under a ROC curve. The C-statistic (sometimes called the concordance statistic or C-index) is a measure of goodness of fit for binary outcomes in a logistic regression model."||||
95922920|NCT03006341|191806620|OTHER||Adjusted R squared statistic|0.34|||||||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with HAS-BLED score as the dependent variable and treatment groups and claims based variables as the independent variables.|The adjusted R² statistic, or coefficient of determination, is the proportion of the variance in the (EMR) outcome that is predictable from the independent (claims) variables, adjusted for the number of predictors in the model.|R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. 0% indicates that the model explains none of the variability of the response data around its mean. 100% indicates that the model explains all the variability of the response data around its mean.||||
95922921|NCT03686683|191806624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.74|0.78|0.4586
95922922|NCT02478359|191806630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.92|0.33
95922923|NCT02478359|191806631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.77|0.88
95922924|NCT02478359|191806632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.89|0.53
95922925|NCT02478359|191806633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.88|0.73
95922926|NCT02478359|191806634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.93|0.21
95922927|NCT02478359|191806635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.93|0.26
95922928|NCT02478359|191806636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95855682|NCT02492763|191670838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.33|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|7.33|0.35|
95922929|NCT02478359|191806637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95922930|NCT02478359|191806638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||adjusted p values|Regression, Logistic|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.34
95922931|NCT02478359|191806639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
95922932|NCT02478359|191806640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
95922933|NCT02478359|191806641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
95922934|NCT02478359|191806642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
95922935|NCT02478359|191806643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.87
95922936|NCT02478359|191806644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.70
95922937|NCT02478359|191806645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted P Values||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.35
95922938|NCT02478359|191806646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.09
95922939|NCT02478359|191806647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted P Values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.82
95922940|NCT02478359|191806648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.16
95922941|NCT02478359|191806649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Adjusted P values|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the adjusted multivariate models were age, FEV1% predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level and study site||||0.86
95922942|NCT02478359|191806650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95922943|NCT02478359|191806651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.82|0.69
95922944|NCT02478359|191806652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.35|0.11
95922945|NCT02478359|191806653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.65|0.21
95922946|NCT02478359|191806654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.84|0.60
95922947|NCT02478359|191806655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.66|0.63
95922948|NCT02478359|191806656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.68|0.80
95922949|NCT02478359|191806657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.06
95922950|NCT02478359|191806658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.07
95855683|NCT02492763|191670838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|11.23|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|11.23|4.17|
95922951|NCT02478359|191806659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.67
95922952|NCT02478359|191806660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.13
95855684|NCT02492763|191670838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means vs. Liraglutide|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.19|||||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||Longitudinal data analysis|8.19|1.11|
95922953|NCT02478359|191806661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.34
95922954|NCT02478359|191806662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariates included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.11
95922955|NCT02478359|191806663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||Covariated included in the as-treated adjusted linear regression analyses were age, FEV1%predicted, Charlson comorbidity index, oxygen use, hospitalization for COPD in previous 12 months, outpatient treated COPD exacerbation in previous 12 months, length of time since acute care utilization to randomization, use of LABA or ICS, PA level, and study site||||0.83
95922956|NCT01852955|191806664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
95922957|NCT01852955|191806665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.04
95922958|NCT01852955|191806666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
95922959|NCT04996069|191806729|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation performed.||||||0.45||||||p value threshold is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
95922960|NCT05780047|191806732|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95922961|NCT05780047|191806733|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired samples t-test|||Paired samples t-tests were run to compare whether EHL knowledge, attitudes and behavior changed after the intervention. EHL scores were expected to increase between pre and post testing.||||<0.05
95922962|NCT04739423|191806747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.4822||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0575|10.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14.||10.9069|0.0575|0.0479
95922963|NCT04739423|191806747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|4.7954||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9843|8.6064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6064|0.9843|0.0161
95922964|NCT04739423|191806747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|167.29||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.36|309.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||309.23|25.36|0.0237
95922965|NCT04739423|191806747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2761||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2424|6.6902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for happiness - change from baseline to Day 14||6.6902|-9.2424|0.7188
95922966|NCT04739423|191806747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.8955||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9026|8.6935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Accuracy for sadness - Change from baseline to Day 14||8.6935|-4.9026|0.5478
95922967|NCT04739423|191806747|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.52||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.21|276.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis of Reaction time for anger - change from baseline to Day 7||276.17|-291.21|0.9510
95922968|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.68||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|1.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.432|-0.066|0.0737
95922969|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||1.868|0.382|0.0033
95922970|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.72||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||2.840|0.600|0.0029
95922971|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.29||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|2.418|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.418|0.168|0.0247
95922972|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.69||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.732|0.653|0.0016
95922973|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.009|-1.127|0.9126
95794623|NCT05063448|191559233|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.47. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.47|||||Five cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.47|-1.47|
95922974|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.24||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Immediate Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 14, 4 hours post-dose||0.837|-1.317|0.6570
95922975|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment comparison for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 1, 4 hours post-dose||1.669|-1.787|0.9458
95922976|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.97||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|2.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recall: number of words - Change from Baseline to Day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.579|-0.642|0.2327
95922977|NCT04739423|191806749|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis for Delayed Word Recognition: number of words - Change from Baseline to day 7, 4 hours post-dose||2.879|-1.208|0.4154
95922978|NCT04739423|191806750|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|5.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.956|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for Sleeping Heart Rate change from baseline across periods||6.160|3.956|<0.0001
95922979|NCT04739423|191806751|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV change from baseline across periods.||1.565|0.432|0.0017
95922980|NCT04739423|191806752|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-10.22||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.867|-3.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between treatment analysis (active - placebo) for sleeping HRV root mean square of successive differences change from baseline across periods||-3.567|-16.867|0.0049
95922981|NCT04019561|191806774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|-5.02|0.439
95922982|NCT04019561|191806774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-8.54|0.006
95922983|NCT04019561|191806775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.508||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.191|6.174|||ANCOVA|||||6.174|-9.191|0.695
95922984|NCT04019561|191806775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.291||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.76|-1.822|||ANCOVA|||||-1.822|-16.760|0.016
95922985|NCT04019561|191806776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.74||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.174|18.695|||ANCOVA|||||18.695|-40.174|0.468
95922986|NCT04019561|191806776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.395||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-8.409|||ANCOVA|||||-8.409|-66.380|0.012
95922987|NCT04019561|191806777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|15.218|||ANCOVA|||||15.218|-2.698|0.166
95922988|NCT04019561|191806777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.537|9.035|||ANCOVA|||||9.035|-7.537|0.856
95922989|NCT04019561|191806778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.283||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.641|3.076|||ANCOVA|||||3.076|-9.641|0.302
95794624|NCT05063448|191559233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori alpha is set at 95% with two tails.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.547, df = 16. N at time 3 = 18.||Paired samples t-test was used to compare group average pretest (time 1) and posttest (time 3) scores of self-perceptions of the parental role, a measure of parenting confidence.||||0.022
95922990|NCT04019561|191806778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.821||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.316|2.675|||ANCOVA|||||2.675|-8.316|0.304
95922991|NCT04019561|191806779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.038||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.493|9.569|||ANCOVA|||||9.569|-7.493|0.808
95922992|NCT04019561|191806779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.106||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.043|9.255|||ANCOVA|||||9.255|-7.043|0.786
95922993|NCT04019561|191806780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.448||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|7.421|||ANCOVA|||||7.421|-0.524|0.087
95922994|NCT04019561|191806780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|3.312|||ANCOVA|||||3.312|-4.085|0.834
95794625|NCT05063448|191559234|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±1.84. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.84|||||Three cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||2.84|-0.84|
95794626|NCT05063448|191559235|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±5.97. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.97||||Two cases demonstrated reliable and one case demonstrated a reliable increase in work-family role conflict at posttest.|Two cases fell outside of the upper confidence interval and one case fell outside of the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||6.97|-4.97|
95794627|NCT05063448|191559236|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.78.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.78|||||Three cases fell below the confidence interval and two cases fell above the confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score..||5.78|-3.78|
95794628|NCT05063448|191559237|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±3.37. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|4.37|||||Three cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||4.37|-2.27|
95802476|NCT03300336|191578220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 7 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 23 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||0.07|-0.01|0.18
95922995|NCT04019561|191806781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.386||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|1.908|||ANCOVA|||||1.908|-2.681|0.735
95922996|NCT04019561|191806781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.091||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|1.044|||ANCOVA|||||1.044|-3.226|0.308
95922997|NCT04019561|191806782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.277||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.704|10.15|||ANCOVA|||||10.150|-48.704|0.195
95922998|NCT04019561|191806782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.328||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.674|5.019|||ANCOVA|||||5.019|-53.674|0.103
95922999|NCT04019561|191806783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.802|29.022|||ANCOVA|||||29.022|-49.802|0.600
95923000|NCT04019561|191806783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.086||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.163|46.336|||ANCOVA|||||46.336|-32.163|0.720
95923001|NCT04019561|191806784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.134|16.854|||ANCOVA|||||16.854|-35.134|0.485
95923002|NCT04019561|191806784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.645||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.288|5.999|||ANCOVA|||||5.999|-45.288|0.131
95794629|NCT05063448|191559238|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±2.80. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8|||||Two cases fell below the lower confidence interval and two cases fell above the upper confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||3.80|-1.80|
95794630|NCT05063448|191559240|OTHER|Reliable change is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation of the measure by Cronbach's alpha reliability to determine the standard error of the measure. The standard error of the measure is multiplied by 1.96 to calculate a confidence interval around the line of no change, when the slope of pre-test to post-test = 1. Using time 3 parameters, the reliable change index for this scale was ±4.03. Cases that fall outside of the confidence interval are considered to show reliable change.|Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|5.03|||||One case fell outside of the upper confidence interval, while 5 participants fell below the lower confidence interval.|Reliable change indices compare participants to themselves from Time 1 (baseline) and Time 3 (post-intervention). Reliable change indices measure whether the score change of individual participants is more than would be expected based on measurement error alone. Reliable change results are presented as number of participants who fell outside of the reliable change confidence interval in each direction indicating reliable increases or decreases in score.||5.03|-3.03|
95794631|NCT02368132|191559249|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Group Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||<0.001
95794632|NCT02368132|191559249|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in least square means between Usual Care (reference) and Individual Delivered TEP arm at 3 months.|||||0.04
95794633|NCT02475369|191559252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.271
95794634|NCT02475369|191559253|OTHER|In order to calculate a correlation between baseline fecal elastase-1 and total CeD-GSRS score on PES treatment vs. placebo treatment, we calculated a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the two independent variables.||||||0.995|||||||Spearman rank coefficient|||||||0.995
95794635|NCT02475369|191559254|OTHER|In order to evaluate the estimated difference of the effect of Pancreatic Enzyme Supplement versus Placebo for the Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) scores, we used a linear mixed effects model with the nlme package.||||||0.08|||||||Linear Mixed Effects model|||||||0.08
95794636|NCT06119854|191559258|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|3.59|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||3.590|0.406|
95923003|NCT04019561|191806785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|1.754|||ANCOVA|||||1.754|-3.191|0.564
95923004|NCT04019561|191806785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.366||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.854|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-4.854|0.062
95794637|NCT06119854|191559258|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.018|-0.013|
95794638|NCT06119854|191559258|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|2.436|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||2.436|0.194|
95923005|NCT04019561|191806786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.838|||ANCOVA|||||0.838|-1.007|0.856
95794639|NCT06119854|191559258|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.01|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.010|-0.018|
95794640|NCT06119854|191559259|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.253|||||The CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.253|0.785|
95923006|NCT04019561|191806786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.147|||ANCOVA|||||0.147|-1.700|0.098
95794641|NCT06119854|191559259|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.058|-0.063|
95794642|NCT06119854|191559259|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.534|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.534|0.981|
95794643|NCT06119854|191559259|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.133|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.133|0.008|
95794644|NCT06119854|191559260|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.527|||||CBT group represents the numerator and standard (conventional) represents the denominator|||1.527|0.740|
95794645|NCT06119854|191559260|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.053|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm|||0.053|-0.037|
95794646|NCT06119854|191559260|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.784|||||The inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.784|0.892|
95923007|NCT03005288|191806807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.48|-6.14|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-6.14|-8.48|<0.001
95923008|NCT03005288|191806808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.01|-4.37|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-4.37|-6.01|<0.001
95923009|NCT03005288|191806809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.42|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||-0.83|-1.42|<0.001
95923010|NCT03005288|191806809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.2|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 48||-0.41|-1.20|0.005
95923011|NCT03005288|191806813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.71|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.95|-1.71|<0.001
95923012|NCT03005288|191806813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.34|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-1.34|-2.48|<0.001
95923013|NCT03005288|191806814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|-2.31|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.31|-4.54|<0.001
95923014|NCT03005288|191806814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|-3.47|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||-3.47|-6.74|<0.001
95923015|NCT03005288|191806815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|2.06|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||2.06|0.82|0.003
95923016|NCT03005288|191806815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.36|2.93|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 48||2.93|1.36|<0.001
95923017|NCT03005288|191806816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-2.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-2.92|-5.26|<0.001
95923018|NCT03005288|191806816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|-7.64|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-7.64|-11.3|<0.001
95923019|NCT03005288|191806817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 24||-0.00|-0.03|0.062
95923020|NCT03005288|191806817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|-0.04|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 52||-0.04|-0.08|<0.001
95923021|NCT03005288|191806818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.03|-0.28|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 12||-0.28|-1.03|0.028
95923022|NCT03005288|191806818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|-0.18|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||week 36||-0.18|-1.14|0.081
95923023|NCT04438785|191806828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Apnea Hypopnea Index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||<0.001
95923024|NCT04438785|191806829|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the O2 desaturation index (ODI) from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.003
95923025|NCT04438785|191806830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI tongue score from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
95794647|NCT06119854|191559260|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.08|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.080|-0.013|
95923026|NCT04438785|191806831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.131||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the IOPI lip score from the baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
95923027|NCT04438785|191806832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the neck circumference from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
95923028|NCT04438785|191806833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the waist circumference from baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.92
95923029|NCT04438785|191806834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.98|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the BMI from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.98
95923030|NCT04438785|191806835|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate if the Epworth Sleepiness Scale from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.001
95923031|NCT04438785|191806836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate if the Pittsburgh sleep quality index from Baseline and after three months in the Intervention Group showed statistical significant difference p\<0.05 .||||0.22
95923032|NCT04011033|191806837|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.16|<0.001
95923033|NCT04011033|191806839|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.003
95923034|NCT04011033|191806840|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95923035|NCT04011033|191806842|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.19|=0.001
95923036|NCT01125774|191806843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||2.1|-4.4|
95923037|NCT01125774|191806844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||0.8|-1.4|
95923038|NCT01125774|191806845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent incidence|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Telcagepant percent incidence versus Placebo percent incidence|||1.6|-0.5|
95923039|NCT01125774|191806847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||α=0.0499|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|This measure tests the primary hypothesis, that telcagepant 140 mg is superior to placebo as measured by mean monthly headache days in participants with MRM or PMM||0.1|-1.1|0.130
95923040|NCT01125774|191806848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.4|-1.0|0.369
95923041|NCT01125774|191806849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
95923042|NCT01125774|191806850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
95794648|NCT06119854|191559261|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.406|||||CBT arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.406|0.911|
95794649|NCT06119854|191559261|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.109|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the CBT arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.109|-0.019|
95794650|NCT06119854|191559261|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.631|||||the inoculation arm is the numerator and the standard arm is the denominator.|||1.631|1.074|
95794651|NCT06119854|191559261|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.176|||||RD was calculated as the risk in the inoculation arm minus the risk in the standard arm.|||0.176|0.045|
95794652|NCT00885118|191559263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42828.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6487.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29936.586|55720.378|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate.||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||55720.378|29936.586|<0.0001
95794653|NCT00885118|191559263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80964.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6303.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68437.16|93492.194|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||93492.194|68437.160|<0.0001
95794654|NCT00885118|191559263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88589.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6544.604|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75583.738|101595.79|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||101595.790|75583.738|<0.0001
95794655|NCT00885118|191559263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85620.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6610.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72484.181|98756.515|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||98756.515|72484.181|<0.0001
95794656|NCT00885118|191559264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.936|-4.424|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-4.424|-20.936|0.0030
95794657|NCT00885118|191559264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.919|-11.921|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.921|-27.919|<0.0001
95923043|NCT01125774|191806851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||To control Type I error, formal significance of the test for treatment difference for this measure could only be achieved if the comparison corresponding to the primary hypothesis was significant at α=0.0499|LDA||Difference is Telcagepant 140 mg versus Placebo|||0.2|-0.4|0.393
95923044|NCT01449929|191806862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and DRV+RTV at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - DRV+RTV) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority is established, superiority can be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the Baseline (BL) stratification factors: Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=100,000 c/mL vs \>100,000 c/mL) and Baseline background dual NRTI therapy (ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC).|||13.2|0.9|0.025
95794658|NCT00885118|191559264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.925|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-17.925|-34.490|<0.0001
95794659|NCT00885118|191559264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.586|-18.884|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-18.884|-35.586|<0.0001
95794660|NCT00885118|191559265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.861||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.529|-6.236|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-6.236|-29.529|0.0030
95923045|NCT02857283|191806960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.46
95794661|NCT00885118|191559265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.308|-11.665|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-11.665|-33.308|<0.0001
95794662|NCT00885118|191559265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.762|-14.768|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-14.768|-37.762|<0.0001
95794663|NCT00885118|191559265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.699|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.665|-17.015|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-17.015|-39.665|<0.0001
95794664|NCT00885118|191559266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|-0.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.020|-0.498|0.0705
95794665|NCT00885118|191559266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|-0.047|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.047|-0.545|0.0203
95794666|NCT00885118|191559266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.170|-0.687|0.0014
95794667|NCT00885118|191559266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.135|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.135|-0.654|0.0033
95794668|NCT00885118|191559267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.755||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.757|47.811|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||47.811|-22.757|0.4823
95923046|NCT02857283|191806961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||ANOVA|Paired||||||0.0481
95923047|NCT02857283|191806962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0179
95923048|NCT02857283|191806963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.10
95923049|NCT02857283|191806964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.69
95794669|NCT00885118|191559267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.313||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.422|40.39|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||40.390|-28.422|0.7305
95794670|NCT00885118|191559267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.903||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|17.721|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||17.721|-53.438|0.3213
95794671|NCT00885118|191559267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.13||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.869|16.192|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||16.192|-55.869|0.2768
95794672|NCT00885118|191559268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.653|-2.731|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-2.731|-5.653|<0.0001
95794673|NCT00885118|191559268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.126|-3.091|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-3.091|-6.126|<0.0001
95794674|NCT00885118|191559268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|-2.508|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-2.508|-5.565|<0.0001
95794675|NCT00885118|191559268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.048|-2.726|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-2.726|-7.048|<0.0001
95794676|NCT00885118|191559269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.302|0.343|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||0.343|-1.302|0.2498
95794677|NCT00885118|191559269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.43|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||0.430|-1.189|0.3544
95855685|NCT02492763|191670839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.6|-2.0|0.285
95794678|NCT00885118|191559269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|-0.516|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.516|-2.171|0.0018
95923050|NCT02857283|191806965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.27
95794679|NCT00885118|191559269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|-0.419|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.419|-2.094|0.0037
95794680|NCT00885118|191559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.388|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.995|-64.833|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-64.833|-125.995|<0.0001
95855686|NCT02492763|191670839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.2|-0.4|0.183
95923051|NCT02857283|191806966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.50
95855687|NCT02492763|191670839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.4|-3.1|0.010
95923052|NCT02857283|191806967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.54
95923053|NCT02857283|191806968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|paired||||||0.90
95923054|NCT02857283|191806970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
95923055|NCT02857283|191806971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.79
95923056|NCT02857283|191806972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
95923057|NCT00961805|191806973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||"Sample size was calculated by visual analogue scale for pain (alpha error of 5%, beta error of 20% and standard deviation of 2). The sample was determined to contain 30 patients in each group. Ten additional patients were added to compensate possible losses.~Analysis was intention to treat using the LOCF technique."||||<0.001
95923058|NCT00961805|191806974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95794681|NCT00885118|191559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.633|-80.327|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-80.327|-138.633|<0.0001
95794682|NCT00885118|191559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.848|-100.824|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-100.824|-161.848|<0.0001
95794683|NCT00885118|191559270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.357|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.86|-105.823|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-105.823|-166.860|<0.0001
95794684|NCT00885118|191559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.152||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|48.805|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||48.805|-3.470|0.0883
95923059|NCT00961805|191806975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
95794685|NCT00885118|191559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.941||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.859|56.293|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||56.293|4.859|0.0203
95855688|NCT02492763|191670839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
95855689|NCT02492763|191670839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.018
95855690|NCT02492763|191670840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|10.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.9|-28.2|0.385
95855691|NCT02492763|191670840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|29.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|48.6|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||48.6|9.7|0.004
95855692|NCT02492763|191670840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-9.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||-9.4|-49.6|0.004
95855693|NCT02492763|191670840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|28.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||28.2|-11.7|0.416
95855694|NCT02492763|191670840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-18.0||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||-18.0|-57.5|<0.001
95923060|NCT00961805|191806976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.146
95923061|NCT00961805|191806977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.131
95923062|NCT00961805|191806978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95923063|NCT00961805|191806979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.580
95855695|NCT02492763|191670844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.4|-8.8|0.151
95855696|NCT02492763|191670844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.1|-6.2|0.682
95923064|NCT00961805|191806980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.082
95855697|NCT02492763|191670844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-7.7|0.344
95923065|NCT00961805|191806981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.055
95855698|NCT02492763|191670844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.4|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||5.4|-5.0|0.948
95855699|NCT02492763|191670844|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.5||Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment|Longitudinal data analysis|||||2.5|-7.8|0.306
95855700|NCT02492763|191670845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.8|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.8|-1.7|0.347
95923066|NCT00961805|191806982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
95923067|NCT00961805|191806983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
95923068|NCT00961805|191806984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.136
95923069|NCT00961805|191806985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Differences in the behavior of the groups over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
95923070|NCT00587288|191806986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.01||The p-value for the treatment comparison is based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.76|0.0541
95923071|NCT00587288|191806987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.46||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|0.91|0.0848
95923072|NCT00587288|191806988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.392||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.088|0.0023
95923073|NCT00587288|191806989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.65||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||12.65|3.30|0.0010
95923074|NCT00587288|191806990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-125.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.885||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.81|-35.77||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on the ANCOVA with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline. The difference between reslizumab 3.0 mg/kg and placebo groups was from comparison of the least square means.|ANCOVA|||||-35.77|-214.81|0.0068
95923075|NCT00587288|191806991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||The p-value for the treatment comparison was based on logistic regression with adjustment for stratification factor.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.10|0.0833
95923076|NCT00587288|191806991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0809|||||||Log Rank|The p value for the treatment comparison was based on log rank test adjusting for stratification factor (ie, ACQ score ≤2 and \>2).||"Kaplan-Meier estimate of time to first CAE. (First quartile, median and third quartile survival times with 95% confidence intervals (ie, time to first CAE) could not be estimated since the proportion of patients experiencing CAE was too low. Therefore, the only number presented in regard to the Kaplan-Meier analysis is the p-value of the log-rank test, below. )"||||0.0809
95923077|NCT01743729|191806993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.03||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6186
95923078|NCT01743729|191806994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|12.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.70|8.51|<0.0001
95923079|NCT04358549|191807004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0415
95923080|NCT04358549|191807005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.24||||||||2.240|0.190|
95923081|NCT04358549|191807006|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9879
95923082|NCT00646451|191807028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162|||||||ANOVA|||"Outcome on study completers was assessed via ANOVA models using a 2 × 2 Latin-square crossover design including sequence, period, and treatment effects. A significant carryover effect was excluded. Analyses were performed using Stata IC version 10.0 for Windows.~Unfortunately the small sample size of our study limits the possibility of a meaningful post-hoc analysis targeted to these variables."|The Quest rates patient perception of health status as influenced by tremor across 5 domains, physical, psychosocial, communication, hobbies/leisure, and work/finance. HAM-A rates severity of anxiety symptomatology across 14 parameters. Scores of 14-17 correspond to mild anxiety, scores of 18-24 is moderate anxiety and 25-30 severe anxiety. HD-16 rates insomnia-related QoL across 5 domains: physical symptoms, energy \& motivation, concentration, interpersonal relations and psychological symptoms. These scales were scored per published guidelines.|||0.162
95923083|NCT01770860|191807042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with Treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95923084|NCT01770860|191807043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95794686|NCT00885118|191559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.289||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.434|32.382|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||32.382|-20.434|0.6541
95794687|NCT00885118|191559271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.612||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.036|38.066|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||38.066|-16.036|0.4206
95794688|NCT00885118|191559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.949|-0.789|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 1mg minus placebo||-0.789|-16.949|0.0318
95794689|NCT00885118|191559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.966||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.225|-6.462|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-6.462|-22.225|0.0005
95794690|NCT00885118|191559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.131||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.853|-7.432|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-7.432|-23.853|0.0003
95794691|NCT00885118|191559272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.339|-1.897|||ANCOVA|The baseline value was included as a continuous covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-1.897|-18.339|0.0164
95794692|NCT02717195|191559341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.13||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary enpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.13|-2.37|0.9196
95794693|NCT02717195|191559341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.94||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PANSS total score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.94|-0.59|0.1474
95794694|NCT02717195|191559342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.78||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes from Randomization in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||2.78|-0.86|0.2998
95855701|NCT02492763|191670845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.2|-3.3|0.963
95923085|NCT01770860|191807044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95855702|NCT02492763|191670845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.7|-1.9|0.394
95855703|NCT02492763|191670845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.2||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.1|-3.5|0.905
95855704|NCT02492763|191670845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9|||Longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, A1C (\<8.5%, ≥8.5%), BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2) and AHA washout status (Yes, No), and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.9|-1.6|0.325
95855705|NCT03847896|191670860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|113.4|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||113.4|7.7|0.025
95855706|NCT03847896|191670860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.4|214.5|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||214.5|109.4|<0.001
95855707|NCT03847896|191670860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|132.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||132.9|28.4|0.003
95855708|NCT03847896|191670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|142.2|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||142.2|4.4|0.037
95855709|NCT03847896|191670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|168.8|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||168.8|30.9|0.005
95794695|NCT02717195|191559342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.12||Multiplicity adjustment was planned for the testing of the primary endpoint, but was not applied since all p-values\>0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The mean changes in PSP score was analysed using a MMRM approach. The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, treatment-by-week interaction, PC Period treatment, PC Period treatment-by-week interaction, and the continuous covariates of Randomization score and Randomization score-by-week interaction with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||1.12|-2.54|0.4478
95794696|NCT01141608|191559349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
95794697|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95794698|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||Post hoc analysis was done by Tukey test.||||0.001
95794699|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER|Tukey post hoc test|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
95794700|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.044
95794701|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER||||||<|0.272||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.272
95794702|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.835
95794703|NCT02941640|191559371|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||0.199
95794704|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER|Anova|||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95794705|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
95794706|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
95794707|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
95794708|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
95794709|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significant when P\<0.05.|Tukey post hoc test|||||||<0.0001
95794710|NCT02941640|191559372|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significant when P\<0.05|Tukey post hoc test|||||||1.00
95794711|NCT01149655|191559382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.461||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.879|||Log Rank|The log-rank test was based on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse.|Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were derived from the Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as term. Hazard ratio \< 1 is in favor of oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg group for superiority test.|The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||0.879|0.242|0.0161
95794712|NCT01149655|191559384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||Statistical Analysis for Last Visit. The total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0962
95923086|NCT01770860|191807045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values presented were for each of the bandage groups compared to no treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95923087|NCT01770860|191807046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from mixed model with treatment (trt) as fix effect, and subject as random effect||||||0.0476
95923088|NCT00714233|191807060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to analyze BMI at baseline and 24 weeks||||<0.05
95923089|NCT01253200|191807080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Primary Safety Endpoint was evaluated using a one-sided, non-inferiority test for two binomial proportions at an alpha-level of 0.05. A 95% confidence interval based upon a score test of the difference of proportion of subjects in the Investigational and Control Groups free from a procedure-related complication seven days post-procedure was constructed. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.78||||||Note that analysis of the primary outcome was conducted for Randomized subjects only as prespecified in the study protocol. This is consistent analysis publicly available in the Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED).||9.78||
95923090|NCT02049437|191807084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.83|0.90|0.07
95923091|NCT02049437|191807085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2036.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3490.32|-900.62|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-900.62|-3490.32|<0.001
95923092|NCT02049437|191807086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.65|-0.79|0.77
95923093|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.98|0.0464
95923094|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0080
95923095|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-1.08|0.0159
95923096|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.89|0.2563
95923097|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-1.21|0.0239
95923098|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0280
95923099|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.46|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.70|0.6904
95923100|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.83|0.4022
95923101|NCT00797225|191807090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.17|0.0451
95794713|NCT01149655|191559385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|p-value was derived using Chi-square test.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9025
95794714|NCT01149655|191559386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value was derived from the log-rank tests.||The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
95794715|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis at Baseline. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3862
95794716|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 1. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8861
95794717|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 2. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.8189
95794718|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 3. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.3689
95794719|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 4. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.9723
95794720|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 6. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.2985
95794721|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 8. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0883
95794722|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0228
95794723|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 12. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0274
95794724|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 14. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0135
95794725|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 16. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0059
95794726|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 18. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0076
95794727|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 20. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0065
95794728|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 22. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0175
95794729|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 24. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0107
95794730|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 26. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0118
95794731|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 28. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0232
95794732|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 30. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0337
95794733|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 32. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0507
95794734|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 34. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0791
95794735|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 36. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0898
95794736|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 38. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
95794737|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 40. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0833
95855710|NCT03847896|191670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|201.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||201.9|63.6|<0.001
95855711|NCT03847896|191670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|156.9|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||156.9|18.8|0.013
95855712|NCT03847896|191670861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|190.1|||ANCOVA|||Only includes data from date of first dose up to date of last dose of randomized treatment. A sequential testing strategy is used such that the primary hypothesis tests are listed in ascending order of sequence. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected. Tests are each conducted at the 5% level of significance.||190.1|51.5|<0.001
95855713|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-6|
95855714|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||9|-3|
95855715|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
95855716|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-9|
95855717|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-3|
95855718|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||0|-2|
95855719|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
95855720|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-2|-11|
95855721|NCT03847896|191670862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Not type-I error controlled. The estimated median difference and 95% CIs are calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann method.||1|-1|
95855722|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.699||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.096|0.445|0.118
95855723|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.187|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.187|0.878|0.161
95855724|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.541|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.541|1.013|0.044
95855725|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|2.584|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||2.584|1.024|0.039
95794738|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 42. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0824
95794739|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 44. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0686
95794740|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 46. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0737
95794741|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 48. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0893
95794742|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 50. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0706
95794743|NCT01149655|191559389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method was based on raw mean score statistics.||Statistical analysis for Week 52. The expected total number of exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse was estimated using a 2:1 (aripiprazole:placebo) randomization ratio to achieve at least 80% power and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.0657
95794744|NCT00921024|191559404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95794745|NCT00921024|191559405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95794746|NCT05994963|191559408|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|58.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.45|85.6|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||85.60|40.45|
95794747|NCT05994963|191559409|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|56.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.71|83.73|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||83.73|38.71|
95794748|NCT05994963|191559410|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.01|76.13|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment A = reference; treatment B = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||76.13|33.01|
95794749|NCT05994963|191559411|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|202.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.43|296.27|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||296.27|138.43|
95794750|NCT05994963|191559412|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.01|293.55|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||293.55|131.01|
95794751|NCT05994963|191559413|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|230.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.53|364.2|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment C = test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||364.20|145.53|
95794752|NCT05994963|191559414|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|161.19|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||161.19|93.61|
95794753|NCT05994963|191559415|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|115.94|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||115.94|94.54|
95855726|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|3.626|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.626|1.456|<0.001
95855727|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.687|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||3.687|1.471|<0.001
95855728|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.835|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.835|0.731|0.532
95855729|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.868|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.868|0.737|0.499
95855730|NCT03847896|191670864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.618|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||1.618|0.635|0.955
95855731|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||17.8|-101.9|0.169
95855732|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|111.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||111.5|-7.4|0.086
95855733|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|90.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||90.1|-28.6|0.31
95855734|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||125.4|6.3|0.03
95855735|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|132.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||132.5|13.1|0.017
95855736|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|167.8|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||167.8|48.1|<0.001
95855737|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|37.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||37.9|-80.5|0.48
95855738|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|73.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||73.2|-45.6|0.648
95855739|NCT03847896|191670865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|94.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison is not type-I error controlled.||94.5|-24.2|0.246
95855740|NCT01039376|191670866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.7|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.70|0.43|<0.0001
95923102|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.69|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.69|-2.56|0.0007
95794754|NCT05994963|191559416|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|124.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.46|166.09|||||The ratio (test/reference) and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages. Treatment B = reference; treatment D= test.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||166.09|93.46|
95794755|NCT03675308|191559426|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.0||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of baseline psoriasis (≥ 3%/\< 3% body surface area), presence of dactylitis (yes/no), presence of enthesitis (yes/no) and current csDMARD use (0/≥ 1).||30.0|18.0|<0.001
95794756|NCT03675308|191559427|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.14||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.26|<0.001
95794757|NCT03675308|191559428|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||49.3|35.6|<0.001
95794758|NCT03675308|191559429|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||29.4|16.8|<0.001
95855741|NCT01039376|191670867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
95855742|NCT01039376|191670868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.25|0.69|0.6046
95855743|NCT01039376|191670870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Stratified log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||0.96|0.62|0.0178
95855744|NCT01039376|191670871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.32|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.32|0.42|0.3136
95855745|NCT01039376|191670872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.19|||log rank test||Hazard ratios were obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio of \<1 indicated a lower risk with ofatumumab maintenance compared with no further treatment.|||1.19|0.29|0.1603
95855746|NCT01039376|191670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.35||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Disease Effects Scale|||-0.35|-4.04|0.0199
95923103|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.7|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.70|-2.56|0.0006
95794759|NCT03675308|191559430|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||19.4|10.2|<0.001
95794760|NCT03675308|191559431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.68||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-2.68|-5.70|<0.001
95794761|NCT03675308|191559432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
95794762|NCT03675308|191559433|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.2||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use and extent of psoriasis at Baseline and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of enthesitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||20.2|7.6|<0.001
95794763|NCT03675308|191559434|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, extent of psoriasis at Baseline, and study.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The pre-specified analysis for the resolution of dactylitis included pooled data from KEEPsAKE 1 (this study) and KEEPsAKE 2 (M15-998; NCT03671148).||26.4|7.5|<0.001
95794764|NCT03675308|191559435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||All primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment via a fixed sequence testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at α=0.05 (two- sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factors and baseline value as covariates.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||0.17|-0.36|0.496
95794765|NCT03675308|191559436|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.22||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.22|2.42|<0.001
95794766|NCT03675308|191559437|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at the change from Baseline in PsA-mTSS comparison.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.7|1.5|<0.001
95794767|NCT03675308|191559438|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.2|17.3|<0.001
95794768|NCT03675308|191559439|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current csDMARD use, presence of dactylitis, enthesitis and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.2|6.9|<0.001
95794769|NCT02325414|191559461|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||One-year data analysis were carried out using linear mixed-effects models. Covariate adjustments for baseline value of the corresponding outcome and ambulatory status (measured by WISCI) were performed by fitting these variables as fixed factors. The repeated measures were addressed using participant identification as random intercepts in the model.|||0.05
95794770|NCT05352763|191559476|OTHER|No statistical analysis performed|||||||||||||||||The classical summary of count and percentages will be provided for basic safety tabulations and dispositions as appropriate. All data will be presented in by-subject data listings. No inferential statistics will be produced.|||
95794771|NCT00089648|191559483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|23.0||||||95.0|13.2|35.5|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total number of subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, were refractory to bevacizumab, had a baseline disease assessment and had the correct histological cancer type.|||35.5|13.2|
95794772|NCT01516216|191559535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
95794773|NCT01516216|191559536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
95794774|NCT01516216|191559537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95855747|NCT01039376|191670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue Scale|||-0.97|-6.61|0.0085
95855748|NCT01039376|191670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.21||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Future Health Scale|||0.21|-7.37|0.0642
95855749|NCT01039376|191670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.72||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Infection Scale|||2.72|-1.67|0.6398
95855750|NCT01039376|191670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-1.28||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Problems Scale|||-1.28|-7.37|0.0055
95855751|NCT01039376|191670873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.71||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Side Effects Scale|||-0.71|-4.27|0.0063
95855752|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.69||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Appetite Loss|||0.69|-3.64|0.1816
95855753|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|3.97||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Cognitive Functioning|||3.97|-1.18|0.2863
95855754|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.33||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Constipation|||0.33|-4.28|0.0932
95855755|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.66||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Diarrhoea|||2.66|-1.67|0.6533
95923104|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-2.21|0.0073
95923105|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-2.28|0.0054
95855756|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|0.42||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Dyspnoea|||0.42|-5.06|0.0963
95855757|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Emotional Functioning|||6.51|1.27|0.0037
95855758|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.82||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Fatigue|||-1.82|-7.45|0.0013
95855759|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.51||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Financial Difficulties|||1.51|-5.02|0.2902
95923106|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-1.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-3.01|< 0.0001
95923107|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.79|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.79|-3.67|< 0.0001
95794775|NCT01516216|191559539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95794776|NCT01516216|191559542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9801|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9801
95794777|NCT01516216|191559543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7444|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7444
95794778|NCT03098979|191559544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5183||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques.||||||0.5183
95794779|NCT03098979|191559544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.3300
95794780|NCT03098979|191559544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.6232
95794781|NCT03098979|191559544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.0918
95794782|NCT03098979|191559544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques||||||0.2701
95794783|NCT02058095|191559549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95794784|NCT02058095|191559551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95794785|NCT01588509|191559588|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.2|||ANOVA|||||3.20|1.05|0.002
95794786|NCT01588509|191559588|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|3.14|||ANOVA|||||3.14|1.02|0.002
95794787|NCT01588509|191559589|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.05|||ANOVA|||||3.05|1.07|<0.001
95794788|NCT01588509|191559589|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.89|||ANOVA|||||2.89|0.95|0.002
95794789|NCT01588509|191559590|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|0.81|<0.001
95794790|NCT01588509|191559590|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change from Baseline|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.96|||ANOVA|||||1.96|0.84|<0.001
95794791|NCT00393367|191559596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||The difference in median improvement between treatment groups was expected to be greater than 2.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95794792|NCT00393367|191559597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.14|0.97
95794793|NCT00393367|191559598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6|-7|
95794794|NCT00393367|191559599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3|-3|
95794795|NCT00393367|191559600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|-1|
95794796|NCT00393367|191559601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.69||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||Chi-squared|||||0.14|-0.20|0.69
95794797|NCT00393367|191559602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Chi-squared|||||0.47|-0.02|0.08
95794798|NCT00393367|191559603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.37|0.22
95794799|NCT00393367|191559605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.6|0.78
95794800|NCT03720119|191559610|OTHER|Analysis of Variance for repeated measurements.|day effect F|27.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The calculated P-Value represents the repeated measurement/Day (all times versus Day 1)|Dunnett's post-hoc test|||||||0.0001
95794801|NCT01944423|191559612|SUPERIORITY||Logit difference (final values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.97||p=ns 2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||||0.97|-2.25|
95794802|NCT01944423|191559613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.94||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At end-of-treatment||7.94|0.25|.038
95794803|NCT01944423|191559614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.26||2-sided|two-phase growth curve model|||At 6 month follow-up||5.26|1.15|.003
95794804|NCT02765035|191559621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 3 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.01
95794805|NCT02765035|191559621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||C-Leg 4 vs. NMPK (Baseline)||||0.04
95794806|NCT04649359|191559643|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 30%.||||<0.0001
95794807|NCT04649359|191559643|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort B was 15%.||||<0.0001
95794808|NCT04649359|191559644|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 12%.||||<0.0001
95794809|NCT04649359|191559645|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binominal|||Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR for cohort A was 38%.||||<0.0001
95794810|NCT03307174|191559665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95923108|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-1.89|0.0509
95855760|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.05||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Nausea and Vomiting|||0.05|-2.49|0.0606
95855761|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.15||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Pain|||-0.15|-5.93|0.0393
95855762|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.96||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Physical Functioning|||3.96|-0.33|0.0968
95855763|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.17||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Global Health Status/QOL|||4.17|-0.61|0.1449
95855764|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.7||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Role Functioning|||6.70|0.43|0.0259
95855765|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.65||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Social Functioning|||6.65|0.64|0.0175
95855766|NCT01039376|191670874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.75||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Insomnia|||1.75|-5.33|0.3209
95923109|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.43|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.43|-2.33|0.0046
95855767|NCT01039376|191670875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Utility Score|||0.06|0.01|0.0110
95855768|NCT01039376|191670875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.49||The analysis is adjusted for BL score, actual strata, age group, BL ECOG performance status and Binet stage at Screening using mixed-model (Proc Mixed) repeated with intercept, BL score by time and treatment by time interaction.|Repeated measures analysis of covariance||Thermometer Score|||3.49|-0.73|0.1999
95855769|NCT01039376|191670887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.547|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|2.276|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 6q-, or +12q or 13q-/no abberation|||2.276|1.051|
95855770|NCT01039376|191670887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.934|17.54|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 17p-/no abberation|||17.540|4.934|
95855771|NCT01039376|191670887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.468|7.21|||||HR estimated for Cytogenetics Group (based on \>=20% cut-off) with 11q-/no abberation|||7.210|2.468|
95733918|NCT00377260|191439135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||A weighted regression model was used with weights equal to the number of days information regarding analgesic use was reported by the parents.|Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the average number of doses of analgesic medication administered by parents.||||.35
95855772|NCT01039376|191670887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|2.339|||||HR estimated for B2 Microglobulin Group 2 with 3500 as cut off: \>3500 ug/L/\<=3500 ug/L|||2.339|1.434|
95855773|NCT01039376|191670887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.76|||||HR estimated for IgVH Mutational Status 1 Mutated/Unmutated|||0.760|0.432|
95855774|NCT01039376|191670887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|2.448|||||HR estimated for VH3-21 Usage Flag Yes/No.|||2.448|0.692|
95855775|NCT00785785|191670893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.466||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.945|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.945|1.104|0.0081
95923110|NCT00797225|191807091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.38|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly peak value of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-1.38|-3.26|< 0.0001
95855776|NCT00357552|191670894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Success of the strategy is assessed according to whether the lower bound of the exact 90% confidence interval of this proportion is greater than 65%.|proportion|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|92.0|||confidence interval|Success was determined by whether the lower bound of the 90% exact confidence interval was greater than 65%.|exact confidence interval|The null hypothesis was that LPV/r monotherapy provides at least a 65% short-term virologic response. The target sample size was 120 subjects. Assuming an underlying true 24 week success rate of 76%, this sample size was chosen in order to provide at least 90% power to show that the true 24 week virologic success rate of LPV/r monotherapy in this population is greater than 65%.||92|81|
95855777|NCT02282605|191670918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
95855778|NCT02282605|191670918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
95855779|NCT02282605|191670919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||For timepoint Day 3 (12 hours after last dose)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0058
95855780|NCT02282605|191670921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95855781|NCT02282605|191670921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period to discharge.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95855782|NCT02282605|191670921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The adjusted means were compared for the two-day treatment period through to discharge|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95855783|NCT03038880|191670944|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|2.6|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||2.6|-6.8|
95855784|NCT03038880|191670944|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.5|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|||5.5|-3.4|
95855785|NCT03038880|191670945|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.75|2.56|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||2.56|-6.75|
95855786|NCT03038880|191670945|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.4|5.49|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.49|-3.40|
95923111|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.33|0.0453
95855787|NCT03038880|191670945|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|5.25|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||5.25|-4.26|
95855788|NCT03038880|191670945|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.71|6.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||6.37|-2.71|
95855789|NCT03038880|191670947|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.92|25.44|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.44|-15.92|
95855790|NCT03038880|191670947|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.62|25.53|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.53|-13.62|
95855791|NCT03038880|191670947|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.52|16.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||16.19|-24.52|
95855792|NCT03038880|191670947|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.73|28.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.59|-10.73|
95855793|NCT03038880|191670949|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.72|1.19|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||1.19|-10.72|
95855794|NCT03038880|191670949|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
95855795|NCT03038880|191670949|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
95855796|NCT03038880|191670949|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.07|0.92|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||0.92|-8.07|
95855797|NCT03038880|191670950|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|43.05|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.05|0.76|
95855798|NCT03038880|191670950|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|38.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.56|57.59|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||57.59|19.56|
95855799|NCT03038880|191670950|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.14|40.43|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||40.43|-1.14|
95855800|NCT03038880|191670950|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|33.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.95|52.91|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||52.91|14.95|
95855801|NCT03038880|191670951|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||||||||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||||
95855802|NCT03038880|191670951|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
95855803|NCT03038880|191670951|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|10.72|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||10.72|-1.19|
95855804|NCT03038880|191670951|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|8.07|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||8.07|-0.92|
95855805|NCT03038880|191670952|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.81|30.71|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||30.71|-29.81|
95855806|NCT03038880|191670952|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|14.68|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.29|43.65|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||43.65|-14.29|
95855807|NCT03038880|191670952|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.57|20.87|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||20.87|-30.57|
95855808|NCT03038880|191670952|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.57|25.8|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||25.80|-23.57|
95855809|NCT03038880|191670953|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.6|12.15|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||12.15|-36.60|
95855810|NCT03038880|191670953|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.5|28.45|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 40: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.45|-18.50|
95923112|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.31|0.0609
95855811|NCT03038880|191670953|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.42|13.14|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q12W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q12W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||13.14|-30.42|
95923113|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.38|0.0069
95855812|NCT03038880|191670953|OTHER|The focus of this trial was estimation rather than hypothesis testing.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.65|28.37|||||The difference was calculated as Faricimab Q16W arm minus Ranibizumab Q4W arm.|Week 52: Faricimab Q16W vs. Ranibizumab Q4W||28.37|-13.65|
95855813|NCT02054104|191670965|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.36
95855814|NCT02633306|191670973|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95855815|NCT02633306|191670974|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95855816|NCT02633306|191670975|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95923114|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model]|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.32|0.0556
95794811|NCT00534469|191559673|OTHER|Two-sided test.||||||0.43||||||Log-rank test (Mantel-Haenszel test). This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: All four groups are drawn from the same distribution. Alternative hypothesis: At least one of the groups has measurably different survival from the others.||||0.43
95794812|NCT01142336|191559703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjust for 3 primary outcomes using Holm Correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was Aβ42 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor variables were Aβ42 in CSF at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele.||||||0.53
95794813|NCT01142336|191559704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction|ANCOVA|Response variable was total tau in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were total tau in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.36
95794814|NCT01142336|191559705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05, adjusted for 3 primary outcomes using Holm correction.|ANCOVA|Response variable was p-tau181 in CSF at 1 year, and predictor were p-tau181 in at baseline, treatment group, age, sex, and APOE e4 allele status||||||0.25
95794815|NCT05469438|191559724|OTHER|We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||||||||||||||||We assessed prediction accuracy of our system using the R\^2 from leave-one-out cross-validation of predicted Fugl-Meyer scores, which were obtained from models predicting recovery based on baseline data.|||
95794816|NCT00471497|191559725|OTHER||Difference in response rate|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.5|<0.0001
95794817|NCT00471497|191559725|OTHER||Difference in response rate|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|12.9|<0.0001
95794818|NCT00471497|191559726|OTHER||Difference in response rate|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.5||||||(Low)||27.5|2.1|
95794819|NCT00471497|191559726|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|40.2||||||(Low)||40.2|14.6|
95794820|NCT00471497|191559726|OTHER||Difference in response rate|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.4||||||(Intermediate)||40.4|15.0|
95794821|NCT00471497|191559726|OTHER||Difference in response rate|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.8||||||(Intermediate)||29.8|4.6|
95794822|NCT00471497|191559726|OTHER||Difference in response rate|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|38.1||||||(High)||38.1|10.7|
95794823|NCT00471497|191559726|OTHER||Difference in response rate|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|28.6||||||(High)||28.6|2.1|
95794824|NCT00471497|191559727|OTHER||Difference in response rate|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.8||||||||28.8|13.9|
95794825|NCT00471497|191559727|OTHER||Difference in response rate|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0||||||||26.0|11.3|
95794826|NCT00471497|191559729|OTHER||Absolute difference|-1.6||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-9.8|0.6987
95794827|NCT04865289|191559788|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41||||||||1.41|0.51|
95794828|NCT04865289|191559789|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||||||||1.21|0.48|
95794829|NCT04865289|191559790|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5831415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.5831415
95794830|NCT04865289|191559790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6980186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.15|0.64|0.6980186
95794831|NCT04865289|191559791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.52046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.80|0.57|0.52046
95794832|NCT04865289|191559792|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-10.5||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||9.3|-29.2|0.8497
95794833|NCT04865289|191559793|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One sided p value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.||||8.0|-25.5|0.8522
95794834|NCT04865289|191559794|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|6.27|||cLDA model|||||6.27|-10.54|0.6138
95794835|NCT04865289|191559795|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.73||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|6.46|||cLDA model|||||6.46|-7.93|0.8398
95794836|NCT03104374|191559800|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|24.0|<0.0001
95794837|NCT03104374|191559800|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|31.1|<0.0001
95794838|NCT03104374|191559801|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.12|-0.30|<0.0001
95923115|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0387
95733919|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with protocol-defined diarrhea.||||.04
95794839|NCT03104374|191559801|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.40|<0.0001
95794840|NCT03104374|191559802|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.1|19.2|<0.0001
95794841|NCT03104374|191559802|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|22.3|<0.0001
95794842|NCT03104374|191559803|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.9|25.6|<0.0001
95794843|NCT03104374|191559803|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|29.9|<0.0001
95794844|NCT03104374|191559804|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.98|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.98|2.07|<0.0001
95794845|NCT03104374|191559804|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|6.88|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.88|3.99|<0.0001
95794846|NCT03104374|191559805|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.4|2.0|<0.0001
95794847|NCT03104374|191559805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.||6.4|3.1|<0.0001
95794848|NCT03104374|191559806|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.6|16.0|<0.0001
95794849|NCT03104374|191559806|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.5|19.7|<0.0001
95923116|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.44|0.0008
95923117|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.21|0.5879
95923118|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.20|0.6122
95923119|NCT00797225|191807092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0023
95923120|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.69|< 0.0001
95923121|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.27|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.73|< 0.0001
95923122|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.25|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.71|< 0.0001
95923123|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.23|-0.69|< 0.0001
95923124|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.4|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.40|-0.87|< 0.0001
95923125|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.59|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.59|-1.04|< 0.0001
95923126|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.65|0.0005
95923127|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.29|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.29|-0.76|< 0.0001
95923128|NCT00797225|191807093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.56|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-1.02|< 0.0001
95983245|NCT02046096|191940788|OTHER||12-month rate (%)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|99.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed Exact binomial test||The 95% confidence interval was computed using Exact method.|Null Hypothesis: The rate of technical placement success and 12-month freedom from new symptomatic PE while a filter is indwelling, π, does not meet the performance goal (90%).||99.1|95.6|<0.0001
95855817|NCT02633306|191670976|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95855818|NCT02633306|191670977|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95855819|NCT02633306|191670978|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95855820|NCT02633306|191670979|OTHER|||||||||||||||||In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|In an exploratory trial with such a small number of participants no statistical analysis beyond descriptive statistics of the findings is appropriate. The descriptive statistics are reported.|||
95855821|NCT01122238|191670989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.665
95855822|NCT01122238|191670989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.562
95855823|NCT01122238|191670989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.536
95855824|NCT01122238|191670989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The mean values tested and reported consist of residualized change scores from the ANCOVA.||The ANCOVA model included intervention main effects and intervention interactions plus baseline cigarettes per day, education, race, and time to first daily cigarette as covariates. Intervention main effects included Nicotine Patch vs. No Nicotine Patch; Nicotine Gum vs. No Nicotine Gum; Smoking Reduction vs. No Smoking Reduction; and Motivational Interviewing vs. No Motivational Interviewing.||||.206
95855825|NCT01122238|191670990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.98
95855826|NCT01122238|191670990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.40
95855827|NCT01122238|191670990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.99
95855828|NCT01122238|191670990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Regression Coefficient|-0.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The linear regression model effects consisted of four treatment main effects, six two-way treatment interactions, four three-way treatment interactions, and one four-way interaction. Only the results for the treatment main effects are being reported in ClinicalTrials.gov.||||.33
95855829|NCT00912808|191671007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.049
95855830|NCT00912808|191671008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the subject baseline characteristics. Paired t-tests evaluated the difference between baseline and end of treatment frequency of falls. Changes post-treatment from baseline in secondary measures were also compared between the donepezil and placebo phases with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests when data was nonparametric. SPSS was used for the analysis.||||0.27
95855831|NCT02900378|191671010|OTHER||Differences of least square means|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|15.29||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS)||15.29|-3.93|0.2464
95993561|NCT00348140|191963294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Q2 Week 48||14.2|-14.7|0.975
95923129|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0011
95923130|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.51|0.0010
95794850|NCT03104374|191559807|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-18.4|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.4|-27.4|<0.0001
95794851|NCT03104374|191559807|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of primary and ranked key secondary endpoints was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-23.8|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.8|-32.7|<0.0001
95794852|NCT03104374|191559808|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.9|20.1|<0.0001
95794853|NCT03104374|191559808|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.9|25.9|<0.0001
95794854|NCT03104374|191559809|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.9|4.2|<0.0001
95794855|NCT03104374|191559809|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.0|<0.0001
95794856|NCT03104374|191559810|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.4|14.3|<0.0001
95794857|NCT03104374|191559810|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.2|15.1|<0.0001
95794858|NCT01232283|191559821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|29.6|||Chi-squared|||||29.6|16.3|<0.0001
95794859|NCT01232283|191559822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|10.2|<0.0001
95794860|NCT01232283|191559823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-42.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-33.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-33.20|-51.11|<0.0001
95794861|NCT01232283|191559824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-27.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-27.2|-42.4|<0.0001
95794862|NCT01232283|191559825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|26.9|< 0.0001
95794863|NCT01232283|191559826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-14.2|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-14.2|-28.4|<0.0001
95794864|NCT01232283|191559827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.8|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-2.8|-5.3|<0.0001
95794865|NCT01232283|191559828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.63||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.56|0.69|0.0078
95794866|NCT01232283|191559829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20.0|8.5|<0.0001
95794867|NCT01232283|191559830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.408|17.399|||Log Rank|||||17.399|3.408|<0.0001
95794868|NCT01419535|191559850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.60
95794869|NCT01419535|191559851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
95855832|NCT02900378|191671010|OTHER||Differences of least square means|8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|19.27||The comparison of treatment groups were out using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for treatment and baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the 6MWT baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without AE/SAE)||19.27|-1.31|0.0503
95855833|NCT02900378|191671011|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.7|13.41||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with MI)||13.41|-25.70|0.4769
95855834|NCT02900378|191671011|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|6.14||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS with LOCF)||6.14|-17.48|0.3463
95855835|NCT02900378|191671011|OTHER||Differences of least square means|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|6.91||The comparison of treatment groups were carried out using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline NYHA class (NYHA II vs. III/IV) and the daily non-sedentary daytime activity baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change from BL at Week 12 (FAS without MI/LOCF)||6.91|-19.39|0.3513
95923131|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 4. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.57|< 0.0001
95923132|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||-0.33|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|0.0007
95923133|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.24|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.62|< 0.0001
95923134|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 8. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.35|-0.73|< 0.0001
95923135|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.34|0.1319
95923136|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.42|0.0222
95923137|NCT00797225|191807094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||Mixed-effects Repeated Measures Model|||Analysis at Week 12. The change from baseline in monthly mean sum of dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain scores was analyzed using a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for participant, the baseline-by-time interaction and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.66|< 0.0001
95923138|NCT00916006|191807146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95923139|NCT00916006|191807147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95855836|NCT02900378|191671012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.708||||||FAS population||1.708|0.882|
95923140|NCT01072929|191807160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-0.92||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.92|-6.58|0.0097
95923141|NCT01072929|191807160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.16||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||-0.16|-5.71|0.0385
95855837|NCT02900378|191671013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.748||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.748|0.895|
95855838|NCT02900378|191671014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.464||||||FAS population||2.464|0.634|
95923142|NCT03441984|191807192|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|1.8373|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented|||1.8373|1.5690|
95794870|NCT01419535|191559852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
95794871|NCT01419535|191559853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||<0.001
95794872|NCT01419535|191559854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.004
95794873|NCT01419535|191559855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA including treatment group, time, and treatment\*time interaction as factors.||||||0.002
95794874|NCT02543840|191559856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni four comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.26|<0.01
95794875|NCT02543840|191559856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.82||Adjusted for comparisons (Bonferroni for 4 comparisons.)|Regression, Linear|||Among Veteran participants,we used a linear contrast comparing a) those with complex clinical presentations, defined as receiving treatment for three or more mental health diagnoses in the prior year to b) those with two or fewer diagnoses during the facilitation year from T0 to T12..||7.82|2.24|<0.001
95794876|NCT02543840|191559857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.3||Adjusted for comparison (Bonferroni for four comparisons.)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.04|<0.04
95794877|NCT02543840|191559858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.2|>0.05
95794878|NCT02543840|191559859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.3|>0.05
95794879|NCT02543840|191559860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.6|>0.05
95794880|NCT02543840|191559861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.084|-0.074|>0.05
95794881|NCT02543840|191559862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.077|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.077|-0.056|>0.05
95794882|NCT02543840|191559863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||0.262|0.044|<0.001
95794883|NCT02543840|191559864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.289|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired.||||0.289|0.083|<0.01
95794884|NCT02543840|191559865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.07||Repeated patient binary outcome models for hospitalized (0/1) across 8 quarters.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted (Bonferroni four comparisons).||||-0.07|-0.16|<0.001
95794885|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Independent reader assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||0.224
95794886|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR. As per the protocol, if the conclusions from the investigator and independent assessments of response rate were the same, the investigator assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. If the conclusions were different, the independent radiology reader assessment was considered the primary analysis of response rate. The conclusions were different.||||<0.001
95794887|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
95794888|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||<0.001
95794889|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site||Investigator assessed ORR||||>0.05
95794890|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.024
95794891|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.099
95794892|NCT00274456|191559894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed ORR||||0.002
95794893|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.027
95794894|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.009
95794895|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.017
95794896|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
95794897|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
95794898|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||>0.05
95794899|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Independent assessed DCR||||0.085
95855839|NCT02900378|191671015|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.544||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||2.544|0.644|
95855840|NCT02900378|191671016|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.811||||||FAS population||1.811|0.863|
95923143|NCT03441984|191807192|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2465|1.4647|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4647|1.2465|
95923144|NCT03441984|191807192|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2541|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1569|1.3595|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented|||1.3595|1.1569|
95923145|NCT03441984|191807193|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5685|1.8428|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8428|1.5685|
95923146|NCT03441984|191807193|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2475|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4650|1.2475|
95855841|NCT02900378|191671017|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.834||||||FAS subset without AE/SAE||1.834|0.865|
95855842|NCT02900378|191671018|OTHER|||||||0.1814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS)||||0.1814
95855843|NCT02900378|191671018|OTHER|||||||0.3315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.3315
95855844|NCT02900378|191671018|OTHER|||||||0.2414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS)||||0.2414
95855845|NCT02900378|191671018|OTHER|||||||0.1793|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8 (FAS without AE/SAE)||||0.1793
95855846|NCT02900378|191671019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|1.457||||||Increased levels (\>= 10% increase) of non sedentary daytime physical activity at Week 12||1.457|0.462|
95855847|NCT02900378|191671020|OTHER|||||||0.0516|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0516
95855848|NCT02900378|191671020|OTHER|||||||0.9025|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.9025
95855849|NCT02900378|191671020|OTHER|||||||0.6713|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.6713
95855850|NCT02900378|191671021|OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.0029
95923147|NCT03441984|191807193|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2576|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1605|1.3629|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3629|1.1605|
95923148|NCT03441984|191807194|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.7382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5983|1.8904|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8904|1.5983|
95923149|NCT03441984|191807194|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2525|1.4798|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4798|1.2525|
95923150|NCT03441984|191807194|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1746|1.3878|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3878|1.1746|
95923151|NCT03441984|191807195|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0118|1.0704|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0704|1.0118|
95855851|NCT02900378|191671021|OTHER|||||||0.7754|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.7754
95855852|NCT02900378|191671021|OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.2172
95855853|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0008
95855854|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0008
95855855|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0297
95855856|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0069
95855857|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.2275
95855858|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.3486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.3486
95855859|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.6800
95855860|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.7184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.7184
95855861|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.5301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5301
95855862|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.6019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.6019
95855863|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8229
95855864|NCT02900378|191671022|OTHER|||||||0.8229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.8229
95855865|NCT02900378|191671023|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0001
95855866|NCT02900378|191671023|OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0123
95855867|NCT02900378|191671023|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.2560
95855868|NCT02900378|191671023|OTHER|||||||0.5865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.5865
95855869|NCT02900378|191671023|OTHER|||||||0.5463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.5463
95855870|NCT02900378|191671023|OTHER|||||||0.3212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.3212
95855871|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0004
95855872|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0009
95855873|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0094
95855874|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.0301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0301
95855875|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.1557
95855876|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.6461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6461
95855877|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.9759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.9759
95923152|NCT03441984|191807195|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9944|1.052|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0520|0.9944|
95923153|NCT03441984|191807195|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9893|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9893|
95923154|NCT03441984|191807196|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0121|1.0708|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0708|1.0121|
95923155|NCT03441984|191807196|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9948|1.0524|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0524|0.9948|
95794900|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparison was performed only if this test was significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed disease control rate (DCR), ie, SD \>= 16 weeks, or CR or PR||||0.007
95794901|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
95794902|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.009
95794903|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.005
95794904|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||>0.05
95794905|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.098
95794906|NCT00274456|191559895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by study site.||Investigator assessed DCR||||0.014
95794907|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0498||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0498
95794908|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.0524|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0524
95794909|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0065|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||0.0065
95794910|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
95794911|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
95794912|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
95794913|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
95794914|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.008
95794915|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794916|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794917|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.012
95794918|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.972||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.001
95794919|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.076
95794920|NCT00274456|191559896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794921|NCT00274456|191559897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Independent assessment||||>0.05
95794922|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons was performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.013
95794923|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.022
95794924|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794925|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794926|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||0.005
95794927|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794928|NCT00274456|191559898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Investigator assessment||||>0.05
95794929|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||"A step-down approach was used to compare treatment regimens. First an overall test of treatment difference (a 3-degree-of -freedom test) was performed. Pairwise comparisons were performed only if this test was significant."|Log Rank|||||||0.047
95794930|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
95923156|NCT03441984|191807196|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9892|1.0465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0465|0.9892|
95923157|NCT03441984|191807197|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.1223|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.1223|0.9885|
95923158|NCT03441984|191807197|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9167|1.0405|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0405|0.9167|
95923159|NCT03441984|191807197|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0123|1.149|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1490|1.0123|
95923160|NCT03441984|191807198|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9536|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9536|
95923161|NCT03441984|191807198|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9039|0.9939|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9939|0.9039|
95923162|NCT03441984|191807198|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0061|1.1063|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1063|1.0061|
95923163|NCT03441984|191807199|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9525|1.0486|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0486|0.9525|
95923164|NCT03441984|191807199|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9432|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.9896|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9896|0.8990|
95923165|NCT03441984|191807199|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0099|1.1117|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1117|1.0099|
95855878|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.3941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3941
95923166|NCT03441984|191807200|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8677|1.0101|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0101|0.8677|
95923167|NCT03441984|191807200|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8416|0.9795|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||0.9795|0.8416|
95923168|NCT03441984|191807200|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9558|1.1124|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.1124|0.9558|
95923169|NCT03441984|191807201|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4649|1.8449|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8449|1.4649|
95923170|NCT03441984|191807201|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1315|1.425|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4250|1.1315|
95923171|NCT03441984|191807201|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1536|1.4529|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4529|1.1536|
95923172|NCT03441984|191807202|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4709|1.8685|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8685|1.4709|
95923173|NCT03441984|191807202|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1317|1.4375|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4375|1.1317|
95923174|NCT03441984|191807202|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1533|1.465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4650|1.1533|
95923175|NCT03441984|191807203|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7585|2.2201|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||2.2201|1.7585|
95794931|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
95794932|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
95794933|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.069||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
95794934|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||>0.05
95794935|NCT00274456|191559899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.008
95794936|NCT00576758|191559934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.9|18.7|||Chi-squared|||||18.7|3.9|0.1587
95794937|NCT00576758|191559935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.6||||||||16.6|-2.9|
95794938|NCT00576758|191559939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.3||||||||18.3|-13.9|
95794939|NCT00576758|191559940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44||||||||1.44|0.62|
95794940|NCT00576758|191559942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||||1.50|0.67|
95794941|NCT03979313|191559969|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|62.15||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|86.8|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||86.80|-8.57|0.0708
95923176|NCT03441984|191807203|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1457|1.4465|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4465|1.1457|
95923177|NCT03441984|191807203|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.7245|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.7245|1.3660|
95923178|NCT03441984|191807204|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.0389|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0389|0.9241|
95733920|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with diaper dermatitis.||||<.01
95794942|NCT03979313|191559970|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|74.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|87.12|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||87.12|49.63|<0.0001
95794943|NCT03979313|191559971|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.27|85.18|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||85.18|62.27|<0.0001
95794944|NCT03979313|191559972|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|76.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.36|89.41|||Poisson Model||RRR of Medi8897 versus placebo; 95% CI and p-value estimated with Poisson regression with robust variance (including stratification factors \[age at randomisation\] as covariate) obtained after multiple imputation|||89.41|49.36|0.0002
95794945|NCT02842866|191560013|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95 percent (%) confidence internal (CI) of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than (\>) -10 percent (%) for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|22.2||||||Serogroup A||22.2|9.08|
95794946|NCT02842866|191560013|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|33.5||||||Serogroup C||33.5|21.2|
95794947|NCT02842866|191560013|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|37.0||||||Serogroup Y||37.0|24.6|
95794948|NCT02842866|191560013|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% CI of the difference in percentage was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in percentage|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.2||||||Serogroup W||24.2|11.2|
95794949|NCT02842866|191560014|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2||||||Serogroup A||2.20|1.40|
95794950|NCT02842866|191560014|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.33||||||Serogroup C||5.33|3.16|
95794951|NCT02842866|191560014|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.23||||||Serogroup Y||4.23|2.57|
95794952|NCT02842866|191560014|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.31||||||Serogroup W||2.31|1.42|
95794953|NCT02897349|191560020|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (%)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.16|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline HbA1c by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||-0.16|-0.65|0.0016
95794954|NCT02897349|191560021|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Based on MMRM including fixed effects treatment, week, type of insulin, and treatment by week interaction, linear covariates baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG baseline FPG by week interaction and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted mean is based on all patients in the model (not only patients with a baseline and week 24 measurement).||3.8|-16.2|0.2241
95794955|NCT02897349|191560022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (mg/dL)|-31.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.15|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effect treatment and type of insulin, and linear covariates baseline HbA1c and baseline 2-h PPG.||-15.75|-48.15|0.0001
95794956|NCT02897349|191560023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.780|0.673|0.2431
95794957|NCT02897349|191560024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.481||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|7.105|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||7.105|0.309|0.6235
95794958|NCT02897349|191560025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.286|4.091|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with terms for treatment and type of insulin as fixed effect and continuous linear covariates baseline HbA1c||4.091|1.286|0.0049
95855879|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.7209
95923179|NCT03441984|191807204|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9605|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9059|1.0185|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0185|0.9059|
95923180|NCT03441984|191807204|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9633|1.0802|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0802|0.9633|
95855880|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.4444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4444
95855881|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.7247
95855882|NCT02900378|191671024|OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.2933
95923181|NCT03441984|191807205|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9243|1.0457|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0457|0.9243|
95923182|NCT03441984|191807205|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9121|1.032|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0320|0.9121|
95794959|NCT03055013|191560036|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||Log Rank|stratified logrank test (one-sided)|hazard ratio : arm A vs. arm B|||1.22|0.74|0.34
95794960|NCT00204737|191560060|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at 2 Weeks||||0.06
95794961|NCT00204737|191560060|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 6 Weeks||||0.18
95794962|NCT00204737|191560060|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at 12 weeks||||0.5
95794963|NCT00486044|191560103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.966
95794964|NCT00486044|191560104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95794965|NCT00486044|191560105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.113
95794966|NCT00486044|191560106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
95794967|NCT02701634|191560109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-value was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95794968|NCT02701634|191560114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
95794969|NCT02701634|191560115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95794970|NCT02701634|191560116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||P-value was calculated using the two sample proportion t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95794971|NCT02701634|191560117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.18||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for disease severity and usage of calcineurin inhibitor or MMF|||2.18|0.55|0.800
95794972|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 5 vs 1)||7.0|-13.6|= 0.525
95794973|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||=|0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 4 vs 1)||5.8|-14.7|= 0.396
95794974|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 3 vs 1)||1.6|-18.8|= 0.097
95794975|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Erythema(Group 2 vs 1)||0.3|-19.9|= 0.057
95794976|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.4|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 5 vs 1)||1.2|-17.8|= 0.085
95794977|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-9.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 4 vs 1)||-0.0|-18.9|= 0.050
95794978|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.5|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-16.1|= 0.183
95794979|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.7|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Induration(Group 2 vs 1)||0.8|-18.1|= 0.074
95794980|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.6|-7.0|= 0.525
95855883|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.0854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0854
95855884|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0528
95855885|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.4137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.4137
95855886|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0082
95855887|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.7908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.7908
95855888|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.6499
95923183|NCT03441984|191807205|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.0779|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0779|0.9527|
95923184|NCT03441984|191807206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8196|1.0102|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) and adult DTG/3TC (DTG 50 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.0102|0.8196|
95923185|NCT03441984|191807206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9198|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8285|1.0212|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.0212|0.8285|
95923186|NCT03441984|191807206|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8911|1.0983|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0983|0.8911|
95923187|NCT03441984|191807212|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.6503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5131|1.8|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.8000|1.5131|
95855889|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.5547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.5547
95855890|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.6961
95733921|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with oral thrush.||||.07
95794981|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 4 vs 1)||9.7|-10.8|= 0.915
95794982|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 3 vs 1)||12.2|-8.4|= 0.714
95794983|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Tenderness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.7|-10.7|= 0.926
95794984|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 5 vs 1)||8.7|-8.7|> 0.999
95794985|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 4 vs 1)||6.4|-10.8|= 0.609
95794986|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.8|||=|0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 3 vs 1)||10.7|-7.1|= 0.688
95794987|NCT03620162|191560131|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|4.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Swelling(Group 2 vs 1)||4.3|-12.6|= 0.336
95794988|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.1|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group5 vs1)||8.8|-11.0|= 0.825
95794989|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group4 vs1)||9.3|-10.4|= 0.912
95794990|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-8.8|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group3 vs1)||0.9|-18.3|= 0.074
95794991|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Percentage of Participants|-3.7|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Appetite lost(Group2 vs1)||6.1|-13.4|= 0.458
95794992|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|2.8|||=|0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 5 vs1)||12.3|-6.8|= 0.568
95855891|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.5946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5946
95855892|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.8957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.8957
95855893|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.8468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.8468
95923188|NCT03441984|191807212|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.3501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2381|1.4722|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg tablet) is presented.|||1.4722|1.2381|
95923189|NCT03441984|191807212|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.121|1.333|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.3330|1.1210|
95923190|NCT03441984|191807221|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0251|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.2392|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2392|0.8480|
95923191|NCT03441984|191807221|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7592|1.1103|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1103|0.7592|
95855894|NCT02900378|191671025|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1711
95855895|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0065
95855896|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0316
95855897|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.1342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.1342
95855898|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0252
95855899|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.9024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.9024
95855900|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.9052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.9052
95855901|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2870
95855902|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.3174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3174
95855903|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5020
95855904|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.4037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4037
95855905|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.4823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4823
95855906|NCT02900378|191671026|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1090
95855907|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.0061
95855908|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.0143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.0143
95855909|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.0708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.0708
95855910|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0750
95855911|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.8017
95855912|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.7956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.7956
95855913|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.3499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.3499
95855914|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.1192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.1192
95855915|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.5237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5237
95855916|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.3902
95855917|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.4228|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.4228
95855918|NCT02900378|191671027|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.1571
95855919|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.3231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 1||||0.3231
95855920|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.3519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.3519
95855921|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.8335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 3||||0.8335
95855922|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0465
95923192|NCT03441984|191807221|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9376|1.3295|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) is presented|||1.3295|0.9376|
95923193|NCT03441984|191807229|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9904|1.1873|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1873|0.9904|
95855923|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 5||||0.5016
95855924|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.5941|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.5941
95855925|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.2019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 7||||0.2019
95855926|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.4125
95855927|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.5702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 9||||0.5702
95855928|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.4752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 10||||0.4752
95855929|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 11||||0.5343
95855930|NCT02900378|191671028|OTHER|||||||0.0985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.0985
95855931|NCT02900378|191671029|OTHER|||||||0.4525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 2||||0.4525
95855932|NCT02900378|191671029|OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 4||||0.0445
95855933|NCT02900378|191671029|OTHER|||||||0.1158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 6||||0.1158
95855934|NCT02900378|191671029|OTHER|||||||0.3901|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 8||||0.3901
95855935|NCT02900378|191671029|OTHER|||||||0.7725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from BL at Week 12||||0.7725
95855936|NCT02504151|191671035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models was used with treatment, time and time\*treatment interaction in the model.|This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||1.71|-2.28|0.08
95855937|NCT02504151|191671036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||0.07|-0.12|0.48
95855938|NCT02504151|191671037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||-0.06|-9.87|0.485
95855939|NCT02504151|191671038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated difference between treatment groups (cbd - placebo).|The p value is based on the interaction of treatment and time.||8.19|0.07|0.994
95855940|NCT02148874|191671039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1.||1.73|0.64|0.84
95855941|NCT02148874|191671039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.75|0.65|0.79
95855942|NCT02148874|191671039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.24|0.71|0.43
95855943|NCT02148874|191671039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/ N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.87|0.63|0.77
95855944|NCT02148874|191671040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||2.32|0.84|0.20
95855945|NCT02148874|191671040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.80|0.66|0.74
95855946|NCT02148874|191671040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||3.44|1.04|0.04
95855947|NCT02148874|191671040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||3.04|0.87|0.13
95855948|NCT02148874|191671041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H1N1||1.48|0.53|0.64
95855949|NCT02148874|191671041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain A/H3N2||1.50|0.53|0.67
95855950|NCT02148874|191671041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Massachusetts||2.46|0.88|0.14
95855951|NCT02148874|191671041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Cumulative logistic regression model|Cumulative logistic regression model, OR for obese vs. non-obese. Model adjusted for mother's age, parity, gestational age at vaccination, vaccination season, and prior year vaccination (Y/N).|Statistical analysis for influenza strain B/Brisbane||1.24|0.44|0.25
95855952|NCT04109547|191671049|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.3|-1.8|<0.0001
95855953|NCT04109547|191671049|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
95855954|NCT04109547|191671049|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM|||||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95855955|NCT05567783|191671103|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|15.85||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|52.56||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Poisson regression|Estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model|RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group was the only factor in the model|||52.56|-49.27|0.5552
95855956|NCT05567783|191671103|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|44.63|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||44.63|-67.23|
95855957|NCT05567783|191671111|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|57.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|82.15|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||82.15|-2.51|
95855958|NCT05567783|191671111|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.25|55.51|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||55.51|-76.25|
95855959|NCT05567783|191671112|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|44.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|79.26|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95%CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||79.26|-50.49|
95855960|NCT05567783|191671112|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction (RRR, %)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.41|51.27|||||RRR and 95% CI estimated using Poisson regression of multiple imputed data with treatment group the only factor in the model; 95% CI are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||51.27|-147.41|
95855961|NCT00001959|191671121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: GFR Decrease during baseline period and treatment period are same||||<0.01
95855962|NCT00001959|191671122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0: Proteinuria during baseline and treatment periods are same||||0.16
95855963|NCT04266717|191671154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95855964|NCT02593006|191671158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|23.8|||Propensity weighted regression model|||||23.8|-3.2|>0.05
95855965|NCT02593006|191671159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Global test of interaction between time and treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95855966|NCT00632229|191671175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
95855967|NCT00632229|191671176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate between-group continuous outcomes of the pilot controlled trial, ANCOVAs were performed, where 8-week outcome scores were predicted by treatment condition while covarying for baseline scores.||||<0.05
95855968|NCT00498940|191671203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Differences in cardiac index between groups were assessed by an independent 2-sample t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
95855969|NCT01646125|191671244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.63||||||||1.63|0.35|
95855970|NCT02230995|191671261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|100.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.39|96.11|<0.00001
95855971|NCT02230995|191671262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|102.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|105.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||105.76|98.65|<0.00001
95855972|NCT02230995|191671263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|98.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.51|104.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.17|93.51|<0.00001
95855973|NCT02230995|191671264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints, using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted gMean ratio|105.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.78|110.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted gMean of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||110.84|100.78|<0.00001
95855974|NCT02230995|191671265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|98.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.16|100.53|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by ratios of adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||100.53|96.16|
95855975|NCT02230995|191671266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.36|108.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean) of Fed 25mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 25mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||108.07|101.36|
95855976|NCT01732718|191671291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.51
95855977|NCT01732718|191671292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95855978|NCT01732718|191671294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95855979|NCT01732718|191671296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||see comments for explanation|albuminuria examined as continuous variable (linear mixed model to analyze effect) and categorical generalized variable (estimating equation approach)||||||0.57
95855980|NCT01732718|191671300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95923194|NCT03441984|191807229|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.2379|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult TRIUMEQ (DTG 50 mg/ABC 600 mg/3TC 300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.2379|1.0334|
95923195|NCT03441984|191807229|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.0493|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric TRIUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablets) and pediatric TRUMEQ (DTG 5 mg/ABC 60 mg/3TC 30mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0493|0.8760|
95923196|NCT03441984|191807237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.5619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3678|1.7835|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.7835|1.3678|
95923197|NCT03441984|191807237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.253|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0973|1.4307|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.4307|1.0973|
95923198|NCT03441984|191807237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.2466|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0917|1.4234|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.4234|1.0917|
95923199|NCT03441984|191807246|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.1549|||||Treatment comparison between Pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg, 10 dispersible tablets) and Adult DTG (50 mg, 1 conventional tablet) and adult 3TC (300 mg, 1 conventional tablet) is presented|||1.1549|0.9997|
95923200|NCT03441984|191807246|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9961|1.1507|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet) is presented.|||1.1507|0.9961|
95923201|NCT03441984|191807246|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9338|1.0787|||||Treatment comparison of pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) and pediatric DTG/3TC (DTG 5 mg/3TC 30 mg dispersible tablet direct to mouth) is presented.|||1.0787|0.9338|
95923202|NCT04833855|191807311|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.4||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 210 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||4.4|-4.3|0.99
95923203|NCT04833855|191807311|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||Nominal p-value|Repeated measure model|Model parameters: stratification factor (prior anti-IgE status), baseline UAS7, treatment, study week, interaction between treatment and study week.|Tezepelumab 420 mg SC Q2W - Placebo|||3.1|-5.4|0.60
95923204|NCT02806336|191807344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change in combined groups||||0.03
95923205|NCT02806336|191807345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95923206|NCT02806336|191807346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95923207|NCT02806336|191807347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||change in functional gait analysis (FGA) in combined groups compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95923208|NCT02806336|191807348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95923209|NCT02806336|191807349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.17
95923210|NCT02806336|191807349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95923211|NCT02806336|191807350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95923212|NCT03682536|191807351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8|2.0|<.0001
95923213|NCT03682536|191807352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.7|1.4|0.0003
95923214|NCT03682536|191807354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|1.8|<.0001
95923215|NCT03682536|191807356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|1.6|<.0001
95923216|NCT03682536|191807357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.864|||Log Rank||Calculated by Cox proportional hazard model|||0.864|0.330|0.0096
95923217|NCT03682536|191807361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|1.4|0.0007
95923218|NCT03682536|191807362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|1.6|<.0001
95923219|NCT04824131|191807373|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|6.7|0|
95923220|NCT04824131|191807374|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|74.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|74.7|47.0|
95923221|NCT04824131|191807377|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|98.8|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase|98.8|84.3|
95855981|NCT01732718|191671301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in AMC||||0.1469
95855982|NCT01732718|191671301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ALC||||0.2382
95923222|NCT04824131|191807378|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who received at least one Injection who Completed All Scheduled Injections|100|93.3|
95923223|NCT04824131|191807379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|poisson model||"GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Sexual Partners - Visit as Continuous Variable.~Difference from baselines in the number of sex partners (vaginal or anal sex) reported in the past month"|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of sexual partners) using a poisson model.||0.06|-0.61|0.1093
95923224|NCT04824131|191807380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.14||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month|poisson model||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Vaginal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of vaginal sex without a condom reported in the past month.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model count outcomes (number of episodes of vaginal sex without a condom) using a poisson model.||-0.14|-1.03|0.0093
95923225|NCT04824131|191807380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4036||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|2.44||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Regression, Logistic||GEE for Change in Sexual Behavior - Number of Episodes of Anal Sex without a Condom - Visit as Continuous Variable. Difference from baselines in the number of anal sex without a condom reported in the past month|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust variance to model change in self-reported sexual behavior from enrollment (W0) to follow up visits (W4, W5, W9, W17, W25, W33, W+12, W+24, W+36, W+48), with an indicator variable for all on-study visits (i.e. enrollment visit = 0) to measure change in the outcome behavior. We will model binary outcomes (any episodes of anal sex without a condom) using a logistic model.||2.44|-3.06|0.8259
95923226|NCT04824131|191807381|OTHER||CI for Incidence rate, exact Poisson|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||||Person-years: 34.0||Incidence rate is calculated HIV infections per 100 person years. CI for Incidence rate is calculated using exact Poisson method|10.8|0.0|
95923227|NCT03643965|191807382|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR at 9 months compared to baseline for Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.61|0.88|||MMRM model|||||0.88|0.61|0.0003
95923228|NCT03643965|191807383|OTHER|Time-weighted average of eGFR, Nefecon compared to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.15|||robust regression|||||1.15|1.06|<0.0001
95923229|NCT03643965|191807384|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.03|0.0014
95923230|NCT03643965|191807385|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR at 12 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||robust regression|||||1.13|1.01|0.0106
95855983|NCT01732718|191671301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the change in ANC||||0.5833
95855984|NCT01732718|191671304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5184
95923231|NCT03643965|191807386|OTHER|Ratio of UACR at 9 months comparison of Nefecon to Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||MMRM model|||||0.86|0.55|0.0005
95923232|NCT03643965|191807387|OTHER|Time to 30% reduction in eGFR comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with individual patient censoring weighting.||||0.75|0.26|0.0028
95923233|NCT03643965|191807388|OTHER|Time to receiving rescue medication comparison Nefecon to Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.34|0.2647
95855985|NCT02085161|191671326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.196|1.777||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.777|1.196|0.0002
95733922|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with vomiting.||||>.99
95733923|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with rash.||||>.99
95733924|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with mastoiditis.||||.99
95855986|NCT02085161|191671326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.573||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.573|1.061|0.0109
95923234|NCT03643965|191807389|OTHER|Ratio of UPCR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||MMRM model|||||0.68|0.51|<0.0001
95923235|NCT03643965|191807390|OTHER|Ratio of UACR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.63|||MMRM model|||||0.63|0.45|<0.0001
95923236|NCT03643965|191807391|OTHER|Ratio of eGFR compared to baseline averaged over time points between 12 and 24 months, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.16|||robust regression|||||1.16|1.06|<0.0001
95923237|NCT03643965|191807392|OTHER|Proportion of patients without microhematuria, comparison Nefecon vs Placebo|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.6|0.0001
95923238|NCT01222247|191807490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Primary Outcome composite||0.97|0.66|0.02
95923239|NCT01222247|191807490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for CPAP or high-flow nasal cannula||0.95|0.63|0.01
95923240|NCT01222247|191807490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Fraction of inspired oxygen||1.12|0.53|0.17
95923241|NCT01222247|191807490|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for mechanical ventilation||1.21|0.50|0.26
95923242|NCT01222247|191807491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Chi-squared|||||0.84|0.53|<0.001
95923243|NCT01222247|191807492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.66|0.003
95923244|NCT01222247|191807493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.65|0.36
95923245|NCT01222247|191807494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Chi-squared|||||0.87|0.53|0.002
95923246|NCT01222247|191807495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.55|0.57
95923247|NCT01222247|191807496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
95923248|NCT01222247|191807497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.17|0.10
95923249|NCT01222247|191807498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.37|0.03
95923250|NCT01222247|191807499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.66|0.004
95923251|NCT01222247|191807500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.68|||Chi-squared|||||2.68|0.25|0.74
95923252|NCT01222247|191807501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
95923253|NCT01222247|191807502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95923254|NCT01222247|191807503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.96|0.13
95923255|NCT01222247|191807504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
95923256|NCT01222247|191807506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.93|||Chi-squared|||||1.93|0.33|0.62
95923257|NCT01222247|191807508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.66|0.40
95923258|NCT01222247|191807509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.87|||Chi-squared|||||1.87|1.37|<0.001
95923259|NCT01222247|191807510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95923260|NCT01222247|191807511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.78|0.40
95923261|NCT01222247|191807512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|0.95|0.15
95923262|NCT01222247|191807513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Chi-squared|||||1.47|0.91|0.24
95923263|NCT01222247|191807514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for NICU stay of any duration||1.01|0.85|0.09
95923264|NCT01222247|191807514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for duration greater than or equal to 3 days||0.98|0.80|0.03
95923265|NCT01222247|191807515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95923266|NCT01222247|191807516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.07|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for chorioamnionitis||1.07|0.35|0.08
95923267|NCT01222247|191807516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Postpartum Endometritis||1.95|0.49|0.96
95923268|NCT01222247|191807516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for cesarean delivery||1.15|0.93|0.56
95923269|NCT01222247|191807517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for interval from randomization to delivery||||0.57
95923270|NCT01222247|191807518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95923271|NCT02084082|191807519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|100.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.562|104.326|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.326|96.562|<0.0001
95923272|NCT02084082|191807519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (net)|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.712|101.089|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000 Fed/ L+M 1000 Fed)|||101.089|88.712|0.0004
95923273|NCT02084082|191807520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|108.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.054||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.022|117.989|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||117.989|99.022|0.0038
95923274|NCT02084082|191807520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.067|102.597|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||102.597|94.067|<0.0001
95923275|NCT02084082|191807521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|99.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.03|107.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.47|93.03|<0.0001
95923276|NCT02084082|191807521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||101.89|92.24|<0.0001
95923277|NCT02084082|191807522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.464|107.645|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||107.645|92.464|<0.0001
95923278|NCT02084082|191807522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|103.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.160|94.950|<0.0001
95923279|NCT02084082|191807523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.163|104.493|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||104.493|95.163|<0.0001
95923280|NCT02084082|191807523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.082|122.963|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||122.963|77.082|0.0778
95923281|NCT02084082|191807524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|99.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|106.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fasted/ L+M 1000 fasted)|||106.35|92.37|<0.0001
95923282|NCT02084082|191807524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.34|103.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1000\_fed / L+M 1000 fed)|||103.27|93.34|<0.0001
95923283|NCT04736056|191807529|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.66|0.73|
95923284|NCT04736056|191807529|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.51|0.61|
95923285|NCT04736056|191807530|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.71||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.71|-0.02|
95923286|NCT04736056|191807530|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.61||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.61|-0.12|
95923287|NCT04736056|191807531|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.18||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.18|0.38|
95923288|NCT04736056|191807531|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.87|0.11|
95923289|NCT04736056|191807532|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.58|-0.13|
95923290|NCT04736056|191807532|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.68|-0.05|
95923291|NCT04736056|191807533|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.68|-0.04|
95923292|NCT04736056|191807533|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.00|0.22|
95923293|NCT04736056|191807534|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.74||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.74|0.01|
95923294|NCT04736056|191807534|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.85||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.85|0.09|
95923295|NCT04736056|191807535|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.65||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.65|-0.07|
95923296|NCT04736056|191807535|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||||||||0.99|0.21|
95923297|NCT04736056|191807536|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.91||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.91|0.16|
95923298|NCT04736056|191807536|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.89|0.12|
95923299|NCT04736056|191807537|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3||||||0 to 12 weeks||1.30|0.47|
95923300|NCT04736056|191807537|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.05||||||0 to 16 weeks||1.05|0.26|
95923301|NCT04736056|191807538|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.76|
95923302|NCT04736056|191807538|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.03|-0.71|
95923303|NCT04736056|191807539|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.35|-0.35|
95923304|NCT04736056|191807539|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.09|-0.64|
95923305|NCT04736056|191807540|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||||0.26|-0.45|
95923306|NCT04736056|191807540|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.45|-0.27|
95923307|NCT04736056|191807541|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.01|-0.71|
95923308|NCT04736056|191807541|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||0 to 16 weeks||0.08|-0.65|
95923309|NCT04736056|191807542|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||||||0 to 12 weeks||0.03|-0.70|
95923310|NCT04736056|191807542|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||||||0 to 16 weeks||-0.09|-0.85|
95923311|NCT05302791|191807543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||ANOVA|time x condition ANOVA||||||.609
95923312|NCT05302791|191807544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||.858
95923313|NCT05302791|191807545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||||||.633
95923314|NCT05302791|191807546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||.076
95923315|NCT05302791|191807547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||.151
95923316|NCT05302791|191807548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||.385
95923317|NCT05302791|191807549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||ANOVA|||||||.665
95923318|NCT05302791|191807550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||.078
95923319|NCT05302791|191807551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANOVA|||||||.773
95923320|NCT05302791|191807552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||.118
95923321|NCT05302791|191807553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Time x condition ANOVA||||||<0.001
95794993|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 4 vs1)||10.2|-9.1|= 0.910
95923322|NCT05302791|191807554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|time x condition anova||||||<0.001
95923323|NCT03552978|191807555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df - 63||||||<.001
95923324|NCT03552978|191807556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 59||||||<.001
95923325|NCT03552978|191807560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.28||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 152.11||We examined total Cigarettes smoked in the past 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.39
95923326|NCT03552978|191807561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 140.87||We examined days of e-cigarette use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in e-cigarette use over time by treatment group.||||.91
95923327|NCT03552978|191807562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3,199||We examined days of chewing tobacco use in the previous 30 days using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in chewing tobacco use over time by treatment group.||||.66
95923328|NCT03552978|191807563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 102.04||We examined nicotine dependence using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in nicotine dependence over time by treatment group.||||.76
95923329|NCT03552978|191807564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.28
95923330|NCT03552978|191807564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24|Chi-squared|df = 1||||||.19
95923331|NCT03552978|191807565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 12||||.42
95923332|NCT03552978|191807565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Week 24||||.17
95923333|NCT03552978|191807566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df = 3, 100.51||We examined days of changes in PTSD symptoms using linear mixed models to account for non-independence (longitudinal data) and missing data. The null hypothesis was that the time by treatment group interaction would equal zero, indicating no difference in the change in PTSD symptoms over time by treatment group.||||.58
95923334|NCT04956692|191807569|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.98|1.1||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.02|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||1.10|0.98|<0.0001
95923335|NCT04956692|191807570|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin with respect to the geometric means ratio (GMR) was 0.8|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.69|2.03||The one-sided p-value non-inferiority boundary is 0.03|t-test, 1 sided|Welch's unequal variances t-test. The null hypothesis was that GMR≤0.8.|Numerator Arm A/Denominator Arm B|||2.03|1.69|<0.0001
95923336|NCT01822821|191807609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was tested using a noninferiority margin of 1.15.|ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.06|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.06||0.08
95923337|NCT01822821|191807609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.89||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1|||Regression, Linear||Ratio of geometric means (CI) for IV acetaminophen versus placebo was estimated as the exponentiated treatment effect parameter from a multivariable linear regression model on log opioid consumption adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.10||0.28
95923338|NCT01822821|191807610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assessed whether IV acetaminophen is noninferior to placebo using a noninferiority margin of 1.0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.5||< 0.001
95923339|NCT01822821|191807610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.42|||Regression, Linear||Difference in overall postoperative pain score means based on a repeated measures linear regression model with an autoregressive correlation structure, adjusting for age, time, and diabetes.|||-0.42||< 0.001
95923340|NCT01822821|191807611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.34|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Relative risk of PONV in IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients estimated from a multivariable logistic regression model using the log link and adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.7|0.34|0.35
95923341|NCT01822821|191807612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 8 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.13
95923342|NCT01822821|191807612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 16 hours after surgery.||0|0|0.44
95923343|NCT01822821|191807612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in medians of IV acetaminophen versus placebo patients based on Wilcoxon rank sum test and Hodges-Lehmann estimation of location shift.|Analysis at 24 hours after surgery||0|0|0.38
95923344|NCT01822821|191807613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.52|3.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||3.20|0.52|0.46
95923345|NCT01822821|191807614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of ICU stay was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.74|0.38
95923346|NCT01822821|191807615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on duration of mechanical ventilation was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.20|0.94|0.12
95923347|NCT01822821|191807616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on ALT was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.9|0.31
95923348|NCT01822821|191807617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.8|1.2|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on AST was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.2|0.8|0.98
95923349|NCT01822821|191807618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.87|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Outcome log-transformed to meet model assumptions. The treatment effect on bilirubin was assessed by use of the ratio of geometric means from a repeated measures multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age and diabetes.|||1.3|0.87|0.40
95923350|NCT03298815|191807654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
95733925|NCT00377260|191439136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the proportion of children with perforation of their tympanic membrane.||||.08
95923351|NCT03298815|191807655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
95923352|NCT03298815|191807656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
95923353|NCT03298815|191807657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
95923354|NCT03298815|191807658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
95923355|NCT03298815|191807659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.00
95923356|NCT03298815|191807660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
95923357|NCT03298815|191807661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
95923358|NCT03298815|191807662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95923359|NCT03298815|191807663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
95923360|NCT03298815|191807664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
95923361|NCT03298815|191807665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
95923362|NCT03298815|191807665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
95923363|NCT03298815|191807665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
95923364|NCT03298815|191807666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||30 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
95923365|NCT03298815|191807666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||60 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.000
95923366|NCT03298815|191807666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||100 day visit|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
95923367|NCT00935792|191807668|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimated maximum tolerated dose was 2.5mg of oral everolimus thrice weekly for 9 weeks and alemtuzumab subcutaneously thrice weekly for 8 weeks.|||
95923368|NCT02322775|191807674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.08||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.15||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was: H0: Change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (L) at Week 12 (benralizumab vs placebo)=0.||0.15|0|0.040
95923369|NCT02322775|191807675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|8.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|23.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.42|-5.74|0.233
95923370|NCT02322775|191807676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|5.29||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|19.25||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.25|-8.67|0.456
95923371|NCT02322775|191807677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.13||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.35|0.266
95923372|NCT02322775|191807678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.91|0.200
95923373|NCT02322775|191807679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.08|0.380
95923374|NCT02322775|191807680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.04||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.39|0.114
95923375|NCT02322775|191807682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.21||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Total score||0.42|0|0.055
95923376|NCT02322775|191807682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.23||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.47||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Symptoms score||0.47|-0.01|0.063
95923377|NCT02322775|191807682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.2||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.41||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Activity limitation score||0.41|-0.01|0.061
95923378|NCT02322775|191807682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.45||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Emotional function score||0.45|-0.07|0.156
95923379|NCT02322775|191807682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|0.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44||Hypothesis testing were reported using 2-sided 5% level tests with nominal p-values (i.e., not adjusted for multiplicity).|ANCOVA|||Parameter: Environmental stimuli score||0.44|-0.06|0.135
95983246|NCT02046096|191940789|OTHER||Cumulative probability|81.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|90.4||the threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Z-statistic|The hypothesis is assessed using a Z-statistic. The Z-statistic is given by Z = (Ŝ(t) - 0.8) / SE where SE is the Standard Error|The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|"the null hypotheses is: H0: S(t) ≤ 80%(Performance Goal) where,~* t is time through 12 months~* S(t) is the true rate of freedom from major adverse events at time t."||90.4|72.6|0.369
95923380|NCT05397470|191807685|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.003||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.020|-0.014|0.7501
95923381|NCT00531479|191807727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|1.51||P-value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||The 95% CI was based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the KM estimator.|All-cause mortality calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) product limit estimator on Day 42 (Week 6) within each stratum and weighted by the harmonic mean of the sample sizes in the strata. Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables were site of infection and host factors.||1.51|-18.99|0.0434
95923382|NCT00531479|191807728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.15||P-value for global response was to be reported only if Week 6 mortality was significant.|||95% confidence interval based on the difference in success rates using the normal approximation to the binoial distribution.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.15|-21.6|
95923383|NCT00531479|191807729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|5.56||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||5.56|-10.77|0.2611
95923384|NCT00531479|191807730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.18||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.09||P-Value based on a 1-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence intervalbased on using Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||1.09|-21.44|0.0383
95923385|NCT00531479|191807731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|3.42||P-Value based on a one-sided test and tested against a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 to determine statistical significance.|Z test for difference in proportions||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula for the variance of the Kaplan Meier estimator.|Treatment difference (stratified) based on a weighted difference in proportions. Stratification variables: site of infection and host factors.||3.42|-15.9|0.1029
95923386|NCT00531479|191807732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio: hazard of death in the Voriconazole/Anidulafungin arm relative to the Voriconazole/Placebo arm, adjusted for host factor status and site of infection. Participants who died beyond Day 84 were censored.||1.04|0.46|0.083
95923387|NCT00531479|191807733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model||95% confidence interval based on Greenwood's formula.|Analysis based on Cox proportional hazards model. Participants who died beyond day 84 were censored.||1.16|0.40|0.164
95923388|NCT05074498|191807774|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.35||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.047|-0.741|0.0838
95733926|NCT00377260|191439137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.002
95923389|NCT01306331|191807809|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||The primary hypothesis test was performed using 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative pregnancy rates between the treatment arms. If the upper bound for the confidence interval of the difference was \< 5.5, then the null hypothesis would be rejected.||3.2|-2.2|
95923390|NCT01677936|191807814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||=|0.024||||||Compared to snacks, raisins reduced percent post-prandial glucose levels by 23%, which met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.024
95923391|NCT01677936|191807815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||=|0.035||||||Compared with snacks, the 8.8 mmHg reduction with raisins met the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
95923392|NCT02790606|191807816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 88%, which was derived from safety event rates of PTA in published literature.~Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) at 30 days post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 88%. 109 treated subjects \[104 evaluable\] will give 99% power with one-sided type I error = 0.05."||||0.0021
95923393|NCT02790606|191807817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is compared to the PG (40%) and computed using the exact binomial test.|Exact binomial test|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is evaluated against a PG of 40%, which was derived from clinical literature as well as other pivotal and post-market studies of stent grafts at the graft-vein anastomosis of AV access patients dialyzing with an AV graft. 89% estimated power for primary endpoint.~Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects treated with the COVERA™ Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months post-index procedure is greater than that of the PG of 40%."||||<0.0001
95923394|NCT00157014|191807905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4725
95923395|NCT00157014|191807916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8373
95794994|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||=|0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 3 vs1)||5.2|-14.5|= 0.354
95923396|NCT01362491|191807919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Square (LS) mean difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||7.73|4.49|<0.001
95923397|NCT01362491|191807920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by declaring pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.65|0.88|0.253
95923398|NCT01362491|191807921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.14|2.69|<0.001
95923399|NCT01362491|191807921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|5.94||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||5.94|2.23|<0.001
95923400|NCT01362491|191807922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.64||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||7.64|2.87|<0.001
95923401|NCT01362491|191807922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||6.34|2.38|<0.001
95923402|NCT01362491|191807922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.66|0.88|0.247
95923403|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.92|<0.001
95923404|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.61|0.93|< 0.001
95855987|NCT02085161|191671326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.272||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|This treatment comparison is the third one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.272|0.853|0.6895
95855988|NCT02085161|191671326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.368||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.368|0.931|0.2188
95855989|NCT02085161|191671326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.507||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.507|1.021|0.0303
95855990|NCT02085161|191671327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-331.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.375||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.015|252.064||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||252.064|-916.015|0.2639
95855991|NCT02085161|191671327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|161.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|293.506||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-417.314|739.459||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||739.459|-417.314|0.5837
95855992|NCT02085161|191671327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-524.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|296.802||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1109.806|59.954||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||59.954|-1109.806|0.0783
95855993|NCT02085161|191671327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-493.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.566||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1063.67|77.575||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||77.575|-1063.670|0.0900
95855994|NCT02085161|191671327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|685.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|289.435||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.635|1256.362||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||1256.362|115.635|0.0186
95855995|NCT02085161|191671328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.005||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.005|-0.010|0.5186
95855996|NCT02085161|191671328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.009|-0.006|0.6436
95855997|NCT02085161|191671328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.001||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.001|-0.014|0.1081
95923405|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.29|0.943
95923406|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.62|0.89|<0.001
95855998|NCT02085161|191671328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.003||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.003|-0.011|0.2612
95855999|NCT02085161|191671328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.015||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.015|0.001|0.0361
95856000|NCT02085161|191671329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.187||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.187|-0.034|0.1727
95923407|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.85|<0.001
95923408|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.27|0.847
95923409|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.05|1.14|<0.001
95923410|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.13|1.22|<0.001
95923411|NCT01362491|191807923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.08||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - (Ibuprofen IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.29|-0.46|0.663
95923412|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.72|0.37|<0.001
95923413|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.33|<0.001
95923414|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.11|0.651
95856001|NCT02085161|191671329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.252||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.252|0.035|0.0097
95923415|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.42|<0.001
95923416|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|0.46|<0.001
95923417|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.03||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.19|0.669
95923418|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
95923419|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.67|<0.001
95923420|NCT01362491|191807924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.396
95856002|NCT02085161|191671329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.126||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.126|-0.095|0.7815
95856003|NCT02085161|191671329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.04||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.040|-0.174|0.2183
95856004|NCT02085161|191671329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.236||An ANCOVA model with categorical effects of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.236|0.020|0.0203
95856005|NCT02085161|191671330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.645||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.645|1.080|0.0077
95856006|NCT02085161|191671330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.53||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.530|1.011|0.0390
95856007|NCT02085161|191671330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.299||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM).|||1.299|0.850|0.6452
95856008|NCT02085161|191671330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.313||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM.|||1.313|0.874|0.5048
95856009|NCT02085161|191671330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.453||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was back transformed using the delta method.|Ratio of means calculated as back transformation of difference on log 10 scale between Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM.|||1.453|0.964|0.1066
95856010|NCT02085161|191671331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.403||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.403|0.255|<0.0001
95856011|NCT02085161|191671331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.429||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.429|0.282|<0.0001
95856012|NCT02085161|191671331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.249||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.249|0.099|<0.0001
95856013|NCT02085161|191671331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.045||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.045|-0.099|0.4677
95923421|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.30|1.30|<0.001
95856014|NCT02085161|191671331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.255||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.255|0.109|<0.0001
95923422|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.28|1.28|<0.001
95923423|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.43|-0.39|0.911
95923424|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.41|1.33|<0.001
95923425|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.42|1.34|<0.001
95923426|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.45|0.982
95923427|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.72|<0.001
95923428|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.33|1.90|<0.001
95923429|NCT01362491|191807925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.77|0.547
95923430|NCT01362491|191807926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
95923431|NCT01362491|191807926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.83|<0.001
95923432|NCT01362491|191807926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.27|-0.28|0.992
95923433|NCT01362491|191807926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.58|1.43|<0.001
95923434|NCT01362491|191807926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.68|1.53|<0.001
95923435|NCT01362491|191807926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.57|0.684
95923436|NCT01362491|191807927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.17|1.85|<0.001
95983247|NCT02046096|191940790|OTHER||12-month freedom from MAE rate (%)|86.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|90.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.025|One-tailed exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month freedom from MAE, π, does not meet the performance goal (80%).||90.2|82.5|0.001
95923437|NCT01362491|191807927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.15|1.83|<0.001
95856015|NCT02085161|191671332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.606||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.606|0.350|<0.0001
95856016|NCT02085161|191671332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.657||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.657|0.403|<0.0001
95856017|NCT02085161|191671332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.415||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.415|0.157|<0.0001
95856018|NCT02085161|191671332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.072||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.072|-0.176|0.4107
95856019|NCT02085161|191671332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.37||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.370|0.119|0.0002
95856020|NCT02085161|191671333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.457||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.457|0.179|<0.0001
95856021|NCT02085161|191671333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.439||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.439|0.165|<0.0001
95856022|NCT02085161|191671333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.314||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM minus Placebo with behavioural modification (BM)|||0.314|0.035|0.0145
95856023|NCT02085161|191671333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.151||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tio+Olo (5/5 μg) FDC with exercise training (ET) and BM minus Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM|||0.151|-0.118|0.8150
95856024|NCT02085161|191671333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.263||MMRM model including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|The LSMean Difference is calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol (Olo) (5/5 μg) FDC with BM minus Tiotropium (Tio) 5 micro-grams (μg) with BM|||0.263|-0.008|0.0642
95923438|NCT01362491|191807927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.52|0.943
95983248|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||14.2|-5.0|
95923439|NCT01362491|191807927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|3.03|<0.001
95923440|NCT01362491|191807927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - Placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.24|3.09|<0.001
95923441|NCT01362491|191807927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.06||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.95|0.888
95923442|NCT01362491|191807928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|4.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.64|2.71|<0.001
95923443|NCT01362491|191807928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.63|2.68|<0.001
95923444|NCT01362491|191807928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-0.78|0.964
95923445|NCT01362491|191807928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|6.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|7.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.89|4.65|<0.001
95923446|NCT01362491|191807928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.16||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.17|-1.49|0.812
95923447|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.02||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|5.27|0.015
95923448|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.88|0.13|0.146
95923449|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.62||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|15.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.63|-0.38|0.064
95923450|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.96|72.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.21|44.96|<0.001
95923451|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|66.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||66.41|38.20|<0.001
95923452|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|20.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.07|-7.27|0.357
95983249|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.5|-7.3|
95856025|NCT03537404|191671339|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|0.142|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.142|-0.103|
95923453|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|46.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|62.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.93|30.43|<0.001
95923454|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|47.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|63.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.83|31.35|<0.001
95923455|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
95923456|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
95923457|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
95923458|NCT01362491|191807929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
95923459|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|18.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|26.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.73|10.43|0.002
95923460|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.46|2.14|0.055
95923461|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.91||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.83|0.98|0.033
95923462|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.65|75.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.41|48.65|<0.001
95923463|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|59.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.69|73.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.19|45.69|<0.001
95923464|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.96||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|15.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.44|-9.52|0.642
95923465|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
95923466|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
95983250|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.5|-7.3|
95923467|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
95923468|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|40.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.85|56.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||56.68|23.85|<0.001
95923469|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|57.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||57.59|24.78|<0.001
95923470|NCT01362491|191807930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.72||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|9.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.45|-10.89|0.889
95923471|NCT01362491|191807933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|9.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.55|-3.12|0.389
95923472|NCT01362491|191807933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.39|-3.69|0.490
95923473|NCT01362491|191807933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|7.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.41|-5.45|0.764
95923474|NCT01362491|191807933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.72|41.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen Sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.70|15.72|<0.001
95923475|NCT01362491|191807933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.19|42.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.56|16.19|<0.001
95923476|NCT01362491|191807933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.93||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen Sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|-15.22|0.898
95923477|NCT03929302|191807963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95923478|NCT03929302|191807963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
95923479|NCT03929302|191807963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.642
95923480|NCT01474538|191807988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was below 0.4%, lispro was declared non-inferior to aspart.|LS Mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.210|-0.002|
95923481|NCT01474538|191807989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-2.92|
95923482|NCT01474538|191807990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.522|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.522
95923483|NCT01474538|191807991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.58||||0.216|||||||Grizzle Model|||||||0.216
95923484|NCT01474538|191807992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Prescott test|||||||0.471
95923485|NCT00367237|191807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages of respondents|19.61||||0.021||95.0|3.27|35.95||Comparison of treatments (IFX + MTX versus MTX)|Chi-squared||Difference in percentages of respondents is (percentage of respondents in IFX+MTX group minus percentage of respondents in MTX group)|||35.95|3.27|0.0210
95923486|NCT00367237|191807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.863||||||95.0||||||||||||
95923487|NCT00367237|191807993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of Responders|0.667||||||95.0||||||||||||
95923488|NCT00886613|191808012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa coefficient of agreement|0.85||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.99|||McNemar||The significance of the difference between the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 48 hours and the proportion of subjects with a positive skin test at 72 hours|||0.99|0.72|0.564
95923489|NCT00886613|191808014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.28|||Chi-squared||Statistical analysis for dose 2|||0.28|-0.17|0.343
95923490|NCT02584790|191808017|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||2x2 table of: Row: 1. NBI suspicious pattern 2. NBI non-suspicious pattern Category: 1. with residual disease 2. without residual disease||||0.004
95923491|NCT01492309|191808041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.003
95923492|NCT01492309|191808042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is based on a mixed model that can handle missing data.||||0.425
95923493|NCT00810303|191808048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923494|NCT00810303|191808049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923495|NCT00810303|191808051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923496|NCT00810303|191808052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923497|NCT00810303|191808053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923498|NCT00810303|191808053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923499|NCT00810303|191808054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923500|NCT00810303|191808055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923501|NCT00810303|191808056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetic of efavirenz without chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923502|NCT00810303|191808056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between steady state pharmakokinetic of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe and the single dose pharmakokinetics of efavirenz with chronic treatment of ezetimibe.||||<0.05
95923503|NCT00810303|191808057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923504|NCT00810303|191808057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
95923505|NCT00810303|191808058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe alone and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923506|NCT00810303|191808058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923507|NCT00810303|191808059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
95923508|NCT00810303|191808059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923509|NCT00810303|191808060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
95923510|NCT00810303|191808061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923511|NCT00810303|191808062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe alone.||||<0.05
95923512|NCT00810303|191808062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon-test between free ezetimibe with chronic treatment of efavirenz and free ezetimibe with single dose treatment of efavirenz.||||<0.05
95923513|NCT02022462|191808068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change of z-scores.||||.073
95923514|NCT02022462|191808068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean z-score change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.066
95923515|NCT02022462|191808069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.983
95923516|NCT02022462|191808069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.95||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.533
95923517|NCT02022462|191808070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.731
95923518|NCT02022462|191808070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group mean change from 6 months to 12-months (post-intervention) for the immediate treatment group only.||||.211
95923519|NCT02022462|191808071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.244
95923520|NCT02022462|191808071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.016
95923521|NCT02022462|191808072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.019
95923522|NCT02022462|191808072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.609
95923523|NCT02022462|191808073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.203
95923524|NCT02022462|191808073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.480
95923525|NCT02022462|191808074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
95923526|NCT02022462|191808074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.903|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.903
95923527|NCT02022462|191808075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.787||||0.433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.433
95923528|NCT02022462|191808075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.936|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.936
95923529|NCT02022462|191808076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change in z-scores of diet.||||.228
95923530|NCT02022462|191808076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.617
95923531|NCT02022462|191808077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.894
95923532|NCT02022462|191808077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.930
95923533|NCT02022462|191808078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.530
95923534|NCT02022462|191808078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27||0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.458
95923535|NCT02022462|191808079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
95923536|NCT02022462|191808079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.892
95923537|NCT02022462|191808080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.931
95923538|NCT02022462|191808080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.058
95923539|NCT02022462|191808081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.576
95923540|NCT02022462|191808081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.89||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.829
95923541|NCT02022462|191808082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.792
95923542|NCT02022462|191808082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.622
95923543|NCT02022462|191808083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.986||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months between-group comparisons of the mean change.||||.049
95923544|NCT02022462|191808083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.211
95923545|NCT00335153|191808159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923546|NCT00335153|191808160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95923547|NCT00335153|191808161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923548|NCT00335153|191808162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923549|NCT00335153|191808163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
95923550|NCT00335153|191808164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923551|NCT00335153|191808165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923552|NCT00335153|191808166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923553|NCT00335153|191808167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923554|NCT00335153|191808168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923555|NCT00335153|191808169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923556|NCT00335153|191808170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923557|NCT00335153|191808171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923558|NCT00335153|191808172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923559|NCT00335153|191808173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
95923560|NCT00335153|191808174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923561|NCT00335153|191808175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923562|NCT00335153|191808176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923563|NCT00335153|191808177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923564|NCT00335153|191808178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923565|NCT00335153|191808179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
95923566|NCT03194776|191808232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.74|||=|0.2612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.03|2.55||P-value of \<= 0.2 was considered significant.|two-sided test|||Statistical analysis was done by mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model analysis.||2.55|-38.03|= 0.2612
95923567|NCT01394991|191808262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis was that the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa QW and the group of participants receiving epoetin alfa TIW would have similar incidence rate of participants with at least 1 clinically relevant and objectively confirmed TVE from randomization through Week 16.||0.016|-0.051|0.248
95923568|NCT01394991|191808262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.254||95.0|0.18|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.18|0.254
95923569|NCT01394991|191808263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.007|||Chi-squared|||||0.007|-0.065|0.08
95923570|NCT01394991|191808264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model with covariates for treatment group and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.13|0.14|0.073
95923571|NCT01394991|191808265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.059||95.0|-0.083|0.005|||Chi-squared|||||0.005|-0.083|0.059
95923572|NCT01394991|191808266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.03|||Log Rank|The stratified log-rank test accounting for ECOG score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used to compare the difference between treatment groups.|The Cox regression model including covariates for treatment group and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score status (0 or 1 versus 2) was used for estimates of a hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval.|||1.03|0.21|0.054
95923573|NCT01394991|191808267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0041||||0.88||95.0|-0.0526|0.0608|||Chi-squared|||||0.0608|-0.0526|0.88
95923574|NCT01394991|191808268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.108|||Chi-squared|||||0.108|-0.056|0.514
95923575|NCT01394991|191808269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.065|||Chi-squared|||||0.065|-0.071|0.920
95923576|NCT01871285|191808275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
95923577|NCT01871285|191808275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
95923578|NCT01871285|191808276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.60|.7942
95923579|NCT01871285|191808276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.683||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|13.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.25|-11.89|.6155
95923580|NCT02501629|191808282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.157||Significance at 0.05.|proportional odds model|factors for treatment group and randomization strata (age and OCS dose); baseline OCS dose and duration of OCS use prior to study were covariates.||The proportional odds ratio (reslizumab/placebo) was estimated from this model, representing the ratio of the odds of a patient outcome being in a higher OCS dose reduction category for reslizumab compared to placebo.||2.157|0.702|0.468
95923581|NCT02501629|191808283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|2.683||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.683|0.786|0.234
95923582|NCT02501629|191808284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.229||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.229|0.631|0.596
95923583|NCT02501629|191808285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.759||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.986|3.494|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Reslizumab - Placebo|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, age group, and OCS dose group, duration of OCS use and baseline value as covariates, and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for the repeated measures.||3.494|-38.986|0.101
95923584|NCT02501629|191808286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|2.562||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||2.562|0.722|0.341
95923585|NCT02501629|191808287|SUPERIORITY||CAE rate ratio|0.82||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.321|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for stratification factors (OCS dose group), age, number of prior exacerbations, and an offset variable.|reslizumab vs placebo|||1.321|0.504|0.407
95923586|NCT02501629|191808288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.818||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, stratification factors (age group and OCS dose group), duration of OCS use, and baseline value.||As the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint did not meet criteria for statistical significance (p≤0.05), the secondary efficacy endpoints were not interpreted inferentially according to the pre-defined hierarchy. P-values are nominal, meaning they were obtained from the analysis without adjustments to protect family-wise errors and should be interpreted with caution. Nominal p-values do not indicate treatment differences.||1.818|0.371|0.628
95923587|NCT02004613|191808291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.72|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: dexmedetomidine would reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial arrhythmias.||1.15|0.72|0.34
95923588|NCT02004613|191808292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.99|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||hypothesis: Dexmedetomidine may reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium.||2.23|0.99|0.026
95923589|NCT02004613|191808293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.84|0.14
95923590|NCT02004613|191808294|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.65|0.29
95923591|NCT00672256|191808342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
95923592|NCT00672256|191808343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
95923593|NCT00672256|191808344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
95923594|NCT00672256|191808345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.05
95923595|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 24 hrs||||0.181
95923596|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml||||.164
95923597|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M, 24 hrs||||.132
95923598|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||.066
95923599|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 24 hrs||||0.268
95923600|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml||||0.106
95923601|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.625
95923602|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml||||0.381
95923603|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.5.g.ml, 48 hrs||||0.549
95923604|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Collagen.2.g.ml, 48 hrs||||.838
95923605|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.10.M||||0.245
95923606|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.5.M||||0.417
95923607|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ADP.3.M, 48 hrs||||0.770
95923608|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arach.Acid.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.614
95923609|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristochetin.1.5.mg.ml||||0.969
95923610|NCT01720043|191808357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ristocetin.0.5.mg.ml, 48 hrs||||0.238
95923611|NCT01124162|191808358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.43|120.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.03|97.43|
95923612|NCT01124162|191808359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.57|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.93|98.57|
95923613|NCT01124162|191808360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.41|104.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.68|98.41|
95923614|NCT01124162|191808361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.24|106.06|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.06|98.24|
95856026|NCT03537404|191671339|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.175|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.175|-0.220|
95923615|NCT01124162|191808362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|102.84|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.84|97.84|
95923616|NCT01124162|191808363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|102.69|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.69|97.87|
95923617|NCT02534896|191808391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.018
95923618|NCT02534896|191808391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.007
95923619|NCT02534896|191808392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.028
95923620|NCT02534896|191808392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.003
95923621|NCT02534896|191808393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.960
95923622|NCT02534896|191808393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.339
95923623|NCT02534896|191808394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.573
95923624|NCT02534896|191808394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Hochberg and Gatekeeping|||||||0.374
95923625|NCT02408965|191808403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95923626|NCT02408965|191808404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95923627|NCT02408965|191808405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95923628|NCT02408965|191808406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95923629|NCT02408965|191808407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95923630|NCT02408965|191808408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95923631|NCT02408965|191808409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95923632|NCT02408965|191808410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95923633|NCT02408965|191808411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95983251|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.5|-7.8|
95983252|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||14.2|-5.0|
95983253|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||9.5|-7.3|
95856027|NCT03537404|191671340|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.157|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed.|||0.157|-0.075|
95856028|NCT03537404|191671340|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.201|0.064|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.064|-0.201|
95856029|NCT03537404|191671341|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.159|0.383|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.383|0.159|
95856030|NCT03537404|191671342|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.132|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.132|0.016|
95856031|NCT03537404|191671343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.153|||||Cmax parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.153|-0.450|
95856032|NCT03537404|191671344|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.354|0.168|||||AUCtau parameters were logarithmically transformed|||0.168|-0.354|
95856033|NCT00068692|191671349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiotherapy, and regimen administration||||||0.35
95856034|NCT00068692|191671349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||one-sided p value was reported|Log Rank|stratified on ECOG performance status, clinical stage, timing of chemoradiaotherapy, regimen administration||||||0.69
95856035|NCT02873702|191671353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority to lansoprazole if the lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|21.3||||||Healing Period: Dexlansoprazole 60 mg versus Healing Period: Lansoprazole 30 mg||21.30|-26.59|
95856036|NCT02540629|191671392|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95856037|NCT02494323|191671395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value is adjusted for the comparison of subjects who benefited, were satisfied and willing to continue using the Segmented Electrodes versus subjects who didn't benefit, wern't satisfied ans were not willing to continue using the Segmented Eletrode|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95856038|NCT03089281|191671401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
95856039|NCT03089281|191671402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95856040|NCT03089281|191671403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95856041|NCT03089281|191671405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
95856042|NCT03089281|191671406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.49
95856043|NCT03089281|191671407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95856044|NCT03089281|191671408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95856045|NCT03089281|191671409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95856046|NCT03089281|191671410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95856047|NCT03089281|191671411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95856048|NCT03089281|191671412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95856049|NCT03089281|191671413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95856050|NCT03926611|191671475|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.51|-9.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.81|-17.51|<0.0001
95856051|NCT03926611|191671475|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|-9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-9.78|-17.49|<0.0001
95856052|NCT03926611|191671475|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.97|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.45|-12.97|<0.0001
95856053|NCT03926611|191671475|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-6.72|-14.38|<0.0001
95856054|NCT03926611|191671475|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.43|-10.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-10.73|-18.43|<0.0001
95856055|NCT03926611|191671475|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.45|-8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-8.78|-16.45|<0.0001
95856056|NCT03926611|191671476|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.72|-5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.77|-14.72|<0.0001
95856057|NCT03926611|191671476|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 35 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.58|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.63|-14.58|0.0001
95856058|NCT03926611|191671476|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg q.d.|LS Mean|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.635||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.75|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-3.05|-11.75|0.0027
95856059|NCT03926611|191671476|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 10 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.25|-5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.35|-14.25|0.0002
95856060|NCT03926611|191671476|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.714|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.82|-7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-7.87|-16.82|<0.0001
95856061|NCT03926611|191671476|SUPERIORITY|LOU064 100 mg b.i.d.|LS Mean|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.733||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.03|-5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)||||-5.01|-14.03|0.0003
95856062|NCT02446899|191671484|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|26.3||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.3|6.3|0.0013
95983254|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||9.5|-7.3|
95983255|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
95923634|NCT04668144|191808417|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between groups and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group would allow for the 95%CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha=0.05. In line with previously reported investigations, 45 PRU was chosen for the noninferiority margin for the upper 95%CI limit of the difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|176.0||p-value was not calculated for noninferiority analysis|ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of our study was that in patients receiving concomitant administration of cangrelor and prasugrel (experimental arm), platelet inhibition as assessed by PRU would be noninferior to patients receiving prasugrel only (active control)||176|85|
95923635|NCT01112735|191808422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5621
95923636|NCT01112735|191808423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3595
95923637|NCT01112735|191808424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9417
95923638|NCT01112735|191808424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.5488
95923639|NCT01112735|191808424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.7107
95923640|NCT01112735|191808424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.8809
95923641|NCT01112735|191808424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.4598
95923642|NCT01112735|191808424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.3837
95923643|NCT01112735|191808425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.9699
95923644|NCT01112735|191808425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.4709
95923645|NCT01112735|191808425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.1406
95923646|NCT01112735|191808425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28||||0.4291
95923647|NCT01112735|191808425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 60||||0.2704
95923648|NCT01112735|191808425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 90||||0.7564
95923649|NCT02775435|191808445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.7||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.45|<0.0001
95923650|NCT02775435|191808446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85||Treatment comparison stratified by programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Tumor Proportion Score \[TPS\] ≥1% vs. \<1%), taxane chemotherapy (paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel) \& geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia)|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.49|0.0008
95923651|NCT00320489|191808451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.612
95923652|NCT00320489|191808452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||P-Value is for change from baseline at Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.649
95923653|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.744
95923654|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Score Detail.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.653
95794995|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage:Irritability(Group 2 vs1)||3.1|-16.6|= 0.178
95794996|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 5 vs 1)||13.5|-6.8|= 0.520
95794997|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 4 vs 1)||10.2|-10.2|> 0.999
95923655|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Physical Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.640
95923656|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Physical.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.454
95923657|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Bodily Pain.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.135
95923658|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in General Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.229
95923659|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Vitality.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.594
95923660|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Social Functioning.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.256
95923661|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Role-Emotional.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.775
95923662|NCT00320489|191808453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781||95.0||||P-value for change at Week 104 in Mental Health.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.781
95923663|NCT00320489|191808454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.465
95923664|NCT00320489|191808455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.581
95923665|NCT00320489|191808458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value is type III p-value of ANOVA model: Total number of hospitalization days = Therapy.||||||0.020
95923666|NCT00320489|191808459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-5) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.583
95856063|NCT02446899|191671485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|28.2||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||28.2|6.5|0.0022
95923667|NCT00320489|191808459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0||||P-value is for Total Score (Items 1-4) change to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.747
95794998|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 3 vs 1)||10.0|-10.5|= 0.963
95794999|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||=|0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Drowsiness(Group 2 vs 1)||9.0|-11.4|= 0.821
95795000|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 5 vs 1)||5.0|-6.1|= 0.836
95795001|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|1.7|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 4 vs 1)||7.6|-4.2|= 0.562
95795002|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-1.6|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 3 vs 1)||3.7|-7.1|= 0.527
95795003|NCT03620162|191560132|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|-3.4|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage: Hives(Group 2 vs 1)||1.5|-8.6|= 0.160
95795004|NCT03620162|191560133|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
95795005|NCT03620162|191560133|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 4 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
95795006|NCT03620162|191560133|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 3 vs 1)||3.1|-1.6|
95795007|NCT03620162|191560133|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Difference in Percentage (Group 2 vs 1)||2.1|-2.1|
95795008|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.69|
95795009|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.77|
95795010|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.00|0.70|
95795011|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.19|0.86|
95795012|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.12|0.80|
95795013|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.25|0.90|
95795014|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.00|0.66|
95795015|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.03|0.68|
95795016|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.08|0.72|
95923668|NCT00320489|191808460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = investigator, treatment, and baseline.||||||0.371
95923669|NCT00320489|191808461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0||||P-value is fro change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.681
95923670|NCT00320489|191808462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for overall satisfaction with current medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.60
95923671|NCT00320489|191808462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for preference current/previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit||||||.258
95923672|NCT00320489|191808462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-value is for side effects - current vs previous medication.|ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.492
95923673|NCT00320489|191808463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Actual Result = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit.||||||0.854
95923674|NCT00320489|191808464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.600
95923675|NCT00320489|191808465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.282
95923676|NCT00320489|191808466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.834
95923677|NCT00320489|191808466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Positive Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.871
95923678|NCT00320489|191808466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS Negative Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.692
95923679|NCT00320489|191808466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Score.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit, Baseline.||||||0.893
95923680|NCT00320489|191808467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.585
95923681|NCT00320489|191808468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
95923682|NCT00320489|191808469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Therapy, Investigator, Visit, Therapy\*Visit Baseline.||||||0.952
95923683|NCT00320489|191808471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline to Week 104.|ANCOVA|Model: change = baseline, treatment, and investigator.||||||0.777
95923684|NCT00320489|191808472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.530
95923685|NCT00320489|191808473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.258
95923686|NCT00320489|191808473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for fasting total cholesterol.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.688
95923687|NCT00320489|191808473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||P-value is for fasting triglycerides.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.908
95923688|NCT00320489|191808474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.835
95923689|NCT00320489|191808475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for ALT.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.834
95923690|NCT00320489|191808475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value is for AST.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
95923691|NCT00320489|191808475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||P-value is for total bilirubin.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.247
95923692|NCT00320489|191808476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.885
95923693|NCT01872611|191808483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||1.3|0.7|0.671
95923694|NCT01872611|191808484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.7|0.2|0.001
95923695|NCT02696785|191808494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score||5.52|1.35|0.005
95923696|NCT02696785|191808494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||9.03|2.20|<0.001
95923697|NCT02696785|191808494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Work Impairment Score.||10.28|2.52|<0.001
95923698|NCT02696785|191808494|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-0.7|-13.2|<0.001
95923699|NCT02696785|191808494|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-3.0|-15.5|<0.001
95923700|NCT02696785|191808494|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-2.5|-15.2|<0.001
95923701|NCT02696785|191808495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.23|1.25|0.007
95923702|NCT02696785|191808495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.48|0.001
95923703|NCT02696785|191808495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.41|1.79|<0.001
95923704|NCT02696785|191808496|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.11|<0.001
95923705|NCT02696785|191808496|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.25|<0.001
95923706|NCT02696785|191808496|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.18|<0.001
95923707|NCT02696785|191808497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.23|0.012
95923708|NCT02696785|191808497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.70|1.82|<0.001
95923709|NCT02696785|191808497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|1.91|<0.001
95923710|NCT02696785|191808498|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.56|0.001
95923711|NCT02696785|191808498|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.83|<0.001
95923712|NCT02696785|191808498|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.86|<0.001
95923713|NCT02696785|191808499|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|34.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.68|1.67|0.009
95923714|NCT02696785|191808499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.83|1.75|0.007
95923715|NCT02696785|191808499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|24.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.49|1.07|0.041
95923716|NCT02696785|191808500|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.7|<0.001
95923717|NCT02696785|191808500|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
95923718|NCT02696785|191808500|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
95923719|NCT02696785|191808501|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.2574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0437||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2041|5.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||5.3106|1.2041|0.002
95923720|NCT02696785|191808501|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9432|6.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.1608|1.9432|<0.001
95923721|NCT02696785|191808501|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2321|6.4186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||6.4186|2.2321|<0.001
95923722|NCT02696785|191808501|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1718||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8732|2.7373|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.7373|-1.8732|0.713
95923723|NCT02696785|191808501|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2028||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7387|2.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.9934|-1.7387|0.602
95923724|NCT02696785|191808501|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1978||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9097|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||2.8030|-1.9097|0.709
95923725|NCT02696785|191808502|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.87|0.012
95923726|NCT02696785|191808502|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.95|0.010
95923727|NCT02696785|191808502|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
95923728|NCT02696785|191808503|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6724||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.885|-3.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.371|-13.885|0.001
95923729|NCT02696785|191808503|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7438||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|-1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.238|-12.033|0.016
95923730|NCT02696785|191808503|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7248||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.351|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-13.351|0.004
95923731|NCT02696785|191808504|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1143||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.142|-0.592|0.001
95923732|NCT02696785|191808504|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.655|-0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.189|-0.655|<0.001
95923733|NCT02696785|191808504|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1167||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.099|-0.558|0.005
95923734|NCT02696785|191808505|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.22|0.003
95923735|NCT02696785|191808505|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.00|0.051
95923736|NCT02696785|191808505|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.18|0.005
95923737|NCT02696785|191808506|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.30|0.039
95923738|NCT02696785|191808506|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.28|0.057
95923739|NCT02696785|191808506|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.31|0.042
95923740|NCT02696785|191808507|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.7|<0.001
95923741|NCT02696785|191808507|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-6.5|<0.001
95923742|NCT02696785|191808507|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.8|<0.001
95923743|NCT02696785|191808508|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.4|0.317
95923744|NCT02696785|191808508|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.1|0.683
95923745|NCT02696785|191808508|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-1.3|0.500
95923746|NCT02696785|191808509|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.9|0.154
95923747|NCT02696785|191808509|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||-0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|-0.6
95923748|NCT02696785|191808509|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.6|0.398
95923749|NCT02696785|191808510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.783
95923750|NCT02696785|191808510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.550
95923751|NCT02696785|191808510|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.8|0.091
95923752|NCT02696785|191808512|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.027
95923753|NCT02696785|191808512|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
95923754|NCT02696785|191808512|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.3|0.035
95923755|NCT02696785|191808513|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.3|0.041
95923756|NCT02696785|191808513|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-2.1|0.125
95923757|NCT02696785|191808513|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.6|0.013
95923758|NCT02696785|191808514|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.082||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.12|-6.03|0.989
95923759|NCT02696785|191808514|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.146||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-3.71|0.429
95727885|NCT01464827|191425277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.34||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + H + I\] : Groups \[K + L + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs and ribavirin in treatment-naïve versus null-responders was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose as predictors.||5.34|0.37|0.616
95923760|NCT02696785|191808514|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-11.92|0.096
95923761|NCT02696785|191808518|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-2.6|0.166
95923762|NCT02696785|191808518|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-3.4|0.011
95923763|NCT02696785|191808518|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.6|0.182
95923764|NCT02696785|191808519|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.588|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.2|<0.001
95923765|NCT02696785|191808519|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-12.6|<0.001
95923766|NCT02696785|191808519|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-11.2|<0.001
95923767|NCT00770211|191808536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed, if H0 was rejected at a given alpha of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value is ≤ 0.05. Power of 90%||0.56|0.40|<0.0001
95923768|NCT00764868|191808563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
95923769|NCT00764868|191808565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of LDX at baseline and 52 weeks||||||<0.001
95923770|NCT03568162|191808566|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit|LS Mean Difference|-20.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4781|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.944|5.439|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||5.439|-34.944|= 0.008
95923771|NCT03568162|191808566|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|-14.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6622|=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.552|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference|||0.674|-29.552|= 0.061
95923772|NCT03568162|191808566|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was conducted using a mixed MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.|LS Mean Difference|3.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8864|=|0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|||18.698|-12.410|= 0.691
95923773|NCT03568162|191808566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.895|-4.503|||Mixed Models Analysis||A linear contrast was used to estimate the treatment difference.|The analysis was conducted using a MMRM model for percent change from baseline in EASI with the corresponding baseline value as covariate, and treatment group, region, disease severity, visit as fixed effect factors, and interactions of treatment-by-visit, baseline-by-visit.||-4.503|-29.895|= 0.008
95923774|NCT00689104|191808602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.09|-0.72|0.003
95983256|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||9.5|-7.3|
95923775|NCT00689104|191808602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||0.03|-0.61|0.010
95856064|NCT02446899|191671486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.7||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||35.7|6.8|0.0135
95856065|NCT02446899|191671487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.6||Adjusted p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||43.6|4.3|0.0392
95856066|NCT02446899|191671488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.0||Adjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).||20.0|-10.6|0.5469
95856067|NCT02446899|191671489|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94||Adjusted p-value.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.||0.94|0.48|0.0809
95856068|NCT02230670|191671506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0817||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.023|-0.302|0.091
95856069|NCT02230670|191671506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology. The significance was assessed using Type II Sums of Squares from this ANCOVA model.||0.01|-0.41|0.041
95856070|NCT02230670|191671507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value.||0.42|-0.91|0.466
95856071|NCT02230670|191671507|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.77|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by BL MELD category interaction term.||BL MELD \>= 15 subgroup results (N=19), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.77|-3.61|0.003
95856072|NCT02230670|191671507|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|calculated from the estimated least square means for the treatment by etiology interaction term.||NASH Etiology subgroup results (N=20), as analyzed from the adjusted analysis ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline value, baseline MELD score, and etiology.||-0.17|-3.09|0.029
95856073|NCT00836693|191671512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||5.5|2.2|<0.001
95856074|NCT00836693|191671513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.3|5.1|<0.001
95856075|NCT00836693|191671514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|27.0||p-value is for Week 12 Change. The null hypothesis concerning tadalafil versus placebo was to be rejected if, and only if, the three primary hypotheses (H01, H02, and H03) were all rejected therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||27.0|8.9|<0.001
95923776|NCT00689104|191808602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.21|-0.42|0.11
95923777|NCT00689104|191808603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.29||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.29|-0.90|<0.001
95923778|NCT00689104|191808603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.74|0.005
95923779|NCT00689104|191808603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||0.06|-0.55|0.11
95923780|NCT00689104|191808604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.4||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.4|6.3|<0.001
95923781|NCT00689104|191808604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.7|7.7|<0.001
95923782|NCT00689104|191808604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|18.2||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||18.2|7.1|<0.001
95923783|NCT00689104|191808605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.71|0.002
95923784|NCT00689104|191808605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.71|0.002
95923785|NCT00689104|191808605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.35||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.03|-0.68|0.019
95983257|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||9.5|-7.3|
95983258|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
95856076|NCT00836693|191671518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.8||P-value is for Week 12 change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The change from baseline to endpoint in morning erection percentages was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for baseline value, treatment group, country, age and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||22.8|9.5|<0.001
95856077|NCT00836693|191671519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|>|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANOVA|||The models included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable,treatment group,country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction.In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||26.1|13.9|>0.001
95856078|NCT00836693|191671520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|18.0||p-value is for Total (Change). For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||18.0|5.5|<0.001
95856079|NCT00836693|191671520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.8||p-value is for Sexual Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||19.8|6.6|<0.001
95856080|NCT00836693|191671520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.5||p-value is for Confidence Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||16.5|3.3|0.0034
95856081|NCT00836693|191671520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.9||p-value is for Self-Esteem Domain (Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||17.9|4.1|0.0020
95856082|NCT00836693|191671520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|15.6||p-value is for Overall Relationship Domain(Change).For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses (null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis) were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (at p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||15.6|-0.5|0.0653
95856083|NCT00836693|191671521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
95856084|NCT00836693|191671522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.1|0.2|0.0089
95983259|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||9.5|-7.3|
95923786|NCT00689104|191808606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.66|0.004
95923787|NCT00689104|191808606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.26||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.26|-0.79|<0.001
95923788|NCT00689104|191808606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the comparison between tolterodine and placebo was a secondary analysis, no adjustment for multiplicity was necessary.||-0.06|-0.60|0.016
95923789|NCT00216320|191808642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95923790|NCT00924560|191808646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|91-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.20|-0.67|
95923791|NCT00924560|191808646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|28-day levonorgestrel OC was declared to be non-inferior to the untreated control group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -3%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61|||||Difference = OC group minus the untreated control|The primary efficacy endpoint (percent change from baseline to 12 months in lumbar spine BMD) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.61|-1.49|
95923792|NCT00924560|191808647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|-0.00|
95923793|NCT00924560|191808647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
95923794|NCT00924560|191808647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
95923795|NCT00924560|191808647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.01|-0.02|
95923796|NCT00924560|191808648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.42|-0.08|
95923797|NCT00924560|191808648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.18||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.18|-0.68|
95923798|NCT00924560|191808648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.24|-0.39|
95923799|NCT00924560|191808648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.42||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.42|-1.05|
95923800|NCT00924560|191808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
95923801|NCT00924560|191808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
95923802|NCT00924560|191808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.01|0.00|
95923803|NCT00924560|191808649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
95923804|NCT00924560|191808650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.28|-0.03|
95923805|NCT00924560|191808650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.11|-0.20|
95923806|NCT00924560|191808650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.34|-0.01|
95856085|NCT00836693|191671523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.5|0.0|0.0461
95856086|NCT00836693|191671524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||Model included terms for baseline value of efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model,if the interaction was not significant (if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on type 3 sums of squares.||1.9|0.7|<0.001
95856087|NCT00836693|191671525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||p-value is for Week 12 Change. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||10.7|2.0|0.0047
95856088|NCT00836693|191671526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.3||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||34.3|14.6|<0.001
95856089|NCT00836693|191671527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|33.2||p-value is for Week 12 Change.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|ANCOVA|Baseline = Visit 2; Endpoint = the last non-missing post-baseline value until Visit 5; Change = Endpoint - Baseline.||The model included terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment group, country, and the baseline-by-treatment-group interaction. In any model, if the interaction was not significant (that is, if p≥0.10), then the interaction term was removed from the model and the main effects model was used to calculate the between-treatment-group p-value. All tests were based on the type 3 sums of squares.||33.2|13.7|<0.001
95856090|NCT00836693|191671528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Questions GAQ1. For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
95856091|NCT00836693|191671529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Global Assessment Question GAQ2.For secondary endpoints, all tests of hypotheses were performed as two-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level (α=0.05) unless otherwise stated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's rank sum test was used to compare responses to GAQs between treatment groups.||||<0.0001
95856092|NCT01907854|191671540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Changes in HbA1c from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements were analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate, all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.40|-0.82|<0.0001
95856093|NCT01907854|191671541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Superiority of liraglutide over sitagliptin was concluded if the 95% Confidence Interval for the treatment difference was entirely below 0%.||Change in body weight from baseline to the 26 weeks measurements was analysed using MMRM, with treatment, baseline HbA1c level (≤8.5% and \>8.5%), metformin dose (\<1500 mg/day and ≥1500 mg/day), the interaction between baseline HbA1c level and metformin dose, and country as factors and the body weight at baseline as a covariate and all variables nested within week as a factor.||-0.99|-2.34|<0.0001
95856094|NCT01744977|191671548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.300
95923807|NCT00924560|191808650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.03|-0.32|
95923808|NCT00924560|191808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
95923809|NCT00924560|191808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||0.00|-0.01|
95923810|NCT00924560|191808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
95923811|NCT00924560|191808651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||-0.00|-0.01|
95923812|NCT00924560|191808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.61||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||12.61|-23.57|
95923813|NCT00924560|191808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.65|10.55||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 6. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.55|-25.65|
95923814|NCT00924560|191808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|10.81||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||10.81|-34.99|
95923815|NCT00924560|191808652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|1.74||||||Comparison of Change from Baseline to Month 12. ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and chronological age, body weight, and Baseline value as covariates.||1.74|-44.08|
95923816|NCT02909101|191808676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.039
95923817|NCT02909101|191808677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.054
95923818|NCT02909101|191808678|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.744
95923819|NCT02909101|191808679|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine acceptability in terms of helpfulness, we examined whether mean ratings for both arms were above 3.5, and we also examined whether there was any difference between arms.||||0.719
95923820|NCT02909101|191808680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.337
95923821|NCT02909101|191808681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.025
95923822|NCT02909101|191808682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVAs were 2 (Arm) by 2 (Time). Covariates were age, WTAR standard score, and number of games improved (as a proxy of intervention engagement).||Estimated marginal means, adjusted for covariates in the model, are reported. The p-value reported is for the Arm by Time interaction effect.||||0.133
95923823|NCT00665561|191808701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.67||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude risk ratio (RR) and CI.||0.67|0.42|
95923824|NCT00665561|191808702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.88||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||5.88|0.12|
95923825|NCT00665561|191808703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.33||||||All Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.33|0.66|
95923826|NCT00665561|191808703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.31||||||AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.31|0.29|
95923827|NCT00665561|191808703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||||||Non-AIDS defining Malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.58|0.71|
95923828|NCT00665561|191808704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.18|0.44|
95923829|NCT00665561|191808705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.59|0.51|
95923830|NCT00665561|191808706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.76|0.70|
95923831|NCT00665561|191808707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.93||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||4.93|0.25|
95923832|NCT00665561|191808708|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.47||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||2.47|0.18|
95923833|NCT00665561|191808709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with only treatment in the model to obtain the crude RR and CI.||1.08|0.57|
95923834|NCT00665561|191808710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||0.99|0.61|
95856095|NCT01744977|191671549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With an assumed adherence proportion in the Control arm of 0.50, there is 80% power to detect a difference between Control and the intervention arms of 17% or more with 125 patients in each arm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.5||As measured at 12m|Mixed Models Analysis||This value summarizes the full 12 month period so Mean Difference (Final Values) is appropriate.|||6.5|-8.0|0.839
95923835|NCT00665561|191808711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||||||All malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.33|0.64|
95923836|NCT00665561|191808711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52||||||AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.32|
95923837|NCT00665561|191808711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Non-AIDS defining malignancies: Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.66|
95923838|NCT00665561|191808712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.10|0.35|
95923839|NCT00665561|191808713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.52|0.59|
95923840|NCT00665561|191808714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||||||Poisson regressions were fit to the categorical events with treatment as the main effect, PS quartile and imputed FS as covariates in the model to obtain the adjusted RR and CI.||1.28|0.66|
95923841|NCT00665561|191808715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.66|0.6225
95923842|NCT02337361|191808716|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)(Diggle et al. 2002) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||
95923843|NCT02337361|191808716|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation|||
95923844|NCT02337361|191808717|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report weekly or more frequent drinking at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.01
95923845|NCT02337361|191808718|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report drinking a maximum quantity of 5 or more drinks in a day at 6 month follow-up|||||<.05
95923846|NCT02337361|191808719|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report any tobacco use at 6 month follow-up||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested e-SBI efficacy, controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites. GEE models estimate population average or marginal models and account for within-subject nonindependence (clustering) of observations across multiple waves of data collection and use all available data in model estimation.|||<.10
95923847|NCT02337361|191808720|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||the e-SBI group was at reduced odds relative to the control group to report significant depression at 6 month follow-up|||||<.01
95923848|NCT02337361|191808721|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) tested DrinkWise's effects on changes in depression over time controlling for demographic differences between study condition and study sites.|||
95923849|NCT02427646|191808734|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||<0.05
95923850|NCT02427646|191808735|OTHER|"A linear mixed effects (LME) model via the maximized likelihood estimation was implemented using open-source statistical software, R (version 3.3.3). The effects of each clinical and kinematic outcome measures were examined for each participant group (ET and PD arms were separately analyzed thus no interaction effects were investigated) in separate LME models (lme4 package using lmer function)."|||||<|0.05|||||||Linear mixed effects model|a log-transformation ofthe RMS datasets was applied for statistical analysis||||||<0.05
95923851|NCT03824236|191808736|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (P-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|52.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between P-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||68|28|0.003
95923852|NCT03824236|191808736|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people (NP-Fx Group) compared to unvaccinated people (Infectivity Control Group).|Vaccine efficacy rate|54.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|70.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing P. falciparum parasitemia incidence after sporozoite challenge between NP-Fx group and the Infectivity Control group.||70|29|0.002
95923853|NCT04949399|191808748|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|37.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|23.5|<.0001
95733927|NCT00377260|191439137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||<.001
95923854|NCT04949399|191808749|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|47.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.7|32.0|<0.0001
95923855|NCT04949399|191808750|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|41.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|49.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.6|33.7|<0.0001
95923856|NCT04949399|191808753|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|54.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|62.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.8|46.8|<.0001
95923857|NCT04949399|191808754|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|47.8||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|30.5|<.0001
95923858|NCT04949399|191808755|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|52.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.5|36.8|<.0001
95923859|NCT04949399|191808756|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-6.7|<.0001
95923860|NCT04949399|191808759|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|38.1|54.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.2|38.1|<0.0001
95923861|NCT04949399|191808760|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|60.5||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.5|43.3|<0.0001
95856096|NCT01750229|191671550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables included in the Mixed Model were: baseline VAS back pain score, treatment group, and period.||||||0.002
95856097|NCT02683577|191671566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|1.695|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.176|||||A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.176|0.904|
95856098|NCT02683577|191671566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.579|3.837|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for telotristat ethyl.||3.837|1.579|
95856099|NCT02683577|191671567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
95923862|NCT04949399|191808761|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|49.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|31.3|<0.0001
95923863|NCT04949399|191808762|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|45.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|53.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|37.1|<0.0001
95923864|NCT04949399|191808763|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-6.8|<0.0001
95923865|NCT04949399|191808764|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.5||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-4.5|-6.7|<0.0001
95923866|NCT04949399|191808764|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.9||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.9|-6.0|<0.0001
95923867|NCT04949399|191808764|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
95923868|NCT00901485|191808775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To test for non-inferiority, a sample size of 36 (18 patients completing both arms of the crossover) was calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 2.5% drop in the primary outcome, mean overnight oxygen saturation (SpO2), with a SD of 3% at a significance level of 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"We tested the hypothesis that iVAPS can ventilate a patient naive to NIV at least as effectively as standard PS.~Sleep and breathing parameters at the end of each treatment period were compared using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. The median difference between treatments with 95% confidence intervals was then compared by related-samples Hodges-Lehman test"||1.0|-0.2|0.13
95923869|NCT00901485|191808776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|PtcCO2 is compared as a secondary outcome resulting in CO2 elimination similar to that of standard PS ventilation (median difference (95% CI) of -0.04(- 0.03 to 0.4)kPa in mean overnight PtcCO2).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: that we tested the hypothesis that iVAPS, with automated selection of ventilator settings, was non-inferior to standard pressure support (PS) ventilation, with settings determined by an experienced healthcare professional, for controlling nocturnal hypoventilation in patients naïve to NIV.||0.4|-0.3|0.54
95856100|NCT02683577|191671567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median difference between the moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||0.000|0.000|=1.0000
95923870|NCT00901485|191808777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-0.5|0.94
95923871|NCT00901485|191808778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.42
95856101|NCT02683577|191671568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|4.598|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||4.598|1.144|
95856102|NCT02683577|191671568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.715|5.852|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for telotristat ethyl.||5.852|1.715|
95856103|NCT02683577|191671570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.65|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) for Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.65|1.11|
95856104|NCT02683577|191671570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.66|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on Cmax values for LP-778902.||2.66|1.51|
95856105|NCT02683577|191671571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.3160
95856106|NCT02683577|191671571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference|0.0|||=|0.4671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Tmax was analysed using a non-parametric analysis (Walsh averages and appropriate quantile of the Wilcoxon signed rank test statistic). The median differences between the hepatic impaired group (Test) versus the healthy control group (Reference) and the corresponding 90% CIs were calculated by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||1.000|0.000|=0.4671
95856107|NCT02683577|191671572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|3.94|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||3.94|1.45|
95856108|NCT02683577|191671572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.03|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-tlast) values for LP-778902.||5.03|2.45|
95856109|NCT02683577|191671573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.82|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of mild HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on ln transformed AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||3.82|1.33|
95856110|NCT02683577|191671573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|4.8|||||A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed using a linear mixed effects model, with hepatic function group as a fixed term. Geometric LS mean ratios were derived for each HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference).|Comparison of moderate HI group (Test) versus healthy control group (Reference) on AUC(0-inf) values for LP-778902.||4.80|2.30|
95923872|NCT00901485|191808779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82||95.0|-8.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|-8|0.82
95923873|NCT00901485|191808780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.44|0.27|0.0004
95923874|NCT00901485|191808781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.5|-1.2|0.5
95923875|NCT00901485|191808782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-4.5|0.001
95923876|NCT00901485|191808783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|23.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||23|-54|0.47
95923877|NCT00901485|191808784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.2|-0.7|0.41
95923878|NCT00901485|191808785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-5|0.36
95923879|NCT00901485|191808786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
95923880|NCT00901485|191808787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-5|0.59
95856111|NCT00089752|191671598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was designed to achieve at least 80% power, using n 1⁄4 123 per group with an effect size of at least 0.36|Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||a priori threshold was p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Intent to Treat analysis with Last Observation Carried Forward.||0.3|-3.8|0.09
95923881|NCT00901485|191808788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a secondary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|-9|0.72
95923882|NCT01704846|191808833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.9|105.25|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.25|95.90|
95923883|NCT01704846|191808834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.57|110.98|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||110.98|95.57|
95923884|NCT01704846|191808835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|105.18|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||105.18|96.10|
95923885|NCT01704846|191808836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the adjusted mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Mean Ratio (%)|97.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|103.78|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||103.78|91.54|
95923886|NCT01704846|191808837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.51|102.2|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.20|98.51|
95923887|NCT01704846|191808838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|101.51|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||101.51|97.85|
95923888|NCT01704846|191808839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence between two different formulations of faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules in healthy male volunteers. The acceptance range for the geometric mean ratio was 80 to 125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|102.34|||||Ratio calculated as Test product divided by reference product|||102.34|98.10|
95923889|NCT02796092|191808918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming that both methods were equally effective, we did not use this primary outcome to calculate sample size. It was determined using our own retrospective data of patients from the year 2013, comparing the means of the procedure total time with both methods (41.20±4.66 vs 34.99±4.43 minutes). Ten patients in each group were considered enough to detect the above-mentioned differences with a α-error of 0.05 and 80% power, using a two-sided test.||||>0.999
95923890|NCT02796092|191808919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
95923891|NCT02796092|191808920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95923892|NCT02796092|191808921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95923893|NCT02796092|191808922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
95923894|NCT02796092|191808923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95923895|NCT02796092|191808924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95923896|NCT02796092|191808925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923897|NCT02796092|191808926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923898|NCT02796092|191808927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95923899|NCT02796092|191808928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95923900|NCT02796092|191808929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0499
95923901|NCT02796092|191808931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
95923902|NCT00293462|191808977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Two by two table was used. One cell had expected frequency test less than five, so Fisher's exact two-tailed test was used.||Fisher's exact two tailed test||||0.09
95923903|NCT00293462|191808978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Log rank, Breslow, Tarone-Ware test, but used mantel cox log rank for this analysis||Kaplan-Meier estimate of the survival curves used information from subjects who develop mucositis to the healing of the mucositis in three groups, Group GG, SS, and SG. In order to compare the three curves that were created, the Mantel-Haenszel log-rank statistic was used||||0.92
95923904|NCT00293462|191808979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0||||0.28 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||Multilevel regression was used.||||0.28
95923905|NCT00293462|191808980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||0.78 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.78
95923906|NCT00293462|191808981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||0.22 (quadratic)|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood Methods with random intercepts was the only model used for the three groups and seven measurement time points.||||||0.22
95923907|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.3|||||RD is for retention 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||12.3|-4.3|
95983260|NCT00853749|191940803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
95923908|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.2|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||17.2|0.9|
95923909|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.1|||||RD is for retention 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||9.1|1|
95923910|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||||RD is for transfer 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||1.6|-0.8|
95923911|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
95923912|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||||RD is for transfer 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.7|-1.7|
95923913|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||RD is for death 3MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.2|-0.4|
95923914|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. SOC.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.8|-0.9|
95923915|NCT03101592|191808982|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that approximately 5% of subjects would fail to be retained in care in the standard of care arm, and a retention rate \<7·5% to be non-inferior in the three-month or six-month study arms, with a 2·5% non-inferiority margin. Assuming an alpha of 0.05, power of 90%, and an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0·004, we estimated a sample size of 271 subjects per cluster for a total of 2,710 subjects per arm and 8,130 total individuals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||RD is for death 6MD vs. 3MD.|Our sample size was estimated for a cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial. We had 30 clusters available for randomization and assumed a fixed number of clusters (k), an equal number of clusters per arm, and an equal number of subjects per cluster.||0.3|-0.3|
95923916|NCT00372060|191808985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline HbA1c.||||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
95923917|NCT00372060|191808986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-10.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-10.0|-23.4|<0.001
95923918|NCT00372060|191808987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-49.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|<|0.001||95.0|-64.5|-33.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior oral anti-hyperglycemic medication (except for pioglitazone), and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose.||||-33.9|-64.5|<0.001
95923919|NCT01579578|191808989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|20.81||two sided p value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including covariates for baseline tumour size, for the time from the baseline scan to randomisation and with a term for HER2 status.|the difference in LS means is estimated|60 patients had been considered to detect a -20% difference in the estimated average percentage change in tumour size at 8 weeks for AZD8931 plus paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel alone at a one-sided significance level of 10% with 90% power. This is based on a standard deviation of 30% for tumour data (on an absolute scale)||20.81|-30.81|0.688
95923920|NCT03688542|191808992|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = follow-up value; adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||1.0|-3.8|<0.05
95923921|NCT03688542|191808993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.03|-0.39|<0.05
95923922|NCT03688542|191808994|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.025|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||0.025|-0.095|<0.05
95923923|NCT03688542|191808995|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.237|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|Dependant variable = number of PIM DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, mission||||-0.040|-0.435|<0.05
95923924|NCT03688542|191808996|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|2.938|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||2.938|0.164|<0.05
95923925|NCT03688542|191808997|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.0|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents, interaction between mission and group.||||-4.0|-21.5|<0.05
95923926|NCT03688542|191808998|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.754|0.424|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||0.424|-0.754|<0.05
95923927|NCT03688542|191808999|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.6|||Regression, Linear|Dependent variable = follow-up value, adjusted for baseline value, canton, avg number of residents||||7.6|-16.0|<0.05
95923928|NCT02219490|191809025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95923929|NCT02219490|191809025|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
95923930|NCT02219490|191809026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95923931|NCT02219490|191809026|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
95923932|NCT02219490|191809027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95923933|NCT02219490|191809027|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
95923934|NCT02219490|191809028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
95923935|NCT02219490|191809028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
95923936|NCT02219490|191809029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
95983261|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 4||12.7|-8.6|
95923937|NCT02219490|191809029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
95923938|NCT02219490|191809030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95923939|NCT02219490|191809030|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
95923940|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.37|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Final Treatment Visit~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||2.37|-0.37|0.151
95923941|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.4|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 12~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.4|-1.64|0.878
95923942|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.48|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 24~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.48|-2.33|=0.199
95923943|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 52~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.33|-4|0.021
95923944|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.71|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 104~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.71|-4.22|0.006
95923945|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.79|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 156~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||-0.79|-4.38|0.005
95923946|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.59|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 208~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||0.59|-3.32|0.172
95983262|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 6B||9.7|-7.5|
95856112|NCT02177032|191671609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at day 50 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||||0|-2.4|
95856113|NCT02177032|191671610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.37|
95983263|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 9V||9.7|-7.5|
95856114|NCT02177032|191671611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 8)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|0.84|
95923947|NCT02219490|191809031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.1|||ANCOVA||Difference = with SVR12 minus without SVR12|"Post-Treatment Week 260~The effect of sustained virologic response on change from baseline in FibroScan score was evaluated by comparing mean change from baseline between subjects who achieved SVR12 and those who did not using ANCOVA analyses. SVR12 status was included as a factor and baseline FibroScan score was included as a covariate in the ANCOVA model."||1.1|-3.35|0.322
95923948|NCT01454362|191809033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95923949|NCT01454362|191809034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95923950|NCT01454362|191809035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95923951|NCT01454362|191809036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95923952|NCT01454362|191809037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95923953|NCT01928940|191809061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
95923954|NCT01928940|191809061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
95923955|NCT01928940|191809066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
95923956|NCT01928940|191809066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|82.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||82.2|11.8|0.0158
95923957|NCT01928940|191809067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
95923958|NCT01928940|191809067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|50.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||88.2|11.8|0.0158
95923959|NCT01928940|191809070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||For Investigator Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
95923960|NCT01928940|191809070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|99.6|||Exact binomial test||BICR Assessed ORR|||99.6|35.9|<0.0001
95923961|NCT01363479|191809085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was rejected (and non inferiority of oral palonosetron 0.50 mg versus I.V. palonosetron 0.25 mg demonstrated), if the lower limit of the 2 sided 99% CI for the difference in proportion of patients with CR (risk difference) was greater (i.e., closer to zero) than 15%.Study had 90% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.74|9.17|||||The risk difference and the 99% CI calculation were performed using a 2 sided stratum adjusted Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including gender and region as strata.|||9.17|-2.74|
95923962|NCT01352507|191809089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilson Score method|||Null hypothesis (H0): The proportion of participants who chose tadalafil over sildenafil is equal to 0.5 (p = 0.5), versus alternative hypothesis (H1): p is not equal to 0.5 (2-sided test).||||<0.001
95923963|NCT01352507|191809091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|0.02||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.11|0.793
95923964|NCT01352507|191809092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.37||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-1.35|0.988
95923965|NCT01352507|191809093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.01|0.102
95923966|NCT01352507|191809095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.19||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.22|0.861
95923967|NCT01352507|191809096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.19|0.495
95923968|NCT01352507|191809097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.18|0.917
95923969|NCT01352507|191809098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.04||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-1.58|0.391
95923970|NCT01352507|191809099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95923971|NCT01352507|191809100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.09||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.19|<0.001
95923972|NCT01352507|191809101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||P-Value and LS mean difference were from a crossover mixed effect model that included treatment, period, sequence, and site as fixed effects, baseline value of efficacy measure as covariate, and participant within sequence as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-0.20|0.364
95923973|NCT01119703|191809102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-0.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||-0.7|-13.8|
95923974|NCT01119703|191809103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.9|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||20.9|10.6|
95923975|NCT01119703|191809104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|32.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||32.4|19.6|
95923976|NCT01119703|191809105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|3.3||||||95.0|-2.8|8.5|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all baseline biomarkers as predictors.||8.5|-2.8|
95923977|NCT01119703|191809106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Hepatitis B||0.13|-0.2|0.66
95923978|NCT01119703|191809106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Cholera||0.25|-0.07|0.26
95923979|NCT01119703|191809106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Diphtheria versus Tetanus||0.53|0.26|<0.001
95923980|NCT01119703|191809106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Cholera||-0.01|-0.32|0.04
95923981|NCT01119703|191809106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.09||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Hepatitis B versus Tetanus||0.08|-0.25|0.30
95923982|NCT01119703|191809106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.08||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||Fisher's Z-transformation||Within-participant rank correlation|Cholera versus Tetanus||0.24|-0.09|0.36
95923983|NCT01119703|191809107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||-2.7|-16.6|
95923984|NCT01119703|191809108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.7|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||29.7|14.0|
95923985|NCT01119703|191809109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|41.5|||||Crossvalidated;negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||41.5|28.7|
95923986|NCT01119703|191809110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Determination %|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.4|||||Crossvalidated; negative values mean that the fitted model performs worse than chance on the test set.|Null hypothesis for Predicted versus Measured Titers states that Coefficient of Determination % (CD%) \<= 20%; whereas the alternative hypothesis is \> 20%. CD% was obtained by fitting a random forest model to the measured titers, which included all Day 7 biomarkers as predictors.||4.4|-7.8|
95923987|NCT05174065|191809134|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of rounded PPPASI total score range (≤ 20/21 to 30/≥ 31) and focal infection status (yes/no) at baseline.|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors. The adjusted difference in proportion was the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata.|||46.5|18.7|<0.0001
95923988|NCT05174065|191809135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-3.69|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.69|-8.57|<0.0001
95923989|NCT05174065|191809136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and baseline value as covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
95923990|NCT05174065|191809137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-0.6|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.9|0.0330
95733928|NCT00377260|191439137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.85
95856115|NCT02177032|191671611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 15)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.1|1.35|
95856116|NCT02177032|191671611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 91)."|Vaccine Group Ratios|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|0.54|
95856117|NCT02177032|191671611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 181)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||ANOVA|||||1.59|0.94|
95856118|NCT02177032|191671611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The investigational regimen 4-sites, 1-week ID PEP will be declared as non-inferior to currently recommended 2-sites TRC ID PEP regimen if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around of the observed GMC ratio is greater than 0.667 (Day 366)"|Vaccine Group Ratios|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.19|||ANOVA|||||2.19|1.27|
95856119|NCT02177032|191671612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.9|||Fisher Exact|||||13.9|3.8|
95856120|NCT02177032|191671612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-1|
95856121|NCT02177032|191671612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||-1.4|-6|
95856122|NCT02177032|191671612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-4.5|
95856123|NCT02177032|191671612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen compared to the currently recommended 2-sites TRC (2-2-2-0-2) ID PEP regimen, with or without HRIG, will be established If the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||||11.5|1.3|
95856124|NCT02177032|191671613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 8 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||-1|-19.6|
95856125|NCT02177032|191671613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 15 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.6|||Fisher Exact|||||2.6|-5.6|
95856126|NCT02177032|191671613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 91 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-26|
95856127|NCT02177032|191671613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 181 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.1|-29|
95856128|NCT02177032|191671613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority in immune response of the 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, with HRIG administration, compared to that of the new 4-sites, 1-week (4-4-4-0-0) ID PEP regimen of the PCEC vaccine, without HRIG administration, in adult subjects will be established if the lower bound of the two sided 95% confidence interval around the differences of the percentage of subject with RVNA titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml at Day 366 is \> -0.05 (non-inferiority margin)."|Protection Rate Differences|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-13.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-13.2|-37.8|
95729477|NCT04281485|191429250|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|=|0.7096||95.0|-4.79|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|7.00|-4.79|=0.7096
95856129|NCT01598532|191671628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.004
95856130|NCT01598532|191671629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
95923991|NCT05174065|191809138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-2.9|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-2.9|-18.6|0.0076
95923992|NCT05174065|191809139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.4||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||MMRM|With treatment group, visit time, treatment-by-time interaction, and stratification factors as fixed effect, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.5|-2.4|0.0036
95923993|NCT04873817|191809141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95856131|NCT01598532|191671630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for effect of LED treatments||||<0.003
95856132|NCT01598532|191671631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Univariate, one-way, repeated measure ANOVA with trend analysis||linear trend over time for the effects of LED treatments||||<0.006
95856133|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.1974
95856134|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
95856135|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
95856136|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.8263
95856137|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7418||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Injection Rate at 28 Weeks is presented||||0.7418
95856138|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2429||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.2429
95856139|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
95856140|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
95856141|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.9700
95856142|NCT01134055|191671637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7673||||||Adjusted p-Value has been presented.|ANOVA|||Statistics for Overall Injection Rate at 52 weeks is presented||||0.7673
95856143|NCT00538902|191671660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.026||95.0|1.09|4.39||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||4.39|1.09|0.026
95856144|NCT00538902|191671660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.004||95.0|1.35|5.3||Each comparison was tested at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Subjects with missing data were imputed to be non-responders. The overall type I error rate was preserved by a hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 42 subjects in the placebo group and 84 subjects in each of the adalimumab groups was needed to achieve 98% power to detect that the ACR20 response rate in the 80 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo and to achieve 84% power to detect that the 40 mg adalimumab group was different from placebo.||5.30|1.35|0.004
95856145|NCT00538902|191671661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The between-treatment comparison between each adalimumab group vs. placebo was performed at the 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level, without using a stepwise testing procedure or alpha adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Percentage ACR responders at Week 12 were compared between adalimumab and placebo groups, where missing ACR responses were imputed as non-responder.||||||0.009
95856146|NCT00538902|191671661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
95859644|NCT01600170|191677207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
95923994|NCT02081365|191809149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||3.55|.74|<0.05
95923995|NCT02081365|191809150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.57|.39|<0.05
95923996|NCT02081365|191809151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.85|.61|<0.05
95923997|NCT02081365|191809152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of two groups at 1 month follow up with baseline value as the covariate||1.64|.01|<0.05
95923998|NCT01290094|191809156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
95923999|NCT01290094|191809157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
95924000|NCT01290094|191809158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.001
95924001|NCT01290094|191809159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.056
95924002|NCT01290094|191809160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
95924003|NCT01290094|191809160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0005
95924004|NCT01290094|191809161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 12: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0005
95924005|NCT01290094|191809161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Month 24: P-value for percent change from baseline was from a paired samples t-test.|Paired t-test|||||||0.027
95924006|NCT01641861|191809164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.3||||||||7.3|0.1|
95924007|NCT01641861|191809165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8||||||||12.8|0.9|
95924008|NCT01641861|191809167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95924009|NCT01641861|191809168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95924010|NCT01779375|191809191|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
95924011|NCT01779375|191809192|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.||||>0.05
95924012|NCT01779375|191809194|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||>0.05
95924013|NCT00299702|191809215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Log Rank|Insufficient number of subjects who had an event for median estimation.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time to relapse||||0.684
95924014|NCT00299702|191809216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Hochberg procedure was used for adjusting multiple endpoint comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in time in remission between the two treatment groups||||0.646
95924015|NCT05460663|191809244|EQUIVALENCE|Paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used to compare changes at 12-week, 18-week, or 24-week follow-ups from the baseline scores for all measurements in each training modality separately and combined. Comparisons were made with participants who had data at both baseline and the follow-up. Difference-in-difference comparison of changes between two training modalities at each follow-up from the baseline were made to assess differences between CBT and in-person training.||||||0.083||||||The reported P-value is for differences between groups at 24-weeks post-intervention.The Benjamini \& Hochberg adjustment was applied to control for the false-discovery rate among all pairwise pre-post comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.083
95924016|NCT03230006|191809248|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.152||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted to investigate treatment group differences in change in mean number of drinks consumed from baseline to post-treatment, as indicated by the Time by Treatment Condition interaction effect.|||||0.002
95924017|NCT03230006|191809248|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.342|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of time.|||||<.001
95924018|NCT03230006|191809248|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.018||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the partial eta squared for the main effect of treatment condition.|||||.309
95924019|NCT03230006|191809248|OTHER||F|38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance is p \<.05.|ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||<.001
95924020|NCT03230006|191809248|OTHER||F|5.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, follow-up testing was conducted to determine the simple main effects of time (pre to post) on mean number of drinks per week within each treatment condition, which was examined using one-way repeated measures ANOVAs.||||.030
95729478|NCT04182204|191429253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.43|0.0017
95924021|NCT03230006|191809248|OTHER||F|1.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at baseline. For the UP, n=51; for the TC, n=24.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.016
95924022|NCT03230006|191809248|OTHER||F|7.78||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||This is the simple main effect of treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at post-treatment. For the UP, n=38; for the TC, n=21.|After conducting the initial two-way mixed ANOVA, the simple main effects for treatment condition on mean number of drinks consumed per week at each timepoint (pre and post) were examined using one-way ANOVAs.||||.007
95924023|NCT02162446|191809352|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.016
95924024|NCT02162446|191809352|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in total tissues between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
95924025|NCT02162446|191809352|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.012
95924026|NCT02162446|191809352|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
95924027|NCT02162446|191809352|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.500
95924028|NCT02162446|191809352|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
95924029|NCT02162446|191809354|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.250
95924030|NCT02162446|191809354|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
95924031|NCT02162446|191809354|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.688
95924032|NCT02162446|191809354|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.578
95924033|NCT02162446|191809355|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.027
95924034|NCT02162446|191809355|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of malignant lesions in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
95924035|NCT02162446|191809356|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.064
95924036|NCT02162446|191809356|OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.339
95924037|NCT02162446|191809356|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.001
95924038|NCT02162446|191809356|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.000
95729479|NCT04182204|191429254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.51|||Log Rank|||||0.51|0.27|<0.0001
95856147|NCT01967940|191671716|SUPERIORITY|Enrollment into this study was stopped early due to the challenge of recruiting a sufficient number of participants who met the eligibility criteria. The actual number of enrolled is 55, among them 43 enrolled in the Randomized Cohort. Based on the actual enrollment numbers, the power to detect a 35% difference drops to 51%, under the same assumptions in the original sample size calculations.|Difference in proportions|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.6|78.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|A sample size of 90 participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio, achieves 89% power to detect a 35% difference in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA decreases from baseline exceeding 0.5 log10 between the TAF and placebo arms at Day 10. Sample size and power computation was based on the assumption that 50% of participants in the TAF arm and 15% of participants in the placebo arm achieved a reduction exceeding 0.5 log10 HIV-1 RNA.||78.8|42.6|<0.001
95856148|NCT04825678|191671758|OTHER||Least squares mean (LSM)|40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.05|45.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline monthly migraine days (MMD), and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||45.39|36.05|< 0.001
95924039|NCT02162446|191809356|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
95924040|NCT02162446|191809356|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||1.000
95924041|NCT02162446|191809357|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.470
95924042|NCT02162446|191809357|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.233
95729480|NCT04182204|191429255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|21.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.94|9.58|<0.0001
95856149|NCT04825678|191671758|OTHER||LSM|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|62.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||62.98|-1.30|0.058
95856150|NCT04825678|191671759|OTHER||LSM|37.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.62|47.12||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||47.12|28.62|< 0.001
95856151|NCT04825678|191671759|OTHER||LSM|43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.06|48.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline TSQM overall satisfaction scale score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||48.44|38.06|< 0.001
95856152|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-40.41||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-40.41|-49.39|< 0.001
95856153|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-54.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.43|-34.86||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Physical Function Domain||-34.86|-73.43|< 0.001
95856154|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|-40.44||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-40.44|-48.26|< 0.001
95856155|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.51|-34.08||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Usual Activities Domain||-34.08|-53.51|< 0.001
95856156|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-44.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.65|-40.14||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Social Function Domain||-40.14|-48.65|< 0.001
95856157|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.28|-29.79||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Social Function Domain||-29.79|-60.28|< 0.001
95856158|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.29|-40.7||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Continued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-40.70|-50.29|< 0.001
95856159|NCT04825678|191671768|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.16|-34.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Discontinued SoC: Emotional Function Domain||-34.96|-85.16|< 0.001
95856160|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-34.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-27.03||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Physical Function Domain||-27.03|-41.72|< 0.001
95924043|NCT02162446|191809357|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of SUVmax of RT in lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
95983264|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.7||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 14||9.7|-7.5|
95924044|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
95856161|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-44.69||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Physical Function Domain||-44.69|-54.44|< 0.001
95856162|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed baseline MMD, and selected baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.47|-30.06||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Usual Activities Domain||-30.06|-41.47|< 0.001
95856163|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.29||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Usual Activities Domain||-42.29|-51.10|< 0.001
95856164|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-36.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.89|-29.96||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Social Function Domain||-29.96|-42.89|< 0.001
95856165|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-46.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.49|-41.98||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Social Function Domain||-41.98|-51.49|< 0.001
95856166|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-41.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.47|-33.4||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||EM: Emotional Function Domain||-33.40|-49.47|< 0.001
95856167|NCT04825678|191671769|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes Baseline function domain score, visit, the prevailing erenumab dose from Week 12 onwards, observed Baseline MMD, and selected Baseline characteristics as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.|LSM|-47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.95|-42.39||P-value is nominal to compare the mean change from Baseline at Week 24 to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||CM: Emotional Function Domain||-42.39|-52.95|< 0.001
95856168|NCT00664443|191671824|OTHER||Sensitivity|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.2||||||||68.2|63.5|
95856169|NCT00664443|191671825|OTHER||Specificity|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|35.9||||||||35.9|29.0|
95856170|NCT04953728|191671841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77306724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.77306724
95856171|NCT04953728|191671841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.24
95856172|NCT04953728|191671841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.45
95856173|NCT04953728|191671841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
95924045|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.004
95856174|NCT04953728|191671841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum tolerance in mmHg of the rectum during Sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
95856175|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81019363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.81019363
95856176|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
95856177|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.21
95856178|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 100Hz when compared to Sham||||0.58
95856179|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.18
95856180|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.18
95856181|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of ST36 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.78
95856182|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.89
95924046|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.426
95729481|NCT04182204|191429256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|28.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|40.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.33|15.89|<0.0001
95856183|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 100Hz when compared to sham||||0.05
95856184|NCT04953728|191671842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average maximum tolerance of PC6 25Hz when compared to sham||||0.07
95856185|NCT04953728|191671843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00046998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.00046998
95856186|NCT04953728|191671843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74369428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ST36 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.74369428
95856187|NCT04953728|191671843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09854383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 100Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.09854383
95856188|NCT04953728|191671843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24872746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PC6 25Hz: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.24872746
95856189|NCT04953728|191671843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04828889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sham: Difference of VAS sums between 15 and 50 mmHg between pre and post stimulation||||0.04828889
95856190|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to ST36 25Hz||||0.02
95856191|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
95856192|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.01
95856193|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.04
95856194|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 100Hz||||0.11
95856195|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.23
95856196|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||ST36 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.17
95856197|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to PC6 25Hz||||0.15
95856198|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 100Hz compared to Sham||||0.43
95856199|NCT04953728|191671844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||PC6 25Hz compared to Sham||||0.19
95856200|NCT04953728|191671845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
95856201|NCT04953728|191671845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.13
95856202|NCT04953728|191671845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.17
95856203|NCT04953728|191671845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.88
95856204|NCT04953728|191671845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in maximum volume in mL of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.14
95856205|NCT04953728|191671846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.007
95856206|NCT04953728|191671846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during ST36 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.83
95856207|NCT04953728|191671846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 100Hz when compared to baseline||||0.87
95856208|NCT04953728|191671846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during PC6 25Hz when compared to baseline||||0.004
95856209|NCT04953728|191671846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in first sensation in mmHg of the rectum during sham when compared to baseline||||0.056
95856210|NCT02453321|191671877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.355
95856211|NCT02453321|191671878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
95856212|NCT01244893|191671881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study uses -0.05 LogMAR as the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00092|0.01045|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as the test lens - control lens.|"Ho: after time period (6-8 days of lens wear), the test lens - control lens will be greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin specified .~Ha: after time period, test-control will be less than the margin specified concluding that the test lens will be inferior to control lens in terms of LogMAR scale"||0.01045|-0.00092|
95856213|NCT04555616|191671885|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome analyzed via success rates among groups.||||0.12
95856214|NCT01002339|191671905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95856215|NCT01002339|191671906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95856216|NCT01002339|191671907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
95856217|NCT01002339|191671908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95856218|NCT01002339|191671909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
95856219|NCT01002339|191671910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
95856220|NCT01002339|191671911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95856221|NCT01002339|191671912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
95856222|NCT01002339|191671913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8
95856223|NCT01002339|191671914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95856224|NCT01002339|191671915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95856225|NCT01002339|191671916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
95856226|NCT01002339|191671917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
95856227|NCT01002339|191671918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
95856228|NCT01002339|191671919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
95856229|NCT01002339|191671920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
95983265|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 18C||10.0|-7.4|
95729482|NCT04182204|191429257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.71|42.68||||||||42.68|17.71|
95729483|NCT04182204|191429258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|28.86||||||||28.86|5.95|
95856230|NCT02215252|191671921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||0.17|-1.00|
95856231|NCT02215252|191671921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4 ,incorporating Bayesian priors separately on the placebo response and pregabalin effect.||-0.20|-0.91|
95856232|NCT02215252|191671922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.69||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.69|0.78|
95856233|NCT02215252|191671922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|6.56||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||6.56|1.06|
95856234|NCT02215252|191671923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|4.74||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||4.74|0.33|
95856235|NCT02215252|191671923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|15.81||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Logistic Regression using all data up to Week 4.||15.81|1.43|
95856236|NCT02215252|191671924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.32||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.75|
95856237|NCT02215252|191671924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.04||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.04|-1.43|
95856238|NCT02215252|191671925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.43|-0.86|
95856239|NCT02215252|191671925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4||0.00|-1.33|
95856240|NCT02215252|191671926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.87|
95856241|NCT02215252|191671926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.2||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.20|-1.36|
95856242|NCT02215252|191671927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.67||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.67|-0.49|
95856243|NCT02215252|191671927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.13||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.13|-1.05|
95856244|NCT02215252|191671928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.39||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.39|-1.09|
95856245|NCT02215252|191671928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.51||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||0.51|-1.00|
95856246|NCT02215252|191671929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|4.57||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||4.57|-5.12|
95856247|NCT02215252|191671929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.57|-0.66||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.66|-10.57|
95856248|NCT02215252|191671930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.45||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.45|0.34|
95856249|NCT02215252|191671930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Proportional Odds Logistic Regression including all data up to week 4.||1.07|0.24|
95856250|NCT02215252|191671931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|-0.02||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.02|-1.16|
95856251|NCT02215252|191671931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.43||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.57|
95856252|NCT02215252|191671932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|816.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1161.0|1544.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1544|-1161|
95856253|NCT02215252|191671932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|611.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|812.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-735.0|1956.0||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Models Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||1956|-735|
95856254|NCT02215252|191671936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|13.01||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||13.01|2.98|
95856255|NCT02215252|191671936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.95||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||5.95|-4.46|
95856256|NCT02215252|191671937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|20.17||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||20.17|2.94|
95924047|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.098
95924048|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
95924049|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.813
95924050|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) at 1 hour time point.||||0.297
95729484|NCT04182204|191429259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|20.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|32.56||||||||32.56|8.16|
95729485|NCT04182204|191429261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53||||||||0.53|0.30|
95856257|NCT02215252|191671937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|6.54||||||Statistical analysis is only for Week 4. Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis including all data up to Week 4.||6.54|-11.38|
95856258|NCT03418714|191671947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in network activity across all networks, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.006
95856259|NCT03418714|191671948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T test on the change in within- and between-network connectivity across all values, from before to after salvinorin A administration.||||.001
95856260|NCT01055197|191671991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.53|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis (H0) was that PCI + RT is not effective versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that PCI + RT is effective. Assumptions were that PCI alone would have hazard rate λc of 1.204 and PCI + RT a hazard rate λc of 0.799 (hazard ratio λt/λc = 0.663). At each planned analysis, the p-value from the log-rank test statistic assessing overall survival was compared to the nominal significance level. The final targeted accrual was 154.||2.53|0.82|0.2103
95856261|NCT01055197|191671992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.24
95856262|NCT01055197|191671994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.0102
95856263|NCT01782378|191672018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.01
95856264|NCT01782378|191672019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.88
95856265|NCT01782378|191672020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||0.81
95856266|NCT01782378|191672021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||0.23
95856267|NCT01782378|191672022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.12
95856268|NCT01782378|191672023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.52
95856269|NCT01782378|191672024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.27
95856270|NCT01782378|191672025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.37
95856271|NCT01782378|191672026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
95924051|NCT02162446|191809358|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between previous somatostatin receptor scan (ITT population pre-dose) and the 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.469
95924052|NCT02162446|191809359|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as liver between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.910
95924053|NCT02162446|191809359|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in liver with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.039
95983266|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.0||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 19F||10.0|-7.5|
95856272|NCT01782378|191672027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.46
95856273|NCT01782378|191672028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.84
95856274|NCT01782378|191672029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.93
95856275|NCT01782378|191672030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
95856276|NCT01782378|191672031|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54|<|0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results that were considered credible.||||||<0.26
95856277|NCT01782378|191672032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.45
95856278|NCT01782378|191672033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.46
95856279|NCT01782378|191672034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.64
95856280|NCT01782378|191672035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.82
95856281|NCT01782378|191672036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.43
95856282|NCT01782378|191672037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.15
95856283|NCT01782378|191672038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||.08
95983267|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.1||||||Comparison between treatments for common serotype 23F||8.1|-10.8|
95729486|NCT04182204|191429262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||||||||0.83|0.40|
95856284|NCT01782378|191672039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.7
95856285|NCT01782378|191672040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.48
95856286|NCT01782378|191672041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.02
95983268|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 1||14.2|-5.0|
95983269|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.9||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 3||7.9|-11.1|
95983270|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.2||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 5||12.2|-8.5|
95983271|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 6A||9.5|-7.3|
95983272|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.7||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 7F||7.7|-11.3|
95856287|NCT01782378|191672042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.36
95856288|NCT01782378|191672043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.82
95856289|NCT01782378|191672044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.2
95856290|NCT01782378|191672045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results||||||<0.71
95856291|NCT01782378|191672046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.85
95856292|NCT01782378|191672047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||without adjustment for multiple comparisons Mixed effects model with the assumption that 'subject factor' was a random effect. p-value threshold of p\<.10|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline scores; co-variate adjustments did not affect any of the results.||||||<0.44
95856293|NCT00705016|191672048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log Hazard ratio (HR), if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||1.59|0.67|0.885
95856294|NCT00705016|191672048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.43||The Type I error was not taken into account, since the sample size calculation is based on selection theory.|Cox proportional hazards model|Stratification factor: Karnofsky performance status (KPS) \<80/\>=80||Sample size of 177 subjects was estimated such that the treatment group with the best PFS result had a 90% probability of emerging as the one with the smaller observed log HR, if there was an underlying difference of 2.2 months between the arms in the median PFS (7.8 months in the best group and 5.6 months in the other 2 groups). It was assumed that the accrual and follow-up time would take 1 year each, and that the drop-out rate was 8%.||2.43|0.99|0.054
95856295|NCT00705016|191672049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.47|0.61|0.800
95983273|NCT00853749|191940804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions (percentage)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.5||||||Comparison between treatments for additional serotype 19A||9.5|-7.3|
95729487|NCT04182204|191429263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||||||||1.17|0.62|
95856296|NCT00705016|191672049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.63|0.66|0.878
95856297|NCT00705016|191672050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.595||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|3.276||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.276|0.776|0.205
95856298|NCT00705016|191672050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.671||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|1.465||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.465|0.307|0.317
95856299|NCT00705016|191672051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|3.539||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.539|0.551|0.476
95856300|NCT00705016|191672051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.668||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.555||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.555|0.287|0.347
95729488|NCT04182204|191429264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||||0.91|0.45|
95856301|NCT00705016|191672052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.81||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.81|0.84|0.294
95856302|NCT00705016|191672052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.57||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.57|1.16|0.007
95983274|NCT00853749|191940805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.42|0.22|
95856303|NCT00705016|191672053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.39||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.39|0.71|0.391
95856304|NCT00705016|191672053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.21||Secondary analyses of efficacy were performed to support the results of the primary analysis and considered as purely exploratory and no adjustment for multiplicity has been done.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||5.21|1.30|0.007
95856305|NCT02233517|191672057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.84
95856306|NCT02233517|191672057|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||<0.44
95856307|NCT02233517|191672057|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.33
95856308|NCT02233517|191672058|SUPERIORITY|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on DAR scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.26
95856309|NCT02233517|191672059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.90
95856310|NCT02233517|191672059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.85
95924054|NCT02162446|191809359|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as lymph node between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.375
95924055|NCT02162446|191809359|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison of 3D-SUV-R of malignant lesions in lymph node with RT as muscle between 68Ga-OPS202 visit 1 receptor scan (ITT population Day 0) and 68Ga-OPS202 visit 2 receptor scan (ITT population Day 21) at 1 hour time point.||||0.219
95924056|NCT02072226|191809382|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Adjusted Risk Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|7.25||||||||7.25|-9.44|
95924057|NCT02072226|191809383|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.244||||||||1.244|0.527|
95856311|NCT02233517|191672059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.79
95856312|NCT02233517|191672060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Extent of Participation scale.||-.002|-4.5|0.05
95856313|NCT02233517|191672060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Perceived Limitations scale.||1.08|-2.03|0.53
95856314|NCT02233517|191672060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the comparison of change in means for cognitive-behavioral vs. present-centered therapy from baseline to post-treatment for the Satisfaction scale.||1.14|-2.30|0.50
95856315|NCT02233517|191672061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation parameter of 0.28 indicates that at each of the 16 time points, participants in the CBT arm had 0.28 point less of a decrease in disability than those in PCT arm.|Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in anger over time in PCT).||||<0.0001
95856316|NCT02233517|191672062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.59
95856317|NCT02233517|191672062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.61
95924058|NCT02072226|191809384|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.393||||||||1.393|0.529|
95856318|NCT02233517|191672062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.74
95856319|NCT02233517|191672063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.25
95856320|NCT02233517|191672063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.97
95924059|NCT02072226|191809385|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.38||||||||7.38|0.75|
95924060|NCT02072226|191809386|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|10.07||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by site||10.07|-0.34|
95924061|NCT02072226|191809386|OTHER|Confidence Interval|difference in percentages|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|9.49||||||Any ICH within 36 hours reported by central reader||9.49|-1.23|
95924062|NCT02467491|191809399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score at baseline was compared with the SPPB scored after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.04
95856321|NCT02233517|191672063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.69
95856322|NCT02233517|191672064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.29
95856323|NCT02233517|191672064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.44
95856324|NCT02233517|191672064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.11
95856325|NCT02233517|191672065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is interaction of session by therapy, or estimate of difference in mean between CBT and PCT per time point. Positive value is less decrease over time in CBT arm (greater decrease in PTSD in PCT).|Multilevel model of therapy type (1=CBT, 2=PCT), gender, and time on PCL Total scores, using data from baseline, 12 sessions, post-treatment, 3-month and 6-month follow up.||||0.16
95856326|NCT02233517|191672066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
95856327|NCT02233517|191672066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.55
95856328|NCT02233517|191672066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.87
95856329|NCT02233517|191672067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to post-treatment.|||||0.49
95856330|NCT02233517|191672067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 3 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.70
95856331|NCT02233517|191672067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline to 6 months post-treatment. The reference condition is the present centered therapy arm.|||||0.45
95856332|NCT00942604|191672068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95856333|NCT00942604|191672069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95856334|NCT03592186|191672090|SUPERIORITY|In zero-inflated distributions, two outcomes can be specified: 1) probability of being an excess zero (falling outside expected negative binomial distribution), and 2) count value, if not an excess zero. Our focal effect of interest was Time\*Condition in the count distribution, i.e. effect of condition over time on predicting the percent of days used greater than zero.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models with zero-inflated distributions evaluated whether there was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used. We tested the primary outcome (percent of days of use over the past 90 days, adjusted for time in a controlled environment) for overall number of days of use.||1.36|.97|.12
95856335|NCT03592186|191672091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models using a linear distribution evaluated whether change in substance-related problems differed by condition. The focal effect was a Time\*Condition interaction, using data from the baseline, 12-week, and 24-week assessments. Full maximum likelihood estimation was used.||.07|-.34|.19
95924063|NCT02467491|191809400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score after 4 weeks of physical activity intervention was compared with the SPPB score after 2 to 3 months from the completion of the physical activity intervention with a paired t-test||||0.02
95924064|NCT01720446|191809409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of semaglutide versus placebo was considered to be confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the HR was below 1.8 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of: H0: HR ≥ 1.8 against Ha: HR \<1.8 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% for a two-sided test).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of non-inferiority with limit 1.8.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor. Assuming the same population MACE risk for the semaglutide and placebo groups (i.e., the population hazards ratio \[HR\] equals 1), a total minimum of 122 events were needed in order to have at least 90% power to ascertain that the upper two-sided 95% confidence limit for the HR was less than 1.8.||0.95|0.58|<0.0001
95856336|NCT03592186|191672092|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the count of positive urine screens by condition at 12 weeks||||.92
95856337|NCT00817843|191672096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.766||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"Between treatment difference in the change in FMD from the fasting to the post-fat load state.~Null hypothesis was that combination therapy (simvastatin/ezetimibe) would protect the FMD in the post-fat load phase and would therefore be associated with a smaller drop in FMD~Power calculation was based on the results from a pilot study. To detect a 1.0% difference between treatments with a SD of 2.7% and a power of 90% (alfa 0.05, two tailed) 80 evaluable patients were needed."||||0.766
95856338|NCT03755934|191672097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-3.87|0.0437
95856339|NCT03755934|191672097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.79||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-0.36|0.1878
95983275|NCT00853749|191940805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures ((PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.44|0.23|
95983276|NCT00853749|191940805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.67|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.67|0.29|
95983277|NCT00853749|191940805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.61|
95983278|NCT00853749|191940805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric mean avidity (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.65|0.34|
95983279|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.35|
95983280|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.38|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.38|0.68|
95983281|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.81|0.51|
95983282|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.48|0.67|
95856340|NCT03755934|191672097|SUPERIORITY||LS mean estimate|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.58||ANCOVA by dose using NRS baseline value and co-medication as covariates, with CFB to Week 12 (LOCF) as dependent variable was used to derive p-value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-2.19|0.0009
95924065|NCT01720446|191809409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||The 'p-value' is for the two-sided Wald test of no difference.|Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|A post hoc analysis of superiority of semaglutide versus placebo was performed based on the pre-specified Cox proportional hazard analysis using the two-sided Wald test of no difference, with treatment (semaglutide, placebo) as fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.95|0.58|0.0167
95924066|NCT01720446|191809410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.89|0.62|0.0016
95924067|NCT01720446|191809411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.48|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for CV death was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.48|0.65|0.9181
95924068|NCT01720446|191809411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.08|0.51|0.1194
95924069|NCT01720446|191809411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.99|0.38|0.0438
95983283|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.98|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures(PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.33|
95983284|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.56|0.72|
95983285|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.99|0.39|
95983286|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.32|0.12|
95983287|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.18|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.56|
95924070|NCT01720446|191809411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for revascularisation was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.86|0.50|0.0027
95924071|NCT01720446|191809411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for 'unstable angina requiring hospitalisation' was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.44|0.47|0.4914
95924072|NCT01720446|191809411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placcbo|Analysis for hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||1.61|0.77|0.5735
95924073|NCT01720446|191809412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Semaglutide/Placebo|Analysis for all-cause death, non-fatal MI or non-fatal stroke was done by Cox proportional hazards model with treatment (semaglutide; placebo) as a fixed factor and stratified by all possible combinations of the three stratification factors used in the randomisation procedure (in total 9 levels).||0.97|0.61|0.0292
95924074|NCT01720446|191809413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.52|-0.80|<0.0001
95924075|NCT01720446|191809413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.91|-1.19|<0.0001
95924076|NCT01720446|191809414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.38|-1.06|<0.0001
95924077|NCT01720446|191809414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.88|-1.56|<0.0001
95924078|NCT01720446|191809415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.44|-3.47|<0.0001
95924079|NCT01720446|191809415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.75|-4.78|<0.0001
95924080|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.00|0.95|0.0149
95924081|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for total cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||1.01|0.97|0.2580
95924082|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.02|0.99|0.8106
95924083|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for HDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.06|1.02|<0.0001
95856341|NCT04634253|191672121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-1.60|0.017
95924084|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.96||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.99|0.93|0.0185
95729489|NCT04182204|191429269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|10.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|22.63||||||||22.63|-2.37|
95924085|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for LDL-cholesterol was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|0.96|0.5996
95729490|NCT04182204|191429270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|22.78||||||||22.78|-3.22|
95856342|NCT04634253|191672121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.73|<0.001
95924086|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.01|0.93|0.1833
95924087|NCT01720446|191809416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for triglycerides was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.97|0.89|0.0009
95924088|NCT01720446|191809417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 0.5 mg / Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. The response and its baseline value were log-transformed before analysis.||0.89|0.68|0.0003
95924089|NCT01720446|191809417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Sema 1.0 mg / Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for urinary albumin to creatinine ration was donne using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
95924090|NCT01720446|191809418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.92|-0.83|0.9205
95924091|NCT01720446|191809418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for diastolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.03|-0.74|0.7477
95924092|NCT01720446|191809418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.27||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.23|-2.77|0.0976
95924093|NCT01720446|191809418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for systolic blood pressure was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.08|-4.09|0.0008
95924094|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.47|-0.48|0.3171
95924095|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.47||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for bodily pain was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.45|0.50|0.0031
95924096|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|0.06|0.0350
95924097|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for general health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.24|0.60|0.0007
95924098|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.13|-0.79|0.7277
95924099|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.97||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.94|0.00|0.0489
95983288|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.63|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.63|0.21|
95924100|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.61||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.53|-0.30|0.1860
95924101|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for mental health was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.31|0.48|0.0029
95729491|NCT04182204|191429271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|30.97||||||||30.97|5.54|
95856343|NCT04634253|191672122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.29|0.997
95924102|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.68||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.45|-0.09|0.0833
95924103|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical component summary was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.17|0.62|0.0004
95924104|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.69|-0.10|0.0799
95924105|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for physical functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.40|0.60|0.0011
95856344|NCT04634253|191672122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|10.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.40|1.11|0.032
95856345|NCT04634253|191672123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.04|0.235
95856346|NCT04634253|191672123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|0.33|0.661
95856347|NCT04634253|191672124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|0.22|0.965
95856348|NCT04634253|191672124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.33|0.82|0.098
95729492|NCT00814320|191429363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.025|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.046||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||For SC Administration of IGIV, 10%, with rHuPH20 after ramp-up, only||0.046||<0.0001
95924106|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.68|-0.63|0.3717
95924107|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.94||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role emotional was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.10|-0.22|0.1136
95924108|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.72||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.67|-0.24|0.1431
95856349|NCT04634253|191672125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-18.65|0.003
95856350|NCT04634253|191672125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.60|-19.61|<0.001
95856351|NCT04634253|191672126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.77|-17.83|0.008
95856352|NCT04634253|191672126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.22|-18.29|<0.001
95856353|NCT04634253|191672127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.365||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||1.77|-7.63|0.218
95856354|NCT04634253|191672127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.26|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score (MCS)||5.26|-2.95|0.578
95856355|NCT04634253|191672127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.368||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||6.73|-2.69|0.396
95856356|NCT04634253|191672127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.057||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|5.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score (PCS)||5.50|-2.67|0.493
95856357|NCT01721044|191672129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
95856358|NCT01721044|191672130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856359|NCT01721044|191672131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856360|NCT01721044|191672132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.140
95856361|NCT01721044|191672133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
95856362|NCT01721044|191672134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856363|NCT01721044|191672135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856364|NCT01721044|191672136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.723|||||||Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.723
95856365|NCT01721044|191672137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
95856366|NCT01721044|191672137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.001
95856367|NCT01721044|191672138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
95856368|NCT01721044|191672138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
95856369|NCT01721044|191672138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
95856370|NCT01721044|191672138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.015
95856371|NCT01721044|191672139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.002
95856372|NCT01721044|191672139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 12||||0.001
95924109|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for role physical was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.11|0.18|0.0197
95924110|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.93|-1.03|0.9223
95924111|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.14||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for social functioning was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.13|0.15|0.0237
95924112|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.19|-0.53|0.4523
95924113|NCT01720446|191809422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.2||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for vitality was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.07|0.34|0.0064
95924114|NCT01720446|191809423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg/Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.04|0.95|0.7796
95924115|NCT01720446|191809423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg/Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for free fatty acids was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.96|0.88|0.0003
95924116|NCT01720446|191809424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg - Placebo 0.5 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||2.98|1.07|<0.0001
95924117|NCT01720446|191809424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Placebo 1.0 mg|Analysis for pulse rate was done using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment (4 levels) and stratification (9 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||3.43|1.52|<0.0001
95924118|NCT03710564|191809439|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Pairwise ANOVA|||||0.9|-2.1|0.4537
95924119|NCT01803646|191809456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.51|0.32
95924120|NCT01803646|191809457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4|0.63
95924121|NCT01803646|191809458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for air conduction||||0.821
95924122|NCT01803646|191809458|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis for bone conduction||||1.0
95924123|NCT01167426|191809460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean ranks|79.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference in mean ranks between Week 2 and Week 6|Comparison of Week 2 (20 mg/1.0 mL utilizing autoject 2 for glass syringe) to Week 6 (20 mg/0.5 mL utilizing the autoject 2 20 mg/0.5 mL).||||<0.0001
95924124|NCT01167426|191809461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Goodness-of-fit p-value comparing overall preference to expected frequencies of 33.3% in each category. That is, no preference across the full sample of patients in the study.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95983289|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||2.25|0.88|
95856373|NCT01721044|191672139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
95924125|NCT05349084|191809463|EQUIVALENCE|A Fisher's exact test was performed to determine the association between coronary artery stenosis and PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) values during stress. The following myocardial segments were analyzed: left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCx), and right coronary artery (RCA). Coronary arteries were categorized as coronary arteries with a diameter stenosis ≥50% or \<50%. The MBF values during stress were categorized as normal or abnormal. Normal MBF is defined as \>1.8 mL/g/min.||||||0.2522||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2522
95924126|NCT05349084|191809464|OTHER|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation test|A Pearson's Correlation test was performed between PET MFR during stress and CT-FFR by territory.||||||0.028
95924127|NCT01466881|191809474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided alpha level of 0.05||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in Aurora kinase A expression between responders and non-responders.||||0.2316
95924128|NCT02341534|191809475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.21
95924129|NCT00647348|191809509|OTHER|intention-to-treat analysis||||||0.003|||||||BBSI=brain boundary shift integral|||||||0.003
95924130|NCT00647348|191809510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.|ANCOVA|EDSS,mean score at 24 months was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline score and minimisation variables.||||||0.05
95924131|NCT02783950|191809561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95924132|NCT02783950|191809562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Test p-value|||||||0.70
95924133|NCT05096117|191809567|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.178||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
95924134|NCT04319094|191809581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.62|-4.77|<0.0001
95924135|NCT04319094|191809581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-1.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.25|-3.81|0.0001
95924136|NCT04319094|191809581|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.53|-4.13|<0.0001
95924137|NCT04319094|191809581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.49||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference = 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.49|-4.03|<0.0001
95924138|NCT04319094|191809581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 501|Score difference =12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-1.17|-3.95|0.0003
95924139|NCT04319094|191809581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of PHQ-9 over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.4375
95983290|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.48|
95983291|NCT00853749|191940806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.20|0.54|
95924140|NCT04319094|191809582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|6.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36 - Physical Functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.37|-3.15|0.51
95924141|NCT04319094|191809582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|11.21||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.21|-2.08|0.18
95924142|NCT04319094|191809582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.04|-4.89|0.63
95924143|NCT04319094|191809582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.91||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.91|-6.94|0.74
95924144|NCT04319094|191809582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|8.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 364||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-physical function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|8.23|-6.82|0.85
95924145|NCT04319094|191809582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of physical functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.3988
95924146|NCT04319094|191809583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.79||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|11.79|-1.63|0.14
95924147|NCT04319094|191809583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|18.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.19|2.45|0.01
95983292|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.55|0.25|
95983293|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.15|0.44|
95924148|NCT04319094|191809583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|18.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|18.5|2.01|0.015
95924149|NCT04319094|191809583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|19.73|3.7|0.004
95924150|NCT04319094|191809583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|14.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 360||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-social function scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|14.55|-3.09|0.2
95924151|NCT04319094|191809583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of social functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8037
95924152|NCT04319094|191809584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|22.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|22.37|2.67|0.0129
95924153|NCT04319094|191809584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|31.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|31.36|8.32|0.0008
95924154|NCT04319094|191809584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.92|30.06||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|30.06|5.92|0.0036
95950581|NCT01180400|191872921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.73||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-1.86|0.944
95983294|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.75|0.45|
95983295|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.24|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.48|
95983296|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
95856374|NCT01721044|191672139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||Week 24||||0.001
95856375|NCT01721044|191672140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856376|NCT01721044|191672140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856377|NCT01721044|191672141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856378|NCT01721044|191672141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95856379|NCT01721044|191672142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856380|NCT01721044|191672142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95856381|NCT01721044|191672143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.012
95856382|NCT01721044|191672143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Regression, Logistic|If logistic regression sample size requirements are not met, the p-value from Fisher's exact test is used instead.||||||0.104
95856383|NCT01721044|191672144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95856384|NCT01721044|191672144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95856385|NCT01721044|191672145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856386|NCT01721044|191672145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95856387|NCT01721044|191672146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856388|NCT01721044|191672146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95856389|NCT01721044|191672147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.005
95856390|NCT01721044|191672147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.004
95856391|NCT01721044|191672147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.002
95856392|NCT01721044|191672147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.026
95856393|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.448
95856394|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 12||||0.058
95856395|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.446
95856396|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||MCS Week 24||||0.401
95856397|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
95856398|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 12||||0.001
95856399|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
95856400|NCT01721044|191672148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||PCS Week 24||||0.001
95856401|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
95856402|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, US Algorithm||||0.001
95856403|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.001
95856404|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, US Algorithm||||0.003
95856405|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
95856406|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 12, UK Algorithm||||0.001
95856407|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.001
95856408|NCT01721044|191672149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||Week 24, UK Algorithm||||0.002
95856409|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.362
95856410|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 12||||0.170
95856411|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.753
95856412|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Week 24||||0.715
95856413|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.077
95856414|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 12||||0.058
95856415|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.232
95856416|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Week 24||||0.534
95856417|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.079
95856418|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 12||||0.070
95856419|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.327
95856420|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Week 24||||0.479
95856421|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.001
95856422|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 12||||0.005
95856423|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.001
95856424|NCT01721044|191672150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Week 24||||0.030
95856425|NCT01499355|191672164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, rest of world \[ROW\]) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.367
95856426|NCT01499355|191672164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||||||P-Value from Cox proportional hazard model, including the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.283
95856427|NCT01499355|191672165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0486
95856428|NCT01499355|191672165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0668
95856429|NCT01499355|191672166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0628||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0081|0.4843||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4843|0.0081|0.0456
95856430|NCT01499355|191672166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4344||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0996|1.8941||Model includes the variable for treatment, adjusted for the covariates including region (Latin America, Asia, ROW) and renal response at Run-in Week 12 (partial and non-response).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8941|0.0996|0.5455
95856431|NCT01499355|191672166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0252
95856432|NCT01499355|191672166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2876
95856433|NCT01499355|191672169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.863
95950582|NCT01180400|191872922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.66|0.61|0.974
95856434|NCT01499355|191672169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.769
95856435|NCT01499355|191672169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.907
95856436|NCT01499355|191672169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.996
95856437|NCT02072668|191672170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6281|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.6281
95856438|NCT02072668|191672171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7973|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7973
95856439|NCT02072668|191672172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4442
95856440|NCT02072668|191672173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2545|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.2545
95856441|NCT02072668|191672179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4374|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4374
95856442|NCT02072668|191672180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.3470
95856443|NCT02072668|191672181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0755
95856444|NCT02072668|191672183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0708
95856445|NCT02072668|191672184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.4501
95856446|NCT02072668|191672185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0767|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.0767
95856447|NCT02072668|191672186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||Student t-test followed by ANOVA|Student t-test subsequently followed by crossover ANOVA model testing carry-over effect and treatment effect||||||0.7250
95856448|NCT01353898|191672188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 200 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
95856449|NCT01353898|191672188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||||||||||Geometric mean ratio of HIV-1/Healthy. Analyzed using a linear mixed model with fixed factors: dose, health-status and the interaction between dose and health-status.|Compared to historical data for AUC0-24hrs measured on Day 7 for healthy participants treated with 800 mg MK-1972 once daily||||
95856450|NCT01353898|191672189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||||||||||||||
95856451|NCT01353898|191672189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||||||||||||||||
95856452|NCT01353898|191672189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||||||||||||||||
95856453|NCT01353898|191672189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||||||||||||||||
95856454|NCT01353898|191672189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||||||||||||||||
95856455|NCT02668653|191672190|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratification factors include region, age, and WBC count at the time of diagnosis of AML.||||0.979|0.615|0.0324
95856456|NCT02420821|191672206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.95|0.57|0.0205
95856457|NCT02420821|191672208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.08|0.76|0.2675
95856458|NCT02420821|191672210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.13|0.64|0.263
95856459|NCT02420821|191672212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.04|0.74|0.1218
95856460|NCT02420821|191672214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.21|0.72|0.6138
95856461|NCT02420821|191672215|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.3||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||9.70|-3.09|0.2733
95856462|NCT02420821|191672217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.96||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||8.24|-4.32|0.5121
95856463|NCT02420821|191672220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.01|0.71|0.0606
95856464|NCT02420821|191672221|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.09||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Wald method.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||11.58|-1.40|0.1011
95856465|NCT02420821|191672224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.98|0.70|0.0254
95856466|NCT02420821|191672226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.79|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||0.79|0.34|0.0020
95856467|NCT02420821|191672228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were presence of liver metastases, Motzer score, PD-L1 level per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS).||1.00|0.43|0.0497
95856468|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.43|-1.06|<0.0001
95856469|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-0.51|0.2085
95924155|NCT04319094|191809584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|28.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|28.01|4.47|0.007
95950583|NCT01180400|191872923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.53|0.84|0.184
95856470|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.71|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.71|-1.33|<0.0001
95924156|NCT04319094|191809584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|25.19||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 366||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean SF36-emotional functioning scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|25.19|-0.68|0.065
95924157|NCT04319094|191809584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of emotional functioning over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.8810
95924158|NCT04319094|191809585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|F-test for overall significance|Degrees of freedom: 370||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the change in probability of ER use from baseline to post-intervention between PEERS and control participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|||0.031
95924159|NCT04319094|191809590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-2.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-2.18|-7.78|0.0005
95924160|NCT04319094|191809590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-3.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.69|-11.08|<0.0001
95924161|NCT04319094|191809590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-3.95|-11.3|<0.0001
95924162|NCT04319094|191809590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.7|-11.53|<0.0001
95924163|NCT04319094|191809590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-4.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 414|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean UCLA Loneliness scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|-4.14|-12.37|<0.0001
95924164|NCT04319094|191809590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change of UCLA Loneliness score over time between control and PEERS participants||||0.6857
95950584|NCT01180400|191872924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.55|0.461
95924165|NCT04319094|191809591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.86|0.72|0.001
95924166|NCT04319094|191809591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.25|-0.39|0.18
95924167|NCT04319094|191809591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|2.45|-0.24|0.11
95924168|NCT04319094|191809591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.54|0.98|0.0006
95856471|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-0.82|0.0013
95856472|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.7|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.70|-1.34|<0.0001
95856473|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0098
95856474|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
95856475|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.12|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.12|-0.80|0.0080
95856476|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.44|-1.13|<0.0001
95983297|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.27|0.56|
95983298|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.95|0.44|
95983299|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.4|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.40|0.18|
95983300|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.72|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.72|0.76|
95983301|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||0.51|0.25|
95856477|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.15|-0.56|0.2512
95856478|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.28|-1.01|0.0005
95856479|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.05|-0.80|0.0247
95856480|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
95856481|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.10|-0.68|0.1411
95856482|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0014
95856483|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.03|-0.78|0.0728
95856484|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.49|-1.32|<0.0001
95856485|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
95950585|NCT01180400|191872925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.75|0.43|0.689
95729493|NCT02308111|191429433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.51||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata|Log Rank|||||1.51|0.68|0.954
95950586|NCT01180400|191872926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.32|0.35|0.831
95950587|NCT01180400|191872927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.89|-0.96|0.525
95950588|NCT01180400|191872928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.964||95.0|-0.28|0.26|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.964
95950589|NCT01180400|191872929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.58|0.54|0.783
95950590|NCT01180400|191872930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-0.89|0.832
95950591|NCT01180400|191872931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.82|-0.84|0.468
95950592|NCT01180400|191872932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.52|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.52|-0.49|0.187
95950593|NCT01180400|191872933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|-0.44|0.145
95950594|NCT01180400|191872934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.549|1.466||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.466|-1.549|0.956
95950595|NCT01180400|191872935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.21|-0.98|0.201
95950596|NCT01180400|191872936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.45|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.45|-0.62|0.756
95950597|NCT01180400|191872937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.68|-0.40|0.620
95950598|NCT01180400|191872938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.981|3.286|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.286|-2.981|0.924
95950599|NCT01180400|191872939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.10|-0.30|0.345
95950600|NCT01180400|191872940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.19|-0.20|0.942
95856486|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.55|-1.46|<0.0001
95856487|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.03|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.03|-0.96|0.0353
95856488|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.34|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.34|-1.35|0.0011
95856489|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.02|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.02|-1.01|0.0582
95856490|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||-0.19|-1.32|0.0089
95856491|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.61|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.61|-0.57|0.9575
95856492|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.29|-1.01|0.2745
95856493|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.55|-0.81|0.7088
95856494|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.36|-1.13|0.3077
95856495|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.63|-0.93|0.7112
95856496|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.11|-1.69|0.0837
95856497|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.04|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.04|-0.88|0.8655
95924169|NCT04319094|191809591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.95||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 421|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean GSES scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|3.95|1.01|0.001
95924170|NCT04319094|191809591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the change of GSES scores over time between the control and PEERS participants.||||0.1195
95924171|NCT04319094|191809592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.73||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: post-intervention - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.73|1.71|<0.0001
95924172|NCT04319094|191809592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 3-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.62|0.57|0.0123
95924173|NCT04319094|191809592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.63||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 6-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 6-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|4.63|0.63|0.01
95924174|NCT04319094|191809592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|6.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 9-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 9-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|6.04|2.32|<0.0001
95924175|NCT04319094|191809592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.44||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 361|Score difference: 12-month - baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Brief-COPE Adaptive Coping scores from baseline to 12-month for all study participants.|A series of generalized linear mixed-effect models were implemented to predict the outcome measurements. The primary fixed effect predictors were group (control vs. PEERS), time (categorical), and group \* time. Random terms in all models were: study participants and their interaction with time. The covariance of dependent variable values across time was modeled as a first-order auto-regression decaying function (AR1). Higher order fixed and random terms were pretested and removed from the model if nonsignificant.|5.44|0.83|0.0078
95924176|NCT04319094|191809592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there is no statistical difference in the change in adaptive coping over time between control and PEERS participants.||||0.1408
95924177|NCT01016353|191809604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
95924178|NCT00235495|191809629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||The generalized linear model with log link function is tested at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustment is made for baseline NIHSS and Thrombolysis stratum.|Adjusted risk ratio greater than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Albumin treatment group, while adjusted risk ratio less than 1 indicates greater risk of good outcome in the Saline treatment group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin and Saline treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (greater proportion of subjects with NIHSS 0-1 or mRS 0-1 or both at 90 days post-randomization in Albumin treatment arm).||1.10|0.84|
95924179|NCT00235495|191809630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.80|
95924180|NCT00235495|191809631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.66|
95924181|NCT00235495|191809632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.71|
95924182|NCT00235495|191809633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.82|
95983302|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.55|
95983303|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.28|0.61|
95983304|NCT00853749|191940807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs (PCV/23vPS/13vPnC, PCV/PCV/13vPnC).||1.23|0.60|
95983305|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness||||0.253
95983306|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness||||0.380
95983307|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness||||0.135
95983308|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness||||0.520
95983309|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness||||0.283
95983310|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe redness||||0.225
95983311|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling||||0.202
95983312|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling||||0.294
95924183|NCT00235495|191809634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.85|
95924184|NCT00235495|191809635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.87|
95924185|NCT00235495|191809636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.83|
95924186|NCT00235495|191809637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.84|
95924187|NCT00235495|191809638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.84|
95924188|NCT00235495|191809639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|73098.0||||0.913||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.913
95983313|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling||||0.175
95983314|NCT00853749|191940808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling||||0.314
95983315|NCT00853749|191940809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥ 38 degrees C but ≤ 39 degrees C||||> .99
95983316|NCT00853749|191940809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite||||> .99
95983317|NCT00853749|191940809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability||||0.543
95983318|NCT00853749|191940809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep||||0.233
95983319|NCT00853749|191940809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep||||0.198
95983320|NCT00853749|191940809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.628|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for rash||||0.628
95983321|NCT01308008|191940939|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.13|-0.02|0.16
95983322|NCT01308008|191940940|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|34.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|-15|0.17
95983323|NCT01308008|191940941|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|-8.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|-35|0.5
95983324|NCT03577730|191940942|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|55.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|118.0|||Generalized estimating equations||The median difference (+55) is an estimated difference between groups - rather than the actual difference - based on the pre-specified generalized estimated equations modeling.|||118|-9|0.092
95983325|NCT03577730|191940943|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for visual analog scale scores at rest presented.||||0.802
95983326|NCT03577730|191940944|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.320
95983327|NCT03577730|191940945|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.670
95983328|NCT03577730|191940946|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.595
95983329|NCT03577730|191940947|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.985
95983330|NCT03577730|191940948|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.417
95983331|NCT03577730|191940949|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.432
95983332|NCT03577730|191940950|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
95983333|NCT03577730|191940951|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.058
95983334|NCT02187172|191940963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873|-0.104|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.1040|-0.3873|0.0012
95729494|NCT02308111|191429434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.61|0.304
95983335|NCT02187172|191940963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0353||0.6718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0867|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.0565|-0.0867|0.6718
95983336|NCT02187172|191940964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.88||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.83|25.89|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.89|-115.83|0.1159
95856498|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.11|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.11|-1.07|0.9725
95856499|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.55|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.55|-0.80|0.5285
95856500|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.4|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.40|-1.34|0.9663
95856501|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.63|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.63|-1.61|0.9914
95856502|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.3|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.30|-1.85|0.8345
95856503|NCT02420821|191672229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||3.91|-2.90|0.7725
95856504|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Pain: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.20|-0.77|0.0010
95856505|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Fatigue: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.34|-0.91|<0.0001
95856506|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Nausea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.69|-1.13|<0.0001
95856507|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Disturbed sleep: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.25|-0.79|0.0002
95856508|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feelings of being distressed: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.29|-0.84|<0.0001
95856509|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Shortness of breath: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.32|-0.81|<0.0001
95924189|NCT00235495|191809640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rank Sum|44853.5||||0.923||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, normal approx|||||||0.923
95924190|NCT00235495|191809641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.79|
95924191|NCT00235495|191809642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.47|
95924192|NCT00235495|191809643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.39|
95924193|NCT00235495|191809644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|0.98|
95924194|NCT00235495|191809645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|26.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.72|4.37|
95924195|NCT00235495|191809646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.12|1.09|
95924196|NCT00235495|191809647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.02|
95924197|NCT00235495|191809648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.68|
95924198|NCT00235495|191809649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|0.68|
95924199|NCT00235495|191809650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.74|
95924200|NCT01446003|191809651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|4.56|||Linear mixed effect models|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval lies below the bound 5 mmHg, the hypothesis that change from baseline in ambulatory 24-hour mean SBP in participants with mild to moderate hypertension following 10 days of multiple dosing of MK-8457 is similar to placebo will be supported.||4.56|-0.52|
95924201|NCT01446003|191809652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.96|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||||2.96|0.19|
95924202|NCT01446003|191809653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|13.35|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||13.35|2.44|
95924203|NCT01446003|191809653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.68|3.81|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in SBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||3.81|-5.68|
95924204|NCT01446003|191809653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|9.71|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after AM dosing||9.71|0.81|
95924205|NCT01446003|191809653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|1.17|||Linear mixed effects model|The model contained period and treatment as fixed effect, Day -1 baseline as a fixed continuous covariate, and participant as random effect.||Treatment comparison of maxMAΔ in DBP from baseline to Day 10 after PM dosing||1.17|-4.55|
95924206|NCT00318656|191809660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.064||95.0|-0.32|10.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||10.36|-0.32|0.064
95924207|NCT00318656|191809661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.923||95.0|-3.37|2.85||P value von elteren (adjusted on sex)|ANCOVA||Mean Difference =(Rosiglitazone + Met) - (Glimepiride+Met)|Statistical analysis was based off of week 12 results.||2.85|-3.37|0.923
95924208|NCT05750745|191809678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.02|-0.36|0.0871
95924209|NCT05750745|191809679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.548||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|13.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||13.20|-0.78|0.0972
95924210|NCT05750745|191809680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.41|-12.04|0.0671
95924211|NCT05750745|191809681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||0.01|-0.27|0.0673
95924212|NCT05750745|191809682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.446||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|7.2|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||7.20|-2.44|0.4050
95924213|NCT05750745|191809683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.656||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-0.41|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test minus negative control.|||-0.41|-10.88|0.0346
95924214|NCT05750745|191809684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.19|-0.15|0.8256
95924215|NCT05750745|191809684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.30|-0.16|0.5314
95924216|NCT05750745|191809685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|3.3|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the Van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||3.30|-8.48|0.5575
95983337|NCT02187172|191940964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.41|51.72|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||51.72|-38.41|0.7666
95924217|NCT05750745|191809685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.308||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.37|||van Elteren Test|P-value was from the van Elteren test adjusted for Baseline Schiff sensitivity stratification factor.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||7.37|-9.60|0.7717
95924218|NCT05750745|191809686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|7.12|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||7.12|-5.63|0.8180
95924219|NCT05750745|191809686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|11.28|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as positive control minus negative control.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||11.28|-3.83|0.3322
95924220|NCT04888585|191809714|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||31.0|11.5|<0.001
95924221|NCT04888585|191809714|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|16.5|<0.001
95924222|NCT04888585|191809714|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||48.1|27.4|<0.001
95924223|NCT04888585|191809714|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||32.6|13.8|<0.001
95924224|NCT04888585|191809715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
95924225|NCT04888585|191809715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.64|-1.38|<0.001
95924226|NCT04888585|191809715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-1.05|-1.80|<0.001
95924227|NCT04888585|191809715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
95924228|NCT04888585|191809716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.56||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.92|-8.21|0.014
95924229|NCT04888585|191809716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-4.31|-11.70|<0.001
95924230|NCT04888585|191809716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-11.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-7.73|-15.10|<0.001
95729495|NCT02308111|191429435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.69|0.898
95924231|NCT04888585|191809716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-1.69|-8.89|0.004
95924232|NCT04888585|191809717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||37.3|12.1|<0.001
95924233|NCT04888585|191809717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||42.9|17.4|<0.001
95924234|NCT04888585|191809717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||57.4|33.5|<0.001
95924235|NCT04888585|191809717|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||37.3|11.9|<0.001
95924236|NCT04888585|191809718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||12.4|0.6|0.031
95924237|NCT04888585|191809718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||17.0|2.7|0.007
95924238|NCT04888585|191809718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||18.2|3.6|0.004
95983338|NCT02187172|191940965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.46||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|-19.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-19.23|-142.55|0.0115
95983339|NCT02187172|191940965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.11||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|26.59|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||26.59|-30.58|0.8883
95983340|NCT02187172|191940966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3027.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3180.58||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9465.95|3411.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3411.54|-9465.95|0.3472
95983341|NCT02187172|191940966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1974.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1659.11||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5336.3|1387.04|||Regression, Linear|||Combined ustekinumab and placebo groups for active treatment period analysis.||1387.04|-5336.30|0.2416
95983342|NCT02187172|191940967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.75||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.03|119.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||119.34|-78.03|0.6742
95983343|NCT02187172|191940967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.84||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.63|11963.0|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||11963|-25.63|0.1979
95983344|NCT02187172|191940968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7884.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7780.29||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23634.67|7566.1|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7566.10|-23634.67|0.3173
95856510|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Remembering things: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0036
95856511|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Lack of appetite: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.91|-1.46|<0.0001
95856512|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Drowsy: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
95924239|NCT04888585|191809718|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.9||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||5.9|-4.0|0.709
95924240|NCT04888585|191809719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||28.9|4.9|0.006
95924241|NCT04888585|191809719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||38.1|13.5|<0.001
95924242|NCT04888585|191809719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||44.2|18.9|<0.001
95924243|NCT04888585|191809719|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||35.4|11.0|<0.001
95983345|NCT02187172|191940968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3782.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4073.25||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12035.72|4470.64|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4470.64|-12035.72|0.3591
95983346|NCT02187172|191940969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.07|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.07|-5.22|0.9767
95983347|NCT02187172|191940969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.11|-3.29|0.3205
95983348|NCT02187172|191940970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.96||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.19|25.61|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||25.61|-55.19|0.4632
95983349|NCT02187172|191940970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.47|15.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||15.99|-30.47|0.5316
95983350|NCT02187172|191940971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.47|-2.27|0.1928
95983351|NCT02187172|191940971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.02|-1.36|0.0580
95983352|NCT02187172|191940972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||18.96|-27.24|0.7185
95983353|NCT02187172|191940972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.69|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||8.69|-25.40|0.3271
95983354|NCT02187172|191940973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.51|-1.56|0.3124
95924244|NCT04888585|191809720|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||26.2|2.0|0.022
95924245|NCT04888585|191809720|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||35.5|10.0|<0.001
95924246|NCT04888585|191809720|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||37.0|11.6|<0.001
95924247|NCT04888585|191809720|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.7|0.5|0.042
95924248|NCT04888585|191809721|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||14.6|-4.4|0.296
95924249|NCT04888585|191809721|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||30.2|8.7|<0.001
95924250|NCT04888585|191809721|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||36.7|14.3|<0.001
95924251|NCT04888585|191809721|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||24.5|3.8|0.007
95924252|NCT04888585|191809722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||13.0|1.3|0.017
95983355|NCT02187172|191940973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0106
95983356|NCT02187172|191940974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.42||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.42|-3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.11|-138.42|0.0408
95729496|NCT02308111|191429436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
95924253|NCT04888585|191809722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.0||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||6.8|-2.8|0.424
95924254|NCT04888585|191809722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||7.5|-2.3|0.303
95924255|NCT04888585|191809722|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|1.3||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the stratification factors.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340 E4W - Placebo|||5.4|-2.9|0.551
95924256|NCT04888585|191809723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|ABBV-154 40mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.03|-0.33|0.022
95924257|NCT04888585|191809723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 150mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.41|0.001
95924258|NCT04888585|191809723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg EOW - Placebo|||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
95924259|NCT04888585|191809723|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and the baseline measurement as covariates.|Response Rate Difference = ABBV-154 340mg E4W - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.007
95924260|NCT04927975|191809724|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|6.97|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||6.97|-22.18|0.304
95983357|NCT02187172|191940974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.87||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.5|340.93|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||340.93|-197.50|0.5926
95983358|NCT02187172|191940975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|284.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||284.81|98.18|0.0002
95983359|NCT02187172|191940975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|171.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.08|212.34|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||212.34|130.08|<0.0001
95983360|NCT02187172|191940976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-0.64|-4.62|0.0110
95856513|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Dry mouth: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.71|-1.28|<0.0001
95856514|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Feeling sad: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
95856515|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Vomiting: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
95856516|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Numbness or tingling: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.10|-0.58|0.0051
95856517|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Rash/Skin Changes: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.83|-1.33|<0.0001
95856518|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Headache: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||0.16|-0.26|0.6541
95856519|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Mouth/Throat Sores: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.76|-1.28|<0.0001
95856520|NCT02420821|191672230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Diarrhea: Mixed-effects model, assuming unstructured covariance matrix, with a term for treatment group, a term for visit time as a continuous variable, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model. The random effects are intercept and slope of visit time.||-0.88|-1.27|<0.0001
95856521|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 1 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.87|0.58|<0.0001
95856522|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.57|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.57|0.28|<0.0001
95856523|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 2 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.84|0.55|<0.0001
95924261|NCT04927975|191809724|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-21.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.02|-6.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-6.52|-36.02|0.005
95983361|NCT02187172|191940976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.51|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-0.51|-1.79|0.0008
95924262|NCT04927975|191809724|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-19.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-4.16|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.16|-35.04|0.013
95924263|NCT04927975|191809725|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||15.2|-1.3|0.100
95924264|NCT04927975|191809725|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|17.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||29.0|6.5|0.002
95924265|NCT04927975|191809725|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||21.9|1.4|0.026
95924266|NCT04927975|191809726|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|6.6||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||19.7|-6.6|0.327
95924267|NCT04927975|191809726|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|44.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.9|13.8|<0.001
95924268|NCT04927975|191809726|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|44.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||44.7|12.6|<0.001
95924269|NCT04927975|191809727|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.2|-3.9|0.340
95924270|NCT04927975|191809727|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|3.8||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||11.8|-4.3|0.358
95924271|NCT04927975|191809727|SUPERIORITY|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (age group \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], and status of active vitiligo \[Yes/No\])) for the comparison of two treatment groups. The calculations at each visit were based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 or non-responder imputation only if there were no missing data due to COVID-19.|Response Rate Difference|9.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||17.2|1.0|0.027
95924272|NCT04927975|191809728|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.96|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||1.96|-16.86|0.120
95983362|NCT02187172|191940977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|688.28||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1548.66|1238.04|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1238.04|-1548.66|0.8227
95856524|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.44|<0.0001
95856525|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 3 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.92|0.62|<0.0001
95856526|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
95856527|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 4 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.97|0.66|<0.0001
95924273|NCT04927975|191809728|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-10.84||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|-1.32|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-1.32|-20.37|0.026
95924274|NCT04927975|191809728|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-14.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-4.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||-4.30|-24.24|0.005
95924275|NCT04927975|191809729|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 6 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||4.4|-8.3|0.545
95856528|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.81|0.49|<0.0001
95856529|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 5 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.66|<0.0001
95856530|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.80|0.46|<0.0001
95856531|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 6 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.54|<0.0001
95856532|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.65|0.30|<0.0001
95983363|NCT02187172|191940977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-407.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|180.7||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-773.57|-41.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||-41.29|-773.57|0.0302
95983364|NCT02187172|191940978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.47||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.32|-1.25|0.2333
95856533|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 7 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.49|<0.0001
95856534|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.66|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.66|0.29|<0.0001
95856535|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.79|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 8 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.79|0.41|<0.0001
95856536|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
95856537|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 9 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.91|0.52|<0.0001
95856538|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.73|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.73|0.33|<0.0001
95856539|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 10 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|0.51|<0.0001
95856540|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.86|0.41|<0.0001
95856541|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 11 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.99|0.49|<0.0001
95856542|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|0.17|0.0010
95983365|NCT02187172|191940978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.03|-0.80|0.0713
95983366|NCT02187172|191940979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|14.75|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.75|-48.48|0.2869
95983367|NCT02187172|191940979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.22|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.22|-5.69|0.1988
95983368|NCT02187172|191940980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|28.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||28.20|-24.09|0.8744
95983369|NCT02187172|191940980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|27.29|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||27.29|-6.18|0.2093
95983370|NCT02187172|191940981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|34.2|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.20|4.21|0.0135
95983371|NCT02187172|191940981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|7.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||7.61|-9.19|0.8499
95983372|NCT02187172|191940982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.62|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||7.62|-0.30|0.0693
95856543|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 12 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|0.32|<0.0001
95856544|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.82|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.82|0.23|0.0005
95856545|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.88|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 13 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.88|0.23|0.0008
95856546|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.67|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.67|-0.01|0.0591
95856547|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.05|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 14 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.05|0.29|0.0005
95856548|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.68|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.68|-0.09|0.1378
95856549|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.89|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 15 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.89|-0.03|0.0650
95856550|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||0.96|-0.01|0.0531
95856551|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.49|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 16 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.49|0.37|0.0011
95983373|NCT02187172|191940982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||4.80|-0.96|0.1841
95983374|NCT02187172|191940983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.34|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||3.34|-0.83|0.2305
95983375|NCT02187172|191940983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.37|-0.53|0.2189
95983376|NCT02187172|191940984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.11|-0.34|0.3212
95924276|NCT04927975|191809729|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 11 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||8.3|-4.5|0.565
95924277|NCT04927975|191809729|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including observed measurements at all visits. The model included categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors (age \[≤ 50 and \> 50\], Baseline disease severity \[T-VASI \< 15 and ≥ 15\], active vitiligo \[Yes/No\]) derived from actual values, and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline measurement. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Upa 22 mg Period 1 versus Placebo Period 1||5.6|-7.8|0.754
95924278|NCT00615433|191809730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Improvements in PANSS ratings are estimated from 2 prior studies of lurasidone. Assuming lurasidone differs from placebo in change from baseline in PANSS by 6.8 and 10.0 for 40 and 120 mg, respectively, and assuming a standard deviation of 19.1, then n=120 subjects per group provides approximately 97% power (at α=0.05, two-sided) to reject the null hypothesis of no difference from placebo for at least 1 dose. This calculation uses Bonferroni's procedure for controlling pairwise differences.||||<0.05
95924279|NCT00615433|191809731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95924280|NCT00783692|191809732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|14.3||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||14.3|1.2|0.0206
95924281|NCT00783692|191809733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|15.0||P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level for the multiple comparisons of the primary endpoints. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both primary endpoints were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the primary endpoints was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither primary was declared significant, no further testing was to be conducted.||15.0|-3.6|0.2322
95924282|NCT00783692|191809734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.5||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||27.5|7.3|0.0007
95924283|NCT00783692|191809734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.7||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|The Hochberg method was applied to control the overall Type I error rate at a 5% significance level. If both p-values were ≤ 0.05, both dose regimens were to be declared significant. If 1 of the p-values for the 2 dose comparisons was \> 0.05, the other p-value was to be tested at the 0.025 level and declared significant only if the p-value was ≤ 0.025. If neither dose was declared significant for the primary endpoint, no further testing was to be conducted.||24.7|4.6|0.0042
95924284|NCT00783692|191809735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9288||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test on the CRP change from baseline values (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If at least 1 of the primary endpoints was significant, the sequential Hochberg procedure was to be used to test the secondary endpoint for significance at the 0.05% level.||||0.9288
95950601|NCT01180400|191872941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0279||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0279|-0.0500|0.576
95856552|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.14|-0.05|0.0708
95856553|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.29|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 17 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.29|-0.13|0.1078
95856554|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.47|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.47|-0.22|0.1487
95856555|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.43|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 18 Day 22: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||1.43|-0.77|0.5537
95856556|NCT02420821|191672233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.33|||Repeated measures model||Difference in LS mean score change between arms (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab minus Sunitinib) was reported.|Cycle 19 Day 1: Repeated measures model, assuming 1st order autoregressive covariance structure, with a term for visit as a categorical variable, a term for treatment group, a term for treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score and stratification factors (presence of liver metastasis, PD-L1 status, and Motzer score) included as covariates in the model.||2.33|-1.29|0.5743
95856557|NCT00926237|191672240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.40|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.04
95856558|NCT00926237|191672240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.77||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -2.03|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz active rTMS - Sham rTMS|||||.02
95856559|NCT00926237|191672240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1..28|Mixed Models Analysis||10 Hz washout - sham washout period|||||.20
95856560|NCT00926237|191672240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|||||t value = -1.29|Mixed Models Analysis||1Hz washout - sham washout|||||.19
95924285|NCT00783692|191809736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||24.0|2.8|0.0132
95924286|NCT00783692|191809736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|26.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||26.0|4.6|0.0053
95924287|NCT00783692|191809737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|28.7||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||28.7|3.0|0.0154
95924288|NCT00783692|191809737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.5||P-value is based on the CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: 1) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 2) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||25.5|0.3|0.0450
95983377|NCT02187172|191940984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.31|0.04|0.0137
95983378|NCT02187172|191940985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.33|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.33|-1.09|0.8383
95856561|NCT00999102|191672245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.86|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||2.86|-1.86|0.67
95856562|NCT00999102|191672245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Global Fatigue Score for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Global Fatigue Score for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Global Fatigue Score after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||4.55|-3.17|0.72
95856563|NCT00999102|191672246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.99|94.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 5 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 50 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 5 mg (lower dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 50 mg (lower dose).||94.92|-108.99|0.89
95924289|NCT00783692|191809738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||16.0|-1.5|0.1036
95924290|NCT00783692|191809738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|10.2||CMH chi-square test, stratified by: 1) concomitant use of oral corticosteroids (yes/no); 2) previous exposure to TNFα antagonists and/or concomitant immunomodulator use (yes/no); 3) enrollment in Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 in the Induction Phase.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|To maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5% in the multiple-dose comparisons in each key secondary endpoint, the Hochberg method was used. To further maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%, the key secondary assessments were performed sequentially. The first key secondary endpoint was tested only if 1 or both of the primary comparisons were significant and the next key secondary endpoint was to be tested only if the previous key secondary endpoint was significant for at least 1 dose.||10.2|-6.3|0.6413
95924291|NCT05550337|191809739|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.076||||||||1.076|0.927|
95924292|NCT05550337|191809740|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for the Test-to-Reference ratio of LS mean percent reduction from Baseline to Week 12/Day 84, in the non-inflammatory lesion counts to be contained within (0.80, 1.25).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|1.228||||||||1.228|1.017|
95924293|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95924294|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
95924295|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95924296|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95924297|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95924298|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.093
95924299|NCT00938340|191809741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95924300|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95924301|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95924302|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
95924303|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95924304|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95924305|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95924306|NCT00938340|191809742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0013
95924307|NCT00938340|191809743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||Main effect of treatment by timepoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95924308|NCT00938340|191809744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95924309|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95924310|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95924311|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95924312|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95924313|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95924314|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95924315|NCT00938340|191809745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95924316|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95924317|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95924318|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95924319|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
95924320|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95924321|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95924322|NCT00938340|191809746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
95924323|NCT00938340|191809747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95924324|NCT00938340|191809748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95924325|NCT00938340|191809749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95924326|NCT00938340|191809750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95924327|NCT00938340|191809751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95924328|NCT00938340|191809752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
95924329|NCT00938340|191809753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95924330|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95983379|NCT02187172|191940985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.24|-0.22|0.1651
95924331|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95924332|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95924333|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
95924334|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0087||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0087
95924335|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95924336|NCT00938340|191809754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.0083 is considered significant (6 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
95924337|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95924338|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95924339|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95924340|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
95924341|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
95924342|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95983380|NCT02187172|191940986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.93|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||5.93|-0.94|0.1502
95983381|NCT02187172|191940986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.91|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||1.91|-1.49|0.8054
95983382|NCT02187172|191940987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.05|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.05|-4.79|0.4235
95983383|NCT02187172|191940987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.13|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.13|-1.80|0.8653
95983384|NCT02187172|191940988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.71|-4.95|0.5580
95983385|NCT02187172|191940988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.8|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||2.80|-1.25|0.4454
95983386|NCT02187172|191940989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|34.87|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||34.87|7.86|0.0027
95983387|NCT02187172|191940989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|5.33|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||5.33|-11.17|0.4775
95983388|NCT02187172|191940990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.8||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.47|372.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||372.08|89.47|0.0021
95924343|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95924344|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95983389|NCT02187172|191940990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.71||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.4|52.61|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||52.61|-116.40|0.4493
95983390|NCT02187172|191940991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.38|-0.30|0.8008
95983391|NCT02187172|191940991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||0.24|-0.19|0.8068
95983392|NCT02187172|191940992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.12||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.65|160.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison during RCT period||160.57|-66.65|0.4079
95983393|NCT02187172|191940992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.85||0.8907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|73.28|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||73.28|-63.91|0.8907
95983394|NCT02187172|191940993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.81||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|105.81|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||105.81|-91.80|0.8866
95983395|NCT02187172|191940993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.59||0.4527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.78|41.3|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||41.30|-90.78|0.4527
95983396|NCT02187172|191940994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|194.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.23||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.61|328.77|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||328.77|60.61|0.0056
95983397|NCT02187172|191940994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.17|47.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment.||47.85|-106.17|0.4478
95983398|NCT02187172|191940995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.83|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||8.83|-2.55|0.2704
95983399|NCT02187172|191940995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|4.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.36|-1.36|0.2950
95983400|NCT02187172|191940996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|-3.45|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-3.45|-30.03|0.0149
95983401|NCT02187172|191940996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|6.71|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.71|-6.93|0.9734
95983402|NCT02187172|191940997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.76||0.4384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|14.6|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.60|-33.03|0.4384
95983403|NCT02187172|191940997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|25.99|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||25.99|-3.72|0.1373
95983404|NCT02187172|191940998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-4.03|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||-4.03|-27.39|0.0097
95924345|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
95924346|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95924347|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95856564|NCT00999102|191672246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.55|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was performed since each participant received both interventions in a crossover design.|Direction of Comparison: Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Nebivolol 10 mg minus Mean Treadmill Exercise Time for Metoprolol 100 mg.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Treadmill Exercise Time after 4 weeks of Nebivolol 10 mg (higher dose) vs. 4 weeks of Metoprolol 100 mg (higher dose).||39.75|-91.55|0.43
95856565|NCT01929317|191672275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.001
95856566|NCT01929317|191672276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 2.|||2.0|-2.4|
95856567|NCT01929317|191672276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 4.|||3.1|-1.9|
95856568|NCT01929317|191672276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 6.|||3.0|-2.3|
95856569|NCT01929317|191672276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 8.|||2.0|-3.4|
95856570|NCT01929317|191672276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part III total score for Week 12.|||3.9|-2.0|
95856571|NCT01929317|191672278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 2.|||0.3|-0.2|
95856572|NCT01929317|191672278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 4.|||0.4|-0.2|
95856573|NCT01929317|191672278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 6.|||0.3|-0.4|
95856574|NCT01929317|191672278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 8.|||0.3|-0.3|
95856575|NCT01929317|191672278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 1 total score for Week 12.|||0.6|-0.2|
95856576|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, On status.|||0.1|-1.8|
95856577|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, On status.|||0.1|-2.4|
95856578|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, On status.|||0.3|-2.6|
95856579|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, On status.|||0.3|-2.8|
95856580|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, On status.|||0.7|-2.7|
95856581|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 2, Off status.|||0.5|-1.8|
95856582|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 4, Off status.|||0.8|-2.6|
95856583|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.0|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 6, Off status.|||1.0|-2.8|
95856584|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 8, Off status.|||1.8|-2.1|
95856585|NCT01929317|191672279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 2 total score for Week 12, Off status.|||2.1|-2.2|
95856586|NCT01929317|191672280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 2.|||0.4|-0.7|
95856587|NCT01929317|191672280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 4.|||0.6|-0.7|
95856588|NCT01929317|191672280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 6.|||0.8|-0.7|
95856589|NCT01929317|191672280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 8.|||0.7|-0.7|
95856590|NCT01929317|191672280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in Japanese UPDRS Part 4 total score for Week 12.|||0.5|-0.9|
95856591|NCT01929317|191672293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.04|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||1.04|-1.65|
95856592|NCT01929317|191672293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.45|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||1.45|-1.34|
95983405|NCT02187172|191940998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.70|-4.69|0.8119
95983406|NCT02187172|191940999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||9.59|-8.91|0.9415
95983407|NCT02187172|191940999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|3.06|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||3.06|-6.77|0.4485
95983408|NCT02187172|191941000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|10.53|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10.53|-10.37|0.9880
95983409|NCT02187172|191941000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.63|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||5.63|-4.86|0.8836
95983410|NCT02187172|191941001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.36|-2.91|0.8321
95983411|NCT02187172|191941001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.48|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||4.48|0.12|0.0394
95983412|NCT02187172|191941002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.07|241.23|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||241.23|64.07|0.0012
95983413|NCT02187172|191941002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|49.09|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||49.09|-55.04|0.9085
95983414|NCT02187172|191941003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||0.14|-0.03|0.1792
95983415|NCT02187172|191941003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.10|-0.03|0.2559
95983416|NCT02187172|191941004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||0.41|-0.11|0.2453
95983417|NCT02187172|191941004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||0.23|-0.02|0.1087
95983418|NCT02187172|191941005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.62||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.31|173.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||173.16|-76.31|0.4368
95983419|NCT02187172|191941005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.84||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.97|6.85|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||6.85|-105.97|0.0833
95983420|NCT02187172|191941006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||1.97|-2.52|0.8036
95983421|NCT02187172|191941006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.40|-0.65|0.4608
95983422|NCT02187172|191941007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3320.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3414.9||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3592.52|10233.67|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||10233.67|-3592.52|0.3370
95983423|NCT02187172|191941007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6926.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2257.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2351.43|11501.07|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||11501.07|2351.43|0.0040
95983424|NCT02187172|191941008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.9||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.97|198.08|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||198.08|-335.97|0.6042
95983425|NCT02187172|191941008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|85.98||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.18|166.26|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||166.26|-182.18|0.9267
95983426|NCT02187172|191941009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|14.68|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||14.68|-6.28|0.4226
95983427|NCT02187172|191941009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|10.36|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||10.36|-3.54|0.3270
95983428|NCT02187172|191941010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||Comparison during RCT period||2.59|-3.56|0.7507
95983429|NCT02187172|191941010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.73|||Regression, Linear|||Global change from baseline after 52 weeks of active treatment||1.73|-1.88|0.9348
95983430|NCT02187172|191941011|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Chi-squared|||||0.89|0.45|0.0005
95983431|NCT02187172|191941011|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI75 at end of study|Proportion|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
95983432|NCT02187172|191941012|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|0.20|0.0016
95983433|NCT02187172|191941012|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PASI90 at end of study|Proportion|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.65||||||||0.65|0.32|
95983434|NCT02187172|191941013|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Comparison during RCT period for binary Physician Global Assessment||0.78|0.29|0.0005
95983435|NCT02187172|191941013|OTHER|95% CI of proportion achieving PGA clear/almost clear at end of study|Proportion|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63||||||||0.63|0.30|
95983436|NCT02187172|191941014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.06|||Regression, Linear|||||21.06|-4.42|0.1944
95983437|NCT02187172|191941014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-5.25|||Regression, Linear|||||-5.25|-19.40|0.0011
95924348|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95924349|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95924350|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95924351|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0089
95924352|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
95924353|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95924354|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
95924355|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95924356|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95924357|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
95924358|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95924359|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
95924360|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95924361|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95924362|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
95924363|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
95924364|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95924365|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
95924366|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0085
95924367|NCT00938340|191809755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||The Bonferroni adjustment was used to correct for multiple treatment comparisons; P \< 0.001667 is considered significant (30 comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
95924368|NCT02931396|191810040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.768
95924369|NCT02931396|191810041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95924370|NCT02931396|191810042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95924371|NCT05273801|191810043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician ask about RPE/HR during session||||0.73
95924372|NCT05273801|191810043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently education provided regarding HR/RPE during session||||0.05
95924373|NCT05273801|191810043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently HR/RPE target is mentioned in session||||0.007
95924374|NCT05273801|191810043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinician modifies session/task to reach HR/RPE target||||0.005
95924375|NCT05273801|191810043|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||How frequently clinicians monitor HR/RPE during session||||0.00001
95924376|NCT01866917|191810056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.574
95924377|NCT01866917|191810057|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis performed using SPSS software, version 15 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Data for quantitative variables reported as a median and interquartile range. The Mann Whitney and chi-square tests were used for the analysis of continuous and categorical variables.|Interquartile range (IQR)|3.0||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.|Chi-squared|||TAP has been demonstrated to have a potential role in reducing pain, post-operative opioid requirement, and time to hospital discharge after abdominal hysterectomies and cesarean sections.||||.825
95924378|NCT01140347|191810058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.046|||Log Rank||HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||1.046|0.717|0.1391
95924379|NCT01140347|191810059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.75|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.750|0.522|<0.0001
95924380|NCT01140347|191810060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for geographic region and etiology liver disease||||||<0.0001
95924381|NCT01140347|191810061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.722|||Log Rank||HR with 95% CI was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors (geographical regions and etiology of liver disease).|||0.722|0.487|<0.0001
95924382|NCT01107626|191810111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.12
95924383|NCT01107626|191810111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||||||0.28
95924384|NCT02715258|191810126|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
95924385|NCT02715258|191810126|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.15|-0.68|0.0021
95924386|NCT02715258|191810126|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.30|-0.80|<0.0001
95983438|NCT02187172|191941015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-779.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1049.99||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2911.19|1352.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1352.01|-2911.19|0.4628
95924387|NCT02715258|191810126|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.17||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) including observations obtained after rescue medication||-0.17|-0.64|0.0009
95924388|NCT02715258|191810127|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.14||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|1.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) at Week 24||1.39|-5.66|0.2340
95983439|NCT02187172|191941015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-910.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|729.96||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2395.95|574.27|||Regression, Linear|||||574.27|-2395.95|0.2209
95983440|NCT01035099|191941039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.31
95924389|NCT02715258|191810127|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.91||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|1.66||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) including observations obtained after rescue medication||1.66|-5.48|0.2937
95924390|NCT02715258|191810127|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.72||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.32||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in SBP (mm Hg) excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||2.32|-5.75|0.4030
95924391|NCT02715258|191810127|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.09||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.23||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.41|0.2160
95924392|NCT02715258|191810128|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.79||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.21||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in body weight (kg) at Week 24 for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2||0.21|-1.80|0.1222
95983441|NCT01035099|191941040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.19
95983442|NCT01035099|191941043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.12
95983443|NCT01035099|191941044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.77
95983444|NCT01035099|191941045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.63
95983445|NCT01035099|191941047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.14
95983446|NCT01035099|191941048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||<0.0001
95983447|NCT01035099|191941049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.58
95983448|NCT01035099|191941051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test confirmed these results.||||||0.42
95983449|NCT01148537|191941055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||||8.4|3.4|< .001
95924393|NCT02715258|191810128|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.65||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.35||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 1: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.35|-1.65|0.2014
95924394|NCT02715258|191810128|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.91||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.05||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 2: Multiple imputation for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 excluding observations obtained after rescue medication||0.05|-1.88|0.0638
95924395|NCT02715258|191810128|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.69||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity Analysis 3: LOCF for change from baseline in body weight (kg) for subjects with BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 including observations obtained after rescue medication||0.24|-1.63|0.1456
95924396|NCT02715258|191810129|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) over time across 24 weeks||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
95924397|NCT02715258|191810130|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.43||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.43|-0.79|<0.0001
95924398|NCT02715258|191810130|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.5||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.50|-0.92|<0.0001
95924399|NCT02715258|191810130|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
95924400|NCT02715258|191810130|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.16||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.16|-0.66|0.0012
95924401|NCT02715258|191810130|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||The mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) across 24 weeks||-0.39|-0.76|<0.0001
95924402|NCT02715258|191810131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|6.8||The logistic regression includes country, background anti-diabetes treatment status, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as a fixed effect covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-Adjusted proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<7% across 24 weeks||6.80|1.69|0.0006
95924403|NCT04310579|191810135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone with midazolam compared to oxycodone alone.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||2.5||0.22
95729497|NCT02308111|191429437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.78||Log rank p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Log Rank|||||2.78|0.57|0.568
95924404|NCT04310579|191810136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.6||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-0.6||0.01
95950602|NCT01180400|191872941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|3.73||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.73|-4.58|0.842
95983450|NCT01148537|191941056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||For the comparison of BTDS to placebo, the subjects randomized to moxifloxacin were excluded.|||2.6|-1.8|.770
95924405|NCT04310579|191810136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.28|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.8||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||2.8||0.28
95924406|NCT04310579|191810137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.3||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.3||<0.001
95924407|NCT04310579|191810137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.2||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with quetiapine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||3.2||0.37
95924408|NCT04310579|191810138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||-2.5||0.005
95924409|NCT04310579|191810138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of midazolam compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 95% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of midazolam compared to placebo.|Part 1 is powered with consideration to both the effect of oxycodone versus placebo and oxycodone plus midazolam versus oxycodone. Assuming a -4 L/min effect size on VE55 and standard deviation of 5 L/min, there is greater than 90% power at a one-sided 0.05 significance level for a sample size of 20 subjects.||3.7||0.37
95924410|NCT04310579|191810139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.9||<0.001
95924411|NCT04310579|191810139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.4||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of quetiapine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of quetiapine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 1 and day 5) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or quetiapine were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||6.4||0.67
95950603|NCT00795639|191872945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.0||Significance test performed using non-parametric analysis of covariance controlling for Baseline 6MWD and PAH etiology and PAH not secondary to a connective tissue disease (other).|ANCOVA||Missing value at Week 12 assigned as zero if the subject had a predefined clinical worsening event, otherwise, missing value at Week 12 imputed with the last non-missing 6MWD based on LOCF.|||26|3|0.0104
95983451|NCT01148537|191941057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline QTci as a covariate and with sex and treatment as effects in the model.||Day 13 analysis||8.4|3.3|< .001
95924412|NCT04310579|191810141|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.96|0.33
95924413|NCT04310579|191810141|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.37||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.37|1.14|<0.001
95924414|NCT04310579|191810142|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.43||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.43|1.19|<0.001
95924415|NCT04310579|191810142|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.57||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Maximum oxycodone concentration was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.57|1.22|<0.001
95924416|NCT04310579|191810144|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.17||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.17|0.91|0.64
95924417|NCT04310579|191810144|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.15||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 1 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.15|0.98|0.24
95924418|NCT04310579|191810145|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.19||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.19|1.02|0.05
95924419|NCT04310579|191810145|EQUIVALENCE|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.36||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and quetiapine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between study treatments were compared using a linear mixed effects model on day 5 with treatment as a categorical variable and participant as a random effect||1.36|1.19|<0.001
95924420|NCT01020838|191810169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.774|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.894|||||Point estimate of sensitivity was calculated by the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for sensitivity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid positive according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for sensitivity in beta-amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for sensitivity:~H0,sens: sensitivity ≤ 0.6 vs. H1, sens: sensitivity \> 0.6 H0,sens was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.6"||0.894|0.654|
95924421|NCT01020838|191810169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.998|||||Point estimate of specificity was calculated using the method of Rao and Scott. Variance for specificity is based on subjects that contribute at least one brain region, which is amyloid negative according to the SoT|"For the primary analysis, point estimates together with normal-approximated, two sided 95% confidence intervals, were given for specificity in amyloid detection based on the majority read.~The following hypothesis was formulated for specificity:~H0,spec: specificity ≤ 0.8 vs. H1, spec: specificity \> 0.8 H0,spec was to be rejected if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI is larger than 0.8"||0.998|0.886|
95924422|NCT02145182|191810185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression results for the DGF composite, the effect of treatment adjusted for preservation type, donor type, and Irish score.|Calculated using the logistic regression model.|Analysis of DGF composite||1.33|0.49|0.3983
95924423|NCT02020018|191810208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95924424|NCT00952718|191810263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value for MIP was adjusted by linear regression model.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
95924425|NCT00952718|191810263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||adjusted p for MEP by linear regression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.038
95924426|NCT00952718|191810264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.063
95924427|NCT00952718|191810265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.269
95924428|NCT04939428|191810284|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-2.0|||=|0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.9|-5|= 0.0848
95924429|NCT04939428|191810285|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided.|Confidence Interval|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||2.0|-4.8|
95924430|NCT04939428|191810286|OTHER|Estimated differences and confidence intervals are provided|Confidence Interval|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|||95% CIs (Tier 2 endpoints) was provided for between treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events; these analyses was performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.0|-0.4|
95924431|NCT04939428|191810287|SUPERIORITY||Confidence Interval|-3.2|||=|0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||-0.1|-6.3|= 0.0205
95924432|NCT04939428|191810288|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Confidence Interval|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||1.0|-5.4|
95924433|NCT04939428|191810289|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals|Confidence Interval|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.8||||||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||0.8|-6.9|
95924434|NCT04939428|191810290|OTHER|Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Adjusted differences and the corresponding confidence intervals are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age and household size.||2.0|-22.7|
95924435|NCT01018511|191810295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Overall power was 90% power for non-inferiority vs placebo for total IPSS. Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.73|0.11||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.11|-1.73|0.001
95924436|NCT01018511|191810295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Only the FDC(s) that succeeded in stage 1 were evaluated in stage 2 for total IPSS. If both FDCs succeeded in stage 1, then both FDCs proceeded to stage 2 and the Hochberg procedure was implemented at one-sided alpha = 0.025. If one FDC succeeded in stage 1, then only this FDC proceeded to stage 2 and the FDC vs. TOCAS alone for non-inferiority was assessed at one-sided alpha = 0.025/2 = 0.0125.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|0.64||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The non-inferiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.64|-1.22|0.028
95924437|NCT01018511|191810295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.048
95924438|NCT01018511|191810295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|||||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC vs. TOCAS on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS.||||0.483
95924439|NCT01018511|191810295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.9|-2.4|<0.001
95950604|NCT00795639|191872946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance tests of WHO Functional Class performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by Baseline 6MWD (less than 310 meters and greater than or equal to 310 meters) and PAH Etiology (Connective Tissue Disease and others).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores, and the p-value corresponding to ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistics were used.||Week 12||||0.2908
95950605|NCT00674765|191872963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.87||||||.388
95983452|NCT01148537|191941058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|9.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with average baseline as a covariate, and with gender and treatment as main effects||||9.9|5.4|< .001
95856593|NCT01929317|191672293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.24|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||1.24|-1.95|
95856594|NCT01929317|191672293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.75|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||0.75|-2.44|
95856595|NCT01929317|191672293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.58|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||0.58|-2.73|
95856596|NCT01929317|191672294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|6.71|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 2."|||6.71|-8.77|
95856597|NCT01929317|191672294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|8.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 4."|||8.22|-7.94|
95856598|NCT01929317|191672294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.49|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 6."|||6.49|-12.06|
95856599|NCT01929317|191672294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|5.14|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 8."|||5.14|-14.06|
95856600|NCT01929317|191672294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|3.96|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in the proportion of awake time spent Off for Week 12."|||3.96|-15.92|
95856601|NCT01929317|191672295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 2."|||1.21|-1.07|
95856602|NCT01929317|191672295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.7|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 4."|||1.70|-0.75|
95856603|NCT01929317|191672295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.86|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 6."|||1.86|-0.65|
95856604|NCT01929317|191672295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.22|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 8."|||2.22|-0.52|
95856605|NCT01929317|191672295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.26|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On for Week 12."|||2.26|-0.55|
95856606|NCT01929317|191672296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.36|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 2."|||1.36|-0.98|
95856607|NCT01929317|191672296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.78|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 4."|||1.78|-0.64|
95856608|NCT01929317|191672296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.84|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 6."|||1.84|-0.71|
95856609|NCT01929317|191672296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.39|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 8."|||2.39|-0.47|
95856610|NCT01929317|191672296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.33|||||"Estimated value and CI are presented for the change from Baseline in actual hours of awake time spent On without troublesome dyskinesias for Week 12."|||2.33|-0.63|
95856611|NCT04322526|191672306|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD signal in the rACC during the processing of contextual cues (pleasant \> unpleasant).||||0.01
95856612|NCT04322526|191672307|OTHER|Mechanistic hypothesis: naltrexone will block contextual processing.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in BOLD fMRI signal from the Placebo vs. the Naltrexone session.||||0.0002
95856613|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8084
95856614|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95950606|NCT02432183|191872966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|post-hoc comparison with Dunn's multiple comparison test: p=0.0326 between arm 1 and 2; p=0.0147 between arm 1 and 3||||||0.0061
95950607|NCT01124916|191872969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8728.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|853.129|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7028.846|10427.154|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the total cost of care between standard and robotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy six weeks after surgery.||10427.154|7028.846|<.001
95983453|NCT01148537|191941059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||2.6|-2.9|.936
95983454|NCT01148537|191941059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.1|4.2|< .001
95983455|NCT01148537|191941060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|10.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||10.9|5.5|< .001
95983456|NCT01148537|191941060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||10.5|4.3|< .001
95924440|NCT01018511|191810295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for IPSS using the Hochberg procedure involving 2 stages: Stage 1, superiority to placebo and Stage 2: non-inferiority to tamsulosin alone, with a switch to superiority where applicable.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of the FDC vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||-0.3|-1.9|0.006
95924441|NCT01018511|191810295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in total IPSS. With a sample size of 274 participants per arm, the overall power to meet this outcome measure was 97% power for superiority vs placebo for total IPSS.||-0.0|-1.6|0.039
95924442|NCT01018511|191810296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|0.0||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.0|-2.9|0.025
95924443|NCT01018511|191810296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|0.5||The primary analysis was adjusted for multiplicity for TUS using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. TOCAS in the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS. A FDC was regarded successful if it showed superiority vs. placebo for total IPSS, noninferiority vs. TOCAS alone for total IPSS along with superiority vs. TOCAS alone for TUS.||0.5|-2.3|0.162
95924444|NCT01018511|191810296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/6 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-2.5|-4.9|<0.001
95924445|NCT01018511|191810296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of FDC 0.4 mg/9 mg vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
95924446|NCT01018511|191810296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||The superiority of TOCAS vs. placebo on the change from baseline to end of treatment in TUS.||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
95856615|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0036
95983457|NCT01148537|191941061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||4.0|-1.4|.427
95983458|NCT01148537|191941061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|8.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||8.8|3.2|.001
95983459|NCT01148537|191941062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analysis||9.6|4.2|< .001
95983460|NCT01148537|191941062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 13 analysis||7.4|1.9|.006
95983461|NCT03596866|191941074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.424||P-value from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial central nervous system (CNS) metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|2-sided Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.424|0.658|=0.8672
95983462|NCT03596866|191941075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.592|||=|0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|2.652||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||2.652|0.956|=0.0713
95856616|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0033
95856617|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856618|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856619|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856620|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856621|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856622|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856623|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856624|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0124
95856625|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95924447|NCT01018511|191810297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
95983463|NCT03596866|191941076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||=|0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.761||P-value was based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test using the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Log Rank||The HR was obtained using the stratified Cox regression model with the same stratification factors.|||1.761|0.862|=0.2501
95983464|NCT03596866|191941077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||=|0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.15||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|BIRC Assessed||1.15|0.42|=0.1555
95983465|NCT03596866|191941077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.9||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio stratified by the stratification factors: presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Investigator Assessed||0.90|0.33|=0.0169
95983466|NCT03596866|191941080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||=|0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.84||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was stratified by best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator at randomization per IXRS.|||3.84|0.44|=0.6246
95983467|NCT03596866|191941082|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0778||||||P-value from a 2-sided stratified Gray's test using the stratification factors (at randomization per IxRS): presence of intracranial CNS metastases at baseline, and best prior response to crizotinib therapy as assessed by the investigator.|Gray's Test|P-value is for the event type: Intracranial Disease Progression without Prior Systemic Progression or Death.||||||=0.0778
95983468|NCT01961349|191941085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95983469|NCT01961349|191941085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95983470|NCT01961349|191941086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95983471|NCT01961349|191941086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95983472|NCT04770532|191941087|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.37|<0.0001
95983473|NCT00271596|191941124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.028|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.028|-0.361|0.092
95729498|NCT02308111|191429438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the interactive web response system (IWRS) as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.07|0.59|0.769
95924448|NCT01018511|191810297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.6|0.223
95983474|NCT00271596|191941125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.672|-0.003|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||-0.003|-0.672|0.048
95924449|NCT01018511|191810297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.8|-1.5|< 0.001
95924450|NCT01018511|191810297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
95924451|NCT01018511|191810297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
95924452|NCT01018511|191810298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|16.6|< 0.001
95924453|NCT01018511|191810298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|29.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.8|16.6|< 0.001
95924454|NCT01018511|191810298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|33.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.9|21.0|< 0.001
95924455|NCT01018511|191810298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||34.1|21.1|< 0.001
95924456|NCT01018511|191810298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||10.9|-2.2|0.189
95924457|NCT01018511|191810299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.3|-0.2|0.053
95924458|NCT01018511|191810299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|29.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||29.6|-0.2|0.053
95924459|NCT01018511|191810299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.0|4.1|0.012
95924460|NCT01018511|191810299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|33.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||33.4|4.1|0.012
95924461|NCT01018511|191810299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||18.7|-10.7|0.591
95924462|NCT01018511|191810300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.4|-0.6|0.616
95924463|NCT01018511|191810300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.7|0.319
95924464|NCT01018511|191810300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.6|-1.5|< 0.001
95924465|NCT01018511|191810300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
95924466|NCT01018511|191810300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|< 0.001
95924467|NCT01018511|191810301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.5|-0.3|0.591
95924468|NCT01018511|191810301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.1|0.102
95924469|NCT01018511|191810301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.6|0.204
95924470|NCT01018511|191810301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-0.4|0.936
95924471|NCT01018511|191810301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.8|0.081
95924472|NCT01018511|191810302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.3|0.511
95924473|NCT01018511|191810302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.8|-0.2|0.182
95924474|NCT01018511|191810302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.6|0.552
95983475|NCT00271596|191941126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.254|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic)||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.254|-0.810|0.302
95983476|NCT00271596|191941127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.246|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.246|-0.361|0.708
95983477|NCT00271596|191941128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.367|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.367|-0.229|0.646
95924475|NCT01018511|191810302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo||0.5|-0.4|0.891
95924476|NCT01018511|191810302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.8|0.215
95924477|NCT01018511|191810303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.1|-0.2|0.383
95924478|NCT01018511|191810303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.1|0.402
95983478|NCT00271596|191941129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.23||95.0|-0.554|0.135|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.135|-0.554|0.230
95924479|NCT01018511|191810303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.0|-0.3|0.021
95924480|NCT01018511|191810303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.584
95924481|NCT01018511|191810303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.166
95924482|NCT01018511|191810304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.187
95983479|NCT00271596|191941130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.642|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.642|-1.276|0.512
95729499|NCT02308111|191429439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.67|0.42|0.599
95983480|NCT00271596|191941131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.50|-4.30|0.12
95924483|NCT01018511|191810304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-1.0|0.203
95924484|NCT01018511|191810304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.090
95924485|NCT01018511|191810304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.1|-1.1|0.098
95924486|NCT01018511|191810304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.772
95924487|NCT01018511|191810305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-0.9|0.210
95924488|NCT01018511|191810305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.6|-0.5|0.775
95924489|NCT01018511|191810305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-1.2|0.010
95924490|NCT01018511|191810305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.3|-0.8|0.317
95924491|NCT01018511|191810305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.2|-0.9|0.196
95924492|NCT01018511|191810306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.9|0.009
95924493|NCT01018511|191810306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.8|0.045
95924494|NCT01018511|191810306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.001
95924495|NCT01018511|191810306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.011
95983481|NCT00271596|191941132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.91|||2-tailed linear treatment contrast|This was a predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.91|-1.87|0.49
95924496|NCT01018511|191810306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares men difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.5|-1.3|< 0.001
95924497|NCT01018511|191810307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
95924498|NCT01018511|191810307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.0|-0.4|0.021
95924499|NCT01018511|191810307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
95983482|NCT00271596|191941133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.04||Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed linear model with treatment-group-specific random subject effects: Predefined 2-tailed linear treatment contrast of intention-to-treat, with Kenward-Rogers correction (t statistic).||0.04|-5.04|0.05
95924500|NCT01018511|191810307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-0.2|-0.6|< 0.001
95924501|NCT01018511|191810307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.0|-0.3|0.139
95924502|NCT01018511|191810309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||0.2|-4.3|0.068
95924503|NCT01018511|191810309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||-0.4|-4.9|0.020
95924504|NCT01018511|191810309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||-2.5|-6.9|< 0.001
95924505|NCT01018511|191810309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||-3.1|-7.5|< 0.001
95924506|NCT01018511|191810309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||0.4|-4.8|0.022
95924507|NCT01018511|191810310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.2|0.7|0.011
95924508|NCT01018511|191810310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.8|0.2|0.035
95924509|NCT01018511|191810310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||7.3|2.8|< 0.001
95924510|NCT01018511|191810310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.8|2.3|< 0.001
95983483|NCT04707157|191941134|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.38|-2.76|
95924511|NCT01018511|191810310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.4|-0.2|0.068
95924512|NCT01018511|191810311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.7|0.5|0.013
95924513|NCT01018511|191810311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.3|0.1|0.043
95924514|NCT01018511|191810311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.5|2.4|< 0.001
95924515|NCT01018511|191810311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||6.1|1.9|< 0.001
95924516|NCT01018511|191810311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.9|-0.3|0.092
95983484|NCT04707157|191941135|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-2.14|
95983485|NCT04707157|191941136|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.25|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.25|-1.56|
95983486|NCT04707157|191941137|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-0.77|-3.22|
95924517|NCT01018511|191810312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.5||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||5.5|0.7|0.011
95924518|NCT01018511|191810312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.6|-1.2|0.314
95924519|NCT01018511|191810312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.9||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.9|1.2|0.003
95924520|NCT01018511|191810312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.1|-0.7|0.161
95924521|NCT01018511|191810312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.8|-1.9|0.708
95924522|NCT01018511|191810313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.3|0.1|0.043
95924523|NCT01018511|191810313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.0|-0.3|0.120
95924524|NCT01018511|191810313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||4.0|0.8|0.003
95924525|NCT01018511|191810313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate||Mean change vs placebo.||3.7|0.4|0.014
95924526|NCT01018511|191810313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||2.4|-0.9|0.384
95924527|NCT01018511|191810314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.4||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||4.4|0.8|0.004
95924528|NCT01018511|191810314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs TOCAS.||3.8|0.1|0.035
95924529|NCT01018511|191810314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.8||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.8|2.2|< 0.001
95924530|NCT01018511|191810314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||5.1|1.5|< 0.001
95924531|NCT01018511|191810314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.2||No adjustments to multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model, including treatment group and country as fixed factors, center as a random effect, and baseline as a covariate.||Mean change vs placebo.||3.2|-0.5|0.142
95924532|NCT01018511|191810315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.874
95924533|NCT01018511|191810315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS (superiority test).||||0.240
95924534|NCT01018511|191810315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.324
95924535|NCT01018511|191810315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.043
95924536|NCT01018511|191810315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo (superiority test).||||0.407
95924537|NCT01018511|191810322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
95924538|NCT01018511|191810322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||<.001
95924539|NCT01018511|191810322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
95924540|NCT01018511|191810322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
95924541|NCT01018511|191810322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.058
95924542|NCT01018511|191810323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.053
95924543|NCT01018511|191810323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.031
95924544|NCT01018511|191810323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
95924545|NCT01018511|191810323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
95924546|NCT01018511|191810323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.018
95924547|NCT01018511|191810324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.110
95924548|NCT01018511|191810324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs TOCAS.||||0.071
95924549|NCT01018511|191810324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
95924550|NCT01018511|191810324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||<.001
95924551|NCT01018511|191810324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Chi-squared|||Difference vs placebo.||||0.019
95924552|NCT04863898|191810342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-5.2|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-5.2|-7|
95924553|NCT04863898|191810346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||Calculated using a linear mixed effect regression model with random intercepts by individual Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||1.09|0.86|
95924554|NCT04863898|191810347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.6|||||LME regression, random intercepts by individual and fixed effects of participant characteristics. Difference = endline - baseline.|Using the PASS software program, we estimated the power for comparisons of scores from pre- to post-intervention, assuming a p-value of 0.05 (two-sided) and a final sample size of 131 with both measurements. We would have 85% power to detect a small-to-medium sized effect based on standardized mean difference (d=0.32).||-3.6|-4.7|
95924555|NCT00614744|191810350|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that it does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Bayesian log binomial models|Bayesian log binomial models were used to analyze the primary outcome of death or moderate/severe disability.|In log binomial models used Normal (0, sd=0.35) neutral prior in the log RR scale. Estimation used Normal weakly informative priors. Reported posterior medians \& 95% credible intervals for the RR above instead of confidence intervals.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|"We fitted all Bayesian models via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods (MCMC) using JAGS (version 3.4) and OpenBUGS (3.2.3) in R (version 3.2.5). For each analysis we ran 3 MCMC chains with starting values randomly drawn from the estimated parameters from a frequentist log binomial model. A burn-in of 1,000 iterations was used, with sampling from a further 10,000 iterations for each chain. To monitor convergence, trace plots and the Gelman-Rubin convergence diagnostic (Rhat) were used for all parameters.~For all analyses, the trace plots show good mixing of the 3 chains with Rhat \< 1.01 for all parameters, indicating convergence."|1.29|0.59|
95924556|NCT02806895|191810394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0062
95924557|NCT02806895|191810395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0432
95924558|NCT02806895|191810396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0414
95924559|NCT02806895|191810397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
95924560|NCT02806895|191810398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1435
95924561|NCT02806895|191810399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1796
95924562|NCT02806895|191810400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1094|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1094
95924563|NCT02806895|191810401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4531
95924564|NCT02806895|191810402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3593
95924565|NCT02806895|191810403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6072|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6072
95924566|NCT02806895|191810404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
95924567|NCT02806895|191810405|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95924568|NCT02806895|191810406|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95924569|NCT02806895|191810407|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95924570|NCT02806895|191810408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4116
95924571|NCT02806895|191810409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1991|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1991
95924572|NCT02806895|191810410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0806
95924573|NCT02806895|191810411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9391|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9391
95924574|NCT02806895|191810412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2116
95924575|NCT02806895|191810413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1604
95924576|NCT02806895|191810414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2144
95924577|NCT02806895|191810415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0387
95924578|NCT02806895|191810416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3426
95924579|NCT02806895|191810417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1531
95983487|NCT04707157|191941138|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-6.97|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-6.97|-31.22|
95924580|NCT02806895|191810418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5603|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5603
95924581|NCT02806895|191810419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4851
95924582|NCT02806895|191810420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0241
95924583|NCT00601965|191810421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test = 32.67, df = 3||||||<.001
95924584|NCT00601965|191810422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Beta = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.11||||||0.01
95924585|NCT01649427|191810423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95924586|NCT02735187|191810429|SUPERIORITY|A paired t-test was applied to test the primary hypothesis. In case the requirements for normality were not met, a non-parametric analysis (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was performed.||||||0.6469||||||A probability (P-Value) above 0.05 is considered not to be statistical significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6469
95924587|NCT02929069|191810511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.52|0.52
95924588|NCT02753530|191810597|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.24||Primary Estimand (Treatment Policy)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The baseline observation was the last observation recorded prior to the first dose of study medication. The change from baseline in IBMFRS total score was analyzed using a Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment interacting with visit and trial site as factors. Baseline IBMFRS total score interacting with visit was further included as covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||0.24|-2.23|0.1146
95924589|NCT02266329|191810623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.8||The significance of the study visit by treatment interaction with study visit coded as baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in headache (HA) frequency (1. Primary Outcome Measure) is based on linear mixed effects regression of outcome on study visit by treatment interaction with study participant as a random effect.||-0.8|-6.9|0.034
95924590|NCT02926937|191810637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.415|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.415|-0.975|<0.0001
95924591|NCT02926937|191810638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.565||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0166|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.1140|-1.0166|0.0141
95924592|NCT02926937|191810639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.346||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8853|0.1928|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups under Amendment 1 randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, country, treatment-by-country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.1928|-0.8853|0.2081
95924593|NCT02926937|191810640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1876|-0.9234|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.9234|-2.1876|<0.0001
95924594|NCT02926937|191810641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.478|1.476|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using analysis ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.476|-8.478|0.1680
95924595|NCT02926937|191810642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.78||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.311|1.753|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.753|-3.311|0.5467
95924596|NCT02926937|191810643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|-0.518|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.518|-5.869|0.0193
95924597|NCT02926937|191810644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.404|-0.676|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.676|-2.404|0.0005
95924598|NCT02926937|191810645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.17||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.050|-2.281|0.0406
95983488|NCT04707157|191941139|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.86|
95924599|NCT02926937|191810646|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|21.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||21.02|4.18|0.0037
95924600|NCT02926937|191810647|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|19.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum (randomization strata of HbA1c (\<=8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, \>=130 mmHg) at screening) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||30.00|8.39|0.0007
95983489|NCT04707157|191941140|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-269.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-624.98|86.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||86.24|-624.98|
95924601|NCT02926937|191810648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.354|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.354|-0.989|<0.0001
95924602|NCT01324882|191810683|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95924603|NCT00126113|191810684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
95924604|NCT00126113|191810685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis for main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95924605|NCT00126113|191810686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
95924606|NCT00126113|191810687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Analysis for main effect of group||||||>0.05
95924607|NCT00561574|191810690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924608|NCT00561574|191810690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924609|NCT00561574|191810691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924610|NCT00561574|191810691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924611|NCT00561574|191810692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924612|NCT00561574|191810692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924613|NCT00561574|191810693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3129||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3129
95924614|NCT00561574|191810693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3154||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3154
95924615|NCT00561574|191810694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924616|NCT00561574|191810694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924617|NCT00561574|191810695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924618|NCT00561574|191810695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924619|NCT00561574|191810696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95924620|NCT00561574|191810696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95924621|NCT00561574|191810697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0116
95924622|NCT00561574|191810697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
95924623|NCT00662909|191810710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.66|0.026
95924624|NCT00662909|191810710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.18||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.18|-0.82|<0.001
95924625|NCT00662909|191810711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.98|0.001
95924626|NCT00662909|191810711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.33||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.33|-1.07|<0.001
95950608|NCT01124916|191872970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.846||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.769|9.369|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in urinary distress between women assigned to LASC and those assigned to RASC six months after intervention as measured by the UDI.||9.369|-21.769|.43
95950609|NCT00595959|191872977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing to an expected value of 20% reduction from initial to post-laser||||0.001
95924627|NCT00662909|191810712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|17.9||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.9|4.4|0.001
95924628|NCT00662909|191810712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.7||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||17.7|4.2|0.002
95924629|NCT00662909|191810713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.15|-0.80|0.003
95924630|NCT00662909|191810713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.13||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.79|<0.001
95924631|NCT00662909|191810714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.77|0.022
95924632|NCT00662909|191810714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.24||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (5 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.24|-0.96|0.001
95924633|NCT01875250|191810781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.74
95924634|NCT02085356|191810806|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95924635|NCT02085356|191810807|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95924636|NCT02085356|191810808|OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.605
95924637|NCT02085356|191810809|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Chi-squared|||Attendance records could not be retrieved for most participants. However, this analysis was still conducted among those participants who had data.||||0.902
95924638|NCT02085356|191810810|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
95924639|NCT02085356|191810810|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
95924640|NCT01606124|191810825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5631
95924641|NCT01606124|191810826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1439
95924642|NCT01289119|191810872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.37|-0.78|<0.001
95924643|NCT01289119|191810872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.51||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin dose as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.51|-0.87|<0.001
95924644|NCT01289119|191810872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c with baseline metformin therapy status and baseline pioglitazone dose as covariates.||The analysis was conducted at the 2-sided 5% significance level without a multiplicity adjustment.||-0.28|-0.75|<0.001
95924645|NCT00530335|191810900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924646|NCT00530335|191810900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924647|NCT00530335|191810900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactivity/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924648|NCT00530335|191810900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924649|NCT00530335|191810901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Total ADHD Symptoms Score (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924650|NCT00530335|191810901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Inattentive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924651|NCT00530335|191810901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in Hyperactive/Impulsive Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924652|NCT00530335|191810901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value comparing difference in ADHD Index Subscale scores (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924653|NCT00530335|191810902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924654|NCT00530335|191810903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.749
95924655|NCT00530335|191810904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
95924656|NCT00530335|191810906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95924657|NCT00530335|191810906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924658|NCT00530335|191810906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for comparing differences in Color-Word Test number of correct responses (endpoint - baseline).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95924659|NCT01451814|191810938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.48|||Chi-squared|||||5.48|0.67|.22
95924660|NCT01451814|191810939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|22.1|||Chi-squared|||||22.1|0.84|.06
95924661|NCT01451814|191810940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.11|||Chi-squared|||||16.11|0.56|.18
95924662|NCT03107611|191810957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0817|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0817
95924663|NCT03107611|191810957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2874
95924664|NCT03107611|191810958|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: -0.20, +0.20|Difference in proportions|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.12|
95924665|NCT00742274|191810975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95924666|NCT01101165|191810976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|100.56|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||100.56|92.80|
95924667|NCT01101165|191810977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|97.24|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.24|92.42|
95924668|NCT01101165|191810978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|98.18|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||98.18|92.93|
95924669|NCT01970943|191810982|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6078||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95924670|NCT01970943|191810984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037786||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95924671|NCT03736785|191810988|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95924672|NCT03736785|191810988|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95924673|NCT03736785|191810988|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reported is within group comparison between Week 32 and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95924674|NCT03736785|191810989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.11|
95924675|NCT03736785|191810989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4%|LSMean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.10|
95924676|NCT03124108|191811008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-52.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-41.5|||ANCOVA|||||-41.5|-62.5|<0.001
95924677|NCT03124108|191811008|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-32.1|||ANCOVA|||||-32.1|-55.7|<0.001
95924678|NCT01219855|191811060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z-test cmpared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.0001
95924679|NCT01219855|191811061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
95924680|NCT01219855|191811062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
95924681|NCT01219855|191811062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.01
95924682|NCT01219855|191811063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effect model|||||||<0.0001
95924683|NCT01219855|191811064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||||||<0.05
95924684|NCT01219855|191811065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test compared 2 independ. proportions|||The proportion of subjects achieving a ≥20% decrease in plasma iPTH at EOT was greater in the CTAP101 Capsules 60 and 90 μg groups compared to the corresponding placebo group.||||<0.001
95924685|NCT00517933|191811161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95924686|NCT00517933|191811163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|37.3|||Regression, Linear|||||37.3|-3.9|0.11
95924687|NCT00517933|191811164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
95924688|NCT00517933|191811165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.25|0.006
95924689|NCT00517933|191811167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.05|0.70
95924690|NCT00517933|191811169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.1|0.04
95924691|NCT00517933|191811171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.81|0.16
95924692|NCT00517933|191811173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-7.3|0.01
95924693|NCT00517933|191811175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.9|-10.6|0.02
95924694|NCT00517933|191811177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-7.2|0.04
95924695|NCT00517933|191811179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|-7.8|0.07
95924696|NCT00517933|191811181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||0.06|-0.01|0.18
95924697|NCT00517933|191811183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-2.8|0.37
95924698|NCT00517933|191811187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.0|||Regression, Linear|||||5.0|0.8|0.008
95924699|NCT00517933|191811189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-2.1|0.86
95924700|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.282||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.344|3.875|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||3.875|1.344|0.002
95924701|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.977|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||4.977|1.621|<0.05
95924702|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.871||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.899|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.899|1.207|0.005
95924703|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.879||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.879|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||AIDS-defining malignancies||2.879|1.227|0.004
95924704|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.943||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.191|3.168|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||3.168|1.191|0.008
95924705|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.459||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.454|4.159|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||4.159|1.454|0.001
95924706|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.776||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.199|2.631|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.631|1.199|0.004
95924707|NCT01078246|191811202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|2.717|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||Non-AIDS-defining malignancies||2.717|1.274|0.001
95924708|NCT01078246|191811203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.807||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.168|||Poisson regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.168|0.557|0.255
95924709|NCT01078246|191811203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.376|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.376|0.597|0.646
95924710|NCT01078246|191811203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.268||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.795|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.795|0.895|0.182
95924711|NCT01078246|191811203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.257||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.768|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+), and Hepatitis B/C status.||||1.768|0.894|0.188
95924712|NCT01078246|191811204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.016||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.297|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.297|0.796|0.897
95924713|NCT01078246|191811204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.287||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.690|0.980|0.070
95924714|NCT01078246|191811204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.067||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.339|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.339|0.850|0.575
95924715|NCT01078246|191811204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.319|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.319|0.847|0.626
95924716|NCT01078246|191811206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.551|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.551|0.274|<0.0001
95924717|NCT01078246|191811206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.707|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||0.707|0.314|<0.05
95924718|NCT01078246|191811206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|2.47|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.470|1.102|0.015
95983490|NCT04707157|191941141|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.29|-0.22|
95856626|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0588
95856627|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0143
95856628|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1025||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1025
95856629|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0001
95856630|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1138||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.1138
95856631|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0011
95856632|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856633|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0522
95856634|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8185||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.8185
95859645|NCT01600170|191677208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.45||||||Threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.45
95924719|NCT01078246|191811206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.622||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.425|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.425|1.085|0.018
95924720|NCT01078246|191811207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.517|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.517|0.370|0.423
95924721|NCT01078246|191811207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.208||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.612|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.612|0.559|0.631
95924722|NCT01078246|191811207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.845||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.561|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.561|0.458|0.592
95924723|NCT01078246|191811207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.850|0.565|0.943
95924724|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.708||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.08|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.080|0.464|0.109
95924725|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.296|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||1.296|0.486|0.356
95924726|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.556||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.37|||Poisson Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.370|1.022|0.039
95924727|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.361|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, propensity score, and treatment regimen (1st, 2nd, 3rd+).||||2.361|1.036|0.033
95924728|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.437|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 1st treatment regimen.||||3.437|0.861|0.125
95924729|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.155|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 2nd treatment regimen.||||2.155|0.517|0.881
95924730|NCT01078246|191811208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.077||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|5.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|The analysis included adjustments for raltegravir exposure, and propensity score, and was stratified by the 3rd+ treatment regimen.||||5.05|0.854|0.107
95924731|NCT04807517|191811210|OTHER|Within-group test for 16-week change|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Repeated measures linear regression||||||<0.001
95924732|NCT00819234|191811235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons.||-1.54|-12.93|0.0135
95924733|NCT00819234|191811235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||-1.21|-11.89|0.0168
95924734|NCT00819234|191811235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment comparisons between each active treatment and placebo. Statistical tests performed two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between each active treatment and the placebo treatment. The primary analysis did not incorporate any adjustment for multiple comparisons||0.23|-11.27|0.0595
95924735|NCT00813488|191811277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2|||Mixed effects ANOVA crossover model|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.20|0.06|0.0004
95924736|NCT00813488|191811278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.05|-0.01|0.2242
95950610|NCT02077374|191872989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in mean change in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-2.5|-30.7|0.0195
95950611|NCT02077374|191872991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change in aspartate aminotransferase (AST) from baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||11.2|-14.5|0.8724
95983491|NCT02969915|191941142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.26||||||||2.26|0.64|
95856635|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the Post-Intervention questionnaire.||||0.0005
95856636|NCT02205736|191672347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-primary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Subjects recorded True/False answers to Q25 at Baseline and Post-Intervention; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The contingency table of 329 responses to Q25 displayed the following: N=260 Correct at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (79.0%), N=7 Correct at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (2.1%), N=49 Incorrect at Baseline and Correct at Post-Intervention (14.9%), N=13 Incorrect at Baseline and Incorrect at Post-Intervention (4.0%).||||<.0001
95856637|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 1 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2482
95856638|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 2 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856639|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 3 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0050
95856640|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 4 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0423
95856641|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 5 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856642|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 6 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856643|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 7 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856644|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 8 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
95950612|NCT02077374|191872992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-336.0|55.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for cCK18/M30 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||55|-336|0.1149
95983492|NCT02969915|191941143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.9||||||||1.90|0.91|
95983493|NCT02969915|191941144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95||||||||1.95|0.70|
95983494|NCT02969915|191941145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95||||||||1.95|0.85|
95983495|NCT02969915|191941146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75||||||||1.75|0.79|
95983496|NCT02969915|191941147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76||||||||5.76|0.38|
95983497|NCT02969915|191941148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36||||||||1.36|0.68|
95983498|NCT02969915|191941149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.46||||||||2.46|0.77|
95983499|NCT02969915|191941150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.8||||||||1.80|0.09|
95924737|NCT00813488|191811279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.11|0.01|0.0106
95983500|NCT00073528|191941155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio wase based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
95983501|NCT00073528|191941156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||p-value is from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for site of disease and time since prior adjuvant endocrine therapy at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment Hazard Ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||0.96|0.53|0.019
95983502|NCT04580446|191941189|OTHER|Descriptive analysis used to identify the dose level associated with ≤1 of 6 participants experiencing a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), consistent with standard 3+3 design methodology.|Maximally Tolerated Dose/Fractionation|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD/fractionation determined as 46.5 Gy in 15 fractions based on incidence of DLTs during dose escalation (3 + 3 design)|"Estimation Parameter: Maximally Tolerated Dose/Fractionation Description: The maximally tolerated dose (MTD)/fractionation of hypofractionated radiation therapy was determined based on the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) observed during the dose-escalation phase.~Estimate: 46.5 Gy × 15 fractions"||||
95983503|NCT00243386|191941219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to compare the means of the transformed data. The null-hypothesis tested was H0: X'A(PK-driven prophylaxis) - X'B (standard prophylaxis) = 0 (i.e., no difference for treatment under the 2 prophylactic regimens. X' = (ABR+0.5)\^(1/2)||||0.6016
95983504|NCT00243386|191941220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-Test|||||||<0.0001
95983505|NCT00243386|191941221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95983506|NCT00243386|191941222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||2-sided paired T-tests were done comparing transformed annualized bleeding rates between On-Demand and Prophylaxis regimens.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95983507|NCT00243386|191941223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4924||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
95983508|NCT00243386|191941244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1467||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1467
95983509|NCT00243386|191941245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0007
95983510|NCT00243386|191941246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Due to multiple hypotheses testing results, adjusted alpha values are set to α\*=0.005 (0.05/10). Adjustments take into account 10 hypotheses tests between On-Demand and any Prophylaxis. Statistically significant results are considered p-values \< α\*|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
95983511|NCT00243386|191941247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95983512|NCT04995055|191941249|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-9.5|-21.2|
95983513|NCT04995055|191941250|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
95983514|NCT04995055|191941251|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-2.1|-4.9|
95983515|NCT04995055|191941252|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||0.4|0.2|
95983516|NCT04995055|191941254|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- senofilcon A|||-1.9|-4.4|
95983517|NCT01721057|191941300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
95983518|NCT02426476|191941341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
95983519|NCT02426476|191941342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Group by Time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95924738|NCT00813488|191811280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID30 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.40|.21|<0.0001
95983520|NCT02426476|191941343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Group by Time Interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models for repeated measures (PROC MIXED in SAS) were used to assess the effects of intervention group, time, and the group by time interaction. A directional (one-sided) hypothesis was tested for the Group-by-Time interaction. The covariance matrix that minimized the Akaike Information Criterion was used. Each outcome was evaluated separately. Models were adjusted for baseline depression score and race.||||<0.01
95983521|NCT02064920|191941344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in SD from Week 4 to Week 16|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.039|||||SD of average OCL repeated measurements after 12 weeks of treatment for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined is hypothesized to be ≤ 0.1.|Change from Week 4 to Week 16 in Standard Deviation (SD) of OCL for Placebo + Donezepil treatment groups combined||0.039|-0.031|
95983522|NCT00943579|191941348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. there were no transformations.||||>.05
95924739|NCT00813488|191811281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||.37|0.18|<0.0001
95924740|NCT00813488|191811282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.27||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.27|0.08|0.0002
95924741|NCT00813488|191811289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
95924742|NCT00813488|191811290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|.55|<0.0001
95983523|NCT03996876|191941368|SUPERIORITY|Given the relatively small sample size, results of our inferential statistical tests should be interpreted with caution.|F Statistic|1.032||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|We conducted a two-way mixed ANOVA with intervention as the between-subjects and time as the within-subjects variable.|The F Statistic reported is for the interaction between Intervention and Time.|||||0.322
95983524|NCT00121108|191941371|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Fisher Exact|||||0.21|0.08|<0.001
95983525|NCT05470465|191941451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with paroxetine compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.1||<0.001
95983526|NCT05470465|191941451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone with escitalopram compared to oxycodone alone, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.001
95924743|NCT00813488|191811291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5575
95924744|NCT00813488|191811292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0981
95924745|NCT00813488|191811293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0443
95924746|NCT00813488|191811294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
95924747|NCT00813488|191811295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
95924748|NCT00813488|191811296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0018
95924749|NCT00813488|191811297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.58|0.9||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.90|0.58|<0.0001
95924750|NCT00813488|191811299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1464||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.3|0.6|0.7012
95924751|NCT00813488|191811300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0704||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.8|0.6545
95924752|NCT00813488|191811301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2544||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.0|0.0407
95924753|NCT00813488|191811302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5745||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.2|0.0007
95924754|NCT00813488|191811303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5828||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.4|1.0|0.0372
95924755|NCT00813488|191811304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3722||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.5|0.7|0.3099
95924756|NCT00813488|191811305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8434||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.5|.5|0.5777
95924757|NCT00813488|191811306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.6|0.9567
95924758|NCT00813488|191811307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1366||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|0.8|0.4253
95924759|NCT00813488|191811308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4269||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.1|0.0038
95924760|NCT00813488|191811309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5118||||0.0012||95.0|1.2|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.2|0.0012
95924761|NCT00813488|191811310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5826||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.2|1.1|0.0074
95924762|NCT00813488|191811311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.059||||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.6|0.8444
95924763|NCT00813488|191811312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
95924764|NCT00813488|191811313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.5|1.2|<0.0001
95924765|NCT03499600|191811328|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
95993562|NCT00348140|191963295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||-0.1|-4.7|0.043
95924766|NCT03499600|191811328|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on caregiver satisfaction with the intake.||||.68
95924767|NCT03499600|191811328|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed.This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider perceptions of the extent to which the provider understood the caregivers' values or what is important to them.||||.03
95924768|NCT03499600|191811328|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. This linear regressions tested condition effects on provider satisfaction with the intake.||||<.05
95924769|NCT03499600|191811330|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on therapeutic alliance.||||.93
95924770|NCT03499600|191811330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Tested the moderation effects of language of service reception and condition on therapeutic alliance.||||.90
95924771|NCT03499600|191811331|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery. Baseline ECBI score was included as a covariate for the treatment response analyses.||||||0.171|||||||Regression, Logistic|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A logistic regression tested condition effects on treatment response.||||.171
95924772|NCT03499600|191811331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Testes the effects of the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on treatment response.||||<.05
95924773|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Linear regressions tested condition effects on session attendance.||||.38
95924774|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on session attendance.||||.01
95924775|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on homework completion. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.56
95924776|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analyses tested the moderation effect of language of service delivery and condition on homework completion.||||<.01
95924777|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. Logistic regressions tested condition effects on initial session attendance. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.40
95924778|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on initial session attendance.||||.01
95924779|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. A Logistic regression tested condition effects on completion of first treatment module. Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||.03
95924780|NCT03499600|191811332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyses tested the moderation of language of service delivery and condition on completion of first treatment module.||||.03
95983527|NCT05470465|191941452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.1||To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.1||0.002
95924781|NCT03499600|191811333|SUPERIORITY|Due to condition differences all analyses controlled for length of intake assessment (in minutes), site, caregiver race/ethnicity, daily stress, and language of assessment delivery.||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested condition effects on treatment satisfaction.||||.854
95924782|NCT03499600|191811334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Regression, Linear|||A power analysis assuming an alpha level = 0.05, beta = 0.2, and power = 0.8, identified a sample ≥82 participants was needed to identify small-to-medium effects (i.e., OR\~2.5).Intent-to-treat analyses were employed. linear regressions tested change in ECBI score from baseline to post treatment.||||.319
95924783|NCT03860077|191811359|SUPERIORITY|Average cigarettes per day was positively skewed, with a non-normal residual distribution in a mixed model analysis specifying a normal (Gaussian) outcome distribution. Therefore, this outcome was recoded to integers and modeled as a count with a negative binomial distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = 0.35.|These are results of a 2-group (VLNC \& NNC) x 2 repeated measures (Baseline \& Week 4) mixed effects model to test the effect of the randomization group (VLNC vs. NNC) on change in cigarette use and alternative tobacco product (ATP) use from Baseline to Week 4. Group (VLNC vs. NNC) is a fixed, between-subjects focal predictor. Timepoint (Baseline vs. Week 4) is a fixed, within-subjects repeated measure. Subject is a random effect, accounting for variability in Baseline cigarette and ATP use.||2.19|0.92|.111
95924784|NCT03860077|191811360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.34.|This outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.||4.75|.11|.721
95924785|NCT03860077|191811361|SUPERIORITY|Frequencies of non-combustible alternative product use (ATP) were bimodal with peaks at 0 (no use) and 7 (daily use). Therefore, this outcome was recoded as a dichotomous outcome with a binary distribution and log link. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||The reported value is the standard error of the mean for the non-exponentiated estimate = - 0.56.|||3.99|.08|.564
95924786|NCT03860077|191811362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The study cigarette outcome is modeled with a normal, Gaussian distribution. The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group. Baseline in this analysis is average number of usual brand cigarettes at baseline, prior to randomization.||3.42|-2.92|.876
95924787|NCT03860077|191811363|SUPERIORITY|The focal test is the difference in change from Baseline to Week 4 (i.e., Time) in the VLNC vs. NNC condition (i.e., Group), which is a cross-level interactive effect of Time and Group.|Slope|-2166.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1753.48||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5743.04|1409.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1409.47|-5743.04|.226
95924788|NCT00430677|191811408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.03||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.03|0.60|0.746
95924789|NCT00430677|191811408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83||The median time to confirmed CRR was not estimable due to the low number of events. However, the time to confirmed CRR was compared between the abatacept and placebo treatment regimens using a score test.|Regression, Cox||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value (based on Score Test) for the hazard ratio is determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||2.83|0.89|0.118
95924790|NCT00430677|191811411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.78|0.91|
95924791|NCT00430677|191811411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77|||||Point Estimate, 95% CI for the hazard ratio was determined by a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment as a covariate and stratified by prior treatment status.|||1.77|0.91|
95924792|NCT00430677|191811417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|21.3||||||||21.3|0.68|
95924793|NCT00430677|191811417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.59||||||||1.59|0.49|
95924794|NCT00430677|191811419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.19|-0.13|
95924795|NCT00430677|191811419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and randomization strata (prior treatment status) and baseline measurements as covariates.|||0.14|-0.18|
95924796|NCT05570006|191811465|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.4|||||ONE_SIDED|||||Bayesian method||||Compared to historical placebo||||
95924797|NCT05298111|191811471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95924798|NCT05298111|191811472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
95924799|NCT05298111|191811473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||< 0.001
95924800|NCT05298111|191811474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||0.001
95924801|NCT05298111|191811475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.894
95924802|NCT05298111|191811476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.629
95924803|NCT05298111|191811477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.653
95924804|NCT05298111|191811478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.624
95924805|NCT05298111|191811479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.414
95924806|NCT05298111|191811480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.105
95924807|NCT01280591|191811498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.8|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-106.8|0.0002
95924808|NCT01280591|191811499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95924809|NCT01280591|191811500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|112.7|||ANCOVA|||||112.7|28.1|0.0001
95924810|NCT01280591|191811501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|19.7|||ANCOVA|||||19.7|3.7|0.0007
95924811|NCT01280591|191811502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95924812|NCT01280591|191811503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
95924813|NCT01280591|191811504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0321
95924814|NCT01280591|191811505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
95993563|NCT00348140|191963295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 12||0.1|-4.5|0.056
95924815|NCT01280591|191811506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95924816|NCT01280591|191811507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
95924817|NCT01280591|191811508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95924818|NCT01280591|191811509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95924819|NCT01280591|191811510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95924820|NCT01280591|191811511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
95924821|NCT01280591|191811512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
95924822|NCT01280591|191811513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95924823|NCT01280591|191811514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
95924824|NCT01280591|191811515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0047
95924825|NCT01280591|191811516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0053
95924826|NCT01280591|191811518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2734
95924827|NCT00812877|191811574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.66||A clustered permutation test with 10,000 random permutations based on the log rank test statistic was used for the primary treatment comparison to account for censoring and to ensure proper test size given the number of practices.|Log Rank||A confirmatory analysis, adjusted for patient, dentist, and tooth characteristics, and follow-up time, was performed using marginal proportional hazards regression with robust standard error estimates accounting for clustering by practice.|||4.66|1.19|.046
95924828|NCT04304534|191811608|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.052|||=|0.8439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.687|1.612|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.612|0.687|= 0.8439
95924829|NCT04304534|191811608|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.096|||=|0.7562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.781|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.781|0.674|= 0.7562
95924830|NCT04304534|191811608|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.008|||=|0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.614|1.656|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.656|0.614|= 0.978
95924831|NCT04304534|191811609|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.9158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|1.347|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Pooled Asundexian group versus Placebo group||1.347|0.713|= 0.9158
95924832|NCT04304534|191811609|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.5633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.577|1.302|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||1.302|0.577|= 0.5633
95924833|NCT04304534|191811609|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.587|1.306|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||1.306|0.587|= 0.584
95924834|NCT04304534|191811609|OTHER|HR was only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202|||=|0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.747|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.747|0.828|= 0.417
95924835|NCT04304534|191811610|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.322|5.05||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||5.050|0.322|
95924836|NCT04304534|191811610|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.479|8.273||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||8.273|0.479|
95924837|NCT04304534|191811611|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.819||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg versus Placebo group||1.819|0.696|
95924838|NCT04304534|191811611|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.031||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.031|0.686|
95924839|NCT04304534|191811611|OTHER|HRs were only calculated if at least three events occurred in one of the compared groups and at least one event in each of the compared treatment groups. The competing event was non-CV death for events that include CV death.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|1.866||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||1.866|0.613|
95924840|NCT04304534|191811614|OTHER|For all-cause mortality there is no competing event.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.266|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.603|2.658|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||2.658|0.603|= 0.6016
95924841|NCT04304534|191811614|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.996|||=|0.9945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.414|2.401|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.401|0.414|= 0.9945
95924842|NCT04304534|191811614|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.506|||=|0.4085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|3.405|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.405|0.667|= 0.4085
95924843|NCT01639443|191811643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of percentage of clinic capacity filled. We are powered to detect a 0.5 Standard Deviation (SD) difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||<0.0001
95924844|NCT01639443|191811644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level. Our null hypothesis is that the lag time between scheduling and appointment, measured in days, will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.3 SD difference in lag time (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 84%), accounting for the large sampling ratio (approximately 14:1).||||0.29
95924845|NCT01639443|191811645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||We would have only expected 2 patients to be bumped in the Experimental Group, and observed 0.|Fisher Exact|||We did not explicitly power this study to detect differences in the number of service bumps, but we can compare them using Fisher's Exact Test||||0.49
95924846|NCT01639443|191811646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated this measure on the patient level, but were hampered by a large sampling ratio (more than 50:1). Our null hypothesis is that the number of polyps detected will not differ between groups. We are powered to detect a 0.25 SD difference in polyp count per patient (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 80%).||||0.05
95924847|NCT01639443|191811647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of length of workday. We are powered to detect approximately 0.5 SD difference in workday length in hours (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.024
95924848|NCT01639443|191811648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We counted days containing at least one Fast-tracked participant as a Fast-tracked day for the sake of analysis at the clinic level. Our null hypothesis is that these days will not differ in terms of cost per day. We are powered to detect a 0.5 SD difference in clinic capacity (Type I error rate = 5%; Power = 81%), with a equal ratio of Experimental and Control days."||||0.11
95924849|NCT02042443|191811649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.03|||Log Rank|||||4.03|1.01|0.05
95924850|NCT02138916|191811653|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.15|0.8|0.6490
95924851|NCT02138916|191811653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.00|0.69|0.0525
95924852|NCT02138916|191811654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.86|0.5236
95924853|NCT02138916|191811654|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.27|0.82|0.8812
95924854|NCT02138916|191811655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.048|-0.035|0.7550
95924855|NCT02138916|191811655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.062|-0.021|0.3285
95924856|NCT02138916|191811656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.865|-2.887|0.2906
95924857|NCT02138916|191811656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.136||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.251|-4.020|0.0264
95924858|NCT02138916|191811657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.70|-1.08|0.6782
95924859|NCT02138916|191811657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-1.70|0.0753
95924860|NCT02138916|191811658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.585||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.089|-1.260|0.0889
95924861|NCT02138916|191811658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.703||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.028|-1.378|0.0413
95924862|NCT02138916|191811659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.348||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.032|-0.728|0.0728
95924863|NCT02138916|191811659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.107|-0.868|0.0121
95924864|NCT02138916|191811660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.006|-0.077|0.0235
95924865|NCT02138916|191811660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.008|-0.080|0.0158
95924866|NCT02138916|191811664|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.34|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.34|0.89|0.4080
95924867|NCT02138916|191811664|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.21|0.80|0.8688
95924868|NCT02138916|191811665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.22|0.66|0.4850
95924869|NCT02138916|191811665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.21|0.65|0.4489
95924870|NCT02138916|191811667|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.06||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.53|0.73|0.7733
95924871|NCT02138916|191811667|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89|||Nagative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.89|0.39|0.0114
95924872|NCT02387749|191811684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.005
95924873|NCT00836810|191811719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priory test for statistical significance was P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924874|NCT00836810|191811719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95924875|NCT00836810|191811719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set as P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95924876|NCT00836810|191811720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05||||||<0.001
95924877|NCT00836810|191811720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95924878|NCT00836810|191811720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95924879|NCT00836810|191811721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95924880|NCT00836810|191811721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0906||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0906
95924881|NCT00836810|191811721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
95924882|NCT00836810|191811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95924883|NCT00836810|191811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95924884|NCT00836810|191811722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95924885|NCT00836810|191811723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95924886|NCT00836810|191811723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95924887|NCT00836810|191811723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95924888|NCT00836810|191811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95924889|NCT00836810|191811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95924890|NCT00836810|191811724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||A priori statistical significance set at P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95950613|NCT02077374|191872993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-250.0||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.0|63.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis for the difference in change for caspase 3/7 from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and Placebo||63|-590|0.1365
95924891|NCT00389519|191811733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||two-sided test|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||"Planned interim efficacy analysis: 80 placebo and 80 high-dose ramipril subjects provided 93% power, alpha=0.032, to detect 5 mmHg difference in primary outcome. SD of 8.5 mmHg assumed. Alpha of 0.032 required for the planned interim efficacy analysis.~If study continued: 450 total subjects would provide 90% power, alpha=0.027, to detect 3 mmHg difference between placebo and combined ramipril dose groups. Alpha of 0.027 required for the final analysis."||||0.044
95924892|NCT00389519|191811734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||two-sided, unadjusted|ANCOVA|test from contrast statement from full model||||||0.006
95924893|NCT03425539|191811753|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.42||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.23|||ANCOVA|||||1.23|-0.4|0.3189
95924894|NCT03425539|191811754|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the baseline value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|-873.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.53|-649.53|||ANCOVA|||||-649.53|-1097.53|<0.0001
95924895|NCT03425539|191811755|OTHER|An ANCOVA was applied to the change from baseline to Month 6 including the terms value, the two stratification factors (sex and ERT treatment status), and the treatment group.|LS Mean difference vs. placebo|0.31||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|-0.53|0.4676
95924896|NCT03425539|191811756|OTHER||Win ratio|1.0||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89|||ANCOVA|||The p-value was derived from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value and stratified by sex and ERT treatment status.||1.89|0.57|0.8986
95924897|NCT00946192|191811763|OTHER|Least square means||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
95924898|NCT00946192|191811764|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95924899|NCT02014558|191811800|OTHER||Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.19||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||1.19|0.788|
95993564|NCT00348140|191963295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||2.1|-2.8|0.758
95924900|NCT02014558|191811800|OTHER||Slope|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.43||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.43|1.00|
95924901|NCT02014558|191811801|OTHER||Slope|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|0.988||||||Dose Proportionality (Single Dose / Day -2) was evaluated using the power model.||0.988|0.629|
95924902|NCT02014558|191811801|OTHER||Slope|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.41||||||Dose Proportionality (Multiple Dose / Cycle 1 Day 15) was evaluated using the power model.||1.41|1.02|
95924903|NCT02014558|191811839|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.82|240.48||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of least squares (LS) means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||240.48|49.82|
95924904|NCT02014558|191811840|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|149.9||||||90.0|74.88|300.06||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||300.06|74.88|
95924905|NCT02014558|191811841|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|179.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between midazolam alone and midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||179.25|69.54|
95924906|NCT02014558|191811842|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.41|210.52||||||Statistical Comparison of Midazolam Exposure after Administration of Midazolam Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam alone and 1-hydroxymidazolam/midazolam + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||210.52|72.41|
95924907|NCT02014558|191811847|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.29|117.26||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||117.26|75.29|
95924908|NCT02014558|191811848|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.6|112.12||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||112.12|74.60|
95924909|NCT02014558|191811849|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.19|128.7||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||128.70|74.19|
95924910|NCT02014558|191811852|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|106.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|132.81||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||132.81|85.28|
95983528|NCT05470465|191941452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.5||To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, it is necessary that the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.5||0.003
95983529|NCT05470465|191941453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.1||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-4.1||<0.001
95983530|NCT05470465|191941453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 6 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.6||<0.001
95983531|NCT05470465|191941454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-5.9||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-5.9||<0.001
95983532|NCT05470465|191941454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.7||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of oxycodone and escitalopram compared to oxycodone, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of oxycodone and paroxetine compared to oxycodone and placebo at day 12 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-2.7||0.003
95993565|NCT00348140|191963295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 36||0.5|-4.5|0.109
95993566|NCT00348140|191963295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.0|-5.2|0.050
95924911|NCT02014558|191811854|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|83.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.53|151.39||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||151.39|46.53|
95924912|NCT02014558|191811856|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|82.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.25|170.48||||||Statistical Assessment of the Effect of Gilteritinib on Cephalexin Pharmacokinetics after Administration of Cephalexin Alone or Coadministered with Gilteritinib: The difference of LS means of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between cephalexin alone and cephalexin + gilteritinib and its 90% CI are backtransformed to the raw scale and are expressed as percent.||170.48|40.25|
95924913|NCT04159506|191811867|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||||||<0.05
95924914|NCT04159506|191811868|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
95924915|NCT04159506|191811869|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No adjustments were made given this was a pilot study focused on feasibility and acceptability.||This pilot study was designed mostly to determine feasibility and acceptability of TEE, AC, and study methods. Nonetheless, Paired Difference Signed Rank Tests were used to compare conditions given small sample and non-normal distribution of data.||||<0.05
95924916|NCT03068468|191811897|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||28-item:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on a mixed model for repeated measures model (MMRM), with change from baseline in 28-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline 28-item PSPRS, baseline 28-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.6|-2.0|0.8483
95924917|NCT03068468|191811897|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.28||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.94|||MMRM|||15-items:Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in 15-item PSPRS total score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time(categorical), treatment groupby-time interaction, baseline 15-item PSPRS, baseline 15-item PSPRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test(\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.94|-1.50|0.6503
95924918|NCT03068468|191811899|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|-1.0|0.6031
95924919|NCT03068468|191811900|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with CGI-C as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.7743
95924920|NCT03068468|191811901|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.038||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.112|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-cognitive composite battery as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery, baseline PSP-cognitive composite battery by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.112|-0.036|0.3180
95924921|NCT03068468|191811902|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in RBANS as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline RBANS , baseline RBANS by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds and region.||1.4|-1.8|0.8270
95924922|NCT03068468|191811903|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||MMRM|||Physical scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSP-QoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.3|-3.6|0.9304
95983533|NCT05470465|191941455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-6.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-6.5||<0.001
95924923|NCT03068468|191811903|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.7|||MMRM|||Mental scale score: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||3.7|-2.8|0.7859
95993567|NCT00348140|191963295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Thermometer score Week 48||-0.9|-6.0|0.009
95924924|NCT03068468|191811903|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5|||MMRM|||Satisfaction With Your Life Today: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in PSPQoL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-bytime interaction, baseline for PSP-QoL, baseline PSP-QoL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.5|-5.8|0.4297
95856645|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 9 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.7456
95856646|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 10 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856647|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 11 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0028
95856648|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0707||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 12 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0707
95856649|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 13 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0026
95856650|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 14 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
95856651|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6547||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 15 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.6547
95856652|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 16 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.1797
95924925|NCT03068468|191811904|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.0||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in SEADL as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for SEADL , baseline SEADL by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||5.2|-1.1|0.2084
95924926|NCT03068468|191811905|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CGI-S as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for CGI-S, baseline CGI-S by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.1|-0.2|0.5701
95950614|NCT02077374|191872994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-327.0||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.0|-7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges-Lehmann estimator|Statistical Analysis of the difference in the change in full-length cytokeratine 18 (flCK18/M65) from Baseline to Day 28/ET between IDN-6556 and placebo||-7|-628|0.0471
95729500|NCT02308111|191429440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.43||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.43|0.18|0.745
95856653|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 17 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.2850
95856654|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 18 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0606
95924927|NCT03068468|191811906|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Phonemic Fluency Test as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test, baseline Phonemic Fluency Test by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.8|-0.0|0.0517
95856655|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 19 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0045
95856656|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9068||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 20 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.9068
95856657|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 21 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.4142
95924928|NCT03068468|191811907|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.7|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Letter Number Sequence as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline Letter Number Sequence, baseline Letter Number Sequence by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.7|0.0|0.0387
95924929|NCT03068468|191811908|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.9815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.3|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 1: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color trails Test 1 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 1, baseline Color Trails Test 1 by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||8.3|-8.1|0.9815
95924930|NCT03068468|191811908|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.6|||MMRM|||Color Trails Test 2: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in Color Trails Test 2 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for Color Trails Test 2, baseline Color Trails Test 2 by time interaction, and region.||5.6|-5.7|0.9869
95924931|NCT03068468|191811909|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MoCA as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MoCA, baseline MoCA by time interaction,baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||1.2|-0.2|0.1763
95924932|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.021||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.726|0.684|||MMRM|||Ventricles Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.684|-0.726|0.9527
95950615|NCT01138657|191873007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.70|0.36|<0.001
95924933|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.514||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.506|2.478|||MMRM|||Whole Brain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||2.478|-3.506|0.7357
95924934|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.004||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.014|||MMRM|||Midbrain Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.014|-0.023|0.6439
95924935|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.04|||MMRM|||Pons Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.040|-0.039|0.9864
95924936|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.001||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.006|||MMRM|||Cerebellar Peduncle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.006|-0.004|0.7529
95924937|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.006||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.038|||MMRM|||Third Ventricle Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.038|-0.025|0.6850
95924938|NCT03068468|191811911|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.041||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.598|||MMRM|||Frontal Lobe Volume: Adjusted mean for each treatment group, difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MRI region as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time (categorical), treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline for MRI region, baseline MRI region by time interaction, baseline Color Trails 2 test (\<=170 or \>170 seconds) and region.||0.598|-0.680|0.9000
95924939|NCT00739102|191811954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion - 12-month patency rate|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.725||The observed rate of primary patency at 12 month was 66.5% (143/215) with a lower 95% confidence interval of 60.0%.|Agresti-Coull method||The 95% confidence intervals and the standard error were calculated using the Agresti-Coull method|The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.66 against Ha: P \> 0.66, where 0.66 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC). A sample size of 212 subjects was required to achieve 90% power to reject the 66% 12-months patency rate at a one-sided 2.5% significance level when the unknown true patency is at 76%.||0.725|0.6|0.437
95924940|NCT00739102|191811956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Death Rate (%)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.9||||||||4.9|0.7|
95924941|NCT00739102|191811957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Amputation Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
95924942|NCT00739102|191811958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
95924943|NCT00739102|191811959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinically Driven TVR Rate (%)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|18.6||||||||18.6|9.5|
95924944|NCT00739102|191811960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stent Fracture Rate (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.4||||||||4.4|0.3|
95924945|NCT00739102|191811961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|5.6||||||95.0||||||||||||
95924946|NCT00739102|191811962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary safety endpoint rate (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||Agresti-Coull method|||The null hypothesis to be tested was Ho: P = 0.88 against Ha: P \> 0.88, where 0.88 was the Objective Performance Criteria (OPC).||100|98.2|<0.001
95924947|NCT00739102|191811963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Index Limb Ischemia Rate (%)|8.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
95924948|NCT00739102|191811966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Major adverse event rate (%)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|19.5||||||||19.5|10.2|
95924949|NCT00991276|191812008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.78|-18.42||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The least squares (LS) means and standard errors (SE) were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.42|-35.78|<0.0001
95924950|NCT00991276|191812008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|-18.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.32|-35.54|<0.0001
95950616|NCT01138657|191873007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.76|0.40|< 0.001
95924951|NCT00991276|191812008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|8.38||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.38|-8.72|0.9684
95924952|NCT00991276|191812009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.92||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.92|-5.44|<0.0001
95924953|NCT00991276|191812009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.01|-0.48|0.1541
95924954|NCT00991276|191812009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-3.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.21|-6.68|<0.0001
95924955|NCT00991276|191812010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|30.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|45.49||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||45.49|16.14|<0.0001
95924956|NCT00991276|191812010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|41.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||41.32|12.26|0.0004
95924957|NCT00991276|191812010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|18.41||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.41|-10.36|0.5807
95924958|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.54|-9.80|0.0076
95924959|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-6.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-6.21|-14.43|<0.0001
95924960|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|8.73||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N1 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.73|0.58|0.0257
95924961|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|34.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||34.67|10.74|0.0003
95729501|NCT02308111|191429441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.44||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.44|0.43|0.437
95924962|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-2.59||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.59|-26.35|0.0174
95924963|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|37.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|48.96||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N2 sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||48.96|25.38|<0.0001
95924964|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|29.25||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||29.25|12.61|<0.0001
95924965|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.83|40.36||This analysis was step 4 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||40.36|23.83|<0.0001
95924966|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|-2.97||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage N3 sleep/SWS: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.97|-19.37|0.0080
95924967|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|0.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.67|-10.61|0.0834
95924968|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|24.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||24.19|12.99|<0.0001
95924969|NCT00991276|191812011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-18.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Stage R sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.01|-29.12|<0.0001
95924970|NCT00991276|191812012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.72||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.72|-4.63|0.0077
95924971|NCT00991276|191812012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-5.93||This analysis was step 5 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.93|-9.81|<0.0001
95983534|NCT05470465|191941455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-9.0||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 5 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-9.0||<0.001
95983535|NCT05470465|191941456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-8.5||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of paroxetine compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of paroxetine compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-8.5||<0.001
95983536|NCT05470465|191941456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.8||Secondary analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity. To demonstrate an effect of escitalopram compared to placebo, the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI in the least-square mean VE55 difference between treatments \< 0 L/min.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for tests of fixed effects.|Comparison was the effect of escitalopram compared to placebo at day 11 at 5 hours.|Sample size and power were calculated based on 2 primary outcomes (day 20 and day 21) with adjustment for multiplicity (α=.025). The assessments with paroxetine or escitalopram were considered as separate experiments. A sample size of 20 participants was determined to have 90 percent power at a 1-sided significance level to detect a 4 L/min decrease in the primary end point (ventilation at 55 mmHg end-tidal carbon dioxide) assuming a standard deviation of 5 L/min.||-3.8||<0.001
95983537|NCT06689527|191941472|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|83.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.08|93.59|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-tlast, of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1).|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||93.59|74.08|
95983538|NCT06689527|191941473|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (|83.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.18|95.0|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-inf of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||95.00|74.18|
95983539|NCT06689527|191941474|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|88.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.44|98.79|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter Cmax of midazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1).|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||98.79|79.44|
95983540|NCT06689527|191941475|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|114.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|129.18|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-tlast of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||129.18|101.59|
95924972|NCT00991276|191812012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|7.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.12|3.27|<0.0001
95924973|NCT00991276|191812013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-0.26||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.26|-10.44|0.0396
95924974|NCT00991276|191812013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|0.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.14|-9.95|0.0568
95924975|NCT00991276|191812013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|4.54||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.54|-5.44|0.8589
95924976|NCT00991276|191812014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-8.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.74|-20.26|<0.0001
95924977|NCT00991276|191812014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|17.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.04|5.65|0.0001
95924978|NCT00991276|191812014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-20.17||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.17|-31.51|<0.0001
95924979|NCT00991276|191812015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|-8.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.22|-20.84|<0.0001
95924980|NCT00991276|191812015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|20.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||20.67|8.18|<0.0001
95924981|NCT00991276|191812015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.16|-22.74||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-22.74|-35.16|<0.0001
95924982|NCT00991276|191812016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.80|-3.93|<0.0001
95924983|NCT00991276|191812016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-3.65||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.65|-5.76|<0.0001
95924984|NCT00991276|191812016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.89||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.89|0.79|0.0007
95983541|NCT06689527|191941476|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.29|127.63|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter AUC0-inf, of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||127.63|101.29|
95856658|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 22 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.5637
95983542|NCT06689527|191941477|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean (%)|128.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.36|157.13|||||The linear mixed model was applied to log-transformed PK parameter Cmax of 1'-hydroxymidazolam based on the PK Set to assess treatment differences on the log scale of midazolam with vamorolone vs midazolam alone (Day 14 vs Day 1)|Linear model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect||157.13|105.36|
95924985|NCT00991276|191812017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.12|-5.02|0.0617
95924986|NCT00991276|191812017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-3.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.80|-8.91|<0.0001
95924987|NCT00991276|191812017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|6.44||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.44|1.37|0.0028
95924988|NCT00991276|191812018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.21|-1.17|0.0056
95924989|NCT00991276|191812018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.95|-1.90|<0.0001
95924990|NCT00991276|191812018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.21||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.21|0.26|0.0026
95924991|NCT00991276|191812019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.09|-8.10|<0.0001
95924992|NCT00991276|191812019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.07||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.07|-5.07|0.0029
95924993|NCT00991276|191812019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.04||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.04|-5.02|0.0032
95924994|NCT00991276|191812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|25.95||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||25.95|-4.56|0.1677
95729502|NCT02308111|191429442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.24||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||2.24|0.37|0.838
95983543|NCT00666458|191941487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.01|
95983544|NCT00666458|191941488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.0|
95983545|NCT00666458|191941489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.47||||||||9.47|1.37|
95983546|NCT00666458|191941490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53||||||||0.53|0.08|
95983547|NCT00309465|191941494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value for three dosing strategies in insulin glargine only group in fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl range.|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Blood Glucose Achievement of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.332
95983548|NCT00309465|191941494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group for fasting blood glucose achievement of 100-179 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison for Target Achievement of blood glucose values of 100-179 mg/dl||||0.294
95983549|NCT00309465|191941494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine only group for achievement of 80-249 mg/dl|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl||||0.162
95983550|NCT00309465|191941494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P value is for three strategies in insulin glargine plus bolus group in achievement of fasting blood glucose value of 80-249 mg/dl.|Chi-squared|||Comparison of Achievement of blood glucose values of 80-249 mg/dl.||||0.031
95983551|NCT01486927|191941497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.1|||Poisson, regression|||A test of the null hypothesis of no difference on AsBR between the 2 comparison groups was based on the Poisson Regression method. The corresponding prophylaxis/on-demand ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.||0.10|0.07|< 0.0001
95983552|NCT02445651|191941524|OTHER|Correlation coefficient: The correlation between the pre-to-post change in UPDRS and the imaging findings of DAT binding in the caudate and putamen, as well as SERT binding in the midbrain, was evaluated using both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to confirm any findings using both methods. Analysis of UPDRS total scores, pre-to post differences were compared between NAC and controls study groups using 2-sample t-test.||||||0.05||||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold, for a 5-10% improvement in oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05. for sample size \~ 28 subjects in the NAC arm and \~ 14 subjects in the control arm.|5-10% improvement in the oral and IV NAC|Threshold, for a 5-10% improvement in oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05.|||The primary analysis of dopamine and midbrain serotonin uptake measures from DaTscan was performed using separate linear mixed effect (LME) models with random subject effect. This method differs from a repeated measures analysis of variance because the LME is a statistical model that has both fixed effects and random effects.|||0.05
95983553|NCT02445651|191941524|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95924995|NCT00991276|191812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|-20.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-20.66|-50.88|<0.0001
95924996|NCT00991276|191812021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|61.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||61.48|31.45|<0.0001
95924997|NCT00991276|191812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.61||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.61|-17.07|0.1040
95924998|NCT00991276|191812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.9325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.87|-9.67|0.9325
95924999|NCT00991276|191812022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.1175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|1.87||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.87|-16.54|0.1175
95983554|NCT02445651|191941524|OTHER|The primary analysis of dopamine and midbrain serotonin uptake measures from DaTscan was performed using separate linear mixed effect (LME) models with random subject effect. This method differs from a repeated measures analysis of variance because the LME is a statistical model that has both fixed effects and random effects.||||||0.05||||||For a 5-10% improvement in the oral and IV NAC cohort for an 80% power to detect a significant change of P = 0.05. for sample size \~ 28 subjects in the NAC arm and \~ 14 subjects in the control arm.|t-test, 2 sided|Correlation coefficient: pre-to-post evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients to confirm any findings.||||||0.05
95925000|NCT00991276|191812023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-15.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-15.18|-32.78|<0.0001
95925001|NCT00991276|191812023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-16.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-16.02|-33.46|<0.0001
95925002|NCT00991276|191812023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.43||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.43|-7.90|0.8622
95925003|NCT00991276|191812024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.40|-7.00|0.0800
95925004|NCT00991276|191812024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|1.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.39|-5.95|0.2209
95925005|NCT00991276|191812024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.63||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.63|-4.66|0.5815
95925006|NCT00991276|191812025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|43.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||43.42|22.02|<0.0001
95925007|NCT00991276|191812025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.22|36.49||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||36.49|15.22|<0.0001
95925008|NCT00991276|191812025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|17.42||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||17.42|-3.69|0.2005
95925009|NCT00991276|191812026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|9.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||9.02|4.57|<0.0001
95925010|NCT00991276|191812026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|7.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||7.45|3.02|<0.0001
95983555|NCT01748942|191941575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95925011|NCT00991276|191812026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.75||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.75|-0.64|0.1622
95925012|NCT00991276|191812033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.47|-1.18|<0.0001
95925013|NCT00991276|191812033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.0001
95925014|NCT00991276|191812033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.48|-0.22|0.4677
95925015|NCT00991276|191812034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.83|-14.8||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-14.80|-35.83|<0.0001
95925016|NCT00991276|191812034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-18.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-18.02|-38.89|<0.0001
95925017|NCT00991276|191812034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|13.4||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||13.40|-7.13|0.5461
95925018|NCT00991276|191812035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.45|0.63|<0.0001
95983556|NCT01748942|191941578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95925019|NCT00991276|191812035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.46|0.65|<0.0001
95983557|NCT01748942|191941579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95983558|NCT01748942|191941580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95983559|NCT01748942|191941581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95983560|NCT01748942|191941582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
95983561|NCT02997735|191941586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|27.9|||Chi-squared||ORs from multivariable logistic regression model of characteristics associated with successful quitline enrollment.|||27.90|2.81|<0.001
95983562|NCT02997735|191941587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72|||Chi-squared||1-5 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||1.72|0.13|0.15
95983563|NCT02997735|191941587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.12|||||6-12 years Row (\<1 Ref)|||2.12|0.18|
95983564|NCT02997735|191941587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.94|||||13 or Older Row (\<1 Ref)|||6.94|0.49|
95983565|NCT02997735|191941588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.5|||Chi-squared||35-49 years Row (18-34 Ref)|||6.50|0.92|0.028
95983566|NCT02997735|191941588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.32|||||50 or older Row (18-34 Ref)|||17.32|1.46|
95983567|NCT02997735|191941589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Chi-squared||Asthma Row (No asthma Ref)|||2.80|0.40|0.85
95925020|NCT00991276|191812035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.39|-0.42|0.9403
95925021|NCT00991276|191812036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-1.14||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.14|-14.03|0.0215
95925022|NCT00991276|191812036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|8.29||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.29|-4.49|0.5569
95925023|NCT00991276|191812036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|-3.16||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-3.16|-15.81|0.0036
95925024|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.27|-2.85|0.6947
95925025|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|2.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.02|-5.06|0.3980
95925026|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.76||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Awaken Short of Breath/with Headache: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.76|-1.30|0.2144
95925027|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|22.08||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||22.08|6.25|0.0006
95925028|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.92||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||18.92|3.22|0.0061
95925029|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|10.93||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adequacy: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||10.93|-4.72|0.4342
95983568|NCT02997735|191941590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||Chi-squared||10 or more cigarettes Row (\<10 cigarettes Ref)|||6.50|0.90|0.086
95983569|NCT02997735|191941591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.27|||Chi-squared||Less than 6 months Row (30 days Ref)|||1.27|0.15|0.35
95983570|NCT02997735|191941591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21|||||||6 or more months Row (30 days Ref)|2.21|0.15|
95925030|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.66||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.66|-6.53|0.2420
95925031|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.02||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||4.02|-4.12|0.9810
95925032|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Somnolence: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.67|-6.44|0.2468
95925033|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.09||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.09|-0.17|0.1496
95925034|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.55|-0.69|0.8184
95925035|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Quantity: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.15|-0.09|0.0918
95925036|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-9.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.99||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-4.99|-14.80|0.0001
95925037|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-1.67||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-1.67|-11.42|0.0089
95925038|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||6-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.51|-8.21|0.1746
95925039|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.32||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-5.32|-14.96|<0.0001
95950617|NCT01138657|191873008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.07|-0.51|0.011
95925040|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.34||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.34|-9.91|0.0359
95925041|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-0.24||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||9-Item Sleep Problems Index: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-0.24|-9.78|0.0395
95925042|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|0.02|0.0278
95925043|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2||95.0|-0.04|0.2||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.20|-0.04|0.2000
95925044|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Optimal Sleep: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.06|0.3396
95925045|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-8.19||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-8.19|-20.93|<0.0001
95925046|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|0.22||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||0.22|-12.43|0.0584
95925047|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-2.15||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||-2.15|-14.76|0.0090
95925048|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.82||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||1.82|-7.20|0.2405
95925049|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|3.77||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||3.77|-5.18|0.7565
95925050|NCT00991276|191812037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|2.47||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Snoring: P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||2.47|-6.43|0.3792
95925051|NCT00991276|191812038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|8.55||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||8.55|1.98|0.0019
95925052|NCT00991276|191812038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|6.51||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||6.51|-0.01|0.0506
95925053|NCT00991276|191812038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.26||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p-value \< 0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value was calculated using linear mixed model analysis with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects. Random effects were participant within sequence and residual error. The LS means and SE were used to test for a treatment difference and construct 2-sided 95% CIs. The hypothesis test was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% level of significance.||5.26|-1.24|0.2222
95925054|NCT01268891|191812045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance in showing a trend for this study is 0.10.|ANCOVA|||The power for this study, which is designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary outcome measure, is 72%.||0.23|-0.93|0.3257
95925055|NCT01268891|191812046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.65|0.0946
95925056|NCT01268891|191812047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.84|0.2258
95925057|NCT01268891|191812048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.29|0.1700
95925058|NCT00959920|191812083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that patients for whom indwelling foley catheterization was employed will have their time to delivery interval reduced by 30 minutes.||||.42
95925059|NCT02628093|191812090|OTHER|Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required.||||||0.214||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Because this was a pilot (exploratory) randomized study, no formal sample size calculation was required. Demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables and the primary outcome were compared between groups (THUNDERBEAT and LigaSure) by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and the chi-square test/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, as appropriate. All p-values are two-sided with statistical significance evaluated at the 0.05 alpha level.||||0.214
95925060|NCT02628093|191812091|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||compared between groups by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.007
95925061|NCT02628093|191812095|OTHER|||||||1||||||P value threshold \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95925062|NCT02263508|191812098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.04|0.71|0.13
95925063|NCT02263508|191812099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.21|0.77|0.77
95925064|NCT02263508|191812107|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||3.07|1.15|0.012
95925065|NCT02263508|191812108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.34|0.82|0.14
95925066|NCT02263508|191812109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization factors (disease stage, prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.63|0.47
95925067|NCT02263508|191812110|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.79|0.97|0.081
95925068|NCT02263508|191812112|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.90|1.02|0.039
95925069|NCT02263508|191812114|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.75|0.94|0.11
95925070|NCT02263508|191812115|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.96|1.06|0.020
95925071|NCT02263508|191812117|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||2.17|1.16|0.004
95925072|NCT02263508|191812119|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by randomization stratification factors (disease stage and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy) and the baseline PD-L1 status.|Adjusted odds ratio estimated using logistic regression with randomization stratification factors and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.85|0.99|0.058
95925073|NCT02263508|191812120|OTHER||Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures include the fixed and categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, the fixed and continuous covariates of baseline HRQL score, randomization stratification factors (stage of disease and prior BRAF inhibitor therapy per IVRS) and baseline PD-L1 status (positive and not positive). Random subject effect was modeled using within subject-error correlation structure.||2.05|-1.67|0.84
95925074|NCT01149681|191812149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2364|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.2364
95925075|NCT02131324|191812163|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||||0.086|||||||ANOVA|||Two-sided hypothesis testing was conducted for all the tests. Resulting p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant unless noted otherwise. No adjustments of p values were made for multiple comparisons.||||0.086
95925076|NCT05419557|191812170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|54.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.6|1.3|0.02
95925077|NCT05419557|191812171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.98||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|64.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.25|1.55|0.015
95925078|NCT01368406|191812172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|t test for independent samples||||1.13|-0.65|0.055
95925079|NCT01368406|191812172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.83|0.13|0.055
95925080|NCT00543725|191812182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|9.0||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||9.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95925081|NCT00543725|191812183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.9|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||9.6|-1.9|<0.0001
95925082|NCT00543725|191812184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|2.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|8.4||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||8.4|-3.6|<0.0001
95925083|NCT00543725|191812185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.6|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm and background NRTI regimen as factors, and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||7.0|-5.6|<0.0001
95925084|NCT01710514|191812240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative (Ha) by constructing two-sided 95%CI for the difference. The non-inferiority limit for the difference was pre-specified to -10.0% (absolute). If the lower limit of the two-sided 95%CI was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%) for both the FAS and per protocol set, the null hypothesis was to be rejected. In that case it would be claimed that the rate observed in this trial was non-inferior to the rate observed in the CS08 trial|Difference of % to historical control|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8||||||To verify sufficient supplementation of luteal hormone, the proportion of subjects with blood progesterone concentration ≥ 10 ng/mL on Day 5 was compared to the result from a historical control, trial CS08 (NCT number: 00884221). The corresponding proportion of subjects in trial CS08 was 99.8% (95%CI: 99.1;100.0, 631/632 subjects). The non-inferiority hypothesis tested for this primary endpoint was: H0: P(000072)-P(CS08) ≤ -10.0% against the alternative Ha: P(000072)-P(CS08) \> -10.0%.||1.8|-3.6|
95925085|NCT00567164|191812249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.356||0.0001||95.0|-16.3|-7.394|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.394|-16.3|0.0001
95925086|NCT04044664|191812272|OTHER|||||||0.1728|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||CAPS-5 Total Score||||0.1728
95925087|NCT04044664|191812272|OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Cognition and Mood sub-score||||0.0962
95925088|NCT04044664|191812272|OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Arousal and Reactivity sub-score||||0.0191
95925089|NCT04044664|191812278|OTHER|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0452
95925090|NCT04044664|191812278|OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0614
95925091|NCT04044664|191812279|OTHER|||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 30% decrease from baseline||||0.0182
95925092|NCT04044664|191812279|OTHER|||||||0.0705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||greater than or equal to 50% decrease from baseline||||0.0705
95925093|NCT00478556|191812280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|62.0|||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test of proportion|tested if values were different from 50%||All individuals tasted both preparations and indicated preference. A binomial test of proportion was done to see if these values differed from 50%.||||<0.001
95925094|NCT00478556|191812281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to assess differences in bowel opacification score between the two groups.||||0.270
95925095|NCT03582956|191812282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
95925096|NCT03582956|191812283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607
95925097|NCT03582956|191812284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.466
95925098|NCT03582956|191812285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
95925099|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 1.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925100|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 14.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925101|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Day 31.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925102|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 10.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925103|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 18.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925104|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 26.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925105|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 34.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95729503|NCT02308111|191429443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.04||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||4.04|0.26|0.980
95925106|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 42.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925107|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 50.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925108|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 58.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925109|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 70.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925110|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 82.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925111|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 94.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925112|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 106.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925113|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 118.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925114|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 130.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925115|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 142.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925116|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 154.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925117|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 166.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925118|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 178.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925119|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 190.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925120|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 202.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925121|NCT02449044|191812320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This was the p-value for analysis at Week 214.|Student's t-test|||||||<0.0001
95925122|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.4922
95925123|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.1054
95925124|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.7656
95925125|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.7084
95925126|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.5138
95925127|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.7175
95925128|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.3540
95925129|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0852
95925130|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.1923
95925131|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2335
95925132|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.1346
95925133|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.5237
95925134|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 118||||0.3476
95925135|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 130||||0.2488
95925136|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.1598
95925137|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 154||||0.2820
95925138|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.3743
95925139|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.3600
95925140|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3101
95983571|NCT03002155|191941597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons due to the pilot nature of the study, alpha level was 0.10.|ANOVA|||||||.26
95925141|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 202||||0.0269
95925142|NCT02449044|191812327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.0944
95925143|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.1739
95925144|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.6095
95925145|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6902
95925146|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.6340
95925147|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.3210
95925148|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.7787
95925149|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.2198
95925150|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.1926
95925151|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3109|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.3109
95925152|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.2269
95925153|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.2749
95925154|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0702
95925155|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0412
95925156|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4448|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.4448
95925157|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6233
95925158|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.1001
95925159|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.3739
95925160|NCT02449044|191812328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3334
95983572|NCT03002155|191941598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
95925161|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 14||||0.2575
95925162|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Day 31||||0.2715
95925163|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 10||||0.6860
95925164|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 18||||0.0224
95925165|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 26||||0.1871
95925166|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 34||||0.0039
95925167|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 42||||0.0325
95925168|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 50||||0.0631
95925169|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 58||||0.0277
95925170|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 70||||0.0128
95925171|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 82||||0.0164
95925172|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 94||||0.0119
95925173|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 106||||0.0013
95925174|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 142||||0.6691
95925175|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 166||||0.6923
95925176|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 178||||0.9292
95925177|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 190||||0.4401
95925178|NCT02449044|191812329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive use only, no statistical adjustments for multiplicity were planned.|Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 214||||0.3609
95925179|NCT02987543|191812356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|379.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||379.18|4.18|<0.0001
95925180|NCT02987543|191812357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||||0.63|0.38|<0.0001
95925181|NCT02987543|191812358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.22|0.0192
95925182|NCT02987543|191812359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.50|0.0175
95925183|NCT02987543|191812360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.25|<0.0001
95925184|NCT02175212|191812452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.15|||Regression, Cox|||||3.15|1.12|0.01
95925185|NCT02175212|191812453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Regression, Cox|||||3.85|1.23|0.01
95925186|NCT02175212|191812454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.68|||Regression, Cox|||||4.68|1.31|0.009
95925187|NCT00930813|191812457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study required 100 subjects to provide 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference in late lumen loss of 15% of reference vessel diameter between treatment groups on the basis of a 2-sample Student t test with 2-sided alpha 0.05.||||0.016
95925188|NCT02281318|191812502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-4.9|-10.5|<0.001
95925189|NCT02281318|191812503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|192.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||192|47|0.001
95925190|NCT02281318|191812504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|1.55|<0.001
95925191|NCT02281318|191812505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
95925192|NCT03102710|191812533|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for lidocaine before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 0.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.2, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.8.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on placebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with placebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.03
95983573|NCT03002155|191941599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Physical||||0.24
95983574|NCT03002155|191941599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||For PROMIS Global Mental||||0.80
95983575|NCT03002155|191941600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.81
95983576|NCT03002155|191941601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is interaction of group and time. Alpha level= 0.10; not adjusted for multiple comparisons (pilot study)|ANOVA|||||||0.03
95983577|NCT03455491|191941633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3541
95983578|NCT03455491|191941634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3597|||||||Gekhan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3597
95856659|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 23 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0002
95856660|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Each of the 25 co-secondary objectives were tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5%.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 24 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||0.0196
95856661|NCT02205736|191672348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This outcome measure for Q25 was tested at the 2-sided, Bonferroni-corrected alpha=0.002 significance level to preserve an overall type I error rate of 5% in the analyses of 25 questions.|McNemar|||Patients gave True/False responses to Question 25 at Baseline and 3-Month Contact; the True/False responses were mapped to being correct or incorrect. The null hypothesis was that the intervention had no effect on breast health, or that the probability of answering incorrectly on the Baseline questionnaire and correctly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire was equal to the probability of answering correctly on the Baseline questionnaire and incorrectly on the 3-Month Contact questionnaire.||||<.0001
95856662|NCT05452486|191672367|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|-3.89|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic digits comparison||||<0.01
95856663|NCT05452486|191672367|EQUIVALENCE|The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the mean performance on auditory processing assessments differed depending on whether the tests were administered in Spanish or English.|Slope|5.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dichotic words comparison||||0.69
95856664|NCT04672239|191672368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3341||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0734|13.5948||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||13.5948|1.0734|0.0219
95856665|NCT04672239|191672368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7775||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.407|15.148||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation of all available longitudinal data to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for end-of-treatment group differences.|Mixed Models Analysis||Model-estimated difference for the pairwise group difference at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This proof-of-concept RCT was powered to detect an effect size of d=0.50 between SiS3 and either of the two control groups. Using SAS PROC POWER, it was determined that a sample size of n=64 per group would be needed to detect this effect in a 2-sided t-test with p=.05. Assuming a retention rate of 85%, it was determined that one needed to enroll n=75 per group in order to retain n=64 by end of treatment.||15.1480|2.4070|0.0072
95856666|NCT04672239|191672369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5072||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7759|2.9281|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the QG app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the QuitGuide app treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., end-of-treatment).||2.9281|0.7759|0.2259
95859646|NCT01600170|191677209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.80
95983579|NCT03455491|191941636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||0.4551
95983580|NCT00418665|191941662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.07|5.136|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.136|0.070|
95983581|NCT00418665|191941662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
95983582|NCT00418665|191941663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.154||||||95.0|0.022|1.071|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||1.071|0.022|
95983583|NCT00418665|191941663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.514||||||95.0|0.102|2.589|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||2.589|0.102|
95983584|NCT00418665|191941664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||||95.0|0.227|39.608|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||39.608|0.227|
95983585|NCT00418665|191941664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714||||||95.0|0.144|20.473|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||20.473|0.144|
95983586|NCT00418665|191941665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||||95.0|0.097|8.529|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||8.529|0.097|
95925193|NCT03102710|191812533|SUPERIORITY|Covariates included 1) age, 2) cream randomization, and 3) the difference in ERS for capsaicin before and after expectancy manipulation (which represented how well the expectancy was modulated) in Session 2. In addition, we added the STAI state and trait anxiety scores as covariates when assessing the modulation effects of tDCS on the nocebo effect, as previous studies have suggested that anxiety level could affect nocebo hyperalgesia.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||The mean difference between anodal vs. sham was 1.4, between cathodal vs. sham was 1.0, and between anodal vs. cathodal was -0.3.|To assess the modulation effects of tDCS on nocebo, we first performed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with nocebo as the dependent variable and group (i.e., anodal, cathodal, and sham tDCS) as the fixed factor.||||0.04
95925194|NCT04936035|191812541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-12.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 300 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.||-12.3|-21.2|<0.0001
95925195|NCT04936035|191812541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-10.6||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|||The adjusted 95% CI and p-value are based on Dunnett's test. LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran 600 mg Q6M and placebo, 95% CI was calculated using Dunnett's procedure.||-10.6|-20.8|<0.0001
95925196|NCT04936035|191812542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-8.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-8.3|-15.7|<0.0001
95925197|NCT04936035|191812542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.8||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-4.8|-13.4|<0.0001
95925198|NCT04936035|191812543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.4||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.4|-18.9|<0.0001
95925199|NCT04936035|191812543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-9.5||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-9.5|-18.9|<0.0001
95925200|NCT04936035|191812544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-7.1||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
95925201|NCT04936035|191812544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.3||The MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and race (categorized as Black and all other races) as fixed factors, with office SBP as a covariate.|MMRM|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||-5.3|-15.1|<0.0001
95925202|NCT04936035|191812545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.64||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||30.64|3.76|<0.0001
95925203|NCT04936035|191812545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|51.52||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black; all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP as a covariate|Regression, Logistic|Tested in hierarchical order with success criterion of nominal p-value \<0.05.||||51.52|6.24|<0.0001
95925204|NCT00606580|191812577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||0.0001
95925205|NCT00606580|191812577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||H01: There is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between WR 279,396 and Vehicle AND there is no difference in the final clinical cure rate between Paromomycin Alone and Vehicle.||||<0.0001
95925206|NCT00606580|191812577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||H02: There is no difference in clinical cure between WR 279,396 and Paromomycin Alone. Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||0.871
95983587|NCT00418665|191941665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||||95.0|0.175|4.278|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||4.278|0.175|
95983588|NCT01133379|191941668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.24||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|-10.5|0.811
95925207|NCT00606580|191812578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
95925208|NCT00606580|191812578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95925209|NCT00606580|191812578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.767
95925210|NCT00606580|191812579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Log Rank|Mantel-Cox (log-rank) grouped failure time test using proportion re-epithelialized at each of the scheduled assessments through Day 42 without relapse||||||0.330
95925211|NCT00606580|191812579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.275
95925212|NCT00606580|191812579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.830
95925213|NCT00606580|191812584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95925214|NCT00606580|191812584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95925215|NCT00606580|191812584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.725|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.725
95925216|NCT00606580|191812585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95925217|NCT00606580|191812585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95925218|NCT00606580|191812585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95925219|NCT00606580|191812586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95925220|NCT00606580|191812586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95925221|NCT00606580|191812586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of H02: If H01 was rejected, then H02 would be tested. The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.893|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.893
95925222|NCT00606580|191812587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95925223|NCT00606580|191812587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95925224|NCT00606580|191812587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.247|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.247
95925225|NCT00606580|191812588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.409
95925226|NCT00606580|191812588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.651
95925227|NCT00606580|191812588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The comparison of WR 279,396 versus Paromomycin Alone would be considered statistically significant if p \< .05.||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.701
95925228|NCT00601640|191812590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
95925229|NCT02427737|191812593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
95925230|NCT02427737|191812593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.3037
95925231|NCT02427737|191812593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.01
95925232|NCT02427737|191812594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
95925233|NCT02427737|191812594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.2010
95925234|NCT02427737|191812594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
95925235|NCT02427737|191812595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.0001
95925236|NCT02427737|191812595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||"Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.~Chi-square analysis was used to assess equipment utilization at trained sites compared with untrained sites when stratifying by time (chi-square MH = 858.2)."|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly equipment utilization rate as compared to the baseline quarter Q4FY15 over time and at sites||||0.303
95925237|NCT02427737|191812595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the average quarterly completion rate as compared to the baseline quarter||||<0.001
95925238|NCT02427737|191812596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test was used with time as a strata variable (rather than pooling all data together as in the regular chi-squared test). The CMH chi-squared value was 858.2, and the regular chi-squared value was 858.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.||||||<0.0001
95925239|NCT02427737|191812597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95925240|NCT02427737|191812599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.2357
95925241|NCT02427737|191812599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8523||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter||||0.8523
95925242|NCT02427737|191812599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5883||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done for this nonsignificant result since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1, which is not possible.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.5883
95925243|NCT02427737|191812600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||0.0195
95925244|NCT02427737|191812600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows compared to the baseline quarter||||0.276
95925245|NCT02427737|191812600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764||||||No Bonferroni-correction|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly no-shows as compared to the baseline quarter at untrained sites||||0.2764
95925246|NCT02427737|191812601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison among trained and untrained sites||||<0.01
95925247|NCT02427737|191812601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9012||||||Bonferroni-correction was not done since the corrected p-value would be have been greater than 1.|Chi-squared|||Change in the quarterly average no show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for trained sites||||0.9012
95925248|NCT02427737|191812601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9065||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Change in the quarterly average no-show rate as compared to the baseline quarter for untrained sites||||0.9065
95925249|NCT02427737|191812602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-corrected p-values were used after multiplying the uncorrected p-value by 10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|CMH test with time as a strata variable was 28.7; chi-square value with pooling all data together was 28.6||Comparison among trained and untrained sites over time||||<0.0001
95925250|NCT02427737|191812607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95925251|NCT02427737|191812608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2396|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2396
95925252|NCT02427737|191812609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5267
95925253|NCT02427737|191812610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95925254|NCT02427737|191812611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95925255|NCT00335556|191812614|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|5.419||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage II-IV diffuse anaplastic Wilms' tumor on AREN0321 and NWTS-5 (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0199
95925256|NCT00335556|191812615|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.8814||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients with Stage I-IV malignant rhabdoid tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3478
95925257|NCT00335556|191812617|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.6216||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with Stage I focal and diffuse anaplastic Wilms tumors on AREN0321 and National Wilms Tumor Study-5 -- Treatment of Relapsed Patients, A National Wilms Tumor Study Group Phase III Study (NCT00002610) were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0570
95925258|NCT03879642|191812622|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.117|||||TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||
95925259|NCT03879642|191812623|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95925260|NCT00667693|191812630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||||0.55|0.23|<0.001
95925261|NCT03404843|191812635|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.97
95925262|NCT03404843|191812635|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
95925263|NCT03404843|191812636|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
95925264|NCT03404843|191812636|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||<0.05
95925265|NCT03404843|191812637|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.28
95925266|NCT03404843|191812637|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.37
95925267|NCT03404843|191812638|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.89
95925268|NCT03404843|191812638|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.30
95925269|NCT03404843|191812639|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.08
95925270|NCT03404843|191812639|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison of treatment||||0.05
95925271|NCT02974010|191812647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||BDM LS difference overall|Mixed Models Analysis|BDM LS difference overall||||||.03
95925272|NCT00404079|191812660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was glucosamine sulfate is not superior to placebo to reduce pain and disability associated with chronic low back pain. Power calculation was based on a 3 point difference between the groups with the primary outcome. Data was analysed with linear mixed models||||0.05
95925273|NCT00404079|191812660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95925274|NCT00580801|191812670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.54|1.78|||||Day 1: The least square (LS) means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.78|0.54|
95925275|NCT00580801|191812670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.33||||||90.0|1.03|1.72|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|1.03|
95925276|NCT00580801|191812671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.0||||||90.0|0.58|1.72|||||Day 1: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.72|0.58|
95925277|NCT00580801|191812671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.32||||||90.0|1.05|1.66|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.66|1.05|
95925278|NCT00580801|191812672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.43||||||90.0|1.02|2.02|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||2.02|1.02|
95925279|NCT00580801|191812673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean ratio|1.24||||||90.0|0.88|1.74|||||Day 15: The LS means of the primary parameters for the test and the reference groups were estimated with a linear mixed effects model controlling for treatment group as fixed effects.|||1.74|0.88|
95983589|NCT01133379|191941668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.63||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 6 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 4. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.63|-17.1|0.105
95983590|NCT01133379|191941669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|8.95||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.95|-6.72|0.779
95983591|NCT01133379|191941669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.969||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|2.92||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 4 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 2. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.92|-12.8|0.217
95925280|NCT02595398|191812676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|31.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between country strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the country, i.e., US+Israel and India.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|A total sample size of 150 subjects in a 3:2 randomization had 90% power to detect a difference between treatments in the proportion of subjects showing improvement is 0.60 for treated and 0.34 for sham. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the CLS-TA arm over the sham arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by country.||45.9|15.5|<0.001
95925281|NCT05576051|191812768|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.278
95925282|NCT05576051|191812769|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.131
95925283|NCT05576051|191812770|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Mixed model linear regression|Mixed model linear regression with propensity-score matched pairs as the random effect.||||||0.987
95925284|NCT01664104|191812830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925285|NCT01664104|191812830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925286|NCT01664104|191812831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925287|NCT01664104|191812831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
95925288|NCT01664104|191812832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.||||||<0.0001
95983592|NCT01133379|191941670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.47||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-019) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-019 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.47|-4.84|0.904
95925289|NCT01664104|191812832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.||||||<0.0001
95925290|NCT01664104|191812852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925291|NCT01664104|191812852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925292|NCT01664104|191812853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925293|NCT01664104|191812853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated between baseline versus change at Month 6.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95925294|NCT01664104|191812854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|||||||t-test|P-value signifies CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6904
95925295|NCT01664104|191812854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6032|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6032
95925296|NCT01664104|191812854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6146|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.6146
95925297|NCT01664104|191812855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using DAS28-CRP (remission versus no remission).||||||0.0018
95925298|NCT01664104|191812855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using SDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1617
95925299|NCT01664104|191812855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1296|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment by remission status using CDAI (remission versus no remission).||||||0.1296
95925300|NCT01664104|191812858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5332|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the CRP at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.5332
95925301|NCT01664104|191812859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6159|||||||t-test|P-value signifies the BMI at the start of TCZ treatment using the morning stiffness ( ≤ 30 minutes versus \> 30 minutes).||||||0.6159
95925302|NCT01664104|191812860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.2370
95925303|NCT01664104|191812860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8033|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-D1 (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.8033
95925304|NCT01664104|191812861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0306
95925305|NCT01664104|191812861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient for change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.0749
95925306|NCT01664104|191812862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.4854
95925307|NCT01664104|191812862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||S|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between CRP at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.3250
95925308|NCT01664104|191812863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0011
95925309|NCT01664104|191812863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.0013
95925310|NCT01664104|191812864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.5655
95925311|NCT01664104|191812864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3977|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus HAQ-DI (0-3) at Month 6.||||||0.3977
95925312|NCT01664104|191812865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value obtained from Pearson correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6.||||||0.0123
95925313|NCT01664104|191812865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value obtained from Spearman correlation coefficient between change from baseline in CRP versus change from baseline in morning stiffness at Month 6||||||0.0151
95925314|NCT01664104|191812866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9909|||||||Pearson correlation|P-value was calculated from Pearson correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.9909
95925315|NCT01664104|191812866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6482|||||||Spearman Correlation|P-value was calculated from Spearman correlation coefficient between BMI at the start of TCZ treatment versus VAS fatigue at Month 6.||||||0.6482
95925316|NCT01460342|191812869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
95925317|NCT01460342|191812870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-2.0|<0.001
95925318|NCT01460342|191812870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||The p-value is for the change from baseline in the IPSS Total Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.0|0.003
95925319|NCT01460342|191812871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.090
95925320|NCT01460342|191812871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.011
95925321|NCT01460342|191812871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Storage (Irritative) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
95925322|NCT01460342|191812872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.001
95925323|NCT01460342|191812872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
95925324|NCT01460342|191812872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS Voiding (Obstructive) Subscore at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.5|0.002
95925325|NCT01460342|191812873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.277
95925326|NCT01460342|191812873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.3|0.170
95925327|NCT01460342|191812873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||The p-value was for the change from baseline in the IPSS QoL Index Score at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.038
95983593|NCT01133379|191941670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.613||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.17||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse (12027-020) was better than vehicle control at Week 2 (p\<0.05), testing for 12027-020 versus vehicle control proceeded to Week 1. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.17|-9.15|0.129
95983594|NCT01133379|191941671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.69||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.69|-3.59|0.477
95983595|NCT01133379|191941671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.67||The significance threshold was 0.05. Family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-3.60|0.472
95983596|NCT01133379|191941672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|4.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.90|-5.86|0.860
95983597|NCT01133379|191941672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.723||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.55|-6.20|0.763
95983598|NCT01133379|191941673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.856||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.66|-7.62|0.488
95983599|NCT01133379|191941673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||2.73|-8.54|0.311
95983600|NCT01133379|191941674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.06|-8.68|0.604
95983601|NCT01133379|191941674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|8.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.78|-4.95|0.583
95983602|NCT01133379|191941675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|6.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.43|-7.83|0.847
95983603|NCT01133379|191941675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.48|-5.77|0.708
95983604|NCT01133379|191941676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.678||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|2.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.83|-7.75|0.360
95983605|NCT01133379|191941676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.679||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|1.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.41|-9.17|0.149
95983606|NCT01133379|191941677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||3.78|-9.00|0.421
95925328|NCT01460342|191812874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95925329|NCT01460342|191812875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline severity of benign prostatic hyperplasia lower urinary tract symptoms (BPH-LUTS) and previous alpha-blocker therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95925330|NCT01460342|191812876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.2|0.060
95925331|NCT02107014|191812877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.576
95925332|NCT02107014|191812878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95925333|NCT02107014|191812879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.008
95925334|NCT02107014|191812880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.015
95925335|NCT02107014|191812881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.007
95925336|NCT02107014|191812882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.016
95925337|NCT02107014|191812883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95925338|NCT02107014|191812884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.212
95925339|NCT02107014|191812887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95925340|NCT02107014|191812888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95925341|NCT02107014|191812889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95856667|NCT04672239|191672369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.963||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9776|3.9415|||Generalized Linear Model|We used a Generalized Linear Model with binomial distribution (abstinent vs. smoking) and logit link with repeated measures over time.|The odds ratio compares the SiS app treatment to the CtA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment).|This was an exploratory aim, so no power analysis was conducted. We hypothesized, that the 30-day point prevalence smoking cessation prevalence would be higher in the SiS app treatment compared to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment. Participants with missing data were assumed to be smoking. We modeled all available data over time and present the cross-sectional group difference test at week 6 post quit (i.e., post-treatment).||3.9415|0.9776|0.0579
95856668|NCT04672239|191672370|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|0.401||||0.9152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app treatment vs. QuitGuide app treatment at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.9152
95925342|NCT02107014|191812890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
95925343|NCT02107014|191812891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95925344|NCT02107014|191812892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95925345|NCT02107014|191812893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
95925346|NCT02107014|191812894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.088
95925347|NCT02107014|191812895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.478
95925348|NCT02107014|191812898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95925349|NCT02107014|191812899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
95925350|NCT02107014|191812900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95925351|NCT02107014|191812901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
95925352|NCT02107014|191812902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
95925353|NCT02107014|191812903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
95925354|NCT02107014|191812904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.558
95925355|NCT02107014|191812905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
95925356|NCT02107014|191812906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
95925357|NCT02107014|191812907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.248
95925358|NCT02107014|191812908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
95925359|NCT02107014|191812909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
95925360|NCT02107014|191812910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.962
95925361|NCT02107014|191812911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
95925362|NCT02107014|191812912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
95925363|NCT02107014|191812913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95925364|NCT02107014|191812914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95925365|NCT02107014|191812915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95925366|NCT02107014|191812916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
95925367|NCT02107014|191812917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
95925368|NCT02107014|191812918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95925369|NCT02107014|191812920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.508
95925370|NCT02107014|191812921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
95925371|NCT02107014|191812922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
95925372|NCT02107014|191812923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
95925373|NCT02107014|191812924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
95925374|NCT02107014|191812925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.080
95925375|NCT02107014|191812926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
95925376|NCT02107014|191812929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.945
95925377|NCT02107014|191812930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
95925378|NCT02107014|191812931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.281
95925379|NCT02107014|191812932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
95925380|NCT02107014|191812933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
95925381|NCT02107014|191812934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
95925382|NCT02107014|191812935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
95925383|NCT02107014|191812936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
95925384|NCT02107014|191812939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
95925385|NCT02107014|191812940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95925386|NCT02107014|191812941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95925387|NCT01549652|191812961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Students' t-tests for paired samples with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for crossover treatment arms (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||For the purposes of our post-hoc power calculation we considered a 30% treatment effect clinically significant. Based on the mean observed OOWS score during withdrawal during the placebo session and the variance of that mean score and assuming a paired data analysis and an alpha of 0.05, we found that we had 80% power to detect a treatment effect as low as 25% reduction in OOWS.||||0.87
95925388|NCT01549652|191812962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95925389|NCT01549652|191812963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95925390|NCT01549652|191812964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95925391|NCT01549652|191812965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95925392|NCT01549652|191812966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95925393|NCT01549652|191812967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Students' t-test for paired samples were used to compare differences between the outcome measures for treatment groups (placebo vs. ondansetron).|t-test, 2 sided|||We aimed for a 20% change in OOWS score to show the treatment effect with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05, yielding a target of 23 patients per treatment group.||||0.6
95925394|NCT01549652|191812968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95925395|NCT01549652|191812969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95925396|NCT01549652|191812970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95925397|NCT01549652|191812971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95925398|NCT01549652|191812972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95925399|NCT02512042|191813009|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 (hours 0, before the morning drop) at the Day 14 visit should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.69|
95925400|NCT02512042|191813009|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 8:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/- 1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.43|
95925401|NCT02512042|191813009|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 14 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||||||||-0.09|-0.71|
95925402|NCT02512042|191813009|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of each two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (test-reference) for mean IOP of both eyes at approximately 10:00 hour on Day 42 should be within +/-1.5mm Hg, and should be within +/-1.0mm Hg for majority of time points using the PP population|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.50|
95925403|NCT01194258|191813012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was set at 0.40.|LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were planned to be enrolled to allow approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods. Assuming a dropout rate of ≤20%, an intra-participant correlation of 0.80, a standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have \>90% power to show that either Lispro-PH20 or Aspart-PH20 (each tested separately) was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.05|-0.12|0.3876
95925404|NCT03852433|191813018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
95925405|NCT03852433|191813018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|34.2|||Fisher Exact|||||34.2|-8.2|0.2631
95925406|NCT03852433|191813018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.3||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|48.2|||Fisher Exact|||||48.2|1.8|0.0197
95925407|NCT03852433|191813018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.7||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|11.8|||Fisher Exact|||||11.8|-26.3|0.7186
95925408|NCT03852433|191813018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact|||||32.7|-5.5|0.2184
95925409|NCT03852433|191813018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-20.0||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-36.1|0.0283
95925410|NCT03852433|191813021|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44.0|6.0|0.0134
95925411|NCT03852433|191813022|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.1|||Fisher Exact|||||45.1|8.2|0.0049
95925412|NCT03852433|191813023|OTHER||Difference in percentages|34.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|50.4|||Fisher Exact|||||50.4|14.6|0.0003
95925413|NCT03852433|191813023|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-22.8|1.0000
95925414|NCT03852433|191813023|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.0||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|42.2|||Fisher Exact|||||42.2|-5.3|0.1265
95925415|NCT03852433|191813023|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.0||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|5.4|||Fisher Exact|||||5.4|-35.3|0.1863
95925416|NCT03852433|191813023|OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||||38.2|1.0|0.0601
95925417|NCT03852433|191813023|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-14.0||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||||1.7|-29.9|0.1247
95925418|NCT03852433|191813024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.26|||MMRM|||||3.26|-0.14|0.0717
95925419|NCT03852433|191813024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.84||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|0.71|||MMRM|||||0.71|-4.39|0.1563
95925420|NCT03852433|191813024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|0.73|||MMRM|||||0.73|-4.33|0.1626
95925421|NCT03852433|191813024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.34||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-0.82|||MMRM|||||-0.82|-5.87|0.0099
95925422|NCT03852433|191813024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.81|||MMRM|||||1.81|-1.67|0.9384
95925423|NCT03852433|191813024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-3.20|0.0875
95925424|NCT03852433|191813025|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-1.54|0.8645
95925425|NCT03852433|191813025|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.39|||MMRM|||||1.39|-2.06|0.7033
95925426|NCT03852433|191813025|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.23|||MMRM|||||1.23|-2.18|0.5806
95925427|NCT03852433|191813026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.68||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.39|||MMRM|||||0.39|-3.75|0.1103
95925428|NCT03852433|191813026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.05||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.77|||MMRM|||||0.77|-4.88|0.1533
95925429|NCT03852433|191813026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.22||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.53|||MMRM|||||0.53|-4.98|0.1129
95925430|NCT03852433|191813026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.58||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-3.34|0.6753
95925431|NCT03852433|191813026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.04|||MMRM|||||2.04|-2.28|0.9124
95925432|NCT03852433|191813026|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.56||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.7|||MMRM|||||3.70|-0.59|0.1526
95925433|NCT06269367|191813027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||0.894
95925434|NCT06269367|191813028|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.299||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||>0.299
95925435|NCT06269367|191813029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA with time (Baseline, post-intervention) and condition (NewGait, Control) as within-subjects factors||||||0.469
95925436|NCT02228408|191813133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||poisson|||||||0.04
95925437|NCT02228408|191813134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95925438|NCT02228408|191813135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95925439|NCT02228408|191813139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95925440|NCT04889118|191813171|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.81||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.81|0.37|0.0013
95925441|NCT04889118|191813172|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.58|0.3728
95925442|NCT01456936|191813182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||||||An interaction between treatment and cohort was considered significant at 10% level. No multiplicity adjustments were utilized.|Regression, Linear|A generalized linear regression analysis based on the safety analysis set was used to evaluate incidence of NPS AE as the primary analysis.||The reduced (final) statistical model included treatment group, cohort and region, plus the 2-way interaction of treatment by cohort. Other interactions not included due to lack of significance. Region reduced to 2-level to address event sparseness issue.||||0.0652
95925443|NCT01456936|191813183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.15|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||-0.15|-2.40|
95925444|NCT01456936|191813183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.21|-1.37|
95925445|NCT01456936|191813183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.12|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Non-psychiatric cohort||1.12|-1.54|
95925446|NCT01456936|191813183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.59|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for varenicline versus placebo from estimation model|Psychiatric cohort||3.59|-0.42|
95925447|NCT01456936|191813183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.81|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for bupropion 150 mg BID versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||3.81|-0.24|
95925448|NCT01456936|191813183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.26|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference for NRT versus placebo from estimation model.|Psychiatric cohort||2.26|-1.53|
95925449|NCT01456936|191813198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||5.00|3.20|<0.0001
95925450|NCT01456936|191813198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.85||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.85|1.80|<0.0001
95925451|NCT01456936|191813198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.90|1.83|<0.0001
95925452|NCT01456936|191813199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|4.11||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.11|2.56|<0.0001
95925453|NCT01456936|191813199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.39||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.39|1.46|<0.0001
95925454|NCT01456936|191813199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.55||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.55|1.56|<0.0001
95925455|NCT01456936|191813200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.24||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||4.24|3.07|<0.0001
95925456|NCT01456936|191813200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.45|1.75|<0.0001
95925457|NCT01456936|191813200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.82|<0.0001
95925458|NCT01456936|191813201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.83||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.83|2.33|<0.0001
95925459|NCT01456936|191813201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.59||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.59|1.54|<0.0001
95925460|NCT01456936|191813201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.54||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.54|1.51|<0.0001
95925461|NCT01456936|191813202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.29|1.90|<0.0001
95925462|NCT01456936|191813202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.36|1.33|<0.0001
95925463|NCT01456936|191813202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment, cohort, region, treatment by cohort interaction, and region by cohort interaction. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.20|1.24|<0.0001
95925464|NCT01456936|191813203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||3.30|2.28|<0.0001
95925465|NCT01456936|191813203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.29|1.56|<0.0001
95925466|NCT01456936|191813203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was done using a logistic regression with terms treatment and region. Region reduced to 2-level for consistency with primary safety model.||2.19|1.49|<0.0001
95925467|NCT03095508|191813209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
95925468|NCT03095508|191813211|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95925469|NCT03095508|191813212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
95925470|NCT03095508|191813213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
95925471|NCT03095508|191813214|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 14.5% absolute difference between percentages in group A and B|Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||p- value for superiority: 0.021|Fisher Exact|||p1=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm A p2=proportion of patients without sore throat at Day 4 in Arm B Н0: p1 - p2 ≤ -0.145||0.24|0.03|0.00001
95925472|NCT00097253|191813263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Cortisol. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.83
95925473|NCT00097253|191813263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Epinephrine. Analyses consisted of repeated-measures linear models fit to each dependent variable.IVs assessed in each model were odor, time, gender, expectancy group (primed vs. blind), their interactions;baseline level of the DV was included as a covariate. Post hoc tests were used as appropriate. A two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline.||||0.16
95856669|NCT04672239|191672370|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.372||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|Pairwise comparison, SiS app treatment vs. CTA pamphlet at week 6 post-quit (end-of-treatment)|||||0.3557
95856670|NCT04672239|191672371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2936||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4983|2.0856||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the QuitGuide treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, QG -1)|||2.0856|-1.4983|0.7469
95856671|NCT04672239|191672371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2569||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5628|3.0766||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of SiS app treatment to the Clearing the Air pamphlet treatment as control (Contrast coding SiS 1, CtA -1)|||3.0766|-0.5628|0.1747
95856672|NCT04672239|191672372|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.9255||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method||||||0.1315
95856673|NCT04672239|191672372|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.401||||0.3403|TWO_SIDED|||||the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pairwise Two-Sided Multiple Comparison Analysis Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner Method|SiS app vs. Clearing the Air pamphlet|||||0.3403
95925474|NCT00097253|191813263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Norepinephrine. Model controlled for Time 1 baseline. Comparing timepoints 4 and 5 for pre versus post stressor, e.g. lemon versus water control; Citrus(5-4)-Water(5-4).||||0.017
95925475|NCT00097253|191813264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-6. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.10
95925476|NCT00097253|191813264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IL-10. Mixed effect linear models were used to test the hypothesis. These models included the post-odor and post-stress dependent variable measurements with a covariate for the baseline pre-odor measurement. Base 10 logarithms were used for each dependent variable and baseline covariate.||||0.50
95925477|NCT00097253|191813265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated-measures mixed effects models were used. Model was fit to the log-transformed data. Analysis applied to odor category, e.g. lavender / lemon / water.||||0.60
95925478|NCT00097253|191813266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The maximum DTH wheal of days 1-3 (24, 48, or 72 h) was used as the dependent variable for each subject at each visit. Visits for subjects with a maximum DTH wheal of 5mm or less were excluded. A repeated measures linear model was used to evaluate odor and placebo effects.||||0.014
95925479|NCT01585038|191813282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.64|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.64|-1.56|0.30
95856674|NCT04672239|191672373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2289||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007364|0.4505||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app|0.4505|0.007364|0.0429
95856675|NCT04672239|191672373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1609||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06415|0.386||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet|0.3860|-0.06415|0.1600
95856676|NCT04672239|191672374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08092|0.3848||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QG app|0.3848|-0.08092|0.1996
95856677|NCT04672239|191672374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05636|0.5276||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|0.5276|0.05636|0.0154
95856678|NCT04672239|191672375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6255||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3458|7.5968||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. QuitGuide app (control)|7.5968|-2.3458|0.2988
95856679|NCT04672239|191672375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9277||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1015|8.9569||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||SiS app vs. CtA pamphlet (control)|8.9569|-1.1015|0.1251
95856680|NCT04672239|191672376|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|-0.8096||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4182
95856681|NCT04672239|191672377|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Z|1.909||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0563
95856682|NCT04672239|191672378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1106||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.4354|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4354|-0.2143|0.5018
95856683|NCT04672239|191672379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1406||||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.488|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4880|-0.2068|0.4246
95856684|NCT04672239|191672380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4296||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3597|8.2188|||t-test, 2 sided||SiS app vs. QG (control)|||8.2188|-3.3597|0.4078
95925480|NCT01585038|191813283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.30|-4.71|0.35
95925481|NCT01585038|191813284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.49|75.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||75.89|-62.49|0.41
95925482|NCT01585038|191813285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-194.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|-34.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-34.6|-353.7|0.02
95925483|NCT00678795|191813286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint, the change in the number of incontinence episodes per day, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of incontinence episodes per day as a covariate.||0.26|-0.47|0.569
95925484|NCT00678795|191813287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.76||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of urgency episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of urgency episodes per day as a covariate.||0.07|-1.58|0.071
95925485|NCT00678795|191813288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of nocturia episodes per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of nocturia episodes per day as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.50|0.010
95983607|NCT01133379|191941677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.235||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.73|-10.0|0.260
95983608|NCT01133379|191941678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|7.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||7.06|-7.16|0.989
95983609|NCT01133379|191941678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|5.82||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.82|-8.39|0.721
95983610|NCT01133379|191941679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.07|-8.50|0.743
95983611|NCT01133379|191941679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean cold air VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.95|-7.61|0.928
95983612|NCT01133379|191941680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.65|-3.71|0.683
95983613|NCT01133379|191941680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.42|-4.94|0.914
95983614|NCT01133379|191941681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.994||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.27|-12.1|0.040
95983615|NCT01133379|191941681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.18|-12.0|0.043
95983616|NCT01133379|191941682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|4.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||4.64|-9.27|0.511
95983617|NCT01133379|191941682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.89|-11.0|0.250
95983618|NCT01133379|191941683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.684||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.86|-11.7|0.233
95983619|NCT01133379|191941683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline global subjective VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.44|-13.1|0.115
95983620|NCT01392677|191941685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.49||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Mixed Models Analysis|Longitudinal repeated measures model using mixed model with treatment group, baseline value, week and week\*treatment and week\*baseline||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-0.89|<0.0001
95983621|NCT01392677|191941686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-23.82||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.82|-43.08|<0.0001
95983622|NCT01392677|191941687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3651|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.35||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.35|-2.79|<0.0001
95983623|NCT01392677|191941688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion (placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion (treat) minus proportion (placebo) =/= 0||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
95983624|NCT01392677|191941689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6677||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.48||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.48|-7.05|0.025
95983625|NCT02726971|191941690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95983626|NCT01380379|191941693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group comparison pre-post change score, compared to a value of 0 (no change)||||||<.01
95983627|NCT01380379|191941694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
95983628|NCT01357577|191941695|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-Value show above is for post-assessment time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.48
95983629|NCT01357577|191941695|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value shown above is for the 6-month time point.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and the baseline total CAPS score.||||||.12
95983630|NCT01357577|191941695|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value shown above refers to the treatment main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
95983631|NCT01357577|191941695|OTHER|||||||0.072||||||The p-value shown above refers to the timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.072
95983632|NCT01357577|191941695|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the interaction.||||||.0050
95983633|NCT01357577|191941695|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value shown above refers to the site main effect.||||||.12
95983634|NCT01357577|191941696|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression model adjusted for study site and the baseline value of the dependent variable.||||||0.12||||||Post-treatment P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.12
95983635|NCT01357577|191941696|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.84
95983636|NCT01357577|191941696|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||treatment main effect|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.26
95983637|NCT01357577|191941696|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Timepoint main effect P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.14
95983638|NCT01357577|191941696|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.29
95983639|NCT01357577|191941696|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values adjusted for study site and Baseline ASI (Alcohol Use) score.||||||.16
95983640|NCT01357577|191941697|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Post-treatment p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (drug score).||||||.66
95983641|NCT01357577|191941697|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||6-month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.53
95983642|NCT01357577|191941697|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.86
95983643|NCT01357577|191941697|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.16
95983644|NCT01357577|191941697|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.47
95983645|NCT01357577|191941697|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline ASI (Drug Use) score.||||||.19
95983646|NCT01357577|191941698|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.18
95983647|NCT01357577|191941698|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value at 6 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.45
95983648|NCT01357577|191941698|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.73
95983649|NCT01357577|191941698|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Timepoint main effect P-Value|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.63
95983650|NCT01357577|191941698|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Interaction P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.024
95983651|NCT01357577|191941698|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PCL score.||||||.15
95983652|NCT01357577|191941699|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Post-Treatment P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.48
95983653|NCT01357577|191941699|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||6-Month P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.20
95983654|NCT01357577|191941699|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Treatment main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.26
95983655|NCT01357577|191941699|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Timepoint main effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.71
95983656|NCT01357577|191941699|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Interaction main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.56
95983657|NCT01357577|191941699|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Site main effect P-Value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model p-values are adjusted for study site and baseline PHQ score.||||||.51
95983658|NCT01417195|191941771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in fertilization rate was below -12%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5|||||"Mean difference = Menopur/Bravelle - Menopur.~95% CI is based on Student's t-distribution, assuming equal variances."|||11.5|-4.3|
95983659|NCT02325219|191941777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95983660|NCT02325219|191941777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95983661|NCT02325219|191941778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95983662|NCT02325219|191941778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95983663|NCT02535715|191941844|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA Bonferroni adjustment|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95983664|NCT01040351|191941865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|. The aggregate result of 6 studies reporting the pregnancy rate of patients with ultrasound visible hydrosalpinx revealed that clinical pregnancy rate among the patients with ultrasound-visible hydrosalpinges was 12.6%. We assumed that the aspiration of hydrosalpinx could restore clinical pregnancy rate to that expected for patients with tubal factor of infertility but without hydrosalpinges (about 36.5% in our hospital)|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.0|||Chi-squared|||||8.0|1.13|0.023
95983665|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.100|<0.0001
95983666|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.094|<0.0001
95983667|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.132|0.086|<0.0001
95983668|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.116||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.116|0.070|<0.0001
95983669|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.080|<0.0001
95983670|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.037|-0.008|0.2169
95983671|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.13||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.130|0.085|<0.0001
95983672|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.017|0.5849
95983673|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.007|0.1863
95925486|NCT00678795|191813289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.41|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of incontinence pads used per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of number of incontinence pads used per day as a covariate.||0.41|-0.57|0.74
95925487|NCT00678795|191813290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|9.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the I-QOL score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline I-QOL score as a covariate.||9.46|-1.65|0.166
95925488|NCT00678795|191813291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline overall bladder condition Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||-0.51|-1.82|0.001
95925489|NCT00678795|191813292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|25.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.37|40.42|||Fisher Exact|||For Patient Global Impression of Change, the proportions of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||40.42|10.37|0.002
95925490|NCT00678795|191813293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in the number of voids per day was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline number of voids per day as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.47|0.007
95925491|NCT01859312|191813307|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.021
95925492|NCT01859312|191813309|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.027
95925493|NCT01859312|191813311|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
95925494|NCT01859312|191813313|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.012
95925495|NCT01859312|191813315|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.157
95925496|NCT01859312|191813317|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.015
95925497|NCT01859312|191813319|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
95925498|NCT01859312|191813321|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.008
95925499|NCT01859312|191813323|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.009
95925500|NCT01859312|191813325|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.043
95925501|NCT01859312|191813327|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.024
95925502|NCT01859312|191813329|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.031
95925503|NCT01859312|191813331|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.005
95925504|NCT01859312|191813333|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.004
95925505|NCT01859312|191813335|OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.524
95925506|NCT01859312|191813337|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.|Comparison of hormone levels on conventional glucocorticoid therapy at baseline and following 6 months of CSHI.|||0.007
95925507|NCT01859312|191813339|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.084
95925508|NCT01859312|191813341|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.057
95925509|NCT01859312|191813343|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.103
95925510|NCT01859312|191813345|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of CSHI (at 6 months) with conventional glucocorticoid therapy (at baseline) were made. Continuous data between baseline and 6 months were compared by paired t tests.||||0.070
95925511|NCT01879371|191813352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.334|110.431|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|"The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect.~The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested."||110.431|105.334|
95925512|NCT01879371|191813352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.072|111.936|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.936|107.072|
95925513|NCT01879371|191813353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.874|105.776|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||105.776|93.874|
95925514|NCT01879371|191813353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|70.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.087|73.928|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||73.928|67.087|
95925515|NCT01879371|191813354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.05|109.004|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen acid film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||109.004|104.050|
95925516|NCT01879371|191813354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|108.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.185|111.054|||||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Ibuprofen + Caffeine (FDC) tablet ' divided by the geometric mean of ' Ibuprofen lysinate film-coated tablet '.|The ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. The main focus was on estimation and not on testing, that is, formal statistical hypotheses were not tested.||111.054|106.185|
95925517|NCT01335932|191813363|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0001
95925518|NCT01335932|191813364|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95925519|NCT01335932|191813370|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95925520|NCT01335932|191813371|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
95925521|NCT01335932|191813372|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
95925522|NCT01335932|191813373|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95925523|NCT01335932|191813374|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95925524|NCT01335932|191813375|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95925525|NCT01335932|191813376|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95925526|NCT01335932|191813377|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95925527|NCT01335932|191813378|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95925528|NCT01335932|191813379|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95925529|NCT01335932|191813380|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95925530|NCT01335932|191813381|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95925531|NCT01335932|191813382|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95925532|NCT01335932|191813383|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95925533|NCT01335932|191813384|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95925534|NCT01335932|191813385|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95925535|NCT01335932|191813386|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95925536|NCT01335932|191813387|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95925537|NCT01335932|191813388|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95925538|NCT01335932|191813389|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95925539|NCT01335932|191813390|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95925540|NCT01335932|191813391|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95925541|NCT01335932|191813392|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95925542|NCT01335932|191813393|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95925543|NCT01335932|191813394|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95925544|NCT01335932|191813395|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95925545|NCT01467700|191813434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.518|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.9|3.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.9|0.518
95925546|NCT01467700|191813434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.979|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.4|5.7||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-0.4|0.979
95925547|NCT01467700|191813434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.7|3.0||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.7|0.400
95983674|NCT01431274|191941876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.014|-0.032|0.4352
95983675|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.106||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.106|0.059|<.0001
95983676|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.047|<0.0001
95925548|NCT01467700|191813435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.5|9.9||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-0.5|0.017
95925549|NCT01467700|191813435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.361|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.5|6.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1|-4.5|0.361
95925550|NCT01467700|191813435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.6|12.1||P-values were from an MMRM model with baseline\*week, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.1|0.6|0.002
95925551|NCT04930822|191813443|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-5.107||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.385||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||2.385|-12.60|0.1779
95925552|NCT04930822|191813443|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-8.809||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.317||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-1.317|-16.30|0.0219
95983677|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.081|0.034|<0.0001
95993568|NCT00348140|191963296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.03|-0.02|0.662
95925553|NCT04930822|191813443|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-4.063||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-0.8849||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-0.8849|-7.240|0.0139
95925554|NCT04930822|191813443|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-7.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.682||Fisher's LSD utilized; no corrections for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-4.682|-10.85|<0.0001
95925555|NCT04930822|191813444|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-7.883||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|14.83||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||14.83|-30.59|0.4930
95925556|NCT04930822|191813444|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-13.97||||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|8.744||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||8.744|-36.68|0.2255
95925557|NCT04930822|191813444|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-49.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-35.46||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-35.46|-63.18|<0.0001
95925558|NCT04930822|191813444|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-55.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-43.16||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-43.16|-67.66|<0.0001
95925559|NCT04930822|191813445|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-2.611||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.909||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha is set at 0.05||4.909|-10.13|0.49
95925560|NCT04930822|191813445|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-4.634||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|2.886||Fisher's LSD utlilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||2.886|-12.15|0.2246
95925561|NCT04930822|191813445|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-16.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|-11.74||Fisher's LSD; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-11.74|-20.91|<0.0001
95925562|NCT04930822|191813445|SUPERIORITY||Predicted least squares mean difference|-18.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.29||Fisher's LSD utilized; no correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Alpha set at 0.05||-14.29|-22.40|<0.0001
95925563|NCT05822440|191813506|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|124.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.22|154.29||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||154.29|100.22|
95925564|NCT05822440|191813507|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|212.83||||||90.0|183.76|246.5||||||Ratio was between test to reference, where test is PF-07817883 + Itraconazole arm and reference is PF-07817883 arm. Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||246.50|183.76|
95925565|NCT02081391|191813569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used SOAM as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 12 hours for any other reason than no further need of opioid analgesics or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||0|-0.09|0.0404
95925566|NCT02081391|191813570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||ANOVA|||The endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model. This included treatment, baseline age group, and the used supplemental opioid analgesic medication (SOAM) as factors. For participants discontinuing treatment before 24 hours for any other reason than no further need of SOAM or switch to exclusively oral opioid analgesics, cumulative SOAM use over the respective time period was based on the observed SOAM use up to the time of the participant's discontinuation.||-0.02|-0.18|0.0154
95925567|NCT03568318|191813624|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.4|43.8|<0.001
95925568|NCT03568318|191813624|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.4|30.8|<0.001
95925569|NCT03568318|191813625|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|54.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.0|41.1|<0.001
95925570|NCT03568318|191813625|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.9|22.1|<0.001
95925571|NCT03568318|191813626|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|55.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.7|41.9|<0.001
95925572|NCT03568318|191813626|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|29.7|<0.001
95925573|NCT03568318|191813627|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|43.3|<0.001
95925574|NCT03568318|191813627|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|22.8|<0.001
95925575|NCT03568318|191813628|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|43.8|<0.001
95993569|NCT00348140|191963296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Ultility score Week 12||0.02|-0.03|0.503
95925576|NCT03568318|191813628|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|30.4|<0.001
95925577|NCT03568318|191813629|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|63.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.9|51.2|<0.001
95925578|NCT03568318|191813629|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|50.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.5|37.0|<0.001
95925579|NCT03568318|191813630|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|31.0|<0.001
95925580|NCT03568318|191813630|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.1|<0.001
95925581|NCT03568318|191813631|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.8|32.8|<0.001
95925582|NCT03568318|191813631|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.9|17.7|<0.001
95925583|NCT03568318|191813632|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.1|16.3|<0.001
95925584|NCT03568318|191813633|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|11.3|<0.001
95925585|NCT03568318|191813633|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.4|4.9|<0.001
95925586|NCT03568318|191813634|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.417|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-33.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.11|-50.46|<0.001
95925587|NCT03568318|191813634|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-24.44|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-24.44|-41.72|<0.001
95925588|NCT03568318|191813635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-36.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||-36.22|-46.68|<0.001
95925589|NCT03568318|191813635|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the coprimary and all key secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was controlled at the 0.05 level using a graphical multiple testing procedure following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-32.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.659|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-26.91|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-26.91|-37.35|<0.001
95925590|NCT03568318|191813636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|67.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.4|38.8|<0.001
95925591|NCT03568318|191813636|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.0|16.3|<0.001
95925592|NCT03568318|191813637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|69.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.5|41.4|<0.001
95925593|NCT03568318|191813637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.4|12.1|<0.001
95925594|NCT03568318|191813638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.8|14.1|<0.001
95925595|NCT03568318|191813638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.8|8.2|0.003
95925596|NCT03568318|191813639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|37.3|<0.001
95925597|NCT03568318|191813639|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|11.1|0.001
95925598|NCT03568318|191813640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.1|6.9|0.006
95925599|NCT03568318|191813640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|6.2|0.007
95925600|NCT03568318|191813641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.6|34.1|<0.001
95925601|NCT03568318|191813641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.1|9.4|0.002
95925602|NCT03568318|191813642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.1|27.8|<0.001
95925603|NCT03568318|191813642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.4|10.3|0.001
95925604|NCT03568318|191813643|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.3|20.6|<0.001
95925605|NCT03568318|191813643|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.7|10.4|0.001
95925606|NCT03568318|191813644|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|7.8|0.001
95925607|NCT03568318|191813645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.2|-5.7|0.306
95925608|NCT03568318|191813645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-1.0||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||9.3|-11.2|0.855
95925609|NCT03568318|191813646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.956||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|7.48|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.48|-39.59|0.180
95925610|NCT03568318|191813646|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.986||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.97|-2.79|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.79|-49.97|0.029
95925611|NCT03568318|191813647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-25.11|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-25.11|-46.28|<0.001
95925612|NCT03568318|191813647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.423|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-13.65|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.65|-35.10|<0.001
95925613|NCT03720990|191813663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95925614|NCT00151996|191813670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
95925615|NCT00151996|191813670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV total score||||<0.0001
95925616|NCT00151996|191813672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||<0.0001
95925617|NCT00151996|191813672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in CPRS-R total score||||0.0002
95925618|NCT00151996|191813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.7004
95925619|NCT00151996|191813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
95925620|NCT00151996|191813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in physical summary score||||0.9257
95925621|NCT00151996|191813674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in psychosocial summary score||||<0.0001
95925622|NCT02657629|191813687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95925623|NCT00516503|191813688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95925624|NCT00516503|191813689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95925625|NCT00516503|191813690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95925626|NCT00315120|191813716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|1.2|0.007
95925627|NCT00315120|191813721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.7|0.72
95925628|NCT03546907|191813745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.808||||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.065|||Negative binomial regression model|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial regression model with total number of events occurring during observation duration as response variable, treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, number of severe COPD exacerbations experienced in previous year(0 vs. 1+) at baseline, smoking history(current vs. former smoker), post-BD FEV1 percent(%) predicted (less than\[\<\] 50% vs greater than equal\[\>=\]50%) at baseline as covariates, and log-transformed observation duration as offset variable.||1.065|0.613|0.1296
95925629|NCT00286741|191813766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95925630|NCT00286741|191813767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95925631|NCT03745794|191813769|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
95925632|NCT01444287|191813802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.0035||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0035
95925633|NCT01444287|191813802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control - Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
95925634|NCT01444287|191813802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2093||0.8957||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8957
95925635|NCT01444287|191813803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0031||0.0692||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0692
95925636|NCT01444287|191813803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.7301||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.7301
95925637|NCT01444287|191813803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0032||0.8055||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.8055
95925638|NCT01444287|191813804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111||0.9127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9127
95856685|NCT01198977|191672396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.013||||||Baseline and 3-month follow-up for arm 1 and arm 2.|ANOVA|||||||.013
95856686|NCT01198977|191672396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.005||||||Comparing baseline to 6-month follow-up.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
95856687|NCT01198977|191672396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.01||||||The interaction effect between the two conditions across time. Baseline, 3-month, 6-month.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
95856688|NCT01198977|191672397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.009||||||Comparing depression scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.009
95856689|NCT01198977|191672397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group X Time interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.032||||||Interaction effects between the telephone counseling and education counseling groups over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||.032
95856690|NCT01198977|191672398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.049||||||Physical Activity Interaction effect between the Telephone Counseling and Education Counseling Group over time (baseline, 3 months, 6 months).|ANOVA|||||||0.049
95925639|NCT01444287|191813804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0000
95925640|NCT01444287|191813804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1098||0.1256||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.1256
95925641|NCT01444287|191813805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044||0.9892||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: No Lenses (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.9892
95856691|NCT01198977|191672398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analyses were conducted with GPower 3 evaluating the a priori sample size required to detect a medium-sized effect (f= .25, Cohen, 1988) for Group XTime interaction on primary DV. Assuming two-tailed alpha=.05 and autocorrelations between repeated measures of r=.50, adequate power (.80) to detect medium sized. Group Time effect (f=.25) would be achieved with a total sample size of 28. Given the sample size of 64, observed power more than adequate (.99).||||||0.014||||||Comparing physical activity scores for the telephone counseling and education counseling groups at 6 months.|ANOVA|||||||.014
95856692|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Results presented were Bonferonni-corrected for a mid-point safety analysis||Comparisons of concentrations in D3 dosing groups at study end were made by ANOVA. Adherence of 80% was pre-specified for inclusion in analyses. .||||<.0001
95856693|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=.56
95856694|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0009
95856695|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
95856696|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.006
95856697|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
95856698|NCT01554241|191672495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
95856699|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni)|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95856700|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||=0.47
95856701|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.002
95925642|NCT01444287|191813805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.0007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: Polymacon (+ control) - Narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0007
95925643|NCT01444287|191813805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.984||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as: Control-Test.|Ho: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) = 0. Ha: lotrafilcon A (control) - narafilcon B (test) ≠ 0.||||0.0030
95925644|NCT00906698|191813843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|126.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.549|229.012|||ANOVA|||||229.012|69.549|
95925645|NCT00906698|191813844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.037|87.837|||ANOVA|||||87.837|65.037|
95925646|NCT00906698|191813845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|132.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.305|243.917|||ANOVA|||||243.917|72.305|
95925647|NCT00906698|191813846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.156|114.823|||ANOVA|||||114.823|61.156|
95925648|NCT00906698|191813849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.071|106.978|||ANOVA|||||106.978|76.071|
95925649|NCT00906698|191813850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.71|103.871|||ANOVA|||||103.871|56.710|
95925650|NCT00906698|191813851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.369|105.966|||ANOVA|||||105.966|66.369|
95925651|NCT00906698|191813852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted gMean|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|110.369|||ANOVA|||||110.369|60.470|
95925652|NCT04131933|191813855|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that there would be a 50% reduction in Oncotype DX assay requests following the intervention.||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test to compare number of patients with Oncotype DX ordered at 0-6 months (pre-intervention) vs 7-12 months (post-intervention)||Pre-Intervention (Period 1 and Period 2) vs Post-Intervention (Period 3 and Period 4)||||0.37
95925653|NCT02155829|191813861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.442
95925654|NCT02155829|191813862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.994
95925655|NCT02155829|191813863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.684
95925656|NCT02155829|191813864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.913
95925657|NCT02155829|191813865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.746
95925658|NCT02155829|191813866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.057
95925659|NCT02155829|191813867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA covariate included site.||||||0.0496
95925660|NCT04982575|191813869|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate using retrieved participants multiple imputation of missing data regardless of treatment or stratification.||0.19|-0.79|0.2284
95925661|NCT03038022|191813890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-9.8|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-9.8|-27.8|<0.0001
95925662|NCT03038022|191813896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-11.1|||ANOVA|||||-11.1|-27.9|<0.0001
95925663|NCT03038022|191813897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in triglycerides between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-14.2|-36.7|<0.0001
95925664|NCT03038022|191813898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.4|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-16.4|-36.2|<0.0001
95925665|NCT03038022|191813899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-12.8|||ANOVA|||||-12.8|-32.6|<0.0001
95925666|NCT03038022|191813900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-12.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo.||-12.2|-23.7|<0.0001
95925667|NCT03038022|191813901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.0|-15.3|0.0037
95925668|NCT03038022|191813902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-17.8|0.017
95925669|NCT03038022|191813903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-15.5|||ANOVA|||||-15.5|-38.4|<0.0001
95925670|NCT03038022|191813905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.9|||ANOVA|||||-5.9|-26.7|0.0025
95925671|NCT03038022|191813905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-31.4|<0.0001
95925672|NCT03038022|191813906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-245.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.7|-126.7|||ANOVA|||||-126.7|-363.7|<0.0001
95925673|NCT03038022|191813907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.4||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.6|-28.2|||ANOVA|||||-28.2|-170.6|0.0067
95925674|NCT03038022|191813908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.7||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|31.0|||ANOVA|||||31.0|-60.5|0.5245
95925675|NCT03038022|191813909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.7|-45.8|||ANOVA|||||-45.8|-224.7|0.0034
95925676|NCT03038022|191813910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.2|||ANOVA|||||-2.2|-17.9|0.0129
95925677|NCT03038022|191813911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-2.26|0.3088
95925678|NCT03038022|191813912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23|||ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.15|0.6905
95925679|NCT03038022|191813913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.78|||ANOVA|||||3.78|-1.86|0.5008
95925680|NCT03038022|191813914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||ANOVA|||||0.26|-0.03|0.1066
95925681|NCT04925752|191813916|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|<0.0001
95925682|NCT04925752|191813916|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.182||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.182|0.010|< 0.0001
95925683|NCT04925752|191813917|OTHER|Null Hypothesis 03: LEN - F/TDF\>= 0.8/100PY; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN is not substantially greater than F/TDF (LEN is comparable to F/TDF).|Rate difference|-0.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|-0.255||p-value for rate difference (SC LEN minus F/TDF) is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI for rate difference versus F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.255|-1.669|<0.0001
95925684|NCT04925752|191813917|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.111||||0.00245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.513||P-value for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||Confidence interval for rate ratio versus F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Null Hypothesis 04: LEN vs F/TDF\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than F/TDF.||0.513|0.024|0.00245
95925685|NCT03887936|191813921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95925686|NCT02908620|191813924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|8.69|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||8.69|-3.06|0.322
95925687|NCT02908620|191813925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|2.99|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||2.99|-20.38|0.134
95925688|NCT02908620|191813926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|14.62|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||14.62|-6.48|0.442
95925689|NCT02908620|191813927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|16.9|||ANOVA||Least squares mean (marginal mean)|||16.90|-3.27|0.172
95925690|NCT04548622|191813934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95925691|NCT04548622|191813935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95925692|NCT04548622|191813936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95925693|NCT02912260|191813972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-12.2|-32.9|<0.0001
95925694|NCT02912260|191813974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-15.4|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-15.4|-41.3|<0.0001
95925695|NCT02912260|191813975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in absolute hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-2.4|-6.3|<0.0001
95925696|NCT02912260|191813976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference in absolute hepatic fat fraction between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-2.8|-7.8|<0.0001
95925697|NCT02912260|191813987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.81||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|79.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in hsCRP between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||79.0|-47.0|0.6155
95925698|NCT02912260|191813988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|118.09||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.4|291.1|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in hsCRP between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||291.1|-177.4|0.6311
95925699|NCT02912260|191813989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||6.4|-12.4|0.5260
95925700|NCT02912260|191813990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-9.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-9.9|-42.8|0.0019
95925701|NCT02912260|191813991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in AST between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||1.4|-10.9|0.1275
95925702|NCT02912260|191813992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-4.3|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ALT between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-4.3|-17.8|0.0016
95925703|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-6.1|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-6.1|-19.6|0.0002
95925704|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.8|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||9.8|-3.4|0.3388
95925705|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in non-HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-7.4|-19.3|<0.0001
95925706|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-4.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TC between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-4.9|-14.3|0.0001
95925707|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-2.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TG between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-2.0|-31.2|0.0258
95925708|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-9.9|-20.8|<0.0001
95925709|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-6.6|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoCIII between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-6.6|-28.9|0.0021
95856702|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
95925710|NCT02912260|191813993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|5.0|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||5.0|-46.8|0.1123
95925711|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-5.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in LDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-5.0|-19.9|0.0013
95925712|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|11.5|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in HDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||11.5|-14.5|0.8213
95925713|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-9.4|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in nonHDL-C between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-9.4|-22.7|<0.0001
95925714|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-6.9|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TC between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-6.9|-18.1|<0.0001
95925715|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-22.3|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in TG between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-22.3|-52.3|<0.0001
95925716|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-11.2|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoB between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-11.2|-23.6|<0.0001
95925717|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-23.5|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ApoCIII between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-23.5|-49.6|<0.0001
95925718|NCT02912260|191813994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|18.2|||ANOVA|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||18.2|-58.2|0.3008
95925719|NCT02912260|191813995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|5.0|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||5.0|-46.8|0.1123
95925720|NCT02912260|191813996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|18.2|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in Lp(a) between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||18.2|-58.2|0.3008
95925721|NCT02912260|191813997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.551||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.7|63.21|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in CK-18 between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||63.21|-180.70|0.3419
95925722|NCT02912260|191813997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-171.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.423||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-285.06|-57.42|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in CK-18 between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-57.42|-285.06|0.0035
95925723|NCT02912260|191813998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1458||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.103|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ELF-test between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 12.||-0.103|-0.686|0.0089
95925724|NCT02912260|191813998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|-0.088|||Linear model|||LS mean difference in ELF test between MGL-3196 and placebo at Week 36.||-0.088|-0.879|0.0174
95925725|NCT03184428|191814051|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman's rank-order correlation|Bonferroni adjustment in addition||||||<0.05
95925726|NCT00635817|191814058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.099
95925727|NCT00635817|191814058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.074
95925728|NCT00635817|191814058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.026
95925729|NCT00635817|191814058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the change versus no change were performed.||||0.102
95925730|NCT00635817|191814059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.008
95925731|NCT00635817|191814059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.002
95925732|NCT00635817|191814059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.347
95925733|NCT00635817|191814059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Summary statistics were calculated and tests of significance of the ratio versus 1 were performed. All analyses and summaries were conducted separately for the 2 treatment groups (subjects who received leuprolide acetate depot 11.25 mg and 30 mg).||||0.150
95925734|NCT03878446|191814062|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-3.2|
95925735|NCT03878446|191814062|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.1|
95925736|NCT03878446|191814062|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||||0.9|-2.6|
95925737|NCT03878446|191814062|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.4|
95925738|NCT04341298|191814072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95925739|NCT04341298|191814073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95925740|NCT04341298|191814074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects with a pain score of 3 or less after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting mild or no symptoms after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.66
95856703|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.02
95925741|NCT04341298|191814075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects requiring abortive medication within 8 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.59
95925742|NCT04341298|191814076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 2 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 2 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||0.19
95925743|NCT04341298|191814077|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects were stratified based on baseline pain score (6-7 vs. 8-10) prior to analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Each subject was stratified by baseline pain score for the first severe headache that they experienced (score of 6-7 vs. 8-10). The total number of subjects, and the number of subjects experiencing light sensitivity after 4 hours, were tabulated within each stratum. A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted to test the hypothesis of lack of association between the proportion of subjects reporting light sensitivity after 4 hours and the type of device, across all strata.||||1.0
95925744|NCT04341298|191814078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 2 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.021
95925745|NCT04341298|191814079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pain score difference after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that 4 hour difference in pain score is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.019
95925746|NCT04341298|191814080|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 2 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 2 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||||0.028
95925747|NCT04341298|191814081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Proportion of headaches with light sensitivity after 4 hours modeled as a function of study arm, baseline pain score and headache medication use.||Null hypothesis is that proportion of headaches with light sensitivity experienced after 4 hours is equivalent between study arms, after adjusting for baseline pain score and headache medication use.||||0.46
95925748|NCT02501811|191814110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.023|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.023|-2.190|0.993
95925749|NCT02501811|191814110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.229|0.499
95925750|NCT02501811|191814110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|3.485|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.485|-0.729|0.578
95925751|NCT02501811|191814110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.552|0.629|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||0.629|-3.552|0.523
95925752|NCT02501811|191814110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.127|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.127|-2.7|0.471
95925753|NCT02501811|191814110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.59|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.590|-1.240|0.485
95925754|NCT02501811|191814111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|1.887|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.887|-2.406|0.942
95925755|NCT02501811|191814111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.815|2.975|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.975|-1.815|0.282
95925756|NCT02501811|191814111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.635|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.635|-1.310|0.163
95856704|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0001
95856705|NCT01554241|191672496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Bonferroni/Dunn adjustment||||||<.0003
95925757|NCT02501811|191814111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|0.628|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.628|-2.471|0.175
95925758|NCT02501811|191814111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|1.254|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.254|-2.932|0.329
95983678|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|0.005|0.0174
95983679|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
95983680|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|0.001|0.0407
95983681|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.077||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.077|0.030|<0.0001
95983682|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.012|0.3326
95983683|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.006|0.0151
95983684|NCT01431274|191941877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.006|-0.041|0.1421
95983685|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
95983686|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
95983687|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
95983688|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
95856706|NCT01106690|191672529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.437|||ANCOVA|||||-0.437|-0.811|<0.001
95856707|NCT01106690|191672529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.575|||ANCOVA|||||-0.575|-0.951|<0.001
95856708|NCT01106690|191672530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.57|1.26|0.007
95856709|NCT01106690|191672530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.60|2.73|<0.001
95983689|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
95983690|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
95925759|NCT02501811|191814111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|1.994|||ANCOVA|The change in global circumferential strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.994|-1.829|0.752
95925760|NCT02501811|191814112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|1.927|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.927|-1.118|0.733
95925761|NCT02501811|191814112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|2.041|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.041|-1.248|0.735
95925762|NCT02501811|191814112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|1.767|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.767|-1.464|0.794
95925763|NCT02501811|191814112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.161|1.666|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.666|-1.161|0.951
95925764|NCT02501811|191814112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.441|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.441|0.962
95925765|NCT02501811|191814112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.793|1.303|||ANCOVA|The change in regional longitudinal strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.303|-1.793|0.945
95925766|NCT02501811|191814113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.754|5.711|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.711|-9.754|0.602
95925767|NCT02501811|191814113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.609|4.044|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.044|-9.609|0.443
95925768|NCT02501811|191814113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.011|2.76|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.760|-11.011|0.348
95925769|NCT02501811|191814113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|9.968|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.968|-5.760|0.812
95925770|NCT02501811|191814113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.052|8.574|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.574|-7.052|0.900
95925771|NCT02501811|191814113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.321|5.635|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||5.635|-8.321|0.848
95925772|NCT02501811|191814114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.281|4.789|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.789|-7.281|0.659
95925773|NCT02501811|191814114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.621|3.71|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.710|-8.621|0.466
95925774|NCT02501811|191814114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.799|1.594|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.594|-10.799|0.293
95856710|NCT01106690|191672531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.857|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.96|-21.78|||ANCOVA|||||-21.78|-36.96|<0.001
95925775|NCT02501811|191814114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.795|9.508|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||9.508|-2.795|0.530
95925776|NCT02501811|191814114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|7.33|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||7.330|-4.910|0.761
95925777|NCT02501811|191814114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.426|4.132|||ANCOVA|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.132|-8.426|0.669
95925778|NCT02501811|191814115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.040|-0.048|0.989
95925779|NCT02501811|191814115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.033|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.033|-0.056|0.493
95925780|NCT02501811|191814115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.039|-0.053|0.926
95925781|NCT02501811|191814115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.047|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.047|-0.041|0.904
95925782|NCT02501811|191814115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.049|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.049|-0.035|0.476
95925783|NCT02501811|191814115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.048|||ANCOVA|The change in left ventricular sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.048|-0.040|0.515
95925784|NCT02501811|191814116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.687|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.687|-1.770|0.569
95925785|NCT02501811|191814116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.457|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.457|-1.792|0.767
95925786|NCT02501811|191814116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|0.921|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.921|-1.965|0.261
95925787|NCT02501811|191814116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|2.222|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.222|-1.261|0.587
95925788|NCT02501811|191814116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|2.014|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.014|-1.763|0.994
95925789|NCT02501811|191814116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|1.283|||ANCOVA|The change in scar size percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.283|-1.993|0.639
95925790|NCT02501811|191814117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.437|3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.319|-2.437|0.992
95925791|NCT02501811|191814117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|2.643|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||2.643|-2.278|0.862
95925792|NCT02501811|191814117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.846|1.443|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.443|-3.846|0.217
95925793|NCT02501811|191814117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|4.611|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||4.611|-1.325|0.327
95925794|NCT02501811|191814117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|3.068|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||3.068|-2.551|0.859
95925795|NCT02501811|191814117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.952|1.184|||ANCOVA|The change in scar tissue mass was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||1.184|-3.952|0.338
95925796|NCT02501811|191814118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|0.411|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.411|-2.456|0.157
95925797|NCT02501811|191814118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|0.859|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||0.859|-2.798|0.428
95925798|NCT02501811|191814118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.093|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||2.093|-0.83|0.382
95925799|NCT02501811|191814118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.255|-0.052|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.052|-3.255|0.056
95925800|NCT02501811|191814118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|1.885|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||1.885|-1.991|0.610
95925801|NCT02501811|191814118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|3.557|||ANCOVA|The change in peak VO2 was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||3.557|-0.356|0.195
95925802|NCT02501811|191814119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.537|56.687|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||56.687|-19.537|0.348
95925803|NCT02501811|191814119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.759|59.134|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||59.134|-12.759|0.230
95925804|NCT02501811|191814119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.21||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.974|34.361|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||34.361|-30.974|0.905
95925805|NCT02501811|191814119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.98||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.267|49.03|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||49.030|-15.267|0.335
95925806|NCT02501811|191814119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.106|30.88|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||30.880|-40.106|0.827
95925807|NCT02501811|191814119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.989|8.001|||ANCOVA|The change in exercise tolerance was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.001|-50.989|0.163
95925808|NCT02501811|191814120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.915|-0.357|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-0.357|-18.915|0.023
95925809|NCT02501811|191814120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.871|-3.319|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||-3.319|-26.871|0.050
95925810|NCT02501811|191814120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.784|8.836|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||8.836|-14.784|0.119
95925811|NCT02501811|191814120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.087|4.762|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||4.762|-18.087|0.845
95925812|NCT02501811|191814120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.931|16.848|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||16.848|-5.931|0.976
95925813|NCT02501811|191814120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|25.578|||ANCOVA|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t test|||25.578|-1.337|0.717
95925814|NCT02501811|191814121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1411.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|840.6||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3108.3|284.9|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||284.9|-3108.3|0.110
95925815|NCT02501811|191814121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-634.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|405.1||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1460.7|191.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||191.4|-1460.7|0.112
95925816|NCT02501811|191814121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-483.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|400.7||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1301.5|335.2|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||335.2|-1301.5|0.891
95925817|NCT02501811|191814121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-928.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|754.2||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.7|613.6|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||613.6|-2470.7|0.009
95925818|NCT02501811|191814121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|756.5||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2323.2|769.1|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||769.1|-2323.2|0.661
95925819|NCT02501811|191814121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.4|478.4|||ANCOVA|Change in NT-proBNP value compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed, p-values obtained from transformed data|Confidence intervals based on t test|||478.4|-175.4|0.015
95925820|NCT02501811|191814122|OTHER||slope of time|0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported||||0.269
95925821|NCT02501811|191814123|OTHER||slope of time|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.361|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.361
95925822|NCT02501811|191814124|OTHER||slope of time|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.107|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.107
95856711|NCT01106690|191672531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-28.11|||ANCOVA|||||-28.11|-43.30|<0.001
95925823|NCT02501811|191814125|OTHER||slope of time|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.095
95925824|NCT02501811|191814126|OTHER||slope of time|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.379
95925825|NCT02501811|191814127|OTHER||slope of time|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.401
95925826|NCT02501811|191814128|OTHER||slope of time|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.126
95925827|NCT02501811|191814129|OTHER||slope of time|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.139
95925828|NCT02501811|191814130|OTHER||slope of time|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.472|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.472
95925829|NCT02501811|191814131|OTHER||slope of time|6.544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.025
95925830|NCT02501811|191814132|OTHER||slope with interaction|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.037
95925831|NCT02501811|191814132|OTHER||slope with interaction|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.||||0.035
95925832|NCT02501811|191814133|OTHER||slope of time|84.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.81||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase II trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the 4 treatment groups. Results of the overall model are reported.||||0.092
95925833|NCT03944512|191814144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.19||||||||1.19|0.37|
95925834|NCT03944512|191814145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.67||||||||2.67|0.07|
95925835|NCT03944512|191814146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.16||||||||77.16|0.32|
95925836|NCT03944512|191814147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.43||||||||1.43|0.22|
95925837|NCT03944512|191814148|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the placebo group.|||
95925838|NCT03944512|191814149|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.24||||||||5.24|0.58|
95925839|NCT03944512|191814150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95925840|NCT03944512|191814151|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin and placebo groups|||
95925841|NCT03944512|191814152|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95925842|NCT03944512|191814153|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the placebo group|||
95925843|NCT03944512|191814154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95925844|NCT03944512|191814155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23||||||||2.23|0.73|
95925845|NCT03944512|191814156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.91||||||||2.91|0.57|
95925846|NCT03944512|191814157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||||||||1.71|0.19|
95925847|NCT03944512|191814158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.35||||||||5.35|0.02|
95925848|NCT03944512|191814159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95925849|NCT03944512|191814160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|13.59||||||||13.59|0.24|
95925850|NCT03944512|191814161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.73||||||||2.73|0.42|
95925851|NCT03944512|191814162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.18||||||||2.18|0.58|
95925852|NCT03944512|191814163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95925853|NCT03944512|191814164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.51||||||||4.51|0.52|
95925854|NCT03944512|191814165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.0||||||||5.00|0.42|
95925855|NCT03944512|191814166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.95||||||||2.95|0.11|
95925856|NCT03944512|191814167|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925857|NCT03944512|191814168|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||
95925858|NCT03944512|191814169|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925859|NCT03944512|191814170|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925860|NCT03944512|191814171|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925861|NCT03944512|191814172|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in pravastatin group.|||
95925862|NCT03944512|191814173|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925863|NCT03944512|191814174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.04||||||||2.04|0.17|
95925864|NCT03944512|191814175|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925865|NCT03944512|191814176|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.79||||||||31.79|0.03|
95925866|NCT03944512|191814177|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||RR not reported given zero events in both groups.|||
95925867|NCT03944512|191814178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95925868|NCT03944512|191814179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95925869|NCT03944512|191814180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95925870|NCT03944512|191814181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95925871|NCT03944512|191814182|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95925872|NCT03944512|191814183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||0.22
95925873|NCT03944512|191814184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95925874|NCT03944512|191814185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact||||RR not reported given zero events in the pravastatin group.|||0.47
95925875|NCT01090024|191814206|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|1.313|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.313|-1.147|0.4473
95925876|NCT01090024|191814206|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.903|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.903|-0.563|0.1426
95925877|NCT01090024|191814206|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|1.486|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A compound symmetry covariance structure was used.||1.486|-0.924|0.3231
95925878|NCT01090024|191814207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.068|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 200 mg BID (D) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.068|-0.180|0.1879
95925879|NCT01090024|191814207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.098|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg PM QD (C) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.098|-0.151|0.3384
95925880|NCT01090024|191814207|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value testing superiority of BI 671800 vs placebo with 2.5% alpha.|Adjusted means difference|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.029|||Mixed effect model||Adjusted means difference of BI 671800 400 mg AM QD (B) vs Placebo (A).|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect was used. A autoregressive covariance structure was used.||0.029|-0.214|0.0670
95925881|NCT01249092|191814209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-26.4||This study tested the hypothesis that treatment with pentoxifylline would result in a statistically significant change from baseline in the level of alkaline phosphatase.|Paired t-test|||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant and all analyses were carried out using SAS version 9.2 (The SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change in alkaline phosphatase from baseline. The efficacy of therapy was measured based on improvement in AP levels after therapy with PTX. AP levels at end of the study were compared with values at baseline by matched pairs t-test.||-26.4|-88.2|0.001
95925882|NCT01249092|191814210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|8.68||Hypothesis tested if TIMP-1 levels after therapy with pentoxifylline changed significantly from baseline from baseline.|Paired t-test.|||Change from baseline in TIMP-1 levels was assessed by paired-t test. Distribution the variable values was assessed using normal probability plots. Matched pairs t-test was used to compare the change from baseline.||8.68|-24.14|0.5
95925883|NCT02380742|191814212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.02
95925884|NCT02380742|191814213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for investigator training and pessary type.||||.03
95925885|NCT02380742|191814214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at removal were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain and patient age.||||.03
95925886|NCT02380742|191814215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that patients' pain scores at insertion were the same between the lidocaine and placebo groups after controlling for baseline pain.||||.09
95925887|NCT00309452|191814254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for hospitalization rates, adjusted for pretreatment hospitalization||||0.018
95925888|NCT00309452|191814258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Between groups comparison for vocational engagement, adjusted for pretreatment vocational engagement||||0.002
95925889|NCT02814643|191814279|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.35|0.56|
95925890|NCT02814643|191814279|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.71|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.71|0.82|
95925891|NCT02814643|191814279|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.29|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.29|0.67|
95925892|NCT02814643|191814279|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.19|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.19|0.54|
95925893|NCT02814643|191814280|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.31|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H1N1||1.31|0.76|
95925894|NCT02814643|191814280|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.77|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza A H3N2||1.77|0.93|
95925895|NCT02814643|191814280|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.79|1.34|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Yamagata lineage||1.34|0.79|
95925896|NCT02814643|191814280|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean ratio|1.26||||||90.0|0.93|1.7|||ANCOVA|The linear model effects are treatment group as a fixed effect and age group (adolescents and young adults) as fixed categorical covariate.||Influenza B Victoria lineage||1.70|0.93|
95925897|NCT03265210|191814291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Baseline||1.95|-4.95|0.39
95925898|NCT03265210|191814291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|-0.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|6 weeks||-0.39|-7.19|0.03
95925899|NCT03265210|191814291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|9 weeks||2.26|-5.38|0.42
95925900|NCT03265210|191814291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|12 weeks||0.28|-7.02|0.07
95925901|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, Baseline||0.33|-1.81|0.17
95925902|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 6 weeks||0.44|-1.68|0.25
95925903|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 9 weeks||0.17|-2.29|0.09
95925904|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1, 12 weeks||0.01|-2.19|0.05
95856712|NCT01106690|191672532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.315|19.236|||ANCOVA|||||19.236|9.315|<0.001
95925905|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, Baseline||-0.48|-5.90|0.02
95925906|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 6 weeks||-1.54|-7.06|0.003
95925907|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-3.05|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 9 weeks||-3.05|-8.85|0.0001
95925908|NCT03265210|191814292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2, 12 weeks||-1.24|-7.46|0.007
95925909|NCT03265210|191814293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 1||1.69|0.53|0.0003
95925910|NCT03265210|191814293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 2||0.83|0.21|0.001
95925911|NCT03265210|191814293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean value in Relief Arm minus Mean value in Referral Arm.|Domain 3||1.56|0.36|0.002
95925912|NCT01227278|191814303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||Van Elteren Test|Day 1 to 393: Van Elteren test was used to compare the two arms.|95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio was based on normal approximation assuming rate with Poisson distribution.|||1.58|0.67|0.941
95925913|NCT00420316|191814321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|34.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-348.7|88.9|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RV GE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||88.9|-348.7|0.691
95925914|NCT00420316|191814322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|50.7||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3769.6|99.4|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the circulating wild-type rotavirus strain was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who have received placebo.||99.4|-3769.6|0.551
95925915|NCT00420316|191814324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|100.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1822.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of serotype G1. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||100|-1822.5|0.33
95925916|NCT00420316|191814325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-97.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9610.8|80.5|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to any rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||80.5|-9610.8|1
95925917|NCT00420316|191814326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.7|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) caused by the wild-type rotavirus strain of non-G1 serotype was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||98.7|0|1
95925918|NCT00420316|191814327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction|-23.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|54.8|||Fisher Exact|||Vaccine efficacy with respect to severe gastroenteritis (GE) was assessed. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as the percent reduction in the frequency of the relevant outcome variable in vaccinated subjects compared with those subjects who received placebo.||54.8|-287.7|0.817
95925919|NCT03110458|191814355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8466|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8466
95925920|NCT03110458|191814356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9538
95925921|NCT03110458|191814357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3166
95925922|NCT03110458|191814358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
95925923|NCT03110458|191814361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5324
95925924|NCT03055767|191814387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.038
95925925|NCT03055767|191814388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
95925926|NCT03055767|191814389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.148
95925927|NCT03055767|191814390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.047
95925928|NCT03055767|191814391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.002
95925929|NCT03055767|191814392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||McNemar|||||||0.82
95925930|NCT03055767|191814393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.006
95925931|NCT03055767|191814394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.039
95925932|NCT03055767|191814395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.016
95925933|NCT03055767|191814396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
95925934|NCT03055767|191814397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||<0.001
95925935|NCT03055767|191814398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test)|||||||0.64
95925936|NCT03247543|191814444|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.9|-10.0|0.0038
95925937|NCT03247543|191814444|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-9.9|0.0063
95925938|NCT03247543|191814445|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0028
95925939|NCT03247543|191814445|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0099
95925940|NCT03247543|191814446|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.5|0.0064
95925941|NCT03247543|191814446|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.0917
95925942|NCT03247543|191814447|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.0651
95925943|NCT03247543|191814447|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.1680
95925944|NCT03247543|191814448|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.1|-2.9|0.1316
95925945|NCT03247543|191814448|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.9|2.0|0.0276
95925946|NCT03247543|191814449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-8.7|0.2128
95925947|NCT03247543|191814449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-11.3|0.0409
95925948|NCT03247543|191814450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.2|-5.4|0.0020
95925949|NCT03247543|191814450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.0|-5.3|0.0039
95925950|NCT03247543|191814450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.7|-4.8|0.0087
95925951|NCT03247543|191814450|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.3|-4.6|0.0248
95983691|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
95983692|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
95983693|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
95925952|NCT03247543|191814451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.3|0.7003
95925953|NCT03247543|191814451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.9|0.1602
95925954|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0236|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0236
95925955|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0505
95925956|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.1225
95983694|NCT01431274|191941878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
95729504|NCT02308111|191429444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.83|0.58|0.933
95925957|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.0254
95925958|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.0261
95925959|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0037
95925960|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.0385
95925961|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0956|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0956
95925962|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment.||||0.0962
95925963|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment.||||0.0744
95925964|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment.||||0.0218
95925965|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment.||||0.1150
95925966|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment.||||0.1086
95925967|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0082|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment.||||0.0082
95856713|NCT01106690|191672532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.509|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.293|22.166|||ANCOVA|||||22.166|12.293|<0.001
95856714|NCT01106690|191672533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.6|<0.001
95925968|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2326|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 7 of treatment.||||0.2326
95925969|NCT03247543|191814452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0883|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 8 of treatment.||||0.0883
95925970|NCT03495713|191814453|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis only based limited enrollments.|||
95925971|NCT01097343|191814454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||A sample of size of 50 patients for the cross-over study was chosen because it provided 80% power to detect a decrease in the rate of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR, defined as \>230 PRU) from 75% to 46% with high dose clopidogrel, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||=0.02
95925972|NCT00964119|191814459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-value \< .05 is the computed p-value for this measurement.|t-test, 2 sided|||PI and lead author left the institution before publishing data. Study has been closed and data files archived.||||<.05
95925973|NCT02059980|191814460|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants rnadomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||= 0.56
95983695|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
95983696|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
95983697|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
95983698|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
95983699|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
95983700|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
95983701|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
95983702|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
95983703|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
95983704|NCT01431274|191941879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
95925974|NCT02059980|191814461|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have .90 power to detect a large effect (f=.40), but is somewhat underpowered to detect a medium effect (f=.25) between the two groups. Sample size was determined using a repeated-measures ANOVA test (α = .05, a correlation of .5 among repeated measures, and a nonsphericity correction of .6), considering the design effect and potential patient attrition (=25%).||||=.98
95925975|NCT01726023|191814473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI; corresponding to a 97.5% 1 sided lower bound) was greater than -12.5% for the primary outcome variable.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.97||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff ≤ -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|units for RD are %|The Primary objective of this study was to assess the non inferiority (based on a 12.5% margin) of CAZ AVI plus metronidazole compared to meropenem alone with respect to clinical cure at the TOC visit in patients who were CE.||4.97|-5.53|<0.001
95925976|NCT01726023|191814506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|0.5||||0.773|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.773
95925977|NCT01726023|191814507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median time (days)|1.0||||0.598|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.598
95983705|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0067
95983706|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
95983707|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.002|0.0746
95983708|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.101|0.054|<0.0001
95983709|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.046|<0.0001
95983710|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.035|-0.013|0.3549
95983711|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.113|0.065|<0.0001
95983712|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.072|<0.0001
95983713|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-0.080|<0.0001
95983714|NCT01431274|191941880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.016|0.5018
95925978|NCT04269200|191814595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||0.89|0.57|0.003
95925979|NCT04269200|191814595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by MMR status (proficient versus deficient) and disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||0.69|0.43|<0.0001
95925980|NCT04269200|191814595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||1.25|0.42|
95925981|NCT04269200|191814595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.61||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||1.61|0.57|
95856715|NCT01106690|191672533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.6|<0.001
95925982|NCT04269200|191814597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model is unstratified.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||1.07|0.59|
95925983|NCT04269200|191814597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.76||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model is unstratified.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab + Olaparib.|||0.76|0.40|
95925984|NCT04269200|191814597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||2.21|0.48|
95925985|NCT04269200|191814597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.9||China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|A hazard ratio less than 1 favours SoC + Durvalumab.|||2.90|0.68|
95925986|NCT04269200|191814598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Logistic|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours SoC + durvalumab.|||1.98|0.89|
95925987|NCT04269200|191814598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18||Descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Logistic|Model was stratified by disease status (recurrent versus newly diagnosed).|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours SoC + durvalumab + Olaparib.|||2.18|0.95|
95925988|NCT04269200|191814605|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.5||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||4.5|-1.2|
95925989|NCT04269200|191814605|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.2|-3.4|
95925990|NCT04269200|191814606|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.6|-2.5|
95925991|NCT04269200|191814606|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.6||Descriptive analysis only.|Mixed model for repeated measures|Fixed effects for treatment, visit, and baseline score with the treatment by visit and baseline score by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||1.6|-3.4|
95925992|NCT05824351|191814620|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|-0.2571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided lower t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||<0.0001
95925993|NCT05824351|191814620|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as an average difference of \< or = 2|Mean of paired differences|0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided upper t-test||Draize scores for erythema/eschar and edema were summed for analysis (range of 0 to 8, where a higher score indicated greater irritation).||||0.0003
95925994|NCT03536884|191814735|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of noninferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.771|19.592||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-Secukinumab calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).||19.592|5.771|
95925995|NCT03536884|191814735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|2.31||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test for the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2.310|1.271|<0.001
95925996|NCT03536884|191814736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|3.836||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.836|2.068|<0.001
95925997|NCT03536884|191814738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.835|3.377||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association. P-values are not controlled for multiplicity and should only be considered descriptively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.377|1.835|<0.001
95925998|NCT03536884|191814738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.511|3.11||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.110|1.511|<0.001
95925999|NCT03536884|191814738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.103|5.0||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.000|2.103|<0.001
95926000|NCT03722446|191814743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95926001|NCT03722446|191814744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01020
95926002|NCT03722446|191814745|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95856716|NCT01106690|191672534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.879|-1.251|||ANCOVA|||||-1.251|-6.879|0.005
95856717|NCT01106690|191672534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.433||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.281|-0.643|||ANCOVA|||||-0.643|-6.281|0.016
95926003|NCT03722446|191814746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
95926004|NCT03722446|191814747|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95926005|NCT03722446|191814748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95926006|NCT00470626|191814806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Successful Retrieval|0.9||||||95.0|||||||Probability of successful retrieval is from Kaplan-Meier analysis.|||||
95926007|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between genders: women and men.||1.22|0.45|0.235
95926008|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between Age: \<= 55 years and \> 55 years||1.22|0.55|0.331
95926009|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.23|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.23|1.00|0.050
95926010|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between participants without erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and participants with erosive RA||2.46|0.88|0.144
95926011|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between DAS-28 score: \<= 5.1 and DAS-28 \>5.1||2.65|1.14|0.010
95926012|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.1|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between ESR: \<= 28 mm/h and \> 28 mm/h||2.10|0.92|0.119
95926013|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.13|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between number of participants without anemia and number of participants with anemia||2.13|0.81|0.265
95926014|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between dose of corticosteroids: \<= 5 mg and \> 5 mg||1.71|0.77|0.511
95926015|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HAQ score: \<= 1.5 and \> 1.5||2.00|0.90|0.153
95926016|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.31|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: fatigue \<= 66 and \> 66||3.31|1.45|<0.001
95926017|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.08|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: pain \<= 66 and \> 66||3.08|1.35|<0.001
95926018|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.75|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<=30 score and 30 - 59 score||2.75|0.86|0.261
95926019|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and 59 - 77||2.05|0.67|0.261
95926020|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.89|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient (quality of sleep) score: \<= 30 and \> 77||2.89|0.95|0.261
95926021|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.14|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between VAS patient: global assessment score: \<= 67 and \> 67||3.14|1.38|<0.001
95926022|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.47|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between SF36 vitality score: \> 33 and \<= 33||3.47|1.50|< 0.001
95926023|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.93|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Doubtful case)||1.93|0.60|0.399
95926024|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Anxiety (No case) and HADS score: Anxiety (Certain case)||1.26|0.48|0.399
95926025|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Doubtful case)||1.81|0.65|0.858
95926026|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between HADS score: Depression (No Case) and HADS score: Depression (Certain case)||1.52|0.57|0.858
95926027|NCT01185522|191814822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.58|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Comparison between time since initial diagnosis: \>= 10 years and \< 10 years||2.58|1.03|0.036
95926028|NCT01185522|191814823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.28|1.05|0.004
95926029|NCT01185522|191814823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||Multivariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: C-Reactive Protein||1.27|1.03|0.013
95926030|NCT01185522|191814824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor: Tender joint||1.05|0.99|0.253
95926031|NCT01185522|191814824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.09|||Univariate logistic regression model|||Predictive factor : Swollen joint||1.09|1.01|0.021
95926032|NCT01729819|191814836|SUPERIORITY|The change in mean nocturnal voids from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, and treatments and visit (Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3) as factors, was considered for the analysis. Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. Missing values post-baseline were not imputed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal voids as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal voids as a covariate, treatment and visit as factors.|Longitudinal analysis based on repeated measures using analysis of covariance with subject as random effect. The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented. The trial was to be declared positive if a statistically significant (two-sided, p \< 0.05) positive effect for combining tolterodine and desmopressin compared to tolterodine monotherapy on the primary endpoint had been demonstrated.||0.08|-0.77|0.112
95983715|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.104|<0.0001
95983716|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.15||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.150|0.102|<0.0001
95983717|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
95983718|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.072|<0.0001
95983719|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.133||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.133|0.085|<0.0001
95983720|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1569
95983721|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.137||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.137|0.089|<0.0001
95983722|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.026|-0.022|0.8834
95983723|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.009|0.2129
95983724|NCT01431274|191941881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.01||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.010|-0.037|0.2702
95983725|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.166|0.117|<0.0001
95983726|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.090|<0.0001
95983727|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.143||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.143|0.094|<0.0001
95983728|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.074|<0.0001
95983729|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.117||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.117|0.067|<0.0001
95983730|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.002|0.0717
95983731|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.097|<0.0001
95983732|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.051|0.002|0.0344
95983733|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.045||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.045|-0.005|0.1126
95983734|NCT01431274|191941882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.031||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.031|-0.018|0.6009
95983735|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.049|<0.0001
95983736|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.087|0.039|<0.0001
95983737|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.070|0.023|0.0001
95983738|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.054|0.007|0.0122
95983739|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.061|0.014|0.0021
95983740|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.049|0.002|0.0347
95983741|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.08||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.080|0.032|<0.0001
95983742|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.033|-0.014|0.4407
95983743|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.040|-0.007|0.1777
95983744|NCT01431274|191941883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5641
95983745|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.104|0.057|<0.0001
95983746|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.051|<0.0001
95983747|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|0.014|0.0018
95983748|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.000|0.0517
95983749|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|0.009|0.0072
95983750|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.066|0.019|0.0005
95983751|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|0.042|<0.0001
95983752|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.029|-0.018|0.6619
95983753|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.038|-0.010|0.2401
95926033|NCT01729819|191814837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|58.96|||ANCOVA|Change in mean time to first void as dependent variable and baseline mean time to first void as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented.||58.96|-22.96|0.385
95926034|NCT01729819|191814838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.16||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.46|13.14|||ANCOVA|Change in mean nocturnal volume as the dependent variable and baseline mean nocturnal volume as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|The estimated value represents the contrast of combination - tolterodine.|Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. effect in combination group minus effect in tolterodine group) is presented||13.14|-141.46|0.103
95926035|NCT01729819|191814839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.62||33% responder status as dependent variable, baseline mean nocturnal voids as covariate, treatment, and visit as factors.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. odds of being responder in combination group versus odds of being responder in tolterodine group) is presented. The proportion of responders during three months of treatment was analysed (i.e. the odds ratio of the odds of being a responder) longitudinally using Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) for a repeated logistic regression.||2.62|0.71|0.352
95926036|NCT01729819|191814840|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.443||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 1|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 1||||0.443
95926037|NCT01729819|191814840|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.086||||||Adjusted treatment difference in mean number of nocturnal voids (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 2||||0.086
95926038|NCT01729819|191814840|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.055||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids at Month 3|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) at Month 3||||0.055
95926039|NCT01729819|191814840|SUPERIORITY|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis including a treatment-by visit interaction term||||||0.106||||||Adjusted treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) in mean number of nocturnal voids for the duration of 3 months|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Combination-tolterodine) for the duration of 3 months||||0.106
95926040|NCT01729819|191814841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.05|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented.Statistical analysis for from very tired to wide awake, how do you feel now"||1.05|-0.20|0.178
95926041|NCT01729819|191814841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.94|||ANCOVA|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate how refreshed you feel now"||0.94|-0.26|0.257
95926042|NCT01729819|191814841|SUPERIORITY|Quality of sleep rating score as dependent variable, baseline quality of sleep rating scale value as a covariate, and responder status as a factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|Longitudinal analysis of covariance on change from baseline with baseline as a covariate, and treatment and visit as factors.|Estimated contrast (Combination - tolterodine) from longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Combination versus tolterodine (i.e. score on scale in combination group versus score on scale in tolterodine group) is presented. Statistical analysis for Rate the quality of your sleep last night"||0.88|-0.32|0.360
95926043|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.69||||||"Abdomen 10 minutes~Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.69|-0.44|
95729505|NCT02308111|191429445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.34|0.53|0.468
95926044|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.49||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.49|1.36|
95926045|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.36|-0.73|
95926046|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.78||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.78|1.69|
95993570|NCT00348140|191963296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.03|-0.03|0.892
95983754|NCT01431274|191941884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.015||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.015|-0.033|0.4601
95983755|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.064|<0.0001
95983756|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.052|<0.0001
95983757|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.094||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.094|0.046|<0.0001
95983758|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|0.027|<0.0001
95983759|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
95983760|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1405
95983761|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.093||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.093|0.045|<0.0001
95983762|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.036|-0.012|0.3118
95983763|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.043|-0.005|0.1171
95983764|NCT01431274|191941885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.017||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.017|-0.031|0.5759
95983765|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.055|<0.0001
95983766|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|0.038|<0.0001
95926047|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.31||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.31|-0.90|
95926048|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.22||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.22|1.98|
95926049|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.57||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.57|-0.61|
95926050|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.93||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.93|1.72|
95926051|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.22||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.22|-0.91|
95926052|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.01||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.01|1.88|
95926053|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.24||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.24|-0.85|
95926054|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||||||Abdomen 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.95|1.87|
95926055|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.40|-0.67|
95926056|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.80|1.70|
95926057|NCT03224299|191814842|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 CFU/cm\^2 less than the active control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.48||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.48|-0.56|
95926058|NCT03224299|191814842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.68||||||Groin 30 seconds Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.68|1.62|
95926059|NCT02962674|191814844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses associated with this objective was written as:~H0: μ ΔIPSS ≤ 6.5 points HA: μ ΔIPSS \> 6.5 points where μ ΔIPSS was the true underlying value of mean ΔIPSS following a treatment at the 3-month follow-up visit and 6.5 points was an objective performance goal (OPG). The objective was met at a given time point by rejecting the null hypothesis in a one-sided t-test at the 5% significance level."||||0.004
95926060|NCT00771667|191814860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.005
95926061|NCT00771667|191814860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.057
95926062|NCT00771667|191814860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level for the primary endpoint, beginning with the highest dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.021
95926063|NCT00771667|191814861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.682
95983767|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|0.037|<0.0001
95983768|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.071|0.022|0.0002
95983769|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.068|0.019|0.0004
95983770|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.042|-0.006|0.1360
95983771|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|0.041|<0.0001
95983772|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.041||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.041|-0.007|0.1617
95983773|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.039|-0.010|0.2476
95983774|NCT01431274|191941886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.027|-0.021|0.8083
95983775|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.124||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.124|0.075|<0.0001
95983776|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.088|0.039|<0.0001
95983777|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.100|0.051|<0.0001
95983778|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.072||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.072|0.023|0.0001
95983779|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
95983780|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.048||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.048|-0.001|0.0554
95983781|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|0.047|<0.0001
95983782|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.060|0.011|0.0041
95983783|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.053|0.004|0.0248
95983784|NCT01431274|191941887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.032|-0.017|0.5338
95983785|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0017
95983786|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
95983787|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|0.002|0.0426
95983788|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.074|<0.0001
95983789|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.159|0.063|<0.0001
95983790|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.021|0.2661
95983791|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.198||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.198|0.102|<0.0001
95983792|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.014|-0.109|0.0119
95983793|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.025|-0.121|0.0029
95983794|NCT01431274|191941888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.059|-0.036|0.6408
95983795|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.27||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.270|0.173|<0.0001
95983796|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.145|<0.0001
95983797|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.233|0.136|<0.0001
95983798|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.162|0.065|<0.0001
95983799|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.205||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.205|0.108|<0.0001
95983800|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.085|-0.012|0.1355
95983801|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.102|<0.0001
95983802|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.076|-0.020|0.2562
95983803|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.119|0.022|0.0041
95983804|NCT01431274|191941889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.005||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.005|-0.091|0.0815
95983805|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.149|<0.0001
95926064|NCT00771667|191814861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.206
95926065|NCT00771667|191814861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.196
95926066|NCT00771667|191814862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.008
95926067|NCT00771667|191814862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
95926068|NCT00771667|191814862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.035
95926069|NCT00771667|191814863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||<0.001
95926070|NCT00771667|191814863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.007
95926071|NCT00771667|191814863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.006
95926072|NCT00771667|191814864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.074
95926073|NCT00771667|191814864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.081
95926074|NCT00771667|191814864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for anti-TNF status.||||||0.105
95926075|NCT00771667|191814865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Testing for Week-22 clinical remission was performed if the comparison of 6-mg/kg ustekinumab with placebo was positive for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test chi-square test, stratified by IV induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||0.029
95926076|NCT00771667|191814866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test is controlling for induction dose and clinical remission status at Week 6.||||||<0.001
95926077|NCT02469064|191814897|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Mann Whitneey||Univariate analysis of the probability of extubation was performed using Kaplan-Meir survival analysis and the logrank test.The multivariate analysis was performed by cox regression, a simple model was performed and a final model.|||1.20|0.55|0.84
95926078|NCT02469064|191814898|OTHER||Slope|0.46||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.78|||t-test, 2 sided||The slope shows the difference between the means of the change in the MIP of the group that received the experimental treatment and the group that received the conventional treatment|||4.78|-3.75|0.48
95926079|NCT01120275|191814920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month PFS|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||||||6-month progression free survival (PFS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.22|0.02|
95926080|NCT01120275|191814921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year OS|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66||||||1-year overall survival (OS) was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier and confidence intervals were calculated using the log-log transformation.||0.66|0.32|
95926081|NCT01156116|191814932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.03
95926082|NCT01156116|191814933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.04
95926083|NCT01156116|191814934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||0.009
95926084|NCT01156116|191814935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were adjusted for age, body mass index, and ethnicity-based diabetes risk.||||||<0.001
95926085|NCT00843193|191814936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.27|0.1955
95926086|NCT00843193|191814936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||-0.03|-0.34|0.0193
95926087|NCT00843193|191814936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.14|-0.23|0.6156
95926088|NCT00843193|191814936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 120 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.14|-0.31|0.4672
95926089|NCT00843193|191814939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 2||0.06|-0.08|0.7693
95926090|NCT00843193|191814939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 4||0.09|-0.08|0.8987
95926091|NCT00843193|191814939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 8||0.05|-0.12|0.4231
95926092|NCT00843193|191814939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|||Comparison between GSK679586 10 mg/kg and Placebo at Week 12||0.00|-0.19|0.0537
95926093|NCT02057718|191814953|OTHER|Null hypothesis (H0): mean change from baseline to Week 13 is zero. The null hypothesis was tested for each of the 2 PFIC subgroups and overall; the change in the overall population is presented here.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.304|STANDARD_DEVIATION|160.9748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.35|35.742||||||This analysis shows the change from baseline to Week 13 in sBA levels for the overall Modified Intent-to-treat Population. Even though a comparison of PFIC1 vs PFIC2 (overall) is noted, the results are the change from baseline for all participants and is not comparative.||35.742|-82.35|
95926094|NCT04511650|191814982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease severity.||Pooled Razuprotafib comparison to Placebo. All results are summarized descriptively by treatment arm and expressed as proportions, along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference between response rates, and p-values.||||0.4795
95926095|NCT02982213|191815011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
95983806|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.199||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.199|0.107|<0.0001
95983807|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.221||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.221|0.128|<0.0001
95983808|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.061|<0.0001
95983809|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.178||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.178|0.086|<0.0001
95983810|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.067|-0.025|0.3727
95983811|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.175||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.175|0.082|<0.0001
95983812|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.004|0.0744
95983813|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.021|0.0047
95983814|NCT01431274|191941890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.022||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.022|-0.071|0.2945
95926096|NCT02982213|191815015|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 5 per group to achieve 80% power to detect a change in the log odds ration of 1.0 at a .05 significance level using a two sided Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.001
95926097|NCT00835380|191815048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|99.0||||||95.0|89.0|99.0||||||||99|89|
95983815|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.255||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.255|0.155|<0.0001
95729506|NCT02308111|191429446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||1.41|0.13|0.178
95729507|NCT02308111|191429446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.13|0.190
95926098|NCT03727854|191815050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
95926099|NCT03727854|191815051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.971
95926100|NCT03727854|191815052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.608
95926101|NCT03727854|191815053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
95926102|NCT03727854|191815054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
95926103|NCT03727854|191815055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
95926104|NCT03727854|191815056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
95926105|NCT03727854|191815057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
95926106|NCT03727854|191815058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
95926107|NCT01081145|191815059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in treatment failures|-15.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-4.5|-26.6|0.006
95926108|NCT01081145|191815060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
95926109|NCT01081145|191815061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-3.48||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-3.48|-9.01|<0.001
95926110|NCT01081145|191815062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percent of subjects|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.5||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|6.6|0.001
95926111|NCT01081145|191815063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.02||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.14|0.118
95926112|NCT01081145|191815066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95926113|NCT01081145|191815070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95926114|NCT03593070|191815073|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for the MM-CGI from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95926115|NCT03593070|191815074|OTHER||Slope|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.105||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in total scores for the CESD from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).||||0.001
95926116|NCT03593070|191815075|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.514|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.102||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95926117|NCT03593070|191815076|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total positive state of mind scale (PSOMS) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT).|Slope|0.653|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.093||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95926118|NCT03593070|191815077|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in conflict scores (based on FPCR) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.609|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95926119|NCT03593070|191815078|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total scores for satisfaction with care measure (FPCT) from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.731|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95926120|NCT03593070|191815079|OTHER|Analyses compared changes in total Family Knowledge of Alzheimer's Test (FKAT) scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT)|Slope|0.687|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.084||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95926121|NCT03593070|191815080|OTHER||Slope|0.527|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.088||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analyses compared changes in caregiver sense of loss, guilt, and role captivity scores from baseline to 24 weeks, for both arms of the intervention (CGMI-V and MT). This measure uses 51 items of the FPCR measure.||||0.001
95926122|NCT00816829|191815101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.048
95926123|NCT00816829|191815102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.203
95926124|NCT00816829|191815103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups was performed using Wilcoxon Test on data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.007
95926125|NCT00816829|191815104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.199
95926126|NCT00816829|191815105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.114
95926127|NCT00816829|191815106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.533
95926128|NCT00816829|191815107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.521
95926129|NCT00816829|191815108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.333
95926130|NCT00816829|191815109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.264
95926131|NCT00816829|191815110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups was performed using an ANCOVA on log-transformed data at one month after the start of the treatment.||||0.401
95926132|NCT00708097|191815181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.98||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.97||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.97|-5.00|0.5757
95926133|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.17||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.14||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.14|-4.79|0.5387
95926134|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|9.77||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.77|-4.18|0.4306
95926135|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.09|-18.06||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.06|-32.09|<0.0001
95926136|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|7.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.09|-6.71|0.9567
95926137|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.81||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|7.76||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.76|-6.14|0.8188
95926138|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|-20.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.08|-34.03|<0.0001
95926139|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.62||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|7.51||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.51|-6.28|0.8599
95926140|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-20.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.30|-34.20|<0.0001
95926141|NCT00708097|191815182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-20.89||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-20.89|-34.84|<0.0001
95926142|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|3.26||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.26|-6.15|0.5451
95926143|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.5||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.19||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.19|-1.20|0.1433
95926144|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|12.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.16|2.78|0.0020
95926145|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.79|28.25||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||28.25|18.79|<0.0001
95926146|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.94||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.59|0.29|0.0373
95926147|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|13.59||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.59|4.24|0.0002
95926148|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|24.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|29.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||29.66|20.27|<0.0001
95926149|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.98||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.61|-0.66|0.0925
95926150|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|20.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|15.35|<0.0001
95926151|NCT00708097|191815183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|20.74||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.74|11.36|<0.0001
95926152|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.34|102.32||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||102.32|-106.34|0.9697
95926153|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|106.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|210.87||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||210.87|2.92|0.0440
95926154|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.92||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.96|264.88||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||264.88|56.96|0.0026
95856718|NCT01106690|191672535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-12.1|0.034
95926155|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|222.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.58|327.36||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||327.36|117.58|<0.0001
95926156|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|108.91||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|211.83||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||211.83|5.98|0.0382
95993571|NCT00348140|191963296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 36||0.00|-0.05|0.083
95926157|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|162.93||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.68|266.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||266.18|59.68|0.0021
95926158|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|224.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.51|328.46||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||328.46|120.51|<0.0001
95926159|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|54.03||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|156.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||156.61|-48.56|0.3003
95926160|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.55||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|165.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||165.24|-42.14|0.2432
95926161|NCT00708097|191815184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|115.58||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.02|219.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||219.13|12.02|0.0289
95926162|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.47|294.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||294.66|-322.47|0.9293
95926163|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|575.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|268.24|883.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||883.17|268.24|0.0003
95926164|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|637.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|330.3|945.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||945.03|330.30|<0.0001
95926165|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1813.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1503.03|2123.54||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2123.54|1503.03|<0.0001
95926166|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|589.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|285.31|893.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||893.92|285.31|0.0002
95926167|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|651.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|346.44|956.7||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||956.70|346.44|<0.0001
95926168|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1827.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1519.78|2134.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2134.60|1519.78|<0.0001
95856719|NCT01106690|191672535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-28.1|0.003
95926169|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|61.96||||0.6874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.25|365.17||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||365.17|-241.25|0.6874
95926170|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1237.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|931.46|1543.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1543.70|931.46|<0.0001
95926171|NCT00708097|191815185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1175.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.15|1482.1||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment and period with subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means of the treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to EFU. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1482.10|869.15|<0.0001
95926172|NCT00726596|191815209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6789|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.6789
95926173|NCT01549314|191815217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.77
95926174|NCT01549314|191815217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in cortical volumentric bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.82
95926175|NCT01549314|191815218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.64
95926176|NCT01549314|191815218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in DXA PA spine bone mineral density was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.78
95926177|NCT01549314|191815219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF taking ivacaftor and subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor.||||0.86
95926178|NCT01549314|191815219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 24 months in osteocalcin was determined and compared between subjects with CF not taking ivacaftor and healthy subjects.||||0.99
95926179|NCT00549848|191815270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
95926180|NCT00558363|191815276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||Comparing 24-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox Proportional Hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.50|0.23|<0.001
95926181|NCT00558363|191815286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 57% versus 28%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
95926182|NCT00558363|191815287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk (Hazard Ratio)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.45||Comparing 12-month survival curves (includes time to PSA doubling as well as time to censoring); stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|Log Rank||Relative risk of dutasteride compared to placebo, derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by site cluster and previous therapy|||0.45|0.14|<0.001
95926183|NCT00558363|191815288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparing percentages of participants with PSA doubling: 35% versus 10%|Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|||||||<0.001
95926184|NCT02174562|191815299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||0.05 was the a priori level of significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||PC-OT is the numerator, Enhanced Usual care is the denominator|Null hypothesis is that the Relative Risk of reduction of HbA1C \>=0.5 for PCOT vs EUC is 1.||1.75|0.84|0.31
95926185|NCT02174562|191815300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for comparison of least squares means for period 2 (months 4-6).||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the percentage of doses taken each month. Fixed effects were period (1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, 10-12 months), randomization group, randomization by period interaction, stratification group, age, and run-in percentage doses taken. The outcome was transformed using the arcsin-square root transformation prior to analysis. A first-order autoregressive correlation structure was assumed.||||0.87
95926186|NCT03670602|191815309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment influenced improvements in delay discounting across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate.||||0.0035
95926187|NCT03670602|191815309|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if delay discounting improved across all three timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Treatment group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
95926188|NCT03670602|191815310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced weight across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.85
95926189|NCT03670602|191815310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in weight, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
95926190|NCT03670602|191815311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in hBa1c across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.79
95926191|NCT03670602|191815311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for the time effect, or if hBa1c changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.001
95926192|NCT03670602|191815312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced medication adherence across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.201
95926193|NCT03670602|191815312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||This is for the time effect, or if timepoint influenced medication adherence across all timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.315
95926194|NCT03670602|191815313|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||||0.345||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment group influenced change in percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||||||0.345
95926195|NCT03670602|191815313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||This is for the time effect, or if percent of time engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) changed across timepoints, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.0003
95926196|NCT03670602|191815314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in calorie intake across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.007
95926197|NCT03670602|191815314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in calorie intake, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
95926198|NCT03670602|191815315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced changes in working memory across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.774
95926199|NCT03670602|191815315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in working memory, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.019
95926200|NCT03670602|191815316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for the treatment group x time effect, or if treatment differentially influenced relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food across all three timepoints. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||0.650
95926201|NCT03670602|191815316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is for the time effect, or if time influenced changes in relative reinforcing efficacy of unhealthy food, independent of treatment group. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were Intention to Treat (ITT) and included all randomized participants||A mixed model ANCOVA with unstructured covariance and random effects of participant. Group and cohort were the between subject variables, weeks as the repeated measure and site as a covariate||||<0.0001
95926202|NCT00957658|191815317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 6%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Asymptotic WALD test|||Literature control = 96% with no aseptic loosening, intraop femoral fracture or thigh pain at 2 years||||<.0001
95856720|NCT01106690|191672536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|1.2|0.010
95926203|NCT00957658|191815320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Improvement from preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
95926204|NCT00957658|191815321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare Pre-op SF-12 Physical Score preop to 2 year and preop to 5 year||||<.0001
95926205|NCT00957658|191815321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Score preop to 2 years||||<.0001
95926206|NCT00957658|191815321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare SF-12 Mental Score preop to 5 years||||.0004
95926207|NCT00957658|191815322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Compare LEAS score preop to 2 years and preop to 5 years||||<.0001
95926208|NCT00957658|191815325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare to historical control (n=94 hips): mean wear 5 years = 0.134 (0.078)||||<.0001
95926209|NCT00957658|191815326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||Compare Wrist DXA T-score preop to 5 years||||.0002
95926210|NCT00300456|191815327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
95926211|NCT00300456|191815327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect 24% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
95926212|NCT00300456|191815328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95926213|NCT00300456|191815328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 98% power to detect a 9% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95926214|NCT00300456|191815329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95926215|NCT00300456|191815329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect an 11% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95926216|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used.||Anti-HPV Type 6||1.21|1.02|<0.001
95926217|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 11||1.19|1.00|<0.001
95926218|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 16||1.30|1.10|<0.001
95926219|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.31|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 18||1.31|1.08|<0.001
95926220|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 31||1.37|1.13|<0.001
95926221|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 33||1.30|1.10|<0.001
95926222|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.41|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.41|1.14|<0.001
95926223|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.26|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 52||1.26|1.05|<0.001
95926224|NCT01651949|191815417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to GMT ratio (heterosexual males / females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.67, to exclude a decrease of 1.5-fold or more|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance model with a response of log individual titers and fixed effect for group was used||Anti-HPV Type 58||1.36|1.14|<0.001
95926225|NCT01651949|191815418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Erythema||-8.0|-15.0|<0.001
95926226|NCT01651949|191815418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-15.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Pain||-15.7|-22.5|<0.001
95926227|NCT01651949|191815418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-13.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of AEs of injection-site erythema reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Injection-site Swelling||-13.7|-20.8|<0.001
95926228|NCT01651949|191815419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The incidence of maximum body temperature \>=37.8° C reported on the Vaccination Report Card was compared between heterosexual / MSM male participants and female participants|Elevated Body Temperature||0.2|-3.4|0.091
95926229|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 6||0.9|-0.7|<0.001
95926230|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 11||0.8|-0.3|<0.001
95926231|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 16||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
95926232|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 18||0.8|-0.4|<0.001
95926233|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 31||0.5|-0.4|<0.001
95926234|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 33||0.7|-0.3|<0.001
95926235|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 45||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
95926236|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 52||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
95926237|NCT01651949|191815420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion for non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion percentage (heterosexual males minus females) required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -5|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Anti-HPV Type 58||0.9|-0.2|<0.001
95926238|NCT01806714|191815427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||clustered stratified Proportional Hazard||We determined hazard ratios using a clustered stratified Cox model with the Efron method to handle tied events and the Huber/White variance estimator that clustered on primary care provider and stratified on practice.|||1.6|1.0|<0.04
95926239|NCT00964366|191815437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
95926240|NCT00964366|191815439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Dapsone versus Clindamycin/BPO gel.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||< 0.05
95926241|NCT00964366|191815440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95926242|NCT00964366|191815441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95926243|NCT00434018|191815447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95926244|NCT01157182|191815478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.63|108.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.55|97.63|
95926245|NCT01157182|191815479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|101.76|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.76|95.15|
95926246|NCT01157182|191815480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|102.26|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.26|95.33|
95926247|NCT01157182|191815481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|96.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.55|88.64|
95926248|NCT01157182|191815482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|98.81|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.81|92.60|
95926249|NCT01157182|191815483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|98.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.91|92.62|
95926250|NCT01157182|191815484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|96.33|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||96.33|88.65|
95926251|NCT01157182|191815485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.77|92.68|
95926252|NCT01157182|191815486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|98.88|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.88|92.68|
95926253|NCT01157182|191815487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.62|98.31|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.31|84.62|
95983816|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.206|0.107|<0.0001
95983817|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.242|0.142|<0.0001
95983818|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.174|0.074|<0.0001
95983819|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
95926254|NCT01157182|191815488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|89.04|
95983820|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.062||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.062|-0.037|0.6103
95983821|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.186||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.186|0.087|<0.0001
95983822|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.001|0.0559
95983823|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.118|0.018|0.0073
95983824|NCT01431274|191941891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.4368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.030|-0.070|0.4368
95983825|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
95983826|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.027|0.0023
95983827|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
95983828|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.097|-0.001|0.0545
95983829|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.099||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.099|0.001|0.0456
95926255|NCT01157182|191815489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|104.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.76|90.70|
95926256|NCT01157182|191815490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|98.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.81|89.78|
95926257|NCT01157182|191815491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.73|99.36|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.36|92.73|
95926258|NCT01157182|191815492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|100.96|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.96|93.62|
95926259|NCT01157182|191815493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.46|99.62|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.62|84.46|
95926260|NCT01157182|191815494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|103.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.14|88.37|
95926261|NCT01157182|191815495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.1|103.81|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.81|88.10|
95926262|NCT01157182|191815496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.56|98.98|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||98.98|89.56|
95926263|NCT01157182|191815497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|100.04|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.04|92.14|
95926264|NCT01157182|191815498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|100.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.93|92.75|
95926265|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95856721|NCT01106690|191672536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|2.8|<0.001
95926266|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926267|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926268|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926269|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926270|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926271|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926272|NCT04673851|191815499|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926273|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926274|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926275|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926276|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95983830|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.075|-0.023|0.2949
95983831|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.123|0.025|0.0029
95729508|NCT02308111|191429447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.54||Gray's test p-value and hazard ratio are based on stratified analyses, with the randomization stratification factors entered in the IWRS as strata.|Gray's Test|||||3.54|0.05|0.443
95926277|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926278|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926279|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926280|NCT04673851|191815500|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926281|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926282|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926283|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926284|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926285|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926286|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926287|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926288|NCT04673851|191815501|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926289|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926290|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 21 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926291|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926292|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 20 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926293|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926294|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - Baseline: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926295|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926296|NCT04673851|191815502|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926297|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926298|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926299|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926300|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926301|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926302|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926303|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926304|NCT04673851|191815503|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926305|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926306|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926307|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926308|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926309|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926310|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926311|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926312|NCT04673851|191815504|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926313|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926314|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between mid-treatment and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Midtreatment: 19 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926315|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926316|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and mid-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Midtreatment - 1.5 Months: 30 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926317|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926318|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and 4.5 month assessments.|Cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||4.5 Months - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926319|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95926320|NCT04673851|191815505|OTHER|Effect size of single group mean difference between 1.5 month and post-treatment assessments.|Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - 1.5 Months: 27 participants analyzed (had data at both timepoints)||||
95983832|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.12||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.120|0.022|0.0045
95983833|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.122|0.024|0.0035
95983834|NCT01431274|191941892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.047|-0.051|0.9369
95983835|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.217||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.217|0.119|<0.0001
95983836|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.154|0.056|<0.0001
95983837|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.152|0.054|<0.0001
95983838|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.096||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.096|-0.002|0.0585
95983839|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.090|-0.008|0.1042
95926321|NCT02914522|191815538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1.||||19.5|2.1|0.0157
95926322|NCT02914522|191815538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.0|-4.3|0.3379
95926323|NCT02914522|191815538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||12.8|1.6|0.0103
95983840|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.114||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.114|0.016|0.0097
95926324|NCT02914522|191815538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.5|-0.0|0.0645
95926325|NCT02914522|191815539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.9|16.0|< 0.0001
95926326|NCT02914522|191815539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.7|-0.0|0.0420
95926327|NCT02914522|191815540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||20.4|3.8|0.0053
95983841|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.161||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.161|0.063|<0.0001
95926328|NCT02914522|191815540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||12.2|-3.1|0.2295
95926329|NCT02914522|191815540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||10.7|-0.1|0.0393
95926330|NCT02914522|191815540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||6.6|-3.1|0.5308
95926331|NCT02914522|191815541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||14.3|2.9|0.0047
95926332|NCT02914522|191815541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||6.8|-2.6|0.3495
95926333|NCT02914522|191815541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.1|-2.5|0.4269
95926334|NCT02914522|191815541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9987
95926335|NCT02914522|191815542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||28.2|9.9|<0.0001
95926336|NCT02914522|191815542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.8||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1.||||16.2|-0.7|0.0672
95983842|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.112||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.112|0.014|0.0120
95926337|NCT02914522|191815542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|11.4||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||18.6|4.2|0.0019
95926338|NCT02914522|191815542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.2||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||11.8|-1.4|0.1286
95926339|NCT02914522|191815543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|7.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||13.8|1.9|0.0105
95926340|NCT02914522|191815543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes or No) and of immunomodulators (Yes or No) at Day 1||||9.6|-1.0|0.1062
95729509|NCT01688037|191429571|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.2966
95926341|NCT02914522|191815543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.7||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||5.6|-2.2|0.3084
95926342|NCT02914522|191815543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at Day 1, and number of prior exposure to biologic agent (≤1,\>1).||||3.4|-3.4|0.9109
95926343|NCT02914522|191815549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.0|16.0|<0.0001
95926344|NCT02914522|191815549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||19.5|-1.1|0.0658
95926345|NCT02914522|191815550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|5.3|0.0024
95926346|NCT02914522|191815550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.9||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||8.7|-7.0|0.7951
95926347|NCT02914522|191815551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|20.8||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||33.9|7.7|0.0055
95926348|NCT02914522|191815551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|8.2||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||20.6|-4.2|0.1265
95926349|NCT02914522|191815552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.5||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||17.1|1.8|0.0157
95926350|NCT02914522|191815552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.5||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||13.9|-2.9|0.1808
95926351|NCT02914522|191815553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||35.2|14.6|<0.0001
95926352|NCT02914522|191815553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|9.9||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||21.2|-1.3|0.0521
95926353|NCT02914522|191815554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||24.2|7.8|0.0005
95926354|NCT02914522|191815554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.3||||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of corticosteroids and of immunomodulators at maintenance baseline; participation in Induction (A or B).||||12.6|-3.9|0.2946
95926355|NCT03028363|191815601|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.3430
95926356|NCT03028363|191815602|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Multiple Imputation||||||0.1260
95926357|NCT03028363|191815603|OTHER|||||||0.5247|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression (Firth's Penalized Likelihood), MCMC Multiple Imputation||||||0.5247
95926358|NCT00768651|191815604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size of 8 was determined to provide a 95% confidence interval expected width of 0.62 for the proportion of subjects who become insulin independent with treatment. Four of eight subjects (50%) would have to achieve insulin independence in order to reject the null hypothesis with 85% power and one sided alpha of 0.025. Statistical significance was set at 5%. Mean values were computed using Student's t-test while medians were compared using Wilcoxon's test.||||< 0.05
95926359|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.25|1.66|0.0010
95926360|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.85||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.85|4.35|<0.0001
95926361|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.16||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||16.16|3.10|<.0001
95926362|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95729510|NCT01688037|191429572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.743
95926363|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95950618|NCT01138657|191873008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations (from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.04|-0.46|0.019
95926364|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0008|||||||MCP-Mod exponential -2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0008
95926365|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926366|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926367|NCT04771273|191815629|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926368|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.28||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||12.28|2.46|<.0001
95926369|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|22.87||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||22.87|4.49|<.0001
95926370|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|10.91||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model includes planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and Baseline Fibrosis Score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.91|2.18|0.0001
95926371|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0001|||||||MCPMod linear model fit|linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0001
95983843|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.105|0.007|0.0250
95983844|NCT01431274|191941893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.056||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.056|-0.042|0.7889
95993572|NCT00348140|191963296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.05|0.366
95729511|NCT01688037|191429573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1151
95926372|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0115|||||||MCPMod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0115
95950619|NCT01138657|191873009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
95729512|NCT01688037|191429573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-0.8|0.0277
95950620|NCT01138657|191873009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
95950621|NCT01138657|191873010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.11|0.003
95950622|NCT01138657|191873010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.02|-0.10|0.008
95950623|NCT01138657|191873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.26|0.39|0.231
95950624|NCT01138657|191873011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.21|0.38|0.191
95950625|NCT01138657|191873012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-1.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-1.8|-20.9|0.020
95950626|NCT01138657|191873012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.5|-17.7|0.428
95950627|NCT01138657|191873013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||7.38|1.02|0.010
95950628|NCT01138657|191873013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.71|0.62|0.019
95950629|NCT01138657|191873014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.86||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.75|-2.03|0.346
95950630|NCT01138657|191873014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.31||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.09|-2.47|0.496
95950631|NCT01138657|191873015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|5.12||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||9.90|0.34|0.036
95950632|NCT01138657|191873015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|4.14||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|8.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||8.72|-0.45|0.077
95926373|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.2204|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.2204
95926374|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926375|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926376|NCT04771273|191815630|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926377|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.4||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||10.40|2.47|<.0001
95926378|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|20.51||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||20.51|4.36|<.0001
95926379|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|38.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||38.73|6.69|<.0001
95926380|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926381|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95950633|NCT01138657|191873016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||15.19|4.86|<0.001
95950634|NCT01138657|191873016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|13.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%||13.79|3.88|<0.001
95926382|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926383|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926384|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926385|NCT04771273|191815631|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926386|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||23.45|4.60|<.0001
95926387|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|27.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||27.45|5.30|<.0001
95926388|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.5||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type, baseline liver fat content and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||18.50|3.66|<.0001
95926389|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926390|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0031|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-1 model fit|Model assumption: 25% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0031
95950635|NCT01280656|191873020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95950636|NCT01280656|191873021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.693
95950637|NCT01280656|191873023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.573
95926391|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."||||||0.0925|||||||MCP-Mod exponential-2 model fit|Model assumption: 5% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||0.0925
95926392|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926393|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 80% of maximum effect is achieved at dose 3.0 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926394|NCT04771273|191815632|OTHER|"Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. The logistic regression model was fitted without an intercept, and included presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\] and the dose group as factors, and baseline liver fat content (assessed by MRI-PDFF) as a continuous linear covariate.~P-values from the contrast tests corresponding to each dose response pattern evaluated were adjusted for the multiple comparisons performed."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: Maximum effect is achieved at dose 4.8 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of survodutide and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential1, exponential2, Emax1, Emax2, quadratic) while keeping full control of the type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).||||<0.0001
95926395|NCT04771273|191815633|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-6.6||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-6.60|-10.59|<.0001
95926396|NCT04771273|191815633|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.96|-8.86||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.86|-12.96|<.0001
95926397|NCT04771273|191815633|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-8.92||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.92|-13.23|<.0001
95926398|NCT04771273|191815634|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|-7.03||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-7.03|-11.21|<.0001
95926399|NCT04771273|191815634|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-12.85|<.0001
95950638|NCT01280656|191873025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at the site||||0.982
95950639|NCT01280656|191873025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Mean at home||||0.012
95926400|NCT04771273|191815634|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.73||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg - Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-8.73|-13.00|<.0001
95926401|NCT04771273|191815635|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-33.79||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-33.79|-53.49|<.0001
95926402|NCT04771273|191815635|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.61|-45.42||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.42|-65.61|<.0001
95926403|NCT04771273|191815635|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-57.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.66|-46.39||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-46.39|-67.66|<.0001
95926404|NCT04771273|191815636|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.74|-36.25||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 2.4 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-36.25|-56.74|<.0001
95926405|NCT04771273|191815636|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-44.98||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 4.8 mg - Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-44.98|-65.25|<.0001
95926406|NCT04771273|191815636|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.76|-45.77||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|MMRM||"Survodutide 6.0 mg-Placebo"|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence interval were calculated from mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline liver fat content (%) as a continuous linear covariate, and treatment, presence of diabetes of any type \[yes, no\], baseline fibrosis score \[F1, F2, F3\], visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline by visit interaction as factors.||-45.77|-66.76|<.0001
95926407|NCT04771273|191815637|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.26||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||3.26|0.79|0.1894
95926408|NCT04771273|191815637|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.2||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.20|0.95|0.0685
95926409|NCT04771273|191815637|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.45||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included actual treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||7.45|1.52|0.0028
95926410|NCT04771273|191815638|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.27||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 2.4 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.27|0.95|0.0663
95926411|NCT04771273|191815638|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.23||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 4.8 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.23|0.95|0.0672
95926412|NCT04771273|191815638|OTHER|No confirmatory hypothesis testing was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.46||The p-value reported is considered nominal.|Regression, Logistic||Survodutide 6.0 mg vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model included planned treatment, presence of diabetes of any type and baseline fibrosis score. Firth's penalized regression was used.||4.46|1.00|0.0512
95926413|NCT01543685|191815646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|441.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.1|696.5|||ANCOVA|||||696.5|187.1|<0.001
95926414|NCT01543685|191815646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|260.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.3||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|516.3|||ANCOVA|||||516.3|4.1|0.046
95926415|NCT01543685|191815646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|312.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|568.9|||ANCOVA|||||568.9|56.6|0.017
95926416|NCT01543685|191815646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|211.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.6||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|466.2|||ANCOVA|||||466.2|-43.1|0.103
95926417|NCT01543685|191815647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95926418|NCT01543685|191815647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95926419|NCT01543685|191815647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
95926420|NCT01543685|191815647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
95926421|NCT01543685|191815648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95926422|NCT01543685|191815648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95926423|NCT01543685|191815648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
95926424|NCT01543685|191815648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95926425|NCT01543685|191815649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95926426|NCT01543685|191815649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95926427|NCT01543685|191815649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95926428|NCT01543685|191815649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95926429|NCT01543685|191815650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95926430|NCT01543685|191815650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95926431|NCT01543685|191815650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
95926432|NCT01543685|191815650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
95926433|NCT01543685|191815651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95926434|NCT01543685|191815651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95926435|NCT01543685|191815651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95926436|NCT01543685|191815651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95926437|NCT01543685|191815652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95926438|NCT01543685|191815652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95926439|NCT01543685|191815652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95926440|NCT01543685|191815652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
95926441|NCT01543685|191815653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95926442|NCT01543685|191815653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95926443|NCT01543685|191815653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95926444|NCT01543685|191815653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95926445|NCT00556543|191815654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation performed.||||||0.19||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test with the null hypothesis that the proportion with adverse events was the same in both groups.||||0.190
95926446|NCT03425643|191815667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.72|0.48|<0.00001
95926447|NCT03425643|191815668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method with treatment as a covariate stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|||0.93|0.56|0.00517
95926448|NCT03425643|191815669|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Percentage|19.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|24.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||24.7|13.9|<0.00001
95926449|NCT03425643|191815670|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Pertentage|14.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|10.1|<0.00001
95926450|NCT03425643|191815671|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|1.43||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.49|-1.64|0.3611
95926451|NCT03425643|191815672|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (Stage (II versus III), TPS (\>=50% versus \<50%), Histology (Squamous versus Non-squamous) and Region (East-Asia versus non-East Asia).|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.02|-0.58|0.1197
95926452|NCT04411082|191815679|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95926453|NCT04411082|191815680|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95926454|NCT04411082|191815681|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95926455|NCT04411082|191815682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.4839
95926456|NCT04411082|191815683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2065
95926457|NCT04411082|191815684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4839|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4839
95926458|NCT04411082|191815685|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95926459|NCT04411082|191815686|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95950640|NCT01280656|191873026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.476
95983845|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.237||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.237|0.138|<0.0001
95983846|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
95983847|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.202||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.202|0.103|<0.0001
95983848|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.111|0.013|0.0134
95926460|NCT00482729|191815693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-0.43|-0.78|<0.001
95926461|NCT00482729|191815694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|2.69||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 18 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group.|||2.69|1.60|<0.001
95926462|NCT00482729|191815695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.4|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline A1C||||-9.0|-22.4|<0.001
95926463|NCT00482729|191815696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||||95.0|-0.67|-0.3|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C.|||-0.30|-0.67|
95926464|NCT00482729|191815697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||||95.0|1.63|2.73|||||This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 44 in the Sita/Met FDC group vs. the Metformin group, based on a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0) A1C|||2.73|1.63|
95926465|NCT00531518|191815703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis included adjstment for site and baseline sum psychotic symptom score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used regression discontinuity methods, in which the baseline sum scores were adjusted and centered to an equalize control and experimental conditions.||||.0034
95926466|NCT00738699|191815718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy (intraperitoneal vs intravenous) and geographic region (North America, Europe, and other participating countries).|Log Rank||Stratified as described above.|||1.46|0.88|0.8360
95926467|NCT00738699|191815719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||One-sided log rank test stratified by route of administration for primary chemotherapy and geographic region.|Log Rank||Stratified as described above|||1.48|0.83|0.7568
95983849|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.136|0.037|0.0006
95983850|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.084|-0.015|0.1670
95983851|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.146|0.048|0.0001
95926468|NCT00738699|191815720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.7||Compared the ratio of complete or partial responders in the two arms. Stratified by route of administration for first line therapy and geographic region as specified at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||(FAR + Paclitaxel) minus (Placebo + Paclitaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.7|-14.1|0.0399
95926469|NCT01811706|191815724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of T25FW between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
95926470|NCT01811706|191815725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SARA score between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
95983852|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.115|0.017|0.0085
95926471|NCT01811706|191815726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Stride Length on BAG between Dalfampridine and Placebo. The test was performed with a significant level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||>0.05
95926472|NCT02957539|191815770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.7|1.6|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||1.6|-10.7|
95926473|NCT02957539|191815770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.1|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the non-financial arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1|-11.1|<0.025
95926474|NCT02957539|191815771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.8|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.8|-0.5|
95926475|NCT02957539|191815771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.5|||||Change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in Self Efficacy score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1.5|-0.8|
95926476|NCT02957539|191815772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|1.4|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.4|-1.2|
95926477|NCT02957539|191815772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|1.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.8|-.9|
95926478|NCT02957539|191815773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|2.8|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.8|0.2|
95926479|NCT02957539|191815773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|2.3|||||The change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in self efficacy from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||2.3|0.0|
95926480|NCT02957539|191815774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.9|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.9|-0.4|
95926481|NCT02957539|191815774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.7|||||Change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||0.7|-0.6|
95926482|NCT02957539|191815775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|1.3|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.3|-0.2|
95926483|NCT02957539|191815775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|1.6|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||1.6|-0.3|
95856722|NCT04730271|191672543|NON_INFERIORITY|Test of non-inferiority: Absolute value deviation from plan with ROBOTIC is less than it is with manual instruments (not using ROBOTIC) under a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 degrees|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95926484|NCT02957539|191815776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|1.5|||||The change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in intrinsic motivation from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||1.5|-0.5|
95729513|NCT01618305|191429574|SUPERIORITY|P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95856723|NCT04730271|191672544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
95856724|NCT04730271|191672545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
95926485|NCT02957539|191815776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.6|||||Incentive Group minus usual care|||1.6|-0.8|
95926486|NCT02957539|191815777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|2.6|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||2.6|-2.0|
95926487|NCT02957539|191815777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|2.9|||||Change in PHQ-9 from week baseline to week 16 in the non-financial incentive group minus the change from week baseline to week 16 in the no rewards group|||2.9|-1.5|
95926488|NCT02957539|191815778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|4.5|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the financial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||4.5|-1.7|
95926489|NCT02957539|191815778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|5.0|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm|||5.0|-0.7|
95926490|NCT02957539|191815779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.9|2.8|||||Change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in PHQ-8 score from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||2.8|-4.9|
95926491|NCT02957539|191815779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|3.6|||||The change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial incentive arm minus the change in PHQ-8 from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm|||3.6|-2.9|
95926492|NCT02957539|191815780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|1.0|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the no rewards arm.|||1|-7.4|
95926493|NCT02957539|191815780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.7|-0.4|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 16 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 32 in the no rewards arm.|||-0.4|-8.7|
95926494|NCT02957539|191815781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|10.7|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the financial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||10.7|-6|
95926495|NCT02957539|191815781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|4.1|||||Change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the nonfinancial rewards arm minus the change in weight from baseline to week 52 in the no rewards arm.|||4.1|-11.2|
95926496|NCT04567888|191815822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.95||Threshold for statistical significance set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.95|-1.88|<.001
95926497|NCT04567888|191815823|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.3||Threshold for statistical significance was set to .050.|Repeated-measures Multilevel Models|||||-0.30|-0.78|< .001
95926498|NCT02371746|191815830|SUPERIORITY||Change from baseline|30.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|36.6|||ANCOVA|||estimatCohort 1 all Groups: Non-study eye: TRAVANTAN Z Cohort 1 - Group 1: Study Eye: 28.2 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 2: Study Eye: 42.3 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 3: Study Eye: 42 .5 ug travoprost Cohort 1 - Group 4: Study Eye: 85.0 ug travoprost||36.6|-1.8|<0.001
95926499|NCT01490580|191815836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|-21.0|0.38
95926500|NCT00383188|191815870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|23.664|||Chi-squared|||||23.664|-7.565|0.3131
95926501|NCT00383188|191815870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.602|26.224|||Chi-squared|||||26.224|-4.602|0.1719
95983853|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.140|0.041|0.0003
95926502|NCT00383188|191815870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.123|27.799|||Chi-squared|||||27.799|-8.123|0.2783
95926503|NCT00383188|191815870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.566|27.404|||Chi-squared|||||27.404|-9.566|0.3381
95926504|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.733|10.845|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.845|-8.733|0.8619
95926505|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.176|17.651|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||17.651|-3.176|0.2546
95926506|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|27.115|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||27.115|0.921|0.0644
95926507|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.8304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.13|13.125|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||13.125|-10.13|0.8304
95926508|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|18.371|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.371|-6.150|0.4123
95856725|NCT04730271|191672546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
95926509|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.581|17.392|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||17.392|-6.581|0.4591
95926510|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.89|31.28|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||31.280|1.890|0.0585
95926511|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.21||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.522|30.829|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||30.829|0.522|0.0808
95926512|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.684|17.398|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||17.398|-7.684|0.5240
95926513|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.172|27.588|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||27.588|2.172|0.0571
95926514|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.222|31.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||31.087|1.222|0.0712
95926515|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.956|35.99|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||35.990|4.956|0.0279
95926516|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.71|10.515|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||10.515|-14.71|0.7848
95926517|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|27.869|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||27.869|1.860|0.0632
95926518|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.237|24.893|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||24.893|-5.237|0.2783
95926519|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|32.135|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||32.135|0.703|0.0828
95926520|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.77|11.328|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||11.328|-16.77|0.7505
95926521|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|15.156|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||15.156|-12.30|0.8641
95926522|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.12|19.734|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||19.734|-13.12|0.7399
95926523|NCT00383188|191815871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|3.018|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||3.018|-27.98|0.1996
95926524|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.944|3.929|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.929|-0.944|0.2982
95926525|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|3.709|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||3.709|-0.892|0.3122
95926526|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.631|9.934|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||9.934|-0.631|0.0649
95856726|NCT04730271|191672547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95926527|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|10.938|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||10.938|-0.681|0.0525
95926528|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.681|9.573|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||9.573|-0.681|0.1481
95950641|NCT01280656|191873026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.320
95950642|NCT01280656|191873027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.792
95950643|NCT01280656|191873028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
95950644|NCT01280656|191873029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.921
95950645|NCT01280656|191873030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
95950646|NCT01280656|191873031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total||||0.973
95950647|NCT02159352|191873035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.348|0.423||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.423|0.348|
95950648|NCT02159352|191873035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|0.371||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax.||0.371|0.306|
95950649|NCT02159352|191873036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.75||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.750|0.658|
95950650|NCT02159352|191873036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.535|0.622||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed AUC(TAU).||0.622|0.535|
95950651|NCT02159352|191873039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|0.846||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.846|0.697|
95950652|NCT02159352|191873039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.611|0.742||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed Cmax/D.||0.742|0.611|
95950653|NCT02159352|191873040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.317|1.501||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.501|1.317|
95950654|NCT02159352|191873040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.244||||||A general linear mixed effect model (restricted maximum likelihood) with treatment as fixed effect and measurements within each participant as repeated measures was fitted to the log-transformed (AUC(TAU)/D).||1.244|1.070|
95950655|NCT00346398|191873046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.5||Odds Ratios are calculated using a logistic regression with a Wald chi square test. Experimental group participants had a higher proportion of allergic sensitization than participants who received placebo|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||10.5|0.5|0.28
95950656|NCT00346398|191873047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1||Odds Ratios are calculated using unadjusted exact logistic regression with mid p-value to adjust for the discreteness of the distribution|Chi-squared|||Participants who drop out (have missing efficacy endpoints) are considered treatment failures.||6.1|0.2|0.85
95950657|NCT00346398|191873048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value is calculated using a log-rank test|Regression, Logistic||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using an unadjusted Cox regression|||5.6|0.6|0.28
95950658|NCT02707952|191873058|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Rate Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.9|-2.8|
95950659|NCT03055988|191873076|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|1.705|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation. H0: Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Tiotropium + Olodaterol) = Mean change from baseline in LVEDVI for (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol)||1.705|-2.779|0.6331
95950660|NCT03055988|191873077|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.074|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.074|-0.072|0.9817
95926529|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.093|14.124|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||14.124|2.093|0.0292
95926530|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|18.186|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||18.186|1.839|0.0167
95926531|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.269|20.029|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||20.029|2.269|0.0110
95926532|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.959|2.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||2.946|-7.959|0.4550
95926533|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.271|15.946|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||15.946|0.271|0.0919
95926534|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.28|23.272|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||23.272|2.280|0.0264
95926535|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.308|22.881|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||22.881|1.308|0.0369
95926536|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.85|-1.482|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||-1.482|-16.85|0.0568
95926537|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.727|13.835|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||13.835|-5.727|0.4961
95926538|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.008|18.89|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||18.890|-5.008|0.3212
95926539|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|12.843|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||12.843|-9.870|0.8274
95926540|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.538|14.996|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||14.996|-4.538|0.3774
95926541|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.11||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.591|19.51|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||19.510|-0.591|0.1246
95926542|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.502|20.087|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||20.087|-3.502|0.2257
95926543|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.355|17.03|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||17.030|-6.355|0.4336
95926544|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|9.467|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||9.467|-13.61|0.7682
95926545|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|8.257|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||8.257|-13.97|0.6726
95926546|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.28|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||7.000|-18.28|0.4795
95926547|NCT00383188|191815872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.19|-6.137|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-6.137|-26.19|0.0276
95926548|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
95926549|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
95926550|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
95926551|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 1||0.00|0.00|0.000
95926552|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
95926553|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||0.00|0.00|0.000
95926554|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.423|5.968|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||5.968|-1.423|0.1928
95926555|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|6.56|||Chi-squared|||Week 2||6.560|-1.560|0.1719
95926556|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.138|3.334|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||3.334|-3.138|0.9603
95926557|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.559|0.856|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||0.856|-3.559|0.3157
95926558|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.162|12.096|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||12.096|-1.162|0.1125
95926559|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.434|9.732|||Chi-squared|||Week 4||9.732|-2.434|0.2455
95926560|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.057|1.847|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||1.847|-7.057|0.3452
95926561|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.333|5.333|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||5.333|-5.333|1.0000
95926562|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.417|16.036|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||16.036|-1.417|0.1267
95926563|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|14.612|||Chi-squared|||Week 8||14.612|-2.720|0.2069
95926564|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.6506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.871|8.553|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||8.553|-4.871|0.6506
95926565|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.075|9.48|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||9.480|-4.075|0.5125
95926566|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.4412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|12.023|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||12.023|-4.652|0.4412
95926567|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.006|10.195|||Chi-squared|||Week 12||10.195|-6.006|0.6566
95983854|NCT01431274|191941894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.025||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.025|-0.074|0.3332
95983855|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.201||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.201|0.105|<0.0001
95983856|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.029|0.0016
95983857|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.18||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.180|0.084|<0.0001
95983858|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.089|-0.007|0.0926
95983859|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.103|0.008|0.0231
95983860|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.069|-0.026|0.3802
95926568|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|2.247|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||2.247|-12.57|0.2634
95926569|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.63|4.916|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||4.916|-10.63|0.5460
95983861|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.110|0.015|0.0105
95983862|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.125|0.028|0.0018
95926570|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
95926571|NCT00383188|191815873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.65|-0.086|||Chi-squared|||Week 16||-0.086|-14.65|0.1626
95926572|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.624|-2.400|0.7053
95926573|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.291|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-3.291|0.1938
95926574|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.491|0.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.116|-4.491|0.0627
95926575|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|1.517|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.517|-3.218|0.4809
95926576|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.286|0.709|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.709|-3.286|0.2057
95926577|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.293|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.631|-3.293|0.1833
95926578|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|-0.459|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.459|-5.037|0.0187
95926579|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.695|1.005|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.005|-3.695|0.2615
95926580|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.761|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-3.761|0.0832
95926581|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.576|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-3.576|0.1066
95926582|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.166||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.695|-0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.118|-4.695|0.0394
95926583|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|0.995|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.995|-3.705|0.2580
95926584|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|1.238|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.238|-2.754|0.4560
95926585|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.982|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-3.982|0.0434
95926586|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.016|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.560|-4.016|0.1386
95926587|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.196|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.196|-3.503|0.3353
95926588|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.075|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.085|-4.075|0.0410
95926589|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.194|-0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.274|-4.194|0.0255
95926590|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.671|-0.097|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.097|-4.671|0.0410
95926591|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.196||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.259|0.438|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.438|-4.259|0.1106
95729514|NCT01618305|191429575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks)||||||0.557
95926592|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.307|1.805|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.805|-2.307|0.8107
95926593|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.726|2.269|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.269|-1.726|0.7895
95926594|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.060|-2.673|0.7996
95926595|NCT00383188|191815874|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.235||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.610|-2.240|0.8811
95926596|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.427|1.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.053|-2.427|0.4385
95926597|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.624|-2.794|0.2131
95926598|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.419|-3.559|0.1216
95926599|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|1.378|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline tender/ joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.378|-2.728|0.5190
95926600|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|0.264|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.264|-3.193|0.0967
95926601|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|0.668|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.668|-2.721|0.2346
95926602|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.635|0.318|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.318|-3.635|0.1000
95926603|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.805|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.844|1.234|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.234|-2.844|0.4385
95926604|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.128|-3.327|0.0696
95926605|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.094|-3.294|0.0642
95926606|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.807|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.146|-3.807|0.0695
95926607|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.545|-2.532|0.6349
95926608|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.903|0.551|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.551|-2.903|0.1818
95926609|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|0.426|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.426|-2.961|0.1421
95926610|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|1.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.078|-2.874|0.3726
95926611|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|1.337|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.337|-2.739|0.4995
95926612|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|0.126|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.126|-3.327|0.0691
95926613|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862||0.2083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.607|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.607|-2.778|0.2083
95926614|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.811|1.139|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.139|-2.811|0.4063
95926615|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.234|1.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.841|-2.234|0.8501
95926616|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.399|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.150|-1.399|0.6778
95926617|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.230|-1.214|0.5627
95926618|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.501|2.576|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.576|-1.501|0.6049
95926619|NCT00383188|191815875|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|2.608|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline swollen joint count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.608|-1.587|0.6332
95926620|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.098||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|5.243|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.243|-10.85|0.4943
95926621|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-2.283|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.283|-18.09|0.0116
95926622|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-3.485|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.485|-21.98|0.0070
95926623|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.812||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-1.688|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.688|-20.58|0.0209
95926624|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.524|-15.40|0.0671
95926625|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|-2.632|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.632|-18.28|0.0089
95926626|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.657||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-4.959|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.959|-23.24|0.0025
95856727|NCT04730271|191672548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.6330
95856728|NCT04730271|191672548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a serious local adverse event within 1 year of the procedure.||||0.0400
95856729|NCT04730271|191672548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4079|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.4079
95926627|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|1.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 2:Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.496|-17.25|0.0994
95926628|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.056||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.926|5.999|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.999|-9.926|0.6284
95926629|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.986||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|-2.109|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.109|-17.76|0.0129
95926630|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.656||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|1.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.044|-17.24|0.0825
95926631|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.774||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.465|-11.28|0.6897
95926632|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.821|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.821|-6.100|0.6465
95926633|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.985||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-2.824|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.824|-18.47|0.0077
95926634|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.655||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|1.213|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.213|-17.07|0.0890
95926635|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.773||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.406|-15.33|0.2119
95856730|NCT04730271|191672548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the proportion of Robotic and Manual subjects who had a local serious adverse event within 90 days of the procedure.||||0.1262
95856731|NCT04730271|191672550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6662|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6662
95856732|NCT04730271|191672550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8154
95856733|NCT04730271|191672551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 12 weeks||||0.0165
95856734|NCT04730271|191672551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of FJS at 1 year||||0.1331
95926636|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|3.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.191|-12.72|0.2401
95926637|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.983||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-3.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.251|-18.89|0.0056
95926638|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|0.251|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.251|-18.02|0.0566
95926639|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.772||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.45|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.720|-19.45|0.0348
95983863|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.139|0.043|0.0002
95983864|NCT01431274|191941895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.034|-0.062|0.5554
95926640|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.191||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|13.116|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.116|-3.336|0.2436
95926641|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.066||0.6616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.762|6.201|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.201|-9.762|0.6616
95926642|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.574|13.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.388|-5.574|0.4189
95926643|NCT00383188|191815876|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.942||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.305|14.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS) count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.096|-5.305|0.3741
95926644|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|4.773|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.773|-10.77|0.4493
95926645|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.891||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.08|-6.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.807|-22.08|0.0002
95926646|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.661|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.661|-20.42|0.0109
95926647|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.651||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|1.765|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.765|-16.49|0.1137
95983865|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.228||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.228|0.127|<0.0001
95729515|NCT01618305|191429576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.909
95856735|NCT04730271|191672552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.1596
95926648|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.697|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.697|-11.68|0.3086
95926649|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-0.799|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.799|-15.92|0.0303
95926650|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.489||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|-1.845|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.845|-19.47|0.0178
95926651|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|3.729|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.729|-14.38|0.2486
95856736|NCT04730271|191672552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6834
95856737|NCT04730271|191672553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.5675
95856738|NCT04730271|191672553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9240
95856739|NCT04730271|191672554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4586
95926652|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.720|-10.65|0.4491
95926653|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-2.671|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.671|-17.79|0.0081
95926654|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.480|-18.10|0.0388
95926655|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|6.553|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.553|-11.55|0.5880
95926656|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.914||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|11.464|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.464|-3.904|0.3345
95926657|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.849||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-1.463|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.463|-16.58|0.0194
95926658|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|2.863|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.863|-14.76|0.1855
95926659|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.803|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.803|-14.30|0.2553
95926660|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|3.639|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.639|-11.72|0.3020
95926661|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.847||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|-2.715|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.715|-17.82|0.0078
95926662|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-17.33|0.0578
95926663|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|2.007|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.007|-16.09|0.1270
95926664|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.051||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.023|13.877|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.877|-2.023|0.1438
95926665|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|5.738|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.738|-9.696|0.6149
95926666|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|15.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.700|-2.610|0.1609
95926667|NCT00383188|191815877|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|15.961|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.961|-2.804|0.1691
95926668|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.341||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.967|5.149|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.149|-7.967|0.6733
95926669|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.274||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.797|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.797|-12.05|0.0859
95926670|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-2.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.259|-17.18|0.0107
95926671|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.002|-11.39|0.3463
95926672|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|1.316|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||1.316|-11.69|0.1178
95926673|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-0.737|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.737|-13.48|0.0288
95926674|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.772||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.340|-17.15|0.0100
95926675|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.164|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.164|-13.10|0.1600
95926676|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.101|-6.900|0.9040
95729516|NCT01618305|191429577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by maternal gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||0.938
95926677|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.245||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.524|-13.26|0.0339
95926678|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|-1.488|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.488|-16.29|0.0186
95926679|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.918|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.918|-10.35|0.4854
95926680|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.311||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.886|5.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.112|-7.886|0.6753
95926681|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|-4.724|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-4.724|-17.46|0.0007
95926682|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-2.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-2.134|-16.94|0.0116
95926683|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-0.691|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.691|-15.95|0.0326
95926684|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|2.872|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.872|-10.12|0.2738
95926685|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.243||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-3.412|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.412|-16.14|0.0026
95926686|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-1.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.941|-16.74|0.0134
95926687|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.886||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|2.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||2.101|-13.16|0.1553
95926688|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.444||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.878|6.641|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.641|-6.878|0.9726
95926689|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|7.928|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.928|-5.109|0.6714
95926690|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.058|8.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.351|-7.058|0.8693
95926691|NCT00383188|191815878|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.631|9.208|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis count as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.208|-6.631|0.7495
95926692|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-8.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.469||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-17.75|0.0447
95926693|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.345||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.65|-6.596|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.596|-23.65|0.0005
95926694|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-7.296|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-7.296|-26.84|0.0006
95926695|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.218||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-6.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-6.018|-26.49|0.0019
95926696|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|4.726|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.726|-12.41|0.3792
95926697|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|-1.031|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-1.031|-17.66|0.0276
95926698|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.128|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-3.128|-22.25|0.0093
95926699|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.47|0.271|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.271|-19.47|0.0566
95926700|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.764|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.370|-7.764|0.8540
95926701|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.950|-10.68|0.5770
95926702|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|3.232|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.232|-15.89|0.1942
95926703|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.376|11.364|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.364|-8.376|0.7665
95926704|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|11.858|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.858|-5.276|0.4512
95926705|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.409|8.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.220|-8.409|0.9822
95926706|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|4.414|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.414|-14.71|0.2910
95926707|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.042|12.698|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.698|-7.042|0.5741
95926708|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.366||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|11.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.674|-5.460|0.4768
95926709|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.237||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|6.058|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.058|-10.57|0.5945
95926710|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.953|10.171|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.171|-8.953|0.9006
95926711|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|19.094|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.094|-0.646|0.0670
95926712|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|17.379|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.379|-0.857|0.0757
95926713|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.329|14.043|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.043|-3.329|0.2265
95926714|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.178||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.517|11.801|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.801|-8.517|0.7512
95926715|NCT00383188|191815879|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.557|13.332|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline C-Reactive Protein as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.332|-7.557|0.5876
95926716|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.101|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.101|-0.638|0.1540
95926717|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.242|-0.958|0.0011
95856740|NCT04730271|191672554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.6951
95856741|NCT04730271|191672555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8000
95856742|NCT04730271|191672555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.9730
95856743|NCT04730271|191672556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.4636
95856744|NCT04730271|191672556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.8088
95856745|NCT04730271|191672557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4851
95856746|NCT04730271|191672557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.6486
95856747|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for Pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 1 year||||0.8887
95856748|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline for pain at rest between ROBOTIC and MANUAL at 12 weeks||||0.4007
95856749|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain at rest at 12 weeks||||0.0074
95856750|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain at rest at 1 year||||0.0663
95856751|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with Activity at 1 year||||0.7096
95926718|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.105|-0.277|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.277|-1.105|0.0011
95926719|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-0.983|0.0115
95926720|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.053|-0.673|0.0940
95729517|NCT01618305|191429578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
95729518|NCT01618305|191429579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by gestational age at entry (20-\<28 weeks; 28-\<31 weeks; 31-\<34 weeks; 34-\<37 weeks).||||||<0.001
95856752|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test P-value for difference in change from baseline between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.5321
95856753|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 12 weeks||||0.0709
95856754|NCT04730271|191672558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test P-value tests the significance of the difference between ROBOTIC and MANUAL for Pain with activity at 1 year||||0.1274
95856755|NCT04730271|191672559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the accuracy achieved in the first 10 cases compared to the subsequent cases||||0.6745
95856756|NCT02350296|191672577|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|108.12||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|94.12|97.57|119.81||"treatment P value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||119.81|97.57|0.1455
95856757|NCT02350296|191672578|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.62||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.26|117.38||"Treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.38|104.26|0.0023
95856758|NCT02350296|191672579|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|geometric means ratio|110.69||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.35|117.41||"treatment P value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||117.41|104.35|0.0021
95856759|NCT02350296|191672580|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was a 94.12% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the geometric means within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.0201|||||||Friedman|||||||0.0201
95856760|NCT01544335|191672584|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Correlation coefficient|The correlation between RVC and ΔL-Dex values was plotted, and the correlation strength was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient, r.||||||<0.001
95856761|NCT01746901|191672586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|24.4|<0.0001
95856762|NCT01746901|191672586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.7|1.6|0.0132
95926721|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-0.811|0.0109
95926722|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.075|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.259|-1.075|0.0014
95926723|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.028|-0.867|0.0364
95926724|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.092|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.092|-0.634|0.1436
95926725|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.052|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.052|-0.757|0.0246
95926726|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.138|-0.954|0.0088
95926727|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.152|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.152|-0.686|0.2121
95926728|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.265|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.265|-0.461|0.5975
95926729|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.112|-0.817|0.0099
95926730|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.037|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.037|-0.853|0.0328
95926731|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.205|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.205|-0.633|0.3162
95926732|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.010|-0.716|0.0569
95926733|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.096|-0.801|0.0126
95926734|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.107|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.107|-0.923|0.0135
95926735|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.274|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.274|-0.564|0.4979
95926736|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.653|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.653|-0.111|0.1643
95926737|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.445|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.445|-0.282|0.6611
95729519|NCT01618305|191429584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.623
95729520|NCT01618305|191429585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.63
95729521|NCT01618305|191429586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.54
95729522|NCT01618305|191429587|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95926738|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.526|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.526|-0.333|0.6587
95926739|NCT00383188|191815880|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.592|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline DAS28-4(CRP) as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.592|-0.284|0.4903
95926740|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.057|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.057|-0.296|0.1857
95926741|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.103|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.103|-0.451|0.0019
95926742|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.042|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.042|-0.446|0.0178
95926743|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.110|-0.305|0.3547
95926744|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.040|-0.310|0.1301
95926745|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.017|-0.363|0.0313
95926746|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
95926747|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.156|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.156|-0.256|0.6318
95926748|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.120|-0.230|0.5388
95926749|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.016|-0.329|0.0755
95926750|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.019|-0.420|0.0323
95926751|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.134|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.134|-0.277|0.4948
95926752|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.235|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.235|-0.115|0.5022
95926753|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-0.363|0.0307
95926754|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.029|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.029|-0.372|0.0933
95926755|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.233|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.233|-0.179|0.7967
95729523|NCT01618305|191429588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95856763|NCT01746901|191672586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
95856764|NCT01746901|191672586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|16.8|<0.0001
95856765|NCT01746901|191672586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.4|9.3|<0.0001
95856766|NCT01746901|191672586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||18.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|12.5|18.5
95856767|NCT01746901|191672587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|59.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.5|39.2|<0.0001
95856768|NCT01746901|191672587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.1|-10.1|0.9994
95856769|NCT01746901|191672587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.4|12.1|<0.0001
95856770|NCT01746901|191672587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|17.0|<0.0001
95856771|NCT01746901|191672587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.1|12.8|<0.0001
95856772|NCT01746901|191672587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.4|8.1|0.0005
95856773|NCT01746901|191672588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|74.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.9|51.5|<0.0001
95856774|NCT01746901|191672588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|0.6|0.0402
95856775|NCT01746901|191672588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.7|21.1|<0.0001
95856776|NCT01746901|191672588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|54.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||54.4|30.9|<0.0001
95856777|NCT01746901|191672588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.9|20.3|<0.0001
95856778|NCT01746901|191672588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|48.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.1|24.6|<0.0001
95856779|NCT01746901|191672589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|124.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.5|91.6|<0.0001
95856780|NCT01746901|191672589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.3|-9.6|0.4125
95856781|NCT01746901|191672589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|62.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||62.5|29.6|<0.0001
95856782|NCT01746901|191672589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.2|52.4|<0.0001
95856783|NCT01746901|191672589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|73.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.2|40.3|<0.0001
95856784|NCT01746901|191672589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|69.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||69.0|36.2|<0.0001
95856785|NCT01746901|191672590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.7|21.8|<0.0001
95856786|NCT01746901|191672590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.5|-8.4|0.6434
95926756|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.141|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.141|-0.208|0.7059
95926757|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.041|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||-0.041|-0.386|0.0154
95926758|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.065|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.065|-0.336|0.1836
95926759|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.284|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.284|-0.128|0.4577
95926760|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.262|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.262|-0.098|0.3692
95926761|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.241|-0.111|0.4677
95926762|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.307|-0.107|0.3427
95926763|NCT00383188|191815882|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.347|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 16 as an interaction term, baseline HAQ-DI as the covariate and participant as a random effect.||0.347|-0.077|0.2120
95926764|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.074|-1.248|0.0815
95926765|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.407|-1.707|0.0015
95926766|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.351|-1.863|0.0042
95926767|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.060|-1.624|0.0348
95926768|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.095|0.1843
95926769|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.061|-1.225|0.0760
95926770|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.270|-1.769|0.0078
95926771|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|0.258|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.258|-1.292|0.1905
95926772|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.801|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.504|-0.801|0.6552
95926773|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.363|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.078|-1.363|0.0281
95926774|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.100|-1.599|0.0263
95926775|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.346|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.346|-1.204|0.2772
95926776|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|0.629|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.629|-0.676|0.9433
95926777|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.125|-1.410|0.193
95856787|NCT01746901|191672590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.0|-2.0|0.1072
95856788|NCT01746901|191672590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.3|15.4|<0.0001
95856789|NCT01746901|191672590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|36.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.6|14.7|<0.0001
95856790|NCT01746901|191672590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.9|0.9|0.0335
95856791|NCT01746901|191672591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.0|24.0|<0.0001
95856792|NCT01746901|191672591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.8|-11.1|0.9811
95856793|NCT01746901|191672591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.9|-2.0|0.1083
95856794|NCT01746901|191672591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.9|14.9|<0.0001
95856795|NCT01746901|191672591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|12.3|<0.0001
95856796|NCT01746901|191672591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.4|0.5|0.0408
95856797|NCT01746901|191672592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.7|25.2|<0.0001
95856798|NCT01746901|191672592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.6|-14.9|0.5968
95856799|NCT01746901|191672592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.4|-3.1|0.1471
95856800|NCT01746901|191672592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
95856801|NCT01746901|191672592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.2|10.6|0.0002
95856802|NCT01746901|191672592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.3|-2.3|0.1136
95856803|NCT01746901|191672594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.4|19.6|<0.0001
95856804|NCT01746901|191672594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|-6.7|0.6209
95926778|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.013|-1.512|0.461
95926779|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|0.521|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.521|-1.029|0.5200
95926780|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.476|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|0.177|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.177|-1.129|0.1526
95926781|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.738|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.453|-1.738|0.0009
95926782|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.273|0.227|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.227|-1.273|0.1711
95926783|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.338|0.211|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Intensity Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.211|-1.338|0.1539
95926784|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.195|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.195|-1.219|0.1554
95926785|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.585|-0.193|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.193|-1.585|0.0124
95926786|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.723|0.0268
95926787|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.519|0.158|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 1 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.158|-1.519|0.1113
95926788|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.160|-1.240|0.1305
95926789|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.261|0.118|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.118|-1.261|0.1043
95926790|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.214|-1.820|0.0131
95926791|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 2 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.340|-1.324|0.2459
95926792|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|0.479|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.479|-0.921|0.5360
95926793|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.225|-1.155|0.1858
95926794|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.018|-1.624|0.0451
95926795|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.643|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.643|-1.021|0.6551
95926796|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.718|-0.682|0.9602
95926797|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.131|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.131|-1.510|0.0198
95926798|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|-0.145|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.145|-1.751|0.0208
95926799|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 8 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.400|-1.265|0.3077
95926800|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.490|-0.911|0.5550
95926801|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.485|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||-0.106|-1.485|0.0239
95926802|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.416|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.190|-1.416|0.1342
95926803|NCT00383188|191815883|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.465|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline Pain Interference Domain of mBPI as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||0.465|-1.199|0.3868
95926804|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.357|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.941|-1.357|0.4693
95926805|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.044|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.044|-0.190|0.0743
95926806|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.668|6.723|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.723|1.668|0.0012
95926807|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|3.807|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.807|-1.335|0.3452
95926808|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.239|-1.050|0.3162
95926809|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|4.622|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.622|0.406|0.0195
95926810|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|5.285|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.285|0.239|0.0320
95926811|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.268|2.804|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 PCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.804|-2.268|0.8356
95926812|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.101|2.293|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||2.293|-4.101|0.5787
95926813|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|4.436|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.436|-1.854|0.4203
95926814|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.449|6.084|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.084|-1.449|0.2272
95926815|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.947||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|4.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 4 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||4.655|-2.998|0.6707
95729524|NCT01618305|191429589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of HIV-infected infants among those who had a determinable HIV-infection status was compared between arms.||||0.064
95926816|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.764|3.613|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||3.613|-2.764|0.7935
95926817|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.655|-0.605|0.1135
95926818|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.912||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|6.388|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.388|-1.128|0.1697
95926819|NCT00383188|191815884|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.561|5.981|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Estimates and p-values based on repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment, country and week as fixed effects, treatment Week 12 as an interaction term, baseline SF-36 MCS as the covariate; and participant as a random effect.||5.981|-1.561|0.2500
95926820|NCT01544062|191815910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.024
95926821|NCT01544062|191815910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
95926822|NCT01544062|191815911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
95926823|NCT01544062|191815911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
95926824|NCT01544062|191815912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.724
95926825|NCT01544062|191815912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.510
95926826|NCT01544062|191815913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
95926827|NCT01544062|191815913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
95926828|NCT01544062|191815914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
95926829|NCT01544062|191815914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlling for age, sex and body mass index||||||0.509
95926830|NCT01544062|191815915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
95926831|NCT01544062|191815915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
95926832|NCT01544062|191815916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
95926833|NCT01544062|191815916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.927
95926834|NCT01544062|191815917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
95926835|NCT01544062|191815917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
95926836|NCT01544062|191815918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
95926837|NCT01544062|191815918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.475
95926838|NCT01544062|191815919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
95926839|NCT01544062|191815919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||controlling for age, sex and body mass index|ANCOVA|||||||0.905
95926840|NCT01544062|191815920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
95926841|NCT01544062|191815921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.580
95926842|NCT01544062|191815922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.619
95926843|NCT01544062|191815923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
95926844|NCT01544062|191815924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
95926845|NCT01544062|191815925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95926846|NCT01544062|191815926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
95926847|NCT01544062|191815927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95926848|NCT01544062|191815928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.492
95926849|NCT01544062|191815929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
95926850|NCT01544062|191815930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95926851|NCT01144182|191815971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, significance level was set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
95926852|NCT01144182|191815972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95926853|NCT01144182|191815973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95926854|NCT01144182|191815974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95926855|NCT01144182|191815975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95926856|NCT01144182|191815976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95926857|NCT01144182|191815977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95926858|NCT01144182|191815978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95926859|NCT01144182|191815979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95926860|NCT01144182|191815980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95926861|NCT01144182|191815981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95926862|NCT01144182|191815982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95926863|NCT01144182|191815983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95926864|NCT01670110|191815987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95926865|NCT01670110|191815988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95926866|NCT01670110|191815989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95926867|NCT01670110|191815990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95926868|NCT01670110|191815991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95926869|NCT01670110|191815992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95926870|NCT01670110|191815993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95926871|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical functioning||||0.31
95926872|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical role||||0.48
95926873|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily pain||||0.89
95926874|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General health||||0.18
95926875|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||||0.28
95926876|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social functioning||||0.66
95926877|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role emotional||||0.43
95926878|NCT01670110|191815994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental health||||0.51
95926879|NCT01867580|191816017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6770
95926880|NCT01867580|191816018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0202
95926881|NCT01867580|191816019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0142
95926882|NCT00798265|191816029|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0020
95856805|NCT01746901|191672594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.3|-1.4|0.0997
95856806|NCT01746901|191672594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|32.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.1|14.4|<0.0001
95926883|NCT00798265|191816029|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 1.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
95926884|NCT00798265|191816029|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-16 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||0.0002
95926885|NCT00798265|191816029|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in HPV-18 at 7 months in Cohort 2.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||||<.0001
95926886|NCT00094809|191816088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.37|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||0.37|0.10|<0.0001
95926887|NCT00094809|191816089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-26.2|-9.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||-9.8|-26.2|<0.0001
95926888|NCT00094809|191816090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.0||||0.0646||95.0|-23.7|0.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference in percentage of participants (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group)|||0.5|-23.7|0.0646
95926889|NCT00094809|191816091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0384||95.0|0.07|1.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.00|0.07|0.0384
95926890|NCT00094809|191816092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5514||95.0|0.26|2.04|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||2.04|0.26|0.5514
95926891|NCT00094809|191816094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.5||||0.5434||95.0|-14.8|7.8|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Treatment difference (pegfilgrastim group - placebo group) in the percentage of participants with a complete or partial response|||7.8|-14.8|0.5434
95926892|NCT00094809|191816095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-12.1||||||95.0|-28.1|4.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates of the difference in percent mortality for the pegfilgrastim group - placebo group. Median survival time was not reached for the pegfilgrastim group.|||4.0|-28.1|
95926893|NCT00094809|191816096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0457||95.0|0.05|1.09|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio for pegfilgrastim group compared to placebo group|||1.09|0.05|0.0457
95926894|NCT00094809|191816097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3792||95.0|0.32|1.53|||Mantel Haenszel|Adjusted for chemotherapy regimen|Common odds ratio of the pegfilgrastim group compared to the placebo group|||1.53|0.32|0.3792
95926895|NCT05372094|191816112|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fixed factor of program and random intercept of participant||||0.007
95926896|NCT05372094|191816112|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting OFF and noise reduction setting STRONG||||< 0.05
95926897|NCT05372094|191816112|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow up comparison between noise reduction setting STRONG and noise reduction setting WEAK||||<0.01
95856807|NCT01746901|191672594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|7.7|0.0003
95856808|NCT01746901|191672594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|4.4|0.0036
95856809|NCT01746901|191672595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.8|21.1|<0.0001
95856810|NCT01746901|191672595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|-11.2|0.5951
95856811|NCT01746901|191672595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-1.1|0.0841
95926898|NCT05372094|191816112|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Follow up comparison between ratings of effort with OFF and WEAK"||||>.05
95926899|NCT05372094|191816113|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
95926900|NCT05372094|191816114|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done only between NR OFF and NR at a custom or preferred setting.||||0.145
95926901|NCT05372094|191816115|OTHER|||||||0.3018|||||||Exact Binomial test|||An exact binomial test was performed to evaluate if the majority of teens and pre-teens with mild to severe hearing loss preferred NR setting (i.e., either weak or strong) to the NR setting OFF.||||0.3018
95926902|NCT05372094|191816116|OTHER|||||||0.1796|||||||Exact Binomial test|||Exact binomial test was done to evaluate if the majority (\>50%) of teens and pre-teens prefer to use Tap Control to access Bluetooth streaming, compared to using the HA push button or phone controls.||||0.1796
95926903|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.99|||Log Rank|||All participants: p-value was calculated using log-rank test.||3.99|1.55|<0.001
95926904|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.28|||Regression, Cox|||Monotherapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||7.28|1.57|0.002
95926905|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.68|||Regression, Cox|||Adjunct therapy subset: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||3.68|1.11|0.021
95926906|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.67|||Regression, Cox|||Psychotic Symptoms: Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.67|1.70|<0.001
95856812|NCT01746901|191672595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.6|11.0|<0.0001
95856813|NCT01746901|191672595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.4|5.7|0.0014
95856814|NCT01746901|191672595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|1.9|0.0172
95856815|NCT01746901|191672596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.9|21.0|<0.0001
95856816|NCT01746901|191672596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-15.4|0.2166
95856817|NCT01746901|191672596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-1.0|0.0777
95856818|NCT01746901|191672596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|6.5|0.0011
95856819|NCT01746901|191672596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.7||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.2|3.3|0.0086
95856820|NCT01746901|191672596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-0.9|0.0775
95926907|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.04|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Any Mood Symptoms):Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.04|1.70|<0.001
95926908|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.89|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Manic): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||9.89|1.32|0.012
95926909|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.98|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Depressive): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||6.98|1.39|0.006
95856821|NCT01746901|191672598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|73.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.6|48.8|<0.0001
95856822|NCT01746901|191672598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.2|6.4|0.0032
95856823|NCT01746901|191672598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
95856824|NCT01746901|191672598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.6|34.8|<0.0001
95856825|NCT01746901|191672598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.1|86.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||86.0|61.1|<0.0001
95856826|NCT01746901|191672598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.8|26.0|<0.0001
95856827|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|51.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.8|36.0|<0.0001
95856828|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.2|-4.6|0.4154
95856829|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|13.9|<0.0001
95856830|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||33.3|17.5|<0.0001
95856831|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|12.3|<0.0001
95926910|NCT01193153|191816149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.78|||Regression, Cox|||Mood Symptoms (Mixed): Hazard ratio and corresponding p-value, and 95% CI were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.78|0.65|0.238
95926911|NCT01193153|191816150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.95||P-value based on change from DB baseline in PSP score and was analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures analysis of covariance based on observed data; within-participant repeated measures were modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean of the PSP total score between the two treatment groups.||5.95|0.68|0.014
95926912|NCT01193153|191816152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.15||Change at Endpoint (Week 64/LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||7.15|1.94|<0.001
95926913|NCT03951649|191816174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95856832|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.0|<0.0001
95856833|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|131.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||131.3|97.1|<0.0001
95856834|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.4|-9.8|0.3985
95856835|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.8|38.5|<0.0001
95856836|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|83.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.0|48.8|<0.0001
95856837|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|72.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.7|38.5|<0.0001
95856838|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|71.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.2|37.0|<0.0001
95926914|NCT03951649|191816175|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||The p-value was calculated using a 2 sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
95926915|NCT03951649|191816176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95926916|NCT03951649|191816177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95926917|NCT03951649|191816178|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value was calculated|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95926918|NCT03951649|191816179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95926919|NCT03951649|191816180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
95926920|NCT03951649|191816182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
95983866|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.134|0.033|0.0011
95983867|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.192||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
95983868|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.091|-0.009|0.1112
95983869|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.098||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.098|-0.003|0.0632
95983870|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.086|-0.014|0.1615
95983871|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.127|0.027|0.0027
95983872|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.144|0.044|0.0003
95983873|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.151||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.151|0.050|<0.0001
95983874|NCT01431274|191941896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.044|-0.057|0.7925
95983875|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
95983876|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
95983877|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.114|0.028|0.0012
95983878|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
95983879|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.121|0.031|0.0010
95983880|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.092|0.003|0.0384
95983881|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
95983882|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
95926921|NCT03951649|191816183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
95926922|NCT03951649|191816184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.92
95926923|NCT03951649|191816185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95926924|NCT03951649|191816186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
95926925|NCT03951649|191816187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95926926|NCT01972152|191816189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis.||||||0.24
95926927|NCT01972152|191816190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95926928|NCT01972152|191816190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95926929|NCT01972152|191816191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
95926930|NCT01972152|191816192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
95926931|NCT01972152|191816193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
95926932|NCT01972152|191816193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95926933|NCT01972152|191816194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||0.16
95926934|NCT01972152|191816195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
95926935|NCT01972152|191816195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
95926936|NCT01972152|191816196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Data were log transformed for analysis||||||<0.001
95926937|NCT01972152|191816196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were log transformed for analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95926938|NCT01972152|191816197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95926939|NCT01972152|191816197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95926940|NCT03068611|191816204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.90
95926941|NCT03068611|191816205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.54
95926942|NCT03068611|191816206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed transformed due to positive skewness||||||.36
95926943|NCT03068611|191816207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Data were log-transformed to correct positive skewness||||||.92
95926944|NCT00414648|191816240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||The model included the time since enrollment, the treatment assignment, and the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Mixed model with the use of the Kenward-Roger correction without imputation of missing data.||FEV1 slope||||<0.001
95926945|NCT00414648|191816241|OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.441
95926946|NCT00414648|191816242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
95926947|NCT00414648|191816243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.17
95926948|NCT00414648|191816244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.34
95926949|NCT00414648|191816245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.88
95926950|NCT00414648|191816246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GLM adjusted for baseline||||||0.001
95926951|NCT00972504|191816253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-1.2|
95926952|NCT00972504|191816253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.8|
95926953|NCT00972504|191816253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||||-0.8|-1.9|
95926954|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||0.3|-0.0|
95926955|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
95926956|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Blockage between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
95926957|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
95926958|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.6|
95926959|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||||Comparison of Rhinorrhoea between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.3|-0.6|
95926960|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.1|-0.4|
95926961|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and GSK835726 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
95926962|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Nasal Itching between Placebo and Cetirizine 10 mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
95926963|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK1004723 1000 µg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
95926964|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and GSK835726 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.4|
95926965|NCT00972504|191816254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||||Comparison of Sneezing between Placebo and Cetirizine 10mg once daily.|||-0.2|-0.5|
95926966|NCT00972504|191816255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.212||||||||-0.212|-1.870|
95926967|NCT00972504|191816255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.584|-0.936||||||||-0.936|-2.584|
95926968|NCT00972504|191816255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.626|-1.957||||||||-1.957|-3.626|
95926969|NCT00972504|191816256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.28|
95926970|NCT00972504|191816256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.45||||||||-0.45|-1.65|
95926971|NCT00972504|191816256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||||95.0|-1.68|-0.46||||||||-0.46|-1.68|
95926972|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.34|-2.87|0.0133
95926973|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.98|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.98|-3.54|0.0006
95926974|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||-0.08|-3.06|0.0394
95926975|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.13|-3.16|0.0332
95926976|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.08|-3.71|0.0601
95926977|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.12|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.12|-3.94|0.0369
95926978|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.39|-3.73|0.1122
95926979|NCT00880048|191816259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|1.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||1.32|-2.85|0.4713
95926980|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||7.39|0.63|0.2232
95926981|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||10.2|0.97|0.0559
95926982|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||3.61|0.64|0.3395
95926983|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||3.50|0.59|0.4256
95926984|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.64|0.69|0.3790
95926985|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.86|0.76|0.2554
95926986|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.91|0.80|0.1961
95926987|NCT00880048|191816260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.25|0.58|0.6916
95926988|NCT00880048|191816261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.50|0.61
95926989|NCT00880048|191816261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.36|0.35
95926990|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||-0.04|-1.34|0.0362
95926991|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.16|-1.46|0.0155
95926992|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.34|-1.27|0.2593
95926993|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-1.44|0.1407
95926994|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.34|-1.67|0.1933
95926995|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||0.27|-1.76|0.1500
95926996|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.02|-2.21|0.0550
95926997|NCT00880048|191816262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.61|-1.65|0.3627
95926998|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-2.11|0.0616
95926999|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-1.19|-3.36|<0.0001
95927000|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||-0.19|-2.68|0.0239
95927001|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||-0.57|-3.12|0.0048
95927002|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||-0.18|-2.97|0.0270
95927003|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.44|-3.27|0.0103
95927004|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.00|-3.06|0.0497
95856839|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|302.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|248.8|356.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.8|248.8|<0.0001
95856840|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.8||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.7|-6.2|0.0824
95856841|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|188.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|134.6|242.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||242.5|134.6|<0.0001
95856842|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|216.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||216.0|108.0|<0.0001
95856843|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|141.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|195.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||195.8|87.9|<0.0001
95856844|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|189.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.6|81.7|<0.0001
95856845|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|287.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.1|356.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||356.1|219.1|<0.0001
95856846|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|101.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|169.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||169.8|32.9|0.0040
95856847|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|218.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.0|287.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||287.0|150.0|<0.0001
95856848|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.0|239.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||239.0|102.0|<0.0001
95856849|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|158.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|227.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.1|90.1|<0.0001
95856850|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|152.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|220.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||220.7|83.7|<0.0001
95856851|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|281.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.8|90.1|0.0002
95856852|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|205.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|300.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||300.8|109.2|<0.0001
95856853|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.2|316.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.7|125.2|<0.0001
95927005|NCT00880048|191816263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.17|-2.98|0.0794
95927006|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.19|-0.75|0.2400
95927007|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.28|-1.23|0.0020
95927008|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.36|-0.67|0.5605
95927009|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.20|-0.86|0.2215
95856854|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.1|265.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||265.8|74.1|0.0006
95856855|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|281.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||281.5|89.9|0.0002
95856856|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|144.9||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|240.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.8|49.1|0.0033
95856857|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|170.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|274.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||274.9|65.2|0.0017
95927010|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.30|-1.01|0.2870
95927011|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||-0.01|-1.33|0.0465
95856858|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|211.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|316.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||316.2|106.6|0.0001
95856859|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|324.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||324.0|114.5|<0.0001
95856860|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|162.2||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|267.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||267.0|57.3|0.0027
95856861|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.1|290.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.7|81.1|0.0006
95856862|NCT01746901|191672599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.5||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|240.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||240.4|30.7|0.0116
95856863|NCT01746901|191672600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.5|-4.3|<0.0001
95856864|NCT01746901|191672600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.4|0.0001
95856865|NCT01746901|191672600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.7|0.7005
95856866|NCT01746901|191672600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8440
95856867|NCT01746901|191672600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.1|-1.6|0.7295
95856868|NCT01746901|191672600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-1.3|0.8757
95927012|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||0.34|-0.99|0.3399
95927013|NCT00880048|191816264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.49|-0.86|0.5931
95927014|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||8.22|0.97|0.0562
95927015|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||6.73|0.73|0.1596
95856869|NCT01746901|191672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|72.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||72.9|47.4|<0.0001
95856870|NCT01746901|191672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.6||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.4|-0.1|0.0514
95856871|NCT01746901|191672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||42.4|17.0|<0.0001
95856872|NCT01746901|191672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|55.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.8|30.3|<0.0001
95856873|NCT01746901|191672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|21.0|<0.0001
95856874|NCT01746901|191672601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|49.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.1|23.7|<0.0001
95856875|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|47.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.2|31.8|<0.0001
95927016|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||6.30|1.34|0.0067
95927017|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||4.36|0.85|0.1154
95927018|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||2.07|0.62|0.6895
95927019|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4||2.41|0.72|0.3654
95927020|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||2.65|0.78|0.2408
95927021|NCT00880048|191816265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||2.60|0.74|0.3066
95927022|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 1||0.05|-0.36|0.1472
95927023|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 1||-0.06|-0.48|0.0107
95927024|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 2||0.01|-0.51|0.0603
95927025|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 2||0.07|-0.46|0.1458
95927026|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 4||0.05|-0.58|0.0941
95927027|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 4|||0.04|-0.59|0.0880
95927028|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30mg: Week 6||-0.03|-0.73|0.0313
95927029|NCT00880048|191816266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60mg: Week 6||0.15|-0.55|0.2639
95927030|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.06|-3.08|0.0421
95927031|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.78|-2.27|0.3394
95927032|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.25|-3.05|0.0963
95927033|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||-0.26|-3.62|0.0235
95927034|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||1.01|-2.54|0.3956
95927035|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.07|-2.53|0.4273
95927036|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.3429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.01|-2.89|0.3429
95927037|NCT00880048|191816267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.80|-3.18|0.2403
95927038|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mixed effects repeated measures model|22.52||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|49.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||49.61|-4.58|0.1030
95927039|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.21||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|60.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, total sleep time||60.65|5.76|0.0179
95927040|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.62||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|34.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||34.49|-19.25|0.5773
95927041|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|48.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, total sleep time||48.76|-5.97|0.1250
95927042|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.87||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|59.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||59.45|2.29|0.0344
95927043|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.52||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|65.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, total sleep time||65.32|7.72|0.0131
95927044|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|30.46|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||30.46|-26.10|0.8794
95927045|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|57.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, total sleep time||57.50|-0.69|0.0556
95927046|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-6.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-6.33|-41.46|0.0078
95927047|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-7.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep onset latency||-7.68|-43.30|0.0052
95927048|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.45||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.14|8.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||8.24|-33.14|0.2373
95927049|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|22.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep onset latency||22.87|-19.38|0.8707
95927050|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|6.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo va GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||6.59|-32.43|0.1933
95927051|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.55||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|9.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep onset latency||9.17|-30.26|0.2933
95927052|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.58||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-5.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.01|-52.15|0.0177
95927053|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.07||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-5.84|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep onset latency||-5.84|-54.29|0.0152
95927054|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.19||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-4.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-4.01|-30.36|0.0108
95927055|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.15||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-2.68|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, wake time after sleep onset||-2.68|-29.61|0.0190
95927056|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|18.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||18.21|-14.43|0.8195
95927057|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27||||0.5327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|21.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, wake time after sleep onset||21.89|-11.35|0.5327
95927058|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|12.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||12.25|-17.24|0.7387
95927059|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.44||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|5.48|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, wake time after sleep onset||5.48|-24.35|0.2134
95927060|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.51||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|5.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||5.60|-34.61|0.1561
95927061|NCT00880048|191816268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|3.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, wake time after sleep onset||3.64|-37.84|0.1054
95927062|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||-0.21|-0.94|0.0024
95927063|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||0.28|-0.47|0.6146
95927064|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.09|-0.59|0.1442
95927065|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||0.39|-0.30|0.8001
95927066|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.45|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.45|-0.55|0.8439
95927067|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||0.11|-0.91|0.1259
95927068|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||0.64|-0.24|0.3709
95927069|NCT00880048|191816269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||0.22|-0.70|0.2993
95927070|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.14|0.04|0.0344
95927071|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.27|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, sleep quality||1.27|0.17|0.0111
95927072|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||0.99|-0.15|0.1443
95927073|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, sleep quality||1.08|-0.07|0.0873
95927074|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.33|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.33|0.13|0.0170
95927075|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, sleep quality||1.02|-0.18|0.1675
95927076|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.23|-0.10|0.0956
95927077|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, sleep quality||1.00|-0.35|0.3503
95927078|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||0.88|-0.20|0.2147
95927079|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1, refreshing value of sleep||1.17|0.09|0.0233
95927080|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||0.89|-0.22|0.2404
95927081|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.22|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2, refreshing value of sleep||1.22|0.08|0.0247
95927082|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.29|0.08|0.0271
95927083|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4, refreshing value of sleep||1.00|-0.22|0.2129
95927084|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.06|-0.31|0.2874
95927085|NCT00880048|191816270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6, refreshing value of sleep||1.41|0.01|0.0472
95927086|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||7.09|0.13|0.9824
95927087|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||6.13|0.05|0.6227
95927088|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||5.07|0.20|0.9967
95927089|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||8.63|0.46|0.3550
95927090|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||6.49|0.85|0.1009
95927091|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||7.68|1.02|0.0455
95927092|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||5.32|1.00|0.0507
95927093|NCT00880048|191816271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||3.45|0.55|0.4962
95927094|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|3.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||3.10|-1.03|0.3241
95927095|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.55|-2.66|0.6020
95927096|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.99|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||4.99|-0.10|0.0594
95927097|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||3.50|-1.67|0.4828
95927098|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||3.18|-2.80|0.9008
95927099|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|2.32|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||2.32|-3.74|0.6428
95927100|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||2.70|-4.06|0.6911
95927101|NCT00880048|191816274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.67||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.80|-4.14|0.7026
95927102|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.29|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 1||0.29|-2.24|0.1301
95927103|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.73|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 1||1.73|-0.79|0.4644
95927104|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 2||0.80|-2.33|0.3382
95927105|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 2||2.51|-0.63|0.2410
95927106|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 4||0.79|-2.75|0.2768
95927107|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.83|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 4||1.83|-1.70|0.9434
95927108|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 30 mg: Week 6||1.40|-2.49|0.5796
95927109|NCT00880048|191816275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.66|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo vs GW823296 60 mg: Week 6||2.66|-1.24|0.4753
95927110|NCT00414206|191816304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95927111|NCT04495634|191816306|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95927112|NCT04495634|191816307|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95927113|NCT04495634|191816308|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95927114|NCT04495634|191816309|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was defined through power calculations based on sample size, power of 0.90 and alpha of 0.05 resulting in a margin of +/- 0.26.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95927115|NCT03368001|191816311|OTHER|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses. We accounted for any non-independence of observations due to cohort membership by obtaining cluster-robust standard errors using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR in Mplus) in tandem with the Type = Complex option available in Mplus, treating cohorts as clusters. All models were structurally saturated, so model fit was necessarily perfect.||||||0.039||||||IFM Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Population models were specified using parameter values derived from past research in tandem with minimal expected effect sizes for the effects of most interest. These models were used to generate 5000 samples for a given N, the models were fit to each sample, and the significance (or not) of key effects was noted. This process was repeated until the target power of at least .80 was reached indicating with 216 participants we would have .82 power.||||.039
95927116|NCT03368001|191816311|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.064|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.118||One-tailed significance test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Verbal Expressiveness at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The indirect effect of SENSE Theatre® vs. TTT through post-test IFM on follow-up Vocal Expressiveness. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.118|0.014|<0.05
95950661|NCT03055988|191873078|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.995||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.719|5.279|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.279|-2.719|0.5238
95927117|NCT03368001|191816311|OTHER|The residual associated with the mediator was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.032|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.087||One-sided hypothesis test.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Rapport at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Quality of Rapport through posttest Incidental Face Memory. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag (pretest to posttest) and baseline mediator, and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag (pretest to follow-up) and baseline outcome.||0.087|0.002|<0.05
95927118|NCT03368001|191816311|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|0.005|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.059||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for Social Anxiety at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up Social Anxiety through posttest IFM. Adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.059|-0.015|>0.05
95927119|NCT03368001|191816311|OTHER|The residuals associated with the mediator and outcome were allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the outcome, and the residual associated with the outcome was allowed to covary with the lag and pretest scores associated with the mediator, yielding a saturated model.|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|-0.0002|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.054|0.061||One-sided hypothesis test|Structural Equation Model (SEM)|Controlling for SRS-2 Social Communication at Pretest and the interval between Pretest and the Followup assessments.|Estimation parameter represents indirect effect (axb)|The partially standardized indirect effect of treatment on follow-up SRS Communication. We adjusted standard errors for cohort, controlled the mediator for individual differences in lag between pretest and posttest for the a path and controlled the outcome for individual differences in lag between pretest to follow-up for the b and c' paths.||0.061|-0.054|>0.05
95927120|NCT03368001|191816312|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||SRS Communication Posttest.|Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||||||.490
95927121|NCT03368001|191816313|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test scores||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.704
95927122|NCT03368001|191816313|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values||||||0.406|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.406
95927123|NCT03368001|191816314|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses.||Vocal Expressiveness Posttest.||||.217
95927124|NCT03368001|191816314|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Quality of Rapport Posttest.||||.448
95927125|NCT03368001|191816314|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Structural Equation Modeling|We used structural equation modeling (SEM), as implemented in Mplus 8.7, as a framework for testing all primary hypotheses||Social Anxiety Posttest.||||.150
95927126|NCT03368001|191816315|OTHER|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pre-test values||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
95927127|NCT03368001|191816315|OTHER|Followup ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.555
95927128|NCT03612804|191816316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with random intercept for provider and main effect term for study site.|Proactive care arm represents numerator of odds ratio, unstructured care arm represents denominator of odds ratio.|||1.64|0.67|0.83
95927129|NCT01656304|191816349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.5||||||||.50|.20|
95927130|NCT04391309|191816355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.435
95927131|NCT04391309|191816356|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
95927132|NCT04391309|191816357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.391
95927133|NCT04391309|191816358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
95927134|NCT04391309|191816359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.702
95927135|NCT04391309|191816360|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
95927136|NCT04391309|191816361|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis||||1
95927137|NCT04391309|191816362|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the anlysis.||||1
95927138|NCT04391309|191816363|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
95927139|NCT04391309|191816364|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
95983883|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
95927140|NCT04391309|191816365|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
95927141|NCT04391309|191816366|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value based on Fishers exact test, which enumerates all possible tables that have same margins as observed \& calculates proportion of tables where values are more extreme than observed. P-value of 1 = the observed table is the most extreme|Fisher Exact|||All categories included in the analysis.||||1
95927142|NCT05826431|191816376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||Study analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29. Frequencies and descriptive data were tabulated to describe the sample and quantify device use, satisfaction, and perceived impact. Qualitative responses regarding usability and feasibility were summarized based on the themes of the responses.||||0.153
95927143|NCT05826431|191816377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.103
95927144|NCT05826431|191816379|OTHER|Single group, frequencies, and descriptive data|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.083
95927145|NCT05826431|191816380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||441|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0441
95927146|NCT05826431|191816381|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.095
95927147|NCT05826431|191816382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.487
95927148|NCT05826431|191816383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.483
95927149|NCT05826431|191816384|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||.0483
95927150|NCT05826431|191816385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired samples t-test|||||||0.123
95927151|NCT01199237|191816409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95927152|NCT01838551|191816421|SUPERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis of at most 20% UFC responders, 90 subjects in the ITT population would provide 90% power, with two-sided type 1 error of 0.05, assuming an observed response of 35%.||||||0.0154||||||One-sided p-value is based on a null hypothesis that true response proportion is ≤ 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Generalized Linear Model described above was used to generate the p-value.||The least squares mean (LSMEAN) estimate of the UFC response after 6 months of treatment in the Maintenance Phase alongside its 95% Wald CI is presented. Supportive to the 95% CI, the p-value corresponding to the null hypothesis that the response rate is ≤ 20% is presented (1-sided test).||||0.0154
95927153|NCT03254394|191816429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.85||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average AUC of cold pain score over 14 days of a chemotherapy cycle in the Control group is equal or lower than that of the experimental group. The comparison is for average AUC values over 7 cycles of chemotherapy per patient||20.85|-7.09|0.318
95927154|NCT03254394|191816429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|29.1||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Cold hypersensitivity counted as unpleasantness score for 14 days after cycle (AUC) in the Control group is less than that of the experimental group. The difference was calculated for the Cycle 6 visit.||29.10|-13.76|0.466
95927155|NCT03254394|191816430|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.338
95927156|NCT03254394|191816430|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 sensory score change in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the cycle 6 (12 weeks) follow-up study visit.||||0.759
95927157|NCT03254394|191816431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C3 (6 weeks) study visit.||||0.581
95927158|NCT03254394|191816431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the C6 (12 weeks) study visit.||||0.962
95927159|NCT03254394|191816431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for any parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is NPSI total score in the Control group is equal to or less than that of the experimental group for the last follow-up study visit.||||0.365
95927160|NCT03254394|191816432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.68||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1771.0|1886.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is Oxaliplatin cumulative dose in the Control group is equal to or higher than that of the experimental group.||1886|-1771|0.730
95927161|NCT03693742|191816472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in uptake of F18-DCFPyL between the MSG and placebo groups.~A sample size of 10 achieves 100% power to detect a mean of paired differences of 5.0 (33%) with an estimated standard deviation of differences of 1.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a one-sided paired t-test. If the estimated standard deviation of differences is 5.0, a sample size of 10 achieves 90% power to detect a mean difference of 5.0 with an alpha of 0.05."||||<0.001
95927162|NCT05012644|191816487|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.241||||||||2.241|0.715|
95927163|NCT05012644|191816488|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.774||||||||2.774|0.819|
95983884|NCT01431274|191941897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
95983885|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
95983886|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
95983887|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.091|0.010|0.0136
95983888|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.116|0.035|0.0003
95983889|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.101|0.016|0.0065
95983890|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.089|0.005|0.0277
95983891|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
95983892|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
95927164|NCT04845620|191816494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.648|5.064|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.064|1.648|<0.0001
95983893|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
95983894|NCT01431274|191941898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
95983895|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.244|0.077|0.0002
95983896|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.228|0.053|0.0017
95927165|NCT04845620|191816495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.662|5.772|||Chi-squared|Multiple imputation of missing observations|Multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Moderate Baseline vIGA||5.772|1.662|<0.0001
95927166|NCT04845620|191816496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.578|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||3.870|1.578|<0.0001
95927167|NCT04845620|191816497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.98|5.475|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.475|1.980|<0.0001
95927168|NCT04845620|191816498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.912|7.313|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing observations|||7.313|1.912|<0.0001
95983897|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.210|0.046|0.0022
95983898|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
95983899|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.194|0.022|0.0141
95983900|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
95983901|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
95983902|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
95983903|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
95729525|NCT04071769|191429592|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the Xenon MRI measure of RBC-to-Membrane (RBC:M) at baseline vs. 3 months after initiating anti-fibrotic therapy.||||0.27
95927169|NCT04845620|191816499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.216|59.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||59.101|2.216|<0.0001
95927170|NCT04845620|191816500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.137|6.761|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by randomized baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear at Week 2||6.761|2.137|<0.0001
95927171|NCT04845620|191816501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.342|14.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by baseline vIGA-AD with multiple imputation of missing data|vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear at Week 2||14.113|2.342|<0.0001
95927172|NCT00864682|191816570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hypothesis: Lidocaine / propofol admixture would be superior to lidocaine pretreatment for attenuating propofol-induced injection pain. Sample size calculated to detect a difference of at least 2 VPS points; beta 0.8.||||<0.0001
95927173|NCT00864682|191816571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Fisher's exact test after chi-squared||||||<0.008
95927174|NCT00545844|191816574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95927175|NCT00545844|191816575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95927176|NCT00545844|191816576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
95927177|NCT00545844|191816577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
95927178|NCT00545844|191816578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar-Bowker|||McNemar-Bowker test is McNemar chi-squared statistic for binary matched pairs, with Bowker chi-squared fit test of symmetry model (tests all rows of data) (cf. Agresti, 2007)||||<0.001
95927179|NCT03383887|191816579|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95927180|NCT03383887|191816580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
95927181|NCT01678196|191816607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
95927182|NCT01678196|191816608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change from Time 1 scores (entered as covariate) to Time 2 Scores.||||||0.67
95927183|NCT01678196|191816609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA results include Time 1 scores as a covariate, thus reflecting change over time||||||0.743
95927184|NCT01678196|191816610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA reflects change for Time 1 values (entered as the covariate) to Time 2 values (entered as the DV)||||||<.001
95927185|NCT02503202|191816611|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot B)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.14|0.77|<0.001
95729526|NCT04071769|191429593|OTHER|Baseline to 3 months||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95729527|NCT04071769|191429593|OTHER|Baseline to 6 months||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95927186|NCT02503202|191816611|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot A / Lot C)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.09|0.71|<0.001
95927187|NCT02503202|191816611|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency requires the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio of \>0.5 and ≤2.0 for the primary analysis and \>0.67 and ≤1.5 for the secondary analysis.|GMT ratio (Lot B / Lot C)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||Primary analysis: a p-value \<0.025 supported the conclusion of equivalence. If equivalence was established for the 3 pairwise comparisons, the lots would be considered to be consistent.|ANOVA|||||1.15|0.77|<0.001
95927188|NCT02503202|191816612|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||4.0|-1.5|0.368
95927189|NCT02503202|191816612|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-3.1|0.989
95927190|NCT02503202|191816612|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.5|-4.1|0.361
95927191|NCT02503202|191816612|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.3|-1.7|0.214
95927192|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site erythema||9.9|-1.6|0.160
95927193|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site erythema||6.0|-6.2|0.971
95927194|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site erythema||1.5|-10.0|0.151
95927195|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site erythema||9.9|1.4|0.016
95927196|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site pain||1.6|-14.0|0.120
95927197|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-11.4|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site pain||4.4|-11.4|0.380
95856876|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.0|-3.4|0.2739
95927198|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site pain||10.4|-5.1|0.499
95927199|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|54.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|62.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site pain||62.3|46.2|<0.001
95927200|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Injection site swelling||10.3|-2.2|0.202
95927201|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Injection site swelling||6.1|-7.1|0.878
95927202|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Injection site swelling||1.7|-10.9|0.154
95927203|NCT02503202|191816613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Injection site swelling||18.6|7.4|<0.001
95927204|NCT02503202|191816614|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||11.4|-2.1|0.176
95927205|NCT02503202|191816614|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||6.0|-8.2|0.769
95927206|NCT02503202|191816614|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||1.1|-12.5|0.100
95927207|NCT02503202|191816614|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|37.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||37.5|25.6|<0.001
95927208|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthralgia||4.1|-4.2|0.983
95927209|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.4|-5.1|0.699
95927210|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthralgia||3.5|-5.1|0.716
95927211|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthralgia||10.4|1.8|0.012
95927212|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|Arthritis||4.4|-2.9|0.677
95927213|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|Arthritis||5.4|-1.4|0.250
95927214|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|Arthritis||4.5|-2.1|0.460
95927215|NCT02503202|191816615|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|Arthritis||6.0|0.2|0.041
95927216|NCT02503202|191816616|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||1.9|-5.1|0.353
95927217|NCT02503202|191816616|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||2.5|-4.2|0.620
95927218|NCT02503202|191816616|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||4.5|-2.9|0.663
95927219|NCT02503202|191816616|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||5.7|-1.8|0.202
95927220|NCT02503202|191816617|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot B|||3.3|-1.6|0.483
95927221|NCT02503202|191816617|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot A - Lot C|||3.0|-2.2|0.746
95927222|NCT02503202|191816617|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is Lot B - Lot C|||2.0|-2.8|0.704
95927223|NCT02503202|191816617|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference is High-dose Lot - Placebo|||3.9|-1.3|0.151
95927224|NCT04897737|191816621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs.||2.82|1.19|<0.001
95927225|NCT04897737|191816622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|7.27|||Regression, Linear|||All analyses were by intention-to-treat. In the case of missing outcomes for participants who did not return for the follow-up visit, we assigned outcome values of the following: poor PrEP adherence (TFV undetected) and partner not tested for HIV. We constructed univariate Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to examine the predictors of outcomes of interests. Model results are presented as crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs.|RD=49.1% (95% CI=32.8, 65.3), p\<0.001|7.27|2.08|<0.001
95927226|NCT04059237|191816625|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95927227|NCT04059237|191816626|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
95927228|NCT04059237|191816627|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95927229|NCT04059237|191816628|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.10
95927230|NCT04059237|191816629|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||.01
95983904|NCT01431274|191941899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
95983905|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.217|0.057|0.0008
95983906|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||0.209|0.042|0.0032
95983907|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).|||0.183|0.027|0.0085
95983908|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.235|0.077|0.0001
95983909|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).|||0.176|0.011|0.0255
95983910|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).|||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
95983911|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
95983912|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
95983913|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).|||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
95983914|NCT01431274|191941900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).|||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
95983915|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
95729528|NCT04071769|191429593|OTHER|Baseline to 12 months||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95729529|NCT04071769|191429594|OTHER|Baseline to 3 months||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95729530|NCT04071769|191429594|OTHER|Baseline to 6 months||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95729531|NCT04071769|191429594|OTHER|Baseline to 12 months||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95983916|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
95983917|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
95983918|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
95983919|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
95983920|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
95727886|NCT02295774|191425278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mc Nemar's χ2 test|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|Mc Nemar's χ2 test was not applicable because there is no change between visits.|"The results of the γH2AX analysis were listed and summarised by frequency tables by visit and colonic region.~The results were compared between Visit 2 and Visit 1 for each colonic region and overall using the Mc Nemar's χ2 test.~In case of the presence of at least one positive colonic region, that visit was to be considered as 'Positive' for the overall γH2AX analysis."||||
95727887|NCT01617577|191425281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||ADAScog scores at baseline vs final visit (wk 14); null hypothesis is there is no difference between scores||||0.36
95856877|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.1|8.7|<0.0001
95927231|NCT04059237|191816630|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.59
95927232|NCT04059237|191816631|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
95927233|NCT04059237|191816632|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.52
95927234|NCT04059237|191816633|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Repeated measures ANOVA evaluated change in outcome variables across the study time points.|ANOVA|||||||0.08
95927235|NCT03525119|191816644|NON_INFERIORITY|As per predefined criteria in protocol the non-inferiority was established only between group 1 and group 3. Non-inferiority of HAV+TDV to HAV was established if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.28||||||||4.28|-8.91|
95927236|NCT05046132|191816661|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|6.17||||||"The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model.~The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at maximum concentration (Cmax) geometric mean of therapeutic dose (3 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods."||6.17|1.23|
95927237|NCT05046132|191816662|OTHER||Mean of Placebo-corrected CHFB|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|7.64||||||The C-QTc analysis was performed with a non-linear model. The mean of placebo-corrected CHFB in QTcF at Cmax geometric mean of therapeutic dose (7 mg QD) was estimated with bias-corrected 90% CI by nonparametric bootstrap methods.||7.64|1.70|
95927238|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.6||||||Pre-dose||5.6|-0.6|
95927239|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.1||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.0|
95927240|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.0||||||1 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.8|
95927241|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|5.1||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.8|
95927242|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.1||||||2 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.8|
95927243|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.9|
95927244|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7||||||3 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.4|
95927245|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.7||||||4 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.9|
95927246|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||5 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
95927247|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.3||||||6 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.8|
95927248|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.1||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.5|
95927249|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.3||||||8 hr Post dose||1.3|-4.5|
95927250|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||9 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
95927251|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.7||||||10 hr Post dose||2.7|-2.3|
95927252|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-0.1|-5.9|
95927253|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.0||||||16 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.1|
95927254|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||3.8|-1.6|
95927255|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|4.5||||||Pre-dose||4.5|-1.7|
95927256|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.7||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.7|-1.4|
95927257|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||1 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
95927258|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||6.0|-0.9|
95927259|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.8||||||2 hr Post dose||4.8|-2.1|
95927260|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.9||||||2.5 hr Post dose||4.9|-1.4|
95927261|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.1||||||3 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.9|
95927262|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.2||||||4 hr Post dose||4.2|-1.4|
95927263|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|5.7||||||5 hr Post dose||5.7|-0.2|
95927264|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.5||||||6 hr Post dose||7.5|1.4|
95927265|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||||||7 hr Post dose||5.5|0.1|
95927266|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.0||||||8 hr Post dose||7.0|1.2|
95927267|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.3||||||9 hr Post dose||6.3|0.8|
95927268|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.8||||||10 hr Post dose||5.8|0.8|
95927269|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|5.5||||||12 hr Post dose||5.5|-0.3|
95927270|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.4||||||16 hr Post dose||3.4|-2.7|
95927271|NCT05046132|191816663|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.4||||||24 hr Post dose||4.4|-1.0|
95927272|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.4||||||Pre dose||3.4|-2.8|
95927273|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
95927274|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.4||||||1 hr Post dose||1.4|-4.7|
95727888|NCT01617577|191425281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PAL(mem) at baseline and 14 wk (final visit): null hypothesis is thereis no difference in score||||0.058
95727889|NCT01617577|191425281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||PALtot trials adj at baseline vs 14wk (final visit)||||0.034
95856878|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.0|19.7|<0.0001
95856879|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|12.8|<0.0001
95927275|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.3|
95927276|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.3|
95927277|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.7||||||2.5 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.1|
95927278|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|1.7||||||3 hr Post dose||1.7|-4.2|
95927279|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.5||||||4 hr Post dose||2.5|-3.6|
95927280|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-4.1|
95927281|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.5||||||6 hr Post dose||3.5|-2.7|
95927282|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.5|
95927283|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|0.8||||||8 hr Post dose||0.8|-5.2|
95927284|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||2.6|-4.3|
95927285|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|3.2||||||10 hr Post dose||3.2|-3.6|
95927286|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.0||||||12 hr Post dose||1.0|-5.5|
95927287|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|1.7||||||16 hr Post dose||1.7|-5.4|
95927288|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|6.3||||||24 hr Post dose||6.3|-1.2|
95927289|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|0.8||||||Pre-dose||0.8|-5.1|
95927290|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
95927291|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||1 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
95927292|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|3.0||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.1|
95927293|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.8|
95927294|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.0||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.0|-2.5|
95927295|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.7||||||3 hr Post dose||3.7|-1.9|
95927296|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|3.7||||||4 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.2|
95927297|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.1||||||5 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.8|
95927298|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.0||||||6 hr Post dose||2.0|-3.9|
95927299|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.7||||||7 hr Post dose||2.7|-3.1|
95927300|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||8 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.7|
95927301|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.0||||||9 hr Post dose||4.0|-2.7|
95927302|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.1||||||10 hr Post dose||4.1|-2.3|
95927303|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.8||||||12 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.5|
95927304|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0||||||16 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.8|
95927305|NCT05046132|191816664|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.0||||||24 hr Post dose||2.0|-5.1|
95927306|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.8||||||Pre dose||6.8|0.1|
95927307|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.6||||||0.5 hr Post dose||4.6|-3.0|
95927308|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.9||||||1 hr Post dose||3.9|-4.1|
95927309|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||4.4|-2.7|
95927310|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|6.6||||||2 hr Post dose||6.6|-0.6|
95927311|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|7.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||7.4|-0.3|
95927312|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|8.1||||||3 hr Post dose||8.1|1.2|
95927313|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|8.9||||||4 hr Post dose||8.9|1.5|
95927314|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.8||||||5 hr Post dose||5.8|-1.7|
95927315|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.1||||||6 hr Post dose||5.1|-1.6|
95927316|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|5.7||||||7 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.1|
95927317|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|6.2||||||8 hr Post dose||6.2|-1.4|
95927318|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.8||||||9 hr Post dose||7.8|0.9|
95927319|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|7.4||||||10 hr Post dose||7.4|0.3|
95927320|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|2.7||||||12 hr Post dose||2.7|-4.2|
95927321|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|7.0||||||16 hr Post dose||7.0|0.1|
95927322|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|2.8||||||24 hr Post dose||2.8|-5.7|
95927323|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|5.6||||||Pre dose||5.6|-1.0|
95927324|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||2.2|-5.4|
95927325|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.3||||||1 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.8|
95927326|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|7.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||7.6|0.4|
95927327|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|10.0||||||2 hr Post dose||10.0|2.7|
95727890|NCT01798485|191425301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.372|||Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||Primary study hypothesis was tested at a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level using a stratified log-rank test.||1.372|0.899|0.3293
95856880|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.4|12.0|<0.0001
95856881|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|121.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.8|87.7|<0.0001
95856882|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.3|-9.8|0.4003
95856883|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||60.7|26.6|<0.0001
95856884|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|85.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||85.4|51.3|<0.0001
95856885|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|71.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.4|37.3|<0.0001
95856886|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|36.0|<0.0001
95856887|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|292.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|240.0|345.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||345.1|240.0|<0.0001
95856888|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.2||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|84.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.7|-20.3|0.2277
95856889|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|173.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.5|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.6|120.5|<0.0001
95856890|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|204.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||204.2|99.1|<0.0001
95856891|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|129.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|182.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||182.3|77.2|<0.0001
95856892|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|175.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||175.1|70.0|<0.0001
95856893|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|295.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|228.3|362.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||362.2|228.3|<0.0001
95856894|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.6||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|2.7|0.0416
95856895|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|204.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.5|271.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||271.3|137.5|<0.0001
95856896|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|160.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|227.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.4|93.5|<0.0001
95856897|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|66.1|0.0001
95856898|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|140.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|207.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.0|73.1|<0.0001
95856899|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|219.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.6|311.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||311.3|127.6|<0.0001
95856900|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|236.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.8|53.2|0.0022
95927328|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.2||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.2|2.6|
95927329|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|12.0||||||3 hr Post dose||12.0|5.0|
95927330|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|13.8||||||4 hr Post dose||13.8|6.4|
95927331|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|11.6||||||5 hr Post dose||11.6|4.1|
95927332|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.2||||||6 hr Post dose||11.2|4.4|
95927333|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|10.2||||||7 hr Post dose||10.2|3.4|
95927334|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.3||||||8 hr Post dose||8.3|0.6|
95927335|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|10.0||||||9 hr Post dose||10.0|3.1|
95927336|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|10.1||||||10 hr Post dose||10.1|3.0|
95927337|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|8.8||||||12 hr Post dose||8.8|1.8|
95927338|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|10.6||||||16 hr Post dose||10.6|3.7|
95927339|NCT05046132|191816665|OTHER||LS Mean|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.5||||||24 hr Post dose||7.5|-1.0|
95927340|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.7|11.8||||||Pre dose||11.8|3.7|
95927341|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|9.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||9.8|3.3|
95927342|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
95927343|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||8.6|0.6|
95927344|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|8.0||||||2 hr Post dose||8.0|-0.4|
95927345|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|10.4||||||2.5 hr Post dose||10.4|1.8|
95927346|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|9.8||||||3 hr Post dose||9.8|1.7|
95927347|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|9.8||||||4 hr Post dose||9.8|2.5|
95927348|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|9.8||||||5 hr Post dose||9.8|1.6|
95927349|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|8.4||||||6 hr Post dose||8.4|1.1|
95927350|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.0||||||7 hr Post dose||7.0|-0.9|
95927351|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.8||||||8 hr Post dose||8.8|1.3|
95927352|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|10.6||||||9 hr Post dose||10.6|2.5|
95927353|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.3||||||10 hr Post dose||12.3|4.8|
95927354|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|11.4||||||12 hr Post dose||11.4|4.4|
95927355|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|8.9||||||16 hr Post dose||8.9|0.9|
95927356|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|12.0||||||24 hr Post dose||12.0|3.6|
95927357|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|6.0||||||Pre dose||6.0|-1.8|
95927358|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.2||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.2|-0.0|
95927359|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.7||||||1 hr Post dose||5.7|-1.9|
95927360|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|10.4||||||1.5 hr Post dose||10.4|2.6|
95927361|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|9.3||||||2 hr Post dose||9.3|1.3|
95927362|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.0|15.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||15.1|7.0|
95927363|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.6||||||3 hr Post dose||13.6|5.9|
95927364|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|14.2||||||4 hr Post dose||14.2|7.2|
95927365|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|12.7||||||5 hr Post dose||12.7|4.9|
95927366|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|14.5||||||6 hr Post dose||14.5|7.5|
95927367|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|14.6||||||7 hr Post dose||14.6|7.1|
95927368|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|14.9||||||8 hr Post dose||14.9|7.6|
95927369|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|13.7||||||9 hr Post dose||13.7|5.9|
95927370|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|14.1||||||10 hr Post dose||14.1|6.9|
95927371|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|15.2||||||12 hr Post dose||15.2|8.4|
95927372|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|13.3||||||16 hr Post dose||13.3|5.6|
95927373|NCT05046132|191816666|OTHER||LS Mean|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|14.9||||||24 hr Post dose||14.9|6.8|
95927374|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-2.2||||||Pre dose||-2.2|-8.4|
95927375|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|0.5||||||0.5 hr Post dose||0.5|-5.9|
95927376|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.7||||||1 hr Post dose||-0.7|-5.7|
95927377|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|1.9||||||1.5 hr Post dose||1.9|-3.7|
95927378|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-0.2||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.2|-5.7|
95927379|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.5||||||2.5 hr Post dose||-1.5|-6.5|
95927380|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-1.3||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.3|-7.1|
95927381|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
95927382|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.1||||||5 hr Post dose||2.1|-3.7|
95927383|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-0.4||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.4|-6.3|
95927384|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.5||||||7 hr Post dose||-0.5|-6.0|
95927385|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.5||||||8 hr Post dose||1.5|-4.7|
95927386|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-1.2||||||9 hr Post dose||-1.2|-6.9|
95927387|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-1.0||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.0|-7.6|
95927388|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|-2.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-2.1|-8.7|
95927389|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-0.8||||||16 hr Post dose||-0.8|-7.4|
95927390|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-4.2||||||24 hr Post dose||-4.2|-10.1|
95927391|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.2||||||Pre dose||4.2|-2.0|
95927392|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|6.3||||||0.5 hr Post dose||6.3|-0.1|
95983921|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
95927393|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.9||||||1 hr Post dose||4.9|-0.1|
95927394|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.8||||||1.5 hr Post dose||5.8|0.2|
95927395|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.6||||||2 hr Post dose||4.6|-1.0|
95927396|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.1||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.1|-1.9|
95927397|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.8||||||3 hr Post dose||4.8|-1.0|
95927398|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|3.0||||||4 hr Post dose||3.0|-3.5|
95927399|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2||||||5 hr Post dose||3.2|-2.6|
95927400|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.1||||||6 hr Post dose||1.1|-4.8|
95727891|NCT01798485|191425301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.821|1.503||||||"Futility analysis for the first Interim Analysis which had a database cutoff of 19 October 2015. For the first interim analysis, if the lower limit of the 2-sided 99.5% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio was greater than 0.75, then the study could be stopped for futility, based on Data Monitoring Committee recommendation.~Hazard ratio and 99.5% CI were calculated using the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region)."||1.503|0.821|
95927401|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.7||||||7 hr Post dose||1.7|-3.8|
95927402|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.6||||||8 hr Post dose||2.6|-3.6|
95927403|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|0.2||||||9 hr Post dose||0.2|-5.6|
95927404|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.2||||||10 hr Post dose||-0.2|-6.8|
95927405|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|0.1||||||12 hr Post dose||0.1|-6.6|
95927406|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||16 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
95927407|NCT05046132|191816667|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.9||||||24 hr Post dose||2.9|-3.0|
95927408|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.0||||||Pre dose||-3.0|-10.3|
95927409|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-4.0||||||0.5 hr Post dose||-4.0|-10.5|
95927410|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-1.2||||||1 hr Post dose||-1.2|-8.8|
95927411|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-1.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.4|
95927412|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|-0.3||||||2 hr Post dose||-0.3|-6.6|
95927413|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|0.3||||||2.5 hr Post dose||0.3|-6.1|
95927414|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.5||||||3 hr Post dose||-1.5|-7.7|
95927415|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-3.8||||||4 hr Post dose||-3.8|-10.3|
95927416|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.6||||||5 hr Post dose||0.6|-6.9|
95927417|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.6||||||6 hr Post dose||-0.6|-7.8|
95927418|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-1.6||||||7 hr Post dose||-1.6|-8.1|
95927419|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||8 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
95927420|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-2.6||||||9 hr Post dose||-2.6|-9.3|
95927421|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-1.1||||||10 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.8|
95927422|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-1.1||||||12 hr Post dose||-1.1|-7.3|
95927423|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-2.0||||||16 hr Post dose||-2.0|-9.7|
95927424|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|-3.8||||||24 hr Post dose||-3.8|-12.5|
95927425|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|5.9||||||Pre dose||5.9|-1.2|
95927426|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.8||||||0.5 hr Post dose||1.8|-4.5|
95927427|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|3.3||||||1 hr Post dose||3.3|-4.0|
95927428|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|3.6||||||1.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-3.0|
95927429|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.0||||||2 hr Post dose||2.0|-4.0|
95927430|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.6||||||2.5 hr Post dose||3.6|-2.6|
95927431|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.3||||||3 hr Post dose||2.3|-3.7|
95927432|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|0.9||||||4 hr Post dose||0.9|-5.4|
95927433|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|4.6||||||5 hr Post dose||4.6|-2.5|
95927434|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.8||||||6 hr Post dose||2.8|-4.1|
95927435|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|1.3||||||7 hr Post dose||1.3|-5.0|
95927436|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.8||||||8 hr Post dose||2.8|-3.7|
95927437|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|3.1||||||9 hr Post dose||3.1|-3.4|
95927438|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.7||||||10 hr Post dose||3.7|-2.8|
95927439|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.1||||||12 hr Post dose||3.1|-2.9|
95927440|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|4.3||||||16 hr Post dose||4.3|-3.1|
95927441|NCT05046132|191816668|OTHER||LS Mean|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.9||||||24 hr Post dose||5.9|-2.5|
95927442|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.2||||||Pre dose||1.2|-2.6|
95927443|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7||||||0.5 hr post dose||0.7|-2.6|
95927444|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.3||||||1 hr post dose||2.3|-1.1|
95927445|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.3||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.5|
95927446|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.4||||||2 hr post dose||2.4|-0.8|
95927447|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
95927448|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.0||||||3 hr post dose||2.0|-1.6|
95927449|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.3||||||4 hr post dose||2.3|-0.9|
95927450|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.1||||||5 hr post dose||2.1|-1.2|
95927451|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||6 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
95927452|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4||||||7 hr post dose||2.4|-0.6|
95927453|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.2||||||8 hr post dose||2.2|-1.0|
95927454|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
95927455|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.5|
95927456|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.0||||||12 hr post dose||3.0|-0.2|
95927457|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||16 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
95927458|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6||||||24 hr post dose||1.6|-2.1|
95927459|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.6||||||Pre dose||2.6|-1.2|
95927460|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
95927461|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2||||||1 hr post dose||2.2|-1.2|
95927462|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.1||||||1.5 hr post dose||2.1|-0.7|
95727892|NCT01798485|191425302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.161||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.403||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with stratification variables, ECOG, screening total LDH levels, and geographic region, used to compare the treatment groups.||||1.403|0.961|0.1180
95927463|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.2||||||2 hr post dose||2.2|-1.1|
95927464|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|2.5||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.5|-0.9|
95927465|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.1||||||3 hr post dose||2.1|-1.5|
95927466|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1||||||4 hr post dose||1.1|-2.1|
95927467|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|1.9||||||5 hr post dose||1.9|-1.5|
95727893|NCT01798485|191425303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.754||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.754|0.865|0.2506
95927468|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.4||||||6 hr post dose||1.4|-1.7|
95927469|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4||||||7 hr post dose||1.4|-1.6|
95927470|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.7|
95927471|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||9 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
95927472|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6||||||10 hr post dose||1.6|-1.4|
95927473|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.1||||||12 hr post dose||3.1|-0.1|
95927474|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.0||||||16 hr post dose||3.0|-0.7|
95927475|NCT05046132|191816669|OTHER||LS Mean|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|3.4||||||24 hr post dose||3.4|-0.3|
95927476|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9||||||Pre dose||2.9|-1.3|
95927477|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.2||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.2|-1.8|
95927478|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.8||||||1 hr post dose||3.8|-1.4|
95927479|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.8|
95927480|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.3||||||2 hr post dose||0.3|-3.0|
95927481|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.1||||||2.5 hr post dose||3.1|-0.0|
95927482|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.5||||||3 hr post dose||1.5|-1.7|
95927483|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.9||||||4 hr post dose||2.9|-0.3|
95927484|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||5 hr post dose||2.0|-2.2|
95927485|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
95927486|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.7||||||7 hr post dose||2.7|-0.8|
95927487|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.4||||||8 hr post dose||2.4|-0.3|
95927488|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.9||||||9 hr post dose||2.9|-0.7|
95927489|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.9||||||10 hr post dose||1.9|-1.4|
95927490|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.2||||||12 hr post dose||3.2|-0.6|
95927491|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.4||||||16 hr post dose||2.4|-1.0|
95927492|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.2||||||24 hr post dose||4.2|-1.0|
95927493|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Pre dose||1.7|-2.3|
95927494|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.3||||||0.5 hr post dose||1.3|-1.6|
95927495|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.2||||||1 hr post dose||1.2|-3.8|
95927496|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.8||||||1.5 hr post dose||1.8|-1.7|
95927497|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||2 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
95927498|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.3||||||2.5 hr post dose||2.3|-0.8|
95927499|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.8||||||3 hr post dose||1.8|-1.3|
95927500|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.9||||||4 hr post dose||1.9|-1.2|
95927501|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.5||||||5 hr post dose||0.5|-3.5|
95927502|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.3||||||6 hr post dose||2.3|-0.6|
95927503|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1||||||7 hr post dose||2.1|-1.3|
95983922|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
95927504|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.6||||||8 hr post dose||2.6|-0.0|
95927505|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.2||||||9 hr post dose||2.2|-1.3|
95927506|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|0.5||||||10 hr post dose||0.5|-2.7|
95927507|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5||||||12 hr post dose||1.5|-2.1|
95927508|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.4||||||16 hr post dose||1.4|-1.9|
95927509|NCT05046132|191816670|OTHER||LS Mean|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.9||||||24 hr post dose||4.9|-0.2|
95927510|NCT00208507|191816684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This was a non-inferiority test of the Harris Hip Score means at 24+ months with a 5 point non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.56||||ANCOVA|Preoperative Harris Hip score was included in the ANCOVA model as the only covariate.|||||-1.56|0.001
95927511|NCT00982033|191816693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
95983923|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
95983924|NCT01431274|191941901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
95727894|NCT01798485|191425304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
95727895|NCT01798485|191425305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 6 weeks||||0.339
95927512|NCT00612586|191816694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956||||||One sided|Log Rank|||||||0.8956
95927513|NCT00612586|191816695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9865||||||One-sided|Log Rank|||||||0.9865
95927514|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|3.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||3.17|-4.52|
95927515|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.94|4.38||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||4.38|-3.94|
95927516|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|3.19||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||3.19|-4.63|
95927517|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-9.4|10.99||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||10.99|-9.4|
95983925|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
95727896|NCT01798485|191425305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||\>= 12 weeks||||0.817
95983926|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
95983927|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
95983928|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
95983929|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
95983930|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
95983931|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
95983932|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
95983933|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
95983934|NCT01431274|191941902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
95983935|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
95983936|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
95983937|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
95727897|NCT01798485|191425306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.344||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|4.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||4.551|1.207|0.0111
95727898|NCT01798485|191425307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.551||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|P-value was from stratified log-rank test (strata: screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.551|0.797|0.5191
95983938|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
95983939|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
95983940|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
95983941|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
95983942|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
95983943|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
95983944|NCT01431274|191941903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
95983945|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
95983946|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
95983947|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
95983948|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
95983949|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
95983950|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
95983951|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
95983952|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
95983953|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
95983954|NCT01431274|191941904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
95983955|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
95983956|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
95983957|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Olodaterol (5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
95983958|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
95983959|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
95983960|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tio+Olo FDC (2.5/5 μg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
95983961|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tio+Olo FDC (5/5 µg) versus Tiotropium (2.5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
95983962|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg)~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
95856901|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.4|292.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||292.0|108.4|<0.0001
95856902|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|256.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||256.1|72.4|0.0005
95856903|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|238.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||238.4|54.8|0.0019
95927518|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-2.7|4.71||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||4.71|-2.7|
95927519|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.05|3.82||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||3.82|-5.05|
95927520|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.68|3.15||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||3.15|-4.68|
95927521|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.04|3.85||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.85|-5.04|
95927522|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.6|3.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||3.14|-4.6|
95927523|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.08||||||98.25|-7.66|8.1||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus IIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||8.1|-7.66|
95927524|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.52|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 1.||2.91|-4.52|
95927525|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.57|2.91||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 4.||2.91|-4.57|
95927526|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.63|2.92||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 5.||2.92|-4.63|
95927527|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-12.02|7.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 6B.||7.22|-12.02|
95927528|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.34|3.48||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 7F.||3.48|-3.34|
95927529|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.66|2.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 9V.||2.32|-5.66|
95927530|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-4.08|4.12||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 14.||4.12|-4.08|
95927531|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.08|3.54||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 18C.||3.54|-5.08|
95927532|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-3.4|5.2||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 19F.||5.2|-3.4|
95927533|NCT01235949|191816699|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 98.25% confidence interval (98.25% CI) (adjusted 1-sided alpha = 0.875%) of the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL, was lower than (\<) 10% for at least 7 out of the 10 pneumococcal serotypes.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|98.25|-5.3|11.04||||||At one month after primary immunization, the difference between groups (NIBU minus DIBU), in terms of percentage of subjects with pneumococcal antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 µg/mL were calculated for anti-pneumococccal serotype 23F.||11.04|-5.3|
95927534|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.29||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.29|0.71|
95927535|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.77|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.35|0.77|
95927536|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.41||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.41|0.8|
95927537|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.74||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.74|0.72|
95927538|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.79|1.35||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.35|0.79|
95927539|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.7|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.31|0.7|
95983963|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
95983964|NCT01431274|191941905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|"Tiotropium (2.5 µg) versus Olodaterol (5 µg).~Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors."|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
95983965|NCT02184195|191941921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.815|||Log-rank test|||||0.815|0.346|0.0038
95983966|NCT02184195|191941922|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.224|||Log-rank test|||||1.224|0.564|0.3487
95983967|NCT02184195|191941923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.02|||Log-rank test|||||1.020|0.426|0.0613
95983968|NCT02184195|191941924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.894|||Log-rank test|||||0.894|0.418|0.0111
95983969|NCT02184195|191941925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.658|||Log-rank test|||||0.658|0.297|<0.0001
95983970|NCT02184195|191941926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.627|||Log-rank test|||||0.627|0.289|<0.0001
95983971|NCT02184195|191941927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.610|0.668|0.3273
95983972|NCT02184195|191941929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.917|2.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.496|-6.917|0.355
95983973|NCT00916149|191941931|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For each group (levetiracetam and no treatment), the change in IEDs/hour from pre to post-intervention: p \>0.05. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Change in frequency of IEDs/per hour was assessed for each group (levetiracetam and no treatment)||||>0.05
95983974|NCT00916149|191941932|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.005
95983975|NCT00916149|191941932|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Trial 1 Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam group.||||>0.05
95983976|NCT00916149|191941933|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||0.016
95983977|NCT00916149|191941933|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Total Learning Score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
95983978|NCT00916149|191941934|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
95983979|NCT00916149|191941934|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Short Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
95983980|NCT00916149|191941935|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
95983981|NCT00916149|191941935|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CVLT Long Delay score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||0.045
95983982|NCT00916149|191941936|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group.||||>0.05
95983983|NCT00916149|191941936|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group.||||>0.05
95983984|NCT00916149|191941937|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95983985|NCT00916149|191941937|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Total Learning score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983986|NCT00916149|191941938|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95983987|NCT00916149|191941938|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the BVMT-R Delayed Recall score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983988|NCT00916149|191941939|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the QOLIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983989|NCT00916149|191941940|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95983990|NCT00916149|191941940|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Letter Number Sequencing score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983991|NCT00916149|191941941|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95983992|NCT00916149|191941941|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Spatial Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983993|NCT00916149|191941942|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95983994|NCT00916149|191941942|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Span score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983995|NCT00916149|191941943|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95856904|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|132.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|224.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.5|40.8|0.0049
95927540|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.71|1.4||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.4|0.71|
95927541|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.31|0.6|
95927542|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.87|1.75||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.75|0.87|
95927543|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.44|0.66|
95927544|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.67|1.21||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1.||1.21|0.67|
95927545|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.76|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4.||1.32|0.76|
95927546|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.66|1.14||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5.||1.14|0.66|
95927547|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.83|1.97||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B.||1.97|0.83|
95927548|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.8|1.31||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F.||1.31|0.8|
95927549|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.22||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V.||1.22|0.69|
95927550|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.68|1.32||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14.||1.32|0.68|
95927551|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.6|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C.||1.27|0.6|
95927552|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.72|1.44||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F.||1.44|0.72|
95983996|NCT00916149|191941943|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95983997|NCT00916149|191941944|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95983998|NCT00916149|191941944|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in Stroop performance from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95927553|NCT01235949|191816700|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for at least one of the 10 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.58|1.27||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F.||1.27|0.58|
95927554|NCT01235949|191816701|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (IIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.69|1.28||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (IIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.28|0.69|
95927555|NCT01235949|191816701|NON_INFERIORITY|A statistically significant decrease in GMC was established if the UL of the two-sided 99.8% CI (adjusted one-sided alpha = 0.11364%) for the GMC ratios (DIBU over NIBU) was below (\<) 1 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.64|1.17||||||At one month after primary immunization, ELISA Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratios (DIBU over NIBU) were calculated for anti-Protein D (anti-PD) antibody.||1.17|0.64|
95927556|NCT04173572|191816736|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.09|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 10 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927557|NCT04173572|191816736|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.743|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 9 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927558|NCT04173572|191816737|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|22.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.938|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927559|NCT04173572|191816737|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.645|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927560|NCT04173572|191816738|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4213.837|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95856905|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|209.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.3|310.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||310.3|108.3|<0.0001
95927561|NCT04173572|191816738|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-483.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2497.312|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927562|NCT04173572|191816739|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.229|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95983999|NCT00916149|191941945|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984000|NCT00916149|191941945|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Design Fluency score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984001|NCT00916149|191941946|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984002|NCT00916149|191941946|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Trails Test from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984003|NCT00916149|191941947|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95927563|NCT04173572|191816739|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.563|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.695|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927564|NCT04173572|191816740|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|-9.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.166|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927565|NCT04173572|191816740|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Median Difference (Net)|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.664|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 16 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927566|NCT04173572|191816741|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.392|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.148|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 13 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927567|NCT04173572|191816741|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.401|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927568|NCT04173572|191816742|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927569|NCT04173572|191816742|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927570|NCT04173572|191816743|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927571|NCT04173572|191816743|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 11 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927572|NCT04173572|191816744|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.067|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 15 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927573|NCT04173572|191816744|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927574|NCT04173572|191816745|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927575|NCT04173572|191816745|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.717|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927576|NCT04173572|191816746|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.071|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.737|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927577|NCT04173572|191816746|OTHER|Single group mean difference between baseline and post-treatment assessments.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.288|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posttreatment - Baseline: 14 participants analyzed (had data at both time points)||||
95927578|NCT02026258|191816753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on previous findings, it takes approximately 117 ± 46 days for complete alignment of the mandibular anterior teeth in subjects with severe crowding treated without extractions. For a clinically significant 40% faster alignment in the piezotome-corticision group compared to the control group at an alpha-level (p = 0.05) and desired power of 80%, a sample size of 28 subjects (14 per group) was required. Twenty subjects per group assuming an overall attrition rate of 28%.||||<0.05
95927579|NCT02026258|191816754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T0||||<0.05
95927580|NCT02026258|191816754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T1||||<0.05
95927581|NCT02026258|191816754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T2||||<0.05
95984004|NCT00916149|191941947|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in performance on the Grooved Pegboard task from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984005|NCT00916149|191941948|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.014
95927582|NCT02026258|191816754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS T3||||<0.05
95927583|NCT02026258|191816755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ease of Procedure||||<0.05
95927584|NCT02026258|191816755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Satisfaction with procedure||||<0.05
95927585|NCT02026258|191816756|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Use of Medications||||||<0.05
95927586|NCT02026258|191816756|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Undergo procedure again||||<0.05
95927587|NCT02026258|191816756|OTHER||Fisher chi square|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Recommend procedure to a friend||||<0.05
95927588|NCT05565391|191816762|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.47|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.47|1.54|<.0001
95927589|NCT05565391|191816762|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.67|||Log-binomial regression model||Unweighted RRs were estimated using a log-binomial regression model with Wald confidence intervals.|||2.67|1.52|<.0001
95927590|NCT05565391|191816763|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.9|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||2.90|1.69|<.0001
95984006|NCT00916149|191941948|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Digit Symbol score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984007|NCT00916149|191941949|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984008|NCT00916149|191941949|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984009|NCT00916149|191941950|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984010|NCT00916149|191941950|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the CPT reaction time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984011|NCT00916149|191941951|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95927591|NCT05565391|191816764|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.15|||Log-binomial regression model||Risk ratio was estimated using a log-binomial regression model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||3.15|1.01|0.0447
95927592|NCT05565391|191816765|OTHER|||||||0.4241|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.4241
95927593|NCT05565391|191816765|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0281
95927594|NCT05565391|191816766|OTHER|||||||0.7682|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.7682
95927595|NCT05565391|191816767|OTHER|||||||0.0326|||||||Quantile regression|||||||0.0326
95927596|NCT05565391|191816768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.31|0.09|<.0001
95927597|NCT05565391|191816768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.43|0.11|<.0001
95927598|NCT05565391|191816769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.22|0.06|<.0001
95984012|NCT00916149|191941952|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Choice Reaction Time score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||0.05
95984013|NCT00916149|191941953|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984014|NCT00916149|191941953|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||0.039
95984015|NCT00916149|191941954|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984016|NCT00916149|191941954|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984017|NCT00916149|191941955|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984018|NCT00916149|191941955|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984019|NCT00916149|191941956|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984020|NCT00916149|191941956|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Non-verbal Working Memory Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984021|NCT00916149|191941957|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95795017|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.64|
95984022|NCT00916149|191941957|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984023|NCT00916149|191941958|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984024|NCT00916149|191941958|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Verbal Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984025|NCT00916149|191941959|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984026|NCT00916149|191941959|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Accuracy score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984027|NCT00916149|191941960|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984028|NCT00916149|191941960|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the Facial Recognition Reaction Time from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984029|NCT00916149|191941961|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984030|NCT00916149|191941961|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the NDDIE score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984031|NCT00916149|191941962|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the no treatment group||||>0.05
95984032|NCT00916149|191941962|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||This analysis assessed the change in the AEP score from pre to post time points in the levetiracetam treatment group||||>0.05
95984033|NCT00978029|191941965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.9||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|23.97|||Fisher Exact|||||23.97|-10.17|0.486
95795018|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.29|0.84|
95795019|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.14|0.75|
95984034|NCT00978029|191941965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|16.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|33.83|||Fisher Exact|||||33.83|0.01|0.078
95984035|NCT00258674|191941980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.307||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.307
95984036|NCT00258674|191941981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.551||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.551
95927599|NCT05565391|191816770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Weighted Cox proportional hazard model||Hazard ratio was estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard model and confidence interval was estimated using robust error variance.|||0.45|0.10|<.0001
95927600|NCT00761930|191816771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95927601|NCT00761930|191816772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95927602|NCT00761930|191816773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95927603|NCT03478696|191816774|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.041|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.041|-0.020|
95927604|NCT03478696|191816775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.049||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.049|0.002|0.037
95927605|NCT03478696|191816775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.089||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.089|0.036|<0.001
95927606|NCT03478696|191816775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.083||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.083|0.026|<0.001
95927607|NCT03478696|191816775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.082||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.082|0.021|0.001
95927608|NCT03478696|191816776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0098||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.023||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.023|-0.016|0.702
95927609|NCT03478696|191816777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.044||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.044|-0.011|0.244
95927610|NCT03105128|191816795|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
95927611|NCT03105128|191816795|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
95927612|NCT03105128|191816796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
95927613|NCT03105128|191816796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
95927614|NCT03105128|191816797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
95927615|NCT03105128|191816797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
95927616|NCT03105128|191816798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.4|21.2|<0.001
95927617|NCT03105128|191816798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|13.6|<0.001
95927618|NCT03105128|191816799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|13.8|<0.001
95927619|NCT03105128|191816799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.8|<0.001
95927620|NCT03105128|191816800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
95927621|NCT03105128|191816800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
95927622|NCT03105128|191816801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
95927623|NCT03105128|191816801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
95927624|NCT03105128|191816802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
95927625|NCT03105128|191816802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
95927626|NCT03105128|191816803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|1.5|0.015
95927627|NCT03105128|191816803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|2.3|0.007
95927628|NCT03105128|191816804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|18.5|<0.001
95856906|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|44.7|0.0050
95856907|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|200.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.7|301.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.6|99.7|0.0001
95856908|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|255.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||255.3|53.3|0.0030
95856909|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|146.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|247.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||247.8|45.9|0.0046
95856910|NCT01746901|191672602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|123.3||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|224.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||224.3|22.3|0.0171
95856911|NCT01746901|191672603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.9|-3.7|0.0016
95856912|NCT01746901|191672603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.4|0.0105
95856913|NCT01746901|191672603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.7|0.7259
95856914|NCT01746901|191672603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.6|0.7813
95856915|NCT01746901|191672603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-1.9|0.5235
95856916|NCT01746901|191672603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.6|0.8512
95856917|NCT01746901|191672604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0883
95927629|NCT03105128|191816804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|11.8|<0.001
95927630|NCT03105128|191816805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|15.7|<0.001
95927631|NCT03105128|191816805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|15.1|<0.001
95927632|NCT03105128|191816806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|12.4|<0.001
95927633|NCT03105128|191816806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|10.1|<0.001
95927634|NCT03105128|191816807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
95927635|NCT03105128|191816807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
95927636|NCT03105128|191816808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
95927637|NCT03105128|191816808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
95927638|NCT03105128|191816809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
95927639|NCT03105128|191816809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
95927640|NCT03105128|191816810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
95927641|NCT03105128|191816810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
95927642|NCT03105128|191816811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
95927643|NCT03105128|191816811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
95927644|NCT03105128|191816812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Chi-squared|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
95927645|NCT03105128|191816812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Chi-squared|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
95927646|NCT03105128|191816813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Chi-squared|||||39.7|-28.6|1.00
95927647|NCT03105128|191816813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|25.0|-25.7|39.6|||Chi-squared|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
95927648|NCT03105128|191816814|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.0|12.4|<0.001
95927649|NCT03105128|191816814|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.9|8.5|<0.001
95927650|NCT03105128|191816815|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.7|7.2|<0.001
95856918|NCT01746901|191672604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0241
95856919|NCT01746901|191672604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.6|2.0|0.0235
95856920|NCT01746901|191672604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.9|-1.7|0.0901
95927651|NCT03105128|191816815|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|3.1|0.007
95927652|NCT03105128|191816816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.5|5.4|<0.001
95927653|NCT03105128|191816816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|5.7|<0.001
95927654|NCT03105128|191816817|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.9|14.2|<0.001
95927655|NCT03105128|191816817|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|19.0|<0.001
95927656|NCT03105128|191816818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||7.2|3.2|<0.001
95927657|NCT03105128|191816818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||6.1|2.1|<0.001
95927658|NCT03105128|191816819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|27.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||27.1|14.3|<0.001
95927659|NCT03105128|191816819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||25.8|13.1|<0.001
95927660|NCT03105128|191816820|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|16.8|<0.001
95856921|NCT01746901|191672604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.6|-3.0|0.1313
95856922|NCT01746901|191672604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.8||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.6|-2.0|0.0982
95927661|NCT03105128|191816820|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.3|<0.001
95856923|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|0.2|0.0351
95856924|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-3.3|0.8751
95927662|NCT03105128|191816821|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.0|<0.001
95927663|NCT03105128|191816821|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|9.4|<0.001
95927664|NCT03105128|191816822|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|6.2|0.001
95927665|NCT03105128|191816822|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|3.2|0.007
95927666|NCT03105128|191816823|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|7.9|<0.001
95927667|NCT03105128|191816823|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.7|0.001
95927668|NCT03105128|191816824|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|12.2|<0.001
95927669|NCT03105128|191816824|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|12.8|<0.001
95927670|NCT03105128|191816825|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|2.1|0.022
95927671|NCT03105128|191816825|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|11.1|<0.001
95927672|NCT03105128|191816826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.5|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.5|-13.9|<0.001
95927673|NCT03105128|191816826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-5.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-5.2|-15.2|<0.001
95927674|NCT03105128|191816827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|39.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.7|-28.6|1.000
95927675|NCT03105128|191816827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|39.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||39.6|-25.7|1.000
95927676|NCT03105128|191816828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.586||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|-1.282|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-1.282|-17.890|0.024
95927677|NCT03105128|191816828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.141||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-3.892|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-3.892|-20.390|0.004
95927678|NCT03105128|191816829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|4.313|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.313|1.512|<0.001
95927679|NCT03105128|191816829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.877|4.672|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.672|1.877|<0.001
95927680|NCT00038103|191816880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|49.0||||||95.0|34.4|63.7|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||63.7|34.4|
95856925|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-0.3|0.0795
95856926|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.4|-2.7|0.8382
95856927|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.4|0.4|0.0289
95856928|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.5|-2.6|0.7878
95856929|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|5.6|0.0019
95856930|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.3|-8.1|0.821
95856931|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.5|3.1|0.0094
95856932|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.8|-5.6|0.4454
95856933|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-1.3|0.0934
95856934|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.2|-2.2|0.1358
95856935|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|92.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||92.7|27.0|0.0004
95856936|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|52.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||52.6|-13.1|0.2365
95856937|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|76.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||76.7|11.1|0.0091
95856938|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.7||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||68.5|2.8|0.0335
95856939|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|63.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.6|-2.1|0.0661
95856940|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|59.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.8|-5.9|0.1074
95856941|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|94.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.9|15.8|0.0064
95856942|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|78.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.3|-0.7|0.0543
95856943|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.2||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|89.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.7|10.7|0.0131
95856944|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|43.9||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.5|4.4|0.0297
95856945|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.3||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.8|1.8|0.0407
95856946|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|67.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.1|-12.0|0.1710
95856947|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.7|36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.7|-106.7|0.3362
95856948|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|198.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.5|55.2|0.0006
95856949|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.2||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||124.8|-18.5|0.1449
95856950|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.7||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|110.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||110.4|-33.0|0.2882
95856951|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.0||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|126.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||126.7|-16.6|0.1314
95856952|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|91.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||91.8|-51.6|0.5808
95856953|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.2||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.6|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.3|-154.6|0.1415
95927681|NCT00038103|191816880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|47.1||||||95.0|32.9|61.5|||||Number of subjects showing clinical benefits out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||61.5|32.9|
95927682|NCT00038103|191816881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|22.4||||||95.0|11.8|36.6|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||36.6|11.8|
95927683|NCT00038103|191816881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|23.5||||||95.0|12.8|37.5|||||Number of subjects showing objective response out of the number of subjects in the evaluable set.|||37.5|12.8|
95856954|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|149.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|237.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||237.5|60.7|0.0011
95927684|NCT03772964|191816889|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity), were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA) comparisons of differences between sample groups.|R2|0.071435|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ADONISBeta Diversity|Comparisons between samples and sample groups (beta-diversity) were evaluated with ADONIS (aka PERMANOVA)|R2 values estimate the amount of variation explained by each variable.|Beta Diversity - Differences between Samples and Sample groups||||<0.01
95927685|NCT03772964|191816890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6057|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6057
95927686|NCT03772964|191816892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95927687|NCT03772964|191816893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
95927688|NCT01391013|191816897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
95927689|NCT01391013|191816898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
95927690|NCT01391013|191816899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.31
95927691|NCT01391013|191816900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.37
95927692|NCT01391013|191816901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
95927693|NCT01391013|191816902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.02
95927694|NCT01391013|191816903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.12
95927695|NCT01391013|191816904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.71
95927696|NCT01391013|191816905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.83
95927697|NCT01391013|191816906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|This statistical analysis applies to 'Week 48'.||||||0.66
95927698|NCT01391013|191816907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.76
95927699|NCT01391013|191816908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.56
95927700|NCT01391013|191816909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.11
95927701|NCT01391013|191816910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.18
95927702|NCT01391013|191816911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.03
95927703|NCT01391013|191816912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.04
95927704|NCT03418324|191816915|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit.|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
95927705|NCT03418324|191816915|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||Estimated values reflects the percentage of participants with overall clinical benefit|For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two groups.||95.7|22.3|
95927706|NCT03418324|191816918|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms||98.7|1.3|
95927707|NCT03418324|191816918|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||95.7|22.3|
95927708|NCT03418324|191816919|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|98.7||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||98.7|1.3|
95856955|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.5||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|140.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||140.9|-35.9|0.2423
95856956|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|118.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.8|-58.0|0.4980
95856957|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.5||||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|142.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.9|-33.9|0.2253
95856958|NCT01746901|191672605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|-76.8|0.7945
95856959|NCT01746901|191672606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.6|-5.1|0.0129
95856960|NCT01746901|191672606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.5|2.0|0.0003
95856961|NCT01746901|191672606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.6|0.5483
95856962|NCT01746901|191672606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-1.5|0.5284
95856963|NCT01746901|191672606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-0.5|0.1331
95856964|NCT01746901|191672606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.4|-2.1|0.8732
95856965|NCT01746901|191672607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-5.9|0.4555
95927709|NCT03418324|191816919|OTHER|Binomial proportion (Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval) for each arm.|Binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|88.2||||||For this study, we are not comparing outcome measures between the two arms.||88.2|11.8|
95927710|NCT01768676|191816922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in percentage of subjects with a \>/= 50% reduction from baseline to Week 26 in sperm concentration between treatment arms was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to account for the randomization stratification by baseline sperm concentration. If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|-4.29|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||-4.29|-21.56|
95927711|NCT01768676|191816923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|0.7|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0.7|-23.5|
95856966|NCT01746901|191672607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-2.5|0.1495
95856967|NCT01746901|191672607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|1.8|0.0200
95856968|NCT01746901|191672607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.7|-10.3|0.8668
95856969|NCT01746901|191672607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.6|-5.3|0.3904
95856970|NCT01746901|191672607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|-7.3|0.6524
95856971|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1771
95856972|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3944
95856973|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.1|-0.4|0.1778
95856974|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-1.7|0.3960
95927712|NCT01768676|191816924|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.3|-4.2|
95927713|NCT01768676|191816925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||1.1|-6.8|
95927714|NCT01768676|191816926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If upper limit of 95% CI \< 20% then avanafil is considered non-inferior to placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Confidence interval was only calculated for primary endpoint of the difference between avanafil and placebo, not for each individual arm.|||0|0|
95927715|NCT01304147|191816960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||within-subject crossover design||11.3|3.9|<0.001
95927716|NCT01278862|191816962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in color match||||0.2423
95927717|NCT01278862|191816962|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||>0.999
95927718|NCT01278862|191816962|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in crown fracture||||>0.999
95927719|NCT01278862|191816962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in Proximal Contact - Mesial||||>0.999
95927720|NCT01278862|191816962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis no difference in proximal contact - distal||||>0.999
95927721|NCT01278862|191816963|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in gingival index||||>0.999
95927722|NCT01278862|191816963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis no difference in plaque index||||0.5240
95927723|NCT01942707|191816968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|179.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95927724|NCT01942707|191816969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95927725|NCT01942707|191816970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
95927726|NCT03215927|191816971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||4.26|-9.36|<0.05
95927727|NCT03215927|191816972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.77|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||2.77|0.16|<0.05
95927728|NCT03215927|191816973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|23.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments are for baseline FVC, age, and gender, with a repeated measures effect of participant.|The comparison difference value is µABT - µPlacebo.|The null hypothesis for the change outcomes is µABT - µPlacebo = 0.||23.83|-8.80|<0.05
95927729|NCT03215927|191816974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.02|||Regression, Cox||ABT is the numerator and Placebo is the denominator for the hazard ratios. The dispersion value given is the SE of the estimate on the natural log scale.|The null hypothesis for the time to event outcomes is exp(bABT) / exp(bPlacebo) = 1.||4.02|0.04|<0.05
95927730|NCT03779048|191816977|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.11||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests)||||||.24
95927731|NCT03779048|191816978|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|-0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and gastric emptying (acetaminophen test)||||||.34
95927732|NCT03779048|191816979|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in. Primary prediction analysis presented below was pre-specified to evaluate together postprandial satiety, postprandial increases in GLP-1 and gastric emptying (acetaminophen tests) and includes only the 125 participants from whom baseline blood samples could be obtained.|Standardized Beta coefficient|0.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controls for baseline postprandial satiety and postprandial change in GLP-1||||||.78
95927733|NCT03779048|191816980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|1.1|.003
95927734|NCT03779048|191816981|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial hunger AUC and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
95927735|NCT03779048|191816982|OTHER|Correlation between baseline high energy density food reinforcer points earned and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.23
95927736|NCT03779048|191816983|OTHER|Regression results using baseline AUC for delay discounting to predict 4-week percent weight loss, controlling for participant age.|r2 change|0.033||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.033
95927737|NCT03779048|191816984|OTHER|Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.|r|0.17||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Savory.|Regression, Linear|||||||.04
95927738|NCT03779048|191816984|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Savory.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included taughter in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.72
95927739|NCT03779048|191816984|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of High Fat Sweet.|r|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.94
95927740|NCT03779048|191816984|OTHER|Correlation to Implicit wanting of Low Fat Sweet.|r|-0.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline implicit wanting and 4-week percent weight loss. Because categories are scored relative to each other they cannot be included together in the same analysis, so separate correlations were conducted.||||.09
95927741|NCT03779048|191816985|OTHER|Correlation between baseline fasting active ghrelin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.73
95927742|NCT03779048|191816986|OTHER||r|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Correlation between baseline fasting leptin and 4-week percent weight loss.||||.25
95927743|NCT03779048|191816987|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial AUC for change in insulin and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
95927744|NCT03779048|191816988|OTHER|Correlation between baseline postprandial incremental AUC for PYY and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.82
95927745|NCT03779048|191816989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|1.1|.002
95927746|NCT03779048|191816994|SUPERIORITY|Difference between placebo- and phentermine-treated participants in change in delay discounting area under the curve from randomization to week 24 was calculated using repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for age.|F|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
95927747|NCT03779048|191816995|OTHER|Regression using the three Eating Inventory subscales (Cognitive restraint, disinhibition, hunger) to predict 4-week weight loss|r2|0.01||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||For full model including all 3 predictors|Regression, Linear|||||||.75
95927748|NCT03779048|191816996|OTHER|Correlation between baseline past-week appetite and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|-0.09||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
95927749|NCT03779048|191816998|OTHER|Regression using baseline scores for Behavioral Inhibition (BIS) and Behavioral Activation fro Reward to predict 4-week weight loss during the behavioral treatment run-in.|r2|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
95927750|NCT03779048|191816999|OTHER|Correlation between baseline BIS-15 total score and 4-week percent weight loss.|r|0.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.76
95927751|NCT05147233|191817022|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|44.9|||Wald test|||||44.9|21.5|<0.0001
95927752|NCT05147233|191817023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Wald test|||||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
95927753|NCT04517864|191817024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.097||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.097|-0.056|
95927754|NCT04517864|191817025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.07||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.070|-0.052|
95927755|NCT04517864|191817026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.053||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-effects Model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.053|-0.065|
95927756|NCT04517864|191817028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.088||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||||0.088|-0.005|
95927757|NCT04517864|191817034|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.03||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.030|-0.059|
95927758|NCT04517864|191817034|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.012||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||-0.012|-0.107|
95927759|NCT04517864|191817036|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.02||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 6||0.020|-0.076|
95927760|NCT04517864|191817036|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.056||There was no formal statistical hypothesis testing for this study, and hence there was no P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model: baseline, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effects; participant as a random effect||Month 9||0.056|-0.049|
95927761|NCT03538041|191817072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2815|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2815
95856975|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-0.9|0.6125
95856976|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.3|-1.1|0.9059
95856977|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.3|-2.9|0.4585
95856978|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.8|-4.2|0.8986
95856979|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.5|0.3641
95856980|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|-4.6|0.9674
95856981|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-3.2|0.5744
95856982|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.7|-2.4|0.3457
95856983|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.8|-13.3|0.6664
95856984|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.0|-5.8|0.1949
95856985|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.1|-6.0|0.2009
95856986|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8||||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.7|-13.1|0.6595
95856987|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.5|-8.3|0.3176
95856988|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.6423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.9|-12.9|0.6423
95856989|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.2|-10.5|0.4358
95856990|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.9|-5.4|0.1789
95856991|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.0||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.3|-3.3|0.1131
95856992|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.8|-12.6|0.5965
95856993|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.9|-8.5|0.3175
95856994|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||21.0|-13.3|0.6551
95856995|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.1|-87.5|0.0354
95927762|NCT03538041|191817073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.2921
95927763|NCT03538041|191817074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.1267
95927764|NCT03538041|191817075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2676|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2676
95950662|NCT03055988|191873079|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|5.779|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||5.779|-1.640|0.2687
95927765|NCT03351075|191817086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.65||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The sample size was based on comparing the changes for the primary outcome measure (PDI-DLV) at 12 months after surgery. The calculation was based on comparing the values at 12 months. Assuming a coefficient of variation (CV) equal to 0.5, 87 participants per group were needed based on a two-sample pooled t-test of a mean ratio with lognormal data and α=0.05 to detect with 80% power a difference of 20% in PDI. To anticipate a drop-out ratio of 5%, a total of 184 subjects were needed.||2.65|-5.28|0.5163
95927766|NCT03351075|191817087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.33||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 4 months||2.33|-4.26|0.5655
95927767|NCT03351075|191817087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.51||P\<.05 was considered significant. No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain-related disability from baseline to 1.5 years||2.51|-4.64|0.5592
95927768|NCT03351075|191817088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.37||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 4 months||5.37|-9.84|0.5630
95927769|NCT03351075|191817088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|3.09||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 12 months||3.09|-11.68|0.2524
95927770|NCT03351075|191817088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.09|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain intensity from baseline to 1.5 years||3.09|-12.69|0.2315
95927771|NCT03351075|191817089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.32||No corrections for multiple testing were performed.|Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 4 months.||3.32|-2.39|0.7494
95927772|NCT03351075|191817089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.58|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||The difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 12 months.||2.58|-3.09|0.8617
95927773|NCT03351075|191817089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported central sensitisation symptoms from baseline to 1.5 years||2.59|-3.16|0.8454
95927774|NCT03351075|191817090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.51|||multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||2.51|0.72|0.3463
95927775|NCT03351075|191817090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.66|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||1.66|0.451|0.6613
95927776|NCT03351075|191817090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical detection sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||2.42|0.65|0.4908
95927777|NCT03351075|191817091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.69|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||1.69|-1.25|0.7708
95927778|NCT03351075|191817091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.81|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||1.81|-1.23|0.7060
95927779|NCT03351075|191817091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.42|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in warmth detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||1.42|-1.38|0.9806
95927780|NCT03351075|191817092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.4|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 4 months||1.40|0.08|0.0284
95927781|NCT03351075|191817092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1 year||0.73|-0.55|0.7776
95927782|NCT03351075|191817092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.01|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome||Difference in change in wind-up from baseline to 1.5 years||1.01|-0.39|0.3829
95984037|NCT00258674|191941982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.927
95984038|NCT00258674|191941983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.308||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.308
95984039|NCT00258674|191941984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.867||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.867
95984040|NCT00258674|191941985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.807||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.807
95984041|NCT00258674|191941986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.702||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.702
95984042|NCT00258674|191941987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.413||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.413
95984043|NCT00258674|191941988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.996||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.996
95984044|NCT00258674|191941989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.451||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.451
95984045|NCT00258674|191941990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.447||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.447
95984046|NCT00258674|191941991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.936||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.936
95993573|NCT00348140|191963296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Utility score Week 48||0.02|-0.03|0.769
95856996|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|55.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|97.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.0|13.4|0.0100
95727899|NCT01798485|191425310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.233||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.621||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test (strata: screening LDH, screening ECOG and geographic region).||||1.621|0.937|0.1343
95727900|NCT01798485|191425311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
95727901|NCT00770991|191425322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All patients received BRB suppositories and were pooled for the analysis comparing baseline and end of study polyp counts.||||0.065
95727902|NCT00770991|191425323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
95984047|NCT00258674|191941992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.332||95.0||||A comparison of the claims vs. claims+MR arms was also conducted, giving a p-value of 0.537.|Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.332
95984048|NCT00258674|191941993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.860
95927783|NCT03351075|191817093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 4 months||0.77|-0.16|0.1948
95984049|NCT00258674|191941994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.382||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.382
95984050|NCT00258674|191941995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.988||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.988
95984051|NCT00258674|191941996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We used a three-stage hierarchical model estimate the effect of the interventions on the change in endpoint from baseline to follow-up. Change scores for dichotomous measures were scored as -1, 0, or 1, with a positive value indicating increased guideline adherence or increased incidence of that process. We used ordered logistic models to test the hypothesis that patients in the intervention groups were more likely to meet guidelines or to receive these processes of care.||||0.685
95984052|NCT01412554|191941997|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics|||||<|0.05|||||||Spearman|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient||Only an observational follow-up study|The degree of tracking was assessed by Spearman's rank or Pearson's correlation coefficient|||<0.05
95984053|NCT03710486|191942002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.13202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by propensity scores inverse probability treatment weighting (PS-IPTW).|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.16|0.32|=0.13202
95927784|NCT03351075|191817093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.65|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1 year||0.65|-0.31|0.4937
95927785|NCT03351075|191817093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in conditioned pain modulation from baseline to 1.5 years||0.73|-0.27|0.3690
95927786|NCT03351075|191817094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.43|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 4 months||6.43|-1.94|0.2915
95927787|NCT03351075|191817094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.75|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1 year||2.75|-6.02|0.4632
95927788|NCT03351075|191817094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.16||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|1.63|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported upper limb function from baseline to 1,5 years||1.63|-7.94|0.1944
95927789|NCT03351075|191817095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-293.0||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1218.0|632.0|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 4 months||632|-1218|0.5332
95927790|NCT03351075|191817095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|839.0||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.0|1900.0|||Multivariate linear model|||Difference in change in step count from baseline to 1 year||1900|-221|0.1201
95984054|NCT03710486|191942003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||=|0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.13|0.65|=0.5861
95984055|NCT03710486|191942006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.19|0.35|=0.1648
95984056|NCT03710486|191942007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.20|0.36|=0.1732
95984057|NCT03710486|191942010|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2011|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||CD: Vedolizumab Versus Other Biological||||=0.2011
95927791|NCT03351075|191817096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.233|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 4 months||1.233|0.561|0.3590
95927792|NCT03351075|191817096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.839||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.236|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1 year||1.236|0.570|0.3744
95927793|NCT03351075|191817096|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.848||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.304|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported pain catastrophizing from baseline to 1.5 years||1.304|0.522|0.4533
95927794|NCT03351075|191817097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.862||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.33|||MUltivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 4 months||1.330|0.558|0.5018
95927795|NCT03351075|191817097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.808||||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.248|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1 year||1.248|0.522|0.3362
95927796|NCT03351075|191817097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.958||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.449|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported depression from baseline to 1.5 years||1.449|0.633|0.8375
95927797|NCT03351075|191817098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 4 months||0.14|-0.78|0.1745
95927798|NCT03351075|191817098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.71|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1 year||0.71|-0.35|0.5025
95927799|NCT03351075|191817098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.05|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported health-related quality of life from baseline to 1,5 years||1.05|-0.14|0.1363
95927800|NCT03351075|191817099|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.184||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1 year||0.008|-0.358|0.074
95927801|NCT03351075|191817099|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|-0.09||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.078|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of working participants at 1,5 years||0.078|-0.26|0.352
95927802|NCT03351075|191817100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.64|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 4 months||2.64|-2.17|0.8497
95927803|NCT03351075|191817100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.14|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1 year||3.14|-1.52|0.4971
95927804|NCT03351075|191817100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in cold detection sensitivity from baseline to 1.5 years||2.62|-1.72|0.6831
95927805|NCT03351075|191817101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.72|57.28|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 4 months||57.28|-47.72|0.8584
95927806|NCT03351075|191817101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.25||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.57|-3.93|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1 year||-3.93|-110.57|0.0353
95927807|NCT03351075|191817101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|36.52|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in mechanical pain sensitivity at the arm from baseline to 1.5 years||36.52|-76.72|0.4865
95927808|NCT03351075|191817102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 4 months||1.27|0.97|0.1278
95927809|NCT03351075|191817102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1 year||1.30|0.95|0.1875
95927810|NCT03351075|191817102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in pressure pain sensitivity at the pectoral region from baseline to 1.5 years||1.23|0.89|0.5612
95984058|NCT03710486|191942011|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6939|||||||Log Rank Test Adjusted by PS-IPTW|p-value was estimated with Log Rank test adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.||||||=0.6939
95927811|NCT03351075|191817103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.089||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.62|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 4 months||1.620|0.693|0.7902
95927812|NCT03351075|191817103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.934||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.443|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1 year||1.443|0.604|0.7578
95927813|NCT03351075|191817103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.504|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported anxiety from baseline to 1.5 years||1.504|0.679|0.9600
95927814|NCT03351075|191817104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.068||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.639|||Multivariate linear model|multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 4 months||1.639|0.696|0.7619
95927815|NCT03351075|191817104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.087||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.673|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1 year||1.673|0.702|0.7169
95927816|NCT03351075|191817104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.987||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.525|||Multivariate linear model|A multivariate linear model for longitudinal measures with an unstructured covariance matrix was applied for each continuous outcome.||Difference in change in self-reported stress from baseline to 1.5 years||1.525|0.639|0.9535
95927817|NCT01049503|191817105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by 2-way RM-ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Bonferroni's test."||||<0.05
95927818|NCT01049503|191817106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
95927819|NCT01049503|191817107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
95984059|NCT03710486|191942012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.71|0.12|=0.0071
95984060|NCT03710486|191942013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.55|0.64|=0.4809
95984061|NCT03710486|191942014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.36|0.46|=0.9150
95984062|NCT03710486|191942015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.28|0.56|=0.7254
95927820|NCT01049503|191817108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||"The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov and Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.~Data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test."||||<0.05
95984063|NCT03710486|191942016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.72|0.16|=0.0051
95927821|NCT01049503|191817109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from fluorescence loss were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests.||||<0.05
95927822|NCT01049503|191817110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The softwares GraphPad InStat version 3.0 for Windows and GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively. Data from lesion area were evaluated by ANOVA after logarithmic transformation and Tukey's test.||||<0.05
95984064|NCT03710486|191942017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.04|0.27|=0.0653
95984065|NCT03710486|191942018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.74|0.47|=0.7629
95984066|NCT03710486|191942019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.50|0.43|=0.4895
95984067|NCT03710486|191942020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||=|0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||1.54|0.38|=0.4458
95984068|NCT03710486|191942021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
95984069|NCT03710486|191942022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.81|0.21|=0.0104
95984070|NCT03710486|191942023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
95984071|NCT03710486|191942024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|CD Participants||2.04|0.47|=0.9471
95984072|NCT03710486|191942025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.75|0.12|=0.0104
95984073|NCT03710486|191942026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.59|0.12|=0.0011
95984074|NCT03710486|191942027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||2.78|0.59|=0.5400
95984075|NCT03710486|191942028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||5.66|0.26|=0.8123
95984076|NCT03710486|191942029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||0.85|0.06|=0.0282
95984077|NCT03710486|191942030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||=|0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||4.36|0.29|=0.8584
95984078|NCT03710486|191942031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||=|0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|Estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|||3.78|0.24|=0.9474
95984079|NCT03710486|191942032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||=|0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.34|0.40|=0.3103
95984080|NCT03710486|191942032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||0.76|0.22|=0.0045
95984081|NCT03710486|191942032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||=|0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.42|0.59|=0.6287
95984082|NCT03710486|191942032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||=|0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||1.36|0.31|=0.2495
95984083|NCT03710486|191942033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||=|0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.22|0.66|=0.4784
95984084|NCT03710486|191942033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||=|0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse event||1.15|0.60|=0.2616
95984085|NCT03710486|191942033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||=|0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.34|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||3.34|1.20|=0.0077
95984086|NCT03710486|191942033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||=|0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.14|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse event||2.14|0.79|=0.3046
95984087|NCT03710486|191942034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.30|0.22|=0.1681
95984088|NCT03710486|191942034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||=|0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||1.09|0.05|=0.0645
95984089|NCT03710486|191942034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||=|0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.51|0.06|=0.3145
95984090|NCT03710486|191942034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|47.11|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||47.11|0.05|=0.8197
95984091|NCT03710486|191942035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||=|0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.89|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.89|0.20|=0.0239
95984092|NCT03710486|191942035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||=|0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.91|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Adverse events related to treatment||0.91|0.05|=0.0373
95984093|NCT03710486|191942035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.49|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||2.49|0.12|=0.4260
95984094|NCT03710486|191942035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression||The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|Serious adverse events related to treatment||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
95984095|NCT03710486|191942036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.58|0.05|=0.0044
95984096|NCT03710486|191942036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||=|0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was estimated with a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence comparison was estimated by using a logistic regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.84|0.12|=0.0215
95984097|NCT03710486|191942037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.27|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||0.78|0.10|=0.0152
95984098|NCT03710486|191942037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||=|0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|48.44|||Poisson Regression|p-value was estimated with a Poisson regression including the following time adjusted by PS-IPTW.|The incidence rate comparison was estimated by using a Poisson regression adjusted by PS-IPTW. Multiple Imputation has been performed to estimate PS-IPTW.|||48.44|0.05|=0.8012
95984099|NCT00789880|191942049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
95984100|NCT00789880|191942049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.12
95984101|NCT00789880|191942050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether the change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
95984102|NCT00789880|191942051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
95984103|NCT00789880|191942051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in CAMP mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
95984104|NCT00789880|191942052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.8
95984105|NCT00789880|191942052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
95984106|NCT00789880|191942053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
95984107|NCT00789880|191942054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.4
95984108|NCT00789880|191942054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in HBD-3 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||1.0
95984109|NCT00789880|191942055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
95984110|NCT00789880|191942055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.5
95984111|NCT00789880|191942056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of Non-AD participants differs by treatment group.||||0.7
95984112|NCT00789880|191942057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.2
95984113|NCT00789880|191942057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Testing whether change in IL-13 mRNA expression in non-lesional skin of psoriatic participants differs by treatment group.||||0.3
95927823|NCT01049503|191817111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GraphPad Prism version 4.0 for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Ca, USA) were used. Data were checked for normality and homogeneity using Kolmogorov; Smirnov and Bartlett tests, respectively.Data from the clinical exams were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis' test.||||<0.05
95984114|NCT01147744|191942068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.06|0.326
95984115|NCT01147744|191942068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.104||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.22|-0.01|0.066
95984116|NCT01147744|191942068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.224
95984117|NCT01147744|191942068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.062||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.17|-0.05|0.271
95984118|NCT01147744|191942068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.189|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.3||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.30|0.08|<0.001
95984119|NCT01147744|191942068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18||The study type I error rate was controlled at 5% level for primary efficacy analyses using the Week 8 trough FEV1 endpoint, by performing statistical tests of GSK2190915 versus placebo, sequentially from highest dose (300 mg) to lowest dose (10 mg).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model used with covariates of Baseline trough FEV1, age, gender, country and smoking status. The LOCF method used to impute missing data.||||0.18|-0.04|0.220
95984120|NCT01147744|191942069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.48|-9.25|0.932
95984121|NCT01147744|191942069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.367||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.23|-7.50|0.762
95984122|NCT01147744|191942069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.798||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|7.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.03|-10.62|0.689
95984123|NCT01147744|191942069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.321||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|11.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.13|-6.49|0.605
95984124|NCT01147744|191942069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|11.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.28|-6.36|0.584
95984125|NCT01147744|191942069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.529||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|9.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.45|-8.40|0.907
95984126|NCT01147744|191942070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.463||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|10.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.58|-7.65|0.753
95927824|NCT05219253|191817118|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between the HZ/su Group and Placebo Group for anti-gE antibody concentrations was equal to or above (\>=) 3.|GMC Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.09|27.82|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunogenicity of HZ/su vaccine compared to Placebo, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-Dose 2 of study intervention administration (Month 3).||27.82|14.09|
95927825|NCT03086369|191817130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.527|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.527|0.728|0.7902
95927826|NCT03086369|191817134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.764|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|||1.764|0.806|0.3771
95984127|NCT01147744|191942070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|12.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.87|-5.36|0.419
95984128|NCT01147744|191942070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.046||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|6.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.03|-12.12|0.510
95984129|NCT01147744|191942070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.585||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|13.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.64|-4.47|0.320
95927827|NCT03086369|191817137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.872|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).||||0.872|0.175|0.017
95927828|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.317|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Appetite loss||1.317|0.392|0.288
95927829|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.468|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Constipation||1.468|0.423|0.442
95927830|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.755|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Diarrhoea||1.755|0.612|0.883
95927831|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.636|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Dyspnoea||1.636|0.532|0.803
95927832|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.645|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Fatigue||1.645|0.675|0.805
95927833|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.464|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Financial difficulties||1.464|0.420|0.465
95927834|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.457||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|2.698|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Insomnia||2.698|0.787|0.231
95927835|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.57|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Nausea and vomiting||1.570|0.532|0.748
95927836|NCT03086369|191817138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Stratified by age group (\<70 years versus ≥70 years) and prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant gemcitabine use (yes vs no).|Pain||1.827|0.491|0.875
95927837|NCT00954707|191817140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of TLF at 12-month (%)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|7.5||||||||7.5|5.5|
95927838|NCT00954707|191817141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of device success (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|98.4||||||||98.4|97.4|
95927839|NCT00954707|191817142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of lesion success (%)|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.6|99.9||||||||99.9|99.6|
95927840|NCT00954707|191817143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of procedure success (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|98.2||||||||98.2|97.0|
95927841|NCT00954707|191817144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TLR (%)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.13||||||||5.13|3.45|
95927842|NCT00954707|191817145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Clinically-driven TVR (%)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|6.81||||||||6.81|4.87|
95984130|NCT01147744|191942070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.484||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|12.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.58|-5.61|0.452
95927843|NCT00954707|191817146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Target vessel failure (%)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|9.09||||||||9.09|6.85|
95927844|NCT00954707|191817147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of MACE (%)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|8.55||||||||8.55|6.37|
95927845|NCT00954707|191817148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of protocol defined ST (%)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.38||||||||1.38|0.56|
95927846|NCT00954707|191817149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of ARC defined ST (%)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||||||||1.64|0.74|
95927847|NCT00954707|191817150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of major bleeding complications (%)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.85||||||||3.85|2.40|
95927848|NCT00954707|191817151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of cardiac death (%)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
95927849|NCT00954707|191817152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of non-cardiac death (%)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.12||||||||1.12|0.40|
95927850|NCT03686813|191817157|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
95927851|NCT03686813|191817158|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
95927852|NCT03686813|191817159|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||>0.999
95927853|NCT03686813|191817160|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.18
95927854|NCT03686813|191817161|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||McNemar|||||||0.29
95927855|NCT02525796|191817170|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.84
95927856|NCT02525796|191817170|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.54
95927857|NCT02525796|191817170|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in PTH over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.58
95927858|NCT02525796|191817171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and placebo||||0.82
95927859|NCT02525796|191817171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between amiloride monotherapy and placebo||||0.21
95984131|NCT01147744|191942070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.615||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|14.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline trough PM PEF, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.78|-3.55|0.229
95927860|NCT02525796|191817171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the change in serum calcium over 4 weeks between eplerenone monotherapy and amiloride monotherapy||||0.12
95927861|NCT00955825|191817181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.126||||0.0003||95.0|-0.194|-0.058|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = - 28.24|||-0.058|-0.194|0.0003
95927862|NCT02477670|191817203|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) Weighted Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) z-statistic. Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.17|-3.75|0.073
95927863|NCT02477670|191817204|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.29|-4.21|0.025
95927864|NCT02477670|191817205|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.24|-4.16|0.027
95927865|NCT02477670|191817206|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.3|-4.22|0.024
95927866|NCT02477670|191817207|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.64|-4.56|0.009
95927867|NCT02477670|191817208|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.57|-2.35|0.700
95927868|NCT02477670|191817209|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.93||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.03|-3.89|0.054
95927869|NCT02477670|191817210|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.35||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.61|-2.31|0.723
95927870|NCT02477670|191817211|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.85||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.11|-3.81|0.064
95984132|NCT01147744|191942071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.169||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.07|-6.73|0.771
95984133|NCT01147744|191942071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.45|-3.33|0.257
95927871|NCT02477670|191817212|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.64||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.32|-3.6|0.100
95927872|NCT02477670|191817213|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.1|-2.82|0.388
95927873|NCT02477670|191817214|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.9||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.06|-2.86|0.367
95927874|NCT02477670|191817215|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.76||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.2|-2.72|0.447
95927875|NCT02477670|191817216|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-2.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||-0.27|-4.19|0.026
95927876|NCT02477670|191817217|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.62||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.34|-3.58|0.106
95927877|NCT02477670|191817218|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.78||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||3.74|-0.18|0.074
95927878|NCT02477670|191817219|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.79||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.17|-2.75|0.427
95927879|NCT02477670|191817220|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.91||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.05|||McNemar|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.05|-3.87|0.0566
95927880|NCT02477670|191817221|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.37||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-3.33|0.1700
95927881|NCT02477670|191817222|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.53||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.49|-1.43|0.595
95927882|NCT02477670|191817223|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|2.284||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|4.244|||ANCOVA|||||4.244|0.324|0.022
95927883|NCT02477670|191817224|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.17||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|-2.13|0.862
95927884|NCT02477670|191817225|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.149||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.109|0.811|||ANCOVA|||||0.811|-3.109|0.251
95927885|NCT02477670|191817226|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-1.159||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.119|0.801|||ANCOVA|||||0.801|-3.119|0.246
95927886|NCT02477670|191817227|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.231||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|2.191|||ANCOVA|||||2.191|-1.729|0.818
95927887|NCT02477670|191817228|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.04||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-2.00|0.968
95927888|NCT02477670|191817229|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|-0.306||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.266|1.654|||ANCOVA|||||1.654|-2.266|0.760
95927889|NCT02477670|191817230|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|1.243||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|3.203|||ANCOVA|||||3.203|-0.717|0.214
95927890|NCT02477670|191817231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||SPCD 1 degree of freedom score test|||||||0.071
95984134|NCT01147744|191942071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.326||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|9.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||9.19|-6.54|0.741
95984135|NCT01147744|191942071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|7.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.93|-7.76|0.983
95927891|NCT02477670|191817232|SUPERIORITY||SPCD Weighted OLS z-statistic|0.951||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|2.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||2.911|-1.009|-0.06
95927892|NCT00970307|191817233|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|2.22||||||||2.22|-4.21|
95927893|NCT00970307|191817234|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10% .|Difference in percentage|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|3.57||||||||3.57|-5.19|
95927894|NCT00831272|191817272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.32
95927895|NCT03622580|191817275|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|
95927896|NCT03622580|191817275|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|
95984136|NCT01147744|191942071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.204||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|16.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||16.07|0.34|0.041
95984137|NCT01147744|191942071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.891||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|10.83|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.83|-5.05|0.475
95984138|NCT01147744|191942072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.837||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|8.89|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.89|-7.22|0.838
95927897|NCT03622580|191817275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.4|-2.8|0.4699
95927898|NCT03622580|191817275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.965|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|2.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.2|-2.1|0.9650
95927899|NCT03622580|191817275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|1.6||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||1.6|-2.0|0.7967
95927900|NCT03622580|191817275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.5||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.5|-1.1|0.3772
95984139|NCT01147744|191942072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.715||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|10.76|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.76|-5.33|0.508
95984140|NCT01147744|191942072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.124||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.14|-5.90|0.603
95984141|NCT01147744|191942072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.781||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|6.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||6.22|-9.78|0.662
95984142|NCT01147744|191942072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.949||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|13.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.98|-2.08|0.146
95984143|NCT01147744|191942072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.394||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|13.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||13.48|-2.69|0.191
95927901|NCT03622580|191817276|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|
95927902|NCT03622580|191817276|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||||||The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|
95927903|NCT03622580|191817276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|7.2||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.6|18.9||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||18.9|-4.6|0.1761
95927904|NCT03622580|191817276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|16.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|-6.7|0.3539
95927905|NCT03622580|191817276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|10.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|20.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||20.0|0.3|0.0237
95927906|NCT03622580|191817276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.1||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|15.8||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||15.8|-3.6|0.1677
95927907|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.9|-10.0|
95984144|NCT01147744|191942073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.106||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||14.71|-2.50|0.164
95984145|NCT01147744|191942073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.106||||0.349||95.0|-4.49|12.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.70|-4.49|0.349
95984146|NCT01147744|191942073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.148||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|10.72|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.72|-6.42|0.623
95927908|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
95927909|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.9|-8.6|
95927910|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.8|-7.4|
95927911|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.1|-9.1|
95927912|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-8.5|
95927913|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-4.6|
95927914|NCT03622580|191817279|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.5|-1.0|
95927915|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.5|-14.0|
95927916|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-7.0|
95927917|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||9.5|-9.5|
95927918|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.3|-7.1|
95927919|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.9|-11.9|
95984147|NCT01147744|191942073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.713||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|10.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.26|-6.84|0.694
95984148|NCT01147744|191942073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.592||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|18.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||18.15|1.03|0.028
95984149|NCT01147744|191942073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.75||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.38|-1.89|0.125
95984150|NCT01147744|191942074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.346||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||10.78|-6.09|0.585
95984151|NCT01147744|191942074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||8.86|-8.00|0.920
95984152|NCT01147744|191942074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.702||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||11.11|-5.70|0.528
95984153|NCT01147744|191942074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||7.17|-9.60|0.776
95984154|NCT01147744|191942074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.49||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|15.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||15.90|-0.92|0.081
95984155|NCT01147744|191942074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.611||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|12.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||12.09|-4.87|0.403
95984156|NCT01147744|191942075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.17|0.951
95984157|NCT01147744|191942075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.01|-0.33|0.043
95984158|NCT01147744|191942075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.19|0.734
95984159|NCT01147744|191942075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.16|0.972
95984160|NCT01147744|191942075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.097||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.26|0.238
95984161|NCT01147744|191942075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.24|0.360
95984162|NCT01147744|191942076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.17|-0.11|0.692
95984163|NCT01147744|191942076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.04|-0.24|0.176
95984164|NCT01147744|191942076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.12|-0.16|0.768
95984165|NCT01147744|191942076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.15|-0.13|0.887
95984166|NCT01147744|191942076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.19|0.471
95984167|NCT01147744|191942076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.22|0.248
95984168|NCT01147744|191942077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.07|-0.33|0.209
95984169|NCT01147744|191942077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.264||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.06|-0.47|0.011
95984170|NCT01147744|191942077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.13|-0.28|0.464
95984171|NCT01147744|191942077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.16|-0.25|0.662
95984172|NCT01147744|191942077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
95984173|NCT01147744|191942077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.207||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||-0.00|-0.41|0.047
95984174|NCT01147744|191942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.09|-0.28|0.300
95984175|NCT01147744|191942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.05|-0.32|0.145
95984176|NCT01147744|191942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.123||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.06|-0.31|0.190
95984177|NCT01147744|191942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.18|-0.19|0.980
95984178|NCT01147744|191942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.01|-0.36|0.070
95984179|NCT01147744|191942078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.158||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, age, gender, country and smoking status.||||0.03|-0.34|0.095
95984180|NCT01147744|191942079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95927920|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.2|-14.6|
95927921|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-5.5|
95927922|NCT03622580|191817284|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||7.0|-3.0|
95927923|NCT03622580|191817289|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-2.8|
95927924|NCT03622580|191817289|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.5|-2.2|
95927925|NCT03622580|191817289|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-4.6|
95984181|NCT01147744|191942079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
95984182|NCT01147744|191942079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95984183|NCT01147744|191942079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
95984184|NCT01147744|191942079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
95927926|NCT03622580|191817289|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.2|
95927927|NCT03622580|191817289|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-4.5|
95927928|NCT03622580|191817289|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.4|-2.6|
95984185|NCT01147744|191942079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
95984186|NCT01342484|191942081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, pharmacokinetic (PK) / pharmacodynamics (PD) subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.51|-1.47|0.3295
95927929|NCT03622580|191817293|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.5|
95927930|NCT03622580|191817293|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.3|-3.1|
95927931|NCT03622580|191817293|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||0.9|-5.1|
95984187|NCT01342484|191942081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.23|-1.50|0.1447
95984188|NCT01342484|191942083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 1 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 1 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||2.46|-3.08|0.8216
95993574|NCT00348140|191963297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.3|-0.7|0.529
95927932|NCT03622580|191817293|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.6|-3.5|
95927933|NCT03622580|191817293|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.8|-5.2|
95927934|NCT03622580|191817293|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||3.3|-4.1|
95927935|NCT03622580|191817297|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-12.6|
95927936|NCT03622580|191817297|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-5.9|
95927937|NCT03622580|191817297|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.5|-17.8|
95927938|NCT03622580|191817297|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||8.2|-9.9|
95927939|NCT03622580|191817300|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||3.8|-10.2|
95927940|NCT03622580|191817300|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.2|-4.3|
95927941|NCT03622580|191817300|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.1|-12.6|
95927942|NCT03622580|191817300|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.4|-8.9|
95927943|NCT03622580|191817303|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.9|-1.8|
95927944|NCT03622580|191817303|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.3|-2.2|
95927945|NCT03622580|191817303|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.6|-2.0|
95927946|NCT03622580|191817303|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-2.6|
95927947|NCT03622580|191817312|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
95927948|NCT03622580|191817312|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.1|
95927949|NCT03622580|191817312|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.6|-1.9|
95927950|NCT03622580|191817312|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.5|-1.5|
95927951|NCT03622580|191817313|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.2|-0.4|
95927952|NCT03622580|191817313|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
95927953|NCT03622580|191817313|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
95927954|NCT03622580|191817313|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
95927955|NCT03622580|191817320|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-24.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-24.7|-47.8|
95927956|NCT03622580|191817320|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-14.7||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.7|-37.7|
95927957|NCT03622580|191817320|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-18.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-18.6|-43.6|
95927958|NCT03622580|191817320|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-11.6||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-11.6|-36.2|
95927959|NCT03622580|191817323|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|23.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||23.1|8.9|
95927960|NCT03622580|191817323|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||20.0|5.4|
95927961|NCT03622580|191817323|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||23.2|7.3|
95927962|NCT03622580|191817323|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|20.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||20.6|4.4|
95927963|NCT01930045|191817345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs geometric mean ratio (GMR) is not less than 0.4||0.52|0.31|0.507
95927964|NCT01930045|191817345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.38||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.49|||Hochberg step-up procedure||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.49|0.30|0.624
95927965|NCT01930045|191817346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.05|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.05|0.63|
95927966|NCT01930045|191817346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.92|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||0.92|0.50|
95927967|NCT01930045|191817347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.1|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.10|0.55|
95927968|NCT01930045|191817347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.04|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.04|0.48|
95927969|NCT01930045|191817348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.65|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.65|0.39|
95927970|NCT01930045|191817348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.64|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|The hypothesis is that the true Raltegravir C 12 hrs GMR is not less than 0.4||0.64|0.40|
95927971|NCT01930045|191817349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.18|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.18|0.64|
95927972|NCT01930045|191817349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.22|0.64|
95927973|NCT01930045|191817350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.4|||||The Maalox followed by Raltegravir treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.40|0.58|
95927974|NCT01930045|191817350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.41|||||The Raltegravir followed by Maalox treatment group was the numerator, and the Raltegravir alone treatment group was the denominator|||1.41|0.58|
95927975|NCT03959241|191817370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.835||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of GRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.835|0.492|0.001
95927976|NCT03959241|191817371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.995
95927977|NCT03959241|191817371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.001
95927978|NCT03959241|191817371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.267||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups using a Cox regression model for the cause-specific hazard of aGVHD||1.267|0.758|0.879
95927979|NCT03959241|191817371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.691||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV aGVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies.||0.691|0.215|0.001
95927980|NCT03959241|191817375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.005
95993575|NCT00348140|191963297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 12||0.4|-0.7|0.620
95927981|NCT03959241|191817375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.813||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||0.813|0.381|0.002
95927982|NCT03959241|191817378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Immunosuppression-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.038
95927983|NCT03959241|191817379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Recovery between the treatment groups||||0.032
95927984|NCT03959241|191817380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 20,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
95927985|NCT03959241|191817380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet Recovery greater than or equal to 50,000/mm\^3 between the treatment groups||||<0.001
95927986|NCT03959241|191817381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Lymphocyte Recovery between the treatment groups||||<0.001
95927987|NCT03959241|191817382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.919
95927988|NCT03959241|191817382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Donor Cell Engraftment at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.198
95927989|NCT03959241|191817383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 28 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.670
95927990|NCT03959241|191817383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of quantitative donor chimerism at Day 100 after transplantation between the treatment groups||||0.607
95927991|NCT03959241|191817384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups||||0.906
95927992|NCT03959241|191817384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.515||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.515|0.641|0.947
95927993|NCT03959241|191817385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality between the treatment groups||||0.167
95927994|NCT03959241|191817385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.127||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Treatment-related Mortality hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.127|0.404|0.133
95927995|NCT03959241|191817389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grade 2 and 3 infections between the treatment groups||||0.018
95927996|NCT03959241|191817390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of CMV between the treatment groups||||0. 825
95927997|NCT03959241|191817391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival between the treatment groups||||0.351
95927998|NCT03959241|191817391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.176||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease-Free Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.176|0.610|0.320
95927999|NCT03959241|191817392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||This is the unadjusted analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Overall Survival between the treatment groups||||0.335
95993576|NCT00348140|191963297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.3|-1.0|0.284
95984189|NCT01342484|191942083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Net Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change from baseline in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG and age as linear covariates; treatment, gender, PK/PD subgroup, background therapy, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.||0.52|-4.31|0.1189
95928000|NCT03959241|191817392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.175||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||This is the result of the Cox proportional hazards analysis. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Overall Survival hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age group, donor type and HLA Matching Score, disease risk index, Planned RIC Conditioning Regimen, and Planned post-transplant maintenance therapies||1.175|0.541|0.252
95928001|NCT01689519|191817423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||0.68|0.39|0.0001
95984190|NCT03302975|191942086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95984191|NCT00432042|191942090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Measles difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.82|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||4.82|-1.62|
95984192|NCT00432042|191942090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mumps difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.1|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.10|-4.21|
95984193|NCT00432042|191942090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rubella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.35|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||1.35|-3.19|
95984194|NCT00432042|191942090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Varicella difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|6.58|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10%.|||6.58|-0.41|
95984195|NCT00432042|191942091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hepatitis B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.24|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||4.24|-0.29|
95984196|NCT00432042|191942091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Haemophilus Influenza type B difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|6.89|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||6.89|-0.17|
95984197|NCT00432042|191942092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PT difference|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.08|0.88|
95984198|NCT00432042|191942092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-FHA difference|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.23|0.98|
95984199|NCT00432042|191942092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Anti-PRN difference|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.36|||||Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -5%.|||1.36|1.03|
95984200|NCT03159091|191942107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.0422
95984201|NCT03159091|191942108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between initial and 4 weeks total scores row.||||0.1101
95984202|NCT03159091|191942109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1373|||||||G-test (Chi-square)|||||||0.1373
95928002|NCT01689519|191817423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.72||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||0.72|0.46|<0.0001
95928003|NCT01689519|191817423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
95984203|NCT03159091|191942110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0870
95984204|NCT03159091|191942111|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95984205|NCT05998148|191942127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS physical score. From the literature, an effect size of 0.618 was obtained from the PROMIS physical. Using a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, it was determined that a sample size of 34 per group would detect a statistical difference between the groups. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment.||||0.91
95984206|NCT05998148|191942127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS mental score. The minimum sample size determined for the PROMIS physical score was applied to this outcome score. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment.||||0.077
95993577|NCT00348140|191963297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 36||0.9|-0.4|0.488
95928004|NCT01689519|191817424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Primary Analysis 9 May 2014||1.00|0.42|0.0463
95928005|NCT01689519|191817424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Post hoc Analysis 16 January 2015||0.87|0.49|0.0034
95928006|NCT01689519|191817424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9||The analysis was stratified by geographic region and metastasis classification (disease stage).|Log Rank|||Final Analysis 28 August 2015||0.90|0.55|0.0050
95928007|NCT01689519|191817425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|31.58|||Chi-squared|||Primary Analysis: 9 May 2014||31.58|14.13|<0.0001
95928008|NCT01689519|191817425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|28.3|||Chi-squared|||Post hoc Efficacy Analysis: 16 January 2015||28.3|11.0|<0.0001
95928009|NCT01689519|191817425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|28.7|||Chi-squared|||Extended 5-Year Analysis: 21 July 2019||28.70|11.40|<0.0001
95928010|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.929
95928011|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to 3||||<0.001
95928012|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
95928013|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.050
95928014|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.165
95928015|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.133
95928016|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.217
95928017|NCT01245439|191817446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928018|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.169
95928019|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928020|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.053
95928021|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.514
95928022|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.064
95928023|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.038
95928024|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.064
95928025|NCT01245439|191817449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928026|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.981
95928027|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928028|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.005
95928029|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.566
95928030|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.264
95928031|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.126
95928032|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.779
95928033|NCT01245439|191817450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||||||<0.001
95928034|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.410
95928035|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928036|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
95928037|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.021
95928038|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.003
95928039|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 6 to Visit7||||0.827
95928040|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.093
95928041|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Sensitive Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928042|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 1 to Visit 2||||0.792
95928043|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928044|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
95928045|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.374
95928046|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.518
95928047|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.744
95928048|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.048
95928049|NCT01245439|191817451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change in Swollen Joints from Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928050|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928051|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
95928052|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.075
95928053|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.119
95928054|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.007
95928055|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.047
95928056|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||PT assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928057|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928058|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
95928059|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.001
95928060|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.084
95928061|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.272
95928062|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.020
95928063|NCT01245439|191817452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||IN assessment Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928064|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928065|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||<0.001
95993578|NCT00348140|191963297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 48||1.0|-0.5|0.549
95928066|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.254
95928067|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.138
95928068|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.002
95928069|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.104
95928070|NCT01245439|191817453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 8||||<0.001
95928071|NCT01245439|191817454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 2 to Visit 3||||<0.001
95928072|NCT01245439|191817454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 3 to Visit 4||||0.002
95928073|NCT01245439|191817454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 4 to Visit 5||||0.078
95928074|NCT01245439|191817454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 5 to Visit 6||||0.349
95928075|NCT01245439|191817454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 6 to Visit 7||||0.722
95928076|NCT01245439|191817454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.|||Change between Visit 7 to Visit 8||||0.224
95928077|NCT00758602|191817472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6581||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.4||p-value, least squares (LS) mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI) based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.08|0.0813
95928078|NCT00758602|191817473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5977||||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|10.58||p-value, LS mean difference, and 95% CI based on ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and the treatment-by-center interaction as fixed effects, and the donor age as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.58|-13.77|0.7949
95928079|NCT00758602|191817474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 6 months post-transplant||||0.6812
95928080|NCT00758602|191817474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6812|||||||Fisher Exact|||Acute rejection, 12 months post-transplant||||0.6812
95928081|NCT00758602|191817474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Death, 12 months post-transplant||||1.0000
95928082|NCT00758602|191817476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0000
95928083|NCT00758602|191817477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4586|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4586
95928084|NCT00758602|191817478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95928085|NCT03987451|191817481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratio between semaglutide and placebo adjusting for baseline diabetes was estimated along with exact 95% confidence interval based on conditioning on the marginal 2×2 tables.||1.24|0.06|0.0867
95928086|NCT02534350|191817557|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.43|0.72
95928087|NCT02534350|191817558|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
95928088|NCT02534350|191817559|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.86
95928089|NCT02534350|191817560|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.25||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|9.08|||ANCOVA|||||9.08|-15.58|0.60
95984207|NCT05998148|191942127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS physical score. From the literature, effect size of 0.618 was obtained from PROMIS physical. Using a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, it was determined that a sample size of 34 per group would detect a statistical difference between the groups. A per-protocol analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment. There were 34 patients in each group.||||0.75
95928090|NCT03299816|191817620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.17
95928091|NCT03299816|191817621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.36
95928092|NCT03299816|191817622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.33
95928093|NCT03299816|191817623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.61
95928094|NCT03299816|191817624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) was not normally distributed and was natural log transformed for analyses||||||0.73
95928095|NCT03299816|191817625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed effects regression|||||||0.75
95928096|NCT02023125|191817644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.0|320.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and confidence intervals (CIs).||320|228|
95928097|NCT02023125|191817645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|132.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||132|103|
95928098|NCT02023125|191817646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|292.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.0|329.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||329|258|
95928099|NCT02023125|191817647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|109|
95928100|NCT02023125|191817648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|377.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|303.0|468.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||468|303|
95928101|NCT02023125|191817649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|119.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||119|87.0|
95928102|NCT02023125|191817650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|328.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|276.0|389.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||389|276|
95928103|NCT02023125|191817651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|96.3|
95928104|NCT02023125|191817654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|306.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.0|348.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||348|269|
95928105|NCT02023125|191817655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.0|136.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||136|110|
95928106|NCT02023125|191817656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|349.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.0|422.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Treatment B/Treatment A) and CIs.||422|288|
95928107|NCT02023125|191817657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|126.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Alectinib + Esomeprazole/Alectinib Alone) and CIs.||126|95.3|
95928108|NCT04541303|191817670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||None specified|||||||.028
95928109|NCT03979365|191817674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
95928110|NCT03979365|191817675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Trembling Hands||||0.345
95928111|NCT03979365|191817675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Muscle Cramps||||0.451
95928112|NCT03979365|191817675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Muscle Weakness||||0.953
95928113|NCT03979365|191817675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swollen Gums||||0.579
95928114|NCT03979365|191817675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Increased Hair Growth||||0.513
95984208|NCT05998148|191942127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Since 2 hypothesis tests are conducted, we applied a Bonferroni correction. Our new adjusted threshold level is 0.05/2= 0.025.|Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|The null hypothesis states that the virtual group and in-person group exhibit no difference in mean PROMIS mental score. The minimum sample size determined for the PROMIS physical score was used for this analysis. A per-protocol analysis was conducted on the scores at the 6-month follow-up appointment. There were 34 patients in each group.||||0.049
95984209|NCT05998148|191942128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There were 27 patients in the virtual phone group. There were 26 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.49
95984210|NCT05998148|191942129|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There are 18 patients in the virtual group. There are 9 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.54
95984211|NCT05998148|191942130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Virtual - Standard In-person|There are 45 patients in the virtual phone group. There are 35 patients in the standard in-person group.||||0.39
95984212|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||11.2|-6.4|
95984213|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 1-4 combined||8.3|-10.8|
95984214|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||13.2|-9.3|
95984215|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 1||11.4|-11.4|
95984216|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-0.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||-0.3|-29.2|
95984217|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 2||6.9|-20.9|
95984218|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-2.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-2.4|-32.8|
95984219|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-3.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 3||-3.9|-34.1|
95984220|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
95984221|NCT02090413|191942138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|11.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Week 4||11.4|-21.0|
95984222|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.4|-2.6|
95984223|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing events||12.5|-2.5|
95984224|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.1|-11.2|
95984225|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall redness events||8.3|-10.8|
95984226|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.8|
95984227|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall warmth events||11.7|-1.7|
95984228|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||17.3|-5.4|
95984229|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|16.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall tingling events||16.4|-6.4|
95984230|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|3.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||3.5|-19.5|
95984231|NCT02090413|191942139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall itching events||0.6|-23.1|
95984232|NCT02090413|191942142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|13.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||13.0|-15.8|
95928115|NCT03979365|191817676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95928116|NCT03979365|191817679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
95928117|NCT03979365|191817680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
95928118|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Taste Change||||0.314
95928119|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Appetite||||0.486
95928120|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.452
95928121|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.750
95928122|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swelling||||0.764
95928123|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Palpitations||||0.726
95928124|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Dry Skin||||0.421
95928125|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Darker Skin||||0.679
95928126|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Blurry Vision||||0.779
95928127|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Headache||||0.533
95928128|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Insomnia||||0.668
95928129|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue||||1.00
95928130|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Anxiety||||0.232
95928131|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Depression||||0.566
95928132|NCT03979365|191817681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sadness||||0.038
95928133|NCT03979365|191817682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.754
95928134|NCT03979365|191817684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.371
95727903|NCT00770991|191425324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
95928135|NCT01499134|191817698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95928136|NCT01499134|191817699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
95928137|NCT01499134|191817700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is correct, confirmed with report from statistician.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95928138|NCT01499134|191817701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.363
95928139|NCT01499134|191817702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
95928140|NCT01499134|191817703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.476
95928141|NCT01499134|191817704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.170
95928142|NCT01499134|191817705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.595
95928143|NCT01198275|191817707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.666|||Kaplan Meyer analysis|The time to first AF recurrence was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.|Hazard ratios between n-3 PUFA and Placebo together with confidence intervals were estimated using the Cox proportional regression model.|Give a relapse rate ranging from 40% to 60% on ACE-I/ARB and amiodarone therapy, considering the high risk of relapses in our study population we conservatively assumed a 50% relapse rate. We calculated that a total of 180 patients would yield 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of about 20% in AF recurrence with the addition of n-3 PUFAs at a log-rank test, with a significance level of 0.05.||0.666|0.292|< 0.05
95928144|NCT01904071|191817708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95928145|NCT01904071|191817709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95928146|NCT01904071|191817710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.005
95928147|NCT01904071|191817711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95928148|NCT01904071|191817712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
95928149|NCT02729701|191817714|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change by paired two-sample non-parametric test||||0.017
95928150|NCT02729701|191817715|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||Test for within-group change via paired, two-sample non-parametric test||||0.043
95928151|NCT02729701|191817716|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for within-group change using paired two-sample non-parametric etst||||0.088
95928152|NCT01290224|191817768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided McNemar's test of the primary endpoint with 10 patients will have 86% power at 5% Type I error rate to detect a 60% difference in the percentage of at least 50% reduction in the scrambler and sham procedure, based on the assumption that the proportion of discordant pairs is at 70%.||||||0.763||95.0|||||McNemar|||McNemar's test was used to test for a difference between Scrambler and Sham procedure in their success rate.||||0.7630
95928153|NCT05694065|191817775|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination ability of UFR was analyzed by ROC curve analysis using the DeLong method. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
95928154|NCT05694065|191817779|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The diagnostic discrimination abilities of UFR and MLA were compared by ROC curves analysis using the DeLong method. A prespecified MLA cutoff value was applied based on the prior study. Cutoff value of ≤0.80 was used for FFR and UFR to define the physiological significance of a coronary stenosis, with two-sided P\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|||
95928155|NCT01087762|191817784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.4||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||32.4|6.3|=0.004
95984233|NCT02090413|191942142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.1|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 5-8 combined||19.1|-8.4|
95984234|NCT02090413|191942142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|23.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||23.0|-9.9|
95984235|NCT02090413|191942142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|31.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Weeks 9-12 combined||31.3|0.2|
95984236|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
95984237|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|16.6|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 5-8 combined||16.6|-8.6|
95984238|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.9|-12.8|
95984239|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|27.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Overall flushing, Weeks 9-12 combined||27.3|-2.8|
95984240|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|12.2|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.2|-15.7|
95984241|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 5-8 combined||17.3|-9.4|
95984242|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.0|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||7.0|-25.1|
95984243|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Redness, Weeks 9-12 combined||18.5|-12.0|
95984244|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||12.9|-13.5|
95984245|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.4|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 5-8 combined||15.4|-10.2|
95984246|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|15.7|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||15.7|-15.3|
95984247|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Warmth, Weeks 9-12 combined||19.9|-10.3|
95984248|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|14.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||14.3|-18.4|
95984249|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|29.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 5-8 combined||29.3|-1.9|
95984250|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||11.8|-22.1|
95984251|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.9|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Tingling, Weeks 9-12 combined||23.9|-9.6|
95984252|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8 combined||25.5|-6.8|
95984253|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|25.5|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 5-8||25.5|-6.8|
95984254|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.8|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||20.8|-13.2|
95984255|NCT02090413|191942143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|25.3|||||Two sided 95% CI of difference in proportions was constructed based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Itching, Weeks 9-12 combined||25.3|-8.5|
95984256|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.125|||||Analysis of variance model (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.125|-0.414|
95984257|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|-0.128|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||-0.128|-0.656|
95984258|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.012|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 1-4 combined||0.012|-0.507|
95928156|NCT01087762|191817784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|38.2||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.2|12.3|<0.001
95928157|NCT01087762|191817785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|50.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||50.0|25.4|<0.001
95928158|NCT01087762|191817785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|53.3||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|Wald test and Confidence Interval (CI) calculation were performed without continuity correction.||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||53.3|28.9|<0.001
95928159|NCT01087762|191817786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.01|-1.96|<0.001
95928160|NCT01087762|191817787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.38||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASFI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.38|-2.38|<0.001
95928161|NCT01087762|191817788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.12||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.12|-2.07|<0.001
95928162|NCT01087762|191817789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.5||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASDAI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-1.50|-2.49|<0.001
95928163|NCT01087762|191817790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.60|<0.001
95984259|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.945|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.945|-0.193|
95984260|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.635|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.635|-0.498|
95984261|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|0.251|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 5-8 combined||0.251|-0.867|
95984262|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.355|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.355|-0.308|
95984263|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.254|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.254|-0.374|
95984264|NCT02090413|191942147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.232|||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as effects and baseline characteristics as covariates.|Weeks 9-12 combined||0.232|-0.4|
95984265|NCT00487396|191942161|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* combination of CE+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as CE+IC new finding ;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures but not detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures were marked as SBFT+IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by the combination of CE+IC procedures and by the combination of SBFT+IC procedures were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
95984266|NCT00487396|191942162|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||"For each category, the numbers of found and missed pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by SBFT procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by SBFT procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as SBFT new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and SBFT) were marked as same findings event."||||<0.0001
95984267|NCT00487396|191942163|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||McNemar|||"Pathologies were including in the analysis as follows:~* Pathologies detected by CE procedure but not detected by IC procedure were marked as CE new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by IC procedure but not detected by CE procedure were marked as IC new finding event;~* Pathologies detected by both procedures (i.e., CE and IC) were marked as same findings event."||||0.085
95727904|NCT00952484|191425386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the median RGI-C score for the asfotase alfa combined reporting group to the historical control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
95727905|NCT00952484|191425387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0097
95727906|NCT00952484|191425388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0789
95928164|NCT01087762|191817791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo was estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, modified New York criteria and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline BASMI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.23|-0.66|<0.001
95928165|NCT02311972|191817798|SUPERIORITY|Mean axillary admission temperature||||||0.7294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7294
95928166|NCT02311972|191817799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2360
95928167|NCT02311972|191817800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95928168|NCT02311972|191817801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1089
95928169|NCT02311972|191817802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95928170|NCT02311972|191817803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4947
95928171|NCT02311972|191817804|SUPERIORITY|Infant 007|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95928172|NCT02311972|191817804|SUPERIORITY|Infant 010|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95928173|NCT02311972|191817804|SUPERIORITY|Infant 015|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95928174|NCT02311972|191817804|SUPERIORITY|Infant 039|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95984268|NCT03834519|191942164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in survival assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.14|0.77|0.2616
95984269|NCT03834519|191942165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|Treatment difference in rPFS assessed by the stratified log-rank test stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.||1.25|0.82|0.5544
95984270|NCT03834519|191942166|OTHER|Treatment difference in TFST|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.03|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.03|0.71|
95984271|NCT03834519|191942167|OTHER|Treatment difference in ORR|Difference in percentage|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.1||||||||17.1|4.0|
95984272|NCT03834519|191942169|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to PSA progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.38|0.89|
95984273|NCT03834519|191942170|OTHER|Treatment difference in SSRE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||0.78|0.38|
95928175|NCT02311972|191817804|SUPERIORITY|Infant 040||||||0.3947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3947
95928176|NCT01924767|191817821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|43.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.52|69.269|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax (single dose) was analysed.||69.269|27.520|
95984274|NCT03834519|191942171|OTHER|Treatment difference in time to radiographic soft tissue progression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.00|0.62|
95928177|NCT01924767|191817821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean of ratio|31.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.193|80.011|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for Cmax,ss (Multiple dose) was analysed.||80.011|12.193|
95928178|NCT01924767|191817822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|49.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|73.776|||Regression, Linear|||This was non-confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, single dose) was analysed.||73.776|33.490|
95928179|NCT01924767|191817822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean of ratio|37.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.429|91.789|||Regression, Linear|||This was non confirmatory testing, dose proportionality of dose from 2.5mg to 100mg for AUC (0-infinity, at steady state, day 9) was analysed.||91.789|15.429|
95928180|NCT01924767|191817833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37645.43||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11021.57|64269.3||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.||The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||64269.30|11021.57|0.0067
95928181|NCT01924767|191817833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82898.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55344.83|110451.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||110451.6|55344.83|<0.0001
95928182|NCT01924767|191817833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79982.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53087.22|106878.6||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo is calculated.|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||106878.6|53087.22|<0.0001
95928183|NCT01924767|191817833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91306.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64685.41|117928.5||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean Difference to placebo was calculated|The mean change from baseline (day -2) to day 8 and comparisons to placebo for Urine Glucose Excretion (AE(0-24)).||117928.5|64685.41|<0.0001
95928184|NCT01924767|191817834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.456||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|-0.369||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.369|-30.543|0.0449
95928185|NCT01924767|191817834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.467||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.085|-7.848||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-7.848|-39.085|0.0042
95928186|NCT01924767|191817834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.956||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.057|0.145||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||0.145|-30.057|0.0521
95928187|NCT01924767|191817834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-10.602||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.848|4.644||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent decrease in Mean daily glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.644|-25.848|0.1676
95928188|NCT01924767|191817835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.269||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.162|4.624||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||4.624|-19.162|0.2239
95928189|NCT01924767|191817835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.844||||0.0421||95.0|-25.205|-0.484||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||-0.484|-25.205|0.0421
95928190|NCT01924767|191817835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.719||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.842|9.403||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||9.403|-14.842|0.6527
95928191|NCT01924767|191817835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.998||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.818|2.822||This was non-confirmatory testing.|ANCOVA|The baseline value has been used a continuous covariate.|Mean difference to placebo was calculated.|The mean percent change in Fasting Plasma Glucose from baseline with treatment compared with placebo from baseline -2 to day 8||2.822|-20.818|0.1318
95727907|NCT00952484|191425389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7417
95928192|NCT00855465|191817930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 0m in case of death/clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group and region as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95928193|NCT00855465|191817930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.74|66.63||Additional analysis, due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||66.63|24.74|<0.0001
95928194|NCT00855465|191817930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95727908|NCT00952484|191425390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.7570
95928195|NCT00855465|191817931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
95928196|NCT00855465|191817931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-246.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.33|-189.53||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-189.53|-303.33|<0.0001
95928197|NCT00855465|191817931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95928198|NCT00855465|191817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
95928199|NCT00855465|191817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-443.99||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-842.95|-45.03||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-45.03|-842.95|0.0293
95928200|NCT00855465|191817932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95928201|NCT00855465|191817933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0026
95928202|NCT00855465|191817934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.37||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|1.99||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region.|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region.|"Test for difference of occurence of Any event."||1.99|-8.72|0.1724
95928203|NCT00855465|191817935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region.||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0035
95928204|NCT00855465|191817936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||<0.0001
95928205|NCT00855465|191817936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|0.06|0.0002
95928206|NCT00855465|191817936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95928207|NCT00855465|191817937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg Dyspnea Score, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 16 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.1220
95984275|NCT03834519|191942172|OTHER|Treatment difference in TTPE|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by measurable disease status and prior NHA treatment.|||1.26|0.72|0.3643
95928208|NCT00855465|191817937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-1.06||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-10.45|0.0165
95928209|NCT00855465|191817937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95928210|NCT00855465|191817939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
95928211|NCT00855465|191817939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-3.16||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-3.16|-6.75|<0.0001
95928212|NCT00855465|191817939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0231|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0231
95928213|NCT00855465|191817940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||Exploratory testing. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||Missing values at week 16 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis as for primary efficacy parameter.||0.62|0.33|<0.0001
95984276|NCT01538628|191942180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|testing the null hypothesis that the proportion for SpaceOAR is less than or equal to 0.70.||||||.0001
95984277|NCT03080883|191942187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.37|||Gray Test P-value|||||1.37|0.38|0.3117
95984278|NCT03080883|191942188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Gray Test P-value|||||2.53|0.40|0.9970
95928214|NCT00855465|191817940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95928215|NCT00855465|191817940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.1160
95928216|NCT04365400|191817978|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|8.24||||0.1148124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|18.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.19|-2.01|0.1148124
95928217|NCT04365400|191817978|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann Median|-0.82||||0.8668467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|7.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.96|-10.16|0.8668467
95928218|NCT04365400|191817979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|0.02516||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26658|0.316897|||ANCOVA|||||0.316897|-0.26658|0.8658
95928219|NCT04365400|191817979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change in HbA1c (%)|-0.07333||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39012|0.243455|||ANCOVA|||||0.243455|-0.39012|0.6500
95928220|NCT02613364|191817982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the difference in mean change on the ISI between YOCAS©® and CBT-I is less than 1.15. Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS©® and CBT-I, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample of 168 subjects per group, we will have sufficient (80%) power to detect non-inferiority using a margin of 1.15 at p = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.37||The p-value shown above is from the Least Squares Mean between YOCAS - CBT-I from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is YOCAS - CBT-I|Constructed a 95% confidence interval on the mean change of ISI from baseline between the arms (YOCAS - CBT-I). If the lower bound of the interval is less than 1.5 then we conclude that YOCAS is non-inferior.||4.37|2.66|<.0001
95928221|NCT02613364|191817983|SUPERIORITY|Using ANCOVA to estimate differences in mean change between YOCAS and health education, a correlation of 0.576 (from our prior study), and a sample size of 168 evaluable subjects per group, we will have sufficient power to detect differences on the ISI of at least 1.3, 1.5 and 1.6 (all larger than our 1.15 non-inferiority margin) at 80%, 90%, and 95% power, respectively|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.58||the comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.58|-2.23|0.0009
95928222|NCT02613364|191817984|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.04||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.04|-0.98|0.0700
95928223|NCT02613364|191817985|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.75||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the ISI Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||2.75|1.70|<.0001
95928224|NCT02613364|191817986|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|33.54||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||33.54|5.91|0.0052
95928225|NCT02613364|191817987|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|29.94||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.94|1.93|0.0258
95950663|NCT03055988|191873080|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.264|3.082|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||3.082|-2.264|0.7604
95984279|NCT04649255|191942190|OTHER||Exact binomial|96.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.4|100.0|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: Ps ≤ PGS, versus HA: PS \> PGS, where where Ps is the population primary safety success rate in the Test group and PGS is the safety performance goal of 82%.||100|96.4|<0.025
95950664|NCT03055988|191873081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.341|2.702|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||2.702|-3.341|0.8330
95928226|NCT02613364|191817988|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.048||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|||0.048|-0.053|0.92
95928227|NCT02613364|191817989|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.098||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the CBT-I control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.098|-0.004|0.07
95928228|NCT02613364|191817990|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.44||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.44|0.09|0.04
95928229|NCT02613364|191817991|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.43||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||1.43|-2.97|0.49
95928230|NCT02613364|191817992|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.05|-0.13|0.43
95928231|NCT02613364|191817993|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||0.11|-0.07|0.70
95928232|NCT02613364|191817994|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.5||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.50|-2.65|0.0041
95928233|NCT02613364|191817995|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.81||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||3.81|1.61|<.0001
95928234|NCT02613364|191817996|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.36||The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - Health Education) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to the health education control is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||-0.36|-2.78|0.0108
95928235|NCT02613364|191817997|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in the outcome measure between the two arms is zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|4.02||The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha. The p-value shown is from the Least Squares Mean (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is from the Least Squares Mean difference (YOCAS - CBT-I) generated from the Mixed Model.|The comparison of YOCAS to CBT-I is a traditional null hypothesis of no difference with a two-sided alpha.||4.02|1.54|<.0001
95984280|NCT04649255|191942191|OTHER||Exact binomial|89.1|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|97.5|||One-sided exact binomial test|Exact binomial one-sided lower 97.5% CI for performance goal test \>72% for primary effectiveness and \>82% for primary safety.||Descriptive assessment; H0: PE ≤ PGE, versus HA: PE \> PGE, where PE is the proportion of target lesions with clinical success and PGE is the effectiveness performance goal of 72%.||97.5|89.1|<0.025
95984281|NCT00307151|191942200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|33.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months)and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||33.6|3.7|0.015
95984282|NCT00307151|191942200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.8||P-value not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function used as basis for calculating repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|t-test, 2 sided|Risk difference estimate stratified by age (\<12 months vs. \>=12 months) and reports rate on NVP arm minus rate on LPV/r arm|Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age stratum. Differences in week 24 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each age stratum.|||31.8|11.2|<0.001
95928236|NCT00371566|191818039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93||0.394||95.0|-5.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis||The study was designed to provide evidence to support the null hypothesis: Delta equals 0% or reject it in favor of the two sided alternative hypothesis: Delta does not equal 0%, where Delta was the difference in the true response rate for the two treatment groups.||2.19|-5.50|.394
95984283|NCT04342871|191942246|OTHER|Pre-post comparison from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95984284|NCT01999465|191942274|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We applied Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test with the Null hypothesis that there is no difference between 2 arms.||||||0.40
95984285|NCT01999465|191942275|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95984286|NCT02347098|191942279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2533
95984287|NCT02347098|191942280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7790
95928237|NCT03257813|191818072|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.013||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95984288|NCT02347098|191942281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4549||||||The p-value reported compares the trends of outcome across time (baseline pre-PCI, baseline post-PCI, 30-day follow-up, and 90-day follow-up) between treatment groups using the repeated measurement analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4549
95984289|NCT02347098|191942282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2663
95984290|NCT04673292|191942286|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing community-based testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.27|0.86|0.67
95984291|NCT04673292|191942286|EQUIVALENCE|The fixed site SOC testing study arm was the standard of care and reference group. The null hypothesis was that there is not a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants who complete PCR COVID-19 testing within 30 days of randomization when comparing self-collected testing to the fixed site SOC testing.|Prevalence Ratio|1.08||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Poisson Regression|Adjusted poisson regression was performed using Study Arm as a nominal variable in the model with the Fixed Site SOC Testing as the reference group.|||Models were adjusted for employment.|1.31|0.89|0.43
95984292|NCT04673292|191942287|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing. Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.05|0.73|0.14
95984293|NCT04673292|191942287|EQUIVALENCE|Testing for equivalence in the difference in time from randomization to completion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing Alpha threshold of 0.05.|Time Ratio|0.86||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 30 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.03|0.71|0.09
95984294|NCT04673292|191942288|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the community-based testing to fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||aprior threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.10|0.83|0.56
95984295|NCT04673292|191942288|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in time from completion of SARS-CoV-2 test to receipt of SARS-CoV-2 test results when comparing the self-collected testing arm to the fixed site SOC testing.|Time Ratio|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||aprior significance threshold: p-value\<0.05|Accelerated Failure Time|Study Arm included as a nominal (dummy) variable in accelerated failure time models. Models adjusted for employment.||Times were censored at 10 days.|Models adjusted for employment|1.07|0.81|0.32
95984296|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 1||0.70|-1.65|0.4295
95984297|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 1||0.04|-2.34|0.0586
95928238|NCT03257813|191818072|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.001||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95928239|NCT03257813|191818072|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 1.5 mmHg||||||0.05||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
95984298|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 2||-0.43|-3.34|0.0111
95984299|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 2||-0.37|-3.30|0.0141
95984300|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.43|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 4||-0.43|-4.00|0.0152
95984301|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 4||-1.25|-4.86|0.0010
95984302|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 30 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.50|0.0245
95984303|NCT00880399|191942289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitatnt 60 mg at Week 6||-0.75|-4.97|0.0082
95984304|NCT00880399|191942291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.19|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.19|0.80|0.51
95984305|NCT00880399|191942291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.3|||Log Rank|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.30|0.84|0.37
95984306|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.55|-0.72|0.7859
95984307|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.49|-0.79|0.6429
95984308|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.26|-1.82|0.0092
95984309|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.13|-1.69|0.0230
95984310|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.31|-2.27|0.0104
95984311|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.69|-2.67|0.0010
95984312|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.08|-2.37|0.0361
95984313|NCT00880399|191942292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.0092||95.0|-2.69|-0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.38|-2.69|0.0092
95984314|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.30|-1.74|0.1662
95984315|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.38|-1.69|0.2116
95984316|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.13|-2.17|0.0820
95984317|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.61|-1.71|0.3498
95984318|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.40|-2.99|0.0107
95984319|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.79|-3.40|0.0017
95984320|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.19|-2.78|0.0880
95984321|NCT00880399|191942293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.18|-3.17|0.0282
95984322|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.44|-0.45|0.9854
95984323|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.23|-0.66|0.3476
95984324|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.94|0.0898
95984325|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.07|-0.95|0.0928
95984326|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.28|-0.93|0.2937
95984327|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.02|-1.20|0.0587
95984328|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.23|-1.14|0.1950
95984329|NCT00880399|191942294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.00|-1.40|0.0498
95984330|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||6.40|0.72|0.1731
95984331|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.77||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||2.97|0.20|0.7084
95984332|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||5.98|1.13|0.0247
95928240|NCT03257813|191818073|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.823||||||Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
95928241|NCT03257813|191818073|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.507||||||CrossOver|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.507
95928242|NCT03257813|191818073|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 2 points on the snellen scale||||||0.495||||||Final Visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
95928243|NCT03257813|191818074|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
95928244|NCT03257813|191818075|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.001||||||Baseline|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95928245|NCT03257813|191818075|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.148||||||CrossOver|Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
95928246|NCT03257813|191818075|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.212||||||Final Visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
95928247|NCT03257813|191818076|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
95928248|NCT03257813|191818076|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.497||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.497
95928249|NCT03257813|191818076|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0||||||"Final Visit~No statistic will be calculated because Final Chemosis is a constant"|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
95928250|NCT03257813|191818077|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95928251|NCT03257813|191818077|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.391||||||Cross Over|Chi-squared|||||||0.391
95928252|NCT03257813|191818077|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.534||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.534
95928253|NCT03257813|191818078|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.023||||||Baseline|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.023
95984333|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||4.30|0.75|0.1862
95928254|NCT03257813|191818078|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95928255|NCT03257813|191818078|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.793||||||Final Visit|Chi-squared|||||||0.793
95928256|NCT03257813|191818079|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.825||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.825
95928257|NCT03257813|191818079|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||1||||||CrossOver|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95928258|NCT03257813|191818079|NON_INFERIORITY|to be considered as not inferior to the group, the differences between both should not be greater than 20% of the frequency.||||||0.765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.765
95928259|NCT04246762|191818080|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|70.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.62|81.91|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.91|60.62|
95928260|NCT04246762|191818080|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.73|81.21|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||81.21|56.73|
95928261|NCT04246762|191818080|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-inf))|122.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.98|139.93|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||139.93|107.98|
95928262|NCT04246762|191818081|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of AUC (0-last))|90.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.72|95.13|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||95.13|86.72|
95928263|NCT04246762|191818082|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.46|78.92|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of midazolam with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to midazolam (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||78.92|59.46|
95928264|NCT04246762|191818082|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|84.27|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of omeprazole with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to omeprazole (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||84.27|64.18|
95928265|NCT04246762|191818082|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|105.09|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of baseline-adjusted PK parameters of caffeine with a with fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to caffeine (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) administrated alone) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimates of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI.||105.09|91.36|
95928266|NCT04246762|191818082|OTHER||geometric LS mean ratio of Cmax|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|110.39|||||Results based on a linear mixed model for the log-transformed values of PK parameters of S-warfarin with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.|Estimate of the mean difference between treatments (S-warfarin (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail) after OKZ administration compared to initial S-warfarin administrated alone (as part of a 4-drug oral cocktail)) and its corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. The mean difference and the CI were back transformed to the original scale to obtain estimate of the geometric mean ratio and the associated 90% CI. The sample size computation was based on results reported for sirukumab.||110.39|94.80|
95928267|NCT02878330|191818093|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|70.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|81.2|||Poisson regression|||||81.2|52.3|<0.0001
95928268|NCT02878330|191818094|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|78.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|90.3|||Poisson regression|||||90.3|51.9|0.0002
95928269|NCT03615924|191818100|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.06||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.50|0.75|0.7597
95928270|NCT03615924|191818101|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.45|0.72|0.9037
95928271|NCT03615924|191818102|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.30|0.17|0.7136
95928272|NCT03615924|191818103|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.40|0.50|0.4970
95928273|NCT03615924|191818104|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.43||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.36|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||2.36|0.87|0.1636
95928274|NCT03615924|191818105|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.68||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.75|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||3.75|0.76|0.2011
95928275|NCT03615924|191818107|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of confidence interval was not calculable due to 0 events in Ticagrelor 15/30/45 mg bd reporting group.||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.|||0.00|0.9940
95928276|NCT03615924|191818108|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.77||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Incidence rates, incidence rate ratios, and p-values are from a negative binomial model analysis, with treatment group and baseline hydroxyurea use included in the model as covariates.||1.58|0.38|0.4822
95928277|NCT00716144|191818118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.884
95928278|NCT00716144|191818119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
95928279|NCT00716144|191818119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.604
95928280|NCT00716144|191818119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.463
95928281|NCT00716144|191818119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 6||||0.042
95928282|NCT00716144|191818119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.034
95928283|NCT00716144|191818119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.019
95928284|NCT00716144|191818121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 3||||1.000
95928285|NCT00716144|191818121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 4||||0.673
95928286|NCT00716144|191818121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 5||||0.550
95928287|NCT00716144|191818121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 7||||0.721
95984334|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||3.61|0.97|0.0630
95856997|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||55.4|-29.0|0.5379
95856998|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-45.1|0.8768
95856999|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|49.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.9|-33.8|0.7031
95857000|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|-45.8|0.8507
95857001|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.3||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.5|-121.2|0.0381
95857002|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.0||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|122.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||122.3|5.7|0.0318
95857003|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.2||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||74.1|-43.6|0.6095
95857004|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|44.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||44.8|-71.9|0.6470
95857005|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.4|-51.4|0.8136
95857006|NCT01746901|191672608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.6||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|45.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.7|-71.0|0.6699
95928288|NCT00716144|191818121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||At Visit 8||||0.030
95928289|NCT02954848|191818126|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The point estimate of the median difference between the treatment groups was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.600|0.000|0.0643
95928290|NCT02954848|191818127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
95928291|NCT02954848|191818128|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||0.0100|-0.2400|0.0826
95928292|NCT02954848|191818129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||5.300|0.000|0.0478
95928293|NCT02954848|191818129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||6.000|-6.100|0.8963
95928294|NCT02954848|191818129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||10.700|0.000|0.0120
95928295|NCT02954848|191818129|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.000|-17.400|0.0871
95928296|NCT02954848|191818130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0025
95928297|NCT02954848|191818131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1059
95928298|NCT02954848|191818132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
95928299|NCT02954848|191818133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5393|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5393
95928300|NCT02954848|191818134|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, improved response||0.0000|-0.2100|0.0505
95928301|NCT02954848|191818134|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 1, not improved response||0.1500|-0.1200|0.8138
95928302|NCT02954848|191818134|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, improved response||-0.0300|-0.2800|0.0129
95928303|NCT02954848|191818134|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.36|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for criteria 2, not improved response||0.3600|-0.0100|0.0765
95928304|NCT02954848|191818135|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||15.300|-1.900|0.1490
95928305|NCT02954848|191818135|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||10.700|-1.400|0.2146
95928306|NCT02954848|191818136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
95928307|NCT02954848|191818137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0153
95928308|NCT02954848|191818138|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade N of endoscopic findings||0.0200|-0.4300|0.0757
95928309|NCT02954848|191818138|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Grade M of endoscopic findings||0.0900|-0.2200|0.3837
95928310|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.5|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||3.500|-5.000|0.6631
95928311|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.9|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||13.900|-7.100|0.5627
95928312|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||8.000|0.000|0.0042
95928313|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||6.400|-9.400|0.6452
95928314|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.8|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||17.800|0.000|0.0376
95928315|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|3.6|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||3.600|-35.700|0.1600
95928316|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||10.700|0.000|0.1032
95928317|NCT02954848|191818139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved response||0.200|-14.300|0.2613
95928318|NCT02954848|191818140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9970
95928319|NCT02954848|191818141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0125
95928320|NCT02954848|191818142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
95928321|NCT02954848|191818143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7999|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7999
95928322|NCT02954848|191818144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0059
95928323|NCT02954848|191818145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5520
95928324|NCT02954848|191818146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0175
95928325|NCT02954848|191818147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7505
95928326|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and improved response||0.1600|-0.2300|0.7845
95928327|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.11||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade N and not improved response||0.1700|-0.3300|0.4456
95928328|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and improved response||-0.0200|-0.2900|0.0200
95928329|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 1, Grade M and not improved response||0.2200|-0.1000|0.4673
95928330|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and improved response||-0.0700|-0.5300|0.0095
95928331|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade N and not improved response||0.7100|-0.1600|0.1650
95928332|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and improved response||0.0700|-0.2400|0.2475
95928333|NCT02954848|191818148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for Criteria 2, Grade M and not improved||0.3200|-0.0900|0.2367
95928334|NCT02954848|191818149|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||14.300|-2.700|0.1885
95928335|NCT02954848|191818149|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|25.6||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||75.000|-19.200|0.2337
95928336|NCT02954848|191818150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0811
95928337|NCT02954848|191818151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0288
95928338|NCT02954848|191818152|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for improved response||0.0400|-0.4200|0.1488
95928339|NCT02954848|191818152|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|-0.44||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.69|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Statistical analysis for not improved response||0.6900|-1.5700|0.3778
95928340|NCT01184508|191818161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.05||The comparison between LY2300559 and placebo for the LS mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine attacks was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||-0.05|-2.02|0.085
95928341|NCT01184508|191818163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.75||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.27|11.76||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of photophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||11.76|-8.27|0.770
95928342|NCT01184508|191818163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|18.52||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of phonophobia.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||18.52|-3.91|0.276
95928343|NCT01184508|191818163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.51|6.1||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Month 3 in average duration of nausea.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, tx group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||6.10|-11.51|0.606
95984335|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.23|0.85|0.1413
95928344|NCT01184508|191818164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.57||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|0.34||The p-value is for the mean change from baseline to Month 3 in the number of migraine days.|Mixed-effects model repeated-measures|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment (tx) group, month, tx group\*month, baseline, baseline\*month; Random effect: pts; Repeated effect: month.||||0.34|-3.48|0.174
95928345|NCT01184508|191818167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.27||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|9.23||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ restrictive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||9.23|-9.76|0.963
95928346|NCT01184508|191818167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.17||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|4.5||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ preventive function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||4.50|-8.85|0.591
95928347|NCT01184508|191818167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|10.58||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MSQ emotional function score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: investigator (pooled site), treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit, baseline and baseline\*visit.||||10.58|-6.81|0.720
95928348|NCT01184508|191818168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.25||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.8||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in MIBS-4 overall weighted score.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects: pooled investigator, treatment group, and baseline.||||0.80|-1.30|0.688
95928349|NCT01184508|191818170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants using breakthrough medication at Month 3.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.607
95928350|NCT01093534|191818206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.169||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.03||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and region and Baseline of least squares mean BWT as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in BWT in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Estimated as two-sided contrast with 95% confidence interval. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.5 mm, standard deviation=1.65, 314 and 157 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025)||0.030|-0.368|0.095
95928351|NCT01093534|191818207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Hochberg Method for controlling the overall risk of type I error of 5% was used to adjust for using two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test does not adjust for other factors.||The null hypothesis for the co-primary treatment comparison was that the mean free (neutralized) uNGF/Cr value in the pooled solifenacin group and placebo was the same. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of a contrast from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), because data was not normally distributed. Power was planned for 80% (assumption: mean difference = 0.74 pg/μmol, standard deviation=2.0, 220 and 110 participants, bonferroni adjustment for alpha =0.025).||||0.250
95928352|NCT00281918|191818259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
95928353|NCT00281918|191818260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<.0001
95928354|NCT00281918|191818261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0427
95928355|NCT00281918|191818262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7882||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7882
95928356|NCT00281918|191818263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
95928357|NCT00281918|191818264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.54|0.0010
95928358|NCT00281918|191818265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.48|<.0001
95928359|NCT00281918|191818266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.52|0.0523
95928360|NCT00281918|191818267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.48|<.0001
95984336|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||3.37|0.93|0.0806
95984337|NCT00880399|191942295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.53||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||2.92|0.80|0.2007
95984338|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2523
95984339|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.07|-0.25|0.2639
95928361|NCT00281918|191818268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Chi-squared|||||3.28|1.62|<.0001
95928362|NCT00281918|191818269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.49|<.0001
95928363|NCT05328297|191818288|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|2.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.23|-2.84|=0.438
95928364|NCT01124188|191818342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||||||||1.80|0.63|
95928365|NCT01124188|191818343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
95928366|NCT01124188|191818344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
95928367|NCT00004124|191818356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.79|0.70
95984340|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.17|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||-0.17|-0.58|0.0004
95984341|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||-0.02|-0.43|0.0348
95984342|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||-0.06|-0.62|0.0166
95928368|NCT00004124|191818357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.80|0.94
95984343|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||-0.18|-0.75|0.0014
95928369|NCT02027558|191818368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.83|-4.58|<.001
95928370|NCT02027558|191818369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.02|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-2.49|-29.02|0.013
95928371|NCT02027558|191818370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-3.29|-37.63|0.019
95984344|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.11|-0.79|0.0099
95984345|NCT00880399|191942296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.14|-0.83|0.0059
95984346|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.08|-2.04|0.5473
95984347|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.6|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.60|-1.56|0.9814
95984348|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.01|-3.03|0.0515
95984349|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.96|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.96|-2.09|0.4680
95984350|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.55|-2.98|0.1757
95984351|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.63|-2.93|0.2048
95984352|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||-0.20|-4.12|0.0312
95928372|NCT02027558|191818371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|16.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||16.44|4.53|0.001
95984353|NCT00880399|191942297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.37|-4.31|0.0202
95984354|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|29.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 1||29.28|-20.38|0.7246
95984355|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.36||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|52.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 1||52.52|2.20|0.0332
95984356|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.12||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|34.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 2||34.41|-18.18|0.5439
95984357|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.52||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|39.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 2||39.85|-12.80|0.3127
95984358|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.51||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|11.89|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 4||11.89|-46.90|0.2419
95984359|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|21.11||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|50.64|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 4||50.64|-8.43|0.1606
95984360|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48||||0.7412||95.0|-22.21|31.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, TST at Week 6||31.16|-22.21|0.7412
95984361|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|38.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, TST at Week 6||38.14|-15.19|0.3974
95984362|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.52||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.83|3.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 1||3.79|-26.83|0.1397
95984363|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-8.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 1||-8.41|-39.40|0.0026
95984364|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|7.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 2||7.50|-22.85|0.3206
95928373|NCT02027558|191818372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 3-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||6.83|1.87|0.001
95928374|NCT02027558|191818373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|-7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.55|-27.29|0.0007
95984365|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-9.49|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 2||-9.49|-39.86|0.0015
95984366|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.71||||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 4||6.28|-27.70|0.2157
95928375|NCT00516386|191818382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|543.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.0|<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test|||We used paired t-tests to assess changes in levels of IGF-1 from baseline levels in girls with AN receiving rhIGF-1. Our hypothesis was that rhIGF-1 administration would be associated with a significant increase in IGF-1 levels.||||<0.05
95928376|NCT00516386|191818383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||We used a paired t-test to determine the change in P1NP from baseline to 7-10 days following administration of rhIGF-1||||<0.05
95928377|NCT02694978|191818392|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 2.64% was used for the primary endpoint statistical analysis.|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||Wald|The p-value was calculated using the Wald large sample assumption.||"Statistical analysis was only performed on composite reaction data (that is, the Any TE moderate to severe hypersensitivity rxn row in the data table)."||0.61|-0.80|0.0001
95928378|NCT03262935|191818419|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6401|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4885|0.8389||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of PFS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||0.8389|0.4885|=0.002
95928379|NCT03262935|191818420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.1145||P-value from stratified log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier estimate of median OS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of OS, along with 95% CIs. Stratification factors assigned at randomization were world region (Europe, Singapore, and North America), number of prior treatment lines for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (excluding hormone therapy) (1 to 2, \>2), and prior treatment with pertuzumab (yes, no).||1.1145|0.676|=0.236
95928380|NCT03262935|191818421|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.732||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test including the randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata based on the baseline stratification factors) was used to compare the two treatment groups with respect to the ORR at two-sided 5% level of significance.||||=0.732
95928381|NCT03262935|191818422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.7703||P-value from stratified log-rank test for median estimate of PFS: stratified according to the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||A stratified Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the HR of PFS, along with the 95% CI. The treatment groups were compared using the 2-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.7703|0.4666|<0.001
95928382|NCT03262935|191818423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||MMRM|||The change from baseline in the global health status/QoL scale transformed score was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) approach.||||0.473
95928383|NCT03675581|191818426|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.83|110.67|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||110.67|92.83|
95928384|NCT03675581|191818427|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.48|101.58|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T = Test, R = Reference|||101.58|91.48|
95928385|NCT03675581|191818428|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|116.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.63|126.51|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||126.51|107.63|
95928386|NCT03675581|191818429|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|113.23|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||113.23|89.90|
95928387|NCT03675581|191818430|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|109.1|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||109.10|93.95|
95928388|NCT03675581|191818431|OTHER|Relative systemic exposure|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|88.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.03|96.96|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||96.96|80.03|
95928389|NCT00186186|191818530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95928390|NCT00186186|191818531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95928391|NCT01183780|191818546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.976|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed on stratified data.|The estimation was performed on stratified data.|||0.976|0.730|0.0219
95984367|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.31||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|1.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 4||1.75|-32.37|0.0784
95984368|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.84||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|20.78|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SOL at Week 6||20.78|-7.09|0.3345
95928392|NCT01183780|191818547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.903|||Log Rank|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|Analysis was performed on stratified data.|||0.903|0.697|0.0005
95928393|NCT01183780|191818548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6336
95984369|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|10.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SOL at Week 6||10.70|-17.19|0.6471
95857007|NCT01746901|191672609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.7|-3.9|0.1728
95857008|NCT01746901|191672609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.6|-1.0|0.2616
95857009|NCT01746901|191672609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-1.9|0.7307
95857010|NCT01746901|191672609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5473
95857011|NCT01746901|191672609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.1|0.4999
95857012|NCT01746901|191672609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-3.0|0.5592
95857013|NCT01746901|191672610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.6|2.0|0.0217
95857014|NCT01746901|191672610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.6|-7.8|0.5513
95857015|NCT01746901|191672610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.8|0.2|0.0469
95857016|NCT01746901|191672610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|-6.0|0.3604
95857017|NCT01746901|191672610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|-5.0|0.2725
95857018|NCT01746901|191672610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4||||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.6|-5.8|0.3461
95857019|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.8|-1.1|0.1828
95857020|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.9|-5.0|0.3908
95857021|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.5|-1.5|0.2513
95857022|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-4.6|0.5035
95857023|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.0|-0.9|0.1452
95857024|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-3.6|0.9303
95857025|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.7|0.9|0.0283
95857026|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-10.5|0.4861
95857027|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.2|-2.5|0.1809
95857028|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.5|-7.1|0.8560
95857029|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.4|-3.1|0.2385
95928394|NCT01596504|191818565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05: lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025:no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1.2 mg|Analysis was performed using linear fixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]) and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-7.77|<0.0001
95984370|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|21.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 1||21.75|-16.95|0.8071
95984371|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|10.52|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 1||10.52|-29.11|0.3564
95984372|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|4.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 2||4.28|-36.00|0.1220
95984373|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.25||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|-2.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 2||-2.01|-42.49|0.0313
95984374|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|31.76|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 4||31.76|-27.45|0.8861
95984375|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|28.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, WTSO at Week 4||28.53|-31.87|0.9132
95984376|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.55|25.37|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||25.37|-33.55|0.7844
95984377|NCT00880399|191942298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|33.14|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, WTSO at Week 6||33.14|-27.33|0.8497
95984378|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||0.39|-0.83|0.4814
95984379|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.79|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||0.79|-0.47|0.6179
95984380|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.21|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||0.21|-0.44|0.5022
95984381|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||0.08|-0.57|0.1389
95984382|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||0.38|-0.36|0.9663
95984383|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||0.09|-0.67|0.1311
95984384|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||0.10|-0.73|0.1362
95984385|NCT00880399|191942299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.05|-0.91|0.0275
95984386|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.06|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.06|-0.02|0.0606
95984387|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 1||1.24|0.15|0.0132
95984388|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.50|0.38|0.0010
95984389|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 2||1.40|0.28|0.0034
95984390|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.72|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 4||0.72|-0.47|0.6692
95984391|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.42|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 4||1.42|0.22|0.0078
95984392|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.30|0.02|0.0440
95984393|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, SQ at Week 6||1.41|0.13|0.0181
95984394|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.92|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 1||0.92|-0.14|0.1484
95984395|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 1||1.24|0.16|0.0108
95984396|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.0361||95.0|0.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.16|0.04|0.0361
95984397|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 2||1.15|0.02|0.0418
95984398|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 4||0.58|-0.64|0.9305
95984399|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg, RVS at Week 4||1.39|0.16|0.0141
95928395|NCT01596504|191818565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|||p-values ordered(p1≤p2) as per rules:if p2≤0.05:lixisenatide superior to liraglutide (both doses);if p2\>0.05 \& p1≤0.025:lixisenatide superior to dose of liraglutide associated with p1;if p2\>0.05 \& p1\>0.025: no comparison as statistically significant.|Linear fixed effects model|The threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Lixisenatide vs Liraglutide 1. 8 mg|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model with treatment groups and stratification factors (HbA1c levels on Day -7 \[\<8% and \>=8%\], use of metformin at screening \[yes or no\]), and the study site) as fixed effects and baseline plasma glucose AUC from 0.5 to 4.5 hours as covariate. To address multiplicity issue and ensure overall 1-sided level of 5%, Hochberg method was used for testing procedure of comparison between lixisenatide vs liraglutide 1.2 mg or 1.8 mg.|||-6.34|<0.0001
95928396|NCT04347954|191818610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.584|0.886||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.886|-1.584|
95928397|NCT04347954|191818610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|0.201||||||Analysis of change in mean Ct values incorporating baseline, hour 1, and day 3 values.||0.201|-2.318|
95928398|NCT05382104|191818671|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.78|81.78|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||81.78|71.78|
95928399|NCT05382104|191818671|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|71.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.14|76.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||76.37|67.14|
95928400|NCT05382104|191818672|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.74|87.66|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||87.66|80.74|
95928401|NCT05382104|191818672|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|90.96|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||90.96|83.87|
95928402|NCT05382104|191818673|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for the differences between Treatment B versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|88.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment B / Treatment A).|||88.34|81.28|
95928403|NCT05382104|191818673|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs was constructed for differences between Treatment C versus Treatment A. The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|91.53|||||Geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment C / Treatment A).|||91.53|84.30|
95928404|NCT02336438|191818690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.99
95928405|NCT02336438|191818691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.4922
95928406|NCT02336438|191818692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
95928407|NCT02336438|191818693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0156
95928408|NCT02336438|191818694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.020
95928409|NCT02336438|191818695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
95928410|NCT05819190|191818697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - FAS set||||0.0192
95928411|NCT05819190|191818698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean AUC of WURSS-21 scores assessed during the first 8 days of the study between both groups - PP set||||0.0296
95928412|NCT05819190|191818699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0085
95928413|NCT05819190|191818700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0081
95928414|NCT05819190|191818701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
95928415|NCT05819190|191818702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0107
95928416|NCT05819190|191818703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
95928417|NCT05819190|191818704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||one sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.430
95928418|NCT05819190|191818705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.339
95928419|NCT05819190|191818706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.704
95984400|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.31|-0.02|0.0562
95984401|NCT00880399|191942300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.4|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg, RVS at Week 6||1.40|0.07|0.0296
95984402|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.61|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||4.61|-0.21|0.0735
95984403|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.86|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||3.86|-1.17|0.2905
95984404|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||3.70|-1.60|0.4327
95984405|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.75|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||3.75|-1.73|0.4642
95984406|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||4.23|-1.26|0.2850
95984407|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.59|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||3.59|-2.08|0.5984
95984408|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||4.19|-1.76|0.4192
95984409|NCT00880399|191942304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.71|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||3.71|-2.42|0.6766
95984410|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.25|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 1||1.25|-1.26|0.9951
95984411|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.34|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1||1.34|-1.17|0.8940
95984412|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 2||1.28|-1.61|0.8195
95984413|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 2||2.05|-0.84|0.4106
95984414|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 4||1.85|-1.71|0.9403
95984415|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 4||1.20|-2.36|0.5206
95984416|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.58|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 30 mg at Week 6||1.58|-2.30|0.7140
95984417|NCT00880399|191942305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||Placebo Vs Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 6||-0.31|-4.22|0.0234
95984418|NCT04353284|191942309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the change from baseline between treatment arms.||1.51|-0.03|0.06
95984419|NCT04353284|191942310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-0.70|0.87
95984420|NCT04353284|191942311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.94|0.69
95984421|NCT04353284|191942312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.09|||GEE|||Nasopharyngeal Swab Samples analyzed.||5.09|0.33|0.71
95984422|NCT04353284|191942312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.47|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||1.47|0.11|0.17
95984423|NCT04353284|191942313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.26|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||8.26|1.12|0.03
95984424|NCT04353284|191942313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.47|0.68
95984425|NCT04353284|191942314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|56.6|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||||56.60|0.70|0.10
95984426|NCT04353284|191942314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.23|||GEE|Within subject correlation is controlled by specifying a compound symmetry R-side structure in the model.||Saliva RT-PCR samples analyzed.||3.23|0.25|0.87
95984427|NCT04353284|191942315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.1|0.02
95984428|NCT04353284|191942316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.9|0.48
95984429|NCT04353284|191942317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.4|0.16
95984430|NCT04353284|191942318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.7|0.34
95984431|NCT01648790|191942355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18|||||Least Squares (LS) means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.18|0.819|
95984432|NCT01648790|191942356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.06|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||1.06|0.918|
95984433|NCT01648790|191942357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.335|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.335|0.233|
95928420|NCT05819190|191818707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.298
95928421|NCT05819190|191818708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.906
95928422|NCT05819190|191818709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.582
95928423|NCT05819190|191818710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.743
95928424|NCT05819190|191818711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.605
95928425|NCT05819190|191818712|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||1.000
95928426|NCT05819190|191818713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|One sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.988
95928427|NCT05819190|191818714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Fisher Exact|one sided test||0.05 global significance level (type I error rate)||||0.483
95928428|NCT00392678|191818779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95928429|NCT03008915|191818786|OTHER|Paired t-test for participants with measures on both aspirin and placebo.||||||0.692|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between measures on aspirin and placebo.||||0.692
95928430|NCT01264718|191818793|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings per child per year insured.|||||
95928431|NCT01264718|191818793|OTHER|The Intervention Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) is the difference in total costs between the intervention group and controls was divided by the intergroup difference in the proportion of insured children.|ICER|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The estimated value is the savings for each percent increase in children obtaining insurance per year.|||||
95928432|NCT03538054|191818798|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.065||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.146
95928433|NCT03538054|191818799|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.221||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The clinical threshold was p \< 0.05, with no corrections for multiple comparisons.|GEE|Outcome scores were mean-centered by participant, allowing analyses to reflect within-person changes rather than between-person differences.||||||0.052
95928434|NCT00667745|191818801|SUPERIORITY||F value, main effect|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95928435|NCT00667745|191818802|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.967
95928436|NCT00667745|191818803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95928437|NCT00667745|191818804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
95928438|NCT00667745|191818805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Value shown above describes emergent suicidal ideation for participants with baseline MSSI = 0. P=.36 describes exacerbation of baseline suicidal ideation for those with baseline MSSI \> 0.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.49
95928439|NCT02317016|191818812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|171.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.94|202.53|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||202.53|145.94|
95928440|NCT02317016|191818813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No effect on the PK of rosuvastatin after co-administration of AZD9291 was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax were within the range of 70% to 143%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|134.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.41|157.07|||||AZD9291+ rosuvastatin / rosuvastatin alone (Day 32 versus Day 1).|Natural log-transformed AUC values were compared between treatments using a mixed effects ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for rosuvastatin in both AUC and Cmax was 41%. No change in the exposure for rosuvastatin when given with AZD9291 was also assumed.||157.07|115.41|
95928441|NCT00605033|191818837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference greater than -0.15.|Proportion difference|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.034|||Binomial approximation|||||0.034|-0.142|
95928442|NCT00430300|191818850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0087||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.0774|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0774|-0.0943|0.0284
95928443|NCT00430300|191818850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.0389||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.0471|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0471|-0.1299|0.0056
95928444|NCT00430300|191818850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NDLM estimate difference|-0.051||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1298|0.029|||Bayesian NDLM model|||The Bayesian normal dynamic linear model (NDLM) was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of 0.075 liter from placebo.||0.0290|-0.1298|0.0009
95928445|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5849|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5849
95984434|NCT01648790|191942358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|0.837|||||LS means were determined by mixed-effect linear models with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within sequence as random effect.|||0.837|0.724|
95984435|NCT01438489|191942384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||4.26|1.33|0.014
95984436|NCT01438489|191942384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||All-comers||3.49|1.08|0.063
95984437|NCT01438489|191942385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.72|7.32|||Regression, Logistic|||High||7.32|1.72|0.004
95984438|NCT01438489|191942385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||High||5.53|1.27|0.029
95993579|NCT00348140|191963297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.9|-0.6|0.780
95993580|NCT00348140|191963298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.106
95993581|NCT00348140|191963298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.2|0.229
95857030|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.5|-4.1|0.3479
95857031|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||50.6|4.7|0.0185
95857032|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.7|-15.8|0.5471
95857033|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||47.4|1.5|0.0367
95857034|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.1||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.9|-12.6|0.3797
95857035|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.4||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|39.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.1|-6.3|0.1557
95857036|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|34.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.9|-10.5|0.2904
95857037|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.6|0.4|0.0467
95857038|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.7||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||36.0|-14.6|0.4056
95857039|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.3||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|48.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.9|-2.3|0.0738
95857040|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.7|-12.0|0.2987
95857041|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.2|-2.4|0.0763
95857042|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|37.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.6|-13.1|0.3396
95857043|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||22.7|-89.1|0.2425
95857044|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|117.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||117.5|6.8|0.0281
95857045|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|78.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||78.8|-33.0|0.4189
95857046|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||61.4|-49.4|0.8310
95857047|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.8||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|90.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.1|-20.6|0.2161
95993582|NCT00348140|191963299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.324
95928446|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9737|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.9737
95928447|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.3870
95928448|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8612|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.8612
95928449|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.7499
95984439|NCT01476475|191942439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC versus insulin glargine was tested first, at alpha level of 0.025 (1-sided) and a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided). The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) at ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037|||ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. A step-down testing procedure described by Hochberg and Tamhane was used to control type-1 error.||-0.037|-0.312|
95984440|NCT01476475|191942439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariates. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of insulin glargine/lixisenatide FRC over insulin glargine would be performed, at alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.037|-0.312|0.0130
95984441|NCT01476475|191942440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.832|-2.504||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment groups,randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0, ≥8.0%)\& screening BMI(\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as covariates.A step-down testing procedure used to control type-1 error.If non-inferiority demonstrated for primary endpoint,superiority testing on secondary endpoints was performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported(continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.504|-3.832|<0.0001
95984442|NCT01476475|191942441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.895|-2.592||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as covariates.||-2.592|-3.895|<0.0001
95984443|NCT01476475|191942442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.058||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline average 7-point SMPG value as covariates.||-0.058|-0.550|0.0154
95984444|NCT01476475|191942443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.773||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariates.||-0.773|-2.110|<0.0001
95993583|NCT00348140|191963299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.987
95928450|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5134
95928451|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1244|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.1244
95928452|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.5300
95928453|NCT00430300|191818851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0550
95928454|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7444|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.7444
95928455|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9134|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.9134
95928456|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6841|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6841
95928457|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.9283
95928458|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2991|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.2991
95928459|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7403|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.15|0.7403
95928460|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3499|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.3499
95928461|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2734|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2734
95928462|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5806|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.5806
95928463|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.00|0.0540
95928464|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2616|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.2616
95984445|NCT01476475|191942444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.592|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the step-down testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of screening BMI (\<30 kg/m\^2, ≥30 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects.||0.114|-6.592|0.0583
95984446|NCT01761084|191942455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.94||||||||1.94|.58|
95984447|NCT01761084|191942456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74||||||||1.74|.99|
95928465|NCT00430300|191818852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0724|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.02|0.0724
95928466|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9362|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.9362
95928467|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.9469
95984448|NCT01761084|191942457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Intention-to-treat analysis|Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||1.07|-0.84|0.811
95984449|NCT01761084|191942457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||1.09|-0.80|0.765
95984450|NCT01761084|191942458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.61|-0.80|0.796
95984451|NCT01761084|191942458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.65|-0.75|0.888
95984452|NCT01761084|191942459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Baseline||0.78|-0.54|0.719
95984453|NCT01761084|191942459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Month 12||0.79|-0.56|0.745
95984454|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|6.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D - VAS||6.83|-5.66|0.854
95928468|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9153|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.27||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.27|0.9153
95928469|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.36||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.36|0.9686
95928470|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1548
95928471|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7973|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.7973
95928472|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6348|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.6348
95928473|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.5742
95928474|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6719|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.6719
95928475|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0881|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.04||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.04|0.0881
95984455|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in EQ5D-VAS||8.22|-4.66|0.585
95984456|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.47|-0.16|0.335
95984457|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in OQLQ Average Score||0.50|-0.15|0.285
95984458|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.32|-1.36|0.225
95984459|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS at rest||0.56|-1.16|0.488
95984460|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||0.88|-0.68|0.808
95928476|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2772|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2772
95928477|NCT00430300|191818853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1363|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1363
95984461|NCT01761084|191942460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in pain VAS during movement||1.04|-0.57|0.566
95984462|NCT01761084|191942463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|1.501|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||1.501|-1.412|.951
95984463|NCT01761084|191942463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.721|-0.071|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||-0.071|-2.721|0.039
95984464|NCT01761084|191942464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-40.0||Month 6 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-40.0|-91.8|<0.05
95928478|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0938|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.03||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.03|0.0938
95984465|NCT01761084|191942464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|-28.8||Month 12 strength and balance physical activity|t-test, 2 sided|||Only Month 6 and Month 12 strength and balance physical activity differences were significant.||-28.8|-69.8|<0.05
95984466|NCT01761084|191942469|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.63||||||Negative Binomial Regression.||1.63|.58|
95984467|NCT01761084|191942472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided||Intention-to-treat analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in height||0.53|-0.28|0.536
95984468|NCT01761084|191942473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.807|||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12 scores.||0.807|-0.917|.900
95984469|NCT01761084|191942474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|23.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||23.2|-33.6|.712
95984470|NCT01761084|191942474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|39.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Month 12||39.5|-23.3|.60
95984471|NCT01761084|191942476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Per-protocol analysis|Comparison of change from baseline in weight||0.55|-0.25|0.461
95984472|NCT00940589|191942478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.045
95984473|NCT00940589|191942479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.044
95984474|NCT02636582|191942480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95984475|NCT02636582|191942481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.964
95984476|NCT02636582|191942482|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95984477|NCT02636582|191942483|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||HER2 expression - biopsy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
95984478|NCT02636582|191942483|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||HER2 expression - resection|Fisher Exact|||||||0.38
95984479|NCT00676676|191942490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2-week||||0.002
95984480|NCT00676676|191942490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 8-week||||0.004
95984481|NCT01261507|191942513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in areas under the LROC curve|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.031|||mixed model:Dorfman, Berbaum, Metz|||Measure is the difference between the radiologists working without the software less the value for the radiologists working with the software. Thus a negative value would indicate that the the radiologists showed better results when using the software.||-0.031|-0.086|<0.05
95984482|NCT01372384|191942517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 4 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed.||||0.045
95984483|NCT01372384|191942517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Partial Response at Visit 6 (Two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for Stable Disease Vs Partial Response was analyzed||||1.000
95984484|NCT01372384|191942517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
95984485|NCT01372384|191942517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease at Visit 6 (Two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Stable Disease Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||1.000
95984486|NCT01372384|191942517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||"Clopper-Pearson exact method"|||Response assessment of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease at Visit 10 (Two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease of Erlotinib): The observed significance value of performed test for differences between two proportions for of Partial Response Vs Progression of disease was analyzed||||0.274
95984487|NCT03129321|191942520|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.05|13.54||||||||13.54|-5.05|
95984488|NCT03129321|191942521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95984489|NCT03129321|191942521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
95984490|NCT03129321|191942522|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|11.98||||||||11.98|-6.29|
95984491|NCT03129321|191942523|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: +/-20%|Difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.29|8.26||||||||8.26|-8.29|
95984492|NCT03129321|191942524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0020
95984493|NCT03129321|191942524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0076
95984494|NCT03129321|191942525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95984495|NCT03129321|191942525|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95984496|NCT01278745|191942526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PAV||||||0.0019
95984497|NCT05895552|191942546|SUPERIORITY|The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment group, baseline NPRS score, visit, interaction of visit and treatment group, and interaction of baseline NPRS score and visit.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.918|||MMRM|||||0.918|-0.468|<0.5224
95984498|NCT05895552|191942546|SUPERIORITY|The MMRM model includes treatment group, baseline NPRS score, visit, interaction of visit and treatment group, and interaction of baseline NPRS score and visit.|LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.614|||MMRM|||||0.614|-0.772|<0.8223
95984499|NCT03070470|191942568|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.0||The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||12.0|-9.5|
95984500|NCT03070470|191942568|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||6.1|-11.4|
95993584|NCT00348140|191963300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|0.00|0.038
95993585|NCT00348140|191963300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
95984501|NCT03070470|191942568|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) to be \<10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline J-Tpeakc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 3 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model||8.8|-14.6|
95984502|NCT03070470|191942569|OTHER|The appropriateness of the linear model will be assessed. Projected estimates will be computed only if the linear model is found acceptable.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.6|38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom for the model estimates were determined by the Kenward-Rogers method as prespecified in the SAP.||Upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CI to be ≥10 msec for the projected placebo-corrected change from baseline QTc effect at the peak plasma level on Day 1 using a linear mixed-effects exposure response model.||38.9|22.6|
95984503|NCT01843842|191942581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Global Test Statistic|See O'Brien 1984, Pocock 1997.||||||0.016
95984504|NCT01843842|191942582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95984505|NCT01843842|191942583|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95984506|NCT01843842|191942584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.0283
95984507|NCT01843842|191942584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.3264
95984508|NCT01843842|191942584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.7060
95984509|NCT01843842|191942584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Day 3, doctor's examination)||||0.25
95984510|NCT01843842|191942584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||Severity of clinical manifestations of acute respiratory infection (ARI) by Total Symptom Score on Days 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Observation (Based on Patient Diary Data)||||0.244
95984511|NCT01843842|191942585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of fever based on Patient Diary Data||||0.1158
95984512|NCT01843842|191942585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of non-specific symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.5755
95984513|NCT01843842|191942585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4331|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms based on Patient Diary Data||||0.4331
95984514|NCT01843842|191942585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Duration of all acute respiratory infection symptoms (fever, non-specific symptoms and nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms) based on Patient Diary Data||||0.3560
95984515|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0166
95984516|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.0820
95984517|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.7227
95984518|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2645|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1, 3, 6 doctor's examination)||||0.2645
95984519|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Fever (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0142
95984520|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-specific (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0145
95984521|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Nasal/Throat/Chest (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.2963
95984522|NCT01843842|191942586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||All symptoms (Days 1-5, patient diary data)||||0.0364
95984523|NCT01843842|191942587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
95984524|NCT01376778|191942589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Chi-squared|||||1.72|0.80|0.42
95984525|NCT01376778|191942594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.03||||||||3.03|0.86|
95984526|NCT01376778|191942595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|72.42||||||||72.42|0.29|
95984527|NCT01376778|191942596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95984528|NCT01376778|191942597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67||||||||2.67|0.81|
95984529|NCT01376778|191942598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01||||||||4.01|0.65|
95984530|NCT01376778|191942600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.41||||||||5.41|0.66|
95984531|NCT01376778|191942601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.66|
95984532|NCT01376778|191942602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|87.0||||||||87|-157|
95984533|NCT01376778|191942603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.99||||||||3.99|0.92|
95984534|NCT01376778|191942607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|31.5||||||||31.5|0.03|
95984535|NCT01376778|191942608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.38||||||||1.38|0.17|
95984536|NCT01376778|191942611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||||||||1.23|0.32|
95984537|NCT01376778|191942612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.68||||||||1.68|0.42|
95984538|NCT01376778|191942613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.23||||||||5.23|0.17|
95984539|NCT01376778|191942621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.7|0.37
95984540|NCT01376778|191942622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95984541|NCT01376778|191942623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
95984542|NCT00829179|191942638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||0.005||95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.005
95984543|NCT00632099|191942639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95984544|NCT01197521|191942668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
95984545|NCT01197521|191942668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders with a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.03|0.006
95984546|NCT01197521|191942669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.252
95928479|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2149|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.2149
95928480|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1682|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1682
95928481|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4492|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.4492
95928482|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2539|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.2539
95928483|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8168|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.22||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.22|0.8168
95928484|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3248
95928485|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3148|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.3148
95928486|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6563|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.6563
95928487|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1735|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1735
95928488|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1237|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.06||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.06|0.1237
95928489|NCT00430300|191818854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6113|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.6113
95984547|NCT01197521|191942669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The residuals from the ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.170
95984548|NCT01197521|191942670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.10|<0.001
95984549|NCT01197521|191942671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.11|<0.001
95984550|NCT01197521|191942671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.14|0.03|0.002
95928490|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5549|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.5549
95928491|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.988|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.9880
95928492|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8572|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.8572
95928493|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8402|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.8402
95928494|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6562|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.6562
95928495|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5632|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.08|0.5632
95928496|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.637|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.6370
95928497|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4686|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.4686
95928498|NCT00430300|191818855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6164|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.11||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.11|0.6164
95928499|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.9885|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.4|0.9885
95928500|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.5|0.8055
95928501|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9759|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.0|0.9759
95928502|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4401|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.1|0.4401
95928503|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5957|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.4|0.5957
95928504|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8302|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.8302
95928505|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9657|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-3.1|0.9657
95928506|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6378|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.7|0.6378
95928507|NCT00430300|191818863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.899|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||TDI at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-2.2|0.8990
95928508|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8757|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8757
95928509|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6334|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6334
95928510|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5448|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.5448
95928511|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6986|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6986
95928512|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.3151
95928513|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.10|0.1802
95928514|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9102
95928515|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6391|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6391
95928516|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6838
95928517|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9648|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9648
95928518|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8961|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.8961
95928519|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9534|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.41|0.9534
95928520|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7726|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.45||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.45|0.7726
95984551|NCT01197521|191942672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.05|<0.001
95857048|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.2|-51.5|0.8905
95984552|NCT01197521|191942672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.01|0.015
95857049|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||20.6|-124.2|0.1597
95928521|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5665|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.5665
95928522|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2684|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2684
95928523|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6485|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.39||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.39|0.6485
95928524|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.4821
95928525|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2557|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2557
95928526|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9031|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.52||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.52|0.9031
95928527|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.8634
95928528|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6375|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.30|0.6375
95928529|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.51||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.51|0.8775
95928530|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7191|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.7191
95984553|NCT01197521|191942673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
95928531|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.8677|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.44||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.44|0.8677
95928532|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9838|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.9838
95928533|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8106|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.8106
95928534|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.775|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.7750
95928535|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8082|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.33||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.33|0.8082
95928536|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7678|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7678
95857050|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|70.9||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|142.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||142.6|-0.8|0.0525
95928537|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5373|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.5373
95928538|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9548|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9548
95928539|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.49||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.49|0.9743
95928540|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8408|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.8408
95857051|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|95.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||95.4|-49.3|0.5294
95857052|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.7|-75.7|0.9126
95857053|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.6||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|106.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||106.3|-37.1|0.3418
95928541|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9887|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9887
95928542|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9918|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.55||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.55|0.9918
95857054|NCT01746901|191672611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|66.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.4|-77.0|0.8833
95857055|NCT01746901|191672612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.2|-6.1|0.0041
95857056|NCT01746901|191672612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.8|1.9|0.0006
95857057|NCT01746901|191672612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-2.7|0.8765
95857058|NCT01746901|191672612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|-1.6|0.4746
95928543|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.46||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.46|0.9833
95928544|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9619
95993586|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.3|-0.4|0.748
95857059|NCT01746901|191672612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.5|-3.3|0.4607
95857060|NCT01746901|191672612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|-1.0|0.2316
95857061|NCT01746901|191672613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|51.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||51.3|26.4|<0.0001
95857062|NCT01746901|191672613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.3|3.3|0.0136
95857063|NCT01746901|191672613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||31.0|6.1|0.0039
95857064|NCT01746901|191672613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|48.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||48.5|23.6|<0.0001
95928545|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9917|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.9917
95928546|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9376|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.40|0.9376
95928547|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9084|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.47||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.47|0.9084
95984554|NCT01197521|191942673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|The treatment differences, 95% CIs and p-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.002
95984555|NCT01197521|191942674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|14.64||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.64|2.44|<0.001
95928548|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7906
95928549|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8765|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8765
95928550|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8469|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.8469
95928551|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9717|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.50|0.9717
95928552|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.29||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.29|0.7591
95928553|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7141
95928554|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8104|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.42||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.42|0.8104
95928555|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7664|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Breathlessness, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7664
95928556|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7888|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.31||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.31|0.7888
95928557|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3930
95928558|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4785|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.4785
95928559|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6756|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.34|0.6756
95928560|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2627|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.2627
95928561|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2281|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2281
95928562|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7656|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.38||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.38|0.7656
95928563|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2105|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2105
95928564|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2221|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2221
95928565|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4396|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.23||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.23|0.4396
95928566|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2243|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2243
95928567|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3597|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.3597
95928568|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.203|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.12||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.12|0.2030
95928569|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1207|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.07||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.07|0.1207
95928570|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1836|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.09|0.1836
95928571|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2359|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.2359
95928572|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2861|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.18||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.18|0.2861
95928573|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.13||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.13|0.2151
95928574|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3545|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.21||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.21|0.3545
95928575|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7102|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.35||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.35|0.7102
95928576|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3883|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.19||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.19|0.3883
95928577|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2228|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.14||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.14|0.2228
95928578|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6342|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.32||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.32|0.6342
95928579|NCT00430300|191818864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3141|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.16||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sputum, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.16|0.3141
95928580|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.27|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.28||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.28|0.2700
95984556|NCT01197521|191942674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|11.02||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||11.02|1.76|0.002
95984557|NCT01197521|191942675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|5.67||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.67|1.63|<0.001
95984558|NCT01197521|191942675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.50|0.93|0.083
95984559|NCT01197521|191942676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.3||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.30|1.79|<0.001
95984560|NCT01197521|191942676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.14||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.14|1.16|0.004
95984561|NCT01197521|191942677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.26|1.68|<0.001
95984562|NCT01197521|191942677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-values presented. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (as the primary variable comparisons were non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards Fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.68|1.38|<0.001
95984563|NCT01197521|191942678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.24|||<|0.001||95.0|1.16|3.31||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.31|1.16|<0.001
95984564|NCT01197521|191942678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.27||||0.02||95.0|0.2|2.35||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.35|0.20|0.020
95984565|NCT01197521|191942679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8||||0.005||95.0|0.54|3.07||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.07|0.54|0.005
95984566|NCT01197521|191942679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.56||||0.017||95.0|0.28|2.83||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. This was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.28|0.017
95928581|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1831|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.20|0.1831
95928582|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1796|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.17||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.17|0.1796
95928583|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8136|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.79||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.79|0.8136
95928584|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.6877
95928585|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.54||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.54|0.6382
95928586|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.766|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.87||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.87|0.7660
95928587|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7226|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.80|0.7226
95928588|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6634|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.65|0.6634
95984567|NCT01309659|191942692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
95984568|NCT01309659|191942692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between ferritin and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601
95984569|NCT01309659|191942692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the intermediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
95984570|NCT01309659|191942692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between iron and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
95984571|NCT01309659|191942692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
95984572|NCT01309659|191942692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between transferrin saturation and change in hemoglobin in the waitlist group. Testing the correlation = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
95984573|NCT01309659|191942701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
95984574|NCT01309659|191942701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between soluble transfer receptor and change in hemoglobin in the wait list group. Testing the correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95984575|NCT01309659|191942702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
95928589|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.83||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.83|0.7598
95984576|NCT01309659|191942702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in hemoglobin in the wait list control group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
95984577|NCT01309659|191942703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
95984578|NCT01309659|191942703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline serum ferritin and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.798
95928590|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.53|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.59||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.59|0.5300
95928591|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7054|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.66||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.66|0.7054
95984579|NCT01309659|191942703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
95984580|NCT01309659|191942703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline iron and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
95928592|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8851|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.30|0.8851
95928593|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7575|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.05||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.05|0.7575
95928594|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4325|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.58||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.58|0.4325
95928595|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.8934|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.41||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.41|0.8934
95928596|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5283|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.82||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.82|0.5283
95928597|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.49|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.68||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.68|0.4900
95928598|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7465|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.20|0.7465
95928599|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5848|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.95||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.95|0.5848
95928600|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3178|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.53||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.53|0.3178
95928601|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8169|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.34||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.34|0.8169
95928602|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6727|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.08||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-1.08|0.6727
95928603|NCT00430300|191818865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.75||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-0.75|0.5014
95928604|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.7292|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-14.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-14.3|0.7292
95928605|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.2768|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-6.6|0.2768
95928606|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3795|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-7.4|0.3795
95928607|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7374|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.7|0.7374
95928608|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.7615|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.1|0.7615
95928609|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.5811|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.4|0.5811
95928610|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.8939|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.8939
95984581|NCT01309659|191942703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.286
95857065|NCT01746901|191672613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.4||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.8|2.9|0.0157
95857066|NCT01746901|191672613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|20.5|<0.0001
95857067|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|6.4|<0.0001
95857068|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||9.6|-2.6|0.2550
95857069|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||16.4|4.3|0.0010
95857070|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.8|-0.4|0.0667
95857071|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|2.3|0.0075
95857072|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.7|-1.5|0.1354
95857073|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||67.5|34.2|<0.0001
95857074|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||24.0|-9.4|0.3905
95928611|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.8117|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.6|0.8117
95857075|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|45.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.3|11.9|0.0009
95857076|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|46.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.3|12.9|0.0006
95857077|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.9||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.5|6.3|0.0072
95857078|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|41.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||41.6|8.4|0.0035
95857079|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|248.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.6|308.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||308.3|188.6|<0.0001
95857080|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.2||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|128.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||128.2|8.2|0.0263
95857081|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|211.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||211.1|91.3|<0.0001
95857082|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|225.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||225.3|105.6|<0.0001
95857083|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|97.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|157.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||157.6|38.3|0.0015
95928612|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.4393|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.2|0.4393
95928613|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8055|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.7|0.8055
95928614|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.6767|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-20.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-20.2|0.6767
95928615|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.407|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.0|0.4070
95928616|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-34.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-34.7|0.9705
95928617|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.8249|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.6|0.8249
95928618|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.6|0.9345
95928619|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.7384|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-25.3|0.7384
95928620|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.5239|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-18.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-18.4|0.5239
95928621|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.417|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.7|0.4170
95928622|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.7695|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-24.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-24.8|0.7695
95928623|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.4566|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4566
95928624|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.3535|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.4|0.3535
95928625|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.8598|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.7|0.8598
95928626|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.8005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.4|0.8005
95928627|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.3441|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-12.2|0.3441
95928628|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.4436|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-10.5|0.4436
95928629|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.7238|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.5|0.7238
95928630|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5743|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-11.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-11.1|0.5743
95928631|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.619|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.3|0.6190
95928632|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.9473|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.1|0.9473
95928633|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.8014|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 2: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.8014
95928634|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7929|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.5|0.7929
95928635|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.9963|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-37.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-37.3|0.9963
95928636|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.7387|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-17.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 3: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-17.1|0.7387
95928637|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.6286|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.8|0.6286
95928638|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.9538|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-27.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-27.8|0.9538
95928639|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.5701|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-13.4|0.5701
95928640|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.9242|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-31.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-31.3|0.9242
95928641|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.9876|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-38.8||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-38.8|0.9876
95928642|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.9802|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-32.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 5: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-32.5|0.9802
95928643|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5705|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.5||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.5|0.5705
95928644|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.8063|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-26.1|0.8063
95928645|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.6667|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-19.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 6: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-19.1|0.6667
95928646|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.464|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-16.4|0.4640
95928647|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.8821|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-29.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-29.3|0.8821
95984582|NCT01309659|191942703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline transferrin saturation and the change in 6 Minute Walk Test distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
95928648|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.7591|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-21.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 7: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-21.4|0.7591
95928649|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.4001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.6||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.6|0.4001
95928650|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.8707|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-30.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-30.3|0.8707
95928651|NCT00430300|191818866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.4629|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.0||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening PEFR, Change at Week 8: Analysis was performed using longitudinal mixed effect model with baseline value, treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||-15.0|0.4629
95984583|NCT01309659|191942704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the immediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.649
95928652|NCT00430300|191818867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2023|2.0419||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in Statistical Analysis System (SAS), using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0419|0.2023|
95928653|NCT00430300|191818867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1505|2.0647||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.0647|0.1505|
95928654|NCT00430300|191818867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.2879||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.2879|0.0830|
95928655|NCT00430300|191818868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|1.8204||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||1.8204|0.1790|
95928656|NCT00430300|191818868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1736|2.3715||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.3715|0.1736|
95928657|NCT00430300|191818868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1516|2.2777||||||A proportional odds model was fitted using Proc Logistic in SAS, using treatment as a categorical variable and center as a covariate. The odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval were tested using Type III (Wald) tests.||2.2777|0.1516|
95857084|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|198.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||198.2|78.7|<0.0001
95928658|NCT04520165|191818926|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
95928659|NCT04520165|191818928|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
95928660|NCT04520165|191818929|EQUIVALENCE|if p\<0.05 than the null hypothesis was considered as wrong and groups differed for the analysed parameter.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline parameters in each group were compared with Mann-Whitney U test was performed.||||<0.05
95928661|NCT01212757|191818967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||22.7|4.0|0.0060
95950665|NCT03055988|191873082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.865|-3.05|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||-3.050|-12.865|0.0019
95950666|NCT03055988|191873083|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.24|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.240|0.121|<0.0001
95950667|NCT03055988|191873084|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. F+S (i.e. T+O 5/5 - F+S 1000/100).|MMRM model included treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect and baseline as covariate. Unstructured covariance structure was used for within patient variation.||0.400|0.171|<0.0001
95950668|NCT02326220|191873119|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.833||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|"Analysis was performed using the ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline frequency of the apheresis procedure (QW or Q2W) and Lp(a) levels (normal or elevated) as fixed effect and the baseline LDL-C level as a covariate. Hodges-Lehmann estimator of median difference (median of all pairwise differences; CI is Moses distribution free CI.~p-value is derived from the rank-based ANCOVA model. The model includes the baseline LDL-C value and stratification factors per IVRS."||0.833|0.667|< 0.0001
95950669|NCT02326220|191873120|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|-47.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-47.5|-63.0|< 0.0001
95857085|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|241.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.8|319.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||319.9|162.8|<0.0001
95857086|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|121.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.9|42.4|0.0028
95857087|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|164.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|243.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.1|85.8|<0.0001
95857088|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|198.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.4|276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||276.6|119.4|<0.0001
95857089|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|189.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||189.4|32.8|0.0057
95857090|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|246.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.6|89.7|<0.0001
95857091|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|128.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|248.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||248.3|8.5|0.0360
95857092|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|221.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.2|341.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||341.7|101.2|0.0004
95857093|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|246.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||246.8|6.6|0.0388
95857094|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|223.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.2|343.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.2|103.2|0.0003
95857095|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.2||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|226.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||226.8|-12.4|0.0787
95857096|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|181.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.5|301.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||301.0|61.5|0.0033
95857097|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|233.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||233.3|-41.2|0.1688
95857098|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|220.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|358.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||358.0|82.6|0.0019
95928662|NCT01212757|191818967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.2|9.1|0.0002
95928663|NCT01212757|191818968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.045|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.045|-0.236|0.0042
95928664|NCT01212757|191818968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.104||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|-0.009|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.009|-0.199|0.0320
95928665|NCT01212757|191818969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.2||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|17.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|0.5|0.0394
95984584|NCT01309659|191942704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor and the change in the 6 Meter Walk Test distance of the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
95984585|NCT01309659|191942705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the intermediate intervention group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
95928666|NCT01212757|191818969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|15.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.7|6.7|0.0009
95984586|NCT01309659|191942705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between baseline soluble transferrin receptor index (soluble receptor/log ferritin) and the change in the 6 Minute Walk Test Distance in the wait list group. Testing correlation =0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
95984587|NCT02018822|191942708|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2552|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2552
95984588|NCT02018822|191942709|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2235|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2235
95984589|NCT02018822|191942710|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3891
95984590|NCT02018822|191942711|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
95984591|NCT02018822|191942712|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.3883|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3883
95984592|NCT02018822|191942713|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate of the control composite resin is 95% based on clinical data, for a non-inferiority test with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a sample size of 27 is required in each group to allow 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05. We aimed to have 30 subjects/teeth remaining in each group after attrition at the end of the study.||||||0.2707|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2707
95984593|NCT05248295|191942734|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of the variables. Below, the results are reported for the effect of production condition (Unison vs. Solo) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for production condition for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|People with aphasia (PWA) were not directly compared to controls since the finding of a lower % syllables correct in any condition in PWA would be trivial. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variables affected syllable accuracy within each group.||||0.077
95984594|NCT05248295|191942734|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|||||>|0.1||||||Results are reported for Timing Condition for the People with aphasia.|Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
95984595|NCT05248295|191942734|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the group of interest, People with aphasia.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed as ((Unison Metrical)/(Unison Conversational)) / ((Solo Metrical)/(Solo Conversational))|||||<0.001
95984596|NCT05248295|191942734|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for Production Condition for the Control group.|Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Unison as the numerator and Solo as the denominator|Separate regression models were used within each group. Here, the results are reported for the Control group.||||0.036
95984597|NCT05248295|191942734|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the effect of timing condition (Metrical vs. Conversational) for the control group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||OR computed with Metrical as the numerator and Conversational as the denominator|||||<0.001
95928667|NCT01212757|191818970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.020|-0.222|0.0191
95984598|NCT05248295|191942734|OTHER|Below, the results are reported for the interaction effect between production condition and timing condition for the control group.|||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||>.1
95993587|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.617
95984599|NCT05248295|191942735|OTHER|Separate regression models were used within each group (People with aphasia and Controls) to independently assess the effects of Timing Condition. Production Condition is not included in the analysis since all timing data are from the unison production condition, by definition.|Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for people with aphasia (experimental group).|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group rather than a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how the experimental variable affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
95984600|NCT05248295|191942735|OTHER||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results are reported for the Control group.|Regression, Linear|||People with aphasia were not directly compared to Controls since the Control group is a context-providing reference group and not a true comparator. Instead, within-groups analyses were conducted to understand how experimental variables affected timing alignment in each group.||||<0.001
95984601|NCT06608368|191942744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.2108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0959||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3568|1.9353|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||1.9353|-14.3568|0.1332
95984602|NCT06608368|191942744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1021||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1207|5.196|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||5.1960|-11.1207|0.4722
95984603|NCT06608368|191942744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9692||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6456|11.1425|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||11.1425|-4.6456|0.4155
95984604|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4672|1.9891|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||1.9891|-11.4672|0.1650
95984605|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3248||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0516|2.1732|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||2.1732|-11.0516|0.1855
95984606|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2234||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1107|6.7104|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||6.7104|-6.1107|0.9261
95857099|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.0||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|243.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||243.5|-31.5|0.1298
95984607|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2406||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1643|3.7265|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||3.7265|-9.1643|0.4039
95984608|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1959||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0548|2.6577|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||2.6577|-10.0548|0.2505
95984609|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1648||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2744|5.3151|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.3151|-7.2744|0.7577
95984610|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9755||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7642|4.072|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||4.0720|-7.7642|0.5367
95984611|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9907||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9916|3.9047|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||3.9047|-7.9916|0.4963
95984612|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8888||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9429|5.5481|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||5.5481|-5.9429|0.9457
95857100|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|210.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|347.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.8|73.0|0.0029
95984613|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0222||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8837|3.1163|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||3.1163|-12.8837|0.2281
95984614|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0489||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0283|4.0775|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||4.0775|-12.0283|0.3290
95984615|NCT06608368|191942745|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9297||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9076|8.7243|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||8.7243|-6.9076|0.8178
95984616|NCT06608368|191942746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.06658|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.06658|-1.3296|0.0756
95984617|NCT06608368|191942746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3586|0.06924|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.06924|-1.3586|0.0761
95928668|NCT01212757|191818970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.020|-0.180|0.1179
95928669|NCT01212757|191818971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.92|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.92|0.28|0.0237
95928670|NCT01212757|191818971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.36||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|3.15|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above||3.15|-0.44|0.1388
95928671|NCT01212757|191818972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.5|4.3|0.0065
95928672|NCT01212757|191818972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||25.2|4.1|0.0071
95928673|NCT01212757|191818973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-10.0|0.0648
95928674|NCT01212757|191818973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.4|-10.6|0.0347
95928675|NCT01212757|191818974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.2|0.3496
95928676|NCT01212757|191818974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.7|0.8874
95928677|NCT01212757|191818975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5438
95928678|NCT01212757|191818975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-0.4|0.3759
95928679|NCT01212757|191818976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.16|-5.86|0.0035
95928680|NCT01212757|191818976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.76|0.0002
95928681|NCT01212757|191818977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.18|-0.61|0.0004
95984618|NCT06608368|191942746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3469||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7031|0.6767|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.6767|-0.7031|0.9698
95984619|NCT06608368|191942749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9481||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8534|5.8078|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||5.8078|-17.8534|0.3142
95928682|NCT01212757|191818977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
95928683|NCT01212757|191818978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.06|0.19|0.0318
95928684|NCT01212757|191818978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.20|-1.65|0.7803
95928685|NCT01212757|191818979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.70|0.02|0.0473
95928686|NCT01212757|191818979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.53||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|3.35|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.35|-0.29|0.0997
95984620|NCT06608368|191942749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.3856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9568||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2335|2.4624|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||2.4624|-21.2335|0.1189
95857101|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|108.7||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|245.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||245.7|-28.3|0.1189
95928687|NCT01212757|191818980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.8||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.5||The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.5|-1.9|0.1195
95928688|NCT01212757|191818980|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.5|5.6|0.0026
95928689|NCT01212757|191818981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.5067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.4|-6.8|0.5067
95928690|NCT01212757|191818981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-3.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.6|-8.5|0.1762
95928691|NCT01212757|191818982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.2|0.2719
95928692|NCT01212757|191818982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7|-0.8|0.9727
95928693|NCT01212757|191818983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.0|0.3705
95928694|NCT01212757|191818983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8|-0.6|0.6777
95928695|NCT01212757|191818984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.14||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.76|-5.52|0.0097
95928696|NCT01212757|191818984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.16|-6.85|0.0002
95928697|NCT01212757|191818985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.15|-0.60|0.0011
95928698|NCT01212757|191818985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.23|-0.68|0.0001
95928699|NCT01212757|191818986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.07|0.20|0.0303
95984621|NCT06608368|191942749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7636||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8264|8.1009|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||8.1009|-14.8264|0.5612
95928700|NCT01212757|191818986|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.16||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.08|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.08|-1.76|0.8704
95928701|NCT01212757|191818987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.6||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||17.2|-9.9|0.6022
95928702|NCT01212757|191818987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.3||||0.8462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights.|||14.7|-12.1|0.8462
95928703|NCT01212757|191818988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.8||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-13.3|0.7337
95928704|NCT01212757|191818988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-12.7|0.6881
95928705|NCT01212757|191818989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|17.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|7.0|0.0014
95928706|NCT01212757|191818989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.5|11.7|0.0001
95928707|NCT01212757|191818990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.0|-6.8|0.3376
95928708|NCT01212757|191818990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.1||||0.3756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.4|-7.2|0.3756
95928709|NCT01212757|191818991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.2|-8.7|0.3959
95928710|NCT01212757|191818991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-8.7|0.3941
95928711|NCT01212757|191818992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.1||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.7|2.6|0.0142
95928712|NCT01212757|191818992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|20.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.3|10.8|0.0001
95928713|NCT01212757|191818993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.6||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-0.2|0.0589
95928714|NCT01212757|191818993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|3.4|0.0034
95928715|NCT01212757|191818994|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||2.7|-1.5|0.5620
95928716|NCT01212757|191818994|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-0.0|0.0570
95928717|NCT01212757|191818995|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.1||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.6|-3.5|0.3629
95928718|NCT01212757|191818995|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.4||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-1.5|0.1323
95928719|NCT01212757|191818996|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.6||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.0|-4.3|0.7273
95984622|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7895||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4856|8.5665|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||8.5665|-10.4856|0.8417
95928720|NCT01212757|191818996|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.8|-2.0|0.2929
95928721|NCT01212757|191818997|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.2||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.1|-13.5|0.7023
95857102|NCT01746901|191672614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|153.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|290.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||290.8|16.4|0.0284
95984623|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7059||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.942|5.7777|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||5.7777|-12.9420|0.4487
95984624|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5624||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.697|6.4517|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Intensity||6.4517|-11.6970|0.5670
95984625|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9029||0.5395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1672|5.3583|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.3583|-10.1672|0.5395
95984626|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8479||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8005|3.5062|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||3.5062|-11.8005|0.2843
95857103|NCT01746901|191672615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0327
95857104|NCT01746901|191672615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.2|1.0|0.0019
95857105|NCT01746901|191672615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.9|0.7508
95857106|NCT01746901|191672615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.7|-0.5|0.1868
95857107|NCT01746901|191672615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.6|-1.6|0.9944
95857108|NCT01746901|191672615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.6|-0.6|0.2322
95857109|NCT01746901|191672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||39.6|16.8|<0.0001
95857110|NCT01746901|191672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||19.6|-2.8|0.1421
95857111|NCT01746901|191672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||32.2|9.5|0.0004
95857112|NCT01746901|191672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||27.0|4.5|0.0064
95857113|NCT01746901|191672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.6|-3.9|0.1974
95857114|NCT01746901|191672616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.8|8.3|0.0008
95857115|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.4|7.1|<0.0001
95857116|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||6.2|-4.1|0.6868
95857117|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.5|2.2|0.0058
95857118|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.1|0.8|0.0229
95984627|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8124||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3255|5.8401|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Duration||5.8401|-9.3255|0.6488
95984628|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7493||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7589|8.1556|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||8.1556|-6.7589|0.8527
95928722|NCT01212757|191818997|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.7|-5.9|0.3305
95984629|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7677||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7149|4.2726|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||4.2726|-10.7149|0.3950
95857119|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.3|-1.9|0.2168
95928723|NCT01212757|191818998|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.3||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.6|-16.0|0.9698
95928724|NCT01212757|191818998|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.9||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.1|-14.3|0.8205
95928725|NCT01212757|191818999|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.2||||0.8424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.3|-12.7|0.8424
95928726|NCT01212757|191818999|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.8|-6.0|0.3395
95928727|NCT01212757|191819000|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.1|-10.3|0.4811
95928728|NCT01212757|191819000|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.3||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|-13.3|0.6965
95928729|NCT01324453|191819095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
95928730|NCT01324453|191819096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.81
95928731|NCT01324453|191819097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95928732|NCT01324453|191819098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95928733|NCT01324453|191819099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
95928734|NCT01324453|191819100|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.00
95928735|NCT01324453|191819101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
95928736|NCT01324453|191819102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
95928737|NCT04035668|191819105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|||-1.01|-4.71|0.002
95928738|NCT04035668|191819105|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.25|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|||1.25|-3.24|
95928739|NCT04035668|191819106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.3||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.30|-2.29|0.065
95928740|NCT04035668|191819106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.29||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||-0.29|-3.24|0.010
95928741|NCT04035668|191819106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.22||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||1.22|-2.17|0.289
95928742|NCT04035668|191819106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.59|-2.97|0.093
95928743|NCT04035668|191819106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|0.57||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.57|-2.84|0.094
95928744|NCT04035668|191819106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.28||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|-0.28|-3.71|0.012
95928745|NCT04035668|191819106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.84|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.84|-2.10|
95928746|NCT04035668|191819106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.69|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||1.69|-1.75|
95928747|NCT04035668|191819106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.21|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||2.21|-1.83|
95928748|NCT04035668|191819106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.01|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||1.01|-3.20|
95928749|NCT04035668|191819106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.60|-3.50|
95928750|NCT04035668|191819106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|0.95|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.95|-3.22|
95928751|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.62||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.62|-0.69|0.460
95928752|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||0.66|-0.82|0.418
95928753|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.7||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||0.70|-0.76|0.466
95928754|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||0.79|-0.67|0.560
95928755|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||0.99|-0.73|0.616
95928756|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|0.99|-0.81|0.581
95984630|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6397||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1588|3.3198|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Tolerability||3.3198|-11.1588|0.2847
95984631|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6595||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7512|6.7839|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||6.7839|-11.7512|0.5954
95984632|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6891||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3044|6.3485|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||6.3485|-12.3044|0.5271
95984633|NCT06608368|191942750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5519||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5478|8.5593|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|LMS Description||8.5593|-9.5478|0.9138
95984634|NCT06608368|191942751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4455||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.6221|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.6221|-1.1500|0.5551
95857120|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.9|1.7|0.0096
95928757|NCT04035668|191819107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||0.96|-0.62|0.663
95928758|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.11|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||0.11|-1.35|
95984635|NCT06608368|191942751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4555||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4104|0.4016|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.4016|-1.4104|0.2714
95984636|NCT06608368|191942751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4402||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|0.6351|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.6351|-1.1160|0.5864
95984637|NCT06608368|191942754|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4238||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2026|0.4831|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice minus Test Dentifrice value.|||0.4831|-1.2026|0.3984
95984638|NCT06608368|191942754|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4277||0.3734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2332|0.4678|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Positive Control Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice.|||0.4678|-1.2332|0.3734
95984639|NCT06608368|191942754|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4099||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8382|0.7923|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean Difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice value minus Reference Dentifrice value.|||0.7923|-0.8382|0.9555
95993588|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.3|-0.5|0.708
95928759|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.26|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||0.26|-1.42|
95928760|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.42|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||0.42|-1.31|
95928761|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||0.31|-1.44|
95928762|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||0.65|-1.39|
95928763|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.65|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||0.65|-1.39|
95928764|NCT04035668|191819107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||0.57|-1.37|
95928765|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||0.73|-6.18|0.940
95928766|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.74||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||4.74|-2.95|0.322
95928767|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.59||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||2.59|-5.32|0.753
95984640|NCT00597753|191942762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin alfa group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||-0.01|-0.30|
95928768|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.66||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||1.66|-7.13|0.891
95928769|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.01||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||1.01|-8.77|0.941
95928770|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|6.79|-4.01|0.304
95928771|NCT04035668|191819108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.79||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||4.79|-6.89|0.640
95928772|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.07|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||6.07|-1.44|
95928773|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.18|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||5.18|-3.46|
95928774|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|4.83|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||4.83|-4.43|
95928775|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.78|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.78|-4.53|
95928776|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.82|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||6.82|-4.60|
95928777|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|12.04|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||12.04|-0.66|
95928778|NCT04035668|191819108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|10.59|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||10.59|-3.53|
95928779|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|7.96||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||7.96|-7.84|0.494
95984641|NCT00597753|191942763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.92|0.76|
95928780|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.06||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||3.06|-10.81|0.866
95928781|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|5.73||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||5.73|-9.37|0.684
95928782|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|2.14||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||2.14|-10.93|0.908
95928783|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.26||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||8.26|-8.00|0.487
95928784|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|4.49||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|4.49|-10.61|0.790
95928785|NCT04035668|191819109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|9.88||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||9.88|-6.48|0.340
95928786|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|8.68|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||8.68|-9.06|
95928787|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|6.17|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||6.17|-9.59|
95928788|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|8.74|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||8.74|-9.34|
95928789|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|3.86|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||3.86|-11.74|
95928790|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.93|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||4.93|-14.34|
95928791|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|2.87|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||2.87|-15.44|
95928792|NCT04035668|191819109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|6.16|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||6.16|-14.01|
95928793|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.16||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 2||8.16|-6.75|0.575
95928794|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|5.27||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 4||5.27|-9.22|0.294
95928795|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.41||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 8||7.41|-8.40|0.450
95928796|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|14.78||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 12||14.78|-2.74|0.913
95928797|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|11.34||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 16||11.34|-6.16|0.722
95928798|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|5.24||one-sided p-value|MMRM|||Week 20|Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|5.24|-10.96|0.241
95928799|NCT04035668|191819110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|11.99||one-sided p-value|MMRM||Difference (Any remibrutinib - Placebo)|Week 24||11.99|-6.09|0.742
95928800|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.91|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 2||7.91|-8.28|
95928801|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|7.58|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 4||7.58|-8.87|
95928802|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|9.48|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 8||9.48|-9.28|
95928803|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|5.9|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 12||5.90|-14.71|
95928804|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-1.77|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 16||-1.77|-22.47|
95928805|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.5|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 20||3.50|-16.00|
95928806|NCT04035668|191819110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|2.96|||MMRM||Difference (remibrutinib 100 mg qd - remibrutinib 100 mg bid)|Week 24||2.96|-19.16|
95928807|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total score controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928808|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total vegetable component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928809|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 greens and beans component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
95928810|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.20
95984642|NCT00597753|191942764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.97|0.79|
95984643|NCT00896779|191942768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95928811|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole fruit component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||0.19
95928812|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 whole grain component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
95928813|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total dairy component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.0
95928814|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 total protein foods component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928815|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||-0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 seafood and plant protein component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||-0.12
95984644|NCT00896779|191942768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95928816|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 fatty acid component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928817|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 sodium component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928818|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 refined grains component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928819|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||Inverse probability of retention weighted normal linear regression models for between-arm differences in HEI-2015 added sugar component controlling for baseline HEI-2015 saturated fat, child involvement in food preparation, and receipt of any food assistance.||||1.00
95928820|NCT03923491|191819172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Familywise error rates were controlled at alpha=.05 for primary and secondary outcomes separately using Holm's sequentially rejective procedure.|Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
95928821|NCT00355914|191819175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||compared baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
95928822|NCT00355914|191819176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Results were considered statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months between groups||||>0.05
95928823|NCT02633358|191819177|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia need to have superiority in the survival rate after 90 days|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||P-value less than 0.05 means significant data|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.82|0.41|<0.001
95984645|NCT02953340|191942769|NON_INFERIORITY|The study used non inferiority margin of 0.62 days for the above comparison. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean difference|-0.074|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.129|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||0.129|-0.292|< 0.0001
95928824|NCT02633358|191819178|SUPERIORITY|Therapeutic hypothermia nee to have superiority in neurological outcome in the 90 days after enrollment.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||P value less than 0.05 means significant date|Chi-squared|Test method for proportional data||Therapeutic hypothermia group compare with control group||0.98|0.66|0.04
95928825|NCT02633358|191819179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95928826|NCT02633358|191819180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less than 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95928827|NCT02633358|191819181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value less then 0.05 is statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95928828|NCT01786564|191819221|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.075||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.023||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep duration and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.023|-.173|.13
95928829|NCT01786564|191819221|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis|Regression Coefficient|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted.||The cross-sectional association between habitual sleep quality (sleep percentage) and oral disposition index was analyzed.||1.19|-0.95|.83
95928830|NCT01786564|191819221|OTHER|This is cross-sectional analysis in a single group.|Regression Coefficient|-0.05||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.66||Unadjusted association. A priori p value of .05 was selected for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted||The cross-sectional association between amount of Stage 3 sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||0.66|-.166|.39
95928831|NCT01786564|191819221|OTHER|Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression Coefficient|-0.058||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.014||Unadjusted association. P value of .05 was selected a priori as statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Unadjusted association.||The cross-sectional association between amount of REM sleep and oral disposition index was analyzed.||.014|-.129|.11
95928832|NCT00530842|191819234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|-0.001|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, treatment, and period and random term for subject within sequence.||||-0.001|-0.174|0.0482
95928833|NCT00530842|191819235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|27.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The confidence interval was determined by Hodges-Lehmann method.|||27.5|-9.5|0.3407
95950670|NCT02326220|191873121|SUPERIORITY||H-L estimate of median difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.000|0.500|<.0001
95950671|NCT02326220|191873122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-36.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
95984646|NCT01977599|191942783|OTHER|Chi Square|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95857121|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||45.9|20.0|<0.0001
95857122|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.4|-11.2|0.8009
95857123|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.4||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.3|4.5|0.0086
95857124|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||30.0|4.4|0.0089
95857125|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||18.0|-7.6|0.4224
95857126|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.5|9.8|0.0006
95857127|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|96.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|134.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||134.2|57.9|<0.0001
95857128|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||59.7|-15.8|0.2530
95984647|NCT02700412|191942788|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
95857129|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|78.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|116.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||116.8|40.5|<0.0001
95857130|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.3||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|77.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||77.1|1.6|0.0414
95857131|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|66.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||66.6|-8.9|0.1329
95857132|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.5||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|7.7|0.0187
95857133|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|121.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||121.9|31.9|0.0009
95857134|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|45.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|89.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||89.9|0.9|0.0456
95857135|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|82.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|127.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||127.7|37.8|0.0004
95857136|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|84.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||84.1|-5.0|0.0812
95857137|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|80.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.0|-9.0|0.1174
95857138|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.6|1.5|0.0427
95857139|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.9|73.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||73.0|-66.9|0.9318
95857140|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|110.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|179.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||179.6|41.2|0.0020
95928834|NCT03684265|191819296|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|92.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.02|96.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-t. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||96.62|89.02|
95928835|NCT03684265|191819297|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|78.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.7|84.56|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for Cmax. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||84.56|73.70|
95928836|NCT03684265|191819298|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptance range for the ratio of geometric means was 80- 125%|Geometric mean ratio T/R, %|97.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|101.72|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra individual coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Movalis® capsules (T) with Movalis® tablets (R) for AUC0-∞. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model in the log scale was used. This model included the sequence, period and type of therapy as fixed effects and the effect study subjects grouped within the sequence was considered random||101.72|92.57|
95928837|NCT02194933|191819300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3992
95928838|NCT02194933|191819301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||||||Test for Baseline vs. Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0053
95928839|NCT02194933|191819303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1559
95928840|NCT02194933|191819303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6201
95928841|NCT02194933|191819304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1642
95928842|NCT02194933|191819304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1873|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1873
95928843|NCT02194933|191819307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2061
95928844|NCT02194933|191819307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1778
95928845|NCT02194933|191819308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4138
95928846|NCT02194933|191819308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3375
95928847|NCT02194933|191819311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8437
95928848|NCT02194933|191819311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8318
95928849|NCT02194933|191819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6697|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6697
95928850|NCT02194933|191819312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8829
95928851|NCT02194933|191819313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2301
95928852|NCT02194933|191819313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0599
95928853|NCT02194933|191819314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1595
95928854|NCT02194933|191819314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1211
95928855|NCT02194933|191819315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1322
95928856|NCT02194933|191819315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2113
95928857|NCT02194933|191819316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0578
95928858|NCT02194933|191819316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0588
95928859|NCT02194933|191819317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1666
95928860|NCT02194933|191819317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7670
95928861|NCT02194933|191819318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7178
95928862|NCT02194933|191819318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2336
95928863|NCT02194933|191819319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6558
95928864|NCT02194933|191819319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9058
95928865|NCT02194933|191819320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0078
95928866|NCT02194933|191819320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4272
95928867|NCT03399370|191819352|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.86|-54.43||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-54.43|-60.86|<.0001
95928868|NCT03399370|191819353|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-51.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-51.33|-56.23|<0.0001
95928869|NCT03399370|191819354|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.37|-50.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.88|-57.37|<0.0001
95928870|NCT03399370|191819355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.75|-50.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-50.80|-55.75|<0.0001
95928871|NCT03399370|191819356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.25|-77.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-77.34|-89.25|<0.0001
95928872|NCT03399370|191819357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-30.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-30.97|-35.30|<0.0001
95928873|NCT03399370|191819358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-40.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.67|-45.50|<.0001
95928874|NCT03399370|191819359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.25|-44.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-44.47|-50.25|<0.0001
95928875|NCT02124460|191819408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation was used for missing follow-up data.|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||0.03|-0.08|0.3928
95928876|NCT02124460|191819409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.33|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care|||2.33|-0.56|0.2306
95928877|NCT02124460|191819410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up|Health Coaching group compared to Enhanced Primary Care.|||0.16|-0.02|.14
95928878|NCT02124460|191819411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||-0.19|-0.81|0.0016
95928879|NCT02124460|191819412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.62||Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.|Linear repeated measures|||||0.62|0.22|<.0001
95928880|NCT02124460|191819413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.53|-0.16|0.3043
95928881|NCT02124460|191819414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.56|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.56|0.07|0.0113
95928882|NCT02124460|191819415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Linear repeated measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data at follow-up.||||0.03|-0.45|0.0792
95928883|NCT01215695|191819424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95928884|NCT01215695|191819425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95928885|NCT01215695|191819426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95928886|NCT01215695|191819427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95928887|NCT01215695|191819428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95928888|NCT00536380|191819462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.721||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.721
95928889|NCT01286272|191819478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.51|0.8457
95928890|NCT02945332|191819483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95928891|NCT02945332|191819484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
95928892|NCT02945332|191819485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95928893|NCT02945332|191819486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.32||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95928894|NCT02945332|191819487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.36||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95928895|NCT02945332|191819488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
95928896|NCT03622593|191819497|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|
95928897|NCT03622593|191819497|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in adjusted means for the faricimab 6 mg PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept 2 mg Q8W) arms was greater than -4 letters, then faricimab 6 mg PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept 2 mg Q8W. Non-inferiority was tested one-sided at a significance level of α = 0.0248.|Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1|||||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|
95928898|NCT03622593|191819497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|3.0||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||3.0|-0.7|0.1718
95950672|NCT02326220|191873123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-42.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.7|-57.3|< 0.0001
95950673|NCT02326220|191873124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-33.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.2|-45.6|< 0.0001
95928899|NCT03622593|191819497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|2.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.4|-1.2|0.4602
95928900|NCT03622593|191819497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|3.2||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||3.2|-0.1|0.0361
95928901|NCT03622593|191819497|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.493|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|2.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.|Three hypotheses were tested in order for each faricimab arm (Q8W or PTI) separately against the aflibercept arm using a graph-based testing procedure. The analysis presented here is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||2.1|-1.1|0.4930
95928902|NCT03622593|191819498|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab Q8W and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab Q8W was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|
95928903|NCT03622593|191819498|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 97.52% confidence interval for the difference in CMH weighted percentages of participants for the faricimab PTI and the active comparator (aflibercept Q8W) arms was greater than -10%, then faricimab PTI was considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||||||This analysis is for the non-inferiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|
95928904|NCT03622593|191819498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-5.4||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.9|6.1||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||6.1|-16.9|0.3009
95928905|NCT03622593|191819498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-6.9||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|4.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||4.4|-18.3|0.1735
95928906|NCT03622593|191819498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.6||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.6|7.4||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||7.4|-12.6|0.5757
95928907|NCT03622593|191819498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.4|6.3||Tested at an overall significance level of α = 0.0248.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for the superiority of Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI compared with Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||6.3|-13.4|0.4293
95928908|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.1|-4.0|
95928909|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-9.1|
95928910|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|13.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||13.4|-2.5|
95928911|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.8|-8.9|
95928912|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||10.3|-2.7|
95993589|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.400
95928913|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.9|-7.3|
95928914|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-3.8|
95928915|NCT03622593|191819501|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.2|-4.9|
95928916|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.9|-8.5|
95993590|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.928
95857141|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.5||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|151.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||151.4|11.6|0.0226
95928917|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.8|-11.8|
95928918|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||11.4|-6.9|
95928919|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.1|-9.8|
95928920|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||8.5|-6.2|
95928921|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-8.3|
95928922|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||6.2|-3.8|
95928923|NCT03622593|191819506|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||5.2|-4.8|
95928924|NCT03622593|191819511|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-1.6|
95928925|NCT03622593|191819511|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-1.8|
95928926|NCT03622593|191819511|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.1|-2.3|
95928927|NCT03622593|191819511|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||1.9|-2.4|
95928928|NCT03622593|191819511|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.5|-1.9|
95928929|NCT03622593|191819511|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.6|-1.5|
95857142|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.0||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||101.2|-37.3|0.3629
95928930|NCT03622593|191819515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.3|
95928931|NCT03622593|191819515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.2|-2.0|
95928932|NCT03622593|191819515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.6|-2.7|
95928933|NCT03622593|191819515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||2.3|-2.9|
95928934|NCT03622593|191819515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.7|-2.0|
95928935|NCT03622593|191819515|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W.||4.4|-2.1|
95928936|NCT03622593|191819519|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.7||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||12.7|-3.1|
95928937|NCT03622593|191819519|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||6.2|-8.8|
95928938|NCT03622593|191819519|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||11.6|-6.5|
95928939|NCT03622593|191819519|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||7.4|-10.0|
95928940|NCT03622593|191819522|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||11.8|-2.4|
95928941|NCT03622593|191819522|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||9.8|-4.1|
95928942|NCT03622593|191819522|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.4|-6.5|
95928943|NCT03622593|191819522|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||9.3|-6.0|
95928944|NCT03622593|191819525|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.5|-1.4|
95928945|NCT03622593|191819525|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.2|-1.6|
95928946|NCT03622593|191819525|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.1|-1.1|
95928947|NCT03622593|191819525|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.4|-1.4|
95928948|NCT03622593|191819534|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||1.8|-1.0|
95928949|NCT03622593|191819534|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||2.0|-1.0|
95928950|NCT03622593|191819534|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||1.8|-0.6|
95928951|NCT03622593|191819534|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||2.8|-0.4|
95928952|NCT03622593|191819535|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
95928953|NCT03622593|191819535|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||0.0|0.0|
95928954|NCT03622593|191819535|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
95928955|NCT03622593|191819535|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||0.0|0.0|
95928956|NCT03622593|191819542|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-14.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-14.0|-37.4|
95928957|NCT03622593|191819542|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-6.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the ITT Population.||-6.0|-29.2|
95928958|NCT03622593|191819542|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-7.0||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-7.0|-32.9|
95928959|NCT03622593|191819542|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-1.5||||||This is the adjusted mean difference for Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W in the Treatment-Naive Population.||-1.5|-27.1|
95928960|NCT03622593|191819545|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||18.9|5.7|
95928961|NCT03622593|191819545|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.9||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the ITT Population.||14.9|1.5|
95928962|NCT03622593|191819545|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.3||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm A: Faricimab 6 mg Q8W minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||16.3|1.6|
95928963|NCT03622593|191819545|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.6||||||This is the difference in percentage of participants in Arm B: Faricimab 6 mg PTI minus Arm C: Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W for the Treatment-Naive Population.||13.6|-1.2|
95928964|NCT00807144|191819702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.26
95928965|NCT00807144|191819703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Log Rank|||Year 1||||0.48
95928966|NCT00807144|191819703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Year 2||||0.75
95928967|NCT02696707|191819715|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin between groups was set as 4%|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
95950674|NCT02326220|191873125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W (Double Blind Period) vs. Placebo Q2W (Double Blind Period)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.3|-3.9|0.3012
95984648|NCT02700412|191942789|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
95857143|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.9||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||105.1|-33.4|0.3077
95984649|NCT04416555|191942801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
95984650|NCT04416555|191942802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.608
95984651|NCT04416555|191942803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
95984652|NCT04416555|191942804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
95984653|NCT04416555|191942805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
95984654|NCT00530270|191942806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.127
95984655|NCT00530270|191942807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.801
95984656|NCT00530270|191942808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.02
95984657|NCT00530270|191942809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.876
95984658|NCT00530270|191942810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used. No multiple comparison adjustments were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Different error variance estimates were allowed for the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis of no difference in the log duration of signs and symptoms or hospitalization between the two treatment groups was tested using an F test from a generalized mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, age group and ACS severity. Please note that the study was stopped prematurely so only 11 of the 112 originally planned were included in the analysis.||||0.770
95984659|NCT01118273|191942811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
95984660|NCT01118273|191942812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95984661|NCT01118273|191942813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.45
95984662|NCT01118273|191942814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95984663|NCT01118273|191942815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95984664|NCT01118273|191942816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95984665|NCT01118273|191942817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95984666|NCT01118273|191942818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
95984667|NCT01118273|191942819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
95984668|NCT01118273|191942820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95984669|NCT01118273|191942821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
95984670|NCT01118273|191942822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
95984671|NCT01118273|191942823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
95984672|NCT01118273|191942825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
95984673|NCT01118273|191942826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95984674|NCT01118273|191942827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95984675|NCT01118273|191942828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
95984676|NCT01118273|191942829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
95984677|NCT01118273|191942831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.35
95984678|NCT01118273|191942833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
95984679|NCT01118273|191942834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95984680|NCT01118273|191942835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
95984681|NCT01118273|191942836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
95928968|NCT01192542|191819722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.|The mean difference is calculated as: Test lens - Control lens.|The alternative hypothesis is the monocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.003|-0.022|
95928969|NCT01192542|191819725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of 0.05 (1/2 LogMAR line) was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons between two lenses were carried out using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for least-square mean differences.||The alternative hypothesis is the binocular visual acuity of the galyfilcon A prototype lens is non-inferior to that of the enfilcon A lens.||0.018|-0.018|
95928970|NCT03823300|191819726|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||1.8|-1.7|
95984682|NCT01923285|191942837|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.~If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025."||||<0.0001
95984683|NCT01923285|191942837|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%. If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025|||||=|0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||=0.0004
95984684|NCT01923285|191942838|OTHER|Comparison of the mean difference. Difference in intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia intensity minus the upright paresthesia intensity.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in paresthesia intensities is calculated as the supine paresthesia score minus the upright paresthesia score for each subject.|"Secondary endpoint compared the mean differences in upright and supine paresthesia scores between the Axium and Control groups at three months post INS implant. This endpoint was evaluated at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: μ0- μ1≤0 vs. H1: μ0- μ1\>0 where μ0 is the mean difference in paresthesia intensities in the Control group and μ1 is the mean difference in the Axium group."||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
95984685|NCT01923285|191942839|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||<0.0001
95984686|NCT01923285|191942839|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.|||||=|0.0047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.0047
95984687|NCT01923285|191942840|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority is achieved at a one-sided alpha of 0.05, a one-sided superiority test is performed at the significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0003|||||||Non-inferiority|||The primary hypothesis tested was: H0: p1 ≤ p0 - δ vs. H1: p1\> p0 - δ, where p0 is the success rate in the Control group, p1 is the success rate in the Axium group, and δ is the non-inferiority margin, which is pre-specified at 10%.||||0.0003
95984688|NCT02375724|191942841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.02||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||-0.10|-1.94|0.0306
95984689|NCT02375724|191942842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.03|-0.46|0.0793
95984690|NCT02375724|191942843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.06||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline and age as covariates; treatment group, sex, visit, smoking-status and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effect factors||||0.52|-0.64|0.844
95984691|NCT03201458|191942844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.93||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||0.93|0.35|0.027
95984692|NCT03201458|191942845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95928971|NCT03823300|191819727|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||1.3|-2.4|
95984693|NCT03201458|191942847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.410
95984694|NCT00941668|191942877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95984695|NCT00941668|191942878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95928972|NCT03823300|191819729|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.3|-8.3|
95928973|NCT03823300|191819729|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.7|-3.9|
95928974|NCT03823300|191819729|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.6|-6.6|
95928975|NCT03823300|191819729|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||9.3|-3.1|
95928976|NCT03823300|191819730|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||5.3|-7.7|
95928977|NCT03823300|191819735|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||1.3|-4.4|
95928978|NCT03823300|191819735|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||2.8|-4.5|
95928979|NCT03823300|191819735|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||7.3|-2.1|
95928980|NCT03823300|191819736|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.3|-2.6|
95928981|NCT03823300|191819740|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||5.1|-8.5|
95928982|NCT03823300|191819742|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||12.9|-1.4|
95984696|NCT02662036|191942884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for intraoperative opioid use||||0.76
95928983|NCT03823300|191819744|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||4.4|-3.6|
95928984|NCT03823300|191819752|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||2.1|-14.8|
95928985|NCT03823300|191819753|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|9.3|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.3|-6.6|
95928986|NCT02138006|191819782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
95928987|NCT01188499|191819784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Primary objective of safety and tolerability measured by percent participants experiencing at least one adverse event. No formal statistics performed.|||||
95928988|NCT01188499|191819785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percent patients overall across all five arms demonstrating complete or partial response by RECIST. No formal statistics performed.|||||
95928989|NCT02393716|191819787|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||7.2|||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a MAE within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||7.2||<0.001
95928990|NCT02393716|191819788|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|95.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|90.4||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||90.4|<0.001
95984697|NCT02662036|191942884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for postoperative acute care unit opioid use||||0.38
95984698|NCT02662036|191942884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for postoperative floor opioid use||||0.69
95984699|NCT02662036|191942884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #4 is for total opioid use||||0.98
95928991|NCT03557658|191819807|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|106.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.34|144.02|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group.||144.02|78.34|
95928992|NCT03557658|191819807|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|110.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.34|163.06|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||163.06|75.34|
95928993|NCT03557658|191819810|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|128.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|164.73|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for total bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||164.73|99.98|
95928994|NCT03557658|191819810|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.00 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate|132.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|181.08|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, and the subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters for unbound bexagliflozin by hepatic function group||181.08|96.46|
95928995|NCT01194154|191819812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||4.78|-0.35|0.657
95928996|NCT01194154|191819813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment effect|2.24||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.01|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline eGFR was used to obtain an estimate of the treatment difference.|||5.01|-0.54|0.709
95928997|NCT02314117|191819839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.935||||||||0.935|0.607|
95928998|NCT02314117|191819840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.156||||||||1.156|0.801|
95928999|NCT02314117|191819841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.108||||||||1.108|0.774|
95929000|NCT02314117|191819844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.859||||||||0.859|0.569|
95929001|NCT02314117|191819845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.866||||||||0.866|0.499|
95929002|NCT02314117|191819846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.332||||||||1.332|0.770|
95929003|NCT02314117|191819848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||||1.580|0.790|
95929004|NCT04141917|191819856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.02||||||The number of influenza-positive tests was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model following a Poisson distribution with a log link and robust variance. The model is adjusted for calendar time and an exposure time variable based on shelter capacity. This model includes symptomatic individuals who tested throughout Year 1 of the study (November 15, 2019 - March 31, 2020).||5.02|0.35|
95929005|NCT00922207|191819864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.46|0.6853
95929006|NCT00922207|191819864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.26|0.35|0.1977
95929007|NCT00922207|191819864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.39|0.2916
95929008|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.34||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.66|0.02|0.0353
95929009|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.52|-0.05|0.1114
95929010|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.21|-0.42|0.5150
95929011|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.89|0.34|<0.001
95929012|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-1.65|-2.19|<0.001
95929013|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-2.27|-2.81|<0.001
95929014|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||2.06|1.34|<0.001
95929015|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-0.15|-0.95|0.0071
95929016|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-1.90|-2.61|<0.001
95984700|NCT02662036|191942885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #1 is for postoperative acute care unit antiemetic use||||0.28
95929017|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.08|1.16|<0.001
95929018|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.53|-0.56|0.9557
95929019|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.14|-2.15|<0.001
95929020|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.27|0.18|0.0094
95929021|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||1.11|-0.09|0.0943
95929022|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.35|-0.82|0.4354
95929023|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.98|-0.26|0.2509
95929024|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||1.31|0.02|0.0429
95929025|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.93|-0.34|0.3585
95929026|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.74|-0.65|0.9014
95929027|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.28|-0.13|0.1122
95929028|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||1.23|-0.20|0.1602
95929029|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.19|-1.17|0.1599
95929030|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.92|-0.45|0.5045
95929031|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||1.41|0.03|0.0412
95929032|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-1.24|0.1347
95929033|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.01|-0.41|0.4027
95929034|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||1.55|0.07|0.0311
95929035|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.35|-1.07|0.3183
95929036|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.22|-0.17|0.1371
95929037|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||1.60|0.21|0.0113
95929038|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.92|0.5608
95929039|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.88|-0.53|0.6323
95929040|NCT00922207|191819865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||1.11|-0.32|0.2752
95929041|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||9.71|0.26|0.6107
95929042|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.0788
95929043|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.1761
95929044|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||5.09|0.34|0.7044
95929045|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|46.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||46.76|0.61|0.0927
95929046|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|36.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||36.89|0.44|0.1858
95929047|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||3.38|0.33|0.9385
95929048|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.77|0.43|0.5068
95929049|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.50|0.41|0.5544
95929050|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.31|0.26|0.6510
95984701|NCT02662036|191942885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #2 is for floor antiemetic use||||0.62
95929051|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.3192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||1.69|0.20|0.3192
95929052|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||2.03|0.29|0.5818
95929053|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.66|0.41|0.8796
95929054|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.52|0.27|0.3050
95929055|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||1.44|0.26|0.2414
95929056|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.22|0.50|0.8502
95929057|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.61|0.38|0.5000
95929058|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.53|0.36|0.3882
95929059|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.99|0.50|0.9584
95929060|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.35|0.2576
95929061|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.34|0.36|0.2362
95929062|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.90|0.49|0.9861
95929063|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.35|0.37|0.2919
95929064|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.38|0.38|0.2674
95929065|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.64|0.43|0.6148
95929066|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.08|0.30|0.0904
95929067|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||1.27|0.36|0.2073
95929068|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.98|0.52|0.9980
95929069|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.40|0.39|0.3489
95929070|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.38|0.38|0.2847
95929071|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.62|0.44|0.5596
95929072|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.27|0.36|0.2112
95929073|NCT00922207|191819866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||1.48|0.43|0.4066
95929074|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6921
95929075|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.3939
95929076|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline||||0.6818
95929077|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7582|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7582
95929078|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.5381
95929079|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.7747
95929080|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.8034
95929081|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.6306
95929082|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.4574
95929083|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5824
95929084|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.9321
95929085|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||0.5263
95929086|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.2025
95929087|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.6702
95929088|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||||0.0818
95929089|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6214
95929090|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6774|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.6774
95929091|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||0.3154
95984702|NCT02662036|191942885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||Statistical analysis #3 is for total antiemetic use||||0.50
95984703|NCT02662036|191942886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.20
95984704|NCT02662036|191942887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.64
95929092|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.2709
95929093|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.3804
95929094|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||||0.7645
95929095|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.1820
95929096|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.7167
95929097|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||||0.3104
95929098|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.0910
95929099|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.6094
95929100|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||||0.2166
95929101|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9010
95929102|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.9060
95929103|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||||0.7268
95929104|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.5372
95929105|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.1588
95929106|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||||0.4268
95929107|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.4389
95929108|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.6708
95929109|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 76||||0.2145
95929110|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.8608
95929111|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0283
95929112|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||||0.0369
95929113|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.4606
95929114|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.0832
95929115|NCT00922207|191819868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 100||||0.2655
95929116|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.43|-0.01|0.0649
95929117|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.33|-0.06|0.1867
95929118|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.15|-0.30|0.5003
95929119|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||0.05|-0.22|0.2259
95984705|NCT02662036|191942888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.38
95984706|NCT04744207|191942895|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean estimate|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.48|<0.05
95984707|NCT00841789|191942926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.10
95929120|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
95929121|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-0.04|-0.27|0.0085
95929122|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.18|-0.22|0.8160
95929123|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.12|-0.27|0.4393
95929124|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||0.11|-0.22|0.4890
95984708|NCT00841789|191942927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Cox|||We applied a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model to determine z score change values (see Protocol page 36 in Supplement).||||0.86
95984709|NCT00841789|191942928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation||||.83
95929125|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.30|-0.14|0.4656
95929126|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.31|-0.15|0.5016
95929127|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.22|-0.23|0.9582
95929128|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.36|-0.21|0.6214
95929129|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.39|-0.21|0.5493
95929130|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 28||0.32|-0.28|0.8881
95929131|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.27|-0.36|0.7912
95929132|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.46|-0.24|0.5427
95929133|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40||0.49|-0.19|0.3788
95929134|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.26|-0.44|0.6172
95929135|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.50|-0.29|0.6002
95929136|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 52||0.56|-0.18|0.3101
95929137|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.20|-0.47|0.4256
95929138|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.36|-0.35|0.9762
95929139|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 64||0.47|-0.21|0.4504
95929140|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.17|-0.42|0.4076
95929141|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.27|-0.37|0.7591
95929142|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 76||0.40|-0.25|0.6449
95929143|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.25|-0.36|0.7108
95929144|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.47|-0.22|0.4725
95929145|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 88||0.50|-0.13|0.2439
95929146|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.50|-0.10|0.1862
95984710|NCT00841789|191942928|OTHER|Generallzed Estimating Equation was used for z-score change within groups compared to baseline|General Estimating Equation|||||0.1279|||||||GEE|||We analyzed change from baseline for both etanercept and placebo. LS mean change J(standard error) reported||||0.1279
95984711|NCT00841789|191942929|OTHER|General Estimating Equation for 3 coronary arteries.||||||0.03|||||||GEE|||General Estimating Equation|Generalize estimating equation for 3 coronary arteries evaluated in each patient by echocardiography|||0.03
95984712|NCT00841789|191942929|OTHER|see above||||||0.619|||||||GEE|||GEE performed to compare with change in coronary z score from baseline||||0.619
95929147|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.43|-0.14|0.3057
95929148|NCT00922207|191819869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 100||0.29|-0.38|0.8002
95929149|NCT02476890|191819871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.7|-0.6|0.9666
95929150|NCT02476890|191819871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-1.1|0.5993
95929151|NCT02476890|191819871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.3|0.2823
95929152|NCT02476890|191819871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.9|-0.4|0.4287
95929153|NCT02476890|191819872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||1.4|-0.3|0.1771
95929154|NCT02476890|191819872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.5473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.3|-0.7|0.5473
95929155|NCT02476890|191819872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.5|0.5169
95929156|NCT02476890|191819872|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||1.0|-0.4|0.4243
95929157|NCT02476890|191819873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||2.0|-0.2|0.1125
95929158|NCT02476890|191819873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||1.4|0.4|0.0029
95929159|NCT02476890|191819873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||2.4|0.7|0.0006
95929160|NCT02476890|191819873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||2.2|0.4|0.0067
95984713|NCT02424253|191942972|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-0.35|||=|0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.51||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline value and treatment.||Change from baseline||0.51|-1.21|= 0.249
95929161|NCT02476890|191819874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Healthy||0.5|0.2|< 0.0001
95929162|NCT02476890|191819874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Healthy||0.6|-0.1|0.1798
95929163|NCT02476890|191819874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C2 Response/Chronic Cough||0.5|0.1|0.0011
95929164|NCT02476890|191819874|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||C5 Response/Chronic Cough||0.4|0.1|0.0023
95984714|NCT02424253|191942973|SUPERIORITY||LS Difference|-5.06|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.66|-1.46||1-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included baseline EASI, stratification variable (worst daily pruritus NRS ≤ 7.5 or \> 7.5) and treatment.||Change from baseline analysis||-1.46|-8.66|= 0.01
95929165|NCT02476890|191819875|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Severity VAS Analysis||-6.2|-29.8|0.0037
95929166|NCT02476890|191819876|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Urge to Cough VAS Analysis||-7.0|-29.1|0.0020
95929167|NCT02476890|191819877|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough Frequency Analysis||-1.0|-6.2|0.0075
95929168|NCT03515304|191819886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2497
95929169|NCT05190419|191819939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-16.0||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-16.0|-54.7|<0.001
95929170|NCT05190419|191819939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-24.8||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-24.8|-63.1|<0.001
95929171|NCT05190419|191819939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-27.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|ANCOVA|p-value is calculated by analysis of covariance with treatment group as factor and baseline PASI as covariate.||||-27.3|-65.6|<0.001
95929172|NCT00367055|191819951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||p value is for Total AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.376
95929173|NCT00367055|191819951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||p value is for Incremental AUC(0-10 min)|Van Elteren|||||||0.990
95929174|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.74|-7.41|<.0001
95929175|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-3.16|-6.80|<.0001
95929176|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.89|-7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.28|-10.89|<.0001
95929177|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|-4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.39|-8.75|<.0001
95984715|NCT00884273|191942974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.52||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.52|-2.78|0.36
95929178|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.56|-11.43|<.0001
95984716|NCT00884273|191942983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of prostate volume was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the prostate volume value closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.58||PP.|ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||7.58|-3.10|0.41
95929179|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.41|-4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.78|-9.41|<.0001
95929180|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.11|-7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-7.08|-11.11|<.0001
95929181|NCT04707313|191819961|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.32|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.99|-9.32|<.0001
95929182|NCT04707313|191819962|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.66|-4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.63|-11.66|<.0001
95929183|NCT04707313|191819962|SUPERIORITY||Difference to placebo|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.83|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-4.92|-11.83|<.0001
95929184|NCT04707313|191819962|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.15|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM:treatment,time,strata(female vs male),treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline as covariate,natural log-transformed baseline-by-time interaction with time fitted:repeated effect, participant:random effect.|||-9.47|-16.15|<.0001
95929185|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|19.3||||||||19.30|2.81|
95929186|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|16.53||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||16.53|2.62|
95929187|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.47|41.24||||||Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.||41.24|6.47|
95984717|NCT00578136|191943057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used because the study did not have a normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p\<0.01).||Assuming the opioid requirement in the local infiltration group to be 0.2mg kg-1 and in the rectus sheath block group to be 0.1mg kg-1, a sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) will have a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 0.1mg kg-1 with a 0.005 two-sided significance level.||||0.008
95984718|NCT02822885|191943130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95929188|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.39|37.66||||||||37.66|5.39|
95857144|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.1||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||108.4|-30.1|0.2662
95929189|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|30.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.35|80.2||||||||80.20|11.35|
95984719|NCT02822885|191943131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95984720|NCT02822885|191943132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95929190|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|33.53||||||||33.53|2.91|
95929191|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.28|71.95||||||||71.95|8.28|
95929192|NCT04707313|191819975|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.56|35.08||||||||35.08|4.56|
95929193|NCT04707313|191819976|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|33.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|366.64||||||||366.64|3.05|
95857145|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.9|-94.7|0.7875
95857146|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|197.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||197.4|32.6|0.0066
95857147|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|164.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.9|-1.4|0.0540
95857148|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||104.3|-60.6|0.6014
95857149|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|118.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||118.5|-46.3|0.3885
95857150|NCT01746901|191672617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.5||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||112.0|-52.9|0.4801
95857151|NCT01746901|191672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-2.5|0.5494
95857152|NCT01746901|191672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.8|-0.1|0.0626
95857153|NCT01746901|191672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.3|-1.6|0.7216
95857154|NCT01746901|191672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.8|-1.0|0.3647
95857155|NCT01746901|191672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.7|0.4456
95857156|NCT01746901|191672618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.9|0.0|0.0500
95857157|NCT01746901|191672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.34|-0.69|<0.0001
95857158|NCT01746901|191672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.52|-1.86|<0.0001
95929194|NCT04707313|191819976|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|34.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|373.85||||||||373.85|3.10|
95857159|NCT01746901|191672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.0001
95857160|NCT01746901|191672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.23|-1.58|<0.0001
95929195|NCT04707313|191819976|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression models (included terms for treatment, strata \[females versus males\] and baseline body weight as a covariate) were applied to the imputed datasets from the multiple imputation method above and parameter estimates were combined using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Odds Ratio (OR)|127.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.55|1533.46||||||||1533.46|10.55|
95929196|NCT01227707|191819987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||one sample binomial test|||||||1.00
95929197|NCT02459899|191820000|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.02|-0.53|0.07
95929198|NCT02459899|191820000|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
95929199|NCT02459899|191820000|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery method (CSII, MDI), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.65|0.006
95929200|NCT02739035|191820006|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement.||||||0.23||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.23
95929201|NCT02739035|191820007|SUPERIORITY|A difference of 10 degrees in total mean range of motion (ROM) between the control and the treatment group was considered a clinically significant improvement. To detect this difference, a previous study's mean and standard deviation were referenced in order to predict the variation of results. 54 patients per arm were required to have 90% power with a two-sided t-test and a type I error rate of 5%. 130 patients were targeted for recruitment to account for up to a 20% dropout rate.||||||0.81||||||Using a standard alpha value of 0.05, p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Outcomes were compared between the two study groups using two-sample t-tests. T-tests were two-sided and the standard alpha value of 0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.~The null hypothesis was that there were no significant differences between control group of MUA alone and the treatment group of MUA with dexamethasone and celecoxib."||||0.81
95929202|NCT04446117|191820038|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and disease state at first NHT.|Log Rank||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or mCSPC and disease state at first NHT.|||0.84|0.50|0.0007
95929203|NCT04446117|191820039|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||Stratification factors used: Liver metastasis, prior docetaxel use for locally advanced or mCSPC and disease state at first NHT.|Log Rank|||||1.10|0.72|0.2956
95929204|NCT03165175|191820040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.72
95929205|NCT03165175|191820041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.598
95984721|NCT02822885|191943133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95984722|NCT02822885|191943134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95857161|NCT01746901|191672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-0.91|<0.0001
95857162|NCT01746901|191672619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.11|-1.46|<0.0001
95929206|NCT03165175|191820042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.954
95929207|NCT03165175|191820043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.167
95929208|NCT03165175|191820044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||This p-value is the for the group by time (group: intervention/control, by time: baseline/1 month) interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.022
95950675|NCT02699099|191873142|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
95929209|NCT00712166|191820046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|6.44||"The primary endpoint analysis was based on a two-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeper approach was established a priori to control the type 1 error rate, however, the primary endpoint was not met."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Denominator degrees of freedom computed with Satterthwaite approximation.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~At the 5% significance level (i.e., α = 0.05) using a two-sided significance test, a sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided at least 90% power to detect a 10 point difference between groups in the mean change from baseline at Day 28 in the CFQ-R RSS score, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 17.5."||6.44|-2.83|0.433
95929210|NCT00712166|191820047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|7.78||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms: treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||7.78|-1.04|0.133
95929211|NCT00712166|191820048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|4.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS and age group (\<18 years, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||4.76|-4.56|0.965
95929212|NCT00712166|191820049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47||||0.256||95.0|-1.81|6.76||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included: treatment, baseline CFQ-R Physical Function Domain score and age (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the CFQ-R physical functioning domain score at Day 28.||6.76|-1.81|0.256
95929213|NCT00712166|191820050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple usage was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||>0.999
95929214|NCT00712166|191820051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|A participant with multiple hospitalizations was counted only once.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in proportion of participants hospitalized.||||0.122
95929215|NCT00712166|191820054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.23||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline log10 CFU, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in the log10 CFU at Day 28.||-0.23|-2.20|0.016
95929216|NCT00712166|191820055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.04||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FEV1 % predicted, and age group (\<18, \>=18 years). Treatment differences were calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in % change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted at Day 28.||5.04|0.42|0.021
95929217|NCT03360396|191820056|OTHER|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||||||||||||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. SAP was updated to include descriptive statistics only. French sites remain open.||Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|Study was closed early in all regions except for France. Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only. Sites in France remain open and all subjects in France will be followed through 36 months.|||
95929218|NCT03360396|191820057|OTHER|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||||||||||||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.||Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|Study was terminated early, and Statistical Analysis plan was updated to include descriptive statistics only.|||
95929219|NCT00688519|191820060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.058
95929220|NCT00688519|191820060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Breslow-Day Test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.313
95929221|NCT00688519|191820061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.029
95929222|NCT00688519|191820062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.013
95929223|NCT00688519|191820063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.008
95929224|NCT00688519|191820064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||These P-values are provided for information purposes only; they are considered non-significant (per the statistical analysis plan) because the analysis of the primary end point did not reach statistical significance.||||0.018
95984723|NCT00492752|191943139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6783||||0.014144||95.0|0.4962|0.9272|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||0.9272|0.4962|0.014144
95929225|NCT00688519|191820065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.167
95929226|NCT00688519|191820065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.009
95929227|NCT01063517|191820071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.03|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.03|0.62|
95929228|NCT01063517|191820072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|1.08|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of progression in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of progression in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||1.08|0.51|
95929229|NCT01063517|191820073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.75|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group, ATM status and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.75|0.41|
95929230|NCT01063517|191820074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.56|||||The numerator of the hazard ratio is hazards of death in olaparib+paclitaxel group and denominator is hazards of death in placebo+paclitaxel group. Confidence intervals are calculated using the profile-likelihood method.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment group and gastrectomy (full, partial, none).||0.56|0.22|
95929231|NCT02974634|191820089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||5.6|-3.5|0.06
95929232|NCT02974634|191820090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.91||Comparison of intervention and usual care at 6 month follow up|t-test, 2 sided||Interaction coefficient (slope) of arm by time period (6 months follow up vs baseline) from mixed linear model|||0.91|-0.24|0.68
95929233|NCT05011396|191820091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-10.5|0.0153
95929234|NCT05011396|191820092|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.1625||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.3119|||Wald Normal Approximation (Z)|||||0.3119|0.0132|0.0330
95929235|NCT06001177|191820100|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.63|0.1668
95929236|NCT01112670|191820158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95929237|NCT01112670|191820159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95929238|NCT01112670|191820160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
95929239|NCT01112670|191820161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
95929240|NCT01112670|191820162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
95929241|NCT01112670|191820163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
95929242|NCT01112670|191820164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
95929243|NCT01112670|191820165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95929244|NCT01112670|191820166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95929245|NCT01112670|191820167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
95929246|NCT01112670|191820168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
95929247|NCT01113931|191820169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
95929248|NCT01113931|191820172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Cure Rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.1||||||The planned sample size of 480 randomized subjects ensured that approximately 200 subjects per group were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The 20% rate of exclusion was to account for subjects who had a negative test for urogenital C. trachomatis at the Baseline visit.||5.1|-4.6|
95929249|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.61|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.61|1.27|
95984724|NCT00492752|191943139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6208||||0.003464||95.0|0.4498|0.8568|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.8568|0.4498|0.003464
95984725|NCT00492752|191943140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9032||||0.497537||95.0|0.6705|1.2165|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo.|||1.2165|0.6705|0.497537
95984726|NCT00492752|191943140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8831||||0.437926||95.0|0.6449|1.2093|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||1.2093|0.6449|0.437926
95984727|NCT00492752|191943141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5744||||0.000537||95.0|0.4154|0.7942|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7942|0.4154|0.000537
95984728|NCT00492752|191943141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5375||||0.00054||95.0|0.3763|0.7677|||Log Rank|log rank test stratified by country, tumor burden, and ECOG.|Hazard ratio is for Sorafenib vs placebo|||0.7677|0.3763|0.000540
95984729|NCT00492752|191943142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.3533||||||95.0|0.2771|0.4355||||||||0.4355|0.2771|
95984730|NCT00492752|191943142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control rate|0.1579||||||95.0|0.0843|0.2596||||||||0.2596|0.0843|
95984731|NCT00492752|191943145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|based on tumor response rate (CR+PR)||||||0.67
95984732|NCT03803059|191943173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||<0.01
95984733|NCT03803059|191943174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||<0.01
95984734|NCT03803059|191943175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4.||||<0.01
95984735|NCT03803059|191943176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated using paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.051
95984736|NCT03803059|191943177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||<0.01
95929250|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.7|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.70|1.79|
95984737|NCT03803059|191943178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Calculated from paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.331
95984738|NCT03803059|191943179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.863
95984739|NCT03803059|191943180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.048
95984740|NCT03803059|191943181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355||||||P-value reported is for viscoelastic deformation.|t-test, 2 sided|at significance level alpha+0.05||Calculated using the paired t-test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.355
95984741|NCT03803059|191943182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||Calculated with a paired T test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||Calculated using the paired t test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.859
95984742|NCT03803059|191943183|EQUIVALENCE|.A binomial (sign) test was performed to test if the the proportion of the combined designated favorable evaluations/responses is equal to the combined designated negative evaluations/responses for each question|||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||Patient satisfaction questionnaires were tabulated, and the frequency and percentage of all response options were reported for each question and time point calculated from the binomial (sign) test. The testing hypothesis is that the proportion of favorable responses is equal to the unfavorable||||<0.01
95984743|NCT03803059|191943184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||All statistical tests were 2-sided at significance level alpha=0.05. No multiple testing corrections were considered in the study.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline is zero was tested using a paired t-test||||0.031
95984744|NCT04013529|191943185|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.90
95984745|NCT04013529|191943186|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.88
95984746|NCT04013529|191943187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.17
95929251|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|3.88|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||3.88|1.88|
95984747|NCT04013529|191943188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
95984748|NCT04013529|191943189|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.81
95984749|NCT02904915|191943190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95984750|NCT02904915|191943191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
95984751|NCT02904915|191943192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95984752|NCT02258451|191943195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.102||1-sided SSE-FS hypotheses were tested using a log-rank test with a 2-sided alpha of 0.2, stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) for SSE-FS was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model, stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|The 1-sided null hypothesis that treatment with radium-223 dichloride does not result in superior SSE-FS to treatment with placebo in participant population was tested against the 1-sided alternative hypothesis that the treatment with radium-223 dichloride results in superior SSE-FS time to treatment the placebo. H0: SSE-FS Radium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \<= SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus, versus HA: SSE-FSRadium-223+Exemestane/Everolimus \> SSE-FS Placebo+Exemestane/Everolimus||1.102|0.720|0.4843
95984753|NCT02258451|191943196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.343||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.343|0.697|0.8438
95984754|NCT02258451|191943197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.604||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.604|0.577|0.8811
95993591|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.1|0.178
95929252|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.50|1.29|
95929253|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.05|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.05|1.57|
95929254|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||3.50|1.81|
95929255|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.87|0.54|
95929256|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.12|0.69|
95929257|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||1.06|0.66|
95929258|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.44|0.86|
95929259|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.54|0.93|
95929260|NCT04956575|191820223|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.55|0.93|
95929261|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||1.44|0.57|
95929262|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.0|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.00|0.78|
95929263|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against H1N1 at Day 29.||2.99|1.16|
95929264|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.21|0.91|
95929265|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.97|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||2.97|1.21|
95929266|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.14|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||4.14|1.68|
95929267|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.5|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.50|0.26|
95929268|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.64|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.64|0.33|
95929269|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.76|0.38|
95929270|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||0.90|0.43|
95929271|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.35|0.63|
95929272|NCT04956575|191820224|OTHER|The ratio of GMT was estimated by the ratio of model based GMT.|Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||||The 2 sided 95% assessed the difference in immune response between the mRNA-1010 compared with the active comparator, Afluria Quadrivalent, at Day 29.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||1.09|0.51|
95929273|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent difference|12.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.93|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||27.93|-2.00|
95929274|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent difference|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|39.89|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||39.89|11.18|
95929275|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.84|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||40.84|12.33|
95929276|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|25.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|40.13|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.13|9.82|
95929277|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|31.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|45.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||45.73|15.66|
95929278|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|38.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|52.3|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||52.30|22.98|
95929279|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.79|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||3.79|-24.83|
95929280|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|14.73|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||14.73|-14.91|
95727909|NCT00952484|191425391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95929281|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|18.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||18.59|-11.19|
95929282|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.09|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||23.09|-6.72|
95929283|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|29.37|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||29.37|-0.74|
95929284|NCT04956575|191820227|OTHER||Percent Difference|19.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|33.22|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent. against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||33.22|3.22|
95929285|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|9.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|28.31|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||28.31|-10.62|
95929286|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|36.61|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||36.61|-1.81|
95929287|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|23.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|41.86|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H1N1 at Day 29.||41.86|4.20|
95929288|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|20.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||20.60|-18.41|
95929289|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|22.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|40.6|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||40.60|2.09|
95929290|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|36.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|53.36|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against H3N2 at Day 29.||53.36|17.38|
95929291|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|-37.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.36|-20.45|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-20.45|-53.36|
95929292|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-26.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.66|-6.9|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||-6.90|-43.66|
95984755|NCT02258451|191943198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.289||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|Participants with baseline WPS \> 8 were included in the analysis population but censored at Day 1.||1.289|0.667|0.6537
95984756|NCT02258451|191943199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.219||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.219|0.641|0.4496
95984757|NCT02258451|191943200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.157||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (radium-223 dichloride / placebo) was calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards Model , stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.|||1.157|0.660|0.3467
95984758|NCT02258451|191943201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.4||P-value was calculated using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization. No alpha adjustment for multiplicity was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-10.2|0.556
95984759|NCT04490018|191943219|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|10.36||||||Serogroup A||10.36|0.06|
95984760|NCT04490018|191943219|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.5||||||Serogroup C||9.50|1.58|
95984761|NCT04490018|191943219|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.42||||||Serogroup W||4.42|-1.28|
95984762|NCT04490018|191943219|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.77||||||Serogroup Y||4.77|-1.88|
95929293|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|0.11|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Victoria-lineage at Day 29.||0.11|-37.95|
95929294|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|-4.26|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||-4.26|-41.09|
95929295|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|15.59|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of against Afluria Quadrivalent Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||15.59|-24.09|
95929296|NCT04956575|191820228|OTHER||Percent Difference|-8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|11.27|||||Seroconversion percent difference of mRNA-1010 - Afluria Quadrivalent. 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen (score) method.|Humoral immunogenicity of mRNA-1010 relative to that of Afluria Quadrivalent against Yamagata-lineage at Day 29.||11.27|-28.13|
95929297|NCT03593876|191820234|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess mean participant-therapist communication scores across intervention sessions. The mean and standard deviation of these scores was 3.00 (1.00). The a priori criterion for feasibility was a mean score of 2.0 or greater.|||
95929298|NCT03593876|191820235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change was Cohen's d(rm)=3.08.|||
95984763|NCT02321930|191943267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
95984764|NCT02321930|191943268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
95984765|NCT02321930|191943269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
95984766|NCT02321930|191943270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
95984767|NCT02321930|191943271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis performed to test for the change in values from Baseline to 3 months||||<0.0001
95984768|NCT00841204|191943275|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0056
95984769|NCT00841204|191943276|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
95929299|NCT03593876|191820236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The a priori analysis plan was to defer statistical or hypothesis testing due to the focus on feasibility, and rather to assess change scores and effect size of the change scores to compare with previously published clinical trials.|The repeated measures effect size of change, Cohen's d(rm)=1.70|||
95929300|NCT01616654|191820246|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.115||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|29.495|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||29.495|-3.266|0.096
95929301|NCT01616654|191820246|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction||33.036|-0.249|0.040
95929302|NCT01616654|191820246|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|10.273||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.923|26.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||26.470|-5.923|0.184
95929303|NCT01616654|191820246|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|16.393||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|33.036|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 95% confidence interval on the difference between Vehicle and the specified treatment group success rates was based on normal approximation with continuity correction.||33.036|-0.249|0.041
95929304|NCT01616654|191820247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.74||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||1.48|-14.96|0.108
95929305|NCT01616654|191820247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-7.88||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratum, and Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.34|-16.11|0.060
95929306|NCT01616654|191820247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-8.11||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||0.13|-16.35|0.054
95929307|NCT01616654|191820247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-12.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with terms for treatment, stratum, treatment stratum, and with Baseline lesion count as covariate.||-4.76|-21.18|0.002
95929308|NCT01616654|191820248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.067
95984770|NCT00841204|191943277|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95984771|NCT00841204|191943278|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
95984772|NCT00841204|191943279|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
95984773|NCT00255970|191943298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The null hypothesis had been that there would be no significant difference in probing depth between groups at the time points measured.||||>.05
95984774|NCT00255970|191943298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The power analysis had been computed for a threshold of 0.05 with a power of 0.8.|ANOVA|||A power analysis, prior to data collection, determined that a minimum of 18 in each arm would be needed for this study.||||>0.05
95929309|NCT01616654|191820248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.054
95929310|NCT01616654|191820248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
95929311|NCT01616654|191820248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95929312|NCT02057692|191820283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3969||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.081|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a PROC MIXED procedure. Least-squares (LS) mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.081|-1.698|0.0321
95929313|NCT02057692|191820283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3503||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.192|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% CI for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||-0.192|-1.620|0.0145
95929314|NCT02057692|191820283|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4431||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.863|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of change from baseline to endpoint (Week 13/ET) average daily ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated by ANCOVA using a PROC MIXED procedure. LS mean change from baseline to Endpoint (Week 13/ET), along with associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LS mean, and pair-wise treatment P-values were calculated for each treatment group.||0.863|-0.942|0.9298
95929315|NCT00071799|191820288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||"A 95% CI range value of 'does not exist' is not accommodated in the results table, so all the 95% CI range values are offered here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.8 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0001
95929316|NCT00071799|191820288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.77|0.43|0.0002
95929317|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \< 65 years The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 7.1 months and high range of 15.6 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.4 and high range of 12.4 months."||||0.3973
95929318|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 65 years~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 34.7 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 16.4 months."||||<0.0001
95929319|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0707||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Age \>= 75 years. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 1.7 months and high range of 15.0 months.~Conventional Care: low range of 4.1 and high range of 7.6 months."||||0.0707
95929320|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0042||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Male~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 10.8 and high range of 17.2 months."||||0.0042
95929321|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0469||||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"Gender: Female~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 13.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.2 and high range of 17.6 months."||||0.0469
95929322|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 21.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.3 and high range of 21.9 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||FAB: Refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB). All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0056
95929323|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"FAB: RAEB in transformation~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 11.7 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.4 and high range of 17.0 months."||||0.0322
95984775|NCT00255970|191943299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>.05
95984776|NCT00255970|191943300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The change in recession, measured in mm, had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
95984777|NCT00255970|191943301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each gingival unit (buccal, lingual, mesiobuccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, and distolingual) of the individual tooth will be given a score from 0-3, called the gingival index for the area. The scores from the 6 areas of the tooth are added and divided by 6 to give the gingival index for the tooth.||||>0.05
95984778|NCT00255970|191943302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||This study had been designed as a superiority study. The a priori power analysis had been designed with an effect size based on historical data. Thus, a minimal sample size of 34 patients would be necessary to determine if there was a true difference between groups, α =.05, power= 0.8. This number was then rounded to 40 patients, 20/ group (DFDBA and Regenafil).||||>0.05
95984779|NCT02971631|191943305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.008
95984780|NCT02971631|191943306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||||||0.03
95984781|NCT02971631|191943307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||For meal consumption rate||||0.79
95984782|NCT02971631|191943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.20
95984783|NCT02971631|191943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-OGTT||||0.58
95984784|NCT02971631|191943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.39
95984785|NCT02971631|191943309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.20
95984786|NCT02971631|191943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Baseline||||0.26
95984787|NCT02971631|191943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-OGTT||||0.06
95984788|NCT02971631|191943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Pre-meal||||0.95
95984789|NCT02971631|191943310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired analysis||Post-meal||||0.88
95984790|NCT02971631|191943311|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Other|0 events over whole study, no statistical test appropriate||||||1
95984791|NCT02971631|191943312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95993592|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.626
95993593|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.5|-0.3|0.608
95993594|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.865
95993595|NCT00348140|191963313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 48||0.8|-0.1|0.149
95993596|NCT00516919|191963314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.45|||=|0.51||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at post-treatment, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.51
95993597|NCT00516919|191963314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F statistic|0.69|||=|0.41||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate = Baseline (pre-treatment) BMI; Degrees of freedom = (1, 76)||Test for group differences in BMI at 6-month follow-up, controlling for baseline BMI.||||=0.41
95993598|NCT03371355|191963315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-41|0.0343
95993599|NCT03371355|191963315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-28|-56|<0.0001
95993600|NCT03371355|191963315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-17.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-17|-52|0.0009
95993601|NCT03371355|191963316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.68|-37.06|||ANCOVA|||||-37.06|-62.68|<0.0001
95993602|NCT03371355|191963316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-71.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.47|-58.85|||ANCOVA|||||-58.85|-84.47|<0.0001
95993603|NCT03371355|191963316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-59.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.04|-45.44|||ANCOVA|||||-45.44|-74.04|<0.0001
95993604|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.59|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||TC||-1.39|-31.59|0.0327
95993605|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.15|-21.94|||ANCOVA|||TC||-21.94|-52.15|<0.0001
95993606|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|-15.05|||ANCOVA|||TC||-15.05|-48.23|0.0003
95993607|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|20.54|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||20.54|-5.55|0.2560
95993608|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|4.05|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.05|-21.26|0.1795
95993609|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.48|4.95|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C||4.95|-22.48|0.2065
95929324|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB 1. The Kaplan-Meier median time to death was not reached due to a small number of events, so the KM 25th percentile survival time is presented.~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 6.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 1.8 and high range of 9.8 months."||||0.1679
95929325|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: RAEB-2~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.9 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.8 and high range of 19.4 months."||||0.0692
95929326|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||"WHO: Other~Some of the values in outcome table #2 do not have 95% CI values so no 95% CI ranges are contained in the table. Those 95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.6 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 11.1 and high range of 17.5 months."||||0.0017
95929327|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 17.1 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 8.7 and high range of 24.1 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.||IPSS: Intermediate 2 All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.1030
95929328|NCT00071799|191820289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"95% CI ranges are added here.~Azacitidine: low range of 15.0 months and high range of 'does not exist'.~Conventional Care: low range of 9.0 and high range of 17.0 months."|Log Rank|The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification||IPSS: High All patients were stratified at randomization by FAB classification and IPSS score as determined by the investigator using centrally read bone marrow and cytogenetic data. Subsequently, the FAB classifications and IPSS scores were reviewed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). The subgroup analyses presented by FAB and IPSS represent the FAB classification and IPSS scores as determined by the IRC.||||0.0020
95929329|NCT00071799|191820290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification.|Log Rank|||||||0.0025
95929330|NCT00071799|191820290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.87|0.53|0.0027
95929331|NCT00071799|191820291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2555||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||0.2555
95929332|NCT00071799|191820291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||1.15|0.60|0.2562
95929333|NCT00071799|191820292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
95929334|NCT00071799|191820293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||0.0005
95929335|NCT00071799|191820294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline and transfusion independent during the on-treatment period||||1.000
95929336|NCT00071799|191820295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The p value is from Fisher's exact test comparing the difference in the azacitidine group and the combined group of CCR regimens among patients who were transfusion independent at baseline and remained transfusion independent during the on-treatment period.||||<0.0001
95929337|NCT00071799|191820296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Overall (Complete + Partial Remission)||||0.0001
95929338|NCT00071799|191820296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Complete remission||||0.0150
95929339|NCT00071799|191820296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Partial Remission||||0.0094
95929340|NCT00071799|191820296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Stable Disease||||0.3297
95929341|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Any Improvement||||<0.0001
95929342|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Major||||<0.0001
95929343|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Erythroid Response - Minor||||0.6203
95929344|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Major||||0.0003
95929345|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7514||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Platelet Response - Minor||||0.7514
95929346|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Major||||0.8695
95857163|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.42|-1.75|<0.0001
95857164|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3309
95857165|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.0001
95984792|NCT03357731|191943350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9242||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0432|-0.257|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.2570|-4.0432|0.027
95984793|NCT03357731|191943351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9832||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8176|2.2042|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||2.2042|-1.8176|0.846
95984794|NCT03357731|191943352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.19|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||3.19|-0.62|0.177
95984795|NCT03357731|191943352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.88|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.88|-1.08|0.839
95857166|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.92|-1.25|<0.0001
95857167|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.59|<0.0001
95857168|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.21|<0.0001
95857169|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-3.69|-4.37|<0.0001
95929347|NCT00071799|191820297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Neutrophil Response - Minor||||0.1760
95929348|NCT00071799|191820298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0466
95929349|NCT00071799|191820298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.53|0.0474
95929350|NCT00071799|191820299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test which compares whether the azacitidine and control group follow the same duration curve.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
95857170|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.14|-0.54|0.2475
95857171|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.27|-1.96|<0.0001
95857172|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.27|-2.96|<0.0001
95857173|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.00|-1.68|<0.0001
95857174|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-2): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.08|-2.76|<0.0001
95857175|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-10.60|-13.21|<0.0001
95857176|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.93|-8.54|<0.0001
95929351|NCT00071799|191820300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.2|||exact binomial|||||1.20|0.35|0.1327
95929352|NCT00071799|191820302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p value is two-sided from the log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors of IPSS classification and FAB classification|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95929353|NCT00071799|191820302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model stratified on the randomization factors of FAB and IPSS with model term of treatment.|||0.70|0.35|<0.0001
95929354|NCT00114101|191820304|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This study was designed to have 80% power, with the use of the log-rank test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a hazard ratio of 1.4, assuming proportional hazards and an exponential time to event distribution. Under the assumed framework, 309 events were expected. The expected drop out rate before randomization was 15%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.53||Participants were randomized with the use of a permuted-block design stratified by beta 2 microglobulin, prior use of thalidomide and prior use of lenalidomide. TTP was monitored with the use of a group sequential design for superiority and futility.|Log Rank|||||0.53|0.26|<0.001
95929355|NCT00114101|191820306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.26|0.70
95929356|NCT00114101|191820307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Fisher Exact|||||0.69|0.41|<0.001
95929357|NCT00470106|191820359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons because it is primary.|mixed model|same analysis as for secondary outcome variable.||||||<.001
95929358|NCT00470106|191820360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for significance was P \< .05|mixed model|Same as for the primary variable.||||||<.10
95929359|NCT03621761|191820363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.774||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.3451
95929360|NCT03621761|191820363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3094||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on total MFIS score, in linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline MFIS score. Output reflects models that were imputed for missing data.||||0.4834
95929361|NCT03621761|191820364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4077||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.2570
95929362|NCT03621761|191820364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2452||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue intensity NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue intensity score.||||0.5017
95929363|NCT03621761|191820365|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.095||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.154
95929364|NCT03621761|191820365|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.034||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in EMA fatigue interference NRS score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline EMA fatigue interference score.||||0.610
95929365|NCT03621761|191820366|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00427||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of CBT monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.4955
95929366|NCT03621761|191820366|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00948||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of treatment effect of modafinil monotherapy vs. combination therapy (reference) on change in fatigability score, in complete case linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, anxiety, pain, activity level, study site, and baseline fatigability score.||||0.1333
95929367|NCT01901276|191820382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-individual differences in Shannon indices were tested using paired t tests (normally distributed data).||||0.71
95929368|NCT02716324|191820383|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.001||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.012|||GLS random-effects model|||Random effects models regressed VPRS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.012|-0.010|.871
95929369|NCT02716324|191820384|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.004|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed GAS scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. We examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.004|-0.002|0.499
95929370|NCT02716324|191820385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.718
95929371|NCT02716324|191820385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.903
95929372|NCT02716324|191820385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any inpatient mental health services were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.915
95929373|NCT02716324|191820386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of any mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.310
95929374|NCT02716324|191820386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of ambulatory mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||0.251
95929375|NCT02716324|191820386|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Differences in proportions between the two groups in use of inpatient mental health services during the study period were assessed using the Chi-square Test.||||1.00
95993610|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|1.01|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||1.01|-6.43|0.1515
95993611|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|-4.91|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-4.91|-12.29|<0.0001
95929376|NCT02716324|191820387|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.662
95929377|NCT02716324|191820387|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.001||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.002|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO School Performance Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.002|0.000|0.075
95929378|NCT02716324|191820388|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.707
95929379|NCT02716324|191820388|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Student Engagement Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
95929380|NCT02716324|191820389|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child PRO Teacher Connectedness Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.735
95929381|NCT02716324|191820390|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Parent Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Parent-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.873
95929382|NCT02716324|191820390|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Peer Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Peer Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.888
95929383|NCT02716324|191820391|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.0||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||Random effects models regressed Child Patient Reported Outcomes Family Relationships Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Child-reported PRO Family Relationship Scores on intervention status, time (days), intervention by time, season, and clustered by doctor's office. we examined intervention X time interaction term for statistical significance.||0.001|-0.001|0.679
95929384|NCT02716324|191820392|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.074||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.311|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Access Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.311|-0.164|0.495
95929385|NCT02716324|191820392|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.013||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.191|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Patient Family Centered Care Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.191|-0.217|0.885
95929386|NCT02716324|191820392|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.073||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.328|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Communication Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.328|-0.182|0.527
95929387|NCT02716324|191820392|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.136||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.41|||Random effects model|||Random effects models regressed Understanding Engagement Scores Scores on intervention status adjusted for season and clustered by doctor's office.||0.410|-0.138|0.285
95929388|NCT03506880|191820401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that drinking would increase from baseline to 12-month follow-up for those in the AC, but not for those in the SG and MADD conditions.||||>0.05
95929389|NCT03506880|191820402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was also hypothesized that teens in the SG and MADD conditions would report significantly more declining rides with impaired drivers than those in the AC group.||||<0.01
95929390|NCT03506880|191820403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey's Post-Hoc||Estimation parameter used to determine significance between mean values in MADD, SG, and AC group.|It was hypothesized that participants in the MADD and SG groups would be significantly less willing to ride in a car with an impaired driver than those in the AC group.||||>0.01
95929391|NCT03482011|191820406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||69.4|56.5|<0.001
95929392|NCT03482011|191820407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|64.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.4|51.3|<0.001
95929393|NCT03482011|191820408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|11.6|<0.001
95929394|NCT03482011|191820409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|67.1|<0.001
95929395|NCT03482011|191820410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|26.0|<0.001
95929396|NCT03482011|191820411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|42.9|<0.001
95929397|NCT03482011|191820412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|14.5|<0.001
95929398|NCT03482011|191820413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|56.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.4|42.8|<0.001
95929399|NCT03482011|191820414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|56.0|<0.001
95929400|NCT03482011|191820414|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|77.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.0|54.9|<0.001
95929401|NCT03482011|191820415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-7.31|<0.001
95929402|NCT03482011|191820416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.39|-19.28|<0.001
95929403|NCT03482011|191820417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-10.37|<0.001
95929404|NCT03482011|191820418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.22|||ANCOVA|||||6.22|3.50|<0.001
95929405|NCT03482011|191820419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|6.23|||ANCOVA|||||6.23|3.33|<0.001
95929406|NCT03482011|191820420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.2|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||72.9|63.2|<0.001
95929407|NCT03482011|191820421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Absenteeism||-0.06|-7.30|0.002
95929408|NCT03482011|191820421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.89|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-15.60|-24.89|<0.001
95929409|NCT03482011|191820421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|-15.62|||ANCOVA|||Overall Absenteeism and Presenteeism||-15.62|-26.56|<0.001
95929410|NCT03482011|191820421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-18.43|||ANCOVA|||Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-18.43|-27.39|<0.001
95929411|NCT03482011|191820422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-3.08|0.004
95929412|NCT03482011|191820423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|55.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.9|41.6|<0.001
95929413|NCT00468052|191820425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Null hypothesis is not significantly different from group D and F.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sixty subjects were required per group to determine that with Dex would decrease the incidence of severe EA after surgery by 50% with 80% power (0.05)in comparison with the control group.60 subjects were required by group to show the that intraoperative rescue fentanyl and rescue morphine in the PACU would be 50% lower in subjects receiving dex.||||.001
95929414|NCT00468052|191820425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment with Dex would reduce the incidence of severe agitation be 50% with an 80% power (alpha 0.05)||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis dexmedetomidine would be a safe and effective substitute to opiates in reducing pain and the incidence of severe EA||||.001
95929415|NCT00468052|191820426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95929416|NCT00468052|191820428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95929417|NCT00468052|191820429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95929418|NCT01378065|191820482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95929419|NCT01378065|191820483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95929420|NCT01378065|191820484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95929421|NCT01378065|191820485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95929422|NCT01378065|191820486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.202
95929423|NCT01378065|191820487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95929424|NCT01378065|191820488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95929425|NCT01378065|191820489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
95929426|NCT01378065|191820490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 weeks.||||0.001
95929427|NCT01378065|191820491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 3 months.||||0.004
95929428|NCT01378065|191820492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 6 months.||||<.001
95929429|NCT01378065|191820493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis baseline to 12 months.||||<.001
95929430|NCT00361283|191820494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|42.0||No confounders were controlled for as each person is his/her own control.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study in healthy volunteers was to compare levels at baseline to 16 weeks in ENA-78, a cytokine. The one sample t-test was used to obtain the result.||42|-264|0.15
95929431|NCT00961636|191820505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by country||||||<0.001
95929432|NCT00961636|191820506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The closed ordered testing procedure was applied to the efficacy hypotheses. If statistical significance was achieved for the primary hypothesis, then the secondary hypothesis was tested. All tests were performed at significance level 0.05.|Unconditional Miettinen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
95857177|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-6.59|-9.20|<0.0001
95857178|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.94|-12.55|<0.0001
95857179|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-5.05|-7.65|<0.0001
95857180|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-9.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.05|-11.67|<0.0001
95857181|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-9.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.58|-13.16|<0.0001
95857182|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-14.28|-17.86|<0.0001
95857183|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.93|-13.53|<0.0001
95857184|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-13.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-13.91|-17.51|<0.0001
95857185|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.09|-10.67|<0.0001
95857186|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-12.39|-15.99|<0.0001
95857187|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-3.63|0.8784
95857188|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.02|-38.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-38.29|-45.02|<0.0001
95857189|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-16.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-16.25|-23.01|<0.0001
95857190|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.67|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.90|-25.67|<0.0001
95857191|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-9.14|-15.86|<0.0001
95929433|NCT00387465|191820507|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was derived from the number of participants experiencing dose-limiting toxicities in the Phase I arms. The MTD was the dose at which ≤30% of patients experienced DLTs during cycle 1 up to a pre-specified maximal dose of 40 mg/m2 of azacitidine.|Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD of Azacitidine measured in mg/m\^2|||||
95929434|NCT02666742|191820528|SUPERIORITY|Continuous variables were compared by two-sample t-tests and categorical variables by chi-square test. All tests were two-tailed, and a P value less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Bonferroni correction was not performed due to prespecified outcomes in the trial. Analyses were performed using GraphPad 6||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Due to lack of precedent robust clinical data, we performed exploratory study to evaluate safety and efficacy of DOAC vs. Aspirin (ASA) in patients undergoing left ventricular arrhythmia (LVA) ablation; therefore, sample size calculation was not undertaken.||||0.001
95929435|NCT01359371|191820540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bivariate relationships between a patient's participation in the program and smoking status were calculated.||||<.01
95929436|NCT01359371|191820541|OTHER|T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||||<|0.05||||||This was just a sample description, so there was not adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.|||<.05
95929437|NCT01359371|191820541|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||T-tests, chi squares and Fishers exact tests were used to compare groups.||||<.05
95929438|NCT02296424|191820560|EQUIVALENCE|nominal 2.5% two-sided significance level was expected to have 90% powe to detect a difference between the Null Hypothesis proportion of patients who remain at their dose level.||||||0.0001|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.0001
95929439|NCT02680457|191820566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.630
95929440|NCT02680457|191820567|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95929441|NCT00432458|191820568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|Model was stratified by beta-2 microglobulin (high vs low), lytic bone lesions (present vs not) and bone marrow labeling index (high vs low)||||||0.02
95984796|NCT03357731|191943353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03308||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16634|-0.02915|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||-0.02915|-0.16634|0.007
95984797|NCT03357731|191943353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02194||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08243|0.00814|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.00814|-0.08243|0.103
95984798|NCT03357731|191943354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|-0.051|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||-0.051|-0.205|0.003
95984799|NCT03357731|191943354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.057|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/A ratio||0.057|-0.051|0.904
95984800|NCT03357731|191943354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|-0.549|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||-0.549|-2.763|0.006
95984801|NCT03357731|191943354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.085|0.55|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|E/e' ratio||0.550|-1.085|0.503
95984802|NCT03357731|191943355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.82|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||0.820|-0.827|0.994
95984803|NCT03357731|191943355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|1.013|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|annular e' velocity||1.013|-0.049|0.073
95984804|NCT03357731|191943356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.976|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.976|-0.670|0.705
95984805|NCT03357731|191943356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.151|||Kenward-Roger degree of freedom|Kenward-Roger degree of freedom is used to adjust the standard error of treatment effect|The modelled mean difference uses treatment sequence and difference of baselines as a covariates of the treatment effect.|||0.151|-1.504|0.105
95984806|NCT02918864|191943364|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.22||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.037
95984807|NCT02918864|191943366|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.016
95984808|NCT02918864|191943368|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SB=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ADHD+ γ + ε; ADHD, CASI T-score significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.061
95993612|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||-0.12|-8.18|0.0436
95993613|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-1.33|-16.94|0.0224
95929442|NCT00432458|191820569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0048
95929443|NCT00432458|191820570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95929444|NCT00854906|191820582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a pilot study. Therefore, no formal power analyses were performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|1.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||The paired T-test was used to compare mean KTBUT and mean FTBUT.||1.401|-0.069|0.074
95929445|NCT00854906|191820583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis will evaluate the association between OSDI with KTBUT.|Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.34||||0.093|ONE_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's KTBUT.||||0.093
95929446|NCT00854906|191820583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation, r|-0.26||||0.216|||||||Pearson's Correlation|||A correlation was performed between ODSI questionnaire results and each participant's FTBUT.||||0.216
95929447|NCT01256034|191820608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95929448|NCT00723450|191820629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0717||95.0|||||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was performed where the stratification factor was the index mood state at Screen visit.||||||0.0717
95929449|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-1.||1.31|0.81|
95929450|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-3||1.16|0.8|
95929451|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-4||1.4|0.92|
95929452|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.21|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-5||1.21|0.75|
95929453|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-6B||1.16|0.73|
95929454|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-7F||1.29|0.89|
95929455|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-9V||1.19|0.79|
95929456|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-14||1.18|0.81|
95929457|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-18C||1.16|0.77|
95929458|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.4|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19A||1.4|0.95|
95929459|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-19F||1.25|0.84|
95929460|NCT02045836|191820678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: Upper Limit (UL) of the 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Opsonophagocytic Assay (OPA) GMT ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group had to be below 2.|Adjusted GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titre - pooled variance|Adjusted GMT ratio (Control group / Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMTs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for MOPA-23F||1.12|0.7|
95929461|NCT02045836|191820679|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority criterion used: UL of the 95% CI for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group had to be below 1.5|Adjusted GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group)|Adjusted ratios of GMCs between groups (Control group and Co-Ad group) for anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations||1.11|0.93|
95929462|NCT02547922|191820710|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.031||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.713||The p-values presented are unadjusted and was compared with the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed, no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value was nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio \>1 favours placebo.|The model includes fixed effects for treatment group, visit, stratification factors, log-transformed 24-hour UPCR at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction. All data up to and including the date of discontinuation of study treatment were included in the analysis.||1.713|0.621|0.9052
95929463|NCT02547922|191820711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimates|-0.08||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|16.76||At Week 52, the p-values presented are unadjusted and will be compared to the respective adjusted significance level (α). If α is not displayed no formal testing can be performed and the corresponding p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The statistical analysis represents the estimated percentage of responders. The responder/non-responder rates (percentages), the difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||16.76|-16.92|0.9929
95984809|NCT02918864|191943370|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.03||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.674
95984810|NCT02918864|191943372|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.09||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.191
95984811|NCT02918864|191943374|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|0.04||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SC=Group+Time+Group\*Time+Group\*VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal intelligence quotient (VIQ) significant moderator), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.599
95984812|NCT02918864|191943376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 12"||||0.462
95984813|NCT02918864|191943377|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 16"||||1.000
95984814|NCT02918864|191943378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607||||||2-sided p-value; p-value reported not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Fisher Exact|||"Ho=Group and response are independent (responders=improved scores of 1-2; non-responders=worsened scores of 5-7 on the CGI-I) at week 24"||||0.607
95984815|NCT02918864|191943379|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.310
95984816|NCT02918864|191943381|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.115
95984817|NCT02918864|191943383|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.08||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (SRS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+VIQ+ γ + ε; VIQ, verbal IQ significant covariate), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.455
95984818|NCT02918864|191943385|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.379
95984819|NCT02918864|191943387|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.14||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho=No significant interaction of Group\*Time||||0.275
95984820|NCT02918864|191943389|SUPERIORITY||Beta Coefficient|-0.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value reported for Group\*Time, primary comparison in linear mixed effects model (CGS=Group+Time+Group\*Time+ γ + ε), not adjusted for multiple tests (with different time points)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
95984821|NCT01918007|191943405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|0.5|0.54
95984822|NCT01918007|191943406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|68.4|||Chi-squared|||||68.4|2.9|<0.001
95984823|NCT01918007|191943407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.27|-0.35|<0.001
95984824|NCT01918007|191943408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95984825|NCT01918007|191943409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.90|-3.63|<0.001
95984826|NCT01918007|191943410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.89|||Chi-squared|||||1.89|0.71|0.553
95984827|NCT01918007|191943411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.27|||Chi-squared|||||3.27|0.98|0.057
95984828|NCT01918007|191943412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.29||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.25|||Chi-squared|||||6.25|0.84|0.084
95984829|NCT01918007|191943413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.547
95984830|NCT01918007|191943414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
95984831|NCT01918007|191943415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
95984832|NCT01918007|191943416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
95984833|NCT01918007|191943417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
95984834|NCT00783094|191943459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.4|-1.8|0.201
95984835|NCT00783094|191943459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-2.2|0.062
95984836|NCT00783094|191943460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-0.7|0.356
95984837|NCT00783094|191943460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.6|0.487
95984838|NCT00783094|191943461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo|||0.3|-1.3|0.228
95984839|NCT00783094|191943461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.1|-1.7|0.033
95984840|NCT00783094|191943462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-0.4|0.249
95984841|NCT00783094|191943462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no) and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||-0.0|-0.6|0.022
95984842|NCT00783094|191943463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|with effects for treatment,BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.3|-0.4|0.904
95984843|NCT00783094|191943463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity(moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.||||0.3|-0.4|0.800
95984844|NCT00783094|191943464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 2.5 mg - Placebo.|||0.2|-1.5|0.147
95984845|NCT00783094|191943464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|With effects for treatment, BPH severity (moderate/severe), prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Tadalafil 5 mg - Placebo.|||0.1|-1.6|0.094
95984846|NCT00783094|191943467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.342
95984847|NCT00783094|191943467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-Value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank sum test|||||||0.127
95984848|NCT00783094|191943467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.705
95984849|NCT00783094|191943467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-Value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.173
95984850|NCT00783094|191943468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.606
95984851|NCT00783094|191943468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.149
95984852|NCT00783094|191943469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.428
95984853|NCT00783094|191943469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum test|||||||0.426
95984854|NCT00783094|191943470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.060
95984855|NCT00783094|191943470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxin rank-sum|||||||0.212
95984856|NCT01324232|191943482|SUPERIORITY||Pearson correlation|0.0019|||=|0.9827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between the change from Baseline PRS scores and the DM plasma concentration was equal to zero and was tested using a 2-sided test at the 5% level of significance within active treatment groups. The regression line was fitted using change from baseline in average PRS during Day 57-84 as the dependent variable and the average of log-transformed DM Plasma Concentration at Day 22 and Day 50 as the independent variable.||||= 0.9827
95984857|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8869|||||||ANCOVA|||Test of dose trend (overall P value)||||=0.8869
95984858|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.87|-0.94|=0.9381
95984859|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|=|0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.53|-1.28|=0.4128
95984860|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|=|0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.94|-0.88|=0.9427
95984861|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.58|-1.0|=0.6075
95984862|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|=|0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.96|=0.6690
95984863|NCT01324232|191943484|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|=|0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Pairwise treatment group vs placebo||0.62|-0.88|=0.7394
95984864|NCT01324232|191943485|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9731|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9731
95984865|NCT01324232|191943485|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|6.09||||||||6.09|-3.46|
95984866|NCT01324232|191943485|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|1.72||||||||1.72|-7.72|
95984867|NCT01324232|191943485|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.95||||||||5.95|-3.54|
95984868|NCT01324232|191943487|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4778||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.4778
95984869|NCT01324232|191943487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.676|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|7.74||||||||7.74|-6.76|
95984870|NCT01324232|191943487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.663|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.56||||||||5.56|-8.89|
95984871|NCT01324232|191943487|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|10.68||||||||10.68|-3.83|
95857192|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.21|-23.98|<0.0001
95857193|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|15.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.54|5.75|<0.0001
95929464|NCT02709655|191820716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.36|-4.54|0.0937
95929465|NCT02709655|191820716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||1.11|-4.56|0.2336
95929466|NCT02709655|191820716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.37|-5.29|0.0879
95929467|NCT02709655|191820716|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM approach with freely varying mean and covariance structure and with country, treatment (vortioxetine 10 mg/day, vortioxetine 20 mg/day, fluoxetine, and placebo), and Week as fixed factors and Baseline CDRS-R total score as a continuous covariate, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline CDRS-R-by-Week interaction.||0.04|-6.65|0.0531
95929468|NCT02498769|191820737|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.41|0.18
95929469|NCT02498769|191820738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.31|0.19
95929470|NCT02498769|191820739|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICU length of stay hours||||.16
95929471|NCT02498769|191820739|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital LOS||||.51
95929472|NCT02498769|191820740|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
95929473|NCT00843882|191820741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95929474|NCT00843882|191820750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95929475|NCT02248480|191820754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95929476|NCT01713946|191820798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.2|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||4.20|1.16|0.008
95929477|NCT01713946|191820798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.32|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||7.32|2.10|<0.001
95929478|NCT01713946|191820799|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.68|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||31.68|1.98|0.003
95929479|NCT01713946|191820799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|43.36|||Bonferroni-Holm|||||43.36|16.36|<0.001
95929480|NCT01713946|191820800|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|55.73||||||||55.73|0.77|
95929481|NCT01713946|191820800|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|44.03||||||||44.03|0.57|
95929482|NCT01713946|191820801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.97||||||||2.97|1.05|
95929483|NCT01713946|191820801|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.48||||||||6.48|2.25|
95929484|NCT01713946|191820803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.4|
95929485|NCT01713946|191820803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||||||||5.9|2.5|
95929486|NCT01713946|191820804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.07||||||||2.07|0.77|
95929487|NCT01713946|191820804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.96||||||||1.96|0.74|
95929488|NCT01713946|191820805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||||||||2.1|-4.4|
95857194|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.63|-52.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-52.85|-62.63|<0.0001
95857195|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-17.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-17.27|-27.09|<0.0001
95929489|NCT01713946|191820805|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||||4.3|-2.2|
95929490|NCT01713946|191820806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-10.5|
95929491|NCT01713946|191820806|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.8|
95929492|NCT01713946|191820807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|12.3||||||||12.3|-17.9|
95929493|NCT01713946|191820807|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|6.6||||||||6.6|-22.0|
95929494|NCT04493242|191820823|OTHER|log-rank test||||||0.1343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1343
95929495|NCT02544152|191820830|OTHER||||||=|0.987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by sex and baseline stool consistency||||=0.9870
95929496|NCT05764161|191820844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||2.143|0.651|0.5859
95984872|NCT01324232|191943488|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0685|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.0685
95984873|NCT01324232|191943488|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.85|
95984874|NCT01324232|191943488|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.48||||||||0.48|-2.19|
95984875|NCT01324232|191943488|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.15||||||||0.15|-2.54|
95984876|NCT01324232|191943489|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4201|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.4201
95984877|NCT01324232|191943489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.473|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.41||||||||2.41|-3.40|
95984878|NCT01324232|191943489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.97||||||||1.97|-3.76|
95984879|NCT01324232|191943489|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|4.34||||||||4.34|-1.42|
95984880|NCT01324232|191943490|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8068||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.||||=0.8068
95984881|NCT01324232|191943490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.28||||||||1.28|-3.47|
95984882|NCT01324232|191943490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.99|
95984883|NCT01324232|191943490|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.207|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.69||||||||2.69|-2.07|
95984884|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6315||||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Oral responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.6315
95984885|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|7.93||||||||7.93|-3.19|
95984886|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.45||||||||6.45|-3.83|
95984887|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.94||||||||6.94|-4.01|
95984888|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Written responses.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.1485
95984889|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.85||||||||4.85|-1.31|
95984890|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.49||||||||1.49|-4.86|
95984891|NCT01324232|191943491|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (final values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||||||||1.41|-4.71|
95984892|NCT01324232|191943492|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1404|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 158 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 22.||||=0.1404
95984893|NCT01324232|191943492|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 152 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 50.||||=0.0805
95984894|NCT01324232|191943492|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the true correlation between NRS scores and DM plasma concentration is equal to zero. Only 185 of the 209 participants in the mITT Population were analyzed at Day 85.||||=0.0551
95984895|NCT01324232|191943493|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.|ANCOVA|||||||=0.9207
95984896|NCT01146873|191943502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
95929497|NCT05764161|191820844|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|17.46||||||||17.46|-9.84|
95929498|NCT05764161|191820845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.683|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||3.683|0.938|0.0741
95929499|NCT05764161|191820845|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|23.23||||||||23.23|-0.93|
95929500|NCT05764161|191820846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.740|0.750|0.1493
95929501|NCT05764161|191820846|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|14.51||||||||14.51|-2.18|
95929502|NCT05764161|191820847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.193|0.0142
95929503|NCT05764161|191820847|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.01||||||||24.01|2.90|
95929504|NCT05764161|191820848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.897|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.897|1.060|0.0387
95929505|NCT05764161|191820848|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|18.0||||||||18.00|0.98|
95929506|NCT05764161|191820850|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.39|-1.35|0.0005
95929507|NCT05764161|191820850|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.45|-1.64|0.0007
95929508|NCT05764161|191820850|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.36|-1.81|0.0036
95929509|NCT05764161|191820850|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.09|-1.65|0.0287
95929510|NCT05764161|191820852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|2.468|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.468|1.288|0.0005
95929511|NCT05764161|191820853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.477||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.150|1.015|0.0399
95929512|NCT05764161|191820856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.31|-1.29|0.0016
95929513|NCT05764161|191820856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.24|-1.51|0.0071
95929514|NCT05764161|191820856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.14|-1.60|0.0198
95929515|NCT05764161|191820856|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.20|-1.40|0.1384
95929516|NCT05764161|191820862|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||0.14|-2.80|0.0759
95929517|NCT05764161|191820862|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||0.41|-2.78|0.1447
95929518|NCT05764161|191820862|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.91|-2.64|0.3395
95929519|NCT05764161|191820862|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||1.19|-2.53|0.4794
95929520|NCT05764161|191820864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|7.57|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||7.57|-2.38|0.3053
95929521|NCT05764161|191820864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||6.95|-2.72|0.3893
95929522|NCT05764161|191820864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.371||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|7.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||7.50|-1.86|0.2357
95929523|NCT05764161|191820864|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|6.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||6.47|-3.66|0.5839
95929524|NCT03034915|191820882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.089|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.089|0.043|<0.001
95929525|NCT03034915|191820882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.164|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.164|0.118|<0.001
95929526|NCT03034915|191820882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.098|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.098|0.051|<0.001
95929527|NCT03034915|191820883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.68|0.06|0.018
95929528|NCT03034915|191820883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.76|0.15|0.004
95929529|NCT03034915|191820883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24|||0.39|-0.23|0.610
95929530|NCT03034915|191820884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.75|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 24|||1.75|1.17|<0.001
95929531|NCT03034915|191820884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24|||1.81|1.21|<0.001
95929532|NCT03034915|191820884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.27|0.84|0.755
95929533|NCT03034915|191820885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.11|-0.95|0.013
95929534|NCT03034915|191820885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24..|||-0.42|-1.25|<0.001
95929535|NCT03034915|191820885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24|||0.12|-0.72|0.159
95929536|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.05|-0.50|0.016
95929537|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.23||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.23|-0.68|<0.001
95929538|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||E-RS Breathlessness Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.04|-0.41|0.115
95929539|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.05|-0.20|0.247
95984897|NCT01146873|191943503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||<0.001
95984898|NCT01146873|191943504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95984899|NCT01146873|191943506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95984900|NCT00330382|191943515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.11|||>|0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in buccal-cell Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||>0.45
95984901|NCT00330382|191943515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||>|0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in protease activity with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.88
95929540|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.00|-0.25|0.042
95929541|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07||E-RS Cough and Sputum Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.18|0.391
95929542|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||-0.04|-0.31|0.014
95929543|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comapring UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
95929544|NCT03034915|191820886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||E-RS Chest Symptoms Score|Mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||0.07|-0.20|0.340
95929545|NCT03034915|191820887|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI vs UMEC at Week 21 to Week 24|||1.89|1.22|<0.001
95929546|NCT03034915|191820887|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.9|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.90|1.23|<0.001
95929547|NCT03034915|191820887|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 21 to Week 24.|||1.26|0.80|0.969
95929548|NCT03034915|191820888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.57|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.57|-1.07|0.709
95929549|NCT03034915|191820888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.39|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.39|-2.99|0.011
95929550|NCT03034915|191820888|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.61|||mixed model repeated measure||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||-0.61|-3.27|0.004
95929551|NCT03034915|191820889|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.48|0.99|0.063
95929552|NCT03034915|191820889|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.83|1.22|<0.001
95984902|NCT00330382|191943515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.07|||>|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||Correlation of percent change in serum Neu with relative percent change in total lesion area||||> 0.66
95984903|NCT02684604|191943545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95984904|NCT03548935|191943579|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-11.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-11.51|-13.37|<.0001
95984905|NCT03548935|191943579|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|-13.55|||ANCOVA|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.55|-15.29|<0.0001
95984906|NCT03548935|191943580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.88|14.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||14.19|8.88|<0.0001
95929553|NCT03034915|191820889|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.51|1.00|0.045
95929554|NCT03034915|191820890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||0.6|-0.6|0.891
95929555|NCT03034915|191820890|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.074
95929556|NCT03034915|191820890|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures||LS Mean difference comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||0.1|-1.1|0.107
95929557|NCT03034915|191820891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus UMEC at Week 24.|||1.65|1.11|0.003
95929558|NCT03034915|191820891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC/VI versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.50|1.01|0.037
95929559|NCT03034915|191820891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||generalized linear mixed model||Odds Ratio (responder vs. a non-responder) comparing UMEC versus salmeterol at Week 24.|||1.11|0.75|0.363
95984907|NCT03548935|191943580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|48.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand||48.95|28.02|<0.0001
95984908|NCT01074190|191943624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.34
95984909|NCT01074190|191943625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1
95984910|NCT01074190|191943626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 315 achieves 80% power to detect a difference among groups using a 2 degrees of freedom Chi-Square Test with a significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||||.1
95984911|NCT02919436|191943629|SUPERIORITY|We found observed rate of postoperative urinary retention in male spine surgery patients to historically be 17%. We hypothesize that the use of tamsulosin can reduce this rate by 50%. A two group continuity corrected chi-square test with a .05 two-sided significance level will have 80% power to detect the difference between a control group proportion of .17 and a treatment group proportion of .085 (odds ratio of .454) when the sample size in each group is 264 and a total sample size of 528.||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.96
95857196|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-20.00|-29.83|<0.0001
95929560|NCT03861767|191820893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.97||||||Low dose groups collapsed and compared to placebo||1.97|0.67|
95929561|NCT03861767|191820893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.25||||||Intermediate dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.25|0.42|
95984912|NCT03259074|191943632|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.51||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|9.64||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.64|-6.63|0.7164
95984913|NCT03259074|191943632|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|1.67||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate using marginal standardization method.||||9.95|-6.61|0.6925
95984914|NCT03259074|191943633|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.293|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.293|-0.646|
95984915|NCT03259074|191943633|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.315|||||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline mSASSS score as a covariate.|||0.315|-0.639|
95984916|NCT03259074|191943634|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|14.27|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||14.27|-5.62|
95984917|NCT03259074|191943634|SUPERIORITY|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.31|||||Logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline count of vertebral corners with syndesmophyte as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|||11.31|-9.13|
95929562|NCT03861767|191820893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.84||||||High dose groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||1.84|0.61|
95929563|NCT03861767|191820894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.03|0.52|0.92
95929564|NCT03861767|191820895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.00|0.52|0.80
95929565|NCT03861767|191820896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.11|0.49|0.65
95929566|NCT03861767|191820897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||3.62|0.73|0.23
95929567|NCT03861767|191820898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||2.86|0.71|0.31
95857197|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-8.64|-18.41|<0.0001
95929568|NCT03861767|191820899|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.0011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.97
95929569|NCT03861767|191820900|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.30
95929570|NCT03861767|191820901|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||All intervention groups were grouped together and compared to placebo||||0.65
95929571|NCT03861767|191820903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.74|0.27
95929572|NCT03861767|191820904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.44|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||7.44|1.19|0.01
95929573|NCT03861767|191820905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed and compared to placebo||5.30|1.34|<0.01
95929574|NCT03861767|191820906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||All intervention groups were collapsed into one group and compared with placebo. Patients were compared whether they were discharged home or other.||1.56|0.52|0.72
95929575|NCT00346333|191820908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||"Primary Analysis:Proc mixed of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over 4 years.~Power Calculation:240 patients were estimated to be needed to provide sufficient power (i.e. alpha=0.05;beta=0.10)to observe a statistically significant difference between mean change in the 2 groups on the HFA 30-2 total point score over a 4-year interval."||||0.66
95929576|NCT00346333|191820908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.52
95929577|NCT00346333|191820909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary Analysis: Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye. Each patient contributed 2, 1, or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.05
95929578|NCT00346333|191820909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.03
95929579|NCT00346333|191820910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Primary analysis:Proc Mixed of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change by treatment group over four years.The unit of analysis was the eye.Each patient contributed 2,1,or 0 eyes with non-missing data.||||0.24
95929580|NCT00346333|191820910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Clustered Wilcoxon|||Secondary Analysis: As change distribution was non-normal, slope for each eye was calculated with least squares regression and converted to ranks. The Clustered Wilcoxon test was used to compare slope distributions between groups accounting for correlation between slopes for eyes within individuals.||||0.20
95929581|NCT00346333|191820911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over four years between the treatment groups.||||0.59
95929582|NCT00346333|191820912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05. Annual assessments of data by data monitoring board were done with p-values adjusted using the O'Brien-Fleming rule for intermediate looks.|Longitudinal regression analysis|||Proc MIXED of SAS was used to compare annual rates of change over 4 years between the 2 groups.||||0.80
95929583|NCT00424762|191820913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect at least 33% difference between groups||||>0.05
95929584|NCT00424762|191820914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||powered to detect difference of at least 10% between groups||||0.26
95929585|NCT00424762|191820915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparative incidence||||0.03
95929586|NCT03593213|191820916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||=|0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.29||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.29|0.25|=0.1576
95727910|NCT00952484|191425392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value testing whether the mean change from Baseline differs from Zero based on a t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
95929587|NCT03593213|191820916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.45||The significance level was 0.05 using the log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3.0 or 4.5 mg/day vs. placebo) was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||1.45|0.26|=0.2066
95929588|NCT00189202|191820918|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 8% plus or minus 4.||||||0.28|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
95929589|NCT00189202|191820919|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.70
95929590|NCT02326649|191820924|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.47
95993614|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|-7.84|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-7.84|-22.94|0.0001
95984918|NCT03259074|191943635|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.48|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||0.48|-0.12|
95984919|NCT03259074|191943635|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||0.64|0.03|
95984920|NCT03259074|191943636|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|LS Means|0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 150 mg||1.53|0.22|
95984921|NCT03259074|191943636|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|LS Means|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3357|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.08|||||LS Means and 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Berlin SI joint edema score as a covariate.|Week 104 - 300 mg||1.08|-0.24|
95984922|NCT03259074|191943637|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.18|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||8.18|-5.10|
95984923|NCT03259074|191943638|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|Marginal difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.51|||||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method.|||5.51|-10.18|
95984924|NCT03259074|191943639|OTHER|Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented|Marginal difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|9.69|||Marginal difference||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||9.69|-5.34|
95984925|NCT03259074|191943640|OTHER||Marginal difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.74||Due to to the pre-defined hierarchical testing strategy, p values beyond the primary endpoint which was not met were not presented.|||Estimated mean, marginal difference and 95% confidence interval are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor using marginal standardization method|||7.74|-7.08|
95984926|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 1||1.81|1.22|
95984927|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 3||1.54|1.12|
95984928|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 4||1.58|1.13|
95929591|NCT02326649|191820924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.528||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|18.417|||Regression, Linear|||Intercept for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||18.417|-5.295|0.255
95929592|NCT02326649|191820924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|1.395|||Regression, Linear|||Heart rate delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.395|-0.395|0.250
95993615|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||VLDL-C||-2.78|-18.86|0.0091
95795020|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 4 vs 1)||0.98|0.66|
95929593|NCT02326649|191820924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.227|||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||0.227|-1.081|0.183
95929594|NCT02326649|191820924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|1.526|||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP delta for multilinear regression for difference in stroke volume controlling for difference in heart rate and blood pressure||1.526|-0.411|0.238
95727911|NCT02750306|191425400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.2||||0.00128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|45.2|||ANCOVA|||||45.2|11.1|0.00128
95795021|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.37|0.91|
95795022|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.36|0.92|
95984929|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 5||1.71|1.08|
95733929|NCT00377260|191439137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||<.001
95929595|NCT02311907|191820927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Generalized linear models (repeated measures analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]) will be used to compare the CIPN between GSH and placebo arms.||||0.21
95929596|NCT02311907|191820928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
95929597|NCT02950558|191820936|OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1269
95929598|NCT02950558|191820937|OTHER|||||||0.8808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8808
95929599|NCT02950558|191820938|OTHER|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0382
95929600|NCT02950558|191820939|OTHER|||||||0.4696|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4696
95929601|NCT02950558|191820940|OTHER|||||||0.1818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1818
95929602|NCT04001517|191821039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.345||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. The positive value represents a better outcome with neflamapimod 40mg treatment vs. placebo.|This was an exploratory trial and no explicit a priori hypothesis was established and contained in the protocol. As such, no formal power calculations were conducted. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of neflamapimod on cognition, and accordingly the primary endpoint was change in combined z-score of the six tests in the NTB, analyzed by Linear Mixed Effects (LME) model for repeated measures.||0.345|0.001|0.049
95929603|NCT04001517|191821039|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups vs. placebo.|||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
95929604|NCT04001517|191821040|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod 40mg TID vs. placebo. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo utilizing mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison is of neflamapimod 40mg TID to placebo. A negative value indicates improvement compared to placebo.|||-0.16|-0.96|0.007
95929605|NCT04001517|191821040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.06||Mixed model for repeated measures with baseline as a covariate. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo. Negative values represents a better outcome with neflamapimod relative to placebo.|A secondary analysis was conducted comparing the combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.||-0.06|-0.83|0.023
95929606|NCT04001517|191821041|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.2
95993616|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||1.42|-29.12|0.0748
95733930|NCT00377260|191439137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.28
95929607|NCT04001517|191821042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-3.61|0.15
95929608|NCT04001517|191821042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of combined neflamapimod groups (i.e., all neflamapimod) vs. placebo||2.34|-5.03|0.077
95929609|NCT04001517|191821043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change from baseline over course of study for NFMD 40mg TID vs. placebo.|||1.91|-1.27|>0.2
95929610|NCT04001517|191821044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference for the comparison of 40 mg TID vs. placebo is reported.|||-0.2|-2.6|0.024
95929611|NCT04001517|191821044|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of combined neflamapimod dose groups vs. placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-2.69|0.044
95929612|NCT00102063|191821060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95929613|NCT00102063|191821060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95929614|NCT00857649|191821068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|4.21|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||4.21|-1.75|0.418
95929615|NCT00857649|191821069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.34|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||1.34|-2.30|0.603
95929616|NCT00857649|191821070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||0.31|-0.22|0.734
95929617|NCT00857649|191821071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||-0.32|-3.29|0.017
95929618|NCT00857649|191821072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.83|||ANCOVA|Centre and treatment as factors and baseline score as covariate. Estimate based on Least Squares.||||2.83|-1.03|0.360
95929619|NCT04697628|191821105|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio (HR) was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.89|0.54|0.0038
95929620|NCT04697628|191821106|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82||Two-sided p-value calculated from stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model and Efron method was used in handling ties and computed using stratification factors at randomization.|||0.82|0.54|<0.0001
95929621|NCT04697628|191821107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method controlling for stratification factors at randomization.|||7.6|2.1|<0.0001
95929622|NCT04470193|191821115|SUPERIORITY|We approached 62 subjects to get a sample size of 50 participants, allowing up to 16% attrition, to estimate the proportions of patients satisfying dropout of 0.13 to within margins of error (half-widths of 90% Cis). The 50 evaluable subjects were used to estimate the SD of QoL, with a margin of error of ∼20%. The sample size also allowed us to provide provisional estimates of the effect size for the QoL outcome to within a margin of error of ±7.1 points, assuming a true SD of 15 points.|||||>|0.05|||||||generalized estimating equation model|||We used a generalized estimating equation model for repeated assessments, with a common unstructured residual covariance matrix to account for correlation in repeated measurements in the same patient, to compare QoL total score at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months between the groups. We hypothesized that MyChildCMC users would have better outcomes for the child (higher QoL, fewer ED and/or hospital use and hospital days) and parent (higher satisfaction with child's care).||||>0.05
95929623|NCT04470193|191821116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|0.58|0.882
95929624|NCT04470193|191821117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|0.39|<0.001
95929625|NCT04470193|191821118|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|1.01|0.035
95929626|NCT01579916|191821125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference greater than or equal to 5 percentage points. This corresponds to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||Score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (trivalent influenza virus vaccine minus placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points||0.6|-8.9|
95929627|NCT03617263|191821136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0613
95929628|NCT03617263|191821137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<.0001
95929629|NCT03617263|191821137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<.0001
95929630|NCT03617263|191821138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0142
95929631|NCT03617263|191821138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0077
95929632|NCT03617263|191821139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2893|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2893
95929633|NCT03617263|191821139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1989
95929634|NCT03617263|191821140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<.0001
95929635|NCT03617263|191821140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<.0001
95929636|NCT03617263|191821141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8664|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8664
95929637|NCT03617263|191821141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1137
95929638|NCT03617263|191821142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0487
95929639|NCT03617263|191821142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7743|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7743
95929640|NCT03617263|191821143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1174
95929641|NCT03617263|191821143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1483
95929642|NCT03617263|191821144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0941|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0941
95929643|NCT03617263|191821144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2378|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2378
95929644|NCT03617263|191821145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1542|||||||ANCOVA|||CK-18 Fragment - M30||||0.1542
95929645|NCT03617263|191821145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||CK-18 Fragment - M65||||0.2037
95727912|NCT02750306|191425403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7||||0.01354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-28.1|0.01354
95929646|NCT03617263|191821146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4431|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4431
95929647|NCT03617263|191821147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2289
95929648|NCT03617263|191821148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0853
95929649|NCT03617263|191821149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2559|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2559
95929650|NCT03617263|191821150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6800
95929651|NCT03617263|191821150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4587|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4587
95929652|NCT03617263|191821151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9230
95929653|NCT03617263|191821151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7115
95929654|NCT03617263|191821152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1983|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1983
95929655|NCT03617263|191821153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7576|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7576
95929656|NCT03617263|191821154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2784
95929657|NCT03617263|191821154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0091
95929658|NCT03617263|191821155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0941|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0941
95929659|NCT03617263|191821155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
95929660|NCT03617263|191821156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1363|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1363
95929661|NCT03617263|191821156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3057
95929662|NCT03617263|191821157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3323|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3323
95929663|NCT03617263|191821157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0624
95929664|NCT03617263|191821158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5050
95929665|NCT03617263|191821158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0279
95929666|NCT03617263|191821159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3508|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3508
95929667|NCT03617263|191821159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0059
95929668|NCT03617263|191821160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6800
95929669|NCT03617263|191821160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7310
95929670|NCT03617263|191821161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0896
95929671|NCT03617263|191821161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0053
95929672|NCT03617263|191821162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5962|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5962
95929673|NCT03617263|191821162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3035|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3035
95929674|NCT03617263|191821163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3482|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3482
95929675|NCT03617263|191821163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4176|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4176
95929676|NCT03617263|191821164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9930
95929677|NCT03617263|191821164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3612
95929678|NCT03617263|191821165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4373|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4373
95929679|NCT03617263|191821165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6248|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6248
95929680|NCT03617263|191821166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0994
95929681|NCT03617263|191821166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3527|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.3527
95929682|NCT03617263|191821167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7065|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7065
95929683|NCT03617263|191821167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.4096
95929684|NCT03617263|191821168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2475|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2475
95929685|NCT03617263|191821168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1621
95929686|NCT03617263|191821169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5862|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5862
95929687|NCT03617263|191821169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2026
95929688|NCT03617263|191821170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6434|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6434
95929689|NCT03617263|191821170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9895|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.9895
95929690|NCT00762619|191821288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929691|NCT00762619|191821289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929692|NCT00762619|191821290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929693|NCT00762619|191821291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929694|NCT00762619|191821292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929695|NCT00762619|191821293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929696|NCT00762619|191821294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929697|NCT00762619|191821295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929698|NCT00762619|191821296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929699|NCT00762619|191821297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929700|NCT00762619|191821298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929701|NCT00762619|191821299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929702|NCT00762619|191821300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929703|NCT00762619|191821301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95727913|NCT00457665|191425420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
95929704|NCT00762619|191821302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929705|NCT00762619|191821303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929706|NCT00762619|191821304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929707|NCT00762619|191821305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929708|NCT00762619|191821306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929709|NCT00762619|191821307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929710|NCT00762619|191821308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929711|NCT00762619|191821309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929712|NCT00762619|191821310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929713|NCT00762619|191821311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929714|NCT00762619|191821312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929715|NCT00762619|191821313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929716|NCT00762619|191821314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929717|NCT00762619|191821315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929718|NCT00762619|191821316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929719|NCT00762619|191821317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929720|NCT00762619|191821318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929721|NCT00762619|191821319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929722|NCT00762619|191821320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929723|NCT00762619|191821321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929724|NCT00762619|191821322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929725|NCT00762619|191821323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929726|NCT00762619|191821324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929727|NCT00762619|191821325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929728|NCT00762619|191821326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929729|NCT00762619|191821327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929730|NCT00762619|191821328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95984930|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.69|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6A||1.69|1.12|
95929731|NCT00762619|191821329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929732|NCT00762619|191821330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929733|NCT00762619|191821331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929734|NCT00762619|191821332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929735|NCT00762619|191821333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929736|NCT00762619|191821334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929737|NCT00762619|191821335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929738|NCT00762619|191821336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929739|NCT00762619|191821337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929740|NCT00762619|191821338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929741|NCT00762619|191821339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929742|NCT00762619|191821340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929743|NCT00762619|191821341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95984931|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.7|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 6B||1.70|1.17|
95984932|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 7F||1.55|1.16|
95929744|NCT00762619|191821342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929745|NCT00762619|191821343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929746|NCT00762619|191821344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929747|NCT00762619|191821345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929748|NCT00762619|191821346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929749|NCT00762619|191821347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929750|NCT00762619|191821348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929751|NCT00762619|191821349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929752|NCT00762619|191821350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929753|NCT00762619|191821351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929754|NCT00762619|191821352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929755|NCT00762619|191821353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929756|NCT00762619|191821354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929757|NCT00762619|191821355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95929758|NCT01123083|191821356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|||0.00|-0.17|0.051
95929759|NCT01123083|191821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.18|0.022
95929760|NCT01123083|191821357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline C-peptide AUC. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.03|-0.15|0.191
95929761|NCT01123083|191821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.37|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||3.37|0.50|0.912
95984933|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 8||1.64|1.17|
95984934|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.47|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 9V||1.47|1.05|
95984935|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 10A||1.44|1.03|
95984936|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 11A||1.42|0.98|
95984937|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 12F||1.46|0.99|
95984938|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.67|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 14||1.67|1.21|
95984939|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.76|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 15B||1.76|1.22|
95984940|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.55|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 18C||1.55|1.07|
95984941|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19A||1.61|1.20|
95993617|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.68|-13.18|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-13.18|-43.68|0.0004
95993618|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-10.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-HDL-C||-10.64|-44.08|0.0016
95929762|NCT01123083|191821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.42|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||2.42|0.37|0.912
95929763|NCT01123083|191821359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.52|||GEE Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline HbA1c/Insulin Use Response. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||4.52|0.54|0.412
95929764|NCT01123083|191821360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.02|-0.08|0.210
95929765|NCT01123083|191821360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.02|-0.11|0.210
95727914|NCT01102777|191425442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of outcome, MMRC dyspnea score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.142
95993619|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|6.8|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||6.80|-11.68|0.6005
95929766|NCT01123083|191821360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and Baseline Mean Daily Insulin Use. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.13|-0.05|0.402
95929767|NCT01123083|191821361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.16|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Week 12||0.16|-0.52|0.582
95929768|NCT01123083|191821361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.45|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 6||0.45|-0.46|0.987
95929769|NCT01123083|191821361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model||Estimated treatment group difference, adjusted for age, region and baseline HbA1c. Confidence Interval, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Month 12||0.59|-0.33|0.572
95929770|NCT01123083|191821364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.452
95929771|NCT01123083|191821364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.452
95929772|NCT01123083|191821365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 6||||0.123
95929773|NCT01123083|191821365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Hochberg-adjusted p-value|||Month 12||||0.373
95929774|NCT00546871|191821390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.067|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.134||||||||0.134||
95929775|NCT05850520|191821431|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin.|Difference in LS means|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||1-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BCVA measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/3 -2q4||1.9|-2.0|<0.0001
95929776|NCT05850520|191821431|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin.|Difference in LS means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7||1-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BCVA measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/5 -2q4||2.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95929777|NCT05850520|191821432|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.6||Nominal p-value based on a non-parametric rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|Estimation based on composite strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to treatment related AEs and hypothetical strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to other reasons. Hypothetical values imputed using a MI model.|8q8/3 -2q4||-2.6|-2.8|<0.0001
95929778|NCT05850520|191821432|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.7||Nominal p-value based on a non-parametric rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BCVA, baseline CST, and the stratification variables.|Estimation based on composite strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to treatment related AEs and hypothetical strategy for premature treatment discontinuation due to other reasons. Hypothetical values imputed using a MI model.|8q8/5 -2q4||-1.7|-1.9|<0.0001
95929779|NCT05850520|191821436|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.1||||0.9804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.8||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline CST measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/3 - 2q4||9.8|-10.0|0.9804
95929780|NCT05850520|191821436|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|1.2||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.2||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline CST measurement was used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and the stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM.|8q8/5 - 2q4||10.2|-7.7|0.7863
95929781|NCT05850520|191821437|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.36||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||Nominal p-value for the two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score measurement used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing active injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach.|8q8/3 - 2q4||1.40|-2.1|0.6869
95929782|NCT05850520|191821437|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.45|||ANCOVA|Baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score measurement used as a covariate and treatment group, visit, and stratification variables as fixed factors.|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond ICE (premature discontinuation of treatment, prohibited medication, missing active injection) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach.|8q8/5 - 2q4||2.45|-1.2|
95929783|NCT05777785|191821445|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9789||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95929784|NCT05777785|191821447|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
95857198|NCT01746901|191672620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-18.78|-28.62|<0.0001
95929785|NCT05777785|191821448|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis determined that a sample size of 90 participants will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 (Cohen's D) using a paired t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95929786|NCT02189252|191821559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|160.05||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.71|395.82||The closed sequential testing procedure stopped at this step as the P Value is greater than 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the first test in the fixed testing sequence.||395.82|64.71|0.2702
95929787|NCT02189252|191821559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|121.61||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.17|300.76||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the second test in the fixed testing sequence.||300.76|49.17|0.6367
95929788|NCT02189252|191821560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|193.91||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.61|377.47||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the third test in the fixed testing sequence.||377.47|99.61|0.0511
95929789|NCT02189252|191821560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|133.32||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.49|259.52||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to address the issue of multiple testing while maintaining overall type I error, a closed testing sequence was used involving 4 analyses stated in the primary objective of this study. In total, 4 statistical tests, each at a significance level of 5%, were carried along the fixed sequence until the first statistically non-significant treatment difference was observed (i.e. p-value\>0.05). This is the fourth test in the fixed testing sequence.||259.52|68.49|0.3543
95929790|NCT02189252|191821561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|259.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.75|560.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||560.99|119.75|0.0210
95929791|NCT02189252|191821561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|177.95||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.22|385.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||385.16|82.22|0.1256
95929792|NCT02189252|191821562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|298.91||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.32|543.74||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||543.74|164.32|0.0025
95929793|NCT02189252|191821562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|187.28||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.95|340.66||The p-value was only interpreted descriptively|Mixed Models Analysis|||||340.66|102.95|0.0418
95929794|NCT02189252|191821563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|79.36||||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|274.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||274.45|22.95|0.6833
95929795|NCT02189252|191821563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|69.39||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|239.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||239.98|20.07|0.5220
95929796|NCT02189252|191821564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.78||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.92|244.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||244.41|44.92|0.9034
95929797|NCT02189252|191821564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|80.58||||0.5782||95.0|34.55|187.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.95|34.55|0.5782
95929798|NCT02189252|191821565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|753.75||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.03|5071.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5071.6|112.03|0.0391
95929799|NCT02189252|191821565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|104.98||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|706.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||706.33|15.60|0.9578
95929800|NCT02189252|191821566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|376.64||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.55|1103.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1103.5|128.55|0.0186
95929801|NCT02189252|191821566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio in %|131.74||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.97|386.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||386.00|44.97|0.5955
95929802|NCT00566735|191821568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||Independent t-test to assess differences between the placebo and galantamine groups in regard to pre- and post-ECT scores on the Delayed Memory Index (DMI).||||<0.05
95929803|NCT04603924|191821572|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement will be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median time-to-clinical improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves. In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
95929804|NCT04603924|191821573|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"For the analysis of this efficacy endpoint, missing scores of the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement were be assumed to be \> 2 (i.e., no hospital discharge). Median number of days to a 2-point improvement and corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curves.~In some cases the 95% confidence interval was Not Evaluable (NE) by this method."|||
95727915|NCT01102777|191425443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.502
95993620|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.83||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||-0.59|-19.07|0.0374
95857199|NCT01746901|191672621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-7.57|-11.90|<0.0001
95984942|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.57|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 19F||1.57|1.12|
95984943|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 22F||1.60|1.12|
95984944|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.71|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 23F||1.71|1.09|
95984945|NCT05879107|191943642|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (as measured by the OP assay) between the Control group (at Day 31) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) was \<=2.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.64|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|Strep pneumoniae - serotype 33F||1.64|1.20|
95984946|NCT05879107|191943643|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-A||1.20|0.94|
95984947|NCT05879107|191943644|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer was \<=1.5.|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|RSV-B||1.13|0.89|
95984948|NCT00804570|191943653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-9.72|0.120
95984949|NCT00804570|191943654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.27|0.013
95984950|NCT00804570|191943655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.37||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|10.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.77|-0.02|0.051
95984951|NCT00804570|191943656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-1.07|0.249
95984952|NCT00804570|191943657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-1.12|0.199
95984953|NCT00804570|191943658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-2.03|0.318
95984954|NCT00804570|191943659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-5.80|0.034
95984955|NCT00804570|191943660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.96|0.85|0.001
95984956|NCT00804570|191943661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.96||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.91|0.103
95984957|NCT00804570|191943662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR over Baseline relative to placebo|0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.89|0.012
95984958|NCT00804570|191943663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.05|0.392
95984959|NCT00804570|191943664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-1.10|0.185
95984960|NCT00804570|191943665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.92|||ANCOVA|||||2.92|-0.42|0.142
95984961|NCT00804570|191943666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.04||P-value is for desire to stop drinking at this time.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.01|0.69
95984962|NCT00804570|191943666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45||P-value is for expectation of success in quitting alcohol.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.85|0.545
95984963|NCT00804570|191943666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.24||P-value is for difficulty to quit and remain abstinent.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.20|0.190
95984964|NCT00804570|191943666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4||P-value is for goal related to alcohol use.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.49|0.856
95984965|NCT00804570|191943667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.68|0.297
95984966|NCT00804570|191943668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.36|-1.44|0.633
95984967|NCT00804570|191943671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.07||P-value is for supine systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|-2.62|0.409
95984968|NCT00804570|191943671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.73||P-value is for supine diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-1.63|0.452
95984969|NCT00804570|191943672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.93|0.456
95984970|NCT00804570|191943673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-4.41|0.081
95929805|NCT04396860|191821582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank|Reference level = Arm 1|For the phase II endpoint, observation of 100 PFS events among the 150 randomized patients (from both arms) provides 95% statistical power to detect an improvement in median PFS from 5.7 months in the control arm to 9.7 months in the experimental arm, corresponding to a hazard reduction of 42% (hazard ratio 0.58) at one-sided significance level of 0.15 (and 87% power for hazard ratio of 0.65 at this same alpha).||2.21|0.98|0.96
95984971|NCT00804570|191943674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
95984972|NCT00804570|191943675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95984973|NCT00804570|191943676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||P-value is for orthostatic systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.82|0.235
95984974|NCT00804570|191943676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.42||P-value is for orthostatic diastolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.05|0.400
95984975|NCT00804570|191943677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-0.08|0.077
95984976|NCT00804570|191943679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|0.24|<0.001
95984977|NCT00290342|191943680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to diphteria||1.79|-1.85|
95984978|NCT00290342|191943680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.79||||||Non-inferiority in terms of vaccine response to tetanus||1.79|-1.85|
95984979|NCT00290342|191943681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 1, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.82||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 1||1.82|-1.85|
95984980|NCT00290342|191943681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 2, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 2||2.71|-1.36|
95984981|NCT00290342|191943681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to poliovirus type 3, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.24||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-Polio 3||2.24|-2.28|
95929806|NCT00818454|191821597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95929807|NCT00818454|191821598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95929808|NCT00818454|191821599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.159
95929809|NCT00818454|191821600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8278|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.8278
95984982|NCT00290342|191943682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertussis toxoid, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.13||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PT||4.13|-0.46|
95984983|NCT00290342|191943682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to filamentous haemagglutinin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-FHA||2.95|-1.88|
95984984|NCT00290342|191943682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess the non-inferiority of the Infanrix-IPV Group compared to the Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group in terms of vaccine response to pertactin, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference (Infanrix-IPV Group minus Infanrix + IMOVAX Polio Group) was computed. Objective of non-inferiority was met since the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.64||||||Immune response non-inferiority - Anti-PRN||2.64|-1.4|
95993621|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|5.0|||ANCOVA|||ApoB||5.00|-15.55|0.3100
95929810|NCT00818454|191821601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.5098
95929811|NCT00818454|191821602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6591|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6591
95929812|NCT00818454|191821603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3631|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.3631
95929813|NCT00818454|191821604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Enter additional comments here, if non-inferiority or equivalence analysis||||||0.6787|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|||||||0.6787
95929814|NCT00818454|191821605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0001
95929815|NCT00818454|191821606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, period, week, and treatment by week interaction||||||0.0003
95929816|NCT00414544|191821607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was tested.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Confidence interval|The 90% lower confidence bound of the difference between CosmetaLife and Restylane were computed.|The confidence interval is built around the mean difference of the two reporting groups.|The a priori hypothesis for statistical analysis was based on predetermined clinical relevance being set to a difference score between CosmetaLife and Control (Restylane) of -0.5. This clinical relevance was set to -0.5 because the observation scale used is not accurate below 0.5 differences. That is CosmetaLife needed to be greater than 0.5 less than Control (Restylane) in the treatment difference scores to be considered inferior.||1.0|-2.0|
95929817|NCT00773370|191821610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between slopes|8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.17|<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||<0.25
95929818|NCT00773370|191821610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|14.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||<0.004
95929819|NCT00773370|191821610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.218
95929820|NCT00773370|191821611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.186|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.256||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.47
95929821|NCT00773370|191821611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.175||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.225
95929822|NCT00773370|191821611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.187||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.88
95929823|NCT00773370|191821612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between slopes|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.078||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope compared the time course (slopes) of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.|ANOVA|||||||.98
95929824|NCT00773370|191821612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.033|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.054||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.54
95929825|NCT00773370|191821612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.031|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||Within group change over time||||.59
95929826|NCT00773370|191821613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.77||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Random effects ANOVA with random intercept and random slope was used to compare the time course of change in our outcome measures across three time points: baseline, three, and six-months in our two experimental groups--APA-stroke and Sittercise.||||.98
95929827|NCT00773370|191821613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.02
95929828|NCT00773370|191821613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.193|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.553||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||Random effects ANOVA, random intercept, random slope estimating within group change (slope) over time|ANOVA|||||||.051
95929829|NCT01765543|191821616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.484|0.78||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.780|0.484|
95929830|NCT01765543|191821617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.469|0.759||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||0.759|0.469|
95929831|NCT01765543|191821618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.36||||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric mean ratio (Period C/Period A) and confidence intervals.||1.36|0.908|
95929832|NCT00779870|191821633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95929833|NCT00779870|191821633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95929834|NCT01040689|191821636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.145|<0.0001
95929835|NCT01040689|191821636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.167|<0.0001
95929836|NCT01040689|191821636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.133|<0.0001
95929837|NCT01040689|191821637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.090|<0.0001
95929838|NCT01040689|191821637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.136|<0.0001
95727916|NCT01102777|191425444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.90
95929839|NCT01040689|191821637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
95929840|NCT01040689|191821638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.121|<0.0001
95929841|NCT01040689|191821638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.155|<0.0001
95929842|NCT01040689|191821638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.110|<0.0001
95929843|NCT01040689|191821639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.147|<0.0001
95929844|NCT01040689|191821639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.178|<0.0001
95929845|NCT01040689|191821639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.097|<0.0001
95929846|NCT01040689|191821640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.170|<0.0001
95929847|NCT01040689|191821640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.179|<0.0001
95929848|NCT01040689|191821640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.146|<0.0001
95929849|NCT01040689|191821641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.177|<0.0001
95929850|NCT01040689|191821641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.203|<0.0001
95929851|NCT01040689|191821641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.125|<0.0001
95929852|NCT01040689|191821642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
95929853|NCT01040689|191821642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.189|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.189|<0.0001
95929854|NCT01040689|191821642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.156|<0.0001
95984985|NCT01056510|191943693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The first-line subpopulation became the focus of the primary statistical analysis following the protocol amendment dated 21-May-2012.||||0.002
95929855|NCT01040689|191821643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.170|0.096|<0.0001
95929856|NCT01040689|191821643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.110|<0.0001
95929857|NCT01040689|191821643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|0.060|<0.0001
95993622|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.002||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.09|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.09|-2.10|0.0728
95929858|NCT01040689|191821644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.216|<0.0001
95929859|NCT01040689|191821644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.237|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.237|<0.0001
95929860|NCT01040689|191821644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.210|<0.0001
95929861|NCT01040689|191821645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.131|<0.0001
95929862|NCT01040689|191821645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.187|<0.0001
95929863|NCT01040689|191821645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.249|0.118|<0.0001
95929864|NCT01040689|191821646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.301|0.178|<0.0001
95929865|NCT01040689|191821646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.216|<0.0001
95929866|NCT01040689|191821646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.168|<0.0001
95929867|NCT01040689|191821647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.207|<0.0001
95929868|NCT01040689|191821647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.251|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.251|<0.0001
95929869|NCT01040689|191821647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.153|<0.0001
95929870|NCT01040689|191821648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.246|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.246|<0.0001
95929871|NCT01040689|191821648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.247|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.388|0.247|<0.0001
95929872|NCT01040689|191821648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.231|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.231|<0.0001
95929873|NCT01040689|191821649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.378|0.222|<0.0001
95984986|NCT01056510|191943694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
95727917|NCT01102777|191425445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value and rural residence.||||||.93
95929874|NCT01040689|191821649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.220|<0.0001
95929875|NCT01040689|191821649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.217|0.373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.217|<0.0001
95929876|NCT01040689|191821650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.115|<0.0001
95857200|NCT01746901|191672621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||7.32|2.99|<0.0001
95857201|NCT01746901|191672621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.20|-2.13|0.9766
95857202|NCT01746901|191672621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.44|-6.78|<0.0001
95857203|NCT01746901|191672621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.7242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.78|-2.55|0.7242
95857204|NCT01746901|191672621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-2.28|-6.62|<0.0001
95857205|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||23.5|14.6|<0.0001
95929877|NCT01040689|191821650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.143|<0.0001
95929878|NCT01040689|191821650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.059|0.0003
95929879|NCT03718767|191821661|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.623
95929880|NCT03718767|191821661|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.073
95727918|NCT01102777|191425446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson regression|Adjusted for age, gender, oxygen use, and arm.||||||.08
95857206|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||5.0|-3.9|0.8048
95857207|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.1|4.2|0.0002
95857208|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.4|6.5|<0.0001
95857209|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||11.6|2.7|0.0019
95857210|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||12.1|3.2|0.0010
95857211|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|127.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|161.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||161.2|93.6|<0.0001
95929881|NCT02658240|191821672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The study was powered to detect a mean difference of 1.5 in pain scores in favor of patients undergoing SFICB procedure assuming a standard deviation of 2.5. With a two sided alpha level of 0.05, a total of 52 patients would be needed to have 80% power using a repeated measures ANOVA F test with 6 observations on each subject. Correlation on the repeat observations was assumed to be 0.5. Assuming a 14% loss to follow-up, 60 patients were enrolled at 1:1 ratio.||||0.05
95929882|NCT02658240|191821673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95929883|NCT02658240|191821674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
95929884|NCT02658240|191821675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
95929885|NCT01391130|191821686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2149||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7462|1.9779|||Log Rank|||||1.9779|0.7462|0.4318
95929886|NCT00588770|191821703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The P value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified by choice of chemotherapy combination, performance status, weight loss in the last 6 months, and prior radiation of the head and neck.|Log Rank|||The study hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab will improve the median survival by 35% from 8.5 months (based on E1395 and E5397) to 11.5 months.||||0.22
95929887|NCT02517307|191821722|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the effects of intralipid on Rd in controls subjects versus subjects with a FAOD by mixed-effect models. Factors were group (control or FAOD) treatment (glycerol or intralipid) and the interaction of those factors. The hypothesis was intralipid would decrease Rd in controls but not in subjects with an FAOD.||||0.136
95929888|NCT02517307|191821723|OTHER|We analyzed the data with a mixed model looking at the effect of group (control vs FAOD) and treatment (glycerol vs intralipid) and their interaction.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested if intralipid did not suppress endogenous glucose production or Ra as much as glycerol in controls compared to subjects with an FAOD.||||0.011
95929889|NCT02115282|191821724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, the threshold for significance was two-sided p value of 0.2%.|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.67|0.30
95993623|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.803||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||-0.69|-2.91|0.0018
95857212|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||38.5|-29.1|0.7837
95857213|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|65.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|99.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||99.6|32.0|0.0002
95857214|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|100.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||100.1|32.5|0.0002
95857215|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|94.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||94.1|26.5|0.0006
95929890|NCT02115282|191821725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||The p value was based on stratified log rank test, stratified on the four randomization factors. The threshold for statistical significance was two-sided p value of 3.7% after taking into account the five interim analyses of OS into account.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.82|0.94
95929891|NCT01582269|191821742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.6158|1.49|0.58|
95929892|NCT01582269|191821742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||The Bayesian analyses below include credible intervals rather than confidence intervals for the hazard ratios.|The posterior probability treatment difference is 0.2628|1.65|0.78|
95929893|NCT05797155|191821760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month.||2.67|1.04|.036
95929894|NCT05797155|191821760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||1.72|0.72|.632
95929895|NCT05797155|191821761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the condition by time interaction).|This is a longitudinal analysis from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||.437
95929896|NCT05797155|191821762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.42|0.94|.088
95929897|NCT05797155|191821762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.07|0.64|.646
95929898|NCT05797155|191821763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.72|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 1-month||2.72|1.15|.010
95929899|NCT05797155|191821763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||The Support2Quit group was scored 1 and the Comparison group was scored 0 (reference group for the odds ratio).|This is a cross sectional analysis at 3-months||2.11|0.89|.158
95929900|NCT03762668|191821779|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in VA was declared if the Upper Confidence Limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||mixed effects repeated measures model||test minus control|||0.01||
95857216|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||65.7|-1.9|0.0640
95857217|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|190.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||190.7|94.5|<0.0001
95857218|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.8||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||63.9|-32.3|0.5169
95857219|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|129.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||129.3|33.2|0.0011
95929901|NCT02731755|191821796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between time points and treatments, calculated p value||||0.5
95929902|NCT02731755|191821797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach-iAUC||||0.04
95929903|NCT02731755|191821797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNP-IAUC||||0.007
95929904|NCT02731755|191821797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ach - AUC||||0.02
95929905|NCT02731755|191821798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
95929906|NCT02731755|191821800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
95929907|NCT00465816|191821804|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenA GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenA GMT of the Nimenrix + Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.22|0.8|
95984987|NCT01056510|191943695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on one-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test for participants achieving CR confirmed with biopsy versus those not achieving CR confirmed with biopsy|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
95857220|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|125.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||125.2|29.1|0.0018
95857221|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.6||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|111.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||111.7|15.6|0.0098
95857222|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|39.4||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|87.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||87.4|-8.7|0.1078
95857223|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.9|275.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||275.1|116.9|<0.0001
95857224|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|80.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||80.5|-77.7|0.9726
95857225|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|193.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.2|35.0|0.0050
95857226|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|83.3||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|162.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||162.4|4.2|0.0392
95857227|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.7||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|147.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.8|-10.4|0.0883
95857228|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|143.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||143.5|-14.7|0.1100
95857229|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|242.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|347.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||347.2|138.6|<0.0001
95929908|NCT00465816|191821804|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenC GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenC GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.21|0.68|
95929909|NCT00465816|191821804|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenW-135 GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenW-135 GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrixg roup compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.87|
95929910|NCT00465816|191821804|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of rSBA-MenY GMTs between Nimenrix + Twinrix group and (over) Nimenrix group was ≥ 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19|||ANCOVA|||To assess the Non-inferiority in term of rSBA-MenY GMT of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Nimenrix one, Two-sided 95% CI from ANCOVA model on the GMTs ratio (Nimenrix+Twinrix group over Nimenrix group) was computed. The model was adjusted for age strata and baseline titre.||1.19|0.85|
95929911|NCT00465816|191821805|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.9||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates for hepatitis A (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||3.9|-1.19|
95929912|NCT00465816|191821806|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for group difference (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) in the percentage of subjects with vaccine seroconversion was ≥ pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Percentage difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.92||||||To assess the Non-inferiority of the Nimenrix+Twinrix group compared to the Twinrix one, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in seroprotection rates for hepatitis B (Nimenrix+Twinrix group minus Twinrix group) was computed.||2.92|-2.64|
95929913|NCT01185561|191821829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in CES-D score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||13.76|4.03|.001
95929914|NCT01185561|191821830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|14.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.37|1.29|.02
95857230|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.0||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|83.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||83.2|-125.3|0.6906
95857231|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|223.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||223.0|14.5|0.0259
95857232|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.2||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|207.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||207.5|-1.1|0.0525
95857233|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.2||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|164.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||164.4|-44.1|0.2558
95857234|NCT01746901|191672622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|88.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|192.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||192.9|-15.7|0.0952
95857235|NCT01746901|191672623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-0.2|-3.3|0.0298
95857236|NCT01746901|191672623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|1.1|0.0008
95857237|NCT01746901|191672623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-2.0|0.6450
95857238|NCT01746901|191672623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||2.9|-0.2|0.0962
95857239|NCT01746901|191672623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||0.5|-2.6|0.1930
95857240|NCT01746901|191672623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||3.3|0.2|0.0310
95929915|NCT01185561|191821831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anxiety Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||14.31|2.64|.005
95929916|NCT01185561|191821832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the State Trait Anger Expression Sub-test score between those assigned to the psychoeducational intervention and those assigned to usual medical care six months after randomization.||8.24|-6.77|.85
95929917|NCT02755805|191821833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|"F(3,74)=4.37~P-values were calculated using mixed model analyses and controlled for stoke severity as a covariate."|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.007
95929918|NCT02755805|191821834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=2.55|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||0.09
95929919|NCT02755805|191821835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,34)=7.83|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.002
95929920|NCT02755805|191821836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size at month 6|0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at \<0.05|repeated measures fixed effects model|F(2,28)=3.61|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 6) and standard error of change (baseline to month 6) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||||.04
95984988|NCT01056510|191943696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 3 cycles||||0.900
95857241|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||49.0|33.9|<0.0001
95857242|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-4.2|0.3763
95857243|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||25.8|10.7|<0.0001
95857244|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
95857245|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||28.2|13.1|<0.0001
95857246|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-1): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||26.8|11.8|<0.0001
95857247|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|284.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|232.9|335.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||335.8|232.9|<0.0001
95857248|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.2||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||82.8|-20.4|0.2336
95857249|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|167.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.7|218.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||218.9|115.7|<0.0001
95857250|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|199.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||199.7|96.8|<0.0001
95857251|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|187.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||187.2|84.0|<0.0001
95857252|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|113.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|165.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-8): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||165.0|62.1|<0.0001
95857253|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|278.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.2|343.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||343.3|213.2|<0.0001
95857254|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|71.3||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|136.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||136.5|6.1|0.0322
95857255|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|195.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.2|260.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||260.5|130.2|<0.0001
95857256|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|154.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|219.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||219.3|89.2|<0.0001
95857257|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|208.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||208.4|78.0|<0.0001
95857258|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|126.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|191.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-12): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||191.8|61.7|0.0002
95929921|NCT04147897|191821849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.28|||.06
95929922|NCT04147897|191821849|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.19|||.25
95929923|NCT04147897|191821850|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||0.37
95984989|NCT01056510|191943696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||After 6 cycles||||0.563
95984990|NCT01056510|191943696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||At the EOT visit||||0.304
95857259|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|202.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.4|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||286.4|118.4|<0.0001
95857260|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|137.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|221.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||221.8|53.3|0.0015
95857261|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|192.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.7|277.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||277.2|108.7|<0.0001
95857262|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|231.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||231.1|63.0|0.0007
95857263|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|148.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|232.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||232.4|63.9|0.0007
95857264|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|193.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-24): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||193.6|25.5|0.0110
95857265|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|196.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.4|284.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||284.6|107.4|<0.0001
95857266|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|222.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||222.8|45.0|0.0034
95857267|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|190.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|279.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||279.8|102.1|<0.0001
95857268|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|138.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|227.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||227.6|50.3|0.0023
95857269|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|236.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||236.7|59.0|0.0013
95857270|NCT01746901|191672624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|100.0||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|188.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUE (0-36): Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||188.6|11.3|0.0273
95857271|NCT01746901|191672625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-1.8|-5.0|<0.0001
95857272|NCT01746901|191672625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.4|1.3|0.0004
95857273|NCT01746901|191672625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8478
95857274|NCT01746901|191672625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.2|-1.9|0.6192
95857275|NCT01746901|191672625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.4|-1.7|0.8857
95857276|NCT01746901|191672625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||1.0|-2.1|0.5092
95857277|NCT03594110|191672647|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0017 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.83|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|<0.0001
95857278|NCT03594110|191672648|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0145 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|98.55|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.12|0.63|0.1363
95929924|NCT04147897|191821850|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.13|||.44
95929925|NCT04147897|191821851|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||.619
95929926|NCT04147897|191821851|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.26|||0.10
95929927|NCT04147897|191821852|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.32
95984991|NCT01056510|191943699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.525||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.809|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis||0.809|0.341|0.003
95929928|NCT04147897|191821852|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|3.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.23|||0.16
95929929|NCT04147897|191821853|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.15|||.31
95929930|NCT04147897|191821853|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.17|||.28
95929931|NCT04147897|191821854|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.07|||.63
95929932|NCT04147897|191821854|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.9||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.12|||.46
95929933|NCT04147897|191821855|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|-0.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 3 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: -0.07|||0.67
95929934|NCT04147897|191821855|SUPERIORITY||Difference-in-Difference|0.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted mixed-effects linear regression|||Mixed-effects linear models were used to analyze within-person changes from baseline to 6 months, accounting for repeated measures within participants and clustering of patients within agencies. Difference-in-differences estimates were derived to compare EF vs IF, with Cohen's d effect sizes calculated for each contrast.|Cohen's d: 0.10|||0.53
95929935|NCT03061474|191821909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6096|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6096
95929936|NCT03061474|191821919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.648
95929937|NCT03061474|191821920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6833|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6833
95929938|NCT03061474|191821921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4438
95929939|NCT03061474|191821922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7158|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7158
95929940|NCT03061474|191821923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93428359|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93428359
95929941|NCT03061474|191821924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9931|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9931
95929942|NCT03061474|191821925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3233|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3233
95929943|NCT03061474|191821926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1008
95929944|NCT03061474|191821927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
95929945|NCT02200770|191821943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1496|0.4961|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4961|0.1496|<0.0001
95929946|NCT02200770|191821944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.352||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1755|0.7059|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7059|0.1755|0.0033
95929947|NCT02200770|191821945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.096||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0254|2.2941|||ANCOVA|||||2.2941|-2.0254|0.9026
95929948|NCT02200770|191821946|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.566||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3866|0.8279|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.8279|0.3866|0.0034
95929949|NCT02200770|191821947|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.317||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1257|0.7972|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.7972|0.1257|0.0146
95929950|NCT00026312|191822069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6803||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1016
95929951|NCT00026312|191822070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6176||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.1057
95929952|NCT00026312|191822073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The number of courses of therapy delivered or patients randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy and non-randomly assigned to Regimen B after halting of randomization, excluding patients with persistent disease, were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.0262
95929953|NCT00026312|191822074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|3.4471||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0634
95929954|NCT00026312|191822074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log-Rank Test Statistic|4.1362||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The overall survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - RA Only and randomized to Regimen B - RA + Immunotherapy for the subgroup of patients with INSS Stage 4 disease were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.042
95929955|NCT04036058|191822087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
95929956|NCT04036058|191822088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0435
95929957|NCT04036058|191822089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1158
95929958|NCT04036058|191822090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0898
95929959|NCT04036058|191822091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
95993624|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.091||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.12|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-48||0.12|-2.30|0.0759
95929960|NCT05555082|191822098|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.398||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.236|-0.559||P-values reported for transparency; feasibility study not powered for hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.||-0.559|-6.236|0.021
95929961|NCT05555082|191822098|OTHER||Cohens d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95929962|NCT05555082|191822099|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.328||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|1.357||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months;|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||1.357|-4.013|0.318
95929963|NCT05555082|191822099|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95929964|NCT05555082|191822100|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.174|1.268||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||1.268|-4.174|0.28
95929965|NCT05555082|191822100|OTHER||Cohens d|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95929966|NCT05555082|191822101|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.122||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.917|-0.326||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||-0.326|-3.917|0.023
95929967|NCT05555082|191822101|OTHER||Cohens d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95929968|NCT05555082|191822102|OTHER|Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.876||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|41.092||P-values reported for transparency; study not powered for significance testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures; maximum likelihood estimation.|Within-group change from baseline to 12 months|"Single-arm feasibility design; exploratory within-group analysis."||41.092|8.660|0.004
95929969|NCT05555082|191822102|OTHER||Cohens d|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95929970|NCT02582593|191822141|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||t = .581, only 1 comparison (2 groups) and thus multiple comparison correction not needed|t-test, 2 sided|||An independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Pre-post intervention change scores for the Active and Sham groups;. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.575
95929971|NCT02582593|191822142|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|1.06||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 1.574; only two comparisons, thus not necessary to adjust|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.160
95929972|NCT02582593|191822143|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.27||||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||.424
95929973|NCT02582593|191822144|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-1.03||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment necessary, only 1 comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen's d effect size||||0.099
95929974|NCT03785782|191822145|OTHER|||||||0.2988|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2988
95929975|NCT03785782|191822146|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.36
95929976|NCT03785782|191822147|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.43
95929977|NCT03785782|191822148|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
95929978|NCT03785782|191822149|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
95929979|NCT03785782|191822150|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
95929980|NCT03785782|191822151|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
95929981|NCT03785782|191822152|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
95929982|NCT03785782|191822153|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.34
95929983|NCT03785782|191822154|OTHER|||||||0.7465|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7465
95929984|NCT03785782|191822155|OTHER|||||||0.0466|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0466
95929985|NCT03785782|191822156|OTHER|||||||0.1567|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1567
95929986|NCT03785782|191822157|OTHER|||||||0.1837|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1837
95929987|NCT03785782|191822158|OTHER|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.7447
95929988|NCT03785782|191822159|OTHER|||||||0.0739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0739
95929989|NCT03785782|191822160|OTHER|||||||0.9995|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9995
95929990|NCT03142841|191822167|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.001
95929991|NCT03142841|191822168|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.017
95929992|NCT03142841|191822169|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.017
95929993|NCT03142841|191822170|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95929994|NCT03142841|191822171|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.152
95929995|NCT03142841|191822172|SUPERIORITY||Slope|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.008
95929996|NCT03142841|191822173|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.812|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.812
95929997|NCT03142841|191822174|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.229
95929998|NCT03142841|191822175|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.968
95929999|NCT03142841|191822176|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.196
95993625|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.887||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|8.11|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||8.11|-9.89|0.8451
95857279|NCT03594110|191672649|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin. Two-sided significance level of \<0.0097 required at interim analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|99.03|0.76|0.98|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to occurrences of all-cause hospitalizations (first and recurrent combined). HR based on an analysis of recurrent events accounting for terminal events using a joint frailty model with terms for age, log(local screening UACR), local screening Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), treatment, sex, screening diabetes status, region.||0.98|0.76|0.0022
95984992|NCT01056510|191943699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.806|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||0.806|0.339|0.003
95984993|NCT01056510|191943701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
95984994|NCT01056510|191943703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
95984995|NCT01056510|191943705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
95984996|NCT01056510|191943707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
95984997|NCT01056510|191943709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.911||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.911|0.517|0.986
95984998|NCT01056510|191943709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis: by baseline Binet stage||1.880|0.505|0.939
95984999|NCT01056510|191943710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on two-sided continuity corrected Chi-Square Test|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
95985000|NCT02285998|191943719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size required to achieve 80% power was calculated based on a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 and an attack rate of 2% in the IIV4 and 1.53% for the Flublok groups respectively.|Relative Vaccine Efficacy (rVE)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|47.0||||||The primary efficacy analysis was based on the numbers of protocol-defined influenza-like illnesses with rtPCR-positive nasopharyngeal swabs detecting influenza virus of any strain. The Relative Vaccine Efficacy was 30% (10, 47). Non-inferiority would be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for rVE was \> -20%. Superiority of RIV4 in a pre-specified exploratory analysis required that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of rVE be \> +9%.||47|10|
95985001|NCT05376215|191943771|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of -12.5 was used per the findings from Chisolm, et al (2005), see attached article. In that study, the smallest critical difference for the short term retest difference was 12.5 for the APHAB global score at the 90th percentile. For this study, non-inferiority is confirmed if Fitting Method B is no more than 12.5 percentage points below the mean global benefit score of Fitting Method A.||||||0.806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
95930000|NCT03142841|191822177|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.067
95930001|NCT03142841|191822178|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.066
95930002|NCT03142841|191822179|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.225
95930003|NCT03142841|191822180|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.138
95985002|NCT05376215|191943772|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -1.8 dB. This is based off of work by Killion (2004) in which the critical difference for 4 lists is 1.9 dB at the 95% confidence interval. Killion also found that if all 12 lists are presented, the mean SNR scores will differ by 1.8 dB 5% of the time.||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
95985003|NCT01301950|191943773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no difference in skin-to-skin time. The alternative hypothesis was that the TruMatch group time was less than the conventional group. Statistical power was anticipated to be 86% with 40 enrolled subjects based upon a Cohen's D effect size of 1. The Sponsor had difficulty identifying and recruiting sites suitable for participation. The statistically required sample size (N=40) was therefore not obtained, causing the group comparison to be statistically underpowered.||||0.54
95985004|NCT00942175|191943778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6106|0.8026|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8026|0.6106|
95985005|NCT00942175|191943778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6516|0.8269|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.8269|0.6516|
95985006|NCT00942175|191943778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5564|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4877|0.6347|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.6347|0.4877|
95985007|NCT00942175|191943778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5063|0.9087|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9087|0.5063|
95985008|NCT00942175|191943779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8573|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.9165|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9165|0.8020|
95985009|NCT00942175|191943779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8567|0.9672|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.9672|0.8567|
95985010|NCT00942175|191943779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6438|0.7487|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||0.7487|0.6438|
95930004|NCT03142841|191822181|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.002
95930005|NCT03142841|191822182|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.052
95985011|NCT00942175|191943779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|1.0928|||||The mean difference refers to the point estimates of the relative bioavailability. With its confidence intervals, it was obtained from the ANOVA model on the natural logarithm transformed data.|||1.0928|0.6440|
95985012|NCT00942175|191943780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0348|8.1684|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||8.1684|0.0348|
95985013|NCT00942175|191943780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0474|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8555|4.9503|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||4.9503|-0.8555|
95985014|NCT00942175|191943780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5219|15.5595|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.5595|6.5219|
95985015|NCT00942175|191943780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1791|15.7083|||||Included only participants with complete data for both regimens. Values are least squares mean difference.|||15.7083|7.1791|
95985016|NCT00942175|191943781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.035
95985017|NCT00942175|191943781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.445
95985018|NCT00942175|191943781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95985019|NCT00942175|191943781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95985020|NCT00942175|191943782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95985021|NCT00942175|191943782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||0.148
95985022|NCT00942175|191943782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95985023|NCT00942175|191943782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0||||From ANOVA models in which the least-square means between two regimens are compared.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95930006|NCT03142841|191822183|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group X Time Interaction|||||0.981
95930007|NCT03142841|191822184|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.221
95985024|NCT04041284|191943794|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-3.16|<0.0001
95727919|NCT01102777|191425447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for group, time, group\*time interaction, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||0.731
95930008|NCT03142841|191822185|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.159
95930009|NCT03142841|191822186|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.103
95930010|NCT03142841|191822187|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.247|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.247
95985025|NCT04041284|191943795|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.61|0.0205
95985026|NCT04041284|191943796|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|1.89|<0.0001
95985027|NCT04041284|191943797|OTHER||LS mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|15.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restrictive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||15.59|6.91|<0.0001
95985028|NCT04041284|191943797|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Preventive score: Fremanezumab versus placebo|||14.08|5.73|<0.0001
95985029|NCT04041284|191943798|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 4: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||0.03|-0.39|0.0915
95985030|NCT04041284|191943798|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 8: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.16|-0.59|0.0006
95985031|NCT04041284|191943798|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change at Week 12: Fremanezumab versus Placebo|||-0.12|-0.58|0.0030
95985032|NCT04041284|191943799|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.96|-5.15|<0.0001
95985033|NCT03021499|191943832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region.||The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects showing renal response at Week 52 as adjudicated by the Clinical Endpoints Committee.||4.27|1.64|<0.001
95985034|NCT03021499|191943833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.7|1.51|<0.001
95985035|NCT03021499|191943835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.72|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratios are from a Cox's proportional hazards model with terms for treatment arm, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and Region|||3.72|1.34|0.002
95985036|NCT03021499|191943836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.79||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||3.79|1.56|<0.001
95985037|NCT03021499|191943836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||3.51|1.45|<0.001
95985038|NCT03021499|191943837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.53|0.349
95985039|NCT03021499|191943837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.646
95985040|NCT03021499|191943840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.6|||Log Rank|||||2.6|1.62|<0.001
95985041|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
95985042|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.7|-6.1|0.014
95985043|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-1.9|-7.3|< 0.001
95985044|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.6|-6|0.017
95985045|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.3|-5.1|0.085
95985046|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.2|-5.7|0.035
95985047|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.6|-5|0.121
95985048|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||0.6|-5|0.12
95930011|NCT03142841|191822188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.174
95985049|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||0.5|-5.1|0.102
95985050|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||0.5|-6.1|0.022
95985051|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-1.3|-7|0.004
95985052|NCT03021499|191943841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.1|-5.7|0.055
95985053|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||-0.13|-1|0.011
95930012|NCT03142841|191822189|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.408
95985054|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||-0.4|-1.13|<0.001
95985055|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
95985056|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.55|-1.33|<0.001
95985057|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.76|-1.6|<0.001
95985058|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
95985059|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||-0.72|-1.59|<0.001
95930013|NCT03142841|191822190|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.457
95930014|NCT03142841|191822191|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.187
95930015|NCT03142841|191822192|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.315
95985060|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30||-0.46|-1.58|<0.001
95985061|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36||-0.69|-1.73|<0.001
95985062|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 42||-0.86|-1.87|<0.001
95985063|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48||-0.55|-1.56|<0.001
95985064|NCT03021499|191943842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
95985065|NCT03021499|191943843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.71||Week 24|Regression, Logistic||Week 24|Week 24||4.71|1.26|0.008
95985066|NCT03021499|191943843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.0||Week 52|Regression, Logistic||Week 52|Week 52||4.00|1.48|<0.001
95985067|NCT03021499|191943844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 24|Week 24||0.6|-1.6|0.373
95985068|NCT03021499|191943844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Week 52|Mixed Models Analysis||Week 52|Week 52||0.4|-1.4|0.277
95985069|NCT03021499|191943845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.389||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline Week 24||2.26|-3.21|0.733
95985070|NCT03021499|191943845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.54|-3.29|0.801
95857280|NCT03594110|191672650|SUPERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.~Two-sided significance level of \<0.0290 required at interim analysis."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|97.1|0.68|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to death from any cause. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.11|0.68|0.2122
95930016|NCT03142841|191822193|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.289|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.289
95985071|NCT03021499|191943845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||4.54|-1.14|0.239
95930017|NCT03142841|191822194|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori of \<0.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time Interaction|||||0.055
95930018|NCT03142841|191822195|OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
95930019|NCT03142841|191822196|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95930020|NCT03142841|191822197|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.063
95930021|NCT03142841|191822198|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9
95930022|NCT03142841|191822199|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95930023|NCT03142841|191822200|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95930024|NCT02164240|191822204|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.7||descriptive statistics only||||Clinical benefit rate of at least 30% at 16 weeks for the entire, combined population, was considered worthy of further study.||24.7|0|
95930025|NCT02139046|191822219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|30.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||30.9|20.4|<0.001
95930026|NCT02139046|191822219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|55.8||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||55.8|43.9|<0.001
95930027|NCT02139046|191822219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|10.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|17.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||17.0|3.5|0.001
95930028|NCT02139046|191822219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||15.9|-0.8|0.043
95930029|NCT02139046|191822220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|2.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||9.0|-4.9|0.503
95930030|NCT02139046|191822220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|13.0||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||13.0|-1.2|0.064
95930031|NCT02139046|191822220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||8.7|-5.1|0.561
95930032|NCT02139046|191822220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.5||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.9||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||6.9|-8.0|0.869
95930033|NCT02139046|191822221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|53.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||53.6|41.6|<0.001
95930034|NCT02139046|191822221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|66.3||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||66.3|54.6|<0.001
95985072|NCT03021499|191943845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||2.42|-3.62|0.695
95985073|NCT03021499|191943845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.94|-4.72|0.19
95985074|NCT03021499|191943845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Least Squares)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.531||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LupusPRO non-HRQOL Change from Baseline at Week 52||3.35|-2.67|0.826
95985075|NCT01484977|191943846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Retention Rate|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|81.25||||||"Analyses of the primary efficacy variable will be descriptive only. No hypothesis tests are planned.~The number and percentage of subjects remaining in the study through the 21-Week Treatment Period will be calculated. Subjects with retention will be counted in the numerator. All subjects in the relevant population will be used as the denominator.~This percentage will be known as the retention rate, along with the 95 % confidence interval based on the normal approximation."||81.25|65.42|
95985076|NCT00495820|191943847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95985077|NCT00495820|191943848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.01
95985078|NCT01623271|191943896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95985079|NCT03118232|191943898|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.8|11.0|<0.001
95985080|NCT03118232|191943899|OTHER|The risk ratios reflect the risk of transfer to a hospital during the intervention period relative to the baseline period in each trial group.|Difference in Risk Ratio|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.2|9.7|<0.001
95857281|NCT03594110|191672651|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.81|0.62|<0.0001
95930035|NCT02139046|191822221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|16.1||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||16.1|-0.5|0.036
95930036|NCT02139046|191822221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|3.3||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.6||To adjust for multiple comparisons, a closed testing strategy was used. Febuxostat XR 40 and 80 mg were tested separately versus placebo and the corresponding febuxostat IR group at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|Z-test|Point estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values are presented using the CHW Z-test which accounts for the interim analysis.||||11.6|-4.9|0.364
95985081|NCT04036708|191943913|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|5.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||5.32|-3.93|.77
95985082|NCT04036708|191943913|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.54||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||4.54|-5.14|.90
95930037|NCT01254019|191822241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.334||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.645|35.312||Statistical significance was assessed at the 5% level.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||35.312|-14.645|0.415
95985083|NCT04036708|191943914|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|112.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||112.8|15.26|.01
95993626|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.59||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|1.41|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||1.41|-16.59|0.0973
95993627|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.418||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|6.61|||ANCOVA|||ApoB-100||6.61|-13.45|0.5000
95993628|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.753||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-2.03|-7.47|0.0008
95795023|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 4 vs 1)||1.31|0.88|
95930038|NCT01254019|191822242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|2.88||Statistical significance (SS) was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||2.88|-3.95|0.757
95930039|NCT01254019|191822243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.095||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.095|-0.137|0.718
95930040|NCT01254019|191822244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.111||SS was only to be assessed if a statistically significant difference was observed for the primary and any secondary endpoints higher in the pre-defined hierarchy. Hence conclusions with regards to SS should not be made.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.111|-0.129|0.881
95930041|NCT01254019|191822245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.115||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.097|3.866||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||3.866|-6.097|0.658
95930042|NCT01254019|191822246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.164||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||0.164|-0.082|0.513
95930043|NCT01254019|191822247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.965||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.446|5.516||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||5.516|-7.446|0.769
95930044|NCT01254019|191822250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4044.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5232.21|-2857.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo||-2857.77|-5232.21|0.000
95930045|NCT01254019|191822256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0288||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0738||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI2 at Week 48||0.0738|-0.0161|0.207
95930046|NCT01254019|191822256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0048||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, country grouping, Baseline and Baseline by visit.||GSK2402968 6mg/kg/week Vs Placebo, HUI3 at Week 48||0.0676|-0.0580|0.880
95930047|NCT03520413|191822278|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-1.12|0.02
95930048|NCT03520413|191822279|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
95930049|NCT03520413|191822280|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|0.25|0.0002
95930050|NCT03520413|191822281|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.07|0.02
95930051|NCT03520413|191822282|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 6months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.24|0.39
95930052|NCT03520413|191822283|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups at 12months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-2.53|0.10
95930053|NCT03401112|191822334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0686
95930054|NCT03401112|191822334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0294
95930055|NCT03475316|191822335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.49|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the composite score pre and post intervention.||1.49|-1.14|
95930056|NCT03475316|191822336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|166.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-202.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.12|563.44|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Digit Symbol Substitution test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||563.44|-231.12|
95993629|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.82|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-5.82|-11.18|<0.0001
95993630|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||ApoCIII||-3.93|-9.78|<0.0001
95993631|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-7.85|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-7.85|-25.80|0.0003
95857282|NCT03594110|191672652|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to cardiovascular death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||1.17|0.59|0.2932
95857283|NCT03594110|191672653|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence cardiovascular death or end stage kidney disease (ESKD). HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.89|0.59|0.0017
95857284|NCT03594110|191672654|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression or CV death. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
95857285|NCT03594110|191672655|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of kidney disease progression. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.72|
95857286|NCT03594110|191672656|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of the time to first occurrence of death from any cause or ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.90|0.72|
95930057|NCT03475316|191822336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|80.4|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) and p-values are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in change in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Flanker interference test at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||80.40|-31.20|
95930058|NCT03475316|191822336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.14|158.58|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (social dancing vs. treadmill walking).|Estimates with standard errors (SE) are from linear mixed effect models used to examine the difference in functional activation/deactivation covariance patterns during the Imagery of Walking-While Talking task at post intervention from pre intervention between the social dancing and treadmill walking group.||158.58|-42.14|
95930059|NCT03475316|191822337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.64|||||The Estimation Parameter is the difference in change at post from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the CHAMPS scores pre and post intervention.||6.64|-5.10|
95930060|NCT03475316|191822338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|26.14|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in gait speed pre and post intervention.||26.14|-11.60|
95930061|NCT03475316|191822339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.55|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in unipedal stance time pre and post intervention.||14.55|-13.40|
95930062|NCT03475316|191822341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.46|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change at post intervention from pre between dance and treadmill group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the geriatric depression scale pre and post intervention.||3.46|-1.30|
95930063|NCT03654768|191822357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
95930064|NCT03654768|191822358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.30
95930065|NCT03654768|191822359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.90
95930066|NCT05323734|191822365|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.53||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|2.48|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistic is applied using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|The Hodges-Lehmann approach is applied for estimating 95% confidence interval.|||2.48|-32.04|0.0904
95930067|NCT05323734|191822366|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||||20.1|-6.4|0.3407
95930068|NCT05323734|191822367|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.70|0.46|0.7069
95930069|NCT05323734|191822368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of the ganaxolone group compared to the placebo group based on proportional odds logistic regression with treatment as a factor.|||1.72|0.42|0.6434
95930070|NCT00732381|191822389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95930071|NCT00732381|191822390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95930072|NCT01350804|191822392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|1.0|0.0458
95993632|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-26.24|-44.07|<0.0001
95857287|NCT03594110|191672657|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||Comparison vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio (HR) of ESKD. HR is based on a Cox regression model with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening estimated glomerular filtration rate Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), local screening urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), region and treatment.||0.87|0.64|
95930073|NCT01350804|191822392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.1|0.0152
95930074|NCT05793112|191822409|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|57.57||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon range sum test|||||||0.154
95930075|NCT05793112|191822410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
95930076|NCT05793112|191822411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.471|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.471
95930077|NCT05793112|191822412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 0 (Baseline)||||0.057
95930078|NCT05793112|191822412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.169
95930079|NCT05793112|191822412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.168
95930080|NCT05793112|191822412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.139
95930081|NCT05793112|191822412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.348
95930082|NCT00304031|191822427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||One-sided|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|This study was looking for a 20% reduction in hazard rate: null hypothesis (conventional arm): Median survival time (MST) = 14.0 mo.; alternative hypothesis (dose-dense arm): MST= 17.5 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 750 patients (647 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.20|0.88|0.63
95930083|NCT00304031|191822428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|||1.00|0.75|0.06
95930084|NCT00304031|191822429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.19|0.82|0.44
95930085|NCT00304031|191822429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.62|0.87|0.86
95930086|NCT00304031|191822430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Unmethylated MGMT||1.05|0.73|0.15
95930087|NCT00304031|191822430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Conventional adjuvant TMZ|Methylated MGMT||1.15|0.66|0.33
95930088|NCT00304031|191822431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
95930089|NCT00304031|191822432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level of 0.05||||||<0.001
95930090|NCT00304031|191822433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95930091|NCT00304031|191822434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95930092|NCT00304031|191822435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95930093|NCT00304031|191822436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95930094|NCT00304031|191822437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95930095|NCT00304031|191822438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95930096|NCT00304031|191822439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95930097|NCT00304031|191822440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95930098|NCT00304031|191822441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2184
95930099|NCT00304031|191822441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA class is reported here.||||0.0763
95930100|NCT00304031|191822441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10,12, 22, 24, and 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, RPA class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.5235
95930101|NCT00304031|191822442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
95930102|NCT00304031|191822443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Z-test of two proportions|||||||0.03
95930103|NCT00304031|191822444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.0002
95930104|NCT00304031|191822445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.005
95930105|NCT00304031|191822446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.018
95930106|NCT00304031|191822447|SUPERIORITY|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||||||0.1702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI Symptom Severity Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.1702
95930107|NCT00304031|191822447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.8159
95993633|NCT03371355|191963317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.89|-11.39|||ANCOVA|||ApoA1||-11.39|-30.89|<0.0001
95993634|NCT03371355|191963318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0128||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.10|0.8299
95985084|NCT04036708|191943914|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.86||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.92|11.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, the HOME score, and child's age and sex were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Planned sample size of total 100 analyzed was determined by feasibility considerations for this exploratory developmental R21 study. With planned n=66 in MISC+WTM arm and n=34 in WTM only arm, the unadjusted effect size of 0.60 was detectable as statistically significant with power of 0.80 and 0.05 level of significance in two-tailed tests.||11.85|-86.92|.13
95993635|NCT03371355|191963318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0144||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.8102
95993636|NCT03371355|191963318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0146||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.14|0.8223
95993637|NCT03371355|191963319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||16.02|-0.35|0.0604
95857288|NCT03594110|191672658|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||\[Comparator\] - \[Placebo\]|A mixed model of repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline-by-time interaction.||-0.11|-0.38|< 0.001
95857289|NCT03594110|191672659|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear||\[Comparator\]-\[Placebo\]|Differences in MRI measurements between treatment groups were assessed using a linear regression with terms for age, sex, screening diabetes status, local screening eGFR, local screening UACR was used in the analysis.||17|-42|0.41
95857290|NCT03219528|191672660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.78
95857291|NCT03219528|191672660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.88
95857292|NCT03219528|191672669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.77
95857293|NCT03219528|191672669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5||||0.58
95857294|NCT05571605|191672679|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95857295|NCT02379091|191672764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and participant as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.09|-1.31|0.086
95930108|NCT00304031|191822447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score (baseline, 10, 12, 22, 24, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT status is reported here.||||0.2174
95930109|NCT00304031|191822448|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. EORTC physical functioning is reported here.||||0.023
95930110|NCT00304031|191822448|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized HVLT-R recognition is reported here.||||0.043
95930111|NCT00304031|191822448|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was run with overall survival as the outcome of interest and baseline scores as continuous covariates. The final model was determined from stepwise selection. EORTC physical functioning, EORTC role functioning, standardized HVLT-R recognition, standardized HVLT-R recall, and standardized COWA were included in the initial model. Standardized COWA is reported here.||||0.021
95930112|NCT00304031|191822449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2357
95930113|NCT00304031|191822449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. RPA is reported here.||||0.0147
95930114|NCT00304031|191822449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept effects are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with NCF Composite Score (baseline, 10, 22, 46 weeks) as the outcome of interest. Treatment arm, recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, MGMT status, and time were included in the model. MGMT Status is reported here.||||0.457
95930115|NCT00304031|191822450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided test||||||0.02
95930116|NCT00304031|191822451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.99
95930117|NCT00304031|191822452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||||||0.33
95930118|NCT02396316|191822454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean change|-4.9||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Point estimate, 95% CI and P-value were based on treatment difference of the LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stage of NVG for randomization as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate. The superiority of aflibercept injection to sham injection was to be established if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) is less than 0.||0.3|-10.2|0.0644
95985085|NCT04036708|191943915|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||4.13|-7.65|.55
95985086|NCT04036708|191943915|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|2.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome and household material possessions were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.63|-9.48|.26
95985087|NCT04036708|191943916|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.16|-0.48|.32
95985088|NCT04036708|191943916|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.06|-0.72|.02
95985089|NCT04036708|191943917|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||0.01|-0.78|.06
95985090|NCT04036708|191943917|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||-0.28|-1.11|.001
95985091|NCT04036708|191943918|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.03||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.03|0.07|.04
95795024|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 3 vs 1)||1.32|0.88|
95795025|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.49||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 2 vs 1)||1.49|1.02|
95795026|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.95|0.64|
95795027|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.21|0.81|
95930119|NCT02396316|191822455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MH adjusted difference|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|81.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The point estimate of the treatment difference (the aflibercept group minus the sham group) at Week 1 and its two-sided 95% confidence interval stratified by stage of NVG (as randomized) using Mantel-Haenszel weights.||81.2|37.0|
95930120|NCT00722046|191822500|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.45|-3.68|0.6504
95930121|NCT00722046|191822500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.23|-3.20|0.5213
95930122|NCT00722046|191822500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|7.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||7.48|-2.94|0.4698
95857296|NCT02379091|191672764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.13||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||0.13|-1.32|0.107
95857297|NCT02379091|191672764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.23||MMRM model with main effects for study site, treatment, visit, and previously failed medication with interactions between visit and treatment, visit and previously failed medication, and visit and baseline value.|ANOVA|Baseline values were used as a covariate and subject as a random effect with an unstructured covariance structure.|Namilumab - Placebo|||-0.23|-1.61|0.010
95857298|NCT03326713|191672779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (TP vs TCN)||15.2|2.5|<.0001
95930123|NCT00722046|191822500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||6.17|-2.71|0.5183
95930124|NCT00722046|191822500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.35|-3.65|0.7529
95930125|NCT00722046|191822502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.38|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.24|-13.38|0.4688
95930126|NCT00722046|191822502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.59|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||9.22|-9.59|0.9743
95930127|NCT00722046|191822502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.25|-8.57|0.8824
95930128|NCT00722046|191822502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.77|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||5.58|-13.77|0.4831
95930129|NCT00722046|191822502|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.48|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures used terms for treatment, visit, baseline value, country, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with unstructured covariance matrix.||10.13|-9.48|0.9562
95930130|NCT00516321|191822512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|7.9||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.4||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||13.4|2.4|0.0064
95930131|NCT00373386|191822535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||compared with baseline||||0.644
95930132|NCT00373386|191822536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|paired||Compared with baseline||||0.018
95930133|NCT00373386|191822537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison to baseline||||0.04
95930134|NCT00373386|191822538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.004
95930135|NCT00373386|191822539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.804
95930136|NCT00373386|191822540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.095
95930137|NCT00373386|191822541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison with baseline||||0.648
95930138|NCT01308567|191822544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.16||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.16|0.819|0.7574
95930139|NCT01308567|191822544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.197||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at time of randomization. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.0479|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.197|0.85|0.9967
95930140|NCT01308567|191822545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.152|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.152|0.849|
95930141|NCT01308567|191822545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.236|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.236|0.913|
95993638|NCT03371355|191963319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|9.74|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||9.74|-6.61|0.7048
95857299|NCT03326713|191672779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TCN)||19.4|2.8|<.0001
95930142|NCT01308567|191822546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.17|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.17|0.785|
95930143|NCT01308567|191822546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.118|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.118|0.75|
95930144|NCT01308567|191822548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.123|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.123|0.8|
95930145|NCT01308567|191822548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.238|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.238|0.886|
95930146|NCT01308567|191822550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.434|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.434|0.986|
95930147|NCT01308567|191822550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.435|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.435|0.985|
95930148|NCT01308567|191822552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.417|||||Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.417|0.886|
95930149|NCT01308567|191822552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.288|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by ECOG PS score at baseline, measurable disease at baseline, and region with commercial availability of cabazitaxel at the time of randomization.||1.288|0.798|
95930150|NCT04425863|191822571|OTHER|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-squared test is used to find out whether there is a statistically significant decrease in mortality rate when the IDEA treatment protocol is used in hospitalized patients in comparison with other treatments in the same hospital in the same period of time (3 out of 12 inpatients died)||||0.0246
95930151|NCT04425863|191822571|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall mortality rate of patients treated according to IDEA protocol is compared by a chi-squared test against overall mortality rate in Argentina (the same region where the hospital is located). Data used for overall mortality in Argentina correspond to June 30th according to the website of the Ministry of Health of Argentina||||0.0475
95930152|NCT04425863|191822571|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was applied to compare the mortality rate of patients treated with IDEA protocol as compared with data published (26.84 %) in Bertsimas D, Lukin G, Mingardi L, Nohadani O, Orfanoudaki A, Stellato B et al. (2020), COVID-19 Mortality Risk Assessment: An International Multi-Center Study doi: 10.1101/2020.07.07.20148304||||0.0025
95930153|NCT03691428|191822576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95930154|NCT03691428|191822577|SUPERIORITY|A multivariate dyadic linear growth curve model was used to predict the trajectories of psychological well-being (Raudenbush, Brennan, \& Barnett, 1995).|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95930155|NCT03691428|191822578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95930156|NCT03691428|191822579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95930157|NCT03691428|191822580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95857300|NCT03326713|191672779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||1.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Model Results for Intervention Effects on CGRA Within 6 Months (UC vs TP)||4.0|0.4|1.2
95930158|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the control cases||||<0.0001
95930159|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 weeks for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
95930160|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.0004
95930161|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 6 months for Control cases.||||<0.0001
95930162|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement form preoperative to 6 months for Shapematch cases.||||<0.0001
95930163|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 6 months between both groups.||||0.3894
95930164|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Control cases||||<0.0001
95993639|NCT03371355|191963319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|7.2|||ANCOVA|||Lp(a)||7.20|-10.65|0.7024
95985092|NCT04036708|191943918|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||1.96|-0.08|.07
95930165|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Improvement from preoperative to 12 months for the Shapematch cases||||<0.0001
95930166|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-values from repeated ANOVA with change from preoperative variable/scores as dependent variable.||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 12 months between both groups.||||0.4387
95930167|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 2 years between both groups.||||0.2610
95930168|NCT02527148|191822598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare improvement of OKS from preoperative to 5 years between both groups.||||0.8458
95930169|NCT02527148|191822599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare mean duration of surgery between both groups.||||0.10
95930170|NCT02527148|191822600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare wound length between both groups.||||0.05
95930171|NCT02527148|191822602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare average length of hospital stay between both groups.||||0.07
95930172|NCT02527148|191822603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline differences||||0.55
95930173|NCT02527148|191822603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of QALY between each instrument platform at 12-months||||0.23
95930174|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.724|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7240
95930175|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|To determine equivalence in baseline characteristics between the control and intervention group.||||||0.7545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.7545
95930176|NCT02527148|191822604|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.6921
95930177|NCT02527148|191822604|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.9601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 weeks between both groups.||||0.9601
95930178|NCT02527148|191822604|NON_INFERIORITY|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0697
95930179|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.0342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 6 months between both groups.||||0.0342
95930180|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.3487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 12 months between both groups.||||0.3487
95930181|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 1 year between both groups.||||0.2201
95930182|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 2 years between both groups.||||0.2291
95930183|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.6436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 2 years between both groups.||||0.6436
95930184|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.4344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS rest at 5 years between both groups.||||0.4344
95930185|NCT02527148|191822604|EQUIVALENCE|Precision Knee Navigation is the current standard of care and is the control against the newer intervention of OtisMed® ShapeMatch® with Triathlon||||||0.8732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS mobilisation at 5 years between both groups.||||0.8732
95930186|NCT02527148|191822605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC preoperatively between both groups.||||0.911
95930187|NCT02527148|191822605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.588
95930188|NCT02527148|191822605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 6-months between both groups.||||0.030
95930189|NCT02527148|191822605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 1-year between both groups.||||0.131
95930190|NCT02527148|191822605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 2-years between both groups.||||0.347
95930191|NCT02527148|191822605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare WOMAC at 5-years between both groups.||||0.341
95930192|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.452
95930193|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.201
95930194|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.741
95930195|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.794
95930196|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 6-months between both groups.||||0.232
95930197|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.513
95930198|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 1-year between both groups.||||0.180
95930199|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.864
95930200|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 2-year between both groups.||||0.223
95930201|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.355
95930202|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 5-year between both groups.||||0.314
95930203|NCT02527148|191822606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.914
95930204|NCT02527148|191822607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.523
95930205|NCT02527148|191822607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 6-months between both groups.||||0.932
95930206|NCT02527148|191822607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 1-year between both groups.||||0.934
95930207|NCT02527148|191822607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 2-year between both groups.||||0.566
95930208|NCT02527148|191822607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 5-year between both groups.||||0.263
95993640|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-33.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-33|-54|<0.0001
95930209|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain preoperatively between both groups.||||0.3768
95930210|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function preoperatively between both groups.||||0.6425
95930211|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM preoperatively between both groups.||||0.5041
95930212|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.2230
95930213|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.8209
95930214|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-weeks between both groups.||||0.6958
95930215|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 6-months between both groups.||||0.0548
95930216|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 6-months between both groups.||||0.1958
95930217|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 6-months between both groups.||||0.2786
95930218|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 1-year between both groups.||||0.2399
95930219|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 1-year between both groups.||||0.4135
95930220|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 1-year between both groups.||||0.5278
95930221|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 2-year between both groups.||||0.2992
95930222|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5462
95930223|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 2-year between both groups.||||0.5765
95930224|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Pain at 5-year between both groups.||||0.5493
95930225|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS Function at 5-year between both groups.||||0.1705
95930226|NCT02527148|191822608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To compare IKSS ROM at 5-year between both groups.||||0.2918
95930227|NCT02527148|191822609|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal mechanical axis:hip knee ankle angle between both groups.||||0.6
95930228|NCT02527148|191822609|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle fem comp and mech axis femur between both groups.||||0.002
95930229|NCT02527148|191822609|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of coronal angle tibial comp and mech axis tibia between both groups.||||<0.001
95930230|NCT02527148|191822609|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of sagital tibial component slope between both groups.||||<0.001
95930231|NCT02527148|191822609|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Fem comp rotation relative to surg epicond axis+=ER between both groups.||||<0.001
95930232|NCT04589689|191822610|OTHER|||||||0.777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3 months.||||0.777
95930233|NCT04589689|191822610|OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month.||||0.247
95930234|NCT04589689|191822611|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.160
95930235|NCT04589689|191822611|OTHER|||||||0.275||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.275
95930236|NCT04589689|191822612|OTHER|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.509
95930237|NCT04589689|191822612|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.610
95930238|NCT04589689|191822613|OTHER|||||||0.807||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.807
95930239|NCT04589689|191822613|OTHER|||||||0.826||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.826
95930240|NCT04589689|191822614|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.076
95930241|NCT04589689|191822614|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.747
95857301|NCT06482125|191672838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.955||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.098|118.972|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||118.972|14.098|0.001
95857302|NCT06482125|191672839|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.345
95857303|NCT06482125|191672840|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.450
95857304|NCT06482125|191672841|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.356|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.356
95857305|NCT06482125|191672842|EQUIVALENCE|Reject H0 = the means are equivalent|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.202||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.095|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.095|2.310|0.07
95857306|NCT04467905|191672844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-19.3|||ANCOVA||The mean difference is the difference in adjusted means for the change between baseline value and nadir in the placebo group and the change between baseline and nadir in the etripamil group.|||-19.3|-40.3|<0.0001
95857307|NCT05523089|191672845|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-5.7|0.0390
95930242|NCT04589689|191822615|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.154
95930243|NCT04589689|191822615|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.107
95930244|NCT04589689|191822616|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 3-month follow-up.||||0.445
95930245|NCT04589689|191822616|OTHER|||||||0.543||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.543
95930246|NCT04589689|191822617|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis at 6-month follow-up.||||0.157
95930247|NCT00346151|191822623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|60.0||||||95.0|15.0|95.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion of participant's cumulative incidence of acute rejection at 24 weeks with 95% exact binomial confidence interval. Local biopsy reads were used in determining primary endpoint.||95|15|
95930248|NCT00346151|191822624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
95930249|NCT00346151|191822625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
95930250|NCT00346151|191822628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|40.0|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|40|
95930251|NCT00346151|191822630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
95930252|NCT00346151|191822631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|80.0||||||95.0|28.0|99.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||99|28|
95930253|NCT00346151|191822632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
95930254|NCT00346151|191822633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
95930255|NCT00346151|191822634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|100.0||||||95.0|47.8|100.0|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||100|47.8|
95930256|NCT00346151|191822635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
95930257|NCT00346151|191822636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|52.2|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||52.2|0|
95930258|NCT00346151|191822637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate|20.0||||||95.0|0.5|71.6|||95% exact binomial CI of proportion|||Proportion with 95% exact binomial confidence interval||71.6|0.5|
95930259|NCT01852071|191822638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
95930260|NCT01852071|191822638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
95930261|NCT01852071|191822638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|25.13||||||Percentage of patients alive at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||25.13|-10.08|
95930262|NCT01852071|191822639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|64.86||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||64.86|11.21|
95930263|NCT01852071|191822639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||||
95930264|NCT01852071|191822639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|39.35||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 1-year post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||39.35|0.71|
95857308|NCT05523089|191672847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.0185
95857309|NCT05523089|191672849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.0613
95857310|NCT05523089|191672850|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-2.4|0.1587
95857311|NCT05523089|191672852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0236
95857312|NCT05523089|191672854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.1282
95930265|NCT01852071|191822640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.81||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||42.81|-5.40|
95930266|NCT01852071|191822640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|41.28||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||41.28|-9.55|
95930267|NCT01852071|191822640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|31.22||||||Percentage of patients alive at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients alive at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in OS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||31.22|-5.62|
95930268|NCT01852071|191822641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.71|76.96||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (without MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||76.96|22.71|
95930269|NCT01852071|191822641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|36.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|69.21||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (with MRD) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||69.21|9.80|
95930270|NCT01852071|191822641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|65.23||||||Percentage of patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment in the historical control groups (all control patients) were compared to the percentage of study patients with EvFS at 2-years post-treatment with OTL-101. Results are reported as percentage difference in EvFS of historical control group from OTL-101 on-study subjects.||65.23|22.78|
95930271|NCT00463788|191822649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|5.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Randomization strata: first- or second line according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).||||5.591|0.809|0.1109
95993641|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-54|-69|<0.0001
95857313|NCT05523089|191672855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.3||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-11.2|0.2877
95857314|NCT05523089|191672857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.6|-4.1|0.2517
95857315|NCT05523089|191672861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9024||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||||||0.9024
95930272|NCT00463788|191822650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.969|||Log Rank|||||0.969|0.470|0.0324
95930273|NCT00463788|191822651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.561|0.3121
95930274|NCT00463788|191822652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.5993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.17|||Log Rank|||||2.170|0.262|0.5993
95930275|NCT00360698|191822654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.68||||0.0499||95.0|0.01|28.37|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the percentage of patients with Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) level \<7%. A sample size of 98 randomized (49/arm) patients would allow to demonstrate with 80% power that 40 % of patients in the Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group would achieve a HbA1c level \< 7 % compared to 15 % of patients in the Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group(5% alpha risk, 2-sided test).||28.37|0.01|0.0499
95930276|NCT00360698|191822656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in Glycosylated Haemoglobin (HbA1c) at the end of treatment.||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
95857316|NCT05523089|191672862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0248
95857317|NCT05523089|191672864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1224||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1224
95857318|NCT05523089|191672866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1023||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1023
95857319|NCT05523089|191672868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1477
95857320|NCT05523089|191672870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1645||||||alpha = 0.025 one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1645
95857321|NCT04586205|191672881|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||The baseline measurement for this analysis is the Sternberg Sorting Task (SST) at Baseline. This task is designed to assess how individuals store and retrieve random information from short-term memory. This task was administered to all participants before they were randomized into one of two groups (active TMS first then sham TMS or sham TMS first then active TMS).||||0.024
95930277|NCT00360698|191822658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.987||0.0109||95.0|-22.83|-3.04||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline daily mean plasma glucose as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in daily mean plasma glucose at the end of treatment.||-3.04|-22.83|0.0109
95930278|NCT00360698|191822659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5762||95.0|-0.61|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|ANCOVA|The analysis is an ANCOVA analysis on the change with group as fixed effect and baseline weight as covariate|Difference between groups: Insulin Glulisine+Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group - Insulin Glargine+Metformin+Glimepiride group|The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the 2 treatment groups regarding the adjusted mean change from baseline in weight at the end of treatment.||1.1|-0.61|0.5762
95930279|NCT00360698|191822662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.958
95930280|NCT00360698|191822663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with plasma glucose \<70 mg/dL during the treatment period.||||0.302
95930281|NCT00360698|191822664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05 ; 2 sided-test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the 2 treatment groups regarding the rate of severe symptomatic hypoglycemia during the treatment period.||||0.192
95930282|NCT01667796|191822672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate generalized estimating equati|||||||0.001
95930283|NCT01667796|191822672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for adherence, body mass index, and oral contraceptive use|Generalized estimating equation|||||||0.008
95930284|NCT01214824|191822691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Comparison is HbA1c at 6 months versus Baseline||||0.014
95930285|NCT01214824|191822693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5304||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Comparison is masked phase 2 versus masked phase 1||||0.5304
95930286|NCT02476409|191822699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.094
95930287|NCT02476409|191822700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.166
95930288|NCT02476409|191822700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.491
95930289|NCT02476409|191822701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||P-value for Change in Dyspnea VAS - Baseline to Day 3 Tolvaptan versus placebo.||||0.543
95993642|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ANGPTL3||-47|-66|<0.0001
95930290|NCT02476409|191822702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.050
95930291|NCT02476409|191822703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
95930292|NCT02476409|191822704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.034
95930293|NCT02476409|191822705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.643
95930294|NCT00457743|191822733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Disease control Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||||The disease control rate, defined as the percentage of subjects confirmed with CR, PR, and SD \>=10 weeks on study according to RECIST.|||74.5|37.4|
95930295|NCT00457743|191822735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|3.8|30.7|||||The subjects confirmed with complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||30.7|3.8|
95930296|NCT00457743|191822744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|40.0||||||95.0|22.7|59.4|||||The clinical benefit response (CBR) rate, defined as the percentage of the subjects confirmed with CR, PR, or SD\>=22 weeks on study according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).|||59.4|22.7|
95930297|NCT00566527|191822747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.87||||||Measles difference||0.87|-2.82|
95930298|NCT00566527|191822747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.32||||||Mumps difference||1.32|-1.20|
95930299|NCT00566527|191822747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.03||||||Rubella difference||1.03|-1.55|
95930300|NCT00566527|191822747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 2 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.28|
95930301|NCT00566527|191822748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Measles Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.87||||||Measles difference||-1.87|-6.44|
95930302|NCT00566527|191822748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Mumps Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.01||||||Mumps difference||1.01|-1.71|
95930303|NCT00566527|191822748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -5. Values are shown as percentages.|Rubella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09||||||Rubella difference||1.09|-1.34|
95930304|NCT00566527|191822748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> -10. Values are shown as percentages.|Varicella Response Rate (Arm 1 - Arm 3)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.1||||||Varicella difference||1.10|-1.83|
95985093|NCT04036708|191943919|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 6 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||3.06|1.02|<.01
95985094|NCT04036708|191943919|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at month 12 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.79||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, household material possessions, and the HOME score were adjusted for in the model.|WTM only minus MISC and WTM|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. Sample size was determined by considerations for the primary outcomes.||2.79|0.67|<.01
95985095|NCT02257372|191943932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.174|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.174|0.071|<0.001
95985096|NCT02257372|191943933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.197|0.099|<0.001
95985097|NCT02634151|191943936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.05||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-3.29|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||-3.29|-18.81|0.0057
95985098|NCT02634151|191943937|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.35|0.75|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||High-Intensity.||0.75|-24.35|0.0648
95985099|NCT02634151|191943937|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.64||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group and baseline diabetes status are included as factors, and the outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Moderate Intensity.||-0.51|-20.77|0.0398
95985100|NCT02634151|191943938|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.09||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-1.14|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.14|-19.04|0.0275
95985101|NCT02634151|191943938|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.4||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4.||0.10|-18.90|0.0524
95985102|NCT02634151|191943938|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|10.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||10.90|-9.12|0.8602
95857322|NCT04586205|191672882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference in means between High-Load IAPS (.69) and Low-Load IAPS (.67) in the group that received active then sham TMS.|The baseline measurement for this analysis is the International Affective Picture System (IAPS) at baseline. This is an emotional task using IAPS picture that will also compare low load and high load conditions. The number of images will vary by condition load, but for both the high-load \& low-load conditions, participants will look at IAPS pictures and answer questions about the images. We compare mean High-Load IAPS and Low-Load IAPS scores in the group that received active then sham TMS.||||0.18
95857323|NCT04586205|191672883|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||The outcome measure for this analysis was the International Affective Picture System (IAPS).||||0.19
95857324|NCT04586205|191672884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95857325|NCT04684836|191672886|SUPERIORITY|The analysis leveraged a difference-in-differences research design in an intent-to-treat framework, comparing outcomes for patients receiving care at high-telehealth practices with patients at comparable low-telehealth practices, before relative to after the onset of the pandemic (when telehealth use increased significantly).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0255||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All models included practice and year-quarter fixed effects, and clustered standard errors at the practice level.|This is the Unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|||||0.0793
95985103|NCT02634151|191943938|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.63||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.37|-2.89|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-2.89|-22.37|0.0115
95985104|NCT02634151|191943938|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.87||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|3.05|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Average of week 8 and 12||3.05|-14.79|0.1945
95985105|NCT02634151|191943939|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-5.88||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.13|-12.89|0.0991
95985106|NCT02634151|191943940|OTHER|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.58||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.84|-13.32|0.0101
95857326|NCT04684836|191672886|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences model|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0786||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5739
95857327|NCT04684836|191672887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0014||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||0.3261
95857328|NCT04684836|191672887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0806|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences model||||<0.01
95930305|NCT00392054|191822776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9||Cox regression analysis, stratified by clinical site, was performed and presented as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals and a two-sided p-value testing of less than or equal to 0.05 (two-sided) for the Wald test.|Regression, Cox|||Event rates were plotted over time using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Only events occurring after the 90-day treatment period were included in the final analysis. Treatment groups were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.||0.90|0.35|0.0016
95930306|NCT00392054|191822778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.33|0.03
95930307|NCT00392054|191822779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.3|0.017
95930308|NCT00392054|191822780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||||0.4|0.28|<0.0001
95930309|NCT00392054|191822781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||||1.72|0.42|0.66
95930310|NCT04975308|191822784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.039|||Log Rank|||||1.039|0.724|0.1158
95930311|NCT04975308|191822785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.733|||Log Rank|||||0.733|0.441|<0.0001
95930312|NCT04975308|191822786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.821|||Log Rank|||||0.821|0.464|0.0008
95930313|NCT00468910|191822805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was powered to detect an attributable change in the aspirin group of 50% relative to baseline values - an approximate 50% increase in spectral slope.||||0.11
95930314|NCT00468910|191822806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95930315|NCT04345913|191822890|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.5259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5259
95930316|NCT04345913|191822895|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.706|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7060
95930317|NCT03122886|191822969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.37|||Log Rank|||||6.37|0.12|0.90
95930318|NCT01780298|191823072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.203|-30.352|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-30.352|-42.203|<0.0001
95930319|NCT01780298|191823072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.739|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.418|-27.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-27.060|-38.418|<0.0001
95930320|NCT01780298|191823072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.081|-19.449|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-19.449|-31.081|<0.0001
95930321|NCT01780298|191823072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538||||0.1504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.398|1.321|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.321|-8.398|0.1504
95985107|NCT02634151|191943940|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.94|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.18|-15.94|0.0037
95930322|NCT01780298|191823072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.207|-3.741|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-3.741|-11.207|0.0002
95930323|NCT01780298|191823072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.979|-6.046|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-6.046|-15.979|<0.0001
95930324|NCT01780298|191823073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.249|-22.973|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-22.973|-32.249|<0.0001
95930325|NCT01780298|191823073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.501|-19.604|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-19.604|-29.501|<0.0001
95930326|NCT01780298|191823073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.043|-9.17|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||-9.170|-19.043|<0.0001
95930327|NCT01780298|191823073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.058||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.702|0.585|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.585|-6.702|0.0983
95930328|NCT01780298|191823073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.845|-7.047|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||-7.047|-13.845|<0.0001
95930329|NCT01780298|191823073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.302|-9.707|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||-9.707|-17.302|<0.0001
95930330|NCT01780298|191823074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.448|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.374|52.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||52.521|28.374|<0.0001
95930331|NCT01780298|191823074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|38.185|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||38.185|14.890|<0.0001
95930332|NCT01780298|191823074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.661||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.997|33.324|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||33.324|7.997|0.0018
95930333|NCT01780298|191823074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.91||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.534|22.286|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||22.286|5.534|0.0015
95930334|NCT01780298|191823074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.877||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|14.639|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||14.639|-2.886|0.1847
95930335|NCT01780298|191823074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.787||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.536|30.038|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||30.038|9.536|0.0003
95930336|NCT01780298|191823075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2979.725||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7560.258|1600.808|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1600.808|-7560.258|0.1981
95930337|NCT01780298|191823075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2317.131||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1224.786|5859.048|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||5859.048|-1224.786|0.1956
95930338|NCT01780298|191823075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2396.589||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.692|6160.87|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||6160.870|-1367.692|0.2077
95930339|NCT01780298|191823075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5296.856||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11930.19|1336.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1336.478|-11930.190|0.1154
95930340|NCT01780298|191823075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.458||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-736.151|577.234|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||577.234|-736.151|0.8095
95930341|NCT01780298|191823075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5376.314||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12030.714|1278.085|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1278.085|-12030.714|0.1113
95930342|NCT01780298|191823076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|7.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.521|4.510|<0.0001
95930343|NCT01780298|191823076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.379|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||6.310|3.379|<0.0001
95930344|NCT01780298|191823076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|4.984|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||4.984|1.923|<0.0001
95930345|NCT01780298|191823076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.296|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||2.296|0.045|0.0418
95930346|NCT01780298|191823076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.391||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.686|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||2.686|0.096|0.0357
95985108|NCT02634151|191943940|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.84|-7.72|0.7839
95985109|NCT02634151|191943940|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-3.84|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.84|-17.53|0.0025
95985110|NCT02634151|191943941|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.66||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.45|-2.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.88|-22.45|0.0117
95985111|NCT02634151|191943941|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.55||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|-5.21|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.21|-25.88|0.0036
95985112|NCT02634151|191943941|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|10.31||Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.31|-11.48|0.9147
95985113|NCT02634151|191943941|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.59||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-5.93|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.93|-27.24|0.0026
95985114|NCT02634151|191943942|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.13||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|-1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.50|-10.77|0.0101
95985115|NCT02634151|191943942|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.73||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-2.58|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-2.58|-12.89|0.0036
95985116|NCT02634151|191943942|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|5.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||5.51|-5.27|0.9653
95985117|NCT02634151|191943942|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.68|-12.10|0.0101
95985118|NCT02634151|191943943|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.74||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-2.30|-23.19|0.0173
95985119|NCT02634151|191943943|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-16.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-5.40|-27.17|0.0038
95985120|NCT02634151|191943943|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|13.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||13.01|-9.85|0.7846
95985121|NCT02634151|191943943|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.98||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-3.13|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-3.13|-24.83|0.0121
95985122|NCT02634151|191943944|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-13.32||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-3.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-3.12|-23.32|0.0108
95985123|NCT02634151|191943944|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|-12.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.42|-34.78|<0.0001
95985124|NCT02634151|191943944|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|2.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.18|-15.60|0.1376
95985125|NCT02634151|191943944|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.64||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||-3.18|-28.10|0.0144
95985126|NCT02634151|191943945|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-19.53||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-4.51|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-4.51|-34.55|0.0113
95727920|NCT01102777|191425448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.52
95985127|NCT02634151|191943945|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-33.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.58|-16.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.69|-50.58|0.0002
95857329|NCT04684836|191672888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0217||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an adjusted unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.1101
95985128|NCT02634151|191943945|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-8.33||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|4.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.12|-20.77|0.1873
95985129|NCT02634151|191943945|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-29.58||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-5.37|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-5.37|-53.80|0.0172
95985130|NCT02634151|191943946|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.52||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-1.77|-21.27|0.0210
95985131|NCT02634151|191943946|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-23.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|-12.01|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-12.01|-34.02|<0.0001
95985132|NCT02634151|191943946|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|2.33|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.33|-15.19|0.1483
95985133|NCT02634151|191943946|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.63||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-1.76|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-1.76|-21.50|0.0214
95985134|NCT02634151|191943947|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||-0.28|-5.62|0.0308
95985135|NCT02634151|191943947|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-3.04|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.||Week 4||-3.04|-9.56|0.0002
95985136|NCT02634151|191943947|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.88|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.88|-4.03|0.2056
95985137|NCT02634151|191943947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.96|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.96|-7.04|0.0103
95985138|NCT02634151|191943948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||2.09|-6.36|0.3193
95985139|NCT02634151|191943948|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.11|-6.91|0.2932
95985140|NCT02634151|191943948|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.98||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.02|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.02|-3.06|0.4383
95985141|NCT02634151|191943948|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|2.78||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.86|-2.31|0.2814
95985142|NCT02634151|191943949|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.38|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 2||1.38|-3.23|0.4278
95857330|NCT04684836|191672888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5551||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.4618
95857331|NCT04684836|191672890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.8577|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an unadjusted model, which included only an indicator for high telemedicine practice, post-period, and its two-way interaction|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.8577
95985143|NCT02634151|191943949|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.27|-3.53|0.3529
95985144|NCT02634151|191943949|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.86|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.86|-1.39|0.3522
95985145|NCT02634151|191943949|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.42|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.42|-1.22|0.2635
95985146|NCT02634151|191943950|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.93|1.01|0.0464
95985147|NCT02634151|191943950|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.92|0.58|0.5278
95985148|NCT02634151|191943950|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.27|1.06|0.0359
95985149|NCT02634151|191943951|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.61|1.11|0.0268
95985150|NCT02634151|191943951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.41|0.70|0.2755
95985151|NCT02634151|191943951|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||10.94|2.05|0.0003
95985152|NCT02634151|191943952|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.8|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||7.80|1.36|0.0079
95985153|NCT02634151|191943952|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.35|0.62|0.4002
95985154|NCT02634151|191943952|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.59|1.25|0.0142
95985155|NCT02634151|191943953|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||10.20|1.34|0.0115
95985156|NCT02634151|191943953|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.75|0.48|0.7566
95985157|NCT02634151|191943953|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||7.88|1.11|0.0298
95985158|NCT02634151|191943954|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.4||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.7|-17.2|0.0029
95985159|NCT02634151|191943954|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.8|-10.4|0.1666
95985160|NCT02634151|191943954|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.8|-18.2|0.0010
95985161|NCT02634151|191943955|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-4.1|-17.3|0.0018
95985162|NCT02634151|191943955|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||2.6|-10.1|0.2437
95985163|NCT02634151|191943955|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-4.7|-18.5|0.0012
95985164|NCT02634151|191943956|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||2.8|-4.2|0.6832
95985165|NCT02634151|191943956|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||4.5|-2.9|0.6740
95930347|NCT01780298|191823076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||3.820|1.303|0.0001
95930348|NCT01780298|191823077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.633|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.964|45.302|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||45.302|33.964|<0.0001
95930349|NCT01780298|191823077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.761|41.822|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||41.822|29.761|<0.0001
95985166|NCT02634151|191943956|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||5.7|-2.0|0.3379
95985167|NCT02634151|191943957|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.7753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||4.4|-5.9|0.7753
95985168|NCT02634151|191943957|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||7.4|-3.9|0.5472
95985169|NCT02634151|191943957|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.6|-2.4|0.2406
95985170|NCT02634151|191943958|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||3.8|-3.3|0.9028
95985171|NCT02634151|191943958|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||9.6|0.8|0.0199
95985172|NCT02634151|191943958|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||8.9|0.3|0.0369
95985173|NCT02634151|191943959|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.4|-1.2|0.9110
95985174|NCT02634151|191943959|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||3.5|0.3|0.0243
95930350|NCT01780298|191823077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.445|34.888|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||34.888|23.445|<0.0001
95985175|NCT02634151|191943959|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||3.2|0.1|0.0388
95930351|NCT01780298|191823077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.842||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.536|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||7.536|0.147|0.0418
95985176|NCT02634151|191943960|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-5.7|0.2799
95985177|NCT02634151|191943960|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|26.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|43.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||43.3|10.2|0.0018
95930352|NCT01780298|191823077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.625||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.763|11.487|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||11.487|1.763|0.0084
95985178|NCT02634151|191943960|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|20.1||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|36.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||36.9|3.3|0.0197
95985179|NCT02634151|191943961|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||1.0|0.1|0.0179
95985180|NCT02634151|191943961|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||1.7|0.5|0.0003
95985181|NCT02634151|191943961|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||1.5|0.2|0.0095
95985182|NCT02634151|191943962|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-3.6|-20.8|0.0057
95985183|NCT02634151|191943962|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|8.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||8.6|-8.3|0.9665
95985184|NCT02634151|191943962|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||4.1|-16.4|0.2358
95985185|NCT02634151|191943963|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-2.3|0.0048
95985186|NCT02634151|191943963|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.8|-0.9|0.9064
95985187|NCT02634151|191943963|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||0.4|-1.7|0.2505
95985188|NCT02634151|191943964|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-9.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-9.0|-22.6|<0.0001
95985189|NCT02634151|191943964|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.3|-14.0|0.0406
95985190|NCT02634151|191943964|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-7.8|-22.8|<0.0001
95985191|NCT02634151|191943965|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
95985192|NCT02634151|191943965|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||0.0|-0.6|0.0771
95985193|NCT02634151|191943965|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.3|-1.0|0.0006
95985194|NCT02634151|191943966|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|19.6|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||19.6|-2.3|0.1210
95985195|NCT02634151|191943966|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|8.0||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|17.3|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 8||17.3|-1.4|0.0948
95985196|NCT02634151|191943966|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.4|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||16.4|-8.2|0.5113
95985197|NCT02634151|191943967|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 4||11.1|-7.8|0.7276
95985198|NCT02634151|191943967|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|4.7||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||12.2|-2.9|0.2218
95985199|NCT02634151|191943967|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||Week 12||9.8|-9.2|0.9420
95985200|NCT02634151|191943968|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|32.57||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.98|188.12|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||188.12|-122.98|0.6786
95985201|NCT02634151|191943969|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.35|-2.03|0.1648
95985202|NCT02634151|191943970|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|41.5||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|155.1|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||155.1|-72.1|0.4701
95985203|NCT02634151|191943971|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-32.4||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||0.2|-65.1|0.0517
95985204|NCT02634151|191943972|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-9.5||||0.9111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.8|158.8|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||158.8|-177.8|0.9111
95985205|NCT02634151|191943973|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||3.9|-10.0|0.3864
95985206|NCT02634151|191943974|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|12.2||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.0|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||22.0|2.5|0.0145
95985207|NCT02634151|191943975|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided test with a significance level of 0.05 was used for the comparison.|LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group, baseline statin intensity, \& diabetes status are included as factors, \& outcome at baseline is included as a covariate.||||1.5|-0.0|0.0510
95985208|NCT01870401|191943977|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol identified a non-inferiority bound equal to 0.12 (12%).|||||<|0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||The primary safety hypothesis is as follows: H0: pControl - pDCB ≥ and H1: pControl (alpha) pDCB \< where p is the success rate in each arm and (alpha) is the non-inferiority bound.||||<0.025
95985209|NCT01870401|191943978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0222|||||||Wald Test|One-sided Wald test based on model estimate of DCB treatment effect and subject as a random effect.||||||0.0222
95985210|NCT02104583|191944014|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.52||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.71|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or rest of world (ROW)\].||2.71|0.86|0.152
95985211|NCT02104583|191944014|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW\].||1.97|0.34|0.662
95985212|NCT02104583|191944014|SUPERIORITY||Eleclazine : Placebo Incident Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.86|||generalized linear model|||The primary analysis of overall occurrence of appropriate ICD interventions through Week 24 was performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and log link. This model included terms for treatment, implanted device (ICD or CRT-D) and region \[US or ROW.||2.86|0.54|0.618
95985213|NCT01192022|191944024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.29||Logistic regression model with treatment and pooled center as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|2.55|<0.001
95985214|NCT02933034|191944033|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of infarct size using MEMRI versus DEMRI scan||||0.001
95985215|NCT01549275|191944045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cells between two groups.||||< 0.005
95985216|NCT01549275|191944045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured HCC cells with or without concomitant cancer-associated fibroblasts between two groups.||||< 0.005
95985217|NCT01549275|191944045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of patients with rapidly proliferative cultured cancer-associated fibroblasts alone between two groups.||||> 0.1
95985218|NCT01549275|191944046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||1
95985219|NCT01549275|191944046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.032
95985220|NCT01549275|191944046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.048
95985221|NCT01549275|191944046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.176
95985222|NCT01549275|191944046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative HCC cultured cells.||||0.021
95985223|NCT01549275|191944046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the incidence of change in AJCC TNM stages and survivals 6 months after plating of cells between patients with rapidly and slowly proliferative cultured cells.||||0.129
95985224|NCT03448068|191944051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95985225|NCT03448068|191944052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2252
95985226|NCT03448068|191944053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0610
95985227|NCT03448068|191944054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2720
95985228|NCT03448068|191944055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7298|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 1st 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.7298
95985229|NCT03448068|191944055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1058|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 12 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||0.1058
95985230|NCT03448068|191944055|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Nausea 2nd 24 hours for Ketamine Therapy vs Standard Therapy||||1.000
95985231|NCT03448068|191944056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95985232|NCT00122681|191944085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|98.3||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.3|79.9|
95985233|NCT00122681|191944085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.9|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||99.6|82.9|
95985234|NCT00122681|191944085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|98.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||98.7|39.7|
95985235|NCT00122681|191944085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|96.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||96.9|78.1|
95985236|NCT00122681|191944085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.2||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.2|79.3|
95985237|NCT00122681|191944085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|98.8||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.8|44.1|
95985238|NCT00122681|191944086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.4||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||98.4|87.7|
95985239|NCT00122681|191944086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.7||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed||99.7|91.0|
95985240|NCT00122681|191944086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event) expressed.||97.5|57.2|
95985241|NCT00122681|191944086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|97.5||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 or HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.5|86.3|
95930353|NCT01780298|191823077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.888|15.045|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||15.045|5.888|<0.0001
95985242|NCT00122681|191944086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.5|98.9||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-16 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||98.9|88.5|
95857332|NCT04684836|191672890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2014||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the fully adjusted regression model, which controlled for patient age group, gender, dual status, race, average percent of 65+ patients, risk score category, rural vs urban, and zip-code level characteristics.|Regression, Linear|||Difference-in-differences||||0.5954
95857333|NCT00499616|191673040|OTHER||Log Rank Test Statistic|0.9841||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients between 12-18 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma and favorable biological features on ANBL0531 and patients less than 12 months of age with Stage 4 neuroblastoma on A3961 were compared using the log-rank test.||||.3212
95857334|NCT00499616|191673044|OTHER||Log-Rank Test Statistic|5.0049||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.||||.0253
95857335|NCT00499616|191673045|OTHER|The overall survival distributions of patients with complete surgical resection and patients without complete surgical resection were compared using the log-rank test.|Log Rank Test Statistic|2.6709||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.1022
95857336|NCT00499616|191673046|OTHER||Chi-Square Test Statistic|9.9111||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The association between extent of surgical resection with occurrence of complications was determined using the chi-square test.||||.0016
95930354|NCT01780298|191823078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.203|0.654|<0.0001
95930355|NCT01780298|191823078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.141|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.141|0.609|<0.0001
95930356|NCT01780298|191823078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.912|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.912|0.386|<0.0001
95930357|NCT01780298|191823078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.231|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.231|-0.093|0.3985
95930358|NCT01780298|191823078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.414|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.414|0.026|0.0267
95930359|NCT01780298|191823078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.506|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.506|0.104|0.0036
95930360|NCT01780298|191823079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.179|1.949|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||1.949|1.179|<0.0001
95930361|NCT01780298|191823079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.658|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||1.658|0.924|<0.0001
95930362|NCT01780298|191823079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.421|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||1.421|0.724|<0.0001
95930363|NCT01780298|191823079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.521|0.031|0.0282
95930364|NCT01780298|191823079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.471|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.471|-0.057|0.1223
95930365|NCT01780298|191823079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.710|0.273|<0.0001
95930366|NCT01780298|191823080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.478|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.478|0.269|<0.0001
95985243|NCT00122681|191944086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-Rate Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ for HPV-18 (by PCR) in HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline, regardless of initial serostatus, using conditional exact method. The VE was defined as follows: VE = 1-Rate Ratio (RR), where RR = incidence rate in HPV Group (vaccine)/ incidence rate in HAV Group (control); Incidence rate = n/T(per 100); n= number of subjects reporting at least one event in each group and T(years) = sum of follow-up period (censored at the first occurrence of an event).||97.6|59.2|
95985244|NCT00122681|191944111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.337|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection||1.337|0.476|0.3910
95985245|NCT00122681|191944113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.362|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-16 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.362|0.444|0.3796
95985246|NCT00122681|191944115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1035||95.0|0.337|1.106|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 6-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 6-month persistent infection.||1.106|0.337|0.1035
95985247|NCT00122681|191944117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.293|||Chi-squared|||Hazard ratio of anti-HPV-18 GMTs at Month 7 (by ELISA) in subjects without 12-month persistent infection compared to subjects with 12-month persistent infection.||1.293|0.312|0.2111
95985248|NCT02819635|191944120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|8.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||16.8|0.0|0.049
95985249|NCT02819635|191944120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||23.8|3.3|0.010
95985250|NCT02819635|191944120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||23.9|3.8|0.007
95985251|NCT02819635|191944120|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|33.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||33.6|8.6|<0.001
95985252|NCT02819635|191944121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||27.4|15.8|<0.001
95985253|NCT02819635|191944122|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|39.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||39.8|21.7|<0.001
95985254|NCT02819635|191944122|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|48.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Baseline of Induction Study; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||48.2|29.7|<0.001
95795028|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.35|0.92|
95985255|NCT02819635|191944123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||25.0|1.2|0.030
95857337|NCT00123422|191673053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and a p value of \< 0.05 was the criterion for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||0.015
95857338|NCT00123422|191673054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The baseline value was the co-variate in this analysis.||||||<0.05
95985256|NCT02819635|191944123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|42.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||42.1|13.1|<0.001
95985257|NCT02819635|191944123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|40.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||40.8|12.3|<0.001
95985258|NCT02819635|191944123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|51.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||51.7|19.2|<0.001
95985259|NCT02819635|191944124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|20.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||20.4|1.7|0.021
95985260|NCT02819635|191944124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||18.0|1.3|0.024
95985261|NCT02819635|191944124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||22.0|2.3|0.015
95985262|NCT02819635|191944124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|20.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|8.0|0.001
95985263|NCT02819635|191944125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|16.7||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||32.5|0.9|0.038
95985264|NCT02819635|191944125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|52.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.8|17.5|<0.001
95985265|NCT02819635|191944125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|50.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.8|16.3|<0.001
95985266|NCT02819635|191944125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|63.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||63.9|26.2|<0.001
95795029|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.70|
95857339|NCT03584789|191673066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|.93|.08
95857340|NCT03584789|191673066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|.86|.18
95857341|NCT03584789|191673067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|9.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.44|.20|.71
95993643|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-1|-16|0.0309
95930367|NCT01780298|191823080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.354|0.158|<0.0001
95930368|NCT01780298|191823080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.249|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 1 (COPD) - Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers)|||0.249|0.022|0.0199
95930369|NCT01780298|191823080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 3 (Ex-smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.218|0.015|0.0247
95930370|NCT01780298|191823080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.221|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 3 (Ex-smokers)|||0.221|0.019|0.0204
95930371|NCT01780298|191823080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347|||t-test, 2 sided|Pairwise comparisons obtained by 2-sided paired t-test (COPD subjects are paired to the non-COPD subjects by gender, age and ethnicity).|Difference Group 2 (Current cigarette smokers) - Group 4 (Never smokers)|||0.347|0.127|<0.0001
95930372|NCT05286385|191823089|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.29||||||||0.29|-6.29|
95930373|NCT05286385|191823090|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.44||||||||3.44|-8.04|
95930374|NCT05286385|191823091|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.95|
95930375|NCT01641198|191823181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.01|-0.59|<0.05
95930376|NCT01641198|191823181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.69|0.09|<0.05
95930377|NCT01641198|191823181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.39||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.39|-0.98|<0.05
95930378|NCT01641198|191823182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.13||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.13|-0.47|<0.05
95930379|NCT01641198|191823182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.85|0.26|<0.05
95930380|NCT01641198|191823182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||-0.43|-1.02|<0.05
95930381|NCT01641198|191823183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.59||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SW estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||0.59|-0.19|<0.05
95930382|NCT01641198|191823183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between B and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI)||1.22|0.45|<0.05
95985267|NCT02819635|191944126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|22.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||22.9|-11.1|0.495
95985268|NCT02819635|191944126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|15.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|33.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||33.4|-1.6|0.074
95985269|NCT02819635|191944126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||36.9|1.6|0.033
95985270|NCT02819635|191944126|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|59.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||59.7|20.5|<0.001
95985271|NCT02819635|191944127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2323|-1.052||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||-1.0520|-3.2323|<0.001
95985272|NCT02819635|191944127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0284|-1.8478||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.8478|-4.0284|<0.001
95985273|NCT02819635|191944127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.736|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8247|-2.647||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||-2.6470|-4.8247|<0.001
95985274|NCT02819635|191944127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1252|-2.9974||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by previous biologic use, Baseline corticosteroid use, Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 and \> 7)), and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||-2.9974|-5.1252|<0.001
95985275|NCT02819635|191944128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|6.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||13.9|-0.7|0.075
95985276|NCT02819635|191944128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|3.8||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||9.6|-2.0|0.199
95985277|NCT02819635|191944128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|11.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.0|2.2|0.015
95985278|NCT02819635|191944128|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|29.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||29.9|5.8|0.004
95993644|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-12|-26|<0.0001
95985279|NCT02819635|191944129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|25.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 7.5 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 7.5 mg vs Placebo||42.3|8.9|0.003
95985280|NCT02819635|191944129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|61.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||61.8|25.4|<0.001
95985281|NCT02819635|191944129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|57.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||57.5|21.3|<0.001
95985282|NCT02819635|191944129|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|61.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by previous biologic use, baseline corticosteroid use and baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 and \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 1: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||61.9|24.4|<0.001
95985283|NCT02819635|191944130|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|35.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.9|22.6|<0.001
95985284|NCT02819635|191944131|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|17.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||17.0|8.4|<0.001
95985285|NCT02819635|191944132|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|54.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||54.2|38.4|<0.001
95985286|NCT02819635|191944133|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)||Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|41.8|24.8|<0.001
95985287|NCT02819635|191944134|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||30.0|17.5|<0.001
95985288|NCT02819635|191944135|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||35.6|19.2|<0.001
95930383|NCT01641198|191823183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.26||Statistical analysis was based on the mixed linear model with the level of significance set at p\<0.05 and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model with effects of time, implant position, implant configuration, implant type (and implant length as a covariate effect)||Mean bone change between SW and SC estimated with the mixed linear model (mean±SE, 95% CI).||-0.26|-1.01|<0.05
95985289|NCT02819635|191944136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||32.1|15.1|<0.001
95985290|NCT02819635|191944137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by bio-IR status (bio-IR vs. non-bio-IR), Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 vs. \> 7)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.7|23.8|<0.001
95985291|NCT02819635|191944138|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|40.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||40.36|27.02|<0.001
95985292|NCT02819635|191944139|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||13.7|5.7|<0.001
95985293|NCT02819635|191944140|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|8.59||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status)|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|Substudy 2: Upadacitinib 45 mg vs Placebo||8.59|4.79|<0.001
95985294|NCT02819635|191944141|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|43.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||43.7|25.1|<0.001
95985295|NCT02819635|191944141|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|55.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||55.8|36.7|<0.001
95985296|NCT02819635|191944142|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|54.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.6|20.3|<0.001
95985297|NCT02819635|191944142|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|63.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||63.3|30.7|<0.001
95985298|NCT02819635|191944143|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|52.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||52.7|18.2|<0.001
95985299|NCT02819635|191944143|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|61.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.6|28.7|<0.001
95985300|NCT02819635|191944144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|56.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||56.2|27.8|<0.001
95795030|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 3 vs 1)||1.06|0.73|
95795031|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.79|
95985301|NCT02819635|191944144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|61.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||61.7|35.5|<0.001
95985302|NCT02819635|191944145|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||26.4|11.0|<0.001
95985303|NCT02819635|191944145|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||27.2|11.7|<0.001
95985304|NCT02819635|191944146|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|54.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||54.7|34.5|<0.001
95985305|NCT02819635|191944146|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|66.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||66.0|47.2|<0.001
95985306|NCT02819635|191944147|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||32.8|14.8|<0.001
95985307|NCT02819635|191944147|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||46.8|27.8|<0.001
95985308|NCT02819635|191944148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.98|40.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||40.70|21.98|<0.001
95985309|NCT02819635|191944148|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.39|50.55||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/ no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||50.55|31.39|<0.001
95985310|NCT02819635|191944149|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.0||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||20.0|6.0|<0.001
95985311|NCT02819635|191944149|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||20.6|6.6|<0.001
95985312|NCT02819635|191944150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|48.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||48.5|28.9|<0.001
95727921|NCT01102777|191425449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The determination of arm occurred after recruitment, and Study Reach is a recruitment value.||||
95985313|NCT02819635|191944150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.8||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||54.8|35.5|<0.001
95985314|NCT02819635|191944151|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|34.5||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||34.5|14.2|<0.001
95985315|NCT02819635|191944151|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.9||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Bio-IR (Bio-IR/Non-Bio-IR) at Induction Study Baseline; clinical remission at Week 0 (yes/no); corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||43.9|23.6|<0.001
95985316|NCT02819635|191944152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|7.52||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 15 mg vs Placebo||7.52|2.67|<0.001
95985317|NCT02819635|191944152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.27||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with graphical multiplicity adjustment to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level α= 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Stratified by corticosteroid use at Week 0 (yes/no); clinical remission status at Week 0 (yes/no); Bio-IR status at Baseline (Bio-IR or Non-Bio-IR)|Difference = Upadacitinib 30 mg - Placebo|Substudy 3: Upadacitinib 30 mg vs Placebo||8.27|3.44|<0.001
95985318|NCT05433571|191944155|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (Low DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|0.955|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.955|0.878|
95985319|NCT05433571|191944155|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested for Senofilcon A (C3) Multifocal Toric lens with UV/HEV filter (High DC) and concluded if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval was above 0.80|Mean Population Estimate|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|0.93|||Bootstrapping Methods|bias adjusted confidence intervals||||0.930|0.845|
95985320|NCT01265615|191944161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95930384|NCT01075217|191823184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 1, i.e., pain was not assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.4|<0.0001
95930385|NCT01075217|191823184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4||P-value provided is for the difference in pain assessment between Isovue and Visipaque in Group 2, i.e., pain was assessed separately from heat.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-0.5|0.3244
95930386|NCT01075217|191823185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|0.5|0.0059
95985321|NCT01265615|191944162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985322|NCT01265615|191944163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985323|NCT01265615|191944164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985324|NCT01265615|191944165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985325|NCT01265615|191944166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985326|NCT01265615|191944167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985327|NCT01265615|191944168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985328|NCT01265615|191944169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985329|NCT01265615|191944170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95985330|NCT01471015|191944172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95985331|NCT01471015|191944173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95985332|NCT04962022|191944177|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|118.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.5|124.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||124.97|112.50|0.05
95985333|NCT04962022|191944178|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir co-administered with itraconazole was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|138.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.25|149.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"|||149.11|129.25|0.05
95985334|NCT01757678|191944190|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.19||||||||.19|.09|
95985335|NCT01757678|191944191|OTHER||Difference in Probability|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14||||||||.14|.04|
95985336|NCT03703102|191944195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95985337|NCT03703102|191944195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95985338|NCT03703102|191944195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95985339|NCT03703102|191944195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95993645|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-9|-25|<0.0001
95930387|NCT03260140|191823206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.24|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||-0.61|-3.24|0.001
95930388|NCT03260140|191823207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.49|-1.11|0.388
95930389|NCT03260140|191823208|SUPERIORITY||Sign test|1.76||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.66|||F test-ratio of 2 McNemar's Chi-Squares|||Group-specific McNemar's Chi-Square tests were applied to examine the change from baseline to follow-up in dichotomized IPAQ (\>=150 vs \<150) minutes of physical activity per week. To compare intervention vs. control at 12 months, we applied an F test. The intervention effect was an odds ratio of the ratios of discordant pairs in the intervention vs the control group.||3.66|0.85|0.308
95930390|NCT03260140|191823209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.24|-0.61|0.396
95930391|NCT03260140|191823210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.61|-1.02|0.657
95930392|NCT03260140|191823211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.68|-2.33|0.281
95930393|NCT03260140|191823212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rodgers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||0.23|-0.11|0.483
95930394|NCT03260140|191823213|SUPERIORITY||Mean percent change in HbA1c|0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average HbA1c at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis on log-transformed HbA1c comparing the average HbA1c between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.69|-2.57|0.985
95930395|NCT03260140|191823214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.55|-1.99|0.806
95930396|NCT03260140|191823215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average DBP at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average 12-month DBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||1.05|-1.77|0.620
95985340|NCT01594515|191944238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0005|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for Cmax was analysed.(N=50)||1.0005|0.9400|
95985341|NCT01594515|191944239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0145|1.074|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale."|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of the drug for AUC0-inf was analysed. (N=48)||1.0740|1.0145|
95985342|NCT03029143|191944249|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Chi-squared||||Chi-squared test was used to estimate P-value from the logistic regression model where Endoscopic Mucosal Healing was the response variable and Treatment and TNF stratification were factors. Baseline complete Mayo Score and natural logarithm of trough concentration at week 6 were covariates.|1.8|0.2|=0.401
95985343|NCT03029143|191944250|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-0.4|||=|0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|10.6|-11.4|=0.943
95985344|NCT03029143|191944251|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-1.2|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|16.3|-18.7|=0.893
95985345|NCT03029143|191944252|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|6.0|||=|0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.3|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.3|-12.4|=0.525
95930397|NCT03260140|191823216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SPB at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis comparing the average SBP between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for randomization strata: age (less than or greater than/equal to 65), BMI (at least 30/less than 35, at least 35/less than 40, or at least 40/less than for 45), and population density (rural or urban), while random effects were used to account for within-person variability.||2.28|-2.32|0.987
95930398|NCT01444417|191823225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0497||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.896|43.199|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of durable platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||43.199|1.896|0.0018
95930399|NCT01444417|191823226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.535|32.265|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group.||The incidence of overall platelet response was compared by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the baseline age group. The Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio (romiplostim vs placebo) was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval.||32.265|2.535|0.0002
95930400|NCT01444417|191823227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|P-value from Analysis of Variance with main effects (treatment and age group) model after testing for non-significant interaction (p-value ≥ 0.10).||||||0.0004
95930401|NCT01444417|191823228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|2.391|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group||||2.391|0.277|0.7103
95930402|NCT02755116|191823231|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted relative risk|0.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2|||log-binomial regression|||||1.20|0.48|0.003
95930403|NCT03292913|191823248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, viral load suppression at baseline, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is viral load suppression. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.21|0.96|0.220
95930404|NCT03292913|191823249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is retention in care. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.15|0.94|0.481
95930405|NCT03292913|191823250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Risk ratio is adjusted for sex, age, race, site, and new to care.||Outcome measure for this analysis is a 6-month visit gap defined ashaving at least 189 days between two sequentially kept visits, post-randomization. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p-value less than 0.05.||1.03|0.72|0.093
95930406|NCT02423798|191823262|OTHER||Mean|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95930407|NCT01063972|191823265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95930408|NCT01063972|191823266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
95930409|NCT01063972|191823267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95985346|NCT03029143|191944253|OTHER||Adjusted risk difference|-6.6|||=|0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|20.8|-34.0|=0.623
95985347|NCT03029143|191944254|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.1|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|24.7|||CMH Chi-square test||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was stratified by TNF antagonist status.|24.7|-8.5|=0.344
95985348|NCT00619255|191944255|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.38||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.71
95985349|NCT00619255|191944256|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.80
95985350|NCT00619255|191944257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|"DF = 1~Chi-Square Value = 0.18"||||||0.67
95985351|NCT00619255|191944258|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.03
95985352|NCT00619255|191944259|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|DF=3||||||0.72
95930410|NCT01063972|191823268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95930411|NCT00275392|191823286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||0.026
95930412|NCT00275392|191823286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||<.001
95930413|NCT00275392|191823286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
95930414|NCT00275392|191823287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect|RM ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
95930415|NCT00275392|191823287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|RM ANOVA|||||||.016
95985353|NCT02121262|191944260|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.5||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by baseline BCVA categories.||||8.9|-5.9|0.7431
95857342|NCT03584789|191673067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.00|.21|.62
95985354|NCT02121262|191944261|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the treatment group as the main effect and baseline BCVA score as the covariate.|Null hypothesis-there was no difference in treatment groups of average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test-based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level,confidence interval(CI) was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||4.66|1.17|0.0011
95985355|NCT02121262|191944262|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.53|-56.01|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline retinal thickness as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-56.01|-122.53|<0.0001
95985356|NCT02121262|191944263|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0443|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|-5.6733|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories as main effects and baseline total leakage area as the covariate.|Null hypothesis was there was no difference in treatment groups in average BCVA CFB in 12-months. Hypothesis test was based on 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level. 2-sided 95% CI was constructed between treatment groups in LSM using ANCOVA model.|||-5.6733|-9.7855|<0.0001
95985357|NCT01553188|191944264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.44
95985358|NCT01553188|191944266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Log rank two-tailed p-value|||||||0.26
95985359|NCT02651584|191944293|NON_INFERIORITY|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 10% point.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95985360|NCT02651584|191944294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||including subject self-reported opioid use||||0.004
95985361|NCT02651584|191944294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||not including self-reported opioid use||||0.008
95985362|NCT02651584|191944296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was based on the chi square test for non-inferiority with the margin of 15%.||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95985363|NCT03317795|191944297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95930416|NCT00275392|191823287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group|RM ANOVA|||||||>.05
95930417|NCT04250883|191823391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.54
95985364|NCT03317795|191944299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95985365|NCT03317795|191944300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical composite score||||0.32
95985366|NCT03317795|191944300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental composite score||||0.26
95985367|NCT03317795|191944301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95727922|NCT01102777|191425450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.11
95857343|NCT03584789|191673068|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.12|-0.26|.38
95930418|NCT04250883|191823392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.97
95930419|NCT04250883|191823394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||At 12 days postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.64
95930420|NCT04250883|191823394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||At 3 months postoperative|Chi-squared, Corrected|for age||||||0.38
95857344|NCT03584789|191673068|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.17|-0.24|.70
95857345|NCT03584789|191673069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|-0.79|.65
95857346|NCT03584789|191673069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.41|-0.99|.41
95857347|NCT00602472|191673093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.50|-0.73|<0.0001
95930421|NCT04250883|191823395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|For age||Count of patients with or without pain at 3 months postoperative||||0.84
95930422|NCT04250883|191823395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Number of Words Chosen||||0.89
95930423|NCT04250883|191823395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Pain Rating index||||0.98
95930424|NCT04250883|191823396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.9
95930425|NCT04250883|191823397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.68
95930426|NCT04250883|191823397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 6 hours||||0.91
95930427|NCT04250883|191823397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.73
95930428|NCT04250883|191823397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.77
95930429|NCT04250883|191823398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.63
95930430|NCT04250883|191823398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.19
95930431|NCT04250883|191823399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At 1 hour||||0.89
95930432|NCT04250883|191823399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 1||||0.49
95930433|NCT04250883|191823400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
95930434|NCT04250883|191823401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||Of Total complications within 30 days postoperative||||0.92
95930435|NCT04250883|191823402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Time to maximal intensity||||0.098
95985368|NCT03317795|191944302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95985369|NCT02958007|191944343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
95985370|NCT02484911|191944360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
95985371|NCT02484911|191944361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95930436|NCT04250883|191823402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Angle from minimal to maximal intensity||||0.008
95930437|NCT04250883|191823402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||Delta between minimal and maximal intensity||||0.042
95930438|NCT04250883|191823403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||postoperative day 1||||0.35
95930439|NCT04250883|191823403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||at postoperative day 12||||0.52
95930440|NCT04250883|191823404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|correction for age||at postoperative day 1||||0.99
95930441|NCT04250883|191823404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||At postoperative day 12||||0.30
95930442|NCT04250883|191823405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.42
95930443|NCT04250883|191823406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.3
95930444|NCT04250883|191823407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.33
95985372|NCT02484911|191944363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.397
95930445|NCT04250883|191823408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Correction for age||||||0.018
95930446|NCT05930782|191823411|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of Cmax falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.32|113.02||||||||113.02|48.32|
95930447|NCT05930782|191823412|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratio (GMR)|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.46|100.71||||||||100.71|56.46|
95930448|NCT05930782|191823413|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.16|109.63||||||||109.63|68.16|
95930449|NCT05930782|191823414|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|77.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.49|101.39||||||||101.39|59.49|
95930450|NCT05930782|191823415|EQUIVALENCE|The treatment was considered as bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for geometric least square mean ratios (GMR) of ln-transformed parameters falls within the acceptance range of 80.00 % to 125.00 %.|geometric least square mean ratios (GMR)|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.03|113.02|||||For AUC0-inf, the GMR and 90% CI values were unreliable as there was only 1 calculable value for the Test (Group 2) and 2 values for the Reference (Group 1) products.|||113.02|6.03|
95795032|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 4 vs 1)||1.28|0.83|
95930451|NCT02763319|191823416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.351|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System (IWRS). Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|||1.351|0.837|0.468
95930452|NCT02763319|191823417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.33|||Inverse normal test|The Inverse Normal method combines information (p-value) from the interim analysis and information from the final analysis.|The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per the Interactive Web Response System. Rituximab + bendamustine is the reference treatment group.|||1.330|0.586|0.568
95930453|NCT02763319|191823418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.779|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.779|0.812|
95930454|NCT02763319|191823419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|3.041|||||||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.041|0.778|
95930455|NCT02763319|191823420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.745|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.745|0.938|
95930456|NCT02763319|191823421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.035|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|2.035|0.673|
95727923|NCT01102777|191425451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed models, adjusting for time, MMRC score, and urban versus rural residence.||||||.01
95795033|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.78||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 3 vs 1)||1.78|1.15|
95857348|NCT00602472|191673094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.41|-0.56|<0.0001
95930457|NCT02763319|191823422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.452|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.452|0.875|
95930458|NCT02763319|191823423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.626|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.626|0.682|
95985373|NCT02484911|191944364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95985374|NCT02484911|191944365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95985375|NCT02484911|191944366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95985376|NCT02484911|191944368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95930459|NCT02763319|191823424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.985|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|1.985|0.829|
95930460|NCT02763319|191823425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|3.457|||||||A CMH test stratified by Baseline stratification factors was performed for response variable coded as follows: 1 for response (CR or PR) and 0 for nonresponse (stable disease \[SD\] or progressive disease \[PD\] or unknown).|3.457|0.755|
95930461|NCT02763319|191823426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.416|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.416|0.831|
95930462|NCT02763319|191823427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.595|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.595|0.633|
95930463|NCT02763319|191823428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.244|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.244|0.794|
95985377|NCT02484911|191944369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
95985378|NCT02484911|191944370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95985379|NCT02484911|191944371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.246
95727924|NCT00947765|191425495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95857349|NCT00602472|191673095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.58|-0.78|<0.0001
95930464|NCT02763319|191823429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||||||The hazard ratio estimate for treatment was based on a stratified Cox model with stratification factors as per IWRS. Rituximab + bendamustine was the reference treatment group.|1.220|0.570|
95930465|NCT01693120|191823439|SUPERIORITY||rate|1.6||||0.175|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that the procedure or device related stroke rate within 30-days of a Phased RF ablation procedure was 3.5% or greater. The alternative hypothesis was that this rate was less than 3.5%. A sample size of 300 subjects provided 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true stroke rate was 1.0% with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05||4.9||0.175
95930466|NCT01693120|191823440|OTHER|The goal of the analysis was to compute a two-sided 95% confidence interval around the 6-month effectiveness rate. There was no pre-specified hypothesis.|rate|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|62.1||||||||62.1|43.1|
95930467|NCT01693120|191823441|OTHER|There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.|rate|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.3|95.1||||||There was no prespecified hypothesis tested.||95.1|84.3|
95930468|NCT01693120|191823442|OTHER|There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test|rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.1||||||There was no pre-specified hypothesis to test||6.1|0|
95930469|NCT00925587|191823465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.5 g/dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.052|||||Darbepoetin alfa QM - Darbepoetin alfa Q2W|Power = 90% at sample size calculation||0.052|-0.427|
95930470|NCT01925469|191823538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Differences in the median change in pain scores were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||An a priori sample size calculation determined at least 28 patients were needed to detect a clinically significant 13 mm difference in pain score (α=0.05, power =0.80) with a standard deviation of 12 mm. Intention to treat analysis was performed.||||0.43
95930471|NCT01925469|191823539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to assess differences in satisfaction scores by treatment group. Correlation between pain and satisfaction scores was assessed by Spearman's correlation coefficient.||||0.4
95930472|NCT01925469|191823540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95930473|NCT04303156|191823711|OTHER||GMR|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.88|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.88|1.68|
95930474|NCT04303156|191823712|OTHER||GMR|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.55|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.55|1.46|
95930475|NCT04303156|191823713|OTHER||GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.57|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.57|0.67|
95985380|NCT01157078|191944399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.11||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-3.14|0.349
95985381|NCT01157078|191944400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.92|0.75|0.444
95857350|NCT00602472|191673096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.59|-0.80|<0.0001
95857351|NCT00602472|191673097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-18.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-18.1|<0.0001
95857352|NCT00602472|191673098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.2|-22.4|<0.0001
95985382|NCT01157078|191944401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.61|0.88|0.130
95985383|NCT01157078|191944402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||5.14|0.60|0.307
95985384|NCT01157078|191944403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.94|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.94|0.71|0.313
95985385|NCT01157078|191944404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||4.24|0.74|0.201
95985386|NCT01157078|191944405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-2.10|0.552
95985387|NCT01157078|191944406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.803||95.0|-0.31|0.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.803
95985388|NCT01157078|191944407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.91|0.75|0.440
95985389|NCT01157078|191944408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.23||Analysis for change in MADRS total score from randomization to Week 9.|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.23|-0.91|0.768
95985390|NCT01157078|191944409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.84|0.373
95985391|NCT01157078|191944410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.07|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.07|-2.47|0.435
95985392|NCT01157078|191944411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-2.56|0.501
95985393|NCT01157078|191944412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.771||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.134|0.901||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.901|-2.134|0.424
95985394|NCT01157078|191944413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22||Analysis for change in SDS work/school domain score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.22|-0.96|0.214
95985395|NCT01157078|191944414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.59|0.931
95985396|NCT01157078|191944415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.44|-0.60|0.755
95985397|NCT01157078|191944416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|4.346|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.346|-2.699|0.646
95795034|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.71||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 2 vs 1)||1.71|1.13|
95985398|NCT01157078|191944417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.14|-0.31|0.446
95985399|NCT01157078|191944418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.33|-0.06|0.178
95985400|NCT01157078|191944419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|2.12|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.12|-4.22|0.515
95985401|NCT01157078|191944420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0209|0.068||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0680|-0.0209|0.298
95985402|NCT01157078|191944420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.26||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.26|-2.98|0.484
95930476|NCT04303156|191823716|OTHER||GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.6|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.60|0.35|
95930477|NCT04303156|191823717|OTHER||GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.56|
95930478|NCT04303156|191823718|OTHER||GMR|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.14|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|2.14|1.03|
95985403|NCT00132132|191944429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is the per protocol unadjusted value||||||0.03
95985404|NCT00132132|191944429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Age adjusted per protocol||||||0.14
95930479|NCT04303156|191823719|OTHER||GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.93|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.93|0.98|
95930480|NCT04303156|191823720|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.39|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.39|0.64|
95930481|NCT04303156|191823722|OTHER||GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.35|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.35|0.69|
95930482|NCT04303156|191823723|OTHER||GMR|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|6.02|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|6.02|0.55|
95930483|NCT04303156|191823724|OTHER||GMR|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.8|||||Severe Renal Impairment / Healthy|GMR|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|4.80|1.51|
95930484|NCT01755949|191823738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.038
95930485|NCT01755949|191823738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline C-reactive protein vs day 28 C-reactive protein||||0.98
95930486|NCT01755949|191823738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between placebo and colchicine levels at day 28||||0.072
95930487|NCT01755949|191823739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo vs colchicine||||0.08
95930488|NCT02214160|191823746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Paired T-test|||||||0.0347
95930489|NCT02214160|191823747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0343
95985405|NCT00132132|191944429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Per protocol adjusted for age and paternal education. Given the small number of participants with complete data, this model may be overfit.||||||0.006
95985406|NCT00132132|191944430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95985407|NCT00129766|191944452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval and relative risk adjusted for the stratification factor of presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.083|||t-test, 2 sided||Relative risk was calculated as (Pn/Ps) where Pn is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the motavizumab group and Ps is the proportion of patients with RSV hospitalization in the palivizumab group.|ITT population||1.083|0.503|
95985408|NCT00129766|191944461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.11||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.110
95985409|NCT00129766|191944462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.005||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity as specified on the CRF||||||0.005
95985410|NCT00129766|191944463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.476||95.0|||||Van Eleteren test|Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF||P-value is for overall incidence||||0.476
95930490|NCT01152190|191823786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.121||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.121
95930491|NCT01152190|191823787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.226||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 between the tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.226
95930492|NCT01152190|191823788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.208||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
95930493|NCT01152190|191823788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.066||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.066
95985411|NCT00129766|191944464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.493||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.493
95985412|NCT00129766|191944465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A CMH approach stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity requiring medical intervention was used.||||||0.652||95.0||||Test stratified by presence or absence of CLD of prematurity specified on the CRF|Van Eleteren test|||||||0.652
95985413|NCT03045861|191944493|OTHER||Emax|-1.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.333|1.31||||||||1.310|-2.333|
95985414|NCT03045861|191944493|OTHER||ED50|1020.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.786|1940.724||||||||1940.724|100.786|
95985415|NCT03045861|191944493|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.306||||||||0.306|0.095|
95985416|NCT03045861|191944494|OTHER||Emax|-1.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|-1.283||||||||-1.283|-2.319|
95795035|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 4 vs 1)||1.30|0.88|
95930494|NCT01152190|191823788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.195||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.195
95930495|NCT01152190|191823788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.625||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in bladder neck RI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.625
95930496|NCT01152190|191823789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.439||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.439
95930497|NCT01152190|191823789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.86||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate transition zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.860
95930498|NCT01152190|191823789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937||0.24||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.240
95930499|NCT01152190|191823789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.839||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the prostate peripheral zone CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.839
95985417|NCT03045861|191944494|OTHER||ED50|55.572|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.565|107.579||||||||107.579|3.565|
95985418|NCT03045861|191944494|OTHER||s2e|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.314||||||||0.314|0.097|
95985419|NCT03045861|191944495|OTHER||Emax|-1.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|-1.34||||||||-1.340|-2.352|
95985420|NCT03045861|191944495|OTHER||ED50|32.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.687|60.143||||||||60.143|4.687|
95985421|NCT03045861|191944495|OTHER||s2e|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.305||||||||0.305|0.094|
95985422|NCT01732796|191944538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|86.2|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||86.2|76.6|<0.0001
95985423|NCT01732796|191944538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|71.7||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|77.4|||Stratified one sample z-test||Adjusted response rate will tested against 71%. It is calculated as a weighted average (non-cirrhotic: 89% times response rate+ cirrhotic: 11% times response rate), 11% is the highest rate of cirrhotic from historical trials with approved DAA+PegIFN|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with pegylated interferon-alfa (PegIFN) from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible).||77.4|66.1|0.3989
95985424|NCT01732796|191944539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|10.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.8|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||||18.8|2.8|0.0040
95985425|NCT01732796|191944540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.5|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||13.5|-1.5|0.0575
95930500|NCT01152190|191823789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.468||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 4 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.468
95930501|NCT01152190|191823789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.199||0.131||95.0||||The p-value associated with the LS mean difference of change from baseline to Week 8 in the bladder neck CPI was tested at a significance level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.131
95930502|NCT00442117|191823790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.196|2.049|||ANOVA|||||2.049|-4.196|0.4982
95930503|NCT00442117|191823791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7601||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.585|4.106|||ANOVA|||||4.106|-2.585|0.6544
95930504|NCT00442117|191823792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.704||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.528|2.115|||ANOVA|||||2.115|-5.528|0.3796
95930505|NCT00442117|191823793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|18.24|||ANOVA|||||18.240|-17.560|0.9622
95930506|NCT00357097|191823904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.6|-1.6|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Ropinirole minus Placebo. Used adjusted change from baseline.|||-1.6|-5.6|<0.001
95930507|NCT02601170|191823938|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95930508|NCT05714696|191823945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
95930509|NCT05714696|191823946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
95930510|NCT05714696|191823947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
95930511|NCT05714696|191823948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
95930512|NCT05714696|191823949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.442
95930513|NCT05714696|191823951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.527
95930514|NCT05714696|191823952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.311
95930515|NCT05714696|191823953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
95795036|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.76||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 3 vs 1)||1.76|1.18|
95930516|NCT05714696|191823954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.005
95930517|NCT00385801|191823960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The effect of treatment on intensity of craving was assessed and the threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.03||Intensity of craving||||0.86
95930518|NCT03603717|191823962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95930519|NCT03603717|191823963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95930520|NCT03603717|191823964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95727925|NCT00947765|191425496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95930521|NCT03603717|191823965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95930522|NCT00457691|191823971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.095||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.344||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.344|0.892|0.8072
95930523|NCT00457691|191823972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.466||p-value from 1-sided log-rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status, organ sites with disease, primary tumor site, prior adjuvant treatment|Log Rank|||||1.466|0.936|0.9163
95930524|NCT02079844|191823979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7313||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|1.733||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.733|-1.269|0.753
95930525|NCT02079844|191823979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7417||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.389|1.655||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.655|-1.389|0.859
95930526|NCT02079844|191823980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2436||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|4.49||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.490|-0.614|0.131
95930527|NCT02079844|191823980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2545||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|4.951||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.951|-0.198|0.069
95930528|NCT02079844|191823981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.106||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.106|-0.739|0.671
95930529|NCT02079844|191823981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.193|0.571||P-values are from ANOVA with treatment sequence, study period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.571|-1.193|0.345
95930530|NCT05938413|191824043|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test to compare viral suppression rate between month 3 and baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95930531|NCT03312907|191824046|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||2.71|0.60|0.5342
95930532|NCT03312907|191824046|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.54|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, and Baseline prednisone equivalent dose. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.54|0.32|
95930533|NCT03312907|191824047|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||3.78|0.33|0.8582
95930534|NCT03312907|191824047|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from model.|||1.70|0.17|
95930535|NCT03312907|191824048|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||4.72|0.57|0.3613
95930536|NCT03312907|191824048|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.09|||||Odds ratio was calculated using logistic regression model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.09|0.19|
95930537|NCT03312907|191824054|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.13|0.57|0.2150
95930538|NCT03312907|191824054|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.63|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.63|1.03|
95930539|NCT03312907|191824055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||1.19|0.64|0.3757
95930540|NCT03312907|191824055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||1.49|0.71|
95985426|NCT01732796|191944541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method with continuity correction|9.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.1|||z-test|based on two sample z-test with continuity correction for variance.||Category: Percentage of patient with response||18.1|1.7|0.0089
95985427|NCT03503877|191944542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.07
95985428|NCT03503877|191944543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.89
95930541|NCT03312907|191824056|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.78|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.78|0.42|0.5127
95930542|NCT03312907|191824056|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||2.10|0.23|
95930543|NCT03312907|191824057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from model.|||5.05|0.14|0.8436
95930544|NCT03312907|191824057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.14|||||Hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates: Baseline SLEDAI-2K, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm excluded from model.|||3.14|0.09|
95930545|NCT03312907|191824064|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|15.7|||Regression, Logistic|Week 52|Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab+ Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||15.70|0.15|0.7102
95930546|NCT03312907|191824064|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.71|||||Odds ratio at Week 52 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant, Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||10.71|0.10|
95930547|NCT03312907|191824064|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|Week 104|Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Standard therapy arm was excluded from the model.|||3.15|0.26|0.8641
95930548|NCT03312907|191824064|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.64|||||Odds ratio at Week 104 was calculated using Logistic regression model with covariates:Baseline SLEDAI-2K,Baseline immunosuppressant,Baseline prednisone equivalent dose and treatment group. Belimumab + Placebo arm was excluded from the model.|||5.64|0.26|
95930549|NCT02576574|191824074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.54|0.0070
95930550|NCT02576574|191824075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.52|0.0196
95930551|NCT02576574|191824076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.67|0.1032
95985429|NCT03503877|191944544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||High mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.54
95985430|NCT03503877|191944544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Low mosaicism|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||.20
95985431|NCT03503877|191944545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time to Expanded Blastocyst|Wilcoxon signed-rank testing|||||||0.01
95993646|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|6.0||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||21|-7|0.4016
95985432|NCT02285777|191944585|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|71.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|73.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||73|69|0.0001
95930552|NCT02576574|191824077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.59|0.0630
95930553|NCT02576574|191824078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.62|0.0147
95930554|NCT02576574|191824079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.67|0.1753
95930555|NCT02576574|191824080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.66|0.0257
95985433|NCT02285777|191944586|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|55.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||55|48|0.0001
95985434|NCT02285777|191944587|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|51.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|54.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 1 month after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||54|48|0.0001
95985435|NCT02285777|191944587|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Vaccine Effectiveness|24.0||||0.0001||95.0|20.0|28.0|||Generalized Linear Model|To obtain the VE measure which is a measure based on RR, BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION \& LOG LINK options were used to compute log10 RR \& corresponding CI.||The Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) at 4 months after the 3-dose vaccination series for each strain is defined as \[1 - (percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/percentage of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||28|20|0.0001
95985436|NCT00552175|191944616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|The primary objective and primary efficacy analysis for the study was the analysis between the combined duloxetine arms and placebo.||-0.56|-1.17|<0.0001
95985437|NCT00552175|191944618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.64||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.64|-1.27|<0.0001
95985438|NCT00552175|191944618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.51||P-value for Night Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.51|-1.15|<0.0001
95985439|NCT00552175|191944619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.49|-1.26|
95985440|NCT00552175|191944619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain analysis||-0.66|-1.43|
95795037|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.83||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 2 vs 1)||1.83|1.25|
95930556|NCT02576574|191824081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.66|0.0809
95930557|NCT02576574|191824082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.78|0.1294
95727926|NCT00947765|191425497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
95930558|NCT02576574|191824083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.79|0.2618
95930559|NCT02576574|191824084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.91|0.0640
95930560|NCT02576574|191824085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.07|0.73|0.2217
95930561|NCT02576574|191824086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.72|0.81|0.1912
95930562|NCT02576574|191824087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.57|0.64|0.4951
95930563|NCT03073941|191824129|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-Inferiority analysis was performed once the 1 year OKS of the first 216 patients were collected. A one-sided T-test, 90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS was used and the analysis was based on the difference of average OKS between Persona and NexGen 1 year postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|90% power, SD=10 and with a non-inferiority margin of 4 OKS||||||<0.05
95930564|NCT01599793|191824164|EQUIVALENCE|Testing if the change of ktrans between 2 weeks and baseline = 0 (i.e testing if the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline =0)||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square means of ktrans at different time points (baseline, 2 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks) are estimated by a linear mixed model. Comparison of means at different time points were performed. The primary result reported below is for the difference of means between 2 weeks and baseline.||||0.0016
95930565|NCT01599793|191824166|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the bone scan response change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36853||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3291
95930566|NCT01599793|191824168|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the PSA change. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|-0.41818||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2006
95930567|NCT01599793|191824170|OTHER|We calculated Spearman Correlation Coefficient between the percent change in Ktrans (from week 0 to 12) and the Change in pain scale. We tested if the coefficient = 0|Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.17669||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5828
95930568|NCT04040296|191824171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with the primary outcome within 14 days of randomization.|||3.8|-1.1|0.28
95930569|NCT04040296|191824172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|11.0|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of implemented recommendations with 24 hours of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||11|8.1|<.001
95930570|NCT04040296|191824173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with AKI progression within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.6|-1.6|.65
95985441|NCT00552175|191944619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.39|-1.17|
95985442|NCT00552175|191944619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of night pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Night Pain analysis||-0.5|-1.28|
95985443|NCT00552175|191944620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.44|-0.85|<0.0001
95985444|NCT00552175|191944621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-0.9|
95985445|NCT00552175|191944621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.4|-0.91|
95985446|NCT00552175|191944622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.61||P-value for Worst Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.61|-1.34|<0.0001
95985447|NCT00552175|191944622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.48||P-value for Least Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.48|-1.21|<0.0001
95727927|NCT00947765|191425498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95930571|NCT04040296|191824174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received inpatient dialysis within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.8|-.7|.89
95930572|NCT04040296|191824175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects with inpatient mortality within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||2.1|-1.5|.72
95930573|NCT04040296|191824176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects who received a kidney consult within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||4.1|-.3|.31
95985448|NCT00552175|191944622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.67||P-value for Average Pain.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.67|-1.33|<0.0001
95985449|NCT00552175|191944622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||P-value for Pain Right Now.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
95985450|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.44|-1.34|
95985451|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of worst pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Worst Pain Score analysis||-0.62|-1.51|
95985452|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.33|-1.23|
95985453|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Mean Squares Difference|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of least pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Least Pain Score analysis||-0.46|-1.36|
95985454|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.58|-1.39|
95985455|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average pain score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average Pain Score analysis||-0.61|-1.41|
95985456|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.41|-1.35|
95985457|NCT00552175|191944623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of pain right now score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Pain Right Now Score analysis||-0.48|-1.41|
95985458|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03||P-value for General Activity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.03|-0.85|0.0676
95985459|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||P-value for Mood.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.06|-0.8|0.0933
95985460|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.07||P-value for Walking Ability.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.07|-0.91|0.0228
95985461|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||P-value for Normal Work.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.04|-0.8|0.0783
95985462|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||P-value for Relation to People.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.96|0.0076
95985463|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03||P-value for Sleep.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.03|-0.9|0.0378
95985464|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.14||P-value for Enjoyment of Life.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life score, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.14|-0.98|0.0089
95985465|NCT00552175|191944624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12||P-value for Average of Interference Scores|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of Diabetes, Duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||-0.12|-0.85|0.0095
95795038|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 4 vs 1)||1.01|0.69|
95985466|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||-0.06|-1.14|
95985467|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of general activity, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|General Activity score analysis||0.32|-0.77|
95985468|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.27|-0.8|
95727928|NCT00947765|191425499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
95985469|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of mood score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Mood score analysis||0.05|-1.01|
95985470|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.02|-1.02|
95985471|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of walking ability, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Walking Ability score analysis||0.03|-1.01|
95985472|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.16|-0.86|
95985473|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of normal work score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Normal Work score analysis||0.11|-0.92|
95985474|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||0.11|-0.89|
95985475|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of relation to people, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Relation to People score analysis||-0.22|-1.21|
95985476|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||-0.03|-1.11|
95985477|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of sleep score, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Sleep score analysis||0.18|-0.9|
95985478|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||0.15|-0.88|
95985479|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of enjoyment of life, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Enjoyment of Life score analysis||-0.24|-1.27|
95985480|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||0|-0.9|
95985481|NCT00552175|191944625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of average of interference scores, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|Average of Interference scores analysis||-0.07|-0.97|
95985482|NCT00552175|191944626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.01|-1.22|0.8517
95985483|NCT00552175|191944627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||1.71|-1.03|
95985484|NCT00552175|191944627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: Baseline value of BDI-II, type of diabetes, and duration of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine 40 mg and 60 mg Combined minus Placebo.|||0.81|-1.92|
95985485|NCT04677959|191944654|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||The 95% credible intervals of the odds ratio from the posterior distributions were calculated and presented.||||
95985486|NCT02459795|191944680|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|12.92|||Yates correction|||||12.92|-7.00|
95985487|NCT01389752|191944686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.68||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.61|
95985488|NCT01389752|191944687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98||The outcome was measured as a ratio of geometric means between the two treatments (LY2216684 in combination with activated charcoal/LY2216684 alone), and the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|0.83|
95727929|NCT00947765|191425500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0184
95727930|NCT00947765|191425501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0058
95985489|NCT01389752|191944688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.5||The outcome was measured using the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment groups: LY2216684 administered alone (reference) versus LY2216684 co-administered with charcoal (test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.50|-1.04|0.0010
95985490|NCT02409290|191944699|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.2||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.61|||Log Rank|||||0.61|0.07|0.0016
95985491|NCT02409290|191944700|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.5|||Log Rank|||Control regimen (arm B) uses concurrent controls only||0.50|0.03|0.0005
95985492|NCT00777101|191944738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of neratinib vs lapatinib + capecitabine was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio was 1.15 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.6|||Log Rank|The log-rank test comparing treatment groups is stratified by region.|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by region.|||1.60|0.89|0.231
95985493|NCT02017327|191944745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95985494|NCT02017327|191944745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
95985495|NCT01664559|191944756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95985496|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) Anticipated pain||||0.31
95985497|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||0.33
95985498|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.72
95985499|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.36
95985500|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.64
95985501|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) 5 min after placement||||<0.001
95985502|NCT01664559|191944757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 15 min after placement||||<0.001
95985503|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1\) anticipated pain||||0.6
95985504|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2\) pain with injection||||1.0
95985505|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3\) speculum insertion||||0.34
95985506|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4\) tenaculum placement||||0.32
95985507|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||5\) uterine sounding||||0.04
95985508|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6\) IUD placement||||0.02
95985509|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||7\) 5 min after placement||||0.32
95985510|NCT01664559|191944758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8\) 15 min after placement||||0.02
95985511|NCT01664559|191944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Reported side effects (nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, headache, dizziness, drowsiness, injection site itchiness, swelling or pain)||||> 0.05
95985512|NCT01664559|191944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Injection site pain (just as bad or worse than IUD procedure)||||0.76
95985513|NCT01664559|191944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfied or very satisfied with IUD placement procedure||||0.76
95985514|NCT01664559|191944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Would recommend IUD placement to a friend||||0.35
95985515|NCT01664559|191944759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Desires additional pain medication||||0.02
95985516|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Level of training, PGY 1, 2, 3, 4 and Attending||||0.2
95985517|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||IUD type (levonorgestrel or copper)||||0.09
95985518|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Purpose of IUD (contraception or heavy menstrual bleeding)||||1.0
95985519|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Position of uterus (anteverted, retroverted, midpositioned)||||0.92
95985520|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Need for cervical dilation||||1.0
95985521|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Able to complete the IUD insertion||||1.0
95985522|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Significant bleeding||||0.24
95985523|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Major complications||||1.0
95985524|NCT01664559|191944760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Took acetaminophen prior to leaving the office||||0.02
95985525|NCT03631732|191944761|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL is less than 6% (i.e., a margin of 6% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \>= 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||0.9|-4.8|
95985526|NCT03631732|191944761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3399
95985527|NCT03631732|191944763|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.8|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||6.8|-2.0|
95985528|NCT03631732|191944763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3532|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3532
95930574|NCT04040296|191824177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||Van Elteren test||Difference between arms in the percentage of subjects discharged to hospice care within 14 days of randomization.|Proportions were compared using Cochrane-Mantel Haenszel χ2 test, accounting for stratification by hospital site.||.4|-2.3|.17
95727931|NCT00947765|191425502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0064
95930575|NCT01636687|191824194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|67.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: IGA 0/1||67.7|36.6|<0.0001
95930576|NCT01636687|191824194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|73.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|83.9|||Fisher Exact|||Response Criterion: IGA 0/1||83.9|58.8|<0.0001
95930577|NCT01636687|191824194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|79.8|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||79.8|53.1|<0.0001
95930578|NCT01636687|191824194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|91.7|||Fisher Exact|||Response criterion: PASI 75||91.7|70.7|<0.0001
95930579|NCT02594735|191824220|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95930580|NCT02594735|191824221|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95930581|NCT02594735|191824222|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95930582|NCT02594735|191824223|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95930583|NCT02594735|191824224|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95930584|NCT02594735|191824225|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.375
95930585|NCT02594735|191824226|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95930586|NCT02594735|191824227|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Sign test|Data was not normally distributed||||||0.044
95930587|NCT02594735|191824228|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95930588|NCT01240330|191824267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|21.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||The femoral venous peak flow velocity (PFV) compared to the subject's own resting baseline PFV.||21.59|16.30|<0.0001
95930589|NCT05082935|191824270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.104|||ANCOVA|||||0.104|-0.008|0.09
95930590|NCT05082935|191824271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.02
95930591|NCT05082935|191824272|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|-0.076||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.145|0.03
95930592|NCT05082935|191824273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.04|0.38
95930593|NCT05082935|191824274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.04|0.002
95930594|NCT03950622|191824278|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-2.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||1.1|-5.8|0.175
95930595|NCT03950622|191824278|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||17.2|6.0|<0.001
95930596|NCT03950622|191824278|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.3||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||5.0|-2.4|0.488
95930597|NCT03950622|191824279|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||2.4|-2.8|0.888
95930598|NCT03950622|191824279|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||4.4|-4.2|0.960
95930599|NCT03950622|191824279|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.4||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||2.4|-5.1|0.469
95930600|NCT03950622|191824279|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||7.4|-0.4|0.082
95930601|NCT03950622|191824280|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.6|-0.6|
95930602|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.96|0.66|<0.001
95930603|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
95930604|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.80|0.57|<0.001
95930605|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.98|0.64|<0.001
95985529|NCT03631732|191944764|NON_INFERIORITY|B/F/TAF is non-inferior to SBR if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment groups \[B/F/TAF - SBR\] in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10% (i.e., a margin of 10% is applied to non-inferiority assessment).|Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3|||||Differences in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and 95% CI were calculated based on exact method.|||5.3|-1.0|
95985530|NCT03631732|191944764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3356
95985531|NCT03631732|191944766|OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|49.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM (Least square mean) and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||49|-27|0.5618
95985532|NCT03631732|191944767|OTHER||Difference in LSM|9.0||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0|||ANOVA|P-value was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Difference in LSM and its 95% C.I. was calculated from ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.|||48|-31|0.6632
95985533|NCT02255409|191944791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||9.7|-6.7|
95985534|NCT02255409|191944791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||2.3|-14.2|
95985535|NCT02255409|191944791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||24.1|8.4|
95985536|NCT02255409|191944791|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||22.0|6.3|
95985537|NCT02255409|191944792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 22||2.2|-0.9|
95985538|NCT02255409|191944792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 22||1.2|-1.9|
95985539|NCT02255409|191944792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|20.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 22||20.0|9.3|
95985540|NCT02255409|191944792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 22||32.0|20.6|
95985541|NCT02255409|191944796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.0||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||13.0|-1.6|
95985542|NCT02255409|191944796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.8|-5.5|
95985543|NCT02255409|191944796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|18.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||18.3|5.3|
95985544|NCT02255409|191944796|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||5.7|-8.4|
95985545|NCT02255409|191944797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H1N1 at Day 181||8.4|2.4|
95985546|NCT02255409|191944797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||9.3|3.1|
95985547|NCT02255409|191944797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|40.9||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||40.9|25.0|
95985548|NCT02255409|191944797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.7||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Victoria at Day 181||44.7|29.6|
95985549|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4||||||The ratio of GMT (GMTr) values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 1.||2.4|1.6|
95985550|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 22.||1.7|1.3|
95985551|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H1N1 at Day 181.||1.7|1.3|
95985552|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||2.7|1.7|
95985553|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||1.5|1.2|
95985554|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||1.6|1.2|
95985555|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.2|1.5|
95985556|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 22.||2.0|1.5|
95985557|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 181.||2.2|1.6|
95985558|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.0||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 1.||4.0|2.7|
95985559|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 22.||1.8|1.2|
95985560|NCT02255409|191944798|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Victoria at Day 181.||1.5|1.1|
95985561|NCT02255409|191944800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.3||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||16.3|-5.2|
95985562|NCT02255409|191944800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.6||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||23.6|5.3|
95985563|NCT02255409|191944801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for A/H3N2 at Day 181||24.1|9.5|
95985564|NCT02255409|191944801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|55.8||||||Vaccine Group Difference (aQIV - QIV) for B/Yamagata at Day 181||55.8|35.9|
95985565|NCT02255409|191944802|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 1.||3.8|1.8|
95930606|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.19|0.84|<0.001
95930607|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.48|1.02|<0.001
95930608|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.90|0.68|<0.001
95930609|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 9V (Shared)||0.94|0.70|<0.001
95930610|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.89|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.64|<0.001
95930611|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.26|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.26|0.91|<0.001
95930612|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.93|0.70|<0.001
95930613|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.02|0.76|<0.001
95930614|NCT03950622|191824281|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the OPA GMT ratio (V114/ Prevnar 13™) to be greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.44|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.44|0.96|<0.001
95930615|NCT03950622|191824281|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|31.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.35|39.97|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||39.97|25.35|<0.001
95930616|NCT03950622|191824281|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 2.0.|GMT Ratio|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|8.32|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||8.32|6.07|<0.001
95930617|NCT03950622|191824282|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1.|Percentage Point Difference|57.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|61.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||61.8|52.0|<0.001
95930618|NCT03950622|191824282|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences \[V114 - Prevnar 13™\] between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination \[Day 1\] to 30 days postvaccination \[Day 30\] to be greater than 0.1)|Percentage Point Difference|50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|54.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||54.9|45.9|<0.001
95930619|NCT03950622|191824283|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio \[V114/ Prevnar 13™\] to be greater than 1.2.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.85|||cLDA|GMT ratio, 95% CI, and p-value are estimated from a cLDA model.||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.85|1.38|<0.001
95930620|NCT03950622|191824284|SUPERIORITY|The statistical criterion for superiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference(V114 - Prevnar 13™) between the proportions of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from prevaccination (Day 1) to 30 days postvaccination (Day 30) to be greater than 0.|Percentage Point Difference|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Estimated difference, 95% CI, and p-value are based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||Serotype 3 (Shared) ≥4-Fold Rise in OPA||16.9|6.0|<0.001
95930621|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
95930622|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.71||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.71|1.33|
95930623|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.83|0.62|
95930624|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||0.96|0.70|
95985566|NCT02255409|191944802|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.9|1.3|
95857353|NCT00602472|191673099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.3|-11.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.1|-20.3|<0.0001
95985567|NCT02255409|191944802|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||2.2|1.3|
95930625|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.21|0.87|
95930626|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
95930627|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||0.89|0.66|
95930628|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.00|0.75|
95930629|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||0.89|0.65|
95930630|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.05|0.77|
95930631|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||0.97|0.73|
95930632|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.05|0.78|
95930633|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.28|0.92|
95930634|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.37|12.03||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||12.03|9.37|
95930635|NCT03950622|191824285|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|10.07||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||10.07|8.00|
95930636|NCT02928224|191824314|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930637|NCT02928224|191824315|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930638|NCT02928224|191824316|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95930639|NCT02928224|191824325|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930640|NCT02928224|191824326|OTHER|||||||0.5958|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5958
95930641|NCT02928224|191824327|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930642|NCT02928224|191824328|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930643|NCT02928224|191824329|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930644|NCT02928224|191824330|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95930645|NCT02928224|191824331|OTHER|||||||0.1004|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1004
95930646|NCT02928224|191824332|OTHER|||||||0.3724|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.3724
95930647|NCT02928224|191824333|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95930648|NCT02928224|191824334|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95930649|NCT02928224|191824335|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95930650|NCT02928224|191824336|OTHER|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1928
95930651|NCT02928224|191824337|OTHER|||||||0.0357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0357
95930652|NCT00546754|191824399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.153
95930653|NCT00546754|191824400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
95930654|NCT00546754|191824401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
95930655|NCT00546754|191824402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
95930656|NCT00546754|191824403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.662||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
95930657|NCT00546754|191824404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
95930658|NCT00546754|191824405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95930659|NCT00546754|191824406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.935
95930660|NCT00546754|191824407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95930661|NCT00546754|191824408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
95930662|NCT00546754|191824409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
95930663|NCT00546754|191824410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.386
95930664|NCT00546754|191824411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
95930665|NCT00958633|191824448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for time to any mood episode in the 52-week group relative to the 8-week group was 0.68 (95% confidence interval \[CI\], 0.43 to 1.10; P = 0.12 by log-rank test).|||1.10|0.43|0.12
95930666|NCT00958633|191824449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.08||||||Manic or Hypomanic events||6.08|.86|
95930667|NCT00958633|191824449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.75||||||Depressive Events||0.75|0.25|
95930668|NCT01499654|191824458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95930669|NCT01499654|191824458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95930670|NCT01499654|191824459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95930671|NCT01499654|191824459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95930672|NCT01499654|191824460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95930673|NCT01499654|191824460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95930674|NCT01499654|191824461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95930675|NCT01499654|191824461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95985568|NCT02255409|191944802|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for B/Yamagata at Day 1.||2.6|1.5|
95985569|NCT02255409|191944802|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.7||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 22.||2.7|1.8|
95985570|NCT02255409|191944802|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.2||||||GMTr values between aQIV vs. QIV (ie, GMT\[aQIV\]:GMT\[QIV\]) for A/H3N2 at Day 181.||3.2|2.1|
95930676|NCT00094575|191824465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR was estimated by comparing Endovascular repair arm vs the Open repair arm.|The primary outcome was long-term, all-cause mortality. The sample size would provide 80% power to detect a 25% relative reduction in mortality at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The primary comparison was the main effects of Endovascular repair vs Open repair of AAA.||1.22|0.77|0.81
95930677|NCT00094575|191824466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
95930678|NCT00094575|191824467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
95930679|NCT00094575|191824468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95930680|NCT00094575|191824469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95930681|NCT00094575|191824470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note: Since this is measuring change over time since baseline, values could be below 0.||||0.58
95930682|NCT00094575|191824471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
95930683|NCT00094575|191824472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
95930684|NCT00940537|191824542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||a priori threshhold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|this was a paired t-test||As there was no a priori reason for the level of IHTG to impact this measurement we compared the pre and post-prandial results for all subjects whose data were of sufficient quality (N=12). These results are comparing the two categories of fasting and post-prandial. Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in IHTG before and after a high fat, high carbohydrate meal.||||.097
95930685|NCT00940537|191824543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This p-value compares the low IHTG (\<5%) subjects to those with medium levels of IHTG (5 - 10%). The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intrahepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low and medium IHTG categories.||||0.006
95930686|NCT00940537|191824543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis was that the T2 ratio would not depend on level of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG) and would be equal for the low (\<5%) and high (\>10%) IHTG categories.||||<0.0001
95930687|NCT00940537|191824543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in T2 relaxation ratios for varying levels of intra-hepatic triglyceride (IHTG). Thus the medium (5 - 10%) and high (\<10%) IHTG groups would not be statistically different with regard to average T2 ratio.||||.93
95930688|NCT03149991|191824558|SUPERIORITY|The unstructured covariance matrix structure was used to model nesting of observations within persons. Non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. Least squares means estimates of the linear fixed effects model on SDQ change scores, adjusting for baseline covariates was used to test the primary hypothesis via contrast statements.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Because sample sizes per site varied substantially, we used the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom method.|degrees of freedom = 44.5; t=-0.74|SDQ total was primary outcome \& Day 14 primary endpoint. Change from baseline was calculated for each person at each follow-up. Change score was the dependent variable in a linear fixed effects model, where a (-)number = less severe depression. For group comparison, treatment was coded as 1 \& placebo as 0, thus a (-)value means treatment doing better. Fixed effects: group(brex v placebo), day(1-28), site(6 sites). All 2-\& 3-way interactions were included, as well as a priori defined covariates.||||0.46
95930689|NCT03149991|191824558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom = 41.3; t=2.07.|Secondary Aim: To evaluate the short-term effect of brexpiprazole, as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ), on Day 2. We used the same model as in Aim 1 to test this hypothesis.||||0.04
95930690|NCT03149991|191824558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Degrees of freedom=38.2; t=0.10.|To evaluate the long-term effect of brexpiprazole as measured by the Symptoms of Depression Questionnaire (SDQ) on Day 28. The same model as was used in Aim 1 was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.92
95930691|NCT03149991|191824559|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared test|0.51||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value was not adjusted, however there were adjustments when using a logistic regression in Statistical Analysis #2.|Chi-squared|||We used a Chi-squared test to assess differences between treatment and control in terms of percent of participants achieving a long-term sustained response, as measured by achieving a 50% or greater reduction on the MADRS on Day 28.||||0.47
95930692|NCT03149991|191824559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for a priori defined covariates also included in Aim 1.||Logistic regression was used to assess a difference in 50% reduction on the MADRS on Day 28 between groups.||6.44|0.52|0.35
95930693|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Because tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 41.0, t=2.13.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.04
95950795|NCT03015220|191873575|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.20|0.70|0.2963
95985571|NCT02290873|191944827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.8961|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8505|0.9416||P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test accounting for fentanyl strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.9416|0.8505|<0.0001
95930694|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.35|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.73
95930695|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.8, t=-0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the MADRS change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
95930696|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||degrees of freedom = 40.3, t=1.94.|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.06
95930697|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 44.2, t=-0.22|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.83
95930698|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df =44.0, t=-0.64|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the HAMD6 change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.52
95930699|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df = 31.0, t=1.67|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.11
95930700|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=41.1, t=-0.03|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.98
95930701|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=46.0, t=-0.76|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-S change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.45
95985572|NCT02290873|191944828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.416|8.517|||Log Rank|||||8.517|4.416|<0.0001
95985573|NCT01519765|191944831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611|||||||Fisher Exact|||A consecutive sample will be used as women are recruited. Based on an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05, a sample size of 103 subjects in each arm is required to detect a 20% difference between deliveries within 24hrs between the two treatment arms. An effect size of 20% was selected as this is thought to be a clinically significant difference. This is based on the Wing study showing 50% delivery within 24 hrs with vaginal misoprostol.||||0.1611
95985574|NCT01519765|191944832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
95985575|NCT01519765|191944833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0623|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0623
95985576|NCT01519765|191944834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1141
95985577|NCT01519765|191944835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
95930702|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=49.2, t=2.39;|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 2.||||0.02
95930703|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=56.8, t=1.85|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 14.||||0.07
95930704|NCT03149991|191824560|SUPERIORITY|We used contrast tests comparing brexpiprazole and placebo on the a priori specified days of interest. This model contains an interaction effect with site, because the SITE\*DRUG effect was significant (p=0.03).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Because these tests were conducted for secondary outcomes, p-values were not corrected for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||df=50.5, t=0.91|The same model building approach as used for the primary outcome variable was used for the secondary outcome variables. As per the primary outcome variable, the change scores (i.e., compared to baseline) were the dependent variables of interest. For each secondary outcome variable, non-significant site interaction effects were removed one at a time. This analysis is for the CGI-I change scores, reporting here information for Day 28.||||0.37
95930705|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in terms of occurrence of abnormal ECGs.|Chi-squared test|0.28||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of abnormal ECGs out of total ECGs assessed.||||0.60
95930706|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.|Chi-squared test|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at baseline.||||0.33
95930707|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.|Chi-squared test|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 4.||||1.00
95930708|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.|Chi-squared test|0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 5.||||0.78
95930709|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.|Chi-squared test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 6.||||0.90
95930710|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.|Chi-squared test|0.63||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 7.||||0.43
95930711|NCT03149991|191824564|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.|Chi-squared test|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to assess for group differences (drug vs. placebo) in number/percentage of people with an abnormal ECG at Visit 9.||||0.76
95930712|NCT03149991|191824566|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in number of participants reporting adverse events.|Chi-squared test|0.009||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of number of participants reporting adverse events.||||0.92
95930713|NCT03149991|191824567|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the groups in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis assessed group differences (drug vs. placebo) in terms of mean number of adverse events per person, among those who reported any adverse events.||||0.81
95930714|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared test|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) throughout the trial.||||0.51
95930715|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|2.85||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Screening.||||0.09
95930716|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.004||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) at Baseline.||||0.95
95985578|NCT01519765|191944836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4469
95985579|NCT01519765|191944837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.093
95985580|NCT01519765|191944838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2417
95985581|NCT01519765|191944839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95795039|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 3 vs 1)||1.07|0.72|
95930717|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.005||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 1.||||0.94
95930718|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 2.||||0.16
95930719|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 5.||||0.51
95930720|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 8.||||0.33
95930721|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 11.||||0.96
95930722|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 14.||||0.48
95930723|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 17.||||0.41
95930724|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 21.||||0.68
95930725|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 23.||||0.41
95930726|NCT03149991|191824568|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no group differences in occurrence of suicidal ideation.|Chi-squared|0.67||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis was to compare by group (drug vs. placebo) the occurrence of suicidal ideation (endorsement of item 1 on the CHRT) on Day 28.||||0.41
95930727|NCT06680206|191824569|OTHER||||||=|0.928|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.928
95930728|NCT06680206|191824570|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95930729|NCT06680206|191824571|OTHER||||||=|0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.895
95930730|NCT06680206|191824572|OTHER||||||=|0.463|||||||Chi-squared|||1 drug class||||=0.463
95930731|NCT06680206|191824572|OTHER||||||=|0.463|||||||Chi-squared|||2 or more drug classes||||=0.463
95930732|NCT06680206|191824572|OTHER||||||=|0.644|||||||Chi-squared|||3 or more drug classes||||=0.644
95930733|NCT06680206|191824573|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95930734|NCT06680206|191824574|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||1 drug class||||<0.001
95930735|NCT06680206|191824574|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||2 or more drug classes||||<0.001
95930736|NCT06680206|191824574|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||3 or more drug classes||||<0.001
95930737|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Nurtec (rimegepant) only||||<0.001
95985582|NCT01519765|191944840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1054
95930738|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Triptans||||<0.001
95930739|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.746|||||||Chi-squared|||NSAIDs||||=0.746
95930740|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||Chi-squared|||Opioids||||=0.319
95930741|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.223|||||||Fisher Exact|||Barbiturates||||=0.223
95930742|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.791|||||||Fisher Exact|||Ergots||||=0.791
95930743|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Gepants (acute; including Nurtec)||||<0.001
95930744|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Ditan||||=1.000
95930745|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.447|||||||Chi-squared|||Combination analgesics||||=0.447
95930746|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other (acute treatment)||||=1.000
95930747|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Prevention agents||||<0.001
95930748|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.661|||||||Chi-squared|||Anticonvulsants||||=0.661
95930749|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.315|||||||Fisher Exact|||Beta blocker||||=0.315
95930750|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Antidepressant||||=0.377
95930751|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||CGRP mAb||||=0.093
95930752|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||=|0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Botox||||=0.041
95930753|NCT06680206|191824575|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Gepant (prevention treatment including Nurtec)||||<0.001
95930754|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Acute agents||||=0.030
95930755|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.518|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - NSAIDs||||=0.518
95930756|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Opioids||||=0.184
95930757|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Barbiturates||||=0.333
95930758|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Ergots||||<0.001
95985583|NCT01519765|191944841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8043
95985584|NCT01519765|191944842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
95985585|NCT01519765|191944843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.751
95985586|NCT01519765|191944844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6244
95985587|NCT01519765|191944845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7906
95985588|NCT01519765|191944846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5118
95985589|NCT01519765|191944847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95985590|NCT01519765|191944848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.741
95930759|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Gepants (acute; including Nurtec)||||<0.001
95930760|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Combination Analgesics||||=0.680
95930761|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Other (Acute treatment)||||=0.011
95930762|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Prevention agents||||<0.001
95930763|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.314|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Anticonvulsants||||=0.314
95930764|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Beta-blockers||||=0.890
95930765|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.055|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Antidepressants||||=0.055
95930766|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - CGRPs mAb||||=0.016
95930767|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.079|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Botox||||=0.079
95985591|NCT01519765|191944849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.579
95985592|NCT01519765|191944850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Score for Nausea and vomiting||||.8062
95985593|NCT01519765|191944850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1505|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Effectiveness||||0.1505
95985594|NCT01519765|191944850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Patient concern||||0.1223
95985595|NCT01519765|191944850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||Patient satisfaction|Kruskal-Wallis|||Labor satisfaction||||0.5380
95985596|NCT01519765|191944851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2868||||||This is the overall p value of all rows.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2868
95985597|NCT00609791|191944888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0057||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on age in years||||0.055
95985598|NCT00609791|191944888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln AUC24 on chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.013
95985599|NCT00609791|191944889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0063||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL on age in years||||0.25
95985600|NCT00609791|191944889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of ln CL versus chemotherapy toxicity risk score||||0.04
95985601|NCT00609791|191944890|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
95985602|NCT00609791|191944893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose reduction.||6.7|-16.5|.38
95857354|NCT00602472|191673100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.2|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.1|-17.2|<0.0001
95930768|NCT06680206|191824576|OTHER||||||=|0.079|||||||Fisher Exact|||Current migraine satisfactions - Gepant (prevention treatment including Nurtec)||||=0.079
95930769|NCT06680206|191824577|OTHER||||||=|0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||Analgesics (acetaminophen only)||||=0.011
95930770|NCT06680206|191824577|OTHER||||||=|0.421|||||||Chi-squared|||Analgesics (Combination)||||=0.421
95930771|NCT06680206|191824577|OTHER||||||=|0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||NSAIDs||||=0.636
95930772|NCT06680206|191824577|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other||||=1.000
95930773|NCT06680206|191824578|OTHER||||||=|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.050
95930774|NCT06680206|191824579|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.002
95930775|NCT06680206|191824580|OTHER||||||=|0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental summary composite T score||||=0.308
95930776|NCT06680206|191824580|OTHER||||||=|0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical summary composite T score||||=0.781
95930777|NCT06680206|191824580|OTHER||||||=|0.637|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global health composite T score||||=0.637
95930778|NCT06680206|191824581|OTHER||||||=|0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.372
95930779|NCT06680206|191824582|OTHER||||||=|0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.878
95930780|NCT06680206|191824583|OTHER||||||=|0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.25
95930781|NCT06680206|191824584|OTHER||||||=|0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.582
95930782|NCT06680206|191824585|OTHER||||||=|0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.898
95930783|NCT06680206|191824586|OTHER||||||=|0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Activity impairment||||=0.157
95930784|NCT06680206|191824586|OTHER||||||=|0.825|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity impairment among employed||||=0.825
95985603|NCT00609791|191944893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on the need of a dose reduction.||0.44|-0.33|0.76
95985604|NCT00609791|191944893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for dose reduction.||0.36|-0.49|0.75
95985605|NCT00609791|191944894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||13.9|-2.3|0.15
95985606|NCT00609791|191944894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC24 based on whether there was need for a dose omission.||0.23|-0.39|0.61
95985607|NCT00609791|191944894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether there was a need for a dose omission.||0.42|-0.22|0.51
95985608|NCT00609791|191944895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in age based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||12.7|-9.3|0.75
95795040|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 2 vs 1)||1.13|0.77|
95930785|NCT06680206|191824586|OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity impairment among unemployed||||0.117
95930786|NCT06680206|191824586|OTHER||||||=|0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity impairment among disabled||||=0.921
95930787|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS (Total score)||||=0.146
95930788|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 1 (MGMIDAS1)||||=0.741
95930789|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 2 (MGMIDAS2)||||=0.080
95930790|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 3 (MGMIDAS3)||||=0.026
95930791|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 4 (MGMIDAS4)||||=0.254
95930792|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 5 (MGMIDAS5)||||=0.723
95930793|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 6 (MGMIDAS6)||||=0.012
95930794|NCT06680206|191824587|OTHER||||||=|0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 7 (MGMIDAS7)||||=0.807
95930795|NCT06680206|191824588|OTHER||||||=|0.601|||||||Chi-squared|||MIDAS Grade I to Grade IV||||=0.601
95930796|NCT06680206|191824589|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=1
95930797|NCT06680206|191824590|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.688
95930798|NCT06680206|191824591|OTHER||||||=|0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.96
95930799|NCT06680206|191824592|OTHER||||||=|0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.115
95930800|NCT06680206|191824593|OTHER||||||=|0.758|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.758
95930801|NCT06680206|191824594|OTHER||||||=|0.616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.616
95930802|NCT06680206|191824595|OTHER||||||=|0.086|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.086
95930803|NCT06680206|191824596|OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.528
95930804|NCT06680206|191824597|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95930805|NCT06680206|191824598|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
95930806|NCT06680206|191824599|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=1
95930807|NCT06680206|191824600|OTHER||||||=|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.08
95930808|NCT06680206|191824601|OTHER||||||=|0.426|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental summary composite T score||||=0.426
95930809|NCT06680206|191824601|OTHER||||||=|0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical summary composite T score||||=0.602
95930810|NCT06680206|191824601|OTHER||||||=|0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global health composite T score||||=0.815
95930811|NCT06680206|191824602|OTHER||||||=|0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.189
95930812|NCT06680206|191824603|OTHER||||||=|0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.727
95930813|NCT06680206|191824604|OTHER||||||=|0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.237
95930814|NCT06680206|191824605|OTHER||||||=|0.401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.401
95930815|NCT06680206|191824606|OTHER||||||=|0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.609
95930816|NCT06680206|191824607|OTHER||||||=|0.265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total activity impairment||||=0.265
95930817|NCT06680206|191824607|OTHER||||||=|0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity impairment among employed||||=0.496
95930818|NCT06680206|191824607|OTHER||||||=|0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity impairment among unemployed||||=0.268
95930819|NCT06680206|191824607|OTHER||||||=|0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity impairment among disabled||||=0.57
95930820|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS (Total score)||||=0.266
95930821|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 1 (MGMIDAS1)||||=0.884
95930822|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 2 (MGMIDAS2)||||=0.373
95930823|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 3 (MGMIDAS3)||||=0.109
95930824|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 4 (MGMIDAS4)||||=0.368
95930825|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 5 (MGMIDAS5)||||=0.714
95930826|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 6 (MGMIDAS6)||||=0.020
95930827|NCT06680206|191824608|OTHER||||||=|0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MIDAS Item 7 (MGMIDAS7)||||=0.889
95930828|NCT06680206|191824609|OTHER||||||=|0.675|||||||Chi-squared|||MIDAS Grade I to Grade IV||||=0.675
95930829|NCT06680206|191824610|OTHER||||||=|0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.651
95930830|NCT06680206|191824611|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.004
95930831|NCT06680206|191824612|OTHER||||||=|0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.477
95930832|NCT06680206|191824613|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.002
95930833|NCT06680206|191824614|OTHER||||||=|0.555|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.555
95930834|NCT06680206|191824615|OTHER||||||=|0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.371
95930835|NCT06680206|191824616|OTHER||||||=|0.501|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.501
95930836|NCT06680206|191824617|OTHER||||||=|0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.014
95930837|NCT06680206|191824618|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95930838|NCT06680206|191824619|OTHER||||||=|0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.392
95930839|NCT06680206|191824620|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=1
95930840|NCT06680206|191824621|OTHER||||||=|0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.143
95930841|NCT03289039|191824659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.12|||Log Rank|||||4.12|0.27|0.98
95930842|NCT03289039|191824660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.24|0.89
95930843|NCT06525727|191824676|OTHER||Sensitivity|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.15|99.95|||Diagnostic accuracy|Diagnostic performance was analyzed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV and likelihood ratios, all reported with 95% confidence interval||The primary objective of the study was to assess the external validation of the Falls Decision Rule. In this evaluation, patients were categorized into two groups based on the rule: those for whom a CT scan was recommended and those for whom it was not.||99.95|89.15|
95930844|NCT06525727|191824676|OTHER||Specificity|31.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.63|35.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||35.42|28.63|
95930845|NCT06525727|191824676|OTHER||Negative predictive value|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.17|99.94|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||99.94|97.17|
95930846|NCT06525727|191824676|OTHER||Positive predictive value|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|9.1|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||9.1|8.1|
95930847|NCT06525727|191824676|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||0.42|0.01|
95930848|NCT06525727|191824676|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.53|||Diagnostic accuracy|||||1.53|1.35|
95930849|NCT02918279|191824708|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.22||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations was imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Responses at week 56 were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, sex, region, baseline glycaemic category, stratification factor for Tanner stage and interaction between baseline glycaemic category and stratification factor for Tanner stage as fixed effects, baseline BMI SDS, age as covariates.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0022
95930850|NCT00666276|191824786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.712
95930851|NCT00666276|191824787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 65 and less than 65 in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.257
95930852|NCT00666276|191824788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic dysfunction and without Hepatic dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.082
95930853|NCT00666276|191824789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunctions. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal dysfunction and without Renal dysfunction in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.462
95930854|NCT00666276|191824790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Duration of drug administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 15 days and less than 15 days in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||<0.001
95930855|NCT00666276|191824791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Route of administration. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between oral, injection and switch in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.018
95930856|NCT00666276|191824792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Weight. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between over 40kg and less than 40kg in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.311
95930857|NCT00666276|191824793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant drug and without Concomitant drug in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.044
95930858|NCT00666276|191824794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Non-drug therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Non-drug therapies and without Non-drug therapies in the incidence rate of ADRs."||||=0.008
95930859|NCT01039688|191824796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.18||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0014
95985609|NCT00609791|191944895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AUC based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.81|-0.12|0.13
95930860|NCT01039688|191824796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison of CP-690,550 5 mg to be statistically significant versus MTX, the comparison of CP-690,550 10 mg versus MTX had to be statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|0.0004
95930861|NCT01039688|191824797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|19.82||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 and comparison of 5 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||19.82|6.81|<0.0001
95930862|NCT01039688|191824797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|31.99||A stepdown procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to MTX in ACR70 to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to MTX in change from BL in mTSS had to be statistically significant|Normal approximation|||||31.99|18.51|<0.0001
95930863|NCT03844269|191824897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EEG data excluded if excessive noise (rejection of more than 30% of target trials due to voltage fluctuations greater than ± 100 μV deflections within an epoch) at the pre- or post-intervention assessment||||<0.05
95930864|NCT00475319|191824911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
95930865|NCT00475319|191824912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||versus placebo|t-test, 2 sided|a general linear model||||||0.001
95930866|NCT03698708|191824917|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95930867|NCT03698708|191824918|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95930868|NCT03698708|191824919|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95930869|NCT03698708|191824920|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95930870|NCT03698708|191824921|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95930871|NCT03698708|191824922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|-10.07|
95930872|NCT00364013|191824923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.27||||0.0234||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5%.||||0.0234
95985610|NCT00609791|191944895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in clearance based on whether a participant experienced grade 3 toxicity.||0.25|-0.67|0.34
95733931|NCT00377260|191439138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||< .001
95930873|NCT00364013|191824923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|2.28||||0.0227||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on first demonstrating a significant treatment effect in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0227
95930874|NCT00364013|191824924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.8||||0.0723||||||cP-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at a significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0723
95930875|NCT00364013|191824924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|1.83||||0.0678||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by Region (Western Europe, Canada and Australia vs. Rest of World) and ECOG score (0 or 1 vs. 2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus FOLFOX arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|Overall survival comparisons in the mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was performed at an significance level of 4.99% conditional on a statistically significant difference for PFS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.0678
95930876|NCT00364013|191824925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.87|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.87|0.98|0.0684
95930877|NCT00364013|191824925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for geographic region and ECOG score|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFOX alone arm.|||1.47|0.65|0.9822
95930878|NCT00891930|191824929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0130
95930879|NCT02512965|191824945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.69||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factor at randomization.|||6.69|1.79|0.0002
95930880|NCT02512965|191824946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||4.85|1.35|0.0036
95930881|NCT02512965|191824947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.24|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Estimate adjusted for stratification factors at randopmization.|||1.24|0.46|0.26
95930882|NCT02512965|191824948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.4||2-sided p-value adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.48|0.47
95930883|NCT04283552|191824953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wildoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 1.||||0.001
95930884|NCT04283552|191824953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||0.28
95930885|NCT04283552|191824954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.22
95930886|NCT04283552|191824954|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||>0.05
95930887|NCT04283552|191824955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||0.009
95930888|NCT04283552|191824955|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This statistical analysis is for Reader 2.||||>0.05
95930889|NCT04283552|191824956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
95930890|NCT04283552|191824956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
95930891|NCT04283552|191824957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 1.||||<0.001
95930892|NCT04283552|191824957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis for Reader 2.||||0.02
95733932|NCT00377260|191439139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with at least one AOM pathogen present.||||.10
95930893|NCT04283552|191824960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 1 to PS-Late Reader 1.||||<0.001
95930894|NCT04283552|191824960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||This is the statistical analysis comparing PS-Early Reader 2 and PS-Late Reader 2.||||<0.001
95930895|NCT04523714|191825006|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP)||||1.55|1.06|<0.001
95930896|NCT04523714|191825006|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.82||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment||||1.82|1.30|<0.001
95930897|NCT04523714|191825006|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (See SAP)||||1.40|1.03|<0.001
95930898|NCT04523714|191825007|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP)||||1.70|1.21|<0.001
95930899|NCT04523714|191825007|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP)||||1.90|1.39|<0.001
95930900|NCT04523714|191825007|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP)||||1.30|0.98|<0.001
95930901|NCT04523714|191825008|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP)||||1.54|1.13|<0.001
95930902|NCT04523714|191825008|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.59||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP)||||1.59|1.25|<0.001
95930903|NCT04523714|191825008|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.19||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Modified Poisson Regression|Imputation, weighting and adjustment||||1.19|0.96|<0.001
95930904|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||GEE, linear|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Baseline to 3 months||-0.2|-0.6|<0.05
95930905|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||GEE, linear|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Baseline to 3 months||-0.3|-0.6|<0.05
95930906|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||GEE, linear|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Baseline to 3 months||0.1|-0.2|<0.05
95930907|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.2|-0.6|<0.05
95930908|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.4|-0.7|<0.05
95930909|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||0.1|-0.3|<0.05
95930910|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.2|-0.6|<0.05
95930911|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.2|-0.6|<0.05
95930912|NCT04523714|191825009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.2|-0.2|<0.05
95930913|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||GEE, linear|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Baseline to 3 months||-0.1|-0.5|<0.05
95930914|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.2|-0.5|<0.05
95930915|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||0.2|-0.2|<0.05
95930916|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.1|-0.4|<0.05
95930917|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.2|-0.5|<0.05
95930918|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||0.1|-0.3|<0.05
95930919|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.1|-0.4|<0.05
95930920|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY|Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.1|-0.4|<0.05
95930921|NCT04523714|191825010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.2|-0.2|<0.05
95930922|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.3|-0.7|<0.05
95930923|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.3|-0.7|<0.05
95930924|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||0.2|-0.3|<0.05
95930925|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.3|-0.7|<0.05
95930926|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.4|-0.8|<0.05
95930927|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||0.1|-0.4|<0.05
95733933|NCT00377260|191439139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pneumoniae present.||||.03
95795041|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 4 vs 1)||1.15|0.81|
95795042|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 3 vs 1)||1.26|0.88|
95930928|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.3|-0.7|<0.05
95930929|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.3|-0.7|<0.05
95930930|NCT04523714|191825011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.2|-0.2|<0.05
95930931|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||1.5|0.0|<0.05
95930932|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||2.2|0.8|<0.05
95930933|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||1.4|0.0|<0.05
95930934|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||1.9|0.4|<0.05
95930935|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||2.2|0.8|<0.05
95930936|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||1.1|-0.4|<0.05
95930937|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||2.1|0.5|<0.05
95930938|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||2.1|0.6|<0.05
95930939|NCT04523714|191825012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.9|-0.7|<0.05
95930940|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||0.9|-0.1|<0.05
95930941|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||1.2|0.2|<0.05
95930942|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||0.8|-0.2|<0.05
95930943|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||1.2|0.1|<0.05
95930944|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||0.9|-0.1|<0.05
95985611|NCT04129528|191944935|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|1.173||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.47||one-sided P-value|Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||1.47|0.94|0.1817
95733934|NCT00377260|191439139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Haemophilus influenzae present.||||.96
95733935|NCT00377260|191439139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Moraxella catarrhalis present.||||.79
95930945|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||0.3|-0.8|<0.05
95930946|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||1.5|0.3|<0.05
95930947|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||1.4|0.2|<0.05
95930948|NCT04523714|191825013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.5|-0.7|<0.05
95985612|NCT00150592|191944945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.844
95985613|NCT00150592|191944946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Mean reaction time (adjusted) for each randomized treatment group at endpoint.||||||0.274
95930949|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.6|-0.8|<0.05
95930950|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.8||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.8|-1.0|<0.05
95930951|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.1|-0.3|<0.05
95930952|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.5|-0.8|<0.05
95930953|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.5|-0.8|<0.05
95930954|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||0.1|-0.2|<0.05
95930955|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.5|-0.8|<0.05
95930956|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.4|-0.7|<0.05
95795043|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.21|0.86|
95930957|NCT04523714|191825014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.2|-0.1|<0.05
95930958|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.6|-0.8|<0.05
95930959|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-1.0||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-1.0|-1.2|<0.05
95930960|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 3 months||-0.3|-0.5|<0.05
95930961|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.3|-0.6|<0.05
95930962|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.6|-0.9|<0.05
95930963|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 6 months||-0.1|-0.4|<0.05
95930964|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.4|-0.7|<0.05
95930965|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||-0.5|-0.8|<0.05
95930966|NCT04523714|191825015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Imputation, weighting and adjustment (see SAP). Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|GEE, linear|||Baseline to 12 months||0.0|-0.3|<0.05
95930967|NCT01208662|191825025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.91|||Log Rank|Observed Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided p-value)||||1.91|1.23|<0.001
95985614|NCT00150592|191944948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Between errors||||0.307
95930968|NCT01208662|191825026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.55
95930969|NCT01208662|191825027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
95930970|NCT01208662|191825028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||||0.99
95930971|NCT01208662|191825030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.29|1.21|2.27|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||2.27|1.21|<0.001
95930972|NCT01208662|191825031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.73|>0.99
95930973|NCT01208662|191825033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.29|0.73|1.65|||Log Rank|Stratified||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits of 98.2857% represents Bonferroni adjustment for 7 tests (1-0.05/7) per statistical analysis plan for key secondary outcomes.||1.65|0.73|0.99
95985615|NCT00150592|191944948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Within errors||||0.552
95985616|NCT00150592|191944948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Double errors||||0.917
95985617|NCT00150592|191944948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Strategy||||0.068
95985618|NCT00150592|191944949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95985619|NCT00150592|191944950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
95985620|NCT00150592|191944951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95985621|NCT00150592|191944952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
95985622|NCT03787472|191944953|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator of degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||6.6|-5.5|
95985623|NCT03787472|191944954|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.041|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Distance Standard High Contrast Bright||0.041|-0.025|
95985624|NCT03787472|191944954|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.019|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Intermediate Standard High Contrast Bright||0.019|-0.043|
95985625|NCT03787472|191944954|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.037|||Linear Mixed Model||Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Near Standard High Contrast Bright||0.037|-0.030|
95985626|NCT02227693|191944962|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|19.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|57.0|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||57.0|-18.1|0.146
95985627|NCT02227693|191944962|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|54.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|87.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||87.7|21.4|0.004
95985628|NCT02227693|191944962|OTHER||Difference of responder rate vs. placebo|30.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|65.7|||Shirley-Williams test|P-value is based on Shirley-Williams test at a one-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|Difference of responder rate vs. placebo = responder rate for avatrombopag - responder rate for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|||65.7|-3.9|0.024
95985629|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|14.3||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|40.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||40.2|-11.6|0.388
95985630|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||53.6|1.0|0.214
95985631|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|62.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|99.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||99.9|24.8|0.012
95985632|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|72.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|100.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||100.0|44.3|0.001
95985633|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|40.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|76.2||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||76.2|5.6|0.063
95985634|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-27.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-1.0||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||-1.0|-53.6|0.245
95985635|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|27.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|66.8||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||66.8|-12.2|0.386
95985636|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-7.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|28.9||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.9|-43.4|1.000
95985637|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.496
95985638|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-9.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|19.3||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||19.3|-37.5|1.000
95985639|NCT02227693|191944963|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|-18.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 6 (Day 35)||4.6|-41.0|0.476
95985640|NCT02227693|191944964|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|63.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|92.1||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||92.1|35.2|0.003
95985641|NCT02227693|191944964|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|30.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|58.4||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 4 (Day 10)||58.4|1.6|0.090
95985642|NCT02227693|191944964|OTHER||Difference of proportion vs. placebo|10.0||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value is based on Fisher's exact test at a two-sided significance level of α= 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Difference of proportion vs. placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|Visit 5 (Day 17)||28.6|-8.6|0.476
95985643|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.296
95930974|NCT01208662|191825040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|0.30|
95930975|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the CRP Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.6497
95930976|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||T-test of Wilcoxon rank sum was used to test this non-normal data. Null hypothesis is that the concentration of urine inflammatory markers is the same at baseline and follow-up. This p-value is the probability that the difference in the IL-12/IL-23p40 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) between baseline and follow-up.||||0.4281
95930977|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of MCP-1 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3157
95985644|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.070
95985645|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 3 (Day 4 or Day 5)||||0.138
95985646|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.012
95985647|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
95985648|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 4 (Day 10)||||0.001
95985649|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.624||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.624
95930978|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p-value represents the probability that the difference between baseline and follow-up levels of GM-CSF Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.1463
95930979|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-1β Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.6091
95930980|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-6 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.3011
95930981|NCT04090190|191825042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the baseline and follow-up levels of the urine inflammatory markers are due to chance. This p-value represents the probability that the difference between the baseline and follow-up levels of IL-8 Calc. Conc. (pg/ml) is due to chance.||||0.5009
95930982|NCT03473340|191825068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17697507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.17697507
95985650|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.009
95985651|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 5 (Day 17)||||0.010
95930983|NCT03473340|191825069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77367872|||||||Welch Two Sample t-test|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.77367872
95930984|NCT03473340|191825070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68595748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-Value provided is for net change only.||||0.68595748
95930985|NCT03473340|191825071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00127634|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00127634
95930986|NCT03473340|191825072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.80904544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.80904544
95930987|NCT01420549|191825073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority assessment was analyzed by the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the ratio of the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the R/E combination, compared to the mean LDLfinal/LDLbaseline of the S/E combination and the bilateral confidence interval (95%) for the difference between the two means of the percentage variation of LDL-C in the treatments (\[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)R+E\] - \[(LDLfinal - LDLbaseline)/LDLbaseline))\*100)S+E\].|Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Estimates for treatment effect and their 95% confidence intervals were exponentiated to produce estimates of percentage change.|Mean Percentage Change LDL- C (%)|Rosuvastatin + Ezetimibe versus Simvastatin + Ezetimibe||-3.70|-16.94|0.0013
95930988|NCT03394885|191825074|OTHER||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||||100|66|
95930989|NCT01212991|191825092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.837||A 2-stage group sequential method (Lan DeMets OBF) assigned the level of significance for the pre-specified interim overall survival analysis (p\<0.015) based on overall 2-sided type I error rate of 0.049. Final results based upon interim analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \<1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.837|0.596|<0.0001
95930990|NCT01212991|191825093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.231||The assigned 2-sided type I error rate was 0.001 for the analysis of radiographic progression-free survival.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.231|0.149|<0.0001
95930991|NCT01212991|191825094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.844||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.01 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.844|0.610|<0.0001
95930992|NCT01212991|191825095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.349|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.303|0.403||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0125 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.403|0.303|<0.0001
95930993|NCT01212991|191825096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.195||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.0167 for this analysis.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.195|0.147|<0.0001
95930994|NCT01212991|191825097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rates|74.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|71.45|77.57||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.025 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.57|71.45|<0.0001
95930995|NCT01212991|191825098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|53.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|48.53|59.17||The Holm step down method of multiple comparisons was used to maintain a study wide type I error of 5% for prespecified secondary efficacy analyses. The 2-sided type I error rate was 0.05 for this analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.17|48.53|<0.0001
95930996|NCT06602466|191825121|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.2992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.2992
95985652|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.154
95930997|NCT06602466|191825122|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-7.9|0.3612
95930998|NCT06602466|191825123|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.07|0.0117
95930999|NCT06602466|191825124|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.09|0.7616
95931000|NCT06602466|191825125|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.11|0.9321
95931001|NCT00774397|191825135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0537||95.0||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
95931002|NCT00774397|191825135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0213
95931003|NCT00774397|191825135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95931004|NCT00774397|191825135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95985653|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.216||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.216
95795044|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 4 vs 1)||0.96|0.61|
95931005|NCT00774397|191825135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95931006|NCT00774397|191825135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value based on Fisher's exact test (2-sided)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95931007|NCT02652442|191825166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the off-axis distance of 3.5 cm and 7.0 cm.||||0.97
95985654|NCT02227693|191944967|OTHER|||||||0.901||||||P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test at a two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 for each avatrombopag treatment group vs. placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visit 6 (Day 35)||||0.901
95931008|NCT02652442|191825166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation duration of 1 minute and 3 minutes.||||0.51
95931009|NCT02652442|191825166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test for change in SVV (measured in degrees)||Null hypothesis: The change in SVV (Post-OAR - Pre-OAR) will not be different for the centrifugation schedule of daily OAR and biweekly OAR for a total of 5 sessions.||||0.44
95931010|NCT02252042|191825167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.01|0.67|0.03160
95931011|NCT02252042|191825168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Nominal p-value|Log Rank||Nominal HR. Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.98|0.65|0.01605
95931012|NCT02252042|191825169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||0.93|0.58|0.00493
95931013|NCT02252042|191825170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.32504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.16|0.79|0.32504
95931014|NCT02252042|191825171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a single covariate|||1.06|0.69|0.07736
95931015|NCT02252042|191825172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|4.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||10.6|-1.2|0.0610
95931016|NCT02252042|191825173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.6|||Log Rank|H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||14.6|0.6|0.0171
95931017|NCT02252042|191825176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.12|0.70|0.14545
95931018|NCT02252042|191825177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||p-value stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.06|0.62|0.05851
95931019|NCT02252042|191825178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.65759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.27|0.86|0.65759
95931020|NCT02252042|191825179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.51982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||Log Rank||Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) \& PD-L1 status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive)|||1.26|0.81|0.51982
95931021|NCT05451017|191825210|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI is included in between 0.8 and 1.25 range|Ratio of the geometric means|1.824||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.321|2.518|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.518|1.321|0.0079
95795045|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 3 vs 1)||0.99|0.63|
95931022|NCT05451017|191825212|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI is included in between 0.8 and 1.25 range|ratio of geometric means|1.786|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.170|1.470|<0.0001
95931023|NCT05451017|191825215|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI is included in between 0.8 and 1.25 range|ratio of geometric means|1.681||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.382|2.046|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.046|1.382|0.0002
95931024|NCT03740009|191825225|NON_INFERIORITY|For analyses the researchers used a paired T-test to compare baseline and post-treatment mean activation values across 3 regions of interest (ROIs): the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens.||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||\[Ho\]: TSEC has no meaningful effect on activity within key nodes of the frontostriate in response to reward.||||0.53
95931025|NCT03740009|191825226|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis included MASQ-AD scores from all visits to characterize the change in scores from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed models of 3 week TSEC administration for MASQ-AD scores assessed at each study visit from baseline to post-treatment.|GLM||F value=13.26|\[Ho\] No change in depressive symptoms from baseline throughout 3 weeks of TSEC administration||||<0.001
95931026|NCT03756571|191825230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95931027|NCT03756571|191825231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95931028|NCT03756571|191825232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95931029|NCT03756571|191825233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95931030|NCT03756571|191825234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95931031|NCT03756571|191825235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95985655|NCT00874120|191944974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||residual error term from the ANOVA|-0.5||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||P-value is based on an ANOVA model including sequence, subject within sequence, period and treatment as factors.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.0|0.5480
95985656|NCT03615183|191944980|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.36|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.72%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
95985657|NCT03615183|191944980|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.63|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 99.86%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
95985658|NCT03615183|191944980|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8527 and placebo ≤ -1.0 copies/mL was 9.42%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK- 8527 and placebo is at least 1.0 log10 copies/mL.||||
95985659|NCT00105443|191944997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6931||||0.00583||95.0|0.5549|0.8658||According to the pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function, the alpha value for this second interim analysis was 0.0073 (corresponding to a nominal value of 0.0077 after taking into account the first interim analysis).|Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.02 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. In addition to the final analysis at the end of the study, 2 formal interim analyses of overall survival were planned. An alpha spending function was used to ensure that the false positive rate is less than or equal to 0.02 (1-sided). The study was stopped at the second interim analysis, the results of which are reported here."||0.8658|0.5549|0.00583
95985660|NCT00105443|191944998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0764||||0.7676||95.0|0.8837|1.311|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"The 2 arms were compared using a 1-sided log-rank test with an overall alpha of 0.005 stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. This was a co-primary endpoint with overall survival. No alpha-spending adjustments were necessary as it was only to be analyzed at the end of study."||1.3110|0.8837|0.7676
95985661|NCT00105443|191944999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5764||||7e-06||95.0|0.4484|0.741|||Log Rank||This is the sorafenib to placebo hazard ratio.|"In the analysis of TTP, based on independent radiological review performed to review data up to 12 May 2006, the 2 treatment groups were compared using a 1-sided log rank test with an alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||0.7410|0.4484|0.000007
95985662|NCT00105443|191945000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.95||||0.001641||95.0|-19.56|-4.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sorafenib minus placebo difference|"Disease control rates were compared between treatment groups using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with a 1-sided alpha of 0.025, adjusting for region, ECOG PS, and tumor burden."||-4.35|-19.56|0.001641
95985663|NCT03187769|191945007|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-.41|-3.33|.012
95985664|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.97|-31.65|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in least square (LS) mean between groups||-31.65|-54.97|0.0000
95931032|NCT03756571|191825236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
95931033|NCT03756571|191825237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
95985665|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|-20.68|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference LS mean between groups.||-20.68|-47.40|0.0007
95985666|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-44.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.8|-32.19|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-32.19|-54.80|0.0000
95993647|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||6|-18|0.2589
95931034|NCT03756571|191825238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95931035|NCT03756571|191825239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95931036|NCT03756571|191825240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95931037|NCT03756571|191825241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95931038|NCT03752151|191825245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that the probability of meeting the endpoint (Atrioventricular synchrony \>70%) was the same in MARVEL 2 Monitor Mode and MARVEL 2 Adaptive Mode. A sample size of 35 participants with a predominant rhythm of 3rd degree atrioventricular block and normal sinus function provided \>90% power at a type I error rate of 0.05 assuming the proportion of patients meeting the endpoint in one mode, but not the other exceeded 50% and 90% of these pairs favored the Adaptive mode.||||<0.001
95985667|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.66|18.08|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||18.08|-15.66|0.9836
95985668|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.32|1.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 90% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||1.06|-27.32|0.1233
95985669|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-6.82|6.87|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||6.87|-6.82|
95985670|NCT03776175|191945081|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-19.86|-8.35|||||LS mean difference was not a simple subtraction between LS means of groups but through statistical model.|Natural log-transformed of individual relative change from baseline to Day 42 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline whole liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. 50% CI was calculated on difference in LS mean between groups.||-8.35|-19.86|
95985671|NCT00393887|191945139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Two-sided Fisher's exact test||||0.11
95985672|NCT00705783|191945142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.317|||Log Rank||Aripiprazole depot/placebo depot|Based on 6-month IR rates of 55% for placebo and 35% for aripiprazole, sample sizes were estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.54 and to preserve an overall nominal alpha level of 0.05 (2-sided), allowing for 2 interim looks at 50% and 75% of events. Assuming that each subject was followed for 12 months after randomization and allowing for a 25% loss to follow-up, the projected total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to treatment in the trial was 225.||0.317|0.125|<0.0001
95985673|NCT00705783|191945143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The alpha levels for this key secondary Outcome Measure were the same as used for the primary Outcome Measure.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95985674|NCT00705783|191945144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95985675|NCT00705783|191945145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1756
95985676|NCT00705783|191945146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-7.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-7.54|-12.68|<0.0001
95985677|NCT00705783|191945147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
95931039|NCT03752151|191825246|SUPERIORITY||proportion expressed as a percentage|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that 87% or fewer participants will achieve the endpoint. The alternative hypothesis is that more than 87% of participants will achieve the endpoint. A sample size of 70 participants provides at least 90% power to test the null hypothesis assuming the true rate of meeting the endpoint in the population is 98% at a type I error rate of 2.5%.||100|95.2|<0.001
95931040|NCT03752151|191825247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test since each participant had LVOT VTI measurements in MARVEL 2 Adaptive and Monitor modes||The null hypothesis is that the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Adaptive mode equals the mean LVOT VTI during MARVEL 2 Monitor mode. A sample size of 35 participants with paired LVOT VTI measurements provides 89% power at a type I error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis assuming the true difference in LVOT VTI is 2.1 cm with a standard deviation of 3.8 cm.||2.7|0.7|0.002
95985678|NCT00705783|191945148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||Positive Subscale Score||-2.91|-4.72|<0.0001
95985679|NCT00705783|191945149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.67|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment as a term and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-2.04|0.0001
95985680|NCT00705783|191945150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95985681|NCT00705783|191945151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95985682|NCT04251910|191945162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0813|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0813
95985683|NCT04251910|191945162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0011
95985684|NCT04251910|191945162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0002
95985685|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.9616
95985686|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.5460
95985687|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0961
95985688|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1359|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.1359
95985689|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1688|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1688
95985690|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.6670
95985691|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8695|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.8695
95985692|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5002
95931041|NCT04470375|191825281|OTHER|Paired samples pre-post t-test||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.137
95931042|NCT04470375|191825282|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre - post measure of group)||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
95931043|NCT04470375|191825283|OTHER|Paired samples t-test (pre post measure of group)||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.591
95931044|NCT04564339|191825361|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-30.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.5|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-43.5|0.0053
95931045|NCT04564339|191825362|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-8.4||||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|63.2|||ANCOVA|||||63.2|-48.6|0.8036
95931046|NCT03505905|191825394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4587||||0.29||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|Linear mixed effects model|Phase 1 and 2 data are analyzed separately, and then combined for the overall treatment effect.|Combined Phase 1 and 2 effect, based on the differences of the least squares means|Phase 1 analysis includes all randomized participants (n=73). Per SPCD, Phase 2 analysis only includes participants who were randomized to Placebo in Phase 1, and were non-responders in Phase 1 (n=16).||||0.29
95931047|NCT03237481|191825401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-81.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.592|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.83|-37.02|||ANOVA|||||-37.02|-125.83|= 0.0004
95931048|NCT03237481|191825402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-72.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.32|-36.65|||ANOVA|||||-36.65|-108.32|< 0.0001
95931049|NCT03237481|191825403|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0001
95931050|NCT03237481|191825404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.111|||=|0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.218|||Fisher Exact|||||0.218|0.003|= 0.0486
95931051|NCT03237481|191825405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.024
95931052|NCT04714320|191825406|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m\^2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.135
95931053|NCT04714320|191825406|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in Seated Automated Office SBP to Day 85||||=0.867
95931054|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
95931055|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
95931056|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
95931057|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||<0.001
95931058|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
95931059|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
95931060|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
95931061|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
95931062|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
95931063|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
95931064|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
95931065|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
95931066|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
95931067|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
95931068|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
95931069|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
95985693|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.5631
95985694|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0089
95931070|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
95931071|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
95931072|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
95931073|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.002
95931074|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
95931075|NCT04714320|191825408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
95931076|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
95931077|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 15||||<0.001
95931078|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
95985695|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||<.0001
95985696|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0011
95931079|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day at 29||||<0.001
95931080|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
95931081|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 43||||<0.001
95931082|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
95985697|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.0008
95795046|NCT03620162|191560134|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 2 vs 1)||1.17|0.76|
95931083|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 57||||<0.001
95931084|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
95931085|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 71||||<0.001
95985698|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2847|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.2847
95985699|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2616|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.2616
95985700|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1989|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.1989
95985701|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4585|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (30 minutes)||||0.4585
95985702|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (1 hour)||||0.0005
95985703|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0004
95985704|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (4 hours)||||0.0025
95985705|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (8 hours)||||0.1027
95985706|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (24 hours)||||0.7953
95985707|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1416
95985708|NCT04251910|191945164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0658
95985709|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A -30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.8760
95985710|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9077|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.9077
95985711|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7208|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A 30 mcg BXCL501 vs Part A-Placebo (Day1; 4 hours)||||0.7208
95985712|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 30 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo(Day 1;8 hours)||||0.3666
95985713|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Placebo-Part A (Day1; 1 hour)||||0.0191
95985714|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A BXCL501 60 mcg v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0006
95985715|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 v/s Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||<.0001
95985716|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1;8 hours)||||0.0003
95985717|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0006
95985718|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
95985719|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0029
95985720|NCT04251910|191945165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2446|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.2446
95985721|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.0926
95985722|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3976|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.3976
95985723|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1169|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1169
95985724|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.3786
95985725|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24hours)||||0.5640
95985726|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.6020
95985727|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5875
95985728|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1055|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.1055
95985729|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0024
95985730|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0016
95985731|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0002
95985732|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2039|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.2039
95985733|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.1948
95985734|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.5615
95985735|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8266|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.8266
95985736|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
95985737|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0004
95985738|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.1037
95985739|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3267|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3267
95985740|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 3)||||0.0339
95985741|NCT04251910|191945166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1892|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day7)||||0.1892
95985742|NCT04251910|191945167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.3359
95985743|NCT04251910|191945167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0004
95985744|NCT04251910|191945167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0351
95985745|NCT04251910|191945168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (2 hours)||||0.0952
95985746|NCT04251910|191945168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8977|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.8977
95985747|NCT04251910|191945168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0002
95985748|NCT04251910|191945168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.3147
95985749|NCT04251910|191945168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
95985750|NCT04251910|191945168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1241|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 2; 24 hours)||||0.1241
95985751|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.4080
95985752|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4198|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.4198
95985753|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 2 hours)||||0.0370
95985754|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1324|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.1324
95985755|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0624
95985756|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6334|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.6334
95985757|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0275
95931086|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
95931087|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 85||||<0.001
95931088|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
95931089|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 92||||<0.001
95931090|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
95931091|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 106||||<0.001
95931092|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
95931093|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 120||||<0.001
95931094|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||<0.001
95931095|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.005
95931096|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||<0.001
95931097|NCT04714320|191825409|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received were included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Percent Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.002
95931098|NCT04714320|191825410|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.094||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.094
95931099|NCT04714320|191825410|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.842||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in 24-hour Mean SBP at Day 85||||=0.842
95931100|NCT04714320|191825410|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.066
95931101|NCT04714320|191825410|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 24-hour Mean DBP at Day 85||||=0.442
95931102|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.834||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.834
95931103|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.945||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.945
95931104|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.208||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.208
95931105|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.740
95931106|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.019
95931107|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.56||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in the Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.560
95931108|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.903
95931109|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.268||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure are included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction will be applied if quasi-complete separation of data points is detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.268
95931110|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.702||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.702
95931111|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.885||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.885
95931112|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.066
95931113|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.783
95931114|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.456||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.456
95931115|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.102||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.102
95931116|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.668||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.668
95931117|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.454
95931118|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.044||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.044
95931119|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.704||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.704
95931120|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.878
95931121|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.681
95931122|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.199
95931123|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.602||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.602
95985758|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
95931124|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.135
95931125|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.407
95985759|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0001
95985760|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day1; 8 hours)||||<.0001
95985761|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2806|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 30 minutes)||||0.2806
95985762|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 1 hour)||||0.0002
95985763|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hour)||||<.0001
95985764|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 4 hours)||||0.0009
95985765|NCT04251910|191945169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 8 hours)||||0.0081
95985766|NCT04251910|191945170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0591|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0591
95985767|NCT04251910|191945170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-30 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0966
95985768|NCT04251910|191945170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||<.0001
95985769|NCT04251910|191945170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part A-60 mcg BXCL501 V/S Part A-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.0290
95985770|NCT04251910|191945170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 1; 2 hours)||||0.0937
95985771|NCT04251910|191945170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2747|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (Day 7)||||0.2747
95985772|NCT04251910|191945173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed effects model|||Part B-40 mcg-BXCL501 v/s Part B-Placebo (2 hours post administration)||||0.0002
95985773|NCT00135668|191945224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-13.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test used.||Paired t-test used to test the null hypothesis of no change in MAP from baseline.||-13.97|-18.44|<0.001
95985774|NCT00135668|191945224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-6.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-6.55|-15.45|<0.001
95985775|NCT00135668|191945224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-13.30|-20.70|<0.001
95985776|NCT00135668|191945224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.38|-15.58|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||-15.58|-24.38|<0.001
95985777|NCT00135668|191945224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.87|-11.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-11.39|-21.87|<0.001
95985778|NCT03998046|191945259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.85
95985779|NCT03998046|191945261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.20
95985780|NCT03998046|191945262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
95985781|NCT03998046|191945263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
95985782|NCT03998046|191945264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95985783|NCT03998046|191945265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
95985784|NCT03998046|191945266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
95985785|NCT03998046|191945267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
95985786|NCT02370615|191945268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.632|2.481||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||2.481|1.632|
95985787|NCT02370615|191945268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.123||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.123|0.064|
95985788|NCT02370615|191945269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.137|5.777||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.777|4.137|
95985789|NCT02370615|191945270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|4.702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.969|5.569||||||Analysis for TAK 272F||5.569|3.969|
95985790|NCT02370615|191945270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 10/Day 1)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.045||||||Analysis for TAK 272-M-I||0.045|0.012|
95985791|NCT02370615|191945272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.117|1.628||||||||1.628|1.117|
95985792|NCT02370615|191945273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.919|1.131||||||||1.131|0.919|
95985793|NCT02370615|191945274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|1.289||||||||1.289|1.035|
95985794|NCT02370615|191945276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.387||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.387|1.100|
95985795|NCT02370615|191945276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.008||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.008|0.781|
95985796|NCT02370615|191945277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|1.568||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.568|1.290|
95985797|NCT02370615|191945277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.16||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.160|1.008|
95985798|NCT02370615|191945278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.291|1.574||||||Analysis for Midazolam||1.574|1.291|
95985799|NCT02370615|191945278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Day 7/Day 1)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.143||||||Analysis for 1'Hydroxymidazolam||1.143|0.986|
95985800|NCT03715153|191945287|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline.|Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.04|0.617
95985801|NCT03715153|191945288|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|6.88|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||6.88|-5.91|
95985802|NCT03715153|191945289|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||||Rank-based analysis (Wilcoxon scores) including terms for fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and gender. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||0.16|-0.24|
95931126|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.795||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.795
95931127|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.036||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.036
95985803|NCT03715153|191945290|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.75|||||General Linear Model including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, gender, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline. Estimate of the adjusted difference was based on 211 patients (Missing data were imputed).|||1.75|-1.42|
95985804|NCT03715153|191945294|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of the adjusted difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|4.59||||||||4.59|-5.12|
95985805|NCT02943564|191945358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.73|-1.50|0.8862
95985806|NCT02943564|191945358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.16|-2.07|0.5772
95985807|NCT02943564|191945359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.29|-1.48|0.8967
95985808|NCT02943564|191945359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.39|-1.38|0.9963
95985809|NCT04770389|191945360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
95985810|NCT04770389|191945361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
95985811|NCT04770389|191945362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-44.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-34.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-34.63|-55.20|<0.0001
95985812|NCT04770389|191945363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
95985813|NCT04770389|191945364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
95985814|NCT04770389|191945365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-43.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.517|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-32.36|||ANCOVA|||||-32.36|-54.29|<0.0001
95985815|NCT04770389|191945366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
95985816|NCT04770389|191945367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
95985817|NCT04770389|191945368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.63|-23.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-23.09|-43.63|<0.0001
95985818|NCT04770389|191945369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
95985819|NCT04770389|191945370|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
95985820|NCT04770389|191945371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.32|-17.08|||ANCOVA|||||-17.08|-39.32|<0.0001
95985821|NCT04770389|191945372|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
95985822|NCT04770389|191945373|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
95985823|NCT04770389|191945374|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.12|-37.12|<0.0001
95985824|NCT04770389|191945375|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
95985825|NCT04770389|191945376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
95985826|NCT04770389|191945377|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.88|-29.83|<0.0001
95985827|NCT04770389|191945378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
95985828|NCT04770389|191945379|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
95985829|NCT04770389|191945380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-30.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-19.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.71|-40.55|<0.0001
95985830|NCT04770389|191945381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
95931128|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.915||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.915
95985831|NCT04770389|191945382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
95985832|NCT04770389|191945383|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.196||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|-8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-8.27|-28.88|0.0005
95931129|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.957||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.957
95931130|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.804||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.804
95931131|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.775
95931132|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.801||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.801
95931133|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.329||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.329
95931134|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.882||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.882
95931135|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.235||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.235
95931136|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.505||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.505
95931137|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.436||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.436
95931138|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.637||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.637
95931139|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.254
95931140|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.848||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.848
95931141|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.240
95985833|NCT04770389|191945384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
95985834|NCT04770389|191945385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
95985835|NCT04770389|191945386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.03|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-4.54|-25.03|0.0051
95985836|NCT04770389|191945387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
95985837|NCT04770389|191945388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
95795047|NCT03620162|191560135|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference in Percentage (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||2.0|-3.7|< 0.001
95985838|NCT04770389|191945389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-23.86|0.0245
95985839|NCT04770389|191945390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
95795048|NCT03620162|191560136|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 5/Group 1+Group 2) to be \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||ANCOVA|||GMT Ratio (Group 5 vs Group 1+2)||1.34|0.70|< 0.001
95931142|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.382||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.382
95931143|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.935
95931144|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.278
95931145|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.211
95931146|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.562
95931147|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.250
95931148|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.114
95931149|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.550
95931150|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.423
95931151|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.422||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.422
95931152|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.073
95931153|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.278||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.278
95931154|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.338||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.338
95931155|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.969
95931156|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.489||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.489
95985840|NCT04770389|191945391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
95985841|NCT04770389|191945392|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.822|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-13.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-13.22|-28.39|<0.0001
95985842|NCT01290874|191945413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
95993648|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||1|-24|0.0616
95993649|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||4|-18|0.1918
95931157|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.156
95931158|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.389||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.389
95931159|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.775||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.775
95931160|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.437||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.437
95931161|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.618
95931162|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.079
95931163|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.349
95931164|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.58||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.580
95931165|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.106
95931166|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.955||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.955
95931167|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.134||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.134
95931168|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.933
95931169|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.502||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.502
95931170|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.653||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.653
95931171|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.816
95931172|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
95931173|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.765||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.765
95931174|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.009
95993650|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||-14|-32|<0.0001
95985843|NCT05885737|191945503|EQUIVALENCE|Testing of primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and conducted at the 5% significance level. The efficacy of difelikefalin was to be declared for this study if null hypothesis of no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative that participants randomized to difelikefalin experience significantly different itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the 2-sided p value was less than (\<) 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.37|||MMRM|||The null hypothesis in this study was that there was no treatment difference in the primary efficacy analysis of the primary endpoint. The alternative hypothesis was that in participants randomized to difelikefalin there was a significant treatment difference in change in itching compared to participants randomized to placebo. The assessment was based on the mean change from baseline in the weekly mean of the daily 24-hour WI-NRS score at Week 4 of the DB period.||-0.37|-1.25|0.0003
95985844|NCT02324920|191945547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.46|||Regression, Cox||||Additional models were implemented to control for country and investigational sites effect on primary endpoint.|0.46|0.11|<0.001
95985845|NCT02324920|191945548|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.27|0.002
95985846|NCT00876187|191945549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.74|0.113
95985847|NCT00876187|191945549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.19|<0.001
95985848|NCT00876187|191945549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.31|<0.001
95985849|NCT00876187|191945549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.31|0.688
95985850|NCT00876187|191945549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.76|0.035
95985851|NCT00876187|191945549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.006
95985852|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.57|0.221
95985853|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|<0.001
95985854|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
95985855|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.62|-0.04|0.082
95985856|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.37|0.703
95985857|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.45|-0.17|0.379
95985858|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.87|0.012
95985859|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.39|<0.001
95985860|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
95985861|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.33|0.862
95931175|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.578
95931176|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.725||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.725
95931177|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.287||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.287
95931178|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.705||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.705
95931179|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.975||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.975
95931180|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.118
95931181|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.959||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.959
95931182|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.413
95931183|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.043
95931184|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.849
95931185|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.662
95931186|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.047||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.047
95931187|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.950
95931188|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.656||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.656
95931189|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.922||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.922
95931190|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.143||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.143
95931191|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.452||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.452
95931192|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.231||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.231
95795049|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 1 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.86|0.60|
95931193|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.405||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.405
95931194|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.718||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.718
95931195|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.053
95931196|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.893||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.893
95931197|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.662||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.662
95931198|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.688||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.688
95931199|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.611||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.611
95931200|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.907||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.907
95931201|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.699||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.699
95931202|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.802||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.802
95931203|NCT04714320|191825411|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.206||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 140 mmHg and DBP ≤ 90 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.206
95931204|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.280
95931205|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.648
95931206|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.416||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.416
95931207|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.900
95931208|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.627||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.627
95931209|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.921||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.921
95985862|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.003
95931210|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.464||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.464
95931211|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.458||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.458
95931212|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
95931213|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.629||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.629
95931214|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.242||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.242
95931215|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.29||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.290
95931216|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.349
95931217|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.532||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.532
95931218|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.205
95931219|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.368||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.368
95931220|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.084||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.084
95931221|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.179
95931222|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.584
95931223|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.762||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.762
95931224|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.675||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.675
95931225|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.166||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.166
95931226|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.090
95931227|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.488||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.488
95985863|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
95985864|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.86|0.019
95985865|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.25|<0.001
95985866|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
95985867|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.45|0.668
95931228|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.218||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.218
95931229|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.232||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.232
95931230|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.421
95931231|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.815
95931232|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.711||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.711
95931233|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.514||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.514
95931234|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.479||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.479
95931235|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.292
95985868|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
95985869|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.88|0.002
95985870|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.89|0.032
95931236|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.528||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.528
95931237|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.946||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.946
95931238|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.552||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.552
95985871|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.21|<0.001
95993651|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||3|-21|0.1132
95931239|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.598||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.598
95931240|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.184||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.184
95931241|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.614||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.614
95931242|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.933||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.933
95931243|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.803||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.803
95931244|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.686||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.686
95931245|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.752||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.752
95931246|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.106||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.106
95931247|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.779||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.779
95931248|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.323
95931249|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.991
95931250|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.973||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.973
95931251|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.230
95931252|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.792
95931253|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.744
95931254|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.925|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.925
95931255|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.991||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.991
95931256|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY|Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|||||=|0.53|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.530
95931257|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.849||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.849
95985872|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.28|<0.001
95985873|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.46|0.773
95985874|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.78|0.035
95985875|NCT00876187|191945552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI was based on LS mean. ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.85|0.014
95985876|NCT01560780|191945569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
95985877|NCT01560780|191945570|EQUIVALENCE|safety end-point with p-value of \<0.05|||||>|0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.99
95985878|NCT01560780|191945571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
95985879|NCT01560780|191945572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95985880|NCT01560780|191945573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95985881|NCT01560780|191945575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95985882|NCT05112536|191945578|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.101
95985883|NCT03972969|191945581|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32|||negative binomial regression|||||0.32|0.05|<0.05
95985884|NCT03972969|191945581|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.61|||negative binomial regression|||||0.61|0.10|<0.05
95985885|NCT03972969|191945581|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.19|<0.05
95985886|NCT03972969|191945582|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||negative binomial regression|||||0.33|0.07|<0.05
95985887|NCT03972969|191945582|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.58|||negative binomial regression|||||0.58|0.11|<0.05
95985888|NCT03972969|191945582|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.38|||negative binomial regression|||||1.38|0.25|<0.05
95985889|NCT01399788|191945583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.2|108.64||||||Rifampicin; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 14.5% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||108.64|99.20|
95985890|NCT01399788|191945583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|107.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.95|112.9||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.0% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||112.90|101.95|
95985891|NCT01399788|191945583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 12.9% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
95985892|NCT01399788|191945584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|110.71||||||Rifampicin: 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||110.71|95.36|
95985893|NCT01399788|191945584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|103.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|117.07||||||Isoniazid; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 18.2% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||117.07|92.13|
95985894|NCT01399788|191945584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|104.25||||||Ethambutol; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 16.0% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.25|94.92|
95985895|NCT01399788|191945585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|104.4||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for AUClast lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 5.2% for AUClast was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.40|99.12|
95993652|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-5|-40|0.0177
95985896|NCT01399788|191945586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.22||||||Pyrazinamide; 32 participants (16 per sequence) provided at least 99% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax lie within acceptance region of 80% - 125%. An intra-subject CV estimate of approximately 6.7% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.22|88.60|
95985897|NCT01399788|191945587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|109.1||||||Rifampicin; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||109.10|99.70|
95985898|NCT01399788|191945587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|111.46||||||Isoniazid; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||111.46|100.32|
95985899|NCT01399788|191945587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|100.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.28|105.88||||||Ethambutol; Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||105.88|96.28|
95985900|NCT01399788|191945588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.24|104.43||||||Pyrazinamide; Natural log transformed AUC (0 -∞)(dn) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||104.43|99.24|
95985901|NCT01970995|191945591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|13.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.6||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarker of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.60|10.96|<.001
95985902|NCT01970995|191945592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|50.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|57.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||57.20|44.88|<.001
95985903|NCT01970995|191945593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|10.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|12.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||12.99|9.26|<.001
95931258|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.953||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.953
95931259|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.884||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.884
95931260|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.230
95931261|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.589||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.589
95931262|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.919||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.919
95931263|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.753||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.753
95931264|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.747||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.747
95931265|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.764||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.764
95931266|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.527
95931267|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.639||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.639
95931268|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.744||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.744
95931269|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.539
95931270|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.417||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.417
95931271|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.466
95931272|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.380
95931273|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 8||||=0.730
95931274|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.595||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.595
95931275|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.279||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 15||||=0.279
95931276|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.196
95931277|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.728||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 22||||=0.728
95931278|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.453||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.453
95931279|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 29||||=0.681
95931280|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.863
95931281|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.837||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 36||||=0.837
95931282|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.504
95993653|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-23|-51|<0.0001
95857355|NCT00602472|191673101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.332|9.111|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||9.111|3.332|<0.0001
95931283|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.531||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 43||||=0.531
95931284|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.600
95931285|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 50||||=0.830
95931286|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.209||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.209
95931287|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.809||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 57||||=0.809
95931288|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.045
95931289|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 64||||=0.104
95931290|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.690
95931291|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.59||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 71||||=0.590
95931292|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.538
95931293|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.407||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 78||||=0.407
95931294|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.398||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.398
95931295|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 85||||=0.930
95931296|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.111||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.111
95931297|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.196||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 92||||=0.196
95931298|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.816||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.816
95993654|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-12|-45|0.0033
95857356|NCT00602472|191673103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.989|7.327|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||7.327|1.989|<0.0001
95985904|NCT01970995|191945594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|44.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.11|47.97||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||47.97|42.11|<.001
95985905|NCT01970995|191945595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|31.11||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||31.11|17.38|<.001
95985906|NCT00595556|191945618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.012
95985907|NCT00595556|191945619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.94
95985908|NCT00595556|191945620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
95985909|NCT00595556|191945621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
95985910|NCT00595556|191945622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3
95985911|NCT00143312|191945624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|7.0||||||95.0|2.0|19.0||||||||19|2|
95985912|NCT00143312|191945624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 12 months|10.0||||||95.0|2.0|27.0||||||||27|2|
95795050|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.44||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 3 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.44|1.04|
95931299|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.473||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 106||||=0.473
95931300|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.615||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.615
95985913|NCT00143312|191945625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at 6 months|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
95985914|NCT00143312|191945626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||IFI Rate (percent) at End of Prophylaxis|8.82||||||95.0|2.0|24.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||24|2|
95985915|NCT00143312|191945630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 6 months|79.0||||||95.0|64.0|91.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||91|64|
95985916|NCT00143312|191945630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survive free of IFI (percent): 12 months|69.0||||||95.0|52.0|83.0|||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval For Proportion; Expressed as a percentage|||83|52|
95985917|NCT01765920|191945651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
95985918|NCT01765920|191945652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0719
95795051|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 4 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.10|0.73|
95985919|NCT01765920|191945653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Total score analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
95985920|NCT01765920|191945653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099||||||"Symptoms domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0099
95985921|NCT01765920|191945653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||"Ability domain analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance α=0.0221 (Pocock boundary for 3 interim analyses)."|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
95985922|NCT01765920|191945654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Day 1 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95985923|NCT01765920|191945654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Day 2 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
95985924|NCT01765920|191945654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Day 3 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
95985925|NCT01765920|191945654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Day 4 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
95985926|NCT01765920|191945654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Day 5 analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
95985927|NCT01765920|191945655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
95993655|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||0|-18|0.0523
95993656|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-26|0.0002
95985928|NCT02411539|191945657|SUPERIORITY|Assuming that a common standard deviation of change (measured as difference of log10 transformed HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratios) in both arms was 0.30, with a sample size of 36 evaluable participants (18 in each arm), the study had 88% power to detect an effect size of 0.30 log10 (2-fold) in change of cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA from baseline to week 6 using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% type I error rate assuming a normal distribution||||||0.16||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the change in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio (log-transformed) from baseline to week 6 between the two randomized arms, testing the null hypothesis of no difference in changes in cell-associated HIV-1 RNA/DNA ratio between the two arms using a Wilcoxon rank sum test at 10% significance level.||||0.16
95985929|NCT01947816|191945703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
95985930|NCT01947816|191945703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
95985931|NCT01947816|191945703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5512|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline When Discontinued||||0.5512
95985932|NCT01947816|191945703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
95795052|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 5 (Group 5 vs 1)||0.97|0.64|
95931301|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 120||||=0.214
95931302|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.575
95931303|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 148||||=0.276
95931304|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.573||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.573
95985933|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||< 0.0001
95985934|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||< 0.0001
95985935|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||< 0.0001
95985936|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||< 0.0001
95985937|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||< 0.0001
95985938|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline when discontinued||||< 0.0001
95985939|NCT01947816|191945705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Final Assessment||||< 0.0001
95985940|NCT01265797|191945712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus blinded month||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and a power of 0.80 (80%) was used to compute the number of subjects needed to find a meaningful difference between the verum and sham groups. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group.||||0.30
95795053|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.84|0.57|
95985941|NCT01265797|191945713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare secondary outcome measures between two treatment groups in the run-in month minus open label month||||||0.89
95985942|NCT01265797|191945714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95985943|NCT01265797|191945715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the primary and secondary outcome measures between the two treatment groups.||The a priori alpha level was set at p \< 0.05, and beta 0.2. Assuming that 20% of persons with the sham device and 60% of persons with CES device will meet the primary end point of ≥50% decrease in the frequency of headache days over the course of the study, 27 subjects are enrolled per group. The null hypothesis: No difference in the depression score/14 day recall between the two groups.||||0.98
95985944|NCT01265797|191945716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95985945|NCT01265797|191945717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95985946|NCT01265797|191945718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in mean anxiety score/ 14 day recall from the blinded period to open label period|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95985947|NCT01265797|191945719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95985948|NCT01265797|191945720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95985949|NCT01265797|191945721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95985950|NCT01265797|191945722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95985951|NCT01265797|191945723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95985952|NCT02189213|191945736|OTHER|The parameters were the CGI-Improvement scale which comprises a one-item measures evaluating the following change from the initiation of treatment on a seven-point scale. The hypothesis is that \~50% of subjects receiving treatment will not respond.|||||=|0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least 50% of subjects will respond to Sertraline treatment (CGI greater than or equal to 2).||||=0.0002
95985953|NCT01445951|191945778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 0.4 margin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36||||||MMRM (mixed model repeated measures) model with auto-regression (1): HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + region + basal insulin stratum + visit + treatment + (visit\*treatment)||0.36|0.02|
95985954|NCT01445951|191945779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM): FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Baseline Height + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||0.04|-0.02|
95985955|NCT01445951|191945780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.25|-14.59|||||MMRM: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Visit\*Treatment)|||-14.59|-56.25|
95985956|NCT01445951|191945783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|ANCOVA: Weight change from baseline = Baseline weight + Change from baseline in HbA1c + Region + Basal insulin stratum + Treatment|||-0.31|-2.33|0.0102
95985957|NCT01445951|191945783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.4955
95985958|NCT01445951|191945783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.6807
95985959|NCT01445951|191945783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within treatment analysis of change from Baseline comparing if change was different from zero||||0.0079
95985960|NCT01445951|191945785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5328||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3198|0.8877|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with affects for Region, Basal insulin stratum, and Treatment||||0.8877|0.3198|0.0156
95857357|NCT00602472|191673105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.474|4.562|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||4.562|2.474|<0.0001
95985961|NCT01445951|191945786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
95985962|NCT01445951|191945787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Region + Basal Insulin Stratum + Treatment + Exposure Time||||||0.1022
95985963|NCT01445951|191945788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Basal insulin stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c|Gen2 in the numerator, Aspart in the denominator|||0.86|0.23|0.0158
95985964|NCT00078325|191945797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0001
95985965|NCT00078325|191945797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and country as factors.||||||0.0008
95985966|NCT00078325|191945798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
95985967|NCT00078325|191945798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for country.||||||<0.0001
95985968|NCT01699542|191945799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.159
95985969|NCT04341441|191945830|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined with one planned interim analysis when 50% of participants had completed their 8 weeks of treatment using an O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending method to ensure an overall type 1 error of 0.05. With a sample size of 900 per group and alpha = 0.0492, the power to detect a 32% reduction in COVID-19 disease rate (10% vs 6.8%) between the placebo and HCQ treated groups, determined at 87%. Study required 1000 per group with a total of 3000 patients to complete the trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the comparison between groups, including the non-randomized active comparator, was 0.75.|Mantel Haenszel||Low number of primary events precluded estimated value of risk ratio.|||||0.75
95985970|NCT00531752|191945891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.7947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8848||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.649|3.2383||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2383|-1.649|0.6749
95985971|NCT00531752|191945891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0343||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.218|4.0533||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive value for the LS mean difference indicates the estimate favors placebo.|Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0533|-1.218|0.4886
95985972|NCT00531752|191945892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7713||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.262|3.3121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3121|-1.262|0.5643
95985973|NCT00531752|191945892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8777||0.3107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|4.3392|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.3392|-0.5100|0.3107
95985974|NCT00531752|191945892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4638||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41601|4.2148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2148|0.41601|0.1196
95985975|NCT00531752|191945892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.649|3.3065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3065|-0.6490|0.3872
95985976|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.162|1.4971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4971|-1.162|0.8708
95985977|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0912||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44874|3.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.2726|0.44874|0.0927
95931305|NCT04714320|191825412|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.706||||||Stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2)), treatment received and baseline measure were included in Logistic Regression model, firth correction was applied if quasi-complete separation of data points was detected.|Regression, Logistic|||Seated Automated Office SBP ≤ 130 mmHg and DBP ≤ 80 mmHg at Day 169||||=0.706
95931306|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.853
95931307|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.542||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.542
95931308|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.430
95931309|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.587||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.587
95931310|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.910
95931311|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.846||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.846
95931312|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||0.634
95985978|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9037||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3008|2.0329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.0329|-0.3008|0.3405
95931313|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.767||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.767
95931314|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.399||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.399
95931315|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.323||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.323
95931316|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.115||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.115
95931317|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.982||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.982
95931318|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.859||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.859
95931319|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.344||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.344
95985979|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9622||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|1.4047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.4047|-1.080|0.8665
95985980|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9694||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8694|1.6466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6466|-0.8694|0.6901
95931320|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.633||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.633
95985981|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0114||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06498|2.6908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.6908|0.06498|0.1790
95985982|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7508||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.90156|2.8502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.8502|0.90156|0.0156
95985983|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7842||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.97559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.97559|-1.060|0.9573
95985984|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2517||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.462|1.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.7820|-1.462|0.8986
95985985|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3437||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.071|2.4086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Inattention): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4086|-1.071|0.6204
95985986|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8742||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6421|1.6261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.6261|-0.6421|0.5759
95985987|NCT00531752|191945897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9488||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3552|2.1051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Hyperactivity/Impulsivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1051|-0.3552|0.3603
95931321|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.889||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.889
95931322|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.241||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.241
95931323|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.367
95931324|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.716||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.716
95931325|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.210
95931326|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.363
95931327|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.193||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.193
95985988|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6664||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3659|5.6952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.6952|1.3659|0.0392
95985989|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7848||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.6177|9.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.2512|4.6177|0.0003
95985990|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1861||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4544|7.1232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1232|1.4544|0.0547
95985991|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3261||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.6655|8.6943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6943|2.6655|0.0176
95985992|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5085||0.775|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|3.9704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9704|-2.530|0.7750
95985993|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6874||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.521|3.4357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.4357|-3.521|0.9874
95985994|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2268||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.513|2.2629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.2629|-3.513|0.7799
95985995|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3365||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08338|6.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1438|0.08338|0.1881
95985996|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9677||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8944|4.2094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2094|-0.8944|0.4032
95985997|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2314|8.6193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6193|3.2314|0.0059
95985998|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1098||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.643|3.8273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8273|-1.643|0.6067
95985999|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2424||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3709|7.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.1860|1.3709|0.0614
95986000|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2086||0.7476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.584|2.1546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.1546|-3.584|0.7476
95986001|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4396||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.499|1.8284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.8284|-4.499|0.5863
95986002|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.771|2.5593|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.5593|-2.771|0.9591
95931328|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.135||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.135
95931329|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.867
95931330|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.761||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.761
95931331|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.618||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.618
95931332|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.363||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.363
95986003|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2048||0.8442|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.294|2.4238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||2.4238|-3.294|0.8442
95931333|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status (\<60 vs ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2)) and treatment received are included in the Van Elteren model as independent variables.|Van Elteren|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.125
95931334|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.435||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.435
95931335|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.413
95986004|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0533||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01391|5.3613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.3613|0.01391|0.1977
95986005|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2467||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.108|4.7375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.7375|-1.108|0.4235
95986006|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9753||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07015|5.2147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2147|0.07015|0.1882
95931336|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.658
95986007|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0376||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|3.8615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.8615|-1.440|0.5555
95986008|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1934||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33169|6.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0292|0.33169|0.1533
95986009|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2662||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8912|4.9934|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.9934|-0.8912|0.3697
95986010|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3939||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.352|4.8801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.8801|-1.352|0.4652
95931337|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.275||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.275
95931338|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.578
95931339|NCT04714320|191825413|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.114
95931340|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.378||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.378
95931341|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.648||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||||=0.648
95931342|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.961||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.961
95931343|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.817||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||||=0.817
95931344|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.823||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.823
95931345|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.362||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 22||||=0.362
95986011|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5148||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.83|3.7058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.7058|-2.830|0.8626
95931346|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.660
95986012|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6168||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.6105|5.8122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.8122|1.6105|0.0261
95986013|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7026||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0533|4.4756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.4756|0.05330|0.1895
95931347|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.539||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 29||||=0.539
95931348|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.430
95931349|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.594||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 36||||=0.594
95931350|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.783||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.783
95931351|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.599||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 43||||=0.599
95931352|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.454||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.454
95931353|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 50||||=0.394
95931354|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.930
95986014|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0732||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.961|6.1913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.1913|-1.961|0.4994
95986015|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3113||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8226|7.9458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.9458|-0.8226|0.2945
95986016|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9257||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.622|3.1613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1613|-4.622|0.8056
95986017|NCT00531752|191945898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8657||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.725|8.4592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.4592|-1.725|0.3922
95931355|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 57||||=0.313
95931356|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.276||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.276
95931357|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 64||||=0.168
95931358|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.199||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.199
95931359|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 71||||=0.506
95931360|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.320
95931361|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 78||||=0.250
95931362|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.373||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.373
95931363|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 85||||=0.597
95931364|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.867||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.867
95931365|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 92||||=0.500
95931366|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.863||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.863
95931367|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.681||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 106||||=0.681
95931368|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.262||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.262
95931369|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.645||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 120||||=0.645
95931370|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.947||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.947
95931371|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.665||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 148||||=0.665
95931372|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.498||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.498
95931373|NCT04714320|191825414|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.173||||||The stratification factor (screening eGFR status \[\<60 vs. ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2\]), treatment received, and baseline measure were included in the ANCOVA model as independent variables.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Day 169||||=0.173
95931374|NCT04928001|191825451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||60|0|.01
95986018|NCT00531752|191945899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.643|-0.3705|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3705|-2.643|0.0913
95986019|NCT00531752|191945899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9165||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.399|0.98326|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.98326|-1.399|0.8216
95931375|NCT00232180|191825467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.741||Using an adaptation of Haybittle-Peto stopping criterion adjusting for two interim analyses, p-value for final primary analysis will be compared to alpha=0.049. No adjustment in alpha will be made on parameters/endpoints other than primary endpoint.|Cox proportional hazard model|||Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, time from electrocardiogram Q wave to the end of the S wave corresponding to ventricle depolarization (QRS) and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.741|0.535|<0.0001
95931376|NCT00232180|191825469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.757||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.757|0.552|<0.0001
95931377|NCT00232180|191825470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.932||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.932|0.622|0.0081
95931378|NCT00232180|191825471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.941||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.941|0.609|0.0120
95931379|NCT00232180|191825472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.876||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.876|0.673|<0.0001
95931380|NCT00232180|191825473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.702||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.702|0.473|<0.0001
95931381|NCT00232180|191825474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|0.849||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.849|0.664|<0.0001
95931382|NCT00232180|191825475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.701||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.701|0.475|<0.0001
95931383|NCT00232180|191825476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.694|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.806||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.806|0.598|<0.0001
95931384|NCT00232180|191825477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.064||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.064|0.839|0.2321
95986020|NCT00531752|191945900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6887||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.313|0.47668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.47668|-1.313|0.5466
95986021|NCT00531752|191945900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6772||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9035|0.85312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.85312|-0.9035|0.9705
95986022|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3001||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4892|0.29012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29012|-0.4892|0.7415
95986023|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3227||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3703|0.4664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (CQoL): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46640|-0.3703|0.8822
95986024|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1302||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0439|0.29385|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29385|-0.0439|0.3414
95986025|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1418||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0793|0.28814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (GLI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.28814|-0.0793|0.4642
95986026|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09093||0.5049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0571|0.17926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.17926|-0.0571|0.5049
95931385|NCT00232180|191825478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.406||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.406|0.443|0.4213
95931386|NCT00232180|191825479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.424||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.424|0.694|0.9754
95931387|NCT00232180|191825480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.22||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.220|0.485|0.2652
95931388|NCT00232180|191825481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.578||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||2.578|0.366|0.9537
95931389|NCT00232180|191825482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|5.312||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||5.312|0.251|0.8539
95931390|NCT00232180|191825483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.585||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.91||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||0.910|0.376|0.0175
95931391|NCT00232180|191825484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.4||Statistically significant if p-value \<0.01|Cox proportional hazard model|||The statistical analysis was only performed on the adjudicated endpoint data up to cut-off. Cox proportional hazard model includes treatment as the major factor, adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, body mass index, hemoglobin, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, history of hypertension, prior myocardial infarction, baseline left bundle branch block, QRS complex and atrial fibrillation as covariates.||1.400|0.559|0.6009
95931392|NCT02748317|191825485|OTHER|1 group t-test no comparison group|||||=|0.219||||||P-value is not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.219
95986027|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.051|0.2093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (RTI): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.20930|-0.0510|0.4332
95931393|NCT01951170|191825530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Change in mTSS scores from baseline to Week 24.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.83
95931394|NCT02765100|191825553|EQUIVALENCE|Unless specified otherwise, each of the statistical tests above will use a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot proof of concept study and does not require formal sample size calculations. High and low CRP groups will be compared on demographic, clinical and biological variables using two-sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for continuous variables (for nonparametric continuous variables, either Mann-Whitney tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests will be used) and chi-square tests or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.||||<0.05
95931395|NCT01574807|191825573|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple McNemar tests corrected with Step-down Bonferroni method of Holm. A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95931396|NCT01061151|191825607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|-2.1|-0.4|||||The combination of Arm B and Arm C minus Arm A, based on a repeated confidence interval (Lan-DeMets approach with an O'Brien-Fleming type I error spending function to preserve an experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%).|Arm B and Arm C were combined and compared to Arm A. This comparison was an a priori planned comparison.||-0.4|-2.1|
95931397|NCT01061151|191825608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.008
95931398|NCT01061151|191825608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.77
95931399|NCT01061151|191825608|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||>0.99
95931400|NCT01061151|191825609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||0.30
95931401|NCT01061151|191825609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.64
95931402|NCT01061151|191825609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.06
95795054|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 6B (Group 5 vs 1)||1.15|0.78|
95931403|NCT01061151|191825610|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Periods 1 and 2||||<0.001
95931404|NCT01061151|191825610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.04
95931405|NCT01061151|191825610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||Period 2||||0.46
95931406|NCT01061151|191825611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.3|3.1|||||The confidence interval was based on a repeated confidence interval.|||3.1|0.3|
95931407|NCT01061151|191825612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
95931408|NCT01061151|191825613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.08|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Arm A relative to Arm B.|||2.08|0.14|0.37
95931409|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival||||0.16
95931410|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0156
95931411|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.31
95931412|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Two-sided Z test|||Overall survival, period 2 group||||0.0022
95931413|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival||||0.13
95993657|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-19.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-28|0.0004
95931414|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.44
95931415|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, period 2 group||||0.24
95931416|NCT01061151|191825615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Two-sided Z test|||HIV-free survival, group 2||||0.26
95931417|NCT02384070|191825644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Analysis of the variance was used and Chi-square test for categorical variables. A sample size was calculated for a 95% confidence level and a power of 80%, assuming a 10% difference between groups.|ANOVA|||||||1
95931418|NCT02384070|191825644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The prior threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||1
95931419|NCT01546753|191825667|SUPERIORITY|The change from baseline OFC to week 38 OFC (primary outcome measure) was compared between the two groups using a Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95931420|NCT01546753|191825668|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes for the percentage of participants who reach the 5000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95931421|NCT01546753|191825669|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes including the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the walnut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95931422|NCT01546753|191825670|SUPERIORITY|Differences in dichotomous outcomes such as the percentage of subjects who reach the 2000 mg cumulative dose to the tree nut at the week 38 desensitization OFC was analyzed using Fisher's exact test|||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95931423|NCT01546753|191825672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95931424|NCT05126082|191825686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models (logit link and binomial error distribution) were used to test the effect of the intervention on blood pressure re-measurement. A planned contrast of the Low + High study arms vs. UC study arm was tested in a model that included pre-specified covariates and a random intercept for clinic. The test of the contrast was 2-sided with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
95931425|NCT05126082|191825686|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models (logit link and binomial error distribution) were used to test the effect of the intervention on blood pressure re-measurement. A planned contrast of the Low vs High study arms was tested in a model that included pre-specified covariates and a random intercept for clinic. The test of the contrast was 2-sided with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
95986028|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1753||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.473|-0.0177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0177|-0.4730|0.1678
95931426|NCT05126082|191825687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|2.94||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models (logit link and binomial error distribution) were used to test the effect of the intervention on hypertension recognition. A planned contrast of the Low + High study arms vs. UC study arm was tested in a model that included pre-specified covariates and a random intercept for clinic. The test of the contrast was 2-sided with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.049
95931427|NCT05126082|191825687|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|2.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models (logit link and binomial error distribution) were used to test the effect of the intervention on hypertension recogntion. A planned contrast of the Low vs High study arms was tested in a model that included pre-specified covariates and a random intercept for clinic. The test of the contrast was 2-sided with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.03
95931428|NCT03299166|191825690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||0.60|-2.59|0.2202
95931429|NCT03299166|191825697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||0.75|-1.67|0.4508
95931430|NCT03299166|191825697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8 Analysis.~Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect."||-0.06|-3.02|0.0410
95931431|NCT01285999|191825721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.21||p-value has not been adjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment.||H0: μt - μc = 0 H1: μt - μc ≠ 0 where μt and μc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss values for the subjects in the PROMUS Element test and TAXUS Liberté control treatment groups, respectively.||-0.21|-0.37|0.05
95931432|NCT05540535|191825737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
95931433|NCT05540535|191825738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95931434|NCT05540535|191825739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for a within-group comparison.||||||<0.05
95931435|NCT05540535|191825740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95931436|NCT05540535|191825741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95931437|NCT05540535|191825742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95931438|NCT05540535|191825743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95931439|NCT04165317|191825745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.941|||Log Rank|1- sided p-value|Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.941|0.489|0.0095
95931440|NCT04165317|191825746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.552|||Log Rank|1 - sided p-value|Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.552|0.870|0.8439
95931441|NCT04524390|191825805|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182||0.7419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.97|||MMRM|||||1.97|-2.76|0.7419
95931442|NCT04524390|191825806|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.398||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.86|25.05|||MMRM|||||25.05|-116.86|0.2002
95931443|NCT04524390|191825807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8412|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.8412
95931444|NCT04524390|191825808|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||> 0.9999
95931445|NCT04524390|191825809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
95931446|NCT04524390|191825810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6236|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6236
95931447|NCT04524390|191825811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6658|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6658
95931448|NCT04524390|191825812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6659|||||||Barnard's exact test|||||||0.6659
95931449|NCT01391832|191825834|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 1-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-1.51|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||>0.05
95950676|NCT02699099|191873147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate of the anti-measles antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.89|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seroconversion rates against measles antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the measles vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||5.89|-1.29|
95931450|NCT01391832|191825834|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 3-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
95931451|NCT01391832|191825834|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of differences between rTMS+CPT and sham+CPT groups in change Clinical Administered Post-Traumatic Scale Total Severity Scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|t-value on group differences in change|-2.01|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|||||Predicted effects on symptom reduction were evaluated with α = 0.05 for one-tailed t-distributions, recommended for designs examining efficacy of therapeutic interventions (Overall, 1991).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators of variance components for fixed effects; Satterthwaite estimates of effective degrees of freedom.|degrees of freedom = 327|Restricted maximum likelihood estimators (ReML) of the variance components were used to compute the maximum likelihood estimators of the fixed effects parameters (i.e., group, time, therapist, all two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term). Thus, we did not exclude participants with missing time points.||||<0.05
95931452|NCT01391832|191825835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.666|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7101||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|1.422|-0.7548|2.088||It is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 58|mean change from baseline to 6-month follow-up, rTMS Active - rTMS Sham|Null hypothesis test of differences in N2 micro-volt change from baseline to 6-month followup.||2.088|-0.7548|.3422
95931453|NCT01391832|191825835|OTHER|The analysis examined correlations in change in N2 and PTSD symptoms.|Slope|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|Regression, Linear|||The analysis examined the association between change in PTSD symptoms from baseline to 6-month follow-up and the change in N2 amplitude to the threatening stimulus from baseline to 6-month follow-up.|Correlations for the individual groups were active rTMS r(28)=-.373 and sham rTMS r(32)=-.296.|||0.02
95931454|NCT01154985|191825836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||Proportion of responders in the EPA-E 1800 mg and 2700 mg groups compared to the proportion of responders in the placebo group compared using the Cochran-Armitage trend test in the Efficacy Evaluable analysis set. P-value less than 5% 1-sided. A total sample size of 210 (70 per arm) was planned to give 80% power for detecting a positive dose-response slope among the 3 treatment arms at 12 months.||||0.57
95931455|NCT01154985|191825837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0137
95931456|NCT01154985|191825837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|29.1||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||29.1|3.4|
95931457|NCT01154985|191825837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0006
95931458|NCT01154985|191825837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.4||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||34.4|9.6|
95931459|NCT01154985|191825838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.1592
95931460|NCT01154985|191825838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 1,800 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||23.0|-3.8|
95931461|NCT01154985|191825838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values testing for significance was performed within treatment group change from baseline and comparisons between treatment groups. Multiple comparison techniques were not applied.|ANCOVA|||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||||0.0153
95931462|NCT01154985|191825838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.9||||||Least Squares (LS) mean, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline ALT as a covariate. 2,700 mg/day EPA-E treatment group compared to placebo.||28.9|3.1|
95931463|NCT01424397|191825860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with FP alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
95931464|NCT01424397|191825860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 alone compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.7127|||
95931465|NCT01424397|191825860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to Placebo using Mixed Models Analysis was 1.0000|||
95986029|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1925||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1726|0.32695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (More GD than BD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.32695|-0.1726|0.6901
95986030|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.587|1.9274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.9274|-1.587|0.9005
95986031|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4667||0.333|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|0.46937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Living with ADHD): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46937|-3.333|0.3330
95986032|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0857||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.051|3.3584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.3584|-2.051|0.7551
95986033|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2354||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.759|-1.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (General well-being): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.968|-7.759|0.0334
95986034|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6119||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|6.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3281|-3.050|0.6519
95859647|NCT01600170|191677210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.04
95986035|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9647||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.941|6.3423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (PDF): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.3423|-3.941|0.7631
95986036|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8206||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7227|6.5648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5648|-0.7227|0.3034
95986037|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0022||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.975|-1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (R/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.218|-8.975|0.0933
95986038|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9778||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.934|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.201|-8.934|0.0949
95986039|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.3274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2552||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-B/C): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-3.106|-11.55|0.0283
95986040|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5974||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.229|-0.0719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0719|-4.229|0.1852
95986041|NCT00531752|191945901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7732||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.823|-0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (IS-I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2127|-4.823|0.1623
95986042|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.5791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0449||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|11.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||11.860|-35.02|0.5241
95986043|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.3367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6995||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.89|5.2183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life productivity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.2183|-45.89|0.3065
95986044|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4438||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.15|5.5793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5793|-29.15|0.3831
95986045|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4478||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.8|5.5241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Psychological health): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5241|-31.80|0.3657
95986046|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5818||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.36|17.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||17.690|-12.36|0.8188
95986047|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.1011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.405||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0305|40.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Life outlook): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||40.172|8.0305|0.0566
95986048|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7164||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.55|12.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.057|-10.55|0.9312
95986049|NCT00531752|191945902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4361||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.108|18.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Relationships): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||18.336|-6.108|0.5194
95986050|NCT00531752|191945903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7573|0.10622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.10622|-0.7573|0.3320
95986051|NCT00531752|191945903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3871||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0769|0.92804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Work/school): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.92804|-0.0769|0.2767
95986052|NCT00531752|191945903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8887|0.1566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.15660|-0.8887|0.3675
95986053|NCT00531752|191945903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4372||0.8141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.46345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Social life): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.46345|-0.6700|0.8141
95986054|NCT00531752|191945903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3702||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6657|0.29495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.29495|-0.6657|0.6186
95986055|NCT00531752|191945903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4028||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1597|0.88432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Family life/home): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.88432|-0.1597|0.3720
95986056|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|18.565|31.591|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.591|18.565|<0.0001
95986057|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.6481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3551||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.711|22.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||22.585|8.7110|0.0049
95986058|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5248||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.196|0.94237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.94237|-8.196|0.3078
95986059|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8022||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2344|12.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.084|2.2344|0.0644
95986060|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1318||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49198|8.6281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.6281|0.49198|0.1517
95986061|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3281||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.056|3.5789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.5789|-5.056|0.8252
95986062|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2203||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9082|-0.3375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3375|-0.9082|0.0063
95986063|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2303||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5283|0.06822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.06822|-0.5283|0.3217
95986064|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0091|0.26716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.26716|-0.0091|0.2307
95986065|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
95986066|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8642||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.681|1.3549|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.3549|-8.681|0.3477
95931466|NCT01424397|191825860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||Bayesian analysis: The posterior probability of a reduction in TNSS with SB-705498 + FP compared to FP alone using Mixed Models Analysis was 0.0160|||
95931467|NCT01424397|191825862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.54|102.15||||||Placebo versus FP 200 μg,Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM,0-4 hr||102.15|60.54|
95931468|NCT01424397|191825862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.548|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.7|25.05||||||Placebo versus FP 12 mg SB-705498 , Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||25.05|-39.7|
95931469|NCT01424397|191825862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.567|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|96.52||||||Placebo versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||96.52|48.28|
95931470|NCT01424397|191825862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.592|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|15.22||||||FP 200 μg versus SB-705498 + FP 12 mg, Nasal Airflow resistance Total WM, 0-4 hr||15.22|-33.1|
95931471|NCT01424397|191825863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-0.87|
95931472|NCT01424397|191825863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.30|
95931473|NCT01424397|191825863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.74|
95931474|NCT01424397|191825863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.06|
95986067|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0842||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.17|-0.5693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5693|-11.17|0.1565
95931475|NCT02597920|191825881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
95931476|NCT02597920|191825881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95931477|NCT02597920|191825881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
95931478|NCT02597920|191825881|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95931479|NCT02597920|191825882|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 CDS||||0.0005
95931480|NCT02597920|191825882|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 CDS||||0.0002
95931481|NCT02597920|191825882|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 SDS||||0.0002
95931482|NCT02597920|191825882|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Propensity score matching method|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 SDS||||0.0004
95931483|NCT02597920|191825887|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 CDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95931484|NCT02597920|191825887|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Visit 2 SDS with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95931485|NCT04532528|191825901|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.9701|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9701
95931486|NCT04532528|191825902|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.7376|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.7376
95986068|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9541||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|-1.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.311|-11.55|0.1088
95931487|NCT04532528|191825902|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1356|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.1356
95931488|NCT04532528|191825902|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.6800
95931489|NCT04532528|191825903|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5777|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.5777
95931490|NCT04532528|191825903|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3313
95931491|NCT04532528|191825903|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.5697|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.5697
95931492|NCT04532528|191825903|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.5135
95931493|NCT04532528|191825904|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.8509|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months only||||0.8509
95931494|NCT04532528|191825904|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3302|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months only||||0.3302
95931495|NCT04532528|191825904|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.9005|||||||Chi-squared|||At 9 months only||||0.9005
95931496|NCT04532528|191825904|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.2789|||||||Chi-squared|||At 12 months only||||0.2789
95931497|NCT04532528|191825905|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 3 months only||||0.6670
95931498|NCT04532528|191825905|OTHER|||||||0.1285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 6 months only||||0.1285
95931499|NCT04532528|191825905|OTHER|No formal hypotheses was tested.||||||0.7151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 9 months only||||0.7151
95931500|NCT04532528|191825905|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested||||||0.803|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At 12 months only||||0.8030
95931501|NCT01068743|191825939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|104.84|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries. LS=Least Squares.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||104.84|98.17|
95986069|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1517||0.8627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.654|6.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.0952|-4.654|0.8627
95931502|NCT01068743|191825939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.53|105.42|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf,respectively.||105.42|99.53|
95931503|NCT01068743|191825939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.23||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
95931504|NCT01068743|191825939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|49.94||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
95931505|NCT01068743|191825939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|52.71||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
95931506|NCT01068743|191825939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|53.99||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
95931507|NCT01068743|191825942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.68|110.88|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||110.88|94.68|
95931508|NCT01068743|191825942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|106.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.43|114.66|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 98% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 participants would have provided 93% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||114.66|98.43|
95931509|NCT01068743|191825942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.73||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
95986070|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8056||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|33.532|79.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||79.730|33.532|0.0024
95986071|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.1543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.7622||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|24.831|73.478|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||73.478|24.831|0.0112
95795055|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 7F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.82|0.55|
95931510|NCT01068743|191825942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|9.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
95931511|NCT01068743|191825942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.33||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
95931512|NCT01068743|191825942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|10.97||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
95931513|NCT01068743|191825943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.26|107.18|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||107.18|97.26|
95931514|NCT01068743|191825943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.23|102.21|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.21|96.23|
95931515|NCT01068743|191825943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11998.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A.||||
95931516|NCT01068743|191825943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12250.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
95931517|NCT01068743|191825943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|12036.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
95993658|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-12|0.4204
95795056|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 9V (Group 5 vs 1)||1.18|0.82|
95931518|NCT01068743|191825943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11937.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
95931519|NCT01068743|191825944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.41|109.5|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||109.5|90.41|
95931520|NCT01068743|191825944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|102.32|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets under both fasted and fed conditions, then 20 participants would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to each of Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would provide 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||102.32|94.28|
95931521|NCT01068743|191825944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL|1724.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.||||
95931522|NCT01068743|191825944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Means (ng/mL)|1715.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.||||
95931523|NCT01068743|191825944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (ng/mL)|1581.4||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.||||
95931524|NCT01068743|191825944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1553.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.||||
95931525|NCT01068743|191825949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.07|104.9|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||104.90|98.07|
95795057|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 14 (Group 5 vs 1)||1.07|0.70|
95931526|NCT01068743|191825949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.56|105.57|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.57|99.56|
95931527|NCT01068743|191825949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.15|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
95931528|NCT01068743|191825949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|47.83|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
95931529|NCT01068743|191825949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|50.89|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
95931530|NCT01068743|191825949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|52.17|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
95931531|NCT01068743|191825952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|105.68|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||105.68|95.40|
95931532|NCT01068743|191825952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|102.02|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.02|96.19|
95931533|NCT01068743|191825952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11827.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A.|||||
95931534|NCT01068743|191825952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11875.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B.|||||
95931535|NCT01068743|191825952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11845.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C.|||||
95931536|NCT01068743|191825952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*h/mL)|11734.0|||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D.|||||
95931537|NCT01266122|191825989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log(Incident Risk Ratio)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression||Intent to treat analysis||-.44|-1.47|<.001
95931538|NCT01266122|191825990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square statistic|1.39|||=|0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Intent to treat analysis.||||=.239
95931539|NCT03224390|191825992|SUPERIORITY||Instrumental variables estimate|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.85||||||||.85|-.03|
95931540|NCT00703820|191825999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.41||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0429 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using an exact, risk-group stratified, two-sided test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a Clofarabine+Cytarabine patient is MRD positive to the odds that a Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that Cytarabine+Daunorubicin+Etoposide and Clofarabine+Cytarabine result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 240 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage Haybittle-Peto group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect an odds ratio of 2.5. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.41|1.03|0.035
95931541|NCT03903822|191826019|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||4.3|-32.1|0.1040
95986072|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0912||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.9105|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.929|6.9105|0.0008
95986073|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3037||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.1876|12.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.751|4.1876|0.0129
95986074|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4492|19.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||19.766|8.4492|0.0020
95986075|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5692||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.4275|20.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||20.270|8.4275|0.0026
95931542|NCT03903822|191826019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-2.1|-38.3|0.0334
95931543|NCT03903822|191826019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.3|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-8.0|-43.3|0.0086
95931544|NCT03903822|191826019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.5|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-5.5|-41.5|0.0158
95931545|NCT03903822|191826019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||2.4|-24.3|0.0879
95986076|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4103||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.729|4.1309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.1309|-4.729|0.9305
95986077|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5839||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.36|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.050|-10.36|0.1178
95986078|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5231||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8124|5.7295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.7295|-0.8124|0.3339
95986079|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4493|8.2686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||8.2686|1.4493|0.0698
95931546|NCT03903822|191826019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-14.1|-40.7|0.0004
95931547|NCT03903822|191826020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|34.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.7|2.4|0.0244
95931548|NCT03903822|191826020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|38.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.6|4.8|0.0113
95931549|NCT03903822|191826020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|11.0|0.0018
95986080|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1859||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5777|-0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0950|-0.5777|0.0762
95986081|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1913||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4075|0.08935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.08935|-0.4075|0.4096
95993659|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||0|-16|0.0441
95931550|NCT03903822|191826020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|49.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||49.9|13.7|0.0007
95931551|NCT03903822|191826020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.8|0.0289
95931552|NCT03903822|191826020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|29.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.6|-2.9|0.1145
95931553|NCT03903822|191826021|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.01|-2.61|0.0488
95931554|NCT03903822|191826021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.07|-2.66|0.0413
95931555|NCT03903822|191826021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.32|-2.86|0.0200
95931556|NCT03903822|191826021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.58|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-1.08|-3.58|0.0011
95931557|NCT03903822|191826021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||0.10|-1.66|0.0727
95993660|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||2|-16|0.1324
95931558|NCT03903822|191826021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA contained fixed factors of treatment and baseline value.||-0.77|-2.52|0.0010
95931559|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|16.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.4|-14.7|0.5246
95931560|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|19.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.9|-12.5|0.3906
95931561|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|30.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.6|-3.2|0.1193
95931562|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|45.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.5|8.8|0.0048
95931563|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|31.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.1|-2.0|0.0777
95931564|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|28.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.0|-4.3|0.1245
95931565|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-12.2|0.3322
95931566|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-0.3|0.0535
95931567|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.9|4.5|0.0159
95931568|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0008
95931569|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|1.5|0.0386
95931570|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|30.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.3|-6.4|0.1485
95931571|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-0.8|0.0620
95931572|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.9||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0089
95931573|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.5|54.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.7|17.5|0.0005
95931574|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|54.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||54.0|15.4|0.0007
95931575|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|37.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.5|-2.0|0.0711
95931576|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|42.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||42.5|2.7|0.0266
95931577|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||23.1|-15.3|0.4173
95931578|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.1096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|-4.3|0.1096
95931579|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|45.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.7|6.1|0.0133
95931580|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|41.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.7|2.6|0.0304
95931581|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
95931582|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
95931583|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|20.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||20.4|-18.4|0.4966
95931584|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|30.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.1|-9.3|0.2753
95931585|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-4.2|0.1036
95931586|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|39.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||39.6|0.4|0.0457
95986082|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07751|0.3455|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.34550|0.07751|0.0455
95931587|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
95931588|NCT03903822|191826022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|47.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||47.6|7.2|0.0078
95931589|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|14.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.9|-5.4|0.2450
95931590|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|14.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.0|-5.3|0.2575
95931591|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|5.7|0.0087
95931592|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|25.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.4|0.8|0.0392
95931593|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|11.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||11.2|-11.2|1.0000
95931594|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|22.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||22.5|-4.9|0.1528
95931595|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|15.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||15.2|-12.7|0.4989
95931596|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-13.6|0.5419
95931597|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
95931598|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|33.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.9|-0.4|0.0541
95931599|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.5|-12.0|0.3945
95931600|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|41.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.8|3.9|0.0201
95931601|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|-5.4|0.1372
95931602|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|19.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||19.1|-11.6|0.3924
95931603|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.4|0.0311
95931604|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.1|0.8|0.0392
95931605|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.4|-6.2|0.1541
95931606|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
95931607|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|-9.5|0.2835
95993661|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-29.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||7|-53|0.1009
95931608|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|27.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.8|-8.7|0.2700
95931609|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|36.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.2|-1.4|0.0662
95931610|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
95931611|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.3|2.2|0.0302
95931612|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.8|45.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||45.4|6.8|0.0091
95931613|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|30.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||30.2|-6.5|0.1561
95931614|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|-2.7|0.0753
95931615|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.7|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|5.7|0.0108
95986083|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1087||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0598|0.22209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.22209|-0.0598|0.4585
95986084|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6662||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.513|6.5995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.5995|-5.513|0.9078
95986085|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1848|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7892||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.403|4.0338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.0338|-8.403|0.6502
95986086|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7234||0.809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.716|3.9101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.9101|-5.716|0.8090
95986087|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8429||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.532|7.4025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.4025|-2.532|0.5282
95986088|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8604||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86393|49.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||49.782|0.86393|0.1848
95986089|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.4054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.481||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.134|75.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||75.677|25.134|0.0124
95986090|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0205||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.9504|10.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.781|2.9504|0.0267
95986091|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.0855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1677||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9787|12.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||12.192|3.9787|0.0134
95986092|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7993||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.5949|14.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||14.453|4.5949|0.0152
95986093|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.602|25.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep disturbance): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||25.359|14.602|<.0001
95986094|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9402||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|1.0562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||1.0562|-6.590|0.3516
95986095|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2323||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.116|7.2838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Snoring): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.2838|-1.116|0.3448
95986096|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3902||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.294|3.1175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||3.1175|-8.294|0.5583
95931616|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|50.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||50.4|9.2|0.0050
95986097|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7652||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.4717|13.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (ASoB): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.838|1.4717|0.1141
95986098|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8356|-0.3408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.3408|-0.8356|0.0034
95931617|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|35.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.7|-2.9|0.0775
95986099|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4403|0.09599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep quantity): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.09599|-0.4403|0.4083
95931618|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.4|3.4|0.0243
95931619|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|38.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||38.8|3.5|0.0234
95931620|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|29.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.3|-2.8|0.1134
95931621|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|26.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||26.2|-5.0|0.1362
95931622|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|29.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||29.8|-3.4|0.1029
95931623|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|17.9|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||17.9|-17.9|1.0000
95931624|NCT03903822|191826023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.6||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|3.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At follow-up visit: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||3.5|-28.8|0.8972
95931625|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|13.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||13.3|-14.2|0.4781
95931626|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.2|-27.8|0.0522
95931627|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.4|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-3.7|-31.4|0.0187
95931628|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-6.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-6.6|-34.5|0.0080
95931629|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.5|-48.6|0.0401
95931630|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-1.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 1: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-1.9|-49.2|0.0379
95931631|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||26.3|-10.1|0.7678
95931632|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.94||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-4.7|-40.9|0.0193
95931633|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.5|-10.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2:MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.2|-46.5|0.0052
95931634|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-5.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-5.5|-42.0|0.0164
95931635|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-47.8|0.0008
95931636|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.0|-24.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-24.3|-57.0|<0.0001
95931637|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|23.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||23.9|-16.1|0.6269
95931638|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.87||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|-13.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-13.8|-53.1|0.0027
95931639|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.5|-19.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.2|-58.5|0.0007
95931640|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.9|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.9|0.0041
95931641|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.61||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.9|4.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||4.6|-33.9|0.1054
95986100|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13746|0.41127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.41127|0.13746|0.0120
95931642|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.62||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.1|0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 3: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||0.5|-38.1|0.0542
95931643|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.12||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|25.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||25.9|-14.2|0.6847
95931644|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-10.3|-49.4|0.0062
95931645|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.6|-12.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-12.3|-51.6|0.0040
95931646|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|-11.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-11.0|-50.6|0.0054
95931647|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|3.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.9|-27.2|0.1076
95931648|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.6|-7.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-7.3|-38.6|0.0082
95931649|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.2|5.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||5.6|-41.2|0.1051
95931650|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|-15.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.0|-60.6|0.0034
95931651|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.8|-19.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-19.0|-64.8|0.0014
95931652|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.6|-15.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-15.6|-61.6|0.0030
95931653|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-2.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit(Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and follow up), treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-2.4|-33.0|0.0289
95931654|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.2|-18.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At Week 6: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-18.4|-49.2|0.0002
95931655|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|22.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||22.0|-23.9|0.4739
95931656|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||3.2|-41.3|0.0789
95931657|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||8.9|-35.7|0.1611
95931658|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.7|-8.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||-8.5|-54.7|0.0124
95931659|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.7|24.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||24.1|-34.7|0.3828
95931660|NCT03903822|191826024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|31.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||At follow-up visit: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value.||31.3|-27.9|0.5383
95931661|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|2.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||2.0|-16.1|0.8964
95931662|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|28.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||28.2|1.0|0.0391
95931663|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|10.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||10.8|-10.8|1.0000
95931664|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||25.0|-1.4|0.0708
95986101|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1136||0.375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0457|0.24881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Optimal sleep): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.24881|-0.0457|0.3750
95931665|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|27.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.0|4.7|0.0122
95931666|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 1: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|11.0|0.0016
95931667|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-9.8|0.3950
95931668|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|35.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||35.6|4.2|0.0173
95986102|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9301||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.665|5.5387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||5.5387|-4.665|0.9119
95986103|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1977||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.79|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Sleep adequacy): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.8960|-11.79|0.1367
95986104|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1094||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.05|-1.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.964|-10.05|0.0595
95986105|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3182||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72505|9.3473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (Somnolence): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.3473|0.72505|0.1356
95986106|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.2884||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|26.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||26.303|-15.99|0.7528
95986107|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.7022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4066||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|45.114|90.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI I): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||90.290|45.114|0.0003
95986108|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6389||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.567|6.2835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||6.2835|-0.5670|0.2837
95986109|NCT00531752|191945904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.9251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.1761|16.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 (SPI II): Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||16.674|9.1761|<0.0001
95986110|NCT00531752|191945905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.777|31.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||31.946|21.777|<0.0001
95986111|NCT00531752|191945905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1817||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|9.7713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.7713|-1.080|0.3034
95986112|NCT00531752|191945905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9408||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.132|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||10.780|3.1320|0.0223
95986113|NCT00531752|191945905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0743||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2442|7.7479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||7.7479|-0.2442|0.2284
95795058|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 18C (Group 5 vs 1)||1.25|0.85|
95986114|NCT00531752|191945905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.5752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5848||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9265|13.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||13.224|3.9265|0.0201
95986115|NCT00531752|191945905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8154||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07753|9.9683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||9.9683|0.07753|0.1931
95986116|NCT00531752|191945906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1759||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9046|-0.4487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.4487|-0.9046|0.0003
95986117|NCT00531752|191945906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5499|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.0650|-0.5499|0.1055
95986118|NCT00531752|191945906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7012|-0.2356|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.2356|-0.7012|0.0119
95986119|NCT00531752|191945906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3687|0.11608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.11608|-0.3687|0.5016
95986120|NCT00531752|191945906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1738||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5711|-0.1191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1191|-0.5711|0.0531
95986121|NCT00531752|191945906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6549|-0.1725|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.1725|-0.6549|0.0306
95931669|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|31.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.0|1.4|0.0327
95931670|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.6|13.2|0.0011
95931671|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|27.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||27.2|-5.0|0.1348
95931672|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|34.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 2: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||34.8|1.5|0.0328
95931673|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|24.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||24.4|-1.8|0.0769
95931674|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|46.0|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||46.0|13.2|0.0005
95931675|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|53.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||53.1|22.1|<0.0001
95931676|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|51.8|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.8|19.7|0.0001
95931677|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|16.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.5|-16.5|1.0000
95931678|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|41.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 3: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||41.5|4.5|0.0173
95931679|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.9|14.2|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||14.2|-19.9|0.5663
95931680|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||32.6|-3.8|0.1243
95931681|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|36.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.6|-0.5|0.0460
95931682|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|43.3|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||43.3|4.8|0.0130
95931683|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|31.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||31.4|-4.2|0.1194
95931684|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|44.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 4: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||44.4|6.5|0.0097
95931685|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|16.1|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||16.1|-21.0|0.5556
95931686|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|-2.5|0.0761
95931687|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|37.6|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||37.6|-0.8|0.0583
95931688|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|33.7|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||33.7|-5.0|0.1245
95931689|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|36.5|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||36.5|1.5|0.0382
95931690|NCT03903822|191826025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.2|51.4|||Chan and Zhang Exact Method|||At Week 6: Risk difference = difference in percentage of participants.||51.4|13.2|0.0011
95931691|NCT04515641|191826112|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.96|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.96|0.58|
95931692|NCT04515641|191826113|OTHER||GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.98|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|0.98|0.58|
95931693|NCT04515641|191826114|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.14|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.14|0.38|
95931694|NCT04515641|191826121|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.00|0.57|
95931695|NCT04515641|191826122|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.03|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.03|0.58|
95931696|NCT04515641|191826123|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.46|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.46|0.63|
95986122|NCT00531752|191945907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1731|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5426|0.99157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.99157|0.54260|<0.0001
95986123|NCT00531752|191945907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1847||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28911|0.76798|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.76798|0.28911|0.0059
95986124|NCT00531752|191945907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1431||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0336|0.33878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.33878|-0.0336|0.2921
95986125|NCT00531752|191945907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1498||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.00319|0.39272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.39272|0.00319|0.1929
95986126|NCT00531752|191945907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1565||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13988|0.54663|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.54663|0.13988|0.0332
95986127|NCT00531752|191945907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1681||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.20006|0.63674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.63674|0.20006|0.0162
95986128|NCT00531752|191945908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36707|0.65345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.65345|0.36707|<0.0001
95986129|NCT00531752|191945908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21189|0.51664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.51664|0.21189|0.0031
95986130|NCT00531752|191945908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09408||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01366|0.25882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.25882|0.01366|0.1553
95986131|NCT00531752|191945908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09797||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0205|0.23458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.23458|-0.0205|0.2809
95986132|NCT00531752|191945908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07101|0.36803|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.36803|0.07101|0.0603
95986133|NCT00531752|191945908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27079|0.58479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||0.58479|0.27079|0.0008
95986134|NCT00531752|191945909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.3264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6944|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.83|-9.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-9.828|-16.83|<0.0001
95986135|NCT00531752|191945909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8841||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.87|-4.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-4.382|-11.87|0.0068
95986136|NCT00531752|191945909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3172||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.551|-0.5175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.5175|-6.551|0.1346
95986137|NCT00531752|191945909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4268||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.067|4.2494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||4.2494|-2.067|0.6552
95986138|NCT00531752|191945909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7614||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.494|-0.9063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-0.9063|-5.494|0.0765
95986139|NCT00531752|191945909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8976||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.349|-1.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Mixed effects linear model was used with treatment, period and investigator as fixed effects; baseline as covariate and participants as random effect.||-1.407|-6.349|0.0473
95986140|NCT01033825|191945982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|13.0|||ANCOVA||Null Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\>=38 Alternative Hypothesis: the difference in serum cortisol levels between placebo and active (placebo-active)\<38|Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||13.0|-13.9|>0.05
95986141|NCT01033825|191945982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide 320 μg to HFA placebo, 46 evaluable subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL, assuming no true difference exists.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||10.2|-15.1|0.025
95931697|NCT04515641|191826124|OTHER||GMR|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.71|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.71|0.65|
95931698|NCT04515641|191826125|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.26|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.26|0.59|
95931699|NCT04515641|191826126|OTHER||GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.01|||||Participants with Moderate Hepatic Impairment / Healthy Matched Control Participants|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|GMR calculated using the mean square error referencing a t-distribution. Confidence limits exponentiated to obtain the 90% confidence interval.|1.01|0.42|
95931700|NCT00696618|191826129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|multi-level|||Nine research participants provided the ability to detect an effect size of 1.25 standard deviation units relative to the mean with 80% power using two-sided, 5% alpha in a paired analysis. The Baseline condition (no intervention) was assigned a value of 1 and geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each intervention were calculated relative to baseline.||||<.05
95931701|NCT00696618|191826130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||multi-level|||||||<.05
95931702|NCT00696618|191826131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mulit-level analysis|||||||<.05
95931703|NCT02975505|191826161|SUPERIORITY||beta|11.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|7.5|<0.05
95931704|NCT02975505|191826164|SUPERIORITY||beta|12.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|8|0.05
95931705|NCT04201834|191826177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
95931706|NCT04201834|191826178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.92
95931707|NCT04201834|191826179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.36
95931708|NCT04201834|191826180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.62
95931709|NCT04201834|191826183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.11
95993662|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-52.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-28.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||-28|-68|0.0005
95931710|NCT04201834|191826184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.02
95931711|NCT04201834|191826186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.86
95931712|NCT04201834|191826187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.27
95931713|NCT04201834|191826188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.61
95931714|NCT04201834|191826189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.37
95931715|NCT04201834|191826190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Paired T-Test|||||||0.30
95931716|NCT04201834|191826191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.82
95931717|NCT01631214|191826258|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
95931718|NCT01631214|191826258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.38|
95931719|NCT01631214|191826258|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.57||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||5.57|2.50|
95931720|NCT01631214|191826259|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoints were tested at the 5% level (2-sided), accounting for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure. If the larger of the 2 p-values was significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided), the statistical testing continued to the secondary endpoint in the testing sequence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)|||0.88|0.61|<0.001
95931721|NCT01631214|191826260|SUPERIORITY|If the 2 primary endpoints and the specified BMD secondary endpoints were all significant, the nonvertebral fracture at the primary analysis was evaluated based on a 1-sided test (overall α=0.025) determined by the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function that approximates a Pocock boundary, 0.0233 (1-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||The adjusted 2-sided p-value is reported.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.99|0.66|0.040
95986142|NCT01033825|191945982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% CI upper bound for the difference between ciclesonide and placebo with placebo dexamethasone (placebo minus ciclesonide) is \<Margin. In order to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of ciclesonide nasal spray 200 μg to placebo nasal spray 46 evaluable (per protocol) subjects per group are needed using a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, a standard deviation of 55 μg h/dL, a non-inferiority margin of 38 μh /dL|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.5|||ANCOVA|||Standard bioequivalence bounds of a 20% difference based on the clinical judgment was used to determine the delta.||25.5|-4.7|>0.05
95986143|NCT00350142|191945998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95986144|NCT01883635|191946002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.14
95986145|NCT01883635|191946003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.65
95931722|NCT01631214|191826261|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.76|0.56|<0.001
95931723|NCT01631214|191826262|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.64|0.37|<0.001
95931724|NCT01631214|191826262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.66|0.40|
95931725|NCT01631214|191826262|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.08||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||6.08|2.80|
95986146|NCT01883635|191946004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=40||||||0.51
95986147|NCT01464307|191946005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||The number of subjects included in the MMRM analysis was only 286 because a covariate was missing for 3 subjects.||0.2|-0.1|0.777
95986148|NCT01464307|191946006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804||||||worst-case analysis.|Wilcoxon's Rank-Sum Test|||The statistical analysis provided was for all categories of this outcome measure.||||0.804
95986149|NCT01464307|191946007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=283 for week 4.||1.74|0.63|0.845
95986150|NCT01464307|191946007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.04||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=279 for week 8.||2.04|0.73|0.437
95931726|NCT01631214|191826263|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.90|0.59|0.004
95986151|NCT01464307|191946007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.21||observed cases analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12. Number of subjects included in analysis was three less than the observed cases because of a missing covariate for the logistic regression analysis, that is, n=273 for week 12.||2.21|0.59|0.698
95986152|NCT02813551|191946037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||||1.10|0.53|
95986153|NCT02813551|191946038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3||||||||3.3|0.4|
95986154|NCT02813551|191946039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.0||||||||28|0.3|
95986155|NCT02813551|191946040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
95986156|NCT02813551|191946043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.2|1.0|
95986157|NCT02813551|191946044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||||||||1.9|0.5|
95986158|NCT02813551|191946045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9||||||||2.9|0.1|
95986159|NCT01964352|191946062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.369|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.369|0.293|<0.0001
95986160|NCT01964352|191946062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.148|0.075|<0.0001
95986161|NCT01964352|191946062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.337|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.337|0.262|<0.0001
95986162|NCT01964352|191946062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.116|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.116|0.044|<0.0001
95931727|NCT01631214|191826264|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.92|0.42|0.015
95986163|NCT01964352|191946062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
95986164|NCT01964352|191946062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.067|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.067|-0.005|0.0872
95986165|NCT01964352|191946063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0124|0.2|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.200|0.0124|<0.0001
95986166|NCT01964352|191946063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.066|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.066|-0.009|0.1381
95986167|NCT01964352|191946063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.188|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.188|0.113|<0.0001
95986168|NCT01964352|191946063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.3872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.054|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.054|-0.021|0.3872
95986169|NCT01964352|191946063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.172|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.172|0.096|<0.0001
95986170|NCT01964352|191946063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.049|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.049|-0.025|0.5333
95986171|NCT01964352|191946064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|-2.884|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.884|-6.904|<0.0001
95986172|NCT01964352|191946064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-0.513|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.513|-4.473|0.0136
95931728|NCT01631214|191826265|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.85|0.31|0.008
95986173|NCT01964352|191946064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.129|-2.114|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.114|-6.129|<0.0001
95986174|NCT01964352|191946064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.698|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|-3.698|0.0880
95986175|NCT01964352|191946064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|-0.382|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.382|-4.419|0.0198
95986176|NCT01964352|191946064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.196|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.196|-2.741|0.4415
95986177|NCT01964352|191946065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.282|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.282|0.157|<0.0001
95986178|NCT01964352|191946065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.084|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.084|-0.041|0.5052
95986179|NCT01964352|191946065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.271|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.271|0.146|<0.0001
95986180|NCT01964352|191946065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.072|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.072|-0.052|0.7566
95986181|NCT01964352|191946065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.261|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.261|0.136|<0.0001
95986182|NCT01964352|191946065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.073|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.073|-0.051|0.7199
95986183|NCT01964352|191946066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.516|2.588|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.588|1.516|<0.0001
95986184|NCT01964352|191946066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.137|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.137|0.078|0.0246
95986185|NCT01964352|191946066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.417|2.487|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.487|1.417|<0.0001
95986186|NCT01964352|191946066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|1.035|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.035|-0.021|0.0599
95986187|NCT01964352|191946066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.983|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.983|0.907|<0.0001
95986188|NCT01964352|191946066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.626|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.626|-0.425|0.7081
95986189|NCT01964352|191946067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.524|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.524|0.390|<0.0001
95931729|NCT01631214|191826265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.85|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.85|0.32|
95986190|NCT01964352|191946067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.225|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.225|0.095|<0.0001
95986191|NCT01964352|191946067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.465|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.465|0.331|<0.0001
95986192|NCT01964352|191946067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.036|0.0023
95986193|NCT01964352|191946067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.365|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.365|0.229|<0.0001
95986194|NCT01964352|191946067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.123|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.123|-0.005|0.0701
95986195|NCT01908101|191946099|OTHER|comparison analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.6||comparison analysis; no P value|||The estimated value is 3.5 months, not years.|Progression free survival (PFS). We hypothesize that metronomic dosing of eribulin will result in a PFS of 4-6 months.||4.6|2.6|
95986196|NCT00166205|191946104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of ITT subjects|69.6||||||95.0|63.8|74.9||||||A sample size of 215, the adverse event (AE) rate at three years could be estimated with precision as determined by the interval half-width of approximately ± 7%.||74.9|63.8|
95986197|NCT00166205|191946105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|75.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8||||95.0|70.5|80.8||||||||80.8|70.5|
95986198|NCT00166205|191946106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||||95.0|34.9|36.5||||||||36.5|34.9|
95986199|NCT00166205|191946107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|51.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.8||||95.0|47.6|54.9||||||||54.9|47.6|
95986200|NCT00166205|191946108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3||||95.0|9.2|11.7|||||Value at 36 months minus value at baseline. Positive values indicate improved Quality of Life (QOL)|||11.7|9.2|
95986201|NCT00166205|191946109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||||95.0|5.6|5.8||||||||5.8|5.6|
95986202|NCT00166205|191946111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test would have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative (i.e., that the SAGB system is not inferior to the clinically meaningful result of 36.2 for 224 subjects) assuming: a standard deviation (SD) of (21.6), an equivalent limit difference of (3.6), and a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95986203|NCT00166205|191946112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|56.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||||95.0|54.5|58.4||||||||58.4|54.5|
95986204|NCT00166205|191946113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|114.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.3||||95.0|110.1|118.8||||||||118.8|110.1|
95986205|NCT00166205|191946114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|193.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||||95.0|188.6|198.4||||||||198.4|188.6|
95986206|NCT02831673|191946115|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.5|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=versus \[vs.\]\>100,000 c/mL) and cluster of differentiation 4+ (CD4+) cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||1.5|-6.7|
95986207|NCT02831673|191946116|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.4|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<=vs.\>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter).|||3.4|-4.2|
95986208|NCT02831673|191946117|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||0.0|-9.8|
95986209|NCT02831673|191946118|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.1|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.1|-9.4|
95986210|NCT02831673|191946119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||The generalized Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalized Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.16|0.86|0.658
95986211|NCT02831673|191946123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|43.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||43.6|-9.4|0.206
95986212|NCT02831673|191946123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|33.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||33.0|-23.9|0.754
95986213|NCT02831673|191946124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|42.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||42.4|-20.7|0.500
95986214|NCT02831673|191946125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|31.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||31.5|-34.2|0.934
95986215|NCT02831673|191946136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 24|||0.00|-0.04|0.025
95986216|NCT02831673|191946136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum Cystatin C, Week 48|||-0.01|-0.05|0.001
95986217|NCT02831673|191946136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 24|||1.0|-1.6|0.683
95986218|NCT02831673|191946136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Serum RBP, Week 48|||1.2|-1.4|0.930
95986219|NCT02831673|191946137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.009
95986220|NCT02831673|191946138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.00|-0.03|0.108
95986221|NCT02831673|191946141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 24|||4.0|0.5|0.011
95986222|NCT02831673|191946141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-cystatin C adjusted, Week 48|||4.5|1.2|<0.001
95986223|NCT02831673|191946141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR-creatinine adjusted, Week 24|||4.8|1.6|<0.001
95986224|NCT02831673|191946141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||GFR- creatinine adjusted, Week 48|||5.1|2.0|<0.001
95931730|NCT01631214|191826265|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.1||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||2.10|0.33|
95931731|NCT01631214|191826266|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.91|0.59|0.005
95986225|NCT02831673|191946144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-1.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-1.75|-4.62|<0.001
95986226|NCT02831673|191946144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-1.91|-4.54|<0.001
95986227|NCT02831673|191946145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.72|-4.96|<0.001
95986228|NCT02831673|191946146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.40|-4.57|<0.001
95986229|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.915|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.943|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum B2M|||0.943|0.887|<0.001
95986230|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.929|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum B2M|||0.929|0.880|<0.001
95986231|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.656||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.877|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M|||0.877|0.491|0.005
95986232|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.821|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M|||0.821|0.551|<0.001
95986233|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.965||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.092|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.092|0.853|0.575
95986234|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.891||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.001|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine|||1.001|0.793|0.051
95986235|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.831|0.493|<0.001
95986236|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.695|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.839|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine|||0.839|0.576|<0.001
95986237|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.102||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.237|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Phosphate|||1.237|0.982|0.099
95986238|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Phosphate|||1.100|0.886|0.816
95986239|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.904|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.904|0.774|<0.001
95986240|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.829|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.888|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine|||0.888|0.773|<0.001
95986241|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.871||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||1.020|0.743|0.087
95986242|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||0.870|0.644|<0.001
95986243|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.828||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.944|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.944|0.727|0.005
95986244|NCT02831673|191946147|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.864|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.864|0.677|<0.001
95986245|NCT02831673|191946148|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.839||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.950|0.742|0.006
95986246|NCT02831673|191946148|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.551|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.682|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.682|0.445|<0.001
95986247|NCT02831673|191946148|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.045||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.175|0.928|0.467
95986248|NCT02831673|191946148|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|0.889|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.889|0.764|<0.001
95986249|NCT02831673|191946148|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|0.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.840|0.651|<0.001
95986250|NCT02831673|191946149|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.916||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.050|0.799|0.205
95986251|NCT02831673|191946149|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.603|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.603|0.406|<0.001
95986252|NCT02831673|191946149|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.089||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.226|0.967|0.160
95931732|NCT01631214|191826267|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.02|0.64|0.074
95931733|NCT01631214|191826268|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.15|0.46|0.17
95931734|NCT01631214|191826269|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.71|0.24|<0.001
95931735|NCT01631214|191826270|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.96|0.54|0.027
95986253|NCT02831673|191946149|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.885|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.885|0.753|<0.001
95986254|NCT02831673|191946149|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.76|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.760|0.607|<0.001
95986255|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Bone ALP|||-1.70|-2.75|<0.001
95986256|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Bone ALP|||-1.98|-3.19|<0.001
95986257|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-3.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 28. Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.23|-5.15|<0.001
95986258|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-4.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.23|-6.22|<0.001
95986259|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-11.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. Serum PINP|||-11.1|-16.5|<0.001
95986260|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-10.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. Serum PINP|||-10.3|-15.0|<0.001
95986261|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1628|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|-0.1241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. CTX-1|||-0.1241|-0.2015|<0.001
95986262|NCT02831673|191946150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.1569|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. CTX-1|||-0.1569|-0.2460|<0.001
95986263|NCT02831673|191946151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.50|-2.63|<0.001
95986264|NCT02831673|191946151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.14|-5.20|<0.001
95986265|NCT02831673|191946151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.9|-17.6|<0.001
95986266|NCT02831673|191946151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1592|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.1104|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.1104|-0.2080|<0.001
95986267|NCT02831673|191946152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.14|-2.23|<0.001
95986268|NCT02831673|191946152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-1.83|-4.00|<0.001
95986269|NCT02831673|191946152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.3|<0.001
95986270|NCT02831673|191946152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1771|-0.1056|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.1056|-0.1771|<0.001
95931736|NCT01631214|191826271|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab. The standard error (SE) represents the standard error of log(odds ratio).|||0.89|0.44|0.008
95931737|NCT01631214|191826271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||||SE represents the standard error of log (risk ratio).|"The risk ratio (ratio of percentages, Romosozumab:Alendronate) was based on the Mantel Haenszel method, adjusted for age strata (\<75 vs. ≥75 years), the presence or absence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, and baseline bone mineral density T-score at the total hip (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5).~Values \< 1 for risk ratio favor romosozumab."||0.89|0.46|
95931738|NCT01631214|191826271|SUPERIORITY||Absolute risk reduction|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.17||||||"The absolute risk reduction (difference in percentages, Alendronate - Romosozumab) was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score (≤ -2.5, \> -2.5), and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor romosozumab."||3.17|0.51|
95931739|NCT01631214|191826272|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||0.88|0.57|0.002
95931740|NCT01631214|191826273|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.54|0.057
95931741|NCT01631214|191826274|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.26|0.33|0.19
95931742|NCT01631214|191826275|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.01|0.52|0.053
95931743|NCT01631214|191826276|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.|"Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age strata, baseline total hip BMD T-score, and presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab; SE represents the standard error of log (hazard ratio)."|||1.22|0.26|0.14
95931744|NCT01631214|191826277|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||8.57|7.58|<0.001
95931745|NCT01631214|191826278|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.10|3.42|<0.001
95931746|NCT01631214|191826279|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.14|3.40|<0.001
95986271|NCT02831673|191946153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-3.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24|||-3.0|-9.9|<0.001
95986272|NCT02831673|191946153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
95986273|NCT02831673|191946154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96|||0.0|-5.8|0.048
95986274|NCT02831673|191946155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144|||-1.6|-8.3|0.004
95986275|NCT02831673|191946162|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.6||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 24|||4.6|-0.6|0.157
95986276|NCT02831673|191946162|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 48|||4.2|-1.7|0.414
95986277|NCT02831673|191946163|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 96|||4.1|-2.1|0.562
95986278|NCT02831673|191946164|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.9||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3||Fisher's exact p-value.|Fisher Exact||Week 144|||4.3|-2.4|0.587
95986279|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|49.83|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.83|-10.23|
95986280|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.07|58.4|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||58.40|-57.07|
95986281|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.94|129.63|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||129.63|-55.94|
95986282|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|42.12|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||42.12|-13.38|
95986283|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|59.85|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||59.85|-9.56|
95986284|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.98|40.34|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||40.34|-55.98|
95986285|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|114.38|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||114.38|-55.47|
95986286|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|85.23|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||85.23|-49.89|
95986287|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|44.21|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||44.21|-13.90|
95986288|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|54.54|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||54.54|-9.52|
95986289|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.64|57.3|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||57.30|-110.64|
95986290|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||||95.0|-76.18|85.06|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||85.06|-76.18|
95986291|NCT02831673|191946169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.68|110.59|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||110.59|-60.68|
95986292|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|39.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||39.8|-24.6|
95986293|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|65.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.9|-59.8|
95986294|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.3|123.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||123.5|-78.3|
95986295|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-24.7|
95986296|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|45.9|||||Age\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||45.9|-29.1|
95986297|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|48.9|||||Age 35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||48.9|-53.9|
95986298|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|110.1|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||110.1|-74.6|
95986299|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|83.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||83.1|-62.3|
95986300|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|36.9|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||36.9|-25.6|
95986301|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|40.9|||||Race group white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||40.9|-28.2|
95986302|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.7|62.4|||||Race group African Am/African H.. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||62.4|-122.7|
95986303|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|134.7|||||Race group Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||134.7|-36.3|
95986304|NCT02831673|191946170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|89.7|||||Race group Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race group, and treatment and race group interaction.|||89.7|-94.7|
95986305|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|38.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.2|-34.5|
95986306|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|111.5|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||111.5|-31.2|
95986307|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.3|114.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||114.5|-122.3|
95986308|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|44.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||44.5|-22.9|
95986309|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.6|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.6|-35.0|
95986310|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|55.7|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||55.7|-60.7|
95986311|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|144.5|||||Age\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||144.5|-61.2|
95986312|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|101.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||101.8|-64.2|
95986313|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|43.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||43.1|-27.4|
95986314|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|54.0|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||54.0|-23.6|
95986315|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.3|103.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||103.0|-106.3|
95986316|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.2|66.9|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||66.9|-132.2|
95986317|NCT02831673|191946171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|129.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.5|-77.3|
95986318|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|38.3|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||38.3|-39.2|
95986319|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|78.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||78.8|-69.4|
95986320|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.1|145.8|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||145.8|-111.1|
95986321|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|34.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||34.1|-37.2|
95986322|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|27.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||27.1|-63.2|
95986323|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|64.0|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||64.0|-57.0|
95986324|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|205.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||205.2|-14.8|
95986325|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|112.3|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||112.3|-62.5|
95986326|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|33.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||33.1|-41.5|
95986327|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|41.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||41.1|-40.6|
95986328|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.6|60.9|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||60.9|-163.6|
95986329|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.3|85.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction|||85.0|-125.3|
95986330|NCT02831673|191946172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|176.2|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||176.2|-43.7|
95986331|NCT02831673|191946173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0052||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.0152|||MMRM||Week 4. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0152|-0.0047|0.302
95986332|NCT02831673|191946173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0038||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.006|||MMRM||Week24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0060|-0.0136|0.450
95986333|NCT02831673|191946173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0004||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0098|0.0106|||MMRM||Week48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||0.0106|-0.0098|0.934
95986334|NCT02831673|191946174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0012||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0107|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0107|-0.0132|0.842
95986335|NCT02831673|191946175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0008||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0097|0.0113|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0113|-0.0097|0.879
95986336|NCT02831673|191946176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.4|-0.3|0.137
95986337|NCT02831673|191946176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||MMRM||Week24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.0|-0.9|0.458
95986338|NCT02831673|191946176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||MMRM||Week48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor),Baseline CD4+ cell count (factor), Baseline EQ-5D thermometer, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D thermometer\*visit with visit as the repeated factor|||2.8|0.1|0.031
95986339|NCT02831673|191946177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.2|0.2|0.027
95986340|NCT02831673|191946178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||3.6|0.9|0.001
95986341|NCT00477165|191946206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.196||p\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||Repeated-measures logistic regression model, assuming the citalopram effect builds linearly over time starting at week 3.|Null hypothesis: number of patients achieving adequate relief is the same in both Citalopram and Placebo groups||1.196|0.687|0.59
95986342|NCT01977781|191946210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only the statistical analysis results for burning sensation at 10 weeks are reported below as they where the only tolerability results found to be significantly different between the two arms. All other tolerability measures were found to be the same between the two groups.||||0.0019
95986343|NCT02404103|191946248|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction with two doses.||||||0.148|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.148
95986344|NCT02404103|191946248|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.740
95986345|NCT02404103|191946248|EQUIVALENCE|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.921|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.921
95986346|NCT02404103|191946249|EQUIVALENCE|The primary goal of the current study is to determine the effects of Aerospan on lung function in children with small airway obstruction.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.872
95986347|NCT02404103|191946249|EQUIVALENCE|secondary goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||0.820
95986348|NCT02404103|191946249|EQUIVALENCE|A goal was to evaluate whether flunisolide HFA 320 mcg when compared to flunisolide 160 mcg lead to significantly better improvement in the same outcome measures over time.||||||0.582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.582
95986349|NCT02404103|191946250|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.782|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.782
95986350|NCT02404103|191946250|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.906
95986351|NCT02404103|191946250|EQUIVALENCE|The primary aim is to compare the average change in spirometric values (FEV1 and FEF25-75%) and AX from baseline to Week 6 from participants randomized flunisolide HFA 1 inhalation BID and to flunisolide HFA 2 inhalations BID.||||||0.102|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.102
95986352|NCT02404103|191946251|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used.||||||.620
95986353|NCT02404103|191946251|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.543
95986354|NCT02404103|191946251|EQUIVALENCE|To assess the impact of flunisolide on small airway parameters using spirometry and impulse oscillometry and determine whether there is a dose-related difference (320 mcg vs 160 mcg) with flunisolide HFA in pediatric patients who have evidence of small airway obstruction.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) using the identity link function and normal distribution were used||||||.6
95986355|NCT01408147|191946252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the primary hypothesis, a generalized linear mixed effect model was used (intervention group as a fixed effect and clinic and subject as random effects). A group x time interaction term (fixed effect) tested if the change in weight over time differed significantly. The model included participant-level covariates (i.e., ethnicity, weeks postpartum at study entry, lactation, and age).||||<0.0001
95986356|NCT00621504|191946255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on each of the CE and the MITTE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for each of the CE and MITTE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE and MITTE Populations in adult subjects with CABP.||12.6|-0.2|
95986357|NCT05074251|191946282|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|1.14|<0.05
95986358|NCT01500278|191946288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||The odds ratio, CI, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and age as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|0.67|=0.467
95986359|NCT01500278|191946289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45||The odds ratio, CI and p-value are from a logistic regression model with RTG, gender, Baseline duration of RA (\<2 years or \>=2 years), and geographic region as factors and Baseline DAS28(ESR) and age as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.82|=0.532
95986360|NCT00794677|191946300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical significance was determined for a standard two-period crossover design using JMP software (Version 5.0, SAS Institute. Cary, NC).||||0.03
95986361|NCT00794677|191946301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95986362|NCT00794677|191946302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
95986363|NCT00794677|191946303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95986364|NCT00794677|191946304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95986365|NCT00794677|191946305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95986366|NCT00794677|191946306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
95986367|NCT00794677|191946307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.893||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95986368|NCT00794677|191946308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0000001
95986369|NCT03882970|191946309|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-1.00|<0.001
95986370|NCT03882970|191946309|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.17|<0.001
95986371|NCT03882970|191946310|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.3% NI boundary, 0.35% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin degludec, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.1%, 1 sided significance level of 0.0125, and a dropout rate of 28%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.73|<0.001
95986372|NCT03882970|191946311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-10.8|<0.001
95986373|NCT03882970|191946311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-14.0|<0.001
95986374|NCT03882970|191946311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.2|-16.2|<0.001
95986375|NCT03882970|191946312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|2.4|0.004
95986376|NCT03882970|191946312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|-4.3|0.751
95986377|NCT03882970|191946312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-8.7|0.168
95986378|NCT03882970|191946313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.01|2.38|<0.001
95986379|NCT03882970|191946313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|10.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.84|4.55|<0.001
95986380|NCT03882970|191946313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|17.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.48|6.65|<0.001
95986381|NCT03882970|191946315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.35|48.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.35|18.35|<0.001
95986382|NCT03882970|191946315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.56|134.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||134.17|47.56|<0.001
95931747|NCT01631214|191826280|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.31|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||9.09|8.31|<0.001
95986383|NCT03882970|191946315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.73|189.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.55|64.73|<0.001
95931748|NCT01631214|191826281|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.60|3.03|<0.001
95931749|NCT01631214|191826282|SUPERIORITY|If the differences in both primary end points were significant with the use of the Hochberg procedure, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for bone mineral density and the key secondary end point of nonvertebral fracture to adjust for multiple comparisons and to maintain an overall significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.54|2.90|<0.001
95931750|NCT01631214|191826283|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|7.89|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||7.89|6.84|<0.001
95986384|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.05|-0.57|0.096
95986385|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.06|-0.57|0.113
95986386|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.16|-0.78|0.003
95986387|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||-0.08|-0.74|0.014
95986388|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.51|0.280
95986389|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.07|-0.59|0.129
95986390|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.75|2.26|<0.001
95931751|NCT01631214|191826284|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||4.02|3.29|<0.001
95931752|NCT01631214|191826285|SUPERIORITY|This endpoint was not included in the sequential testing procedure and was analyzed without multiplicity adjustment at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|LS Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|3.97|||ANCOVA|||Between-group comparisons of the percent change from baseline in bone mineral density were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, age strata, presence of severe vertebral fracture at baseline, baseline BMD value, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction.||3.97|3.18|<0.001
95931753|NCT00077675|191826345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 91% power to test telavancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 20%||||||0.5318|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval calculat|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.0527 to 0.1102 No estimated value Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5318
95931754|NCT01911169|191826357|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size of primary outcome was calculated||||
95931755|NCT01911169|191826357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This study was conducted to determine the effect size for in change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH) therapy. For change in FMD at 16 weeks with 25(OH)D repletion, based on this effect size, to detect significant differences between 2 groups, assuming 1) normally distributed data, 2) the same effect size, 3) alpha= 0.05, and 4) a power of 0.8, 35 patients in each group would be required. Therefore, this was designed as a pilot to determine effect size.||||> 0.05
95931756|NCT03873337|191826369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 25||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
95931757|NCT03873337|191826369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in scores on the TASQ at 3-months post target quit date (4 months after baseline assessment.||||0.002
95931758|NCT03873337|191826370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at one-month post target quit date (2-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
95931759|NCT03873337|191826370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|df = 27||One-tailed, paired sample t-tests will be used to examine decreases in cigarettes smoked per day at 3-months post target quit date (4-months after baseline assessment.||||<0.001
95986391|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.65|2.15|<0.001
95931760|NCT01185782|191826371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The primary endpoint was to determine whether or not SJ-0021 is inferior to u-hFSH in inducing ovulation. The criterion for non-inferiority was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (= one-sided 97.5% CI) had to be greater than -15% for SJ-0021 to be considered not inferior to u-hFSH.)"|Delta|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.04|||Chi-squared|||||6.04|-13.05|
95931761|NCT01185782|191826372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.214
95931762|NCT01185782|191826373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95931763|NCT01185782|191826374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
95931764|NCT01185782|191826375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.852
95931765|NCT01185782|191826376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
95931766|NCT01185782|191826377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.560
95986392|NCT03882970|191946316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||3.74|2.24|<0.001
95931767|NCT01185782|191826378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.555
95931768|NCT01185782|191826379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.416
95931769|NCT02507752|191826383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||< 0.001
95931770|NCT02507752|191826383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||= 0.014
95931771|NCT02507752|191826385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.021
95931772|NCT02507752|191826385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in ESR at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
95931773|NCT02507752|191826386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.744
95931774|NCT02507752|191826386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in CRP at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.646
95931775|NCT02507752|191826387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95986393|NCT00689572|191946345|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|5.25|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine-free days (PCFD)||5.25|-5.43|0.972
95986394|NCT00689572|191946346|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects linear regression model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|7.95|||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects linear regression model included random intercept and slope (for temporal trend)||Difference between ondansetron and placebo groups regarding percentage of cocaine free urines (PCFU)||7.95|-7.08|0.909
95986395|NCT02813694|191946350|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin= 10%|Treatment difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||4.5|-4.4|
95986396|NCT02813694|191946351|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.1|-6.3|
95986397|NCT02813694|191946351|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. Confidence interval computed using a continuity-corrected Z-test.|||3.3|-6.5|
95986398|NCT02813694|191946352|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margain = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.5|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\]; PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||0.5|-8.2|
95986399|NCT02813694|191946352|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 10%|Treatment difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). Confidence interval computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||0.7|-8.4|
95986400|NCT04474795|191946353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Compared pre and post training scores||||<0.0001
95986401|NCT04474795|191946354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Comparison of scores pre and post training in individuals who completed training modules||||<0.0001
95986402|NCT04474795|191946355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Patient autonomy||||0.606
95859648|NCT01600170|191677211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.01|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Primary outcomes were pre-specified to use p\<0.01 for statistical significance. All other analyses used p\<0.05 after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.15
95986403|NCT04474795|191946355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Value of tight control||||0.003
95986404|NCT04474795|191946355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||Need for Special Training||||0.475
95986405|NCT04474795|191946356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon paired signed rank test|||||||0.009
95986406|NCT00814775|191946359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.37|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||2.37|0.55|0.72
95986407|NCT00814775|191946360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.54|||Regression, Cox||CTrach vs. Fastrach|||1.54|0.38|0.45
95986408|NCT01923129|191946384|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of interest was the rate of AUR, defined as the number of patients with AUR within each study group. A 15% non-inferiority margin was chosen according to clinical relevance estimation. The expected difference between the two groups was 0%. Non-inferiority analysis was performed by calculation of risk difference and its 95% confidence interval according to Newcombe \& Altman.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95986409|NCT00749996|191946391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis: Ho: Δ VAS DIAM = Δ VAS Control will be tested against the alternative hypothesis:HA: Δ VAS DIAM ≠ Δ VAS Control.Where Δ is the average decrease in VAS score (baseline - 6 months). A minimal sample size of 240 analyzable patients is required to demonstrate with 80% power a difference in back pain reduction that is significant at the 95% level, comparing DIAM and Control groups. 268 patients will be enroll to allow of up to 10% attrition.||0.38|-1.59|0.228
95986410|NCT00749996|191946392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null-hypothesis(Ho: Δ ODI DIAM = Δ ODI Control) will be tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA: Δ ODI DIAM ≠ Δ ODI Control). Δ ODI DIAM = average change in the ODI (12 months - baseline) in the DIAM treated patient group and Δ VAS Control =average change in the ODI in the Control group.||6.08|-8.80|0.719
95986411|NCT00768521|191946416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.18||||0.008||90.0|7.58|41.06||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.|Primary Hypothesis: Tolterodine LA 4 mg is superior to placebo with respect to change from baseline in maximum cystometric capacity at 4 hours post Dose 7 (i.e., steady state). The expected treatment effect is targeted at 40 mL.|||41.06|7.58|0.008
95986412|NCT00768521|191946417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.422||90.0|-11.5|16.71||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline used as covariate.||||16.71|-11.5|0.422
95986413|NCT02533063|191946438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.217
95986414|NCT02533063|191946439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
95986415|NCT02533063|191946440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
95986416|NCT02533063|191946441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.450
95986417|NCT02533063|191946442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
95986418|NCT02533063|191946443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.060
95986419|NCT02533063|191946446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.483
95986420|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.7|-1.4|
95986421|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.2|
95931776|NCT02507752|191826387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in SJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931777|NCT02507752|191826388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931778|NCT02507752|191826388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in TJC at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931779|NCT02507752|191826389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931780|NCT02507752|191826389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in DAS28 at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931781|NCT02507752|191826390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931782|NCT02507752|191826390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean change from Baseline in patient global assessment at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931783|NCT02507752|191826391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.011
95931784|NCT02507752|191826391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in HAQ score from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
95931785|NCT02507752|191826392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931786|NCT02507752|191826392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in pain scale from screening to Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931787|NCT02507752|191826393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
95931788|NCT02507752|191826393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental component score at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.001
95931789|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.102
95931790|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Physical functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
95931791|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.008
95986422|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.1|-1.3|
95931792|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role physical domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95986423|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||0.2|-1.0|
95931793|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
95931794|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Bodily pain domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||< 0.001
95931795|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.077
95931796|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||General health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.068
95931797|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.018
95931798|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Vitality domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.053
95931799|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.002
95931800|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Social functioning domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.003
95931801|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.015
95986424|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.6|-1.8|
95931802|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Role emotional domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.154
95931803|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 12: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.024
95931804|NCT02507752|191826394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mental health domain at Week 24: The statistical hypothesis (H0) that the change is equal to 0 is evaluated using the Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)||||= 0.029
95931805|NCT00296036|191826405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.768
95931806|NCT01395758|191826480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5017
95931807|NCT01395758|191826481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4356
95931808|NCT03631550|191826484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.018
95931809|NCT03631550|191826485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0466|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0466
95931810|NCT03631550|191826486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0677
95931811|NCT03631550|191826487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95931812|NCT03631550|191826488|OTHER|||||||0.0968|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0968
95931813|NCT03631550|191826489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
95931814|NCT00028093|191826496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the outcome between the two groups||||0.54
95931815|NCT00736853|191826499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.641|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank test with the target disease as the stratification factor||||0.641|0.221|0.0001
95931816|NCT01415349|191826529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.966|
95986425|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.5||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.8|
95986426|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.8||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site (week 6) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.8|-1.9|
95986427|NCT01692275|191946506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego (week 12) - Between-group differences of mean in LBP||-0.5|-1.7|
95931817|NCT01415349|191826530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.998|
95931818|NCT06336629|191826595|SUPERIORITY||two-sided|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95931819|NCT06336629|191826596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95931820|NCT06336629|191826597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
95931821|NCT06336629|191826598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
95931822|NCT06336629|191826599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|P-value from Baseline at Week 16||||||0.037
95931823|NCT06336629|191826601|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
95931824|NCT06336629|191826602|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value from Baseline at Week 16|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||1
95931825|NCT03422276|191826605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t-test for independent samples, two-tailed, allocation ratio=1|Intervention mean minus control mean|It was calculated that 500 to 900 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have practically 100% power to detect an effect size of 0.5, and even a small sample size of 300 would have 80% power to detect a small effect size of 0.3 (800 to 900 would be 100% power).||||0.44
95931826|NCT03422276|191826606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95931827|NCT05165485|191826619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|14.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence, stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were approximated by the Kenward and Roger (1997) method.|Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|14|-61|0.22
95931828|NCT05165485|191826620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|20.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The OTE is defined as the average of the Day 30, Day 60, and Day 85 Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean differences. The null hypothesis was that the OTE Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|20|-38|
95986428|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.2|-3.1|
95931829|NCT05165485|191826621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|32.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|32|-29|
95931830|NCT05165485|191826622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|29.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|29|-40|
95931831|NCT05165485|191826623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|35.0||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Mixed Models Analysis||Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that it was nonzero.|The Revefenacin - Tiotropium Least Squares Mean Difference was estimated by fitting a repeated measures mixed model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FVC, screening FVC, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|35|-118|
95931832|NCT05165485|191826624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Logistic||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder Odds Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium responder OR was estimated by fitting a logistic regression model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|0.92|0.39|
95931833|NCT05165485|191826625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.45||The familywise type 1 error rate is controlled at 0.05 by testing the primary and secondary endpoint hypotheses in sequence and stopping after the first failure to reject the null hypothesis. Accordingly, the p-value is not shown.|Regression, Cox||The profile likelihood method was used to estimate the Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR.|The null hypothesis was that the Revefenacin / Tiotropium CompEx Event Hazard Ratio was equal to 1 and the alternative hypothesis was that it was not equal to 1.|The Revefenacin / Tiotropium HR was estimated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model which included terms for participant, treatment, 6 categorical covariates, and 3 continuous covariates: baseline FEV1, screening FEV1, and baseline PIFR. The 6 categorical covariates were reversibility to ipratropium status (reversible/not reversible), smoking status (current/former), concomitant LABA or LABA/ICS use (Yes/No), GOLD airflow category (3/4, i.e., postipratropium FEV1 % predicted \< 30%/≥ 30%), sex (woman/man), and age group (\< 65/≥ 65).|1.45|0.69|
95931834|NCT02980276|191826640|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|1.4||The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.|Risk difference||Units are %|The primary analysis, as per sample size calculation, was a two-sample comparison of reduction in the proportion of women needing insulin between treatment and control arms using an exact test for a binomial response.||1.4|-15.1|0.13
95931835|NCT02980276|191826641|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-4.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||-4.3|-21.2|0.004
95931836|NCT02980276|191826642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Median survival times could not be calculated; time to insulin initiation would be censored at delivery in \>50% of participants in treatment group.||||||0.001
95931837|NCT02980276|191826643|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio, log|0.61||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||0.86|0.43|0.005
95931838|NCT02980276|191826643|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||0.82|0.38|0.003
95931839|NCT02980276|191826644|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Unadjusted|||1.12|0.55|0.178
95986429|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||||||All sites combined (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.0|-3.0|
95986430|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.4|
95986431|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.2||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||0.2|-3.2|
95986432|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.4||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.4|-3.8|
95931840|NCT02980276|191826644|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.07||Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||1.07|0.48|0.105
95986433|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-0.2|-3.7|
95986434|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 6) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.3|
95986435|NCT01692275|191946507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - RMDQ Between-Group Differences in Disability||-1.1|-4.4|
95986436|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
95986437|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||||||All sites combined (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.6|
95986438|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
95986439|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||0.1|-0.5|
95986440|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
95986441|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.8|
95986442|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||||||San Diego site (week 6) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.2|-0.7|
95986443|NCT01692275|191946508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||||||San Diego site (week 12) - Between-Group Differences of Means in score of bothersomeness of LBP||-0.1|-0.7|
95986444|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||||||All sites combined (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-1.6|
95986445|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||||||All sites combined (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-1.6|
95986446|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.02||||||Walter Reed site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.02|-1.3|
95986447|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1||||||Walter Reed site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.1|-1.5|
95986448|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||||||Pensacola site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.7|-2.0|
95986449|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8||||||Pensacola site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.8|-2.3|
95986450|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||||||San Diego site (week 6) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-1.0|-2.3|
95986451|NCT01692275|191946509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||||||San Diego site (week 12) - NRS score for worst LBP in past 24 hours - Between-Group Differences of Mean||-0.5|-1.9|
95986452|NCT01692275|191946510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97||||||Week 6: All 3 sites combined||0.97|0.54|
95986453|NCT01692275|191946510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0||||||Week 12: All 3 sites combined||1.0|0.58|
95986454|NCT01692275|191946511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.25||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||0.25|0.13|
95986455|NCT01692275|191946511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||0.42|0.16|
95986456|NCT01692275|191946511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.33||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||0.33|0.10|
95986457|NCT01692275|191946511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||0.21|0.08|
95986458|NCT01692275|191946512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||||||All sites combined: 6 weeks||2.8|2.1|
95986459|NCT01692275|191946512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.6||||||Walter Reed site: 6 weeks||2.6|1.4|
95986460|NCT01692275|191946512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0||||||Naval Hospital Pensacola site: 6 weeks||3.0|1.6|
95931841|NCT02980276|191826645|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-9.3|0.17
95931842|NCT02980276|191826646|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference ratio to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.42|-1.99|0.003
95931843|NCT02980276|191826647|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.65|0.99
95986461|NCT01692275|191946512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7||||||Naval Medical Center San Diego site: 6 weeks||3.7|2.5|
95986462|NCT03924752|191946515|OTHER|A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different walking conditions (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed across different locomotion modes by setting the significant value to 0.05. Two independent variables were assistance type (Exo vs No Exo) and different locomotion modes.||||||0.9547||||||This presents the effect of exoskeleton assistance on the user's preferred overground walking speed across different locomotion modes.|ANOVA|||||||0.9547
95986463|NCT02012621|191946516|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|210.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||210.5|25.7|<0.0001
95986464|NCT02012621|191946517|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|30.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.9|2.3|0.0012
95986465|NCT02012621|191946518|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.7|2.6|<0.0001
95986466|NCT03817775|191946524|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95986467|NCT03817775|191946525|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95986468|NCT03817775|191946526|OTHER|||||||0.7215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7215
95986469|NCT03817775|191946527|OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5675
95986470|NCT03817775|191946528|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95986471|NCT00708123|191946534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.97||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.48||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.48|0.47|0.0265
95986472|NCT00708123|191946534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.66||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.18||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|The analysis included factors as treatment, period and subject as a random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.18|2.15|0.0017
95986473|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|-1.69||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.8||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.80|-5.19|0.3413
95986474|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|13.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||13.76|6.76|<0.0001
95986475|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.69|16.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.68|9.69|<0.0001
95986476|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|12.05||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.05|5.09|<0.0001
95986477|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|14.98||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||14.98|8.01|<0.0001
95986478|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-1.09|-8.10|0.0104
95986479|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|11.01||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.01|4.04|<0.0001
95986480|NCT00708123|191946535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|2.93||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|6.41||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.41|-0.55|0.0986
95993663|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-48||24|-50|0.3004
95857358|NCT02106390|191673120|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||"H44/76- The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the H44/76 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination."||1.10|0.71|
95931844|NCT02980276|191826648|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2|0.46|0.911
95931845|NCT02980276|191826649|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.44|0.519
95931846|NCT02980276|191826650|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.3|0.66
95931847|NCT02980276|191826651|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.85|0.8|0.367
95986481|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|196.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.89|354.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||354.60|38.89|0.0148
95986482|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|246.7||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|405.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||405.10|88.30|0.0024
95986483|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.96||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.62|107.71||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||107.71|-207.62|0.5328
95986484|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-406.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-564.0|-248.37||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||-248.37|-564.00|<0.0001
95986485|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|602.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|445.97|759.9||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||759.90|445.97|<0.0001
95986486|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|652.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.05|810.72||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||810.72|495.05|<0.0001
95931848|NCT02980276|191826651|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.87|0.8|0.359
95931849|NCT02980276|191826652|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|12.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||12.9|-13.9|1.0
95931850|NCT02980276|191826653|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.39|0.56|0.603
95986487|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|847.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|690.54|1004.55||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1004.55|690.54|<0.0001
95931851|NCT02980276|191826653|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.4|0.57|0.621
95931852|NCT02980276|191826654|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|||1.76|0.45|0.739
95931853|NCT02980276|191826654|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted|Adjusted|||1.84|0.46|0.812
95931854|NCT02980276|191826655|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted|Unadjusted|Unadjusted||6.04|0.63|0.282
95931855|NCT02980276|191826655|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.38|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted|||7.38|0.7|0.196
95931856|NCT02980276|191826656|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted||||1.01|0.27|0.058
95931857|NCT02980276|191826656|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed odds ratio to 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted||||1.02|0.27|0.061
95931858|NCT02980276|191826657|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.5|||Risk difference||Units are %|||2.5|-11.6|0.24
95931859|NCT02980276|191826657|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.81||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||Units are %|||1.12|0.59|0.24
95931860|NCT02980276|191826658|EQUIVALENCE|Regression model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-113.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.0|-24.0|||Regression, Linear|P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.||||-24|-201|0.005
95931861|NCT02980276|191826659|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.82
95931862|NCT02980276|191826660|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.02
95931863|NCT02980276|191826661|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.5|0.72
95931864|NCT02980276|191826662|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed mean difference to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.1|0.68
95931865|NCT02980276|191826663|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.8|||Regression, Logistic|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex, gestational age at birth, and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||-1.8|-12.6|0.02
95931866|NCT02980276|191826664|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.2|||Risk difference|P value derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's sex and maternal height and weight at randomization|Units are %|||-3.2|-13.7|0.003
95931867|NCT02980276|191826665|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||Risk difference|Units are %. P value derived from model adjusting for the gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.3|-1|.012
95931868|NCT02980276|191826666|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|Regression, Logistic||Units are %. P value was derived from a statistical model that adjusts for the infant's gestational age at birth, sex and maternal height and weight at randomization.|||6.5|-0.4|0.13
95931869|NCT02980276|191826667|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.0|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||9|-2.9|0.38
95931870|NCT02980276|191826668|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.3|||Risk difference||Units are %|||7.3|-2.0|0.33
95931871|NCT02980276|191826669|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.9|-2.4|0.42
95931872|NCT02980276|191826670|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||Risk difference||Units are %.|||1.1|-0.4|>0.99
95931873|NCT02980276|191826671|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2|||Risk difference||Units are %|||4.2|-1.9|0.62
95931874|NCT02980276|191826672|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Risk difference||Units are %|||1|-1|>0.99
95931875|NCT02980276|191826673|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test comparing observed risk difference to zero.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.6|||Risk difference||Units are %|||6.6|-5.1|0.9
95931876|NCT01998984|191826678|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.97||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.74||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared participant in the vehicle group."||14.74|0.60|0.18
95931877|NCT01998984|191826678|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|3.51||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.41||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel logit estimators were used for comparisons with vehicle due to absence of cleared subject in the vehicle group.~Type I error not controlled."||12.41|1.00|0.051
95993664|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||7|-10|0.6135
95986488|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|897.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|739.92|1055.08||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors treatment, period and subject as random effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1055.08|739.92|<0.0001
95986489|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|650.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|493.61|808.0||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||808.00|493.61|<0.0001
95986490|NCT00708123|191946536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|244.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.62|401.61||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparisons were pre-defined.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||401.61|87.62|0.0024
95986491|NCT02970292|191946537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0940
95986492|NCT04294901|191946583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Binary mixed effect model with patients nested in providers nested in facilities||It is pre-specified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan to assess all medication groups combined within the Intervention and Control Arms/Groups.||1.38|1.05|0.008
95986493|NCT01097746|191946638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants for optimal ≤ 1 cm||4.98|0.58|0.33
95986494|NCT01097746|191946638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|13.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||suboptimal \> 1 cm||13.34|1.05|0.04
95857359|NCT02106390|191673120|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||5/99-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the 5/99 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.45|0.74|
95857360|NCT02106390|191673120|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||NZ98/254-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the NZ98/254 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.25|0.82|
95931878|NCT01998984|191826678|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.68||P-value was adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR (relative risk) of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|Mantel Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site using Rubin's pooling methodology after log transformation of RR of each imputation. Complete clearance relative to vehicle group and 2-day group.|"Treatment comparison based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.~Type I error not controlled. Mantel-Haenszel estimators were used."||1.68|0.13|0.25
95931879|NCT01998984|191826679|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.51||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.51|0.32|<0.001
95931880|NCT01998984|191826679|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||0.45|0.29|<0.001
95931881|NCT01998984|191826679|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted mean|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||P-value was from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|Negative binomial regression||Estimation parameter and confidence interval were from negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset with 1000 Imputations.|||1.14|0.70|0.36
95986495|NCT00930761|191946681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.06||95.0|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the infant hospital discharge and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.51|0.99|0.06
95986496|NCT00930761|191946682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.13||95.0|0.73|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|0.73|0.13
95993665|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||2|-15|0.1127
95986497|NCT00930761|191946683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.03||95.0|1.01|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Music therapy does not increase the rate of maternal breastfeeding. Sample size: considering 75% as the expected rate at the time of the first follow-up visit and an absolute difference of 30% between groups, 95% confidence level (5% alpha error) and 80% power (20% beta error), 94 subjects would need to be enrolled (47 in each study arm). Expecting a 7.5% loss after randomization, 101 was the total number of subjects considered necessary to conduct the study.||1.57|1.01|0.03
95986498|NCT00930761|191946684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.09||95.0|0.95|1.71|||Chi-squared|||||1.71|0.95|0.09
95986499|NCT03699007|191946691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95986500|NCT03699007|191946692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95986501|NCT00401375|191946736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4259||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.4259
95986502|NCT00401375|191946736|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.3575||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparisons were made at the overall α=0.05 level (2-sided) using a closed sequential procedure. Placebo and MNTX 24 mg groups were compared first.||||0.3575
95986503|NCT00533442|191946751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Kidney (logrank test).||||0.01
95931882|NCT01998984|191826680|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|236.8||P value adjusted for analysis site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||236.8|4.39|<0.001
95931883|NCT01998984|191826680|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|25.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|187.4||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||187.4|3.39|0.002
95931884|NCT01998984|191826680|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.65||Adjusted for analysis site. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to 2-day group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and confidence interval were adjusted for analysis site and were Mantel-Haenszel estimators. Relative risk of partial clearance relative to vehicle group.|The treatment comparison was based on 1000 imputations of AK count at week 8 using a negative binomial regression model with factors treatment and analysis site and with log of baseline AK count as offset.||1.65|0.86|0.28
95931885|NCT04188379|191826681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.884||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|43.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.591|1.007|0.0316
95931886|NCT04188379|191826682|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.000|0.000|0.0009
95986504|NCT00533442|191946751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Biopsy-Proven Acute Rejection of the Pancreas (logrank test).||||0.01
95931887|NCT04188379|191826683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|26.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.268|1.268|0.0108
95931888|NCT04188379|191826684|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.958||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.41|||Wald Test|||||1.41|0.651|0.8287
95931889|NCT04188379|191826685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.354||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|22.865|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.865|1.0480|0.0265
95931890|NCT03112174|191826690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.85||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.850|0.465|0.0024
95986505|NCT00533442|191946751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Kidney Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.16
95986506|NCT00533442|191946751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Censored Pancreas Graft Failure (logrank test).||||0.12
95986507|NCT00533442|191946751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Log Rank|||Death-Uncensored (Kidney \& Pancreas) Graft Survival (logrank test).||||0.96
95986508|NCT00533442|191946751|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Patient Death (logrank test).|Log Rank|||||||>0.99
95986509|NCT00533442|191946752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.21
95986510|NCT00533442|191946752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.71
95986511|NCT00533442|191946752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean eGFR at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.33
95986512|NCT00533442|191946753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 12 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||.47
95986513|NCT00533442|191946753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 36 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.97
95986514|NCT00533442|191946753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Mean Log {C-Peptide Level} at 60 Months Post-Transplant (t-test).||||0.75
95986515|NCT00677014|191946754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|As LVESV values were non normal by Q-Q analysis and Shapiro-Wilk test (p\<.05), a square root transform was used. model adjusted for baseline LVESV.||Gate keeping strategy utilized for Type 1 error control described in design paper - negative results observed for initial comparisons - (each at alpha = .05) between fixed and algorithm optimized AV delay and fixed and Echo optimzied AV. Results from both of these comparisons were non-significant.||||.66
95986516|NCT02374099|191946782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard models.|1.42|0.54|= 0.599
95986517|NCT02374099|191946783|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3|||=|0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|15.06|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ORR was estimated by the Wilson method.|15.06|-2.47|= 0.1479
95986518|NCT02374099|191946784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|0.7|||=|0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|19.04|||Fisher Exact||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in clinical benefit rate was estimated by the Wilson method.|19.04|-17.76|= 0.1732
95986519|NCT02374099|191946785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.53|||Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and associated two-sided 95% CI were estimated by the Cox proportional hazard model.|1.53|0.23|= 0.2725
95986520|NCT02572752|191946804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.545|100.502|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.502|94.545|<0.0001
95931891|NCT03112174|191826696|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.658||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.218||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||2.218|1.240|0.0004
95986521|NCT02572752|191946805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.948|103.463|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed.||103.463|90.948|<0.0001
95931892|NCT03112174|191826697|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.101||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.247||Estimate and p-value for rate ratio are based on CMH test adjusted for two randomization stratification factors: number of prior lines of therapy (1-2 vs \>=3) and TLS category (low risk vs increased risk) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibrutinib + Venetoclax arm and denominator is Ibrutinib + Placebo arm.|||1.247|0.973|0.1279
95931893|NCT03112174|191826698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bone marrow aspirate||||0.2028
95931894|NCT03112174|191826698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Fisher Exact|||Peripheral blood||||0.0014
95931895|NCT03112174|191826699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.151||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.151|0.602|0.2669
95931896|NCT03112174|191826701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.792||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.792|0.369|0.0013
95931897|NCT03112174|191826716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.554||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.554|0.879|0.2861
95931898|NCT04425629|191826722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|= 0.0006
95931899|NCT04425629|191826722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.56|< 0.0001
95931900|NCT04425629|191826723|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0024
95931901|NCT04425629|191826724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
95931902|NCT04425629|191826730|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.1903
95931903|NCT04425629|191826730|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.8431
95931904|NCT04425629|191826786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.12||||||||16.12|0.06|
95931905|NCT04425629|191826787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13||||||||3.13|0.03|
95931906|NCT01149369|191826810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values, relative risk ratios, and 95% confidence limits (CI) for the primary ITT were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinic.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||Either 1) improvement in mean of available nausea VAS scores over 28-day treatment period compared to means of VAS during the 7-day baseline (BL) period being ≤ -25 mm, or 2) mean VAS after 28-days of treatment was \< 25 mm.||1.7|0.8|0.43
95931907|NCT01149369|191826811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.03
95931908|NCT01149369|191826812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.94
95931909|NCT01149369|191826813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.73
95931910|NCT01149369|191826814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
95931911|NCT01149369|191826815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.06
95986522|NCT02572752|191946806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||gMean Ratio|97.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.223|100.166|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the gMean of nin Test treatment (T) divided by nin Reference treatment (R1 \& R2). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment (without differentiation between R1 and R2). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. For the two 1-sided t-test procedure, the effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered to be random, whereas the other effects were considered to be fixed||100.166|94.223|<0.0001
95986523|NCT00159861|191946824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.132||||||1 Year: Proportion of participants who died.||0.132|0.059|
95986524|NCT00159861|191946824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.243||||||2 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.243|0.144|
95931912|NCT01149369|191826816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.24
95931913|NCT01149369|191826817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.01
95931914|NCT01149369|191826818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.22
95931915|NCT01149369|191826819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.51
95931916|NCT01149369|191826820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.12
95931917|NCT01149369|191826821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.02
95931918|NCT01149369|191826822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.17
95931919|NCT01149369|191826823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.2|||ANCOVA|||||12.2|-7.0|0.59
95931920|NCT01149369|191826824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|-5.9|0.61
95931921|NCT01149369|191826825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.23
95986525|NCT00159861|191946824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.315||||||3 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.315|0.205|
95931922|NCT01149369|191826826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.97
95931923|NCT01149369|191826827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|24.2|||ANCOVA|||||24.2|-18.0|0.77
95931924|NCT01149369|191826828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.46
95931925|NCT01149369|191826829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.2|0.44
95986526|NCT00159861|191946824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.348||||||4 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.348|0.234|
95931926|NCT01149369|191826830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.77
95986527|NCT00159861|191946824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.437||||||5 Years: Proportion of participants who died.||0.437|0.302|
95993666|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB-100||4|-14|0.2576
95986528|NCT03099187|191946832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-134.6||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-772.4|503.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Analysis in 2019. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||503.3|-772.4|0.6777
95986529|NCT03099187|191946832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Group Means|-216.0||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.6|371.7||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and is provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020. Mean FVC decline comparison between treatment groups using a Student's t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05||371.7|-803.6|0.4682
95986530|NCT03099187|191946833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0383
95986531|NCT03099187|191946833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239|||||||rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0239
95986532|NCT03099187|191946834|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|95.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|154.6||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Primary Analysis in 2019||154.6|35.9|0.0018
95931927|NCT01149369|191826831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.80
95931928|NCT01149369|191826832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.88
95931929|NCT01149369|191826833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-26.5|0.17
95931930|NCT01149369|191826834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.5|0.07
95931931|NCT01149369|191826835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.7|0.53
95931932|NCT01149369|191826836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.9|0.93
95931933|NCT01149369|191826837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.52
95931934|NCT01149369|191826838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.1|0.76
95931935|NCT01149369|191826839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.0|0.45
95931936|NCT01149369|191826840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|0.0|0.18
95931937|NCT01149369|191826841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0|-0.2|0.008
95931938|NCT01149369|191826842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.9|0.001
95931939|NCT01149369|191826843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
95931940|NCT01149369|191826844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.13
95986533|NCT03099187|191946834|SUPERIORITY||Overall Mean Difference|84.3||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|147.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Student's t-test|||Final Analysis in 2020||147.8|20.7|0.0096
95986534|NCT03099187|191946835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.69|0.25|0.0006
95986535|NCT03099187|191946835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.71|0.26|0.0009
95986536|NCT03099187|191946836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Primary Analysis in 2019||0.84|0.23|0.0114
95986537|NCT03099187|191946836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final Analysis in 2020||0.88|0.24|0.0168
95986538|NCT03099187|191946837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0874||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0874
95986539|NCT03099187|191946837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191||||||p-values are not adjusted for multiplicity and are provided for descriptive purpose only.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.1191
95986540|NCT03099187|191946838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0395||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Primary Analysis in 2019||||0.0395
95986541|NCT03099187|191946838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0299||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||||0.0299
95986542|NCT03099187|191946839|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||5.00|-5.00|0.7788
95986543|NCT03099187|191946839|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.0||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||5.00|-5.00|0.8289
95733936|NCT00377260|191439139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of culture results with Streptococcus pyogenes present.||||.98
95931941|NCT01149369|191826845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
95931942|NCT01149369|191826846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
95931943|NCT01149369|191826847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.007
95931944|NCT01149369|191826848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.005
95931945|NCT01149369|191826849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.001
95986544|NCT03099187|191946840|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median difference|0.29||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.04||p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and was provided for descriptive purpose only|rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.04|-0.45|0.1872
95986545|NCT03099187|191946840|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|0.27||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.02||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.02|-0.48|0.2019
95986546|NCT03099187|191946841|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||4.00|-10.00|0.2995
95986547|NCT03099187|191946841|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-2.0||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||4.00|-10.00|0.3372
95986548|NCT03099187|191946842|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.86||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.38|||rank ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.38|-5.06|0.1630
95986549|NCT03099187|191946842|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|-1.74||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.55||Analysis of Covariance Changes from baseline to week 24 or early discontinuation visit are compared between the treatment arms using a rank ANCOVA with change from baseline as outcome variable and standardized rank baseline value as covariate.|rank ANCOVA|||Final Analysis in 2020||1.55|-5.00|0.1851
95986550|NCT03099187|191946843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.49|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.49|0.59|0.5922
95986551|NCT03099187|191946843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.83|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Primary Analysis in 2019. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||2.83|0.26|0.8057
95986552|NCT03099187|191946843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.73|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models|Final Analysis in 2020. All-cause non-elective hospitalization.||2.73|0.63|0.4613
95931946|NCT01149369|191826850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.3|0.003
95931947|NCT01149369|191826851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.03
95931948|NCT01149369|191826852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.16
95931949|NCT01149369|191826853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.05
95931950|NCT01149369|191826854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.72
95931951|NCT01149369|191826855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.001
95931952|NCT01149369|191826856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.04
95931953|NCT01149369|191826857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.14
95931954|NCT01149369|191826858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.07
95931955|NCT01149369|191826859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.19
95931956|NCT01149369|191826860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.9|0.04
95931957|NCT01149369|191826861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
95931958|NCT01149369|191826862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
95931959|NCT01149369|191826863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.09
95931960|NCT01149369|191826864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-7|0.17
95931961|NCT01149369|191826865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.1|0.009
95931962|NCT01149369|191826866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
95931963|NCT01149369|191826867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|0.10
95931964|NCT01149369|191826868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.13
95931965|NCT01149369|191826869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.98
95986553|NCT03099187|191946843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.59|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.|Hazard ratios and corresponding 95% CI are calculated by applying Cox-proportional hazard models.|Final Analysis in 2020. Respiratory non-elective hospitalization.||3.59|0.30|0.9523
95986554|NCT03099187|191946845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.78|||Log Rank|||||2.78|0.26|0.7871
95986555|NCT03099187|191946846|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.24|0.56|0.3660
95986556|NCT03099187|191946846|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.26|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.26|0.57|0.4173
95931966|NCT01149369|191826870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.007
95931967|NCT01149369|191826871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.9|0.06
95931968|NCT01149369|191826872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
95986557|NCT03099187|191946847|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Primary Analysis in 2019||1.20|0.52|0.2726
95986558|NCT03099187|191946847|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||Final Analysis in 2020||1.24|0.54|0.3386
95986559|NCT03099187|191946848|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||16.08|0.06|0.9969
95986560|NCT03099187|191946849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3231|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank tests based on the time to the first event are to compare the two treatment arms.||||||0.3231
95986561|NCT02701387|191946883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"A 2-factor (implant type x time interval) nonparametric analysis for longitudinal data (Brunner et al. 2002) was used to compare test and control implants across time (baseline + four intervals). The R package nparLD was used (Noguchi et al. 2012)."|nonparametric for longitudinal|||Comparison of ISQ over time. Due to the high number of intervals (T0-T8) relative to the number of observations, data were combined for analysis purposes into 5 comparable intervals as follows: Baseline (T0, unchanged); Tr1=Average of follow-up weeks T1 and T2, Tr2=Average of follow-up weeks T3 and T4; Tr3=Average of follow-up weeks T5 and T6; Tr4=Average of follow-up weeks T7 and T8||||<0.01
95986562|NCT00894556|191946896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
95986563|NCT00894556|191946897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLIMMIX)|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within patient.||||||<0.001
95986564|NCT04869345|191946899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05.|Boschloo Test||Maximum likelihood estimate of the Odds Ratio comparing retention rate in LARKSPUR group to Attention Control group|||3.05|0.13|.684
95986565|NCT04869345|191946902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) degrees of freedom method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.27|-2.80|0.835
95986566|NCT04869345|191946902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.00|-2.12|0.732
95993667|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-16.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-16|-52|0.0017
95931969|NCT01149369|191826873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.28
95931970|NCT01149369|191826874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.05
95993668|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-45|-68|<0.0001
95733937|NCT00377260|191439140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children colonized with penicillin-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae.||||.04
95857361|NCT02106390|191673120|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ is \> 0.5 for all serogroup B indicator strains.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||M10713-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + MenACWY versus rMenB+OMV NZ) was performed for the M10713 serogroup B indicator strain,at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.40|0.77|
95931971|NCT01149369|191826875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.08
95931972|NCT01149369|191826876|SUPERIORITY|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.1|0.53
95733938|NCT00377260|191439141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the on-therapy visit.||||.03
95931973|NCT01149369|191826877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.3|0.38
95931974|NCT01149369|191826878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.7|0.09
95931975|NCT01149369|191826879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-5.2|0.28
95931976|NCT01149369|191826880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.30
95931977|NCT01149369|191826881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.5|28.1|||ANCOVA|||||28.1|-70.5|0.40
95931978|NCT01149369|191826882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-12.0|0.28
95931979|NCT01149369|191826883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-4.1|0.47
95931980|NCT01149369|191826884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-4.5|0.68
95931981|NCT01149369|191826885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-3.6|0.48
95931982|NCT01149369|191826886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-2.2|0.43
95931983|NCT01149369|191826887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-8.5|0.01
95931984|NCT01149369|191826888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-3.4|0.57
95931985|NCT01149369|191826889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean adjusted change from baseline, 95% confidence limits (CI), and P-values were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 28 days on treatment group and baseline value of the secondary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-2.6|0.34
95986567|NCT04869345|191946902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.47||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.47|-2.05|0.609
95986568|NCT04869345|191946903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.31|-2.97|0.445
95986569|NCT04869345|191946903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.54|-0.78|0.209
95986570|NCT04869345|191946903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|4.54||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Interference scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||4.54|-0.12|0.063
95857362|NCT02106390|191673121|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.11|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup A-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for serogroup A at one month after the fourth vaccination.||3.11|1.97|
95931986|NCT01305252|191826892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95931987|NCT01305252|191826892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95931988|NCT01305252|191826895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95931989|NCT01305252|191826895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95986571|NCT04869345|191946904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.13|-1.63|0.792
95931990|NCT03628885|191826897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.02
95931991|NCT03628885|191826897|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.07||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||||||=.07
95931992|NCT03628885|191826897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05|ANOVA|||Adjusted for mother's educational level, which differed across groups. A priori threshold for statistical significance = P\<.05||||<.01
95931993|NCT04723394|191826911|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|50.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|71.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||71.25|14.38|0.010
95931994|NCT04723394|191826912|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (100*[1-RR])|49.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|69.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by randomization factors||AZD7442 vs Placebo||69.79|14.72|0.009
95931995|NCT02706717|191826941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-51.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.0|143.9|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||143.9|-246|0.60
95931996|NCT02706717|191826947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.17|-0.09|0.51
95931997|NCT02706717|191826948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance|"The estimation parameter is the percent difference between the geometric mean fold changes.~With d-dimer data log10 transformed, this is (exp(Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean) - 1)\*100."|||71.0|-3.6|0.09
95986572|NCT04869345|191946904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Physical Functioning scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.09|-0.69|0.209
95986573|NCT04869345|191946904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.26||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||2.26|-0.35|0.151
95986574|NCT04869345|191946905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.69||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||3.69|-2.14|0.601
95986575|NCT04869345|191946905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||1.29|-4.60|0.269
95986576|NCT04869345|191946905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS Fatigue scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.61|-5.47|0.116
95986577|NCT04869345|191946906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.22|-0.10|0.479
95795059|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19A (Group 5 vs 1)||0.95|0.65|
95986578|NCT04869345|191946906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.29|-0.04|0.126
95993669|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-29.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoCIII||-29|-61|<0.0001
95993670|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-11.0||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-2|-20|0.0193
95727932|NCT02277769|191425538|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|34.69||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.69|20.46|< 0.0001
95986579|NCT04869345|191946906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline CESD-R-10 scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.25|-0.12|0.457
95986580|NCT04869345|191946907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.38|-0.15|0.389
95986581|NCT04869345|191946907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.46|-0.07|0.157
95986582|NCT04869345|191946907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.36||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline mDES scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.36|-0.21|0.593
95986583|NCT04869345|191946908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.24|-0.26|0.933
95986584|NCT04869345|191946908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|-0.19|0.642
95986585|NCT04869345|191946908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PANAS-GEN scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.32|-0.18|0.577
95986586|NCT04869345|191946909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.13|-0.32|0.403
95733939|NCT00377260|191439142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the probability of middle ear effusion at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.006
95733940|NCT00377260|191439143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||The analysis was ITT. The number of participants equals the number of children for which at least one ear has an interpretable tympanogram at the follow-up visit.||||.04
95795060|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 19F (Group 5 vs 1)||1.02|0.72|
95931998|NCT02706717|191826951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.5|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||28.2|-93.5|0.29
95931999|NCT02706717|191826952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Visbiome ES mean minus placebo mean.|||0.04|-0.08|0.41
95932000|NCT02706717|191826969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
95932001|NCT00444600|191826971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-32.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-32|-78|<0.001
95932002|NCT00444600|191826971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-26|-72|<0.001
95932003|NCT00444600|191826971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in mean change|-52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|-29.0||Confidence interval is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between two study eyes.||Difference in optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness mean change from sham+prompt laser||-29|-75|<0.001
95932004|NCT00444600|191826973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.5||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.5|3.2|<0.001
95932005|NCT00444600|191826973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||8.6|3.4|<0.001
95932006|NCT00444600|191826973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||||3.7|-1.5|0.31
95932007|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|34.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement for sham+prompt laser at 1 year||34|13|
95795061|NCT03620162|191560139|OTHER|GMC ratio and CI are estimated from a serotype-specific ANCOVA model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentration as the response and vaccination group and stratification factor as covariates.|GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||||||GMC Ratio: Serotype 23F (Group 5 vs 1)||0.91|0.59|
95932008|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||29|9|
95932009|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Binomial regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||16|-4|
95932010|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.42||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.42|1.40|<0.001
95932011|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.21||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.21|1.27|<0.001
95932012|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.66||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.|Eyes were analyzed.|Relative risk for ≥10 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.66|0.88|0.16
95932013|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-5|-16|
95932014|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-4|-16|
95932015|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥10 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||9|-7|
95932016|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.65|0.09|<0.001
95932017|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.68||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.68|0.08|0.001
95733941|NCT00377260|191439144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to primary care provider.||||.20
95733942|NCT00377260|191439145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding visits to emergency room||||.90
95733943|NCT00377260|191439146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1.||||.14
95733944|NCT00377260|191439147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.|The Amoxicillin-Clavulanate arm represents the numerator and the Placebo arm represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to resolution of symptoms where resolution is defined as AOM-SOS score \<=1 on two consecutive occasions.||||.04
95733945|NCT00377260|191439148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the number of antibiotic prescriptions, exclusive of the blinded study medication.||||<.001
95733946|NCT00377260|191439149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported missing work, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.93
95733947|NCT00377260|191439150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equations|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the visits at which family member reported making special daycare arrangements, i.e. number of such visits / total number of follow-up assessment visits.||||.66
95733948|NCT00377260|191439151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the on-therapy visit.||||.71
95733949|NCT00377260|191439152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the end-of-therapy visit.||||.04
95733950|NCT00377260|191439153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the groups regarding the mean parental satisfaction score at the follow-visit visit.||||.005
95733951|NCT00377260|191439154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|The comparison was adjusted for site, history of recurrent acute otitis media and exposure to other children.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment groups regarding the mean weighted average acute otitis media - severity of symptom (AOM-SOS) score (symptom burden), post-enrollment, over the first 7 days of therapy.||||.01
95733952|NCT01212874|191439169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95932018|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥10 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||1.87|0.62|0.75
95932019|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between to study eyes.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||26|6|
95733953|NCT01212874|191439170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95733954|NCT04006171|191439179|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95733955|NCT04006171|191439180|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Roc curve|||||||0.004
95733956|NCT04006171|191439181|OTHER|||||||0.171||||||p value for FSH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for FSH||||||0.171
95733957|NCT04006171|191439181|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p value for LH|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for LH||||||0.176
95733958|NCT04006171|191439182|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
95733959|NCT04006171|191439183|OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.795
95733960|NCT04006171|191439184|OTHER|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
95733961|NCT04006171|191439185|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95733962|NCT04006171|191439186|OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
95733963|NCT04006171|191439187|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95733964|NCT04006171|191439188|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95733965|NCT04006171|191439189|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95733966|NCT04006171|191439190|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95733967|NCT04006171|191439191|OTHER|||||||0.947||||||for serum glucose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for serum glucose||||||0.947
95733968|NCT04006171|191439191|OTHER|||||||0.906||||||for total cholesterol|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for total cholesterol||||||0.906
95733969|NCT04006171|191439191|OTHER|||||||0.428||||||for triglycerides|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for triglycerides||||||0.428
95733970|NCT04006171|191439192|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||for high density lipoprotein|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
95733971|NCT04006171|191439192|OTHER|||||||0.504||||||for low density lipoprotein|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|for low density lipoprotein||||||0.504
95733972|NCT04006171|191439193|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
95733973|NCT04006171|191439194|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.886
95733974|NCT02087904|191439195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.53||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.53|-3.13|0.834
95733975|NCT02087904|191439195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-5.73|0.05
95733976|NCT02087904|191439195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.66|-4.00|0.415
95733977|NCT02087904|191439196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.141||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.141|-0.021|0.145
95932020|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|22.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||22|4|
95932021|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter improvement from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||15|-2|
95932022|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||3.22|1.35|<0.001
95932023|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.87||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.87|1.25|<0.001
95932024|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter improvement comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.29|0.90|0.07
95932025|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-2|-11|
95932026|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||-1|-10|
95986587|NCT04869345|191946909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference compares the LARKSPUR intervention minus the Attention Control.|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) at Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PROMIS PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.01|-0.44|0.062
95932027|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Difference in proportion with ≥15 letter worsening from sham+prompt laser at 1 year||6|-6|
95932028|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.87|0.05|0.009
95932029|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.97|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||0.97|0.08|0.01
95733978|NCT02087904|191439196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.056||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.11|0.52
95733979|NCT02087904|191439196|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.139||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|-0.023|0.159
95932030|NCT00444600|191826974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.2|||Log-Binomial Regression|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for ≥15 letter worsening comparison with sham+prompt laser at 1 year||2.20|0.47|0.95
95932031|NCT00444600|191826975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.64||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.64|1.52|<0.001
95932032|NCT00444600|191826975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.13||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.13|1.13|0.001
95932033|NCT00444600|191826975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.36||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 study eyes and multiple comparisons.||Relative risk for comparison with sham+prompt laser||2.36|1.31|<0.001
95932034|NCT00444600|191826985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.08
95932035|NCT00444600|191826985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
95932036|NCT00444600|191826986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.03
95932037|NCT00444600|191826986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||GEE repeated measures|||P value for comparison with sham||||0.17
95932038|NCT00444600|191826990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.44||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.44|-1.01|<0.001
95932039|NCT00444600|191826990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.41||Confidence intervals adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.41|-0.96|<0.001
95932040|NCT00444600|191826990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||Confidence intervals are adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal volume, OCT retinal thickness and visual acuity and correlation between 2 study eyes.||Difference in mean change from sham+prompt laser||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
95932041|NCT00106080|191826992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between groups after adjust|5.7||||0.03||||||No multiple comparisons, a priori threshold \< 0.05|GEE regression|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression, clustering for provider.||Power calculation: With 60 providers in each group, maintaining the probability of a type I error of 0.05, power of 0.90, provider level mean QOC score of 54.5 and provider level standard deviation in QOC score of 12.0, the minimal detectable difference in QOC score would be 7.5.||||0.03
95932042|NCT03926039|191827030|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Both group of average difference (95% CI) in intervention group and control group||||0.05
95932043|NCT01102231|191827070|OTHER||Proportion difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.964||||||||0.964|0.846|
95932044|NCT01195883|191827077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||GEE model|||||1.23|0.65|0.51
95932045|NCT01195883|191827078|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.81|0.42
95932046|NCT01195883|191827079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.72|0.26
95932047|NCT01195883|191827080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||Chi-squared|||||2.58|0.69|0.40
95727933|NCT02277769|191425538|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.87|34.99||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.99|20.87|< 0.0001
95932048|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 4 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
95932049|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.041
95932050|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.008
95932051|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
95932052|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.01
95932053|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
95932054|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.091
95932055|NCT00396084|191827113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolones arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.354
95932056|NCT00396084|191827117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.05
95727934|NCT02277769|191425539|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.75|39.94||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||39.94|24.75|< 0.0001
95727935|NCT02277769|191425539|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|43.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||43.81|28.69|< 0.0001
95733980|NCT02087904|191439197|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.193|3.642||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.642|-3.193|0.897
95733981|NCT02087904|191439197|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|2.377||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.377|-4.515|0.542
95733982|NCT02087904|191439197|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|1.916||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 dose group and Placebo at each post-baseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.916|-4.95|0.385
95733983|NCT02087904|191439198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.096||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.249|0.384
95733984|NCT02087904|191439198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.324|0.095
95733985|NCT02087904|191439198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.314|0.106
95733986|NCT02087904|191439199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|8.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||8.08|-10.22|0.818
95857363|NCT02106390|191673121|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup C-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup C at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.38|0.83|
95932057|NCT00396084|191827117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against gatifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.01
95932058|NCT00396084|191827117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against moxifloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.02
95932059|NCT00396084|191827117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against levofloxacin using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||0.14
95932060|NCT00396084|191827118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 2 to 7 for the 4 treatment groups were compared.||||0.51
95932061|NCT00396084|191827118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 4 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.16
95932062|NCT00396084|191827118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for patients in the 3 fluoroquinolone groups were pooled and compared to bactericidal activity of patients in the INH arm.||||0.036
95932063|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean adjusted aAUC for all 3 treatment groups over the 7 days of study drug administration||||<0.001
95733987|NCT02087904|191439199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|1.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.69|-16.83|0.109
95733988|NCT02087904|191439199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|5.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.76|-12.58|0.465
95733989|NCT02087904|191439200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|7.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-11.76|0.666
95932064|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.023
95932065|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.018
95932066|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.03
95932067|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 4. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.012
95932068|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 5. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
95932069|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 6. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.003
95733990|NCT02087904|191439200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-18.95|0.065
95733991|NCT02087904|191439200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|2.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.49|-16.84|0.145
95733992|NCT02087904|191439201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|7.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||7.59|-14.03|0.558
95733993|NCT02087904|191439201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|5.11||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.11|-16.77|0.295
95733994|NCT02087904|191439201|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|4.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.04|-17.63|0.218
95733995|NCT02087904|191439202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.28|-3.58|0.664
95733996|NCT02087904|191439202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.28||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-5.67|0.075
95733997|NCT02087904|191439202|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.52||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-5.33|0.107
95733998|NCT02087904|191439203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.08|-4.26|0.5
95932070|NCT00396084|191827119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7. Pooled sputum bacillary load data for patients in the linezolid arms were combined and compared to that of patients in the INH arm.||||0.004
95733999|NCT02087904|191439203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.05||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-5.39|0.186
95734000|NCT02087904|191439203|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-5.46|0.157
95734001|NCT02087904|191439204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.23|0.319
95734002|NCT02087904|191439204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.6|0.564
95795062|NCT02855268|191560167|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|6.48||Threshold of significance was 1-sided \<0.025.|Linear mixed effect model|||Annualized rate of change in eGFR during the placebo-controlled treatment period was compared between lademirsen and placebo using a random coefficient linear mixed effect model which included time as a continuous variable.||6.48|-6.92|0.9472
95734003|NCT02087904|191439204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.45|0.966
95734004|NCT02087904|191439205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.41|0.602
95795063|NCT05033041|191560217|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is based on an equivalence hypothesis of -17mL \<difference in differences \< 17mL.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of the means using two one-sided t tests (TOST)||||.001
95795064|NCT02326064|191560242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
95795065|NCT02326064|191560243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mac-Nemar paired Chi-2 test|||||||<0.001
95795066|NCT00111761|191560244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|9.8|46.7||||||||46.7|9.8|
95795067|NCT00111761|191560245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0||||||95.0|34.0|80.0||||||||80|34|
95795068|NCT00111761|191560246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|33.3||||||95.0|15.6|55.3||||||||55.3|15.6|
95795069|NCT00111761|191560251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.4||||||95.0|24.4|71.1||||||||71.1|24.4|
95932071|NCT00396084|191827120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values of EBA Days 0 to 2 for the 3 treatments groups were compared.||||<0.01
95932072|NCT00396084|191827120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two way comparison of INH against Linezolid once daily using a simultaneous non-parametric procedure.||||<0.01
95734005|NCT02087904|191439205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.55|0.953
95734006|NCT02087904|191439205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.61|0.83
95734007|NCT02087904|191439206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.33||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.33|-4.91|0.804
95734008|NCT02087904|191439206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.63||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.63|-6.9|0.699
95734009|NCT02087904|191439206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|7.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||7.14|-4.37|0.636
95734010|NCT02087904|191439206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||6.76|-4.91|0.756
95734011|NCT02087904|191439206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|0.42||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||0.42|-11.55|0.068
95734012|NCT02087904|191439206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|4.58||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.58|-7.34|0.649
95734013|NCT02087904|191439207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.14||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||5.14|-7.14|0.75
95734014|NCT02087904|191439207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|3.6||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.6|-8.82|0.409
95857364|NCT02106390|191673121|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.74|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup W-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup W-135 at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.74|1.04|
95932073|NCT00396084|191827120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean EBA 0-2 of INH was compared to pooled Linezolid once daily and Linezolid twice daily results.||||<0.01
95932074|NCT00396084|191827123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Mean values EBA Days 2-7 for the 3 treatment groups were compared.||||0.25
95734015|NCT02087904|191439207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|3.18||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.18|-9.24|0.338
95734016|NCT02087904|191439207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|7.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||7.08|-5.59|0.817
95734017|NCT02087904|191439207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.43||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||4.43|-8.37|0.544
95734018|NCT02087904|191439207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.86||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||3.86|-8.91|0.437
95734019|NCT02087904|191439208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|4.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||4.92|-9.31|0.545
95932075|NCT00396084|191827123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||The rate of fall in sputum cfu for the 3 treatment groups between day 2 and day 7 of monotherapy was estimated by the slope of the linear regression obtained from fitting the 6 sputum cfu values corresponding to days 2 through 7.||||0.42
95932076|NCT00396084|191827123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EBA Days 2-7 for INH was compared to that of the pooled linezolid arms.||||0.14
95932077|NCT00311363|191827134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.353||||0.0158||95.0|0.2|0.8||Model included terms for treatment group, randomization IRLS score (Week 24), and pooled study site|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8|0.2|0.0158
95734020|NCT02087904|191439208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|6.81||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||6.81|-7.65|0.909
95734021|NCT02087904|191439208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|3.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Intermittent pain||3.25|-11.23|0.278
95734022|NCT02087904|191439208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.92||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||5.92|-8.42|0.732
95932078|NCT00475501|191827224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|18.0||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference is for subjects reveiving testosterone (groups T and T/F) vs. subjects not receiving testosterone (F and Placebo)|The studies was powered for 1-RM strength based on a 1.18-alpha increase reported in the literature||18.0|7.86|<0.001
95932079|NCT00475501|191827225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on grip strength. We employed 2x2 analysis to determine effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||1.31|0.16|0.015
95932080|NCT00475501|191827226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.43||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered on lumbar spine bone mineral density. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects ot testosterone, finasteride and interaction||6.43|1.95|<0.001
95932081|NCT00475501|191827227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.064||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study is was not powered for score on Geriatric Depression Scale||-0.064|-1.41|0.037
95932082|NCT00475501|191827228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.04||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for 30-minute recall on Rey figure test||5.04|0.699|0.012
95932083|NCT00475501|191827229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.272||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.095|3.811||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Trials A test||3.811|-5.095|0.779
95932084|NCT00475501|191827230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|2.043||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Benton test||2.043|-0.869|0.433
95932085|NCT00475501|191827231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.18||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study was powered for hematocrit based on literature report that testosterone \> 2 alpha increase in hematocrit||5.18|3.07|<0.001
95932086|NCT00475501|191827232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2529||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|6.37||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for dietary protein intake||6.37|-0.353|0.6219
95932087|NCT00475501|191827233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.94||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was powered for prostate volume based on a literature report that testosterone increases prostate volume 1.85 alpha per year. We employed a 2x2 analysis for effects of testosterone, finasteride and interaction.||8.94|1.73|0.0051
95932088|NCT00475501|191827234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.434|1.698||The difference in means and p value are for 12 months (using data from all time points to make the calculation). We tested the effect of testosterone (\[T-placebo plus T-finasteride\] vs. \[vehicle-placebo plus vehicle-finasteride\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was not powered for score on Lif Satisfaction A test||1.698|-3.434|0.196
95993671|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-19|-33|<0.0001
95993672|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoAI||-4|-23|0.0063
95734023|NCT02087904|191439208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|2.69||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||2.69|-11.86|0.216
95734024|NCT02087904|191439208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Constant pain||-1.88|-16.42|0.014
95734025|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.66|-0.56|0.874
95734026|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.38|-0.86|0.451
95734027|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.93|-0.31|0.331
95734028|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-0.73|0.932
95734029|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.37||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.37|-1.07|0.344
95734030|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.97||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.97|-0.47|0.489
95734031|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.85||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.85|-0.42|0.498
95734032|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.49|-0.8|0.637
95734033|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.94||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.94|-0.35|0.367
95734034|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.51|0.67
95795070|NCT01991795|191560270|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.81|0.0378
95734035|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.76|0.776
95734036|NCT02087904|191439209|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.96||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.96|-0.37|0.387
95734037|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.54||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.54|-0.86|0.661
95734038|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.15||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.15|-1.26|0.122
95734039|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.47|-0.94|0.507
95734040|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.74||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.74|-0.85|0.892
95932089|NCT02918071|191827257|OTHER||percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|99.46|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12)|||99.46|92.63|
95986588|NCT04869345|191946909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and two time points (Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction adjusting for baseline PSS scores. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.09|-0.33|0.269
95986589|NCT04869345|191946910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.33|0.07|0.003
95986590|NCT04869345|191946910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.31|0.05|0.006
95986591|NCT04869345|191946910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.12|-0.15|0.796
95986592|NCT04869345|191946911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 11 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 11 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 11 (Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.05|-0.03|0.758
95986593|NCT04869345|191946911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Baseline) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Baseline).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Baseline to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.04|-0.04|0.880
95993673|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-2.0||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||23|-21|0.8873
95734041|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.48||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.48|-1.12|0.433
95734042|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.76||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.76|-0.84|0.92
95734043|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.71|-0.68|0.957
95734044|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.26||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.26|-1.13|0.222
95986594|NCT04869345|191946911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom and standard error estimates were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger (1997) method.|The estimated Mean Difference (Net) compares the change for the LARKSPUR intervention (Week 16 minus Week 11) minus the change for the Attention Control (Week 16 minus Week 11).|The treatment difference (LARKSPUR Intervention vs. Attention Control) in change from Week 11 (Post-Intervention) to Week 16 (1 Month Post-Intervention) was tested using a mixed effects model with two treatment groups and three time points (Baseline, Week 11, Week 16) and their interaction while accounting for heterogeneous (random slopes) linear daily trends. Sample size was chosen based on feasibility indicators (recruitment, retention, adherence) rather than on formal power analyses.||0.03|-0.05|0.652
95986595|NCT01500759|191946938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95986596|NCT01500759|191946939|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95932090|NCT02918071|191827257|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.41|99.05|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 16)|||99.05|91.41|
95932091|NCT02918071|191827257|OTHER||Percentage|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.86|96.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an AI at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.98|86.86|
95932092|NCT02918071|191827258|OTHER||Percentage|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.69|99.47|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 12)|||99.47|92.69|
95932093|NCT02918071|191827258|OTHER||Percentage|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.48|99.06|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional AI administered at home (Week 16)|||99.06|91.48|
95932094|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.00|0.00|
95932095|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.52|0.02|
95932096|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||4.59|0.02|
95932097|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.31|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||7.31|0.53|
95932098|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.52|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||8.52|0.94|
95932099|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.99|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.99|0.07|
95932100|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.07|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||6.07|1.21|
95932101|NCT02918071|191827259|OTHER||Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.85|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning AI used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||2.85|0.69|
95932102|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.36 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.07||||||ANTI-1 serotype test :to demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.75|
95932103|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.77 in the 11Pn Group and N= 203 and Adjusted GMC= 1.66 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.77|1.14||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.77|
95932104|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 2.46 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.16 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.75|1.03||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.03|0.75|
95986597|NCT01500759|191946940|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95986598|NCT01500759|191946941|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95734045|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.25||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.25|-1.15|0.209
95734046|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.79|-0.62|0.813
95734047|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.17|-1.25|0.135
95734048|NCT02087904|191439210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.57|-0.85|0.679
95734049|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.79||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.79|-0.76|0.978
95734050|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.82|-0.75|0.925
95734051|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.61||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||7-day recall period||0.61|-0.96|0.659
95734052|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.67|-1.1|0.633
95734053|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.56|-1.23|0.46
95986599|NCT00102960|191946970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 40 weeks (ART-40W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.93|0.38|0.02
95734054|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Activity pain||0.7|-1.1|0.663
95734055|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.59||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.59|-0.89|0.696
95734056|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.34||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.34|-1.16|0.278
95734057|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (before)||0.4|-1.1|0.357
95734058|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.64|-0.87|0.761
95734059|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.02|0.218
95734060|NCT02087904|191439211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Performance pain (after)||0.51|-1.02|0.513
95734061|NCT02087904|191439212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.52|0.728
95734062|NCT02087904|191439212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.24||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.06|0.219
95734063|NCT02087904|191439212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.51||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.79|0.673
95986600|NCT00102960|191946970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis compares early therapy 96 weeks (ART-96W) relative to deferred therapy (ART-Def)||0.76|0.27|0.002
95986601|NCT00102960|191946975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-40W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.25|0.01|0.03
95986602|NCT00102960|191946975|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Cummulative Probability|0.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.31|||Proportion test|||Relative to ART-Def, ART-96W had a 13% difference in the cumulative probability of clinical disease progression or death at 3·5 years||0.31|0.09|0.0006
95986603|NCT00102960|191946976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares event rates per 100 person-years across the three arms|Poisson Regression|||The CHER study compared Grade 3 or 4 clinical event rates per 100 person-years between the three arms using Poisson regression modeling over the study duration of 4.8 years.|The rates per 100 person-years were 33.8 (Arm 1), 21.6 (Arm 2) and 16 (Arm 3)|||<0.0001
95986604|NCT00102960|191946977|SUPERIORITY||Rate per 100 person years|0.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Poisson regression|||The event rates per 100 person years were compared across the three arms|The laboratory events per 100 person years across the three arms were: 7 (Deferred arm), 8.1 (early therapy for 40 weeks) and 6 (early therapy for 96 weeks).|||0.46
95986605|NCT00102960|191946980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard rate reported above compares early therapy 40 weeks relative to the deferred therapy arm.|The analysis compares ART-40W relative to the ART-Def arm.||0.84|0.27|0.011
95986606|NCT00102960|191946980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio compares ART-96W relative to the ART-Def arm.|The analysis compares ART-96 Weeks relative to ART-Deferred||0.64|0.18|0.0009
95986607|NCT00102960|191946982|SUPERIORITY||Count of days|0.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value here compares the days spent in hospital across the three arms|Poisson regression||||The total number of days/count of days: 1018 (Arm 1), 533 (Arm 2) and 414 (Arm 3) were compared across the three groups by Poisson regression analysis.|||0.004
95986608|NCT00102960|191946983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.811|||Regression, Cox|||||0.811|0.389|0.0021
95986609|NCT00102960|191946983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.840|0.405|0.0038
95986610|NCT02049944|191947021|OTHER|we used t-test on the regression coefficient for the group indicator to test for differences in means categorical variables were evaluated using fisher's exact test of association linear regression for log transformed start adipose concentrations were calculated by dose specific group|Median Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||To detect the number of subjects who obtained a minimal inhibitory concentration (\>4mg/ml) following increased 3g dose of cefazolin. Compare this number to the historical cohort who had received 2g of cefazolin (standard dosing)||||
95986611|NCT01979523|191947026|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
95986612|NCT00623480|191947094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (On-Demand vs. Prophylaxis)|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.5|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for time of follow-up||||26.5|8.1|<0.0001
95986613|NCT00623480|191947095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.17||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.59|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||0.59|-0.92|0.6614
95986614|NCT00623480|191947096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|-0.94||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.26|||Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||-0.26|-1.61|0.0072
95986615|NCT00623480|191947097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated diff (prohylaxis vs. OD)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.08||no p-values computed|Based on cLDA model|Adjusted for presence/absence of target joint and prior 6 month bleeding frequency||||21.08|5.23|
95986616|NCT01515787|191947100|NON_INFERIORITY|Disease recurrence or death in order to have 85% power to reject the null hypothesis. Noninferiority of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed the 1.29 noninferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.2|0.74|1.14|||kaplan meier|||||1.14|0.74|0.005
95986617|NCT01515787|191947102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44||||||||1.44|0.74|
95986618|NCT01515787|191947104|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||||3.16|0.44|
95986619|NCT01877187|191947113|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= .05. Result is for Day 30 timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.06
95986620|NCT01877187|191947113|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||.09
95986621|NCT01877187|191947113|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.034
95986622|NCT01877187|191947115|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.19
95986623|NCT01877187|191947115|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.011
95734064|NCT02087904|191439213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.71||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.73|0.984
95734065|NCT02087904|191439213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.26|0.145
95734066|NCT02087904|191439213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.96|0.527
95734067|NCT02087904|191439214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.87||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.71|0.836
95734068|NCT02087904|191439214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.66||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.94|0.738
95734069|NCT02087904|191439214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.22|0.3
95734070|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.59|102.62||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||102.62|-101.59|0.992
95734071|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.95|111.1||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||111.10|-103.95|0.948
95734072|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.76|68.65||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||68.65|-134.76|0.523
95734073|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.47|36.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||36.95|-28.47|0.799
95734074|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.62|43.64||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||43.64|-25.62|0.609
95932105|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =0.51 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 0.47 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.71|1.23||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.71|
95734075|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.97|34.19||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||34.19|-30.97|0.923
95734076|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.88|54.08||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||54.08|-49.88|0.937
95734077|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|58.95||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||58.95|-50.68|0.882
95734078|NCT02087904|191439215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.05|65.55||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||65.55|-38.05|0.602
95949936|NCT03331978|191871783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|14.61|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant sex, which was found to be significantly associated with adherence in a similar repeated measures model.|Values entered are for regression coefficient for intervention indicator (versus control) and represents the adjusted difference across all follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and continuous adherence measured at baseline. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||14.61|-0.82|.08
95734079|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.49|97.04||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||97.04|-180.49|0.554
95734080|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.86|146.31||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||146.31|-140.86|0.97
95734081|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.47|113.32||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||113.32|-165.47|0.713
95734082|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|19.88||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||19.88|-70.12|0.272
95734083|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.63|57.8||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||57.8|-35.63|0.64
95734084|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|33.38||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||33.38|-56.94|0.608
95932106|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=219 and Adjusted GMC =2.30 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 2.17 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.1||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.10|0.81|
95932107|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =1.56 in the 11Pn Group and N= 200 and Adjusted GMC= 1.40 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
95949937|NCT03331978|191871784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.6||Per above, p-value is from repeated measures logistic regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where all 6 past-month post-intervention measurements of adherence were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 6 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline dichotomous adherence. Model included all participants with adherence data (a) at baseline and (b) at least one follow-up month.||3.60|1.09|.0257
95734085|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.88|39.3||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||39.3|-119.88|0.319
95734086|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.05|106.91||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||106.91|-58.05|0.56
95734087|NCT02087904|191439216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.97|51.82||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||51.82|-107.97|0.489
95734088|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.015|0.972
95734089|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.015||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.015|-0.017|0.929
95734090|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.01|-0.02|0.543
95986624|NCT01877187|191947115|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
95734091|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.008||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.059||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.059|-0.043|0.752
95986625|NCT01877187|191947117|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
95932108|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 4.22 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 4.06 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.15||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.15|0.81|
95932109|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC =2.81 in the 11Pn Group and N= 201 and Adjusted GMC= 2.57 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.74|1.14||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.14|0.74|
95932110|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 3.70 in the 11Pn Group and N= 202 and Adjusted GMC= 3.68 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.81|1.23||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.23|0.81|
95932111|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=218 and Adjusted GMC = 0.62 in the 11Pn Group and N= 199 and Adjusted GMC= 0.71 for the Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.89|1.48||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.48|0.89|
95932112|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs ratio and its CI were calculated using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations/titres, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs (N=217 and Adjusted GMC =1.61 in the 11Pn Group and N= 206 and Adjusted GMC= 2.75 for the Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.9% confidence interval.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|1.44|2.03||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.9% CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/11Pn) and (Synflorix/11Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.03|1.44|
95949938|NCT03331978|191871785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.18||As mentioned above, p-value comes from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention measurements were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for presence of viral suppression data were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline viral suppression. Model included all viral suppression data (a) at baseline and (b) close to either of the two follow-up surveys.||5.18|0.64|.26
95734092|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.011||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.042|0.691
95986626|NCT01877187|191947117|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.017
95986627|NCT01877187|191947117|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.08
95986628|NCT01877187|191947119|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.020
95986629|NCT01877187|191947119|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.029
95986630|NCT01877187|191947119|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.94
95986631|NCT01877187|191947121|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 30 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.06
95986632|NCT01877187|191947121|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 90 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.013
95986633|NCT01877187|191947121|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Statistical significance defined as p \<= 0.05. Data for 180 day timepoint.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. Sample size of 30 will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup.||||0.67
95986634|NCT00960661|191947126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment contrast (BET minus BBT) at week 30 was less than the non inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||The primary mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) model included baseline HbA1c as covariate, treatment, country, prior use of SUs, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.|Mixed model repeated measures|||The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that BET is non inferior to BBT with respect to change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 30.||0.11|-0.18|0.6273
95986635|NCT05284760|191947188|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|97.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.66|107.96||||||||107.96|87.66|
95986636|NCT05284760|191947188|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|81.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.06|89.89||||||||89.89|73.06|
95986637|NCT05284760|191947188|OTHER||GMR|37.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.1|45.17||||||||45.17|31.10|
95986638|NCT05284760|191947188|OTHER||GMR|89.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.24|107.79||||||||107.79|74.24|
95986639|NCT05284760|191947189|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|97.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|103.17||||||||103.17|92.17|
95986640|NCT05284760|191947189|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.14|91.89||||||||91.89|82.14|
95986641|NCT05284760|191947189|OTHER||GMR|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.92|101.15||||||||101.15|75.92|
95986642|NCT05284760|191947189|OTHER||GMR|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.73|110.22||||||||110.22|82.73|
95986643|NCT05284760|191947190|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|106.1||||||||106.10|92.84|
95986644|NCT05284760|191947190|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments were deemed equivalent if the 90% CIs for the GMRs for all of the parameters were each within 80.00% and 125.00%.|GMR|86.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|93.03||||||||93.03|81.33|
95986645|NCT05284760|191947190|OTHER||GMR|89.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.92|100.99||||||||100.99|78.92|
95986646|NCT05284760|191947190|OTHER||GMR|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|105.25||||||||105.25|81.77|
95986647|NCT01827670|191947227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.06|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-1.06|-1.53|<0.0001
95986648|NCT01827670|191947228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor \& baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
95993674|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||15|-27|0.4404
95986649|NCT01827670|191947229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|35.1|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||35.1|19.4|<0.0001
95986650|NCT01827670|191947230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7.5||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.4|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||13.4|1.6|0.0138
95986651|NCT01827670|191947231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-12.14||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-5.77|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments"||-5.77|-18.51|0.0003
95986652|NCT01827670|191947232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.55|-14.09|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model: Treatment and baseline Schiff stratification value as fixed factor and baseline VAS as covariate.|Difference was 0.454% Stannous Fluoride minus 0.76% Sodium MonoFluorophosphate such that a negative difference favored first named treatment|"The principal null hypothesis tested was as follows:~H0: The change from baseline was same for both treatments. H1: The change from baseline was different for both the treatments."||-14.09|-29.55|<0.0001
95932113|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=207 and Adj. GMC =1.58 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.35 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.72|1.02||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.02|0.72|
95932114|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.94 in 12Pn Group and N= 203 and Adj. GMC= 1.66 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.86||||||95.8|0.7|1.05||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.05|0.70|
95932115|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =2.37 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.16 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.78|1.07||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.07|0.78|
95949939|NCT03331978|191871786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0||As mentioned above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for intervention indicator (versus controls).|Tested with repeated measures logistic regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||1.00|0.32|.05
95986653|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|14.53||||||||14.53|0.83|
95986654|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part I, clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.02|
95986655|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
95986656|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
95986657|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
95986658|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
95986659|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
95734093|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.06|-0.041|0.71
95734094|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.02||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.02|-0.019|0.965
95734095|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.019|-0.022|0.885
95734096|NCT02087904|191439217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.021||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.021|-0.018|0.887
95734097|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.014||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.014|-0.024|0.619
95734098|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.019||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.019|-0.02|0.952
95734099|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.016||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Global knee||0.016|-0.022|0.765
95734100|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.03|-0.11|0.258
95795071|NCT01991795|191560271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.7883
95950677|NCT02699099|191873150|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rates of the anti-rubella antibody, being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||"Difference in seroconversion rates against Rubella antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the rubella vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered.~with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049."||2.78|-1.29|
95986660|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
95734101|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.094||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.094|-0.049|0.535
95795072|NCT01991795|191560272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.71|0.0294
95795073|NCT01991795|191560273|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.96% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.64|0.0375
95986661|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
95734102|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.006||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.064||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial central condyle + plateau||0.064|-0.076|0.866
95734103|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.017||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 25 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.017|-0.041|0.413
95734104|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.042||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 100 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.042|-0.018|0.445
95795074|NCT01991795|191560274|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.87|0.6846
95986662|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
95986663|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
95986664|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
95734105|NCT02087904|191439218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.003||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.026||P-value for test of difference between ABT-981 200 mg dose group and Placebo at each postbaseline time point was from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, and K-L grade as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Medial condyle + plateau||0.026|-0.032|0.835
95734106|NCT02087904|191439219|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|21.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-7.3|0.311
95734107|NCT02087904|191439219|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
95857365|NCT02106390|191673121|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if, at one month following the fourth vaccination, the lower limits of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (rMenB+OMVNZ + MenACWY versus MenACWY) was \> 0.5 for all serogroups A, C, W-135 and Y.|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||ANOVA|The 2-sided 95% CI for each between groups ratio of GMTs was constructed from an analysis of ANOVA with vaccine group \& center as factors in the model||Serogroup Y-The comparison of adjusted GMTs ratio (rMenB+OMV NZ + Men ACWY versus MenACWY) was performed for the serogroup Y at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
95986665|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.59||||||||3.59|1.04|
95986666|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.31||||||||0.31|0.01|
95986667|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
95986668|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
95986669|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
95986670|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
95734108|NCT02087904|191439219|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.5||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.9||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|-8.9|0.435
95734109|NCT02087904|191439220|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.8||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-11.9|0.744
95857366|NCT00790842|191673153|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A|Dose in milligrams per day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose for patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 60 mL/min is 25 mg/day|Recommended Phase 2 dose for Group A||||
95986671|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
95986672|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
95986673|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), clinically relevant hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
95986674|NCT03016325|191947233|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
95986675|NCT03016325|191947236|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|75.47||||||||75.47|0.31|
95986676|NCT03016325|191947236|SUPERIORITY|Part I, symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.06|
95986677|NCT03016325|191947236|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|54.35||||||||54.35|0.18|
95986678|NCT03016325|191947236|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.05|
95986679|NCT03016325|191947236|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|5.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|149.72||||||||149.72|0.91|
95986680|NCT03016325|191947236|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), symptoms of hypotension - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.01|
95986681|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|14.66||||||||14.66|1.01|
95986682|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part I, confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29||||||||0.29|0.00|
95986683|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.43||||||||2.43|0.58|
95986684|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part II (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.11|
95986685|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative risk|Relative risk from placebo|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.21||||||||3.21|0.87|
95986686|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part II (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.04|
95986687|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (low dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.78||||||||0.78|-0.17|
95986688|NCT03016325|191947237|SUPERIORITY|Part II-Japan (high dose), confirmed SBP \< 90 mmHg - relative difference|Relative difference from placebo|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.88||||||||0.88|-0.04|
95986689|NCT01087905|191947273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) versus Six Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., 6 wks NRT)."||1.61|0.98|.076
95986690|NCT01087905|191947273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus NRT Combination Therapy (Nicotine Patch plus Nicotine Gum). We hypothesized that Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Combination NRT)."||1.75|1.06|.017
95986691|NCT01087905|191947273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Standard Cessation Counseling (No CMAC) versus Standard Cessation Counseling plus CMAC. We hypothesized that Standard Counseling plus CMAC would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Standard Counseling Only.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention (e.g., Standard Counseling plus CMAC)."||1.14|0.69|.343
95986692|NCT01087905|191947274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Two Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Two Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.14|1.04|.029
95986693|NCT01087905|191947274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.97|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus SIx Weeks of NRT Monotherapy. We hypothesized that Six Weeks of NRT Monotherapy would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||1.97|0.96|.079
95986694|NCT01087905|191947274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.45|||Regression, Logistic||Inclusion of the Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling (CMAC) factor (No CMAC versus CMAC) as a control variable did not change the results of this analysis.|"Null hypothesis: No difference in abstinence rates for participants receiving Two Weeks of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) Monotherapy (Nicotine Patch Only) versus Six Weeks of Combination NRT (Patch+Gum). We hypothesized that Six Weeks of Combination NRT would result in statistically significantly higher abstinence rates compared to Two Weeks of NRT Monotherapy.~The study was originally powered to detect at least a 6.4% increase in the abstinence rate due to an enhanced intervention."||2.45|1.20|.003
95986695|NCT01087905|191947275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|357.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 2 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (213-178)/(.482-.384) = $357.||||
95986696|NCT01087905|191947275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|712.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch only = (233-178)/(.462-.384) = $712.||||
95986697|NCT01087905|191947275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|1290.0||||||95.0||||There is no p-value for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).|Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|Unit of measurement for ICER is U.S. dollars.||In this analysis, the Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is computed. ICER is a measure of the added cost per added quit for two treatments. ICER was computed as the cost difference between the least intensive treatment group (2 weeks of nicotine patch only) and a more intensive comparison group divided by the difference in the quit rates of the two groups being compared; ICER for the group that received 6 weeks of nicotine patch and nicotine gum = (348-178)/(.516-.384) = $1290.||||
95986698|NCT02692495|191947296|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95727936|NCT02277769|191425540|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.13|33.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||33.87|19.13|< 0.0001
95986699|NCT02079987|191947299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.49
95986700|NCT02079987|191947300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||difference-in-difference analysis|A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.||||||0.23
95986701|NCT02079987|191947301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A propensity weighted difference-in-difference approach was taken to account for imbalances in assignment and loss to follow-up.|difference-in-difference analysis|||||||0.25
95986702|NCT02079987|191947302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95986703|NCT02079987|191947303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
95986704|NCT02079987|191947304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95986705|NCT02076997|191947306|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95986706|NCT02076997|191947312|OTHER|||||||||||||||||There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|There was no statistical analysis performed for this aim as it was descriptive|||
95986707|NCT02076997|191947313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95986708|NCT00652366|191947315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.88|0.2026
95986709|NCT00652366|191947317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.77|0.6298
95986710|NCT00652366|191947318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-6.1||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.0|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||5.0|-17.2|0.2543
95986711|NCT00652366|191947318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.56||||||||1.56|0.19|
95986712|NCT00652366|191947320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-15.52||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|1.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||1.3|-32.4|0.0603
95986713|NCT00652366|191947322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.60|0.2678
95986714|NCT00652366|191947322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.74|0.8449
95986715|NCT00652366|191947324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.51|0.0217
95986716|NCT00652366|191947324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.57|0.1596
95986717|NCT01970501|191947325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|.72|0.905
95986718|NCT01970501|191947326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.71|0.961
95986719|NCT01181011|191947343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0107||90.0|99.45|119.95||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||119.95|99.45|0.0107
95986720|NCT01181011|191947344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|120.71||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||120.71|99.96|0.0139
95986721|NCT01181011|191947345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.643|112.472||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.472|84.643|0.0126
95986722|NCT01181011|191947346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|109.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|117.07||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||117.07|102.87|0.0011
95986723|NCT01181011|191947347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|116.0||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||116.0|102.1|0.0006
95986724|NCT01181011|191947348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|gMean Ratio|106.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|112.9||The p-value is for the ratio being outside the interval 0.8 to 1.25.|ANCOVA|||||112.9|100.9|0.000
95986725|NCT00950664|191947363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|81 participants required to detect 5 difference in Tsui score, with 80% power. 20% drop out rate assumed, 102 participants needed. Alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Paired-t test|||||||0.05
95986726|NCT03152019|191947377|SUPERIORITY||percentages|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95986727|NCT04703075|191947407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
95986728|NCT01187953|191947444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
95986729|NCT01187953|191947444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.821
95986730|NCT01187953|191947444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.900
95986731|NCT01187953|191947444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||>0.999
95986732|NCT01187953|191947445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Death|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.835
95986733|NCT01187953|191947445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Graft Failure|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.548
95986734|NCT01187953|191947445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: BPAR|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.822
95986735|NCT01187953|191947445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that both treatment groups in this study would have a 15% 12-month treatment failure rate, the study will require 270 patients per group to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the investigational drug, LCP-tacro, is inferior to the reference drug, Prograf, based on a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference and a 0.10 non-inferiority margin.||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Endpoint: Lost to follow up|Fisher Exact|||No overall p value was calculated, only individual p values for each endpoint category. One statistical analysis table is reported for each individual p value.||||0.383
95986736|NCT03449095|191947446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95986737|NCT03449095|191947447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||.001
95727937|NCT02277769|191425540|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.11|36.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.95|22.11|< 0.0001
95727938|NCT02277769|191425541|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|45.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||45.60|30.03|< 0.0001
95795075|NCT01991795|191560275|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||||2.94|1.82|<0.0001
95857367|NCT00790842|191673153|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B|Dose in milligrams/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were noted, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/minute who are not on dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for patients in Group B||||
95857368|NCT00790842|191673153|OTHER|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C|Lenalidomide dose in mg/day|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Because no dose limiting toxicities were observed, the recommended phase 2 dose of lenalidomide is 25 mg/day for patients with creatinine clearance \< 30 mL/min who are receiving dialysis|Recommended phase 2 dose for Group C||||
95986738|NCT02116777|191947484|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is Dose Level 4 (600 mcg/m²/dose +30 mg/m2/dose (BMN 673) BID + 30 mg/m²/dose (TEM), Max 1000 mcg/day). MTD determined by using the Rolling-6 Design.|||||
95727939|NCT02277769|191425541|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|44.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||44.06|28.56|< 0.0001
95727940|NCT02277769|191425542|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.04|-21.83||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.83|-36.04|< 0.0001
95986739|NCT01733628|191947503|OTHER|Type of statistical Test: Inequality|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|0.56|0.8166
95986740|NCT05032157|191947512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|UAS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 1 with UAS7 as primary efficacy endpoint)||-5.46|-9.91|< 0.001
95986741|NCT05032157|191947513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE, biologics, week, baseline score, and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.16|-4.29|<0.001
95986742|NCT05032157|191947514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti- IgE biologics, week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by week and interaction of baseline score by week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-3.23|-5.71|< 0.001
95986743|NCT05032157|191947515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.18|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||6.18|2.39|< 0.001
95734110|NCT02087904|191439220|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.7||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|-10.1|0.581
95734111|NCT02087904|191439220|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-3.5|0.146
95932116|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.56 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 0.47 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.84||||||95.8|0.64|1.11||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.11|0.64|
95932117|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =2.42 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 2.17 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.76|1.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.06|0.76|
95932118|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.78 in 12Pn Group and N= 200 and Adj. GMC= 1.40 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.67|0.93||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||0.93|0.67|
95932119|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =4.48 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 4.10 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.77|1.09||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.09|0.77|
95932120|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=209 and Adj. GMC =2.55 in 12Pn Group and N= 201 and Adj. GMC= 2.57 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.26||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.26|0.81|
95949940|NCT03331978|191871787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|-0.034||As described above, p-value is from repeated measures regression with standard errors adjusted for clustering on participant|Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is the regression coefficient for intervention indicator (vs. control) and represents the adjusted difference across both follow-up time points.|Tested with repeated measures linear regression where both post-intervention responses were stacked together such that each participant could contribute up to 2 records. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering on participant, and weights for follow-up response were used. Fixed effects were an intervention indicator and baseline stigma. Model included all participants with responses (a) at baseline and (b) at least one of the two follow-up surveys.||-0.034|-0.395|.0199
95949941|NCT01877720|191871821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95734112|NCT02087904|191439221|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.3||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|12.4||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-14.9|0.824
95795076|NCT01991795|191560276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.07|||Regression, Cox|||||3.07|2.02|<0.0001
95734113|NCT02087904|191439221|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|0.8||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.5||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|-12.8|0.964
95734114|NCT02087904|191439221|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|15.6||P-value for test of difference between each ABT-981 dose group and Placebo was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using age group and K-L grade as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-11.3|0.763
95932121|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=211 and Adj. GMC =3.29 in 12Pn Group and N= 202 and Adj. GMC= 3.67 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.9|1.38||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|0.90|
95932122|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =0.68 in 12Pn Group and N= 199 and Adj. GMC= 0.71 for Synflorix Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI..|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.81|1.37||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.37|0.81|
95932123|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=210 and Adj. GMC =1.09 in 12Pn Group and N= 214 and Adj. GMC= 2.07 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.51|2.39||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.39|1.51|
95932124|NCT01616459|191827271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|12-valent formulation objectives to be assessed sequentially after demonstration for 11-valent formulation. GMCs ratio and its CI obtained using ANCOVA model on logarithm-transformed concentrations, including vaccine group as fixed effect and pre-vaccination concentration as regressor. GMCs were used to calculate Adjusted GMCs (N=208 and Adj. GMC =1.19 in 12Pn Group and N= 206 and Adj. GMC= 2.76 for Prevnar13 Group) which in turn were used to calculate Adjusted GMC ratio with 95.8% CI.|Adjusted GMCs ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.94|2.77||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ 1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A\&19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) GMCs. Criteria: UL of the 2-sided 95.8 CI of the ELISA GMC ratios (Prevnar13/12Pn) and (Synflorix/12Pn) groups \< a limit of 2-fold for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.77|1.94|
95932125|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-3.89|1.36||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.36|-3.89|
95932126|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.94|2.45||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.45|-4.94|
95734115|NCT00854308|191439365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.622|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||1.622|0.727|0.6873
95986744|NCT05032157|191947516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|11.78|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||11.78|2.83|< 0.001
95986745|NCT05032157|191947517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|16.85|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|Early onset of disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 2||16.85|3.72|< 0.001
95986746|NCT05032157|191947518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.58|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) = 0-1 at Week 12||4.58|1.65|< 0.001
95986747|NCT05032157|191947519|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.71|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link includes treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates. A rate ratio \>1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) up to Week 12||4.71|2.26|< 0.001
95986748|NCT05032157|191947520|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||Regression, Linear||Negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates. A rate ratio \> 1 favors LOU064 25 mg b.i.d.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.49|1.17|< 0.001
95986749|NCT02229552|191947571|OTHER|Repeated measures analysis of variance with zbmi for each year as the repeated dependent measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.051
95986750|NCT03657368|191947572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.3|-0.4|0.042
95986751|NCT03657368|191947572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.9|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||3.7|-3.9|0.966
95986752|NCT03657368|191947573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.68|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.68|0.519
95986753|NCT03657368|191947573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.63|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.63|0.232
95986754|NCT03657368|191947574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-6.5|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||2.4|-6.5|0.217
95986755|NCT03657368|191947574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.7|5.2|||Regression, Linear|||||5.2|-3.7|0.660
95949942|NCT01877720|191871822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
95986756|NCT03657368|191947575|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|1.03||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.97|0.143
95986757|NCT03657368|191947575|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.99||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.93|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.93|0.649
95986758|NCT02921971|191947589|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|0.08||Above p-value is one-sided p-value. Threshold for significance is at 0.05 level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint and strata-by-timepoint interactions, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline and baseline-by-timepoint interactions.||0.08|-4.71|0.0291
95986759|NCT00452699|191947593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.07|<0.001
95986760|NCT01602692|191947597|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||End of PACU Mean Pain Level p-value between arms||||0.24
95986761|NCT01602692|191947597|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Current Pain p-value between arms||||0.76
95986762|NCT01602692|191947597|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Worst Pain p-value between arms||||0.78
95986763|NCT01602692|191947597|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hrs Post-op Mean Least Pain p-value between arms||||0.41
95986764|NCT01602692|191947598|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||PACU IV hydromorphone p-value between arms||||0.10
95949943|NCT01877720|191871823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.74
95986765|NCT01602692|191947598|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||First 24 hr Post-op oxycodone p-value between arms||||0.71
95986766|NCT00493870|191947609|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
95986767|NCT03605680|191947619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-3.15|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|-0.51|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.51|-5.79|=0.0193
95986768|NCT03605680|191947619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-0.14|||MMRM|||||-0.14|-5.35|=0.0392
95986769|NCT03605680|191947620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.04|-0.50|=0.0232
95986770|NCT03605680|191947620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05|||MMRM||||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|-0.05|-0.51|=0.0162
95986771|NCT01968460|191947625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.13||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-2.13|-7.20|0.0004
95949944|NCT01877720|191871824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
95949945|NCT01877720|191871825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.002
95949946|NCT01877720|191871826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.003
95949947|NCT01877720|191871827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
95949948|NCT01877720|191871828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.67
95949949|NCT01877720|191871829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95795077|NCT01991795|191560277|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.93|||Regression, Cox|||||2.93|1.98|<0.0001
95795078|NCT01991795|191560278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.92|||Regression, Cox|||||4.92|3.32|<0.0001
95795079|NCT01981616|191560283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"With 55 evaluable participants in each group, the study would have at least 80% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming a 90% seroconversion rate (anti-HBs of 10 IU/L) for hepatitis B vaccine.~If the lower bound of this interval was less than -15% (ie, more negative), then the null hypothesis was accepted."|Difference from placebo|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-12.7|
95932127|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.82|1.38||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.38|-2.82|
95932128|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-10.65|6.13||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||6.13|-10.65|
95932129|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.39|2.21||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.21|-2.39|
95932130|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-2.36|3.22||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.22|-2.36|
95932131|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.51|2.66||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.66|-1.51|
95932132|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.18|1.7||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.70|-4.18|
95949950|NCT01877720|191871830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95986772|NCT01968460|191947625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-1.36||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-1.36|-6.32|0.0027
95986773|NCT01968460|191947626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.84||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.84|-2.86|0.0004
95986774|NCT01968460|191947626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.44||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||0.44|-2.41|0.005
95949951|NCT00267956|191871835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The study is designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by subject's prior anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05. Sample Size and power: With 70 partcipants in each treatment group, 5000 repetitions. Assuming a 20% ACR20 response in placebo participants regardless of prior anti-TNF exposure and a 35% ACR 20 and 45% ACR20 response in ustekinumab group for participants who had prior anti-TNF exposure, and who had no prior anti-TNF exposures, the power to detect the treatment difference is 0.85.||||<0.001
95986775|NCT01968460|191947627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|44.77||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||A subject will be defined as a treatment responder in case that the improvement from baseline to the Week12 / Last Observed Value (LOV) in the CGI-S will be of 1 point or more. Baseline adjusted logistic regression (SAS® LOGISTIC procedure) stratified by GeoSite using the STRATA sub-command with the following effects: treatment group and baseline CGI-S measurement was used to test the between the active groups and placebo contrasts.||44.77|1.47|0.0165
95986776|NCT01968460|191947627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|24.9||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.90|0.72|0.111
95986777|NCT01968460|191947628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.83||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.83|-4.80|0.0058
95986778|NCT01968460|191947628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.39||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|MMRM|||||-0.39|-4.26|0.0191
95986779|NCT01968460|191947629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.8||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-5.72|0.0097
95986780|NCT01968460|191947629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.012||The overall significance level for this study will be 5% using two-tailed tests utilizing the hierarchical gate keeping approach to control the overall Type-I error rate in the strong sense.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.012|-4.91|0.0509
95986781|NCT03468309|191947630|SUPERIORITY|T-test was used to compare means at baseline and 12-weeks|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95986782|NCT03468309|191947631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95986783|NCT03468309|191947632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Assumption of sphericity had been violated X2(2)=13.61, p\<.01 so Huynh-Feldt correction was used||||||<0.05
95986784|NCT03468309|191947633|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95986785|NCT00847912|191947639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.93
95986786|NCT00847912|191947640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.93
95986787|NCT00517595|191947645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.02
95986788|NCT00517595|191947646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Within Group 1 (N=48), patients with an ECOG of 0 at baseline (N=18) were compared to patients with an ECOG of 1 at baseline (N=30).||||0.0041
95986789|NCT04152161|191947647|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
95986790|NCT04152161|191947647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
95986791|NCT04152161|191947648|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.27|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.270|-0.395|
95986792|NCT04152161|191947648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.395|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Hazard ratio was calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.395|0.730|0.5224
95986793|NCT04152161|191947649|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.23|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) = 1 - Hazard Ratio, with 95%CI equal to (VE lower limit, VE upper limit) = (1 - Hazard Ratio upper limit, 1 - Hazard Ratio lower limit)|||0.230|-0.431|
95986794|NCT04152161|191947649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.431|||Log Rank|The 1-sided p-value from the log-rank test was stratified by sex and age group.|Calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with sex and age group (10-11 years, 12-14 years, and \>14 years) as stratification variables.|||1.431|0.770|0.6193
95986795|NCT05525533|191947659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.24|||Regression, Linear|||||2.24|-1.87|
95986796|NCT05525533|191947659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.82|||Regression, Linear|||||3.82|-0.73|
95986797|NCT05525533|191947661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||||18|-2.92|
95949952|NCT00267956|191871836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.004
95949953|NCT00267956|191871837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.005
95986798|NCT05525533|191947661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||31|0.64|
95986799|NCT05525533|191947663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|113.0|||Regression, Linear|||||113|-18|
95986800|NCT05525533|191947663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|189.0|||Regression, Linear|||||189|38|
95986801|NCT05525533|191947664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|8.63|||Regression, Linear|||||8.63|-1.37|
95986802|NCT05525533|191947664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.50|-1.50|
95986803|NCT05525533|191947665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.36|
95986804|NCT05525533|191947665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.3|||Regression, Linear|||||7.30|-0.54|
95986805|NCT05525533|191947666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.72|||Regression, Linear|||||3.72|-3.38|
95986806|NCT05525533|191947666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|15.0|||Regression, Linear|||||15|0.42|
95986807|NCT05525533|191947667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|5.02|||Regression, Linear|||||5.02|-0.11|
95986808|NCT05525533|191947667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.25|||Regression, Linear|||||6.25|0.33|
95986809|NCT02797808|191947673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0083||||||Independent-sample t tests were used to compare the RSFC metrics between groups at baseline and 12 weeks. Bonferroni correction was applied to the alpha level (2-tailed, p\<.05/6= .0083) for multiple testing.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0083
95986810|NCT00535132|191947678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001||||||p-value based on a paired t-test for a within-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size for this study was based on changes in the MSQ scores within subjects from baseline to endpoint using a one-sample paired t-test. A sample size of 97 subjects was shown to have 90% power at endpoint to detect a mean change from baseline of 0.5 units on the MSQ score, with a standard deviation of 1.5. Allowing for extra variability from subjects with prior generic risperidone (instead of branded risperidone) use, this number was increased to 150 subjects.||||<0.001
95986811|NCT00535132|191947679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986812|NCT00535132|191947680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95986813|NCT00535132|191947681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986814|NCT00535132|191947682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.002
95986815|NCT00535132|191947683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.033
95986816|NCT00535132|191947684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986817|NCT00535132|191947685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986818|NCT00535132|191947686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
95986819|NCT00535132|191947687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-values for the study group comparisons using dichotomized categories are based on Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.125
95986820|NCT00535132|191947688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1|<|0.001||||||p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95986821|NCT00535132|191947689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||0.009
95986822|NCT00535132|191947690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986823|NCT00535132|191947691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986824|NCT00535132|191947692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within-group comparison based on a paired t-test.||||||<0.001
95986825|NCT00708500|191947720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|37.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|25.7|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||49.1|25.7|<0.0001
95986826|NCT00708500|191947720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.7|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.7|<0.0001
95986827|NCT00708500|191947721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|39.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.2|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||51.0|27.2|<0.0001
95986828|NCT00708500|191947721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|45.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|33.4|56.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage of participants who achieved SVR: experimental minus control.|||56.8|33.4|<0.0001
95795080|NCT01981616|191560284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 55 evaluable subjects in the vedolizumab 750 mg IV group and 55 evaluable participants in the placebo group provided at least 71% power to exclude the non-inferiority margin of 15% with the lower bound of the 1-sided 95% CI on the difference in proportions between vedolizumab- and placebo-treated participants, assuming an 85% seroconversion rate to the oral cholera vaccine (Dukoral).|Difference from placebo|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-3.9||||||||-3.9|-24.6|
95932133|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-5.64|-0.52||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||-0.52|-5.64|
95932134|NCT01616459|191827272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-4.84|10.25||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.25|-4.84|
95932135|NCT01616459|191827273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|2-sided 95.9 % Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha = 2.05 %) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe, 1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.9|-1.46|3.66||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 11Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 9 out of 11 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.9 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 11Pn) and (Synflorix minus 11Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 9 out of 11 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.66|-1.46|
95932136|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.44|2.22||||||ANTI-1 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.22|-3.44|
95932137|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.03|3.86||||||ANTI-4 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.86|-4.03|
95932138|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.37|2.3||||||ANTI-5 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.30|-2.37|
95949954|NCT00267956|191871838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95949955|NCT00267956|191871839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square|Stratified by participant's prior anti-TNF exposure status (Yes/No).||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95727941|NCT02277769|191425542|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-25.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.49|-40.20|< 0.0001
95727942|NCT02277769|191425543|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|22.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.68|9.99|< 0.0001
95795081|NCT04030598|191560287|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-90.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-76.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100 percentage (%) × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-76.00|-96.00|0.001
95932139|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-12.94|3.6||||||ANTI-6B serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.60|-12.94|
95932140|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.93|3.06||||||ANTI-7F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||3.06|-1.93|
95949956|NCT00267956|191871840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No) as factors in the model.||Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab x 4 and placebo at asignificant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95727943|NCT02277769|191425543|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.66|27.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||27.93|14.66|< 0.0001
95795082|NCT04030598|191560288|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-89.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-77.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-77.00|-95.00|0.003
95932141|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-2.72|2.64||||||ANTI-9V serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.64|-2.72|
95932142|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-1.94|1.9||||||ANTI-14 serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||1.90|-1.94|
95949957|NCT01263223|191871841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.0||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.0|7.4|<0.0001
95932143|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-3.72|2.52||||||ANTI-18C serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.52|-3.72|
95932144|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-4.38|2.1||||||ANTI-19F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||2.10|-4.38|
95795083|NCT04030598|191560289|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-96.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-65.0|||Wald Chi-Square||The percentage difference in mean investigator-confirmed HAE attack rate between donidalorsen 80 mg and placebo was calculated as 100% × (mean rate ratio -1).|||-65.00|-100.00|0.004
95932145|NCT01616459|191827274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|-5.07|10.06||||||ANTI-23F serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A and 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \< 10 % for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||10.06|-5.07|
95949958|NCT01263223|191871841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|17.9|<0.0001
95949959|NCT01263223|191871842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
95795084|NCT04030598|191560290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|95.7|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 50% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||95.7|17.5|0.004
95795085|NCT04030598|191560290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|96.5|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 70% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||96.5|26.8|0.003
95795086|NCT04030598|191560290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|99.8|||Fisher Exact|||For ≥ 90% reduction from Baseline in the HAE attack rate.||99.8|48.0|<0.001
95795087|NCT04030598|191560291|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-95.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-52.0|||Wald Chi-Square|||||-52.00|-99.00|0.009
95795088|NCT04030598|191560294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|33.9|||Fisher Exact|||Week 9||33.9|-59.1|1.000
95795089|NCT04030598|191560294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact|||Week 17||27.1|-64.9|0.521
95795090|NCT04030598|191560295|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-14.74||||||Week 9||-14.74|-37.10|
95986829|NCT05051904|191947724|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.622|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.622|0.402|<0.0001
95932146|NCT01616459|191827275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|7.22|16.49||||||ANTI-6A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||16.49|7.22|
95932147|NCT01616459|191827275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Objectives for 12-valent formulation were to be assessed sequentially after demonstration of objectives for 11-valent formulation. 2-sided 95.8% Confidence Interval (CI) adjusted 1-sided (alpha =2.08%) of the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects. CI for difference in proportion: Proc StatXact was used to derive the standardized asymptotic CI for the group difference in proportions \[Newcombe,1998\]. The standardized asymptotic method used within GSK Biologicals is method 6.|Difference in percentage|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.8|1.03|7.57||||||ANTI-19A serotype test: To demonstrate that 12Pn co-administered with Infanrix hexa™1 month post-dose 3 was non-inferior for at least 10 out of 12 serotypes to Prevnar13 (for 6A \& 19A) or Synflorix™ (for 1, 4, 5, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19F and 23F) in terms of % of subjects with antibody concentrations ≥ 0.2 μg/mL. Criteria: UL of 2-sided 95.8 % CI of the difference between (Prevnar13 minus 12Pn) and (Synflorix minus 12Pn) groups \<10% for at least 10 out of 12 vaccine pneumococcal serotypes.||7.57|1.03|
95932148|NCT03949335|191827299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95932149|NCT03949335|191827300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95932150|NCT03949335|191827301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95932151|NCT03949335|191827302|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|-0.01||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||-0.010|-0.053|
95932152|NCT03949335|191827304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95932153|NCT01351272|191827305|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||SPM two-sample t-test|||||||=0.09
95932154|NCT01351272|191827306|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.16
95932155|NCT01351272|191827307|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.09
95932156|NCT00801983|191827325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||GEE|||Subjects were compared across keyboard types - The percentage of subjects with MSD when using the alternative keyboard were compared to the % of subjects with MSD when they were using the typical keyboard||||>.05
95932157|NCT04043455|191827376|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.||0.62|-0.99|=0.650
95932158|NCT04043455|191827376|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.49|-1.12|=0.439
95932159|NCT04043455|191827376|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.24|-1.34|=0.172
95932160|NCT04043455|191827383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|2.331|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.331|-0.019|0.659
95986830|NCT05051904|191947724|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.784||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.896|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Rivaroxaban.|||0.896|0.686|0.0004
95986831|NCT05051904|191947724|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.791|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.791|0.514|<0.0001
95986832|NCT05051904|191947725|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.851|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio \<1 favors Dabigatran.|||0.851|0.714|<0.0001
95986833|NCT05051904|191947725|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with s-IPTW. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios.|Hazard ratio\<1 favors Rivaroxaban|||0.88|0.777|<0.0001
95986834|NCT00440947|191947737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 c/mL at Week 84 was -12% or greater.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (\<100000/\>=100000)||||12.5|-1.8|0.140
95932161|NCT04043455|191827383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.535|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.535|-0.040|0.557
95932162|NCT04043455|191827383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.245||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|2.462|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.462|0.027|0.541
95932163|NCT04043455|191827384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.234||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|2.468|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.468|-0.001|0.529
95986835|NCT03341962|191947770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0188||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided exact test adjusted for stratification factors (prior use of any biologics and concurrent use of corticosteroids), α=0.097||||||0.5836
95986836|NCT00345176|191947863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.76|1.07||Adjusted for 3 treatment versus placebo comparisons and interim analyses|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline AMD status|The reference group is placebo.|Each of the 3 active arms was compared to the placebo/control arm.||1.07|0.76|<0.013
95986837|NCT00345176|191947863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.82|1.16||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.82|<0.013
95986838|NCT00345176|191947863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|98.7|0.75|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for multiple comparisons||||1.06|0.75|<0.013
95986839|NCT00345176|191947864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.84|<0.05
95986840|NCT00345176|191947864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.84|<0.05
95986841|NCT00345176|191947864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|<0.05
95986842|NCT00345176|191947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxantin versus Control for mortality||1.40|0.77|<0.05
95986843|NCT00345176|191947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of DHA/EPA versus Placebo for mortality||1.52|0.84|<0.05
95986844|NCT00345176|191947865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Comparison of Lutein/Zeaxanthin + DHA/EPA versus Placebo for Mortality||1.65|0.92|<0.05
95986845|NCT00345176|191947866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.84|<0.05
95986846|NCT00606086|191947872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||||1.000
95986847|NCT01332357|191947888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.46||The unadjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|||||2.46|1.56|<0.0001
95986848|NCT01332357|191947888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.25||The adjusted risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge|Regression, Cox|Covariates included demographics, IP or ED index event, primary asthma diagnosis, Charlson score, and pre-index medication||||2.25|1.42|<0.0001
95986849|NCT01332357|191947888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.011||The risk of experiencing a recurrent event associated with not initiating a controller medication at index event discharge by time interaction|Regression, Cox|Evaluates the impact of each day treatment with a controller was delayed||||1.011|1.005|<0.0001
95986850|NCT02909985|191947891|SUPERIORITY||F|23.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(9, 129)||||||<0.0001
95727944|NCT02277769|191425544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|13.98||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13.98|5.54|< 0.0001
95727945|NCT02277769|191425544|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||16.32|7.31|< 0.0001
95986851|NCT02909985|191947891|SUPERIORITY||F|9.4394|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|(11, 52)||||||<0.0001
95986852|NCT04099251|191947927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.30|< 0.0001
95986853|NCT04311502|191947939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).|Arm 1 vs Arm 2|This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.79|0.82|0.21
95986854|NCT04311502|191947940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.45|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~This outcome measure is limited to data obtained up to September 25, 2023."||0.45|0.14|<0.01
95986855|NCT04311502|191947940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.44|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|"The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a Grade 3 or higher AE that is at least one-grade increase from baseline at any time during the 65-week study period was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.~All data through week 65."||0.44|0.11|<0.01
95986856|NCT04311502|191947941|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.06|-0.47|0.01
95986857|NCT04311502|191947942|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Wald chi-square||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing a favorable outcome through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||-0.04|-0.46|0.02
95986858|NCT04311502|191947943|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.05|-0.22|0.35
95986859|NCT04311502|191947945|SUPERIORITY||GEE|24.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|32.94|||Regression, Linear|||||32.94|15.13|<0.01
95932164|NCT04043455|191827384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|2.232|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.232|0.015|0.730
95932165|NCT04043455|191827384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.226||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|2.428|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using Odd's ratio and 95% CI has been presented.||2.428|0.025|0.548
95932166|NCT04043455|191827385|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.76|-14.61|0.696
95932167|NCT04043455|191827385|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.222||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||9.00|-15.51|0.602
95932168|NCT04043455|191827385|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.088||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||8.03|-15.95|0.516
95932169|NCT04043455|191827386|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 10 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.68|-0.53|0.804
95932170|NCT04043455|191827386|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 25 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.45|-0.76|0.618
95795091|NCT04030598|191560295|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-8.68||||||Week 17||-8.68|-32.70|
95795092|NCT03658980|191560296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.415|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.415|0.131|<0.001
95795093|NCT05079321|191560300|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95795094|NCT05079321|191560301|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95795095|NCT05079321|191560302|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95932171|NCT04043455|191827386|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison between Olorinab 50 mg and placebo using least square mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.||0.71|-0.47|0.687
95932172|NCT04922021|191827390|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided hypotheses were tested based on the pre-specified primary analysis for the primary estimand. The primary estimand used a hypothetical strategy evaluating the treatment difference as if all subjects adhered to the treatment regimen, i.e. they did not discontinue IMP permanently, did not initiate rescue treatment, or did not have more than one missed treatment dose related to COVID-19.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-4.1||The type I error rate of the two-sided hypothesis test was controlled at the 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in EASI = Treatment + Region + Baseline EASI. Missing values and data 'treated as missing' were imputed using MI assuming MAR.|Estimates of difference in LS-means and associated standard errors from the analyses were combined using Rubin's rule to provide the overall pooled estimate and associated standard error. LS-means was estimated using the observed margins for the FAS.|||-4.1|-19.6|0.003
95932173|NCT02652260|191827407|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|4.65||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|24.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|24.85|-15.92|0.331
95949960|NCT01263223|191871842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|2.6|0.0025
95795096|NCT05079321|191560303|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95986860|NCT04311502|191947947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compares the odds of participants having maximum occurrence of QTcF change from baseline of ≥30 ms and \<60 ms, or ≥60 ms between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the safety set using the proportional odds model.||21.30|2.40|<0.01
95986861|NCT04311502|191947947|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58|||exact unconditional||Arm 1 - Arm 2|Proportion of Participants with Worst Changes in QTcF from Screening \>= 30 ms over visits at Weeks 2, 8, 13||0.58|0.17|<0.01
95986862|NCT04311502|191947948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.8||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for HIV status (positive/negative) and TB disease according to chest X-ray (advanced/not advanced)|Arm 1 vs. Arm 2|||1.80|0.84|0.18
95986863|NCT04311502|191947949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.71||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||1.71|0.80|0.25
95734116|NCT00854308|191439366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7101||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||||0.7101
95795097|NCT05079321|191560304|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95986864|NCT04311502|191947950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Fisher Exact|||||0.35|-0.07|0.23
95986865|NCT04311502|191947951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.11|0.56
95986866|NCT04311502|191947952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.18|||Wald chi-square test||Difference in cumulative proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2)|The point estimate and 90% two-sided confidence intervals for the difference in cumulative proportions of participants experiencing an SAE through week 65 was compared between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||0.18|-0.04|0.27
95986867|NCT04311502|191947953|SUPERIORITY|Fisher's exact test was used to test for a difference in proportions|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions (Arm 1 - Arm 2); exact confidence interval|||0.13|-0.10|1
95795098|NCT05079321|191560305|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95986868|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Screening||1.39|0.57|0.597
95932174|NCT02652260|191827408|OTHER|The Immediate Switch group will be considered statistically significantly smaller than the Delayed Switch group if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference is less than 0.|Estimated Difference|-18.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|2.51||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|2.51|-38.14|
95932175|NCT02652260|191827409|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|6.5|-10.5|
95932176|NCT02652260|191827410|OTHER||Estimated Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||Treatment Difference: Immediate Switch minus Delayed Switch|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|11.3|-4.1|
95932177|NCT02652260|191827411|OTHER|The 95% CI was calculated by the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Difference in Percentage|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-23.8||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in percent response|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-23.8|-51.2|
95932178|NCT02652260|191827412|OTHER|The 95% CI was based on a t-distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-10.1||||||Change from time of switch to 24 weeks post-switch: Treatment difference in score|Week 24 Post-switch minus Time of switch|-10.1|-16.8|
95932179|NCT02652260|191827413|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.69|-2.35||||||Difference Estimate: LDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-2.35|-15.69|
95932180|NCT02652260|191827413|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-13.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|-6.35||||||Difference Estimate: Non-HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-6.35|-20.79|
95932181|NCT02652260|191827413|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-21.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.63|-13.21||||||Difference Estimate: Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-13.21|-29.63|
95932182|NCT02652260|191827413|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-4.6||||||Difference Estimate: HDL Cholesterol|ISG minus DSG|-4.60|-11.76|
95932183|NCT02652260|191827413|OTHER|The 95% CI for treatment difference was calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid lowering therapy at study Day 1 and treatment|Difference Estimate|-22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.52|-5.84||||||Difference Estimate: Triglyceride|ISG minus DSG|-5.84|-38.52|
95932184|NCT05857644|191827433|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.94|139.59|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||139.59|50.94|
95932185|NCT05857644|191827433|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.91|150.45|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||150.45|54.91|
95932186|NCT05857644|191827433|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|157.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.81|291.49|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||291.49|84.81|
95932187|NCT05857644|191827434|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.24|137.11|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||137.11|49.24|
95932188|NCT05857644|191827434|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|130.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|218.3|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||218.30|78.40|
95932189|NCT05857644|191827434|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|385.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.92|721.77|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||721.77|205.92|
95932190|NCT05857644|191827435|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.53|136.28|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||136.28|50.53|
95932191|NCT05857644|191827435|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|215.99|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||215.99|80.09|
95932192|NCT05857644|191827435|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|392.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.57|719.85|||||Severe Hepatic Impairment versus No Hepatic Impairment|||719.85|213.57|
95932193|NCT03088813|191827445|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Stratified log-rank test|From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|The associated HR and two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.37|0.90|0.3094
95932194|NCT03088813|191827449|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||From stratified log-rank test, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity|Stratified log-rank test||The associated HR and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|||1.20|0.77|0.7053
95932195|NCT03088813|191827450|OTHER||Difference in ORR|22.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|30.61||ORR difference, 95% CI and P-value are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by corrected region and corrected platinum sensitivity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.61|13.97|<0.0001
95932196|NCT02566902|191827520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95932197|NCT02566902|191827521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95932198|NCT02566902|191827522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95932199|NCT02566902|191827523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
95932200|NCT02566902|191827524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95932201|NCT02566902|191827525|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95932202|NCT01622868|191827529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||The study was designed to see if there is a signal in the 12-week CR rate with the addition of lapatinib to warrant a future phase III trial. Null hypothesis: the 12-week post-WBRT/SRS CR rate is ≤ 5%; alternative hypothesis: the addition of lapatinib will increase that CR rate to at least 20%. 114 eligible participants provide 86% power to detect a 15% absolute increase in CR rate at a significance level of 0.10, using a 1-sided Z-test for the difference of 2 proportions.||||0.97
95932203|NCT01622868|191827530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||||||0.78
95932204|NCT01622868|191827531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||4 weeks post-RT||||0.78
95932205|NCT01622868|191827531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|Z-test|||12 weeks post-RT||||0.97
95986869|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Entry||1.44|0.58|0.70
95986870|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 2||1.03|0.40|0.07
95986871|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 4||0.98|0.34|0.04
95986872|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 6||1.67|0.41|0.60
95986873|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 8||1.88|0.33|0.595
95986874|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.44|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 10||2.44|0.25|0.66
95986875|NCT04311502|191947954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||Time point: Week 12||6.39|0.21|0.86
95986876|NCT04311502|191947955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|20.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|35.16|||Regression, Linear|||This comparison is adjusting for HIV-1 status (positive/negative) and TB Disease at Screening (Advanced/Not Advanced).||35.16|5.71|<0.01
95986877|NCT03036293|191947983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.217|2.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.91|0.217|0.0055
95986878|NCT03036293|191947983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.1|3.96|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate. Yeo-Johnson transformation with λ=1,09 was applied. Statistical inference performed for transformed values.|estimate and CL are backtransformed|Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||3.96|1.1|<0.0001
95986879|NCT03036293|191947983|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence limits were prespecified as \[-2.763; 2.763\]|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.64|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.33|-0.64|0.0008
95986880|NCT03036293|191947984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.54|-0.08|0.08
95932206|NCT01622868|191827537|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||One-sided significance level = 0.10|z-test|||||||1.00
95932207|NCT01622868|191827539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.62|0.67
95932208|NCT02374463|191827643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||within group change was assessed||||<0.05
95986881|NCT03036293|191947984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.66|0.02|0.044
95795099|NCT05079321|191560306|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95932209|NCT02374463|191827644|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.08
95932210|NCT02374463|191827645|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6|||||||ANOVA|not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||||=0.6
95932211|NCT02374463|191827646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|exploratory aim prespecified.||||||0.84
95932212|NCT02374463|191827646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4
95932213|NCT02374463|191827647|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||=0.3
95932214|NCT02374463|191827648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95986882|NCT03036293|191947985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.78|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||1.78|-0.4|0.21
95986883|NCT03036293|191947985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.26|||ANCOVA|Baseline score used as covariate||Mean score differences (begin-end) were compared||2.26|0.14|0.027
95986884|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.89|0.98|0.065
95986885|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||2.33|1.22|0.0015
95986886|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.7
95986887|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||1
95986888|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.01
95986889|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.57
95986890|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.25
95986891|NCT03036293|191947986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.001
95986892|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.23|0.64|0.46
95986893|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Bigger OR is better|Common OR of event analysis||1.79|0.9|0.17
95986894|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.38
95986895|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.67
95986896|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.85
95986897|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 frequencies comparison||||0.71
95986898|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 frequencies comparison||||0.29
95986899|NCT03036293|191947987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 frequencies comparison||||0.007
95795100|NCT05079321|191560307|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95795101|NCT05079321|191560309|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95932215|NCT03538717|191827649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.113
95932216|NCT03538717|191827650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.228
95932217|NCT03538717|191827651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.020
95932218|NCT03538717|191827652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.138
95932219|NCT03538717|191827653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.524
95932220|NCT03538717|191827654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.265
95795102|NCT05079321|191560310|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95795103|NCT05079321|191560311|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95795104|NCT05079321|191560312|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
95795105|NCT05079321|191560313|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95795106|NCT05079321|191560314|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
95932221|NCT03538717|191827655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.035
95986900|NCT03036293|191947988|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.00002||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||0.33|-0.00002|0.314
95986901|NCT03036293|191947988|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator for location difference provided|Median changes (begin-end) within groups are compared||1|0|0.031
95986902|NCT03036293|191947989|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00001||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.00001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00001|-3|0.0021
95986903|NCT03036293|191947989|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.00002||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.00002|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Lower is better|||-0.00002|-1|0.0056
95986904|NCT03354663|191947996|OTHER|Single arm trial|Proportion|0.047|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0864|||Binomial Exact Test|||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P ≥ 16.2% Ha: P \< 16.2%, where P is the percentage of subjects with a primary safety endpoint event. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level."||0.0864||<0.0001
95986905|NCT03354663|191947997|OTHER|"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: P \< 90% Ha: P ≥ 90%, where P is the percentage of subjects with acute success. The hypothesis will be tested based on a one-sided exact test of binomial proportions at the one-sided 0.05 alpha level. Rejection of the null hypothesis will indicate study success."|Proportion|0.98||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9495||||Binomial Exact Test||||||0.9495|0.0001
95986906|NCT03354663|191948002|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.7|87.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence at 1-year|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from recurrence.||87.6|74.7|
95986907|NCT03354663|191948003|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival estimate|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence or need for anti-arrhythmic medication||75.1|59.9|
95986908|NCT03691974|191948017|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.32||Analyses are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.32|-0.55|0.4192
95986909|NCT03691974|191948018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.80|-0.00|0.0521
95986910|NCT03691974|191948019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.15|-0.52|0.1593
95986911|NCT03691974|191948020|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.19||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.19|-1.59|0.7757
95986912|NCT03691974|191948021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.09||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.09|-1.87|0.6063
95986913|NCT03691974|191948022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.39||Analyses are based on MMRM model with terms for baseline nerve conduction test score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.39|-3.30|0.4203
95986914|NCT03691974|191948023|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.123|-0.538||Analyses are based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.538|-2.123|0.0010
95986915|NCT03691974|191948024|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.212|-0.625||Analyses were based on multiple imputation with MMRM model with terms for baseline WOMAC subscale score, treatment, screening Kellgren-Lawrence score, index joint, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.625|-2.212|0.0005
95986916|NCT01661140|191948043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority if the difference between treatments is statistically significant and the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0.9.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.803||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|3.133|||Analysis by logistic regression|||Comparison was Tapering MTX : MTX maintenance. Last post-baseline EULAR response recorded used for participants with a missing result at Week 60.||3.133|1.037|0.036
95986917|NCT02495844|191948061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||=|0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.06|0.90|=0.0679
95986918|NCT00590590|191948081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
95986919|NCT00590590|191948081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
95986920|NCT00590590|191948081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
95986921|NCT00590590|191948082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
95986922|NCT00590590|191948082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
95986923|NCT00590590|191948082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
95986924|NCT00590590|191948083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
95986925|NCT00590590|191948083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
95986926|NCT00590590|191948083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
95986927|NCT00590590|191948084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
95986928|NCT00590590|191948084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
95986929|NCT00590590|191948084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
95986930|NCT00590590|191948085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
95986931|NCT00590590|191948085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
95932222|NCT03538717|191827656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.123
95932223|NCT03538717|191827657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.327
95932224|NCT03538717|191827658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.419
95932225|NCT03538717|191827659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.010
95932226|NCT03538717|191827660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||100% clear cells||||0.446
95932227|NCT03538717|191827660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||100% non-clear cells||||0.596
95932228|NCT03538717|191827660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Majority component of clear cells||||0.578
95932229|NCT03538717|191827660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Fisher Exact|||Majority component of non-clear cells||||0.706
95795107|NCT01081626|191560315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0135||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1325|0.1637|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.1637|-0.1325|0.9560
95932230|NCT03538717|191827661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.074
95795108|NCT01081626|191560316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7642|1.549|||Chi-squared|||||1.5490|0.7642|0.7924
95795109|NCT01081626|191560320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5331
95932231|NCT03538717|191827662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.070
95932232|NCT03538717|191827663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.091
95932233|NCT03538717|191827664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.046
95932234|NCT03538717|191827664|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||CNS||||>0.999
95932235|NCT03538717|191827664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatic||||0.026
95932236|NCT03538717|191827664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary||||0.327
95932237|NCT03538717|191827664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Bone||||0.024
95932238|NCT03538717|191827664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Another site of metastasis||||0.045
95932239|NCT03538717|191827665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Chi-squared|||LDH level \>1.5\*ULN||||0.555
95932240|NCT03538717|191827665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Hgb levels \<=LLN||||<0.001
95932241|NCT03538717|191827665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||Corrected Ca levels \>10 mg/dL||||0.344
95932242|NCT03538717|191827665|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil levels \>ULN||||>0.999
95932243|NCT03538717|191827665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||Platelet levels \>ULN||||0.795
95932244|NCT03538717|191827665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio \<=3||||0.184
95932245|NCT03538717|191827666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistics analysis (P value) was performed compositely for all the categories reported.||||0.235
95932246|NCT00253890|191827694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.7||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in sleep quality was assessed by calculating gain scores. We used a 2-sided t-test to report mean change.||||.05
95932247|NCT05132478|191827732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.720
95932248|NCT05132478|191827733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
95857369|NCT01285323|191673175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2819|0.5855||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5855|0.2819|<0.0001
95932249|NCT05132478|191827734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.228
95857370|NCT01285323|191673176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0397||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.179||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.179|0.023|0.0109
95857371|NCT01285323|191673177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0317||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.155||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active-placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.155|0.030|0.0037
95857372|NCT01285323|191673178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.937||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.393||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.393|0.025|0.0259
95932250|NCT05132478|191827734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Intervention||||0.176
95932251|NCT05132478|191827735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.410
95932252|NCT05132478|191827735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||ANOVA|||Post-Intervention||||0.351
95932253|NCT05132478|191827736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95857373|NCT01285323|191673179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.066||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||-0.066|-0.327|0.0032
95857374|NCT01285323|191673180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.670|0.353|<0.0001
95932254|NCT05132478|191827737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95932255|NCT03074331|191827770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
95932256|NCT00174382|191827784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.182||95.0|-0.21|1.09||Baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.09|-0.21|0.182
95932257|NCT00174382|191827784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.067||95.0|-0.05|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||1.36|-0.05|0.067
95949961|NCT01263223|191871842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|7.21||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.21|3.81|<0.0001
95949962|NCT01263223|191871842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|9.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.20|2.13|0.0020
95949963|NCT01263223|191871843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|5.38||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.418|0.0224
95949964|NCT01263223|191871843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|7.29||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|-1.88|0.2453
95986932|NCT00590590|191948085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
95932258|NCT00174382|191827784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 LOCF Null hypothesis; change from baseline to the final visit = 0. Alternative hypothesis; change from baseline to final visit not = to 0. Sample of 260 participants was required for study to have 85% power to detect change from baseline to final visit of 0.73 in SMMSE total score, with a SD of 3.5. Fewer than 260 patients were enrolled, due to this loss in power the number of analyses specified in the protocol has been reduced and any analyses carried out will be exploratory in nature.||||0.085
95932259|NCT00174382|191827785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.218||95.0|-1.2|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-1.20|0.218
95932260|NCT00174382|191827785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.385||95.0|-6.03|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-6.03|0.385
95932261|NCT00174382|191827785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.228
95932262|NCT00174382|191827786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.404||95.0|-2.51|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.18|-2.51|0.404
95932263|NCT00174382|191827786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.826||95.0|-4.51|5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.64|-4.51|0.826
95932264|NCT00174382|191827786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
95932265|NCT00174382|191827787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.272||95.0|-1.42|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.99|-1.42|0.272
95932266|NCT00174382|191827787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.894||95.0|-4.21|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-4.21|0.894
95932267|NCT00174382|191827787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.906
95932268|NCT00174382|191827788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.719||95.0|-0.56|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.56|0.719
95932269|NCT00174382|191827788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.006||95.0|0.29|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.71|0.29|0.006
95932270|NCT00174382|191827788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95932271|NCT00174382|191827789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.368||95.0|-0.38|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-0.38|0.368
95932272|NCT00174382|191827789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03||95.0|0.07|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|0.07|0.030
95932273|NCT00174382|191827789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.060
95932274|NCT00174382|191827790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.516||95.0|-0.44|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.44|0.516
95932275|NCT00174382|191827790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.297||95.0|-0.97|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.97|0.297
95986933|NCT00590590|191948086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Drug 2||||
95986934|NCT00590590|191948086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 1 \< Placebo||||
95932276|NCT00174382|191827790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
95932277|NCT00174382|191827791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.02||95.0|0.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.13|0.020
95932278|NCT00174382|191827791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.018||95.0|0.16|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|0.16|0.018
95932279|NCT00174382|191827791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95932280|NCT00174382|191827792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.01||95.0|-1.93|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.93|0.010
95932281|NCT00174382|191827792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.018||95.0|-2.05|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.05|0.018
95932282|NCT00174382|191827792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95932283|NCT00174382|191827793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.182||95.0|-2.06|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.06|0.182
95932284|NCT00174382|191827793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.114||95.0|-2.44|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-2.44|0.114
95932285|NCT00174382|191827793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
95932286|NCT01796236|191827798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.12
95932287|NCT01796236|191827799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||"Combined Endpoint is calculated as the sum of the following four events from 3 weeks to 3 years:~Holgers Index \>=2. Any Overgrowth \>=2. Pain (scar/neuropathic) \>=3. Any numbness \>=2.~Each event is counted only once"||||0.45
95932288|NCT01796236|191827800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.0001
95932289|NCT01796236|191827801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 10||||0.020
95932290|NCT01796236|191827801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 3||||0.4
95986935|NCT00590590|191948086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||||||||||||Ha: Drug 2 \< Placebo||||
95986936|NCT04999267|191948087|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95986937|NCT04999267|191948088|OTHER|Pre-intervention vs. Post-intervention analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95986938|NCT02684981|191948090|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
95986939|NCT02684981|191948090|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
95986940|NCT02684981|191948091|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V2||||< 0.0001
95857375|NCT01285323|191673181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.059||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.059|0.011|0.0037
95857376|NCT01285323|191673182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1775||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.287||Statistical significance at \<=0.05.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed Factors: treatment, visit, trt by visit interaction, region, OCS at enrollment, sex. Random: covariates for height, baseline value and patient|active - placebo|A pre-specified fixed sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.||0.287|-0.411|0.7263
95857377|NCT01285323|191673185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.3893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2621|0.5782||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.5782|0.2621|<0.0001
95857378|NCT01285323|191673185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio|0.6686||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2878|1.6479||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.6479|0.2878|0.4020
95857379|NCT02606643|191673189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||an alpha level of .05, and a level of power of 80%. These parameters required a sample size of 63 patients per group||||0.814
95857380|NCT02158546|191673194|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.1|0.782
95857381|NCT01532986|191673208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.222|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.222|0.157|>0.05
95857382|NCT01532986|191673209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.04|>0.05
95857383|NCT01532986|191673210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.52|>0.05
95857384|NCT01532986|191673211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.34|>0.05
95932291|NCT01796236|191827801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 6||||1.00
95932292|NCT01796236|191827801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.97
95857385|NCT01532986|191673212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-2.04|>0.05
95857386|NCT01532986|191673213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|10.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.46|-8.02|>0.05
95857387|NCT01532986|191673214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.00|>0.05
95857388|NCT01532986|191673215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.45|>0.05
95857389|NCT01532986|191673216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|-2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.62|-20.42|<0.05
95857390|NCT01532986|191673217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-4.20|>0.05
95857391|NCT03408392|191673225|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|115.54||||||||115.54|96.11|
95857392|NCT03408392|191673226|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.37|109.55||||||||109.55|93.37|
95857393|NCT03408392|191673227|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing cefixime test and reference product has been presented.|Percentage ratio|105.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|114.78||||||||114.78|96.31|
95857394|NCT00885170|191673249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|The primary hypothesis of the study was met if; in postmenopausal women previously treated with alendronate with low BMD, two years of treatment with odanacatib 50 mg significantly increased BMD at the femoral neck site compared to placebo (p-value \< 0.001).||4.17|1.17|<0.001
95857395|NCT00885170|191673250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.0|-16.9|
95932293|NCT01796236|191827801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.00
95932294|NCT01796236|191827802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 12 Months||||0.40
95932295|NCT01796236|191827802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Maximum of Holgers at 36 Months||||0.14
95932296|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Day 10||||0.38
95932297|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 3||||0.17
95932298|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 6||||0.37
95932299|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 12||||0.73
95795110|NCT01081626|191560321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.015||||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7175|1.435|||Chi-squared|||||1.4350|0.7175|0.9351
95932300|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Week 24||||0.47
95932301|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 12||||0.73
95932302|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 24||||0.37
95932303|NCT01796236|191827803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Holgers Index Month 36||||0.75
95932304|NCT01796236|191827804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 12 months||||<0.0001
95932305|NCT01796236|191827804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||maximum numbness at 36 months||||<0.0001
95932306|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Neuropathic pain||||0.74
95932307|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 10, Scar pain||||0.36
95932308|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Neuropathic pain||||0.030
95932309|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3, Scar pain||||0.92
95932310|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Neuropathic pain||||0.15
95932311|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 6, Scar pain||||0.38
95932312|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.015
95932313|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12, Scar pain||||0.72
95932314|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Neuropathic pain||||0.44
95932315|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24, Scar pain||||0.43
95932316|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Neuropathic pain||||0.21
95932317|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12, Scar pain||||0.97
95932318|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Neuropathic pain||||0.19
95932319|NCT01796236|191827805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36, Scar pain||||0.77
95932320|NCT01796236|191827806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain||||0.076
95932321|NCT01796236|191827806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain||||0.49
95932322|NCT01796236|191827807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Neuropathic Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.076
95857396|NCT00885170|191673251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Percentage vs. Placebo|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||12.6|-0.4|
95932323|NCT01796236|191827807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Scar Categorical Max Pain 36 months||||0.71
95932324|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Neuropathic pain||||0.52
95932325|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 10: Scar pain||||0.44
95932326|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Neuropathic pain||||0.14
95932327|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3: Scar pain||||0.59
95932328|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Neuropathic pain||||0.17
95932329|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Scar pain||||0.44
95932330|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Neuropathic pain||||0.0087
95932331|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Scar pain||||0.84
95932332|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Neuropathic pain||||0.43
95932333|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Scar pain||||0.33
95932334|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Neuropathic pain||||0.21
95932335|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 12 Scar pain||||0.82
95986941|NCT02684981|191948091|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Statistical analysis for median change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores from V1 to V3||||< 0.0001
95986942|NCT02684981|191948092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
95986943|NCT02684981|191948092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.509|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in convenience PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
95986944|NCT02684981|191948093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at initiation stage (V2)||||< 0.001
95986945|NCT02684981|191948093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary analysis of PACT-Q2 scores was based on the random intercept model, where the matched group is considered as a random effect, the treatment as a fixed effect and the score as the response variable.|Mean change in satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores between VKA and Pradaxa therapy at continuation stage (V3)||||< 0.001
95986946|NCT02684981|191948101|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis||Median convenience and satisfaction PACT-Q2 scores at last assessment compared to second assessment||||< 0.001
95986947|NCT00883337|191948136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5953||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"The study was sized to detect a difference between Teriflunomide and Rebif groups in the time to failure at a significance level of 0.025 with a power of 81%.~Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5953
95932336|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Neuropathic pain||||0.19
95932337|NCT01796236|191827808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 36 Scar pain||||0.77
95932338|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Day 10 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.12
95932339|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.016
95932340|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 6 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.84
95932341|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.53
95932342|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.18
95932343|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.63
95932344|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||0.81
95932345|NCT01796236|191827809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36 Soft tissue thickening/overgrowth||||1.00
95932346|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Day 10||||0.0009
95932347|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 3||||0.0080
95932348|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 6||||0.46
95932349|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 12||||0.45
95932350|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Week 24||||0.18
95932351|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 12||||0.017
95932352|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 24||||0.15
95932353|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visible Abutment Length Month 36||||0.32
95932354|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.74
95932355|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||<0.0001
95932356|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||0.041
95932357|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.0065
95932358|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0003
95932359|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.028
95932360|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Test Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.037
95932361|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 3 change from day 10||||0.072
95932362|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 6 change from day 10||||0.034
95932363|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 12 change from day 10||||<0.0001
95932364|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Week 24 change from day 10||||0.010
95932365|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 12 change from day 10||||0.0086
95932366|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 24 change from day 10||||0.0021
95932367|NCT01796236|191827810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Sign test|||Change in Visible Control Abutment - Month 36 change from day 10||||0.0005
95932368|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.026
95932369|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vascularity (observer)||||0.33
95932370|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vascularity (observer)||||0.094
95932371|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.30
95932372|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.23
95932373|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pigmentation (observer)||||0.48
95932374|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.0003
95932375|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (observer)||||0.062
95932376|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (observer)||||0.11
95932377|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Relief (observer)||||0.0003
95932378|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Relief (observer)||||0.079
95932379|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Relief (observer)||||0.025
95932380|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.0020
95932381|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pliability (observer)||||0.14
95932382|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pliability (observer)||||0.0014
95932383|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.0001
95932384|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Surface Area (observer)||||0.023
95932385|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Surface Area (observer)||||0.045
95932386|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.0005
95932387|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (observer)||||0.085
95932388|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (observer)||||0.030
95932389|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.0015
95932390|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.076
95932391|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (observer)||||0.15
95932392|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Painful (patient)||||0.72
95932393|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Painful (patient)||||0.97
95932394|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Painful (patient)||||0.82
95932395|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Itching (patient)||||0.86
95932396|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Itching (patient)||||0.84
95932397|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Itching (patient)||||0.76
95932398|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Color (patient)||||0.41
95932399|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Color (patient)||||0.98
95932400|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Color (patient)||||0.76
95932401|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.43
95932402|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Stiffness (patient)||||0.25
95932403|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Stiffness (patient)||||0.017
95932404|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.13
95932405|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Thickness (patient)||||0.33
95932406|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Thickness (patient)||||0.65
95932407|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.18
95932408|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Irregularity (patient)||||0.38
95932409|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Irregularity (patient)||||0.080
95932410|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.28
95932411|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Total Score (patient)||||0.44
95932412|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Total Score (patient)||||0.19
95932413|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.16
95932414|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.23
95932415|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Overall Opinion (patient)||||0.079
95932416|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.0018
95932417|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.053
95932418|NCT01796236|191827811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain not within Scar (patient)||||0.068
95932419|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.90
95932420|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.43
95932421|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.23
95932422|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI3)||||0.019
95986948|NCT00883337|191948136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||"Hochberg testing procedure:~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05 for the largest p-value of the 2 pair-wise comparisons~* a-priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.025 for the other p-value if the largest p-value \>0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log Rank test with the region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as stratification factors||"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and Rebif~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and Rebif"||||0.5190
95932423|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Vision (HUI3)||||0.079
95932424|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Vision (HUI3)||||0.96
95932425|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Vision (HUI3)||||0.55
95932426|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Vision (HUI3)||||0.64
95932427|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.76
95932428|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.059
95932429|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.38
95932430|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Hearing (HUI3)||||0.14
95932431|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Speech (HUI3)||||0.73
95932432|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Speech (HUI3)||||0.65
95932433|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Speech (HUI3)||||1.00
95932434|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Speech (HUI3)||||0.35
95932435|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.50
95932436|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.40
95986949|NCT01709149|191948226|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||0.14|-1.30|0.1140
95986950|NCT01709149|191948227|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.963||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|4.34|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||4.34|-3.38|0.8083
95986951|NCT01709149|191948228|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.2|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||-0.20|-6.60|0.0372
95986952|NCT01709149|191948229|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.28|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||6.28|2.23|<0.0001
95986953|NCT01709149|191948230|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.63|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||2.63|-1.13|0.4328
95986954|NCT01709149|191948231|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.399||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.9|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||8.90|-8.40|0.9546
95986955|NCT01709149|191948232|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.91|||Repeated-measures mixed model||Least squares mean difference: tirasemtiv minus placebo|||7.91|-4.70|0.6166
95932437|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.21
95932438|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ambulation (HUI3)||||0.0010
95932439|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.13
95932440|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.96
95932441|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.75
95932442|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI3)||||0.20
95932443|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.95
95932444|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.31
95932445|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.15
95932446|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI3)||||0.19
95932447|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI3)||||0.41
95932448|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI3)||||0.30
95932449|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI3)||||0.42
95932450|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI3)||||0.040
95932451|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.99
95932452|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.88
95932453|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.32
95932454|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Comprehensive Health State (HUI2)||||0.0084
95932455|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.77
95932456|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.95
95932457|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.60
95932458|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Sensation (HUI2)||||0.48
95932459|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.51
95932460|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.42
95932461|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.22
95932462|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Mobility (HUI2)||||0.0018
95932463|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.30
95932464|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.52
95986956|NCT02915523|191948249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.393|||||Stratified HR estimated from a stratified univeriate Cox proportional hazards model. Avelumab + placebo was the reference treatment group.|||1.393|0.581|
95986957|NCT01780831|191948284|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
95727946|NCT02277769|191425545|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|-1.587||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.587|-2.605|< 0.0001
95932465|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.47
95932466|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Emotion (HUI2)||||0.18
95932467|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.82
95932468|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.41
95932469|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.14
95932470|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Cognition (HUI2)||||0.25
95932471|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.59
95932472|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Self Care (HUI2)||||1.00
95932473|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.55
95932474|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Self Care (HUI2)||||0.14
95932475|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Pain (HUI2)||||0.75
95932476|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Pain (HUI2)||||0.63
95932477|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Pain (HUI2)||||0.57
95932478|NCT01796236|191827812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Pain (HUI2)||||0.019
95932479|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.047
95932480|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.23
95932481|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.015
95932482|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.13
95932483|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Aided)||||0.041
95932484|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.071
95932485|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.75
95932486|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.32
95932487|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.24
95932488|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Unaided)||||0.24
95932489|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.12
95986958|NCT01780831|191948284|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.7|46.6||||||||46.6|18.7|
95986959|NCT01780831|191948291|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|48.4||||||||48.4|9|
95727947|NCT02277769|191425545|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.982|-1.957||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.957|-2.982|< 0.0001
95857397|NCT00885170|191673252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.14|-0.37|0.166
95932490|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.19
95932491|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.055
95932492|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.24
95932493|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline: Global (Benefit)||||0.042
95932494|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.19
95932495|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.99
95932496|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.24
95932497|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.73
95932498|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Aided)||||0.39
95932499|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.24
95932500|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.81
95932501|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.34
95932502|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.038
95932503|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Unaided)||||0.53
95932504|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.63
95932505|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.83
95932506|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.71
95932507|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.16
95932508|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24: Global (Benefit)||||0.81
95932509|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.51
95932510|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.47
95932511|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.93
95932512|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.62
95932513|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Aided)||||0.63
95932514|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.18
95932515|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.76
95932516|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.17
95932517|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.29
95932518|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Unaided)||||0.40
95932519|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.29
95932520|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.90
95932521|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.24
95932522|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.45
95932523|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12: Global (Benefit)||||0.37
95932524|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Aided)||||0.84
95932525|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Aided)||||0.57
95932526|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Aided)||||0.71
95932527|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Aided)||||0.99
95932528|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Aided)||||0.78
95932529|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Unaided)||||0.50
95932530|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Unaided)||||0.48
95932531|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Unaided)||||0.64
95932532|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Unaided)||||0.041
95986960|NCT01780831|191948291|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had grade 3/4 AE through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.6|58.1||||||||58.1|28.6|
95795111|NCT02775851|191560371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null pCR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 25%. This single stage design had an alpha of 3.4% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 90% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true pCR is 25%) with 25 eligible participants.||||<0.001
95986961|NCT01780831|191948292|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
95986962|NCT01780831|191948292|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 6 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
95986963|NCT01780831|191948293|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 1 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|26.4||||||||26.4|0.3|
95986964|NCT01780831|191948293|OTHER|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage Cohort 2 infants who died or had SADR of Grade 3 or 4 through 24 weeks of life.|Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI is not provided since the estimation parameter is 0.|||||
95795112|NCT02775851|191560372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial|||We assumed a null CR rate of 5% and powered the study assuming an alternative hypothesis of 20%. This single stage design had an alpha of 8.5% (i.e. probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 5%) and a power of 82% (probability of declaring the regimen warrants further study when the true CR is 20%) with 21 eligible participants.||||<0.001
95986965|NCT01780831|191948294|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
95986966|NCT01780831|191948295|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95986967|NCT01780831|191948296|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95986968|NCT02429414|191948301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95986969|NCT02429414|191948302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0209
95986970|NCT02429414|191948303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
95986971|NCT04442230|191948321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6602|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-values from significance tests were obtained at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.6602
95986972|NCT02706873|191948325|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|31.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||31.1|16.3|<0.001
95795113|NCT02314546|191560463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95795114|NCT02314546|191560464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95795115|NCT02314546|191560465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.26
95932533|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Unaided)||||0.89
95932534|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Ease of Communication (Benefit)||||0.14
95932535|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Background Noise (Benefit)||||0.48
95932536|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Reverberation (Benefit)||||0.23
95986973|NCT02706873|191948325|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|35.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||35.4|20.6|<0.001
95795116|NCT02314546|191560466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
95932537|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Aversiveness (Benefit)||||0.57
95932538|NCT01796236|191827813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 36: Global (Benefit)||||0.21
95932539|NCT01796236|191827814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sound Processor Usage: Week 6||||0.46
95932540|NCT01796236|191827814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 12||||0.75
95795117|NCT02314546|191560467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
95932541|NCT01796236|191827814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Week 24||||0.83
95932542|NCT01796236|191827814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 12||||0.52
95932543|NCT01796236|191827814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 24||||0.67
95932544|NCT01796236|191827814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Use of Sound Processor: Month 36||||0.71
95932545|NCT01796236|191827816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Baseline: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.91
95932546|NCT01796236|191827816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 3: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.70
95932547|NCT01796236|191827816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.95
95932548|NCT01796236|191827816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 12: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.22
95932549|NCT01796236|191827816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 24: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.19
95932550|NCT01796236|191827816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Month 36: Smoking and Wet Snuff habits||||0.45
95932551|NCT01796236|191827817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Loss of Implant (safety population)||||0.989
95932552|NCT03684044|191827824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|25.9|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||25.9|-53.4|0.4666
95932553|NCT03684044|191827825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6326|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistic was stratified by region, NEWS2 at baseline (≤7, \>7), and time from symptom onset to study treatment (≤48 hours, \>48 hours)||||||0.6326
95932554|NCT03684044|191827826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|17.7|||Gehan Wilcoxon|The Gehan Wilcoxon test was used to analyze the TTCI data because the proportional hazards assumption was violated||||17.7|-50.9|0.3272
95932555|NCT03703336|191827853|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVIN and ROTAVIN-M1 groups were to be larger than 1/2, ROTAVIN was considered to be non-inferior to the licensed frozen formulation of the vaccine (ROTAVIN-M1).|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||Log10-transformed IgA concentrations were used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI for the mean difference between the arms using t-distribution. The mean difference and 95% CI were exponentiated to obtain the GMC ratio and corresponding 95% CI.|||1.86|1.02|
95932556|NCT03703336|191827855|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|15.87||||||||15.87|-3.57|
95932557|NCT03703336|191827856|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.09||||||Percentage Difference on Day 1||2.09|-2.40|
95795118|NCT02314546|191560468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
95932558|NCT03703336|191827856|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.23||||||Percentage Difference on Day 85||16.23|-3.19|
95795119|NCT02314546|191560469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
95795120|NCT04460885|191560470|NON_INFERIORITY|The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.|Treatment difference|-0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.36|<0.0001
95795121|NCT04953338|191560484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having a depression episode versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.32|0.92|
95795122|NCT04953338|191560487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with anxiety disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.51|1.01|
95932559|NCT04629950|191827868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
95932560|NCT04629950|191827868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
95932561|NCT04629950|191827869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.691
95932562|NCT04629950|191827869|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95932563|NCT04629950|191827870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,||||||0.758
95986974|NCT02706873|191948326|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|36.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||36.8|22.8|<0.001
95986975|NCT02706873|191948326|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||38.5|24.5|<0.001
95986976|NCT02706873|191948327|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||28.8|14.3|<0.001
95986977|NCT02706873|191948327|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|30.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||30.1|15.7|<0.001
95795123|NCT04953338|191560488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.56|||||Calculated as the relative risk of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with recurrent depressive disorder versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.56|1.01|
95795124|NCT01721798|191560489|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary Outcome Analysis: Proportion of women with detectable genital viral load across 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||GEE|||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.62|0.47|0.66
95932564|NCT04629950|191827870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Data represent change values.||||0.247
95932565|NCT04629950|191827871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.316
95932566|NCT04629950|191827871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data represent change values.||||0.605
95932567|NCT04629950|191827872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch||||0.192
95932568|NCT04629950|191827872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Average Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.392
95932569|NCT04629950|191827872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch||||0.347
95932570|NCT04629950|191827872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons,|t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Reduction in Maximum Itch. Data represent change values.||||0.572
95932571|NCT04629950|191827873|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.359
95932572|NCT04629950|191827874|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
95932573|NCT04629950|191827875|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
95986978|NCT02706873|191948328|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.20|-0.85|0.001
95857398|NCT00885170|191673253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|3.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|5.17|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||5.17|1.19|0.002
95932574|NCT04629950|191827876|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.713
95993675|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-1.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|27.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|FFA||27|-22|0.9665
95993676|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-7.0||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||10|-21|0.4133
95932575|NCT04629950|191827877|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
95932576|NCT04629950|191827878|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
95932577|NCT04629950|191827879|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||0.221
95932578|NCT04629950|191827879|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||0.286
95932579|NCT04629950|191827880|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Average Itch Over the Preceding 3 Days||||1
95932580|NCT04629950|191827880|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis is for the Maximum Itch of the Preceding 7 Days||||1
95932581|NCT05061693|191827887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|45.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||45.4|1.6|0.0061
95932582|NCT05061693|191827887|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
95932583|NCT05061693|191827887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|65.6|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||65.6|2.3|0.0005
95932584|NCT05061693|191827887|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
95932585|NCT05061693|191827887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|107.5|||Regression, Logistic|Exact Logistic regression: (response at Week 16 = treatment + stratification factor \[Day 1 Investigator's Global Assessment score (3 or 4)\])||||107.5|3.9|<0.0001
95932586|NCT05061693|191827887|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rate|48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The standard error of the difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
95932587|NCT01943799|191827894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.059|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.059|-0.061|0.976
95932588|NCT01943799|191827894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.053|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.053|-0.067|0.828
95993677|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-6.0||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||11|-20|0.4750
95932589|NCT01943799|191827894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.029||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.031|||MMRM|||Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg (log10 IU/mL) titers in the respective GS-4774 group was not equal to that of the OAV group. Estimated least squares means (LSM) of treatment effects and estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the OAV group at Week 24 were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and unadjusted p-values.||0.031|-0.089|0.343
95932590|NCT03811574|191827902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-5.43|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-5.43|-9.62|<.0001
95932591|NCT03811574|191827902|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|-9.24|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.24|-12.88|<.0001
95932592|NCT03811574|191827903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|22.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||22.22|5.53|<.0001
95932593|NCT03811574|191827903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.27|41.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||41.86|11.27|<.0001
95932594|NCT00891436|191827952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was used for the data analysis||||>0.1
95932595|NCT00891436|191827952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test showed no different between the 2 groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.1
95932596|NCT01853748|191828002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95932597|NCT01853748|191828007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
95932598|NCT01853748|191828010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95932599|NCT04878354|191828056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||2.00|0.58|0.0004
95932600|NCT04878354|191828057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||1.35|0.34|0.0010
95932601|NCT04878354|191828058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.71|0.03|0.0354
95932602|NCT04878354|191828059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Adjusted p-value.||0.50|-0.02|0.0734
95932603|NCT04878354|191828060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.28|0.45|<0.0001
95932604|NCT04878354|191828061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.82|0.26|0.0002
95932605|NCT04878354|191828062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.76|-0.11|0.1516
95932606|NCT04878354|191828063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.25|-0.24|0.9709
95932607|NCT04878354|191828064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.41|0.00|0.0499
95932608|NCT04878354|191828065|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||2.18|0.73|<0.0001
95932609|NCT04878354|191828066|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.83|0.13|0.0075
95932610|NCT04878354|191828067|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||1.29|0.44|<0.0001
95932611|NCT04878354|191828068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.32|1.10|<0.0001
95932612|NCT04878354|191828069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ration is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a severe day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of severe days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||1.08|0.93|0.9124
95932613|NCT04878354|191828070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Generalised linear fixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.81|0.71|<0.0001
95949965|NCT01263223|191871843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|6.82||P-value if for the Mean Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.82|3.37|<0.0001
95795125|NCT01721798|191560490|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Proportion with Detectable plasma viral load users at 24 months|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.86|||GEE|Adjusted as-treated analysis||C-IUD is comparator group.||1.86|0.37|0.64
95932614|NCT04878354|191828071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a well day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of well days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.93|0.85|<0.0001
95932615|NCT04878354|191828072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.84|0.72|<0.0001
95932616|NCT04878354|191828073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet / odds tree SLIT-tablet)|The odds of having a symptom-free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model includes proportion of symptom-free days as the response variable and treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.95|0.86|0.0001
95932617|NCT04878354|191828076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in an LME model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.29|0.07|0.0015
95949966|NCT01263223|191871843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|10.1||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|2.95|0.0005
95949967|NCT01263223|191871844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|16.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.9|8.7|<0.0001
95949968|NCT01263223|191871844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|34.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.5|11.4|0.0001
95949969|NCT01263223|191871845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.2120
95949970|NCT01263223|191871845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.5||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.5|-0.4|0.0640
95795126|NCT01721798|191560492|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary Outcome Analysis of Allocated IUC continuation at 24 months|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.4|||Regression, Cox|||C-IUD is comparator group.||24.4|3.03|<0.001
95932618|NCT04878354|191828077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The square root transformed endpoint was analysed in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment, cohort, and age group as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect with different residual errors specified for each treatment group. Back-transformation was used to estimate the absolute difference. Observed p-value.||0.20|0.04|0.0032
95932619|NCT04878354|191828078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.23|-0.21|0.9277
95932620|NCT04878354|191828079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.18|-0.19|0.9643
95932621|NCT04878354|191828080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo SLIT-tablet vs. tree SLIT-tablet|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy. The endpoint was analysed in each dataset in a linear mixed effect (LME) model with treatment and cohort as fixed effects, and pollen station within cohort as a random effect. Each treatment group was allowed different residual errors. Observed p-value.||0.34|0.02|0.0287
95932622|NCT04878354|191828082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.58|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds placebo SLIT-tablet/ odds tree SLIT-tablet)|"Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data under the hypothetical strategy.~The odds of having an improved treatment efficacy according to patient-rated global evaluation was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model with a logit link function. The model includes patient-rated global evaluation of treatment efficacy (improvement/no improvement) as the response variable and treatment, cohort and age group as fixed effects and pollen station as random effects. Observed p-value."||0.58|0.30|<0.0001
95932623|NCT04878354|191828083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.48|0.38|<0.0001
95932624|NCT04878354|191828083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.01|-0.09|0.1038
95932625|NCT04878354|191828084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.57|0.48|<0.0001
95932626|NCT04878354|191828084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.53|0.45|<0.0001
95932627|NCT04878354|191828085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 4|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 4 (pre-TPS). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analyzed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.33|0.24|<0.0001
95932628|NCT04878354|191828085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tree SLIT-tablet vs. placebo SLIT-tablet, visit 6|Change from baseline (screening) to visit 6 (end of treatment). Change from baseline of log transformed concentrations is analysed in a mixed effects linear model including treatment, visit, and treatment-visit-interaction as fixed effects, log(baseline concentration) as a covariate and subject as random effect. Observed p-value.||0.36|0.26|<0.0001
95949971|NCT01263223|191871845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|0.5|0.0211
95949972|NCT01263223|191871845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.8|-5.7|0.8719
95727948|NCT02277769|191425546|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.86|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-28.86|-43.46|< 0.0001
95986979|NCT02706873|191948328|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two upadacitinib doses (15 mg and 30 mg) was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure defined separately for US/FDA, European Union/European Medicines Agency and Japan/Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|For the global analysis, comparisons of the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were made between the upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg groups versus the methotrexate group.||-0.27|-0.91|<0.001
95986980|NCT02706873|191948329|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.67||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.||||-0.67|-1.09|<0.001
95795127|NCT00336544|191560494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0769||95.0|-11.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.6|-11.9|0.0769
95795128|NCT00336544|191560496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.0775||95.0|-9.1|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||0.3|-9.1|0.0775
95795129|NCT03427411|191560514|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as response rates which were sufficiently similar (p\>0.20 by Fisher's exact test).||||||0.6143||||||The p value was calculated and was 0.6143 which is \> 0.2 (pre-defined threshold).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6143
95795130|NCT03183908|191560528|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 5%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|The null hypothesis is allV3 is inferior (i.e., allV3 will have higher rates of moderate/severe injection site pain) to IIV3-HD in regards to the proportion of subjects having moderate or severe injection site pain in the first week post vaccination.||0.4|-5.8|
95857399|NCT00885170|191673254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.35|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||2.35|-0.34|0.142
95949973|NCT01263223|191871846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.3|0.7133
95949974|NCT01263223|191871846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|7.9||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-17.2|0.4638
95949975|NCT01263223|191871847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|15.9||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.9|11.3|<0.0001
95949976|NCT01263223|191871847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|34.2||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM heart rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.2|21.1|<0.0001
95949977|NCT01263223|191871848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.7||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.9|0.9609
95949978|NCT01263223|191871848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.6||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Systolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-3.9|0.2731
95949979|NCT01263223|191871848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.8||P-value is for the Mean Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-4.8|0.3779
95949980|NCT01263223|191871848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8||P-value is for the Maximum Change in ABPM Diastolic BP.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-12.8|0.0828
95949981|NCT02246647|191871859|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95949982|NCT04387773|191871874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
95949983|NCT04387773|191871875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that GOCOVRI would result in an increase of daily activity due to improvement in LID symptoms.||||>.05
95949984|NCT04387773|191871876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2393.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95949985|NCT04387773|191871877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95949986|NCT04387773|191871878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95857400|NCT00885170|191673255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.0|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||4.00|1.41|<0.001
95932629|NCT03358875|191828089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.778||OS in the ITT population was tested at one-sided p value boundary of 0.0120.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.778|0.527|<0.0001
95932630|NCT03358875|191828090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.702||OS in the PD-L1 positive analysis set was tested at the one-sided p-value boundary of 0.025.|1-sided Log Rank Test|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).||||0.702|0.407|<0.0001
95932631|NCT03358875|191828091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.336|6.393|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, line of therapy, and PDL1 expression.||||6.393|2.336|<0.0001
95932632|NCT03358875|191828092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.721|17.379|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology and line of therapy.||||17.379|3.721|<0.0001
95932633|NCT03358875|191828093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.536|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.536|0.176|<0.0001
95932634|NCT03358875|191828094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.37|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.370|0.066|<0.0001
95932635|NCT03358875|191828095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|0.745|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous), line of therapy (second vs third), and PDL1 expression (≥25% vs \<25% TC).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI.|||0.745|0.528|<0.0001
95932636|NCT03358875|191828096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.494|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors: histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and line of therapy (second vs third).|A stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to determine hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).|||0.494|0.285|<0.0001
95932637|NCT03358875|191828097|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||9.07|2.38|0.0008
95932638|NCT03358875|191828098|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|-3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Coughing Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||-3.51|-13.02|0.0007
95932639|NCT03358875|191828098|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dyspnoea Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||0.11|-6.52|0.0579
95932640|NCT03358875|191828098|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Chest Pain Scale. The linear mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure.||1.56|-6.05|0.2472
95932641|NCT03599648|191828101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.361
95986981|NCT02706873|191948329|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.8||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.80|-1.21|<0.001
95932642|NCT03599648|191828101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
95932643|NCT03599648|191828101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932644|NCT03599648|191828101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus immediately after 16 week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932645|NCT03599648|191828101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932646|NCT03599648|191828101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932647|NCT03599648|191828102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Baseline versus immediately following 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
95932648|NCT03599648|191828102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Baseline versus 6-months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95932649|NCT03599648|191828102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932650|NCT03599648|191828102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932651|NCT03599648|191828102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95993678|NCT03371355|191963320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB]|-4.0||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Lp\[a\]||15|-20|0.6354
95993679|NCT03371355|191963321|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|-42.53|0.1799
95993680|NCT03371355|191963321|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.8||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|39.49|||ANCOVA|||||39.49|-11.83|0.2867
95932652|NCT03599648|191828102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932653|NCT03599648|191828103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95734117|NCT00854308|191439367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671||95.0||||P-value was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Objective Response between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have better Objective Response compared with Placebo + Erlotinib||||0.3671
95932654|NCT03599648|191828103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932655|NCT03599648|191828103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 12 months after BPT-E intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932656|NCT03599648|191828103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus immediately after 16-week BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932657|NCT03599648|191828103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Baseline versus 6 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932658|NCT03599648|191828103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||baseline versus 12 months after BPT-M intervention|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95932659|NCT01903811|191828107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.37||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.370|0.821|0.384
95993681|NCT03371355|191963321|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.78|31.14|||ANCOVA|||||31.14|-26.78|0.8812
95993682|NCT03371355|191963322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.94|0.3995
95932660|NCT01903811|191828108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.841|1.571||Stratified by pre-specified randomization stratification factors: 1 - 3 prior therapies vs. 4-6 prior therapies and refractory to bortezomib vs. not refractory to bortezomib.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log rank test||||1.571|0.841|0.284
95932661|NCT01903811|191828109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Compare the rate of confirmed PR or better between treatment arms.||||0.1130
95932662|NCT02932579|191828128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
95932663|NCT02932579|191828129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.21|||Fisher Exact|||||4.21|0.45|0.740
95932664|NCT01839331|191828138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95932665|NCT01839331|191828138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
95932666|NCT01839331|191828138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Adjusted for injection volume and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
95932667|NCT01839331|191828139|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.||||||0.0442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0442
95932668|NCT01839331|191828140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline WOMAC score.|ANOVA|||||||0.4133
95932669|NCT01839331|191828141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122||||||Adjusted for injection volume (4 mL or 10 mL) and baseline PGA|ANOVA|||||||0.0122
95932670|NCT00818246|191828142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
95932671|NCT00818246|191828143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95949987|NCT01393964|191871909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|104.096||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.983|124.576|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||124.576|86.983|0.704
95949988|NCT01393964|191871909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.454||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.453|119.488|||ANOVA|||The reference arm is NRF participants.||119.488|84.453|0.965
95949989|NCT01393964|191871910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|126.596||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.52|167.783|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||167.783|95.52|0.164
95949990|NCT01393964|191871910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|116.123||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.458|152.439|||ANOVA|||AUC(0-T). The reference arm is NRF participants.||152.439|88.458|0.355
95949991|NCT01393964|191871910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|129.858||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.366|186.609|||ANOVA|||AUC (INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||186.609|90.366|0.228
95949992|NCT01393964|191871910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|110.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.825|158.647|||ANOVA|||AUC(INF). The reference arm is NRF participants.||158.647|76.825|0.642
95949993|NCT01918033|191871935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.09||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.31|-0.49|0.661
95949994|NCT01918033|191871935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 2|||0.32|-0.48|0.707
95993683|NCT03371355|191963322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|-0.59|0.8155
95993684|NCT03371355|191963322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.54|0.6466
95993685|NCT03371355|191963323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|6.89|||ANCOVA|||||6.89|-9.66|0.7393
95993686|NCT03371355|191963323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-8.45|0.9744
95993687|NCT03371355|191963323|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.58||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|12.91|||ANCOVA|||||12.91|-5.75|0.4477
95986982|NCT02706873|191948330|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.25|-0.44|<0.001
95932672|NCT00818246|191828144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess statistical differences between the LED-treated and untreated sides taking into account Age.||Sample sizes and power calculations were generated according to the primary outcome measures of the study. In order to have a 98% chance of detecting as significant (at the two sided 5% level) a 10% difference between the treated and untreated/control sides in the Ra and Rz post-treatment improvement, with an assumed standard deviation of 10, 33 subjects were required. To account for an 80% per protocol completion rate, the planned number of patients to be enrolled was 40.||||<0.0001
95986983|NCT02706873|191948330|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.28||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.28|-0.47|<0.001
95986984|NCT02706873|191948331|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|32.4||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||32.4|17.6|<0.001
95986985|NCT02706873|191948331|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|33.9|19.0|<0.001
95986986|NCT02706873|191948332|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.5||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.50|3.00|<0.001
95986987|NCT02706873|191948332|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA and Japan/PMDA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|5.59||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.59|3.09|<0.001
95986988|NCT02706873|191948333|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.71||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.71|-1.12|<0.001
95727949|NCT02277769|191425546|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.55|-30.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.88|-45.55|< 0.0001
95727950|NCT02277769|191425547|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|51.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||51.29|35.12|< 0.0001
95727951|NCT02277769|191425547|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|47.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||47.19|30.92|< 0.0001
95986989|NCT02706873|191948333|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.99||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.99|-1.40|<0.001
95986990|NCT02706873|191948334|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
95986991|NCT02706873|191948334|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
95932673|NCT04788641|191828146|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|77.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||77.24|65.44|
95932674|NCT04788641|191828146|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|110.1|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||110.1|96.11|
95932675|NCT04788641|191828147|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.64|71.13|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||71.13|55.64|
95932676|NCT04788641|191828147|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|101.7|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.7|92.93|
95932677|NCT04788641|191828148|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|65.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.69|73.24|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||73.24|58.69|
95932678|NCT04788641|191828148|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|101.6|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||101.6|92.70|
95932679|NCT04788641|191828149|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|83.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|95.84|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||95.84|73.38|
95932680|NCT04788641|191828149|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.16|109.2|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||109.2|87.16|
95857401|NCT00885170|191673256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.98|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.98|0.15|0.023
95932681|NCT04788641|191828150|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|98.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|102.4|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Tacrolimus||102.4|94.62|
95795131|NCT03183908|191560530|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.47||||||||4.47|1.09|
95932682|NCT04788641|191828150|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|94.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.74|103.3|||||Result based on a mixed effect following a natural logarithmic transformation of the individual PK parameters, with period, treatment, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as random effects.|Cyclosporin||103.3|85.74|
95932683|NCT01290341|191828152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification by site was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and Placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the Placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
95932684|NCT03811535|191828155|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Height velocity at week 52 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, gender, age group, region, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group by region interaction term as factors, and baseline height as covariate.||0.2|-1.1|
95993688|NCT03371355|191963324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.794||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-6.72|0.4710
95993689|NCT03371355|191963324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|-4.68|0.9169
95993690|NCT03371355|191963324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.133||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-3.44|0.4484
95993691|NCT03371355|191963325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.17|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-50.17|0.0916
95993692|NCT03371355|191963325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.51|15.63|||ANCOVA|||||15.63|-38.51|0.4032
95993693|NCT03371355|191963325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|31.45|||ANCOVA|||||31.45|-27.56|0.8959
95993694|NCT03371355|191963326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.052||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.3202
95993695|NCT03371355|191963326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.11|0.8485
95993696|NCT03371355|191963326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0314||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.08|0.5812
95993697|NCT03371355|191963327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.15|||ANCOVA|||||2.15|-1.28|0.6157
95993698|NCT03371355|191963327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|-1.66|0.9869
95993699|NCT03371355|191963327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.07|0.7084
95993700|NCT03371355|191963328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|10.0|||ANCOVA|||SBP||10.00|-4.41|0.4431
95993701|NCT03371355|191963328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.08||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|9.22|||ANCOVA|||SBP||9.22|-5.05|0.5630
95986992|NCT02706873|191948335|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.3|19.3|<0.001
95932685|NCT03811535|191828156|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -1.8 cm/year.|Treatment difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, region, GH peak group and gender by age group by region interaction terms as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||0.2|-1.1|
95932686|NCT00957242|191828184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.47|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified covariates in the model included an indicator variable for the treatment group and the DLCO measurement from the baseline assessment.|Warfarin vs. Placebo|The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a difference in 48-week event free rates of 70% for the warfarin group versus 50% for the placebo group. A total of at least 95 adjudicated primary endpoints were required to achieve 90% power with 2-sided, type I error rate of 0.05 and a 1:1 randomization ratio. These calculations yielded a requisite total sample size of 256.||2.47|0.70|0.27
95932687|NCT00957242|191828185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.03||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|17.54|||Cox Proportional|||||17.54|1.44|0.005
95932688|NCT00957242|191828186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.08||||0.083||95.0|-0.01|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.01|0.083
95932689|NCT00957242|191828187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.31|||Cox Proportional|||||4.31|0.99|0.054
95932690|NCT00957242|191828188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.56|||Cox Proportional|||||9.56|0.64|0.19
95932691|NCT00957242|191828189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.34|||Cox Proportional|||||12.34|0.41|0.35
95932692|NCT00957242|191828190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|16.1|||Cox Proportional|||||16.10|0.65|0.15
95932693|NCT00957242|191828191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.39|||Cox Proportional|||||3.39|0.24|0.88
95932694|NCT00957242|191828192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|10.88||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|71.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||71.34|-49.57|0.7222
95986993|NCT02706873|191948335|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|39.6||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.6|24.8|<0.001
95986994|NCT02706873|191948336|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|35.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.2|20.3|<0.001
95932695|NCT00957242|191828193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-1.78||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3048.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3048|-7.04|0.27
95932696|NCT00957242|191828194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|0.05||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1076.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1076|-1.67|0.957
95932697|NCT00957242|191828195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-value|-0.48||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.84|0.009
95932698|NCT03337399|191828196|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of stepped PC was established if the lower one-sided 95% confidence limit for the estimated difference in means was greater than the pre-specified margin of -4.5 points, which corresponds to the one-sided 5% significance level test against this margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.01||||Regression, Linear|||The difference in week 24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline FACT-L score.|||-.01|<0.05
95932699|NCT03337399|191828197|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -10%.|Estimated Proportions|-2.6|||<|0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Non-inferiority of stepped PC in the proportion reporting patient-clinician communication about end-of-life care at each patient's final follow-up assessment was evaluated using a binomial generalized linear model with identity link and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -10%.|||-10.4|<0.15
95932700|NCT03337399|191828198|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified margin of -7 days|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15.|Regression, Linear|||Among patients who died, non-inferiority of stepped PC in the mean length of stay in hospice was assessed using linear regression and a one-sided test against the pre-specified margin of -7 days, based upon published quality metrics.|||-25.1|0.15
95932701|NCT03337399|191828199|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.8||We used a false discovery rate (FDR) control approach to interpret the results of significance tests of the three secondary outcomes with an FDR of 0.15|Regression, Linear|||The difference between groups in the mean number of outpatient PC visits per patient by week 24 was assessed using linear regression and a two-sided superiority test.||-1.8|-2.7|0.15
95986995|NCT02706873|191948336|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|40.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||40.2|25.4|<0.001
95986996|NCT02706873|191948337|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.03||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.03|2.42|<0.001
95986997|NCT02706873|191948337|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.72||The nominal p-value is reported|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as the covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.72|3.12|<0.001
95986998|NCT02706873|191948338|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|9.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||16.2|3.5|0.002
95986999|NCT02706873|191948338|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.8||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||17.8|5.4|<0.001
95932702|NCT01198145|191828203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95932703|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus During RT||||0.23
95932704|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing Tenesmus after RT||||0.64
95932705|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain during RT.||||0.30
95987000|NCT02706873|191948339|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|24.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||24.9|12.1|<0.001
95987001|NCT02706873|191948339|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||29.5|16.4|<0.001
95727952|NCT02277769|191425548|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.09|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||29.59|16.09|< 0.0001
95932706|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing abdominal pain after RT||||0.02
95932707|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation during RT||||0.70
95987002|NCT02706873|191948340|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|27.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||27.3|13.2|<0.001
95932708|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing constipation after RT||||0.63
95932709|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea during RT||||0.44
95932710|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing diarrhea after RT||||0.48
95932711|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing rectal bleeding during RT||||0.38
95932712|NCT01198145|191828204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95932713|NCT01198145|191828205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II during RT.||||0.56
95932714|NCT01198145|191828205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Result comparing Arm I and Arm II after RT.||||0.74
95932715|NCT00603954|191828221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.508
95932716|NCT00603954|191828221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 180||||0.02
95932717|NCT00603954|191828221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 365||||0.002
95932718|NCT00603954|191828222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At day 100||||0.09
95932719|NCT00603954|191828222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 40||||0.03
95932720|NCT00603954|191828222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 180||||0.01
95932721|NCT00603954|191828223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||Multivariate Cox models|||||||0.0165
95932722|NCT00603954|191828223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mutivariate|||||||0.010
95932723|NCT00603954|191828223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.0495
95932724|NCT00603954|191828223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Multivariate|||||||0.001
95932725|NCT00603954|191828224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||19 of 49 Flu-TBI patients (39%) versus 25 of 45 TLI ATG patients (56%) had a least one episode of bacterial infection the first 100 days after transplantation (P = 0.15).||||0.15
95932726|NCT00603954|191828224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||For fungal infections, the figures were 3 of 45 (6%) and 7 of 45 (16%), respectively (P = 0.19)||||0.19
95932727|NCT00603954|191828224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Among CMV-seropositive patients and/or donors, the 100-day cumulative incidence of CMV reactivation was 31% in Flu-TBI patients versus 47% in TLI-ATG patient||||0.12
95987003|NCT02706873|191948340|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|26.5||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.5|12.3|<0.001
95987004|NCT02706873|191948341|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|33.0||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.0|19.1|<0.001
95932728|NCT00603954|191828225|SUPERIORITY||Multivariate Cox models|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.7|||Cumulative incidence curves|||Four-year cumulative incidences of relapse/progression were 22% and 50% in Flu-TBI and TLI-ATG patients, respectively||4.7|1.1|0.017
95932729|NCT00603954|191828226|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 0||||
95932730|NCT00603954|191828226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 3||||
95932731|NCT00603954|191828226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This statistical analysis applies to median ATG serum levels at day 10||||
95932732|NCT00603954|191828227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Cumulative incidence curve|||||||0.5
95932733|NCT00603954|191828228|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||4.1|1|0.14
95932734|NCT00603954|191828230|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.9
95932735|NCT00603954|191828231|SUPERIORITY||multivariate analyses|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||1.4|1|0.96
95932736|NCT02708108|191828236|OTHER|Multivariable analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92||Reported as 1-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Multivariable model includes age, BMI category, cytogenetic risk, ethnicity, sex|||0.92|0.09|0.02
95932737|NCT05113771|191828239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.3|||MMRM|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with imputation based on the missing at random (MAR) assumption was used.||||-1.3|-7.6|0.0056
95932738|NCT05113771|191828240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||MMRM|||||||0.0189
95932739|NCT05113771|191828241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0026
95932740|NCT06243796|191828244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
95932741|NCT06243796|191828245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95932742|NCT03887650|191828256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.127
95932743|NCT03887650|191828257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.975
95932744|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||PACU pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.852
95932745|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||For (PACU-24) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.661
95932746|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||For (PACU-24 hr.) maximum pain score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.747
95932747|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||For (PACU-24 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.604
95932748|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||(24-48 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
95932749|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95932750|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||For (24-48 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95932751|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||(48-72 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
95932752|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||(48-72 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
95987005|NCT02706873|191948341|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|38.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for geographic region (North America, South/central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia/other).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.2|24.2|<0.001
95987006|NCT02706873|191948342|SUPERIORITY|For the Japan sub-study, no multiplicity adjustments were applied and only nominal p-values were provided for all efficacy analyses.|Response Rate Difference|28.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|48.9|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||48.9|7.7|0.004
95987007|NCT02706873|191948342|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|50.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||50.7|5.3|0.022
95987008|NCT02706873|191948342|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.2|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.2|-2.4|0.086
95987009|NCT02706873|191948343|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|58.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.5|18.6|<0.001
95987010|NCT02706873|191948343|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|68.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.6|21.8|<0.001
95987011|NCT02706873|191948343|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|72.6|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||72.6|27.4|<0.001
95987012|NCT02706873|191948344|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|47.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||47.1|22.0|<0.001
95987013|NCT02706873|191948344|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|70.7|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.7|33.0|<0.001
95987014|NCT02706873|191948344|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|82.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||82.0|46.5|<0.001
95932753|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||(48-72 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
95932754|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||For (72-96 hr) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.230
95932755|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||For (72-96 hr) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
95932756|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||For (72-96 hr) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.011
95932757|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||For (postoperative day 60) minimum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.378
95932758|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||For (postoperative day 60) maximum pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
95987015|NCT02706873|191948345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.95|-1.92|<0.001
95987016|NCT02706873|191948345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.30|-2.42|<0.001
95987017|NCT02706873|191948345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.36|-2.48|<0.001
95987018|NCT02706873|191948346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
95987019|NCT02706873|191948346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
95987020|NCT02706873|191948346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
95987021|NCT02706873|191948347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||8.80|3.15|<0.001
95987022|NCT02706873|191948347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|11.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||11.19|4.66|<0.001
95987023|NCT02706873|191948347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|10.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||10.20|3.33|<0.001
95987024|NCT02706873|191948348|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|70.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||70.0|32.5|<0.001
95987025|NCT02706873|191948348|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|81.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.1|38.8|<0.001
95987026|NCT02706873|191948348|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|81.5|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||81.5|39.9|<0.001
95987027|NCT02706873|191948349|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|68.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||68.3|30.6|<0.001
95987028|NCT02706873|191948349|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|74.8|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||74.8|30.2|<0.001
95987029|NCT02706873|191948349|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|84.3|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||84.3|44.2|<0.001
95987030|NCT02706873|191948350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||0.09|-3.47|0.063
95987031|NCT02706873|191948350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.45|0.022
95932759|NCT03887650|191828258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||For (postoperative day 60) average pain scores|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.403
95932760|NCT03887650|191828259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.112
95932761|NCT03887650|191828260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||P-Value for POD4|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact for POD4||||||0.096
95932762|NCT03887650|191828260|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||For POD60|Chi-squared|Chi-squared for POD60||||||1.0
95932763|NCT03887650|191828261|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Any distress on PACU|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95932764|NCT03887650|191828261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947||||||Postoperative day 2|Chi-squared|||||||.947
95932765|NCT03887650|191828262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||Full sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.441
95932766|NCT03887650|191828262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||First sensation|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.691
95932767|NCT03887650|191828263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
95932768|NCT03887650|191828264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Any movement|Fisher' Freeman Halton|||||||.011
95932769|NCT03887650|191828264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536||||||Full movement|Fishers Freeman Halton|||||||.536
95932770|NCT03887650|191828265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||MME 0-24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.648
95932771|NCT03887650|191828265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||MME24-48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.285
95932772|NCT03887650|191828265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||MME48-72|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
95932773|NCT03887650|191828265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367||||||MME 72-120|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.367
95932774|NCT01199705|191828293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.39||||||||1.390||
95932775|NCT01199705|191828293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.953||||||||0.953||
95932776|NCT01199705|191828293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.914||||||||0.914||
95932777|NCT01199705|191828295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||1.204||||||||1.204||
95932778|NCT01199705|191828295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.834||||||||0.834||
95932779|NCT01199705|191828295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.802||||||||0.802||
95932780|NCT00933400|191828329|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Percent Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7||||||Difference in AMI rate. NULL: equal rates of AMI in both Groups.||5.7|-5.6|
95932781|NCT00933400|191828330|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (rates)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2||||||Difference in Discharge rates. H0: equal rates of Discharge in both Groups.||32.2|21.4|
95932782|NCT00933400|191828330|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0|Difference (percents)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||||exact procedures were used to estimate and compare rates of detection for significant coronary disease|Difference in diagnosis rate of Significant coronary disease at index visit. H0: equal rates in both Groups.||11.2|0.0|
95932783|NCT00933400|191828332|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|32.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|H0: no difference in Patient disposition (Discharge) rates between arms||32.2|21.4|
95932784|NCT00933400|191828334|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare all cause mortality between groups||5.2|-6.0|
95932785|NCT00933400|191828334|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.7|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Cardiac Death between groups||5.7|-5.5|
95932786|NCT00933400|191828334|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.9|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare AMI between groups||5.9|-5.6|
95932787|NCT00933400|191828334|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare MACE between groups||6.0|-5.5|
95932788|NCT00933400|191828334|EQUIVALENCE|The trial was powered to test the principal hypothesis that the major adverse cardiac event (MACE, including myocardial infarction and cardiac death) rate among patients found not to have significant CAD on CCTA exceeds 1%|binomial proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||||Exact confidence intervals for the difference in proportions|Compare Revascularization between groups||7.0|-4.4|
95932789|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.98|2.54||||||SBP||2.54|-4.98|
95932790|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.53||||||SBP||2.53|-4.70|
95932791|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|2.22||||||SBP||2.22|-5.30|
95932792|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|2.1||||||SBP||2.10|-5.16|
95932793|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.74|0.07||||||SBP||0.07|-7.74|
95987032|NCT02706873|191948350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.35|-4.54|0.022
95987033|NCT02706873|191948351|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|58.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.0|14.4|0.001
95987034|NCT02706873|191948351|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|59.0|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||59.0|10.2|0.010
95987035|NCT02706873|191948351|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|33.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|58.1|||Chi-squared||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||58.1|7.9|0.016
95987036|NCT03759665|191948352|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.75||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.50|0.00|0.044
95987037|NCT03759665|191948354|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.25|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.25|-0.13|0.206
95987038|NCT03759665|191948357|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0327||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0327|0.104|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1040|-0.0327|0.210
95987039|NCT03759665|191948357|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0291||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0863|0.0262|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.0262|-0.0863|0.212
95987040|NCT03759665|191948358|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.75|-1.75|<0.001
95857402|NCT00885170|191673257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.89|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||3.89|1.26|<0.001
95987041|NCT03759665|191948358|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.001
95857403|NCT00885170|191673258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.77|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.77|-0.16|0.103
95987042|NCT03759665|191948360|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.031||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.063|0.020
95987043|NCT03759665|191948360|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.042|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.063|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.063|0.021|<0.001
95987044|NCT03759665|191948361|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|3.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||3.5|3.0|<0.001
95987045|NCT03759665|191948361|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|5.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||5.0|4.5|<0.001
95987046|NCT00382993|191948364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|11.49|||ANOVA|||||11.49|2.76|<0.001
95987047|NCT01857869|191948383|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|86.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|94.6||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||94.6|66.8|<0.0001
95987048|NCT01857869|191948383|OTHER||1-Relative Risk|62.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|80.1||Two-sided Fisher Exact test was used for the comparison of malaria incidence after first/second CHMI between the compared groups.|Mantel Haenszel|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 100\*(1-Relative Risk \[RR\]).||80.1|29.4|0.0009
95987049|NCT03015259|191948419|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance model was fit on the participants from the test budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.13|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Only Treatments 1 and 2 were compared for equivalence. Treatment 3 (placebo) was subtracted from both Treatments 1 and 2, as this primary endpoint was baseline adjusted.||1.130|0.958|
95987050|NCT03015259|191948420|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.14|||||Fieller's formula was applied|Treatments 1 and 2 were baseline adjusted by subtracting Treatment 3 (placebo) from each.||1.140|0.889|
95987051|NCT03015259|191948421|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Comparison of means, no formal statistical comparison|no statistical significance applied|||
95987052|NCT00563186|191948451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This statistical analysis applies to the overall VRE, CDI and MRSA infection and colonization events expressed as incidence density (per 1000 patient-days at risk).|Incidence Rate ratio|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.22|||Poisson||Numerator is novel ward and denominator is traditional ward.|"It was calculated that this study will require 9750 patient days of observation in the traditional design wards and 19,500 patient days of observation in the novel design ward to ensure 80% statistical power to detect a 60% difference in the rates of incident cases of selected HAIs and ARO colonizations (the primary outcome measure) with an α level of 0.05 assuming that incident cases in each unit follow Poisson distribution based on well established historic trends on these units"||3.22|0.80|0.18
95987053|NCT00563186|191948453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.9|||Large test for person-time analysis|||||4.9|0.76|0.175
95987054|NCT00513500|191948454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.32||||||95.0|2.19|8.94||||||||8.94|2.19|
95987055|NCT00513500|191948455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||||95.0|0.14|0.38||||||||0.38|0.14|
95987056|NCT00513500|191948456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||||95.0|0.21|0.93||||||||0.93|0.21|
95932794|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|2.18||||||DBP||2.18|-2.95|
95932795|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.69|1.48||||||DBP||1.48|-3.69|
95932796|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|1.85||||||DBP||1.85|-3.75|
95932797|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|1.1||||||DBP||1.10|-4.09|
95932798|NCT01849055|191828339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.2||||||DBP||0.20|-5.23|
95932799|NCT00704184|191828358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|86.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||86.7|40.3|<0.001
95932800|NCT00704184|191828358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||88.6|46.0|<0.001
95932801|NCT00704184|191828358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|82.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||82.7|32.8|<0.001
95932802|NCT00704184|191828358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in %|77.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|91.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (5.3) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||91.3|49.2|<0.001
95932803|NCT00704184|191828361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
95932804|NCT00704184|191828361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|33.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.2|-7.6|
95932805|NCT00704184|191828361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|33.8|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||33.8|-9.7|
95932806|NCT00704184|191828361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.4|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (88.9%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||28.4|-16.5|
95932807|NCT00704184|191828362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
95932808|NCT00704184|191828362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.5|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||39.5|-2.2|
95932809|NCT00704184|191828362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|40.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||40.2|-4.0|
95932810|NCT00704184|191828362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|34.6|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of placebo responders (83.3%) and stratifies by HCV genotype (1a vs. non-1a).|||34.6|-11.4|
95932811|NCT00704184|191828363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LC) Means|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-1.8|-3.2|
95932812|NCT00704184|191828363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
95932813|NCT00704184|191828363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.4|
95932814|NCT00704184|191828363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0|||||The difference in LS Means reflects the mean decrease from baseline in HCV RNA between vaniprevir and placebo at Week 4.|||-2.0|-3.3|
95932815|NCT02409667|191828400|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical null-hypothesis to be rejected in the primary analysis was that the odds ratio of maintaining a PASI 90 response for patients with secukinumab 4-weekly dosing versus patients on secukinumab 6-weekly dosing exceeds the non-inferiority margin of 1+δ.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.44|0.1499
95932816|NCT02409667|191828401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.35|0.1013
95932817|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) estimate|-0.09||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.00|-0.18|0.0489
95932818|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.09||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.02|-0.19|0.1073
95932819|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.12|-0.37|0.0001
95932820|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
95932821|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
95932822|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.27|-0.70|0.0000
95932823|NCT02409667|191828404|SUPERIORITY||LSM mean|-0.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.81|0.0000
95932824|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.99|-0.18|0.1740
95932825|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.79||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.50|0.08|0.0287
95932826|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.62||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 36||1.41|-0.16|0.1202
95987057|NCT01902290|191948457|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.05||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.103|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.103|-0.203|0.5219
95987058|NCT01902290|191948458|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.12|0.93|0.102
95987059|NCT01902290|191948459|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.038||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.134|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification factors, and baseline ACQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.134|-0.210|0.6632
95987060|NCT01902290|191948460|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model under a negative binomial distribution assumption adjusting for stratification factors.|Rate ratio = Brodalumab : Placebo|||2.24|0.94|0.096
95857404|NCT00885170|191673259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.22||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.67|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.67|-1.23|0.763
95932827|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 40||1.68|-0.19|0.1157
95932828|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.54||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.59|-0.52|0.3189
95932829|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.18|0.16|0.0240
95932830|NCT02409667|191828405|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.57|0.37|0.0090
95932831|NCT02409667|191828406|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
95932832|NCT02409667|191828407|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.17||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.42|||ANCOVA|||||2.42|-0.09|0.0675
95932833|NCT02409667|191828408|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.97||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||0.55|-2.48|0.2101
95932834|NCT02409667|191828408|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.67||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||0.59|-1.93|0.2971
95932835|NCT02409667|191828408|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||1.38|-2.59|0.5499
95932836|NCT02409667|191828408|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-1.08||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-2.28|0.0758
95932837|NCT02409667|191828409|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.2||||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|4.11|||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||4.11|-1.71|0.4156
95932838|NCT02409667|191828409|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.63||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||7.85|-6.59|0.8619
95932839|NCT02409667|191828409|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.61||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Total activity impairment||10.61|-6.31|0.6139
95932840|NCT02409667|191828409|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|1.7||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|7.56|||ANCOVA|||Work productivity loss||7.56|-4.16|0.5674
95932841|NCT02409667|191828410|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.13||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.04|-0.30|0.1219
95932842|NCT02409667|191828410|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Itching||-0.18|-0.57|0.0001
95932843|NCT02409667|191828410|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||-0.14|-0.48|0.0003
95932844|NCT02409667|191828411|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.17||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Pain||0.92|-0.57|0.6457
95932845|NCT02409667|191828411|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.19||||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Itching||0.94|-0.56|0.6136
95932846|NCT02409667|191828411|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.75||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.39|||ANCOVA|||Scaling||1.39|0.12|0.0203
95932847|NCT02409667|191828412|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|2.22||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|0.77|0.0027
95932848|NCT02409667|191828413|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-2.31||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|-6.55|0.2823
95932849|NCT02409667|191828414|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.01||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.02|-0.00|0.0861
95993702|NCT03371355|191963328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.63||||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.79|||ANCOVA|||SBP||5.79|-9.06|0.6634
95857405|NCT00885170|191673260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.38||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.72|||cLDA||Baseline measurement and post-baseline percent changes from baseline, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use (3-5 years, \>5 years), geographic region, machine type (Lunar/Hologic) and treatment-by-time interaction|||1.72|-0.96|0.578
95932850|NCT02409667|191828414|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|0.02||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.04|0.00|0.0117
95987061|NCT01902290|191948461|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.046||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.046|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.046|-0.137|0.3290
95987062|NCT01902290|191948462|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.03||||0.4549||95.0|-0.049|0.109|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and FEV1.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.109|-0.049|0.4549
95932851|NCT02409667|191828415|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.02||||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Germany||0.01|-0.05|0.1852
95932852|NCT02409667|191828415|SUPERIORITY||LSM estimate|-0.03||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.02|-0.07|0.2203
95932853|NCT05505045|191828433|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.05||||||||1.05|-.16|
95932854|NCT05505045|191828434|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.03||||||||1.03|-.19|
95932855|NCT05505045|191828435|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.93||||||||0.93|-.30|
95932856|NCT05505045|191828436|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-1.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-1.04|
95932857|NCT05505045|191828441|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64||||||||.64|-.61|
95932858|NCT01643070|191828442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|6.501|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.501|0.346|0.719
95932859|NCT05057897|191828602|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.01|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.01|0.18|
95932860|NCT05057897|191828603|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-30.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|3.69||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.69|-62.82|
95932861|NCT05057897|191828604|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.86|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||3.86|0.06|
95932862|NCT05057897|191828605|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|2.97||||The 2-sided 95% CI was calculated using the Newcombe score without continuity correction.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 2 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 57 (28 days post Dose 2)||2.97|-59.07|
95932863|NCT05057897|191828606|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||0.80|0.12|
95932864|NCT05057897|191828607|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
95932865|NCT05057897|191828608|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.25|||||The GMT ratio was calculated as the ratio of the titer levels in the immunocompromised cohort to the immunocompetent cohort.|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||1.25|0.25|
95932866|NCT05057897|191828609|OTHER|Descriptive only. Analysis conducted at request of clinicaltrials.gov.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.0||||||||||||Due to everyone in both cohorts being a seroresponder, the confidence interval (CI) around the difference is not estimable.|The difference in seroresponse 28 days post Dose 3 of AZD1222 was calculated as (seroresponse rate of immunocompromised cohort) - (seroresponse rate of immunocompetent cohort).|Day 85 Immunocompromised / Day 211 Immunocompetent (28 days post Dose 3)||||
95932867|NCT04337372|191828619|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||F(2, 58) = 7.19|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.002
95932868|NCT04337372|191828619|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09||||||F(1.78, 103.37) = 2.48|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.09
95932869|NCT04337372|191828619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||F(3.56, 103.37) = 2.55|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of infant's attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and infant's proportion of attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction between age and condition is reported here.||||<.05
95987063|NCT01902290|191948463|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.128||||0.6317||95.0|-0.396|0.653|||Mixed-effect model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline value.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.653|-0.396|0.6317
95993703|NCT03371355|191963328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|8.92|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.92|-0.71|0.0937
95932870|NCT04337372|191828620|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.557||||||F(2,47) = .592|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.557
95932871|NCT04337372|191828620|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||F(2,47) = .767|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each of the conditions. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.470
95932872|NCT04337372|191828620|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.046||||||F(4,94) = 2.524|MANOVA|||EEG power, as measured by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was modulated by label condition across age, data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster of Oz and its 6 nearest neighbors (channels 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83) for each condition. SNR data were then submitted to a two-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, Control/No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 months, 9 months, 12 months) as a between-subjects factor. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.046
95932873|NCT04337372|191828621|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.664||||||F(2,45) = .413|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.664
95932874|NCT04337372|191828621|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.768||||||F(2,45) = .266|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.768
95932875|NCT04337372|191828621|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2||||||F(4,90) = 1.531|MANOVA|||EEG Data were extracted from a mid-occipital cluster for each conditions for parents \& infants. Data were entered into a 2-factor MANOVA with Label (Individual, Category, No Label) as a within-subjects factor and Age (6 mo, 9 mo, 12 mo) as a between-subjects factor. The phase-locking index measures the extent to which the parent \& infant oscillatory response is in the same phase across time (bounded between 0 and 1, 1 being perfect synchrony. The interaction of age and condition is reported.||||=.200
95932876|NCT04337372|191828622|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||F(2, 57) = 4.11|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of age is reported here.||||=.022
95932877|NCT04337372|191828622|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||F(2, 114) = 5.69|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The main effect of condition is reported here.||||=.004
95932878|NCT04337372|191828622|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.168||||||F(4, 114) = 1.64|MANOVA|||To examine the impact of infant age and label condition on the proportion of joint attention to the book, a 3 (infant age: 6, 9, or 12 months) x 3 (label condition: individual, categorical, or no label) MANOVA was run. Age was measured between subjects, label condition was within subjects, and the proportion of joint attention to the book was the dependent variable. The interaction of age and condition is reported here.||||=.168
95932879|NCT03494504|191828624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.84||||||||3.84|1.46|
95932880|NCT03494504|191828624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
95987064|NCT01902290|191948464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.277||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.936|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline stratification factors.||||1.936|0.843|0.238
95987065|NCT01902290|191948465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.351||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for stratification factors.||||2.01|0.78|0.351
95932881|NCT03990649|191828634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The p-values were estimated using a two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
95987066|NCT01902290|191948466|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.001||||0.987||95.0|-0.174|0.171|||Mixed-effects model|The model included fixed effects of treatment group, time, interaction of treatment group by time, stratification variables, and baseline AQLQ score.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.171|-0.174|0.9870
95987067|NCT01902290|191948467|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.635||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|11.089|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and AM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of morning peak flow||11.089|-9.820|0.9053
95987068|NCT01902290|191948467|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.92||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|16.354|||Mixed-effects model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, pooled race group, height and PM PEFR.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|Analysis of evening peak flow||16.354|-4.515|0.2661
95987069|NCT01902290|191948468|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.021||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.627|0.586|||Mixed-effect model|Model includes treatment, time, stratification factors, treatment by time and baseline value of age, gender, race group, height and PEFR variation.|Difference = Brodalumab - Placebo|||0.586|-8.627|0.0871
95987070|NCT00790907|191948472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.54|0.267
95993704|NCT03371355|191963328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.49||||0.1522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.28|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.28|-1.31|0.1522
95987071|NCT00774345|191948482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on the stratified cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups.|||1.15|0.61|0.276
95932882|NCT01643616|191828636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|33.0|||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate without supplementation the difference between group US (94.9%) and group NS (61.9%) is 33%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||< 0.05
95932883|NCT01643616|191828637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1|||Log Rank|||We used the log-rank test to compare the onset times. The significance level was defined with p\<0.05.||31.1|13.6|< 0.05
95932884|NCT01643616|191828638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.2||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||For success rate with supplementation the difference between group US (98.2%) and group NS (72%) is 26.2%.|For sample size calculation we assumed a significance level of 0.05 and a success rate derived from clinical data of 75% in the nerve stimulation group and of 90% in the ultrasound group. With a group ratio of 1:1 and a power of 0.8, the required sample size was at least 226. For statistical analysis we used the exact Fisher test as a distribution-free, non-parametric test method.||||0.05
95932885|NCT04512482|191828639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||A power analysis determined that a sample size of forty-five (45) subjects would possess 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 between the intervention and control legs of the crossover design. With 43 total subjects the study had between 85 and 90% power.||||.044
95932886|NCT02549170|191828652|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-21.8|||=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-7.94|||Chi-squared|||||-7.94|-34.45|=0.0045
95932887|NCT02549170|191828654|SUPERIORITY||Newcombe confidence interval|-16.9|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|0.69||The treatment groups were compared using a continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.69|-33.02|=0.0896
95932888|NCT02549170|191828655|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Survival Test|||||||=0.002
95987072|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.142|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.142|0.087|<0.0001
95932889|NCT02549170|191828656|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|5.2|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|0.5|=0.030
95932890|NCT02590432|191828723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg versus (vs) LINZESS® 290 μg||5.5|0.3|1.0000
95987073|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.133|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.133|0.078|<0.0001
95932891|NCT02590432|191828723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.1|0.1|0.0844
95932892|NCT02590432|191828723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.5|0.3|1.0000
95932893|NCT02590432|191828724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||5.1|0.3|1.0000
95932894|NCT02590432|191828724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||1.0|0.1|0.0799
95932895|NCT02590432|191828724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Fisher's Exact Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||2.2|0.3|0.7871
95932896|NCT02590432|191828726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.19|0.42|0.9930
95932897|NCT02590432|191828726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.89|0.11|0.0247
95987074|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.085|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.085|0.030|0.0001
95987075|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.018|-0.036|0.5223
95932898|NCT02590432|191828726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.50|0.41|0.5149
95932899|NCT02590432|191828727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 145 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||2.18|0.39|0.9519
95932900|NCT02590432|191828727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.87|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 290 μg||0.87|0.08|0.0234
95932901|NCT02590432|191828727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.47|||Log-Rank Test|||LINZESS® 72 μg vs LINZESS® 145 μg||1.47|0.39|0.4518
95932902|NCT03283371|191828756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean logarithmic difference|-0.16||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis is based on MMRM and adjusted for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures), structural etiology category (yes and no), visit, treatment and treatment by visit interaction. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used in the model.||0.31|-0.62|0.5053
95993705|NCT03371355|191963328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.59|||ANCOVA|||DBP||6.59|-3.35|0.5188
95993706|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Weight||2.39|-1.24|0.5299
95993707|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.65|-1.89|0.8919
95932903|NCT03283371|191828757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for natural log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no).||6.85|0.64|0.2231
95932904|NCT03283371|191828760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on the logistic regression model with a term for treatment group and with adjustment for log-transformed baseline seizure frequency, high seizure frequency category (\>=24 seizures and \<24 seizures) and structural etiology category (yes and no) are considered as covariates.||4.57|0.10|0.6854
95932905|NCT00895531|191828769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95932906|NCT02253537|191828786|EQUIVALENCE|2 x 2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|96.3||||||||96.3|62.1|
95932907|NCT04982315|191828795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||-0.1|-1.9|.024
95932908|NCT04982315|191828795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||-0.6|-2.5|.001
95932909|NCT04982315|191828795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||||0.5|-1.5|.286
95932910|NCT04982315|191828796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||-0.7|-2.1|0
95932911|NCT04982315|191828796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.3|-2.1|.008
95932912|NCT04982315|191828796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.7|-2.6|0
95932913|NCT04982315|191828796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.4|-1.4|.27
95987076|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.029|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.029|-0.084|0.0001
95987077|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.02|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.020|-0.075|0.0007
95987078|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|-0.086|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.086|-0.142|<0.0001
95987079|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.028|-0.084|0.0001
95987080|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.019|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.019|-0.036|0.5394
95987081|NCT01136655|191948490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.028|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.028|-0.027|0.9863
95932914|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.72|1.15|<.001
95932915|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.70|1.04|.022
95932916|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.86|1.19|<.001
95932917|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.43|.88|.36
95932918|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.66|1.06|.012
95932919|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.91|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.91|1.25|<.001
95932920|NCT04982315|191828797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.37|.98|.076
95932921|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||-0.5|-1.1|0
95932922|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.1|-0.8|.019
95932923|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.6|-1.3|0
95932924|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-0.1|-0.9|.02
95932925|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.1|-0.8|.02
95932926|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-0.3|-1|0
95932927|NCT04982315|191828798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||0.1|-0.6|.22
95932928|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.24|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||2.24|1.39|0
95932929|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.50|.94|.14
95932930|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.73|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.73|1.10|.006
95932931|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.42|.94|.167
95932932|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.52|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.52|.97|.089
95987082|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.155|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.155|0.056|<0.0001
95987083|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.116|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.116|0.017|0.0092
95932933|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.55|.95|.12
95932934|NCT04982315|191828799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Estimation performed with adjusted modified Poisson regression model with binary outcome, 30% improvement from baseline, fit with GEE.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.25|.80|.99
95932935|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.7|.1|.025
95987084|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.065|-0.035|0.5509
95987085|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.01|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.010|-0.088|0.1163
95932936|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.1|-0.8|.747
95932937|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.7|-.1|.1
95932938|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.6|-.4|.22
95932939|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.6|-.3|.162
95932940|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.4|-.4|.277
95932941|NCT04982315|191828800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.7|-1|.68
95932942|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||1.4|0.9|0
95932943|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1|.4|0
95932944|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.5|1|0
95932945|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.9|.3|0
95932946|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.8|.2|0
95932947|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||1.1|.5|0
95932948|NCT04982315|191828801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||0.5|0|.06
95932949|NCT04982315|191828803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.08|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.08|-1.7|-.06
95932950|NCT04982315|191828803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||-0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-2.4|-.15
95932951|NCT04982315|191828803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.7|-1.9|.387
95932952|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.02|-.02|.967
95932953|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.1|.272
95932954|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||0.4|0|.049
95993708|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.44|||ANCOVA|||Weight||1.44|-2.25|0.6653
95993709|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.35||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|8.14|||ANCOVA|||SBP||8.14|-3.43|0.4213
95993710|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|6.96|||ANCOVA|||SBP||6.96|-4.49|0.6696
95993711|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.73|||ANCOVA|||SBP||4.73|-7.20|0.6819
95993712|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|11.31|||ANCOVA|||DBP||11.31|-1.28|0.1171
95932955|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.1|.409
95932956|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.2|-.1|.62
95932957|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|0|.121
95932958|NCT04982315|191828804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.2|-.1|.27
95932959|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.02|-.4|.069
95932960|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.1|-.6|.013
95932961|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.1|-.5|.043
95932962|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.3|-.2|.629
95932963|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-.2|-.6|.001
95932964|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-.05|-.5|.019
95932965|NCT04982315|191828805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|-.1|.271
95932966|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.1|-.3|.191
95932967|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.01|-.5|.038
95932968|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||-.05|-.5|.019
95857406|NCT00885170|191673261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|39.72|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||39.72|-19.39|0.500
95932969|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.2|-.2|.803
95932970|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-.4|.163
95932971|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-.2|.625
95993713|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.94||||0.2155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|10.21|||ANCOVA|||DBP||10.21|-2.33|0.2155
95993714|NCT03371355|191963329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|8.2|||ANCOVA|||DBP||8.20|-4.79|0.6034
95993715|NCT03371355|191963330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.44|||ANCOVA|||||4.44|-2.48|0.5752
95993716|NCT03371355|191963330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.59|||ANCOVA|||||7.59|0.58|0.0230
95993717|NCT03371355|191963330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.25|||ANCOVA|||||5.25|-2.10|0.3965
95993718|NCT03371355|191963331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.44||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|36.26|||ANCOVA|||||36.26|-11.39|0.3023
95993719|NCT03371355|191963331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.03||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|50.19|||ANCOVA|||||50.19|1.87|0.0350
95932972|NCT04982315|191828806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.3|-.1|.198
95932973|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||.4|-2.1|.194
95932974|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1|-2|.51
95932975|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||.6|-2.5|.218
95932976|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.4|-2.3|.62
95932977|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-2.7|.07
95932978|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||-1|-3.6|0
95932979|NCT04982315|191828807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.1|-2.2|.086
95987086|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.041|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.041|-0.140|0.0004
95987087|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0247||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.002|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.002|-0.100|0.0400
95857407|NCT00885170|191673262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.82||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.29|24.65|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||24.65|-36.29|0.709
95932980|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 3 months; SA \& EA are pooled because 3 months is considered standard acupuncture regardless of acupuncture treatment arm.||2.3|.2|.023
95987088|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.034|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.034|-0.133|0.0011
95987089|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.018|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.018|-0.118|0.0077
95932981|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||2|-.4|.186
95993720|NCT03371355|191963331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.27||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|37.55|||ANCOVA|||||37.55|-13.02|0.3374
95993721|NCT03371355|191963333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.59||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|4.31|||ANCOVA|||||4.31|-9.49|0.4583
95993722|NCT03371355|191963333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.71||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-12.43|0.0943
95993723|NCT03371355|191963333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.57||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-11.45|0.1909
95993724|NCT03371355|191963334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.22|||ANCOVA|||ALT||16.22|-2.10|0.1294
95993725|NCT03371355|191963334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|23.59|||ANCOVA|||ALT||23.59|5.98|0.0012
95993726|NCT03371355|191963334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.9||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|18.11|||ANCOVA|||ALT||18.11|-0.36|0.0594
95993727|NCT03371355|191963334|SUPERIORITY||[Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.45|||ANCOVA|||AST||10.45|-0.47|0.0730
95993728|NCT03371355|191963334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7|||ANCOVA|||AST||13.70|3.17|0.0020
95993729|NCT03371355|191963334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|12.0|||ANCOVA|||AST||12.00|1.05|0.0200
95993730|NCT03371355|191963335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-4.55|0.4812
95993731|NCT03371355|191963335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|1.83|||ANCOVA|||||1.83|-4.88|0.3679
95795132|NCT03183908|191560530|OTHER|The comparison of the number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using 95% confidence intervals. Results were reported using exact binomial confidence intervals.|Comparison of Frequencies|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.23||||||||2.23|0.16|
95993732|NCT03371355|191963335|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-7.72|0.0210
95993733|NCT03371355|191963336|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.73|0.6227
95993734|NCT03371355|191963336|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.97|0.1950
95993735|NCT03371355|191963336|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-1.00|0.2271
95993736|NCT03371355|191963337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.06||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.57|207.69|||ANCOVA|||SAT||207.69|-173.57|0.8591
95993737|NCT03371355|191963337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|32.92||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.11|229.95|||ANCOVA|||SAT||229.95|-164.11|0.7404
95993738|NCT03371355|191963337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.3||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.5|182.9|||ANCOVA|||SAT||182.90|-215.50|0.8711
95993739|NCT03371355|191963337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.95||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.64|186.53|||ANCOVA|||VAT||186.53|-176.64|0.9569
95993740|NCT03371355|191963337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.26||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.53|168.02|||ANCOVA|||VAT||168.02|-216.53|0.8025
95993741|NCT03371355|191963337|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.02||||0.8202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.09|214.12|||ANCOVA|||VAT||214.12|-170.09|0.8202
95993742|NCT03371355|191963338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.69|||ANCOVA|||||6.69|-6.47|0.9734
95993743|NCT03371355|191963338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|5.86|||ANCOVA|||||5.86|-7.25|0.8333
95993744|NCT03371355|191963338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.66||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.99|0.6207
95993745|NCT03371355|191963339|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.8026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.04|0.8026
95993746|NCT03371355|191963339|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.07|0.4917
95993747|NCT03371355|191963339|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.05|0.8916
95993748|NCT03371355|191963340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.50|0.7280
95993749|NCT03371355|191963340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.69|0.7354
95993750|NCT03371355|191963340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.84|0.4682
95993751|NCT00619957|191963354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|5.6|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.60|3.46|<0.0001
95993752|NCT00619957|191963355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.47|1.66|<0.0001
95993753|NCT00619957|191963356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||4.16|2.19|<0.0001
95993754|NCT00619957|191963357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|5.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||5.66|3.49|<0.0001
95993755|NCT00619957|191963358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||0.99|-0.19|0.1856
95993756|NCT00619957|191963359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.25|0.05|0.0346
95987090|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.033|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.033|-0.067|0.4957
95987091|NCT01136655|191948491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.071|||ANCOVA|LOCF was performed if missing data were post last non-missing post-baseline assessment.||Factors in the ANCOVA model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.071|-0.027|0.3800
95987092|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.140|0.073|<0.0001
95987093|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.146|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.146|0.078|<0.0001
95987094|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.090|0.023|0.0011
95987095|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.039|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.039|-0.028|0.7589
95987096|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.017|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.017|-0.084|0.0035
95987097|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.022|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.022|-0.089|0.0011
95987098|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.081|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.081|-0.149|<0.0001
95987099|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||-0.024|-0.092|0.0008
95987100|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.8582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.031|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.031|-0.037|0.8582
95987101|NCT01136655|191948492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.025|||ANCOVA|||Factors in the Analysis of Covariance model included: patient, visit, treatment, and the covariate pre-dose FEV1 from each visit.||0.025|-0.042|0.6276
95987102|NCT01136655|191948493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.7|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.700|0.393|<0.0001
95857408|NCT00885170|191673263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-47.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-31.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.67|-62.40|<0.001
95987103|NCT01136655|191948493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.347|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.347|0.194|<0.0001
95987104|NCT01136655|191948493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.396|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.396|0.214|<0.0001
95987105|NCT01136655|191948493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.659|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.659|0.371|<0.0001
95987106|NCT01136655|191948493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.755|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||0.755|0.409|0.0002
95987107|NCT01136655|191948493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.528|||ANOVA|A shift log transformation was performed on the response variable in the ANOVA model, using log(response) \[log(response + 1) if response is 0\].||Factors in the ANOVA model included: patient, period and treatment.||1.528|0.827|0.4512
95857409|NCT00885170|191673264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-31.15|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||-31.15|-61.43|<0.001
95857410|NCT00885170|191673265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|10.96||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|27.22|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||27.22|-5.29|0.186
95857411|NCT00885170|191673266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|12.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|23.1|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||23.10|2.54|0.015
95857412|NCT00885170|191673267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|31.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|55.21|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||55.21|7.13|0.011
95857413|NCT00885170|191673268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|24.01||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|48.94|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||48.94|-0.93|0.059
95857414|NCT00885170|191673269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.16|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||1.16|-0.95|0.846
95857415|NCT00885170|191673270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.38||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.67|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||4.67|-1.91|0.413
95932982|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||2.5|-.2|.107
95932983|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 6 months||1.7|-1|.651
95932984|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||2.9|.7|.001
95857416|NCT00885170|191673271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-5.91||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|5.85|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||5.85|-17.66|0.326
95857417|NCT00885170|191673272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.47||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|15.32|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||15.32|-12.37|0.835
95857418|NCT00885170|191673273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-3.13||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|3.78|||cLDA||Log-transformed baseline and post-baseline measurements up to Month 24, with fixed effects for treatment, time, duration of prior alendronate use, geographical region, the interaction of time-by-treatment and the time-by-factor interactions.|||3.78|-10.04|0.376
95857419|NCT03771664|191673274|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7||Average change from baseline in SE was analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with explanatory (treatment, baseline antidepressant use, baseline SE) and response variables \[change from baseline in sleep efficiency at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||7.7|-1.2|0.1537
95857420|NCT03771664|191673275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|3.1||Change from BL in overall WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (BL) in overall WASO||3.1|-29.0|0.1126
95857421|NCT03771664|191673275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 1||3.2|-3.3|0.9819
95857422|NCT03771664|191673275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.1||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 2||2.1|-10.6|0.1838
95987108|NCT01783080|191948497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
95987109|NCT01783080|191948499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
95987110|NCT01119248|191948524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-0.48|<.001
95734118|NCT00854308|191439368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.986|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox Regression and was stratified for smoking status, ECOG performance status and histology. The hazard ratio is relative to Placebo + Erlotinib.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PFS between MetMab + Erlotinib and Placebo + Erlotinib. The alternate hypothesis is that MetMab + Erlotinib would have prolonged PFS compared with Placebo + Erlotinib.||0.986|0.284|0.0418
95857423|NCT03771664|191673275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.9||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 3||0.9|-15.0|0.0797
95857424|NCT03771664|191673275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.4||Change from BL in WASO was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in WASO in quarter 4||2.4|-14.5|0.1559
95857425|NCT03771664|191673276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|37.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in overall TST||37.0|-5.5|0.1441
95857426|NCT03771664|191673276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.6||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 1||15.6|-6.2|0.3951
95857427|NCT03771664|191673276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BLPSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 2||12.0|-4.5|0.3705
95857428|NCT03771664|191673276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 3||14.0|-2.0|0.1412
95857429|NCT03771664|191673276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.0||Change from BL in TST was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in TST in quarter 4||15.0|-2.0|0.1298
95857430|NCT03771664|191673277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|13.2||Change from BL in LPS was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-18.2|0.7526
95857431|NCT03771664|191673278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||Change from BL in NAW was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.0|0.6769
95857432|NCT03771664|191673279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in mean duration of awakenings (MDA) in total||0.4|-6.4|0.0824
95932985|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||2.7|.4|.007
95932986|NCT04982315|191828808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Wald Test, 2-sided|Adjusted ANCOVA model for change from baseline fit with generalized estimating equations (GEE) with 3-, 6-, and 12-month in same model.||Difference in change from baseline at 12 months||.8|-1.2|.656
95932987|NCT05364684|191828810|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Change in IHL over 6-months in absolute % IHL: Ibutamoren open-label 3.9 ± 6.7% versus historical placebo group 6.6 ± 6.1%, p=0.4.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in intrahepatic lipid content (IHL) as assessed by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS, absolute %IHL).||||0.4
95932988|NCT05364684|191828811|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Change in cT1 over 6-months (ms): Ibutamoren open-label 39 ± 44 ms versus historical placebo group 44 ± 31 ms, p=0.9.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in hepatic inflammation and fibrosis as assessed by LiverMultiScan corrected T1 (cT1) score. There was no power calculation for this small pilot study.||||0.9
95949995|NCT01918033|191871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.11|-0.84|0.010
95857433|NCT03771664|191673279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 1||1.3|-3.0|0.4269
95932989|NCT05364684|191828812|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Change in ALT over 6-months (U/L): Ibutamoren open-label 8 ± 18 U/L versus historical placebo group 4 ± 8 U/L, p=0.6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects treated with open-label ibutamoren (n=7) were compared to historical placebo control subjects studied under identical inclusion criteria and procedures (n=10). The hypothesis is that open-label ibutamoren treatment would lead to a significant decrease in alanine aminotransferase (ALT). There was no power calculation for this small pilot study.||||0.6
95932990|NCT01381406|191828819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.93||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Logistic|||||0.930|0.641|0.007
95932991|NCT01381406|191828819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.18||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||1.180|0.328|0.146
95932992|NCT01381406|191828819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.949||COPD-Related Adjusted Multivariate Outcomes in the Follow-Up Period by Cohort (reference cohort = TIO) for Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Logistic|||||0.949|0.646|0.013
95932993|NCT02574455|191828822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.492||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.492|0.305|<0.0001
95932994|NCT02574455|191828823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.517||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, presence of known brain metastases at study entry, and region.|Log Rank|||||0.517|0.330|<0.0001
95932995|NCT02574455|191828824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.592||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.592|0.390|<0.0001
95932996|NCT02574455|191828825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.625||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||||0.625|0.422|<0.0001
95932997|NCT02574455|191828826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|21.095|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by IRC Assessment||21.095|5.590|<0.0001
95932998|NCT02574455|191828826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|13.341|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by Investigator Assessment||13.341|4.063|<0.0001
95932999|NCT02574455|191828829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.107||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by IRC Assessment||1.107|0.150|0.0683
95987111|NCT01119248|191948525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||pre- MRI body temperature was associated with change in body temperature after MRI by bivariate analysis. The values presented are adjusted for body surface area, type of MRI, room temperature and duration of MRI||-0.43|-0.95|0.0001
95987112|NCT01119248|191948526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95734119|NCT04567342|191439370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.85|0.531
95933000|NCT02574455|191828829|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.435||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies, and region.|Log Rank|||DOR by Investigator Assessment||0.435|0.103|<0.0001
95933001|NCT02574455|191828830|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.404||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by Investigator Assessment||0.404|0.248|<0.0001
95734120|NCT04567342|191439370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.09|0.65|0.189
95734121|NCT04567342|191439370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.66|0.10|0.054
95933002|NCT02574455|191828831|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.525||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: number of prior chemotherapies and region.|Log Rank|||TTP by IRC Assessment||0.525|0.315|<0.0001
95933003|NCT02574455|191828832|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|14.437|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by IRC Assessment||14.437|5.055|<0.0001
95933004|NCT02574455|191828832|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|12.364|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by Investigator Assessment||12.364|4.540|<0.0001
95933005|NCT02528188|191828836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.39||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.68|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||4.68|0.58|0.0123
95933006|NCT02528188|191828836|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.14|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||8.14|3.55|<0.0001
95933007|NCT02528188|191828837|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|23.5||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|37.7|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||37.7|9.3|0.0012
95933008|NCT02528188|191828837|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|74.9|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||74.9|38.4|<0.0001
95993757|NCT00619957|191963360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.41|0.98|<0.0001
95857434|NCT03771664|191673279|SUPERIORITY|Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 2||2.5|-9.5|0.2482
95933009|NCT02528188|191828838|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0148
95933010|NCT02528188|191828838|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.36|0.1597
95933011|NCT02528188|191828839|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.52|0.0030
95933012|NCT02528188|191828839|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.40|0.0691
95987113|NCT00328627|191948532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||For the primary analysis, the overall average HbA1c response of the Alogliptin/pioglitazone combination groups was compared with that of the pioglitazone alone groups at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||The null hypothesis was that the doses of alogliptin do not have any additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone. The alternative hypothesis was that at least the higher dose of alogliptin would have an additive effect on glycemic control (HbA1c) in addition to the effect produced by pioglitazone alone.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
95987114|NCT00328627|191948532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.41|-0.66|<0.001
95987115|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.48||As a supportive analysis, each of the individual combination treatment groups was compared with the component treatment groups receiving aloliptin alone and pioglitazone alone at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level with no multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.93|<0.001
95987116|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.38|-0.81|<0.001
95987117|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
95933013|NCT02528188|191828840|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.11|0.3431
95933014|NCT02528188|191828840|SUPERIORITY|A graphical testing procedure was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus NSAID was tested first and if all primary endpoints were found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus NSAID and the key secondary endpoint (\>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16). Primary endpoints were tested sequentially within a dose in order of WOMAC pain, WOMAC physical function, and PGA.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.09|0.6332
95933015|NCT02528188|191828841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.28|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||2.28|-0.75|0.4082
95933016|NCT02528188|191828841|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.63|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||3.63|0.31|0.0238
95933017|NCT02528188|191828842|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.8||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.2|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||12.2|-2.6|0.2035
95933018|NCT02528188|191828842|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|27.0|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||27.0|6.8|0.0010
95933019|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|1.99||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.17|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly progressive OA Type 1 or 2||4.17|0.31|0.0248
95933020|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|7.54|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||7.54|3.16|<0.0001
95933021|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.79||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.92|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||3.92|0.16|0.0366
95933022|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|3.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.12|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||6.12|1.99|0.0001
95987118|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
95987119|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
95987120|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
95933023|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.71|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||1.71|-0.76|0.6168
95987121|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
95987122|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.25|-0.70|<0.001
95987123|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.68|-1.13|<0.001
95987124|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.001
95734122|NCT04567342|191439370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.32|0.84|0.654
95933024|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|1.3||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.97|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||2.97|0.17|0.0388
95933025|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.51|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.51|-0.74|0.7245
95933026|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Primary osteonecrosis||1.52|-0.74|0.7182
95933027|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.2||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.9|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||1.90|-0.96|0.6824
95727953|NCT02277769|191425548|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|30.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||30.05|16.63|< 0.0001
95734123|NCT04567342|191439370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.74|1.05|0.018
95857435|NCT03771664|191673279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.2||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 3||3.2|-10.1|0.3076
95727954|NCT02277769|191425549|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.062|-13.927||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.927|-22.062|< 0.0001
95933028|NCT02528188|191828843|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|0.3||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.03|||Exact methods for risk difference|||Subchondral insufficiency fracture||2.03|-0.86|0.5632
95933029|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|19.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|32.35|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||32.35|6.78|0.0027
95933030|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|51.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.47|68.5|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2||68.50|34.47|<0.0001
95933031|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.58||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|29.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||29.76|5.39|0.0047
95933032|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.05|53.4|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1||53.40|23.05|<0.0001
95933033|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.94||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.76|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||5.76|-1.89|0.3214
95933034|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|12.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|20.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2||20.39|5.36|0.0008
95933035|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.9||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.96|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||7.96|-4.17|0.5394
95933036|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.98||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.39|||Poisson model for rate difference|||Subchondral Insufficiency Fracture||9.39|-3.44|0.3636
95933037|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Poisson model for rate difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
95933038|NCT02528188|191828844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|1.0|||||||||||||95% CI was not estimable since there were less number of participants with events.|Primary osteonecrosis||||
95933039|NCT02528188|191828845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Exact methods for risk difference|||||7.74|2.43|0.0002
95933040|NCT02528188|191828845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|12.52|||Exact methods for risk difference|||||12.52|6.73|<0.0001
95933041|NCT02528188|191828846|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.76|69.74||The event of adjudicated primary osteonecrosis in the tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group is not included in this analysis. Conclusions for this analysis do not change as the comparison to NSAID is already statistically significant in favor of NSAID.|Poisson model for rate difference|||||69.74|26.76|<0.0001
95933042|NCT02528188|191828846|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|95.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.25|121.42|||Poisson model for rate difference|||||121.42|70.25|<0.0001
95933043|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW width at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.15|0.0979
95933044|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
95933045|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.17|0.1162
95857436|NCT03771664|191673279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||Change from BL in MDA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in MDA in quarter 4||0.8|-1.9|0.4491
95857437|NCT03771664|191673280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.3||Change from BL in DS N1 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of stage (DS) N1 sleep||5.3|-4.5|0.8724
95933046|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change in medial JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.22|0.0128
95933047|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.17|0.8885
95933048|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.6345
95933049|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.32|0.4406
95933050|NCT02528188|191828847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in lateral JSW at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.19|0.7109
95933051|NCT02528188|191828848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.30|0.1020
95933052|NCT02528188|191828848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.0230
95933053|NCT02528188|191828848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.0645
95933054|NCT02528188|191828848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 80: ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline JSW as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.26|0.5005
95933055|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.29|1.04|0.0358
95933056|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.12|1.37|0.0021
95933057|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||3.77|1.07|0.0301
95987125|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.48|-0.92|<0.001
95987126|NCT00328627|191948564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as continuous covariates.||||-0.39|-0.83|<0.001
95987127|NCT00631371|191948690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center \[MSKCC\] risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.8
95734124|NCT04567342|191439370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.44|0.90|0.283
95933058|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in medial JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.85|1.45|0.0016
95933059|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||1.70|0.18|0.3002
95933060|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.89|0.39|0.8997
95734125|NCT04567342|191439371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|2.62|1.42|<0.01
95734126|NCT04567342|191439371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.21|0.56|0.318
95933061|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||4.18|0.53|0.4559
95933062|NCT02528188|191828849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease in lateral JSW at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate.||2.54|0.20|0.5996
95933063|NCT02528188|191828850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.65|0.90|0.0714
95933064|NCT02528188|191828850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 56: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||12.84|0.91|0.0681
95933065|NCT02528188|191828850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.95|0.81|0.0967
95933066|NCT02528188|191828850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Decrease at Week 80: Logistic regression model included treatment, and baseline JSW as covariate||11.90|0.81|0.0976
95987128|NCT00631371|191948691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.4|1.0|0.9
95987129|NCT00631371|191948692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value (2-sided), risk ratio and associated 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior nephrectomy and MSKCC risk group as randomized.||1.3|0.8|1.0
95987130|NCT00631371|191948693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Log Rank|||P value was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior nephrectomy \[yes/no\] and MSKCC risk factors \[good/intermediate/poor\] at time of randomization). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.3|0.9|0.6
95987131|NCT00746252|191948748|OTHER|||||||0.495||||||Threshold of significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean weight gain between groups.||||.495
95987132|NCT00439946|191948749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
95987133|NCT00439946|191948750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95987134|NCT00439946|191948751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95987135|NCT00439946|191948752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
95987136|NCT00439946|191948753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
95987137|NCT00439946|191948754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.50
95987138|NCT00439946|191948755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
95734127|NCT04567342|191439371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.26|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|3.26|1.68|<0.01
95987139|NCT00439946|191948756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||0.75
95734128|NCT04567342|191439371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.36|0.85|0.535
95734129|NCT04567342|191439371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.5|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs Arm 2|3.50|1.82|<0.01
95987140|NCT00439946|191948757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.0
95987141|NCT00439946|191948758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values||||1.00
95933067|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.27|0.2212
95933068|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.10|0.4557
95933069|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.45|0.0029
95933070|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.50|0.0005
95933071|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.33|0.1273
95933072|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.57|<0.0001
95933073|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.31|0.6349
95933074|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.44|0.1339
95857438|NCT03771664|191673280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.7||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N2 sleep||34.7|2.5|0.0238
95987142|NCT00439946|191948759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||p-value for: Gather/set-up|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.95
95987143|NCT00439946|191948759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||p-value for: Prepare drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.02
95933075|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6237
95933076|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.37|0.4224
95933077|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7526
95987144|NCT00439946|191948759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0||||p-value for: Connect drug|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.20
95987145|NCT00439946|191948759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||p-value for: Change dressing|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.48
95987146|NCT00439946|191948759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||p-value for: Total time|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean times between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.11
95987147|NCT00439946|191948760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value for: CAMPHOR Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
95987148|NCT00439946|191948760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Activity Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.84
95987149|NCT00439946|191948760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
95987150|NCT00439946|191948760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||p-value for CAMPHOR Total Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.22
95987151|NCT00439946|191948761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Effectiveness Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.55
95987152|NCT00439946|191948761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Side-Effects Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
95987153|NCT00439946|191948761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Convenience Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.01
95734130|NCT04567342|191439371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|2.80|1.53|<0.01
95987154|NCT00439946|191948761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0||||p-value for TSQM Global Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Changes in mean TSQM and CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, comparing the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.52
95734131|NCT04567342|191439372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 1|1.48|0.92|0.192
95734132|NCT04567342|191439372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.06|0.62|0.132
95734133|NCT04567342|191439372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 3 vs. Arm 2|1.86|1.11|<0.01
95933078|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7328
95933079|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.33|0.5888
95933080|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.28|0.9345
95933081|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8782
95933082|NCT02528188|191828851|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7076
95933083|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.37|0.0150
95933084|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.25|0.3286
95987155|NCT03860961|191948771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9238||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cluster-randomized trial, cluster=practice, maximum 25 patients/practice. Assuming 14 pts/practice, cluster size coefficient of variation of 0.5, intra-cluster correlation (ρ) of 0.04, design effect 1.51, and 59.8% of Arm A patients meeting the criteria provides 80% power for a two-sided α=0.05 two-sample test of proportions to detect a 15% absolute improvement in percentage of patients meeting the criteria with 544 patients (after adjusted for withdrawal and loss to follow-up).||||0.9238
95933085|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0004
95933086|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.53|0.0001
95987156|NCT03860961|191948772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5609||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included baseline CVD risk score, practice as random covariate (participants nested within practice) and treatment arm.||||||0.5609
95987157|NCT03325673|191948796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Independent t-test|||||||0.116
95987158|NCT03325673|191948797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Insertion||||0.468
95987159|NCT03325673|191948797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After 2 hours||||0.235
95933087|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.37|0.0517
95933088|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.61|<0.0001
95933089|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.37|0.3621
95933090|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.47|0.0832
95933091|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4072
95933092|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3404
95933093|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.34|0.6344
95933094|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.35|0.5756
95933095|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.38|0.4394
95987160|NCT03325673|191948797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Day||||0.152
95987161|NCT03325673|191948798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
95987162|NCT03325673|191948799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
95987163|NCT00326898|191948800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.23|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.23|0.85|0.80
95987164|NCT00326898|191948800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|1.17|||Stratified logrank test|Stratified logrank test was performed. Stratification factors include basis of risk group, histologic subtype, performance status and type of surgery.||||1.17|0.80|0.72
95933096|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7747
95933097|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.32|0.7305
95933098|NCT02528188|191828853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.22|0.7330
95933099|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2159
95933100|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.10|0.2049
95933101|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.19|0.0002
95933102|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.21|<0.0001
95933103|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.08|0.7799
95933104|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.16|0.0061
95933105|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9718
95933106|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.14|0.3292
95933107|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9830
95933108|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.9137
95933109|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8784
95933110|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.10|0.9995
95933111|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.13|0.6648
95933112|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.09|0.7280
95933113|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.09|0.8856
95933114|NCT02528188|191828855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline PGA and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.05|0.2814
95933115|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.28|0.89|0.4691
95987165|NCT00326898|191948801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.52|0.90|
95987166|NCT00326898|191948801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.28|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified proportional hazards model with Arm C (placebo arm) as the reference group.|||1.28|0.75|
95987167|NCT02597855|191948818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference of polyp regression rate between two groups were compared.||||<0.05
95933116|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2||1.13|0.79|0.5451
95933117|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.54|1.08|0.0059
95933118|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4||1.55|1.08|0.0057
95933119|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.38|0.95|0.1584
95933120|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.006||95.0|1.08|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8||1.58|1.08|0.0060
95987168|NCT02597855|191948819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was used for a comparison of best corrected visual acuity assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months between type1 and type2.||best corrected visual acuity was compared between two groups||||<0.05
95987169|NCT00781456|191948864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, weekly baseline migraine frequency, and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|||0.87|-0.82|0.954
95987170|NCT00781456|191948865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the first month of treatment.||1.17|-0.55|0.479
95987171|NCT00781456|191948865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.37||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the second month of treatment||1.37|-0.36|0.256
95987172|NCT00781456|191948865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms of treatment, baseline weekly migraine frequency and center included in the model.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo. Treatment Difference was estimated using logistic regression for the proportion of participants with \>=50% reduction in migraine frequency during the treatment period.|Comparison of percentage of participants with a reduction of 50% or more in migraine frequency during the third month of treatment.||0.88|-1.16|0.788
95987173|NCT00781456|191948866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.19||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the 91-day treatment period.||0.09|-0.47|0.182
95987174|NCT00781456|191948866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the first month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.853
95987175|NCT00781456|191948866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.26||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the second month of treatment||0.19|-0.71|0.249
95933121|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.46|0.96|0.1117
95987176|NCT00781456|191948866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison was performed using an analysis of covariance model with baseline average migraine severity and center as covariates.|91-day Levonogestrel Oral Contraceptive versus placebo.|Comparison of change from Baseline in migraine severity during the third month of treatment||0.10|-0.90|0.119
95987177|NCT00781456|191948867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the first month of treatment.||||0.457
95987178|NCT00781456|191948867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the second month of treatment.||||0.361
95987179|NCT00781456|191948867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the third month of treatment.||||0.018
95987180|NCT00781456|191948867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of percentage of participants requiring rescue medication during the 91-day treatment period.||||0.709
95987181|NCT02469090|191948926|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.7||The null-hypothesis to be tested was: H0: APL-130277 is the same as placebo in its effect on the motor function against the 2-sided alternative: H1: Either of the treatment groups is superior to the other in its effect on the motor function.|LS mean difference|To control the family-wise type I error rate, the primary and secondary end points were tested in hierarchical order in the order presented||Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to estimate the treatment difference(APL-130277-placebo) Observed change from pre-dose MDS-UPDRS Part III score values after 30 minutes were response values. Treatment group, visit and the interaction between the treatment group and visit were fixed factors. Change from pre-dose in MDS-UPDRS Part III score after 30 minutes at the last TV at which the randomized dose was given up through TV6 was used as a covariate||-3.7|-11.5|0.0002
95987182|NCT02469090|191948927|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.81||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|7.644|||Adjusted Odds Ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.644|1.036|0.0426
95987183|NCT02469090|191948928|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.84||The hierarchical testing stopped at this endpoint due to non-significant result. P-values for endpoints after this endpoint have not been presented and the confidence interval presented are unadjusted for multiplicity.|Adjusted odds ratio|||"This was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model (with logit link function) for binomial data. The model included the observed outcomes as the response values, with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and the ON/OFF assessment at the last open-label titration visit at which the randomized dose was given as a covariate."||7.84|1.00|0.0501
95933122|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16||1.47|0.97|0.1004
95933123|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.25|0.87|0.6258
95933124|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24||1.39|0.96|0.1154
95933125|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.22|0.86|0.8018
95933126|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32||1.26|0.88|0.5697
95933127|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.20|0.84|0.9557
95933128|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40||1.22|0.85|0.8553
95933129|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.20|0.84|0.9901
95933130|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48||1.14|0.80|0.5870
95933131|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.22|0.85|0.8302
95933132|NCT02528188|191828857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56||1.12|0.79|0.4823
95933133|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.33|0.92|0.2938
95857439|NCT03771664|191673280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.1||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in DS N3 sleep||16.1|-6.3|0.3863
95933134|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.75|0.3146
95933135|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.58|0.98|0.0748
95933136|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.45|0.89|0.3000
95933137|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.74|0.86|0.2550
95933138|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.80|0.4780
95933139|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.42|0.70|0.4006
95933140|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.54|0.74|0.3089
95933141|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.50|1.05|0.0114
95933142|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.03|0.0239
95987184|NCT02469090|191948931|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.159|0.959||||||||0.959|-3.159|
95987185|NCT02469090|191948932|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.84|66.36||||||||66.36|28.84|
95987186|NCT02469090|191948933|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|6.12||||||||6.120|-2.162|
95987187|NCT02469090|191948934|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-6.7|
95987188|NCT02469090|191948935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.69||||||Median Time to effect for APL-130277 versus placebo patients||5.69|1.99|
95987189|NCT04852848|191948936|EQUIVALENCE|In our original power calculation, we expected to randomly assign 200 individuals to the Connect2Test (n = 100) and control conditions (n = 100). Power calculations were conducted using G\*Power assuming a two-tailed test with alpha = .05, power = .80, and an estimated COVID-19 testing rate in the Connect2Test condition of 20%. With these assumptions, the minimum detectable effect size (odds ratio) is 2.46, which corresponds to a moderate Cohen's d (0.49).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.27|||Chi-squared||The control condition was the reference category (Connect2Test intervention = 1, Control = 0).|||2.27|0.61|.6298
95933143|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.07|0.0079
95933144|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.60|1.08|0.0068
95933145|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.62|0.96|0.1037
95987190|NCT04091087|191948937|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.87|-1.86||1-sided|ANOVA|||||-1.86|-26.87|0.0299
95987191|NCT04091087|191948938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.33||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|8.72||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||8.72|-2.06|0.1546
95987192|NCT04091087|191948939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|19.62||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||19.62|-1.63|0.0819
95987193|NCT04091087|191948939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.47||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|14.25||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.25|-15.20|0.4789
95933146|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.12|0.0046
95933147|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.19|0.85|0.1971
95933148|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.52|1.00|0.0480
95933149|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.28|0.89|0.4744
95933150|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.45|1.02|0.0336
95933151|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.44|1.00|0.0559
95933152|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.61|1.11|0.0021
95933153|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.59|1.00|0.0535
95933154|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.92|1.22|0.0003
95987194|NCT04091087|191948939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
95987195|NCT04091087|191948939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.38||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.79|13.03||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||13.03|-13.79|0.4815
95987196|NCT04091087|191948939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.9||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.55|21.35||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||21.35|-3.55|0.1197
95987197|NCT04091087|191948939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|29.23||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||29.23|7.14|0.0034
95734134|NCT04567342|191439372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 3|1.16|0.73|0.462
95987198|NCT04091087|191948940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|5.13||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.09|20.34||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||||20.34|-10.09|0.2896
95987199|NCT04091087|191948941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.77||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.55|28.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||28.08|-12.55|0.2648
95987200|NCT04091087|191948941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|17.05||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|37.08||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||37.08|-2.99|0.0809
95987201|NCT04091087|191948941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
95987202|NCT04091087|191948941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.58|21.99||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.99|-18.58|0.4450
95987203|NCT04091087|191948941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|20.45||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|39.48||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||39.48|1.43|0.0385
95987204|NCT04091087|191948941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|29.64||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.95|48.33||1 sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||48.33|10.95|0.0045
95987205|NCT04091087|191948942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.3874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.67|26.43||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||26.43|-18.67|0.3874
95987206|NCT04091087|191948942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.59||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.85|14.91||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||14.91|-23.85|0.3506
95987207|NCT04091087|191948942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|9.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.97|33.6||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||33.60|-13.97|0.2466
95987208|NCT04091087|191948942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|34.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.74||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|61.05||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||61.05|8.43|0.0157
95987209|NCT04091087|191948942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.55||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.99|22.68||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||22.68|-25.99|0.4548
95987210|NCT04091087|191948942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-42.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.24|-22.15||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-22.15|-62.24|0.0004
95933155|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.70|0.72|0.6421
95933156|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.38|1.07|0.0207
95933157|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.39|0.95|0.1635
95933158|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.47|1.00|0.0529
95933159|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.37|0.96|0.1322
95933160|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY|The two key secondary comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus NSAID and tanezumab 5 mg treatment group versus NSAID) could not be considered significant since preceding tests in the graphical testing procedure were not significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.46|1.02|0.0262
95933161|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.22|0.83|0.9805
95933162|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.61|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.61|1.10|0.0033
95933163|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.69|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.69|0.92|0.1590
95933164|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||2.11|1.17|0.0024
95933165|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.20|0.83|0.9932
95933166|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4374
95933167|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4406
95933168|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.29|0.90|0.4078
95933169|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.31|0.89|0.4071
95734135|NCT04567342|191439372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 2|1.72|1.01|0.039
95933170|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.50|1.03|0.0248
95933171|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.16|0.66|0.3641
95933172|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.53|0.89|0.2497
95933173|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8682
95933174|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.16|0.81|0.7317
95933175|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6493
95933176|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.17|0.82|0.7973
95933177|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.45|0.98|0.0757
95933178|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.47|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.47|0.99|0.0578
95933179|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.37|0.76|0.9010
95987211|NCT04091087|191948943|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.23|23.06||1 sided|ANOVA|||||23.06|-9.23|0.2383
95987212|NCT04091087|191948944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-29.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.01||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|5.18||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 1||5.18|-65.09|0.0797
95987213|NCT04091087|191948944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-14.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.81|17.04||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 2||17.04|-45.81|0.2236
95987214|NCT04091087|191948944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.05||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.12|15.24||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 3||15.24|-35.12|0.2559
95987215|NCT04091087|191948944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.44||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.54|21.52||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 4||21.52|-53.54|0.2392
95987216|NCT04091087|191948944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-13.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.65||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.87|19.85||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 5||19.85|-45.87|0.2553
95987217|NCT04091087|191948944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.05||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-103.26|-2.75||1-sided|Normal approximation test|||Week 6||-2.75|-103.26|0.0416
95987218|NCT01425203|191948965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|41.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for the primary comparison was based on the step-down approach.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The primary statistical comparison was conducted on the FAS using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors, including IL28B genotype and previous treatment as specified at the time of randomization.||41.5|16.4|<0.0001
95987219|NCT01425203|191948966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|42.5||Multiplicity adjustment for controlling type 1 error for key secondary comparison based on a step-down approach. Key-secondary comparison was tested only if statistical significance of primary comparison was met at alpha level of 0.050.|Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The key secondary statistical comparison was conducted on the mITT using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors.||42.5|17.3|<0.0001
95933180|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.74|0.99|0.0548
95933181|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7331
95933182|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.82|0.8632
95933183|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.25|0.88|0.6262
95933184|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.15|0.81|0.6817
95933185|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.24|0.85|0.7990
95727955|NCT02277769|191425549|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.491|-15.529||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.529|-23.491|< 0.0001
95933186|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.86|0.6786
95933187|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.78|0.8069
95933188|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.54|0.88|0.2951
95933189|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9093
95933190|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5032
95933191|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4382
95734136|NCT04567342|191439372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Logistic||||Arm 4 vs. Arm 1|1.37|0.84|0.570
95933192|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.5638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5638
95933193|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.27|0.86|0.6436
95933194|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7060
95933195|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.28|0.72|0.7729
95933196|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.42|0.81|0.6405
95933197|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.9046
95933198|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.11|0.78|0.4491
95933199|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7429
95933200|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3467
95933201|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.85|0.7624
95933202|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.18|0.80|0.7686
95933203|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.33|0.74|0.9384
95933204|NCT02528188|191828858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.38|0.77|0.8495
95933205|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.99|0.0651
95933206|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.84|0.9032
95933207|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.72|1.08|0.0100
95933208|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=50% reduction||1.42|0.88|0.3728
95933209|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0434
95933210|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=70% reduction||2.04|1.01|0.0425
95933211|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||2.34|0.64|0.5442
95933212|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 2: \>=90% reduction||3.45|1.05|0.0349
95933213|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.51|1.05|0.0108
95933214|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=30% reduction||1.52|1.07|0.0080
95933215|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.83|1.22|<0.0001
95933216|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=50% reduction||1.85|1.24|<0.0001
95933217|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.88|1.11|0.0060
95933218|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=70% reduction||1.93|1.14|0.0031
95933219|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||2.88|1.08|0.0235
95933220|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 4: \>=90% reduction||3.42|1.31|0.0021
95933221|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7613
95933222|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=30% reduction||1.43|1.00|0.0548
95987220|NCT01425203|191948967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|45.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|57.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method||The difference, 95% CI and p-value are adjusted by stratification factors of IL-28B genotype and previous treatment, based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The percentage of participants achieving EVR at TW8 was compared using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method at alpha level of 0.050 adjusted for stratification factors in the FAS population.||57.0|33.2|<0.0001
95987221|NCT00763815|191948968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.386||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 patients in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.386|-0.731|<0.0001
95987222|NCT05098041|191949009|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) of Cmax for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the natural-log (ln)-transformed Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.73|17.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||17.79|9.73|
95987223|NCT05098041|191949010|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|16.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.53|21.5|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||21.50|12.53|
95987224|NCT05098041|191949011|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The point estimates and 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for Soticlestat and Rifampin versus Soticlestat alone were calculated using the exponentiation of the point estimates of the difference between treatment regimen and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.94|18.64|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Rifampin/Soticlestat Alone).|||18.64|11.94|
95987225|NCT05098041|191949012|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||=|0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.202|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Rifampin) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.000|-0.202|=0.07910
95987226|NCT02599961|191949021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|-60.46||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Month 0-3||-60.46|-105.00|< 0.0001
95987227|NCT02599961|191949021|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.46|-23.36||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 4-6||-23.36|-86.46|0.0006
95987228|NCT02599961|191949021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.882||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.62|-19.45||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 7-9||-19.45|-85.62|0.0019
95987229|NCT02599961|191949021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-82.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.13|-52.17||From the GEE model which includes the reduction from baseline for each visit period as the response variable, baseline as covariates, visit period as a factor, identity link function and exchangeable within subject working correlation matrix.|GEE model|||Month 10-12||-52.17|-113.13|< 0.0001
95987230|NCT02595723|191949045|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Overall group difference adjusted for prior group, time, and baseline values.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes prior group, time, and baseline values to control for possible effects.||||||0.003
95987231|NCT00385255|191949054|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentages of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.56||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-D antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.56|-1.36|
95987232|NCT00385255|191949054|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+ Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.74||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||-0.74|-2.96|
95987233|NCT00385255|191949055|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being ≥ - 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.68||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against tetanus toxoid: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-T antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||3.68|-0.77|
95987234|NCT00385255|191949056|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis toxoid (PT) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratios for anti-PT antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PT antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.82|0.67|
95987235|NCT00385255|191949056|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-FHA antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.79|0.64|
95987236|NCT00385255|191949056|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigens between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group) being ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Boostrix® vaccine administered alone at Month 1 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-PRN antibody, one month post-Boostrix® vaccination.||0.81|0.60|
95987237|NCT00385255|191949057|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.23||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H1N1 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.23|-3.58|
95987238|NCT00385255|191949057|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.96||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-H3N2 antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||0.96|-2.22|
95987239|NCT00385255|191949057|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40 being ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.42||||||Difference in percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-B antibody titers ≥ 1:40, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||1.42|-2.52|
95987240|NCT00385255|191949058|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H1N1 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.58||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H1N1 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.58|-2.84|
95987241|NCT00385255|191949058|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase in anti-H3N2 antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.07||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-H3N2 antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||10.07|1.10|
95987242|NCT00385255|191949058|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two groups (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group minus Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with ≥ 4-fold increase anti-B antibody titers (seroconversion) being ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.2||||||Difference in seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Boostrix® vaccine co-administered with Fluarix® vaccine (Boostrix+Fluarix 19-64 YOA Group) at Day 0, was non-inferior to that of Fluarix® vaccine administered alone at Day 0 (Fluarix Boostrix 19-64 YOA Group), in terms of seroconversion rates for anti-B antibody, one month post-Fluarix® vaccination.||7.20|-2.90|
95987243|NCT02500628|191949123|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia group||||0.77
95987244|NCT02500628|191949124|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95987245|NCT02500628|191949125|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between fibromyalgia and non-fibromyalgia patients.||||0.92
95987246|NCT00391222|191949129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||As defined in the protocol, the olanzapine arm was not included in the primary outcome comparison. Data on the olanzapine arm are presented in outcome measure 7.|Log Rank|||Comparison between risperidone LAI and placebo was performed using a log-rank test controlling for patient type at screening (acute or non-acute) and for geographic region. As recurrence rates at 9 months were assumed to be 45% for risperidone LAI and 68% for placebo, the study would have approximately 90% power to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 23% in recurrence rates of a mood episode if in Period III 100 patients were randomized to each of the 2 relevant treatment arms.||||0.057
95987247|NCT00391222|191949130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.005
95987248|NCT00391222|191949130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
95987249|NCT00391222|191949131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.655
95987250|NCT00391222|191949131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.011
95933223|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.51|1.04|0.0196
95933224|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=50% reduction||1.75|1.20|<0.0001
95933225|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0077||95.0|1.09|1.77|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||1.77|1.09|0.0077
95933226|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=70% reduction||2.09|1.30|<0.0001
95933227|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.96|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||1.96|0.87|0.1942
95933228|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 8: \>=90% reduction||2.43|1.11|0.0122
95987251|NCT00391222|191949132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||0.2882
95987252|NCT00391222|191949132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The time-to-event data were evaluated by means of the same survival analysis method as used for the primary outcome. The recurrence rates (Kaplan-Meier estimated) were calculated for each treatment arm using the same methods as for the primary outcome.||||<0.0001
95987253|NCT00391222|191949133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
95987254|NCT00391222|191949133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline YMRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||<0.001
95987255|NCT00391222|191949134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.480
95987256|NCT00391222|191949134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied to the change from baseline of Period III at each time point in Period III, with treatment, patient type at screening, and geographic region as factors and baseline MADRS total score as covariate. The comparison between active treatment and placebo was performed based on the LS means obtained from the ANCOVA model. The difference in LS means between treatment arms was estimated, as was the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||||0.001
95987257|NCT01627860|191949136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Seizure free rate|23.57||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|49.0|||ANOVA||Difference in Seizure free rate (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||49.00|-4.21|0.0759
95987258|NCT01627860|191949137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean percent change|18.3||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.0|117.7|||ANCOVA||Difference in mean percent change of seizure frequency (Monotherapy minus Add on therapy)|||117.7|-81.0|0.7102
95933229|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.43|0.97|0.0977
95933230|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=30% reduction||1.44|0.98|0.0806
95933231|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.2097
95933232|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=50% reduction||1.49|1.05|0.0135
95933233|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.33|0.90|0.3571
95933234|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=70% reduction||1.63|1.11|0.0025
95933235|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.49|0.83|0.4658
95933236|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 16: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.09|0.0108
95933237|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8393
95933238|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=30% reduction||1.32|0.92|0.2977
95933239|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.34|0.94|0.1944
95933240|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=50% reduction||1.26|0.88|0.5714
95933241|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.36|0.92|0.2472
95933242|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=70% reduction||1.51|1.03|0.0235
95987259|NCT01225731|191949139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|28.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.41|44.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||44.36|13.41|0.001
95987260|NCT01225731|191949139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.42|71.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||71.58|48.42|<0.001
95987261|NCT01225731|191949139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|61.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.33|73.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||73.37|50.33|<0.001
95987262|NCT01225731|191949139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|69.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.96|80.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||80.99|58.96|<0.001
95987263|NCT01225731|191949140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|19.37||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|33.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||33.58|5.15|0.009
95987264|NCT01225731|191949140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|66.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.26|42.63|<0.001
95987265|NCT01225731|191949140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|56.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.43|68.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||68.03|44.43|<0.001
95987266|NCT01225731|191949140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|67.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.42|78.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||78.88|56.42|<0.001
95987267|NCT01225731|191949141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|31.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.22|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||46.0|16.22|<0.001
95987268|NCT01225731|191949141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|55.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.48|66.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||66.63|44.48|<0.001
95987269|NCT01225731|191949141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|59.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|70.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||70.55|48.60|<0.001
95987270|NCT01225731|191949141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Difference in Response Rate|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.02|82.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤90 kg or \>90 kg) and prior use of biologics for psoriasis (Yes/No).||||82.37|62.02|<0.001
95987271|NCT00577642|191949152|OTHER|single group|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-tests were used to compare differences of NTX cytokine levels at study entry versus end-of-study.||||<0.05
95933243|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.51|0.85|0.4074
95933244|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.81|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 24: \>=90% reduction||1.81|1.03|0.0296
95933245|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.23|0.86|0.7607
95933246|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.86|0.7979
95933247|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.31|0.92|0.2964
95933248|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=50% reduction||1.24|0.87|0.6950
95933249|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.38|0.93|0.1985
95933250|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.42|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=70% reduction||1.42|0.96|0.1239
95933251|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.58|0.88|0.2762
95933252|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 32: \>=90% reduction||1.91|1.08|0.0121
95933253|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8443
95987272|NCT01556425|191949153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||21.6|0.2|0.48
95987273|NCT01556425|191949153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.6|0.1|0.61
95987274|NCT01556425|191949153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|54.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||54.9|0.7|0.11
95987275|NCT01556425|191949153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|24.9|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||24.9|0.3|0.39
95987276|NCT01556425|191949153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|85.5|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||85.5|1.3|0.03
95987277|NCT01556425|191949154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.4|0.1|0.30
95933254|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=30% reduction||1.22|0.85|0.8472
95933255|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.21|0.85|0.8980
95933256|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9385
95933257|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4261
95933258|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=70% reduction||1.30|0.88|0.5250
95933259|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6273
95933260|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 40: \>=90% reduction||1.90|1.08|0.0132
95933261|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.18|0.83|0.9095
95933262|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=30% reduction||1.12|0.79|0.5098
95933263|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.28|0.90|0.4488
95933264|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=50% reduction||1.19|0.83|0.9757
95987278|NCT01556425|191949154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.2|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.2|0.03|0.08
95987279|NCT01556425|191949154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.8|0.1|0.91
95987280|NCT01556425|191949154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.8|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||15.8|0.4|0.34
95987281|NCT01556425|191949154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|26.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||26.1|0.8|0.09
95987282|NCT02054897|191949155|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 1.0 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 1.0 mg versus placebo. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.25|-1.81|< 0.0001
95987283|NCT02054897|191949155|SUPERIORITY|Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Semaglutide 0.5 mg minus Placebo|For the primary HbA1c endpoint, superiority was planned to be tested for semaglutide 0.5 mg versus placebo, if superiority for semaglutide 1.0 mg was concluded. The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.15|-1.71|< 0.0001
95987284|NCT00610987|191949163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.12
95987285|NCT00254501|191949164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Adjusted for baseline Hemoglobin A-1C.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis is mean change in usual care group equals mean change in Empower group.~Power calculation required 150 per group assuming 25% would withdraw prior to 12 months."||||0.0757
95987286|NCT00254501|191949165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in LDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.44
95987287|NCT00254501|191949165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in HDL from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.16
95987288|NCT00254501|191949165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in total cholesterol from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.14
95857440|NCT03771664|191673280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.9||Change from BL in REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14(EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in duration of REM sleep||-0.9|-19.6|0.0320
95987289|NCT00254501|191949165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in triglycerides from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.92
95933265|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.39|0.94|0.1843
95933266|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=70% reduction||1.32|0.89|0.4356
95933267|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.45|0.80|0.6342
95933268|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 48: \>=90% reduction||1.73|0.97|0.0810
95933269|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.15|0.80|0.6527
95933270|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=30% reduction||1.10|0.77|0.3857
95933271|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.06||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.27|0.89|0.5280
95933272|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=50% reduction||1.13|0.79|0.5355
95987290|NCT00254501|191949166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3856|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of total health care from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.3856
95987291|NCT00254501|191949166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in cost of diabetes medications from baseline to 12 months between groups. Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.6413
95987292|NCT00254501|191949166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyses not adjusted for other variables.||||.4303
95933273|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.26|0.84|0.7732
95933274|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=70% reduction||1.23|0.82|0.9397
95987293|NCT00254501|191949167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Diabetes Empowerment Scale from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.785
95987294|NCT00254501|191949167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Adherence Starts with Knowledge (ASK-20) from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.302
95987295|NCT00254501|191949167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change in Understanding of Diabetes from baseline to 12 months between groups.||||0.0024
95987296|NCT01223703|191949190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||"null hypothesis is no difference n3 PUFA administration and placebo. To demonstrate an effect size of 0.5 in LVEF, a sample of 65 patients in each group was calculated to have 80% power to detect such 0.5 effect size with alpha=0.05 (2-tailed) at the Student t test.~for unpaired data."||||< 0.05
95987297|NCT01223703|191949191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The analysis was done following an intention-to-treat approach by means of the unpaired student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriated.||||||< 0.05
95987298|NCT04249687|191949210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
95987299|NCT04249687|191949211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
95857441|NCT03771664|191673281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Change from BL in PS N1 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score;Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage of stage (PS) N1 sleep time||1.6|-1.7|0.9524
95933275|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.39|0.75|0.9044
95933276|NCT02528188|191828860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.57|||Regression, Logistic||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale,baseline diary average pain,classification variables index joint,highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade,NSAID and treatment.|Week 56: \>=90% reduction||1.57|0.86|0.3193
95933277|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1772
95987300|NCT01508702|191949212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
95987301|NCT04472429|191949213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84||tested at the 1-sided 2.5% level|stratified log-rank test||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.84|0.47|0.0006
95987302|NCT03461757|191949232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.2|6.5|< 0.0001
95987303|NCT03461757|191949233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|3.4|0.0009
95987304|NCT03461757|191949234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|10.8|< 0.0001
95987305|NCT03461757|191949235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
95987306|NCT03461757|191949236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.2|15.1|< 0.0001
95987307|NCT03461757|191949237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|4.9|< 0.0001
95987308|NCT03461757|191949238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.7|-19.3|< 0.0001
95987309|NCT03461757|191949239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|8.3|< 0.0001
95987310|NCT03461757|191949240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|12.0|< 0.0001
95987311|NCT03461757|191949241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.0|2.5|0.0018
95987312|NCT03461757|191949242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|6.3|< 0.0001
95987313|NCT03461757|191949243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.7|0.0007
95987314|NCT03461757|191949244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|4.3|0.0002
95987315|NCT03461757|191949245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.6|7.1|< 0.0001
95987316|NCT03461757|191949246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|6.9|< 0.0001
95987317|NCT03461757|191949247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|1.2|0.0128
95987318|NCT03461757|191949248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.4|< 0.0001
95987319|NCT03461757|191949249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.3|0.0003
95987320|NCT03461757|191949250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.1|4.9|< 0.0001
95987321|NCT03461757|191949251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|0.5|0.0314
95987322|NCT03461757|191949252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|2.3|0.0025
95987323|NCT03461757|191949253|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.7||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.7|-0.9|0.0898
95987324|NCT02425826|191949255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|-25.3|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-25.30|-54.39|<0.0001
95987325|NCT02425826|191949256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||-1.0|-3.9|0.0008
95987326|NCT02425826|191949257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) is based on normal approximation|||31.1|11.0|<0.0001
95987327|NCT02425826|191949258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.7||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||25.7|1.7|0.0365
95987328|NCT02425826|191949259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate.||The treatment comparison was only done for Week 16; End of Phase||-4.5|-18.8|0.0016
95933278|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.89|1.07|0.0154
95933279|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.81|1.08|0.0105
95933280|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||2.10|1.26|0.0002
95933281|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.43|0.87|0.4007
95933282|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.75|1.07|0.0116
95933283|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.18|0.76|0.6279
95987329|NCT02425826|191949260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|11.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|27.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on 2-sided CMH tests stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||27.6|-4.0|0.0463
95933284|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.35|0.87|0.4674
95933285|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.71|0.3135
95933286|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.30|0.83|0.7581
95933287|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.73|0.4504
95987330|NCT02425826|191949261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|25.24|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM-Effectiveness||25.24|10.36|<0.0001
95987331|NCT02425826|191949261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.4|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSQM - Side Effects||15.40|-5.40|0.3433
95933288|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.10|0.70|0.2629
95933289|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.75|0.6763
95933290|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.27|0.80|0.9456
95933291|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.76|0.7520
95933292|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.79|0.9981
95933293|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.17|0.74|0.5284
95933294|NCT02528188|191828862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of OA scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.12|0.70|0.3220
95933295|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.1120
95987332|NCT02425826|191949261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|7.06|||ANOVA|Based on 2-way ANOVA with treatment and site as factors.||TSMQ-Convenience||7.06|-4.25|0.6250
95933296|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.11|0.9686
95933297|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.25|0.1589
95933298|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4720
95987333|NCT02425826|191949261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.16|20.97|||ANOVA|||TSQM-Global Satisfaction||20.97|7.16|<0.0001
95987334|NCT02425826|191949263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.08|-19.91|||ANCOVA|Based on 2-way ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline value as covariate||||-19.91|-54.08|<0.0001
95933299|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.33|0.0320
95933300|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3336
95933301|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.47|0.0005
95933302|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
95933303|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.0001
95933304|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
95933305|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0115
95933306|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.0001
95933307|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|0.0002
95987335|NCT02425826|191949264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|Two-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation|||41.8|16.3|<0.0001
95987336|NCT02425826|191949265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|13.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sites.|2-sided 95% CI is based on normal approximation.|||22.7|4.4|0.0136
95933308|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
95987337|NCT03861559|191949276|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
95987338|NCT03861559|191949277|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987339|NCT03861559|191949279|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987340|NCT03861559|191949280|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987341|NCT03861559|191949281|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987342|NCT03861559|191949283|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95987343|NCT03861559|191949284|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95933309|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
95933310|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.0001
95933311|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0238
95933312|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.55|0.0011
95933313|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.51|0.0064
95933314|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0025
95933315|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.48|0.0589
95933316|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0180
95933317|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.47|0.0944
95933318|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.45|0.1198
95933319|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1837
95933320|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.39|0.3170
95933321|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.43|0.1873
95933322|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.33|0.5719
95987344|NCT03861559|191949285|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987345|NCT03861559|191949287|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95987346|NCT03861559|191949288|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987347|NCT03861559|191949289|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95857442|NCT03771664|191673281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.7||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N2 sleep time||5.7|-0.5|0.0930
95933323|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.39|0.3571
95933324|NCT02528188|191828863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.25|0.9072
95933325|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|0.0004
95987348|NCT03861559|191949291|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987349|NCT03861559|191949292|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987350|NCT03861559|191949293|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987351|NCT03861559|191949294|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987352|NCT03861559|191949295|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987353|NCT03861559|191949296|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95987354|NCT02997904|191949297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5829|1.4288|||ANOVA|||Ho: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® ≤ Total number of lice and eggs removed with sham control Ha: Total Number of lice and eggs removed with Resultz® \> Total Number of lice and eggs removed with sham control||1.4288|0.5829|<0.0001
95987355|NCT02997904|191949298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1157|1.3011||The P-Values were \<0.0001 in both comparison groups; total number lice removed and total number of eggs removed|GLIMMX|||Comparison of total number of lice removed and total number of eggs removed were analyzed separately||1.3011|1.1157|<0.0001
95987356|NCT02997904|191949298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6993|0.8805|||GLIMMX|||||0.8805|0.6993|<0.0001
95987357|NCT01137773|191949324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95987358|NCT01137773|191949325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
95987359|NCT00812214|191949326|SUPERIORITY|For the purpose of the power calculation, it was assumed that the difference in total sleep time between the treatment groups is 40 minutes, with a standard deviation of 60. The pilot nature of the study allowed the use of alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.2, with two-sided comparison, generating a required sample size of 37 subjects per arm.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed student's t-test for independent samples||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the 6 week average total sleep time||||0.33
95987360|NCT00812214|191949327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the eszopiclone and placebo groups in the number of awakenings/night at 6 weeks.||||0.03
95987361|NCT00812214|191949329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in sleep quality averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.1
95987362|NCT00812214|191949329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime alertness averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.29
95987363|NCT00812214|191949329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime fatigue averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.05
95987364|NCT00812214|191949329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Eszopiclone and placebo groups in daytime functioning averaged over 6 weeks of treatment.||||0.76
95987365|NCT00812214|191949331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in average days/week between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.89
95987366|NCT00812214|191949332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache duration between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.98
95987367|NCT00812214|191949333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in headache intensity between eszopiclone and placebo groups at 6 weeks.||||0.82
95987368|NCT04623242|191949334|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
95987369|NCT04623242|191949334|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.255|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
95987370|NCT04623242|191949335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.92|-2.46|0.805
95987371|NCT04623242|191949336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.823||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of equality (any treatment difference)||2.43|-4.83|0.512
95987372|NCT04623242|191949337|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.864|-0.417|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.417|-0.864|<0.001
95987373|NCT04623242|191949338|OTHER|Test of equality (any difference in the proportion of increase in the endpoint)|Ratio|0.3443||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5573
95987374|NCT04623242|191949339|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.60|-1.77|0.707
95727956|NCT02277769|191425550|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-25.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.40|-37.36|< 0.0001
95795133|NCT03183908|191560531|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and noninferiority margin of 10%. The null hypothesis is the allV3 H3N2 seroconversion rate is inferior to IIV3-HD seroconversion rate.|Difference in Proportions|-0.0579||||0.1245|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1291||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The directional comparison was the lower bound of the confidence interval using a 10% non-inferiority margin.||||-.1291|0.1245
95933326|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.40|0.0134
95949996|NCT01918033|191871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.46||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Day 3|||-0.10|-0.82|0.013
95795134|NCT03183908|191560532|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.0|1.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||1.0|-5.0|
95949997|NCT01918033|191871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.53|-0.29|0.569
95949998|NCT01918033|191871938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.09||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in TNSS at Week 1|||0.50|-0.33|0.685
95949999|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.15|0.547
95950000|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Sneezing Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.01|-0.22|0.067
95950001|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.13|-0.15|0.895
95950002|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Rhinorrhea Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.17|-0.10|0.627
95950003|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.09|0.535
95950004|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Congestion Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.18|-0.10|0.557
95950005|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.11||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.03|-0.25|0.119
95950006|NCT01918033|191871939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Nasal Itching Nasal Symptom Sub-Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.403
95950007|NCT01918033|191871940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.07|-0.20|0.376
95950008|NCT01918033|191871940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Swelling of INCM at Week 2|||0.11|-0.16|0.714
95950009|NCT01918033|191871940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.725
95734137|NCT01941030|191439373|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty reduction of calcium out of lumen gain.||||0.0220
95933327|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.56|<0.0001
95933328|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.67|<0.0001
95933329|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.49|0.0031
95933330|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-0.82|<0.0001
95933331|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0425
95933332|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
95933333|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.40|0.2980
95933334|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0179
95987375|NCT04623242|191949340|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-1.35|0.283
95987376|NCT04623242|191949341|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-1.34|0.674
95987377|NCT04623242|191949342|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.42|-4.86|0.507
95734138|NCT01941030|191439374|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty minimum lumen area stenosis.||||0.6228
95933335|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.42|0.2328
95933336|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.49|0.1019
95987378|NCT04623242|191949343|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.38|-4.41|0.553
95987379|NCT04623242|191949344|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-2.18|0.098
95987380|NCT04623242|191949345|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.68|-1.22|0.173
95987381|NCT04623242|191949346|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.71|-8.10|0.940
95987382|NCT04623242|191949347|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.524||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|36.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36.62|-30.49|0.854
95987383|NCT04623242|191949348|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.448||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|39.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.75|-30.00|0.781
95987384|NCT04623242|191949349|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|6.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.67|-10.05|0.689
95987385|NCT04623242|191949350|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|-1.86|0.474
95987386|NCT04623242|191949351|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|-1.36|0.886
95987387|NCT04623242|191949352|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|-1.03|0.873
95987388|NCT04623242|191949353|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.87|-4.71|0.394
95987389|NCT04623242|191949354|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-2.41|0.776
95987390|NCT04623242|191949355|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-2.78|0.283
95987391|NCT04623242|191949356|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-2.33|0.634
95987392|NCT04623242|191949357|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.155|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.074|||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance||||||||
95857443|NCT03771664|191673281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.2||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory variables: Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score; Response variable: Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT).|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in PS N3 sleep time||4.2|-1.9|0.4427
95987393|NCT04623242|191949358|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.132|-0.093|0.726
95987394|NCT04623242|191949359|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.295|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.295|-0.130|0.439
95987395|NCT04623242|191949360|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.033|-0.034|0.967
95987396|NCT04623242|191949361|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.092|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.092|-0.059|0.669
95987397|NCT04623242|191949362|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.419||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.14|195.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||195.22|-264.14|0.768
95987398|NCT04623242|191949364|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2737.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6558.467||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15678.06|10202.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10202.81|-15678.06|0.677
95987399|NCT04623242|191949365|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1078.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1788.474||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4603.28|2446.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2446.64|-4603.28|0.547
95987400|NCT04623242|191949366|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1935.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2717.64|-1154.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1154.18|-2717.64|<0.001
95987401|NCT04623242|191949367|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.014||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.56|-29.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-29.68|-124.56|0.003
95987402|NCT04623242|191949368|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.54||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|101.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||101.83|-40.04|0.388
95987403|NCT04623242|191949369|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.624||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|-13.97|0.909
95987404|NCT04623242|191949370|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0593||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.296|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.296|0.059|0.004
95987405|NCT04623242|191949371|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-3.21|0.754
95734139|NCT01941030|191439375|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.4528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty plaque area.||||0.4528
95734140|NCT01941030|191439376|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.3573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty dense calcium area.||||0.3573
95933337|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4002
95933338|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.45|0.2149
95933339|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.43|0.2442
95933340|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.37|0.4609
95933341|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.31|0.8129
95933342|NCT02528188|191828865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.32|0.7883
95933343|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.0119
95987406|NCT04623242|191949373|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|229362.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14863.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|199264.32|259460.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||259460.27|199264.32|<0.001
95987407|NCT04623242|191949374|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32906.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1697.541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29406.49|36406.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36406.72|29406.49|<0.001
95987408|NCT04623242|191949375|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1286.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|140.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1002.79|1569.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1569.90|1002.79|<0.001
95987409|NCT04623242|191949376|OTHER|Test of equality (any treatment difference)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9867.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1212.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7419.38|12315.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12315.15|7419.38|<0.001
95987410|NCT01262365|191949377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.923|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.923|0.888|=0.175
95987411|NCT01262365|191949377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.714|||Regression, Logistic|p-values have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||Odds Ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region, and baseline disease status.||1.714|0.790|=0.442
95987412|NCT01166230|191949383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
95987413|NCT01166230|191949384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
95734141|NCT01941030|191439377|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.6073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty necrotic core area.||||0.6073
95734142|NCT01941030|191439378|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.2149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrous plaque area.||||0.2149
95987414|NCT01166230|191949385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
95933344|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.3073
95933345|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.50|0.0002
95933346|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.56|<0.0001
95933347|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0251
95933348|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.66|<0.0001
95933349|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.39|0.0625
95933350|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.54|0.0010
95933351|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.36|0.4005
95933352|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.50|0.0530
95933353|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.37|0.4074
95933354|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2629
95933355|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.5582
95734143|NCT01941030|191439379|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Data failed to meet the assumption for normality per the Shapiro-Wilk test.||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-balloon angioplasty fibrofatty plaque area.||||0.0579
95933356|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.35|0.4907
95933357|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.38|0.4043
95933358|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.31|0.7663
95933359|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.31|0.7415
95933360|NCT02528188|191828867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.24|0.8688
95933361|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.25|0.3622
95950010|NCT01918033|191871940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Coloring of INCM at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.708
95950011|NCT01918033|191871940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.16|-0.10|0.680
95950012|NCT01918033|191871940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in NDP at Week 2|||0.19|-0.07|0.373
95950013|NCT01918033|191871941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.12|-0.14|0.849
95950014|NCT01918033|191871941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change From Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.20|0.260
95950015|NCT01918033|191871942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.826||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.223|0.558|0.340
95950016|NCT01918033|191871942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.116|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic model with global improvement rate as response variable and treatment, age strata, and severity as factors|Difference in the number of participants with moderate or remarkable improvement at Week 2. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first group of the pairwise comparison.|||1.116|0.510|0.159
95933362|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.09|0.3894
95933363|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0137
95933364|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.43|0.0106
95933365|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.23|0.7179
95933366|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.44|0.0120
95933367|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.28|0.5372
95933368|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.40|0.0899
95933369|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.30|0.7646
95933370|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.41|0.2547
95933371|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.29|0.8806
95933372|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8416
95933373|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.28|0.9981
95933374|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.34|-0.21|0.6485
95933375|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.30|0.8317
95933376|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.19|0.5819
95933377|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.31|-0.26|0.8538
95933378|NCT02528188|191828869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-0.10|0.1981
95933379|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.33|0.0846
95933380|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.18|0.9749
95933381|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.0076
95933382|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
95933383|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.27|0.4402
95933384|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
95987415|NCT04283123|191949438|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
95987416|NCT04283123|191949438|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
95987417|NCT04283123|191949439|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
95987418|NCT04283123|191949439|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
95933385|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.38|0.1543
95933386|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
95933387|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.33|0.6445
95933388|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.47|0.1439
95933389|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.30|0.8402
95933390|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.38|0.4439
95933391|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.27|0.9376
95933392|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.33|0.7614
95987419|NCT04283123|191949440|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the treatment group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
95933393|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.32|0.8081
95933394|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.25|0.8078
95987420|NCT04283123|191949440|OTHER|Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|Cohen's d|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test to compare differences from pretest to posttest for the waitlist control group. The standardized effect size was interpreted using Cohen's criteria.|||||
95987421|NCT04175626|191949448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the rate of TLF for the Orsiro stent at 1 year to a performance goal of 6.9%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The null hypothesis (Ho) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is greater than or equal to 6.9%. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was stated as: The TLF rate of the Orsiro stent at 1 year is less than 6.9%.||||<0.0001
95933395|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.28|0.9705
95933396|NCT02528188|191828871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.21|0.5785
95933397|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.04|-0.87|0.4303
95933398|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.04|-1.90|0.5656
95933399|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.83|-1.78|0.9760
95933400|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.36|-1.30|0.5678
95933401|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.14|-2.77|0.6974
95933402|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|6.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.04|-0.75|0.1261
95933403|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.01|-4.96|0.4060
95933404|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.15|-3.84|0.8480
95933405|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.63|-4.00|0.9230
95987422|NCT01485627|191949465|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference in difference|0.34||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Models included fixed-effects terms for phase (pre- vs postrandomization), study arm, and the Phase\*Arm interaction. Estimated effect is the between-arm difference in adjusted mean difference from prerandomization to postrandomization samples.|The primary outcome was a composite of 4 prespecified communication measures matched to the goals of communication training, as follows: Active Patient Participation Coding \[APPC\], Verona VR-CoDES, Prognostic and Treatment Choices \[PTCC\] Informing subscale, and PTCC Balanced Framing subscale. The 4 measures were z-score transformed and averaged to produce the composite measure.||0.62|0.06|0.05
95987423|NCT01485627|191949466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
95933406|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.34|-5.36|0.4421
95933407|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||7.91|-1.70|0.2049
95987424|NCT01485627|191949467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.56|0.05
95987425|NCT01485627|191949469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
95987426|NCT01485627|191949470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95987427|NCT02264990|191949505|SUPERIORITY|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used for analyses of the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints to control for the familywise error rate. If veliparib plus C/P treatment was not statistically significantly better compared to the investigators' choice of standard therapy for the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in LSP+ participants, then statistical significance would not be declared for any of the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.048||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided P value ≤ 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Hazard ratio obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.048|0.396|0.113
95987428|NCT02264990|191949506|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.08|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by investigator's preferred platinum therapy, gender, and ECOG performance status.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.080|0.388|0.260
95987429|NCT02264990|191949507|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.90|0.23|0.455
95987430|NCT02264990|191949508|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.176|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.176|0.827|0.846
95987431|NCT02264990|191949509|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.235|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|The hazard ratio was obtained using the covariate adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model with covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.235|0.867|0.473
95987432|NCT02264990|191949510|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for the covariates of LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|Odds ratio is from covariate adjusted logistic regression with the covariates being LSP status, ECOG performance status, investigators' preferred platinum therapy, and gender.|||1.24|0.59|0.409
95933408|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|9.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.41|-0.05|0.0527
95933409|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.94|-5.21|0.3699
95987433|NCT04749459|191949511|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Classic: CIs +/- 13.7% P2 Control Standard (vs. CSM Classic) CIs +/- 16.4%|||
95987434|NCT04749459|191949511|OTHER|A minimum of 10 valid results was defined as the number required to produce mean study product (or control standard) SPF with 95% confidence interval (CI) within +/- 17% of the measured mean SPF of the study product (or control standard).|||||||||||||||||CSM Strawberry Flavor: CIs +/- 16.6% P2 Control Standard (vs CSM Strawberry Flavour): CIs +/- 16.0%|||
95987435|NCT00267748|191949514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.089||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|2.803|||Log Rank|||For High risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.803|0.423|0.860
95987436|NCT00267748|191949514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.306|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.306|0.623|0.583
95987437|NCT00267748|191949514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.074|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.074|0.288|0.075
95987438|NCT00267748|191949514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.124|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median TTP was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.124|0.609|0.220
95987439|NCT00267748|191949514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.044|||Log Rank|||For overall unstratified analysis, the hazard ratio of TTP was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model. Two-sided unstratified Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.044|0.572|0.090
95933410|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-4.06|0.7945
95933411|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.83|-4.13|0.9410
95933412|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.59|-5.44|0.4860
95933413|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||8.20|-2.10|0.2448
95933414|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|10.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||10.04|-0.11|0.0551
95933415|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.84|-3.26|0.2470
95933416|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-4.01|0.0570
95933417|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.12|-2.36|0.9170
95933418|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.4991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.46|-3.00|0.4991
95933419|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.52|-1.12|0.2377
95933420|NCT02528188|191828873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.08|0.43|0.0238
95933421|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.78|0.53|0.0142
95933422|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.78|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||6.78|2.56|<0.0001
95933423|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.99|-0.69|0.1371
95933424|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.14|-2.60|0.8524
95933425|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.09|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.09|-9.93|0.5253
95933426|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|9.62|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||9.62|-5.04|0.5381
95933427|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|20.54|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||20.54|-5.99|0.2694
95933428|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|3.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.11|-21.80|0.1349
95933429|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.38|0.21|0.0264
95933430|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.65|0.50|0.0098
95933431|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.01|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.01|-0.31|0.0937
95933432|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.67|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.67|-0.70|0.1838
95933433|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.25|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.25|1.12|0.0025
95933434|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||5.60|1.51|0.0007
95933435|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.51|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.51|-0.62|0.1373
95933436|NCT02528188|191828881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: ANCOVA model included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.60|-2.59|0.9960
95727957|NCT02277769|191425550|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.75|-27.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-27.80|-39.75|< 0.0001
95734144|NCT01941030|191439380|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 600 mcg adenosine.||||0.076
95933437|NCT02528188|191828883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0823|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0823
95933438|NCT02528188|191828883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0049
95987440|NCT00267748|191949515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.6|||Chi-squared|||Response rate was estimated for each treatment group, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference in response rate between the 2 treatments was computed. P-value was calculated from a Pearson chi-square test.||14.6|-6.4|0.444
95987441|NCT00267748|191949517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|2.387|||Log Rank|||For high risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.387|0.481|0.866
95987442|NCT00267748|191949517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.741|||Log Rank|||For intermediate risk factor,the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.741|0.785|0.439
95987443|NCT00267748|191949517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.851|||Log Rank|||For low risk factor, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||2.851|0.538|0.614
95987444|NCT00267748|191949517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.612|||Log Rank|||For overall stratified analysis, the hazard ratio of OS was estimated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with the MSKCC prognostic factors (low, intermediate, high), used in the randomization, as a stratum and median OS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Log rank method was used to calculate p value.||1.612|0.838|0.365
95933439|NCT02528188|191828883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0718
95933440|NCT02528188|191828883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1947
95933441|NCT02528188|191828884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0229
95933442|NCT02528188|191828884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0029
95933443|NCT02528188|191828884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.0266
95933444|NCT02528188|191828884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1835|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1835
95933445|NCT02528188|191828885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.88|0.45|0.0076
95933446|NCT02528188|191828885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||0.94|0.48|0.0187
95933447|NCT02528188|191828886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0074
95933448|NCT02528188|191828886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0162
95933449|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.38|0.97|0.1136
95933450|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.29|0.90|0.3910
95933451|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.86|0.7691
95933452|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.05|0.73|0.1430
95987445|NCT00267748|191949518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.6737
95987446|NCT00267748|191949519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value was calculated using sample t-test.||||0.1967
95987447|NCT01294800|191949523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.7||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.02|-1.37|0.0564
95987448|NCT01294800|191949523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.22|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.22|-1.16|0.1844
95933453|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.25|0.87|0.6454
95933454|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.00|0.70|0.0561
95933455|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.82|0.9056
95933456|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.09|0.75|0.2919
95933457|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.13|0.78|0.4976
95933458|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.08|0.75|0.2425
95933459|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9242
95933460|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.15|0.80|0.6621
95933461|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.83|0.9977
95933462|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.20|0.84|0.9762
95933463|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.19|0.83|0.9718
95933464|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.22|0.85|0.8219
95933465|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.16|0.80|0.6936
95933466|NCT02528188|191828887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment.||1.26|0.88|0.5769
95933467|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.7746
95933468|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.89|0.8441
95933469|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.83|0.6580
95933470|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.06|0.78|0.2279
95987449|NCT01294800|191949523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.3||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.36|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.36|-1.04|0.3386
95987450|NCT01294800|191949524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|19.0|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||19.00|-7.75|0.404
95987451|NCT01294800|191949524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|5.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|18.81|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||18.81|-7.73|0.390
95987452|NCT01294800|191949524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of responders|-4.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|7.97|||A generalized linear mixed model|||||7.97|-17.78|0.508
95987453|NCT01294800|191949525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.7||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.43|-0.00|0.0509
95987454|NCT01294800|191949525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.23|0.1847
95987455|NCT01294800|191949525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.5||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.19|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|-0.25|0.2021
95987456|NCT01849172|191949532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95987457|NCT00983983|191949548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change over time in the ALSFRS-R was analyzed using random-slopes models||||0.07
95933471|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.84|0.9986
95933472|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.02|0.72|0.0771
95933473|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.77|0.4485
95734145|NCT01941030|191439380|OTHER|No pre-specified hypothesis test or power calculation specified in protocol.||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in populations for post-final balloon FFR value with 1200 mcg adenosine.||||0.205
95933474|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.09|0.74|0.2817
95987458|NCT00983983|191949550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95987459|NCT00983983|191949551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
95987460|NCT00983983|191949552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95987461|NCT01604265|191949555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows: Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment||-0.39|-2.11|0.005
95987462|NCT01604265|191949556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale sleep Score = Baseline Sleep Score + Treatment"||-0.50|-2.27|0.003
95987463|NCT01604265|191949557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.055|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test. Results were presented in terms of difference in percentages, and 95% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial, and p-value."||10.055|1.510|0.005
95987464|NCT01604265|191949558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-6.82||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-0.37|-13.28|0.039
95987465|NCT01604265|191949559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||-1.77|-12.12|0.009
95987466|NCT01604265|191949560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|6.71|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||6.71|-1.64|0.230
95987467|NCT01604265|191949561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.53||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.15|-5.22|0.064
95933475|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5426
95933476|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.13|0.79|0.5385
95933477|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.12|0.79|0.5041
95933478|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.78|0.4410
95933479|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7426
95933480|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.81|0.7469
95933481|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.81|0.6784
95933482|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.21|0.85|0.8822
95933483|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.18|0.83|0.9119
95933484|NCT02528188|191828889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.26|0.89|0.5148
95933485|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.15|0.66|0.3348
95987468|NCT01604265|191949562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.18|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||5.18|-4.60|0.905
95727958|NCT02277769|191425551|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-4.47||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.47|-6.86|< 0.0001
95933486|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.16|0.66|0.3595
95933487|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.04|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.04|0.54|0.0854
95933488|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.96|0.50|0.0281
95933489|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.01|0.49|0.0595
95933490|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||0.83|0.40|0.0030
95933491|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.11|0.48|0.1389
95987469|NCT01604265|191949563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|2.68||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|7.37|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||7.37|-2.01|0.257
95933492|NCT02528188|191828891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, NSAID and treatment group.||1.03|0.45|0.0709
95933493|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6037
95933494|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1928
95933495|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7204
95933496|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7969
95933497|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7857
95933498|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6627|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.6627
95933499|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9867|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.9867
95933500|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.8190
95933501|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.7284
95933502|NCT02528188|191828900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1545|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for row mean scores differ, stratified by the combinations of the three stratification factors (index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and NSAID)||||0.1545
95933503|NCT00716859|191828947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin, then non-inferiority concluded. If lower limit of 95% CI for treatment difference is above non-inferiority margin and above zero, then superiority concluded. The difference and 95% CI of the difference in IOP reduction (Week 12) was computed from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline diagnosis as factors and baseline IOP as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.74||||||Null hypothesis: latanoprost inferior to timolol (0.5 percent \[%\] optionally 0.25% for participants younger than 3 years). Power calculation: assuming common standard deviation (7 mmHg), 110 participants have 84% power to demonstrate latanoprost not inferior to timolol within 3 mmHg margin, assuming latanoprost has 1 mmHg reduction more than timolol in mean change from baseline IOP.||3.74|-0.81|
95933504|NCT00716859|191828948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.02||||||||3.02|-1.66|
95933505|NCT00716859|191828949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.25||||||||4.25|-1.00|
95933506|NCT00716859|191828950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.67||||||||2.67|-1.10|
95933507|NCT00716859|191828955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline diagnosis (PCG vs non-PCG).||||||0.3315
95933508|NCT02178098|191828957|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-18.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-18.15|-30.33|<0.0001
95933509|NCT02178098|191828958|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.511||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.35|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.35|-4.62|0.2808
95933510|NCT02178098|191828959|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.15|-3.25|0.3461
95933511|NCT02178098|191828960|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734||0.1852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.12|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.12|-5.74|0.1852
95987470|NCT01604265|191949564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.63|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.63|-3.64|0.164
95987471|NCT01604265|191949566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.09||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.23|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||1.23|-1.06|0.880
95987472|NCT01604265|191949567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.46|-1.75|0.249
95987473|NCT01604265|191949568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.06||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The change was compared between treatment groups using a one way ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA.||0.24|-0.13|0.535
95987474|NCT01903837|191949570|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 10 points|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Least Square Mean Difference|||||2.6|-2.0|0.3
95987475|NCT01903837|191949571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95987476|NCT01903837|191949571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95987477|NCT01903837|191949572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95987478|NCT01903837|191949572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95987479|NCT03603496|191949594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.5|||Chi-squared||Comparing TTCM as numerator, QL as denominator (reference group)|Two-stage multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. 1st stage: we imputed missing data from surveys. 2nd stage: we imputed missing data from biochemical sample collection. Null hypothesis was no difference between arms in biochemically-validated past 7-day abstinence from cigarettes and other conventional tobacco products at 6-months. Sample of 1350 (675/group) was planned to detect a 6.5% difference (23.0% vs. 16.5%) with 84% power and 2-sided p\<0.05.||1.50|0.92|.19
95987480|NCT03603496|191949595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.35|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.35|1.08|.002
95987481|NCT03603496|191949596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.37|1.09|.001
95987482|NCT03603496|191949597|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.29|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.29|0.98|.079
95987483|NCT03603496|191949598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.44|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.44|1.21|<.0001
95987484|NCT03603496|191949599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Participants lost to follow-up or with missing data are counted as having received no treatment. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.50|1.23|<.0001
95987485|NCT03603496|191949600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Chi-squared||Numerator is TTCM, denominator (reference group) is QL|Multiple imputation techniques were used to estimate the missing smoking outcomes. The null hypothesis was no difference between study arms.||1.66|1.02|.033
95987486|NCT00004259|191949618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.32|||Log Rank|||The hypothesized median survival time was 36 months for the RT+BCNU/CCNU arm and 54 months for the RT+TMZ arm, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67. A sample size of 216 evaluable patients per arm would provide 90% power with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. The final analysis was planned after 155 deaths were observed. Interim efficacy analyses were planned after 52 and 104 deaths, with an interim futility analysis planned at 128 deaths.||1.32|0.67|0.36
95987487|NCT00004259|191949620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||2-sided|Gray's test||Reference level = RT + BCNU/CCNU|||1.16|0.55|0.46
95987488|NCT00004259|191949621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Overall toxicity||||<0.001
95987489|NCT00004259|191949621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||2-sided|Chi-squared|||Non-hematologic toxicity||||0.76
95987490|NCT00004259|191949622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.4|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Methylated MGMT|||3.40|0.93|0.08
95987491|NCT00004259|191949623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-sided confidence interval = 0.5|Reference level = Methylated|||2.35|0.70|0.41
95987492|NCT03594227|191949624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-4.54||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.54|-33.98|0.011
95987493|NCT03594227|191949624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-9.36||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-9.36|-38.80|0.001
95987494|NCT03594227|191949624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.133||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-4.67||All statistical testing was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The planned sample size is approximately 95 enrolled subjects with approximately 45 subjects enrolled with AT or AU. Because the primary efficacy analysis of mean percent reduction in hair loss using SALT scores is expected to be more sensitive than the SALT50 responder analysis, the power for the primary analysis is also expected to be no less than 80%.||-4.67|-34.41|0.010
95987495|NCT03594227|191949625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.02|-34.33|0.013
95933512|NCT02178098|191828961|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.253||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|1.03|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||1.03|-3.93|0.2481
95933513|NCT02178098|191828962|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.684||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.94|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.94|-3.72|0.8181
95933514|NCT02178098|191828963|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.71|-2.33|0.8817
95933515|NCT02178098|191828964|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.15|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||5.15|-2.09|0.4040
95933516|NCT02178098|191828965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.11|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.11|-1.54|0.5061
95933517|NCT02178098|191828966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|-25.21|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||-25.21|-62.80|<0.0001
95933518|NCT02178098|191828967|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.70|-20.63|<0.0001
95933519|NCT02178098|191828968|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.09|-13.71|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.71|-24.09|<0.0001
95933520|NCT02178098|191828969|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-13.77|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.77|-23.62|<0.0001
95933521|NCT02178098|191828970|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.25||||0.3689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|16.42|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||16.42|-6.78|0.3689
95933522|NCT02178098|191828971|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.319||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.59|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-3.59|-12.76|0.0006
95933523|NCT02178098|191828972|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|24.02|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||The 95% CI was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann analysis.|||24.02|-8.21|0.3093
95727959|NCT02277769|191425551|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.72||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.72|-7.10|< 0.0001
95933524|NCT01996605|191828993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||T|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA was performed on the single primary outcome datapoint comparing the three groups.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in area of hyperalgesia 105 minutes after study drug injection among the three groups.||||<0.05
95933525|NCT04992390|191828994|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression was performed with baseline measure and binary arm status included as fixed effect covariates. Various regression models for count data were compared to find the best fitting model. Visual exploratory data and model evaluation showed that the Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression model provided the best fit and was used as the model for the ITT analysis of the primary outcome.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||For more information on analysis models see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|See also Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.48|0.20|<= 0.001
95933526|NCT04992390|191828995|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the delayed intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (week 4) to post-intervention (week 8).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.31|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the comparator arm, where participants had delayed access to the intervention (i.e., delayed arm crossover), the number of intrusive memories in week 8 was compared to week 4. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|For full results see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|0.45|0.21|<= 0.001
95950017|NCT01918033|191871943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.14|-0.09|0.705
95950018|NCT01918033|191871943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Interference with Daily Activities at Week 2|||0.10|-0.13|0.782
95950019|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.04|-0.24|0.175
95987496|NCT03594227|191949625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.69|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-39.69|0.002
95987497|NCT03594227|191949625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.48|-3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.86|-34.48|0.014
95987498|NCT03594227|191949626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.45|-21.14|0.025
95933527|NCT04992390|191828995|SUPERIORITY|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories in the immediate intervention arm, comparing pre-intervention (run-in/screening week) to post-intervention (week 4).|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|Single level general Poisson regression was used to quantify within arm changes of number of intrusive memories pre- to post-intervention.||Within the immediate intervention arm, where participants had immediate access to the intervention, the number of intrusive memories in Week 4 was compared to the run-in/screening week. For full information about statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0||0.45|0.10|<0.001
95987499|NCT03594227|191949626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.40|-25.10|0.003
95987500|NCT03594227|191949626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.60|-27.49|<0.001
95987501|NCT03594227|191949627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-24.95|0.008
95933528|NCT04992390|191828996|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.54||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How distressing were your intrusive memories?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.54|-3.72|<= 0.001
95933529|NCT04992390|191828996|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-2.15||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they disrupt your concentration?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-2.15|-4.28|<= 0.001
95933530|NCT04992390|191828996|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.95||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did they interfere with what you were doing?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.95|-3.90|<= 0.001
95933531|NCT04992390|191828996|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.08||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your work functioning?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.08|-3.22|<= 0.001
95950020|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.12||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Sneezing at Week 2|||0.02|-0.26|0.098
95950021|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.27|-0.04|0.130
95987502|NCT03594227|191949627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.45|-29.56|<0.001
95987503|NCT03594227|191949627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.679||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.86|-28.18|0.001
95987504|NCT03594227|191949628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
95987505|NCT03594227|191949628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
95987506|NCT03594227|191949628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
95987507|NCT03594227|191949629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|31.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.8|0.7|0.124
95987508|NCT03594227|191949629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.3|0.8|0.079
95987509|NCT03594227|191949629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.7|0.5|0.177
95987510|NCT03594227|191949630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.471
95987511|NCT03594227|191949630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
95987512|NCT03594227|191949630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.367
95987513|NCT03594227|191949631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.187
95987514|NCT03594227|191949631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.375
95987515|NCT03594227|191949631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
95987516|NCT03594227|191949632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
95933532|NCT04992390|191828996|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intrusive memory ratings, 'How much did your intrusive memories affect your functioning in other areas of your life?' (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4. For full information on statistical analysis see Iyadurai et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.51|-3.67|<= 0.001
95933533|NCT04992390|191828999|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Total Score (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.53|-1.08|<= 0.001
95933534|NCT04992390|191828999|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.62||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.62|-1.27|<= 0.001
95950022|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Rhinorrhea at Week 2|||0.22|-0.08|0.375
95987517|NCT03594227|191949632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
95727960|NCT02277769|191425552|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-5.57||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.57|-8.36|< 0.0001
95987518|NCT03594227|191949632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
95987519|NCT03594227|191949633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
95987520|NCT03594227|191949633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
95987521|NCT03594227|191949633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.101
95987522|NCT03594227|191949634|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95987523|NCT03594227|191949634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.277
95987524|NCT03594227|191949634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
95987525|NCT03594227|191949635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.407
95987526|NCT03594227|191949635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.894
95987527|NCT03594227|191949635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
95987528|NCT03594227|191949636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
95987529|NCT03594227|191949636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
95987530|NCT03594227|191949636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
95987531|NCT03594227|191949637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95987532|NCT03594227|191949637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
95987533|NCT03594227|191949637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
95987534|NCT03594227|191949638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
95987535|NCT03594227|191949638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.660
95987536|NCT03594227|191949638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.704
95987537|NCT03594227|191949639|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95987538|NCT03594227|191949639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
95987539|NCT03594227|191949639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
95987540|NCT03594227|191949640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.430
95987541|NCT03594227|191949640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.288
95987542|NCT03594227|191949640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.582
95987543|NCT03594227|191949641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
95987544|NCT03594227|191949641|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95987545|NCT03594227|191949641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95987546|NCT03594227|191949642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
95987547|NCT03594227|191949642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.150
95987548|NCT03594227|191949642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
95734146|NCT02597101|191439381|OTHER|REML mixed model|REML mixed model|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using REML mixed model analysis, differences between study arms resulting in a p\<0.05 would represent statistically-significant differences.|REML mixed model|||The primary efficacy endpoint is the improvement of insulin sensitivity by 40% or greater at 6 months compared to baseline, assessed by the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp method.||||<0.05
95987549|NCT03594227|191949643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
95987550|NCT03594227|191949643|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95987551|NCT03594227|191949643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
95987552|NCT03594227|191949645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
95987553|NCT03594227|191949645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.082
95987554|NCT03594227|191949645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
95987555|NCT03594227|191949646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.883
95987556|NCT03594227|191949646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.954
95987557|NCT03594227|191949646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.295
95987558|NCT03594227|191949647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
95987559|NCT03594227|191949647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
95987560|NCT03594227|191949647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.815
95987561|NCT03594227|191949648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.522
95987562|NCT03594227|191949648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
95987563|NCT03594227|191949648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
95987564|NCT03594227|191949649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-2.53|0.882
95987565|NCT03594227|191949649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-6.31|0.011
95987566|NCT03594227|191949649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-2.76|0.999
95987567|NCT03594227|191949650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
95734147|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL5=RANTES||||0.000
95987568|NCT03594227|191949650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.319
95987569|NCT03594227|191949650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
95987570|NCT03594227|191949651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.584
95987571|NCT03594227|191949651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
95987572|NCT03594227|191949651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
95987573|NCT03594227|191949652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.341
95987574|NCT03594227|191949652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
95987575|NCT03594227|191949652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
95987576|NCT03594227|191949653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.827
95987577|NCT03594227|191949653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
95987578|NCT03594227|191949653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
95987579|NCT03594227|191949654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
95987580|NCT03594227|191949654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.540
95987581|NCT03594227|191949654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
95987582|NCT03594227|191949655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.469
95987583|NCT03594227|191949655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
95987584|NCT03594227|191949655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
95987585|NCT03389854|191949660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
95987586|NCT03389854|191949660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.90
95987587|NCT03389854|191949661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.001
95987588|NCT03389854|191949661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.40
95987589|NCT03389854|191949662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.01
95987590|NCT03389854|191949662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs. Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.64
95987591|NCT03389854|191949663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 3 months||||0.06
95987592|NCT03389854|191949663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group vs Penile Traction Therapy Group at 6 months||||0.66
95987593|NCT03389854|191949664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95987594|NCT03389854|191949665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95987595|NCT03389854|191949666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95987596|NCT02873936|191949695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||46.3|23.5|<0.001
95987597|NCT02873936|191949695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|37.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||37.9|15.0|<0.001
95993758|NCT00619957|191963361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.17|0.76|<0.0001
95933535|NCT04992390|191828999|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.42||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Avoidance Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.42|-1.09|<= 0.001
95734148|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17A||||0.035
95857444|NCT03771664|191673281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.7||Change from BL in % of REM sleep duration was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in percentage (%) of REM sleep time||-1.7|-5.9|0.0006
95987598|NCT02873936|191949696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. Least squares (LS)-Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.45|<0.001
95987599|NCT02873936|191949696|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
95987600|NCT02873936|191949697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|35.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||35.8|14.7|<0.001
95987601|NCT02873936|191949697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|32.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.0|11.4|<0.001
95987602|NCT02873936|191949698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.1|2.5|<0.001
95987603|NCT02873936|191949698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.6|<0.001
95857445|NCT03771664|191673282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.42||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|58.4||Change from BL in latency to first REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the first REM period||58.4|8.9|0.0083
95857446|NCT03771664|191673282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|65.0||Change from BL in latency to second REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the second REM period||65.0|21.3|0.0002
95987604|NCT02873936|191949699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|28.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||28.3|8.6|<0.001
95987605|NCT02873936|191949699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|23.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||23.4|4.6|0.003
95987606|NCT02873936|191949700|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.3|2.6|<0.001
95987607|NCT02873936|191949700|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.5|0.9|0.007
95987608|NCT02873936|191949701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||23.7|6.4|<0.001
95987609|NCT02873936|191949701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|22.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||22.6|5.7|<0.001
95987610|NCT02873936|191949701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|38.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||38.5|17.5|<0.001
95734149|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL13||||0.911
95734150|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL6||||1.000
95950023|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.08||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.24|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.24|-0.07|0.285
95987611|NCT02873936|191949701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|27.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||27.2|7.1|<0.001
95727961|NCT02277769|191425552|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-6.64||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.64|-9.36|< 0.0001
95950024|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.05||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Congestion at Week 2|||0.21|-0.10|0.490
95987612|NCT02873936|191949701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|37.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||37.6|15.8|<0.001
95987613|NCT02873936|191949701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|5.9|0.002
95987614|NCT02873936|191949702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||8.8|-1.9|0.16
95987615|NCT02873936|191949702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||11.6|-0.0|0.039
95987616|NCT02873936|191949702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|23.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||23.5|6.5|<0.001
95987617|NCT02873936|191949702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||15.2|0.1|0.036
95987618|NCT02873936|191949702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|14.5|<0.001
95987619|NCT02873936|191949702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.6|3.7|0.004
95734151|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL8||||0.934
95734152|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL13||||0.727
95987620|NCT02873936|191949703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|37.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||37.4|14.6|<0.001
95987621|NCT02873936|191949703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||30.0|7.5|<0.001
95987622|NCT02873936|191949703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|46.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||46.3|23.6|<0.001
95987623|NCT02873936|191949703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||32.1|8.8|<0.001
95987624|NCT02873936|191949704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.003
95987625|NCT02873936|191949704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-6.0|0.027
95987626|NCT02873936|191949704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
95933536|NCT04992390|191828999|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Impact of Event Scale-Revised Hyperarousal Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.44|-0.97|<= 0.001
95734153|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL23||||0.179
95734154|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VLA4||||0.208
95734155|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCL10=IP-10 (CXCR3 ligand)||||0.730
95734156|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CCL2=MCP-1||||0.725
95734157|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4||||0.057
95734158|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNF alpha||||0.724
95734159|NCT02373098|191439391|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL22||||0.662
95795135|NCT03183908|191560532|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.3|-3.1|
95795136|NCT03183908|191560532|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-7.5|-0.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-0.3|-7.5|
95950025|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.08|-0.23|0.345
95950026|NCT01918033|191871944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Nasal Itching at Week 2|||0.13|-0.19|0.699
95734160|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 abs||||0.256
95734161|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 abs||||0.587
95734162|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK abs||||0.300
95734163|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT abs||||0.096
95734164|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 abs||||0.270
95734165|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4CD25||||0.902
95734166|NCT02373098|191439392|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD4CD25||||0.283
95734167|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3 %||||0.017
95734168|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD19 %||||0.300
95734169|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NK %||||0.657
95734170|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NKT %||||0.439
95734171|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hi CD16CD56 %||||0.449
95734172|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.356
95734173|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.787
95734174|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD4||||0.121
95734175|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD3CD8||||0.209
95734176|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IFNg+ (in CD4+)||||0.069
95734177|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL17+ (in CD4+)||||0.402
95734178|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IFNg+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
95734179|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL17+ (in CD8+)||||0.017
95734180|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IFNg+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.026
95734181|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL17+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.168
95734182|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL10+ (in CD4+)||||0.004
95734183|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL4+ (in CD4+)||||0.013
95734184|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4-CD8-IL4+ (in CD4-CD8-)||||0.171
95734185|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL10+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
95734186|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL4+ (in CD8+)||||0.013
95734187|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL10+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.007
95734188|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL4+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
95795137|NCT03183908|191560532|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
95950027|NCT01918033|191871945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.08|-0.20|0.414
95734189|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+TNFa+ (in CD4+)||||0.002
95734190|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD4+IL9+ (in CD4+)||||0.107
95734191|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+TNFa+ (in CD8+)||||0.000
95734192|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD8+IL9+ (in CD8+)||||0.022
95734193|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TNFa+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.001
95734194|NCT02373098|191439395|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL9+ (in CD4+CD25+)||||0.127
95734195|NCT00113425|191439408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
95734196|NCT00113425|191439409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.43
95734197|NCT00113425|191439410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.79
95734198|NCT00113425|191439411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.10
95734199|NCT00113425|191439412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.73
95734200|NCT00113425|191439413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.02
95734201|NCT00113425|191439414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.003
95734202|NCT00113425|191439415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in papule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.62
95734203|NCT00113425|191439416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in pustule acne lesions for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.85
95734204|NCT00113425|191439417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in cysts for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.49
95734205|NCT00113425|191439418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in closed comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.21
95734206|NCT00113425|191439419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in open comedones for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.27
95734207|NCT00113425|191439420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in erythematous macules for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.04
95734208|NCT00113425|191439421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test, 2-sided|||Null Hypothesis = There is no difference between change from baseline in acne severity for the treated side of the face compared to the change from baseline for the untreated side of the face in all patients||||0.01
95734209|NCT01874951|191439495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An initial power analysis at the time of protocol development suggested that with 6 patients in each treatment group, we could expect a 79% chance of achieving significance (2-sided p \< 0.05) if the true response rate to low-dose naltrexone (LDN) was 80% and the true placebo response rate was 20%.||||||0.55||||||Threshold of statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared value was 1.5.||Response rates were based on attaining a reduction in the HAM-D-17 scale of 50% or greater compared to baseline. We hypothesized that naltrexone would produce a significantly greater response rate than placebo.||||0.55
95734210|NCT01569152|191439497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of percentages|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.52|63.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.28|24.52|<0.001
95734211|NCT01569152|191439498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.43|-1.53|<0.001
95734212|NCT01569152|191439499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.62|<0.001
95734213|NCT01569152|191439500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.63||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|28.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.44|0.83|0.044
95734214|NCT01569152|191439503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|52.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.13|11.29|0.004
95933537|NCT04992390|191829000|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) 4-item version (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-1.07|-3.52|<= 0.001
95933538|NCT04992390|191829001|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.2||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Sleep Condition Indicator (SCI) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|8.20|2.56|<= 0.001
95933539|NCT04992390|191829002|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Generalised Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.17|-1.68|<=0.05
95933540|NCT04992390|191829003|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.19||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item version (PHQ-2) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons.(Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.19|-1.23|> .05
95933541|NCT04992390|191829004|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.51|-8.48|<= 0.001
95950028|NCT01918033|191871945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms for visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable|Difference in LS Means for Change from Baseline in Eye Symptom Score at Week 2|||0.06|-0.22|0.281
95950029|NCT04679675|191871946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||1.36|1.23|0.05
95950030|NCT04679675|191871946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.12|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Adherent (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.12|1.02|.05
95734215|NCT01569152|191439504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|49.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.63|8.90|0.007
95734216|NCT01569152|191439505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|18.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.84|0.67|0.039
95734217|NCT01569152|191439506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|22.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.21|2.18|0.018
95734218|NCT01569152|191439509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.75||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-0.52|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.52|-8.99|0.028
95933542|NCT04992390|191829005|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 12-item version (WHODAS 2.0) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-4.50|-15.06|<= 0.001
95933543|NCT04992390|191829006|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|20.04||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for 5-level European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 for EQ-5D-5L subscale comparisons and Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|20.04|4.61|<= 0.01
95933544|NCT04992390|191829007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.71||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Engagement Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.71|0.20|<= 0.001
95933545|NCT04992390|191829007|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Scale of Work Engagement and Burnout (SWEBO) - Work Burnout Subscale (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|-0.34|-0.87|<= 0.001
95933546|NCT04992390|191829008|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.5|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.51||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for Sickness absence (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|3.51|0.64|> .05
95950031|NCT04679675|191871946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.16|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Overdue (population):Direct-Mail versus Education analysis.||2.16|1.68|.05
95734219|NCT01569152|191439510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|0.62|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.62|-5.91|0.110
95734220|NCT01569152|191439511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-10.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-4.15|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.15|-16.97|0.002
95734221|NCT01569152|191439514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-11.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-11.71|-29.98|<0.001
95734222|NCT01569152|191439515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-9.28|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-9.28|-29.69|<0.001
95734223|NCT01569152|191439516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-10.09|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-10.09|-31.29|<0.001
95734224|NCT01569152|191439517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.84|< 0.001
95734225|NCT01569152|191439518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.45|-2.73|0.007
95734226|NCT01569152|191439519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.9||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|4.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.74|-14.54|0.315
95734227|NCT01569152|191439521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.56|47.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.86|15.56|<0.001
95987627|NCT02873936|191949704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
95734228|NCT00824265|191439548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.51|0.0032
95734229|NCT00824265|191439549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.59|0.1427
95857447|NCT03771664|191673282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|60.2||Change from BL in latency to third REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the third REM period||60.2|16.2|0.0009
95795138|NCT03183908|191560533|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||0.2|-5.2|
95795139|NCT03183908|191560533|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||4.9|-2.3|
95950032|NCT04679675|191871946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.25|||Poisson Regression with GEE|||Primary analysis stratified by screening history. These results are for Screening-Unknown (population):Opt-In versus Education analysis.||1.25|1.03|.05
95734230|NCT00824265|191439550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.85|0.4490
95734231|NCT00824265|191439551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.56|0.0878
95734232|NCT00824265|191439552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.0036
95734233|NCT00824265|191439553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants in the ITT population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.55|0.1143
95734234|NCT00824265|191439553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Participants who took anti-cancer therapies|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.48|0.0109
95734235|NCT00824265|191439556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
95734236|NCT00824265|191439557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0166
95734237|NCT01691248|191439587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.5||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.5|-5.1|0.2778
95734238|NCT01691248|191439588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|0.6||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||8.2|-7.1|0.4420
95734239|NCT01691248|191439589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|1.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.2||1-sided Wald test for a difference in proportions using an unpooled estimate of variance.|One-sided Wald p-value||Placebo minus Fidaxomicin|||9.2|-5.5|0.3091
95734240|NCT02653664|191439591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05|ANOVA|||Based on our prior work comparing similar interventions, assuming decreases in average pain intensity of 0.3 points (on a 0-10 scale) for ED, between 0.8 to 1.4 points for HYP, and between 0.6 to 1 for MM, with standard deviations (SD) ranging from 0.15 to 1, significance level of 0.05, and using ANOVA as the statistical method, we calculated that 80 participants per arm at immediate post-treatment would provide at least 80% power to detect between-groups differences as specified.||||.39
95734241|NCT02653664|191439592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Statistical significance was set at p=.05.|ANOVA|||||||.05
95734242|NCT02653664|191439593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p= .05|ANOVA|||||||<.001
95795140|NCT03183908|191560533|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||-1.1|-8.1|
95795141|NCT03183908|191560533|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||5.9|-2.7|
95950033|NCT01702259|191871960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95950034|NCT01702259|191871961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95950035|NCT01702259|191871962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95950036|NCT01702259|191871963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95734243|NCT01179048|191439598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test). If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was to be performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for non-inferiority (hazard ratio \>=1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was evaluated using the Cox regression model to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) (liraglutide/placebo) and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) including treatment group as factor. Non-inferiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.3 or if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.3 against Ha: HR \<1.3 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|<0.001
95734244|NCT01179048|191439598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.968||p-value is reported for one-sided (α-level 0.025) test for superiority (hazard ratio\>=1.0).|Regression, Cox|||If non-inferiority was established for the primary outcome, a test for superiority was performed. Superiority of liraglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: HR \>=1.0 against Ha: HR \<1.0 was less than 2.5% (or equivalent to 5% in two-sided test).||0.968|0.778|0.005
95734245|NCT01179048|191439599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.962|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.962|0.807|
95933547|NCT04992390|191829009|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Linear|||ITT analysis for Intention to leave job (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Tables for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|0.49|-2.20|> .05
95734246|NCT01179048|191439600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.971|||Regression, Cox|The analysis was done using a Cox regression model with treatment as a fixed factor including all randomised subjects.||||0.971|0.739|
95933548|NCT04992390|191829010|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.07||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of days worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|1.07|0.60|>.05
95933549|NCT04992390|191829011|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modelling (MLM) was performed with baseline measure, binary arm status, follow-up time and arm-by-time interaction included as fixed-effect covariates. Individual participant was also included as a level-two analytical unit, to quantify: (a) between-group treatment effect estimates and (b) within-group changes between each follow-up time for secondary outcome measures.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.09||No multiplicity adjustments were applied as there was only one primary outcome, and secondary outcomes aimed to support the primary analyses. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Multilevel Poisson|||ITT analysis for number of nights worked (treatment effects for between-arm comparisons) at week 4.|Please see Iyadurai et al., 2023 Supplementary Materials for within-subjects comparisons. (Iyadurai, et al. Transl Psychiatry 13, 290 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02578-0)|2.09|0.57|<.05
95933550|NCT01827787|191829018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Using a one sample binomial design, with 45 patients there was 90% power to detect a null hypothesis 30% overall response rate (historical control) versus an alternative hypothesis of 53% overall response rate assuming a two-sided 10% alpha.~Of note, cohort 2: TNBC did not fully accrue 45 patients so a testing was not done."||||0.42
95933551|NCT02769858|191829029|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95933552|NCT02769858|191829030|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
95734247|NCT01179048|191439601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.934|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing cardiovascular death was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.934|0.656|
95734248|NCT01179048|191439601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal stroke was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.107|0.721|
95933553|NCT02769858|191829031|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
95734249|NCT01179048|191439601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.031|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing non-fatal myocardial infarction was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.031|0.747|
95734250|NCT01179048|191439601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.258|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for unstable angina pectoris was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.258|0.763|
95734251|NCT01179048|191439601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing coronary revascularisation was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.044|0.797|
95734252|NCT01179048|191439601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.046|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing hospitalisation for heart failure was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor||1.046|0.727|
95734253|NCT01179048|191439602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a first microvascular event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.969|0.730|
95857448|NCT03771664|191673282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|56.3||Change from BL in latency to fourth REM period was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||Change from BL in latency to the fourth REM period||56.3|-4.3|0.0899
95857449|NCT03771664|191673283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-171.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.06||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.9|-79.4||Change from BL in REM density was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, BL PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-79.4|-262.9|0.0004
95857450|NCT03771664|191673284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-288.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.1|-151.0||Change from BL in REMA was analyzed by ANCOVA with explanatory (Treatment, BL antidepressant use, baseline PSG-derived sleep variables score) and response variables \[Change from BL in PSG-derived sleep variables at Day 14 (EODBT)\].|ANCOVA|||||-151.0|-425.1|<0.0001
95933554|NCT03363854|191829043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.9||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their IGA value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||21.9|2.9|0.015
95933555|NCT03363854|191829044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|30.6||The primary endpoints were tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab Q2W+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.||30.6|9.8|<0.001
95933556|NCT03363854|191829045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|21.6||This secondary endpoint was tested after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints, if these showed statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their Worst daily Pruritus NRS value at Week 16.||21.6|0.9|0.037
95933557|NCT03363854|191829046|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-6.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-6.6|-15.2|<0.001
95933558|NCT03363854|191829047|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after sequential testing of the primary endpoints and the first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
95933559|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|4.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||4.9|-11.9|0.41
95857451|NCT03771664|191673286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|39.5||Change from BL in sTST was analyzed by Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sTST||39.5|-18.8|0.4814
95734254|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a composite nephropathy event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.918|0.666|
95734255|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.905|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a new onset of persistant macroalbuminaria event was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||0.905|0.602|
95734256|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.189|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing persistent doubling of serum creatinine was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.189|0.667|
95734257|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.244|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing a need for continuous renal-replacement therapy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.244|0.607|
95734258|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|4.869|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing death due to renal disease was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||4.869|0.521|
95734259|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.519|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing composite retinopathy was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.519|0.869|
95734260|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.546|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing treatment with photocoagulation or intravitreal agents was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||1.546|0.869|
95734261|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|30.847|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing development of diabetes-related blindness was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||30.847|0.004|
95933560|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-0.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||-0.6|-13.3|0.033
95734262|NCT01179048|191439603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|2.502|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis for percentage of subjects experiencing vitreous haemorrhage was done by Cox regression model with treatment as fixed factor.||2.502|0.845|
95933561|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||1.2|-10.6|0.12
95987628|NCT02873936|191949704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-10.0|<0.001
95734263|NCT01375660|191439664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95734264|NCT01375660|191439665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
95734265|NCT01375660|191439666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.389
95734266|NCT01375660|191439667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||P Value for Insulinogenic Index-30 = 0.34|ANOVA|||||||0.34
95734267|NCT01375660|191439668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95734268|NCT01375660|191439669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95734269|NCT01375660|191439670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.869
95734270|NCT02058498|191439672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95734271|NCT04605094|191439674|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in IGA responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on electronic case report form (eCRF) at screening (\>=12 to \<18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/microliters \[μL\]; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline value of IGA score."||0.71|-17.94|0.080
95795142|NCT03183908|191560533|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||0.4|-6.9|
95795143|NCT03183908|191560534|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Redness||7.3|-7.3|
95795144|NCT03183908|191560534|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.7|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Shoulder Pain||5.7|-9.5|
95795145|NCT03183908|191560534|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.1|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Swelling||6.1|-8.6|
95795146|NCT03183908|191560534|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Tenderness||8.3|-5.7|
95795147|NCT03183908|191560534|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Injection Site Pain||5.4|-7.9|
95795148|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.4|-1.7|
95857452|NCT03771664|191673286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|2.0||Change from BL in sWASO was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sWASO||2.0|-23.7|0.0964
95933562|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||-0.2|-14.3|0.043
95933563|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||-3.4|-14.8|0.002
95933564|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
95933565|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-4.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-4.7|-15.8|<0.001
95933566|NCT03363854|191829049|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-3.2|-14.1|0.002
95933567|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1-2 are reported below.||11.0|-11.0|1.00
95933568|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3-4 are reported below.||11.4|-9.1|0.83
95933569|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|8.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5-6 are reported below.||8.5|-11.3|0.78
95933570|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7-8 are reported below.||5.1|-14.8|0.34
95933571|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9-10 are reported below.||4.6|-13.4|0.34
95933572|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11-12 are reported below.||1.5|-13.9|0.11
95933573|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13-14 are reported below.||-1.2|-16.6|0.024
95933574|NCT03363854|191829050|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-1.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15-16 are reported below.||-1.7|-17.3|0.017
95933575|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 1 are reported below.||0.7|-0.5|0.64
95950037|NCT00687297|191871974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test with two-sided Type I error of 5% was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between arms.||||1.00
95950038|NCT00687297|191871975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.07||p-value from Wald test|Regression, Cox|The model was adjusted for gender (male vs. female) and stage (Stage IIIB vs. Stage IV/Recurrent)||There was 80% power to detect a 50% improvement in median progression-free survival, using a stratified log-rank test with one-sided Type I error of 10%.||2.07|1.07|0.02
95950039|NCT01494467|191871978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95950040|NCT01494467|191871979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-6.25|||ANCOVA|||||-6.25|-10.18|<0.001
95950041|NCT01494467|191871980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95950042|NCT02410278|191871987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.931||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|20.832|||weighted logistic regression model|||Odds ratio is the odds of an event in the Montelukast treatment group divided by the odds of an event in the placebo treatment group. P-value is from the likelihood ratio test that the odds ratio is 1. CI = profile likelihood confidence interval.||20.832|0.938|0.0617
95734272|NCT04605094|191439675|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.15||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-75 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||6.36|-16.67|0.384
95734273|NCT04605094|191439676|OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in EASI-90 responders~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline EASI total score."||0.59|-16.94|0.078
95734274|NCT04605094|191439677|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.69||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Treatment difference in Peak Pruritus NRS~Estimates were from a logistic regression model that included treatment group, age as recorded on eCRF at screening (\>=12 to \< 18 years; \>=18 years), blood eosinophils as recorded on eCRF at screening (\<300 cells/μL; \>=300 cells/μL) and baseline Peak Pruritus score."||10.32|-8.93|0.889
95734275|NCT02724462|191439678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|1.22|<.001
95734276|NCT02724462|191439679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|1.14|.001
95734277|NCT01015625|191439686|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.09|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter overall survival time for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery, Arm A) compared to systemic therapy only (Arm B) in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause. Participants last known to be alive were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||3.09|1.01|0.042
95734278|NCT01015625|191439687|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.42|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to distant progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to distant progression. Distant progression is defined as detection of new lesions or progression of existing metastases in locations different then breast. Participants last known to be alive without a distant progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.42|0.87|0.147
95734279|NCT01015625|191439688|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 5% was used.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with surgery vs no surgery fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter time to local progression for surgery relative to no surgery.|To determine the effect of local therapy (surgery) compared to systemic therapy only in synchronous metastasized breast cancer patients in terms of time from randomization to local progression. Local progression is defined as recurrence in breast with localization mamma, chest wall or axilla. Participants last known to be alive, who did not experience a local progression were censored at their last contact date or at the data cut-off date whichever came first.||2.02|0.45|0.890
95734280|NCT01544127|191439741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|"MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the presence of suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||1.12|0.31|.054
95734281|NCT01544127|191439741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.4||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI+TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.40|0.26|0.12
95734282|NCT01544127|191439741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.24||A priori, analyses were proposed as one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|Analysis adjusted for severity of worst TBI experience and used a robust standard error that was clustered on participants.|OR was calculated for number of participants with suicidal ideation. Analyses were one-sided, but two-sided confidence intervals for the OR are reported.|MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||1.24|0.28|0.08
95987629|NCT02873936|191949704|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-7.0|0.006
95795149|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.8|2.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.3|-2.8|
95795150|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.0|1.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.5|-4.0|
95734283|NCT01544127|191439742|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||"MI-SI + TAU vs. MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone~A hurdle model was used to examine the effect of the experimental interventions on the presence/absence of suicidal ideation and the severity of suicidal ideation among those with it. These analyses examined the severity of suicidal ideation among participants with suicidal ideation in the combined MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU treatment group."||||0.30
95734284|NCT01544127|191439742|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI vs. TAU Alone||||0.23
95734285|NCT01544127|191439742|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori, analyses were proposed to be one-sided, with p set at 0.05.|Zero-Inflated Poisson|A robust standard error clustered on participants was used.||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||||0.46
95734286|NCT01544127|191439743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.96|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.3|3.54||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||3.54|0.30|0.96
95734287|NCT01544127|191439743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.06||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||MI-SI-R + TAU vs. TAU Alone||2.06|0.23|0.50
95734288|NCT01544127|191439744|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.88||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI + TAU vs. TAU Alone||4.88|0.59|0.31
95734289|NCT01544127|191439744|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.31||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||MI-SI-R vs. TAU Alone||2.31|0.10|0.24
95734290|NCT01544127|191439744|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.43||A priori, p was set at 0.01 for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||"MI-SI-R + TAU vs. MI-SI + TAU~Because the impact of MI-SI + TAU and MI-SI-R + TAU were in different directions when compared to TAU Alone, they were compared. For this analysis, the null hypothesis was that the revisions did not change the impact of MI-SI + TAU."||1.43|0.06|0.10
95734291|NCT00533273|191439747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
95734292|NCT00533273|191439748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.001
95734293|NCT00533273|191439749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95734294|NCT00533273|191439750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95987630|NCT02873936|191949705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-5.0|0.008
95734295|NCT00533273|191439752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
95734296|NCT00533273|191439753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95734297|NCT00533273|191439754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95734298|NCT00533273|191439755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95734299|NCT02870920|191439765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.54|0.07
95734300|NCT02870920|191439766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.76|0.97
95734301|NCT00615069|191439782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of freedom from major adverse events through 1 year, 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs historical open surgical control Subjects.||||0.003
95734302|NCT00615069|191439783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|3.603||||||Estimation of Hazard ratio of the 31 mm GORE EXCLUDER® Test Subjects vs original GORE EXCLUDER® AAA Endoprosthesis Subjects (original PMA subjects) using Cox Regression, not a powered analysis.||3.603|0.428|
95734303|NCT02495467|191439817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.22|0.0132
95734304|NCT02495467|191439818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|0.09|0.0122
95734305|NCT02495467|191439819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|0.21|<0.0001
95734306|NCT02495467|191439820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.12|0.0055
95734307|NCT02495467|191439821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|0.20|0.001
95734308|NCT02495467|191439822|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.995||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.032|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.032|0.960|0.7999
95734309|NCT02495467|191439823|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|0.989||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.043|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.043|0.937|0.6746
95734310|NCT02495467|191439824|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.075||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.170|0.987|0.0959
95734311|NCT02495467|191439825|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.267|1.829|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.829|1.267|<0.0001
95734312|NCT02495467|191439826|SUPERIORITY||Means ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.545|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||1.545|1.128|0.0005
95734313|NCT02495467|191439827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||<0.0001
95734314|NCT02495467|191439828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Prescott Test (Exact)|||||||0.0003
95734315|NCT01376167|191439829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.404||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.404|0.222|<0.001
95734316|NCT01376167|191439829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.262|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.387||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.387|0.178|<0.001
95987631|NCT02873936|191949705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.0|-2.0|0.65
95987632|NCT02873936|191949705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
95987633|NCT02873936|191949705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|0.008
95987634|NCT02873936|191949705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
95987635|NCT02873936|191949705|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-4.0|0.039
95987636|NCT02873936|191949706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
95987637|NCT02873936|191949706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-16.0|<0.001
95987638|NCT02873936|191949706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-24.0|<0.001
95987639|NCT02873936|191949706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
95987640|NCT02873936|191949706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-12.0|-25.0|<0.001
95987641|NCT02873936|191949706|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-19.0|<0.001
95987642|NCT02873936|191949707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-17.0|<0.001
95987643|NCT02873936|191949707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-15.0|<0.001
95734317|NCT01376167|191439829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.382||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.382|0.152|<0.001
95734318|NCT01376167|191439829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.335||Logistic regression model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates. Participants with a zero P vivax asexual parasite count at Baseline were excluded from the analysis.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios \< 1 suggested a smaller chance of recurrence compared to CQ Only.|||0.335|0.117|<0.001
95734319|NCT01376167|191439830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.376||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.376|0.195|<0.001
95734320|NCT01376167|191439830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.39||The Cox proportional hazards model was fitted with region and treatment as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||A hazard ratio\<1 indicated a lower chance of relapse compared to CQ only.|||0.390|0.167|<0.001
95933576|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 2 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.26
95933577|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 3 are reported below.||0.8|-0.4|0.46
95933578|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 4 are reported below.||1.0|-0.2|0.16
95933579|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 5 are reported below.||1.1|-0.1|0.13
95933580|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 6 are reported below.||0.9|-0.3|0.38
95933581|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 7 are reported below.||1.2|0.0|0.040
95933582|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 8 are reported below.||1.0|-0.3|0.31
95933583|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 9 are reported below.||1.6|0.4|0.001
95734321|NCT00834756|191439853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.0||||||90.0|87.96|104.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.78|87.96|
95734322|NCT00834756|191439854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.63||||||90.0|92.34|105.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.35|92.34|
95734323|NCT00834756|191439855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.37||||||90.0|93.95|107.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.21|93.95|
95933584|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 10 are reported below.||1.3|0.1|0.026
95933585|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model]|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 11 are reported below.||1.5|0.2|0.006
95933586|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 12 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.043
95933587|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 13 are reported below.||1.4|0.2|0.010
95987644|NCT02873936|191949707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-22.0|<0.001
95987645|NCT02873936|191949707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-18.0|<0.001
95987646|NCT02873936|191949707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-18.0|<0.001
95734324|NCT02514122|191439859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Score was lower in the Ketamine group.|||1.9|0.29|0.009
95734325|NCT02514122|191439860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||.54|.18|<0.001
95734326|NCT00678639|191439868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median cost difference|588.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|336.0|811.0|||Hodges-Lehmann (median cost difference)|Distribution-free 95% CIs calculated using the method of Moses.|Results favored a reduced cost in the OU-CMR group.|H0: The median costs are not different among the study groups. HA: The median cost is different among groups. Power calculation was based on detecting a mean cost difference of $2000. Data was found to be non-normally distributed and therefore nonparametric comparisons were implemented.||811|336|
95734327|NCT00678639|191439869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"H0: There is no difference in correct cardiovascular admission decisions among groups.~Ha: A difference exists among study groups. Sample size was based upon 47 analyzable participants per study arm were required to provide 88% power to detect a 30% difference in the outcome."||||<0.001
95734328|NCT03611608|191439873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|263.54|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|207.86||||t-test, 1 sided||||||207.86|<0.001
95734329|NCT00669864|191439876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-1.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.414|-1.192||A significant mean HbA1c decrease was to be declared if H0 is rejected at a significance level of 2.5%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline ≥ 0% against the alternative hypothesis (H1): HbA1c after 16 weeks - HbA1c at baseline \< 0%. If H0 rejected at a significance level of 2.5%, declare a significant mean HbA1c decrease||-1.192|-1.414|<0.0001
95734330|NCT04625114|191439882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
95933588|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 14 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.037
95795151|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.8|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.3|-0.8|
95933589|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 15 are reported below.||1.3|0.0|0.045
95734331|NCT04625114|191439883|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.965||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.942|||Regression, Cox|||||1.942|0.480|0.921
95734332|NCT01226797|191439885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5834||||0.6668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.51|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect|||3.51|0.10|0.6668
95734333|NCT01226797|191439886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1591||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.73|||Fisher Exact||Odds-ratio and confidence interval obtained from logistic regression with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.73|0.01|0.1550
95734334|NCT01226797|191439887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.45||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|58.69||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||58.69|-7.79|0.1259
95734335|NCT01226797|191439887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|41.66||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||41.66|-14.67|0.3297
95795152|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||2.0|-2.5|
95933590|NCT03363854|191829052|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included. Results of Week 16 are reported below.||1.1|-0.2|0.17
95933591|NCT03363854|191829053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||31.3|11.3|<0.001
95933592|NCT03363854|191829054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their EASI value at Week 16.||20.7|2.1|0.022
95933593|NCT03363854|191829055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurement model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-3.1|-7.7|<0.001
95933594|NCT03363854|191829056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.3||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Partcipants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||33.3|12.4|<0.001
95933595|NCT03363854|191829057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.0||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their SCORAD value at Week 16.||19.0|3.2|0.012
95933596|NCT03363854|191829058|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of investigational medicinal product or initiation of rescue medication were not included.||-0.7|-1.7|<0.001
95987647|NCT02873936|191949707|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||0.0|-11.0|0.052
95987648|NCT02873936|191949708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-21.0|<0.001
95987649|NCT02873936|191949708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.0|-19.0|<0.001
95987650|NCT02873936|191949708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-11.0|-23.0|<0.001
95987651|NCT02873936|191949708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-19.0|<0.001
95734336|NCT01226797|191439887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.17||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|51.39||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||51.39|-21.04|0.3925
95933597|NCT03363854|191829059|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was conducted using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||Participants meeting the endpoint were defined as responders. Participants with missing data at Week 16 or who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were defined as non-responders, independently of their DLQI value at Week 16.||27.1|8.0|<0.001
95933598|NCT02217904|191829062|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
95734337|NCT01226797|191439887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|64.09||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||64.09|-14.85|0.2080
95933599|NCT02217904|191829062|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.32|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
95933600|NCT02217904|191829062|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.57|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
95987652|NCT02873936|191949708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-23.0|<0.001
95987653|NCT02873936|191949708|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-19.0|<0.001
95734338|NCT01226797|191439889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.87||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|44.53||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 1||44.53|-0.78|0.0577
95933601|NCT02217904|191829062|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.28|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
95987654|NCT02873936|191949709|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
95987655|NCT02873936|191949709|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
95987656|NCT02873936|191949709|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.21||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.21|-0.51|<0.001
95987657|NCT02873936|191949709|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
95987658|NCT02873936|191949710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-7.41||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.41|-13.61|<0.001
95987659|NCT02873936|191949710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.82||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.82|-12.02|<0.001
95987660|NCT02873936|191949710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|-7.69||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.69|-14.19|<0.001
95987661|NCT02873936|191949710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-5.73||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.73|-12.22|<0.001
95987662|NCT02873936|191949710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.964|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.00|-13.73|<0.001
95987663|NCT02873936|191949710|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.98||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.98|-10.80|<0.001
95987664|NCT02873936|191949711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|32.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||32.1|8.1|<0.001
95987665|NCT02873936|191949711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|26.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||26.5|2.4|0.013
95987666|NCT02873936|191949711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||34.1|10.3|<0.001
95987667|NCT02873936|191949711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|33.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||33.6|10.0|<0.001
95987668|NCT02873936|191949711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|44.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||44.9|21.8|<0.001
95734339|NCT01226797|191439889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|30.3||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||30.30|-11.71|0.3669
95734340|NCT01226797|191439889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.09||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|38.8||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 3||38.80|-10.62|0.2482
95857453|NCT03771664|191673286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|21.2||Change from BL in sSL was analyzed by MMRM with treatment baseline antidepressant use, baseline CSD-C value, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||Change from BL in sSL||21.2|-7.9|0.3672
95857454|NCT02120898|191673298|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI interval was -0.20 to +0.20 for therapeutic equivalence.|Percentage difference|-1.16||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's confidence interval (CI) with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||5.62|-7.93|0.0702
95987669|NCT02873936|191949711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||30.5|6.8|0.001
95987670|NCT02873936|191949712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.001
95987671|NCT02873936|191949712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
95987672|NCT02873936|191949712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.001
95987673|NCT02873936|191949712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-1.3|<0.001
95987674|NCT02873936|191949712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.5|<0.001
95987675|NCT02873936|191949712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95987676|NCT02873936|191949713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.2|3.5|0.004
95734341|NCT01226797|191439889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|62.22||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||62.22|-3.84|0.0801
95734342|NCT01226797|191439897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.06||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|-8.44||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||-8.44|-35.67|0.0031
95734343|NCT01226797|191439897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.04||Treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||-7.04|-25.64|0.0015
95734344|NCT04448678|191439902|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0401
95734345|NCT04448678|191439903|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
95734346|NCT04448678|191439904|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
95734347|NCT02079766|191439918|OTHER|||||||0.2959||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|Fisher Exact|||Evaluated the association between the overall brain uptake and the study group||||0.2959
95734348|NCT02079766|191439919|OTHER|||||||0.5163||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons or multiplicity were made for this study. No a priori threshold for significance was chosen.|ANOVA|MMSE score as the response variable and flortaucipir uptake score (4 levels) as the fixed effect||Measured differences in clinical presentation using MMSE between subjects with no visual flortaucipir uptake, and those with mild uptake.||||0.5163
95734349|NCT03252353|191439923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 58.16 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 19.42 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0079
95857455|NCT02120898|191673299|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|0.14||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|6.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using 90% Wald's CI with a continuity correction or the difference (generic imiquimod - Zyclara) in complete clearance rates.||6.35|-6.08|0.0318
95734350|NCT03252353|191439924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Regression, Logistic|The adjusted proportion of responders is 77.66 for Octreotide Capsule Treatment Group vs. 30.40 for the Placebo||The proportion of \[IGF-1/GH\] responders was compared between treatment groups using an exact logistic regression model with categorical covariates for treatment group, prior SRL dose, and baseline \[IGF-1/GH\] level||||0.0007
95734351|NCT03252353|191439925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
95734352|NCT04166032|191439926|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
95734353|NCT03966365|191439953|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.706
95734354|NCT03966365|191439954|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
95734355|NCT03966365|191439955|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Green lissamine treatment groups||||0.081
95734356|NCT03966365|191439955|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.490
95734357|NCT03966365|191439956|OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
95734358|NCT03966365|191439957|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.031
95734359|NCT03966365|191439959|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.651
95734360|NCT03929367|191440002|OTHER|Modeling of change of plasma oxytocin concentration over time using nonlinear canonical compartment model.|Bayesian information criterion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95734361|NCT03929367|191440013|SUPERIORITY|Light touch detection frequency was compared over time in comparison to baseline using a one way analysis of variance for repeated measures. A power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.89||||||No effect|ANOVA|||||||.89
95987677|NCT02873936|191949713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|21.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||21.5|4.0|0.003
95734362|NCT03929367|191440020|SUPERIORITY|Sustained heat score at the end of each 5 minute session was compared to baseline across time using a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures. Power analysis was not performed for this secondary outcome measure.||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
95734363|NCT02863575|191440054|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) means difference|2.68||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|7.82|||ANCOVA|||||7.82|-2.46|0.306
95933602|NCT02217904|191829062|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-1.18|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between islatravir and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>99%.|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean of pooled historical placebo data was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (95% CI -014, 0.09) change from baseline at 168 hours post dose.||||
95933603|NCT01164098|191829172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Using Natural Log Transformed Data||T-test of the natural logarithmic transformed data||||0.18
95933604|NCT01164098|191829173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of Natural Log Transformed Data.||||0.49
95933605|NCT01164098|191829174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test||||0.37
95933606|NCT05773313|191829175|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Food Insecurity||||>0.999
95933607|NCT05773313|191829175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Financial Insecurity||||0.250
95933608|NCT05773313|191829175|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Isolation||||>0.999
95933609|NCT05773313|191829175|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Inactivity||||>0.999
95933610|NCT05773313|191829175|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Disability||||>0.999
95933611|NCT05773313|191829176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.461
95933612|NCT05773313|191829177|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95933613|NCT05773313|191829178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
95933614|NCT05773313|191829179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
95933615|NCT03050814|191829180|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.966|||Kaplan Meier|Kaplan-Meier curves and a two-tailed log-rank test||||2.966|0.380|0.91
95933616|NCT00402246|191829203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the time from a clinical event to a clinical decision for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||||<0.001
95933617|NCT00402246|191829204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.524|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.21||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple hospitalization events per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the CV hospitalization hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.21||0.524
95933618|NCT00402246|191829204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.325|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.43||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple ED visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the ED hazard rates for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.43||0.325
95933619|NCT00402246|191829204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.31||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple unscheduled clinic visits per subject.||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rates of the CV unscheduled clinic or urgent care visits for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||1.31||0.099
95933620|NCT00402246|191829205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.56||Model was fit with device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD) as a stratifying variable.|Andersen-Gill model|||An Andersen-Gill proportional hazards regression model was fit to test the hypothesis that the hazard rate of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) taken for patients in the remote arm is equal to that of similar patients in the in-office arm.||2.56||0.29
95734364|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||2.20|-0.03|0.056
95734365|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|12.73|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||12.73|9.54|< 0.001
95734366|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|11.64|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-2||11.64|8.45|< 0.001
95734367|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.87|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||3.87|-0.72|0.177
95734368|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|27.32|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||27.32|20.76|< 0.001
95734369|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.18|25.75|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-4||25.75|19.18|< 0.001
95933621|NCT00402246|191829208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|A GEE model was utilized to account for multiple events within same patient in estimating the probability of an AT/AF alert event being symptomatic.||||||
95933622|NCT00402246|191829210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the time from event onset to clinical decision for symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||1.0|-0.8|0.779
95933623|NCT00402246|191829211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9||The a priori threshold for significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is the time from event onset to clinical decision for both device events and symptom-driven device interrogations for patients followed through the remote management system is greater than and equal to that of patients receiving only in-office care.||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
95734370|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.39||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.06|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||6.06|-1.28|0.201
95734371|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.06|39.55|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||39.55|29.06|< 0.001
95734372|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|37.16|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-6||37.16|26.67|< 0.001
95734373|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.49|48.2|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||48.20|33.49|< 0.001
95933624|NCT00402246|191829212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis was rejected.|negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis was that the mean LOS per hospitalization visit for patients in the remote arm was equal to that for similar patients in the in-office arm.||0.9|0.7|0.002
95933625|NCT00402246|191829213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.761|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.737||||Binomial Exact Test|||3-month compliance rate|||0.737|
95933626|NCT00402246|191829213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.793||||Binomial Exact Test|||6-month compliance rate|||0.793|
95933627|NCT00402246|191829213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.815|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.792||||Binomial Exact Test|||9-month compliance rate|||0.792|
95933628|NCT00402246|191829213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||compliance rate|0.814|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.79||||Binomial Exact Test|||12-month compliance rate|||0.79|
95933629|NCT00402246|191829215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.217
95933630|NCT00402246|191829216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was fit with randomization arm, device group (CRT-D vs. DR-ICD), and follow-up visit as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||A mixed model was fit to test whether patients followed through the remote management system will experience less anxiety than patients followed through in-office care.||||0.154
95933631|NCT00431834|191829222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|37.7|||<|0.0041|ONE_SIDED|97.5|25.6|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percenter of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||25.6|<0.0041
95933632|NCT00431834|191829225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportions|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.1||The percent of subjects following treatment, p, who experience any of the MAEs during the first 30 days following surgery, or hospital discharge, whichever is longer will be less than 23.6%.|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: p ≥ 23.6% Ha: p \< 23.6%"||13.1||<0.0001
95933633|NCT02622568|191829236|NON_INFERIORITY|Veregen alone has efficacy compared to Veregen + cryotherapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison at week 12|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
95933634|NCT02622568|191829236|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison at week 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95734374|NCT02863575|191440055|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.81|45.52|||ANCOVA|||SPRID 0-8||45.52|30.81|< 0.001
95734375|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.5|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||1.50|-0.05|0.066
95933635|NCT02015520|191829237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
95933636|NCT02015520|191829237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95933637|NCT02015520|191829237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95933638|NCT04059042|191829248|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|39.0||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0051
95933639|NCT04059042|191829248|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|19.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95933640|NCT04059042|191829249|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session pain measures were assessed with related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (Audio minus Silence). Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|18.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95933641|NCT04059042|191829249|EQUIVALENCE|Between-session change scores were calculated per participant as Audio minus Silence and compared between groups with independent samples Mann-Whitney U-tests. Data were not normally distributed so nonparametric tests were used.|Z score|14.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95734376|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|8.66|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||8.66|6.44|< 0.001
95734377|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|7.93|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-2||7.93|5.71|< 0.001
95734378|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.14||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.74|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||2.74|-0.47|0.165
95734379|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|16.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.05|18.64|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||18.64|14.05|< 0.001
95734380|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.91|17.51|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-4||17.51|12.91|< 0.001
95734381|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.34|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||4.34|-0.78|0.172
95734382|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|23.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|27.03|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||27.03|19.71|< 0.001
95734383|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|21.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.93|25.25|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-6||25.25|17.93|< 0.001
95734384|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.1||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.67|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||5.67|-1.47|0.249
95987678|NCT02873936|191949713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|38.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.4|16.3|<0.001
95727962|NCT02277769|191425553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.09||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.09|-5.34|< 0.0001
95933642|NCT05489484|191829254|OTHER|Paired-sample t-test was used to assess the change in Constant-Murley Score from baseline to 3 months.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|16.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change from baseline in CMS at 3 months. Higher scores represent better shoulder function. Positive difference indicates clinical improvement.|Statistical analysis was performed on 23 participants with valid Constant-Murley Score (CMS) data at both baseline and 3-month follow-up.||16.00|3.63|0.001
95933643|NCT01985334|191829275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||linear mixed model|||||||0.0180
95933644|NCT01985334|191829276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] was inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~H0: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA \< -40 mL Ha: Glycopyrronium (50 μg o.d.) \[randomized group B2\] is non-inferior to LABA or LAMA (random group B1) with respect to mean trough FEV1 after 12 weeks of treatment.~Ha: μFEV1, NVA237 - μFEV1, LABA and/or LAMA ≥ -40 mL"|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933645|NCT01985334|191829277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933646|NCT01985334|191829278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933647|NCT01985334|191829279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933648|NCT01985334|191829280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 0.6 points in TDI was adopted as boundary for non-inferiority|||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933649|NCT01985334|191829281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933650|NCT01985334|191829282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95933651|NCT04247074|191829291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95933652|NCT04247074|191829292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95933653|NCT04247074|191829293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95933654|NCT04247074|191829294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95933655|NCT04191499|191829295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. Hazard ratios and log-rank p-values are using stratified methods by stratifying Visceral Disease, Endocrine Resistance, and Region.||0.59|0.32|<0.0001
95933656|NCT03951805|191829309|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.76||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.8|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||5.80|-4.28|0.7675
95933657|NCT03951805|191829309|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|12.04|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||12.04|2.12|0.0051
95933658|NCT03951805|191829309|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.01||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|10.05|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during the last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values are imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.||10.05|-0.04|0.0519
95933659|NCT05999435|191829318|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.4463
95933660|NCT05999435|191829318|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.8707
95933661|NCT05999435|191829318|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis of no difference; statistical results of observed PCS and change from baseline PCS are identical."||||0.3600
95933662|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1618
95933663|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95987679|NCT02873936|191949713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||27.7|6.2|0.001
95987680|NCT02873936|191949714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|13.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||13.7|1.3|0.012
95727963|NCT02277769|191425553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-3.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-3.81|-6.04|< 0.0001
95987681|NCT02873936|191949714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||15.5|2.7|0.006
95933664|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1027|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1027
95933665|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0229
95933666|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933667|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0296
95933668|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8448|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8448
95933669|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0307
95933670|NCT05999435|191829321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0105
95933671|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2217
95933672|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6834
95933673|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1061
95933674|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0854
95933675|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6686
95933676|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0331
95933677|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4327
95933678|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1247
95933679|NCT05999435|191829322|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4606
95933680|NCT05999435|191829323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7807||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7807
95933681|NCT05999435|191829323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4965
95933682|NCT05999435|191829323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2093||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2093
95933683|NCT05999435|191829323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933684|NCT05999435|191829323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933685|NCT05999435|191829323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933686|NCT05999435|191829324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7052
95933687|NCT05999435|191829324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.115|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1150
95933688|NCT05999435|191829324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2296
95933689|NCT05999435|191829324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7761
95933690|NCT05999435|191829324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8544
95933691|NCT05999435|191829324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9197
95933692|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6269
95933693|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4427
95933694|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7783
95734385|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|27.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.78|32.99|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||32.99|22.78|< 0.001
95987682|NCT02873936|191949714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|23.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||23.1|5.6|<0.001
95734386|NCT02863575|191440056|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|30.89|||ANCOVA|||SPID 0-8||30.89|20.68|< 0.001
95734387|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.36||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||0.71|0.01|0.044
95734388|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.09|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||4.09|3.09|< 0.001
95734389|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.73|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2||3.73|2.73|< 0.001
95734390|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.15|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||1.15|-0.27|0.224
95734391|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.71|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.71|6.68|< 0.001
95933695|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7488
95933696|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.5557
95933697|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3679
95987683|NCT02873936|191949714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||26.2|8.5|<0.001
95734392|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|8.27|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||8.27|6.23|< 0.001
95857456|NCT00561925|191673303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -10%|Cochran's statistic|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.1|10.0|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.0|-0.1|<0.0001
95933698|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squre Means difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0044
95933699|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0158
95933700|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bodily Pain domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6682
95933701|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2448
95933702|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4702
95987684|NCT02873936|191949717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.2|-10.0|<0.001
95734393|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||1.75|-0.53|0.293
95734394|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.56|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||12.56|9.30|< 0.001
95734395|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.69|11.95|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6||11.95|8.69|< 0.001
95734396|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.58||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.19|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||2.19|-1.03|0.476
95734397|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|15.26|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||15.26|10.66|< 0.001
95734398|NCT02863575|191440057|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|14.68|||ANCOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8||14.68|10.08|< 0.001
95734399|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.36|-0.35|0.975
95734400|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.12||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.63|-0.40|0.654
95734401|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.62|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.25 hour||0.62|-0.40|0.670
95734402|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.04||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.63|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||0.63|-0.70|0.917
95734403|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.2|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.20|1.31|< 0.001
95734404|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.24|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 0.5 hour||3.24|1.35|< 0.001
95734405|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.73||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.42|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||1.42|0.04|0.039
95734406|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.1|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||7.10|5.12|< 0.001
95734407|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1 hour||6.37|4.39|< 0.001
95734408|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.84||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||1.52|0.16|0.015
95734409|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|8.33|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||8.33|6.39|< 0.001
95734410|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|7.49|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 1.5 hour||7.49|5.55|< 0.001
95857457|NCT00561925|191673305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -2%|Cochran's statistic|4.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.11|10.79|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||10.79|-1.11|<0.0001
95933703|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6627|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6627
95933704|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2774
95933705|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1537|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1537
95933706|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Physical Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7355
95933707|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1757
95987685|NCT02873936|191949717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-7.9|<0.001
95987686|NCT02873936|191949717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.5|-12.6|<0.001
95734411|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||1.30|-0.05|0.071
95857458|NCT00561925|191673307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7719||95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||0.06|-0.08|0.7719
95857459|NCT00561925|191673308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.87||||0.0078||95.0|8.67|57.06|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load stratum||||57.06|8.67|0.0078
95933708|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Rome Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0649
95933709|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6262
95933710|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9709
95933711|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3201
95933712|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Role Functioning domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3065
95933713|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.2891|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2891
95933714|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8714
95933715|NCT05999435|191829325|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health domain, Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2260
95734412|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|8.58|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||8.58|6.65|< 0.001
95734413|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.96|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 2 hour||7.96|6.03|< 0.001
95734414|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.41||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.09|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||1.09|-0.28|0.243
95734415|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|7.8|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.80|5.85|< 0.001
95734416|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|7.4|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 3 hour||7.40|5.44|< 0.001
95734417|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||0.82|-0.65|0.823
95734418|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|7.14|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.14|5.02|< 0.001
95734419|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|7.05|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 4 hour||7.05|4.94|< 0.001
95734420|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.31||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||1.11|-0.48|0.438
95734421|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|6.6|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.60|4.33|< 0.001
95734422|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|6.29|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 5 hour||6.29|4.01|< 0.001
95734423|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||1.35|-0.35|0.250
95734424|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.02|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||6.02|3.58|< 0.001
95734425|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|5.52|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 6 hour||5.52|3.08|< 0.001
95734426|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.01|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||1.01|-0.80|0.818
95933716|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|No comparison possible since zero count in both groups|||
95734427|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.82|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.82|2.23|< 0.001
95734428|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.71|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 7 hour||4.71|2.12|< 0.001
95933717|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2459||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2459
95734429|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.11|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||1.11|-0.74|0.698
95734430|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.34|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.34|1.69|< 0.001
95734431|NCT02863575|191440058|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.16|||ANCOVA|||PRID at 8 hour||4.16|1.51|< 0.001
95734432|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.16|-0.09|0.575
95734433|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.25|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.25|-0.11|0.426
95734434|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.25 hour||0.22|-0.14|0.686
95734435|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||0.29|-0.15|0.543
95734436|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.12|0.49|< 0.001
95734437|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 0.5 hour||1.05|0.42|< 0.001
95734438|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.24||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||0.46|0.01|0.038
95734439|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.33|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.33|1.69|< 0.001
95734440|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1 hour||2.09|1.46|< 0.001
95734441|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||0.47|0.03|0.024
95734442|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.64|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.64|2.02|< 0.001
95734443|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.39|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 1.5 hour||2.39|1.77|< 0.001
95734444|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||0.40|-0.04|0.103
95734445|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.71|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.71|2.09|< 0.001
95734446|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.53|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 2 hour||2.53|1.91|< 0.001
95933718|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2459||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2459
95933719|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933720|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933721|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|No comparison possible since zero count in both groups|||
95933722|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4972||||||Alpha set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4972
95933723|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95734447|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||0.29|-0.13|0.448
95734448|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.47|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.47|1.86|< 0.001
95734449|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 3 hour||2.38|1.78|< 0.001
95734450|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.23|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||0.23|-0.23|0.997
95734451|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
95734452|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.28|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 4 hour||2.28|1.61|< 0.001
95933724|NCT05999435|191829326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933725|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3081||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3081
95933726|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95734453|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.06||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||0.31|-0.19|0.656
95734454|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.09|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.09|1.36|< 0.001
95734455|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.03|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 5 hour||2.03|1.31|< 0.001
95734456|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.11||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.16|0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||0.38|-0.16|0.425
95734457|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.9|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.90|1.12|< 0.001
95734458|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 6 hour||1.79|1.01|< 0.001
95734459|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||0.26|-0.32|0.841
95734460|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.52|0.69|< 0.001
95933727|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3081|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3081
95933728|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.066
95933729|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0297
95933730|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8471||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8471
95933731|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7009||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7009
95933732|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7064
95933733|NCT05999435|191829327|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933734|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1686
95734461|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 7 hour||1.55|0.72|< 0.001
95734462|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.0||||0.98||95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||0.30|-0.30|0.980
95734463|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.36|0.50|< 0.001
95933735|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933736|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0643||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0643
95933737|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1531|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1531
95933738|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7187
95933739|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0720
95734464|NCT02863575|191440059|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||ANCOVA|||PRR score at 8 hour||1.35|0.50|< 0.001
95734465|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.03||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.21|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.21|-0.27|0.808
95734466|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.04||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.39|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hour||0.39|-0.30|0.804
95734467|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.25 hr||0.42|-0.27|0.676
95734468|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||0.35|-0.55|0.654
95734469|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.1|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.10|0.81|< 0.001
95734470|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.2|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 0.5 hour||2.20|0.91|< 0.001
95933740|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6117||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6117
95933741|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0479||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0479
95933742|NCT05999435|191829328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2042||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2042
95933743|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2458||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2458
95933744|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference|Comparison not possible since zero counts in both groups|||
95933745|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2458|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2458
95933746|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933747|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4944||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4944
95933748|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4798|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4798
95933749|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933750|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4972||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4972
95933751|NCT05999435|191829329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4885||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4885
95933752|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4156
95734471|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.97|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||0.97|0.01|0.045
95734472|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|4.78|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.78|3.41|< 0.001
95987687|NCT02873936|191949717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-10.6|<0.001
95734473|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.29|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1 hour||4.29|2.92|< 0.001
95734474|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.06|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||1.06|0.11|0.015
95734475|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|5.71|||ANOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.71|4.35|< 0.001
95734476|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|5.12|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 1.5 hour||5.12|3.76|< 0.001
95933753|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7088
95933754|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6610
95933755|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7580
95933756|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4974
95933757|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.3289
95933758|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.1700
95933759|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.0557
95933760|NCT05999435|191829330|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6008
95933761|NCT05999435|191829331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8046||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8046
95933762|NCT05999435|191829331|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933763|NCT05999435|191829331|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95933764|NCT05999435|191829333|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis of no difference|Sustained recovery was not achieved in any participant, no possible statistical analysis|||
95933765|NCT05999435|191829334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7699||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 4 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.7699
95933766|NCT05999435|191829334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 8 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.9928
95933767|NCT05999435|191829334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.8363
95933768|NCT05999435|191829334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Treatment group effect, alpha set at 0.05|ANOVA|||Week 24 comparison, null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6930
95933769|NCT05999435|191829335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.2780
95734477|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.44||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.91|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||0.91|-0.03|0.066
95734478|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|5.89|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.89|4.54|< 0.001
95734479|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|5.45|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 2 hour||5.45|4.10|< 0.001
95734480|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.32||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||0.81|-0.16|0.186
95734481|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|5.35|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.35|3.98|< 0.001
95734482|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.03|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 3 hour||5.03|3.65|< 0.001
95734483|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.6|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||0.60|-0.43|0.750
95734484|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.87|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.87|3.40|< 0.001
95734485|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.79|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 4 hour||4.79|3.32|< 0.001
95933770|NCT05999435|191829335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4967||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.4967
95933771|NCT05999435|191829335|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.000
95734486|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.26||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||0.81|-0.30|0.361
95734487|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.53|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.53|2.95|< 0.001
95734488|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.27|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 5 hour||4.27|2.69|< 0.001
95734489|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||0.98|-0.20|0.195
95734490|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|4.13|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||4.13|2.44|< 0.001
95734491|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.74|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 6 hour||3.74|2.06|< 0.001
95734492|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.76|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||0.76|-0.49|0.669
95734493|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.31|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.31|1.53|< 0.001
95734494|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.18|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 7 hour||3.18|1.40|< 0.001
95987688|NCT02873936|191949717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.9|<0.001
95857460|NCT00561925|191673316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence test with 80% -125% boundaries|adjusted gMean|79.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5542||90.0|74.62|84.86||p-value for ratio outside the interval 80%-125%|ANOVA||Inter-individual gCV = 49.9|adjusted geometric mean ratio NVP XR : NVP IR||84.86|74.62|0.5542
95734495|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.18||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||0.82|-0.46|0.581
95734496|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.0|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||3.00|1.18|< 0.001
95857461|NCT00684021|191673329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||3.9|-4.1|0.959
95857462|NCT00684021|191673330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||Clinical and Safety Outcomes including death, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure and ICD placement. The relative incidences of events are compared between the active and placebo groups.However the paucity of events precluded a reliable time to event analysis.||2.23|0.42|0.93
95857463|NCT00684021|191673331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.9|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||6.9|-12.2|0.585
95734497|NCT02863575|191440060|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||PID score at 8 hour||2.82|1.00|< 0.001
95734498|NCT02863575|191440061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.028
95734499|NCT02863575|191440061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
95734500|NCT02863575|191440061|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
95734501|NCT02863575|191440062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.861
95734502|NCT02863575|191440062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
95734503|NCT02863575|191440062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
95734504|NCT02863575|191440063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||0.838
95734505|NCT02863575|191440063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
95734506|NCT02863575|191440063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|P-value was calculated using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical pain severity terms.||||||<0.001
95734507|NCT01706926|191440069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.31|-1.06|<0.001
95734508|NCT01706926|191440069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
95734509|NCT01706926|191440069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.84|||Repeated measures model|||Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||-0.84|-1.60|<0.001
95734510|NCT01706926|191440070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|40.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||40.3|11.5|<0.001
95734511|NCT01706926|191440070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|50.5|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||50.5|22.5|<0.001
95734512|NCT01706926|191440070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|62.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||62.3|35.2|<0.001
95734513|NCT01706926|191440077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|28.2|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||28.2|3.9|0.013
95734514|NCT01706926|191440077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.3|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||25.3|1.8|0.030
95734515|NCT01706926|191440077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|41.1|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|||41.1|15.2|<0.001
95734516|NCT01706926|191440078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||16.9|0.4|0.079
95734517|NCT01706926|191440078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.9||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||14.6|-0.8|0.133
95734518|NCT01706926|191440078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response). p-value estimated from fisher's exact test.|||18.9|1.5|0.026
95734519|NCT01706926|191440079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|15.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|27.61|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||27.61|3.96|0.009
95734520|NCT01706926|191440079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|16.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.879||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|28.56|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.56|5.42|0.004
95734521|NCT01706926|191440079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|39.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||39.07|15.87|<0.001
95734522|NCT01706926|191440080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.8|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios greater than (\>) one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.80|2.56|<0.001
95734523|NCT01706926|191440080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.92|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|||8.92|2.64|<0.001
95795153|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.0|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.0|
95795154|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.7|5.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||5.4|-1.7|
95795155|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|4.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.4|-3.3|
95795156|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.1|1.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.6|-3.1|
95795157|NCT03183908|191560535|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.01 level to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
95734524|NCT01706926|191440080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|13.4|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor. Odds ratios \>one favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85. An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.||13.40|3.85|<0.001
95734525|NCT01706926|191440081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|26.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||26.1|6.0|0.004
95734526|NCT01706926|191440081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||22.1|3.3|0.014
95734527|NCT01706926|191440081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|23.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of placebo or active responders was less than 5.||23.9|4.2|0.007
95734528|NCT01706926|191440081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|36.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||36.6|12.7|<0.001
95734529|NCT01706926|191440081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.8|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||34.8|11.5|<0.001
95734530|NCT01706926|191440081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.6|||Regression, Logistic||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using a test of treatment difference in proportion of responders using logistic regression with treatment as a factor. Differences greater than zero favored mavrilimumab.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||45.6|20.7|<0.001
95734531|NCT01706926|191440082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-3.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.24|-8.12|<0.001
95734532|NCT01706926|191440082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-3.82|-8.60|<0.001
95795158|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||5.8|-1.1|
95734533|NCT01706926|191440082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.59|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||-4.59|-9.40|<0.001
95795159|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Chills/Shivering||2.0|-3.0|
95795160|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||1.8|-3.5|
95795161|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.0|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||7.0|-1.1|
95795162|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||-0.4|-3.0|
95795163|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Headache||2.4|-3.2|
95795164|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||4.5|-2.5|
95734534|NCT01706926|191440082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.922|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.45|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-3.45|-11.02|<0.001
95734535|NCT01706926|191440082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-4.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-4.74|-12.16|<0.001
95734536|NCT01706926|191440082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-6.67|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in tender joint count at Day 169.||-6.67|-14.17|<0.001
95734537|NCT01706926|191440083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-0.17|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.17|-15.72|0.045
95734538|NCT01706926|191440083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.48|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.48|-15.73|0.037
95734539|NCT01706926|191440083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.899||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.65|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-3.65|-19.00|0.004
95795165|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||4.3|-3.1|
95933772|NCT02299375|191829416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted median|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73|||||Data presented above are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals. The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapimod/placebo is \<1 assuming noninformative priors is 0.44.The estimated posterior probability that the true ratio losmapi|||1.73|0.63|
95933773|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.084||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.084|-0.031|0.371
95933774|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093||Analysis performed using a Mixed-effect Repeated Measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.093|-0.024|0.244
95933775|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.119||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.119|-0.000|0.050
95987689|NCT02873936|191949717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-8.2|0.003
95734540|NCT01706926|191440084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.137||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|7.29|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.29|-8.99|0.837
95734541|NCT01706926|191440084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.79|-10.18|0.589
95795166|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Nausea||1.3|-3.3|
95933776|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.058||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.058|-0.063|0.942
95933777|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.114||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.114|-0.014|0.127
95734542|NCT01706926|191440084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.083||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|2.55|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||2.55|-13.52|0.180
95734543|NCT01706926|191440085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.63|-2.20|<0.001
95734544|NCT01706926|191440085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
95734545|NCT01706926|191440085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.79|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.79|-2.33|<0.001
95734546|NCT01706926|191440086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.14|-0.29|0.479
95734547|NCT01706926|191440086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.04|-0.37|0.124
95734548|NCT01706926|191440086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||-0.05|-0.47|0.017
95734549|NCT01706926|191440087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.64||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.92|0.45|0.017
95734550|NCT01706926|191440087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.66|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.66|0.32|<0.001
95734551|NCT01706926|191440087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.63|0.31|<0.001
95734552|NCT01706926|191440088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.89|0.58|0.003
95734553|NCT01706926|191440088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.84|0.55|<0.001
95734554|NCT01706926|191440088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis. Ratio \<1 favored mavrilimumab.|||0.75|0.49|<0.001
95734555|NCT01706926|191440089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
95795167|NCT03183908|191560536|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Vomiting||1.8|-1.8|
95795168|NCT03183908|191560537|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.4|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Arthralgia||6.4|-7.2|
95795169|NCT03183908|191560537|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Diarrhea||-0.6|-8.1|
95734556|NCT01706926|191440089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.1|-2.9|1.000
95734557|NCT01706926|191440089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.8||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||9.2|-1.6|0.207
95734558|NCT01706926|191440090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||10.7|-0.8|0.210
95734559|NCT01706926|191440090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||6.9|-2.3|0.621
95734560|NCT01706926|191440090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||12.7|0.0|0.062
95734561|NCT01706926|191440091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.8|-0.4|0.245
95734562|NCT01706926|191440091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.5|-1.1|1.000
95734563|NCT01706926|191440091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.3||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) with treatment as a factor. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||3.7|-1.2|0.494
95734564|NCT01706926|191440092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||4.35|-1.99|0.463
95857464|NCT00684021|191673332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||8.2|-6.6|0.831
95933778|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.148|0.011|0.024
95734565|NCT01706926|191440092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.574||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|5.37|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||5.37|-0.83|0.151
95734566|NCT01706926|191440092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Differences \>0 favored mavrilimumab.|||7.02|0.81|0.014
95734567|NCT04934722|191440095|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.34|0.24|
95734568|NCT04934722|191440096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.01|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||6.01|0.30|
95734569|NCT04934722|191440097|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.63|0.50|
95734570|NCT04934722|191440099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|30.29|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||30.29|0.33|
95933779|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.174||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.174|-0.003|0.057
95734571|NCT04934722|191440100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.07|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||4.07|0.11|
95933780|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.191||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.191|-0.090|0.481
95734572|NCT04934722|191440101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.9|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.90|0.73|
95734573|NCT04934722|191440102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.34|||||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||7.34|0.42|
95734574|NCT04934722|191440103|OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.0|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.0|-12.6|
95734575|NCT04934722|191440104|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.7|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.7|-15.0|
95857465|NCT00684021|191673333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.0|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||7.0|-5.5|0.817
95933781|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.059||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 2|||0.059|-0.030|0.521
95727964|NCT02277769|191425554|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.70|-33.73|< 0.0001
95727965|NCT02277769|191425554|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.03|-22.74||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.74|-35.03|< 0.0001
95727966|NCT02277769|191425555|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-13.53||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.53|-21.96|< 0.0001
95727967|NCT02277769|191425555|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-10.78||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.78|-19.16|< 0.0001
95727968|NCT03529955|191425596|EQUIVALENCE|The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||||0.01||||||The investigators hypothesized that genes identified as significantly differentially expressed between the two groups will have ≥2-fold change at p\<0.01.|ANOVA|||The student t test (paired) and ANOVA analysis of variance were used to assess the mean change in CDASI, MMT-8, DLQI and to compare the positive cell detection on immunohistochemistry for CCL5, pSTAT1 and pSTAT3 at baseline and 3 months post apremilast. All p values were two-sided, and values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc.). The last observation carried forward approach was used for missing values.||||0.01
95727969|NCT04345471|191425644|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-2.5|0.509
95727970|NCT04345471|191425644|SUPERIORITY|To adjust for the multiplicity, only when the superiority of MD-120 50 mg to Placebo was verified, the superiority of MD-120 100 mg to Placebo was tested.|LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided. The value was based on the post-hoc analysis by not taking into account the multiplicity.|MMRM|||||0.4|-3.3|0.131
95727971|NCT04345471|191425646|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||1.2|-1.5|0.811
95727972|NCT04345471|191425646|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05, 2-sided.|MMRM|||||0.8|-1.9|0.424
95727973|NCT00420290|191425680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||0.031 is the upper level of significance|ANCOVA|||Using data from 128 CHD patients, CRP data were highly skewed, and data were log transformed to achieve normality. With 14 pts in each group (total of 28), it was predicted the minimum detectable difference between control and intervention would be 15% (1.22 for control group and 1.00 for the intervention group), with an 80% power and an alpha of 0.05 using t test approach. Thus, planned sample size was 30 to complete the study.||||0.008
95727974|NCT00420290|191425681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95727975|NCT00420290|191425682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95727976|NCT00420290|191425683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95727977|NCT00420290|191425684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95727978|NCT03586830|191425685|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-3.06|||Hochberg Approach|||||-3.06|-6.05|<.001
95727979|NCT03586830|191425685|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Hochberg Approach|||||-4.36|-7.34|<.001
95727980|NCT03586830|191425685|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.75|||Hochberg Approach|||||-5.75|-8.70|<.001
95727981|NCT04578548|191425689|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|2.64|||Random coefficient regression model|||Based on a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on htTKV log-transformed values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||2.64|-4.34|0.606
95727982|NCT04578548|191425691|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean difference|-2.31||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.02|||Random coefficient regression model|||Least-squares mean difference (95% CI) from a random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on eGFR values with time (in weeks) as a continuous variable, the time-by-treatment interaction and a random intercept and slope. The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||1.02|-5.64|0.171
95734576|NCT04934722|191440105|OTHER||Percent difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|27.1|||||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||27.1|-12.5|
95734577|NCT00723528|191440133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95734578|NCT00723528|191440134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sample t-test (using Holm's method)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95734579|NCT00723528|191440144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Fisher's exact test (using Holm's method)|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95734580|NCT00358449|191440154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.44|0.04|0.865
95734581|NCT00358449|191440154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.01|0.190
95734582|NCT00358449|191440157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.560|-0.303|0.551
95734583|NCT00358449|191440157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.593||95.0|-0.331|0.572|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.572|-0.331|0.593
95734584|NCT00358449|191440157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.901|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.901|-0.232|0.239
95734585|NCT00358449|191440157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|0.823|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.823|-0.401|0.488
95734586|NCT00358449|191440158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.833|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.833|-0.121|0.139
95734587|NCT00358449|191440158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.371||||0.145||95.0|-0.133|0.874|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.874|-0.133|0.145
95734588|NCT00358449|191440158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.946|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.946|-0.080|0.095
95734589|NCT00358449|191440158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.343||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.899|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.899|-0.214|0.219
95734590|NCT00358449|191440159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|16.65|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||16.65|-13.47|0.832
95857466|NCT00684021|191673334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.67|||Regression, Linear|||Day 3 Stem Cell Arm and Day 7 Stem Cell Arm were combined and compared to the combination of Day 3 Placebo and Day 7 Placebo arms.||3.67|-13.7|0.272
95734591|NCT00358449|191440159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|19.84|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||19.84|-12.01|0.622
95734592|NCT00358449|191440159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.83||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|35.52|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||35.52|-11.86|0.317
95734593|NCT00358449|191440159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|41.11|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||41.11|-10.91|0.246
95857467|NCT00684021|191673335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||1.2|-3.0|0.409
95734594|NCT00358449|191440160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.28||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|38.18|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||38.18|0.39|0.046
95734595|NCT00358449|191440160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|34.25|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||34.25|-5.83|0.160
95734596|NCT00358449|191440160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.69||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|37.48|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.48|-2.10|0.078
95734597|NCT00358449|191440160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|42.74|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||42.74|-0.51|0.055
95734598|NCT00358449|191440161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.873|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.873|-0.226|0.241
95734599|NCT00358449|191440161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.839|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.839|-0.320|0.371
95734600|NCT00358449|191440161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|1.023|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.023|-0.317|0.291
95734601|NCT00358449|191440161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|0.614|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.614|-0.965|0.653
95734602|NCT00358449|191440162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.06||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|32.13|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||32.13|-4.00|0.123
95734603|NCT00358449|191440162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|24.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||24.54|-13.29|0.551
95734604|NCT00358449|191440162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|37.7|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||37.70|-5.61|0.141
95933782|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.086||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 4|||0.086|-0.005|0.084
95734605|NCT00358449|191440162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.74|19.9|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||19.90|-30.74|0.666
95734606|NCT00358449|191440163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.4|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.400|-0.224|0.572
95734607|NCT00358449|191440163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.326|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.326|-0.350|0.942
95734608|NCT00358449|191440163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.197|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.197|-0.188|0.960
95734609|NCT00358449|191440163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.315|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.315|-0.105|0.317
95734610|NCT00358449|191440164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|4.12|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||4.12|-6.39|0.666
95734611|NCT00358449|191440164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.56|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.56|-7.87|0.450
95734612|NCT00358449|191440164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.81|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||2.81|-12.00|0.215
95734613|NCT00358449|191440164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|7.58|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||7.58|-8.61|0.898
95734614|NCT00358449|191440165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.294|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.294|-0.217|0.762
95857468|NCT00684021|191673335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|100.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|1000.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1000|15|0.02
95933783|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 8|||0.090|-0.025|0.266
95933784|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.042||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 12|||0.042|-0.066|0.665
95734615|NCT00358449|191440165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.108|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.108|-0.426|0.235
95734616|NCT00358449|191440165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.436|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.436|-0.259|0.607
95734617|NCT00358449|191440165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.443|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.443|-0.308|0.716
95734618|NCT00358449|191440166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.545|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.545|-0.365|0.691
95933785|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 18|||0.090|-0.043|0.489
95734619|NCT00358449|191440166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.317|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.317|-0.639|0.500
95734620|NCT00358449|191440166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.849|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.849|-0.474|0.568
95734621|NCT00358449|191440166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.794|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.794|-0.643|0.832
95734622|NCT00358449|191440167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.76|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.76|-3.45|0.515
95734623|NCT00358449|191440167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.54|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||3.54|-1.74|0.496
95734624|NCT00358449|191440167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.72|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||3.72|-5.82|0.657
95857469|NCT00684021|191673336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Stem cell treatment arm combined (Day 3 and Day7); placebo group also combined.||||2.9|-3.9|0.777
95933786|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 26|||0.170|0.028|0.007
95933787|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.148||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 39|||0.148|-0.039|0.248
95734625|NCT00358449|191440167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|4.09|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.09|-6.11|0.691
95734626|NCT00358449|191440168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.704|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.704|-0.105|0.142
95734627|NCT00358449|191440168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.798|-0.090|0.115
95734628|NCT00358449|191440168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.683|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.683|-0.319|0.465
95734629|NCT00358449|191440168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.66|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.660|-0.417|0.649
95734630|NCT00358449|191440169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.782|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.782|-0.042|0.077
95734631|NCT00358449|191440169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.809|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.809|-0.097|0.120
95734632|NCT00358449|191440169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.906|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.906|-0.326|0.345
95795170|NCT03183908|191560537|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.9|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fatigue||10.9|-3.6|
95795171|NCT03183908|191560537|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.6|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Fever||6.6|-2.4|
95795172|NCT03183908|191560537|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.2|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Malaise||12.2|2.0|
95795173|NCT03183908|191560537|NON_INFERIORITY|Site-stratified, 5% noninferiority test with a one-sided alpha at the 0.025 level.|Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.3|||||The upper bound of a stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Myalgia||7.3|-7.3|
95795174|NCT03183908|191560538|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5862
95795175|NCT03183908|191560538|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5648
95795176|NCT03183908|191560538|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4196
95795177|NCT03183908|191560538|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.2418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2418
95795178|NCT03183908|191560538|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0746|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0746
95795179|NCT03183908|191560538|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5497
95795180|NCT03183908|191560539|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6278
95795181|NCT03183908|191560539|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5622
95795182|NCT03183908|191560539|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.5538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.5538
95795183|NCT03183908|191560539|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.2310
95795184|NCT03183908|191560539|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0435|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.0435
95734633|NCT00358449|191440169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.798|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||0.798|-0.541|0.700
95734634|NCT00358449|191440170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|5.22|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||5.22|-8.79|0.609
95734635|NCT00358449|191440170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|7.38|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||7.38|-8.55|0.882
95734636|NCT00358449|191440170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.47|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||4.47|-7.68|0.595
95734637|NCT00358449|191440170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|6.44|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||6.44|-7.34|0.895
95734638|NCT00358449|191440171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.513||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|1.055|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||1.055|-0.028|0.062
95734639|NCT00358449|191440171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.852|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||0.852|-0.369|0.425
95734640|NCT00358449|191440171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|1.516|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.516|-0.096|0.082
95734641|NCT00358449|191440171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|1.132|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||1.132|-0.631|0.564
95734642|NCT00358449|191440172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|26.67|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 9-12.|||26.67|-7.77|0.270
95734643|NCT00358449|191440172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|23.36|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||23.36|-15.11|0.664
95734644|NCT00358449|191440172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.81|34.94|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||34.94|-13.81|0.381
95734645|NCT00358449|191440172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|31.86|||ANCOVA||P-value, 95% CI, and estimated value are presented for Weeks 21-24.|||31.86|-20.87|0.672
95734646|NCT00358449|191440173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.400
95734647|NCT00358449|191440173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.111
95734648|NCT00358449|191440174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|34.4|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||34.4|-71.1|0.421
95734649|NCT00358449|191440174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|40.5|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 12|||40.5|-44.6|0.633
95734650|NCT00358449|191440174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|45.7|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||45.7|-76.3|0.920
95734651|NCT00358449|191440174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|11.6|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for Change from Baseline at Week 24|||11.6|-79.2|0.105
95734652|NCT00358449|191440175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|15.41|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||15.41|-20.68|0.747
95734653|NCT00358449|191440175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.41|11.01|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 12|||11.01|-24.41|0.352
95734654|NCT00358449|191440175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|11.2|||van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline values at Week 24|||11.20|-29.69|0.525
95734655|NCT00358449|191440175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.79||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.21|-0.38|||Van Elteren test||P-value, 95% CI, and Estimated value are presented for change from baseline at week 24|||-0.38|-35.21|0.071
95734656|NCT04000815|191440186|OTHER||||||<|0.017||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.017
95734657|NCT04000815|191440187|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analysis|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and FSH and between serum CNP and LH using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
95734658|NCT04000815|191440188|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation|Spearman test was applied.||||||<0.05
95734659|NCT04000815|191440189|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Bi-variate correlation analyses|Bi-variate correlation analyses were performed for all subjects in groups 1 and 2 between serum CNP and E2 using Spearman test.||||||<0.05
95734660|NCT03988803|191440190|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.14|103.14|||ANOVA||Standard error of the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.14|87.14|
95795185|NCT03183908|191560539|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.6519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.6519
95734661|NCT03988803|191440191|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R1)|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|108.18|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||108.18|91.22|
95734662|NCT03988803|191440192|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|103.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.99|107.52|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||107.52|99.99|
95795186|NCT03183908|191560540|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Limitation Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
95933788|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV1 post-dose, Week 52|||0.172|-0.087|0.506
95933789|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.134||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 2|||0.134|-0.032|0.223
95933790|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.129||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 4|||0.129|-0.037|0.276
95933791|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.173||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 8|||0.173|-0.023|0.131
95933792|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.09||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 12|||0.090|-0.084|0.949
95933793|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.163||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 18|||0.163|-0.044|0.259
95933794|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 26|||0.172|-0.027|0.152
95933795|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.114||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.241||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 39|||0.241|-0.012|0.076
95795187|NCT03183908|191560540|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Daily Activities Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7483
95933796|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.381||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 pre-dose, Week 52|||0.381|-0.038|0.107
95933797|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.097||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 2|||0.097|-0.046|0.484
95933798|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 4|||0.100|-0.027|0.256
95933799|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.128||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 8|||0.128|-0.025|0.184
95933800|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.074||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 12|||0.074|-0.077|0.970
95734663|NCT03988803|191440193|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (T/R2)|107.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.66|112.45|||ANOVA||Standard error fo the mean is the geometric coefficient of variation|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That was, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model used included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects and treatment. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||112.45|102.66|
95734664|NCT01391793|191440220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.16
95734665|NCT01391793|191440221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Test of equality - 2 Poisson parameters|The method used is a conditional test.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the proportion of children with severe renal scarring at the outcome DMSA renal scan.||||0.25
95734666|NCT01391793|191440222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for the stratification variable, duration of fever, and for age at baseline (\<24 months, \>=24 months).||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment arms regarding the mean proportion of children with renal scarring at the outcome DMSA scan taken across the 3 radiologists.||||0.07
95734667|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Month 3|Results based on Mixed-Effect Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
95734668|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|0.1|
95734669|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
95734670|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
95734671|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
95734672|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|
95734673|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
95734674|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
95734675|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
95734676|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|
95734677|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
95734678|NCT04638153|191440232|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.4|
95734679|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.2|-0.5|
95734680|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|0.2|
95795188|NCT03183908|191560540|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Mobility Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4953
95734681|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Month 3|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.5|
95795189|NCT03183908|191560540|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participation Restriction Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8669
95987690|NCT02873936|191949718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.1|-11.1|<0.001
95987691|NCT02873936|191949718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-8.9|<0.001
95987692|NCT02873936|191949718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.5|-13.8|<0.001
95987693|NCT02873936|191949718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.5|-11.8|<0.001
95987694|NCT02873936|191949718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
95987695|NCT02873936|191949718|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
95734682|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.6|
95857470|NCT01208207|191673343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (90 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the least squares (LS) mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.47|
95734683|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.9|-0.4|
95987696|NCT02873936|191949720|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.1|<0.001
95987697|NCT02873936|191949720|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|0.6|0.005
95987698|NCT02873936|191949720|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.9|1.9|<0.001
95734684|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||Month 6|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-2.3|
95734685|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.8|
95734686|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-0.2|
95734687|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||||Month 9|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.5|
95734688|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.5|-1.3|
95734689|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.8|-1.4|
95734690|NCT04638153|191440242|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Month 12|Results based on MMRM analysis with gender as a covariate, participant (and/or time) as a random effect; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, age and gender as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-2.6|
95734691|NCT00105196|191440265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.44|-2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size for the study was based on the primary outcome measure. The study was powered at 90% to detect a treatment difference between adjunctive aripiprazole and adjunctive placebo of 3.75, assuming a standard deviation of 10.5 and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. The null-hypothesis was the lack of a treatment difference.||-2.02|-5.44|<0.001
95734692|NCT00105196|191440266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.075||95.0|-0.88|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||To protect the overall (primary and key secondary efficacy analysis) alpha level of 0.05, for this key secondary endpoint a hierarchical testing procedure was followed such that formal testing would take place conditional on the primary efficacy analysis showing a statistically significant difference.||0.04|-0.88|0.075
95734693|NCT00105196|191440267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.052||95.0|-1.06|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.06|0.052
95734694|NCT00105196|191440268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.037||95.0|-1.1|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.037
95734695|NCT00105196|191440269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.792||95.0|-0.67|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
95734696|NCT00105196|191440270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.31|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.32|1.31|<0.001
95734697|NCT00105196|191440271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response|1.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.17|1.74||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA||aripiprazole/placebo|||1.74|1.17|<0.001
95734698|NCT00105196|191440272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission|1.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was implemented for this secondary endpoint.|CMH General Association Test||aripiprazole/placebo|||2.80|1.36|<0.001
95734699|NCT03553823|191440273|SUPERIORITY||Difference secukinumab vs guselkumab|20.0||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|50.3|||Fisher Exact|The statistical model was the Fisher's exact test for the difference in proportions.||"Proportion of subjects whose plaque achieves clear or almost clear status (TCS = 0-2)"||50.3|-13.3|0.1715
95734700|NCT01389102|191440274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95734701|NCT01389102|191440274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
95734702|NCT01389102|191440274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
95734703|NCT01389102|191440275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95734704|NCT01389102|191440275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0406
95734705|NCT01389102|191440275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95734706|NCT02728102|191440350|SUPERIORITY||difference in the proportions|2.9||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|14.6||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 is used to assess whether the vaccine appears promising relative to control.|Z test|||The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be described in the vaccine and no vaccine groups with 80% confidence intervals and compared between groups using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.||14.6|-8.8|0.3657
95795190|NCT03183908|191560540|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.8451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.8451
95795191|NCT03183908|191560540|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Instrumental Roles Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7376
95795192|NCT03183908|191560541|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7407|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7407
95795193|NCT03183908|191560542|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4032
95795194|NCT03183908|191560543|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.4079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||US Index Score Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.4079
95795195|NCT03183908|191560544|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.01 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes for Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7948
95734707|NCT02728102|191440350|EQUIVALENCE|The stratified odds ratio is estimated with 80% confidence intervals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|2.03||P-value is provided by Breslow-Day Test for Homogeneity of the Odds Ratios.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio estimate is for the Stratification. Stratum 1 is sCR/CR at Randomization. Stratum 2 is VGPR/PR/Stable Response at Randomization.|A secondary analysis stratified on disease response prior to randomization between arms will be conducted using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, and a stratified odds ratio along with 80% confidence intervals will be estimated.||2.03|0.70|0.7461
95933801|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 18|||0.120|-0.070|0.608
95933802|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.175||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 26|||0.175|-0.007|0.071
95933803|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.141||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 39|||0.141|-0.085|0.622
95933804|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.291||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FEV6 post-dose, Week 52|||0.291|-0.086|0.277
95933805|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.15||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 2|||0.150|-0.038|0.241
95987699|NCT02873936|191949720|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.2|1.1|0.002
95734708|NCT02728102|191440350|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|7.2||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.4|20.6|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR/sCR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year post transplant.||20.6|-6.4|0.2429
95795196|NCT03183908|191560545|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. Alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.7953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.7953
95795197|NCT03183908|191560546|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric testing was used to evaluate the changes from baseline to compare between groups. A two-sided alpha level set at 0.05 with no adjustments set for multiple comparisons.||||||0.9329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EQ VAS Changes from Day 1 to Day 3 Group Comparisons||||0.9329
95933806|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.14|||MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 4|||0.140|-0.049|0.348
95933807|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.169||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 8|||0.169|-0.024|0.138
95933808|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.087||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 12|||0.087|-0.111|0.813
95933809|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.177||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 18|||0.177|-0.032|0.172
95933810|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 26|||0.180|-0.045|0.242
95933811|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.228||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 39|||0.228|-0.063|0.267
95933812|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.309||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Pre-dose, Week 52|||0.309|-0.143|0.471
95933813|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.132||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 2|||0.132|-0.043|0.315
95987700|NCT02873936|191949722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|0.4|0.019
95857471|NCT01208207|191673344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The etoricoxib dose (60 mg) will be considered non-inferior to naproxen 1000 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in the LS mean (etoricoxib minus naproxen 1000 mg) is no larger than 8 mm VAS (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.37|||ANCOVA|||||5.37|-2.19|
95987701|NCT02873936|191949722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.6|-0.2|0.073
95987702|NCT02873936|191949722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|0.0|0.045
95987703|NCT02873936|191949722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.0|-1.0|0.32
95987704|NCT02873936|191949722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.2|-0.5|0.12
95987705|NCT02873936|191949722|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.4|-2.3|0.96
95857472|NCT01208207|191673345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.58||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.96|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-3.96|0.396
95987706|NCT02873936|191949724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.7|1.6|<0.001
95987707|NCT02873936|191949724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.4|1.2|0.002
95987708|NCT02873936|191949724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||7.1|2.1|<0.001
95857473|NCT01208207|191673346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.7||||0.112||80.0|-4.88|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-4.88|0.112
95987709|NCT02873936|191949724|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.7|-0.5|0.11
95857474|NCT03096288|191673349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|52.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||52|-9|0.169
95987710|NCT02873936|191949727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||11.0|2.0|0.009
95734709|NCT02728102|191440350|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of patients alive and in CR/sCR at 1 year post transplant will be compared in the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm with 80% confidence intervals using a two-sample Z test comparing binomial proportions.|difference in the proportions|-1.6||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.6|12.4|||Z test|||A secondary pairwise analysis of CR rates comparing the vaccine arm to Lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year post transplant.||12.4|-15.6|0.4397
95734710|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.9376
95933814|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.126||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 4|||0.126|-0.018|0.143
95933815|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.16||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 8|||0.160|-0.017|0.111
95933816|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 12|||0.100|-0.075|0.783
95933817|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.167||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 18|||0.167|-0.049|0.283
95933818|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.267||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 26|||0.267|0.008|0.038
95933819|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.18||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 39|||0.180|-0.083|0.467
95933820|NCT02299375|191829419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.222||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||FVC Post-dose, Week 52|||0.222|-0.138|0.640
95933821|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 2|||3.27|-2.08|0.661
95933822|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|5.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 6|||5.12|-0.24|0.074
95933823|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.46||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 8|||6.46|-1.43|0.210
95857475|NCT03096288|191673349|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||45|-11|0.236
95933824|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 12|||3.12|-3.40|0.933
95933825|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|5.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 18|||5.82|-0.43|0.091
95933826|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.56||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 26|||8.56|0.82|0.018
95933827|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 39|||7.29|-0.69|0.103
95857476|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA. Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
95933828|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.82||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FVC, Week 52|||7.82|-3.50|0.448
95933829|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.77||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 2|||3.77|-0.27|0.089
95933830|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 4|||3.84|-0.31|0.095
95933831|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.58||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 8|||4.58|-0.20|0.073
95933832|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.51||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 12|||2.51|-2.08|0.853
95933833|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.17||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 18|||4.17|-1.43|0.334
95933834|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.05||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 26|||6.05|0.61|0.017
95933835|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|6.59||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 39|||6.59|-0.34|0.077
95933836|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.38||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV1, Week 52|||7.38|-2.70|0.355
95933837|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|5.55||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 2|||5.55|0.08|0.044
95933838|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.49||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 4|||5.49|0.25|0.032
95933839|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.01||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 8|||7.01|0.49|0.025
95933840|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.29||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 12|||3.29|-2.50|0.785
95933841|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|6.7||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 18|||6.70|-0.03|0.052
95933842|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 26|||6.92|0.14|0.041
95933843|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.25||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 39|||8.25|0.13|0.043
95734711|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4887||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.4887
95933844|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|11.92||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||PP FEV6, Week 52|||11.92|-6.58|0.562
95933845|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||1.52|-1.09|0.746
95933846|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||1.79|-1.53|0.878
95987711|NCT02873936|191949727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|3.0|0.003
95734712|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5176
95734713|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.2461
95734714|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2530
95987712|NCT02873936|191949727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||13.0|3.0|0.003
95987713|NCT02873936|191949727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||12.0|2.0|0.006
95987714|NCT02873936|191949727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||15.0|3.0|0.002
95987715|NCT02873936|191949727|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit (as categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||14.0|2.0|0.007
95734715|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.2213
95734716|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.4930
95734717|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6591||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 1 year Post Transplant.||||0.6591
95734718|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.6790
95734719|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3124||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.3124
95734720|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.7379
95734721|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2379||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In this pairwise analysis, the proportion of participants alive and with sCR/CR/VGPR will be compared between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm at 2 years Post Transplant.||||0.2379
95734722|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5353||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 6 months Post Transplant.||||0.5353
95795198|NCT00148798|191560556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (Stage IIIb vs IV, ECOG 0/1 vs 2) (α=5%).||||0.0441
95987716|NCT01505634|191949738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Difference (Diff) in Favorable MR||3.2|-11.2|0.005
95987717|NCT01505634|191949738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI was not lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Percent Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Favorable MR||5.9|-6.4|< 0.001
95734723|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4417||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 12 months Post Transplant.||||0.4417
95734724|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine and the combined non-vaccine arms at 24 months Post Transplant.||||0.9450
95734725|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1599||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1599
95933847|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.85||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.85|-1.15|0.644
95933848|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.28||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.28|-1.86|0.715
95933849|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.1||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||2.10|-1.62|0.803
95933850|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.27||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||3.27|-0.63|0.184
95933851|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.52||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||4.52|-0.42|0.102
95933852|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.73||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Pre-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.73|-1.85|0.383
95933853|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.06||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 2|||2.06|-1.20|0.607
95933854|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.08||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 4|||2.08|-0.74|0.348
95933855|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.65||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 8|||1.65|-1.32|0.826
95933856|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.21||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 12|||1.21|-2.13|0.588
95933857|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.91||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 18|||1.91|-1.08|0.585
95987718|NCT01505634|191949739|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
95734726|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8984||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.8984
95795199|NCT00148798|191560557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stratified Log Rank|||To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%).||||0.3869
95987719|NCT01505634|191949739|OTHER|ECI #1 is a confirmed elevated AST or ALT ≥5X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|1.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #1||5.5|-2.7|0.315
95987720|NCT01505634|191949740|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 250 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
95987721|NCT01505634|191949740|OTHER|Event of Clinical Interest (ECI) #2 is elevated AST or ALT ≥3X ULN, elevated total bilirubin ≥2X ULN, and with an ALP \<2X ULN. Inferential testing for statistical significance with p-values and 95% confidence intervals was performed to provide a comparison between the relebactam 125 mg + imipenem/cilastatin group versus the Placebo for relebactam + imipenem/cilastatin group.|Percent Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8||No participants met the criteria for ECI #2.|Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with ECI #2||3.8|-3.7|> 0.999
95987722|NCT01505634|191949741|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-14.3|10.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||10.9|-14.3|
95987723|NCT01505634|191949741|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs||12.0|-13.4|
95987724|NCT01505634|191949742|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||5.9|-5.8|
95734727|NCT02728102|191440351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||A pairwise analysis of proportion of participants achieving CR among the subset of participants who are not in CR at the time of randomization between lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm is conducted at 1 year post transplant.||||0.1757
95734728|NCT02728102|191440352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.161
95734729|NCT02728102|191440353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.116
95734730|NCT02728102|191440353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
95734731|NCT02728102|191440353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Myeloma Progression between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
95734732|NCT02728102|191440355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.168
95857477|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.44|15.98|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||15.98|5.44|0.0873
95734733|NCT02728102|191440356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.120
95857478|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.87|8.74|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||8.74|-0.87|0.4912
95857479|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.5|16.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||16.62|5.50|0.0942
95857480|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.96|12.66|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||12.66|1.96|0.2499
95987725|NCT01505634|191949742|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with SAEs||2.8|-7.6|
95987726|NCT01505634|191949743|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||9.8|-7.5|
95987727|NCT01505634|191949743|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|8.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR AEs||8.6|-8.4|
95987728|NCT01505634|191949744|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||4.6|-4.5|
95987729|NCT01505634|191949744|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with DR SAEs||2.8|-5.5|
95734734|NCT02728102|191440356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.519
95734735|NCT02728102|191440356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Progression-Free Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.387
95734736|NCT02728102|191440357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.563
95734737|NCT02728102|191440358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.308
95734738|NCT02728102|191440358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.990
95734739|NCT02728102|191440358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of overall Survival between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.303
95857481|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|19.45|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||19.45|7.49|0.0580
95857482|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.075|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.66|18.59|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||18.59|6.66|0.0750
95987730|NCT01505634|191949745|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||6.8|-4.4|
95734740|NCT02728102|191440360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients With Grade ≥ 3 Toxicities between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.189
95734741|NCT02728102|191440362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms.||||0.82
95734742|NCT02728102|191440363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm.||||0.21
95734743|NCT02728102|191440363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the vaccine arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.40
95795200|NCT00148798|191560558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.0101
95795201|NCT00148798|191560559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The disease control rate was compared in the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (two-sided with α=5%).||||0.6801
95795202|NCT00091819|191560575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-4.8|6.8||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||6.8|-4.8|
95795203|NCT04810962|191560576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795204|NCT04810962|191560577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795205|NCT04810962|191560579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795206|NCT04810962|191560580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795207|NCT04810962|191560581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795208|NCT04810962|191560582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795209|NCT04810962|191560583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795210|NCT04810962|191560584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795211|NCT04810962|191560585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795212|NCT04810962|191560586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95795213|NCT04810962|191560587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.0|-1.4|<0.001
95795214|NCT04810962|191560588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
95795215|NCT04810962|191560589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
95795216|NCT04810962|191560590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
95987731|NCT01505634|191949745|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to AEs||3.7|-6.1|
95734744|NCT02728102|191440363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Participants with Grade 2 and 3 infections between the lenalidomide/GM-CSF arm and lenalidomide alone arm.||||0.08
95734745|NCT02728102|191440364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of proportions of patients without Minimal Residual Disease between vaccine vs. non- vaccine arms||||0.80
95734746|NCT00813293|191440375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming the two trial arms were independent, the standard deviation was 0.5cm for both arms and a sample size of 16 evaluable patients (8 per arm), the study had an 84% power at a 5% (two-sided) significance level to detect 0.8cm difference in ablation zone size. In order to allow a 20% drop-out rate, a total of 20 subjects were accrued.||||.794
95933858|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|10.12||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 26|||10.12|-2.48|0.231
95933859|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|3.89||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 39|||3.89|-0.99|0.240
95933860|NCT02299375|191829420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.84||Analysis performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment and Baseline by visit interactions. Toeplitz structure was used.|MMRM||Post-dose FEV1/FVC, Week 52|||4.84|-2.49|0.517
95933861|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.85||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 12|||2.85|-4.20|0.706
95933862|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 26|||5.36|-3.58|0.694
95933863|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.83||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|3.58||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 39|||3.58|-9.23|0.382
95933864|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|7.57||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Total, Week 52|||7.57|-8.54|0.903
95933865|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.99||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 12|||2.99|-6.33|0.481
95933866|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.25||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 26|||6.25|-4.79|0.793
95933867|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.26||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 39|||5.26|-12.45|0.421
95734747|NCT02794974|191440380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
95857483|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|16.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.14|23.19|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||23.19|10.14|0.0316
95734748|NCT02794974|191440381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95734749|NCT02794974|191440382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|4.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|32.2|||Odds Ratio|||||32.2|0.63|0.209
95734750|NCT02794974|191440383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|12.77|||Odds Ratio|||||12.77|0.49|0.44
95734751|NCT02794974|191440384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio|1.88||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.45|||Odds Ratio|||||9.45|0.37|0.695
95734752|NCT00454909|191440386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|19.18||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup A (hSBA-MenA) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||19.18|3.87|
95734753|NCT00454909|191440386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.4||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup C (hSBA-MenC) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||0.40|-5.08|
95734754|NCT00454909|191440386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|22.71||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 (hSBA-MenW -135) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||22.71|8.24|
95933868|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.98||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|3.4||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Symptoms, Week 52|||3.40|-19.35|0.162
95734755|NCT00454909|191440386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|20.1||||||Evaluation of the immunogenicity induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine as compared to Menactra® vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal assay using human complement against N. meningitidis serogroup Y (hSBA-MenY) antibody titers ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination.||20.10|7.90|
95734756|NCT02996682|191440404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95734757|NCT02996682|191440404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of each treatment group over pre-specified rate of 1%.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||A sample size of 50 participants in each treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect at least 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95734758|NCT03506386|191440415|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical differences among eligible performed, eligible not performed and not eligible participants were estimated by Log Rank test.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95795217|NCT04810962|191560591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.10|<0.001
95933869|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.78||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 12|||5.78|-3.31|0.592
95933870|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|6.36||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 26|||6.36|-4.31|0.704
95933871|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|5.5||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 39|||5.50|-10.32|0.546
95933872|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.84||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Activity, Week 52|||13.84|-5.06|0.350
95933873|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|2.37||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 12|||2.37|-5.75|0.411
95933874|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.97||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 26|||4.97|-5.67|0.896
95933875|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|5.3||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 39|||5.30|-9.73|0.559
95933876|NCT02299375|191829427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|9.6||Analysis was performed using a mixed-effects repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, smoking status at Screening, ICS use, region, Baseline, visit, treatment by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis||SGRQ Impact, Week 52|||9.60|-12.19|0.809
95933877|NCT02515305|191829464|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|104.7||No p-value calculated, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval for the bioequivalence analysis|Fieller's method|||||104.7|94.6|
95933878|NCT02515305|191829465|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|109.3|||Fieller's method|||||109.3|96|
95933879|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
95933880|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
95933881|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|0.6546|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<0.6546
95933882|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|0.7051|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.7051
95933883|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|0.2262|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<0.2262
95734759|NCT01546545|191440426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was the first pilot and feasibility study. This data will be used to power future studies.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95795218|NCT04810962|191560592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.05|-0.11|<0.001
95734760|NCT01546545|191440427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation was performed. This was a pilot and feasibility study.||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95795219|NCT04810962|191560593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95987732|NCT01505634|191949746|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||6.2|-3.6|
95987733|NCT01505634|191949746|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with Discons Due to DR AEs||4.6|-4.5|
95987734|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||7.8|-5.5|
95734761|NCT00986245|191440429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The UPDRS-part3 was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
95734762|NCT00986245|191440430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||The Hoehn and Yahr stage was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.05
95734763|NCT00986245|191440431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Overall quality of sleep was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
95734764|NCT00986245|191440432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Nocturnal off-symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
95734765|NCT00986245|191440433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05||||||80% power|Sign test|||"The Early morning off symptoms was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
95734766|NCT00986245|191440434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||"The Epworth sleep scale was compared between the Once-daily of Ropinirole PR arm and the Twice-daily of Ropinirole PR using the Wilcoxon signed rank test."||||<0.05
95734767|NCT00986245|191440435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.05|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.05
95734768|NCT01214850|191440442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.737|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of virulent ST strain of N. meningitidis group B in 4CMenB group as compared to the control group at 1 month after receiving the 2nd rMenB+OMV NZ vaccination||1.737|0.809|0.3828
95734769|NCT01214850|191440443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||Vaccine Group Odds Ratios for carriage of combined N. meningitidis serogroups A, C, W, Y in the MenACWY-CRM group compared to Control group at 1 month after receiving 1 injection of MenACWY vaccine||1.273|0.555|
95734770|NCT03221374|191440514|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model to test the overall BCI learning between MBSR and control groups||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95734771|NCT03221374|191440514|EQUIVALENCE|This independent t-test will test if the two groups (MBSR, control) exhibit a statistically significant difference in terms of BCI performance from baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between BCI performance improvement in MBSR cohort and control cohort.|||||0.024
95734772|NCT03221374|191440515|EQUIVALENCE|This WRS test will determine if the MBSR group breath counting accuracy was significantly greater than the postintervention levels of controls.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95734773|NCT03221374|191440516|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the FMI scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95734774|NCT03221374|191440516|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the MAAS scores of the two groups have equal medians.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95734775|NCT03221374|191440516|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the FMI score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||significant if p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95734776|NCT03221374|191440516|OTHER|This statistical test is about the correlation between baseline up-down BCI performance and the MAAS score. A linear regression model is used to test if the slope is non-zero.|correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95734777|NCT02567968|191440517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
95734778|NCT03693430|191440537|SUPERIORITY|Week 104 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Missing observations were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved subjects of the same randomised treatment arm.|Treatment difference|-12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-9.77|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.77|-15.33|<.0001
95795220|NCT05911841|191560606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-30.6|
95795221|NCT05911841|191560606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-19.4|
95987735|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Diarrhoea||3.6|-8.1|
95987736|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||6.5|-6.4|
95987737|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Nausea||9.2|-4.6|
95987738|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||1.9|-9.0|
95987739|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Bacteriuria||3.6|-8.1|
95734779|NCT03693430|191440537|SUPERIORITY|All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in a mixed model for repeated measurements with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.|Treatment difference|-16.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|-13.45|||MMRM (Mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-13.45|-18.64|<0.0001
95987740|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
95987741|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: White blood cells urine positive||1.9|-9.0|
95734780|NCT03693430|191440538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||8.42|2.95|<0.0001
95734781|NCT03693430|191440538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|32.49|||MMRM|||Hypothetical estimand||32.49|10.04|<0.0001
95734782|NCT01918800|191440580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for clinical significance was 7 point improvement.|paired t test|||||||.64
95734783|NCT01918800|191440581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|paired t test|||||||0.04
95734784|NCT01918800|191440582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Paired t test|||||||0.35
95734785|NCT01918800|191440583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The p value in this case is for the SF-36 Physical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95734786|NCT01918800|191440583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The p value in this case refers to the SF-36 Mental||||.09
95734787|NCT01918800|191440584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||This p value applies to the RAPA Cardiovascular|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
95734788|NCT01918800|191440584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This p values is for the RAPA Strength||||0.4199
95734789|NCT01918800|191440584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
95734790|NCT01918800|191440585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95734791|NCT01918800|191440586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95734792|NCT03018249|191440587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95734793|NCT03018249|191440588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|30.0||||||||30|-25|
95987742|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||10.4|-3.7|
95734794|NCT03018249|191440589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.3||||||||45.3|-16.7|
95734795|NCT01706536|191440604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04055||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|0.1966|||Least squares mean (SE)|In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used.||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.1966|0.0369|0.0043
95734796|NCT01706536|191440604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04089||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0479|0.2089||In order to control for Type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2089|0.0479|0.0019
95734797|NCT01706536|191440604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04037||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0667|0.2257||in order to control for Type 1 error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2257|0.0667|0.0004
95795222|NCT05911841|191560606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.7||||||||1.7|-31.6|
95987743|NCT01505634|191949747|OTHER|Difference in percentage and 95% CI are based on unconditional and asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Percent Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Percent Diff in Participants with AEs with Rate ≥4: Headache||5.1|-7.2|
95987744|NCT00960843|191949754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was no difference between arms. Original power calculation specified 24 per group and this was achieved under initial randomization. However, due to failure to follow protocol specified adjustment criteria, pressure and weight data from one site had to be excluded.||||0.0520
95987745|NCT00960843|191949755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0225
95987746|NCT00960843|191949756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
95987747|NCT01890642|191949767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95987748|NCT01890642|191949768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
95987749|NCT01890642|191949769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95987750|NCT01890642|191949770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
95987751|NCT01890642|191949771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.37
95987752|NCT01967537|191949809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.23
95987753|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.84|0.39|
95987754|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.01|0.54|
95987755|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.11|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.11|0.50|
95987756|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.38|
95987757|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.37|
95987758|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.52|
95734798|NCT01706536|191440604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2548||in order to control for type I error rate, a gate keeping methodology was used|Least squares mean (SE)|||A sample size of 45 subjects per treatment arm provides approximately 80% power to detect a 0.12 L treatment difference in mean change in trough FEV1 between an active arm and the placebo arm at a significance level of 0.05 using a 2-group t-test and assumes a standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 200. Assuming a 20% discontinuation rate, approximately 55 subjects were enrolled into each treatment arm.||0.2548|0.0992|<0.0001
95734799|NCT01523899|191440620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson chi squared, Fisher exact, 2 sample t-tests||||||||
95734800|NCT01523899|191440621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95734801|NCT01054599|191440623|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95987759|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.95|0.46|
95734802|NCT01054599|191440626|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
95734803|NCT00743197|191440628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|0|Other|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||0||||0||||
95734804|NCT06358820|191440658|SUPERIORITY|\>0.15 g/dL change in albumin from baseline to month 6 was anticipated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|4.39||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|Outcome Measure were assessed at baseline and every month during the 6-month study.||4.39|3.15|<0.0125
95734805|NCT06358820|191440659|SUPERIORITY|\>60 mg/L change in prealbumin from baseline to month 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.77||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|56.87||A 2-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. However, the significance level (α) was adjusted to 0.0125 to account for multiple testing.|ANOVA||The main analysis was based on LOCF for missing value.|||56.87|26.66|0.0125
95734806|NCT01124175|191440675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.84|123.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.06|101.84|
95795223|NCT05911841|191560607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.7||||||||8.7|-17.6|
95795224|NCT05911841|191560607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|15.1||||||||15.1|-12.3|
95795225|NCT05911841|191560607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.9||||||||1.9|-21.8|
95987760|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.25|0.45|
95857484|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||19.53|6.90|0.0783
95857485|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||27.96|12.58|0.0266
95933884|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Hematologic 3+ vs Hematologic \<3||||<1
95933885|NCT03087708|191829468|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Non-Hematologic 3+ vs Non-Hematologic \<3||||<1
95933886|NCT03087708|191829472|OTHER||||||<|0.68182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.68182
95933887|NCT03087708|191829472|OTHER||||||<|0.1091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.1091
95933888|NCT03087708|191829473|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<1.0
95933889|NCT03087708|191829473|OTHER||||||<|0.3339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3339
95933890|NCT03087708|191829474|OTHER||||||<|0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.5930
95933891|NCT03087708|191829474|OTHER||||||<|0.3105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.3105
95933892|NCT03087708|191829475|OTHER|||||||0.6024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||0.6024
95933893|NCT03087708|191829475|OTHER||||||<|0.3116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at Baseline||||<0.3116
95857486|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.9|19.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||19.53|6.90|0.0783
95933894|NCT03087708|191829475|OTHER||||||<|0.7712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<0.7712
95933895|NCT03087708|191829475|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average Pain Scores at 6 Months||||<1.0
95933896|NCT03087708|191829476|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<1.0000
95933897|NCT03087708|191829476|OTHER||||||<|0.5758|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic Use at 6 Months||||<0.5758
95933898|NCT03087708|191829476|OTHER||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||<1.0000
95933899|NCT03087708|191829476|OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analgesic use at Baseline||||0.5930
95933900|NCT03671811|191829481|SUPERIORITY|The planned sample size was 36 evaluable participants, with 18 per treatment arm. Based on a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05, the study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a difference of at least 10 percentage points in the mean reduction of Ki-67 between arms, assuming a standard deviation of 10%. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.9
95933901|NCT03671811|191829486|SUPERIORITY|This was a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6
95933902|NCT03671811|191829487|SUPERIORITY|This was a one-sided t-test at α = 0.05. The difference was expected to favor the Pterostilbene + Megestrol Acetate arm.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2
95933903|NCT05332340|191829559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.683
95933904|NCT04732494|191829589|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint ORR was tested at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||25.3|-5.4|0.2114
95987761|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.02|0.54|
95933905|NCT04732494|191829590|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.45|0.58|
95933906|NCT04732494|191829591|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||22.5|-9.2|
95933907|NCT04732494|191829592|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.59|0.64|
95933908|NCT04732494|191829593|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and the number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|||1.61|0.71|
95933909|NCT04732494|191829596|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|19.9|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Investigator||19.9|-14.4|
95933910|NCT04732494|191829596|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|21.8|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Disease Control Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.8|-11.7|
95734807|NCT01124175|191440676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.61|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|103.61|
95734808|NCT01124175|191440677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.32|108.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.07|103.32|
95734809|NCT01124175|191440678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|110.93|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.93|101.22|
95734810|NCT01124175|191440679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.9|105.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.28|100.90|
95734811|NCT01124175|191440680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.41|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.34|100.41|
95734812|NCT00834535|191440702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.83||||||90.0|93.98|108.17|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.17|93.98|
95734813|NCT00834535|191440703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.1||||||90.0|92.14|100.22|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.22|92.14|
95734814|NCT00834535|191440704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.57||||||90.0|92.8|100.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.49|92.8|
95734815|NCT03497897|191440708|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|Posterior geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.34|||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|90% credible intervals are reported on the geometric means ratio|||1.34|0.64|
95734816|NCT03497897|191440708|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<1)|0.637|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
95795226|NCT00914069|191560614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Threshold for significance was p less than or equal to 0.05 by a one-tailed Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95795227|NCT00914069|191560617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95933911|NCT04732494|191829597|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.4|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Investigator||20.4|-12.7|
95933912|NCT04732494|191829597|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference stratified by the stratification factors (ECOG PS score \[0 vs 1\] and number of organs with metastases \[≤ 1 vs ≥ 2\]).|Analysis of Clinical Benefit Rate Assessed by the Independent Review Committee||21.0|-11.0|
95933913|NCT04732494|191829598|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.9||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.9|-8.4|
95933914|NCT04732494|191829598|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-5.0|
95734817|NCT03497897|191440708|OTHER|The effects included in the model are: log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, log transformed baseline inflammatory facial lesion count by visit interaction and type of center.|P(Geometric Mean Ratio<0.75)|0.171|||||||||||Bayesian analysis|Bayesian mixed effect model with repeated measures|Posterior probability on geometric mean ratio is reported.|||||
95734818|NCT02627924|191440709|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
95734819|NCT02627924|191440710|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
95734820|NCT02627924|191440712|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
95734821|NCT02627924|191440712|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
95734822|NCT02627924|191440712|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||0.0001
95734823|NCT02627924|191440712|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
95734824|NCT02627924|191440713|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
95933915|NCT04732494|191829598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||3.7|-7.1|
95933916|NCT04732494|191829598|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.3|-10.3|
95933917|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.6|-21.5|
95734825|NCT02627924|191440713|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
95734826|NCT02627924|191440714|OTHER|||||||0.0098|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||0.0098
95734827|NCT02627924|191440714|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||0.0015
95734828|NCT02627924|191440714|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
95795228|NCT00071981|191560621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare CTL response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that CTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that CTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
95795229|NCT00071981|191560622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to 6MHP among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
95857487|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|20.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.58|27.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||27.96|12.58|0.0266
95734829|NCT02627924|191440714|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
95734830|NCT03979079|191440723|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3||Estimation was performed using a Bayesian approach. As such, p-values are not estimated.|Two-stage model.||||Two-stage model within a Bayesian framework to assess the role of the prostate-specific antigens profile on clinical failure while accounting for a secondary treatment prescribed by indication. Prostatespecific antigens modeled using a hierarchical piecewise linear trajectory with a random changepoint. Residual prostate-specific antigens variability was expressed as a function of prostate-specific antigens concentration. Covariates in the survival model included hormone therapy, baseline characteristics, and individual predictions of the prostate-specific antigens nadir and timing and prostate-specific antigens slopes before and after the nadir as provided by the longitudinal process.|0.30|0.14|
95734831|NCT00667095|191440728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.024
95734832|NCT00667095|191440728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.036
95734833|NCT00667095|191440729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.051
95734834|NCT00667095|191440729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.12
95734835|NCT00667095|191440730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.42
95734836|NCT00667095|191440730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.15
95734837|NCT00667095|191440731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 1 month||||0.18
95734838|NCT00667095|191440731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.77
95734839|NCT00667095|191440732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to one month||||0.67
95734840|NCT00667095|191440732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.20
95734841|NCT00667095|191440733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and one month||||0.31
95734842|NCT00667095|191440733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between baseline and 3 months||||0.038
95734843|NCT01520909|191440734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|140.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The proportion of participants achieving platelet counts \>=50 Gi/L for those participants receiving eltrombopag versus placebo was compared.||Indicated significance at the 5% (two-sided) level of significance||140.93|2.29|<0.001
95734844|NCT01520909|191440735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|78.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized linear mixed model||||78.73|8.15|<0.001
95734845|NCT01149473|191440767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|98.1|
95734846|NCT01149473|191440768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|98.8|
95734847|NCT01149473|191440769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|98.6|
95734848|NCT01149473|191440770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|98.8|
95734849|NCT01149473|191440771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
95734850|NCT01149473|191440772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.7|
95857488|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.51|17.54|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||17.54|4.51|0.1545
95933918|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|6.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Dysphagia at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-27.8|
95734851|NCT01969747|191440793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|76.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|93.59|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 2.5 mg with Placebo||93.59|58.60|<0.0001
95734852|NCT01969747|191440793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|106.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.73|124.05|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 10 mg with Placebo||124.05|88.73|<0.0001
95734853|NCT01969747|191440793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|104.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.74|||ANCOVA||The model includes baseline UGE as linear covariate(s) and treatment as fixed effect(s).|Comparison of Empagliflozin 25 mg with Placebo||122.74|86.88|<0.0001
95734854|NCT00840866|191440883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.0|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|99|
95795230|NCT00071981|191560623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare HTL response rate to tetanus peptide among four arms. The null hypothesis is that HTL response is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that HTL response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||<0.001
95933919|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.6||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.6|-7.3|
95933920|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-0.3||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Eating at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.3|-18.5|
95933921|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.2||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||11.2|-6.7|
95933922|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.0||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Reflux at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||9.0|-11.8|
95933923|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.5||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 5. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||8.5|-7.0|
95933924|NCT04732494|191829599|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.7||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Pain at Cycle 7. The mixed effect model analysis included the questionnaire score as dependent variable; baseline score, stratification factors, treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects; and visit as a repeated measure, with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.7|-12.3|
95933925|NCT04500301|191829604|OTHER|No statistical test was performed.|Proportion|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.219|||||The Wald 95% confidence interval for the binomial proportion was estimated.|No hypothesis was tested with regard to the primary outcome. The study planned to enroll 80 eligible subjects such that at least 65 would be evaluable for the primary outcome and the width of the 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval for the proportion would be less than or equal to .25.||0.219|0.054|
95933926|NCT03702725|191829605|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimate value DL 3|||
95857489|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.22|25.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||25.94|10.22|0.0528
95795231|NCT00071981|191560624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate among four arms. The null hypothesis is that objective response rate is same in all four arms. Alternative hypothesis is that objective response rate is different in at least one arm compared to other arms.||||0.741
95795232|NCT00071981|191560625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare overall survival curves among four arms.||||0.532
95795233|NCT04220021|191560636|SUPERIORITY|For the sign and binomial test our two outcomes are decreased (success) percentage change in RAN protein levels and increased (failure) percentage change in RAN protein levels.||||||0.0245||||||A priori test for significance is p less than or equal to 0.05|Sign test|One-tailed sign and binomial test||Sign and binomial test with one-tail analysis where the null hypothesis predicts a 50/50 split (p=0.5) for two outcomes.||||0.0245
95795234|NCT03043053|191560638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
95933927|NCT00956007|191829626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08||One-sided significance level = 0.0183|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|This trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.74 with 80% statistical power and overall one-sided alpha of 0.025 (372 deaths) using a stratified log-rank test, assuming a control arm 3-year survival rate of 60.1%. The amended protocol based on ≥ 5 years potential follow-up projected 169 events, providing 55%, 66%, and 79% power to detect HRs of 0.71, 0.68, and 0.64, respectively, using the original one-sided alpha of 0.0183 the final analysis.||1.08|0.60|0.0747
95933928|NCT00956007|191829627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.0075
95933929|NCT00956007|191829627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2955|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2955
95933930|NCT00956007|191829627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.0001
95933931|NCT00956007|191829627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rach acneiform||||<0.0001
95933932|NCT00956007|191829628|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95933933|NCT00956007|191829629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dysphagia||||0.1641
95933934|NCT00956007|191829629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2623|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dry mouth||||0.2623
95933935|NCT00956007|191829629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5378|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dermatitis radiation||||0.5378
95933936|NCT00956007|191829629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash acneiform||||0.0570
95933937|NCT00956007|191829630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1575|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1575
95933938|NCT00956007|191829631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status|Stratified by EGFR and site/p16 status. Reference level = IMRT.|||0.98|0.57|0.0168
95933939|NCT05228470|191829643|OTHER|Null hypothesis of ORR by BICR was 30%.||||||0.0076|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0076
95933940|NCT06511076|191829718|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM ratio|0.9809||||||90.0|0.9529|1.0097|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0097|0.9529|
95734855|NCT00840866|191440884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.9||||||90.0|98.6|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.6|
95734856|NCT00840866|191440885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|98.5|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|98.5|
95734857|NCT01387022|191440896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95734858|NCT01387022|191440897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
95734859|NCT01387022|191440899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.267
95734860|NCT00819507|191440903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95734861|NCT00819507|191440904|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95734862|NCT02549092|191440919|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.98|11.55||P value is from the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with the model: change from Baseline=treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||11.55|-27.98|0.410
95933941|NCT06511076|191829719|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM Ratio|0.9819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9543|1.0102|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0102|0.9543|
95734863|NCT02549092|191440920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|6.3||The P value is from the MMRM with the model: change from Baseline = treatment, country, visit, Baseline, treatment-by-visit, and Baseline-by-visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the MMRM analysis.|mixed model repeated measures|Adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure to control the family-wise error rate at a pre-specified significance level (alpha = 0.05).|Difference of LCIG - OMT|||6.30|-3.16|0.509
95734864|NCT02549092|191440921|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|3.34||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||3.34|-10.96|0.291
95734865|NCT02549092|191440922|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.82||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-1.82|-2.84|< 0.001
95734866|NCT02549092|191440923|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-0.81||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Statistical significance for the 3 key secondary efficacy endpoints (PDQ-8 index score, CGI-C score, and UPDRS Part II) could only be evaluated using the Hochberg procedure for multiplicity control if both primary endpoints had been statistically significant after multiplicity adjustment.||-0.81|-4.77|0.006
95734867|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.06||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Cardiovascular including falls||2.06|-1.89|0.933
95795235|NCT03043053|191560639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.9|82.6|||||Controlled for lean mass. Reported values are outputted by STATA.|||82.6|-141.9|
95795236|NCT03043053|191560640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1036.0|1428.0||||||||1428|-1036|
95734868|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.74||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sleep/fatigue||5.74|-3.63|0.655
95734869|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Mood/cognition||5.48|-9.18|0.616
95795237|NCT03043053|191560641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-152.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.3|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-302.3|
95795238|NCT01420536|191560642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by a researcher who was unaware of all procedures performed. The questionnaire about denture satisfaction originated a general score that was compared using the Wilcoxon test, according to the two tested conditions.||||0.569
95734870|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.08||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Perceptual problems/hallucinations||2.08|-1.30|0.645
95734871|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.14||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Attention/memory||3.14|-5.03|0.645
95734872|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Gastrointestinal tract||0.09|-5.25|0.058
95734873|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|3.15||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Urinary||3.15|-5.52|0.588
95734874|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.33||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Sexual function||1.33|-2.88|0.464
95857490|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.92|21.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||21.14|6.92|0.0968
95857491|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||23.85|7.81|0.0966
95857492|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||24.42|9.72|0.0507
95857493|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||23.85|7.81|0.0966
95857494|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.72|24.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||24.42|9.72|0.0507
95933942|NCT06511076|191829720|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Treatment ZLP-AI (test \[T\]) / Treatment ZLP-PFS (Reference \[R\]) were included in the range from 0.80 - 1.25.|GLSM ratio|0.9996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9594|1.0416|||Mixed Effects model||The GLSM ratio was calculated: ZLP-AI/ZLP-PFS|||1.0416|0.9594|
95857495|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|15.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.81|23.85|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||23.85|7.81|0.0966
95933943|NCT01534494|191829725|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test for significance of change. t(8) = 3.477. P(2-sided) = 0.008||Single-group pre-post contrast||||0.008
95933944|NCT00802464|191829726|OTHER||Fold increase|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.98||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||6.98|3.89|
95734875|NCT02549092|191440924|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|Repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Miscellaneous||2.23|-4.80|0.468
95734876|NCT02549092|191440925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.92||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Motor symptoms at night||1.92|-3.09|0.643
95734877|NCT02549092|191440925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.87||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|PD symptoms at night||1.87|-1.39|0.769
95734878|NCT02549092|191440925|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.66||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Disturbed sleep||3.66|0.32|0.020
95734879|NCT02549092|191440926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.1||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part I score||1.10|-0.72|0.672
95857496|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|18.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.12|26.22|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||26.22|10.12|0.0574
95933945|NCT00802464|191829726|OTHER||Fold increase|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.4|3|
95734880|NCT02549092|191440926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.04||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part III score||2.04|-6.47|0.302
95734881|NCT02549092|191440926|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.48||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Part IV score||-0.48|-2.91|0.007
95734882|NCT02549092|191440927|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.44||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||1.44|-4.52|0.307
95734883|NCT02549092|191440928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.84||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||0.84|-0.99|0.868
95933946|NCT00802464|191829726|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.58|1.07|
95933947|NCT00802464|191829727|OTHER||Fold increase|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.69||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.69|1.67|
95734884|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|5.39||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Total score||5.39|-7.68|0.728
95795239|NCT01420536|191560643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.339
95795240|NCT01420536|191560644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.515
95795241|NCT01420536|191560645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.485
95857497|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.12|31.04|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||31.04|11.12|0.0749
95933948|NCT00802464|191829727|OTHER||Fold increase|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.07||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.07|1.28|
95933949|NCT00802464|191829727|OTHER||Fold increase|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||Fold increase in frequency of gE-specific CD4+ T-cells secreting at least 2 different immunological activation markers among IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α and CD40L for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.56|1.09|
95734885|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.35||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Musculoskeletal pain score||1.35|-1.50|0.916
95795242|NCT01420536|191560646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.111
95795243|NCT01420536|191560647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.399
95795244|NCT01420536|191560648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.550
95857498|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.09|7.38|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.38|-0.09|0.4116
95857499|NCT00658359|191673372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.09|2.12|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.12|-4.09|0.7895
95987762|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.35|
95734886|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.42||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Chronic pain score||1.42|-1.28|0.919
95734887|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.68||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Fluctuation related pain score||3.68|-2.42|0.680
95734888|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.09||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Nocturnal pain score||2.09|-2.83|0.767
95734889|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Orofacial pain score||0.90|-1.15|0.804
95734890|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.23||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Discoloration and edema score||-0.23|-3.38|0.025
95795245|NCT01420536|191560649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.609
95933950|NCT00802464|191829728|OTHER||Fold increase|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|5.85||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||5.85|3.81|
95933951|NCT00802464|191829728|OTHER||Fold increase|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.17||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||4.17|2.72|
95933952|NCT00802464|191829728|OTHER||Fold increase|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.68||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.68|1.17|
95933953|NCT00802464|191829729|OTHER||Fold increase|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|36.0|2.64|3.9||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||3.9|2.64|
95933954|NCT00802464|191829729|OTHER||Fold increase|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.97||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 3 Group.||2.97|2.02|
95933955|NCT00802464|191829729|OTHER||Fold increase|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.54||||||Fold increase in anti-gE antibody concentrations for GSK1437173A Formulation 1 Group over GSK1437173A Formulation 2 Group.||1.54|1.12|
95933956|NCT01808339|191829746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.152|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and Placebo (FF 100 µg AM minus Placebo).|||0.152|0.001|
95987763|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.67|0.34|
95795246|NCT01420536|191560650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.600
95933957|NCT01808339|191829746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.029|0.18|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg PM and Placebo (FF 100 µg PM minus Placebo).|||0.180|0.029|
95933958|NCT01808339|191829746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.045|||||The estimated value represents the difference in Least Squares Means between FF 100 µg AM and FF 100 µg PM (FF 100 µg AM minus FF 100 µg PM).|||0.045|-0.102|
95933959|NCT00324350|191829784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27||Analyses were by intention to treat. All analyses adjusted for baseline cardiovascular disease, assignment to blood pressure (BP) trial or lipid trial, assignment to intensive BP intervention in BP trial, and assignment to fibrate in lipid trial.|Regression, Cox|||The BONE ancillary study was designed to have 80% power to detect a relative reduction in risk of non-spine clinical fractures of 22-29%. This was based on an estimated total number of fractures between 259-494, calculated with the following assumptions: rate of clinical non-spine fracture among women in the standard glycemia therapy group between 15 and 25/1000 person yrs, fracture rates for men between 35-40% of the rates for women of the same age, and an avg follow-up time of 4.6 yrs.||1.27|0.86|0.678
95734891|NCT02549092|191440929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.9||The repeated measures model: change = treatment, country, visit, baseline, treatment \* visit, baseline \* visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|repeated measures model||Difference of LCIG - OMT|Radicular pain score||0.90|-0.99|0.930
95734892|NCT02549092|191440930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.87||ANCOVA model: FINAL = treatment, country.|ANCOVA||Difference of LCIG - OMT|||-1.87|-2.89|< 0.001
95734893|NCT00910663|191440931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.01||||||90.0|90.01|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|90.01|
95734894|NCT00910663|191440932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.81||||||90.0|100.23|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.45|100.23|
95734895|NCT00910663|191440933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.35||||||90.0|100.51|106.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.27|100.51|
95734896|NCT02511782|191440945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95734897|NCT02511782|191440946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95734898|NCT02193165|191440963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different. Significance will be determined by p\<0.5||||0.434
95734899|NCT02193165|191440964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups determined by P\<0.05||||<0.001
95933960|NCT00324350|191829785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Number of participants with falls reported at each annual visit were compared by treatment assignment using a repeated-measures negative binomial model, with robust standard errors to account for clustering of the repeated outcomes within participants; the log of the length of the reporting period varied slightly and was included as an offset||1.43|0.84|0.490
95933961|NCT00324350|191829786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The rate of height loss did not differ between groups (p = 0.573). Height loss of \>2 cm during ACCORD was experienced by 678 (19.5%) participants in the intensive and 686 (19.6%) in the standard glycemia group (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88, 1.11).|Height loss was compared by treatment assignment using linear mixed models with random intercepts and slopes. The proportions losing \>2 cm of height during follow-up were compared using logistic models. Based on previous research by Siminoski et al., this degree of height loss is associated with incident vertebral fracture with 94% specificity but only 28% sensitivity.(Siminoski K, Jiang G, Adachi JD, et al. Osteoporos Int 2005;16:403-410)||1.11|0.88|0.854
95734900|NCT02193165|191440965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between groups will be determined at P\<0.05||||<0.001
95734901|NCT02193165|191440966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Differences will be noted at P\<0.05. Baseline groups are balanced and baseline scores for each intervention group should not be significantly different||||0.816
95734902|NCT02193165|191440967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
95734903|NCT02193165|191440968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline. Significant differences between intervention groups will be determined @ P\<0.05||||<0.001
95734904|NCT01472341|191440982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.24
95734905|NCT01472341|191440983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|PI/I ratio was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||0.001
95734906|NCT01472341|191440984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate regression analysis|HOMA %B was the response variable and other study parameters were independent variables.||||||<0.0001
95857500|NCT00658359|191673373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|13.9|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||13.9|-9.1|0.683
95857501|NCT00658359|191673373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Chi-squared||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|||16.1|-8.3|0.529
95734907|NCT05615935|191440996|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Using G\*Power 3.1, the required sample size for ANCOVA with two groups was estimated with a significance level of 0.05, statistical power of 0.80, and an effect size of 0.35, based on Cohen's guidelines for a medium-to-large effect commonly applied in behavioral research (Cohen, 1988). Assuming up to two covariates, a minimum of 67 participants was required. Accounting for a 10% attrition rate, the final target was set at 74 participants.||||<0.001
95734908|NCT05615935|191440997|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference (ANCOVA)|4.58||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
95933962|NCT00093015|191829796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.41||95.0|0.94|1.17||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary cardiovascular composite endpoint was tested at the 0.04056 significance level at final analysis after accounting for 4 planned interim analyses (overall alpha = 0.048).|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.17|0.94|0.41
95933963|NCT00093015|191829797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.29||95.0|0.95|1.19||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented. The primary renal composite endpoint was tested at the 0.002 significance level at final analysis.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.19|0.95|0.29
95933964|NCT00093015|191829798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.48||95.0|0.92|1.21||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.21|0.92|0.48
95933965|NCT00093015|191829799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.61||95.0|0.88|1.25||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.25|0.88|0.61
95933966|NCT00093015|191829800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.73||95.0|0.75|1.23||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.23|0.75|0.73
95933967|NCT00093015|191829801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||2.68|1.38|<0.001
95933968|NCT00093015|191829802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.24||95.0|0.74|1.08||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.08|0.74|0.24
95933969|NCT00093015|191829803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.83||95.0|0.87|1.18||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.18|0.87|0.83
95933970|NCT00093015|191829804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.12||||0.54||95.0|-0.51|0.26||Nominal p-value is from the term treatment group\*visit in the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline eGFR and the stratification factors of proteinuria and CVD history.|Estimated difference in rate of decline in eGFR per year between darbepoetin alfa and placebo.|||0.26|-0.51|0.54
95933971|NCT00093015|191829805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.001||95.0|0.64|2.02||Nominal p-value is presented.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference (darbepoetin alfa - placebo)|||2.02|0.64|<0.001
95933972|NCT00093015|191829806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4||95.0|0.55|1.27||Nominal p-value from a 2-sided log rank test is presented.|Log Rank|A 2-sided log-rank test comparing the survival functions of the 2 groups stratified by baseline proteinuria and CV disease (CVD) history.|Treatment effect was estimated using a hazards ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline proteinuria and CVD history. Hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa / placebo)|||1.27|0.55|0.40
95933973|NCT04705480|191829865|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
95734909|NCT05615935|191440997|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction, with a significance threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95734910|NCT01390844|191441017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|47.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.18|20.24|<0.0001
95734911|NCT01390844|191441018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.83||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|52.18|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||52.18|10.15|0.0063
95734912|NCT01390844|191441019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.51|47.72|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||47.72|20.51|<0.0001
95734913|NCT01390844|191441020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.18||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|51.83|||Miettinen and Numinen|||Between-Group Comparison||51.83|8.96|0.0086
95933974|NCT04705480|191829865|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
95933975|NCT04705480|191829865|OTHER|The study sought to assess if adding multiple doses of pregabalin or gabapentin upon admission will reduce opioid usage in trauma patients. No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||0.601
95933976|NCT04705480|191829866|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
95933977|NCT04705480|191829866|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.233
95933978|NCT04705480|191829866|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.145
95933979|NCT04705480|191829867|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95933980|NCT04705480|191829867|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95933981|NCT04705480|191829867|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|This was applied to adjust for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
95933982|NCT04705480|191829868|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95933983|NCT04705480|191829868|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95933984|NCT04705480|191829868|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
95987764|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformation of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.88|0.37|
95734914|NCT01390844|191441021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|42.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||42.22|15.26|<0.001
95734915|NCT01390844|191441022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|55.01|||Mittienen and Nurminen|||Between-Group Comparison||55.01|12.12|0.004
95734916|NCT05093205|191441043|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|122.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.96|140.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||140.25|106.96|
95734917|NCT05093205|191441043|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|143.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.64|168.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||168.68|122.64|
95734918|NCT05093205|191441044|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 120 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 3).|Specified in comments|104.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|117.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||117.89|92.56|
95857502|NCT00658359|191673374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.97|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA|||13.49|4.97|0.0699
95933985|NCT04705480|191829869|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95933986|NCT04705480|191829869|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95933987|NCT04705480|191829869|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Rank transformation was applied to account this for nonparametric outcome while adjusting for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
95933988|NCT04705480|191829870|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95933989|NCT04705480|191829870|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95933990|NCT04705480|191829870|OTHER|No specific assessment of inferiority or superiority was done.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|This was applied to adjust for significantly different psychiatric comorbidities.||||||<0.05
95933991|NCT04970654|191829883|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was higher than the margin of -2.0 cm/year.|Treatment difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Hypothetical strategy estimand. Height velocity at 52 weeks was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, gender, age group, growth hormone (GH) peak group and gender by age group interaction term as factors and baseline height as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.3|-0.2|
95734919|NCT05093205|191441044|OTHER|0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Reference treatment (Part B Period 1), PF-06882961 200 mg BID + 0.15 mg LE \& 0.03 mg EE was the Test treatment (Period 5).|Specified in comments|92.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|106.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||A mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used was applied to calculate the ratio (Test/Reference) of adjusted means and 90% CIs for Ratio. The ratio (and 90% CI) is expressed as percentage.|||106.19|81.05|
95857503|NCT00658359|191673374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.89|13.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA|||13.58|2.89|0.1958
95734920|NCT02781727|191441063|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority comparison with a non-inferiority margin of 2 cm/year, followed by a test of superiority if non-inferiority is established.||||||0.0088||||||P-value is based on a test of superiority|ANCOVA with multiple imputation|two-sided||ANCOVA model with multiple imputation. For each imputed data set, an ANCOVA model with by visit AHV as the dependent variable; treatment and gender as factors; and baseline age, baseline peak GH levels (log transformed) at stimulation test, and baseline height SDS - average parental height SDS as covariates were fitted.||||0.0088
95734921|NCT00048581|191441078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Weighted. Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%. ACR 20 RR at 6 mos for PLA was expected to be \~25%. A sample of 256 in the ABA arm and 128 in PLA arm will yield a 96% power to detect a difference of 20% in ACR 20 at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|The first coprimary endpoint efficacy analysis tested for differences in ACR 20 response rate (RR) between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving placebo plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.1|20.6|<0.001
95734922|NCT00048581|191441079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Weighted Diff: Day 169 HAQ|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.2||If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for HAQ response was not undertaken. If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared HAQ response between groups (5% level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|All comparisons of changes from baseline and construction of confidence intervals for continuous measures were based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main factor and baseline value as covariate.|The two primary efficacy analyses tested first for differences in ACR 20 followed by testing HAQ response rates between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs on Day 169. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||34.2|13.8|<0.001
95734923|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 20|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||20.0|4.6|0.001
95857504|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
95857505|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.934|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.52|3.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||3.71|-4.52|0.9340
95857506|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
95857507|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
95857508|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
95857509|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
95857510|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.88|5.08|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||5.08|-3.88|0.9106
95857511|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.29|2.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.30|-6.29|0.6960
95857512|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.86|3.5|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||3.50|-5.86|0.8322
95857513|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.27|0.73|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||0.73|-8.27|0.4809
95857514|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
95857515|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
95857516|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
95933992|NCT02238483|191829891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.4|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|H0: Hazard Ratio (AZD7624/placebo) equals 1 vs. H1: Hazard Ratio does not equal 1.||2.40|0.81|0.2371
95933993|NCT02238483|191829892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.16|||regression, negative binomial||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.16|0.82|0.249
95933994|NCT02238483|191829893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.50|0.89|0.1261
95987765|NCT00562354|191949816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||||Ratio of GMTs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of OPA GMTs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.79|0.30|
95857517|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
95857518|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
95857519|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
95857520|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
95857521|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
95857522|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
95857523|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
95857524|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.31|1.62|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.62|-8.31|0.5704
95857525|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.73|-1.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-1.14|-10.73|0.2972
95933995|NCT02238483|191829894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.21|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.21|0.88|0.157
95933996|NCT02238483|191829895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.76|||Regression, Cox|||||2.76|0.85|0.1529
95987766|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.0||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.0|-12.1|
95857526|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
95857527|NCT00658359|191673376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
95857528|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.33|-5.71|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-5.71|-15.33|0.0654
95933997|NCT02238483|191829896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.52|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.52|0.89|0.129
95933998|NCT02238483|191829897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||2.01|0.43|0.8543
95933999|NCT02238483|191829898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||regression, negative binomial|||||2.29|0.55|0.751
95987767|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-11.6|
95987768|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.2|-9.6|
95734924|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 50|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||5.5|-0.8|0.001
95987769|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-13.7|
95987770|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.1||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.7|
95734925|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 15 ACR 70|0.8||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||2.9|-1.3|0.784
95734926|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 20|14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.0|4.0|0.005
95795247|NCT01420536|191560651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.611
95795248|NCT01420536|191560652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.044
95857529|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-0.72|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.72|-11.43|0.3398
95987771|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.1||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-5.9|
95987772|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.9||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.9|-10.8|
95987773|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.9||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-8.7|
95987774|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.1|-4.0|
95987775|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.5|-7.6|
95987776|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.7|-2.8|
95987777|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.7|-8.8|
95987778|NCT00562354|191949819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.5||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-14.1|
95934000|NCT02238483|191829899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a higher rate of incidence in the AZD7624 group.|||1.38|0.54|0.5381
95734927|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 50|5.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||11.4|-0.2|0.06
95734928|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 29 ACR 70|1.6||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||4.9|-1.8|0.473
95734929|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 20|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||32.8|11.3|<0.001
95734930|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 50|6.5||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.7|-0.6|0.076
95734931|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 57 ACR 70|5.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.4|0.7|0.019
95734932|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 20|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||38.7|17.4|<0.001
95734933|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 50|12.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||19.8|4.1|0.002
95795249|NCT01420536|191560653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.677
95934001|NCT02238483|191829900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3|||regression, negative binomial|||||1.30|0.55|0.440
95934002|NCT02238483|191829901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Negative values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.85|-1.60|0.5474
95934003|NCT02238483|191829902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.6352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||4.29|-2.62|0.6352
95934004|NCT02238483|191829903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.10|-0.34|0.2694
95934005|NCT02238483|191829904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.07|-0.03|0.5144
95987779|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|0.3||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.3|-15.1|
95934006|NCT02238483|191829905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.05|-0.10|0.5416
95934007|NCT02238483|191829906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean difference for overall treatment effect. Positive values for a difference show AZD7624 to have a favourable outcome compared to Placebo|||0.02|0.00|0.1965
95934008|NCT04929483|191829907|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|34.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|59.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||59.26|10.04|<0.0001
95987780|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.5||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.5|-14.5|
95795250|NCT01420536|191560654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.885||||||P values less than 0.05 would be considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||For the kinesiographic assessment, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to evaluate whether the variables had normal distribution, which was positive in the majority of cases. A comparison between the values obtained for both groups was performed by means of the paired sample t-test.||||0.885
95795251|NCT00855218|191560661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.072||95.0|0.588|1.08||stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and Alfa-fetoprotein (AFP) level at baseline.|Log Rank|||||1.080|0.588|0.072
95857530|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.99|-3.51|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-3.51|-13.99|0.1601
95857531|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
95934009|NCT04929483|191829907|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.89||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|32.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||32.72|9.05|0.0009
95934010|NCT04929483|191829907|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|23.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|37.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with missing outcome measures handled by multiple imputation method.||||37.18|10.04|0.0005
95934011|NCT04929483|191829908|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.45||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|37.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.62|-8.71|0.1039
95987781|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-1.0||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.0|-21.4|
95795252|NCT00855218|191560662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.295||95.0|0.606|1.33|||Log Rank|stratified one-sided (alpha=0.15). adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline.||||1.330|0.606|0.295
95795253|NCT00855218|191560663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.586||||0.999||95.0|1.2|2.096|||Log Rank|startified one-sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted for region and AFP level at baseline||||2.096|1.200|0.999
95795254|NCT00855218|191560664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.076||95.0|0.321|1.2|||Log Rank|stratified one sided (alpha=0.15), adjusted on region and AFP level at baseline||||1.200|0.321|0.076
95795255|NCT00506675|191560673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
95795256|NCT00506675|191560674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
95795257|NCT00506675|191560675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
95795258|NCT01773928|191560701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The probability that the modified process is noninferior to the current one (i.e. lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of geometric means \[modified vs. current\] is greater than or equal to 0.67) is above 99% for one strain, and it is around 97% for all three strains (considering the three strains to be independent, 0.99 x 0.99 x 0.99=0.97)|ANCOVA|0.67|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.67||||||||||0.67|
95795259|NCT01773928|191560703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANCOVA|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.5||||||"The overall power to prove the similarity between the three lots for all three strains is approximately 99%.~For the two primary co-analyses (Noninferiority and Lot Consistency), the overall power of the immunogenicity analyses is approximately 96% (calculated as 0.97 x 0.99=0.96)."||1.5|0.67|
95795260|NCT01773928|191560704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Differences between fever incidences (95% CI) between treatment groups VCIV Modified (Total) and TIV was computed for each age cohort separately. The Confidence Interval estimation method was the method of Miettinen \& Nurminen, as described in the StatXact User Manual (i.e. the score statistics, also called Chan's method, page 283).~Noninferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CI (VCIV modified-TIV) is \<5%."|Method of Miettinen & Nurminen|1.8||||||95.0|0.1|3.3||||||||3.3|0.1|
95795261|NCT02555254|191560785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon's rank test|||||||0.55
95795262|NCT04780659|191560789|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
95795263|NCT04780659|191560792|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
95795264|NCT04780659|191560793|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
95795265|NCT05172609|191560811|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 standard deviation (SD) or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for AIM||||.47
95795266|NCT05172609|191560812|EQUIVALENCE|Margin difference of 1 SD or higher was considered evidence of non-equivalence comparison||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests between EBIS and IAU conditions at 12-week follow up for FIM||||.88
95795267|NCT05172609|191560813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.46
95934012|NCT04929483|191829908|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|18.87||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.50|5.24|0.0085
95934013|NCT04929483|191829908|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.33||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.40|5.26|0.0077
95934014|NCT04083781|191829938|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of count endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as an offset with randomised treatment regimen, type of haemophilia (HAwI or HBwI) and bleeding frequency (less than 9 or greater than or equal to 9 bleeding episodes during the past 24 weeks prior to screening) as factors comparing arm 1 (on-demand treatment) and arm 2.|Annualised bleeding rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Two-sided test of no difference from 1|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
95934015|NCT00130117|191829990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
95934016|NCT00130117|191829990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.049
95934017|NCT00130117|191829991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"p value reflects treatment of leptin for on-treatment, n=4"|ANOVA|||||||0.02
95934018|NCT03481660|191829999|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|<0.001
95987782|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.9|-13.5|
95987783|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.0||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.0|-14.3|
95987784|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-0.8||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-0.8|-24.6|
95987785|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.5||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.5|-16.3|
95987786|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.0|-29.5|
95987787|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.4|-21.4|
95987788|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-1.3||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.3|-19.3|
95734934|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 85 ACR 70|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||9.8|0.4|0.033
95934019|NCT03481660|191830000|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||2.6|-0.9|<0.001
95934020|NCT03481660|191830000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||BCVA over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.164
95934021|NCT03481660|191830007|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.1||||||BCVA at Week 52||3.1|-0.6|
95987789|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.9|-6.2|
95987790|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||4.5|-12.2|
95987791|NCT00562354|191949822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.3||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||7.3|-12.5|
95987792|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.1||||||Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||2.1|-13.8|
95795268|NCT05172609|191560813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS screening rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.40
95795269|NCT05172609|191560813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.56
95934022|NCT03481660|191830007|OTHER|Treatment Difference|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9||||||BCVA at Week 100||4.9|0.2|
95934023|NCT03481660|191830008|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 52||2.1|-0.6|
95934024|NCT03481660|191830008|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6||||||BCVA over period Week 4 through Week 100||2.6|-0.4|
95934025|NCT03481660|191830009|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 52||2.4|-0.9|
95934026|NCT03481660|191830009|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 52||2.5|-0.9|
95934027|NCT03481660|191830009|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||||||BCVA over period Week 20 through Week 100||2.9|-0.5|
95934028|NCT03481660|191830009|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||BCVA over period Week 28 through Week 100||3.0|-0.5|
95934029|NCT03481660|191830010|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3||||||BCVA over period Week 88 through Week 100||4.3|-0.1|
95934030|NCT03481660|191830011|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.9||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||8.9|-7.6|
95934031|NCT03481660|191830011|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.5||||||Gain of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||14.5|-3.9|
95934032|NCT03481660|191830012|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|14.7||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||14.7|-3.9|
95934033|NCT03481660|191830012|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.4||||||Gain of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||19.4|-0.4|
95934034|NCT03481660|191830013|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|20.2||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||20.2|-0.4|
95934035|NCT03481660|191830013|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|23.5||||||Gain of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||23.5|3.3|
95934036|NCT03481660|191830014|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.9|-4.2|
95934037|NCT03481660|191830014|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.7||||||Loss of \>= 5 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-1.7|-10.8|
95934038|NCT03481660|191830015|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 52||2.4|-3.2|
95795270|NCT05172609|191560813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing SUDS planning rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.68
95934039|NCT03481660|191830015|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.1||||||Loss of \>= 10 letters in BCVA at Week 100||-0.1|-8.4|
95795271|NCT05172609|191560813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.87
95795272|NCT05172609|191560813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SUDS planning at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.43
95795273|NCT05172609|191560814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.59
95934040|NCT03481660|191830016|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 52||1.6|-3.2|
95934041|NCT03481660|191830016|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.0||||||Loss of \>= 15 letters in BCVA at Week 100||2.0|-4.8|
95934042|NCT03481660|191830017|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.0||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 52||12.0|-4.9|
95934043|NCT03481660|191830017|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.6||||||Absolute BCVA \>= 73 letters at Week 100||12.6|-5.4|
95934044|NCT03481660|191830019|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-10.2|||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||-10.2|-48.6|<0.003
95934045|NCT03481660|191830019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||CSFT over period Week 40 through Week 52||||0.001
95934046|NCT03481660|191830019|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-3.0||||||CSFT over period Week 88 through Week 100||-3.0|-43.5|
95934047|NCT03481660|191830020|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-9.0||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 52||-9.0|-45.8|
95934048|NCT03481660|191830020|OTHER|Treatment difference|LS mean difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-7.5||||||CSFT over period Week 4 through Week 100||-7.5|-44.0|
95934049|NCT03481660|191830021|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 52||25.9|5.7|
95934050|NCT03481660|191830021|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|24.9||||||CSFT thickness (\<280 micrometers) at Week 100||24.9|4.2|
95934051|NCT03481660|191830022|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact method|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.1||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 52||2.1|-4.5|
95934052|NCT03481660|191830022|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) at Week 100||3.4|-3.4|
95934053|NCT03481660|191830023|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-9.2||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-9.2|-28.9|
95934054|NCT03481660|191830023|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.7||||||Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.7|-26.3|
95934055|NCT03481660|191830024|OTHER|Treatment Difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-8.3||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 52||-8.3|-28.5|
95934056|NCT03481660|191830024|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-5.9||||||Subretinal Fluid (SRF) and/or Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) at Week 100||-5.9|-26.4|
95934057|NCT03481660|191830025|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-16.3||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 52||-16.3|-34.4|
95934058|NCT03481660|191830025|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-8.2||||||Fluorescein Angiography (FA) at Week 100||-8.2|-29.1|
95734935|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 20|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||36.8|15.1|<0.001
95734936|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 50|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|21.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)||If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||21.9|6.6|<0.001
95734937|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 113 ACR 70|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||13.0|2.6|0.002
95734938|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 20|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||46.5|24.6|<0.001
95857532|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.47|-1.7|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.70|-12.47|0.2685
95734939|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 50|20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||29.5|12.2|<0.001
95734940|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 141 ACR 70|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||16.0|4.4|<0.001
95857533|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.239|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.1|-2.18|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.18|-13.10|0.2390
95857534|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.32|-3.3|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.30|-14.32|0.1785
95857535|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.158|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.95|-3.78|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-3.78|-14.95|0.1580
95857536|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.0|-6.53|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-6.53|-18.00|0.0718
95857537|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.63|-7.02|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-7.02|-18.63|0.0629
95934059|NCT03481660|191830026|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||7.8|-5.6|
95857538|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate differences|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
95934060|NCT03481660|191830026|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.8||||||\>=2-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.8|-1.7|
95734941|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 20|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|Differences in ACR 20 between the treatment arm receiving ABA plus background DMARDs and the treatment arm receiving PLA plus background DMARDs were compared using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test (.05 level of significance), with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||41.7|20.0|<0.001
95734942|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 50|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of weighted difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 50 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 50 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||24.5|8.6|<0.001
95734943|NCT00048581|191441080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. of Diff: Day 169 ACR 70|8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|All statistical tests and CI were 2-sided. Percentage of participants with response compared by estimate of difference (Est of Weighted Diff)|Differences in ACR response between the two treatment groups represent the weighted average of the individual stratum differences.|If ACR20 comparison was significant (5% level), then CMH Chi-square test compared ACR 70 response between groups (5% level). If the ACR20 analysis was not significant (5% level), then the comparison for ACR 70 response was not undertaken. A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test was used to compare these two treatment groups at the .05 level of significance, with stratification based on baseline history of anti-TNF status (current or prior use).||14.6|2.7|0.003
95734944|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 PCS|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.38|1.89|<0.001
95734945|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 MCS|2.57||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.67|0.47|0.017
95734946|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Physical Function|1.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.41|-0.01|0.052
95857539|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
95857540|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-21.84|-9.94|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-9.94|-21.84|0.0246
95857541|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.46|-10.43|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-10.43|-22.46|0.0214
95934061|NCT03481660|191830027|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.7||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||5.7|-7.1|
95934062|NCT03481660|191830027|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||||||\>=3-step improvement in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||10.0|-2.3|
95934063|NCT03481660|191830028|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||3.6|-1.0|
95934064|NCT03481660|191830028|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.9||||||\>=2-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||6.9|-0.5|
95934065|NCT03481660|191830029|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 52||2.1|0.5|
95934066|NCT03481660|191830029|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||||||\>=3-step worsening in ETDRS-DRSS at Week 100||1.3|-2.6|
95934067|NCT03481660|191830030|OTHER|Treatment difference|Clopper-Pearson exact method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) of at least 61 by Week 100||1.9|-2.1|
95934068|NCT04310735|191830050|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex region of interest.||||||0.13||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||0.13
95934069|NCT04310735|191830050|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the mean contrast of parameter estimate (COPE) values, derived from the contrast of smoking-related versus neutral cue activation, between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex region of interest.||||||0.25||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.25
95934070|NCT04310735|191830051|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during smoking-related cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.80
95934071|NCT04310735|191830051|OTHER|Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare mean valence values during neutral cues between the Expect-Yes and Expect-No groups.||||||0.87||||||Statistical significance was defined a priori as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the population means of the two groups.||||.87
95934072|NCT03012841|191830059|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis test for the primary effectiveness objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of treatment success at 12 months (365 days) was greater than 40%, against the null hypothesis that it was less than or equal to 40%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|62.1|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||62.1|46.7|<0.001
95934073|NCT03012841|191830060|SUPERIORITY|The formal alternative hypothesis tested for the primary safety objective was that the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the proportion of subjects with primary safety events at 12 months (365 days) was less than 13%, against the null hypothesis that it was greater than or equal to 13%.|Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.4|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.4|0.1|0.002
95934074|NCT03012841|191830061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|29.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in AFEQT composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||29.5|22.1|<0.001
95934075|NCT03012841|191830062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.5||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 physical composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.5|3.5|<0.001
95934076|NCT03012841|191830063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|6.6||A Hommel multiple testing procedure was utilized to maintain overall alpha of 0.025 for the 3 hypotheses tested for the secondary objective.|t-test, 1 sided|||The formal alternative hypothesis tested was that the mean 12-month change in SF-12 mental composite scores was greater than 0, against the null the hypothesis that it was equal to 0.||6.6|3.2|<0.001
95934077|NCT03398200|191830084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.89
95934078|NCT03398200|191830085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.03
95934079|NCT03398200|191830086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.35
95934080|NCT03398200|191830087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.77
95857542|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
95934081|NCT03398200|191830088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.50
95934082|NCT03398200|191830089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Cox|1- degree of freedom (1-df) likelihood ratio test (LRT) in a cell dose stratified Cox model||||||0.76
95934083|NCT04065048|191830090|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
95934084|NCT04065048|191830091|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0093
95934085|NCT04065048|191830093|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2487
95934086|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk TNF levels at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and women with IBD. Our hypothesis was that women with IBD have higher TNF in milk due to the underlying inflammatory condition (IBD).||||0.89
95934087|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.024
95734947|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role-Physical|3.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.19|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.19|0.83|0.007
95857543|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
95934088|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 levels (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.70
95934089|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk levels of MIP-1 beta (TNF dependent chemokine) at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.93
95934090|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold of significance was set at 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 levels (one of the TNF dependent chemokines) at EARLY LACTATION PERIOD were compared between non-IBD control and IBD group to see if there is a difference.||||0.12
95934091|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Milk levels of TNF-dependent chemokine, MCP1, at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control and the 2 IBD subgroups. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MCP1. Nonparametric comparison of the 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test.||||0.12
95934092|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including MIP-1beta. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.051
95934093|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the EARLY LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. We hypothesized that the use of TNFmAb decreases milk TNF and TNF-dependent chemokine including IP10. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.0046
95934094|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of milk TNF level at the MID LACTATION POINT between non-IBD control and IBD group. The same analytical framework as the early lactation, but this is based on data at the mid-lactation point (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.35
95934095|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk TNF at MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. Hypothesis is the same as for the early lactation point. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.11
95934096|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MCP1 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT(13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.26
95934097|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk MIP-1beta level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.15
95934098|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Milk IP10 level comparison between non-IBD control and IBD group at the MID LACTATION POINT (13-14 postpartum weeks). Our hypothesis is the same as for the early-lactation point.||||0.31
95934099|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MCP-1 at the MID LACTATION PERIOD was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.21
95934100|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk MIP-1beta at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The hypothesis is the same as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.12
95934101|NCT03397108|191830094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"Milk IP10 at the MID LACTATION POINT was compared among the 3 groups: non-IBD control, IBD subgroup On TNFmAb and IBD subgroup Off TNFmAb. The same hypothesis as that for the early-lactation period. Nonparametric comparison of 3 groups was done with one-way ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test), followed by multiplicity-adjusted pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test."||||0.29
95934102|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5647|0.8303||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MCP1 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MCP1.||0.8303|0.5647|<0.0001
95987793|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.0||||||Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||5.0|-15.9|
95734948|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Bodily Pain|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.47|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.47|3.77|<0.001
95734949|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: General Health|2.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.02|0.99|0.001
95795274|NCT05172609|191560814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.59
95987794|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9||||||Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-5.9|-30.1|
95934103|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5088|0.8042||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine MIP-1beta to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine MIP-1beta.||0.8042|0.5088|<0.0001
95934104|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.6316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4377|0.7693||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the EARLY LACTATION, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and chemokine IP10 to see if they are positively correlated. This is to show supportive evidence for TNF dependency of chemokine IP10.||0.7693|0.4377|<0.0001
95734950|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Vitality|3.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.1|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.10|1.24|0.001
95857544|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
95857545|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
95857546|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
95857547|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
95857548|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.12|-11.93|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-11.93|-24.12|0.0128
95857549|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-18.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.74|-12.42|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-12.42|-24.74|0.0111
95857550|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.95|-2.84|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib LI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||-2.84|-11.95|0.1715
95857551|NCT00658359|191673377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.74|0.14|||Wald Test||Tofacitinib MI minus CsA Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.14|-9.74|0.4131
95934105|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3445|0.736||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MCP1 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.7360|0.3445|<0.0001
95734951|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Social Functioning|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.59|<0.001
95857552|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.12|6.5|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||6.50|-2.12|0.6694
95857553|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.91|5.8|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||5.80|-2.91|0.7799
95857554|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
95857555|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.41|2.95|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.95|-6.41|0.7555
95857556|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|3.65|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||3.65|-5.63|0.8572
95857557|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.539|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.41|9.06|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||9.06|-1.41|0.5390
95857558|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.44|2.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.16|-7.44|0.6432
95857559|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.2|7.55|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||7.55|-3.20|0.7336
95857560|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.9099|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.28|4.79|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||4.79|-6.28|0.9099
95934106|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.7564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6022|0.8562||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and MIP-1beta to see of they are positively correlated.||0.8562|0.6022|<0.0001
95934107|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.32||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03869|0.552||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants at the MID LACTATION POINT, we analyzed correlation between milk TNF and IP10 to see of they are positively correlated.||0.5520|0.03869|0.0227
95734952|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Role Emotional|0.97||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.77|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.77|-1.82|0.494
95734953|NCT00048581|191441101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 85 Mental Health|2.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.54|0.65|0.009
95734954|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 PCS|5.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|7.29|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.29|3.64|<0.001
95734955|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 MCS|3.04||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.17|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.17|0.91|0.005
95734956|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Physical Function|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.98|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.98|2.08|<0.001
95934108|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2727|0.6975||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk TNF between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6975|0.2727|0.0001
95734957|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role-Physical|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.35|||ANCOVA|||||7.35|3.10|<0.001
95734958|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Bodily Pain|6.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|8.11|||ANCOVA|||||8.11|4.37|<0.001
95734959|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 General Health|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.90|1.64|<0.001
95734960|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Vitality|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.79|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.79|2.76|<0.001
95734961|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Social Functioning|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.12|2.71|<0.001
95734962|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Day 169 Role Emotional|3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.33|0.74|0.013
95934109|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.4722||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2181|0.6664||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MCP1 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.6664|0.2181|0.0005
95734963|NCT00048581|191441103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj Diff: Mental Health|2.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Differences in mean changes from baseline between the 2 treatment groups (ABA and PLA) in PCS, MCS, and the 8 subscale scores at Day 85 were compared using ANCOVA models. Adjusted difference (Adj Diff) from PLA group with 95% CIs and p-values were calculated, and adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.60|0.79|0.006
95795275|NCT05172609|191560814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.25
95934110|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0802|0.5803||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk MIP-1beta between early and mid-lactation points.||0.5803|0.0802|0.01
95934111|NCT03397108|191830094|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.7964||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Spearman rank correlation|Spearman r = 0.66 (95%CI: 0.4670 - 0.7964). Number of XY pairs: 51||Using the pooled data of all participants, we assessed temporal tracking of milk IP10 between early and mid-lactation points.||0.7964|0.4670|<0.0001
95734964|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: HAQ-DI|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.23|-0.44|<0.001
95734965|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Dressing and Grooming|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
95734966|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Arising|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg From BL||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
95734967|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Eating|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline = Adj M Chg From BL||-0.30|-0.65|<0.001
95734968|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Walking|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.09|-0.44|0.003
95934112|NCT03397108|191830095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 12 months of age. Animal data suggested that pups receiving milk with lower TNF and TNF-dependent chemokines showed enhanced cognitive development. Because there was no guiding information in humans regarding milk TNF level differences between women with and without IBD, our main goal was to measure milk TNF levels. The infant cognitive/language assessment, therefore, had to be designed as a pilot and exploratory in nature.||||0.12
95934113|NCT03397108|191830095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 12 months of age.||||0.56
95934114|NCT03397108|191830095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cognitive development at 18 months of age.||||0.16
95934115|NCT03397108|191830095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language development at 18 months of age||||0.75
95934116|NCT03397108|191830095|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.2655||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.5307|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using pooled data of all participants at the early-lactation sample point, correlation between milk TNF levels and 12 month cognitive development was examined to investigate if they were inversely correlated.||0.5307|-0.047|0.0853
95934117|NCT03397108|191830095|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman rank correlation|0.3705||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07385|0.6921|||Spearman rank correlation|||Using the pooled data of all participants, correlation analysis between milk TNF at early lactation and 12 month language score was done to see if they were inversely correlated.||0.6921|-0.07385|0.090
95795276|NCT05172609|191560814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing intervening self-efficacy rating at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.35
95934118|NCT03397108|191830097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that the 2 groups are not different for their sampling time points in the early lactation period.||||0.97
95934119|NCT03397108|191830097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.96
95934120|NCT03397108|191830098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is to confirm that there is no difference in the second sampling time points in the mid-lactation period between the groups.||||0.56
95934121|NCT03397108|191830098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
95934122|NCT05307978|191830122|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|68.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.74|89.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed to the ln-transformed PK parameter and the independent variables.||||89.56|52.74|
95934123|NCT05307978|191830123|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|120.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.2|214.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||214.43|67.20|
95934124|NCT05307978|191830124|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|118.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.93|188.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||188.80|73.93|
95934125|NCT05307978|191830125|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (%)|93.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.17|139.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model was performed with ethnicity as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||||139.56|63.17|
95934126|NCT02380612|191830163|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95795277|NCT05172609|191560814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.88
95934127|NCT02721381|191830170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
95934128|NCT02721381|191830171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||<.001
95934129|NCT02721381|191830172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
95934130|NCT02721381|191830173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.85
95934131|NCT02721381|191830174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
95934132|NCT02721381|191830175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.69
95934133|NCT02721381|191830176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.038
95934134|NCT02721381|191830177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of group assignment was examined using MLM, with a significant time X group interaction indicative of an effect of group assignment. Data from T1, T2, and T3 were both used in same analysis.||||.45
95934135|NCT02721381|191830178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.92
95934136|NCT02721381|191830179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.42
95934137|NCT02721381|191830180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for T1 measure||||.65
95934138|NCT02721381|191830181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||.001
95934139|NCT06375421|191830204|SUPERIORITY|For preliminary efficacy, we used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare free recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Free Recall - Blocked Free Recall|||||<0.001
95934140|NCT06375421|191830204|SUPERIORITY|For preliminary efficacy, we used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare free recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Free Recall - Blocked Free Recall|||||<0.001
95934141|NCT06375421|191830205|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued word recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Word Recall - Blocked Cued Word Recall|||||<0.001
95934142|NCT06375421|191830205|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued word recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Word Recall - Blocked Cued Word Recall|||||<0.001
95934143|NCT06375421|191830206|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued definition recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 17|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Definition Recall - Blocked Cued Definition Recall|||||0.003
95934144|NCT06375421|191830206|SUPERIORITY|We used paired-samples t-tests within each group to compare cued definition recall at the 1-week assessment between the two schedules.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom: 19|Preliminary Intervention Effect = MEMI Cued Definition Recall - Blocked Cued Definition Recall|||||0.002
95934145|NCT05136404|191830208|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.937|
95934146|NCT05136404|191830208|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.968|
95934147|NCT05136404|191830209|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.953|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.953|
95934148|NCT05136404|191830209|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.982|
95934149|NCT05136404|191830210|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.972|
95934150|NCT05136404|191830210|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.992|
95934151|NCT05136404|191830211|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.4728
95934152|NCT05136404|191830211|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||Sign test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0142
95934153|NCT05986565|191830212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.587
95934154|NCT05986565|191830213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.874
95934155|NCT05986565|191830214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||RMANOVA|1||||||0.946
95934156|NCT05986565|191830215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24||||||0.267
95934157|NCT05986565|191830216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.187
95934158|NCT05986565|191830217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.765
95934159|NCT05986565|191830218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.060
95934160|NCT05986565|191830219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=24||||||0.608
95934161|NCT05986565|191830220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=25||||||0.638
95934162|NCT01854385|191830226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.079
95950043|NCT02410278|191871988|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.084||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Results are obtained from an ANCOVA model for comparing average change of the GSRS score in the two treatment groups, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Weights, defined as the proportions of days with GSRS score recorded during the Day 1 - Day 10 period are applied to adjust for missing data.||0.273|-0.104|0.3753
95934163|NCT03351699|191830272|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.53|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 78%.|||||
95934164|NCT03351699|191830272|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.73|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 95%.|||||
95934165|NCT03351699|191830272|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.52|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 75%.|||||
95934166|NCT03351699|191830272|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.75|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-4250 and placebo at least 1.4 log10 copies/mL was 96%.|||||
95934167|NCT02252172|191830298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|<0.0001
95934168|NCT02252172|191830299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|1.80|<0.0001
95934169|NCT02252172|191830300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|2.42|<0.0001
95734969|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Hygiene|-0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.05|-0.39|0.010
95734970|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Reaching|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.25|-0.61|<0.001
95934170|NCT02252172|191830301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.59|||Fisher Exact|||||5.59|2.55|<0.0001
95934171|NCT02252172|191830302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.24|2.09|<0.0001
95934172|NCT02252172|191830303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.86|1.85|<0.0001
95734971|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Gripping|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.15|-0.49|<0.001
95734972|NCT00048581|191441105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adj M Chg from BL: Activities|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Mean changes from baseline in HAQ disability index were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. This analysis was based on the LOCF data set. Similar analyses were also conducted for each of the 8 individual categories: 1) dressing and grooming; 2) arising; 3) eating; 4) walking; 5) hygiene; 6) reach; 7) grip; and 8) common daily activities. Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline= Adj M Chg from BL||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
95934173|NCT02252172|191830304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.55|<0.0001
95934174|NCT02252172|191830305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
95934175|NCT02252172|191830308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
95934176|NCT02252172|191830309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
95934177|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cycle 3 Day 1||5.2|-0.4|=0.0986
95934178|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||4.4|-1.4|=0.3042
95934179|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||4.9|-1.2|=0.2339
95934180|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||6.3|0.2|=0.0365
95934181|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|||=|0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.9||Cycle 24 Day 1|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.9|-1.6|=0.3093
95934182|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6|||=|0.3481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5|-1.8|=0.3481
95934183|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|||=|0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||4.6|-2.6|=0.5825
95934184|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.4|-1|=0.1566
95934185|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.8|||=|0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||5.7|-2.2|=0.3858
95934186|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.8|||=|0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.0|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-3.5|=0.7296
95934187|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||3.3|-6|=0.5793
95934188|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.5|-6.1|=0.7756
95934189|NCT02252172|191830310|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||7.4|-6|=0.8458
95734973|NCT02158936|191441270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.65||One sided p value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) stratification factors||||0.65|0.21|1.000
95857561|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.01|6.56|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||6.56|-5.01|0.9106
95934190|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||4.5|-0.5|=0.1176
95934191|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|||=|0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||5.4|0.2|=0.0336
95734974|NCT02158936|191441271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Log Rank|||Confidence Intervals estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with eltrombopag compared with Placebo. Log-rank test stratified by IVRS stratification factors||2.08|0.97|0.164
95734975|NCT02158936|191441288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.990|
95734976|NCT02158936|191441289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.99|||ANOVA|||||1.99|0.970|
95734977|NCT00486863|191441303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
95734978|NCT00486863|191441304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95934192|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.6|||=|0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||5.3|-0.2|=0.0653
95934193|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.8|||=|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||8.5|3|=0.0000
95934194|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|||=|0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||4.8|-0.9|=0.1805
95934195|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.7|||=|0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||5.7|-0.3|=0.0783
95934196|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||5.5|-0.8|=0.1422
95934197|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.2|||=|0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.5|||Least Square Mean Difference|||Cycle 36 Day 1||6.5|-0.1|=0.0575
95934198|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||4.5|-2.4|=0.5339
95934199|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|||=|0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||5|-2.4|=0.5015
95934200|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||6.3|-1.7|=0.2512
95934201|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||4.1|-5.1|=0.8246
95934202|NCT02252172|191830311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||4.5|-7|=0.6640
95934203|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016|||=|0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1||0.046|-0.015|=0.3069
95934204|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.019|||=|0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1||0.05|-0.013|=0.2472
95934205|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1||0.044|-0.021|=0.4972
95934206|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.029|||=|0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1||0.062|-0.004|=0.0841
95934207|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.027|||=|0.1296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1||0.062|-0.008|=0.1296
95934208|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.033|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 24 Day 1||0.07|-0.003|=0.0762
95934209|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||=|0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 30 Day 1||0.052|-0.025|=0.4859
95934210|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 36 Day 1||0.051|-0.029|=0.6031
95934211|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.051|||=|0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 42 Day 1||0.093|0.009|=0.0178
95934212|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007|||=|0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 48 Day 1||0.053|-0.038|=0.7460
95987795|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|6.9||||||Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.9|-11.6|
95987796|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.2||||||Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-22.6|
95734979|NCT00486863|191441305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.926
95734980|NCT00486863|191441306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
95734981|NCT00486863|191441307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
95734982|NCT00486863|191441308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
95734983|NCT00486863|191441309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
95734984|NCT00486863|191441310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the cord blood.||||0.524
95734985|NCT00486863|191441310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included the transferrin receptor: ferritin ratio from the heel stick.||||0.070
95734986|NCT00486863|191441311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95857562|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.22|1.42|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||1.42|-10.22|0.5244
95934213|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.037|||=|0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 54 Day 1||0.086|-0.012|=0.1394
95987797|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.9||||||Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||1.9|-23.8|
95987798|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||0.4|-19.3|
95734987|NCT00486863|191441316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.991
95734988|NCT01045096|191441331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||90.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An analysis of variance with covariates (ANCOVA) model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to Tmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.809
95734989|NCT01045096|191441332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|2.183|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.183|0.660|
95734990|NCT01045096|191441332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.463|2.427|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.427|0.463|
95734991|NCT01045096|191441332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.579|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized Cmax. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.493|
95934214|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011|||=|0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 60 Day 1||0.068|-0.045|=0.6982
95934215|NCT02252172|191830312|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069|||=|0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 66 Day 1||0.14|-0.001|=0.0543
95987799|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-14.1||||||Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-14.1|-39.0|
95987800|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|6.1||||||Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||6.1|-18.7|
95987801|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-1.7||||||Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.7|-22.6|
95934216|NCT02214550|191830316|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.02
95987802|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.1||||||Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||8.1|-9.8|
95987803|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-1.2||||||Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||-1.2|-21.7|
95987804|NCT00562354|191949825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|3.4||||||Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups exact, 2-sided 95% CIs on the difference in proportions between reporting groups were calculated (50 to 64 years age group minus ≥ 65 years age group).||3.4|-18.5|
95987805|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 1: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.86|0.43|
95987806|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 3: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.00|0.63|
95987807|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 4: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.91|0.48|
95987808|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 5: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.85|0.50|
95987809|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.52|
95734992|NCT01045096|191441333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.693|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.848|0.693|
95795278|NCT05172609|191560814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: Self-efficacy intervening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.71
95987810|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 6B: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.90|0.48|
95987811|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 7F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.97|0.56|
95987812|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 9V: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.61|0.35|
95795279|NCT05172609|191560815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.88
95795280|NCT05172609|191560815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing screening use at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.55
95795281|NCT05172609|191560815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: CSR screening at timepoints 1, 3, and 4||||.36
95795282|NCT05172609|191560816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 3: two weeks after completing the training||||.24
95734993|NCT01045096|191441333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|2.276|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.276|0.584|
95934217|NCT02214550|191830316|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8245||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.08
95934218|NCT02214550|191830316|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8121||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates a time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting bladder pain at first urge ratings (0-100 visual analog scale) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||.023
95934219|NCT02214550|191830317|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time\*group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.2315
95934220|NCT02214550|191830317|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3244||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.4097
95934221|NCT02214550|191830317|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3283||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimated indicates the time x group (continuous microgestin: D+COS-vs. PBS) interaction.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated predicting pressure pain thresholds (in Newtons of force transvaginally measured anteriorly against the bladder) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The following three orthogonal contrasts were estimated: 1) OCP vs. No OCP, 2) cyclic vs. continuous microgestin, and 3) PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin.||||0.6341
95934222|NCT02214550|191830318|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.393|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (OCP vs. No OCP). PBS participants are included in the OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The OCP vs No OCP contrast was estimated here:||||.393
95934223|NCT02214550|191830318|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameters reported indicates time x group (Continuous vs. Cyclic OCP) interaction. PBS participants are included in the continuous OCP group.|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The cyclic vs. continuous microgestin contrast was run here||||0.941
95950044|NCT02410278|191871989|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.081||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.158|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Week 10.||0.158|0.005|0.0376
95734994|NCT01045096|191441333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.642|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-tlqc\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.642|0.632|
95734995|NCT01045096|191441334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.692|1.636|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.636|0.692|
95734996|NCT01045096|191441334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|2.314|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||2.314|0.691|
95734997|NCT01045096|191441334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Proportionality Point Estimate|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.817|||ANCOVA|||Sample size of 12 participants per dose group, along with the intense PK sampling in each regimen was needed for characterization of the PK profile. An ANCOVA model with weight as a covariate and regimen as a factor were fitted to dose-normalized AUC\[0-24\]. Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.817|0.777|
95734998|NCT05327491|191441379|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.053||||||||1.053|0.880|
95734999|NCT05327491|191441380|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.033||||||||1.033|0.907|
95735000|NCT05327491|191441381|EQUIVALENCE|It was concluded that the test treatment is bioequivalent to the reference treatment if the 90% CI for the ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean (GLSM) was completely contained within the predefined interval of (0.8000, 1.2500).|Ratio of GLSM|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.029||||||||1.029|0.908|
95735001|NCT02589808|191441386|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kappa|||||||0.0005
95934224|NCT02214550|191830318|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05 and p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons given a priori orthogonal contrasts.|Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter reported indicates time x group interaction (D+COS-continuous microgestin vs. PBS-continuous microgestin).|A linear mixed-effects model was estimated for parieto-occipital peak alpha (Hz) as a function of time (0, 6, 12 month visits), group, and their interaction. Random intercepts were estimated for each participant. The PBS-continuous microgestin vs. D+COS-continuous microgestin contrast was evaluated here||||0.005
95934225|NCT03447249|191830341|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.7|12.4|<0.0001
95934226|NCT03447249|191830342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|15.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.7|12.6|<0.0001
95934227|NCT03447249|191830343|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.24|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.24|0.09|<0.0001
95934228|NCT03447249|191830344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|-41.9|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-41.9|-47.2|<0.0001
95934229|NCT03447249|191830345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.2|<0.0001
95934230|NCT03447249|191830346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.31|0.91|<0.0001
95934231|NCT03447249|191830347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-40.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.5|-46.3|<0.0001
95795283|NCT05172609|191560816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test of superiority between EBIS and IAU groups comparing total SPIRS score at Time 4: 12 weeks after completing the training||||.88
95934232|NCT03447249|191830348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||21.3|14.5|<0.0001
95934233|NCT03447249|191830350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.54||||||||0.54|0.24|
95934234|NCT03447249|191830351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
95934235|NCT02376790|191830366|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|22.0||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||22.0|5.8|0.005
95735002|NCT00840099|191441400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of Means x 100|100.91||||||90.0|95.82|106.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.26|95.82|
95735003|NCT00840099|191441401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.79||||||90.0|100.69|104.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.94|100.69|
95795284|NCT05172609|191560816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for organization: SPIRS at timepoints 3 and 4||||.10
95950045|NCT02410278|191871990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.164|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||2.164|0.554|0.7952
95735004|NCT00840099|191441402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.75||||||90.0|100.62|104.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.93|100.62|
95735005|NCT00840099|191441403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the Mean x 100|100.47||||||90.0|93.28|108.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.20|93.28|
95857563|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.11|5.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.31|-7.11|0.9029
95934236|NCT02376790|191830366|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.3||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The primary hypothesis of this study is that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with psoriatic arthritis achieving ACR 20 response at week 24.||17.3|1.0|0.029
95934237|NCT02376790|191830367|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|19.6||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||19.6|4.9|0.005
95934238|NCT02376790|191830367|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||Adjusted p-value was obtained by applying a Bonferroni-based testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment to control the family-wise, two-sided type one error rate at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|The secondary hypothesis of this study was that etanercept plus methotrexate therapy and etanercept monotherapy are more efficacious than methotrexate monotherapy as measured by the percentage of participants with PsA achieving MDA response at week 24.||18.9|4.2|0.005
95934239|NCT02376790|191830369|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|23.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||23.0|6.4|<0.001
95934240|NCT02376790|191830369|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|20.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR50 response at week 24.||20.2|3.4|0.006
95934241|NCT02376790|191830370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.4|6.5|<0.001
95934242|NCT02376790|191830370|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of the percentage of participants with an ACR70 response at week 24.||20.7|6.7|<0.001
95934243|NCT02376790|191830379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.91|<0.001
95934244|NCT02376790|191830379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in PASDAS at week 24||-0.34|-0.92|<0.001
95934245|NCT02376790|191830380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.68||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||1.68|-2.93|0.59
95934246|NCT02376790|191830380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.99||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in CDAI at week 24||0.99|-3.63|0.26
95987813|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 14: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||1.03|0.56|
95934247|NCT02376790|191830381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.38||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||1.38|-3.35|0.41
95934248|NCT02376790|191830381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.65||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in SDAI at week 24||0.65|-4.09|0.15
95934249|NCT02376790|191830382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.07||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.07|-0.52|0.010
95934250|NCT02376790|191830382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in DAS28 at week 24||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
95934251|NCT02376790|191830383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.05|-0.15|0.34
95934252|NCT02376790|191830383|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.12|0.67
95934253|NCT02376790|191830384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.51||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.51|0.37|0.015
95934254|NCT02376790|191830384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.28||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Physical Component Summary at week 24||3.28|0.13|0.033
95934255|NCT02376790|191830384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.63||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.63|-1.69|0.97
95934256|NCT02376790|191830384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.16||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of change from baseline in Mental Component Summary at week 24||1.16|-2.16|0.56
95934257|NCT02376790|191830385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
95934258|NCT02376790|191830385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.08||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.08|-0.88|0.10
95934259|NCT02376790|191830387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.23||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|79.36||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||79.36|-51.52|0.68
95934260|NCT02376790|191830387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.05||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.75|71.42||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||71.42|-58.75|0.85
95934261|NCT02376790|191830388|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.9||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||26.2|-0.4|0.057
95934262|NCT02376790|191830388|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|10.9||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|24.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||24.4|-2.5|0.12
95934263|NCT02376790|191830389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.98|-0.66|0.70
95934264|NCT02376790|191830389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.86||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||0.86|-0.79|0.93
95735006|NCT00840099|191441404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Ratio of the mean|104.15||||||90.0|96.35|112.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 80% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|96.35|
95735007|NCT00840099|191441405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.06||||||90.0|95.85|112.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.97|95.85|
95735008|NCT01171989|191441431|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.84||||||Difference in percentage anti-PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.84|-3.27|
95934265|NCT02376790|191830390|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.7||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||13.7|-7.3|0.55
95934266|NCT02376790|191830390|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|8.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.4||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||19.4|-1.9|0.11
95934267|NCT02376790|191830391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.87||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \>30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||17.87|0.85|0.031
95934268|NCT02376790|191830391|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|11.54||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|||11.54|-5.49|0.49
95934269|NCT02376790|191830392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|24.9||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||24.90|6.99|<0.001
95934270|NCT02376790|191830392|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|15.83||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BMI status (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD use.|Methotrexate Monotherapy is the reference|Analysis of percent improvement from baseline in the percentage of BSA involved in psoriasis in the subgroup of participants with ≥ 10% BSA involvement at baseline.||15.83|-1.89|0.12
95934271|NCT02376790|191830397|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||20.8|2.0|0.019
95934272|NCT02376790|191830397|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.0||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|||14.0|-5.6|0.40
95987814|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 18C: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.74|0.43|
95987815|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19A: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.66|0.38|
95735009|NCT01171989|191441432|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.27|
95735010|NCT01171989|191441432|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: the upper limit of Standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval lower or equal to 10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.86||||||Difference between groups for rSBA-MenC ≥1:8||2.86|-3.02|
95735011|NCT01382719|191441523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0215|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.0|0.0|<0.05
95735012|NCT01382719|191441523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||Van Elteren|||||0.06|0.00|<0.05
95735013|NCT01382719|191441524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0496|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95735014|NCT01382719|191441525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0079|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Van Elteren|||||1.00|0.00|<0.05
95735015|NCT01382719|191441526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
95735016|NCT01382719|191441527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0013|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
95735017|NCT01382719|191441528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1161|||<|0.05|||||||Van Elteren|||||||<0.05
95857564|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.78|3.63|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.63|-8.78|0.7267
95934273|NCT02376790|191830398|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|20.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|33.3||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||33.3|6.8|0.004
95934274|NCT02376790|191830398|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|17.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|30.2||P-value is unadjusted and considered descriptive.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline body mass index (≤ 30 kg/m² or \> 30 kg/m²) and prior non-biologic DMARD treatment as stratification factors|The risk difference was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of common risk difference using the stratification factors described above.|Analysis of percentage of participants with an sPGA of 0 or 1 at Week 24 in participants with baseline BSA involvement with psoriasis ≥ 10%.||30.2|4.0|0.012
95934275|NCT00567489|191830423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
95934276|NCT00567489|191830423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
95934277|NCT00567489|191830424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
95934278|NCT00567489|191830424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
95987816|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 19F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.60|0.29|
95735018|NCT01382719|191441529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0133|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95934279|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
95934280|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
95934281|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
95934282|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
95934283|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
95934284|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
95934285|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
95934286|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
95934287|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
95934288|NCT00567489|191830426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
95934289|NCT00567489|191830427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
95934290|NCT00567489|191830427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
95934291|NCT00567489|191830427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
95934292|NCT00567489|191830427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
95857565|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.7168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.06|3.6|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||3.60|-9.06|0.7168
95934293|NCT00567489|191830427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
95934294|NCT00567489|191830427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
95934295|NCT00567489|191830428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
95934296|NCT00567489|191830428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
95934297|NCT00567489|191830428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
95934298|NCT00567489|191830428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
95934299|NCT00567489|191830429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
95934300|NCT00567489|191830429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
95934301|NCT00567489|191830430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
95934302|NCT00567489|191830431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
95934303|NCT00567489|191830431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
95934304|NCT00567489|191830431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
95934305|NCT00567489|191830431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
95934306|NCT00567489|191830432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
95934307|NCT00567489|191830432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
95934308|NCT00567489|191830432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
95934309|NCT00567489|191830432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
95934310|NCT00567489|191830433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
95934311|NCT00567489|191830433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
95934312|NCT00567489|191830434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
95934313|NCT00567489|191830434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
95934314|NCT00567489|191830435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
95857566|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
95934315|NCT00567489|191830435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
95934316|NCT00567489|191830436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
95934317|NCT00567489|191830437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
95934318|NCT00567489|191830437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
95934319|NCT00567489|191830437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
95934320|NCT00567489|191830437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
95934321|NCT00567489|191830438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
95934322|NCT00567489|191830438|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
95934323|NCT00567489|191830439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
95934324|NCT00567489|191830439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
95934325|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
95934326|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
95934327|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
95735019|NCT01536405|191441534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 10 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||6.8|1.8|<0.001
95735020|NCT01536405|191441534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|97.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.4|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>76%||98.4|95.6|<0.001
95735021|NCT01536405|191441535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||-0.6|-4.0|0.003
95735022|NCT01536405|191441535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|96.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|97.9|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||97.9|94.9|<0.001
95735023|NCT01536405|191441536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||2.8|-0.7|<0.001
95735024|NCT01536405|191441536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|99.1|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.1|96.8|<0.001
95735025|NCT01536405|191441537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease \>= the prespecified criterion of 5 percentage points|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||0.7|-1.8|<0.001
95735026|NCT01536405|191441537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|98.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.6|99.5|||One-sample binomial|||Acceptability of the antibody response rate was based on a lower bound of the 95% CI being \>90%||99.5|97.6|<0.001
95735027|NCT01536405|191441538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|1.1|<0.001
95735028|NCT01536405|191441539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.0|0.8|<0.001
95735029|NCT01536405|191441540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
95934328|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
95934329|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
95934330|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
95987817|NCT00562354|191949828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentration|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82|||||Ratio of GMCs were calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between age groups on the logarithmic scale.|Serotype 23F: To assess differences between reporting groups, 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of IgG GMCs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the log-transformed assay results computed using the Student t-distribution.||0.82|0.42|
95735030|NCT01536405|191441541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority evaluation is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio, excluding a decrease of \>=1.5 fold|GMT ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Analysis was based on log-transformed titers|GMT ratio = MMRV (AMP) / MMRV (2006 process)|||1.1|0.9|<0.001
95735031|NCT01536405|191441542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||RD = MMRV (AMP) - MMRV (2006 process)|||1.3|-1.0|<0.001
95735032|NCT00420238|191441579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-1.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Comparison of least squares means. Primary analysis: analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and BASDAI baseline as a covariate.||-1.51|-16.5|0.019
95735033|NCT00420238|191441580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.42|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||10.42|0.82|0.098
95735034|NCT00420238|191441580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.88|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.88|0.69|0.197
95987818|NCT00784654|191949835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95934331|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
95934332|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
95735035|NCT00420238|191441580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.95|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||5.95|0.89|0.087
95735036|NCT00420238|191441580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.29|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors.||7.29|1.10|0.031
95735037|NCT00420238|191441581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.57|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.57|0.62|0.310
95735038|NCT00420238|191441581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||3.99|0.65|0.309
95735039|NCT00420238|191441581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.74|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.74|1.81|0.001
95735040|NCT00420238|191441581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.003||95.0|1.65|10.42|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in the etanercept group than in the placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||10.42|1.65|0.003
95735041|NCT00420238|191441583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.94|0.57|0.259
95735042|NCT00420238|191441583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.44||95.0|0.51|4.64|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.64|0.51|0.440
95735043|NCT00420238|191441583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.046||95.0|1.02|8.16|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||8.16|1.02|0.046
95735044|NCT00420238|191441583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.014||95.0|1.31|11.32|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.32|1.31|0.014
95934333|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
95735045|NCT00420238|191441585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.53|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||16.53|0.55|0.204
95735046|NCT00420238|191441585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
95735047|NCT00420238|191441585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.121||95.0|0.71|19.69|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||19.69|0.71|0.121
95857567|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.99|1.88|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.88|-10.99|0.5515
95857568|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
95934334|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
95934335|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
95987819|NCT00784654|191949836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95735048|NCT00420238|191441585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.058||95.0|0.96|11.8|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||11.80|0.96|0.058
95735049|NCT00420238|191441587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.14|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||35.14|0.35|0.287
95735050|NCT00420238|191441587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.169||95.0|0.51|44.94|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||44.94|0.51|0.169
95735051|NCT00420238|191441587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
95735052|NCT00420238|191441587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.073||95.0|0.87|23.07|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors.||23.07|0.87|0.073
95857569|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
95857570|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.5574|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.72|1.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.91|-10.72|0.5574
95934336|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
95934337|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
95934338|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
95934339|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
95934340|NCT00567489|191830440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
95934341|NCT00567489|191830441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
95934342|NCT00567489|191830441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
95934343|NCT00567489|191830442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
95934344|NCT00567489|191830442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
95934345|NCT00567489|191830443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
95934346|NCT00567489|191830443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
95934347|NCT00567489|191830444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
95934348|NCT01061671|191830451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial regression|Adjustments of confidence intervals for between-participant variation (overdispersion).||||||0.54
95934349|NCT01061671|191830452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.34
95934350|NCT01061671|191830453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1461
95934351|NCT02570022|191830459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis corresponds to the visual analog scale and morphine equivalent data.|Our hypothesis was that in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, treatment with LB would lead to no significant differences in average daily pain scores. A power analysis was performed prior to the study to assess the primary hypothesis that a significant difference in average daily pain of 13mm on VAS will not be found between the INB and LB groups. With a power of 80% (beta level = 0.80, alpha level = 0.05), a sample size of 25 patients per group was obtained||||<0.05
95934352|NCT02468128|191830465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-12.71|||ANOVA|||||-12.71|-71.68|<0.01
95934353|NCT02468128|191830466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95934354|NCT02468128|191830467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95934355|NCT02468128|191830468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log-rank tests|Log-rank tests were used to compare SDE and placebo with respect to the distribution of time to first post-surgical usage of ketorolac medication.||||||<0.05
95934356|NCT02468128|191830469|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)|||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)|ANOVA|ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)||ANOVA with Treatment, Center effect (and Treatment\*Center effect if p-value ≤ 0.1 in non-reduced model)||||<0.05
95934357|NCT02468128|191830470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95934358|NCT02468128|191830471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|At the final visit, each subject was asked the questions for evaluation of satisfaction and a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used in comparison of subjects' satisfaction with post-surgical analgesic between treatment groups.|||||>|0.05||||||Satisfaction was evaluated using a patient-reported rating scale to assess the subject's overall satisfaction with postoperative analgesia. More participants indicate greater satisfaction with that treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At the final visit, each subject was asked the questions for evaluation of satisfaction and a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used in comparison of subjects' satisfaction with post-surgical analgesic between treatment groups.||||>0.05
95735053|NCT00420238|191441589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-1.72|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.72|-18.19|0.018
95735054|NCT00420238|191441590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|1.33|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.33|-18.40|0.089
95934359|NCT02468128|191830472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.153|-21.26|||ANOVA|||||-21.26|-209.153|<0.05
95934360|NCT01503749|191830474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95934361|NCT00440011|191830475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.024
95934362|NCT01172418|191830478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
95934363|NCT01172418|191830479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.37
95735055|NCT00420238|191441590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.11||95.0|-17.89|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-17.89|0.110
95987820|NCT00784654|191949837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-15.4|<0.001
95987821|NCT00784654|191949840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95857571|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
95934364|NCT01172418|191830480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
95934365|NCT01172418|191830481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
95934366|NCT00419341|191830495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of SCIG:IVIG treatment was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more. With 18 evaluable subjects, the power to show this non-inferiority was calculated to be 85% based on the assumptions of an intra-individual variability with a coefficient of variation (CV) = 25% and a GMR equal to or greater than 1.|Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.055||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed by the CI of the GMR.|t-test, 2 sided|Based on log-transformed individual differences.|Geometric mean ratio SCIG:IVIG non-inferiority was concluded if the lower GMR confidence limit was 0.8 or more|Individual sAUC values (standardized to a 7-day period) of the IV and adjusted SC sampling periods in each individual subject were log transformed and a parametric 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean of the individual differences was obtained. Back-transformation of the mean and its CI produced the geometric mean ratio (GMR) and its respective 90% CI.||1.055|0.951|
95934367|NCT02998528|191830512|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|97.38|0.43|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.43|0.0052
95934368|NCT02998528|191830513|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|13.0|30.3|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||30.3|13.0|
95934369|NCT02998528|191830513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.49|55.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm C over Concurrent Arm B) the Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||55.75|3.49|<0.0001
95934370|NCT02998528|191830514|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)||||0.91|0.51|
95934371|NCT02998528|191830515|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|36.1|||||Strata adjusted difference (Arm C - Concurrent Arm B) based on the CMH method of weighting. Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||36.1|19.6|
95934372|NCT02998528|191830515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|10.26|||||Stratified by PD-L1 (≥ 1% vs \<1%/unevaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||10.26|3.16|
95987822|NCT00784654|191949844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95987823|NCT00784654|191949845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|3.5|<0.001
95987824|NCT00784654|191949846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95987825|NCT00784654|191949847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
95987826|NCT00784654|191949850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.726
95857572|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.03|6.15|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||6.15|-7.03|0.9551
95735056|NCT00420238|191441590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73||||0.004||95.0|-24.6|-4.86|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.86|-24.60|0.004
95735057|NCT00420238|191441590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.27||||0.065||95.0|-19.14|0.59|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.59|-19.14|0.065
95735058|NCT00420238|191441592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.28|-17.70|0.002
95735059|NCT00420238|191441593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|0.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||0.15|-16.81|0.054
95735060|NCT00420238|191441593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02||||0.011||95.0|-19.5|-2.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.54|-19.50|0.011
95735061|NCT00420238|191441593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.75||||0.003||95.0|-21.23|-4.27|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-4.27|-21.23|0.003
95735062|NCT00420238|191441593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.29|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.7|-6.82|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-6.82|-23.7|<0.001
95735063|NCT00420238|191441595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-0.49|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.49|-18.69|0.039
95735064|NCT00420238|191441596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|4.57|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.57|-17.13|0.254
95735065|NCT00420238|191441596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.348||95.0|-16.02|5.68|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.68|-16.02|0.348
95735066|NCT00420238|191441596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.014||95.0|-24.57|-2.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-2.88|-24.57|0.014
95735067|NCT00420238|191441596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-30.54|-8.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-8.84|-30.54|<0.001
95857573|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.92|4.33|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||4.33|-8.92|0.7704
95857574|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.39|7.89|||Wald Test|||Month 12||7.89|-0.39|0.4455
95857575|NCT00658359|191673378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.873|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.35|2.96|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||2.96|-4.35|0.8730
95857576|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.6|-1.36|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-1.36|-12.60|0.2957
95857577|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|2.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||2.37|-9.66|0.6097
95857578|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.28|-2.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||-2.86|-14.28|0.2064
95857579|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|0.86|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||0.86|-11.34|0.4696
95735068|NCT00420238|191441598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.73|0.75|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.75|-17.73|0.071
95735069|NCT00420238|191441599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|7.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.17|-14.31|0.511
95735070|NCT00420238|191441599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57||||0.401||95.0|-15.31|6.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||6.17|-15.31|0.401
95735071|NCT00420238|191441599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45||||0.023||95.0|-23.19|-1.71|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-1.71|-23.19|0.023
95934373|NCT02998528|191830517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||||Stratified by: PD-L1 status (≥ 1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (IB/II vs IIIA), and sex (male vs female)|||0.90|0.49|
95934374|NCT03546608|191830522|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|139.35||||||||139.35|64.75|
95934375|NCT03546608|191830522|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.93|128.98||||||||128.98|59.93|
95987827|NCT01180660|191949879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|27.0|||Regression, Linear|||A sample size of 22 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 90% power to detect a 16 point difference in the aggregated Qor-40 score for the two study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 16 points similar to what was observed in a previous investigation.||27|3|.01
95735072|NCT00420238|191441599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.25||||0.01||95.0|-24.99|-3.51|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.51|-24.99|0.010
95735073|NCT00420238|191441601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|1.53|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||1.53|-12.03|0.127
95735074|NCT00420238|191441602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|7.38|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||7.38|-8.23|0.914
95735075|NCT00420238|191441602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.544||95.0|-10.21|5.41|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||5.41|-10.21|0.544
95987828|NCT00853671|191949885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
95735076|NCT00420238|191441602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.039||95.0|-16.02|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.40|-16.02|0.039
95735077|NCT00420238|191441602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.004||95.0|-19.35|-3.73|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.73|-19.35|0.004
95934376|NCT03546608|191830523|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.09|140.26||||||||140.26|64.09|
95934377|NCT03546608|191830523|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.94|129.0||||||||129.00|58.94|
95934378|NCT03546608|191830524|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.9|129.73||||||||129.73|80.90|
95934379|NCT03546608|191830524|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|71.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.08|89.93||||||||89.93|56.08|
95987829|NCT00853671|191949887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson Correlation|||Pearson Correlation||||<0.0001
95987830|NCT03649061|191949892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To compare the two randomization groups, a linear mixed model with DAS28-CRP as outcome (Bell et al. 2014), including random intercepts per patient, adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP, randomization timepoint, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity was used.||||<0.05
95987831|NCT03649061|191949893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A binomial generalized linear mixed effect model for repeated measures of remission from randomization up until 28 weeks after was carried out, with adjustment for baseline DAS28-CRP, moment of randomization, and RF and/or ACPA seropositivity.||||<0.05
95987832|NCT01295216|191949923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.4|||||Systolic blood pressure at 12 months|||1.40|-2.15|
95934380|NCT03546608|191830535|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.67|149.47|||||For MSC2571109|||149.47|45.67|
95934381|NCT03546608|191830535|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.5|247.12|||||For MSC2571109|||247.12|75.50|
95934382|NCT03546608|191830535|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|185.1|||||For MSC2571107|||185.10|54.53|
95735078|NCT00420238|191441605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|1.85|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||1.85|-15.57|0.122
95735079|NCT00420238|191441605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.145||95.0|-15.16|2.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||2.26|-15.16|0.145
95735080|NCT00420238|191441605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.55||||0.005||95.0|-21.26|-3.84|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.84|-21.26|0.005
95735081|NCT00420238|191441605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.95||||0.008||95.0|-20.66|-3.24|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.24|-20.66|0.008
95735082|NCT00420238|191441609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|1.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.96|-13.84|0.139
95735083|NCT00420238|191441610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|10.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||10.67|-8.88|0.857
95735084|NCT00420238|191441610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.304||95.0|-14.88|4.67|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||4.67|-14.88|0.304
95934383|NCT03546608|191830535|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|94.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.28|174.07|||||For MSC2571107|||174.07|51.28|
95934384|NCT03546608|191830536|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|82.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.56|148.84|||||For MSC2571109|||148.84|45.56|
95934385|NCT03546608|191830536|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|137.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|248.54|||||For MSC2571109|||248.54|76.08|
95934386|NCT03546608|191830536|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|100.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.16|184.23|||||For MSC2571107|||184.23|55.16|
95735085|NCT00420238|191441610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.047||95.0|-19.68|-0.13|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-0.13|-19.68|0.047
95735086|NCT00420238|191441610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.007||95.0|-23.43|-3.88|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Comparison of leasts squares means. Mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using an auto-regressive correlation structure with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate, and patients as a random factor.||-3.88|-23.43|0.007
95735087|NCT00420238|191441613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.06|0.003
95857580|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
95934387|NCT03546608|191830536|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|96.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.63|175.78|||||For MSC2571107|||175.78|52.63|
95934388|NCT03546608|191830537|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.52|136.26|||||For MSC2571109|||136.26|62.52|
95934389|NCT03546608|191830537|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|169.48|||||For MSC2571109|||169.48|77.76|
95934390|NCT03546608|191830537|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|106.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.25|161.49|||||For MSC2571107|||161.49|70.25|
95934391|NCT03546608|191830537|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean (%)|72.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.87|110.04|||||For MSC2571107|||110.04|47.87|
95934392|NCT03570892|191830556|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted stratified cox model hazard r|1.07|||=|0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Stratified log-rank test one-sided|||||1.40|0.82|= 0.694
95934393|NCT05028582|191830568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.9|9.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|S-IGA Success at Week 8||9.31|2.90|<0.0001
95934394|NCT05028582|191830569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|5.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|B-IGA Success at Week 8||5.73|1.75|<0.0001
95934395|NCT05028582|191830570|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.6|13.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||13.62|1.60|0.0005
95934396|NCT05028582|191830571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|9.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|SI-NRS Success at Week 4||9.55|2.01|<0.0001
95735088|NCT00420238|191441613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Vital Capacity: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|0.05|0.006
95857581|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.29|1.37|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||1.37|-11.29|0.5093
95857582|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.5|-2.64|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-2.64|-14.50|0.2238
95857583|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.7846|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.8|4.48|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||4.48|-8.80|0.7846
95857584|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.33|-4.28|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-4.28|-16.33|0.1501
95857585|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.62|2.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.84|-10.62|0.6263
95934397|NCT05028582|191830572|OTHER|SI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.49|11.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||11.78|2.49|<0.0001
95934398|NCT05028582|191830573|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.02|-0.68|0.0164
95934399|NCT05028582|191830574|SUPERIORITY|SI-NRS Change from Baseline Day 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.12|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.39|-1.12|<0.0001
95934400|NCT05028582|191830575|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in Weekly SI-NRS at Week 1|LS Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.87|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|ANCOVA terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline SI-NRS score|||-0.22|-0.87|0.0002
95934401|NCT05028582|191830576|OTHER|WI-NRS Success at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.01|8.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||8.52|2.01|<0.0001
95987833|NCT01295216|191949923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.32|||||Diastolic blood pressure for 12 months|||1.32|-1.29|
95857586|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
95934402|NCT05028582|191830577|SUPERIORITY|PASI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.73|10.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.75|2.73|<0.0001
95934403|NCT05028582|191830578|SUPERIORITY|PSD Aggregate Score Change at Week 8|LS Mean Difference|-5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.64|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA and baseline PSD aggregate score \& multiple imputation of missing data|||-3.60|-6.64|<0.0001
95987834|NCT03257267|191949929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.796||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.796|0.555|<0.00001
95987835|NCT03257267|191949930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.882|||Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.882|0.623|0.00031
95987836|NCT03257267|191949931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.136||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.798|5.468|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||5.468|1.798|0.00002
95857587|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
95857588|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
95857589|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
95987837|NCT03257267|191949936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.855||One-sided p-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|||||0.855|0.570|0.00024
95857590|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
95857591|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
95987838|NCT03962439|191949970|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.61||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in episodic memory from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.211
95735089|NCT00420238|191441613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Forced Expitatory Volume in 1 second: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.04|0.205
95735090|NCT00420238|191441614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis oaf covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.26|-4.93|0.030
95735091|NCT00420238|191441615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.035
95735092|NCT00420238|191441616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.19|-0.38|0.515
95735093|NCT00420238|191441616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.316||95.0|-0.43|0.14|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.14|-0.43|0.316
95735094|NCT00420238|191441616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.008||95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
95735095|NCT00420238|191441616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011||95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-0.08|-0.65|0.011
95735096|NCT00420238|191441628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.37|-0.22|0.613
95735097|NCT00420238|191441629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.47|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.47|-0.34|0.744
95735098|NCT00420238|191441629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.625||95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.30|-0.50|0.625
95735099|NCT00420238|191441629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.325||95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.60|-0.20|0.325
95987839|NCT03962439|191949972|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in speed of processing from baseline to 16 weeks interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.203
95987840|NCT03962439|191949974|OTHER|Null hypothesis significance testing|F-value|0.28||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and education.||Repeated measures ANCOVA testing whether change in reasoning from baseline to week 16 interacted with condition (Time x Condition).||||.760
95735100|NCT00420238|191441629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.76||95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||0.46|-0.34|0.760
95735101|NCT00420238|191441631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|8.91|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||8.91|-18.35|0.490
95735102|NCT00420238|191441631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.651||95.0|-16.73|10.54|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||10.54|-16.73|0.651
95735103|NCT00420238|191441631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.84||95.0|-15.12|12.34|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||12.34|-15.12|0.840
95735104|NCT00420238|191441631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.562||95.0|-17.81|9.77|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||9.77|-17.81|0.562
95934404|NCT05028582|191830579|SUPERIORITY|PSD Itching Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|10.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||10.04|2.10|<0.0001
95735105|NCT00420238|191441633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-10.03|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with treatment as a factor and baseline vlue as a covariate.||-10.03|-19.44|<0.0001
95735106|NCT00420238|191441634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.58|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and atients as a random factor.||-6.58|-18.17|<0.0001
95735107|NCT00420238|191441634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.25|-11.65|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.65|-23.25|<0.0001
95735108|NCT00420238|191441634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.75|-11.15|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-11.15|-22.75|<0.0001
95735109|NCT00420238|191441634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-23.96|-12.36|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-12.36|-23.96|<0.0001
95735110|NCT00420238|191441636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.25|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.25|-18.23|<0.0001
95735111|NCT00420238|191441637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|-8.1|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 2: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.10|-20.55|<0.0001
95735112|NCT00420238|191441637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.2|-8.76|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 4: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.76|-21.20|<0.0001
95735113|NCT00420238|191441637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.41|-8.96|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 8: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.96|-21.41|<0.0001
95735114|NCT00420238|191441637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.63|-8.19|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference = mean difference final value.|Week 12: Mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), using an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interactions as fixed factors, baseline as a covariate and patients as a random factor.||-8.19|-20.63|<0.0001
95857592|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
95735115|NCT00420238|191441640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.7|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||4.70|0.74|0.184
95857593|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
95934405|NCT05028582|191830580|SUPERIORITY|PSD Pain Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|5.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||5.68|1.83|<0.0001
95934406|NCT05028582|191830581|SUPERIORITY|PSD Scaling Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.28|9.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.08|2.28|<0.0001
95934407|NCT05028582|191830582|OTHER|PSD Total Score 0 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.39|7.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA|||7.68|1.39|0.0012
95735116|NCT00420238|191441640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.036||95.0|1.06|6.46|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.46|1.06|0.036
95735117|NCT00420238|191441640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001||95.0|1.89|13.03|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||13.03|1.89|0.001
95735118|NCT00420238|191441640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.065||95.0|0.95|5.96|||GEE model||An odds-ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||5.96|0.95|0.065
95735119|NCT00420238|191441642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.74|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 2: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||12.74|1.64|0.004
95735120|NCT00420238|191441642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.054||95.0|0.99|6.12|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 4: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||6.12|0.99|0.054
95735121|NCT00420238|191441642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.27|17.31|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 8: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||17.31|2.27|<0.001
95735122|NCT00420238|191441642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.025||95.0|1.14|7.27|||GEE model||Odds ratio greater than 1 indicates the odds of response is greater in etanercept group than in placebo group.|Week 12: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, using a logit link, binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits and their interaction as fixed factors.||7.27|1.14|0.025
95987841|NCT03548051|191949988|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
95987842|NCT03548051|191949991|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.05|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in proportions between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||0.65|-0.58|>0.999
95987843|NCT03548051|191949992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||A Log-Rank permutation test for small samples was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to first CDAD recurrence between treatment arms.||||>0.999
95987844|NCT01789814|191950045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Prasugrel treatment when compared to Clopidogrel was associated with significant reduction in platelets aggregation for all plateles agonist (ADD, SFFFLRN, AYPGKF) at all measured time points.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each patient will have paired samples representing their baseline as well as an on-drug sample. The magnitude of platelet inhibition for each studied agonist will be performed utilizing mean maximal change from baseline in light transmission aggregometry. The paired samples will be analyzed using a two-tailed student's t-test. Statistical significance will be assumed to occur when p\<0.05.||||0.001
95987845|NCT03806127|191950046|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|12.3|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||12.3|-16.1|
95735123|NCT00855738|191441650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95735124|NCT00855738|191441650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95735125|NCT00855738|191441651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95735126|NCT00855738|191441651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3 \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95987846|NCT03806127|191950047|OTHER||CMH Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|22.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-D Participants||22.9|-4.8|
95987847|NCT03806127|191950047|OTHER||CMH Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.7|16.4|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|IBS-M Participants||16.4|-16.7|
95987848|NCT03806127|191950047|OTHER||CMH Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|All Participants||15.9|-5.4|
95987849|NCT03806127|191950048|OTHER||CMH Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|14.9|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus \>= 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||14.9|-11.7|
95735127|NCT00855738|191441651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=25% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95735128|NCT00855738|191441651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: \>=75% reduction: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95735129|NCT00855738|191441652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0039
95735130|NCT00855738|191441652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95735131|NCT00855738|191441653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95735132|NCT00855738|191441664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.1797
95735133|NCT00855738|191441664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety domain: P-value vs baseline.||||0.0433
95735134|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.8284
95735135|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotions (mood): p-value versus baseline.||||0.6299
95735136|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily activities: p-value versus baseline.||||0.6162
95735137|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental function: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5609
95735138|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication effects (physical/ mental): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4635
95735139|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry about seizures (impact of seizures): p-value versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95857594|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
95735140|NCT00855738|191441665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall quality of life: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0258
95735141|NCT00855738|191441666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3: p-value versus baseline.||||0.7822
95987850|NCT03806127|191950049|OTHER||CMH Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||||Difference in proportion and corresponding confidence interval were calculated using the CMH risk difference estimate stratified by randomized Baseline abdominal pain (\< 6 versus ≥ 6) strata, with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.|||18.8|-5.5|
95735142|NCT00855738|191441666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4471
95735143|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep disturbance: p-value versus baseline.||||0.2452
95735144|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snoring: p-value verus baseline.||||1.0000
95735145|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Awake short of breath: p-value versus baseline.||||0.4253
95735146|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Quantity: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0572
95735147|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adequacy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0625
95735148|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Somnolence: p-value versus baseline.||||0.5540
95735149|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 6): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4204
95735150|NCT00855738|191441667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep problems (summary 9): p-value versus baseline.||||0.4869
95735151|NCT00855738|191441668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Month 6: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0863
95735152|NCT00855738|191441669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to a specialist because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0226
95735153|NCT00855738|191441669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Number of visits to the emergency room because of epilepsy: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0017
95735154|NCT00855738|191441670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value versus baseline.||||0.3141
95735155|NCT00855738|191441671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cessation of usual occupation: p-value versus baseline.||||0.0708
95735156|NCT00855738|191441671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Requirement of informal caregiver: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
95735157|NCT00855738|191441671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Required admission to ICU: p-value versus baseline.||||1.0000
95735158|NCT04320849|191441672|OTHER||Slope|0.0675|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.106||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the extravenous region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.106||
95735159|NCT04320849|191441673|OTHER||Slope|0.199|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.397||||||"The following set of hypotheses will be used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the intracardiac region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.397||
95735160|NCT04320849|191441674|OTHER||Slope|-0.015|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0123||||||"The following set of hypotheses were used to evaluate the relationship between lead stiffness and curvature in the connector region:~H0: a ≥ 0 Ha: a \< 0 where a represents the coefficient for stiffness in the following model: log (curvature) = a\*stiffness + b + normally distributed error."||0.0123||
95735161|NCT01312922|191441728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.140|0.456|1.000
95735162|NCT01312922|191441728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.233|||Fisher Exact|||||2.233|0.476|1.000
95735163|NCT00515203|191441731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
95735164|NCT00515203|191441732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3651
95735165|NCT00515203|191441733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
95735166|NCT00515203|191441734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
95735167|NCT00515203|191441735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2098
95735168|NCT04753437|191441771|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.81||||||||1.81|0.94|
95735169|NCT04753437|191441772|EQUIVALENCE|Results were based on analysis of variance model with treatment as a fixed effect.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.4||||||||1.40|0.82|
95735170|NCT00154102|191441776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.0|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The study was planned with 633 progression events, in order to provide 80% power to test the null hypothesis of no difference in PFS time between treatment groups, assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 of cetuximab + chemotherapy (CTX) over CTX alone. Significance level was fixed at 5%. The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and Karnovsky Performance Scale (KPS):\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.000|0.728|0.0479
95934408|NCT05028582|191830583|SUPERIORITY|PSSI-75 at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.98|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S IGA, and baseline B IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.77|2.98|<0.0001
95934409|NCT05028582|191830584|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Clear at Week 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.04|15.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||15.05|3.04|<0.0001
95987851|NCT02163434|191950053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95987852|NCT02163434|191950054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95735171|NCT00154102|191441777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.867|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.867|0.558|0.0012
95735172|NCT00154102|191441778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.544|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.544|0.887|0.2648
95934410|NCT05028582|191830585|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success Week 2|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|9.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||9.13|1.84|<0.0001
95735173|NCT00154102|191441779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.995|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.995|0.774|0.0419
95735174|NCT00154102|191441780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.946|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||0.946|0.670|0.0093
95735175|NCT00154102|191441781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.284|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.284|0.834|0.7549
95795285|NCT00855582|191560845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95795286|NCT00855582|191560846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95934411|NCT05028582|191830586|SUPERIORITY|S-IGA Success at Week 4|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.62|8.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||8.84|2.62|<0.0001
95987853|NCT02163434|191950055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95987854|NCT02163434|191950057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95987855|NCT02163434|191950058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95987856|NCT00797732|191950096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
95987857|NCT01297270|191950111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
95987858|NCT01297270|191950111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||27.4|7.3|0.0007
95735176|NCT00154102|191441782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.77|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.77|1.12|0.0038
95735177|NCT00154102|191441783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.826|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||2.826|1.515|<0.0001
95735178|NCT00154102|191441784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.3475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.242|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.242|0.544|0.3475
95735179|NCT00154102|191441785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Stratified cochran-mantel haenszel test|||The two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was employed at the 5% significance level, considering the randomization strata (region: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, outside Europe and KPS:\<80 vs. ≥80)||1.26|0.67|0.6004
95735180|NCT00154102|191441787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|6.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.27|1.45|0.002
95735181|NCT00909610|191441856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||111|92.3|
95735182|NCT00909610|191441857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|106.0||||||90.0|101.0|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|101|
95735183|NCT00909610|191441858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|101.0||||||90.0|91.9|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|91.9|
95735184|NCT00909610|191441859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Geometric Mean|105.0||||||90.0|100.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|100|
95735185|NCT00909610|191441860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.5|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.5|
95735186|NCT00909610|191441861|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117|103|
95735187|NCT00909610|191441862|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
95735188|NCT00909610|191441863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC's and Cmax parameters.|Ratio of the Mean|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
95735189|NCT00829530|191441877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.87||||||90.0|80.31|98.34|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.34|80.31|
95735190|NCT00829530|191441878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.96||||||90.0|89.77|100.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.45|89.77|
95735191|NCT00829530|191441879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.24||||||90.0|90.13|100.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.63|90.13|
95735192|NCT00829530|191441880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.85||||||90.0|91.95|106.27|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.27|91.95|
95735193|NCT00829530|191441881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.62||||||90.0|97.8|103.52|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.52|97.8|
95987859|NCT01297270|191950112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||30.6|10.7|<0.0001
95987860|NCT01297270|191950112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||26.7|6.5|0.0014
95735194|NCT01643707|191441882|SUPERIORITY|A chi-square test was performed to determine a difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
95735195|NCT01643707|191441883|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95934412|NCT05028582|191830587|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline in PASI Week 2|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.71|-0.85|||ANCOVA|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|Covariate terms of treatment, pooled study site, baseline S-IGA, baseline B-IGA, and baseline PASI score \& multiple imputation to handle missing data|||-0.85|-1.71|<0.0001
95934413|NCT02791230|191830609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6202||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4865|0.7906|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, Transthyretin (TTR) genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.7906|0.4865|0.0001
95934414|NCT02791230|191830612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio|0.6133||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4666|0.8062|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.8062|0.4666|0.0005
95934415|NCT05075408|191830627|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|7.0||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.6|24.6||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo||24.6|-10.6|0.3696
95934416|NCT05075408|191830627|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.|Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.5||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|32.2||Threshold of significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nemolizumab 60 mg versus Placebo||32.2|-3.1|0.0686
95934417|NCT05075408|191830628|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.8|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||22.3|-13.8|0.5909
95934418|NCT05075408|191830628|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|12.9||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.5|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||31.4|-5.5|0.1112
95934419|NCT05075408|191830629|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.3|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.4|4.3|0.0034
95934420|NCT05075408|191830629|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|17.1||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.5|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||29.8|4.5|0.0025
95735196|NCT01643707|191441884|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test used to show any difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2|||||<|0.0001||||||This endpoint was covered in primary objective 2, so this analysis is the same as previously reported.|Chi-squared||||See Primary Objectives for additional details.|||<0.0001
95735197|NCT03603314|191441907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3419
95934421|NCT05075408|191830630|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|3.7||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.5|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||19.8|-12.5|0.5788
95735198|NCT03603314|191441907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5181
95934422|NCT05075408|191830630|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|16.5||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||33.9|-0.8|0.0303
95934423|NCT05075408|191830631|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|24.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.8|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||39.6|8.8|0.0006
95934424|NCT05075408|191830631|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|20.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.0|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||35.7|6.0|0.0021
95735199|NCT03603314|191441908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3666
95735200|NCT03603314|191441908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5776|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.5776
95934425|NCT05075408|191830632|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||24.1|3.8|0.0028
95735201|NCT03603314|191441909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4094
95987861|NCT02112370|191950122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Swallowing difficulty||||0.008
95735202|NCT03603314|191441909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4602
95735203|NCT03603314|191441910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1269
95735204|NCT03603314|191441910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2257|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.2257
95735205|NCT03603314|191441911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.3121
95735206|NCT03603314|191441911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.4965
95735207|NCT03603314|191441912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.0976
95735208|NCT03603314|191441912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for Part 1 of the study were as follows, where μH, μL and μP were defined as the mean change in PTA of the high dose, low dose, and placebo respectively: H0H: μH - μP = 0, HAH: μH - μP \<0 (greater decrease on high dose) H0L: μL - μP = 0, HAL: μL - μP \<0 (greater decrease on low dose)||||0.1762
95735209|NCT00050778|191441913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.545||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.545|0.110|0.0006
95934426|NCT05075408|191830632|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|19.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.6|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.025.||30.5|7.6|0.0003
95735210|NCT00050778|191441913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.658||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0165.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.658|0.151|0.0021
95735211|NCT00050778|191441913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.515|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model using treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country) as covariates was used.||0.515|0.152|<0.0001
95987862|NCT02112370|191950122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior neck pain||||0.016
95987863|NCT02112370|191950122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Right chest pain||||0.019
95987864|NCT02112370|191950122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Left chest pain||||0.035
95987865|NCT02112370|191950122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Back pain||||0.089
95987866|NCT02112370|191950122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||||||threshold p value for significance \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior neck pain||||0.634
95987867|NCT02275338|191950140|OTHER|||||||0.0055||||||The expected proportion of responders using Lanreotide was 50%, 1 sided test, 2.5% significance level alpha and power of 80% using Z-test for binomial proportion.|Binomial test|||One sided binomial test to compare percentage of responding subjects to theoretical proportion of 30%.||||0.0055
95987868|NCT03099707|191950178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|43.0|||Fisher Exact|||||43|0.6|0.105
95735212|NCT00050778|191441914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.552||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.552|0.196|<0.0001
95735213|NCT00050778|191441914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.431||An alpha-sharing approach was used to adjust for multiple treatment group comparisons, endpoints, and two pre-planned interim analyses, including a Lan-Demets error-spending function. Pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was 0.0040.|Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.431|0.126|<0.0001
95735214|NCT00050778|191441914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.441|||Andersen-Gill Model|||Treatment effects were estimated using an Anderson-Gill multiplicative intensity model with robust variance estimation. Covariates included treatment group, Baseline EDSS group (grouped by less than or equal to 1.5 and greater than 1.5), and country (investigative center grouped by country).||0.441|0.176|<0.0001
95735215|NCT00050778|191441915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|62.64||||0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||0.0001
95735216|NCT00050778|191441915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|76.71|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
95735217|NCT00050778|191441915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|70.13|||<|0.0001|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with treatment group indicator, Baseline EDSS and country as covariates was used.||||<0.0001
95735218|NCT00050778|191441916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0885|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0885
95735219|NCT00050778|191441916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0195
95934427|NCT05687903|191830738|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|19.57||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||19.57|7.74|=0.001
95934428|NCT05687903|191830738|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|30.46||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||30.46|18.87|<0.001
95987869|NCT04074928|191950201|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.836||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.836|0.645|
95735220|NCT00050778|191441916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T1 brain volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.0215
95735221|NCT00050778|191441917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3077|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3077
95735222|NCT00050778|191441917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.3632
95735223|NCT00050778|191441917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|||||||ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA model using Baseline MRI-T2 lesion volume, EDSS group, country, and treatment as covariates was used.||||0.2758
95735224|NCT03834870|191441940|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.98|86.1||||||||86.10|81.98|
95735225|NCT03834870|191441941|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.4|99.6||||||||99.60|98.40|
95735226|NCT02605395|191441990|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for Cmax to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.12|101.65||||||||101.65|90.12|
95735227|NCT02605395|191441991|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC(0-t) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|103.44||||||||103.44|90.02|
95735228|NCT02605395|191441992|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence intervals of logarithmically transformed ratio (Idiazole/Pariet) for AUC (0 to infinity) to be within 80-125% to prove equivalency.|Ratio of means|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.06|105.17||||||||105.17|87.06|
95735229|NCT02459951|191442047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||"refer to cylinder A (.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.059
95735230|NCT02459951|191442047|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio B|||||0.465|||||||Regression, Logistic|"refer to cylinder B(1 diameter)"||||||0.465
95735231|NCT02459951|191442047|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio C|||||0.022||||||"refer to cylinder C (1.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.022
95735232|NCT02459951|191442047|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio D|||||0.004||||||"refer to cylinder D (2 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
95735233|NCT02459951|191442047|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio E|||||0.002||||||"refer to cylinder E (2.5 diameter)"|Regression, Logistic|||||||.002
95735234|NCT02255097|191442051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
95735235|NCT02255097|191442052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
95735236|NCT02255097|191442055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
95735237|NCT02255097|191442056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||0.0027
95735238|NCT02255097|191442057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
95735239|NCT02255097|191442058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
95735240|NCT02255097|191442059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial distribution|H0: p ≤ 0.05 versus H1: p \> 0.05||Analysis comparing the ORR for pembrolizumab to a fixed efficacy target of 5% using an exact test of binomial distribution||||<0.001
95735241|NCT04239872|191442069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00778||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09209|0.07653||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.07653|-0.09209|0.8412
95735242|NCT04239872|191442070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06907||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3955|0.2573||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 12 pairs of data, DF=11|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.2573|-0.3955|0.6504
95735243|NCT04239872|191442071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5307||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2372|0.8243||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 11 pairs of data, DF=10|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8243|0.2372|0.0024
95735244|NCT04239872|191442072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5643||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2938|0.8348||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 9 pairs of data, DF=8|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.8348|0.2938|0.0013
95735245|NCT04239872|191442073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1135||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2964|0.06929||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06929|-0.2964|0.2041
95735246|NCT04239872|191442074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.095|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7736|1.416||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.416|0.7736|<0.0001
95934429|NCT05687903|191830738|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.81|32.35||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||32.35|20.81|<0.001
95934430|NCT05687903|191830738|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|16.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.49|21.76||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||21.76|10.49|<0.001
95934431|NCT05687903|191830739|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.32||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-3.32|-9.53|=0.004
95735247|NCT04239872|191442075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.825||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.825|1.112|<0.0001
95795287|NCT00855582|191560847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.181||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.181
95934432|NCT05687903|191830739|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-8.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-8.16|-14.44|<0.001
95934433|NCT05687903|191830739|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|-7.27||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-7.27|-13.35|<0.001
95934434|NCT05687903|191830739|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-5.75||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||-5.75|-11.84|<0.001
95934435|NCT05687903|191830740|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.48|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where incidence rate was exponentiated LS mean \& incidence rate ratio (IRR) was exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.93|0.25|=0.250
95934436|NCT05687903|191830740|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.36|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.79||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.79|0.16|=0.034
95934437|NCT05687903|191830740|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.28|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||0.60|0.13|=0.003
95934438|NCT05687903|191830740|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.67|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29||The GEE model featuring a negative binomial distribution was used for analysis where the incidence rate was the exponentiated LS mean and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean difference from placebo. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|GEE|||The GEE model was used for analysis with fixed effects for visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline WCR, age, and prior use of narcolepsy medications.||1.29|0.35|=0.250
95987870|NCT04074928|191950201|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.809||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.809|0.656|
95735248|NCT04239872|191442076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|2.017||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||2.017|1.081|<0.0001
95795288|NCT00855582|191560848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0271 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95934439|NCT04840199|191830760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in mean change in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between arms).|||0.018|-0.080|0.20
95934440|NCT04840199|191830761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.172||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.438||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chan/Zhang exact test diff. proportions||An exact 95% confidence interval around the observed difference in proportions (and the associated p-value) was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests (Chan-Zhang method).|||0.438|-0.073|0.19
95934441|NCT04840199|191830763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||1.03|0.80|0.12
95987871|NCT04074928|191950201|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.972||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||0.972|0.791|
95987872|NCT04074928|191950202|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-11.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.447|-6.423||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H1N1 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-6.423|-16.447|
95934442|NCT04840199|191830763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.98|0.87|0.009
95934443|NCT04840199|191830763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the odds ratio of weekly rate of change (slope) in odds of CMV DNA detection with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||1.53|0.90|0.24
95987873|NCT04074928|191950202|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.983||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Yamagata vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-9.983|-19.610|
95735249|NCT04239872|191442077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.6||||0.5543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|353.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 6 pairs of data, DF=5|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||353.6|-584.8|0.5543
95735250|NCT04239872|191442078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.328||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.814||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.814|0.8420|0.0003
95735251|NCT04239872|191442079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09023||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2613|0.08082||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.08082|-0.2613|0.2824
95735252|NCT04239872|191442080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6269||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3488|0.905||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.9050|0.3488|0.0002
95934444|NCT04840199|191830766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0002||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0062|0.0066||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0066|-0.0062|0.95
95934445|NCT04840199|191830766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0007||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0019|0.0005||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0005|-0.0019|0.28
95987874|NCT04074928|191950202|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.327|-1.44||||||"Non-inferiority, B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the B/Victoria vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||-1.440|-10.327|
95987875|NCT04074928|191950203|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.5 for the Day 29/57 GMT ratio (adjusted analysis).|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.16||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the Day 29/57 immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain calculated by GMT ratio (Comparator QIV GMT divided by QIVc GMT)"||1.160|0.927|
95987876|NCT04074928|191950204|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI did not exceed the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10% for the Day 29/57 SCR difference.|SCR difference|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.443|7.812||||||"Non-inferiority, A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57~Non-inferiority of the immune response to the A/H3N2 vaccine strain by SCR difference (Comparator QIV SCR minus QIVc SCR)"||7.812|-1.443|
95735253|NCT04239872|191442081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.122||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.122|0.6671|<0.0001
95857595|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
95987877|NCT04074928|191950205|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.024||||||A/H1N1, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.024|0.790|
95987878|NCT04074928|191950205|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.195||||||B/Yamagata, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.195|0.968|
95987879|NCT04074928|191950205|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.202||||||B/Victoria, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.202|0.986|
95934446|NCT04840199|191830766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0056||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0006|0.0118||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sCD163 with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0118|-0.0006|0.077
95735254|NCT04239872|191442082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|1.186||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.186|0.7597|<0.0001
95735255|NCT04239872|191442083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9827|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7758|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.19|0.7758|<0.0001
95735256|NCT04239872|191442084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6573|1.179||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 19 pairs of data, DF=18|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.179|0.6573|<0.0001
95735257|NCT04239872|191442089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05652||||0.3283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1762|0.06829||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 15 pairs of data, DF=14|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.06829|-0.1762|0.3283
95735258|NCT04239872|191442090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3411||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1189|0.5633||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5633|0.1189|0.0058
95735259|NCT04239872|191442091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2976||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05266|0.5426||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5426|0.05266|0.0213
95735260|NCT04239872|191442092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.312||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07454|0.5495||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.5495|0.07454|0.014
95934447|NCT04840199|191830767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0009||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0058||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the early treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Early treatment phase comparison||0.0058|-0.0040|0.72
95934448|NCT04840199|191830767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0009||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.0003||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the late treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Late treatment phase comparison||0.0003|-0.0022|0.13
95987880|NCT04074928|191950206|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.526|2.461||||||A/H1N1, SCR difference, Day 29/57||2.461|-7.526|
95987881|NCT04074928|191950206|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.912|4.911||||||B/Yamagata, SCR difference, Day 29/57||4.911|-4.912|
95735261|NCT04239872|191442093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2524||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09153|0.5962||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.5962|-0.09153|0.1393
95795289|NCT00855582|191560849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95934449|NCT04840199|191830767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0023||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0055||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|GEE model for repeated outcomes|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction in the post treatment phase.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in weekly rate of change (slope) in log10 sTNFRII with randomized letermovir compared to no anti-CMV treatment from a GEE model with linear splines (1 reflects no difference between arms).|Post treatment phase comparison||0.0055|-0.0010|0.17
95987882|NCT04074928|191950206|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.805|5.353||||||B/Victoria, SCR difference, Day 29/57||5.353|-2.805|
95735262|NCT04239872|191442094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2921||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1414|0.4427||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.4427|0.1414|0.0009
95735263|NCT04239872|191442095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2433||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1195|0.3671||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.3671|0.1195|0.0008
95735264|NCT04239872|191442096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3306||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1356|0.7969||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 16 pairs of data, DF=15|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.7969|-0.1356|0.1515
95735265|NCT04239872|191442097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04851||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02327|0.1203||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 17 pairs of data, DF=16|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.1203|-0.02327|0.1712
95735266|NCT04239872|191442098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2789||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07934|0.6371||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 18 pairs of data, DF=17|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||0.6371|-0.07934|0.1188
95934450|NCT04869982|191830768|OTHER|VE was defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR was defined as the ratio of the incidence rates of the RZV Group over the Placebo Group. The VE of RZV against HZ was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 25%.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.82|100.0||All p-values reported were related to the null hypothesis test VE = 0.|Poisson|The CI for VE is derived from the exact CI from RR.||To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) of RZV against HZ, the analysis considered the exact inference on the relative risk adjusted for age strata conditionally to the total number of confirmed HZ cases observed and time at risk. This method computed an exact confidence interval (CI) around the rate ratio (ratio of the event rates in the RZV Group versus Placebo Group) and accounted for the sum of the time at risk of the participants within each group.||100|89.82|<0.0001
95934451|NCT04970407|191830787|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.16||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|13.93|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, standard error (SE) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||13.93|-16.25|0.8769
95934452|NCT04970407|191830787|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.61||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|4.47|||MMRM model|||The adjusted mean, SE and 95% CI of the adjusted mean as well as difference in % relative to baseline and p-value were obtained from a MMRM with Fisher scoring with treatment, time (corresponding to all study visits when CMAP was measured), treatment by time interaction and baseline CMAP amplitude as factors and an unstructured variance covariance matrix.||4.47|-25.69|0.1620
95934453|NCT01443845|191830848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04|||negative binomial regression||p-values are based on a negative binomial regression with factors Treatment and LAMA use.|Rate ratio (Roflumilast/Placebo). A rate ratio \< 1 represents a favorable outcome for the test treatment.||1.04|0.81|0.1634
95934454|NCT01443845|191830848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Male||0.97|0.71|0.0195
95934455|NCT01443845|191830848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup Analysis - By Sex - Female||1.35|0.91|0.3164
95934456|NCT01443845|191830848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||0.99|0.74|0.0385
95987883|NCT04074928|191950207|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.165||||||A/H3N2, GMT ratio, Day 29/57||1.165|0.914|
95987884|NCT04074928|191950208|OTHER|No formal statistical testing was planned for this secondary outcome measure.|SCR difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.006|6.856||||||A/H3N2, SCR difference, Day 29/57||6.856|-3.006|
95934457|NCT01443845|191830848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||negative binomial regression|||Subgroup analysis between patients taking Advair verses patients taking Symbicort as LABA/ICS therapy.||1.32|0.84|0.6475
95934458|NCT01443845|191830849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||negative binomial regression|||||1.19|0.75|0.6354
95934459|NCT01443845|191830850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||negative binomial regression|||||1.02|0.8|0.0884
95934460|NCT01443845|191830851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.0664||The MMRM analysis is based on all postbaseline observed data using a mixed model with terms for treatment, baseline, visit, LAMA use, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interactions.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.0664|0.04|< 0.0001
95934461|NCT01000480|191830859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||P-value for H0 which compared the investigational regimen to historical data.|maximum likelihood estimate|||Null hypothesis (H0): 1-year PFS ≤45% and the alternative hypothesis (H1): 1-year PFS ≥60%, at a 2-sided alpha level of 5%, assuming that PFS time followed an exponential distribution.||||0.0645
95987885|NCT01097304|191950229|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95987886|NCT01097304|191950230|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95735267|NCT04239872|191442099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7205|1.071||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 14 pairs of data, DF=13|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||1.071|0.7205|<0.0001
95934462|NCT01736215|191830863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.343||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|2.261||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable endogenous EPO (EPO less than or equal to 45.2 and EPO greater than 45.3)|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.052|0.266
95934463|NCT01736215|191830864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.999||The binary logistic regression analysis was performed using a crude model between predictor variable CRP (CRP less than or equal to 10.3 and CRP greater than 10.4)|Regression, Logistic|||||0.999|0.016|0.05
95934464|NCT00262730|191830871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|study design has 85% power to detect 25% deduction in hazard rate compared to EORTC Phase 3 results.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.8|>.1
95934465|NCT02538341|191830872|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p value,from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.0023
95934466|NCT02538341|191830873|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.|a generalized linear model|p values, from a generalized linear model on the rank order of the week 6 - baseline change using normal distribution and reciprocal link.||Study protocol defined measure for immunogenicity samples. Participants must have at least 1 post vaccine immunogenicity measure to determine the GMFR (a priori analysis)||||0.31
95934467|NCT02692417|191830881|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
95934468|NCT02692417|191830881|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.225
95735268|NCT04239872|191442101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3199||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004686|0.6351||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 8 pairs of data, DF=7|Treatment difference of transformed (log10) data = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups. To obtain normal distribution, data used in the statistical analysis were transformed to the log10.||0.6351|0.004686|0.0475
95934469|NCT02692417|191830882|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
95934470|NCT02692417|191830882|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.046
95934471|NCT02692417|191830883|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing FSFI score from baseline to time point.||||0.109
95934472|NCT02692417|191830883|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95934473|NCT02020252|191830887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||This is for the receptivity sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and post-test scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.307
95934474|NCT02020252|191830887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||This is for the willingness sub-scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.009
95934475|NCT02020252|191830887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is for knowledge sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test.||||||<.001
95934476|NCT02020252|191830887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||This is for the positive attitudes sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||.004
95934477|NCT02020252|191830887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This was for the self-efficacy sub scale, and the comparison between pre and posttest scores.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||<.001
95934478|NCT00780234|191830956|OTHER||Regression model parameter (α1)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.89|||Regression, Linear|The estimates of treatment effect were adjusted for baseline histology values.||"The hypotheses tested were:~H0: α1 = 0 vs H1: α1 \~= 0"|The hypothesis test was a 2-sided t-test of the effect of group (i.e. the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo groups). The general form of the model is Y = α0 + α1GROUP + α2BASELINE. Y represents the 6-month value of the dependent variable (summary of the histology), GROUP represents a classification variable for the treatment group (1=pioglitazone, 2=placebo), BASELINE represents the value of the outcome measure at baseline, and α0, α1 and α2 represent the parameter estimates from the general linear model. The test of the difference between groups will be the formal test of significance of the α1 parameter.|0.89|-1.68|0.53
95934479|NCT01551355|191830958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|6.16|||t-test, 2 sided|The intervention was evaluated using generalized estimating equation models, controlling for cluster effect, sex, age, weight, and education level.||||6.16|1.64|<.001
95934480|NCT01551355|191830959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|2.03|<.001
95987887|NCT01097304|191950231|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||signed rank test|||||||<0.01
95987888|NCT01097304|191950232|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95735269|NCT04239872|191442102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.38||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.46|73.3||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used; there were 13 pairs of data, DF=12|Treatment difference = Calcium mouthwash before fluoride mouthwash - Fluoride mouthwash|A paired t-test was used to compare the two groups.||73.30|27.46|0.0004
95857596|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.62|-6.25|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||-6.25|-18.62|0.0905
95735270|NCT02008565|191442171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||significance assessed at type 1 error alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The models were adjusted for baseline Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) status and clinical site.||||||0.092
95934481|NCT01551355|191830960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.36|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|11.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.01|-0.29|=.06
95735271|NCT01416584|191442184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.83|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.83|0.40|0.60
95735272|NCT01416584|191442184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.73|0.32|0.88
95735273|NCT01416584|191442184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.46|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.46|0.36|0.64
95735274|NCT01416584|191442185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
95735275|NCT01416584|191442185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.57|0.34|0.39
95735276|NCT01416584|191442185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.26|1.53|0.10
95735277|NCT01416584|191442186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.38|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.38|0.36|0.02
95934482|NCT05215847|191831110|OTHER|Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||||||||||||||||Adverse event subject incidence and event frequency.|||
95934483|NCT03433339|191831153|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model considering all available data.||||||=0.040
95934484|NCT03830177|191831170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95735278|NCT01416584|191442186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.41|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.41|0.38|0.02
95735279|NCT01416584|191442186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.66|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||5.66|0.20|0.85
95735280|NCT01416584|191442187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.35|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.35|0.34|0.01
95735281|NCT01416584|191442187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.44|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.44|0.39|0.03
95735282|NCT01416584|191442187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.69|0.42|0.63
95735283|NCT01416584|191442188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.4|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||0.40|0.39|0.01
95735284|NCT01416584|191442188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.55|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.55|0.36|0.37
95735285|NCT01416584|191442188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.00|0.28|0.05
95735286|NCT04185909|191442194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
95934485|NCT03830177|191831171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95934486|NCT03830177|191831172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95934487|NCT03830177|191831173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95934488|NCT03830177|191831175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95934489|NCT02728557|191831177|OTHER|MLM models||||||0.016|||||||MLM|MLM||A model with two three-way interactions of time by treatment condition by attachment orientation (Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment anxiety, Time Å\~ Treatment condition Å\~ Attachment avoidance) along the lower-level effects to predict differences in the slope of change in outcome. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.||||.016
95735287|NCT01059903|191442256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8411|0.969|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9690|0.8411|
95735288|NCT01059903|191442257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0231|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0231|0.8833|
95735289|NCT01059903|191442258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric LS-Means is included within 0.8-1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|Ratio of geometric LS-Means|0.9046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8437|0.9699|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS-Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.9699|0.8437|
95735290|NCT03897088|191442340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735291|NCT03897088|191442349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735292|NCT03897088|191442350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95934490|NCT03416010|191831189|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no significant difference in Health Beliefs across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
95934491|NCT03416010|191831189|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the full intervention group, COPE-P, and the attention-control group, Preg+, in Health Beliefs, as measured by the Healthy Lifestyle Beliefs measure, at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth||||<0.001
95934492|NCT03416010|191831189|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||0.009
95735293|NCT03897088|191442351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735294|NCT03897088|191442352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735295|NCT03897088|191442353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735296|NCT03897088|191442354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
95735297|NCT03897088|191442355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Log Rank Test p-Value|Kaplan-Meier Estimates|||||||<0.00001
95735298|NCT03897088|191442356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
95735299|NCT03897088|191442357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-75||||<0.00001
95934493|NCT03416010|191831190|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p \<0.01|two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no significant difference in anxiety across the 4 time points.||||<0.001
95934494|NCT03416010|191831190|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in anxiety at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1(immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth), and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
95934495|NCT03416010|191831190|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
95934496|NCT03416010|191831191|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in health behaviors across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
95934497|NCT03416010|191831191|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95934498|NCT03416010|191831191|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
95934499|NCT03416010|191831192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in depressive symptoms across those 4 timepoints.||||<0.001
95934500|NCT03416010|191831192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in depressive symptoms at T0 baseline, as well as at time points 1, immediately following the intervention, 2, 6 weeks after the infants' birth, and 3, 6 months after the infants' birth.||||<0.001
95934501|NCT03416010|191831192|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
95934502|NCT03416010|191831193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference in stress across those 4 time points.||||<0.001
95934503|NCT03416010|191831193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference between the two groups in stress, as measured by the GAD-7, at T0 baseline, as well as at timepoint 1 (immediately following the intervention), timepoint 2 (6 weeks after the infants' birth) and timepoint 3 (6 months after the infants' birth).||||<0.001
95934504|NCT03416010|191831193|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||two-way ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: There was no statistically significant interaction between the intervention group and time.||||<0.001
95934505|NCT02488863|191831221|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.0561|||||||ANOVA|||H0: mean(SPPB\_older\_pain) = mean(SPPB\_older\_no pain) = mean(SPPB\_younger)||||0.0561
95934506|NCT01704079|191831240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95934507|NCT01704079|191831241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95934508|NCT01704079|191831242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95934509|NCT01704079|191831243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95735300|NCT03897088|191442357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-90||||<0.00001
95735301|NCT03897088|191442357|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI-100||||0.00004
95735302|NCT03897088|191442358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735303|NCT03897088|191442359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735304|NCT03897088|191442360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.00001
95735305|NCT03897088|191442361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05||||||Week 16|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.00001
95735306|NCT03897088|191442362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
95735307|NCT03897088|191442363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.00001
95735308|NCT03555305|191442389|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.04|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.04|0.886|
95934510|NCT06023082|191831244|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934511|NCT06023082|191831245|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934512|NCT06023082|191831246|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934513|NCT06023082|191831247|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934514|NCT06023082|191831248|OTHER|||||||0.4907||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.4907
95934515|NCT06023082|191831249|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934516|NCT06023082|191831250|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934517|NCT06023082|191831251|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934518|NCT06023082|191831252|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
95934519|NCT06023082|191831253|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934520|NCT06023082|191831254|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934521|NCT06023082|191831255|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934522|NCT06023082|191831256|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95934523|NCT06023082|191831257|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95934524|NCT06023082|191831258|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934525|NCT06023082|191831259|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95735309|NCT03555305|191442390|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model and participant as a random effect, with period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects. The estimate of the ratio of means of each PK/PD parameters between the 2 treatments and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were calculated. A typical bio-equivalence limit (0.8 to 1.25) was used as equivalence margin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.02|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.02|0.874|
95735310|NCT01985308|191442393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95735311|NCT00323193|191442501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.720
95735312|NCT00323193|191442502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.710
95857597|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.9|0.84|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||0.84|-12.90|0.4604
95735313|NCT02268500|191442513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95857598|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.61|3.02|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||3.02|-7.61|0.7166
95857599|NCT00658359|191673379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.76|0.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 12||0.73|-9.76|0.4692
95934526|NCT06023082|191831260|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934527|NCT06023082|191831261|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.||||<0.0001
95934528|NCT06023082|191831262|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 10 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934529|NCT06023082|191831263|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934530|NCT06023082|191831264|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95987889|NCT02249143|191950239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|13.22|||Regression, Linear|||FRC values over time were modeled using linear mixed effects regression with treatment group vs. time interaction and repeated measures for the randomization, 2 week, and discharge time points. Compound symmetric covariance structures were used to account for the correlation of FRC values within each patient. We compared outcomes between the two treatment groups and included adjustments for gender, twin gestation, and weight at randomization.||13.22|0.02|<0.05
95735314|NCT02268500|191442514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
95735315|NCT02268500|191442515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95987890|NCT02249143|191950240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95735316|NCT02268500|191442516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
95735317|NCT02268500|191442517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95857600|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
95857601|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.28|3.11|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||3.11|0.28|0.3132
95735318|NCT03235739|191442577|SUPERIORITY|multiple imputation for longitudinal data was conducted to impute the missing data for the primary outcome. The final results were obtained from pooling results from 10 imputed complete case data set.|geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|0.32|0.84
95735319|NCT03235739|191442577|SUPERIORITY|A sensitivity analysis using complete case analysis|geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|0.26|0.73
95735320|NCT03235739|191442578|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.63|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|0.63|0.91
95735321|NCT03235739|191442579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.98|6.8|||Chi-squared|||||6.80|0.98|0.012
95735322|NCT03235739|191442580|SUPERIORITY||median of differences|-5.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-12.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-12|0.08
95735323|NCT02847650|191442581|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-8.6|0.0407
95857602|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95857603|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934531|NCT06023082|191831265|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934532|NCT06023082|191831266|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12 comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95934533|NCT04899115|191831274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95934534|NCT04899115|191831275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used because data was not normal.||||||0.48
95950046|NCT02410278|191871991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.589|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio and the P-value are based on the Cox's proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for age, weight and baseline GSRS score. Hazard ratio (HR) is the ratio of hazard rates of Montelukast and placebo treatment groups. P-value is from the Wald test that HR is 1. CI = Wald confidence interval.||1.589|0.563|0.8328
95950047|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.115||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.283|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 1: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.283|-0.052|0.1743
95987891|NCT02249143|191950240|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Group differences in the secondary outcomes were tested at randomization, two weeks, and discharge using independent samples t-tests.||||
95857604|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934535|NCT05568004|191831287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.|||Statistical analysis was conducted by a researcher using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. The Shapiro-Wilk test and histograms evaluated the data for normal distribution, and the Levene test confirmed homogeneous variances between groups (p \> 0.05). Continuous data following a normal distribution are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare independent continuous data between groups, while the chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical data. Friedman two-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables, while the two-way mixed ANOVA was used to examine the changes between groups over time. Before the two-way mixed ANOVA, boxplot evaluation confirmed no outliers. Mauchly's sphericity test showed that the assumption of sphericity for two-way interaction was met. Tukey's correction was used for pairwise subgroup comparisons.|||0.001
95934536|NCT05568004|191831287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||0.001
95934537|NCT05568004|191831287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.166
95934538|NCT05568004|191831288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.074
95934539|NCT05568004|191831288|SUPERIORITY|A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.Two-tailed testing was used in nature of hypothesis testing.||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.074
95934540|NCT05568004|191831288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p value for change over time within the group, Friedman 2-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.311
95934541|NCT05568004|191831289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.018
95934542|NCT05568004|191831289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.152
95934543|NCT05568004|191831289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.438
95934544|NCT05568004|191831290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.135
95934545|NCT05568004|191831290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.203
95934546|NCT05568004|191831290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied||||||0.593
95934547|NCT05568004|191831291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
95934548|NCT05568004|191831291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.021
95934549|NCT05568004|191831291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.081
95987892|NCT04036968|191950251|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of three drug conditions with cannabidiol to control groups placebo+placebo and hydromorphone+placebo||||||0.195|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.195
95987893|NCT04036968|191950252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95987894|NCT04036968|191950253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.074
95987895|NCT00879697|191950254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of training in both groups were assessed by a 2-way ANOVA (Time x Group) for repeated measures. When significance was obtained, the Newman-Keuls post hoc test was used to identify the differences.||||<0.05
95987896|NCT01110200|191950257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment comparison ratio|0.917||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.447|||Negative bionomial regression model||Annualized rate estimates, the treatment comparison ratio, the confidence interval, and the p-value are from a negative binomial regression model with terms for treatment, country, randomization stratum, baseline severity, and time on treatment.|||1.447|0.581|0.710
95934550|NCT05568004|191831292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||<0.001
95934551|NCT05568004|191831292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
95934552|NCT05568004|191831292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.747
95934553|NCT05568004|191831293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|\*p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0 package program was used to analyze the data. The suitability of normal distribution of the data was evaluated with Shapiro Wilk and histograms. Numerical data complying with normal distribution are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD). . Friedman 2-way ANOVA was used to analyze dependent variables. Two-way mixed ANOVA test was used to examine the changes between groups over time||||0.001
95934554|NCT05568004|191831293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||<0.001
95934555|NCT05568004|191831293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|ANOVA|p-value for changes over time within the group; Friedman's two-way ANOVA test was applied.||||||0.05
95934556|NCT01820260|191831341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||To account for multiple testing, the 4 pairwise tests with corresponding vehicle group were performed using Bonferroni method testing at a 1.25% significance level, securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5%|Fisher Exact|||Complete clearance of AKs at Week 8 was to be analysed by log binomial regression with factors treatment group, anatomical location (face/chest or scalp) and analysis site. Due to the low numbers of subjects obtaining complete clearance in the vehicle groups,the proposed model did not converge and Fisher's exact test was used instead to compare active treatments with the respective vehicle arm.||||0.0002
95987897|NCT00903175|191950260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective was to assess the non-inferiority of everolimus as compared to Sunitinib in terms of PFS-1L \& was based on Bayesian methodology. If the estimated HR for PFS-1L had a value ≤ 1.1, non-inferiority of everolimus to Sunitinib would be declared. Non-inferiority of everolimus compared with Sunitinib as a first-line therapy was not achieved. The estimated HR for PFS-1L was 1.43 which did not satisfy the protocol-defined non-inferiority margin of a HR ≤ 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.77||||||||1.77|1.15|
95735324|NCT00467896|191442605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.55|60.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in inhalation-times rate from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||60.15|39.55|<0.0001
95735325|NCT03818581|191442606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||SPCD analysis|||||||0.15
95735326|NCT01811953|191442615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.531|105.653|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.653|99.531|<0.0001
95934557|NCT01820260|191831341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|||||see comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comment in analysis 1||||0.0037
95934558|NCT01820260|191831341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|||||See comments in analysis 1|Fisher Exact|||See comments in analysis 1||||0.0171
95934559|NCT01820260|191831341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95735327|NCT01811953|191442615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.879|103.059|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.059|94.879|<0.0001
95857605|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934560|NCT01820260|191831342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||To account for multiple testing among the secondary endpoints, a hierarchical order of testing was determined, where the following evaluation was done separately for each of the four active groups: Provided the primary endpoint was significant at a 1.25% level, the comparison to vehicle in terms of reduction in AK count from baseline to week 8 was tested at a 1.25% level. Provided this test was significant, the second secondary endpoint,partial clearance, was tested(vs. vehicle) at a 1.25% level||||< 0.001
95934561|NCT01820260|191831342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
95987898|NCT00802204|191950285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|describe.....||Baseline outcome measurements are compared between lean and obese. Baseline and post outcome measurements are compared for the obese who completed VLCD||||<0.05
95934562|NCT01820260|191831342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||See comment analysis 1||||< 0.001
95934563|NCT01820260|191831342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test|||See comment in analysis 1||||< 0.001
95934564|NCT01820260|191831343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of partial clearance of AK's at Week 8 was done in the same way as for the primary outcome (endpoint)||||<0.001
95934565|NCT01820260|191831343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95987899|NCT00802204|191950285|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare baseline and post-diet outcome measures||||<0.05
95735328|NCT01811953|191442615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.728|109.386|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.386|102.728|<0.0001
95735329|NCT01811953|191442616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|96.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|101.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.26|91.25|<0.0001
95735330|NCT01811953|191442616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.56|106.62|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.62|92.56|<0.0001
95735331|NCT01811953|191442616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean difference|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|106.14|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||106.14|95.74|<0.0001
95735332|NCT01811953|191442617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.315|105.43|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.430|99.315|<0.0001
95735333|NCT01811953|191442617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.784|103.037|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.037|94.784|<0.0001
95795290|NCT00855582|191560850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. The pre-specified alpha level of 0.0228 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857606|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934566|NCT01820260|191831343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95987900|NCT03829657|191950305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.27|0.196
95735334|NCT01811953|191442617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|105.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.73|109.329|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.329|102.730|<0.0001
95934567|NCT01820260|191831343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95934568|NCT01046136|191831365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value is from a logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and center||Investigator's End-of-Study Assessment NOTE: All assessments of efficacy were considered exploratory and were given equal consideration, and were carried out on both the MITT and PP populations. LOCF method was applied to missing post baseline measurements in analyses of the MITT population.||||0.0096
95934569|NCT01046136|191831367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from a Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the two treatment groups.||||||0.0293
95934570|NCT02058108|191831368|OTHER|Missing assessment imputed using the closest available assessment|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.03|36.75|||Fisher Exact|||HBV DNA level of \<300 copies/mL (51 IU/mL) at Week 24|Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage|36.75|-37.03|1.0000
95987901|NCT00562588|191950332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.067||||0.683||95.0|0.78|1.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint tele-mRS on day 90 was available in 527 of 543 treated patients (97.1%).||1.461|0.78|0.683
95987902|NCT00562588|191950333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, age, weight, baseline SBP, diabetes, previous stroke and baseline NIHSS||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||||0.607
95934571|NCT02058108|191831370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.43||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|74.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|ALT levels at Week 24||74.60|-14.62|0.2984
95735335|NCT01811953|191442618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.255|108.351|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||108.351|96.255|<0.0001
95735336|NCT01811953|191442618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.863|118.353|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||118.353|95.863|0.0082
95735337|NCT01811953|191442618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|104.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.152|110.224|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||110.224|99.152|<0.0001
95735338|NCT01811953|191442619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.931|101.21|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||101.210|88.931|0.0001
95735339|NCT01811953|191442619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.339|103.935|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||103.935|92.339|<0.0001
95735340|NCT01811953|191442619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.166|109.082|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||109.082|97.166|<0.0001
95735341|NCT01811953|191442620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|94.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|100.26|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '1 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '3 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||100.26|89.80|<0.0001
95857607|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934572|NCT02058108|191831371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg loss at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
95987903|NCT00562588|191950334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.202||95.0|0.442|1.189|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Early treatment initiation (immediately after the index event) with Aggrenox was compared to late initiation of Aggrenox after 7 days of treatment with ASA mono||1.189|0.442|0.202
95735342|NCT01811953|191442620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.14|107.03|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '2 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '4 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||107.03|92.14|<0.0001
95735343|NCT01811953|191442620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMean), test/reference, for the primary endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|100.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.77|105.96|||ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as the geometric mean of '5 Empagliflozin/Metformin (T)' divided by the geometric mean of '6 Empagliflozin + Metformin (R)'.|||105.96|95.77|<0.0001
95764068|NCT02972892|191498175|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||8.04|2.64|<.001
95934573|NCT02058108|191831371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|60.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBeAg seroconversion at Week 24||60.20|-53.70|1.0000
95934574|NCT02058108|191831372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|42.17|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|HBsAg loss at Week 24||42.17|-37.54|1.0000
95987904|NCT01534533|191950355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||>0.05
95934575|NCT02058108|191831375|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|41.83|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval for the difference in percentage. P-value from Fishers exact test comparing proportions in Initial LdT and Initial Placebo groups.|Treatment emergent genotypic resistance at Week 24||41.83|-37.05|1.0000
95934576|NCT04110054|191831380|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo (N = 102) vs S-600918 50 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg||||||0.9334||||||P-value was evaluated at the 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses of equality between the treatment and placebo effects were tested using a mixed model, containing treatment group, week, and interaction between treatment groups and week as fixed effects; participant as random effect; and region and the common logarithm of the frequency of coughs per hour at baseline as covariates. Covariance structure was given as unstructured.||||0.9334
95735344|NCT01819597|191442650|OTHER|This is a phase II study design to determine the non-futility of proceeding to a phase III pivotal evaluation. The study group was planned to be compared to a propensity score matching (PSM) cohort from to the patients in the medical arms of the SAMMPRIS trial and to patients in the medical arm of COSS that had demonstrated angiographic intracranial atherosclerosis and occlusion.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.94||Pre-established α ≤ 0.10 for phase IIa|Regression, Cox|Alpha set at ≤ 0.1. for phase II study|ERSIAS/ Controls.|We derived the sample size required to power the trial to test the difference between two binomial event rates using the method of Farrington and Manning as implemented in R package gsDesign (Anderson, 2011). An estimated sample size of 52 patients will be necessary to detect a ∆ of 0.05, with a one-sided alpha of 0.10 and a beta of 0.10 - acceptable parameters for a non-definitive, non-futility study (Palesch et al., 2005, Levin, 2005).||0.94|0.14|0.08
95735345|NCT00830206|191442657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® Software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.62||||||90.0|94.84|111.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.05|94.84|
95735346|NCT00830206|191442658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.85||||||90.0|94.48|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|94.48|
95934577|NCT02554786|191831513|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean (LS Mean)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.176|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.176|0.088|<0.001
95934578|NCT02554786|191831513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.167|<0.001
95934579|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.091|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.091|-0.254|<0.001
95934580|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|-0.115|||MMRM|||Week 4||-0.115|-0.278|<0.001
95934581|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.026|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.026|-0.136|0.186
95987905|NCT01534533|191950356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.992
95987906|NCT01534533|191950357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.672
95735347|NCT00830206|191442659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the pharmacokimetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.92||||||90.0|95.18|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.14|95.18|
95934582|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.127|||MMRM|||Week 4: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.127|-0.242|<0.001
95735348|NCT01832259|191442660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.345
95735349|NCT01832259|191442662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.46
95934583|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.044|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.044|-0.214|0.003
95934584|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0435|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 12||-0.162|-0.333|<0.001
95934585|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0431||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.033|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.033|-0.136|0.232
95934586|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.128|||MMRM|||Week 12: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.128|-0.248|<0.001
95934587|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.086|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.086|-0.257|<0.001
95934588|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|-0.162|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.162|-0.334|<0.001
95934589|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0437||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.031|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.031|-0.140|0.214
95987907|NCT01534533|191950358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.402
95987908|NCT01534533|191950359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two sides)|ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis was no group difference"||||0.636
95735350|NCT03585790|191442663|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin acceptable mean difference (Single Vision - Multifocal) = -5 rating units (0-100 scale, 0 = optimal)||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \>= M vs. Ho: Single Vision - Multifocal \< M. Alpha = 0.05, two sided beta = 0.80||||0.18
95735351|NCT02163837|191442706|SUPERIORITY|the study was exploratory, the number of patients included was not calculated|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||Mc Nemar symetry test for repeated measures and paired t-tests as appropriated||||<0.05
95735352|NCT00834249|191442707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
95735353|NCT00834249|191442708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.73||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
95735354|NCT00834249|191442709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.71||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
95735355|NCT00834249|191442710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|109.61||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
95735356|NCT00834249|191442711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.85||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational puposes only.|||||
95735357|NCT00834249|191442712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.38||||||90.0|||||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||||
95735358|NCT00834743|191442736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.49||||||90.0|90.65|109.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.18|90.65|
95735359|NCT00834743|191442737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|91.44|107.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.19|91.44|
95735360|NCT00834743|191442738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|90.57|108.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.32|90.57|
95934590|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.149|||MMRM|||Week 26: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.149|-0.270|<0.001
95735361|NCT04112823|191442758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.0||||||||20|-6|
95735362|NCT04112823|191442759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|16.0||||||||16|-8|
95735363|NCT04112823|191442760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0||||||||14|-8|
95735364|NCT04112823|191442762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.3|
95735365|NCT04112823|191442763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.0||||||||18|-9|
95735366|NCT00064753|191442766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.84|0.93
95735367|NCT00064753|191442767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.43||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.93|0.19
95735368|NCT00064753|191442768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.86|0.67
95735369|NCT00064753|191442769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.80|0.61
95735370|NCT00064753|191442770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||1.81|0.69|0.64
95735371|NCT00064753|191442771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country|Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.30|0.66
95934591|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.053|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.053|-0.229|0.002
95735372|NCT00064753|191442772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.62|0.28
95735373|NCT00064753|191442773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.23|0.73|0.70
95735374|NCT00064753|191442774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||1.65|0.79|0.49
95934592|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|-0.177|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.177|-0.354|<0.001
95735375|NCT00064753|191442775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.80|0.46|0.78
95735376|NCT00064753|191442776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.57|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||2.57|0.15|0.50
95735377|NCT00064753|191442777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.5|||Regression, Cox|P was calculated with stratified proportional hazards models stratified by country||||3.50|0.48|0.60
95735378|NCT00234286|191442819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.76|1.09|.009
95735379|NCT00234286|191442820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
95735380|NCT00234286|191442821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.42|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.42|0.59|0.69
95735381|NCT00234286|191442822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||0.96|0.53|.03
95735382|NCT00234286|191442823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.16|0.38|0.15
95857608|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934593|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0447||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.098|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.098|-0.078|0.824
95735383|NCT00234286|191442824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.62|0.67|0.86
95735384|NCT00234286|191442825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
95857609|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934594|NCT02554786|191831514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.141|||MMRM|||Week 52: The comparison of QMF149 vs. MF was based on combined effects of QMF149 150/160 \& 150/320 μg and MF 400 \& 800 μg derived by weighting treatment groups equally.||-0.141|-0.266|<0.001
95735385|NCT00234286|191442826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.36|1.17|0.01
95735386|NCT00234286|191442827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.35|0.73|0.36
95735387|NCT00234286|191442828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.77|1.08|0.01
95735388|NCT00234286|191442829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.30|0.70|0.76
95735389|NCT00234286|191442830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.44|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||5.44|1.41|.004
95735390|NCT00234286|191442831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|11.28|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||11.28|1.51|0.007
95857610|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934595|NCT02554786|191831515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.183|||MMRM|||||0.183|0.090|<0.001
95934596|NCT02554786|191831515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.255|||MMRM|||||0.255|0.163|<0.001
95735391|NCT00234286|191442832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||3.20|0.84|0.14
95735392|NCT00234286|191442833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.88|1.15|.003
95735393|NCT00234286|191442834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|9.7|||Generalized Estimation Equations|||||9.70|0.62|0.19
95735394|NCT00696020|191442835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.076||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.076|-0.029|0.3791
95735395|NCT00696020|191442835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.085||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.085|-0.019|0.2133
95857611|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934597|NCT02554786|191831515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.094|||MMRM|||||0.094|0.002|0.04
95934598|NCT02554786|191831516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.170|0.094|<0.001
95934599|NCT02554786|191831516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.234|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.234|0.158|<0.001
95934600|NCT02554786|191831516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.073|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.073|-0.002|0.064
95934601|NCT02554786|191831516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.162|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.162|0.083|<0.001
95934602|NCT02554786|191831516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.224|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.224|0.144|<0.001
95934603|NCT02554786|191831516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.076|-0.002|0.063
95934604|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.164|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.164|0.119|<0.001
95934605|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.175|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.175|0.129|<0.001
95934606|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 1: 5 minutes||0.078|0.032|<0.001
95934607|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.186|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.186|0.138|<0.001
95987909|NCT01662440|191950367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% Confidence Intervals (CI) of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 7 days after last active vaccination is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|2.8||||||To establish non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 7 days after last active vaccination.||2.8|-2.8|
95735396|NCT00696020|191442835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.110|0.004|0.0337
95934608|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.198|||MMRM|||Day 1: 15 minutes||0.198|0.150|<.001
95735397|NCT00696020|191442836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.093||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.093|-0.010|0.1163
95735398|NCT00696020|191442836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.111||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.111|0.009|0.0224
95934609|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.068|||MMRM|||Day1: 15 minutes||0.068|0.02|<0.001
95934610|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.201|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.201|0.149|<0.001
95934611|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.211|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.211|0.159|<0.001
95934612|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053|||MMRM|||Day 1: 30 minutes||0.053|0.001|0.038
95934613|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.205|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1 hour||0.205|0.150|<0.001
95934614|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.232|0.177|<0.001
95934615|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.034|||MMRM|||Day 1: 1hour||0.034|-0.021|0.632
95934616|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.226|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.226|0.151|<0.001
95934617|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.27|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.270|0.194|<0.001
95934618|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.091|||MMRM|||Day 30: 5 minutes||0.091|0.016|0.005
95934619|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.232|0.156|<0.001
95934620|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.291|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.291|0.214|<0.001
95934621|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0192||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 30: 30 minutes||0.08|0.005|0.026
95934622|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.229|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.229|0.152|<0.001
95934623|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.296|0.219|<0.001
95934624|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.075|||MMRM|||Day 30: 1 hour||0.075|-0.001|0.059
95934625|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.203|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.203|0.123|<0.001
95934626|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.271|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5 minutes||0.271|0.191|<0.001
95934627|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.095|||MMRM|||Day 86: 5minutes||0.095|0.015|0.007
95934628|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.219|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.219|0.140|<0.001
95934629|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.292|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.292|0.211|<0.001
95735399|NCT00696020|191442836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.107||Type I error was controlled by a closed stepwise procedure.|ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.107|0.003|0.0380
95735400|NCT00696020|191442837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.9573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.094|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.094|-0.089|0.9573
95735401|NCT00696020|191442837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.009|0.0321
95735402|NCT00696020|191442837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.025|0.0125
95735403|NCT00696020|191442838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.145|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.145|0.026|0.0052
95735404|NCT00696020|191442838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|0.020|0.0086
95735405|NCT00696020|191442838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.185|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.185|0.066|<0.0001
95735406|NCT00696020|191442839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.225|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.225|0.006|0.0384
95735407|NCT00696020|191442839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.076|0.0009
95735408|NCT00696020|191442839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.130|<0.0001
95735409|NCT00696020|191442840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.057|35.657|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.657|9.057|0.0010
95735410|NCT00696020|191442840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.687||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.613|31.924|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||31.924|5.613|0.0053
95934630|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.078|||MMRM|||Day 86: 30 minutes||0.078|-0.001|0.057
95735411|NCT00696020|191442840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.805|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.565|40.343|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||40.343|13.565|<0.0001
95735412|NCT00696020|191442841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.149|0.027|0.0048
95735413|NCT00696020|191442841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.025|0.0056
95735414|NCT00696020|191442841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.189|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, and centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.189|0.066|<0.0001
95934631|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.227|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.227|0.147|<0.001
95934632|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0208|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.289|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1 hour||0.289|0.208|<0.001
95934633|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0205||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 86: 1hour||0.083|0.003|0.037
95934634|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.206|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.206|0.121|<0.001
95934635|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.286|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.286|0.200|<0.001
95934636|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.087|||MMRM|||Day 183: 5 minutes||0.087|0.002|0.041
95934637|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.22|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.220|0.133|<0.001
95934638|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.303|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.303|0.215|<0.001
95934639|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.083|||MMRM|||Day 183: 30 minutes||0.083|-0.003|0.071
95934640|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.223|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.223|0.137|<0.001
95934641|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.302|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.302|0.215|<0.001
95934642|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.082|||MMRM|||Day 183: 1 hour||0.082|-0.003|0.071
95934643|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.184|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.184|0.094|<0.001
95934644|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.294|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.294|0.205|<0.001
95934645|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.071|||MMRM|||Day 364: 5 minutes||0.071|-0.018|0.244
95934646|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.200|0.110|<0.001
95934647|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.308|0.219|<0.001
95934648|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 30 minutes||0.076|-0.013|0.162
95934649|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0234|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.209|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.209|0.117|<0.001
95934650|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.308|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.308|0.216|<0.001
95735415|NCT00696020|191442842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.230|0.010|0.0332
95934651|NCT02554786|191831517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.076|||MMRM|||Day 364: 1 hour||0.076|-0.014|0.182
95934652|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.133|0.040|<0.001
95934653|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.185|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.185|0.093|<0.001
95987910|NCT01662440|191950368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine is considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.8|7.9||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) accelerated schedule as compared to conventional schedule at 28 day after last active vaccination||7.9|-4.8|
95987911|NCT01662440|191950369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine co-administered with JE vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of Rabies vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.667.|Between groups ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of Rabies vaccine (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as compared to Rabies vaccines (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at 28day after last active vaccination||1.32|0.86|
95735416|NCT00696020|191442842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.292|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.292|0.074|0.0011
95934654|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.044|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.044|-0.049|0.927
95934655|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.098|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.098|0.001|0.044
95934656|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.19|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.190|0.093|<0.001
95934657|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.065|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.065|-0.031|0.490
95934658|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.125|0.027|0.002
95934659|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.195|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.195|0.098|<0.001
95934660|NCT02554786|191831518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.085|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.085|-0.012|0.143
95934661|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.238|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.238|0.139|<0.001
95934662|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.259|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.259|0.161|<0.001
95934663|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0252||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.031|||MMRM|||Day 2||0.031|-0.067|0.475
95934664|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.296|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.296|0.161|<0.001
95934665|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.333|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.333|0.197|<0.001
95934666|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0343||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.151|||MMRM|||Day 184||0.151|0.016|0.015
95934667|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.285|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.285|0.145|<0.001
95934668|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0357|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.316|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.316|0.176|<0.001
95934669|NCT02554786|191831519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.122|||MMRM|||Day 365||0.122|-0.017|0.139
95934670|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|35.4|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||35.4|23.8|<0.001
95934671|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||38.1|26.4|<0.001
95987912|NCT01662440|191950370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conventional schedule of JE vaccine co-administered with Rabies vaccine considered non inferior to the conventional schedule of JE vaccine administered alone if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs measured 28 days after last active vaccination is greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination.||1.13|0.68|
95735417|NCT00696020|191442842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.349|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.349|0.128|<0.0001
95987913|NCT01662440|191950371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the Rabies vaccine is considered non-inferior to the Rabies vaccine conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with RVNA titer ≥0.5 IU/mL measured 28 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -5.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.4||||||Non-inferiority of the Rabies immune response (administered concomitantly with JE vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared Rabies vaccine (administered alone) as given to a conventional schedule at day 28 after last active vaccination||1.4|-3.8|
95987914|NCT01662440|191950372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of accelerated schedule of the JE vaccine considered non-inferior to the conventional schedule if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with PRNT50 titer ≥1:10 measured 7 days after last active vaccine administration is greater than -10.|Difference in percentages of subjects|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.2||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response of JE vaccine (administered concomitantly with Rabies vaccine) as given according to an accelerated schedule as compared to JE vaccine (administered alone) as given according to a conventional schedule at 7day after last active vaccine administration.||6.2|-4.1|
95987915|NCT01982292|191950388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.5|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.38|10.38|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percentage of patients with positive antibody status||10.38|-9.38|>0.9999
95987916|NCT01982292|191950388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|9.38||||||Difference in percentage of patients with negative antibody status||9.38|-10.38|
95987917|NCT04872101|191950397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|28.5||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||28.5|15.8|<0.001
95987918|NCT04872101|191950398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.8|16.0|<0.001
95987919|NCT04872101|191950399|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.3||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.3|0.8|0.043
95987920|NCT04872101|191950400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.8|19.0|<0.001
95987921|NCT04872101|191950401|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.2|15.1|<0.001
95735418|NCT00696020|191442843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.813||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.462|36.272|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||36.272|9.462|0.0009
95735419|NCT00696020|191442843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.739||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.484|33.002|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||33.002|6.484|0.0036
95987922|NCT04872101|191950402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||36.7|21.3|<0.001
95934672|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean morning PEF||19.1|7.5|<0.001
95735420|NCT00696020|191442843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.298|41.287|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||41.287|14.298|<0.0001
95735421|NCT00696020|191442844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.152|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.152|0.023|0.0079
95735422|NCT00696020|191442844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.146|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.146|0.018|0.0120
95735423|NCT00696020|191442844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.209|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.209|0.080|<0.0001
95735424|NCT00696020|191442845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.249|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.249|0.013|0.0296
95735425|NCT00696020|191442845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.32|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.320|0.087|0.0007
95735426|NCT00696020|191442845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.383|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.383|0.147|<0.0001
95934673|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|30.3|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||30.3|19.3|<0.001
95735427|NCT00696020|191442846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.057||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.529|37.3|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||37.300|9.529|0.0010
95735428|NCT00696020|191442846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.981||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.961|32.43|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||32.430|4.961|0.0078
95735429|NCT00696020|191442846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.379|43.335|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||43.335|15.379|<0.0001
95735430|NCT00696020|191442848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.138|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.138|-0.049|0.3517
95735431|NCT00696020|191442848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.143|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.143|-0.046|0.3171
95735432|NCT00696020|191442848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||0.130|-0.060|0.4654
95735433|NCT00696020|191442849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.704||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.055|28.267|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|2 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||28.267|-2.055|0.0899
95735434|NCT00696020|191442849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.759||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.549|35.084|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed).|5 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||35.084|4.549|0.0111
95735435|NCT00696020|191442849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.458|34.329|||ANCOVA|terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|10 µg Olodaterol + 5 µg Tiotropium minus 5 µg Tiotropium.|||34.329|3.458|0.0166
95735436|NCT00376623|191442881|OTHER|A one-sided exact binomial test with a 2.5 % significance level was used to detect the difference between BI 2536 and historical placebo with objective response rate = 0.9 % (two out of 211) with a 95 % confidence interval of 0.2 % to 3 %.||||||0.0548|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|Null hypothesis H0: p \<= 0.009 Alternative hypothesis HA: p \> 0.009||Efficacy of BI 2536 was evaluated by comparing the tumour response rate of the present trial with the tumour response rate published for patients with the same stage of disease treated with placebo. For this, treatment groups 'BI 2536 200 mg' and 'combination of treatment group 50 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3) and 60 mg BI 2536 (day 1 - day 3)' were pooled together and compared to historical placebo.||||0.0548
95735437|NCT00376623|191442882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.55|0.67|0.92
95934674|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|35.9|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||35.9|24.8|<0.001
95934675|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|14.2|||LMM|||Week 26: Mean evening PEF||14.2|3.1|0.002
95934676|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||34.8|22.7|<0.001
95934677|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|36.3|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||36.3|24.2|<0.001
95934678|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean morning PEF||19.8|7.7|<0.001
95934679|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|29.5|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||29.5|18.0|<0.001
95934680|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|34.8|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||34.8|23.3|<0.001
95735438|NCT00376623|191442883|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.78|0.7|0.65
95735439|NCT00376623|191442886|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.51|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.51|0.94|
95735440|NCT00376623|191442887|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||1.49|0.59|
95735441|NCT00376623|191442888|OTHER|Exploratory analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01|||Regression, Cox||"Hazard ratio calculated as Combination of 50 mg BI 2536 and 60 mg BI 2536 divided by 200 mg BI 2536"|||2.01|0.81|
95735442|NCT01054586|191442901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.1||||0.02||95.0|1.26|29.46||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for ART naïve. Not ART naïve is the reference group."|||29.46|1.26|0.02
95934681|NCT02554786|191831520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.9|||LMM|||Week 52: Mean evening PEF||14.9|3.3|0.002
95934682|NCT02554786|191831521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.81|0.95|0.094
95934683|NCT02554786|191831521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.37|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||2.37|1.26|<0.001
95987923|NCT04872101|191950403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.6||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||25.6|11.0|<0.001
95735443|NCT01054586|191442902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12||||0.05||95.0|1.03|16.5||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||16.50|1.03|0.05
95735444|NCT01054586|191442902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.68||95.0|0.16|16.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||16.27|0.16|0.68
95735445|NCT01054586|191442903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.83||||0.17||95.0|0.65|12.36||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||12.36|0.65|0.17
95857612|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934684|NCT02554786|191831521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46|||Logistic regression model|||Day 183||1.46|0.76|0.746
95934685|NCT02554786|191831521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.87|0.96|0.088
95934686|NCT02554786|191831521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.17|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||3.17|1.58|<0.001
95934687|NCT02554786|191831521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||Logistic regression model|||Day 364||1.49|0.75|0.771
95934688|NCT02554786|191831522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||||10.2|1.3|0.012
95934689|NCT02554786|191831522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.6|||LMM|||||13.6|4.6|<0.001
95934690|NCT02554786|191831522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9|||LMM|||||7.9|-1.1|0.135
95934691|NCT02554786|191831523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.4|||LMM|||||9.4|0.6|0.026
95934692|NCT02554786|191831523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.5|||LMM|||||12.5|3.7|<0.001
95934693|NCT02554786|191831523|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.7|||LMM|||||7.7|-1.2|0.151
95934694|NCT02554786|191831524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||LMM|||||6.2|-0.6|0.104
95934695|NCT02554786|191831524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||LMM|||||7.3|0.5|0.024
95934696|NCT02554786|191831524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.3|||LMM|||||4.3|-2.5|0.588
95934697|NCT02554786|191831525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|10.7|||LMM|||||10.7|2.1|0.003
95934698|NCT02554786|191831525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|13.2|||LMM|||||13.2|4.6|<0.001
95934699|NCT02554786|191831525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.1|||LMM|||||9.1|0.5|0.029
95934700|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||LMM|||Week1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.05|-0.2|0.001
95934701|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.01|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.01|-0.16|0.035
95987924|NCT04872101|191950404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|12.0||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||12.0|1.1|0.031
95993818|NCT01264939|191963427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-3.08||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.08|-5.97|<0.0001
95735446|NCT01054586|191442903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.85||95.0|0.12|13.33||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||13.33|0.12|0.85
95735447|NCT01054586|191442904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.2||||0.06||95.0|0.94|10.82||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||10.82|0.94|0.06
95735448|NCT01054586|191442904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.96||95.0|0.11|9.83||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||9.83|0.11|0.96
95735449|NCT01054586|191442905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.57||95.0|0.52|3.31||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.31|0.52|0.57
95934702|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.261
95934703|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.09|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.09|-0.28|<0.001
95934704|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.03|-0.21|0.011
95934705|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.06|-0.13|0.425
95934706|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.15|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.15|-0.46|<0.001
95934707|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.03|-0.35|0.017
95934708|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-26 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.24|0.29
95934709|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
95934710|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||-0.02|-0.17|0.019
95934711|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean night-time number of puffs||0.03|-0.12|0.226
95934712|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
95934713|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||-0.05|-0.24|0.002
95934714|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daytime number of puffs||0.05|-0.14|0.384
95934715|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.12|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.12|-0.44|< 0.001
95934716|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||-0.07|-0.39|0.004
95934717|NCT02554786|191831526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||LMM|||Week 1-52 Mean daily number of puffs||0.06|-0.25|0.245
95934718|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.72|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.39|<0.001
95934719|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.34|<0.001
95934720|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.59|0.209
95934721|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.81|0.36|0.003
95735450|NCT01054586|191442905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.22||95.0|0.04|2.14||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.14|0.04|0.22
95735451|NCT01054586|191442905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.47||95.0|0.35|9.91||Variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible and besides APRI score) were included. Gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin were also included, but p\>0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.91|0.35|0.47
95735452|NCT01054586|191442906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.48||95.0|0.55|3.55||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||3.55|0.55|0.48
95735453|NCT01054586|191442906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.23||95.0|0.03|2.18||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.18|0.03|0.23
95735454|NCT01054586|191442906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.56||95.0|0.29|9.47||Only variables showing imbalance between treatments (when possible) were included. The following were also included, but p \> 0.05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, use of non-ARV drug, baseline CD4, platelets, and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for FPV, Other. LPV is the reference group."|||9.47|0.29|0.56
95735455|NCT01054586|191442908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.72||95.0|0.51|2.66||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||2.66|0.51|0.72
95735456|NCT01054586|191442908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.21||95.0|0.03|2.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||2.08|0.03|0.21
95735457|NCT01054586|191442908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26||||0.15||95.0|0.74|6.97|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|Only variables showing an imbalance between treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, use of non-ARV drug, baseline bilirubin.||6.97|0.74|0.15
95735458|NCT01054586|191442914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.77||||0.1||95.0|0.79|18.05|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||18.05|0.79|0.10
95735459|NCT01054586|191442915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.53||||0.02||95.0|1.16|5.54||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.54|1.16|0.02
95857613|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934722|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.63|0.3|<0.001
95934723|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.47|0.115
95934724|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.82|0.51|<0.001
95934725|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.6|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||0.6|0.38|<0.001
95934726|NCT02554786|191831527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||All asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.66|0.185
95934727|NCT02554786|191831528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.03|||Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.13|0.337
95934728|NCT02554786|191831528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.02|0.063
95934729|NCT02554786|191831528|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|9.7|||Regression, Cox|||||9.7|0.27|0.599
95934730|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.89|0.48|0.008
95934731|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.64|0.35|<0.001
95934732|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.29|0.67|0.669
95934733|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.08|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.08|0.47|0.108
95934734|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.67|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.67|0.31|<0.001
95735460|NCT01054586|191442915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.17||||0.05||95.0|1.54|11.27||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||11.27|1.54|0.05
95735461|NCT01054586|191442915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.67||||0.06||95.0|0.97|13.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included, but p \> .05: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI score, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||13.90|0.97|0.06
95735462|NCT01054586|191442916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.68||||0.01||95.0|1.21|5.9||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||5.9|1.21|0.01
95735463|NCT01054586|191442916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.42||||0.0004||95.0|1.61|12.08||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||12.08|1.61|0.0004
95735464|NCT01054586|191442916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07||||0.11||95.0|0.78|12.03||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, baseline use of non-ARV drug, and baseline values of CD4, platelets and bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||12.03|0.78|0.11
95735465|NCT01054586|191442917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.03||95.0|1.06|4.15||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||4.15|1.06|0.03
95735466|NCT01054586|191442917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61||||0.05||95.0|1.48|8.81||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg QD. LPV is the reference group."|||8.81|1.48|0.05
95735467|NCT01054586|191442917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31||||0.1||95.0|0.85|6.32||Only variables showing an imbalance between the treatment groups were included: gender, mode of HIV transmission, ART naive, APRI-score, baseline use of non-ARV drug and baseline bilirubin.|Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV, other. LPV is the reference group."|||6.32|0.85|0.10
95735468|NCT01054586|191442918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.12||||0.03||95.0|1.19|22.02|||Regression, Cox||"Confidence Interval and Hazard Ratio for  FPV 700 mg BID/RTV 100 mg BID. LPV is the reference group."|||22.02|1.19|0.03
95735469|NCT02726581|191442926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||||1.30|0.62|
95735470|NCT02726581|191442927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||||||||1.19|0.53|
95735471|NCT02726581|191442928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46||||||||1.46|0.39|
95735472|NCT01844375|191442931|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
95735473|NCT03956862|191442934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||7.1|-7.6|0.9499
95735474|NCT03956862|191442935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.2|-1.8|0.6778
95735475|NCT03956862|191442936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.9|-0.7|0.7914
95735476|NCT03956862|191442937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.944||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.173|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.173|0.410|0.8916
95735477|NCT03956862|191442938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||0.459|-0.077|0.1635
95735478|NCT03956862|191442939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.632||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.544|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB001 vs. Placebo|||1.544|-0.280|0.1742
95735479|NCT03956862|191442940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||ANCOVA||GB001 vs. Placebo|||3.4|-1.6|0.4851
95735480|NCT03956862|191442941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.178|||Regression, Cox||GB001 vs Placebo|||2.178|0.136|0.3898
95735481|NCT02819323|191442948|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95735482|NCT02819323|191442948|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95735483|NCT02819323|191442948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
95735484|NCT02819323|191442948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
95735485|NCT00467363|191442949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||Only one outcome for primary outcome, so no adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons was done. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were done. Treatment groups were similar with respect to the assessed demographic and baseline characteristics||The study was designed to detect a 10% absolute difference in livebirth rate with 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%, on the assumption that participants taking placebo who achieved pregnancy would have a livebirth rate of 75%.||1.22|0.98|0.0984
95735486|NCT00467363|191442950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.02|.0165
95735487|NCT00467363|191442951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|1.01|.0329
95735488|NCT00467363|191442952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.78|||Fisher Exact|||||1.78|.64|.8902
95735489|NCT00467363|191442953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Fisher Exact|||||1.55|.76|.6869
95735490|NCT00467363|191442954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.41|||Fisher Exact|||||2.41|.19|.7530
95735491|NCT00467363|191442955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.26|||Fisher Exact|||||7.26|.15|1.000
95735492|NCT00467363|191442956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
95735493|NCT00467363|191442957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.06|||Fisher Exact|||||5.06|.21|1.000
95735494|NCT00467363|191442958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.76|||Fisher Exact|||||1.76|.67|.7943
95735495|NCT00467363|191442959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7802
95735496|NCT00467363|191442960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Fisher Exact|||||1.23|.42|.2603
95735497|NCT00467363|191442963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-0.8|0.77
95735498|NCT00473330|191442985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|34.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||34.8|13.8|<0.0001
95735499|NCT00473330|191442985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|31.1||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.1|10.7|0.0002
95735500|NCT00473330|191442986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.0|6.1|<0.0001
95735501|NCT00473330|191442986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|6.2|<0.0001
95735502|NCT00473330|191442987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|35.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||35.4|13.4|<0.0001
95735503|NCT00473330|191442987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|36.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||36.3|14.0|<0.0001
95795291|NCT00855582|191560851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857614|NCT00658359|191673380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.46|5.57|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||5.57|1.46|0.1503
95934735|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.37|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.37|0.58|0.597
95735504|NCT00473330|191442988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|8.2||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|14.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||14.1|2.4|0.0086
95735505|NCT00473330|191442988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.6|2.0|0.0126
95735506|NCT00473330|191442989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||15.1|4.3|0.0005
95735507|NCT00473330|191442989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||13.0|3.3|0.0011
95934736|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.87|0.52|0.002
95934737|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.59|0.36|<0.001
95934738|NCT02554786|191831529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.23|0.72|0.681
95934739|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
95934740|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
95934741|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.059
95934742|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||0.004
95934743|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||Severe Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
95934744|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.025
95934745|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All(mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||0.002
95934746|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) Asthma Exacerbation||||<0.001
95934747|NCT02554786|191831530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.074
95934748|NCT02554786|191831532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.03|0.222
95934749|NCT02554786|191831532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of CI could not be calculated due to low number of participants with asthma exacerbation.||Regression, Cox||||||0|0.992
95934750|NCT02554786|191831532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.01|||Regression, Cox|||||6.01|0.05|0.618
95934751|NCT02554786|191831535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.1|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||14.1|6.2|< 0.001
95934752|NCT02554786|191831535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||12.3|4.3|<0.001
95934753|NCT02554786|191831535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.0|||LMM|||Weeks 1-26||8|0.1|0.045
95934754|NCT02554786|191831535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||13.6|5.7|<0.001
95934755|NCT02554786|191831535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|12.6|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||12.6|4.7|<0.001
95934756|NCT02554786|191831535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||LMM|||Weeks 1-52||8.3|0.3|0.034
95934757|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0462||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.237|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.237|0.056|0.002
95934758|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.214|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.214|0.032|0.008
95934759|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.135|||MMRM|||Day 30||0.135|-0.045|0.33
95735508|NCT00473330|191442990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-107.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.2|-66.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-66.6|-149.2|<0.0001
95735509|NCT00473330|191442990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.6|-78.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-78.5|-159.6|<0.0001
95735510|NCT00473330|191442991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-3.0||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.7|-6.7|0.1590
95735511|NCT00473330|191442991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-2.5||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||1.4|-6.5|0.2721
95735512|NCT00473330|191442992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|38.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|21.1|<0.0001
95735513|NCT00473330|191442992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|31.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||31.7|16.7|<0.0001
95795292|NCT00855582|191560852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using a Dunnett-Bonferroni gatekeeping procedure for multiple hypothesis testing. Based on the results of prior tests under this procedure, the statistical significance of this hypothesis was not assessed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.156
95934760|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.153|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.153|-0.044|0.28
95934761|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.217|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.217|0.019|0.02
95934762|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0501||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.125|||MMRM|||Day 86||0.125|-0.072|0.598
95934763|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.23|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.23|0.023|0.016
95934764|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.26|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.26|0.053|0.003
95934765|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0525||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.188|||MMRM|||Day 183||0.188|-0.017|0.103
95934766|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.178|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.178|-0.035|0.188
95934767|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.274|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.274|0.061|0.002
95934768|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.166|||MMRM|||Day 254||0.166|-0.045|0.258
95934769|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.187|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.187|-0.030|0.154
95934770|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.299|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.299|0.082|<0.001
95934771|NCT02554786|191831536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.148|||MMRM|||Day 364||0.148|-0.067|0.455
95934772|NCT02554786|191831537|NON_INFERIORITY|QMF 150/320 was considered non-inferior to S/F 50/500 if the lower bound of the 95% CI was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 mL and was considered superior if the lower bound of the 95% CI was \> 0. The p-value is for null-hypothesis testing.|LS Mean|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.08|||MMRM|||||0.080|-0.007|0.101
95934773|NCT01828554|191831540|OTHER|||||||0.4882||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis that the AUC from cycle 1 day 1 (based on ideal body weight) is equal to the AUC from cycle 1 day 9 (based on actual body weight) was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the AUCs are not equal. A linear mixed effect model with patient specific random effects was conducted||||0.4882
95934774|NCT01828554|191831541|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||A paired t-test will be used to compare the PK parameters between the full weight and limited weight based dosing.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7497
95934775|NCT02395978|191831565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
95934776|NCT02088853|191831587|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95934777|NCT02088853|191831588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95934778|NCT02088853|191831589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95934779|NCT01803555|191831648|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of BF Spiromax to Symbicort Turbohaler was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -15 L/min.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|-2.957||||0.3387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis included effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough AM PEF, gender, age, treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction.||||3.11|-9.02|0.3387
95934780|NCT03201562|191831653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.436||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.262|235.936|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||235.936|6.262|0.0009
95934781|NCT03201562|191831653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.893||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.936|229.31|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect.||||229.310|5.936|0.0012
95934782|NCT03201562|191831653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.042||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.485|2.239|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE model includes 3-line improvement as response variable with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effect, subject within sequence as random effect||||2.239|0.485|0.9298
95795293|NCT00855582|191560853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.226||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.226
95795294|NCT00855582|191560853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95934783|NCT02382744|191831667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between proportions (%)|10.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9||One-sided P-value based on the lack of plausibility that additional nerve stimulation would worsen sensory blockade rates.|Fisher Exact|||We sought to detect an increase in the rate of complete absence of sensation to pinprick 30 min following ultrasound-guided subsartorial saphenous nerve blockade to 90% from an assumed baseline of 64% as extrapolated from our previous study (cf. Head SJ et al. 2015) at β = 0.2. The required minimum sample size at α = 0.05 (one-sided) was 30 patients in each group. To be conservative, we aimed to enroll a total of 80 patients.||31.9|-11.9|0.25
95934784|NCT02382744|191831668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.62
95934785|NCT02382744|191831669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95934786|NCT02382744|191831670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two groups, Ultrasound Guidance and Ultrasound Guidance and Nerve Stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no incomplete block at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.26
95934787|NCT02382744|191831671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.31|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|"To assess speed of onset, sensation to pinprick in the distribution of the saphenous nerve was assessed for each patient every 5 min until complete sensory loss was noted, or until 30 min had elapsed. To compare the two groups in speed of onset on the basis of these data, we constructed Kaplan-Meyer survival curves for the times to onset of sensory blockade and compared the underlying time-to-event data with the log-rank test."||1.31|0.38|0.12
95934788|NCT02382744|191831675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between means (s)|107.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|153.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||153|61|<0.0001
95934789|NCT02382744|191831678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||"Median survival ratio"|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank||"Numerator, group Ultrasound Guidance; denominator, group, Ultrasound Guidance + Nerve Stimulation"|||0.93|0.37|0.02
95934790|NCT02382744|191831681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This contingency-table type analysis (Fisher Exact test) compares the two arms, Patients with response to nerve stimulation and Patients with lack response to nerve stimulation, as far as the two categorical outcomes are concerned, block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block versus no block failure at 30 minutes post nerve block."||||0.0057
95934791|NCT00212134|191831682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95934792|NCT00212134|191831683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95987925|NCT04872101|191950405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.5||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.5|17.5|<0.001
95735514|NCT00473330|191442993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.4|<0.0001
95735515|NCT00473330|191442993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
95735516|NCT01975948|191442998|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and unemployment as covariates (p=.016), and non-completers (missing one or more points of follow up data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||One hundred evaluable patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a PHQ-9 between-group difference in mean change of 2 points, significance level (α) .05, a two-sided test, and a standard deviation of 5 points. An intra cluster correlation of 0.05 for patient outcomes was used (Murphey et al), and an average cluster size: 3 patients/practice resulted in compensatory increase to 110 patients per arm. Under the assumption that attrition would be 33 % we needed 166 patients per arm.||||.047
95735517|NCT01975948|191442999|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Our calculations indicated that 50 physicians in each of the two groups will provide \>80% power to detect clinically significant reductions in stigma as assessed by OMS-HC change scores. Clinically meaningful was defined as a change of 3 points, derived on the basis of this being slightly better than what is usually seen in brief interventions.||||0.15
95795295|NCT00855582|191560854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.121
95857615|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.4|-0.31|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 15||-0.31|-3.40|0.3128
95857616|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||2.91|0.26|0.3134
95735518|NCT01975948|191442999|OTHER||Cohen'd|0.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||OMS-HC analysis adjusted for practice size: P value applies to between group physicians reduction in one stigma domaine: preference for social distance|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Group Changes in subscale of the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) measures three different dimensions of stigma: attitudes towards people with a mental illness (6 items); health care professionals' attitudes about disclosure of a mental illness/willingness to seek help for a mental illness (4 items), and preference for social distance (5 items). Items are rated on a 5-point scale. Mean scores can range from one to five with lower scores indicating less stigma.||||.03
95735519|NCT01975948|191443000|OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.993
95934793|NCT00212134|191831684|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
95934794|NCT00212134|191831685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95934795|NCT00212134|191831686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95934796|NCT00212134|191831687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT analyses comparing parents of children randomized to receive an IOL to those left aphakic.||||<0.05
95934797|NCT00212134|191831689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ITT comparison of mean PSI scores||||>0.05
95934798|NCT01976312|191831694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95934799|NCT03010631|191831701|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.782||||||||1.782|1.166|
95934800|NCT03010631|191831702|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.589||||||||2.589|1.615|
95934801|NCT03010631|191831703|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.168||||||||1.168|0.675|
95934802|NCT03010631|191831704|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.339|0.502||||||||0.502|0.339|
95857617|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.3|1.77|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 18||1.77|-2.30|0.9129
95934803|NCT02807779|191831762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Power calculations were performed based on an expected reproducibility variance of 8% and an effect size of 7% was assumed based on data from pilot studies. It was estimated that 22 subjects/treatment assignment were needed to detect a 7% difference in PWV at a power level of 80%. Assigning a 20% attrition rate due to loss to follow up or index lesion revascularization, the goal enrollment was 27 subjects per arm.~No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis."||||0.22
95934804|NCT02807779|191831763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||0.64
95934805|NCT02807779|191831764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete MCP-1 data for analysis.||||0.95
95934806|NCT02807779|191831765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had complete CRP data for analysis.||||0.88
95934807|NCT02807779|191831767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.055
95934808|NCT02807779|191831768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No subjects in the plain balloon angioplasty group had MRI data for analysis.||||.22
95934809|NCT02807779|191831769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.81
95934810|NCT01303445|191831771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.03||||||90.0|86.95|97.4||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||97.40|86.95|
95934811|NCT01303445|191831771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|92.3||||||90.0|87.76|97.08||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||97.08|87.76|
95934812|NCT01303445|191831772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|96.38||||||90.0|90.96|102.13||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||102.13|90.96|
95934813|NCT01303445|191831772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|97.03||||||95.0|93.26|100.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||100.95|93.26|
95735520|NCT01975948|191443001|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95735521|NCT01975948|191443001|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence in managing mental illness and Stigma Score.||||.03
95735522|NCT01975948|191443002|OTHER||Cohen'd|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95934814|NCT01303445|191831773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.32|99.72||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.72|98.32|
95934815|NCT01303445|191831773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|98.42||||||90.0|97.66|99.18||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.18|97.66|
95934816|NCT01303445|191831774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|105.55||||||90.0|97.09|114.74||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||114.74|97.09|
95934817|NCT01303445|191831774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|106.09||||||90.0|98.64|114.09||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||114.09|98.64|
95934818|NCT01303445|191831775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.38||||||90.0|98.8|99.95||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Omeprazole versus Aggrenox alone||99.95|98.80|
95934819|NCT01303445|191831775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence interval of the mean ratio fell within the 80 to 125% target range.|Percent Mean Ratio|99.02||||||90.0|98.46|99.59||||||Comparison of Aggrenox + Omeprazole following Aggrenox versus Aggrenox alone||99.59|98.46|
95934820|NCT02576509|191831803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.0419|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the stratification factors as entered into the IVRS|Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model||95.81% CI ADJUSTED FOR MULTIPLICITY: (0.72 to 1.02)|1.02|0.71|0.0752
95934821|NCT02576509|191831804|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Difference of ORRs|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.7|||||Estimate of (Nivolumab - Sorafenib) is based on CMH method of weighting, stratified by stratification factors|||12.7|3.9|
95934822|NCT02576509|191831804|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.92|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Mantel-Haenszel estimator|||3.92|1.48|
95934823|NCT02576509|191831805|OTHER|no test was performed due to OS p-value result above the prior threshold|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib; Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.10|0.79|
95934824|NCT02576509|191831806|OTHER|PD-L1 \>= 1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.19|0.54|
95934825|NCT02576509|191831806|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.03|0.48|
95735523|NCT01975948|191443002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||We used the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with non-program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.476
95735524|NCT01975948|191443003|SUPERIORITY||Cohen'd|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95735525|NCT01975948|191443003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||We used the Spearman's correlation coefficient using the slope of a regression line fit using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure.|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Correlation between increases in Physician Comfort and Confidence with program specific tools and Stigma Score.||||.945
95735526|NCT01975948|191443004|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.742
95735527|NCT01975948|191443005|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.543
95735528|NCT01975948|191443006|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.009
95735529|NCT01975948|191443007|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.213
95735530|NCT03965091|191443008|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.60|-0.46|0.7963
95735531|NCT03965091|191443008|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average PI-NRS score over the past 24 hours at weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as the dependent variable, sex, age group at FM onset, week, treatment, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors, and baseline average of the daily average PI-NRS score as a covariate.||0.58|-0.48|0.8629
95735532|NCT02729714|191443035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95735533|NCT02729714|191443036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95735534|NCT02729714|191443037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
95735535|NCT02729714|191443038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95735536|NCT02729714|191443039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95735537|NCT02729714|191443040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.098
95735538|NCT02729714|191443041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95735539|NCT03435081|191443048|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.15|2.31|<0.001
95735540|NCT03435081|191443049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.83|1.08|0.033
95735541|NCT03435081|191443049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.68|2.40|<0.001
95735542|NCT03435081|191443050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.80|0.167
95735543|NCT03435081|191443051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.79|0.131
95735544|NCT03435081|191443051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.19|2.63|<0.001
95735545|NCT03435081|191443052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.54|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-26.54|0.077
95735546|NCT03435081|191443052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.875||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-6.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.75|-33.85|0.004
95735547|NCT03435081|191443053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|0.36|0.733
95735548|NCT03435081|191443053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.22|1.93|0.002
95735549|NCT03435081|191443054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.29|0.012
95735550|NCT03435081|191443054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.28|2.31|<0.001
95735551|NCT03435081|191443055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.75|0.433
95735552|NCT03435081|191443055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.12|0.029
95735553|NCT03435081|191443056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
95735554|NCT03435081|191443056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.22|0.002
95735555|NCT03435081|191443057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.90|0.105
95735556|NCT03435081|191443057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|2.02|<0.001
95735557|NCT03435081|191443058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.85|0.63|0.144
95735558|NCT03435081|191443058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|0.50|0.227
95735559|NCT03435081|191443059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.921||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-11.67|0.316
95735560|NCT03435081|191443059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.758||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-19.23|0.002
95735561|NCT03435081|191443060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|0.29|0.683
95735562|NCT03435081|191443060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.68|0.52|0.277
95735563|NCT03435081|191443061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-11.93|0.046
95735564|NCT03435081|191443061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-13.46|0.009
95735565|NCT03435081|191443062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.598
95735566|NCT03435081|191443062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.785
95934826|NCT02576509|191831806|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.02|0.69|
95934827|NCT02576509|191831806|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||1.17|0.81|
95735567|NCT03435081|191443063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.562||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.21|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-25.21|0.063
95735568|NCT03435081|191443063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.54|-9.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.17|-34.54|<0.001
95735569|NCT03435081|191443064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-4.93|0.217
95735570|NCT03435081|191443064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.487||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.84|-7.70|0.002
95735571|NCT03435081|191443065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.60|0.155
95735572|NCT03435081|191443065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.017
95934828|NCT02576509|191831806|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, OS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.74|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||4.74|0.34|
95934829|NCT02576509|191831806|OTHER|without PD-L1 quantifiable, PFS; no test was performed|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.52|||||Nivolumab over Sorafenib|||3.52|0.27|
95934830|NCT02576509|191831807|OTHER|PD-L1 \>=1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|10.17|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI.|||10.17|1.41|
95934831|NCT02576509|191831807|OTHER|PD-L1 \<1%, ORR; no test was performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.45|||||Odds ratio (Nivolumab over Sorafenib) and associated unstratified 95% exact CI|||3.45|1.10|
95934832|NCT03398148|191831808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|17.0||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||17.0|2.2|0.0324
95934833|NCT03398148|191831808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|15.3||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo)|||15.3|1.5|0.0460
95934834|NCT03398148|191831808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|15.6||P-value ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (≤ 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||15.6|1.7|0.0397
95735573|NCT03435081|191443066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||1.65|-0.58|0.345
95735574|NCT03435081|191443066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.55|-1.59|0.336
95735575|NCT03435081|191443066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||1.35|-0.48|0.353
95735576|NCT03435081|191443066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.45|-1.31|0.340
95735577|NCT03435081|191443067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-3.92|0.224
95735578|NCT03435081|191443067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.184||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-5.83|0.004
95735579|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.956||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||8.57|-15.30|0.575
95735580|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.664||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.30|-12.43|0.851
95735581|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.212||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-1.45|-22.05|0.026
95735582|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.89|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||-5.91|-25.89|0.002
95735583|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.51|-25.18|0.041
95934835|NCT03398148|191831809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|18.0||Type I error rate control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Advanced Therapy-IR status (yes vs no), Baseline steroid use (yes vs. no) and Baseline Adapted Mayo Score (≤ 7, \> 7).||||18.0|10.0|<0.0001
95934836|NCT03398148|191831810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|29.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||29.0|8.4|0.0028
95934837|NCT03398148|191831810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.4||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|16.7||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||16.7|0.1|0.0968
95934838|NCT03398148|191831810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|19.3||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||19.3|1.6|0.0512
95934839|NCT03398148|191831812|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|36.7||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.7|11.0|0.0022
95934840|NCT03398148|191831812|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|41.1||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||41.1|15.7|0.0002
95934841|NCT03398148|191831812|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|46.9||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||46.9|20.7|<0.0001
95934842|NCT03398148|191831813|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.2||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||22.9|-2.4|0.1842
95934843|NCT03398148|191831813|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.9|36.4||P-value ≤ 0.01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||36.4|9.9|0.0041
95934844|NCT03398148|191831813|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.1||||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||26.6|-0.4|0.1117
95934845|NCT03398148|191831814|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|14.1||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.1|2.5|0.0192
95934846|NCT03398148|191831814|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.8||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.1||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.1|0.4|0.0706
95987926|NCT04872101|191950406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.7||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||23.7|10.2|<0.001
95735584|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-4.34|-28.20|0.008
95735585|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.219||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-1.32|-17.95|0.023
95857618|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||2.91|0.26|0.3134
95934847|NCT03398148|191831814|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|14.6||P-value ≤ 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||14.6|2.7|0.0170
95934848|NCT03398148|191831815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7737|||||||Chi-squared|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7737
95934849|NCT03398148|191831815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7432|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7432
95934850|NCT03398148|191831815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172|||||||Fisher Exact|P value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.||||||0.7172
95934851|NCT03398148|191831816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|4.7||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|9.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||9.0|0.4|0.0722
95735586|NCT03435081|191443068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.115||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-5.17|-21.40|0.001
95735587|NCT03435081|191443069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.07|-0.03|0.482
95735588|NCT03435081|191443069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.10|0.00|0.043
95735589|NCT03435081|191443069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.09|-0.06|0.656
95735590|NCT03435081|191443069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.14|-0.00|0.057
95934852|NCT03398148|191831816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|3.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||6.6|-0.4|0.1480
95934853|NCT03398148|191831816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|1.7||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline corticosteroid use (yes, no) and baseline adapted mayo score (\<= 7, \> 7).|Risk difference = (risankizumab - Placebo).|||4.5|-1.0|0.3042
95934854|NCT03398148|191831817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.94|-2.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-2.89|-9.94|0.0030
95934855|NCT03398148|191831817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.67|-4.71||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.71|-11.67|0.0001
95934856|NCT03398148|191831817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.27|-4.19||P-value ≤ 0.001|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||-4.19|-11.27|0.0004
95934857|NCT03398148|191831818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|28.0||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||28|6.61|0.0081
95934858|NCT03398148|191831818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|30.79||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.79|9.74|0.0017
95934859|NCT03398148|191831818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|30.67||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||30.67|9.22|0.0024
95934860|NCT03398148|191831819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.208||||0.3315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8429|3.2596|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||3.2596|-0.8429|0.3315
95934861|NCT03398148|191831819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.447||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4415|4.4519||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4519|0.4415|0.0451
95934862|NCT03398148|191831819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.392||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3498|4.4352||P-value ≤ 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||4.4352|0.3498|0.0543
95934863|NCT03398148|191831820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.662||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|6.5402||P-value \<= 0.1|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||6.5402|0.7841|0.0367
95934864|NCT03398148|191831820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3656|7.0144||P-value \<= 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||7.0144|1.3656|0.0151
95934865|NCT03398148|191831820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.348||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5322|5.2281|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement||P-value for test of difference between each Risankizumab dose group and placebo for mean change from baseline using the mixed-effect repeated measure model The unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate within subject errors.|||5.2281|-0.5322|0.1795
95987927|NCT04872101|191950407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.1||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.1|17.0|<0.001
95934866|NCT03398148|191831821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|7.06||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.06|0.75|0.0422
95934867|NCT03398148|191831821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|8.42||P-value ≤ 0.01|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||8.42|2.23|0.0049
95934868|NCT03398148|191831821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|7.8||P-value ≤ 0.05|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|||||7.80|1.50|0.0156
95934869|NCT03398148|191831822|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for comparisons between treatment groups and placebo group using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Note: ITT1A includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug during Induction Period 1 from Sub-Study 1.||||1
95934870|NCT03398148|191831823|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|34.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||34.8|22.3|<0.0001
95934871|NCT03398148|191831824|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||29.4|19.3|<0.0001
95934872|NCT03398148|191831825|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.0||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||21.0|12.3|<0.0001
95934873|NCT03398148|191831826|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||10.2|4.2|<0.0001
95934874|NCT03398148|191831827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.1||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||28.1|15.6|<0.0001
95735591|NCT03435081|191443070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-6.45|0.609
95735592|NCT03435081|191443070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.41|-1.46|0.166
95735593|NCT03435081|191443071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|0.61|0.258
95735594|NCT03435081|191443071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.97|0.99|0.052
95735595|NCT02601560|191443076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.095
95735596|NCT02601560|191443076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95735597|NCT02601560|191443076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95795296|NCT00855582|191560854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.169||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.169
95795297|NCT00855582|191560854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95795298|NCT00855582|191560854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857619|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 24||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
95735598|NCT02601560|191443076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95735599|NCT02601560|191443076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.440
95735600|NCT02601560|191443076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95735601|NCT02100228|191443096|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6425||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||0.6425|0.0000|0.0151
95735602|NCT02100228|191443098|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4905||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1046|2.0678||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||2.0678|0.1046|0.3378
95735603|NCT02100228|191443099|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3433|1.8916||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||1.8916|0.3433|0.6851
95735604|NCT02100228|191443100|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive study, and there was no formal pre-defined hypothesis testing.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9841|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1866|53.9968||nominal p-value|Fisher Exact|||Display exact confidence limits for relative risk and Fisher's exact test for comparisons of two proportions.||53.9968|0.1866|>0.9999
95735605|NCT01073657|191443108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|38.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38|14|0.0059
95735606|NCT02227121|191443112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|92.86|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|70.3|||||||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination ≤ 65% Alternative Hypothesis: Percentage of Subjects with Successful VF Termination \> 65%|||70.3|
95735607|NCT05472038|191443133|SUPERIORITY|Superiority based on GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 1.|Model-Based GMR|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.44||||||||3.44|2.45|
95735608|NCT05472038|191443134|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|26.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.59|33.95|||||Adjusted difference and 2-Sided CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category (\< median,\>= median) for difference in proportions. The median of baseline NT was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||33.95|19.59|
95735609|NCT05472038|191443135|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.16|0.83|
95735610|NCT05472038|191443136|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on seroresponse was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seroresponse is \>-10%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.63|||||2-Sided CI based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by baseline NT category(\< median,\>= median)for difference in percentage(seroresponse rate).Median of baseline neutralizing titers was calculated based on pooled data in 2 comparator groups.|||3.63|-9.68|
95735611|NCT05472038|191443141|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority based on the GMR was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion) and the point estimate of the GMR was \>=0.8.|Model-Based GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means and corresponding CIs based on the regression model included terms for baseline neutralizing titer and comparison group.|||1.56|1.22|
95735612|NCT00905346|191443168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|98.39||||||90.0|94.36|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.59|94.36|
95735613|NCT00905346|191443169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.92||||||90.0|99.88|106.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.05|99.88|
95735614|NCT00905346|191443170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (Test/Ref x 100)|102.63||||||90.0|99.24|106.14|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.14|99.24|
95735615|NCT03450057|191443187|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
95735616|NCT03450057|191443188|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
95735617|NCT03450057|191443189|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
95735618|NCT03450057|191443190|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
95735619|NCT03450057|191443191|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
95735620|NCT03450057|191443192|OTHER|The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method, a non-parametric statistic.|||||||||||||||||The PFS function was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. Median and one-sided confidence intervals (CIs) for PFS were computed and Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS were developed.|||
95735621|NCT00624065|191443208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.8822||95.0|0.63|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.63|0.8822
95735622|NCT00286754|191443210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of SMI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. We expected that 54% of patients on BP-lowering therapy would be properly controlled with HEI and 43% with UC, whereas we expected SMI to increase this to 69% control in 6 months. BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons.||||0.001
95735623|NCT00286754|191443210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI versus UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
95735624|NCT00286754|191443211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a 2.5% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for SMI vs UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed as an effectiveness trial of 2 active interventions, each compared with an active standard of care control group. The study was not powered to test comparisons between the 2 active intervention arms.||||0.009
95735625|NCT00286754|191443211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||BP control and SBP were compared at 6 months across treatment arms using a Bonferroni adjustment of 1.25% for each of the 4 comparisons (SMI versus UC and HEI vs UC for BP control and SBP separately). This p-value is for comparison of HEI vs. UC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
95934875|NCT03398148|191831828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.4||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||22.4|10.3|<0.0001
95735626|NCT00286754|191443212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|3e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||<0.000003
95735627|NCT00286754|191443212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.012
95735628|NCT00286754|191443212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in BP control were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (with Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each assessment of change in proportion with BP under control from baseline to 6 months by SMI, HEI or UC (3 tests).|McNemar|||||||0.89
95735629|NCT00286754|191443213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
95735630|NCT00286754|191443213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95735631|NCT00286754|191443213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
95735632|NCT00286754|191443214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
95735633|NCT00286754|191443214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in SBP were compared by treatment arm using a 1.67% type I error (Bonferroni adjustment), ie, 1.67% for each of the 3 comparisons by arm (6-month-baseline for SMI, HEI and UC separately).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.318
95735634|NCT00286754|191443215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.306
95735635|NCT00286754|191443215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
95735636|NCT00286754|191443216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95735637|NCT00286754|191443216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.638
95735638|NCT00286754|191443217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
95735639|NCT00286754|191443217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.333
95934876|NCT03398148|191831829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.3||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||15.3|3.4|0.0021
95934877|NCT03398148|191831830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.7||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||7.7|3.5|<0.0001
95735640|NCT00286754|191443218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.581
95987928|NCT04872101|191950408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|37.4||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||37.4|21.7|<0.001
95735641|NCT00286754|191443218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|||||Since we are performing 3 tests, we will adjust the type I error to 0.017|Chi-squared|||||||0.502
95795299|NCT00855582|191560855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95795300|NCT00855582|191560855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857620|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||2.91|0.26|0.3134
95735642|NCT01371786|191443234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-4.09||No formal statistical testing was conducted. Only descriptive statistics were calculated and presented.|||Difference calculated as Mometasone minus Ciclesonide|No formal null hypothesis was stated or tested.Descriptive statistics only were calculated and presented. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations. The sample size of 10 subjects was sufficient to provide approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 25% between the two treatment groups in the percentage of nasal deposition approximately 2 minutes post dose, assuming a two-sided test evaluated at a significance level of 0.05, with a SD of the difference of 23.17%.||-4.09|-21.76|
95735643|NCT04459585|191443239|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.57|161.35|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||161.35|77.57|
95735644|NCT04459585|191443239|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|165.34|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||165.34|77.20|
95735645|NCT04459585|191443240|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.51|157.97|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||157.97|78.51|
95735646|NCT04459585|191443240|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|111.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.35|159.51|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.51|77.35|
95735647|NCT04459585|191443241|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|112.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.38|160.79|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Total Dabigatran.||160.79|79.38|
95735648|NCT04459585|191443241|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|159.68|||||For the comparison, the Dabigatran Etexilate + Quizartinib (Period 2) represents the numerator and Dabigatran Etexilate (Period 1) represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Free Dabigatran.||159.68|76.77|
95735649|NCT04627038|191443281|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.51|
95735650|NCT04627038|191443282|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.96|-0.07|
95735651|NCT04627038|191443283|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.72|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.72|-0.24|
95735652|NCT04627038|191443284|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.20|0.39|
95735653|NCT04627038|191443285|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.28|-0.48|
95735654|NCT04627038|191443286|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.32|
95934878|NCT03398148|191831831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.97||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||5.97|3.13|<0.0001
95934879|NCT03398148|191831832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|23.25||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||23.25|13.38|<0.0001
95735655|NCT04627038|191443287|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|13.56|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||13.56|-1.05|
95795301|NCT00855582|191560855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95934880|NCT03398148|191831833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.2||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Chi-squared||95% CI for treatment differences is based on normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|||-2.2|-7.3|<0.0001
95735656|NCT04627038|191443288|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.14|
95857621|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.23|-1.16|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 30||-1.16|-7.23|0.2447
95735657|NCT04627038|191443289|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.74|165.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||165.52|-166.74|
95735658|NCT04627038|191443290|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.06|-0.09|
95934881|NCT03398148|191831834|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.5||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference. (Greenland and Robins (1985)).|||30.5|17.9|<0.0001
95934882|NCT03398148|191831835|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|24.8||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using Mantel-Haenszel common rate difference.|||24.8|12.4|<0.0001
95934883|NCT03398148|191831836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3846|-0.8689||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.8689|-2.3846|<0.0001
95934884|NCT03398148|191831837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.981|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3285|-0.6326||Statistical significance is determined via the graphical multiple testing procedure controlling the overall type I error rate of primary and key secondary endpoints at the 0.05 level.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures||Between-group diff. and 95% CI calculated using ANCOVA/MMRM with RTB-MI for continuous endpoints.|||-0.6326|-1.3285|<0.0001
95934885|NCT05478525|191831845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-35.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.35|-15.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-15.75|-54.35|0.0007
95934886|NCT05478525|191831845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.14||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|-3.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-3.97|-42.32|0.0193
95934887|NCT05478525|191831845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.64||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.33|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Week 2||-2.96|-40.33|0.0243
95934888|NCT05478525|191831847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-155.68||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.35|-16.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-16.01|-295.35|0.0298
95934889|NCT05478525|191831847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-143.74||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-282.92|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-4.55|-282.92|0.0433
95934890|NCT05478525|191831847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-178.33||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.16|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||-29.50|-327.16|0.0201
95735659|NCT03181594|191443342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline for the rTNSS would be 0 (no effect). Assumptions included an alpha level of 0.5 (2-tailed), 90% power, and a standard deviation of 2.5 for the mean change from baseline. A total of 68 participants was deemed adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.001
95934891|NCT05478525|191831848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.07||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.94|25.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||25.81|-119.94|0.1992
95934892|NCT05478525|191831848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.32||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||3.61|-144.26|0.0617
95735660|NCT03181594|191443344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95735661|NCT03181594|191443345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.001 at all time periods. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
95735662|NCT02757105|191443347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.036
95735663|NCT02757105|191443348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.410
95934893|NCT05478525|191831848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.84||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.22|36.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at Day 14||36.53|-116.22|0.2981
95934894|NCT02605837|191831892|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.52|||<|0.001||95.0|0.433|0.591|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.591|0.433|<0.001
95934895|NCT02605837|191831893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of responders|0.13||||0.024||95.0|0.016|0.243|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The CMH adjusted difference in proportion with corresponding Newcombe confidence interval (CI) and odds ratio with corresponding CI were based on CMH test stratified by age group and diet restriction.||0.243|0.016|0.024
95934896|NCT02605837|191831894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-3.92||||0.015||95.0|-7.073|-0.774|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ combined score as a continuous covariate.||-0.774|-7.073|0.015
95934897|NCT02605837|191831895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline. Total EREFS (endoscopy score) as a continuous covariate.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
95934898|NCT02605837|191831896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|169.74|||<|0.001||95.0|23.235|1239.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Peak eosinophil count (\<15/HPF) was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1239.979|23.235|<0.001
95934899|NCT02605837|191831896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.294|1610.749|||Firth logistic regression|||Peak eosinophil count (\<=1/HPF) was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1610.749|6.294|0.001
95934900|NCT02605837|191831897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-28.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-35.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of proximal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-21.8|-35.0|<0.001
95934901|NCT02605837|191831897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-30.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of mid eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-22.7|-38.1|<0.001
95934902|NCT02605837|191831897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-33.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-40.7|-25.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of distal eosinophil count was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate||-25.5|-40.7|<0.001
95934903|NCT02605837|191831897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of maximum eosinophil count was from the ANCOVA model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak eosinophil count as a continuous covariate.||-38.8|-56.4|<0.001
95934904|NCT02605837|191831898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined grade TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.16|-0.22|<0.001
95934905|NCT02605837|191831898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis of histopathologic epithelial features combined stage TSR was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline Peak Eosinophil Count as a continuous covariate.||-0.2|-0.2|<0.001
95934906|NCT02605837|191831899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.333|||Regression, Logistic|||Dysphagia symptom response (binary response) at the final treatment period was performed based on logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||2.333|0.866|0.164
95934907|NCT02605837|191831900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|1483.68|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response I at the final treatment period was performed based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||1483.680|5.687|0.001
95934908|NCT02605837|191831901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.836|991.858|||Firth logistic regression|||Overall binary response II at the final treatment period was perfomed based on based on firth logistic regression model adjusted for age group and diet restriction.||991.858|3.836|0.004
95934909|NCT02605837|191831902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-6.41||||0.004||95.0|-10.757|-2.063|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ + Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-2.063|-10.757|0.004
95934910|NCT02605837|191831903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square mean|-2.46||||0.002||95.0|-4.018|-0.909|||ANCOVA|||This analysis was from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and age group as factors and the baseline DSQ Pain score as a continuous covariate.||-0.909|-4.018|0.002
95934911|NCT05656911|191831912|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||||Posterior probability is 34.0%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||18.0|-29.0|
95934912|NCT05656911|191831913|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|30.87||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||LS mean (%)|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||30.87|-8.26|0.257
95934913|NCT05656911|191831914|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|22.1|||||Posterior probability is 41.7%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||22.1|-27.0|
95934914|NCT05656911|191831915|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|13.4|||||Posterior probability is 31.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||13.4|-25.6|
95934915|NCT05656911|191831916|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|7.0|||||Posterior probability is 10.8%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||7.0|-34.1|
95987929|NCT04872101|191950409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|27.8||Evaluated at a 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.8|13.1|<0.001
95934916|NCT05656911|191831917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|17.03||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||17.03|-2.92|0.166
95987930|NCT04872101|191950410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|29.0||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.0|15.4|<0.001
95735664|NCT02757105|191443349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.081
95735665|NCT02757105|191443350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.042
95735666|NCT02757105|191443351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.009
95735667|NCT02757105|191443352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
95735668|NCT02757105|191443353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|30.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||30.6|-7.7|0.278
95735669|NCT02757105|191443354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|32.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.5|-3.4|0.135
95934917|NCT05656911|191831918|OTHER|Bayesian analysis according to estimand|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|11.0|||||Posterior probability is 20.5%|Median of posterior distribution of difference between Zabedosertib and Placebo including credible interval. Posterior probability is presented that the responder rate after treatment with zabedosertib is higher than after placebo given the data observed in the study.||11.0|-30.4|
95934918|NCT05656911|191831920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.68||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|22.11||two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment group as fixed effect and the EASI baseline value as covariate.||22.11|-8.75|0.396
95987931|NCT04872101|191950411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.5|23.1|<0.001
95934919|NCT03547908|191831922|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 treatment groups, achieved 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. For the sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 91% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-380-1489 and GS-US-380-1490), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.5|10.8|||||The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI)s were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.8|-2.5|
95934920|NCT03547908|191831922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||||0.2113
95934921|NCT03547908|191831923|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 240 participants provided 81% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 12% between the 2 treatment groups. This assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 88% (based on Gilead Studies GS-US-320-0108 and GS-US-320-0110), that the non-inferiority margin is 12%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|5.9|27.3|||||||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|27.3|5.9|
95934922|NCT03547908|191831923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was from CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||||||0.0023
95934923|NCT03547908|191831924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.3||P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||8.3|-8.9|0.9427
95934924|NCT03547908|191831925|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|24.0||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|58.0|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||58|-10|0.1701
95934925|NCT03547908|191831926|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|30.0||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|74.0||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||74|-14|0.1853
95934926|NCT03547908|191831927|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.59||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.67|||ANOVA|The p-value was calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were calculated using ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.67|-0.49|0.2839
95987932|NCT04872101|191950412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|39.3||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||39.3|22.7|<0.001
95987933|NCT04872101|191950413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-34.6||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-34.6|-56.4|<0.001
95934927|NCT03547908|191831928|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.13||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.46||P-value was from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.46|-1.20|0.8456
95934928|NCT03547908|191831929|SUPERIORITY|P-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in percentages of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA category (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).||13.4|-8.3|0.6367
95735670|NCT00565448|191443372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Fisher's exact test was used to compare the CR proportions.|Fisher Exact|||There was no formal power calculation. A selection design was used to determine how many participants would be accrued to correctly select the treatment group with the best CR rate with 80% probability.||||1.0000
95934929|NCT03547908|191831930|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated from CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|The difference in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||35.7|-1.5|0.0655
95934930|NCT03547908|191831931|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs \>= 8 log10 IU/mL).|||32.6|-4.3|0.1253
95934931|NCT03547908|191831932|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative)and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|Difference in the percentages between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||15.0|-0.8|0.0591
95934932|NCT03547908|191831933|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.3||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|19.2||P value was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL). Statistically significant values are shown in bold.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HBeAg status (positive vs negative) and baseline HBV DNA (\< 8 log10 IU/mL vs ≥ 8 log10 IU/mL).|||19.2|-0.7|0.0655
95934933|NCT05107401|191831961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.30|-4.90|0.083
95987934|NCT04872101|191950414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.8||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.8|-5.0|<0.001
95987935|NCT04872101|191950415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.4|<0.001
95735671|NCT02979353|191443413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge timepoint (average 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.017
95735672|NCT02979353|191443413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred on average 31 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
95735673|NCT02979353|191443413|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up After PAC Discharge (occurred, on average, 122 days after study enrollment)||||<0.0001
95735674|NCT02979353|191443414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 3 days after study enrollment)||||0.02
95735675|NCT02979353|191443414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to Post-Acute Care Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 31 days after study enrollment).||||<0.00001
95735676|NCT02979353|191443414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to 90-Day Follow Up After PAC Discharge time point (occurred, on average, 122 after study enrollment).||||0.01
95735677|NCT00617305|191443442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|241.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.7|-160.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-160.2|-337.7|
95735678|NCT00617305|191443442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
95735679|NCT00617305|191443442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|235.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.8|-172.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-172.8|-334.8|
95735680|NCT00617305|191443442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-291.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|205.864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-619.4|35.78||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||35.78|-619.4|
95735681|NCT00617305|191443443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.46||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-2.46|-8.29|
95735682|NCT00617305|191443443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
95857622|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.26|2.91|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||2.91|0.26|0.3134
95934934|NCT05107401|191831962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||-0.18|-1.16|0.032
95934935|NCT05107401|191831963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-0.72|0.48
95934936|NCT05107401|191831964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.29|-1.49|0.48
95934937|NCT05107401|191831965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Separate multilevel linear mixed models were calculated for the overall stigma score and then for each of the stigma subscale scores. The multilevel linear mixed models incorporated random fixed effects for time (categorical), study arm, and their interaction and included intercept as a random effect. Models were also adjusted for pre-intervention stigma levels, whether the participant had submitted content to the study contest, prior HIV testing, age, sex at birth, and sexual orientation.||0.51|-2.60|0.37
95934938|NCT05107401|191831966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Regression, Logistic||The statistical values presented are the relative risk between study arms at the three-month follow-up.|We used a generalized linear model using a binomial distribution to examine whether the intervention was associated with increased HIV self-testing uptake in the follow-up period. The model was adjusted for history of HIV testing (pre-intervention testing and testing prior to the study), whether the participant had submitted content to the JasSpark contest, and if the participant had a main intimate partner (e.g., girlfriend/boyfriend, spouse).||1.32|0.98|0.099
95934939|NCT05107401|191831967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.58||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in females between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||-1.58|-8.59|0.012
95993819|NCT01264939|191963428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.86||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-6.86|-13.17|<0.0001
95735683|NCT00617305|191443443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-3.61||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-3.61|-9.51|
95735684|NCT00617305|191443443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-1.86||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||-1.86|-29.64|
95735685|NCT00617305|191443444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.56|-1.69|
95735686|NCT00617305|191443444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
95857623|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.43|-3.45|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 36||-3.45|-11.43|0.1164
95735687|NCT00617305|191443444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.04||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.04|-2.07|
95735688|NCT00617305|191443444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||2.50|-10.50|
95735689|NCT00617305|191443445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.25|0.43|
95735690|NCT00617305|191443445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
95735691|NCT00617305|191443445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.15|0.41|
95735692|NCT00617305|191443445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.42||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24||1.42|-0.77|
95735693|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||28.4|-3.9|
95735694|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|41.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||41.5|-26.0|
95934940|NCT05107401|191831967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|5.42||To account for multiple comparisons arising from analyses of moderating effects, the false discovery rate (FDR) was controlled using Benjamini-Hochberg procedures in a tiered approach.|Mixed Models Analysis||The statistical values presented are the Estimated Value of Mean Difference in males between study arms from baseline to the three-month follow-up.|Sex was marginally significant in the initial multilevel mixed models, therefore, we examined potential moderation effects of sex on stigma changes. Fixed effects corresponding to the two-way interactions involving sex, time, and/or arm, as well as the three-way interaction of sex, time, and arm, were added to the models.||5.42|-2.26|0.56
95934941|NCT02349412|191831968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|7.13|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.13|-0.67|0.104
95934942|NCT02349412|191831969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.77|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline FACT-G score||||7.77|-1.54|0.188
95934943|NCT02349412|191831970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.09|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Depression score||||2.09|-0.94|0.884
95934944|NCT02349412|191831971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Statistical Method: Available Case ANCOVA Model adjusting for baseline HADS-Anxiety score||||-0.07|-1.54|0.033
95735695|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|107.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
95735696|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|26.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||26.2|-2.7|
95795302|NCT00855582|191560855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857624|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||5.93|1.52|0.1545
95934945|NCT02349412|191831972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95934946|NCT03857620|191831980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||0.45|-0.85|0.53
95934947|NCT03857620|191831980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.81|-0.67|0.84
95934948|NCT03857620|191831980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||0.26|-1.21|0.19
95934949|NCT03857620|191831980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (w/ Gaussian link) w/ random practice effect to account for clustering by site \& bsl CHAMPS score as covariate||||1.29|-0.19|0.14
95934950|NCT03857620|191831981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||Combined Arm II (OPTI-Surg) \& Arm III (OPTI-Surg plus Coach) vs. Arm I (Usual Care)||2.09|0.23|0.50
95934951|NCT03857620|191831981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.62|0.13|0.21
95934952|NCT03857620|191831981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||3.54|0.30|0.96
95934953|NCT03857620|191831981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effects model (with logit link function) with a random practice effect to account for clustering within practice||||1.54|0.13|0.19
95735697|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|87.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||87.2|-32.0|
95735698|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|28.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||28.5|-1.4|
95735699|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|96.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||96.5|-91.5|
95735700|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95735701|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|26.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||26.9|-2.1|
95735702|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|98.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||98.4|-59.6|
95735703|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|35.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||35.6|0.5|
95735704|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|37.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||37.5|-56.5|
95735705|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95735706|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|31.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||31.1|-1.0|
95934954|NCT00567398|191831987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
95934955|NCT00567398|191831987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
95934956|NCT00567398|191831988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
95934957|NCT00567398|191831988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
95934958|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
95934959|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
95934960|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
95987936|NCT04872101|191950416|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
95735707|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|72.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||72.1|-52.5|
95857625|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 42||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
95934961|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
95934962|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
95934963|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
95934964|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
95934965|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
95934966|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
95934967|NCT00567398|191831990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
95934968|NCT00567398|191831991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
95934969|NCT00567398|191831991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
95934970|NCT00567398|191831991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
95934971|NCT00567398|191831991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
95934972|NCT00567398|191831991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
95735708|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||30.1|-25.6|
95735709|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|114.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||114.2|-182.2|
95735710|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95735711|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|24.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||24.8|-28.4|
95735712|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.6|101.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||101.0|-128.6|
95735713|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|44.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||44.2|-15.0|
95934973|NCT00567398|191831991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
95934974|NCT00567398|191831992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
95934975|NCT00567398|191831992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
95934976|NCT00567398|191831992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
95934977|NCT00567398|191831992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
95735714|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|126.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.4|151.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||151.9|-251.4|
95735715|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|67.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95934978|NCT00567398|191831993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
95934979|NCT00567398|191831993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
95934980|NCT00567398|191831994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
95934981|NCT00567398|191831995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
95735716|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|37.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||37.3|-22.4|
95934982|NCT00567398|191831995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
95934983|NCT00567398|191831995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
95934984|NCT00567398|191831995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
95934985|NCT00567398|191831996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
95934986|NCT00567398|191831996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
95934987|NCT00567398|191831996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
95934988|NCT00567398|191831996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
95934989|NCT00567398|191831997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
95934990|NCT00567398|191831997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
95934991|NCT00567398|191831998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
95934992|NCT00567398|191831998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
95934993|NCT00567398|191831999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
95934994|NCT00567398|191831999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
95934995|NCT00567398|191832000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
95934996|NCT00567398|191832001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
95934997|NCT00567398|191832001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
95934998|NCT00567398|191832001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
95735717|NCT00617305|191443446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|121.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.3|124.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||124.5|-177.3|
95735718|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
95735719|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||3.1|-1.6|
95735720|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
95735721|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||0.1|-0.9|
95735722|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||2.3|-1.5|
95735723|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.0|-1.1|
95735724|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||5.3|-2.3|
95735725|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95735726|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.2|-0.9|
95735727|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||3.9|-1.5|
95735728|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.2|-1.5|
95934999|NCT00567398|191832001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
95935000|NCT00567398|191832002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
95935001|NCT00567398|191832002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
95935002|NCT00567398|191832003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
95735729|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.6|-1.8|
95735730|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95735731|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||-0.3|-1.4|
95735732|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.4|-1.4|
95735733|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.2|
95735734|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-2.2|
95735735|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95935003|NCT00567398|191832003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
95735736|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||0.2|-1.0|
95735737|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||3.0|-1.4|
95735738|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.1|-1.4|
95735739|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.5|-4.5|
95735740|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95735741|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||0.3|-1.3|
95735742|NCT00617305|191443447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||4.6|-3.0|
95735743|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.4|-2.7|
95735744|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||9.0|-6.5|
95935004|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
95935005|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
95935006|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
95935007|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
95935008|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
95935009|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
95935010|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
95935011|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
95935012|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
95735745|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95935013|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
95935014|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
95735746|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||0.6|-2.3|
95735747|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||6.1|-4.9|
95735748|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||1.1|-2.7|
95735749|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||5.2|-7.7|
95935015|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
95935016|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
95735750|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95735751|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||0.9|-2.6|
95735752|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||3.0|-5.8|
95735753|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.7|-2.3|
95735754|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.6||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||6.6|-8.1|
95735755|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95735756|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||1.5|-2.2|
95735757|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||4.2|-5.8|
95935017|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
95735758|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||2.1|-2.8|
95735759|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.4||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||10.4|-11.4|
95935018|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
95735760|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95735761|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||1.9|-2.7|
95735762|NCT00617305|191443448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.8||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||6.8|-8.0|
95735763|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
95735764|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
95735765|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
95735766|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 4 (LOCF)||||
95735767|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95735768|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95735769|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95735770|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF)||||
95735771|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95935019|NCT00567398|191832004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
95935020|NCT00567398|191832005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
95935021|NCT00567398|191832005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
95935022|NCT00567398|191832006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
95735772|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95935023|NCT00567398|191832006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
95935024|NCT00567398|191832007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
95935025|NCT00567398|191832007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
95935026|NCT00567398|191832008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
95935027|NCT02879448|191832015|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was developed based on reported rates for other devices. Therefore, the expected rate of the safety endpoint was assumed to be 15%. A non-inferiority margin of 5.8% represents a relative risk of 1.39.||||||0.0002|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p1(Amulet) - p1 (Watchman) ≥ Δ1~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< Δ1;~where Δ1 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the safety endpoint and p1 is the probability of a primary safety endpoint event."||||0.0002
95935028|NCT02879448|191832016|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman. The 18-month rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 4.2%. A non-inferiority margin of 3.2%, which represents a relative risk of 1.76, ensured that the rate observed was at most twice the rate expected with oral anticoagulant therapy.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) ≥ Δ2~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< Δ2;~where Δ2 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin for the effectiveness endpoint and p2 is the probability of a subject experiencing a primary effectiveness endpoint event."||||<0.0001
95935029|NCT02879448|191832017|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for this endpoint was developed based on the reported closure rate for the Watchman device. The rate of device closure for the Watchman device has been reported in the literature as 95% (i.e., 5% had a residual jet \> 5mm). A non-inferiority margin of -3%, which represents a relative risk of 1.60, allows for trial to trial variability and implanter learning associated with implantation of a new device (Amulet).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington Manning test|||"The following hypothesis was tested:~H0: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) ≤ -Δ3~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> -Δ3;~where Δ3 is the absolute value of the non-inferiority margin and p3 is the 45-day closure probability."||||<0.0001
95935030|NCT02879448|191832018|NON_INFERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p4(Amulet) - p4(Watchman) \< 4.5%"|||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||<0.0001
95935031|NCT02879448|191832019|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p5(Amulet) - p5(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.3229|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.3229
95935032|NCT02879448|191832020|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p1(Amulet) - p1(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.466|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.4660
95935033|NCT02879448|191832021|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p2(Amulet) - p2(Watchman) \< 0"||||||0.5017|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate|||||||0.5017
95735773|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95735774|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 24 (LOCF)||||
95735775|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95735776|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95935034|NCT02879448|191832022|SUPERIORITY|"The following hypothesis was tested:~H1: p3(Amulet) - p3(Watchman) \> 0"||||||0.0025|||||||Farrington Manning test|||||||0.0025
95935035|NCT05145257|191832033|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935036|NCT05145257|191832034|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935037|NCT05145257|191832035|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935038|NCT05145257|191832036|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935039|NCT05145257|191832037|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935040|NCT05145257|191832038|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935041|NCT05145257|191832039|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935042|NCT05145257|191832040|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935043|NCT05145257|191832041|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935044|NCT05145257|191832042|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935045|NCT05145257|191832043|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935046|NCT05145257|191832044|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935047|NCT05145257|191832045|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935048|NCT05145257|191832046|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935049|NCT05145257|191832047|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935050|NCT05145257|191832048|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline versus endline comparison.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95935051|NCT04995484|191832049|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.43|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||2.43|0.95|
95935052|NCT04995484|191832050|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.42|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.42|0.84|
95935053|NCT04995484|191832051|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.26|||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment/Healthy|||1.26|0.76|
95735777|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95735778|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 36 (LOCF)||||
95735779|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95735780|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95735781|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95735782|NCT00617305|191443450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||||||||||||Mean change from Baseline to Week 48 (LOCF)||||
95735783|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
95735784|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe solicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe solicited adverse events was 5 out of 100.||||0.7209
95735785|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.3769|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3769
95935054|NCT00894543|191832088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
95735786|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.3083|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with severe unsolicited adverse events was 17 out of 100.||||0.3083
95935055|NCT00894543|191832092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P values from comparison of Escitalopram vs placebo in a linear model of the outcome as a function of intervention group and adjusted for race, clinical center, baseline outcome, and visit (week 4 or week 8).|Regression, Linear|Natural log transformations applied to hot flash frequencies for modeling assumptions.||Based on data from the Herbal Alternatives for Menopause (HALT) study, MsFLASH estimated that 90 women in each treatment group provide 90% power to detect a difference between drug and placebo with a 2-sided alpha of 0.025 to account for two primary outcomes of hot flash frequency and severity.||||<0.001
95735787|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.4975|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c1 (combined Groups 1 and 2) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||0.4975
95735788|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events in the OPV-vaccinated groups who received nOPV-c2 (combined Groups 3 and 4) was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33) using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. In the UAM1 study, the number of participants with serious unsolicited adverse events was 0 out of 100.||||1.0000
95735789|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
95735790|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe solicited adverse events||||1.0000
95735791|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.1571|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.1571
95795303|NCT00855582|191560856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95735792|NCT04544787|191443454|OTHER|||||||0.296|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severe unsolicited adverse events||||0.2960
95857626|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.52|5.93|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||5.93|1.52|0.1545
95735793|NCT04544787|191443455|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 (mOPV2) control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.9|
95735794|NCT04544787|191443455|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary immunogenicity endpoint, seroprotection on Day 28 after a single dose of each vaccine candidate, was formally compared with the corresponding endpoint from UAM1 via a non-inferiority test of the difference of each of the novel candidates to the monovalent OPV2 control, mOPV2, each using one-sided α=0.025 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%, computed using two-sided α=0·05 Miettinen and Nurminen score-based CIs for inference.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.0||||||The primary immunogenicity endpoint, the seroprotection rate after one dose of either vaccine candidate in the OPV-vaccinated groups (nOPV2 combined groups 1 and 2, and combined groups 3 and 4), was compared with the corresponding endpoint from the historical monovalent OPV2 control study (UAM1, EudraCT # 2015-003325-33). In the UAM1 study, the observed seroprotection rate after a single dose of mOPV2 was 98% (98 out of 100 participants), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 93-100%.||7.0|-1.8|
95735795|NCT02612337|191443504|SUPERIORITY|The target sample size for each was 160 randomized subjects: 80 in each treatment group stratified by gender. The sample size estimate was chosen to achieve more than 90% power with a significance level of 0.05 2-sided to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment difference for the primary endpoint of DVD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.907||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.339|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||1.339|0.615|0.623
95735796|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.91|0.60|0.005
95735797|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for scant discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||2.30|0.33|0.780
95735798|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.33||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for moderate discharge amount (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||5.33|0.75|0.164
95735799|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.17||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for large amount of discharge (reference category is no discharge) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multvariable logistic regression model.||5.17|0.23|0.919
95735800|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||3.30|1.00|0.051
95735801|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|22.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 1 or more new sex partners in the last 30 days (reference category is 0) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||22.74|0.86|0.076
95735802|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1||A priori threshold fors tatistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or sex for money, drugs, or other things (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||1.10|0.13|0.075
95935056|NCT00894543|191832093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95935057|NCT05623345|191832112|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0377|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
95735803|NCT00322465|191443519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for visit due to sexually transmitted disease contact (reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1.||7.98|1.93|<0.001
95935058|NCT05623345|191832112|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935059|NCT05623345|191832112|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935060|NCT05623345|191832113|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.14||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0483
95935061|NCT05623345|191832113|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935062|NCT05623345|191832113|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95735804|NCT00322465|191443520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for 2 or more sex partners in the last 3 months (reference category is 0-1 partners) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||0.66|0.06|0.009
95735805|NCT00322465|191443520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.22||A priori threshold for statistical signficance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio has been adjusted for other independent variables included in the model, which are found in the other Statistical Analysis sections.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for ever having sex with a prostitute or for money, drugs, or other things(reference category is no) is 1 versus the alternative that it is greater than or less than 1. This was tested in a multivariable logistic regression model.||6.22|0.92|0.074
95735806|NCT00322465|191443521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|No other independent variables were included in the model.||The null hypothesis is that the odds ratio for age (per 5 years) is 1 versus the alternative that the odds ratio is greater than or less than 1.||0.98|0.66|0.032
95735807|NCT00854100|191443527|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.4|0.746
95857627|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.66|-0.94|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 48||-0.94|-9.66|0.3061
95935063|NCT05623345|191832114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.0883|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0883
95935064|NCT05623345|191832114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.2713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2713
95935065|NCT05623345|191832114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.8872|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8872
95935066|NCT05623345|191832115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.1654|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1654
95935067|NCT05623345|191832115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935068|NCT05623345|191832115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935069|NCT05623345|191832116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.85||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0106
95735808|NCT00854100|191443527|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-4.8|0.227
95735809|NCT00854100|191443528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.918
95735810|NCT00854100|191443528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.167
95735811|NCT02242201|191443534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
95735812|NCT02242201|191443534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
95735813|NCT02242201|191443534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
95735814|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.948
95735815|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.880
95735816|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative||||0.802
95735817|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.179
95735818|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.837
95735819|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intraoperative||||0.142
95735820|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.010
95735821|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.516
95735822|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.052
95735823|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.840
95935070|NCT05623345|191832116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935071|NCT05623345|191832116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
95935072|NCT05623345|191832117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.11||0.1147|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1147
95935073|NCT05623345|191832117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935074|NCT05623345|191832117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95935075|NCT05623345|191832118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.44|-0.22|0.514
95935076|NCT05623345|191832118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.04|-0.28|0.010
95935077|NCT05623345|191832118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
95935078|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|97.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|86|0.0526
95935079|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|0.0526
95735824|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.744
95735825|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 0 post PACU||||0.501
95735826|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.358
95857628|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||8.73|3.10|0.0774
95987937|NCT04872101|191950417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.5|-2.6|<0.001
95987938|NCT04872101|191950418|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-0.99|<0.001
95987939|NCT04872101|191950419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.62||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.62|-1.01|<0.001
95987940|NCT04872101|191950420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|35.9||Evaluated at a 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting, and alpha recycling to control overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||35.9|17.0|<0.001
95735827|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.536
95735828|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 1||||0.110
95735829|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.313
95735830|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.893
95987941|NCT00527605|191950428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.23|-8.22|||t-test, 2 sided||Dutasteride arm minus placebo arm.|||-8.22|-20.23|<0.0001
95987942|NCT02762513|191950503|OTHER||Median overall survival time (months)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
95735831|NCT02242201|191443535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POD 2||||0.232
95735832|NCT02242201|191443536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.772
95735833|NCT02242201|191443537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline||||0.251
95735834|NCT02242201|191443537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||3 month follow-up||||0.300
95735835|NCT02242201|191443537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.113
95735836|NCT02242201|191443537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.147
95735837|NCT02242201|191443537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.216
95735838|NCT02242201|191443537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Cox|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.968
95735839|NCT02242201|191443538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain at rest||||0.776
95735840|NCT02242201|191443538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain with movement||||0.447
95735841|NCT02242201|191443539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.986
95735842|NCT02242201|191443539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
95735843|NCT02242201|191443539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
95735844|NCT02242201|191443539|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||<0.001
95735845|NCT02242201|191443540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.898
95735846|NCT02242201|191443540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.112
95735847|NCT02242201|191443540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.046
95735848|NCT02242201|191443540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs 3 months||||0.026
95735849|NCT02242201|191443541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative extremity neurologic changes||||0.843
95735850|NCT02242201|191443541|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Wound infection||||1.00
95735851|NCT02242201|191443541|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fall requiring medical attention||||1.00
95735852|NCT02242201|191443542|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain at rest||||1.00
95735853|NCT02242201|191443542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain with movement||||0.167
95735854|NCT02801877|191443546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|Chi square= 4.1 on 3 degrees of freedom||Log-rank test of adherence, defined as time to last engagement with mobile application suite.||||0.3
95735855|NCT02801877|191443547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.19||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.90
95735856|NCT02801877|191443548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(3, 835)=0.73||Interactive effect of time and group, adjusting for baseline GAD-7, randomization strata, main and interactive effects of time, coach, coach\*time, hub, and hub\*time.||||0.53
95735857|NCT00939003|191443558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95735858|NCT00939003|191443559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95735859|NCT00939003|191443560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95735860|NCT00939003|191443561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
95735861|NCT00939003|191443562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
95735862|NCT00939003|191443565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95735863|NCT00939003|191443566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.027
95735864|NCT00939003|191443567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
95935080|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0526
95935081|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|84.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||84|53|<0.0001
95935082|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|98.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||98|0|<0.0001
95935083|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||83|51|<0.0001
95935084|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
95987943|NCT02762513|191950504|OTHER||Median PFS time (months)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Median calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.|||||
95735865|NCT00939003|191443568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
95735866|NCT00939003|191443569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline value with treatment as a factor.||||||0.001
95735867|NCT03880266|191443573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.60|-3.76|0.244
95735868|NCT03880266|191443573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.43|-0.65|0.168
95735869|NCT03880266|191443573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.72|-2.39|0.699
95735870|NCT03880266|191443573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-1.94|0.833
95735871|NCT03880266|191443574|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95735872|NCT03880266|191443574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
95735873|NCT03880266|191443574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
95735874|NCT03880266|191443574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
95735875|NCT03880266|191443575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-206.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.9|38.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||38.9|-451.9|0.093
95735876|NCT03880266|191443575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|144.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|366.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||366.7|-78.6|0.186
95735877|NCT03880266|191443575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-309.0|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-309.0|0.058
95735878|NCT03880266|191443575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.6||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.2|290.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||290.1|-611.2|0.186
95735879|NCT03880266|191443576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.62||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.42|11.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.17|-78.42|0.130
95735880|NCT03880266|191443576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.26||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.62|103.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||103.13|-54.62|0.518
95735881|NCT03880266|191443576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.14||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-78.32|0.061
95735882|NCT03880266|191443576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.4|49.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||49.72|-128.40|0.366
95735883|NCT03880266|191443577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
95735884|NCT03880266|191443577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.560
95735885|NCT03880266|191443577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95735886|NCT03880266|191443577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.290
95735887|NCT02393417|191443590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5706||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0184|2.4223|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4223|1.0184|0.0329
95735888|NCT02393417|191443590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8926||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2722|2.8156|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8156|1.2722|0.0007
95735889|NCT02393417|191443590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7319||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1602|2.5854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.5854|1.1602|0.0052
95735890|NCT02393417|191443591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3828||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6191|3.0883|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.0883|0.6191|0.4307
95935085|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|100.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|100.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||100|3|0.0043
95735891|NCT02393417|191443591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.8908||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4169|5.8978|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8978|1.4169|0.0014
95735892|NCT02393417|191443591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9281|9.6975|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6975|0.9281|0.0451
95735893|NCT02393417|191443593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7553||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4211|5.3419|||Regression, Cox|||||5.3419|1.4211|0.0027
95735894|NCT02393417|191443593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.1516||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6148|6.1509|||Regression, Cox|||||6.1509|1.6148|0.0008
95735895|NCT02393417|191443593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.3257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7263|6.407|||Regression, Cox|||||6.4070|1.7263|0.0003
95735896|NCT02393417|191443599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.001|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.001|0.997|0.4824
95735897|NCT02393417|191443599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.998|0.5007
95735898|NCT02393417|191443599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.999|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||0.999|0.987|0.0219
95857629|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 54||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
95735899|NCT02393417|191443599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.004|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 indicates that the age of the wart is negatively correlated with positive treatment outcome and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for complete resolution status of largest primary injected wart (yes vs no) with wart age as a covariate.||1.004|0.995|0.8267
95735900|NCT02393417|191443600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.015|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.015|0.915|0.1657
95735901|NCT02393417|191443600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.997|0.8168
95735902|NCT02393417|191443600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.003|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.003|0.993|0.4183
95935086|NCT00520546|191832165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|95.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|99.0|||Fisher Exact|||"results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a patient based analysis~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||99|82|0.0043
95735903|NCT02393417|191443600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.006|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the age of the largest primary injected wart is positively correlated with the recurrence of any resolved wart and vice versa.|Using a logistic regression model for recurrence status of any resolved wart (yes vs no) with age of the largest primary injected wart as a covariate.||1.006|0.997|0.5572
95735904|NCT01032083|191443631|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.80|-4.91|0.36
95735905|NCT01032083|191443632|EQUIVALENCE|For the primary outcome, linear regression was used to determine mean difference between treatment groups. Differences between groups are presented as mean differences with associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Baseline values for variables were included as covariates in regression models and adjusted according to analysis of covariance. All analyses were conducted under the intention-to-treat principle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.0|||Regression, Linear|||||14|-9|0.68
95735906|NCT02996591|191443649|OTHER||generalized estimating equations method|45.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.038
95735907|NCT02996591|191443649|OTHER|Bang blinding index|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang Blinding Index|95% confidence interval||||||<.001
95735908|NCT03612960|191443665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||||The mean percent change in BOLD signal used for this t-test was extracted from a brain cluster with significant group differences in changes in activation over time (voxel p\<.05, cluster p\<.05) identified using a whole-brain, voxel-wise two-way mixed effect ANOVA with FSL software.|0.43|0.14|<.001
95935087|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|69.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
95735909|NCT03612960|191443666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-17.24|.063
95935088|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|44.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
95735910|NCT03612960|191443667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|18.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.82|-21.57|0.890
95735911|NCT00829673|191443668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.82||||||90.0|100.24|115.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.98|100.24|
95735912|NCT00829673|191443669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.74||||||90.0|97.3|104.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.29|97.3|
95735913|NCT00829673|191443670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.5||||||90.0|97.09|104.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.03|97.09|
95735914|NCT00272779|191443677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.1||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 48 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||7.1|-3.8|
95735915|NCT00272779|191443678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||8.1|-1.5|
95735916|NCT00272779|191443681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|3.1|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||3.1|-35.9|
95764069|NCT02972892|191498176|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.56|53.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Using t-test, comparison of the weighted average percent duration between the Et Control and control device will be performed by calculating the difference and its 95% 2-sided confidence interval between the two arms. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is ≥ -5% for EtO2.||53.41|35.56|<.001
95795304|NCT00855582|191560856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857630|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||8.73|3.10|0.0774
95857631|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 60||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
95935089|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|71.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
95935090|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|42.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
95987944|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|849.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|786.0|921.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||921|786|<0.0001
95935091|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|61.0||||0.09||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from FEC-PET as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.09
95735917|NCT00272779|191443703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0||Assuming 70% response rate (70% of participants remain on treatment for 96 wks and HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) on both regimens, sample size of 882 randomized participants (441/regimen) provided 90% power to demonstrate ATV/RTV is non-inferior to LPV/RTV|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The ATV/RTV regimen was deemed to be non-inferior to the lopinavir/ritonavir regimen if the lower CI for the difference in proportions \> -10%.||Treatment regimens compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (atazanavir/ritonavir- lopinavir/ritonavir) and 95% CI based on stratified normal approximation.Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region.The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size:Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting||12.0|0.3|
95735918|NCT00272779|191443704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment regimens were compared by calculation of the difference in proportions (ATV/RTV-LPV/RTV) and 95% CI based on a stratified normal approximation. Analyses were stratified by the same strata as randomization-ie, HIV RNA level at enrollment and geographic region. The proportion of participants with HIV RNA below 400 copies per mL was computed within each stratum, and combined by use of a weighted average with weights proportional to stratum size (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting).||10.6|-0.4|
95735919|NCT00272779|191443706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|0.9|||95% CI comparison of difference|||Mean changes in CD4 cell counts from baseline at week 48 were compared between treatment regimens with 95% CIs based on stratified normal approximations and observed values.||0.9|-43.3|
95735920|NCT00272779|191443722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.507|1.142|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.142|0.507|
95735921|NCT00272779|191443723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|2.121|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||2.121|1.005|
95735922|NCT00272779|191443724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.612|
95735923|NCT00272779|191443725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.181|0.439|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||0.439|0.181|
95735924|NCT00272779|191443726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.223|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.223|0.699|
95735925|NCT00272779|191443727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.626|1.161|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.161|0.626|
95735926|NCT00272779|191443728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.689|1.151|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% CIs for differences between treatment regimens were calculated on the log scale, and were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|||1.151|0.689|
95735927|NCT00272779|191443752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting non-HDL cholesterol (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0847
95735928|NCT00272779|191443753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_097 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
95857632|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||8.73|3.10|0.0774
95935092|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|60.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
95935093|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|30.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
95935094|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|48.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
95935095|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|40.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
95935096|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|45.0||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.27
95935097|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95764070|NCT02729909|191498207|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of confidence interval (CI)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||||1.9|0.1|0.020
95935098|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|57.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935099|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935100|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935101|NCT00520546|191832166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"lesion based (all lesions = 128) results from PET/MRI as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935102|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935103|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95987945|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1879.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1636.0|2112.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, nonAEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2112|1636|<0.0001
95987946|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5681.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5257.0|6077.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||6077|5257|<0.0001
95935104|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|90.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935105|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|84.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935106|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935107|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|71.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
95935108|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|33.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
95764071|NCT02729909|191498208|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||1.9|0.0|0.051
95764072|NCT02729909|191498208|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||2.0|1.0|0.003
95935109|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|73.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
95735929|NCT00272779|191443754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_2265 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_2265 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0058
95735930|NCT00272779|191443755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_598 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_598 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.0253
95735931|NCT00272779|191443756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the APOE\_C130R genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_C130R reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
95735932|NCT00272779|191443757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting triglycerides (phenotype) and the RETN\_734 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_734 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1173
95764073|NCT02729909|191498208|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||Spontaneous bowel movement was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||1.9|0.1|0.009
95764074|NCT02729909|191498209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.62||The proportion of participants with an SBM within 24 hours after first dose in Week 1 is analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.62|1.19|0.009
95935110|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|31.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
95935111|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|60.0||||0.53||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.53
95935112|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|96.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935113|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|73.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935114|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|87.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95987947|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|273.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|251.0|295.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||295|251|<0.0001
95935115|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|92.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95735933|NCT00272779|191443758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1847||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting PAI-1 (phenotype) and the APOE\_R176C genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with APOE\_R176C reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1847
95764075|NCT02729909|191498210|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.2|-0.6|0.001
95935116|NCT00520546|191832167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|88.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with Gleason Score \>6 (n=43) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935117|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
95935118|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|69.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
95935119|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|86.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
95935120|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|43.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
95935121|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|67.0||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.002
95935122|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|59.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
95935123|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|46.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
95935124|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|66.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
95935125|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|38.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
95935126|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|54.0||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||0.41
95935127|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||positive prediction|86.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935128|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||negative prediction|76.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935129|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|83.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935130|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||specificity|80.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935131|NCT00520546|191832168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy|82.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Lesion based analysis of FEC-PET, endorectal MRI and combined FEC-PET/eMRI in patients with malign lesions \>5mm (n=98) as compared with histological results on a lesion based analysis of all patients (n=38)~Null hypothesis: patient distribution in contingency table is incidental."||||<0.001
95935132|NCT04583423|191832169|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.4||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||35.1|-13.4|0.3504
95935133|NCT04583423|191832169|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.2||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|32.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||32.1|-15.6|0.3730
95935134|NCT04583423|191832169|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|15.4||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|42.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300-mg MK-3655 minus % placebo|||42.3|-8.5|0.1428
95935135|NCT04583423|191832172|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|36.4|||||Difference=LS Mean 50 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||36.4|1.7|
95935136|NCT04583423|191832172|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 100 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||35.8|2.2|
95935137|NCT04583423|191832172|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8|||||Difference=LS Mean 300 mg minus LS Mean Placebo|||42.8|9.5|
95935138|NCT04583423|191832173|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|30.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||30.3|-26.5|0.8978
95935139|NCT04583423|191832173|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|20.0||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|46.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||46.4|-10.6|0.1869
95935140|NCT04583423|191832173|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.5||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|38.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 300 mg minus % Placebo|||38.5|-22.1|0.5636
95935141|NCT04583423|191832174|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.6||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|32.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 50 mg minus % Placebo|||32.6|-28.6|0.9174
95987948|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1021.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.0|1211.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1211|819|<0.0001
95987949|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|72.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||72|48|<0.0001
95764076|NCT02729909|191498210|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
95935142|NCT04583423|191832174|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference=% 100 mg minus % Placebo|||47.1|-14.5|0.2720
95935143|NCT04583423|191832174|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|5.3||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Stratified by concurrent diagnosis of T2DM at the time of randomization and fibrosis score and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme|Difference= % 300 mg minus % Placebo|||37.3|-26.7|0.7586
95935144|NCT04154384|191832183|SUPERIORITY|A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 3 months follow-up.||||||0.035||||||A comparison of the proportion of participants in each arm reporting an improvement in average pain score on the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline to 12 weeks follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95935145|NCT02412748|191832231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.962
95935146|NCT02412748|191832232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.982
95935147|NCT02412748|191832233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.534
95735934|NCT00272779|191443759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis:There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-alpha (phenotype) and the IL6\_5309 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, wk48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (ie. an omnibus test on both marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with IL6\_5309 reported in Outcome Measure 16||||0.1833
95735935|NCT00272779|191443760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1833||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in fasting TNF-alpha (phenotype) and the RS11030679 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_097 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1833
95735936|NCT00272779|191443761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1694||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in SAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDC122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDC122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1694
95735937|NCT00272779|191443762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the BRUNOL\_1842 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, week 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with BRUNOL\_1842 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
95735938|NCT00272779|191443763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1335||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT (phenotype) and the RETN\_730 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with RETN\_730 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1335
95735939|NCT00272779|191443764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696||95.0||||The explanatory variables in the model include treatment, genotype, time, and their interaction effects as fixed effects and the spatial exponential with respect to time from baseline was used to model the covariance structure of repeated measures.|linear mixed effect model|The FDR multiple testing adjustment was used to adjust p-values for the number of SNPs being tested (only SNPs with FDR-adj p-values \<0.2 reported)||Null Hypothesis: There is no association between the mean change from baseline in VAT-to-TAT Ratio (phenotype) and the CCDA122\_5980 genotypes. A single SNP association analysis was conducted using the linear mixed effect model for repeated measures (baseline, weeks 48 and 96) to test the overall genotype effect (i.e. an omnibus test on both the marginal genotype effect and the genotype-by-treatment interaction effect). Number of participants with CCDA122\_5980 reported in Outcome Measure 16.||||0.1696
95795305|NCT00855582|191560856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857633|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 66||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
95935148|NCT02412748|191832234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.730
95935149|NCT02412748|191832235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.927
95735940|NCT02440711|191443765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at slow walking speed||||.18
95935150|NCT02412748|191832236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.841
95935151|NCT02412748|191832237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.722
95935152|NCT02412748|191832238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.715
95935153|NCT02412748|191832239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.900
95935154|NCT02412748|191832240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.271
95935155|NCT02412748|191832241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.987
95935156|NCT02412748|191832242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.967
95935157|NCT02412748|191832243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.693
95935158|NCT02412748|191832244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.557
95935159|NCT02412748|191832245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.681
95935160|NCT02412748|191832246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.389
95935161|NCT02412748|191832247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.846
95735941|NCT02440711|191443765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at comfortable walking speed||||.21
95735942|NCT02440711|191443765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A significance threshold for all analyses was set at α=0.05. Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons were applied.|Multivariate regression|The multivariate regression included participants' biological masses and walking speeds as covariates.||Analysis of VO2 at fast walking speed||||.16
95735943|NCT02440711|191443767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
95735944|NCT02440711|191443769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95735945|NCT02440711|191443771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
95935162|NCT02412748|191832248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.871
95935163|NCT02412748|191832249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 repeated measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) with 3 assessments crossed with two treatment conditions (BBTF and FLP). Five variables were included as covariates: father's age, father's highest level of education, number of members in father's social network, number of adults in the household, and sex of the target child. The effect of interest was the condition x time interaction.||||.986
95935164|NCT02412748|191832250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.791
95935165|NCT02412748|191832251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.583
95935166|NCT02412748|191832252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.851
95935167|NCT00393484|191832260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in proportion along with its standard error and 90% confidence interval was computed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was great than -10%, noninferiority was established. Provided that noninferiority was established, a test for superiority was planned to check that the lower limit of the 90% CI was greater than zero.|Difference in proportion|25.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.48|36.86||There was no adjustment for the prior test of noninferiority because the test for superiority could succeed only if noninferiority was first established.|Chi-squared|||A sample size of 60 per group provides 80% power for testing superiority of entecavir compared to lamivudine, assuming a response rate of 62% for lamivudine and 83% for entecavir.||36.86|14.48|0.0006
95935168|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.45|34.66||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method used in the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||34.66|14.45|0.0003
95935169|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.62||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.85|22.38||Treatment comparisons were assessed using the same method as the primary endpoint.|Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 24 Weeks||22.38|4.85|0.0167
95935170|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|11.1|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 24 Weeks||11.10|-2.62|0.4467
95857634|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.1|8.73|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||8.73|3.10|0.0774
95935171|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.87|36.36|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||36.36|15.87|0.0002
95935172|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.09||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|29.07|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 48 Weeks||29.07|11.10|0.0009
95935173|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.43|25.5|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 at 48 Weeks||25.50|8.43|0.0029
95935174|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.02|46.51|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^3 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||46.51|24.02|<0.0001
95935175|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.07|39.97|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^4 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||39.97|18.07|<0.0001
95935176|NCT00393484|191832261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.71|34.95|||Chi-squared|||HBV DNA \<10\^5 copies/mL at 96 Weeks||34.95|13.71|0.0006
95935177|NCT00393484|191832262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariates of treatment and baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and Week 24.||||<0.0001
95735946|NCT02440711|191443773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
95935178|NCT00393484|191832262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 48.||||<0.0001
95935179|NCT00393484|191832262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at 96 Weeks.||||<0.0001
95935180|NCT00393484|191832262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 144.||||<0.0001
95935181|NCT00393484|191832262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 192.||||<0.0001
95735947|NCT02440711|191443775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step length results||||.14
95735948|NCT02440711|191443775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step length results||||<0.001
95935182|NCT00393484|191832262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment comparisons were based on 2-sided t-test for treatment difference (entecavir: lamivudine) estimated from the linear regression model with covariants of treatment and Baseline hepatitis B DNA by PCR.|unpaired t-test|||Changes from Baseline were based on patients with measurements at both Baseline and at Week 240.||||<0.0001
95935183|NCT00393484|191832264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.97||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.22|32.73|||Chi-squared||At 24 Weeks|||32.73|5.22|0.0278
95935184|NCT00393484|191832264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.65|39.03|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||39.03|13.65|0.0014
95935185|NCT00393484|191832264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|35.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.35|48.52|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||48.52|23.35|<0.0001
95935186|NCT00393484|191832270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.52|44.89|||Chi-squared||At 48 Weeks|||44.89|22.52|<0.0001
95935187|NCT00393484|191832270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.8|57.61|||Chi-squared||At 96 Weeks|||57.61|34.80|<0.0001
95935188|NCT00393484|191832270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|33.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|47.65|||Chi-squared||At 144 Weeks|||47.65|19.31|0.0003
95935189|NCT00393484|191832270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.17|58.11|||Chi-squared||At 192 Weeks|||58.11|31.17|<0.0001
95935190|NCT00393484|191832270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|52.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.54|64.93|||Chi-squared||At 240 Weeks|||64.93|39.54|<0.0001
95935191|NCT00393484|191832271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Viral rebound at 96 weeks||||<0.0001
95935192|NCT02119650|191832306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.509|1.51|||Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test and stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS).||||1.51|0.509|0.7562
95935193|NCT01255670|191832311|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95935194|NCT01255670|191832312|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test||||0.05
95935195|NCT06546657|191832368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||Medium GI vs low GI breakfast meals||4.0|-0.6|0.14
95935196|NCT06546657|191832368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.5|||Linear Mixed Model|||Medium vs high GI breakfast meals||7.5|1.2|0.01
95935197|NCT06546657|191832368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||High GI vs low GI breakfast meals||0.7|-6.0|0.12
95935198|NCT06546657|191832369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1815||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Model|||High GI breakfast meals vs low and medium GI breakfast meals||||0.65
95935199|NCT06546657|191832370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.431||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||1.2|-0.3|0.25
95935200|NCT06546657|191832371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||High glycaemic load breakfast meals vs low and medium glycaemic load meals||44|0.6|0.04
95935201|NCT06546657|191832372|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||Breakfast cereals meals vs added protein meals||2.1|0.4|0.01
95935202|NCT06546657|191832374|OTHER|Comparison of diurnal and nocturnal glucose variability (CV%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95935203|NCT03725722|191832391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with adjusted p-value of \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model selected: Sigmoid Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in EASI score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.0001
95935204|NCT03725722|191832391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.3||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.3|-5.0|<0.01
95950048|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.079||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.221|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 2: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.221|-0.063|0.2677
95950049|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.085||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.211|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 3: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.211|-0.040|0.1788
95735949|NCT02440711|191443777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Prosthetic side step time results||||.61
95735950|NCT02440711|191443777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sound side step time results||||.40
95935205|NCT03725722|191832391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.2||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-1.2|-4.8|<0.05
95935206|NCT03725722|191832391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-2.1|-5.8|<0.0001
95935207|NCT03725722|191832391|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.9||The stat. test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. were excluded from the analysis. Likewise for missing data due to COVID-19 pandemic.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least square (LS) means were calculated using a mixed model response model (MMRM) on post-baseline responses up to Week 8 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in EASI = treatment x visit + baseline EASI x visit + region + baseline vIGA-AD.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and delgocitinib cream vehicle was at Week 8."||-3.9|-7.5|<0.0001
95735951|NCT02440711|191443779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
95935208|NCT03725722|191832392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model: Linear model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the vIGA-AD response rate at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response.||||<0.0001
95987950|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2555.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|834.0|4281.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4281|834|0.0080
95735952|NCT02440711|191443781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95735953|NCT02440711|191443783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95735954|NCT02440711|191443785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95795306|NCT00855582|191560856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95795307|NCT00855582|191560857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.215||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.215
95857635|NCT00658359|191673381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-7.82|1.59|||Wald Test||Standard error of the mean refers to standard error of the estimated rate difference|Month 72||1.59|-7.82|0.5772
95857636|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.49|21.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||21.22|7.49|0.0786
95735955|NCT02440711|191443787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AR results||||0.002
95735956|NCT02440711|191443787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-FUN results||||<0.001
95735957|NCT02440711|191443787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Holm-Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied to yield an experiment-wise alpha level of .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||TAPES-AES results||||0.85
95735958|NCT01980771|191443789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.43|1.03|0.04
95735959|NCT00627016|191443853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance for the comparison of the primary endpoint was determined at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95735960|NCT00627016|191443854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95935209|NCT03725722|191832392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.9||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||21.9|-5.6|>0.05
95935210|NCT03725722|191832392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|34.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference.||34.6|3.9|<0.05
95935211|NCT03725722|191832392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|35.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||35.2|5.4|<0.05
95935212|NCT03725722|191832392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|54.3||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||54.3|22.3|<0.0001
95935213|NCT03725722|191832393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Multiple contrast test|"P-values were adj. for multiple comparisons. Models with adj. p-value \<0.025 were stat. sign. diff. from a flat dose-response model.~Model:Emax model"||This endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between EASI75 at Week 8 and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response||||<0.0001
95935214|NCT03725722|191832393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|37.6||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||37.6|1.8|<0.05
95935215|NCT03725722|191832393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|41.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||41.2|5.8|<0.05
95987951|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4041.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3776.0|4305.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||4305|3776|<0.0001
95735961|NCT00627016|191443855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was only declared if the primary endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. The multiplicity between the two secondary endpoints was adjusted by Hommel-Simes method to maintain the overall 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95735962|NCT05025345|191443861|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin equals -0.1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.011||Success criteria was evaluated using lower confidence interval. No P-Value was calculated.||||||0.011|-0.036|
95735963|NCT05025345|191443862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95935216|NCT03725722|191832393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|53.2||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||53.2|17.5|<0.0005
95935217|NCT03725722|191832393|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|62.8||Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to COVID-19 were set to missing Week 8. Data collected after premature discont. of IMP due to reasons unrelated to COVID-19 or due to initiation of rescue med. were imputed as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline vIGA-AD score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative test that there is a difference||62.8|28.1|<0.0001
95935218|NCT03725722|191832394|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
95935219|NCT03725722|191832394|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||"vIGA-AD was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner.||||>0.05
95935220|NCT03725722|191832394|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD.|||||>|0.05||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||>0.05
95735964|NCT02331394|191443864|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence assumes that the true mean difference between the paired samples is zero. Under this model, all observable differences are explained by random variation.Equality margins are:~Upper Equivalence Margin=1.5 Lower Equivalence Margin=-1.5"|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of repeated measures were made using paired sample t test, which compared subjects data at 2 different times: baseline and end of the study. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||<0.05
95935221|NCT03725722|191832394|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline vIGA-AD score. An event was defined as the first time achieving vIGA-AD|||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity|Log Rank|||Time to vIGA-AD TS was def. as time from date of first IMP applic. to first assess. of vIGA-AD TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at date of first IMP applic. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving vIGA-AD TS during treatment period were censored at date of last visit with a valid post-baseline assess. on or prior to date of discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med, whichever occurred first. Subjects affected by COVID-19 pandemic were handled in the same manner||||<0.001
95935222|NCT01600014|191832395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.51||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||4.51|1.32|0.001
95935223|NCT01600014|191832395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.25||Chi-square test for stratified data with a significance level of 5%. No adjustment for multiple tests was needed, due to the analyses were based on distinct subject groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and week of randomisation||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||5.25|1.07|0.013
95735965|NCT02331394|191443867|SUPERIORITY|Pared t-test was used to evaluate the significance of the change in scores||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95735966|NCT00552669|191443872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We used One way annalysis of a variance for means and standard deviation.||||<0.05
95735967|NCT00552669|191443873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on our previous data the incidence of relevant clinical events was similar in both groups (ERACI III and ORAR II)||||0.05
95935224|NCT01600014|191832396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.62||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||17.62|1.10|0.016
95935225|NCT01600014|191832396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.47||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ratio of clearance rates (Ingenol mebutate relative to Vehicle) adjusted for anatomical location and country||The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||6.47|0.78|0.10
95935226|NCT01600014|191832396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent cleared subjects|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|56.1|||||Estimation based on completers only.|Subjects randomised to vehicle were not included in the estimate of the overall clearance rate for the repeat-use regimen, from last treatment throught to Month 12. Instead, the subjects randomised to ingenol mebutate were given higher weights to reflect the hypothetical scenario where all randomised subjects were given active treatment during the repeat use cycle||56.1|44.0|
95935227|NCT01600014|191832397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.38||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) as the imputation method.|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.38|-1.38|<0.001
95935228|NCT01600014|191832397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.51||A closed test procedure was chosen where the evaluation process stopped when the first non-significant results were observed thus securing that the overall significance level did not exceed 5% for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|Sensitivity analysis using complete cases|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 141 subjects were included||-0.51|-1.52|<0.001
95935229|NCT01600014|191832397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||Formal statistical significance could not be established because of the closed test procedure where the first secondary endpoint tested (12 months clearance) did not reach statistical significance in the recurrent subgroup|ANCOVA|Analysed using ANCOVA adjusted for anatomical location, country and AK count at randomisation|Using BOCF as the imputation method, the difference in the adjusted mean AK count between the ingenol mebutate and vehicle groups|The analysis type was superiority between groups. In total 62 subjects were included||-0.19|-1.19|0.008
95935230|NCT01259401|191832407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
95935231|NCT01259401|191832408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.061
95935232|NCT05769595|191832422|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|2.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is MK-2060/placebo|||2.82|2.24|
95935233|NCT03089125|191832425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||-0.05|-0.61|0.038
95935234|NCT03089125|191832426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||1.10|-2.20|>0.99
95935235|NCT03089125|191832427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||5.18|-1.98|0.380
95935236|NCT03089125|191832428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||0.82|-0.83|0.990
95935237|NCT03089125|191832429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-1.34|0.251
95935238|NCT03089125|191832430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.||||4.92|-7.90|0.647
95935239|NCT03089125|191832431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|5.71||ANCOVA models control for cancer type, study site, and baseline scores of outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||5.71|-2.45|0.431
95935240|NCT03089125|191832432|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.26|-0.38|0.710
95935241|NCT03089125|191832433|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.38||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||2.16|-1.40|0.677
95935242|NCT03089125|191832434|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|-1.95||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.97|-5.87|0.330
95935243|NCT03089125|191832435|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.73||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||1.59|-0.13|0.098
95935244|NCT03089125|191832436|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.08||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||0.93|-0.76|0.845
95935245|NCT03089125|191832437|SUPERIORITY||Between-group diff in change per 8 weeks|0.74||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated between-group difference in change in scores per every 8 weeks from baseline through week 24, controlling for cancer type and study site.||||7.77|-6.33|0.837
95935246|NCT03683069|191832446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Linear|||adjusted to medication dose, sex, age, race||||0.823
95935247|NCT03683069|191832446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Regression, Linear|||diastolic bp adjusted for medication dose sex,age, race||||.8390
95935248|NCT03683069|191832447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0101
95935249|NCT03683069|191832448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.59
95935250|NCT03683069|191832449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.7022||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier using Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxo|||||||.09
95735968|NCT00552669|191443874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"power calculation 80% Hypothesis: No significant diferences between Target Vessel Revascularization (TVR) between both groups.~All events will be recorded and an independent blind for groups clinical events committee will adjudicate each one."||||<0.05
95735969|NCT01061866|191443885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p less than or equal to 0.05, repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.02||||||p-value is non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Was adjusted the degrees of freedom for the averaged test of significance.|The frequency of seizures at the beginning of the study and after treatment with thalidomide was contrasted in the same group patients.|Power=0.02||||<0.02
95935251|NCT05768373|191832450|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.0|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||4.0|-3.4|
95935252|NCT05768373|191832451|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||5.3|-2.6|
95935253|NCT05768373|191832452|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||6.7|-3.2|
95935254|NCT05768373|191832453|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.4|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||7.4|-3.0|
95935255|NCT05768373|191832454|NON_INFERIORITY|This study used a non-inferiority margin of 15 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2|||||The difference is 3M Clinpro minus 3M Vanish.|||8.2|-4.4|
95935256|NCT05644002|191832462|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||13.21|-9.09|.71
95935257|NCT05644002|191832462|OTHER||t-statistic|0.369|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935258|NCT05644002|191832462|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Omax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935259|NCT05644002|191832463|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|1.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.046|-.543|.530
95935260|NCT05644002|191832463|OTHER||t-statistic|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95735970|NCT00252720|191443886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.312|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.312|0.800|0.8487
95735971|NCT02251886|191443893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Chi-squared|||||1.76|0.77|0.48
95735972|NCT02251886|191443893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.69|1.00
95935261|NCT05644002|191832463|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ cigarette satisfaction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935262|NCT05644002|191832464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.149|4.927||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.927|-3.149|.66
95935263|NCT05644002|191832464|OTHER||t-statistic|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935264|NCT05644002|191832464|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction intensity between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935265|NCT05644002|191832465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.698||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.443|4.046||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||4.046|-5.443|.77
95935266|NCT05644002|191832465|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935267|NCT05644002|191832465|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction Pmax between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935268|NCT05644002|191832466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.009|5.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||5.300|-6.009|.90
95735973|NCT00982397|191443903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.9|99.0|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|The study was designed to include at least 1,131 patients with DR/CRT-D ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with 1% precision.||99.0|97.9|
95735974|NCT00982397|191443903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.1|98.5|||||Therapy rates were analyzed using competing risks survival analysis methods, accounting for death as a competing risk.Therapy incidence rates were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and reported with 95% confidence interval.|This study was designed to include at least 610 patients with VR-ICD devices in order to estimate the inappropriate shock free rate at 1 year post-implant with a precision of 2%.||98.5|96.1|
95735975|NCT00982397|191443904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison against a performance criterion of 10%.|Exact Binomial|||Using the one-sided one proportion Exact Test in PASS sample size software, a sample size of 76 subjects with 1-month follow-up was calculated to be required for the evaluation of this objective. To ensure adequate testing of the Protecta XT CRT-D device, the 76 subjects must have included at least 34 CRT-D subjects. Assuming an attrition rate of 10%, a sample size of 85 subjects enrolled was calculated to be required.||||<0.0001
95735976|NCT00982397|191443905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is for comparison of the observed proportion of successes against a protocol-specified performance criterion of 95%.|Confidence interval and hypothesis test|||P, the expected proportion of successes under the null hypothesis, was 95%. α, the Type I error rate, is 0.025. Power is 90%. Pa, the assumed true proportion of successes, is 99%. Based on the above assumptions, at least 173 subjects with a useable time to VF detection testing were required for this objective. Assuming a 5% rate for the potential non-adherence to the testing protocol, the required enrollment sample size was 183.||||<0.0001
95735977|NCT00982397|191443906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ho: p1 ≤ p2 - 0.05 Ha: p1 \> p2 - 0.05 Where p1 was the syncopal event free rate at one year post implant by programming VF NID 30/40 and p2 for NID = 18/24. If the null-hypothesis was rejected it was concluded that NID = 30/40 did not decrease the syncope free rate by more than 5% compared to NID = 18/24 and hence was non-inferior.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.7||P-Value is for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||The 90% Confidence Interval is for the difference (p1-p2), where p1=syncope free rate 30/40 arm and p2=syncope free rate 18/24 arm. Estimated value and confidence interval reflect percentages.|The expected syncopal event free rate was 0.984 in both programming groups. alpha, Type I error was 0.05. Power, 1-beta, was 80%. Non-inferiority margin 5% Based on the above assumptions and Farrington-Manning test, a total of 230 subjects was required. By further assuming 15% attrition rate and 5 % of crossover rate, a total of 300 subjects were needed.||2.7|-2.7|0.0013
95735978|NCT00838630|191443907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.27||||||90.0|92.32|104.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.61|92.32|
95735979|NCT00838630|191443908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed for log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf, and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.37||||||90.0|90.47|98.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.43|90.47|
95935269|NCT05644002|191832466|OTHER||t-statistic|-0.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 66||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935270|NCT05644002|191832466|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction breakpoint between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935271|NCT05644002|191832467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.601|0.105||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||.105|-1.601|.09
95935272|NCT05644002|191832467|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 65.261||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935273|NCT05644002|191832467|OTHER||Hedge's g|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ craving reduction between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935274|NCT05644002|191832468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|1.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \<.05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||1.031|-.663|.666
95935275|NCT05644002|191832468|OTHER||t-statistic|0.184|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 73||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935276|NCT05644002|191832468|OTHER||Hedge's g|0.099|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction mCEQ psychological reward between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935277|NCT05644002|191832469|OTHER||β|0.026||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|0.507||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Coding: Control=0, PTBT=1.||A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress-induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia at step 1 of the model.||.507|-.358|.73
95935278|NCT05644002|191832469|OTHER||t-statistic|0.345|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|degrees freedom = (2, 73)|Condition (0=control; 1=PTBT)|A multiple linear regression test was conducted to examine whether the PTBT intervention (versus control) significantly predicted post-stress induction respiratory sinus arrhythmia during smoking, while controlling for average baseline respiratory sinus arrythmia at step 1 of the model.||||
95735980|NCT00838630|191443909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7||||||90.0|91.52|100.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.08|91.52|
95935279|NCT05644002|191832470|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.543||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|-0.314||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test for equal variances was used. If significance is \< .05, equal variances are not assumed and reported results are adjusted accordingly.||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||-.314|-.772|.001
95935280|NCT05644002|191832470|OTHER||t-statistic|-4.739|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees freedom = 66.03||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95735981|NCT00302952|191443910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||||||Adjustments were made for baseline ln(CRP), baseline DAS28-CRP score, race, methotrexate use, anti-TNF use, and disease duration.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group. Log transformed CRP was analyzed to meet the heterogeneity assumption for ANCOVA models.||||0.79
95735982|NCT00302952|191443912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||Adjustments were made for baseline DAS28-CRP score.|ANCOVA|ANOVA was performed on participants with a DAS28-CRP score at Day 84.||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.91
95735983|NCT00302952|191443913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-11.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|14.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in percentages is calculated as Lovastatin - Placebo.|The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||14.0|-35.9|0.39
95735984|NCT00302952|191443914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum IgM RF by ELISA test result. In the ANCOVA model, baseline value was a covariate; therefore, an adjustment was performed.|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.19
95735985|NCT00302952|191443915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Adjustments were made for baseline serum anti-CCP by ELISA|ANCOVA|||The p-value compares Lovastatin with the Placebo treatment group.||||0.35
95735986|NCT00336479|191443925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.985||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.525|5.842|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, weight, race and baseline HCV RNA as factors||||5.842|1.525|0.0014
95935281|NCT05644002|191832470|OTHER||Hedge's g|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-stress-induction average puff duration between the PTBT and Control conditions.||||
95935282|NCT04605198|191832480|SUPERIORITY|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|||5.29|-6.46|.846
95935283|NCT04605198|191832481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.60|-4.36|.139
95935284|NCT04605198|191832482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||0.97|-1.21|.222
95935285|NCT04605198|191832483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-1.76||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed using a logit distribution. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified. Final models were random-intercept only.||0.73|-4.26|0.166
95935286|NCT04605198|191832484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||2.53|-3.57|.737
95987952|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|114.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||114|97|<0.0001
95735987|NCT00336479|191443925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|4.178|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.178|1.127|0.0204
95735988|NCT00336479|191443926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.586||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|5.025|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.025|1.331|0.0051
95735989|NCT00336479|191443926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.807|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.807|1.026|0.0418
95735990|NCT00833937|191443974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|99.7||||||90.0|93.9|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|93.9|
95935287|NCT04605198|191832485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2391.98||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4471.46|-312.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate represents the interaction term for group by time interaction for the immediate follow-up, with the control group coded 0 and the intervention group coded as 1.|A multilevel model was constructed. Participants were entered as random effects to nest observations within participants. Group assignment (i.e., MBSR vs. Health Promotion Control), time (i.e., Time 1 \[baseline\], Time 2 \[immediate post-intervention, primary endpoint\], and Time 3 \[6-month follow-up\]), and group-by-time interactions were entered as fixed effects. Site was also included as a fixed-effect. An independent covariance pattern was specified as final models were random-intercept only.||-312.49|-4471.46|.024
95935288|NCT03821844|191832486|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effects: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Scale (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|4.03|-1.37|< 0.05
95935289|NCT03821844|191832487|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||"The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates, an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. The reference category for the multinomial model for each outcome is None. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction."|0.09|0.03|< 0.05
95935290|NCT03821844|191832488|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Interaction Effect|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, nursing home corporation, time from Minimum Data Set (MDS) collection to Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline Agitation and Reactive Behavior Score (ARBS) (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS and ARBS-CMAI model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of baseline/follow-up measure, and treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, random intercept for data collector (exclusive to CMAI model), and random intercept for individual."|0.08|-0.30|< 0.05
95935291|NCT03821844|191832489|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.00|-7.22|< 0.05
95935292|NCT03821844|191832490|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.06|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|0.06|-7.55|< 0.05
95735991|NCT00833937|191443975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.8||||||90.0|92.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.6|
95735992|NCT00833937|191443976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9||||||90.0|92.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|92.7|
95735993|NCT01379664|191444047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.16|0.97|0.24
95735994|NCT01379664|191444048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by inverse propensity score||||0.19|-0.23|0.87
95735995|NCT01379664|191444049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|Generalized estimating equation model weighted by propensity score||||3.3|-4.7|0.74
95735996|NCT03707912|191444050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95735997|NCT03707912|191444051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95735998|NCT03707912|191444052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95735999|NCT03707912|191444052|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.98|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.98
95736000|NCT03707912|191444053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95736001|NCT03707912|191444054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95736002|NCT03707912|191444054|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.75|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.75
95736003|NCT03707912|191444055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 comparison.||||0.89
95736004|NCT03707912|191444055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 comparison.||||0.75
95736005|NCT03707912|191444055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3 comparison.||||0.34
95736006|NCT03707912|191444056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
95736007|NCT03238781|191444064|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.26||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.4||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.40|-0.88|0.66
95736008|NCT03238781|191444064|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.43||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.43|-0.89|0.65
95736009|NCT03238781|191444065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.62||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.62|0.41|0.57
95736010|NCT03238781|191444065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values are obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine).||1.54|0.37|0.45
95736011|NCT03238781|191444066|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.81||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (CM versus EM), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||0.81|-0.87|0.94
95736012|NCT03238781|191444066|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.77||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.94|0.84
95736013|NCT03238781|191444067|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.01||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.01|-2.56|0.81
95736014|NCT03238781|191444067|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.63||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.63|-2.01|0.79
95736015|NCT03238781|191444068|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|-0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.44||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||1.44|-3.15|0.46
95736016|NCT03238781|191444068|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.89||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An adjusted analysis is presented that utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of region and baseline migraine frequency (chronic migraine vs episodic migraine), and baseline value as covariates and assuming a first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The p-values for pairwise comparisons versus placebo are nominal p-values without multiplicity adjustment.||2.89|-1.77|0.64
95935293|NCT03821844|191832491|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|2.76|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Variables included in the model: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, agitation and reactive behavior (ARBS) score, date of assessment, treatment group, and facility-level random effect.|2.76|-5.28|< 0.05
95935294|NCT03821844|191832493|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.7|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||Multilevel regression with covariates' adjustments was used to estimate the impact of the resident being in a treatment versus control nursing home on depressive symptoms.|0.70|-1.14|< 0.05
95736017|NCT03772522|191444092|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.384||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.428
95736018|NCT03772522|191444092|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.46||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.058
95935295|NCT03821844|191832494|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Differences-in-Differences regression||Reported estimation details pertain to the None category.||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the behaviors of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.02|-0.03|< 0.05
95935296|NCT03821844|191832495|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.07|0.02|< 0.05
95935297|NCT03821844|191832496|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.03|< 0.05
95935298|NCT03821844|191832497|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.01|-0.04|< 0.05
95736019|NCT03772522|191444092|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-month post-intervention.||||0.095
95736020|NCT03772522|191444092|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.005
95736021|NCT03772522|191444092|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.022
95736022|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.792||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the physical component of the CIS.||||0.002
95736023|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.047||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks) for the psychological component of the CIS.||||0.923
95736024|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.18
95736025|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.388
95736026|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.52||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.037
95736027|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.09||||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.688
95736028|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.038
95935299|NCT03821844|191832498|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment versus control nursing home had on the moods of nursing home residents. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. We report the marginal time by intervention interaction.|0.03|-0.02|< 0.05
95736029|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.01||||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.956
95736030|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.32||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (physical component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.197
95736031|NCT03772522|191444093|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|-0.07||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of CIS (psychological component) scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.762
95736032|NCT03772522|191444094|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.101||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.834
95736033|NCT03772522|191444094|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.19||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.417
95736034|NCT03772522|191444094|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.087
95736035|NCT03772522|191444094|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.168
95736036|NCT03772522|191444094|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.37||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SCS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.133
95736037|NCT03772522|191444095|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|1.161||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in score in the immediate intervention group (after receiving the intervention for 6 weeks) compared to that of the delayed intervention group (after receiving no intervention for 6 weeks).||||0.026
95736038|NCT03772522|191444095|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and immediately post-intervention.||||0.014
95736039|NCT03772522|191444095|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.29||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 3-months post-intervention.||||0.217
95736040|NCT03772522|191444095|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 6-months post-intervention.||||0.006
95736041|NCT03772522|191444095|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.53||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of RSS scores at baseline (pre-intervention) and 9-months post-intervention.||||0.039
95736042|NCT00355797|191444101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|15.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint will compare the composite percent change in ADL performance for patients while their devices are programmed to CLS and accelerometer pacing modes, using the no rate adaptive pacing mode as the baseline. Null hypothesis: mean composite of percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is less than or equal to the mean composite of percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||15.11|3.24|0.004
95736043|NCT00355797|191444108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.74||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device in accelerometer.||3.33|-6.17|0.552
95736044|NCT00355797|191444108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.34||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||The purpose of endpoint was to evaluate the percent change in pulse pressure during test. The null hypothesis was the mean percent change for patients with their device programmed to CLS is greater or equal to the mean percent change for the same patients with their device without rate adaptative pacing.||7.63|-3.80|0.505
95736045|NCT01993030|191444135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Growth of Granulation Tissue between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with healthy granulation tissue and the Participants with unhealthy granulation tissue category."||||0.49
95736046|NCT01993030|191444136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Inflammatory Reaction between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to the Participants with Inflammatory Reaction and the Participants without Inflammatory Reaction category."||||0.36
95736047|NCT01993030|191444137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the VAS score between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.11
95736048|NCT01993030|191444138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|Fisher Exact|||"Two-sided Fisher's exact test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Number of Participants with Exudation between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.~This Statistical Analysis applies to No exudation and Little exudation category."||||0.11
95736049|NCT01993030|191444139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Values of p \< 0.05 were considered to be significantly different.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test was performed to assess statistically significant differences of the data of the Time to Wound Healing between the group treated with the HQ® Matrix Medical Wound Dressing and that treated with the Sidaiyi® wound dressing.||||0.02
95736050|NCT03785548|191444140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|7.944|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=1.225||||7.944|-2.241|0.270
95736051|NCT03785548|191444141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.983|6.266|||ANCOVA|F(1, 140)=0.002||||6.266|-5.983|0.964
95736052|NCT01591785|191444142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95736053|NCT01591785|191444143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95736054|NCT01591785|191444144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0495
95736055|NCT01591785|191444145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95857637|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.03|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.29|-10.03|0.7360
95935300|NCT03821844|191832499|SUPERIORITY||marginal interaction effect|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis used Bayesian multi-level multinomial logit models to analyze the effect that being in a treatment vs. control NH had on the behaviors and moods of NH residents. The models were implemented separately for each mood. All models adjust for resident baseline covariates and the activity status of a resident during an observation. In addition, they include an individual-level effect to account for multiple observations for the same resident, and a facility level effect to account for variability in the outcomes for individuals residing in the same nursing homes. To address baseline differences in the proportion of individuals at each level of the ordinal outcomes between treatment and control groups, we report the marginal time by intervention interaction. We will refer to this estimand as the marginal interaction effect (MIE), which is sometimes known as the Difference in Differences estimand.|0.01|-0.05|< 0.05
95935301|NCT03913195|191832512|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8299|1.2049||H0: P1 is not different from P2.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between the 30-second IV push and the 15-minute IV infusion.||1.2049|0.8299|1.0
95935302|NCT03913195|191832513|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval (CI) are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|mean geometric ratio|1.0315||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9478|1.1226|||SAS PROC MIXED|||The log transform of the ratio of the geometric means of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for 30 second IV Push and 15 minute IV infusion is compared.||1.1226|0.9478|0.5389
95935303|NCT03913195|191832515|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limits for the 90% confidence interval are 0.80 to 1.25. If the 90% CIs were within the equivalence limits (0.8, 1.25), it demonstrated a PK bridge between the two routes of administration.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with an average Ctrough ≥ 300 ng/mL is compared between IM and IV infusion.||1.08|0.69|0.34
95935304|NCT03517553|191832564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.999
95935305|NCT03517553|191832564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
95935306|NCT03517553|191832565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.869
95935307|NCT03517553|191832565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.813
95935308|NCT03517553|191832565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
95935309|NCT03517553|191832565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
95935310|NCT03517553|191832565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.703
95935311|NCT03517553|191832565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.909
95935312|NCT02201108|191832576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.113||Threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|Stratified Log-Rank test|P-value derived from log-rank test with stratification of region and pubertal status.|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model with factors for treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomization as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.113|0.388|0.2949
95935313|NCT02201108|191832578|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.762||||||||0.762|0.343|
95987953|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|384.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|358.0|413.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||413|358|<0.0001
95857638|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.27|19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||19.05|5.27|0.1377
95987954|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|56.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||56|40|<0.0001
95987955|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|892.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|584.0|1192.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||1192|584|<0.0001
95935314|NCT02201108|191832579|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.983||||||||0.983|0.331|
95935315|NCT02201108|191832582|OTHER||Relative risk ratio|0.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.836||||||||0.836|0.296|
95935316|NCT02201108|191832596|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.296|||||Hazard ratio estimated using a Cox proportional-hazards model using treatment group, region, pubertal status, age, and number of relapses in the year prior to randomisation as covariates and with robust variance estimation.|||1.296|0.37|
95935317|NCT05919082|191832616|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value are obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA. Wald CI was presented.|||1.99|1.01|0.0438
95935318|NCT05919082|191832617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.12|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.12|1.10|0.0108
95935319|NCT05919082|191832618|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and p-value were obtained by logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline PGA and baseline mPASI score. Wald CI was presented.|||2.19|1.07|0.0199
95935320|NCT04424927|191832631|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.04||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.52|-0.43|0.8543
95987956|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12258.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10482.0|14083.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||14083|10482|<0.0001
95987957|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|322.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.0|398.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||398|245|<0.0001
95987958|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|841.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|556.0|1078.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1078|556|<0.0001
95987959|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3248.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2790.0|3714.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3714|2790|<0.0001
95935321|NCT04424927|191832631|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.59|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.59|-0.37|0.6552
95935322|NCT04424927|191832631|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.53|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.53|-0.45|0.8705
95736056|NCT01049334|191444146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-151.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.9|-24.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for statistical multiplicity were required.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline STPIS as a covariate.||||-24.0|-278.9|0.0201
95987960|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.0|190.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||190|138|<0.0001
95736057|NCT01049334|191444147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-9.9|-29.2|<.0001
95736058|NCT01049334|191444148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-12.9|-31.7|<0.0001
95987961|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|628.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|409.0|819.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||819|409|<0.0001
95987962|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||42|18|<0.0001
95987963|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|235.0||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1367.0|1798.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1798|-1367|0.7628
95987964|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2306.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2016.0|2603.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||2603|2016|<0.0001
95987965|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|74.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||74|52|<0.0001
95857639|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.21|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.20|-14.21|0.4131
95857640|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.49|20.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||20.55|6.49|0.1057
95935323|NCT04424927|191832632|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.65|-0.42|0.6757
95935324|NCT04424927|191832632|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.29|-0.78|0.3645
95935325|NCT04424927|191832632|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.24|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.24|-0.84|0.2791
95736059|NCT01049334|191444149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-181.7||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.7|-50.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-50.0|-313.7|0.0071
95736060|NCT01049334|191444150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
95736061|NCT01049334|191444151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-137.6||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.5|-6.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline of the variable predicted as a covariate||||-6.8|-268.5|0.0393
95935326|NCT04424927|191832633|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.42|-0.32|0.7829
95935327|NCT04424927|191832633|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.38|-0.36|0.9503
95935328|NCT04424927|191832633|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.22|||MMRM|||Estimates/p-value are from a MMRM with treatment, week, and treatment by week as fixed effects; continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio as covariates, and participant as a random effect.||0.22|-0.54|0.4107
95935329|NCT04424927|191832634|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.94||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.87|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||6.87|-3.00|0.4397
95935330|NCT04424927|191832634|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.72||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||1.15|-8.58|0.1337
95935331|NCT04424927|191832634|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Estimates/p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Continuous baseline CeD PRO Abdominal Symptoms domain score and baseline VH:CD ratio are included as covariates.||0.83|-9.11|0.1021
95935332|NCT02740231|191832674|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-9.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.21|3.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference - adjusted mean change|The primary endpoint is the WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale (subscale A): the individual changes in WOMAC® VA3.1 Pain Subscale Score between Baseline and Month 6 were calculated and compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline value, to the Reference group.||3.23|-22.21|0.141
95935333|NCT02740231|191832675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA||Difference between groups JTA-004 100 (2mL) minus Reference|||-0.66|-22.60|0.038
95736062|NCT01049334|191444152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0459||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0459
95935334|NCT02740231|191832676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-12.70|0.997
95736063|NCT01049334|191444153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8383||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8383
95736064|NCT01049334|191444154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95736065|NCT01049334|191444155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95736066|NCT01049334|191444156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95857641|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-20.75|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-5.68|-20.75|0.1402
95935335|NCT02740231|191832677|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|10.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.65|-16.52|0.972
95935336|NCT02740231|191832678|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.96||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|7.94||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-22.28|0.599
95935337|NCT02740231|191832679|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
95935338|NCT02740231|191832680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.76||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
95935339|NCT02740231|191832681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
95935340|NCT02740231|191832682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95935341|NCT00914589|191832695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0482||||0.8648||95.0|0.6095|1.8029||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8029|0.6095|0.8648
95935342|NCT00914589|191832695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9871||||0.9634||95.0|0.5673|1.7176||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7176|0.5673|0.9634
95935343|NCT03988023|191832700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||MMRM|||||||0.32
95935344|NCT03988023|191832701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||MMRM|||||||0.30
95935345|NCT01989455|191832711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent ratio|73.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.83|77.56||||||||77.56|68.83|
95935346|NCT00041938|191832750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||The primary null hypotheses was tested at two-tailed alpha=0.05. A Haybittle-Peto interim monitoring procedure was performed with stopping boundaries for the interim analyses corresponding to a nominal two-tailed P value of 0.001.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|The primary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite primary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. The original target sample size was 2860, providing 89% power for a log-rank test with two-sided alpha .05, assuming a hazard rate reduction of 17.82% in either group compared with the other, after adjustment for use of beta-blockers and allowance for discontinuation of therapy, dropout, and crossover. The final sample of 2305 patients yielded 69% power.||1.10|0.79|0.40
95935347|NCT00041938|191832751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||Secondary null hypothesis was tested at two-tailed alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Cox models stratified by site, New York Heart Association class (I vs. II-IV), and status w/ respect to recent stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Secondary null hypothesis: time to first event in the composite secondary endpoint does not differ significantly between warfarin and aspirin. This was tested at prespecified alpha = 0.05 level, two-tailed.||1.23|0.93|0.33
95935348|NCT00041938|191832752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.82|0.33|0.005
95987966|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179.0|245.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||245|179|<0.0001
95935349|NCT00041938|191832753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.35||95.0|0.43|11.66|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of death and ischemic stroke.||11.66|0.43|0.35
95935350|NCT00041938|191832754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.85|0.91
95935351|NCT00041938|191832755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to myocardial infarction, adjusting for competing risks of heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.64|0.58|0.93
95935352|NCT00041938|191832756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to heart failure hospitalization, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death.||1.47|0.998|0.053
95935353|NCT00041938|191832757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to ischemic stroke, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, death and intracerebral hemorrhage.||0.96|0.32|0.03
95935354|NCT00041938|191832758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.88|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.|Hazard ratio is for comparison of warfarin vs. aspirin. Warfarin represents the numerator and aspirin represents the denominator of the hazard ratio.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between warfarin and aspirin in time to intracerebral hemorrhage, adjusting for competing risks of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, ischemic stroke, and death.||9.88|0.32|0.51
95935355|NCT00041938|191832759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83||95.0|0.81|1.3|||Regression, Cox|Cause-specific Cox model, stratified by site, NYHA class (I vs. II, III, or IV), and prior stroke or TIA status.||||1.30|0.81|0.83
95935356|NCT00041938|191832760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.12|||Regression, Poisson||The warfarin arm represents the numerator and the aspirin arm represents the denominator of the rate ratio.|||3.12|1.36|<0.001
95935357|NCT00041938|191832761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.56|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|1.81|||Regression, Poisson||Warfarin group represents the numerator and aspirin group represents denominator of rate ratio.|||1.81|1.34|<0.001
95935358|NCT00262301|191832762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
95935359|NCT00262301|191832763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
95935360|NCT01017146|191832764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95935361|NCT01017146|191832764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95935362|NCT01017146|191832764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95935363|NCT01017146|191832765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||40.5|30.7|<0.001
95935364|NCT01017146|191832765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|28.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||28.3|19.6|
95935365|NCT01017146|191832766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||33.5|24.2|<0.001
95935366|NCT01017146|191832766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|19.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||19.9|12.4|
95935367|NCT00976495|191832785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-2.49|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.49|-13.34|
95935368|NCT00976495|191832785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|-2.06|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||-2.06|-12.87|
95935369|NCT00976495|191832786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.31|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||2.31|-7.11|
95935370|NCT00976495|191832786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.08|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||8.08|-1.55|
95935371|NCT00976495|191832787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.63|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||0.63|-9.38|
95935372|NCT00976495|191832787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.99|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.99|-4.18|
95935373|NCT00976495|191832788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|5.71|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||5.71|-5.39|
95935374|NCT00976495|191832788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.93|||||ANCOVA was applied. Given that this was a pilot study designed for exploratory analysis, formal statistical hypothesis testing was not performed.|||12.93|1.70|
95935375|NCT01553058|191832825|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.795|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.795
95935376|NCT01553058|191832825|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.647|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.647
95935377|NCT01553058|191832826|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.386|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.386
95935378|NCT01553058|191832826|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.280
95935379|NCT01553058|191832833|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
95935380|NCT01553058|191832833|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.496|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.496
95935381|NCT01553058|191832834|OTHER|Difference of Differences||||||0.897|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.897
95935382|NCT01553058|191832834|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.467|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.467
95935383|NCT01553058|191832835|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.089|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.089
95935384|NCT01553058|191832835|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
95935385|NCT01553058|191832836|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.934|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.934
95935386|NCT01553058|191832836|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.679
95935387|NCT01553058|191832837|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
95935388|NCT01553058|191832837|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.655|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.655
95935389|NCT01553058|191832838|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.504|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.504
95935390|NCT01553058|191832838|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.695|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.695
95935391|NCT01553058|191832839|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
95736067|NCT01049334|191444157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-156.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.9|-4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|ANOVA|||||-4.6|-307.9|0.0435
95736068|NCT01049334|191444158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. Closed-sequential approach to control type I error: analyses through secondary outcomes #2-13 in the order listed will proceed until a p-value \>0.05 occurs.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
95736069|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 2||0.1|-0.0|0.1448
95736070|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 4||0.3|-0.0|0.1538
95935392|NCT01553058|191832839|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.009
95935393|NCT01553058|191832840|OTHER|Difference of Differences|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95935394|NCT01553058|191832840|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.065|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.065
95935395|NCT01553058|191832841|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
95987967|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||33|15|<0.0001
95987968|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|277.0||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|581.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||581|-19|0.0581
95736071|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 6||0.5|-0.1|0.1407
95736072|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 8||0.7|-0.2|0.2906
95736073|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.2||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 10||0.8|-0.4|0.4758
95736074|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.1||||0.6975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 12||0.9|-0.6|0.6975
95935396|NCT01553058|191832841|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
95987969|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5437.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3672.0|7142.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7142|3672|<0.0001
95736075|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 14||0.9|-0.8|0.9370
95736076|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 16||0.9|-1.1|0.8493
95736077|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.3||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 18||0.9|-1.4|0.6732
95736078|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.4||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 20||0.9|-1.8|0.5414
95736079|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.6||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 22||0.9|-2.1|0.4313
95736080|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.8||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 24||0.9|-2.4|0.3501
95736081|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.0||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 26||0.8|-2.8|0.2679
95736082|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.2||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 28||0.7|-3.2|0.2137
95736083|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.5||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.6|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 30||0.6|-3.6|0.1715
95935397|NCT01553058|191832842|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
95935398|NCT01553058|191832842|OTHER|Difference of differences||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.628
95935399|NCT02891915|191832868|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from the first 5 days and at Outcome Assessment Visit #1 (OAV #1). It is based on adequate clinical response at OAV #1, solicited symptoms from first 5 days and number of days of antibiotics use for worsening pneumonia from the first 5 days of the study.|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.75||Missing DOOR values at OAV #1 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.75|0.63|<0.001
95935400|NCT02891915|191832869|SUPERIORITY|Testing whether Short course is superior to Standard course based on DOOR at OAV #2|Pr (Higher DOOR in Short-Course)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.69||Missing DOOR values at OAV #2 were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value.||Null: the sum of the probability that a subject assigned to the 5-day arm will have a higher DOOR (higher DOOR is a lower numerical value and is superior) than if assigned to the 10-day arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||0.69|0.57|<0.001
95736084|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-1.8||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 32||0.5|-4.1|0.1340
95935401|NCT01037985|191832880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||1.9|-10.4|0.168
95935402|NCT01037985|191832881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within participant treatment difference was assessed between the treatment regimens each participant received (EXC 001 minus placebo).||4.2|-3.5|0.858
95935403|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.6|0.003
95935404|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.1|0.067
95935405|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
95935406|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.4|0.002
95935407|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-1.3|0.007
95935408|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.1|0.214
95935409|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
95935410|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-2.2|-7.8|<0.001
95935411|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.5|0.673
95736085|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 34||0.4|-4.5|0.1030
95935412|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.1|-0.3|0.276
95935413|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.7|0.670
95987970|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1019.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|836.0|1191.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1191|836|<0.0001
95935414|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.5|1.000
95935415|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.909
95736086|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.4||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.3|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 36||0.3|-5.0|0.0788
95736087|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.1|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 38||0.1|-5.5|0.0620
95736088|NCT01049334|191444159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-3.0||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate||Minutes post dose: 40||-0.0|-6.0|0.0476
95935416|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.6|0.852
95935417|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.5|0.906
95935418|NCT01037985|191832882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.8|-2.8|0.768
95935419|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-0.4|0.773
95935420|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.4|-0.4|1.000
95935421|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-1.4|0.072
95736089|NCT01049334|191444160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0273
95935422|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.7|0.851
95935423|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.2|0.184
95935424|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.059
95935425|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-1.5|0.040
95935426|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-4.1|0.120
95935427|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-4.0|0.094
95935428|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.243
95935429|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.6|-0.2|0.339
95987971|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1047.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|564.0|1486.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1486|564|<0.0001
95987972|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9128.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7346.0|11125.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||11125|7346|<0.0001
95736090|NCT01049334|191444161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
95935430|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||1.2|-0.3|0.250
95935431|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-1.3|0.164
95935432|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.8|-0.8|1.000
95935433|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.928
95935434|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-0.8|0.865
95987973|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|459.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.0|622.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||622|326|<0.0001
95736091|NCT02883452|191444169|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of CT-P13 SC to CT-P13 IV was to be concluded if the lower bound of two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of geometric least square means was higher than 80%.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|1154.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|786.37|1694.0|||||The geometric lease square (LS) means, ratio of geometric LS means (CT-P13 SC 120/240 mg to CT-P13 IV 5 mg/kg), and 2-sided 90% CI were obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary PK analysis was analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and current use of treatment with azathioprine (AZA) or 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) or methotrexate (MTX) (used or not used), disease (CD or UC), clinical response at Week 6 (responder or non-responder by Clinical Disease Activity Index \[CDAI\]-70 for CD or partial Mayo score for UC), body weight at Week 6 (\<80 kg or ≥80 kg) fitted as covariates.||1694.00|786.37|
95736092|NCT01281501|191444176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the treatment with pantoprazole arm is not different in immediate relief of acute, severe dyspeptic pain compared with conventional arm.||7.4|-12.7|0.6
95935435|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||3.0|-2.3|0.804
95935436|NCT01037985|191832883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||2.4|-2.6|0.937
95935437|NCT02730871|191832890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
95935438|NCT02730871|191832891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-2.8|<0.001
95935439|NCT02730871|191832892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.9|||ANCOVA|||||-6.9|-13.1|<0.001
95935440|NCT02730871|191832893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 9:00||-0.2|-2.5|0.022
95935441|NCT02730871|191832893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-1.9|-3.9|<0.001
95736093|NCT00461786|191444199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|21.0||||||95.0|10.5|35.0||||||Overall Response Rate is the total percentage of participants with either a complete response or a partial response (CR+PR)/48 X 100.||35.0|10.5|
95736094|NCT00834067|191444205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.7||||||90.0|90.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104|90.1|
95736095|NCT00834067|191444206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0||||||90.0|99.9|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|99.9|
95935442|NCT02730871|191832894|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.567||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.1|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 09:00||-1.1|-11.2|0.018
95935443|NCT02730871|191832894|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-8.6|||Repeated measures model|||Percentage Change from Baseline in IOP at 11:00||-8.6|-17.8|<0.001
95935444|NCT02910713|191832895|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-9.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-9.40|-17.31|<0.0001
95935445|NCT02910713|191832896|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||One-sided p-value for the difference between Intranasal and Extranasal.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-0.80|<0.0001
95935446|NCT05368558|191832905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|23.1||||||||23.1|-4.0|
95935447|NCT05368558|191832905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.4||||||||-1.4|-28.7|
95935448|NCT05368558|191832906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.7|
95935449|NCT05368558|191832906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-1.7|
95935450|NCT05368558|191832907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5||||||||7.5|-2.5|
95935451|NCT05368558|191832907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-8.0|
95935452|NCT05368558|191832908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-8.9|
95935453|NCT05368558|191832908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-4.1||||||||-4.1|-18.5|
95935454|NCT05368558|191832909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.5||||||||7.5|-1.0|
95935455|NCT05368558|191832909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-8.9|
95736096|NCT00834067|191444207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.7|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|99.7|
95736097|NCT00834067|191444208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.0|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|96|
95935456|NCT05368558|191832910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-0.9|
95935457|NCT05368558|191832910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-10.2|
95935458|NCT04402294|191832917|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.71||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.50
95935459|NCT04402294|191832918|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA (Optimal vs Suboptimal vs No Stimulation)||||0.975
95935460|NCT04402294|191832919|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|2.05||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.097
95935461|NCT04402294|191832920|OTHER|Parametric Inferential Statistical Test|Group mean difference|0.63||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), stimulation days (1 to 3), and delay (0, 4, or 12 seconds) as within-subject variables.||||0.644
95935462|NCT04402294|191832921|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.84||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||ANOVA, with neuromodulation stimulation type (optimal vs. suboptimal), and stimulation days (1 to 3) as within-subject variables.||||0.439
95935463|NCT04402294|191832922|OTHER|Parametric inferential statistical test|Group mean difference|0.59||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||Optimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Optimal Neuromodulation Day-3, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-1, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-2, Suboptimal Neuromodulation Day-3||||0.563
95935464|NCT03661359|191832930|OTHER|||||||0.727||||||correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)|pearson correlation|||Correlation between patient satisfaction and domains at risk.||||.727
95935465|NCT03661359|191832932|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 2 tailed|pearson correlation|||correlation between physical quality of life and mental of life||||0.002
95935466|NCT03661359|191832934|OTHER|||||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||pearson correlation|||||||0.727
95935467|NCT04924062|191832935|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.08|0.51|
95935468|NCT04924062|191832936|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||||HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.19|0.58|
95736098|NCT00834067|191444209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.1|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|99.1|
95736099|NCT00834067|191444210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|99.4|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|99.4|
95736100|NCT00834067|191444211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.8|114.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||114|99.8|
95736101|NCT00834067|191444212|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|99.0|106.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106|99|
95736102|NCT00834067|191444213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|98.1|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|98.1|
95736103|NCT00829790|191444214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.49||||||90.0|109.25|119.98|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.98|109.25|
95736104|NCT00829790|191444215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|117.16||||||90.0|110.44|124.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||124.28|110.44|
95736105|NCT00829790|191444216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|116.7||||||90.0|109.89|123.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.92|109.89|
95736106|NCT00984022|191444229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The percentages achieving 30% or greater reduction in the surface area of the abscess were compared with Fisher's exact test.||||.0003
95736107|NCT00984022|191444230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Main effect for type of dressing.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA using 2 X 2 factorial design, with one between-subjects factor (Group) and one within-subjects factor (Time). Null hypothesis is: The type of dressing does not affect patient pain ratings.||||.043
95736108|NCT00984022|191444231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the percentage of individuals achieving a 30% or greater reduction in cellulitis surface area between the Iodoform and Aquacel groups.||||.847
95935469|NCT04924062|191832937|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|21.6|||||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||21.6|-7.5|
95935470|NCT04038957|191832966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||A p-value of p\<0.05 will be considered as significant.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||To examine the primary outcome, the effects of SEP-363856 on the striatum, a repeated measures ANOVA model will be build using the baseline and on-treatment kicer values of each striatal subregion.||||0.0072
95935471|NCT04491968|191832968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||proportional hazard regression|||||.90|.37|.02
95935472|NCT04491968|191832969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.96|||proportional hazard regression|||||.96|.18|.04
95935473|NCT04761302|191832983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
95736109|NCT04567186|191444241|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.00 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.057|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Distance (4 meter)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.099|
95764077|NCT02729909|191498210|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.024
95857642|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.91|25.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||25.29|9.91|0.0542
95935474|NCT04761302|191832983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.445
95935475|NCT04761302|191832984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
95935476|NCT04761302|191832984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
95935477|NCT04761302|191832985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95935478|NCT04761302|191832985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.359
95935479|NCT04761302|191832986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
95736110|NCT04567186|191444241|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold + 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.039|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Intermediate (64cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.039|-0.079|
95935480|NCT04761302|191832986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
95935481|NCT04761302|191832987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95935482|NCT04761302|191832987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95935483|NCT04761302|191832988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95935484|NCT04761302|191832988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95935485|NCT04761302|191832989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95935486|NCT04761302|191832989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95935487|NCT04761302|191832990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95935488|NCT04761302|191832990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95935489|NCT04761302|191832991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
95764078|NCT02729909|191498210|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||Average Degree of Straining was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.010
95935490|NCT04761302|191832991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
95935491|NCT04788537|191832992|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model regression|Slope|-1.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope reported is for Time x Group Interaction|||||.006
95935492|NCT04690673|191833031|EQUIVALENCE|Based on previous reports on the pharmacokinetics of oral paracetamol, the standard deviation of the within-subject difference in the Cmax for paracetamol was estimated to be 35% of the mean Cmax. Using this standard deviation, 10 participants were estimated to be sufficient, with a power of at least 80% (at 5% significance level). We recruited 12 volunteers to account for potential protocol violations or dropouts.|Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the analysis was exploratory|t-test, 2 sided||Adhering|Highest paracetamol concentrations (Cmax) measured from capillary with the electrochemical method compared with measurements with mass-spectrometry.||1.13|0.94|0.05
95987974|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2427.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1587.0|3290.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||3290|1587|<0.0001
95987975|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|357.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|225.0|525.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologists Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||525|225|<0.0001
95935493|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MontgomeryÅsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0105
95935494|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.03|-0.14|0.0134
95987976|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|502.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|234.0|768.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||768|234|<0.0001
95935495|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3495
95935496|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex right||0.04|-0.07|0.7008
95935497|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6635
95935498|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.07|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.07|-0.09|0.8792
95935499|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.02|-0.15|0.0419
95935500|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.01|-0.12|0.1658
95736111|NCT04567186|191444241|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.084|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Near (40cm)|It was calculated that 70 participants would have at least 90% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.084|0.040|
95736112|NCT04567186|191444242|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower confidence limit of the least-square mean was above the threshold of 32 points.|Least-square Mean|55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.25|62.61|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||This study was powered to only test primary hypotheses.||62.61|49.25|
95736113|NCT04567186|191444242|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 5 points was used.|Least-square mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.893|-0.073|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|This study was powered for only the primary hypotheses.||-0.073|-5.893|
95736114|NCT02865850|191444248|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.53|
95736115|NCT02865850|191444249|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.761|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.761|0.536|=0.9950
95736116|NCT02865850|191444249|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
95736117|NCT02865850|191444250|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.19|-0.34|
95935501|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.05|-0.08|0.6673
95935502|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD Signal % Change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.14|0.0778
95935503|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.08|0.3258
95935504|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.04|-0.07|0.5954
95795308|NCT00855582|191560857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.325
95935505|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.04|-0.08|0.5911
95935506|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.08|-0.11|0.8283
95935507|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.01|-0.12|0.1797
95935508|NCT03854578|191833034|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.04|-0.08|0.5772
95935509|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.03|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||-0.03|-0.14|0.0147
95935510|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.01|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||-0.01|-0.13|0.0480
95935511|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||-0.02|-0.12|0.0294
95935512|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||-0.02|-0.13|0.0359
95935513|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||-0.06|-0.19|0.0022
95935514|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.00|-0.15|0.1040
95736118|NCT02865850|191444251|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.743|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.743|0.618|=0.8871
95736119|NCT02865850|191444251|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
95987977|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6483.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5329.0|7927.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Hospitalizations|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||7927|5329|<0.0001
95736120|NCT02865850|191444252|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||=|0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.771|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.771|0.670|=0.5210
95764079|NCT02729909|191498211|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||1.0|0.4|<0.001
95935515|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||-0.06|-0.18|0.0022
95935516|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||-0.02|-0.14|0.0331
95987978|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|199.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Emergency Department Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||199|112|<0.0001
95987979|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|516.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.0|645.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Outpatient Services|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||645|401|<0.0001
95987980|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|158.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|231.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Epilepsy-Related Neurologist Visits|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||231|97|<0.0001
95987981|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|113.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Epilepsy-Related Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Ordinary least squares regression was used to adjust differences. Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, baseline treatment, and costs.|Confidence intervals were calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap with 999 replications.|||113|58|<0.0001
95987982|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14582.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12019.0|17097.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||17097|12019|<0.0001
95987983|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|420.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.0|630.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||630|210|<0.0001
95987984|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|658.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|217.0|1131.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Prescription Drug Costs, Non-AEDs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||1131|217|<0.0001
95987985|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6040.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3442.0|8795.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||8795|3442|<0.0001
95987986|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|268.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|425.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||425|81|0.0020
95987987|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-991.0|944.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||944|-991|0.9670
95987988|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.0||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|302.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||302|-77|0.2563
95987989|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|328.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|588.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, All Medical Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||588|90|0.0100
95987990|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4984.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3168.0|7335.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Hospitalizations, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||7335|3168|<0.0001
95987991|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|112.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|166.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Emergency Department Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||166|70|<0.0001
95987992|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|236.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|403.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Outpatient Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||403|70|0.01
95987993|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.0||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|145.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Neurologist Visits, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||145|-22|0.1061
95935517|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Left||0.02|-0.11|0.2149
95935518|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Amygdala Right||0.05|-0.08|0.6896
95935519|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left||0.02|-0.06|0.4769
95935520|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right||0.05|-0.07|0.7680
95935521|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (BI 1358894 versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left||0.06|-0.08|0.7997
95935522|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right||0.06|-0.08|0.8334
95935523|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Left||0.05|-0.07|0.7402
95935524|NCT03854578|191833035|OTHER|ANOVA model with treatment (Citalopram versus placebo) and severity of depression (MADRS ≥20 versus \<20) as fixed effects. The Citalopram treatment arm was used as a positive control group. It was not planned to compare pharmacodynamic effects between Citalopram and BI 1358894.|Mean change|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANOVA||Mean change calculated as: BI - Placebo.|Mean BOLD signal % change/ Insula Right||0.08|-0.06|0.8120
95935525|NCT02991534|191833056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.152|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.152|1.030|.003
95935526|NCT02991534|191833057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|0.976|0.91
95935527|NCT02991534|191833058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.165|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.165|.959|.265
95987994|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|93.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Other Healthcare Services, Epilepsy-Related|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||93|28|<0.0001
95935528|NCT02991534|191833059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.022|||Non-linear model with Logit|Non-linear model with Logit Link Function with Robust Standard Errors||||1.022|1.002|0.015
95935529|NCT01619410|191833150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95987995|NCT01390909|191950507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7673.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4571.0|10989.0||Adjusted Cost Differences in Total Healthcare Costs|Ordinary Least Squares Regression|Covariates were gender, age, region, comorbidities, AEDs and non-AEDs known to increase seizure risk and baseline costs.||||10989|4571|<0.0001
95987996|NCT02111564|191950508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.52|0.136
95935530|NCT00595790|191833183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of non-inferiority of IC51 1x12 mcg vs. IC51 2x6 mcg at Day 56 based on the difference (IC51 1x12 mcg - IC51 2x6 mcg) in SCRs in the PP population. Non-inferiority of IC51 1 x 12 mcg compared to IC51 2 x 6 mcg was accepted if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the adjusted for center SCR difference (IC51 1 x 12 mcg - IC51 2 x 6 mcg) was higher than the noninferiority margin at -10%.|||||>|0.99|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||>0.99
95935531|NCT02885636|191833188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95935532|NCT02885636|191833189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
95935533|NCT02885636|191833190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95935534|NCT02885636|191833191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95935535|NCT02885636|191833192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95987997|NCT02111564|191950509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.23|0.84|0.124
95987998|NCT02111564|191950510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.42|0.62|0.751
95987999|NCT02111564|191950511|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.89|0.22|0.023
95988000|NCT02111564|191950512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.97|0.54|0.033
95935536|NCT02885636|191833193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95935537|NCT02885636|191833194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95935538|NCT02885636|191833195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95988001|NCT02111564|191950513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.02|0.60|0.073
95988002|NCT02111564|191950514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.09|0.58|0.156
95988003|NCT02354703|191950516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||a priori significance P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.94
95988004|NCT02354703|191950517|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||a priori significance is P\<0.05|Chi-squared|adjusted for baseline value||||||1.00
95988005|NCT02354703|191950518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||a priori threshold is P\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|adjusted for baseline value||||||0.73
95736121|NCT02865850|191444252|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
95988006|NCT00179309|191950546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Multiple comparisons were not done.|Log Rank|||48 evaluable pts will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio between two arms (24 evaluable pts per arm). Using standard formulae (e.g. nQuery Advisor v5), this number was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference between 4.2 month median progression free survival (PFS) on the docetaxel alone arm and 8 month median PFS on the arm receiving PANVAC plus docetaxel, with a one-tailed alpha=0.10,assuming 36 months accrual and an additional 12 months of follow-up after the last pt has been enrolled.||||0.12
95988007|NCT04681170|191950551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.859|-45.9612|||t-test, 1 sided|||This was a single-arm study, no comparative group can be assigned; the comparison made for the primary efficacy endpoint is done only between baseline and Week 24 in paediatric subjects (5 to ≤17 years of age). Analysis was made using the one-sample t-test to test the null hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was equal to zero against the alternative hypothesis that the percentage change from Baseline was not equal to zero.||-45.9612|-61.8590|<0.0001
95988008|NCT04986202|191950573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.02||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||2.02|-3.86|0.537
95988009|NCT04986202|191950573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.09||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||1.09|-4.71|0.221
95988010|NCT04986202|191950574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|10.5||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||10.5|-5.7|0.559
95988011|NCT04986202|191950574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|13.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|||13.3|-2.7|0.195
95988012|NCT04986202|191950575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.41||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.41|-4.71|0.289
95935539|NCT02885636|191833196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
95935540|NCT02885636|191833197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95988013|NCT04986202|191950575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.13||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||2.13|-3.86|0.571
95988014|NCT04986202|191950575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||3.30|-3.80|0.890
95935541|NCT02885636|191833198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95935542|NCT02885636|191833199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95988015|NCT04986202|191950575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|2.46||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||2.46|-4.55|0.558
95935543|NCT02885636|191833200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95935544|NCT02885636|191833201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95935545|NCT00448669|191833202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat cohort. Primary safety end points included the frequency of adverse clinical or laboratory events.||||0.003
95988016|NCT04986202|191950576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|6.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||6.6|-11.1|0.619
95935546|NCT00448669|191833203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Efficacy|62.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|83.4|||Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end point was the difference in the rates of HIV infection between participants assigned to receive TDF-FTC and those assigned to receive placebo. The primary hypothesis was that TDF-FTC, as compared with placebo, would reduce the rate of HIV infection by at least 65%, with a predefined lower boundary for the 95% confidence interval of 10%.||83.4|21.5|0.03
95736122|NCT02865850|191444253|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.9527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.666|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||2.666|0.452|=0.9527
95736123|NCT02865850|191444253|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
95935547|NCT00448669|191833204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|In this univariate model with the analysis of number of condomless sex acts, our model estimates the odds of reporting no condomless sex acts.||"A logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of reporting zero condomless sex acts. The longitudinal dependent variable (number of condomless sex acts) was defined as:~Number of condomless vaginal sexual acts with both casual and main partners among those who reported having had at least one sexual partner in the previous 30 days."||1.28|1.05|0.004
95935548|NCT00448669|191833205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test was performed to test for differences between the treatment groups in terms of adherence based on pill count.||||0.79
95935549|NCT02638337|191833229|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||For the percentage of parabasal cells a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||-18.0|-25.7|<0.0001
95935550|NCT02638337|191833230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||9.1|5.2|<0.0001
95935551|NCT02638337|191833231|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.59|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||||-0.59|-0.84|<0.0001
95935552|NCT02638337|191833232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.06|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|For the MBS of vaginal dryness a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to fit a marginal proportional odds model to the longitudinal ordered categorical data, with repeated measurements of the change from baseline as the response variable; treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline severity of dryness modeled as a covariate.||3.06|1.62|<0.0001
95935553|NCT02638337|191833234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-18.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-18.0|-25.2|<0.0001
95935554|NCT02638337|191833234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-18.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-18.1|-25.4|<0.0001
95935555|NCT02638337|191833235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||7.3|4.2|<0.0001
95935556|NCT02638337|191833235|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|9.0|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||9.0|5.5|<0.0001
95935557|NCT02638337|191833236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.46|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.46|-0.69|<0.0001
95935558|NCT02638337|191833236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|MMRM model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects; and baseline value modeled as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.51|-0.75|<0.0001
95935559|NCT02638337|191833237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.36|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.36|1.27|0.0005
95988017|NCT04986202|191950576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||11.4|-5.8|0.522
95857643|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.09||0.3866|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.24|17.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||17.24|0.24|0.3866
95935560|NCT02638337|191833237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.74|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.74|1.47|<0.0001
95935561|NCT02638337|191833238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.43|0.55|0.6263
95935562|NCT02638337|191833238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||1.75|0.66|0.7869
95935563|NCT02638337|191833238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.64|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.64|0.65|0.8894
95935564|NCT02638337|191833239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.10|0.40|0.8369
95935565|NCT02638337|191833239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.95|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||3.95|0.58|0.3970
95935566|NCT02638337|191833239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.26|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||3.26|0.54|0.5391
95935567|NCT02638337|191833240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.4|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||2.40|1.13|0.0095
95935568|NCT02638337|191833240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.11|0.99|0.0542
95935569|NCT02638337|191833240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.88|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||2.88|1.35|0.0004
95935570|NCT02638337|191833241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.67|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 4||1.67|0.30|0.4336
95935571|NCT02638337|191833241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 8||2.08|0.37|0.7672
95935572|NCT02638337|191833241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.89|||Generalized estimating equations model|GEE model with treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and study center as fixed effects and baseline severity of dryness as a covariate.|Odds ratio is the exponential of the mean of cumulative log odds ratio.|Week 12||1.89|0.39|0.7101
95935573|NCT02638337|191833242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|16.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||16.12|11.85|<0.0001
95935574|NCT02638337|191833242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|16.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||16.96|12.50|<0.0001
95935575|NCT02638337|191833242|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.55|17.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||17.28|12.55|<0.0001
95935576|NCT02638337|191833243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95935577|NCT02638337|191833243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95935578|NCT02638337|191833243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95935579|NCT02638337|191833244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||3.0|2.0|<0.0001
95935580|NCT02638337|191833244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||3.4|2.4|<0.0001
95935581|NCT02638337|191833244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.4|2.2|<0.0001
95935582|NCT02638337|191833245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
95935583|NCT02638337|191833245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
95935584|NCT02638337|191833245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
95988018|NCT04986202|191950576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|15.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||15.8|-4.4|0.267
95988019|NCT04986202|191950576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||12.1|-7.6|0.657
95736124|NCT02865850|191444254|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.555|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0016 has been reported in this section.||1.555|0.388|=0.5115
95736125|NCT02865850|191444254|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
95736126|NCT00904215|191444270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95736127|NCT00904215|191444271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95736128|NCT00904215|191444272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95736129|NCT00904215|191444273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Student Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95988020|NCT04986202|191950577|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.05|0.86|0.312
95736130|NCT02937870|191444279|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.66||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.47||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.47|-0.14|0.1770
95736131|NCT02937870|191444280|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.59||p-values for treatment comparison of test adhesive 1 vs. no adhesive were adjusted using the Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.59|-0.98|0.8321
95736132|NCT02937870|191444281|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.87|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.87|-0.72|0.8566
95736133|NCT02937870|191444282|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.00|-1.58|0.0488
95736134|NCT02937870|191444283|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for subject (random effect), period \& treatment, subject-level and period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariate.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.66|0.06|0.0352
95736135|NCT00578552|191444340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.77
95736136|NCT00578552|191444340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||1.00
95736137|NCT05169710|191444366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-9.64|0.1718
95736138|NCT05169710|191444366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.837||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.99|0.028600
95736139|NCT05169710|191444367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.72|0.7314
95736140|NCT05169710|191444367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.91|0.3169
95736141|NCT04405570|191444381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5551|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5551
95736142|NCT04405570|191444381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7270
95736143|NCT04405570|191444381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0128
95736144|NCT04499963|191444386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared he ALSFRS-R slope (not the actual score) of the patients in our open label treatment versus the historical controls.||||0.984
95935585|NCT02638337|191833246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.8|0.0118
95935586|NCT02638337|191833247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||1.20|-1.17|0.9748
95736145|NCT04499963|191444391|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95736146|NCT04499963|191444392|OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Alpha Diversity|Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.5
95736147|NCT04499963|191444393|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95736148|NCT04499963|191444394|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95935587|NCT02638337|191833247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||1.56|-1.18|0.7865
95935588|NCT02638337|191833247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||3.09|0.08|0.0392
95935589|NCT02638337|191833248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Desire||0.34|-0.02|0.0752
95935590|NCT02638337|191833248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Arousal||0.49|-0.10|0.1867
95935591|NCT02638337|191833248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Lubrication||0.73|0.07|0.0161
95935592|NCT02638337|191833248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Orgasm||0.48|-0.16|0.3400
95935593|NCT02638337|191833248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Satisfaction||0.41|-0.10|0.2195
95935594|NCT02638337|191833248|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Pain||0.80|0.11|0.0103
95935595|NCT02638337|191833249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 4||0.6|-0.4|0.7230
95935596|NCT02638337|191833249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 8||0.9|-0.1|0.1104
95935597|NCT02638337|191833249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||Week 12||0.9|-0.2|0.2448
95935598|NCT02638337|191833250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4388.3||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15214.8|6438.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||6438.3|-15214.8|0.4263
95935599|NCT02638337|191833251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.027|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.027|-0.071|<0.0001
95736149|NCT04499963|191444395|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95736150|NCT04499963|191444396|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95736151|NCT04499963|191444397|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95935600|NCT02638337|191833252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.58|0.5159
95935601|NCT02638337|191833253|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-1.39|0.0227
95988021|NCT04986202|191950577|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.01|0.83|0.070
95736152|NCT04499963|191444398|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Open Label Arm participant samples from baseline, month 1, and month 6.||||>0.05
95857644|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.33|20.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||20.71|4.33|0.1981
95935602|NCT02638337|191833254|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.34|0.0003
95935603|NCT02638337|191833255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-4.3|-8.1|<0.0001
95935604|NCT02638337|191833256|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.35|-2.35|0.0084
95935605|NCT02638337|191833257|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.19|-2.92|<0.0001
95935606|NCT02638337|191833258|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.89|-7.64|<0.0001
95935607|NCT02638337|191833259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9575
95935608|NCT02638337|191833260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8772|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.8772
95935609|NCT02638337|191833261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0007
95935610|NCT03830866|191833318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.65|0.174
95935611|NCT03830866|191833319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.64|0.203
95935612|NCT03830866|191833321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.60|0.091
95935613|NCT03830866|191833322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.657|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.657|0.794|0.465
95935614|NCT03830866|191833323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.487|0.833|0.469
95935615|NCT02814838|191833331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.42|||Student's t test for unpaired samples|||Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.42|-0.14|0.3303
95988022|NCT04986202|191950577|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.911
95988023|NCT04986202|191950577|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.12|0.91|0.837
95988024|NCT04986202|191950577|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.07|0.84|0.370
95988025|NCT04986202|191950577|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|NT-proBNP change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.04|0.83|0.205
95988026|NCT04986202|191950578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.2|-0.2|0.183
95988027|NCT04986202|191950578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||0.7|-0.8|0.898
95988028|NCT04986202|191950578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.1|-0.4|0.316
95988029|NCT04986202|191950578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||0.8|-0.7|0.934
95988030|NCT04986202|191950579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.366||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||2.366|-1.647|0.725
95988031|NCT04986202|191950579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.382||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.382|-2.571|0.555
95736153|NCT00836056|191444418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.75||||||90.0|91.5|104.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.42|91.50|
95935616|NCT02814838|191833332|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|0.0984||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2028|0.3995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FUP week 26||0.3995|-0.2028|0.517
95935617|NCT02814838|191833332|SUPERIORITY|The comparisons between groups on 2-hour AUC C-peptide efficacy endpoint was carried-out using a mixed linear model where the log(x+1) transformed 2-hour AUC C-peptide was the dependent variable, while treatment group, visit, treatment by visit interaction were the fixed factors of the model and patient will be the random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix for each patient is considered and the Kenward-Roger adjustment is used for the degrees of freedom.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0486||||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4294|0.3322|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FUP week 52||0.3322|-0.4294|0.7999
95935618|NCT02814838|191833333|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|12.0411||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3823|31.4644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||31.4644|-7.3823|0.2224
95935619|NCT02814838|191833333|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|8.4803||||0.3931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0935|28.0541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||28.0541|-11.0935|0.3931
95935620|NCT02814838|191833333|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.9502||||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5476|16.6473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||16.6473|-22.5476|0.7664
95736154|NCT00836056|191444419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.77||||||90.0|91.4|102.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.46|91.40|
95736155|NCT00836056|191444420|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.96||||||90.0|90.77|101.46|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.46|90.77|
95736156|NCT03226522|191444421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95736157|NCT03226522|191444421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95736158|NCT01265056|191444422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95736159|NCT01265056|191444422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.04
95736160|NCT01265056|191444423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.8
95736161|NCT01265056|191444424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95736162|NCT05323396|191444453|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.19
95736163|NCT05323396|191444454|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.85
95736164|NCT05323396|191444455|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.77
95736165|NCT05323396|191444456|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.12
95736166|NCT05323396|191444457|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.81
95736167|NCT05323396|191444458|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||student's unpaired t-test|||||||0.65
95736168|NCT03616106|191444468|OTHER||Slope|-15.103||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.574|154.369||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||154.369|-184.574|0.859
95935621|NCT02814838|191833334|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.048||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1257|0.0298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0298|-0.1257|0.2225
95736169|NCT03616106|191444469|OTHER||Slope|28.243||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.694|73.179||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||73.179|-16.694|0.213
95736170|NCT03616106|191444470|OTHER||Slope|58.993||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.713|112.274||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||112.274|5.713|0.031
95736171|NCT03616106|191444471|OTHER||Slope|-0.0651||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.01||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Viral load variables were log transformed for regression analyses.||0.010|-1.313|0.053
95736172|NCT03616106|191444472|OTHER||Slope|-1.601||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-0.442||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.442|-2.761|0.008
95736173|NCT03616106|191444473|OTHER||Slope|-2.674||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.934|-1.415||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.415|-3.934|0.000
95736174|NCT03616106|191444487|OTHER||Slope|2.172||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.895||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||2.895|1.448|0.000
95736175|NCT03616106|191444488|OTHER||Slope|2.872||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.643||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.643|2.100|0.000
95736176|NCT03616106|191444489|OTHER||Slope|3.166||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.487|3.846||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.846|2.487|0.000
95736177|NCT03616106|191444490|OTHER||Z Score|3.25||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0011
95736178|NCT03616106|191444491|OTHER||Z score|3.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0001
95736179|NCT03616106|191444492|OTHER||Z score|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. Please see statistical analysis plan for further details.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.000
95736180|NCT03616106|191444493|OTHER||Slope|1.935||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.815||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The p-value threshold for statistical significance was, therefore, 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||2.815|1.055|0.000
95736181|NCT03616106|191444494|OTHER||Slope|2.123||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.062||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.062|1.184|0.000
95736182|NCT03616106|191444495|OTHER||Slope|2.552||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|3.492||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison, therefore, the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||3.492|1.612|0.000
95736183|NCT03616106|191444496|OTHER||Z score|-1.57||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.1167
95736184|NCT03616106|191444497|OTHER||Z score|-2.91||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0036
95857645|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.81|4.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.51|-15.81|0.6397
95736185|NCT03616106|191444498|OTHER||Z score|-3.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05/3 = .017. For more details please see the statistical plan.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.0004
95935622|NCT02814838|191833334|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0369||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1596|0.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.0858|-0.1596|0.551
95935623|NCT02814838|191833334|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Daily Insulin Requirement (IU/kg/day) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.063||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1712|0.0453|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0453|-0.1712|0.2501
95935624|NCT02814838|191833335|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.1494||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7514|0.4526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at FU week 13||0.4526|-0.7514|0.6252
95935625|NCT02814838|191833335|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2804||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8904|0.3297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 26||0.3297|-0.8904|0.366
95935626|NCT02814838|191833335|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with HbA1c (%) as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|-0.2063||||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3992|0.8118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At FU week 52||0.8118|-0.3992|0.5026
95935627|NCT02814838|191833336|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0242||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0658|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.0658|-0.0174|0.2527
95935628|NCT02814838|191833336|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|0.0236||||0.2743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0188|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 26||0.066|-0.0188|0.2743
95935629|NCT02814838|191833336|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with C-peptide (nmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0059||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.0367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||0.0367|-0.0485|0.7856
95935630|NCT02814838|191833337|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.0253||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5986|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 13||0.548|-0.5986|0.9307
95736186|NCT02779543|191444499|EQUIVALENCE|this trial compared the 2 devices to the polysomnography, which is the gold standard|Mean value|368.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
95736187|NCT02779543|191444500|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
95736188|NCT02779543|191444501|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|106.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
95736189|NCT02779543|191444502|EQUIVALENCE|This trial compared those 2 devices with the gold standard (polysomnography)|Mean value|74.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||compared to gold standard|||||<0.001
95736190|NCT02298322|191444515|OTHER||sucess proportion|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|95.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||95.1|86.2|<0.0001
95935631|NCT02814838|191833337|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.7236||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2989|-0.1483|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||-0.1483|-1.2989|0.0139
95935632|NCT02814838|191833337|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with Glucose (mmol/L) actual value as dependent variable, treatment, visit, time, treatment by visit interaction, time by visit interaction, treatment by visit by time interaction as fixed effects and time by visit interaction is specified in repeated statement.|adjusted mean difference|-0.5979||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1775|-0.0184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||at week 52||-0.0184|-1.1775|0.0432
95935633|NCT02814838|191833339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1171|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.1171
95935634|NCT02814838|191833339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6586|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.6586
95935635|NCT02814838|191833339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.5056
95935636|NCT02814838|191833340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0779|||||||Fisher Exact|||at week 13||||0.0779
95935637|NCT02814838|191833340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 26||||0.0248
95935638|NCT02814838|191833340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4504|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 52||||0.4504
95935639|NCT02814838|191833341|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.1402||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2015|0.4819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 13||0.4819|-0.2015|0.4163
95736191|NCT02934347|191444557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Grades analysed were 1, 2 and then 3 and 4 combined because of low frequencies in the latter two grades|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared for trend||Null hypothesis: no difference in frequency of grade of glottic view between the supine and back-up positions||||>0.05
95935640|NCT02814838|191833341|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.177||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2039|0.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 26||0.558|-0.2039|0.3575
95935641|NCT02814838|191833341|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|adjusted mean difference|0.0451||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3948|0.4851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 52||0.4851|-0.3948|0.8386
95935642|NCT02814838|191833342|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||=|0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 13||0.75|-0.09|= 0.1114
95935643|NCT02814838|191833342|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.502|||=|0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 26||0.98|0.02|= 0.0411
95935644|NCT02814838|191833342|SUPERIORITY|Transformed AUC was analyzed with Student t-test for unpaired data using PROC TTEST within SAS® to compare Ladarixin and placebo groups. The estimated treatment difference between Ladarixin and placebo was also presented together with the corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||=|0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||At week 52||0.82|-0.37|= 0.4506
95935645|NCT02814838|191833343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3631||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 13 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.908|-0.1817|0.1847
95935646|NCT02814838|191833343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.6304||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0609|1.1998|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||1.1998|0.0609|0.031
95935647|NCT02814838|191833343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1639||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5202|0.8479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Analysis is based on a linear mixed model for repeated measures with log(AUC(15-120 minutes)+1) of C-peptide above fasting value as dependent variable, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction||0.8479|-0.5202|0.6299
95935648|NCT02814838|191833344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13||||0.163
95935649|NCT02814838|191833344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||0.0074
95736192|NCT02934347|191444558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||||||<0.01
95736193|NCT02934347|191444559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95736194|NCT02934347|191444560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95935650|NCT02814838|191833344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4437
95935651|NCT02272816|191833359|OTHER||Percentage|95.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||98.6||||||||98.6||
95935652|NCT02272816|191833360|OTHER||Percentage|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|59.9||||||||59.9|30.2|
95935653|NCT02272816|191833361|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0||||||||100|92.6|
95935654|NCT04048382|191833544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
95935655|NCT04048382|191833545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.49
95935656|NCT04048382|191833546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.91
95935657|NCT04048382|191833547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.65
95935658|NCT04048382|191833548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.17
95935659|NCT04048382|191833549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.19
95935660|NCT00709098|191833575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean group difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.1|-7.0|<0.0001
95935661|NCT01227265|191833576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35|||cLDA|||||0.35|-0.72|0.4933
95935662|NCT01227265|191833576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.21|||cLDA|||||0.21|-0.86|0.2364
95935663|NCT01227265|191833577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|18.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.05|-4.17|0.244
95935664|NCT01227265|191833577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|17.61||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average OFF time (hours/day) as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.61|-4.63|0.262
95935665|NCT01227265|191833578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.63|||cLDA|||||0.63|-0.47|0.776
95935666|NCT01227265|191833578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||cLDA|||||0.67|-0.44|0.683
95935667|NCT01227265|191833582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|-0.2||||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||cLDA|||||0.61|-0.92|0.6968
95935668|NCT01227265|191833582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.97|||cLDA|||||0.97|-0.57|0.6142
95935669|NCT02269475|191833590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.3|100.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||100.0|-1875.3|
95935670|NCT02269475|191833591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (%)|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|43.0||"No statistical tests were used, instead the confidence interval was used for showing superiority.~If lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than 0%, the efficacy of MEDI3250 is demonstrated."|Exact conditional method|Estimated by an exact conditional method in total number of cases which follows a Poisson assumption.|Vaccine efficacy (%) = (1-RR)\*100 where RR = Risk Reduction.|||43.0|7.4|
95935671|NCT02396199|191833620|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|0.917||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.827|||One-sided test|Fisher Exact||Exact test, One-sided 95%, with lower limit (0.827)||||0.827|0.006
95935672|NCT03611153|191833621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.040
95935673|NCT03611153|191833623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
95935674|NCT03611153|191833624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.805
95988032|NCT04986202|191950579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.025||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||3.025|-1.710|0.586
95988033|NCT04986202|191950579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.815||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.108|1.478||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.478|-3.108|0.486
95988034|NCT04986202|191950580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||3.9|-4.1|0.968
95857646|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.35|28.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||28.51|11.35|0.0508
95935675|NCT03611153|191833624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.148
95988035|NCT04986202|191950580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.6||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.6|-6.3|0.251
95988036|NCT04986202|191950580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.7||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||5.7|-4.8|0.872
95988037|NCT04986202|191950580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.1||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|No formal hypothesis testing and p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||4.1|-6.2|0.682
95988038|NCT04986202|191950582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.029||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.236||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.236|0.857|0.760
95988039|NCT04986202|191950582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.209||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.448||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.448|1.010|0.039
95935676|NCT03611153|191833624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.090
95935677|NCT03611153|191833625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right atrial pressure||||0.786
95935678|NCT03611153|191833625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pulmonary artery systolic pressure||||0.796
95935679|NCT03611153|191833625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean pulmonary artery pressure||||0.703
95935680|NCT03611153|191833626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
95935681|NCT03611153|191833627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.669
95935682|NCT05338086|191833628|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91||Mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD as a continuous covariate.||||0.91|-0.51|
95935683|NCT05338086|191833629|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 was presented with 95% CI and equivalence was concluded if this fell within the predefined equivalence margin of \[-1.45%, 1.45%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included terms for treatment, with stratification variables as classification factors and baseline BMD included as a continuous covariate.|The estimated mean difference in %CfB lumbar spine BMD results was pooled using Rubin's methods and presented with 95% CI.|||0.74|-0.69|
95935684|NCT05338086|191833632|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set mFAS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric LS mean ratios contained in acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%).|Ratio of Geometric means|99.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.99|108.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including log-transformed baseline sCTX as a continuous covariate with treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||108.52|91.99|
95736195|NCT03161405|191444561|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6446|2.3904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||2.3904|1.6446|
95736196|NCT03161405|191444562|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1199|1.4891||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4891|1.1199|
95736197|NCT03161405|191444563|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2783|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0965|1.4904||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The mean difference and its 90% CI for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.4904|1.0965|
95935685|NCT05338086|191833633|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity with respect to PD was concluded if the 95% CI for the test (MB09) to reference (EU-Prolia) ratios of the geometric LS means was contained within the \[80.00%, 125.00%\] interval.|Ratio of Geometric means|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.31|102.02|||ANCOVA|||||102.02|96.31|
95935686|NCT05338086|191833634|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.83|109.71|||ANCOVA|Cmax was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||109.71|98.83|
95935687|NCT05338086|191833635|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (on Pharmacokinetic Parameter Analysis Set): the 95% CIs around the geometric LS mean contained in the acceptance limits (80.00%, 125.00%)|LS Geometric Mean Ratio|106.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|112.66|||ANCOVA|AUC0-6 months was analysed on the log scale by ANCOVA. The model included treatment and stratification variables as fixed effects.||||112.66|99.84|
95935688|NCT04455035|191833670|OTHER|ttest||||||0.0088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0088
95935689|NCT04455035|191833671|OTHER|ttest||||||1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00001
95935690|NCT05952076|191833691|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.67|-0.44|0.6863
95935691|NCT05952076|191833692|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|109.3||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.76|478.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline weight (grams) and baseline age (days). A random intercept for participant was included.|||478.36|-259.76|0.5567
95935692|NCT05952076|191833693|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|See Estimation Comments|The mixed model included treatment and visit as factors, including the interaction term, and was adjusted by baseline WAZ, baseline age (days) and study intervention compliance. A random intercept for participant was included.|||0.66|-0.46|0.7275
95736198|NCT02262377|191444594|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week average pain.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||Intention to Treat Analysis for average chronic pain.||1.15|0.92|0.68
95935693|NCT04143061|191833699|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.08||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||11.08|2.03|
95935694|NCT04143061|191833699|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|21.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|25.8||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||25.80|17.82|
95935695|NCT04143061|191833699|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|14.89||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||14.89|7.43|
95935696|NCT04143061|191833699|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|14.47||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||14.47|7.86|
95935697|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.96|-83.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||"It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.~The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline to Week 25 in the total WOMAC score."||-83.65|-274.96|0.00030
95935698|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|LS-means difference|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~1\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
95935699|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~2\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group A (NOLTREX™) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
95935700|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-216.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.01||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.37|-21.25||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~3\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-21.25|-411.37|0.0233
95736199|NCT02262377|191444594|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Interference.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.88|0.36
95736200|NCT02262377|191444594|SUPERIORITY|The ITT analysis was done for 21 week BPI Severity.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Statistical significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.16|0.86|0.996
95736201|NCT02262377|191444595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.37|0.99|0.054
95736202|NCT02262377|191444596|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.89|0.98
95736203|NCT02262377|191444597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.98|||Odds Ratio|||||0.98|0.18|
95736204|NCT02262377|191444598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Odds Ratio|||||1.14|0.90|
95736205|NCT00573443|191444601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5312|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4939|0.5714|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-30/placebo = 1.||0.5714|0.4939|<0.0001
95935701|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|142.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.89||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.63|355.22||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~4\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade II"||355.22|-70.63|0.3082
95935702|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.85||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.83|123.82||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~5\) versus Group B (Placebo) OA grade II versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||123.82|-197.83|0.9324
95935703|NCT03897686|191833723|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-179.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.38||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.11|-53.5||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||"After the analysis of covariance were performed pairwise comparisons of NOLTREX and placebo groups for each stage of OA:~6\) Group A (NOLTREX™) OA grade III versus Group B (Placebo) ОА grade III"||-53.50|-305.11|0.0017
95935704|NCT03897686|191833724|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|S-means difference|-143.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.88||0.00267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.09|-50.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||It was determined that 144 participants randomized into 2 groups (1:1) would have at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was calculated based on analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline value with fixed factors of group assuming α = 0.05 and 10% discontinuation rate.||-50.69|-236.09|0.00267
95935705|NCT03897686|191833725|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-13.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.16786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.096|5.638||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 3 (week 6)||5.638|-32.096|0.16786
95935706|NCT03897686|191833725|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-26.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.995||0.00847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-6.93||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 4 (week 13)||-6.93|-46.46|0.00847
95736206|NCT00573443|191444601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of episode-rate reduction ratios|0.5103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4755|0.5477|||Regression, Longitudinal neg. binomial|||Analysis of PBA episode rates used longitudinal negative binomial regression with treatment, period, diagnosis and study site to estimate pre-post changes in log mean episode rate for each treatment group. Null hypothesis of equal pre-post episode rate reductions were tested: AVP-923-20/placebo = 1.||0.5477|0.4755|<0.0001
95795309|NCT00855582|191560857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 4. Change= Week 4 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95935707|NCT03897686|191833725|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.29||0.00123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.31|-13.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-13.62|-54.31|0.00123
95935708|NCT03897686|191833726|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.121||0.97733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|9.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 3||9.980|-10.271|0.97733
95935709|NCT03897686|191833726|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.00693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|-4.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in stiffness WOMAC score, visit 4||-4.04|-24.95|0.00693
95736207|NCT00418561|191444612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.0737
95736208|NCT00418561|191444613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1115
95736209|NCT00418561|191444615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|||||Test for no difference between cohorts.|ANOVA|||The comparisons of the three doses were done using ANOVA model including the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||0.1268
95736210|NCT00829309|191444632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.45||||||90.0|80.08|121.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.03|80.08|
95736211|NCT00829309|191444633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.98||||||90.0|85.23|97.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.12|85.23|
95935710|NCT03897686|191833726|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.00073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-6.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in pain WOMAC score at visit 5 (week 25)||-6.92|-25.44|0.00073
95935711|NCT03897686|191833726|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1||0.07725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.62|6.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 3||6.33|-120.62|0.07725
95935712|NCT03897686|191833726|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-103.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.92||0.00279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.35|-36.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 4||-36.20|-170.35|0.00279
95935713|NCT03897686|191833726|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-133.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.26||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.03|-63.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factors of treatment group and radiological stage"||Contrasts for changes in functionality WOMAC score, visit 5||-63.55|-203.03|0.00023
95935714|NCT03897686|191833727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
95736212|NCT00829309|191444634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.3||||||90.0|85.34|108.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.66|85.34|
95736213|NCT02924883|191444644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3332||95.0|0.55|1.23|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test, was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.23|0.55|0.3332
95736214|NCT02924883|191444646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2934||95.0|0.42|1.3|||Log Rank|The 2-sided log-rank test was stratified by world region (Western Europe vs U.S. vs Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0 vs IC 1/2/3).||||1.30|0.42|0.2934
95736215|NCT02924883|191444648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.6099||95.0|0.52|3.03|||Log Rank|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by world region (Western Europe, U.S., Rest of World) and PD-L1 status (IC 0, IC 1/2/3).||||3.03|0.52|0.6099
95857647|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.45|19.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.28|-2.45|0.5143
95935715|NCT03897686|191833728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||The level of significance was set to p \<0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value generated by Chi-squared test was ≤0.005 for each time point.||The Chi-Square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in disposition of results between two groups.||||<0.005
95935716|NCT03897686|191833730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 3 (week 6).||||0.050
95935717|NCT03897686|191833730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||The mean number of paracetamol tablets was calculated taking into account only patients who had received paracetamol. ANCOVA was used to detect a difference in means of 2 groups at visit 4 (week 13).||||0.004
95935718|NCT04505774|191833743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6778
95935719|NCT04505774|191833743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6292
95935720|NCT04505774|191833743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6858
95935721|NCT04505774|191833743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1351
95935722|NCT04505774|191833744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1959|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1959
95935723|NCT04505774|191833744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9496
95935724|NCT04505774|191833744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9902
95935725|NCT04505774|191833744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0814
95935726|NCT04505774|191833745|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95935727|NCT04505774|191833745|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95935728|NCT04505774|191833745|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95935729|NCT04505774|191833746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0577
95935730|NCT04505774|191833746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5015
95935731|NCT04505774|191833746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5892
95935732|NCT04505774|191833746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1714
95935733|NCT04505774|191833747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0732
95935734|NCT04505774|191833747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9018
95736216|NCT00905840|191444669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis of the primary outcome variable, was based on a confirmatory non-inferiority test with a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The non-inferiority margin for a clinically relevant difference was set at 0.1 mm. For a sample size of st least 73, a paired t-test with a 0.0025 one-sided significant level was calculated to have 80% power to reject the hypothesis that the test is inferior to the standard.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.3|||Student's t-test|||"Null hypothesis: Change of functional bone level at the test implant 12 month after surgery is more than 0.1 lower (inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery.~H-1: Change of functional bone level at the tst implant 12 month after surgery is up to 0.1 lower, equal, or higher (not inferior) than change of functional crestal bone level at the control implant 12 month after surgery."||0.3|0.1|0.025
95736217|NCT00905840|191444670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||This analysis is up to 12 month.||||0.1573
95736218|NCT00905840|191444671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|||||12 month data Plaque index|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3617
95736219|NCT00905840|191444671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Plaque index||||||0.7068
95736220|NCT00905840|191444671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Plaque Index||||||0.4312
95736221|NCT00905840|191444671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|12 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.9933
95736222|NCT00905840|191444671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|24 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||0.3667
95736223|NCT00905840|191444671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|36 month data Sulcus Bleeding Index||||||1.0000
95736224|NCT03020615|191444682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95736225|NCT03020615|191444685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitley), two-sided|||||||0.0005
95736226|NCT03020615|191444687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.011
95736227|NCT03020615|191444688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
95736228|NCT03020615|191444691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0009
95736229|NCT03020615|191444693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0004
95736230|NCT03020615|191444695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.75
95988040|NCT04986202|191950582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.111||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.326||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.326|0.931|0.241
95736231|NCT03020615|191444697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Exact Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney), two-sided|||||||0.0013
95736232|NCT03020615|191444698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95736233|NCT00904345|191444716|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
95736234|NCT00904345|191444717|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
95736235|NCT00904345|191444721|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
95736236|NCT02481830|191444739|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.72|0.1144
95736237|NCT02481830|191444740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.66|||||Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin using Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.66|1.16|
95736238|NCT02481830|191444741|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin) using Mantel-Haenszel method|||1.24|0.49|
95736239|NCT02481830|191444742|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Topotecan/Amrubicin|||1.04|0.73|
95736240|NCT00102440|191444743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|32.0||||||97.5|23.1|41.3||||||||41.3|23.1|
95736241|NCT00102440|191444743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|41.0||||||97.5|31.5|49.5||||||||49.5|31.5|
95736242|NCT00102440|191444743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736243|NCT00102440|191444743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736244|NCT00102440|191444743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
95736245|NCT00102440|191444744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736246|NCT00102440|191444744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736247|NCT00102440|191444744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
95736248|NCT00102440|191444745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95935735|NCT04505774|191833747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5075|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5075
95736249|NCT00102440|191444745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736250|NCT00102440|191444745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
95736251|NCT00102440|191444746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736252|NCT00102440|191444746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95736253|NCT00102440|191444746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.164
95736254|NCT00102440|191444747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736255|NCT00102440|191444747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736256|NCT00102440|191444747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736257|NCT00102440|191444748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736258|NCT00102440|191444748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736259|NCT00102440|191444748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
95935736|NCT04505774|191833747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1450
95736260|NCT00102440|191444749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736261|NCT00102440|191444749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736262|NCT00102440|191444749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the one-way ANOVA model with treatment as a factor. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95736263|NCT00102440|191444750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95736264|NCT00102440|191444750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95736265|NCT00102440|191444750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95736266|NCT00102440|191444751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
95736267|NCT00102440|191444751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
95736268|NCT00102440|191444751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.619
95736269|NCT00102440|191444752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
95935737|NCT04505774|191833748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8837
95935738|NCT04505774|191833748|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95935739|NCT04505774|191833748|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95935740|NCT04505774|191833748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5343
95935741|NCT04505774|191833749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6636
95935742|NCT04505774|191833749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5878
95935743|NCT04505774|191833749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7148
95935744|NCT04505774|191833749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1117
95935745|NCT04505774|191833750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6780
95935746|NCT04505774|191833750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6638
95935747|NCT04505774|191833750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.7645
95935748|NCT04505774|191833750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0987
95935749|NCT04505774|191833751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4016
95935750|NCT04505774|191833751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5815
95935751|NCT04505774|191833751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.9085
95935752|NCT04505774|191833751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0820
95935753|NCT04505774|191833752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3135
95935754|NCT04505774|191833752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9581
95935755|NCT04505774|191833752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9661|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9661
95935756|NCT04505774|191833752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1073
95736270|NCT00102440|191444752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
95736271|NCT00102440|191444752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.246
95736272|NCT00102440|191444753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
95935757|NCT04505774|191833753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3575
95935758|NCT04505774|191833753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5910
95988041|NCT04986202|191950582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.414||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.414|1.001|0.049
95736273|NCT00102440|191444753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
95736274|NCT00102440|191444753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.411
95857648|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|60.0|23.46|41.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||41.06|23.46|0.0021
95935759|NCT04505774|191833753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8670
95935760|NCT04505774|191833753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0645
95935761|NCT05386355|191833754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.35|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||5.35|0.59|
95935762|NCT05386355|191833755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||||The General Health App is the reference group.|A mixed-effect Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used report the adjusted RR with 95% CI accounting for the clinic-specific random intercepts. Given the small number of COVID-19 vaccination completion, we were unable to account for children nested with parent/caregiver or adjusting for covariates.||1.65|0.42|
95935763|NCT05386355|191833756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The analytical method was based on a linear mixed model adjusting for baseline SAGE vaccine hesitancy composite scores and random clinic effect.||||0.73|-1.19|0.638
95935764|NCT03743636|191833786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.57||||0.0775|ONE_SIDED|90.0|1.77||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||1.77|0.0775
95935765|NCT03743636|191833787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.3762|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.24||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-11.24|0.3762
95935766|NCT03743636|191833788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.42||||0.0294|ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.31||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||7.31|0.0294
95935767|NCT03743636|191833789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.63||||0.0336|ONE_SIDED|90.0|6.26||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||6.26|0.0336
95935768|NCT03743636|191833790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.562|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-16.51||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-16.51|0.5620
95935769|NCT03743636|191833791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93||||0.8797|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-29.15||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||-29.15|0.8797
95935770|NCT03743636|191833792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24||||ANCOVA||||||0.24|0.0752
95935771|NCT03743636|191833793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA||||||-15.19|0.8703
95935772|NCT03743636|191833794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA||||||-2078|0.1402
95935773|NCT03743636|191833795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.1249|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.21||||ANCOVA||||||-0.21|0.1249
95935774|NCT03743636|191833796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05||||0.8039|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.62||||ANCOVA||||||-12.62|0.8039
95935775|NCT03743636|191833797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-842.0||||0.5352|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13125.0||||ANCOVA||||||-13125|0.5352
95935776|NCT03743636|191833798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.5777|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.46||||ANCOVA||||||-2.46|0.5777
95935777|NCT03743636|191833799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.69||||ANCOVA||||||-5.69|0.3662
95935778|NCT03743636|191833800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11837.0||||0.8866|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24396.0||||ANCOVA||||||-24396|0.8866
95935779|NCT03743636|191833801|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.25||||0.0153|ONE_SIDED|90.0|10.43|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 3-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||10.43|0.0153
95935780|NCT03743636|191833802|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.05||||0.1195|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.25||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models for repeated measures were used to compare 6-month change in 6MW distance between the NR/resveratrol vs placebo groups and between the NR alone vs placebo groups using baseline, 3-month, and 6-month values, adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline 6MW.|||-1.25|0.1195
95935781|NCT03743636|191833803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0752|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.24|||The a priori statistical analysis plan defined a one-sided P value of \< 0.10 to define statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||0.24|0.0752
95736275|NCT00102440|191444754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.507
95935782|NCT03743636|191833804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.8703|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-15.19||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-15.19|0.8703
95935783|NCT03743636|191833805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10995.0||||0.1402|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2078.0||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-2078|0.1402
95935784|NCT03743636|191833806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA||||||-81.20|0.8401
95935785|NCT03743636|191833807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
95935786|NCT03743636|191833808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA||||||-4.47|0.2378
95935787|NCT03743636|191833809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.1589|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.86||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-1.86|0.1589
95935788|NCT03743636|191833809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0602|ONE_SIDED|90.0|2.16||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||2.16|0.0602
95935789|NCT03743636|191833810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.25||||0.3724|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-31.79||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-31.79|0.3724
95935790|NCT03743636|191833810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13||||0.8401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-81.2||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-81.20|0.8401
95935791|NCT03743636|191833811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.5558|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.52||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-9.52|0.5558
95935792|NCT03743636|191833811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.2378|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-4.47||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to 3 groups comparisons. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-4.47|0.2378
95935793|NCT03743636|191833812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA||||||-8.97|0.7112
95935794|NCT03743636|191833813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA||||||-13.31|0.9449
95935795|NCT03743636|191833814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.5409|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.57||||ANCOVA||||||-6.57|0.5409
95935796|NCT03743636|191833815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35||||0.7814|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.89||||ANCOVA||||||-8.89|0.7814
95935797|NCT03743636|191833816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.5884|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.07||||ANCOVA||||||-7.07|0.5884
95935798|NCT03743636|191833817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||0.1787|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.6||||ANCOVA||||||-1.60|0.1787
95935799|NCT03743636|191833818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.7112|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.97||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-8.97|0.7112
95935800|NCT03743636|191833819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.9449|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-13.31||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model for repeated measures is applied to Placebo vs. 2 NR groups combined. The reported results of within group change and between group difference are Least Squares Mean (Standard Error) from the model adjusted for baseline six-minute walk + age + sex + race + resveratrol usage.|||-13.31|0.9449
95935801|NCT04850807|191833837|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.0|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|6.0|-6.9|<0.05
95935802|NCT04850807|191833838|SUPERIORITY||Average Marginal Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.26|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.26|-0.06|<0.05
95935803|NCT04850807|191833839|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|10.2|-2.3|<0.05
95935804|NCT04850807|191833840|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Results are adjusted for baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~The model includes a random intercept for nursing home."|5.6|-8.5|<0.05
95935805|NCT04850807|191833841|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: baseline medication use, age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic diagnosis, depression, anxiety, dementia, asthma, ARBS score, treatment group.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up , 35 Treatment Follow-Up"|0.1|-9.8|<0.05
95935806|NCT04850807|191833843|SUPERIORITY||average marginal effect|-0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.41|||Differences-in-Differences regression||||"Fixed effect covariates: age, sex, race, activities of daily living score, cognitive function score, psychotic disorder, bipolar disease, depression, anxiety, dementia, alzheimer's diagnosis, antidepressant use, antianxietal use, antipsychotic use, history of heart failure, baseline ARBS (exclusive to CMAI/PHQ-9 model), baseline CMAI (exclusive to ARBS/PHQ-9 model), indicator of baseline/follow-up score, treatment group, interaction of treatment group and baseline/follow-up score.~Random effects: random intercept for nursing home, random intercept for the interaction of baseline/follow-up measure and nursing home, and random intercept for individual.~Imputed Outcomes: 37 Control Follow-Up (Both CMAI and ARBS), 37 Treatment Follow-Up (ABRS), 35 Treatment Follow-Up (CMAI)"|0.41|-1.03|<0.05
95935807|NCT05141903|191833844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||(Dose group \* Time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 369 F Value = 24.31||Dose Group 2 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
95935808|NCT05141903|191833844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 370 F value = 14.87||Dose Group 3 B. infantis levels compared to control group (antibiotic only) with changes over time||||<0.0001
95935809|NCT05141903|191833844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dose Group \* Time|Mixed Models Analysis|Dfn, Dfd = 11, 351 F value = 8.606||Dose Group 2 (with HMO) B. infantis levels compared to dose Group 3 (without HMO) with changes over time||||<0.0001
95736276|NCT00102440|191444754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
95988042|NCT04986202|191950582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.151||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.401||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.401|0.946|0.158
95857649|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.47||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.07|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||3.61|-19.07|0.5661
95935810|NCT03467542|191833850|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The total number evaluated, the percent, and the Clopper-Pearson two-sided 95% confidence limits on the percent.|||
95935811|NCT05387447|191833853|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
95935812|NCT05387447|191833854|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
95935813|NCT05387447|191833856|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
95935814|NCT05387447|191833857|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z score|||||||.05
95935815|NCT04549168|191833900|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.795||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.008||Data was analyzed using mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM), and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR).|MMRM|||||1.008|0.627|0.0585
95935816|NCT04549168|191833901|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|9.81||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.81|4.39|<0.0001
95935817|NCT04549168|191833902|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-8.51||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-8.51|-27.16|0.0002
95935818|NCT04549168|191833903|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.776||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.93||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||0.930|0.647|0.0063
95935819|NCT04549168|191833904|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.49||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.39||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||8.39|0.59|0.0242
95935820|NCT04549168|191833905|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.36||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.95|4.22||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||4.22|-24.95|0.1625
95935821|NCT04549168|191833906|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.815||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.001||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||1.001|0.663|0.0515
95935822|NCT04549168|191833907|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|9.86||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||9.86|5.61|<0.0001
95736277|NCT00102440|191444754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.362
95736278|NCT00102440|191444755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.657
95736279|NCT00102440|191444755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.444
95736280|NCT00102440|191444755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.719
95736281|NCT00102440|191444756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95736282|NCT00102440|191444756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.229
95736283|NCT00102440|191444756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.266
95935823|NCT04549168|191833908|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-21.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-14.35||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM|||||-14.35|-28.15|<0.0001
95736284|NCT02129426|191444834|OTHER|t-test comparison of the two groups||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
95935824|NCT04549168|191833910|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-1.25||Based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.45|0.0006
95736285|NCT02129426|191444835|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.52
95736286|NCT00850174|191444848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.48||||||90.0|88.98|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.00|88.98|
95736287|NCT00850174|191444849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.54||||||90.0|99.19|106.01|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.01|99.19|
95736288|NCT00850174|191444850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.19||||||90.0|98.78|105.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.71|98.78|
95736289|NCT00850174|191444851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.77||||||90.0|97.03|104.65|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to Bioequivalence criteria.|||104.65|97.03|
95935825|NCT04549168|191833911|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.78||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, site, treatment, and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.70|0.0005
95935826|NCT04549168|191833913|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.65|0.03|0.0312
95935827|NCT04549168|191833913|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.32||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.76||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of treatment period|||0.76|-0.11|0.1460
95935828|NCT04549168|191833913|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.29||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||First 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.70|-0.12|0.1613
95935829|NCT04549168|191833913|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65||Data was analyzed using MMRM, and the missing values were imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be MNAR.|MMRM||Last 7 mornings of follow-up period|||0.65|-0.19|0.2852
95935830|NCT05384730|191833940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Light physical activity compared overtime||||0.10
95935831|NCT05384730|191833940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Moderate-vigorous physical activity compared overtime||||0.30
95935832|NCT05384730|191833940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Inactive/sedentary time compared overtime||||0.18
95935833|NCT05384730|191833941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95935834|NCT05384730|191833942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95935835|NCT05384730|191833943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
95935836|NCT05384730|191833944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing depression scores overtime||||0.03
95935837|NCT05384730|191833944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing anxiety scores overtime||||0.96
95935838|NCT05384730|191833945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95935839|NCT05384730|191833946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95935840|NCT05384730|191833947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||PASE analysis over time||||0.01
95935841|NCT06459401|191833957|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.525|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.07|-0.01|0.131
95736290|NCT00850174|191444852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.75|102.18|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.18|97.75|
95736291|NCT00850174|191444853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.5|102.15|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||102.15|97.50|
95935842|NCT06459401|191833958|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.623|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.56|0.99|0.001
95935843|NCT06459401|191833959|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.89||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.923|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||5.89|0.75|0.017
95935844|NCT06459401|191833960|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.039||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.052|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.039|-0.034|0.874
95935845|NCT06459401|191833961|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.315|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.46|-1.18|0.345
95935846|NCT06459401|191833962|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.36||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.859|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.36|-3.90|0.024
95935847|NCT06459401|191833963|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.739|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.06|0.00|0.044
95935848|NCT06459401|191833964|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.5||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.928|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.50|0.32|0.017
95764080|NCT02729909|191498211|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||0.9|0.4|<0.001
95764081|NCT02729909|191498211|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||0.8|0.4|<0.001
95935849|NCT06459401|191833965|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.04||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.297|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.04|-1.67|0.372
95935850|NCT06459401|191833966|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.508|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.20|0.07|0.001
95935851|NCT06459401|191833967|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.746|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||4.39|0.09|0.043
95935852|NCT06459401|191833968|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.83||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.752|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||8.83|0.22|0.041
95935853|NCT06459401|191833969|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.983|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.21|0.03|0.013
95857650|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.33|38.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||38.08|20.33|0.0057
95935854|NCT06459401|191833970|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.78||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.985|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||2.78|0.44|0.012
95935855|NCT06459401|191833971|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.11||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.779|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||9.11|0.39|0.036
95935856|NCT06459401|191833976|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.19||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.015|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||1.19|-1.24|0.962
95935857|NCT06459401|191833977|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.504|Difference = Preferred Timing - Non-Preferred Timing|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.35|-0.06|0.146
95935858|NCT06459401|191833978|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.63||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.495|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.63|-0.66|0.152
95935859|NCT06459401|191833979|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.494|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.31|-0.06|0.153
95935860|NCT06459401|191833980|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.58||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.491|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||3.58|-0.67|0.155
95935861|NCT06459401|191833981|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 1.199|Difference = Assisted - Unassisted|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.43|0.11|0.004
95857651|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.89||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.18|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.21|-22.18|0.4504
95935862|NCT06459401|191833982|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.56||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.962|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||-0.56|-3.82|0.014
95935863|NCT06459401|191833983|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.312|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.66|-0.26|0.350
95935864|NCT06459401|191833984|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.02||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = -0.706|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.02|-3.63|0.052
95935865|NCT06459401|191833985|OTHER|Single group test of difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Effect Size (Cohen's D) = 0.416|Difference = Post-Session - Pre-Session|An a priori power analysis (G\*Power 3.1.9.7) determined that a sample size of 10 participants could detect an effect size (Cohen's D) of 1.0 with 80% power and alpha = 0.05.||0.39|-0.10|0.221
95935866|NCT00999167|191834004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression adjusting for country|||||||0.0354
95935867|NCT00999167|191834005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0214
95935868|NCT00999167|191834006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.047
95935869|NCT00999167|191834007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and Day 56.||||0.0713
95935870|NCT00999167|191834007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Changes in the Total Index Score from Baseline and the Final Visit.||||0.2520
95935871|NCT04452318|191834008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.332|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.332|0.090|< 0.0001
95935872|NCT04452318|191834009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.966|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.966|0.298|= 0.0380
95935873|NCT04452318|191834011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.236|0.069|< 0.0001
95935874|NCT04452318|191834011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.728|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.728|0.228|= 0.0024
95935875|NCT04452318|191834012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
95935876|NCT04452318|191834013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
95935877|NCT04452318|191834013|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0010
95935878|NCT04452318|191834014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
95935879|NCT04452318|191834015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.456|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||0.456|0.208|< 0.0001
95935880|NCT04452318|191834017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.286|0.051|< 0.0001
95935881|NCT04452318|191834018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
95935882|NCT04452318|191834019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.370|0.020|= 0.0010
95935883|NCT04452318|191834020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
95935884|NCT04452318|191834023|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|-1.539|||ANOVA|||||-1.539|-2.707|< 0.0001
95935885|NCT04452318|191834024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|-1.806|||ANOVA|||||-1.806|-3.161|< 0.0001
95935886|NCT04452318|191834025|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.196|-1.659|||ANOVA|||||-1.659|-3.196|< 0.0001
95935887|NCT04452318|191834026|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-2.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|-1.688|||ANOVA|||||-1.688|-3.194|< 0.0001
95935888|NCT04452318|191834029|OTHER||||||=|0.0621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0621
95935889|NCT04452318|191834030|OTHER||||||=|0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received'||||= 0.0038
95935890|NCT04452318|191834033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||< 0.0001
95935891|NCT04452318|191834041|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0273|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0273
95935892|NCT04452318|191834042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.989|0.299|= 0.0460
95935893|NCT04452318|191834043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.070|0.207|= 0.0721
95935894|NCT04452318|191834044|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0260
95935895|NCT04452318|191834045|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0614|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0614
95935896|NCT04452318|191834046|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|-0.795|||ANCOVA|||||-0.795|-2.127|< 0.0001
95935897|NCT04452318|191834047|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.300|-1.400|= 0.0026
95935898|NCT04452318|191834048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|-0.559|||ANCOVA|||||-0.559|-1.321|< 0.0001
95935899|NCT04452318|191834049|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-26.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.973|-14.117|||ANCOVA|||||-14.117|-37.973|< 0.0001
95935900|NCT04452318|191834050|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|-0.727|||ANCOVA|||||-0.727|-2.063|< 0.0001
95935901|NCT04452318|191834051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||= 0.0138
95935902|NCT04452318|191834052|OTHER||||||=|0.0292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.0292
95935903|NCT04452318|191834053|OTHER||||||=|0.2466|||||||Fisher Exact|||Testing if there is an association between the observed results and treatment received||||= 0.2466
95935904|NCT04452318|191834054|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7861|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.7861
95935905|NCT04452318|191834055|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0842|||||||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||= 0.0842
95935906|NCT01340066|191834204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.92|ONE_SIDED|80.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.92
95935907|NCT04315181|191834229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=6.89, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
95935908|NCT04315181|191834230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.51, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
95935909|NCT04315181|191834231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.61, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.138
95935910|NCT04315181|191834232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=8.15, df=8, 72||Peak scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||<0.0001
95935911|NCT04315181|191834233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance is 2-sided and accepted at a P value of ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.58, df=8, 72||Trough scores were calculated for individual participants within each dose condition and analyzed in a one-factor model (drug condition) with a compound symmetry covariance structure.||||0.0002
95935912|NCT06647238|191834238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95935913|NCT00390299|191834265|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95935914|NCT00390299|191834265|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (x 10^7 TCID50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95935915|NCT00390299|191834269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.11|||Log Rank|||||4.11|0.67|0.28
95988043|NCT04986202|191950582|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.159||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.404||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.404|0.957|0.131
95736292|NCT01363765|191444856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.87||NR were calculated using an aggregated database consisting of 896 strata for laboratory (n=14), study month (n=8), sex (n=2) and age group (n=4: \<15, 15-39, 40-59, and \>=60 years). Poisson regression modeling was used to analyze changes in TB TB NR|Clustered Avareged|Adjustment for municipality, age, sex, and baseline proportion of samples with a positive smear was by a population-averaged quasi-likelihood approach|"The numbers reported in the CONSORT flowchart refer to the diagnostic samples. NR were obtained crosslinking lab and notification databases, denominator was population/year."|cluster-averaged NNR=1.59 (CI95% 1.31-1.88) Absolute numbers informed in table do not allow calculation of notification rates; they are based on population size, not in total numbers and percentages||1.87|1.32|<0.01
95736293|NCT01363765|191444856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||notification rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed multi-level model, time-adjusted||Secondary analysis: Mixed multi-level model||1.92|1.51|<0.001
95736294|NCT01363765|191444857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|-84.07||||||95.0||||||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per case detected||||||
95736295|NCT01363765|191444858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.98||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR (notification rate ratio, not calculable from number shown, which are a proportion of tests. NRR calculated over a population/year denominator.|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||1.32|0.64|0.923
95736296|NCT01363765|191444859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NRR|0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84||cluster-averaged adjusted NRR|Agregated cluster-averaged|||||0.84|0.21|0.004
95736297|NCT00635492|191444867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Body Mass Index (BMI) - 1kg/m² higher||1.19|1.13|<0.0001
95736298|NCT00635492|191444868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Most recent HbA1c at baseline - 1% higher.||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
95857652|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.39||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|60.0|20.78|39.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.96|20.78|0.0078
95935916|NCT05321069|191834279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.89||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|83.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 9 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||83.33|6.44|0.0222
95935917|NCT05321069|191834279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.83||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.26|107.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nera 18 mg bid group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) in milliliters at each visit. Patients were treated as a random effect. Visit was treated as the repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||107.39|30.26|0.0005
95736299|NCT00635492|191444869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Age - 1 year older||0.97|0.95|<0.0001
95736300|NCT00635492|191444870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Diabetes Health Profile - 18 (DHP-18) subscale disinhibited eating - Yes vs. No||1.10|1.01|0.0083
95736301|NCT00635492|191444871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Random blood glucose - 1 mmol/L higher||0.99|0.90|0.0141
95736302|NCT00635492|191444872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Blood glucose self-monitoring - 1 test/week more||0.99|0.96|0.0107
95736303|NCT00635492|191444873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Receipt of diet/exercise advice - Yes vs. No||2.46|1.13|0.0193
95736304|NCT00635492|191444874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||LDL cholesterol - 1 mmol/L higher at baseline||0.96|0.72|0.0138
95736305|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.177|||Regression, Cox|||HbA1c (%) at baseline||1.177|1.062|<0.0001
95736306|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|0.985|||Regression, Cox|||DHP barriers to activity subscale at baseline||0.985|0.937|0.001
95736307|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.532|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.698|3.777|||Regression, Cox|||Gastrointestinal symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||3.777|1.698|<0.001
95736308|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.437|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.63|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: basal/bolus vs. long-acting only||0.630|0.303|<0.001
95736309|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.874|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: mixtures vs. long-acting only||0.874|0.523|0.003
95736310|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|1.718|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: other vs. long-acting only||1.718|0.175|0.303
95736311|NCT00635492|191444882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.681|2.785|||Regression, Cox|||Insulin regimen: short-acting only vs. long-acting only||2.785|1.681|<0.001
95736312|NCT00635492|191444883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|2.053|||Regression, Cox|||GI symptoms: yes vs. no at baseline||2.053|1.043|0.028
95736313|NCT00635492|191444883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.834|||Regression, Cox|||EQ-5D index value at baseline||0.834|0.432|0.002
95736314|NCT02834663|191444887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-3.592||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients were evaluated for changes in BCVA of the treated eye, from the start of the study till 6 months, until trial completion. After administration of each injection, measurements of BCVA were compared to their respective baseline results. The paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA was performed for comparative analysis, as all showed normality.||-3.592|-13.928|<0.0001
95736315|NCT02834663|191444888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|110.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.919||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.79|137.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||137.210|82.790|0.0001
95736316|NCT02834663|191444889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.932||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.884|5.956||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.956|1.884|0.001
95736317|NCT02834663|191444890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.15|1.30|0.0001
95736318|NCT02834663|191444891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
95935918|NCT05321069|191834280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group, baseline antifibrotic therapy use, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (hemoglobin-corrected) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.22|0.69|0.5443
95736319|NCT02834663|191444892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.62|2.67|0.0001
95736320|NCT02834663|191444893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.795||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.795|-0.751|0.221
95795310|NCT00855582|191560857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for change from Baseline at Week 8. Change= Week 8 minus Baseline|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.011
95935919|NCT05321069|191834280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, baseline antifibrotic therapy, age, baseline Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) percent predicted, and baseline Diffusing Capacity of the Lungs for Carbon Monoxide (DLCO) percent predicted (corrected for haemoglobin) as covariates. p-values not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.31|0.75|0.9512
95736321|NCT00571064|191444925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.6593
95736322|NCT00571064|191444925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6048|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.6048
95736323|NCT00571064|191444925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.5924
95736324|NCT00571064|191444926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||<0.0001
95736325|NCT00571064|191444926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
95736326|NCT00571064|191444926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||<0.0001
95736327|NCT00571064|191444928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.0431
95736328|NCT00571064|191444928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.0431
95736329|NCT00571064|191444930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.1285
95736330|NCT00571064|191444930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF (Study Endpoint)||||0.1285
95736331|NCT00571064|191444932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6 (Visit 3)||||0.2327
95736332|NCT00571064|191444932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12/ET (Visit 4)||||0.4724
95736333|NCT00571064|191444932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 LOCF - Study Endpoint||||0.4724
95795311|NCT00855582|191560858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.23||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.230
95736334|NCT00244764|191444933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|34.7||||||95.0|28.4|40.9|||||The estimated value provided is the response rate.|||40.9|28.4|
95736335|NCT00244764|191444934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|42.0||||||95.0|29.0|54.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of the first 60 participants who had stable disease at Week 12, as assessed by the investigator.|||54|29|
95736336|NCT02169115|191444944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95736337|NCT02169115|191444944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95736338|NCT02169115|191444944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95935920|NCT05321069|191834281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.67|0.76|0.5583
95736339|NCT03285594|191445001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.271|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.271|-0.638|<0.0001
95736340|NCT03285594|191445001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.387|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.387|-0.706|<0.0001
95736341|NCT03285594|191445002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6056||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8845|-6.8309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-6.8309|-24.8845|0.0006
95736342|NCT03285594|191445002|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7725|-13.8911|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-13.8911|-29.7725|<0.0001
95935921|NCT05321069|191834281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.65|0.75|0.5896
95935922|NCT05321069|191834282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.36|0.70|0.9038
95935923|NCT05321069|191834282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.56|0.82|0.4687
95935924|NCT05321069|191834283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.25|0.74|0.7695
95935925|NCT05321069|191834283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.10|0.64|0.2068
95935926|NCT05321069|191834284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.41|0.69|0.9251
95935927|NCT05321069|191834284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.26|0.62|0.4988
95935928|NCT05321069|191834285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.76|0.60|0.9084
95935929|NCT05321069|191834285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.43|0.46|0.4682
95935930|NCT05321069|191834286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 9mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.19|-3.20|0.3697
95935931|NCT05321069|191834286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nera 18mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis used a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment group and baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Dyspnea domain score. An unstructured covariance structure accounted for within-patient correlations. Baseline antifibrotic use, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.57|-2.83|0.5734
95935932|NCT05321069|191834287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.77|-2.98|0.9442
95935933|NCT05321069|191834287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Cough domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.28|-3.47|0.6862
95935934|NCT05321069|191834288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.63|-2.25|0.8759
95935935|NCT05321069|191834288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed categorical effects for treatment group at each visit, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy at each visit, and fixed continuous effects of the baseline Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) Fatigue domain score at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure modeled repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic use, recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF), was included as a covariate.||2.87|-2.02|0.7320
95935936|NCT05321069|191834289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.22|0.13|0.0280
95935937|NCT05321069|191834289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted Forced Vital Capacity between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form (CRF) page, was included as a covariate."||2.78|0.68|0.0013
95935938|NCT05321069|191834290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 9 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||4.19|0.79|0.0042
95935939|NCT05321069|191834290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in percent predicted DLCO between the Nera 18 mg BID group and the placebo group at Week 52.|"Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients.~Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication CRF page, was included as a covariate."||3.37|-0.02|0.0530
95935940|NCT05048186|191834291|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||we tested to see whether SDM Process scores were different between patients who received the Decision Aid Arm vs the control arm||0.236|-0.116|0.503
95935941|NCT04218266|191834301|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.67||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in all bleeding||0.67|0.26|
95935942|NCT04218266|191834303|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
95935943|NCT04218266|191834304|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.83||||||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH minor bleeding||0.83|0.28|
95935944|NCT04218266|191834305|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.97|||Other|||Comparison of the Asundexian pooled group (Asundexian 20 mg group and Asundexian 50 mg group) versus Apixaban group in ISTH major bleeding or CRNM bleeding||0.97|0.09|
95935945|NCT05161715|191834343|OTHER|||||||0.425||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
95935946|NCT05161715|191834344|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95935947|NCT05161715|191834345|OTHER|||||||0.0424||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0424
95935948|NCT05161715|191834346|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95935949|NCT05161715|191834351|OTHER|||||||0.556||||||No multiple testing correction was performed|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.556
95935950|NCT03775109|191834352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|44.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|It is estimated that improvement of histological alcoholic steatohepatitis will occur in 40% of patients treated with placebo and 80% of patients treated with Canakinumab. A trial with 80% power to detect a difference at the P \< 0.05 threshold would require 23 patients in each arm, 46 in total. Assuming a drop-out rate of 10%, we will recruit 52 patients in total (26 patients per group).||44.5|-11.2|0.248
95935951|NCT03775109|191834353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
95935952|NCT03775109|191834354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|81.004||||||||81.004|0.121|
95935953|NCT03775109|191834355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|9.965||||||||9.965|0.357|
95935954|NCT03775109|191834358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Change in log-transformed serum bilirubin from baseline to day 28. 49 participants were included in this analysis.||||||0.270
95935955|NCT03775109|191834359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: MELD score at Day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline MELD score. 49 patients have data at Day 28 and baseline.||||||0.03490
95935956|NCT03775109|191834360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.558|16.624|||||Ordinal logistic regression (proportional odds) model. GAHS at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline GAHS measurement. 48 participants have GAHS data at baseline and day 28.|||16.624|1.558|
95935957|NCT03775109|191834361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: mDF score at day 28 = intercept + treatment group indicator + baseline mDF score.||Natural log transformation used for both baseline and day 28 measurements. 49 participants have mDF measurements at baseline and day 28.||||0.343
95935958|NCT03775109|191834362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|0.696|||||difference = canakinumab - placebo. natural log transformation used.|||0.696|-0.529|
95935959|NCT03775109|191834363|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95935960|NCT03775109|191834364|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95935961|NCT03775109|191834365|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|7.424||||||||7.424|0.147|
95935962|NCT03775109|191834373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.322|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.322|-0.235|
95935963|NCT03775109|191834374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.127|||||Difference = Canakinumab - Placebo|||0.127|-0.388|
95935964|NCT03775109|191834375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|23.219||||||||23.219|0.693|
95935965|NCT03775109|191834376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|38.043||||||||38.043|0.543|
95935966|NCT03775109|191834377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|6.558||||||||6.558|0.456|
95935967|NCT03775109|191834378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.397||||||||3.397|0.281|
95935968|NCT03775109|191834379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|2.479||||||||2.479|0.238|
95935969|NCT00739648|191834383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.39|||Regression, Linear|negative binomial regression model||||1.39|0.86|0.7282
95935970|NCT00739648|191834385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.9768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.66|-27.8|0.9768
95935971|NCT00739648|191834386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-24.9|0.9464
95935972|NCT02549339|191834432|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.31|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||25.31|2.26|0.001
95935973|NCT02549339|191834433|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.54|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.54|3.30|<0.001
95935974|NCT02549339|191834434|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|10.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.20|3.24|<0.001
95988044|NCT04986202|191950583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0111||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8819|1.1592||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.1592|0.8819|0.874
95935975|NCT02549339|191834435|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.35||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.35|0.25|<0.001
95935976|NCT05873751|191834445|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
95935977|NCT05873751|191834446|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
95935978|NCT05873751|191834447|OTHER||Calibrated VE|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|15.59|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||15.59|-10.35|
95935979|NCT05873751|191834448|OTHER||Calibrated VE|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|13.85|||||VE = 1 - HR\*100. The HRs were estimated by exponentiating the coefficient for the vaccine variable in the model. VE was adjusted for the covariates age, gender, and US census region.|||13.85|-23.50|
95935980|NCT01095796|191834501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.6|8.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48 in the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the response rate in the Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla Group.||8.8|-1.6|
95935981|NCT03144518|191834534|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.079||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.014|0.173||ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, controlling for pre-intervention levels||VAS-Valence Scores||.173|.014|.005
95935982|NCT03144518|191834534|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta-Squared|0.04||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention scores||VAS-Arousal Scores||.120|.000|.047
95935983|NCT03144518|191834534|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.196|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||Pictorial Scale||.196|.022|.002
95935984|NCT03144518|191834534|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.036|||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline levels||PANAS Positive Affect Scores||.036|.000|.697
95935985|NCT03144518|191834534|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.005||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.053|||ANCOVA|||PANAS Negative Affect Scores||.053|.000|.462
95857653|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.11|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||6.20|-18.11|0.6802
95935986|NCT03144518|191834537|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.001||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.031|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-intervention levels||||.031|.000|.806
95935987|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.006||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.055|||ANCOVA|Controlling for Pre-Vaccination levels||4 Weeks A/Hong-Kong||.055|.000|.438
95935988|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.004||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.051|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Hong-Kong 16 Weeks Post-Vaccination||.051|.000|.516
95935989|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.002||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.038|||ANCOVA|controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 4 weeks post-vaccination||.038|.000|.671
95935990|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||A/Michigan 16 weeks post-vaccination||.000|.000|.980
95935991|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.057|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 4 weeks post-vaccination||.057|.000|.409
95935992|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.008||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.062|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Brisbane 16 weeks post-vaccination||.062|.000|.377
95935993|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.008|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||B/Phuket 4 weeks post-vaccination||.008|.000|.892
95935994|NCT03144518|191834538|SUPERIORITY|Note: The study was not powered a priori to detect significant differences in these outcomes.|Partial Eta Squared|0.007||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.058|||ANCOVA|Controlling for pre-vaccination levels||||.058|.000|.426
95935995|NCT00632203|191834552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995|||||||2-sided Exact Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.6995
95935996|NCT04238247|191834559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.876119||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193531|2.949084||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|We conducted logistic regression adjusted for randomization strata (recommended CRS and reason for eligibility).||We hypothesized the intervention group would have greater child passenger safety guideline adherence at 6 months compared with enhanced usual care group. In planning the trial, we assumed 75% of TCBD caregivers would be re-randomized. Baseline randomization was stratified by recommended CRS (rear-facing seat, forward-facing seat, booster seat) and reason for eligibility (not using the recommended CRS at baseline or planning a premature transition in the next 6 months).||2.949084|1.193531|0.006
95736343|NCT03285594|191445003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.716|-0.462|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.462|-1.716|0.0007
95736344|NCT03285594|191445003|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.274|-1.183|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.183|-2.274|<0.0001
95736345|NCT03285594|191445004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-0.178|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.178|-7.642|0.04
95736346|NCT03285594|191445004|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.161|-0.507|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.507|-7.161|0.0239
95935997|NCT04238247|191834560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8686678||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4535589|1.663695||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||This analysis is limited to the Phase 2 participants who were re-randomized at 6 months to test the hypothesis that the enhanced intervention (with booster MI session) would have greater guideline adherent child passenger safety behaviors at 12 month follow-up than the group that continued in the basic intervention (mHealth components).||1.663695|0.4535589|0.671
95935998|NCT04238247|191834560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.859599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.173121|14.82896|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.82896|3.173121|<0.001
95935999|NCT04238247|191834563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74029||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049169|2.886676||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.886676|1.049169|0.032
95936000|NCT04238247|191834564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112874||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735782|2.159233||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.159233|0.5735782|0.752
95736347|NCT03285594|191445005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.142||||||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.142|-7.73|
95736348|NCT03285594|191445005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.333|-1.448|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.448|-6.333|0.0018
95988045|NCT04986202|191950583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9157||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8002|1.0479||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 16 weeks||1.0479|0.8002|0.200
95736349|NCT03285594|191445006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.147|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.147|-1.185|0.1265
95936001|NCT04238247|191834564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.959981|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.321933|19.07362|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.07362|3.321933|<0.001
95764082|NCT02729909|191498211|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Mean Degree of Stool Consistency was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||0.7|0.2|<0.001
95764083|NCT02729909|191498212|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 1||-0.1|-0.9|0.020
95764084|NCT02729909|191498212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 2||||0.072
95764085|NCT02729909|191498212|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 3||-0.1|-0.9|<0.001
95764086|NCT02729909|191498212|SUPERIORITY||Median Value of CI|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Abdominal Bloating was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|Van Elteren Test|||Week 4||-0.1|-0.9|0.004
95764435|NCT00780338|191499088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.01
95857654|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|60.0|17.61|37.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||37.95|17.61|0.0216
95936002|NCT04950127|191834571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly Itch score (MIS), Visit\*Baseline MIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.28|-1.15|0.001
95936003|NCT04950127|191834572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Week, Week\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Weekly Itch score (WIS), Visit\*Baseline WIS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.34|-1.07|<0.001
95736350|NCT03285594|191445006|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.055|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.055|-1.199|0.074
95736351|NCT03285594|191445007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.707|0.696|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.696|-2.707|0.2466
95736352|NCT03285594|191445007|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.969|0.665|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 18 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at Week -1, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at Week -1, randomization strata of sulfonylureas use (yes, no) at Week -1, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.665|-1.969|0.332
95736353|NCT00556322|191445020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7299
95736354|NCT00556322|191445023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.21|0.72|0.6198
95736355|NCT00556322|191445023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.62|0.55|0.8398
95736356|NCT00556322|191445026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.97|0.0885
95736357|NCT00556322|191445029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR positive populations||1.61|0.98|0.0662
95736358|NCT00556322|191445029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Log Rank|||Comparison of EGFR negative populations||1.69|0.61|0.9403
95736359|NCT00556322|191445031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.55||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||p-values are based on non-stratified analysis|Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using Hauck-Anderson Method|||6.7|-3.6|0.5349
95736360|NCT00556322|191445033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.93|0.1498
95736361|NCT00556322|191445036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.90|0.2202
95736362|NCT00556322|191445039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.95|0.1063
95736363|NCT03733444|191445041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.29||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|52.4||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||52.4|-46.9|0.9123
95736364|NCT03733444|191445041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.01||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|50.8||P-value was based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||50.8|-47.4|0.9456
95736365|NCT03733444|191445042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.76|0.5162
95736366|NCT03733444|191445042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.71|0.7566
95736367|NCT03733444|191445043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.85|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.85|1.20|
95736368|NCT03733444|191445043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.1|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.10|0.93|
95736369|NCT03733444|191445044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.0||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-3.2|0.9370
95857655|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-14.58|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.88|-14.58|0.9026
95936004|NCT04950127|191834573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.07||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Monthly sleep score (MSS), Visit\*Baseline MSS interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.07|-0.98|0.024
95736370|NCT03733444|191445044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.4|0.8064
95736371|NCT03733444|191445045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|46.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||46.8|-41.1|
95736372|NCT03733444|191445045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|51.5|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||51.5|-35.5|
95736373|NCT03733444|191445046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.94|0.90|
95736374|NCT03733444|191445046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.56|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.56|0.72|
95736375|NCT03733444|191445047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|14.1|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||14.1|-12.4|
95736376|NCT03733444|191445047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|17.6|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||17.6|-10.4|
95736377|NCT03733444|191445048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||2.35|1.01|
95736378|NCT03733444|191445048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.16|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all cause hospitalization.|||2.16|0.91|
95736379|NCT03733444|191445051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.14|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||8.14|1.04|
95736380|NCT03733444|191445051|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.13|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||5.13|0.55|
95736381|NCT03733444|191445052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
95736382|NCT03733444|191445052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
95736383|NCT03733444|191445053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.82|1.06|
95736384|NCT03733444|191445053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.06|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.06|0.86|
95857656|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.91||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|31.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||31.24|9.51|0.1146
95736385|NCT03733444|191445054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||3.31|1.20|
95736386|NCT03733444|191445054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.54|0.88|
95736387|NCT03733444|191445055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.31|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||3.31|1.20|
95736388|NCT03733444|191445055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.54|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||2.54|0.88|
95736389|NCT01001208|191445076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||<0.0001
95736390|NCT01001208|191445077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
95736391|NCT01001208|191445078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
95736392|NCT01001208|191445079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
95857657|NCT00658359|191673383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.18|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.90|-19.18|0.6918
95988046|NCT04986202|191950583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.1063||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.2631||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2631|0.9690|0.135
95736393|NCT01001208|191445080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
95736394|NCT01001208|191445081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
95736395|NCT01001208|191445082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0348
95736396|NCT01001208|191445083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0112||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.0112
95736397|NCT01001208|191445084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
95736398|NCT01001208|191445085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995||95.0||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|2-sided van Elteren test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group and prior anti-TNF exposure group||||||0.1995
95736399|NCT01864174|191445087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study provided 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority in change from baseline mean HbA1c at Week 24, with an assumed standard deviation (SD) of 1.0%, a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%, and 2-sided alpha of 0.05 for the primary comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0687|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||||METFORMIN XR VS METFORMIN IR|||0.17|-0.10|
95795312|NCT00855582|191560858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736400|NCT02648347|191445092|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.15|-0.04|
95736401|NCT02648347|191445093|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.412|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.412|0.955|=0.2050
95736402|NCT02648347|191445093|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
95736403|NCT02648347|191445094|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.14|-0.06|
95736404|NCT02648347|191445095|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.382|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.382|0.966|=0.1743
95736405|NCT02648347|191445095|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
95736406|NCT02648347|191445096|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||=|0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.564|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.564|0.901|=0.3154
95795313|NCT00855582|191560859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.191||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.191
95795314|NCT00855582|191560859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95988047|NCT04986202|191950583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0842||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9527|1.2339||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 24 weeks||1.2339|0.9527|0.220
95988048|NCT04986202|191950583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0496||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9211|1.196||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1960|0.9211|0.467
95736407|NCT02648347|191445096|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
95736408|NCT02648347|191445097|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.594|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.594|0.808|=0.5991
95736409|NCT02648347|191445097|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
95736410|NCT02648347|191445098|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.375|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0014 has been reported in this section.||1.375|0.902|=0.4388
95736411|NCT02648347|191445098|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
95795315|NCT00855582|191560860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.763||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.763
95988049|NCT04986202|191950583|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0312||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.1711||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, neutrophil count stratification factor and the log-transformed baseline value are included in the model as explanatory variables.|Geometric mean ratio in change from baseline between AZD4831 and placebo.|Change from baseline at 48 weeks||1.1711|0.9080|0.636
95988050|NCT03823391|191950589|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|-0.15|||Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Between groups difference was a single-arm comparison of LS mean of ABBV-3373 estimated from the MMRM model above minus the historical mean of adalimumab (-2.13).|Two primary comparisons were performed between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab. The first was the comparison of ABBV-3373 to historical adalimumab reference value -2.13 based on a meta-analysis consisting of 242 subjects from 3 historical adalimumab studies in which the success criterion was 2-sided P value ≤ 0.1.||-0.15|-0.89|0.022
95736412|NCT01639222|191445109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|179.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.16|205.52|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D/reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|The primary parameters were analysed in a mixed effects general linear model of the logtransformed values, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The objective of the trial was met if the treatment contrast was statistically significantly different from 0 in the appropriate direction in a 2-sided test on a 5% significance level for both parameters. The 5% significance level for both primary parameters was not adjusted for multiple testing.||205.52|157.16|
95736413|NCT01639222|191445110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|71.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|74.84|||||Point estimate and 95% CI for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D /reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||74.84|68.83|
95736414|NCT01639222|191445111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Calcium-Vitamin D/Reference (%)|156.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.66|201.93|||||Point estimates and 95% CIs for the treatment difference ratio (Calcium-Vitamin D / reference treatment) are provided on the original scale as a ratio \* 100%.|||201.93|121.66|
95736415|NCT03117296|191445135|OTHER||Rank-Sum|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Univariate 2-group comparisons were performed using χ2 and Fisher's exact tests (when expected cell counts are \<5) for categorical variables, using 2-group t tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (when normality distributions were violated) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P \< .05. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).||||<0.01
95736416|NCT00838279|191445138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.31||||||90.0|97.82|102.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.85|97.82|
95736417|NCT00838279|191445139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.78||||||90.0|99.09|104.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.55|99.09|
95736418|NCT00838279|191445140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.94||||||90.0|97.4|102.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.55|97.40|
95736419|NCT03273153|191445149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.88|0.2954
95736420|NCT00913627|191445173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|20.19||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.19|12.13|<0.001
95736421|NCT00913627|191445173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|20.99||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||20.99|13.02|<0.001
95736422|NCT00913627|191445173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|16.26||p-value adjusted for baseline pain severity rating (PSR) and gender|ANOVA|||||16.26|8.33|<0.001
95736423|NCT00913627|191445174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||8.38|4.30|<0.001
95736424|NCT00913627|191445174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|9.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||9.08|5.05|<0.001
95857658|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.09|12.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||12.14|1.09|0.3139
95736425|NCT00913627|191445174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||7.06|3.04|<0.001
95736426|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
95736427|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
95736428|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.94|-42.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|8 hours||-42.27|-76.94|<0.001
95736429|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-72.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.56|-55.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-55.83|-88.56|<0.001
95736430|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
95736431|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-57.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.43|-40.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|9 hours||-40.16|-75.43|<0.001
95736432|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-66.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-49.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-49.60|-83.98|<0.001
95736433|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-70.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.14|-54.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-54.30|-87.14|<0.001
95736434|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH adjusted proportions|10 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
95736435|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
95736436|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-68.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.63|-54.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-54.14|-85.63|<0.001
95736437|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.85|-38.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours||-38.11|-73.85|<0.001
95736438|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-63.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.82|-46.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-46.06|-80.82|<0.001
95857659|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.06|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||1.31|-10.06|0.5176
95736439|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-65.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.49|-48.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-48.07|-82.49|<0.001
95736440|NCT00913627|191445177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-50.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.09|-32.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours||-32.45|-69.09|<0.001
95736441|NCT00913627|191445178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|6.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.51|4.18|<0.001
95736442|NCT00913627|191445178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||6.40|4.09|<0.001
95736443|NCT00913627|191445178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 0-4||5.12|2.83|<0.001
95736444|NCT00913627|191445178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|9.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.43|5.63|<0.001
95736445|NCT00913627|191445178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||9.56|5.80|<0.001
95736446|NCT00913627|191445178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|7.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPID 4-8||7.36|3.62|<0.001
95736447|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|16.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.27|10.68|<0.001
95736448|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||16.01|10.48|<0.001
95936005|NCT04950127|191834574|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|4.0||||0.539||95.0|-9.0|17.0||Adjusted for multiplicity as per Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and less than \[\<\]7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains Bile Acid Binding Resin \[BABR\], Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||17.0|-9.0|0.539
95936006|NCT04950127|191834575|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||27.0|0.0|0.043
95936007|NCT04950127|191834576|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||Adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p-values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified analysis adjusted for baseline factors: Baseline Itch Severity (Moderate: \>=4 and \<7, Severe: \>=7); Concomitant cholestatic pruritus treatment regimen (Regimen contains BABR, Regimen does not contain BABR, No defined treatment). Multiple imputation of missing Monthly itch scores was done before deriving responder definitions. Imputed datasets were analyzed using the CMH method and combined.||24.0|-0.0|0.058
95936008|NCT04950127|191834577|SUPERIORITY|Cognitive|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.86||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.86|-0.34|0.176
95936009|NCT04950127|191834577|SUPERIORITY|Emotional|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.89|-0.36|0.403
95936010|NCT04950127|191834577|SUPERIORITY|Fatigue|Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.67||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||3.67|-0.48|0.132
95936011|NCT04950127|191834577|SUPERIORITY|Itch|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||0.18|-1.34|0.132
95936012|NCT04950127|191834577|SUPERIORITY|Social|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.27||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.27|-1.57|0.836
95936013|NCT04950127|191834577|SUPERIORITY|Symptoms|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PBC-40 domain scores, Visit\*Baseline PBC-40 domain scores interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||1.34|-0.44|0.318
95936014|NCT04950127|191834578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.2||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline PGI-S score, Visit\*Baseline PGI-S score interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.20|-0.55|<0.001
95936015|NCT04950127|191834579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Not adjusted for multiplicity; two-sided p- values \<0.05 were considered to be nominally significant as per SAP.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures analysis includes Treatment Group, Visit, Visit\*Treatment Group interaction, Baseline Concomitant Itch Medication.||-0.21|-0.76|<0.001
95936016|NCT00522951|191834614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||||95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.29|-0.87|
95936017|NCT00522951|191834614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|-0.23|0.36|||||Averaged blinded reader (primary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.36|-0.23|
95736449|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|12.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-4||12.83|7.33|<0.001
95736450|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.71|23.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.71|14.71|<0.001
95736451|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|23.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||23.78|14.86|<0.001
95736452|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|18.3||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 4-8||18.30|9.44|<0.001
95736453|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|21.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||21.07|11.29|<0.001
95736454|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|22.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||22.49|12.81|<0.001
95736455|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|17.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 8-12||17.59|7.97|<0.001
95795316|NCT00855582|191560860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.075||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.075
95736456|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|50.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||50.69|31.48|<0.001
95795317|NCT00855582|191560861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.384||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.384
95988051|NCT03823391|191950589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899||||||Posterior probability|Historical data borrowing|Based on posterior distribution of means for each group, the probability of Treatment mean - Control mean \< 0 given the observed data was calculated.||The second comparison was ABBV-3373 to adalimumab with combined in-trial and borrowed historical adalimumab data using a Bayesian historical borrowing approach in which the success criterion was posterior probability of ABBV-3373 being better than adalimumab \> 95%. When borrowing 30 historical adalimumab subjects, the combined least squares mean change from Baseline was -2.29.||||0.899
95795318|NCT00855582|191560861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||0.082
95736457|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.15|52.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||52.17|33.15|<0.001
95736458|NCT00913627|191445179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|40.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-12||40.53|21.63|<0.001
95736459|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|9.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.80|6.45|<0.001
95736460|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|9.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||9.65|6.34|<0.001
95736461|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-4||7.75|4.46|<0.001
95736462|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|14.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.34|9.02|<0.001
95736463|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|14.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||14.27|9.01|<0.001
95736464|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|11.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 4-8||11.00|5.76|<0.001
95736465|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|12.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||12.75|6.93|<0.001
95736466|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|13.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||13.46|7.71|<0.001
95736467|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|10.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 8-12||10.59|4.87|<0.001
95795319|NCT00855582|191560862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95857660|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|12.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||12.06|1.02|0.3191
95936018|NCT00522951|191834614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H01: μG1 - μPr ≤ -1||-0.1|-0.5|
95936019|NCT00522951|191834614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = -1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||||95.0|0.02|0.41|||||Investigator (secondary analysis)|H02: μG2 - μPr ≤ -1||0.41|0.02|
95936020|NCT01066026|191834630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|pilot study.|descritive variables|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0|||McNemar||50 was the percentage of hematomas expected for standard needle group.|||95|5|<0.0001
95936021|NCT02713126|191834634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
95936022|NCT02713126|191834635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95936023|NCT02713126|191834636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
95936024|NCT02713126|191834637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
95936025|NCT02713126|191834638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.496
95936026|NCT02140645|191834639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.624|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936027|NCT02140645|191834640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistcs|0.597|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936028|NCT02140645|191834641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.0858|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95736468|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|30.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||30.61|19.24|<0.001
95736469|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|31.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||31.28|20.03|<0.001
95736470|NCT00913627|191445180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|24.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-12||24.38|13.19|<0.001
95936029|NCT02140645|191834642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.623|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936030|NCT02140645|191834643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.1753|||||||||||||The R-squared can be between 0 and 1 and a value of 0 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936031|NCT02140645|191834644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.699|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936032|NCT02140645|191834645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.683|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936033|NCT02140645|191834646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.757|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936034|NCT02140645|191834647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936035|NCT02140645|191834648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.618|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936036|NCT02140645|191834649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.733|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936037|NCT02140645|191834650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.827|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936038|NCT02140645|191834651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.801|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936039|NCT02140645|191834652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistics|0.836|||||||||||||The C-statistics can be between 0.5 and 1 and a value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.|||||
95936040|NCT05450458|191834653|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for KOOS score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Change Baseline to month 6|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|Post hoc pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori significance level was set at 0.05|The value represents the intra-individual median KOOS improvement from baseline to month 6 after treatment. Changes were evaluated across time points within a single cohort.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve KOOS function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.23|0.15|<0.001
95736471|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|25.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||25.36|1.26|0.080
95736472|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.39||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|29.04||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||29.04|3.73|0.043
95936041|NCT05450458|191834654|OTHER|This study assessed longitudinal effects within a single patient group. Statistical power was calculated using a significance level of 0.05, 80% power, and 60 patients, accounting for IKDC score variability over time. The Friedman test was applied with post hoc analyses (Conover and Bonferroni). Since treatments were not compared, no non-inferiority or equivalence margin was defined|Median Baseline to Month 6|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24||P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Friedman Test|The overall p-value is unadjusted. The a priori significance level was set at 0.05 to robustly control the Type I error|This value represents the intra-individual median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months after treatment. The analysis was conducted within a single cohort without comparator arms.|The statistical analysis will use the Friedman test, as the Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed a non-normal distribution. Conover's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction will adjust for multiple comparisons. The null hypothesis states that hyaluronic acid injections with sorbitol do not significantly improve IKDC function and pain scores over time. A power analysis was performed to ensure an adequate sample size for detecting clinically meaningful differences.||0.24|0.12|0.01
95936042|NCT05450458|191834656|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month IKDC score|Baseline to month 6|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21||P-values from pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Bonferroni method to control for multiple testing. The global p-value from the Friedman test was not adjusted. An a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median IKDC improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI (≥25). No comparator group was used. Confidence interval calculated via bootstrap (resampling with 1,000 iterations).|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function across time. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Changes across the four time points (baseline, 15 days, 3 months, and 6 months) were evaluated using the Friedman test. Pairwise comparisons were performed post hoc using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with Bonferroni correction at a 5% significance threshold.||0.21|0.14|0.001
95936043|NCT05450458|191834656|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority analysis. Data normality was first assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and due to non-normal distributions, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was applied to compare paired baseline and six-month KOOS score|Baseline to Month 6|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|22.0||The p-values reported were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|Friedman test conducted with 3 degrees of freedom. Bonferroni correction applied in pairwise Wilcoxon post hoc comparisons.|Median KOOS improvement from baseline to 6 months in 22 athletes with elevated BMI. CI calculated via bootstrap resampling (1,000 iterations). No comparator group was involved.|The analysis was conducted under the null hypothesis of no change in knee function between baseline and six months. The study was designed with sufficient power to detect clinically meaningful improvements, with significance determined at a conventional level||22|13|<0.001
95936044|NCT01101451|191834658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6976||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.192||the pre\_specified nominal significance level was 0.0451 (one sided).|Log Rank||The RFS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.192|0.408|0.0927
95936045|NCT01101451|191834659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.199|||||The OS hazard ratio estimate is for reporting group 2 vs reporting group 1.|||1.199|0.286|
95936046|NCT00539734|191834675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing pre-operative data with postoperative data in terms of changes in amplitude height and implicit time.||||<0.05
95936047|NCT02794480|191834678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||<0.001
95936048|NCT02794480|191834678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI|Mainland-Gart test||||Mainland-Gart test is favorable over the McNemar test for matched pairs as the latter is only valid in case of no period effects.|||0.007
95936049|NCT02794480|191834683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus GSK MDI||||2.42|<0.001
95936050|NCT02794480|191834683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59||The upper limit is infinity.|Exact odds ratio calculated using exact conditional logistic regression adjusted for treatment and treatment period.|Conditional Logistic Regression||ELLIPTA versus AZ MDI||||1.59|0.011
95736473|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.39||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|15.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||15.40|-4.62|0.354
95736474|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.34|63.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||63.96|33.34|<0.001
95736475|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.15|66.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||66.73|37.15|<0.001
95736476|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.62|50.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||50.98|22.62|<0.001
95857661|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-8.62|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||2.71|-8.62|0.6608
95736477|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|73.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||73.57|41.20|<0.001
95736478|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|66.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.56|81.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||81.78|51.56|<0.001
95736479|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|66.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||66.21|34.20|<0.001
95736480|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|67.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.36|83.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||83.93|51.36|<0.001
95736481|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|70.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.16|86.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||86.05|55.16|<0.001
95736482|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.32|69.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||69.38|34.32|<0.001
95736483|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736484|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|74.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.29|89.14||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||89.14|59.29|<0.001
95736485|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736486|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736487|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
95736488|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736489|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736490|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
95736491|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736492|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736493|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
95736494|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736495|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736496|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
95736497|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736498|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736499|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
95857662|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.37|13.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||13.66|2.37|0.2319
95736500|NCT00913627|191445181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736501|NCT00913627|191445182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|13.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|37.89||p-value adjusted for gender and categorical baseline pain severity|Proportional hazards regression|||||37.89|4.85|<0.001
95736502|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|2.03||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|6.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||6.02|-1.95|0.434
95736503|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||0.00|0.00|
95736504|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.78||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|5.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 minutes||5.27|-1.71|0.469
95736505|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.13||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||16.93|1.33|0.101
95736506|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.73||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|18.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||18.91|2.54|0.069
95736507|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.59||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|8.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30 minutes||8.57|-1.39|0.303
95736508|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|24.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|38.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||38.47|10.68|0.008
95736509|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|25.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.35|39.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||39.28|11.35|0.007
95736510|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||45 minutes||21.92|-0.68|0.129
95736511|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.25|63.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||63.19|32.25|<0.001
95736512|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|36.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.24|50.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||50.78|21.24|<0.001
95736513|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|27.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.93|41.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||60 minutes||41.81|13.93|0.003
95736514|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|61.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.12|75.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||75.89|46.12|<0.001
95736515|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.85|68.8||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||68.80|38.85|<0.001
95936051|NCT00976937|191834771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|11.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 or \>=8.0%) and randomization strata of screening BMI (\<35 or \>=35 kg/m\^2) was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To demonstrate the superiority of lixisenatide over sitagliptin, 150 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% with a 2-sided test at the 5% significance level, assuming the percentage of patients defined as responders on HbA1c (\<7%) and weight (at least 5% loss) is 25% with lixisenatide and 10% with sitagliptin.||11.00|-1.84|0.1696
95936052|NCT00879060|191834807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||1.0
95736516|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.89|61.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||90 minutes||61.58|31.89|<0.001
95736517|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.37|80.18||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||80.18|49.37|<0.001
95736518|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.01|79.59||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||79.59|50.01|<0.001
95736519|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.27|66.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||120 minutes||66.11|34.27|<0.001
95736520|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|68.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.81|84.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||84.38|52.81|<0.001
95736521|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|87.26||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||87.26|57.05|<0.001
95736522|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.57|70.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||180 minutes||70.37|36.57|<0.001
95795320|NCT00855582|191560862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736523|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
95736524|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.68|93.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||93.05|65.68|<0.001
95736525|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.46|73.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||240 minutes||73.60|40.46|<0.001
95736526|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|72.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|87.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||87.84|57.48|<0.001
95736527|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.91|94.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||94.49|67.91|<0.001
95736528|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.34|75.35||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||300 minutes||75.35|42.34|<0.001
95736529|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|85.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||85.33|53.33|<0.001
95736530|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|77.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.57|92.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||92.06|63.57|<0.001
95936053|NCT00879060|191834807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable PIIINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.8
95736531|NCT00913627|191445183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.88|75.84||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||360 minutes||75.84|41.88|<0.001
95736532|NCT00913627|191445184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
95736533|NCT00913627|191445184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.02|0.88|<0.001
95736534|NCT00913627|191445184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.98|0.70|<0.001
95736535|NCT00913627|191445185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.85|<0.001
95736536|NCT00913627|191445185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.91|<0.001
95736537|NCT00913627|191445185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Goodman-Kruskal Gamma Statistic|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||p-value from CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.79|<0.001
95736538|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.008
95736539|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.38|0.06|0.007
95736540|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.34|0.02|0.024
95736541|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.78|0.24|<0.001
95736542|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.73||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.73|0.20|<0.001
95736543|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.68|0.16|0.002
95795321|NCT00855582|191560863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736544|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.17|0.52|<0.001
95736545|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.11|0.47|<0.001
95736546|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||0.94|0.30|<0.001
95936054|NCT00879060|191834807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.aseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare continuous variable ICTP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups at baseline.||||0.3
95736547|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.37|0.65|<0.001
95736548|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.44|0.73|<0.001
95736549|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.25|0.54|<0.001
95736550|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.63|0.90|<0.001
95736551|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.69|0.97|<0.001
95736552|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||1.45|0.74|<0.001
95736553|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.09|<0.001
95736554|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.82|1.10|<0.001
95736555|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||1.38|0.67|<0.001
95736556|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.00|1.26|<0.001
95736557|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.98|1.25|<0.001
95936055|NCT00879060|191834807|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable PINP (serum marker of collagen formation/degradation) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
95936056|NCT00879060|191834808|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable peak oxygen consumption with exercise (peak VO2) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
95936057|NCT00879060|191834809|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
95936058|NCT00879060|191834810|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable Septal E/e' between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||1.0
95936059|NCT00879060|191834811|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable percentage of left ventricular mass (%LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
95936060|NCT00879060|191834812|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable maximum left ventricular wall thickness (Max LV) between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.4
95736558|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||1.57|0.85|<0.001
95857663|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.43|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.58|-12.43|0.3554
95936061|NCT00879060|191834813|OTHER||Absolute difference|5.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left ventricular end-diastolic (LVED) cavity size between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.7
95936062|NCT00879060|191834814|OTHER||Absolute difference|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||An a priori threshold for statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample T-test was used to compare the absolute differences in change from baseline to 12 months in continuous variable left atrial dimension between spironolactone treated and placebo groups.||||0.8
95736559|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.08|1.33|<0.001
95736560|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.97|1.23|<0.001
95857664|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.33|24.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||24.57|12.33|0.0113
95857665|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.479|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.07|12.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||12.39|-1.07|0.4790
95936063|NCT02539225|191834827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.698
95936064|NCT02539225|191834828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.549
95936065|NCT02539225|191834829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Log Rank Stratified|||||||0.548
95936066|NCT02539225|191834830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.374||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.844|2.236|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.236|0.844|0.402
95936067|NCT02539225|191834831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.527||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|3.433|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.433|0.680|0.501
95936068|NCT01424670|191834852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562||||||For testing the null hypothesis, the distribution of the time to SCC within the 6-month Intensive Period were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the stratified modified Peto-Peto modification of Gehan's Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Modified Peto-Peto test|||Comparison of distributions of time to SCC using the MGIT culture system during the 6-month (26-week) Intensive Period.||||0.0562
95936069|NCT01424670|191834853|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.096||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 2 months.||1.352|0.889|0.3818
95936070|NCT01424670|191834853|SUPERIORITY|For testing the homogeneity of proportions, 2 samples were compared using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Ratio of Probability|1.017||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.115|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistics were used for estimation.|Statistical comparison of proportion of participants with SCC at 6 months.||1.115|0.927|0.7131
95936071|NCT01424670|191834854|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.969||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.084|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 18.||1.084|0.866|0.5945
95936072|NCT01424670|191834854|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.97||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.089|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 24.||1.089|0.864|0.6164
95936073|NCT01424670|191834854|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with sustained SCC at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
95736561|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||1.54|0.81|<0.001
95736562|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.00|1.20|<0.001
95736563|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.98|1.19|<0.001
95736564|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||1.52|0.73|<0.001
95736565|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.9||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.90|1.08|<0.001
95736566|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.97|1.16|<0.001
95936074|NCT01424670|191834855|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.965||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.073|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportions with favorable treatment outcomes assessed by the Principal Investigator.||1.073|0.869|0.5269
95936075|NCT01424670|191834857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical comparison of mean AUC of change from Baseline.||1.3|-1.9|0.6986
95936076|NCT01424670|191834858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6825|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 1.||||0.6825
95936077|NCT01424670|191834858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 2.||||0.807
95936078|NCT01424670|191834858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 3.||||0.269
95936079|NCT01424670|191834858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2333|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 24.||||0.2333
95736567|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||1.53|0.72|<0.001
95736568|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.79|0.97|<0.001
95736569|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.95|1.14|<0.001
95736570|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||1.43|0.62|<0.001
95736571|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.77||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.77|0.93|<0.001
95736572|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
95736573|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||1.46|0.63|<0.001
95736574|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.71|0.87|<0.001
95736575|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.81|0.97|<0.001
95736576|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||1.39|0.56|<0.001
95936080|NCT01424670|191834858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Month 6.||||0.9397
95936081|NCT01424670|191834859|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio of Probability|0.991||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.127|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison of proportion with treatment success at Month 30.||1.127|0.872|0.8951
95936082|NCT03580369|191834860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|-5.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.428|-10.576|<.0001
95936083|NCT03580369|191834860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.169|2.513|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.513|-1.169|0.7628
95936084|NCT03580369|191834860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.522|-5.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||-5.047|-10.522|<.0001
95936085|NCT03580369|191834860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|2.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults||2.538|-1.118|0.7768
95936086|NCT03580369|191834862|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.667|12.095|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.095|2.667|<.0001
95936087|NCT03580369|191834862|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.180|0.598|0.8430
95936088|NCT03580369|191834862|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.734|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|12.207|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||12.207|2.694|<.0001
95936089|NCT03580369|191834862|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|0.848||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.188|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.188|0.605|0.8312
95936090|NCT03580369|191834863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.271|-1.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||-1.929|-4.271|<.0001
95936091|NCT03580369|191834863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.258|-0.419|0.8366
95736577|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.68|0.82|<0.001
95736578|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.89|1.03|<0.001
95736579|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||1.45|0.60|<0.001
95936092|NCT03580369|191834863|SUPERIORITY|Adults|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.295|-1.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-1.966|-4.295|<.0001
95936093|NCT03580369|191834863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults||1.222|-0.444|0.8201
95936094|NCT03580369|191834865|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.621|4.656|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||4.656|1.621|<.0001
95936095|NCT03580369|191834865|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.836||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.159|0.603|0.8586
95936096|NCT03580369|191834865|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.929|5.513|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||5.513|1.929|<.0001
95936097|NCT03580369|191834865|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults||1.373|0.717|0.5190
95936098|NCT03580369|191834866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.48|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.480|1.183|<.0001
95936099|NCT03580369|191834866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.975||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.051|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.051|0.904|0.7469
95936100|NCT03580369|191834866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.54|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.540|1.230|<.0001
95736580|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.64|0.77|<0.001
95736581|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.87|1.00|<0.001
95736582|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||1.48|0.61|<0.001
95736583|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.68||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.68|0.81|<0.001
95936101|NCT03580369|191834866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.014||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.092|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults||1.092|0.941|0.3586
95936102|NCT06143670|191834984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95936103|NCT06143670|191834985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-14.1|-19.6|<0.0001
95936104|NCT06143670|191834986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-13.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.1|-18.9|<0.0001
95936105|NCT06143670|191834986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-15.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-15.3|-19.9|<0.0001
95936106|NCT06143670|191834987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.2|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.20|-0.35|<0.0001
95936107|NCT06143670|191834987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.26|<0.0001
95936108|NCT06143670|191834987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.22|-0.36|<0.0001
95936109|NCT06143670|191834988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.16|-0.28|<0.0001
95936110|NCT06143670|191834988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.10|-0.21|<0.0001
95936111|NCT06143670|191834988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.18|-0.30|<0.0001
95936112|NCT06143670|191834989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.10|-0.15|<0.0001
95936113|NCT06143670|191834989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.13|-0.17|<0.0001
95736584|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.82|0.96|<0.001
95736585|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||1.39|0.53|<0.001
95736586|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.64|0.75|<0.001
95736587|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.65|0.77|<0.001
95736588|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||1.36|0.49|<0.001
95736589|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.53|0.60|<0.001
95736590|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.58|0.66|<0.001
95736591|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
95736592|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.51|0.61|<0.001
95736593|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.48|0.58|<0.001
95795322|NCT00855582|191560863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95936114|NCT06143670|191834989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.11|-0.16|<0.0001
95936115|NCT06143670|191834990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.53|-0.74|<0.0001
95736594|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.4||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||1.40|0.52|<0.001
95736595|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.24||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.24|0.31|0.001
95736596|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.28|0.36|<0.001
95736597|NCT00913627|191445186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.33|0.42|<0.001
95736598|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.57|0.02|0.034
95736599|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.49|-0.05|0.111
95736600|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.48|-0.06|0.125
95736601|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.22|0.41|<0.001
95736602|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.01|0.22|0.003
95736603|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||0.98|0.19|0.004
95736604|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.91|0.91|<0.001
95736605|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.74|0.75|<0.001
95736606|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||1.39|0.41|<0.001
95736607|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.16|1.11|<0.001
95736608|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.09||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||2.09|1.05|<0.001
95736609|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||1.78|0.75|<0.001
95736610|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.52|1.46|<0.001
95857666|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.93|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||16.99|3.93|0.1776
95936116|NCT06143670|191834990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.56|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.56|-0.74|<0.0001
95736611|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.61|1.57|<0.001
95736612|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||2.20|1.16|<0.001
95736613|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.64||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.64|1.59|<0.001
95736614|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.74||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.74|1.70|<0.001
95795323|NCT00855582|191560864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95936117|NCT06143670|191834990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.58|-0.77|<0.0001
95936118|NCT00837369|191834995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compare the differences in sensitivity between myocardial perfusion and wall motion for detecting stenosis.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95936119|NCT00837369|191834995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Compare the sensitivity of myocardial perfusion in detecting stenosis within the first 4 minutes after regadenoson bolus injection to that of wall motion|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95936120|NCT05691452|191835009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.05||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.68|90.78||Generalized linear models generated estimated mean differences in the post-intervention values controlling for the baseline assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||90.78|-50.68|0.578
95936121|NCT05691452|191835010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|59.5|||Regression, Linear|||||59.5|-101.9|0.61
95736615|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||2.21|1.18|<0.001
95736616|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.01|1.98|<0.001
95736617|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.99|1.97|<0.001
95736618|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.38||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||2.38|1.37|<0.001
95795324|NCT00855582|191560864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736619|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.07|2.01|<0.001
95736620|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.97||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.97|1.92|<0.001
95795325|NCT00855582|191560865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95936122|NCT05691452|191835011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.78|||Regression, Linear|||||8.78|-5.68|0.674
95936123|NCT05691452|191835012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-4.59|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.59|-38.5|.013
95936124|NCT05691452|191835013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|1.109|||Regression, Linear|||||1.109|-0.335|0.29
95936125|NCT05691452|191835014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.833|||Regression, Linear|||||0.833|-1.24|0.701
95936126|NCT05691452|191835015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.45||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.99|26.08|||Regression, Linear|||||26.08|-68.99|0.376
95936127|NCT05485922|191835016|SUPERIORITY|Number of flow-stop episodes will be analysed, in a generalized linier mixed model, with subject included as a random component. Evidence of superior effect will be concluded, if the lower 95% confidence limit of the risk ratio between comparator and investigational device, is more than 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|0.05|<0.05
95936128|NCT05485922|191835017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|53.91||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||53.91|14.69|0.05
95936129|NCT05485922|191835018|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.44|0.05|0.05
95988052|NCT03823391|191950589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.45|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|The mean difference in change from Baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Week 12 between ABBV-3373 and adalimumab was also estimated only based on in-study data.||0.45|-0.74|0.683
95736621|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.33||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||2.33|1.29|<0.001
95936130|NCT05485922|191835019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-95.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.69|-53.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The intra-catheter pressure at flow stop was analysed in a general linear mixed model with subject included as a random component.||-53.70|-137.69|0.05
95936131|NCT05485922|191835020|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|13.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.51|-11.10|0.05
95736622|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.03||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.03|1.92|<0.001
95936132|NCT05485922|191835021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model, modelling the probability of a positive outcome. Evidence of effect in favour of the MHZC was concluded if the upper 95% confidence limit (CL) of the odds ratio, O.R. was less than 1.||0.96|0.07|0.05
95936133|NCT04173663|191835063|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.27||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the parental empowerment scale.||||||.092
95936134|NCT04173663|191835064|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.62||||1.54e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.0000154
95936135|NCT04173663|191835065|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.014
95936136|NCT04173663|191835066|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||0.883
95988053|NCT03823391|191950590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.207||0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|3.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||3.70|-7.08|0.601
95736623|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.96|1.87|<0.001
95736624|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.25||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||2.25|1.16|<0.001
95795326|NCT00855582|191560865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736625|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.83|1.69|<0.001
95936137|NCT04173663|191835067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (6 month post intervention)||||.308
95936138|NCT04173663|191835067|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of services family applied for (12 month post intervention)||||.355
95936139|NCT04173663|191835068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.699
95936140|NCT04173663|191835068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of government services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.573
95936141|NCT04173663|191835068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (6 month post intervention)||||.430
95936142|NCT04173663|191835068|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of direct services the family is receiving (12 month post intervention)||||.391
95936143|NCT04173663|191835069|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.44||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (6 month post intervention)||||.510
95936144|NCT04173663|191835069|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Whether participants were engaged or not engaged in vocational/educational activities (12 month post intervention)||||.296
95936145|NCT04173663|191835070|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||||||.361
95936146|NCT04173663|191835071|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (6 month post intervention)||||.810
95936147|NCT04173663|191835071|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site, cohort, and baseline value of the measure.||Outcome Variable: Number of unmet service needs (12 month post intervention)||||.678
95936148|NCT04173663|191835072|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression controlled for study site and cohort,||||||.924
95936149|NCT04299009|191835127|OTHER|multilevel linear models with Epworth sleepiness score scores as the dependent variable; treatment block (BLT vs sBLT) as a fixed effect; treatment sequence as a covariate; and participant intercept as a random effect.|regression coefficient|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.30|<0.05
95736626|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.93|1.80|<0.001
95736627|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.23||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||2.23|1.11|<0.001
95736628|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.79|1.66|<0.001
95736629|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.85|1.74|<0.001
95736630|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||2.13|1.02|<0.001
95736631|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.78|1.59|<0.001
95736632|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.7||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.70|1.53|<0.001
95795327|NCT00855582|191560866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95936150|NCT03131648|191835152|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||13.1|4.1|0.002
95988054|NCT03823391|191950591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|4.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis includes treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||4.30|-6.47|0.737
95795328|NCT00855582|191560866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95795329|NCT00855582|191560867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95988055|NCT03823391|191950592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.49|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Analysis included treatment, visit, stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||0.49|-0.92|0.612
95736633|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||2.21|1.04|<0.001
95736634|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.52|1.30|<0.001
95736635|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.72||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.72|1.52|<0.001
95736636|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||2.11|0.91|<0.001
95736637|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.55||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.55|1.34|<0.001
95736638|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.79|1.59|<0.001
95736639|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.16||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||2.16|0.97|<0.001
95736640|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.52|1.28|<0.001
95736641|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.75|1.52|<0.001
95736642|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||2.20|0.98|<0.001
95736643|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.54|1.26|<0.001
95857667|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.27|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||4.73|-11.27|0.7307
95936151|NCT03131648|191835153|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||17.7|6.5|<0.001
95736644|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.66|1.39|<0.001
95736645|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||2.07|0.81|<0.001
95736646|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.49|1.17|<0.001
95736647|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.43||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.43|1.13|<0.001
95736648|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||2.07|0.78|<0.001
95736649|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.32|0.95|<0.001
95736650|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.29|0.94|<0.001
95736651|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||2.06|0.71|<0.001
95795330|NCT00855582|191560867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736652|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.27||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.27|0.88|<0.001
95736653|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.1||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.10|0.73|<0.001
95736654|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.08||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||2.08|0.72|<0.001
95736655|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.96|0.53|<0.001
95795331|NCT00855582|191560868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95736656|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||1.79|0.38|0.003
95736657|NCT00913627|191445187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||2.02|0.61|<0.001
95736658|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.91||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.91|0.12|0.011
95736659|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.83|0.05|0.028
95736660|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.78||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||15 minutes||0.78|0.00|0.048
95736661|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.96||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.96|0.69|<0.001
95736662|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.71|0.45|<0.001
95736663|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||30 minutes||1.63|0.38|0.002
95736664|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.06||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||3.06|1.46|<0.001
95736665|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.82|1.24|<0.001
95736666|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.31||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||45 minutes||2.31|0.74|<0.001
95736667|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.5||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.50|1.78|<0.001
95736668|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.51|1.81|<0.001
95795332|NCT00855582|191560868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANCOVA model includes terms for treatment group, region, baseline covariate, baseline-by-treatment interaction and treatment-by-region interaction.||||||<0.001
95936152|NCT03131648|191835154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance.||15|4.4|0.002
95936153|NCT03131648|191835155|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.5||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after initiation of rescue medication were not included in the analysis.||-6.5|-14.4|<0.001
95936154|NCT03131648|191835156|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-0.8|-3.4|0.002
95936155|NCT03131648|191835157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|33.7||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||33.7|-21.8|0.68
95936156|NCT03131648|191835157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|18.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||18.0|-37.1|0.50
95936157|NCT03131648|191835158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|42.6||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||42.6|-0.2|0.056
95936158|NCT03131648|191835158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.0||Test not evaluated for significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo."||32.0|-8.7|0.27
95736669|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.0||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||60 minutes||3.00|1.32|<0.001
95736670|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.12|2.39|<0.001
95736671|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.28||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||4.28|2.57|<0.001
95736672|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.63||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||90 minutes||3.63|1.92|<0.001
95736673|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.44|2.70|<0.001
95736674|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||4.53|2.82|<0.001
95736675|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.57||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||2 hours||3.57|1.87|<0.001
95736676|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.99||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.99|3.27|<0.001
95736677|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.95||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||4.95|3.24|<0.001
95736678|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.93||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||3 hours||3.93|2.24|<0.001
95736679|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|5.13||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||5.13|3.36|<0.001
95736680|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||4.92|3.17|<0.001
95736681|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||4 hours||3.85|2.11|<0.001
95736682|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|5.01||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||5.01|3.14|<0.001
95988056|NCT03823391|191950593|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.0||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.5|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||20.5|-28.5|0.877
95736683|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|4.92||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||4.92|3.07|<0.001
95736684|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||5 hours||3.75|1.91|<0.001
95736685|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|4.71||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.71|2.78|<0.001
95795333|NCT00855582|191560869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
95795334|NCT00855582|191560869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
95795335|NCT00855582|191560870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||0.006
95795336|NCT00855582|191560870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for baseline LUTS severity.||||||<0.001
95795337|NCT00855582|191560871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
95795338|NCT00855582|191560871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
95795339|NCT00855582|191560871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 1.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
95795340|NCT00855582|191560871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value is for Question 2.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes terms for treatment group, region and centered-baseline IIEF EF Domain score.||||||<0.001
95795341|NCT00855582|191560872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.027
95795342|NCT00855582|191560872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANOVA|||||||0.186
95795343|NCT01732692|191560889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint was analyzed by a non-inferiority test using the exact Farrington-Manning method. Non-inferiority of the two treatments was to be concluded if the lower end of the confidence interval of the difference the experimental treatment group (morning-only dose) - control treatment group (split dose) was above a non-inferiority margin of -0.15%.|Treatment Difference|0.0286|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.097||||Exact Farrington - Manning||Treatment Difference is the difference in proportion of participants with successful colon cleansing between treatments -experimental vs. control||||-0.097|<0.001
95795344|NCT02030600|191560896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.8|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period"||0.80|0.61|<0.0001
95736686|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||4.89|2.98|<0.001
95736687|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.75||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||6 hours||3.75|1.85|<0.001
95736688|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.56|2.65|<0.001
95795345|NCT02030600|191560897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Poisson||Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was entirely below 1.0.|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period."||0.74|0.46|<0.0001
95795346|NCT02030600|191560898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure:~Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes in the maintenance period."||||0.3458
95795347|NCT02030600|191560900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDeg against IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM) with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.23|-0.04|
95936159|NCT03131648|191835161|SUPERIORITY|"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||26.8|13.3|<0.001
95936160|NCT03131648|191835162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|14.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||14.1|6.4|<0.001
95936161|NCT03131648|191835163|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.1||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-4.1|-8.8|<0.001
95936162|NCT03131648|191835164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered nonresponders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||8.9|2.5|0.007
95736689|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|4.79||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||4.79|2.89|<0.001
95736690|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.54||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||7 hours||3.54|1.65|<0.001
95736691|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.53||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.53|2.54|<0.001
95736692|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.49||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||4.49|2.52|<0.001
95736693|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.65||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||8 hours||3.65|1.69|<0.001
95736694|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.21|2.19|<0.001
95736695|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.51||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||4.51|2.51|<0.001
95736696|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.48||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||9 hours||3.48|1.49|<0.001
95736697|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.21|2.17|<0.001
95936163|NCT03131648|191835165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||19.6|8.6|<0.001
95936164|NCT03131648|191835166|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.4|-1.4|<0.001
95936165|NCT03131648|191835167|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|21.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||21.3|9.2|<0.001
95736698|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.66||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||4.66|2.64|<0.001
95736699|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.6||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||10 hours||3.60|1.58|<0.001
95736700|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.15||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.15|2.06|<0.001
95736701|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.61||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||4.61|2.53|<0.001
95736702|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||11 hours||3.67|1.61|<0.001
95736703|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.21||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.21|2.09|<0.001
95736704|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|4.46||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||4.46|2.36|<0.001
95736705|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.44||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||12 hours||3.44|1.36|<0.001
95736706|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|4.12||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.12|1.94|<0.001
95988057|NCT03823391|191950594|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.1||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.2|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors.|Response rate difference = ABBV-3373 - Adalimumab|||11.0|-37.2|0.426
95802509|NCT02864914|191578405|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|4.75|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.75|3.44|
95936166|NCT03131648|191835168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.5||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||20.5|5.4|0.001
95936167|NCT02641912|191835216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure (LS) mean difference|0.63||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with factors for treatment and confirmed Sjögren's syndrome status stratification using Observed Margins option.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||1.10|0.17|0.0084
95936168|NCT00274469|191835248|NON_INFERIORITY|Study is powered basing on 20% deficiency in benefit rate for Fulvestrant compared to Anastrozole.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.302||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.38||Null hypothesis: Fulvestrant has no difference with Anastrozole|Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||2.380|0.717|0.386
95936169|NCT00274469|191835249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.874|||Regression, Logistic||OR\>1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.874|0.556|0.947
95936170|NCT00274469|191835250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6266||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3929|0.9991|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.9991|0.3929|0.0496
95936171|NCT00274469|191835251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.00|0.54|0.05
95936172|NCT00274469|191835251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTTF controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.98|0.52|0.04
95936173|NCT00274469|191835252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||Log Rank||HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.92|0.47|0.01
95936174|NCT00274469|191835252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of TTP (investigator assessed) controlling for baseline covariates.|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||0.90|0.46|0.01
95936175|NCT00274469|191835253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.50|0.041
95936176|NCT00274469|191835253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression analysis of OS controlling for baseline covariates|HR\<1 favours Fulvestrant|||1.08|0.54|0.126
95936177|NCT03338816|191835254|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||P=6.040E-09|Negative binomial regression model|||Negative binomial regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (prior hemin prophylaxis status and historical attack rates) as fixed effects and the logarithm of the follow-up time as an offset variable.||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
95936178|NCT00100698|191835280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-0.5|||repeated measures mixed effects ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-38|0.049
95936179|NCT04757610|191835298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.284421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-3.10|0.284421
95936180|NCT04757610|191835298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.066678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.13|||MMRM|||||0.13|-3.90|0.066678
95936181|NCT04870645|191835347|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Statistical Significance|||||||< 0.05
95936182|NCT03655132|191835486|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
95936183|NCT03655132|191835486|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.45
95936184|NCT03655132|191835486|OTHER|Regression of baseline score on perceived usefulness of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
95936185|NCT03655132|191835486|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of intrinsic motivation to use VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
95936186|NCT03655132|191835486|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived ease of use of the VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
95936187|NCT03655132|191835486|OTHER|Regression of post-intervention score of perceived usefulness of VACT-CP online program on actual VACT-CP use (i.e., number of modules completed.)|Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
95936188|NCT03655132|191835487|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for waitlist control group participants only (n=22).|Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
95936189|NCT03655132|191835487|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8) for VACT-CP group.||||.59
95936190|NCT03655132|191835488|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
95936191|NCT03655132|191835488|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
95936192|NCT03655132|191835489|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
95936193|NCT03655132|191835489|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
95936194|NCT03655132|191835490|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.64
95936195|NCT03655132|191835490|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.30
95936196|NCT03655132|191835491|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.75
95936197|NCT03655132|191835491|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing baseline score to post-score (approximately Week 8).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.60
95936198|NCT01180634|191835525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.84|0.96|0.0715
95936199|NCT01180634|191835526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.41||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.6|||Repeared Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.60|0.21|0.0213
95936200|NCT01180634|191835527|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
95988058|NCT05726318|191950615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
95988059|NCT05726318|191950617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
95795348|NCT02030600|191560900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%|Treatment contrast|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was performed using a MMRM with treatment, sex, antidiabetic therapy at screening, visit and dosing time as fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates."||0.18|-0.07|
95795349|NCT01155323|191560908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be superior to omafilcon A for comfort.||0.23|-0.21|
95988060|NCT05726318|191950618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.68
95795350|NCT01155323|191560909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for vision.||0.25|-0.19|
95936201|NCT01180634|191835528|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.28||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model||Estimates were determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region (US, non-US), age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), Baseline FEV1 (\<55%, ≥ 55%), and Baseline value.|||2.85|-2.30|0.8335
95936202|NCT01180634|191835529|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.31|0.53|0.0122
95936203|NCT01180634|191835530|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||1.12|0.60|0.3000
95936204|NCT01180634|191835531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.04||P-value is determined using a log-rank test stratified by region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), and baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%).|||2.04|0.47|0.8670
95936205|NCT04419168|191835533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-1.30|.57
95936206|NCT04419168|191835534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.46|0.79
95936207|NCT04419168|191835535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|-1.55|0.75
95936208|NCT04419168|191835536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|-0.60|0.31
95936209|NCT04419168|191835537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||1.99|-1.77|0.91
95936210|NCT04419168|191835537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.46|-0.03|0.05
95936211|NCT04419168|191835538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.56|-0.31|0.12
95936212|NCT04419168|191835539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0443|0.0395|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0395|-0.0443|0.91
95936213|NCT04419168|191835540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-1.61|0.68
95936214|NCT04419168|191835541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.46|0.75
95988061|NCT05726318|191950620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.78
95988062|NCT05726318|191950621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95736707|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.07||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||4.07|1.91|<0.001
95736708|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.42||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||13 hours||3.42|1.28|<0.001
95736709|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.83||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.83|1.57|<0.001
95736710|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.85||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.85|1.62|<0.001
95736711|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.37||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||14 hours||3.37|1.14|<0.001
95736712|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.76||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.76|1.51|<0.001
95736713|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.56||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.56|1.33|<0.001
95736714|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.47||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||16 hours||3.47|1.25|<0.001
95736715|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.19||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.19|0.86|<0.001
95736716|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.05||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.05|0.75|0.001
95736717|NCT00913627|191445188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.34||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||24 hours||3.34|1.05|<0.001
95736718|NCT00913627|191445189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|2.89||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.89|1.94|<0.001
95736719|NCT00913627|191445189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.86||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.86|1.92|<0.001
95795351|NCT01155323|191560910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22|||||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for lens handling.||0.22|-0.22|
95736720|NCT00913627|191445189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.52||p-value adjusted for baseline PSR and gender|ANOVA|||||2.52|1.58|<0.001
95736721|NCT01790581|191445231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in balance scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for all three reach distances (Anterior, Posteriomedial, Posteriolateral) using a MANOVA.||||.904
95736722|NCT01790581|191445233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||MANOVA|||This analysis examined the change in disability scores from baseline to 1-day post intervention for both disability scores (FAAM, FAAM-S) using a MANOVA.||||.5
95736723|NCT04115293|191445244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.95|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.24|<0.001
95736724|NCT04115293|191445245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.49|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-4.39|<0.001
95736725|NCT04115293|191445246|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.16|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-5.24|0.0023
95736726|NCT04115293|191445247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|-0.54|||MMRM ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-4.45|0.0128
95736727|NCT04115293|191445249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.608||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|7.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.860|0.866|0.0885
95736728|NCT04115293|191445250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.101|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.101|1.662|<0.001
95736729|NCT04115293|191445251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.865||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|5.409|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.409|1.518|0.0012
95736730|NCT02571907|191445258|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the primary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 91.2%, which was greater than the performance goal of 55%.|||
95736731|NCT02571907|191445259|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A Bayesian beta-binomial model with a Uniform(0, 1) prior was used to compute a 95% credible interval for the proportion of patients meeting the secondary endpoint. The lower bound of this credible interval (2.5th percentile of the posterior distribution) was 70.8%, which was greater than the performance goal of 46%.|||
95736732|NCT03666026|191445268|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03||||||||1.03|1.00|
95736733|NCT03666026|191445268|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
95736734|NCT03666026|191445268|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04||||||||1.04|1.00|
95736735|NCT00579345|191445279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||||A/H1N1(Day22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||0.98|0.45|
95736736|NCT00579345|191445279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||A/H3N2 (Day 22)-criterion was met|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.19|0.55|
95936215|NCT04419168|191835542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-2.56|0.14
95936216|NCT04419168|191835543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-1.69|0.75
95936217|NCT04419168|191835544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Social Functioning Impact only.||2.71|-1.30|0.49
95936218|NCT04419168|191835544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These results correspond to ASCQ-Me Emotional Impact only.||3.88|0.12|0.037
95936219|NCT04419168|191835545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.71|0.56|0.008
95936220|NCT04419168|191835546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-1.51|0.56
95936221|NCT04419168|191835547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0013||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0464|0.0437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0437|-0.0464|0.95
95936222|NCT04419168|191835548|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||1.48|0.83|0.49
95936223|NCT04419168|191835549|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.18|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.18|0.93|0.10
95936224|NCT04419168|191835550|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjustments were made for clinic site, baseline depression (high vs low), and corresponding health care use in the 12 months prior to study entry.||||2.03|0.85|0.22
95936225|NCT04640961|191835551|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95936226|NCT04640961|191835552|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95857668|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|18.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.48|4.59|0.1625
95936227|NCT04640961|191835553|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95936228|NCT02662062|191835574|OTHER|This is a single arm study looking at a binary value with the hypothesis suggesting it falls within a certain range.||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis is that the addition of pembrolizumab to chemoradiation is not unsafe (percentage of the population experiencing unacceptable toxicity is not \>50%)|A Clopper-Pearson method was used to determine the unacceptable toxicity rate and a 95% confidence interval for this binary outcome measure.|||
95936229|NCT02662062|191835575|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
95936230|NCT02662062|191835576|OTHER|Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||||||||||||||||Single arm study with no comparator arm and assessment of a binary variable. Clopper-Pearson method used to calculate the 95% confidence interval relating to this proportion.|||
95936231|NCT02662062|191835577|OTHER|Non comparative trial with a single arm|Kaplan Meier Estimate|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0||missing upper limit of 95% confidence interval on the survival estimate from Kaplan-Meier estimator due to small number events||||||||17|
95936232|NCT02662062|191835578|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate performed for a 12 month timepoint in a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|98.0||||||||98|72|
95936233|NCT02662062|191835579|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|94.0||||||||94|64|
95936234|NCT02662062|191835580|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate at a 12 month timepoint for a single arm non comparative study|Kaplan Meier Estimate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|98.0||||||||98|68|
95936235|NCT05374837|191835584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9585||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4276|2.1485||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in control group at endline.|||2.1485|0.4276|0.145
95936236|NCT05374837|191835584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9669||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.1742||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of consuming a minimum acceptable diet in intervention group at endline.|||2.1742|0.43|0.145
95936237|NCT05374837|191835585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3084||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1977|0.481||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.481|0.1977|0.179
95936238|NCT05374837|191835585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2983|0.6431||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. The p-value is for the intervention by time interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6431|0.2983|0.179
95936239|NCT05374837|191835591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.054
95936240|NCT05374837|191835592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
95936241|NCT04725240|191835598|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95936242|NCT04725240|191835599|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95936243|NCT04725240|191835600|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95936244|NCT04725240|191835601|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.001 level.|One-sided exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95936245|NCT00676715|191835608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
95936246|NCT00676715|191835608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||<0.0001
95736737|NCT00579345|191445279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the postvaccination (Day 22) Geometric Mean Titers (FLU+PV/FLU vaccine alone) was greater than 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02|||||B (Day 22)|The non-inferiority null hypothesis stated that the FLU+PV vaccine group was non-inferior to the FLU alone group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between vaccines (FLU+PV/FLU alone) on day 22 was greater than 0.5 for all three vaccine strains.||1.02|0.46|
95736738|NCT02635750|191445290|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.502|111.62|||||"Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+ don / BI 409306).~Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 18.6."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||111.62|89.502|
95736739|NCT02635750|191445291|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.861|124.17|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don / BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 35.8.|"The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||124.17|81.861|
95736740|NCT02635750|191445292|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (%)|100.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.584|104.19|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 4.9.|The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||104.19|97.584|
95736741|NCT02635750|191445293|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|113.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|120.15|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone. (BI 409306+don / don) Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 9.0.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||120.15|106.41|
95736742|NCT02635750|191445294|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.549|111.68|||||Ratio of BI 409306 25mg with donepezil 10mg and BI 409306 25mg alone (BI 409306+don/ BI 409306). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV(%)) = 18.6.|The statistical model used for the analysis of those endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale (natural logarithm). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the other effect was considered as fixed. Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)||111.68|89.549|
95736743|NCT02635750|191445295|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio(%)|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.413|103.6|||||Ratio of donepezil 5mg with BI 409306 100mg and donepezil 5mg alone (BI 409306+don / don). Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV (%)) = 7.7.|"The PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'periods' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.~Abbreviations used: geometric mean (gMean), donepezil (don)"||103.60|93.413|
95736744|NCT00089661|191445334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.8|6.3|||ANCOVA|||||6.3|4.8|<0.0001
95736745|NCT02647944|191445342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95736746|NCT02647944|191445343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95736747|NCT02647944|191445344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95736748|NCT02647944|191445345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.069
95936247|NCT00676715|191835608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7496|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|||Van Elteren test is stratified by region and presence of baseline gadolinium-enhancing lesions (absent or present).||||0.7496
95936248|NCT00676715|191835609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0019
95936249|NCT00676715|191835609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0136|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.0136
95936250|NCT00676715|191835609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1814|||||||Poisson model|||Poisson model was fitted for adjusting for geographic region only.||||0.1814
95736749|NCT02647944|191445346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.054
95736750|NCT02647944|191445347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95736751|NCT02647944|191445348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95736752|NCT02647944|191445349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95736753|NCT02760368|191445351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.248|0.489|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q2w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.489|0.248|<0.0001
95857669|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.25|19.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||19.29|2.25|0.2876
95936251|NCT00676715|191835610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.6||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.34|0.27|0.1978
95936252|NCT00676715|191835610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.53||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22|||CMH chi-square test|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.22|0.23|0.1310
95736754|NCT02760368|191445351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.318|0.552|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rates for 64 q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis.||0.552|0.318|<0.0001
95736755|NCT02760368|191445352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.197|0.389|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in 64 q2w OKZ treatment groups respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between OKZ q2w treatment group and placebo.||0.389|0.197|<0.0001
95736756|NCT02760368|191445352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.352|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.251|0.449|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in 64 mg q4w OKZ treatment group respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between OKZ q4w treatment group and placebo.||0.449|0.251|<0.0001
95736757|NCT02760368|191445353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-0.47|<0.0001
95736758|NCT02760368|191445353|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.49|<0.0001
95736759|NCT02760368|191445354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.239|0.45|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.450|0.239|<0.0001
95736760|NCT02760368|191445354|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.409|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.296|0.509|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.509|0.296|<0.0001
95736761|NCT02760368|191445355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.084|||<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.032|0.151||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.032|<0.0002
95736762|NCT02760368|191445355|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.077|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.143||2x2 chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||0.143|0.027|<0.0003
95736763|NCT01860521|191445406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95936253|NCT00676715|191835610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (RR)|0.92||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.84|||CMH chi-square tes|CMH chi-square test stratified by geographical region only.||||1.84|0.46|0.8206
95936254|NCT00676715|191835611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1391
95936255|NCT00676715|191835611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1596|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.1596
95936256|NCT00676715|191835611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4740
95736764|NCT01860521|191445407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95736765|NCT01860521|191445408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
95736766|NCT01860521|191445409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
95736767|NCT01513174|191445415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.92|||Log Rank||||The initial hypothesis estimated that the median PFS for the gefitinib group would be 10 months, while the median PFS for the gefitinib/olaparib group would be 16 months, which implied a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.6.|1.92|1.00|0.124
95736768|NCT01513174|191445416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.845|||Log Rank|||||1.845|0.806|0.3455
95736769|NCT01593852|191445433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95736770|NCT01593852|191445441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical dose observations, a sample size of 68 patients per study group (i.e. 62 evaluable patients for 10% dropout rate) for a total of 136 patient randomized will allow for 80% power to detect for approximately 40% reduction in dose area product (DAP). This sample size will allow for detection of approximately 40% reduction in air kerma (AK). No adjustment for multiple endpoints was performed as both endpoints are assessing radiation dose.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95736771|NCT01686438|191445490|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean change in ISI score from baseline in Veterans receiving CBT-I by video teleconferencing will be no more than 1.67 smaller than the reference treatment, i.e., Veterans receiving in-person CBT-I.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|1.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.57|-4.63|0.138
95736772|NCT01723397|191445504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.8
95736773|NCT04608188|191445517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95736774|NCT04608188|191445518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95736775|NCT04608188|191445519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95736776|NCT04608188|191445520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95736777|NCT03686033|191445539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|3.22||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least Square (LS) Mean Difference was calculated for 2.5 mg versus (vs) Placebo only.||3.22|-0.98|
95857670|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41||0.027|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.54|25.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||25.70|11.54|0.0270
95936257|NCT00676715|191835612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
95936258|NCT00676715|191835612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
95736778|NCT03686033|191445539|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|-1.99||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LS Mean Difference was calculated for 25 mg vs Placebo only.||-1.99|-6.35|
95736779|NCT01045161|191445565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.019
95736780|NCT01045161|191445565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
95736781|NCT01045161|191445567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.051||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|0.01|0.0192
95736782|NCT01045161|191445567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|0.072||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.03|0.0012
95736783|NCT01302548|191445576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0833|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8609||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5738|0.7405||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 28||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||.7405|-.5738|.7970
95736784|NCT01302548|191445577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2364||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0239|2.3394||This is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|Cell (1,1) Frequency (F) = 13||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the proportion of patients requiring antibiotics after the use of IRRISEPT solution vs. the usual care methods on abscess healing.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||2.3394|.0239|.3575
95736785|NCT01302548|191445578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5477||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0659|1.2659||This is unadjusted.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 4||"Ho: There is not a significant difference between the use of IRRISEPT solution and the usual care methods on abscess healing in patients that are MRSA positive.~This study did not enroll an adequate number of patients to meet sufficient power."||1.2659|-2.0659|.5415
95736786|NCT01110005|191445583|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||2.3|0.7|0.34
95795352|NCT01155323|191560911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/-0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A for corneal staining.||0.01|-0.03|
95936259|NCT00676715|191835612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4985|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.4985
95736787|NCT01110005|191445584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Regression, log binomial|The regression model adjusted for site of recruitment as a covariate.|D5LR vs. LR|||1.3|0.9|0.40
95736788|NCT01110005|191445585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This method was used to control for site of recruitment||||||0.69
95736789|NCT02305758|191445587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.48||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||1.480|0.596|
95736790|NCT02305758|191445588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|2.156||||||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||2.156|0.738|
95936260|NCT00676715|191835613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.0004
95936261|NCT00676715|191835613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||<0.0001
95736791|NCT02305758|191445589|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by planned bevacizumab use (planned use versus no planned use).||12.1|-21.4|
95736792|NCT01424644|191445606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to diphtheria toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|17.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo||17|9|
95736793|NCT01424644|191445606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to tetanus toxin for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in seroprotection rates \[(MenACWY-CRM+ Tdap+HPV) minus (Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than -10%, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||2|-2|
95736794|NCT01424644|191445607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PT antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of the Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the GMCs of the MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV group to the Placebo+Tdap + HPV group was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PT immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||1.14|0.89|
95795353|NCT01155323|191560912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be non-inferior to omafilcon A for quality perceptions.||0.29|-0.15|
95936262|NCT00676715|191835613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2725|||||||Van Elteren Test (stratified)|Van Elteren test is stratified by region only.||||||0.2725
95736795|NCT01424644|191445607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to FHA antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM +Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after Tdap vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio- Geometric mean conc|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.76|
95936263|NCT00616967|191835617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Pathological complete response rate|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.402|||||The Estimation Parameter provided above is for overall pCR for both arms combined. We estimated pCR for each arm separately as well.|Patients were stratified by hormone receptor status and randomly assigned to either arm 1 or 2. This study was designed using Simon's two-stage design for each arm in parallel. Interim analysis of early stopping for futility was conducted for the first 32 patients (16 patients per arm) and the study proceeded as more than 2 patients achieved a pCR in each arm (31 patients per arm). This design had 80% power to detect a 25% pCR rate versus a null rate of 10% with a type I error rate of 0.10.||0.402|0.169|
95936264|NCT00616967|191835617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in placebo arm (arm 1)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.48||||||||0.48|0.142|
95936265|NCT00616967|191835617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||pCR in vorinostat arm (arm 2)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.446||||||||0.446|0.119|
95988063|NCT05030311|191950640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|||-4.00|-8.45|<0.001
95736796|NCT01424644|191445607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to PRN antigen for the MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV group was considered non-inferior to that of Placebo+Tdap+HPV group if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(MenACWY-CRM+Tdap+HPV) minus(Placebo+Tdap + HPV)\] was greater than 0.5, at 1 month after vaccination.|Vaccine group ratio-Geometric mean conc|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and MenACWY-CRM as compared to concomitant administration of Tdap with HPV and placebo.||0.93|0.72|
95857671|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.7444|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.31|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||5.44|-12.31|0.7444
95857672|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.08|28.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||28.29|14.08|0.0122
95857673|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-19.75|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||-1.47|-19.75|0.3288
95857674|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.63|26.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||26.05|10.63|0.0453
95857675|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-17.09|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||1.91|-17.09|0.5016
95936266|NCT00616967|191835620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The estimates provided are based upon a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression adjusting for hormone receptor status. Patients with ≥50% reduction in SULmax were more likely to achieve a pCR.||22.7|1.3|0.023
95936267|NCT02724878|191835658|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.0|42.0||||||A sample size of 60 would provide 95% power to distinguish the ORR rate of 25% from 10% (historical control) with 1-sided alpha of 0.07. The treatment would be considered effective if 10 or more responses are observed out of 60 patients.||42|25|
95988064|NCT05030311|191950641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|ISS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-1.56|-3.70|<0.001
95736797|NCT00440297|191445611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|48.5||||||95.0|38.4|58.7|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose among subjects who were seronegative at baseline||58.7|38.4|
95736798|NCT00440297|191445611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|57.7||||||95.0|47.9|67.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval.|||67.0|47.9|
95857676|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.27|27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||27.59|11.27|0.0453
95936268|NCT04838262|191835712|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
95936269|NCT04838262|191835712|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
95936270|NCT03526861|191835713|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.3|5.3|0.002
95857677|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.84||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.83|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||8.10|-11.83|0.8747
95857678|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.72|15.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||15.69|-1.72|0.4997
95936271|NCT03526861|191835713|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|26.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.6|8.4|<0.001
95936272|NCT03526861|191835714|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.0|12.0|<0.001
95936273|NCT03526861|191835714|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.6|12.4|<0.001
95936274|NCT03526861|191835715|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 2.5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|31.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.1|12.3|<0.001
95936275|NCT03526861|191835715|SUPERIORITY|Secondary endpoint tested sequentially at a 5% significance level|Risk Difference (RD)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|29.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Subjects with at least 4-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||29.2|10.6|<0.001
95736799|NCT00440297|191445612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|66.7||||||95.0|56.5|75.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||75.8|56.5|
95736800|NCT00440297|191445612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|69.2||||||95.0|59.4|77.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||77.9|59.4|
95857679|NCT00658359|191673384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-23.26|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||-2.88|-23.26|0.2804
95936276|NCT03526861|191835716|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-12.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-12.2|-27.1|<0.001
95936277|NCT03526861|191835716|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-10.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-10.4|-25.6|<0.001
95736801|NCT02024932|191445618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geo-mean ratio|1.037||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.065|||ANCOVA|||||1.065|1.009|0.0164
95736802|NCT03020641|191445655|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2347||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.1276||the threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 1 (IL1)||0.1276|- 0.8077|0.058
95736803|NCT03020641|191445655|OTHER|Interleukin 6 (IL6)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
95857680|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.68|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||11.90|7.68|<0.0001
95795354|NCT01155323|191560913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = +/- 0.50|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis was that etafilcon A would be equivalent to omafilcon A from limbal hyperemia.||0.06|-0.01|
95795355|NCT01208051|191560917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is stratified by randomization factors.|Log Rank|The conditional power was 7.8%, reaching the futility boundary of \<15%. Patients on the combination arm were then crossed over to cediranib alone.||||||0.26
95795356|NCT01208051|191560918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
95736804|NCT03020641|191445655|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Interleukin 10||0.81|-0.76|0.052
95736805|NCT03020641|191445655|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Vascular Endotelial Grow Factor A||0.22|-0.50|0.815
95736806|NCT03020641|191445655|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||TNF alfa||0.36|-0.42|0.742
95736807|NCT03020641|191445655|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chemokine CXC ligand 2||0.44|-0.36|0.603
95736808|NCT03020641|191445656|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Matrix metalloproteinase-9||0.65|-0.47|0.600
95736809|NCT03020641|191445656|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1||0.97|0.030|0.028
95795357|NCT01208051|191560920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.80
95736810|NCT03020641|191445656|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||E-selectin||0.82|-0.64|0.807
95736811|NCT03020641|191445658|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|10.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.21|-7.49|0.862
95736812|NCT00731783|191445664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|1.00
95736813|NCT00731783|191445665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.55|||Fisher Exact|||||4.55|1.03|0.05
95736814|NCT00731783|191445666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0.39|0.49
95736815|NCT00731783|191445667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.28|||Fisher Exact|||||3.28|0.77|0.28
95736816|NCT00731783|191445668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|0.23|0.12
95795358|NCT01208051|191560921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95736817|NCT00731783|191445669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|0.21|0.02
95736818|NCT00731783|191445670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.20|0.008
95736819|NCT00731783|191445671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.22|0.02
95795359|NCT00973973|191560932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 4||-0.03|-0.45|0.0262
95936278|NCT03526861|191835717|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 2.5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.7|-4.5|0.007
95736820|NCT01343004|191445677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95736821|NCT01343004|191445677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95736822|NCT01343004|191445678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736823|NCT01343004|191445678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736824|NCT01343004|191445678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8155|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.8155
95795360|NCT00973973|191560932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.46|-1.06|< 0.0001
95795361|NCT00973973|191560934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.04|-0.38|0.0163
95795362|NCT00973973|191560934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.08|-0.48|0.0066
95795363|NCT00973973|191560936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.06|-0.38|0.0089
95795364|NCT00973973|191560936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.14|-0.53|0.0011
95936279|NCT03526861|191835717|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was tested sequentially using the Holm-Bonferroni method for multiplicity adjustment at a 5% significance level after the sequential testing of the primary endpoints and first secondary endpoint, if these showed statistical significance.|Difference of least square means|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.1|-3.9|0.040
95736825|NCT01343004|191445679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736826|NCT01343004|191445679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736827|NCT01343004|191445679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736828|NCT01343004|191445680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736829|NCT01343004|191445680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||<0.0001
95736830|NCT01343004|191445680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|P-values were derived from contrast tests based on the ANCOVA model fitted using only the data of the two treatment groups to be compared.||||||0.0004
95736831|NCT01343004|191445681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0318
95736832|NCT01343004|191445681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2304
95795365|NCT00973973|191560938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change form baseline at week 4||-0.02|-0.52|0.0360
95795366|NCT00973973|191560938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-0.11|-0.65|0.0070
95936280|NCT03526861|191835720|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||50.2|26.8|<0.001
95736833|NCT01343004|191445681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3361
95736834|NCT00834717|191445689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.86||||||90.0|92.36|103.69|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.69|92.36|
95736835|NCT00834717|191445690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.57||||||90.0|82.8|103.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.48|82.80|
95736836|NCT00834717|191445691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.95||||||90.0|83.11|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.97|83.11|
95736837|NCT00795821|191445693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
95736838|NCT00795821|191445695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for multiple comparisons, the analysis of this secondary outcome measure was pre-specified as a gated secondary objective. As the primary hypothesis was statistically significant, this hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
95736839|NCT00795821|191445697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
95736840|NCT00795821|191445699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
95736841|NCT00795821|191445701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.007
95736842|NCT00795821|191445703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.056
95736843|NCT00795821|191445705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
95736844|NCT00795821|191445707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
95736845|NCT00795821|191445709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.003
95736846|NCT00795821|191445711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model terms included treatment, investigator, and baseline score.||||||0.009
95795367|NCT00973973|191560944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.939||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-2.05|-17.63|0.0137
95936281|NCT03526861|191835720|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|44.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.1|20.6|<0.001
95936282|NCT03526861|191835721|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.2||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||22.2|5.2|0.002
95936283|NCT03526861|191835721|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 90% reduction in EASI at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||24.1|6.5|<0.001
95936284|NCT03526861|191835722|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.5|<0.001
95936285|NCT03526861|191835722|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-5.3|-13.6|<0.001
95936286|NCT03526861|191835723|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|18.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||18.4|4.5|0.002
95936287|NCT03526861|191835723|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|23.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 75% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||23.3|7.8|<0.001
95950050|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.216|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 4: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.216|-0.015|0.0866
95736847|NCT00795821|191445713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Severity of Overall Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.008
95736848|NCT00795821|191445713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue Interference with Daily Activities|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.024
95736849|NCT00795821|191445715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of primary doctor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.261
95736850|NCT00795821|191445715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting use of specialist|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.868
95736851|NCT00795821|191445715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting other diagnostic tests|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.495
95736852|NCT00795821|191445715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value for participants reporting prescribed medication|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for investigator.||||||0.189
95936288|NCT03526861|191835724|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||36.3|16.1|<0.001
95736853|NCT00795821|191445717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for suicidal ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
95936289|NCT03526861|191835724|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|35.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects who achieved at least 50% reduction in SCORAD at Week 16 were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||35.7|15.3|<0.001
95936290|NCT03526861|191835725|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.6|-2.4|<0.001
95936291|NCT03526861|191835725|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-1.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-0.3|-2.1|0.007
95936292|NCT03526861|191835726|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||31.0|9.7|<0.001
95936293|NCT03526861|191835726|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.7||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|Subjects with at least 3-point reduction in Adolescent Worst Pruritus NRS were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or who received rescue medication from Week 2 to Week 16 were considered non-responders. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity. The null hypothesis of no difference in response rate between tralokinumab 150 mg Q2W and placebo was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||32.7|10.9|<0.001
95936294|NCT03526861|191835727|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.6|-8.4|<0.001
95936295|NCT03526861|191835727|SUPERIORITY|The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Difference of least square means|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-3.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'.|Repeated measurements model|||Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0. Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or after use of rescue treatment from Week 2 to Week 16 were not included in the analysis.||-3.0|-7.9|<0.001
95736854|NCT00795821|191445719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for change in supine systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||0.002
95736855|NCT00795821|191445719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in supine diastolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
95736856|NCT00795821|191445721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model terms included treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline score, and baseline-by-visit.||||||<0.001
95736857|NCT01285713|191445724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0003
95736858|NCT02246166|191445786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||0.83|-0.77|0.9473
95736859|NCT02246166|191445787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.86|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatme|||0.86|-1.23|0.7210
95736860|NCT02246166|191445788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.49|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.||||1.49|-1.07|0.7445
95736861|NCT02246166|191445789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.78|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate||||1.78|-1.32|0.7662
95736862|NCT02246166|191445790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||2.29|-1.18|0.5208
95736863|NCT02246166|191445791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and study site and baseline TSS score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus the second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||1.94|-1.71|0.8993
95736864|NCT02322593|191445813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.039
95736865|NCT02322593|191445814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0045
95736866|NCT02322593|191445815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.70|0.011
95736867|NCT02322593|191445816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95795368|NCT00973973|191560944|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-4.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-4.70|-20.19|0.0019
95736868|NCT02322593|191445817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
95736869|NCT00834418|191445818|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|99.6|116.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116|99.6|
95736870|NCT00834418|191445819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|95.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|95.2|
95736871|NCT00777023|191445820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.42||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.42|-2.80|0.0024
95736872|NCT00777023|191445820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.69|-0.33||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.33|-2.69|0.0040
95736873|NCT00777023|191445821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.41||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.41|-2.72|0.0024
95736874|NCT00777023|191445821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.26|0.02||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.02|-2.26|0.0281
95736875|NCT00777023|191445822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.03||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.03|-0.32|0.0608
95736876|NCT00777023|191445822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.11||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 4||-0.11|-0.45|0.0003
95795369|NCT00973973|191560946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.728||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||-0.81|-11.61|0.0244
95795370|NCT00973973|191560946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||-1.30|-11.39|0.0141
95795371|NCT00973973|191560948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|0.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 4||0.49|-6.72|0.0893
95936296|NCT01889199|191835812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Only PCOS women were randomized to flutamide versus placebo; controls were not randomized A sample size of 11 per group (PCOS women versus controls) provided adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 1.25 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed). A sample size of 5 per group (flutamide-treated versus placebo-treated PCOS women) also gave adequate power (approximately 80%) to detect effect sizes as small as 2 using a two-sample t-test (alpha=0.05, 2 tailed).||||0.004
95736877|NCT00777023|191445823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.0||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1200 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||0.00|-0.43|0.0280
95736878|NCT00777023|191445823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.07||P value for pairwise test of difference of least square mean change from baseline between G-ER 1800 mg and placebo groups based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at SDW 12||-0.07|-0.51|0.0026
95736879|NCT02678286|191445827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0145
95736880|NCT02678286|191445828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1841||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1841
95736881|NCT02678286|191445828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
95736882|NCT02678286|191445828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Row 3 (SPID48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0040
95736883|NCT02678286|191445828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||Row 4 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0028
95736884|NCT02678286|191445829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7572
95795372|NCT00973973|191560948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.938||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline at week 8||0.32|-7.35|0.0720
95936297|NCT01889199|191835813|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||
95936298|NCT01889199|191835815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.040
95736885|NCT02678286|191445830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6559||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6559
95736886|NCT02678286|191445830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
95936299|NCT01889199|191835816|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6-month changes from baseline were compared between placebo- and flutamide-treated PCOS women using an unpaired Student's t-test to determine whether one group changed more than the other over this time interval.||||0.034
95988065|NCT05030311|191950642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||MMRM adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, visit week, baseline score and both interaction of treatment by visit week and interaction of baseline score by visit week.|HSS7 at Week 12 (Scenario 2 with ISS7 and HSS7 as co-primary efficacy endpoints)||-2.36|-4.85|<0.001
95736887|NCT02678286|191445830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4994||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4994
95736888|NCT02678286|191445831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0275
95736889|NCT02678286|191445831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0009
95795373|NCT00973973|191560950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of the change from baseline in CPSSS total score||-1.26|-3.26|< 0.0001
95795374|NCT00973973|191560950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dysmenorrhea score||-0.69|-1.41|< 0.0001
95736890|NCT02678286|191445831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||0.0027
95736891|NCT02678286|191445832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0050
95736892|NCT02678286|191445833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5096
95736893|NCT02678286|191445834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
95736894|NCT02678286|191445835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0178
95736895|NCT02678286|191445836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1888
95736896|NCT02678286|191445837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0788
95736897|NCT02678286|191445838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0607
95736898|NCT02678286|191445839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0027
95736899|NCT04274686|191445843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.7|||Paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in percent air leakage||10.7|-7.0|0.667
95736900|NCT04274686|191445844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.9|||Paired t-test|||||2.90|-0.70|0.218
95736901|NCT04274686|191445845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Paired t-test|||||0.2|-0.5|0.455
95736902|NCT00609674|191445860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95736903|NCT02363803|191445874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.03
95736904|NCT03140631|191445879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95736905|NCT03140631|191445880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||number of participants who experienced a vascular access site complication at 90 days||||0.74
95736906|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.728||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.219|-1.236|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.236|-4.219|0.0008
95736907|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.325||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.735|-0.916|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo toGSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.916|-3.735|0.0021
95736908|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.402||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.862|-0.942|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-0.942|-3.862|0.0021
95736909|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.556||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.021|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.021|0.090|0.0382
95736910|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.958||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.477|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.477|0.439|0.0132
95736911|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.881||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|3.389|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-4) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||3.389|0.373|0.0161
95736912|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.592||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.162|-2.022|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.022|-5.162|0.0001
95736913|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.304|-2.337|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-2.337|-5.304|0.0000
95795375|NCT00973973|191560950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of non-menstrual pelvic pain score||-0.07|-0.64|0.0139
95795376|NCT00973973|191560950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of dyspareunia score||0.06|-0.63|0.1052
95795377|NCT00973973|191560950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of pelvic tenderness score||-0.10|-0.67|0.0081
95936300|NCT02323321|191835819|OTHER|The primary hypothesis for this study is that the true (success) proportion of transplanted patients meeting the primary effectiveness endpoint, patient survival at day 30 post-transplantation and absence of severe PGD (left or right ventricle) in the first 24 hours post-transplantation, is greater than the Performance Goal value of 0.65.|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|94.4|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||94.4|78.4|<0.0001
95936301|NCT00446225|191835820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.27|0.0001
95736914|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.887||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||-1.350|-4.424|0.0006
95736915|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.953||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.411|4.496|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 50mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.496|1.411|0.0005
95795378|NCT00973973|191560950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including baseline value as a covariate.||Comparison of change from baseline in CPSSS component of induration score||-0.04|-0.53|0.0240
95795379|NCT00973973|191560952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 4||-0.3|-1.2|0.0012
95857681|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.12|7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.52|3.12|0.0418
95736916|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|4.324|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 150mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||4.324|1.126|0.0015
95736917|NCT00575159|191445892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.659||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.071|5.246|||ANCOVA|||Difference from Placebo+ Prandial insulin to GSK189075 500mg AUC(0-10) Incremental Adjusted Weighted Mean||5.246|2.071|0.0001
95736918|NCT00834431|191445910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.0||||||90.0|85.9|98.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.6|85.9|
95736919|NCT00834431|191445911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.2|
95795380|NCT00973973|191560952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Patient Global Impression of Change at week 8||-0.5|-1.5|0.0002
95795381|NCT00973973|191560954|SUPERIORITY||Difference|19.4||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|34.4|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 4||34.4|4.4|0.0136
95795382|NCT00973973|191560954|SUPERIORITY||Difference|30.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|46.7|||Pearson chi-squared|||Comparison of response rates at week 8||46.7|13.6|0.0007
95857682|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.28|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||11.51|7.28|0.0002
95736920|NCT00834431|191445912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.7||||||90.0|96.3|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|96.3|
95736921|NCT02648438|191445915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.01|73.94|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||73.94|53.01|
95736922|NCT02648438|191445916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|120.06|||||Ratio (%)|Statistical Assessment of AZD7594 Pharmacokinetic Parameter (AUC0-t) Following Inhalation Administration ofAZD7594 via DPI Device 2 Versus DPI Device 1.||120.06|85.21|
95736923|NCT00095212|191446000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||||||0.04
95736924|NCT00095212|191446001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal linear mixed effects model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
95736925|NCT00095212|191446002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.02
95736926|NCT00095212|191446003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Longitudinal mixed methods model|||The study was powered at 80% to detect a significant treatment difference of 2.7 kg in lean body mass between the two groups with 25 randomized patients and a 15% assumed dropout rate, using a two sided 5.0 percent significance level.||||0.01
95857683|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.09|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||7.51|3.09|0.0437
95936302|NCT00446225|191835822|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.36|0.043
95936303|NCT04349072|191835850|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|58.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.989|73.868|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.868|43.989|<0.0001
95936304|NCT04349072|191835851|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|41.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.481|57.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.662|24.481|<0.0001
95736927|NCT00095212|191446004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95936305|NCT04349072|191835852|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|14.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||14.041|4.868|<0.0001
95936306|NCT04349072|191835853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.421|0.266|<0.0001
95936307|NCT04349072|191835854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measure (MMRM)||||0.700|0.406|<0.0001
95936308|NCT04349072|191835855|SUPERIORITY||Leat Square Mean of Treatment Difference|-37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-26.24|||ANCOVA|||||-26.24|-48.08|<0.0001
95736928|NCT00095212|191446005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95736929|NCT00095212|191446006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
95736930|NCT00095212|191446007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95736931|NCT00095212|191446008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95736932|NCT00095212|191446009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95736933|NCT00095212|191446010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95736934|NCT02374853|191446047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95736935|NCT02374853|191446048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
95736936|NCT02374853|191446049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.054
95736937|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
95736938|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
95736939|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|1.1|
95736940|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
95736941|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
95736942|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|1.0|
95736943|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.1|1.4||||||||1.4|1.1|
95857684|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.21|10.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||10.53|6.21|0.0011
95936309|NCT03069313|191835912|OTHER|Paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95936310|NCT03069313|191835913|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95936311|NCT03069313|191835914|OTHER|This analysis is comparing SWB before and after treatment.||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
95936312|NCT03069313|191835914|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing EWB before and after treatment.||||0.056
95936313|NCT03069313|191835914|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing PWB before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
95936314|NCT03069313|191835914|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing FWB before and after treatment.||||0.09
95936315|NCT03069313|191835914|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is comparing ESS before and after treatment.||||<0.0001
95988066|NCT05030311|191950643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Disease activity control (UAS7 =\< 6) at Week 12||4.84|2.00|<0.001
95988067|NCT05030311|191950644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.||Complete absence of hives and itch (UAS7 = 0) at Week 12||6.82|2.16|<0.001
95988068|NCT05030311|191950645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|39.77|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, and baseline UAS7 score.|||39.77|6.18|<0.001
95988069|NCT05030311|191950646|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.61|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with log link, using treatment arm, geographical region, and prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics as covariates.||||3.61|2.01|<0.001
95988070|NCT05030311|191950647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for treatment arm, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics and baseline DLQI score.|||3.90|1.53|<0.001
95988071|NCT05030311|191950648|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.41|||Regression, Linear||Statistical model used a negative binomial regression with log link included treatment arm as fixed effect, geographical region, prior exposure to anti-IgE biologics, baseline AAS7 = 0 response as covariates.|Angioedema occurrence-free weeks (AAS7 = 0 response) up to Week 12||1.41|1.12|<0.001
95736944|NCT01077596|191446097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
95795383|NCT02471339|191560960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance. Analyses for primary and secondary outcomes were two-tailed and alpha was set to 0.05. An a priori analysis suggested that, to detect a change of .68 standard deviation on the primary outcome measure between the two groups at .80 power, 41 patients per group would be needed.||||0.05
95988072|NCT03735667|191950659|NON_INFERIORITY|A Bayesian analysis based on 10,000 samples from the posterior distribution, using a piecewise exponential survival model. The criteria for non-inferiority is met if the posterior probability of non-inferiority is greater than the non-inferiority test threshold.|||||||||||||||||A Bayesian analysis was used to test the non-inferiority hypothesis for the primary endpoint using a non-inferiority margin of 8%. The pre-specified success criteria (the non-inferiority test threshold) was a posterior probability of non-inferiority greater than 97.5%. The observed posterior probability of non-inferiority was 77.9%. The posterior median percentage difference in the rate of the primary outcome was 6.63% (95% Bayesian credible interval: 3.04% to 10.20%).|||
95988073|NCT03092726|191950688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.5||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Differences of least squares (LS) means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a mixed-effect, repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline to each week from weeks 1 to 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 1 to 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||0.50|-0.38|0.590
95988074|NCT03092726|191950692|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|-6.6||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|5.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||5.7|-18.7|0.874
95988075|NCT03092726|191950692|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|-5.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|6.7||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||6.7|-17.7|0.838
95988076|NCT03092726|191950693|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|2.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|14.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||14.4|-10.0|0.412
95736945|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
95736946|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||2.0|0.8|
95736947|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|0.8|2.0||||||||2.0|0.8|
95736948|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
95736949|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
95795384|NCT02471339|191560961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95795385|NCT02471339|191560964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test|||||||.05
95795386|NCT02471339|191560968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.042
95936316|NCT00774852|191835916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.85
95936317|NCT00774852|191835917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.99
95936318|NCT00774852|191835918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
95936319|NCT00774852|191835918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.72
95936320|NCT00774852|191835919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.54
95936321|NCT00774852|191835924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
95936322|NCT00774852|191835925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test||Comparison of Participants across groups who had negative anti-dsDNA at Week 104. Baseline is defined as the last measurement taken on or prior to the first day of dosing. Analysis is performed on participants with available data.||||>0.99
95936323|NCT00774852|191835927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.23
95936324|NCT00774852|191835927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with renal flare||||0.61
95936325|NCT00774852|191835927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
95936326|NCT00774852|191835927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups with at least one non-renal flare||||>0.99
95936327|NCT00774852|191835932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.79
95936328|NCT00774852|191835932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value compares actual values between experimental and control groups at Week 52 and is derived from two-sided t-test from and ANCOVA model that adjusts for baseline values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.74
95936329|NCT00774852|191835933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Pneumococcal vaccines||||0.43
95988077|NCT03092726|191950693|SUPERIORITY||Differences of percentages|4.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|16.4||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo using Fisher's Exact method.|Fisher Exact|||EOT: Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of placebo group from the percentage of ASP8062 30 mg group. Confidence Interval (CI) for each treatment group and the difference of the percentages was an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||16.4|-7.9|0.269
95936330|NCT00774852|191835933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's||Comparison of groups for Tetanus Toxoid vaccines||||0.99
95936331|NCT05343390|191835952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.1|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||25.1|16.1|<0.001
95936332|NCT05343390|191835953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||Regression, Linear|A linear model fit using generalized estimating equations to account for correlated observations within clusters.||||16.4|5.9|<0.001
95936333|NCT05343390|191835954|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.60|0.93|0.14
95936334|NCT05343390|191835955|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.71|1.10|0.006
95936335|NCT05343390|191835956|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||4.40|1.19|0.013
95936336|NCT05343390|191835957|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.92|1.10|0.01
95936337|NCT05343390|191835958|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial mixed-effect model||||1.76|0.94|0.12
95936338|NCT02278562|191835967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.37
95936339|NCT02278562|191835967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Prior data indicate that LDR is normally distributed with standard deviation ranging from 0.16 to 0.23 in hemodialysis and control patients, respectively. If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 0.21, we will be able to reject the null hypothesis that the population means of the experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.933.||||0.955
95936340|NCT04833777|191835971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936341|NCT04833777|191835972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936342|NCT04833777|191835973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936343|NCT04833777|191835974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936344|NCT04833777|191835975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936345|NCT04833777|191835976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936346|NCT04833777|191835977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95936347|NCT04833777|191835978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95795387|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0145||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0145
95795388|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0148||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0148
95795389|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0089||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809 .||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0089
95857685|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.27|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||4.36|-0.27|0.4565
95736950|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.7|
95736951|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.2|3.9||||||||3.9|1.2|
95736952|NCT01077596|191446098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0||||||95.0|1.1|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.6|1.1|
95736953|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|3.2|6.3||||||||6.3|3.2|
95736954|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|2.0|4.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.4|2.0|
95857686|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.54|13.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.26|8.54|0.0001
95936348|NCT04833777|191835979|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95936349|NCT04833777|191835980|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95736955|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|2.8|5.8||||||||5.8|2.8|
95736956|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
95736957|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.4||||||95.0|3.1|6.3||||||||6.3|3.1|
95736958|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.0||||||95.0|1.9|4.5|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||4.5|1.9|
95736959|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|4.5||||||95.0|2.8|7.2||||||||7.2|2.8|
95736960|NCT01077596|191446099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||||95.0|2.1|5.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||5.9|2.1|
95736961|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.7|4.1||||||||4.1|1.7|
95736962|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.1||||||95.0|1.3|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.4|1.3|
95736963|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.4|3.6||||||||3.6|1.4|
95736964|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
95736965|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.3||||||95.0|1.5|3.7||||||||3.7|1.5|
95936350|NCT04833777|191835981|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95936351|NCT04833777|191835982|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95936352|NCT04833777|191835983|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95936353|NCT04833777|191835984|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95936354|NCT04833777|191835986|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95936355|NCT04833777|191835987|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95736966|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||||95.0|1.1|3.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.0|1.1|
95736967|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|2.6||||||95.0|1.5|4.5||||||||4.5|1.5|
95795390|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0038||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0038
95857687|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.69|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||6.89|1.69|0.1654
95736968|NCT01077596|191446100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.2||||||95.0|1.3|3.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||3.9|1.3|
95736969|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.5|
95736970|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.4|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.4|
95936356|NCT04172441|191836009|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-5.21||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with dasiglucagon = weighted mean IV GIR in the last 12 hours of treatment with placebo||-2.13|-8.29|0.0037
95936357|NCT04172441|191836010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-30.93||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.8|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was used, with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|The comparison was in the direction of dasiglucagon minus placebo.|Null hypothesis: Total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with dasiglucagon = total amount of carbohydrates administered (regardless of route) per day in patients treated with placebo||-5.05|-56.80|0.0238
95936358|NCT04204278|191836051|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95736971|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|0.4|
95736972|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.3|1.0|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.0|0.3|
95736973|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4||||||||1.4|0.5|
95736974|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.4|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|0.4|
95736975|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2.0|0.6|
95736976|NCT01077596|191446101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.6|1.9|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status†, previous depression dx, previous IBD‡ diagnosis, OC§ use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.9|0.6|
95736977|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
95736978|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
95736979|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
95857688|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.95|11.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||11.96|6.95|0.0015
95857689|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.02|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||7.23|1.02|0.2636
95936359|NCT04204278|191836052|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-Value was calculated||||||<0.0001
95936360|NCT04204278|191836053|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95936361|NCT05406921|191836062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This was a feasibility study and not powered to detect significant differences pre-/post-intervention.||||<0.05
95736980|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
95736981|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
95736982|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.8|1.1|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.1|0.8|
95736983|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3||||||||1.3|0.9|
95736984|NCT01077596|191446102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.9|
95736985|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|1.0|1.3||||||||1.3|1.0|
95736986|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|1.0|
95736987|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4||||||||1.4|1.0|
95736988|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||||95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.4|1.0|
95736989|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
95736990|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.3|0.9|
95736991|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
95736992|NCT01077596|191446103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Adjusted for age, sex, cal year, study site, tumor characteristics, multiple antidepressants exposure, smoking, hysterectomy status, previous depression dx, previous IBD diagnosis, OC use, HRT/ERT use, and NSAID use.|||1.2|0.8|
95736993|NCT00837486|191446117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||"one-sided P-value~per protocol responder rates: Active Group = 20.0%, Control Group = 14.3%"|Fisher Exact|||The study originally required a sample size of 208 subjects in order to have 90% power to detect a statistically significant difference between the responder rate of the active and control groups. With this 30-subject cohort, and only 29 subjects completing the blinded-treatment phase per protocol, the comparison of response rates was not adequately powered. The P-value is presented only to describe the outcomes of the two groups.||||=0.53
95736994|NCT01754597|191446160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.714
95736995|NCT01754597|191446161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.492
95736996|NCT01754597|191446162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
95736997|NCT00819741|191446163|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If non-inferiority was shown (that was if H0 was rejected), then superiority of repaglinide and metformin combination therapy compared to repaglinide monotherapy would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.~The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0096||||95.0|-0.491|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||"The non-inferiority margin for HbA1c was set to 0.4%.~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment ≥0.4%~Against the alternative hypothesis (H1):~H1: HbA1c of repaglinide + metformin therapy after 16 weeks of treatment - HbA1c of repaglinide monotherapy after 16 weeks of treatment \<0.4%"||-0.114|-0.491|
95736998|NCT01597245|191446178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95736999|NCT01597245|191446178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737000|NCT01597245|191446178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95857690|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.45|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.71|3.45|0.0520
95737001|NCT01597245|191446179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737002|NCT01597245|191446179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737003|NCT01597245|191446179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737004|NCT01597245|191446180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
95737005|NCT01597245|191446180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737006|NCT01597245|191446180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737007|NCT01597245|191446181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737008|NCT01597245|191446181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737009|NCT01597245|191446181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737010|NCT01597245|191446182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
95737011|NCT01597245|191446182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737012|NCT01597245|191446182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737013|NCT01597245|191446183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95737014|NCT01597245|191446183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95737015|NCT01597245|191446184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737016|NCT01597245|191446184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737017|NCT01597245|191446184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95737018|NCT01597245|191446185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737019|NCT01597245|191446185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737020|NCT01597245|191446185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737021|NCT01597245|191446186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95737022|NCT01597245|191446186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737023|NCT01597245|191446186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737024|NCT01597245|191446187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737025|NCT01597245|191446187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737026|NCT01597245|191446187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737027|NCT01597245|191446188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737028|NCT01597245|191446188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737029|NCT01597245|191446188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737030|NCT01597245|191446189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
95737031|NCT01597245|191446189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95737032|NCT01597245|191446189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95737033|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.026
95936362|NCT05249439|191836063|OTHER|Paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||I-SatPro starting weight Vs 52 week weight (kg)||||<0.0001
95795391|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.0085||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0085
95857691|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.176|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.02|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||8.67|2.02|0.1760
95737034|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.076
95737035|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism Score||||0.016
95737036|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
95857692|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.38|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||9.77|4.38|0.0274
95936363|NCT02910583|191836072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|4.7||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.9||P-value is from Z test for the difference of two proportions based on Kaplan-Meier estimates with standard error of each arm computed using Greenwood's formula.|Z test||comparison: ibrutininb vs. placebo|||10.9|-1.6|0.1475
95857693|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||2.44|-4.51|0.8018
95936364|NCT02910583|191836073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided P-value from asymptotic test for the binomial proportion (CRR \<= 37% vs CRR \> 37%).|asymptotic test for binomial proportion|||||||< 0.0001
95737037|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
95737038|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment Score||||<0.001
95737039|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
95737040|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
95737041|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism Score||||<0.001
95737042|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
95737043|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
95737044|NCT01597245|191446190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Work Productivity Loss Score||||<0.001
95737045|NCT01597245|191446191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
95737046|NCT01597245|191446191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
95737047|NCT01597245|191446191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Summary Score||||<0.001
95737048|NCT01597245|191446191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
95737049|NCT01597245|191446191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
95737050|NCT01597245|191446191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Summary Score||||<0.001
95737051|NCT01597245|191446192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737052|NCT01597245|191446192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737053|NCT01597245|191446192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95737054|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
95737055|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
95737056|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 50||||<0.001
95737057|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
95737058|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
95737059|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 75||||<0.001
95737060|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||0.002
95936365|NCT05059262|191836101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|49.6||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on Interactive Response Technology (IRT).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT|||49.6|28.4|<0.0001
95737061|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
95737062|NCT01597245|191446193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PPASI 100||||<0.001
95737063|NCT02301975|191446276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit PM FEV1 for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 milliliter (mL)|Least square mean change difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.049||||||||0.049|-0.011|
95737064|NCT02301975|191446276|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.093|<0.001
95737065|NCT02301975|191446276|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.134|0.074|<0.001
95737066|NCT02301975|191446277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between mean change from Baseline in clinic visit for FF/VI and FP/S was more than -100 mL|Least square mean change difference|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.04||||||||0.040|-0.027|
95737067|NCT02301975|191446277|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.086|<0.001
95737068|NCT02301975|191446277|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.147|0.080|<0.001
95737069|NCT02301975|191446278|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||||||||3.0|-0.5|
95936366|NCT05059262|191836102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|77.3||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||77.3|57.0|<0.0001
95988078|NCT03092726|191950694|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|2.68||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||2.68|-4.05|0.369
95737070|NCT02301975|191446278|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|0.9|0.002
95737071|NCT02301975|191446278|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-0.3|0.106
95737072|NCT02301975|191446279|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1||||||||3.1|-0.7|
95737073|NCT02301975|191446279|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|0.8|0.004
95857694|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.91|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||8.35|2.91|0.0819
95857695|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.75|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||1.41|-5.75|0.6103
95936367|NCT05059262|191836103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.6||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.3||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.)+joint type (knee, ankle, or other)+the most impaired ROM baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.3|4.0|0.0077
95737074|NCT02301975|191446279|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|1.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-0.4|0.115
95737075|NCT02301975|191446280|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|9.4||||||||9.4|1.1|
95737076|NCT02301975|191446280|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|25.6|||ANCOVA|||||25.6|17.4|<0.001
95737077|NCT02301975|191446280|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|20.4|||ANCOVA|||||20.4|12.2|<0.001
95737078|NCT02301975|191446281|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54||||||||1.54|0.53|
95737079|NCT02301975|191446281|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.69|0.595
95737080|NCT02301975|191446281|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.75|0.372
95737081|NCT02301975|191446282|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.3||||||||9.3|0.7|
95737082|NCT02301975|191446282|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.5|||ANCOVA|||||23.5|14.9|<0.001
95737083|NCT02301975|191446282|OTHER||Least square mean change difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.5|||ANCOVA|||||18.5|9.9|<0.001
95737084|NCT02149420|191446283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.058||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.007|3.18|||repeated measures Bayesian analysis|with baseline as a covariate||Per protocol the primary analysis was between placebo and the combined VAY736 groups at Week 12.||3.180|-5.007|0.678
95737085|NCT04278560|191446297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|385.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated Measures Two-Way ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled by Baseline Step Counts|ANOVA|||||||0.009
95737086|NCT04278560|191446298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.03
95737087|NCT04278560|191446299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for the analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.4
95737088|NCT04278560|191446300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.016
95795392|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.228||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2280
95795393|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8205||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.892||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.892|-1.332|0.7330
95795394|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8074||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.724||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.724|-1.450|0.8655
95795395|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7875||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|3.53||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.530|0.434|0.0122
95857696|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.54|8.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.41|2.54|0.1168
95936368|NCT05059262|191836104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+PROMIS-PF baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||5.2|1.4|0.0007
95737089|NCT04278560|191446301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.17
95857697|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.54|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.99|0.54|0.3357
95936369|NCT05059262|191836105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+Worst Stiffness NRS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
95988079|NCT03092726|191950694|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|3.24||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.24|-4.51|0.393
95988080|NCT03092726|191950694|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|5.3|||MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.30|-3.57|0.626
95737090|NCT04278560|191446302|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline.||||||0.1
95857698|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.31|10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.54|4.31|0.0448
95936370|NCT05059262|191836106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.4||Model included treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction+stratification factor for region (U.S. versus non-U.S.) and tumor location (lower limb/all other) based on IRT+VAS baseline value.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||13.4|1.4|0.0155
95936371|NCT05059262|191836107|SUPERIORITY||Difference in responder rate|26.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|42.8||Stratified by tumor location (lower limb/all other) and region (U.S./non-U.S.) based on IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel with stratification factors based on IRT.|||42.8|9.5|0.0056
95737091|NCT04278560|191446303|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|We used change from baseline for this analysis. Two-Way Repeated Measure ANOVA: Group, Time, Group x Time, and controlled baseline||||||0.7
95737092|NCT04278560|191446304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95737093|NCT04278560|191446305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95737094|NCT03570749|191446306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|12.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.02|2.75|<0.001
95936372|NCT04501861|191836111|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.043|0.53
95737095|NCT03570749|191446306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|23.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.62|5.89|<0.001
95737096|NCT03570749|191446307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.51|1.81|<0.001
95737097|NCT03570749|191446307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|20.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.87|5.05|<0.001
95737098|NCT03570749|191446308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|15.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.83|1.97|0.001
95737099|NCT03570749|191446308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|38.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.83|5.30|<0.001
95737100|NCT03570749|191446309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|39.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.30|2.72|<0.001
95737101|NCT03570749|191446309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|67.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.68|5.04|<0.001
95737102|NCT03570749|191446310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.62|2.34|<0.001
95737103|NCT03570749|191446310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.81|5.01|<0.001
95737104|NCT03570749|191446311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.27|1.41|0.012
95737105|NCT03570749|191446311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|43.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.93|4.73|<0.001
95737106|NCT03570749|191446312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.57|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||||-15.63|-30.57|<0.001
95857699|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.51|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||5.29|-2.51|0.7642
95857700|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.67|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.32|2.67|0.1295
95857701|NCT00658359|191673385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.654|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.87|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||6.13|-1.87|0.6540
95857702|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.55|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||10.33|-22.55|0.7543
95857703|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.33||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-27.07|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||7.17|-27.07|0.6249
95936373|NCT04501861|191836111|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who with preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 52 and in vasopressin group is 40. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.016|-0.061|0.26
95950051|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.1||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.201|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 5: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.201|-0.000|0.0509
95737107|NCT03570749|191446312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|-30.89|||ANCOVA|||||-30.89|-44.24|<0.001
95737108|NCT03570749|191446313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|1.01|0.047
95737109|NCT03570749|191446313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|12.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.51|2.91|<0.001
95737110|NCT03570749|191446315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.38|0.005
95737111|NCT03570749|191446315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.05|0.040
95737112|NCT03570749|191446316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.93|0.107
95737113|NCT03570749|191446316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.78|0.174
95737114|NCT00968812|191446350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.085|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||0.085|-0.109|
95737115|NCT00968812|191446350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and glimepiride of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.0125, and assuming a drop-out rate of 35% in 52 weeks, it was estimated that approximately 427 patients per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with glimepiride|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to glimepiride at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus glimepiride\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to glimepiride would be concluded.||-0.023|-0.217|
95737116|NCT00968812|191446351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
95737117|NCT00968812|191446351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.14|0.05|<0.001
95737118|NCT00968812|191446352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-5.7|<0.001
95737119|NCT00968812|191446352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||||-5.1|-6.2|<0.001
95737120|NCT00968812|191446353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.010|-0.200|
95737121|NCT00968812|191446353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|-0.078|||ANCOVA|||||-0.078|-0.289|
95737122|NCT02576938|191446354|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.065
95737123|NCT02576938|191446354|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.027
95857704|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-35.17|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-2.15|-35.17|0.3415
95936374|NCT04501861|191836111|EQUIVALENCE|Compare mPAP-to-MAP ratio between patients who without preop PH received norepinephrine versus vasopressin intraoperatively. Post intervention measurements will be recorded after protamine administration until end of chest closure. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 31 and in vasopressin group is 29. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mPAP-to-MAP ratio was compared between patients without pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension.||0.043|-0.05|0.88
95936375|NCT04501861|191836112|EQUIVALENCE|Imbalanced confounders such as female, coronary artery disease, preoperative ejection fraction, surgery type, primary or repeat surgery, and bypass time were additionally adjusted. A different inverse probability of treatment weighting was fit for secondary analysis and a linear mixed regression model with random intercept to account for intra-week correlation to estimate the effect of norepinephrine on right ventricular free wall strain using the new obtained stabilized weights|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-6.0|0.37
95936376|NCT04501861|191836112|EQUIVALENCE|We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by considering patients who have preoperative pulmonary hypertension. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 34 and in vasopressin group is 28. The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||RV free wall strain compare between patients with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension of use of vasopressin and norepinephrine. Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension;||2.8|-7.1|0.39
95737124|NCT01667679|191446362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.01|||ANCOVA|||||5.01|1.76|<0.0001
95737125|NCT01667679|191446363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.85|||ANCOVA||mild attacks|||5.85|1.47|0.0013
95737126|NCT01667679|191446363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.68|||ANCOVA||moderate/severe attacks|||5.68|1.84|0.0002
95737127|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.60|0.85|0.3549
95737128|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.90|1.20|0.0005
95737129|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.21|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.21|1.45|<0.0001
95857705|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.47||0.072|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-54.1|-19.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-19.63|-54.10|0.0720
95737130|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.96|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||1.96|1.24|0.0002
95737131|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.71|1.10|0.0057
95737132|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.61|0.99|0.0654
95737133|NCT01667679|191446364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.49|0.89|0.2894
95737134|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.54|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||4.54|0.76|0.1771
95737135|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.42|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||3.42|1.21|0.0077
95795396|NCT02832037|191560977|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures included fixed, categorical factors of treatment, analysis visit as repeated measures per subject, and treatment by analysis visit interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value and baseline value by analysis visit interaction, subject as random effect, covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7884||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|3.28||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.280|0.181|0.0287
95857706|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.99||0.2937|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.83|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-4.17|-37.83|0.2937
95936377|NCT04501861|191836112|EQUIVALENCE|We're going to explore the interaction between preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension status and treatment group by equivalence analysis. The number of patients in norepinephrine group is 22 and in vasopressin group is 18.The significance level was 0.05 for all analyses. All tests were 2-sided. The significance levels of subgroup analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Interactions were considered significant when the interaction P was \< 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We examined the effect of norepinephrine versus vasopressin on right ventricular free wall strain by separately considering patients who did not have preoperative pulmonary hypertension.~Preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension was defined by using the cut-off value of 25 mmHg for the time-weighted average mPAP, i.e., time weighted average mPAP \< 25 mmHg indicated absence of preoperative pulmonary arterial hypertension; otherwise, presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension."||4.6|-7.6|0.63
95936378|NCT02384317|191836131|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.77||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.6|128.7|||Random coefficients regression|||||128.7|-133.6|0.965
95936379|NCT05956002|191836189|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.33|98.12|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2mg clinical IR tablet mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.12|91.33|
95936380|NCT05956002|191836189|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|98.34|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.34|91.69|
95936381|NCT05956002|191836189|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|88.92|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.92|82.90|
95988081|NCT03092726|191950694|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.16|5.34||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.34|-3.16|0.664
95737136|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.5|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.50|1.32|0.0003
95737137|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.09|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.09|1.29|<0.0001
95857707|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.38||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-59.72|-23.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-23.73|-59.72|0.0512
95737138|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.74|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||1.74|1.14|0.0016
95737139|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.69|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.69|1.09|0.0059
95737140|NCT01667679|191446365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.42|0.91|0.2717
95737141|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||1.77|0.87|0.2426
95737142|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||1.99|1.12|0.0069
95737143|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.56|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||2.56|1.47|<0.0001
95737144|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.23|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||2.23|1.26|0.0004
95936382|NCT05956002|191836189|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUClast for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|96.84|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||96.84|89.76|
95936383|NCT05956002|191836190|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|97.89|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.89|90.97|
95936384|NCT05956002|191836190|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.41|98.2|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||98.20|91.41|
95936385|NCT05956002|191836190|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.43|88.55|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||88.55|82.43|
95936386|NCT05956002|191836190|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of AUCinf for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|97.1|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.10|89.61|
95936387|NCT05956002|191836191|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with applesauce (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|99.22|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in applesauce vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||99.22|90.38|
95936388|NCT05956002|191836191|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with chocolate pudding (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.59|97.04|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in chocolate pudding vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.04|88.59|
95936389|NCT05956002|191836191|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with water (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|91.31|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in water vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||91.31|83.35|
95936390|NCT05956002|191836191|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the adjusted geometric mean ratio of Cmax for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets mixed with yogurt (tests) compared with etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet (reference) were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.24|97.17|||||The ratio and 90% CIs are expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed for etrasimod 2 mg mini tablets in yogurt vs etrasimod 2 mg clinical IR tablet using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within the sequence as a random effect.||97.17|88.24|
95936391|NCT04784559|191836202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.53||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors,|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.53|0.727|0.8751
95988082|NCT03092726|191950695|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|3.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||3.22|-2.90|0.534
95737145|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.11|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||2.11|1.22|0.0008
95737146|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||1.83|1.04|0.0272
95737147|NCT01667679|191446366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.62|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||1.62|0.90|0.2085
95737148|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||0.02|-0.06|0.3562
95737149|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.14|0.0063
95737150|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.11|-0.26|< 0.0001
95737151|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0005
95737152|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.05|-0.24|0.0040
95737153|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.21|0.0333
95737154|NCT01667679|191446368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.06|-0.15|0.4031
95737155|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.01|||ANCOVA||10 minutes post-dose|||-0.01|-0.08|0.0181
95936392|NCT04784559|191836202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.96||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.96|0.960|0.0625
95737156|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANCOVA||15 minutes post-dose|||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
95936393|NCT04784559|191836203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.37||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.37|0.655|0.5945
95737157|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.09|||ANCOVA||30 minutes post-dose|||-0.09|-0.23|< 0.0001
95737158|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.08|||ANCOVA||45 minutes post-dose|||-0.08|-0.25|0.0001
95737159|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA||60 minutes post-dose|||-0.07|-0.26|0.0006
95737160|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||ANCOVA||90 minutes post-dose|||-0.02|-0.21|0.0189
95737161|NCT01667679|191446369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA||120 minutes post-dose|||0.03|-0.17|0.1704
95737162|NCT03872128|191446389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
95737163|NCT03872128|191446390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
95857708|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.037|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-63.75|-27.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-27.11|-63.75|0.0370
95737164|NCT03872128|191446391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
95737165|NCT03872128|191446392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Total||||<0.001
95737166|NCT03872128|191446392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Obsessive||||<0.001
95737167|NCT03872128|191446392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||OCDS: Compulsive||||0.003
95857709|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-24.13|16.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.28|-24.13|0.8701
95857710|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.15||0.2146|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-48.24|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-9.25|-48.24|0.2146
95737168|NCT03872128|191446394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
95737169|NCT03872128|191446395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Depression||||<0.001
95737170|NCT03872128|191446395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Fisher Exact|||HADS-Anxiety||||0.089
95737171|NCT00835263|191446398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.23||||||90.0|100.78|105.73|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.73|100.78|
95737172|NCT00835263|191446399|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.31||||||90.0|100.75|105.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.93|100.75|
95737173|NCT00835263|191446400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.14||||||90.0|100.06|104.26|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.26|100.06|
95737174|NCT05446870|191446412|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|100.0|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of pCR, adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
95795397|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.066||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0660
95737175|NCT05446870|191446414|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|90.99|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) ctDNA fold change (square root scale) coefficient less than zero in the multivariable logistic regression model of CRS (CRS3 coded as 1 and CRS1 or 2 coded as 0), adjusted for baseline ctDNA and treatment assignment.|||
95737176|NCT05446870|191446415|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-10.0|
95737177|NCT05446870|191446416|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC + MK-4830 arm - % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|37.0||||||||37.0|3.5|
95737178|NCT05446870|191446419|OTHER||Posterior probability (%)|38.75|||||||||||||||Posterior probability (based on 20000 sets of model parameters) coefficient for treatment assignment (MK-4830 containing vs. not) less than zero in Bayesian parametrization of the constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, modeling ctDNA value at Cycle 3 and ctDNA value at baseline as bivariate normal.|||
95737179|NCT05630885|191446420|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.984||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.056||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel, adjusting for statin-use. The study was powered to detect a between-group difference of 0.046 in log10 MDS TBR (10% relative fold-change), assuming a null difference of 0 in log10 MDS TBR (a ratio of 1 in absolute-scale), a standard deviation of 0.065 of change in log10 TBR, and 75 evaluable participants.||1.056|0.916|0.65
95737180|NCT05630885|191446420|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.4||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by statin-use is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by statin-use at study entry (use versus no-use).||||0.40
95737181|NCT05630885|191446420|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.63||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by sex is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for sex (F vs M) and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by sex (female versus male).||||0.63
95795398|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.1619||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod linear in log model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1619
95737182|NCT05630885|191446420|OTHER|Statistical test for interaction.||||||0.71||||||P-value for modification of the CVC treatment effect by subgroups defined by race is presented. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for race and its interaction with treatment. Analysis used multiple imputation for missing data.||Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the MDS of the index vessel differently by race (Black/African-American versus Non-Black/African-American).||||0.71
95795399|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0832||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0832
95857711|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.58||0.462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-45.09|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||3.03|-45.09|0.4620
95857712|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.28||0.8639|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.28|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||24.60|-16.28|0.8639
95857713|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.65||0.323|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-56.11|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-4.50|-56.11|0.3230
95857714|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.92||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.51|51.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||51.47|9.51|0.2214
95737183|NCT05630885|191446421|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.996||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.067||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.067|0.930|0.91
95737184|NCT05630885|191446421|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.98||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.066||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the TBR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.066|0.901|0.64
95737185|NCT05630885|191446422|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.087||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the aorta adjusting for statin-use.||1.087|0.939|0.79
95737186|NCT05630885|191446422|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.017||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.106||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale and rounded to 3 decimal places. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in the SUV from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes arterial inflammation in the right and left carotid arteries adjusting for statin-use.||1.106|0.935|0.69
95737187|NCT05630885|191446423|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.6||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in fasting glucose from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting glucose adjusting for statin-use.||9.6|-4.6|0.49
95737188|NCT05630885|191446424|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in fasting insulin from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of fasting insulin adjusting for statin-use.||1.43|0.81|0.62
95737189|NCT05630885|191446424|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in HOMA-IR from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of HOMA-IR adjusting for statin-use.||1.54|0.78|0.61
95737190|NCT05630885|191446425|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.52||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in hsCRP from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of hsCRP adjusting for statin-use.||1.52|0.62|0.91
95737191|NCT05630885|191446425|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in IL-6 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of IL-6 adjusted for statin-use.||1.33|0.77|0.94
95795400|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0625||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 75% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0625
95795401|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.0768||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod logistic model fit|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg and 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0768
95857715|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.08||0.7492|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.26|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.75|-37.26|0.7492
95857716|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.15||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.57|26.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||26.79|-15.57|0.8236
95737192|NCT05630885|191446425|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.77||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MCP-1 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MCP-1 adjusting for statin-use.||5.77|3.89|<0.001
95737193|NCT05630885|191446426|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-49.0||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|60.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD14 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of sCD14 adjusting for statin-use.||60|-158|0.38
95936394|NCT04784559|191836203|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.7||Unadjusted 2-sided p-value, for multiplicity adjustment uses the Hochberg step-up procedure|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression model, including the fixed effect of the treatment group and levels of the randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||1.70|0.827|0.3358
95737194|NCT05630885|191446426|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|75.0||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate reflects the relative mean change in sCD163 from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of sCD163 adjusting for statin-use.||75|-87|0.88
95936395|NCT04784559|191836204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.06||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 2.5 mg arm versus Control arm||2.06|0.604|0.7252
95737195|NCT05630885|191446427|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.12||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in MIP-1 beta from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes the levels of MIP-1 beta adjusting for statin-use.||2.12|1.28|<0.001
95857717|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.1||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.2|42.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||42.54|-13.20|0.6578
95936396|NCT04784559|191836204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.11||2-sided|p-value based on proportional odds model|Proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% CI based on a proportional odds model with fixed effects of treatment group and randomisation stratification factors|Plitidepsin 1.5 mg arm versus Control arm||3.11|0.920|0.0910
95936397|NCT03940963|191836239|NON_INFERIORITY|The visual analog scale (VAS, 0-100 scale) pain score change from baseline value to 12 months was tested for non-inferiority of neurectomy with Axoguard Nerve Cap to standard neurectomy alone using closed testing procedures.||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95936398|NCT03940963|191836242|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.485||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
95936399|NCT03940963|191836243|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
95857718|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.12||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.9|39.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||39.76|-5.90|0.5326
95857719|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.44||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-42.99|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||15.00|-42.99|0.6845
95857720|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.73||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-15.83|32.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||32.54|-15.83|0.7713
95936400|NCT03940963|191836244|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
95936401|NCT03940963|191836245|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.544||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
95988083|NCT03092726|191950695|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|4.91||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||4.91|-1.98|0.758
95737196|NCT05630885|191446427|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||A-priori threshold for statistical significance is at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Regression, Linear|Outcome was log10-transformed. Model adjusted for statin-use.|Estimate obtained from regression on log10-transformed scale was back-transformed to the original scale. It reflects the relative geometric mean fold-change in RANTES from baseline for CVC compared to placebo.|Evaluates whether CVC, compared to placebo, changes levels of RANTES adjusting for statin-use.||1.28|0.82|0.85
95936402|NCT03940963|191836247|EQUIVALENCE|A predefined equivalence margin was not considered.||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95737197|NCT01940341|191446443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample sizes of 130 and 260 participants in the TDF group and TAF groups, respectively were planned to give 90% power to rule out the noninferiority margin of 10% at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This sample size was based on the assumption that the expected difference (TAF-TDF) in proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL was 0 and the proportion of participants with HBV DNA\<29 IU/mL in the TDF group was 91%. All missing data were treated as not achieving the primary endpoint.|Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.2|||||Difference in the proportion between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HBV DNA categories and oral antiviral treatment status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 10% worse than the TDF group with respect to the proportion of participants with HBV DNA \< 29 IU/mL at Week 48. Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.||7.2|-3.6|
95737198|NCT02009163|191446448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a log-rank test, stratified by 4-week cessation status (Yes, No). 4-week cessation was defined as a subject having no binge days during the 4 weeks prior to randomization.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95737199|NCT02009163|191446449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.42||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed- effects model for repeated measur|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-0.42|-0.81|<0.001
95737200|NCT02009163|191446450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted P-value for the difference in distribution between treatment groups in CGI-S.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with a modified ridit score, adjusting for Visit 8 (Week 12) CGI-S as the covariate.||||||<0.001
95737201|NCT02009163|191446451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-3.9||Nominal P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|MMRM over all post-randomization visits during the randomized-withdrawal phase. Value for change from baseline = outcome variable.||||-3.9|-7.2|<0.001
95795402|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. ANCOVA included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.||||||0.7479||||||P-value is considered nominal.|MCP-Mod beta model fit|Assumption:75% of maximum (max) effect at 2mg, 87.5% of max effect at 5mg,25% of max effect at 25mg,max effect at 10mg BI 425809, scalar parameter=26.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 425809 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 6 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, linear in log, Emax, Sigmoid Emax, logistic, and beta) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.7479
95795403|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7306||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|2.613||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.613|-0.258|0.11
95795404|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7224||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.257|0.582||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.582|-2.257|0.25
95795405|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7152||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|1.142||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.142|-1.669|0.71
95857721|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.06||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-37.47|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||23.26|-37.47|0.8438
95936403|NCT03661840|191836259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.0||Unadjusted model comparing the mean difference (change from 12 weeks - baseline) in outcome by intervention group.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||39|-31|0.82
95936404|NCT03661840|191836260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.0||Unadjusted model comparing the change in outcome by intervention group|Regression, Linear|||||25|-0.7|0.06
95737202|NCT01935934|191446466|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Trial design discriminated between co-primary endpoints of objective RR of 30% (vs 10%) and 12-week PFS of 55% (vs 30%). The design had 86% power to detect a true objective RR of at least 30% and at least 90% power to detect a true 12-week PFS rate of atleast 55% (or a median PFS of 3.4 months).~The parallel exploratory cohort of uncommon histology cancers was analyzed independently."|||
95737203|NCT00833586|191446473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.1||||||90.0|85.8|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.4|85.8|
95737204|NCT00833586|191446474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.9||||||90.0|82.7|118.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||118.4|82.7|
95737205|NCT00833586|191446475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|102.4||||||90.0|95.0|110.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.5|95.0|
95737206|NCT00304187|191446478|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95795406|NCT02832037|191560978|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7125||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.473|0.328||P-value is considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed categorical factor, and baseline score as continuous fixed covariate.|Difference was calculated as BI 425809 - placebo.|Secondary analysis. No formal hypotheses were tested.||0.328|-2.473|0.13
95737207|NCT01854047|191446480|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w, and 200 mg q4w.||0.36|0.06|0.0063
95737208|NCT01854047|191446480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.40|0.11|0.0008
95737209|NCT01854047|191446480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.32|0.03|0.0212
95737210|NCT01854047|191446480|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.23|-0.07|0.2774
95737211|NCT01854047|191446481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach including available FEV1 data from baseline to Week 12 and treatment group as a factor. A step-down procedure was used to strongly control the overall type I error rate for testing multiple doses against placebo. The hierarchy was 300 mg q2w, 200 mg q2w, 300 mg q4w and 200 mg q4w.||0.25|0.08|0.0002
95737212|NCT01854047|191446481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.28|0.011|<0.0001
95795407|NCT03185208|191560992|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.69||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
95737213|NCT01854047|191446481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.21|0.04|0.0048
95737214|NCT01854047|191446481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q4w vs. Placebo q2w|||0.18|0.01|0.0304
95737215|NCT03769025|191446503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1
95737216|NCT03769025|191446504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.959
95737217|NCT03374176|191446505|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||chi-square|||<0.05
95737218|NCT02911701|191446509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||maxim|||||||0.3
95737219|NCT02444715|191446549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.96
95737220|NCT02444715|191446549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.03
95737221|NCT02444715|191446550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.53
95737222|NCT02444715|191446550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.44
95737223|NCT02444715|191446551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.76
95737224|NCT02444715|191446551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
95737225|NCT02444715|191446552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.39
95737226|NCT02444715|191446552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
95737227|NCT02444715|191446553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.92
95737228|NCT02444715|191446553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.37
95737229|NCT02444715|191446554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.78
95737230|NCT02444715|191446554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.19
95737231|NCT02444715|191446555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.9
95737232|NCT02444715|191446555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.43
95737233|NCT02444715|191446556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.67
95737234|NCT02444715|191446556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
95737235|NCT02444715|191446557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.26
95737236|NCT02444715|191446557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.07
95737237|NCT02444715|191446558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.06
95737238|NCT02444715|191446558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.04
95737239|NCT02444715|191446559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
95737240|NCT02444715|191446559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Medium intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.34
95737241|NCT02444715|191446559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.37
95737242|NCT02444715|191446559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"High intensity~H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention"||||0.59
95737243|NCT02444715|191446560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.64
95737244|NCT02444715|191446560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: no change between baseline and post-intervention||||0.14
95737245|NCT00017953|191446562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.83|0.51
95795408|NCT03185208|191560993|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-0.08835||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95795409|NCT03185208|191560994|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.08738||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95795410|NCT03185208|191560996|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|0.012||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
95795411|NCT03185208|191560997|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|-351.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95795412|NCT03185208|191560998|SUPERIORITY||treatment x time interaction coefficient|58.95||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
95795413|NCT01206764|191561011|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|27.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|35.29||||||Single arm open label study||35.29|21.86|
95857722|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.7||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-3.78|47.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||47.91|-3.78|0.4724
95857723|NCT00658359|191673386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.98||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.89|49.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||49.38|-12.89|0.6218
95857724|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.01|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||4.35|-9.01|0.7693
95737246|NCT00017953|191446563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.79|0.42
95737247|NCT00017953|191446564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.23
95737248|NCT00017953|191446565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.29
95737249|NCT00762307|191446590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|22.4||||||||22.4|14.9|
95737250|NCT00762307|191446592|OTHER||sucess percentage|91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
95737251|NCT03290781|191446593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.572||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.572|0.296|<0.001
95737252|NCT03290781|191446593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.401||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.401|0.142|<0.001
95737253|NCT03290781|191446594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.585||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.585|0.310|<0.001
95737254|NCT03290781|191446594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.463||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.463|0.197|<0.001
95737255|NCT03290781|191446595|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.62||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.620|0.337|<0.001
95737256|NCT03290781|191446595|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.425||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.425|0.148|<0.001
95737257|NCT03290781|191446596|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.398||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.398|0.129|<0.001
95737258|NCT03290781|191446596|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.305||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.305|0.067|<0.001
95737259|NCT03290781|191446597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.488|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.613||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.613|0.329|<0.001
95737260|NCT03290781|191446597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.471||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.471|0.194|<0.001
95737261|NCT03290781|191446598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.554||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.554|0.280|<0.001
95988084|NCT03092726|191950695|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|5.96||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||5.96|-2.56|0.745
95988085|NCT03092726|191950695|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|5.69||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.69|-2.34|0.755
95988086|NCT03092726|191950696|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.17||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 2: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.17|-0.78|0.629
95988087|NCT03092726|191950696|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|1.04||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 4: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.04|-1.37|0.410
95988088|NCT03092726|191950696|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.22||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described MMRM model.|MMRM|||Week 8: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using a MMRM model with change from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 8 as response, treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (study weeks 2, 4 and 8) and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline-by-time interaction as covariates.||1.22|-1.11|0.531
95737262|NCT03290781|191446598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.349||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.349|0.094|<0.001
95737263|NCT03290781|191446599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.287||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.287|0.049|<0.001
95795414|NCT01206764|191561015|OTHER|Kaplan Meier|Median Difference (Net)|45.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.29|106.43||||||The median overall survival was not evaluable, this presents the 25th percentile of overall survival||106.43|31.29|
95795415|NCT00997893|191561020|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||treatment x time p=.004|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.004
95857725|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.7396|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.22|9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||9.73|-4.22|0.7396
95857726|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-13.51|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.17|-13.51|0.3881
95988089|NCT03092726|191950696|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.28||1-sided p-value is for comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||EOT: Differences of LS means were calculated by subtracting the LS mean of placebo group from the LS mean of ASP8062 30 mg group using an ANCOVA model that was performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response, treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.93|0.603
95737264|NCT03290781|191446599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.111|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.208||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.208|0.006|<0.005
95737265|NCT03290781|191446600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647-303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95857727|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.42|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.53|-12.42|0.5114
95857728|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.21|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||2.36|-11.21|0.5829
95737266|NCT03290781|191446600|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by status of glucocorticoid use at SHP647- 303 baseline, prior anti-TNF treatment, and the degree of clinical response in the induction studies (whether remission is achieved or not).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
95795416|NCT00997893|191561021|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||visit x time x treatment interaction p=.98|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo before and after a psychosocial stressor. Predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.98
95737267|NCT02538523|191446623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fischer's Exact Test for two independent proportions was conducted to compare the statistical significance of the 44.8% difference in proportion of successes between procedure groups at two-months post-procedure (study endpoint) relative to baseline evaluation.||||<0.005
95737268|NCT02538523|191446624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Differences is the statistical significance of change scores in ODI total score from study baseline to endpoint (two-months post-procedure) were evaluated by Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with change from baseline to endpoint in ODI total score as the dependent variable, baseline ODI total score as the covariate and procedure group (Erchonia FX-635 or placebo laser) as a main effect.||||<0.05
95737269|NCT00199901|191446634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.568||||||||1.568|0.532|
95737270|NCT00199901|191446636|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.455||||||||1.455|0.532|
95737271|NCT00199901|191446637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.614||||||||1.614|0.514|
95737272|NCT03697109|191446666|EQUIVALENCE|Log odds is equal to 0 (null hypothesis) vs log odds not equal to 0 (alternative hypothesis).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.77|||Chi-squared||An odds ratio (OR) \<1 represents lower odds of loss of response under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo.|A logistic regression model with logit link function was used in order to detect if there was a significant difference in total number of patients with a loss of response with respect to HTN under treatment with relacorilant compared with treatment with placebo in the RW Phase.||0.77|0.04|0.0215
95737273|NCT01415232|191446718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Balki et al found a Pearson's correlation coefficient between the UD and ND depth of 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.91). We believe EDE + US would result in a correlation coefficient of approximately 0.91. To keep the lower bound estimate within 0.04 of a correlation of 0.91, and to maintain a 95% confidence level, 140 patients would need to be sampled. To allow for patients who may not complete the study, 160 patients were enrolled.|correlation coefficient|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||longitudinal correlation coefficient|||Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for epidural distance measurements which included actual clinical epidural needle depth (ND) and the epidural depth equation (EDE), ND and prior EDE + US midline longitudinal plane view, ND and prior EDE + US transverse plane view.||0.93|0.87|< 0.05
95737274|NCT01415232|191446718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|correlation coefficient|transverse plane correlation coefficient|0.9|||>|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.93|||transverse plane correlation coefficient|||Transverse plane correlation coefficient||0.93|0.87|>0.85
95737275|NCT01415232|191446718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Clinical epidural needle depth||6.8|6.5|>0.05
95737276|NCT01415232|191446718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Formula calculation|6.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|6.65|||Formula calculation||Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)|Estimated epidural depth equation depth (cm)||6.65|6.44|>0.05
95737277|NCT02545283|191446750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.81|0.5752
95857729|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.99|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-2.53|-16.99|0.2559
95857730|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-4.65|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||10.14|-4.65|0.7548
95857731|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.7998|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.63|10.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Match 30||10.49|-5.63|0.7998
95737278|NCT00583453|191446785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||Treatment x day interaction|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.674
95737279|NCT00583453|191446786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment x day interaction reported as 0.018.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95737280|NCT00583453|191446787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||Treatment x day interaction = 0.214|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.214
95737281|NCT00583453|191446789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||treatment x day interaction P = 0.036 Treatment main effect (average day 1 to 10) P = 0.003|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95737282|NCT00905606|191446819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|93.91||||||90.0|85.42|103.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.25|85.42|
95857732|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.08||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.74|18.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.03|2.74|0.2531
95737283|NCT00905606|191446820|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.27||||||90.0|94.63|102.05|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.05|94.63|
95737284|NCT00905606|191446821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA guidelines.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|98.19||||||90.0|94.64|101.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.87|94.64|
95737285|NCT03635320|191446822|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of -10%|95%CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.42|||Newcombe-Wilson scoring method|Using the Newcombe-Wilson scoring method, the difference of fracture union rate between the TFNA group and the PFNA-II group was 0.|If the lower limit of 95% CI of the difference in the rates of the study group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, then the investigational product is considered non-inferior to the control product.|||4.42|-4.53|
95737286|NCT01705574|191446850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis was that the STB group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm). The alternative hypothesis was that the STB group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+TVD group.|Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||12.6|0.4|
95737287|NCT01705574|191446850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.2|0.4|12.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing virologic success was from the CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.2% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted MH proportion. If the lower bound of the CI was \> 0, superiority of STB over ATV+RTV+TVD was established.|If noninferiority of STB versus ATV+RTV+TVD was established, the same 95.2% CI used in evaluating noninferiority was used to evaluate superiority. The baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-stratified, 2-sided CMH test was also used to assess superiority as a secondary assessment.||12.6|0.4|0.034
95737288|NCT02659150|191446855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-test comparing values obtained during the follow-up imaging (at 13-18 weeks)minus the baseline values||||0.26
95737289|NCT02659150|191446856|OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman|||correlation coefficient||||0.036
95737290|NCT02659150|191446857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The carotid artery plaque with highest FDG uptake is located using Positron Emission Tomography/ Magnetic Resonance Imaging images. Thereafter Paired T- Test is used to compare baseline vs follow-up values of FDG uptake (before vs after 12 weeks of tocilizumab treatment). FDG uptake is assessed as a Target to background values (TBR) , which is calculated as the mean arterial standardized uptake value (SUV) divided by background blood pool SUV.||||0.14
95737291|NCT02659150|191446858|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|-0.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.076
95737292|NCT02659150|191446859|SUPERIORITY||Correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Method|||||||0.07
95737293|NCT04994535|191446908|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|37.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.4|24.5|<.0001
95737294|NCT04994535|191446909|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|46.4||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.4|31.3|<0.0001
95737295|NCT04994535|191446910|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|44.7||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.7|29.1|<0.0001
95737296|NCT04994535|191446913|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|58.3||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|42.0|<.0001
95857733|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.72|19.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.57|0.72|0.3650
95857734|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.53|15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.19|-0.53|0.4328
95857735|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.35||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-22.5|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||-3.38|-22.50|0.2547
95857736|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.75|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||16.69|0.75|0.3572
95857737|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.64||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.86|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||12.74|-6.86|0.8009
95737297|NCT04994535|191446914|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|18.1|<.0001
95737298|NCT04994535|191446915|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|44.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|27.4|<.0001
95737299|NCT04994535|191446916|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.4||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-5.4|<.0001
95737300|NCT04994535|191446919|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|51.0||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.0|34.8|<0.0001
95737301|NCT04994535|191446920|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|58.1||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|40.8|<0.0001
95737302|NCT04994535|191446921|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|38.2||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.2|19.4|<0.0001
95737303|NCT04994535|191446922|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%)|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|44.6||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.6|27.2|<0.0001
95737304|NCT04994535|191446923|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||||-3.7|-5.8|<0.0001
95737305|NCT04994535|191446924|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.7||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 30||-3.7|-6.0|<0.0001
95737306|NCT04994535|191446924|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.6||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 60||-3.6|-5.9|<0.0001
95737307|NCT04994535|191446924|SUPERIORITY||Difference (SE)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.8||P-value derived from ANCOVA model stratified by investigator site and baseline C-APPS with baseline value as a factor.|ANCOVA|||Day 90||-2.8|-4.9|<0.0001
95737308|NCT02246920|191446940|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R Ls Mean Ratio|108.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|124.4||||||||124.40|94.09|
95737309|NCT02246920|191446941|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated when the 90% confidence interval is contained within 80.00-125.00%.|T/R LS Mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|124.09||||||||124.09|92.42|
95737310|NCT02246920|191446942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0028
95737311|NCT02246920|191446942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0169
95737312|NCT00772941|191446956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95737313|NCT00772941|191446957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95737314|NCT00772941|191446958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a complication in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95737315|NCT00772941|191446959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant drugs in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95737316|NCT00772941|191446960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant therapies. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without concomitant therapies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95737317|NCT00772941|191446961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Weight at Baseline and the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95737318|NCT00772941|191446961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Weight at Baseline. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events across increasing levels of Weight at Baseline."||||<0.001
95737319|NCT00772941|191446962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Tobacco consumption per day and the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
95857738|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.82|4.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||4.07|-11.82|0.6814
95857739|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|60.0|2.84|22.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||22.93|2.84|0.2803
95857740|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.72|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||5.50|-11.72|0.7613
95737320|NCT00772941|191446962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was Tobacco consumption per day. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the efficacy of Varenicline across increasing levels of tobacco consumption per day."||||<0.001
95737321|NCT00772941|191446963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was prolonged administration after 12 weeks. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between administration prolonged after 12 weeks and administration not prolonged after 12 weeks in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
95737322|NCT00772941|191446964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antipsychotics as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Varenicline with and without antipsychotics as a concomitant drug in the efficacy of Varenicline."||||<0.001
95857741|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35||0.8554|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-12.65|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||8.15|-12.65|0.8554
95737323|NCT00834340|191447011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|92.2|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|92.2|
95737324|NCT00834340|191447012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|94.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.0|
95737325|NCT00834340|191447013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|98.7|
95737326|NCT01175018|191447016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95737327|NCT01175018|191447017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95737328|NCT01175018|191447018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737329|NCT01175018|191447019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95737330|NCT01175018|191447020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95737331|NCT01175018|191447021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737332|NCT01175018|191447022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95737333|NCT01175018|191447023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95737334|NCT01175018|191447024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95737335|NCT01175018|191447025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737336|NCT01175018|191447026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737337|NCT01175018|191447027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737338|NCT01175018|191447028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737339|NCT01175018|191447029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737340|NCT01175018|191447030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737341|NCT01175018|191447031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95737342|NCT00840073|191447044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.0||||||90.0|85.13|108.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.27|85.13|
95737343|NCT00840073|191447045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.81||||||90.0|96.72|111.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.41|96.72|
95737344|NCT00840073|191447046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.37||||||90.0|97.34|107.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.65|97.34|
95737345|NCT00840073|191447047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.76||||||90.0|100.08|107.57|||||Informational Purposes Only|||107.57|100.08|
95737346|NCT00840073|191447048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.34||||||90.0|100.84|105.92|||||Informational Purposes Only|||105.92|100.84|
95737347|NCT01020474|191447050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.18||Missing data for week 15 mean pain score are imputed based on distribution of baseline pain scores if participants discontinue due to adverse events/ abnormal laboratory test results or lack of efficacy.|ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.18|-1.51|0.121
95737348|NCT01020474|191447051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.63|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||0.63|-1.00|0.655
95737349|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.61|-0.75|0.842
95737350|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.05|-1.32|0.070
95737351|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||-0.14|-1.51|0.019
95737352|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||-0.21|-1.59|0.011
95737353|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.02|-1.38|0.056
95737354|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||-0.26|-1.66|0.008
95737355|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||-0.19|-1.60|0.013
95737356|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.35|-1.77|0.004
95737357|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||-0.24|-1.67|0.009
95737358|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.25|-1.69|0.008
95857742|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-10.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||7.84|-10.18|0.9132
95737359|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||-0.13|-1.59|0.021
95737360|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||-0.23|-1.71|0.010
95737361|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.00|-1.49|0.051
95737362|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||-0.14|-1.66|0.020
95737363|NCT01020474|191447052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.03|-1.51|0.060
95737364|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 1.||0.47|-0.90|0.540
95737365|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 2||0.50|-0.87|0.593
95737366|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 3.||0.25|-1.13|0.206
95857743|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.79||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-6.63|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.90|-6.63|0.7465
95857744|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.34|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||7.76|-11.34|0.8747
95737367|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 4.||0.21|-1.18|0.168
95737368|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 5.||0.32|-1.08|0.280
95737369|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 6.||0.06|-1.34|0.075
95988090|NCT03092726|191950697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.67||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 2: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.67|0.68|0.811
95988091|NCT03092726|191950697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.22||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 4: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.22|0.50|0.368
95737370|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 7.||0.21|-1.21|0.168
95737371|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 8.||-0.30|-1.73|0.006
95737372|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 9.||0.15|-1.29|0.120
95737373|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 10.||-0.05|-1.49|0.037
95795417|NCT00997893|191561022|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||treatment x time (before and after the psychosocial stressor) x visit p=.68|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on emotional memory following a laboratory induced stress. Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment, time (before and after the psychosocial stressor), visit (Baseline, 12 weeks), and all two and three way interactions.|||.68
95795418|NCT00997893|191561023|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||treatment x time p=.11|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate). Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.11
95737374|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 11.||0.30|-1.16|0.246
95795419|NCT00997893|191561024|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||treatment x time p=.86|Mixed Models Analysis||||A mixed effects regression model (Estimation method=maximum likelihood; Random intercept) was conducted to compare the effects of phytoestrogens and estradiol to placebo on verbal memory (logical memory; immediate)Primary predictor variables in the model included treatment and time, as well the treatment by time interaction.|||.86
95795420|NCT05352815|191561056|SUPERIORITY|Change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52 is analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing HbA1c values at week 52 are imputed by using multiple imputation. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
95737375|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 12.||0.13|-1.36|0.105
95737376|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 13.||0.41|-1.09|0.376
95795421|NCT01258049|191561069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.85|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.25|67.45|||Regression, Logistic|||In ART003, the parasite success rate for quinine was 67.7%. On the assumption that the parasite success rate was 70% for quinine in this study and in order to demonstrate that ArTiMist™ is superior to quinine by at least 20% the success rate for ArTiMist™ should be at least 90%. Using these figures, and assuming a power of 80%, an alpha of 0.05 (two sided) and based on an equal allocation to the ArTiMist™ and quinine treatment arms, the number of subjects (n) required on each treatment was 59.||67.45|42.25|<0.005
95795422|NCT01258049|191561070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-15.72|||ANCOVA|||||-15.72|-62.22|<0.05
95737377|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 14.||0.35|-1.18|0.285
95737378|NCT01020474|191447053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of Week 15.||0.61|-0.95|0.663
95737379|NCT01020474|191447054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Based on LS Means using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (including Treatment, Center, Baseline value as covariate).||||-0.05|-1.68|0.037
95737380|NCT01020474|191447055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||2.58|0.53|0.694
95737381|NCT01020474|191447056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||7.02|0.72|0.162
95737382|NCT01020474|191447057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value uses the row mean score statistic based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||Statistical analysis at Week 15.||||0.013
95737383|NCT00984126|191447073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4||||||A one-sided 95% upper confidence limit was based on an exact calculation for a binomial distribution.||1.4||
95737384|NCT01581658|191447172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|128.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.962|156.604|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||156.604|105.962|
95737385|NCT01581658|191447172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.306|174.848|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||174.848|118.306|
95857745|NCT00658359|191673390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.96||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-18.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||3.72|-18.10|0.5793
95936405|NCT03661840|191836260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Sample size was estimated using d= 0.61, with power at 0.80 and α = .05, two-tailed. It is assumed that the correlation between pre and post-test measures will be high at .5. With these parameters and using repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate treatment difference, sample size is powered for clinical outcomes at 92 participants; with an estimated 30% attrition and conservatively including the possibility of screening failures, a maximum sample of 140 participants will be targeted for enrollment.||||0.05
95737386|NCT01581658|191447172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|152.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.287|185.166|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||185.166|125.287|
95936406|NCT03336333|191836264|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.63||One-sided|Log Rank|||||0.63|0.28|<0.0001
95936407|NCT04401800|191836293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
95936408|NCT04401800|191836295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||||||< 0.0001
95936409|NCT04401800|191836296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
95936410|NCT04401800|191836296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||< 0.0001
95936411|NCT04401800|191836297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by the Investigator||||< 0.0001
95936412|NCT04401800|191836297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Binomial exact test|||ORR as Assessed by Central Site Imaging Facility||||0.0002
95936413|NCT04927065|191836316|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAB: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.0|2.0|
95936414|NCT04927065|191836316|OTHER||GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||2.3|1.7|
95936415|NCT04927065|191836317|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.9|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||8.9|4.5|
95857746|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|15.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.11|10.40|<0.0001
95857747|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.96|15.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||15.82|10.96|<0.0001
95857748|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.95|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.00|8.95|0.0002
95936416|NCT04927065|191836317|OTHER||GMR|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||3.6|2.1|
95936417|NCT04927065|191836318|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||5.6|-3.1|
95936418|NCT04927065|191836318|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
95936419|NCT04927065|191836319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.3|||||Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.3|-6.9|
95936420|NCT04927065|191836319|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||4.5|-9.6|
95936421|NCT04927065|191836320|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|21.6|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||21.6|4.1|
95737387|NCT01581658|191447173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.236|121.015|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.015|72.236|
95737388|NCT01581658|191447173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.216|119.305|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||119.305|71.216|
95737389|NCT01581658|191447173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|121.674|||ANOVA|The model includes fixed effect for the renal function group||||121.674|72.630|
95737390|NCT05776901|191447176|OTHER|Descriptive statistics and measures of central tendency, including mean, median, and standard deviation of the System Usability Scores collected from the baseline and week 3 were computed. Then, a two-sided, paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the change in mean System Usability Scores from baseline at week 3.|Mean diff in SUS from baseline at week 3|34.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|96.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||96.37|-28.04|<0.05
95737391|NCT04517604|191447178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.984||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|6.47||no adjustment for multiple comparisons as was a pilot|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-16.52|.343
95936422|NCT04927065|191836320|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||||
95936423|NCT04927065|191836321|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.1|||||Omicron BA.1 variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||17.1|-11.4|
95936424|NCT04927065|191836321|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.3|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part A.2 versus Part A.1|||7.3|-21.6|
95936425|NCT04927065|191836322|OTHER||GMR|1.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|2.073|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.073|1.523|
95936426|NCT04927065|191836323|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||3.0|-1.7|
95936427|NCT04927065|191836324|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb - Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||26.0|9.8|
95936428|NCT04927065|191836325|OTHER||GMR|1.744|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.492|2.04|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.040|1.492|
95936429|NCT04927065|191836325|OTHER||GMR|1.211|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.074|1.366|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.366|1.074|
95936430|NCT04927065|191836326|OTHER||GMR|1.676|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.396|2.013|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.013|1.396|
95936431|NCT04927065|191836326|OTHER||GMR|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.26|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||1.260|0.970|
95737392|NCT04517604|191447179|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study funded under a pilot funding mechanism which specifically did not require a power analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.77||no test for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was an open-label, single group study using a within subject design. We compared pre-treatment values to post-treatment values.||-.77|-2.63|.0026
95737393|NCT02222818|191447191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that CAFRPlus is no less effective than CAFR by a non-inferiority margin of 2%, assuming a true paired difference of 6% and a standard deviation of 15% for the paired differences, a sample size of 39 subjects with paired data is required to achieve 90% statistical power using the one-sample t-test for non-inferiority, while controlling the one-sided type I error rate at 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ -2% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> -2% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods, and -2% is the non-inferiority margin selected based upon clinical judgment.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
95737394|NCT02222818|191447192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.86|4.5|9.5||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0207, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function accounting for one interim analysis.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis (Ho): μd ≤ 0% Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): μd \> 0% where μd is the paired difference in percent effective CRT pacing during AF between when CAFRPlus is applied and when CAFR is applied, based on subjects' paired measurements from the two cross-over follow-up periods.||9.5|4.5|<0.0001
95737395|NCT00238615|191447310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability of survival at 2 years|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.9||The primary endpoint of 2 year overall survival was (0.72) = 72%||||2-year overall survival (OS) Our null hypothesis was a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.30. The study was powered at 80% (with α 5% two-tailed) to detect a probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55. This would require 30 patients assuming accrual over 2 years with 1 year of additional follow-up. The probability of survival at 2 years of 0.55 is based on previous studies of neoadjuvant approaches with reported 2 year survival in the 40-60% range.||0.90|0.36|
95737396|NCT00834522|191447318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.79||||||90.0|99.4|108.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.37|99.40|
95737397|NCT00834522|191447319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.37||||||90.0|97.04|112.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.25|97.04|
95737398|NCT00834522|191447320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|104.22||||||90.0|96.9|112.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.08|96.90|
95795423|NCT01258049|191561071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.91|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||||-8.44|-17.38|<0.005
95936432|NCT04927065|191836327|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|4.1|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||4.1|-1.1|
95936433|NCT04927065|191836328|OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.8|30.2|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||30.2|12.8|
95936434|NCT04927065|191836329|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|5.6|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||5.6|-1.9|
95936435|NCT04927065|191836330|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.4|28.7|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb: Part G: mRNA-1273.214 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||28.7|12.4|
95795424|NCT01258049|191561072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.16|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71||||Regression, Cox|||||- 6.61|-11.71|<0.005
95795425|NCT01258049|191561073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.02|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|80.98|||ANCOVA|||||80.98|27.05|<0.005
95737399|NCT00835991|191447322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|114.05||||||90.0|107.26|121.27|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||121.27|107.26|
95737400|NCT00835991|191447323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.63||||||90.0|97.59|103.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.76|97.59|
95795426|NCT01258049|191561074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|358.61|||ANCOVA||mean parasite counts increased in the first 12 hours for patients on quinine treatment|||358.61|-10.44|0.06
95795427|NCT01258049|191561075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|12.08|||Regression, Cox|||||12.08|-10.16|0.86
95795428|NCT01258049|191561076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.42|0.99
95795429|NCT01258049|191561079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|55.01|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.44|67.58|||Regression, Linear|||||67.58|42.44|<0.005
95936436|NCT04927065|191836331|OTHER||GMR|6.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.369|7.658|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||7.658|5.369|
95936437|NCT04927065|191836331|OTHER||GMR|1.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|2.265|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||2.265|1.708|
95936438|NCT04927065|191836332|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.4|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||17.4|6.9|
95936439|NCT04927065|191836332|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||||
95737401|NCT00835991|191447324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.36||||||90.0|98.32|104.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.48|98.32|
95737402|NCT00835991|191447325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.05||||||90.0|94.31|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|94.31|
95737403|NCT00835991|191447326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.55||||||90.0|93.85|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.32|93.85|
95737404|NCT00835991|191447327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.44||||||90.0|93.71|99.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.25|93.71|
95737405|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate. The confidence intervals (CIs) and the p-values of the comparisons between each dose of CHF 1531 pMDI and Placebo at Day 14 were adjusted for multiplicity, based on the parametric simulation method of Edwards and Berry."||0.171|0.050|<0.001
95737406|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.22|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.095|<0.001
95737407|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.194|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.072|<0.001
95857749|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.37|14.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.59|9.37|0.0002
95857750|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.32|15.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||15.39|10.32|<0.0001
95988092|NCT03092726|191950697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.21||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||Week 8: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.21|0.50|0.357
95737408|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.225|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.225|0.109|<0.001
95737409|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.190|0.098|<0.001
95737410|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~The statistical analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, period, and patient as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate."||0.095|-0.002|0.059
95737411|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.026|0.361
95737412|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.011|0.016
95737413|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.075|0.340
95737414|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.038|0.690
95737415|NCT03086460|191447338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.082|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.082|-0.013|0.155
95857751|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.08|16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||16.35|11.08|<0.0001
95857752|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.03|18.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||18.69|13.03|<0.0001
95857753|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.61|16.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||16.61|10.61|0.0002
95936440|NCT04927065|191836333|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|61.8|||||Omicron Variant (BA.4/BA.5) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||61.8|47.5|
95936441|NCT04927065|191836333|OTHER||Percentage Difference|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|45.9|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H mRNA-1273.222 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||45.9|29.3|
95936442|NCT04927065|191836342|OTHER||GMR|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.938|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||0.938|0.745|
95936443|NCT04927065|191836343|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
95936444|NCT04927065|191836344|OTHER||SRR Difference|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273.529 50 μg versus Part F (Cohort 2): mRNA-1273 50 μg|||-5.0|-21.2|
95936445|NCT04927065|191836345|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273 95% CI could not be calculated due to the SRR difference is 0.|||||
95936446|NCT04927065|191836345|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||3.5|-1.6|
95936447|NCT04927065|191836345|OTHER||SRR Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.1|-2.3|
95936448|NCT04927065|191836345|OTHER||SRR Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.5|-5.3|
95988093|NCT03092726|191950697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.24||2-sided p-value is for the comparison of ASP8062 30 mg with placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Proportional Odds model|||EOT: Odds ratio of ASP8062 30 mg versus placebo, associated 90% 2-sided CI and p-value was estimated using a proportional odds model including treatment group as a factor.||1.24|0.52|0.407
95737416|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.175|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.175|0.049|<0.001
95737417|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.230|0.101|<0.001
95936449|NCT04927065|191836346|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|20.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 29: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||20.1|1.7|
95936450|NCT04927065|191836346|OTHER||SRR Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|17.0|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 91: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.0|1.4|
95936451|NCT04927065|191836346|OTHER||SRR Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.2|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||17.2|3.0|
95936452|NCT04927065|191836346|OTHER||SRR Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.6|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||13.6|-5.0|
95936453|NCT04927065|191836348|OTHER||GMR|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|2.249|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.249|1.469|
95936454|NCT04927065|191836350|OTHER||SRR Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.5|-2.6|
95936455|NCT04927065|191836352|OTHER||SRR Difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|34.1|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb: Part H versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||34.1|16.9|
95936456|NCT04927065|191836353|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||9.8|0.3|
95936457|NCT04927065|191836353|OTHER||SRR Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.5|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||11.5|-0.3|
95737418|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.203|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.203|0.074|<0.001
95795430|NCT00961415|191561085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.37|<0.001
95795431|NCT00961415|191561086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.47|0.230
95795432|NCT00961415|191561088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.34|0.006
95795433|NCT00961415|191561089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.38|<0.001
95936458|NCT04927065|191836354|OTHER||SRR Difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.3|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||22.3|6.7|
95936459|NCT04927065|191836354|OTHER||SRR Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.0|||||Omicron BA.1 Variant (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||18.0|-2.1|
95936460|NCT04927065|191836355|OTHER||GMR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.155|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||2.155|1.243|
95936461|NCT04927065|191836355|OTHER||GMR|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.976|||||SARS-CoV-2 (B.1.1.529) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.976|0.953|
95936462|NCT04927065|191836355|OTHER||GMR|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.051|1.537|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 181: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.537|1.051|
95936463|NCT04927065|191836355|OTHER||GMR|1.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.461|||||SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) nAb at Day 366: Part G versus Part F (Cohort 2) mRNA-1273|||1.461|0.830|
95936464|NCT00792636|191836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-3.2|
95737419|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.235|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.113|<0.001
95737420|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.197|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.197|0.101|<0.001
95936465|NCT00792636|191836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3|||||Diastolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.3|-2.2|
95936466|NCT00792636|191836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.4|-3.4|
95936467|NCT00792636|191836368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||0.6|-2.0|
95936468|NCT00792636|191836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.8|||||Systolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.8|-3.4|
95936469|NCT00792636|191836369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.3|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||-0.3|-2.6|
95936470|NCT00792636|191836370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.4|-1.6|
95936471|NCT00792636|191836370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.2|
95936472|NCT00792636|191836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||||Systolic Blood Pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.2|-1.7|
95936473|NCT00792636|191836371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5|||||Diastolic blood pressure. The following covariates were used in this analysis: Age, Gender, Baseline migraines per month, Baseline blood pressure|||2.5|-0.9|
95936474|NCT00792636|191836376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
95936475|NCT00792636|191836376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|0.9|
95936476|NCT00792636|191836377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||||1.7|0.6|
95936477|NCT00792636|191836377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||||||||2.2|0.7|
95936478|NCT00792636|191836378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.6||||||||13.6|0.1|
95936479|NCT00792636|191836378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.6||||||||25.6|0.3|
95936480|NCT00792636|191836379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||||3.7|0.5|
95936481|NCT00792636|191836379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2||||||||4.2|0.6|
95936482|NCT00792636|191836380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||||||||1.54|0.84|
95936483|NCT00792636|191836380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83||||||||1.83|1.01|
95936484|NCT00792636|191836381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||||||||1.21|0.65|
95936485|NCT00792636|191836381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||||||||1.60|0.88|
95936486|NCT02907099|191836440|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95936487|NCT02907099|191836441|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95936488|NCT05592418|191836466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0288||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0397|3.0972|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.0972|-3.0397|0.9851
95936489|NCT05592418|191836467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9076||||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6279|1.8128|||ANCOVA|||||1.8128|-5.6279|0.3095
95936490|NCT05592418|191836468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6086||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4656|4.6829|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.6829|-3.4656|0.7663
95936491|NCT05592418|191836469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7749||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2463|70.7962|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||70.7962|-23.2463|0.3162
95936492|NCT05592418|191836470|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||P-value is from The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) stratified by stratification factors|Since all patients analyzed achieved MCID, there are no comparison results|||
95936493|NCT05592418|191836471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2342||||0.4232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2586|4.7901|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||4.7901|-11.2586|0.4232
95936494|NCT05592418|191836472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5161||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2356|3.2035|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||3.2035|-4.2356|0.7823
95737421|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the primary efficacy model with only data from the first instance of each treatment."||0.104|0.004|0.035
95737422|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.024|0.301
95737423|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.110|0.014|0.011
95737424|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.024|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.024|-0.080|0.294
95737425|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.058|-0.042|0.747
95737426|NCT03086460|191447339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.014|0.155
95737427|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.207|||ANCOVA|||"Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment, which occurred after the randomization error."||0.207|0.065|<0.001
95737428|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.258|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.258|0.113|<0.001
95737429|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.092|<0.001
95737430|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.118|<0.001
95737431|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.231|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.231|0.121|<0.001
95857754|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.12|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.21|9.12|0.0010
95936495|NCT05592418|191836474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2779||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5775|1.1333|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|||1.1333|-0.5775|0.5185
95936496|NCT05592418|191836475|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No patients were hospitalized.|||
95936497|NCT05592418|191836477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.389||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.892|444.6702|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo.|444.6702|-105.892|0.2175
95936498|NCT05592418|191836478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9984||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.021|33.0241|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|33.0241|-147.021|0.2086
95737432|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; baseline FEV1 value as covariates. Subjects receiving the same treatment in more than one period are included in the model with only data for the instance of each treatment which occurred after the randomization error."||0.108|-0.008|0.088
95737433|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.029|0.323
95737434|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.005|0.073
95737435|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.039|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.039|-0.080|0.489
95737436|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.056|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.056|-0.057|0.978
95857755|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.2|15.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||15.92|9.20|0.0019
95737437|NCT03086460|191447340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.037|0.484
95737438|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.166|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. CIs and p-values for CHF 1531 pMDI vs Placebo are adjusted for multiplicity (parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry). Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.166|0.048|<0.001
95795434|NCT02309359|191561094|OTHER|Under the assumption of monotonicity, a Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed as the primary efficacy analysis. Data were analyzed according to the intent-to-treat (ITT) principle; thus, subjects were analyzed according to the treatment to which they were assigned. Subjects with missing ACR20 response at Week 12 were treated as non responders (non responder imputation approach).||||||0.172|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The null hypothesis of this test was that there is no difference in the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response between the treatment groups and the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of subjects achieving ACR20 response increases with increasing dose level.||||0.172
95795435|NCT02592824|191561170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided Student's t-test used for sample size estimation which was based on data from the first GLUTAMICS trial.||||0.086
95936499|NCT05592418|191836479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1733||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0327|0.3792|||ANCOVA||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo||LS Mean difference = LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|0.3792|-0.0327|0.0975
95936500|NCT05592418|191836481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7131||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4079|75.8341|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||75.8341|-34.4079|0.4545
95936501|NCT05592418|191836482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.1231||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6338|83.6123|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference - LS Mean of Ampligen® - LS Mean of Placebo|||83.6123|4.6338|0.0333
95936502|NCT05516147|191836483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Constructive Engagement mean of 0.85 for standard programming.||||<.01
95936503|NCT05516147|191836484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Passive Engagement mean of 1.06 for standard programming.||||<.01
95936504|NCT05516147|191836485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.|t-test, 2 sided|A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Other Engagement mean of 0.42 for standard programming.||||0.06
95795436|NCT02592824|191561171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95936505|NCT05516147|191836486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the mean was different from a known Non Engagement mean of 0.40 for standard programming.||||<.01
95936506|NCT05516147|191836488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline score vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.81
95936507|NCT05516147|191836489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.20
95936508|NCT05516147|191836490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.83
95936509|NCT05516147|191836491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. post-treatment, paired sample t-test||||0.320
95936510|NCT02697136|191836492|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study. Using an assumed standard deviation of 4.5% and a 2:1 randomization scheme to maximize exposure to active drug, 16 completing patients in the CER-001 group and 8 in the placebo group (24 total completers for mITT) would yield 90% power to detect a difference from baseline versus placebo of 6.7%, using two-tailed testing with α=0.05.|Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.9|0.185
95936511|NCT02697136|191836493|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.4|0.217
95936512|NCT02697136|191836494|OTHER|Linear mixed model to test for superiority and non-inferiority. Equivalence was defined as a difference of less than 6.7% in MVWA, based on a pilot study.|Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.6|0.832
95936513|NCT00220740|191836498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the Responder rates in the ITT population. Treatment group differences were tested by a Chi-square test. Subjects who did not complete the 24 week Efficacy Period and entered Rescue treatment with the alternative treatment were counted as Nonresponders.||||<0.001
95936514|NCT00220740|191836499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.542
95795437|NCT02592824|191561172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95795438|NCT02592824|191561177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95936515|NCT00220740|191836500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Dominant hand||||<0.001
95936516|NCT00220740|191836500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant hand||||0.005
95936517|NCT04623775|191836580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.0||||||||3.0|-16.0|
95936518|NCT04623775|191836581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|0.94|
95936519|NCT03690206|191836599|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-2.28||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-3.83|0.0039
95988094|NCT01857713|191950719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was based on the primary effectiveness variable (% reduction in RSI from Baseline to Week 4). It was assumed that the study would be successful if the mean % reduction is significantly greater than 25%. Assuming a 35% reduction in RSI, a power of 80%, one-sided significance level of 0.05, 85 subjects are required for the study. It was decided to recruit up to 100 subjects for this study.||||<0.05
95988095|NCT00493038|191950733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||95.0|-1.9|6.2|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates between the two treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus amoxicillin/clavulanate).|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.2|-1.9|
95988096|NCT00493038|191950734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||||95.0|-7.9|6.8||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.8|-7.9|
95988097|NCT00493038|191950735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 80% in the per protocol population."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||||95.0|-3.8|7.1||||||Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.1|-3.8|
95737439|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.096|<0.001
95737440|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.193|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.193|0.073|<0.001
95737441|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.217|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.217|0.103|<0.001
95857756|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.56|15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||15.27|9.56|0.0004
95936520|NCT03690206|191836599|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|-0.91||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-2.52|0.2700
95936521|NCT03690206|191836600|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|26.6||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|48.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.9|4.3|0.0243
95936522|NCT03690206|191836600|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|5.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|-16.2|0.6255
95936523|NCT03690206|191836601|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|31.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.9|11.4|0.0043
95936524|NCT03690206|191836601|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|13.3||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|-5.4|0.1675
95795439|NCT01704261|191561178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
95795440|NCT01704261|191561179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|20.8||||||||20.8|-1.4|
95795441|NCT01704261|191561180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Omarigliptin vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||||||||4.3|-4.3|
95936525|NCT03690206|191836603|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|14.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|2.5|0.0160
95936526|NCT03690206|191836603|SUPERIORITY||Difference to Placebo|11.2||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|0.7|0.0424
95936527|NCT04994509|191836639|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||Confidence Interval (CI) for rate ratio vs bHIV is from a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 01: LEN/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
95737442|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.192|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.192|0.102|<0.001
95737443|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Analysis of covariance model: treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline FEV1 value as covariate. Patients receiving the same treatment during two periods are considered twice in the ANCOVA model (once for each period attended)."||0.098|0.002|0.041
95737444|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.021|0.275
95737445|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.098|0.008|0.021
95737446|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.026|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.026|-0.073|0.350
95737447|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.044|0.886
95737448|NCT03086460|191447341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #6 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.020|0.254
95737449|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.169|0.060|<0.001
95737450|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.099|<0.001
95737451|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.247|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.247|0.138|<0.001
95737452|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.268|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.268|0.163|<0.001
95737453|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.224|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.224|0.120|<0.001
95737454|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.016|0.165
95936528|NCT04994509|191836639|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.042||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from likelihood ratio test.|Likelihood ratio test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on a likelihood-based method.|Null Hypothesis 02: LEN/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in LEN was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||0.042|0.000|<0.0001
95737455|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.132|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.132|0.024|0.005
95737456|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.049|<0.001
95737457|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.097|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.097|-0.019|0.187
95737458|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.007|0.028
95857757|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.81|12.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.16|5.81|0.0182
95857758|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.22|15.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.58|9.22|0.0013
95737459|NCT03086460|191447342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.076|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.031|0.406
95737460|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.230|0.116|<0.001
95737461|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.260|0.146|<0.001
95737462|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.28|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.280|0.166|<0.001
95737463|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.325|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.325|0.216|<0.001
95737464|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.187|<0.001
95936529|NCT04994509|191836639|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.20697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 03: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 1; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.20697
95737465|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.028|0.308
95795442|NCT01704261|191561181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the least squares means|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-7.8|||Difference in the least squares means|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.||||-7.8|-25.5|<0.001
95936530|NCT04994509|191836639|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.839||||0.58674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.279||p-value for rate ratio vs bHIV is from Wald test.|Wald test||CI for rate ratio vs bHIV is based on the delta method.|Null Hypothesis 04: F/TAF/bHIV\>= 0.8; Null hypothesis was to be rejected if HIV-1 incidence in F/TAF was significantly and at least 20% lower than bHIV.||1.279|0.550|0.58674
95936531|NCT04994509|191836640|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.101||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from an exact conditional Poisson model.|||0.101|0.000|< 0.0001
95737466|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.107|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.107|-0.006|0.082
95737467|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.152|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.043|<0.001
95737468|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.080|-0.041|0.520
95737469|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.124|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|0.010|0.022
95737470|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
95737471|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.21|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.210|0.095|<0.001
95737472|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.249|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.249|0.131|<0.001
95737473|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.228|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.228|0.113|<0.001
95795443|NCT01704261|191561182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||27.6|11.7|<0.001
95737474|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.272|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.272|0.162|<0.001
95737475|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.252|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.252|0.144|<0.001
95737476|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.020|0.203
95737477|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.039|0.542
95737478|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.010|0.021
95737479|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.040|-0.080|0.510
95737480|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.084|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.084|-0.030|0.352
95737481|NCT03086460|191447343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.103|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.009|0.098
95737482|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.241|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.241|0.122|<0.001
95737483|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.251|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.251|0.133|<0.001
95737484|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.275|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.156|<0.001
95737485|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.309|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.309|0.195|<0.001
95737486|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.295|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.182|<0.001
95737487|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.071|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.071|-0.049|0.723
95737488|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.025|0.257
95737489|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.128|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.014|0.016
95737490|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.039|0.464
95737491|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|0.000|0.048
95737492|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.022|0.219
95795444|NCT01704261|191561182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|8.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Between-group confidence intervals and p-value (%) A1C \<7.0%; estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.||||14.5|2.7|0.005
95737493|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.226|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.226|0.100|<0.001
95857759|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.99|11.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||11.22|3.99|0.0782
95737494|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.254|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.254|0.126|<0.001
95737495|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.229|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.103|<0.001
95737496|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.266|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.266|0.146|<0.001
95737497|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.243|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.243|0.125|<0.001
95737498|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.090|-0.036|0.400
95737499|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.064|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.064|-0.059|0.931
95737500|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.102|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|-0.017|0.160
95737501|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.041|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.041|-0.090|0.464
95737502|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.047|0.623
95857760|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.64|17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.43|10.64|0.0007
95737503|NCT03086460|191447344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.101|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.021|0.197
95737504|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.113|-0.010|0.098
95737505|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.159|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.035|0.002
95737506|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.163|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.039|0.002
95737507|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.063|<0.001
95737508|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.171|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.171|0.054|<0.001
95737509|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.108|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.018|0.162
95737510|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.012|0.117
95737511|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.011|0.020
95737512|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.062|0.909
95857761|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.24|14.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||14.22|6.24|0.0322
95857762|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.59|10.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||10.86|4.59|0.0399
95993759|NCT00619957|191963362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.36|-0.36|0.2538
95737513|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|-0.037|0.419
95795445|NCT00909870|191561234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||"H0: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group = the proportion of responders in the Control group.~HA: the proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group ≠ the proportion of responders in the Control group.~The proportion of responders in the Dermagraft group was compared with the proportion of responders in the control group using the uncorrected chi-square test for 2x2 contingency tables. The difference between the groups was expected to be 13%."||||0.1030
95936532|NCT04994509|191836640|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.198||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|2.143||p-value for rate ratio vs F/TDF is from a Poisson model.|Poisson model||CI is from a Poisson model.|||2.143|0.669|0.72820
95936533|NCT04994509|191836640|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the LEN group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|-1.685|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|-0.939||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||-0.939|-2.737|<0.0001
95936534|NCT04994509|191836640|OTHER|Comparability to F/TDF is defined as the HIV-1 incidence in the F/TAF group at most 0.8/100 PY higher than in the F/TDF group.|Rate Difference|0.333||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|1.367||p-value for rate difference vs F/TDF is based on a hybrid approach.|Hybrid approach||Exact CI is based on a hybrid approach.|||1.367|-0.869|0.20900
95936535|NCT04994509|191836642|SUPERIORITY||Exact Odds Ratio|9.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|83.36||p-value is from exact conditional logistic regression model.|ExactConditionalLogisticRegressionModel||Exact odds ratio and and CI are from exact conditional logistic regression model.|||83.36|2.06|0.0006
95936536|NCT04052516|191836661|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszal test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.63|0.62|0.2991
95936537|NCT04052516|191836661|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.08|0.80|0.1386
95936538|NCT02815813|191836680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
95936539|NCT02815813|191836681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.01
95936540|NCT05418296|191836687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.46
95737514|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.083|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.083|-0.039|0.483
95795446|NCT00909870|191561235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.4046||95.0||||This p-value did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance of \< 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.4046
95795447|NCT00909870|191561236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0||||0.0239||95.0||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|Unadjusted||Pre-specified subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.0239
95795448|NCT03699748|191561237|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.27|14.58|||Type III F test|||||14.58|7.27|<0.001
95857763|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.49|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||7.73|0.49|0.3391
95936541|NCT05418296|191836688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00314|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00314
95936542|NCT05418296|191836689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.066
95936543|NCT05418296|191836690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.085|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0850
95936544|NCT05418296|191836691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0716|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0716
95936545|NCT06311084|191836717|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936546|NCT06311084|191836718|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936547|NCT06311084|191836719|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936548|NCT06311084|191836720|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936549|NCT06311084|191836721|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936550|NCT06311084|191836722|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936551|NCT06311084|191836723|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936552|NCT06311084|191836724|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936553|NCT06311084|191836725|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95737515|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.099|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.099|-0.012|0.126
95737516|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.131|0.017|0.012
95737517|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.116|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.004|0.037
95737518|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|0.028|0.003
95795449|NCT03699748|191561240|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 4 Months|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||12.88 (9.49 - 16.28)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person. The effect estimate column shows the difference between change in the intervention group from baseline and the change in the control group from baseline.|||
95795450|NCT03699748|191561241|OTHER||Effect Estimate for 12 Months|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||20.65 (6.97 - 24.32)||Effect estimates were expected mean differences in Patient Activation Measure scores between groups from baseline. Effect estimates were estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models as a function of treatment group, categorical time (baseline, 4 months and 12 months), and an interaction term between treatment group and time with an exchangeable correlation clustered within person.|||
95795451|NCT03699748|191561242|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|15.0|||Type III F-test|||||15.00|7.09|0.001
95795452|NCT03699748|191561244|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.91 (0.40-2.09)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
95795453|NCT03699748|191561245|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.27 (0.03 - 2.85)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
95795454|NCT03699748|191561246|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.18-0.76)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
95795455|NCT03699748|191561247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.42 (0.22-0.79)||Odds Ratios for any emergency room use and any hospitalization use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
95795456|NCT03699748|191561248|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.38 (0.08-1.75)||Odds Ratios for Hospitalization Use were estimated using logistic regression models.|||
95795457|NCT03699748|191561249|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
95795458|NCT03699748|191561250|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
95737519|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.127|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|0.021|0.006
95737520|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.025|0.282
95737521|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.072|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.072|-0.039|0.554
95737522|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.091|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.014|0.149
95737523|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.072|0.636
95737524|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.063|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.063|-0.047|0.775
95795459|NCT03699748|191561251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
95795460|NCT03699748|191561252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||
95737525|NCT03086460|191447345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.032|0.425
95737526|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.187|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.187|0.058|<0.001
95737527|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.215|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.085|<0.001
95737528|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.059|<0.001
95737529|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.242|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|0.118|<0.001
95737530|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.238|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.238|0.115|<0.001
95737531|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.094|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.039|0.410
95795461|NCT03699748|191561253|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|8.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
95936554|NCT06311084|191836726|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95795462|NCT03699748|191561254|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratios for Goals of Care Documentation, Advance Directive Documentation, and Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment Documentation were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment with logistic regression.|||||
95795463|NCT03699748|191561255|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.65 (0.44-0.98)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data after adjustment for length of follow-up.|||
95936555|NCT06311084|191836727|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95737532|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.063|0.961
95737533|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.005|0.070
95737534|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.043|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.043|-0.095|0.454
95737535|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.095|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.035|0.370
95737536|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.12|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.008|0.086
95737537|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.151|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.020|0.011
95737538|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.164|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.164|0.029|0.005
95936556|NCT06311084|191836728|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936557|NCT06311084|191836729|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936558|NCT06311084|191836730|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936559|NCT06311084|191836731|OTHER|We used Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for our non-normally distributed data to compare scores before and after the Imaginator intervention.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95936560|NCT03205800|191836741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
95737539|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
95737540|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.208|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.208|0.081|<0.001
95737541|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.189|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.065|<0.001
95737542|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.078|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.078|-0.055|0.740
95795464|NCT03699748|191561256|OTHER||Effect Estimate|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||0.57 (0.28 - 1.18)||Proportional change in total health care costs are expressed as referent to the control group and were modeled using a generalized linear model with gamma link-log function to account for skewed cost data.|||
95795465|NCT03699748|191561257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||6.82 (2.46-18.93)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
95795466|NCT03699748|191561258|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3.62 (1.73-7.60)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
95795467|NCT03699748|191561259|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Palliative Care were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
95857764|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.17|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||11.33|4.17|0.0702
95936561|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Active Control message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Active Control message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
95857765|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.221|TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.89|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.15|1.89|0.2210
95857766|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.59|17.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||17.46|8.59|0.0150
95857767|NCT00658359|191673392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.4875|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.91|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||9.45|-0.91|0.4875
95737543|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.066|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.064|0.973
95737544|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.003|0.064
95737545|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.059|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.059|-0.079|0.774
95737546|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.113|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.018|0.151
95737547|NCT03086460|191447346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.122|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|-0.006|0.076
95737548|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.190|0.039|0.003
95737549|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.206|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.206|0.055|<0.001
95857768|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.83|18.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.13|10.83|0.0010
95857769|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.16|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.70|11.16|0.0010
95795468|NCT03699748|191561260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||4.33 (0.89-21.08)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments 4-months and 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
95795469|NCT03699748|191561261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||2.76 (1.01-7.55)||Odds Ratios for palliative care receipt and hospice receipt were estimated based on assessments at 12-months post-enrollment compared with baseline (time of enrollment) using logistic regression.|||
95795470|NCT03699748|191561262|OTHER||Effect Estimate|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||5.71 (1.56-20.93)||Odds Ratios for any ED Use and any Hospice Receipt were estimated using logistic regression models. Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) were estimated using Poisson models. All ratios are expressed as referent to the control group.|||
95795471|NCT03818854|191561266|SUPERIORITY|Using the change in oxygenation index over 36 hours from the baseline as the primary outcome with measurements taken at 6 time points, the trial was estimated to have 80% power to detect an effect size difference of 0.43 between the trial arms.||||||0.34||||||The mixed model included the following variables: treatment arm, 6 time-points, sites, pre-defined randomization stratifications and the baseline characteristics with bivariate analyses P \< 0.20.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95737550|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.213|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.213|0.061|<0.001
95737551|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.078|<0.001
95737552|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.24|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.240|0.097|<0.001
95737553|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.093|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.093|-0.061|0.679
95795472|NCT03818854|191561267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 1.||||0.92
95795473|NCT03818854|191561267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 2.||||0.37
95737554|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.098|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.098|-0.052|0.549
95737555|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.036|0.323
95795474|NCT03818854|191561267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 3.||||0.54
95737556|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.087|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.073|0.866
95737557|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.055|0.596
95795475|NCT03818854|191561267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for the change of LIS from the baseline to day 7.||||0.19
95795476|NCT03818854|191561269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 1.||||0.35
95795477|NCT03818854|191561269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 2.||||0.25
95795478|NCT03818854|191561269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 3.||||0.69
95795479|NCT03818854|191561269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis is for the change in RALE scores from the baseline to day 7.||||0.08
95795480|NCT03818854|191561270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
95795481|NCT03818854|191561271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value was given by ordered logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
95795482|NCT03818854|191561272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95795483|NCT03818854|191561273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95795484|NCT03818854|191561274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed incision/wound infection events by day 14.||||0.36
95795485|NCT03818854|191561274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed organ/space infection events by day 14.||||0.50
95795486|NCT03818854|191561274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis is for the percentages of patients who developed ventilator-associated pneumonia by day 14.||||0.20
95795487|NCT03818854|191561275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95795488|NCT03818854|191561276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 3.||||0.32
95795489|NCT03818854|191561276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis for the SOFA score between two arms at Day 7.||||0.33
95795490|NCT03818854|191561277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 3.||||0.39
95737558|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.061|0.720
95737559|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.185|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.185|0.038|0.003
95737560|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.209|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.209|0.057|<0.001
95737561|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.18|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.180|0.032|0.005
95737562|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.223|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.223|0.081|<0.001
95737563|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.212|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.072|<0.001
95737564|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.096|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.053|0.573
95737565|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.067|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.067|-0.078|0.881
95737566|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.110|-0.030|0.261
95737567|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.051|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.104|0.493
95737568|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.092|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.092|-0.055|0.616
95737569|NCT03086460|191447347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.118|-0.026|0.212
95737570|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.106|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.106|-0.039|0.361
95737571|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.138|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.009|0.085
95737572|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.109|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.109|-0.037|0.328
95795491|NCT03818854|191561277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is for non-pulmonary SOFA scores between the two arms at Day 7.||||0.26
95795492|NCT03818854|191561278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between two arms at Day 14.||||0.29
95795493|NCT03818854|191561278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 28.||||0.83
95795494|NCT03818854|191561278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||The analysis is for the mortality between the two arms at Day 60.||||0.56
95795495|NCT03818854|191561279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95795496|NCT03818854|191561280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.56
95795497|NCT03818854|191561280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.79
95795498|NCT03818854|191561280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.62
95795499|NCT03818854|191561280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma angiopoietin-2 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.67
95737573|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.182|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.042|0.002
95737574|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.158|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|0.020|0.011
95737575|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.104|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.104|-0.042|0.404
95737576|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.069|0.942
95737577|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.147|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|0.009|0.027
95737578|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.104|0.463
95737579|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|-0.025|0.200
95737580|NCT03086460|191447348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.005|0.037
95737581|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~This secondary efficacy variable was analyzed using the ANCOVA model that was also used for the primary efficacy analysis, without adjusting for multiplicity."||0.073|-0.083|0.896
95737582|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.07|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.070|-0.089|0.810
95936562|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Ease message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending an Ease message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
95737583|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.073|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.084|0.882
95737584|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.136|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.136|-0.015|0.115
95737585|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.134|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.134|-0.014|0.111
95737586|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.074|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.083|0.911
95737587|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.077|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.078|0.985
95737588|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.009|0.084
95737589|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.078|0.928
95737590|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.148|-0.008|0.078
95795500|NCT03818854|191561281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.60
95795501|NCT03818854|191561281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.04
95795502|NCT03818854|191561281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.09
95988098|NCT04418765|191950746|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction. A testing strategy was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
95936563|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent an Waiting for You message message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Waiting for You message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||<.001
95737591|NCT03086460|191447349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.143|||ANCOVA|||"Day 14~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.010|0.089
95737592|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|18.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|76.37|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Time to onset of action was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by patient, including treatment and period as a factor, and baseline FEV1 as covariate.~For patients receiving the same treatment twice, the analysis includes only data from the first instance of each treatment."||76.37|4.25|<0.001
95737593|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|31.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.52|133.47|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||133.47|7.52|<0.001
95737594|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|44.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|191.34|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||191.34|10.23|<0.001
95936564|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Rare message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Rare Message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.003
95936565|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Comparisons between Passive Control and all other arms (Analyses 1-5) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Flu shot self-scheduling does not differ between those sent a Protect Yourself - Frequent message and those not sent a message (i.e., those in the Passive Control group); Alternative hypothesis: Sending a Protect Yourself - Frequent message increases self-scheduling compared with sending no message. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.035
95936566|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Ease messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Ease messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.593
95737595|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|40.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|170.45|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||170.45|9.54|<0.001
95737596|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|22.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|92.06|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment F ( Perforomist® IS 40 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||92.06|5.70|<0.001
95737597|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.13|0.75|0.195
95737598|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.46||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.72|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||5.72|1.06|0.037
95737599|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.86|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 1531 pMDI 6 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||4.86|1.03|0.042
95936567|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Waiting for You messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.052
95737600|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.23|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||3.23|0.60|0.435
95737601|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.89|||Regression, Cox|||"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 1531 pMDI 12 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."||2.89|0.56|0.564
95737602|NCT03086460|191447350|SUPERIORITY|"Day 1~Comparison groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 1531 pMDI 48 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 1531 pMDI 24 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis #1 of this outcome measure."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.41|0.818
95737603|NCT03123094|191447370|OTHER||Slope|0.9533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.1256|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1256|0.7810|
95737604|NCT03123094|191447371|OTHER||Slope|1.0014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8809|1.1219|||||Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of spesolimab was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 3 intravenous dose levels (perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1).||1.1219|0.8809|
95737605|NCT00395694|191447384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with rash events.|||11.1|1.6|
95737606|NCT01058668|191447398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
95737607|NCT01058668|191447398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-3.6|-8.2|<0.001
95737608|NCT01058668|191447399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (3-6 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
95737609|NCT01058668|191447399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine (6-12 mg/day) - placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
95737610|NCT02825680|191447434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares reach within the pre-intervention timeframe versus the post-intervention timeframe for each LEAP (intervention) and control case. Intention to treat analysis was used; all participating facilities randomized to the LEAP (intervention) arm were included whether or not they completed the intervention.||||.011
95737611|NCT00840411|191447471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.3|107.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.1|93.3|
95737612|NCT00840411|191447472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|86.5||||||90.0|80.1|93.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.4|80.1|
95737613|NCT00840411|191447473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|87.2||||||90.0|81.0|93.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||93.8|81.0|
95737614|NCT01141374|191447486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.28||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|23.0||The test of hypothesis was conducted with repeated measures ANOVA with Post hoc. It was performed parametric test to compare data and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there was no statistical difference among 3 groups (control, needles and seeds) after 4 auriculotherapy sessions.||23.00|-76.00|0.352
95737615|NCT01141374|191447487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|37.0||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|As for the comparison between the scores, we used ANOVA for repeated measures.It was made post hoc to find the differences among groups.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days and 8 sessions). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||37.00|-67.00|0.023
95737616|NCT03134222|191447489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.7500
95737617|NCT03134222|191447489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3047|||||||Mixed-effect repeated measures model|||||||0.3047
95737618|NCT03134222|191447490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8869|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8869
95737619|NCT03134222|191447490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3293|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3293
95857770|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.16|17.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.76|10.16|0.0023
95857771|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.65|17.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||17.48|9.65|0.0039
95737620|NCT03134222|191447491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7456
95737621|NCT03134222|191447491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6407
95737622|NCT03134222|191447492|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95737623|NCT03134222|191447492|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95737624|NCT03134222|191447493|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95737625|NCT03134222|191447493|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95737626|NCT03482882|191447495|OTHER||LSM|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-9.5|||Mixed-effect model repeated measures|||||-9.5|-12.0|<0.0001
95737627|NCT00520234|191447503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|APACHE II Stratified||||||0.14
95737628|NCT01085825|191447529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.13
95737629|NCT00787254|191447589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4499|||Log Rank|||||0.4499|0.1400|<0.0001
95737630|NCT00787254|191447590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95737631|NCT00787254|191447591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0041
95737632|NCT00787254|191447592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0652
95795503|NCT03818854|191561281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma RAGE changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.38
95795504|NCT03818854|191561282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.28
95795505|NCT03818854|191561282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.10
95795506|NCT03818854|191561282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.15
95737633|NCT00787254|191447593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9836
95737634|NCT00787254|191447595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95737635|NCT00787254|191447596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
95737636|NCT00787254|191447597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
95737637|NCT00787254|191447598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2363||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
95737638|NCT00787254|191447600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95737639|NCT00787254|191447601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4788
95737640|NCT00787254|191447602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6607||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6607
95737641|NCT00787254|191447603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8811
95737642|NCT00787254|191447604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95737643|NCT00787254|191447606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2060
95737644|NCT00787254|191447607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5099||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5099
95737645|NCT00787254|191447608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7794||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7794
95737646|NCT00787254|191447609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95737647|NCT00787254|191447611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6980
95737648|NCT00787254|191447612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4599||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4599
95737649|NCT00787254|191447613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0355
95737650|NCT00787254|191447614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7325
95737651|NCT00787254|191447616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8262
95737652|NCT00787254|191447617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7244
95737653|NCT00787254|191447618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9566||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9566
95737654|NCT00787254|191447619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2008
95737655|NCT00787254|191447621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0703
95737656|NCT00787254|191447622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3046
95737657|NCT00787254|191447623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7121
95737658|NCT00787254|191447624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1522||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1522
95737659|NCT00787254|191447626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5328||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5328
95737660|NCT00787254|191447627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7223||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7223
95737661|NCT00787254|191447628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3117
95737662|NCT00787254|191447629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4344
95737663|NCT00787254|191447631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1571||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1571
95737664|NCT00787254|191447632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2503||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2503
95737665|NCT00787254|191447633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4028
95795507|NCT03818854|191561282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-6 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.34
95795508|NCT03818854|191561283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 6 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.85
95795509|NCT03818854|191561283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 24 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.50
95795510|NCT03818854|191561283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 48 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.64
95795511|NCT03818854|191561283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plasma IL-8 changes from the baseline between two arms at 72 hours since the initiation of the study product infusion.||||0.70
95795512|NCT03818854|191561284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.32
95795513|NCT03818854|191561284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
95795514|NCT03818854|191561284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.02
95737666|NCT00787254|191447634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95737667|NCT00859430|191447637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|105.0||||||90.0|98.6|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|98.6|
95737668|NCT00859430|191447638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.6||||||90.0|96.2|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|96.2|
95737669|NCT00859430|191447639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|95.9|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|95.9|
95737670|NCT00834795|191447640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.16||||||90.0|85.69|105.67|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.67|85.69|
95737671|NCT00834795|191447641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.27||||||90.0|90.34|102.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.59|90.34|
95737672|NCT00834795|191447642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.36||||||90.0|90.2|102.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.93|90.20|
95857772|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.04|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.00|11.04|0.0017
95857773|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.81|19.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||19.04|10.81|0.0026
95857774|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|60.0|14.27|22.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.81|14.27|0.0003
95936568|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.952
95737673|NCT00526188|191447664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.46||||||95.0|6.0|12.93|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post- and pre-contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided. The study was planned with a power of 80%.||12.93|6.00|
95737674|NCT00526188|191447665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||||95.0|1.84|7.78|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI (for investigator's result)|Difference in sensitivity of lesion detection between post- and pre-contrast MRI image sets, based on investigators assessments was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between post and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the investigators difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||7.78|1.84|
95737675|NCT00526188|191447666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.36||||||95.0|7.45|15.28|||Test performed based on the 95% CI||Comparison was combined pre- and post-contrast MRI minus pre-contrast MRI|Difference in precision of lesion characterization between combined pre and post contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set was calculated. Null hypothesis: No difference between combined pre- and post-contrast MRI and pre contrast MRI image set. Test was performed based on a normal-approximated confidence interval (CI) for the average blinded reader difference. This CI had a confidence level of 95% and was two-sided.||15.28|7.45|
95737676|NCT00373256|191447668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6299||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1793|2.2527||p-value from 1-sided log-rank stratified for prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment. Stratification factors from Interactive Voice Randomization System.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel.|||2.2527|1.1793|0.9986
95737677|NCT00373256|191447669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.5||||||||38.5|26.4|
95737678|NCT00373256|191447669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|38.4||||||||38.4|26.3|
95737679|NCT00373256|191447672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|83.0||||||1 year||83.0|68.7|
95737680|NCT00373256|191447672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|50.3||||||2 years||50.3|20.9|
95737681|NCT00373256|191447672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|89.1||||||1 year||89.1|76.0|
95737682|NCT00373256|191447672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|74.7||||||2 years||74.7|43.2|
95737683|NCT02718326|191447698|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.5|45.2|<0.0001
95737684|NCT02718326|191447699|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|50.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|40.1|<0.0001
95737685|NCT02718326|191447699|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|73.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|55.8|< 0.0001
95737686|NCT02718326|191447700|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.9|-24.7|<0.0001
95737687|NCT02718326|191447700|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-9.1|-24.2|<0.0001
95737688|NCT02718326|191447701|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-17.3|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-26.2|= 0.0002
95737689|NCT02718326|191447701|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-10.4|-27.5|<0.0001
95737690|NCT02718326|191447704|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.5|-10.5|0.0096
95737691|NCT02718326|191447704|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-6.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.6|-10.5|0.0089
95737692|NCT02718326|191447705|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|0.8||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.60|-0.01|0.0529
95737693|NCT02718326|191447705|SUPERIORITY||Estimate for contrast|1.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.94|||ANOVA|||||1.94|0.33|0.0057
95737694|NCT03868891|191447735|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||1.00
95737695|NCT03868891|191447735|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 2 months compared with baseline; EMST150 + Eustachi not included because visit 2 measurements only available for 1 participant (2 ears)||||0.734
95737696|NCT03868891|191447736|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.25
95737697|NCT03868891|191447736|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with baseline||||0.75
95737698|NCT03868891|191447737|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||inflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.25
95737699|NCT03868891|191447737|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||deflation test at 4 months compared with 2 months||||0.75
95737700|NCT03049748|191447756|OTHER|This is a pilot randomized trial with a purpose of establishing preliminary efficacy data to inform future studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95737701|NCT03049748|191447757|OTHER|Same rationale as the primary outcome.|||||>|0.05||||||All p-values across time periods, between groups, were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
95737702|NCT03049748|191447758|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p values between groups across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
95737703|NCT03049748|191447759|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between groups across time periods were \>.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
95737704|NCT03049748|191447760|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||All p-values between group differences across time periods were \> .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.05
95737705|NCT03049748|191447761|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Differences in group hospitalization rates p-values: T1 = .093; T2 = .008; T3 = .029|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95737706|NCT04383587|191447763|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||Participants were grouped by age (18-35 vs. 36-50 vs. 51-65 vs. \>65), Sex at birth (Female vs. Male). and Occupational Role (Technician vs Anesthesiologist vs Advanced Practice Provider vs. Attendant Aide vs. CRNA vs. OR nurse vs Perfusionist vs Surgeon).||||>0.18
95737707|NCT01011413|191447777|NON_INFERIORITY|"Only the primary endpoint is assessed in terms of non-inferiority. All other comparisons are tests for superiority and are considered statistically significant at a two-sided alpha=0.05.~Non-inferiority of EFV 400 mg was defined as the lower 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between groups in the proportion of viral load below 200 copies/mL at week 48 lying above -10%."||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Pearson's chi-squared|Pearson's chi-squared or Fisher's exact test derived p value was used||Sample size calculation assumes 85% of participants randomised to 600mg EFV arm will have plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/ml at 48 weeks. Assuming no difference between randomised treatments in proportion with plasma HIV RNA \<200 copies/mL, to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis using a 10% non-inferiority margin will require 286 participants per arm, making a total of 572 participants. Power for modified ITT analysis was 93%.||||0.05
95737708|NCT01011413|191447777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be defined as the lower 95% confidence limit of the difference in percentages of patients with undetectable viral load lying above -10% (i.e. a non-inferiority margin of 10%).||||||0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||To ensure the per protocol (PP) analysis has 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority, the sample size was inflated for patients who switch treatment for toxicity. This is estimated to be no more than 10% randomised patients. To ensure 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority in the ITT and PP analyses, a total of 630 (315 per arm) patients will be randomised giving 93% power for the ITT analysis. Null hypothesis: no statistically significant difference between the 600mg and 400mg EFV regimens.||||0.05
95737709|NCT01011413|191447778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference between proportions|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95737710|NCT00462228|191447821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.55
95737711|NCT00462228|191447821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||1.00
95737712|NCT00462228|191447821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.45
95737713|NCT00462228|191447821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis:The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R total recall learning scores.||||0.43
95737714|NCT00462228|191447822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||6 week comparison,alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores||||0.23
95737715|NCT00462228|191447822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.022
95737716|NCT00462228|191447822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.06
95737717|NCT00462228|191447822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for HVLT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.027
95737718|NCT00462228|191447823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||1.0
95737719|NCT00462228|191447823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.55
95737720|NCT00462228|191447823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.81
95737721|NCT00462228|191447823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part A.||||0.57
95737722|NCT00462228|191447824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.55
95737723|NCT00462228|191447824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||1.0
95795515|NCT03818854|191561284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of TNFR-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.19
95936569|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Comparisons between Active Control and all other arms (Analyses 6-9) were analyzed in the same regression. The p-value reported is 2-tailed.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Active Control messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are more effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling than Active Control messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.386
95737724|NCT00462228|191447824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.17
95737725|NCT00462228|191447824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the Trail Making Test Part B.||||0.64
95737726|NCT00462228|191447825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R total recall scores.||||0.34
95737727|NCT00462228|191447825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||1.0
95737728|NCT00462228|191447825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for HVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.54
95737729|NCT00462228|191447825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVLT-R total recall scores.||||0.91
95737730|NCT00462228|191447826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.34
95737731|NCT00462228|191447826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.55
95737732|NCT00462228|191447826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.37
95737733|NCT00462228|191447826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for BVMT-R delayed recall scores.||||0.95
95737734|NCT00462228|191447827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.75
95737735|NCT00462228|191447827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.51
95795516|NCT03818854|191561285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.16
95795517|NCT03818854|191561285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.64
95936570|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.498
95988099|NCT04418765|191950746|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
95737736|NCT00462228|191447827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.31
95737737|NCT00462228|191447827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Written Score.||||0.46
95737738|NCT00462228|191447828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.34
95737739|NCT00462228|191447828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Sign test|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.75
95737740|NCT00462228|191447828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||6 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 6 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.37
95795518|NCT03818854|191561285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.80
95857775|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||20.91|11.99|0.0022
95993760|NCT00619957|191963363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.74|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.74|-0.01|0.0537
95737741|NCT00462228|191447828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||12 week comparison, alpha = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The change from baseline occurring with memantine is equal to the change from baseline occurring with placebo at 12 weeks for the SDMT Oral Score.||||0.45
95737742|NCT00567320|191447829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM analysis of % of Cocaine Positive Urines per week over 12 weeks. Subjects were used as a Random variable, with medication dosing set to 'Fixed'.||||0.84
95737743|NCT00673660|191447831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total cholesterol||||<0.001
95737744|NCT00673660|191447831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||LDL cholesterol||||<0.001
95737745|NCT00673660|191447831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||HDL cholesterol||||0.972
95737746|NCT00673660|191447831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Triglycerides||||0.034
95737747|NCT01299454|191447837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.751|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.751|0.776|
95795519|NCT03818854|191561285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of Protein C at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.40
95795520|NCT03818854|191561286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 6 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.85
95795521|NCT03818854|191561286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 24 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.22
95737748|NCT01299454|191447837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.066|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.066|0.915|
95737749|NCT01299454|191447837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.581|1.488|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.488|0.581|
95737750|NCT01299454|191447838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|2.244|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.244|0.702|
95737751|NCT01299454|191447838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|3.052|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||3.052|0.977|
95737752|NCT01299454|191447838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometic Mean Ratio|1.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|2.142|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||2.142|0.506|
95737753|NCT01299454|191447839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.156|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.156|0.707|
95737754|NCT01299454|191447839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.665|1.087|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||1.087|0.665|
95795522|NCT03818854|191561286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 48 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.61
95993761|NCT00619957|191963364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.15|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||2.15|0.32|0.0081
95737755|NCT01299454|191447839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.531||||||90.0|0.399|0.705|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The primary comparison was each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the primary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance||0.705|0.399|
95737756|NCT01299454|191447840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.573|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.573|0.774|
95737757|NCT01299454|191447840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.71|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.710|0.841|
95737758|NCT01299454|191447840|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|1.189|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.189|0.524|
95737759|NCT01299454|191447841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|2.143|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.143|0.719|
95737760|NCT01299454|191447841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.604|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|2.732|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.732|0.942|
95737761|NCT01299454|191447841|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.146|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||2.146|0.540|
95857776|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.55|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.84|10.55|0.0065
95857777|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.87|19.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||19.99|9.87|0.0137
95857778|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.99|20.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||20.64|11.99|0.0018
95737762|NCT01299454|191447842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|1.059|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.059|0.691|
95795523|NCT03818854|191561286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis for the changes of ANG-1 at 72 hours since the initiation of study product infusion from the baseline.||||0.98
95795524|NCT03818854|191561292|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95737763|NCT01299454|191447842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.742|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.599|0.918|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.918|0.599|
95737764|NCT01299454|191447842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.352|0.577|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.577|0.352|
95737765|NCT01299454|191447851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.346|0.748|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.748|0.346|
95764436|NCT00780338|191499089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
95795525|NCT03191552|191561294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95795526|NCT03191552|191561295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
95795527|NCT03191552|191561296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
95795528|NCT03191552|191561297|SUPERIORITY|Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.||||||0.004||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was performed to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95795529|NCT03191552|191561298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.837
95857779|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.47|17.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||17.01|7.47|0.0316
95795530|NCT03191552|191561299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.570
95795531|NCT03191552|191561300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.334
95795532|NCT03191552|191561301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95795533|NCT03191552|191561302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
95795534|NCT03191552|191561303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.889
95795535|NCT03191552|191561304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
95795536|NCT03191552|191561305|SUPERIORITY||||||,|0||||||Mann-WhitneyU test was used to test the significance of pairwise differences using Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons.p value of less than 0.05/3 was determined as the level of statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0,001
95795537|NCT03191552|191561306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
95795538|NCT03191552|191561307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
95795539|NCT03191552|191561308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
95988100|NCT04418765|191950747|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.01||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||10.01|4.41|<0.0001
95988101|NCT04418765|191950747|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|7.47||Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||7.47|3.29|<0.0001
95988102|NCT04418765|191950748|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-3.0||Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-3.0|-4.5|<0.0001
95988103|NCT04418765|191950748|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6a of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||"Analysis was performed using an REML-based MMRM with month (Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 13-16, Weeks 17-20, Weeks 21-24), country, stratification factor (monthly MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline score as a continuous covariate, treatment-by-month interaction, baseline score-by-month interaction, and stratum-by-month interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error."||-2.2|-3.8|<0.0001
95988104|NCT04418765|191950749|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.22|30.15||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||30.15|5.22|<0.0001
95993762|NCT00619957|191963365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.94|0.18|0.0187
95795540|NCT03191552|191561309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.244
95795541|NCT03191552|191561310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95857780|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.57|21.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||21.09|11.57|0.0043
95737766|NCT01299454|191447851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.399|0.861|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.861|0.399|
95936571|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Rare messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Rare messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.935
95936572|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Ease messages and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Ease and Protect Yourself - Frequent message messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.504
95936573|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.190
95936574|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Frequent messages and Waiting for You messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Frequent and Waiting for You messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.027
95936575|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||Pairwise comparisons between experimental arms (Analyses 10-15) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were 2-tailed and adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages are equally effective at promoting flu shot self-scheduling; Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in effectiveness between Protect Yourself - Rare and Protect Yourself - Frequent messages. Analysis combines across November and December send dates.||||.854
95737767|NCT01299454|191447851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.521|||Mixed effect analysis of variance||Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach is equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.521|0.214|
95737768|NCT01299454|191447852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.153|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.153|0.445|
95795542|NCT04935879|191561311|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline hydroxyurea (HU) use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.25|0.71|0.6967
95795543|NCT04935879|191561312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22|||Log Rank|||Analysis was stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.22|0.63|0.4298
95936576|NCT05493787|191836780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The reported p-value (2-tailed) is for the interaction term between message send date (November, December) and message (any message arm no message)|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are equally effective at promoting flu-shot self-scheduling. Alternative hypothesis: Messages sent in November and December are differentially effective.~To test the alternative hypothesis, all message arms (Active control, Ease, Waiting for you, Protect yourself - rare, Protect yourself - frequent) were combined and compared with Passive control."||||.637
95936577|NCT01566695|191836840|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|18.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|29.6||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||29.6|8.3|0.0005
95857781|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.47|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||15.12|4.47|0.1226
95857782|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.17|21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||21.78|12.17|0.0034
95936578|NCT01566695|191836844|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|31.3||2 sided|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel; Chi-squared|Stratified by average baseline (BL) RBC tfx needs: ≤4 vs \>4 units of RBC per 28 days; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or ind. \&ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||31.3|11.9|<0.0001
95857783|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.29|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||17.29|6.29|0.0724
95936579|NCT01566695|191836845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4347|||||||Two-Sided Unstratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.4347
95936580|NCT01566695|191836847|SUPERIORITY|HI-E|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.7|-2.0|0.1467
95936581|NCT01566695|191836847|SUPERIORITY|≥ 1.5 g/dL Hemoglobin Increase|Rate Diffrence|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.9|8.8|0.0002
95936582|NCT01566695|191836847|SUPERIORITY|RBC Transfusion Reduction|Rate Difference|10.9||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||23.6|-1.9|0.1431
95936583|NCT01566695|191836848|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel. Chi-squared|Stratified by average BL RBC tfx needs: ≤4 units versus \>4 units; BL platelet tfx status: dependent or independent and ECOG PS: 0 to 1 vs 2||||26.4|7.5|0.0007
95857784|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|60.0|3.02|13.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||13.03|3.02|0.1782
95857785|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-2.14|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||9.46|-2.14|0.5947
95857786|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.081|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.2|14.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||14.79|5.20|0.0810
95857787|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.38||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.04|10.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||10.81|0.04|0.3965
95857788|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.44|22.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||22.88|11.44|0.0128
95936584|NCT01566695|191836851|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||Log Rank||||Cox proportional hazards model with stratifies factors|1.49|0.79|0.6257
95936585|NCT01566695|191836857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.214
95936586|NCT01566695|191836858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.446
95936587|NCT01566695|191836859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.248
95936588|NCT01566695|191836860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.058
95936589|NCT01566695|191836861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.130
95936590|NCT01566695|191836862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.123
95936591|NCT01566695|191836863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.069
95936592|NCT01566695|191836864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.078
95936593|NCT01566695|191836865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value was calculated based on a pooled 2-sample, 2-sided t-test for the difference in mean change from baseline between treatment groups.||||||0.073
95936594|NCT01566695|191836866|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.77||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.30|0.54|0.560
95936595|NCT01566695|191836867|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Raatio|0.72||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|1.78|0.29|0.480
95936596|NCT01566695|191836868|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.67||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.65|0.76|0.197
95988105|NCT04418765|191950749|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.35||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6b of testing order.|Regression, Logistic|||"Analysis was performed using logistic regression model including baseline MMDs as a continuous covariate, and treatment and stratification factor (MHD at baseline: ≤14/\>14) as factors.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||24.35|4.16|<0.0001
95988106|NCT04418765|191950750|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.2||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-4.2|-6.7|<0.0001
95988107|NCT04418765|191950750|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 2. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 300 mg vs placebo; 3. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 4. 50% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12) 100 mg vs placebo; 5a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 5b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 5c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 300 mg vs placebo; 6a. Change in MMDs (Weeks 13-24), 6b. 75% responders for MMDs (Weeks 1-12), 6c. Change in HIT-6 (Week 12) 100 mg vs placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.5||Threshold for significance: The consecutive order of the smallest (p1), the second smallest (p2), and the largest p-value (p3) had to be \<α/3, \<α/2, and \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6c of testing order.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Analysis was performed using MMRM with the following fixed effects: visit, country, stratification factor (MHDs at baseline: ≤14/\>14) and treatment as factors, baseline HIT-6 Total Score as a continuous covariate, baseline score-by-visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratum-by-visit interaction.~A testing strategy (sequence of tests) was applied to ensure protection of the type 1 error.~Testing continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant."||-2.5|-5.0|<0.0001
95988108|NCT01100944|191950818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95988109|NCT01100944|191950827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.30
95988110|NCT01100944|191950827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95988111|NCT01100944|191950827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95737769|NCT01299454|191447852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.378|0.934|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.934|0.378|
95795544|NCT04935879|191561314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.3||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to study entry (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||22.2|-1.6|0.0912
95795545|NCT04935879|191561315|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in the 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of the world).||1.47|0.71|0.9246
95795546|NCT04935879|191561316|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92|||=|0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.87|||Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = Ratio of rate of VOC for inclacumab group to placebo group.|Adjusted rates are based on estimate from a negative binomial model with the independent variable of treatment group (inclacumab, placebo) and adjusted for baseline HU use (yes, no), number of VOCs in 12 months prior to screening visit (2-4, 5-10), and geographic region (North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Europe/rest of world).||1.87|0.46|=0.8263
95857789|NCT00658359|191673393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.91|11.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||11.33|-1.91|0.5487
95737770|NCT01299454|191447852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.308|1.022|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||1.022|0.308|
95737771|NCT01299454|191447853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.368|0.845|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.845|0.368|
95936597|NCT01566695|191836869|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|5.57|0.82|0.121
95936598|NCT01566695|191836870|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.30|0.93|0.075
95936599|NCT01566695|191836871|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.58||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.29|0.76|0.222
95936600|NCT01566695|191836872|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|3.83|0.71|0.249
95936601|NCT01566695|191836873|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.48|0.92|0.082
95936602|NCT01566695|191836874|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|1.86||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated based on the CMH tests for comparing the odds of experiencing CMI between CC-486 versus placebo.|||The common odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH tests, stratified by randomization stratification factors, to compare the odds of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement between CC-486 and placebo.|4.34|0.79|0.153
95936603|NCT01566695|191836875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95795547|NCT03054428|191561318|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (less than \[\<\] 60 kilogram \[kg\] vs greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 kg).||31.87|12.2|< 0.0001
95795548|NCT03054428|191561318|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|15.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||24.31|6.7|= 0.0007
95857790|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|13.46|18.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||18.29|13.46|<0.0001
95936604|NCT01566695|191836876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
95936605|NCT01566695|191836877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.134
95936606|NCT01566695|191836878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.324
95936607|NCT01566695|191836879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.442
95936608|NCT01566695|191836880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
95936609|NCT01566695|191836881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.198
95936610|NCT01566695|191836882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.972
95936611|NCT01566695|191836883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
95936612|NCT01566695|191836884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
95936613|NCT01566695|191836885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.436
95936614|NCT01566695|191836886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
95936615|NCT03420833|191836902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95936616|NCT03420833|191836902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95936617|NCT03420833|191836905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
95936618|NCT03420833|191836907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95936619|NCT03420833|191836907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95795549|NCT03054428|191561319|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.07|45.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||45.39|21.07|< 0.0001
95936620|NCT05671029|191836936|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: difference to placebo of change from baseline QTcF ≥ 10 ms.|Prediction @ mean max concentration|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.3|<0.05
95936621|NCT05767437|191836937|EQUIVALENCE|effect size of 0.02, α \< 0.05, power = 0.02|Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.79|59.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.05|-55.79|0.98
95936622|NCT05767437|191836938|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.00, α \< 0.05, power = 0.00|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.25|0.99
95936623|NCT05767437|191836939|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56 , α \< 0.05, power = 32.5|Mean Difference (Net)|6.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.71|-24.12|0.68
95936624|NCT05767437|191836940|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis population description: patients were randomly assigned to either Group A or Group B|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||an effect size of 0.24, α \< 0.05, power = 24.5||0.87|-0.48|0.56
95936625|NCT05767437|191836941|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.56, α \< 0.05, power = 57.9|Mean Difference (Net)|-250.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.88|114.18||Interaction of Assessment and Group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||114.18|-614.88|0.42
95936626|NCT05767437|191836942|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.29, α \< 0.05, power = 88.9|Mean Difference (Net)|12.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|43.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.17|-18.67|0.45
95936627|NCT05767437|191836943|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.18, α \< 0.05, power =6.5|mean rank (Z)|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.96||MAS of Biceps|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|-0.61|0.67
95795550|NCT03054428|191561319|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|41.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs IGA=4) and baseline weight group (\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg).||41.78|17.94|< 0.0001
95936628|NCT05767437|191836944|EQUIVALENCE|an effect size of 0.39, α \< 0.05, power = 16.2|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|6.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.12|-19.38|0.38
95795551|NCT03054428|191561320|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-29.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-29.04|-55.6|< 0.0001
95795552|NCT03054428|191561320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-28.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-28.02|-54.44|< 0.0001
95936629|NCT01772472|191836983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
95936630|NCT01772472|191836984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<0.0001
95936631|NCT01772472|191836985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.44|<.0001
95936632|NCT01772472|191836986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
95936633|NCT01772472|191836987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
95936634|NCT01772472|191836988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.46|<.0001
95936635|NCT01772472|191836989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
95936636|NCT01772472|191836990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<0.0001
95936637|NCT01772472|191836991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.48|<.0001
95936638|NCT01772472|191836992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
95936639|NCT01772472|191836993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082||95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
95936640|NCT01772472|191836994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.53|0.0082
95936641|NCT01772472|191836995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
95936642|NCT01772472|191836996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
95936643|NCT01772472|191836997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<.0001
95936644|NCT03665597|191837020|OTHER|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio (GMR) = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.78||||||||0.78|0.68|
95936645|NCT03665597|191837020|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.74||||||||0.74|0.64|
95936646|NCT03665597|191837021|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 130 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.44||||||||0.44|0.36|
95936647|NCT03665597|191837021|OTHER|GMR = GM of Pembrolizumab 165 mg/mL SC/GM of Pembrolizumab 200 mg IV|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.41||||||||0.41|0.34|
95936648|NCT04391894|191837043|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.0|0.585
95936649|NCT04391894|191837043|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.01|0.107
95737772|NCT01299454|191447853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.781|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.781|0.341|
95737773|NCT01299454|191447853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was claimed for a PK parameter if the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means of a PK variable fell within the interval \[0.5, 2.0\]. Due to the nature of the normal-theory CIs, this approach was equivalent to carrying out two 1-sided tests of hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.195|0.507|||Mixed effect analysis of variance|||The secondary comparisons were each hepatic disease group (mild, moderate or severe) versus the control (normal group). To compare the secondary PK parameters between each hepatic disease group and the control group, the 90% CI for the difference in the means of the log-transformed data was calculated using a mixed effect analysis of variance.||0.507|0.195|
95737774|NCT03673670|191447872|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.021||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.991|0.168
95737775|NCT03673670|191447872|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|0.995||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.966|0.731
95737776|NCT03673670|191447873|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.115
95737777|NCT03673670|191447873|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.024||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.055|||ANCOVA|||||1.055|0.994|0.111
95737778|NCT03673670|191447874|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.014||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.987|0.303
95737779|NCT03673670|191447875|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.027||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.998|0.067
95857791|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.49|16.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 15||16.46|11.49|<0.0001
95857792|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.71|16.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||16.34|10.71|<0.0001
95857793|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.67|14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||14.45|8.67|0.0009
95936650|NCT04391894|191837043|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.3|0.3|0.033
95737780|NCT03673670|191447875|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.042|||ANCOVA|||||1.042|0.984|0.395
95857794|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.72|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||18.53|12.72|<0.0001
95857795|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.91|14.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||14.88|8.91|0.0010
95936651|NCT04391894|191837044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.8|0.605
95936652|NCT04391894|191837044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.646
95936653|NCT04391894|191837044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.847
95936654|NCT04391894|191837045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
95936655|NCT04391894|191837045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
95737781|NCT03673670|191447876|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.012||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.039|||ANCOVA|||||1.039|0.984|0.404
95737782|NCT03673670|191447877|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.123|||ANCOVA|||||1.123|1.043|0.001
95737783|NCT03673670|191447877|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.101|||ANCOVA|||||1.101|1.023|0.002
95857796|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|60.0|16.03|22.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||22.55|16.03|<0.0001
95857797|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|60.0|7.27|13.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||13.98|7.27|0.0082
95857798|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.09|18.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||18.36|11.09|0.0008
95936656|NCT04391894|191837045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
95936657|NCT04391894|191837046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
95936658|NCT04391894|191837046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.3|
95936659|NCT04391894|191837046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||||||||0.6|0.1|
95936660|NCT05198310|191837087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.01||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.13|0.0470
95988112|NCT01100944|191950828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed.Only differences with p\<0.005 could be potentially considered statistically significant while those with 0.005\<p\<0.05 would represent trends towards a difference.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.76
95988113|NCT01100944|191950828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
95857799|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.16|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||12.64|5.16|0.0462
95936661|NCT05198310|191837087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.21||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.92|0.2124
95936662|NCT05198310|191837087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.13||Analyzed using ANCOVA model with baseline value and stratification factor (≤1 vs. ≥2 classes of advanced targeted therapies) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-1.28|0.1091
95936663|NCT05198310|191837088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||t-test|||||||0.0312
95936664|NCT05198310|191837088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test|||||||0.0338
95936665|NCT05198310|191837092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0333
95936666|NCT05198310|191837092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1905|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.1905
95936667|NCT05198310|191837092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.65|0.90|0.0716
95936668|NCT05198310|191837092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.67|0.50|0.4710
95936669|NCT05198310|191837092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|22.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.88|1.62|0.0057
95936670|NCT05198310|191837093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0762|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.0762
95936671|NCT05198310|191837093|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.000
95936672|NCT05198310|191837093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.62|0.49|0.4172
95936673|NCT05198310|191837093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.45|0.55|0.3144
95936674|NCT05198310|191837093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.28|0.9560
95936675|NCT05198310|191837094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||0.4667
95936676|NCT05198310|191837094|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||1.0000
95936677|NCT05198310|191837094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.30|0.17|0.5789
95936678|NCT05198310|191837094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.10|0.62|0.0799
95936679|NCT05198310|191837094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.35|0.06|0.1034
95936680|NCT00593489|191837136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Poisson Regression|||The IPR was analyzed using Poisson regression with the intervention group as a class effect and the mean HbA1c at baseline as a covariate||1.24|0.8|0.96
95988114|NCT01100944|191950828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95737784|NCT03673670|191447878|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.02||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.043|||ANCOVA|||||1.043|0.997|0.096
95737785|NCT03673670|191447878|OTHER|A hierarchical fixed-sequence testing strategy was employed to test the significance of the treatment effect for each of the two RPL554 doses against placebo, starting with the highest dose (6 mg). If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided α level of 5%, the testing proceeded with the next highest dose. Otherwise, testing was stopped, and the remaining null hypotheses were accepted without testing.|GeoMean Ratio|1.002||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.025|||ANCOVA|||||1.025|0.979|0.862
95795553|NCT03054428|191561321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.54|-18.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||-18.38|-39.54|< 0.0001
95795554|NCT03054428|191561321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.45|15.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. Placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata (baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\]) as fixed factors.||15.63|-37.45|< 0.0001
95795555|NCT03054428|191561322|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|51.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||51.84|26.9|< 0.0001
95795556|NCT03054428|191561322|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.97|41.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||41.32|16.97|< 0.0001
95936681|NCT00715884|191837147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null inferiority hypothesis was that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is equal or greater than the non-inferiority margin 5%. The alternative non-inferiority hypothesis for this study assumed that the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval would be less than the non-inferiority margin 5%.|Difference between TLF rates|2.58|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.55||In the CYPHER® ELITE™ arm the TLF rate was 5.36% (23/429) compared with 2.78% (6/216) in the CYPHER® Bx VELOCITY® arm, a difference in rates of 2.58%, upper limit of 95% two sided confidence interval of 5.55%.||||Sample sizes of 1,061 from the ELITE™ group and 531 from the CYPHER® group were planned to achieve 90 percent power at a 2.5 percent significance level using an one-sided equivalence test, assuming a 10 percent TLF rate in each group and the maximum allowable rate difference between the groups being 5 percent. The total sample size was increased to 1,770 patients to account for an approximately 90 percent compliance to clinical follow-up.||5.55||
95936682|NCT00715884|191837148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.0|-1.3|0.549
95936683|NCT00715884|191837149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|9.2|<.001
95936684|NCT00715884|191837150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.7||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-2.2|0.724
95988115|NCT01100944|191950829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Fold change at Cycle 2 Day 1 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.95
95988116|NCT01100944|191950829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 2 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95795557|NCT03054428|191561323|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.45|43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||43.2|20.45|< 0.0001
95988117|NCT01100944|191950829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Fold change at Cycle 1 Day 3 vs. pre was assessed. p values calculated were done using a Wilcoxon signed rank test relative to a ratio of 1.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95936685|NCT00715884|191837151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||||1.4|-3.5|0.407
95936686|NCT00715884|191837152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.11||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|4.48|||Fisher Exact|||||4.48|-0.84|0.203
95936687|NCT00715884|191837153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|5.28|||Fisher Exact|||||5.28|-1.24|0.22
95936688|NCT00715884|191837154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.83||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|-1.28|0.166
95936689|NCT00715884|191837155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|2.59||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|5.85|||Fisher Exact|||||5.85|-1.35|0.200
95936690|NCT00715884|191837156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|11.56||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||||24.64|-3.73|0.140
95988118|NCT01179009|191950830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The p-value above represents the interaction between the treatment group and time.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
95857800|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|60.0|11.11|18.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||18.28|11.11|0.0007
95936691|NCT00715884|191837157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|5.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|10.83|||Fisher Exact|||||10.83|-2.03|0.170
95936692|NCT00715884|191837158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.43|||Fisher Exact|||||5.43|-5.61|1.0
95936693|NCT00715884|191837159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.24||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|1.63|||Fisher Exact|||||1.63|-1.92|1.0
95936694|NCT00715884|191837160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.49||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.91|||Fisher Exact|||||2.91|-2.73|0.801
95936695|NCT00715884|191837161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|-0.92||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.60|-3.56|0.341
95936696|NCT00715884|191837162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||||1.28|-2.14|1.00
95936697|NCT00715884|191837163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between event rates|0.47||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.96|||Fisher Exact|||||1.96|-1.72|0.668
95737786|NCT03673670|191447879|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.945
95737787|NCT03673670|191447879|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.501
95737788|NCT03437265|191447886|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
95737789|NCT03437265|191447887|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
95737790|NCT03437265|191447888|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
95737791|NCT03437265|191447889|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
95857801|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.87|12.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 42||12.24|4.87|0.0519
95857802|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.66|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||17.50|9.66|0.0039
95936698|NCT03930342|191837166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|Used marginal standardization to estimate relative risk from logistic regression||Results here reflect analysis of the relative risk for AEP that is a combination of risk from baseline to the 3 month timepoint and risk between the 3 month timepoint and 6 month timepoint. This reflects changes in AEP risk across the course of exposure to the intervention (baseline to 3 month) and enduring change post-exposure (3 months to 6 months)||1.07|0.83|
95936699|NCT01872078|191837167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|87.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|129.47||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||129.47|58.52|
95936700|NCT01872078|191837167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.41|116.16||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||116.16|53.41|
95936701|NCT01872078|191837167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|47.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.73|70.36||||||The null hypothesis is that the ratio of Active to Control in LH AUC(0-8) ratio to baseline at day 7= 100%||70.36|32.73|
95936702|NCT05063994|191837192|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef was declared if the 95% CI for the difference in biochemical response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above minus 15 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|48.9||One-sided non-inferiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.9|2.5|0.0003
95936703|NCT05063994|191837193|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the dose response after 28 weeks of randomized treatment was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly above zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef with respect to the biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective.|Treatment Difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.3||One-sided superiority. The Ge et al (2011) method was used to calculate the estimate, standard error, confidence interval and P-value for the treatment difference from the results of a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||||47.3|3.3|0.012
95936704|NCT05063994|191837194|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of Chronocort to Cortef (with respect to the total daily dose after 28 weeks of randomized treatment) was declared if the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in means between the 2 treatment arms (Chronocort minus Cortef) was wholly below zero, provided that non-inferiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of biochemical response had been declared under the primary efficacy objective, and superiority of Chronocort to Cortef in terms of dose response has been declared.|Treatment Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-2.5||One-sided superiority.|MMRM|||||-2.5|-9.2|0.0005
95936705|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to Reminder Control patients who were sent messages that did not disclose their risk status. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate vs. messages that do not disclose risk status; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||.054
95988119|NCT01179009|191950831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The p-value above comes from a model where the treatment group is used to predict the CGI improvement score.|Ordinal regression|||||||0.06
95795558|NCT03054428|191561323|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.7|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|32.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. C.I. = Confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline disease severity \[IGA=3 vs IGA=4\] and baseline weight group \[\<60 kg vs ≥60 kg\].||32.28|11.21|= 0.0001
95795559|NCT03880474|191561338|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Log Binominal Model|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
95795560|NCT03880474|191561338|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.52||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||||2.55|0.90|0.1146
95737792|NCT03437265|191447890|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented.|||
95737793|NCT03437265|191447891|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PK parameters were estimated for each subject by non-compartmental analysis methods using Phoenix® WinNonlin® software (v8.0, Certara USA, Inc., USA). Summary statistics (n, mean, SD, CV%, median, minimum, maximum, geometric n, geometric mean (geometric SD) and geometric CV%) were presented. The Geometric CV for glycolic acid was Not Calculated (appears as 0%).|||
95795561|NCT03880474|191561339|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Log Binomial Model|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|1.0000
95795562|NCT03880474|191561339|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Poisson Model with Robust Variance|||The Analysis concerns the Incidence of Influenza-like Illness (ILI)||1.15|0.86|0.9799
95857803|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.78||0.058|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.09|13.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 48||13.15|5.09|0.0580
95936706|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups that were informed they were high risk (High Risk Only, High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to No-Contact Control patients who were not sent messages. Null hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: messages that inform patients they are high risk increase flu vaccination rate.||||<.001
95936707|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compared groups who received messages including risk reasons (High Risk Based on Medical Records, High Risk Based on Algorithm) to messages that mentioned patients' risk status but do not include reasons (High Risk Only). Null hypothesis: messages that include risk reasons do not increase flu vaccination rate relative to high-risk messages that do not include risk reasons; Alternative hypothesis: messages including risk reasons are more effective at increasing vaccination rates.||||.240
95737794|NCT03437265|191447892|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary of the number of bowel movements per time period for the PD analysis set|||
95737795|NCT03437265|191447893|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The time (in minutes) to achieve clear effluent/time to turbid contents is presented for the PD analysis set.|||
95737796|NCT04859517|191447900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.08|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.08|-8.87|0.0123
95737797|NCT04859517|191447901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||-2.01|-5.75|<0.0001
95737798|NCT04859517|191447904|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Risk Difference|-7.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-1.46|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-1.46|-13.74|0.0153
95795563|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-287.1||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-872.75|298.59|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Day 28||298.59|-872.75|0.3284
95795564|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.39||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.26|125.47|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (HI) at Week26||125.47|-152.26|0.8468
95795565|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-465.7||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1875.21|943.75|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Day 28||943.75|-1875.21|0.5087
95795566|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-83.68||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-611.67|444.32|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H3N2 (MN) at Week 26||444.32|-611.67|0.7509
95795567|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-81.17||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.72|88.39|||ANOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Day 28||88.39|-250.72|0.3398
95795568|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|26.15||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|90.26|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza A/H1N1pdm at Week 26||90.26|-37.95|0.4154
95795569|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|22.84||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|150.18|||ANCOVA|||Titers of neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Day 28||150.18|-104.50|0.7193
95857804|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|60.0|12.62|20.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||20.61|12.62|0.0006
95936708|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: flu-shot messages that do not mention high-risk status do not increase vaccination relative to no messages; Alternative hypothesis: flu shot messages that do not mention high-risk status increase flu shots relative to no messages.||||.047
95936709|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Medical Records.||||.781
95737799|NCT04859517|191447905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|0.21|||Regression, Logistic||||A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|0.21|-9.03|0.0612
95737800|NCT04859517|191447924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.06|0.0077
95737801|NCT04859517|191447925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.14|<0.0001
95737802|NCT02558491|191447950|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.045
95737803|NCT02558491|191447950|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.07
95737804|NCT02558491|191447950|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Primary statistical analysis was performed using the repeated measure ANOVA, with the treatment mode as within subject factor, and type of insulin treatment (pump vs. MDI) as between subject factor. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.177
95737805|NCT02558491|191447951|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) \& w2 statistics was used with expected counts given by standard of care. Based on achieved recruitment, moderate effect size (0.3) was detectable with 80% power, or large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.042
95795570|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|52.38||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|124.35|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/ Victoria at Week 26||124.35|-19.59|0.1496
95795571|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.76||||0.9044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.57|263.06|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Day 28||263.06|-296.57|0.9044
95857805|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|60.0|8.04|16.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 54||16.26|8.04|0.0136
95988120|NCT02780648|191950851|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||This p-value represents the type III p-value for overall treatment phase variable significance. An a priori alpha level of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Cohort B, pain scores were compared across treatment phase (before, during, and after) using ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures.||||0.824
95857806|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.39|17.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||17.39|9.39|0.0053
95857807|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|60.0|4.66|12.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 60||12.88|4.66|0.0736
95737806|NCT02558491|191447951|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.276
95737807|NCT02558491|191447952|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.026
95795572|NCT03880474|191561341|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|38.64||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|134.24|||ANCOVA|||Titers of influenza-specific neutralizing antibodies against Influenza B/Yamagata at Week 26||134.24|-56.97|0.4198
95795573|NCT03880474|191561342|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.90|0.4159
95795574|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Feeling Hot (AUC)||1.19|0.83|0.9550
95857808|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|60.0|9.58|17.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||17.67|9.58|0.0050
95857809|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.61|13.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 66||13.93|5.61|0.0491
95795575|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.0||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Temperature (AUC)||1|1|0.8933
95795576|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Cough (AUC)||1.09|0.7|0.2156
95795577|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.88||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Sore Throat AUC||1.10|0.71|0.2216
95795578|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.87||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Blocked Nose AUC||1.09|0.69|0.2306
95795579|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|0.99||||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Chest Pain AUC||1.13|0.97|0.8038
95795580|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Muscle Pain AUC||1.21|0.84|0.9319
95795581|NCT03880474|191561343|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Active vs Placebo)|1.01||||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19|||ANOVA|||Time Weight Area Under the Curve (AUC) for Symptoms of Influenza - Symptom: Shortness of Breath AUC||1.19|0.86|0.8399
95795582|NCT03880474|191561344|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|743.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|443.71|1043.84|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Day 28 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||1043.84|443.71|0
95857810|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|60.0|10.4|18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||18.91|10.40|0.0041
95857811|NCT00658359|191673394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19||0.066|TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.22|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 72||13.97|5.22|0.0660
95857812|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||1.36|-5.45|0.2393
95795583|NCT03880474|191561344|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|177.1||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|367.33|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed for Total(NP+M) (SFU/10\^6 PBMC) at Week 26 Nucleoprotein = NP, matrix1 = M1||367.33|-13.14|0.0673
95795584|NCT03533751|191561345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.235||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4066|27.8983|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||27.8983|-12.4066|0.4498
95795585|NCT03533751|191561345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.774|12.1262|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||12.1262|-24.7740|0.5010
95795586|NCT03533751|191561345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.454||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6037|20.5476|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.5476|-16.6037|0.8349
95857813|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Functioning||0.14|-7.29|0.0595
95795587|NCT03533751|191561345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1892|26.8275|||ANCOVA|The p-value was obtained using a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||26.8275|-17.1892|0.6662
95795588|NCT03533751|191561346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.9509|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.9509|0.4200|0.7992
95795589|NCT03533751|191561346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|3.3572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.3572|0.7570|0.2197
95795590|NCT03533751|191561346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5345|2.4774|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.4774|0.5345|0.7197
95795591|NCT03533751|191561346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.8404|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||1.8404|0.3910|0.6772
95795592|NCT03533751|191561347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3922|2.6994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||2.6994|0.3922|0.9537
95795593|NCT03533751|191561347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6323|3.8895|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.8895|0.6323|0.3316
95795594|NCT03533751|191561347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5331|3.4944|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.4944|0.5331|0.5166
95795595|NCT03533751|191561347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|3.0223|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||3.0223|0.4545|0.7426
95795596|NCT03533751|191561348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3998|7.7615|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||7.7615|0.3998|0.4543
95857814|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||5.49|-2.77|0.5182
95857815|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Physical||2.56|-6.49|0.3938
95857816|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.46|-3.89|0.8932
95737808|NCT02558491|191447952|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.173
95737809|NCT02558491|191447952|OTHER|||||||0.715||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.715
95737810|NCT02558491|191447953|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.036
95737811|NCT02558491|191447953|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.213
95737812|NCT02558491|191447953|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.110
95737813|NCT02558491|191447954|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.018
95737814|NCT02558491|191447954|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.149
95936710|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Only and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.361
95795597|NCT03533751|191561348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6314|10.4827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||10.4827|0.6314|0.1874
95936711|NCT05009251|191837233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Pairwise comparisons between high-risk messages (Analyses 5, 6 and 7) were analyzed in the same regression. Reported p-values were adjusted using Tukey's HSD test.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting flu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High Risk Based on Medical Records and High Risk Based on Algorithm.||||.770
95795598|NCT03533751|191561348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6506|11.0814|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||11.0814|0.6506|0.1721
95795599|NCT03533751|191561348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|4.2141|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline EASI as a covariate.||||4.2141|0.1086|0.6755
95795600|NCT03533751|191561349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2481|2.2543|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||2.2543|0.2481|0.6058
95795601|NCT03533751|191561349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3356|2.7923|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.7923|0.3356|0.9521
95936712|NCT04083235|191837245|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.99|0.70|0.04
95737815|NCT02558491|191447954|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.109
95737816|NCT02558491|191447955|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.78
95737817|NCT02558491|191447955|OTHER|||||||0.399||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.399
95737818|NCT02558491|191447955|OTHER|||||||0.824||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.824
95737819|NCT02558491|191447956|OTHER|||||||0.863||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.863
95737820|NCT02558491|191447956|OTHER|||||||0.965||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.965
95737821|NCT02558491|191447956|OTHER|||||||0.742||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.742
95795602|NCT03533751|191561349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4457|3.3878|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||3.3878|0.4457|0.6905
95795603|NCT03533751|191561349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3671|2.9518|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as a covariate.||||2.9518|0.3671|0.9399
95795604|NCT03533751|191561350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.5268|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.5268|0.3290|0.7659
95936713|NCT04083235|191837246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and 95% CI was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
95988121|NCT02780648|191950852|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite global health status / quality of life score as the outcome.||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite global health status / quality of life scores across treatment phase.||||0.270
95795605|NCT03533751|191561350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3895|4.776|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||4.7760|0.3895|0.6273
95795606|NCT03533751|191561350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5734|6.1879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||6.1879|0.5734|0.2967
95936714|NCT04083235|191837247|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR, 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting by baseline ECOG performance status, region and liver metastases as per IWRS.|||1.69|0.95|0.11
95795607|NCT03533751|191561350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4152|5.1476|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline vIGA-AD score as covariate.||||5.1476|0.4152|0.5544
95737822|NCT02558491|191447957|OTHER|||||||0.158||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.158
95737823|NCT02558491|191447957|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.085
95737824|NCT02558491|191447957|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.055
95737825|NCT02558491|191447958|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.744
95737826|NCT02558491|191447958|OTHER|||||||0.248||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.248
95795608|NCT03533751|191561351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3175|3.9513|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||3.9513|0.3175|0.8600
95795609|NCT03533751|191561351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5511|6.1214|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1214|0.5511|0.3222
95795610|NCT03533751|191561351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6089|6.431|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.4310|0.6089|0.2564
95795611|NCT03533751|191561351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5806|6.1275|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline peak weekly averaged NRS as covariate.||||6.1275|0.5806|0.2912
95795612|NCT03533751|191561352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2117|15.8686|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||15.8686|-18.2117|0.8927
95857817|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Bodily Pain||4.67|-4.48|0.9673
95936715|NCT01007591|191837248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|31.7|||ANOVA|Treatment comparison using an ANOVA model with age group and treatment as design variables.||||31.7|-43.7|0.75
95795613|NCT03533751|191561352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.019||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2767|21.1463|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||21.1463|-14.2767|0.7035
95795614|NCT03533751|191561352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.608||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.159|7.6237|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||7.6237|-26.1590|0.2819
95857818|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||5.23|-1.76|0.3290
95936716|NCT03958955|191837269|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
95936717|NCT03958955|191837272|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success (i.e. no lesion-specific treatment-related AEs) of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|||0.17|-0.02|0.5000
95795615|NCT03533751|191561352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8452|10.7333|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline weekly averaged peak NRS as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||10.7333|-22.8452|0.4793
95857819|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: General Health||4.92|-2.75|0.5780
95936718|NCT03958955|191837273|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|-0.14||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib vs vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|||0.09|-0.37|0.4531
95936719|NCT03958955|191837274|SUPERIORITY||Attributable risk|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||Exact p-value of McNemar's test.|McNemar||||Attributable risk is defined as the difference in estimated probability of treatment success of delgocitinib compared to vehicle. Exact p-value of McNemar's test. Success is defined as having at least a 2-point reduction in IGA score from baseline to Week 6.|0.22|-0.22|1.0000
95936720|NCT03958955|191837275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Erythema is scored as 0=absent, 1=pink, faint, 2=red, 3=dark red, purple/violaceous/crusted/haemorrhagic. P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.5797
95936721|NCT03958955|191837276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7862||||||P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|P-value of the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||Total skin disease activity score is the sum of the scores for erythema, scaling/hyperkeratosis, and oedema/infiltration. Total skin disease activity score ranges from 0 to 7 with lower score indicating better state.||||0.7862
95936722|NCT04638829|191837278|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95936723|NCT04638829|191837279|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
95936724|NCT04638829|191837280|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95795616|NCT03533751|191561353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.677||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5723|19.7054|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||19.7054|-6.5723|0.3262
95795617|NCT03533751|191561353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.366||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7439|11.2782|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||11.2782|-13.7439|0.8465
95857820|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||3.62|-3.72|0.9799
95936725|NCT04638829|191837281|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95936726|NCT02807636|191837287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||inverse normal combination|Log Rank|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||0.96|0.70|0.0073
95936727|NCT02807636|191837288|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||one-sided, inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.0|0.73|0.0230
95936728|NCT02807636|191837289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Log Rank|one-sided||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.16|0.82|0.3968
95936729|NCT02807636|191837294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||inverse normal combination|Regression, Cox|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.01|0.73|0.0373
95936730|NCT02807636|191837295|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.0||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|11.81|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||11.81|-1.82|0.1509
95936731|NCT02807636|191837296|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.36||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|10.79|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||10.79|-4.08|0.3761
95936732|NCT02807636|191837297|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.29||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-2.13|||Z-test|||Stratification factors: Enrollment stage, PD-L1 status, Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases, and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||-2.13|-14.45|0.0083
95936733|NCT02807636|191837298|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.00|0.64|0.0542
95936734|NCT02807636|191837299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||Strata are: PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.19|0.74|0.6139
95936735|NCT02807636|191837300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.32|0.86|0.5540
95936736|NCT02807636|191837301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.62|||Log Rank|||Strata are: Enrollment Stage, PD-L1 Status, BAJORIN Risk Factor Score and Stratum 4 for all participants.||1.62|1.03|0.0241
95936737|NCT02807636|191837305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors: PD-L1 status and Bajorin risk score/presence of liver metastases and investigator choice of chemotherapy.||1.69|1.19|1.0000
95936738|NCT04088630|191837311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Between group pairwise comparisons performed with Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with cardiac events up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups.||||0.0427
95936739|NCT04088630|191837312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with nosocomial infections up to 90 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.19
95936740|NCT04088630|191837313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in proportion of subjects with neurologic decline up to 30 days post-ictus tested between three groups. No pairwise comparisons performed.||||0.30
95737827|NCT02558491|191447958|OTHER|||||||0.225||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.225
95936741|NCT03175029|191837330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.514|15.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the TAC-302 group||15.590|5.514|<0.001
95737828|NCT02558491|191447959|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.86
95737829|NCT02558491|191447959|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for mealtime.||||0.522
95737830|NCT02558491|191447959|OTHER|||||||0.522||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overnight.||||0.522
95795618|NCT03533751|191561353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.396||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0587|15.082|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.||||15.0820|-10.0587|0.6947
95795619|NCT03533751|191561353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8451|20.3626|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline SCORAD as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||20.3626|-6.8451|0.3288
95795620|NCT03533751|191561354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.355||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4081|2.9218|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.9218|-2.4081|0.8497
95795621|NCT03533751|191561354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5636|1.7473|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||1.7473|-3.5636|0.5016
95936742|NCT03175029|191837330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.676|7.023|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BCI in the Placebo group||7.023|-8.676|0.819
95936743|NCT03175029|191837330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.345|20.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BCI from baseline to Week 12||20.411|2.345|0.015
95795622|NCT03533751|191561354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.167|2.287|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||2.2870|-3.1670|0.7511
95857821|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Vitality||5.83|-2.31|0.3960
95857822|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||3.75|-4.05|0.9400
95857823|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Social Functioning||4.72|-3.94|0.8583
95936744|NCT03175029|191837331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.604|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|15.455|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the TAC-302 group||15.455|5.753|<0.001
95936745|NCT03175029|191837331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.926|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.121|11.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean PIP1 in the Placebo group||11.973|-2.121|0.138
95936746|NCT03175029|191837331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.861||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.375|13.731|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean PIP1 from baseline to Week 12||13.731|-2.375|0.157
95936747|NCT03175029|191837332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.48||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|18.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||18.59|3.22|0.006
95936748|NCT03175029|191837332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.10|-6.27|0.570
95936749|NCT03175029|191837332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|20.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||20.95|-3.96|0.178
95936750|NCT03175029|191837333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|27.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||27.69|9.13|<0.001
95737831|NCT02558491|191447960|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.301
95737832|NCT02558491|191447961|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.189
95737833|NCT02558491|191447962|OTHER|||||||0.271||||||No a priori sample size was determined due to the feasibility/pilot nature of the trial. Significance level was set at P-value \<0.05.|ANOVA|||Secondary analysis followed the same format unless variables could not be considered normally distributed; in that case a related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. Data were first binned (to ensure minimum count of five per bins) and the w2 statistics was used with the expected counts given by SoC. Based on achieved recruitment, a moderate effect size (0.3) is detectable with 80% power, or a large effect size (0.4) with 95% power (G-Power 3.1.9.2). Outcome measurement was for overall.||||0.271
95737834|NCT02964039|191447986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.047 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.77) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.047
95737835|NCT02964039|191447987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.16 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.023) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.16
95737836|NCT02964039|191447988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|ANOVA|0.64 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.024) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.64
95737837|NCT02964039|191447989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||A priori threshold: 0.92|ANOVA|0.92 is the main effect of group from a 2-way ANOVA that also included time (p=0.076) as a within-subjects factor.||||||0.92
95737838|NCT02964039|191447990|SUPERIORITY||||||>=|0.22||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|We compared incident rates assuming a negative binomial distribution with leas squares means estimates predicted via generalized linear model.||||||>=0.22
95737839|NCT02964039|191447991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95737840|NCT00651820|191448054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Paired-Prentice Wilcoxon (PPW)|Time to complete wound closure Drug(T1)and Vehicle(T2)Hypothesis, Ho: T1=T2,using paired Prentice-Wilcoxon at significant level of 5%, 2-sided.||Each subject served as their own control, each receiving duplicate dermatome-induced wounds with 1 wound treated with active drug and the other treated with vehicle. Mean time to wound closure was calculated for the wounds treated with drug, the wounds treated with vehicle, and an over-all mean time to wound closure||||<0.05
95988122|NCT02780648|191950853|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite physicial functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite physical functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.179
95737841|NCT00651820|191448055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Stiffness: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
95737842|NCT00651820|191448055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy Absorption: Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for testing any significant differences (Sig. diff.) between the two treatments||||<0.05
95795623|NCT03533751|191561354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3133|3.1824|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline DLQI score as covariate.|Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||3.1824|-2.3133|0.7558
95795624|NCT06070610|191561358|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|111.1|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 12.3|||111.10|93.59|
95795625|NCT06070610|191561359|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|109.65|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 11.4|||109.65|93.60|
95795626|NCT06070610|191561360|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|117.02|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.4|||117.02|87.36|
95795627|NCT06070610|191561361|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.58|114.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5|||114.49|102.58|
95795628|NCT06070610|191561362|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.54|115.49|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.7|||115.49|102.54|
95795629|NCT06070610|191561363|OTHER|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|101.11|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 20.5|||101.11|75.27|
95795630|NCT01499810|191561364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95795631|NCT01499810|191561366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95795632|NCT01499810|191561367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95795633|NCT01499810|191561368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95988123|NCT02780648|191950853|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite role functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.789||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite role functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.789
95737843|NCT00730691|191448070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.69||This treatment arm is not in the pre-specified testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05) comparing each of the 3 doses of vortioxetine to placebo.||0.69|-2.62|0.255
95737844|NCT00730691|191448070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.35|-1.96|0.719
95737845|NCT00730691|191448070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.27||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.27|-2.06|0.642
95795634|NCT01499810|191561369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95795635|NCT01499810|191561370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95795636|NCT01499810|191561371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
95795637|NCT01499810|191561372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||<0.0001
95857824|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||8.37|-0.73|0.0997
95795638|NCT01499810|191561373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
95795639|NCT01499810|191561374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
95795640|NCT01499810|191561375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00007
95795641|NCT01499810|191561376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00009
95795642|NCT01499810|191561377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||4e-05||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.00004
95795643|NCT01499810|191561378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0001
95795644|NCT01499810|191561379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0007
95795645|NCT01499810|191561380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.001
95795646|NCT01499810|191561381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0004
95795647|NCT01499810|191561382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.0002
95795648|NCT01499810|191561383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.57
95795649|NCT01499810|191561384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.54
95988124|NCT02780648|191950853|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite emotional functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.303||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite emotional functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.303
95988125|NCT02780648|191950853|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite cognitive functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.989||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite cognitive functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.989
95988126|NCT02780648|191950853|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite social functioning composite score as the outcome.||||||0.436||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite social functioning composite scores across treatment phase.||||0.436
95988127|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite fatigue symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.659||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite fatigue symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.659
95988128|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite nausea and vomiting symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.295||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite nausea and vomiting symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.295
95737846|NCT00730691|191448070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.89|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.89|-4.30|0.003
95988129|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite pain symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.299||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite pain symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.299
95988130|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite dyspnea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.794||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite dyspnea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.794
95988131|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite insomnia symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite insomnia symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.450
95737847|NCT00730691|191448071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.11|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.11|-0.89|0.830
95737848|NCT00730691|191448071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.77||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.77|-1.24|0.643
95737849|NCT00730691|191448071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.07||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.07|-2.10|0.036
95737850|NCT00730691|191448071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.50|-2.58|0.004
95795650|NCT01499810|191561385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.87
95988132|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite appetite loss symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.389||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite appetite loss symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.389
95737851|NCT00730691|191448072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.15|-0.36|0.407
95737852|NCT00730691|191448072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.33|0.533
95737853|NCT00730691|191448072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.17|-0.34|0.491
95737854|NCT00730691|191448072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-0.17|-0.70|0.001
95737855|NCT00730691|191448073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.85|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.85|-1.16|0.652
95795651|NCT01499810|191561386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.77
95988133|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite constipation symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|The odds of having a higher constipation symptom composite score after treatment were less than during or before treatment.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite constipation symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.011
95988134|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite diarrhea symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.101||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite diarrhea symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.101
95988135|NCT02780648|191950854|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models with repeated measures to account for multiple patient surveys were fit with treatment phase (before treatment, during treatment, and after treatment) as the predictor and composite financial difficulty symptom score as the outcome.||||||0.306||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value represents the omnibus p-value for treatment phase in the repeated-measures ordinal logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in composite financial difficulty symptom scores across treatment phase.||||0.306
95988136|NCT02109484|191950858|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0165
95993763|NCT00619957|191963366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.34|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.34|-0.19|0.1408
95737856|NCT00730691|191448073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.98|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.98|-1.98|0.511
95737857|NCT00730691|191448073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.51|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.51|-2.38|0.204
95795652|NCT01499810|191561387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.06
95795653|NCT01499810|191561388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.07
95795654|NCT01499810|191561389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
95795655|NCT01499810|191561390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.12
95795656|NCT01499810|191561391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.72
95795657|NCT01499810|191561392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.37
95737858|NCT00730691|191448073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.03|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.03|-4.10|0.001
95737859|NCT00730691|191448074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.750|0.709|0.641
95737860|NCT00730691|191448074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.605|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.605|0.643|0.945
95737861|NCT00730691|191448074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.749|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.749|0.709|0.641
95737862|NCT00730691|191448074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.427||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|2.246|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||2.246|0.907|0.124
95737863|NCT00730691|191448075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.14|-5.15|0.064
95737864|NCT00730691|191448075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.353||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||0.40|-4.92|0.096
95737865|NCT00730691|191448075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.397||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||1.14|-4.36|0.250
95737866|NCT00730691|191448075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.73|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with week, Baseline score-by-week and treatment-by-week interaction as factors.||||-1.73|-7.34|0.002
95737867|NCT01249651|191448086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
95737868|NCT00119015|191448099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95737869|NCT00119015|191448100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
95737870|NCT00119015|191448101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95936751|NCT03175029|191837333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|11.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||11.58|-5.81|0.489
95936752|NCT03175029|191837333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||29.58|1.48|0.031
95737871|NCT00119015|191448102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95737872|NCT00119015|191448103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
95737873|NCT01097577|191448113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||This study was designed to determine if pregabalin is an effective regimen for postoperative pain control following PRK. We hypothesized that there will be at least a 10% improvement in pain after PRK using a scheduled pregabalin dosing regimen compared to placebo. A power analysis was completed to determine the number of patients necessary.||||0.180
95737874|NCT01097577|191448114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.207
95737875|NCT01097577|191448115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
95737876|NCT01097577|191448116|SUPERIORITY|Question 1: Pain at its worst||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.223
95737877|NCT01097577|191448117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.311
95737878|NCT01097577|191448118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OD||||0.581
95737879|NCT01097577|191448118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Days to Heal, OS||||0.307
95737880|NCT05152576|191448130|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
95737881|NCT05152576|191448130|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|38.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|57.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||57.1|19.2|<0.001
95737882|NCT05152576|191448130|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline investigator-rated FWS-FHL at maximum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confidence interval for responder rate is calculated using normal approximation.||59.3|23.5|<0.001
95795658|NCT01499810|191561393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.99
95795659|NCT01499810|191561394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
95795660|NCT01499810|191561395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.08
95795661|NCT01499810|191561396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
95795662|NCT01499810|191561397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.22
95795663|NCT01499810|191561398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.29
95795664|NCT01499810|191561399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.89
95737883|NCT00128219|191448173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|The study was multi-center, and the Cox model was stratified by geographic region of the participating clinical sites.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first acquisition of vaginal type III GBS was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by region to the data. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||58|1|0.044
95737884|NCT00128219|191448198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportions always vaginal GBS-III negative by arm to a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the 2-sided 5% level Fisher's exact, with GBS III-TT arm in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator so \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||2.34|0.917|0.120
95795665|NCT01499810|191561400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.65
95737885|NCT00128219|191448199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|36.0||||0.089||95.0|-7.0|61.0||Significance was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity. Exchangeable correlation structure and GEE were used for repeated measures.|Binomial regression, log-linear link|The Wald test of treatment effect was used to test no difference in proportion of GBS III pos. by arm against a 2-sided alternative of a difference.|Estimate of vaccine efficacy and 95% CI were obtained by transforming the estimate of log relative risk for treatment effect and the robust Wald CI in the log-linear binomial regression model fit to the proportion of vaginal type III GBS swabs.|The proportion of vaginal swabs that were GBS III culture positive was estimated from a GEE model fit with binomial family, log-link, and exchangeable correlation. Point and robust interval estimates for vaccine efficacy, were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in this model, and used to test the hypothesis of no efficacy.||61|-7|0.089
95737886|NCT00128219|191448200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for the analysis of secondary endpoints was set at .05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test no difference in proportion persistently colonized by arm against a two-sided alternative of a difference.|The OR was calculated from the 2x2 contingency table, and the 95% CI was obtained by inverting the two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test. The GBS III-TT arm is in the numerator and Td arm in the denominator, so a value \<1 favors the GBS III-TT arm.|A two-sided 5% level Fisher's exact test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of participants who were vaginal type III GBS negative throughout the study between treatment arms. The two-sided 5% Fisher's exact test was inverted to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.||1.45|0.18|0.256
95737887|NCT06298396|191448212|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.81|||||Treatment difference = LP1 - Default Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was above -10% (i.e. LP1 - Default \> -10%).|||2.81|-2.92|
95737888|NCT06298396|191448213|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||||The non-inferiority margin is 1 dB. Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \< 1 dB.|||0.24|-0.87|
95737889|NCT06298396|191448214|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.75|||||Treatment difference = LP2 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was above -10% (i.e. LP2 - LP1 \> -10%).|||0.75|-0.55|
95737890|NCT06298396|191448215|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.75|||||Treatment difference = LP2 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP2- LP1 \< 1 dB)|||0.75|-0.55|
95795666|NCT01499810|191561401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.76
95795667|NCT01499810|191561402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||||||Repeated measures analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.35
95795668|NCT01499810|191561403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.92
95795669|NCT01499810|191561404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.32
95993764|NCT00619957|191963367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.92|0.23|0.0129
95795670|NCT01499810|191561405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.40
95795671|NCT01499810|191561406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.17
95737891|NCT06298396|191448216|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 10% was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.95|||||||Treatment difference = LP3 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP3 - LP1 \< 1 dB)|1.95|-5.15|
95737892|NCT06298396|191448217|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 1 dB was applied. In the sample size calculation, a 90% power to detect non-inferiority was used with a significance level α = 0.025 (one-tailed) was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.32|||||Treatment difference = LP3 - LP1 Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was \< 1 dB (i.e. LP3- LP1 \< 1 dB)|||0.32|-1.10|
95737893|NCT05710718|191448219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||paired T-test|No formal hypothesis test was planned for this pilot study. P-values are provided for exploratory purposes and are unadjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.076
95737894|NCT02925884|191448231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Decreased Cognitive Functions.||||0.011
95737895|NCT02925884|191448231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Eyestrain.||||<0.001
95737896|NCT02925884|191448231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Physical Discomfort.||||0.009
95737897|NCT02925884|191448231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Deceased Visual Function.||||<0.001
95737898|NCT02925884|191448231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunnar OTC Condition and the Control Condition on the factor score of Poor Balance.||||0.28
95737899|NCT02925884|191448232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
95795672|NCT01499810|191561407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measures analysis||||0.014
95737900|NCT02925884|191448233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Red Color Perception.||||0.009
95936753|NCT03175029|191837334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.26|35.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the TAC-302 group||35.88|11.26|<0.001
95936754|NCT03175029|191837334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.18||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Week 12 for the mean BVE in the Placebo group||14.40|-10.19|0.708
95936755|NCT03175029|191837334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|39.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAC-302 group vs. Placebo group for changes in the mean BVE from baseline to Week 12||39.98|2.96|0.025
95936756|NCT05324124|191837363|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.03||||||||1.03|0.876|
95936757|NCT05324124|191837364|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.04||||||||1.04|0.869|
95737901|NCT02925884|191448233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Green Color Perception.||||0.446
95737902|NCT02925884|191448233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: No difference between the Gunna OTC Glasses condition and the Control condition on Blue Color Perception.||||0.953
95737903|NCT02925884|191448234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
95737904|NCT02925884|191448235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
95737905|NCT02925884|191448236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.343
95737906|NCT02925884|191448237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.489
95737907|NCT02925884|191448238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
95737908|NCT02925884|191448239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95857825|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Role Emotional||4.52|-5.47|0.8520
95936758|NCT05324124|191837365|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.744|0.925||||||||0.925|0.744|
95936759|NCT05229120|191837385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.124|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||A single-sided paired-samples t-test comparing k-values at baseline to k-values at follow-up (approximately 4 weeks after baseline assessment) was examined. Given that k-values are typically skewed (and to be consistent with the existing literature) we used a log-k as our outcome variable.||||.124
95936760|NCT05229120|191837386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 14.||Changes in consideration of future consequences (parenting) was evaluated using one-sided paired samples t-tests.||||.219
95936761|NCT05229120|191837387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 5||Performed a one-sided paired samples t-test examining changes in both positive parenting.||||.50
95936762|NCT05229120|191837387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in negative parenting.||||.187
95936763|NCT05229120|191837388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental involvement using a paired-samples t-test.||||.498
95936764|NCT05229120|191837388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.301||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in positive parenting using paired samples t-tests||||.108
95936765|NCT05229120|191837388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in parental monitoring using a paired samples t-test||||.145
95936766|NCT05229120|191837388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.688||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in inconsistent parenting using a paired samples one-sided t-test||||.252
95737909|NCT02925884|191448240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
95737910|NCT04516434|191448241|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
95737911|NCT04516434|191448241|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
95737912|NCT04516434|191448242|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.08
95737913|NCT04516434|191448242|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.045
95737914|NCT04516434|191448244|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
95737915|NCT04516434|191448244|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||First sensation of bladder filling - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.41
95795673|NCT00032591|191561419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A target of 363 patients with primary events required to discern a 32% relative drop in annual primary event rates with 90% power (from 5.5% for HQACM to 3.75% for PST) was based on a sample size of 3200 patients with 1 year of enrollment and a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Due to slower than planned enrollment, we randomized 2922 patients over 2.75 years, with a mean follow-up of 3 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was the hazard ratio was equal to 1.||||0.14
95737916|NCT04516434|191448244|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||1
95737917|NCT04516434|191448244|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum cystometric capacity - change in cystometry before stimulation and after stimulation (up to 60 minutes).||||0.01
95802477|NCT03300336|191578221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|7.98||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 4 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||7.98|-6.38|0.83
95802478|NCT03300336|191578222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.96||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 6 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.96|-1.05|0.25
95936767|NCT05229120|191837388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306||||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Examined changes in corporal punishment using a paired samples one-tailed t-test||||.382
95936768|NCT05285618|191837402|OTHER|A linear mixed model accounted for repeated measures ('subject\_id' as a random factor). No power calculation was performed, but the sample size (1,485 observations, 6 subjects) supports robust estimation.||||||0.002||||||P-values are unadjusted for multiple comparisons, as the analysis focused on a limited number of predictors. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model tested whether stimulation delay ('abs\_delay'), retinal distance ('dist\_ret'), and their interaction ('abs\_delay:dist\_ret') affect the number of elicited phosphenes ('num\_phosphenes').|We hypothesize that the parameter 'dist\_ret' may influence the number of phosphenes perceived ('num\_phosphenes'), while the roles of 'abs\_delay' and its interaction with 'dist\_ret' may be less pronounced. Further evaluation of these parameters will be conducted in the Results section|||0.002
95737918|NCT04516434|191448245|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
95737919|NCT04516434|191448245|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
95737920|NCT04516434|191448246|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||1
95737921|NCT04516434|191448246|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to after the pressure-flow study||||0.99
95737922|NCT00446966|191448254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95737923|NCT00761813|191448266|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|.63|
95737924|NCT00761813|191448267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95737925|NCT02718963|191448281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the Videofluoroscopic swallowing study(VFSS) kinematic variables, VDS, PAS, and high resolution manometry (HRM) variables between the neuromuscular electrical stimulation session and the control session in swallowing thin fluid and thick fluid for healthy, dysphagic and whole participants. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the differences of VFSS variables, VDS, PAS, and HRM variables between the healthy participants and dysphagic participants.||||< 0.05
95737926|NCT00835484|191448290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.15||||||90.0|91.77|102.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.83|91.77|
95737927|NCT00835484|191448291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.8||||||90.0|95.1|106.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.84|95.1|
95857826|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||2.27|-5.64|0.4023
95737928|NCT00835484|191448292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.39||||||90.0|95.89|107.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.2|95.89|
95737929|NCT00836472|191448293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.41||||||90.0|88.43|105.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.10|88.43|
95737930|NCT00836472|191448294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.14|102.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.57|95.14|
95737931|NCT00836472|191448295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.52||||||90.0|94.44|102.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.78|94.44|
95737932|NCT00836472|191448296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.08||||||90.0|89.6|98.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.77|89.60|
95936769|NCT04556656|191837409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.54|0.1670
95936770|NCT04556656|191837410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), change from baseline in TFC score was the dependent variable, and independent variables included treatment arm, baseline TFC, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level.||0.09|-0.55|0.1598
95737933|NCT00836472|191448297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.33||||||90.0|92.6|100.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.21|92.60|
95737934|NCT00836472|191448298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.01||||||90.0|92.18|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.00|92.18|
95737935|NCT01695239|191448299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95737936|NCT01695239|191448299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95737937|NCT01695239|191448299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95737938|NCT03246503|191448341|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87||statistical significance of Pearson correlation coefficient|Pearson correlation coefficient||Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.|Bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals.||.87|0.77|<.001
95737939|NCT03246503|191448342|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|intercept of regression line|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|4.91|||Regression, Linear|||||4.91|3.35|<.001
95737940|NCT03246503|191448343|OTHER|t-statistic from regression analysis|Slope|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||||0.76|0.60|<.001
95737941|NCT01492439|191448367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||This applies to Semester 1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.029
95737942|NCT01492439|191448367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||||||This applies to semester 2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.225
95737943|NCT01492439|191448368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.247
95737944|NCT01492439|191448368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.747
95737945|NCT01492439|191448368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.582
95737946|NCT01492439|191448369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
95737947|NCT01492439|191448370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||This applies to the 'positive' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.950
95737948|NCT01492439|191448370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||This applies to the 'negative' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.027
95737949|NCT01492439|191448370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||||||This applies to the 'general psychopathology' subscale of the PANSS.|ANCOVA|||||||0.639
95737950|NCT01492439|191448371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95936771|NCT04556656|191837411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the MMRM, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable, while independent variables included treatment arm, baseline cUHDRS, region, neuroleptic use or no use, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), categorical week, and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. The unstructured covariance matrix was used for repeated measurements at patient level. No imputation was performed on missing data.||0.18|-0.4|0.4544
95936772|NCT04556656|191837412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in cUHDRS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline cUHDRS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.76|0.15|0.0038
95737951|NCT01492439|191448372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||This applies to Trial 1 on the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.314
95737952|NCT01492439|191448372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||This applies to the total score of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
95737953|NCT01492439|191448372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.669
95737954|NCT01492439|191448373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||This applies to the 'trial 1' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
95737955|NCT01492439|191448373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||This applies to the total of trials 1-4 (total free recall) of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.269
95737956|NCT01492439|191448373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||||||This applies to the 'long delay free recall' subtest of the CVLT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.666
95737957|NCT01492439|191448374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.391
95936773|NCT04556656|191837412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39||0.80|0.09|0.0135
95936774|NCT04556656|191837412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52||0.79|0.03|0.0351
95936775|NCT04556656|191837412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.66|-0.12|0.1683
95737958|NCT01492439|191448375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.958
95737959|NCT01492439|191448376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
95737960|NCT01492439|191448376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||This applies to the 'backward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.518
95737961|NCT01492439|191448376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||This applies to the total score (forward+backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
95737962|NCT01492439|191448377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||This applies to the 'forward' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.802
95737963|NCT01492439|191448377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||This applies to the 'backwards' sequence of the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
95737964|NCT01492439|191448377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||||||This applies to the total score (forward + backwards) on the Digit Span Test.|ANCOVA|||||||0.171
95737965|NCT01492439|191448378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
95737966|NCT01492439|191448379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.527
95737967|NCT01492439|191448380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.852
95737968|NCT01492439|191448380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
95737969|NCT01492439|191448381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||||||This applies to the total number of correct categories on the WCST|ANCOVA|||||||0.612
95737970|NCT01492439|191448382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||This applies to the percentage of perseverative errors on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.156
95737971|NCT01492439|191448382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||This applies to the percentage of conceptual level responses on the WCST.|ANCOVA|||||||0.926
95737972|NCT01492439|191448383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total number of categories on the WCST.||||0.843
95737973|NCT01492439|191448384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||||||This applies to the total number of errors made on the DVT.|ANCOVA|||||||0.129
95737974|NCT01492439|191448385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.004
95737975|NCT01492439|191448386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||ANCOVA|This applies to the total number of errors on the DVT.||||||0.853
95737976|NCT01492439|191448387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||This applies to the total time taken to complete the DVT.||||0.468
95737977|NCT00075478|191448420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Reference arm is Arm 2.||1.1|0.3|.09
95737978|NCT00075478|191448421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||Regression, Cox|||||3.0|0.1|0.59
95737979|NCT00075478|191448422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.06
95737980|NCT00075478|191448423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.3|0.09
95737981|NCT00075478|191448424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Regression, Cox|||||3.1|0.8|0.16
95936776|NCT04556656|191837412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78||0.58|-0.30|0.5315
95936777|NCT04556656|191837413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.406||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative change = improvement.|From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Finger Tapping IOI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Finger Tapping IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed.||-2.64|-39.66|0.0253
95936778|NCT04556656|191837413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.853||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.08|-33.71|0.1474
95936779|NCT04556656|191837413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.185||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.76|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-4.67|-44.76|0.0159
95737982|NCT00075478|191448425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||||2.7|0.9|0.14
95737983|NCT00075478|191448427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.0|0.3|0.05
95737984|NCT00824291|191448451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|0.78|0.002
95737985|NCT00824291|191448452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|-0.09|0.067
95737986|NCT00824291|191448453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95737987|NCT00824291|191448454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95737988|NCT00824291|191448455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|0.01|0.040
95737989|NCT00824291|191448456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.16|0.035
95737990|NCT00824291|191448457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|0.10|0.041
95737991|NCT00824291|191448458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-0.13|0.145
95737992|NCT05919823|191448485|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.835||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measure|MMRM includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||-3.6|-14.8|0.0014
95737993|NCT05919823|191448486|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.0|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.|Numerator=KarXT/KarXT, denominator =Placebo/KarXT|||0|-3.8|0.0474
95737994|NCT05919823|191448487|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.7|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.7|-4.2|0.0062
95737995|NCT05919823|191448488|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||Mixed model for Repeated measures|includes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0056
95737996|NCT05919823|191448489|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference|Least-squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|ncludes PANSS change at Weeks 2-5; fixed effects: treatment, visit, interaction; covariates: site, age, sex, baseline PANSS positive symptom score.||||-0.1|-0.7|0.0208
95737997|NCT05919823|191448490|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|15.8||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9|||Chi-squared|||||29.9|0.7|0.0402
95737998|NCT01648582|191448510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.4||||||||-0.40|-0.74|
95737999|NCT01648582|191448510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.35|
95738000|NCT01648582|191448511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||||||||-0.38|-0.77|
95738001|NCT01648582|191448511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.33|
95738002|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 26||||<0.001
95738003|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0 Week 26||||0.004
95738004|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
95738005|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 26||||<0.001
95738006|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||<0.001
95738007|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<7.0% Week 52||||0.002
95738008|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
95738009|NCT01648582|191448512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||\<=6.5% Week 52||||<0.001
95738010|NCT01648582|191448513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.59|-0.11|0.177
95738011|NCT01648582|191448513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||1.23|0.53|<0.001
95738012|NCT01648582|191448513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.50|-0.25|0.518
95738013|NCT01648582|191448513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||1.20|0.45|<0.001
95738014|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||0.88|0.42|<0.001
95738015|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 26||1.17|0.71|<0.001
95738016|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.07|-0.92|0.024
95738017|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||0.32|-0.53|0.617
95738018|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.01|-0.70|0.055
95738019|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 26||0.39|-0.32|0.855
95988137|NCT02109484|191950858|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||<0.0001
95988138|NCT02109484|191950858|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95988139|NCT02109484|191950859|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were peformed||||<0.0001
95988140|NCT02109484|191950859|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95988141|NCT02109484|191950859|EQUIVALENCE|Pair-wise comparisons between Cohort B Placebo group and the active vaccination groups were performed||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
95988142|NCT02109484|191950860|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Group B 10 mcg P2-VP8 was performed.||||0.0004
95988143|NCT02109484|191950860|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in the placebo group and the Cohort B 30 mcg P2-VP8 vaccine group was performed.||||<0.0001
95738020|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.64|-1.46|<0.001
95738021|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.19|-1.01|0.004
95988144|NCT02109484|191950860|EQUIVALENCE|Power to detect difference between treatment groups for seroresponse between 50% and 95% for P2-VP8 subunit rotiarivus vaccine calculated based on estimate of 10% loss. 45 evaluable participants in 2 highest doses tolerated in B1 infant cohort, study idesigned to provide \>= 89% and \>= 77% power to detect 35 and 30 percentage points difference, respectively, between the two dose levels and provide \> 95% to detect \>= 40 percentage point difference between a P2-VP8 dose group and placebo group.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A pair-wise comparison between the Adjusted Seroresponses in Cohort B Placebo group and the Cohort B P2-VP8 group was performed.||||<0.0001
95988145|NCT02111993|191950864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95738022|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||-0.29|-0.97|<0.001
95988146|NCT02111993|191950864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95988147|NCT02111993|191950864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95738023|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 26||0.22|-0.45|0.489
95738024|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.48|-1.30|<0.001
95988148|NCT02111993|191950865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95988149|NCT02111993|191950865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95988150|NCT02111993|191950865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95988151|NCT02111993|191950866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||This p-value correlates to Δ4 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95988152|NCT02111993|191950866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||This p-value correlates to Δ8 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95738025|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 26||-0.06|-0.88|0.024
95738026|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.41|-1.17|<0.001
95738027|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 26||-0.03|-0.73|0.067
95738028|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.01|0.52|<0.001
95988153|NCT02111993|191950866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||This p-value correlates to Δ20 hr cTnT|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95738029|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning pre-meal, Week 52||1.31|0.82|<0.001
95738030|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.07|-1.00|0.025
95738031|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||0.26|-0.67|0.384
95738032|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||-0.06|-0.80|0.024
95738033|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day pre-meal, Week 52||0.42|-0.32|0.783
95738034|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.20|-1.07|0.004
95738035|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mid-day 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
95738036|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||-0.27|-1.01|<0.001
95738037|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening pre-meal, Week 52||0.27|-0.47|0.603
95738038|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.41|-1.26|<0.001
95738039|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hours post-meal, Week 52||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
95738040|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.60|-1.39|<0.001
95738041|NCT01648582|191448514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime, Week 52||-0.20|-0.98|0.003
95738042|NCT01648582|191448515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.831||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.352
95936780|NCT04556656|191837413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||-2.45|-43.34|0.0283
95738043|NCT01648582|191448515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.761||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.352
95738044|NCT01648582|191448515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.147||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 1.5, Week 52||||0.025
95738045|NCT01648582|191448515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%B, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.025
95802479|NCT03300336|191578223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.99||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 1 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 3 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.99|0.68|0.59
95988154|NCT00419380|191950868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, tube patency yes/no, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.||||.36
95738046|NCT01648582|191448516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.977||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 26||||0.025
95738047|NCT01648582|191448516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 26||||0.025
95738048|NCT01648582|191448516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 1.5 mg, Week 52||||0.029
95738049|NCT01648582|191448516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.864||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HOMA2-%S, Dula 0.75 mg, Week 52||||0.029
95738050|NCT01648582|191448519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 SBP||||0.008
95738051|NCT01648582|191448519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.584||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 DBP||||0.584
95738052|NCT01648582|191448519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 SBP||||0.169
95738053|NCT01648582|191448519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 DBP||||0.110
95738054|NCT01648582|191448520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
95738055|NCT01648582|191448520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Overall p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
95738056|NCT01648582|191448527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 26|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95738057|NCT01648582|191448527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
95738058|NCT01648582|191448528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||||<0.001
95738059|NCT01648582|191448528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||||<0.001
95738060|NCT02849457|191448532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9332||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5567|7.2436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12 and 24 month outcomes.|Parameter represents estimated amount difference in group means. Negative value represents higher mean in placebo group.|||7.2436|-8.5567|0.8681
95988155|NCT00419380|191950869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Two by two contingency table was used to compare our outcome, presence/absence of ear drainage, by our two independent variables, dornase alfa (Pulmozyme®) and Ofloxin.|Chi-squared|||||||.26
95857827|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Health||7.92|-0.80|0.1092
95988156|NCT00371865|191950886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
95988157|NCT00371865|191950887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
95988158|NCT00371865|191950888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.13
95988159|NCT00371865|191950889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
95988160|NCT00371865|191950890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
95988161|NCT00802685|191950892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Oxygen duration (days) during the first 28 days will be equal between treatment arms.||36|4|0.858
95988162|NCT00802685|191950893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|2.309|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||null hypothesis: The proportion of subjects on O2 at 36 wk PMA will be equal between treatment arms.||2.309|0.393|0.8
95988163|NCT05568888|191950898|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (ITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.13|-5.02|1.9
95988164|NCT05568888|191950898|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 6-hour mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 6-hour mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.8||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.13||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 6-hour mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.13|-5.80|3.1
95988165|NCT05568888|191950899|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 24-hour in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-3.6||||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|0.15||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 24-hour in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||0.15|-7.35|3.0
95738061|NCT02849457|191448533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7375|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7375
95988166|NCT05568888|191950900|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rate between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of 30 days in-hospital mortality rate difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-6.0||||1.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-0.68||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|Null hypotheses: The all-cause 30 days in-hospital mortality rates in BE1116 is no better than the control.||-0.68|-11.42|1.4
95988167|NCT05568888|191950901|SUPERIORITY|A Bayesian logistic regression model was used to compare difference in proportion of subjects between the BE1116 and placebo arms. The null hypothesis is rejected if the posterior probability of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours difference (BE1116-placebo) being negative is greater than predefined threshold at interim and final analyses (mITT population).|Estimated difference Placebo - BE1116|-2.5||||18.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.05||Reported value reflect a posterior probability difference rather than p-value.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypotheses: The proportion of subjects who undergo surgical or interventional radiological procedures to stop bleeding related to the primary injury up to 24 hours in BE1116 is no better than the control.|Reported values reflect a 95% Credible Interval rather than a 95% Confidence Interval.|3.05|-7.98|18.9
95988168|NCT01765673|191950923|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||paired t test|||||||0.218
95988169|NCT01765673|191950924|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||paired t test|||||||0.017
95988170|NCT01765673|191950925|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||paired t test|||||||0.022
95988171|NCT01765673|191950926|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||paired t test|||||||0.719
95988172|NCT01765673|191950927|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||paired t test|||||||0.418
95738062|NCT02849457|191448534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age (\<=7 vs \>7 months) at randomization and sex.||||1.140|0.309|0.1174
95738063|NCT02849457|191448535|OTHER|Two-sided test of non-equivalence||||||0.4653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4653
95738064|NCT02849457|191448536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1889||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8346|1.9562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at randomization (\<=7 vs \>7 months) and sex. Unstructured covariance used among 12, 24, and 36 month outcomes.|Pertains to the estimated difference in mean score between groups at study visit corresponding to 24 months of age.|||1.9562|-10.8346|0.1697
95738065|NCT02294786|191448553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.8||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||Cycle 1-3 (up to 9 weeks)||20.0|-29.2|0.775
95857828|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.52|-0.10|0.1754
95988173|NCT01765673|191950928|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||paired t test|||||||0.038
95988174|NCT01765673|191950929|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||paired t test|||||||0.086
95857829|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: TR Scale Score||0.57|-0.11|0.1802
95988175|NCT01765673|191950930|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t test|||||||0.16
95988176|NCT01765673|191950931|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||paired t test|||||||0.052
95988177|NCT01765673|191950932|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||paired t test|||||||0.827
95988178|NCT01765673|191950933|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||paired t test|||||||0.088
95988179|NCT01765673|191950934|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||paired t test|||||||0.152
95988180|NCT01765673|191950935|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||paired t test|||||||0.229
95988181|NCT01765673|191950936|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||paired t test|||||||0.121
95988182|NCT01765673|191950937|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||paired t test|||||||0.239
95988183|NCT01765673|191950938|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||paired t test|||||||0.03
95988184|NCT01765673|191950939|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||paired t test|||||||0.067
95988185|NCT01765673|191950940|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||paired t test|||||||0.396
95988186|NCT01765673|191950941|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||paired t test|||||||0.373
95988187|NCT01765673|191950942|OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||paired t test|||||||0.744
95988188|NCT02600507|191950943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.37|-4.42|0.021
95988189|NCT02600507|191950943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.32|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.32|-3.65|0.099
95988190|NCT02600507|191950944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.09|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.09|-0.59|0.008
95988191|NCT02600507|191950944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.01|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.01|-0.50|0.040
95988192|NCT05048719|191950945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.13|<0.001
95988193|NCT05048719|191950945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.12|-1.85|<0.001
95988194|NCT05048719|191950945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.98|-1.75|<0.001
95857830|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||3.29|-3.31|0.9966
95857831|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Physical Component Summary||1.19|-6.04|0.1880
95988195|NCT05048719|191950945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
95988196|NCT05048719|191950945|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.02|<0.001
95988197|NCT05048719|191950946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.47|0.626
95988198|NCT05048719|191950946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.18|<0.001
95988199|NCT05048719|191950946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.08|<0.001
95988200|NCT05048719|191950946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
95988201|NCT05048719|191950946|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.36|<0.001
95988202|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|20.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.75|2.21|<0.001
95988203|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|117.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||117.16|9.92|<0.001
95988204|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|196.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||196.24|11.90|<0.001
95988205|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|153.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||153.64|13.61|<0.001
95988206|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|294.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||294.48|20.26|<0.001
95988207|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.48|0.678
95988208|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|17.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.24|2.19|<0.001
95988209|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|29.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.79|2.55|<0.001
95988210|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|22.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.30|3.05|<0.001
95988211|NCT05048719|191950947|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|43.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.01|4.51|<0.001
95988212|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.90|2.93|<0.001
95988213|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.57|82.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||82.69|7.57|<0.001
95988214|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|316.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||316.63|12.26|<0.001
95988215|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.56|259.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||259.97|17.56|<0.001
95988216|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|628.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||628.09|26.72|<0.001
95988217|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.43|0.802
95988218|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.31|1.16|0.026
95988219|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.51|1.83|0.006
95988220|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|32.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.71|2.67|<0.001
95738066|NCT01068821|191448573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculations (yielding 25 patients per group): two-sided 5% significance level and a power of 80% for detection of a 2 cm (SD 2.5 cm) difference. Continuous variables analyzed by Student's T-test and One way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with statistical significance: p value ≤ 0.05 or 95% Confidence Interval excluding one. Confirmation by Wilcoxon Rank-Sum/Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Categorical variables by Chi Square Test, confirmed by Fisher's Exact test.||||0.1
95738067|NCT01068821|191448574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fischer's exact test, significance defined as p\<0.05||||0.5
95738068|NCT02777580|191448575|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95738069|NCT02777580|191448576|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.48||||||||1.48|0.62|
95738070|NCT02777580|191448577|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|35.8||||||||35.8|0.58|
95795674|NCT03729362|191561470|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included terms for treatment, baseline 6MWD, age, height, weight (all as continuous covariates), enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), gender, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. Time was used as a repeated measure, and an unstructured covariance approach was applied.|LS Mean Difference|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.481||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|31.02||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|MMRM|||"The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested in hierarchical order as follows:~The test for the primary endpoint was conducted first at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level, and if significant, the ordered key secondary endpoints were similarly tested. If at any point the null hypothesis for superiority failed to be rejected, then that comparison and any other comparison below it could not be claimed as successful and would be considered nominal."||31.02|-2.6|0.048
95795675|NCT03729362|191561471|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.95||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in sitting FVC was the first of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||4.95|0.37|0.012
95795676|NCT03729362|191561472|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.727||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.4||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the MMT score for the lower extremities was the second of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.4|-0.48|0.095
95738071|NCT02777580|191448578|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.48||||||||6.48|0.25|
95795677|NCT03729362|191561473|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.261||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|20.57||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 26 in 6MWD was the third of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||20.57|-4.24|0.097
95795678|NCT03729362|191561474|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|5.25||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Physical Function was the fourth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||5.25|-1.51|0.138
95857832|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||4.73|-2.81|0.6154
95936781|NCT04556656|191837414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.999||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-16.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In MMRM model, change in Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline Q-Motor Pronation/Supination ITI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-16.37|-59.74|0.0007
95936782|NCT04556656|191837414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.547||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||4.53|-44.95|0.1087
95988221|NCT05048719|191950948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|79.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.70|4.02|<0.001
95738072|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.88|-1.30|<0.0001
95738073|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.15|-0.19|<0.0001
95936783|NCT04556656|191837414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.541||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||-1.16|-46.68|0.0395
95738074|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.27|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.85|-1.27|<0.0001
95936784|NCT04556656|191837414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.587||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.08|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||4.61|-49.08|0.1038
95988222|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-32.7|<0.001
95738075|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.18|-0.16|<0.0001
95738076|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-0.99|<0.0001
95738077|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.29||||0.1026||95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.46|0.12|0.1026
95738078|NCT00318461|191448699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.86|-1.28|<0.0001
95795679|NCT03729362|191561475|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.2||1-sided significance level of 0.025|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the PROMIS® - Fatigue was the fifth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||2.2|-2.12|0.515
95795680|NCT03729362|191561476|SUPERIORITY|The analysis used an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline value (as a continuous covariate) and ERT status (ERT-naïve versus ERT-experienced), as well as baseline age, gender, baseline height, and baseline weight.|LS Mean Difference|-1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|-0.364||1-sided significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to Week 52 in the total score for the GSGC was the sixth of 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, which were analyzed according to a hierarchical order.||-0.364|-2.463|0.004
95857833|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24: Mental Component Summary||7.43|-0.91|0.1248
95857834|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.34|-5.63|0.4174
95936785|NCT04556656|191837415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.78|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in Pronation/Supination IOI Mean from BL was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, BL Pronation/Supination IOI Mean, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), treatment by categorical week interaction, conc. use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||-4.98|-55.78|0.0193
95988223|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7|-53.4|<0.001
95738079|NCT00318461|191448700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.29||||0.0016||95.0|-2.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.41|-2.16|0.0016
95988224|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-29.3|-52.7|<0.001
95988225|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-53.5|<0.001
95988226|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.2|-55.3|<0.001
95795681|NCT03405870|191561504|OTHER|Determined maximum tolerated dose|Value of Maximum Tolerated Dose (g/kg)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Using sequential dose escalation, participants received 2 doses of 1.0 to 1.6 g/kg of lipid emulsion (Smoflipid 20% lipid emulsion) within 48 hours of enrollment to test the maximum tolerated dose of study drug. The maximum tolerated dose was defined by patients exhibiting specific dose-related toxicities from administration of escalating doses of the study drug. Of 9 patients, adverse events were only considered dose-limiting toxicities if they met the predefined study protocol criteria.||||
95795682|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.88||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.44|0.055
95795683|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.55|<0.001
95795684|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.68||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.44|0.22
95795685|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.49|<0.001
95795686|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.64|<0.05
95795687|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.57|<0.05
95936786|NCT04556656|191837415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.17||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.69|13.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||13.02|-46.69|0.2680
95936787|NCT04556656|191837415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.829||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.97|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||6.4|-51.97|0.1255
95936788|NCT04556656|191837415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.777||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.72|12.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||12.28|-57.72|0.2024
95795688|NCT00042289|191561507|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.35||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.35|0.71|0.78
95795689|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.42|<0.05
95795690|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.63|<0.05
95795691|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.03
95795692|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.51|0.001
95795693|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.34||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0684
95795694|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.49|<0.05
95795695|NCT00042289|191561508|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.68||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.53|<0.05
95795696|NCT00042289|191561509|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||0.88|0.60|0.008
95795697|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.75||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.75|0.52|0.002
95795698|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.63|0.0003
95795699|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.98||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.98|0.34|0.09
95795700|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.82||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.82|0.54|0.004
95795701|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.27||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.27|0.50|0.27
95795702|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.12||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.66|0.70
95795703|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.62||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.34||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.29|0.46
95795704|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.39||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.39|0.63|0.50
95936789|NCT04556656|191837416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"From baseline to Week 26.~In the MMRM model, change in UHDRS-TFC score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, Baseline UHDRS-TFC, region, categorical week, Baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data."||0.58|-0.13|0.2088
95936790|NCT04556656|191837416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||0.57|-0.17|0.2991
95936791|NCT04556656|191837416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||0.66|-0.15|0.2116
95936792|NCT04556656|191837416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||0.47|-0.38|0.8242
95936793|NCT04556656|191837416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||0.58|-0.33|0.5918
95738080|NCT00318461|191448700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.48|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.01|-4.48|<0.0001
95738081|NCT00318461|191448700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.07||||0.0117||95.0|-1.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.19|-1.94|0.0117
95738082|NCT00318461|191448700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.27|-2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.79|-4.27|<0.0001
95936794|NCT04556656|191837417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SWR score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SWR, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, concomitant use of select medications and Treatment x Concomitant use of select medications, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||5.77|0.55|0.0178
95936795|NCT04556656|191837417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.518||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39.||5.88|-0.09|0.0576
95936796|NCT04556656|191837417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52.||5.99|0.11|0.0418
95936797|NCT04556656|191837417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719||0.1775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65.||5.71|-1.06|0.1775
95936798|NCT04556656|191837417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.772||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78.||5.48|-1.50|0.2627
95936799|NCT04556656|191837418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.41|-0.4|0.1586
95936800|NCT04556656|191837418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.25|-0.51|0.2144
95738083|NCT00318461|191448700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.8198||95.0|-1.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.60|-1.15|0.8198
95936801|NCT04556656|191837418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.48|-1.65|0.9119
95936802|NCT04556656|191837418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.95|-1.38|0.7339
95936803|NCT04556656|191837418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in SDMT score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline SDMT, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||2.12|-1.27|0.6213
95988227|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|-10.6|<0.001
95988228|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-31.4|<0.001
95936804|NCT04556656|191837419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 26. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.36|-1.71|0.8205
95936805|NCT04556656|191837419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 39. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.21|-3.0|0.4028
95936806|NCT04556656|191837419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 52. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.75|-2.4|0.7577
95936807|NCT04556656|191837419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 65. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||1.93|-2.64|0.7605
95936808|NCT04556656|191837419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From baseline to Week 78. In the MMRM model, change in TMS score from baseline was the dependent variable and independent variables included treatment group, baseline TMS, region, categorical week, baseline HD stage (HD1 and HD2), and treatment by categorical week interaction, with Kenward-Roger approximation for degrees of freedom. No imputation was performed on missing data.||3.18|-2.05|0.6694
95936809|NCT05563246|191837420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.68|-35.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.14|-57.68|<.001
95936810|NCT05563246|191837420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.62|-78.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-78.13|-84.62|<.001
95936811|NCT05563246|191837420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.03|-83.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.09|-88.03|<.001
95936812|NCT05563246|191837421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-28.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.27|-50.45|<.001
95936813|NCT05563246|191837421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-64.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-64.96|-74.23|<.001
95936814|NCT05563246|191837421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-63.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-63.81|-73.27|<.001
95936815|NCT05563246|191837422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|75.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.99|40.30|<.001
95936816|NCT05563246|191837422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|89.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.54|98.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.20|81.54|<.001
95936817|NCT05563246|191837422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|90.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|98.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.62|82.80|<.001
95936818|NCT05563246|191837423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|51.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.46|18.90|<.001
95936819|NCT05563246|191837423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|78.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|88.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.65|67.70|<.001
95936820|NCT05563246|191837423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.65|83.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.58|63.65|<.001
95936821|NCT05563246|191837424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.17|-18.84|0.110
95936822|NCT05563246|191837424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.40|-20.92|0.004
95936823|NCT05563246|191837424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.84|-23.69|<.001
95936824|NCT05563246|191837425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|100.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||100.27|-8.63|0.131
95936825|NCT05563246|191837425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.32||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.70|-21.62|0.627
95936826|NCT05563246|191837425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.51|-31.89|0.701
95936827|NCT02167867|191837429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t=+7.76||||<0.0001
95936828|NCT03892616|191837446|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.3|115.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||115.3|82.3|
95936829|NCT03892616|191837446|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|217.4|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||217.4|154.0|
95988229|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-30.7|0.002
95936830|NCT03892616|191837446|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|114.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.5|136.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||136.6|96.5|
95936831|NCT03892616|191837446|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.5|79.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 25.44|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||79.5|55.5|
95936832|NCT03892616|191837447|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.3|65.5|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.5|55.3|
95936833|NCT03892616|191837447|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.6|78.0|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||78.0|65.6|
95936834|NCT03892616|191837447|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|177.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.8|194.3|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||194.3|162.8|
95936835|NCT03892616|191837447|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|152.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.5|167.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.65|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||167.7|139.5|
95936836|NCT03892616|191837448|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.4|65.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||65.7|55.4|
95988230|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-31.4|<0.001
95738084|NCT00318461|191448700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.00|-3.47|<0.0001
95936837|NCT03892616|191837448|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|77.6|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.6|65.2|
95936838|NCT03892616|191837448|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|175.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.8|192.2|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||192.2|160.8|
95936839|NCT03892616|191837448|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|150.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|164.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 12.70|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||164.7|136.9|
95988231|NCT05048719|191950949|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.1|-33.2|<0.001
95988232|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-3.7|0.153
95988233|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-6.4|<0.001
95988234|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.8|<0.001
95936840|NCT03892616|191837449|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|61.7|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||61.7|51.8|
95936841|NCT03892616|191837449|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|77.1|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF1 fed (A) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||77.1|64.4|
95936842|NCT03892616|191837449|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|185.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.4|202.8|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fed (B) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2a fasted (C) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||202.8|169.4|
95936843|NCT03892616|191837449|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|158.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.3|173.9|||||The ratio was calculated as adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fed (D) as numerator and adjusted geometric mean of TF2b fasted (E) as denominator, \*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 13.02|Relative bioavailability: ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model on logarithmic scale included random effect of 'subjects within sequences' and fixed effect of 'sequence or block', 'period', 'treatment'.||173.9|144.3|
95936844|NCT03562377|191837450|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.1|-11.3|
95936845|NCT03562377|191837451|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in response rates was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference stratified by baseline disease severity together with the 2-sided 95% CI. Non-inferiority of tralokinumab was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -25%. Power calculation assumed 160 subjects in the per protocol analysis set, providing 98% power to establish non-inferiority, assuming response rates of 80% in both treatment groups and a non-inferiority margin of -25%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.8|-9.2|
95936846|NCT03562377|191837452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.6||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||22.6|0.2|0.049
95936847|NCT03562377|191837453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|25.7||The p-value was adjusted for multiplicity by a pre-specified testing hierarchy. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (moderate or severe).||||25.7|-0.2|0.057
95988235|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-9.4|<0.001
95795705|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.0||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.0|0.57|<0.10
95795706|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.73||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.73|0.42|<0.10
95936848|NCT05486078|191837474|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Hip abduction strength was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. The assumption of sphericity was tested and Bonferroni correction was applied for pairwise comparisons. A p-value \< 0.001 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
95936849|NCT05486078|191837475|OTHER|McNemar Exact Test|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value derived from McNemar exact test comparing binary outcome (improved vs. unchanged). Statistical significance threshold set at p \< 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar Exact Test||MRI improvement was assessed using paired evaluation of inflammatory signs (edema) at baseline and Week 24. McNemar exact test was used for within-subject categorical comparison.||||< 0.0001
95936850|NCT05486078|191837476|OTHER|Friedman Test Within-group||||||0.992|||||||Friedman Test Within-group|||Analgesic use (units/week) was analyzed over time using the Friedman test for repeated measures. No significant variation across follow-up visits was found.||||0.992
95936851|NCT03033576|191837526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.97||Pre-specified one-sided alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||The statistical design assumed exponential PFS with a median of 3.0 months on the ipilimumab group (null hypothesis). The study was powered to detect a change in median PFS to 6.0 months in the combination therapy group (corresponding to an HR of 0.50). A total of 84 participants (63 randomized to combination group and 21 to ipilimumab group) with 78 events (across both groups) would provide 89% power for a one-sided alpha of 10% using a log-rank test.||0.97|0.41|0.04
95936852|NCT03033576|191837529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.50|0.28
95936853|NCT02742519|191837583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2121
95988236|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.9|-9.9|<0.001
95988237|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.0|0.914
95988238|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-4.7|0.015
95936854|NCT01091168|191837590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm were provided. Confidence intervals on the median were calculated using the Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals were reported. A stratified Cox proportional model was performed to compare the two treatment arms taking into account the stratification factors (except centre) used at the time of randomisation.||1.25|0.86|0.673
95936855|NCT01091168|191837591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||Log Rank|||The disease control rate (DCR) were compared in the ITT population and in the population evaluable for response between the 2 arms with a cochran Mantel Haenszel, stratified on WHO performance status at baseline, number of prior chemotherapy lines for the treatment of disease and disease measurability at Baseline.||||0.0424
95795707|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.47|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.10
95936856|NCT01091168|191837592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Log Rank|||PFS was compared between the 2 treatment arms by the log-rank test procedure with the 5 % significant level, stratified on the stratification factors (except study site) as specified at the time of randomisation. Os was analysed using Kaplan-Meir method and summarized with median and 95% CI of the median||1.12|0.8|0.4927
95936857|NCT05902793|191837610|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin is 20%|least square means difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.07|||||To establish non-inferiority the lower limit of the least square mean difference had to be \> -20%.|||16.07|-14.30|
95936858|NCT05902793|191837612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model had fixed effects of treatment arm, center and wound size||||||0.24
95936859|NCT04674358|191837664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.14||||||||4.14|1.67|
95936860|NCT03703700|191837668|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.50|1.01|0.042
95936861|NCT03703700|191837669|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
95936862|NCT03703700|191837670|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.609
95936863|NCT03703700|191837671|OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.528
95795708|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.44|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.54|0.36|<0.10
95795709|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.74||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.04||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.04|0.53|0.1875
95936864|NCT03703700|191837672|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.880
95936865|NCT03703700|191837673|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.289
95936866|NCT03703700|191837674|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
95936867|NCT03703700|191837675|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
95936868|NCT03703700|191837676|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
95936869|NCT03703700|191837677|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.178
95936870|NCT03703700|191837678|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
95936871|NCT03703700|191837679|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Chi-squared|||||1.40|1.01|0.035
95936872|NCT03703700|191837680|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|1.01|0.034
95936873|NCT03703700|191837681|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.45|||Chi-squared|||||1.45|1.03|0.022
95936874|NCT03703700|191837682|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.68|0.707
95936875|NCT03703700|191837683|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.878
95936876|NCT03703700|191837684|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.564
95936877|NCT03703700|191837684|OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.417
95936878|NCT03703700|191837685|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Singleton||||0.985
95936879|NCT03703700|191837685|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Twin||||0.157
95936880|NCT03703700|191837686|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.65|0.789
95936881|NCT03703700|191837687|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.94|||Chi-squared|||||1.94|0.61|0.769
95936882|NCT03703700|191837688|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|0.04|0.590
95936883|NCT03703700|191837689|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.39|||Fisher Exact|||||10.39|0.40|0.465
95936884|NCT04490915|191837731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.802|-10.243|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference of Crinecerfont - Placebo|||-10.243|-23.802|<0.0001
95936885|NCT03988634|191837743|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8546||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7307|0.9994|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: sac/val vs valsartan|||0.9994|0.7307|0.0492
95936886|NCT03988634|191837744|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.193||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.524|||unmatched pairwise win-ratio||A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of sacubitril/valsartan arm|||1.524|0.934|0.1578
95936887|NCT03988634|191837745|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8346||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5684|1.2255|||LWYY model||A rate ratio \< 1 indicates an effect in favor of LCZ696|||1.2255|0.5684|0.3563
95936888|NCT03988634|191837746|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6249||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2496|1.5649|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.5649|0.2496|0.3155
95936889|NCT03988634|191837747|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.9316||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7661|1.1329|||ANCOVA|||||1.1329|0.7661|0.4766
95936890|NCT03988634|191837748|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.91|0.76|<.0001
95936891|NCT03988634|191837748|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the change|0.8103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.89|0.74|<.0001
95950052|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.182|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 6: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.182|-0.006|0.0649
95936892|NCT03149315|191837751|SUPERIORITY|Values for grouped data were reported as mean ± SD and were calculated using Graphpad Prism 7 software (La Jolla, CA), which was also used for generating figures and for statistical analyses. Changes in skin test area (wheal and flare) were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.|||||<|0.0001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of skin test area between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Changes in skin test area at each time point were analyzed using Friedman tests for grouped analysis and Wilcoxon signed rank tests between pairs.||||||<0.0001
95936893|NCT03149315|191837752|SUPERIORITY|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point (after 2 doses, 4 doses, etc) using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs. A p value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|||||<|0.001||||||The above p value reflects the statistical analysis of BAT between baseline and 2 doses of ibrutinib.|ANOVA|Changes in BAT were analyzed at each time point using repeated measures ANOVA for grouped analysis and paired Students t tests between pairs.||||||<0.001
95936894|NCT04150718|191837816|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,35) =4.73||||||<0.05
95936895|NCT04150718|191837817|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA, main effect of time, F(1,39) = 4.20||||||<0.05
95936896|NCT04150718|191837818|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA interaction, F(1,48) = 61.849||||||<0.001
95936897|NCT04258709|191837819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.1200
95936898|NCT04258709|191837819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.593||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.9907|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for race, Iowa Infant Feeding Attitudes Score at baseline, infant gestational age, NICU admission, maternal age at enrollment, WIC enrollment at baseline, maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. This is an adjusted odds ratio.|||.9907|.352|.0474
95795710|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.46||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.11||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.11|0.19|0.1563
95795711|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.94||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.03||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.85|0.241
95936899|NCT04258709|191837820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5201|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.5201
95988239|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-8.1|<0.001
95988240|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-7.8|<0.001
95936900|NCT04258709|191837820|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1399||||0.9178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5299|2.8098|||Regression, Linear|||||2.8098|-2.5299|.9178
95936901|NCT04258709|191837821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8614|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.8614
95988241|NCT05048719|191950950|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.3|<0.001
95993765|NCT00619957|191963368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.26|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.26|1.35|<0.0001
95795712|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.32||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.32|0.90|0.837
95795713|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.55|<0.05
95795714|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.89||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.72|0.0046
95936902|NCT04258709|191837821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0763||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6364|1.8216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8216|.6364|.7836
95936903|NCT04258709|191837822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9788
95936904|NCT04258709|191837822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0307||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.7067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7067|.603|.9119
95936905|NCT04258709|191837823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.2173
95936906|NCT04258709|191837824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4192|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.216|.4192|.5209
95936907|NCT04258709|191837827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4258
95936908|NCT04258709|191837827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8882||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5523|1.4283|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4283|.5523|.6246
95936909|NCT04258709|191837828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5613|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5613
95936910|NCT04258709|191837828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7157||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4206|1.2178|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2178|.4206|.2173
95936911|NCT04258709|191837829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6291
95936912|NCT04258709|191837829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1955||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8745|1.3931|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3931|.8745|.5426
95936913|NCT04258709|191837830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.9071
95936914|NCT04258709|191837830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0233||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7751|1.2084|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2084|.7751|.9328
95936915|NCT04258709|191837831|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.8213||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9161|3.5588|||Regression, Linear|||||3.5588|-1.9161|.5548
95936916|NCT04258709|191837832|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2412||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5771|4.0594|||Regression, Linear|||||4.0594|-1.5771|.3861
95936917|NCT04258709|191837833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.4779
95936918|NCT04258709|191837834|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95936919|NCT04258709|191837834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9508||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3669|2.4621|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4621|.3669|.9163
95988242|NCT00691483|191950969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.56||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||9.56|3.80|<0.0001
95936920|NCT04258709|191837835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1084||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4937|2.4882|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4882|.4937|.8031
95936921|NCT04258709|191837836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3882|3.3161|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3161|.3882|.8175
95936922|NCT04258709|191837837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6964||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2813|1.7241|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7241|.2813|.434
95936923|NCT04258709|191837838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2533||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6534|2.4041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4041|.6534|.4968
95936924|NCT04258709|191837839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0288||||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.6062|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6062|.659|.9005
95936925|NCT04258709|191837840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4018||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2052|0.4015|||Regression, Linear|||||.4015|-3.2052|.127
95936926|NCT04258709|191837841|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.8958||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9475|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||||.1559|-3.9475|.07
95936927|NCT04258709|191837842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.506||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|1.562|||Regression, Linear|||||1.562|-2.574|.6299
95936928|NCT04258709|191837843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7573||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4029|1.4138|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4138|.4029|.3835
95936929|NCT04258709|191837844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|1.4912|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4912|.409|.459
95795715|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.85|0.52|<0.05
95795716|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795717|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95936930|NCT04258709|191837845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9338||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.9039|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9039|.458|.8499
95795718|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
95795719|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
95795720|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95936931|NCT05034952|191837889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3914
95936932|NCT05034952|191837889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1266
95936933|NCT05034952|191837889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
95936934|NCT05034952|191837890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5476|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5476
95936935|NCT05034952|191837890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0825
95936936|NCT05034952|191837890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
95936937|NCT05034952|191837891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4712
95795721|NCT00042289|191561510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95936938|NCT05034952|191837891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1635|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1635
95936939|NCT05034952|191837891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1158
95936940|NCT05034952|191837892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2882
95936941|NCT05034952|191837892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2344
95936942|NCT05034952|191837892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1724|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1724
95936943|NCT05034952|191837893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1343
95936944|NCT05034952|191837893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4501
95936945|NCT05034952|191837893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1009
95936946|NCT02437318|191837934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.00065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85||(one-sided)|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.50|0.00065
95936947|NCT04382898|191837950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1041
95936948|NCT04382898|191837956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.0541
95936949|NCT03932682|191837957|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) for absolute vaccine efficacy (aVE) of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.98|21.55|56.02||||||||56.02|21.55|
95936950|NCT03932682|191837958|OTHER|The primary objective would be achieved if efficacy was demonstrated for at least one of the two primary efficacy endpoints, that is, if the interim analysis-adjusted lower limit of the two-sided CI for aVE of QIVc versus the comparator vaccine was greater than 0%.|Cox Proportional Hazard|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.19|65.11||||||||65.11|19.19|
95936951|NCT03932682|191837959|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|54.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.55|73.26||||||||73.26|22.55|
95936952|NCT03932682|191837960|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|50.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|63.77||||||||63.77|32.83|
95936953|NCT03932682|191837961|OTHER|The secondary efficacy objectives were not associated with any hypothesis testing|Cox Proportional Hazard|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||"The 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated with a lower limit of not estimable and an upper limit of 100."|||||
95936954|NCT03143153|191837982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.6|0.46|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.90|0.46|0.0010
95936955|NCT03143153|191837982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy.||0.84|0.49|0.0010
95936956|NCT03143153|191837982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.37|0.8||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.80|0.37|<0.0001
95988243|NCT00691483|191950970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.55||To preserve the type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure to be used for the analysis of CA for Week 9 through Week 12 and the CA for Week 9 through Week 24.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Sample size to be based on a continuity-corrected Chi-square 2-sided test with a 0.05 significance level and a 3:1 randomization ratio of Varenicline to placebo. 652 subjects to provide \>=90% power to detect Varenicline versus placebo differences in primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints (assuming placebo CA rates of 0.24 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.18 \[Weeks 9-24\] and Varenicline CA rates of 0.46 \[Weeks 9-12\] and 0.31 \[Weeks 9-24\]) (odds ratio of \>=2.67 \[Weeks 9-12\] and \>=2.10 \[Weeks 9-24\]).||7.55|2.62|<0.0001
95936957|NCT03143153|191837982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
95936958|NCT03143153|191837983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.73|1.43||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.43|0.73|0.8958
95936959|NCT03143153|191837983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.34|0.78|0.8958
95936960|NCT03143153|191837983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.46|0.92||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.92|0.46|0.0023
95936961|NCT03143153|191837983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.86|0.49|0.0023
95936962|NCT03143153|191837984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||95.0|0.65|0.95||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.95|0.65|0.0110
95936963|NCT03143153|191837984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.011||98.2|0.62|0.98||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.98|0.62|0.0110
95936964|NCT03143153|191837984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021||99.1|0.58|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.96|0.58|0.0021
95795722|NCT00042289|191561511|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.97||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.13|0.83|0.07
95936965|NCT03143153|191837984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.90|0.61|0.0021
95795723|NCT00042289|191561511|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.96||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.61|<0.05
95936966|NCT03143153|191837985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.52|1.04|
95936967|NCT03143153|191837985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||0.99|0.67|0.0355
95936968|NCT03143153|191837985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.64|1.04||Log-rank test stratified by ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1), number of organs with metastases (\<= 1 vs. \>= 2), PD-L1 status (\>= 1% vs. \< 1% or indeterminate) as recorded in IRT|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm B: Nivolumab + Chemotherapy over Arm C: Chemotherapy||1.04|0.64|0.0355
95936969|NCT04382404|191838016|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.15|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Velpatasvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 449.39 (77.12).||1.15|0.63|
95936970|NCT04382404|191838017|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of Sofosbuvir in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1226.16 (59.46).||1.60|0.88|
95936971|NCT04382404|191838018|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.67|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Maximum concentration of GS-331007 in plasma was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean concentration (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1312.17 (32.55).||0.67|0.49|
95936972|NCT04382404|191838019|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Velpatasvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 3570.65 (72.04).||1.23|0.67|
95936973|NCT04382404|191838020|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.78||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 1483.83 (66.43).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|1.78|1.06|
95936974|NCT04382404|191838021|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.71||||||Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve tau of Sofosbuvir was compared between the 10 pregnant women in this study to 25 non-pregnant historical control women. The geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation) for the non-pregnant cohort was 15361.31 (22.35).|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|0.71|0.55|
95936975|NCT04382404|191838022|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||||||The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.|The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|2.25|0.91|
95936976|NCT04382404|191838023|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.19|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||3.19|1.14|
95936977|NCT04382404|191838024|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.6|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 1474 (488, 4453) fmol /10\^6 cells in the nonpregnant cohort.||2.60|0.87|
95936978|NCT04382404|191838025|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.56|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.56|.50|
95936979|NCT04382404|191838026|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.58|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.58|.49|
95988244|NCT00691483|191950971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.13||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.13|2.96|<0.0001
95738085|NCT00318461|191448701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.11||||0.0378||95.0|-2.18|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.05|-2.18|0.0378
95738086|NCT00318461|191448701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.51|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.72|-4.51|<0.0001
95738087|NCT00318461|191448701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.23||||0.0185||95.0|-2.3|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.16|-2.30|0.0185
95738088|NCT00318461|191448701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.73|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.64|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.83|-4.64|<0.0001
95738089|NCT00318461|191448701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.27||||0.9069||95.0|-1.33|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.80|-1.33|0.9069
95795724|NCT00042289|191561511|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.03|0.62|<0.05
95936980|NCT04382404|191838027|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||The pregnant cohort was the numerator, and the non-pregnant cohort was the denominator.|The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 in dried blood spots was compared between the pregnant cohort and 58 nonpregnant persons. The geometric mean (95 percent confidence interval) concentration of GS-461203 was 647 (571, 723) fmol/punch in the nonpregnant cohort.||.64|.48|
95936981|NCT05687916|191838052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.277|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|6.18||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||6.18|-6.67|=0.989
95936982|NCT05687916|191838052|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.227|=|0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|8.72||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||8.72|-3.93|=0.916
95936983|NCT05687916|191838053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|2.92||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.|LS in LS Mean Difference denotes least squares.|||2.92|-3.57|=0.989
95936984|NCT05687916|191838053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Estimate|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|=|0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.06||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for Baseline, age, prior use of narcolepsy medications, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates. Reported p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|MMRM|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.06|-6.18|=0.216
95936985|NCT03924986|191838088|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.73|0.38|
95936986|NCT03924986|191838089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07|||||||Arm B was the reference group, and the odds ratio between arms was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|3.07|1.11|
95936987|NCT03924986|191838091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|||1.05|0.51|
95936988|NCT03924986|191838092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with Efron's method for tied events, with Arm B as the reference group. The analysis was stratified by gender and liver metastases status.|The null hypothesis to be tested is that progression-free survival (PFS) in Arm A is less than or equal to PFS in Arm B. This is compared against the alternative hypothesis, which posits that PFS in Arm A is greater than PFS in Arm B.||0.76|0.38|
95936989|NCT04410042|191838101|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4000
95936990|NCT04410042|191838102|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.4286|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4286
95936991|NCT04410042|191838103|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9307|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9307
95936992|NCT04410042|191838104|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.0714|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0714
95936993|NCT04410042|191838105|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided test at 0.05 level.||||||0.9004|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.9004
95936994|NCT03649659|191838109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.54|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.||||6.48|2.54|<0.0001
95936995|NCT03649659|191838110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|2.84|8.05||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|2.84|<0.0001
95936996|NCT03649659|191838111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|3.59|9.51||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.51|3.59|<0.0001
95795725|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.81||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.01||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.01|0.64|0.148
95795726|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.81|0.62|<0.001
95936997|NCT03649659|191838112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.25|3.54||Multiple imputation (25) of missing data, FCS methods. Group comparisons using GEE logistic model, exchangeable correlation, study site as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.25|0.8942
95936998|NCT03978871|191838113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<0.001
95936999|NCT03978871|191838114|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.023
95937000|NCT03978871|191838114|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.034
95937001|NCT03978871|191838115|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.0.5|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||<.001
95937002|NCT03978871|191838115|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.002
95937003|NCT03978871|191838116|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.227|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.227
95937004|NCT03978871|191838117|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.272|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect for accuracy (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education). This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.272
95937005|NCT03978871|191838118|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.217|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.217
95937006|NCT03978871|191838118|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation involuntary dysregulation subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.458
95937007|NCT03978871|191838118|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.037
95937008|NCT03978871|191838118|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation proactive engagement subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.107
95988245|NCT00691483|191950972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|8.75||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||8.75|3.66|<0.0001
95937009|NCT03978871|191838118|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) for the ERS emotion regulation cognitive avoidance subscale post psycho-educational lesson. This is a test of between-subjects test.||||0.369
95988246|NCT00691483|191950972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.58||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24. Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.58|2.58|<0.0001
95738090|NCT00318461|191448701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.67|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.87|-3.67|<0.0001
95738091|NCT00318461|191448702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.68|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.50|-2.68|<0.0001
95795727|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.89||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.89|0.61|0.0098
95937010|NCT03978871|191838119|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.265||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -1.12||||||0.265
95937011|NCT03978871|191838120|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. An ROI mask was generated from left and right amygdala of the AAL1.V4 atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within the ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce a single value for each person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = -0.53||||||0.96
95937012|NCT03978871|191838121|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.76||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = -.3047||||||0.76
95937013|NCT03978871|191838122|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 15 ROIs in the FPN of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 30 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.998, p = .048||||||.048
95937014|NCT03978871|191838123|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation). This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.833
95937015|NCT03978871|191838124|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group effect (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) across self-reported affect on the SET task. This is a test of between-subjects effect.||||0.321
95937016|NCT03978871|191838125|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) for fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.002
95937017|NCT03978871|191838125|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons included as a covariate.||||0.005
95937018|NCT03978871|191838126|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on fixed emotion mindset scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||.033
95937019|NCT03978871|191838127|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.403
95937020|NCT03978871|191838127|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.190
95937021|NCT03978871|191838128|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.784||||||degrees of freedom = 1.|ANOVA|||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.784
95937022|NCT03978871|191838128|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.586|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.586
95937023|NCT03978871|191838129|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.916
95795728|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.75||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.88|0.64|0.0025
95795729|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.64||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.64|0.46|<0.0001
95795730|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.56||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.76||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.76|0.41|0.0024
95937024|NCT03978871|191838129|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.343|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.343
95937025|NCT03978871|191838130|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
95937026|NCT03978871|191838130|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on emotional self-efficacy vignette scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lesson was included as a covariate.||||0.153
95937027|NCT03978871|191838131|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.566
95937028|NCT03978871|191838131|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.048
95937029|NCT03978871|191838131|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.266
95937030|NCT03978871|191838131|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.402
95937031|NCT03978871|191838132|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom =1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD proactive engagement from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
95937032|NCT03978871|191838132|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.363
95937033|NCT03978871|191838132|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD involuntary dysregulation scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.583
95937034|NCT03978871|191838132|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.379|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.379
95937035|NCT03978871|191838132|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.246|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (pre-manipulation and post-manipulation) on ERD disengagement scores from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.246
95937036|NCT03978871|191838133|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative reframe \> negative immerse) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were then averaged to produce a single value each.A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control)||||||0.455||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = .75||||||0.455
95937037|NCT03978871|191838134|SUPERIORITY|Data were collected using a Siemens Prisma MRI 3T scanner and preprocessed with fMRIprep. 12 ROI masks were generated from the CON network of a modified Schaefer atlas. First-level contrast estimates (negative \> neutral) for each voxel within each ROI were averaged with MarsBaR to produce 12 values for each person. These were subsequently averaged to produce a single value per person. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 0.80||||||0.43
95795731|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.795||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|1.269||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.269|0.499|0.438
95795732|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.531||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.186|1.512||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.512|0.186|0.219
95795733|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.05||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.18|0.94|0.296
95988247|NCT00691483|191950973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.67||A 0.05 level of significance without adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Model to include the main effects of treatment and pooled center.||Statistical testing to be 2-sided and use a 0.05 level of significance. Confidence intervals to have a 95% confidence level. Statistical significance to be declared unless a p-value \>0.05 was obtained.||6.67|2.58|<0.0001
95795734|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.56||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.56|1.01|0.007
95795735|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22||2nd Trimester vs Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed as the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||1.22|0.56|0.16
95937038|NCT03978871|191838135|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Timeseries were averaged to produce a single value representing each ROI's mean activity. Values for each ROI were then averaged to produce a single value per person representing mean network activity. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = -1.057||||||0.29
95937039|NCT03978871|191838136|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative reframe \> negative immerse) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(146) = 0.148||||||0.88
95937040|NCT03978871|191838137|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. Separate right/left amygdala seeds were defined with the AAL1 atlas. Interaction regressors were created between seeds and task conditions. Average contrast estimates for interaction terms of relevant trials (negative \> neutral) were extracted with MarsBaR from 12 ROIs in the CON of a modified Schaefer atlas and the 24 values averaged. A two-sample t-test was conducted in R to compare average connectivity between groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(145) = 1.631||||||.11
95937041|NCT03978871|191838138|SUPERIORITY|BOLD signals were spatially averaged within ROIs to produce a single time series for each ROI. Pearson correlations were calculated between each mean BOLD signal in the CON and each amygdala ROI to produce 24 connectivity values. These were averaged to produce a single value representing the strength of coupling of the CON network to the amygdala for each participant. These values were then submitted to a two-sample t-test to test for differences across intervention groups (mindset vs control).||||||0.92||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(142) = 0.101||A two-sample t-test was conducted to compare average connectivity (between the amygdala and the CON network) during resting state between the mindset and control groups.||||0.92
95937042|NCT03978871|191838139|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||2.22e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Superior/Middle Temporal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000222
95937043|NCT03978871|191838139|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.17e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Temporal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000117
95937044|NCT03978871|191838139|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||"Reported result for cluster localized in the Anterior Cingulate/Medial Frontal Gyrus.~FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
95988248|NCT02475681|191950975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The primary test to compare PFS between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR (Arm B/Arm A) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
95988249|NCT02475681|191950976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.3|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare PFS between treatment Arms A and C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.30|0.13|<0.0001
95795736|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.93|||Wilcoxson signed rank test|||FPV was analyzed in the form of amprenavir (APV). FPV is the prodrug of APV.||0.93|0.58|0.03
95795737|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.86|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum since the sample size for 2nd trimester was 1)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||1.08|0.68|>0.05
95937045|NCT03978871|191838139|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.86e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Right). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000186
95937046|NCT03978871|191838139|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||0||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Middle Frontal Gyrus (Left). FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000000
95937047|NCT03978871|191838139|SUPERIORITY|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative immerse \> neutral immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005. The WFU PickAtlas via xjview was used to determine anatomical localization for surviving clusters.||||||1.61e-05||||||Reported result for cluster localized in the Posterior Cingulate/Cingulate. FWE-corrected p-value is reported. pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 278 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000161
95937048|NCT03978871|191838139|OTHER|Data were preprocessed in fMRIprep. A first-level contrast estimate of interest (negative reframe \> negative immerse) was submitted to a second-level t-test for group-level differences across experimental conditions (mindset \> control). Monte Carlo simulations using 3dClustSim in AFNI controlled cluster-level family-wise error rate at p \< 0.001 with a cluster-defining threshold of p \< 0.005.|||||>|0.001||||||pvoxel-level \< .005, pcluster-level \< .001. Cluster extent = 298 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.001
95937049|NCT03978871|191838140|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.560
95937050|NCT03978871|191838141|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on depression levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.327
95795738|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.89||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||Third Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.79|0.1636
95937051|NCT03978871|191838142|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.439|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.439
95937052|NCT03978871|191838142|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 2. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect. Clarity of the psycho-educational lessons was included as a covariate.||||0.545
95988250|NCT02475681|191950977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
95988251|NCT02475681|191950977|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.||||14.9|-1.0|0.0763
95988252|NCT02475681|191950978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare TTNT between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||0.26|0.08|<0.0001
95988253|NCT02475681|191950978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||P-value based on stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS|Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||0.40|0.15|<0.0001
95988254|NCT02475681|191950979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||The test to compare overall survival between treatment Arms A versus B and Arms A versus C was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors. The estimate of the HR and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in IXRS.||1.06|0.21|0.0577
95937053|NCT03978871|191838143|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1.||We are reporting the p-value for the group (Growth Mindset vs. Brain Education) by time effect (baseline and follow-up) on anxiety levels from time 1 to time 3. This is a test of between by within-subjects interaction effect.||||0.740
95937054|NCT02132936|191838195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of treatment success in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing PGA values."||4.46|1.46|<0.001
95795739|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.91||3rd Trimester vs Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 4 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||This analysis was for ATV.||0.91|0.53|<0.05
95937055|NCT02132936|191838196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||"Mantel-Haenszel odds of having PASI 75 in LEO 90100 group relative to calcipotriol BDP gel group, adjusted for pooled centre and baseline PGA.~Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data."||3.47|1.37|=0.001
95937056|NCT02132936|191838197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95937057|NCT02132936|191838198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||<0.001
95937058|NCT02132936|191838199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean change in itch adjusted for pooled centre, baseline PGA and baseline itch. Multiple imputation used for missing data.||||=0.33
95937059|NCT04093752|191838228|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% noninferiority (NI) boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-1.29||||||||-1.29|-1.69|
95937060|NCT04093752|191838228|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.34||||||||-1.34|-1.74|
95937061|NCT04093752|191838229|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was powered for superiority in HbA1c. The sample size provided \>99% power to show noninferiority assuming a 0.4% NI boundary, 0.45% greater mean reduction in tirzepatide doses compared to insulin glargine, 1:1:1:1 randomization, a common SD of 1.2%, one-sided significance level of 0.0125 and a dropout rate of 25%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.09||||||||-1.09|-1.49|
95937062|NCT04093752|191838230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.6|-7.4|<0.001
95937063|NCT04093752|191838230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.6|-9.5|<0.001
95857835|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Functioning||2.66|-7.54|0.3486
95988255|NCT02475681|191950979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS||||1.27|0.28|0.1556
95988256|NCT01008280|191950980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinking days.||||<0.01
95988257|NCT01008280|191950980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
95795740|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.24||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since there was no Second Trimester data available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.24|0.99|0.16
95795741|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795742|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795743|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795744|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95937064|NCT04093752|191838230|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-9.6|<0.001
95937065|NCT04093752|191838231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|23.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.64|8.94|<0.001
95937066|NCT04093752|191838231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|49.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.49|16.72|<0.001
95937067|NCT04093752|191838231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.88|42.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.95|14.88|<0.001
95937068|NCT04093752|191838232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|1327.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1327.81|5.13|0.002
95937069|NCT04093752|191838232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|1997.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||1997.01|7.79|<0.001
95937070|NCT04093752|191838232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|184.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|2950.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||2950.73|11.59|<0.001
95937071|NCT04093752|191838233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.3|-18.3|<0.001
95937072|NCT04093752|191838233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-26.1|<0.001
95937073|NCT04093752|191838233|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-24.6|<0.001
95937074|NCT04093752|191838234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.3|-40.1|<0.001
95937075|NCT04093752|191838234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.6|-46.7|<0.001
95937076|NCT04093752|191838234|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-47.9|<0.001
95937077|NCT04093752|191838235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|41.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.20|11.63|<0.001
95988258|NCT01008280|191950980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time by group effects for the number of drinking days.||||>0.01
95937078|NCT04093752|191838235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|83.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.50|22.96|<0.001
95937079|NCT04093752|191838235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.34|92.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.49|25.34|<0.001
95937080|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
95937081|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.43|-1.11|<0.001
95937082|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.36|-1.05|<0.001
95937083|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.18|-0.46|0.384
95795745|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
95937084|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.16|-0.49|0.307
95937085|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.11|-0.55|0.184
95937086|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.59|1.03|<0.001
95937087|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.41|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.41|0.84|<0.001
95937088|NCT04093752|191838236|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.47|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction Score||2.47|0.89|<0.001
95795746|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
95795747|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795748|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795749|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.34||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 2 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.34|0.85|0.67
95795750|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.91||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.91|0.59|0.08
95795751|NCT00042289|191561512|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.72|0.55|<0.01
95795752|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.57|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.68|0.48|<0.05
95795753|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.85||3rd Trimester vs.Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.62|<0.05
95937089|NCT03648840|191838265|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-tailed, unpaired T-test||||<0.2
95937090|NCT02995434|191838279|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.3|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the reported daily pain experiences of participants during, or after exposure to VR immersive environments, overall and within four different VR immersive environments, compared to the equivalent applications experienced on a 2D computer screen.||-0.30|-3.86|
95937091|NCT02995434|191838279|EQUIVALENCE|As reliable estimates of expected effect size were unknown, the study was powered to detect a medium effect (0.5 SD change), considered a reasonable clinically meaningful impact to obtain 80% power based on a repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) with 2-tailed alpha of .05 model|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.37|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.37|-1.24|
95937092|NCT02995434|191838280|EQUIVALENCE|See section for primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.95|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.95|-1.59|
95937093|NCT02995434|191838280|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.08|-0.55|
95937094|NCT02995434|191838280|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.42|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||3.42|-2.64|
95937095|NCT02995434|191838280|EQUIVALENCE|See section on primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.48|-0.08|
95937096|NCT02995434|191838281|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.5|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.5|-0.71|
95937097|NCT02995434|191838281|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.89|-0.49|
95937098|NCT02995434|191838281|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.09|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.09|-1.19|
95937099|NCT02995434|191838281|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||1.57|-0.88|
95795754|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.09
95988259|NCT01008280|191950981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of drinks.||||<0.01
95988260|NCT01008280|191950981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
95988261|NCT01008280|191950981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of drinks.||||>0.01
95988262|NCT01008280|191950982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||<0.01
95937100|NCT02995434|191838282|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.7|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.70|0.02|
95937101|NCT02995434|191838282|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|4.39|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||4.39|-0.42|
95937102|NCT02995434|191838282|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.08|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||6.08|1.02|
95937103|NCT02995434|191838282|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.69|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||5.69|0.68|
95937104|NCT02995434|191838283|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|0.98|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||0.98|-5.63|
95988263|NCT01008280|191950982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
95988264|NCT01008280|191950982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wald Chi-Squared|||This was an intent to treat analysis where Generalized Estimating Equations, using the Negative Binomial function, were used to test for group, time, and group by time effects for drinks, drinking days, and heavy drinking days. This analysis assessed group by time effects for the number of heavy drinking days.||||>0.01
95988265|NCT00122135|191950985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
95795755|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
95795756|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.34||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since only 5 participants had Second Trimester data)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.036
95795757|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.02||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.02|0.69|>0.05
95937105|NCT02995434|191838283|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-0.48|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||-0.48|-7.35|
95937106|NCT02995434|191838283|EQUIVALENCE|See comment in primary outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.62|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method|||2.62|-4.11|
95937107|NCT02995434|191838283|EQUIVALENCE|See comments in primary outcome|Median Difference (Net)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.41|||||Treatment effect = VR group - Control group; 95% confidence intervals estimated using the bootstrapping method.|||0.41|-6.10|
95937108|NCT03400059|191838285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.49||"analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.~Group-sequential analysis using updated boundaries from interim analysis"|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-4.11|0.0132
95937109|NCT03400059|191838286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-1.04|-4.32|0.0014
95937110|NCT03400059|191838287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse||||-0.73|-4.06|0.0048
95937111|NCT03400059|191838288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-1.20|-4.54|0.0008
95937112|NCT03400059|191838289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||0.06|-3.12|0.0598
95937113|NCT03400059|191838290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model containing terms for treatment, baseline value and medication overuse.||||-0.17|-3.63|0.0310
95937114|NCT03400059|191838291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
95937115|NCT03400059|191838292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1615
95988266|NCT03269344|191950986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
95988267|NCT03269344|191950987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95988268|NCT03269344|191950988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95988269|NCT03269344|191950989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95988270|NCT03269344|191950990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
95937116|NCT03400059|191838293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0798
95937117|NCT03400059|191838294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1300
95937118|NCT03400059|191838295|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0660
95937119|NCT03400059|191838296|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||posthoc|Van-Elteren|||||||0.0152
95937120|NCT03779204|191838303|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-5.0|0.18
95937121|NCT03779204|191838304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-5.0|0.44
95937122|NCT03779204|191838305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|24.4|||ANCOVA|||||24.4|-9.7|.38
95937123|NCT03779204|191838306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-3.3|0.76
95937124|NCT03779204|191838307|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
95937125|NCT03779204|191838308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-16.4|0.12
95795758|NCT00042289|191561513|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.01|0.68|>0.05
95937126|NCT03779204|191838309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|-13.7|0.34
95937127|NCT03779204|191838311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-6.6|0.62
95937128|NCT03381261|191838340|OTHER|While descriptive statistics were presented in the original mRNA units using median and interquartile range (25th, 75th), statistical group comparison and effect sizes were reported as the ratio of the geometric means.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937129|NCT05634226|191838341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95937130|NCT05634226|191838342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95937131|NCT03761537|191838380|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.7||This endpoint was the first endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.7|2.5|0.018
95937132|NCT03761537|191838381|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|21.4||This endpoint was the second endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||21.4|-2.0|0.106
95937133|NCT03761537|191838382|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.2||This was the third endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline SCORAD interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.2|-13.0|<0.001
95937134|NCT03761537|191838383|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||This was the fourth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Treatment effect at each visit adjusted for baseline DLQI interacting with each visit, prior CSA, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4).||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.4|-2.6|0.009
95937135|NCT03761537|191838384|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|26.3||This endpoint was the fifth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||26.3|4.8|0.005
95988271|NCT03269344|191950991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95738092|NCT00318461|191448702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.1845||95.0|-0.87|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.11|-0.87|0.1845
95937136|NCT03761537|191838385|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.3||This endpoint was the sixth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.3|2.9|0.014
95937137|NCT03761537|191838386|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|19.2||This endpoint was the seventh endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|HaenszMantelel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||19.2|-4.6|0.228
95937138|NCT03761537|191838387|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.6||This endpoint was the eighth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline SCORAD in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-4.6|-13.2|<0.001
95738093|NCT00318461|191448702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.63|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.44|-2.63|<0.0001
95795759|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.61||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.09||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.09|0.34|0.14
95795760|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.81||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.81|0.50|0.002
95937139|NCT03761537|191838388|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Difference|-1.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||This endpoint was the ninth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Repeated measurements model|Unstructured covariance matrix. Adjusted for baseline DLQI in interaction with each visit, prior CSA use, and baseline disease severity (IGA 3 or 4)||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP, after initiation of rescue treatment, or after subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic will not be included in the analysis.||-0.5|-2.7|0.005
95937140|NCT03761537|191838389|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis of no difference between Tralokinumab+TCS and placebo+TCS was tested at a 5% significance level against the 2-sided alternative that there was a difference.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.6||This endpoint was the tenth endpoint in the sequential testing hierarchy. Acceptance of this endpoint depends on prior endpoints' acceptance.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test stratified by prior CSA use and baseline disease severity. MH risk differences and standard errors combined by Rubin's rule.||Subjects who received rescue treatment or permanently discontinued IMP, without prior subject-onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (SOC19), were considered non-responders after the relevant event occurred. Any data from subjects who had SOC19 as their first prior intercurrent event (ICE) were multiple imputed (MI) assuming missing at random (MAR) following start of SOC19. Data missing prior to any ICE were handled as non-response, except data missing due to the pandemic, which was MI assuming MAR.||25.6|2.9|0.014
95937141|NCT06074523|191838400|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing three conditions in a basic science experiment in healthy adults.|partial eta squared|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing Cued Suppression Task; Positive, Negative, and Neutral Cue condtions||||<.001
95937142|NCT06074523|191838401|EQUIVALENCE|P\<.05 criterion|cohen's d|0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing performance on target absent and target present trials||||.08
95937143|NCT06074523|191838402|OTHER||Slope|-0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5803|-0.1135|||correlation|||Relationship between Cued Attention Negative Cue Benefit (Neutral Cue RT- Negative Cue RT) and working memory capacity.||-0.1135|-0.5803|.007
95937144|NCT06074523|191838403|OTHER||Slope|-0.27||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5015|-0.002414|||correlation|||Correlation of Inattentive Traits subscale and learned suppression (difference in RT between target absent and target present trials)||-0.002414|-0.5015|.046
95937145|NCT04321031|191838427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.2|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||0.20|-0.02|
95738094|NCT00318461|191448702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.3047||95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||0.17|-0.82|0.3047
95738095|NCT00318461|191448702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.12|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.94|-2.12|<0.0001
95738096|NCT00318461|191448702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.18||||0.8079||95.0|-0.32|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 26 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.67|-0.32|0.8079
95738097|NCT00318461|191448703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.58|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.28|-2.58|<0.0001
95738098|NCT00318461|191448703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.53||||0.0542||95.0|-1.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.01|-1.08|0.0542
95738099|NCT00318461|191448703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
95738100|NCT00318461|191448703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55||||0.0451||95.0|-1.1|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose t as covariate.||-0.01|-1.10|0.0451
95937146|NCT04321031|191838427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.24|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.24|-0.03|
95937147|NCT04321031|191838427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.26|-0.03|
95937148|NCT04321031|191838427|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.28|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.28|-0.04|
95937149|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|-0.04|
95937150|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.11|
95937151|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.07|
95937152|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|0.07|
95937153|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.27|-0.12|
95937154|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.04|
95937155|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.08|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.08|
95937156|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.31||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.31|-0.03|
95937157|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.09|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|0.09|
95937158|NCT04321031|191838428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|-0.03|
95937159|NCT04321031|191838429|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-25.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.42|-2.57||||||||-2.57|-58.42|
95937160|NCT04321031|191838429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.41|-5.42||||||||-5.42|-69.41|
95937161|NCT04321031|191838429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-40.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.55|-7.32||||||||-7.32|-75.55|
95937162|NCT04321031|191838429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.72|-8.42||||||||-8.42|-81.72|
95937163|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.57|-9.57||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-9.57|-62.57|
95937164|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-43.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.37|-14.64||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-14.64|-62.37|
95937165|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-59.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.95|-36.55||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-36.55|-73.95|
95857836|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||5.37|-4.33|0.8335
95937166|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.72|-50.15||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.15|-79.72|
95937167|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-19.44||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-19.44|-69.53|
95857837|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Physical||4.24|-8.24|0.5291
95937168|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-69.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.08|-50.07||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-50.07|-81.08|
95937169|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-34.02|-7.32||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-7.32|-34.02|
95937170|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.51|18.76||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||18.76|-48.51|
95937171|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-49.4|-23.95||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||-23.95|-49.40|
95937172|NCT04321031|191838430|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.41|2.37||||||Log-transformed relative changes from baseline are modelled using an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline fibrosis stage (F2/F3) as factors, and log-transformed baseline liver fat as a covariate.||2.37|-62.41|
95937173|NCT04321031|191838431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.32|0.09|
95937174|NCT04321031|191838431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.37|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.37|0.15|
95937175|NCT04321031|191838431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.39|0.18|
95937176|NCT04321031|191838431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.42|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.42|0.19|
95937177|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.51||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.51|0.04|
95937178|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.13|
95937179|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.49||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.49|0.04|
95937180|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.75||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.75|0.26|
95937181|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.61||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.61|0.10|
95937182|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.72||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.72|0.20|
95937183|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.24|0.39||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.39|0.24|
95937184|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.48|0.12|
95937185|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|0.06|
95937186|NCT04321031|191838432|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.06|
95937187|NCT04321031|191838433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.02|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.02|-0.16|
95937188|NCT04321031|191838433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.03|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.03|-0.20|
95937189|NCT04321031|191838433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.04|-0.23|
95937190|NCT04321031|191838433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.05|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.05|-0.26|
95937191|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.13||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.13|-0.21|
95937192|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.02||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.02|-0.25|
95937193|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.17|-0.17|
95738101|NCT00318461|191448703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||-0.90|-2.20|<0.0001
95795761|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.77||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.23||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.23|0.49|0.24
95738102|NCT00318461|191448703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.9006||95.0|-0.7|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||0.39|-0.70|0.9006
95738103|NCT00318461|191448704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.13||||0.8871||95.0|-0.62|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.36|-0.62|0.8871
95795762|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.84||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.17||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.17|0.60|0.53
95795763|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.58||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.11||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.11|0.30|0.2
95795764|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.55||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.55|0.58|0.12
95795765|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.92||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.2||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.2|0.71|0.358
95795766|NCT00042289|191561514|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.72||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.93||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.93|0.55|0.0156
95795767|NCT00042289|191561515|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|0.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.85||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum (No comparison was done for Second Trimester vs. Postpartum since no Second Trimester data was available)|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.85|0.58|0.007
95937194|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.22||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.22|-0.15|
95937195|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.05||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||-0.05|-0.30|
95937196|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.26||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.26|-0.13|
95937197|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|-0.03|0.12||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.12|-0.03|
95937198|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.23||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.23|-0.12|
95937199|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.17|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|0.17|
95988272|NCT01289015|191951010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||p-value|0.001|||<|0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test statistic after stratification was used to compare subjects with complete cure between NAFT-600 and placebo.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-600 group with that of the placebo group, the following one-sided hypothesis test was carried out:~H0 (null): p1\<=p0 versus Ha (alternate): p1\>p0, where p0 and p1 are the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the proportions of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-600 treatment groups respectively."||||<0.025
95937200|NCT04321031|191838434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.06|
95937201|NCT04321031|191838435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.08|-0.01|
95937202|NCT04321031|191838435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.09|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.09|-0.02|
95937203|NCT04321031|191838435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.11|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.11|-0.02|
95937204|NCT04321031|191838435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.12|-0.02|
95988273|NCT05215600|191951013|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
95795768|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.12||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.12|0.39|0.109
95795769|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.69||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.69|0.49|<0.001
95937205|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
95988274|NCT05215600|191951014|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Test (Pooled)||||||<0.001
95988275|NCT03988335|191951041|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2-sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.24|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.24
95937206|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.29||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.29|-0.02|
95937207|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.43|-0.01|
95937208|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.57||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.57|0.01|
95937209|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.33|-0.02|
95937210|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.01|
95937211|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.02|0.16||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.16|0.02|
95988276|NCT03988335|191951042|OTHER|The primary endpoints were first tested at alpha of 10% (2-sided). If the larger p-value was less than 10% (2sided), both primary endpoints were to be declared statistically significant. If the larger p-value was greater than 10%, but the smaller p-value was less than 5% (2-sided), then the primary endpoint with the smaller p-value was to be declared statistically significant.||||||0.804|||||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.804
95738104|NCT00318461|191448704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.12||||0.8695||95.0|-0.51|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.27|-0.51|0.8695
95795770|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|1.65||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.65|0.14|0.44
95937212|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.3||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.30|-0.04|
95937213|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.06|0.24||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.24|0.06|
95937214|NCT04321031|191838436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.44|-0.01|
95937215|NCT04321031|191838437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.31|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.31|0.05|
95937216|NCT04321031|191838437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.36|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.36|0.09|
95937217|NCT04321031|191838437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.38|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.38|0.10|
95937218|NCT04321031|191838437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.4|||||Reported values reflect a 90% Credible Interval rather than a 90% Confidence Interval.|The model was applied to the raw number of responders and non-responders utilizing a Bayesian methodology approach with non-informative priors as described in the SAP.||0.40|0.11|
95988277|NCT01618214|191951058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||||95.0|-0.19|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||FAS||0.14|-0.19|
95988278|NCT00684788|191951063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|20.02|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||20.02|1.61|=0.008
95988279|NCT00684788|191951064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0033
95988280|NCT00684788|191951067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.42|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.42|0.32|0.939
95795771|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.43|<0.001
95937219|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.36||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.36|-0.04|
95937220|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.53||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.53|0.15|
95937221|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.46||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.46|0.06|
95937222|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.63||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.63|0.27|
95937223|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.38|-0.03|
95937224|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.58||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.58|0.18|
95937225|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.15|0.28||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.28|0.15|
95937226|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.35||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.35|0.03|
95937227|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|50.0|0.16|0.32||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 50% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.32|0.16|
95795772|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.1||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.10|0.63|0.43
95937228|NCT04321031|191838438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.42||||||Risk difference and 2-sided 90% confidence interval for risk difference were calculated by using the observed placebo/corresponding BID rate and estimated odds ratio from the logistic regression model.||0.42|0.03|
95937229|NCT05722704|191838448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.986
95937230|NCT05722704|191838449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.118
95937231|NCT05722704|191838450|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.225
95937232|NCT05722704|191838451|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
95795773|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.44|0.69|0.31
95795774|NCT00042289|191561516|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.16||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.16|0.71|0.49
95795775|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.63||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.63|0.32|<0.05
95795776|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.88||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.88|0.58|<0.05
95937233|NCT04323137|191838460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis compared all groups that were informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm) to control patients who were not sent a message.~Null hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications does not increase flu vaccination rate; Alternative hypothesis: informing patients they are high risk for flu and flu-related complications increases flu vaccination rate"||||0.0035
95937234|NCT04323137|191838460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on medical records messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on medical records. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.613
95937235|NCT04323137|191838460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk only and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||0.889
95937236|NCT04323137|191838460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||The p-value reported is uncorrected, but the Holm method was used to determine whether the p-value reached statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: the High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages are equally effective at promoting ﬂu vaccinations; Alternative hypothesis: there is a difference in effectiveness between High risk based on medical records and High risk based on algorithm messages. Separate regressions were run to assess pairwise differences between the high-risk arms (analyses 2, 3, and 4). The Holm method was used to test whether each comparison reached significance.||||.714
95988281|NCT00684788|191951069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|16.245|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.245|0.071|0.959
95937237|NCT04323137|191838461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the top 10% risk vs. top 3% risk contrast (analysis 2).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same risk level who were sent messages with a vague verbal (high risk) vs. specific numeric (top 10%) risk framing.~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.181
95937238|NCT04323137|191838461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||This p-value is from the same regression as the high risk vs. top 10% risk contrast (analysis 1).|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis tested whether vaccination differed in patients with the same numeric risk phrasing are differentially affected due to different specific risk levels (3% vs. 10%).~This analysis was limited to those informed they were high risk (High risk only, High risk based on medical records, High risk based on algorithm)."||||.301
95937239|NCT03332017|191838499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was stratified by rituximab-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, and geographic region per interactive response technology.||||||0.0017
95937240|NCT03843151|191838634|OTHER||Ratio|192.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.19|211.89|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||211.89|175.19|
95937241|NCT03843151|191838635|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 21.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
95937242|NCT03843151|191838636|OTHER||Ratio|120.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.69|137.87|||||"The effect of itraconazole on BI 1358894 is estimated by the ratio of geometric mean (BI 1358894 + itraconazole / BI 1358894).~geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'treatment'. The 'subject' effect was considered as random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||137.87|105.69|
95937243|NCT01787383|191838637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95937244|NCT01787383|191838638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.34
95937245|NCT01787383|191838639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.088
95988282|NCT00623428|191951070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|"The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.~(second column)."|In order to detect an improvement in SVR rate across all strata equivalent to an odds ratio of 2 (i.e. an increase in SVR by 15 to 16 percentage points at a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 160 patients per treatment group (320 patients in total) were required.||1.43|0.45|0.4557
95795777|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.78||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.78|0.23|0.02
95795778|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.08||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.08|0.56|0.3
95937246|NCT01787383|191838640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95937247|NCT01787383|191838641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95937248|NCT01787383|191838642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
95937249|NCT01787383|191838643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95795779|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.41||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.036
95795780|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.52||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.52|0.32|<0.05
95795781|NCT00042289|191561517|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.57||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.05
95795782|NCT00042289|191561518|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.01||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test on natural log-transformed PK parameter||||1.01|0.72|0.10
95937250|NCT01787383|191838644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95937251|NCT03443323|191838645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95937252|NCT03443323|191838646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (OTMP skills \[COSS-P, COSS-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95937253|NCT03443323|191838647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95937254|NCT03443323|191838648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (homework performance \[HPC, HPQ-T\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95937255|NCT03443323|191838649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.06||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.06
95937256|NCT03443323|191838650|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.0083||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .0083, accounting for the estimation of three contrasts of time-by-treatment differences per outcome and two measures per domain (academic performance \[ACES, APS\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.0083
95937257|NCT03443323|191838651|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95937258|NCT03443323|191838652|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a threshold p value of .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95937259|NCT05178316|191838702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175|=|0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|-3.98|=0.8862
95937260|NCT05178316|191838702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|=|0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.84|-4.32|=0.6832
95937261|NCT05178316|191838703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|=|0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.55|=0.4522
95937262|NCT05178316|191838703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|=|0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|=0.2032
95937263|NCT05178316|191838704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.38|=0.7170
95795783|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.68||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.68|0.35|0.0039
95937264|NCT05178316|191838704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|=|0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.43|=0.2423
95937265|NCT04650087|191838753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.95||||||||1.95|0.44|
95937266|NCT04650087|191838754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31||||||||1.31|0.83|
95937267|NCT04650087|191838755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||||||||1.24|0.78|
95937268|NCT04650087|191838756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||||||||1.74|0.44|
95988283|NCT00623428|191951071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.06|0.33|0.0788
95795784|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.66||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.84||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.84|0.52|0.0062
95795785|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
95795786|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.10
95795787|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.15|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.30|0.08|<0.10
95937269|NCT04650087|191838757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.12||||||||2.12|0.58|
95937270|NCT04650087|191838758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.42||||||||3.42|0.29|
95937271|NCT04650087|191838759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18||||||||3.18|0.03|
95937272|NCT04650087|191838760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.28||||||||2.28|0.34|
95937273|NCT03519581|191838772|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test because the data was non-parametric.||||||0.76|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The target sample size for the study was 30 eyes, based on power calculations to achieve 80% power assuming 40% of sham-treated eyes will reach the vision loss threshold within 2 years, while SML treatment will reduce that value to 15%, using a 2:1 ratio for randomization (2 treatment : 1 sham).||||.76
95937274|NCT03519581|191838773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.16
95937275|NCT03519581|191838774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
95937276|NCT03519581|191838775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
95937277|NCT03519581|191838776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
95937278|NCT03519581|191838777|SUPERIORITY|Two-tailed t-tests and mixed effects regression models||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
95937279|NCT05177848|191838778|OTHER|||||||0.9793||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on the rate of substitution~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 4.30, p = 0.64 Group: X2(1) 0.22, p = 0.64 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 1.15, p = 0.98"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9793
95937280|NCT05177848|191838779|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Q0 (derived intensity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 6.59, p = 0.36 Group: X2(1) = 0.07, p = 0.79 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 7.38, p = 0.29"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95937281|NCT05177848|191838779|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||"A linear mixed effects model tested the interaction between group and condition on Alpha (demand elasticity).~Results:~Condition: X2(6) = 0.0001, p = 1.00 Group: X2(1) = 0.00, p = 0.99 Condition:Group: X2(6) = 5.65, p = 0.46"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95937282|NCT05386758|191838805|OTHER||Gemetric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.64||||||||1.64|0.94|
95937283|NCT05386758|191838806|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.62||||||||1.62|0.90|
95937284|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.02
95937285|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.22
95937286|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.017
95937287|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.98
95937288|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.014
95937289|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
95937290|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937291|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.156
95937292|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.541
95937293|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937294|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.10"|||
95988284|NCT00623428|191951072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||3.87|0.48|0.5654
95988285|NCT00623428|191951074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
95937295|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
95937296|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.88"|||
95937297|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.6"|||
95937298|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A \*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
95937299|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.10"|||
95937300|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.45"|||
95988286|NCT00623428|191951075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by HCV genotype (2 vs 3), region (US vs non-US) and initial Ribavirin dose (800mg vs 1000-1200mg).|The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the 24-week treatment group to the odds of a response in the 48-week treatment group.|||1.21|0.38|0.1934
95988287|NCT01692301|191951095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-6.45|0.010
95738105|NCT00318461|191448704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03||||0.9994||95.0|-0.46|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.52|-0.46|0.9994
95738106|NCT00318461|191448704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.04||||0.9984||95.0|-0.35|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.35|0.9984
95795788|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.21|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.36||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.36|0.12|<0.10
95795789|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.51||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.51|0.20|<0.10
95937301|NCT04359108|191838836|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.02"|||
95937302|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||0.30
95937303|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
95937304|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937305|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.01
95988288|NCT01142726|191951113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Month 12|Power estimate assumed 2-sided alpha level of 5% and that 60% of abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MX) patients (pts) would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12 compared with 38% of MX monotherapy pts. Also assumed that 48% of ABA monotherapy pts would be in DAS28-CRP remission at Month 12, yielding an expected treatment difference from MX of 10% in favor of ABA monotherapy; 116 pts randomized to ABA monotherapy would yield a half-length of the 95% CI around that 10% treatment difference of 13.5%.||3.43|1.18|0.010
95937306|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.93
95937307|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95795790|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.32|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.94||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.94|0.11|>0.10
95937308|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.27"|||
95937309|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.00"|||
95937310|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.75"|||
95937311|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.60"|||
95937312|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
95937313|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.72"|||
95937314|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.47"|||
95937315|NCT04359108|191838837|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 3.81"|||
95937316|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|navigation system mode and test block as factors||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
95937317|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937318|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||within-participant, 2 sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.037
95937319|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.34
95937320|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|within-participant, 2 sided t-test||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.10
95937321|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
95937322|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937323|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.67
95937324|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.23
95937325|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937326|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.79"|||
95937327|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 1.38"|||
95937328|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 2.24"|||
95937329|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Obstacle Avoidance Test - Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.85"|||
95937330|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = N/A\*~\* N/A for Argus Vision test because subject did not successfully reach intended destination for any trial using this mode."|||
95993766|NCT00619957|191963369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.08|1.22|<0.0001
95738107|NCT00318461|191448704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.6201||95.0|-0.28|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.70|-0.28|0.6201
95738108|NCT00318461|191448704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.4831||95.0|-0.18|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.60|-0.18|0.4831
95937331|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = 0.18"|||
95937332|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -0.97"|||
95738109|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.8 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.07|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.59|-1.07|<0.0001
95738110|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.28|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.12|-0.28|<0.0001
95738111|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 1.2 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment was at 104 weeks analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.57|-1.05|<0.0001
95795791|NCT00042289|191561519|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.97|0.78|0.079
95795792|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.09||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.09|0.77|0.01
95795793|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.72||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.72|0.37|<0.05
95795794|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.96||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.96|0.71|0.0325
95857838|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||7.00|-2.82|0.4033
95937333|NCT04359108|191838838|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision: test for null hypothesis that the single Argus participant in this arm has performance that lies in-distribution with performance statistics computed for the normally sighted subjects arm of the study.|"Test Method: Z-Score comparison of the performance of the single Argus participant to the performance distribution of normally sighted subjects.~Significance threshold: \|Z\| = 2.8 for p = 0.05, 2-tailed (reject null hypothesis above threshold) Result: Z-Score = -1.23"|||
95937334|NCT04359108|191838839|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Single-factor test on navigation system mode||Navigate to Destination Test - Significance of Navigation Mode: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance among all navigation system modes||||<0.001
95937335|NCT04359108|191838839|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Argus Vision vs. Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.17
95937336|NCT04359108|191838839|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937337|NCT04359108|191838839|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Haptic/Audio vs. Depth Vision + Haptic/Audio: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||0.33
95937338|NCT04359108|191838839|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Navigate to Destination Test - Depth Vision vs. High Field-of-View Depth Vision: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance||||<0.01
95937339|NCT04359108|191838840|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high resolution vision modes||||0.023
95738112|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.27|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.13|-0.27|<0.0001
95738113|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. First, it was tested whether liraglutide 0.6 mg+metformin was superior to placebo + metformin.~Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%."|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.37|-0.85|<0.0001
95738114|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis testing was done in a hierarchical manner. As superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin to metformin monotherapy was established, it was investigated whether liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin was non-inferior to glimepiride + metformin. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.14||||0.0052||95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||0.34|-0.06|0.0052
95738115|NCT00318461|191448705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of glimepiride+metformin to placebo metformin was performed to verify assay sensitivity. Superiority was always concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline glycosylated A1c (HbA1c) as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.0001
95738116|NCT00318461|191448706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.24||||0.5282||95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.74|0.5282
95857839|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Bodily Pain||5.99|-6.74|0.9078
95857840|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||5.86|-2.31|0.3947
95937340|NCT04359108|191838840|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|2X2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Resolution: test for null hypothesis of equivalent performance between low and high field-of-view vision modes||||0.039
95738117|NCT00318461|191448706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.15||||0.7644||95.0|-0.55|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.25|-0.55|0.7644
95738118|NCT00318461|191448706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.36||||0.2063||95.0|-0.86|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.2063
95857841|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: General Health||6.20|-4.26|0.7165
95937341|NCT04359108|191838840|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||ANOVA|2x2 within-participant test with factors of resolution and field-of-view||Significance of Interaction between Resolution and Field-of-View: test for null hypothesis of no interaction||||.801
95937342|NCT02515773|191838841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95937343|NCT02515773|191838842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
95937344|NCT02515773|191838843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value less than 0.001|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95937345|NCT02515773|191838844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
95937346|NCT05480124|191838863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
95937347|NCT05480124|191838865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
95937348|NCT05480124|191838866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95738119|NCT00318461|191448706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.2678||95.0|-0.68|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.12|-0.68|0.2678
95738120|NCT00318461|191448706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.9887||95.0|-0.57|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.43|-0.57|0.9887
95738121|NCT00318461|191448706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.02||||0.9998||95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9998
95738122|NCT00318461|191448707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.95|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.30|-2.60|<0.0001
95738123|NCT00318461|191448707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.967||95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.41|-0.62|0.9670
95738124|NCT00318461|191448707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.36|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.07|-2.36|<0.0001
95937349|NCT05480124|191838867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
95738125|NCT00318461|191448707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.9368||95.0|-0.39|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.64|-0.39|0.9368
95738126|NCT00318461|191448707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.06||||0.0003||95.0|-1.71|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.71|0.0003
95795795|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.77||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum \[Note: Comparison of 2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum was not done due to low sample size.\]|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.77|0.54|<0.05
95795796|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795797|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795798|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
95795799|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||>0.05
95937350|NCT05480124|191838868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
95937351|NCT05529966|191838958|OTHER|||||||0.45490734||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45490734
95937352|NCT05529966|191838959|OTHER|||||||0.9237611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92376110
95937353|NCT05529966|191838960|OTHER|||||||0.94342221||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94342221
95937354|NCT05529966|191838961|OTHER|||||||0.38902793||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38902793
95937355|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.0042494||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of comfort score||||0.00424940
95937356|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.00223547||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.00223547
95937357|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||1.858e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.00001858
95937358|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.03003194||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.03003194
95937359|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||2.8e-07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.00000028
95937360|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.00112148||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.00112148
95738127|NCT00318461|191448707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.78||||0.0008||95.0|0.27|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.29|0.27|0.0008
95738128|NCT00318461|191448708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.96|-2.37|<0.0001
95795800|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795801|NCT00042289|191561519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95795802|NCT00042289|191561520|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.06||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.06|0.73|<0.05
95937361|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||951||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||00000951
95937362|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.03493564||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.03493564
95937363|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.12895248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.12895248
95937364|NCT05529966|191838962|OTHER|||||||0.00279611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.00279611
95937365|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.959638658||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Comfort score||||.959638658
95937366|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Visibility score||||.213464715
95937367|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.213464715||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Image Quality score||||.213464715
95937368|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.155899777||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Focus score||||.155899777
95937369|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.055960023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Depth Perception score||||.055960023
95937370|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.000685499||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Staff Engagement score||||.000685499
95937371|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.004526118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Teaching score||||.004526118
95937372|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.299921137||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of En Face Confidence score||||.299921137
95937373|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.368082084||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Hydrus Placement Confidence score||||.368082084
95937374|NCT05529966|191838963|OTHER|||||||0.015036417||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance after Bonferroni correction is \< 0.002083333|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Scope Preference score||||.015036417
95937375|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.3|-3.0|0.7636
95937376|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.9|-1.4|0.3040
95937377|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.7|-1.4|0.3090
95738129|NCT00318461|191448708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.3||||0.5048||95.0|-0.86|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.26|-0.86|0.5048
95738130|NCT00318461|191448708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.49|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-1.08|-2.49|<0.0001
95738131|NCT00318461|191448708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.42||||0.2005||95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.14|-0.98|0.2005
95738132|NCT00318461|191448708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.16||||0.0003||95.0|-1.86|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||-0.46|-1.86|0.0003
95738133|NCT00318461|191448708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.21||||0.7871||95.0|-0.35|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in post prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||0.76|-0.35|0.7871
95795803|NCT00042289|191561520|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.9||2nd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.90|0.55|<0.05
95795804|NCT00042289|191561520|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.23||3rd Trimester vs. Postpartum|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.23|0.57|<0.05
95937378|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline MADRS total score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.4|-1.3|0.3694
95738134|NCT00318461|191448709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|27.75||||0.0031||95.0|7.83|47.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||47.67|7.83|0.0031
95795805|NCT00042289|191561524|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.59||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical analysis is for LPV PK.||1.59|0.97|0.114
95795806|NCT00042289|191561525|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.1||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The statistical test is for ATV PK.||1.44|0.84|0.367
95857842|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||5.75|-2.87|0.5112
95988289|NCT01142726|191951113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.18|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical testing of the 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints was conducted in a hierarchical fashion to maintain the overall Type I error rate at 5%.|At Months 12 and 18|Conditional on statistical significance of the 1st coprimary efficacy analysis (CEA), a sample of 116 patients per arm would provide 98% power for the 2nd CEA comparison of the percentage of patients in DAS28-CRP remission at Months 12 and 18 between the abatacept (ABA)+methotrexate (MTX) arm and the MTX monotherapy arm for intent-to treat population. This sample size calculation assumed 30% remission in the ABA+MTX arm and 8% in the monotherapy arm at Month 18 and a 2-sided alpha level of 5%.||6.18|1.02|0.045
95937379|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||MCPMod Linear model|No parameter assumptions required. Corresponding dose response is linear||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9158
95937380|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER|||||||0.8676|||||||MCPMod Exponential model|Assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly at higher doses||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.8676
95937381|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER|||||||0.9552|||||||MCPMod Emax1 model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg; corresponding to the assumed true median effective dose (ED50) = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9552
95937382|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER|||||||0.9619|||||||MCPMod Emax2 model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg; corresponding to a drug effect achieved mainly with low doses, ED50 = 2.14 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9619
95738135|NCT00318461|191448709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.44||||0.9987||95.0|-15.03|17.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||17.90|-15.03|0.9987
95738136|NCT00318461|191448709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|21.96||||0.0263||95.0|2.04|41.87|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||41.87|2.04|0.0263
95738137|NCT00318461|191448709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.36||||0.9227||95.0|-20.94|12.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.22|-20.94|0.9227
95738138|NCT00318461|191448709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|22.08||||0.0253||95.0|2.15|42.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||42.01|2.15|0.0253
95738139|NCT00318461|191448709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.23||||0.9293||95.0|-20.78|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 26 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||12.31|-20.78|0.9293
95795807|NCT00042289|191561525|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean of ratio|1.02||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Before ENG initiation vs. after ENG initiation||The statistical test is for EFV PK.||1.13|0.92|0.561
95795808|NCT00498550|191561550|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.088
95857843|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Vitality||10.04|-1.18|0.1218
95988290|NCT01142726|191951114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.57|||||At Month 12|||1.57|0.55|
95988291|NCT01142726|191951114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.14|||||At Months 12 and 18|||5.14|0.81|
95937383|NCT04521478|191838964|OTHER|||||||0.9507|||||||MCPMod Sigmoid Emax model|Assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, 90% 75 mg; corresponding to a more flexible model of the assumed true ED50 = 25 mg||The Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modeling (MCPMod) procedure used the estimated values from an MMRM model as input and allowed for simultaneous evaluation of different potential dose response patterns (Linear, Exponential, Emax1, Emax2, Sigmoid Emax), while protecting the overall false positive rate (probability of Type I error) using a one-sided, nominal α level of 10 %.||||0.9507
95937384|NCT04521478|191838965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9427||||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4709|1.8873|||Regression, Logistic||5 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.8873|0.4709|0.8889
95937385|NCT04521478|191838965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6581||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3255|1.3307|||Regression, Logistic||25 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.3307|0.3255|0.3284
95937386|NCT04521478|191838965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1026||||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5757|2.1114|||Regression, Logistic||75 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||2.1114|0.5757|0.8048
95937387|NCT04521478|191838965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0072||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5968|1.6999|||Regression, Logistic||125 mg BI 1358894 vs Placebo|Logistic regression model, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment and baseline MDD severity.||1.6999|0.5968|0.9820
95937388|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.6|0.0|0.1013
95937389|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.6|-1.9|0.3596
95937390|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-5.2|0.6745
95937391|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (S-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.7|0.1870
95937392|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.1|0.1|0.0921
95937393|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.7395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||4.8|-3.2|0.7395
95937394|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-2.7|0.6296
95988292|NCT02685709|191951144|NON_INFERIORITY|An assessment of NI was made by comparing the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in biochemical control (octreotide capsules - SRLs) to a NI margin of -20%.|95% CI Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|0.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen (M&N)|||||0.5|-19.9|
95855444|NCT00541658|191670535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
95937395|NCT04521478|191838966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of baseline score (T-Anxiety scale). Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.9|0.7|0.0429
95937396|NCT04521478|191838967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.5|-0.3|0.6211
95937397|NCT04521478|191838967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.5158
95937398|NCT04521478|191838967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.2|0.4518
95937399|NCT04521478|191838967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.6|-0.1|0.2347
95937400|NCT04521478|191838968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 5 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.6|-0.7|0.1723
95937401|NCT04521478|191838968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 25 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||8.5|0.3|0.0757
95937402|NCT04521478|191838968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 75 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.0|-3.0|0.6864
95937403|NCT04521478|191838968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = (adjusted mean 125 mg BI 1358894) - (adjusted mean Placebo)|Adjusted means and confidence intervals were estimated using REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, concomitant psychotherapy use (yes vs. no), and the fixed continuous effect of the baseline score. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.0|-0.5|0.1585
95937404|NCT02187003|191838969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.22|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI). A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.||1.22|0.77|0.7944
95988293|NCT02685709|191951145|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
95857844|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||7.05|-2.11|0.2895
95857845|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Social Functioning||5.32|-6.58|0.8349
95988294|NCT02685709|191951146|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
95937405|NCT02187003|191838970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.19|0.77|0.7156
95937406|NCT02187003|191838971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P-value was from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.88|-1.27|0.8520
95857846|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||10.97|0.28|0.0393
95857847|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Role Emotional||8.16|-5.69|0.7266
95857848|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.27|-3.02|0.4916
95988295|NCT02685709|191951147|OTHER|||||||||||||Confidence interval was applied||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The statistical analysis was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method.|||
95937407|NCT02187003|191838972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards regression model with age group and genotype group as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio (Placebo/Rivipansel) and the corresponding 95% CI. A stratified log-rank test with age group and genotype group as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P- value.||1.26|0.82|0.8593
95857849|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Health||6.38|-5.62|0.9008
95857850|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.55|-0.17|0.2965
95857851|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: TR Scale Score||0.84|-0.09|0.1147
95857852|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.31|-4.42|0.7786
95857853|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Physical Component Summary||3.49|-6.45|0.5582
95857854|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.47|-0.37|0.0727
95857855|NCT00658359|191673395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36: Mental Component Summary||8.59|-2.86|0.3264
95857856|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.33|-0.10|0.3093
95988296|NCT02685709|191951148|OTHER||||||||||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.|Based on this analysis 63.0% of patients in the octreotide capsule group and 51.4% of patients in the SRL injection group entered the Study Extension phase.|||
95857857|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Physical Capacity||0.36|-0.12|0.3223
95857858|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.30|-0.14|0.4858
95857859|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.36|-0.13|0.3679
95857860|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.17|-0.27|0.6416
95857861|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.14|-0.34|0.4241
95857862|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.39|-0.09|0.2133
95857863|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.44|-0.09|0.1918
95857864|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.14|-0.55|0.0010
95738140|NCT00318461|191448710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|25.71||||0.8821||95.0|-69.84|121.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||121.26|-69.84|0.8821
95795809|NCT02807259|191561551|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations did not account for stratification used in the randomisation or include adjustment for baseline levels of the outcome, since the correlation over time was not known. Results suggested that the trial had \>80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.77, if the coefficient of between-cluster variation was between 0.15 and 0.25.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculations were conducted assuming an IPV prevalence (past 12 months) of 47% and consistent condom use (past 12 months) of 38% based on initial assessments. The power calculation was performed by analysing simulated data from 800 women, distributed across clusters using empirical data with a range in variance across cluster-level proportions of IPV (15% to 25% of the total variation) and a narrow range of effect sizes (risk ratio= 0.75-0.80).||3.01|0.71|0.298
95795810|NCT02807259|191561552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|0.68|0.378
95795811|NCT02807259|191561553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.58|0.748
95795812|NCT02807259|191561554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|0.4|0.025
95795813|NCT02807259|191561555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.26|0.42|0.372
95795814|NCT02807259|191561556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.61|0.845
95795815|NCT02807259|191561557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.82|1.02|0.042
95795816|NCT00849056|191561563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.95|<0.0001
95937408|NCT02187003|191838973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||The difference in medians (Rivipansel- Placebo) was estimated by the difference of treatment medians from summary statistics. The corresponding 95% CI was estimated by a bootstrap method with stratification for age and genotype groups. P value was from ANCOVA model based on rank-transformed values using age group and genotype group as the stratification covariates.||0.16|-0.13|0.9332
95937409|NCT02187003|191838974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.17||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|2.46|||Chan and Zhang|||P values and 95% CI for the difference in percentages were based on the exact method by Chan and Zhang.||2.46|-5.19|0.5349
95795817|NCT04588259|191561571|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using mixed-effect model for repeated measurement (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits were included in analysis. Model included treatment and stratification of type 1 diabetes mellitus/ type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix described the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||0.09|-0.19|0.5102
95795818|NCT04588259|191561572|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4%, non-inferiority was considered to be established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.03||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits are included in the analysis. The model includes treatment and stratification (T1DM/T2DM) as fixed factors, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interactions between all fixed factors and visit. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to describe the variability for the repeated measurements for a participant.||1.03|-2.08|0.5102
95795819|NCT02100631|191561616|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two sided 95% Wald CI on the difference in seroconversion rate was estimated by inverting a Z test with pooled variance. The lower limit of the CI had be greater than -10 percentage points to prove non-inferiority. The lower bound of the CI on the older adults serconversion rate was required to exceed 70%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4||||||||0.4|-6.7|
95795820|NCT02100631|191561617|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57||||||||0.57|0.34|
95795821|NCT02100631|191561618|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.5||||||||3.5|-2.2|
95795822|NCT02100631|191561619|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis for information only. No non-inferiority margin specified.||||||0.0062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0062
95795823|NCT04476043|191561622|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||||-0.3|-5.2|0.0277
95795824|NCT04476043|191561622|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.9|||MMRM|||||-1.9|-6.8|0.0006
95795825|NCT04476043|191561622|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||MMRM|||||-1.4|-6.2|0.0021
95795826|NCT04476043|191561623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.3|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||5.3|1.0|0.0445
95795827|NCT04476043|191561623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
95937410|NCT02187003|191838981|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.336||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.024|2.968|||Chan and Zhang|||||2.968|-10.024|0.3020
95937411|NCT02187003|191838982|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.203||||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|5.104|||Chan and Zhang|||||5.104|-2.379|0.5429
95738141|NCT00318461|191448710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg + metformin and glimepiride + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|6.56||||0.9989||95.0|-72.66|85.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||85.79|-72.66|0.9989
95738142|NCT00318461|191448710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|35.2||||0.7292||95.0|-60.33|130.72|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||130.72|-60.33|0.7292
95738143|NCT00318461|191448710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|16.05||||0.9689||95.0|-63.69|95.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||95.79|-63.69|0.9689
95738144|NCT00318461|191448710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and placebo + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|72.38||||0.1818||95.0|-23.15|167.9|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||167.90|-23.15|0.1818
95738145|NCT00318461|191448710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 0.6 mg + metformin and glimepirde + metfomine was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0%, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide in combination with metformin was better than the comparator therapy.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|53.23||||0.2978||95.0|-26.3|132.76|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to 104 weeks of treatment was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||132.76|-26.30|0.2978
95738146|NCT02354339|191448713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.240
95738147|NCT02354339|191448713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of fasting glucose on placebo group||||0.850
95738148|NCT02354339|191448714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.012
95795828|NCT04476043|191561623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.6|0.9|0.0998
95795829|NCT04476043|191561623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
95937412|NCT02379156|191839004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in core body temperature (Tcore) from baseline (BL) values to after cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a Mixed Model ANOVA. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater decrease in Tcore when exposed to cool ambient temperature than control participants exposed to the same cool ambient temperature.||||<0.001
95738149|NCT02354339|191448714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of triglycerides on placebo group||||0.391
95738150|NCT02354339|191448715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.206
95795830|NCT04476043|191561623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Wald test||Logistic regression model with treatment group and stratification factors (disease severity and geographical region).|||4.7|0.9|0.0829
95795831|NCT04476043|191561623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29|||||||||||Standard error of difference between response rates was from normal approximation.|||||
95937413|NCT02379156|191839004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in (Tcore) in the participants with tetraplegia from BL values to Cold, with and without a dose of 10 mg of midodrine (two separate visits), were analyzed using a Repeated Measures ANOVA .||||0.006
95937414|NCT02379156|191839005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using an independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores due to impaired cognitive function post cool ambient exposure.||||.042
95857865|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||-0.13|-0.59|0.0020
95857866|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.40|-0.08|0.2012
95738151|NCT02354339|191448715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-c on placebo group||||0.721
95738152|NCT02354339|191448716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.371
95738153|NCT02354339|191448716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of systolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.238
95738154|NCT02354339|191448717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.452
95738155|NCT02354339|191448717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of diastolic blood pressure on placebo group||||0.801
95738156|NCT02354339|191448718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.005
95738157|NCT02354339|191448718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference on placebo group||||0.752
95795832|NCT01140906|191561633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.4||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.40|-7.66|<0.0001
95937415|NCT02379156|191839005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in total WAIS IV scores from BL to after cold ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in total WAIS IV scores than the same participants in the With drug condition."||||0.149
95738158|NCT02354339|191448719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.791
95738159|NCT02354339|191448719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of first phase of insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.910
95738160|NCT02354339|191448720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.458
95738161|NCT02354339|191448720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total insulin secretion on placebo group||||0.953
95738162|NCT02354339|191448721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.470
95738163|NCT02354339|191448721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of insulin sensitivity on placebo group||||0.807
95738164|NCT02354339|191448722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.604
95738165|NCT02354339|191448722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of body weight on placebo group||||0.350
95738166|NCT02354339|191448723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.727
95738167|NCT02354339|191448723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of BMI on placebo group||||0.229
95738168|NCT02354339|191448724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.151
95738169|NCT02354339|191448724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of total cholesterol on placebo group||||0.955
95738170|NCT02354339|191448725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.350
95738171|NCT02354339|191448725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of LDL-c on placebo group||||0.470
95857867|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.29|-0.25|0.8986
95795833|NCT01140906|191561633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-4.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-4.97|-9.21|<0.0001
95937416|NCT02379156|191839006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a mixed-model ANOVA for the AB vs Tetra comparison. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller change in Tsk due to being in a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
95738172|NCT02354339|191448726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
95738173|NCT02354339|191448726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of AST on placebo group||||0.436
95738174|NCT02354339|191448727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.989
95738175|NCT02354339|191448727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of ALT on placebo group||||0.949
95738176|NCT02354339|191448728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.095
95738177|NCT02354339|191448728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of creatinine on placebo group||||0.401
95738178|NCT02354339|191448729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on Irvingia gabonensis group||||0.910
95738179|NCT02354339|191448729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of uric acid on placebo group||||0.791
95738180|NCT00796653|191448737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.091|<0.0001
95738181|NCT00796653|191448737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.116|<0.0001
95738182|NCT00796653|191448737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.188|0.112|<0.0001
95738183|NCT00796653|191448738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0055||95.0|0.015|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.015|0.0055
95738184|NCT00796653|191448738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
95738185|NCT00796653|191448738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.027||95.0|0.005|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.080|0.005|0.0270
95738186|NCT00796653|191448739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1999||95.0|-0.213|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.018|-0.213|0.1999
95738187|NCT00796653|191448739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1818||95.0|-0.196|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.196|0.1818
95738188|NCT00796653|191448739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.0572||95.0|-0.019|1.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.222|-0.019|0.0572
95738189|NCT00796653|191448740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.0197||95.0|-5.796|-0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.503|-5.796|0.0197
95857868|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.20|-0.13|0.6724
95937417|NCT02379156|191839006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group differences in the change in distal skin temperature temperature (Tsk) from baseline (BL) values to after ambient cold exposure (Cold) were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA for the within-group comparison of drug vs no drug in the tetraplegia group. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia with drug would have a larger decrease in Tsk due to enhanced peripheral vasoconstriction due to the drug's effects.||||<.001
95937418|NCT02379156|191839007|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples T-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation.||||<0.001
95738190|NCT00796653|191448740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.0094||95.0|-6.18|-0.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.867|-6.180|0.0094
95738191|NCT00796653|191448740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.2995||95.0|-4.093|1.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.261|-4.093|0.2995
95738192|NCT00796653|191448741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.7995||95.0|-3.068|2.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.365|-3.068|0.7995
95738193|NCT00796653|191448741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.4336||95.0|-3.818|1.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.639|-3.818|0.4336
95738194|NCT00796653|191448741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.9365||95.0|-2.625|2.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.848|-2.625|0.9365
95738195|NCT00796653|191448742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.333||0.0491||95.0|-5.241|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.010|-5.241|0.0491
95738196|NCT00796653|191448742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.341||0.0636||95.0|-5.119|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|-5.119|0.0636
95937419|NCT02379156|191839007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in microvascular perfusion from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a smaller percent change in microvascular perfusion due impaired vasomotor control which causes a constant state of vasodilation."||||0.066
95937420|NCT02379156|191839008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group differences in the percent change in VO2 from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using independent samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia would have a smaller percent change in VO2 consumption.||||0.127
95738197|NCT00796653|191448742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0194||95.0|-5.806|-0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.511|-5.806|0.0194
95738198|NCT00796653|191448743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 5 mcg minus placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
95738199|NCT00796653|191448743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
95937421|NCT02379156|191839008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Within-group differences in the percent change in VO2 consumption from baseline to after cool ambient exposure were analyzed using a paired samples t-test. We hypothesized that participants with tetraplegia in the No Drug condition would have a greater percent change in VO2 consumption due to impaired vasoconstriction and greater heat loss compared to the With Drug condition, in response to cool ambient exposure."||||0.964
95937422|NCT03328702|191839020|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Repeated measures ANOVA, N=4|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total pharyngeal transit time with the use of CPAP||||<0.05
95937423|NCT00667251|191839044|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|1.648|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (IIT population)||1.648|1.133|0.0010
95937424|NCT00667251|191839044|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.484||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|1.829|||Log Rank|||PFS at the time of Primary Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.829|1.204|0.0002
95937425|NCT00667251|191839045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1466|1.6422|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (IIT population)||1.6422|1.1466|
95937426|NCT00667251|191839045|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2251|1.8288|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|PFS at the time of Final Analysis (Central HER2+ population)||1.8288|1.2251|
95937427|NCT00667251|191839046|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0246|1.8549|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (IIT population)||1.8549|1.0246|
95937428|NCT00667251|191839047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1181|2.2379|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Overall Survival (OS) (Central HER2+ population)||2.2379|1.1181|
95738200|NCT00796653|191448743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect||Form 12 mcg minus placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
95937429|NCT00667251|191839050|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7271|1.6389|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (IIT population)||1.6389|0.7271|
95937430|NCT00667251|191839051|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.6787|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis (Central HER2+ population)||1.6787|0.7144|
95937431|NCT00667251|191839056|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.2586|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (IIT population)||1.2586|0.8090|
95937432|NCT00667251|191839057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7544|1.2148|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Time to Response (TTR) (Central HER2+ population)||1.2148|0.7544|
95937433|NCT00667251|191839058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1479|1.9251|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (IIT population)||1.9251|1.1479|
95937434|NCT00667251|191839059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1767|2.0666|||||Stratified HR for LTax/L versus TTax/T|Duration of Response (DoR) (Central HER2+ population)||2.0666|1.1767|
95937435|NCT02754882|191839072|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.737, 1.357\]|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.269|||||SB8 vs. Avastin|||1.269|0.975|
95937436|NCT02671903|191839093|SUPERIORITY||Fixed Effect for Treatment|0.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in treatment effect taken from mixed-model output||0.73|-0.23|0.3
95937437|NCT05493423|191839117|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the difference between the rates of completed hemodialysis sessions for the test and control groups is less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior success rate). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the rates of successfully completed HD sessions for the test and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior success rate).||||||0.008|||||||Farrington-Manning|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||.008
95988297|NCT02685709|191951149|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|The mean change in IGF-1 from RCT Baseline to the end of the RCT phase was calculated using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) approach.|||
95988298|NCT02685709|191951150|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"Secondary endpoints were analyzed without adjustment for multiplicity or predefined noninferiority margins and therefore were interpreted as exploratory.~This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing."|Estimates were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the mean integrated growth hormone (GH) change from baseline with explanatory factors of treatment group and baseline value.|||
95738201|NCT00796653|191448744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.123|<0.0001
95738202|NCT00796653|191448744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.157|<0.0001
95795834|NCT01140906|191561633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-7.35||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-7.35|-11.55|<0.0001
95937438|NCT05493423|191839117|EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin = 0.08||||||0.002|||||||Equivalence Test with paired data|||||||.002
95937439|NCT05493423|191839118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
95937440|NCT05493423|191839119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95937441|NCT05493423|191839120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
95937442|NCT05493423|191839121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95937443|NCT05493423|191839122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
95937444|NCT05493423|191839123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
95937445|NCT05493423|191839124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
95937446|NCT05493423|191839125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to as 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
95937447|NCT05493423|191839126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95937448|NCT05493423|191839127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The p-value was calculated, but was low enough to be rounded down to 0 by the statistical software.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0
95937449|NCT05493423|191839128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
95937450|NCT05493423|191839129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
95937451|NCT05493423|191839130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
95937452|NCT05493423|191839131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||P \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
95937453|NCT02736409|191839133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.082|||Fisher Exact|||||0.082|-0.452|0.131
95988299|NCT02685709|191951151|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|The week 26 value was used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
95988300|NCT02685709|191951152|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoint is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|The week 26 value is used as the baseline value for the RCT phase. The denominator for the percentage was the number of subjects at each visit.|||
95937454|NCT03498651|191839178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||1.16|1.04|
95937455|NCT03498651|191839178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.20|-0.43|
95738203|NCT00796653|191448744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.199|0.126|<0.0001
95738204|NCT00796653|191448745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
95738205|NCT00796653|191448745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.155|<0.0001
95738206|NCT00796653|191448745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.221|0.148|<0.0001
95738207|NCT00796653|191448746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.108|<0.0001
95738208|NCT00796653|191448746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.138|<0.0001
95738209|NCT00796653|191448746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.208|0.133|<0.0001
95857869|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Global Score||0.19|-0.18|0.9297
95988301|NCT02685709|191951153|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing.|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where any patient who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
95988302|NCT02685709|191951154|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This endpoints is descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing|This sensitivity analysis was using the Full analysis set (FAS), where patient who were biochemically controlled at the RCT Baseline (week 26), and who discontinued treatment early was imputed as non-responder.|||
95738210|NCT00796653|191448747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.080|<0.0001
95738211|NCT00796653|191448747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
95738212|NCT00796653|191448747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.168|0.091|<0.0001
95738213|NCT00796653|191448748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.033|0.0002
95857870|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.23|-0.28|0.8682
95857871|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Physical Capacity||0.53|-0.18|0.3392
95988303|NCT02685709|191951155|OTHER||Proportion of patients|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|72.1|||||Confidence Interval estimated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.||The proportion of patients biochemically controlled at the end of the Run-in phase was defined as IGF-1 \< 1.3 times ULN \[based on the average of week 24 and week 26\])|72.1|56|
95988304|NCT02685709|191951156|OTHER||Proportion of patients|66.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.5|74.1||||||||74.1|58.5|
95988305|NCT02685709|191951157|OTHER||Proportion of patients|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.7|59.1||||||||59.1|38.7|
95988306|NCT02685709|191951161|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The LSM change from baseline estimates are from a mixed model for repeated measures.|||
95988307|NCT02189850|191951168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.923
95988308|NCT03208231|191951192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
95738214|NCT00796653|191448748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.083|<0.0001
95738215|NCT00796653|191448748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0071||95.0|0.013|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.013|0.0071
95937456|NCT03498651|191839179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.57|-0.69|
95937457|NCT03498651|191839179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.26|
95988309|NCT03208231|191951193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95988310|NCT00631748|191951235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|We compared TLFB at baseline and at end of study.||We used a repeated-measures ANCOVA to compare cocaine usage between the two groups. This incorporated the multiple administrations of the Timeline Followback measure.||||<0.25
95988311|NCT00631748|191951236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||End-of-trial abstinence was defined as a negative urine drug screen (for cocaine) for three consecutive weeks at the end of the study.||||.65
95988312|NCT00879229|191951295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.0||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|17.0||This is an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test p-value for testing equality of ambrisentan and placebo distributions.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17|-54|0.696
95988313|NCT04316585|191951305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|8.28|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|Bayesian logistic regression. An informative prior was used for the placebo response in this statistical analysis, the prior for placebo response rate was of the form: 90% weight on Be (5.39, 69) and 10% on Be (1/3,1/3). The prior was derived from historical data from similar clinical trials using meta-analytic predictive prior (MAP) approach. All other parameters took vague priors.||8.28|-9.19|
95738216|NCT00796653|191448749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|0.048|<0.0001
95738217|NCT00796653|191448749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.068|<0.0001
95988314|NCT04316585|191951305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.07|||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model|The model was adjusted for treatment (GSK2982772 vs placebo), baseline PASI score and prior biologic use (yes/no).|Posterior median and 95% CrI for the true difference in proportion of responders (GSK2982772 - placebo).|||8.07|-4.81|
95988315|NCT01394081|191951319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<.0001
95988316|NCT01394081|191951320|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|log rank Mantel Cox χ2 = 25.4||||||<.0001
95988317|NCT03118297|191951352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95738218|NCT00796653|191448749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.106|0.034|0.0001
95857872|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.32|-0.20|0.6545
95988318|NCT03118297|191951353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
95988319|NCT03118297|191951354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95988320|NCT03118297|191951355|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance: p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95988321|NCT03118297|191951356|OTHER|No statistical test performed|||||||||||||||||Significance testing not performed. All values below prespecified limit of 5.0 ng/mL.|||
95738219|NCT00796653|191448750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0017||95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.022|0.0017
95738220|NCT00796653|191448750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.057|<0.0001
95738221|NCT00796653|191448750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
95738222|NCT00796653|191448751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0085||95.0|0.013|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.013|0.0085
95738223|NCT00796653|191448751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.049|<0.0001
95738224|NCT00796653|191448751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0067||95.0|0.014|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.088|0.014|0.0067
95950053|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.088||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.176|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 7: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.176|0.001|0.0479
95988322|NCT03716869|191951384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was conducted using the intent-to-treat principle. Analysis for primary and secondary outcomes that compared universal to targeted screening was conducted using mixed effects logistic regression.||3.10|1.39|<0.001
95988323|NCT03716869|191951385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.93|5.07|<0.001
95988324|NCT03716869|191951387|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.38|2.49|<0.001
95988325|NCT03716869|191951393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|10.58|||Regression, Logistic||Test of interaction terms from mixed-effects logistic regression for subgroup analyses. Information above is sex x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among females. For males, OR 4.05 (95% CI 3.26-5.03).||"Sex x rand group interaction p=0.005 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up.~Females 4.73 (3.19-7.02) Males 2.09 (1.38-3.16)~Sex x rand group interaction p=0.37 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|10.58|6.71|<0.001
95738225|NCT00796653|191448752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.100|0.025|0.0012
95738226|NCT00796653|191448752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.035|0.0002
95738227|NCT00796653|191448752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0117||95.0|0.011|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.086|0.011|0.0117
95738228|NCT00796653|191448753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0014||95.0|0.024|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.024|0.0014
95738229|NCT00796653|191448753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.122|0.047|<0.0001
95738230|NCT00796653|191448753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0035||95.0|0.019|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.094|0.019|0.0035
95857873|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Limited Cognitive Capacity||0.55|-0.18|0.3253
95988326|NCT03716869|191951393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|11.35|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is for race/ethnicity x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms for non-Hispanic white students. For non-Hispanic Black students OR 2.55 (95% CI 1.97-3.31), Hispanic 7.45 (4.98-11.17), other 12.41 (7.34-21.00).||"Race/ethnicity x rand group p=0.007 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. non-Hispanic white 2.24 (1.59-3.15) non-Hispanic Black 4.19 (2.03-8.65) Hispanic 10.15 (4.06-25.36) Other 12.22 (1.59-94.12)~Race/ethnicity x rand group interaction p=0.15 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|11.35|6.58|<0.001
95738231|NCT00796653|191448754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0228||95.0|0.006|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.082|0.006|0.0228
95738232|NCT00796653|191448754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.021|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.021|0.0024
95738233|NCT00796653|191448754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0664||95.0|-0.002|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.074|-0.002|0.0664
95738234|NCT00796653|191448755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.122|<0.0001
95738235|NCT00796653|191448755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.140|<0.0001
95738236|NCT00796653|191448755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.115|<0.0001
95738237|NCT00796653|191448756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.130|<0.0001
95738238|NCT00796653|191448756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.143|<0.0001
95738239|NCT00796653|191448756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.137|<0.0001
95738240|NCT00796653|191448757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.103|<0.0001
95738241|NCT00796653|191448757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.129|<0.0001
95988327|NCT03716869|191951393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.44|||Regression, Logistic||Information above is location x rand group interaction for identification of MDD symptoms among urban students. For rural students and identification of depressive symptoms OR 13.60 (95% CI 7.28-25.42).||"Location x rand group interaction p=0.27 for SAP confirmation of need for follow-up. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05.~Location x rand group interaction p=0.36 for treatment initiation. OR is not reported due to p\>0.05."|6.44|4.65|0.006
95738242|NCT00796653|191448757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.203|0.125|<0.0001
95738243|NCT00796653|191448758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.084|<0.0001
95738244|NCT00796653|191448758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.112|<0.0001
95988328|NCT04302727|191951404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95988329|NCT04302727|191951404|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fully adjusted model||1.93|-1.19|0.64
95738245|NCT00796653|191448758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.183|0.104|<0.0001
95738246|NCT00796653|191448759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.152|0.071|<0.0001
95738247|NCT00796653|191448759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.086|<0.0001
95738248|NCT00796653|191448759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.078|<0.0001
95738249|NCT00796653|191448760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.162|<0.0001
95738250|NCT00796653|191448760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.182|<0.0001
95738251|NCT00796653|191448760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.198|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.334|0.198|<0.0001
95738252|NCT00796653|191448761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.182|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.320|0.182|<0.0001
95738253|NCT00796653|191448761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.180|<0.0001
95738254|NCT00796653|191448761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
95857874|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.25|-0.26|0.9698
95937458|NCT03498651|191839180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.||"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|0.54|0.42|
95738255|NCT00796653|191448762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.159|<0.0001
95937459|NCT03498651|191839180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.39|-0.23|
95738256|NCT00796653|191448762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.317|0.177|<0.0001
95857875|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Cardiac and Renal Dysfunction||0.54|-0.17|0.3065
95857876|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.23|-0.33|0.7147
95950054|NCT02410278|191871992|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.082||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.166|||Repeated measures model|||Change from Day 1 to Week 8: Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight(kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has spatial-exponential variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and the specified time point.||0.166|-0.001|0.0540
95988330|NCT04302727|191951405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
95988331|NCT04302727|191951405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.67
95857877|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Side Effects of Corticosteroids||0.53|-0.25|0.4852
95857878|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.46|0.0888
95857879|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Increased Growth of Gum and Hair||0.03|-0.65|0.0719
95988332|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 4||||0.02
95988333|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 4||||<0.0001
95988334|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 12||||0.82
95988335|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 12||||0.75
95988336|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with diabetes-Month 24||||0.87
95988337|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants without diabetes-Month 24||||0.27
95988338|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 4||||<0.0001
95738257|NCT00796653|191448762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.345|0.205|<0.0001
95738258|NCT00796653|191448763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.270|0.128|<0.0001
95738259|NCT00796653|191448763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.283|0.142|<0.0001
95738260|NCT00796653|191448763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.312|0.170|<0.0001
95738261|NCT00796653|191448764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.290|0.146|<0.0001
95857880|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.33|-0.24|0.7531
95937460|NCT03498651|191839181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.51|-0.60|
95937461|NCT03498651|191839181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.27|-0.23|
95988339|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 12||||0.66
95988340|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Females-Month 24||||0.96
95988341|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 4||||0.0003
95988342|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 12||||0.34
95988343|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Males-Month 24||||0.20
95988344|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 4||||<0.0001
95988345|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 12||||0.83
95988346|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Whites-Month 24||||0.54
95738262|NCT00796653|191448764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.166|<0.0001
95738263|NCT00796653|191448764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.292|0.148|<0.0001
95857881|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Transplantation-Associated Psychological Distress||0.30|-0.49|0.6412
95857882|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.18|-0.20|0.9186
95988347|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 4||||0.008
95988348|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 12||||0.58
95988349|NCT04302727|191951406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||African Americans-Month 24||||0.79
95988350|NCT04302727|191951407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.001
95988351|NCT04302727|191951407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.57
95988352|NCT04302727|191951407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.32
95988353|NCT04302727|191951408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.77
95988354|NCT04302727|191951408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.48
95937462|NCT03498651|191839182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.37|-0.46|
95937463|NCT03498651|191839182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.32|-0.23|
95937464|NCT03498651|191839183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% bootstrap confidence interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of Stage 1 randomization to CBM-I vs. psychoeducation. To correct for sampling bias (i.e., CBM-I, high attrition, coach received coaching, whereas psychoeducation did not receive coaching), CBM-I, high attrition, coach participants were excluded and replaced with an equal number of CBM-I, high attrition, no coach participants (using bootstrap resampling). The corrected ITT analysis sample included 1,234 participants (980 in CBM-I, 254 in psychoeducation)."||-0.27|-0.39|
95937465|NCT03498651|191839183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|We compared the two groups in a piecewise linear multilevel model (one slope during treatment, one during follow-up), controlling for income and age.|From the model (run in Bayesian with non-informative priors), we report the between-group SMD (with empirical SD \& 95% HPD credible interval) at Session 5 (at mean income \& age), adjusted for baseline differences \& using pooled baseline SD.|"Analysis of Stage 2 randomization of CBM-I participants classified as high risk for attrition to supplemental coaching vs. no coaching. The analysis sample included 544 participants (263 in CBM-I, high attrition, no coach; 281 in CBM-I, high attrition, coach)."||0.48|-0.14|
95937466|NCT03138512|191839195|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.6676||95.0|0.75|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.75|0.6676
95937467|NCT03138512|191839195|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.6556||95.0|0.67|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.67|0.6556
95937468|NCT03138512|191839196|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.2436||95.0|0.85|1.85|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part A||1.85|0.85|0.2436
95937469|NCT03138512|191839196|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36||||0.45||95.0|0.61|3.07|||Log Rank|||Treatment Part B||3.07|0.61|0.4500
95937470|NCT03138512|191839198|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67||||||||1.67|0.89|
95937471|NCT03138512|191839199|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||||95.0|0.33|1.68||||||||1.68|0.33|
95937472|NCT05481216|191839255|OTHER|Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) will be calculated using a proportional Cox regression model. The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||||2.29|0.73|
95988355|NCT04302727|191951408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.68
95937473|NCT05481216|191839255|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.29||||||The adjusted variables were body mass index (BMI), dementia, peripheral vascular disease, history of pneumonia, connective tissue disease, liver disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and anti-IL6 inhibitors.||2.29|0.73|
95937474|NCT05481216|191839259|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19.||||0.009
95937475|NCT05481216|191839280|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||0.99|0.74|0.033
95937476|NCT05481216|191839281|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||3.22|1.16|0.012
95937477|NCT05481216|191839282|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||1.02|0.95|0.458
95988356|NCT04302727|191951409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.91
95988357|NCT04302727|191951409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.52
95988358|NCT04302727|191951409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.97
95988359|NCT04302727|191951410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.29
95988360|NCT04302727|191951410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95988361|NCT04302727|191951410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.09
95988362|NCT04302727|191951411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.96
95738264|NCT00796653|191448765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.018|0.0133
95738265|NCT00796653|191448765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.073|<0.0001
95738266|NCT00796653|191448765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0212||95.0|0.012|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.151|0.012|0.0212
95738267|NCT00796653|191448766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0004||95.0|0.057|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.057|0.0004
95738268|NCT00796653|191448766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012||95.0|0.045|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.045|0.0012
95738269|NCT00796653|191448766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0056||95.0|0.029|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.169|0.029|0.0056
95738270|NCT00796653|191448767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0045||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0045
95857883|NCT00658359|191673396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Global Score||0.33|-0.21|0.6629
95857884|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||1.53|-5.22|0.2826
95857885|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||5.09|-2.65|0.5371
95937478|NCT05481216|191839283|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||4.57|1.61|<0.001
95937479|NCT05481216|191839284|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Conditional logistic regression models accounting for case-control matching will be used to identify risk factors for advanced immunodeficiency associated with COVID-19. Odds ratio (OR), and the 95% confidence intervals of the OR will be calculated||2.25|1.34|<0.001
95988363|NCT04302727|191951411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.77
95988364|NCT04302727|191951411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.94
95988365|NCT04302727|191951412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.55
95738271|NCT00796653|191448767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0046||95.0|0.032|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.032|0.0046
95738272|NCT00796653|191448767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0023||95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.181|0.039|0.0023
95738273|NCT00796653|191448768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0077||95.0|0.026|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.169|0.026|0.0077
95738274|NCT00796653|191448768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0009||95.0|0.05|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.050|0.0009
95738275|NCT00796653|191448768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0339||95.0|0.006|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.149|0.006|0.0339
95738276|NCT00796653|191448769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0718||95.0|-0.006|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.006|0.0718
95857886|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||1.02|-1.41|0.7503
95857887|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||2.21|-0.60|0.2610
95988366|NCT04302727|191951412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.83
95988367|NCT04302727|191951412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
95988368|NCT04302727|191951413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.99
95988369|NCT04302727|191951413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.71
95988370|NCT04302727|191951413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.44
95988371|NCT04302727|191951414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.05
95988372|NCT04302727|191951414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.42
95988373|NCT04302727|191951414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.02
95988374|NCT04302727|191951415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
95988375|NCT04302727|191951415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.56
95988376|NCT04302727|191951415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95988377|NCT04302727|191951416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.96
95988378|NCT04302727|191951416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.88
95988379|NCT04302727|191951416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.29
95988380|NCT04302727|191951417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.82
95988381|NCT04302727|191951417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.25
95988382|NCT04302727|191951417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24, comparison performed on log base 2 transformation of fluorescence data.||||0.48
95988383|NCT04302727|191951418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.0007
95988384|NCT04302727|191951418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.51
95988385|NCT04302727|191951418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.91
95988386|NCT04302727|191951419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.83
95988387|NCT04302727|191951419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.68
95988388|NCT04302727|191951419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.64
95988389|NCT04302727|191951420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||<0.0001
95988390|NCT04302727|191951420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.0001
95988391|NCT04302727|191951420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
95988392|NCT04302727|191951421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Month 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95988393|NCT04302727|191951421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 12||||0.40
95988394|NCT04302727|191951421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Month 24||||0.82
95988395|NCT04302727|191951422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.44
95988396|NCT04302727|191951422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
95988397|NCT04302727|191951422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.28
95988398|NCT04302727|191951423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.32
95988399|NCT04302727|191951423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.03
95988400|NCT04302727|191951423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.005
95988401|NCT04302727|191951424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
95857888|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.82|-1.04|0.3656
95988402|NCT04302727|191951424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.16
95988403|NCT04302727|191951424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.27
95988404|NCT04302727|191951425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.10
95988405|NCT04302727|191951425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.01
95988406|NCT04302727|191951425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.06
95988407|NCT04302727|191951426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.41
95988408|NCT04302727|191951426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.24
95988409|NCT04302727|191951426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.74
95988410|NCT04302727|191951427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.13
95988411|NCT04302727|191951427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||0.10
95988412|NCT04302727|191951427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||0.12
95988413|NCT04302727|191951428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 4||||0.002
95988414|NCT04302727|191951428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 12||||<0.001
95988415|NCT04302727|191951428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 24||||<0.001
95988416|NCT01046825|191951436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5550
95988417|NCT01046825|191951437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3605|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3605
95988418|NCT01046825|191951438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6181
95988419|NCT03975647|191951484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.95|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.950|0.607|0.0163
95988420|NCT03975647|191951486|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.891|||Log Rank||HR was calculated from Cox proportional hazards model. (line of treatment for metastatic: first versus \[vs\] other; hormone receptor status: negative vs positive; presence or history of brain metastases: yes vs no; ECOG status: 0,1 at randomization.|||0.891|0.459|0.0078
95988421|NCT03975647|191951487|OTHER|||||||0.2055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2055
95993767|NCT00619957|191963370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.52|-35.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-35.67|-51.52|<0.0001
95738277|NCT00796653|191448769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0863||95.0|-0.009|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.009|0.0863
95738278|NCT00796653|191448769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2982||95.0|-0.034|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.034|0.2982
95738279|NCT00796653|191448770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.019||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0190
95738280|NCT00796653|191448770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0601||95.0|-0.003|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.003|0.0601
95738281|NCT00796653|191448770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2573||95.0|-0.031|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.031|0.2573
95738282|NCT00796653|191448771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.02||95.0|0.014|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.014|0.0200
95738283|NCT00796653|191448771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.047|0.0013
95738284|NCT00796653|191448771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1598||95.0|-0.021|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.126|-0.021|0.1598
95937480|NCT04005716|191839285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test with ECOG performance status, and investigator chosen platinum as stratification factors.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|The null hypothesis stated that the overall survival in Arm A (Tislelizumab + Chemotherapy) is less than or equal to that in Arm B (the placebo group), while the alternative hypothesis posits that the overall survival in Arm A is greater than that in Arm B.||0.93|0.61|0.0040
95937481|NCT04005716|191839286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test p-value, stratified by ECOG performance status (1 vs 0) and type of platinum therapy (carboplatin vs cisplatin).|The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by ECOG performance status and investigator-selected platinum agents, with Arm B as the reference group.|||0.78|0.52|<0.0001
95937482|NCT04005716|191839287|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96|||||Odds ratio was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimates and stratified by ECOG performance (1 vs 0) and platinum (Carboplatin vs Cisplatin)|||1.96|0.90|
95937483|NCT04005716|191839294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.33|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Score||1.330|0.642|
95937484|NCT04005716|191839294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.123|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Coughing Score||1.123|0.473|
95738285|NCT00796653|191448772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0307||95.0|0.008|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.008|0.0307
95738286|NCT00796653|191448772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0073||95.0|0.027|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.027|0.0073
95738287|NCT00796653|191448772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3147||95.0|-0.036|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.036|0.3147
95738288|NCT00796653|191448773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.306|0.160|<0.0001
95738289|NCT00796653|191448773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.156|<0.0001
95738290|NCT00796653|191448773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.321|0.175|<0.0001
95738291|NCT00796653|191448774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.174|<0.0001
95937485|NCT04005716|191839294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.057|||||Hazard ratio was based on unstratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Analyses of Time to Deterioration of EORTC QLQ-LC13 Chest Pain Score||1.057|0.485|
95738292|NCT00796653|191448774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.148|<0.0001
95738293|NCT00796653|191448774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.328|0.180|<0.0001
95738294|NCT00796653|191448775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.141|<0.0001
95738295|NCT00796653|191448775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.300|0.151|<0.0001
95738296|NCT00796653|191448775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
95738297|NCT00796653|191448776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.106|<0.0001
95738298|NCT00796653|191448776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.105|<0.0001
95738299|NCT00796653|191448776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.283|0.132|<0.0001
95738300|NCT00796653|191448777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.111|<0.0001
95857889|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24 Satisfaction Converted Score||1.37|-3.16|0.4405
95937486|NCT03378570|191839299|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.945
95738301|NCT00796653|191448777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.138|<0.0001
95738302|NCT00796653|191448777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.269|0.115|<0.0001
95738303|NCT00796653|191448778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.435||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.004|22.411|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.411|5.004|0.0021
95738304|NCT00796653|191448778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.158|29.584|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||29.584|12.158|<0.0001
95738305|NCT00796653|191448778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.454||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.506|22.991|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||22.991|5.506|0.0014
95738306|NCT00796653|191448778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.463||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|26.16|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||26.160|8.640|0.0001
95738307|NCT00796653|191448778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.153|31.596|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||31.596|14.153|<0.0001
95738308|NCT00796653|191448778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.475||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.032|24.599|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||24.599|7.032|0.0004
95738309|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.084|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.084|-0.391|0.2057
95937487|NCT03378570|191839300|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.828
95937488|NCT03378570|191839301|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||0.252
95937489|NCT03378570|191839302|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||p value for response rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.505
95937490|NCT03378570|191839302|OTHER|||||||0.888||||||p value for remission rate|Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.888
95937491|NCT03378570|191839303|OTHER|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared|p value for response rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.994
95937492|NCT03378570|191839303|OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|p value for remission rates||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.911
95937493|NCT03378570|191839304|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.~A power analysis revealed that a total sample size of 144 would have 80% power when testing for differences between target groups at alpha = 0.05. Accounting for potential attrition, the study conservatively planned to enroll 200 participants, with a planned interim analysis after 100 participants were randomized."||||0.778
95937494|NCT03378570|191839305|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures.||||.951
95937495|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Positive Affect.||||.278
95937496|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, General Life Satisfaction.||||.024
95937497|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Meaning \& Purpose.||||.439
95937498|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Emotional Support.||||.025
95937499|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Instrumental Support.||||.007
95937500|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Friendship.||||.014
95937501|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Loneliness.||||.398
95937502|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Rejection.||||.064
95937503|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Hostility.||||.368
95937504|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Self-Efficacy.||||.504
95937505|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Perceived Stress.||||.371
95937506|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Affect.||||.438
95857890|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||2.25|-5.45|0.4135
95937507|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Fear-Somatic Arousal.||||.096
95937508|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Sadness.||||.132
95937509|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Affect.||||.951
95937510|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Hostility.||||.852
95738310|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|-0.028|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.028|-0.504|0.0284
95738311|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.017|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.017|-0.461|0.0685
95738312|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||0.020|-0.576|0.0674
95738313|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0163||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.662|-0.067|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.067|-0.662|0.0163
95738314|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.020|-0.620|0.0364
95738315|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|0.075|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.075|-0.922|0.0959
95738316|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.115|-0.117|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.117|-1.115|0.0155
95795835|NCT01140906|191561634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.47||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.47|1.76|<0.0001
95795836|NCT01140906|191561634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.36||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||5.36|2.10|<0.0001
95795837|NCT01140906|191561634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|9.78||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|||||9.78|3.61|<0.0001
95937511|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Anger-Physical Aggression.||||.083
95937512|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Negative Affect.||||.391
95937513|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Social Satisfaction.||||.014
95738317|NCT00796653|191448779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|-0.039|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.039|-1.042|0.0347
95738318|NCT00796653|191448780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0164||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0164
95738319|NCT00796653|191448780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0196||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0196
95738320|NCT00796653|191448780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0041||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0041
95738321|NCT00796653|191448781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0388||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0388
95738322|NCT00796653|191448781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0038
95738323|NCT00796653|191448781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0053||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0053
95795838|NCT01140906|191561635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.44||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.44|-0.94|<0.0001
95937514|NCT03378570|191839306|OTHER|comparative effectiveness trial||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis of this study was that there would be no differences between targets across all measures. Results below are for the subscale, Psychological Well Being.||||.109
95738324|NCT00796653|191448782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0555||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0555
95738325|NCT00796653|191448782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0122
95738326|NCT00796653|191448782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0144||95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.4|0.0144
95738327|NCT00796653|191448783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5707||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.5707
95738328|NCT00796653|191448783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0814||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0814
95795839|NCT01140906|191561635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.70|-1.20|<0.0001
95795840|NCT01140906|191561635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.87||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-0.87|-1.36|<0.0001
95937515|NCT03378570|191839307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.875 Week 1 p = 0.084 Week 2 p = 0.277 Week 3 p = 0.686 Week 4 p = 0.369 Week 5 p = 0.806"||||||0.231
95937516|NCT03378570|191839308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Week 6-7 Follow-up p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~Evaluation p = 0.570 Week 2-3 Follow-up p = 0.063 Week 4-5 Follow-up p = 0.792"||||||0.963
95937517|NCT03378570|191839309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Week 6 timepoint p-value listed above|Mixed Models Analysis|"Other timepoint p-values below:~First Visit p = 0.772 Week 1 p = 0.194 Week 2 p = 0.127 Week 3 p = 0.196 Week 4 p = 0.079 Week 5 p = 0.187"||||||0.051
95857891|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Pain Intensity Total Converted Score||6.37|-4.45|0.7272
95937518|NCT04610892|191839311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-8.3797||||0.065||90.0|-17.498|0.7387||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||0.7387|-17.4980|0.065
95738329|NCT00796653|191448783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7413||95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.2|-0.2|0.7413
95937519|NCT04610892|191839311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|2.3915||||0.747||90.0|-3.5338|8.3167||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||8.3167|-3.5338|0.747
95937520|NCT04610892|191839311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.5766||||0.563||90.0|-5.4389|6.5921||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.5921|-5.4389|0.563
95937521|NCT04610892|191839311|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.5204||||0.685||90.0|-3.6657|6.7064||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|The treatment as a fixed effects and the baseline value and the geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening as covariates.||||6.7064|-3.6657|0.685
95937522|NCT04610892|191839312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.12||||0.854||90.0|0.94|1.33||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.33|0.94|0.854
95738330|NCT00796653|191448784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.1524||95.0|-0.162|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.036|-0.162|0.1524
95738331|NCT00796653|191448784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.0211||95.0|0.106|1.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.307|0.106|0.0211
95857892|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain symptoms Converted Score||1.22|-1.56|0.8111
95738332|NCT00796653|191448784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.1314||95.0|-0.139|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.139|0.1314
95738333|NCT00796653|191448785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.0319||95.0|0.057|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.267|0.057|0.0319
95857893|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Non-Pain Symptoms Converted Score||3.13|-0.86|0.2636
95857894|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.67|-1.77|0.6890
95738334|NCT00796653|191448785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0312||95.0|0.06|1.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.274|0.060|0.0312
95738335|NCT00796653|191448785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1777||95.0|-0.191|1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.029|-0.191|0.1777
95738336|NCT00796653|191448786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.1714||95.0|-0.184|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.035|-0.184|0.1714
95738337|NCT00796653|191448786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.1142||95.0|-0.119|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.103|-0.119|0.1142
95738338|NCT00796653|191448786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0888||95.0|-0.081|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.150|-0.081|0.0888
95795841|NCT01140906|191561636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.22||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.22|-8.25|0.0007
95795842|NCT01140906|191561636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-3.31||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-3.31|-9.53|<0.0001
95937523|NCT04610892|191839312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.06||||0.79||90.0|0.94|1.18||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.18|0.94|0.790
95937524|NCT04610892|191839312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.0||||0.498||90.0|0.89|1.12||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.12|0.89|0.498
95937525|NCT04610892|191839312|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio estimate|1.03||||0.678||90.0|0.93|1.13||One sided p-value|Mixed model with repeated measurements|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and the stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.13|0.93|0.678
95937526|NCT04610892|191839313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.44||||0.99||90.0|-2.44|-0.43||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.43|-2.44|0.990
95937527|NCT04610892|191839313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.21||||0.697||90.0|-0.87|0.45||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.45|-0.87|0.697
95937528|NCT04610892|191839313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.42||||0.849||90.0|-1.08|0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.25|-1.08|0.849
95937529|NCT04610892|191839313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.811||90.0|-0.89|0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.27|-0.89|0.811
95937530|NCT04610892|191839314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-3.5||||0.972||90.0|-6.49|-0.5||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.50|-6.49|0.972
95937531|NCT04610892|191839314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.777||90.0|-3.49|1.3||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.30|-3.49|0.777
95937532|NCT04610892|191839314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.596||90.0|-2.54|1.89||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.89|-2.54|0.596
95738339|NCT00796653|191448787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.1235||95.0|-0.134|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.113|-0.134|0.1235
95738340|NCT00796653|191448787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.2666||95.0|-0.271|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.978|-0.271|0.2666
95738341|NCT00796653|191448787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.3335||95.0|-0.317|0.934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.934|-0.317|0.3335
95738342|NCT00796653|191448788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3287||95.0|-0.315|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.941|-0.315|0.3287
95937533|NCT04610892|191839314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.698||90.0|-2.64|1.38||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||1.38|-2.64|0.698
95937534|NCT04610892|191839315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.29||||0.981||90.0|-2.32|-0.27||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.27|-2.32|0.981
95937535|NCT04610892|191839315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.974||90.0|-1.47|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-1.47|0.974
95937536|NCT04610892|191839315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.86||||0.983||90.0|-1.53|-0.2||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.20|-1.53|0.983
95937537|NCT04610892|191839315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.83||||0.99||90.0|-1.42|-0.25||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.25|-1.42|0.990
95937538|NCT04610892|191839316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.14||||0.959||90.0|-4.16|-0.12||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.12|-4.16|0.959
95937539|NCT04610892|191839316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-2.92||||0.998||90.0|-4.53|-1.31||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-1.31|-4.53|0.998
95937540|NCT04610892|191839316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.35||||0.939||90.0|-2.79|0.09||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||0.09|-2.79|0.939
95937541|NCT04610892|191839316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.94||||0.991||90.0|-3.27|-0.62||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||-0.62|-3.27|0.991
95937542|NCT04610892|191839317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-16.137||||0.077||90.0|-34.7829|2.5089||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.5089|-34.7829|0.077
95738343|NCT00796653|191448788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1341||95.0|-0.148|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.109|-0.148|0.1341
95795843|NCT01140906|191561636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-5.69||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-5.69|-11.73|<0.0001
95795844|NCT01140906|191561637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.91||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||3.91|1.37|0.0016
95937543|NCT04610892|191839317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.5927||||0.468||90.0|-12.7267|11.5413||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||11.5413|-12.7267|0.468
95937544|NCT04610892|191839317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.1767||||0.491||90.0|-12.4678|12.1144||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||12.1144|-12.4678|0.491
95937545|NCT04610892|191839317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.393||||0.476||90.0|-11.0022|10.2162||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||10.2162|-11.0022|0.476
95937546|NCT04610892|191839318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-4.3435||||0.136||90.0|-10.8637|2.1768||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.1768|-10.8637|0.136
95937547|NCT04610892|191839318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-1.2369||||0.316||90.0|-5.4796|3.0059||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.0059|-5.4796|0.316
95937548|NCT04610892|191839318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.7015||||0.394||90.0|-5.0096|3.6065||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||3.6065|-5.0096|0.394
95937549|NCT04610892|191839318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean difference|-0.9799||||0.332||90.0|-4.6927|2.7329||One sided p-value|ANCOVA|The model was adjusted for the baseline value and stratification factors (geographic region and statin therapy intensity at screening).||||2.7329|-4.6927|0.332
95937550|NCT01999075|191839327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|ANCOVA||"The mean difference between the intervention and the control group in the change from baseline to 2 years was estimated.~Estimates presented here are based on multiple imputation of missing values."|||10.7|-6.9|0.68
95937551|NCT01999075|191839331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.18||||||Difference in change in peak cough flow (L/min) from baseline to 2 years, between conventional treatment and intervention group.||2.18|-1.92|
95937552|NCT01999075|191839332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95738344|NCT00796653|191448788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.722||95.0|-0.516|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.745|-0.516|0.7220
95937553|NCT01999075|191839333|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
95937554|NCT01999075|191839334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95937555|NCT05081583|191839337|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.96||||||The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.||0.96|0.82|
95937556|NCT05081583|191839338|OTHER|The predefined no effect range was 0.80-1.25; that is, if the geometric mean ratio lay outside this range, a pharmacokinetic interaction was evident.|Cmax ratio (geometric mean)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01||||||||1.01|0.85|
95937557|NCT05081583|191839339|OTHER||Half-life ratio (geometric mean)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||||1.07|0.93|
95937558|NCT05081583|191839340|OTHER||Renal clearance ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.12||||||||1.12|0.84|
95937559|NCT05081583|191839341|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.15||||||||1.15|0.81|
95937560|NCT04760678|191839391|OTHER|Fisher's exact test||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
95937561|NCT01748448|191839406|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.79|= 0.324
95937562|NCT03001414|191839421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.69||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|47.48|||ANOVA|Global test of difference between the arms analyzed as absolute change from baseline.||Due to sample size restriction, the primary analysis plan was modified to analyze change from baseline to each time point using repeated measures of ANOVA.||47.48|-20.08|0.42
95937563|NCT03001414|191839421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculation of raw change from baseline in meters using non-parametric Wilcoxon test.||||0.57
95937564|NCT03001414|191839421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Secondary analysis of primary outcome using non-parametric Wilcoxon test of percent change from baseline.||||||0.53
95937565|NCT03001414|191839422|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline calculated in meters using non-parametric analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of these arms is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.10
95937566|NCT03001414|191839423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The selected arm for this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.50
95937567|NCT03001414|191839424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change from baseline in meters at 6 and 12 months.||Selection of the arm for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.88
95937568|NCT03001414|191839425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.81
95937569|NCT03001414|191839426|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.63
95937570|NCT03001414|191839427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95937571|NCT03001414|191839428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis represents the results for the Physical Component score of the questionnaire.||Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.0
95937572|NCT03001414|191839428|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.64
95937573|NCT03001414|191839429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This analysis represents the difference in score for the physical component of the questionnaire.|Selection of the arms for analysis of this outcome measure is in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||0.40
95937574|NCT03001414|191839429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||This analysis represents the change in score for the mental component of the questionnaire.|||0.23
95937575|NCT05071807|191839451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.33|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and BMI (kg/m2)||To detect a 1.2 percentage point (standard deviation 2.4; effect size 0.5) between-group difference in the change in FMD with 80% power (α=0.05), it was estimated that a sample size of 128 participants was needed (64 per group)||1.33|-1.17|
95795845|NCT01140906|191561637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.44||Wald's test. Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|Adjusted Odds Ratio||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||4.44|1.58|0.0002
95795846|NCT01140906|191561637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.37||Wald's test. This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusted for Odds Ratio|||||8.37|2.99|<0.0001
95937576|NCT05071807|191839452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.1|-12.3|
95937577|NCT05071807|191839453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||2.9|-0.8|
95937578|NCT05071807|191839454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-2.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-2.9|-30.0|
95937579|NCT05071807|191839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-6.93|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Total LDL particle mean difference||-6.93|-144|
95937580|NCT05071807|191839455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|13.4|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||For Large LDL particle subclass||13.4|-69.3|
95738345|NCT00796653|191448789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.2176||95.0|-0.234|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.027|-0.234|0.2176
95738346|NCT00796653|191448789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.0258||95.0|0.087|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.348|0.087|0.0258
95738347|NCT00796653|191448789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6044||95.0|-0.466|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.800|-0.466|0.6044
95738348|NCT00796653|191448790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1946||95.0|0.58|1.111|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.111|0.580|0.1946
95738349|NCT00796653|191448790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071||95.0|0.634|1.198|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.198|0.634|0.4071
95738350|NCT00796653|191448790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6404||95.0|0.67|1.267|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.267|0.670|0.6404
95738351|NCT00796653|191448791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2942||95.0|0.336|1.399|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.399|0.336|0.2942
95738352|NCT00796653|191448791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.8594||95.0|0.493|1.82|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.820|0.493|0.8594
95738353|NCT00796653|191448791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5466||95.0|0.405|1.593|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.593|0.405|0.5466
95738354|NCT00796653|191448792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2494||95.0|0.566|1.15|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.150|0.566|0.2494
95738355|NCT00796653|191448792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2006||95.0|0.555|1.126|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.126|0.555|0.2006
95738356|NCT00796653|191448792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795||95.0|0.637|1.279|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.279|0.637|0.5795
95738357|NCT00796653|191448793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1342||0.1571||95.0|0.5613|1.0979|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0979|0.5613|0.1571
95738358|NCT00796653|191448793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1451||0.3814||95.0|0.6205|1.2005|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2005|0.6205|0.3814
95795847|NCT01140906|191561638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.97||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.97|-5.51|0.0054
95857895|NCT00658359|191673397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36 Satisfaction Converted Score||2.05|-4.31|0.4853
95738359|NCT00796653|191448793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1748||0.7098||95.0|0.7699|1.468|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.4680|0.7699|0.7098
95738360|NCT00796653|191448794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2952||0.5326||95.0|0.3814|1.6464|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6464|0.3814|0.5326
95738361|NCT00796653|191448794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9824||95.0|0.5038|2.016|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0160|0.5038|0.9824
95738362|NCT00796653|191448794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||0.9112||95.0|0.5194|2.0832|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.0832|0.5194|0.9112
95738363|NCT00796653|191448795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1389||0.1136||95.0|0.5158|1.0733|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.0733|0.5158|0.1136
95738364|NCT00796653|191448795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1449||0.1887||95.0|0.5456|1.1271|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1271|0.5456|0.1887
95937581|NCT05071807|191839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.75|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||Results for total HDL particle count||0.75|-0.56|
95937582|NCT05071807|191839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.8||||Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Small HDL particles||0.80|-0.75|
95937583|NCT05071807|191839456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and BMI||Results for Medium HDL||0.19|-0.85|
95937584|NCT05071807|191839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.13|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results from brachial systolic blood pressure are reported below||3.13|-3.09|
95937585|NCT05071807|191839457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for Brachial Diastolic Blood pressure||2.07|-1.67|
95937586|NCT05071807|191839458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central systolic blood pressure||2.28|-3.24|
95937587|NCT05071807|191839458|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, BMI||Results for central diastolic blood pressure||2.10|-1.69|
95937588|NCT05071807|191839459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.24|||Regression, Linear|were adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.24|-0.26|
95937589|NCT05071807|191839460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.95|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||0.95|-4.25|
95937590|NCT05071807|191839461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.0|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||3.0|-0.6|
95937591|NCT05071807|191839462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||1.6|-2.3|
95937592|NCT05071807|191839463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.1|0.0|
95857896|NCT03486834|191673434|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% confidence interval (CI).|Incidence Rate Estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.9||||||||4.9|1.6|
95937593|NCT05071807|191839464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.7||When a significant group by time point interaction was detected, post hoc testing was conducted and the Tukey-Kramer method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||13.7|5.0|
95937594|NCT05071807|191839465|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||||-1.7|-14.5|
95937595|NCT05071807|191839466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|47.5|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Results for medium subclass; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||47.5|-98.6|
95937596|NCT05071807|191839466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|95.5|||Regression, Linear|adjustment for the baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2)||Results for Small LDL particles; Measure Description: LDL particle size classifications are as follows: 22-25.5 nm is small, 25.6-26.5 nm medium, and 26.6-28.5 nm large. Typically, smaller LDL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to larger.||95.5|-91.8|
95937597|NCT05071807|191839467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for outcome baseline value, age (years), sex (male or female) and baseline BMI (kg/m2).||||0.63|0.07|
95937598|NCT04072380|191839486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.024
95937599|NCT04072380|191839487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.009
95937600|NCT04072380|191839488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||||0.734
95937601|NCT04072380|191839489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95937602|NCT04072380|191839490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95937603|NCT01552473|191839497|OTHER|This is a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging analysis. We aimed to determine whether functional brain network connectivity was equivalent between the two intervention arms prior to the interventions beginning. This was computed in significant numbers of connections between the two groups.|pNBS|0.0001||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a p-value that is used in Network Based Statistics analysis for resting-state functional brain network data.|Network Based Statistics analysis|This is a type of statistical analysis used to test for group differences among functional connectivity levels between two or more groups.|This analysis evaluated monotonic changes from time point 1 (pre-intervention) to time points 2 (immediate post-intervention) and 3 (12 weeks post-intervention) that may have occurred between the SMART and BHW groups.|A network-based statistics analysis was carried out to determine brain connectivity differences observed at time points two (initial post-intervention testing phase) and three (the final post-intervention phase) occurring three months post-intervention.||||0.01
95857897|NCT03486834|191673434|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
95937604|NCT05026320|191839531|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy hypothesis to be tested was the equality of tenderness (algometry) over the initial 72 hours (algometry AUC 0-72).||||||0.0221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0221
95738365|NCT00796653|191448795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.9761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1747||0.8925||95.0|0.6869|1.387|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.3870|0.6869|0.8925
95937605|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.72|121.74||||||"Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV.~Cmax"||121.74|91.72|
95937606|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric least square mean|91.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.16|97.31||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||97.31|86.16|
95937607|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|92.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.97|111.73||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||111.73|75.97|
95937608|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|please note that GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|93.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.72|104.63||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - Cmax||104.63|83.72|
95937609|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.38|134.47||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||134.47|114.38|
95937610|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.78|131.69||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Max||131.69|104.78|
95937611|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|139.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.71|150.67||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||150.67|128.71|
95937612|NCT05492318|191839632|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of geometric LS means|141.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.36|163.88||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - Cmax||163.88|122.36|
95937613|NCT05492318|191839633|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.77|89.33||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||89.33|60.77|
95937614|NCT05492318|191839633|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.94|85.5||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||85.50|57.94|
95937615|NCT05492318|191839633|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|65.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|79.98||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - Cmax||79.98|53.33|
95937616|NCT05492318|191839633|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|62.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.86|75.95||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. Cmax||75.95|50.86|
95937617|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the geometric LS means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.49|103.35|
95937618|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|106.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.84|111.8||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||111.80|100.84|
95937619|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|121.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.56|126.12||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||126.12|117.56|
95857898|NCT03486834|191673434|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|71.1||||||||71.1|-13.5|
95738366|NCT00796653|191448798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
95738367|NCT00796653|191448798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.967|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
95738368|NCT00796653|191448798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
95738369|NCT00836004|191448837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.69||||||90.0|93.88|105.85|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.85|93.88|
95738370|NCT00836004|191448838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.62|102.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.19|90.62|
95795848|NCT01140906|191561638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|-1.73||Since p-value \<0.025, hierarchically testing continued.|MMRM||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.73|-6.11|0.0005
95937620|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|122.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.08|131.41||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-t||131.41|115.08|
95738371|NCT00836004|191448839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.17||||||90.0|92.14|102.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.48|92.14|
95738372|NCT00804856|191448856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|8.58|||Regression, Logistic||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|Analysis for Objective Response||8.58|0.99|0.0523
95795849|NCT01140906|191561638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-4.7||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM|||||-4.70|-9.16|<0.0001
95795850|NCT01140906|191561639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.48||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.48|-1.83|0.2524
95795851|NCT01140906|191561639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.68||A nominal p-value is provided.|MMRM||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.68|-1.64|0.4186
95795852|NCT01140906|191561640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.67||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|-0.95|0.7372
95795853|NCT01140906|191561640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.37||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.37|-0.24|0.1690
95937621|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|137.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.09|147.43||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||147.43|128.09|
95738373|NCT00804856|191448860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||0.92|0.35|0.0208
95738374|NCT00804856|191448861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Log Rank||Ratio calculated as Phase II Schedule A Volasertib 350mg+LDAC divided by Phase II Schedule C LDAC.|An exploratory (non-stratified) logrank test was used to compare the different treatment arms.||1.00|0.40|0.0465
95738375|NCT00834132|191448881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.81||||||90.0|84.77|106.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.04|84.77|
95795854|NCT02469233|191561641|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-3.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.025
95795855|NCT02469233|191561641|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.52||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.28
95795856|NCT02469233|191561642|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.001
95857899|NCT03486834|191673435|OTHER||Difference in Percent|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|63.5||||||||63.5|55.8|
95988422|NCT04868903|191951497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Prespecified primary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose||Pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Prespecified covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.06|0.51|0.10
95988423|NCT04868903|191951497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||Moderate versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|0.98|0.39|0.042
95993768|NCT00619957|191963371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|-31.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-31.43|-58.01|<0.0001
95738376|NCT00834132|191448882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.89||||||90.0|96.0|106.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.03|96.00|
95937622|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|131.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.47|140.59||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-t||140.59|122.47|
95738377|NCT00834132|191448883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.14||||||90.0|96.05|106.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.49|96.05|
95738378|NCT02115347|191448911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.01|112.08|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.08|68.01|
95738379|NCT02115347|191448912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|112.22|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||112.22|68.11|
95738380|NCT02115347|191448913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.4|126.79|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.79|72.40|
95795857|NCT02469233|191561642|SUPERIORITY||maximum likelihood estimation|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.03
95738381|NCT02115347|191448914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|126.97|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||126.97|72.46|
95937623|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|157.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.49|168.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam. - AUC0-t||168.76|147.49|
95738382|NCT02115347|191448915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.74|94.23|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||94.23|65.74|
95738383|NCT02115347|191448916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.49|106.2|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect, ratios (and 90% confidence intervals \[CIs\]) were expressed as percentages, Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test), Normal Hepatic Function (Reference).|||106.20|70.49|
95795858|NCT02469233|191561643|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
95857900|NCT03486834|191673435|OTHER||Difference in Percent|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|61.5||||||||61.5|53.5|
95857901|NCT03486834|191673436|OTHER||Difference in Percent|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1||||||||20.1|11.7|
95738384|NCT00908128|191448918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on lon-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.96||||||90.0|82.4|100.41|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.41|82.40|
95738385|NCT00908128|191448919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.16||||||90.0|96.24|102.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.16|96.24|
95738386|NCT00908128|191448920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.78||||||90.0|95.76|101.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.89|95.76|
95738387|NCT04813354|191448927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.40|0.01|<0.001
95738388|NCT04813354|191448929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||Exact conditional logistic regression||Odds ratio between ELLIPTA DPI and BREEZHALER DPI was calculated using an exact conditional logistic regression model with participant as fixed strata, inhaler and period as fixed effects.|||0.74|0.03|0.005
95738389|NCT04813354|191448938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|33.96|||Paired samples t-test|||||33.96|21.31|<0.001
95738390|NCT00207090|191448996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.106||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of Cmax. The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||1.106|0.751|
95738391|NCT00207090|191448997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Point estimate|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.482|0.664||||||Two-way analyses of variance were performed on log-transformed values of (AUC \[INF\]). The factors in the analyses were participant and day. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale.||0.664|0.482|
95738392|NCT00841698|191449020|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.34||||||90.0|91.67|103.35|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.35|91.67|
95738393|NCT00841698|191449021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.46||||||90.0|90.22|98.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.89|90.22|
95738394|NCT00841698|191449022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.83||||||90.0|89.96|99.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.96|89.96|
95738395|NCT00835692|191449023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Mean x 100|98.4||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|91.5|
95738396|NCT00835692|191449024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.6|97.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.6|89.6|
95738397|NCT00835692|191449025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.5||||||90.0|89.5|97.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.7|89.5|
95738398|NCT01149733|191449026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.32|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.32|91.00|
95738399|NCT01149733|191449027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.72|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||96.10|87.72|
95795859|NCT02469233|191561643|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||<0.0001
95795860|NCT02469233|191561644|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||<0.0001
95795861|NCT02469233|191561644|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.027
95738400|NCT01149733|191449028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Geometric Means|90.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.59|94.89|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.89|86.59|
95738401|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-5.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Fasting Value.||-5.86|-50.40|
95795862|NCT02469233|191561645|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.32
95937624|NCT05492318|191839638|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|158.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.23|172.54||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: - AUC0-t||172.54|145.23|
95937625|NCT05492318|191839639|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.43|83.64||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics - AUC0-t||83.64|58.43|
95937626|NCT05492318|191839639|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.67|86.98||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||86.98|58.67|
95937627|NCT05492318|191839639|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.82|83.15||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||83.15|58.82|
95937628|NCT05492318|191839639|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.92|87.25||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-t||87.25|59.92|
95988424|NCT04868903|191951497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.86|||Regression, Cox|Secondary analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose||High versus low dose|Covariates were male sex, non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity, \>30 minutes sun exposure daily, moderate or severe insomnia, COVID-19 exposure outside work, employment, randomization date, and study site. Most covariates were binary after combining infrequent, ordinal variables. Baseline 25(OH)D level, age, and randomization date were continuous. An indicator was added for randomization after February 28, 2021 because only participants randomized after then could be active in the study when infection risk increased after Omicron arrived in Chicago about December 1, 2021. Due to differences in enrollment timing by study branch and site could affect baseline COVID-19 risk, we stratified Cox regression by study branch and site. This model satisfied proportional hazards.|1.86|0.53|0.99
95988425|NCT04868903|191951497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effect of pooled moderate or high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, pooled moderate versus low dose||1.43|0.27|0.26
95738402|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.68|-6.64|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-4 h) Value.||-6.64|-51.68|
95857902|NCT03486834|191673436|OTHER||Difference in Percent|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|21.6||||||||21.6|13.3|
95937629|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.35|111.49||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV: AUC0-inf||111.49|103.35|
95937630|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|112.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|118.46||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||118.46|106.21|
95937631|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|124.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.44|128.76||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV - AUC0-inf||128.76|119.44|
95795863|NCT02469233|191561645|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.08
95857903|NCT03486834|191673437|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
95857904|NCT03486834|191673437|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
95857905|NCT03486834|191673438|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.5||||||||9.5|4.6|
95988426|NCT04868903|191951497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, moderate versus low dose||1.04|0.13|0.06
95738403|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.25|-10.9|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (4-10 h) Value.||-10.90|-62.25|
95738404|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-18.03|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (10-14 h) Value.||-18.03|-72.80|
95738405|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.84|-7.86|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Maximum (0-24 h) Value.||-7.86|-50.84|
95988427|NCT04868903|191951497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.71|||Regression, Logistic||Multivariable logistic regression with the prespecified covariates and study branch to examine the effects of moderate versus low dose and high versus low dose|Secondary analysis, high versus low dose||6.71|0.41|0.47
95988428|NCT00428974|191951502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||12 weeks, 2mg CF101 vs. Placebo||||0.031
95738406|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-6.49|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-4 h) Weighted Mean||-6.49|-45.80|
95738407|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|-8.58|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (4-10 h) Weighted Mean.||-8.58|-55.41|
95795864|NCT02469233|191561646|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.72
95795865|NCT02469233|191561646|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.08||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.74
95988429|NCT00428974|191951503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95988430|NCT01121393|191951504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
95738408|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.64|-15.29|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (10-14 h) Weighted Mean.||-15.29|-66.64|
95795866|NCT02469233|191561647|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-2.46||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.73
95795867|NCT02469233|191561647|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.02
95988431|NCT01121393|191951504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.389||||||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the 2 treatment arms.||0.389|0.203|
95738409|NCT01929863|191449100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-14.85|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.|Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin versus Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-24 h) Weighted Mean.||-14.85|-54.67|
95738410|NCT01929863|191449101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.125|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for AUC (0-10 h).|||1.125|0.912|
95738411|NCT01929863|191449102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.145|||||The point estimate was calculated as geometric least square mean ratio of Treatment A-GSK2330672 + Metformin and Treatment B-Placebo + Metformin for Cmax.|||1.145|0.937|
95988432|NCT01121393|191951505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.522|12.679|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model, stratified by EGFR mutation category was used to compare the objective response rate between the 2 treatment arms.||12.679|4.522|<0.0001
95988433|NCT01121393|191951506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.039|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||stratified for EGFR mutation group||7.240|2.039|<0.0001
95988434|NCT01121393|191951507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.4013
95738412|NCT00465270|191449128|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.22|0.08
95738413|NCT00465270|191449130|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.999|||Log Rank|||||0.999|0.31|0.046
95738414|NCT03123471|191449180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||39.7|19.5|< 0.0001
95937632|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam IV Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Midazolam of IV Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|134.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.15|142.96||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam IV. AUC0-inf||142.96|126.15|
95937633|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 7) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|138.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.05|149.18||||||Midazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||149.18|129.05|
95937634|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER||GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geom|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.19|144.97||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||144.97|124.19|
95937635|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|162.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.13|175.28||||||Midazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam: AUC0-inf||175.28|151.13|
95937636|NCT05492318|191839640|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 18) and the Geometric LSmeans of Oral Midazolam Alone (Day 2)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|161.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.8|175.82||||||1-Hydroxymidazolam: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Midazolam - AUC0-inf||175.82|147.80|
95937637|NCT05492318|191839641|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|69.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.83|83.2||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.20|58.83|
95937638|NCT05492318|191839641|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 6) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|71.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.08|86.88||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Inhibitory Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||86.88|59.08|
95937639|NCT05492318|191839641|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|70.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.64|83.03||||||Total Dabigatran: Potential Inducing Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate - AUC0-inf||83.03|59.64|
95937640|NCT05492318|191839641|OTHER|GMR corresponds to the ratio of the Geometric LSmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Co-Administered with Givinostat (Day 17) and the Geometric Lsmeans of Dabigatran Etexilate Alone (Day 1)|ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|73.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.79|88.75||||||Free Dabigatran: Potential Induction Effect of Givinostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Dabigatran Etexilate. AUC0-inf||88.75|60.79|
95937641|NCT03811366|191839674|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||significance when p\<0;05|generalized estimated equation|generalized estimated equation with normal distribution and logarithmic link function||||||<0.001
95937642|NCT03811366|191839677|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Recurrence or worsening of cells in anterior chamber in ERG-stable and ERG worsening group.||||0.054
95988435|NCT01121393|191951507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.144||||||A Cox proportional hazard model stratified (by EGFR mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test the effect of afatinib on OS compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||1.144|0.715|
95738415|NCT03123471|191449181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||34.6|11.5|< 0.0001
95738416|NCT03123471|191449182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.5|13.9|< 0.0001
95937643|NCT03811366|191839678|OTHER|||||||0.478||||||17 eyes presented dark dots fluctuation during follow up in stable ERG group when compared to 5 eyes in worsening ERG group.|generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with Poisson distribution and identity link function supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.478
95937644|NCT03811366|191839680|OTHER|9 (52.9%) eyes in ERG stable group x 4 (57.1%)eyes presented change in perivascular leakage during follow up (p=0.936).||||||0.936|||||||Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||Change in perivascular leakage in ERG-stable and ERG- worsening groups.||||0.936
95937645|NCT03811366|191839681|OTHER|||||||0.853||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes;||||||0.853
95937646|NCT03811366|191839682|OTHER|||||||0.272||||||significance when p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.272
95988436|NCT01121393|191951511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.19|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and EGFR mutation group||||-10.19|-17.10|<0.0001
95738417|NCT03123471|191449183|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.2|9.8|<0.0001
95738418|NCT03123471|191449183|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4. The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.4|12.9|<0.0001
95738419|NCT03123471|191449183|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.0|9.1|0.0003
95738420|NCT03123471|191449183|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|20.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||32.4|8.7|0.0007
95738421|NCT03123471|191449184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|24.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 2; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||24.1|5.1|0.0025
95738422|NCT03123471|191449184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 4; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||31.9|10.6|<0.0001
95738423|NCT03123471|191449184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|22.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 8; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||33.9|10.2|0.0003
95738424|NCT03123471|191449184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used CMH; adjusted by stratification factor of baseline ScPGA score moderate (3) or severe (4).||Week 12; The adjusted difference in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights and SE using a normal approximation to the weighted average were calculated.||38.9|15.1|<0.0001
95937647|NCT03811366|191839683|OTHER|||||||0.983||||||significance when p\<0.05|Generalized estimated equation with bino|Generalized estimated equation with binomial distribution and logit link function, supposing an interchangeable correlation matrix between the eyes||||||0.983
95988437|NCT01121393|191951514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0001
95738425|NCT03123471|191449185|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-1.73|||ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification factor (Baseline ScPGA moderate or severe) as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate variable.||||-1.73|-4.17|<0.0001
95738426|NCT01641380|191449189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We also evaluated the difference between the number of days after the scheduled appointment patients returned.||.06|-1.4|<.05
95738427|NCT01641380|191449189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of proportions|0.417||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3307|24.8818|||Chi-squared||Intervention 34/50; Control : 28/50|On time for 1st follow-up visit||24.8818|-13.3307|0.5187
95738428|NCT01641380|191449192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||[Proportion of Eligible Patients Enrolle|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95738429|NCT01521780|191449250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0803|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.1163||||||||0.1163||
95738430|NCT01521780|191449251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Within subject coefficient of variation|0.0555|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.0733||||||||0.0733||
95738431|NCT02832063|191449334|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy power calculations assume a \>25% difference between B244 treatment and placebo and a 15% dropout. Each of the endpoints comprising the co-primary endpoint will be tested at an alpha level of p\<0.05. In order to achieve 90% power with a 5% Type I error rate, a total of 372 participants is required.||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
95738432|NCT04523168|191449372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, 120 days||||0.0137
95738433|NCT04523168|191449374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95738434|NCT03913377|191449375|EQUIVALENCE|A statistically significant difference in NIBUT/NIKBUT between Test lens and Spectacles was concluded if the upper confidence limit of the 95% CI is below zero or the lower limit is above zero.|LS Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The null and alternative hypotheses for testing significant difference between Test lens and Spectacles among habitual lens users with respect to NIBUT/NIKBUT.||-1.44|-4.14|
95738435|NCT03913377|191449376|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|85.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|97.89|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||97.89|43.2|
95988438|NCT01121393|191951514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.692||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.692|0.303|
95738436|NCT03913377|191449376|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test and Control|Mean Proportion|84.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.67|96.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|||Point estimates for Test and Control with 95% confidence intervals||96.75|48.67|
95857906|NCT03486834|191673438|OTHER|The incidence rate per 100 person years (100 x number of CMVi cases/total person-years to CMVi or end of follow-up) is presented along with 95% CI.|Incidence Rate Estimate|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.6||||||||7.6|3.3|
95857907|NCT03486834|191673438|OTHER|The statistical criterion for success requires the lower limit of the 95% CI of vaccine efficacy (VE) to be greater than 0%.|Vaccine Efficacy|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.0|25.0||||||||25.0|-135.0|
95937648|NCT02596126|191839689|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI). If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.6|< 0.025
95937649|NCT02596126|191839689|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
95937650|NCT02596126|191839690|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky-Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high (8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 6 months||1.2|1.06|< 0.005
95937651|NCT02596126|191839691|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - All-cause death||1.25|0.75|< 0.05
95937652|NCT02596126|191839692|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment adherence is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (24 months) using the Morisky- Medication Adherence Scale (8 item) Questionnaire (MMAS-8). The number and percentage of patients with low (0-5), medium (6-7) and high(8) adherence will be reported by treatment group. The distributions of the MMAS-8 score at 6 months and 24 months will be compared between treatment groups using an ordinal logistic regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis title - Treatment adherence at 24 months||1.25|1.1|< 0.005
95937653|NCT02596126|191839693|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 6 months||1.2|-1.8|< 0.05
95937654|NCT02596126|191839694|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 12 months||3|-0.1|< 0.05
95988439|NCT01121393|191951515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||<0.0001
95988440|NCT01121393|191951515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.724||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.724|0.394|
95988441|NCT01121393|191951516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (by the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation category stratification factor used at randomisation) was used to test for the effect of afatinib on HRQOL compared with gemcitabine / cisplatin chemotherapy.||||0.0220
95738437|NCT03913377|191449377|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of test.|Mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimate was calculated for Test.|0.65|0.40|
95738438|NCT03913377|191449377|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44|||Mixed Model Analysis|Kenward and Rogers Metod was used for degrees of freedom|||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|0.44|-0.19|
95738439|NCT03913377|191449378|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Test.|Mean Proportion|30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|73.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Test|||73.8|6.5|
95738440|NCT03913377|191449378|OTHER|Estimated 95% confidence intervals for the point estimates of Control.|Mean Proportion|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|69.8|||Mixed Model Analysis||Point estimates were calculated for Control.|||69.8|6.1|
95738441|NCT00840476|191449433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.26||||||90.0|93.12|107.95|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107.95|93.12|
95738442|NCT00840476|191449434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|105.14||||||90.0|100.27|110.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.25|100.27|
95738443|NCT00840476|191449435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.33||||||90.0|99.16|109.76|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.76|99.16|
95937655|NCT02596126|191839695|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - SBP - 24 months||1.4|-1.7|< 0.05
95937656|NCT02596126|191839696|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 6 months||1|-0.7|< 0.05
95738444|NCT00848536|191449436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
95937657|NCT02596126|191839697|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 12 months||1.6|-0.1|< 0.05
95937658|NCT02596126|191839698|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA (adjusting for baseline levels) at 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The difference in mean change adjusting for baseline and 95% CI will be reported.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - DBP - 24 months||1|-0.9|< 0.05
95937659|NCT02596126|191839699|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 12 months||4.4|-0.2|< 0.05
95937660|NCT02596126|191839700|EQUIVALENCE|The following three CV risk factors, systolic blood pressure(SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are measured at baseline, visit 1 (6 months), visit 2 (12 months) and visit 3 (24 months).For each of the three risk factors the frequency, mean and standard deviation at each visit will be reported by treatment group. The difference in mean change from baseline between groups will be compared using ANCOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis title - LDL cholesterol - 24 months||2.4|-2.5|< 0.05
95988442|NCT01121393|191951516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.956||||||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by EGFR mutation group||0.956|0.511|
95988443|NCT01926782|191951522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.8|-45.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-45.0|-59.8|<0.0001
95988444|NCT01926782|191951522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-48.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-48.1|-62.3|<0.0001
95988445|NCT01926782|191951523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-52.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24||-52.4|-65.0|<0.0001
95857908|NCT00888940|191673439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95857909|NCT04050202|191673489|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.45|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score.|||||<0.01
95738445|NCT00848536|191449437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||00.6|-0.8|
95738446|NCT00848536|191449438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 mmHg.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Treatment group differences were calculated as the mean IOP in the Travoprost APS group minus the mean IOP in the Travatan group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% CL of the between treatment difference in mean IOP was \< 1.5 mmHg.|A hypothesis test was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model. For the test of non-inferiority, a two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the treatment group difference in mean IOP at each visit and time point was constructed based on analysis of variance.||0.5|-0.9|
95738447|NCT01175135|191449439|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.66|1.24||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-5.66|0.2053
95738448|NCT01175135|191449439|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.698||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|2.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.80|-4.14|0.4024
95738449|NCT01175135|191449439|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.68|-3.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS total score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS total score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.80|-12.68|0.0090
95738450|NCT01175135|191449440|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.01|||||The adjusted 80% Confidence Interval (CI) equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.01|-0.07|
95738451|NCT01175135|191449440|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.1|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||0.10|-0.02|
95738452|NCT01175135|191449440|OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.0|||||The adjusted 80% CI equals 88.6% CI, adjusted due to 1 interim look.|||-0.00|-0.08|
95795868|NCT02469233|191561648|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.68||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.03
95988446|NCT01926782|191951523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Alirocumab 300 mg group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.|LS Mean Difference|-65.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.4|-59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 21-24||-59.5|-70.4|< 0.0001
95988447|NCT01926782|191951524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.6|-53.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-53.4|-64.6|<0.0001
95738453|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.5|0.68||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.68|-1.50|0.3144
95738454|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|1.25||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.95|0.5700
95795869|NCT02469233|191561648|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|5.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
95795870|NCT02469233|191561648|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.45||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.43
95738455|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.4|-1.59||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS positive subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS positive subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.59|-4.40|0.0034
95988448|NCT01926782|191951525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-67.7|-56.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-56.2|-67.7|<0.0001
95988449|NCT01926782|191951526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.5|-53.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.0|-64.5|<0.0001
95988450|NCT01926782|191951527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.3|-50.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.3|-62.3|<0.0001
95738456|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|-0.02||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.02|-1.90|0.0942
95738457|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.203|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.56|0.33||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.33|-1.56|0.2030
95988451|NCT01926782|191951528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|-54.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.1|-65.0|<0.0001
95988452|NCT01926782|191951529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.8|-54.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.0|-64.8|<0.0001
95988453|NCT01926782|191951530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.1|-45.8|<0.0001
95988454|NCT01926782|191951531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.2|-43.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-53.2|<0.0001
95988455|NCT01926782|191951532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-39.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.1|-49.9|<0.0001
95988456|NCT01926782|191951533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.0|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-45.6|-55.0|<0.0001
95988457|NCT01926782|191951534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.9|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.2|-49.9|<0.0001
95988458|NCT01926782|191951535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.3|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.8|-55.3|<0.0001
95857910|NCT04050202|191673490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The post-intervention score is subtracted from the baseline score|||||<0.01
95988459|NCT01926782|191951536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.8|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-54.8|<0.0001
95988460|NCT01926782|191951537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.6|-47.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.9|-57.6|<0.0001
95988461|NCT01926782|191951538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.3|-36.6|<0.0001
95988462|NCT01926782|191951539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.9|-31.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.1|-38.9|<0.0001
95988463|NCT01926782|191951540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
95988464|NCT01926782|191951541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-39.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.9|-49.7|<0.0001
95988465|NCT01926782|191951542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-54.5|-44.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.6|-54.5|<0.0001
95988466|NCT01926782|191951543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-42.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.0|-52.2|<0.0001
95988467|NCT01926782|191951544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.4|-32.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.4|-40.4|<0.0001
95988468|NCT01926782|191951545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-36.5|-29.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.1|-36.5|<0.0001
95988469|NCT01926782|191951546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.9|221.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||221.0|20.9|<0.0001
95988470|NCT01926782|191951547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||47.8|13.7|<0.0001
95988471|NCT01926782|191951548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|56.7|1385.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1385.7|56.7|<0.0001
95988472|NCT01926782|191951549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|20.3|83.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model||83.8|20.3|<0.0001
95738458|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.944||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.05||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS negative subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS negative subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.48|0.0907
95738459|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.97||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.97|-2.45|0.2904
95738460|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.82|1.62||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-1.82|0.4710
95795871|NCT02469233|191561648|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.55||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||SE variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.40
95795872|NCT02469233|191561649|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-12.68||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.59
95738461|NCT01175135|191449441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.718||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.86|-1.45||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS general subscale score, investigator site, treatment, visit, a treatment by visit interaction and a baseline PANSS general subscale score by visit interaction and a random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.45|-5.86|0.0172
95738462|NCT01175135|191449442|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-0.33|0.1970
95795873|NCT02469233|191561649|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.22
95988473|NCT01926782|191951550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.5|498.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||498.3|16.5|<0.0001
95988474|NCT01926782|191951551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.4|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||104.4|23.4|<0.0001
95988475|NCT01926782|191951552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|297.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.9|3160.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||3160.6|27.9|<0.0001
95738463|NCT01175135|191449442|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.15|-0.24|0.3835
95738464|NCT01175135|191449442|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.1||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline CGI-S, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, a baseline CGI-S by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.10|-0.61|0.0395
95738465|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.84|0.1999
95738466|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.48|0.76||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.48|0.3399
95738467|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.06|-1.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder positive score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder positive score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.18|-4.06|0.0100
95738468|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|0.23||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.23|-1.77|0.1625
95738469|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.783||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-1.57|0.2354
95738470|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.002||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.08|0.5||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder negative score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder negative score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-2.08|0.2161
95738471|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.23|0.2480
95988476|NCT01926782|191951553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.1|176.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.||176.8|34.1|<0.0001
95738472|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.71||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.71|-0.92|0.4345
95738473|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|-0.44||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Disorganized Thought Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder disorganized thought score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.44|-2.53|0.0346
95738474|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|0.6||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.60|-0.68|0.4685
95795874|NCT02469233|191561649|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|4.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.80
95738475|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.8||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-0.49|0.6214
95738476|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-0.84||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder hostility/excitement score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.84|-2.48|0.0052
95795875|NCT02469233|191561649|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.57||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TST variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.68
95738477|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.79||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-0.55|0.5894
95738478|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|1.15||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-0.20|0.8155
95738479|NCT01175135|191449443|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.677||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.55|-0.81||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety/Depression Score: MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS Marder anxiety/depression score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.81|-2.55|0.0069
95738480|NCT01175135|191449444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.06|0.38||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-1.06|0.2727
95738481|NCT01175135|191449444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|0.69||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.69|-0.76|0.4747
95795876|NCT02469233|191561650|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-76.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.34
95937661|NCT02596126|191839701|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.54|< 0.025
95937662|NCT02596126|191839701|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
95937663|NCT02596126|191839702|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.47|< 0.025
95738482|NCT01175135|191449444|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.07||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PANSS derived BPRS core score by visit interaction, and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.07|-2.93|0.0031
95795877|NCT02469233|191561650|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-87.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.28
95795878|NCT02469233|191561650|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.18
95795879|NCT02469233|191561650|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Waking activity count variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.02
95937664|NCT02596126|191839702|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
95738483|NCT01175135|191449445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.18||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.32|0.3598
95738484|NCT01175135|191449445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.37||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.37|-0.13|0.7275
95738485|NCT01175135|191449445|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|-0.42||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.42|-1.07|0.0019
95738486|NCT01175135|191449446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.5429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.06|1.74||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-2.06|0.5429
95738487|NCT01175135|191449446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|2.16||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-1.68|0.4354
95795880|NCT02469233|191561651|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.19||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.09
95795881|NCT02469233|191561651|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome.||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.79
95795882|NCT02469233|191561652|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcome,||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.46
95795883|NCT02469233|191561652|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.10
95937665|NCT02596126|191839703|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.48|< 0.025
95937666|NCT02596126|191839703|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
95937667|NCT02596126|191839704|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.39|< 0.025
95937668|NCT02596126|191839704|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
95988477|NCT01926782|191951554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-18.3|-37.0|<0.0001
95738488|NCT01175135|191449446|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|4.99||Reported p-value was 1-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model with fixed effect for baseline GAF score, investigator site, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline GAF score by visit interaction and random effect for participant. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.99|0.08|0.0930
95738489|NCT03480763|191449467|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||8.5|0.1|0.043
95738490|NCT03480763|191449467|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|21.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||21.2|6.0|<0.001
95738491|NCT03480763|191449467|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||10.2|-0.5|0.077
95857911|NCT03198507|191673491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Statistical testing was 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95857912|NCT03198507|191673494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95738492|NCT03480763|191449468|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.6||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site redness/erythema||6.6|-5.5|0.855
95738493|NCT03480763|191449468|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|3.5||||0.385||95.0|-4.4|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site tenderness/pain||11.3|-4.4|0.385
95738494|NCT03480763|191449468|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||9.2|-5.1|0.577
95738495|NCT03480763|191449469|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.9|-2.5|0.523
95738496|NCT03480763|191449469|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|9.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||15.6|3.7|0.002
95738497|NCT03480763|191449469|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||6.7|-3.9|0.597
95738498|NCT03480763|191449469|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|6.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||12.1|1.2|0.016
95738499|NCT03480763|191449470|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Joint pain/arthralgia||4.7|-4.4|0.961
95738500|NCT03480763|191449470|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.0||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Tiredness/fatigue||10.8|-2.8|0.252
95738501|NCT03480763|191449470|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Headache||4.8|-5.8|0.852
95738502|NCT03480763|191449470|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|4.9||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Muscle pain/myalgia||11.2|-1.4|0.125
95738503|NCT03480763|191449471|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following V114 or Prevnar 13™||1.2|-1.2|
95738504|NCT03480763|191449472|OTHER|Estimated differences, CIs, and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||Vaccine-related SAEs following PNEUMOVAX™23||1.3|-1.3|
95738505|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.74||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.74|1.10|
95738506|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.29|0.90|
95738507|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.32|0.85|
95738508|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.56||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.56|0.94|
95738509|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.43|0.95|
95738510|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.35|0.93|
95738511|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.25|0.90|
95738512|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.33|0.91|
95738513|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.53|1.05|
95738514|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.34|0.95|
95738515|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.38|0.96|
95738516|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.20|0.89|
95738517|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.61|1.01|
95738518|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.06||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||2.06|1.29|
95738519|NCT03480763|191449473|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||1.17|0.77|
95738520|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.07|0.79|
95857913|NCT03060096|191673577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95988478|NCT01926782|191951555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.5|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-22.7|-35.5|<0.0001
95988479|NCT01926782|191951556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.4|-14.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.5|-32.4|<0.0001
95988480|NCT01926782|191951557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-20.4|-32.8|<0.0001
95988481|NCT01926782|191951558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|12.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||12.6|3.1|0.0003
95988482|NCT01926782|191951559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.4|1.9|0.0004
95738521|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.16|0.87|
95738522|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||1.02|0.74|
95988483|NCT01926782|191951560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.6|11.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||11.1|2.6|0.0004
95988484|NCT01926782|191951561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.8|8.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.7|1.8|0.0007
95738523|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.18|0.84|
95738524|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.96|
95738525|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.40|0.96|
95738526|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.16|0.85|
95738527|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.22|0.89|
95738528|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.39||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.39|0.98|
95738529|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.36|1.00|
95738530|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.29|0.95|
95738531|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.27|0.93|
95738532|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.35|0.96|
95738533|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||1.77|1.16|
95738534|NCT03480763|191449474|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||0.95|0.67|
95738535|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.58||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.58|0.94|
95738536|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.3||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.30|1.56|
95738537|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.97|0.60|
95857914|NCT03060096|191673578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95988485|NCT01926782|191951562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.3|-2.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-2.6|-21.3|0.0042
95988486|NCT01926782|191951563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.5|-8.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-8.6|-21.5|<0.0001
95988487|NCT01926782|191951564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.9|-5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.2|-22.9|0.0004
95988488|NCT01926782|191951565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.3|-6.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-6.9|-20.3|<0.0001
95738538|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.40|0.81|
95738539|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
95738540|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.06||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.06|1.31|
95738541|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.14|0.80|
95738542|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.24|0.83|
95738543|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.37|0.87|
95738544|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.84||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.84|1.20|
95738545|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.55||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.55|1.06|
95738546|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.92|
95738547|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.0||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.00|1.18|
95738548|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|34.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.13|46.5||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||46.50|26.13|
95738549|NCT03480763|191449475|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|9.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|11.2||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||11.20|7.48|
95738550|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.09|0.72|
95738551|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.07||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||2.07|1.46|
95738552|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.99|0.64|
95738553|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.30|0.84|
95738554|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.77||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.77|1.10|
95738555|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.1||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||2.10|1.28|
95738556|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.13|0.74|
95738557|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.41||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.41|0.91|
95738558|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.38|0.87|
95738559|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.92||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.92|1.27|
95738560|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.39||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.39|0.91|
95738561|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.41|0.92|
95738562|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||2.04|1.27|
95738563|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.78|19.86||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||19.86|13.78|
95738564|NCT03480763|191449476|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|12.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.82|15.19||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||15.19|10.82|
95738565|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||1.53|0.92|
95738566|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.9||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.90|1.29|
95738567|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.90|0.57|
95738568|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.33|0.78|
95738569|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.41|0.93|
95738570|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.77||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.77|1.16|
95738571|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.11|0.80|
95738572|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.18|0.81|
95738573|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.36|0.90|
95738574|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.55||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.55|1.05|
95738575|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.31|0.91|
95738576|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.29|0.91|
95738577|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.76|1.06|
95738578|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|17.34||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||17.34|9.44|
95857915|NCT03060096|191673579|OTHER||Rate|0.764|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.6783||||||||||0.6783|
95738579|NCT03480763|191449481|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.84||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||3.84|2.73|
95738580|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||||||Serotype 1 (Shared)||0.92|0.65|
95738581|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.63||||||Serotype 3 (Shared)||1.63|1.24|
95738582|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91||||||Serotype 4 (Shared)||0.91|0.64|
95738583|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||Serotype 5 (Shared)||1.05|0.75|
95795884|NCT02469233|191561653|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.002
95795885|NCT02469233|191561653|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.03
95795886|NCT02469233|191561654|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|24.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.23
95795887|NCT02469233|191561654|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|34.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Means of total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.09
95795888|NCT02469233|191561654|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-19.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.19
95937669|NCT02596126|191839705|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority hypothesis will be tested using a univariable Cox PH regression model including treatment group as the only covariate and stratified by country.~One-sided non-inferiority test on the primary endpoint where the alpha level will be set to 2.5%.~All statistical analyses will use 95% confidence intervals (CI).If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a log-rank test."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.57|< 0.025
95937670|NCT02596126|191839705|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority hypothesis is confirmed, it will be followed with a test of superiority using a logrank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.05
95738584|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.67||||||Serotype 6A (Shared)||1.67|1.12|
95738585|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.81||||||Serotype 6B (Shared)||1.81|1.21|
95738586|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Serotype 7F (Shared)||1.02|0.72|
95738587|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23||||||Serotype 9V (Shared)||1.23|0.88|
95738588|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26||||||Serotype 14 (Shared)||1.26|0.88|
95738589|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.64||||||Serotype 18C (Shared)||1.64|1.17|
95937671|NCT02596126|191839706|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||4.79|1.38|< 0.05
95738590|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||||||Serotype 19A (Shared)||1.33|0.97|
95738591|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||||||Serotype 19F (Shared)||1.32|0.96|
95738592|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.62||||||Serotype 23F (Shared)||1.62|1.12|
95738593|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|7.21||||||Serotype 22F (Unique to V114)||7.21|5.33|
95738594|NCT03480763|191449482|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|5.73||||||Serotype 33F (Unique to V114)||5.73|4.38|
95738595|NCT04493684|191449622|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.462|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.823|3.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.323|1.823|
95738596|NCT04493684|191449622|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.381|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.223|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-24). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.56|1.223|
95857916|NCT02858362|191673598|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 23 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.048||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.048|-0.002|
95738597|NCT04493684|191449623|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.103|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.629|2.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||2.717|1.629|
95738598|NCT04493684|191449623|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter AUC (0-inf). Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.497|1.22|
95738599|NCT04493684|191449624|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|2.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.668|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using fed/ fasted state and tablet/ PiB as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||3.19|1.668|
95738600|NCT04493684|191449624|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|1.372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.582|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model was used to estimate Tablet vs. PiB effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Analysis was performed using the independent variables included a fixed effect for treatment (PiB or Tablet) and period, and participant as a random effect.||1.582|1.19|
95738601|NCT04870606|191449688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0181|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0181
95738602|NCT04870606|191449689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.1223|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1223
95738603|NCT04870606|191449690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.0038|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0038
95738604|NCT01750294|191449691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95795889|NCT02469233|191561654|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-1.76||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Variability of Total sleep time: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up||||0.91
95795890|NCT02469233|191561655|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-39.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.04
95795891|NCT02469233|191561655|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-28.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.13
95795892|NCT02469233|191561655|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-17.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min) : Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.21
95738605|NCT02591420|191449721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test using 10,000 bootstrapped samples.||||.645
95795893|NCT02469233|191561655|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-16.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.25
95795894|NCT02469233|191561656|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.55||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||Bedtime (BT) mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.10
95795895|NCT02469233|191561656|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.04
95795896|NCT02469233|191561656|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.20
95738606|NCT02591420|191449721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.007
95857917|NCT02858362|191673598|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.042||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||0.042|-0.03|
95738607|NCT02591420|191449721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
95738608|NCT02591420|191449722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Log Rank|||||||.347
95738609|NCT02591420|191449723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.369
95738610|NCT02591420|191449724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 7 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 for data from day 7||||.645
95738611|NCT02591420|191449724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 7 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups 1 and 3 for data from day 7||||0.028
95738612|NCT02591420|191449724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 14 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 for data from day 14||||0.798
95738613|NCT02591420|191449724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 14 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 3 for data from day 14||||.505
95738614|NCT02591420|191449724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 168 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 2 at study day 168 (week 24)||||>.999
95857918|NCT02858362|191673599|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.324|-0.898||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||-0.898|-4.324|
95738615|NCT02591420|191449724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497||||||p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrap samples for day 168 data|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of groups 1 and 3 at study day 168||||0.497
95738616|NCT02591420|191449729|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
95738617|NCT02591420|191449729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Barnard's test|||This test compares group 1 to groups 2 and 3 combined (1 vs. 2 \& 3)||||0.390
95738618|NCT02591420|191449730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from baseline to Nadir p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from baseline to Nadir||||0.694
95738619|NCT02591420|191449730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from baseline to Nadir p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from baseline to Nadir||||0.729
95738620|NCT02591420|191449730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Nadir to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Nadir to Day 168||||0.694
95738621|NCT02591420|191449730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Nadir to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Nadir to Day 168||||0.393
95738622|NCT02591420|191449730|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 2 from Baseline to Day 168||||>.999
95738623|NCT02591420|191449730|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||Comparison of change in CD4+ T cells in Groups 1 and 3 from Baseline to Day 168 p-value calculated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples||||>.999
95738624|NCT02591420|191449731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8629||||||Multiple comparisons are not required|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8629
95988489|NCT01926782|191951566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.0|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|3.0|<0.0001
95738625|NCT04970810|191449749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
95738626|NCT04970810|191449749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
95738627|NCT04970810|191449749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
95738628|NCT04970810|191449750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Documented goals at baseline for all three arms.||||0.2
95738629|NCT04970810|191449750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Documented goals after Baseline in all three arms.||||<0.001
95738630|NCT04970810|191449751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Initial goal at baseline.||||0.7
95738631|NCT04970810|191449751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Modified goal after Month 1 call with nurse.||||0.6
95738632|NCT04970810|191449752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Achieved goal at baseline across three arms.||||0.2
95795897|NCT02469233|191561656|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||BT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.07
95738633|NCT04970810|191449752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Achieved goal at 12 months across all three arms.||||0.9
95738634|NCT04970810|191449753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
95738635|NCT04970810|191449753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
95738636|NCT04970810|191449753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
95738637|NCT03317899|191449759|NON_INFERIORITY|Weibull accelerated failure time model; adjusted for disease type and stem cell collection days; non-inferiority declared if 90% CI upper bound for acceleration factor \< 1.133 (≤13.3% increase in discharge readiness time); one-sided α = 0.05; sample size for \~80% power; O'Brien-Fleming futility boundary applied.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95738638|NCT03317899|191449760|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95738639|NCT03317899|191449761|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
95738640|NCT03317899|191449762|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.337
95738641|NCT03317899|191449764|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95738642|NCT03317899|191449765|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
95738643|NCT03317899|191449766|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95738644|NCT03317899|191449767|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.089
95738645|NCT03317899|191449768|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.645
95738646|NCT00772603|191449773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-5.8||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-5.80|-30.40|=0.003
95738647|NCT00772603|191449773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.3|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.2||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(T) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||1.20|-22.30|=0.078
95857919|NCT02858362|191673599|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|3.435||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||3.435|-1.103|
95738648|NCT00772603|191449774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.3||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 31% to 42% between placebo and 2400mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||-6.30|-33.00|=0.003
95738649|NCT00772603|191449774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.3|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7||P values reported are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. To preserve the overall Type I error-rate at 0.050, a step-up Hochberg procedure was used for the pair-wise comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the hypothesis of equal median reduction in PCH(M) from baseline between SPN-804 and placebo. The sample size of 120 patients per treatment arm provides over 95% power to detect a difference of 24% to 32% between placebo and 1200mg SPN-804 at a two-sided 0.025 level for an overall Type I error rate of 0.050.||9.70|-16.20|=0.589
95738650|NCT00772603|191449775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|3.494|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||3.494|1.126|=0.018
95738651|NCT00772603|191449775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.075||95.0|0.95|2.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The treatment response was analyzed using a logistic regression model with treatment group as a factor and country (or cluster), age, sex, and baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as explanatory variables.||2.937|0.950|=0.075
95738652|NCT00772603|191449776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.013
95738653|NCT00772603|191449776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.528||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Treatment Phase were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.528
95738654|NCT00772603|191449777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 2400mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.008
95738655|NCT00772603|191449777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0546||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pairwise comparisons of OXC XR 1200mg/day vs. placebo seizure-free rates during the Maintenance Period were made by means of Fisher's exact test for the ITT population.||||=0.0546
95738656|NCT00834964|191449778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|92.72|101.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.49|92.72|
95738657|NCT00834964|191449779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.7||||||90.0|94.74|104.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.92|94.74|
95988490|NCT01926782|191951567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|5.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.4|-0.1|0.0306
95738658|NCT00834964|191449780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|93.46|104.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.02|93.46|
95738659|NCT00834964|191449781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.29||||||90.0|91.96|100.82|||||Metabolite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria; results are presented for informational purposes only.|||100.82|91.96|
95738660|NCT00834964|191449782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.1||||||90.0|100.08|108.29|||||Metaboite results not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||108.29|100.08|
95738661|NCT00834964|191449783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.52||||||90.0|97.3|103.84|||||Metabolite results were not subjected to bioequivalence criteria, results are presented for informational purposes only.|||103.84|97.30|
95795898|NCT02469233|191561657|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.33||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.39
95795899|NCT02469233|191561657|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT mean: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.96
95738662|NCT04618211|191449854|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-11.97||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-11.97|-21.52|< 0.0001
95738663|NCT04618211|191449854|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-9.81|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.81|-20.22|< 0.0001
95738664|NCT04618211|191449854|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-11.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-11.29|-21.27|< 0.0001
95738665|NCT04618211|191449855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.2||Nominal p-value|Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||7.2|2.01|< 0.0001
95738666|NCT04618211|191449855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.08||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.3|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.3|1.5|0.0021
95937672|NCT02596126|191839707|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||2.35|-12.73|< 0.05
95937673|NCT02596126|191839708|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|8.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.62|5.57|< 0.05
95937674|NCT02596126|191839709|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||5.55|2.04|< 0.05
95937675|NCT02596126|191839710|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|6.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||6.94|3.59|< 0.05
95937676|NCT02596126|191839711|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|13.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||13.46|-4.35|< 0.05
95937677|NCT02596126|191839712|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|8.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.67|5.55|< 0.05
95937678|NCT02596126|191839713|EQUIVALENCE|Mean and standard devation for each score will be reported by treatment group at 6 months and 2 years. Comparison of mean scores between treatment groups at 6 months and 2 years will be made using a two-sample t-test. The difference in mean score and 95% CI will be reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient satisfaction is measured at visit 1 (6 months) and visit 3 (2 years) using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) version 1.4 a 14-item psychometric instrument comprising of four domains: effectiveness (questions 1 to 3), side effects (questions 4 to 8), convenience (questions 9 to 11) and global satisfaction (questions 12 to 14).||8.27|4.93|< 0.05
95988491|NCT02296242|191951595|OTHER||Highest dose (mg) with no DLTs.|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||In Part 1, 2 patients experienced DLTs in the 750 mg b.i.d. treatment group (2/7; 29%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities in the 600 mg b.i.d. group or 300 mg b.i.d. group. Therefore, based on these results, 600 mg b.i.d. was selected as the MTD dose (and RP2D dose) which was used as the treatment dose in Part 2 of the study.||||
95988492|NCT01077973|191951600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.12||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI): based on LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium versus (vs.) placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.00|-3.23|0.299
95738667|NCT04618211|191449855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.19|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.19|2.1|< 0.0001
95738668|NCT04618211|191449856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|9.22||Nominal p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||9.22|2.81|< 0.0001
95738669|NCT04618211|191449856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.27|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||4.27|1.19|0.0127
95738670|NCT04618211|191449856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.38|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||4.38|1.61|0.0001
95738671|NCT04618211|191449857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|8.59||Nominal p-value|Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||8.59|2.41|< 0.0001
95993769|NCT00619957|191963372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.99|-28.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-28.67|-55.99|<0.0001
95738672|NCT04618211|191449857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.38|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||7.38|1.8|0.0003
95738673|NCT04618211|191449857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|6.63|||Marginal Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||6.63|2.26|< 0.0001
95738674|NCT04618211|191449858|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.46|-1.11|< 0.0001
95738675|NCT04618211|191449858|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.26|-0.97|0.0008
95795900|NCT02469233|191561657|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.047
95795901|NCT02469233|191561657|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||WT variability: Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.30
95795902|NCT02469233|191561658|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.66
95795903|NCT02469233|191561658|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-13.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT mean (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.19
95795904|NCT02469233|191561658|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.05||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to post, which is 9-14 weeks after the beginning of treatment.||||0.77
95738676|NCT04618211|191449858|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0291
95738677|NCT04618211|191449859|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|64.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|87.91||Nominal p-value|Mixed model repeated measures|||||87.91|40.35|< 0.0001
95738678|NCT04618211|191449859|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|62.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.71|88.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||88.67|36.71|< 0.0001
95738679|NCT04618211|191449859|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|71.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.09|96.03|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||96.03|46.09|< 0.0001
95738680|NCT03261167|191449889|OTHER||Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|35.0||||||||35.0|1.1|
95738681|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.2|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||49.2|17.0|
95738682|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|38.5|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||38.5|4.9|
95738683|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|35.5|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||35.5|1.3|
95738684|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.1|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||30.1|-4.2|
95795905|NCT02469233|191561658|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||TWT variability (min): Treatment effect on change from pre to 6-month follow-up.||||0.20
95795906|NCT02054156|191561768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||0.83|0.37|0.0043
95795907|NCT02054156|191561769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model||The estimate is adjusted for age strata (\>=6 months - 3 years, \>3 - 6 years, \>6 - 12 years, and \>12 - 18 years).|||1.55|0.64|0.9915
95795908|NCT02054156|191561770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-2.5||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.7|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||8.7|-13.7|0.7531
95795909|NCT02054156|191561770|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|4.4||||0.3593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson.|||12.6|-3.5|0.3593
95857920|NCT02858362|191673600|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 24 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.989|0.315||||||Week 24 Change from Baseline||0.315|-3.989|
95738685|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.8|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||9.8|-20.9|
95738686|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|5.9|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||5.9|-23.0|
95738687|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|3.2|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.2|-27.5|
95738688|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|7.9|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||7.9|-27.2|
95738689|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|4.7|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||4.7|-21.9|
95738690|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|3.4|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||3.4|-24.3|
95937679|NCT02596126|191839714|SUPERIORITY|Time to first event will be investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals will be obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model. P-values will be obtained using the log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis title - Non-cardiovascular death||2.07|0.97|< 0.05
95738691|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.0|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.0|-23.8|
95937680|NCT03964350|191839717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95950055|NCT02410278|191871993|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|0.129||||0.2469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.349|||Repeated measures model|||Results are obtained from a repeated measures model for change from baseline (Day 0) in the GSRS score. The model includes treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, adjusted for age, weight (kg) and baseline GSRS score, and has unstructured variance-covariance structure. The P-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups in the average change from baseline (Day 0) between Day 1 and Day 3.||0.349|-0.092|0.2469
95950056|NCT02410278|191871994|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95738692|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|17.4|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.4|-17.7|
95738693|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|6.5|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||6.5|-26.4|
95738694|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|10.3|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||10.3|-23.6|
95738695|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|15.7|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||15.7|-18.8|
95738696|NCT03261167|191449890|OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|17.9|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.|||17.9|-18.8|
95738697|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||||Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.22|-0.75|
95738698|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||||Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.13|-0.71|
95738699|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04|||||Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.71|
95738700|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||||Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.02|-0.51|
95738701|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||||Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.42|-0.27|
95738702|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||||Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.46|-0.25|
95738703|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||||Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.33|-0.37|
95738704|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||||Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.19|
95738705|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||||Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.43|-0.23|
95738706|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.52|||||Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.52|-0.17|
95738707|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.48|||||Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.48|-0.20|
95950057|NCT02410278|191871995|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||1.0000
95950058|NCT02410278|191871996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2604
95738708|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.34|-0.25|
95738709|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.63|||||Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.63|-0.08|
95738710|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51|||||Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.51|-0.23|
95738711|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||||Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.38|-0.33|
95738712|NCT03261167|191449891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.47|||||Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.47|-0.31|
95738713|NCT03261167|191449892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||||Week 2. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.00|-0.48|
95738714|NCT03261167|191449892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||||Week 4. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.09|-0.42|
95738715|NCT03261167|191449892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||||Week 6. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||0.08|-0.37|
95738716|NCT03261167|191449892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||||Week 12. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.04|-0.52|
95795910|NCT02054156|191561771|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||0.94|0.80|0.0004
95950059|NCT01137682|191872020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||3.32|0.0006
95738717|NCT00466167|191449902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.4|2.4|0.0001
95738718|NCT00466167|191449902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||9.1|4.2|<.0001
95738719|NCT00466167|191449903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||7.9|1.0|0.0122
95738720|NCT00466167|191449903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with factors treatment, pooled country and covariate baseline||10.5|3.7|<.0001
95738721|NCT03364192|191449919|OTHER|Multilevel modeling adapted for multiple-baseline design comparing participant goal attainment before, during, and after peer-delivered Whole Health Coaching.|||||<|0.05|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||<0.05
95738722|NCT03930732|191449954|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and a few secondary endpoint analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.049. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported (till OM 9). The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.049 level.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.324||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|-0.14|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.140|-0.508|0.0005
95795911|NCT02054156|191561771|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the Azithromycin group was 1267.73 and in the Placebo group was 1193.72.||1.78|0.88|0.2098
95950060|NCT01137682|191872020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72||infinity||Regression, Logistic|An exact logistic regression model that adjusts for the randomization stratification factors was used to test the null hypothesis.|||||4.72|<0.0001
95738723|NCT03930732|191449955|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.125||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.125|0.042|<0.0001
95738724|NCT03930732|191449956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.083||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BDFEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.128|0.038|0.0003
95738725|NCT03930732|191449957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.203||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.203|0.045|0.0022
95738726|NCT03930732|191449958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.127||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.212||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-BD FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.212|0.042|0.0034
95738727|NCT03930732|191449959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.363||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.459|-1.266||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.266|-5.459|0.0017
95738728|NCT03930732|191449960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.439||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.89||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.890|1.096|0.0089
95738729|NCT03930732|191449961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|-0.45||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score, and baseline E-RS: COPD RS-Total Score-by-visit interaction as covariates. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.450|-1.823|0.0012
95738730|NCT03930732|191449962|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.418||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|-0.109||Threshold for significance at 0.049 level.|Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method.|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.109|-0.728|0.0052
95738731|NCT04708028|191449971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.379
95738732|NCT04708028|191449971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.646
95738733|NCT04708028|191449971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.219
95795912|NCT04154956|191561772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.512||One-sided significance level was 0.01|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.512|0.864|0.8204
95795913|NCT04154956|191561773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.109||One-sided significance level was 0.00174.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.109|0.644|0.1120
95738734|NCT04708028|191449971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.223
95738735|NCT04708028|191449972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.410
95738736|NCT04708028|191449972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes Post intervention (Dog exposure or no dog exposure)||||0.127
95738737|NCT04708028|191449972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after starting dental procedure||||0.268
95738738|NCT04708028|191449972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 minutes after completion of dental procedure||||0.353
95738739|NCT02699463|191449973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The calculated p-value was \<0.01|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95795914|NCT04154956|191561774|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and its 2-sided CI were provided from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified according to the stratification factors.|||1.42|0.55|0.6972
95950061|NCT02009332|191872035|OTHER||maximum deliverable dose (MDD)|400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum deliverable dose (MDD) was not reached in the Phase 1 study as no DLTs were observed in any of the dose groups up to ABI-009 400 mg/week.|||||
95795915|NCT04154956|191561775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.972||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.972|0.546|0.0157
95795916|NCT04154956|191561776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.763||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||0.763|0.388|0.0002
95857921|NCT02858362|191673600|OTHER|Difference in least square means. All 16 participants in the population were included in the statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|4.324||||||Week 48 Change from Baseline||4.324|0.096|
95738740|NCT01108445|191449974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
95738741|NCT01108445|191449976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The 95% CI for the HC was (4,6). If the median PFS for RAD001 is within the 95% CI for the HC, it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for RAD001 arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
95738742|NCT01108445|191449976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||95% CI for HC was(4,6). If the median PFS for Sunitinib is within the 95% CI for the HC,it is determined that there is not enough statistical evidence to say that the median PFS is different than the HC.|A comparison of the median PFS for Sunitinib arm was compared to the 95% confidence interval(CI) of the median PFS of the historical control (HC). The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the median PFS between the treatment arms and the historical control. If the median PFS is outside the 95%CI for the HC,it is determined there is statistical evidence that median PFS is different from the HC.||||
95738743|NCT01108445|191449978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.589
95738744|NCT01108445|191449979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.066
95738745|NCT02488239|191449991|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||exact binomial rate|||||||<0.001
95738746|NCT02488239|191449992|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95738747|NCT05283148|191450001|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.321||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the lumbar spine. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.321
95738748|NCT05283148|191450002|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.714||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA lumbar spine scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.714
95738749|NCT05283148|191450003|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.09||||||p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the total hip. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
95937681|NCT01426425|191839743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.948|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.83~Ha: PE \> 0.83~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at the 6-month follow-up and 0.83 (83%) is the pre-specified performance goal."||0.948|0.895|<0.0001
95738750|NCT05283148|191450004|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.604||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA total hip scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.604
95738751|NCT05283148|191450005|OTHER|Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used.||||||0.013||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (full range) for each group, measured by DXA at the femoral neck. Distribution was non-normal, so a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (two-sided) was used. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.013
95738752|NCT05283148|191450006|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.166||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median ± full range for each group, derived from DXA femoral neck scans. Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.166
95937682|NCT01426425|191839744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Safety failure probability at 6 months|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.027|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic safety failure probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: Ps ≥ 0.07~Ha: Ps \< 0.07~Where Ps is the probability of a subject experiencing at least one safety event through 6 months with a 0.07 pre-specified performance goal."||0.027|0.004|<0.0001
95738753|NCT05283148|191450007|OTHER|Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances.||||||0.23||||||A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Welch two sample t-test (two sided)|||Comparison between Group A and Group B as defined above. Values are reported as median (interquartile range) for each group, based on the ASCQ-Me Pain Impact instrument (lower scores indicate worse pain impact). Welch two-sample t-test (two-sided) was used to account for unequal variances. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.23
95738754|NCT04414930|191450009|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.28
95738755|NCT04414930|191450010|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.05
95795917|NCT04154956|191561777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.014||P-value is provided for information only, there is no statistical inference based on this P-value.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CIs were computed from a stratified Cox model according to stratification factors as per IRT.|||1.014|0.533|0.0305
95738756|NCT04414930|191450011|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.93||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
95738757|NCT04414930|191450012|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.43||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.43
95738758|NCT04414930|191450013|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.77||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.77
95738759|NCT04414930|191450014|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.5||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.50
95738760|NCT04414930|191450015|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.636||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.636
95738761|NCT04414930|191450016|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.19||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA group x time||||||0.19
95738762|NCT03325881|191450017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that included treatment group, nominal visit, age group, interaction of the treatment group with the visits as factors, baseline ADHD-RS5 total score as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline ADHD-RS-5 Total Score with the visit.||3.1|-6.8|0.451
95738763|NCT03325881|191450018|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Number of participants with SHP465 was compared with placebo using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) that includes treatment group, nominal visit, age group,interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline CGI-S as a covariate and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline CGI-S with the visit.||0.3|-0.5|0.597
95738764|NCT01172145|191450058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.40|-16.86|0.181
95937683|NCT01426425|191839745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chronic effectiveness prob at 6 months|0.973|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.985|||Kaplan-Meier log-log 95% CI||The chronic effectiveness success probability at 6 months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The standard error was approximated using Greenwood's formula. A two-sided 95% log-log confidence interval for the probability was constructed.|"The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 significance level.~Ho: PE ≤ 0.80~Ha: PE \> 0.80~Where PE is the probability of a subject achieving chronic effectiveness success at 6-month follow-up, and 0.80 is the pre-specified performance goal. As pre-defined in the study protocol, this hypothesis is tested if the primary effectiveness objective null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected."||0.985|0.950|<0.0001
95738765|NCT03393208|191450066|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS) Mean%|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|107.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||107.20|92.84|
95738766|NCT03393208|191450066|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.67||||||90.0|91.25|106.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||106.69|91.25|
95738767|NCT03393208|191450067|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.62||||||90.0|92.69|106.77||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||106.77|92.69|
95738768|NCT03393208|191450067|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.5||||||90.0|93.72|109.92||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||109.92|93.72|
95795918|NCT00142415|191561825|OTHER|The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. The occurrence of DLTs was compared across cohorts.|Maximum tolerated dose (mCi/m^2)|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95738769|NCT03393208|191450068|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.25||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||0.25|-0.25|
95738770|NCT03393208|191450068|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Median Difference|0.25||||||90.0|-0.25|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||0.50|-0.25|
95738771|NCT03393208|191450070|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|101.26||||||90.0|94.33|108.69||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fasting state||108.69|94.33|
95738772|NCT03393208|191450070|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.61|105.21||||||Statistical Comparison of Treatment A Versus Treatment B in Fed state||105.21|91.61|
95738773|NCT01848938|191450078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
95937684|NCT03281291|191839752|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|42.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus the Hazard Ratio (HR). HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||42.1|14.7|
95738774|NCT01848938|191450079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Linear Mixed Models analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.005
95738775|NCT01848938|191450080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.023
95738776|NCT01848938|191450082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.001
95738777|NCT01848938|191450083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
95738778|NCT01640197|191450084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95738779|NCT01640197|191450085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95795919|NCT05824026|191561846|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The purpose of the primary analysis was to show non-inferiority to the performance of a historical control (a silver containing gelling fiber) on proportion of wounds healed, 77%, with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 57%. An exact confidence interval for the proportion was applied. In the primary analysis missing data was not included. In the post hoc sensitivity analysis missing data was imputed using multiple imputation for 3 wounds where data was assumed to be missing at random, and otherwise imputed as wound not healed.~The supplemental analysis addressed a more conservative analysis than performed for the historical control. Hence, no formal non-inferiority criteria was applied for this analysis."|||
95738780|NCT01640197|191450086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95738781|NCT01640197|191450087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95738782|NCT01640197|191450088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95738783|NCT01640197|191450089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95738784|NCT01640197|191450090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95738785|NCT00838136|191450091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.23||||||90.0|99.88|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.60|99.88|
95795920|NCT00701363|191561874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||One subject (Group B) had missing IGF-1 value at Week 48. One subject (Group A) had missing IGF-1 value at Baseline.||||0.0013
95795921|NCT00701363|191561874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95937685|NCT03281291|191839752|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|43.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||43.3|16.4|
95795922|NCT00701363|191561874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95795923|NCT00701363|191561875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
95795924|NCT00701363|191561875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95795925|NCT00701363|191561875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937686|NCT03281291|191839752|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||37.6|9.0|
95738786|NCT00838136|191450092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.87||||||90.0|99.18|104.63|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.63|99.18|
95738787|NCT00838136|191450093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.76||||||90.0|98.6|102.97|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.97|98.60|
95937687|NCT03281291|191839752|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|41.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||41.1|13.9|
95738788|NCT00115063|191450094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95738789|NCT00115063|191450095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95738790|NCT00115063|191450096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95738791|NCT00115063|191450096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value for dystolic blood pressure mean.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95738792|NCT00115063|191450097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for LDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95738793|NCT00115063|191450097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for HDL cholesterol|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95738794|NCT00115063|191450097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95738795|NCT00115063|191450097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for uric acid|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95738796|NCT00115063|191450098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95738797|NCT00115063|191450099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95738798|NCT04667338|191450101|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5061|||||||Chi-squared|||Pharmacological||||=0.5061
95738799|NCT04667338|191450101|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2053|||||||Chi-squared|||Non-pharmacological||||=0.2053
95795926|NCT00701363|191561875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0170
95795927|NCT00701363|191561876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in baseline IGF-1 levels between 108 subjects with normalized IGF-1 levels at week 24 (A+B+C) and 14 subjects with uncontrolled IGF-1 levels at week 24.||||0.0103
95795928|NCT04497883|191561933|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|110.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|132.94|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||132.94|91.70|
95795929|NCT04497883|191561934|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|122.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.83|154.95|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||154.95|96.83|
95795930|NCT04497883|191561935|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|125.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|159.64|||ANOVA|||The comparison analysis was planned between Cohort A: Maribavir 400 mg and Cohort B: Maribavir 400 mg group participants only.||159.64|97.99|
95795931|NCT03704064|191562001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
95795932|NCT03704064|191562002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.4|0.89
95795933|NCT03704064|191562003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|1.0|0.06
95795934|NCT03704064|191562004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95795935|NCT03704064|191562005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
95795936|NCT03704064|191562006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|0.6|0.24
95857922|NCT01821118|191673647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.184|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.184|0.820|
95727983|NCT04014959|191425750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -4.47||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
95727984|NCT04014959|191425750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -3.00||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Pre-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
95727985|NCT04014959|191425750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -2.96||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Pre-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.005
95727986|NCT04014959|191425750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(35)= -5.05||Statistical analysis of fMRI-guided TMS evoked subgenual anterior cingulate responses (fMRI BOLD) change at Post-tx/Post-iTBS. Statistics are from one-sample T-tests vs. 0, 2-tailed. Negative t-values represent negative mean fMRI BOLD percent signal change. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.001
95727987|NCT04014959|191425752|OTHER|Statistics are an unadjusted linear regression of change in DASS-21 depression score on the pre-intervention TMS/fMRI evoked brain response.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = -33.60||Analysis to investigate the correlation between changes in DASS-21 Scores (Secondary Outcome) and Evoked Functional Brain Activity (Other Pre-specified Outcome) pre and post the 3-Day TMS Intervention Regimen.||||0.007
95727988|NCT02004847|191425757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment (week 12) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0005
95727989|NCT02004847|191425758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to the end of treatment during the attack period (week 4) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0036
95727990|NCT02004847|191425759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from end of treatment (week 12, visit 7) to end of follow up (week 16, visit 8) of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.3075
95727991|NCT02004847|191425760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 4 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0140
95727992|NCT02004847|191425760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 12 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.0064
95727993|NCT02004847|191425760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistically analysed were the difference in change from baseline to week 16 of the target plaque compared to the control plaque.||||0.1020
95727994|NCT02034799|191425773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumed proportion of success for SOC is 0.95 and the proportion of success for the Bioseal group at which the power is calculated is 0.95. A sample size of 112 subjects per group achieves 80% power to detect the non-inferiority margin difference between the group proportions of -0.10. One-sided significance level of 0.025 was used. Using drop-out rate of 10%, 125 subjects per treatment group were randomized for a total of 250 subjects.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.199||||||H0: Delta \</= -0.1 HA: Delta \> -0.1 Delta is difference in proportion of successes between Bioseal and SOC gropus (Bioseal minus SOC). Success is defined as hemostasis at the TBS at 6 minutes following treatment application||0.199|-0.048|
95727995|NCT05188521|191425780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95727996|NCT05188521|191425781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
95727997|NCT05188521|191425782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95727998|NCT05188521|191425783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.138
95727999|NCT05188521|191425784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95728000|NCT05188521|191425785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
95728001|NCT05188521|191425786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95728002|NCT05188521|191425787|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95728003|NCT02220920|191425788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.33|<0.001
95728004|NCT02220920|191425789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-18.9|||ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-46.3|<0.001
95937688|NCT03281291|191839753|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.8|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||52.8|30.7|
95937689|NCT03281291|191839753|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|49.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||49.2|21.2|
95937690|NCT03281291|191839753|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|53.1|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 19, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||53.1|26.7|
95937691|NCT03281291|191839754|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|41.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||41.5|15.4|
95937692|NCT03281291|191839754|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.2|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||42.2|16.6|
95937693|NCT03281291|191839754|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.4|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||39.4|13.1|
95937694|NCT03281291|191839754|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|38.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the TVC against the first new genotypic infection, between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||38.3|11.9|
95937695|NCT03281291|191839755|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|52.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||52.5|28.6|
95937696|NCT03281291|191839755|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|50.6|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||50.6|26.8|
95937697|NCT03281291|191839755|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|33.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|45.3|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 2.5 and 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||45.3|19.3|
95937698|NCT03281291|191839755|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|51.5|||Regression, Cox||VE = 1 minus HR. HR was defined as the ratio of relative risk of infection in the vaccinated group compared to the control group.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in the ATP cohort against the first new genotypic infection, between months 7.5 and 31, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||51.5|27.2|
95937699|NCT03281291|191839756|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-1.022|||Wald Test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.022|-1.979|
95937700|NCT03281291|191839756|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.061|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.061|-2.027|
95728005|NCT02220920|191425790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-3.09|<0.001
95738800|NCT04667338|191450102|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.4016
95738801|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5274|||||||Chi-squared|||Educational level ongoing or completed level of education||||=0.5274
95937701|NCT03281291|191839756|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.085|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.085|-2.065|
95738802|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7051|||||||Chi-squared|||Occupational status and occupation||||=0.7051
95738803|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3543|||||||Chi-squared|||Civil status||||=0.3543
95738804|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Living conditions||||=0.0368
95795937|NCT03704064|191562007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1|0.6|0.24
95795938|NCT03704064|191562008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.6|0.9|0.07
95795939|NCT03704064|191562009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|0.6|0.21
95937702|NCT03281291|191839756|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|-0.586|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 20 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-0.586|-1.635|
95738805|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3512|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking status||||=0.3512
95738806|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Alcohol intake||||=0.1040
95738807|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0202|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise status||||=0.0202
95738808|NCT04667338|191450105|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3503|||||||Chi-squared|||Family history of narcolepsy||||=0.3503
95795940|NCT03704064|191562010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.62
95937703|NCT03281291|191839757|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|-0.469|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for R012-20 + R012-14-mD Pooled Group vs Control Group.||-0.469|-1.068|
95738809|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0715|||||||Chi-squared|||General practitioner||||=0.0715
95738810|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0929|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurologist||||=0.0929
95738811|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3092|||||||Chi-squared|||Neuropediatrician||||=0.3092
95795941|NCT03704064|191562010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.92
95795942|NCT03704064|191562010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.16
95795943|NCT03704064|191562010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.41
95738812|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4528|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurophysiologist||||=0.4528
95738813|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Pneumologist||||<0.0001
95738814|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1785|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist||||=0.1785
95738815|NCT04667338|191450110|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1474|||||||Chi-squared|||Somnologist-unit||||=0.1474
95738816|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2042|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical history||||=0.2042
95738817|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinical assessment: ESS||||=0.5818
95738818|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0368|||||||Chi-squared|||Neurological assessment||||=0.0368
95738819|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1128|||||||Chi-squared|||MSLT||||=0.1128
95738820|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3396|||||||Chi-squared|||AHI||||=0.3396
95738821|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6794|||||||Chi-squared|||Other procedures||||=0.6794
95738822|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||HLA typing||||=0.0138
95738823|NCT04667338|191450111|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0597|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypocretin-1 CSF or Orexin||||=0.0597
95738824|NCT04667338|191450112|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1171
95738825|NCT04667338|191450113|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3834
95738826|NCT04667338|191450118|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0531
95738827|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||Take short naps||||=0.0005
95738828|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8221|||||||Chi-squared|||Maintain a regular sleep schedule||||=0.8221
95738829|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2291|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid caffeine or alcohol before bedtime||||=0.2291
95738830|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9177|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid smoking, especially at night||||=0.9177
95738831|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4188|||||||Chi-squared|||Exercise daily||||=0.4188
95795944|NCT03704064|191562011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.46
95795945|NCT03704064|191562011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.87
95795946|NCT03704064|191562011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.07
95795947|NCT03704064|191562011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.5||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.17
95795948|NCT03704064|191562012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 10 minute bouts||||0.63
95795949|NCT03704064|191562012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MVPA per day with 20 minute bouts||||0.72
95795950|NCT03704064|191562012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Moderate activity per day||||0.52
95795951|NCT03704064|191562012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Light activity per day||||0.27
95795952|NCT03704064|191562013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|151.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95795953|NCT03704064|191562014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-111.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|137.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95795954|NCT03704064|191562015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|163.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|154.0||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95795955|NCT03704064|191562016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95795956|NCT03704064|191562017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95795957|NCT03704064|191562018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
95795958|NCT03704064|191562019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95937704|NCT03281291|191839757|OTHER||Additive difference|-0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.133|-0.439|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 14, for Fx012-14-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.439|-1.133|
95738832|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5818|||||||Chi-squared|||Avoid large, heavy meals right before bedtime||||=0.5818
95738833|NCT04667338|191450119|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Other||||=0.5432
95738834|NCT04667338|191450120|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5432|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment||||=0.5432
95738835|NCT04667338|191450120|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0397|||||||Chi-squared|||Routine monitoring visits||||=0.0397
95738836|NCT04667338|191450120|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0306|||||||Chi-squared|||Tests||||=0.0306
95738837|NCT04667338|191450120|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Emergency visits||||=0.7451
95738838|NCT04667338|191450120|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0845|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalizations||||=0.0845
95738839|NCT04667338|191450120|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3813|||||||Chi-squared|||Complications||||=0.3813
95738840|NCT04667338|191450122|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Absenteeism||||=0.0034
95738841|NCT04667338|191450122|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presenteeism||||=0.2178
95738842|NCT04667338|191450122|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work productivity loss||||=0.1758
95738843|NCT04667338|191450122|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity Impairment / disability||||=0.1789
95738844|NCT04667338|191450123|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5806|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.5806
95738845|NCT04667338|191450125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1602|||||||Chi-squared|||Mobility||||=0.1602
95738846|NCT04667338|191450125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5249|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-Care||||=0.5249
95738847|NCT04667338|191450125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1095|||||||Chi-squared|||Usual activities||||=0.1095
95738848|NCT04667338|191450125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3528|||||||Chi-squared|||Pain / Discomfort||||=0.3528
95738849|NCT04667338|191450125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7434|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety / Depression||||=0.7434
95738850|NCT04667338|191450126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0396
95738851|NCT04667338|191450127|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Effectiveness||||=0.0394
95738852|NCT04667338|191450127|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Convenience||||=0.3093
95738853|NCT04667338|191450127|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global satisfaction||||=0.2296
95738854|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||=0.1817
95738855|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Bipolar disorder||||=0.0885
95738856|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3043|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety disorders||||=0.3043
95738857|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0885|||||||Chi-squared|||Panic disorder||||=0.0885
95738858|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Phobia disorder||||=0.5603
95738859|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Obsessive compulsive disorder||||=0.5603
95738860|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3646|||||||Chi-squared|||Diagnosis of ADHD||||=0.3646
95738861|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2615|||||||Chi-squared|||Obesity||||=0.2615
95738862|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3076|||||||Chi-squared|||Endocrine Disorders||||=0.3076
95738863|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||Peripheral vascular disease||||=0.4090
95738864|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (TIA)||||=0.5603
95738865|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||=0.5603
95738866|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||Connective tissue disease||||=0.5603
95738867|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7451|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease||||=0.7451
95738868|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3108|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes Mellitus||||=0.3108
95738869|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2407|||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor||||=0.2407
95738870|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5603|||||||Chi-squared|||AIDS||||=0.5603
95738871|NCT04667338|191450128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1739|||||||Chi-squared|||Others||||=0.1739
95738872|NCT04667338|191450129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.3585
95738873|NCT01588236|191450172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95738874|NCT01588236|191450173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||p value for multiple comparison among 3 arms and comparison between investigational drug and placebo||||>0.05
95738875|NCT01588236|191450174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between high dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95738876|NCT01588236|191450175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value for comparison between overall drug group vs placebo, and between low dose vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95738877|NCT01030133|191450181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|0.75||||||0.05
95738878|NCT00748072|191450183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated by the difference in post-biopsy bleeding complications. Since the presence of bleeding was demonstrated in about 30-40 % in our previous observational study, we hypothesized a reduction risk of 0.50 and an absolute reduction of risk from 0.40 to 0.20. The sample size of the study for a power of 0.80 and a significance level \<0.05 was calculated in 158 patients.||0.85|0.24|0.01
95738879|NCT05056376|191450186|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined a priori as the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI for the risk difference being greater than or equal to -15%.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The primary analysis was conducted in all randomized participants. Those who did not attend the 12-month study visit were classified as not achieving the primary composite outcome, providing a conservative estimate of intervention effectiveness. The risk difference was estimated using binomial regression.||||<0.05
95738880|NCT04742491|191450203|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|73.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.89|80.3|||Chi-squared||||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using Chi-squared test.|80.30|65.89|0.80
95738881|NCT04742491|191450203|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|71.81||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.59|79.04|||Chi-squared||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using Chi-squared test.|||79.04|64.59|0.80
95738882|NCT04742491|191450208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Binomial Distribution|||||||0.59
95738883|NCT04742491|191450210|OTHER||Percentage|85.23||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.54|90.93|||Binomial Distribution||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using binomial distribution.|||90.93|79.54|0.6381
95738884|NCT04742491|191450210|OTHER||Percentage|87.1||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.82|92.37|||Binomial Distribution||The estimates and C.I. (In percentage) are derived using binomial distribution.|||92.37|81.82|0.6381
95738885|NCT04742491|191450215|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of Gonorrhea.||2.03|0.45|0.91
95738886|NCT04742491|191450215|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of Chlamydia Trachomatis.||2.03|0.45|0.91
95738887|NCT04742491|191450215|OTHER|The odds ratio was calculated with the deferred intervention arm as the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Calculating the odds of a syphilis positive/reactive test.||1.30|0.45|0.32
95937705|NCT03281291|191839757|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|-0.959|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 19, for Fx017-mFxD groups vs Control Group.||-0.959|-1.592|
95738888|NCT04742491|191450216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression results of Hepatitis C infection at baseline.||8.81|0.24|0.69
95738889|NCT04742491|191450223|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.12||||||Poisson regression models with person time were used to estimate HIV incidence for the immediate intervention arm.||5.12|0.72|
95738890|NCT04742491|191450223|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.39||||||Poisson regression models with person time was used to estimate HIV incidence for the deferred intervention arm.||3.39|0.07|
95738891|NCT04742491|191450224|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|31.47||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|41.51|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Incidence rate of STIs for immediate intervention arm||41.51|23.86|0.93
95738892|NCT04742491|191450224|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate|32.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|42.83|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Incidence rate of STIs for deferred intervention arm||42.83|23.92|0.93
95738893|NCT04742491|191450224|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Regression|31.74||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|38.8|||Poisson Regression||Incidence Rate of any STI Incidence per Person-Years using Poisson Regression was calculated.|Poisson regression was used to compare the incidence rate of STIs by arm.||38.80|25.96|0.93
95738894|NCT04742491|191450225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.69|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for age group 26+ compared to 25 or less.|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section presents p-values and odds ratios for age.||6.69|0.89|0.08
95738895|NCT04742491|191450225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.16|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of highest level of education primary school vs. college.|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for education.||3.16|0.05|0.37
95738896|NCT04742491|191450225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of highest level of education high school vs. college|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for education.||0.98|0.17|0.04
95795959|NCT03704064|191562020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
95795960|NCT03704064|191562021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95795961|NCT03704064|191562022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
95937706|NCT03281291|191839758|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.686|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.448|-1.924|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-20 Group vs Control Group.||-1.924|-3.448|
95937707|NCT03281291|191839758|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.217|-1.686|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for R012-14-mD Group vs Control Group.||-1.686|-3.217|
95728006|NCT02220920|191425791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.11|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in systolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.11|-6.49|0.058
95795962|NCT03704064|191562023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
95795963|NCT03704064|191562024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.80
95795964|NCT03704064|191562024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
95795965|NCT03704064|191562025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.07
95795966|NCT03704064|191562025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.96
95795967|NCT03704064|191562026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95795968|NCT03704064|191562027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
95795969|NCT03704064|191562028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
95937708|NCT03281291|191839758|OTHER||Additive difference|-2.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|-1.824|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx012-14-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.824|-3.345|
95950062|NCT03386344|191872060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.250|-0.649|<0.0001
95728007|NCT02220920|191425791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated P-Value, Least-Squares Mean Difference, Standard Error of the mean, 95% CI are presented for the change from Baseline in diastolic blood pressure for week 16.|||0.80|-3.27|0.232
95728008|NCT00494975|191425797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.56|||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||The VAS score of pruritus intensity was recorded for each participant at baseline and weekly until week 12 so that each one had 12 repeatedly measured data scores. To investigate the predictive effects of age, sex, comorbid diseases, phototherapy, and results of blood laboratory exams on the intensity of pruritus, marginal linear regression model was fitted to the repeatedly measured VAS score data using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method.||1.56|0.31|<0.05
95728009|NCT02811861|191425812|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.80|0.53|<0.0001
95728010|NCT02811861|191425812|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Stratified Log-rank Test|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox Proportional Hazards Model including treatment group as a factor.||||0.49|0.32|<0.0001
95728011|NCT02363010|191425840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 12 month weight losses.||||.68
95728012|NCT02363010|191425840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||A prior threshold for significance was p\<.05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline weight.||Exploring group differences in 18 month weight losses.||||.11
95728013|NCT02363010|191425841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month moderator to vigorous physical activity (MVPA).||||.41
95728014|NCT02363010|191425841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.46
95728015|NCT02363010|191425841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 12 month MVPA.||||.82
95728016|NCT02363010|191425841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.42
95728017|NCT02363010|191425841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.28
95795970|NCT03704064|191562029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.9|0.5|0.38
95738897|NCT04742491|191450225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.28|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of physical violence yes vs. no|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for physical violence.||5.28|0.98|0.07
95738898|NCT04742491|191450225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.99|||Regression, Logistic||Estimates are for comparison of physical violence prefer not answer vs. no (not estimable)|Multivariable logistic regression modeled PrEP uptake using age, highest level of education, and physical violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 190 of 304).This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for physical violence.||999.99|0.001|0.97
95738899|NCT04742491|191450226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.4|||GEE||Estimates are for group emotional violence yes vs. no.|Multivariable GEE modeling the probability of high PrEP adherence with predictor emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to visits with complete data (1518 of 1533 visits). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.||1.40|0.64|0.8
95738900|NCT04742491|191450226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.92|||GEE||Estimates are for group emotional violence prefer not to answer vs. no.|Multivariable GEE modeling the probability of high PrEP adherence with predictor emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to visits with complete data (1518 of 1533 visits). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.||4.92|1.35|0.004
95738901|NCT04742491|191450227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Regression, Linear||Estimates are for highest level of education primary school vs. college.|Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education and emotional violence adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for highest level of education.||0.02|-0.39|0.08
95738902|NCT04742491|191450227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.003|||Regression, Linear||Estimates are for highest level of education high school vs. college.|Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for the highest level of education.||0.003|-0.22|0.06
95738903|NCT04742491|191450227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.|Estimates are for group emotional violence yes vs. no.|0.09|-0.12|0.76
95738904|NCT04742491|191450227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable linear regression of PrEP persistence with predictors highest level of education, and emotional violence, adjusting for site. Only predictors significant in univariable analysis were included-study arm was excluded due to lack of significance. Analysis was limited to participants with complete data (N = 252 of 268). This section provides p-values and odds ratio estimates for emotional violence.|Estimates are for group emotional violence prefer not to answer vs. no.|0.78|-0.06|0.09
95738905|NCT04742491|191450228|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Multivariable logistic regression was pre-specified but not performed because there were too few participants with the outcome absent (i.e., very few 'No' responses), leading to separation and non-estimable/unstable adjusted effect estimates. Results for Yes responses are presented descriptively (counts and percentages) by arm in the outcome measure data table."|||
95738906|NCT02826694|191450235|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T3||||0.168
95937709|NCT03281291|191839758|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.726|-1.067|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the TVC between enrollment and Month 32 visit, for Fx017-mFxD Group vs Control Group.||-1.067|-2.726|
95937710|NCT03281291|191839759|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|-1.015|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-20 group vs Control Group.||-1.015|-2.252|
95937711|NCT03281291|191839759|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|-1.393|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for R012-14 group vs Control Group.||-1.393|-2.601|
95950063|NCT03386344|191872060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.235|-0.634|<0.0001
95937712|NCT03281291|191839759|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.399|-1.153|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 2.5 to 26, for Fx012-14-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.153|-2.399|
95738907|NCT02826694|191450235|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||linear mixed effect model|||T4||||0.026
95738908|NCT00859521|191450248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.7||||||90.0|92.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|92.4|
95738909|NCT00859521|191450249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.4||||||90.0|96.9|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|96.9|
95738910|NCT00859521|191450250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|98.8||||||90.0|97.2|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|97.2|
95738911|NCT02125461|191450251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.65|0.42|<0.0001
95738912|NCT02125461|191450252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.87|0.53|0.00251
95738913|NCT02125461|191450253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis performed using Fisher's exact test with mid p-value modification by subtracting half of the probability of the observed table from Fisher's p-value.||||<0.001
95738914|NCT02125461|191450257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
95738915|NCT02125461|191450258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value generated based on z-test where z-test statistic is the ratio of the log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by the square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance was estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||||||0.005
95937713|NCT03281291|191839759|OTHER||Additive difference|-1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|-1.158|||Wald test|Wald tests were used to test for additive differences in VE differing from zero and to obtain a 95% confidence interval.|Additive difference was defined as the difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections between each vaccine arm and the control arm.|To detect a significant difference in the mean number of new molecularly confirmed malaria infections in the ATP cohort between months 7.5 to 31, for Fx017-mFxD group vs Control Group.||-1.158|-2.527|
95738916|NCT02125461|191450259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
95738917|NCT02125461|191450260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.18|0.77|0.664
95738918|NCT02125461|191450261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for dyspnea. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.29|0.88|0.522
95937714|NCT05862870|191839780|OTHER|Frequency count|exact count|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|20.0|20.0|||count|||Frequency count of patients retained in treatment.|Threshold for frequency count|20|20|.05
95937715|NCT02243709|191839871|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95937716|NCT04229992|191839897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo."||||<0.05
95937717|NCT04229992|191839898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|P value was calculated using general linear mode adjusted for age, sex, BMI and baseline level||"1. GG genotype and magnesium treatment vs GG genotype and placebo;~2. GA/AA genotype and magnesium treatment vs GA/AA genotype and Placebo"||||<0.05
95937718|NCT03770273|191839899|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7740
95937719|NCT03770273|191839901|OTHER|||||||0.1071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1071
95738919|NCT02125461|191450261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for cough. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.12|0.74|0.380
95738920|NCT02125461|191450261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for hemoptysis. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.00|0.56|0.048
95738921|NCT02125461|191450261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19||Analysis performed using a stratified log rank test adjusting for age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female), and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) with ties handled using the Breslow approach.|Log Rank|||Treatment comparison for chest pain. The hazard ratio and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with the Breslow method to control for ties, the stratification factors age at randomization (\<65 vs ≥65), sex (male vs female) and smoking history (smoker vs non-smoker) in the strata statement, and the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||1.19|0.75|0.626
95738922|NCT02645253|191450270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0785|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||Linear Model|||||1.15|0.882|
95738923|NCT02645253|191450272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.23|||Linear Model|||||1.23|1.06|
95738924|NCT02645253|191450274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.31|||Linear Model|||||1.31|0.801|
95738925|NCT02645253|191450284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||Linear Model|||||1.09|0.870|
95738926|NCT02645253|191450289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.14|||Linear Model|||||1.14|0.951|
95738927|NCT02645253|191450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|102.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|122.09|||ANCOVA||Day 1/ Day -1|||122.09|86.88|
95738928|NCT02645253|191450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.32|109.04|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||109.04|77.32|
95738929|NCT02645253|191450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|105.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|125.49|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||125.49|89.40|
95738930|NCT02645253|191450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.35|106.16|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||106.16|75.35|
95738931|NCT02645253|191450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|99.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.12|118.46|||ANCOVA||Day 1 / Day -1|||118.46|84.12|
95937720|NCT03770273|191839902|OTHER|||||||0.4904|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4904
95738932|NCT02645253|191450301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean (%)|75.38||||||95.0|63.4|89.61|||ANCOVA||Day 16 / Day -1|||89.61|63.40|
95738933|NCT03552484|191450314|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group paired t-tests and between-group paired t-tests||||0.59
95738934|NCT03552484|191450315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between-group comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95738935|NCT03552484|191450316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group comparison of change in Multidimensional Caregiver Strain Index|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95738936|NCT03264092|191450398|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
95738937|NCT03264092|191450399|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
95738938|NCT03264092|191450400|OTHER|This was just a comparative study. No superiority, equivalence or non inferiority analysis was performed.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95795971|NCT03704064|191562030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.3|0.95
95795972|NCT03704064|191562031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.3|0.99
95937721|NCT03770273|191839903|OTHER|||||||0.1399|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1399
95937722|NCT04169373|191839914|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.||34.9|17.9|<0.0001
95728018|NCT02363010|191425841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Compound Poisson general linear models|Controlling for baseline MVPA.||Exploring group differences in 18 month MVPA.||||.82
95728019|NCT02363010|191425842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 12 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.06
95728020|NCT02363010|191425842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline half-mile walk time.||Exploring group differences in 18 month cardiorespiratory fitness, measured by half-mile walk time.||||.30
95728021|NCT02363010|191425843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 12 month waist circumference.||||.59
95728022|NCT02363010|191425843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|Controlling for baseline waist circumference.||Exploring group differences in 18 month waist circumference.||||.57
95728023|NCT02363010|191425844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
95795973|NCT03704064|191562032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.06
95937723|NCT04169373|191839915|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|"Efficacy analyses and hypothesis testing including multiplicity adjustment were performed independently for Study 1 and Study 2.~Binary endpoints in Study 2 were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the main stratification factor of positivity for MRI inflammation in the sacroiliac joints and screening hsCRP status (MRI-positive and hsCRP \> ULN vs MRI-positive and hsCRP ≤ ULN vs MRI-negative and hsCRP \> ULN)."||32.3|12.1|<0.0001
95937724|NCT04169373|191839915|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.5|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.5|1.7|
95993770|NCT00619957|191963373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.38|-33.72|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.72|-59.38|<0.0001
95738939|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least means squares from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.06
95738940|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.008
95738941|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 was considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Week 12 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.07
95738942|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means.|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered as being significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 mean for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates,||||0.003
95738943|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates. .||||0.0002
95738944|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0007
95738945|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.15
95795974|NCT03704064|191562032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.06
95795975|NCT03704064|191562032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.19
95795976|NCT03704064|191562033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.05
95795977|NCT03704064|191562033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.18
95795978|NCT03704064|191562033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.046
95795979|NCT03704064|191562034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.07
95795980|NCT03704064|191562034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.11
95795981|NCT03704064|191562034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FE||||0.15
95795982|NCT03704064|191562035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.04
95795983|NCT03704064|191562035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.35
95795984|NCT03704064|191562035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
95795985|NCT03704064|191562035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.01
95795986|NCT03704064|191562035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||<0.001
95795987|NCT03704064|191562035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||<0.001
95795988|NCT03704064|191562036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment acceptability||||0.24
95795989|NCT03704064|191562036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL component acceptability||||0.28
95795990|NCT03704064|191562036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BIAS vs recipe component acceptability||||<0.001
95795991|NCT03704064|191562036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BWL skill acquisition||||0.34
95795992|NCT03704064|191562036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill acquisition||||0.008
95795993|NCT03704064|191562036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Stigma-related skill use||||0.001
95857923|NCT01821118|191673647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.056|||||SE of mean is presented in log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.056|0.825|
95857924|NCT01821118|191673648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.735|0.989|||||SE of mean is presented on log e scale.|ROI1: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.989|0.735|
95937725|NCT04169373|191839916|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.85|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.85|-1.20|<0.0001
95795994|NCT04848480|191562078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the estimated treatment difference was below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks was analysed using ANCOVA model with treatment, region, HbA1c group at screening and pre-trial basal insulin treatment as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.23|-0.13|0.0065
95795995|NCT00833755|191562096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.274
95795996|NCT00833755|191562097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.552
95795997|NCT00833755|191562098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95795998|NCT00560404|191562110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean Hb within target range during efficacy evaluation period within plus or minus 1 g/dL of their reference Hb and between the target range with a non-inferiority limit of -0.15.|Difference of response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.25|
95795999|NCT02139540|191562136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome (HDRS-21) was analyzed with a repeated-measures mixed effects linear model using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. To adjust for the observed carryover effect, the model included a randomization group term and a three-way interaction (treatment × time × randomization group)||||<0.05
95796000|NCT02139540|191562137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95796001|NCT05539131|191562249|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.862||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.862
95796002|NCT05539131|191562250|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.662||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
95796003|NCT05539131|191562251|SUPERIORITY|The LMM analysis results refer to the F-statistics and associated p-values derived from linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), including fixed effects for time, group, and their interaction.||||||0.318||||||This is p-valu regarding time and group.|ANOVA|||||||0.318
95796004|NCT05539131|191562252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.273
95796005|NCT05539131|191562253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.639
95796006|NCT05539131|191562254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.452
95796007|NCT02631057|191562268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.717|-1.251|||Abadie-Imbens|LoS Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATET) \[Dabigatran group\], dispersion analysed with Abadie-Imbens's standard error.|The ATET of LoS from oral anticoagulant initiation to hospital discharge was calculated as \[Dabigatran - Warfarin\] in the matched cohort of matching ratio 1:3.|||-1.251|-3.717|<0.001
95857925|NCT01821118|191673648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.031|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(slope) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(slope) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.031|0.788|
95738946|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariate values.||||0.014
95738947|NCT00862563|191450401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean drinks per day obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means s from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.1
95738948|NCT00862563|191450402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison between mean values obtained for the topiramate and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.015
95937726|NCT04169373|191839917|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-2.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.33|-5.47|<0.0001
95937727|NCT04169373|191839918|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.8|18.0|<0.0001
95937728|NCT04169373|191839919|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.3|17.9|<0.0001
95937729|NCT04169373|191839920|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.8|6.0|<0.0001
95950064|NCT03386344|191872061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.590|-1.070|0.5707
95738949|NCT00862563|191450402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference Week 12|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the zonisamide and placebo group for Week 12. Mixed models generated means were used in this analysis.||||0.784
95738950|NCT00862563|191450402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference Week 12|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of means for the levetiracetam and placebo groups for Week 12. Model generated least mean squares were used for this analysis.||||0.264
95738951|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.013
95738952|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.036
95738953|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.24
95738954|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
95796008|NCT02690727|191562269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|128.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.13|138.59|||ANOVA|||||138.59|119.13|0.0002
95738955|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0015
95738956|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
95738957|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.04
95796009|NCT02690727|191562271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|139.27||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.01|174.73|||ANOVA|||||174.73|111.01|0.0278
95796010|NCT04757636|191562272|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.861409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.84|||MMRM|||||1.84|-2.20|0.861409
95937730|NCT04169373|191839921|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.11|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.11|-1.96|<0.0001
95950065|NCT03386344|191872061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.674|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||0.674|-0.969|0.7247
95796011|NCT04757636|191562272|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.416264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.18|||MMRM|||||1.18|-2.86|0.416264
95950066|NCT03386344|191872062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.6454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.745|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.745|-0.462|0.6454
95950067|NCT03386344|191872062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline lumbar spine as a covariate.||0.798|-0.410|0.5289
95950068|NCT03386344|191872063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.654|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.654|-0.157|0.1050
95950069|NCT03386344|191872063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.226|||ANCOVA|||Percent change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline BMD as a covariate.||1.226|-0.577|0.4804
95950070|NCT03386344|191872064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.568|-1.252|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.252|-2.568|<0.0001
95950071|NCT03386344|191872064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.046|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.046|-2.360|<0.0001
95950072|NCT03386344|191872065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8605|-9.9205|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-9.9205|-27.8605|<0.0001
95950073|NCT03386344|191872065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-21.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3294|-12.336|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-12.3360|-30.3294|<0.0001
95950074|NCT03386344|191872066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|2.095|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.095|-3.705|0.5864
95988493|NCT01077973|191951601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error was controlled at 0.05 significance level (2-sided) by stating pair wise comparisons significant only if overall treatment effect among 3 treatment groups was significant and testing in a sequential order Ibuprofen sodium vs. placebo for SPRID 0-3 then Ibuprofen sodium vs. Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) for time to meaningful relief.||1.14|0.52|0.193
95988494|NCT01077973|191951602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.24|0.50|0.304
95988495|NCT01077973|191951602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.59|0.65|0.936
95988496|NCT01077973|191951603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.04|0.41|0.072
95988497|NCT01077973|191951603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.41|0.58|0.652
95988498|NCT01077973|191951603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.07|0.49|0.108
95796012|NCT04757636|191562273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.981348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.7|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.7|-7.5|0.981348
95796013|NCT04757636|191562273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.0|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||7.0|-8.5|0.856000
95796014|NCT04757636|191562274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.655104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||5.6|-8.9|0.655104
95857926|NCT01821118|191673649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.086|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.086|0.933|
95937731|NCT04169373|191839922|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.14|<0.0001
95988499|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.65|0.402
95738958|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.025
95738959|NCT00862563|191450403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent heavy drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.018
95796015|NCT04757636|191562274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.821257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.5|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.5|-8.2|0.821257
95796016|NCT04757636|191562275|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.199828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.16|||MMRM|||||0.16|-0.76|0.199828
95937732|NCT04169373|191839923|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.8|26.2|<0.0001
95950075|NCT03386344|191872066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.058|1.734|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of sex (male, female), and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.734|-4.058|0.4315
95738960|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.005
95738961|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.003
95738962|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and zonisamide groups Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.044
95738963|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factors. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
95738964|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-47.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||<0.0001
95738965|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Week 12.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and topiramate. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis, with Week (time) as the the within subject factor and treatment as the between group factor. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0004
95738966|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 10 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.017
95738967|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered to be significant.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Week 11 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.0002
95738968|NCT00862563|191450404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.05 is considered to be significant|ANOVA|||.Comparison of Week 12 means for mean percent drinking days obtained for the placebo and levetiracetam groups. Means used for the analysis are least squares means from a two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis.Baseline values were used as covariates.||||0.026
95738969|NCT00862563|191450405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction term.'||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
95796017|NCT04757636|191562275|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.188725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.15|||MMRM|||||0.15|-0.77|0.188725
95796018|NCT04757636|191562276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.84781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.6|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||4.6|-5.6|0.847810
95796019|NCT04757636|191562276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.718699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1|||Mantel Haenszel||The rate/rate differences are estimated and compared by aggregating the MH estimates adjusted for the Baseline BCVA category and baseline lesion type read by independent reading center on each of the 100 multiple imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|||6.1|-4.2|0.718699
95796020|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial confidence interval (CI) were determined.|||0.986|0.903|
95738970|NCT00862563|191450405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for group x time interaction term for the comparison of data for the topiramate and placebo group.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
95738971|NCT00862563|191450405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for interaction effect for the comparison of data for the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Letter Fluency scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in a significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.30
95738972|NCT00862563|191450406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the paired comparison of COWAT-category data for the zonisamide and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.003
95738973|NCT00862563|191450406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\< 0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of data from the topiramate and the placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.01
95738974|NCT00862563|191450406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is for the group x time interaction effect for the comparison of the levetiracetam and placebo groups.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that COWAT-Category scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction||||0.36
95738975|NCT00862563|191450407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value is for the group x time interaction effect||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.07
95738976|NCT00862563|191450407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group X time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that age adjusted Digit Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||<0.0001
95738977|NCT00862563|191450407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.95
95738978|NCT00862563|191450408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Spatial Span scores would change towards a downward direction for the zonisamide as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.038
95738979|NCT00862563|191450408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the topiramate as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.0025
95738980|NCT00862563|191450408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.01 is considered to be significant|Mixed Models Analysis|p value shown is for the group x time interaction effect.||Data were analyzed using two-way repeated measures mixed models analysis. It was hypothesized that Digit span scores would change towards a downward direction for the levetiracetam as compared to the placebo group resulting in significant treatment x time interaction.||||0.3
95857927|NCT01821118|191673649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.114|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.114|0.990|
95738981|NCT02663349|191450422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within sample analysis of change between baseline and 3 month assessment.||||.08
95738982|NCT02663349|191450423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within sample change between baseline and 6 month assessment.||||.69
95738983|NCT02663349|191450424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Within sample change assessed between baseline and 3-month assessment||||.02
95738984|NCT02663349|191450425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Change between baseline and 6 month assessment||||.34
95738985|NCT02663349|191450426|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Hostility scale||||>.05
95738986|NCT02663349|191450426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Completer analysis to examine within group change between baseline and 3-month assessment on the AIHQ Aggression scale||||.04
95738987|NCT02663349|191450427|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Hostility scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||>.05
95738988|NCT02663349|191450427|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||completer analysis of within group change on the AIHQ Aggression scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
95738989|NCT02663349|191450428|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Change within group between baseline and 3 month assessment on the TASIT total score for part 3||||> .05
95738990|NCT02663349|191450429|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||within group change on the TASIT total score for Part 3 between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
95738991|NCT02663349|191450430|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on SSPA Total Score between baseline and 3-month assessment||||>.05
95738992|NCT02663349|191450431|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Within group change on the SSPA total score between baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
95738993|NCT02663349|191450432|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance Total score on scales 1-7 between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||> .05
95738994|NCT02663349|191450433|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 15||Within group change between baseline and 6-month assessment on the First Episode Social Functioning Scale Performance total score on scales 1-7||||> .05
95738995|NCT02663349|191450434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between Baseline and 3-Month assessments||||.15
95738996|NCT02663349|191450434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 3-month assessments||||.10
95796021|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.986|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.986|0.908|
95738997|NCT02663349|191450434|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 3-month assessment||||>.05
95796022|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.928|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.928|0.801|
95796023|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|0.943|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.943|0.804|
95857928|NCT01821118|191673649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.052|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.052|0.947|
95950076|NCT03386344|191872067|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.5||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||19.23|1.78|0.0172
95738998|NCT02663349|191450434|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 3 month assessment||||> .05
95738999|NCT02663349|191450435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Collegial Support scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||.01
95739000|NCT02663349|191450435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Task Support scale between baseline and 6-month assessment||||.03
95739001|NCT02663349|191450435|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Mentor scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
95739002|NCT02663349|191450435|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the MCSS Coach scale between baseline and the 6-month assessment||||> .05
95739003|NCT02663349|191450436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.09
95739004|NCT02663349|191450436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on the VETSS Workplace Coping scale between Baseline and 3-Month Assessment||||.12
95739005|NCT02663349|191450437|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Self Disclosure scale between Baseline and 6 month assessment||||> .05
95739006|NCT02663349|191450437|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Within group change on VETSS Workplace Coping scale between baseline and the 6 month assessment||||> .05
95739007|NCT00928057|191450439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.506||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA model was used to calculate the absolute percent (%)change in fructosamine (% \|∆ Fru\|), with 95 % confidence intervals."||||0.506
95739008|NCT00928057|191450439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To conclude equivalence for glycemic control, the average absolute percent change in fructosamine and 95% confidence interval had to be within 20%.~80 subjects were required to be in each insulin dose group (40 per PN arm) to provide 90% power for an equivalence with alpha=0.05."||||||0.878||||||The threshold for significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has effects for subject, insulin dose group, investigator site and order of pen needle use.||"The effects of pen needle type on glycemic control were tested for statistical significance using ANOVA. The ANOVA model was used to calculate the % \|∆ Fru\|, with 95% confidence intervals."||||0.878
95739009|NCT00928057|191450444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance, or alpha, is 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is the same or greater than the pain for the reference. The alternative hypothesis is that the pain from the 4mm is less than the pain for the reference.||||0.019
95796024|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.839|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.900|0.760|
95739010|NCT00928057|191450444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||As described for the 4 vs. 5mm statistical analysis.||||<0.001
95739011|NCT00835146|191450464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.9||||||90.0|91.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|91.8|
95739012|NCT00835146|191450465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|93.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|93.3|
95739013|NCT02284867|191450510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Multivariable binary logistic regression was done to examine the relation between CD16+ NK and preterm labor as adjusted for other confounding factors the enter method was used to build the regression model.~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."|Odds Ratio (OR)|65.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.96|606.76||To our best of known , no previous human studies was analyzing this issue|Regression, Logistic|||"Categorical data were presented as number and percentage and differences were compared using the Pearson chi-squared test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend~A two-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant."||606.76|6.96|<0.0002
95739014|NCT02927639|191450515|SUPERIORITY|"A subject was considered completed if they completed all 3 SCI (as indicated in participant flow section) - 13 control, 10 intervention.~However, the mixed model took in to account ALL available data. As such, there were 70 control, 65 intervention that completed at least 1 SCI. Their data was analyzed by the model and used to predict later outcomes so they were considered to be included in the analysis."||||||0.035||||||The mixed model may provide a significantly different change in SCI score from baseline to the 6 month using a per-protocol analysis in the intervention group as compared to the control group. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A multilevel mixed effects linear regression model was used to analyze this data. This analysis allowed for an estimation of missing data. This explains the discrepancy in the number of participant study completion vs participant data analyzed (see below).||||0.035
95739015|NCT01484912|191450533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The superiority testing was conducted one sided with 0.025 significance level. If H0 was rejected one-sided 0.025 significance level, STA-2 was concluded to be statistically superior to Placebo.All hypothesis testing except for the primary efficacy endpoint was conducted two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-test was used to compare the change in total exercise time between the treatment groups. The change in total exercise time (△) was defined as the total exercise time at end-point visit minus the total exercise time at baseline. Let △T be the change in total exercise time for treatment group (STA-2) and △C be the change in total exercise time for control group (Placebo). The hypothesis testing for the superiority of STA-2 to Placebo was H0：△T-△C≦0 with H1：△T-△C﹥0.||||0.025
95739016|NCT01484912|191450534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All hypothesis testing was conducted with T-tests, two sides at 0.05 significance level and 95% Confidence Interval (C.I.) was adopted if needed.||||0.005
95857929|NCT01821118|191673649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.063|||||SE of mean presented on log e scale.|ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to peak) was carried out using a Bayesian linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to peak) at baseline was included as a covariate.||1.063|0.960|
95739017|NCT00829712|191450539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.95||||||90.0|94.02|108.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.39|94.02|
95739018|NCT00829712|191450540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.05||||||90.0|95.08|103.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.19|95.08|
95857930|NCT01821118|191673650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1281|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1576|0.2781||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.2781|-0.1576|
95937733|NCT04169373|191839924|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.8|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.80|-1.55|<0.0001
95739019|NCT00829712|191450541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.94||||||90.0|96.08|103.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.95|96.08|
95739020|NCT04128761|191450542|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on delay discounting||||||0.6||||||The reported p-value is for the Scarcity and Session interaction.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on delay discounting rates were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.60
95796025|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.933|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.933|0.776|
95739021|NCT04128761|191450543|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on intensity of demand (i.e., consumption at $0)||||||0.54||||||The p-value reported is for the Scarcity and Session interaction term of the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on intensity of alcohol demand were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.54
95739022|NCT04128761|191450544|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on alcohol craving||||||0.88||||||The p-value reported is for the Scarcity and Session interaction term of the two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type alcohol craving were evaluated using a two-way (Scarcity vs. Session) repeated-measures ANOVA.||||.88
95739023|NCT04128761|191450545|OTHER|Mechanistic study examining the influence of scarcity narratives on stress|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The effects of narrative type on stress was evaluated using a one-way ANOVA.||||<.001
95739024|NCT00911274|191450551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.41||||||90.0|82.77|103.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.18|82.77|
95739025|NCT00911274|191450552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.3||||||90.0|97.84|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.88|97.84|
95739026|NCT00911274|191450553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|97.77|104.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.34|97.77|
95796026|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.937|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding exact binomial CI were determined.|||0.937|0.811|
95796027|NCT01401166|191562279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Proportion|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.956|||||The estimated proportion of participants who preferred SC Herceptin and the corresponding CI were determined using logistic regression with factors of previous Herceptin status and treatment.|||0.956|0.827|
95857931|NCT01821118|191673650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2843|0.1124||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1124|-0.2843|
95937734|NCT04169373|191839925|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model adjusted by main stratification factor of screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.0|7.4|<0.0001
95796028|NCT01348269|191562305|OTHER|T-test (with MITT, omitting outlier value of one patient in placebo group)|||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
95796029|NCT01348269|191562305|OTHER|Mann-Whitney-Test|||||=|0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.015
95796030|NCT04167462|191562318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|42.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.98|6.33|<0.0001
95739027|NCT04134091|191450554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95739028|NCT04134091|191450554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95739029|NCT04134091|191450555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95739030|NCT04134091|191450555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95739031|NCT04134091|191450556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95739032|NCT04134091|191450556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95739033|NCT04134091|191450557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95739034|NCT04134091|191450557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95739035|NCT04134091|191450558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95739036|NCT04134091|191450558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95739037|NCT04134091|191450559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||>0.05
95739038|NCT04134091|191450559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning Score||||<0.05
95739039|NCT04134091|191450559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
95739040|NCT04134091|191450559|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation Score||||>0.05
95739041|NCT04134091|191450559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.01
95739042|NCT04134091|191450559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis Score||||<0.001
95739043|NCT04134091|191450560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95796031|NCT04167462|191562319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|61.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.46|9.60|<0.0001
95796032|NCT04167462|191562320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|291.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||291.26|5.82|<0.0001
95796033|NCT04167462|191562324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|49.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.25|6.06|<0.0001
95796034|NCT04167462|191562325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|11.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.91|2.19|<0.0001
95796035|NCT04167462|191562326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.28|0.64|0.0947
95739044|NCT04134091|191450560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95739045|NCT04134091|191450561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95739046|NCT04134091|191450561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95739047|NCT04134091|191450562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95739048|NCT04134091|191450562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95950077|NCT03386344|191872067|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups from randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening and randomization strata of sex (male, female) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||20.86|3.23|0.0076
95739049|NCT04134091|191450563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95739050|NCT04134091|191450563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95739051|NCT04134091|191450564|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95739052|NCT04134091|191450564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95796036|NCT04167462|191562327|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.74|0.47|0.1741
95739053|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||>0.05
95739054|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: AST||||<0.01
95796037|NCT04108468|191562369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.12|0.064
95796038|NCT04108468|191562370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline BASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.24|-1.48|0.007
95857932|NCT01821118|191673650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2018|0.1042||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1042|-0.2018|
95739055|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||>0.05
95739056|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||< 0.01
95739057|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||>0.05
95739058|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.05
95739059|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||>0.05
95739060|NCT04134091|191450565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: GGT||||<0.05
95739061|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
95739062|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: Total cholesterol||||>0.05
95739063|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
95739064|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: LDL||||>0.05
95739065|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
95739066|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: HDL||||>0.05
95739067|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
95739068|NCT04134091|191450566|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Variable: triglycerides||||>0.05
95739069|NCT00185458|191450598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.128
95739070|NCT00185458|191450599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||Time effect tested with Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the reference period tested.||||0.296
95739071|NCT00185458|191450601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739072|NCT00185458|191450603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.027
95739073|NCT00185458|191450604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739074|NCT00185458|191450605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739075|NCT00185458|191450606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739076|NCT00185458|191450607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.054
95739077|NCT00185458|191450608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739078|NCT00185458|191450609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739079|NCT00185458|191450610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739080|NCT00185458|191450611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739081|NCT00185458|191450612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739082|NCT00185458|191450613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739083|NCT00185458|191450614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.175
95739084|NCT00185458|191450615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||0.062
95739085|NCT00185458|191450616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman's two-way ANOVA|||This is a Friedman's two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the time effect within the treatment group. The null-hypothesis is that the means are equal at the time points tested.||||<0.001
95739086|NCT01304641|191450617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95739087|NCT01304641|191450618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.192|||Regression, Cox|||||1.192|0.976|0.140
95796039|NCT04108468|191562371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.11|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.11|-1.26|0.096
95857933|NCT01821118|191673650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|-0.0888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1061|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2689|0.0914||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(amplitude) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(amplitude) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0914|-0.2689|
95739088|NCT01304641|191450619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95739089|NCT01304641|191450620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95739090|NCT01304641|191450621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95739091|NCT01304641|191450622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95739092|NCT01304641|191450623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95739093|NCT00099047|191450624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS version 8||36 evaluable patients randomized 1:1 to each treatment was planned in order to have \>77% power to detect differences in above parameters equal to or greater than one standard deviation, based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test with .05 Type I error.|||||.23
95739094|NCT00835536|191450625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|93.1|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108|93.1|
95739095|NCT00835536|191450626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.5||||||90.0|92.1|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101|92.1|
95739096|NCT00830024|191450633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.75||||||90.0|93.35|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|93.35|
95739097|NCT00830024|191450634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.94||||||90.0|91.76|100.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.3|91.76|
95739098|NCT00830024|191450635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.89||||||90.0|91.67|100.31|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.31|91.67|
95739099|NCT00424047|191450636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.438|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dex:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||0.438|0.240|<0.001
95937735|NCT04169373|191839926|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.24|-3.90|<0.0001
95937736|NCT04169373|191839927|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.24|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.24|-2.47|<0.0001
95739100|NCT00424047|191450637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.07|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone:Placebo/Dexamethasone)|||1.070|0.498|0.105
95739101|NCT00424047|191450638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.143|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.143|0.651|0.302
95739102|NCT00424047|191450639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
95739103|NCT00424047|191450640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Probability from Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
95739104|NCT00424047|191450643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone : placebo/dexamethasone).|||0.921|0.338|0.021
95739105|NCT00424047|191450644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.478||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.478|0.27|<0.001
95796040|NCT04108468|191562372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline PASDAS and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.59|-0.72|0.844
95857934|NCT01821118|191673651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0207|0.1136||||||ROI1, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1136|-0.0207|
95796041|NCT04108468|191562373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.04|-1.88|0.041
95857935|NCT01821118|191673651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0383|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0084|0.139||||||ROI1, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.1390|0.0084|
95950078|NCT01077284|191872069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95739106|NCT00424047|191450645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.166||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.532||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (lenalidomide/dexamethasone: placebo/dexamethasone)|||1.532|0.887|0.271
95739107|NCT00424047|191450646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.486||The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||1.486|0.866|0.359
95739108|NCT00424047|191450647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.964|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on an unstratified log rank test of survival curve differences between the treatment groups.|Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment groups (CC-5013/Dex:Placebo/Dex)|||0.964|0.398|0.032
95739109|NCT01229150|191450650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
95739110|NCT01229150|191450650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.75
95739111|NCT01229150|191450654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
95739112|NCT01229150|191450654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
95739113|NCT01229150|191450656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0007||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 2.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0007
95739114|NCT01229150|191450656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 1 to cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95739115|NCT01229150|191450656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||||||P-value was determined by comparison by the level of p-ERK at cycle 1 day 2 and cycle 1 day 14.|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||4 patients in this group; statistically underpowered.||||0.0209
95739116|NCT03100344|191450677|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||||0.0|-27.3|0.051
95739117|NCT03100344|191450677|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
95739118|NCT03100344|191450677|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)|mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||||6.8|-20.5|0.322
95796042|NCT04108468|191562374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.54|-1.41|0.375
95796043|NCT04108468|191562375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.58|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.58|-1.46|0.392
95796044|NCT04108468|191562376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline CPDAI and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.71|-1.34|0.541
95796045|NCT04108468|191562377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|7.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||7.43|-12.14|0.633
95857936|NCT01821118|191673651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0352|0.079||||||ROI2, Day 2: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0790|-0.0352|
95937737|NCT04169373|191839928|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.46|<0.0001
95739119|NCT03100344|191450678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.8|2.0|0.034
95937738|NCT04169373|191839929|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, screening hsCRP level (\> ULN vs ≤ ULN) and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
95739120|NCT03100344|191450678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|14.7|<0.001
95739121|NCT03100344|191450678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|-4.2|0.154
95739122|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||22.2|-0.4|0.062
95739123|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.6|0.8|0.042
95739124|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||15.0|-4.7|0.307
95739125|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.7|9.3|0.003
95739126|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||40.9|11.4|0.001
95739127|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.1|4.9|0.011
95739128|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||41.7|13.5|<0.001
95739129|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||54.8|25.7|<0.001
95739130|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.8|17.4|<0.001
95739131|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|37.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||37.1|4.2|0.018
95739132|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||59.9|27.6|<0001
95739133|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||42.6|9.7|0.003
95739134|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||41.4|7.3|0.007
95739135|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||59.9|27.4|<0.001
95739136|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.9|2.4|0.030
95739137|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||50.2|16.4|<0.001
95739138|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|63.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||63.2|31.2|<0.001
95739139|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||39.4|6.1|0.010
95796046|NCT04108468|191562378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|12.43|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||12.43|-9.95|0.826
95988500|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.64|0.407
95739140|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.5|9.2|0.004
95857937|NCT01821118|191673651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference (log e)|0.0117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.0694||||||ROI2, Day 90: Analysis of the change from baseline in log(time to return to baseline) was carried out using a linear model (ANCOVA). Treatment was a fixed effect within the model and the log(time to return to baseline) at baseline was included as a covariate.||0.0694|-0.0460|
95857938|NCT00346697|191673720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95857939|NCT00346697|191673721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.80
95739141|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||53.3|20.1|<0.001
95739142|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||41.4|7.6|0.007
95739143|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||38.1|3.6|0.022
95739144|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||41.3|7.4|0.007
95739145|NCT03100344|191450679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.4|0.4|0.050
95739146|NCT03100344|191450680|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-14.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.7|||Kenward Roger|||||-2.7|-26.2|0.017
95739147|NCT03100344|191450680|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-11.3||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|0.4|||Kenward Roger|||||0.4|-23.1|0.058
95739148|NCT03100344|191450680|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-8.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-8.3|-31.6|<0.001
95739149|NCT03100344|191450681|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-9.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.8|-17.5|0.016
95739150|NCT03100344|191450681|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-12.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-5.1|||Kenward Roger|||||-5.1|-20.6|0.001
95739151|NCT03100344|191450681|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-7.6||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.3|||Kenward Roger|||||0.3|-15.4|0.058
95739152|NCT03100344|191450682|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.2|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.2|-37.8|<0.001
95739153|NCT03100344|191450682|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.6|||Kenward Roger|||||-18.6|-44.9|<0.001
95739154|NCT03100344|191450682|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of percentage changes|-25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.8|||Kenward Roger|||||-11.8|-38.4|<0.001
95739155|NCT03100344|191450683|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
95739156|NCT03100344|191450683|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
95739157|NCT03100344|191450683|OTHER|mixed-effect model for repeated measures|mean difference of absolute changes|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
95739158|NCT03100344|191450684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
95739159|NCT03100344|191450684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
95739160|NCT03100344|191450684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
95857940|NCT00346697|191673722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95857941|NCT00346697|191673723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95739161|NCT03100344|191450684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
95739162|NCT03100344|191450684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
95739163|NCT03100344|191450684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
95739164|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
95739165|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
95739166|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
95739167|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
95739168|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
95739169|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
95937739|NCT04169373|191839930|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.12||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.12|-4.50|<0.0001
95937740|NCT04169373|191839931|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.45|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.85|<0.0001
95739170|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
95739171|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
95739172|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
95739173|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
95739174|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
95739175|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.2|-0.3|0.032
95739176|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
95739177|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
95739178|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
95739179|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
95739180|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
95739181|NCT03100344|191450684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
95739182|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||14.3|-6.8|0.487
95739183|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||26.5|1.6|0.033
95739184|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||23.8|0.2|0.053
95739185|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.8|3.2|0.021
95739186|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.3|2.4|0.027
95739187|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.1|7.3|0.006
95739188|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||32.2|-1.7|0.086
95739189|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||43.1|9.3|0.004
95739190|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||34.2|0.5|0.050
95739191|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||38.1|3.3|0.023
95739192|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
95739193|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|45.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.0|10.7|0.002
95739194|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||37.3|1.3|0.041
95857942|NCT00346697|191673724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95739195|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||45.4|10.4|0.003
95739196|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.2|-0.5|0.063
95739197|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.6|-0.4|0.064
95739198|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|40.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||40.3|4.9|0.016
95739199|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||36.9|1.3|0.041
95739200|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.6|-0.4|0.064
95739201|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||43.4|8.6|0.005
95739202|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.0|-0.6|0.064
95739203|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.8|-2.0|0.094
95739204|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||39.6|5.1|0.014
95739205|NCT03100344|191450685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||28.0|-7.7|0.273
95739206|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.0|-6.8|0.979
95739207|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.0|-5.8|0.668
95739208|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||9.2|-5.8|0.658
95739209|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.2|-8.0|0.690
95739210|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.7|-6.9|0.521
95739211|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|26.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.5|1.5|0.033
95739212|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.0|-3.1|0.172
95739213|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.7|3.7|0.014
95796047|NCT04108468|191562379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|6.25|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||6.25|-1.76|0.268
95857943|NCT00346697|191673725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
95739214|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.9|8.2|0.002
95739215|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||18.8|-7.5|0.404
95739216|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||39.6|9.4|0.003
95739217|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||28.2|-0.1|0.059
95739218|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||25.0|-5.6|0.222
95739219|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||42.3|10.0|0.003
95739220|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.0|3.3|0.22
95739221|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||29.3|-2.8|0.111
95739222|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||46.0|13.2|<0.001
95739223|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||33.6|1.3|0.040
95739224|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|27.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.4|-7.3|0.262
95739225|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||25.7|-8.4|0.327
95739226|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||33.1|-1.7|0.083
95739227|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||27.2|-7.0|0.255
95739228|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.9|2.2|0.034
95739229|NCT03100344|191450686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||34.6|0.3|0.053
95739230|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
95739231|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
95739232|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||4.8|-4.8|0.985
95739233|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.2|-8.4|0.154
95739234|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
95739235|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.6|-6.8|0.978
95739236|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.3|-7.5|0.602
95937741|NCT04169373|191839932|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment, main stratification factor, treatment and stratification factor interaction and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.04|-4.08|<0.0001
95739237|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.4|-4.5|0.413
95739238|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||9.1|-5.7|0.658
95739239|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.3|-3.2|0.307
95739240|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.8|6.9|0.002
95857944|NCT00346697|191673726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95937742|NCT04169373|191839933|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.1|10.1|0.0001
95937743|NCT04169373|191839933|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.2|1.6|
95739241|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||17.4|0.1|0.054
95739242|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.5|-5.4|0.325
95739243|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.1|3.1|0.019
95739244|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||30.5|4.5|0.011
95739245|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.7|-3.2|0.153
95739246|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||38.4|10.3|0.001
95739247|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||25.1|-0.7|0.069
95739248|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||26.6|-0.8|0.070
95739249|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||35.3|6.5|0.006
95739250|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||27.7|0.3|0.052
95739251|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||26.3|-0.7|0.069
95739252|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||33.3|4.9|0.011
95739253|NCT03100344|191450687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||25.7|-1.3|0.083
95739254|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||5.1|-4.9|0.970
95739255|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||7.5|-4.1|0.574
95739256|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||1.7|-5.2|0.311
95739257|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.1|-7.7|0.558
95739258|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.6|-4.7|0.413
95739259|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.0|-7.7|0.543
95857945|NCT00346697|191673727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95857946|NCT00346697|191673728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95857947|NCT00346697|191673729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95857948|NCT00346697|191673730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95739260|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||4.2|-7.6|0.583
95739261|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.5|1.8|0.028
95739262|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.3|-0.9|0.087
95739263|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.4|-5.6|0.632
95937744|NCT04169373|191839934|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|8.8||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||15.2|2.5|0.0063
95739264|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.8|3.1|0.016
95739265|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.0|4.5|0.009
95937745|NCT04169373|191839934|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||7.0|1.3|
95739266|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||11.6|-11.2|0.974
95739267|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.3|1.8|0.031
95739268|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.5|1.8|0.032
95739269|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||16.9|-9.0|0.553
95739270|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||35.8|6.1|0.008
95739271|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||28.2|-0.3|0.061
95739272|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||18.0|-10.1|0.585
95739273|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.8|2.0|0.032
95739274|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.1|-5.9|0.254
95739275|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||19.8|-11.3|0.598
95739276|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||31.4|-0.4|0.066
95739277|NCT03100344|191450688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||16.9|-13.5|0.826
95937746|NCT04169373|191839935|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.41|-1.42|0.0004
95739278|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0|||Kenward-Rogers|||Week 1||0.0|-20.0|0.049
95739279|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-7.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.0|-26.7|<0.001
95739280|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-5.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-5.8|-25.6|0.002
95739281|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.8||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||1.3|-20.9|0.084
95739282|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-5.2|-27.2|0.004
95739283|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-3.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-3.8|-25.8|0.008
95739284|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-0.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-0.4|-27.5|0.044
95739285|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-7.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-7.6|-34.7|0.002
95739286|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-1.8|-28.8|0.026
95739287|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|0.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||0.7|-30.2|0.062
95739288|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-7.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-7.9|-38.9|0.003
95739289|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-5.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-5.2|-36.0|0.009
95739290|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-2.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-2.3|-29.4|0.022
95857949|NCT00346697|191673731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95739291|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-10.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-10.2|-37.1|<0.001
95739292|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-14.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-1.3|-28.1|0.032
95739293|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.7||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||1.1|-28.6|0.070
95739294|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-38.5|0.002
95739295|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|4.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||4.1|-25.6|0.154
95739296|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-12.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||1.9|-26.0|0.090
95739297|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-2.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-2.1|-29.7|0.024
95739298|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|4.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||4.4|-23.4|0.180
95937747|NCT04169373|191839936|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.55|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.55|-1.68|0.0001
95739299|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-13.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|0.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||0.0|-27.3|0.051
95739300|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-16.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-3.2|-30.2|0.016
95739301|NCT03100344|191450689|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-6.8||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|6.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||6.8|-20.5|0.322
95739302|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-10.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-2.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-2.4|-19.4|0.012
95739303|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-7.1|-23.8|<0.001
95739304|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-9.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 1||-0.9|-17.8|0.029
95739305|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-11.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-11.6|-32.0|<0.001
95739306|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-19.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-19.1|-39.1|<0.001
95739307|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-13.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 2||-13.6|-34.0|<0.001
95739308|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-10.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-10.5|-32.1|<0.001
95739309|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-24.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-24.2|-45.5|<0.001
95739310|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-19.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 4||-19.9|-41.6|<0.001
95739311|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-12.6|-33.2|<0.001
95739312|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-27.2|-47.4|<0.001
95739313|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 8||-23.8|-44.4|<0.001
95739314|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-12.5|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-12.5|-35.6|<0.001
95739315|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-27.2|-49.7|<0.001
95739316|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-18.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 12||-18.7|-41.7|<0.001
95739317|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-20.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-8.9|-32.8|<0.001
95739318|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-34.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-22.6|-46.0|<0.001
95739319|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-28.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-16.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 16||-16.8|-40.7|<0.001
95739320|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-21.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-8.4|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-8.4|-33.7|0.001
95739321|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-17.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-17.3|-42.1|<0.001
95739322|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 20||-15.2|-40.6|<0.001
95739323|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-22.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-8.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-8.6|-36.1|0.002
95739324|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-18.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-18.0|-44.9|<0.001
95739325|NCT03100344|191450690|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-16.2|-43.8|<0.001
95739326|NCT03100344|191450692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95857950|NCT00346697|191673732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95739327|NCT03100344|191450692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.8|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.8|-3.8|<0.001
95739328|NCT03100344|191450692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.3|-3.3|<0.001
95739329|NCT03100344|191450693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
95739330|NCT03100344|191450693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.6|-3.6|<0.001
95739331|NCT03100344|191450693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
95739332|NCT03100344|191450694|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-9.9|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-9.9|-37.7|<0.001
95739333|NCT03100344|191450694|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-17.7|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-17.7|-45.0|<0.001
95739334|NCT03100344|191450694|SUPERIORITY||mean difference of percentage changes|-29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-15.2|||Kenward Roger|||Week 24||-15.2|-43.2|<0.001
95739335|NCT04189848|191450710|OTHER|Treatment comparison|Treatment difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.6|||ANOVA|||Intensity of injection site pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||-3.6|-8.2|<0.0001
95739336|NCT00835705|191450722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.03||||||90.0|98.4|107.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.88|98.40|
95739337|NCT00835705|191450723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.43||||||90.0|96.71|100.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.18|96.71|
95857951|NCT00346697|191673733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95739338|NCT00835705|191450724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.29||||||90.0|96.58|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.03|96.58|
95739339|NCT00835705|191450725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.16||||||90.0|95.33|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||111.64|95.33|
95937748|NCT04169373|191839937|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|14.2|<0.0001
95988501|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.38|0.991
95739340|NCT00835705|191450726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|103.79||||||90.0|95.75|112.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.50|95.75|
95739341|NCT00835705|191450727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|104.26||||||90.0|95.76|113.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||113.52|95.76|
95739342|NCT03676634|191450736|OTHER||single proportion|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.947|||||Values listed in table are for Type A. Estimated Value for the Estimation Parameter for type B = 0.875. Lower limit = 0.710, upper limit = 0.965|Consider increase from baseline to post-dose values. Parameter is proportion achieving desired increase (≥ 3x or 4x increase in Type A and Type B NAC).|Proportion of participants achieving ≥ 3x or 4x increase in NAC values was calculated for both Type A and Type B. Primary endpoint was achieved if both Type A and Type B had proportion ≥50%.|.947|.672|
95739343|NCT00909753|191450739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.7|85.8|
95739344|NCT00909753|191450740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.5||||||90.0|92.2|98.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.9|92.2|
95739345|NCT00909753|191450741|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
95857952|NCT00346697|191673734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95857953|NCT00643162|191673749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.68
95937749|NCT04169373|191839937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.4|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.4|1.9|
95739346|NCT00909753|191450742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.5|95.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.9|85.5|
95739347|NCT00909753|191450743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.5|99.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.5|85.5|
95739348|NCT00909753|191450744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.0||||||90.0|91.3|98.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.7|91.3|
95739349|NCT00909753|191450745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.4||||||90.0|83.1|98.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% COnfidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||98.3|83.1|
95739350|NCT00909753|191450746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be applied to log-transformed AUC and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|90.5||||||90.0|85.0|96.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.3|85.0|
95739351|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.302|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.302|0.322|0.22
95796048|NCT04108468|191562380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.83|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.83|-3.42|0.605
95937750|NCT04169373|191839938|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|10.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.3|3.6|0.0035
95937751|NCT04169373|191839938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.6|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||5.6|1.3|
95739352|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.301|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.301|0.322|0.24
95739353|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|2.405|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.501|0.83
95739354|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.356|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.356|0.490|0.87
95739355|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.131|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.131|0.458|0.96
95739356|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.212|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.212|0.289|0.16
95739357|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.937|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.937|0.324|0.035
95950079|NCT01077284|191872069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95739358|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.045|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.045|0.373|0.070
95739359|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.085||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.947|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.947|0.605|0.79
95739360|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.743|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.743|0.527|0.99
95739361|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.593|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40 mg \[Core\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.593|0.488|0.78
95937752|NCT04169373|191839939|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.68|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.60|<0.0001
95739362|NCT00205777|191450747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.968|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Raloxifene 60 mg \[Core\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.968|0.340|0.036
95739363|NCT00205777|191450748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.099|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.099|0.339|0.097
95739364|NCT00205777|191450748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|1.151|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.151|0.361|0.15
95739365|NCT00205777|191450748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.793|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.793|0.493|0.83
95739366|NCT00205777|191450748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.019|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.019|0.435|0.067
95739367|NCT00205777|191450748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.896|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.896|0.367|0.014
95739368|NCT00205777|191450748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.885|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.885|0.710|0.50
95739369|NCT00205777|191450749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.052|||Log Rank|||No Prevalent Fractures: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.052|0.440|0.085
95739370|NCT00205777|191450749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.857|||Log Rank|||At Least 1 Prevalent Fracture: P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||0.857|0.434|0.004
95739371|NCT00205777|191450750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.903|0.203|0.40
95739372|NCT00205777|191450750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.504||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.676|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.676|0.151|0.26
95739373|NCT00205777|191450750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||1.860|0.157|0.33
95739374|NCT00205777|191450750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.661||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.118|0.206|0.49
95739375|NCT00205777|191450750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|2.37|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||2.370|0.305|0.76
95739376|NCT00205777|191450750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.238||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|4.616|||Regression, Logistic|||P value was calculated using logistic regression. Gail index was added to the model to account for baseline risk differences between participants.||4.616|0.332|0.75
95739377|NCT00205777|191450751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.15||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.15|0.38|
95739378|NCT00205777|191450751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.21||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.21|0.39|
95739379|NCT00205777|191450752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.06||||||Relative risk versus placebo was provided together with 95% CIs.||2.06|0.5|
95739380|NCT00205777|191450753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
95739381|NCT00205777|191450753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
95739382|NCT00205777|191450753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
95739383|NCT00205777|191450753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
95739384|NCT00205777|191450753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.89
95739385|NCT00205777|191450753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
95739386|NCT00205777|191450754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
95739387|NCT00205777|191450754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.31
95739388|NCT00205777|191450754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.94
95739389|NCT00205777|191450755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.18
95739390|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.46
95739391|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.90
95739392|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.93
95739393|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.84
95739394|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.39
95739395|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.52
95739396|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.28
95739397|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.31
95739398|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.17
95739399|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.72
95937753|NCT04169373|191839940|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.21|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.21|-3.26|<0.0001
95950080|NCT01077284|191872070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
95739400|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.97
95739401|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.76
95739402|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.29
95739403|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.43
95739404|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.59
95739405|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.19
95739406|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.80
95739407|NCT00205777|191450759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test.||||0.11
95739408|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.296|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.296|0.790|0.968
95739409|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.097|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.097|0.652|0.211
95739410|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.556|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.556|0.925|0.191
95739411|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.497|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||3.497|0.566|0.493
95739412|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.405|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.405|0.316|0.820
95739413|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.612||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|4.161|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||4.161|0.624|0.371
95739414|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.861|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.861|0.776|0.423
95739415|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.491|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.491|0.587|0.799
95739416|NCT00205777|191450760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|2.002|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[Core+SE I\] versus Bazedoxifene 40/20 mg \[SE I\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||2.002|0.818|0.298
95739417|NCT00205777|191450761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||Osteoporosis-Related: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.19|0.78|0.73
95739418|NCT00205777|191450761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.83|||Log Rank|||Hip: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.83|0.41|0.71
95739419|NCT00205777|191450761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Log Rank|||Wrist: P value was calculated using Log-Rank test. Hazard ratio (Bazedoxifene 20 mg \[SE II\] versus Placebo \[Core+SE I+SE II\]) based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model was presented along with 95% CIs.||1.66|0.80|0.45
95739420|NCT00205777|191450762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95739421|NCT00205777|191450762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
95739422|NCT00205777|191450762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95739423|NCT00205777|191450762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
95739424|NCT00205777|191450762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95739425|NCT00205777|191450763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
95950081|NCT01077284|191872070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.348
95739426|NCT00205777|191450763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
95739427|NCT00205777|191450764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.26
95739428|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||||<0.001
95739429|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739430|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739431|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739432|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739433|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.018
95739434|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739435|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739436|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739437|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739438|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739439|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739440|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739441|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739442|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739443|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
95739444|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
95739445|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.019
95739446|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739447|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
95739448|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739449|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739450|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739451|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739452|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739453|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739454|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739455|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739456|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739457|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739458|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95796049|NCT04108468|191562381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.54|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.54|-4.23|0.620
95796050|NCT04108468|191562382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.24|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.24|-5.02|0.449
95796051|NCT04108468|191562383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.48|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||5.48|-2.04|0.364
95739459|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95796052|NCT04108468|191562384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.61|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.61|-3.60|0.806
95796053|NCT04108468|191562385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.89|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||4.89|-2.79|0.588
95739460|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739461|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739462|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739463|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739464|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739465|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739466|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739467|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739468|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
95739469|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
95739470|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
95739471|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
95739472|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.006
95739473|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739474|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739475|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739476|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739477|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739478|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739479|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739480|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739481|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95937754|NCT04169373|191839941|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.00|-2.56|<0.0001
95739482|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739483|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
95739484|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.005
95739485|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
95739486|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739487|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
95739488|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739489|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739490|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739491|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739492|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739493|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.39
95739494|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.17
95739495|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
95739496|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.016
95739497|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
95739498|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739499|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739500|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739501|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739502|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739503|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739504|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739505|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739506|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739507|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739508|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.01
95739509|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
95739510|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739511|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739512|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739513|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739514|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739515|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739516|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95796054|NCT04108468|191562386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.93|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.93|-2.45|0.372
95937755|NCT04169373|191839942|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α = 0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.4|12.2|<0.0001
95739517|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739518|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.048
95739519|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
95739520|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739521|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739522|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739523|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739524|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739525|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 18 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739526|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739527|NCT00205777|191450765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739528|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739529|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.010
95739530|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739531|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.023
95739532|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739533|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739534|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739535|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739536|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739537|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739538|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739539|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739540|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739541|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739542|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 48 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739543|NCT00205777|191450766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739544|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
95739545|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in lumbar spine BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
95739546|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739547|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in total hip BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739548|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95937756|NCT04169373|191839942|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||||Upadacitinib : Placebo|A post-hoc logistic regression adjusting for the main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP status was conducted for the multiplicity-controlled binary endpoints assessed at Week 14.||4.0|1.6|
95937757|NCT04169373|191839943|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a multiple testing procedure was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints. Testing began with the primary endpoint using two-sided α = 0.05; significance could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoints in the sequence met the requirement of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factor MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.05|-0.25|0.1781
95739549|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral neck BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739550|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
95739551|NCT00205777|191450767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in femoral trochanter BMD: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.002
95739552|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739553|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739554|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739555|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.93
95739556|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739557|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739558|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739559|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739560|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.30
95739561|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739562|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739563|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739564|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739565|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739566|NCT00205777|191450768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739567|NCT00205777|191450769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739568|NCT00205777|191450769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739569|NCT00205777|191450769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739570|NCT00205777|191450769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739571|NCT00205777|191450770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.037
95739572|NCT00205777|191450770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in osteocalcin: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.16
95739573|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739574|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739575|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739576|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.40
95739577|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 3 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739578|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739579|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739580|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95796055|NCT04108468|191562387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.55|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.55|-2.05|0.781
95796056|NCT04108468|191562388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-0.14|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||-0.14|-4.39|0.037
95857954|NCT00847210|191673764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||There was no statistical significant difference (p-value \>0.05) in Tmax between the 30 mg and 60 mg dose group. Both age group and site did not have statistically significant effects on Tmax.|ANOVA|||This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||||0.095
95859649|NCT01600170|191677212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.63
95937758|NCT04169373|191839944|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, main stratification factors MRI and screening hsCRP status, and Baseline value.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0193
95739581|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.004
95739582|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739583|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95937759|NCT04169373|191839945|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.9|9.3|0.0003
95937760|NCT04169373|191839946|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.17||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and main stratification factors MRI and hsCRP status as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.17|-2.08|0.0206
95739584|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739585|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739586|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739587|NCT00205777|191450771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739588|NCT00205777|191450772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739589|NCT00205777|191450772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.001
95739590|NCT00205777|191450772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739591|NCT00205777|191450772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 60 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.009
95739592|NCT00205777|191450773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 72 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.034
95739593|NCT00205777|191450773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 84 in C-telopeptide: P value was calculated using Ranked ANCOVA.||||0.77
95739594|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739595|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739596|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739597|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739598|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739599|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739600|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739601|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
95739602|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739603|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739604|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95937761|NCT04169373|191839948|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|7.9|0.0004
95739605|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739606|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.009
95739607|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739608|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.055
95739609|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.004
95739610|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95937762|NCT04169373|191839949|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.6||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|13.2|<0.0001
95739611|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739612|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739613|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in total cholesterol: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739614|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739615|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739616|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739617|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739618|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739619|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739620|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739621|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739622|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739623|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739624|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739625|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739626|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
95739627|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739628|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
95739629|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.008
95739630|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739631|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739632|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739633|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in LDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739634|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
95739635|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739636|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
95739637|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739638|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.10
95739639|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.89
95739640|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.60
95739641|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.82
95739642|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
95739643|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739644|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.012
95739645|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739646|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.083
95739647|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
95739648|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.84
95739649|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.15
95739650|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.13
95739651|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739652|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.007
95739653|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739654|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.28
95739655|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA||||0.10
95739656|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.94
95739657|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
95739658|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.63
95739659|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.70
95739660|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.58
95739661|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.29
95739662|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.59
95739663|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.036
95739664|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.57
95739665|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.49
95739666|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.038
95739667|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.93
95739668|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
95739669|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.72
95739670|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.12
95739671|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.043
95739672|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.53
95739673|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL2: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
95739674|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739675|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739676|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739677|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739678|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.46
95739679|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.64
95739680|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.47
95739681|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.75
95739682|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.003
95937763|NCT04169373|191839950|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by main stratification factor of MRI and screening hsCRP level status.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
95739683|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739684|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739685|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739686|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.81
95739687|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.98
95739688|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.87
95950082|NCT01077284|191872071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
95739689|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.40
95739690|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.001
95739691|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739692|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739693|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in HDL3: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||<0.001
95739694|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.85
95739695|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.26
95739696|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
95739697|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.22
95739698|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.86
95739699|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
95739700|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||1.00
95739701|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.44
95739702|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
95739703|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.55
95739704|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.34
95739705|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.96
95739706|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.058
95739707|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.031
95739708|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.054
95739709|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.62
95739710|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 6 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.99
95739711|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 12 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.11
95739712|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 24 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.33
95739713|NCT00205777|191450774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Month 36 in Triglycerides: P value was calculated using ANCOVA.||||0.65
95739714|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||||0.97
95739715|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.19
95739716|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.74
95739717|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
95739718|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
95739719|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
95739720|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
95796057|NCT04108468|191562389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.03|-1.93|0.058
95739721|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
95739722|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
95739723|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
95739724|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
95739725|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
95739726|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
95739727|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
95739728|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
95739729|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.59
95739730|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
95739731|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
95739732|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.33
95739733|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
95739734|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
95739735|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.50
95739736|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
95739737|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.091
95739738|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
95739739|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
95739740|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
95739741|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
95739742|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
95739743|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
95739744|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
95739745|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.035
95739746|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.024
95739747|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
95739748|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
95739749|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.80
95739750|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
95739751|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.060
95739752|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
95739753|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.13
95739754|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
95739755|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
95739756|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
95739757|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
95739758|NCT00205777|191450775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||CP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
95739759|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
95739760|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||BV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
95739761|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
95937764|NCT03683719|191839951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adjusted p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: IGA-CHE TS = Treatment + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the IGA-CHE response rate at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve.||||<0.001
95937765|NCT03683719|191839951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.29|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|26.24||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||26.24|0.34|>0.05
95937766|NCT03683719|191839951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|10.39||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||10.39|-10.44|>0.05
95937767|NCT03683719|191839951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|42.64||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||42.64|13.8|<0.001
95988502|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.75|0.313
95937768|NCT03683719|191839951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|44.67||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue medication before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed as non-responders (as were any other missing data).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates between the active delgocitinib cream doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was analysed separately for each of the active dose groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and disease severity (baseline IGA-CHE score). The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between the delgocitinib cream active doses and delgocitinib cream vehicle was tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||44.67|14.56|<0.001
95988503|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.62|0.621
95988504|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.54|0.533
95739762|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OV: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
95739763|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.050
95739764|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.045
95739765|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
95739766|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OcS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.56
95739767|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
95739768|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ObS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
95739769|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
95739770|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|||MS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.055
95739771|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.069
95739772|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ES: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
95739773|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
95739774|NCT00205777|191450776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OMS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
95739775|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
95739776|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.087
95739777|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
95739778|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.73
95739779|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: p-value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
95937769|NCT03683719|191839952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models with an adj. p-value \<0.025 were statistically sign. different from a flat dose-response model. Model: Change = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Baseline IGA-CHE.~Model selected: Emax model"|Multiple contrast test|||"The secondary endpoint Change from baseline to Week 16 in HECSI score was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline in HECSI score at Week 16 and the dose administered, using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) most likely to represent the true underlying dose-response curve."||||<0.0001
95739780|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.085
95739781|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.15
95739782|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.71
95739783|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.042
95796058|NCT04108468|191562390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||0.35|-1.54|0.213
95739784|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.077
95739785|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
95739786|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
95739787|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
95739788|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.90
95739789|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
95739790|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
95739791|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.75
95739792|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.10
95739793|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.79
95739794|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.057
95739795|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
95739796|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.46
95739797|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
95739798|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
95739799|NCT00205777|191450777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
95739800|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.018
95739801|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||WTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.29
95739802|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.049
95739803|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.37
95739804|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.97
95739805|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbTh: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
95739806|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
95739807|NCT00205777|191450778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TbSp: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.32
95739808|NCT00205777|191450779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
95739809|NCT00205777|191450779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95739810|NCT00205777|191450779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95739811|NCT00205777|191450779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
95739812|NCT00205777|191450779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95739813|NCT00205777|191450780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
95739814|NCT00205777|191450780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
95739815|NCT00205777|191450781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
95739816|NCT00205777|191450781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95739817|NCT00205777|191450781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
95739818|NCT00205777|191450781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
95937770|NCT03683719|191839952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.41|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-4.01||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-4.01|-22.82|<0.01
95937771|NCT03683719|191839952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-0.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-0.02|-19.04|<0.05
95950083|NCT01077284|191872071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.413
95739819|NCT00205777|191450781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
95739820|NCT00205777|191450782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.73
95739821|NCT00205777|191450782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
95739822|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.81
95739823|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
95739824|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.005
95796059|NCT04108468|191562391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.5|||Regression, Linear|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The mean difference was adjusted pre-specified covariates, and calculated following multiple imputation. The individual group means reported were unadjusted, available case estimates. The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||1.50|-0.88|0.606
95950084|NCT01077284|191872072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5535||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.5535
95950085|NCT01077284|191872072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Hochberg's method for multiple comparisons was used to ensure that the overall 0.050 level of significance was maintained for comparisons of febuxostat to allopurinol and to placebo.|ANOVA|P-values are from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect.||||||0.9400
95739825|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.013
95739826|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
95739827|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.70
95739828|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.44
95739829|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.47
95739830|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.28
95739831|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
95739832|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
95739833|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.85
95739834|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
95739835|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.015
95739836|NCT00205777|191450783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.006
95739837|NCT00205777|191450784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
95739838|NCT00205777|191450784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||BFP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.53
95739839|NCT00205777|191450784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||1.00
95739840|NCT00205777|191450784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.43
95739841|NCT00205777|191450784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.60
95739842|NCT00205777|191450784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|||RmP: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.52
95739843|NCT00205777|191450785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95739844|NCT00205777|191450785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
95739845|NCT00205777|191450785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95739846|NCT00205777|191450785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
95739847|NCT00205777|191450785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95739848|NCT00205777|191450786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95739849|NCT00205777|191450786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
95739850|NCT00205777|191450787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
95988505|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.28|-0.79|0.352
95739851|NCT00205777|191450787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
95739852|NCT00205777|191450787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
95739853|NCT00205777|191450787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.088
95739854|NCT00205777|191450787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
95739855|NCT00205777|191450788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95739856|NCT00205777|191450788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95739857|NCT00205777|191450789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
95739858|NCT00205777|191450789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
95739859|NCT00205777|191450789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95739860|NCT00205777|191450789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
95739861|NCT00205777|191450789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
95739862|NCT00205777|191450790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95796060|NCT04108468|191562392|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.14|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.14|0.48|0.971
95739863|NCT00205777|191450790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.070
95739864|NCT00205777|191450791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
95739865|NCT00205777|191450791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95739866|NCT00205777|191450791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95739867|NCT00205777|191450791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95739868|NCT00205777|191450791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
95739869|NCT00205777|191450792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
95739870|NCT00205777|191450792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
95739871|NCT00205777|191450793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95739872|NCT00205777|191450793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.62
95739873|NCT00205777|191450793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
95739874|NCT00205777|191450793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
95739875|NCT00205777|191450793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95739876|NCT00205777|191450794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
95739877|NCT00205777|191450794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
95739878|NCT00205777|191450795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95739879|NCT00205777|191450795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
95739880|NCT00205777|191450795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95739881|NCT00205777|191450795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95739882|NCT00205777|191450795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
95739883|NCT00205777|191450796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95739884|NCT00205777|191450796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
95739885|NCT00205777|191450797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
95739886|NCT00205777|191450797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
95739887|NCT00205777|191450797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.050
95739888|NCT00205777|191450797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.061
95739889|NCT00205777|191450797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95739890|NCT00205777|191450798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95739891|NCT00205777|191450798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.056
95739892|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.20
95739893|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
95739894|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.17
95739895|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
95739896|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
95739897|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
95739898|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.12
95739899|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.096
95739900|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
95739901|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.93
95739902|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
95739903|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
95739904|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
95739905|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
95739906|NCT00205777|191450800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in WHQ: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
95739907|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.080
95937772|NCT03683719|191839952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|-11.02||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-11.02|-29.56|<0.0001
95739908|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.41
95739909|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.65
95739910|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.18
95739911|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.36
95739912|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.27
95739913|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.25
95739914|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.053
95739915|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.40
95988506|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.38|-0.69|0.573
95796061|NCT04108468|191562393|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.49|0.817
95796062|NCT04108468|191562394|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.35||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.93|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.93|0.63|0.441
95739916|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.45
95739917|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.012
95739918|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.54
95739919|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
95739920|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.35
95739921|NCT00205777|191450802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in QUALEFFO: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
95739922|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.21
95739923|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.058
95739924|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
95739925|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.34
95739926|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.51
95739927|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
95739928|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.57
95739929|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
95739930|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.24
95739931|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.78
95739932|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.62
95739933|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
95739934|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.16
95739935|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.059
95739936|NCT00205777|191450804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D VAS: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.30
95739937|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.72
95739938|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.98
95937773|NCT03683719|191839952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|-6.36||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity. Data at visits following premature discont. of IMP or initiation of rescue med. before Week 16 were considered missing and imputed with MMRM predicted values (as were any other missing data).|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Least Square (LS) Means were calculated using a mixed model for repeated measurements on the post-baseline responses up to Week 16 with an unstructured covariance matrix, Kenward-Roger approximation to estimate denominator degrees of freedom, and the mean modelled as follows:~Change from baseline in HECSI~= treatment × visit + baseline HECSI × visit + region + baseline IGA-CHE.~The primary comparison between each active delgocitinib dose and vehicle was at Week 16."||-6.36|-24.82|<0.01
95739939|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.84
95937774|NCT03683719|191839953|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.05||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.05
95937775|NCT03683719|191839953|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||>|0.1||||||"IGA-CHE TS was reached in less than 50% of participants, therefore the median time was not estimable.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||>0.1
95937776|NCT03683719|191839953|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.0001
95937777|NCT03683719|191839953|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score. An event was defined as the first time achieving IGA-CHE TS.|||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Time to IGA-CHE TS was defined as the time from the date of the first IMP application to first assessment of IGA-CHE TS. Subjects without baseline observation were censored at the date of the first IMP application. Subjects with baseline observation not achieving IGA-CHE TS during the treatment period were censored at the date of the last visit with a valid post-baseline assessment on or prior to the date of discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication, whichever occurred first.||||<0.01
95937778|NCT03675282|191840004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.66
95739940|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
95739941|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 12 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.86
95937779|NCT03675282|191840004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.63
95988507|NCT01077973|191951604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-0.54|0.657
95739942|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.82
95739943|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.11
95739944|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.14
95988508|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.36|0.382
95739945|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.22
95739946|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 24 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.88
95739947|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.96
95739948|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.76
95739949|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.92
95739950|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.89
95739951|NCT00205777|191450806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Change at Month 36 in EQ-5D: P value was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.83
95739952|NCT04428307|191450817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02||||||||2.02|0.61|
95739953|NCT04428307|191450817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.71||||||||1.71|0.49|
95739954|NCT04428307|191450818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||||||||1.80|0.83|
95739955|NCT04428307|191450818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||||||||1.62|0.81|
95739956|NCT04428307|191450819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||||1.09|0.80|
95937780|NCT03675282|191840004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.99
95937781|NCT03675282|191840004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.67
95937782|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
95739957|NCT04428307|191450819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
95739958|NCT04428307|191450820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.73||||||||1.73|0.75|
95739959|NCT04428307|191450820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.74||||||||1.74|0.77|
95739960|NCT04428307|191450821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
95937783|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.40
95739961|NCT04428307|191450821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||||1.04|0.89|
95739962|NCT02679729|191450824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.853||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||0.853|0.396|
95739963|NCT02679729|191450825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.49||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.49|0.905|
95739964|NCT02679729|191450826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.76||||||Statistical Analysis for Part A||1.76|1.34|
95739965|NCT04603495|191450915|OTHER|The response rate between the 2 treatment groups was compared using CMH test.|Difference in proportion|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|The proportion difference = experimental group (Pela + RUX) - control group (placebo + RUX).|Splenic Response Rate at Week 24||39.3|21.6|<0.001
95739966|NCT04603495|191450916|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Absolute Change from Baseline in Total Symptom Score (TSS) at Week 24||0.04|-3.92|0.0545
95796063|NCT04108468|191562395|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.29||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.03|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.03|0.55|0.563
95796064|NCT04108468|191562396|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.17||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.26|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.26|0.02|0.083
95937784|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)|paired t-test|||||||0.04
95937785|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
95739967|NCT04603495|191450917|OTHER|The response rate between the 2 treatment groups was compared using CMH test.|Difference in proportions|6.0||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|Proportion Difference = Experimental Group (Pela + RUX) - Control Group (placebo + RUX).|Percentage of TSS50 at Week 24||15.5|-3.4|0.216
95739968|NCT04603495|191450919|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.63||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted across the strata including baseline DIPSS, platelet count, and spleen volume.|Proportion Difference = Experimental Group (Pela + RUX) - Control Group (placebo + RUX).|≥1 Grade improvement From Baseline in Bone Marrow Fibrosis at Week 24||14.73|0.52|0.037
95739969|NCT04603495|191450938|OTHER||Difference in Proportions|7.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH 95% CI adjusted by strata; Mehrotra-Railkar test used if Breslow-Day significant; DIPSS High merged with Int-2 due to low counts.|The proportion difference = experimental group (Pela + RUX) - control group (placebo + RUX). Wald 95% CIs were applied.|Modified Total Symptom Score (mTSS) Response at Week 24||17.2|-1.7|0.107
95739970|NCT00112437|191450943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.45||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.45|2.54|<=0.001
95937786|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.53
95937787|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.779||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.38
95937788|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.24
95937789|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.73
95739971|NCT00112437|191450943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.78|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.73|1.82|<=0.001
95937790|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.187||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.16
95739972|NCT00112437|191450943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.59||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.59|0.68|0.003
95739973|NCT00112437|191450943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.49||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.46||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.46|-1.44|0.343
95739974|NCT00112437|191450944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|7.02||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.02|4.32|<=0.001
95739975|NCT00112437|191450944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.45|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|5.76||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.76|3.15|<=0.001
95739976|NCT00112437|191450944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.39|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.73||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.73|2.06|<=0.001
95739977|NCT00112437|191450944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.84||||0.218||95.0|-2.19|0.51||Significance for the primary endpoint was achieved through stepdown trend-test, the highest dose group was removed and the test was repeated until lack of significance was observed.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The primary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The primary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase lumbar spine BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.51|-2.19|0.218
95796065|NCT04108468|191562397|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.64|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||7.64|0.01|0.432
95796066|NCT04108468|191562398|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.11||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.21|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.21|0.01|0.071
95796067|NCT04108468|191562399|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.84|0.00|0.037
95937791|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part II (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.75
95937792|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part III (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.28
95937793|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.85
95937794|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part I (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.78
95937795|NCT03675282|191840005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.381||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls UPDRS Part IV (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.03
95988509|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.39|0.242
95988510|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.24|-0.17|0.720
95739978|NCT00112437|191450945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.35|1.62|<=0.001
95739979|NCT00112437|191450945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.06|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.93||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.93|1.20|<=0.001
95739980|NCT00112437|191450945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.53||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.53|0.80|<=0.001
95739981|NCT00112437|191450945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.11|-1.61|0.135
95739982|NCT00112437|191450946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.66|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.61|1.71|<=0.001
95739983|NCT00112437|191450946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.89|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.84||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.84|0.93|<=0.001
95739984|NCT00112437|191450946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.87||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.82|-0.09|0.095
95796068|NCT04108468|191562400|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.68||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.41|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.41|0.32|0.296
95796069|NCT04108468|191562401|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.51||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.09|0.23|0.081
95937796|NCT03675282|191840006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 1 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.30
95937797|NCT03675282|191840006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Parkinson Disease - Stage 2 (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.94
95937798|NCT03675282|191840006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.45
95937799|NCT03675282|191840006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Healthy Controls (Baseline vs. 24 months)||||0.80
95937800|NCT03056040|191840010|NON_INFERIORITY|A difference in percent change in LDH between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups at Day 183 along with a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Noninferiority margin (NIM) was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 15%.|Treatment Difference|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|0.42|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|Adjusting for a possible 10% dropout rate, a minimum of 192 participants were estimated to provide 90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||0.42|-18.84|
95937801|NCT03056040|191840011|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. NIM was 20%.|Treatment Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|8.89|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with BTH was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||8.89|-18.99|
95937802|NCT03056040|191840012|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM margin was -3.|Treatment Difference|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.15|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.15|-0.21|
95937803|NCT03056040|191840013|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.68|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants achieving transfusion avoidance was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug||15.68|-4.27|
95937804|NCT03056040|191840014|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. NIM was -20%.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|13.31|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A difference in the percentages of participants with stabilized hemoglobin was calculated between the ravulizumab and eculizumab treatment groups, along with a 95% CI for the difference using the stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factor observed was transfusion history within 1 year prior to first dose of study drug.||13.31|-10.41|
95937805|NCT05875142|191840020|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.0008
95739985|NCT00112437|191450946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.75|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.75|-1.14|
95937806|NCT05875142|191840020|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||5.03e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC.||||0.00000503
95937807|NCT05875142|191840021|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with T||||0.0176
95937808|NCT05875142|191840021|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\>=treatment vs HA: control\<treatment||||||0.0056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing T with TMC.||||0.0056
95937809|NCT05875142|191840022|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TM||||0.4066
95937810|NCT05875142|191840022|NON_INFERIORITY|test of non-inferiority is H0: control\<=treatment vs HA: control\>treatment||||||0.4045|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T compared with TMC||||0.4045
95937811|NCT04274764|191840024|OTHER|||||||0.7399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7399
95937812|NCT03232138|191840031|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking.||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.41|0.03|0.452
95937813|NCT03232138|191840031|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28||Hypothesis: sulforaphane treatment slows or reverse the progression of lung histological lesions or lower the dysplasia score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores,age,sex,cigarettes per day,years of smoking, years since quit smoking||Derived from ANCOVA model with adjustment for baseline average endobronchial histopathological scores, age, sex, cigarettes per day, years of smoking, and years since quit smoking.||0.28|-0.04|0.452
95937814|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.738||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.738
95937815|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.78||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.780
95937816|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.733||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.733
95950086|NCT02791308|191872073|EQUIVALENCE|Proportion of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15|Other|0.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.57|3.53||||||Percentage of Subjects with Treatment Success at Visit 4/Day 15||3.53|-15.57|
95937817|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.751||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Strong-Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes in baseline.||||0.751
95739986|NCT00112437|191450947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.94|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||4.24|1.64|<=0.001
95739987|NCT00112437|191450947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.65|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.94||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.94|1.35|<=0.001
95739988|NCT00112437|191450947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.38|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.69||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||3.69|1.08|<=0.001
95739989|NCT00112437|191450947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.29||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.0||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.00|-1.58|0.731
95739990|NCT00112437|191450948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.29||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.35|-0.77|0.112
95739991|NCT00112437|191450948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.95|-1.13|
95796070|NCT04108468|191562402|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|0.75||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.59|0.36|0.458
95937818|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of Ki-67 positive nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.014
95937819|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.056|||||||Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Week intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.056
95937820|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.028|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.028
95937821|NCT03232138|191840032|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.004|||||||Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking,baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.004
95950087|NCT00248794|191872093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.97
95950088|NCT00248794|191872094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||.77
95739992|NCT00112437|191450948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||0.42|-1.69|
95739993|NCT00112437|191450948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total body BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.42|-2.53|
95739994|NCT00112437|191450949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.23|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.24|0.22|<=0.001
95739995|NCT00112437|191450949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.11||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||2.11|0.09|0.005
95739996|NCT00112437|191450949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||1.29|-0.74|0.630
95739997|NCT00112437|191450949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.27||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase distal forearm BMD compared to placebo over 12 months.||-0.27|-2.28|
95796071|NCT04108468|191562403|SUPERIORITY||Incidence-rate ratio|1.12||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.72|||Negative binomial regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.46|0.798
95796072|NCT04108468|191562404|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.77|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.77|-1.53|0.512
95796073|NCT04108468|191562405|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.44|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.44|-1.33|0.320
95937822|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.377||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.377
95937823|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis||||||0.413||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment inhibits or reduces number of Ki-67 positive nuclei in bronchial biopsy as compared with the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.413
95950089|NCT03449979|191872098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 3.119||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the depressed group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.0852
95739998|NCT00112437|191450950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-57.86|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.33|-43.38||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-43.38|-72.33|<=0.001
95988511|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.11|-0.43|0.235
95937824|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. TUNEL positive (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.338||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies compared with the place|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate Intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.338
95937825|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) at baseline for positive cells. TUNEL positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) baseline.||||0.547
95739999|NCT00112437|191450950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.92|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-30.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-30.91|-60.93|<=0.001
95740000|NCT00112437|191450950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-31.84|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-15.58||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||-15.58|-48.11|<=0.001
95764437|NCT00780338|191499090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.45
95796074|NCT04108468|191562406|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.28|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.28|-1.22|0.220
95796075|NCT04108468|191562407|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.95|-0.85|0.912
95796076|NCT04108468|191562408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.42|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.42|-1.42|0.281
95988512|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.34|0.630
95988513|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.32|0.393
95740001|NCT00112437|191450950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.17||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|43.24||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 12 months.||43.24|-0.94|0.249
95740002|NCT00112437|191450951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.33|||<=|0.001||95.0|-75.86|-36.81||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-36.81|-75.86|<=0.001
95859650|NCT01600170|191677213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.035
95937826|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.291||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.291
95937827|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.552||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Weak-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.552
95937828|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.205||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Moderate-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.205
95937829|NCT03232138|191840033|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. TUNEL all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on number of TUNEL positive nuclei in bronchial biopsies|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking, baseline values of positive TUNEL nuclei||Strong-intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.295
95937830|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.295||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.295
95937831|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.242||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.242
95937832|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.985||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.985
95988514|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.18|-0.46|0.382
95988515|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.32|-0.32|0.995
95988516|NCT01077973|191951605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.12|-0.41|0.287
95988517|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.37|-0.98|0.377
95988518|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.01|0.324
95988519|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.52|0.902
95988520|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-1.17|0.273
95988521|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.56|-0.94|0.616
95988522|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.39|-0.85|0.471
95740003|NCT00112437|191450951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.57|||<=|0.001||95.0|-56.63|-14.51||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||-14.51|-56.63|<=0.001
95740004|NCT00112437|191450951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.66||||0.08||95.0|-44.54|1.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||1.23|-44.54|0.080
95796077|NCT04108468|191562409|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.47|||Quantile (median) regression|"Adjusted for baseline score and poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable).~Multiple imputation addressed missing data."|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.47|-1.44|0.985
95988523|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.24|0.356
95796078|NCT04108468|191562410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.60|0.45|0.869
95937833|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) baseline positive cells. Caspase-3 positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.547||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) at baseline.||||0.547
95740005|NCT00112437|191450951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|47.88||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 12 months.||47.88|-8.48|
95740006|NCT00112437|191450952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.82|-0.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||-0.74|-35.82|0.004
95764438|NCT00780338|191499091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.65
95796079|NCT04108468|191562411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.13|0.38|0.802
95796080|NCT04108468|191562412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.72|0.48|0.767
95796081|NCT04108468|191562413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.55|0.26|0.315
95796082|NCT04108468|191562414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.27|0.55|0.516
95937834|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|used 2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for all positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker.||||||0.778||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||All positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.778
95937835|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.685||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Weak intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.685
95937836|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarker||||||0.469||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||Moderate intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.469
95937837|NCT03232138|191840034|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided P-value in the analysis, Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment for positive cells. Caspase-3 all positive nuclei (counts/µm2) From Analysis of Covariance with adjustment for age, sex, cigarettes/day, years of smoking, years of quit smoking and baseline values of the same cellular biomarke||||||0.052||||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment has significant impact on the number of cells with positive Caspase-3 in bronchial biopsies than the placebo.|Analysis of Covariance|Analysis of Covariance adjustment for age,sex,cigarettes/day,years of smoking,years of quit smoking,baseline values of Caspase-3 positive cells||strong intensity positive nuclei. Mean (95%CI) changes from pre to pos treatment.||||0.052
95740007|NCT00112437|191450952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.26||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|17.39||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.39|-19.90|0.344
95740008|NCT00112437|191450952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|17.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||17.89|-20.55|
95740009|NCT00112437|191450952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|50.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 12 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 12 months.||50.46|5.84|
95740010|NCT00112437|191450953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-5.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-5.04|-26.11|<=0.001
95740011|NCT00112437|191450953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.43||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|16.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||16.89|-6.02|0.645
95740012|NCT00112437|191450953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|23.92||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||23.92|-0.47|
95740013|NCT00112437|191450953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|44.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.55|59.16||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation from difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||59.16|30.55|
95796083|NCT04108468|191562415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.38|0.39|0.939
95796084|NCT04108468|191562416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.94|0.48|0.701
95796085|NCT04108468|191562417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||1.22|0.19|0.124
95796086|NCT04108468|191562418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.63|0.78|0.161
95740014|NCT00112437|191450954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.74|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.14|-19.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||-19.33|-52.14|<=0.001
95937838|NCT03232138|191840035|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. the objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RNA integrity number or RIN.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.82
95937839|NCT03232138|191840036|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be down-regulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated down-regulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-expressions are associated with lung cancer risk.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.50
95937840|NCT03232138|191840037|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated upregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate these genes whose over-expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
95937841|NCT03232138|191840038|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung pre-malignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months would have any significant impact on the expression of these pre-malignant lesions associated downregulated genes in bronchial brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate these genes whose down-regulated expressions are associated with risk of lung pre-malignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.5
95937842|NCT03232138|191840039|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.012
95937843|NCT03232138|191840040|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung cancer. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these lung-cancer associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in nasal epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung cancer.|Mixed Models Analysis||Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.0045
95950090|NCT03449979|191872098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6676|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (1,39); F-statistic = 0.187||Interaction in the effect of tACS on left frontal alpha oscillation in the healthy group. Two-way interaction of within-participant factor of before/after tACS and between-participant factor of alpha-tACS/placebo.||||0.6676
95796087|NCT04108468|191562419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.70|0.251
95796088|NCT04108468|191562420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.60|0.63|0.363
95796089|NCT04108468|191562421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.46|0.40|0.991
95950091|NCT03449979|191872098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||degrees of freedom = (1,41); F-statistic = 0.008|ANOVA|||Main effect of alpha-tACS on session (before and after) on left frontal alpha oscillations across both groups (healthy and patient).||||0.929
95740015|NCT00112437|191450954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|17.23||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.23|-20.58|0.161
95740016|NCT00112437|191450954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.99|17.82||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||17.82|-20.99|
95740017|NCT00112437|191450954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|71.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 12 months.||71.44|22.35|
95740018|NCT00112437|191450955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.1|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||5.42|2.77|<=0.001
95740019|NCT00112437|191450955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.48|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.77||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.77|2.20|<=0.001
95740020|NCT00112437|191450955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.75|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.07|1.43|<=0.001
95740021|NCT00112437|191450955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.83||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase total hip BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.83|-1.84|0.536
95796090|NCT04108468|191562422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||9.10|1.07|0.037
95796091|NCT04108468|191562423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||6.40|0.98|0.056
95950092|NCT03449979|191872098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = -0.08789||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the depressed cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) with the hypothesis to decrease pathologically elevate left frontal alpha oscillations||||0.1950
95796092|NCT04108468|191562424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.57|0.65|0.277
95950093|NCT03449979|191872098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8603|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 20; t-statistic = 1.1117||Difference in alpha oscillations after versus before in the healthy cohort (one-tailed Student's t-test) run as a control analysis||||0.8603
95740022|NCT00112437|191450956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.69|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|6.12||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.12|3.25|<=0.001
95740023|NCT00112437|191450956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.57|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.97||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.97|2.18|<=0.001
95740024|NCT00112437|191450956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.82|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.25||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.25|1.39|<=0.001
95740025|NCT00112437|191450956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.04||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase femoral neck BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.04|-1.85|0.585
95740026|NCT00112437|191450957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.09|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||7.01|3.18|<=0.001
95740027|NCT00112437|191450957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.56|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.42||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.42|2.70|<=0.001
95796093|NCT04108468|191562425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||3.92|0.48|0.548
95796094|NCT04108468|191562426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||10.97|1.25|0.018
95796095|NCT04108468|191562427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.02|0.28|0.926
95796096|NCT04108468|191562428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.94|0.50|0.385
95937844|NCT03232138|191840041|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be upregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated upregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would downregulate the expression of these genes whose upregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.32
95950094|NCT02379078|191872127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
95950095|NCT02379078|191872128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95950096|NCT02379078|191872129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95740028|NCT00112437|191450957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.43|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|6.33||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||6.33|2.52|<=0.001
95740029|NCT00112437|191450957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.89||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase trochanter BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.89|-1.97|0.981
95740030|NCT00112437|191450958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.73|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.46|3.01||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.01|0.46|<=0.001
95740031|NCT00112437|191450958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.11||||0.028||95.0|-0.12|2.34||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||2.34|-0.12|0.028
95740032|NCT00112437|191450958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|0.2||||0.804||95.0|-1.1|1.49||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||1.49|-1.10|0.804
95740033|NCT00112437|191450958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.15||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Total Body BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||0.15|-2.46|
95740034|NCT00112437|191450959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.9|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.46||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||4.46|1.34|<=0.001
95740035|NCT00112437|191450959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|2.09|||<=|0.001||95.0|0.59|3.6||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.60|0.59|<=0.001
95796097|NCT04108468|191562429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||2.12|0.32|0.684
95796098|NCT04108468|191562430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.72||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|326.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||326.19|0.86|0.063
95796099|NCT04108468|191562431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.9||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|72.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||72.42|1.09|0.041
95740036|NCT00112437|191450959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|1.53||||0.094||95.0|-0.01|3.07||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||3.07|-0.01|0.094
95740037|NCT00112437|191450959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.95||||||95.0|-4.5|-1.4||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor in the model, with 5% significance.||The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will increase Distal Forearm BMD compared to placebo over 24 months.||-1.40|-4.50|
95740038|NCT00112437|191450960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-47.21|||<=|0.001||95.0|-64.51|-29.9||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-29.90|-64.51|<=0.001
95740039|NCT00112437|191450960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-33.67|||<=|0.001||95.0|-51.44|-15.91||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-15.91|-51.44|<=0.001
95740040|NCT00112437|191450960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-35.94|||<=|0.001||95.0|-54.15|-17.74||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||-17.74|-54.15|<=0.001
95796100|NCT04108468|191562432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|52.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||52.14|0.86|0.069
95796101|NCT04108468|191562433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|16.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||16.66|0.33|0.397
95796102|NCT04108468|191562434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate arm was the reference category.|||2.83|0.04|0.309
95937845|NCT03232138|191840042|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis was focused on the gene set that were found to be downregulated in lung premalignant lesions. The objective was to examine if sulforaphane treatment for 12 months had any significant impact on the expression of these premalignant lesion-associated downregulated genes in nasal brushing samples. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the effect of sulforaphane treatment over time on GSVA enrichment score with adjustment for age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Sulforaphane treatment would upregulate the expression of these genes whose downregulated expressions in bronchial epithelial cells have been found to be associated with risk of lung premalignant lesions.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model includes treatment, time, time\*treatment, age at study entry, sex, and RIN.|Changes (beta) of gene expression after the 12-month sulforaphane treatment.|||||0.27
95937846|NCT03232138|191840043|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.59||||||For severity by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
95937847|NCT03232138|191840043|EQUIVALENCE|Total number of adverse events by attrition and severity by treatment group during the study period, The Pittsburgh Clinical Trial of Sulforaphane (SFN) on Risk Markers of Lung Cancer||||||0.131||||||For attribution by treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
95988524|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-1.00|0.722
95740041|NCT00112437|191450960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|17.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|41.8||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handle by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-NTx) over 24 months.||41.80|-6.78|0.101
95740042|NCT00112437|191450961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-63.34|||<=|0.001||95.0|-88.32|-38.36||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-38.36|-88.32|<=0.001
95740043|NCT00112437|191450961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.29|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-13.18||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||-13.18|-65.40|<=0.001
95740044|NCT00112437|191450961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-23.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|5.09||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure.|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||5.09|-53.04|0.124
95796103|NCT04108468|191562435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||4.60|0.17|0.871
95796104|NCT04108468|191562436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||5.52|0.04|0.555
95937848|NCT01781468|191840062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9601
95937849|NCT01781468|191840063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7877
95937850|NCT01781468|191840064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3272|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3272
95937851|NCT01781468|191840065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 4||||0.9122
95937852|NCT01781468|191840065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline to Week 8||||0.8559
95937853|NCT00450658|191840067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing UGI (gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||15.9|3.0|0.0018
95937854|NCT00450658|191840068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) and prior upper gastrointestinal ulcer history (Yes/No) at randomization.||||14.4|1.9|0.0051
95937855|NCT00450658|191840069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history at randomization.||7.1|0.8|0.0017
95937856|NCT01573442|191840140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4952
95937857|NCT01573442|191840141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2116|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2116
95937858|NCT01573442|191840142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6760
95937859|NCT01573442|191840143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 1||||0.029
95937860|NCT01573442|191840143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 2||||0.8214
95937861|NCT01573442|191840143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 3||||0.4952
95740045|NCT00112437|191450961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|56.73|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that odanacatib will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (s-CTx) over 24 months.||56.73|-12.38|
95740046|NCT00112437|191450962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.71||||0.015||95.0|-36.03|2.61||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||2.61|-36.03|0.015
95988525|NCT01077973|191951606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|-0.94|0.493
95988526|NCT01077973|191951607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.20|-0.75|0.259
95988527|NCT01077973|191951607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.26|-0.69|0.378
95988528|NCT01077973|191951607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.762
95988529|NCT01077973|191951607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|-1.17|0.281
95988530|NCT01077973|191951607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|-0.97|0.582
95988531|NCT01077973|191951607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|-0.83|0.523
95988532|NCT01077973|191951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.35|0.327
95988533|NCT01077973|191951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|-1.21|0.489
95988534|NCT01077973|191951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.61|-0.88|0.726
95796105|NCT04108468|191562437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for poly/oligoarthritis status (the stratification variable). Multiple imputation addressed missing data.|The placebo/methotrexate group was the reference category.|||0.72|0.11|0.009
95796106|NCT04513366|191562450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.23|0.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.64|0.23|<.0001
95796107|NCT04513366|191562450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.32|0.73|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.73|0.32|<.0001
95796108|NCT04513366|191562451|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.18|-3.42|||ANCOVA|||||-3.42|-7.18|<.001
95796109|NCT04513366|191562451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.57|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-7.57|<.001
95740047|NCT00112437|191450962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.51||||0.246||95.0|-27.31|10.29||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||10.29|-27.31|0.246
95740048|NCT00112437|191450962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.79||||||95.0|-22.66|19.08|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||19.08|-22.66|
95740049|NCT00112437|191450962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|21.74||||||95.0|-1.32|44.81|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline).|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) compared to placebo over 24 months. The secondary hypothesis states that MK0822 will decrease biochemical indices of bone resorption (u-DPyr) over 24 months.||44.81|-1.32|
95740050|NCT00112437|191450963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-16.64||||0.002||95.0|-28.84|-4.44||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-4.44|-28.84|0.002
95740051|NCT00112437|191450963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|7.24||||0.852||95.0|-5.73|20.21||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||20.21|-5.73|0.852
95740052|NCT00112437|191450963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||||95.0|-13.69|12.92|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||12.92|-13.69|
95740053|NCT00112437|191450963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|36.79||||||95.0|21.19|52.38|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fractions from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-BSAP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||52.38|21.19|
95740054|NCT00112437|191450964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|-3.43||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||-3.43|-39.55|0.011
95796110|NCT04513366|191562452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-87.85|-40.85|||ANCOVA|||||-40.85|-87.85|<.001
95988535|NCT01077973|191951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|-2.09|0.320
95796111|NCT04513366|191562452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-92.16|-47.35|||ANCOVA|||||-47.35|-92.16|<.001
95796112|NCT04513366|191562453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
95796113|NCT04513366|191562453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.472
95796114|NCT04513366|191562454|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.91|||Chi-squared|||||0.91|0.25|0.0003
95796115|NCT04513366|191562454|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.25||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|-0.36|0.1895
95796116|NCT04513366|191562455|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.43||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.72|||Chi-squared|||||0.72|0.14|0.0035
95740055|NCT00112437|191450964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|13.31||||0.618||95.0|-7.1|33.71||Significance for secondary endpoints was only declared if there was also significance for the primary endpoint. Multiplicity was addressed through a stepdown trend-test approach. Multiplicity for multiple endpoints was handled by a Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least square means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of MK0822 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||33.71|-7.10|0.618
95740056|NCT00112437|191450964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|29.01|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Squares Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||29.01|-13.46|
95988536|NCT01077973|191951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.86|0.506
95988537|NCT01077973|191951608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.38|0.691
95988538|NCT01077973|191951609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|-2.07|0.292
95988539|NCT01077973|191951609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.82||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.82|-1.87|0.439
95988540|NCT01077973|191951609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.92|-1.31|0.733
95988541|NCT01077973|191951609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.43|-2.80|0.526
95988542|NCT01077973|191951609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, baseline PSR, gender, and treatment-by-baseline terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|-2.19|0.624
95988543|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|17.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.07|-11.03|0.672
95988544|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.47||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|8.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.68|-17.61|0.467
95740057|NCT00112437|191450964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.86|74.59|||ANCOVA|Stepwise linear trend test on ANCOVA model of log-fraction with treatment (scales 0, 1, 2, 3, 4) as covariate and center as factor, 5% significance.|Difference in Least Square Means (back-transformation of difference in log-fraction from baseline)|The secondary objective was to assess the effect of odanacatib 3 mg weekly, 10 mg weekly, 25 mg weekly, and 50 mg weekly on biochemical indices of bone formation (s-P1NP) compared to placebo over 24 months.||74.59|23.86|
95796117|NCT04513366|191562455|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|-0.02|0.0428
95988545|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.55||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|18.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.05|-2.96|0.164
95988546|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.52||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|10.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.92|-25.96|0.427
95937862|NCT01573442|191840143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5232|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 4||||0.5232
95937863|NCT01573442|191840143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 5||||0.5522
95937864|NCT01573442|191840143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||From baseline to month 6||||0.7005
95937865|NCT01573442|191840147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
95937866|NCT01573442|191840148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8761
95937867|NCT01573442|191840149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
95937868|NCT01573442|191840150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7077
95937869|NCT01573442|191840151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8748
95937870|NCT01573442|191840152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4335
95937871|NCT01573442|191840153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.286
95740058|NCT00112437|191450965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|9.53||||||In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis assess the time course of resolution of effect on lumbar spine BMD during the 12 month extension following 24 months of treatment with odanacatib once weekly. The primary objective was to assess the resolution of effect, on lumbar spine BMD, for the participants who received odanacatib 50 mg for 3 years compared to those who received odanacatib 50 mg in the 2nd year and switched to placebo for the 3rd year extension.||9.53|3.38|
95740059|NCT00112437|191450966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|6.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|9.17||||||||9.17|3.44|
95937872|NCT01573442|191840154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7694
95937873|NCT01573442|191840155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9609
95796118|NCT04513366|191562456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-1.10|0.517
95937874|NCT04166773|191840158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|24.44|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, Confidence Interval (CI), and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||24.44|2.27|<0.001
95740060|NCT00112437|191450967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.57||||||||5.57|-0.16|
95740061|NCT00112437|191450968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|8.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.46||||||||12.46|3.80|
95796119|NCT04513366|191562456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-0.39|0.230
95937875|NCT04166773|191840158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|39.11|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||39.11|3.59|<0.001
95937876|NCT04166773|191840158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|67.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||67.25|5.73|<0.001
95937877|NCT04166773|191840159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||7.90|1.15|0.025
95937878|NCT04166773|191840159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors|||6.13|0.92|0.074
95937879|NCT04166773|191840159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||6.40|0.95|0.063
95937880|NCT04166773|191840160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||3.40|0.25|0.893
95937881|NCT04166773|191840160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||2.87|0.18|0.647
95937882|NCT04166773|191840160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.91|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||1.91|0.08|0.246
95937883|NCT04166773|191840161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|20.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||20.00|2.41|<0.001
95937884|NCT04166773|191840161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|32.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||32.61|3.36|<0.001
95937885|NCT04166773|191840161|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|42.65|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, CI, and p-value for endpoint measures are from logistic regression model with baseline diabetes status, region, treatment as factors.|||42.65|3.87|<0.001
95937886|NCT04166773|191840162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-12.04|<0.001
95937887|NCT04166773|191840162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.73|-11.93|<0.001
95937888|NCT04166773|191840162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.87|-13.17|<0.001
95937889|NCT04166773|191840163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.52|-14.32|<0.001
95937890|NCT04166773|191840163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.32|-17.05|<0.001
95950097|NCT02379078|191872130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.468
95740062|NCT00112437|191450969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.46||||||||4.46|-1.54|
95740063|NCT00112437|191450970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|5.88||||||||5.88|-0.93|
95740064|NCT00112437|191450971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-78.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.2|-36.92||||||||-36.92|-119.20|
95740065|NCT00112437|191450972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.7|10.2||||||||10.20|-78.70|
95740066|NCT00112437|191450973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-39.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.17|8.68||||||||8.68|-87.17|
95740067|NCT00112437|191450974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|38.85||||||||38.85|-5.67|
95740068|NCT00112437|191450975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.04|31.18||||||||31.18|-42.04|
95740069|NCT00112437|191450976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|49.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|84.83||||||||84.83|13.37|
95796120|NCT04513366|191562457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.35|0.250
95937891|NCT04166773|191840163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-12.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.98|-20.71|<0.001
95937892|NCT05908344|191840199|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design||||
95937893|NCT05908344|191840199|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95740070|NCT00112437|191450977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|209.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.14|291.73||||||||291.73|127.14|
95740071|NCT02463487|191451021|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.87
95740072|NCT02463487|191451023|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95740073|NCT02709018|191451024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
95796121|NCT04513366|191562457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.16|0.506
95740074|NCT02709018|191451025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
95740075|NCT04050735|191451026|OTHER|None of the above apply to this study|F-test|1.125||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model testing the three-way interaction of HIV serostatus (positive/negative), beverage condition (alcohol/placebo), and time (hour 0, 1, 2, 3).||||.343
95740076|NCT04050735|191451027|OTHER|None of the above options apply to this study.|F-test|3.236||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model testing the three-way interaction of HIV serostatus (positive/negative), beverage condition (alcohol/placebo), and time (hour 0, 1, 2, 3).||||.026
95740077|NCT04050735|191451028|OTHER|The above categories do not apply to this type of study.||||||0.987||||||The p-value for the interaction of HIV serostatus by beverage condition.|ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on choline.||||.987
95740078|NCT04050735|191451028|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.836|||||||ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on summed peak of glutamate plus glutamine||||.836
95740079|NCT04050735|191451029|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.846|||||||ANOVA|||Test of group by condition interaction on fractional anisotropy (FA).||||.846
95796122|NCT04513366|191562458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.55|0.653
95796123|NCT04513366|191562458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.36|0.629
95740080|NCT04050735|191451030|OTHER|The above types of tests do not apply to this study.||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||Test of interaction of group by beverage condition.||||.894
95740081|NCT01248728|191451082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
95740082|NCT01248728|191451083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95740083|NCT01248728|191451085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95740084|NCT01248728|191451086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6
95740085|NCT03804983|191451087|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.178||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.178
95740086|NCT03804983|191451088|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.145||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.145
95740087|NCT03804983|191451089|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.304||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.304
95796124|NCT04513366|191562459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.54|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.54|-0.40|0.731
95796125|NCT04513366|191562459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.58|-0.35|0.583
95937894|NCT05908344|191840199|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95937895|NCT05908344|191840199|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM minutes. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95937896|NCT05908344|191840200|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM1 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95937897|NCT05908344|191840200|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM2 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95950098|NCT02379078|191872131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
95950099|NCT03989232|191872153|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||On-treatment without rescue medication observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by multiple imputation (MI) assuming that missing data were missed at random (MAR). The imputation was performed separately within each treatment group defined by randomised treatment.||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
95988547|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.66||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|12.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.25|-23.57|0.537
95988548|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.83||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|13.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.22|-16.88|0.813
95988549|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|8.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.24|-19.24|0.455
95988550|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.63|9.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.59|-17.63|0.570
95937898|NCT05908344|191840200|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for NREM3 percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95988551|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-13.80|0.792
95988552|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
95988553|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
95988554|NCT01077973|191951610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
95988555|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|22.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.99|-10.86|0.480
95740088|NCT03804983|191451090|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.131||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.131
95988556|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.34||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|21.23||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.23|-12.55|0.612
95740089|NCT03804983|191451092|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.206||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.206
95740090|NCT03804983|191451093|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.335||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.335
95740091|NCT03804983|191451094|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.637||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.637
95859651|NCT01600170|191677214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.62
95937899|NCT05908344|191840200|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Comparison for REM percentage. Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95937900|NCT05908344|191840201|OTHER|Effect size determination|Cohen's d|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Group Selection refers to study device Condition (Active/Sham); repeated-measures design.||||
95740092|NCT03804983|191451095|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.347||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.347
95740093|NCT03804983|191451096|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.057||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.057
95740094|NCT03804983|191451097|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.435||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.435
95740095|NCT03804983|191451098|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.135||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.135
95740096|NCT03804983|191451099|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.271||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.271
95740097|NCT03804983|191451100|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
95740098|NCT03804983|191451102|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||1||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
95937901|NCT04717492|191840230|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to death, or first hospitalization or revascularization event was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.54|0.66|0.962
95740099|NCT03804983|191451103|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.294||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.294
95740100|NCT03804983|191451104|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.584||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.584
95740101|NCT03804983|191451105|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.69||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.69
95740102|NCT03804983|191451106|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.066||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.066
95796126|NCT00269152|191562477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|71.5||||||||71.5|46.4|
95740103|NCT03804983|191451107|OTHER|Analysis of Variance||||||0.904||||||All outcomes were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA comparing baseline to the studied period(i.e., ski admission or home use), grouped by treatment. Significance level was set at a P-Value\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.904
95740104|NCT01838681|191451112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|Model included MADRS total score at the randomisation visit, treatment group, country, and the randomisation criteria used||||1.15|0.60|0.2641
95740105|NCT04633564|191451176|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence region is (0.73, 1.36).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.12||||||||1.12|0.83|
95796127|NCT00269152|191562477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Feasibility Response Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|36.1|63.9||||||||63.9|36.1|
95740106|NCT00902538|191451177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1187
95740107|NCT00902538|191451177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95796128|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of baseline values||||0.643
95740108|NCT00902538|191451178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0425
95740109|NCT00902538|191451178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95740110|NCT00902538|191451179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1939||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1939
95740111|NCT00902538|191451179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95740112|NCT00902538|191451180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0009
95740113|NCT00902538|191451180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95740114|NCT00902538|191451181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95740115|NCT00902538|191451181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95740116|NCT00902538|191451182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1611||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1611
95740117|NCT00902538|191451183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
95740118|NCT00902538|191451184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0412
95740119|NCT00902538|191451185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0253
95740120|NCT00902538|191451186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0063
95740121|NCT03527485|191451192|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in ventral striatum (VS).||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95740122|NCT03527485|191451192|EQUIVALENCE|Between-group comparisons of binding potential non displaceable (BPND) in Prefrontal cortex (PFC).||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.044
95796129|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.018
95796130|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.027
95796131|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
95740123|NCT02554890|191451193|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|0.808||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8080|0.6315|<.0001
95740124|NCT02554890|191451197|OTHER||exponentially back transformed from LS m|0.8487||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7694|0.9361|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.9361|0.7694|0.0011
95740125|NCT02554890|191451198|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.6487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4559|1.8669|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.8669|1.4559|<.0001
95740126|NCT02554890|191451199|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3248|1.519|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5190|1.3248|<.0001
95740127|NCT02554890|191451200|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|1.4745|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3752|1.581|||ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/ Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||1.5810|1.3752|<.0001
95740128|NCT02554890|191451201|OTHER||expon. back transformed from LS means|0.7133|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6171|0.8245||ANCOVA model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and biomarker baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA||Geometric Mean Ratio: Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Enalapril|||0.8245|0.6171|<.0001
95740129|NCT03442322|191451202|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.25||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.492
95740130|NCT03442322|191451203|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.73||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.765
95740131|NCT03442322|191451204|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.77||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.808
95740132|NCT03442322|191451205|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.108
95740133|NCT03442322|191451206|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|2.59||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.411
95740134|NCT03442322|191451207|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.08||||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.981
95740135|NCT03442322|191451208|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|3.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.020
95740136|NCT03442322|191451209|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.62||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.299
95740137|NCT03442322|191451210|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.68||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
95796132|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.677
95796133|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of baseline values||||0.326
95796134|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.019
95796135|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.014
95740138|NCT03442322|191451211|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.389
95740139|NCT03442322|191451212|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-5.95||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.043
95740140|NCT03442322|191451213|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.91||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.279
95796136|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.427
95740141|NCT03442322|191451214|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|0.92||||0.728|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.728
95740142|NCT03442322|191451215|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.75||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.490
95740143|NCT03442322|191451216|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|4.44||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.232
95740144|NCT03442322|191451217|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.11||||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.708
95740145|NCT03442322|191451218|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.0||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.775
95740146|NCT03442322|191451219|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|1.77||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.584
95740147|NCT03442322|191451220|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-0.25||||0.898|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.898
95796137|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
95937902|NCT04717492|191840232|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.92||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to CVD-related death or hospitalization/revascularization was analyzed using cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.92|0.65|0.694
95740148|NCT03442322|191451221|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.79||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.217
95740149|NCT03442322|191451222|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-1.39||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.560
95796138|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.021
95859652|NCT01600170|191677215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis focused on a comparison of change in response over 12 wks for each treatment under a 2x2 crossover design. Mixed effects model was used to estimate within subject treatment differences, trends over time \& at each wk(0,2,6,12). Log-transformations were applied to meet normality assumption \& models adjusted for period \& sequence effects. Secondary outcome analyses used p\<0.05 for statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.99
95937903|NCT04717492|191840234|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.66||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with inverse probability of treatment weighting as described in primary manuscript.||Time to respiratory/COPD-related death or hospitalization was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to reduce confounding. Missing data were imputed using multivariate imputation by chained equations with predictive mean matching.||1.66|0.34|0.476
95937904|NCT02100813|191840237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.42|0.23|<0.001
95740150|NCT03442322|191451223|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.08||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.277
95796139|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Value||||0.545
95796140|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
95796141|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.670
95937905|NCT02100813|191840237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.33|0.18|<0.001
95937906|NCT02100813|191840237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79|||=|0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||1.04|0.59|=0.096
95937907|NCT02100813|191840238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.02|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|124.0|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||124|1.53|=0.007
95796142|NCT03074500|191562491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.192
95796143|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.633
95937908|NCT02100813|191840238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.82|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|154.5|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||154.5|1.99|=0.001
95937909|NCT02100813|191840238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.26|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.31|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.31|0.72|=0.43
95937910|NCT02100813|191840239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|51.66|||Log binomial regression|||||51.66|2.93|<0.001
95937911|NCT02100813|191840239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|9.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|56.4|||Log binomial regression|||||56.4|3.22|<0.001
95937912|NCT02100813|191840239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.09|||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Log binomial regression|||||1.49|0.81|=0.55
95937913|NCT04856163|191840253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
95937914|NCT04856163|191840254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||discrete-time survival model|||||||0.21
95937915|NCT04856163|191840255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
95937916|NCT04856163|191840256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95937917|NCT06393088|191840277|SUPERIORITY|It was calculated that 24 participants randomized 1:1 between 2 arms would have at least an 85% power to detect a difference in pain relief of 30 points as measured using a Visual Analog Device. The actual difference in the mean of the change in pain level, as measured using a Visual Analog Scale, between the two independent groups is 41.67. Results of the post trial calculation was a 95.7% power to detect the difference in pain relief using 29 randomized participants.|Mean Difference (Net)|41.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.15|61.67||The threshold is P-value \<.0.05 for statistical significance A bootstrap N=20,000 was used for all estimates|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~There is not a statistically significant difference in nociceptive musculoskeletal pain when using an IR REHAB device when compared with a sham (placebo) device as a therapy in an approved and standardized clinical protocol."||61.67|20.15|<0.01
95937918|NCT04176965|191840278|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in means between the 2 groups (FINEVISION HP - AcrySof SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0316|0.0592|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0592|0.0316|<0.0001
95937919|NCT04176965|191840279|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937920|NCT04176965|191840280|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FINEVISION HP compared to control in percentages of first operative eyes with secondary surgical interventions related to the optical properties of the IOL was evaluated using two-sided 90% Farrington method confidence intervals around the difference in percentages between the 2 groups. If the upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 1.4%, the FINEVISION HP IOL will be considered statistically non-inferior to the control IOL.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.36||||||||1.36|-0.76|
95937921|NCT04176965|191840285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937922|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937923|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Cystoid macular oedema. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937924|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937925|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Hypopyon. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937926|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937927|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Endophthalmitis. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937928|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937929|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Lens dislocated from posterior chamber. The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937930|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95740151|NCT03442322|191451224|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-2.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.400
95740152|NCT03442322|191451225|OTHER|Given that we found baseline differences in resident characteristics and outcomes, we implemented a difference-in-differences model for all outcomes.|Difference-in-Difference estimator|-3.18||||0.303|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|All regressions controlled for resident characteristics, nursing home staffing, resident COVID cases, and nursing home fixed effects.||||||0.303
95740153|NCT00834275|191451246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.0||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|94|
95740154|NCT00834275|191451247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|98.3|
95740155|NCT00834275|191451248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||104|98.3|
95740156|NCT03649477|191451249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.202||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.729|1.324||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.324|-3.729|0.3493
95740157|NCT03649477|191451249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.136||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.685|-0.586||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.586|-5.685|0.0162
95937931|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Pupillary block.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937932|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95988557|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.47||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|15.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.55|-12.60|0.839
95937933|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Retinal detachment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95988558|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-13.2||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|2.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.99|-29.40|0.130
95740158|NCT03649477|191451250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.608||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.674||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.674|-2.890|0.6001
95740159|NCT03649477|191451250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764||||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.068|1.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.541|-3.068|0.5143
95740160|NCT03649477|191451251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|3.541||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.541|-3.175|0.9144
95740161|NCT03649477|191451251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.812||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.177|-0.446||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.446|-7.177|0.0266
95740162|NCT03649477|191451252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.1598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.125||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.125|-0.748|0.1598
95740163|NCT03649477|191451252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|-0.059||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.059|-0.937|0.0266
95796144|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.282
95796145|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.015
95796146|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.677
95796147|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.344
95937934|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937935|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative: Secondary surgical intervention.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937936|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937937|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Corneal stroma oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937938|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937939|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Cystoid macular oedema.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937940|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937941|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Iritis.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937942|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the FINEVISION HP group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937943|NCT04176965|191840286|NON_INFERIORITY|Persistent: Raised Intraocular Pressure (IOP) requiring treatment.The observed AE rates in the control group were compared to the SPE rates from ISO 11979-7 Table E.2. A p value of \>0.05 indicates that the rates were statistically not significant when compared to SPE rates.|||||>|0.05|||||||One-sided exact binomial test|||||||>0.05
95937944|NCT05409183|191840327|OTHER||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|26.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.216||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.847|45.099|||ANCOVA|||||45.099|7.847|0.0032
95937945|NCT03526874|191840330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95937946|NCT03526874|191840331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95937947|NCT03526874|191840332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0162
95937948|NCT03526874|191840333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Two-way Anova to test sex interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
95937949|NCT03526874|191840334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0098
95937950|NCT03526874|191840335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test ethnicity interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.02
95937951|NCT03526874|191840336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.01
95937952|NCT03526874|191840337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||ANOVA|Two-way Anova to test race interaction with treatment effect. The study was not powered for subgroup analyses.||||||0.0329
95937953|NCT03526874|191840338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.294
95937954|NCT03526874|191840339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
95937955|NCT03526874|191840340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.182
95937956|NCT03526874|191840341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.423
95937957|NCT03526874|191840342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
95937958|NCT03526874|191840343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
95937959|NCT03526874|191840344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
95937960|NCT03526874|191840345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
95937961|NCT04064164|191840349|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.004||||||Dear (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 8.4 df=1||||||.004
95937962|NCT04064164|191840349|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App. Significant associations indicated the human and app were accurately identifying true positives (1:1) or true negatives (0:0).|||||<|0.001||||||Sweet (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 20.20 df=1||||||<.001
95937963|NCT04064164|191840349|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.02||||||Girl (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 5.08, df=1||||||.02
95937964|NCT04064164|191840349|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.1||||||Honey (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 2.7, df= 1||||||.10
95937965|NCT04064164|191840349|EQUIVALENCE|Pearson's Chi-square test was completed between the total instances of diminutives either identified by human or the Elderspeak App.||||||0.85||||||Baby (root word)|Chi-squared|X-squared = 12.2, df = 1||||||0.85
95937966|NCT03640312|191840369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18||Adjusting for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in Least Squared Means (LSM). Random participant effect, fixed baseline, study arm, and time effects.||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
95937967|NCT03640312|191840370|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-10.74|0.114
95740164|NCT03649477|191451253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085||||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.761||0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.761|-2.932|0.2479
95740165|NCT03649477|191451253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.412||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.276|-0.548||0.05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.548|-4.276|0.0114
95796148|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Before Treatment Values||||0.596
95937968|NCT03640312|191840371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11||Adjusted Least Squares Mean.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
95937969|NCT03640312|191840372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-8.62|0.012
95937970|NCT03640312|191840373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (binomial distribution assumption with logit link).||||6.35|0.91|0.077
95937971|NCT03640312|191840374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||0.48|0.03|0.003
95937972|NCT03640312|191840375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, diastolic, study arm, and time effects.||2.69|0.24|0.710
95937973|NCT03640312|191840376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model adjusting for baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||1.98|0.21|0.437
95937974|NCT03640312|191840377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.59||Adjusted for baseline T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Physical Health T Score||0.59|-7.49|0.09
95937975|NCT03640312|191840377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.32||Adjusted for baseline mental health T score|ANCOVA|||Statistical test for difference in Mental Health T Score||4.32|-3.22|0.77
95740166|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||4.96e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000496
95740167|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0000103
95740168|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 All||||0.0004398
95740169|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||6.8e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000068
95937976|NCT03640312|191840378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.||1.182|-10.74|0.114
95937977|NCT03640312|191840379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.02|||Fisher Exact|||||0.02|-0.15|0.49
95937978|NCT03640312|191840380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Chi-squared|||||0.03|-0.33|0.21
95740170|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000002
95740171|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||9.26e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module 5.12 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Responders||||0.0000926
95740172|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M1.2 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0015450
95740173|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M3.4 Placebo versus RSLV-132 Non-responders||||0.0004632
95740174|NCT03247686|191451298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Module M5.12||||0.0096960
95740175|NCT03247686|191451299|EQUIVALENCE|Two sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference in change from baseline (95% CI)||1.34|-6.34|0.180
95937979|NCT03640312|191840381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Chi-squared|||||0.08|-0.41|0.18
95937980|NCT03640312|191840382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.24|0.56
95937981|NCT03640312|191840383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.19||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-1.61|0.12
95937982|NCT03640312|191840384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.99||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||The model estimated mean differences, adjusted for covariates, will not be equal to the raw mean differences observed.|||1.99|-1.84|0.94
95937983|NCT03640312|191840385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||Linear mixed model. Random participant effects. Fixed baseline systolic, study arm, and time effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.55
95937984|NCT04222660|191840397|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95937985|NCT04222660|191840398|OTHER||||||<|0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0025
95937986|NCT04222660|191840399|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937987|NCT04222660|191840400|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937988|NCT04222660|191840401|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937989|NCT04222660|191840402|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95937990|NCT04222660|191840403|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95937991|NCT04222660|191840404|OTHER||||||<|0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0017
95937992|NCT04222660|191840405|OTHER||||||<|0.0195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0195
95937993|NCT02120456|191840407|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.58|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.58|0.34|<0.001
95937994|NCT02120456|191840407|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.73|||Negative binominal regression|||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||0.73|0.44|<0.001
95740176|NCT01993186|191451300|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.45||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.63|80.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||80.95|-38.63|0.5812
95740177|NCT01993186|191451303|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.23|84.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||84.25|-51.23|0.8197
95740178|NCT01993186|191451304|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|37.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-parametric post-hoc analysis: Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 90% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value, based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test||37.5|0|0.7276
95740179|NCT01993186|191451308|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1231||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-114.44|109.67||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTISRTSD||109.67|-114.44|0.486
95740180|NCT01993186|191451308|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|63.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.0537||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|150.94||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDSRT||150.94|-23.6|0.8849
95740181|NCT01993186|191451308|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-63.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.6496||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-163.59|35.93||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||RTIMDFRT||35.93|-163.59|0.1463
95740182|NCT01993186|191451309|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5659||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|36.79||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALTEA||36.79|-1.26|0.9378
95937995|NCT02120456|191840407|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.26||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.6|||Negative binominal regression|||||1.60|0.99|0.058
95937996|NCT02120456|191840408|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.73|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.73|0.30|0.94
95740183|NCT01993186|191451309|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1853||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.06||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||PALFTMS||3.06|-4.13|0.5959
95740184|NCT01993186|191451310|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4988||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.88||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SSPSLF||0.88|-0.76|0.4522
95740185|NCT01993186|191451311|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|2.68||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMBE48||2.68|-5.15|0.3017
95796149|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
95740186|NCT01993186|191451311|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6495||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.11||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline CANTAB score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||SWMS68||1.11|-1.03|0.5235
95740187|NCT01993186|191451312|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4806||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.874|30.08||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled||30.08|-43.874|0.6205
95937997|NCT02120456|191840408|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.51|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||4.51|0.28|1.00
95937998|NCT02120456|191840408|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.89|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||2.89|0.31|0.93
95937999|NCT02120456|191840409|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.85|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.85|1.36|0.003
95938000|NCT02120456|191840409|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.74|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||7.74|1.35|0.004
95938001|NCT02120456|191840409|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with factors treatment group and baseline AK count as a covariate.||1.47|0.66|0.95
95938002|NCT04873401|191840410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.39|0.928
95938003|NCT04873401|191840411|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.115|||Regression, Linear|||||0.115|-0.24|0.240
95938004|NCT04873401|191840412|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.367
95938005|NCT04873401|191840413|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||||0.29|0.05|0.005
95938006|NCT05521308|191840419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #2 and Same counts.||1.00|0.20|<0.001
95938007|NCT05521308|191840419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #2 preference counts per participant.||6.05|0.41|0.02
95938008|NCT05521308|191840419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #1, Variation #3 and Same counts.||1.00|0.18|<0.001
95740188|NCT01993186|191451313|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5759||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.236|4.527||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include the corresponding baseline value, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||6MWT distance traveled (percent predicted)||4.527|-7.236|0.6476
95740189|NCT01993186|191451315|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.83|7.97||One-sided p-value. Additional model covariates include baseline GMFM-88 total score, visit and the interaction between visit and treatment.|GEE model|||GMFM-88 UX007-Placebo||7.97|-4.83|0.3435
95796150|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.257
95938009|NCT05521308|191840419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and Variation #3 preference counts per participant.||3.55|-1.36|.54
95938010|NCT05521308|191840419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in preference count per participant between Variation #2, Variation #3, and Same counts.||1.00|0|.231
95740190|NCT04406194|191451319|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean Ratio|0.9684||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.9977|||ANOVA|||||0.9977|0.9400|0.0000
95938011|NCT05521308|191840421|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of times they were rated as the same. -Indoor||||||.13
95938012|NCT05521308|191840421|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is to see if there is a difference in preference counts between standard curve, variation #4, and # of time they were rated as the same. -Outdoor|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95938013|NCT05521308|191840421|SUPERIORITY||Cramer's V|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants that showed overall preference toward variation #4 vs. the standard curve vs. no preference. - Outdoors.||||0.04
95938014|NCT05521308|191840422|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANOVA|Initally this is to see if there is a differnce between Unaided, Aided #1 and Aided #2.||Standard Curve vs Variation #4||1.00|0.10|<0.001
95938015|NCT05521308|191840422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|2.35||Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Standard Curve vs Variation #4||||2.35|-2.83|0.855
95740191|NCT04406194|191451320|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean Ratio|1.0555||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9292|1.1989|||ANOVA|||||1.1989|0.9292|0.0155
95740192|NCT04406194|191451321|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean Ratio|0.9719||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.0006|||ANOVA|||||1.0006|0.9440|0.0000
95796151|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.449
95938016|NCT02921230|191840462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0077
95938017|NCT05260684|191840543|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.65|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.65|1.05|0.02
95796152|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
95796153|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.019
95938018|NCT05260684|191840543|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.79|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.79|0.76|0.47
95938019|NCT05260684|191840544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.87|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Dabrafenib+Trametinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.87|1.20|<0.001
95938020|NCT05260684|191840544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.82|||Wald Chi- Square Statistic||HR was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Vemurafenib + Cobimetinib relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (reference).||1.82|0.79|0.40
95938021|NCT00999804|191840629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of pCR|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||No comparison is required between the 24 weeks arm and 12 weeks arm. The study is designed as the 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design and required 20 or more responses in the first 55 evaluable patients.|"The study was planned to enroll 136 patients if the original cohort (n=90) was deemed successful. The 24 weeks arm ran as a single arm, using an admissible Simon-like two-stage design. The 12 weeks arm accrued as long as the 24 weeks arm is open.~The analysis of the first cohort indicated that 15 pCR were observed , which did not meet the required 20 or more responses. The accrual was closed early and the study has a total of 128 participants."||||
95938022|NCT00999804|191840630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of patients with AE|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||61 out of 85 patients (72%) in the 24-week arm had at least 1 adverse events.|This outcome is to establish the safety and tolerability of an extended regimen of lapatinib + trastuzumab, with or without endocrine therapy. No comparison between the 2 arms is required.||||
95938023|NCT00999804|191840631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of tpCR in 24 weeks arm|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the two arms is required.||||
95938024|NCT00999804|191840632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion of CR+PR in 24 weeks arm|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||No comparison between the 2 arm is required for this study.||||
95938025|NCT05229146|191840633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = .913, df = 10||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses immediately following the intervention (approximately one week after baseline).||||.191
95938026|NCT05229146|191840633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|t-statistic = 1.92, df = 9||One-sided paired-samples t-test comparing baseline to responses at two week follow-up (approximately four weeks after baseline).||||.043
95740193|NCT00835575|191451331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.52||||||90.0|92.84|106.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.69|92.84|
95938027|NCT05229146|191840634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made. DF = 15.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is between future orientation subscale pre- and post-subscale scores.||||.319
95938028|NCT05229146|191840634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 15.||Comparison between immediate-orientation subscales.||||.488
95938029|NCT05229146|191840635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.438||||0.34|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a paired-samples one-sided t-test comparing positive parenting before the intervention to after the intervention.||||.34
95938030|NCT05229146|191840635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363||||0.362|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made. DF = 10.||Performed a one-sided paired-samples t-test to compare negative parenting before and after the intervention.||||.362
95938031|NCT05229146|191840636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the parental involvement subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||<.001
95740194|NCT00835575|191451332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.59||||||90.0|99.13|108.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.25|99.13|
95740195|NCT00835575|191451333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.87||||||90.0|99.47|108.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.46|99.47|
95740196|NCT01662960|191451334|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|2.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.443
95938032|NCT05229146|191840636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.137|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the positive parenting subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.137
95938033|NCT05229146|191840636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.018|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the inconsistent discipline subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.018
95796154|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.325
95796155|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.003
95796156|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.323
95796157|NCT03074500|191562492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.641
95796158|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.715
95938034|NCT05229146|191840636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.015|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the use of corporal punishment subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.015
95796159|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.227
95796160|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.012
95938035|NCT05229146|191840636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.021|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Used a one-sided paired samples t-test to examine changes in the poor parental monitoring/supervision subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention (approximately 4 weeks later).||||.021
95938036|NCT05229146|191840637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.878||||0.197|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments; DF = 15||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in emotion regulation subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.197
95938037|NCT05229146|191840637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.857||||0.203|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments, DF = 15.||Used a one-sided paired-samples t-test to examine changes in lability/negativity subscale from pre-intervention to post-intervention.||||.203
95938038|NCT03850678|191840657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression speed experiment (instant, fast, slow).||||.774
95938039|NCT03850678|191840657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined Q10 for those participants who completed the compression channel conditions (4, 8, 16).||||<.001
95938040|NCT03850678|191840657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compared Q10 for those participants who completed the unaided and aided conditions.||||.167
95938041|NCT03850678|191840658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of number of compression channels (unaided, 4 channel, 16 channels)||||.741
95938042|NCT03850678|191840658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Due to Levene's Test for Equality of Variances, equal variances were not assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||Spatial Release from Masking, unaided.||||.062
95938043|NCT03850678|191840659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of score for the reading span (independent variable) to Q10 (dependent variable, 16 channel compression condition) for the participants who completed the compression channel experiment.||||.805
95938044|NCT04640298|191840660|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95938045|NCT04640298|191840661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95740197|NCT01662960|191451335|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.80
95740198|NCT01662960|191451336|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.93
95740199|NCT01662960|191451338|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.28
95740200|NCT01662960|191451339|SUPERIORITY|Test for the superiority of Mirror therapy over Divider therapy.|Slope|-0.36||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA analysis with post-treatment score as the dependent variable, therapy type (Mirror therapy or Divider Therapy) as the independent variable, and pre-treatment score as the covariate. P-value reported is for the main effect of therapy type.|ANCOVA|||||||.86
95740201|NCT02752074|191451343|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.51711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.21|0.83|0.51711
95740202|NCT02752074|191451344|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.80666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.49||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.86|0.80666
95740203|NCT01642277|191451357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.94||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For symptom-severity score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size and non-normal distributions of symptom severity scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in symptom severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) symptom severity than the other group.||||.052
95740204|NCT01642277|191451357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For coping score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of coping scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in coping, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) coping than the other group.||||.04
95740205|NCT01642277|191451357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.176||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the concern score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outlier of the concern scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in their concern, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) concern than the other group.||||.03
95740206|NCT01642277|191451357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the sleep score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of sleep scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in sleep scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) sleep scores than the other group.||||.37
95796161|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.907
95796162|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.482
95938046|NCT04640298|191840662|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95938047|NCT03891667|191840669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|75.66||||||||75.66|.21|
95740207|NCT01642277|191451357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.02||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For social score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of social scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in social scores, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) social scores than the other group.||||.04
95796163|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.485
95796164|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.129
95796165|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
95938048|NCT03891667|191840670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.47||||||||9.47|0.05|
95796166|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.935
95796167|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.002
95938049|NCT05590403|191840691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is less than (\<) 1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.09|0.83|
95740208|NCT01642277|191451357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|2.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the overall health related quality of life (HRQL) score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size, non-normal distributions, and outliers of HRQL scores. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in health related quality of life, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) health realted quality of life than the other group.||||.04
95938050|NCT05590403|191840692|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|3.28|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||3.28|-8.54|
95740209|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the obstructive discomfort score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in obstructive discomfort, and and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) obstructive discomfort than the other group.||||.46
95740210|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the irritative score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in irritation, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) irritation than the other group.||||.07
95740211|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the stress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in stress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) stress than the other group.||||.11
95740212|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.69||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the urinary distress inventory score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in urinary distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) urinary distress than the other group.||||.09
95796168|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.036
95796169|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.056
95796170|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.016
95938051|NCT05590403|191840693|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-HA-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-HA-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||1.02|0.79|
95988559|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.83||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|7.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.73|-23.39|0.331
95988560|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|8.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.59|-19.59|0.450
95988561|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
95796171|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.618
95796172|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.48
95796173|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.034
95796174|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.041
95796175|NCT03074500|191562493|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||1
95796176|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.103
95796177|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
95796178|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.008
95938052|NCT05590403|191840694|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group minus Adults-HA-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|2.53|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-HA-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to healthy adults aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||2.53|-10.39|
95740213|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.68||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the general score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in general pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) general pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.09
95740214|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-0.23||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the anterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in anterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) anterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.82
95740215|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the posterior score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in posterior pelvic floor disease severity, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) posterior pelvic floor disease severity than the other group.||||.06
95740216|NCT01642277|191451358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-1.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the pelvic organ prolapse distress score, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the responder and non-responder groups due to low sample size in the non-responder group (n = 13). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pelvic organ prolapse distress, and the two-sided alternative hypothesis is that one of the two groups has higher (or lower) pelvic organ prolapse distress than the other group.||||.07
95740217|NCT03214588|191451381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000746|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00179|0.0007||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00070|-0.00179|>0.999
95740218|NCT03214588|191451381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000616|>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00172|0.00033||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.00033|-0.00172|>0.999
95740219|NCT03214588|191451382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.44|-2.18|0.135
95740220|NCT03214588|191451382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.66||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.66|-0.48|0.818
95740221|NCT03214588|191451382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.47|-1.11|0.591
95938053|NCT05590403|191840695|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-A GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.96|0.73|
95740222|NCT03214588|191451382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643||0.713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|1.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.44|-0.71|0.713
95740223|NCT03214588|191451382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.822||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.62||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.62|-1.13|0.616
95740224|NCT03214588|191451382|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.51||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.51|-0.76|0.708
95740225|NCT03214588|191451383|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000604||0.741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0014|0.00062||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.00062|-0.00140|0.741
95740226|NCT03214588|191451383|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000505||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00177|-0.00008||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.00008|-0.00177|0.964
95740227|NCT03214588|191451383|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000772||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00143|0.00115||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00115|-0.00143|0.573
95988562|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
95988563|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
95988564|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|9.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.33|-17.82|0.556
95988565|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.77||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|10.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.69|-16.24|0.689
95988566|NCT01077973|191951611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.65||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|10.14||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.14|-13.45|0.786
95988567|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.89||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|11.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.10|-3.33|0.355
95988568|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|4.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.20|-6.62|0.623
95988569|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.11|-0.90|0.094
95988570|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.43||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|19.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.29|-10.43|0.565
95988571|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|11.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.97|-16.15|0.765
95988572|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.47||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.37|-5.43|0.288
95988573|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.87||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-20.00|0.928
95988574|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.4||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|12.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen (Motrin IB) - placebo\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.33|-25.14|0.495
95740228|NCT03214588|191451383|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.00044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000646||0.749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00152|0.00064||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.00064|-0.00152|0.749
95740229|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.29|-0.23|0.571
95740230|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.44||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.44|0.02|0.963
95740231|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.28|-0.27|0.515
95740232|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.54||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.54|0.08|0.986
95740233|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.37||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.37|-0.18|0.718
95740234|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.52||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Cutting-Handling Utensils||0.52|0.08|0.986
95740235|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.09||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.09|-0.40|0.153
95796179|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.76
95938054|NCT05590403|191840696|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-1.12|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.12|-12.26|
95938055|NCT05590403|191840697|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the anti-RSV-B GMT ratio (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) is \<1.5 at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (OA-RSV/Adults-AIR-RSV) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||0.91|0.71|
95938056|NCT05590403|191840698|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (OA-RSV Group over Adults-AIR-RSV Group) in terms of SRR is \<10%, at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration.|Difference in percentage|-7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.09|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (OA-RSV -Adults-AIR-RSV)|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when administered to adults at increased risk of RSV-LRTD aged 50-59 years of age compared with older adults aged 60 years of age or above.||-1.09|-13.52|
95938057|NCT03721952|191840752|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average depression score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average depression score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.764|-0.505|0.688
95938058|NCT03721952|191840752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.510
95796180|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
95796181|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.056
95938059|NCT03721952|191840753|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average anxiety score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average anxiety score, over 3 follow-up points for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.777|-0.491|0.658
95938060|NCT03721952|191840753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.268
95740236|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Dressing||0.33|-0.07|0.861
95740237|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.18||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.18|-0.22|0.443
95740238|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Dressing||0.13|-0.20|0.359
95796182|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.002
95859653|NCT00607373|191677234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 15 patients in the control group and 30 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 80% power to detect a 20 percentage point difference between the 2 treatment groups. Fifty-one patients were enrolled to allow for patient withdrawals and potential exclusions from analysis sets.||||<0.001
95938061|NCT03721952|191840754|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control groups.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||-0.048|-0.353|0.010
95938062|NCT03721952|191840754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.175
95938063|NCT03721952|191840755|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average quality-of-relationship score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average quality-of-relationship score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.160|-0.203|0.817
95938064|NCT03721952|191840755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.949
95938065|NCT03721952|191840756|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average preparation score \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average preparation score, over 3 follow-up points for intervention vs control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.020|-0.919|0.060
95938066|NCT03721952|191840756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.701
95796183|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.12
95796184|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.117
95796185|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.006
95796186|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.013
95796187|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.487
95796188|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.002
95938067|NCT03721952|191840757|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|-0.393||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.791|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as lower average goal-concordant care \& negative sign of estimate defined as higher average goal-concordant care, over 3 follow-up points for intervention group vs. control group.|Superior outcome for Group 2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||0.005|-0.791|0.053
95938068|NCT03721952|191840757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.039
95938069|NCT03721952|191840758|SUPERIORITY||Avg. Intervention Effect (CON--INT)|0.636||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects: 1-, 3-, 6-mo outcomes, intervention \& time predictors. Primary analysis: avg control-intervention effect over 3 time points.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Facilitator-based INTERVENTION: Family)||1.700|-0.425|0.239
95938070|NCT03721952|191840758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Average Intervention effect with time interaction (control-intervention)||||||0.170
95796189|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.102
95796190|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.165
95938071|NCT03721952|191840759|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.169|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher proportion of readmissions \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower proportion of readmissions, for the intervention group vs. the control group|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.169|0.009|0.029
95938072|NCT03721952|191840760|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|2.666|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||2.666|-0.511|0.183
95938073|NCT03721952|191840761|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.687|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.518|7.892|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||7.892|-4.518|0.593
95938074|NCT03721952|191840762|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.987||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.367|18.097|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of hospital free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of hospital free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||18.097|-9.367|0.533
95938075|NCT03721952|191840763|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.032|3.173|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||3.173|-1.032|0.318
95938076|NCT03721952|191840764|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.506||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.773|11.007|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||11.007|-2.773|0.241
95938077|NCT03721952|191840765|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.466||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.479|22.868|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression of outcome on group (0=control, 1=interv), adjusted for hospital, w robust standard error estimate using bias correction 1/(1-h)\^2.|Additional estimation information: Positive sign of estimate defined as higher number of ICU free days \& negative sign of estimate defined as lower number of ICU free days, for the intervention group vs. the control group.|Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||22.868|-6.479|0.273
95938078|NCT03721952|191840766|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0000009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000057|0.0000039|||other type of regression|Regression \[gamma family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000039|-0.0000057|0.710
95796191|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.007
95938079|NCT03721952|191840767|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00000113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00000215||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000003|0.0000053|||other type of regression|Regression \[inverse Gaussian family, link function g(u)=u-0.9\], outcome on random group (0=control,1=intervention), adjusted for hospital, robust SEs.||Superior outcome for Group2 (Patient-Intervention)||0.0000053|-0.0000030|0.599
95938080|NCT01000961|191840802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority endpoint of the clinical trial would be achieved if the upper limit of the 95.8% CI of the difference between RP103 and Cystagon® was less than the a-priori 0.3 non-inferiority margin, which would correspond to an observed p-value less than or equal to 0.02104|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0785||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.0107|0.1464|||t-test, 1 sided||95.8% confidence interval was used instead of 95% to take into account a sample size re-estimation calculation that was performed after 20 patients were enrolled.|16-subject study will have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis of non-inferiority at the 0.025 level of significance with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3. Final analysis was performed at a nominal significance level of 0.02104.||0.1464|0.0107|0.0001
95938081|NCT01000961|191840803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67||||||||1.67|1.17|
95938082|NCT01000961|191840804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|150.0||||||||150|90|
95796192|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.028
95796193|NCT03074500|191562494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.83
95796194|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.837
95796195|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.215
95796196|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.078
95938083|NCT01000961|191840805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.39||||||||2.39|1.75|
95988575|NCT01077973|191951614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|20.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR, and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.59|-9.66|0.477
95988576|NCT00119158|191951618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|modified EASI (eczema area severity index) was considered equivalent if p value was greater than \>0.05|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95938084|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.011
95938085|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of G. vaginalis at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.008
95938086|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.662
95938087|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. iners at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.41
95938088|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.164
95938089|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|||Mean quantity of L. crispatus at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.183
95938090|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.506
95938091|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of L. jensenii at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.119
95859654|NCT00607373|191677235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938092|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.510
95938093|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of Megasphaera at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.168
95938094|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M2-M3)||||0.454
95988577|NCT01888640|191951707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||To account for multiple tests involving pairwise treatment group comparisons, p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni's method|Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2-Visit 3||-0.2|-1.8|0.008
95988578|NCT01888640|191951707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.6|<0.0001
95938095|NCT02432404|191840830|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Random effects mixed model|Random effects mixed model: random effects for subject and time category, with unstructured covariance, and AR(1) residuals; and robust SEs.||Mean quantity of BVAB2 at baseline and during Nuvaring Use (M3-M6)||||0.471
95859655|NCT00607373|191677237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in Apo B at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938096|NCT03536754|191840835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.6||≤ 0.1924|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|0.95|0.1924
95938097|NCT03536754|191840835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.76||≤ 0.0612|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.76|1.04|0.0612
95938098|NCT03536754|191840835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169||0.7653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.36||≤ 0.7653|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.36|0.81|0.7653
95938099|NCT03536754|191840835|SUPERIORITY||LSM Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.48||≤ 0.1537|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.48|0.97|0.1537
95938100|NCT05603143|191840905|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
95938101|NCT05603143|191840909|OTHER|||||||0.3219|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3219
95740239|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.17||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.17|-0.36|0.268
95740240|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Dressing||0.19|-0.24|0.411
95740241|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.2||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.20|-0.31|0.358
95740242|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 2, Personal Hygiene||0.41|0.00|0.946
95740243|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.32|0.505
95740244|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.33||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 7, Personal Hygiene||0.33|-0.20|0.658
95938102|NCT05603143|191840910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.496||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.952|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||8.952|0.250|0.6568
95740245|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.38||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.38|-0.24|0.649
95740246|NCT03214588|191451384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.32||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA||MMRM ANCOVA with Baseline FARS ADL as a covariate; pooled site, visit, treatment, and ambulation status (randomization factor) as fixed factors; and treatment-by-visit and Baseline FARS ADL-by-visit interactions.|Change at Week 12, Personal Hygiene||0.32|-0.19|0.661
95740247|NCT03214588|191451385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.47||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.47|0.86|0.992
95740248|NCT03214588|191451385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.28||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.28|1.29|0.999
95796197|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.699
95796198|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.846
95938103|NCT05603143|191840911|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.99||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|28.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression.|||28.740|0.311|0.3190
95938104|NCT05603143|191840912|OTHER|||||||0.3161|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3161
95938105|NCT05603143|191840913|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|2.112||P-value was based on stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factors as the strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||2.112|0.961|0.0859
95938106|NCT05603143|191840914|OTHER||Treatment Difference (vs Placebo)|-0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||MMRM||Least-squares mean (SE), 95% CI and P value were from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||-0.33|-0.83|< 0.0001
95938107|NCT05089734|191840922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.04|0.68|0.0534
95938108|NCT05089734|191840923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.77|0.1938
95988579|NCT01888640|191951708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.2|0.002
95796199|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.56
95740249|NCT03214588|191451385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|2.64||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.64|-1.84|0.616
95857955|NCT00847210|191673765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the central values for Cmax|1.21||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.63|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole pharmacokinetics between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For natural logarithm of dose-normalized Cmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group, regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. Site effect was tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.630|0.897|0.289
95938109|NCT05089734|191840924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-4.3||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.5||The 1-sided p-value is calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for randomization stratification factors of histology, and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-10.1|0.9255
95938110|NCT05089734|191840929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.91||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.61|0.0020
95938111|NCT05089734|191840930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Stratified log-rank test adjusted for stratification factors: histology and best response to last prior immune therapy received.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.66|0.0125
95938112|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
95938113|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup A if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7||||||For serogroup A, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.7|-0.6|
95938114|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||1.9|-2.3|
95938115|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup C if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5||||||For serogroup C, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||2.5|-3.3|
95938116|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.8||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||0.8|-6.3|
95938117|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup W if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5||||||For serogroup W, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||3.5|-1.8|
95950100|NCT03989232|191872153|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||In-trial observation period: Imputation of missing data was handled by MI assuming that missing data were missed at random. The imputation was performed by imputing missing week 40 data separately within groups defined by randomised treatment and treatment status at week 40.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0098
95950101|NCT00046475|191872179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95950102|NCT00046475|191872180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
95988580|NCT01888640|191951708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-2.8|<0.0001
95740250|NCT03214588|191451385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|2.95||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.95|-0.83|0.823
95740251|NCT03214588|191451385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.13||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.13|-0.10|0.942
95740252|NCT03214588|191451385|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|3.87||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||3.87|0.35|0.975
95740253|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.29|-0.15|
95740254|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Bulbar||0.25|-0.12|
95740255|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.11|-0.30|
95740256|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.33||||||Change at Week 7, Bulbar||0.33|-0.02|
95740257|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.28||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.28|-0.19|
95740258|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Bulbar||0.40|0.00|
95740259|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.689|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||3.14|0.83|
95796200|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.087
95938118|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||-0.4|-5.4|
95988581|NCT01888640|191951709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.1|0.0006
95740260|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.97||||||Change at Week 2, Upper Limb Coordination||1.97|0.06|
95740261|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.55||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||2.55|-0.40|
95988582|NCT01888640|191951709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.2|<0.0001
95740262|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|1.43||||||Change at Week 7, Upper Limb Coordination||1.43|-1.06|
95740263|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.91||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||2.91|-0.48|
95740264|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.94||||||Change at Week 12, Upper Limb Coordination||1.94|-0.87|
95740265|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.2||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.20|-0.41|
95740266|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.45||||||Change at Week 2, Lower Limb Coordination||1.45|0.12|
95740267|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.44|
95740268|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|1.36||||||Change at Week 7, Lower Limb Coordination||1.36|-1.01|
95740269|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.25||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.25|-0.27|
95740270|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.0||||||Change at Week 12, Lower Limb Coordination||2.00|-0.09|
95740271|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.3||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.8|
95740272|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.9||||||Change at Week 2, Upright Stability||1.9|0.1|
95740273|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||0.2|-1.3|
95740274|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.2||||||Change at Week 7, Upright Stability||1.2|0.0|
95796201|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.183
95796202|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.719
95796203|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.023
95796204|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.196
95740275|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||0.7|-1.2|
95740276|NCT03214588|191451386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.3||||||Change at Week 12, Upright Stability||1.3|-0.3|
95740277|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.15||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.15|-0.13|
95938119|NCT05093829|191840955|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup Y if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. Difference in proportions and confidence intervals are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||||||For serogroup Y, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||4.8|-0.6|
95796205|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.318
95938120|NCT05093829|191840956|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7||||||For the 9-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup W is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.7|0.3|
95950103|NCT00046475|191872181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
95950104|NCT00046475|191872181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||0.002
95950105|NCT00046475|191872181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.004
95796206|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.001
95950106|NCT00046475|191872181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 5 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 5||||0.026
95950107|NCT00046475|191872181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 6 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 6||||0.226
95740278|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.12||||||Change at Week 2, Cough||0.12|-0.11|
95740279|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.11|-0.24|
95740280|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.25||||||Change at Week 7, Cough||0.25|-0.05|
95740281|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.25|-0.11|
95740282|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Cough||0.26|-0.03|
95796207|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.483
95796208|NCT03074500|191562495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
95796209|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.897
95796210|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.325
95796211|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.172
95950108|NCT00046475|191872182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment composite symptom score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
95950109|NCT00046475|191872183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 1||||<0.001
95950110|NCT00046475|191872183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 2 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 2||||<0.001
95950111|NCT00046475|191872183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 3 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 3||||<0.001
95950112|NCT00046475|191872183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHDAS Item 4 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Item 4||||0.001
95740283|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.25||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.25|-0.09|
95740284|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24||||||Change at Week 2, Speech||0.24|-0.04|
95740285|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.08||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.08|-0.16|
95740286|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.17||||||Change at Week 7, Speech||0.17|-0.03|
95859656|NCT00607373|191677240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inferential conclusions about this parameter require statistical significance of the previous secondary outcome measure (i.e., percent change from baseline in total cholesterol at PET).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95740287|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.16||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.16|-0.16|
95796212|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.622
95796213|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.909
95938121|NCT05093829|191840956|NON_INFERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed non-inferior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes -0.10 (-10%). The CI is estimated using bootstrap resampling stratified by vaccine arm, and the 95% CI is estimated as the interval between the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the bootstrap empirical distribution. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|4.4||||||For the 15-months study age group, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT in serogroup Y is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 in serogroup X to determine the difference in proportions.||4.4|0.004|
95938122|NCT05093829|191840960|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.2||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||87.2|76.4|
95938123|NCT05093829|191840960|SUPERIORITY|NmCV-5 will be deemed superior to MenACWY-TT for serogroup X if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportion (NmCV-5 minus MenACWY-TT) excludes 0.30 (30%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|74.7||||||For serogroup X, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to MenACWY-TT is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to NmCV-5 to determine the difference in proportions.||74.7|61.3|
95938124|NCT05093829|191840961|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.0|-1.0|
95950113|NCT00046475|191872184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment global daily activity score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95988583|NCT01888640|191951710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-2.4|0.001
95740288|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.22||||||Change at Week 12, Speech||0.22|-0.04|
95740289|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.29||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.29|-0.14|
95740290|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.14||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.14|-0.22|
95740291|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.28|-0.13|
95740292|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.11||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.11|-0.24|
95740293|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.12|-0.30|
95740294|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.03||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger to Finger Test||0.03|-0.32|
95740295|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.33|-0.15|
95740296|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.23||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.16|
95796214|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.79
95796215|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.24
95859657|NCT00607373|191677242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.013
95740297|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.23||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.23|-0.18|
95740298|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.20|-0.15|
95938125|NCT05093829|191840961|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to measles if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to measles vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
95938126|NCT05093829|191840962|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.6|-10.5|
95938127|NCT05093829|191840962|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered MR vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered MR vaccine in eliciting seropositive response to rubella if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seropositive response to rubella vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||2.1|-1.0|
95938128|NCT05093829|191840963|NON_INFERIORITY|The NmCV-5 co-administered yellow fever vaccine will be deemed non-inferior to the MenACWY-TT co-administered yellow fever vaccine in eliciting seroprotective response to yellow fever if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes -0.10 (-10%). Confidence Intervals are calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method. The difference in proportions and CI are reported as percentages (number of infants per 100).|Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6||||||For this comparison, the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the MenACWY-TT arm is subtracted from the proportion of infants with a seroprotective response to yellow fever vaccine in the NmCV-5 arm to determine the difference in proportions.||0.6|-4.2|
95938129|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
95938130|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.6|1.0|
95938131|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.6|0.4|
95857956|NCT00847210|191673766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the dose-normalized AUC(0-tlqc)|1.158||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.551|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-tlqc) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.551|0.864|0.402
95740299|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.36|-0.17|
95740300|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.13||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger to Finger Test||0.13|-0.30|
95740301|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.53|0.04|
95740302|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.06|
95740303|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.37||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.37|-0.22|
95740304|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.16||||||Change at Week 7, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.16|-0.32|
95740305|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.12||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.12|-0.43|
95740306|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.23||||||Change at Week 12, Right Nose to Finger Test||0.23|-0.23|
95988584|NCT01888640|191951710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.9|-2.9|<0.0001
95988585|NCT01888640|191951711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.2|-2.2|0.011
95988586|NCT01888640|191951711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.0|-3.0|<0.0001
95988587|NCT01888640|191951712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-2.2|0.016
95796216|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.161
95796217|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.909
95857957|NCT00847210|191673767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the central values for dose-nor|1.168||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.579|||ANOVA||Ninety percent confidence intervals for assessing the dose proportionality of dexlansoprazole AUC(0-24) between regimens were computed based on the frame work of ANOVA.|This study was not powered for any hypothesis testing. For Tmax, an ANOVA model was fitted that included fixed effect of age group (12-14 years and 15 17 years), regimen and interaction of age group and regimen. If the interaction term was not statistically significant, it was not included in the final model. The site effect was also tested in the model, and was not included in the final model if it was not statistically significant (P\>0.05). Pairwise comparisons between regimens were conducted.||1.579|0.864|0.388
95857958|NCT03739203|191673778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.37||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||1.37|-2.10|0.6798
95857959|NCT03739203|191673778|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.38||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.38|-3.11|0.1245
95857960|NCT03739203|191673779|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG),ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.15|-0.29|0.5152
95857961|NCT03739203|191673779|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.01||p-value estimated by Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure from test of no difference between cariprazine dose group and placebo at Week 6.|MMRM|MMRM=Fixed effects:treatment group(TG), ADT failure category,visit,TG-by-visit;Covariates:Baseline(BL)value\& BL by-visit interaction.||||0.01|-0.43|0.0573
95857962|NCT01216189|191673791|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.138||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.044||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-0.044|-0.232|0.004
95857963|NCT01216189|191673791|SUPERIORITY||Mean change|-0.011||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.075||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for menopausal status.||The change in serum testosterone levels between baseline and 1 year was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||0.075|-0.097|0.805
95857964|NCT01216189|191673792|SUPERIORITY||Mean change in FSFI scores|-9.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for Age, Psychological General Well-being total score and relationship with partner.||"The association between mean change in total FSFI score and preoperative RT was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE), using no preoperative radiotherapy as the reference group."||-1.99|-16.66|0.013
95857965|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||6.6|-6.4|0.978
95857966|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.5|-15.4|0.005
95857967|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-8.4|-19.8|0.000
95857968|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-1.9|-13.0|0.030
95857969|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||11.9|-4.9|0.484
95857970|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||0.9|-9.3|0.169
95857971|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-2.6|-14.9|0.023
95857972|NCT01656408|191673805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||5.5|-10.4|0.605
95857973|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||8.7|-4.9|0.635
95859658|NCT00607373|191677244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95740307|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.40|-0.14|
95740308|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.33||||||Change at Week 2, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.33|-0.12|
95740309|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.43|-0.09|
95740310|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Change at Week 7, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.09|-0.36|
95740311|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.29|
95988588|NCT01888640|191951712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.6|-2.6|0.0002
95988589|NCT01888640|191951713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.3|-10.4|0.074
95988590|NCT01888640|191951713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-1.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-1.8|-12.4|0.005
95740312|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.27||||||Change at Week 12, Left Nose to Finger Test||0.27|-0.21|
95988591|NCT01888640|191951714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.1|-1.7|0.018
95988592|NCT01888640|191951714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.9|0.0006
95988593|NCT01888640|191951715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.01|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.01|-1.3|0.043
95988594|NCT01888640|191951715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.3|0.048
95740313|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.26||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.26|-0.33|
95740314|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Right Dysmetria Test||0.36|-0.12|
95857974|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.4|-10.1|0.077
95857975|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.7|-15.0|0.001
95857976|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.9|-8.0|0.556
95857977|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||2.5|-5.5|0.527
95857978|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||1.4|-8.1|0.234
95857979|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-4.1|-12.7|0.002
95857980|NCT01656408|191673806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.5|-4.2|0.726
95857981|NCT01656408|191673807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||7.3|-9.0|0.855
95740315|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.48||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.25|
95740316|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Right Dysmetria Test||0.47|-0.14|
95740317|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.26|
95740318|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.25||||||Change at Week 12, Right Dysmetria Test||0.25|-0.36|
95740319|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.6||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.60|-0.02|
95740320|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.41||||||Change at Week 2, Left Dysmetria Test||0.41|-0.10|
95740321|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.13||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.13|-0.63|
95740322|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.18||||||Change at Week 7, Left Dysmetria Test||0.18|-0.47|
95740323|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.48||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.48|-0.37|
95740324|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, Left Dysmetria Test||0.58|-0.11|
95740325|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.51||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.06|
95857982|NCT01656408|191673807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||18.1|-10.8|0.658
95988595|NCT01888640|191951716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.0|-1.0|0.036
95988596|NCT01888640|191951716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||-0.4|-1.4|<0.0001
95988597|NCT01888640|191951717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.5|-2.3|>0.99
95740326|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.35||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Right Hands||0.35|-0.12|
95796218|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.255
95938132|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||0.5|0.3|
95938133|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.6|
95938134|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||2.1|1.1|
95938135|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.0|0.6|
95938136|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1.3|0.8|
95938137|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1511.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1169.5|1952.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1952.4|1169.5|
95938138|NCT05093829|191840964|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|767.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|553.2|1064.4|||||NmCV-5 divided by MenACWY-TT|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMT ratio of rSBA titers at Day 29 is calculated for the NmCV-5 arm relative to the MenACWY-TT arm.||1064.4|553.2|
95938139|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2756.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1976.3|3844.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3844.5|1976.3|
95938140|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2506.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1404.0|4476.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4476.1|1404.0|
95938141|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|709.8|1958.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1958.6|709.8|
95988598|NCT01888640|191951717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.3|-2.4|>0.99
95988599|NCT01888640|191951718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||4.1|-1.9|>0.99
95988600|NCT01888640|191951718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.3|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||||5.3|-0.6|0.17
95988601|NCT01888640|191951719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||3.1|-0.7|0.36
95740327|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.28|-0.41|
95740328|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.29||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Right Hands||0.29|-0.29|
95740329|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.51|-0.12|
95740330|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.21||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Right Hands||0.21|-0.31|
95740331|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.32||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.32|-0.15|
95740332|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, RAM of Left Hands||0.27|-0.12|
95796219|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.058
95740333|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.43||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.43|-0.27|
95740334|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.42||||||Change at Week 7, RAM of Left Hands||0.42|-0.17|
95740335|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.58||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.58|0.04|
95796220|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
95796221|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.007
95938142|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1096.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|513.4|2340.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup A, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2340.6|513.4|
95938143|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|288.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.6|392.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||392.0|212.6|
95938144|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|654.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|385.5|1111.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1111.0|385.5|
95988602|NCT01888640|191951719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||2.8|-0.8|0.58
95938145|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|287.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.9|387.5|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||387.5|213.9|
95938146|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|834.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|496.7|1402.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup C, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1402.3|496.7|
95938147|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1068.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|683.3|1670.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1670.6|683.3|
95988603|NCT01888640|191951720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|96.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||96|-58|>0.99
95988604|NCT01888640|191951720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|117.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||117|-34|>0.99
95740336|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.43||||||Change at Week 12, RAM of Left Hand||0.43|-0.01|
95740337|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.77||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.77|0.10|
95740338|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.44||||||Change at Week 2, Right Finger Taps||0.44|-0.12|
95988605|NCT01888640|191951721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||0.7|-0.2|0.96
95988606|NCT01888640|191951721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||1.0|0.1|0.008
95988607|NCT01888640|191951722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
95740339|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.60|-0.16|
95740340|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.31||||||Change at Week 7, Right Finger Taps||0.31|-0.33|
95740341|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.56|-0.22|
95740342|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.26||||||Change at Week 12, Right Finger Taps||0.26|-0.39|
95740343|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.87||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.87|0.12|
95740344|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.36||||||Change at Week 2, Left Finger Taps||0.36|-0.25|
95740345|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.95||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.95|0.22|
95740346|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.47||||||Change at Week 7, Left Finger Taps||0.47|-0.15|
95796222|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.614
95796223|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.072
95796224|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.447
95796225|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.084
95796226|NCT03074500|191562496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.235
95740347|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.02||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||1.02|0.11|
95740348|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.71||||||Change at Week 12, Left Finger Taps||0.71|-0.04|
95740349|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.53|-0.12|
95740350|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.27||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.27|-0.26|
95740351|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.28||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.28|-0.56|
95740352|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.19|-0.53|
95740353|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.78||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.78|-0.12|
95796227|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.958
95938148|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1933.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1224.7|3051.1|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3051.1|1224.7|
95938149|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|3163.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2247.5|4451.7|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||4451.7|2247.5|
95988608|NCT01888640|191951722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Linear mixed models for repeated measure|||Visit 2 to Visit 3||||>0.99
95988609|NCT03987854|191951737|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-7.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-6.16|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95740354|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.51||||||Change at Week 12,Right Heel Along Shin Slide||0.51|-0.25|
95740355|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.18||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.18|-0.51|
95740356|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.31||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.31|-0.25|
95740357|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.07||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.07|-0.68|
95740358|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.15||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.15|-0.48|
95988610|NCT03987854|191951738|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||-3.29|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95988611|NCT03987854|191951739|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||7.52|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95740359|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.40|-0.45|
95740360|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.36||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Slide||0.36|-0.34|
95740361|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.53||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.53|-0.10|
95740362|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.69||||||Change at Week 2, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.69|0.17|
95740363|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.19||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.19|-0.72|
95740364|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.39||||||Change at Week 7, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.39|-0.38|
95740365|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.51||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.51|-0.23|
95740366|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.64||||||Change at Week 12, Right Heel Along Shin Tap||0.64|0.02|
95740367|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.50|-0.17|
95740368|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.61||||||Change at Week 2, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.61|0.06|
95740369|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.84||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.84|-0.09|
95740370|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.60|-0.19|
95740371|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.82||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.82|-0.20|
95740372|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.67||||||Change at Week 12, Left Heel Along Shin Tap||0.67|-0.17|
95740373|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.5|-0.1|
95796228|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.597
95796229|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.518
95796230|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.88
95740374|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Siting Posture||0.4|-0.1|
95740375|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.4|
95740376|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 7, Siting Posture||0.5|0.0|
95740377|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.2|-0.5|
95740378|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Change at Week 12, Siting Posture||0.3|-0.2|
95740379|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.4|
95740380|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA - TTA||0.3|-0.3|
95740381|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
95796231|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||0.733
95988612|NCT03987854|191951740|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||5.03|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95740382|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
95740383|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
95740384|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA - TTA||0.4|-0.2|
95740385|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.3|-0.1|
95740386|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
95740387|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.4|
95740388|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.4|
95740389|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
95740390|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, SFA (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.5|
95740391|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.2||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.8|
95740392|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, SFT - TTA||0.8|0.0|
95740393|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.4|-0.3|
95740394|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.7||||||Change at Week 7, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.2|
95740395|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.2|-0.5|
95740396|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.7||||||Change at Week 12, SFT - TTA||0.7|0.0|
95740397|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
95740398|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
95740399|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
95740400|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
95740401|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.2|-0.2|
95740402|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, SFT (Eyes Closed) - TTA||0.0|-0.3|
95740403|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
95740404|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.1|
95740405|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.0|-0.2|
95938150|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1524.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|913.5|2543.0|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup W, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2543.0|913.5|
95740406|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
95796232|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of Baseline Values||||1
95796233|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.404
95740407|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.1|-0.2|
95740408|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Stance - TTA||0.2|-0.1|
95740409|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
95740410|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 2, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
95740411|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
95740412|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Change at Week 7, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.1|
95938151|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|799.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|532.9|1199.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1199.4|532.9|
95938152|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1469.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|995.3|2168.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2168.8|995.3|
95938153|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|549.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|371.8|811.8|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||811.8|371.8|
95938154|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|642.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.2|1335.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup Y, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||1335.9|309.2|
95988613|NCT03987854|191951741|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6.81|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95740413|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.0|-0.3|
95740414|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Change at Week 12, Tandem Walk||0.1|-0.2|
95740415|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.4|-0.2|
95740416|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.7||||||Change at Week 2, Gait||0.7|0.1|
95740417|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
95740418|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.6||||||Change at Week 7, Gait||0.6|0.1|
95740419|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.2|-0.4|
95740420|NCT03214588|191451387|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Change at Week 12, Gait||0.5|0.0|
95740421|NCT03214588|191451388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.76||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.76|-1.31|0.599
95740422|NCT03214588|191451388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.42||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||2.42|0.26|0.978
95740423|NCT03214588|191451388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.06||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||2.06|-1.87|0.533
95740424|NCT03214588|191451388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|1.23||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||1.23|-1.83|0.370
95740425|NCT03214588|191451388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|4.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||4.04|0.32|0.972
95740426|NCT03214588|191451388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.19||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||2.19|-0.63|0.825
95740427|NCT03214588|191451389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23858||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3665|0.4565||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.4565|-0.3665|0.426
95740428|NCT03214588|191451389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15794||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6005|-0.0557||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-0.0557|-0.6005|0.975
95740429|NCT03214588|191451389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31186||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3931|0.6826||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.6826|-0.3931|0.324
95740430|NCT03214588|191451389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23213||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3891|0.4117||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.4117|-0.3891|0.481
95740431|NCT03214588|191451389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28088||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6911|0.2778||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.2778|-0.6911|0.765
95740432|NCT03214588|191451389|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19778||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2238|0.4585||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.4585|-0.2238|0.280
95740433|NCT03214588|191451390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|4.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||4.4|-9.9|0.735
95740434|NCT03214588|191451390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|9.1||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||9.1|-2.7|0.182
95740435|NCT03214588|191451390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|-0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||-0.9|-12.9|0.970
95740436|NCT03214588|191451390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|6.4||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||6.4|-3.6|0.321
95740437|NCT03214588|191451390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|1.5||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.5|-13.0|0.905
95740438|NCT03214588|191451390|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|9.0||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||9.0|-2.9|0.199
95740439|NCT03214588|191451391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.974
95740440|NCT03214588|191451391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.893
95950114|NCT00046475|191872187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing systolic blood pressure||||0.002
95740441|NCT03214588|191451391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.954
95740442|NCT03214588|191451391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.793
95740443|NCT03214588|191451391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.845
95740444|NCT03214588|191451391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.816
95740445|NCT03214588|191451392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.840
95740446|NCT03214588|191451392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.854
95740447|NCT03214588|191451392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.922
95740448|NCT03214588|191451392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.794
95740449|NCT03214588|191451392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.830
95740450|NCT03214588|191451392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
95740451|NCT03214588|191451393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.987
95740452|NCT03214588|191451393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.771
95740453|NCT03214588|191451393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.526
95740454|NCT03214588|191451393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.665
95740455|NCT03214588|191451393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.576
95740456|NCT03214588|191451393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.865
95740457|NCT03214588|191451394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.966
95740458|NCT03214588|191451394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.983
95740459|NCT03214588|191451394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.953
95740460|NCT03214588|191451394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.781
95740461|NCT03214588|191451394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.948
95857983|NCT01656408|191673807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||18.9|-6.3|0.392
95938155|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2630.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2037.6|3394.6|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3394.6|2037.6|
95938156|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.4|1.2|
95938157|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1431.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|905.2|2262.9|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||2262.9|905.2|
95938158|NCT05093829|191840966|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean titers|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.3|||||Day 29 divided by Day 1|For serogroup X, the point and interval estimates for the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) will be obtained from a back transformation (exponentiation) of the estimated mean ratio of the log-transformed rSBA titers. The GMFR from baseline to Day 29 of rSBA titers is calculated as Day 29 divided by Day 1.||3.3|0.9|
95740462|NCT03214588|191451394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.998
95740463|NCT03214588|191451395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.666
95938159|NCT03457142|191840984|OTHER|No formal test, a confidence interval estimate for the grade 3+ treatment related AE rate.|grade 3+ treatment related AE rate|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.54||||||||0.54|0.17|
95740464|NCT03214588|191451395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.812
95740465|NCT03214588|191451395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.834
95938160|NCT04533347|191840990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Assuming an 85% clinical recovery rate in the TQ group and a 70% clinical recovery rate in the placebo group, sample sizes of 125 per treatment group were expected to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1879
95938161|NCT05520190|191840996|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Attitude score - 1-month Attitude score / SD of average change|||||
95740466|NCT03214588|191451395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.841
95740467|NCT03214588|191451395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.893
95740468|NCT03214588|191451395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.907
95740469|NCT03214588|191451396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.032
95740470|NCT03214588|191451396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.216
95857984|NCT01656408|191673808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-6.0|0.563
95857985|NCT01656408|191673808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||2.5|-0.8|0.381
95859659|NCT00607373|191677246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.009
95988614|NCT03987854|191951742|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||3.46|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95938162|NCT05520190|191840997|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Norm score - 1-month Norm score / SD of average change|||||
95938163|NCT05520190|191840998|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Perceived Behavioral Control score - 1-month Perceived Behavioral Control score / SD of average change|||||
95938164|NCT05520190|191840999|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Intention score - 1-month Intention score / SD of average change|||||
95938165|NCT05520190|191841000|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinks per day - 1-month drinks per day / avg change in drinks per day|||||
95938166|NCT05520190|191841001|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline drinking days - 1-month drinking days / SD of avg change in drinking days|||||
95938167|NCT05520190|191841002|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline binge drinking days - 1-month binge drinking days / avg change in binge drinking days|||||
95938168|NCT05520190|191841003|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline depression - 1-month depression / SD of avg change in depression|||||
95938169|NCT05520190|191841004|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline anxiety - 1-month anxiety / SD avg change in anxiety|||||
95938170|NCT05520190|191841005|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline PTSD - 1-month PTSd / SD avg change in PTSD|||||
95988615|NCT03987854|191951743|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||3.26|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
95938171|NCT05520190|191841006|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline insomnia - 1-month insomnia / SD avg change in insomnia|||||
95938172|NCT05520190|191841007|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline Alcohol Screen - 1-month Alcohol Screen / SD avg change|||||
95938173|NCT05520190|191841008|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline behavioral beliefs - 1-month behavioral beliefs / avg change in behavioral beliefs|||||
95938174|NCT05520190|191841009|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline normative beliefs - 1-month normative beliefs / SD avg change in normative beliefs|||||
95938175|NCT05520190|191841010|SUPERIORITY||Standardized Response Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Baseline control beliefs - 1-month control beliefs / SD avg change in control beliefs|||||
95740471|NCT03214588|191451396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.215
95938176|NCT01333969|191841011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.02|||GEE|Regression analysis using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method to compare the changes over time in VAS scores at rest and with exercise||||-0.02|-1.40|.043
95938177|NCT01333969|191841012|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
95938178|NCT01333969|191841013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.584||||0.584|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.584
95938179|NCT01333969|191841014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.763||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.763
95938180|NCT01333969|191841015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.602||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Regression analyses based on the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method||||||.602
95938181|NCT01333969|191841016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8656||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8656
95938182|NCT01333969|191841017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8422||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8422
95938183|NCT01333969|191841018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
95938184|NCT01333969|191841019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.526||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.526
95938185|NCT03210272|191841076|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|155.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.66|185.3|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 18.1|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||185.30|130.66|
95938186|NCT03210272|191841076|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|240.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.25|293.81|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||293.81|196.25|
95938187|NCT03210272|191841077|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|156.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.73|184.22|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 17.0|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||184.22|132.73|
95938188|NCT03210272|191841077|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|245.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.7|300.44|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 27.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||300.44|200.70|
95938189|NCT03210272|191841078|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|158.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.25|220.56|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 34.8|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||220.56|114.25|
95988616|NCT03987854|191951744|SUPERIORITY||paired t-test|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||3.49|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
95988617|NCT00137111|191951789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial proportion|79.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|82.85|||Binomial proportion|||Of the 498 eligible patients, 492 were successfully evaluated with day 46 MRD measurement.||82.85|75.69|
95988618|NCT00137111|191951790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||||||p-value from t-test after stratified for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test stratified for lineage and ploidy||||.0062
95938190|NCT03210272|191841078|OTHER||Ratio T/R (%)|246.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.37|297.89|||||intra-individual gCV (%) = 26.2|The statistical model to assess relative bioavailability in the FE part was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed parameters AUC and Cmax including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'||297.89|203.37|
95938191|NCT05546749|191841157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was performed to predict pain intensity by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline pain intensity score.||0.54|-3.1|0.17
95938192|NCT05546749|191841158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to predict opioid craving score by arm at weeks 3 and 6, controlling for baseline opioid craving score.||13.1|-40.3|0.32
95988619|NCT00137111|191951791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||p-value from t-test after adjusted for lineage and ploidy|t-test, 2 sided|||t-test adjusting for lineage and ploidy||||.15
95988620|NCT00137111|191951792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9.5e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00000095
95740472|NCT03214588|191451396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.411
95740473|NCT03214588|191451396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.194
95740474|NCT03214588|191451396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.408
95740475|NCT03214588|191451397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.406
95740476|NCT03214588|191451397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.235
95740477|NCT03214588|191451397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.225
95740478|NCT03214588|191451397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.434
95740479|NCT03214588|191451397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.249
95938193|NCT05546749|191841167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.6|||Regression, Linear||RelieVRx was associated with lower stress score.|We performed a mixed effects model to predict stress score at week 6 by arm, controlling for baseline stress score.||3.6|-23.1|0.137
95740480|NCT03214588|191451397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.380
95740481|NCT03214588|191451398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.422
95740482|NCT03214588|191451398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.226
95740483|NCT03214588|191451398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.639
95740484|NCT03214588|191451398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.094
95740485|NCT03214588|191451398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.516
95740486|NCT03214588|191451398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||The p-value was obtained using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test stratified by ambulation status at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||0.266
95740487|NCT03214588|191451399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.41||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.41|-0.80|0.299
95857986|NCT01656408|191673808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||5.2|-1.7|0.387
95857987|NCT01656408|191673809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||12.8|-3.9|0.357
95857988|NCT01656408|191673809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||15.9|-1.2|0.150
95857989|NCT01656408|191673809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||12.3|-6.3|0.578
95857990|NCT01656408|191673810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||5.5|-5.1|0.942
95857991|NCT01656408|191673810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||8.5|-4.8|0.627
95740488|NCT03214588|191451399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.04||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||1.04|0.06|0.967
95740489|NCT03214588|191451399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.59||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.59|-0.54|0.529
95988621|NCT00137111|191951793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||7e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0000007
95740490|NCT03214588|191451399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 7||0.80|-0.13|0.880
95740491|NCT03214588|191451399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.79||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-0.58|0.599
95740492|NCT03214588|191451399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.9||P-values are 1-sided, with the alternative hypothesis that TAK-831 is superior to placebo in the clinically favorable direction.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.90|-0.21|0.846
95740493|NCT03214588|191451400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
95740494|NCT03214588|191451400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 15% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
95740495|NCT03214588|191451400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
95740496|NCT03214588|191451400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||>|0.999||||||P-value was from Fisher's exact test. Odds ratio was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with ambulation status at randomization as a stratification factor.|Fisher Exact|||At Least 20% Reduction from Baseline||||>0.999
95740497|NCT01075516|191451410|OTHER|Continuous data summarized as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD). For cost data Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. The analysis evaluated HCS perspective of group membership impact (SC vs RM) on total health care cost, adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95740498|NCT01075516|191451411|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. For cost data the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare costs across groups. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on cardiovascular hospitalization timeframe (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. Differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95740499|NCT01075516|191451412|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.8||||||Comparison of utility at baseline from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EuroQoL Group 5-Dimension 3-Level Self-Report (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.80
95740500|NCT01075516|191451412|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.38||||||Comparison of utility at 12 months from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.|t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.38
95938194|NCT01963793|191841172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-7.12|0.58
95938195|NCT03158714|191841256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.005
95988622|NCT00262873|191951796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95796234|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.97
95796235|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of After Treatment Values||||0.362
95796236|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.271
95938196|NCT03158714|191841256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.101
95988623|NCT00262873|191951797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95988624|NCT00262873|191951798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95988625|NCT00844753|191951802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95988626|NCT00844753|191951803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95988627|NCT04817111|191951805|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95740501|NCT01075516|191451412|OTHER|Continuous data are summarized as mean ± SD. This analysis evaluated the impact of group membership (SC vs RM) on total health care cost (outcome), adjusting for covariates that were significantly different between the groups at the .2 significance level. However, as the arithmetic mean is the most informative measurement for policy decisions, differences between the 2 groups were assessed using differences in sample means (point estimates) and t distributions (confidence intervals).||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the patient perspective, the quality of life associated with the 2 strategies was assessed. Quality of life is reported as utility values from the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on utility (patients' preferences). The EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was administered to each patient at baseline and at 12 months in order to calculate utility values (from 0 to 1).||||0.53
95938197|NCT03158714|191841257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
95938198|NCT03158714|191841257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and controlled for baseline levels of outcome in regression.||||||< .001
95938199|NCT03158714|191841258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.343||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.003
95938200|NCT03158714|191841258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Utilized multi-level modeling to account for nested data (individuals within couples), and accounted for time within individual.||||||.152
95938201|NCT03652688|191841259|SUPERIORITY||F|14.463|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The unit of analyses was the individual, nested within groups.||||<0.001
95938202|NCT03652688|191841260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.08
95938203|NCT03652688|191841261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.954
95938204|NCT03652688|191841262|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|4.436||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.035
95938205|NCT03652688|191841263|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|2.615||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.106
95938206|NCT03652688|191841264|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|11.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95938207|NCT05746494|191841349|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95938208|NCT05746494|191841350|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.042|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.042
95938209|NCT05746494|191841351|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.980
95740502|NCT02252016|191451414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|23.3||||||The estimated difference (± 95% confidence interval \[CI\]) in percentage of participants experiencing an AE in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||23.3|-7.3|
95938210|NCT05746494|191841352|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.01|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||||||0.010
95938211|NCT05746494|191841353|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
95938212|NCT05746494|191841354|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
95938213|NCT05746494|191841355|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
95938214|NCT05746494|191841356|OTHER|Omnibus analysis||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
95938215|NCT04806451|191841369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-267.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.313||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-403.427|-132.124|||ANCOVA|||||-132.124|-403.427|0.0002
95938216|NCT03134196|191841412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|0.5|
95938217|NCT03134196|191841413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||||0.99|0.56|
95938218|NCT02023866|191841448|OTHER|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Section I - Current Function Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.1875
95938219|NCT02023866|191841448|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section II - System Specific Involvement Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||1.0000
95938220|NCT02023866|191841448|OTHER|||||||0.0781|||||||Wilcoxin Signed Rank|||Section III - Current Clinical Assessment Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.0781
95938221|NCT02023866|191841448|OTHER|||||||0.2941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test||Section IV - Quality of Life Null hypothesis = change from baseline is 0.||||0.2941
95938222|NCT04026555|191841467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.78|||Regression, Poisson|||IPTW Poisson regression was used to model the number of escalations per visit with an offset of the log transformed length of stay normalized per 1000 bed days. Treatment effect is expressed in terms of adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) per 1000 patient bed days.||1.78|1.16|< 0.001
95938223|NCT04026555|191841468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regres- sion models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||2.18|1.39|<0.001
95938224|NCT04026555|191841471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||Correction for multiple comparisons was performed on all key outcomes within the primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, using the false discovery rate method (FDR).|Regression, Logistic|||IPTW log-binomial regression models were used to model the secondary and ad hoc outcomes. Treatment effect is expressed as adjusted relative risk (RR).||0.99|0.58|0.045
95938225|NCT04026555|191841476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.98|0.14
95938226|NCT01212029|191841569|OTHER|One sample t-tests of standardized regression coefficients of RMSSD predicting O2Hb during baseline||||||0.008||||||t-test was performed 16 times for 16 fNIRS channels. The reported p-value is an uncorrected value for channel 10.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no significant correlation between RMSSD and O2Hb levels during baseline||||0.008
95938227|NCT01212029|191841570|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Tukey method|||||||0.0105
95740503|NCT02252016|191451415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||The estimated difference (± 95% CI) in percentage of participants withdrawing from study treatment due to an AE(s) in the Immediate versus Deferred arms was determined.||1.6|-10.2|0.155
95740504|NCT03503318|191451438|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.367||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.367|0.109|<0.0001
95740505|NCT03503318|191451438|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.618||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using the stratified Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment (placebo, TV-46000 q1m and TV-46000 q2m or placebo and TV-46000 overall \[including q1m and q2m\]) as explanatory variable and sex-dose as a stratification factor, and the stratified log rank test p-value (sex-dose as a stratification factor) referred to (TV-46000/placebo) comparison.||0.618|0.227|<0.0001
95740506|NCT05604209|191451493|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.14|0.67|<0.001
95740507|NCT05604209|191451493|SUPERIORITY||median log2 fold change|1.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||2.59|0.09|0.008
95740508|NCT05604209|191451493|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-am log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.59|0.93|0.008
95740509|NCT05604209|191451493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.279
95740510|NCT05604209|191451494|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.33|1.09|<0.001
95740511|NCT05604209|191451494|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.40|0.59|0.008
95740512|NCT05604209|191451494|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.09|0.94|0.008
95938228|NCT02111798|191841580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.889
95938229|NCT02111798|191841581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons were conducted as a function of medication condition, collapsed across abstinence initiation and relapse prevention groups, according to a priori-stated statistical analysis.||||0.605
95938230|NCT04318548|191841617|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M14459 (fHbp) strain was above (\>) 0.5|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.77|
95938231|NCT04318548|191841617|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against 96217 (NadA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.04|0.75|
95740513|NCT05604209|191451494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 35 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 35 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.878
95796237|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.519
95988628|NCT04817111|191951807|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95988629|NCT04817111|191951808|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test if the change from pre- vs. post-test outcome is different from zero.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95740514|NCT05604209|191451495|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.63|0.54|<0.001
95740515|NCT05604209|191451495|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.61|0.39|0.008
95740516|NCT05604209|191451495|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.37|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 within the C1C62-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||4.37|0.43|0.016
95740517|NCT05604209|191451495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-1 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.189
95740518|NCT05604209|191451496|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within all vaccinees is zero.||2.51|0.81|<0.001
95796238|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.017 is significant||Comparison of 4 week After Treatment Values||||0.569
95938232|NCT04318548|191841617|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against NZ98/254 (PorA) strain was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.12|0.76|
95938233|NCT04318548|191841617|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the MenB+MenACWY group and MenB group for hSBA titers against M13520 (NHBA) strain was \>0.5|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strains at one month after the second vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 91).||1.06|0.73|
95950115|NCT00046475|191872187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline standing diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of standing diastolic blood pressure||||0.010
95950116|NCT00046475|191872188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine systolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine systolic blood pressure||||<0.001
95950117|NCT00046475|191872188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with change from baseline supine diastolic blood pressure as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of supine diastolic blood pressure||||0.002
95950118|NCT00046475|191872189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 general health score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of general health||||0.569
95740519|NCT05604209|191451496|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.89|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C62-M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.89|0.63|0.008
95740520|NCT05604209|191451496|SUPERIORITY||Median log2 fold change|1.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.79|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-arm log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median log2-fold change in magnitude of T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 within the C162-M3M4 vaccinated arm is zero.||3.79|0.70|0.016
95740521|NCT05604209|191451496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between-arm comparisons in log2 fold changes were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||The contrast is the magnitude of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from baseline to day 42 in C62-M4 versus C1C62-M3M4.The null hypothesis is that he distributions of the T-cell response to Mosaic-2 from pre-vaccination to day 42 are the same between the two vaccinated arms.||||0.955
95796239|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.004
95796240|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.973
95796241|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance|||||||0.886
95796242|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of immediate effect between groups||||0.82
95740522|NCT05604209|191451497|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within-group changes in breadth from baseline to day 56 were statistically assessed using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test.||The null hypothesis is that the median change in breadth of T-cell response to HIV-1 subpools from baseline to day 56 within all vaccinees is zero.||4|-1|0.125
95740523|NCT03703258|191451510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.60
95740524|NCT03703258|191451510|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
95740525|NCT03703258|191451511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.94
95740526|NCT03703258|191451511|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
95740527|NCT03703258|191451512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.38
95740528|NCT03703258|191451512|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
95740529|NCT03703258|191451513|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|||||.04
95938234|NCT04318548|191841618|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men A serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men A, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.14|0.78|
95938235|NCT04318548|191841618|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men C serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.44|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men C, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.44|0.86|
95988630|NCT06245551|191951809|OTHER|The analysis is applied to the All-subjects data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.78|-15.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.25|-19.78|<0.001
95740530|NCT03703258|191451513|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|||||
95740531|NCT03703258|191451514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.51
95740532|NCT03703258|191451514|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
95740533|NCT03703258|191451514|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
95740534|NCT03703258|191451514|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
95740535|NCT03703258|191451515|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.04
95740536|NCT03703258|191451515|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.34
95740537|NCT03703258|191451515|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
95796243|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.017
95796244|NCT03074500|191562497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Immediate effect compared to baseline||||0.734
95740538|NCT03703258|191451515|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Positive values favor intervention and negative values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
95740539|NCT03703258|191451516|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.13
95740540|NCT03703258|191451516|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.24
95740541|NCT03703258|191451516|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
95740542|NCT03703258|191451516|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
95740543|NCT03703258|191451517|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.85
95740544|NCT03703258|191451517|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.96
95796245|NCT03353220|191562506|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95796246|NCT03353220|191562507|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95796247|NCT03353220|191562508|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
95938236|NCT04318548|191841618|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men W serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men W, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.21|0.82|
95950119|NCT00046475|191872189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on an ANOVA model with SF-36 physical functioning score as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and patient within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of physical functioning||||0.578
95740545|NCT03703258|191451517|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
95740546|NCT03703258|191451517|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
95740547|NCT03703258|191451518|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.75
95740548|NCT03703258|191451518|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.64
95740549|NCT03703258|191451518|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
95740550|NCT03703258|191451518|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
95796248|NCT03353220|191562512|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
95796249|NCT03857256|191562538|SUPERIORITY|Mean changes from Week 0 in LDL-C were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach including effects of treatment group, time (Week 6 and Week 12) and treatment group x time interaction as well as the covariates of Week 0 value of LDL-C and Week 0 value of LDL-C x time interaction. An unstructured covariance structure were used to model the within-patient errors. Contrasts under this model allowed for the three main comparisons.||||||0.0167||||||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation were used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Tests involving the comparisons of each of the active groups versus placebo for the primary endpoint were conducted at the 0.0167 significance level (to account for three main comparisons).||||0.0167
95796250|NCT03454555|191562550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3|-16.6|0.31
95796251|NCT03454555|191562551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-10.3|0.963
95950120|NCT00046475|191872193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with mild or moderate disease severity||||0.370
95938237|NCT04318548|191841618|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group ratio of hSBA GMTs between MenB+MenACWY group and MenACWY group for Men Y serogroup was \>0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenACWY) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to MenACWY given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ compared to MenACWY administered alone, as measured by hSBA GMTs against the N. meningitidis serogroup Men Y, at one month after the vaccination with MenACWY (at Day 31).||1.27|0.84|
95938238|NCT04318548|191841620|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M14459 (fHbp) strain at one month after the fisrt vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.64|
95938239|NCT04318548|191841620|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis 96217 (NadA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.77|0.49|
95728024|NCT02363010|191425844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.998
95728025|NCT02363010|191425844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.878
95728026|NCT02363010|191425844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Emotional Overeating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.602
95728027|NCT02363010|191425845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.487
95728028|NCT02363010|191425845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.262
95728029|NCT02363010|191425845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.851
95728030|NCT02363010|191425845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Disinhibited Eating would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.978
95728031|NCT02363010|191425846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.796
95728032|NCT02363010|191425846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.481
95728033|NCT02363010|191425846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.872
95728034|NCT02363010|191425846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Hedonic Hunger would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.802
95796252|NCT03454555|191562552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-16.8|0.253
95938240|NCT04318548|191841620|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis NZ98/254 (PorA) strain at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.91|0.58|
95938241|NCT04318548|191841620|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||ANOVA||The ratio of GMTs (MenB+MenACWY/MenB) and the corresponding CI is constructed by exponentiating the mean difference and the confidence limits in log10 (titer), using ANOVA with study centre included as an independent variable.|To assess the immune response to rMenB+OMV NZ given concomitantly with MenACWY compared to rMenB+OMV NZ administered alone, measured by hSBA GMTs against N. meningitidis M13520 (NHBA) at one month after the first vaccination with rMenB+OMV NZ (at Day 31).||0.90|0.64|
95938242|NCT02651428|191841644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.62||The threshold significance level at the interim and final statistical analyses for the primary efficacy endpoint was 0.0294.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the survival functions for CRBSI between the two treatments. Based on 80% power to detect a 55% reduction in the risk of CRBSI relative to the control treatment, a 1:1 randomization, a 2-sided log-rank test, one interim analysis using the method of Pocock, and an overall alpha of 0.05, it was determined that 56 CRBSIs would be needed. These are the results of the final analysis.||0.62|0.14|0.0006
95938243|NCT02651428|191841645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Log Rank||The numerator for the hazard ratio was the estimated hazard for the Neutrolin treatment arm, and the denominator was the estimated hazard for the Heparin treatment arm.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time until catheter removal for any reason between the two treatments.||1.29|0.90|0.4161
95938244|NCT05717907|191841744|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95938245|NCT01160211|191841824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88||Pike estimate of the treatment hazard ratio, \<1 indicates a lower risk compared with trastuzumab + AI.|Log Rank|using a two-sided stratified log-rank test (based on stratification factors)||Null hypothesis H0: λ ≥ 1 or to reject it in favor of the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR) between Treatment Group A and Treatment Group B for progression-free survival.||0.88|0.45|0.0063
95938246|NCT01160211|191841826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79||||||||0.79|0.44|
95938247|NCT01160211|191841826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15||||||||1.15|0.66|
95938248|NCT01160211|191841826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||||||||0.92|0.51|
95938249|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.36||||||FACT-B total score||2.36|-5.95|
95938250|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|0.29||||||FACT-B total score||0.29|-8.09|
95938251|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.92||||||FACT-G total score||1.92|-4.92|
95728035|NCT02363010|191425847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.926
95728036|NCT02363010|191425847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that baseline Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.820
95728037|NCT02363010|191425847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Linear|Controlling for baseline weight.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month weight loss. As a note, multiple imputation for missing weight loss data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.127
95728038|NCT02363010|191425847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||A prior threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|Regression, Poison|Controlling for baseline MVPA. Poisson linear regression was used as MVPA data distribution was zero-inflated.||The null hypothesis was that 6-month Appetitive Response to Exercise would not significantly moderate the relationship between the three treatment conditions and 36-month MVPA. As a note, multiple imputation for missing MVPA data was not conducted for exploratory moderation analyses.||||.814
95938252|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|0.34||||||FACT-G total score||0.34|-6.55|
95938253|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.25||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||0.25|-5.66|
95938254|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-0.64||||||FACT-B trial outcome index (TOI)||-0.64|-6.59|
95938255|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.11||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.11|-2.82|
95938256|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.18||||||Physical well-being (PWB)||-0.18|-2.90|
95938257|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.79||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||1.79|-1.01|
95938258|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.86||||||Social family wellbeing (SWB)||0.86|-1.96|
95988631|NCT02508194|191951815|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.9|44.3|||||The CI was estimated by an exact conditional method.|2 sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was used to compare vaccine efficacy (VE). VE = (\[1 - relative risk (RR)\] \*100%), where RR was the RR of ARA-RI in the MEDI7510 group compared with the placebo group. A lower bound of the 90% CI greater than (\>) 0% would demonstrate the efficacy of MEDI7510.||44.3|-106.9|
95740551|NCT03703258|191451519|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Post-intervention condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||.86
95740552|NCT03703258|191451519|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3 month condition x time interaction coefficient from mixed-effect model using negative binomial distribution. Intervention = 1 and control = 0.|Baseline to 3 months||||.55
95740553|NCT03703258|191451519|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Post-intervention between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to post-intervention only||||
95740554|NCT03703258|191451519|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3 month between-group Cohen's d; calculated as within-group d(intervention) - within group d(control). Standardized using the standard deviation of the change scores. Negative values favor intervention and positive values favor control.|Baseline to 3 months||||
95740555|NCT01125163|191451526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All infants were analyzed according to their assigned groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.59
95740556|NCT01125163|191451527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A non-parametric rank sum analysis was performed as follows so that infants who died before 36 wks and infants who were transfused could be included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Infants were ranked by death (lowest rank) then by number of transfusions (next lowest ranks). For infants who survived and were not transfused, the 36 wks PMA Hct was used as the primary outcome.||||0.64
95740557|NCT02597049|191451528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-0.97|<.001
95740558|NCT02597049|191451528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.84|< .001
95740559|NCT02597049|191451529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-1.00|<.001
95740560|NCT02597049|191451529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-0.86|<.001
95740561|NCT02597049|191451530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
95740562|NCT02597049|191451530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||||< .001
95740563|NCT02597049|191451530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
95740564|NCT02597049|191451530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Efficacy Estimand||||< .001
95740565|NCT02597049|191451531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-1.8|0.027
95740566|NCT02597049|191451531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.4|-1.3|0.264
95740567|NCT02597049|191451531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.0|-1.7|0.059
95740568|NCT02597049|191451531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Efficacy Estimand||0.5|-1.2|0.435
95740569|NCT02597049|191451532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-18.6|-30.8|< .001
95740570|NCT02597049|191451532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.5||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-13.5|-25.7|<0.001
95740571|NCT02597049|191451532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-20.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-20.6|-32.7|<0.001
95740572|NCT02597049|191451532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-14.6||Test was not controlled for type I error.|ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-14.6|-26.7|<0.001
95740573|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal.||-13.8|-25.7|< .001
95740574|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-morning meal||-9.2|-21.2|< .001
95740575|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-15.3|-33.8|< .001
95740576|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial||-11.8|-30.3|< .001
95740577|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-10.2|-26.4|< .001
95988632|NCT00217087|191951832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0098
95988633|NCT00217087|191951833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
95988634|NCT00217087|191951834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|the only participant who reported a decrease quality of life related that to a recent surgery not their esophagus.||||||0.2
95740578|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-midday meal||-6.2|-22.5|< .001
95740579|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-9.3|-28.8|< .001
95740580|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after midday meal||-3.1|-22.5|0.010
95740581|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.7|-30.7|< .001
95740582|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-evening meal||-14.4|-30.7|< .001
95796253|NCT03454555|191562553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5|-10.1|0.90
95796254|NCT03454555|191562554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-13.7|0.65
95938259|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.66||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.66|-0.57|
95938260|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.53||||||Emotional wellbeing (EWB)||1.53|-0.72|
95938261|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.28||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||0.28|-2.26|
95938262|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.04||||||Functional wellbeing (FWB)||-0.04|-2.60|
95938263|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.95||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.95|-1.66|
95938264|NCT01160211|191841832|SUPERIORITY||Least square difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.48||||||Breast cancer subscale (BCS)||0.48|-2.14|
95938265|NCT04342494|191841934|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PHQ-9 score via analysis of covariance.||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95938266|NCT04342494|191841935|EQUIVALENCE|Average mood score obtained from daily measurements analyzed via analysis of variance||||||0.0073|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0073
95938267|NCT04342494|191841936|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-PI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95740583|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-12.9|-31.4|< .001
95740584|NCT02597049|191451533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2-hour postprandial after evening meal||-7.4|-26.0|< .001
95740585|NCT02597049|191451534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
95740586|NCT02597049|191451534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment-regimen Estimand||0.5|-1.7|0.273
95740587|NCT02597049|191451534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||-0.2|-2.4|0.023
95740588|NCT02597049|191451534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Efficacy Estimand||0.6|-1.7|0.320
95740589|NCT00950989|191451550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.598
95740590|NCT00950989|191451550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
95796255|NCT03454555|191562555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8|-1.9|0.102
95938268|NCT04342494|191841937|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline PANSI-NSI score via analysis of covariance||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
95938269|NCT04342494|191841938|EQUIVALENCE|Symptom-level change estimates were adjusted for baseline GAD-7 score via analysis of covariance||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95938270|NCT03736720|191841940|OTHER|No statistical test.|Proportion|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.033|0.301|||||Estimated using Jeffrey's prior method.|||0.301|0.033|
95938271|NCT03736720|191841946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Sign test|two-sided test.||Comparing the pre-treatment and end of treatment QoL scores.||||0.289
95938272|NCT05119023|191841951|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language Severity and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.39
95938273|NCT05119023|191841951|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||<0.01
95938274|NCT05119023|191841951|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Language severity and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.95
95938275|NCT05119023|191841952|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.36||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.36
95938276|NCT05119023|191841952|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Pearson's correlation|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
95938277|NCT05119023|191841952|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Attention and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule Based Learning||||0.32
95938278|NCT05119023|191841953|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.64||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.64
95938279|NCT05119023|191841953|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.01
95938280|NCT05119023|191841953|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Working Memory and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.79
95740591|NCT00950989|191451550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.4||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.4|-9.0|0.635
95740592|NCT00950989|191451550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.740
95740593|NCT00950989|191451550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.8||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-14.1|0.572
95740594|NCT00950989|191451550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.572
95740595|NCT00950989|191451551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|14.0||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.0|-20.4|0.728
95740596|NCT00950989|191451551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
95938281|NCT05119023|191841954|OTHER|Sample underpowered for regression so correlation examined||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: SRT Observational Learning Scores||||0.90
95938282|NCT05119023|191841954|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Observational Learning Scores||||0.09
95938283|NCT05119023|191841954|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Examination of Executive Function and Characterization of learning: AGL Rule-based Learning Scores||||0.24
95938284|NCT03476460|191841975|NON_INFERIORITY|"We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable.~The non-inferiority of oral hydration would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the absolute risk difference between the groups was less than 5% (non-inferiority margin, indicated by the black dashed line)"|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.0|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two independent proportions was calculated according to Wilson's method.|Sample size was calculated to assess the non-inferiority of oral compared to intravenous hydration. We expected a primary outcome rate of 7% in the intravenous arm. We considered a priori a difference of no more than 5% in the incidence of CA-AKI in the oral compared to the intravenous arm (non-inferiority margin) to be acceptable. Thus, 266 participants, 133 per arm, were required to ensure at least 80% power at a significance level of α = 2.5% (one-sided).||7.0|-4.8|
95938285|NCT03476460|191841976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||0.299
95938286|NCT03476460|191841977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||0.477
95740597|NCT00950989|191451551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-6.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.7||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-23.4|0.412
95740598|NCT00950989|191451551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedures|||||||0.740
95938287|NCT03476460|191841978|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.042||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95938288|NCT03476460|191841979|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.121||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
95938289|NCT03476460|191841980|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.418||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
95938290|NCT03476460|191841981|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.901||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.901
95938291|NCT03476460|191841982|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.72||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
95938292|NCT03476460|191841983|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.688||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
95938293|NCT03476460|191841984|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.535||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
95938294|NCT03476460|191841985|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.338||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
95938295|NCT03476460|191841986|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.764||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
95938296|NCT03476460|191841987|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.458||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
95938297|NCT03476460|191841988|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 24h from baseline||||||0.893||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893
95938298|NCT03476460|191841989|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between means of both arms at 48h from baseline||||||0.645||||||A p-value \<0.05 (two-sided) was considered for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
95938299|NCT04292223|191841990|OTHER|Comparison of the 16-week value with the baseline value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.3|8.8|<0.0001
95938300|NCT01606215|191842035|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 data||||0.84
95938301|NCT01606215|191842035|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 data||||0.62
95988635|NCT05103332|191951864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-7.6||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-7.6|-16.5|<0.0001
95988636|NCT05103332|191951865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while participants were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.6|-12.9|<0.0001
95740599|NCT00950989|191451551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|20.5||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-14.2|0.740
95740600|NCT00950989|191451551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
95740601|NCT00950989|191451552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.984
95740602|NCT00950989|191451552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
95740603|NCT00950989|191451552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.1|-6.1|0.993
95740604|NCT00950989|191451552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.993
95740605|NCT00950989|191451552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.2||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.2||P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for sex.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-7.5|0.159
95740606|NCT00950989|191451552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||Adjusted p-value is based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hommel procedure to control the overall significance level for all the comparisons.|Sequential testing + Hommel procedure|||||||0.797
95740607|NCT00950989|191451553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.459
95740608|NCT00950989|191451553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.906
95857992|NCT01656408|191673810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.6|0.9|0.046
95740609|NCT00950989|191451553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value is nominal without multiplicity adjustment based on ANCOVA model adjusting for sex and baseline DAS28 score.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.849
95857993|NCT01656408|191673811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.0|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.6|-18.0|0.025
95740610|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|30.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|58.3|||Fisher Exact|||||58.3|0.8|0.0722
95740611|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|20.6|||Fisher Exact|||||20.6|-28.1|>0.9999
95740612|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|22.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|50.6|||Fisher Exact|||||50.6|-5.5|0.1482
95740613|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|5.9|0.0203
95740614|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-33.9||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-4.6|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.6|-60.3|0.0293
95740615|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.6||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|25.3|||Fisher Exact|||||25.3|-38.9|0.7431
95740616|NCT06041256|191451604|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.6||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|37.3|||Fisher Exact|||||37.3|-26.8|0.7568
95740617|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|20.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|38.0|||ANCOVA|||||38.0|2.9|0.0232
95857994|NCT01656408|191673811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-1.1|-11.0|0.055
95740618|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|27.1|||ANCOVA|||||27.1|-7.4|0.2600
95740619|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|22.5||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|39.9|||ANCOVA|||||39.9|5.2|0.0115
95740620|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|53.4|||ANCOVA|||||53.4|18.5|<0.0001
95740621|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.6||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-28.4|0.2403
95740622|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.1||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.9|||ANCOVA|||||19.9|-15.7|0.8138
95740623|NCT06041256|191451605|OTHER||Least square mean difference|15.5||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|33.2|||ANCOVA|||||33.2|-2.1|0.0834
95740624|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-75.1||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||||-15.1|-135.2|0.0147
95740625|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-81.3||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.5|-22.0|||ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-140.5|0.0077
95938302|NCT01606215|191842035|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 data||||0.61
95938303|NCT01606215|191842038|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.77
95938304|NCT01606215|191842038|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.68
95938305|NCT01606215|191842038|OTHER|Week 24||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.48
95938306|NCT04114877|191842047|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
95740626|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-73.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-132.6|0.0165
95740627|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-81.7||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.4|-22.0|||ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-141.4|0.0079
95740628|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.8|55.6|||ANCOVA|||||55.6|-67.8|0.8443
95740629|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-60.1|0.9490
95740630|NCT06041256|191451606|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.6||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55.0|-68.1|0.8324
95740631|NCT03215706|191451611|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.86|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.86|0.56|0.0006
95740632|NCT03215706|191451612|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Log-rank test stratified|||||0.82|0.59|
95740633|NCT03215706|191451613|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||19.4|6.0|
95740634|NCT03215706|191451619|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.63|
95740635|NCT02433977|191451623|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740636|NCT02433977|191451624|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740637|NCT02433977|191451625|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740638|NCT02433977|191451626|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740639|NCT02433977|191451628|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740640|NCT02433977|191451630|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740641|NCT02433977|191451631|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740642|NCT02433977|191451632|OTHER||||||<=|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<=0.05
95740643|NCT03930849|191451653|OTHER||F-value for Type 3 Fixed, df=4|2.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time term in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.10
95740644|NCT03930849|191451654|SUPERIORITY||F statistic GroupxTime, df=4|0.025||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for F-value reported below of group x time analysis in a mixed methods analysis.||||||0.90
95740645|NCT03930849|191451655|SUPERIORITY||F Value Group x Time, DF=4|2.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of F statistic reported below for mixed methods analysis group\*time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95740646|NCT01251393|191451656|EQUIVALENCE|"The comparisons between the placebo and the biperiden groups at baseline were performed by means of the independent t-Test. We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.~We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack."|||||<|0.05||||||We used an ANOVA for repeated measures, followed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to evaluate the efficacy of biperiden in reducing consumption of cocaine/crack.|ANOVA|||We evaluated the normality (Kolmogorov's test) and homogeneity (Levene's test) of the sample.||||<0.05
95796256|NCT03454555|191562556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.75|0.50|0.83
95938307|NCT04114877|191842048|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
95938308|NCT04114877|191842049|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
95938309|NCT04114877|191842050|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models||||||>0.05
95938310|NCT04114877|191842051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.455
95938311|NCT04295798|191842052|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
95938312|NCT04295798|191842053|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.02
95740647|NCT01541215|191451657|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c~Superiority of liraglutide over placebo was to be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was entirely below 0%, implying that the two sided p-value was less than 5%."|Treatment difference|-1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|-0.464|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for week 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.464|-1.653|<0.001
95740648|NCT01541215|191451658|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-1.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.093|-0.662|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||-0.662|-3.093|0.002
95740649|NCT01541215|191451659|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: HbA1c \< 7.0% after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment odds ratio|5.353|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|13.615|||logistic regression model|||Missing data was imputed using pattern mixture model. For each imputed data set the binary response was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link with treatment and stratification group (gender\*age group) as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.The estimated treatment effects and confidence intervals were combined using Rubin´s formula.||13.615|2.105|<0.001
95796257|NCT03454555|191562557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.50|0.42|0.47
95938313|NCT04295798|191842054|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.04
95938314|NCT04295798|191842055|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.56
95938315|NCT04295798|191842056|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task gait speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.07
95938316|NCT04295798|191842057|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.74
95988637|NCT05103332|191951866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|=|0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.8||MMRM: Fixed factors: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black/all other races); Covariates: Baseline (BA) 24-hour mean SBP using ABPM \& BA eGFR. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort \& handle primary \& key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for SBP, assessed using ABPM, while subjects were on \& within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-0.8|-8.2|=0.0183
95796258|NCT03454555|191562558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.90|0.54|0.96
95796259|NCT03454555|191562559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.33|0.38|0.28
95796260|NCT03454555|191562560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.71|0.47|0.75
95938317|NCT04295798|191842058|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task stride time variability from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.33
95740650|NCT01541215|191451660|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Change from baseline in BMI SDS after 26 weeks of treatment"|Treatment difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.06|||Pattern Mixture Model|||Analysis using a pattern mixture model of observed data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on multiple (x10.000) imputations. The data for weeks 26 were then analysed with an ANCOVA model containing treatment, sex and age group as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate. The estimated treatment differences and confidence intervals were combined using Rubins formula.||0.060|-0.153|0.392
95796261|NCT03454555|191562561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a logistic mixed model for repeated measures||||1.31|0.35|0.25
95938318|NCT04295798|191842059|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.16
95938319|NCT04295798|191842060|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.52
95938320|NCT04295798|191842061|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway speed from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.01
95938321|NCT04295798|191842062|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized no significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in single task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention||||0.39
95938322|NCT04295798|191842063|EQUIVALENCE|Model effects included stimulation condition (i.e., gel-tDCS, sponge-tDCS, gel-sham and sponge-sham), time (pre-, post-stimulation), and their interaction. Previous studies showed age, sex, and BMI were associated with one or more metrics of standing or walking and were therefore included as covariates. Tukey's post-hoc testing was used to compare factor means of significant models.||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized a significant effect of intervention type on absolute change in dual task postural sway area from baseline to immediately post intervention.||||0.18
95938323|NCT06429319|191842064|SUPERIORITY||F value|5.919||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||No sample size calculation was performed. Maximum expected number of participants for OLE was 72 patients randomized to the NOLTREX™ group in the parent study (IA/PAAG-SI/OA/2019). A total of 65 patients entered the OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.004
95938324|NCT06429319|191842064|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-37.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.34||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.98|97.7||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||97.70|-172.98|0.783
95938325|NCT06429319|191842064|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|81.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.45||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|227.16|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||227.16|-63.28|0.370
95740651|NCT02302716|191451737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week HbA1c level for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.22|0.693
95796262|NCT03454555|191562562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.70
95796263|NCT03454555|191562563|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.1|0.92
95796264|NCT03454555|191562564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.7|0.64
95796265|NCT03454555|191562565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
95938326|NCT06429319|191842064|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|119.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.09|203.07||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||203.07|36.09|0.003
95938327|NCT06429319|191842064|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of one and two NOLTREX™ courses was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group."||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (visit 1 study 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.070
95740652|NCT02906813|191451764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.631||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.969|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period and regimen, and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative bioavailability (BA) of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.969|0.411|0.079
95740653|NCT02906813|191451764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.403||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.262|0.618|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 Cmax with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||0.618|0.262|0.002
95740654|NCT02906813|191451765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|1.024|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.024|0.706|0.146
95740655|NCT02906813|191451765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.889||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.07|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUCt with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.070|0.738|0.281
95740656|NCT02906813|191451766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.842||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.05|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with fixed factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 tablet to solution. Point estimate and 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.050|0.676|0.191
95740657|NCT02906813|191451766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.894||||0.355||90.0|0.726|1.1|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on natural logarithms of TAK-935 AUC∞ with factors of sequence, period, and regimen and random factor of participant nested within sequence. Pairwise comparisons was used to assess relative BA of TAK-935 administered after high-fat meal versus fasted. Point estimate and its 90% CI in original scale were obtained by exponentiation of differences in natural-log scale.||1.100|0.726|0.355
95740658|NCT00557245|191451771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.56||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.56|0.19|<0.001
95740659|NCT00557245|191451771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Placebo arm is the reference group.|We used Cox regression stratified according to site, to estimate the relative rates of time to first positive HIV-1 serologic test.||0.45|0.13|<0.001
95740660|NCT00557245|191451772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95938328|NCT06429319|191842068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (study 1 visit 1)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.030
95938329|NCT06429319|191842068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"BASELINE (OLE visit 0)~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.002
95740661|NCT00557245|191451772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
95740662|NCT00557245|191451776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.24
95740663|NCT00557245|191451776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, with logistic link and robust standard errors to adjust for individual correlation over time.||||||0.49
95740664|NCT00557245|191451777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.32
95740665|NCT00557245|191451777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations, logistic link, with robust standard errors.||||||0.66
95740666|NCT00557245|191451778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.51
95740667|NCT00557245|191451778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equations with logistic link to account for multiple pregnancies and multiple births||||||0.86
95740668|NCT00557245|191451779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed-effects model||||||0.42
95740669|NCT00557245|191451779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope Difference over time|0.07||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|Placebo arm is the reference group.|||||0.08
95796266|NCT03454555|191562566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.9|0.69
95740670|NCT00557245|191451780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.02
95740671|NCT00557245|191451780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||<0.001
95938330|NCT06429319|191842068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA|||"visit 3~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||0.007
95740672|NCT00557245|191451781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.35
95740673|NCT00557245|191451781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model||||||0.008
95740674|NCT05090839|191451796|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|variance explained by the IV.|0.072|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.234|||ANOVA|||||.234|.0000|<0.05
95740675|NCT05090839|191451798|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.554|||ANOVA|||This is a comparison that is specific to the contrast of visualizing traumatic versus stressful events.||.554|0|<0.05
95740676|NCT05090839|191451799|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval is used to assess the difference between the means of the 2 x 2 (English vs. Spanish) and (Trauma vs. Non-trauma) writing groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.676|||ANOVA|||||.676|.000|<0.05
95740677|NCT02986139|191451801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||A mixed effects analysis of variance model was used to assess injection site pain with the new formulation of etanercept as the test treatment and the commercial formulation of etanercept as the reference treatment. Treatment, study period, sequence, and disease indication were evaluated as fixed effect covariates, and subject within sequence was included as a random effect.||-0.0|-8.0|0.048
95740678|NCT01609257|191451828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||||||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.674
95857995|NCT01656408|191673812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.4|-4.4|0.999
95857996|NCT01656408|191673812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||5.2|-5.7|0.934
95857997|NCT01656408|191673812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.9|-3.7|0.547
95857998|NCT01656408|191673812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.5|-5.2|0.906
95857999|NCT01656408|191673812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||6.6|-4.0|0.682
95858000|NCT01656408|191673813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||0.0|-11.1|0.099
95858001|NCT01656408|191673813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.7|-10.1|0.034
95740679|NCT01609257|191451835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95740680|NCT01609257|191451836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 1||||0.008
95740681|NCT01609257|191451836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||Statistically significant at p\<0.05. No multiplicity adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Score 2||||0.037
95740682|NCT01609257|191451837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.199
95740683|NCT01609257|191451838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||||||Comparison of % Positive|Fisher Exact|||Any Day 1 to 30||||0.562
95740684|NCT01592240|191451868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.06|-23.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-23.50|-45.06|<0.001
95740685|NCT01592240|191451868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-45.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-34.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-34.21|-55.93|<0.001
95740686|NCT01592240|191451868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.14|-42.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-42.70|-64.14|<0.001
95740687|NCT01592240|191451868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-14.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-14.67|-40.49|<0.001
95740688|NCT01592240|191451868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-44.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.65|-32.05|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.05|-57.65|<0.001
95740689|NCT01592240|191451869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|-17.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-17.67|-39.15|<0.001
95740690|NCT01592240|191451869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-43.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-32.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-32.51|-53.90|<0.001
95740691|NCT01592240|191451869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-30.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-30.41|-51.66|<0.001
95740692|NCT01592240|191451869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-13.84|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-13.84|-33.70|<0.001
95740693|NCT01592240|191451869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.24|-20.49|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||||-20.49|-40.24|<0.001
95740694|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-25.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.10|-44.91|<0.001
95740695|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-32.33|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-32.33|-52.30|<0.001
95740696|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-53.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.97|-43.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-43.27|-62.97|<0.001
95858002|NCT01656408|191673814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||1.6|-6.5|0.281
95938331|NCT06429319|191842068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||"visit 5~To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution."||||<0.001
95938332|NCT06429319|191842069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups.~visit 3"||||<0.001
95938333|NCT06429319|191842069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
95938334|NCT06429319|191842070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 3~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||0.018
95938335|NCT06429319|191842070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"visit 5~Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between 3 groups."||||<0.001
95938336|NCT06429319|191842073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||To determine a statistically significant difference between 3 groups the one-way ANOVA (for normally distributed data; aov) or the Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normally distributed data; kw) was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution.||||0.010
95938337|NCT01389856|191842100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95938338|NCT01389856|191842101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3407
95938339|NCT01389856|191842102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2399
95938340|NCT01389856|191842104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95938341|NCT01389856|191842105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2235
95938342|NCT01389856|191842106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1468
95938343|NCT01389856|191842107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0789
95938344|NCT01389856|191842108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3723
95938345|NCT01389856|191842109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0569
95938346|NCT01389856|191842110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1015
95938347|NCT01389856|191842111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.0824
95938348|NCT01389856|191842112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3863
95938349|NCT01389856|191842113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.3936
95938350|NCT01389856|191842114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.2436
95938351|NCT01389856|191842115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1756
95938352|NCT01389856|191842116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1155
95938353|NCT01389856|191842117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||0.1400
95938354|NCT03959696|191842137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure|Mean difference is the Training + Notification arm minus the Notification only arm|The null hypothesis SDMP is equal in the two arms||.64|.08|.011
95938355|NCT03959696|191842138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|5.55||A priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Regression, Linear|We used a linear regression model with Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) techniques to account for the patients-within-physicians data structure||The null hypothesis is that the two arms have the same knowledge score||5.55|-2.01|0.36
95938356|NCT03959696|191842139|SUPERIORITY|We will have 81% power to detect a difference of 14% in rates (e.g. decrease from 61% to 47%).||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||We will compare the percentages of patients who received their preferred screening in the 12 months after the visit across the two groups using logistic regression model with the GEE approach to adjust for clustering of patients within clinicians.||||0.47
95938357|NCT03959696|191842140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95938358|NCT03959696|191842141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was equal screening rate in both arms||18.0|0.9|0.032
95938359|NCT03959696|191842142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95938360|NCT05604508|191842189|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.553|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions|||1.553|0.347|
95938361|NCT05604508|191842189|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.947|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline cigarette use intentions.|||0.947|0.234|
95938362|NCT05604508|191842190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|3.107|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||3.107|0.727|
95938363|NCT05604508|191842190|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.938|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline vaping intentions|||1.938|0.398|
95938364|NCT05604508|191842191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.301|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, and baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.301|0.295|
95938365|NCT05604508|191842191|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.006|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco, baseline smokeless use intentions|||1.006|0.237|
95938366|NCT05604508|191842192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.832|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.832|0.720|
95938367|NCT05604508|191842192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|2.96|||||Adjusted for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, lifetime tobacco use, baseline LCC use intentions|||2.960|0.681|
95988638|NCT05103332|191951867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-14.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-14.2|-22.8|<0.0001
95988639|NCT05103332|191951868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-7.3|-14.7|<0.0001
95988640|NCT05103332|191951869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-10.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to indapamide) and placebo (add on to indapamide), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-10.3|-16.9|<0.0001
95988641|NCT05103332|191951870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|33.29||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||33.29|4.61|<0.0001
95988642|NCT05103332|191951881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-6.9|-13.4|<0.0001
95988643|NCT05103332|191951882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-5.3|-10.6|<0.0001
95988644|NCT05103332|191951883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-6.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to amlodipine) and placebo (add on to amlodipine), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-6.3|-10.9|<0.0001
95988645|NCT05103332|191951884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.61||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||10.61|2.43|<0.0001
95740697|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.25|-15.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-15.67|-38.25|<0.001
95740698|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-41.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-29.94|-52.32|<0.001
95740699|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.42|-19.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.77|-38.42|<0.001
95740700|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-40.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.43|-30.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-30.86|-49.43|<0.001
95740701|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.37|-29.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-29.94|-48.37|<0.001
95740702|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-14.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-14.70|-32.88|<0.001
95740703|NCT01592240|191451870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-29.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.13|-20.04|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.04|-38.13|<0.001
95740704|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.64||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.63|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.63|-1.35|0.281
95740705|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.73||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|4.71|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.71|-1.24|0.251
95740706|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.53||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.5|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.50|-2.43|0.724
95938368|NCT05337306|191842193|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA controlling for study arm and baseline||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|covariates include arm and baseline level of outcome||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for those lost to follow up; null hypothesis group 1 follow-up outcome = group 2 follow-up outcome.||||.049
95938369|NCT05337306|191842194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for lost to follow-up||||.040
95938370|NCT05337306|191842195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|covariates include trial arm and baseline level of outcome.||LOCF for dropout/lost to follow up||||.220
95938371|NCT04709783|191842206|OTHER|One group pre-post test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
95938372|NCT04709783|191842207|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95740707|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|7.7|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.70|1.21|0.007
95740708|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.09|0.63|0.019
95740709|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.51|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.51|-1.07|0.225
95740710|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.79||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.97|0.571
95740711|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.49||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-2.25|0.725
95740712|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.01||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.57|-1.56|0.268
95740713|NCT01592240|191451871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.54|-3.55|0.996
95740714|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.41||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.21|-2.38|0.246
95740715|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.62||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.38|-3.14|0.371
95740716|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.1|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.10|-4.40|0.643
95740717|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.66||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.99|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.99|1.33|0.018
95740718|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.52||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|12.83|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.83|0.22|0.043
95740719|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|9.36|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.36|-1.56|0.160
95938373|NCT04709783|191842208|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.07|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95938374|NCT04709783|191842209|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95938375|NCT05794243|191842210|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0741|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between geometric least square means (GLSMs).||0.228|0.0741|
95938376|NCT05794243|191842210|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.237|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC (0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.669|0.237|
95938377|NCT05794243|191842212|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.062|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.182|0.0620|
95796267|NCT03454555|191562567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|0.33
95938378|NCT05794243|191842212|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed via mixed model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, profile day and the treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for participant. The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the ratio between GLSMs.||0.569|0.206|
95740720|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.85||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|6.25|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.25|-4.56|0.758
95740721|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.57||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.95|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||7.95|-2.81|0.347
95740722|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.99||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|9.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||9.21|-3.22|0.343
95740723|NCT01592240|191451872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.48|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.48|-6.87|0.824
95740724|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.44|-11.67|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-11.67|-25.44|<0.001
95740725|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|-20.79|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.79|-34.55|<0.001
95740726|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.95|-25.22|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-25.22|-38.95|<0.001
95796268|NCT03454555|191562568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.8|0.86
95938379|NCT03637660|191842228|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.03||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|To assess the primary efficacy endpoint, the number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 6 and the 95% confidence interval were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis for the primary objective was that the difference in proportion of participants with serological responses between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%||0.03|-0.15|0.002
95938380|NCT03637660|191842236|EQUIVALENCE|The alternative hypothesis was that the two treatment groups were unequal.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value was calculated based on 2-sided Pearson Chi-Square test. Difference in proportion was reported with the Wilson 95% CI|Chi-squared|||The number and proportion of participants who were compliant to the treatment, receiving all assigned doses within the assigned visit windows. The null hypothesis was no difference between two treatment groups.||||< 0.001
95950121|NCT00046475|191872194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on an ANOVA model with post-treatment responses for OHSA Item 1 as dependent variable, treatment, sequence, period (Visit 5 or 6), as fixed effects, and subject-within sequence as random effect.|ANOVA|||Analysis of US participants with marked or severe disease severity||||0.007
95740727|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.89|-6.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-6.24|-22.89|<0.001
95740728|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.83|-20.16|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-20.16|-36.83|<0.001
95740729|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-12.27|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-12.27|-27.07|<0.001
95796269|NCT03454555|191562569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.4|0.76
95796270|NCT03454555|191562570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.0|0.55
95796271|NCT03454555|191562571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.1|0.52
95740730|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.52|-20.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-20.82|-35.52|<0.001
95740731|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.73|-18.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-18.09|-32.73|<0.001
95740732|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-6.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-6.09|-19.35|<0.001
95740733|NCT01592240|191451873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|-10.23|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-10.23|-23.47|<0.001
95740734|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.23|-13.92|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-13.92|-29.23|<0.001
95740735|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-22.89|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-22.89|-38.19|<0.001
95740736|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-35.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.59|-28.31|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-28.31|-43.59|<0.001
95740737|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|-8.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-8.41|-25.87|<0.001
95740738|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.45|-21.98|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||-21.98|-39.45|<0.001
95950122|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.20359|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.20359
95740739|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-13.86|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-13.86|-30.32|<0.001
95740740|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.13|-22.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-22.77|-39.13|<0.001
95938381|NCT03637660|191842238|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.07||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.07|-0.17|0.022
95938382|NCT03637660|191842238|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.09||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning|||The number and proportion of participants with serological response by month 6 among participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.09|-0.22|0.037
95950123|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.50068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50068
95950124|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.05512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.05512
95740741|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-19.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-19.09|-35.38|<0.001
95740742|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.78|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-7.78|-22.90|<0.001
95740743|NCT01592240|191451874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||-11.59|-26.70|<0.001
95740744|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.77||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|9.88|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||9.88|-6.33|0.667
95740745|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|13.54|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||13.54|-2.66|0.187
95740746|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|11.9|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.90|-4.25|0.352
95740747|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|12.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||12.09|-0.89|0.090
95740748|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.36||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.82|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||10.82|-2.10|0.184
95740749|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.59||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|8.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.28|-7.09|0.879
95740750|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.43||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|8.02|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||8.02|-7.17|0.911
95740751|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.12||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|11.69|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||11.69|-3.44|0.283
95796272|NCT03454555|191562572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.2|0.37
95796273|NCT03454555|191562573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.91
95740752|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.41||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|6.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.59|-9.41|0.728
95740753|NCT01592240|191451875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.75|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.75|-10.13|0.587
95740754|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|8.74|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||8.74|-10.05|0.890
95740755|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.32||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|11.68|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||11.68|-7.04|0.625
95740756|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.54||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|15.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||15.94|-2.86|0.172
95740757|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.5||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|7.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.80|-0.79|0.109
95740758|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.67||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||6.94|-1.60|0.218
95740759|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|6.29|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||6.29|-8.01|0.812
95796274|NCT03454555|191562574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.33
95950125|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.50382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 19 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.50382
95950126|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.04760
95950127|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.2142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.21420
95740760|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.94|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||5.94|-8.24|0.749
95740761|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.82||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|12.93|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||12.93|-1.29|0.108
95740762|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|4.34|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.34|-5.99|0.752
95740763|NCT01592240|191451876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.57|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.57|-6.68|0.550
95740764|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.0|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.00|-2.62|0.893
95740765|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.33||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.15|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||4.15|-1.49|0.355
95740766|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.17|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.17|-3.45|0.655
95740767|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.49||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.21|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2.21|-3.20|0.719
95740768|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.41||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.12|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||3.12|-2.31|0.768
95740769|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.66||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.2|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||4.20|-0.88|0.199
95740770|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.41|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.41|-1.62|0.483
95740771|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.03||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.56|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.56|-1.49|0.420
95740772|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.28|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.28|-2.67|0.488
95950128|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.42542|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.42542
95950129|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.73573|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C4D1: FGF 21 (PFS-4, No)||||=0.73573
95740773|NCT01592240|191451877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.58|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||1.58|-2.36|0.694
95740774|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|10.29||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|42.3|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||42.30|-21.73|0.527
95740775|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|32.26|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.26|-31.49|0.981
95740776|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.72|32.8|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||32.80|-31.72|0.974
95740777|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.58||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.09|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||5.09|-8.25|0.640
95740778|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|7.77|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||7.77|-5.61|0.750
95740779|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|9.8||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|39.01|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||39.01|-19.41|0.509
95740780|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.69||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.76|26.38|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||26.38|-31.76|0.855
95740781|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.04||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|32.47|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||32.47|-26.39|0.839
95740782|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|2.59|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||2.59|-6.57|0.392
95740783|NCT01592240|191451878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.33||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.24|||Mixed models repeated measures analysis|||Week 24||3.24|-5.91|0.565
95740784|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.997|56.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||56.020|3.997|<0.001
95740785|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.615|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.984|308.328|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||308.328|7.984|<0.001
95740786|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.674|44.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||44.892|3.674|<0.001
95740787|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.107||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|7.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||7.401|1.304|0.010
95740788|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.402|15.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 100 mg/dL||15.225|2.402|<0.001
95740789|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.932|41.495|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||41.495|3.932|<0.001
95740790|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.886|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|163.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||163.335|8.330|<0.001
95858003|NCT01656408|191673814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||4.0|-1.2|0.333
95950130|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.35754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.35754
95950131|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|0.59903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C2D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=0.59903
95950132|NCT02432274|191872213|OTHER||||||=|1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, Yes) vs. C3D1: VEGF (PFS-4, No)||||=1.00000
95740791|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.741|75.006|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||75.006|5.741|<0.001
95740792|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.219||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.061|18.764|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.764|2.061|0.001
95740793|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|18.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 100 mg/dL||18.693|2.060|0.001
95740794|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.752|133.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||133.423|5.752|<0.001
95740795|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.177|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.783|367.564|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||367.564|13.783|<0.001
95740796|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.855|510.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL||510.387|19.855|<0.001
95740797|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 70 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740798|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.336|98.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.169|6.336|<0.001
95740799|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.094|353.742|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||353.742|18.094|<0.001
95740800|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.621|166.894|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||166.894|10.621|<0.001
95740801|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|98.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL.||98.075|1.396|0.023
95740802|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|299.817|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 70 mg/dL||299.817|4.527|<0.001
95740803|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740804|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740805|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740806|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740807|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740808|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 40 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740809|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740810|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740811|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740812|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.587||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
95740813|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL.||||<0.001
95740814|NCT01592240|191451892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, Less than 25 mg/dL||||1.000
95740815|NCT02727192|191451895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||A two-sided significance level of 5% was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||1.3|-2.6|0.520
95740816|NCT02727192|191451896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-3.3|0.440
95740817|NCT02727192|191451897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-2.1|0.410
95740818|NCT02727192|191451898|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-9.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95740819|NCT02727192|191451901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Regression, Linear|||Mental Component Summary score||5.8|-0.1|0.058
95740820|NCT02727192|191451901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Physical Component Summary score||0.8|-5.1|0.160
95740821|NCT02727192|191451902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-2.0|0.110
95740822|NCT02727192|191451904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.5|0.850
95740823|NCT02727192|191451906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-1.0|0.650
95740824|NCT02727192|191451907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5|||Regression, Linear|||||4.5|0.8|0.006
95740825|NCT02727192|191451908|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-31.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.4|40.7|||Regression, Linear|||||40.7|-103.4|0.389
95740826|NCT02727192|191451911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|-0.3|0.697
95740827|NCT04590027|191451913|NON_INFERIORITY|power calculation was not recorded Definition of non inferiority: two point difference of pain score at the measurement times|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|To rule out confounders due to an age difference, the ANCOVA test was applied to compare the differences in pain scores age-unrelatedly.|||Fisher Yates Test to compare the requirement of resue medication|||<0.05
95740828|NCT04590027|191451914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95740829|NCT05523895|191451917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-4.6|0.2986
95740830|NCT05523895|191451917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.5|0.2859
95796275|NCT03454555|191562575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.46
95796276|NCT03454555|191562576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Chi-squared|||||0.04|-0.08|0.52
95740831|NCT05099380|191451918|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 286 subjects (143 for each lens group) competing the study assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control.||6.7|-0.6|
95740832|NCT05099380|191451919|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.05.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a linear mixed model-based method with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 16 subjects (8 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.01|-0.02|
95740833|NCT05099380|191451920|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.05.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 240 subjects (120 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
95740834|NCT05099380|191451921|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval of proportion difference was below 0.1.|Mean Proportion Difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||Bayesian hierarchical model||Proportion difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculation using a simulation approach and Bayesian analysis with the 95% central posterior credible interval, there would be enough power (i.e., at least 80%) for assessing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control with 140 subjects (70 for each lens group) competing the study assuming no difference between the Test and the Control.||0.004|-0.004|
95740835|NCT05099380|191451922|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 73% for CLUE comfort using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.5|-4.8|
95740836|NCT05099380|191451923|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was above -5.|Least-square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the Test was 2 points lower than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 23% for CLUE handling using a two independent sample t test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||2.3|-6.0|
95796277|NCT03454555|191562577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.59|0.85|0.17
95796278|NCT03454555|191562578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Used a generalized logistic model for repeated measurements; modeled the outcome of intention to taper.||||2.31|0.71|0.41
95796279|NCT03454555|191562579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
95796280|NCT03454555|191562580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
95858004|NCT01656408|191673815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.1|-9.7|0.279
95988646|NCT05103332|191951895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. Data for office SBP assessed while participants were on and within 2 weeks after stopping any escape medication were censored for this endpoint.||-3.3|-10.2|=0.0002
95993771|NCT00619957|191963374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.01|-33.29|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-33.29|-57.01|<0.0001
95858005|NCT01656408|191673815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||5.2|-6.9|0.817
95740837|NCT05099380|191451924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio was greater than 0.67.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.16|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of Excellent rating for the Test was 10% higher than the Control, the estimated statistical power for testing non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control was 93% using a Pearson chi-square test for two proportions with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05."||2.16|0.83|
95740838|NCT05099380|191451925|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the preference ratio was greater than 1.|Preference Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.1|||Linear Mixed Model||Preference ratio was calculated as Study lens over Habitual lens within the Test lens group.|Based on the sample size calculated for the primary endpoints (i.e., 286 subjects with 143 per lens group), assuming the percentage of subjects preferring Study lens was 20% higher than preferring Habitual lens in the Test lens group, the estimated statistical power for testing superiority of the Test relative to the Habitual was 88% using a simulation approach with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||4.10|1.40|
95740839|NCT00840216|191451977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|106.9||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
95740840|NCT00840216|191451978|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
95740841|NCT00840216|191451979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using PROC GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of the mean falls within 80-125.|||||
95740842|NCT00907907|191451980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.97||||||90.0|80.25|110.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.04|80.25|
95740843|NCT00907907|191451981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.01||||||90.0|98.74|105.39|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.39|98.74|
95740844|NCT00907907|191451982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analyses of Variance (PROC MIXED) were performed on the log-transformed AUCt, AUCinf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.91||||||90.0|95.99|103.98|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103.98|95.99|
95740845|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for TIF introduction and time periods as fixed effects and hospitals and time periods as random effects.|generalized linear mixed regression mode|||For mobility on EU arrival assessed,||||0.504
95740846|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression mode|||Respiratory rate at EU assessed||||0.169
95858006|NCT01656408|191673816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.7|-3.2|0.756
95950133|NCT03346200|191872237|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was based on the proportion of responders and was set to 17%. That is, we defined non-inferiority to mean that the proportion of responders in the non-referent study arms is not less than one third of the responders in the 20 mg group (50% minus 33% = 17%)|Median Difference (Final Values)|52.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.9|100.0|||one-sided Wald tests|P-values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni method. Non-inferiority p-values were declared if less than a=0.025||||100|41.9|<0.01
95740847|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Airway assessed||||0.006
95740848|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|38.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Chest examined||||0.001
95740849|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|93.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Intra-abdominal bleeding evaluated||||0.001
95858007|NCT01656408|191673816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.6|-0.7|0.158
95858008|NCT01656408|191673816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-2.4|0.404
95950134|NCT01286311|191872281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.86|0.54|0.99
95950135|NCT01286311|191872282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.85|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||1.85|0.84|0.27
95740850|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|354.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||For Spine Immobilized for RTI or Fall Victims||||0.001
95740851|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Splinting of Fractures Considered||||0.001
95740852|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Tetanus Considered for bites, burns, lacerations, and abrasions||||0.006
95740853|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Date of Injury Recorded||||0.047
95740854|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Death||||0.166
95740855|NCT04547192|191452006|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation - Expected enrollment: 25 patients/hospital/month, giving a total of 3,500 patients across all hospitals over 17.5 months. With an alpha of 0.05 and baseline TIF adherence rate of 50%, there was 80% power to detect 8.1-8.6% difference in KPI performance with 0.15-0.40 range in COV.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||Important Clinical Data Document||||0.013
95740856|NCT04547192|191452007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed regression|||||||0.166
95740857|NCT04723693|191452010|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
95740858|NCT04723693|191452011|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a qualitative interview study and as such no statistical analysis was carried out.|||
95740859|NCT00835614|191452067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.9||||||90.0|87.5|94.4|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94.4|87.5|
95740860|NCT00835614|191452068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.1||||||90.0|90.3|93.9|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||93.9|90.3|
95858009|NCT01656408|191673816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||7.1|-1.0|0.214
95740861|NCT00835614|191452069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.2||||||90.0|90.4|94.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||94|90.4|
95740862|NCT00606281|191452070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-9.4|<0.001
95740863|NCT00606281|191452071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
95993772|NCT00619957|191963375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.43|-8.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-8.32|-23.43|<0.0001
95740864|NCT03466866|191452081|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.67||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||Poisson regression|We adjusted for stratification variables, sex, baseline MOCA, number of medical conditions, PSQ Communication, and PSQ General satisfaction.||We used Poisson regression to model the number of outcome events as a function of randomization assignment, adjusting for the stratification variables and using follow-up time as the offset term. We calculated estimates of annual rates of the primary outcome and the adjusted estimate of the rate ratio. We evaluated the primary hypothesis by testing the null hypothesis that the rate ratio for randomization assignment equals 1.||1.07|.42|.12
95858010|NCT01656408|191673816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||10.0|0.2|0.086
95858011|NCT01656408|191673817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-5.9|-16.8|0.003
95858012|NCT01656408|191673817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.1|-12.3|0.105
95740865|NCT03466866|191452082|SUPERIORITY|General Satisfaction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||We modeled PSQ- scores as continuous variables to estimate average change over time by treatment group. We used mixed effects linear regression with fixed effects for time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, and time by randomization interaction. A random intercept term and an appropriate covariance structure was used to account for correlation among repeated measurements.||.45|-.22|.502
95740866|NCT03466866|191452083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was performed with Number of Quality Metrics as the dependent variable, treatment arm as the main independent variable of interest and the stratification variables as adjusting variables.||.69|.16|.23
95740867|NCT03466866|191452084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used mixed effects linear regression. Fixed effects included time (baseline, and months 6 and 12), randomization assignment, time by randomization interaction, and the three stratification variables. From the results of this model, we estimated the mean change from baseline to 6 months, 6 months to 12 months and baseline to 12 months within each treatment group. We then compared the change from baseline to 12 months between the two groups.||9.66|-.76|.094
95740868|NCT01665508|191452105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were reported as the mean ± (SD) and categorical data presented as frequency and percentage of the sample. Comparisons between baseline and post-treatment SAQ scores, SF-36v2 scores, and CPET variables were performed using a paired t-test for normally distributed variables or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed variables. Normality was defined by the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical variables, data were compared using a chi-squared test.||||< 0.05
95740869|NCT02054715|191452109|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.9|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test as a statistical comparing MP and PE means.||3.9|-4.1|0.9621
95740870|NCT02054715|191452110|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.26|||F-test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||3.26|-2.89|0.9065
95740871|NCT02054715|191452111|OTHER||Mean Difference (MP - PE)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.9709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.69|||F-Test|||Two-sided F-Test comparing the MP and PE means.||2.69|-2.79|0.9709
95740872|NCT02054715|191452112|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test between MP and PE. 69% of subjects that got the Multimedia Psychoeducation intervention chose to participate in a clinical trial, compared with 62% in the Print Education group||||0.014
95740873|NCT01442376|191452113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|12.4||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||12.4|-11.7|
95938383|NCT03637660|191842239|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.04||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by Month 12 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.04|-0.14|0.002
95740874|NCT01442376|191452113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 15% at an alpha level of 2.5% in a 1-sided test (equivalent to 5.0% 2-sided test) to reject the null hypothesis that the study drug was inferior to the active control drug by more than the non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.4|7.6||||||The stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method was used to compute the confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportion. If the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of either the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 20 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) or the difference (CR0-24h palonosetron 10 mcg/kg - CR0-24h ondansetron) was strictly superior to the non-inferiority margin (δ=-0.15) then the null hypothesis (H0) was rejected. A power of 80% was used for sample size computation.||7.6|-16.4|
95740875|NCT01120028|191452133|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.28|<0.0001
95740876|NCT01120028|191452134|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5
95740877|NCT01120028|191452135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.59|0.58
95740878|NCT01120028|191452136|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.18|||Log Rank|||||6.18|0.64|0.23
95950136|NCT01286311|191872283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.32|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||4.32|1.05|0.038
95950137|NCT01286311|191872284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.1|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||10.1|0.73|0.13
95740879|NCT01120028|191452137|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.80|0.88
95740880|NCT01120028|191452138|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|1.11|0.008
95740881|NCT01120028|191452139|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.99
95950138|NCT01286311|191872285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||Generalized Logistic Regression|||||9.5|0.50|0.30
95740882|NCT01120028|191452140|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.34|0.52
95740883|NCT04198363|191452147|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of vonoprazan to esomeprazole was evaluated by Farrington and Manning test using a noninferiority margin of 10% for analysis.|Difference in Proportions|0.1|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|6.17|||Farrington and Manning Test||Difference in proportions for vonoprazan versus esomeprazole was analyzed and the 2-sided Wald confidence interval was used for determining the 95% confidence interval.|||6.17|-5.95|=0.0009
95740884|NCT00521586|191452178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.4||||||A/H1N1 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 percent (%) confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang||7.4|-1.8|
95740885|NCT00521586|191452178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.2||||||A/H3N2 strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||7.2|-3.9|
95740886|NCT00521586|191452178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.1 or -10%|percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.2||||||B strain: Exact 2-sided, 95 % confidence intervals was computed based on the methodology by Chan and Zhang.||6.2|-5.6|
95740887|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.58|
95740888|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.66|
95740889|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.87||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.87|0.55|
95740890|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.05|0.67|
95740891|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.70|
95740892|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.93|0.60|
95740893|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||0.95|0.63|
95740894|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.86|0.59|
95740895|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.98|0.60|
95740896|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||0.88|0.58|
95858013|NCT01656408|191673818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.6|-7.5|0.691
95796281|NCT03643848|191562615|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.033|<|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|REML; Satterwaite method for t-tests.Participant is random effect. Addtnl fixed effects: Valence, Condition, Anxiety Severity, Gender, Age (months).||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 1 week. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||<.046
95796282|NCT03643848|191562616|SUPERIORITY||variance components; inferring mean diff|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|included additional fixed effects: Anxiety severity, gender, age (months)||Condition (TMR, Sham) x Valence (Negative, Neutral) predicting Lure Generalization Index at 12 hour test. We hypothesized a significant interaction, with a reduction in negative generalization and an increase in neutral generalization in the TMR condition.||||=.61
95858014|NCT01656408|191673818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 8||8.8|-4.3|0.570
95858015|NCT01656408|191673818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||7.1|-4.2|0.666
95858016|NCT01656408|191673818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 22||4.9|-10.9|0.534
95858017|NCT01656408|191673818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||9.2|-4.1|0.528
95858018|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.0|-3.8|0.848
95858019|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-4.0|-8.0|<0.0001
95858020|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.4|-14.4|0.025
95858021|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.8|-7.0|0.044
95728039|NCT02884206|191425901|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority that LCZ696 does not lead to a relevant decrease in cognition compared to valsartan at year 3, the lower bound of 95% CI does not include the pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) boundary (Cohen's D) of -0.3. An effect size of 0.3 in Cohen's D is generally considered as small.|LSM|-0.018||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.087|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0277, 95% CI: -0.1101 to 0.0778|0.0870|-0.1230|0.7363
95728040|NCT02884206|191425902|NON_INFERIORITY|To show that the point estimate of SUVr difference in mean change over 3 years is in favor of LCZ696 and the non-inferiority is demonstrated, with the upper bound of the 95% CI excluding the NI boundary of 0.01.|Least Squares Mean|-0.0292||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0593|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Multiple Imputation ANCOVA in Global cortical composite||0.0010|-0.0593|0.0579
95728041|NCT02884206|191425903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0007||||0.9916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1353|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for memory domain|Cohen's D: 0.0009; 95% CI: -0.0912 to 0.0922|0.1353|-0.1339|0.9916
95728042|NCT02884206|191425903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0327||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1024|0.1677|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for executive function domain|Cohen's D: 0.0391, 95% CI: -0.0727 to 0.1192|0.1677|-0.1024|0.6348
95858022|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||6.6|-0.4|0.139
95858023|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-0.2|-8.9|0.088
95858024|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-1.6|-9.3|0.023
95858025|NCT01656408|191673843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||3.8|-4.5|0.878
95858026|NCT01656408|191673844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.7|-3.4|0.512
95858027|NCT01656408|191673844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.7|-7.5|0.429
95858028|NCT01656408|191673844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.8|-9.3|0.166
95858029|NCT01656408|191673844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.5|-8.6|0.591
95858030|NCT01656408|191673845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.5|-2.5|0.248
95858031|NCT01656408|191673845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.4|-5.6|0.836
95858032|NCT01656408|191673845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.1|-10.7|0.109
95858033|NCT01656408|191673845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.5|-5.4|0.785
95858034|NCT01656408|191673846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.3|-2.5|0.365
95796283|NCT04761822|191562627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.06||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.060|-0.002|0.066
95796284|NCT04761822|191562628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.016|0.267
95796285|NCT04761822|191562629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
95796286|NCT04761822|191562630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
95796287|NCT04761822|191562631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.046|||Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.046|-0.011|0.165
95796288|NCT04761822|191562632|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.006||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.033||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.033|-0.021|0.572
95938384|NCT03637660|191842240|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.05||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) in HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-infected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 among participants with HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.05|-0.18|0.011
95938385|NCT03637660|191842240|NON_INFERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in response rates was less than 10%. The noninferiority margin is defined as 10%. It can be assessed by comparing the margin (10%) to the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference in proportions.|Difference of proportion of participants|-0.03||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.11||P-value and 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the proportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|Farrington-Manning||The 2-sided 90% CI are calculated based on the noninferiority analysis for the -sproportion difference (one-dose group is non-inferior to three-dose group) among HIV-uninfected participants by Farrington-Manning method with a 10% margin.|The number and proportion of participants with a serological response by month 12 amont participants without HIV infection and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were summarized overall and by treatment status. The Farrington-Manning test at the 5% one-sided level of significance was used to test the noninferiority hypothesis. The null hypothesis was that the difference in serological response rate between the three-dose and one-dose groups was at least 10%.||0.11|-0.18|0.064
95938386|NCT05457647|191842278|OTHER|The accuracy and precision of the theranostic imaging biomarkers, including both the riboflavin score and theranostic score, to predict CXL treatment outcome were determined by calculating the proportion of correctly classified eyes and the positive predictive value respectively.|Proportion|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The study set a minimum threshold of 85 for the the combined use of the theranostic imaging biomarkers' accuracy and precision in predicting the propensity of CXL to halt disease progression at 1 year in the study population.|Accuracy and precision of the combined use of theranostic imaging biomarkers generated by the UV-A device to predict the propensity of CXL in flattening the Kmax value at 12-months.||||
95728043|NCT02884206|191425903|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1042||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2783|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA for attention domain|Cohen's D: -0.0967, 95% CI: -0.1542 to 0.0387|0.0700|-0.2783|0.2403
95796289|NCT04761822|191562633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.055||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.055|-0.045|0.4574
95796290|NCT04761822|191562634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their first active dose as their first injection proportion minus the participants that received their first active dose as their second injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.086|0.3242
95740897|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.74|
95740898|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.10|0.67|
95740899|NCT00521586|191452179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution||1.08|0.66|
95740900|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.34|0.83|
95740901|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.75|
95740902|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.28|0.92|
95740903|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.68|
95740904|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.30|0.88|
95740905|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.84|
95740906|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.78|
95740907|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.48||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.48|0.93|
95938387|NCT05457647|191842279|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of Kmax value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95740908|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.17|0.86|
95740909|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.84|
95740910|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.87|
95740911|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.31|0.85|
95858035|NCT01656408|191673846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.6|-7.4|0.424
95938388|NCT05457647|191842280|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of ECD value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95740912|NCT00521586|191452180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.27|0.80|
95740913|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||||||Serotype 1: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.18|0.87|
95938389|NCT05457647|191842281|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of MSER value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95938390|NCT05457647|191842282|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95938391|NCT05457647|191842283|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of UDVA value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95938392|NCT05457647|191842284|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assessment of change of CCT value at 12-months follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95938393|NCT05457647|191842285|OTHER|Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions preoperatively and 12-months postoperatively. Bonferroni correction was applied to analysis of exploratory outcome measures of stratification groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95938394|NCT03865498|191842288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.919|10.323||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for African American dementia caregiver networks.||10.323|4.919|< 0.0001
95938395|NCT03865498|191842288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.963|33.157||McNemar's Chi-squared test (paired) with continuity correction to the test slightly more conservative|McNemar|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in isolated macro-level network structures for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||33.157|9.963|<0.0001
95938396|NCT03865498|191842288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.021||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.325||Pearson's Chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||There will be no significant differences in isolated macro-level network structure from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||1.325|0.787|0.924
95938397|NCT03865498|191842289|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.742|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.742|0.513|<0.0001
95938398|NCT03865498|191842289|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post mean difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.189|1.631|||a paired t-test|||Hypothesis: There will be significant pre/post-intervention differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets for Hispanic dementia caregiver networks.||1.631|1.189|<0.0001
95938399|NCT03865498|191842289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||There will be no significant differences in emotional valence score detected from Tweets between Hispanic and African American dementia caregiver networks.||0.107|-0.186|0.600
95938400|NCT05386030|191842335|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
95938401|NCT05386030|191842336|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB\> d0 where, pA is the response rate for saypha® VOLUME Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested based on Farrington-Manning-statistics with a one-sided type I error rate level of 0.025.|||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory testing will be performed in a hierarchical ordering: First analysis will be performed on the per protocol dataset, and if the corresponding p-value is below 0.025, the analysis will be performed on the full analysis dataset.|Farrington-Manning test|||||||<0.0001
95728044|NCT02884206|191425904|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1105||||0.7081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6906|0.4696|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure ANCOVA|Cohen's D: -0.0308, 95% CI: -0.1208 to 0.0820|0.4696|-0.6906|0.7081
95728045|NCT00096265|191425911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.31||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.31|0.89|0.93
95728046|NCT00096265|191425911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||One-sided|Log Rank||WBRT + SRS is the denominator of the hazard ratio.|120 patients per arm required to detect a 33% reduction in hazard rate corresponding to improvement in MST of 5.9 (null hypothesis) to 8.9 months with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 and 85% power.||2.36|0.92|0.95
95728047|NCT00096265|191425912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.30
95728048|NCT00096265|191425912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.48
95728049|NCT00096265|191425914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.39
95740914|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.10|0.82|
95938402|NCT03161028|191842348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the model evaluating the primary outcome (change in T25FW), T25FW was transformed to walking speed by dividing 25 feet by the completion time in seconds (ft/sec). Any participants who were unable to complete the T25FW at any timepoint after baseline were assigned a value of 199 seconds, a statistical technique known as Winsorizing.||||0.51
95938403|NCT03161028|191842349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
95938404|NCT03161028|191842350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
95938405|NCT03161028|191842351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
95938406|NCT03161028|191842352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
95938407|NCT06132867|191842363|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment least square means (LSM) from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.98|97.74|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||97.74|86.98|
95938408|NCT06132867|191842364|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUClast.|GMR (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.48|104.16|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||104.16|88.48|
95938409|NCT06132867|191842365|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used for the analysis. The model included sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants nested within sequence as a random effect. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the natural log-transformed of AUCinf.|GMR (%)|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|103.42|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Treatment A/Treatment B).|||103.42|88.81|
95938410|NCT01926496|191842386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.99|0.80|0.03
95740915|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||||||Serotype 4: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.21|0.88|
95740916|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||||||Serotype 5: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.80|
95938411|NCT01926496|191842387|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||1.03|0.87|0.18
95938412|NCT01926496|191842388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel relative risk (ingenol mebutate / imiquimod), stratified by country, anatomical location and history of squamous cell carcinoma.|||0.84|0.52|<0.001
95938413|NCT02677298|191842389|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95938414|NCT02677298|191842390|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95938415|NCT02677298|191842391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95938416|NCT02677298|191842392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
95938417|NCT02677298|191842392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
95938418|NCT02677298|191842393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.084
95938419|NCT02677298|191842394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain change from baseline at week 4||||<0.001
95740917|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.22|0.84|
95740918|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 6B: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
95740919|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.85|
95740920|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.07|0.81|
95740921|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||||||Serotype 14: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.11|0.81|
95740922|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.06|0.79|
95740923|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||||||Serotype 19A: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.08|0.80|
95740924|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 19F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.12|0.77|
95740925|NCT00521586|191452189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09||||||Serotype 23F: 2-sided 95 % CI for the ratio of 2 geometric means (13vPnC+TIV/Placebo and Placebo+TIV/13vPnC) was constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the difference of the 2 logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.||1.09|0.74|
95740926|NCT05511935|191452208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|9.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.06|-5.57|0.64
95740927|NCT05511935|191452209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|-2.28|0.47
95740928|NCT05511935|191452210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|6.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.11|-10.77|0.59
95740929|NCT05511935|191452211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|-12.61|0.77
95740930|NCT05511935|191452212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.47|-17.95|<0.001
95740931|NCT05511935|191452213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.34|-2.10|0.39
95740932|NCT05511935|191452214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.24|-14.52|<0.01
95740933|NCT05511935|191452215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|5.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.23|-10.90|0.49
95740934|NCT05511935|191452217|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|18.35|||Regression, Linear|||||18.35|-2.92|0.15
95740935|NCT05511935|191452218|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.99|||Regression, Linear|||||8.99|-8.13|0.92
95740936|NCT05511935|191452219|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|19.49|||Regression, Linear|||||19.49|-4.17|0.20
95740937|NCT05511935|191452220|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.15|12.56|||Regression, Linear|||||12.56|-31.15|0.39
95740938|NCT03234907|191452221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||=|0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|6.8||P-value was based on CHW test, based on weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to: (1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cui-Hung-Wang (CHW) test||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.8|-17.2|=0.347
95858036|NCT01656408|191673846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.2|-13.3|0.025
95858037|NCT01656408|191673846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.0|-7.5|0.475
95740939|NCT03234907|191452222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|||=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.0||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel, weighted CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to:(1)previous failure of TNF-α antagonist therapy/concomitant use of immunomodulators(Yes/No);(2)concomitant use of oral corticosteroids(Yes/No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the treatment difference and its variance was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference. Adjustment to the stratification factors was implemented.|||6.0|-11.5|=0.531
95740940|NCT01472432|191452223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
95740941|NCT01472432|191452224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"|t-test, 2 sided|"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months"||"* Vildagliptin vs Placebo at 3 months.~* Placebo baseline versus placebo 3 months.~* Vildagliptin baseline versus Vildagliptin 3 months."||||<0.05
95740942|NCT01472432|191452225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months. P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||p-values from multiple comparisons: placebo at baseline vs. placebo at 3 months; placebo at 3 months vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months; Vildagliptin at baseline vs. Vildagliptin at 3 months.||||<0.05
95740943|NCT01472432|191452226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\< 0.05 versus control patients. P \< 0.05 versus baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95740944|NCT02583048|191452229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|2.0|14.8|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 1 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||14.8|2.0|
95740945|NCT02583048|191452229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|5.7|18.6|||||Arm 3 minus Arm 2 difference in change from baseline estimated from ANOVA model. Interim analysis conducted when week 24 QT data was available for ≥12 participants stipulated 99.9% confidence interval; original coverage of 95% was widened to 95.1%.|||18.6|5.7|
95740946|NCT02583048|191452236|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.117|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|1.411|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.411|0.884|
95740947|NCT02583048|191452236|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.461|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.461|0.989|
95740948|NCT02583048|191452236|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.774|1.187|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.187|0.774|
95740949|NCT02583048|191452237|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.215|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.215|0.801|
95740950|NCT02583048|191452237|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.251|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.251|0.764|
95740951|NCT02583048|191452237|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.667|1.108|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.108|0.667|
95740952|NCT02583048|191452238|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|1.267|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.267|0.847|
95740953|NCT02583048|191452238|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.276|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.276|0.843|
95740954|NCT02583048|191452238|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.151|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.151|0.727|
95938420|NCT02677298|191842394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Functioning domain - Change from baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95938421|NCT02677298|191842394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This test was performed for the Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score||||<0.001
95938422|NCT02677298|191842394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows Scale - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95993773|NCT00619957|191963376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-12.91|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-12.91|-31.08|<0.0001
95740955|NCT02583048|191452239|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.258|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.258|0.864|
95740956|NCT02583048|191452239|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.235|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.235|0.858|
95740957|NCT02583048|191452239|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.993|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.993|0.657|
95740958|NCT02583048|191452240|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.263|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.263|0.903|
95938423|NCT02677298|191842394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test was performed for the FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
95938424|NCT03064217|191842432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95938425|NCT01084876|191842438|EQUIVALENCE|The therapeutic equivalence between CT-P6 and Herceptin is concluded if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the risk difference (CT-P6 - Herceptin) estimate in ORR ITRC review during the Main Study Treatment Period is entirely within the predefined equivalence margin of -0.15 to 0.15.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.036||||||||0.036|-0.143|
95938426|NCT03953508|191842459|OTHER|Analysis of covariance test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||>.05
95938427|NCT03953508|191842460|OTHER|T-test comparing differences, the null hypothesis is that the groups are equal|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95938428|NCT03953508|191842461|OTHER|Analysis of variance test comparing average breakpoint for menthol and non-menthol smokers|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
95938429|NCT03953508|191842462|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95938430|NCT03953508|191842463|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||>.05
95938431|NCT03953508|191842464|OTHER|Analysis of variance|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
95938432|NCT03953508|191842465|OTHER|T-test|||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95938433|NCT03953508|191842466|OTHER|Fisher's exact test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
95938434|NCT03953508|191842467|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95938435|NCT03953508|191842468|OTHER|T-test|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95938436|NCT04749615|191842507|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority Margin = (-Infinity, 1.28)||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.11
95938437|NCT04749615|191842508|NON_INFERIORITY|a noninferiority margin of 1.0 and 10% attrition|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||this is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95938438|NCT03194217|191842525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|-1.68|0.668
95938439|NCT03194217|191842525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-0.50|0.213
95938440|NCT03194217|191842525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.76|0.575
95938441|NCT02962895|191842526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.02|-1.52|0.5161
95938442|NCT02962895|191842526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.71|-2.80|0.6332
95938443|NCT02962895|191842526|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.32|-4.15|0.0921
95938444|NCT02962895|191842528|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||1.13|-0.50|0.4457
95938445|NCT02962895|191842528|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||0.82|-0.79|0.301
95938446|NCT02962895|191842528|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||0.74|-0.86|0.8858
95938447|NCT02962895|191842530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||2.07|-5.93|0.3424
95938448|NCT02962895|191842530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||1.45|-6.58|0.2092
95938449|NCT02962895|191842530|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values are derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.20|-3.58|0.8740
95740959|NCT02583048|191452240|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.155|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.155|0.820|
95740960|NCT02583048|191452240|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|0.983|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||0.983|0.656|
95740961|NCT02583048|191452241|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.881|1.248|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.248|0.881|
95740962|NCT02583048|191452241|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.165|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.165|0.823|
95740963|NCT02583048|191452241|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.638|1.025|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 1.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.025|0.638|
95740964|NCT02583048|191452242|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.049|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.049|0.778|
95740965|NCT02583048|191452242|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.315|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.315|0.944|
95740966|NCT02583048|191452242|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.012|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.012|0.639|
95740967|NCT02583048|191452243|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.084|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.084|0.810|
95858038|NCT01656408|191673847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||4.8|-7.4|0.715
95740968|NCT02583048|191452243|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.318|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.318|0.929|
95858039|NCT01656408|191673847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||3.4|-11.9|0.338
95858040|NCT01656408|191673847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||2.3|-10.0|0.281
95740969|NCT02583048|191452243|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|1.043|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.043|0.703|
95740970|NCT02583048|191452244|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.096|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.096|0.825|
95740971|NCT02583048|191452244|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.362|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.362|0.948|
95740972|NCT02583048|191452244|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.109|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.109|0.727|
95740973|NCT02583048|191452245|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.094|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.094|0.806|
95740974|NCT02583048|191452245|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.352|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.352|0.864|
95740975|NCT02583048|191452245|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.597|1.253|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.253|0.597|
95858041|NCT01656408|191673848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.9|-2.1|0.317
95858042|NCT01656408|191673849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||13.2|0.2|0.090
95858043|NCT01656408|191673850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.8|-0.3|0.128
95858044|NCT01656408|191673851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||3.3|-7.9|0.477
95858045|NCT01656408|191673851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 6||-0.2|-11.0|0.090
95858046|NCT01656408|191673851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 15||-2.2|-13.0|0.028
95858047|NCT01656408|191673852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.1|-4.9|0.877
95858048|NCT01656408|191673853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.2|-9.3|0.827
95858049|NCT01656408|191673854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.0|-11.4|0.161
95858050|NCT01656408|191673855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-2.3|-18.8|0.046
95988647|NCT05103332|191951896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|=|0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline 24-hour mean SBP assessed by ABPM and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for SBP assessed by ABPM, were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||1.0|-4.6|=0.2103
95740976|NCT02583048|191452246|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.095|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.095|0.825|
95740977|NCT02583048|191452246|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.354|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.354|0.862|
95740978|NCT02583048|191452246|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.239|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.239|0.605|
95740979|NCT02583048|191452247|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.138|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 2.||1.138|0.851|
95740980|NCT02583048|191452247|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.361|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 8.||1.361|0.866|
95740981|NCT02583048|191452247|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs were compared to no effect boundaries of 0.67 to 1.50.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.322|||||The numerator represents Arm 3 and the denominator represents Arm 2.|Statistical analysis for Week 24.||1.322|0.650|
95740982|NCT01851876|191452252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
95740983|NCT02725515|191452303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|32.6|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||32.6|-6.6|0.1830
95740984|NCT02725515|191452304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|37.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test P-val|||||37.3|-3.7|0.1075
95740985|NCT02725515|191452305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.30|0.0252
95740986|NCT02888756|191452334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed for week 6, to provide statistical information for decision on execution of intracellular cytokine staining (ICS).||||0.14
95740987|NCT05497557|191452360|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.839||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.839|0.547|
95740988|NCT05497557|191452361|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.628|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.628|
95740989|NCT05497557|191452362|OTHER|Drug-drug Interaction Assessment|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.948||||||Ratios of geometric least squares means, and corresponding confidence intervals were obtained by taking the exponential of the least square means (LSMs), differences in LSMs, and corresponding confidence intervals on the natural log (ln) scale.||0.948|0.619|
95740990|NCT03206749|191452367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|42.4|||ANCOVA|||||42.40|16.61|<0.0001
95740991|NCT03206749|191452368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.18|40.88|||ANCOVA|||||40.88|16.18|<0.0001
95740992|NCT03206749|191452369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|62.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|89.27|||ANCOVA|||||89.27|36.30|<0.0001
95740993|NCT03206749|191452370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||||2.16|1.01|0.0469
95740994|NCT03206749|191452371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.79|0.3294
95740995|NCT03206749|191452372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2341|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2341
95740996|NCT03206749|191452373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3358||||||0 - 24 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3358
95740997|NCT03206749|191452373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||Greater than (\>) 24 - 48 hours|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
95740998|NCT03206749|191452374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0 - 24 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0004
95740999|NCT03206749|191452374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||\>24 - 48 hours|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0035
95741000|NCT00488774|191452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
95741001|NCT00488774|191452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.081
95741002|NCT00488774|191452396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.145
95741003|NCT00488774|191452397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.832
95741004|NCT00488774|191452397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.370
95741005|NCT00488774|191452397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.702
95741006|NCT00545792|191452399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single point estiamte of 1-yr PFS|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||||The reported 1-year PFS rate 80% (Exact 95% CI: 56% - 94%) was the proportion of the patients remained progression free after 12 months.|Single-arm feasibility study; Kaplan Meier analysis was applied to estimate one-year PFS distribution as well as to calculate proportion of patients remain progression free by month 12.||0.94|0.56|
95741007|NCT03428750|191452410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.006
95741008|NCT03428750|191452411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95741009|NCT03428750|191452412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.001
95741010|NCT03428750|191452413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95741011|NCT03428750|191452414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95741012|NCT03428750|191452415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95741013|NCT03428750|191452416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95741014|NCT03428750|191452417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95938450|NCT02962895|191842532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.5768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||2.57|-4.61|0.5768
95938451|NCT02962895|191842532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.68||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.28|-2.93|0.7113
95938452|NCT02962895|191842532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Mental Component Score||4.48|-2.49|0.5722
95938453|NCT02962895|191842532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||3.83|-1.59|0.4138
95741015|NCT03428750|191452418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95741016|NCT02944617|191452425|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95741017|NCT02944617|191452427|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.077
95741018|NCT04188392|191452444|OTHER|Rate of subjects enrolled per month of recruitment; based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment.|Rate (per month)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.25|||||Based on 6 subjects enrolled over 5.8 months of recruitment|Recruitment goal of 6 subjects total.||2.25|0.38|
95741019|NCT04188392|191452445|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed protocol: yes = 6, no = 0|Point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate = 100% (95% C.I. 54%,100%)|Binary outcome (completed protocol yes vs. no); goal of 75% of subjects completing protocol|Point estimate of completion rate and 95% confidence interval|1|0.54|
95741020|NCT04188392|191452446|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean of the differences|21.7||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|70.8||A priori significance threshold of p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.2263, df=4||alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0||70.8|-27.4|0.2873
95741021|NCT04188392|191452447|OTHER|Total participants = 6; discontinued due to adverse effects: yes = 0, no =6|Point estimate, 95% confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||||Discontinuation rates due to adverse effects: Point estimate 0% (95% C.I. 0%, 45.9%)|Binary outcome: Discontinued due to adverse effects yes vs. no||0.46|0|
95741022|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 1: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 1 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: Completed sleep study 1 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
95741023|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 2: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 2 = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 2 yes vs. no||1|0.54|
95741024|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; completed sleep study 3: yes = 5, no=1|point estimate|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.996|||||Point estimate of completion rate for sleep study 3 = 83.3% (95% C.I. 36%, 99.6%)|Binary outcome: completed sleep study 3 yes vs. no||0.996|0.36|
95741025|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy data: yes = 6, no=0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of completion rate for at least 4 days of actigraphy pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%).|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy data pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
95938454|NCT02962895|191842532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||1.71|-3.72|0.4663
95938455|NCT02962895|191842532|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.84||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo / Physical Component Score||4.47|-0.79|0.1694
95741026|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment: yes = 6, no =0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of actigraphy post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
95858051|NCT01656408|191673855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-8.6|-17.2|0.001
95938456|NCT02962895|191842534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||3.22|-11.56|0.2671
95938457|NCT02962895|191842534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||2.79|-11.78|0.2248
95938458|NCT02962895|191842534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||-1.20|-15.51|0.0224
95741027|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary pre-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
95741028|NCT04188392|191452448|OTHER|Total participants = 6; at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment: yes = 6, no = 0|point estimate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||||Point estimate of at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment = 100% (95% C.I. 54%, 100%)|Binary outcome: at least 4 days of sleep diary post-treatment yes vs. no||1|0.54|
95741029|NCT03131895|191452449|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) on the original scale.|Least square (LS) mean ratio|1.0436||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9453|1.1521|||ANOVA|||||1.1521|0.9453|0.5535
95938459|NCT02962895|191842536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27||||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo||12.00|-7.46|0.6457
95938460|NCT02962895|191842536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.26||||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|13.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo||13.06|-6.55|0.5132
95938461|NCT02962895|191842536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.77||||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo||4.68|-14.21|95
95938462|NCT02962895|191842537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.30|-0.08|0.2710
95938463|NCT02962895|191842537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.32|-0.05|0.1618
95938464|NCT02962895|191842537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Stimulated salivary flow rate)||0.38|0.01|0.0374
95938465|NCT02962895|191842537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 5 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.09|-0.09|0.9559
95938466|NCT02962895|191842537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 50 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.08|-0.09|0.9290
95938467|NCT02962895|191842537|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence intervals and p-values derived from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Week 24: VAY736 300 mg vs. Placebo (Unstimulated salivary flow rate)||0.07|-0.10|0.7276
95741030|NCT03131895|191452449|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0185||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9334|1.1113|||ANOVA|||||1.1113|0.9334|0.8920
95858052|NCT01656408|191673856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.2|-4.6|0.910
95938468|NCT05894577|191842541|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
95938469|NCT05894577|191842542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.07|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||7.07|0.14|
95938470|NCT05894577|191842545|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.84|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.84|0.45|
95938471|NCT05894577|191842546|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.29|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.29|0.50|
95938472|NCT05894577|191842547|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.49|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.49|0.16|
95938473|NCT05894577|191842548|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(OR\<1))|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.96|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||2.96|0.33|
95741031|NCT03131895|191452450|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.039||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1024|||ANOVA|||||1.1024|0.9792|0.3209
95741032|NCT03131895|191452450|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0353||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9719|1.1029|||ANOVA|||||1.1029|0.9719|0.3896
95741033|NCT03131895|191452451|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0335||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9733|1.0975|||ANOVA|||||1.0975|0.9733|0.4163
95741034|NCT03131895|191452451|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs on the original scale.|LS mean ratio|1.0031||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9458|1.0638|||ANOVA|||||1.0638|0.9458|0.9778
95741035|NCT00540423|191452452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0||||||95.0|35.21|84.79|||||The units of risk difference is percentage.|||84.79|35.21|
95741036|NCT00540423|191452454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 75% responders|43.5||||||95.0|23.19|65.51|||||Confidence interval of the percentage of participants for whom at least 75% of their assessments during the course of 26 weeks of SB-494115-GR treatment met the definition of responders.|||65.51|23.19|
95741037|NCT01339247|191452488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0886|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0011|1.177|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.1770|1.0011|
95938474|NCT05894577|191842549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.71|
95741038|NCT01339247|191452489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0849|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0849|0.9676|
95858053|NCT01656408|191673857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.7|-6.6|0.906
95938475|NCT05894577|191842549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.75|
95741039|NCT01339247|191452490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon a manufacturing site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|1.0317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9716|1.0956|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||1.0956|0.9716|
95741040|NCT02213263|191452536|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was tested within the pre-specified margins of (-16%, 16%) 95% confidence interval.|Difference in ORR|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|13.47||||||Difference in ORR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.47|-4.16|
95858054|NCT01656408|191673858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.7|-4.4|0.870
95858055|NCT01656408|191673859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-3.7|-5.0|<0.0001
95858056|NCT01656408|191673859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 10||-5.7|-10.7|0.001
95858057|NCT01656408|191673860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.8|-4.9|0.038
95858058|NCT01656408|191673861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.2|-6.0|0.238
95858059|NCT01656408|191673862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.6|-4.7|0.048
95938476|NCT05894577|191842549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.88|0.84|
95938477|NCT05894577|191842549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.60|0.65|
95858060|NCT01656408|191673863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||2.5|-3.2|0.830
95858061|NCT01656408|191673863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||-0.7|-10.8|0.063
95858062|NCT01656408|191673864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.1|-7.1|0.892
95858063|NCT01656408|191673865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.9|-3.4|0.571
95858064|NCT01656408|191673866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.0|-5.4|0.816
95858065|NCT01656408|191673867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 1||-0.6|-8.4|0.061
95858066|NCT01656408|191673867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|Day 28||0.7|-8.3|0.161
95858067|NCT01656408|191673868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.9|-4.0|0.786
95728050|NCT00096265|191425914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||With 70 patients per arm, a 0.05 level chi-square test would have 80% power to distinguish between two groups when the proportions in the three categories are as follows for standard vs. experimental arm, respectively: 25% vs. 50% improvement, 55% vs. 40% stable, and 20% vs. 10% deterioration, or any distribution that corresponds to an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0702.||||0.28
95728051|NCT00096265|191425915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||108 with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||0.002
95728052|NCT00096265|191425915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||108 cases with three month performance status data, per arm, would result in a 0.050 level chi-square test with 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.0586.||||< 0.001
95858068|NCT01656408|191673869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.8|-9.3|0.263
95858069|NCT01656408|191673870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.1|-4.4|0.565
95728053|NCT00096265|191425916|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95728054|NCT00096265|191425916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming the survival rate of the standard arm (MST = 5.9 months), then 49% of patients were expected to be alive at six months. Assuming steroid data would be available for 90% of these patients, results in a projection of 52 cases/arm with steroid data at 6 months. With this sample size, a two-sided 0.050 alpha test will have 90% power to distinguish between the groups when the proportions in the 3 categories are characterized by an effect size, Δ² = Σ(π2j-π1j)2/\[2(π2j-π1j)\], of 0.1217.||||0.56
95728055|NCT00096265|191425917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.78
95728056|NCT00096265|191425917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||A two group chi-square test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level would have 89% power to detect the difference between a proportion of 0.50 and a proportion of 0.30, or equivalently, of 0.70, when the sample size in each group is 120.||||0.80
95728057|NCT01172600|191425918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.17|||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for VAS at baseline (before 1st block), number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This is an intention- to-treat analysis. We assigned missing outcomes to 10 patients.|||1.17|-1.43|0.84
95728058|NCT01172600|191425918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.28|||Regression, Linear||This is a per-protocol analysis, using 68 patients with completed data.|||0.28|-2.34|0.12
95728059|NCT01172600|191425919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.8|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||1.21|-1.80|0.63
95728060|NCT01172600|191425920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.05|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with repeated measures, adjusting for VAS pain score at baseline, number of epidural blocks received, and imbalanced baseline variables.|This analysis was per-protocol, using only patients with completed data.|||0.82|-3.05|0.16
95728061|NCT02232074|191425931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||3.14|0.21|0.77
95728062|NCT02232074|191425932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|45.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more likely to have timely first treatment (i.e. receipt of first treatment within 90 days of diagnosis).||45.4|0.35|0.26
95741041|NCT02213263|191452542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.72||A log-rank test stratified by follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2 (FLIPI2) risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to TTF at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||1.720|0.786|0.450
95741042|NCT02213263|191452543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.393||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.291|||Log Rank|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to PFS at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.291|0.847|0.189
95741043|NCT02213263|191452544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|6.5||||||Difference in CR between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU was computed using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method. The 95% confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the asymptotic stratified method proposed by Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.50|-11.09|
95741044|NCT02213263|191452545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.492||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|2.704||A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to DOR at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.|||2.704|0.823|0.185
95741045|NCT02213263|191452546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.94||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Due to smaller number of participants with an event, upper limit of 95% CI could not be calculated.|A log-rank test stratified by FLIPI2 risk was used to compare the treatment groups with respect to overall survival at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its CIs were estimated from Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by FLIPI2 risk categorization.||||0.000|0.319
95741046|NCT00841542|191452592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.19||||||90.0|94.2|102.34|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withing 80 - 125|||102.34|94.20|
95741047|NCT00841542|191452593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.86||||||90.0|93.38|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.66|93.38|
95741048|NCT00841542|191452594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.22||||||90.0|93.87|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|93.87|
95741049|NCT01906372|191452628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency of achieving primary endpoint|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Open label single arm pilot trial without control group.||||||||
95741050|NCT01906372|191452629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95858070|NCT00363480|191673875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage diffrence|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-23.29|||McNemar|||Comparison between GOAL and ACT response||-23.29|-37.89|<0.0001
95858071|NCT00363480|191673876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-Distribution|50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.15|57.32||||||||57.32|43.15|
95858072|NCT05465317|191673892|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.65|<0.001
95858073|NCT05465317|191673892|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.86|0.52|0.001
95741051|NCT03629054|191452630|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.17|102.72|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||102.72|98.17|<0.0001
95741052|NCT03629054|191452631|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.58|99.24|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.24|91.58|<0.0001
95858074|NCT05465317|191673892|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.67|0.008
95858075|NCT05465317|191673893|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.60|0.005
95858076|NCT05465317|191673893|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.91|0.41|0.02
95859660|NCT00607373|191677248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95859661|NCT00607373|191677250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
95728063|NCT02232074|191425933|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.53
95858077|NCT05465317|191673893|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.63|0.08
95741053|NCT03629054|191452632|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|104.31|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||104.31|96.17|<0.0001
95741054|NCT03629054|191452633|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|92.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.21|100.57|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||100.57|85.21|0.0029
95741055|NCT03629054|191452634|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|97.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.99|105.26|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||105.26|89.99|0.0001
95741056|NCT03629054|191452635|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|111.5|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||111.50|98.56|<0.0001
95858078|NCT05465317|191673894|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.00|0.46|0.05
95938478|NCT05894577|191842549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.36|0.57|
95938479|NCT05894577|191842549|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.0|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||2.00|0.69|
95938480|NCT05894577|191842550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.66|
95938481|NCT05894577|191842550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.63|
95938482|NCT05894577|191842550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.56|
95938483|NCT05894577|191842550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.45|0.73|
95938484|NCT05894577|191842550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.40|0.71|
95938485|NCT05894577|191842550|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.60|
95741057|NCT03629054|191452636|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|100.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.33|103.18|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||103.18|98.33|<0.0001
95858079|NCT05465317|191673894|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.09|0.35|0.09
95858080|NCT05465317|191673894|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.29|0.43|0.30
95938486|NCT05894577|191842551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.31|0.70|
95938487|NCT05894577|191842551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.4|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.40|0.72|
95741058|NCT03629054|191452637|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|103.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|110.71|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||110.71|96.90|<0.0001
95741059|NCT03629054|191452638|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (T/R).|Adjusted gMean ratio|95.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|99.32|||ANOVA||gMean ratio = T/R. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual gCV.|An ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and random effect for 'subject within sequence'.||99.32|92.29|<0.0001
95741060|NCT01075282|191452642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of LY2189265 1.5 mg vs insulin glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 52-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 20%.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
95741061|NCT01075282|191452642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|<0.001
95741062|NCT01075282|191452642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.29||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.29|-0.60|<0.001
95741063|NCT01075282|191452642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.02||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.02|-0.29|0.05
95741064|NCT01075282|191452643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
95741065|NCT01075282|191452643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
95741066|NCT01075282|191452643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
95741067|NCT01075282|191452643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.1||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.10|-0.38|<0.001
95741068|NCT01075282|191452643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
95741069|NCT01075282|191452643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|<0.001
95938488|NCT05894577|191842551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.55|
95741070|NCT01075282|191452643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.13|-0.50|<0.001
95741071|NCT01075282|191452643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks. P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy, and compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.15|-0.21|0.378
95741072|NCT01075282|191452644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|7.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.11|2.98|<0.001
95859662|NCT00607373|191677252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
95938489|NCT05894577|191842551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.62|
95938490|NCT05894577|191842551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.65|
95938491|NCT05894577|191842551|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.48|
95938492|NCT05894577|191842552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.62|
95938493|NCT05894577|191842552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.38|0.65|
95938494|NCT05894577|191842552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.13|0.49|
95938495|NCT05894577|191842552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.55|0.67|
95938496|NCT05894577|191842552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.19|0.51|
95938497|NCT05894577|191842552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.35|0.49|
95938498|NCT05894577|191842553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.41|0.77|
95938499|NCT05894577|191842553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.69|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.69|0.82|
95938500|NCT05894577|191842553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.52|
95988648|NCT05103332|191951897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, race (black or all other races) as fixed factors, with baseline office SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|MMRM||LS Mean Difference between zilebesiran (add on to olmesartan) and placebo (add on to olmesartan), 95% CI was calculated using MMRM model.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05. All collected data for office SBP were included in the analysis for this endpoint.||-2.3|-6.8|<0.0001
95741073|NCT01075282|191452644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.24||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.41|<0.001
95938501|NCT05894577|191842553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.43|0.65|
95741074|NCT01075282|191452644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|5.75||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.45|<0.001
95741075|NCT01075282|191452644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.098
95938502|NCT05894577|191842553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.41|0.63|
95938503|NCT05894577|191842553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.19|0.44|
95938504|NCT05894577|191842554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.39|0.75|
95741076|NCT01075282|191452644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.14||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.85|<0.001
95741077|NCT01075282|191452644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.82|0.334
95741078|NCT01075282|191452645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.63||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|2.90|<0.001
95741079|NCT01075282|191452645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.11||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.11|1.57|<0.001
95741080|NCT01075282|191452645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.85||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|1.81|<0.001
95741081|NCT01075282|191452645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.39||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.26|0.004
95741082|NCT01075282|191452645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.57||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.||||3.57|1.44|<0.001
95741083|NCT01075282|191452645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.42||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.96|0.073
95741084|NCT01075282|191452646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.109
95741085|NCT01075282|191452646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
95741086|NCT01075282|191452646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
95741087|NCT01075282|191452646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.400
95741088|NCT01075282|191452646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
95938505|NCT05894577|191842554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.76|
95741089|NCT01075282|191452646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.055
95741090|NCT01075282|191452649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.33||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.33|2.33|<0.001
95741091|NCT01075282|191452649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.99||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.99|1.99|<0.001
95741092|NCT01075282|191452649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.9||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|2.71|<0.001
95741093|NCT01075282|191452649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.36||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.36|2.17|<0.001
95741094|NCT01075282|191452649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.89||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.89|2.59|<0.001
95741095|NCT01075282|191452649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.46||Treatment comparison at 78 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.46|2.17|<0.001
95741096|NCT00989950|191452668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|233.0|||ANOVA|||||233|0|0.588
95741097|NCT03488108|191452677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
95741098|NCT03488108|191452678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.90
95741099|NCT03488108|191452679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
95741100|NCT03488108|191452680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
95741101|NCT00714051|191452683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The number of participants who fell on the tripping trial in each group were compared using Chi-square analysis||||0.45
95741102|NCT01390948|191452684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|0.90|0.1292
95741103|NCT05740098|191452720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|12.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||12.689|2.278|<0.001
95741104|NCT05740098|191452720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.668||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.538|8.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||8.747|1.538|0.003
95741105|NCT05740098|191452720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|1.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effects of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||1.321|0.352|0.256
95741106|NCT05740098|191452720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 12- and 24-week assessments||||<0.001
95741107|NCT05740098|191452721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.287
95741108|NCT05740098|191452721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.108
95741109|NCT05740098|191452721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.007
95741110|NCT05740098|191452721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of time on Child Urine Cotinine||||0.878
95741111|NCT05740098|191452722|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|6.909||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.009
95988649|NCT05103332|191951898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.23||Logistic regression model included treatment and race (black or all other races) as factors and baseline 24-hour mean SBP and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at α=0.05 within each cohort and handle primary and key secondary endpoints analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at nominal p-value \< 0.05.||3.23|0.87|=0.1230
95938506|NCT05894577|191842554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.71|0.84|
95938507|NCT05894577|191842554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.71|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.71|0.76|
95938508|NCT05894577|191842554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.46|0.67|
95938509|NCT05894577|191842554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.59|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.59|0.62|
95938510|NCT05894577|191842555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.14|0.74|
95938511|NCT05894577|191842555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.79|
95938512|NCT05894577|191842555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.08|0.71|
95938513|NCT05894577|191842555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
95938514|NCT05894577|191842555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.29|0.84|
95938515|NCT05894577|191842555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 180||1.14|0.68|
95938516|NCT05894577|191842556|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.1|-0.6|
95988650|NCT04179175|191951937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.29|0.59|0.250
95741112|NCT05740098|191452722|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|4.287||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.038
95741113|NCT05740098|191452722|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.392||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on continuous abstinence at 24 weeks following quit date||||0.531
95938517|NCT05894577|191842557|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.75|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.75|-0.13|
95938518|NCT03241459|191842560|NON_INFERIORITY|15.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary patency rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|-3.7||||0.0029|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.7|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary effectiveness endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to efficacy endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-11.7|0.0029
95938519|NCT03241459|191842561|NON_INFERIORITY|10.0% is the absolute noninferiority margin (50% of the difference in primary safety endpoint rate between IN.PACT Admiral DCB and PTA).|Difference in percentage|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test||For subjects missing primary safety endpoint status, a logistic regression model was used for multiple imputation with pre-specified baseline variables as model predictors.|The SurVeil DCB will be declared noninferior to IN.PACT Admiral DCB with respect to safety endpoint if the null hypothesis of inferiority is rejected at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|||-4.1|<.0001
95988651|NCT04179175|191951937|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test, with region and body weight (\<90 kg, ≥ 90 kg) as strata||||1.05|0.47|0.044
95988652|NCT02164981|191951940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Given the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), we used a two-stage test (weighted z-test, Tamura approach: CHANGE\_score = BASELINE\_value + GROUP (i.e., SNP vs. placebo)) to combine the data on treatment effects from phases 1 and 2 (weighted equally). Assessments were on Day -1 (phase 1 baseline), Day 13 (phase 1 outcome, phase 2 baseline) and Day 28 (phase 2 outcome). Only participants who at least started the infusion were included in analysis (i.e., modified intent to treat).||||0.57
95988653|NCT02164981|191951940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, as there was only one primary outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||The same analysis as in Analysis 1 was conducted, except that CLOZAPINE (i.e., patient used clozapine vs. other antipsychotic) was added as a covariate.||||0.54
95988654|NCT02164981|191951941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95741114|NCT05740098|191452723|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.859||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||Analysis tested for significant main effect of treatment condition on 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 48-week follow-up||||0.145
95741115|NCT05740098|191452724|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.454||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.228
95741116|NCT05740098|191452724|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.10
95741117|NCT05740098|191452724|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|3.202||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.074
95741118|NCT05740098|191452724|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.491||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis tested for significant main effect of baseline temporal discounting on point-prevalence abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date adjusting for treatment condition.||||0.484
95741119|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|1.063||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.302
95741120|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.788||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.375
95741121|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.08||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.777
95988655|NCT02164981|191951941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Exploratory efficacy outcome, hence no adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.37
95988656|NCT02164981|191951942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95988657|NCT02164981|191951942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
95741122|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.006||||0.937|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Amplitude) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.937
95741123|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.172||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 6-weeks following quit date||||0.678
95741124|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|7.99||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant interaction between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and treatment condition for 6-week abstinence outcome||||0.018
95988658|NCT02164981|191951943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
95988659|NCT02164981|191951943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
95988660|NCT02164981|191951949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
95988661|NCT02164981|191951949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
95988662|NCT02164981|191951952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
95988663|NCT02164981|191951952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
95988664|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.010
95988665|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.932
95988666|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.853
95988667|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline-2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.032
95988668|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||<0.001
95988669|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3||||.750
95988670|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.810
95988671|NCT03160560|191951965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8||||.006
95988672|NCT00049673|191951966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.53|0.18
95988673|NCT00049673|191951967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.43|0.0001
95988674|NCT02123485|191951996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95988675|NCT00608985|191952017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-8.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-8.8|-21.8|<0.0001
95741125|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.177||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 12-weeks following quit date||||0.674
95741126|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.646||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 24-weeks following quit date||||0.422
95741127|NCT05740098|191452725|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square Test Statistic|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis tested for significant association between baseline price sensitivity (latent factor Persistence) and abstinence at 48-weeks following quit date||||0.846
95741128|NCT01935674|191452760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|22.5||P-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test; significance threshold set at α = 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test; analysis based on intention-to-treat population.||Comparison of percentage change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline to week 12 between rosuvastatin and PI/r switch groups. Wilcoxon rank-sum test used. Study powered to detect a 15% difference with 80% power and α = 0.05. All participants included in intention-to-treat analysis.||22.5|2.9|0.003
95741129|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.814
95741130|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.013
95741131|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.287
95741132|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.027
95741133|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||P-values were estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.390
95741134|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||4mg/day vs Placebo||||0.844
95741135|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||8 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.030
95741136|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||12 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.437
95741137|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||16 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.034
95741138|NCT01494532|191452768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-values are from a nonparametric rank ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||24 mg/day vs Placebo||||0.808
95741139|NCT01494532|191452769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|3.166|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.166|0.398|0.826
95741140|NCT01494532|191452769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.593|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.593|0.732|0.233
95938520|NCT03241459|191842562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a p-value from a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||0.579
95741141|NCT01494532|191452769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.953||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.065|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.065|0.439|0.902
95741142|NCT01494532|191452769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.866||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|4.158|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.158|0.837|0.127
95741143|NCT01494532|191452769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.362||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|3.888|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.888|0.477|0.564
95741144|NCT01494532|191452770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.659|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.659|0.310|0.861
95741145|NCT01494532|191452770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.608||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.782|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.782|0.684|0.277
95741146|NCT01494532|191452770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.5|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.500|0.461|0.869
95741147|NCT01494532|191452770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|4.545|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.545|0.808|0.140
95938521|NCT03241459|191842563|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 100% success, therefore, Fisher's exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.00
95741148|NCT01494532|191452770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|5.218|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.218|0.547|0.362
95741149|NCT01494532|191452771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.965|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||1.965|0.266|0.525
95741150|NCT01494532|191452771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.851||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|4.109|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.109|0.834|0.130
95741151|NCT01494532|191452771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|2.232|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.232|0.444|0.992
95741152|NCT01494532|191452771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|3.248|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.248|0.674|0.329
95741153|NCT01494532|191452771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.907||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|2.61|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||2.610|0.315|0.856
95741154|NCT01494532|191452773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
95741155|NCT01494532|191452773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
95741156|NCT01494532|191452773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
95741157|NCT01494532|191452773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
95938522|NCT03241459|191842564|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence estimates will be reported along with a two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing the SurVeil and the IN.PACT Admiral groups.||||1.000
95938523|NCT03241459|191842565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is derived from two-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
95938524|NCT03241459|191842566|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington and Manning test for noninferiority of proportions at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Difference in percentage|-1.9||||0.0059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|||P-value is derived from one-sided Farrington-Manning test with noninferiority margin of 15% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||The objective is to assess whether the primary patency rate of subjects in the SurVeil DCB group is noninferior to that of the IN.PACT Admiral DCB group:|||-12.1|0.0059
95938525|NCT03241459|191842567|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 12 months.||||||0.699||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||0.699
95938526|NCT03241459|191842567|SUPERIORITY|Target Vessel Patency for SurVeil DCB vs. Target Vessel Patency for IN.PACT DCB at 24 months.||||||1||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||The main analysis of the secondary endpoints will be carried out using the ITT analysis set.||||1.0
95938527|NCT03241459|191842568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
95938528|NCT03241459|191842568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||12-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.447
95938529|NCT03241459|191842568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||24-Month P-Value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.589
95938530|NCT03241459|191842569|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938531|NCT03241459|191842569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.823
95938532|NCT03241459|191842569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.454
95938533|NCT03241459|191842570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||P-Value at 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
95938534|NCT03241459|191842570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||P-Value at 12-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.860
95938535|NCT03241459|191842570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.390
95938536|NCT03241459|191842571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 6 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95938537|NCT03241459|191842571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Both arms demonstrated 0 amputations at 12 months. Fisher's Exact test does not provide a p-value, but we populated it with a p-value of 1.00 to indicate no difference between arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95938538|NCT03241459|191842571|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938539|NCT03241459|191842572|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95938540|NCT03241459|191842572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||P-Value at 24-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
95938541|NCT03241459|191842573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
95938542|NCT03241459|191842573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.140
95938543|NCT03241459|191842573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
95938544|NCT03241459|191842573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P-Value for change in Rutherford Classification from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
95938545|NCT03241459|191842574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 1-Month|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
95938546|NCT03241459|191842574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 6-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
95938547|NCT03241459|191842574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 12-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.248
95938548|NCT03241459|191842574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||P-Value for change in PARC from BL to 24-Months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.194
95938549|NCT03241459|191842575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 6-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.789
95938550|NCT03241459|191842575|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938551|NCT03241459|191842575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
95938552|NCT03241459|191842575|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 12-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938553|NCT03241459|191842575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb ABI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
95938554|NCT03241459|191842575|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value for Decrease in Resting Target Limb TBI ≥0.15: BL to 24-Months.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938555|NCT03241459|191842576|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
95938556|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking distance score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.158
95938557|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-month: Walking speed score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
95938558|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 1-Month: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
95938559|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
95938560|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.580
95938561|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
95938562|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 12-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
95938563|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Impairment Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
95938564|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837||||||P-value for change in WIQ from BL to 24-Months: Walking Distance Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.837
95741158|NCT01494532|191452773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
95741159|NCT01494532|191452774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
95741160|NCT01494532|191452774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
95938565|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Walking Speed Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
95938566|NCT03241459|191842576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||P-value for change in WIQ for BL to 24-Months: Stair Climbing Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
95938567|NCT03241459|191842577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 12-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.237
95938568|NCT03241459|191842577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for change in 6MWT from BL to 24-Months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95938569|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.772
95938570|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
95741161|NCT01494532|191452774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
95741162|NCT01494532|191452774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
95741163|NCT01494532|191452774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
95741164|NCT01494532|191452775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
95741165|NCT01494532|191452775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
95741166|NCT01494532|191452775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
95741167|NCT01494532|191452775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
95938571|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
95938572|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.621
95741168|NCT01494532|191452775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
95938573|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.133
95938574|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.592
95938575|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 1-Month: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
95741169|NCT01494532|191452776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.998
95741170|NCT01494532|191452776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
95741171|NCT01494532|191452776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
95741172|NCT01494532|191452776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95741173|NCT01494532|191452776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
95741174|NCT01494532|191452777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
95741175|NCT01494532|191452777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.126
95741176|NCT01494532|191452777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
95938576|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
95938577|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.856
95938578|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.541
95938579|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
95938580|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.696
95938581|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.716
95938582|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months: Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
95938583|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Physical Function Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.290
95938584|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Stability Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.473
95938585|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Symptom Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
95938586|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Treatment Satisfaction Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
95938587|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Quality of Life Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.266
95938588|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 24-Months: Social Limitation Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
95938589|NCT03241459|191842578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||P-value for change in PAQ from BL to 12-Months:Summary Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
95938590|NCT03241459|191842579|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938591|NCT03241459|191842579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.903
95938592|NCT03241459|191842579|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938593|NCT03241459|191842580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 36-Months||||||0.913
95938594|NCT03241459|191842580|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||1.0
95938595|NCT03241459|191842580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.839
95938596|NCT03241459|191842581|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95938597|NCT03241459|191842581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 48-Months||||||0.5
95938598|NCT03241459|191842581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value at 60-Months||||||0.251
95938599|NCT03241459|191842582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-Value at 36-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.478
95938600|NCT03241459|191842582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605||||||P-Value at 48-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
95938601|NCT03241459|191842582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||P-Value at 60-Months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
95728064|NCT02232074|191425934|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the LUNG cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 3 months post-enrollment||||0.43
95938602|NCT04509674|191842583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference regarding the risk of the endpoint in question between empagliflozin and placebo.~p\<=0.05 required for testing of subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|The primary endpoint was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.||1.06|0.76|0.2061
95728065|NCT02232074|191425935|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.18
95988676|NCT00608985|191952017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-19.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-19.5|-34.3|<0.0001
95988677|NCT00608985|191952017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-0.3|-13.5|0.0376
95988678|NCT00608985|191952018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-6.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-6.5|-20.3|0.0001
95988679|NCT00608985|191952018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-12.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-12.3|-27.3|<0.0001
95988680|NCT00608985|191952018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||11.0|-3.8|0.3358
95988681|NCT00608985|191952019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.3||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-1.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.3|-13.3|0.0186
95988682|NCT00608985|191952019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.6|-16.4|0.0006
95988683|NCT00608985|191952019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-6.6|-18.8|<0.0001
95988684|NCT00608985|191952020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-3.0|-15.3|0.0035
95988685|NCT00608985|191952020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-4.3|-15.0|0.0006
95988686|NCT00608985|191952020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.8|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 1\&2 compared with placebo||-9.8|-22.0|<0.0001
95988687|NCT00608985|191952021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||2.5|-11.0|0.2237
95988688|NCT00608985|191952021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||0.3|-12.3|0.0607
95988689|NCT00608985|191952021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to day 15\&16 compared with placebo||-4.0|-17.3|0.0017
95988690|NCT00608985|191952022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||0.9|-9.1|0.1187
95988691|NCT00608985|191952022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-2.7|-11.5|0.0017
95988692|NCT00608985|191952022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Change from baseline to week 1\&2 compared with placebo||-1.4|-10.8|0.0121
95988693|NCT03728309|191952032|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|63.5||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 30 imputed data sets using SAS PROC MIANALYZE with normal approximation.|SAS PROC MIANALYZE|||||63.5|43.5|<0.001
95988694|NCT03728309|191952034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|36.0|||2-sample, t-test|||||36.0|21.0|<0.001
95988695|NCT03728309|191952035|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|65.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||Comparison of treatment group versus control group at Month 1, responder rate difference, 95% CI for risk difference and p-value was estimated based on Fisher's exact test using mITT population with baseline AFLS score of 2 or 3 on both cheeks.|||65.7|40.1|<0.001
95988696|NCT03403205|191952077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.13||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||2.13|1.14|< 0.0001
95988697|NCT03403205|191952077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.94||Test was performed at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model, which included treatment, cohort, and baseline value. Missing imputation was performed: 1) for intermediate missing, interpolation was used to fill out missing values. 2) For participants who die, baseline dNCC was carried forward from discontinuation to week 48. 3) For others, multiple imputation was used to impute missing dNCC assuming data were missing not at random.||4.94|2.65|< 0.0001
95741177|NCT01494532|191452777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.148
95741178|NCT01494532|191452777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.581
95741179|NCT01494532|191452778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
95741180|NCT01494532|191452778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
95741181|NCT01494532|191452778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.121
95741182|NCT01494532|191452778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
95741183|NCT01494532|191452778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.187
95741184|NCT01494532|191452779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
95741185|NCT01494532|191452779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.768
95741186|NCT01494532|191452779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
95741187|NCT01494532|191452779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
95741188|NCT01494532|191452779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
95741189|NCT01494532|191452780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
95741190|NCT01494532|191452780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
95741191|NCT01494532|191452780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
95741192|NCT01494532|191452780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
95741193|NCT01494532|191452780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
95741194|NCT01494532|191452781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.734
95741195|NCT01494532|191452781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
95741196|NCT01494532|191452781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
95858081|NCT05465317|191673895|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.08|0.49|0.11
95858082|NCT05465317|191673895|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.35|0.12
95858083|NCT05465317|191673895|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.42|0.50|0.52
95858084|NCT05465317|191673897|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.72|0.02
95858085|NCT05465317|191673897|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.05|0.65|0.12
95859663|NCT01032889|191677264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.00|-0.61|0.052
95938603|NCT04509674|191842584|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.10|0.68|0.2423
95741197|NCT01494532|191452781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.123
95741198|NCT01494532|191452781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.641
95741199|NCT01494532|191452782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
95741200|NCT01494532|191452782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
95741201|NCT01494532|191452782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.267
95741202|NCT01494532|191452782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
95741203|NCT01494532|191452782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.458
95741204|NCT01494532|191452783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
95741205|NCT01494532|191452783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95741206|NCT01494532|191452783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
95741207|NCT01494532|191452783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
95741208|NCT01494532|191452783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
95938604|NCT04509674|191842585|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.92||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.07|0.78|0.2867
95741209|NCT01494532|191452784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.376
95741210|NCT01494532|191452784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
95741211|NCT01494532|191452784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.362
95741212|NCT01494532|191452784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
95741213|NCT01494532|191452784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.403
95741214|NCT01494532|191452785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
95741215|NCT01494532|191452785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
95741216|NCT01494532|191452785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.230
95741217|NCT01494532|191452785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
95741218|NCT01494532|191452785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
95741219|NCT01494532|191452786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
95741220|NCT01494532|191452786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
95741221|NCT01494532|191452786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.791
95741222|NCT01494532|191452786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
95741223|NCT01494532|191452786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.600
95741224|NCT01494532|191452787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95741225|NCT01494532|191452787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95741226|NCT01494532|191452787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95741227|NCT01494532|191452787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95741228|NCT01494532|191452787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95741229|NCT01494532|191452788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.047
95741230|NCT01494532|191452788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95741231|NCT01494532|191452788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
95741232|NCT01494532|191452788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
95741233|NCT01494532|191452788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
95741234|NCT01494532|191452789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
95988698|NCT02171611|191952115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|175.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.904|216.149|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMeans of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.149|141.904|
95796291|NCT04761822|191562635|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.07||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.070|-0.037|0.3100
95796292|NCT04761822|191562636|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.007||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0783|0.0366||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the participants that received their second active dose as their second injection proportion minus the participants that received their second active dose as their third injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.0366|-0.0783|0.8070
95796293|NCT04761822|191562637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.042||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.042|-0.040|1.000
95796294|NCT04761822|191562638|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.018||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine first injection proportion minus comparison placebo first injection proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.018|-0.053|0.250
95858086|NCT05465317|191673897|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.10
95858087|NCT05465317|191673898|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.11|0.72|0.32
95858088|NCT05465317|191673898|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.65|0.50
95858089|NCT05465317|191673898|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.68|0.50
95858090|NCT05465317|191673899|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.92|0.62|0.005
95858091|NCT05465317|191673899|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.96|0.49|0.03
95858092|NCT05465317|191673899|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.02|0.63|0.074
95858093|NCT05465317|191673900|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.12|0.95|0.46
95858094|NCT05465317|191673900|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.20|0.90|0.63
95741235|NCT01494532|191452789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
95741236|NCT01494532|191452789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.170
95741237|NCT01494532|191452789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95741238|NCT01494532|191452789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
95741239|NCT01494532|191452790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.409
95741240|NCT01494532|191452790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.598
95741241|NCT01494532|191452790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
95741242|NCT01494532|191452790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
95741243|NCT01494532|191452790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.348
95741244|NCT00926887|191452792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95741245|NCT00926887|191452795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-2.711; df=102; p\<0.01||||||<0.01
95741246|NCT00926887|191452799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102, t=-3.44||||||<0.001
95741247|NCT02466087|191452819|OTHER||diiference in differences|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||
95741248|NCT00830258|191452822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.76||||||90.0|98.17|113.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||113.93|98.17|
95741249|NCT00830258|191452823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.45||||||90.0|104.31|116.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||116.96|104.31|
95858095|NCT05465317|191673900|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.14|0.94|0.52
95858096|NCT05465317|191673901|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.94|0.70|0.007
95858097|NCT05465317|191673901|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||0.97|0.57|0.03
95858098|NCT05465317|191673901|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.03|0.71|0.10
95858099|NCT05465317|191673902|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.10|0.89|0.15
95858100|NCT05465317|191673902|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.72|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.72|0.40|0.93
95858101|NCT05465317|191673902|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.38|0.91|0.113
95858102|NCT05465317|191673903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.16|0.71|0.43
95741250|NCT00830258|191452824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.61||||||90.0|104.39|117.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||117.20|104.39|
95741251|NCT01127087|191452825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB Calcium oxalate (CaOx) Stone Formers arm.||||0.027
95741252|NCT01127087|191452825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Urinary oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.14
95741253|NCT01127087|191452826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the RYGB CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.018
95741254|NCT01127087|191452826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Oxalate before and at the end of 4 weeks on Oxazyme in the Idiopathic Hyperoxaluria CaOx Stone Formers arm.||||0.06
95796295|NCT04761822|191562639|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.058||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.101||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.101|0.024|0.004
95988699|NCT02171611|191952115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.425|188.161|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment (T2) vs. the Reference treatment (R). This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||188.161|127.425|
95741255|NCT00828321|191452849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.16||||||90.0|85.08|104.21|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.21|85.08|
95741256|NCT00828321|191452850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.21|108.6|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.6|96.21|
95796296|NCT04761822|191562640|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.124||Two-sided test using the central method of doubling the one-sided p-value.|Barnard's Exact Unconditional Test|||The null hypothesis is that the risk difference, where the difference is represented as the high allergy/mast cell disorder cohort proportion minus comparison cohort proportion, is not statistically different from 0 (i.e. there is no difference).||0.124|0.039|<0.001
95988700|NCT02171611|191952116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|175.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.924|216.772|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||216.772|141.924|
95988701|NCT02171611|191952116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|158.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.052|192.255|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||192.255|130.052|
95741257|NCT00828321|191452851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.22||||||90.0|96.34|108.58|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.58|96.34|
95858103|NCT05465317|191673903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.24|0.51|0.32
95858104|NCT05465317|191673903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.30|0.71|0.81
95858105|NCT05465317|191673904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.33|0.65|0.69
95858106|NCT05465317|191673904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.70|0.51|0.82
95741258|NCT00828321|191452852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.52||||||90.0|92.63|104.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.79|92.63|
95741259|NCT00828321|191452853|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.45||||||90.0|94.66|100.32|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.32|94.66|
95858107|NCT05465317|191673904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.45|0.60|0.76
95858108|NCT05465317|191673905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.62|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.62|0.29|0.39
95858109|NCT05465317|191673905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.27|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.27|0.09|0.34
95858110|NCT05465317|191673905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.33|0.29|0.72
95858111|NCT05465317|191673906|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.66|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.66|0.43|0.62
95858112|NCT05465317|191673906|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.64|0.21|0.31
95858113|NCT05465317|191673906|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.92|0.46|0.76
95858114|NCT05465317|191673907|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.88|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.88|1.58|<0.001
95858115|NCT05465317|191673907|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||2.30|1.48|<0.001
95858116|NCT05465317|191673907|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.87|||Regression, Cox||Ratio calculated as Empagliflozin/DPP4i|Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards (PH) models in a 2-arm comparison. The analysis included all patients with a valid overlap weight and was performed using the reweighted population. The main analysis assessed outcomes while patients remain on initial treatment.||1.87|1.54|<0.001
95858117|NCT02048670|191673914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 1 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.005
95858118|NCT02048670|191673914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 2 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform locked||||0.006
95858119|NCT02048670|191673914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 3 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform locked||||0.051
95858120|NCT02048670|191673914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 4 - eyes open, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.173
95858121|NCT02048670|191673914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 5 - eyes closed, visual surround locked, platform unlocked||||0.985
95858122|NCT02048670|191673914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Condition 6 - eyes open, visual surround unlocked, platform unlocked||||0.003
95858123|NCT00935584|191673941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
95858124|NCT00935584|191673941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||>0.05
95858125|NCT00935584|191673942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
95858126|NCT00935584|191673942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wicoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
95858127|NCT00935584|191673943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
95858128|NCT00935584|191673943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in patient engagement from pre to post visit.||||>0.05
95858129|NCT00935584|191673944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
95858130|NCT00935584|191673944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
95741260|NCT02997176|191452854|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|142.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.92|252.98||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||252.98|79.92|
95741261|NCT02997176|191452854|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|110.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|223.85||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||223.85|54.58|
95741262|NCT02997176|191452855|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|109.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|169.84||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||169.84|70.93|
95741263|NCT02997176|191452855|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|131.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.14|224.74||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||224.74|77.14|
95741264|NCT02997176|191452856|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|149.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|243.93||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||243.93|91.49|
95796297|NCT00362232|191562641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.17|-5.25|<0.001
95796298|NCT00362232|191562641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71||||0.036||95.0|-5.25|-0.17|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.17|-5.25|0.036
95796299|NCT00362232|191562642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.19||||0.012||95.0|-5.67|-0.71|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided).||-0.71|-5.67|0.012
95938605|NCT04509674|191842586|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|0.87||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7654|0.9978|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||0.9978|0.7654|0.0463
95938606|NCT04509674|191842587|OTHER|The statistical model used was a negative binomial model, including factors for treatment and type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates. The log(observation time) was used as an offset variable.|Adjusted event rate ratio|1.06||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35|||Negative binomial regression||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.35|0.83|0.6311
95741265|NCT02997176|191452856|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|202.43||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||202.43|60.91|
95741266|NCT02997176|191452857|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|115.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.95|170.6||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.6|77.95|
95741267|NCT02997176|191452857|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|132.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|213.67||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||213.67|81.87|
95741268|NCT02997176|191452858|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.19|181.66||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||181.66|85.19|
95741269|NCT02997176|191452858|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|113.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|174.07||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||174.07|73.90|
95741270|NCT02997176|191452858|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|95.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|134.83||||||AUC0-24 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.83|67.90|
95741271|NCT02997176|191452859|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.74|170.8||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||170.80|57.74|
95741272|NCT02997176|191452859|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|96.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.22|178.14||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||178.14|52.22|
95741273|NCT02997176|191452859|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|64.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.65|103.46||||||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||103.46|39.65|
95741274|NCT02997176|191452862|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|118.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.81|167.47||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||167.47|83.81|
95796300|NCT00362232|191562643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.456||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.6|-1.34|0.456
95858131|NCT00935584|191673945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
95858132|NCT00935584|191673945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant change in outcome from pre to post visit.||||<0.05
95741275|NCT02997176|191452862|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|108.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.25|160.3||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||160.30|73.25|
95741276|NCT02997176|191452862|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|117.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|162.83||||||AUC0-24u was natural log-transformed and analyzed using ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||162.83|85.29|
95741277|NCT02997176|191452863|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.74|157.64||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||157.64|56.74|
95741278|NCT02997176|191452863|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.69|164.26||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||164.26|51.69|
95993820|NCT01264939|191963429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-4.07||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.07|-7.72|<0.0001
95741279|NCT02997176|191452863|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Percent Ratio of Geometric Means|84.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.14|134.1||||||Cmaxu was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||134.10|53.14|
95741280|NCT02155257|191452886|OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||Regression, Linear|||Interaction between resting pupil diameter and correlation of cognitive-affective style to pain reporting. Note that this analysis is an INTERACTION between the primary outcome of this measure (pupil diameter) to that of the primary outcome measure of cognitive-affective style.||.76|-.39|0.540
95741281|NCT00414726|191452889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van-Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test; ajustments made for baseline NIHSS categories (4-11)(12-20)(\>20).||Subjects were analyzed using an intention to treat approach. All subjects were analyzed at 24 hours. For four subjects missing 24-hour NIHSS scores, the change score was given the highest possible value.||||0.91
95741282|NCT00414726|191452890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used the Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxin rank sum test that adjusts for stratified randomization.||||||0.68
95741283|NCT01630616|191452916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/adults)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.26||||||||1.26|0.62|
95741284|NCT01630616|191452917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
95741285|NCT01630616|191452918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Adolescents/Adults)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
95741286|NCT00687739|191452953|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared the GnRHAG + E2 and GnRHAG + PL groups, pooled across exercise status. It was acknowledged that the inclusion of exercisers could minimize the effects of GnRHAG but would be reflective of the effects of ovarian hormone suppression on sedentary and active women. Differences in changes across time between groups were tested using an analysis of covariance model conditioned on baseline.|||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the effect of PL vs E2 collapsed across exercise (2-group comparison). The analysis of effects of exercise was exploratory (evaluated within-group changes only).||||<0.05
95741287|NCT00687739|191452954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of within-group changes in the E2 and placebo groups for cortisol AUC in response to Dex/CRH and between-group differences in the changes. Within-group changes and between-group differences in changes were evaluated by linear contrast using an ANCOVA model with adjustment for pre-intervention values of outcomes.||||<0.05
95741288|NCT00687739|191452955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis compared the GnRHag+E2 and GnRHag+PL groups, pooled across exercise status. Differences in change over time between groups were tested by using an ANCOVA model, first with treatment group alone, and again adding FM and FFM to the model.||||<0.05
95741289|NCT02542462|191452964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||P value for the number of subjects with an increase of 1 mm or more of terminal ileum from pre to post was 0.2|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.2
95741290|NCT02542462|191452964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||P value for change in the number of subjects with an increase in number of lymph nodes from pre to post was 0.3.|Fisher Exact|||The test is to see a difference among the four groups and the pre to post change of the primary outcomes||||0.3
95858133|NCT00935584|191673946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
95741291|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.03||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.03|0.751|
95741292|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.15||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.843|
95741293|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.02|0.740|
95741294|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.29||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.29|0.888|
95741295|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.05||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.05|0.714|
95741296|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.12||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.12|0.766|
95988702|NCT02171611|191952117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|186.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.659|236.665|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||236.665|147.659|
95988703|NCT02171611|191952117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.221|208.326|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.326|133.221|
95741297|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.19||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.19|0.869|
95741298|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.13||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.13|0.816|
95741299|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.15||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.829|
95741300|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.22||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||1.22|0.878|
95741301|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.11||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||1.11|0.791|
95741302|NCT02842853|191452980|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency was demonstrated across the 3 lots, if, for each pair of lots and each antigen, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs lies between 1/2 and 2.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.15||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.15|0.818|
95741303|NCT02842853|191452981|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.5||||||Serogroup A||23.5|14.8|
95796301|NCT00362232|191562643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.6|-1.34|<0.001
95938607|NCT04509674|191842588|OTHER|The statistical analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, type-2 diabetes at baseline, geographical region, age at baseline, estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at baseline, prior myocardial infarction at baseline, peripheral artery disease at baseline and smoking at baseline as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8124||95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo|||1.31|0.81|0.8124
95988704|NCT02171611|191952118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|181.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.428|226.776|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||226.776|145.428|
95741304|NCT02842853|191452981|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|45.0||||||Serogroup C||45|36.7|
95796302|NCT00362232|191562644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||0.124||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence of the major VTE is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.22|-1.82|0.124
95741305|NCT02842853|191452981|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|21.9||||||Serogroup Y||21.9|14.5|
95938608|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938609|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95796303|NCT00362232|191562644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.82|0.22|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence of the major VTE in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.22|-1.82|<0.001
95988705|NCT02171611|191952118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|166.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.25|207.328|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||207.328|134.25|
95741306|NCT02842853|191452981|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|23.3||||||Serogroup W||23.3|14.9|
95741307|NCT02842853|191452982|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|25.8||||||Serogroup A||25.8|13.5|
95741308|NCT02842853|191452982|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|46.9||||||Serogroup C||46.9|35.0|
95741309|NCT02842853|191452982|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|33.3||||||Serogroup Y||33.3|21.7|
95741310|NCT02842853|191452982|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|32.9||||||Serogroup W||32.9|20.7|
95938610|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938611|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938612|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938613|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938614|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95938615|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
95938616|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95938617|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95938618|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938619|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938620|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938621|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95938622|NCT00875277|191842641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
95938623|NCT01098812|191842668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|25.0|||Primary study endpoint; therefore, no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The planned alpha level for testing was 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Toric IOL results for mean percent reduction in cyl compared to control results at 6 months. Null hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \<= to that of control eyes; alternate hypothesis = mean reduction for toric eyes is \> the control. There is 80% power to detect \>=31% difference in mean percent reduction in cylinder (postoperative refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder)/(target refractive cylinder minus preoperative keratometric cylinder) between IOL groups.|||25|<0.0001
95938624|NCT01098812|191842669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0009|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.03||P-value compared to alpha level adjusted for multiplicity of 0.0125.|t-test, 1 sided|||Used LogMAR values for visual acuity; The null hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is worse than or equal to that for control eyes; the alternate hypothesis is that the mean UCDVA for toric eyes is better than that for control eyes. There is 80% power to detect \>=0.06 LogMAR difference in mean UCDVA between IOL groups.||-0.03||0.0009
95741311|NCT02842853|191452983|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.9||||||Serogroup A||24.9|12.5|
95741312|NCT02842853|191452983|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.6|48.0||||||Serogroup C||48.0|36.6|
95741313|NCT02842853|191452983|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|14.5||||||Serogroup Y||14.5|6.18|
95938625|NCT02319759|191842670|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|25.3|<0.001
95938626|NCT02319759|191842671|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%) Difference|66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|78.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.4|53.8|<0.001
95938627|NCT02319759|191842672|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.148|||MMRM|MMRM stands for Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures||||-0.148|-0.471|<0.001
95938628|NCT05403827|191842714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5019|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5019
95938629|NCT05403827|191842715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2028|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2028
95938630|NCT05403827|191842716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1914|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.1914
95938631|NCT05403827|191842717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2512|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.2512
95938632|NCT05403827|191842718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7906|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.7906
95938633|NCT05403827|191842719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5343|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.5343
95741314|NCT02842853|191452983|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference is \> -10% for all serogroups.|Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|18.2||||||Serogroup W||18.2|7.22|
95741315|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.16||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||-1.16|-9.59|
95741316|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.01||||||Serogroup A: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||7.01|-1.3|
95741317|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|1.74||||||Serogroup A: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||1.74|-6.78|
95741318|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.28||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.28|-1.58|
95796304|NCT00362232|191562645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.59|0.66|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.59|
95741319|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.54||||||Serogroup C: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.54|-0.740|
95796305|NCT00362232|191562646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72||||||95.0|-1.81|0.36|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.36|-1.81|
95938634|NCT05403827|191842720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3757|||||||Control-Based Mean Imputation|||||||0.3757
95938635|NCT03381196|191842762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0216
95938636|NCT01987895|191842771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||4.3|-7.2|
95988706|NCT02171611|191952119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.727|229.297|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.297|144.727|
95741320|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|6.79||||||Serogroup C: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.79|0.708|
95741321|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.07||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||3.07|-2.14|
95741322|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|4.79||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||4.79|-0.763|
95741323|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|5.2||||||Serogroup Y: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||5.20|-0.248|
95741324|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.54||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 2||4.54|-3.00|
95741325|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.89||||||Serogroup W: Lot 2 vs Lot 3||5.89|-1.84|
95741326|NCT02842853|191452984|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.61||||||Serogroup W: Lot 1 vs Lot 3||6.61|-1.02|
95741327|NCT02842853|191452985|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.24||||||Serogroup A||2.24|1.67|
95741328|NCT02842853|191452985|OTHER||GMT Ratio|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|9.84||||||Serogroup C||9.84|6.58|
95741329|NCT02842853|191452985|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|3.84||||||Serogroup Y||3.84|2.71|
95741330|NCT02842853|191452985|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.24||||||Serogroup W||2.24|1.61|
95741331|NCT06078501|191452987|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.695
95741332|NCT06078501|191452988|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.||||||0.91
95741333|NCT06078501|191452989|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95741334|NCT06078501|191452990|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95741335|NCT06078501|191452991|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
95741336|NCT06078501|191452992|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.887
95741337|NCT06078501|191452994|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95796306|NCT00362232|191562647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38||||||95.0|-4.84|0.07|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.07|-4.84|
95796307|NCT00362232|191562648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.67||||||95.0|-5.02|-0.32|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||-0.32|-5.02|
95796308|NCT00362232|191562649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24||||||95.0|-0.22|0.71|||||Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|||0.71|-0.22|
95796309|NCT00362232|191562650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||||95.0|-0.35|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.35|
95796310|NCT00362232|191562651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.56|0.94|||||Exact methods for difference to Enoxaparin|||0.94|-1.56|
95938637|NCT01987895|191842771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||3.2|-8.1|
95938638|NCT01987895|191842772|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%.|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.0|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||1.0|-9.2|
95938639|NCT01987895|191842773|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.8|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.8|-4.3|
95741338|NCT06078501|191452995|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||1.0
95741339|NCT06078501|191452996|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95741340|NCT03317444|191453029|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|48.9|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||48.9|23.5|< 0.0001
95741341|NCT03317444|191453029|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|46.8|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||46.8|21.2|< 0.0001
95796311|NCT00362232|191562652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47||||0.054||95.0|-4.99|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.04|-4.99|0.054
95938640|NCT01987895|191842774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.80|0.6016
95938641|NCT01987895|191842775|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.002||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.20|-0.20|0.9814
95938642|NCT01987895|191842775|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.087||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.25|-0.07|0.2879
95938643|NCT01987895|191842775|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the systemic / other symptoms domain scores||0.19|-0.09|0.4880
95938644|NCT01987895|191842776|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.9|-6.5|
95938645|NCT01987895|191842777|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||2.3|-6.2|
95938646|NCT01987895|191842778|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||10.7|-3.4|
95938647|NCT01987895|191842779|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.7|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||8.7|-6.5|
95938648|NCT04971681|191842781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.27
95938649|NCT04971681|191842782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
95741342|NCT03317444|191453029|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|45.6|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||45.6|19.7|< 0.0001
95741343|NCT03317444|191453030|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.5|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.5|1.77|< 0.0001
95741344|NCT01919112|191453041|OTHER|Regression models using interaction terms will used to assess for heterogeneity of intervention effects across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract (CBT)-lesion load, a combined measure of lesion size and location. For purposes of the analysis, the CBT-lesion load was dichotomized into 2 groups based on the median CBT-lesion load volume.||||||0.116||||||Interaction p-values will be considered statistically significant at the 0.15 level of significance given the relatively low power for tests of interaction to detect a true interaction.|2-way analysis of variance with interact|The tDCS intervention was the main variable of interest, PAS score the main outcome and CBT-lesion load was the interaction term used.||The aim for this analysis was to assess for effect modification of the trial intervention across the novel radiological variable corticobulbar tract-lesion load.||||0.116
95741345|NCT00835666|191453065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5||||||90.0|92.6|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|92.6|
95796312|NCT00362232|191562652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.49|0.04|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.04|-4.49|<0.001
95938650|NCT00686335|191842783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.2||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.|Other|As this was an explorative study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||As this was an explorative study to collect data for a subsequent controlled study, no hypothesis testing was performed. All analyses were descriptive.||-2.2|-13.5|
95938651|NCT03798093|191842789|SUPERIORITY||least squares|-0.112||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||||1.7|-29.3|0.08
95950139|NCT03034863|191872286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
95858134|NCT00935584|191673946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis states that there is no significant change in outcome from pre-intervention clinical visit (baseline) to post-intervention clinic visit.||||<0.05
95858135|NCT02129699|191673948|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model for treatment effect, analysis adjusted for stratification factors||||1.19|0.78|0.355
95858136|NCT02129699|191673949|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.82|0.459
95858137|NCT01285557|191673980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||Unstratified Log-rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.28|0.76|0.9312
95858138|NCT01285557|191673981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.14|0.65|0.3039
95858139|NCT01285557|191673982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||S-1+Cisplatin and 5FU+Cisplatin were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox's regression approach and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates along with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimates.||1.08|0.66|0.1683
95858140|NCT04701762|191674021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.14|0.29|||GLM cumulative logit GEE model|||||0.29|0.14|<0.001
95858141|NCT04701762|191674022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.03|0.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.14|0.03|<0.001
95858142|NCT04701762|191674023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.32|0.48|1.58|||GLM log-binomial model (log link)|||||1.58|0.48|0.53
95858143|NCT04701762|191674024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.92|<0.001
95858144|NCT04701762|191674025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-0.34|0.27
95858145|NCT05786651|191674027|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95858146|NCT05786651|191674028|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons of mean values of conditions|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95858147|NCT02855125|191674029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model .|||1.88|0.71|0.2744
95858148|NCT02855125|191674030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.14|||Log Rank|1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Based on stratified Cox regression model.|||2.14|0.80|0.1431
95858149|NCT02153632|191674059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-10.5|0.031
95858150|NCT02153632|191674059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-11.5|0.011
95858151|NCT01136980|191674071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.028
95858152|NCT02605122|191674086|OTHER||Proportion experiencing TEAE or TESAE|34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|47.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||47|23|
95858153|NCT02605122|191674087|OTHER||Achievement of ECR|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|74.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||74|49|
95858154|NCT02605122|191674088|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Improvement|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|78.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson analysis was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||78|58|
95858155|NCT02605122|191674089|OTHER||Achievement of Clinical Cure|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|73.0||No p-value was performed. Study prematurely discontinued. Clopper-Pearson was used to determine confidence intervals.|Clopper-Pearson|||||73|50|
95858156|NCT03751657|191674099|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.18||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.02|-0.38|0.0818
95858157|NCT03751657|191674113|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.97||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using a linear MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and treatment, region, use of DPP-4 inhibitor and visit as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.Furthermore, the model includes the interaction between visit and all explanatory variables.||0.25|-4.19|0.0818
95858158|NCT00990704|191674115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms in percentage|13.6||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|49.63|||Fisher Exact|||||49.63|-22.36|0.518
95858159|NCT04603027|191674123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|7.12||||||||7.12|-20.28|
95858160|NCT04603027|191674123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|5.04||||||||5.04|-22.07|
95858161|NCT04603027|191674123|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|4.65||||||||4.65|-23.22|
95858162|NCT04603027|191674124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|9.9||||||||9.90|-13.91|
95858163|NCT04603027|191674124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|8.52||||||||8.52|-15.21|
95858164|NCT04603027|191674124|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|11.53||||||||11.53|-12.33|
95858165|NCT04603027|191674125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.46||||||||0.46|-1.88|
95858166|NCT04603027|191674125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.82|
95858167|NCT04603027|191674125|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.05|
95858168|NCT04603027|191674126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.94||||||||6.94|1.01|
95858169|NCT04603027|191674126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.37||||||||7.37|1.17|
95988707|NCT02171611|191952119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|160.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.633|199.306|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||199.306|129.633|
95988708|NCT02171611|191952120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|182.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.993|229.075|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T1) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||229.075|144.993|
95988709|NCT02171611|191952120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means in %|164.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.421|203.14|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio of the gMean of Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (T2) divided by Dabigatran etexilate 150 mg (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra individual gCV.|An Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used on the logarithmic scale in order to compare the Test treatment vs. the Reference treatment. This model included effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||203.14|132.421|
95988710|NCT04417894|191952159|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.0030
95988711|NCT04417894|191952160|SUPERIORITY||Difference|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|53.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||||53.15|24.06|<0.0001
95938652|NCT03097549|191842869|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of mean scores using a linear mixed model, incorporating baseline data and accounting for all available data. Sample size calculation: We anticipated ICIQ-UI SF improvements of 2.5 points in the treatment group and 0.9 points in the information group. Detecting this difference with 80% power, a two-sided test, and a significance level of P\<.05 would require a sample size of 49 in each group. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, we needed approximately 60 participants in each group.||-1.3|-4.8|0.001
95938653|NCT03097549|191842870|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-6.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-2.1|-10.5|0.004
95938654|NCT03097549|191842871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of urinary leakage episodes between the treatment app users and the information app users at follow-up.~ITT analysis. Missing data: 5 participants in the treatment group and 2 participants in the information group had a missing value at follow-up, and for those, the difference was set to 0 (ie, no change)."||||<0.001
95938655|NCT03097549|191842872|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
95938656|NCT03097549|191842873|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.6||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in score between the treatment group and the information group at follow-up.||-0.3|-2.8|0.016
95938657|NCT03097549|191842874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in usage between treatment group and information group at follow-up.||||0.01
95938658|NCT03097549|191842875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in improvement between the treatment group and the information group att follow-up.||||<0.001
95938659|NCT02301910|191842888|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation was carried out taking into account the power of 80%||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
95938660|NCT05089019|191842904|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.81|0.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean||||0.976|0.810|
95938661|NCT05089019|191842905|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.882|0.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.975|0.882|
95938662|NCT05089019|191842906|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% to 125%|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|94.12|0.834|0.951|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.951|0.834|
95938663|NCT03808818|191842909|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22%|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.13||No correction for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||"For self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power. Subsequent analyses will use a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using with an estimated control rate of 31%.~The primary analysis will be performed from an intent-to-treat perspective. Chi-square tests will be used to compare the outcomes between treatment groups."||4.13|1.28|0.0046
95938664|NCT03808818|191842910|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 22% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 28%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.33|||Chi-squared|||7-day point prevalence abstinence at 3-months, with a sample size of 140 in each arm then smallest detectable difference will be 18% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 using and an estimated control rate of 20%||3.33|1.04|0.035
95988712|NCT03485820|191952203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|9.6||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||9.6|-7.1|0.76
95858170|NCT04603027|191674126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.7||||||||4.70|0.63|
95796313|NCT00362232|191562653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97||||0.017||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||-0.53|-5.42|0.017
95858171|NCT04603027|191674127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.100
95858172|NCT04603027|191674127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.034
95858173|NCT04603027|191674127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||nonparametric survival analysis|Method used was a nonparametric survival analysis for interval censored data||||||0.094
95858174|NCT04603027|191674131|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.96||||||||10.96|0.45|
95858175|NCT04603027|191674131|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.78||||||||8.78|0.42|
95858176|NCT04603027|191674131|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Odds Ratio|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|9.51||||||||9.51|0.46|
95858177|NCT04603027|191674132|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
95858178|NCT04603027|191674132|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
95858179|NCT04603027|191674132|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||There were not enough responders to model using GLMM or a Bayesian logistic model, and no treatment difference analysis was conducted.|||
95858180|NCT04603027|191674133|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
95858181|NCT04603027|191674133|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
95858182|NCT04603027|191674133|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
95858183|NCT04603027|191674134|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
95858184|NCT04603027|191674134|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
95858185|NCT04603027|191674134|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
95858186|NCT04603027|191674135|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.22|12.4||||||||12.40|-30.22|
95858187|NCT04603027|191674135|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.41|18.15||||||||18.15|-23.41|
95858188|NCT04603027|191674135|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|3.25||||||||3.25|-38.29|
95858189|NCT04603027|191674136|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.52||||||||1.52|-6.79|
95858190|NCT04603027|191674136|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.16||||||||3.16|-4.70|
95858191|NCT04603027|191674136|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|0.63||||||||0.63|-7.49|
95858192|NCT04603027|191674137|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|28.84||||||||28.84|-19.99|
95858193|NCT04603027|191674137|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|21.55||||||||21.55|-26.47|
95858194|NCT04603027|191674137|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|36.92||||||||36.92|-12.03|
95858195|NCT04603027|191674138|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
95858196|NCT04603027|191674138|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
95858197|NCT04603027|191674138|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
95858198|NCT04603027|191674139|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.62|73.35||||||||73.35|-50.62|
95858199|NCT04603027|191674139|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|73.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.69|126.92||||||||126.92|21.69|
95858200|NCT04603027|191674139|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.58|56.81||||||||56.81|-44.58|
95858201|NCT04603027|191674140|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||||2.30|-1.10|
95858202|NCT04603027|191674140|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.37||||||||1.37|-1.96|
95858203|NCT04603027|191674140|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.75||||||||1.75|-1.73|
95858204|NCT03894813|191674144|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95858205|NCT03894813|191674145|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95858206|NCT03894813|191674146|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95858207|NCT03894813|191674147|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95859664|NCT01032889|191677264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.16|-0.77|0.003
95741346|NCT00835666|191453066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.2||||||90.0|94.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.7|
95741347|NCT00835666|191453067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.4||||||90.0|94.9|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.9|
95741348|NCT00985439|191453124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.195|16.619|||ANCOVA|||||16.619|6.195|<0.001
95988713|NCT03485820|191952204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.0||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||5.0|-8.6|0.60
95988714|NCT03485820|191952205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.05|-0.06|0.83
95988715|NCT03485820|191952206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression , number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.77|0.01|0.046
95741349|NCT02960295|191453129|OTHER|There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.||||||||||||||||In this interventional study the number of glucose checks per patient per day was calculated as stated above. There was no comparison group and no test of statistical significance.|This is a simple calculation of the mean (sd) of the number of glucose checks per pt per day|||
95741350|NCT02960295|191453130|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation (r)|||||||<0.05
95858208|NCT03894813|191674148|NON_INFERIORITY|The relevant parameters were determined as follows: test level α=0.05, test power 1-β=0.80, Pt=0.90, Pc=0.75, Nt:Nc=1:1, boundary value Δ= -0.0.068 (excellent), and Fisher's exact test. As a result, the sample size of each group was calculated as 50 patients, 100 patients in total. Considering a loss to follow-up rate of 20%, a sample size of 120 patients was finally determined, with 60 patients in each group.|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95858209|NCT02656693|191674154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00017
95858210|NCT02656693|191674156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95858211|NCT02656693|191674158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95858212|NCT02656693|191674159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95858213|NCT02656693|191674161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95858214|NCT02656693|191674162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95858215|NCT02656693|191674163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95858216|NCT02656693|191674164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95858217|NCT02656693|191674165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
95858218|NCT02656693|191674166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95858219|NCT02656693|191674167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95858220|NCT02656693|191674168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
95741351|NCT02960295|191453130|OTHER|This is an observational study|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
95741352|NCT02960295|191453130|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson correlation coefficient (r)|||||||<0.05
95741353|NCT00924638|191453146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.7|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||21.7|1.9|0.0006
95741354|NCT00924638|191453147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that Continuous Monitoring is superior to Control in detecting AF.|||20.8|2.6|<0.0001
95858221|NCT02656693|191674169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95858222|NCT02656693|191674170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95858223|NCT02656693|191674171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95858224|NCT02656693|191674172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95858225|NCT02656693|191674173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95858226|NCT02656693|191674174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
95858227|NCT02656693|191674175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95858228|NCT02656693|191674176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95858229|NCT02656693|191674177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
95858230|NCT02656693|191674178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
95858231|NCT02656693|191674179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95741355|NCT00924638|191453148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of recurrent stroke or TIA is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||1.32|0.35|0.25
95741356|NCT00924638|191453149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.8|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the OAC drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||14.8|2.8|
95938665|NCT03808818|191842911|EQUIVALENCE|the smallest detectable difference will be 21% with 80% power and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%.||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||power calculations assumed a sample size of 140 in each arm and a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.002 and an estimated control rate of 20%||||0.016
95938666|NCT03808818|191842913|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
95938667|NCT03808818|191842914|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
95938668|NCT03808818|191842926|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
95938669|NCT03808818|191842927|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
95938670|NCT03808818|191842928|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
95938671|NCT03808818|191842930|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin|||||<|0.0001||||||Alpha level 0.01|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to assess the differences between the VST and EUC arms on the 6-month questionnaire.||||<.0001
95938672|NCT05415722|191842931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.178|3.406|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||3.406|-26.178|0.1303
95741357|NCT00924638|191453150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||||A difference of greater than 0 means that a higher percentage of subjects in the Continuous Monitoring arm were using the anti-arrhythmic drugs at the 12 months visit compared to the Control arm.|||3.1|-2.3|
95741358|NCT00924638|191453151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95938673|NCT05415722|191842931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.924||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.14|-7.799|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||-7.799|-39.140|0.0036
95938674|NCT05415722|191842931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.545|-25.064|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-25.064|-56.545|<0.0001
95938675|NCT05415722|191842932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.17|9.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 1 compared to Placebo||9.39|-73.17|0.1289
95938676|NCT05415722|191842932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.65||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.08|13.58|||ANCOVA|||Arm 2 compared to Placebo||13.58|-72.08|0.1790
95938677|NCT05415722|191842932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.96||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|-32.23|||ANCOVA|||Arm 3 compared to Placebo||-32.23|-119.08|0.0008
95741359|NCT00924638|191453152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \< 1 indicates that the incidence rate of cardiovascular or stroke/TIA related hospitalization is lower in the Continuous Monitoring arm compared to the Control arm.|||2.60|0.73|0.33
95741360|NCT00367133|191453154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P values for two group comparisons for difference in mean change.||||0.02
95938678|NCT05415722|191842933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.895||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.352|-1.128|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-1.128|-32.352|0.0358
95938679|NCT05415722|191842933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.858|-28.612|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-28.612|-58.858|<0.0001
95938680|NCT05415722|191842934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.09||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.33|-18.96|||ANCOVA|||Arm 4 compared to Placebo||-18.96|-106.33|0.0053
95938681|NCT05415722|191842934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.13||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.97|-27.39|||ANCOVA|||Arm 5 compared to Placebo||-27.39|-110.97|0.0014
95938682|NCT03524612|191842936|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper Pearson test|||||||<0.0001
95938683|NCT03994653|191843057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.12|||Fisher Exact|||"Fishers exact test, conducted at each month prior to diagnosis comparing total purchases of relevant products (pain and indigestion medication) compared with all purchases in both cases and controls.~Power calculation: we used a power calculation assuming the Fisher Exact Test to calculate the minimum group size to detect a difference in purchase proportions that we hypothesised with 80% statistical power."||4.12|2.07|<0.001
95950140|NCT03034863|191872287|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.69
95950141|NCT03034863|191872288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||All p-values are two-tailed|Fisher Exact|Compares veterans who reported 1+ attempts at any follow-up wave out of total number of veterans in each group (i.e., 0/19 for SAFER; 2/20 for I-SPI).||||||.49
95950142|NCT03034863|191872289|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
95741361|NCT00367133|191453154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.002
95741362|NCT00367133|191453154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Adjusted for baseline visual acuity and prior photocoagulation; Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes||P Values for 2 group comparisons of difference in mean change||||0.49
95938684|NCT05228457|191843110|SUPERIORITY|13 participants were randomized to receive active TMS, and 13 were randomized to receive sham TMS. 1 participant from each group withdrew, resulting in their exclusion from the analysis. Therefore, 24 participants were randomized to active (n = 12) or sham (n = 12) aiTBS groups. The analysis examined MADRS scores measured at baseline and post-treatment. A priori hypotheses were that active aiTBS would demonstrate measurable differences in MADRS scores compared to the sham group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-9.56|||t-test, 2 sided||The primary outcome was the between-group (Active vs Sham) difference in MADRS scores at the end of the treatment period. Results, including mean scores, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and p-value for the between-group comparisons.|||-9.56|-19.94|<0.001
95938685|NCT05228457|191843111|SUPERIORITY||Z-transformed Pearson's r values|-0.014||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Z-transformed Pearson's r values of average voxel-wise connectivity within the DMN||||0.04
95938686|NCT04382664|191843112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.309|||Regression, Cox|||||1.309|0.694|0.845
95938687|NCT03492216|191843132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for non-hazardous alcohol use, alcohol incentive groups compared to no alcohol incentive groups. logistic regression model adjusted for INH incentive arm, participant sex, and study site.|||12.5|2.7|0.0025
95938688|NCT03492216|191843133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk difference for \>90% INH adherence, INH incentive group compared to no INH incentives. logistic regression model adjusted for alcohol incentive arm, participant sex and study site.|||6.5|-7.0|0.9435
95938689|NCT03492216|191843136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.9|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 2 (escalating incentives; EtG tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||1.9|-6.8|0.26
95938690|NCT03492216|191843136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.1|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 3 (escalating incentives; IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.1|-2.8|0.70
95938691|NCT03492216|191843136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic||adjusted risk different for HIV viral suppression at 12 months, Arm 4 (escalating incentives; EtG and IsoScreen tests) compared to Arm 1 (control); logistic regression model adjusted for randomization arm, participant sex, and study site.|||4.5|-1.9|0.42
95938692|NCT04541147|191843178|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the number of doses in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-2.9|0.16
95938693|NCT04541147|191843179|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the average pain score in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-1.8|0.56
95938694|NCT04541147|191843180|EQUIVALENCE|Test if the Number of participants with post-operative complications in Dexamethasone Plus Analgesics group differs from that in Analgesics Alone group at a significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.36|||Fisher Exact|||||0.36|-0.22|1.00
95938695|NCT05851573|191843233|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||< .05
95938696|NCT05851573|191843234|OTHER||||||=|0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||= .775
95938697|NCT05851573|191843235|OTHER||||||=|0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .444
95938698|NCT05851573|191843236|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.959
95938699|NCT05851573|191843237|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 9||||||.068
95938700|NCT05851573|191843238|OTHER||||||=|0.119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .119
95938701|NCT05851573|191843239|OTHER||||||=|0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .258
95741363|NCT00367133|191453157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.03
95741364|NCT00367133|191453157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.01
95741365|NCT00367133|191453157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Hochberg procedure used to determine statistical significance.||Proportion with 15-letter or more worsening||||0.82
95741366|NCT00367133|191453158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
95938702|NCT05851573|191843240|OTHER||||||=|0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 10||||||= .593
95938703|NCT04473222|191843275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.026
95938704|NCT04473222|191843276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The logit represents the difference in log odds per 1-week change in time for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.032
95938705|NCT04473222|191843277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||.010
95938706|NCT04473222|191843278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.161
95938707|NCT04473222|191843279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.006
95938708|NCT04473222|191843280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.045
95938709|NCT04473222|191843281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.685
95938710|NCT04473222|191843282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.734
95938711|NCT04473222|191843283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.019
95938712|NCT04473222|191843284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimate represents the differential change in slope per week for the intervention group relative to enhanced usual care.|||||0.776
95938713|NCT01369355|191843297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.040
95938714|NCT01369355|191843297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.005
95938715|NCT01369355|191843298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.033
95938716|NCT01369355|191843298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.018
95858232|NCT01399372|191674183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|Sample size of 89 provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 at a one-sided alpha level of 0.15.||0.95|0.27|0.015
95858233|NCT01399372|191674184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Chemotherapy|||1.58|0.38|0.48
95858234|NCT01399372|191674186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model of EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS was run with independent variables treatment arm, time, baseline Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) class, and baseline neurologic symptoms (none/minor vs. moderate/severe), including the interaction of treatment and time, representing difference in the longitudinal trajectory of the scores between the treatment arms. Prospectively, the interaction effect was of most interest and is reported here,||||0.005
95858235|NCT01399372|191674187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.31|||Gray's test||Reference arm = Chemotherapy arm|||1.31|0.21|0.18
95858236|NCT03284307|191674203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Dexmedetomidine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.012
95858237|NCT03284307|191674203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Ketamine, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.236
95858238|NCT03284307|191674203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.174|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Propofol, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.174
95858239|NCT03284307|191674203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is a slope from a linear mixed effects model representing the difference in occipital delta power between unconsciousness and disconnected consciousness after adjusting for within-subject effects.|Sleep, Unconsciousness vs Disconnected Consciousness||||0.640
95858240|NCT03284307|191674205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.134
95858241|NCT03284307|191674205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.012
95858242|NCT03284307|191674205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1 degree of freedom||NIH Toolbox Card Sorting Score||||0.487
95858243|NCT03284307|191674205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|3 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.046
95858244|NCT03284307|191674205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|6 degrees of freedom||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.010
95858245|NCT03284307|191674205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||NIH Toolbox Flanker Score||||0.356
95741367|NCT00367133|191453158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
95741368|NCT00367133|191453158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures Model. Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.91
95741369|NCT00367133|191453160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
95938717|NCT01369355|191843299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.189
95938718|NCT01369355|191843299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.007
95938719|NCT01369355|191843300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.035
95938720|NCT01369355|191843300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission at Week 0, ustekinumab induction dose and the induction study.||||||0.004
95938721|NCT01369355|191843301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.140
95938722|NCT01369355|191843301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2 sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and ustekinumab induction dose.||||||0.102
95938723|NCT04213872|191843310|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCI 25.4 (14.2) 17.3 (10.5) \*-8.1 (3.7) .01~\*reduction in scores indicate improvement."||||.01
95858246|NCT03284307|191674206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
95938724|NCT04213872|191843311|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogPCA 16.0 (5.1) 19.2 (5.3) 3.2 (0.2) .03||||.03
95938725|NCT04213872|191843312|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogQOL 3.7 (3.8) 1.8 (2.2) \*-1.9 (1.6) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
95938726|NCT04213872|191843313|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value CogOth 1.5 (2.1) 0.2 (0.4) \*-1.3 (1.7) .04~\*lower scores signifying better outcomes."||||.04
95938727|NCT04213872|191843314|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value WAIS-III Letter/Number 10.7 (3.2) 12.7 (2.8) 2.0 (0.4) .01||||.01
95938728|NCT04213872|191843315|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value~WAIS-III Digit Span Forward and Backward 19.2 (4.8) 19.7 (4.4) 0.5 (0.4) .60"||||.60
95938729|NCT04213872|191843316|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value PSQI 1.5 (0.8) 0.9 (0.7) \*-0.6 (0.1) .03~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.03
95938730|NCT04213872|191843317|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Anxiety 9.2 (7.7) 4.2 (3.7) \*-5.0 (4.0) .05~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.05
95938731|NCT04213872|191843318|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value POMS Depression 4.1 (4.9) 2.0 (3.0) \*-2.1 (1.9) .08~\*Lower scores mean better outcomes."||||.08
95938732|NCT04213872|191843319|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value BDNF 0.11 (0.9) 0.30 (0.7) 0.19 (0.2) .30~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.30
95741370|NCT00367133|191453160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
95741371|NCT00367133|191453160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||0.60
95741372|NCT00367133|191453161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Values not adjusted for multiple comparisons||||<0.001
95741373|NCT00367133|191453161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||<0.001
95858247|NCT03284307|191674206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|14 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||<0.001
95858248|NCT03284307|191674206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Predictive Coding Task Accuracy||||0.067
95858249|NCT03284307|191674207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|17 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.5
95938733|NCT04213872|191843320|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value NF-kB1 171.7 (25.4) 173.7 (21.6) 2.0 (3.8) .80~Higher scores mean better outcomes."||||.80
95938734|NCT04213872|191843321|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Measure Pre-MM mean (sd) Post-MM mean (sd) Pre/Post MM mean (sd) difference P-Value TP53 12.3 (2.7) 13.1 (5.5) 0.8 (2.8) .61||||.61
95938735|NCT03339713|191843322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Michigan strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.11|0.55|<.001
95938736|NCT03339713|191843322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||A/Hong Kong strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.12|0.59|<.001
95938737|NCT03339713|191843322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Brisbane strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.34|0.77|<.001
95938738|NCT03339713|191843322|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after the administration of influenza vaccine, using a non-inferiority margin of 2 for the GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.36|||t-test, 1 sided|||B/Phuket strain: Based on Welch-Satterthwaite t-interval method. The difference (Group 2 minus Group 1) and CI in log-transformed HI antibody titers were calculated for each of the 4 influenza vaccine strains, and were back-transformed (by exponentiation) to a GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 1) and the corresponding CI.||1.36|0.76|<.001
95938739|NCT01715285|191843332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.55|||Log Rank|||||0.550|0.394|<0.0001
95938740|NCT01715285|191843333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.775|||Log Rank|||||0.775|0.564|< 0.0001
95938741|NCT05364671|191843361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.04|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
95938742|NCT05364671|191843362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set to 0.005|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.0025
95938743|NCT05364671|191843364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean differences (Raphamin vs. Placebo) were compared||||0.2607
95938744|NCT05364671|191843365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 6 row."||||0.7601
95938745|NCT05364671|191843365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7685|||||||Fisher Exact|||"This analysis applies to Day 10 row."||||0.7685
95938746|NCT05364671|191843366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.052
95938747|NCT05364671|191843367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
95938748|NCT05364671|191843368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
95938749|NCT05364671|191843369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
95938750|NCT05364671|191843370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.92
95938751|NCT05364671|191843371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.44
95938752|NCT05364671|191843372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SpO2 from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.90
95938753|NCT05364671|191843373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of SBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.30
95938754|NCT05364671|191843373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of DBP from Visit 1 to 4 between Raphamin and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.94
95938755|NCT06019559|191843490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||||||0.0756
95938756|NCT06019559|191843490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|(MMRM) model with gender, treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||For the primary endpoint of percentage change from baseline in body weight, a sample size of 150 participants (stratified by gender and randomized 1:1:1 into three treatment arms) provided \>95% power to detect a treatment difference of 4% weight reduction after 13 weeks of treatment with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 4% and 20% drop out.||||0.0008
95938757|NCT06019559|191843491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8366||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.8366
95938758|NCT06019559|191843491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1848||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1848
95938759|NCT06019559|191843492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0616
95988716|NCT03485820|191952207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.96||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.96|0.08|0.02
95988717|NCT03485820|191952208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|0.8||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Between group differences in changes over time (COMPASS vs Education program)|A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time, group and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for race, marital status, living situation, depression, number of days in inpatient rehabilitation, and baseline calendar time.||0.8|-21.9|0.07
95988718|NCT02043548|191952209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||GEE|||||||0.86
95988719|NCT02043548|191952210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.77
95988720|NCT02043548|191952211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||binomial test|||||||0.40
95988721|NCT02043548|191952212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95988722|NCT02043548|191952213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||GEE|||||||0.78
95988723|NCT02043548|191952213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95988724|NCT00507559|191952216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is compared to a historical control group, in which 11.1% of subjects experienced one or more MAE within 30 days.||||<0.001
95858250|NCT03284307|191674207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|11 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.37
95988725|NCT00313209|191952238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|27|<0.0001
95988726|NCT00313209|191952239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|82.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||82|38|<0.0001
95988727|NCT00313209|191952240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.08||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.08|0.58|0.1408
95988728|NCT00313209|191952241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.4|-0.2|0.4654
95988729|NCT00313209|191952242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||2.2|-1.2|0.5457
95988730|NCT02926950|191952243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.309|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.309|-0.64|< 0.0001
95741374|NCT00367133|191453161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||GEE Repeated Measures|Accounted for correlated data from subjects with 2 study eyes; included baseline central subfield thickness as a covariate.||P Value not adjusted for statistical analysis||||0.55
95938760|NCT06019559|191843492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
95938761|NCT04282148|191843497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test using Kaplan Meier survival estim|||||||<0.0001
95938762|NCT01743807|191843503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95938763|NCT01814813|191843555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
95938764|NCT01814813|191843556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
95938765|NCT01814813|191843557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95938766|NCT03344094|191843572|OTHER|changes in subsets paired and unpaired t-tests, ANOVA||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95938767|NCT03858634|191843579|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.68|2.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.17|-8.68|0.3980
95938768|NCT03858634|191843579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|1.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.09|-2.17|0.6653
95938769|NCT03858634|191843579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|-3.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-11.63|0.0711
95938770|NCT03858634|191843579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.7|-1.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-4.70|0.0186
95938771|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.52|16.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||16.84|-31.52|0.6533
95741375|NCT01124786|191453200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||<|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.326|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and confidence interval presented above, so parameter dispersion not indicated in standard deviation field directly above.|If the median Overall Survival (OS) for the CO-1.01-treated patients is 7.7 months and the median OS for gemcitabine-treated patients with hENT1-low status is 4 months (hazard ratio of 0.53), then a total of 144 events of death in the hENT1-low subgroup will provide over 90% power at a 0.05 (2 sided) significance level for the comparison of CO-1.01 to gemcitabine in the hENT1-low patients.||1.326|0.746|<0.973
95741376|NCT02003391|191453245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6191|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.8503|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8503||<0.0001
95741377|NCT03105297|191453325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||95.0||||p-value for comparing between treatments (strip/no strip) were computed from mixed models with treatment \& period as fixed effects, participants as random effects \& time as repeated measures effect.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0147
95741378|NCT03105297|191453326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95741379|NCT03105297|191453327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95741380|NCT03105297|191453328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||p-values are from a one sample t-test using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) UNIVARIATE on change from baseline.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0073
95938772|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.16|12.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||12.69|-15.16|0.9077
95741381|NCT02153645|191453351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-13.9|0.179
95741382|NCT02153645|191453351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-11.2|0.458
95741383|NCT01894230|191453363|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.0189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3986||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.96
95741384|NCT01894230|191453363|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.2468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4315||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
95858251|NCT03284307|191674207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance defined by p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|4 degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis is a 50% recall rate.||||0.12
95741385|NCT01894230|191453364|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0482
95741386|NCT01894230|191453364|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
95741387|NCT01894230|191453365|EQUIVALENCE|MPR calculated from baseline to last patient follow-up (3 months or 8 months)|Slope|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6692|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6692
95741388|NCT01894230|191453366|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline to Month 3|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.025||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|3.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.929|1.043|0.0371
95741389|NCT01894230|191453366|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 to Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.8815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.687|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.687|0.265|0.8815
95741390|NCT01894230|191453367|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5965
95741391|NCT01894230|191453367|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.4579|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4579
95741392|NCT01894230|191453368|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.5477|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5477
95741393|NCT01894230|191453368|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0429
95741394|NCT01894230|191453369|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.8106|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8106
95858252|NCT02223702|191674218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Friedman Test|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
95858253|NCT02223702|191674219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|All rows were compared to eachother||||||<0.01
95858254|NCT03249116|191674245|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.33||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: self-reported anxiety between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.723
95858255|NCT03249116|191674246|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.34||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: electrodermal activity between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.271
95858256|NCT03249116|191674247|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.45||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: heart rate between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety within-subjects factor: time||||||.638
95858257|NCT03249116|191674248|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.14||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: number of errors between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.868
95741395|NCT01894230|191453369|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.5233|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5233
95741396|NCT01894230|191453370|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3|Slope|-0.6001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.472||0.6841|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6841
95741397|NCT01894230|191453370|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Slope|-0.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.6658|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6658
95741398|NCT01894230|191453371|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal Logistic||||2.380|0.495|0.8384
95741399|NCT01894230|191453372|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3 BMQ Necessity|Slope|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0486|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0486
95741400|NCT01894230|191453372|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Necessity|Slope|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7235|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7235
95741401|NCT01894230|191453372|EQUIVALENCE|Month 3, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.2113|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2113
95741402|NCT01894230|191453372|EQUIVALENCE|Month 8, BMQ Concerns|Slope|-1.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1739
95858258|NCT03249116|191674249|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.21||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|ANOVA|dependent variable: lowest number reached/highest number of correct responses between-subjects factors: condition, social anxiety||||||.809
95988731|NCT02926950|191952244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0538|-1.0909|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline 2- hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-1.0909|-2.0538|< 0.0001
95741403|NCT00856349|191453381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (LIA)|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||LIA (Lead Integrity Alert): Uploadable algorithm with the ability to increase the time between a lead fracture and potential delivery of an unnecessary shock.||||<0.0001
95741404|NCT00856349|191453381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (SVT Limit)|6.8|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||SVT (Supraventricular Tachycardia) Limit: The maximum cycle length that Wavelet and PR logic will be applied to arrhythmias.||||<0.0001
95741405|NCT00856349|191453381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID PP)|9.0|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||VF NID PP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for primary prevention (PP) patients.||||<0.0001
95741406|NCT00856349|191453381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (VF NID SP)|3.5||||0.0116|||||||McNemar|||VF NID SP: Number of intervals to detect (NID) an arrhythmia in the VF zone for secondary prevention (SP) patients.||||0.0116
95741407|NCT00856349|191453381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (Wavelet)|9.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Wavelet: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in single chamber ICDs.||||<0.0001
95796314|NCT00362232|191562653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.42|-0.53|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 4% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||-0.53|-5.42|<0.001
95796315|NCT00362232|191562654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.27||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.44|-1.57|0.270
95938773|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.18||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.73|1.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1.39|-123.73|0.2065
95938774|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.56|-1.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-1.07|-9.56|0.1133
95938775|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.76||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.29|18.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||18.98|-52.29|0.4997
95938776|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.83|15.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||15.59|-15.83|0.9919
95938777|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.56||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-143.03|-35.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-35.31|-143.03|0.0891
95938778|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.67|-2.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-2.12|-16.67|0.1029
95938779|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.93||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.82|32.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.05|-75.82|0.5538
95938780|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.78||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.51|3.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||3.73|-27.51|0.3252
95938781|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.11|-29.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-29.52|-158.11|0.1106
95938782|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.48|-10.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-10.40|-29.48|0.0123
95938783|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.86||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.63|29.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.81|-87.63|0.4791
95938784|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.28|11.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||11.27|-22.28|0.6684
95938785|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.28||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-129.22|-30.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-30.13|-129.22|0.0937
95938786|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.21|-14.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-14.27|-40.21|0.0120
95938787|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.95||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.39|36.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||36.02|-101.39|0.4927
95858259|NCT02948634|191674250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
95938788|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.35|7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||7.49|-29.35|0.4409
95796316|NCT00362232|191562654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.57|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.44|-1.57|<0.001
95796317|NCT00362232|191562655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98||||0.074||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.10|-2.06|0.074
95796318|NCT00362232|191562655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (one-sided) .|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences||Null hypothesis: rivaroxaban is inferior to the comparator, ie, the incidence rate in the rivaroxaban group is larger by more than 1.5% (absolute) compared to the comparator group.||0.10|-2.06|<0.001
95796319|NCT00362232|191562656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.11||95.0|-0.09|0.88|||Mantel Haenszel|weighted treatment differences|Mantel-Haenszel weighted difference to Enoxaparin|Null hypothesis: The incidence rate is equal in the rivaroxaban group and the comparator group. P-values were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimator (two-sided)||0.88|-0.09|0.110
95938789|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.58||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.96|-25.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-25.54|-155.96|0.1197
95938790|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.31||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.68|-18.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.92|-51.68|0.0102
95938791|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.77||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.97|30.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.02|-96.97|0.4515
95938792|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.56||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.76|14.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||14.83|-23.76|0.7623
95938793|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.65|-23.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-23.29|-153.65|0.1247
95938794|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.91||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.59|-21.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-21.90|-53.59|0.0053
95988732|NCT02926950|191952245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2247|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2006|-0.3198|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.3198|-1.2006|= 0.0007
95796320|NCT00375752|191562666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-1.8|0.106
95938795|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.23||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.97|53.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||53.62|-87.97|0.7177
95938796|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.26|12.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||12.78|-25.26|0.6682
95938797|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.16||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.21|-40.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-40.24|-150.21|0.0823
95938798|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.38|-20.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.92|-55.38|0.0087
95988733|NCT02926950|191952246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.591|-1.144|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.144|-2.591|< 0.0001
95796321|NCT01649765|191562689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||||||||3.46|0.64|
95796322|NCT01649765|191562690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.54|||||Definition 1|||6.54|1.15|
95796323|NCT01649765|191562690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.17|||||Definition 2|||7.17|1.19|
95796324|NCT00248560|191562701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.32||||||||0.32|0.08|
95796325|NCT04383132|191562705|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIT between two groups. The statistical significance level was accepted as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||In sample size calculation, CIT and SD were used. It was found that 326 patients (163 per group) were required to detect a 60-second difference in CIT (SD 192 secs), with 80% power and two-sided alpha 0.05. The frequency of the auxiliary maneuvers was calculated that 324 patients were required for a 20% reduction in the auxiliary maneuvers. In case of becoming lost to follow up and withdrawal, the number of patients was expanded by 5%, and a total of 346 patients, were included in the study.||||0.388
95938799|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
95938800|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
95938801|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
95938802|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
95938803|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.35||0.431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.98|25.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||25.81|-89.98|0.4310
95741408|NCT00856349|191453381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Increase in % on target (PR Logic)|3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||PR Logic: Discriminator to help determine if arrhythmia is ventricular or supraventricular in dual chamber ICDs and CRT-Ds.||||<0.0001
95741409|NCT00183196|191453387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.997|||Regression, Cox|||||.997|.281|
95741410|NCT00183196|191453387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|percent heavy drinking days at baseline was used as a covariate in the analysis as it was a predictor of overall survival independent of group.||||||0.04
95741411|NCT00385736|191453388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.031
95741412|NCT00385736|191453388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||The primary endpoint analysis was carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues induced by the two adalimumab groups being compared to placebo and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.833
95741413|NCT00385736|191453389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.107
95796326|NCT04383132|191562706|OTHER|||||||0.069||||||For the comparison of ancillary maneuvers Pearson chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test were used.|Chi-squared|||||||0.069
95988734|NCT02926950|191952247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-0.497|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.497|-6.07|= 0.0209
95741414|NCT00385736|191453390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.382
95741415|NCT00385736|191453391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
95741416|NCT00385736|191453392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95741417|NCT00385736|191453393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.080
95741418|NCT00385736|191453394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
95741419|NCT00385736|191453395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.526
95741420|NCT00385736|191453396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.506
95741421|NCT00385736|191453397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.264
95741422|NCT00385736|191453398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.797
95741423|NCT00385736|191453399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.614
95741424|NCT00385736|191453400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0||||Ranked secondary analyses were carried out in hierarchical order (as presented) to handle the multiplicity issues and to control the overall alpha level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.532
95764439|NCT00780338|191499092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.00
95796327|NCT04383132|191562707|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Independent t-test was used to compare mean CIL between two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
95796328|NCT04383132|191562708|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.822
95796329|NCT04383132|191562709|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.016
95796330|NCT04383132|191562710|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95796331|NCT04383132|191562711|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
95938804|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.22||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.38|13.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||13.12|-27.38|0.6452
95988735|NCT02926950|191952248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.479|-1.592|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.592|-5.479|= 0.0004
95938805|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-89.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.02||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.04|-19.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-19.44|-159.04|0.1375
95938806|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.97|-20.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-20.15|-58.97|0.0143
95938807|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.4||0.5867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.7|37.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||37.52|-81.70|0.5867
95938808|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.99|25.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||25.27|-12.99|0.6745
95938809|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-85.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.99||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.18|-29.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-29.09|-142.18|0.1039
95938810|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.6|-22.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-22.36|-62.60|0.0116
95938811|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.55|38.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||38.26|-84.55|0.5807
95938812|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.55|28.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||28.80|-11.55|0.5765
95938813|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.36||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.7|-32.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-32.75|-139.70|0.0933
95938814|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.29|-19.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-19.37|-59.29|0.0173
95938815|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.36||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.04|35.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||35.62|-90.04|0.5293
95938816|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.73|19.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||19.49|-20.73|0.9676
95938817|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-86.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.27|-42.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-42.11|-130.27|0.0663
95938818|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.33||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.81|-17.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-17.02|-57.81|0.0252
95938819|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.81||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.45|47.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||47.22|-86.45|0.6637
95938820|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.35||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.04|18.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||18.81|-22.04|0.9173
95938821|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.55||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.23|-46.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-46.10|-146.23|0.0685
95938822|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-60.91|-18.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-18.44|-60.91|0.0230
95938823|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.62||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.69|42.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||42.54|-80.69|0.6471
95938824|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.52||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.56|16.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||16.75|-24.56|0.8044
95938825|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.71||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.63|-45.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-45.37|-153.63|0.0741
95938826|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.89||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.0|-18.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-18.72|-61.00|0.0219
95938827|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.15||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.21|35.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||35.46|-86.21|0.5436
95938828|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.13||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.2|19.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||19.71|-23.20|0.9149
95796332|NCT02469857|191562721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the mITT analysis population.||||0.135
95796333|NCT02469857|191562721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis utilized the US-mITT analysis population.||||0.025
95796334|NCT02469857|191562725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
95796335|NCT02469857|191562726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
95796336|NCT02469857|191562727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
95796337|NCT02469857|191562728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.596
95796338|NCT02469857|191562729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
95796339|NCT02469857|191562730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
95796340|NCT02469857|191562731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.50|0.554
95938829|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.34||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.63|-47.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-47.05|-142.63|0.0646
95988736|NCT02926950|191952249|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||10.06|0.75|= 0.0238
95938830|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.89|-11.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-11.41|-56.89|0.0611
95938831|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.28||0.606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.68|40.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||40.71|-84.68|0.6060
95938832|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|15.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||15.18|-29.00|0.6823
95796341|NCT02469857|191562732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.23|0.148
95796342|NCT02469857|191562733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.73|||Log Rank|||||1.73|0.46|0.736
95796343|NCT02469857|191562734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.09|0.093
95796344|NCT02469857|191562735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.35|0.352
95796345|NCT02469857|191562736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.04|0.031
95796346|NCT02469857|191562737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
95796347|NCT02469857|191562738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95796348|NCT02469857|191562739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
95796349|NCT02469857|191562740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95796350|NCT02110693|191562741|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.75||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.75|.64|
95796351|NCT02110693|191562741|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Alcohol Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.79|.68|
95796352|NCT02110693|191562742|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.79|.63|
95796353|NCT02110693|191562742|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cannabis Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.77|.62|
95796354|NCT02110693|191562743|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.67|.47|
95796355|NCT02110693|191562743|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Cocaine and Amphetamine (Stimulant) Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were separately tested against the reference measure.||.69|.50|
95796356|NCT02110693|191562744|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
95796357|NCT02110693|191562744|OTHER|Concurrent validity of the interviewer and self-administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard was assessed for Heroin Use Disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.|Sensivity|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.77||||||Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.77|.53|
95858260|NCT02948634|191674251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
95858261|NCT02948634|191674252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95858262|NCT00221117|191674259|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
95796358|NCT02110693|191562748|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard AUDIT-C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.66|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.66|.59|
95796359|NCT02110693|191562748|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the AUDIT C score was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.68|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Alcohol Score and the AUDIT-C Score. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.68|.61|
95796360|NCT02110693|191562750|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between the TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnare. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet computer) was tested separately against the reference measure.||.33|.25|
95796361|NCT02110693|191562750|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Tobacco Score and the score on the Smokeless Tobacco Questionnaire. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.32|.24|
95796362|NCT02110693|191562751|OTHER|The association on the interviewer and tablet computer administered versions of the TAPS Tool compared to the reference standard of the results of the oral fluid test was assessed using Spearman Correlation.|Spearman Correlation|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.48|||||The estimated value is a Spearman Correlation point estimate between TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the results of the Oral Fluid Test. Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|Each administration approach (interviewer and tablet) were tested separately against the reference measure.||.48|.35|
95796363|NCT02110693|191562751|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.46|||||The estimated value is a point estimate of the Spearman Correlation between the TAPS Tool Cannabis Score and the Oral Fluid Cannabis Screen. A Confidence Interval rather than a dispersion value is therefore reported.|||.46|.33|
95796364|NCT00920816|191562810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.053||||||First-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1).||1.053|0.559|
95796365|NCT00920816|191562811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.058||||||Second-line participants: hazard ratio was stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment (sunitinib versus cytokine-containing regimen).||1.058|0.506|
95938833|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.56||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.02|-53.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-53.41|-146.02|0.0556
95796366|NCT02320396|191562826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.51|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in TNSS was estimated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 2 weeks) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.||-0.51|-1.14|<0.001
95938834|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.99||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.98|-10.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.76|-55.98|0.0652
95938835|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.45||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.14|41.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||41.62|-94.14|0.5714
95796367|NCT02320396|191562829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.5|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 1: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.50|-1.14|<0.001
95796368|NCT02320396|191562829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.46|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in TNSS at Week 2: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in TNSS was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post- BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.46|-1.23|<0.001
95796369|NCT02320396|191562830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
95938836|NCT03858634|191843581|OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.82||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.93|11.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||11.83|-32.93|0.5386
95938837|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-99.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.41||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.35|-58.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-58.60|-139.35|0.0438
95741425|NCT02906917|191453411|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegAsp OD versus IGlar OD + IAsp OD was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.40%.|Treatment contrast|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||One-sided p-value for test of non-inferiority.|ANCOVA|Treatment, region, sex, previous insulin treatment and previous OAD treatment as categorical fixed effects and baseline response and age as covariate.||The response and change from baseline in response are analysed on 1000 complete, imputed data sets after multiple imputation for each treatment arm separately. A penalty of 0.4% is added to the week 26 values for all premature treatment discontinued subjects, and subject with missing HbA1c values at week 26 in the IDegAsp arm. Each of the imputed data sets are analysed through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.21|-0.06|<0.0001
95741426|NCT05133180|191453423|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.412|84.165||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||It was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect). For the imputation of missing data at week 4, a Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline Schirmer I test value, gender, age class, and Schirmer I test at week 2 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets.||84.165|3.412|<0.001
95858263|NCT00221117|191674260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||The subject's impairment and demographic characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics for parametric and nonparametric data. The baseline outcome data of the intervention and control groups were compared using Fisher exact test (for categorical variables) and Mann-Whitney U test (for continuous variables). Comparisons between the intervention and control groups were carried out using linear regression analysis adjusted for the baseline degree of disability (baseline AIS).||||0.05
95858264|NCT01229267|191674262|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.746|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is \>0.25.||0.746|0.484|
95938838|NCT03858634|191843581|OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.38|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-1.08|-53.38|0.1829
95938839|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.59||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.2|35.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||35.94|-87.20|0.5443
95938840|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.43||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.39|16.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.66|-32.39|0.6748
95938841|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-96.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.97||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.19|-64.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.19|-128.19|0.0297
95938842|NCT03858634|191843581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.8||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.33|-0.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-0.63|-53.33|0.1899
95988737|NCT02926950|191952250|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|20.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.0, \>8.0%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of nonresponder in the analysis.||20.89|6.91|= 0.0001
95858265|NCT01229267|191674263|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.818|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.818|0.490|
95938843|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.47||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.37|24.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||24.78|-55.37|0.5763
95938844|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.5214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|29.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||29.01|-9.86|0.5214
95938845|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.28||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-365.51|31.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||31.54|-365.51|0.2536
95938846|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.2|-3.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-3.44|-18.20|0.0670
95938847|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.98||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.43|24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||24.15|-90.43|0.4133
95938848|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|19.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||19.11|-21.83|0.9305
95938849|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-160.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.98||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-411.65|89.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||89.86|-411.65|0.3499
95858266|NCT01229267|191674264|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.86|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.860|0.498|
95858267|NCT01229267|191674265|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.952|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age), and intended duration of antiviral prophylaxis (≤3 versus 3 to 6 months after auto-HCT).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 consistency lot group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI is \>0.25.||0.952|0.446|
95858268|NCT01229267|191674266|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.5|||Normal approximation||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.5|-5.1|0.942
95938850|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.74|-1.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-1.33|-26.74|0.1588
95938851|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.19||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.26|17.0||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.00|-98.26|0.3319
95938852|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.39||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.59|32.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||32.80|-18.59|0.7179
95938853|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-193.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.17||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-405.34|17.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||17.67|-405.34|0.2261
95988738|NCT03124563|191952252|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||=.006
95728066|NCT02232074|191425936|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusting for baseline Distress Thermometer scores.||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.33
95858269|NCT03085797|191674276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment,region,Baseline score,Baseline eosinophilcount(BEC). Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal|||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
95858270|NCT03085797|191674277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.18||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.18|-4.09|<0.001
95858271|NCT03085797|191674278|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, Baseline total endoscopic score (centrally read), Baseline nasal obstruction VAS, Baseline BEC, number of previous surgeries (1, 2, \>2 as ordinal).|||0.76|0.25|0.003
95858272|NCT03085797|191674279|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-3.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.26||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-2.26|-4.10|0.003
95859665|NCT01032889|191677265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.06|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||0.06|-0.55|0.117
95728067|NCT02232074|191425937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
95728068|NCT02232074|191425938|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
95728069|NCT02232074|191425939|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.62
95728070|NCT02232074|191425940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||Compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will be more satisfied with patient navigation at 6 months post-enrollment||||0.69
95728071|NCT02232074|191425941|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the breast cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.58
95728072|NCT02232074|191425942|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|adjusting for baseline Case scores.||Compared to the control group, the lung cancer INTERVENTION group would have higher self-efficacy was adjusting for baseline self-efficacy scores.||||0.09
95728073|NCT02232074|191425943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.79||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will receive quality care (i.e. receipt of radiation within one year of diagnosis).||2.79|0.28|0.79
95741427|NCT05133180|191453424|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|adjusted mean difference|-4.561||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.581|4.459||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an Analysis of Covariance with change from baseline in global SANDE Score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class, baseline global SANDE score as fixed effects and site as random effect. For missing data, Multiple Imputation approach is adopted by performing a regression model with the baseline global SANDE score, gender, age class, and intermediate global SANDE scores up to week 12 as explanatory variables and generating 200 datasets||4.459|-13.581|0.322
95938854|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.75|-15.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-15.80|-44.75|0.0123
95938855|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.45||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.02|4.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.09|-112.02|0.2253
95938856|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|28.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||28.66|-16.14|0.7149
95938857|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-168.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|109.12||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-374.16|37.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||37.36|-374.16|0.2627
95938858|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-21.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-21.60|-51.87|0.0047
95938859|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.01||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-128.37|-3.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-3.88|-128.37|0.1803
95938860|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.62|29.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||29.35|-16.62|0.7174
95938861|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.47||0.2551|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-358.51|31.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.72|-358.51|0.2551
95938862|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.36||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.58|-18.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-18.36|-48.58|0.0086
95938863|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.16||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.78|9.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.78|-121.78|0.2576
95938864|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.09||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.62|23.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||23.34|-24.62|0.9722
95938865|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-177.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.72||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-357.85|3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||3.13|-357.85|0.2051
95938866|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.99||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.98|-26.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-26.08|-57.98|0.0025
95938867|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.78||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.14|-10.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.50|-121.14|0.1465
95938868|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.54||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.13|28.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.37|-18.13|0.7734
95938869|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.45||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-340.37|-10.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-10.56|-340.37|0.1826
95938870|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.4|-20.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-20.93|-57.40|0.0105
95938871|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.17||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.49|12.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.09|-119.49|0.2737
95938872|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.77||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.59|26.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||26.52|-20.59|0.8692
95938873|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-163.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.64||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-332.06|5.99||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||5.99|-332.06|0.2106
95938874|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.19|-26.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-26.14|-65.19|0.0060
95938875|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.12||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-121.44|-3.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.13|-121.44|0.1831
95988739|NCT03124563|191952253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and functional health||||||.034
95988740|NCT03124563|191952254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and education||||||.065
95796370|NCT02320396|191562830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
95796371|NCT02320396|191562830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.008
95858273|NCT03085797|191674280|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-16.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-9.42||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wk 52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed score prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-9.42|-23.57|0.003
95859666|NCT01032889|191677265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.30|-0.91|<0.001
95938876|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.39||0.2061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|43.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||43.30|-0.31|0.2061
95938877|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-161.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.75||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-326.83|4.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||4.12|-326.83|0.2073
95938878|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.19||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.62|-14.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-14.10|-54.62|0.0371
95938879|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.72||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.01|6.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||6.54|-117.01|0.2393
95938880|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.01||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.91|27.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||27.67|-22.91|0.9019
95938881|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-149.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.97||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-303.77|5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||5.35|-303.77|0.2103
95728074|NCT02232074|191425944|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Breast cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment.||||0.71
95938882|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.4|-1.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-1.88|-42.40|0.1634
95988741|NCT03124563|191952255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.308
95728075|NCT02232074|191425945|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||We hypothesize that compared to the control group, the Lung cancer INTERVENTION group will have less distress at 12 months post-enrollment||||0.61
95728076|NCT02232074|191425946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
95728077|NCT02232074|191425947|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.89
95728078|NCT02232074|191425948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
95728079|NCT02232074|191425949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
95728080|NCT02232074|191425950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.13
95988742|NCT03124563|191952256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANOVA|||||||.349
95988743|NCT03124563|191952257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, gender, and level of education||||||.022
95988744|NCT01696435|191952290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.09|.87|0.62
95728081|NCT02232074|191425951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
95728082|NCT04081337|191425969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.68||||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|89.72|||ANCOVA|||||89.72|-50.36|0.5733
95728083|NCT04081337|191425970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-855.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.87|-621.02|||ANCOVA|||||-621.02|-1090.87|<0.0001
95728084|NCT04081337|191425971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.22||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.65|96.2|||ANCOVA|||||96.20|-102.65|0.9481
95988745|NCT01696435|191952290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori, two-sided tests with an alpha level of 0.025 were used to account for the 2 co-primary outcomes (depression event and mood scores).|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.26|1.01|0.03
95988746|NCT01696435|191952291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.05|-0.04|
95988747|NCT01696435|191952291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of whether the mean difference in change comparing the treatment groups is different than zero. See full SAP for all details.||0.07|-0.01|
95988748|NCT01696435|191952292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.13|0.87|0.88
95988749|NCT01696435|191952292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.|Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|||1.33|1.03|0.02
95988750|NCT01696435|191952293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.19|0.76|0.67
95988751|NCT01696435|191952293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Active treatment vs. Placebo comparison|P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. This outcome was not a pre-specified primary outcome and results are to be interpreted with caution.||1.27|0.82|0.88
95988752|NCT00403260|191952329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction). Non-inferiority of PA to MQ + AS was concluded if the lower limit of the CI for the difference was \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|1.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test is calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to MQ+AS was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (MQ + AS) by more than -5%."||3.1|-0.2|0.106
95988753|NCT04137887|191952337|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the Confidence intervals (CIs) for relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE); expressed in percentage (%) was more than (\>) 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|20.66|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|||20.66|-12.43|
95988754|NCT04137887|191952338|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.99|30.14|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of respiratory system.||30.14|-27.99|
95728085|NCT04081337|191425972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||||-0.018|-0.051|<0.0001
95728086|NCT04081337|191425973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.028||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.010|-0.045|0.0031
95728087|NCT04081337|191425974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|251.89||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.09|384.69|||ANCOVA|||||384.69|119.09|0.0004
95728088|NCT04081337|191425975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted protein oxidation||-3.22|-10.51|0.0005
95728089|NCT04081337|191425975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|14.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|20.93|||ANCOVA|||For Adjusted fat oxidation||20.93|8.02|<0.0001
95728090|NCT04081337|191425975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-26.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-13.83|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted carbohydrate oxidation||-13.83|-39.46|0.0001
95728091|NCT04081337|191425976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.90|-11.04|<0.0001
95728092|NCT04081337|191425977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.05|-5.12|<0.0001
95728093|NCT04081337|191425978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||||-3.22|-6.93|<0.0001
95728094|NCT04081337|191425979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-2.16|0.0304
95728095|NCT04081337|191425980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||For Triglyceride||-1.06|-2.60|<0.0001
95728096|NCT04081337|191425980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||For VLDL||-0.48|-1.19|<0.0001
95728097|NCT04081337|191425980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||For HDL||-0.02|-1.05|0.0436
95728098|NCT04081337|191425980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||ANCOVA|||For Free fatty acid||0.66|0.23|0.0002
95728099|NCT04081337|191425981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.34|0.8762
95728100|NCT04081337|191425982|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.49||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.19|||ANCOVA|||||6.19|0.79|0.0126
95796372|NCT02320396|191562830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
95796373|NCT02320396|191562831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.13|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Sneezing: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.13|-0.36|<0.001
95938883|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.28||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-108.04|10.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||10.80|-108.04|0.2727
95938884|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.29||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.65|13.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||13.36|-32.65|0.5839
95938885|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-167.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.58||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-312.25|-23.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-23.45|-312.25|0.1597
95938886|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.27||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.81|-5.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.43|-48.81|0.1138
95938887|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.93||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-102.78|-21.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-21.13|-102.78|0.0888
95938888|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.19||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.79|23.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||23.60|-24.79|0.9741
95938889|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-159.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-282.59|-35.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-35.87|-282.59|0.1354
95938890|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.21||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.41|-3.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-3.52|-49.41|0.1425
95938891|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.61||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.18|-11.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-11.01|-98.18|0.1326
95938892|NCT03858634|191843583|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.87||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.95|23.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||23.58|-31.95|0.8433
95938893|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-130.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-203.39|-58.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-58.19|-203.39|0.0768
95938894|NCT03858634|191843583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.69||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.49|6.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||6.34|-43.49|0.3341
95938895|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.82||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-166.52|84.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||84.74|-166.52|0.4995
95938896|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.37|9.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||9.06|-16.37|0.7071
95728101|NCT04081337|191425983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-2.34|0.0222
95728102|NCT04081337|191425984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.48|<0.0001
95938897|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.18|-34.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||-34.77|-70.18|0.0305
95938898|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.01|5.81||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||5.81|-19.01|0.4884
95728103|NCT06624072|191425985|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T1/R)|103.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.31|109.52|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 8.7%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||109.52|97.31|
95938899|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.63||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-104.93|14.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||14.35|-104.93|0.2885
95938900|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.73|20.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||20.06|-9.73|0.6505
95741428|NCT05133180|191453425|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on a logistic regression with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|82.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with the number of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||82.310|3.091|<0.001
95741429|NCT05133180|191453426|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-2.753||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.303|6.798||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||6.798|-12.303|0.572
95741430|NCT05133180|191453427|SUPERIORITY||adjusted mean difference|-4.732||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|4.354||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA regression model|||This endpoint was analyzed by means of an ANCOVA adjusting by pre-defined baseline factors (treatment, gender, age class, baseline SANDE score for severity as fixed effects and site as random effect).||4.354|-13.819|0.307
95741431|NCT05133180|191453428|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.16||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.668|7.988||P-value of Least Square (LS) means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|MMRM|||Impact on daily activities at week 4.||7.988|-3.668|0.468
95741432|NCT05133180|191453428|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.431||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.362||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Emotional Impact due to Dry eye at week 4.||9.362|-4.500|0.492
95741433|NCT05133180|191453428|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|3.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.511|13.111||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 4.|MMRM|||Impact on Work due to Dry Eye at week 4.||13.111|-6.511|0.510
95741434|NCT05133180|191453428|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|Least square mean difference|4.078||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.142|11.299||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 12||11.299|-3.142|0.268
95741435|NCT05133180|191453428|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|least square mean difference|5.55||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.462|14.562||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Emotional Impact) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Emotional Impact due to Dry eye - Week 12||14.562|-3.462|0.227
95741436|NCT05133180|191453428|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|3.475||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|13.601||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Impact on Work) at Week 12.|MMRM|||Quality of life - Impact on Work due to Dry Eye - Week 12||13.601|-6.651|0.501
95858274|NCT03085797|191674281|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||p-Value was based on logistic regression model and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic||Covariates: treatment group, geographic region, number of oral corticosteroids courses for NP in last 12 months(0,1,\>1 as ordinal), Baseline total endoscopic score(centrally read),Baseline nasal obstruction VAS score,log(e) Baseline eosinophil count.|||0.92|0.36|0.020
95938901|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-82.91|-61.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-61.34|-82.91|0.0062
95858275|NCT03085797|191674282|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-2.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.91||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-1.91|-3.44|0.020
95796374|NCT02320396|191562831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Rhinorrhea: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
95796375|NCT02320396|191562831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Congestion: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.01|-0.18|0.037
95938902|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.34|-6.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.76|-32.34|0.0571
95938903|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 6||||
95741437|NCT05133180|191453429|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.549||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|10.723||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 4||10.723|-11.820|0.924
95741438|NCT05133180|191453429|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|1.072||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.398|7.542||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 4||7.542|-5.398|0.745
95741439|NCT05133180|191453429|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-4.206||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.53|7.118||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - week 12||7.118|-15.530|0.467
95741440|NCT05133180|191453429|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|2.244||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.387|9.874||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience) at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL Treatment satisfaction \& Bother Module - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - week 12||9.874|-5.387|0.564
95741441|NCT05133180|191453430|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-0.805||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|5.476||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 4||5.476|-7.086|0.802
95796376|NCT02320396|191562831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Nasal Itching: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
95938904|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.38|9.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||9.84|-18.38|0.6927
95938905|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.33|-57.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-57.94|-73.33|0.0038
95938906|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|-4.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-4.30|-30.43|0.0940
95938907|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.73||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.1|-11.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-11.65|-133.10|0.1694
95741442|NCT05133180|191453430|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID was provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|least square mean difference|-8.789||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|-1.418||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|MMRM|||IDEEL - Symptom Bother module - week 12||-1.418|-16.160|0.019
95741443|NCT05133180|191453431|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.518||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|-0.031||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein Week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.031|-3.005|0.045
95796377|NCT02320396|191562832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Sneezing During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Sneezing was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
95859667|NCT01032889|191677266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-0.46|-2.44|0.005
95938908|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||16.18|-10.50|0.7811
95938909|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-72.51|-63.91||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-63.91|-72.51|0.0011
95938910|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.02|-10.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-10.70|-36.02|0.0245
95938911|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.88|-43.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-43.74|-79.88|0.0603
95938912|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|21.04||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||21.04|-5.29|0.4365
95938913|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.11|-49.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-49.26|-88.11|0.0218
95938914|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.65|-3.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-3.45|-35.65|0.1238
95938915|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.88|-10.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.72|-98.88|0.1437
95938916|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.56|14.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||14.43|-12.56|0.9279
95938917|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.69|-41.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-41.24|-77.69|0.0254
95938918|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.23|-4.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-4.43|-33.23|0.0994
95938919|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.36||0.3656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-119.9|28.54||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||28.54|-119.90|0.3656
95938920|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.7465|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.79|8.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||8.94|-14.79|0.7465
95938921|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.75|-62.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-62.90|-101.75|0.0153
95938922|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|0.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||0.72|-33.88|0.2184
95938923|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.78||0.7726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-50.37|34.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||34.07|-50.37|0.7726
95938924|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.07|7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||7.63|-26.07|0.4760
95938925|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
95741444|NCT05133180|191453431|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.773||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|-0.101||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein Week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||-0.101|-3.446|0.038
95938926|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.43|4.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||4.40|-30.43|0.3329
95741445|NCT05133180|191453431|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.224||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.096|0.649||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale at Week 12|MMRM|||Herein Week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in Cornea and conjunctiva vital staining with fluorescein NEI scale was analyzed by means of an MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, NEI scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||0.649|-3.096|0.200
95938927|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|44.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||44.92|-48.31|0.9564
95938928|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.49||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.84|10.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||10.06|-25.84|0.5661
95938929|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-82.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|-64.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-64.87|-99.26|0.0121
95938930|NCT03858634|191843585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.4|7.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||7.13|-29.40|0.4275
95938931|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.54||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.32|38.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.46|-94.32|0.5403
95938932|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|376.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|631.83||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-462.83|1214.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||1214.97|-462.83|0.5587
95938933|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.99||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-205.33|69.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||69.93|-205.33|0.4516
95938934|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.13|0.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||0.15|-25.13|0.2052
95938935|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.89||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.09|4.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||4.28|-123.09|0.2240
95938936|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.33||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.7|103.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||103.65|-24.70|0.4242
95988755|NCT04137887|191952338|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of QIV-HD effectiveness over QIV-SD was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CIs for rVE, expressed in % was \> 0%.|Relative Vaccine Effectiveness|7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.0|||||rVE: % reduction of 1st occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory hospitalization cases in QIV-HD group compared to QIV-SD group. 2-sided 95% CIs for rVE was calculated by exact method assuming Binomial distribution of number of cases in both groups.|Statistical analysis for diseases of circulatory system.||25.00|-15.04|
95938937|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.61||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-225.44|71.01||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||71.01|-225.44|0.4295
95938938|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.64|1.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||1.20|-38.64|0.2272
95938939|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.9||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-135.23|24.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.95|-135.23|0.3416
95938940|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.75||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.02|150.19||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||150.19|-35.02|0.4192
95938941|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.42||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-231.66|98.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||98.02|-231.66|0.5245
95938942|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.31||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.47|-0.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-0.05|-35.47|0.1988
95938943|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.11||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.08|22.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.72|-161.08|0.3054
95988756|NCT01790503|191952362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.71|0.456
95988757|NCT01790503|191952362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.77|0.619
95988758|NCT01790503|191952362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.65|0.272
95741446|NCT05133180|191453432|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.64||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.98||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 4.|MMRM|||Herein week 4 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.980|0.300|0.016
95741447|NCT05133180|191453432|SUPERIORITY||least ssquare mean difference|1.133||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|2.596||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 8.|MMRM|||Herein week 8 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.596|-0.329|0.129
95741448|NCT05133180|191453432|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|2.722||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in TFBUT at Week 12.|MMRM|||Herein week 12 was considered. The change from baseline in TFBUT values was analyzed by means of a MMRM adjusting by pre-defined factors (gender, age class, TFBUT baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction; subject was considered as a random effect).||2.722|-0.002|0.050
95741449|NCT05133180|191453433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 4 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||<0.001
95741450|NCT05133180|191453433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.009
95741451|NCT05133180|191453433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.020
95741452|NCT05133180|191453433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.022
95741453|NCT05133180|191453434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.065
95741454|NCT05133180|191453435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.125
95741455|NCT05133180|191453436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.005
95741456|NCT05133180|191453436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.116
95741457|NCT05133180|191453436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.864
95796378|NCT02320396|191562832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Rhinorrhea During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Rhinorrhea was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
95859668|NCT01032889|191677266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||There was no formal hypothesis testing and no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||-1.48|-3.48|<0.001
95938944|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|229.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|377.23||0.5504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-271.51|730.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||730.22|-271.51|0.5504
95938945|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.27||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-214.96|72.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||72.65|-214.96|0.4493
95938946|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.63||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-67.74|-12.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-12.85|-67.74|0.0665
95988759|NCT01790503|191952363|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.440
95988760|NCT01790503|191952363|OTHER|||||||0.699|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.699
95741458|NCT05133180|191453437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.011
95741459|NCT05133180|191453437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.316
95741460|NCT05133180|191453437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.685
95741461|NCT05133180|191453438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 8 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.016
95858276|NCT03085797|191674283|OTHER||Difference in Medians|-0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08||p-Value was based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test and is adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Quantile regression with covariates: treatment, region, Baseline score, Baseline BEC. Par. with nasal surgery prior to Wks 49-52/withdrew early with no nasal surgery assigned their worst observed 4-wk mean prior to nasal surgery/study withdrawal.|||-0.08|-0.65|0.020
95858277|NCT01837823|191674287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.231||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.054
95858278|NCT01837823|191674288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.074||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||for minimum lumen area site||||0.50
95858279|NCT01411891|191674368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4||||||||8.4|0.3|
95858280|NCT01411891|191674369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.4|0.65
95938947|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-78.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-167.25|9.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||9.75|-167.25|0.2411
95938948|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.3||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.51|166.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||166.08|-44.51|0.4528
95938949|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.46||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.72|100.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||100.85|-183.72|0.6381
95938950|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.44|-8.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.62|-54.44|0.0837
95938951|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.45||0.3428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-183.53|34.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||34.13|-183.53|0.3428
95938952|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.93||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|52.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||52.27|-8.63|0.3533
95938953|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.53||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-170.51|42.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||42.66|-170.51|0.3755
95938954|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.39|-16.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.87|-58.39|0.0268
95938955|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.79||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-151.2|-7.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-7.75|-151.20|0.1672
95938956|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.81||0.3518|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.09|104.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.55|-17.09|0.3518
95938957|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.22||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.52|24.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||24.09|-161.52|0.2974
95988761|NCT01790503|191952363|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.003
95988762|NCT01790503|191952363|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.201
95988763|NCT01790503|191952365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.60|0.389
95988764|NCT01790503|191952365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.63|0.393
95988765|NCT01790503|191952365|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.63|0.469
95988766|NCT01790503|191952366|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.063
95988767|NCT01790503|191952366|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||0.969
95988768|NCT01790503|191952366|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||<0.001
95988769|NCT01790503|191952366|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.501
95741462|NCT05133180|191453438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 12 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.160
95938958|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.83|-13.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.33|-62.83|0.0555
95938959|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-78.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.72||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-171.17|14.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||14.62|-171.17|0.2614
95938960|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.89||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.62|81.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||81.98|-18.62|0.4134
95938961|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.99||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-154.44|15.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||15.24|-154.44|0.2620
95938962|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.46|-18.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-18.02|-62.46|0.0269
95988770|NCT01790503|191952367|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between age subgroups: 18-64 years vs 65+ years||||0.705
95988771|NCT01790503|191952367|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between extent of surgery subgroups: complete resection vs partial resection||||>0.999
95988772|NCT01790503|191952367|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline KPS subgroups: 70-89 vs 90-100||||0.099
95988773|NCT01790503|191952367|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between MGMT status subgroups: methylated vs unmethylated||||0.348
95741463|NCT05133180|191453438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein Week 16 was considered. Change from baseline between the two treatment groups was compared using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption not met.||||0.839
95741464|NCT05133180|191453439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0455|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0455
95741465|NCT05133180|191453440|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.06||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 8||||0.060
95741466|NCT05133180|191453440|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.079||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 8||||0.079
95741467|NCT05133180|191453440|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.251||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 8||||0.251
95741468|NCT05133180|191453440|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.203||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on daily activities - Week 16||||0.203
95741469|NCT05133180|191453440|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.114||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Emotional impact due to Dry eye - Week 16||||0.114
95741470|NCT05133180|191453440|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.112||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life - Impact on work due to Dry Eye - Week 16||||0.112
95858281|NCT04614974|191674370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95858282|NCT04614974|191674371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95858283|NCT04614974|191674372|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.5
95988774|NCT04183335|191952372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|15.41||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||15.41|2.78|<0.0001
95988775|NCT04183335|191952373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|8.98||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||8.98|1.81|0.0004
95741471|NCT05133180|191453441|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.002||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 8||||0.002
95741472|NCT05133180|191453441|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom bother module - Week 16||||0.076
95741473|NCT05133180|191453442|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.16||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 8||||0.160
95741474|NCT05133180|191453442|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.009||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 8||||0.009
95741475|NCT05133180|191453442|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.076||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness - Week 16||||0.076
95741476|NCT05133180|191453442|SUPERIORITY|Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed by comparing the two treatment groups using a two-sample t-test or a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilson rank sum) test if normality assumption was not met.||||||0.128||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|t-test, 2 sided|||IDEEL - Treatment- Related Bother / Inconvenience - Week 16||||0.128
95741477|NCT00538031|191453634|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.61
95741478|NCT00538031|191453635|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
95741479|NCT00506831|191453636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the mRSS is not significantly different at month 6 compared with baseline. Paired t-test was used to compare the mean mRSS at month 6 compared with baseline.||||0.005
95741480|NCT01604941|191453644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.2960
95741481|NCT01604941|191453644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0400
95741482|NCT01604941|191453644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.6303
95796379|NCT02320396|191562832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.02|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Congestion During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Congestion was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.02|-0.16|0.009
95741483|NCT01604941|191453645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0365
95796380|NCT02320396|191562832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Nasal Itching During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Nasal Itching was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value.~cLDA model"||-0.15|-0.38|<0.001
95741484|NCT01604941|191453645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0019
95741485|NCT01604941|191453645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.1695
95741486|NCT01604941|191453646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.0394
95741487|NCT01604941|191453646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0004
95741488|NCT01604941|191453646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0332
95796381|NCT02320396|191562833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
95858284|NCT04614974|191674372|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||McNemar|||Noisy breathing pre/post||||0.01
95741489|NCT01604941|191453647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.3202
95741490|NCT01604941|191453647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.4549
95741491|NCT01604941|191453647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.3291
95741492|NCT01604941|191453648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.6703
95741493|NCT01604941|191453648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 8 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2618
95741494|NCT01604941|191453648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from Paired t-test for log-transformed data at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 16 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.7679
95741495|NCT01604941|191453649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for 50 mg/kg/d dosing||||0.1683
95741496|NCT01604941|191453649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 12 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.0123
95741497|NCT01604941|191453649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from analysis of paired t-test at post treatment timepoint vs. Baseline.|paired t-test|||Analysis of Week 24 for all participants with BID dosing||||0.2334
95741498|NCT02412852|191453659|OTHER||||||||||||||||||\]The pharmacokinetics data are particularly sparse, and therefore substantial interpolations and imputations were required to produce an analyzable data set. Consequently, while not ideal, the Last Observation Carried Forward method was used for these data. There was a large amount of missing data which required imputation to determine results. The large amount of interpolations and imputations required for the pharmacokinetic analysis means that the pharmacokinetic results will need to be interpreted with caution. 3 X 3 Analysis of Variance used to compare Placebo to the two active groups. Missing data required imputation of available data.|||
95741499|NCT02412852|191453661|OTHER|ANOVA on only those subjects who completed testing.||||||0.05||||||The results were analyzed using an ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (Group: both placebo groups combined, 40 mg TV1001sr, and 80 mg TV1001sr); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).|ANOVA|The means of the three groups were further analyzed using a post hoc comparison procedure (the Scheffé test).||||||0.05
95741500|NCT02412852|191453662|OTHER|The composite conduction measure and the composite velocity measure were analyzed using an Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Group: combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, and 80 mg TV1001); and one within-subjects factor (Visit: Visit 1, Visit 2, and Visit 3).||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||.15
95858285|NCT04614974|191674372|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.2
95741501|NCT02412852|191453663|OTHER|A 3 by 3 Analysis of Variance with one between-subjects factor (Combined placebo, 40 mg TV1001, or 80 mg TV1001) and one within-subjects factor (Visit 1, Visit 2, or Visit 3) was performed for HbA1c values.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||.36
95741502|NCT02412852|191453664|OTHER|ANOVA to compare differences from baseline to completion of testing.||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||.93
95741503|NCT05143801|191453698|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.003
95741504|NCT05143801|191453698|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.933||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.933
95741505|NCT05143801|191453698|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.|No Method of Estimation was used|||||0.344||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.344
95741506|NCT05143801|191453699|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental conditions.||||||0.117||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed to investigate statistical differences for all variables across the four conditions. Both main and interaction effects were calculated along with effect size, reported as partial ⴄ2 as provided by the statistical software JASP (version 0.14.1.0).||||0.117
95741507|NCT05143801|191453699|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.832
95741508|NCT05143801|191453699|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.879||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.879
95741509|NCT05143801|191453700|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.749||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.749
95741510|NCT05143801|191453700|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.311||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.311
95741511|NCT05143801|191453700|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.368||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.368
95858286|NCT04614974|191674372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Stridor pre/post||||0.02
95858287|NCT04614974|191674372|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||0.5
95858288|NCT04614974|191674372|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Chest wall retractions pre/post||||1.0
95858289|NCT04614974|191674372|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Apnea pre/post||||1.0
95741512|NCT05143801|191453701|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.789||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.789
95741513|NCT05143801|191453701|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.739||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.739
95741514|NCT05143801|191453701|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.158||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.158
95741515|NCT05143801|191453702|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.394
95858290|NCT04614974|191674373|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.5
95858291|NCT04614974|191674373|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||Emesis pre/post||||0.07
95858292|NCT04614974|191674373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||0.06
95858293|NCT04614974|191674373|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Choking pre/post||||1.0
95858294|NCT04614974|191674373|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Coughing pre/post||||0.02
95858295|NCT04614974|191674373|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing pre/post||||1.0
95858296|NCT04614974|191674373|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Gagging pre/post||||1.0
95858297|NCT04614974|191674374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95858298|NCT04614974|191674375|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95858299|NCT01077050|191674431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Melanoma|96.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.2|||The point estimate of the observed sensitivity that is based on generalized linear mixed model is equal to that calculated in the usual manner.|Clopper-Pearson 1-sided||||||94.2|
95938963|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-81.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.32||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-155.46|-7.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.02|-155.46|0.1709
95938964|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.61|60.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||60.22|25.61|0.0042
95938965|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.22||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-142.19|35.88||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||35.88|-142.19|0.3772
95938966|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.06|-7.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-7.63|-49.06|0.0857
95938967|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.34||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.48|-34.2||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-34.20|-120.48|0.0607
95938968|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|88.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.79||0.4862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.57|255.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||255.22|-77.57|0.4862
95938969|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.73||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-146.96|40.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.58|-146.96|0.3968
95938970|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.31|-2.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-2.11|-46.31|0.1624
95938971|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.58|-14.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-14.93|-138.58|0.1349
95938972|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.81||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.38|74.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||74.56|16.38|0.0525
95938973|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.98||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-172.71|19.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||19.55|-172.71|0.2719
95938974|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.86|-7.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-7.49|-53.86|0.0957
95938975|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.98||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.83|-25.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-25.78|-133.83|0.0942
95938976|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.6||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.16|66.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||66.09|3.16|0.1606
95938977|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.2||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.58|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||2.58|-156.58|0.2096
95938978|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.32||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-53.74|-4.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-4.89|-53.74|0.1279
95938979|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-112.96|-37.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-37.08|-112.96|0.0479
95938980|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.28|63.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||63.37|2.28|0.1700
95741516|NCT05143801|191453702|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition||||||0.157||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.157
95741517|NCT05143801|191453702|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.015||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.015
95741518|NCT05143801|191453703|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.96||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.960
95741519|NCT05143801|191453703|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.073||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.073
95741520|NCT05143801|191453703|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.503||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.503
95796382|NCT02320396|191562833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
95796383|NCT02320396|191562833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
95938981|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.67||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.03|-24.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-24.15|-136.03|0.1142
95741521|NCT05143801|191453704|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.786||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.786
95938982|NCT03858634|191843590|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.82||0.398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.8|9.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.71|-45.80|0.3980
95938983|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.17|14.86||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||14.86|-41.17|0.4979
95741522|NCT05143801|191453704|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.18||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.180
95741523|NCT05143801|191453704|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.239||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.239
95741524|NCT05143801|191453705|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.134||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.134
95741525|NCT05143801|191453705|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.621||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.621
95741526|NCT05143801|191453705|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.553||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.553
95741527|NCT05143801|191453706|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.461||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.461
95741528|NCT05143801|191453706|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.877||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.877
95741529|NCT05143801|191453706|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.919||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.919
95741530|NCT05143801|191453707|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.466||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.466
95741531|NCT05143801|191453707|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.186||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.186
95741532|NCT05143801|191453707|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.08||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.080
95741533|NCT05143801|191453708|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.375||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.375
95741534|NCT05143801|191453708|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.178||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.178
95796384|NCT02320396|191562834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Eye Pruritus: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
95741535|NCT05143801|191453708|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.533||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.533
95741536|NCT05143801|191453709|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.290
95741537|NCT05143801|191453709|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.527||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.527
95741538|NCT05143801|191453709|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.045||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.045
95741539|NCT05143801|191453710|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.018||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.018
95741540|NCT05143801|191453710|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95741541|NCT05143801|191453710|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.035||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2x3 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.035
95741542|NCT05143801|191453711|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95741543|NCT05143801|191453711|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.678||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
95741544|NCT05143801|191453711|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect||||||0.678|||||||2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.678
95796385|NCT02320396|191562834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.03|-0.24|0.010
95858300|NCT01077050|191674431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to Basal Cell Carcinoma|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.6|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for Basal Cell Carcinoma||||100|92.6|
95858301|NCT01077050|191674431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed sensitivity for squamous cell c|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||Clopper-Pearson 2-sided|Point estimate of the observed sensitivity for squamous cell carcinoma||||99.8|68.1|
95858302|NCT01077050|191674431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Note that calculating odds ratio adjusting for subjects having multiple lesions, yields similar result.||||25.5|6.6|<0.0001
95938984|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.88||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.63|38.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||38.83|4.63|0.1079
95938985|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.7||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-114.19|43.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||43.07|-114.19|0.4837
95741545|NCT05143801|191453712|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95741546|NCT05143801|191453712|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.487||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.487
95741547|NCT05143801|191453712|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.79||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.790
95741548|NCT05143801|191453713|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.089||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.089
95741549|NCT05143801|191453713|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.297||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.297
95741550|NCT05143801|191453713|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.111
95741551|NCT05143801|191453714|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.024||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.024
95741552|NCT05143801|191453714|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.002
95741553|NCT05143801|191453714|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.014||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.014
95741554|NCT05143801|191453715|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for environmental condition.||||||0.012||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
95741555|NCT05143801|191453715|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for mask condition.||||||0.893||||||Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.893
95858303|NCT01255436|191674477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.0||p-value\<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.0|-9.4|0.06
95858304|NCT01255436|191674478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-4.1|0.14
95741556|NCT05143801|191453715|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction effect across environmental and mask conditions.||||||0.969||||||A Bonferroni post-hoc test was used if significant interaction effect was present and p-values were adjusted based on the number of comparisons. To determine if a post-hoc was needed statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|2x2 Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.969
95741557|NCT00906399|191453717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.725||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.93|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).||||0.930|0.565|0.0114
95741558|NCT00906399|191453717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.644||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.831|||Negative Binomial Regression|Based on negative binomial regression, with adjustment for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), baseline relapse rate, age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40).||||0.831|0.500|0.0007
95741559|NCT00906399|191453718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.72||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.87|0.60|0.0008
95741560|NCT00906399|191453718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.4|||Negative Binomial Regression|Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions.||||0.40|0.27|<0.0001
95741561|NCT00906399|191453719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.95|0.57|0.0200
95741562|NCT00906399|191453719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4), age (\<40 versus ≥ 40 years), baseline relapse rate, and baseline Gd enhancing lesions (presence versus absence).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.80|0.47|0.0003
95741563|NCT00906399|191453720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0380
95741564|NCT00906399|191453720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\< 4 versus ≥ 4) and age (\< 40 versus ≥ 40 years).|Cox Proportion Hazards model|||||0.97|0.40|0.0383
95741565|NCT03349567|191453730|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.99||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antimicrobial prescription rates.||||1.01|0.98|0.35
95741566|NCT03349567|191453731|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.35||||||||1.35|0.93|
95741567|NCT03349567|191453732|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||||||||1.27|0.81|
95741568|NCT03349567|191453733|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34||||||||1.34|0.58|
95741569|NCT03349567|191453734|NON_INFERIORITY|A Poisson regression model with log link was used to estimate the rate of safety outcomes. Models were adjusted for time as a continuous covariate, an indicator for month of implementation of intervention (Oct 2018), and included random effects to account for repeated measurements. An interaction variable for the study period (baseline or intervention) and site (intervention or control) was included in the model to estimate the Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) and 95% CIs.|Incident rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29||||||||1.29|0.53|
95796386|NCT02320396|191562834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in the worse symptom of Pruritus or Watering Eyes estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.12|-0.37|<0.001
95796387|NCT02320396|191562835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Eye Pruritus During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Eye Pruritus was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.14|-0.35|<0.001
95741570|NCT03349567|191453735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95741571|NCT03349567|191453735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95741572|NCT03349567|191453736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|Segmented regression analysis was conducted using generalized linear models to estimate change in monthly antibiotic prescription rates.||||||0.46
95858305|NCT01255436|191674479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Numerator is Treatment Group (SMS reminders) and Denominator is Control Group (No SMS reminders)|||1.6|1.0|0.045
95741573|NCT01438060|191453753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.49||Baseline data was evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and study center as main effects.|ANOVA||Model based estimate.|Analysis at Baseline (Day 0)||1.49|-1.15|0.802
95741574|NCT01438060|191453753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.44||ANCOVA model for LOCF data set included the baseline measure as covariate and the study center and treatment as main effects.|ANCOVA||Model based estimate|Analysis at Week 10||0.44|-2.49|0.169
95741575|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.79||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 1||1.35|0.47|0.391
95741576|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.95||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center||Analysis at Week 2||1.31|0.69|0.766
95741577|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||1.32|0.76|0.967
95741578|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||1.19|0.71|0.505
95796388|NCT02320396|191562835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Watering Eyes During 2 Weeks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1 to Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.23|<0.001
95858306|NCT01255436|191674480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.53|||Fisher Exact|||||1.53|1.04|0.014
95938986|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.99|-4.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||-4.98|-15.99|0.0208
95938987|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.54||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.74|22.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||22.38|-54.74|0.5413
95938988|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.28|33.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||33.74|1.28|0.1683
95988776|NCT04183335|191952374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||19.05|2.49|<0.0001
95741579|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||1.36|0.84|0.590
95741580|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.1||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||1.37|0.89|0.374
95741581|NCT01438060|191453756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.15||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||1.41|0.94|0.175
95741582|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.88||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.92||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 1||1.92|0.41|0.753
95741583|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.32||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 2||1.32|0.62|0.600
95741584|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.93||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.31||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 3||1.31|0.65|0.673
95741585|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.83||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 4||1.14|0.60|0.255
95741586|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.99||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 6||1.33|0.74|0.958
95741587|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|0.92||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 8||1.19|0.71|0.525
95741588|NCT01438060|191453757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||CMH test with controlling for treatment and study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at week 10||1.40|0.82|0.602
95741589|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 1||||0.133
95796389|NCT02320396|191562835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||cLDA model|||The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in the worse of Pruritus or Watering Eyes was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
95938989|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.45||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|43.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||43.89|-161.43|0.3933
95988777|NCT04183335|191952375|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-14.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-14.90|-38.44|<0.0001
95741590|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 2||||0.282
95938990|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|2.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.58|-14.06|0.3705
95938991|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|35.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||35.34|-81.36|0.5644
95938992|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.82||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.75|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||24.94|-11.75|0.6384
95938993|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.62||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.13|51.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||51.95|-169.13|0.4229
95938994|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.38||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.47|-1.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.18|-31.47|0.1688
95938995|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.11||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.59|-13.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-13.53|-105.59|0.1243
95988778|NCT04183335|191952376|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-4.05||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.05|-8.34|<0.0001
95741591|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 3||||0.571
95741592|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 4||||0.895
95741593|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 6||||0.817
95741594|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 8||||0.795
95938996|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.79||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|29.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||29.22|-15.35|0.6841
95938997|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.83||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.31|40.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||40.59|-147.31|0.3963
95741595|NCT01438060|191453761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||95.0||||CMH Row Means test with controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis at Week 10||||0.564
95938998|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.85||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.85|-8.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-8.32|-39.85|0.0571
95938999|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.32|30.73||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||30.73|-101.32|0.4457
95939000|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.99||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.44|28.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||28.32|-19.44|0.8075
95939001|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.75||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-162.84|47.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||47.40|-162.84|0.4093
95988779|NCT04183335|191952377|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.28||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.28|-3.07|<0.0001
95741596|NCT01438060|191453763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at baseline||1.54|-1.08|0.733
95741597|NCT01438060|191453763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.54|||ANOVA|||Analysis at Week 10||-0.54|-2.16|0.001
95741598|NCT03602339|191453796|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.562||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.562|0.347|< 0.0001
95741599|NCT03602339|191453797|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||=|0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.342||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.342|0.017|= 0.0151
95988780|NCT04183335|191952378|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.67||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.67|-4.52|0.0082
95988781|NCT04183335|191952386|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.15||Threshold of significance at \<0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W versus Placebo|||-0.15|-1.25|0.0119
95988782|NCT01535729|191952416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.318|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.318|0.684|0.756
95988783|NCT01535729|191952416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.07|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.070|0.518|0.110
95988784|NCT01535729|191952416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.692|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.692|0.656|0.829
95939002|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.42|-9.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-9.76|-45.42|0.0543
95939003|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.75||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.88|30.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||30.78|-92.88|0.4711
95939004|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.89||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.74|32.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||32.79|-6.74|0.3925
95939005|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.24||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-164.22|66.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||66.72|-164.22|0.5095
95988785|NCT01535729|191952431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.299|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 70-74 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.299|0.741|0.895
95988786|NCT01535729|191952431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.947|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between 75-79 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||0.947|0.501|0.022
95859669|NCT01032889|191677267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-606.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1482.0|269.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||269.3|-1482|0.166
95939006|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.35|-16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-16.18|-51.35|0.0199
95939007|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.48||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.26|13.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||13.69|-99.26|0.3029
95939008|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|28.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||28.16|-6.28|0.4094
95988787|NCT01535729|191952431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.759|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ≥ 80 years and 65-69 years was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor age.||1.759|0.767|0.479
95988788|NCT01535729|191952432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.941|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.941|0.569|0.015
95988789|NCT01535729|191952433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|2.582|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.582|1.402|0.000
95988790|NCT01535729|191952433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.248|2.557|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.557|1.248|0.002
95988791|NCT01535729|191952436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.962|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between female and male was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor gender.||0.962|0.535|0.027
95988792|NCT01535729|191952437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.362|2.749|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between ex-smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.749|1.362|0.000
95741600|NCT03602339|191453798|NON_INFERIORITY|"The score to evaluate the non-inferiority is calculated for each subject as (combined unenhanced/gadobutrol-enhanced - unenhanced) - 0.8\*(combined unenhanced/gadoterate-enhanced - unenhanced). The 95% CI is based on a t-distribution. The non-inferiority for gadobutrol is achieved if the one-sided p-value for H0: (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - 0.8\*(gadoterate minus unenhanced) ≤ 0 is lower than 0.025."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.275||No type I error adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed because tests on all 3 primary efficacy variables must be significant to demonstrate primary efficacy.|Paired t-test|||Difference (gadobutrol minus unenhanced) - (gadoterate minus unenhanced)||0.275|0.024|= 0.0100
95741601|NCT03602339|191453799|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.35. If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \> -0.35, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.176||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.176|-0.030|
95741602|NCT03602339|191453800|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Accuracy Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||3.40|-3.40|
95741603|NCT03602339|191453800|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|5.22|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test.|Sensitivity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||5.22|-5.22|
95741604|NCT03602339|191453800|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10%, if the lower limit of the confidence interval \> -10%, then non-inferiority is achieved.|Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals are based on McNemar's test. No continuity correction for calculation of the confidence interval was included. Zero cells lead to degenerated confidence interval.|Specificity Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.00|0.00|
95741605|NCT03602339|191453801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.14||||||Difference (Gadobutrol - Gadoterate)||0.140|0.011|
95741606|NCT03602339|191453802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison of image quality between gadobutrol and gadoterate||0.11|-0.10|0.9149
95741607|NCT03602339|191453803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03491|-0.00445||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Relative score||-0.00445|-0.03491|
95741608|NCT03602339|191453803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00589|0.01762||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Full image score||0.01762|-0.00589|
95796390|NCT02320396|191562836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.07|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 1 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 1 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 1) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.07|-0.24|<0.001
95858307|NCT04816669|191674504|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 lyophilized SDV - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid MDV and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||0.77|0.60|
95939009|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.25||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-159.63|60.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||60.05|-159.63|0.4828
95741609|NCT03602339|191453803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00471|0.00749||||||Difference (Gadobutrol-Gadoterate) for Dice score||0.00749|-0.00471|
95741610|NCT03602339|191453805|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate), and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0049||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0049
95741611|NCT03602339|191453806|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0013||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0013
95741612|NCT03602339|191453807|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was calculated using the two one-sided t-tests (TOST) procedure with null hypotheses H01: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≤ -0.05 \* (gadoterate) and H02: (gadobutrol - gadoterate) ≥ +0.05 \* (gadoterate).||||||0.0065||||||The overall p-value was calculated as max(p1, p2) where p1 and p2 are the results of null hypotheses H01 and H02 respectively.|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST)|||||||0.0065
95741613|NCT00840281|191453808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|94.9|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||105|94.9|
95741614|NCT00840281|191453809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.6|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|98.6|
95858308|NCT04816669|191674512|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is greater than 0.67|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the concentrations BNT162b2 frozen-liquid LNP - BNT162b2 frozen-liquid RTU and the corresponding CI (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.68|0.77|
95939010|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.26|-52.26|0.0383
95939011|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.5322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.66|34.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||34.65|-86.66|0.5322
95988793|NCT01535729|191952437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.239|2.859|||Wald Chi-Squares|||Comparison between smoker and non-smoker was reported. Parameter estimates, standard errors, Wald Chi-Squares, p-values, hazard ratios and confidence limits were based on a univariate Cox regression with factor smoking.||2.859|1.239|0.003
95988794|NCT02025426|191952445|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.547
95988795|NCT02025426|191952447|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.925
95988796|NCT02025426|191952448|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.498
95988797|NCT02025426|191952449|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.201
95988798|NCT02025426|191952450|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95988799|NCT02025426|191952451|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.962
95988800|NCT02025426|191952452|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95939012|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.38|12.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||12.03|-24.38|0.6577
95939013|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.08|88.4||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||88.40|-165.08|0.6259
95988801|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.047||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.047
95988802|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.549||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.549
95988803|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.511||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes reported at non-responders.||||0.511
95988804|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.031||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Trait Anger. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.031
95988805|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.483||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for STAXI-2 Anger Expression-Out. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.483
95988806|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.53||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Significance of difference in post-treatment response rate for BAAQ. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.530
95988807|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.421||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes included as non-responders.||||0.421
95741615|NCT00840281|191453810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|98.7|
95741616|NCT00829452|191453811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.03||||||90.0|89.11|103.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.49|89.11|
95939014|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.01|-15.38||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.38|-56.01|0.0312
95741617|NCT00829452|191453812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.34||||||90.0|90.82|100.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.09|90.82|
95796391|NCT02320396|191562836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.09|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL to Week 2 in Interference with Daily Activities: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to Week 2 post BL in Interference with Daily Activities was estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score of 1 week prior to Week 2) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo was evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
95939015|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-108.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.73||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.97|-77.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-77.61|-138.97|0.0103
95939016|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.59|26.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||26.56|-6.59|0.4330
95939017|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.23||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-158.82|83.39||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||83.39|-158.82|0.6165
95939018|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.13||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.11|-11.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-11.84|-52.11|0.0488
95939019|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.9||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.53|46.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||46.16|-84.53|0.6636
95939020|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.18|39.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||39.52|8.18|0.0583
95939021|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.87||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.55|58.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||58.36|-148.55|0.4975
95939022|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.17|-9.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-9.82|-51.17|0.0653
95859670|NCT01032889|191677267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-110.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1013.0|792.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||792.6|-1013|0.803
95939023|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.98||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.42|48.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||48.62|-95.42|0.6316
95939024|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.05|46.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||46.18|7.05|0.0874
95939025|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.39||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|50.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||50.03|-139.99|0.4662
95939026|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.12||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.76|-5.51||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-5.51|-45.76|0.1073
95939027|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.31||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.62|45.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||45.96|-92.62|0.6197
95939028|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.97||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|40.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||40.55|0.63|0.1868
95939029|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.32||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-136.65|26.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||26.71|-136.65|0.3321
95988808|NCT01745146|191952453|EQUIVALENCE|Primary outcome is difference in rates of treatment response between the ASMT and the PRE, where treatment response is defined as ≥ 1 SD improvement in self-reported anger on at least 1 of 3 target scales from pre- to 1-2 wk post treatment. The treatment will be considered supported if the observed response rate with ASMT is at least 20 percentage points higher than that with the control treatment, PRE.||||||0.332||||||Alpha was set at .05 both for the a priori hypotheses and also for secondary analyses|Chi-squared|Pearson's Chi-squared||Significance of difference in overall post-treatment response rate. Missing outcomes excluded for this analysis.||||0.332
95988809|NCT00130832|191952454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 1||1.4|-2.2|<0.001
95988810|NCT00130832|191952454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 2||1.6|-1.4|<0.001
95988811|NCT00130832|191952454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8 greater than -10%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing seroprotection rate difference with the non-inferiority margin of 0.10 with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.||Seroprotection rate (proportion of subjects who achieve the seroprotection criteria: neutralizing antibody titers \[NA\] ≥1:8) for poliovirus type 3||2.3|-2.3|<0.001
95988812|NCT00130832|191952455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio (concomitant group over staggered group) greater than 0.50.|GMT Ratio|0.54||||0.277||95.0|0.42|0.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on log titer of serum anti-rotavirus IgA||||0.69|0.42|0.277
95988813|NCT00130832|191952455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (concomitant group minus staggered group) for subjects who achieve 3-fold rise in serum anti-rotavirus IgA greater than -10%.|Percentage Point Difference|-4.4||||0.002||95.0|-8.0|-1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Percentage point difference (concomitant - staggered)|||-1.4|-8.0|0.002
95988814|NCT03195517|191952457|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95741618|NCT00829452|191453813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.98||||||90.0|92.73|101.42|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.42|92.73|
95741619|NCT00829452|191453814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.78||||||90.0|89.34|109.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||109.23|89.34|
95939030|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.67||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-3.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-3.95|-45.64|0.1310
95939031|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.49||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.15|64.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||64.13|-88.15|0.8128
95939032|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.23||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.75|43.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||43.69|5.75|0.1004
95939033|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.81||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-147.28|21.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||21.71|-147.28|0.2962
95988815|NCT03195517|191952458|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988816|NCT03195517|191952459|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988817|NCT03195517|191952460|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988818|NCT03195517|191952461|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988819|NCT03195517|191952462|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988820|NCT03195517|191952463|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988821|NCT03195517|191952464|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988822|NCT03195517|191952465|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988823|NCT03195517|191952466|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95988824|NCT02118792|191952533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95988825|NCT01978093|191952563|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations ≥1.0 mg/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.3|||Group difference in proportions|Before concluding on the primary objectives for Rotarix, Prevnar 13 and Havrix, this primary objective regarding anti-PRP needs to be reached||Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 1.0 µg/mL one month after the fourth dose in HibCY Group and third dose in PedHIB Group.||4.30|-2.12|
95939034|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.31|-4.67||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-4.67|-48.31|0.1236
95939035|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.55||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-79.1|70.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||70.11|-79.10|0.9276
95939036|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.55|37.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||37.45|1.55|0.1657
95939037|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.8||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.54|31.71||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||31.71|-148.54|0.3461
95939038|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.51||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-49.58|-5.64||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-5.64|-49.58|0.1118
95939039|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.24||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.75|51.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||51.89|-89.75|0.6912
95939040|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.5|40.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||40.35|5.50|0.0973
95939041|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.33||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.72|18.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||18.37|-133.72|0.2890
95939042|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.68||0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.43|1.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||1.60|-45.43|0.2310
95939043|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.17||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.69|61.28||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||61.28|-86.69|0.7967
95939044|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.98||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.5|36.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||36.44|-3.50|0.2868
95939045|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-138.08|8.37||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||8.37|-138.08|0.2369
95939046|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.97|1.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||1.17|-44.97|0.2228
95939047|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.51||0.774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-92.74|62.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||62.89|-92.74|0.7740
95939048|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|33.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||33.98|-3.74|0.3000
95939049|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-72.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-131.59|-13.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-13.30|-131.59|0.1472
95939050|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.77|14.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||14.94|-39.77|0.5536
95939051|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.65||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.13|53.84||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||53.84|-89.13|0.7131
95939052|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.27||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.49|34.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||34.24|-6.49|0.3762
95939053|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.37||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.26|-14.97||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-14.97|-133.26|0.1419
95939054|NCT03858634|191843592|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.22|15.95||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||15.95|-39.22|0.5817
95939055|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.77||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-63.6|119.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||119.06|-63.60|0.6532
95939056|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.38|35.85||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||35.85|11.38|0.0187
95939057|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.53||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-123.27|44.68||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||44.68|-123.27|0.4707
95741620|NCT00829452|191453815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.59||||||90.0|94.62|100.66|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||100.66|94.62|
95741621|NCT00834873|191453827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.77||||||90.0|85.04|105.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.61|85.04|
95741622|NCT00834873|191453828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.23||||||90.0|90.59|102.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.23|90.59|
95741623|NCT00834873|191453829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.11||||||90.0|90.45|102.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.12|90.45|
95741624|NCT01151618|191453840|OTHER|"Sensitivity and Specificity of values with respect to the Mead Whittenberger method were computed as follows (FL=flow limited and NFL = Non Flow limited):~Sensitivity = (# of FL breaths detected by FOT / # of FL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100 Specificity =(# of NFL breaths detected by FOT / # of NFL breaths detected by M\&W) \* 100"|DeltaXrs (cmH2O*s/L)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|100.0|||||DeltaXrs equals average inspiratory reactance minus average expiratory reactance.|||100|0|
95741625|NCT00985751|191453843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine (GSK 2189242A) combined with Synflorix™ vaccine (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (Synflorix/GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
95741626|NCT00985751|191453844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 95% CI for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects with rectal temperature \> 40.0°C within the 7-day follow-up period following primary vaccination was computed for the GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group. No statistically significant difference between groups in rectal temperature \>40.0°C would be detected if the 95% CIs included 0 and non-inferiority would be express|Difference in percentage|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.32||||||Fever \>40°C-non-inferiority: To compare the 2 formulations of GSK Biologicals' S. pneumoniae protein containing vaccine GSK 2189242A (pooled groups) versus Synflorix™ vaccine (GSK 2189242A Group minus Synflorix Group) with respect to the percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 40.0°C (rectal temperature) within 7 days after at least 1 dose of primary vaccination.||5.32|-6.1|
95741627|NCT02272803|191453882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67|||||Hazard Ratio of E-Ld to Ld. Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3)|||1.67|0.41|
95741628|NCT02452463|191453913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
95741629|NCT02452463|191453915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: OS distributions are equal||||0.75
95741630|NCT02452463|191453916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypotheses: PFS distributions are equal||||0.25
95741631|NCT02452463|191453917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.131
95796392|NCT02320396|191562836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||cLDA model|||"Change from BL in Interference with Daily Activities During 2 Wks: Desloratadine vs. Placebo~The LS mean change from BL to post BL (average score of 2 weeks) in Interference with Daily Activities estimated using a cLDA model, where both BL and post-BL measurements (average score from Day 1-Day 13) were included in the response variable. The treatment difference in terms of LS mean change from BL between desloratadine 5 mg and placebo evaluated with the 95% confidence interval and P-value."||-0.08|-0.26|<0.001
95741632|NCT02452463|191453918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
95741633|NCT02452463|191453919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616
95741634|NCT02452463|191453919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Paired T-test|||Comparing change relative to baseline.||||0.183
95741635|NCT02452463|191453919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||paired T-test|||Evaluating change relative to baseline.||||0.203
95741636|NCT02452463|191453920|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
95741637|NCT01073631|191453922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.07|82.73|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||82.73|75.07|
95741638|NCT01131260|191453930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.98|||Chi-squared|||Analysis on primary composite outcome as a whole.||1.98|0.87|0.20
95741639|NCT01131260|191453932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||||29.1|0.31|0.37
95741640|NCT01131260|191453933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.24|||Chi-squared|||||7.24|1.13|0.02
95741641|NCT01131260|191453934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||||3.38|0.17|1.0
95741642|NCT01131260|191453935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.10|0.13
95741643|NCT01131260|191453936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.97|0.07
95741644|NCT01131260|191453937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.0|||Fisher Exact|||||3.00|0.22|1.0
95741645|NCT01131260|191453938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.17
95741646|NCT01131260|191453939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||The p value was calculated based on the entire study cohort.|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95741647|NCT01131260|191453941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.32
95741648|NCT01131260|191453942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95741649|NCT01131260|191453943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
95741650|NCT01131260|191453944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95741651|NCT01131260|191453945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.19
95741652|NCT01131260|191453946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95741653|NCT01131260|191453947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95741654|NCT01131260|191453948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95741655|NCT01131260|191453949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
95741656|NCT01131260|191453950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
95741657|NCT03544216|191453958|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Results of post-hoc analyses comparing scores of each lens type to one another:~Habitual lens and multifocal contact lens: p \<0.001 Habitual lens and single vision lens: p \<0.001 Multifocal lens and single vision lens: p = 0.08"|Generalized linear models|||Generalized linear models (controlling for repeated measures) of crossover analyses was run to compare mean CLDEQ-8 scores with habitual, multifocal, and single vision contact lenses (controlling for order)||||<0.001
95939058|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.22|4.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1||4.59|-8.22|0.7108
95741658|NCT03544216|191453958|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and refractive error (continuous, mean binocular spherical equivalent)||||0.5
95741659|NCT03544216|191453958|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between magnitude in accommodative lag (measured in diopters with a 2 diopter visual target) and lens type (single vision or multifocal)||||0.7
95741660|NCT03544216|191453958|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures.|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (continuous, measured in self-reported years)||||0.3
95741661|NCT03544216|191453958|OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Analysis controlled for order, visit, and repeated measures|Generalized linear model|||A generalized linear model was run to determine if there was an interaction between lens type (single vision or multifocal) and age (measured categorically as 30 to \<35 years old and 35 to 40 years old, by self report)|"Post-Hoc Testing comparing CLDEQ-8 scores and the interaction between lens type and age group (denoted by lens type\*age group) produced the following results:~p = 0.01 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\<35 age group p = 0.07 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\<35 age group compared to Single Vision (SV)\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to SV\*\>35 age group p \>0.05 for SV\*\<35 age group compared to MF\*\>35 age group p \> 0.05 for MF\*\>35 age group compared to SV\*\>25 age group"|||0.047
95741662|NCT00849797|191453959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|90.86||||||90.0|85.47|96.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.60|85.47|
95741663|NCT00849797|191453960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.6||||||90.0|96.59|100.66|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.66|96.59|
95741664|NCT00849797|191453961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.74||||||90.0|96.71|100.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100.80|96.71|
95741665|NCT00849797|191453962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.5||||||90.0|95.66|100.48|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||100.48|95.66|
95741666|NCT00849797|191453963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.29||||||90.0|98.96|101.64|||||Results presented for informational purposes only, metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.64|98.96|
95741667|NCT00849797|191453964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.08||||||90.0|98.91|101.27|||||Results presented for informational purposes only; metabolite not subjected to bioequivalence criteria.|||101.27|98.91|
95741668|NCT01139762|191453973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.55|-2.27|0.001
95741669|NCT01139762|191453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.87|0.007
95796393|NCT02320396|191562837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Investigator: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo."||2.303|0.966|0.071
95939059|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.36||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-76.47|121.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||121.23|-76.47|0.7355
95939060|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|34.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||34.52|-0.66|0.2167
95939061|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.16|51.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||51.13|-178.16|0.4058
95939062|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|2.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2||2.15|-14.95|0.3323
95939063|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.11||0.6496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-77.29|145.8||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||145.80|-77.29|0.6496
95939064|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|30.7||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||30.70|-3.12|0.2925
95939065|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.98||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-198.92|57.46||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||57.46|-198.92|0.4074
95939066|NCT03858634|191843594|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.56||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.6|-1.49||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3||-1.49|-29.60|0.1584
95939067|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.04||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-111.31|65.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||65.69|-111.31|0.7013
95939068|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.35||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|35.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||35.05|-8.30|0.4230
95939069|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.96||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-169.9|48.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||48.69|-169.90|0.4055
95939070|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.82||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.41|-6.96||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.96|-38.41|0.0709
95988826|NCT01978093|191952564|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the ratio of anti-rotavirus IgA GMC (HibCY group over PedHIB group) is to be ≥0.5|Adjusted GMC ratios|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|1.9|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub-cohorts;97.5% confidence interval calculated for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 Post dose 3)\& Epoch 002 (Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used in order to test these objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for anti-Rota IgA concentrations 2 months after the second dose of Rotarix vaccine||1.90|0.77|
95988827|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio (Ancova Model: adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
95939071|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.17||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-103.77|139.17||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||139.17|-103.77|0.8268
95939072|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.63||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|31.75||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||31.75|-7.03|0.4082
95939073|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.86||0.4818|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-161.43|60.56||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||60.56|-161.43|0.4818
95859671|NCT01032889|191677268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.69|-2.32|<0.001
95939074|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.64|-8.58||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5||-8.58|-45.64|0.0673
95939075|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.15||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.0|164.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||164.10|-105.00|0.7429
95796394|NCT02320396|191562838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Impression Rate as Assessed by Participant: Desloratadine 5 mg/Placebo Odds Ratio~Impression was evaluated using a logistic model with impression rate (percentage of assessments of Better + Much better) as a response variable and treatment and severity as factors. Odds ratio was estimated and tested. A point estimate of \>1 indicated that desloratadine 5mg was more effective than placebo"||3.280|1.408|<0.001
95796395|NCT01129128|191562844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-173.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of 0.9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.87
95796396|NCT01129128|191562844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|705.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of TNF alpha levels to account for skewed distribution of values||comparison of peak level of TNF alpha after controlling for baseline level. Based on data from 20 participants in a group, there was a power of .9 to detect a difference of 1000 pg/ml with a standard deviation of 700 pg/ml||||0.82
95939076|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.55||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.88|39.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||39.79|3.88|0.1227
95741670|NCT01139762|191453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.02|-0.80|0.040
95741671|NCT01139762|191453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||P-value is for IPSS storage (irritative) subscore - 26 weeks|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.07|-0.75|0.107
95741672|NCT01139762|191453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.68||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.68|-1.69|<0.001
95741673|NCT01139762|191453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.46||P-value is for IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.46|-1.62|<0.001
95741674|NCT01139762|191453975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14||P-value is IPSS voiding (obstructive) subscore - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
95741675|NCT01139762|191453976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.14|-0.50|<0.001
95796397|NCT01129128|191562845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15793.0||||0.82||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.82
95796398|NCT01129128|191562845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23472.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of IL-6 levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.68
95939077|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.06||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-156.95|62.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||62.02|-156.95|0.4996
95796399|NCT01129128|191562846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.9||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.90
95796400|NCT01129128|191562846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.76||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels and performed log transformation of Interferon gamma levels to account for skewed distribution of values||||||0.76
95796401|NCT01129128|191562847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.98||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.98
95939078|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.87|-15.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6||-15.43|-51.87|0.0244
95939079|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.24||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.5|104.92||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||104.92|-105.50|0.9967
95741676|NCT01139762|191453976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.00|-0.38|0.051
95741677|NCT01139762|191453976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline total IPSS was the covariate. No imputation of missing total IPSS data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.04|-0.38|0.107
95796402|NCT01129128|191562847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.0||||0.34||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|controlled for baseline levels||||||0.34
95939080|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.57||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|37.12||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||37.12|1.15|0.1739
95939081|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-152.39|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||42.26|-152.39|0.3978
95939082|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.73||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.26|-13.07||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7||-13.07|-52.26|0.0397
95939083|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.66||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-105.32|126.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||126.14|-105.32|0.8922
95939084|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|36.45||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||36.45|-1.80|0.2439
95939085|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.29|19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||19.61|-120.29|0.3076
95939086|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.32|-15.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-15.55|-57.32|0.0322
95939087|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.67||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.98|-49.36||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-49.36|-139.98|0.0418
95939088|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.44||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.49|42.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||42.26|6.49|0.0865
95939089|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.32||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-124.96|27.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||27.11|-124.96|0.3489
95939090|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.34|-16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9||-16.79|-59.34|0.0286
95939091|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.63||0.7198|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.32|147.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||147.59|-90.32|0.7198
95939092|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|21.32|56.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||56.63|21.32|0.0088
95939093|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-120.39|7.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||7.34|-120.39|0.2371
95939094|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.14||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.3|-19.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10||-19.35|-62.30|0.0210
95939095|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.07||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.17|108.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||108.94|-68.17|0.7312
95939096|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|19.88|58.83||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||58.83|19.88|0.0150
95939097|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-117.22|10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||10.52|-117.22|0.2559
95939098|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.97||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.21|-13.72||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11||-13.72|-56.21|0.0419
95939099|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.66||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.95|119.74||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||119.74|-78.95|0.7589
95939100|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.97|62.31||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||62.31|15.97|0.0374
95741678|NCT01139762|191453977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|6.21||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.21|3.49|<0.001
95741679|NCT01139762|191453977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.6||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||5.60|2.55|<0.001
95741680|NCT01139762|191453977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.31||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||6.31|3.15|<0.001
95741681|NCT01139762|191453978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.40|0.61|<0.001
95741682|NCT01139762|191453978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.51|0.61|<0.001
95741683|NCT01139762|191453978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.69|0.74|<0.001
95741684|NCT01139762|191453979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.47||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.47|1.18|<0.001
95741685|NCT01139762|191453979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.31||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.31|0.88|<0.001
95741686|NCT01139762|191453979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.73||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.73|1.23|<0.001
95741687|NCT01139762|191453980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||2.13|0.92|<0.001
95741688|NCT01139762|191453980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.54||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.54|0.27|0.006
95741689|NCT01139762|191453980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.74|0.41|0.002
95859672|NCT01032889|191677268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.85|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment group and the baseline covariate.||||-0.85|-2.46|<0.001
95859673|NCT02039843|191677270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||Two-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in WHO-DAS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time \& timeXgroup interaction||||||0.052
95741690|NCT01139762|191453981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.25|0.61|<0.001
95741691|NCT01139762|191453981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.14|0.44|<0.001
95741692|NCT01139762|191453981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13||P-value is for 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.13|0.39|<0.001
95741693|NCT01139762|191453982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.034
95741694|NCT01139762|191453983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Van Elteren test was stratified by region.||||||0.031
95741695|NCT01139762|191453984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328||95.0||||P-value is for overall distribution of responses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity.||||||0.328
95741696|NCT01139762|191453985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.157
95741697|NCT01139762|191453986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.98||P-value is for Question 3 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|0.49|<0.001
95741698|NCT01139762|191453986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.93||P-value is for Question 3 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.93|0.43|<0.001
95741699|NCT01139762|191453986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||P-value is for Question 3 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||1.02|0.48|<0.001
95741700|NCT01139762|191453986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||P-value is for Question 4 - 4 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.95|0.46|<0.001
95741701|NCT01139762|191453986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.85||P-value is for Question 4 - 12 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.85|0.36|<0.001
95741702|NCT01139762|191453986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.89||P-value is for Question 4 - 26 weeks.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||MMRM model includes treatment, region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. Baseline IIEF was the covariate. No imputation of missing IIEF data was performed. The within-subject errors were modeled using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.89|0.35|<0.001
95741703|NCT03067987|191453995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
95741704|NCT03067987|191453996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
95741705|NCT02488109|191454010|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Changes in rates of clinical remission by group over time in the mITT model.|Regression, Linear|Clinical remission was modeled as a nominal multinomial outcome (yes, no, or missing)||The study was powered to detect a difference in 12-months clinical remission rates between groups. N = 60 per arm with 85% retention would provide 80% power on a 2-sided 0.05-level test to detect a 20% difference between groups in 12-months clinical remission rates. A generalized linear mixed-effects regression model was used to compare study arms with respect to achievement and maintenance of clinical remission.||||0.42
95859674|NCT02039843|191677271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.421
95859675|NCT02039843|191677272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in MCS score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.606
95741706|NCT02488109|191454011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.53||Survival analysis of time to medical stability by log-rank test, which does not assume proportional hazards. Those who did not reach medical stability before hospital discharge were censored; analyses accounted for the site effect by stratification.|Survival analysis with log rank test|Compared time to achieve medical stability by arm; participants who did not meet stability criteria by hospital discharge were right-censored||This trial was powered at 0.80 to detect a 12% to 20% difference in restored medical stability at 0.05 type I error and correlation between time points from 0.1 to 1.||2.53|1.10|0.01
95741707|NCT02488109|191454012|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cost outcomes of group differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated.||28,819|9,293|0.002
95741708|NCT03969641|191454013|NON_INFERIORITY|This objective will be assessed using a one-sided noninferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 (1-sided) and a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Proportions (RIV4 - IIV4)|-0.0214|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0406|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used, stratified by site.|The directional comparison was the upper bound of the confidence interval using a 10% noninferiority margin.|The null hypothesis assumes that RIV4 is inferior (i.e., RIV4 will have a higher proportion) to IIV4 in regards to the proportion of pregnant women with adverse birth outcomes.||0.0406||<0.0001
95741709|NCT03969641|191454014|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of preterm birth was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Preterm birth||1.48|0.35|0.4645
95741710|NCT03969641|191454015|SUPERIORITY|These proportions were compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportions of combined fetal death and neonatal death was also calculated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.00000031||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Fetal or neonatal death|||0.00|0.2447
95741711|NCT03969641|191454016|SUPERIORITY|This proportion was compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level. The site adjusted odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the proportion of spontaneous abortion after vaccination was also calculated. This was a subgroup analysis of only those participants vaccinated at less than 20 weeks gestational age.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.6235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.47|||Mantel Haenszel|||Spontaneous abortion||5.47|0.04|0.6235
95741712|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Pain||2.50|0.55|0.7029
95741713|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Redness||22.52|0.18|0.6217
95741714|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||Mantel Haenszel|||Injection Site Tenderness||1.39|0.35|0.3848
95741715|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.35|||Mantel Haenszel|||Nausea||1.35|0.21|0.2504
95741716|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|||Vomiting||1.93|0.20|0.5751
95796403|NCT01311661|191562849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.152|<0.0001
95859676|NCT02039843|191677273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PSQI score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.210
95796404|NCT01311661|191562849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.111|<0.0001
95796405|NCT01311661|191562849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.19|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.266|0.190|<0.0001
95859677|NCT02039843|191677274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PCL-5 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.036
95859678|NCT02039843|191677275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in PHQ-9 score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.079
95741717|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.19|||Mantel Haenszel|||Diarrhea||3.19|0.32|1.0000
95741718|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Abdominal Pain||3.04|0.21|1.0000
95741719|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Headache||1.13|0.25|0.1326
95741720|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.04|||Mantel Haenszel|||Chills/Shivering||5.04|0.20|1.0000
95741721|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this CI is infinity, thus no numeric value can be provided.||Mantel Haenszel|||Body Rash|||0.00|1.0000
95741722|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|||Malaise (Fatigue)||2.15|0.39|1.0000
95741723|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY|These proportions will be compared between the RIV4 group and the IIV4 group, within symptom, using an exact Mantel-Haenszel statistic (calculated in Proc Logistic in SAS) in a stratified analysis by site to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||Myalgia (Body Aches)||2.48|0.31|1.0000
95796406|NCT01311661|191562849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.170|<0.0001
95796407|NCT01311661|191562850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.229|0.150|<0.0001
95939101|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.8|8.93||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.93|-118.80|0.2463
95741724|NCT03969641|191454017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Joint Pain||2.29|0.22|0.7704
95741725|NCT02034513|191454051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.94|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 1: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.94|0.85|<0.0001
95741726|NCT02034513|191454052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (IDeg/IGlar) was ≤1.10 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: RR \>1.10 against HA: RR ≤1.10 was less than 2.5%, where RR is the estimated rate ratio IDeg/IGlar.|Treatment ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73|||Poisson||If non-inferiority was confirmed the superiority of IDeg/IGlar was investigated outside of the test hierarchy. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was \<1.00.|Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in at least one maintenance period. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 2: Number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||0.73|0.56|<0.0001
95741727|NCT02034513|191454053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||Superiority was confirmed if the p-value was less than 0.025.|McNemar|||Statistical analysis was performed on the FAS. Number of subjects analysed=subjects in the FAS, who were exposed in both the maintenance periods. Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints: Step 3: Proportion of subjects with one or more severe hypoglycaemic episodes during the maintenance period.||||0.0016
95796408|NCT01311661|191562850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.121|<0.0001
95796409|NCT01311661|191562850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.253|0.175|<0.0001
95939102|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.78||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.56|-10.9||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-10.90|-55.56|0.0632
95741728|NCT02034513|191454055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 437 (n=220 for IDeg and n=217 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 32 (treatment period 1). Before testing the primary endpoint, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as a prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurement (MMRM); treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates."||0.15|-0.10|
95741729|NCT02034513|191454055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.40%. Comparison groups: IDeg versus IGlar. Number of subjects included in analysis is 410 (n=202 for IDeg and n=208 for IGlar).|Treatment contrast|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||||||"Change from baseline in HbA1c at week 64 (treatment period 2). The baseline values are week 32 values. Before the primary endpoint was tested, the secondary supportive efficacy endpoint Change from baseline in HbA1c after 32 weeks of treatment was tested for non-inferiority as prerequisite for testing the primary endpoint. Analysis was based on MMRM; treatment, sex, region, pre-trial insulin treatment regimen, visit and dosing time were fixed effects, and age and baseline HbA1c were covariates"||0.23|-0.00|
95741730|NCT02218541|191454057|OTHER|||||||1||||||threshold for significance will be p-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95741731|NCT02218541|191454058|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes bleeding|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||0.039
95741732|NCT02218541|191454059|EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was done as this was a pilot study.||||||1||||||This statistical analysis applies to Yes Provisional Crown fit|Binomial|The statistical analysis was changed during the analysis phase but the protocol was not amended to reflect this change||||||1.0
95741733|NCT02554877|191454084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.48|-1.34|<0.0001
95741734|NCT02554877|191454084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-0.73|-1.59|<0.0001
95741735|NCT02554877|191454084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-0.74|-1.60|<0.0001
95741736|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|Least squares mean (LS mean) difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
95741737|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.26|-0.52|<0.0001
95796410|NCT01311661|191562850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.181|<0.0001
95858309|NCT00337675|191674542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.51||95.0|-11.4|19.6||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||19.6|-11.4|0.510
95741738|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-0.30|-0.57|<0.0001
95796411|NCT01311661|191562851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.238|0.153|<0.0001
95988828|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.42|0.93|
95988829|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.31|0.90|
95988830|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥ 0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.47|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.47|0.95|
95988831|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.63|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.63|1.03|
95988832|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|0.88|
95988833|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.34|0.91|
95988834|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.55|1.00|
95741739|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
95859679|NCT02039843|191677276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in DAR score adjusted for gender, site, baseline score, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.155
95741740|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.80|<0.0001
95859680|NCT02039843|191677277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||2-sided a priori alpha level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed repeated measures analysis on group difference in SBI adjusted for gender, site, baseline SBI, time, and timeXgroup||||||0.157
95859681|NCT02039843|191677278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.430
95939103|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.73||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-75.41|126.78||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||126.78|-75.41|0.7053
95939104|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.25||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|17.09|60.34||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||60.34|17.09|0.0285
95939105|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-64.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.1||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.58|5.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||5.32|-134.58|0.2236
95939106|NCT03858634|191843594|OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.65|-12.41||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13||-12.41|-58.65|0.0558
95939107|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.86||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.41|149.24||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||149.24|-89.41|0.7089
95859682|NCT02039843|191677279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.358
95939108|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.08|53.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||53.35|14.08|0.0347
95741741|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.46|-0.79|<0.0001
95741742|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.49|-0.93|<0.0001
95741743|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects..|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.74|-1.17|<0.0001
95741744|NCT02554877|191454085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference from placebo adjusted for baseline values was derived from the ANCOVA model.||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-0.76|-1.20|<0.0001
95741745|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-37.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|-27.7||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-27.70|-47.96|<0.0001
95741746|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-44.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.98|-34.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-34.72|-54.98|<0.0001
95741747|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-48.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-38.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||-38.37|-58.81|<0.0001
95741748|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-30.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-18.74||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-18.74|-42.52|<0.0001
95741749|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-39.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|-27.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-27.35|-51.13|<0.0001
95741750|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.22|-26.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-26.38|-50.22|<0.0001
95741751|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-7.05||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-7.05|-31.88|0.0023
95741752|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.27|-24.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-24.69|-49.27|<0.0001
95741753|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|-22.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||-22.72|-47.55|<0.0001
95796412|NCT01311661|191562851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.102|<0.0001
95796413|NCT01311661|191562851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.285|0.200|<0.0001
95796414|NCT01311661|191562851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.156|<0.0001
95741754|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-19.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.81|-7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||-7.73|-31.81|0.0014
95741755|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-35.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.17|-23.35||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-23.35|-47.17|<0.0001
95741756|NCT02554877|191454086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-36.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-24.46||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12||-24.46|-48.43|<0.0001
95741757|NCT02554877|191454087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.057||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|21.82||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||21.82|1.68|0.0059
95741758|NCT02554877|191454087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.927||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|31.96||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||31.96|2.49|0.0008
95741759|NCT02554877|191454087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|52.67||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<7%)||52.67|4.34|<0.0001
95741760|NCT02554877|191454087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|17.47||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||17.47|0.64|0.1532
95741761|NCT02554877|191454087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.198||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|21.22||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||21.22|0.83|0.0826
95741762|NCT02554877|191454087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.588||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|25.73||P-value was derived from the logistic regression model with treatment (categorical) and baseline HbA1c as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12 (HbA1C\<6.5%)||25.73|1.21|0.0272
95741763|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.66|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.59|-6.66|0.7618
95939109|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.94||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-139.99|18.16||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||18.16|-139.99|0.2835
95939110|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-58.31|-12.77||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14||-12.77|-58.31|0.0525
95741764|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|4.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||4.96|-6.25|0.8489
95741765|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|8.12||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.12|-3.17|0.4699
95741766|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.63|3.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.19|-7.63|0.4979
95741767|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|1.95||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.95|-8.85|0.2927
95741768|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.26|0.6||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||0.60|-10.26|0.1430
95859683|NCT02039843|191677280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
95939111|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.68|129.66||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||129.66|-81.68|0.7347
95741769|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.7373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.92|-7.42|0.7373
95741770|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.57|3.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.66|-8.57|0.5075
95741771|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.6295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.99|4.37||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.37|-7.99|0.6295
95741772|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.69||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.69|-3.39|0.4266
95741773|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.4||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.40|-1.47|0.2038
95741774|NCT02554877|191454092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|8.78||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.78|-4.19|0.5592
95741775|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|16.05||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||16.05|-5.86|
95741776|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|15.48||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||15.48|-9.76|
95741777|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.91|30.34||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||30.34|3.91|
95939112|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.94||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|12.5|49.6||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||49.60|12.50|0.0390
95741778|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|16.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.22|-10.80|
95741779|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|16.45||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||16.45|-10.61|
95741780|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|9.94||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||9.94|-15.08|
95741781|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.29|13.03||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||13.03|-16.29|
95741782|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.4|11.22||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||11.22|-20.40|
95741783|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|19.16||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||19.16|-13.66|
95741784|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|19.02||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.02|-3.30|
95741785|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|13.87||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||13.87|-16.13|
95741786|NCT02554877|191454093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|19.04||||||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||19.04|-7.07|
95741787|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|5.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.20|-3.12|0.6800
95741788|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|5.8||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||5.80|-2.52|0.5150
95939113|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-127.49|6.33||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||6.33|-127.49|0.2299
95741789|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|8.85||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.85|0.47|0.0676
95939114|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.7|-8.53||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15||-8.53|-56.70|0.0884
95939115|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.44||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.37|116.87||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||116.87|-84.37|0.8085
95939116|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.96||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|41.14||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||41.14|-1.33|0.2283
95939117|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.26||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-130.76|-9.11||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-9.11|-130.76|0.1625
95939118|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.8||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.87|-10.52||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-10.52|-57.87|0.0707
95939119|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.17||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.79|82.55||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||82.55|-81.79|0.9944
95939120|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.71|44.05||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||44.05|3.71|0.1327
95939121|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-133.09|-5.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||-5.35|-133.09|0.1777
95939122|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.34|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 17||4.61|-52.34|0.2796
95939123|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.4||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.15|98.3||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||98.30|-83.15|0.8999
95939124|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.99||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|43.23||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||43.23|0.68|0.1867
95939125|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.87||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-134.68|-6.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-6.94|-134.68|0.1717
95988835|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.50|0.90|
95859684|NCT02039843|191677290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383||||||p-value from random effects regression controlling for month and baseline outcome|Regression, Linear|||||||0.383
95939126|NCT03858634|191843594|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.46||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-52.5|4.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||4.61|-52.50|0.2792
95939127|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.41||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-98.77|4.1||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||4.10|-98.77|0.2289
95939128|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.08||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|38.27||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||38.27|0.96|0.1788
95939129|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.35||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-275.19|156.06||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||156.06|-275.19|0.6544
95939130|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-99.39|-45.09||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-45.09|-99.39|0.0023
95939131|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
95939132|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.37||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|43.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||43.26|-13.39|0.4926
95939133|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
95939134|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.56||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-94.61|-45.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-45.22|-94.61|0.0014
95859685|NCT02039843|191677291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.932
95859686|NCT03523988|191677292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.04
95859687|NCT03523988|191677292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
95741790|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|3.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.48|-4.73|0.8021
95741791|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|2.16||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.16|-6.06|0.4346
95741792|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|2.09||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.09|-6.15|0.4173
95741793|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.21|3.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||3.26|-5.21|0.7036
95741794|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|1.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.56|-6.84|0.2993
95741795|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|4.32||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||4.32|-4.16|0.9751
95741796|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|8.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.96|-0.50|0.1408
95741797|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|9.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.38|0.02|0.0986
95741798|NCT02554877|191454094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.5||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||8.50|-0.92|0.1851
95939135|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.96||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-89.68|-14.47||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-14.47|-89.68|0.1081
95939136|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.97||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.65|36.82||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||36.82|-21.65|0.7339
95939137|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|219.98||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-361.63|467.98||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||467.98|-361.63|0.8315
95988836|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.52|1.01|
95939138|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.92|-39.22||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-39.22|-95.92|0.0055
95741799|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|3.98||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||3.98|-3.19|0.8559
95741800|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|6.55||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.55|-0.62|0.1729
95859688|NCT03523988|191677292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.41
95741801|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|8.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|12.06||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||12.06|4.84|0.0002
95741802|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.8837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|4.59||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||4.59|-3.85|0.8837
95741803|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|7.84||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||7.84|-0.60|0.1573
95939139|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.73||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.7|-14.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-14.15|-101.70|0.1188
95939140|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.26|27.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||27.35|-21.26|0.8697
95939141|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-178.62|117.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||117.94|-178.62|0.7368
95939142|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.03|11.03||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||11.03|-29.03|0.5571
95988837|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.43|0.94|
95796415|NCT01311661|191562852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.228|0.138|<0.0001
95939143|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.21||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-101.8|3.69||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||3.69|-101.80|0.2251
95939144|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.93||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|42.48||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||42.48|-7.90|0.3733
95939145|NCT03858634|191843596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.57||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-148.16|102.89||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||102.89|-148.16|0.7662
95939146|NCT03858634|191843596|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.87||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.54|16.44||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||16.44|-28.54|0.7241
95939147|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.04||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-68.69|26.43||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||26.43|-68.69|0.5195
95939148|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|22.26||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||22.26|0.34|0.1869
95939149|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-87.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.3||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-191.75|16.79||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||16.79|-191.75|0.2545
95939150|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.88|-6.57||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4||-6.57|-33.88|0.0643
95939151|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.11||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.52|4.35||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||4.35|-61.52|0.2503
95939152|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.58||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.08|17.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||17.62|-13.08|0.8468
95939153|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.93||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-222.98|55.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||55.18|-222.98|0.3755
95939154|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.58|-6.15||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8||-6.15|-35.58|0.0755
95939155|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.76|13.65||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||13.65|-70.76|0.3486
95939156|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.28|8.5||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||8.50|-17.28|0.6559
95939157|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.46||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-165.35|24.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||24.94|-165.35|0.2987
95939158|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.29|-0.13||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12||-0.13|-33.29|0.1966
95939159|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.2051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-83.56|0.62||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||0.62|-83.56|0.2051
95939160|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|10.25||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||10.25|-16.79|0.7511
95939161|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.27||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-153.68|-5.59||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-5.59|-153.68|0.1797
95939162|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.61|-1.08||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16||-1.08|-31.61|0.1715
95939163|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.32||0.185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-71.47|-1.63||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-1.63|-71.47|0.1850
95939164|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.19||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.15|11.29||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||11.29|-21.15|0.6907
95939165|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.85||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-118.97|-29.02||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||-29.02|-118.97|0.0901
95939166|NCT03858634|191843598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.34||0.564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.64|9.94||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 18||9.94|-25.64|0.5640
95939167|NCT03858634|191843599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.73||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-95.11|31.76||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||31.76|-95.11|0.4734
95939168|NCT03858634|191843599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.91||0.813|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.33|16.18||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.18|-23.33|0.8130
95939169|NCT03858634|191843599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.1||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-150.6|-33.32||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-33.32|-150.60|0.0979
95939170|NCT03858634|191843599|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-55.48|-19.61||Calculated from an ANCOVA model including treatment as factor and baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-19.61|-55.48|0.0122
95939171|NCT04938492|191843616|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
95939172|NCT04938492|191843617|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.001
95939173|NCT04938492|191843618|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||<.01
95939174|NCT04938492|191843619|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent growth modeling|||||||>.05
95939175|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|17.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||31.4|9.0|0.004
95939176|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||15.5|-3.7|0.150
95939177|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Erythema (Redness)||0.2|-27.6|0.054
95988838|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.29|0.89|
95988839|NCT01978093|191952565|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.91|1.53|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS subcohorts;97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS subcohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix\&Prevnar13 post dose 4),a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|GMC ratio between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the third dose.||1.53|0.91|
95988840|NCT01978093|191952566|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference (HibCY group minus the PedHIB group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations ≥15 mIU/mL is to be≥-10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|3.91|||Group difference in proportions||To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001(Rotarix \& Prevnar13 post dose 3)\& Epoch 002(Havrix \& Prevnar13 post dose 4),Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% 1sided for Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002)|Difference between HibCY and PedHIB groups in percentage of subjects with anti-HAV concentrations equal to or above the cut-off value of 15 mIU/mL one month after the second Havrix dose.||3.91|-3.76|
95988841|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.04|1.51|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 1 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.51|1.04|
95988842|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 3 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.24|0.83|
95988843|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 4 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.92|
95988844|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.28|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 5 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.28|0.87|
95988845|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.44|1.01|
95988846|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.36|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 6B concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.36|0.94|
95741804|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.65|12.11||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||12.11|3.65|0.0024
95741805|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|7.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||7.73|-0.55|0.1538
95741806|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|8.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||8.49|0.28|0.0789
95741807|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.98|14.3||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||14.30|5.98|<0.0001
95741808|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.36|11.56||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.56|2.36|0.0132
95741809|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.85|11.96||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||11.96|2.85|0.0079
95741810|NCT02554877|191454095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|15.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||15.42|6.24|0.0001
95741811|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.01|6.92||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.92|-4.01|0.6597
95741812|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|6.49||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||6.49|-4.45|0.7583
95741813|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|8.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||8.61|-2.39|0.3516
95741814|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|3.75||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||3.75|-7.42|0.5877
95741815|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|1.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.26|-9.92|0.2016
95939178|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.1||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|28.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||28.8|-2.3|0.091
95741816|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.08|-0.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||-0.89|-12.08|0.0568
95796416|NCT01311661|191562852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.108|<0.0001
95939179|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-0.4|-21.2|0.044
95939180|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-22.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-12.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Induration (Hard Lump)||-12.5|-36.4|0.001
95939181|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|9.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|28.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Pain||28.9|-10.0|0.333
95939182|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.2||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||17.2|-23.4|0.760
95741817|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.48|2.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.61|-8.48|0.3827
95741818|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.81|0.2||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||0.20|-10.81|0.1126
95741819|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.73|1.38||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.38|-9.73|0.2160
95741820|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|9.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.72|-2.64|0.3443
95741821|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.94||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||9.94|-2.30|0.3031
95741822|NCT02554877|191454096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.27|7.04||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||7.04|-5.27|0.8129
95939183|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-13.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Pain||7.1|-32.2|0.205
95939184|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Injection Site Swelling||29.7|-3.9|0.128
95939185|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.0||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||13.0|-17.0|0.779
95988847|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 7F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.29|0.93|
95741823|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.01|-0.33|0.4020
95741824|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||0.73|-0.61|0.8789
95741825|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.54||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2.||1.54|0.19|0.0345
95741826|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|2.08||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.08|0.48|0.0087
95859689|NCT03523988|191677293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.65
95939186|NCT03848065|191843637|OTHER||Difference in Parentages|-15.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Injection Site Swelling||1.7|-31.5|0.076
95939187|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-10.6||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||8.7|-29.1|0.282
95939188|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.9||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|9.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||9.5|-28.7|0.317
95939189|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|20.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Decreased Appetite (Appetite Loss)||20.4|-19.2|0.948
95939190|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||29.6|-9.4|0.303
95988848|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.33|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 9V concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.33|0.94|
95858310|NCT00337675|191674542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate reduction|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.884||95.0|-19.2|14.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens was addressed through step-down testing. Daily montelukast versus placebo was tested first; if this comparison was significant, intermittent montelukast versus placebo was tested. The significance level was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|A Poisson regression model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographic region, and an offset for number of days in study was used.|Rate reduction = (1 - montelukast-adjusted annual rate/placebo-adjusted annual rate) x 100%|The primary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in a decrease in the number of asthma episodes culminating in asthma attack in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year. A sample size of 450 evaluable patients per arm allowed the detection of a difference in rate of 23% with 90% power.||14.0|-19.2|0.884
95741827|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.88||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||1.88|0.28|0.0268
95939191|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||15.0|-22.6|0.681
95939192|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-14.4||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|5.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Somnolence (Drowsiness)||5.4|-33.2|0.153
95939193|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.7||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Irritability||28.2|-7.2|0.237
95939194|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.4||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|25.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||25.0|-10.3|0.406
95939195|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.3||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Irritability||15.5|-21.8|0.729
95939196|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||17.5|-7.1|0.385
95939197|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.1||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||15.4|-11.0|0.719
95939198|NCT03848065|191843638|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference= % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC|Urticaria (Hives/Welts)||8.9|-14.9|0.610
95939199|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-8.1|
95741828|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.19||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4.||2.19|0.58|0.0047
95939200|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||8.5|-7.9|
95939201|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 1||7.9|-8.1|
95939202|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114- SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||8.5|-8.1|
95939203|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||6.3|-11.7|
95939204|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 3||11.6|-6.0|
95939205|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-8.1|
95939206|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||8.5|-7.9|
95939207|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 4||7.9|-8.1|
95939208|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-8.1|
95939209|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||8.5|-7.9|
95939210|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 5||7.9|-8.1|
95939211|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||6.3|-11.9|
95741829|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.76||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.76|0.38|0.0116
95741830|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.66||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||1.66|0.27|0.0220
95741831|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.01||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8.||2.01|0.62|0.0021
95859690|NCT03523988|191677293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
95939212|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||8.5|-7.9|
95939213|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6A||5.8|-11.9|
95939214|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-0.2|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||-0.2|-21.2|
95939215|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.1|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||2.1|-17.9|
95939216|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|10.2|||||Difference=% V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 6B||10.2|-15.6|
95939217|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||8.5|-8.1|
95939218|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||6.3|-11.7|
95939219|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 7F||11.6|-6.0|
95939220|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-8.1|
95939221|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||8.5|-7.9|
95939222|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 9V||7.9|-8.1|
95939223|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.3|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||6.3|-11.9|
95939224|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||8.5|-7.9|
95939225|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 14||5.8|-11.9|
95939226|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-8.1|
95939227|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||8.5|-7.9|
95939228|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Differences in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 18C||7.9|-8.1|
95939229|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-8.1|
95939230|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||8.5|-7.9|
95939231|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19A||7.9|-8.1|
95939232|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-8.1|
95939233|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||8.5|-7.9|
95939234|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 19F||7.9|-8.1|
95939235|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|10.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||10.4|-9.8|
95939236|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||12.4|-5.7|
95939237|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|5.8|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 23F||5.8|-11.9|
95939238|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|96.4|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||96.4|77.2|
95939239|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.7|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||98.7|84.1|
95741832|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.26||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.26|0.56|0.0067
95741833|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|2.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.02|0.33|0.0225
95741834|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12.||2.25|0.55|0.0073
95741835|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.73||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.73|-0.12|0.2391
95741836|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.43||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.43|-0.42|0.9912
95741837|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.77||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 2. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||0.77|-0.09|0.1930
95741838|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.25||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation. (Excluding outliers)||1.25|0.35|0.0038
95741839|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|1.02||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.02|0.12|0.0394
95741840|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.93||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 4. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||0.93|0.02|0.0862
95741841|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.61|0.48|0.0024
95859691|NCT03523988|191677293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.69
95939240|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.6|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 22F||3.6|-15.2|
95939241|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|90.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||90.5|67.9|
95939242|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|95.2|||||Difference=% V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||95.2|76.4|
95939243|NCT03848065|191843640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|8.2|||||Difference=% V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|ST 33F||8.2|-22.7|
95939244|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 1||1.00|0.58|
95939245|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.13|0.65|
95741842|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.48||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.48|0.37|0.0068
95741843|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.42||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 8. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.42|0.29|0.0132
95741844|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.14||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||2.14|0.65|0.0024
95741845|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.89||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.89|0.40|0.0115
95741846|NCT02554877|191454097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference from placebo|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.72||Two (2)-sided p-values were from MMRM with baseline value, time (study day), treatment group, time by treatment interaction as fixed effects and an unstructured correlation matrix.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo was the reference and each of the active doses was the test for Week 12. The readings with residual greater than 3.5 times of its standard derivation were excluded from the presentation.(Excluding outliers)||1.72|0.22|0.0344
95741847|NCT02450539|191454106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.765||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.672|||Stratified log-rank test.||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.672|1.165|0.0068
95741848|NCT02450539|191454109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|2.022|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).\]||2.022|0.879|0.1746
95741849|NCT02450539|191454110|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.6|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||-6.6|-29.3|
95741850|NCT02450539|191454111|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|2.8|||||Confidence intervals are based on the normal approximation to the binomial.|||2.8|-29.2|
95741851|NCT02450539|191454112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|2.792|||Stratified Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression model.|Stratification factors are baseline ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), Number of Prior Therapies (received only platinum-based therapy vs Received platinum-based Therapy plus Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor), and time since initiation of first line therapy (\<=9 months vs \>9 months).||2.792|0.502|0.7039
95741852|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Headache||||
95741853|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Diarrhea||||
95741854|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core symptom severity||||
95741855|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean interference||||
95741856|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean lung cancer symptom severity||||
95741857|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung cancer symptom severity||||
95939246|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114-IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|||1.16|0.68|
95939247|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.76|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.76|0.96|
95939248|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.01|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||2.01|1.10|
95939249|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 3||1.18|0.65|
95939250|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||0.90|0.58|
95939251|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.00|0.65|
95741858|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean brain tumor symptom severity||||
95741859|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean core plus lung worst 5 symptoms severity||||
95939252|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 4||1.11|0.72|
95939253|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.16|0.60|
95939254|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.31|0.69|
95939255|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 5||1.21|0.64|
95939256|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.84|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.84|0.47|
95939257|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||0.93|0.52|
95939258|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6A||1.21|0.68|
95939259|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.79|0.36|
95939260|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||0.90|0.41|
95939261|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 6B||1.30|0.59|
95939262|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.81|0.46|
95939263|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||0.90|0.52|
95939264|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 7F||1.17|0.67|
95939265|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||0.99|0.57|
95939266|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.13|0.65|
95939267|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 9V||1.15|0.67|
95939268|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.19|0.60|
95939269|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.43|0.72|
95939270|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 14||1.16|0.59|
95939271|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.9|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.90|0.53|
95939272|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||0.92|0.54|
95939273|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 18C||1.27|0.76|
95939274|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.15|0.66|
95741860|NCT02450539|191454113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Rash||||
95741861|NCT02450539|191454114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ VAS Overall Self-rated Health Score||||
95741862|NCT02450539|191454115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||EQ-5D-5L Index Value||||
95741863|NCT00095784|191454123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CD34+ cell levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||<0.0001
95741864|NCT00095784|191454129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in CXCR4 levels. Analysis performed on log scale.||||0.29
95741865|NCT00095784|191454135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|5 degrees of freedom test over six time points: day 1 (pre-treatment) and days 5, 12, 43, 47, and 54 post treatment.||Mixed effects regression analysis of change over time in hemoglobin F levels.||||0.99
95741866|NCT00608322|191454137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95741867|NCT02052895|191454139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of ROC-AUC|0.0317||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0409|0.1043|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.1043|-0.0409|0.3924
95741868|NCT05143047|191454174|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95741869|NCT05143047|191454175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95741870|NCT05143047|191454176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
95741871|NCT05143047|191454177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
95741872|NCT05143047|191454178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95741873|NCT05143047|191454179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
95741874|NCT05143047|191454180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95741875|NCT05143047|191454181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95741876|NCT05143047|191454182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95741877|NCT01252953|191454246|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
95741878|NCT01252953|191454247|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|0.86|0.052
95741879|NCT01252953|191454248|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||In accordance with the data analysis plan, if the outcome of a major atherosclerotic event did not reach significance, there was no hypothesis testing for presumed ischemic stroke, so no P value is given.||||||1.12|0.87|
95741880|NCT01252953|191454249|OTHER|Time to first event|Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.88|0.02
95741881|NCT02336074|191454250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Treatment arms were compared in terms of absolute total HIV DNA levels (on a log10-scale) at post-randomization weeks 16 and 18 adjusted for the baseline (i.e. randomization) level and by stratum.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
95741882|NCT02336074|191454252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of the proportion of patients with undetectable viral outgrowth using logistic regression.~The analysis was adjusted for stratum and baseline viral outgrowth. Missing baseline values were imputed."||||0.145
95741883|NCT01694563|191454305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary effectiveness hypothesis for this study was to demonstrate a superiority success rate at 36-months follow-up in patients treated with the AtriCure Synergy Ablation System compared to a pre-established performance goal.||||0.05
95741884|NCT01694563|191454306|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 12 months post-operatively.||||
95741885|NCT01694563|191454306|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||90% confidence interval calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 24 months post-operatively.||||
95741886|NCT01694563|191454306|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||Secondary success was defined as freedom from AF regardless of antiarrhythmic drug usage at 36 months post-operatively.|90% confidence interval using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
95741887|NCT01026402|191454307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|50.0|||||||||||||50mg twice daily continuous dosing 20 evaluable patients|||||
95741888|NCT01026402|191454307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|100.0|||||||||||||100mg once daily continuous dosing 16 evaluable patients|||||
95741889|NCT01026402|191454307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|125.0|||||||||||||125mg twice daily intermittent dosing (2 days on, 5 days off) 29 evaluable patients|||||
95741890|NCT05604014|191454323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95741891|NCT05604014|191454324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95741892|NCT05604014|191454325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95741893|NCT05604014|191454326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95741894|NCT00836758|191454327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95741895|NCT00840203|191454334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|88.6|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|88.6|
95741896|NCT00840203|191454335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|82.8|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|82.8|
95741897|NCT00840203|191454336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.0||||||90.0|83.0|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|83.0|
95859692|NCT03523988|191677294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups with jaw at rest.|ANOVA|||||||0.53
95939275|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||0.96|0.55|
95939276|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.57|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19A||1.57|0.90|
95939277|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.89|0.57|
95939278|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||0.95|0.62|
95939279|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 19F||1.15|0.75|
95939280|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.57|
95939281|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.09|0.58|
95939282|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 23F||1.36|0.73|
95939283|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|134.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.91|204.62|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||204.62|88.91|
95939284|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.18|309.69|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||309.69|135.18|
95939285|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 22F||0.99|0.44|
95939286|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|41.13|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||41.13|15.34|
95939287|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.93|55.83|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-IM/GMC PCV13-SC. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||55.83|20.93|
95939288|NCT03848065|191843641|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||||GMC Ratio=GMC V114-SC/GMC V114 IM. Based on an ANOVA model with natural log-transformed antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as a single factor.|ST 33F||1.19|0.45|
95939289|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.9|-7.7|
95939290|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.0|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||12.0|-10.8|
95939291|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.0|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Diphtheria Toxin||13.0|-8.0|
95939292|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|12.4|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.8|
95939293|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|12.4|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||12.4|-5.7|
95939294|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Tetanus Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
95939295|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-8.1|
95939296|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||8.5|-7.9|
95939297|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114 SC minus % V114 IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis Toxin||7.9|-8.1|
95939298|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-8.1|
95939299|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||8.5|-7.9|
95939300|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Pertussis FHA||7.9|-8.1|
95939301|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-8.1|
95939302|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||8.5|-7.9|
95939303|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 1||7.9|-8.1|
95988849|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.41|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 14 concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.41|0.96|
95988850|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.35|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 18C concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.35|0.97|
95988851|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A is to be ≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.31|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19A concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.31|0.90|
95988852|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB Group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 19F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.34|0.95|
95859693|NCT03523988|191677294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while lightly biting.|ANOVA|||||||0.31
95859694|NCT03523988|191677294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P-value for pain scores among the three comparison groups while chewing paraffin wax.|ANOVA|||||||0.37
95741898|NCT00840203|191454337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3||||||90.0|91.5|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|91.5|
95741899|NCT00840203|191454338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.6||||||90.0|86.7|110.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||110|86.7|
95741900|NCT00840203|191454339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS the bioequivalence of the test and reference products will be evaluated using average bioequivalence methodology for non-replicate crossover study design.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.1|106.0|||||Metabolite results presented for informational purposes only.|||106|86.1|
95741901|NCT01945580|191454343|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 362 subjects (181 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority of transvaginal biologic to native tissue repair, using a margin of 12.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|5.9|||||The propensity adjusted treatment difference of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) minus NTR was estimated and missing data was handled using multiple imputation method.|||5.9|-5.6|
95741902|NCT01945580|191454344|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.10 (power 90%), 308 subjects (154 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 11.6%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|4.7|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Xenform transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||4.7|-0.8|
95741903|NCT00101439|191454356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.08|0.73|0.241
95741904|NCT00101439|191454357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Data were back-transformed from the log scale and adjusted for treatment|ANOVA||GMR=Ezetimibe divided by placebo|||1.20|0.87|0.812
95741905|NCT00858780|191454361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|29.82|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||29.82|1.72|0.007
95741906|NCT00858780|191454361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.41|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||5.41|0.54|0.362
95741907|NCT00858780|191454361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|16.99|||GEE Model|||Analysis was performed using a GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment groups, visits, their interaction, and the stratification factor as factors in the model.||16.99|1.04|0.044
95741908|NCT03499873|191454386|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with cure should be contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\]|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.124|0.073||||||||0.073|-0.124|
95741909|NCT03499873|191454386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95741910|NCT03499873|191454386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95741911|NCT02615249|191454413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.58||||||Comparison between 0.12 mg/cm2 copper sulfate and copper sulfate 2% in petrolatum||0.58|-0.01|
95741912|NCT02615249|191454413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66||||||Comparison between 0.24 mg/cm2 manganese chloride and manganese chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.66|0.24|
95741913|NCT02615249|191454413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride vs 1% tin chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.33 mg/cm2 tin chloride and tin chloride 1% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
95741914|NCT02615249|191454413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.65|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate vs 19% ammonium titanium oxide oxalate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.22 mg Ti/cm2 ammonium titanium oxide oxalate and ammnium titanium oxide oxalate 19% in petrolatum||0.65|0.15|
95741915|NCT02615249|191454413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.050 mg V/cm2 vanadium sulfate vs 1.5% vanadium sulfate in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison between 0.050 mg/cm2 vanadium sulfate and vanadium sulfate 1.5% in petrolatum||0.73|0.30|
95859695|NCT02963506|191677336|OTHER||Correlation statistic|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.||||<0.001
95741916|NCT02615249|191454413|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38|||||Kappa statistic is for 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride vs 2% zinc chloride in petrolatum reference allergen|Comparison betweenm 0.24 mg/cm2 zinc chloride and zinc chloride 2% in petrolatum||0.38|0.07|
95741917|NCT00957021|191454431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||KSS Pain/Motion and Function Score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2 and 5 year||||<.0001
95741918|NCT00957021|191454432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Physical score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
95741919|NCT00957021|191454432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 1 year||||<.0001
95741920|NCT00957021|191454432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 2 year||||0.0017
95741921|NCT00957021|191454432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 3 year||||0.0055
95741922|NCT00957021|191454432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 4 year||||0.0050
95741923|NCT00957021|191454432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF-36 Mental score comparison from pre-op to 5 year||||0.0018
95741924|NCT00957021|191454434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LEAS score comparison from pre-op to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years||||<.0001
95741925|NCT02442687|191454436|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.034
95939304|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-8.1|
95741926|NCT02442687|191454436|OTHER|||||||0.1731||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1731
95939305|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||8.5|-7.9|
95939306|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 2||7.9|-8.1|
95939307|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.5|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % PCV13-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-8.1|
95939308|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5|||||"Difference = % V114-IM minus % PCV13~-SC. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method."|Poliovirus Type 3||8.5|-7.9|
95939309|NCT03848065|191843642|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||||Difference = % V114-SC minus % V114-IM. The 95% CI is based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Poliovirus Type 3||7.9|-8.1|
95939310|NCT00613106|191843654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4228
95939311|NCT04568603|191843698|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is contained within the interval (0.70, 1.43).|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
95939312|NCT04568603|191843699|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
95939313|NCT04568603|191843700|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to the methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 1.43.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
95939314|NCT04568603|191843701|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.1||||||||1.10|1.03|
95939315|NCT04568603|191843703|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
95939316|NCT04568603|191843704|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.13||||||||1.13|1.04|
95939317|NCT04568603|191843706|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.07||||||||1.07|0.99|
95939318|NCT04568603|191843707|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
95939319|NCT04568603|191843708|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis that administration of methadone + ISL is similar to methadone alone will be supported if the upper bound of the 90% CI for the GMR of methadone+ ISL to methadone alone is below 2.0.|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.11||||||||1.11|1.03|
95939320|NCT02465268|191843748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Log Rank|||||2.16|0.77|0.196
95939321|NCT02465268|191843748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.7|||Log Rank|||||2.70|0.99|0.196
95939322|NCT02465268|191843749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.60|0.354
95939323|NCT02465268|191843749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.33|||Log Rank|||||2.33|0.87|0.354
95939324|NCT02465268|191843750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
95939325|NCT02465268|191843750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
95939326|NCT02465268|191843750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.038
95939327|NCT02465268|191843752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
95939328|NCT02465268|191843752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
95939329|NCT02465268|191843752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
95939330|NCT02465268|191843753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
95939331|NCT02465268|191843753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
95939332|NCT02465268|191843753|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6
95939333|NCT02465268|191843755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
95939334|NCT02465268|191843755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
95939335|NCT02465268|191843755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
95939336|NCT02876588|191843761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, and the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.20|.90|.60
95741927|NCT02442687|191454437|OTHER|||||||0.5276||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.5276
95741928|NCT02442687|191454437|OTHER|||||||0.4968||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.4968
95741929|NCT02442687|191454438|OTHER|||||||0.2591||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2591
95741930|NCT02442687|191454438|OTHER|||||||0.1806||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.1806
95741931|NCT02442687|191454439|OTHER|||||||0.0882||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.0882
95741932|NCT02442687|191454439|OTHER|||||||0.253||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA|The change from baseline as the dependent variable, baseline value as a covariate, and treatment group and diabetes stratum as factors.||||||0.2530
95741933|NCT02055547|191454492|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|5.76|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|5.76|3.69|<0.001
95741934|NCT02055547|191454492|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.12|3.36|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.36|2.12|<0.001
95741935|NCT02055547|191454492|OTHER|"Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) of the slope of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of the slope of ISR/G for MK-8521 125μg vs.~MK-8521 35μg was calculated from the model."|Geometric mean ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.16|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.16|1.38|<0.001
95741936|NCT02055547|191454493|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|3.53|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|3.53|2.62|<0.001
95741937|NCT02055547|191454493|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 35μg vs. placebo was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.26|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|2.26|1.67|<0.001
95741938|NCT02055547|191454493|OTHER|Treatment comparison (MK-8521 125μg - 35μg) of the ratio of ISR/G during GGI at Tmax was performed using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect. The 90% confidence interval of GMR of TWA120-160min of ratio (ISR/G) for MK-8521 125μg - 35μg was calculated from the model.|Geometric mean ratio|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.82|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|1.82|1.35|<0.001
95741939|NCT02055547|191454494|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125mcg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.7|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.7|0.6|<0.001
95741940|NCT02055547|191454494|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.74|<0.001
95741941|NCT02055547|191454494|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in glucose (TWA0-160min) after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.87|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3-period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.87|0.75|<0.001
95796417|NCT01311661|191562852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.267|0.177|<0.0001
95741942|NCT02055547|191454495|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg vs. placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.63|0.49|<0.001
95741943|NCT02055547|191454495|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 35μg - placebo) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.81|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.81|0.62|<0.001
95741944|NCT02055547|191454495|OTHER|The least squares means and 90% confidence intervals for the treatment difference (MK-8521 125μg - MK-8521 35μg) in Gmax after a single dose was determined using a linear mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.89|||Linear mixed effect model||||Number of participants included in analysis: N=17 (3 period crossover study design was conducted for 12 participants in Part 3).|0.89|0.69|0.004
95741945|NCT01087502|191454524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.60|<0.0001
95741946|NCT01087502|191454526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.1602||95.0|-22.28|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-22.28|0.1602
95741947|NCT03966911|191454533|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.0|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.05|89.95|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.95|86.05|<0.041
95988853|NCT01978093|191952567|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI on the GMC ratio (HibCY group over PedHIB group) for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F is to be≥0.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|GMC adjusted for BS sub cohorts;97.5% CI for adjusted GMC ratio(Ancova model:adjustment for BS sub cohorts-pooled variance)|To be able to conclude independently on primary objectives of Epoch 001 \& Epoch 002, a Bonferroni correction is used to test these primary objectives(1.25% one-sided for Epoch 001 and Epoch 002)|GMC ratios between HibCY and PedHIB groups for antibodies to S. pneumoniae serotype 23F concentrations one month after the fourth dose||1.50|1.00|
95741948|NCT03966911|191454533|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.96|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|86.13|89.8|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||89.80|86.13|<0.041
95741949|NCT03966911|191454533|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|84.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|82.02|87.17|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||87.17|82.02|0.041
95741950|NCT03966911|191454533|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|81.05|||<|0.041|TWO_SIDED|91.8|77.58|84.53|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).|A group sequential study design was utilized to perform interim analysis. For the final stage, the p-value is 0.041.|||84.53|77.58|<0.041
95988854|NCT01885000|191952584|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0065
95741951|NCT01986647|191454536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.2691
95741952|NCT01986647|191454537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.6087
95741953|NCT01986647|191454538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0022
95741954|NCT01986647|191454539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model due to clustering by facility and multiple imputation for missing data||||||0.0344
95741955|NCT01986647|191454540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.49|0.6879
95741956|NCT01986647|191454541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.56|0.5719
95859737|NCT04672655|191677551|OTHER|||||||0.0406||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.0406
95988855|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who satisfied with appearance.||||= 0.0328
95988856|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance acceptable.||||= 0.5312
95741957|NCT01986647|191454542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.53|0.44|0.489
95741958|NCT01986647|191454543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.6|0.37|0.2981
95741959|NCT01986647|191454544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.30|0.9279
95741960|NCT01986647|191454545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.67|0.5835
95988857|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who appearance concerned.||||= 0.0756
95988858|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who embarrassed with facial redness.||||= 0.0083
95741961|NCT01986647|191454546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95741962|NCT01986647|191454547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
95741963|NCT01986647|191454548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
95741964|NCT01986647|191454549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95741965|NCT01986647|191454550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95741966|NCT01986647|191454551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.29|0.0324
95939337|NCT02876588|191843762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||Random-effects logistic regression models were constructed, using RAR order sessions as the outcome, randomization group as the independent variable, the clinician as the random intercept to account for nesting of order sessions within clinicians|Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|.89|.68
95939338|NCT02876588|191843763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95939339|NCT02547363|191843764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher exact test|||||||<0.001
95939340|NCT02547363|191843765|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|62.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|451.08|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||451.08|8.68|<0.001
95939341|NCT02547363|191843766|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|59.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|415.35|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||415.35|8.44|<0.001
95988859|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who self-conscious.||||= 0.0076
95988860|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2186|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who's frequency control last 24 hours||||= 0.2186
95988861|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2373|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who are frustrated.||||= 0.2373
95988862|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who cover up or camouflage.||||= 0.7769
95741967|NCT00874276|191454579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau-B|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.85||This is the primary outcome, and there is no adjustment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a Wilcoxon test (and accompanying Kendal's Tau B) because these outcomes are outlier prone.||0.85|0.35|0.023
95741968|NCT00874276|191454580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.69|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the same analysis as the previous, except we use the day 5 pharmacogenetics on the amount of time needed to clear one-half of dose of the drug. This is for the environmental dose. A positive (negative) Kendall's Tau is associated with the EGT allele being faster (slower) than lacking EGT in terms of metabolization of DCA.||0.69|-0.23|0.42
95741969|NCT04402489|191454662|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.35||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|38.12|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - lower dose||38.12|-18.52|0.496
95741970|NCT04402489|191454662|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.38||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|51.09|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||Change from BL at Week 26 (DBT EOT) - higher dose||51.09|-5.68|0.116
95741971|NCT04402489|191454663|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.44|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-0.44|-1.23|< 0.001
95939342|NCT02547363|191843767|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.32|||Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.23|<0.001
95988863|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who pay attention to the known triggers.||||= 0.8764
95988864|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who avoid the known triggers.||||= 0.6149
95988865|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The questionnaire analyzed and reported here is for participants who interfering with social life.||||= 0.8361
95988866|NCT01885000|191952585|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6259|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Interfering with work life||||= 0.6259
95988867|NCT01885000|191952586|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5821|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Mobility.||||= 0.5821
95741972|NCT04402489|191454663|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.03|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-1.03|-1.83|< 0.001
95741973|NCT04402489|191454664|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.76||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||1.16|0.49|0.199
95741974|NCT04402489|191454664|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used.|Incident rate ratio|0.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Refer to comments below:|Negative binomial regression model with log link was used for other method.||||0.84|0.36|0.006
95741975|NCT04402489|191454665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.33|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.33|-0.62|0.55
95939343|NCT03931174|191843775|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.81||CM Exposure is reported as the estimated proportion of providers delivering 10 or more CM sessions to at least one patient in a mixed model accounting for nesting.|Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||6.81|0.85|0.097
95939344|NCT03931174|191843776|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the provider level. All 186 providers (95 ATTC, 91 E-ATTC) who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||1.32|0.11|0.02
95939345|NCT03931174|191843777|SUPERIORITY|Unit of analysis is the organization-level. Total number of organizations included in the analysis is 28 (14 ATTC, 14 E-ATTC).|Chi-square test statistic value|0.662||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||These analyses are unadjusted.||||0.430
95939346|NCT03931174|191843778|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||-0.08|-1.30|.034
95939347|NCT03931174|191843779|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the patient-level. All patients who enrolled in the study are included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.41|-0.82|0.27
95939348|NCT03931174|191843780|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.12||Means were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test adjusted for inequality of variances||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.12|-0.88|.011
95939349|NCT03931174|191843781|SUPERIORITY|Analyses are at the provider-level. Only those providers who completed the post-implementation survey (at the end of the 9-month implementation phase) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.17||Means of leadership engagement scores were compared between conditions in an independent-samples T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||These analyses are unadjusted. The primary outcomes paper will report both unadjusted and adjusted analyses.||0.17|-0.75|.218
95939350|NCT01799265|191843795|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% upper limit of the prediction interval was calculated using the formula (μ ) ̂+t\_(k-2)\^α √((τ\^2 ) ̂+〖(SE) ̂(μ ̂ )〗\^2 ),where (μ ) ̂is the estimate average AHI across all studies, (τ\^2 ) ̂ is the between-study variation, t\_(k-2)\^α is the critical value for a t-distribution, k is the number of studies in the meta-analysis, and k-2 are the degrees of freedom for the t distribution. Meta-analyzed statistics to compute the prediction interval were (μ ) ̂=5.0, SE(μ ̂ )=0.9, and (τ\^2 ) ̂=8.0||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A p-value of .05 was used.||"Hypothesis testing for the primary endpoint was conducted using a one-sided test of non-inferiority with the following null and alternative hypotheses at the 0.05 significance level using the MIXED procedure in SAS, version 9.3:~H\_0:(ϕ\_m ) ̂≥6.9 H\_A:(ϕ\_m ) ̂\<6.9 where (ϕ\_m ) ̂ is the estimated AHI difference between Transcend Auto and REMstar Auto from the model described in 3.5.1."||||.05
95939351|NCT04285515|191843826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.84|-7.60|<0.0001
95939352|NCT04285515|191843827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|-3.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.05|-8.29|<0.0001
95939353|NCT04285515|191843828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-3.29|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.29|-8.61|<0.0001
95939354|NCT04285515|191843829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.88|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.88|-7.25|<0.0001
95939355|NCT04285515|191843830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39|||Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measure|||||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
95939356|NCT04285515|191843831|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.31|-0.91|<0.0001
95939357|NCT04285515|191843832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.27|-0.89|0.0003
95939358|NCT04285515|191843833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.44|-0.82|<0.0001
95939359|NCT02618577|191843834|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.08|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.08|0.6|0.15
95939360|NCT02618577|191843835|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.39||||||||1.39|0.45|
95939361|NCT02618577|191843836|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18||||||||1.18|0.67|
95939362|NCT02618577|191843837|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||1.53|0.88|0.28
95939363|NCT02618577|191843838|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.38|||Cause-spec. Cox Proport. Hazard model|||||3.38|1.3|0.002
95988868|NCT01885000|191952586|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8864|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Self-Care.||||= 0.8864
95988869|NCT01885000|191952586|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9579|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for usual activities.||||= 0.9579
95988870|NCT01885000|191952586|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis was performed for Pain/Discomfort.||||= 0.1344
95988871|NCT01885000|191952586|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1881|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety/Depression||||= 0.1881
95741976|NCT04402489|191454665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.25|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.25|-0.72|0.343
95741977|NCT04402489|191454666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|2.007|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.007|0.323|0.642
95741978|NCT04402489|191454666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.598|0.431
95741979|NCT04402489|191454667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.82|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.82|-0.08|0.072
95741980|NCT04402489|191454667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference vs Placebo|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.51|||mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.51|-0.4|0.252
95741981|NCT02664415|191454674|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|This is to confirm that the p-value from Fisher's Exact test was 1.000.||||||1.000
95741982|NCT02664415|191454675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 20 copies/mL between arms.||||0.051
95939364|NCT02618577|191843839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L UK Index||0.01|-0.02|
95939365|NCT02618577|191843839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.38|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|EQ-5D-5L VAS, FU 24months||1.38|-1.46|
95939366|NCT02618577|191843839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.09|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|Karnofsky score||1.09|-0.56|
95988872|NCT01885000|191952587|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.3935
95741983|NCT02664415|191454675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||A comparison of time from ATI to HIV-1 RNA \>= 1000 copies/mL between arms.||||0.01
95741984|NCT02664415|191454676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||This is a p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at first detection between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
95939367|NCT02618577|191843840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.87|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q convenience||0.87|-1.12|
95741985|NCT02664415|191454676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588||||||This is p-value, comparing HIV-1 RNA levels at ART resumption between arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
95741986|NCT02664415|191454677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
95741987|NCT02664415|191454679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.693
95741988|NCT02664415|191454680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.15
95939368|NCT02618577|191843840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.52|||||Estimation Parameter: baseline adjusted trial-group specific effect estimates (mean difference)|PACT-Q satisfaction||0.52|-2.60|
95939369|NCT02618577|191843843|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.96||||||||0.96|0.27|
95741989|NCT02664415|191454680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baseline ATI and ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.04
95939370|NCT02618577|191843844|SUPERIORITY||adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31||||||||1.31|0.62|
95939371|NCT05292872|191843847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.752||1-sided p-values are proportion of bootstrap replicates exceeding null (defined as a HR of 1) in each direction), and the two-tailed p-value is twice the smaller of one-tailed p-values. A two-tailed p-value was calculated for HR using this method.|Nonparametric bootstrap approach|||||0.752|0.143|<.001
95741990|NCT02664415|191454680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.002
95741991|NCT02664415|191454680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at ART resumption and 6 months after ART resumption within the placebo arm.||||0.22
95741992|NCT02664415|191454680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA atbaseline ATI and 6 months after ART resumption within the VRC01 arm.||||0.05
95741993|NCT02664415|191454680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison of total HIV DNA at baeline ATI versus 6 months after ART resumption in the placebo arm||||0.22
95741994|NCT02664415|191454683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at baseline ATI||||0.961
95741995|NCT02664415|191454683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at ART resumption||||0.805
95741996|NCT02664415|191454683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within VRC01 arm.||||0.221
95741997|NCT02664415|191454683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Comparison between Baseline and ART resumption within Placebo arm.||||0.500
95741998|NCT02664415|191454684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups at baseline ATI.||||0.522
95741999|NCT02664415|191454684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison between groups at ART resumption.||||0.961
95742000|NCT02664415|191454684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within VRC01 group.||||0.002
95742001|NCT02664415|191454684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A comparison between baseline ATI and ART resumption within Placebo group.||||0.043
95939372|NCT02561585|191843866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|11.65||t-test in a baseline adjusted linear model|t-test, 2 sided|t-test, 2 sided on a 5% level||||11.65|-12.05|0.97
95950143|NCT03034863|191872290|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.87
95742002|NCT03123874|191454696|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.827||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial taxa in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.9
95742003|NCT03123874|191454697|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean Shannon Diversity Index in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups|||||0.3
95742004|NCT03123874|191454698|OTHER|Linear mixed effects models testing the effect of pump set-up on the number of live aerobic bacterial counts. The fixed effect of interest will be pump set-up. Model will also be adjusted for infant feeding status (human milk only vs. human milk and complementary foods) and randomization schedule (which pump set-up went first). Random effect was participant ID to account for multiple samples for each participant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Results were considered statistically significant at p\<0.05. No adjustments were made to p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of mean bacterial counts in milk collected with own / sterile pump set-ups.|||||0.0003
95742005|NCT02578641|191454740|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||Between-treatment comparisons were assessed using stratified log-rank test stratified by country and disease stage per randomization stratification.|Log Rank|Log-rank test of Hazards Ration equals 1, using Cox proportional hazards regression.|Hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.|||1.56|0.91|0.1942
95742006|NCT03809000|191454745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = standard ADT|After protocol amendments, the 3-year PFS rate of the standard arm was expected to be 24%. Assuming a hazard ratio of 0.65 (treatment/control) results in a hypothesized 3-year PFS rate of 39.5% on the enhanced ADT arm. A one-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.10 at 80% statistical power was calculated to require 101 events from 170 patients, taking into account expected accrual rate and follow-up time.||0.96|0.61|0.0671
95742007|NCT03809000|191454746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.07|0.53|0.1160
95742008|NCT03809000|191454747|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.12|||Gray's||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||1.12|0.50|0.1618
95742009|NCT03809000|191454752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7184
95742010|NCT03809000|191454753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5934
95742011|NCT03809000|191454754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7129
95742012|NCT03809000|191454755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006258
95742013|NCT03809000|191454756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0263
95939373|NCT04059484|191843884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.4||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of visceral metastasis, prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and ECOG according to IRT.|Amcenestrant versus PCEM|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures was reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.4|0.789|0.6437
95939374|NCT00753545|191843919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.49|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.49|0.25|<0.00001
95939375|NCT00753545|191843920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.95|0.55|0.02
95742014|NCT03809000|191454757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4599
95742015|NCT03809000|191454759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.41|||Regression, Logistic||Reference level = SRT + Standard ADT|||4.41|0.62|0.3138
95859738|NCT04672655|191677552|OTHER|||||||0.9032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.9032
95939376|NCT00753545|191843924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-27.1||||0.03185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-2.4|||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||LS mean \< 0 favours olaparib||-2.4|-51.9|0.03185
95988873|NCT01885000|191952588|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.4162
95742016|NCT03809000|191454760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3889
95742017|NCT03809000|191454761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Frequency||||0.0461
95742018|NCT03809000|191454761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hot Flashes Severity||||0.0181
95742019|NCT03809000|191454762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.91||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.42|0.10
95742020|NCT04158687|191454763|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.6|-4.5|0.6003
95742021|NCT04158687|191454763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||5.0|-2.0|0.3920
95859739|NCT01326104|191677553|SUPERIORITY||comparing two curves|0.286||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.764||This is the p-value comparing Group A with historical control.|Log Rank|One sample log rank.||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||0.764|0.107|0.927
95988874|NCT01087541|191952596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.01||95.0|0.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1|0|<0.01
95988875|NCT01087541|191952598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|2|<0.001
95988876|NCT04781816|191952610|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.26|6.85||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed effects for baseline CLASI-A, post-baseline visit, geographical region, disease subtype, baseline use of CQ/HCQ, intervention group, visit-by- intervention group interaction, and visit-by-baseline-CLASI-A interaction.||6.85|-18.26|
95988877|NCT00720109|191952639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.8|51.4|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test equivalent to Z-test of proportions.||The a priori plan was to compare MRD positivity rate with that on a prior study, AALL0031 (n=72 Cohorts 1-5 of AALL0031 with 71% MRD positive). Out of 59 patients with end-Induction MRD on AALL0622, 40.7% were MRD positive. Per protocol, rates will be compared with a 2 sample Z-test of proportions, 1-sided test, alpha=5%.||51.4|30.8|<0.001
95988878|NCT00720109|191952640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage|10.5|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|19.3|||Binomial Test||The pre-specified threshold for the estimated percentage of MRD positivity at End Consolidation was set to 16%. Results show an upper bound on the (Agresti-Coull) confidence interval of 19.3%.|||19.3|5.3|=0.13
95988879|NCT01437397|191952642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.144|0.073|<0.0001
95988880|NCT01437397|191952642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.123|0.052|<0.0001
95988881|NCT01437397|191952643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.079|0.011|0.010
95988882|NCT01437397|191952643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, sex, smoking-status, visit and group-by-visit as factors; screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age and baseline FEV1 as covariates||||0.060|-0.008|0.133
95988883|NCT01437397|191952644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|2.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||2.018|0.854|<0.0001
95988884|NCT01437397|191952644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||1.972|0.818|<0.0001
95988885|NCT01437397|191952645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.462|-2.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-2.244|-6.462|<0.0001
95988886|NCT01437397|191952645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.819|-1.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, sex, smoking-status, visit, and treatment group-by-visit as factors; visit, age baseline BDI/SGRQ as covariates||||-1.637|-5.819|0.0005
95988887|NCT00866307|191952647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|64.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage of high risk-High patients taking less than 49 weeks from day 1 of consolidation to day 1 of maintenance therapy is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=73%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed and the lower bound examined. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 73%.||64.4|35.6|
95988888|NCT00866307|191952648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.7|67.4|||Agresti-Coull Confidence Interval|||Per protocol, percentage receiving at least 8 doses is compared to a null fixed rate (\<=42%). A 90% two-sided Agresti-Coull confidence interval will be constructed. Will reject null if lower bound of confidence interval is above 42%.||67.4|38.7|
95988889|NCT02573155|191952673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0585|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|0.0585|<0.0001
95988890|NCT02573155|191952673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.156|<0.0001
95988891|NCT00511355|191952694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0849||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0849
95988892|NCT00511355|191952696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988893|NCT00511355|191952697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4191||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.4191
95742022|NCT04158687|191454763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||6.0|-0.9|0.1444
95939377|NCT00753545|191843928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||0.47|0.25|<0.00001
95939378|NCT00753545|191843932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.71|0.88|0.22
95939379|NCT00753545|191843933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.56|0.75|0.67
95939380|NCT00753545|191843934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64|||Regression, Cox|The model includes factors for treatment, ethnic descent, platinum sensitivity and response to final platinum therapy.||HR \< 1 favours olaparib||1.64|0.83|0.38
95939381|NCT03839940|191844014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.9999
95939382|NCT03839940|191844015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3346
95939383|NCT03839940|191844031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.70361|||||||Fisher Exact|||Female Population.||||< 0.70361
95939384|NCT03839940|191844031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Male population.||||<0.4667
95939385|NCT03839940|191844032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Black or African American population||||<1.0
95939386|NCT03839940|191844032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White population||||<1.0
95939387|NCT03839940|191844033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Not Hispanic or Latino population.||||<1.0
95939388|NCT03839940|191844034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Female population.||||<0.1701
95939389|NCT03839940|191844034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.4811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Male population.||||<0.4811
95939390|NCT03839940|191844035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Black or African American Population||||<1.0
95939391|NCT03839940|191844035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||White Population||||<0.5029
95939392|NCT03839940|191844036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.295|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Not Hispanic or Latino Population||||<0.2950
95939393|NCT02761057|191844082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A proportional hazards model was used to compare the Hazard Ratio (HR) for PFS.||0.97|0.37|0.019
95939394|NCT02761057|191844083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||The Chi-Square test will be used to compare RR between sunitinib and cabozantinib.||||0.10
95939395|NCT02761057|191844084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||Log Rank|||The log-rank test will be used to compare OS.||1.51|0.47|
95939396|NCT02677805|191844096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95939397|NCT02677805|191844097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary Outcome Measure shows a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
95939398|NCT02677805|191844098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.121
95939399|NCT02677805|191844099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Investigator's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
95939400|NCT02677805|191844099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for Subject's In-clinic Assessment||||<0.001
95939401|NCT02677805|191844100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test performed for responders rates at week 20||||0.218
95939402|NCT02677805|191844101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95742023|NCT04158687|191454764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.2|-0.3|0.8065
95742024|NCT04158687|191454764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.4|-0.1|0.2121
95742025|NCT04158687|191454764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.5|0.0|0.0264
95742026|NCT04158687|191454765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||3.5|-2.1|0.6101
95742027|NCT04158687|191454765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.1|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||2.1|-3.4|0.6237
95742028|NCT04158687|191454765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||MMRM|MMRM included fixed effects of treatment group, analysis visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and a baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.8|-4.6|0.1764
95742029|NCT05330975|191454775|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.002|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||1.002|0.728|
95742030|NCT05330975|191454776|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-6.9|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||-6.9|-21.5|
95939403|NCT02677805|191844101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95939404|NCT02677805|191844101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
95939405|NCT02677805|191844101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95939406|NCT02677805|191844101|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For the testing a hierarchical approach has been applied. The result of this test is considered confirmative if the test of the Primary and all previous Secondary Outcome Measures show a confirmatory result at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
95939407|NCT03115476|191844161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|||Relative difference between groups (ingenol disoxate vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.9|0.61|0.43
95742031|NCT05330975|191454784|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.995|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared with mRNA-1345 alone|||0.995|0.791|
95796418|NCT01311661|191562852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.165|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.165|<0.0001
95939408|NCT03115476|191844162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62|||likelihood ratio test|||relative difference between treatment groups (ingenol disoxate gel vs vehicle) expressed as hazard ratio||3.62|1.17|<0.01
95939409|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.28; gender effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and gender as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: gender (male, female)."||||0.2
95742032|NCT05330975|191454785|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|0.3|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared with mRNA-1345 alone|||0.3|-11.9|
95939410|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; age effect: p=0.001; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression with age and treatment sequence as factors||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: age (18-39 years, 40-59 years, ≥60 years)."||||=0.001
95742033|NCT05330975|191454808|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|0.974|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||0.974|0.668|
95742034|NCT05330975|191454809|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.1|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group compared mRNA-1345 alone group|||-4.1|-17.9|
95742035|NCT05330975|191454810|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of GMR \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.032|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.032|0.772|
95796419|NCT01311661|191562853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.203|0.109|<0.0001
95742036|NCT05330975|191454810|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.091|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.091|0.861|
95742037|NCT05330975|191454810|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.045|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza B Washington Antibody||1.045|0.822|
95742038|NCT05330975|191454810|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of geometric mean ratio (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.02|||||mRNA-1345+Afluria group at Day 29 compared with the GMT of anti-HA Ab in the Afluria alone group|Influenza B Phuket Antibody||1.020|0.809|
95742039|NCT05330975|191454816|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.901|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1345 alone|||0.901|0.702|
95939411|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; baseline disease severity effect: p=0.29; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and baseline disease severity as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: Baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, severe)."||||0.29
95939412|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.33; distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) effect: p=0.55; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and distribution phenotype (localised, widespread) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: distribution phenotype (localised, widespread)."||||0.55
95939413|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.32; plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter): p=0.25; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and plaque size as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: plaque size (≤3 mm diameter, \>3 mm diameter)."||||0.25
95939414|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.34; skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm) effect: p=0.41; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and skin thickness phenotype as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: skin thickness phenotype (≤0.75 mm, \>0.75 mm)."||||0.41
95939415|NCT02310646|191844242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Treatment sequence effect: p=0.30; onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) effect: p=0.20; threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age) as factors.||"The statistical significance of each of the 7 baseline characteristics was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.~Baseline factor: onset phenotype (≤40 years of age, \>40 years of age)."||||0.20
95939416|NCT02310646|191844243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||"The total TPUQ score for the gel and the foam (mean score 29.9 vs. mean score 26.8; p=0.007).~Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05."|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon rank sum test comparing the period difference (within subject difference between study treatments) between both treatment sequences.||Subjects in the analysis are 212 - full analysis set. All subjects received both study treatments. Total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25) superiority comparison gel versus foam.||||0.007
95742040|NCT05330975|191454817|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1345 alone|||1.0|-9.9|
95742041|NCT05330975|191454818|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.056|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|GMR for Wuhan-Hu-1||1.056|0.872|
95742042|NCT05330975|191454818|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.137|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|GMR for B.1.1.529||1.137|0.888|
95742043|NCT05330975|191454819|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.3|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|SRR difference for Wuhan-Hu-1||6.3|-6.0|
95742044|NCT05330975|191454819|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%, using noninferiority margin of 10%.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.7|||||mRNA-1345+mRNA-1273.214 compared to mRNA-1273.214 alone|SRR difference for B.1.1.529||4.7|-6.6|
95742045|NCT05330975|191454824|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.166|||||The 95% CI for the GMR is based on t-distribution of the log-transformed values then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.|GMR of RSV-A. GMR was calculated by back transforming the mean of paired difference of antibody levels on the logarithmic scale between revaccination Day 29 and primary vaccination Day 29.||1.166|0.995|
95742046|NCT05330975|191454824|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of the 95% CI of ratio of the GMT (GMR) \>0.667, using a noninferiority margin of 1.5.|GMR|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.984|||||The 95% CI for the GMR is based on t-distribution of the log-transformed values then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.|GMR of RSV-B. GMR was calculated by back transforming the mean of paired difference of antibody levels on the logarithmic scale between revaccination Day 29 and primary vaccination Day 29.||0.984|0.839|
95742047|NCT02655224|191454826|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|42.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.113|346.181|||Fisher's Exact Test||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||346.181|5.113|<0.0001
95742048|NCT02655224|191454827|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.555|239.478|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo|||239.478|3.555|
95939417|NCT02310646|191844244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison foam versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
95939418|NCT02310646|191844244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing within subject difference to latest topical treatment||Subjects in the analysis are 118. All subjects received both study treatments. Statistical analysis for total TPUQ score (summary score item 1-25): superiority comparison gel versus latest topical treatment.||||<0.001
95742049|NCT02655224|191454828|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.069|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||0.069|-1.050|
95742050|NCT02655224|191454829|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.201|27.112|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|||27.112|-3.201|
95988894|NCT00511355|191952698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0010
95742051|NCT02655224|191454830|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.605|19.709|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||19.709|1.605|
95742052|NCT02655224|191454830|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.784|34.955|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||34.955|2.784|
95742053|NCT02655224|191454831|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|27.609|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 29 to 56||27.609|1.071|
95939419|NCT04564742|191844272|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||A closed testing procedure including a pre-specified hierarchical ordering of the primary and secondary endpoints was utilised. No multiplicity control was placed on the exploratory endpoints.|Win Ratio Analysis|||The primary objective of the study was to determine if the clinical benefit of dapagliflozin was superior as compared with placebo, utilizing a hierarchical composite endpoint and win-ratio (WR) method. With a presumed WR of 1.20, 4000 patients were provide an 80% statistical power for the primary endpoint, maintaining a 1:1 allocation between treatments. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle using the Full Analysis Set.||1.50|1.20|<0.001
95939420|NCT03313076|191844276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.63||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||0.63|-2.32|0.276
95939421|NCT03313076|191844276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.14||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||||2.14|-0.71|0.336
95939422|NCT03313076|191844276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.9||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||-0.9|-3.76|0.004
95988895|NCT00511355|191952702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3779||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3779
95988896|NCT00511355|191952703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5027||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5027
95988897|NCT00511355|191952704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0041
95988898|NCT00511355|191952705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
95988899|NCT00511355|191952706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0004
95988900|NCT00511355|191952707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0019
95988901|NCT00511355|191952708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9662||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.9662
95988902|NCT00511355|191952709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0187||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0187
95988903|NCT00511355|191952710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988904|NCT00511355|191952711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6886||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.6886
95988905|NCT00511355|191952712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988906|NCT00511355|191952713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988907|NCT00511355|191952714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0083||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0083
95742054|NCT02655224|191454831|OTHER|The point estimate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval of odds ratio were calculated between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.794|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.603|62.88|||||Relugolix 40 mg/Placebo. Statistical analysis for Day 29 to 56 and Day 57 to 84, the odds ratio was calculated. For Day 1 to 28, its ratio was not calculated due to zero cell.|Day 57 to 84||62.880|2.603|
95742055|NCT02655224|191454832|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||0.745|-0.574|
95742056|NCT02655224|191454832|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.049|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||0.049|-1.190|
95742057|NCT02655224|191454832|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.074|-0.012|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||-0.012|-1.074|
95742058|NCT02655224|191454833|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.507|19.839|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 1 to 28||19.839|-11.507|
95742059|NCT02655224|191454833|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.098|28.494|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 29 to 56||28.494|-3.098|
95742060|NCT02655224|191454833|OTHER|The mean differences between relugolix 40 mg group and placebo group and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated.|Mean Difference (Each Period)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.554|26.745|||||Relugolix 40 mg-Placebo|Day 57 to 84||26.745|-3.554|
95742061|NCT02856594|191454855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.10|0.029
95742062|NCT02856594|191454857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||Regression, Linear|||||1.03|0.89|0.24
95742063|NCT01410227|191454865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The null hypothesis of the rate of subjects with a treatment success of \<= 0.65 (H0: p \<= 0.65) versus an alternative hypothesis of \> 0.65 (HA: p \> 0.65) was tested at the 5% one-sided level of significance. The proportion of subjects with treatment success under the alternative hypothesis was expected to be approximately 0.90. If 20 subjects were treated, the study provided 86% power to reject the null hypothesis.|Clopper-Pearson|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.7|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||||100|84.7|
95742064|NCT00841659|191454943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.96||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
95742065|NCT00841659|191454944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.58||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
95742066|NCT00841659|191454945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of LS Means x 100|94.29||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when ratio of means falls within 80-125.|||||
95742067|NCT00834405|191454959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|106.0||||||90.0|98.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|98.0|
95742068|NCT00834405|191454960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-72 and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.0||||||90.0|100.0|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||115|100|
95742069|NCT00577655|191454963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.496||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|6.262||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||6.262|0.729|0.0138
95859740|NCT01326104|191677553|SUPERIORITY||compare two curves|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p-value comparing Group B with historical control.|Log Rank|||Based on published literature, PFS-12 for patients with recurrent disease after initiating treatment with HDC + PBSCT or standard salvage therapy was 33% (95% confidence interval of 10%, 59%). The study was designed to differentiate between a PFS-12 rate of 33% (null hypothesis) and 55% (alternative hypothesis). If 35 patients enrolled, this assessment has 90% power assuming a type I error rate of 0.10. We assume that PFS of historical controls follows exponential distribution.||||<0.001
95742070|NCT00577655|191454964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|10.618||In order to control the overall alpha level at the 0.05 value, each of the primary endpoints were tested separately at the 0.025 level of significance.|ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate and fixed effects of treatment and pooled investigator site.|Active - Placebo|Efficacy was declared if the test for either primary efficacy endpoint was significant at the 0.025 level.||10.618|0.244|0.0403
95742071|NCT00577655|191454965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.536||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.567|7.505||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||7.505|1.567|0.0031
95742072|NCT00577655|191454965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|6.094||significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to FEV1max%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||6.094|0.041|0.0470
95742073|NCT00577655|191454966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.572||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|13.067||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 1~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||13.067|2.077|0.0074
95742074|NCT00577655|191454966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.782||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|9.397||significance level of 0.05.|repeated measures ANOVA||Active - Placebo|"Day 22~A repeated measures mixed model, with terms for treatment, pooled center, study day, treatment by study day interaction, and baseline as a covariate, and subject as a random term, was used to make comparisons between placebo and active with respect to PEFmax%0-2 at Days 1 and 22, with observed case data."||9.397|-1.832|0.1843
95742075|NCT00577655|191454967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.707||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|19.445||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||19.445|-0.030|0.0507
95742076|NCT00577655|191454967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.892||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.634|19.419||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment and center|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||19.419|-17.634|0.9240
95742077|NCT00577655|191454968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.124||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.169|78.417||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 22 Baseline||78.417|-18.169|0.2186
95742078|NCT00577655|191454968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.578||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.541|113.7||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment and center, baseline as a covariate|Active - Placebo|Day 1 Baseline||113.70|-28.541|0.2375
95939423|NCT03313076|191844276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.09||"The final, adjusted p-value threshold of 0.0492, using the O'Brien-Fleming approach, allows for a statistical penalty to be assessed because of the interim analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was adjusted for age, sex, race, treatment interaction, initial pain severity, and total body surface area burned.||Sensitivity analysis adjusting for an influential observation (using the dfbeta approach) that could produce spurious results from a small trial dataset||2.09|-0.25|0.139
95939424|NCT04137367|191844297|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We estimated a priori that a total of 100 participants would be needed to detect a difference between ABM and sham condition, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and (1-β) of .80. Power calculation was based on the assumption that 50 % of the participants allocated to ABM would report a minimum of 3 points reduction on BDI-II at six months, compared to 20 % in the sham condition. Assuming 15 % lost to follow up, power calculation indicated the need for 50 participants in each condition||||.05
95742079|NCT00577655|191454969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.524||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.524|10.523||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 1||10.523|2.524|0.0017
95742080|NCT00577655|191454969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.998||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|8.032||significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|terms for treatment, center, time, time x treatment, subject as a random|Active - Placebo|Day 22||8.032|-0.037|0.0521
95742081|NCT00577655|191454970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.477||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.23||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||2.23|0.98|0.0647
95796420|NCT01311661|191562853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.054|<0.0001
95939425|NCT00764751|191844325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|25.0|||Paired t-test|||||25|5.6|=0.003
95939426|NCT00764751|191844325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|1.9|||Paired t-test|||||1.9|-36.0|0.07
95939427|NCT05329220|191844370|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|1.57||P-value corresponds to Cohort 1 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 1 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||1.57|0.50|0.6350
95742082|NCT00577655|191454970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.088||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.15||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||3.15|1.38|0.0005
95742083|NCT00577655|191454971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.141||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.69||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 1||1.69|0.77|0.5059
95742084|NCT00577655|191454971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.533||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27||significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Active/Placebo|Day 22||2.27|1.03|0.0333
95742085|NCT00577655|191454972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.3888
95742086|NCT00577655|191454972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1249||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.1249
95742087|NCT00577655|191454973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0343||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0343
95796421|NCT01311661|191562853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.243|0.149|<0.0001
95939428|NCT05329220|191844370|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to having at least 400 evaluable subjects with primary endpoint data available at baseline and at 2 weeks after trial vaccination. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.92|0.70|0.0002
95939429|NCT05329220|191844371|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.64|0.91||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron variant BA.4/BA.5|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.91|0.64|0.0008
95939430|NCT05329220|191844371|NON_INFERIORITY|The success criterion for the null hypothesis that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.59|0.81||P-value corresponds to Cohort 2 ABNCoV2 comparison to Cohort 2 Comirnaty for Omicron Variant XBB.1.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear model with age and baseline results included as covariates was used to compare between the vaccination groups.||Formal hypothesis testing was performed due to meeting the primary endpoint success criterion in Cohort 2. The null hypothesis is that ABNCoV2 is inferior to Comirnaty and will be rejected if the ratio of the GMTs for ABNCoV2 versus Comirnaty is within the non-inferiority margin of 0.67; that is, the lower bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI of the GMT ratio is \>=0.67.||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
95742088|NCT00577655|191454973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0962||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0962
95939431|NCT04204265|191844374|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95939432|NCT04204265|191844375|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95939433|NCT04204265|191844376|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95939434|NCT04447469|191844417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.069||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|8.615||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||8.615|0.555|0.2598
95939435|NCT04447469|191844417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.414||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|9.957||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||9.957|0.653|0.1610
95939436|NCT04447469|191844417|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.091||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|7.144||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.144|0.612|0.2448
95742089|NCT00577655|191454974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0109
95742090|NCT00577655|191454974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0845
95742091|NCT00577655|191454975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.0013
95742092|NCT00577655|191454975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085||||||significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Day 22||||0.0085
95742093|NCT00577655|191454976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.122||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||0.122|-0.265|0.4674
95939437|NCT04447469|191844417|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|2.749||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|9.993||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.993|0.756|0.1378
95939438|NCT04447469|191844418|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.231||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.12||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.120|0.715|0.4534
95939439|NCT04447469|191844418|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.097||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.891||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.891|0.636|0.7414
95939440|NCT04447469|191844419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|4.884|||Fisher Exact|||||4.884|0.198|1.0000
95939441|NCT04447469|191844419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.417|||Fisher Exact|||||6.417|0.260|1.0000
95939442|NCT04447469|191844420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|15.6|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - placebo.|||15.6|-45.6|
95939443|NCT04447469|191844420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|0.9|||||95% CI were calculated using asymptotic normal approximation. Difference = KPL-301 - Placebo .|||0.9|-56.4|
95939444|NCT04447469|191844421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.6229
95939445|NCT04447469|191844421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5526||||||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank|||||||0.5526
95988908|NCT00511355|191952715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0455||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0455
95988909|NCT00511355|191952716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0063
95988910|NCT00511355|191952717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988911|NCT00511355|191952718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988912|NCT00511355|191952719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0078
95988913|NCT00511355|191952720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0016
95988914|NCT00511355|191952721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0003
95988915|NCT00511355|191952722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0009
95858311|NCT00337675|191674543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.176||95.0|-0.46|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.46|0.176
95858312|NCT00337675|191674543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.202||95.0|-0.44|0.09||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the 2 endpoints assessing severity, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.09|-0.44|0.202
95858313|NCT00337675|191674544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.045||95.0|-0.24|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.24|0.045
95858314|NCT00337675|191674544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.061||95.0|-0.23|0.0||Multiplicity adjustment across regimens and across primary and secondary endpoints was addressed through step-down testing. Within the family of secondary endpoints, adjustment for multiplicity was performed using Hochberg's method.|ANOVA|An ANOVA model containing factors for treatment, age group, and geographical region was used.||The secondary hypothesis stated that montelukast (daily regimen, or \[intermittent and daily regimens\]), compared with placebo, results in improvement of respiratory symptoms assessed over 3 days prior to asthma attacks, or assessed over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes in pediatric patients aged 6 months to 5 years with episodic asthma and treated over 1 year.||0.00|-0.23|0.061
95858315|NCT02754440|191674545|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
95859741|NCT01326104|191677553|SUPERIORITY||Comparing two curves|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.276||This is the p-value comparing Groups A and B combined with historical control.|Log Rank|||||0.276|0.03|<0.001
95859742|NCT01287741|191677559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.12|0.78|0.4753
95742094|NCT00577655|191454976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|0.023||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 2||0.023|-0.365|0.0840
95742095|NCT00577655|191454976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.059||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as covariate, subject as random|Active - Placebo|Week 3||0.059|-0.335|0.1699
95939446|NCT04447469|191844422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.46||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.46|0.71|0.9426
95939447|NCT04447469|191844422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.57||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|||1.57|0.78|0.6838
95939448|NCT04447469|191844423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.328|||Fisher Exact|||||1.328|0.023|0.0905
95742096|NCT00577655|191454978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.926||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.256|23.108||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 1||23.108|-3.256|0.1391
95939449|NCT04447469|191844423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.431||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.815|||Fisher Exact|||||1.815|0.087|0.2247
95939450|NCT04447469|191844423|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.191||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|1.114||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.114|0.033|0.0623
95939451|NCT04447469|191844423|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.368||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|1.583||P-value and odds ratio were calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by randomization strata (standard of care antiretroviral therapy, age, and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.583|0.085|0.1957
95939452|NCT04447469|191844424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.09||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||3.09|0.80|0.3766
95939453|NCT04447469|191844424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.16||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy, and age).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (Standard of Care antiretroviral therapy and age).|||2.16|0.51|0.9209
95939454|NCT04447469|191844425|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.645||||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.222||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.222|0.340|0.1772
95939455|NCT04447469|191844425|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.029||||0.9269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.881||Calculated using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.881|0.563|0.9269
95939456|NCT04447469|191844426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.49|0.66|0.9578
95939457|NCT04447469|191844426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age and ARDS status).|||1.70|0.76|0.5274
95939458|NCT04447469|191844427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.15||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|||1.15|0.36|0.1336
95939459|NCT04447469|191844427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.72||Log-rank test is stratified by randomization strata (age, and ARDS status).|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata ( age, and ARDS status).|||1.72|0.59|0.9767
95939460|NCT04447469|191844428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||3.71|0.55|
95939461|NCT04447469|191844428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.54|||||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata (age).|||4.54|0.78|
95939462|NCT04986501|191844461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95939463|NCT04986501|191844463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95939464|NCT05835336|191844477|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95939465|NCT05835336|191844478|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95939466|NCT05835336|191844479|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95742097|NCT00577655|191454978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.923||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.278|24.124||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 2||24.124|-2.278|0.1043
95742098|NCT00577655|191454978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.546||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.705|22.798||significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, center, week, week by treatment, baseline as a covariate, subject as random.|Active - Placebo|Week 3||22.798|-3.705|0.1570
95742099|NCT00577655|191454979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.989||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|2.099||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 1~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.099|-0.121|0.9846
95939467|NCT05835336|191844480|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
95742100|NCT00577655|191454979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.961||||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|2.039||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 2~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||2.039|-0.116|0.9447
95742101|NCT00577655|191454979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of Active to Placebo|0.887||||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.885||significance level of 0.05.|mixed poisson regression model|||"Week 3~P-value, mean and confidence interval calculated from a 0 inflated mixed poisson regression model with fixed effect terms for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline as a covariate and a random term for subject. The null hypothesis is that the ratio equals 1. Estimated means are conditional upon the random effect, assume a random effect of 0 and a covariate value at the average."||1.885|-0.111|0.8326
95796422|NCT01311661|191562853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.125|<0.0001
95939468|NCT05835336|191844482|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95939469|NCT05835336|191844483|SUPERIORITY|Considering the exploratory nature of the study, a sample size of at least 0.5 (Cohen's D) for a 2-Tailed test, at alpha-0.05 with a power of 80%, was chosen to detect significant within-subject effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.521
95939470|NCT04489771|191844484|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk categories (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan 200 mg minus Belzutifan 120 mg|||12.9|-14.0|0.5312
95939471|NCT04489771|191844485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.40|0.63|0.3861
95939472|NCT04489771|191844487|OTHER|One-sided nominal p-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Miettinen & Nurminen method|-6.3||||0.7832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-21.7|0.7832
95742102|NCT02227238|191455000|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority of DTG plus 2 NRTI's was to be declared if the lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in snapshot response rates (DTG - LPV/RTV) is greater than - 12%. This was also performed using the Per-Protocol (PP) Population. If both analyses show non-inferiority, the hypothesis of antiviral effect of DTG + 2 NRTI's was superior to LPV/RTV + 2 NRTIs was to be tested.|Proportion difference|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus that on LPV/RTV and based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA and number of fully active background NRTIs, has been presented.||Superiority would be declared if the lower end of the confidence interval was above 0%|20.3|7.3|<.001
95796423|NCT01311661|191562854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.180|0.091|<0.0001
95796424|NCT01311661|191562854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|0.078|<0.0001
95796425|NCT01311661|191562854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.186|0.098|<0.0001
95939473|NCT04489771|191844488|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Log Rank|One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate or poor).|||1.90|0.65|0.6448
95939474|NCT02561247|191844502|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value|t-test, 1 sided|Null Hypothesis Value = -38; Degrees of Freedom=16; t-value=-4.13||P Value is from a one sample t-test compared against the null hypothesis value. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons/multiplicity in this study, since there was only one primary endpoint, one arm, and one pre-specified primary null hypothesis.||||0.0008
95988916|NCT00511355|191952723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.0024
95988917|NCT00511355|191952724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3653||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.3653
95988918|NCT00511355|191952725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988919|NCT00511355|191952726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95742103|NCT02227238|191455003|OTHER||Proportion difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.3|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 24 has been presented.|||9.3|2.2|
95742104|NCT02227238|191455003|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.4|||||Proportion difference, calculated as proportion on DTG minus proportion on LPV/RTV, at Week 48 has been presented.|||14.4|5.3|
95742105|NCT02227238|191455030|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|-0.069|||Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 24 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.069|-0.272|0.0010
95742106|NCT02227238|191455030|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.147||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.035|||'Multiple imputation||Mean difference at Week 48 was calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline LDL cholesterol, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age|||-0.035|-0.259|0.0100
95939475|NCT05210608|191844509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the post-treatment assessment.||2.18|-.85|.29
95796426|NCT01311661|191562854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.103|<0.0001
95988920|NCT00511355|191952727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5668||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.5668
95988921|NCT00511355|191952728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||0.1770
95988922|NCT00511355|191952729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No correction for multiple testing was made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age class applied on the changes from baseline.||P-value compares the change from baseline to Cycle 6 between treatment groups.||||<.0001
95988923|NCT00271817|191952753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-41.4|-35.4||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-35.4|-41.4|<0.001
95988924|NCT00271817|191952754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-36.5|-30.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-30.6|-36.5|<0.001
95742107|NCT02227238|191455031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.356|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 24 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.356|-0.729|<0.0001
95742108|NCT02227238|191455031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.358||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.161|||Multiple imputation||Estimates at Week 48 are calculated using multiple imputation using missing at random, adjusting for Baseline total cholesterol/HDL ratio, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline number of Fully Active NRTIs in the background regimen and Age.|||-0.161|-0.555|0.0004
95742109|NCT00380588|191455044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||P-value for response (Complete Response + Partial Response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.380
95742110|NCT00380588|191455045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.074
95742111|NCT00380588|191455046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.136
95796427|NCT01311661|191562855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.206|0.110|<0.0001
95742112|NCT02670551|191455111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.4|-4.6|0.0331
95742113|NCT02670551|191455111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.9|-5.1|0.0103
95742114|NCT02670551|191455112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||0.0|-0.5|0.0714
95742115|NCT02670551|191455112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM analysis was used. Fixed factors: treatment group, pooled study center, visit, treatment-group-by-visit interaction. Covariates: Baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction. P-value was adjusted by matched parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6 for the primary and secondary efficacy parameters, the parallel gatekeeping procedure was implemented.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0662
95742116|NCT02286466|191455140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.87||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in anxiety symptoms (HAM-A) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||3.87|-1.60|0.412
95742117|NCT02286466|191455141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|4.96||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in quality of life (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||4.96|-4.99|0.997
95742118|NCT02286466|191455142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report anxiety symptoms on the HADS-Anxiety Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||2.02|-0.46|0.215
95742119|NCT02286466|191455142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.57||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in self-report depression symptoms on the HADS-Depression Subscale from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.57|-0.60|0.379
95939476|NCT05210608|191844509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether significant changes occurred between baseline and the 1 month follow up||5.79|-3.45|.48
95939477|NCT05210608|191844510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.8|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|102.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to Post-treatment.||102.10|19.90|=0.015
95939478|NCT05210608|191844510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.69||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|142.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in number of total cigarettes smoked per week from baseline to 1 month follow-up.||142.57|-14.57|.08
95939479|NCT05210608|191844511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|8.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to Post-treatment.||8.86|-9.86|.90
95939480|NCT05210608|191844511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.42|22.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant difference in carbon monoxide ppm from baseline to the 1 month follow-up.||22.42|-49.42|.32
95988925|NCT00271817|191952755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|18.8|25.3||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.3|18.8|<0.001
95742120|NCT02286466|191455143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.75||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use||Analysis comparing the change in depression symptoms on the PHQ-9 from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline values of criterion outcome and psychotropic medication use.||1.75|-1.45|0.852
95742121|NCT05194202|191455158|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||one-sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test.||Our null hypothesis for the acceptability was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.622
95939481|NCT05210608|191844512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|19.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to post-treatment.||19.10|-5.10|.18
95939482|NCT05210608|191844512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.38|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed whether there were significant differences in working memory scores from baseline to the 1 month follow up.||7.38|-25.38|.18
95939483|NCT04963270|191844513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.16|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.16|-1.88|0.0196
95939484|NCT04963270|191844514|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.22|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.22|-1.82|0.0123
95939485|NCT04963270|191844515|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-12.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||1.9|-27.3|0.088
95939486|NCT04963270|191844516|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-10.5||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||3.3|-24.2|0.137
95939487|NCT04963270|191844517|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.46|-2.80|0.0062
95939488|NCT04963270|191844518|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted Mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.56|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.56|-2.80|0.0034
95939489|NCT04963270|191844519|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.34|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.34|-3.36|0.1094
95939490|NCT04963270|191844520|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.27|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||0.27|-3.05|0.0999
95939491|NCT04963270|191844521|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.04|-4.36|0.0456
95939492|NCT04963270|191844522|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.11|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-0.11|-4.10|0.0382
95939493|NCT04963270|191844523|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-18.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.9|-33.5|0.013
95939494|NCT04963270|191844524|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-7.9|-36.2|0.002
95939495|NCT04963270|191844525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.41|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.41|-4.57|0.0002
95939496|NCT04963270|191844526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.53|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||-1.53|-4.47|<0.0001
95939497|NCT04963270|191844527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.6|-35.4|0.004
95939498|NCT04963270|191844528|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-19.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-5.9|-32.8|0.005
95939499|NCT04963270|191844529|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-19.4|0.847
95939500|NCT04963270|191844530|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|-4.3||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-15.4|0.441
95939501|NCT04963270|191844531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.5||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19|-2.1|0.115
95939502|NCT04963270|191844532|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|8.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-1|0.077
95939503|NCT04963270|191844533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-6.77||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.25|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|-17.25|0.1314
95939504|NCT04963270|191844534|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Risk Difference|-5.07||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.61|-14.74|0.2264
95939505|NCT04963270|191844535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.29|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.29|0.59|0.0179
95939506|NCT04963270|191844536|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.42|||ANCOVA and Conditional Mean Imputation|||||6.42|1.04|0.0066
95939507|NCT03896789|191844542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5||The primary outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||"Null hypothesis: Assuming no difference between usual care (control) and PEGASUS (intervention).~We used 2011-2012 results from prior pilot work in Argentina (58.6% TBI guideline adherence) to determine a sample size of 432 eligible patients (216 per arm) for the planned parallel cluster RCT, which would have 80% power to detect a 18.7% higher ICU TBI guideline adherence rate with programme implementation, with a two-sided alpha of 5%, and an intraclass coefficient of 0.05."||3.5|-3.3|.95
95939508|NCT03896789|191844548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.8||The outcome was analyzed using a multi-level mixed-effects model, which included a random effect for site (to account for potential provider clustering) and fixed effects for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Included covariates were age, gender, head maximum AIS, non-head maximum AIS, nurse: patient ratio and baseline TBI guideline adherence scores.||||13.8|1.9|.01
95939509|NCT04908722|191844556|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.926|1.44||||||Group 1 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.440|0.926|
95939510|NCT04908722|191844556|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8||||||97.5|0.641|1.0||||||Group 5 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.00|0.641|
95939511|NCT04908722|191844556|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.844|1.356||||||Group 2 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.356|0.844|
95742122|NCT05194202|191455159|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||one sample test of proportions|Hypothesis was evaluated using a one-tailed, one-proportion z-test||Our null hypothesis for the acceptabnility of the ED-Heart was P0 great than or equal to 85% vs. the alternative P0 less than 85%. Acceptability responses were dichotomized to include neutral with strongly disagree/disagree.||||.038
95742123|NCT00660387|191455169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
95742124|NCT00660387|191455170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
95742125|NCT00660387|191455171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the CGI-Severity (CGI-S, see Baseline Characteristics module) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
95742126|NCT00660387|191455172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
95742127|NCT00660387|191455173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
95742128|NCT00660387|191455174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
95742129|NCT00660387|191455175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
95742130|NCT00660387|191455176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
95858316|NCT02754440|191674545|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
95859743|NCT01287741|191677560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (low/low-intermediate (excluding participants having an IPI score 0 without bulky disease).||||1.10|0.72|0.2736
95859744|NCT02930018|191677610|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS (Acute Ischemic Stroke) patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.146||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.511||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was that administration of nerinetide (NA-1) would result in an increase in the proportion of responders. The primary analysis was a Wald test for treatment group difference in the primary outcome from a logistic regression adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (alteplase use, first declared thrombectomy device), and the 6 covariates used in the minimization. The trial was designed to have 80% power to detect an 8.7% absolute difference between groups.||1.511|0.869|0.335
95939512|NCT04908722|191844556|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.742|1.193||||||Group 4 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.193|0.742|
95858317|NCT02754440|191674545|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
95858318|NCT02754440|191674546|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.904|||||||Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.904|
95858319|NCT02754440|191674546|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
95859745|NCT02930018|191677611|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.342||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.342|0.781|0.866
95988926|NCT00271817|191952756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-14.7||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender|"Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-14.7|-22.6|<0.001
95988927|NCT00271817|191952757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|18.0|25.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||25.0|18.0|<0.001
95988928|NCT00271817|191952758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-21.8|-13.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG and gender.|"Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic."|||-13.6|-21.8|<0.001
95988929|NCT00271817|191952759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-4.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Median difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-4.2|-10.4|<0.001
95742131|NCT00660387|191455177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
95988930|NCT00271817|191952760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.004||95.0|-8.0|-1.5||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-1.5|-8.0|0.004
95988931|NCT00271817|191952761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.1||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Niacin|||-2.1|-7.7|<0.001
95988932|NCT00271817|191952762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-5.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed where testing followed a prespecified order and each subsequent hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance only if all previously tested hypotheses have been rejected.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, baseline TG, and gender.|Mean difference = Ezetimibe/Simvastatin + Niacin minus Ezetimibe/Simvastatin|||-5.0|-10.4|<0.001
95988933|NCT00931359|191952763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Factors of treatment group and analysis center were considered||||||<0.001
95988934|NCT00931359|191952764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
95742132|NCT00660387|191455178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
95742133|NCT00660387|191455179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
95742134|NCT00660387|191455180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
95742135|NCT00660387|191455181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
95742136|NCT00660387|191455182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
95742137|NCT00660387|191455183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
95742138|NCT00660387|191455184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
95742139|NCT00660387|191455185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
95742140|NCT00660387|191455186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
95796428|NCT01311661|191562855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.090|<0.0001
95939513|NCT04908722|191844556|NON_INFERIORITY|Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.648|1.007||||||Group 6 (1 dose) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||1.007|0.648|
95939514|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.992|3.207||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.207|1.992|
95939515|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.088|1.815||||||Group 1 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.815|1.088|
95939516|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.408|2.265||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.265|1.408|
95939517|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.282||||||Group 5 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.282|0.769|
95939518|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.829|3.007||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||3.007|1.829|
95939519|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.0|1.739||||||Group 2 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.739|1.000|
95939520|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.697|2.841||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.841|1.697|
95796429|NCT01311661|191562855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.218|0.123|<0.0001
95939521|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.928|1.606||||||Group 4 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.606|0.928|
95939522|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.348|2.148||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (1 dose)||2.148|1.348|
95939523|NCT04908722|191844557|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing according to sequential non-inferiority assessment hypothesis. Tested using 97.5% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.736|1.217||||||Group 6 (2 doses) vs Group 3 (2 doses)||1.217|0.736|
95988935|NCT03784079|191952936|OTHER||Emax|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.484|-1.389||||||||-1.389|-2.484|
95988936|NCT03784079|191952936|OTHER||EC50|7.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|13.602||||||||13.602|0.585|
95988937|NCT03784079|191952936|OTHER||s2e|0.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.212||||||||0.212|0.062|
95742141|NCT00660387|191455187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
95742142|NCT00660387|191455188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
95742143|NCT00660387|191455189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
95742144|NCT00660387|191455190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
95742145|NCT01023061|191455196|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.01
95858320|NCT02754440|191674546|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 450 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
95858321|NCT02558296|191674547|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.56|<0.0001
95939524|NCT06424236|191844567|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean|-0.1166|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29505||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|-0.0272|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.0272|-0.2060|0.0117
95858322|NCT02558296|191674548|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.4||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories, history of heart failure, treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
95858323|NCT02558296|191674549|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-2.24||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c and eGFR, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline body weight as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in body weight from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-2.24|-3.07|<0.0001
95939525|NCT06424236|191844567|OTHER||LS mean|-0.4648|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5971|-0.3326|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.3326|-0.5971|<0.0001
95939526|NCT06424236|191844567|OTHER||LS mean|-0.7062|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43787|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8821|-0.5303|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline Composite \[11C\] PiB-PET SUVR score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.5303|-0.8821|<0.0001
95950144|NCT03034863|191872291|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.03
95988938|NCT03784079|191952937|OTHER||Emax|-1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|-1.379||||||||-1.379|-2.479|
95988939|NCT03784079|191952937|OTHER||EC50|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.861||||||||0.861|0.030|
95796430|NCT01311661|191562855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.087|<0.0001
95796431|NCT01311661|191562856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.188|0.102|<0.0001
95939527|NCT06424236|191844568|SUPERIORITY|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.7|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||2.70|0.64|0.4535
95939528|NCT06424236|191844568|OTHER|Recurrent progression was defined as any progression which was either the first increase in CDR-SB above baseline or any progression above the highest preceding post-baseline value identified as a progression, where progression above the preceding value must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless the progression occurs at the last measurement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Cox|||The time to recurrent progression in CDR - sum of boxes. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. The OLE gantenerumab mITT analysis set included all participants in the OLE who met mITT criteria using OLE baseline as the baseline reference point.||1.86|0.74|0.4848
95939529|NCT06424236|191844569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||2.58|0.33|0.8855
95939530|NCT06424236|191844569|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first progression in CDR-Global score. Baseline Symptomatic Participants: Estimate and confidence interval was based on Cox proportional hazards regression model including treatment and baseline estimated years to symptom onset as fixed effects. Time to first progression was defined as time from baseline to first visit where CDR-Global Score was greater than baseline value, where progression must be observed at 2 consecutive measurements unless progression occurs at last measurement.||1.69|0.30|0.4497
95939531|NCT06424236|191844570|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with compound symmetry covariance matrix.||0.33|-0.46|0.760
95939532|NCT06424236|191844570|OTHER||LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-2.63|0.093
95939533|NCT06424236|191844571|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.44|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.43|0.989
95939534|NCT06424236|191844571|OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.25|-0.86|0.714
95939535|NCT06424236|191844572|OTHER||LS mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.18|0.738
95939536|NCT06424236|191844572|OTHER||LS mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.66|-0.28|0.395
95939537|NCT06424236|191844573|OTHER||LS mean|-2.176|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9469|-1.4051|||MMRM|||Week 56: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.4051|-2.9469|<0.0001
95939538|NCT06424236|191844573|OTHER||LS mean|-4.8434|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78771|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8609|-3.826|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.8260|-5.8609|<0.0001
95988940|NCT03784079|191952937|OTHER||s2e|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.216||||||||0.216|0.063|
95988941|NCT03784079|191952938|OTHER||Emax|-1.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.354||||||||-1.354|-2.498|
95858324|NCT02558296|191674550|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 was less than the mean change in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-0.42||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline HbA1c, GFR categories, BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline SBP as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the secondary endpoint was that the mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.42|-5.51|0.0112
95858325|NCT02558296|191674551|SUPERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.39||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.39|-0.50|<0.0001
95858326|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.49|-0.63|<0.0001
95858327|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
95858328|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.38|-0.56|<0.0001
95858329|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
95858330|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.31||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.31|-0.54|<0.0001
95859746|NCT02930018|191677612|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.776||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|1.143||2 sided 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.143|0.527|0.199
95939539|NCT06424236|191844573|OTHER||LS mean|-5.762|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.31129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9679|-4.5561|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF pTau181 as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-4.5561|-6.9679|<0.0001
95939540|NCT06424236|191844574|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with variance components covariance matrix.||0.09|0.00|0.055
95988942|NCT03784079|191952938|OTHER||EC50|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.386||||||||0.386|0.007|
95988943|NCT03784079|191952938|OTHER||s2e|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.222||||||||0.222|0.065|
95859747|NCT02930018|191677613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.657||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|2.603|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.603|1.055|0.028
95858331|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.27||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.27|-0.51|<0.0001
95858332|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.3||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.30|-0.56|<0.0001
95858333|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.23||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.23|-0.54|<0.0001
95858334|NCT02558296|191674551|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories and BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment, visit and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.07|-0.47|0.0045
95858335|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 6 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-1.15||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 6 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.15|-1.55|<0.0001
95858336|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 12 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 12 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.18|-1.61|<0.0001
95858337|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 24 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.16||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 24 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-1.16|-1.61|<0.0001
95796432|NCT01311661|191562856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.085|<0.0001
95796433|NCT01311661|191562856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.198|0.113|<0.0001
95950145|NCT03034863|191872292|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
95796434|NCT01311661|191562856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.098|<0.0001
95796435|NCT01311661|191562857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.187|0.084|<0.0001
95858338|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 36 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.89||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 36 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.89|-1.41|<0.0001
95858339|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 48 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.98||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 48 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.98|-1.48|<0.0001
95939541|NCT06424236|191844574|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.11|-0.02|0.188
95939542|NCT06424236|191844575|OTHER||LS mean|0.0067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0124||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0034|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 52: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0100|0.0034|0.0001
95939543|NCT06424236|191844575|OTHER||LS mean|0.0251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02262|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0189|0.0312|||MMRM|||Week 104: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0312|0.0189|<0.0001
95939544|NCT06424236|191844575|OTHER||LS mean|0.0357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0266|0.0447|||MMRM|||Week 156: Treatment group and visit were treated as categorical fixed effects factors and OLE baseline CSF Amyloid Beta1-42/40 score as continuous. An unstructured correlation pattern was used to estimate the variance-covariance of the within participant repeated measures. The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||0.0447|0.0266|<0.0001
95939545|NCT06424236|191844576|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Asymptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.12|0.644
95939546|NCT06424236|191844576|OTHER||LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||Estimated value is the difference in the rate of change between the treatment group and control group.|Baseline Symptomatic Participants: The statistical model included time since baseline (years), treatment arm, an interaction between treatment and time. Time was considered as continuous. Random intercepts and slopes for each participant was included as random effects with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.26|-0.18|0.745
95988944|NCT02600494|191952954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|3.53||p-value is Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.53|-1.83|0.514
95859748|NCT02930018|191677613|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
95939547|NCT05020249|191844592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95939548|NCT05020249|191844593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95939549|NCT05020249|191844594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
95939550|NCT05020249|191844595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.080
95939551|NCT05020249|191844596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95988945|NCT02600494|191952954|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.79||p-value is Hochberg adjusted|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.79|-3.73|0.895
95988946|NCT02600494|191952955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.400|0.712|0.993
95988947|NCT02600494|191952955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.307|||Regression, Cox|||||1.307|0.657|0.665
95988948|NCT01844986|191952958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
95859749|NCT02930018|191677613|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
95859750|NCT02930018|191677614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.329|0.943|0.088
95859751|NCT02930018|191677614|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
95858340|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 72 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.72||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 72 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.72|-1.27|<0.0001
95939552|NCT05020249|191844597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95939553|NCT05020249|191844598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95939554|NCT05020249|191844599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95939555|NCT05020249|191844600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|81.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.216|803.544||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of scalp IGA response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||803.544|8.216|<0.001
95939556|NCT05020249|191844601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.353||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|105.443||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups are based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio of DLQI total score response for bimekizumab group compared with placebo group using CMH.||105.443|1.447|0.007
95939557|NCT05020249|191844602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-80.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.509|-58.379|||ANCOVA|||||-58.379|-102.509|<0.001
95939558|NCT05505292|191844607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95939559|NCT05505292|191844608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95939560|NCT05505292|191844609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95939561|NCT05505292|191844610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95939562|NCT05505292|191844611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95939563|NCT05505292|191844612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95939564|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1a Change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle||||0.62
95939565|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 1b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.53
95939566|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.66
95939567|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 2b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.81
95939568|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3a change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||>0.999
95939569|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 3b change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.47
95939570|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 4 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.52
95939571|NCT05505292|191844613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Question 5 change from baseline to week 8 in lifitegrast vs vehicle groups||||0.69
95939572|NCT03628924|191844615|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.6|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|-4.6|= 0.166
95939573|NCT03628924|191844615|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.6|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-10.3|= 0.459
95939574|NCT03461276|191844653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)."||||<0.0001
95939575|NCT03461276|191844653|SUPERIORITY|Additional test|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95939576|NCT03461276|191844653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.34|||ANCOVA|||The average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal between the two treatment groups was compared using an ANCOVA model, using the MΔ anti-Aβ40 antibody signal as the dependent variable, baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) as covariate and treatment group and amyloid positivity as fixed effects.||3.34|2.96|<0.0001
95939577|NCT03461276|191844653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|t-test (sensitivity hypothesis). A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.||"1-sided t-test to compare the ABvac40 and placebo groups.~The primary analysis (t-test) was repeated, using the mITT Analysis Set to test the hypothesis:~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) ≤ 1.778~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) - average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo) \> 1.778 The alternative hypothesis was confirmed."||||<0.0001
95939578|NCT03461276|191844653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The change in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal from baseline to each post-baseline efficacy visit was analyzed using a Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM), using the mITT Analysis Set.~Dependent variable: change from baseline in anti-Aβ40 antibody signal. Fixed effects: treatment, protocol-specified visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and amyloid positivity. Covariates: baseline anti-Aβ40 antibody signal and baseline age; Repeated measure: measures within-patient at each visit."||||<0.05
95939579|NCT03461276|191844660|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||<0.001
95939580|NCT03461276|191844660|OTHER||||||=|0.047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.047
95939581|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||=|0.9936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9936
95939582|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||=|0.0391||||||MMRM - Week 6A|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0391
95939583|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||< 0.0001
95988949|NCT01844986|191952958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.97|0.23|
95858341|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 96 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 96 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.90|-1.50|<0.0001
95939584|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||< 0.0001
95988950|NCT01844986|191952959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.53||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.53|0.60|0.8903
95988951|NCT01844986|191952959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||2.28|0.29|
95988952|NCT01844986|191952960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.23|<0.0001
95796436|NCT01311661|191562857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.073|<0.0001
95939585|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
95939586|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
95939587|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||=|0.0299|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0299
95939588|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
95939589|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
95988953|NCT01844986|191952960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.99||Not applicable due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||0.99|0.23|
95988954|NCT01844986|191952961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.35|0.0002
95988955|NCT01844986|191952961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.35|0.23|
95988956|NCT01844986|191952962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.779|-1.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||-1.216|-4.779|0.0010
95988957|NCT01844986|191952963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
95939590|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER||||||=|0.1267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1267
95939591|NCT03461276|191844661|OTHER|MMRM - Week 104A|||||=|0.2477|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.2477
95796437|NCT01311661|191562857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.093|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.195|0.093|<0.0001
95939592|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.2151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.2151
95939593|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.0169
95939594|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.0008
95939595|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0002
95939596|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||< 0.0001
95939597|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0023
95939598|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0021
95939599|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0007
95939600|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.0012
95939601|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.0018
95939602|NCT03461276|191844662|OTHER||||||=|0.738|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.738
95939603|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||=|0.7623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.7623
95939604|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||=|0.1506|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.1506
95939605|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||=|0.1071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.1071
95939606|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||=|0.0212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0212
95939607|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||=|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0014
95858342|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 120 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.82||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 120 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.82|-1.49|<0.0001
95858343|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 144 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 144 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||-0.24|-1.01|0.0008
95858344|NCT02558296|191674552|NON_INFERIORITY|Rejection of the null hypothesis would imply that the mean change in baseline FPG from baseline to Week 168 was less than that in the placebo arm by a value that could not be attributed to chance alone.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.08||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of HF, insulin use, treatment, visit, hypoglycemic use and baseline FPG as fixed effect covariate.||The null hypothesis for the exploratory endpoint was that the mean change in FPG from baseline to Week 168 in the bexagliflozin arm would be equal to or greater than the mean change in the placebo arm.||0.08|-1.09|0.0462
95796438|NCT01311661|191562857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.075|<0.0001
95939608|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||< 0.0001
95858345|NCT02558296|191674553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
95939609|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||< 0.0001
95939610|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
95939611|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
95988958|NCT01844986|191952963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.23|0.29|
95939612|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||< 0.0001
95939613|NCT03461276|191844663|OTHER||||||=|0.0251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0251
95939614|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.6515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.6515
95988959|NCT01844986|191952964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
95859752|NCT02930018|191677614|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
95939615|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.7447|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.7447
95939616|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.4518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.4518
95939617|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.5416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.5416
95939618|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.3504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.3504
95939619|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.2109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.2109
95796439|NCT01311661|191562858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.165|0.055|0.0001
95939620|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.0049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0049
95939621|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.0498
95939622|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.2181|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2181
95939623|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.2087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2087
95939624|NCT03461276|191844664|OTHER||||||=|0.8599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8599
95939625|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.9469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9469
95939626|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.9063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.9063
95939627|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.3418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.3418
95939628|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.0236
95939629|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.0012
95939630|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.0004
95939631|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.0008
95939632|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||< 0.0001
95939633|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||< 0.0001
95796440|NCT01311661|191562858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.001||95.0|0.037|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.037|0.0010
95796441|NCT01311661|191562858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.063|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.172|0.063|<0.0001
95796442|NCT01311661|191562858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.057|<0.0001
95796443|NCT01311661|191562859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.757|0.500|<0.0001
95796444|NCT01311661|191562859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.473|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.730|0.473|<0.0001
95796445|NCT01311661|191562859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.503|0.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.758|0.503|<0.0001
95796446|NCT01311661|191562859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|0.558|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.813|0.558|<0.0001
95796447|NCT01311661|191562860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.532|0.799|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.799|0.532|<0.0001
95796448|NCT01311661|191562860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.431|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.698|0.431|<0.0001
95988960|NCT01844986|191952964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.26||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.26|0.25|
95796449|NCT01311661|191562860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.569|0.835|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.835|0.569|<0.0001
95796450|NCT01311661|191562860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.467|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.732|0.467|<0.0001
95796451|NCT01311661|191562861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.516|0.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.765|0.516|<0.0001
95796452|NCT01311661|191562861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.701|0.453|<0.0001
95796453|NCT01311661|191562861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.544|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.790|0.544|<0.0001
95796454|NCT01311661|191562861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.766|0.519|<0.0001
95796455|NCT01311661|191562862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.436|0.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.746|0.436|<0.0001
95796456|NCT01311661|191562862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.366|0.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.677|0.366|<0.0001
95796457|NCT01311661|191562862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.439|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.749|0.439|<0.0001
95796458|NCT01311661|191562862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|0.468|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|0.468|<0.0001
95796459|NCT01311661|191562863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.396|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.662|0.396|<0.0001
95859753|NCT02930018|191677615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.572||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.013|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.013|0.323|0.055
95939634|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.1255|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1255
95939635|NCT03461276|191844665|OTHER||||||=|0.4232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4232
95988961|NCT01844986|191952965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.79|0.51|<0.0001
95988962|NCT01844986|191952965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes the stratification variable of response to first-line platinum chemotherapy as a covariate.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib.|||1.42|0.47|
95858346|NCT02558296|191674554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.49||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during entire study.|||0.49|0.35|<0.0001
95939636|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.9211|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 2A||||= 0.9211
95939637|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.2817|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 6A||||= 0.2817
95939638|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.2984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 10A||||= 0.2984
95939639|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.8402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 14A||||= 0.8402
95939640|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.4428|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 18A||||= 0.4428
95988963|NCT01844986|191952966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy|Regression, Cox|Model includes a factor for response to previous platinum chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
95858347|NCT02558296|191674555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.11||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||3.11|1.33|0.0005
95859754|NCT02930018|191677615|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Risk Difference (%)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted absolute risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
95939641|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.4156
95939642|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.8706|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 40A||||= 0.8706
95939643|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.8691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 44A||||= 0.8691
95939644|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.2188|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2188
95939645|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.1448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.1448
95939646|NCT03461276|191844666|OTHER||||||=|0.5004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5004
95939647|NCT03461276|191844667|OTHER||||||=|0.1058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1058
95939648|NCT03461276|191844667|OTHER||||||=|0.0922|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0922
95939649|NCT03461276|191844668|OTHER||||||=|0.9313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.9313
95939650|NCT03461276|191844668|OTHER||||||=|0.2243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2243
95939651|NCT03461276|191844668|OTHER||||||=|0.0952|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.0952
95939652|NCT03461276|191844669|OTHER||||||=|0.3599|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - left||||= 0.3599
95939653|NCT03461276|191844669|OTHER||||||=|0.8913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - left||||= 0.8913
95939654|NCT03461276|191844669|OTHER||||||=|0.4736|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - left||||= 0.4736
95939655|NCT03461276|191844669|OTHER||||||=|0.9095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - right||||= 0.9095
95939656|NCT03461276|191844669|OTHER||||||=|0.8744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - right||||= 0.8744
95939657|NCT03461276|191844669|OTHER||||||=|0.9307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - right||||= 0.9307
95939658|NCT03461276|191844670|OTHER||||||=|0.3982|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3982
95939659|NCT03461276|191844670|OTHER||||||=|0.7035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7035
95988964|NCT01664793|191953053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons of between-arm changes in vaccination rates from pre to post intervention.||||||<0.05
95988965|NCT02787850|191953056|OTHER||sucess proportion|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|95.6||||||||95.6|71.9|
95988966|NCT02787850|191953056|OTHER||success proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.7|90.1||||||||90.1|57.7|
95988967|NCT02787850|191953056|OTHER||success proportion|87.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|94.9||||||||94.9|76.3|
95988968|NCT02787850|191953056|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|95.8||||||||95.8|66.3|
95988969|NCT02944448|191953080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.4|0.7093
95988970|NCT02944448|191953081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-13.1|0.6007
95988971|NCT02944448|191953082|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.0|0.4563
95988972|NCT02944448|191953083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.0|0.8693
95988973|NCT02944448|191953084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-9.1|0.6516
95988974|NCT02944448|191953085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.1|0.5|0.1033
95988975|NCT02944448|191953086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline weekly pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of achieving a treatment response.|||1.2|0.5|0.2831
95939660|NCT03461276|191844670|OTHER||||||=|0.6334|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6334
95939661|NCT03461276|191844671|OTHER||||||=|0.2193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2193
95858348|NCT02558296|191674556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.38||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for time to first event in the bexagliflozin arm vs. placebo arm during the entire study.|||2.38|1.40|<0.0001
95858349|NCT02558296|191674557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.20|0.33|0.0803
95858350|NCT02558296|191674557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over placebo.|||1.01|0.22|0.0272
95858351|NCT02558296|191674557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.18||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.18|0.34|0.0757
95858352|NCT02558296|191674557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Cox|Region, baseline eGFR categories \& BMI, history of heart failure, insulin use (Y/N), treatment and baseline HbA1c as fixed effect covariate.|Hazard ratio and p-value were estimated using Cox regression model for treatment comparison vs. placebo.|||1.01|0.23|0.0273
95858353|NCT02549365|191674563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.9|||||Incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza is compared between those vaccinated and household controls. VE will be calculated as 1 - RR with 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression.|||13.9|0.6|
95858354|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|8.49||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.49|-3.96|
95858355|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-3.19|
95858356|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.35||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.35|-2.25|
95939662|NCT03461276|191844671|OTHER||||||=|0.5543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5543
95939663|NCT03461276|191844672|OTHER||||||=|0.7324|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7324
95939664|NCT03461276|191844672|OTHER||||||=|0.1719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.1719
95939665|NCT03461276|191844673|OTHER||||||=|0.7977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7977
95939666|NCT03461276|191844673|OTHER||||||=|0.8828|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8828
95939667|NCT03461276|191844674|OTHER||||||=|0.7954|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.7954
95939668|NCT03461276|191844674|OTHER||||||=|0.5895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.5895
95939669|NCT03461276|191844675|OTHER||||||=|0.743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.743
95939670|NCT03461276|191844675|OTHER||||||=|0.832|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.832
95939671|NCT03461276|191844676|OTHER||||||=|0.2283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2283
95939672|NCT03461276|191844676|OTHER||||||=|0.886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.886
95939673|NCT03461276|191844677|OTHER||||||=|0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.909
95939674|NCT03461276|191844677|OTHER||||||=|0.8498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.8498
95939675|NCT03461276|191844678|OTHER||||||=|0.8711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8711
95939676|NCT03461276|191844678|OTHER||||||=|0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.1098
95939677|NCT03461276|191844678|OTHER||||||=|0.6179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.6179
95939678|NCT03461276|191844678|OTHER||||||=|0.3715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3715
95939679|NCT03461276|191844679|OTHER||||||=|0.8949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.8949
95939680|NCT03461276|191844679|OTHER||||||=|0.8712|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8712
95939681|NCT03461276|191844679|OTHER||||||=|0.8748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.8748
95939682|NCT03461276|191844679|OTHER||||||=|0.6402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6402
95939683|NCT03461276|191844680|OTHER||||||=|0.552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.552
95939684|NCT03461276|191844680|OTHER||||||=|0.9371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9371
95939685|NCT03461276|191844680|OTHER||||||=|0.2354|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.2354
95939686|NCT03461276|191844680|OTHER||||||=|0.4608|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.4608
95939687|NCT03461276|191844681|OTHER||||||=|0.3246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.3246
95939688|NCT03461276|191844681|OTHER||||||=|0.8047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.8047
95939689|NCT03461276|191844681|OTHER||||||=|0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A||||= 0.916
95939690|NCT03461276|191844681|OTHER||||||=|0.9582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.9582
95939691|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail A||||= 0.777
95939692|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.1727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail A||||= 0.1727
95939693|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail A||||= 0.0218
95939694|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail A||||= 0.2789
95858357|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||26.2|13.7|
95939695|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.2261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A - Trail B||||= 0.2261
95939696|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.9743|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A - Trail B||||= 0.9743
95939697|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.2556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 77A - Trail B||||= 0.2556
95939698|NCT03461276|191844682|OTHER||||||=|0.1008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A - Trail B||||= 0.1008
95939699|NCT03461276|191844683|OTHER||||||=|0.6189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 24A||||= 0.6189
95939700|NCT03461276|191844683|OTHER||||||=|0.6937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.6937
95939701|NCT03461276|191844683|OTHER||||||=|0.6981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.6981
95939702|NCT03461276|191844685|OTHER||||||=|0.2863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.2863
95939703|NCT03461276|191844685|OTHER||||||=|0.3703|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3703
95858358|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|9.58||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.58|2.80|
95858359|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|15.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||15.5|7.87|
95939704|NCT03461276|191844686|OTHER||||||=|0.9663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 50A||||= 0.9663
95939705|NCT03461276|191844686|OTHER||||||=|0.3843|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM - Week 104A||||= 0.3843
95939706|NCT03461276|191844687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025 was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||"The trial was considered successfully confirmatory regarding efficacy (immunogenicity) of ABvac40 if the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal (OD in ELISA) in the ABvac40 group was significantly greater than the average MΔ of anti-Aβ40 antibody signal in the Placebo group. i.e.~* Null hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) ≤ average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo).~* Alternative hypothesis: average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (ABvac40) \> average MΔ anti-Aβ40 (placebo)"||||< 0.0001
95859755|NCT02930018|191677615|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Difference (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The unadjusted relative risk difference in % between nerinetide and placebo in the no-alteplase subgroup.|||||
95939707|NCT03461276|191844687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95939708|NCT03461276|191844687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|3.02|< 0.0001
95939709|NCT05530603|191844701|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||.009
95939710|NCT05530603|191844702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
95939711|NCT05530603|191844703|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||.033
95939712|NCT05530603|191844704|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||.068
95939713|NCT05530603|191844705|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||.001
95939714|NCT05530603|191844706|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95939715|NCT05530603|191844707|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95939716|NCT02043678|191844708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.374|0.917|0.2636
95939717|NCT02043678|191844709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.151||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.374|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||1.374|0.964|0.1194
95939718|NCT02043678|191844710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.152||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.383|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.383|0.960|0.1283
95939719|NCT02043678|191844711|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.389|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.389|0.945|0.1669
95939720|NCT02043678|191844712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.308|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.308|0.816|0.7871
95939721|NCT02043678|191844713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.378|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.378|0.921|0.2467
95939722|NCT05448105|191844750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|"Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing the participants' SUS scores to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability."||||||0.02
95939723|NCT05448105|191844753|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.04
95939724|NCT05448105|191844754|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is calculated p-value. The threshold for significance was less than 0.05.|paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||<0.01
95939725|NCT05448105|191844755|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.16
95939726|NCT05448105|191844756|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.69
95939727|NCT05448105|191844757|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.90
95939728|NCT05448105|191844758|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.11
95939729|NCT05448105|191844759|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test|||||||0.22
95939730|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the calculated p-value.|McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||1.00
95939731|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.55
95939732|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.11
95939733|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.63
95939734|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.12
95858360|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-8.80|-18.9|
95796460|NCT01311661|191562863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.543|0.277|<0.0001
95796461|NCT01311661|191562863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.736|0.471|<0.0001
95858361|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-1.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.56|-7.67|
95796462|NCT01311661|191562863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.349|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.613|0.349|<0.0001
95796463|NCT01311661|191562864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.0001||95.0|26.709|39.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||39.206|26.709|<0.0001
95796464|NCT01311661|191562864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.167|<|0.0001||95.0|26.409|38.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.855|26.409|<0.0001
95796465|NCT01311661|191562864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|25.448|37.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.872|25.448|<0.0001
95796466|NCT01311661|191562864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161|<|0.0001||95.0|22.683|35.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.107|22.683|<0.0001
95796467|NCT01311661|191562865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.046|<|0.0001||95.0|22.884|34.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||34.856|22.884|<0.0001
95796468|NCT01311661|191562865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.034|<|0.0001||95.0|26.094|38.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.018|26.094|<0.0001
95796469|NCT01311661|191562865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|25.864|37.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||37.767|25.864|<0.0001
95796470|NCT01311661|191562865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.028|<|0.0001||95.0|27.375|39.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.278|27.375|<0.0001
95796471|NCT01311661|191562866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.262|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.900|-2.262|<0.0001
95796472|NCT01311661|191562866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.104|-0.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.748|-2.104|<0.0001
95796473|NCT01311661|191562866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.415|-1.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-1.062|-2.415|<0.0001
95796474|NCT01311661|191562866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.0458||95.0|-1.366|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.013|-1.366|0.0458
95939735|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.33
95796475|NCT01311661|191562867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.484|<|0.0001||95.0|135.099|211.682|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||211.682|135.099|<0.0001
95796476|NCT01311661|191562867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.406|<|0.0001||95.0|116.961|193.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||193.234|116.961|<0.0001
95796477|NCT01311661|191562867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|111.204|187.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||187.333|111.204|<0.0001
95796478|NCT01311661|191562867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|150.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.369|<|0.0001||95.0|112.377|188.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||188.505|112.377|<0.0001
95858362|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.33||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.33|-11.5|
95939736|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of urine microalbumin||||0.23
95939737|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for urine microalbumin||||0.58
95939738|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of body mass index (BMI)||||1.00
95939739|NCT05448105|191844760|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for body mass index (BMI)||||0.27
95939740|NCT05270408|191844762|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.93||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.25
95988976|NCT02944448|191953087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as a main effect and OA joint as a covariate.|"Ratio between treatment odds of having a PGIC of Very Much Improved or Much Improved."|||2.0|0.9|0.1959
95939741|NCT05270408|191844762|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Total Learning||||0.18
95939742|NCT05270408|191844762|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.48
95858363|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|12.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.9|2.72|
95939743|NCT05270408|191844762|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||RAVLT Delayed||||0.64
95939744|NCT05270408|191844763|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.98
95939745|NCT05270408|191844763|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT total learning||||0.22
95939746|NCT05270408|191844763|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.97
95939747|NCT05270408|191844763|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.69||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||BVMT delayed||||0.23
95939748|NCT05270408|191844764|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
95939749|NCT05270408|191844764|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.42||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
95939750|NCT05270408|191844765|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
95939751|NCT05270408|191844765|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.08||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
95939752|NCT05270408|191844766|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
95939753|NCT05270408|191844766|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
95939754|NCT05270408|191844768|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.96||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
95939755|NCT05270408|191844768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA||||Eta2 effect sizes produced from the pairwise comparisons were transformed to Cohen's d for examination of effect sizes. A small/weak effect size was demonstrated (Cohen's d = 0.10), when adjusting for baseline performance.|||0.68
95939756|NCT05034328|191844807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95858364|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.46||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.46|1.30|
95858365|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.18|1.93|
95858366|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|7.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.30|-5.49|
95858367|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|1.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.54|-6.96|
95939757|NCT05034328|191844808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.451|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treament chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.451|0.778|0.7026
95939758|NCT05034328|191844809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.469|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.469|0.792|0.6322
95939759|NCT05034328|191844810|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.356|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.356|0.726|0.9598
95939760|NCT05034328|191844811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.333||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.88|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.880|0.945|0.1016
95939761|NCT05034328|191844812|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.601|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.601|0.830|0.3954
95939762|NCT05034328|191844813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||1.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.703|||Regression, Cox|||For each item 2 to 7 of the WURSS-K questionnaire, the impact of the treatment chosen on the corresponding common cold symptom duration was analyzed by means of Cox model and p-value (Wald) calculated||1.703|0.871|1.218
95988977|NCT02944448|191953088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test stratified by Primary OA joint (Hip or Knee) and Baseline Week Mean of the Daily NRS (\<6.7 or \>=6.7) (Van Elteren test).||||||0.2858
95796479|NCT01311661|191562868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.997|<|0.0001||95.0|104.916|179.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.586|104.916|<0.0001
95939763|NCT05034328|191844814|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The impact of the treatment chosen on the risk to develop respiratory complication requiring antibiotic prescription during a 20-day follow-up was analyzed by a multivariate logistic model||||>0.05
95939764|NCT05034328|191844815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.644|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.644|0.174|0.0010
95939765|NCT03468868|191844816|NON_INFERIORITY|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 10% (or 0.10 feet per second) for this population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.14|<0.01
95939766|NCT03468868|191844817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|384.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.56|174.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||174.5|-29.56|0.16
95939767|NCT03468868|191844818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.96||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|1.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.41|-10.84|0.13
95939768|NCT03468868|191844819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|5.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.32|-3.55|0.70
95939769|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.71||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Anxiety Domain||2.30|-0.97|0.43
95939770|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Depression Domain||1.74|-1.26|0.75
95939771|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Fatigue Domain||0.97|-2.71|0.35
95939772|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.83||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function Domain||0.99|-0.88|0.91
95939773|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.44||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function Domain||2.85|0.20|0.02
95796480|NCT01311661|191562868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.92|<|0.0001||95.0|94.954|169.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||169.322|94.954|<0.0001
95939774|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Cognitive Function Domain||0.76|-2.54|0.29
95939775|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol Domain||2.42|-0.26|0.11
95939776|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Positive Affect and Well-Being Domain||2.28|-1.19|0.54
95939777|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Sleep Disturbance Domain||0.81|-2.00|0.41
95939778|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.65||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.02|-1.22|0.63
95939779|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.44||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities Domain||2.47|-1.16|0.48
95939780|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Stigma Domain||1.45|-1.32|0.92
95939781|NCT03468868|191844820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL Communication Domain||0.37|-1.31|0.28
95939782|NCT03468868|191844821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Physical||2.60|-7.55|0.34
95939783|NCT03468868|191844821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.37||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||MSIS Psychological||3.88|-6.63|0.24
95939784|NCT03468868|191844822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.91||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Cognitive||2.56|-1.83|0.74
95939785|NCT03468868|191844822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Physical||-0.12|-4.07|0.04
95939786|NCT03468868|191844822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Psychosocial||0.39|-0.68|0.59
95939787|NCT03468868|191844822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||MFIS Total||2.30|-6.05|0.38
95939788|NCT03468868|191844823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.34|0.87
95939789|NCT03468868|191844824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.08|0.05
95939790|NCT05399459|191844825|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.8|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||26.8|12.0|<0.0001
95939791|NCT05399459|191844826|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg - placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||30.9|14.5|<0.0001
95939792|NCT05399459|191844827|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|14.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||23.6|5.9|0.0011
95939793|NCT05399459|191844828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|27.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||27.4|10.1|<0.0001
95939794|NCT05399459|191844829|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||40.3|23.2|<0.0001
95939795|NCT05399459|191844830|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|-19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-11.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||-11.6|-27.8|<0.0001
95939796|NCT05399459|191844831|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|41.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||41.6|24.7|<0.0001
95939797|NCT05399459|191844832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|10.1||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|21.1||P-value \> 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel||Adjusted percentage difference (rimegepant 75 mg- placebo) stratified by randomization stratum with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||21.1|-0.9|0.0707
95939798|NCT05651308|191844856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08|||Chi-squared||Risk difference = Intervention proportion minus control proportion.|||0.08|-0.03|0.37
95939799|NCT00986856|191844871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.01||95.0|1.4|120.4||Test for the hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||120.4|1.4|<0.01
95939800|NCT00986856|191844872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.023||95.0|1.1|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|1.1|0.023
95939801|NCT00986856|191844873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|0.3|0.54
95939802|NCT00986856|191844874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|0.8|0.1
95939803|NCT00986856|191844875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1
95939804|NCT00986856|191844876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.043||95.0|0.9|83.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.5|0.9|0.043
95939805|NCT00986856|191844877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.8||||0.007||95.0|1.5|109.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||109.6|1.5|0.007
95939806|NCT00986856|191844878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.008||95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.8|-4.8|0.008
95939807|NCT05445427|191844879|SUPERIORITY|Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
95939808|NCT05445427|191844880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used with the baseline value used as the covariate.||||||0.292
95939809|NCT05201079|191844896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.395||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|97.79|0.54|10.624||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Logistic||Numerator: fidaxomicin; denominator: MBK-01|||10.624|0.540|0.228
95939810|NCT05201079|191844902|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Alpha value used: 0.0221|Statistical analysis using Odds Ratio cannot be performed because there are zero patients with bad progress in MBK-01 group.|||
95939811|NCT05201079|191844903|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|1.25||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.300
95939812|NCT05201079|191844905|SUPERIORITY||Score (logrank) test|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: 0.0221|Regression, Cox|Degrees of freedom: 1||||||0.900
95939813|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.104.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.749
95939814|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.249.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.620
95939815|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Function area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.024.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.160
95939816|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||Main effect of the Group for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.257.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.614
95939817|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 7.705. Effect size = 0.046.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.007
95939818|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Bodily pain area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
95939819|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||Main effect of the Group for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.474.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.494
95858368|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|6.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.16|-2.85|
95796481|NCT01311661|191562868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|105.021|179.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||179.251|105.021|<0.0001
95939820|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||Main effect of the Visit for the General Health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.932.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.339
95939821|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the General health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.783.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.380
95939822|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Main effect of the Group for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.072|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.790
95939823|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.465.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.498
95939824|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Vitality area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 5.490.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.023
95939825|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Main effect of the Group for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.356.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.553
95939826|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.132.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.718
95939827|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Social role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.319.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.574
95939828|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Main effect of the Group for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.482.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.490
95939829|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 4.850|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.032
95939830|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Emotional role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.181.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.145
95939831|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||Main effect of the Group for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.535.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.467
95939832|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.795|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.100
95939833|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Mental health area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.019.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.890
95939834|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||Main effect of the Group for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.742
95939835|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of the Visit for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 21.912. Effect size = 0.109.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||<0.001
95858369|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|23.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||23.8|11.2|
95858370|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|10.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||10.7|2.32|
95796482|NCT01311661|191562868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.885|<|0.0001||95.0|120.192|194.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||194.420|120.192|<0.0001
95858371|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|18.7||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.7|9.75|
95858372|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.34|-14.6|
95939836|NCT05201079|191844916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Main effect of the Group x Visit interaction for the Physical Role area of the SF-36 questionnaire. F statistic (1,56) = 2.986.|ANOVA|||For each area of the SF-36 questionnaire, a mixed ANOVA for the effect of Group, Visit, and interaction effect of Group x Visit was performed. alpha = 0.0221.||||0.089
95939837|NCT05977530|191844939|SUPERIORITY||comparison of ranks in Wilcoxon|0.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
95939838|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|FSFI Total, HRI Cohen's d|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.1||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for FSFI total, FSFI lubrication, FSFI pain, and FSFI desire subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||2.10|.62|
95939839|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Total, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37||||||||2.37|.86|
95939840|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87||||||||1.87|.49|
95939841|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.66||||||||2.66|1.02|
95939842|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, HRI Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.36||||||||1.36|.16|
95939843|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Pain, VVA Cohen's d|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.38||||||||1.38|.24|
95939844|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, HRI Cohen's d|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.82||||||||1.82|.46|
95858373|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|0.297||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.297|-7.22|
95939845|NCT05692960|191844951|SUPERIORITY||FSFI Desire, VVA Cohen's d|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.86||||||||1.86|.55|
95939846|NCT05692960|191844952|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|BITS, HRI Cohen's d|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.63||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-tests for the BITS. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.63|.34|
95939847|NCT05692960|191844952|SUPERIORITY||BITS, VVA Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.01||||||||1.01|.03|
95939848|NCT05692960|191844953|SUPERIORITY|For this feasibility study, a sample of approximately 15 participants per arm will allow for estimates that can be used in the development of a larger study.|PROMIS Interest, HRI Cohen's d|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75||||||Effect sizes, Cohen's d, were calculated for both study arms using paired t-test for PROMIS interest, lubrication and satisfaction subscales. Means and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated.||1.75|.41|
95939849|NCT05692960|191844953|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Interest, VVA Cohen's d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.18||||||||1.18|.09|
95939850|NCT05692960|191844953|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, HRI Cohen's d|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.89||||||||1.89|.45|
95939851|NCT05692960|191844953|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Satisfaction, VVA Cohen's d|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.44||||||||1.44|.13|
95939852|NCT05692960|191844953|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, HRI Cohen's d|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.67||||||||2.67|.88|
95858374|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.71||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.71|-11.6|
95858375|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|7.39|
95858376|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.5||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.5|2.91|
95858377|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|6.88|
95939853|NCT05692960|191844953|SUPERIORITY||PROMIS Lubrication, VVA Cohen's d|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||||||||2.50|.74|
95939854|NCT02675777|191844954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95939855|NCT02675777|191844955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95939856|NCT00812461|191844987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-0.38|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.38|-3.07|0.012
95950146|NCT03034863|191872293|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.81
95939857|NCT00812461|191844988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|0.73|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 229 participants in the placebo group and 212 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.73|-10.63|0.088
95939858|NCT00812461|191844989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.27|0.67|0.630
95939859|NCT00812461|191844990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
95939860|NCT00812461|191844991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 225 participants in the placebo group and 203 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-0.38|0.111
95939861|NCT00812461|191844992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.96||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 224 participants in the placebo group and 207 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|0.86|0.529
95939862|NCT00812461|191844993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.92||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||[Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 222 participants in the placebo group and 205 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Logtransformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.00|0.84|0.049
95939863|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||17.86|-17.81|0.998
95939864|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|10.93||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||10.93|-24.73|0.445
95939865|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|20.36||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||20.36|-15.33|0.781
95939866|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|14.75||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||14.75|-20.93|0.732
95939867|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|29.14||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||29.14|-6.53|0.212
95939868|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|11.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||11.39|-24.27|0.476
95939869|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 15 minutes post injection||18.26|-17.40|0.962
95939870|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|31.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||31.16|-6.96|0.211
95939871|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||21.73|-16.40|0.782
95939872|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|33.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.78|-4.34|0.129
95858378|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.30|-7.41|
95939873|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||32.35|-5.80|0.171
95939874|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|34.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||34.62|-3.49|0.108
95939875|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|23.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||23.30|-14.83|0.661
95939876|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|33.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 30 minutes post injection||33.27|-4.85|0.142
95939877|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.98||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|31.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.04|-7.08|0.216
95939878|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|26.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||26.48|-11.71|0.445
95939879|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|35.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||35.19|-2.92|0.096
95939880|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|30.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||30.96|-7.19|0.220
95939881|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|31.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||31.78|-6.35|0.189
95939882|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|16.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||16.41|-21.75|0.782
95939883|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|25.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 60 minutes post injection||25.18|-12.98|0.528
95939884|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|20.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||20.12|-15.45|0.795
95939885|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.13||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|11.69|||mean difference|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||11.69|-23.96|0.497
95939886|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.44||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|25.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.21|-10.34|0.409
95939887|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.70|-9.92|0.382
95939888|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|25.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||25.54|-10.05|0.390
95939889|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|14.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||14.10|-21.54|0.680
95939890|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|18.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 90 minutes post injection||18.65|-16.99|0.927
95939891|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|23.98||The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||23.98|-11.95|0.508
95858379|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|6.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.56|-2.15|
95939892|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|14.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.35|-21.66|0.688
95939893|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|34.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||34.03|-1.88|0.079
95939894|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|26.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||26.96|-8.96|0.323
95939895|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|27.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||27.85|-5.39|0.183
95939896|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|14.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||14.02|-19.24|0.756
95939897|NCT04802967|191845124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|20.59|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures.|The p value was determined using MMRM model, based on treatment, timepoint, baseline value as covariable and subject as a random effect.||Outcome Measure at 120 minutes post injection||20.59|-12.68|0.638
95939898|NCT04636528|191845139|EQUIVALENCE|A minimal detectable difference of 11.2 points was selected based on the psychometric properties of the scale. Considering a power of 80%, a 2-sided 0.05 significance level, and a 10% dropout rate, 82 patients would be necessary to detect an 11.2-point difference between the 2 groups.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||9.8|-13.5|0.75
95939899|NCT04636528|191845139|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.16||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.32|0.71
95939900|NCT04636528|191845140|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.2|-1.4|0.12
95939901|NCT04636528|191845141|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|30.2||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|||||30.2|-34.6|0.89
95939902|NCT04636528|191845142|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.5|-1.0|0.51
95939903|NCT04636528|191845143|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95939904|NCT04636528|191845144|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||0.6|-1.5|<.001
95939905|NCT04636528|191845145|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|a robust method on the medians||||-0.5|-1.4|<.001
95939906|NCT04636528|191845146|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|A robust method on the medians.||||0.4|-1.3|.27
95939907|NCT04636528|191845147|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|11.8||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95858380|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.47|-3.23|
95939908|NCT04636528|191845148|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95939909|NCT04636528|191845149|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95939910|NCT04636528|191845150|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95939911|NCT06321809|191845165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses.||total scale score comparison||||0.24
95939912|NCT06321809|191845165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.001
95939913|NCT06321809|191845165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.03
95939914|NCT06321809|191845165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||total scale score comparison||||0.003
95939915|NCT06321809|191845166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Weight comparison||||0.08
95939916|NCT06321809|191845167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||BMI Comparison||||0.13
95939917|NCT06321809|191845168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||Waist Circumference Comparison||||0.63
95988978|NCT02944448|191953089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression, including treatment, baseline pain score, and OA joint as independent variables.|Ratio between treatment odds of withdrawing from treatment due to lack of analgesic efficacy.|||2.7|0.3|0.8002
95858381|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.6||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||25.6|13.2|
95939918|NCT06321809|191845169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|A significance level of p\<0.05 was used for all analyses||LDL Cholesterol Comparison||||0.89
95939919|NCT03131154|191845170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.982|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||1.982|0.643|
95939920|NCT03131154|191845171|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|6.939|||||Cox proportional hazards model|||6.939|0.989|
95939921|NCT01073566|191845195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Pre-study power calculations determined that 28 completed subjects provided 90% power to detect equivalence for the primary endpoint of MDBG of bolus-patch compared to pen/syringe using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, when the margin of equivalence for MDBG is 1.11 mmol/L, the true mean difference is 0.0, and the standard deviation of the differences is 1.72 mmol/L.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device.|A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||0.16|-0.97|0.098
95939922|NCT01073566|191845196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17|||ANOVA||Finesse versus usual injection device|This was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at 95%, 2-sided. A two-period, two-treatment crossover ANOVA model was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||-0.17|-0.80|0.004
95939923|NCT01073566|191845197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Higher number is better. The answers were scored on a scale of 0-100 to standardize as described in the original papers.||||<0.001
95939924|NCT03216057|191845215|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was calculated that 130 subjects randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms have 85% power to detect a difference of at least 20% in triglyceride percentage changes compared with placebo at week 12, assuming a common standard deviation in percentage change of 35%, a 2-sided α = 0.05, and we add 20% for lost follow-up, finally the number of subjects for each arm was 65.|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-16.2|-32.7|<0.01
95988979|NCT00804687|191953090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0602||95.0|-0.258|0.006|||Linear mixed model|||||0.006|-0.258|0.0602
95939925|NCT03216057|191845216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-36.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-36.8|-83.0|<0.01
95939926|NCT03216057|191845217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.9|-16.1|0.01
95939927|NCT03216057|191845218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.05|-15.8|0.3
95939928|NCT03216057|191845219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.5|-21.2|<0.01
95939929|NCT03216057|191845220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.02
95939930|NCT03216057|191845221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.8|-6.3|0.6
95939931|NCT03216057|191845222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-0.9|0.1
95939932|NCT03216057|191845223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21|5.8|<0.01
95988980|NCT00804687|191953090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0043||95.0|-0.328|-0.063|||Linear mixed model|||||-0.063|-0.328|0.0043
95858382|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|13.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5 where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||13.3|4.78|
95939933|NCT03216057|191845224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|0.4|<0.01
95939934|NCT04413708|191845304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.17|||Fisher Exact|||||5.17|0.50|0.41
95939935|NCT04413708|191845305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.61|1.0
95939936|NCT04719832|191845373|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), baseline inhaled CS dose (medium, high), geographical region, baseline percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1), and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Negative binomial distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.59|0.30|< 0.001
95939937|NCT04719832|191845374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.36|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.39|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline SGRQ total score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline SGRQ total score and visit by treatment group||0.39|-7.11|= 0.080
95988981|NCT00804687|191953090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.075|||Linear mixed model|||||0.075|-0.206|0.3513
95988982|NCT00804687|191953091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|8.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0003||95.0|4.104|13.104|||Linear mixed model|||||13.104|4.104|0.0003
95988983|NCT00804687|191953091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|4.699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0428||95.0|0.155|9.243|||Linear mixed model|||||9.243|0.155|0.0428
95988984|NCT00804687|191953091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean difference|-3.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.424|0.614|||Linear mixed model|||||0.614|-8.424|0.0895
95988985|NCT04401267|191953094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7139
95742276|NCT03395197|191455285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.777||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, if hazard ratio \< 1, it indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H01: HRrPFS ≥1 vs H11: HRrPFS \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the all-comers population for Part 2 Cohort 1.||0.777|0.506|<0.0001
95939938|NCT04719832|191845375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.04|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.18|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.18|-0.27|= 0.690
95939939|NCT04719832|191845376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.001|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.088|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.088|-0.089|= 0.991
95939940|NCT04719832|191845377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.09|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.31|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.31|-0.50|= 0.650
95939941|NCT04719832|191845378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.26|-0.42|= 0.647
95939942|NCT03819153|191845381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||Time from randomization to first composite renal event was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by use of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor (yes/no) at baseline. Based on the available number of events for analysis, the nominal significance level was updated to 0.01612 using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function. eGFR was calculated using the CKD-EPI formula.||0.88|0.66|0.0001
95742277|NCT03395197|191455286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.61||1-sided|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Talazoparib+Enzalutamide compared to Placebo+Enzalutamide.|The following statistical hypotheses was tested to address the primary objectives: H02: HRrPFS+ ≥1 vs H12: HRrPFS+ \<1, where HRrPFS and HRrPFS+ are the hazard ratios (talazoparib in combination with enzalutamide vs. placebo in combination with enzalutamide) of rPFS based on BICR assessment in the DDR deficient population for Part 2 Cohort 2.||0.610|0.328|<0.0001
95742278|NCT00642993|191455287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means|0.41||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||1.03|-0.20|0.187
95742279|NCT00642993|191455288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||1.20|0.28|0.140
95939943|NCT00691002|191845411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus calcipotriol ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||1.74|0.94|0.11
95939944|NCT00691002|191845411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus hydrocortisone ointment at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||2.45|1.31|<0.001
95939945|NCT00691002|191845411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Test for superiority of LEO 80190 ointment versus ointment vehicle at Week 8 LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward).||4.04|1.80|<0.001
95939946|NCT04324359|191845416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on the normal approximation test for differences between proportions.||||||<0.001
95939947|NCT04324359|191845417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Other: z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.066
95939948|NCT04324359|191845418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.716
95939949|NCT04324359|191845419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.528
95939950|NCT04324359|191845420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.766
95939951|NCT04324359|191845421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||z-test for proportions|Other: z-test for proportions, 2-sided test at alpha = 5% level. P-value: based on Barnard's exact test for differences between proportions.||||||0.619
95939952|NCT04898673|191845422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-6.08|<0.001
95939953|NCT04898673|191845423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.51|||ANOVA|||||3.51|-2.31|0.670
95939954|NCT04898673|191845424|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.50|-7.00|0.026
95742280|NCT00642993|191455289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test adjusting for gender.||||9.93|0.24|0.515
95742281|NCT00642993|191455290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.63|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.63|-1.20|0.543
95742282|NCT00642993|191455291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANOVA|Mean and standard error are least squares means and corresponding standard errors based on an ANOVA model with main effects for treatment.||||0.35|-0.09|0.231
95742283|NCT04230174|191455323|OTHER|Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in white matter lesions of multiple sclerosis patients.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95742284|NCT04230174|191455323|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in perilesional white matter multiple sclerosis patients.||||0.018
95742285|NCT04230174|191455323|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired-t test baseline vs follow-up SUVR in the thalamus of multiple sclerosis patients.|A general linear model using the FreeSurfer software was used to assess, vertex-wise, significant paired-wise SUVR differences in post vs pre ocrelizumab treatment in patients across the cortex. A clusterwise correction for multiple comparisons was also applied using a Monte-Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations (corrected P ≤ 0.05). The surface-based analysis disclosed three clusters of decreased 11C-PBR28 uptake in the right hemisphere (Fig. 4), including insula (p=0.0009), lateral orbitofrontal (p=0.03), and opercular/frontal inferior (p=0.02) areas after adjusting for multiple comparisons.|||0.047
95742286|NCT04230174|191455324|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs follow-up MTR in NAWM||||0.07
95742287|NCT04230174|191455324|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs follow-up MTR in cortex||||0.024
95742288|NCT04230174|191455325|OTHER|Paired-t test||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in cortical thickness after 1-year ocrelizumab treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis||||0.69
95939955|NCT04898673|191845425|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin=-10% words correct; CP1110 non-inferior to CP1000 if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference \> -10% words correct.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-4.02|0.411
95742289|NCT04230174|191455326|OTHER|Wilcoxon related samples test||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon related samples test comparing baseline vs follow-up changes in white matter lesion volume of multiple sclerosis patients.||||0.64
95742290|NCT03292458|191455327|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy outcome was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based linear mixed-effect model. The analysis included group, treatment, and treatment period as interacting fixed effects and subject as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95742291|NCT03292458|191455328|OTHER|The minimum and average efficacy (in % symptom change) of sodium oxybate versus placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline was determined using binomial logistic regression.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Regression, Logistic|||The minimum and average efficacy of sodium oxybate vs. placebo in improving symptoms compared to the baseline were determined using binomial logistic regression.||||0.05
95742292|NCT03292458|191455329|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95742293|NCT03292458|191455330|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95939956|NCT03738852|191845426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.907
95742294|NCT03292458|191455331|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
95742295|NCT03292458|191455332|OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.75|||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.01
95742296|NCT01513239|191455333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.1||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-5.1|-16.4|<0.0001
95742297|NCT01513239|191455333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-4.3||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.3|-15.5|0.0003
95742298|NCT01513239|191455333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||4.2|-5.9|0.3718
95742299|NCT01513239|191455334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|5.2||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||12.2|-1.8|0.0722
95939957|NCT04731818|191845549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||analyzed by 1-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey multiple comparison test|ANOVA|1 way repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.0001
95939958|NCT05239455|191845551|OTHER|The FDA requires one-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the population proportion of success is greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75%. Allows for low recoveries (\<75%) in 2/20 or 3/24 volunteers.|95% Confidence Interval|88.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|72.81||||||A one-sided confidence interval for the proportion of successes was determined using the Clopper-Pearson exact method for a 95% confidence interval.|The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Proportion of successes greater than 70% where success of a unit is defined as the RBC in vivo 24-hour percentage recovery ≥ 75% was calculated.||72.81|
95939959|NCT05239455|191845552|OTHER|The FDA criteria requires LR-RBC mean 24-hour recovery ≥ 75% with standard deviation (SD) ≤ 9%||||||||||||||||The comparison is to the FDA requirements for in vivo 24-hour recovery of LR-RBC.|Mean and standard deviation were calculated.|||
95742300|NCT01513239|191455334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.4||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||21.4|7.7|<0.0001
95988986|NCT02066792|191953108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||At 3 month follow-up||-.21|-.81|<.001
95988987|NCT02066792|191953108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23||Two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||.23|-.37|.635
95988988|NCT02066792|191953108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||||-.18|-.80|.002
95988989|NCT02066792|191953108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.14|-.73|.004
95988990|NCT02066792|191953108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Four level multivariate MLM with measures nested within time, which was nested within subjects, who were nested within treatment cohort.||3 month follow-up||-.11|-.72|.008
95988991|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|149.43||||||Buprenorphine||149.43|66.05|
95742301|NCT01513239|191455334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-9.4||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||-2.7|-16.1|0.9969
95742302|NCT01513239|191455335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-11.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.7||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-4.7|-19.0|0.0006
95742303|NCT01513239|191455335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-6.9||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||-6.9|-20.4|<0.0001
95742304|NCT01513239|191455335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|1.6||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.0||One sided p-value based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by SOC therapy (metronidazole vs. vancomycin vs. fidaxomicin) and hospitalization status (inpatient vs. outpatient)|Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus MK-6072 + SOC|||8.0|-4.6|0.6962
95796483|NCT01311661|191562869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.78|-0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.329|-0.780|<0.0001
95742305|NCT01513239|191455336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo +SOC|||4.0|-9.8|0.408
95742306|NCT01513239|191455336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||4.6|-9.2|0.517
95988992|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|163.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.82|242.34||||||Buprenorphine||242.34|110.82|
95988993|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|281.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.1|423.33||||||Buprenorphine||423.33|187.10|
95988994|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.14|117.98||||||Buprenorphine||117.98|52.14|
95988995|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.87|195.97||||||Buprenorphine||195.97|81.87|
95988996|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|208.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.21|318.18||||||Buprenorphine||318.18|137.21|
95988997|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|358.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|231.92|555.17||||||Buprenorphine||555.17|231.92|
95988998|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.03|138.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||138.49|44.03|
95988999|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.26|142.41||||||Norbuprenorphine||142.41|39.26|
95989000|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|11.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.35|20.66||||||Norbuprenorphine||20.66|6.35|
95989001|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|71.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|129.49||||||Norbuprenorphine||129.49|39.00|
95989002|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|109.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.14|207.75||||||Norbuprenorphine||207.75|58.14|
95989003|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.17|212.24||||||Norbuprenorphine||212.24|52.17|
95989004|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|30.94||||||Norbuprenorphine||30.94|8.40|
95989005|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.03|157.12||||||Naloxone||157.12|40.03|
95989006|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|317.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.93|611.54||||||Naloxone||611.54|164.93|
95989007|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1401.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|707.55|2777.46||||||Naloxone||2777.46|707.55|
95989008|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|105.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.39|209.59||||||Naloxone||209.59|53.39|
95989009|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|74.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.09|155.71||||||Naloxone||155.71|36.09|
95939960|NCT06182033|191845553|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.84
95939961|NCT06182033|191845554|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We conducted a linear regression. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.727
95939962|NCT06182033|191845555|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the assertiveness subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.205
95939963|NCT06182033|191845555|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||This analysis focused specifically on the behavior control subscale. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.034
95939964|NCT06182033|191845555|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||These analyses use the Task Orientation subscale as the outcome variable. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.099
95858383|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||18.9|10.4|
95858384|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-5.52|-15.6|
95858385|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|0.764||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.764|-9.26|
95939965|NCT06182033|191845555|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Regression, Linear|||This analysis used peer social skills subscale as the outcome in the model. We conducted a linear regression for each of the measure's subscales. We accounted for baseline, which allowed us to examine residualized gains. We controlled for age.||||.209
95939966|NCT06182033|191845556|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.82
95939967|NCT06182033|191845557|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Multilevel Model|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustments in light of small sample size to reduce error likelihood.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.67
95939968|NCT06182033|191845558|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward-Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood to account for the small sample size.||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.024
95742307|NCT01513239|191455337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.5|-3.8|0.931
95858386|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-4.87||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-4.87|-12.6|
95858387|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|17.4||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||17.4|7.17|
95858388|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|11.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.0|0.917|
95939969|NCT06182033|191845559|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|Kenward Rogers and Restricted Maximum Likelihood adjustment made to reduce error likelihood||We examined the trajectory across timepoints using a multilevel model that controlled for age. The p value is in reference to the difference between the treatment and control children at the final observation.||||.013
95939970|NCT03084536|191845560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
95939971|NCT03084536|191845561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
95939972|NCT03084536|191845562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.53
95939973|NCT03084536|191845563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
95939974|NCT03084536|191845564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
95939975|NCT03785964|191845598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.55|||Log Rank|p-value was from a one-sided stratified log-rank test with placebo as reference.||Hazard ratio was estimated from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using the exact method for ties, stratified by tumor location. Placebo was the reference treatment.||0.55|0.15|< 0.001
95939976|NCT03785964|191845599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association stratified by tumor location. Placebo was reference treatment.||||< 0.001
95950147|NCT03034863|191872294|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.55
95858389|NCT01263197|191674570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|13.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in heart rate on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.8|5.98|
95939977|NCT03785964|191845600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline Brief Pain Inventory Short Form score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 31 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
95939978|NCT03785964|191845601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline DEsmoid Tumor Symptom Scale score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 40 and 32 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
95939979|NCT03785964|191845602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 39 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
95742308|NCT01513239|191455337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.6|-3.7|0.997
95742309|NCT01513239|191455338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||2.0|-0.8|0.328
95742310|NCT01513239|191455338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.3||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||0.7|-1.5|0.308
95742311|NCT01513239|191455339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
95742312|NCT01513239|191455339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||1.0|-1.0|>0.999
95939980|NCT03785964|191845603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 27 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||0.006
95742313|NCT01513239|191455340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||MK-3415A + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||3.3|-4.2|
95742314|NCT01513239|191455340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2|||||MK-6072 + SOC minus Placebo + SOC|||5.2|-2.7|
95742315|NCT01911429|191455347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-8.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.7|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.7|-12.4|0.0003
95742316|NCT01911429|191455347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-7.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.4|||LS mean difference (SE)|||"The sample size was estimated to provide at least 85% power to reject at least one of the null hypotheses of no difference between placebo and lurasidone doses.~LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)."||-3.4|-12.1|0.0006
95742317|NCT01911429|191455348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
95742318|NCT01911429|191455348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (SE)|-0.42||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||LS mean difference (SE)|||LS Mean, LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.16|-0.67|0.0015
95858390|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.06||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.06|-1.81|
95939981|NCT03785964|191845604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
95939982|NCT03785964|191845605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance structure was used and degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment and visit as factors, Baseline score and primary tumor location (intra-abdominal or extra-abdominal) as covariates, included baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions. Only participants with a Baseline and at least one post-baseline score were included in the analysis. 38 and 28 participants contributed to this analysis at Cycle 10 from Nirogacestat and Placebo respectively.||||<0.001
95989010|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|300.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.44|607.21||||||Naloxone||607.21|148.44|
95989011|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1325.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|638.03|2752.55||||||Naloxone||2752.55|638.03|
95989012|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|85.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.06|111.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.61|66.06|
95989013|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|123.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.27|159.13||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||159.13|96.27|
95989014|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|118.62||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||118.62|70.21|
95989015|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.23|110.2||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||110.20|65.23|
95989016|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.52|134.06||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||134.06|76.52|
95989017|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|145.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.43|191.26||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||191.26|111.43|
95796484|NCT01311661|191562869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.862|-0.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.412|-0.862|<0.0001
95939983|NCT02151981|191845606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||0.41|0.23|<0.001
95939984|NCT02151981|191845607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|8.48|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for ethnicity (Asian/non-Asian)|odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.48|3.47|<0.001
95989018|NCT01846455|191953109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|142.47||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.47|81.33|
95989019|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|120.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|172.82||||||Buprenorphine||172.82|83.35|
95989020|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|107.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.85|153.36||||||Buprenorphine||153.36|75.85|
95989021|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|171.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.93|250.15||||||Buprenorphine||250.15|117.93|
95989022|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|112.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.66|163.91||||||Buprenorphine||163.91|77.66|
95796485|NCT01311661|191562869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.364|-0.813|<0.0001
95939985|NCT02151981|191845608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Expected (DoR)|6.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.57|||formulae provided in Ellis S et al 2008|Treatments compared by calculating the ratio of the Expected (DoR) using the Log Normal probability distribution for DOR in responding patients||||9.57|4.04|<0.001
95939986|NCT02151981|191845609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|8.84|||Regression, Logistic||odds ratio \>1.0 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||8.84|2.64|<0.001
95939987|NCT02151981|191845610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-21.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-15.52|||ANCOVA|Covariates for ethnicity (Asian, non-Asian) and the baseline sum of diameters of target lesions|LS Mean: Osimertinib -46.93, Chemo -25.3 A difference in LS means \<0 favours Osimertinib 80mg|||-15.52|-27.71|<0.001
95989023|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.43|158.43||||||Buprenorphine||158.43|71.43|
95989024|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|95.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|141.99||||||Buprenorphine||141.99|64.36|
95989025|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|152.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.08|224.83||||||Buprenorphine||224.83|103.08|
95989026|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|135.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.44|242.16||||||Norbuprenorphine||242.16|75.44|
95989027|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|67.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.82|118.68||||||Norbuprenorphine||118.68|38.82|
95989028|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.01|86.69||||||Norbuprenorphine||86.69|27.01|
95989029|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.75|137.22||||||Norbuprenorphine||137.22|42.75|
95989030|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|176.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|329.17||||||Norbuprenorphine||329.17|94.62|
95989031|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.6|161.59||||||Norbuprenorphine||161.59|48.60|
95989032|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|63.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.87|117.83||||||Norbuprenorphine||117.83|33.87|
95989033|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.3|196.53||||||Naloxone||196.53|51.30|
95989034|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|270.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.86|513.9||||||Naloxone||513.90|141.86|
95989035|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|577.22|2211.44||||||Naloxone||2211.44|577.22|
95989036|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|126.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.5|247.11||||||Naloxone||247.11|64.50|
95989037|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|79.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.79|163.06||||||Naloxone||163.06|38.79|
95989038|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|213.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.07|427.17||||||Naloxone||427.17|107.07|
95989039|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|894.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|436.49|1834.8||||||Naloxone||1834.80|436.49|
95989040|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.94|143.44||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||143.44|85.94|
95989041|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|111.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.02|142.16||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||142.16|87.02|
95989042|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.32|107.35||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||107.35|64.32|
95742319|NCT02312154|191455360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
95742320|NCT02312154|191455361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
95939988|NCT02151981|191845611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.13|0.67|0.277
95939989|NCT02151981|191845612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favors Osimertinib 80mg|||0.28|0.16|<0.001
95939990|NCT02151981|191845613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours Osimertinib 80 mg|||1.11|0.69|<0.001
95939991|NCT04828005|191845698|NON_INFERIORITY|Alternative hypothesis: Nalmefene reversal not less than 80% naloxone reversal|||||<|0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0009
95939992|NCT05349500|191845719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-20.1|0.019
95939993|NCT05349500|191845720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-14.1|0.286
95939994|NCT05349500|191845721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-4.0|0.046
95939995|NCT05349500|191845722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-3.8|0.128
95939996|NCT05349500|191845723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-14.3|0.031
95939997|NCT05349500|191845724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-8.8|0.564
95939998|NCT05349500|191845725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.349
95939999|NCT05349500|191845726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.303
95940000|NCT05349500|191845727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.1|0.507
95940001|NCT05349500|191845728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.2|0.729
95940002|NCT05349500|191845729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.421
95940003|NCT05349500|191845730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.2|0.648
95940004|NCT05349500|191845731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|0.3|0.034
95940005|NCT05349500|191845732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.315
95940006|NCT05349500|191845733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|48.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.2|-21.5|0.444
95940007|NCT05349500|191845734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|49.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||49.2|-30.6|0.638
95940008|NCT05349500|191845735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-13.4|0.688
95940009|NCT05349500|191845736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.5|0.709
95940010|NCT05349500|191845737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.3|0.089
95940011|NCT05349500|191845738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.8|-1.0|0.066
95940012|NCT02547233|191845748|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|30.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|218.0|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||218.0|4.28|<0.001
95940013|NCT02547233|191845749|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|12.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|31.78|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||31.78|4.73|<0.001
95940014|NCT02547233|191845750|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|10.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|23.97|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.018% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||23.97|4.43|<0.001
95940015|NCT02547233|191845751|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.018% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.37|0.25|<0.001
95989043|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|83.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.75|108.08||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||108.08|64.75|
95989044|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.93|174.53||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||174.53|100.93|
95989045|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.12|173.1||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||173.10|102.12|
95742321|NCT02312154|191455362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
95742322|NCT02312154|191455363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in each of the biophysical parameters was calculated as the pretreatment value minus the posttreatment value for each visit, and these pre- vs posttreatment changes were used in the statistical analysis to minimize the intraindividual variation between the two cheeks. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the week-by-week changes in parameters of the right and left cheeks (i.e., treated vs untreated).||||<0.05
95742323|NCT02312154|191455364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
95742324|NCT02312154|191455365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The therapeutic outcome was assessed by patient self-assessment using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, which rates outcome on the following 5-point scale: 3, very much improved; 2, much improved; 1, improved; 0, no change; and -1, worse. Two independent investigators also individually assessed every patient's improvement, and the values of the two scores were averaged for each patient. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare the pre-by-posttreatment changes in treated side.||||<0.05
95742325|NCT02704091|191455366|SUPERIORITY|"The following Null-hypothesis was tested:~H0: λA(t) = λB (t) versus H1: λA(t) ≠ λB (t), where λ(t) represents the hazard at time t, A=diosmectite and B=placebo."|||||=|0.2524|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||The primary analysis tested the equality of time to recovery between the 2 treatment groups, applying the 2-sided Gehan-Wilcoxon test (α=5%).||||=0.2524
95742326|NCT02704091|191455367|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3511|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to recovery, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.3511
95940016|NCT05235750|191845752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline or T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline or T4) for the RSES, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.83
95940017|NCT05235750|191845752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for RSES.|||||.91
95940018|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACT-G at scale, factor and item levels expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.45
95940019|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACT-G.|||||.29
95940020|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.46
95940021|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for physical well-being (PWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.79
95940022|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.05
95940023|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for social/family well-being (SWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.03
95940024|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.82
95940025|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for emotional well-being (EWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
95742327|NCT02704091|191455368|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7285|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from diarrhoea onset to first formed stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.7285
95742328|NCT02704091|191455369|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for time from first study treatment intake to last watery stool, analysed using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test.||||=0.1807
95742329|NCT02704091|191455370|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of stools for the overall time period, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.07|-0.15|0.4294
95742330|NCT02704091|191455371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the 2 treatment groups for number of watery stools for the overall time period, based on an ANCOVA method for repeated measurements. The model included the number of watery stools 24 hours before randomisation (baseline) as covariate, treatment, time point (12-hour period), the treatment by time point interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||-0.00|-0.24|0.0465
95742331|NCT02627963|191455389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94||A one-sided, log-rank test stratified for IMDC risk category and prior therapy (two VEGFR TKIs vs. a checkpoint inhibitor plus a VEGFR TKI vs. a VEGFR TKI plus any other systemic agent) at a significance level of α = 0.025 was used.|Log Rank|||||0.94|0.56|0.0165
95742332|NCT02627963|191455390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.75|0.8174
95742333|NCT04442503|191455453|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-6.3|0.0007
95940026|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.56
95940027|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for functional well-being (FWB) as measured by the FACT-G.|||||.58
95742334|NCT04442503|191455454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.4|-5.4|0.0008
95742335|NCT04442503|191455454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.244||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.5|-5.4|0.0203
95742336|NCT04442503|191455454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.277||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||-1.0|-6.0|0.0067
95742337|NCT04442503|191455455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
95742338|NCT04442503|191455456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.67||P-value are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.670|1.112|0.0209
95742339|NCT04442503|191455456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.534||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.812||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||2.812|0.837|0.1661
95950148|NCT03034863|191872295|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.64
95950149|NCT03034863|191872296|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.62
95950150|NCT03034863|191872297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||All p-values are two-tailed|Hierarchical Linear Modeling/MLM|Hypothesis tested using a dummy code representing group assignment (1=SAFER; 0=I-SPI) in the Level 2 equation for the slope term.|Slope represents relative unit change/month between both conditions. Positive slope terms represent relative increases in SAFER compared to I-SPI. Negative slope terms represent relative reductions in SAFER compared to I-SPI.|||||.16
95950151|NCT01690000|191872314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was calculated||||<0.05
95940028|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.58
95742340|NCT04442503|191455457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|3.621||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 15||3.621|0.876|0.1110
95742341|NCT04442503|191455457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.083||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|3.915||P-value are from a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, baseline antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time-point-by treatment interaction.|GEE Model|||Day 45||3.915|1.108|0.0226
95742342|NCT04442503|191455458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.223|4.072|||MMRM|||Day 15||4.072|1.223|0.0089
95742343|NCT04442503|191455459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-0.3|-4.2|0.0235
95742344|NCT04442503|191455460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||-1.7|-8.4|0.0034
95742345|NCT04442503|191455461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Core Subscale at Day 15||-1.2|-10.6|0.0151
95742346|NCT04442503|191455461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Anxiety Subscale at Day 15||-1.3|-10.2|0.0123
95742347|NCT04442503|191455461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-2.8|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Bech-6 Subscale at Day 15||-2.8|-14.5|0.0040
95742348|NCT04442503|191455461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-2.4|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Meier Subscale at Day 15||-2.4|-12.7|0.0041
95742349|NCT04442503|191455463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||1.5|-1.0|0.6912
95742350|NCT04442503|191455463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 8||-0.1|-3.5|0.0410
95742351|NCT04442503|191455463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.0|-3.7|0.0444
95742352|NCT04442503|191455463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||0.2|-3.4|0.0811
95796486|NCT01311661|191562869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.322|-0.770|<0.0001
95796487|NCT01311661|191562874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.461|-0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2.5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.253|-0.461|<0.0001
95796488|NCT01311661|191562874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.4|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.400|<0.0001
95796489|NCT01311661|191562874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
95796490|NCT01311661|191562874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.405|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.198|-0.405|<0.0001
95940029|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for Global QoL (item G7 I am content with the quality of my life right now) as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.34
95742353|NCT04442503|191455463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.6|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.6|-3.3|0.1846
95858391|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.85||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||6.85|-1.38|
95940030|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.27
95950152|NCT01416285|191872316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||All-cause death||||0.004
95742354|NCT04442503|191455463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 45||0.1|-4.0|0.0625
95742355|NCT00431041|191455587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95742356|NCT00431041|191455588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value represents overall comparison of severity of dry mouth.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
95742357|NCT01822119|191455591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
95742358|NCT01822119|191455592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation|||||||<0.0001
95742359|NCT01822119|191455593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant changes with the same value at 500 to 4000Hz||||<0.0001
95742360|NCT01822119|191455593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 6000Hz||||0.0499
95742361|NCT01822119|191455593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Change at 8000Hz||||0.0632
95742362|NCT01822119|191455594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.39
95742363|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||500Hz||||0.79
95742364|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||1000Hz||||0.26
95796491|NCT01900314|191562876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA at 4 weeks with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.16
95796492|NCT01900314|191562877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS as co-variate||||0.04
95796493|NCT00392223|191562902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||||95.0|-2.48|1.54|||||Comparison between treatment groups was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method, with treatment, center, and baseline value GAGS global score included as covariates.|||1.54|-2.48|
95858392|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.56|-0.209|
95940031|NCT05235750|191845753|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||"The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|Mixed Models Analysis||"The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for item Ge6 I worry that my condition will get worse as measured by the FACT-G."|||||.62
95989046|NCT01846455|191953110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.54|130.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||130.61|75.54|
95989047|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|125.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.46|197.24||||||Buprenorphine||197.24|79.46|
95989048|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|220.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.33|360.81||||||Buprenorphine||360.81|135.33|
95989049|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|249.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.19|383.14||||||Buprenorphine||383.14|162.19|
95989050|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|94.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.44|158.02||||||Buprenorphine||158.02|56.44|
95989051|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|132.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.86|222.84||||||Buprenorphine||222.84|78.86|
95989052|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|233.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.63|403.68||||||Buprenorphine||403.68|135.63|
95940032|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for the FACIT-Sp-12 at scale and factor levels, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.76
95989053|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|263.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.52|448.03||||||Buprenorphine||448.03|155.52|
95989054|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|159.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.21|324.79||||||Norbuprenorphine||324.79|78.21|
95989055|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.47|217.91||||||Norbuprenorphine||217.91|52.47|
95989056|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.74|177.5||||||Norbuprenorphine||177.50|42.74|
95989057|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|182.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|372.89||||||Norbuprenorphine||372.89|89.79|
95989058|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|122.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|250.19||||||Norbuprenorphine||250.19|60.24|
95989059|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|69.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.45|142.82||||||Naloxone||142.82|33.45|
95989060|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|282.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.59|562.3||||||Naloxone||562.30|141.59|
95989061|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1497.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|724.85|3094.59||||||Naloxone||3094.59|724.85|
95742365|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||2000Hz||||0.24
95989062|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|87.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.3|190.59||||||Naloxone||190.59|40.30|
95989063|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.34|181.12||||||Naloxone||181.12|34.34|
95989064|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|321.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.65|716.52||||||Naloxone||716.52|144.65|
95989065|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|1708.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|744.08|3924.47||||||Naloxone||3924.47|744.08|
95989066|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.92|116.38||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||116.38|60.92|
95989067|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|110.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.02|150.17||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||150.17|82.02|
95989068|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|81.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.03|111.92||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||111.92|60.03|
95989069|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|82.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.89|114.42||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||114.42|59.89|
95989070|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|101.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.96|138.0||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||138.00|74.96|
95989071|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|134.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.07|177.82||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||177.82|101.07|
95989072|NCT01846455|191953111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of parameter means, %|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.93|132.61||||||Naloxone-3-β-D-Glucuronide||132.61|73.93|
95989073|NCT01449708|191953119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61|||Chi-squared|||||1.61|1.01|0.04
95940033|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.19
95940034|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.35
95940035|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Meaning/Peace factor (M/P) as measured by the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.99
95940036|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.46
95940037|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.24
95742366|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||3000Hz||||0.83
95742367|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||4000Hz||||0.026
95742368|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||6000Hz||||0.0085
95940038|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.55
95940039|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the revised Faith factor of the FACIT-Sp-12.|||||.80
95940040|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.34
95940041|NCT05235750|191845754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for the total FACIT-Sp-12 (revised).|||||.91
95940042|NCT05235750|191845755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|We analyzed short- (at 6 weeks post-baseline, T3) and longer-term differences (at 8 weeks post-baseline, T4) for two subscales HADS-A and HADS-D respectively, expecting a larger size of differences at T3. The short-term difference \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between post-intervention change (T3-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1). Longer-term difference \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\] represents differences between 2 weeks post-intervention change (T4-T2) and pre-intervention change (T2-T1).||||.14
95940043|NCT05235750|191845755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-anxiety subscale (HADS-A).|||||.14
95940044|NCT05235750|191845755|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T3-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.32
95940045|NCT05235750|191845755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value refers to the difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value represents net difference between 2 weeks post-intervention change and pre-intervention change (or \[(T4-T2)-(T2-T1)\]) for HADS-depression subscale (HADS-D).|||||.20
95940046|NCT03435614|191845830|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We selected the individual signs and symptoms associated with the presence of OIWS based on a difference of greater than 15 % in the assessments between the group with OIWS and the group not displaying OIWS. This 15 % difference was judged to be of clinical significance. The signs and symptoms which did not meet this difference were not considered (data not available).|||
95940047|NCT02683447|191845833|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.039||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Pearson correlation|||||||0.039
95940048|NCT02683447|191845834|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.01||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS correct score||||<0.01
95940049|NCT02683447|191845834|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 is considered statically significant.|Pearson correlation|||ACLS risk score||||0.322
95989074|NCT01449708|191953121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.29|||Chi-squared|||Grouping of surgical procedures into three categories, analysis using bonferroni correction, 1) ReY group( gastric bypass, conversion to gastric bypass and revision gastric bypass) 2) Gastric Band (GB), 3) sleeve gastrectomy (SG)||7.29|1.28|0.009
95989075|NCT02479802|191953132|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||<0.0001
95989076|NCT02479802|191953133|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from Baseline at Week 48.||||0.0006
95989077|NCT03124784|191953148|EQUIVALENCE|ARMS\<= 3 %SpO2 Error per International Organization For Standardization (ISO) -80601-2-61 Pilot study Monte Carlo simulation provided 80% Power with 25 subjects for an expected ARMS\< 3 % SpO2.|ARMS|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Accuracy Root Mean Square (ARMS)|Per ISO-80601-2-61, the Root Mean Square difference (SpO2-SaO2) is the measure of merit for desaturation studies.|||
95989078|NCT01784965|191953160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95742369|NCT01822119|191455595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||8000Hz||||0.13
95855445|NCT00541658|191670535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
95940050|NCT03020199|191845867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|48.3|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic regression model with treatment as an explanatory variable and subset of significant covariates (including Baseline PASI score, age, BMI and their interaction terms with treatment) selected using forward selection method.|Week 52 PASI 90||48.3|5.9|<0.0001
95940051|NCT03020199|191845868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic||Exact logistic regression method for Treatment group comparison, without using any covariates.|Week 104 PASI 90||2.1|0.3|0.6530
95940052|NCT02714257|191845894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.14|0.74|0.43
95940053|NCT02714257|191845895|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Regression, Negative Binomial||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.28|0.89|0.50
95940054|NCT02714257|191845896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.72|0.30
95940055|NCT02714257|191845897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.92|0.16|<0.01
95989079|NCT00584233|191953186|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical test will be to assess non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin is -0.04 in AUC. Key parameters are the number of participating patients, the number of radiologists reading the images in the study. Power analysis was conducted using the standard simulation from the ROC literature (Roe and Metz, Academic Radiology 1997). With a total of 100 participating patients and 4 participating readers, we achieve a power \>80% with a non-inferiority margin of -0.04.|Obuchowski Rockette methodology|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.975|||Obuchowski Rockette|||The analysis is intended to evaluate non-inferiority in observer performance between CE-bCT and CE-bMRI as assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The null hypothesis is that the observed difference in average AUC for CE-bCT and CE-bMRI will be outside of a non-inferiority margin of -0.04. See below for details of the power analyses.||.975|.025|0.05
95742370|NCT01822119|191455596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Statistically significant improvement with the same value at all presentation levels.||||<0.0001
95742371|NCT01822119|191455597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||50dB||||0.55
95742372|NCT01822119|191455597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||60dB||||0.72
95742373|NCT01822119|191455597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||80dB||||0.28
95989080|NCT04161495|191953239|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be established if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI was less than 4.|Mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|-1.11||||||Hierarchical testing framework: used to control type I error for secondary OM analyses. Statistical testing of Arm A intra-participant comparison non-inferiority continued only when estimation of previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level. For Arm A intra-participant comparison, mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||-1.11|-3.49|
95742374|NCT01822119|191455598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||<0.0001
95742375|NCT01822119|191455599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||||0.0092
95742376|NCT01822119|191455600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Aversiveness||||0.59
95940056|NCT02714257|191845898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Regression, Logistic||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||1.27|0.85|0.73
95940057|NCT02714257|191845899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.62|-0.18|0.27
95742377|NCT01822119|191455600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Ease of Communication||||0.71
95742378|NCT01822119|191455600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Reverberation||||0.59
95742379|NCT01822119|191455600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Background noise||||0.40
95940058|NCT02714257|191845900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.34|-0.13|0.37
95940059|NCT02714257|191845901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.38|-0.10|0.26
95940060|NCT02714257|191845902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Enhanced Usual Care - control group vs. Enhanced Usual Care plus Exercise Coaching Intervention|||0.22|-0.09|0.39
95742380|NCT01822119|191455600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Global score||||0.50
95742381|NCT02637141|191455611|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|11.83|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||11.83|-16.82|0.7271
95742382|NCT02637141|191455611|SUPERIORITY|P-values smaller than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|19.85|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.85|-7.07|0.3438
95742383|NCT02637141|191455612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.85||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.39|25.74|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||25.74|-54.39|0.4746
95858393|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.02|-2.94|
95940061|NCT05825755|191845903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
95940062|NCT05825755|191845904|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
95940063|NCT05825755|191845905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.791
95940064|NCT04752709|191845910|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95940065|NCT04248725|191845916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models were adjusted for sex, baseline severity, and disability condition.||||||0.004
95742384|NCT02637141|191455612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.85||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.28|-3.2|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline VH:CD ratio, site, and sex as covariates and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||-3.2|-79.28|0.0343
95742385|NCT02637141|191455614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4402.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1717.4||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|936.39|7868.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||7868.10|936.39|0.0140
95940066|NCT04248725|191845917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.30|<0.001
95940067|NCT04248725|191845918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.61|0.29
95940068|NCT05312008|191846020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.6
95940069|NCT05312008|191846021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.6
95940070|NCT05312008|191846022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<1
95940071|NCT05312008|191846023|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.04
95742386|NCT02637141|191455614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|944.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1167.22||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1410.65|3300.44|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||3300.44|-1410.65|0.4228
95742387|NCT02637141|191455615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.09||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|52.29|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||52.29|-16.68|0.3034
95742388|NCT02637141|191455615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.46||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.11|24.28|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgA||24.28|-38.11|0.6569
95858394|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.43|1.09|
95940072|NCT05312008|191846024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||<0.5
95940073|NCT00324805|191846025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Regression, Cox||Arm II versus Arm I|||1.19|0.82|0.90
95940074|NCT00324805|191846026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Arm II vs. Arm I|||1.15|0.86|0.95
95940075|NCT05698875|191846030|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||P=0.04 however was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.9|0.1|0.12
95950153|NCT01416285|191872316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||Heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||0.003
95950154|NCT01416285|191872316|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kaplan-Meier and COX regression|Univariate and multi-variable||a composite outcome of both death and heart failure-related re-hospitalizations||||<0.001
95950155|NCT04351243|191872317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||one-sided p value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.06|0.1885
95742389|NCT02637141|191455615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.77||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.86|67.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP-IgG||67.20|-40.86|0.6254
95940076|NCT05698875|191846030|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.58||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs control meal||0.4|-1.5|0.23
95940077|NCT05698875|191846030|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL vs control meal||1.2|-0.7|0.62
95940078|NCT05698875|191846030|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|1.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Above is adjusted p value using Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP||2.5|0.7|0.003
95940079|NCT05698875|191846030|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|0.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||1.7|-0.1|0.08
95940080|NCT05698875|191846030|OTHER||Fixed effects parameter|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.2|-1.7|0.12
95940081|NCT05698875|191846031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs control meals||1.8|-0.1|0.08
95742390|NCT02637141|191455615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.66||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|46.57|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||Analysis of Change From Baseline in Anti-DGP IgG||46.57|-40.84|0.8955
95940082|NCT05698875|191846031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs control meal||0.2|-1.7|0.13
95940083|NCT05698875|191846031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.2|0.68
95940084|NCT05698875|191846031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.7|<0.01
95940085|NCT05698875|191846031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 p value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||2.0|0.2|0.06
95940086|NCT05698875|191846031|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance - P\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.4|-1.4|0.29
95940087|NCT05698875|191846032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.8|<0.01
95940088|NCT05698875|191846032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.8|-1.4|0.59
95940089|NCT05698875|191846032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.86
95940090|NCT05698875|191846032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||3.3|1.2|<0.001
95940091|NCT05698875|191846032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||3.1|1.1|<0.001
95940092|NCT05698875|191846032|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||0.9|-1.2|0.79
95940093|NCT05698875|191846033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||8|-25|0.31
95940094|NCT05698875|191846033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P adjusted using Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-8|-41|0.03
95940095|NCT05698875|191846033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||29.5|-4.1|0.14
95940096|NCT05698875|191846033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|31.7||A priori threshold P \<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||31.7|3.1|0.34
95940097|NCT05698875|191846033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-4.7||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted P value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-4.7|-33.3|0.07
95940098|NCT05698875|191846033|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-21.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||-21.8|-51.0|<0.001
95940099|NCT05698875|191846034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|151.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|294.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjusted p value with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||294|7|0.25
95940100|NCT05698875|191846034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|38.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||38|-256|0.15
95940101|NCT05698875|191846034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|117.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||117|-177|0.69
95742391|NCT02637141|191455616|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Analysis of Total Weekly Bowel Movements at Week 12||1.08|0.63|0.1610
95796494|NCT00392223|191562906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis performed to assess non-inferiority by calculation \& examination of 95% CI. Analysis conducted via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including corresponding baseline value and centre as covariates. Non-inferiority margin was chosen as largest clinically acceptable difference. This was set as difference of 3 in GAGS global score. Azithromycin declared non-inferior to minocycline when two-sided 95% confidence interval for difference lied entirely to right of non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||||95.0|-2.58|0.84|||||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline, center and treatment.|||0.84|-2.58|
95858395|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|-0.322|
95940102|NCT05698875|191846034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.0|401.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||401|126|<0.001
95940103|NCT05698875|191846034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|329.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||329|56|0.02
95940104|NCT05698875|191846034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|69.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||69|-211|0.32
95940105|NCT05698875|191846035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||10.4|3.3|<0.01
95940106|NCT05698875|191846035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||7.2|-0.2|0.06
95742392|NCT02637141|191455616|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with treatment group, site, sex, time (week), and time point-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||||1.32|0.81|0.7810
95940107|NCT05698875|191846035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||3.9|-3.3|0.86
95940108|NCT05698875|191846035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.48||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 P value adjusted with the Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||6.48|0.24|0.11
95742393|NCT02637141|191455618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.33||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.66|10.77|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||10.77|-37.66|0.2761
95742394|NCT02637141|191455618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.66||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|20.27|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||20.27|-25.51|0.8221
95858396|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.41||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-1.41|-11.5|
95940109|NCT05698875|191846035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni did not alter p value|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||9.8|3.6|<0.001
95940110|NCT05698875|191846035|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||6.5|0.2|0.13
95940111|NCT05698875|191846036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-13.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meal||-13.6|-55.9|0.01
95940112|NCT05698875|191846036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|19.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||19.9|-23.6|0.87
95940113|NCT05698875|191846036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|17.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||17.0|-26.4|0.67
95940114|NCT05698875|191846036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-12.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs HGLP meals||-12.2|-54.4|0.01
95940115|NCT05698875|191846036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-10.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05 Adjustment with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL vs MGL meals||-10.4|-52.4|0.01
95940116|NCT05698875|191846036|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|23.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP vs MGL meals||23.4|-19.7|0.87
95940117|NCT05698875|191846037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||65|2|0.04
95940118|NCT05698875|191846037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|30.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||30|-17|0.56
95940119|NCT05698875|191846037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||32|8|0.22
95940120|NCT05698875|191846037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|67.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||67|10|0.01
95940121|NCT05698875|191846037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|62.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||62|4|0.03
95742395|NCT02637141|191455619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||1.3|-6.89|0.1908
95742396|NCT02637141|191455619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.25|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement|The model included baseline value, treatment group, site, sex, time point, and a time point-by-treatment group interaction term as fixed effects.||||2.25|-5.53|0.4088
95796495|NCT02908347|191562921|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.36|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.36|-2.09|0.8785
95796496|NCT02908347|191562924|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 29||||1
95796497|NCT02908347|191562924|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 29||||1
95940122|NCT05698875|191846037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|18.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||18|-29|0.63
95940123|NCT05698875|191846038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGL meals||53|10|0.16
95940124|NCT05698875|191846038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|46.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs HGLP meals||46|5|0.11
95940125|NCT05698875|191846038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|45.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Control vs MGL meals||45|8|0.15
95940126|NCT05698875|191846038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|71.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs HGLP meals||71|16|<0.01
95940127|NCT05698875|191846038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|21.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGL vs MGL meals||21|-36|0.60
95940128|NCT05698875|191846038|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|51.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||HGLP vs MGL meals||51|6|0.02
95940129|NCT05698875|191846039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||2.4|0.8|<0.001
95940130|NCT05698875|191846039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meal vs Control meal glucose excursion at 30 minutes||1.2|-0.5|0.38
95796498|NCT02908347|191562924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 30 - Day 43||||0.5136
95796499|NCT02908347|191562924|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PASI 50 - Day 43||||1
95796500|NCT05816070|191562943|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -10% based on the general standard of antibacterial drug. Non-inferiority is established when P\<0.05.||||||0.0137|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0137
95796501|NCT05516758|191562961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.14|0.014
95796502|NCT05516758|191562961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.92|0.098
95796503|NCT05516758|191562961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.66|0.534
95796504|NCT00402831|191562976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||Measles difference||2.6|-2.5|
95796505|NCT00402831|191562976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3||||||Mumps difference||3.3|-3.0|
95940131|NCT05698875|191846039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meal excursion vs Control meal at 30 minutes||0.5|-1.1|0.47
95940132|NCT05698875|191846039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 P value adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs HGLP meal||2.0|0.5|0.01
95940133|NCT05698875|191846039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meal vs MGL meals||2.6|1.1|<0.001
95940134|NCT05698875|191846039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs MGL meals||1.4|0.1|0.09
95940135|NCT05698875|191846040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||3.0|0.7|<0.001
95940136|NCT05698875|191846040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||1.0|-1.2|0.87
95940137|NCT05698875|191846040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||0.7|-1.5|0.48
95940138|NCT05698875|191846040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.1|1.0|<0.001
95940139|NCT05698875|191846040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.4|1.3|<0.001
95940140|NCT05698875|191846040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||0.7|-1.4|0.53
95940141|NCT05698875|191846041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.7|-0.03|0.06
95940142|NCT05698875|191846041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.3|-2.5|0.13
95940143|NCT05698875|191846041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.82
95940144|NCT05698875|191846041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||3.7|1.1|<0.01
95940145|NCT05698875|191846041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.9|0.2|0.08
95940146|NCT05698875|191846041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.5|0.21
95940147|NCT05698875|191846042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||2.2|-0.7|0.31
95940148|NCT05698875|191846042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.1|-3.0|0.05
95940149|NCT05698875|191846042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.5|-1.5|0.97
95940150|NCT05698875|191846042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.6|1.0|<0.01
95742397|NCT03031795|191455620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \< 0.05 for each row comparison with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"A 2 point difference was used to power the study. This is consistent with previous definitions of a clinically meaningful reductions in pain and provides a visually meaningful change on the 0-10 numerical rating scale with anchors at every other point, for example moving from very severe (8) to severe pain (6) or from moderate pain (4) to mild pain (2)."||||< 0.05
95742398|NCT02705716|191455648|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|0.252|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA Model, Response: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score Factors: treatment \& site Covariates: baseline Schiff sensitivity score|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||0.252|-0.497|0.5191
95742399|NCT02096705|191455653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.71||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.71|-1.09|<0.0001
95742400|NCT02096705|191455654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.76|-21.61|||Longitudinal repeated measure analysis|P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-21.61|-39.76|<0.0001
95742401|NCT02096705|191455655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.77||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.77|-1.98|<0.0001
95742402|NCT02096705|191455656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5171||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.42||P-value for Dapagliflozin vs. placebo|Longitudinal repeated measure analysis||Difference of Dapagliflozin from placebo|||-0.42|-2.45|0.0059
95742403|NCT02377349|191455674|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PT antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|10.2|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||10.2|7.02|
95742404|NCT02377349|191455674|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-FHA antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|19.24|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||19.24|13.48|
95742405|NCT02377349|191455674|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio \[dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother\] for anti-PRN antibodies was greater than or equal to (≥) 1.5.|GMC ratio|20.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.86|26.88|||2-sample t-test|The CI of the group GMC ratio were computed using two-sample t-test assuming heterogeneity of variance.||GMC ratio between groups (dTpa Group-Mother/Control Group-Mother) to demonstrate that maternally transferred antibodies against pertussis in the dTpa Group-Mother was superior to that in the Control Group-mother, in the cord blood sample at the time of delivery.||26.88|15.86|
95742406|NCT00840879|191455698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.15||||||90.0|90.96|105.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.90|90.96|
95940151|NCT05698875|191846042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||2.2|0.6|0.27
95940152|NCT05698875|191846042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with p value|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||3.0|0.1|0.12
95940153|NCT05698875|191846043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.5|0.83
95940154|NCT05698875|191846043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||-0.2|-2.9|0.09
95940155|NCT05698875|191846043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.6|0.78
95742407|NCT00840879|191455699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.34||||||90.0|91.82|101.07|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.07|91.82|
95742408|NCT00840879|191455700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.76||||||90.0|93.31|102.42|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.42|93.31|
95742409|NCT01404988|191455706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the Type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1
95742410|NCT01404988|191455706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95742411|NCT01404988|191455707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3
95742412|NCT01404988|191455707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.77
95858397|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.56|-5.21|
95940156|NCT05698875|191846043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.7|0.1|0.11
95742413|NCT01404988|191455708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, the type 1 error was set at 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95742414|NCT01404988|191455708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
95742415|NCT01404988|191455709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For this pilot study, type 1 error was set at 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
95742416|NCT01404988|191455709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
95742417|NCT00829764|191455710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.52||||||90.0|88.49|98.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.83|88.49|
95742418|NCT00829764|191455711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75||||||90.0|93.98|101.67|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.67|93.98|
95796506|NCT00402831|191562976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||||||Rubella difference||4.1|-2.3|
95796507|NCT00402831|191562976|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was declared when the lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group difference in response rates was greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1||||||Varicella||4.1|-2.1|
95796508|NCT06178991|191563031|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.52|1.25|
95796509|NCT06178991|191563031|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|1.86|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.86|1.58|
95796510|NCT06178991|191563031|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.73|0.61|
95796511|NCT06178991|191563032|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|21.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H1N1||21.6|14.1|
95796512|NCT06178991|191563032|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|29.3|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|H3N2||29.3|21.7|
95796513|NCT06178991|191563032|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|Victoria||-10.0|-17.5|
95796514|NCT06178991|191563033|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm C to Arm D titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.10|0.94|
95742419|NCT00829764|191455712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.46||||||90.0|94.78|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|94.78|
95742420|NCT03086135|191455751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
95940157|NCT05698875|191846043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGL meals||1.1|-1.5|0.82
95940158|NCT05698875|191846043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.6|-0.1|0.06
95940159|NCT05698875|191846044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs control meals||1.3|-1.1|0.85
95940160|NCT05698875|191846044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGLP meals vs control meals||0.04|-2.4|0.06
95940161|NCT05698875|191846044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs control meals||1.2|-1.3|0.90
95940162|NCT05698875|191846044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05 Adjusted with Bonferroni correction|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.5|0.3|0.05
95742421|NCT03086135|191455752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in noise at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1||||<0.0001
95742422|NCT03086135|191455753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742423|NCT03086135|191455753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742424|NCT03086135|191455753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||PTA4 at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742425|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry 250Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742426|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742427|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95858398|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|0.557||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.557|-6.73|
95858399|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|6.53||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.53|-3.61|
95940163|NCT05698875|191846044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||HGL meals vs MGL meals||1.5|-0.8|0.55
95940164|NCT05698875|191846044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Linear Mixed Model|||MGL meals vs HGLP meals||2.2|-0.1|0.08
95940165|NCT01152450|191846117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.196|0.102|<0.0001
95940166|NCT01152450|191846117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.205|0.111|<0.0001
95940167|NCT01152450|191846117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.038|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.056|-0.038|
95940168|NCT01152450|191846118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001||95.0|11.084|31.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||31.573|11.084|<0.0001
95940169|NCT01152450|191846118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225|<|0.0001||95.0|12.044|32.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||32.670|12.044|<0.0001
95940170|NCT01152450|191846118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.242||||95.0|-9.318|11.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||11.376|-9.318|
95940171|NCT01152450|191846119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.026|<|0.0001||95.0|20.001|39.839|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||39.839|20.001|<0.0001
95940172|NCT01152450|191846119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.042|<|0.0001||95.0|18.707|38.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||38.606|18.707|<0.0001
95742428|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742429|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742430|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742431|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940173|NCT01152450|191846119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.056||||95.0|-11.243|8.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||8.716|-11.243|
95940174|NCT01152450|191846120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
95940175|NCT01152450|191846120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.234|0.136|<0.0001
95940176|NCT01152450|191846120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||95.0|-0.033|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.065|-0.033|
95940177|NCT01152450|191846121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.181|0.077|<0.0001
95940178|NCT01152450|191846121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.079|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.183|0.079|<0.0001
95940179|NCT01152450|191846121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.05|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.054|-0.050|
95940180|NCT01152450|191846122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
95940181|NCT01152450|191846122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
95940182|NCT01152450|191846122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||95.0|-0.048|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.047|-0.048|
95940183|NCT01152450|191846123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.170|0.053|0.0002
95989081|NCT04161495|191953241|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was less than 1.|Rate ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.42|||Negative binomial regression mode|||Tested according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous OM was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen). For test about Arm A intra-participant comparison superiority, rate ratio and 95% CI were estimated using NB regression model in which treatment (BIVV001 prophylaxis vs historical prophylaxis) was treated as covariate.||0.42|0.13|<0.0001
95940184|NCT01152450|191846123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.191|0.074|<0.0001
95742432|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742433|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742434|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742435|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742436|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742437|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742438|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742439|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742440|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940185|NCT01152450|191846123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||95.0|-0.037|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.080|-0.037|
95742441|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742442|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742443|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742444|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95796515|NCT06178991|191563034|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.6|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroresponse (Arm C - Arm D) and the associated 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Data was expressed as percentages.|||4.6|-0.9|
95796516|NCT06178991|191563035|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.34|1.01|
95940186|NCT01152450|191846124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0515||95.0|0.0|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.136|0.000|0.0515
95940187|NCT01152450|191846124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1058||95.0|-0.012|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.124|-0.012|0.1058
95940188|NCT01152450|191846124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.08|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.057|-0.080|
95940189|NCT01152450|191846125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.177|0.073|<0.0001
95940190|NCT01152450|191846125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0002||95.0|0.048|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.152|0.048|0.0002
95940191|NCT01152450|191846125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.077|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.027|-0.077|
95940192|NCT01152450|191846126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0051||95.0|0.023|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.129|0.023|0.0051
95940193|NCT01152450|191846126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0123||95.0|0.015|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.120|0.015|0.0123
95940194|NCT01152450|191846126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.061|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.045|-0.061|
95742445|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742446|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742447|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742448|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940195|NCT01152450|191846127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0042||95.0|0.025|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.130|0.025|0.0042
95940196|NCT01152450|191846127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0747||95.0|-0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.005|0.0747
95742449|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95858400|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|16.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||16.8|5.99|
95940197|NCT01152450|191846127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||95.0|-0.082|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.023|-0.082|
95940198|NCT01152450|191846131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.147|0.055|<0.0001
95940199|NCT01152450|191846131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0004||95.0|0.038|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.130|0.038|0.0004
95940200|NCT01152450|191846131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.063|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.030|-0.063|
95796517|NCT06178991|191563035|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H1N1||1.11|0.85|
95940201|NCT01152450|191846132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.091|<|0.0001||95.0|22.167|38.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||38.317|22.167|<0.0001
95940202|NCT01152450|191846132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.089|<|0.0001||95.0|26.24|42.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||42.380|26.240|<0.0001
95940203|NCT01152450|191846132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||||95.0|-4.012|12.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||12.148|-4.012|
95940204|NCT01152450|191846133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.769||0.6747||95.0|-1.195|1.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||1.841|-1.195|0.6747
95940205|NCT01152450|191846133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.6159||95.0|-1.138|1.916|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||1.916|-1.138|0.6159
95940206|NCT01152450|191846133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||||95.0|-1.468|1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||1.599|-1.468|
95940207|NCT01152450|191846134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.5906||95.0|-0.358|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.204|-0.358|0.5906
95940208|NCT01152450|191846134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2208||95.0|-0.458|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.106|-0.458|0.2208
95940209|NCT01152450|191846134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||||95.0|-0.382|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.184|-0.382|
95940210|NCT01152450|191846135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9797||95.0|-0.163|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.159|-0.163|0.9797
95940211|NCT01152450|191846135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4518||95.0|-0.223|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.100|-0.223|0.4518
95940212|NCT01152450|191846135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||95.0|-0.222|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.102|-0.222|
95940213|NCT01152450|191846136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4089||95.0|-0.207|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.085|-0.207|0.4089
95940214|NCT01152450|191846136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.3185||95.0|-0.221|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.072|-0.221|0.3185
95940215|NCT01152450|191846136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||||95.0|-0.16|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.134|-0.160|
95940216|NCT01152450|191846137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9626||95.0|-0.059|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 bid - Placebo|||0.062|-0.059|0.9626
95940217|NCT01152450|191846137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.9102||95.0|-0.058|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Placebo|||0.065|-0.058|0.9102
95940218|NCT01152450|191846137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||95.0|-0.059|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|||0.063|-0.059|
95940219|NCT05670587|191846154|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 4|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric Coefficient of variation (gCV) = 84.59%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 4.||1.18|0.76|
95940220|NCT05670587|191846154|OTHER||gMean ratio at Week 8|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 115.62%"|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Week 8.||1.11|0.64|
95940221|NCT05670587|191846154|OTHER||gMean ratio at Day 82|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||"gMean ratios of CfB in CC/h were calculated from the log transformed values at each visit.~Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 100.02%."|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of change from baseline (CfB) in cough count per hour (CC/h) at Day 82.||1.29|0.75|
95940222|NCT04508309|191846186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.891|1.327|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.327|0.891|
95742450|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95858401|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|10.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.8|3.49|
95940223|NCT04508309|191846186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.455|2.176|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% CI was used.||2.176|1.455|
95940224|NCT04508309|191846186|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.942|2.903|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.903|1.942|
95940225|NCT04508309|191846187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.022|1.539|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||1.539|1.022|
95940226|NCT04508309|191846187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.372|2.069|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.069|1.372|
95940227|NCT04508309|191846187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 98.3% confidence interval of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.389|2.102|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|The primary objective included three non-inferiority comparisons of Cecolin at 0 and 6 months, 0 and 12 months, or 0 and 24 months compared to Gardasil at 0 and 6 months. To control the type I error for the three co-primary non-inferiority hypotheses, a Bonferroni correction corresponding to 98.3% confidence intervals (CI) was used.||2.102|1.389|
95940228|NCT04508309|191846192|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.071|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||2.071|1.476|
95940229|NCT04508309|191846193|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the Cecolin containing arm (Group 5) compared to Gardasil at months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.451|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin containing arm (Group 5)/Gardasil (Group 4)) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.451|1.004|
95940230|NCT04508309|191846194|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.344|||||GMC ratio (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.344|0.933|
95742451|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742452|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742453|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940231|NCT04508309|191846195|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cecolin at Months 0 and 6 (Group 1) compared to Gardasil at Months 0 and 6 (Group 4) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the GMC ratio was greater than the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 for both HPV-16 and HPV-18.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.635|||||GMC ratios (Cecolin/Gardasil) and corresponding confidence limits were calculated using linear models of the log concentration values adjusted by site and transformed back to the original scale.|||1.635|1.070|
95940232|NCT05139810|191846209|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.351|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used to account for potential over dispersion.||0.351|0.107|<0.001
95940233|NCT05139810|191846209|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.45|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.777|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 1 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential overdispersion.||0.777|0.261|=0.004
95940234|NCT05139810|191846210|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.281|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.281|0.062|<0.001
95858402|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|5.34||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.34|-5.28|
95858403|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.59|-5.93|
95858404|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|3.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.68|-4.35|
95858405|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|3.2||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.20|-7.42|
95858406|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|9.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||9.12|-0.404|
95858407|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||3.90|-4.14|
95858408|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|1.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.37|-9.69|
95858409|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.718||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.718|-10.2|
95858410|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|0.32||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.320|-8.71|
95858411|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.74||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.74|-2.34|
95858412|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|9.43||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.43|-1.54|
95858413|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|9.37||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.37|0.319|
95858414|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|8.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||8.12|-3.44|
95858415|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|7.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||7.00|-3.22|
95858416|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||5.52|-1.85|
95940235|NCT05139810|191846210|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.4|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.748|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.748|0.212|=0.004
95940236|NCT05139810|191846211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.79|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|59.36|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||59.36|2.34|=0.003
95940237|NCT05139810|191846211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|22.85|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.||||22.85|0.46|=0.240
95940238|NCT05139810|191846212|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.339|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.339|0.035|<0.001
95940239|NCT05139810|191846212|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.59|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.26|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||1.260|0.276|=0.173
95940240|NCT05139810|191846213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|310.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.63|8279.94|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||8279.94|11.63|<0.001
95940241|NCT05139810|191846213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|69.41|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 50% Reduction||69.41|3.15|<0.001
95940242|NCT05139810|191846213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|164.87|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||164.87|7.32|<0.001
95940243|NCT05139810|191846213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.17|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|41.09|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 70% Reduction||41.09|2.05|=0.004
95940244|NCT05139810|191846213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|86.42|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||86.42|3.36|<0.001
95940245|NCT05139810|191846213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|48.52|||Regression, Logistic|p-value was calculated based on logistic regression with baseline and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|The odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval were calculated based on a logistic regression with baseline (the time-normalized run-in period attack rate) and the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate.|≥ 90% Reduction||48.52|1.56|=0.014
95940246|NCT05139810|191846214|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.234|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.234|0.030|<0.001
95742454|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95858417|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.10|-5.45|
95940247|NCT05139810|191846214|SUPERIORITY||IC HAE attack rate ratio|0.33|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.706|||Poisson regression model||Model adjusted rate ratio from Poisson regression model.|The Poisson regression model includes treatment groups, baseline (the run-in period HAE attack rate), the treatment-by-baseline interaction as a covariate, and the logarithm of time in every-4-week that each participant was observed from Week 5 to Week 25 used as an offset variable. Pearson chi-square scaling of standard errors was used in the Poisson regression model to account for potential over dispersion.||0.706|0.155|=0.004
95940248|NCT05139810|191846216|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.673|-9.454|||Mixed model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-9.454|-27.673|<0.001
95940249|NCT05139810|191846216|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-13.65|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.024|-3.286|||MMRM|||||-3.286|-24.024|=0.010
95742455|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 250Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742456|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742457|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 750Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742458|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95796518|NCT06178991|191563035|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.97|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.97|1.56|
95796519|NCT06178991|191563035|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|H3N2||1.03|0.82|
95796520|NCT06178991|191563035|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.66|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm G titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||0.66|0.52|
95796521|NCT06178991|191563035|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm H titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Victoria||1.40|1.11|
95796522|NCT06178991|191563036|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01|||||GMRs (ratio of Arm E to Arm F titers) and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean difference of the logarithms of the titers between the two comparative vaccine groups and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.01|0.82|
95796523|NCT02485860|191563037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
95796524|NCT02273167|191563071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CL. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|4.5||||0.055|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-4.00|0.055
95796525|NCT02273167|191563071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The CLs were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidences limits. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in success rate|1.59||||0.328|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.91|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were two alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-6.91|0.328
95855446|NCT00541658|191670536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
95742459|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 1500Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742460|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 2000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742461|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 3000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742462|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 4000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742463|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 6000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742464|NCT03086135|191455754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Threshold audiometry at 8000Hz at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742465|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742466|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742467|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742468|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742469|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95858418|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|8.29||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||8.29|-1.93|
95940250|NCT03701763|191846242|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.1|11.2|<0.0001
95940251|NCT03701763|191846243|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|40.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.9|17.8|<0.0001
95940252|NCT03701763|191846244|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|25.6|<0.0001
95940253|NCT03701763|191846245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.93|-18.0|||ANCOVA|||||-18.00|-35.93|<0.0001
95940254|NCT03701763|191846246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-34.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-22.55|||ANCOVA|||||-22.55|-46.99|< 0.0001
95940255|NCT03701763|191846247|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Adjusted Difference|4.1||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.0|-9.8|0.5616
95940256|NCT03701763|191846248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.9|0.0009
95940257|NCT02723591|191846289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.115||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with DSA/IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant calculated panel reactivity antibody (cPRA) as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard variance components covariance type.||1.636|0.760|0.5777
95742470|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742471|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742472|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742473|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742474|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742475|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Speech in quiet at 65dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742476|NCT03086135|191455755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742477|NCT03086135|191455756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 4 weeks with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940258|NCT02723591|191846292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6618|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2x3 Exact Test of treatment by strength levels.||||0.6618
95940259|NCT02723591|191846297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.539|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with IA occurrence by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||1.539|0.700|0.8518
95940260|NCT02723591|191846300|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||1.0000
95940261|NCT02723591|191846301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.4750
95940262|NCT02723591|191846302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from a 2-sided Fisher's Exact Test of treatment arm by response.||||0.0939
95940263|NCT02723591|191846305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of eGFR \< 50 by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.240|0.915|0.1160
95940264|NCT02723591|191846306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.4995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with occurrence of 5-point eGFR decline by Month 12 as response, with treatment group, planned Campath use, KDPI level (as recorded in IVRS), HLA Class II mismatch, recipient age, recipient gender, recipient race, and pre-transplant cPRA as fixed effects, and pooled site as a random effect with standard Variance Components covariance type.||2.120|0.693|0.4995
95940265|NCT02723591|191846324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6327|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6327
95940266|NCT02723591|191846325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9701
95742478|NCT03086135|191455756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 6 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742479|NCT03086135|191455756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive speech recognition in noise at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95796526|NCT02273167|191563072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence limits (CL) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach will be used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|16.56|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.11|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 2-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 2-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||8.11|<0.001
95796527|NCT02273167|191563072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits (CLs) were adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% CLs. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson CLs. To accommodate the comparison of 2 NER1006 regimens a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|18.74|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|10.32|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 1-Day success rate - MOVIPREP success rate. Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||10.32|<0.001
95940267|NCT02723591|191846326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3127|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.3127
95742480|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940268|NCT02723591|191846327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.0830
95940269|NCT02723591|191846328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6022|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.6022
95940270|NCT02723591|191846329|SUPERIORITY|P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||||0.9249|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9249
95940271|NCT02723591|191846330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.9136
95940272|NCT02723591|191846331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8789
95940273|NCT02723591|191846332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5574|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5574
95940274|NCT02723591|191846333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.8150
95940275|NCT02723591|191846334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5673|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-values obtained from the Exact Test of treatment arm by Banff scoring levels.||||0.5673
95940276|NCT04642820|191846366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95940277|NCT04568434|191846367|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.5|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.085|-17.921||ANCOVA model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-17.921|-69.085|=0.0009
95940278|NCT04568434|191846367|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-22.37|||=|0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|2.463||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included effects of treatment (olezarsen 80 mg, olezarsen 50 mg, or placebo): dependent variable, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.463|-47.200|=0.0775
95742481|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742482|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742483|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.51
95940279|NCT04568434|191846368|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-43.81|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.928|-13.692||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.692|-73.928|=0.0044
95940280|NCT04568434|191846368|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.39|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.663|-28.119||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting TG at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline TG: covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.119|-90.663|=0.0002
95742484|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742485|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Ease of communication, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742486|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Background noise, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742487|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Reverberation, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940281|NCT04568434|191846369|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-65.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.634|-48.32||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-48.320|-82.634|<0.0001
95940282|NCT04568434|191846369|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.553|-52.837||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 6||-52.837|-94.553|<0.0001
95940283|NCT04568434|191846369|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-77.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.938|-55.177||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-55.177|-98.938|<0.0001
95940284|NCT04568434|191846369|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-81.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.656|-57.894||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoC-III at Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol specified 2 randomization stratification factors: fixed effects, log-transformed baseline apoC-III: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-57.894|-104.656|<0.0001
95940285|NCT04568434|191846371|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.29|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.612|16.041||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||16.041|-82.612|=0.1860
95940286|NCT04568434|191846371|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-83.97|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.949|-30.982||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change From Baseline at Month 6||-30.982|-136.949|=0.0019
95940287|NCT04568434|191846371|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.9|||=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.254|47.459||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||47.459|-113.254|=0.4219
95940288|NCT04568434|191846371|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-75.63|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.195|1.927||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting apoB-48 to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline apoB-48: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||1.927|-153.195|=0.0560
95742488|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Aversiveness, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.32
95940289|NCT04568434|191846372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.69|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.571|-0.801||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-0.801|-34.571|=0.0401
95940290|NCT04568434|191846372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.2|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.484|-7.911||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 6: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline Month 6||-7.911|-40.484|=0.0036
95940291|NCT04568434|191846372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.84|||=|0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.49|-6.198||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-6.198|-53.490|=0.0134
95940292|NCT04568434|191846372|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.7|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.108|-16.292||ANCOVA model included percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDL-C to Month 12: dependent variable, treatment group, protocol prespecified randomization stratification factors: fixed effects \& log-transformed baseline non-HDL-C: covariate.|ANCOVA|||Percent Change from Baseline at Month 12||-16.292|-63.108|=0.0009
95940293|NCT04568434|191846373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.1|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.506||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.506|0.020|=0.0052
95940294|NCT04568434|191846374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.12|||=|0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.656||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.656|0.022|=0.0144
95940295|NCT04568434|191846375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.709||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.709|0.028|=0.0174
95940296|NCT04568434|191846376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.16|||=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.85||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.850|0.031|=0.0314
95940297|NCT04568434|191846379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.14|||=|0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.669||Regression model: treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 1 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.669|0.029|=0.0137
95940298|NCT04568434|191846380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Rate Ratio|0.2|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.986||Regression model:treatment group \& previous treatment (volanesorsen):factors adjudicated acute pancreatitis events in 5 years prior enrollment:covariate. Logarithm of time in year that each participant was observed from Week 13 to 53:offset variable|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.986|0.040|=0.0480
95940299|NCT03334630|191846395|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control composite SAE freedom rate of 93.5%, 226 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -6.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0779||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.24% = 0.0324|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.0779|-0.0132|<0.0001
95989082|NCT04161495|191953243|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-3.36|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Annualized Bleeding Rate During the Efficacy Period in Prophylaxis Arm - Superiority Analysis\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). Least square (LS) mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-3.36|-10.13|0.0001
95742489|NCT03086135|191455757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||APHAB, Global score, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742490|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive health state at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.026
95742491|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Vision attribute at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.50
95742492|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0008
95989083|NCT04161495|191953244|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.63|||Unstructured covariance matrix|An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure. Only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in Haem-A-QOL Physical Health Score at Weeks 26 and 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a score as covariate.||-0.63|-3.26|0.0042
95989084|NCT04161495|191953245|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.37||An unstructured covariance matrix within a participant was used.|Unstructured covariance matrix|||Testing according to hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous OM \[Change From Baseline in PROMIS Pain Intensity 3a First Item at Week 52: Prophylaxis Arm\] was statistically significant for considered dosing regimen). LS mean difference, standard error and 95% confidence interval were estimated by MMRM using visit as fixed effect and Baseline Haem-A-QOL physical health score as covariate.||-0.37|-2.70|0.0101
95742493|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.082
95940300|NCT03334630|191846396|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a Control primary effectiveness rate of 65%, 229 subjects per group yields 80% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of -12.5% between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.025.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.109||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test||Estimated risk difference = DiamondTemp composite SAE freedom rate - Control composite SAE freedom rate = 3.4% = 0.034|Null hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is inferior to the Control arm. Alternative hypothesis: the DiamondTemp arm is non-inferior to the Control arm.||0.109|-0.042|<0.0001
95989085|NCT01562548|191953285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.21||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8||P-value was associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided|The model included factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect).|Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||0.80|-1.23|0.68
95989086|NCT01562548|191953285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.42||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was First named treatment - second named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.42|-0.72|0.52
95989087|NCT01562548|191953285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.13||P-value associated with t-test for difference of LS means|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean from Mixed Model including factors for treatment (as a fixed effect) and site (as a random effect). Difference was Second named treatment - first named treatment|Null hypotheses was tested as: H01: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 600mg and placebo. H02: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and placebo. H03: There was no difference in the mean change from baseline of muscle spasm score between Guaifenesin 1200mg and Guaifenesin 600mg.||1.13|-0.64|0.58
95940301|NCT03334630|191846397|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-14.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-14.6|-21.2|<0.0001
95742494|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
95742495|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.9
95742496|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.43
95742497|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.31
95742498|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.72
95742499|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Comprehensive Health State attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.13
95858419|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.81|-1.56|
95940302|NCT03334630|191846398|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||-9.8|-13.9|<0.0001
95940303|NCT03334630|191846407|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.||Since the previous secondary endpoint (Total fluoroscopy time) was non-significant, testing stopped and this secondary endpoint was not tested.|Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||3.1|-14.4|
95940304|NCT03334630|191846412|SUPERIORITY|"Four secondary endpoints will be tested for superiority over Control hierarchically with pre-specified order:~1. Mean duration of individual RF ablations (seconds)~2. Mean cumulative RF time per procedure (minutes)~3. Total fluoroscopy time (minutes)~4. Total procedure time (minutes) The first secondary endpoint needs to be significant at the two-sided 0.05 alpha level before the next one can be tested at the same threshold. Testing stops once an endpoint is determined to be non-significant."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 two-sided. The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons via the hierarchical testing approach.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference is DiamondTemp minus Control. A lower value is better.|"Null hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are not different.~Alternative hypothesis: the population means for the DiamondTemp and Control groups are different."||1.6|-1.9|0.8528
95940305|NCT05192109|191846414|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
95742500|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||HUI Vision attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.23
95742501|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Hearing attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0026
95742502|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Speech attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.0024
95742503|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Ambulation attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
95742504|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Dexterity attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.16
95742505|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Emotion attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.85
95855447|NCT00541658|191670536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
95742506|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Cognition attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||1.0
95742507|NCT03086135|191455758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||HUI Pain attribute, at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||0.56
95742508|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742509|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742510|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742511|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 3 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742512|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Total score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742513|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Speech score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95796528|NCT02273167|191563073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
95796529|NCT02273167|191563073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.55||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.0||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||12.00|-4.80|0.106
95858420|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|3.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.59|-6.79|
95858421|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.68||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||4.68|-5.00|
95858422|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.54||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.54|-5.20|
95940306|NCT05192109|191846414|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of diagnostic group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.93
95940307|NCT05192109|191846414|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
95940308|NCT05192109|191846415|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of condition.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
95940309|NCT05192109|191846415|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||This is the p-value for the simple effect of group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||0.22
95940310|NCT05192109|191846415|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||This is the p-value for the interaction between condition and group.|Regression, Linear|||The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children's preference to look at the target is significantly greater in one condition and/or group than the other. Mixed-effects regression analyses are used with the proportion-empirical-logit transformed-of target looking as the dependent measure, participant as random effect, and condition and group and their interaction as fixed effects.||||<0.01
95940311|NCT05623228|191846442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||"Bonferroni correction p\<.05~F(1.25)=9.17 η=.254 (p\<.05)"|ANOVA|||||||.00
95858423|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|7.17||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||7.17|-3.27|
95858424|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.59||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.59|-1.17|
95940312|NCT05623228|191846442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Bonferroni correction p\<.05 F(2)=7.30 η=.213 (P\<.05)|ANOVA|||||||.00
95940313|NCT05623228|191846443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(2)=3.20, η=.106 Bonferroni Correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.04
95940314|NCT05623228|191846444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||F(1,06)=8,11, η2=.231 Bonferroni correction p\<.05|ANOVA|||||||.00
95940315|NCT05623228|191846445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||F(1,19)=4,30, η2=.137 Bonferroni correction p\<0.5|ANOVA|||||||.04
95940316|NCT05623228|191846446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||t (38.70)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.00
95742514|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Spatial score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940317|NCT05693935|191846447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.89||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-5.89|-13.60|<0.0001
95742515|NCT03086135|191455759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||SSQ Quality score at 12 months with the Osia system vs Unaided at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742516|NCT03086135|191455760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95796530|NCT02273167|191563074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-0.29||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|8.02||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 2-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||8.02|-8.74|0.569
95802480|NCT03300336|191578224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.69||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 11 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention: 20 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||3.69|-1.71|0.47
95858425|NCT01263197|191674571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|8.67||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in systolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.67|-0.103|
95858426|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.44|-3.90|
95940318|NCT05693935|191846447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-7.53||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-7.53|-15.01|<0.0001
95940319|NCT05693935|191846447|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.02||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-6.02|-13.50|<0.0001
95940320|NCT05693935|191846448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.31||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.31|-0.75|<0.0001
95742517|NCT03086135|191455760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742518|NCT03086135|191455760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742519|NCT03086135|191455760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry PTA4 with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95989088|NCT03066102|191953321|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular elevation. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular elevation. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.227
95742520|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.025
95742521|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.096
95742522|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.015
95742523|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
95742524|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.73
95742525|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
95742526|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0046
95742527|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742528|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742529|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 4 week vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742530|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.019
95742531|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.040
95742532|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.037
95742533|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.67
95940321|NCT05693935|191846448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.39|-0.82|<0.0001
95940322|NCT05693935|191846448|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.25||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||-0.25|-0.68|<0.0001
95940323|NCT05693935|191846449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.4||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||7.40|2.05|0.0011
95940324|NCT05693935|191846449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.89||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||5.89|0.59|0.0167
95742534|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.34
95742535|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0048
95742536|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0008
95742537|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742538|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940325|NCT05693935|191846449|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.01||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.66||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (using Truncated Hochberg).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures fitted to 200 multiply imputed datasets generated in accordance with the estimand. Treatment group LS mean, 95% confidence intervals, and two-sided p values were pooled across imputations using Rubin's rules.||7.66|2.35|0.0007
95742539|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 3 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742540|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.10
95742541|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0007
95940326|NCT05260112|191846522|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95940327|NCT05260112|191846523|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95940328|NCT05260112|191846524|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95940329|NCT05260112|191846525|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95940330|NCT05260112|191846526|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95940331|NCT05260112|191846527|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95940332|NCT03031470|191846654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.688
95940333|NCT03031470|191846655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|Analysis is based on exact Fisher test to compare treatments.||||||0.700
95742542|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0003
95742543|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.11
95742544|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742545|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0001
95742546|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940334|NCT03031470|191846656|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Treatment groups were compared for frequency of allograft nonfunction using Fisher exact test||||||>0.999
95940335|NCT03031470|191846657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
95940336|NCT03031470|191846658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.601
95940337|NCT03031470|191846660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for degree of allograft steatosis using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.574
95940338|NCT03031470|191846661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of cold ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.843
95940339|NCT03031470|191846662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Reparixin and Control groups will be compared for duration of earm ischemia using Cochran-Mantel-Hensel (CMH) test with control EAD.||||||0.701
95940340|NCT03031470|191846672|SUPERIORITY|"General survival and graft survival (graft loss will be qualified as an event for graft survival) within 1 year were presented with Kaplan-Mayer curves and survival time median with 95% CI. Treatment groups will be compared using logrank test."||||||0.416|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.416
95940341|NCT02296125|191846676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.57|0.37|<0.0001
95796531|NCT02273167|191563074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of MOVIPREP using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|0.8||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|9.11||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 1-Day relative to MOVIPREP with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||9.11|-7.65|0.455
95940342|NCT02296125|191846676|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.37|0.0065
95940343|NCT02296125|191846678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|1.03|0.036
95742547|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742548|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742549|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 6 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742550|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 250Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.80
95742551|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940344|NCT02296125|191846678|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.61|0.485
95940345|NCT02296125|191846679|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.09|||Regression, Linear|||||5.09|1.21|0.0133
95940346|NCT02296125|191846679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.08|||Regression, Linear|||||3.08|1.68|<0.0001
95940347|NCT02296125|191846680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.78|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||6.78|1.25|0.0110
95940348|NCT02296125|191846680|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|12.98|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours osimertinib|||12.98|0.27|0.5772
95940349|NCT02296125|191846681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.205|-2.403|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.403|-11.205|0.0025
95940350|NCT02296125|191846681|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.59||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.246|2.072|||Regression, Linear|||||2.072|-15.246|0.1348
95940351|NCT02296125|191846682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6409|0.9963|||Log Rank|||||0.9963|0.6409|0.0462
95940352|NCT02296125|191846682|OTHER|The china cohort was not powered for superiority|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5568|1.291|||Log Rank|||||1.2910|0.5568|0.4416
95940353|NCT03904147|191846713|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.44||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method||The Win Ratio provides an estimation of the treatment effect.|||||0.0311
95742552|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 750Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940354|NCT03904147|191846714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||exact test|||||||0.0008
95940355|NCT03904147|191846715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Z test|||||||<0.0001
95940356|NCT03904147|191846716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||<0.0001
95940357|NCT03904147|191846717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
95940358|NCT03904147|191846718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||ANCOVA model|||||||0.2482
95940359|NCT03904147|191846719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
95940360|NCT03904147|191846720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
95940361|NCT03904147|191846721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||normal approximation|||||||0.1090
95940362|NCT06044090|191846753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.856
95940363|NCT06044090|191846753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.613
95940364|NCT06044090|191846754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95940365|NCT06044090|191846754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.691
95940366|NCT06044090|191846755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
95989089|NCT03066102|191953321|OTHER|||||||0.764||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on reposition error of scapular protraction. Muscle fatigue would increase reposition error during scapular protraction. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance.||||0.764
95742553|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||0.0010
95742554|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 1500Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940367|NCT06044090|191846755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
95940368|NCT02969707|191846767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||Examining the Change in sum of positive z-transformed CC.||||0.035
95742555|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 2000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742556|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 3000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742557|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 4000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742558|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 6000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940369|NCT02969707|191846767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||2-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of all z-transformed CC.||||0.7
95940370|NCT02969707|191846767|SUPERIORITY|2-sample t-test||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Examining the change in sum of negative z-transformed CC.||||0.11
95940371|NCT02969707|191846767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.98||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample(paired) t-test||Examining the change in positive functional connectivity between the L-DLPFC and the dACC within the active group from pre to post TMS.||||0.008
95940372|NCT02969707|191846769|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U statistic|601.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||0.046
95940373|NCT02969707|191846769|OTHER||Cohen's R|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimate of effect size|Non-parametric analysis, comparison of change (post-treatment minus pre-treatment)||||
95940374|NCT02969707|191846770|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Mann-Whitney U statistic|702.5|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney U-test 2-tailed|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in HIS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.412
95940375|NCT02969707|191846773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test||||||0.037
95940376|NCT02969707|191846773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
95940377|NCT02969707|191846773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95940378|NCT02969707|191846778|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|Cohen's d|-0.234||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects model|||We used standard mixed-effects modeling to estimate the change (slope) in pain in our 2\*2 pre- and post-assessment design. Pain ratings were calculated by averaging pain ratings across 5 assessments under four conditions (TMS with hypnosis, TMS without hypnosis, Sham with hypnosis, Sham without hypnosis). Based on these change estimates, we derived the two main effects (TMS, Hypnosis) and their interaction effect on the change in pain from the pre- to post-treatment assessment.||||0.49
95940379|NCT02969707|191846779|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre- to post-rTMS change in SOARS scores were calculated for both Active and Sham conditions. Two-tailed t-tests were used to evaluate the difference between the two conditions' change scores.||||=.454
95940380|NCT02969707|191846780|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .104, F(2,48) = 2.794, β = .320, p = .023)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.023
95940381|NCT02969707|191846780|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to water and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .081, F(1,49) = 4.315, β = .284, p = .043)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to water was assessed.||||0.043
95940382|NCT02969707|191846780|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Tolerance with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Tolerance as the dependent variable.||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .103, F(1,49) = 5.632, β = .321, p = .022)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Tolerance and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.022
95940383|NCT02969707|191846780|OTHER|Linear regression was used to evaluate the scalar relationship between E/I ratio as it relates to creatine and Thermal Pain Threshold with E/I as the independent variable and Thermal Pain Threshold as the dependent variable.||||||0.041|||||||Regression, Linear|(R² = .083, F(1,49) = 4.425, β = .288, p = .041)||In people with FMS, the linear relationship between Thermal Pain Threshold and E/I ratio as it relates to creatine was assessed.||||0.041
95940384|NCT02969707|191846786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to creatine is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to creatine.||||0.728
95940385|NCT02969707|191846786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||Standard ANCOVA testing whether the Post-TMS E/I relative to water is predicted for each subject by the intervention (Active / Sham) while covarying for the Pre-TMS E/I ratio relative to water.||||0.720
95940386|NCT06074172|191846798|OTHER|Linear Mixed Models were done with a compound symmetry covariance structure. This infers that the variances (pooled within-group) and covariances (across subjects) of all of the repeated measures are homogenous.||||||0.008||||||In the Bonferroni corrected Linear Mixed Model for PI Ratio, the p-value for the following interaction was reported: Treatment\*Age.|Linear Mixed Model|"Linear Mixed Model analyses:~1. Factor: Treatment group~2. Covariates: Age, Sex, CBD Use history, and Urine THC~3. Interactions"||||||0.008
95940387|NCT05583578|191846802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95940388|NCT05583578|191846802|OTHER||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes greater than (d = 0.80) were considered large.|Post-intervention changes in walking speed||||
95940389|NCT05583578|191846803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95940390|NCT05583578|191846803|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d (effect size)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes ranging from 0.21 to 0.79 were considered moderate, anything ≥0.80 were considered large.|||||
95940391|NCT04103580|191846804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.247
95940392|NCT04103580|191846804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.049
95940393|NCT04103580|191846805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 1.||||0.150
95940394|NCT04103580|191846805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Due to uneven space between time points (days), we estimated a random effects model with varying intercepts and slopes for each phase independently.|We used an interaction between time and study arm to determine whether there was a significant difference over time in the change in outcome. The estimate is the difference in change over time for the intervention group compared to the control group.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between control and intervention over time in Phase 2.||||0.635
95940395|NCT03656510|191846819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382|0.185||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.185|-1.382|
95940396|NCT03656510|191846819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.418||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 3||0.418|-1.190|
95940397|NCT03656510|191846819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.674|-0.25||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.250|-4.674|
95940398|NCT03656510|191846819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.645|-0.114||||||Difference versus placebo in mean RSV viral load AUC on Day 8||-0.114|-4.645|
95940399|NCT03852472|191846884|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|-8.4||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.4||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|-18.7|0.1321
95940400|NCT03852472|191846884|OTHER||% Difference (Avacopan - Placebo)|4.3||||0.4503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.5||P-values are obtained from a CMH test stratified by stratification factors Hurley Stage (Stage II vs III), and anti-TNF drug use (Treatment naive vs Previous treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|-6.9|0.4503
95742559|NCT03086135|191455761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Hearing performance: threshold audiometry 8000Hz with Osia at 12 months vs the reference device BP110 on a softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95940401|NCT03852472|191846885|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||2.9|-1.7|0.5784
95742560|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.51
95940402|NCT03852472|191846885|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2253
95940403|NCT03974178|191846897|OTHER|"The minimal sample size to get a possible rejection of H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) in favour of H1 (pdeath \<8.5%) was 34 evaluable patients with stage 2 r-HAT.~The hypothesis was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level."|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0488
95940404|NCT03974178|191846898|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.43||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||8.43|0|0.0405
95940405|NCT03974178|191846899|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.94||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|13.21||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||13.21|0.15|0.0730
95940406|NCT03974178|191846902|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pdeath = 8.5% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Fatality rate|0.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of deaths possibly related to r-HAT or to fexinidazole at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 8.5%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of deaths (pdeath) is compared to the threshold of 8.5%, with H0 being pdeath = 8.5% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the fatality rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0201
95940407|NCT03974178|191846903|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at the end of hospitalization = 9% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|0.0||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|6.58||The rate of failures at the end of hospitalization was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 9%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at the end of hospitalization (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 9%, with H0 being pfailure = 9% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||6.58|0|0.0158
95940408|NCT03974178|191846904|OTHER|The hypothesis H0 (pfailure at 12 months = 12% or more) was tested with a one-sided exact test for proportions at the 0.05 significance level.|Failure rate|2.27||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|10.34||The rate of failures at 12 months was compared to the predefined unacceptable rate of 12%.|one-sided exact test|Clopper Pearson exact method||"The proportion of failures at 12 months (pfailure) is compared to the threshold of 12%, with H0 being pfailure = 12% or more.~The 90% confidence interval of the failure rate is calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method."||10.34|0.12|0.0253
95940409|NCT03899259|191846915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|22.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.17|2.79|<0.001
95940410|NCT03899259|191846915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|53.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.30|7.30|<0.001
95940411|NCT03899259|191846916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.834|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-17.72|||ANCOVA|||||-17.72|-32.78|<0.001
95940412|NCT03899259|191846916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.482|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.33|-37.65|||ANCOVA|||||-37.65|-51.33|<0.001
95940413|NCT03899259|191846917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.60|1.58|0.005
95940414|NCT03899259|191846917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|35.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.44|4.72|<0.001
95940415|NCT03899259|191846918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.74|1.77|0.001
95940416|NCT03899259|191846918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|31.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.10|5.75|<0.001
95940417|NCT03899259|191846920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.91|0.076
95940418|NCT03899259|191846920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|4.12|<0.001
95742561|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
95742562|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.29
95940419|NCT03899259|191846921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|5.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.62|0.63|0.260
95742563|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.18
95940420|NCT03899259|191846921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|20.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.66|3.18|<0.001
95940421|NCT03899259|191846922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.40|1.25|0.017
95940422|NCT03899259|191846922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|27.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.25|4.32|<0.001
95940423|NCT03899259|191846923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|78.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||78.42|2.73|0.002
95989090|NCT03066102|191953322|OTHER|||||||0.413||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.413
95989091|NCT03066102|191953322|OTHER|||||||0.984||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.984
95989092|NCT03066102|191953322|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular elevation.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.006
95989093|NCT03066102|191953322|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.154
95989094|NCT03066102|191953322|OTHER|||||||0.096||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.096
95742564|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.017
95742565|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.16
95742566|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.0051
95796532|NCT02273167|191563075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 2-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|7.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|15.47|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||15.47|-1.41|0.024
95989095|NCT03066102|191953322|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scapular protraction.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during proprioception task. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
95742567|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.021
95858427|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|4.02||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.02|-1.91|
95858428|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.18||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.18|-2.58|
95989096|NCT03066102|191953323|OTHER|||||||8.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of serratus anterior during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000085
95989097|NCT03066102|191953323|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of upper trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.037
95989098|NCT03066102|191953323|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle strength of lower trapezius during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~Muscle fatigue would decrease muscle strength during maximum voluntary isometric muscle contraction.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.382
95989099|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.000467||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular posterior tilt during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during each angle of scaption.||||0.000467
95742568|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.56
95742569|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 50dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742570|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Speech in quiet at 65dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742571|NCT03086135|191455762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech in quiet at 80dB SPL with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband att visit 1.||||0.041
95742572|NCT03086135|191455763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 4 weeks vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742573|NCT03086135|191455763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 3 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742574|NCT03086135|191455763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 6 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742575|NCT03086135|191455763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||Adaptive Speech Recognition in Noise with Osia at 12 months vs reference device BP110 on softband at visit 1.||||<0.0001
95742576|NCT02951195|191455787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.6|0.3|0.0207
95742577|NCT02951195|191455787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.9|5.0|0.0002
95940424|NCT03899259|191846923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.93|<0.001
95940425|NCT03899259|191846924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-6.91|0.129
95940426|NCT03899259|191846924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-7.75|0.020
95940427|NCT03899259|191846925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-12.68|0.026
95940428|NCT03899259|191846925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.04|||ANCOVA|||||-8.04|-18.80|<0.001
95989100|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.093||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.093
95742578|NCT02951195|191455787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.5|3.0|0.0019
95742579|NCT02951195|191455787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|18.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||18.7|-2.1|0.0540
95742580|NCT02951195|191455788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.7|0.0007
95742581|NCT02951195|191455789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-19.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-6.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-6.8|-32.2|0.0018
95742582|NCT02951195|191455789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-2.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.1|-25.0|0.0106
95742583|NCT02951195|191455789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-16.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-16.3|-38.6|<0.0001
95742584|NCT02951195|191455789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-9.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-9.7|-40.0|0.0017
95742585|NCT02951195|191455790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-14.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-14.1|-33.7|<0.0001
95940429|NCT03899259|191846926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|0.88|||ANCOVA|||||0.88|-9.65|0.103
95940430|NCT03899259|191846926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-13.10|<0.001
95940431|NCT03899259|191846927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.82|0.518
95940432|NCT03899259|191846927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.28|0.012
95940433|NCT03899259|191846928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.08|0.083
95989101|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.062
95742586|NCT02951195|191455791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||24.0|1.1|0.0166
95940434|NCT03899259|191846928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.20|0.010
95940435|NCT05778695|191846929|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.02||0.875|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.875
95940436|NCT05778695|191846929|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.166||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.026|12.026||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.026|-16.026|0.739
95940437|NCT05778695|191846930|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95940438|NCT01733316|191846943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Paired t-test testing the null hypothesis that the population average difference during the Cystagon® phase is equal to the population average difference during the RP103 phase.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||||||0.0048
95940439|NCT03621371|191846951|OTHER||F-test|9.88|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95940440|NCT01456949|191847004|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|66.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|71.7|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||71.7|61.6|<0.001
95742587|NCT02951195|191455791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|31.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||31.4|11.2|<0.0001
95742588|NCT02951195|191455791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||27.8|6.3|0.0013
95742589|NCT02951195|191455791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|32.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||32.9|-3.8|0.0563
95742590|NCT02951195|191455792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.9|5.3|0.0012
95742591|NCT02951195|191455793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-2.6|0.0476
95742592|NCT02951195|191455793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|44.0|||ANCOVA|||||44.0|14.8|0.0001
95742593|NCT02951195|191455793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|41.1|||ANCOVA|||||41.1|11.3|0.0006
95796533|NCT02273167|191563075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the colon ascendens was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits. Non-inferiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP was proven.|Difference in PDR|2.37||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|10.82||Superiority of NER1006 1-Day to MOVIPREP not demonstrated statistically.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||10.82|-6.12|0.268
95796534|NCT02273167|191563076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals.|Difference in PDR|-0.49||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|8.0|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||8.00|-8.85|0.579
95802481|NCT03300336|191578225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.62||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference calculated as intervention minus control|"Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics.~Missing data due to item nonresponse in usual care: 2 out of 227 Missing data due to item nonresponse in intervention group: 7 out of 399~Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table."||1.62|-1.76|0.94
95802482|NCT00604383|191578235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
95940441|NCT01456949|191847005|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier (product-limit) estimator|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||Exact binomial|Exact binomial p-value is shown, but the confidence intervals reported are calculated from Greenwood's approximation of the standard error.||||4.5|1.1|<0.001
95940442|NCT01456949|191847006|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Freedom from MAFE's was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
95940443|NCT01456949|191847007|OTHER|Secondary analyses were exploratory. No formal hypotheses or performance criteria were predefined.|||||||||||||||||Chronic treatment success was estimated at one and two years using Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
95940444|NCT05907174|191847022|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.023
95940445|NCT03910478|191847039|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.948||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.053|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician-recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||2.053|0.438|0.8920
95940446|NCT03910478|191847040|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided Wald-test for evidence of a non-zero coefficient for intervention group in the regression was conducted at the 5% significance level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression was adjusted by covariates (transplant site and participant's perceived ease of access to blood draw facility).||A traditional logistic regression model was fit where the outcome was whether or not participants completed \> 90% of their clinician -recommended CMV monitoring tests in the study period by 1-year after HCT.||1.450|0.301|0.3008
95940447|NCT03209973|191847045|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sided p-value was based on exact test of BGB-A317 versus historical rate of 0.35|Exact Binomial Test|Comparison with historical control values||||||<0.0001
95989102|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.04
95742594|NCT02951195|191455793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|-11.6|0.2714
95742595|NCT02951195|191455794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.3||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|21.2|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||21.2|1.3|0.0138
95742596|NCT04227899|191455830|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
95742597|NCT04227899|191455831|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority (NI)|||||||0.0019
95742598|NCT04227899|191455832|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95940448|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.789|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.899|-152.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-152.678|-204.899|<.0001
95940449|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.184|-157.598|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-157.598|-211.184|<.0001
95940450|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.964|-149.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-149.237|-200.964|<.0001
95940451|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-161.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.543|-135.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-135.609|-187.543|<.0001
95940452|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-172.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.08|-153.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-153.886|-192.080|<.0001
95940453|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.585||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.572|21.401|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||21.401|-28.572|0.7781
95940454|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.764||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.993|17.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||17.465|-32.993|0.5457
95989103|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.000147||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000147
95742599|NCT04227899|191455833|OTHER|||||||0.0081|||||||One-sided Chi-square test|||||||0.0081
95742600|NCT05151471|191455834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
95742601|NCT05151471|191455835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 72||||0.704
95742602|NCT05151471|191455835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||ANCOVA|||Week 96||||0.131
95742603|NCT05151471|191455836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.954
95742604|NCT05151471|191455836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.591
95742605|NCT05151471|191455837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 72||||0.513
95940455|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.445|-129.961|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-129.961|-220.445|<.0001
95742606|NCT05151471|191455837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 84||||0.344
95742607|NCT05151471|191455837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 96||||0.142
95742608|NCT04998136|191455859|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-10.7|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial observation period.||-10.70|-15.28|<0.0001
95802483|NCT05987540|191578243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8125|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank|||||||.8125
95940456|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-176.627|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.672|-130.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-130.582|-222.672|<.0001
95940457|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-171.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.626|-126.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-126.404|-216.626|<.0001
95940458|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.27|-108.354|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-108.354|-199.270|<.0001
95989104|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||1.2e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.000012
95989105|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.007
95742609|NCT04998136|191455860|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.11|||MMRM|||Hypothetical Estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM). All responses prior to first discontinuation of treatment (or dose reduction, or initiation of other anti-obesity medication or bariatric surgery) were included in MMRM with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||-11.11|-15.70|<0.0001
95742610|NCT04998136|191455861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.96|359.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand. The primary endpoint was analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from in-trial period.||359.61|21.96|<0.0001
95742611|NCT04998136|191455862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|253.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.41|1672.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothetical estimand. MMRM was used with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. The MMRM was performed on body weight (kg) and individual missing week 44 responses were predicted from the MMRM, each participant was then classified for body weight loss \>= 5% and analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysed data is from on-treatment observation period.||1672.57|38.41|<0.0001
95742612|NCT00396162|191455885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95742613|NCT00396162|191455886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
95802484|NCT05987540|191578246|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilconxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||>0.9999
95742614|NCT05908162|191455994|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95940459|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-165.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.898|-134.541|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-134.541|-195.898|<.0001
95940460|NCT04800211|191847053|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.815||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.223|13.593|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.593|-59.223|0.2188
95940461|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-248.311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.423|-210.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-210.199|-286.423|<.0001
95940462|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-247.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.904|-214.241|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-214.241|-280.904|<.0001
95940463|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-245.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.945|-206.791|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.791|-284.945|<.0001
95989106|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.059
95742615|NCT05908162|191455995|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95742616|NCT05908162|191455995|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95742617|NCT05908162|191455995|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.02
95742618|NCT01447511|191455996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
95742619|NCT01447511|191455996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.0001
95742620|NCT01447511|191455996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean S-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||<0.0001
95802485|NCT00114777|191578320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.2|9.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||9.4|-7.2|
95940464|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-234.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.603|-198.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-198.282|-271.603|<.0001
95940465|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-244.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.269|-212.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-212.829|-275.269|<.0001
95940466|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-221.385|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-258.371|-184.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-184.398|-258.371|<.0001
95940467|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-233.626|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.113|-206.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-206.140|-261.113|<.0001
95940468|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|26.266||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|63.661|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||63.661|-11.130|0.1672
95940469|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.051||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.881|-8.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-8.221|-71.881|0.0140
95742621|NCT01447511|191455996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3058|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under control conditions is the same.||||=0.3058
95742622|NCT01447511|191455996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3278|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under fluconazole conditions is the same.||||=0.3278
95742623|NCT01447511|191455996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6155|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean R-warfarin clearance among the five CYP2C9 genotypes under rifampin conditions is the same.||||=0.6155
95940470|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.635||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.785|-4.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-4.484|-80.785|0.0288
95940471|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-274.577|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.428|-203.726|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-203.726|-345.428|<.0001
95940472|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-207.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.198|-145.844|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-145.844|-269.198|<.0001
95940473|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.683|-130.784|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-130.784|-275.683|<.0001
95796535|NCT02273167|191563076|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To accommodate the comparison of two NER1006 regimens, a hierarchical testing approach was used whereby NER1006 2-Day was assessed first and, if successful, then NER1006 1-Day was evaluated. Difference in Polyp Detection Rate in the overall colon was calculated as NER1006 1-Day rate - MOVIPREP rate (10% margin) determined using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|0.61||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|9.09|||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of MOVIPREP. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||9.09|-7.78|0.478
95796536|NCT02594111|191563077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95796537|NCT01431976|191563085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.39|59.22||||||||59.22|15.39|
95796538|NCT00782067|191563110|OTHER|Single arm study|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null hypothesis: ORR \<= 30% Alternative hypothesis: ORR \>= 50%|Exact Binomial Test||||Exact Binomial 95% Confidence Interval|||<0.001
95802486|NCT00114777|191578320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|11.4|||||The treatment differences between each belatacept treatment group and cyclosporin group was tested at the 0.027 significance level for participant and graft survival (based on 10% non-inferiority margin).|||11.4|-5.0|
95802487|NCT00114777|191578321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-24.0|-4.7|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||-4.7|-24|0.0018
95742624|NCT02426918|191456040|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the low dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15% and if non-inferiority was confirmed for the high dose.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|3.0||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||3.00|-11.42|
95742625|NCT02426918|191456040|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for the high dose was confirmed if the upper bound of the CI was \< 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|8.38||||||Treatment difference estimates and 95% CIs are calculated accounting for the randomization strata infection type \[cellulitis, noncellulitis\] according to a Mantel-Haenszel type risk difference estimator.||8.38|-8.32|
95742626|NCT02420353|191456060|OTHER|||||||0.0498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model||||0.0498
95742627|NCT02420353|191456061|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.7024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7024
95742628|NCT02420353|191456062|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
95742629|NCT02420353|191456063|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.6836|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6836
95742630|NCT02420353|191456064|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.9271|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9271
95742631|NCT02420353|191456065|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.1576|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1576
95742632|NCT02420353|191456066|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5586
95742633|NCT02420353|191456067|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
95940474|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-261.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.647|-191.769|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-191.769|-330.647|<.0001
95940475|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-203.998|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.396|-144.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.599|-263.396|<.0001
95802488|NCT00114777|191578321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-8.5||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-18.0|0.9|||Chi-squared||A continuity-corrected chi-squared test at the significance level 0.027 was performed to assess the effect of each belatacept regimen compared with cyclosporin A.|||0.9|-18|0.0616
95858429|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.07|-1.34|
95742634|NCT02420353|191456068|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8573
95742635|NCT02420353|191456069|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0564
95950156|NCT00759681|191872349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0538||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.314|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Effectiveness: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the lower limit of the difference was greater than 10%.||Effectiveness was evaluated using a superiority hypothesis, comparing treatment sites with regards to the proportion achieving immediate suture line sealing between the groups. Effectiveness was based on a two-tailed, 0.05 hypothesis test, with a minimum effect size set at 10%. The mean difference in the proportion of sites achieving immediate suture line sealing was compared between the Control and Investigation Device groups.||0.314|0.103|0.05
95742636|NCT02420353|191456070|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7883|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7883
95742637|NCT02420353|191456071|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0901
95742638|NCT02420353|191456072|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6292
95742639|NCT02420353|191456073|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
95742640|NCT02420353|191456074|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.4437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4437
95742641|NCT02420353|191456075|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7325|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7325
95742642|NCT02420353|191456076|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.6291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6291
95742643|NCT02420353|191456077|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.3332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3332
95742644|NCT02420353|191456078|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95742645|NCT02420353|191456079|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4965
95742646|NCT02420353|191456080|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1331|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1331
95742647|NCT02420353|191456081|OTHER|Mixed-model analysis||||||0.5251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5251
95742648|NCT02420353|191456082|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
95742649|NCT02420353|191456083|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.4852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4852
95742650|NCT02420353|191456084|OTHER|||||||0.7943|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7943
95940476|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-178.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.092|-108.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-108.408|-249.092|<.0001
95940477|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-190.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.134|-144.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-144.850|-237.134|<.0001
95940478|NCT04800211|191847054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.483||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.096|28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||28.130|-77.096|0.3590
95940479|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.287|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|-1.992|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-1.992|-2.582|<.0001
95940480|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.722|-2.107|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.107|-2.722|<.0001
95742651|NCT02420353|191456085|OTHER|||||||0.0894|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0894
95796539|NCT02328105|191563133|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true overall response rate is 0.20 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 81% power to detect a difference of 0.15 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.09 significance level. A three stage design with n=15, 30 and 45 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 15, the rejection region in number of responses (CR or PR) is 0 - 2, for n = 30 it is 3 - 6, and for n = 45 it is 7 - 12.|Response Rate|0.364||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.692||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.692|0.109|0.161
95796540|NCT02328105|191563134|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.977|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.977|0.482|
95742652|NCT02420353|191456086|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0673|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0673
95742653|NCT02420353|191456087|OTHER|Mixed effects analysis||||||0.0185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0185
95742654|NCT02420353|191456088|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.6094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6094
95742655|NCT02420353|191456089|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.3279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3279
95742656|NCT02420353|191456090|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.2802|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2802
95742657|NCT02420353|191456091|OTHER|||||||0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1064
95796541|NCT02328105|191563135|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||13.0|2.2|
95940481|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.673|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.090|-2.673|<.0001
95940482|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.782|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.190|-2.782|<.0001
95940483|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.668|-2.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.233|-2.668|<.0001
95940484|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.466||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.747|0.185|0.0012
95940485|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.386|-0.187|0.4957
95950678|NCT02699099|191873153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates of the anti-yellow fever antibody , being below 10% for the two groups (Control Group minus Coad Group).|Difference in percentage|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to construct 95%CI for difference between groups||Difference in seropositivity rates against Yellow Fever antibodies: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the YF vaccine antigen when YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine are coadministered with SB257049 versus administration without SB257049.||3.65|-2.30|
95796542|NCT02328105|191563136|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate.||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||2.2|
95742658|NCT02420353|191456092|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0509|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
95742659|NCT02420353|191456093|OTHER|mixed effects analysis||||||0.1605|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1605
95742660|NCT02420353|191456094|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0357|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0357
95742661|NCT02420353|191456095|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0122
95742662|NCT02420353|191456096|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5853
95742663|NCT02420353|191456097|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.6288|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6288
95742664|NCT02420353|191456098|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.5022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5022
95796543|NCT02328105|191563137|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|11.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||11.9|4.9|
95742665|NCT02420353|191456099|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.7507|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7507
95742666|NCT02420353|191456100|OTHER|mixed effects model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95940486|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.266|-2.239|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.239|-3.266|<.0001
95940487|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|-1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.986|-3.043|<.0001
95940488|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|-2.336|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-2.336|-3.359|<.0001
95940489|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.105|-2.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.066|-3.105|<.0001
95989107|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular posterior tilt during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.032
95742667|NCT02420353|191456101|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
95742668|NCT02420353|191456102|OTHER|mixed effects model||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
95742669|NCT02420353|191456103|OTHER|Mixed effects model||||||0.8581|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8581
95742670|NCT00073307|191456104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.146||95.0|0.74|1.04||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||1.04|0.74|0.146
95742671|NCT00073307|191456105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0287||95.0|0.62|0.97||According to O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and total actual deaths at final analysis, threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.037 (two-sided).|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 33.3% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.75, Sorafenib over Placebo). With overall two-sided alpha of 0.04, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, two formal interim analyses and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of approximately 540 events (deaths) were required for the final analysis.||0.97|0.62|0.0287
95742672|NCT00073307|191456106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.35|0.55|||Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using log-rank test (Sorafenib over Placebo) stratified by country and Motzer category|The planned final PFS analysis was to be performed when approximately 363 progressions or deaths (if death occurred before progression) were observed. The analysis had power of 90% to detect a 50% increase in PFS using a two-sided alpha of 0.01||0.55|0.35|<0.000001
95742673|NCT00073307|191456107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates (CR+PR)|-2.1||||||95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjustments for country and Motzer category|difference in response rates (CR+PR) = Placebo - Sorafenib|||-0.6|-3.7|
95989108|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||1.5e-05||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular internal rotation during scaption Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.000015
95989109|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.296||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.296
95742674|NCT00073307|191456108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline FKSI-10 score and relative day of FKSI-10 completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.98
95742675|NCT00073307|191456109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||random coefficient model|Random coefficient model adjusted for baseline Motzer score, baseline PWB score and relative day of PWB completion.||Approximately 200 subjects per group, assuming a 10% drop out rate, were required to detect a 2 point difference between sorafenib and placebo at approximately 80% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||0.83
95858430|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|6.69||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.69|0.674|
95940490|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.901|-2.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.199|-2.901|<.0001
95940491|NCT04800211|191847055|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.071||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.489|-0.346|0.7372
95940492|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.710|-3.502|<.0001
95950157|NCT00759681|191872350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety was evaluated using non-inferiority hypothesis evaluating the proportion of cases with any instance of sign. bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response. Safety based on one-tailed, 0.05 alpha, with equivalence limit set at 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.003|||Exact binomial confidence limit|Safety: 95% confidence limits of the difference between groups, and ensuring that the upper limit of the difference was less than or equal to 15%.|The cumulative incidence of safety endpoints for the Investigational Treatment group was an average of 13.5% less than for the Control group.|The mean difference is equivalent to the proportion of Investigational Device patients minus the proportion of Control patients experiencing any instance of significant bleeding, neurological deficit or immune/inflammatory allergic response.||-0.003||0.05
95989110|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.457
95989111|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.311
95742676|NCT01370863|191456137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.452||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.054|16.149|||ANCOVA|||||16.149|-19.054|0.869
95742677|NCT01370863|191456138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diference in LS means|0.264||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|-0.495|0.487
95742678|NCT01370863|191456139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.087||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.326|||ANCOVA|||||0.326|-0.501|0.637
95742679|NCT01296841|191456140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|We performed t-test statistics for univariate comparisons for continuous variables.||||||<0.05
95742680|NCT05004649|191456162|OTHER|||||||0.024356||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024356
95742681|NCT05004649|191456162|OTHER|||||||0.040382||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.040382
95742682|NCT05004649|191456162|OTHER|||||||0.90161||||||When Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons the significance level across conditions is p \< 0.0167. This is the Bonferonni corrected level for three tests applied to a baseline significance value of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.90161
95742683|NCT01852799|191456164|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bALP changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.002
95796544|NCT02328105|191563138|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median disease control duration.|||13.0|3.0|
95858431|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|4.81||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.81|-0.0178|
95940493|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.414|-3.235|<.0001
95940494|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|-2.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.904|-3.553|<.0001
95940495|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.221|-2.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.457|-3.221|<.0001
95742684|NCT01852799|191456164|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||b-ALP changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
95742685|NCT01852799|191456164|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 1||||0.005
95742686|NCT01852799|191456164|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DKK-1 changes from baseline to cycle 4||||<0.001
95742687|NCT00834561|191456181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.14||||||90.0|99.99|108.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.47|99.99|
95796545|NCT00614393|191563139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|0.99|0.06
95796546|NCT00614393|191563139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|0.89|0.18
95796547|NCT00614393|191563140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.98|0.07
95796548|NCT00614393|191563140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.83|0.44
95796549|NCT01013753|191563149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.097|<0.0001
95796550|NCT01013753|191563149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.140|<0.0001
95796551|NCT01013753|191563149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.163|<0.0001
95742688|NCT00834561|191456182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|104.07||||||90.0|101.33|106.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.89|101.33|
95742689|NCT00834561|191456183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|103.68||||||90.0|101.42|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.00|101.42|
95742690|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2613|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.31||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. Comparing the incidence of anemia with VAC on ARST0531 to the historical rate of 0.40 with VAC on D9803. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.31||
95742691|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.027|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0449||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0449||
95742692|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.1351|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1729||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1729||
95742693|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.1216|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1577||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.1577||
95742694|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0405|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0623||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0623||
95742695|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of anemia|0.2798|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3329||||||Compare incidence of Anemia to historical rate of 0.40 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of anemia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.40.||0.3329||
95742696|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of nausea or hepatopathy|0.0052|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0137||||||Compare incidence of Nausea or Hepatopathy to historical rate of 0.05 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of nausea or hepatopathy will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.05.||0.0137||
95742697|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of febrile neutropenia|0.0881|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1216||||||Compare incidence of Febrile Neutropenia to historical rate of 0.50 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of febrile neutropenia will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.50.||0.1216||
95950158|NCT01129011|191872359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||17.1|7.9|0.001
95950159|NCT01129011|191872360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95796552|NCT01013753|191563149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.186|<0.0001
95796553|NCT01013753|191563149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.126|<0.0001
95796554|NCT01013753|191563150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.116|<0.0001
95989112|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.004
95989113|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
95989114|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.137||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.137
95989115|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.636||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.636
95989116|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.406||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular internal rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.406
95989117|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||The effects of muscle fatigue on scapular upward rotation during scaption. Muscle fatigue would change scapular kinematics during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during each angle of scaption.||||0.001
95989118|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.650
95989119|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.141
95989120|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
95989121|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during ascending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.005
95989122|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.083
95742698|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of platelet count decrease|0.3264|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3819||||||Compare incidence of Platelet Count Decreased to historical rate of 0.70 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of platelet count decreased will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.70.||0.3819||
95989123|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.389
95989124|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.542
95989125|NCT03066102|191953324|OTHER|||||||0.263||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.00625. (0.05/8=0.00625)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on kinematics changed of scapular upward rotation during descending 30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.263
95742699|NCT00354835|191456191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||The incidence of vomiting|0.0104|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0224||||||Compare incidence of Vomiting to historical rate of 0.15 from D9803, which is Randomized Study of VCR, Actinomycin-D, and CPM (VAC) vs. VAC alternating with VCR, Topotecan, and CPM (VTC) for Patients with Intermediate Risk RMS. The 95% one-sided confidence interval for the incidence of vomiting will be calculated and evaluated to see if the interval contains the null rate of 0.15.||0.0224||
95796555|NCT01013753|191563150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.166|<0.0001
95989126|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.331||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of upper trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.331
95989127|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of lower trapezius during each angle of scaption."||||0.627
95989128|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle activation of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle activation during scaption. Two way (angle x time) repeated measures. If there was an interaction between time and angle, further one way repeated measures would use to access the effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during each angle of scaption."||||0.042
95742700|NCT00354835|191456194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher neutropenia, with or without fever between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by the Fisher's exact test.||||0.99
95950160|NCT01129011|191872361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
95742701|NCT00354835|191456194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The incidences of grade 3 or higher diarrhea between UGT1A1 Genotypes (6/6, 6/7, 7/7) were compared by Fisher's exact test.||||0.036
95742702|NCT03922750|191456212|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.01||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.35|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||7.35|-5.33|0.7542
95742703|NCT03922750|191456212|OTHER||Estimated mean treatment difference|7.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.93|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response during last two weeks of treatment (week 15 and 16) were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, pre-trial insulin treatment and SGLT2i use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate. Missing endpoint values were imputed using multiple imputation based on own treatment arm with baseline response as a covariate. Each imputed dataset was analysed separately and estimates were combined using Rubin's rules.||13.93|1.83|0.0107
95742704|NCT01395017|191456221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||The log-rank test was used to test OS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for OS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors - treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Using a 1-sided alpha=0.2, a population of 200 participants (100 GEM plus dasatinib and 100 GEM plus placebo) has 79% power to show an increase in median OS from 10 to 13.3 months (hazard ratio \[HR\] =0.75, assuming analysis of 135 deaths).||1.65|0.85|0.3864
95742705|NCT01395017|191456222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||The log-rank test was used to test PFS. As a sensitivity analysis, HR and its confidence interval was also provided for PFS using the Cox proportional hazard model.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusting for baseline factors: treatment, ECOG PS, region, CA19-9 level (\< 1000 IU/mL or \>/=1000 IU/mL), and RT during trial (yes or no).||Trial has 88% power to show a median PFS increase from 5 to 7 months (with 1-sided alpha=0.15, total 176 events, HR=0.714).||1.34|0.73|0.6761
95742706|NCT01046084|191456231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|86.5|
95742707|NCT01046084|191456232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120|89.3|
95796556|NCT01013753|191563150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.186|<0.0001
95796557|NCT01013753|191563150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.203|<0.0001
95796558|NCT01013753|191563150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.231|0.137|<0.0001
95796559|NCT01013753|191563151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.073|<0.0001
95858432|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-0.619||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||-0.619|-7.83|
95950161|NCT01129011|191872362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
95796560|NCT01013753|191563151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
95950162|NCT01129011|191872363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95950163|NCT03557307|191872369|OTHER||percentage|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.86|66.76|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieved 100% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||66.76|58.86|
95950164|NCT03557307|191872370|OTHER||percentage|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.62|84.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve 100% reduction or a daily OCS dose of \<=5mg, if reason for no further OCS reduction is Adrenal Insufficiency, that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.94|78.62|
95742708|NCT01046084|191456233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|123.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123|92.5|
95742709|NCT04476277|191456262|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95742710|NCT04476277|191456264|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95950165|NCT03557307|191872371|OTHER||percentage|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.94|93.58|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage of patients who achieve a daily OCS dose of ≤5 mg (regardless of reason for no further OCS reduction), that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||93.58|88.94|
95742711|NCT04476277|191456265|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95742712|NCT04476277|191456266|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95742713|NCT04476277|191456267|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95742714|NCT04476277|191456268|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95796561|NCT01013753|191563151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.135|<0.0001
95742715|NCT04476277|191456269|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95742716|NCT04476277|191456270|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95742717|NCT04476277|191456271|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95742718|NCT04476277|191456272|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95950166|NCT03557307|191872372|OTHER||percentage|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.06|67.9|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (≥90% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=90% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||67.90|60.06|
95950167|NCT03557307|191872372|OTHER||percentage|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.02|72.59|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=75% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=75% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||72.59|65.02|
95742719|NCT04476277|191456273|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95742720|NCT04476277|191456274|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
95796562|NCT01013753|191563151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.164|<0.0001
95796563|NCT01013753|191563151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.194|0.110|<0.0001
95796564|NCT01013753|191563152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.056|<0.0001
95742721|NCT04476277|191456275|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95742722|NCT00835081|191456296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|95.9|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||110|95.9|
95742723|NCT00835081|191456297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||103|97.5|
95742724|NCT00835081|191456298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.8||||||90.0|97.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%|||102|97.4|
95742725|NCT00202839|191456323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1651
95742726|NCT01863186|191456368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0166
95742727|NCT01863186|191456368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Pattern Mixture Model|||Due to the amount of missing data a pattern mixture model (or Jump to Reference) was utilized. The SOWS-Gossop total scores were log transformed. Each subjects available data Days 1-7 were included. The datasets created by the pattern mixture model were analyzed using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures model that included fixed effects for treatment group, baseline, sex, study day (1-7), and treatment group-by-day interaction. The overall estimate for each treatment group were compared.||||0.0033
95742728|NCT01456962|191456414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95742729|NCT01456962|191456414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change in CD4+:CD8+ T cells ratio|-9.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|12.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment group and time on antiretroviral therapy|Change based on a 1 log unit increase in genital:plasma drug ratio|Null hypothesis: Higher genital to plasma antiretroviral drug ratios are not associated with higher cervical CD4+:CD8+ T cell ratios.||12|-27.3|0.4
95742730|NCT01167829|191456427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|183.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95742731|NCT04684485|191456437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1966
95742732|NCT04684485|191456437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5438
95742733|NCT04684485|191456437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3713
95742734|NCT04684485|191456438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4564
95742735|NCT04684485|191456438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2515
95940496|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.070|-2.828|<.0001
95940497|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.328|-2.718|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.718|-3.328|<.0001
95742736|NCT04684485|191456438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5055
95742737|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.337|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
95742738|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.337|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
95742739|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
95796565|NCT01013753|191563152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.090|<0.0001
95796566|NCT01013753|191563152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.116|<0.0001
95796567|NCT01013753|191563152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.134|<0.0001
95742740|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
95742741|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
95742742|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
95742743|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
95742744|NCT05029687|191456491|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
95742745|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
95742746|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
95742747|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
95742748|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Teach an adult how to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
95742749|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
95742750|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
95742751|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d1)"||||
95742752|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Encourage an adult to lower their high BP. (d2)"||||
95742753|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d1)"||||
95742754|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d2)"||||
95742755|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d1)"||||
95742756|NCT05029687|191456494|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|"Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention for the statement: Help an adult lower their BP. (d2)"||||
95796568|NCT01013753|191563152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.211|0.120|<0.0001
95796569|NCT01013753|191563153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.148|0.058|<0.0001
95742757|NCT05029687|191456496|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.457|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
95796570|NCT01013753|191563153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.088|<0.0001
95796571|NCT01013753|191563153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.124|<0.0001
95989129|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 30\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.021
95742758|NCT05029687|191456496|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.691|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
95742759|NCT05029687|191456496|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.841|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
95742760|NCT05029687|191456496|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
95742761|NCT05029687|191456498|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d1)||||
95742762|NCT05029687|191456498|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.266|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to post-intervention (d2)||||
95742763|NCT05029687|191456498|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d1 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the outcome at baseline to provide an effect size that might approximate one found in a randomized clinical trial if the placebo group saw no change from baseline.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d1)||||
95742764|NCT05029687|191456498|OTHER|Effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||d2 is mean change from baseline to follow-up divided by the standard deviation of the change from baseline to follow-up, to provide an effect size that would be useful for planning similar before-after studies.|Comparison of effect size: baseline to 1-month post-intervention (d2)||||
95796572|NCT01013753|191563153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.244|0.153|<0.0001
95796573|NCT01013753|191563153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.147|0.058|<0.0001
95989130|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 60\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.018
95742765|NCT00834444|191456509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.9||||||90.0|87.8|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107|87.8|
95742766|NCT00834444|191456510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.9|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.9|
95742767|NCT00834444|191456511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.0||||||90.0|97.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103|97.7|
95742768|NCT03060486|191456512|OTHER||Signed Rank Score Difference|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<.0001
95742769|NCT00874822|191456522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Ho: The Prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea in patients planning hip or knee arthroplasty will be no different using current screening techniques than it was in a historical control group.~The prevalence of OSA in the study population is hypothesized to be at least 10% higher than the best previous estimate of 6.7%. Employing a two-sided hypothesis test with α of 0.05 and power of 0.85 yields a sample size of 163."||24.4|13.6|<0.0001
95742770|NCT02854800|191456524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A separate t-test for each row was used to compare dropouts and completers.||||<0.05
95742771|NCT02854800|191456526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean medication side effect ratings across the three arms/groups to determine whether one group had more severe symptoms that may have been related to study dropout.||||<0.05
95796574|NCT01013753|191563154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|0.052|<0.0001
95989131|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during ascending 90\~120 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
95742772|NCT02854800|191456529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Mixed ANOVA was used with Study Week (1-12) as the within-subjects, repeated-measures factor and Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
95742773|NCT02854800|191456530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||One-way ANOVA was used for each side effect rating with Group as the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
95742774|NCT02854800|191456531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
95742775|NCT02854800|191456533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||Data were analyzed via mixed ANOVA whereby Study Visit (1-4) was the repeated-measures factor and Group (weekly, biweekly, monthly) was the between-subjects factor. If the overall F test was significant, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc tests were performed.||||<0.05
95742776|NCT01634139|191456535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.231|0.108|<0.0001
95742777|NCT01634139|191456535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.255|0.103|<0.0001
95742778|NCT01634139|191456536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.186|0.046|0.0012
95742779|NCT01634139|191456536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.188|0.048|0.0010
95742780|NCT01634139|191456536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.142|0.001|0.0477
95796575|NCT01013753|191563154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.106|<0.0001
95742781|NCT01634139|191456536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.170|0.029|0.0059
95796576|NCT01013753|191563154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.091|<0.0001
95742782|NCT01634139|191456537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|0.062|<0.0001
95742783|NCT01634139|191456537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.188|0.065|<0.0001
95742784|NCT01634139|191456538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.212|0.095|<0.0001
95742785|NCT01634139|191456538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.215|0.098|<0.0001
95742786|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.186|0.046|0.0012
95742787|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.188|0.048|0.0010
95796577|NCT01013753|191563154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.118|<0.0001
95796578|NCT01013753|191563154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.153|0.051|<0.0001
95742788|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.201|0.076|<0.0001
95742789|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.213|0.088|<0.0001
95742790|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.211|0.084|<0.0001
95742791|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (Week 24)||0.210|0.084|<0.0001
95742792|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.226|0.101|<0.0001
95742793|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.231|0.106|<0.0001
95742794|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.240|0.116|<0.0001
95742795|NCT01634139|191456539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.238|0.114|<0.0001
95796579|NCT01013753|191563155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0107||95.0|0.014|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.107|0.014|0.0107
95796580|NCT01013753|191563155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.069|<0.0001
95796581|NCT01013753|191563155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.161|0.069|<0.0001
95742796|NCT01634139|191456540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.184|0.036|0.0036
95742797|NCT01634139|191456540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.165|0.018|0.0152
95742798|NCT01634139|191456540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.143|-0.005|0.0687
95742799|NCT01634139|191456540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.126|-0.022|0.1666
95742800|NCT01634139|191456541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.171|0.013|0.0228
95742801|NCT01634139|191456541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
95742802|NCT01634139|191456541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.141|-0.017|0.1256
95742803|NCT01634139|191456541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.026|0.1880
95742804|NCT01634139|191456542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.172|0.037|0.0023
95742805|NCT01634139|191456542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.143|0.009|0.0255
95796582|NCT01013753|191563155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.098|<0.0001
95742806|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose (Week 24)||0.171|0.013|0.0228
95940498|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.354|-2.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.897|-3.354|<.0001
95940499|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.298|0.518|<.0001
95940500|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||1.679|0.902|<.0001
95940501|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.174||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.490|-0.142|0.2772
95940502|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.278|-4.750|<.0001
95950168|NCT03557307|191872372|OTHER||percentage|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.44|84.79|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (\>=50% reduction)|Percentage of patients who achieve \>=50% reduction in daily OCS dose that are sustained over at least 4 weeks without worsening of asthma|||84.79|78.44|
95742807|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|10 minutes pre-dose.(Week 24)||0.131|-0.027|0.1980
95742808|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.150|0.006|0.0344
95742809|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|30 minutes post-dose (Week 24)||0.139|-0.005|0.0696
95796583|NCT01013753|191563155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.137|0.044|0.0001
95796584|NCT01013753|191563156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.036|0.0005
95742810|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.182|0.037|0.0032
95742811|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|1 hour post-dose (week 24)||0.132|-0.012|0.1044
95742812|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.186|0.039|0.0027
95742813|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|2 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.166|0.020|0.0130
95742814|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (week 24)||0.190|0.041|0.0025
95742815|NCT01634139|191456543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|3 hours post-dose (Week 24)||0.166|0.017|0.0156
95742816|NCT01634139|191456544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.051|-0.382|0.1349
95796585|NCT01013753|191563156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.090|<0.0001
95796586|NCT01013753|191563156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.083|<0.0001
95742817|NCT01634139|191456544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.008|-0.425|0.0588
95742818|NCT01634139|191456544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.065|-0.372|0.1675
95742819|NCT01634139|191456544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.017|-0.419|0.0709
95742820|NCT01634139|191456545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.012|-0.245|0.0749
95742821|NCT01634139|191456545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.013|-0.269|0.0305
95742822|NCT01634139|191456545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.004|-0.255|0.0581
95742823|NCT01634139|191456545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||-0.002|-0.260|0.0464
95742824|NCT01634139|191456546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.025|-0.217|0.1182
95742825|NCT01634139|191456546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.006|-0.246|0.0404
95742826|NCT01634139|191456546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.023|-0.221|0.1105
95796587|NCT01013753|191563156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.111|<0.0001
95940503|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.115|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.865|-3.365|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.365|-4.865|<.0001
95940504|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.005|-2.801|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.801|-4.005|<.0001
95742827|NCT01634139|191456546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.019|-0.224|0.0983
95742828|NCT01634139|191456547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|19.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||19.077|-2.063|0.1146
95742829|NCT01634139|191456547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.365||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.034|18.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||18.020|-3.034|0.1628
95742830|NCT01634139|191456547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.435||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|16.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||16.203|-5.127|0.3085
95940505|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.473|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.020|-4.473|<.0001
95940506|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.461|-3.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-3.018|-4.461|<.0001
95950169|NCT03557307|191872373|OTHER||percentage change from baseline|-76.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|-73.94|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval|Percentage change from baseline in daily OCS dose at the end of OCS reduction phase|||-73.94|-79.90|
95989132|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 120\~90 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.002
95742831|NCT01634139|191456547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.847|19.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||19.394|-1.847|0.1053
95742832|NCT01634139|191456548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.451||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|23.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||23.056|1.663|0.0236
95742833|NCT01634139|191456548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.427||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.497|24.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||24.794|3.497|0.0093
95796588|NCT01013753|191563156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.143|0.051|<0.0001
95796589|NCT01013753|191563157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0952||95.0|-0.008|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.008|0.0952
95940507|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.610|-3.784|<.0001
95940508|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.678|-2.921|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||-2.921|-3.678|<.0001
95940509|NCT04800211|191847056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (MiTT Population)||0.226|-0.638|0.3480
95940510|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.481|-0.951|<0.0001
95940511|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.406|-0.966|<0.0001
95940512|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.288|-0.755|<.0001
95950170|NCT02584257|191872380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.732|3.61||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||3.610|2.732|<0.0001
95796590|NCT01013753|191563157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0003||95.0|0.048|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.048|0.0003
95796591|NCT01013753|191563157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0016||95.0|0.034|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.034|0.0016
95796592|NCT01013753|191563157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.071|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.071|<0.0001
95796593|NCT01013753|191563157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.0096||95.0|0.018|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.129|0.018|0.0096
95796594|NCT01013753|191563158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.147||95.0|-0.013|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.088|-0.013|0.1470
95796595|NCT01013753|191563158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0003||95.0|0.042|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.042|0.0003
95796596|NCT01013753|191563158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.060|<0.0001
95796597|NCT01013753|191563158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.078|<0.0001
95796598|NCT01013753|191563158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0448||95.0|0.001|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.101|0.001|0.0448
95796599|NCT01013753|191563159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.277|0.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.539|0.277|<0.0001
95858433|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.12||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.12|-4.45|
95940513|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.072|-0.612|0.0131
95796600|NCT01013753|191563159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.438|0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.695|0.438|<0.0001
95796601|NCT01013753|191563159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.482|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.743|0.482|<0.0001
95796602|NCT01013753|191563159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.539|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.801|0.539|<0.0001
95796603|NCT01013753|191563159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|0.457|0.718|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.718|0.457|<0.0001
95796604|NCT01013753|191563160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.213|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.461|0.213|<0.0001
95796605|NCT01013753|191563160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.363|0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.606|0.363|<0.0001
95796606|NCT01013753|191563160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.408|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.655|0.408|<0.0001
95950171|NCT02584257|191872380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.384|4.263||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.263|3.384|<0.0001
95858434|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.969||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||0.969|-4.81|
95989133|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 90\~60 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.035
95989134|NCT03066102|191953325|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The level of statistical significance was adjusted at P\<0.0083. (0.05/6=0.0083)|ANOVA|||"The effects of time on muscle activation changed of serratus anterior during descending 60\~30 degree of scaption.~One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.05
95989135|NCT03066102|191953326|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of upper trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.5
95989136|NCT03066102|191953326|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of lower trapezius during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.843
95989137|NCT03066102|191953326|OTHER|||||||0.466||||||The level of statistical significance was set at P \< 0.05|ANOVA|||"The effects of muscle fatigue on muscle onset timing of serratus anterior during scaption.~Muscle fatigue would change muscle onset timing during scaption. One-way repeated measures analysis of variance."||||0.466
95989138|NCT01496066|191953330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95742834|NCT01634139|191456548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.497||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.667|8.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||8.904|-12.667|0.7322
95940514|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-0.712|<.0001
95940515|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.007|-0.455|0.0435
95940516|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.111||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.371|-0.149|0.4012
95940517|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.485||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.895|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.895|0.0133
95989139|NCT01496066|191953331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95989140|NCT01496066|191953332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95989141|NCT01496066|191953333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0318
95742835|NCT01634139|191456548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.481||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.578|14.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||14.929|-6.578|0.4463
95989142|NCT01496066|191953334|EQUIVALENCE|a two-group t-test of equivalence in means was used|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-0.06|
95989143|NCT01764633|191953344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups at a significance level of 0.05.||0.92|0.79|< 0.0001
95989144|NCT01764633|191953345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at the 0.05 level, the key secondary endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||0.88|0.73|< 0.0001
95989145|NCT01764633|191953346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary and key secondary endpoints reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of cardiovascular death was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||1.25|0.88|0.6188
95796607|NCT01013753|191563160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.524|0.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.772|0.524|<0.0001
95796608|NCT01013753|191563160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.428|0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.674|0.428|<0.0001
95796609|NCT01013753|191563161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.493|0.253|<0.0001
95796610|NCT01013753|191563161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.409|0.645|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.645|0.409|<0.0001
95796611|NCT01013753|191563161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|0.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.692|0.453|<0.0001
95796612|NCT01013753|191563161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.54|0.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.781|0.540|<0.0001
95940518|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.797||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|-0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.317|-1.277|0.0002
95940519|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.699|0.2641
95989146|NCT01764633|191953347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints at an overall significant level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.19|0.91|0.5368
95796613|NCT01013753|191563161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.451|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.689|0.451|<0.0001
95796614|NCT01013753|191563162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.436|0.168|<0.0001
95796615|NCT01013753|191563162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001||95.0|0.297|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.561|0.297|<0.0001
95796616|NCT01013753|191563162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.599|0.333|<0.0001
95796617|NCT01013753|191563162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.4|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.669|0.400|<0.0001
95796618|NCT01013753|191563162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.637|0.371|<0.0001
95796619|NCT01013753|191563163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002||95.0|0.127|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.127|0.0002
95796620|NCT01013753|191563163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.333|0.602|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.602|0.333|<0.0001
95796621|NCT01013753|191563163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.348|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.620|0.348|<0.0001
95742836|NCT01634139|191456549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.775|2.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.299|-1.775|0.8008
95742837|NCT01634139|191456549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.875|2.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||2.208|-1.875|0.8731
95742838|NCT01634139|191456549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.058||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.803|2.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||2.346|-1.803|0.7975
95742839|NCT01634139|191456549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||1.498|-2.656|0.5845
95742840|NCT01634139|191456550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.113|-0.075|0.6932
95796622|NCT01013753|191563163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.487|0.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.761|0.487|<0.0001
95796623|NCT01013753|191563163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|0.311|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.583|0.311|<0.0001
95796624|NCT01013753|191563164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.0001||95.0|14.802|29.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||29.223|14.802|<0.0001
95940520|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.924|0.0639
95940521|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||-0.305|-0.945|0.0001
95742841|NCT01634139|191456550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.029|-0.158|0.1741
95742842|NCT01634139|191456550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.118|-0.071|0.6250
95742843|NCT01634139|191456550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.109|0.7597
95742844|NCT01634139|191456551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.073|-0.122|0.6166
95742845|NCT01634139|191456551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.021|-0.173|0.1267
95742846|NCT01634139|191456551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.105|-0.092|0.9000
95742847|NCT01634139|191456551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.055|-0.141|0.3897
95940522|NCT04800211|191847057|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7. (mITT Population)||0.038|-0.725|0.0776
95950172|NCT02584257|191872380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.876|3.764||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL.||||3.764|2.876|<0.0001
95742848|NCT01634139|191456552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.022|-0.262|0.0975
95742849|NCT01634139|191456552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.041|-0.323|0.0116
95742850|NCT01634139|191456552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.078|-0.208|0.3732
95796625|NCT01013753|191563164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001||95.0|21.931|36.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||36.114|21.931|<0.0001
95796626|NCT01013753|191563164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|<|0.0001||95.0|20.755|35.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.019|20.755|<0.0001
95940523|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.621||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|-0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.186|-1.055|0.0055
95940524|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.778||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.316|-1.240|0.0011
95796627|NCT01013753|191563164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668|<|0.0001||95.0|25.73|40.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.139|25.730|<0.0001
95950173|NCT02584257|191872380|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Differences|3.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.315||Fixed effects of dose, week, and sequence and the random effect of the patient was carried out to ensure that the overall treatment effect was significant at p\<0.05.|Brief Mixed Models Analysis|For this model, the dependent variable was log2(PC20FEV1) values where PC20FEV1 was measured in mg/mL||||4.315|3.430|<0.0001
95742851|NCT01634139|191456552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.049|-0.236|0.1985
95796628|NCT01013753|191563164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001||95.0|16.371|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||30.686|16.371|<0.0001
95950679|NCT02699099|191873179|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (1 month post-Dose 3 of SB257049) was defined as the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (RTS,S group/Coad group) for anti-CS, being below a limit of 2.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||ANOVA|||Adjusted GMC ratios for anti-CS antibody: To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antibody response to the CS antigen when SB257049 is co-administered with YF vaccine and a combined measles and rubella vaccine versus SB257049 administered alone.||1.07|0.81|
95742852|NCT01634139|191456554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.316|0.035|0.0144
95742853|NCT01634139|191456554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.267|-0.013|0.0747
95742854|NCT01634139|191456554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.120|-0.163|0.7654
95742855|NCT01634139|191456554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.158|-0.124|0.8082
95742856|NCT01634139|191456555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.341|0.009|0.0392
95742857|NCT01634139|191456555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.292|-0.039|0.1351
95742858|NCT01634139|191456555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.149|-0.185|0.8291
95742859|NCT01634139|191456555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.171|-0.163|0.9655
95940525|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.540|-1.260|<.0001
95940526|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.103|-0.938|0.0150
95940527|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.074|-0.771|0.1048
95940528|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.507|-1.185|<.0001
95742860|NCT01634139|191456556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.343|0.039|0.0139
95742861|NCT01634139|191456556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.276|-0.026|0.1043
95742862|NCT01634139|191456556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.187|-0.118|0.6547
95742863|NCT01634139|191456556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.222|-0.082|0.3648
95742864|NCT01634139|191456557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.312|0.020|0.0256
95742865|NCT01634139|191456557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.286|-0.004|0.0561
95742866|NCT01634139|191456557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.085|-0.208|0.4127
95940529|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|-0.619|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.619|-1.127|<.0001
95940530|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.247||||0.2525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.671|-0.178|0.2525
95940531|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.527|-0.330|0.6503
95950174|NCT02584257|191872380|EQUIVALENCE|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 60 patients completed all treatment visits which determined that 80 subjects would be sufficient to complete the study with 90% power.|Frel|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.48|||||Frel is the relative bioavailability of the test versus reference product. The CI was a bias corrected and accelerated CI based on a bootstrapping procedure. The FDA acceptable CI was between 0.67 and 1.50.|An Emax model was developed and the 90% confidence interval of Frel was a bias corrected accelerated confidence interval based on a bootstrapping procedure. The bootstrapping procedure used for this analysis was residual resampling. The Per-Protocol population was the primary population for bioequivalence analysis. Patients in the PP population must have completed at least 2 treatment periods with valid PC20FEV1 measurements and had no major protocol deviations within those intervals.||1.48|0.93|
95950175|NCT00065611|191872382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9074
95742867|NCT01634139|191456557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.156|-0.136|0.8922
95742868|NCT01634139|191456559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.061|-0.080|0.7931
95858435|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|6.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||6.10|-1.15|
95858436|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|13.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||13.9|4.30|
95742869|NCT01634139|191456559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.005|-0.145|0.0369
95742870|NCT01634139|191456559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.041|-0.101|0.4086
95742871|NCT01634139|191456559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.4714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.045|-0.097|0.4714
95742872|NCT01634139|191456560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.092|-0.091|0.9880
95742873|NCT01634139|191456560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.010|-0.173|0.0794
95742874|NCT01634139|191456560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.145|0.2623
95742875|NCT01634139|191456560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.040|-0.136|0.3552
95742876|NCT01634139|191456561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.058|-0.135|0.4359
95742877|NCT01634139|191456561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.037|-0.155|0.2293
95742878|NCT01634139|191456561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.088|-0.108|0.8372
95742879|NCT01634139|191456561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.046|-0.148|0.3022
95742880|NCT01634139|191456562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.060|-0.122|0.5004
95742881|NCT01634139|191456562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.031|-0.149|0.1982
95742882|NCT01634139|191456562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.103|0.8019
95742883|NCT01634139|191456562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.059|-0.123|0.4872
95742884|NCT01634139|191456563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.048|-0.135|0.3498
95742885|NCT01634139|191456563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||-0.015|-0.196|0.0222
95742886|NCT01634139|191456563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.080|-0.104|0.7990
95742887|NCT01634139|191456563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.057|-0.126|0.4586
95742888|NCT01634139|191456564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.065|-0.156|0.4221
95742889|NCT01634139|191456564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.017|-0.204|0.0959
95742890|NCT01634139|191456564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.114|-0.109|0.9627
95742891|NCT01634139|191456564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.058|-0.165|0.3457
95742892|NCT01634139|191456565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.125|-0.043|0.3375
95950176|NCT00065611|191872383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4566||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4566
95950177|NCT00065611|191872384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3792
95950178|NCT01358175|191872385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|2.20|<0.0001
95950179|NCT01358175|191872385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|6.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.65|2.28|<0.0001
95950180|NCT04908488|191872409|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Means Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Within subject correlation due to eye and the crossover design were accounted for in the model.|Lens difference (P1fA minus AMfA)|||-0.01||
95950181|NCT01694199|191872416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3529|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3529
95950182|NCT01694199|191872417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2766|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2766
95940532|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.239||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.588|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.588|-0.109|0.1759
95940533|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.867||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.674|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.060|-1.674|0.0293
95950183|NCT01694199|191872418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1467|||||||ANOVA|||P=0.1467||||0.1467
95742893|NCT01634139|191456565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 24||0.121|-0.047|0.3880
95742894|NCT01634139|191456565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.104|-0.066|0.6541
95950184|NCT01694199|191872419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5009|||||||ANOVA|||P = 0.5009||||0.5009
95950185|NCT01694199|191872420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9038
95742895|NCT01634139|191456565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Week 48||0.133|-0.056|0.5089
95742896|NCT03068780|191456591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3||P-value adjusted with CHW method using CMH test statistics based on a test stratified by EB subtype and target wound size class estimated separately before and after the interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.Threshold of superiority p\<0.05.|Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) approach|Primary efficacy endpoint was first assessed with the CMH test, but the final statistical analysis was performed based on the CHW approach.|The CMH test statistic from the data until the interim analysis (IA) and the CMH test statistic of the data after the IA must be calculated separately. The results are then combined using the CHW weighted approach to one test-statistic.|||3.30|1.02|0.013
95742897|NCT03068780|191456592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||Threshold of superiority is p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.302
95742898|NCT04281472|191456600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.614||||||||0.614|0.253|
95742899|NCT00840658|191456635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the odds of higher receptive needle sharing. (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in receptive needle sharing but the control group will not.)|To examine the receptive needle sharing outcome, we used ordinal logistic regression for correlated data via GEE with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final ordinal logistic regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.036
95742900|NCT00840658|191456636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for the Ciudad Juarez site and it corresponds to the interaction between group (Intervention vs. Control) and study visit (12-months vs. baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the intervention and the control group with respect to the change in the mean score IRI (i.e., The interaction between study visit (baseline, 4-, 8-, and 12-months) and intervention group will be significant at 0.05 significance level. Over time, the intervention group will experience a significant decline in the IRI but the control group will not.)|We used gamma regression for correlated data via GEE, with the correlation matrix estimated empirically from the data. The final analyses were stratified by site. The final gamma regression models included the following main effects: Group, Visit, and Visit\*Group interaction, with our primary interest in the Visit\*Group interaction, as a significant p-value would be indicative of an intervention effect.|||0.013
95742901|NCT00474058|191456649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55||||0.0002||95.0|-5.37|-1.73||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple test procedure in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-1.73|-5.37|0.0002
95950186|NCT02206607|191872431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.09|34.8||||||||34.80|28.09|
95940534|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|-0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.038|-1.714|0.0362
95940535|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|-0.469|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.469|-1.809|<.0001
95940536|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.767||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.559|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.025|-1.559|0.0621
95940537|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.447||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.352|-1.246|0.5259
95940538|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.736|-0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.435|-1.736|<.0001
95940539|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|-0.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-0.693|-1.532|<.0001
95950187|NCT02206607|191872431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|25.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.11|28.27||||||||28.27|23.11|
95950188|NCT02206607|191872431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|32.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.93|35.49||||||||35.49|28.93|
95742902|NCT00474058|191456650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.08|-2.45||No p-value adjustment was necessary, since a multiple testing in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner for the primary variable was applied.|ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-2.45|-6.08|<0.0001
95742903|NCT00474058|191456651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0301||95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||-0.04|-0.79|0.0301
95742904|NCT00474058|191456652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8842||95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of covariance were performed for the efficacy variables with treatment and (pooled) sites as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Least square means (LS means) for treatment effect were calculated and differences between rotigotine and placebo were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p- values.||0.25|-0.29|0.8842
95742905|NCT02640235|191456680|NON_INFERIORITY|The logistic regression estimates are generated from predicted values of the fitted logistic regression model. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than -10, Celstat is non-inferior to Surgicel. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 0, Celstat will be declared superior to Surgicel.|Difference in avg predicted proportion|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-1.4|-15.6|
95742906|NCT02640235|191456683|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.1|-3.6|
95742907|NCT02640235|191456684|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.5|-12|
95742908|NCT02640235|191456685|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.3|-5.7|
95742909|NCT02640235|191456686|OTHER||Difference in avg predicted proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.4|-3.9|
95742910|NCT01322633|191456688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.93|0.24|
95742911|NCT01322633|191456689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.4||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.40|0.65|
95742912|NCT01322633|191456690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||||||Analysis was based on hazard ratio using Cox proportional hazard regression method adjusted for sex, age, cumulative PPI dose, total years of PPI treatment, diabetes, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and year of index date.||1.21|0.93|
95742913|NCT05109104|191456691|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95742914|NCT05109104|191456691|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95742915|NCT05109104|191456691|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|Labeled SPF|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95742916|NCT01149057|191456692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95742917|NCT01149057|191456693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of L1-L4 T-scores||||0.3778
95742918|NCT01149057|191456693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total spine T-score||||0.1541
95742919|NCT01149057|191456693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Total hip - left T-score||||0.7890
95742920|NCT01149057|191456693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094|TWO_SIDED|||||P value by ANCOVA for the change from baseline, adjusted to number of days between the first and the second DXA test.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Femoral neck - left T-scores.||||0.7094
95742921|NCT01149057|191456699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95742922|NCT01149057|191456699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95742923|NCT01149057|191456699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
95742924|NCT01149057|191456699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
95742925|NCT01149057|191456700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
95742926|NCT01149057|191456701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
95742927|NCT01149057|191456702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
95742928|NCT01149057|191456703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||Analysis was performed using paired sample t-test for change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95742929|NCT01149057|191456704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
95742930|NCT01149057|191456705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
95742931|NCT01149057|191456706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired sample T-test|||||||<0.0001
95940540|NCT04800211|191847058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||0.427|-0.535|0.8248
95950189|NCT02206607|191872432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|15.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.357||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.39|20.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.06|11.39|1.0000
95742932|NCT01149057|191456707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95742933|NCT01149057|191456707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95742934|NCT01149057|191456707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||<0.0001
95742935|NCT01149057|191456707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||<0.0001
95742936|NCT00270634|191456738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.3|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|The 6-month BPAR rate was used to calculate an estimate of the difference in rates between each VCS group and TAC, combining across pooled investigative center strata, weighted by the number of patients in each of the pooled center strata. The overall standard error was estimated for the linear combination of proportions. Using this statistic and its standard error, the upper bound one-sided 95% C.I. was constructed for the difference in BPAR rates between groups (VCS - TAC).||1.3||
95742937|NCT00270634|191456738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||10.8||
95742938|NCT00270634|191456738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined holding the probability of a type-I error at a = 0.05, and the power at 0.76. The rate of BPAR at 6 months posttransplant was assumed to be 0.20 in the control arm, and the noninferiority margin was chosen to be -0.15. A sample size for this phase-2b trial is determined to be 76 subjects in each dose group or a total of 304 patients. Assuming a 10% dropout rate during the study, ∼332 subjects were to be proportionally randomized in this study.|Weighted Average Difference|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4|||t-test, 1 sided||The upper bound of the confidence interval was a measure of non-inferiority of VCS to TAC. VCS was considered non-inferior to TAC if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound was less than 15%.|||11.4||
95742939|NCT03405363|191456762|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|||1.47|0.98|
95742940|NCT03405363|191456763|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.74|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||3.74|0.90|
95742941|NCT03405363|191456764|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.36|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||2.36|0.71|
95742942|NCT03405363|191456765|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.87|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.87|0.79|
95742943|NCT03405363|191456766|OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|No formal hypotheses were tested.||1.56|0.64|
95742944|NCT03405363|191456767|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84|||Poisson regression model|Including exposure, natural logarithm of person-years at risk as offset, propensity score quintiles, and LAMA use at the index date as a covariate.|Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis was based on Propensity score-trimmed population of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) derived from the Danish Patient Registry.||1.84|1.44|
95742945|NCT03405363|191456767|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.78|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|"Analysis based on post-hoc population 1.~Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications, fixed-dose combinations of Short-Acting Beta2- Agonist and Short-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist and systemic antibacterials. COPD severity, number of: all-cause hospitalisations 365 and 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 and 90 days, COPD hospitalisations 180 and 90 days, and COPD exacerbations 90 days before index date."||1.78|1.23|
95742946|NCT03405363|191456767|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Incidende Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.64|||Poisson regression model||Olodaterol compared to 'other LABA' as reference|Analysis based on post-hoc population 2. Adjustments: propensity score decile, previous use of: LAMA, oxygen, inhaled glucocorticoid, respiratory medications. COPD severity, number of all-cause hospitalisations 180 days, COPD exacerbations 180 days before cohort entry.||1.64|0.97|
95742947|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.309|0.252|<0.0001
95742948|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.087|<0.0001
95742949|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.139|0.082|<0.0001
95742950|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.306|0.249|<0.0001
95742951|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.083|<0.0001
95858437|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|8.94||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 1, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||8.94|3.12|
95940541|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.821||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.369|4.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.273|1.369|0.0002
95742952|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.152|0.096|<0.0001
95742953|NCT01559116|191456775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.136|0.079|<0.0001
95742954|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.289|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.349|0.289|<0.0001
95742955|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.156|0.096|<0.0001
95742956|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.149|0.089|<0.0001
95742957|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.354|0.293|<0.0001
95742958|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.161|0.101|<0.0001
95858438|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|2.82||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.82|-4.65|
95742959|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.169|0.109|<0.0001
95742960|NCT01559116|191456776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.093|<0.0001
95742961|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.273|0.212|<0.0001
95742962|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.133|0.074|<0.0001
95742963|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.132|0.072|<0.0001
95742964|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.262|0.201|<0.0001
95742965|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
95742966|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.140|0.080|<0.0001
95796629|NCT01013753|191563165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001||95.0|7.77|22.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.071|7.770|<0.0001
95940542|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||5.086|1.850|<.0001
95950190|NCT02206607|191872432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.399||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|11.93|20.7||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and subjects-within-sequence as random effects.||||20.70|11.93|1.000
95742967|NCT01559116|191456777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.121|0.061|<0.0001
95742968|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.241|0.173|<0.0001
95742969|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.126|0.059|<0.0001
95742970|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.113|0.045|<0.0001
95742971|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.235|0.167|<0.0001
95796630|NCT01013753|191563165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.0001||95.0|17.801|31.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.866|17.801|<0.0001
95950191|NCT02206607|191872432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|20.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|16.13|24.62||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.62|16.13|1.0000
95796631|NCT01013753|191563165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.601|<|0.0001||95.0|16.539|30.686|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||30.686|16.539|<0.0001
95950192|NCT02206607|191872433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.28|27.31||||||||27.31|23.28|
95742972|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.120|0.052|<0.0001
95742973|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.135|0.067|<0.0001
95742974|NCT01559116|191456778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.107|0.039|<0.0001
95742975|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.371|0.305|<0.0001
95742976|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.153|0.087|<0.0001
95858439|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||3.44|-4.33|
95940543|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.245||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|3.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.679|0.812|0.0022
95940544|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|4.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.891|1.768|<.0001
95940545|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.399|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|4.545|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.545|2.252|<.0001
95940546|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||2.633|-0.132|0.0761
95950193|NCT02206607|191872433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|26.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|28.57||||||||28.57|24.36|
95950194|NCT02206607|191872433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.09|40.02||||||||40.02|34.09|
95950195|NCT02206607|191872439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR1/IR|31.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.28|34.1||||||||34.10|28.28|
95742977|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.143|0.078|<0.0001
95742978|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.383|0.317|<0.0001
95858440|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.378|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.95||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.95|-2.20|
95742979|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.164|0.098|<0.0001
95742980|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.165|0.099|<0.0001
95742981|NCT01559116|191456779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.155|0.089|<0.0001
95742982|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.477|0.389|<0.0001
95742983|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.253|0.166|<0.0001
95742984|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.221|0.133|<0.0001
95742985|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.441|0.352|<0.0001
95742986|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.217|0.129|<0.0001
95742987|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated. is calculated.|||0.203|0.115|<0.0001
95796632|NCT01013753|191563165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.637|<|0.0001||95.0|21.305|35.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||35.594|21.305|<0.0001
95796633|NCT01013753|191563165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001||95.0|13.341|27.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||27.538|13.341|<0.0001
95940547|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.778||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.286|0.269|0.0211
95950196|NCT02206607|191872439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR2/IR|24.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.73|27.4||||||||27.40|22.73|
95742988|NCT01559116|191456780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.184|0.096|<0.0001
95796634|NCT01013753|191563166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.989|-0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.999|-2.989|<0.0001
95950197|NCT02206607|191872439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio MR3/IR|31.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.86|34.81||||||||34.81|28.86|
95796635|NCT01013753|191563166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.073|-1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-1.116|-3.073|<0.0001
95796636|NCT01013753|191563166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0003||95.0|-2.824|-0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.849|-2.824|0.0003
95950198|NCT04604652|191872474|OTHER||||||=|0.077|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A t-test was performed to test for the percent change from baseline to Week 12. This analysis was based on observed data without imputation. Testing was one sided using a 5% alpha level. No multiplicity adjustment was used, and the p-values reported for the endpoints were descriptive in nature.||||=0.077
95742989|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.509|0.417|<0.0001
95742990|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.246|0.154|<0.0001
95742991|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.133|<0.0001
95742992|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.490|0.396|<0.0001
95742993|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.227|0.134|<0.0001
95742994|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.218|0.125|<0.0001
95742995|NCT01559116|191456781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.206|0.113|<0.0001
95742996|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.453|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.453|0.355|<0.0001
95742997|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.267|0.170|<0.0001
95742998|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.223|0.126|<0.0001
95742999|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.400|0.301|<0.0001
95743000|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.214|0.117|<0.0001
95743001|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.197|0.099|<0.0001
95743002|NCT01559116|191456782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.170|0.072|<0.0001
95743003|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.385|0.274|<0.0001
95858441|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|4.62||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||4.62|-2.86|
95743004|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.225|0.115|<0.0001
95743005|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.176|0.066|<0.0001
95743006|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.363|0.251|<0.0001
95858442|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|6.8||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||6.80|-0.966|
95858443|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|5.52||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.52|0.366|
95950199|NCT00068107|191872493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR measured pre-study was compared to eGFR during the study||||0.01
95743007|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.092|<0.0001
95743008|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.222|0.111|<0.0001
95743009|NCT01559116|191456783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.154|0.043|<0.0001
95743010|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.516|0.408|<0.0001
95743011|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.212|0.105|<0.0001
95743012|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.205|0.098|<0.0001
95743013|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Placebo is calculated.|||0.507|0.398|<0.0001
95743014|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Olodaterol (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.203|0.095|<0.0001
95940548|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||4.092|-0.951|0.3841
95940549|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.084|4.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.464|-1.084|0.3934
95743015|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium low dose (2.5 µg) is calculated.|||0.216|0.107|<0.0001
95743016|NCT01559116|191456784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment,period and random effect for patient.|Adjusted mean difference to Tiotropium high dose (5 µg) is calculated.|||0.196|0.087|<0.0001
95743017|NCT06475729|191456785|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.0956||||||||1.0956|0.9853|
95743018|NCT06475729|191456786|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9564|1.0685||||||||1.0685|0.9564|
95743019|NCT06475729|191456787|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameters were analyzed using a fixed-effects model. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9568|1.0678||||||||1.0678|0.9568|
95796637|NCT01013753|191563166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0004||95.0|-2.783|-0.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.795|-2.783|0.0004
95796638|NCT01013753|191563166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.0118||95.0|-2.258|-0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.283|-2.258|0.0118
95743020|NCT03867760|191456797|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to detect a difference in pain intensity of at least 0.85 points corresponding to an effect size of 0.57 based on results from our pilot study. The sample size needed was 50 per group based on power of .80, alpha of .05.||||||0.809||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain intensity than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.809
95743021|NCT03867760|191456798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in addition to baseline pain medications in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain interference than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.369
95743022|NCT03867760|191456799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in anxiety than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.029
95743023|NCT03867760|191456800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in depression than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.236
95743024|NCT03867760|191456801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in fatigue than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.904
95743025|NCT03867760|191456802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA|We controlled for pre-treatment scores in the ANCOVA analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention for 28 days will not report significantly greater pre- to post-treatment decreases in sleep disturbance than cancer survivors assigned to the relaxation intervention.||||0.936
95743026|NCT03867760|191456803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||An a priori significance level was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Cancer survivors with chronic pain assigned to the daily use of the hypnosis intervention who experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain intensity will not have a significantly higher pre-treatment treatment credibility and expectancy score than non-improvers.||||0.02
95743027|NCT01942135|191456818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.56||The overall Type-I error rate was persevered at 1-sided 0.025 level for the analysis of the primary endpoint PFS by the Haybittle-Peto efficacy boundary. The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.00135.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||0.560|0.318|<0.000001
95743028|NCT01942135|191456820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814|||=|0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.029||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by the presence of visceral metastases and sensitivity to prior endocrine therapy per randomization.|Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)|The log rank test stratified by sensitivity to prior hormonal therapy and the presence of visceral metastases based on the randomization information.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant.|The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.||1.029|0.644|=0.0429
95743029|NCT01942135|191456822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|5.603||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||5.603|1.563|0.0001
95796639|NCT01013753|191563167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0002
95940550|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.995||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.505|3.494|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||3.494|-1.505|0.7782
95743030|NCT01942135|191456824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|4.565||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided, alpha=0.025.|Exact test (1-sided)|The 1-sided p-value is from the stratified exact test.|An odds ratio \> 1 means better clinical benefit response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.||4.565|2.046|<0.0001
95743031|NCT01942135|191456828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.0||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for Global health status/ QoL||6.0|0.3|0.0313
95743032|NCT01942135|191456828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for physical functioning||3.5|-1.4|0.4000
95743033|NCT01942135|191456828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for role functioning||5.3|-1.5|0.2615
95743034|NCT01942135|191456828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.4||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for emotional functioning||7.4|1.7|0.0016
95743035|NCT01942135|191456828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for cognitive functioning||3.8|-1.4|0.3650
95796640|NCT01013753|191563167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.081|<0.0001
95940551|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.552||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||4.274|-1.171|0.4576
95743036|NCT01942135|191456828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for social functioning||3.5|-3.4|0.9615
95743037|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for fatigue||1.5|-4.5|0.3200
95743038|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for nausea and vomiting||-0.2|-4.8|0.0369
95743039|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-2.1||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for pain||-2.1|-8.5|0.0011
95796641|NCT01013753|191563167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.087|<0.0001
95743040|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for dyspnoea||2.8|-3.7|0.7699
95989147|NCT01764633|191953348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.82|0.65|< 0.0001
95989148|NCT01764633|191953349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.95|0.66|0.0101
95989149|NCT01764633|191953350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.86|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.86|0.71|< 0.0001
95989150|NCT01764633|191953351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||1.13|0.86|0.8179
95989151|NCT01764633|191953352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (final screening LDL-C level and region).|Based on a Cox model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|If the primary, key secondary, and endpoint of cardiovascular death reached a statistical significance level of 0.05, then the endpoint of all-cause death was tested at a significance level of 0.04 and remaining secondary endpoints were tested at an overall significance level of 0.01 by applying the Hochberg method.||0.92|0.65|0.0035
95989152|NCT01789970|191953363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in WPI were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||1.00|0.26|<0.001
95743041|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for insomnia||1.6|-5.5|0.2721
95858444|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.07||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.07|-6.84|
95989153|NCT01789970|191953364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91||5% significance level|ANCOVA|The model included treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline WPI score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|The least squares means of the change from baseline to week 12 in API were compared between the active drug and placebo treatment groups.||0.91|0.25|<0.001
95989154|NCT01789970|191953365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01||5% significance level|Wald chi-square|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline worst pain intensity (WPI), opioid status, and center in the model||||1.01|0.5|0.059
95989155|NCT01789970|191953366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.96||5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|stratified by center with the following effects: treatment group, baseline API, and opioid status.|Hydrocodone ER / Placebo|API increase \>=30% and API \>=5||0.96|0.47|0.0293
95989156|NCT01789970|191953367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.65||5% significance level|ANCOVA|Model with the following effects: treatment, study center, opioid status, and baseline RMDQ score.|Placebo - Hydrocodone ER|||0.65|-1.20|0.557
95743042|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for appetite loss||2.9|-4.1|0.7334
95858445|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|3.44||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||3.44|-5.39|
95743043|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.9||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for constipation||3.9|-2.5|0.6491
95743044|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for diarrhoea||1.7|-2.8|0.6293
95743045|NCT01942135|191456829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for financial difficulties||3.6|-3.1|0.8812
95743046|NCT01942135|191456830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for body image||5.2|-0.7|0.1386
95743047|NCT01942135|191456830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual functioning||1.6|-3.1|0.5235
95743048|NCT01942135|191456830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual enjoyment||7.3|-4.4|0.6271
95796642|NCT01013753|191563167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.121|<0.0001
95796643|NCT01013753|191563167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.141|0.045|0.0001
95796644|NCT01013753|191563168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0362||95.0|0.003|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.097|0.003|0.0362
95858446|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.66||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||1.66|-5.30|
95743049|NCT01942135|191456830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for future perspective||7.6|-0.5|0.0845
95743050|NCT01942135|191456831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for systemic therapy side effects||2.3|-1.6|0.7273
95743051|NCT01942135|191456831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for breast symptoms||0.7|-2.6|0.2671
95743052|NCT01942135|191456831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.2||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for arm symptoms||2.2|-2.6|0.8750
95743053|NCT01942135|191456831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.6||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for upset by hair loss||16.6|1.1|0.0255
95743054|NCT01942135|191456832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.07|0.00|0.0308
95743055|NCT01942135|191456833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.5||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 2-sided alpha=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.5|-1.9|0.5523
95743056|NCT01942135|191456834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.846||The priori threshold for statistical significance is 1-sided alpha=0.025. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Unstratified log-rank test (1-sided)|1-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.|Treatment with palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed TTD in pain symptom compared with placebo plus fulvestrant for unstratified analysis.||0.846|0.487|<0.001
95743057|NCT06588530|191456842|OTHER|Log₂ transformed fold change in IgG concentration from baseline to Day 30 was compared between High and Low PFNA exposure groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tetanus||||.85
95743058|NCT06588530|191456842|OTHER|Log₂ transformed fold change in IgG concentration from baseline to Day 30 was compared between High and Low PFNA exposure groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A two-tailed significance level of 0.05 was used.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diphtheria||||.85
95743059|NCT04569084|191456848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.777
95743060|NCT04569084|191456849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.169
95858447|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|9.56||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.56|1.63|
95940552|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.621||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|3.466|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.466|-0.224|0.0849
95743061|NCT02005562|191456870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
95743062|NCT02005562|191456871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6736
95743063|NCT02005562|191456872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2172
95743064|NCT02005562|191456873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4770
95743065|NCT02005562|191456875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0764
95743066|NCT02005562|191456876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.418
95743067|NCT02005562|191456876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.841
95743068|NCT02005562|191456877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.245
95743069|NCT02005562|191456877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.637
95743070|NCT02005562|191456878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.512
95858448|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.3||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||12.3|3.39|
95743071|NCT02005562|191456878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Mycophenolate Mofetil, Adapted Dose vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil, Fixed Dose at protocol biopsy at Week 52.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.718
95743072|NCT02005562|191456880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.860
95743073|NCT04729101|191456882|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.94|46.02||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||46.02|31.94|
95743074|NCT04729101|191456882|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature|Least-squares mean difference|44.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.55|51.69||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||51.69|37.55|
95743075|NCT04729101|191456883|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.04||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 1 of each treatment period.||2.04|1.40|
95743076|NCT04729101|191456883|OTHER|Additional statistics were descriptive in nature.|Least-squares mean difference|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.44||||||Vonoprazan versus lansoprazole on Day 7 of each treatment period.||2.44|1.74|
95743077|NCT04556734|191456911|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-14.14||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.933|10.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||10.648|-38.933|0.2579
95743078|NCT04556734|191456911|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-21.79||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.446|0.871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||0.871|-44.446|0.0592
95743079|NCT04556734|191456912|OTHER|F-test|Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-9.23||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.217|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||2.748|-21.217|0.1283
95743080|NCT04556734|191456912|OTHER|F-test|LS Mean Difference|-8.99||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.936|1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used for evaluation. The model included the treatment group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, disease duration and baseline SALT I score as covariates.||1.962|-19.936|0.1057
95743081|NCT04556734|191456913|OTHER||Response rate difference|11.5||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|37.31||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||37.31|-14.22|0.4067
95743082|NCT04556734|191456913|OTHER||Response rate difference|17.5||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|43.19||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 30% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||43.19|-8.23|0.2171
95743083|NCT04556734|191456913|OTHER||Response rate difference|-0.8||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|21.48||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||21.48|-23.18|0.9425
95743084|NCT04556734|191456913|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.9||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|32.94||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 50% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||32.94|-15.19|0.4959
95858449|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.1||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 3, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.1|3.11|
95940553|NCT04800211|191847059|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.139||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.064|2.341|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.341|-2.064|0.9016
95950200|NCT00068107|191872493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Average Delay in time to ESRD|166.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|323.8|||||The average delay in end stage renal disease (ESRD) calculated from the eGFR values and represents the estimated difference in time to ESRD between Relagal administered every 2 weeks and Relagal administered weekly. Units = months|||323.8|8.4|
95743085|NCT04556734|191456913|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.6||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|16.59||P-values are based on the comparison of Etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 2 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo||16.59|-5.39|0.3576
95743086|NCT04556734|191456913|OTHER||Response rate difference|8.3||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.12||P-values were based on the comparison of etrasimod versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Clopper-Pearson method|\>= 75% Improvement: Response rate difference was difference in response rates between DB Treatment period: Etrasimod 3 mg and DB Treatment period: Placebo.||20.12|-3.43|0.2904
95743087|NCT00377572|191456916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Maximum Symptom Day Comparison||||<0.001
95743088|NCT00377572|191456917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.04
95743089|NCT00377572|191456918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept (to account for within-subject correlation) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||0.1111
95950201|NCT03014726|191872504|OTHER|Recurrence \< 0.5 as defined by an IPSS score of less than or equal to 11. The performance goal is met if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for recurrence is less than 50%.|||||<|0.001|||||||1-sample binomial z-test|||||||<0.001
95743090|NCT00377572|191456919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Childhood Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.007
95743091|NCT00377572|191456920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Asthma Control Test comparison||||0.54
95743092|NCT00377572|191456921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1 % of predicted value comparison||||0.30
95743093|NCT00377572|191456922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||FEV1:FVC ×100 comparison||||0.81
95743094|NCT00377572|191456923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
95743095|NCT00377572|191456924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Percent Adherence Comparison||||0.12
95743096|NCT00377572|191456925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 1- 2 (mild asthma) Percent Comparison||||0.001
95743097|NCT00377572|191456926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Step level 4 - 6 (severe asthma)percent comparison||||<0.001
95743098|NCT00377572|191456927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Inhaled glucocorticoids prescribed - mcg per day comparison||||<0.001
95743099|NCT00377572|191456928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects models w/ random intercept and slope (to account for within-subject correlation over time) and visit and group as fixed effects.||Comparison percent prescribed long-acting beta 2 agonists||||0.003
95940554|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.587||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|8.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.662|2.511|0.0004
95940555|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.556||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.732|-0.620|0.1141
95743100|NCT00377572|191456929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Hospitalizations were summed over the course of the double-blind \& analyzed with logistic regression (LR) of 'any' vs. 'none'. The LR was unadjusted.||||||0.02
95743101|NCT00377572|191456930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Exacerbations were summed over the course of the double-blind and analyzed with an LR of 'any' versus 'none'. LR adjusted for study site and dosing.||||||<0.001
95743102|NCT00377572|191456931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95743103|NCT00377572|191456932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95743104|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.49|||||"The Odds Ratio compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having an open encounter alert in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering.||1.49|0.97|
95743105|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||"The OR compares between having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.59|0.83|
95743106|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||||"The OR compares between having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patient's primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.16|0.61|
95796645|NCT01013753|191563168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0006||95.0|0.035|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.035|0.0006
95796646|NCT01013753|191563168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0002||95.0|0.042|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.042|0.0002
95743107|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.88|
95743108|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98|||||"The OR compares between having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||0.98|0.52|
95743109|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||"The OR compares between having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.64|0.89|
95743110|NCT04284553|191456969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.19|||||"The OR compares patients having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binary errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and the primary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across the intervention factors across the study arms, rather than between the study arms.||1.19|0.55|
95743111|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|21.2|||||"The estimate compares having open encounter as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having open encounter in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.2|-17.6|
95743112|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|17.5|||||"The estimate compares having boostering as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having boostering in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.5|-41.8|
95743113|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|67.4|||||"The estimate compares having cold-state priming as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having cold-state priming in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||67.4|11.6|
95743114|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.9|||||"The estimate compares having simplification as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having simplification in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||26.9|-30.4|
95743115|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|17.4|||||"The estimate compares having sign-off approval as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having sign-off approval in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||17.4|-37.6|
95796647|NCT01013753|191563168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.070|<0.0001
95743116|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.5|||||"The estimate compares having pre-commitment as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having pre-commitment in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||32.5|-24.1|
95743117|NCT04284553|191456971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|21.5|||||"The estimate compares having risk framing as an intervention factor in the arm the patients' primary care providers were assigned to vs. all others not having risk framing in the arm they were assigned to."|Outcomes were evaluated using generalized linear mixed models with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, evaluating the association between the intervention factors (i.e., behavioral components) and secondary outcome, pooling across both stages of the 2-stage Atrius adaptive trial and adjusting for provider-level clustering. As noted in our Study Protocol and pre-specified, the analyses are conducted across intervention factors across study arms, rather than between the study arms.||21.5|-45.5|
95743118|NCT02898740|191456978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|models were adjusted for age|treatment difference = Exercise - Health Education|||-0.0|-6.8|<0.05
95743119|NCT01710358|191456979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
95743120|NCT00672984|191457081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||||90.0|-4.52|-0.34||||||||-0.34|-4.52|
95743121|NCT00672984|191457081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87||||||90.0|11.45|16.29||||||||16.29|11.45|
95743122|NCT00672984|191457082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08||||||90.0|-11.37|-4.78||||||||-4.78|-11.37|
95743123|NCT00672984|191457082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.13||||||90.0|9.33|16.93||||||||16.93|9.33|
95796648|NCT01013753|191563168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.001||95.0|0.032|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.125|0.032|0.0010
95743124|NCT00672984|191457083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||||90.0|-1.07|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.07|
95796649|NCT01013753|191563169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.770|<0.0001
95743125|NCT00672984|191457083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11||||||90.0|8.97|13.24||||||||13.24|8.97|
95796650|NCT01013753|191563169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0004||95.0|-0.671|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.192|-0.671|0.0004
95950680|NCT01094106|191873181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In a previous non-randomised study at our institution, the mean oxycodone consumption in the control group was 60.7 mg (SD, 22.2 mg) during the first 48 h after caesarean section. At α = 0.05, 31 patients would be needed in each group to achieve a power of 90% for detecting a 30% reduction in the need for rescue opioids, which we considered a clinically meaningful effect. We decided to enrol 70 patients. The final study population was 67 patients.||||0.10
95743126|NCT00672984|191457084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||||90.0|-0.99|4.27||||||||4.27|-0.99|
95743127|NCT00672984|191457084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||||90.0|7.63|13.97||||||||13.97|7.63|
95743128|NCT00672984|191457085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76||||||90.0|-8.01|-5.51||||||||-5.51|-8.01|
95743129|NCT00672984|191457085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73||||||90.0|3.08|6.38||||||||6.38|3.08|
95743130|NCT00672984|191457086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.85||||||90.0|-21.92|-17.78||||||||-17.78|-21.92|
95743131|NCT00672984|191457086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44||||||90.0|1.77|5.11||||||||5.11|1.77|
95743132|NCT00672984|191457087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.32||||||90.0|11.75|18.89||||||||18.89|11.75|
95743133|NCT00672984|191457087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||||90.0|-2.77|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.77|
95743134|NCT00672984|191457088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.85||||||90.0|44.71|54.98||||||||54.98|44.71|
95796651|NCT01013753|191563169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.237|-0.720|0.0001
95796652|NCT01013753|191563169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.901|-0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.413|-0.901|<0.0001
95796653|NCT01013753|191563169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0003||95.0|-0.691|-0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.207|-0.691|0.0003
95796654|NCT01013753|191563174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.178|<0.0001
95743135|NCT00672984|191457088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||||90.0|-0.41|7.66||||||||7.66|-0.41|
95743136|NCT02654145|191457100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.66||p-value is for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.55 (Standard Error: 0.05), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01000506 and NCT01691521 using all Placebo participants.|||-0.66|-1.13|<0.001
95743137|NCT02654145|191457100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.0||p- value for Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Difference (Mepo-Placebo) calculated based on the Historical Placebo estimate of -0.11 (Standard Error: 0.14), which was estimated from a meta-analysis of studies NCT01691521 and NCT02281318 using Placebo participants who previously used Xolair.|||-1.00|-1.68|<0.001
95743138|NCT02654145|191457102|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.47|||Generalised Estimating Equations||Analysis performed using generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a negative binomial distribution with a covariate of treatment period (pre-treatment , on- and off-treatment), logarithm of time as an offset variable|||0.47|0.28|<0.001
95743139|NCT01968551|191457109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 copies/mL at Week 24.|Difference in proportion|5.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.4|17.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) calculation was based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with standardized statistic.|||17.4|-3.4|0.23
95743140|NCT01968551|191457110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV was at least 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. Alternative Hypothesis: In Cohort 2, the group switching to E/C/F/TAF + DRV is less than 12% lower than the group remaining on SBR with respect to the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in proportion|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.001|3.5|33.0|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95.001% CI were calculated based on exact method. The exact CI was estimated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic.|||33.0|3.5|0.004
95743141|NCT00573313|191457123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means at 24 weeks.|0.1505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1615||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1853|0.4863||The data provided here are for changes in serum AST levels as representative of all clinical laboratory parameters measured.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance controlled for baseline data, e.g. AST.|Obtained median values and ranges and log transformations of SD.|Power calculation indicated that a sample size of 20 subjects per treatment arm would detect differences between groups of 0.9 within-subject standard deviations or higher at 80% power and 5% level of significance.||0.4863|-0.1853|0.36
95743142|NCT00835588|191457124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|88.8||||||90.0|82.7|95.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||95.4|82.7|
95743143|NCT00835588|191457125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.3||||||90.0|93.4|101.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101|93.4|
95743144|NCT00835588|191457126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6||||||90.0|91.6|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|91.6|
95743145|NCT01597791|191457127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Calculated.|Fisher Exact|||||||.05
95743146|NCT00354159|191457134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-month survival rate|90.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.7|||The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%. The comparison was made using the cumulative hazard \[e.g. log survival estimate\] for the variance.|Survival estimate at 6-months|The survival estimate at 6-months post-implant was compared to 80%.||"Null hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Freedom from Chronicle system-related complications at 6-months is greater than 80%."|||87.7|<0.001
95743147|NCT00354159|191457136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"The study was originally powered at 80% to detect a 25% risk reduction between the treatment arm and control arm with a type I error rate of 0.05. Under these assumptions 648 HF-related events from approximately 1300 subjects were required. The study stopped after 400 were randomized.~Null Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The HF-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.61|0.61|0.978
95743148|NCT00354159|191457137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) = mu(Control) Alternative Hypothesis: mu(Treatment) ne mu(Control)~where mu is the percentage of hospitalized days for heart failure."||||0.574
95743149|NCT00354159|191457138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Andersen-Gill Model||Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The CV-related event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.28|0.62|0.527
95950681|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 0-6 h||||0.08
95940556|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.536||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|8.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.705|2.367|0.0007
95940557|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|9.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.577|3.680|<.0001
95743150|NCT00354159|191457139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The treatment and control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm|"Null Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Freedom from death or HF-related hospitalization is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.32|0.57|0.505
95743151|NCT00354159|191457140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||Andersen-Gill Model|The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model for multiple events.|Hazard Ratio is for the Treatment Arm relative to the Control Arm.|"Null Hypothesis: The all cause event rate is the same between the treatment arm and control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The all cause event rate between the treatment arm and control arm is different."||1.04|0.56|0.088
95743152|NCT00354159|191457141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54||P-value is from a proportional odds model comparing the distribution of composite endpoint response between the treatment arm and control arm.|Proportional odds model||Odds ratio represents the odds of improved score in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is the same between the treatment arm and the control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Distribution of composite response endpoint is different between the treatment arm and the control arm."||1.54|0.73|0.758
95743153|NCT00354159|191457144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.06|||Regression, Cox|The treatment to control hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated using a univariate Cox Regression Model|Hazard ratio estimates the hazard of death in the treatment group relative to the control group.|"Null hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized follow-up period is the same between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: Survival during the 12-month randomized period is different between the treatment and control groups."||2.06|0.29|0.599
95743154|NCT00354159|191457145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Negative-Binomial Regression|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of cardiovascular medication changes is the same between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.||||0.145
95743155|NCT00354159|191457146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the same between the Treatment and Control arms.~Alternative hypothesis: Average daily median ePAD is the different between the Treatment and Control arms."||||0.033
95743156|NCT00354159|191457147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is not different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period.~Alternative Hypothesis: The average daily median ePAD is different among Control Arm subjects that have and that do not have a heart failure related event during the 12-month follow-up period."||||0.002
95743157|NCT00354159|191457148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96|||Proportional odds regression model||Direction for odds ratio is the odds of improvement in the Treatment arm versus the odds of improvement in the Control arm.|"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in NYHA functional class between the Treatment and Control Arms."||1.96|0.82|0.292
95743158|NCT00354159|191457149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is not different between the Treatment and Control Arms.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change in 6-minute hall walk distance is different between the Treatment and Control Arms."||||0.996
95743159|NCT00354159|191457150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is the same between the Treatment arm and Control arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: The change from baseline to the 12-month follow-up visit in eGFR values is different between the Treatment arm and Control arm."||||0.154
95743160|NCT00354159|191457153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Response was change in MNLWHF score from baseline. Model adjusted for baseline MNLWHF score. Negative changes mean an improvement in MNLWHF score.||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in the change in MNLWHF score from baseline to 12-months between the Treatment Arm and Control Arm."||||0.583
95743161|NCT00354159|191457154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.5||The P-value is from the Andersen-Gill model which adjusts for multiple VT/VF episodes per subject.|Andersen-Gill Model|Andersen-Gill model included a term for Treatment Arm. This model adjusts for multiple events per subject.||"Null Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is the same between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm.~Alternative Hypothesis: Rate of VT/VF episodes during the 12-month randomized period is different between the Treatment Arm and the Control Arm."||3.5|0.63|0.368
95743162|NCT01328782|191457178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.074||95.0|1.4|2.94|||ANOVA|||||2.94|1.40|0.074
95743163|NCT01328782|191457178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.556||95.0|-1.12|2.08|||ANOVA|||||2.08|-1.12|0.556
95743164|NCT01328782|191457178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.244||95.0|-0.64|2.49|||ANOVA|||||2.49|-0.64|0.244
95743165|NCT01328782|191457179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.25|||ANOVA|||||3.25|0.38|0.014
95743166|NCT01328782|191457179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.832||95.0|-1.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||||1.61|-1.30|0.832
95743167|NCT01328782|191457179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.027||95.0|0.2|3.12|||ANOVA|||||3.12|0.20|0.027
95940558|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.083||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.118|7.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.047|1.118|0.0072
95940559|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.688||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.691|7.686|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.686|1.691|0.0023
95743168|NCT01328782|191457180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
95743169|NCT01328782|191457180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3767||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3767
95743170|NCT01328782|191457180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
95743171|NCT01328782|191457181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.008||95.0|0.008|0.076|||ANOVA|||||0.076|0.008|0.008
95796655|NCT01013753|191563174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0002||95.0|0.099|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.099|0.0002
95796656|NCT01013753|191563174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.374|0.151|<0.0001
95743172|NCT01328782|191457181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.078||95.0|-0.004|0.066|||ANOVA|||||0.066|-0.004|0.078
95743173|NCT01328782|191457181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.5321||95.0|-0.024|0.045|||ANOVA|||||0.045|-0.024|0.5321
95743174|NCT01328782|191457182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95743175|NCT01328782|191457182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95743176|NCT01328782|191457182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.499
95743177|NCT02235870|191457201|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean Difference|3.28||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.24|0.0261
95743178|NCT02235870|191457202|SUPERIORITY||Exact Confidence Interval|64.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|71.7|||Exact Test|||Subjects in the Obalon Treatment group with at least 2 Balloons and balloon therapy for at least 18 weeks.||71.7|57.5|<0.0001
95743179|NCT02235870|191457203|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.5|||Chi-squared|||||42.5|23.1|<0.0001
95743180|NCT00006436|191457231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Two-tailed log rank test||||Compared the PFS of interim PET positive participants to the PFS of interim PET negative.|||0.10
95796657|NCT01013753|191563174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.429|0.205|<0.0001
95796658|NCT01013753|191563174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.426|0.203|<0.0001
95743181|NCT03790137|191457236|OTHER|The frequency of HWE for each patient was reported as episodes/day, as determined by dividing the total number of seizures experienced over a given time period by the number of days for which seizures were recorded. Paired t-tests were performed to compare each patient's baseline seizure frequency to their seizure frequency in the last month of treatment. Change in seizure frequency is reported as percent change from baseline. An alpha of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95950682|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 6-12 h||||0.86
95743182|NCT03868631|191457259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||multilevel models for change|||Between-group differences at baseline were compared using independent t-tests. Multilevel models for change (MLM) were used to determine differences between groups over time for study outcomes. Age, sex, and number of sessions missed were included as covariates. Time and time by group interactions were examined. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23. Significance was set at p\<0.05.||||<0.05
95743183|NCT00556673|191457265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.51||"Linear mixed effect model fitting treatment, sequence and period as fixed factors, patient within sequence as a random factor and pre-dose FEV1 as covariate.~A significance level of 5% was used to determine statistical significance."|1-sided|||The primary hypothesis tested was that the change from period baseline of trough FEV1 for placebo and indacaterol/mometasone was equal. The one-sided alternative was that the increase from period baseline of trough FEV1 for indacaterol/mometasone was higher than for placebo.||0.51|0.28|< 0.0001
95743184|NCT01971554|191457327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|50.3|||||A constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||50.3|11.3|
95743185|NCT01971554|191457327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|51.9|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||51.9|20.0|
95743186|NCT01971554|191457327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.1|70.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||70.0|38.1|
95743187|NCT01971554|191457333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|38.4|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||38.4|6.2|
95743188|NCT01971554|191457333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.4|43.8|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||43.8|17.4|
95743189|NCT01971554|191457333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.6|62.0|||||A cLDA model was used to fit to the FPG data from the MK-8666 dose groups and placebo. Time was treated as a categorical variable so that no restriction was imposed on the trajectory of the means over time.|||62.0|35.6|
95950683|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 12-24 h||||0.66
95950684|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 24-36 h||||0.79
95950685|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores at rest, 36-48 h||||0.20
95743190|NCT02535923|191457365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95743191|NCT02535923|191457365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
95743192|NCT02535923|191457366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
95743193|NCT02535923|191457367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
95743194|NCT02535923|191457368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.16
95743195|NCT02535923|191457369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
95743196|NCT00274625|191457432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
95743197|NCT02940522|191457433|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
95743198|NCT02940522|191457434|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
95796659|NCT01013753|191563175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.432|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.210|-0.432|<0.0001
95796660|NCT01013753|191563175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.403|-0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.184|-0.403|<0.0001
95796661|NCT01013753|191563175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.436|-0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.215|-0.436|<0.0001
95796662|NCT01013753|191563175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.505|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.282|-0.505|<0.0001
95743199|NCT02940522|191457435|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
95940560|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.874|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.350|2.874|<.0001
95940561|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.777||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.165|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.720|-2.165|0.6030
95743200|NCT02940522|191457436|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
95743201|NCT02940522|191457437|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
95743202|NCT02940522|191457438|OTHER|Comparison of bioavailability data|||||||||||||||||The PK parameters were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance statistical model with treatment as the fixed effect, using the natural logarithms of the data. As the objective was to assess whether comparable exposure could be obtained using the higher SQ dose, the data were not normalized for dose before the statistical analysis.|||
95743203|NCT00762411|191457439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.560
95743204|NCT00762411|191457440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.959
95743205|NCT00762411|191457441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
95743206|NCT00762411|191457442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.199
95743207|NCT00762411|191457443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.294
95743208|NCT00762411|191457444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.477
95743209|NCT00762411|191457445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.673
95743210|NCT00762411|191457446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.622
95796663|NCT01013753|191563175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.457|-0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||-0.235|-0.457|<0.0001
95743211|NCT00762411|191457447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.178
95743212|NCT00762411|191457448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.632
95743213|NCT00762411|191457449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95743214|NCT00762411|191457450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.426
95743215|NCT00762411|191457451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.101
95743216|NCT00762411|191457451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume.|ANCOVA|||||||0.772
95743217|NCT00762411|191457452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.326
95743218|NCT00762411|191457453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.117
95743219|NCT00762411|191457462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
95743220|NCT00762411|191457463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
95743221|NCT00762411|191457464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
95743222|NCT00762411|191457465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.417
95743223|NCT00762411|191457466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.805
95743224|NCT00762411|191457467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.893
95796664|NCT01013753|191563176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6187||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6187
95858450|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.92||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||4.92|-3.23|
95858451|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.21||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||1.21|-8.17|
95858452|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.14||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 1) treatment arm.||2.14|-2.88|
95858453|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.98||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.98|-2.17|
95858454|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.76||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.76|-3.62|
95743225|NCT02959840|191457468|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.|||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
95743226|NCT02959840|191457468|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||5e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00005
95743227|NCT02959840|191457468|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
95743228|NCT02959840|191457469|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95743229|NCT02959840|191457469|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95743230|NCT02959840|191457469|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
95743231|NCT02959840|191457470|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||4e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00004
95743232|NCT02959840|191457470|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
95743233|NCT02959840|191457470|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
95743234|NCT02959840|191457471|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
95743235|NCT02959840|191457471|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95743236|NCT02959840|191457471|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95743237|NCT02959840|191457472|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95743238|NCT02959840|191457472|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95743239|NCT02959840|191457472|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
95743240|NCT02959840|191457473|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95743241|NCT02959840|191457473|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
95743242|NCT02959840|191457473|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced nausea in the above 2 groups.||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1
95743243|NCT02959840|191457474|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95743244|NCT02959840|191457474|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
95743245|NCT02959840|191457474|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95743246|NCT02959840|191457475|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95743247|NCT02959840|191457475|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95743248|NCT02959840|191457475|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95743249|NCT02959840|191457476|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2
95743250|NCT02959840|191457476|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95743251|NCT02959840|191457476|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95743252|NCT02959840|191457477|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95743253|NCT02959840|191457477|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95743254|NCT02959840|191457477|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the number of people who experienced vomiting in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95743255|NCT02959840|191457478|SUPERIORITY|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95743256|NCT02959840|191457478|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95743257|NCT02959840|191457478|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
95743258|NCT02959840|191457479|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95743259|NCT02959840|191457479|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95743260|NCT02959840|191457479|EQUIVALENCE|Our null hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference between the mean satisfaction level in the above 2 groups.||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
95743261|NCT00603564|191457483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||endpoint was analyzed in terms of time by comparison of mean +- SD||||<0.001
95743262|NCT00603564|191457484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7e-06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.000007
95796665|NCT01013753|191563176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.996||||0.6022||95.0|0.981|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.981|0.6022
95743263|NCT00117806|191457491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95796666|NCT01013753|191563176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.8641||95.0|0.984|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.014|0.984|0.8641
95796667|NCT01013753|191563176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.998||||0.7664||95.0|0.983|1.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.013|0.983|0.7664
95796668|NCT01013753|191563176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.003||||0.6757||95.0|0.988|1.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.018|0.988|0.6757
95796669|NCT01013753|191563177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.993||||0.4423||95.0|0.975|1.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.011|0.975|0.4423
95796670|NCT01013753|191563177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.0218||95.0|0.962|0.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.997|0.962|0.0218
95950686|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 0-6 h||||0.36
95743264|NCT04542694|191457555|SUPERIORITY||The difference in proportions|0.1313||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.2367|||Chi-squared|||A comparative analysis of the rate of clinical status improvement by 2 or more categories. The difference in percentages between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm (pa-pb)||0.2367|-0.0004|0.0372
95743265|NCT04542694|191457556|SUPERIORITY||The difference in days|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparative analysis of time to clinical status improvement by categorical ordinal clinical improvement scale between the AREPLIVIR arm and the standard therapy arm||||<0.0001
95743266|NCT04542694|191457557|SUPERIORITY||The difference in percentages|22.5||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.00016
95743267|NCT04542694|191457558|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.052
95743268|NCT04542694|191457559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1953
95743269|NCT04542694|191457560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4975
95743270|NCT01717313|191457601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status, interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
95743271|NCT01717313|191457602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percentages vs. placebo|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|2.6||||||||2.6|-18.8|
95743272|NCT01717313|191457603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||||4.5|-3.1|
95743273|NCT01717313|191457604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-16.4|
95796671|NCT01013753|191563177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.977||||0.0109||95.0|0.96|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.995|0.960|0.0109
95743274|NCT01717313|191457605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages vs. placebo|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||||||||4.8|-3.5|
95940562|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.003||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.967|-1.960|0.5053
95940563|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.674||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.347|3.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.694|-2.347|0.6607
95940564|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.809||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|10.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.446|-0.827|0.1309
95940565|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.553||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.212|7.318|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||7.318|-4.212|0.9776
95950687|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 6-12 h||||0.43
95950688|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 12-24 h||||0.68
95950689|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 24-36 h||||0.37
95950690|NCT01094106|191873182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Highest recorded pain scores when moving, 36-48 h||||0.06
95950691|NCT01094106|191873183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95743275|NCT01717313|191457606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|29.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||29.8|10.5|<0.001
95743276|NCT01717313|191457607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|11.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|18.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.6|4.8|0.001
95858455|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|5.55||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+albuterol treatment arm and reference is the albuterol treatment arm.||5.55|0.522|
95950692|NCT02725372|191873184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|26.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.45|-22.47|0.87
95950693|NCT02725372|191873185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
95950694|NCT02725372|191873187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-156.0|0.01
95743277|NCT01717313|191457608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-10.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-0.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.7|-19.9|0.036
95743278|NCT01717313|191457609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.6||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|5.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||5.3|-28.6|0.177
95743279|NCT01717313|191457614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
95743280|NCT01717313|191457615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-2.7|-23.7|0.014
95743281|NCT01717313|191457616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-20.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-1.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for treatment, time, prior AHA therapy status, the interaction of time by treatment, and time by prior AHA therapy status||||-1.9|-39.0|0.031
95940566|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|10.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||10.663|-0.939|0.1422
95940567|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.851||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|11.396|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||11.396|0.307|0.0334
95950695|NCT02725372|191873188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.41|||ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.89|0.47
95950696|NCT02725372|191873189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.48|0.26
95950697|NCT03659136|191873208|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.59|||Log-rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||2.59|0.55|0.6534
95743282|NCT01943435|191457620|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||2.2|-1.5|0.73
95796672|NCT01013753|191563177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0283||95.0|0.962|0.998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.998|0.962|0.0283
95796673|NCT01013753|191563177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.3085||95.0|0.973|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.009|0.973|0.3085
95796674|NCT01013753|191563178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.999||||0.9112||95.0|0.984|1.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.015|0.984|0.9112
95796675|NCT01013753|191563178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.992||||0.2955||95.0|0.977|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.977|0.2955
95796676|NCT01013753|191563178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.987||||0.1029||95.0|0.973|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.003|0.973|0.1029
95796677|NCT01013753|191563178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.991||||0.2552||95.0|0.975|1.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.007|0.975|0.2552
95796678|NCT01013753|191563178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.994||||0.4803||95.0|0.979|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment, period and study baseline value as fixed effects; and patients as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||1.010|0.979|0.4803
95796679|NCT03556683|191563180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect immediately following hypertonic saline treatment.||||<0.001
95743283|NCT01943435|191457620|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||-0.3|-3.9|0.02
95993774|NCT00619957|191963377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.75|-13.17|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-13.17|-30.75|<0.0001
95743284|NCT01943435|191457620|SUPERIORITY|For this superiority study, sample size estimation was based upon hypothesized changes in our primary outcome measure, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis (SSS) questionnaire. We calculated that a total sample size of 180 subjects (n=60 per group) would give us 80% power to detect a difference as small as 3.6 points on the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire score. Sample size was increased at the request of the funding agency without any interim analysis performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||The primary analysis was a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SSS total score as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||4.3|0.6|0.01
95743285|NCT01943435|191457621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|249.2|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||249.2|-75.2|0.29
95743286|NCT01943435|191457621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|129.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|286.6|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||286.6|-27.2|0.10
95743287|NCT01943435|191457621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.7||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.4|120.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear mixed models with SPWT as the dependent variable, while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||120.0|-205.4|0.61
95858456|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.38||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||5.38|-3.90|
95940568|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.5622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|8.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.660|-2.501|0.5622
95743288|NCT01943435|191457622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|57.9|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||57.9|3.1|0.03
95743289|NCT01943435|191457622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|45.0|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||45.0|-7.6|0.16
95743290|NCT01943435|191457622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|39.1|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed models were adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||This secondary analysis consisted of a between-groups comparison of means using linear regression with physical activity as the dependent variable (average number of minutes spent daily in activities \>1.5 METs), while adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||39.1|-15.6|0.40
95743291|NCT01632215|191457637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95796680|NCT03556683|191563181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of hypertonic saline 4 hours after treatment.||||0.99
95796681|NCT03286504|191563183|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.212|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.212|-0.112|0.55
95796682|NCT03286504|191563184|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.033||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.211|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.211|-0.145|0.71
95796683|NCT03286504|191563186|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.169|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.169|-0.269|0.65
95950202|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.99|0.81|
95743292|NCT04561115|191457643|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|0.972||||||||0.972|0.926|
95743293|NCT04561115|191457644|EQUIVALENCE|The relative alpha level for statistical significance was 0.1 (alpha=0.05 for one-sided test), or a 90% CI was used for the bioequivalence test.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.021||||||||1.021|0.937|
95743294|NCT01451541|191457673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted pvalues|0.59|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
95743295|NCT01451541|191457673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means with adjusted p-values.|0.47|||<|0.05||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted for the primary and key secondary endpoints|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method|Bonferroni-based gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparison adjustment.||Using an estimate of the standard deviation of 2.2 for the change from baseline in daily average subject-reported AM and PM rTNSS averaged over the first 6 weeks of double-blind treatment, 284 subjects per treatment group would have provided 90% power to detect a mean difference between treatment groups of 0.6 in the change from baseline with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Approx. 852 subjects were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio (ie, approximately 284 subjects per treatment group).||||<0.05
95743296|NCT03555695|191457719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95743297|NCT01426854|191457730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95743298|NCT00919711|191457755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.0|1.2|<0.0001
95743299|NCT00919711|191457756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95743300|NCT00919711|191457757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||1.8|0.9|<0.0001
95743301|NCT00919711|191457758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Risedronate|||2.8|1.8|<0.0001
95743302|NCT00500318|191457796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|116.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.113||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.28|195.61|||ANCOVA|||||195.610|37.280|0.0042
95743303|NCT01350934|191457801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||3.1|0.8|<0.001
95743304|NCT01350934|191457802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.1|||Longitudinal data analysis|||||4.1|1.8|<0.001
95743305|NCT01350934|191457803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-42.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.16|-36.67|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-36.67|-48.16|<0.001
95743306|NCT01350934|191457804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.04|-45.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.30|-59.04|<0.001
95743307|NCT01350934|191457805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.29|-44.99|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-44.99|-57.29|<0.001
95743308|NCT01350934|191457806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.77|-45.39|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-45.39|-58.77|<0.001
95743309|NCT01350934|191457807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0074|0.1048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio comparison of percentage of participants with \<20 ng/mL of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin (OH) D between Fosamax Plus group and Calcitriol group.||0.1048|0.0074|<0.001
95743310|NCT01435824|191457808|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.4||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.4|97.5|
95764440|NCT00780338|191499093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
95743311|NCT01435824|191457809|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5|115.7||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||115.7|97.5|
95743312|NCT01435824|191457810|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.4|114.9||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||114.9|89.4|
95743313|NCT01435824|191457811|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is assessed by means of ratios of AUC, Cmax and Tmax between the comparison group and the reference group. According to a common regulatory definition, the comparison preparation (human milk-dissolved amoxicillin in this project) is considered bioequivalent to a standard preparation (water dissolved) if 90% CIs of these ratios between the two preparations for Cmax, Tmax, AUClast and AUC∞ are within a range between 0.80 and 1.25.|mean %ratio and 90% confidence interval|107.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|137.8||||||A 2x2 crossover design was chosen to examine bioequivalence of milk-based amoxicillin preparation, based on the FDA-recommended design for bioavailability studies. The recommendation suggests that 12 subjects is the minimum number of subjects acceptable for this type of design. We have decided to enrol 16 subjects to account for problems or attrition.||137.8|84.5|
95743314|NCT01765751|191457827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.6|-0.1|
95743315|NCT01765751|191457827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.9|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||5.9|0.1|
95743316|NCT01765751|191457827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||2.7|-3.2|
95743317|NCT01765751|191457828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|29.7|||||High vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||29.7|1.6|
95743318|NCT01765751|191457828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|23.3|||||Medium vs Low group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||23.3|-3.7|
95743319|NCT01765751|191457828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|20.3|||||High vs Medium group, mean difference adjusted for the baseline value of the respective variable centered at its mean. NDI also adjusted for traction-force feedback method.|||20.3|-8.6|
95743320|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.4|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||0.4|-8.1|
95743321|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6|||||Pain Interference - Medium vs Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||5.6|-2.6|
95950203|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.93|
95743322|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.0|||||Pain Interference - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Pain Interference||1.0|-9.8|
95743323|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8|||||Physical Function - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Function||3.8|-2.2|
95796684|NCT03286504|191563187|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.226||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.438|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm|||0.438|0.015|0.04
95796685|NCT03286504|191563188|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.208||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.393|||Chi-squared||Direction of proportion difference = FANMI arm minus Standard of Care arm.|||0.393|0.023|0.03
95796686|NCT03320369|191563237|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95743324|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||||Physical Function - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Physical Funtion||3.2|-2.9|
95743325|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Physical Function- High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population|Physical Function||3.7|-2.4|
95743326|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5|||||Fatigue - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||10.5|1.1|
95743327|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||||Fatigue - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||8.2|-1.5|
95743328|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||Fatigue - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Fatigue||7.3|-2.3|
95743329|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||3.5|-0.9|
95743330|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||||Sleep Disturbance - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||0.9|-3.6|
95743331|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.0|||||Sleep Disturbance - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Sleep Disturbance||5.0|0.4|
95743332|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||3.9|-4.5|
95743333|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.1|||||Anxiety - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||5.1|-2.9|
95743334|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.9|||||Anxiety - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Anxiety||2.9|-5.7|
95743335|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Depression - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||0.6|-6.7|
95743336|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||||Depression - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||2.6|-4.1|
95743337|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.4|||||Depression - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Depression||1.4|-5.4|
95743338|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.9|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||4.9|-4.5|
95743339|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - Medium vs. Low Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||7.7|-1.8|
95743340|NCT01765751|191457829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.0|||||Satisfaction with Social Role - High vs. Medium Group - The scale for the PROMIS measures uses a T-score metric in which 50 is the mean of a relevant reference population and 10 is the standard deviation (SD) of that population.|Satisfaction with Social Role||2.0|-7.6|
95743341|NCT00452348|191457835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.04||||0.09||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.090
95796687|NCT03813654|191563241|OTHER|Mixed model analysis with post-hoc tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between the control and 8-h Free Sleep Group.|||||<0.05
95743342|NCT01390415|191457840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0374
95743343|NCT01390415|191457841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison of Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.0566
95796688|NCT03813654|191563246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The groups had unequal variances, so we adjusted for unequal variances when doing the t-test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for unequal variances between the two groups.||We compared the PVT taken at the start of the final night shift between Group B and those in Group C who slept in the morning and had complete data. Our hypothesis was that Group B would have faster RTs.||||0.09
95743344|NCT02435433|191457842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.949|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.949|0.531|0.0199
95743345|NCT02435433|191457843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.603|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.603|0.339|<0.0001
95989157|NCT00411554|191953375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin (Sitagliptin minus Voglibose) = 0.2 percent|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.51|-0.28||"This p-value corresponds to a test of superiority that was performed after success was achieved in the test of non-inferiority (reported under Estimation below), according to the pre-specified analysis plan"|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show non-inferiority and superiority to voglibose (closed procedure) and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.28|-0.51|<0.001
95989158|NCT00411554|191953376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-6.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-6.2|-15.3|<0.001
95989159|NCT00411554|191953377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.7|-10.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to compare two groups|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to show superiority to voglibose and to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-10.9|-26.7|<0.001
95989160|NCT01849770|191953420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||Random slopes model|||||0.56|-1.03|0.561
95989161|NCT01849770|191953420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.66|||Random slopes model|||||0.66|-1.04|0.662
95989162|NCT01849770|191953421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.22|||Random slopes model|||||4.22|-0.80|0.178
95989163|NCT01849770|191953421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.91|||Random slopes model|||||1.91|-3.80|0.510
95989164|NCT02004873|191953432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|93.3|97.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|z-test, 1-sided||"The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.~The coverage level for the confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis."|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%.~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||97.6|93.3|<0.0001
95989165|NCT02004873|191953433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|98.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|95.4|99.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is less than or equal to 80%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with an adequate pacing capture threshold at 6-months post-implant is greater than 80%."||99.6|95.4|<0.0001
95743346|NCT02435433|191457844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|0.582|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||0.582|0.313|<0.0001
95743347|NCT02435433|191457845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified analysis|||37.3|0.6|0.1697
95858457|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.47||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.47|-6.36|
95743348|NCT02435433|191457849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.171|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis|||1.171|0.545|0.2382
95989166|NCT02004873|191953434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects (%)|99.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.66|97.5|100.0||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.0067, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|Exact Binomial test||The coverage level for confidence interval was 98.66%, determined by the pre-specified alpha spending function for the interim analysis.|"Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 85%.~Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with VCMT within 0.5 Volts of auto decrement PCT at 6 months post-implant is greater than 85%."||100.0|97.5|<0.0001
95989167|NCT02004873|191953435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.35. The Micra sensor indicated rate is considered proportional to the workload if the 90% CI for the Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter falls into \[0.65, 1.35\].|Slope|0.864|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.961||Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons for secondary objectives was used. Two One-sided Test (TOST) procedure was used at the 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|Two One-sided Test (TOST)|A random effect linear regression model was used to assess if the Micra sensor-indicated rate was proportional to the workload using the Kay-Wilkoff model. The Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter was estimated along with its 90% CI.|Null hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is \< 0.65 or \> 1.35 Alternative hypothesis: Kay-Wilkoff slope parameter is between 0.65 and 1.35||0.961|0.768|<0.001
95743349|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-37.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.99|-71.37|<0.0001
95743350|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|-27.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.08|-61.28|<0.0001
95743351|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.433|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.35|-47.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.53|-81.35|<0.0001
95743352|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.282|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.36|-45.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.15|-78.36|<0.0001
95743353|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-72.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|-51.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-51.92|-92.40|<0.0001
95743354|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.59|-43.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.19|-84.59|<0.0001
95743355|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-88.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.39|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-68.00|-109.39|<0.0001
95743356|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.76|-64.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-64.54|-104.76|<0.0001
95743357|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.854|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-60.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.71|-96.22|<0.0001
95743358|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.51|-66.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.40|-102.51|<0.0001
95858458|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.45||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the LY2216684 (Group 2) treatment arm.||2.45|-4.79|
95950698|NCT03659136|191873209|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Log rank test|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+Everolimus+Exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.40|0.18|0.1797
95743359|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.12|-78.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-78.03|-114.12|<0.0001
95743360|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.703|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.8|-74.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.86|-109.80|<0.0001
95743361|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.51|-52.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.30|-90.51|<0.0001
95743362|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.659|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.37|-56.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.65|-95.37|<0.0001
95858459|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|11.9||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the maximum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||11.9|2.59|
95743363|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.18|-74.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.38|-113.18|<0.0001
95743364|NCT01243151|191457866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.35|-70.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-70.81|-108.35|<0.0001
95743365|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.99|-23.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.65|-43.99|<0.0001
95743366|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-17.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.51|-38.35|<0.0001
95743367|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.143|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.89|-29.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.28|-49.89|<0.0001
95743368|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-27.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.51|-47.75|<0.0001
95743369|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.78|-33.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-33.20|-58.78|<0.0001
95743370|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.74|-54.90|<0.0001
95743371|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.43|-43.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.27|-69.43|<0.0001
95743372|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.17|-40.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.74|-66.17|<0.0001
95743373|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.498|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-38.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.64|-60.70|<0.0001
95940569|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.014||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|9.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||9.672|-1.643|0.2841
95743374|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.592|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.14|-42.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-42.70|-65.14|<0.0001
95858460|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.0||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the minimum changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||10.0|1.13|
95950204|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.27|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 44/76-SL strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.27|1.03|
95743375|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.81|-49.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.38|-71.81|<0.0001
95743376|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.413|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.53|-46.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.80|-68.53|<0.0001
95743377|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-32.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.57|-55.80|<0.0001
95743378|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.06|-35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.50|-59.06|<0.0001
95743379|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.53|-45.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.94|-69.53|<0.0001
95743380|NCT01243151|191457867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.701|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.38|-43.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.54|-66.38|<0.0001
95743381|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.972||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|599.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||599.65|1.04|0.0472
95743382|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.815||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|305.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||305.54|0.46|0.1368
95743383|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.527||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|1198.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1198.29|1.89|0.0190
95743384|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.328||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|1103.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1103.73|1.86|0.0192
95950699|NCT03659136|191873210|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.86|0.60|0.4932
95743385|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.273||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|2014.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2014.67|2.74|0.0105
95743386|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.088||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|2389.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2389.27|3.10|0.0086
95743387|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.733||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|2449.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2449.11|3.14|0.0084
95743388|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.272||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|3097.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3097.22|4.07|0.0053
95743389|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.697||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|662.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||662.20|1.16|0.0403
95858461|NCT01263197|191674572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.16||||||Difference of LS means (test minus reference) for the average changes in diastolic blood pressure on Day 5, where test is the LY2216684+propranolol treatment arm and reference is the propranolol treatment arm.||9.16|1.89|
95989168|NCT01639872|191953439|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.99
95743390|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.247||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|733.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.32|1.25|0.0361
95743391|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|89.341||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|2326.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||2326.44|3.43|0.0069
95743392|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.034||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|1875.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1875.15|3.08|0.0081
95743393|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||64.41|0.02|0.9931
95858462|NCT01075685|191674574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Type 3 tests of fixed effects|||||||0.0279
95858463|NCT01075685|191674575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0189
95743394|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.943||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|975.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||975.84|1.55|0.0259
95743395|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|57.766||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|1477.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1477.88|2.26|0.0142
95743396|NCT01243151|191457868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|48.734||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|1216.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1216.90|1.95|0.0179
95743397|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|353.058||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|12528.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||12528.19|9.95|0.0013
95743398|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|129.984||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|3808.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3808.21|4.44|0.0047
95743399|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|300.099||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|10787.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||10787.45|8.35|0.0018
95743400|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|190.835||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|5743.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 15: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||5743.12|6.34|0.0025
95743401|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|255.421||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.87|8290.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8290.22|7.87|0.0018
95743402|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.547||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|4291.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4291.89|5.28|0.0034
95743403|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|745.542||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|47929.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||47929.45|11.60|0.0018
95743404|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|146.296||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|3963.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 22: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3963.01|5.40|0.0031
95743405|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|213.512||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|6396.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6396.64|7.13|0.0020
95743406|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|124.439||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|3277.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||3277.13|4.73|0.0038
95743407|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|622.309||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|36846.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||36846.03|10.51|0.0020
95743408|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.427||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|6598.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||6598.00|7.63|0.0017
95743409|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.158||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|161.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||161.08|0.24|0.2751
95743410|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|152.977||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|4633.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||4633.92|5.05|0.0038
95743411|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|756.203||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|51133.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||51133.53|11.18|0.0020
95743412|NCT01243151|191457869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|258.938||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|8902.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 36: Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||8902.61|7.53|0.0021
95743413|NCT01243151|191457870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|52.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||52.79|0.02|0.9580
95802489|NCT02864914|191578397|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.19|0.50|
95743414|NCT01243151|191457870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.375||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|394.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||394.65|0.76|0.0732
95743415|NCT01243151|191457870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.86||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|1109.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||1109.11|2.07|0.0159
95743416|NCT01243151|191457870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.246||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|733.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with treatment and baseline LDL-C stratum as factors was used for the analysis.||733.62|1.51|0.0264
95743417|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|15.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.77|-4.77|0.2883
95743418|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.277||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|16.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.61|-4.51|0.2563
95743419|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-8.54|0.7149
95743420|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.174||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.30|-6.40|0.4480
95743421|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.94|2.06|0.0231
95743422|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.369||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|23.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.87|-1.62|0.0858
95743423|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.431||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|20.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.44|-5.30|0.2440
95743424|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.249||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|24.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.03|-0.98|0.0702
95855448|NCT00541658|191670537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
95858464|NCT01075685|191674576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95743425|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.878||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|19.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.41|-0.13|0.0531
95743426|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.83|-0.96|0.0758
95743427|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.975||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|11.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.92|-8.01|0.6965
95743428|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.842||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|23.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.22|3.83|0.0071
95743429|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.155||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|21.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.52|0.88|0.0339
95743430|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|19.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.03|-1.92|0.1075
95743431|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.258||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.50|-4.54|0.2601
95743432|NCT01243151|191457871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|20.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.24|-0.31|0.0570
95743433|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.93|-22.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.84|-42.93|<0.0001
95858465|NCT01075685|191674577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.082
95743434|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.34|-20.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.26|-41.34|<0.0001
95743435|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.18|-29.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.77|-50.18|<0.0001
95743436|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.54|-28.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-28.20|-48.54|<0.0001
95743437|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.73|-29.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.63|-54.73|<0.0001
95743438|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.72|-29.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.67|-55.72|<0.0001
95743439|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.445|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-41.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.67|-67.45|<0.0001
95743440|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.54|-39.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.25|-64.54|<0.0001
95743441|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.359||95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-36.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.59|-58.10|95
95855449|NCT00541658|191670537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
95858466|NCT01094119|191674677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0069
95950205|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.98|0.78|
95743442|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.24|-39.91|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.91|-62.24|<0.0001
95743443|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|-48.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.89|-70.89|<0.0001
95743444|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.377|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.83|-46.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-46.24|-67.83|<0.0001
95743445|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|-37.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.51|-60.61|<0.0001
95743446|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.974|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.48|-39.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.56|-63.48|<0.0001
95743447|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.901|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.04|-52.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.40|-76.04|<0.0001
95743448|NCT01243151|191457872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.59|-48.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-48.42|-71.59|<0.0001
95743449|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.54|-34.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.29|-75.54|<0.0001
95940570|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|8.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.103|0.774|0.0178
95950700|NCT03659136|191873212|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison vs. Placebo+everolimus+exemestane. An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||4.43|0.34|0.7759
95743450|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.21|-22.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.94|-65.21|<0.0001
95743451|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.547|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.92|-47.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.05|-88.92|<0.0001
95743452|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.11|-39.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.90|-81.11|<0.0001
95743453|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.392|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.02|-47.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-47.76|-89.02|<0.0001
95743454|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-39.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.27|-81.54|<0.0001
95743455|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.74|-65.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-65.46|-107.74|<0.0001
95743456|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-81.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.73|-60.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-60.52|-101.73|<0.0001
95743457|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.96|-59.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-59.37|-100.96|<0.0001
95743458|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.14|-61.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.87|-104.14|<0.0001
95743459|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.91|-83.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-83.62|-125.91|<0.0001
95859756|NCT02930018|191677616|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.286|0.612|0.529
95743460|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.84|-69.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.63|-110.84|<0.0001
95989169|NCT01639872|191953440|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.25
95743461|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.34|-50.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-50.75|-92.34|<0.0001
95743462|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-53.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-53.32|-95.59|<0.0001
95743463|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.656|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.49|-81.21|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-81.21|-123.49|<0.0001
95743464|NCT01243151|191457873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.76|-66.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.55|-107.76|<0.0001
95743465|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||5.90|-1.89|0.3064
95743466|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.025||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.73|-1.38|0.1922
95743467|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.984||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.79|-3.16|0.6827
95743468|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.981||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.42|-1.52|0.2211
95743469|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|10.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.97|2.31|0.0033
95989170|NCT02799069|191953441|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.9||||||||||5.9|
95743470|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.57|0.60|0.0269
95743471|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.34|-0.61|0.0890
95743472|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.47|0.69|0.0242
95743473|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-0.95|0.1270
95743474|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.70|-0.91|0.1199
95802490|NCT02864914|191578397|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.32|0.23|
95989171|NCT02799069|191953441|SUPERIORITY||Difference to BF-200 ALA|61.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|71.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority of BF-200 ALA compared to placebo:~A sample size of 264: 88 patients (BF-200 ALA: placebo) will have a power of more than 90% to establish superiority of BF-200 ALA over placebo, even if very conservative response rates of 65% for the BF-200 ALA group and 40% for placebo are assumed using a chi-square test with continuity correction and a two-sided significance level of 0.05."||71.0|51.2|0.0000
95743475|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||4.82|-3.79|0.8123
95743476|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.106||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||9.87|1.44|0.0095
95743477|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.99|-0.99|0.1141
95743478|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|8.73|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.73|-1.42|0.1552
95743479|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.547||0.5407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||6.67|-3.53|0.5407
95859757|NCT02930018|191677617|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.121|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.121|0.545|0.181
95989172|NCT02799069|191953442|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 210 subjects per treatment arm (per protocol set) has a power of at least 90% to establish non-inferiority of BF-200 ALA to Metvix using a non-inferiority margin of -15% and assuming response rates of 70% for both BF-200 ALA and Metvix. The power calculation was based on a one-sided Z-test with continuity correction (unpooled) with a significance level of 0.025.The establishment of non-inferiority was performed for the PP set and verified for robustness on the ITT.|Difference to BF-200 ALA|14.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.0||||||||||6.0|
95743480|NCT01243151|191457874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||11.53|1.58|0.0107
95743481|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.74|-43.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.97|-76.74|<0.0001
95743482|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.45|-35.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-35.61|-69.45|<0.0001
95989173|NCT02799069|191953442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|59.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|70.4|||Chi-squared|||||70.4|48.4|0.0000
95989174|NCT02799069|191953443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|72.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|84.2|||Chi-squared|||||84.2|59.7|0.0000
95989175|NCT02799069|191953443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to BF-200 ALA|17.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|6.6||||||||||6.6|
95989176|NCT05130463|191953499|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
95989177|NCT05130463|191953500|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Comparison of the change in HbA1c from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
95989178|NCT05130463|191953505|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0008
95989179|NCT05130463|191953506|OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||Comparison of the change in FPG from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||FPG at baseline vs FPG after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0068
95989180|NCT05130463|191953507|OTHER|||||||0.1867||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.1867
95989181|NCT05130463|191953508|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Comparison of the change in body weight from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||Body weight at baseline vs Body weight after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.0003
95989182|NCT05130463|191953509|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0020
95989183|NCT05130463|191953509|OTHER|||||||0.0132||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 12 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.0132
95989184|NCT05130463|191953510|OTHER|||||||0.7591||||||Comparison of the change in SBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||SBP at baseline vs SBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.7591
95989185|NCT05130463|191953510|OTHER|||||||0.5161||||||Comparison of the change in DBP from baseline to the values at 24 weeks post Esgliteo administration.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test: Statistically significant at a 5% two-sided level.||DBP at baseline vs DBP after 24 weeks of treatment.||||0.5161
95989186|NCT00487539|191953516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95989187|NCT00487539|191953516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95989188|NCT00487539|191953517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95989189|NCT00487539|191953517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95989190|NCT00487539|191953518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
95989191|NCT00487539|191953518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95743483|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-69.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.06|-52.86|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-52.86|-86.06|<0.0001
95859758|NCT02930018|191677618|SUPERIORITY|It is hypothesized that the cleavage of nerinetide by plasmin which is activated by tissue plasminogen activators, such as alteplase results in a treatment modification of nerinetide in AIS patients with prior administration of alteplase as part of standard-of-care.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.874|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.874|0.588|0.869
95989192|NCT00487539|191953519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
95989193|NCT00487539|191953519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||<0.0001
95989194|NCT03440814|191953520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline growth hormone use and HQ-CT total score. All available subject data were used with no imputation of missing data.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||0.89|-4.24|0.1983
95989195|NCT03440814|191953521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.0294
95989196|NCT03440814|191953522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4089|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment groups were compared using CMH mean score test with modified ridit scores, stratified by the randomization stratification variables.||||||0.4089
95989197|NCT03440814|191953523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline body fat mass value as a covariate, and randomization stratification variables (as randomized) as factors.||||-0.15|-1.95|0.0225
95989198|NCT03440814|191953524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model for repeated measurements was used. All available data collected before the March 1, 2020 cutoff from each subject were included.|alpha=0.05 level of significance|||-0.19|-6.06|0.0369
95989199|NCT00852995|191953533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00028
95989200|NCT00852995|191953533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0899
95989201|NCT00852995|191953533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1586
95989202|NCT00852995|191953533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0295
95989203|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||.037
95989204|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||.064
95989205|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||.161
95989206|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||.39
95989207|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||.079
95989208|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||.069
95989209|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||.026
95989210|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||.133
95989211|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||.089
95989212|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||.057
95989213|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||.127
95989214|NCT00852995|191953535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.395
95989215|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0133
95989216|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3839
95989217|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5721
95989218|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.232
95989219|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0787
95989220|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7919
95989221|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6881
95989222|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9832
95989223|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0466
95989224|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8435
95989225|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8743
95989226|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2884
95940571|NCT04800211|191847060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.847||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|5.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.093|-3.398|0.6944
95743484|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.55|-49.94|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.94|-82.55|<0.0001
95743485|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.766|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.05|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-56.87|-100.05|<0.0001
95743486|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.43|-49.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-49.13|-93.43|<0.0001
95743487|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-91.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.92|-69.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.74|-113.92|<0.0001
95743488|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-89.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.03|-67.97|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-67.97|-111.03|<0.0001
95743489|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.452|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.73|-69.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-69.72|-103.73|<0.0001
95743490|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-92.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.57|-74.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-74.80|-109.57|<0.0001
95743491|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-106.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.34|-88.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-88.78|-123.34|<0.0001
95859759|NCT02685267|191677628|OTHER|The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.|log-rank test|0.6761||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The study was terminated after only 9 patients enrolled, 5 to the standard of care docetaxel/prednisone arm and 4 to experimental docetaxel/prednisone/enzalutamide arm.||||0.6761
95940572|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.556||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.038|-12.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-12.075|-59.038|0.0031
95743492|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-99.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.95|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-82.40|-115.95|<0.0001
95743493|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-79.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.557|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.22|-61.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-61.93|-96.22|<0.0001
95989227|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0387
95743494|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.736|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.4|-66.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-66.39|-101.40|<0.0001
95859760|NCT01027806|191677638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95989228|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8461
95989229|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9574
95743495|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-104.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.13|-87.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-87.35|-122.13|<0.0001
95743496|NCT01243151|191457875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.89|-80.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-80.11|-113.89|<0.0001
95743497|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|35.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.49|-80.08|0.4480
95743498|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|26.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.76|-91.80|0.2809
95743499|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.942||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|27.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.07|-90.90|0.2875
95743500|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.38|41.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||41.33|-74.38|0.5743
95743501|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.336||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.62|37.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.96|-77.62|0.4997
95743502|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.78|37.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||37.78|-80.78|0.4756
95743503|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.73|42.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||42.26|-77.73|0.5610
95859761|NCT00459732|191677639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95989230|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2994
95989231|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1024
95989232|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8759
95743504|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.27|36.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||36.44|-79.27|0.4667
95743505|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.45|28.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||28.06|-89.45|0.3045
95743506|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.06|35.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.50|-83.06|0.4301
95859762|NCT00459732|191677640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.44
95859763|NCT00459732|191677641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance adjusted for baseline osteocalcin level.||||||0.16
95989233|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9008
95989234|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4618
95989235|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2439
95989236|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.749
95989237|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3749
95989238|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
95989239|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0078
95989240|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.07
95989241|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
95989242|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
95743507|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.15|7.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.85|-112.15|0.0881
95743508|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.36|26.35|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.35|-89.36|0.2844
95743509|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.828||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.32|32.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||32.19|-85.32|0.3741
95743510|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.091||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.16|35.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||35.40|-83.16|0.4283
95743511|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.458||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.31|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||3.68|-116.31|0.0657
95743512|NCT01243151|191457876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.37||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.11|24.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||24.60|-91.11|0.2586
95743513|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.404||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|10.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.14|-3.49|0.3326
95743514|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.502||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.70|-3.32|0.2967
95796689|NCT01107015|191563256|OTHER|Sample size was determined on the basis of the primary outcome, change in glycated hemoglobin. The comparison of UC, which included 56 patients from nine practices, to CPDS, which included 62 patients from seven practices, had 80% power to detect a difference in mean glycated hemoglobin changes of 0.65 SD, corresponding to 1.0% if SD was 1.58%, using a two-sided test with 0.05 type I error after accounting for a within cluster correlation of 0.10.||||||0.027||||||CO (P = 0.027) and CPP (0.40) mean HbA1c levels decreased over 12 months.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin. Secondary analyses jointly compared 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month changes between groups. Random effects accounted for within-practice clustering and within-patient correlation.||||0.027
95940573|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.35||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.818|-1.882|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.882|-60.818|0.0371
95743515|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.466||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|7.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||7.46|-6.42|0.8812
95743516|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.433||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.30|-3.45|0.3227
95743517|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|18.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.46|1.56|0.0210
95950206|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.1|0.88|
95940574|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-34.356||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.877|-10.834|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-10.834|-57.877|0.0043
95950207|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for 5/99 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.26|1.0|
95743518|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.326||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|15.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.49|-1.82|0.1192
95743519|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.367||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|13.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.78|-3.69|0.2529
95743520|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|16.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.25|-0.73|0.0725
95743521|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.18|0.30|0.0405
95743522|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.80|-0.25|0.0593
95743523|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.33|-4.81|0.5936
95743524|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.192||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|16.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.17|3.38|0.0034
95796690|NCT01107015|191563256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare mean changes in primary and secondary outcomes between UC and each active intervention. The primary analysis examined 12-month changes for glycated hemoglobin.||||0.001
95796691|NCT03104413|191563257|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
95796692|NCT03104413|191563257|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|< 0.001
95743525|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|14.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.46|0.74|0.0305
95743526|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.37|-1.55|0.1252
95743527|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.71|-3.28|0.2923
95796693|NCT03104413|191563258|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|< 0.001
95796694|NCT03104413|191563258|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
95796695|NCT03104413|191563259|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|9.9|<0.001
95796696|NCT03104413|191563259|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.1|15.1|<0.001
95796697|NCT03104413|191563260|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|6.4|0.001
95796698|NCT03104413|191563260|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
95796699|NCT03104413|191563261|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
95796700|NCT03104413|191563261|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3.0|0.008
95796701|NCT03104413|191563262|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|< 0.001
95796702|NCT03104413|191563262|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
95796703|NCT03104413|191563263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
95796704|NCT03104413|191563263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
95796705|NCT03104413|191563264|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|2.3|0.010
95796706|NCT03104413|191563264|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|8.2||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|1.1|0.023
95796707|NCT03104413|191563265|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|8.5|<0.001
95940575|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.096||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.375|10.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||10.183|-46.375|0.2091
95940576|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-24.723||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.473|-3.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.973|-45.473|0.0197
95950701|NCT03659136|191873213|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.76|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.|Comparison versus Placebo+everolimus+exemestane.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for presence of baseline bone-only metastases, prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor treatment and menopause status.||1.76|0.54|0.9279
95796708|NCT03104413|191563265|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|11.1|<0.001
95796709|NCT03104413|191563266|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.0|<0.001
95796710|NCT03104413|191563266|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|10.8|<0.001
95796711|NCT03104413|191563267|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|12.1|<0.001
95796712|NCT03104413|191563267|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
95796713|NCT03104413|191563268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
95796714|NCT03104413|191563268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
95796715|NCT03104413|191563269|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4.0|0.006
95796716|NCT03104413|191563269|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
95796717|NCT03104413|191563270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
95796718|NCT03104413|191563270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
95796719|NCT03104413|191563271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
95796720|NCT03104413|191563271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
95796721|NCT03104413|191563272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
95796722|NCT03104413|191563272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
95796723|NCT03104413|191563273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Chi-squared|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
95796724|NCT03104413|191563273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Chi-squared|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
95743528|NCT01243151|191457877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.411||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.43|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||14.43|0.78|0.0297
95743529|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-18.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.10|-34.59|<0.0001
95743530|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.325|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.95|-15.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-15.63|-32.95|<0.0001
95743531|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|-22.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.83|-39.58|<0.0001
95743532|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-22.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.08|-38.78|<0.0001
95743533|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.42|-23.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.19|-43.42|<0.0001
95796725|NCT03104413|191563274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Chi-squared|||||15.7|-28.1|1
95940577|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.595||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|8.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||8.891|-36.080|0.2353
95950796|NCT03015220|191873575|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.83||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for the test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.83|0.35|0.5997
95743534|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-23.63|-44.65|<0.0001
95743535|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.96|-32.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.18|-52.96|<0.0001
95743536|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-31.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.67|-52.07|<0.0001
95743537|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|-29.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.05|-46.46|<0.0001
95796726|NCT03104413|191563274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Chi-squared|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
95796727|NCT03104413|191563275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|31.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|13.1|<0.001
95796728|NCT03104413|191563275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.5|11.6|<0.001
95796729|NCT03104413|191563276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|6.8|0.001
95796730|NCT03104413|191563276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|3|0.008
95796731|NCT03104413|191563277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|2.6|0.006
95796732|NCT03104413|191563277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|10.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|3.7|0.002
95796733|NCT03104413|191563278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.0|19.9|<0.001
95743538|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.04|-31.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.93|-50.04|<0.0001
95743539|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.88|-38.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.08|-55.88|<0.0001
95743540|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-37.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-37.03|-54.52|<0.0001
95743541|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.85|-29.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.37|-47.85|<0.0001
95743542|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.78|-31.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-31.60|-50.78|<0.0001
95743543|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.722|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-40.30|-59.20|<0.0001
95743544|NCT01243151|191457878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.33|-38.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-38.76|-57.33|<0.0001
95743545|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-14.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-14.34|-31.06|<0.0001
95743546|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.17|-10.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-10.03|-27.17|<0.0001
95796734|NCT03104413|191563278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|21.1|<0.001
95796735|NCT03104413|191563279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.1|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.1|0.4|0.020
95796736|NCT03104413|191563279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||5.3|0.7|0.010
95796737|NCT03104413|191563280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.8|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||19.8|5.0|0.001
95796738|NCT03104413|191563280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.4|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||22.4|7.7|<0.001
95796739|NCT03104413|191563281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.7|7.1|<0.001
95989243|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
95743547|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|-19.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-19.49|-36.46|<0.0001
95743548|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.24|-16.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-16.54|-33.24|<0.0001
95796740|NCT03104413|191563281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.2|10.3|<0.001
95796741|NCT03104413|191563282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|8.9|<0.001
95796742|NCT03104413|191563282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|9.9|<0.001
95796743|NCT03104413|191563283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|4|0.006
95796744|NCT03104413|191563283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|7.1||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|-2.4|0.142
95796745|NCT03104413|191563284|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.1|3.8|0.001
95796746|NCT03104413|191563284|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|5.3|<0.001
95796747|NCT03104413|191563285|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.5|13.0|<0.001
95796748|NCT03104413|191563285|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|10.2|<0.001
95989244|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2031
95743549|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.25|-20.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-20.53|-37.25|<0.0001
95743550|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|-17.79|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-17.79|-34.92|<0.0001
95743551|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|-27.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.33|-44.46|<0.0001
95743552|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.58|-25.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.88|-42.58|<0.0001
95743553|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.39|-25.53|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.53|-42.39|<0.0001
95743554|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-26.85|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.85|-43.98|<0.0001
95743555|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.85|-34.71|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.71|-51.85|<0.0001
95743556|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-29.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-29.65|-46.35|<0.0001
95743557|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.19|-21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-21.34|-38.19|<0.0001
95743558|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.79|-22.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.65|-39.79|<0.0001
95989245|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0894
95743559|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-32.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.78|-49.91|<0.0001
95989246|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0288
95743560|NCT01243151|191457879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|-27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.69|-44.39|<0.0001
95743561|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.975||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|12.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||12.41|-3.53|0.2690
95743562|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.133||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.50|-3.07|0.2122
95743563|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.054||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||8.67|-7.59|0.8953
95743564|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.70|-2.51|0.1723
95796749|NCT03104413|191563286|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|5.6||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|-6.8|0.377
95796750|NCT03104413|191563286|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|13.4||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|0.7|0.039
95989247|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6964
95989248|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.59
95989249|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7146
95989250|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5008
95743565|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.293||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|23.56|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.56|6.34|0.0010
95743566|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.451||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|19.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.78|1.95|0.0179
95743567|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||17.96|0.16|0.0462
95743568|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|20.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.52|3.05|0.0091
95743569|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.064||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|15.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.45|-0.83|0.0774
95743570|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.165||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|15.5|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||15.50|-1.18|0.0909
95989251|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1235
95989252|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5488
95743571|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.157||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||10.45|-6.20|0.6107
95743572|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.076||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|19.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||19.75|3.42|0.0062
95989253|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4343
95989254|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1114
95743573|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.712||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|18.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||18.13|-0.74|0.0702
95743574|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|16.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||16.32|-2.93|0.1692
95743575|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.819||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|13.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||13.96|-5.34|0.3751
95796751|NCT03104413|191563287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.9|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-2.9|-13.2|0.002
95796752|NCT03104413|191563287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-4.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-4.2|-14.1|<0.001
95796753|NCT03104413|191563288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|15.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||15.7|-28.1|1.00
95796754|NCT03104413|191563288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.4||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|60.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||60.2|0.6|0.113
95989255|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2119|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2119
95989256|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0194
95989257|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.506
95989258|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2317
95989259|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
95940578|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.759||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.159|22.641|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||22.641|-32.159|0.7329
95989260|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6786|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6786
95989261|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7735
95989262|NCT00852995|191953536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||Visit 13|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
95989263|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
95940579|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.962||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.989|19.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||19.065|-62.989|0.5420
95940580|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.591||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.049|23.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||23.866|-77.049|0.5234
95940581|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.761||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.867|20.344|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||20.344|-61.867|0.5975
95989264|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
95989265|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.017
95989266|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.011
95989267|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.014
95989268|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.029
95989269|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.021
95989270|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.041
95989271|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.044
95989272|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.013
95989273|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.024
95989274|NCT00852995|191953537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.027
95989275|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.0211
95989276|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.04|||Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.09|.0212
95989277|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.59
95989278|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.05||This is the P-value for the Cox Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.05|.69|0.53
95989279|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Kaplan-Meier Days to Closure||||||0.26
95989280|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.44||This is the P-value for the Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.44|0.84|0.19
95989281|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for Kaplan Meier Days to Closure|ANCOVA|||||||0.10
95796755|NCT03104413|191563289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.323||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.399|1.753|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||1.753|-16.399|0.113
95796756|NCT03104413|191563289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.759||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.518|-0.001|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||-0.001|-17.518|0.050
95743576|NCT01243151|191457880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.709||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|23.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||23.08|4.23|0.0053
95743577|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.951|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-22.72|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-22.72|-38.56|<0.0001
95743578|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.084|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-18.44|-34.80|<0.0001
95743579|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.003|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.29|-27.24|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-27.24|-43.29|<0.0001
95796757|NCT03104413|191563290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.221||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|3.865|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||3.865|0.577|0.008
95858467|NCT02141204|191674702|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between HRV Liq Group over the HRV Lyo Group should be greater than or equal to (≥) 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.34|||ANCOVA|95% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio and the logarithm of baseline concentration were used as fixed effects in this ANCOVA model.||Anti-RV IgA GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between GSK Biologicals' HRV liquid vaccine (HRV Liq Group) and GSK Biologicals' HRV lyophilized vaccine (HRV Lyo Group) in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-RV antibodies, one month after the administration of the second dose of study vaccine.||1.34|0.65|
95858468|NCT01209325|191674707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Two-sided p-value|Exact poisson test|||||||0.112
95743580|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-25.54|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-25.54|-41.30|<0.0001
95989282|NCT00852995|191953539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.77||P-value for Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|Regression, Cox|||||2.77|0.97|0.06
95743581|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.34|-30.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-30.42|-52.34|<0.0001
95796758|NCT03104413|191563290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.714||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|4.351|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||4.351|1.077|0.001
95796759|NCT03104413|191563291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|15.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24|6.4|0.001
95796760|NCT03104413|191563291|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.3|11.5|<0.001
95858469|NCT01209325|191674707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 3.4 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.447
95989283|NCT06485479|191953574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95743582|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|-26.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-26.88|-49.36|<0.0001
95743583|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.64|-36.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.20|-58.64|<0.0001
95743584|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.87|-36.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.00|-57.87|<0.0001
95796761|NCT02326883|191563295|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33||A priori two-sided comparison of Care Management condition to Usual Care|Log Rank|A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt among participants assigned to Care Management was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 - 1.33) higher compared to participants assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of participants assigned to Care Management intervention to those assigned to continued Usual Care||1.33|0.86|0.61
95796762|NCT02326883|191563295|SUPERIORITY|A priori two-sided comparison of Skills Training to usual care.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.59||A priori Bonferonni-corrected threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Log Rank||To clarify direction of comparison: relative hazard of suicide attempt in participants assigned to Skills Training was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05-1.59) times higher than in those assigned to Usual Care|Comparison of Skills Training to Usual Care||1.59|1.05|0.02
95796763|NCT03483103|191563306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One sided P-value is calculated based on the null hypothesis ORR \<= 50.2%|Exact binomial test|||||||<.0001
95743585|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.96|-36.77|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-36.77|-53.96|<0.0001
95743586|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.374|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.58|-39.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-39.99|-57.58|<0.0001
95743587|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.346|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-45.75|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-45.75|-63.23|<0.0001
95743588|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.25|-43.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.26|-60.25|<0.0001
95940582|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.337||||0.9331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.853|36.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||36.179|-62.853|0.9331
95989284|NCT06485479|191953574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95989285|NCT06485479|191953574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
95989286|NCT06485479|191953575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95989287|NCT06485479|191953575|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95989288|NCT06485479|191953575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
95743589|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.58|-32.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-32.07|-49.58|<0.0001
95743590|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.68|-34.81|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-34.81|-52.68|<0.0001
95743591|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.25|-43.48|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-43.48|-61.25|<0.0001
95743592|NCT01243151|191457881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.58|-41.31|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||-41.31|-58.58|<0.0001
95743593|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.08|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||38.04|-39.08|0.9789
95743594|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.46|27.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.59|-51.46|0.5525
95743595|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.979||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|25.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.96|-52.73|0.5035
95743596|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.81|34.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||34.39|-42.81|0.8302
95743597|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.581||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.01|27.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.10|-50.01|0.5590
95743598|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.36|27.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.69|-51.36|0.5558
95796764|NCT03282097|191563383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4393|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4393
95989289|NCT06485479|191953576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95989290|NCT06485479|191953576|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95989291|NCT06485479|191953576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
95989292|NCT06485479|191953577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
95989293|NCT06485479|191953577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
95989294|NCT06485479|191953577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.33
95989295|NCT06485479|191953578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95743599|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|31.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||31.74|-48.34|0.6835
95743600|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|27.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 15: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.45|-49.75|0.5699
95989296|NCT06485479|191953578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95989297|NCT06485479|191953578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.38
95743601|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.64|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||21.80|-56.64|0.3826
95743602|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.70|-52.35|0.5233
95743603|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.51|20.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.57|-59.51|0.3391
95989298|NCT06485479|191953579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.6
95989299|NCT06485479|191953579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
95743604|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|20.65|||ANCOVA|||Day 22: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||20.65|-56.55|0.3606
95743605|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.918||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.55|26.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||26.89|-51.55|0.5364
95796765|NCT03282097|191563384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.2262
95796766|NCT03282097|191563385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0023
95796767|NCT03282097|191563386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.6075
95989300|NCT06485479|191953579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.4
95989301|NCT06232317|191953596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.61
95989302|NCT06232317|191953597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
95989303|NCT06232317|191953602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95989304|NCT01358864|191953603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|63.2||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.2|42.4|<0.0001
95989305|NCT01358864|191953603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|58.9||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.9|38.2|<0.0001
95989306|NCT01358864|191953603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.9||||||||14.9|-6.0|
95989307|NCT01358864|191953603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
95989308|NCT01358864|191953603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
95989309|NCT01358864|191953603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
95989310|NCT01358864|191953605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|54.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|65.0||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.0|44.4|<0.0001
95989311|NCT01358864|191953605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|60.8||Adjusted for genotype and previous response to treatment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.8|40.1|<0.0001
95989312|NCT01358864|191953605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.9||||||||14.9|-5.8|
95989313|NCT01358864|191953605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.7||||||||10.7|-10.9|
95989314|NCT01358864|191953605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 12 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||<0.0001
95989315|NCT01358864|191953605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Normal approximation|||Comparison is based on the Null:Faldaprevir 24 weeks vs historical rate of 20%.||||0.0001
95989316|NCT03194373|191953616|SUPERIORITY|Power to detect a 20% improvement in disease control rate (DCR). Based on historical data, the DCR in R/M HNSCC with single agent platinum therapy is 40%. We hypothesize that addition of Palbociclib will increase DCR at 12 weeks to 60%. Two-stage design. Type I error rate of 0.059 and power of 0.80 when the true response rate is 0.60 with alpha=0.05. The two-stage sample size calculations assume a null probability of 0.40.|Proportion|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|59.0||||||||59|13|
95743606|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.069||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|27.96|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||27.96|-51.08|0.5651
95743607|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.332||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.69|25.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||25.39|-54.69|0.4719
95743608|NCT01243151|191457882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.601||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.13|22.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA treatment, screening LDL-C stratum, study day, treatment-by-LDL-C stratum, and study day by treatment interaction as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and participant as a random effect.||22.07|-55.13|0.3999
95743609|NCT00799708|191457933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.345
95940583|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.964||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.637|13.709|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||13.709|-53.637|0.2444
95940584|NCT04800211|191847061|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.254||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.427|26.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||26.919|-53.427|0.5169
95950797|NCT03015220|191873575|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.33|0.23|0.1871
95950798|NCT03015220|191873576|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 3 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||4.72|0.76|0.1672
95989317|NCT03194373|191953617|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
95743610|NCT00799708|191457933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
95743611|NCT00799708|191457934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-0.16|0.120
95743612|NCT00880334|191457935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.49|||Log Rank|||The study was designed with 80% power to detect 60% improvement in median PFS from 18 to 28.8 weeks (Vandetanib+docetaxel/Placebo+docetaxel hazard ratio of 0.625) with the addition of Vandetanib while maintaining an overall significance level of 5% in a one-sided test. This assumed exponential distribution of events, accrual of 1.75 patients per week (7-8 patients per month) for 78 weeks with 34 weeks of additional follow-up (112 weeks total). Full information was 118 PFS events.||1.49|0.69|0.939
95743613|NCT00880334|191457937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.81|.873
95743614|NCT00880334|191457938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
95743615|NCT00880334|191457939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
95743616|NCT01728636|191457957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
95743617|NCT04535986|191457971|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0551|0.1185||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1185|0.0551|<0.0001
95796768|NCT03282097|191563387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
95796769|NCT03282097|191563388|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95796770|NCT00284856|191563391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.92||||||95.0|0.28|11.56|||||Estimated Value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.56|0.28|
95796771|NCT00284856|191563391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.14||||||95.0|4.5|15.78|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||15.78|4.50|
95743618|NCT04610580|191457981|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.1|110.0||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.0|82.1|
95743619|NCT04610580|191457982|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|96.243|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.384|107.227||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||107.227|86.384|
95743620|NCT04610580|191457983|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|110.5||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||110.5|81.6|
95743621|NCT04610580|191457984|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|145.1||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||145.1|70.6|
95743622|NCT04610580|191457985|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.3|109.9||||||The formulation impact (12 × 1.25 mg EC mini-tablet versus 1 × 15 mg EC tablet) on plasma total Mo PK parameters was assessed using ANOVA statistical model with dosing period, treatment, and treatment sequence as the fixed effects and the participant (sequence) as a random effect, using the natural logarithms of the data.||109.9|89.3|
95743623|NCT01097694|191457991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Our null hypothesis was that the mean of this ratio will be 0 after log2-transformed.~The target enrollment was 60 assuming 10% drop-out for 54 completions which gave us 80% power to detect a doubling-dose change in PC20."||||<0.05
95743624|NCT01097694|191457992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||<0.05
95989318|NCT03194373|191953618|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Median survival times were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method with standard error computed using Greenwood's formula. All analyses were done using SAS 9.4 software.|||
95743625|NCT01097694|191457993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.12
95743626|NCT01097694|191457994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.10
95796772|NCT00284856|191563391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.22||||||95.0|-9.83|1.38|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||1.38|-9.83|
95796773|NCT00284856|191563392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||||95.0|-0.25|-0.05|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||-0.05|-0.25|
95858470|NCT01209325|191674708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.224
95858471|NCT01209325|191674708|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value.||||||0.361|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.361
95858472|NCT01209325|191674709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact poisson test|||||||0.079
95989319|NCT04209855|191953631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.513|<0.0001
95743627|NCT01097694|191457995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.36
95743628|NCT01097694|191457996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline values||For FEV1 we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||<0.05
95743629|NCT01097694|191457997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||For FEV1% we used a linear mixed-effects model to assess the between-group difference in the change from baseline over weeks 8-24.||||0.06
95743630|NCT01097694|191457998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.38
95743631|NCT01097694|191457999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
95743632|NCT01097694|191458000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
95743633|NCT01097694|191458001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.31
95743634|NCT01097694|191458002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.11
95743635|NCT01097694|191458003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.62
95743636|NCT01097694|191458004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.57
95743637|NCT01097694|191458005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.15
95743638|NCT01097694|191458006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.33
95743639|NCT01097694|191458007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.11
95743640|NCT01097694|191458008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.07
95743641|NCT01097694|191458009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.94
95743642|NCT01097694|191458010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.13
95743643|NCT01097694|191458011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||||0.25
95743644|NCT01097694|191458012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.54
95796774|NCT00284856|191563392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||-0.10|-0.30|
95796775|NCT00284856|191563392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05||||||95.0|-0.05|0.15|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.15|-0.05|
95989320|NCT01411085|191953641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The assessment was between baseline and values for last 8 weeks.||||0.317
95940585|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.174||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|12.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||12.772|-93.120|0.1359
95940586|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-71.725||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.961|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.490|-127.961|0.0129
95940587|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.308||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.293|37.678|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||37.678|-112.293|0.3262
95940588|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.012||||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.468|30.444|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.444|-70.468|0.4343
95940589|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.657||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.481|8.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||8.167|-97.481|0.0967
95950208|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.04||||||95.0|0.88|1.23|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot2 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.88|
95989321|NCT01564862|191953642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.21||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||3.21|0.28|0.019
95743645|NCT01097694|191458013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.18
95743646|NCT01097694|191458014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.56
95743647|NCT01097694|191458015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline.||||||0.47
95743648|NCT03277248|191458025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.509||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.784||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.784|0.330|0.0022
95796776|NCT00284856|191563393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.09||||||95.0|-1.27|11.45|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - placebo)|||11.45|-1.27|
95796777|NCT00284856|191563393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.21||||||95.0|4.85|17.58|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (fluticasone - placebo)|||17.58|4.85|
95940590|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.974||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.915|41.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||41.966|-99.915|0.4198
95940591|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-33.141||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.475|19.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||19.193|-85.475|0.2121
95950209|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98/254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot1 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.81|
95743649|NCT03277248|191458026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.064||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.064|0.019|<.0001
95743650|NCT03277248|191458027|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.136||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.136|0.073|<.0001
95743651|NCT03277248|191458029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|7.946|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.917|12.841||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1-unenhancing, T2, Gd-enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.841|4.917|<.0001
95796778|NCT00284856|191563393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.13||||||95.0|-12.46|0.2|||||Estimated value is difference in least squares mean (montelukast - fluticasone)|||0.20|-12.46|
95743652|NCT03277248|191458030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab / Teriflunomide)|0.862||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.246||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.246|0.596|0.4290
95743653|NCT03277248|191458031|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.017||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.017|-0.053|0.3108
95796779|NCT03034967|191563394|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90 percent (%) credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.00|
95796780|NCT03034967|191563394|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.52|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||1.52|0.00|
95796781|NCT03034967|191563394|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.97|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.97|0.43|
95989322|NCT01564862|191953642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.733||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|2.65||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.65|-0.23|0.099
95743654|NCT01993940|191458033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.0||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||27.0|10.8|<0.0001
95743655|NCT01993940|191458034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.88|0.92|<0.0001
95743656|NCT01993940|191458035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.71|1.63|<0.0001
95743657|NCT01993940|191458036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.61|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.61|0.70|<0.0001
95743658|NCT01993940|191458037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.19|0.30|0.0011
95743659|NCT02004691|191458060|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7576|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.319|28.696||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-values were based on mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Derived % Predicted DLco adjusted for Hb and pressure, age, treatment group, visit, and study visit by treatment group as covariates.|||28.696|9.319|=0.0004
95989323|NCT01564862|191953642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.96||P-value was from an ANCOVA model with treatment and center as fixed factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.96|-0.89|0.460
95989324|NCT01564862|191953643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-4.1|0.001
95989325|NCT01564862|191953643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.5||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
95743660|NCT02004691|191458062|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.051|-32.803||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values were based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Spleen Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||-32.803|-47.051|<.0001
95743661|NCT02004691|191458064|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3877|=|0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.302|8.538||Threshold for significance was 0.15.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Splenomegaly Related Score, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|||8.538|-5.302|=0.6364
95989326|NCT01564862|191953644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1211||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|-0.052||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.528|0.017
95989327|NCT01564862|191953644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.169||P-value was from a MMRM model with baseline\*week, center, week, treatment and week\*treatment as factors in the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.169|-0.638|<0.001
95743662|NCT02004691|191458069|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.911|-19.281||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Liver Volume (MN), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-19.281|-33.911|<.0001
95743663|NCT02004691|191458070|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7822|=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.564|26.099||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline Platelets, Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||26.099|2.564|=0.0185
95743664|NCT02004691|191458071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7384|=|0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.454||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed model for repeated measures||The 95% CI and p-values are based on a mixed model for repeated measures approach with Baseline BFI item 3 (Worst Fatigue), Baseline age, treatment group, study visit, and study visit by treatment group interaction as covariates.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in an order the outcome measure were reported and continued when previous endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.454|-1.566|=0.9400
95989328|NCT03809611|191953657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.56||One-sided p-value for treatment difference|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-1.34|0.1832
95989329|NCT03809611|191953658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.78|0.72|0.2830
95989330|NCT02193074|191953660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|50.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.81|66.48|||Fisher Exact||exact unconditional confidence interval|||66.48|31.81|< 0.0001
95989331|NCT02193074|191953661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration.||||||0.0046
95743665|NCT01277510|191458097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|35.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.76|62.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1-5). The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05. The four biochemical secondary endpoints were to be tested using Holm's method at 0.05 should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||62.24|8.76|0.017
95743666|NCT01277510|191458098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference (Cinacalcet - Placebo)|3.46||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.58|29.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline age group (6 -\<12 years old or 12 - \<18 years old).||The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||29.51|-22.58|0.826
95743667|NCT01277510|191458099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||1.3|-8.6|0.147
95743668|NCT01277510|191458100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||8.9|-19.4|0.454
95743669|NCT01277510|191458101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|The secondary endpoint with the smallest p-value was first compared at a significance level of 0.0125. If the p-value was \> 0.0125, all 4 secondary endpoints were non-significant; if ≤ 0.0125, the null hypothesis for that endpoint was rejected. Next, the 2nd smallest p-value was compared at a level of 0.0167; if \> 0.0167, the remaining 3 endpoints were not significant, or, the null hypothesis of that endpoint was rejected. The other 2 endpoints were analyzed similarly, at 0.025 and 0.05.||2.6|-22.5|0.117
95743670|NCT01277510|191458102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||3.6|-3.1|0.896
95743671|NCT01277510|191458104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline age group was used as covariate.|Cinacalcet-Placebo|||7.9|-9.4|0.854
95743672|NCT00784095|191458112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.7|.04|.047
95743673|NCT00784095|191458112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||4.7|-1.1|
95743674|NCT00784095|191458113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.6||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||5.6|-3.2|
95743675|NCT00784095|191458113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||3.3|-5.6|
95743676|NCT00784095|191458114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||2.9|-6.2|
95743677|NCT00784095|191458114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.0||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks||1.0|-8.2|
95743678|NCT00784095|191458115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.4|-4.5|
95743679|NCT00784095|191458115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.0||||||Intervention versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||3.0|-5.1|
95743680|NCT00784095|191458116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus True Control at 8 weeks||3.7|-4.8|
95743681|NCT00784095|191458116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.7||||||Intervention (Preparation and Completion) versus Attention Control at 8 weeks.||6.7|-1.9|
95796782|NCT03034967|191563394|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.03|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.03|0.72|
95796783|NCT03034967|191563394|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.07|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||2.07|0.79|
95796784|NCT03034967|191563395|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.42|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.42|0.00|
95796785|NCT03034967|191563395|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.87|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.87|0.00|
95989332|NCT02193074|191953661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3156|0.8902|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.8902|0.3156|0.0164
95743682|NCT00950300|191458126|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) was greater than or equal to (≥) 0.8 for the geometric mean ratio.|Geometric mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.44|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|PK sample size calculations based on percentage of coefficient of variation (CV%) for Ctrough of trastuzumab from previous metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early breast cancer (EBC) studies. Because pre-surgery situation was comparable to MBC setting, interpatient CV% of 60 percent (%) was assumed and 130 participants per arm (260 participants total) were needed to demonstrate Ctrough comparability with 80% power if the true means of the two formulations did not differ by greater than (\>) 5%.||1.44|1.24|
95743683|NCT00950300|191458127|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 97.5% CI was above -12.5% for the difference in response (pCR) rates.|Difference in response rates|4.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.0||||||The one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in response (pCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|Assuming pCR rates of at least 40% in both arms, 552 participants were necessary to conclude non-inferiority in pCR rate with a power of 80% using a one-sided 97.5% CI for the difference of the response rates and a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|||-4.0|
95743684|NCT00950300|191458128|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.63|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.63|1.40|
95940592|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|15.799||||0.5445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.614|67.212|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||67.212|-35.614|0.5445
95743685|NCT00950300|191458129|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.46|
95940593|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.583||||0.9534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.951|55.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||55.116|-51.951|0.9534
95743686|NCT00950300|191458130|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|1.64|||||Ratio of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|Additional supportive analysis.||1.64|1.45|
95743687|NCT00950300|191458139|OTHER||Difference in response rates|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|13.5|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (tpCR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||13.5|-3.5|
95743688|NCT00950300|191458140|OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the difference in response (CR+PR) rates was calculated using the Anderson-Hauck continuity correction.|||4.2|-7.4|
95743689|NCT00950300|191458140|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.46|||||OR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.46|0.50|
95743690|NCT00950300|191458143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.29|0.74|0.8651
95743691|NCT00950300|191458145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank||HR of test treatment group (Herceptin SC + Chemotherapy) to reference treatment group (Herceptin IV + Chemotherapy).|||1.45|0.61|0.7767
95743692|NCT00421304|191458153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.218
95743693|NCT00421304|191458153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.643
95743694|NCT00421304|191458153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.677
95743695|NCT00421304|191458154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.257
95743696|NCT00421304|191458154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.726
95743697|NCT00421304|191458154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.551
95743698|NCT00421304|191458155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.591
95743699|NCT00421304|191458155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.393
95743700|NCT00421304|191458155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.586
95743701|NCT00421304|191458156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.894
95743702|NCT00421304|191458156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.674
95743703|NCT00421304|191458156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.636
95743704|NCT00421304|191458157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.397
95743705|NCT00421304|191458157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.238
95940594|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.584||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.126|80.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||80.295|-65.126|0.8366
95940595|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.973||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.862|42.916|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||42.916|-154.862|0.5437
95940596|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-73.308||||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.224|30.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||30.608|-177.224|0.2974
95940597|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-44.892||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.909|92.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||92.126|-181.909|0.9026
95940598|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-35.811||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.513|60.891|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||60.891|-132.513|0.8954
95989333|NCT02193074|191953662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||DIfference in percentages|68.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.27|81.99|||Fisher Exact|||||81.99|51.27|< 0.0001
95743706|NCT00421304|191458157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.461
95743707|NCT00421304|191458158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.322
95743708|NCT00421304|191458158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.747
95743709|NCT00421304|191458158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.717
95743710|NCT00421304|191458159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.847
95743711|NCT00421304|191458159|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
95743712|NCT00421304|191458159|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
95743713|NCT00421304|191458160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.653
95743714|NCT00421304|191458160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.283
95940599|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-46.239||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.766|54.288|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||54.288|-146.766|0.7485
95940600|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-36.559||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.77|96.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||96.653|-169.770|0.9578
95940601|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.725||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.208|47.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||47.757|-129.208|0.3635
95950210|NCT00657709|191872505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two co-primary comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for for NZ98 /254 strain with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs.||"The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing rMenB Lot2 to rMenB Lot3 for NZ98~/254 strain at one month after the third vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0)."||1.08|0.78|
95989334|NCT02193074|191953663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||Log Rank|Based on log-rank test stratified by disease duration (primary analysis).||||||0.0041
95989335|NCT02193074|191953663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.372||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1787|0.7745|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening (sensitivity analysis).||||0.7745|0.1787|0.0082
95989336|NCT02193074|191953665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|30.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.35|48.09|||Fisher Exact|||||48.09|10.35|0.0004
95989337|NCT02193074|191953666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
95989338|NCT02193074|191953666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|0.5753|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||0.5753|0.1002|0.0014
95989339|NCT02193074|191953667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3953|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3953
95743715|NCT00421304|191458160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.411
95743716|NCT00421304|191458161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.988
95989340|NCT02193074|191953667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.6698|||Cox proportional hazards|Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for each subject's disease duration at screening.||||1.6698|0.4270|0.6268
95743717|NCT00421304|191458161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.832
95743718|NCT00421304|191458161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.748
95743719|NCT00421304|191458162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.280
95743720|NCT00421304|191458162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.108
95743721|NCT00421304|191458162|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
95743722|NCT00421304|191458163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.742
95743723|NCT00421304|191458163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.486
95743724|NCT00421304|191458163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.490
95743725|NCT00421304|191458164|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||1.000
95743726|NCT00421304|191458165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.050
95743727|NCT00421304|191458166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.008
95743728|NCT00421304|191458167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||0.012
95743729|NCT00421304|191458168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon's rank-sum test|||||||<0.001
95940602|NCT04800211|191847062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.333||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.097|93.431|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||93.431|-110.097|0.8713
95940603|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.256||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.973|-52.539|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-52.539|-177.973|0.0003
95743730|NCT00087529|191458187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.093||Stratified using the following variables: Baseline EDSS (less than or equal to \[≤\] 4.0 versus \>4.0 points) and prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate.|Log Rank|||||1.093|0.546|0.1442
95743731|NCT00087529|191458189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-718.24||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1504.48|68.0|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||68.00|-1504.48|0.0008
95940604|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-74.904||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.706|-1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-1.102|-148.706|0.0467
95950211|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third vaccination, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
95743732|NCT00087529|191458190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|7.34|||Friedman ranked ANOVA test|||Treatment difference in LS means and the associated 95% confidence intervals were estimated from the ANOVA model, which included the following factors: Baseline EDSS (≤ 4.0 versus \>4.0 points), prior treatment with interferon-beta or glatiramer acetate, and treatment group.||7.34|-9.49|0.6237
95743733|NCT00840840|191458200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.45||||||90.0|97.71|105.33|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.33|97.71|
95743734|NCT00840840|191458201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|103.05||||||90.0|101.25|104.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.88|101.25|
95743735|NCT00840840|191458202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|102.94||||||90.0|101.08|104.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.83|101.08|
95743736|NCT00840840|191458203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.68||||||90.0|92.41|107.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||107.52|92.41|
95743737|NCT00840840|191458204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.48||||||90.0|94.73|108.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.71|94.73|
95743738|NCT00840840|191458205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.17||||||90.0|91.95|109.13|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.13|91.95|
95796786|NCT03034967|191563395|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.08|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.08|0.23|
95950799|NCT03015220|191873576|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.72||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 7 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.72|0.21|0.3391
95989341|NCT02889796|191953824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.8|20.6|<0.001
95989342|NCT02889796|191953824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|26.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||26.2|13.6|<0.001
95989343|NCT02889796|191953825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.22||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.22|-0.36|<0.001
95989344|NCT02889796|191953825|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.24|<0.001
95989345|NCT02889796|191953826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||30.0|19.6|<0.001
95989346|NCT02889796|191953826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|19.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.3|9.7|<0.001
95989347|NCT02889796|191953826|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using non-responder imputation (NRI).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||<0.001
95989348|NCT02889796|191953826|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 using NRI.||||||0.002||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||||0.002
95989349|NCT02889796|191953826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|17.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||17.0|3.9|0.001
95989350|NCT02889796|191953826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12.||6.3|-6.2|0.99
95743739|NCT03921554|191458249|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with AGS score as outcome and an indicator variable for 52 weeks. An exchangeable correlation structure was used to model intra-participant association of AGS scores. The model allowed for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis is that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in AGS is zero.~45 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 6 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants were included in the analysis."||1.2|0.5|<0.0005
95743740|NCT03921554|191458250|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 673 - Day 0)|1.09|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of AGS on day of treatment (modeled with cubic splines with knots at days 0, 84, 168, 336, 506, 673, and 1006). Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with AR(1) correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 673 of treatment (Day 673 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||1.62|0.57|<0.0005
95743741|NCT03921554|191458251|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|2.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.4|-1.9|0.295
95989351|NCT02889796|191953827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
95743742|NCT03921554|191458251|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||12.0|1.9|0.007
95743743|NCT03921554|191458251|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (52 weeks - baseline)|0.26||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model with GMFM-88 as outcome, with indicator variables for 52 weeks (vs. baseline) and cohorts B and C (vs. A); in addition, time by cohort interaction terms are included. The model allow for up to 2 measurements per participant.|"We are testing the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (52 weeks - baseline) in GMFM-88 is zero within cohorts.~35 participants had 2 measurements (at baseline and 52 weeks); 15 participants had 1 measurement (at baseline). All participants are included in the analysis."||6.2|-5.7|0.932
95796787|NCT03034967|191563395|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.1|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.10|0.37|
95796788|NCT03034967|191563395|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.12|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||1.12|0.40|
95940605|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-144.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.668|-81.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-81.402|-206.668|<.0001
95940606|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-62.755||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.221|7.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||7.710|-133.221|0.0807
95940607|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-68.83||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.753|-16.907|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-16.907|-120.753|0.0095
95940608|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.593||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.873|58.687|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||58.687|-61.873|0.9586
95940609|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.714|66.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||66.443|-71.714|0.9402
95989352|NCT02889796|191953827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.10|-0.40|0.001
95989353|NCT02889796|191953828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|32.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||32.4|20.2|<0.001
95989354|NCT02889796|191953828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||21.4|9.4|<0.001
95989355|NCT02889796|191953828|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||<0.001
95989356|NCT02889796|191953828|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 using NRI.||||||0.054||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||||0.054
95743744|NCT03921554|191458252|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (Day 3 - Day 0)|-8.76|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a QLS model of ISG on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select QLS model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from pre to post treatment (Day 3 minus Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-5.81|-11.7|<0.0005
95743745|NCT03921554|191458253|SUPERIORITY||Estimated change (day 335 minus day 0)|-0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wald test||We fit a GEE model of diary average score on day of treatment and indicator variable for post-treatment. Goodness of fit criteria were used to select GEE model with exchangeable correlation structure.|We estimate change from Day 0 to Day 335 (Day 335 - Day 0) with 95% confidence interval (CI). All participants are included in the analysis.||-0.04|-0.18|0.002
95743746|NCT00697619|191458276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
95743747|NCT00697619|191458276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95743748|NCT00697619|191458276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95743749|NCT05186415|191458345|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
95743750|NCT05186415|191458345|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-diastolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
95743751|NCT05186415|191458345|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
95743752|NCT05186415|191458345|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.685|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular end-systolic volumes were compared between two groups using an intraclass coefficient||||
95743753|NCT05186415|191458346|OTHER||Intraclass Coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between non-contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
95743754|NCT05186415|191458346|OTHER||Intraclass coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|Measurements of right ventricular ejection fraction were compared between contrast echocardiogram and cardiac MRI using an intraclass coefficient||||
95743755|NCT05186415|191458348|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between non-contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.419|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
95743756|NCT05186415|191458348|OTHER|Intraclass coefficient used to assess agreement between contrast echocardiographic values and cardiac MRI global longitudinal strain|Intraclass coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Intraclass coefficient using a two-way mixed effects model|||||
95743757|NCT03460990|191458355|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.5|7.4|< 0.0001
95743758|NCT03460990|191458356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-43.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-43.5|-53.9|<0.0001
95743759|NCT03460990|191458357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||18.3|8.8|<0.0001
95989357|NCT02889796|191953828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|13.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||13.6|-1.0|0.069
95989358|NCT02889796|191953828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 12||2.6|-11.8|0.18
95989359|NCT02889796|191953829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.6|2.8|<0.001
95743760|NCT01958060|191458361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9901|1.1308|||||Dose proportionality was explored using linear regression model (ANOVA).The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually the SE of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for Cmax was analysed.||1.1308|0.9901|
95743761|NCT01958060|191458363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.5629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3426|1.7833|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the linear regression model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.Standard error of the mean is actually the standard error of the slope.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 1034020 following iv administration of single rising doses of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 50 mg for AUClast was analysed.||1.7833|1.3426|
95743762|NCT00769314|191458364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0685||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.1339||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared||Treatment difference was the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the acyclovir Lauriad group minus the proportion of patients with aborted lesions in the placebo group.|||0.1339|0.0025|0.0419
95743763|NCT00769314|191458365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0683
95743764|NCT00769314|191458366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0033
95743765|NCT00769314|191458367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0098
95743766|NCT00769314|191458368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.8005
95743767|NCT00769314|191458369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.015
95743768|NCT00769314|191458370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Log Rank|||||||0.0412
95743769|NCT00769314|191458371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0271
95743770|NCT00769314|191458372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 1 timepoint.||||0.5695
95743771|NCT00769314|191458372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at Day 3 timepoint||||0.1824
95743772|NCT00769314|191458372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 5 timepoint||||0.0078
95743773|NCT00769314|191458372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 7 timepoint||||0.3303
95743774|NCT00769314|191458372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6045||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis conducted between treatment groups at the Day 14 timepoint||||0.6045
95950800|NCT03015220|191873576|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||"Oral Semaglutide 14 mg~/Dulaglutide 0.75 mg"|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and strata as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.62|0.02|0.0110
95743775|NCT00769314|191458373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value \< 0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
95743776|NCT04980456|191458402|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = TOTAL30 minus Biofinity|||0.01||
95743777|NCT02846883|191458404|SUPERIORITY|These power estimates are based on linear regression of regulatory T-cell counts at each time point. These data will be summarized with the mean, median, standard deviation, standard error, minimum and maximum.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox|See above|Estimates for the differences in the secondary endpoints will be used to perform a power estimation using a Monte Carlo simulation method.|The primary statistical evaluation for Aim 1 will focus on the chronologically increasing counts of T-regulatory cells over time following MSC administration in both delivery groups. Using the pattern of increased counts with time and the standard deviation reported by Ito and colleagues in healthy subjects, 36 subjects provides 81.0% power to detect such a change.A p value of \<0.05 will be considered significant.||||<0.05
95743778|NCT00122447|191458406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.435|1.552||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||1.552|-3.435|0.449
95743779|NCT00122447|191458406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.211||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.133|-0.221||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||-0.221|-5.133|0.034
95743780|NCT00122447|191458406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.367|2.542||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in hsCRP from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, and race.|Regression, Linear|||||2.542|-2.367|0.943
95796789|NCT03034967|191563396|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.16|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.16|0.00|
95796790|NCT03034967|191563396|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.43|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model||0.43|0.00|
95743781|NCT00122447|191458407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.023||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: no difference between active treatment group compared to placebo.||0.023|-0.025|0.943
95743782|NCT00122447|191458407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.039||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.012|0.280
95743783|NCT00122447|191458407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.037||Association between treatment arm, compared to placebo, on change in FMD from baseline to 12 months of intervention, adjusted for age, sex, race, and LDL-cholesterol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.037|-0.012|0.313
95743784|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95743785|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95743786|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-450/r group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide \> 95% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.5 log10 IU/mL using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95743787|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
95743788|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
95743789|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-072 and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 92% power to detect a 1.0 log10 difference with a standard deviation of 0.6 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95743790|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, 2-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight subjects per ABT-333 group and 11 subjects in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a 2-sided 2-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
95796791|NCT03034967|191563396|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.61|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.61|0.04|
95743791|NCT01074008|191458411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment was the factor and baseline log10 HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 11 participants in the placebo group would provide 82% power to detect a 1.0 log10 IU/mL difference with a standard deviation of 0.7 log10 IU/mL and a two-sided, two-sample t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.053
95743792|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95743793|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95743794|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95743795|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
95796792|NCT03034967|191563396|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.64|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.64|0.21|
95743796|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95743797|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95796793|NCT03034967|191563396|OTHER|Emax|Median Posterior Difference|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.66|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|4-parameter Emax model selected.||0.66|0.26|
95743798|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
95743799|NCT01074008|191458412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
95743800|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743801|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
95743802|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743803|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743804|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
95796794|NCT03034967|191563397|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model.||0.23|-0.21|
95940610|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.663||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.33|-3.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-3.996|-223.330|0.0390
95989360|NCT02889796|191953829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.0|2.2|<0.001
95743805|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743806|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743807|NCT01074008|191458413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743808|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95796795|NCT03034967|191563397|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.25|-0.23|
95989361|NCT02889796|191953830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.7|<0.001
95743809|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95743810|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95743811|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95743812|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.319
95743813|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95743814|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95743815|NCT01074008|191458426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was ≤ 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.074
95743816|NCT00578968|191458467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95743817|NCT00578968|191458468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95743818|NCT00578968|191458469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95743819|NCT00578968|191458470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95743820|NCT00578968|191458471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline resting.||||0.13
95796796|NCT03034967|191563397|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.29|-0.27|
95743821|NCT00578968|191458471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between the two groups at baseline peak exercise||||<0.01
95743822|NCT00578968|191458472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95743823|NCT00578968|191458473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95743824|NCT00578968|191458474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95743825|NCT00578968|191458475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95743826|NCT00578968|191458476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
95743827|NCT00578968|191458477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95743828|NCT00578968|191458478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95743829|NCT00578968|191458479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95743830|NCT00578968|191458480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95989362|NCT02889796|191953830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.7|1.5|<0.001
95743831|NCT00578968|191458481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95743832|NCT00578968|191458482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.60
95743833|NCT00578968|191458483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
95743834|NCT00578968|191458484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.65
95743835|NCT00578968|191458485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
95743836|NCT00578968|191458486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment resting time period.||||0.73
95743837|NCT00578968|191458486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison was made between groups at pretreatment peak exercise time period.||||0.11
95743838|NCT00578968|191458487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95743839|NCT00578968|191458488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95743840|NCT00578968|191458489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
95743841|NCT00578968|191458490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95743842|NCT00578968|191458491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95743843|NCT00578968|191458492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
95743844|NCT00578968|191458493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95743845|NCT00578968|191458494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95743846|NCT01579006|191458512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743847|NCT01579006|191458513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743848|NCT01579006|191458514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743849|NCT01579006|191458516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743850|NCT01579006|191458517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743851|NCT01579006|191458523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743852|NCT01579006|191458524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743853|NCT01579006|191458525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743854|NCT01579006|191458526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743855|NCT01579006|191458527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743856|NCT01579006|191458529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95743857|NCT05061992|191458531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in SF-8||||0.6
95743858|NCT05061992|191458531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||End of trial SF-8||||0.2
95743859|NCT05061992|191458532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in ANT||||0.001
95743860|NCT05061992|191458532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of trial ANT||||0.09
95743861|NCT05061992|191458533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95743862|NCT05061992|191458534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95743863|NCT05061992|191458535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
95743864|NCT05061992|191458536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95743865|NCT02048813|191458552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.22|<.001
95743866|NCT02048813|191458553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.05|<.001
95743867|NCT01192776|191458564|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.98|0.76|
95743868|NCT01192776|191458564|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.87||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.87|0.78|
95743869|NCT01192776|191458564|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.53|
95743870|NCT01192776|191458565|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.49||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||8.49|0.55|
95743871|NCT01192776|191458565|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.95||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||5.95|1.06|
95989363|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||10.9|5.1|<0.001
95989364|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.3|2.3|<0.001
95989365|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.9|11.9|<0.001
95989366|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|10.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.9|3.1|<0.001
95989367|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||33.3|21.4|<0.001
95989368|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|22.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||22.5|10.9|<0.001
95989369|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|31.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||31.0|18.3|<0.001
95989370|NCT02889796|191953831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
95989371|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||4.1|0.5|0.008
95989372|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||2.2|-0.5|0.18
95989373|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||10.6|4.6|<0.001
95989374|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||4.0|-0.3|0.067
95989375|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||24.1|14.6|<0.001
95989376|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|16.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12||16.2|7.5|<0.001
95989377|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||26.9|15.7|<0.001
95989378|NCT02889796|191953833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||20.0|9.2|<0.001
95989379|NCT02889796|191953835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||27.9|16.7|<0.001
95989380|NCT02889796|191953835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|17.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||17.9|7.2|<0.001
95989381|NCT02889796|191953835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||26.1|13.4|<0.001
95989382|NCT02889796|191953835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||20.2|7.5|<0.001
95858473|NCT01209325|191674709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.8 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.350
95989383|NCT02889796|191953835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.9|13.0|<0.001
95989384|NCT02889796|191953835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|24.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||24.5|12.6|<0.001
95743872|NCT01192776|191458565|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.31||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||4.31|0.79|
95743873|NCT01192776|191458570|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.38|0.64|
95743874|NCT01192776|191458570|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.90|0.36|
95743875|NCT01192776|191458570|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.57||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.57|0.26|
95743876|NCT01192776|191458572|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.77||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.77|0.63|
95743877|NCT01192776|191458572|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.04||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.04|0.09|
95743878|NCT01192776|191458572|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.99||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.99|0.20|
95743879|NCT01192776|191458573|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.01||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.01|0.14|
95940611|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-72.269||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.091|54.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||54.554|-199.091|0.4543
95743880|NCT01192776|191458573|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.91||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||3.91|0.44|
95989385|NCT02889796|191953837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.12||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.12|-0.22|<0.001
95743881|NCT01192776|191458573|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.89|0.03|
95743882|NCT01192776|191458574|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.07||||||32.0°C for 72 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||2.07|0.37|
95743883|NCT01192776|191458574|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.35||||||33.5°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.35|0.30|
95743884|NCT01192776|191458574|SUPERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equations models with log link, adjusted for level of encephalopathy and intra-center correlations|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.64||||||32.0°C for 120 hours vs. 33.5°C for 72 hours (33.5°C for 72 hours is the comparison group)||1.64|0.13|
95743885|NCT04633642|191458578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significances was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95743886|NCT04633642|191458579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95743887|NCT04633642|191458580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95743888|NCT04633642|191458581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical di↵erence of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.01
95743889|NCT04633642|191458582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistics significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95796797|NCT03034967|191563397|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.3|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.30|-0.28|
95940612|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-142.442||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.08|-32.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-32.805|-252.080|0.0051
95989386|NCT02889796|191953837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.14|<0.001
95743890|NCT04633642|191458583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed 51 patients (24 in surgical group and 27 in UAW group) with a statistical power of 0.80 and an alpha of 0.05, with a power of the clinical difference of 37% to detect a statistically significant between groups.||||0.711
95743891|NCT01207752|191458605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
95743892|NCT05053360|191458610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.93|||Regression, Logistic|||HIGH PAIN = score over 6 on a 0-10 pain scale (higher number indicating higher pain)||6.93|1.19|.019
95743893|NCT05053360|191458611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-3.47|.0002
95743894|NCT01586039|191458612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 90 lux intensity. Melatonin suppression is measured as the percentage of melatonin AUC relative to the AUC measured in dim light on the previous day. Higher values indicate more light-induced melatonin suppression.||||0.73
95743895|NCT01586039|191458612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Contrasting LED vs. CFL at 50 lux intensity||||0.001
95940613|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-60.12||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.286|64.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||64.046|-184.286|0.6061
95989387|NCT02889796|191953837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.13|-0.24|<0.001
95743896|NCT01586039|191458613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.19
95743897|NCT01586039|191458615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||||0.17
95743898|NCT01586039|191458615|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test.||||||1.0
95743899|NCT02533466|191458626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.0|0.2673
95743900|NCT02533466|191458627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-1.8|0.0690
95743901|NCT02533466|191458628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||P-value was calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product."|||0.0|-2.7|0.0680
95743902|NCT02533466|191458629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||"Median difference and 95% CI intervals were calculated from the Hodges Lehnmann estimate.~Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product"|||0.0|-3.0|0.0654
95743903|NCT02533466|191458630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|4.1||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||4.1|-6.8|0.6061
95858474|NCT01209325|191674710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Exact poisson test|||||||0.162
95743904|NCT02533466|191458631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product|||3.3|-7.9|0.4080
95743905|NCT02533466|191458632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||0.8|-0.4|0.4611
95743906|NCT02533466|191458633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.3939
95743907|NCT02533466|191458634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.8||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||2.8|-2.2|0.7829
95743908|NCT02533466|191458635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent analyses was executed using scale transformation or non-parametric methods|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||P value obtained from the ANCOVA analysis.|ANCOVA||Difference and 95 % CI obtained from the ANCOVA analysis. Difference was calculated as reference product minus test product.|||1.4|-1.6|0.9121
95743909|NCT01196390|191458642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|Assuming a median DFS time of 15 months (Arm 2), hypothesized increase in DFS corresponding to median DFS time of 25 months (Arm 1). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 183 HER2-positive participants accrued over 5 years and followed for 3 years would result in 162 disease-free survival events and provide 90% statistical power to detect this difference with a 2-sided α of 0.05 and 2 interim analyses. See Limitations and Caveats section.||1.36|0.69|0.85
95743910|NCT01196390|191458643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.71
95743911|NCT01196390|191458644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation arm|||1.47|0.69|0.95
95743912|NCT01196390|191458646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||6-8 weeks||||0.39
95743913|NCT01196390|191458646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||1 year||||0.78
95743914|NCT01196390|191458646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||One-side significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||2 years||||0.28
95743915|NCT01196390|191458649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to model the association of treatment arm (Arm 1 vs. 2 \[reference level(RL)\]), T stage (T3 vs.T1,T2 \[RL\]), Zubrod (1,2 vs. 0 \[RL\]), gender (male vs. female \[RL\]), presence of adenopathy (yes vs. no \[RL\]), and age (≥ 60 vs. \<60 \[RL\]) with the occurrence of any cardiac AE, using backwards step-wise model selection requiring p≤0.05 for a covariate to remain in the model. Final model covariates are reported. Age is reported here. No other covariates reported.||4.86|1.13|0.021
95743916|NCT01949532|191458660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|132.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.6|249.63|||||The point estimates of the geometric mean ratios for the PK parameters were calculated by exponentiation of the differences in the least-squares means between the renal impairment group (test) and participants with normal renal function (reference).|||249.63|70.60|
95743917|NCT01949532|191458661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|133.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|251.73||||||||251.73|70.93|
95743918|NCT01874535|191458793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95743919|NCT04388787|191458815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95743920|NCT04388787|191458816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
95743921|NCT01680016|191458842|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in children aged ≥6 to ≤17 years||1.02|0.69|
95743922|NCT01680016|191458843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.5|Ratio of GMCs between two groups(Day 15)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate noninferiority in immune response of the Zagreb post-exposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen post-exposure schedule at day 15 in older adults aged ≥51 years||1.35|0.87|
95743923|NCT02293460|191458887|SUPERIORITY|The response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3%.|Responder rate|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|87.9||One-sided test at nominal level of significance alpha = 2.5 %|exact binomial Clopper-Pearson|||"For this single-arm study, the response rate was tested against the historical response rate of 33.3% with a 1-sided Clopper-Pearson exact test at the nominal level of significance of 2.5% on the Full Analysis Set. The null and alternative hypotheses were as follows:~H0: pI10E \<= 33.3% H1: pI10E \> 33.3%"||87.9|60.5|<0.0001
95743924|NCT00706719|191458898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.118
95743925|NCT00706719|191458898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.006
95743926|NCT00706719|191458898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.009
95743927|NCT00706719|191458898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.0024
95743928|NCT00706719|191458899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.15
95743929|NCT00706719|191458899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.0067
95743930|NCT00706719|191458899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.10
95743931|NCT00706719|191458899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.26
95743932|NCT00706719|191458900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.880
95743933|NCT00706719|191458900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.612
95743934|NCT00706719|191458900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.488
95940614|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.194||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.672|18.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||18.284|-150.672|0.1242
95743935|NCT00706719|191458900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.054
95743936|NCT00706719|191458901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.705
95743937|NCT00706719|191458901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.013
95743938|NCT00706719|191458901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.004
95743939|NCT00706719|191458901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.808
95743940|NCT00706719|191458902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Baseline.||||0.008
95743941|NCT00706719|191458902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 3.||||0.015
95743942|NCT00706719|191458902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Month 6.||||0.003
95743943|NCT00706719|191458902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Group A and B observed values at Follow-up (Month 7).||||0.109
95743944|NCT01453153|191458934|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0||||||||60|0|
95743945|NCT01453153|191458934|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|93.0||||||||93|7|
95743946|NCT01453153|191458934|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|64.0||||||||64|19|
95743947|NCT01453153|191458935|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|81.0||||||||81|1|
95743948|NCT01453153|191458935|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|100.0||||||||100|40|
95743949|NCT01453153|191458935|SUPERIORITY||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|88.0||||||||88|46|
95743950|NCT01196117|191458942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0009
95743951|NCT01196117|191458943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8938
95743952|NCT01196117|191458944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.014
95743953|NCT01196117|191458945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0200
95858475|NCT01209325|191674710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the Merck 020 per-protocol historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.0 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.490
95743954|NCT01196117|191458946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
95743955|NCT01196117|191458947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.2490
95743956|NCT01196117|191458948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5139
95743957|NCT01196117|191458949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0597
95743958|NCT01196117|191458950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2134
95743959|NCT03239496|191458954|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
95743960|NCT03239496|191458955|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
95796798|NCT03034967|191563397|OTHER|Log-linear|Median Posterior Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.31|||||Median posterior difference, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|Log-linear model||0.31|-0.29|
95743961|NCT03239496|191458956|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
95940615|NCT04800211|191847063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.149||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.35|88.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||88.052|-112.350|0.8117
95940616|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.957||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.151|3.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.237|-227.151|0.0567
95940617|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-76.728||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.025|43.569|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.569|-197.025|0.2103
95989388|NCT02889796|191953837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.04|-0.15|<0.001
95989389|NCT02889796|191953837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.19||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.19|-0.34|<0.001
95989390|NCT02889796|191953837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
95743962|NCT03239496|191458957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
95743963|NCT03239496|191458958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.0001
95989391|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
95950212|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
95989392|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-3.0|0.010
95989393|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
95989394|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
95989395|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-5.0|<0.001
95989396|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-4.0|<0.001
95989397|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-4.0|<0.001
95989398|NCT02889796|191953839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95989399|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.002
95989400|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.0|-2.0|0.047
95796799|NCT03034967|191563404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.86||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.86|1.02|0.089
95858476|NCT01209325|191674711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Two-sided p-value is comparing naive and prior exposure groups for HPV 6.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.671
95940618|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-169.735||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.22|-51.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-51.251|-288.220|0.0052
95940619|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-52.505||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.721|57.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||57.711|-162.721|0.3490
95940620|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.413||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.333|100.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||100.507|-123.333|0.8410
95940621|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-53.565||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.4|58.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||58.270|-165.400|0.3465
95743964|NCT03239496|191458959|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
95743965|NCT03239496|191458960|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
95743966|NCT03239496|191458961|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority comparisons of seroconversion rates will be made utilizing the lower bound of two-sided score-based confidence intervals (α = 0.05) with non-inferiority margin 10%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The group sizes are chosen to provide ≥ 80% power for each of the primary objectives, for the individual statistical tests of each serotype, as well as across both serotypes simultaneously. Power of ≥80% is also available for all secondary objectives, except for the comparison of the f-IPV regimen administered at weeks 14 and 36 to the 3-dose IPV regimen, which has power of 62% for individual serotypes, and 39% for the combined serotypes.||||0.05
95989401|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95743967|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.44||||||95.0|0.06|3.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||3.43|0.06|
95743968|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.7|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 29||1.70|0.25|
95743969|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.43||||||95.0|0.06|2.94|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||2.94|0.06|
95940622|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-111.65||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.865|-28.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-28.435|-194.865|0.0087
95940623|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|63.944||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.678|177.565|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||177.565|-49.678|0.2688
95940624|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|151.222||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.114|265.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||265.330|37.114|0.0096
95940625|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|182.631||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.754|299.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||299.509|65.754|0.0023
95989402|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95940626|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-175.901||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.865|39.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||39.063|-390.865|0.1612
95989403|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95989404|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
95989405|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-3.0|<0.001
95989406|NCT02889796|191953841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.0|-2.0|<0.001
95989407|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-11.0|<0.001
95989408|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
95989409|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
95989410|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.0|-7.0|<0.001
95989411|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-10.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-10.0|-16.0|<0.001
95989412|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
95989413|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
95796800|NCT03034967|191563404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.79||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.79|0.62|0.881
95796801|NCT03034967|191563404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.48||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.48|0.51|0.674
95796802|NCT03034967|191563404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.54|0.804
95796803|NCT03034967|191563404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.71||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, relevant Baseline E-RS: COPD score, smoking status at Screening, country, month, Baseline by month and treatment by month interactions.|linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.71|0.59|0.987
95989414|NCT02889796|191953843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-11.0|<0.001
95989415|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
95989416|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-8.0|<0.001
95989417|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
95743970|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.51||||||95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 57||1.37|0.19|
95858477|NCT01209325|191674711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 6 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 6 (NCT00090285), 1.8 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.5 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.312
95989418|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-9.0|<0.001
95989419|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-10.0|<0.001
95743971|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.59||||||95.0|0.13|2.65|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||2.65|0.13|
95796804|NCT03034967|191563406|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.6|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX versus (vs.) Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1)at Screening.|2.6|0.5|
95796805|NCT03034967|191563406|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.4|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.4|0.4|
95743972|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.66||||||95.0|0.3|1.43|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 85||1.43|0.30|
95743973|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.96||||||95.0|0.18|5.12|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||5.12|0.18|
95743974|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.36|1.6|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 169||1.60|0.36|
95950213|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 44/76-SL strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
95989420|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
95989421|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-11.0|<0.001
95743975|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.16||||||95.0|0.23|5.79|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||5.79|0.23|
95743976|NCT05480800|191459003|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.9||||||95.0|0.44|1.84|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG, Day 197||1.84|0.44|
95743977|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.92||||||95.0|0.48|17.8|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||17.80|0.48|
95743978|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.41|2.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29||2.19|0.41|
95743979|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|3.03||||||95.0|0.43|21.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||21.45|0.43|
95743980|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.89||||||95.0|0.33|2.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57||2.45|0.33|
95743981|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.69||||||95.0|0.26|10.96|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||10.96|0.26|
95743982|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.76||||||95.0|0.29|2.0|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85||2.00|0.29|
95743983|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|2.49||||||95.0|0.24|26.3|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||26.30|0.24|
95858478|NCT01209325|191674712|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||>0.999
95743984|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.74||||||95.0|0.26|2.11|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169||2.11|0.26|
95743985|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.53||||||95.0|0.19|12.41|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||12.41|0.19|
95743986|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.85||||||95.0|0.34|2.15|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197||2.15|0.34|
95743987|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.43||||||95.0|0.61|48.17|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||48.17|0.61|
95858479|NCT01209325|191674712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 11 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 11 (NCT00090285), 0.0 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 1.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.209
95858480|NCT01209325|191674713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.386
95989422|NCT02889796|191953845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.0|-10.0|<0.001
95743988|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.19||||||95.0|0.43|3.26|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||3.26|0.43|
95743989|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.88||||||95.0|0.58|59.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||59.45|0.58|
95743990|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.35||||||95.0|0.41|4.45|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||4.45|0.41|
95743991|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|4.22||||||95.0|0.48|37.19|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||37.19|0.48|
95743992|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.13||||||95.0|0.37|3.48|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||3.48|0.37|
95858481|NCT01209325|191674713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||One-sided test|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 16 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 16 (NCT00090285), 2.9 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 4.9 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.305
95743993|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|13.24||||||95.0|1.02|172.55|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||172.55|1.02|
95858482|NCT01209325|191674714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.622
95858483|NCT01209325|191674714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||This study's Naive to HPV 18 group was compared to the per-protocol Merck 020 historical placebo group naive to HPV 18 (NCT00090285), 0.7 events per 100 person years (PY) versus 2.7 events per 100 PY, respectively.||||0.150
95858484|NCT01209325|191674715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.064
95858485|NCT01209325|191674716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745||||||Two-sided test.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.745
95858486|NCT01209325|191674717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.014
95743994|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.24||||||95.0|0.4|3.88|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||3.88|0.40|
95858487|NCT01209325|191674718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.166
95743995|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|5.56||||||95.0|0.53|58.61|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||58.61|0.53|
95743996|NCT05480800|191459004|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.37||||||95.0|0.48|3.86|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||3.86|0.48|
95743997|NCT05480800|191459008|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.92||||||95.0|0.54|1.58|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 29||1.58|0.54|
95743998|NCT05480800|191459008|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.54|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 57||1.59|0.54|
95743999|NCT05480800|191459008|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.61|1.49|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 85||1.49|0.61|
95744000|NCT05480800|191459008|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.78||||||95.0|0.45|1.34|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 169||1.34|0.45|
95744001|NCT05480800|191459008|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.94||||||95.0|0.63|1.4|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-Vi Ag IgG Day 197||1.40|0.63|
95744002|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 29|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.32|0.69|
95744003|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.01||||||95.0|0.74|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 57|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.37|0.74|
95744004|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.04||||||95.0|0.77|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 85|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.41|0.77|
95796806|NCT03034967|191563406|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|3.2|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|3.2|0.6|
95744005|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|1.2||||||95.0|0.81|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 169|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.77|0.81|
95796807|NCT03034967|191563406|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.3|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.3|1.0|
95858488|NCT01209325|191674719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.789
95858489|NCT01209325|191674720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Two-sided p-value.|0.809|||||||0.809
95858490|NCT01209325|191674721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.422
95989423|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
95744006|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Adjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.65|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results based on a linear mixed model with fixed effects; denominator degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite's method.|Anti-S.Typhimurium OAg IgG Day 197|Heterogeneity was observed at baseline for S. Typhimurium in Africa between iNTS - GMMA + TCV Full dose and iNTS-TCV Ful dose, which influenced other timepoints. Hence, adjusted GMRs are presented.|1.44|0.65|
95744007|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.49|1.37|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 29||1.37|0.49|
95744008|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.97||||||95.0|0.59|1.59|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 57||1.59|0.59|
95744009|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 85||1.67|0.64|
95744010|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.93||||||95.0|0.56|1.54|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 169||1.54|0.56|
95744011|NCT05480800|191459009|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Unadjusted GMR|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.33|||ANOVA||The Unadjusted GMR is the ratio of the geometric means of two groups being compared. Results were based on a linear model for a visit with fixed effect for treatment.|Anti-S.Enteritidis OAg IgG Day 197||1.33|0.51|
95744012|NCT00377156|191459063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.9|-14.4|||Fisher Exact||Cognitive deterioration, the primary end point in evaluable patients at 3 months, was less frequent after Arm I than Arm II (40/63 \[63.5%\] vs 44/48 \[91.7%\],\> respectively. The percent difference was -28.2%; 90% CI, -41.9% to -14.4%; P \< .001).|||-14.4|-41.9|<0.001
95744013|NCT00377156|191459064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||-7.8|-29.0|<0.001
95744014|NCT00377156|191459065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.0|4.8|0.001
95744015|NCT00377156|191459066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The incidence of cognitive deterioration was less in Arm I than Arm II at 12 months (6/10 \[60%\] vs 17/18 \[94.4%\]. The percent difference was -34.4% (95% CI: -74.4% to 5.5%; P = .04)|||5.5|-74.4|0.04
95744016|NCT00377156|191459067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.75|0.92
95744017|NCT00288704|191459071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
95744018|NCT00288704|191459072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Subjects received rilonacept 160 mg for 9 weeks (weeks 6-15), and then were re-randomized 1:1 into either Placebo or rilonacept 160 mg. The endpoint for the period was 9 weeks later (week 24).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.001
95858491|NCT01209325|191674722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||Two-sided p-value.|Exact Poisson calculation|||||||0.423
95950214|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-1|
95858492|NCT00354432|191674783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance was used with the baseline means constrained to be equal in the four groups.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hot flash severity score at 12 weeks.||||.3455
95858493|NCT00354432|191674784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in quality of life between the four groups at 12 weeks.||||0.2081
95858494|NCT03863080|191674793|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-56.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
95950215|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
95744019|NCT00288704|191459073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison of p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
95744020|NCT00288704|191459074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison P-Value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
95744021|NCT00288704|191459075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value is a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<.0001
95744022|NCT00288704|191459076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.0001
95744023|NCT00288704|191459077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Comparison p-value was a parametric ANCOVA main effects model with Part A Baseline variable as covariate and treatment.||"Please note that the changes are medians (not means).~The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used."||||<0.01
95744024|NCT00288704|191459078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
95744025|NCT00288704|191459079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
95744026|NCT00288704|191459080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculations at the time suggested 50 subjects would be enrolled at baseline. The Full Analysis Set (FAS) was used. The FAS included subjects who received at least one dose of rilonacept. Last observation carried forward was used.||||<0.0001
95744027|NCT03978598|191459102|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a 15% difference in our primary outcome for the non-inferiority margin as this is the upper end of the estimated prevalence of lactation failure in the literature and is consistent with previous studies (Neifert 2001, Gurtcheff 2011, Turok 2017).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|||||||To achieve 80% power with a 1-sided type 1 error of 5% utilizing the Z-test (unpooled), 62 participants would be required in each group, for a total of 124 participants. Accounting for expected loss to follow-up of 20%, we aimed to recruit 149 participants and rounded up to final recruitment goal of 150.|The risk-difference between immediate and standard placement in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mITT) was -0.6% with a -12.8% lower limit of the 95% confidence interval. In the mITT analysis, 78.3% (54/69) and 78.9% (45/57) of participants were breastfeeding at 8 weeks in the immediate and delayed groups, respectively.||-16.7|
95744028|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby had trouble sucking or latching||||0.221
95744029|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baby got sick||||0.786
95744030|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I was sick||||0.064
95744031|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Provider said baby was underweight||||0.044
95744032|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insufficient milk||||0.666
95744033|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I had trouble; breast issues||||0.006
95744034|NCT03978598|191459104|OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||I quit breastfeeding; life issues||||0.476
95744035|NCT03978598|191459105|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respecting me as a person||||0.717
95744036|NCT03978598|191459105|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Letting me say what mattered to me about my birth control method||||0.808
95744037|NCT03978598|191459105|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Taking my preferences about my birth control seriously||||0.967
95744038|NCT03978598|191459105|OTHER|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Giving me enough information to make the best decision about my birth control method||||0.826
95744039|NCT03978598|191459106|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.264
95744040|NCT03978598|191459106|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.414
95744041|NCT03978598|191459106|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.482
95744042|NCT03978598|191459107|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.583
95744043|NCT03978598|191459107|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.062
95744044|NCT03978598|191459107|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 weeks postpartum||||0.705
95744045|NCT03978598|191459108|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks postpartum||||0.60
95744046|NCT03978598|191459108|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 weeks postpartum||||0.07
95744047|NCT03978598|191459108|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks postpartum||||0.36
95744048|NCT03978598|191459109|OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0376
95744049|NCT02153723|191459111|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95744050|NCT02153723|191459112|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95744051|NCT02153723|191459113|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95744052|NCT02153723|191459114|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|15.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95744053|NCT02153723|191459115|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95744054|NCT02153723|191459116|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95796808|NCT03034967|191563406|OTHER||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|4.5|||||Median Posterior Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|4.5|0.9|
95744055|NCT02274558|191459134|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): valbenazine 80 mg vs. placebo.~* CGI-TD mean score: VBZ 80 mg vs. PBO.~* AIMS: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~* CGI-TD: VBZ 40 mg vs. PBO.~For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
95989424|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.0|-8.0|<0.001
95744056|NCT02274558|191459134|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Nominal P-value, not adjusted for multiplicity. See comments in above statistical analysis overview regarding the fixed-sequence testing procedure to control for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.7|-3.0|0.0021
95744057|NCT02274558|191459135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0742
95744058|NCT02274558|191459135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0560
95744059|NCT02274558|191459136|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0200
95744060|NCT02274558|191459136|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95744061|NCT02733627|191459182|OTHER||Slope|3.8266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2155|4.4376||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.4376|3.2155|
95744062|NCT02733627|191459183|OTHER||Slope|4.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5094|4.8527||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.8527|3.5094|
95744063|NCT02733627|191459184|OTHER||Slope|1.8868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2503|2.5234||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|2.5234|1.2503|
95796809|NCT03034967|191563409|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.2|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator %predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.2|1.0|
95796810|NCT03034967|191563409|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.7|0.8|
95744064|NCT02733627|191459185|OTHER||Slope|3.0677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0631|4.0723||||||The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model. The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. The assumption of a linear relationship between the log-transformed pharmacokinetic endpoint and the log-transformed dose was checked.|Standard Error of the mean is actually Standard Error of the slope. Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|4.0723|2.0631|
95744065|NCT01708954|191459217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.25|0.53|||||Hazard ratio of Arm C/Arm A|||0.53|0.25|
95744066|NCT01708954|191459217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||0.55|0.27|
95744067|NCT00059332|191459230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|ONE_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the primary efficacy analysis, data were analyzed to test the null hypothesis that the distribution of scores over all 7 levels of the modified Rankin Scale at Day 90 was identical in the magnesium sulfate and placebo groups, vs. the one-sided alternative that the distribution of scores is shifted lower in the active magnesium sulfate therapy group. The statistic used to test the primary hypothesis was the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test statistic stratified by transport vehicle.||||0.28
95744068|NCT00059332|191459231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||||1.20|0.81|0.87
95744069|NCT00059332|191459232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.81|0.87
95744070|NCT00059332|191459233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2760
95744071|NCT00059332|191459234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3912
95744072|NCT00059332|191459235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3230
95858495|NCT03863080|191674793|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-74.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Total IgG levels has been presented.|||||<0.0001
95744073|NCT00059332|191459236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.87|0.95
95744074|NCT00059332|191459237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|0.34|0.12
95744075|NCT00059332|191459238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.76|0.95
95744076|NCT01721772|191459242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.60|0.30|<0.0001
95858496|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95744077|NCT01721772|191459243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.56|0.34|<0.0001
95744078|NCT01721772|191459245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|7.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.13|2.75|<0.0001
95744079|NCT01721772|191459246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.56|||||PD-L1 positive group|||0.56|0.24|
95744080|NCT01721772|191459246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8|||||PD-L1 negative group|||0.80|0.45|
95744081|NCT01721772|191459249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65||||||||0.65|0.41|
95744082|NCT00715676|191459274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.641
95744083|NCT00715676|191459274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||The Hochberg method was used to compare dose groups to placebo and control the Type 1 error rate.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 49 per treatment group was calculated to have at least 90% power to detect a 2% or greater increase over placebo assuming the following: (1) a standard deviation of the percent change of 2.75% (2) a dropout rate of 30%, and (3) one-sided 0.05 level of significance||||0.243
95744084|NCT00715676|191459275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
95744085|NCT00715676|191459275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.173
95744086|NCT00715676|191459276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.395
95744087|NCT00715676|191459276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.523
95744088|NCT00715676|191459277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.928
95744089|NCT00715676|191459277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
95744090|NCT00715676|191459278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173||||||90.0|0.164|0.181||||||||0.181|0.164|
95744091|NCT00715676|191459278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.582||||||90.0|0.573|0.591||||||||0.591|0.573|
95744092|NCT03980522|191459281|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|19.1908|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and standard deviation (SD) from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744093|NCT03980522|191459281|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0018|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744094|NCT03980522|191459281|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744095|NCT03980522|191459281|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|12.6852|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744096|NCT03980522|191459281|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.1842|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744097|NCT03980522|191459281|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744098|NCT03980522|191459282|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|34.1446|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744099|NCT03980522|191459282|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.1326|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744100|NCT03980522|191459282|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744101|NCT03980522|191459282|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95796811|NCT03034967|191563409|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|1.6|0.7|
95796812|NCT03034967|191563409|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.1|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.1|1.0|
95858497|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 1 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95858498|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95989425|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-12.0|<0.001
95744102|NCT03980522|191459282|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744103|NCT03980522|191459282|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of CRP levels for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in CRP level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744104|NCT03980522|191459283|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|2.8139|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95796813|NCT03034967|191563409|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.3|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.3|1.1|
95858499|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 2 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95744105|NCT03980522|191459283|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|6.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95989426|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.0|-9.0|<0.001
95989427|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-9.0|-15.0|<0.001
95989428|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-13.0|<0.001
95744106|NCT03980522|191459283|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744107|NCT03980522|191459283|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744108|NCT03980522|191459283|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744109|NCT03980522|191459283|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled pre-baseline visits was used."||||
95744110|NCT03980522|191459284|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|1.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744111|NCT03980522|191459284|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.9047|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744112|NCT03980522|191459284|OTHER||Inter-subject variance|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Inter-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of inter-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744113|NCT03980522|191459284|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.7598|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95858500|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-66.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95744114|NCT03980522|191459284|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|2.849|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744115|NCT03980522|191459284|OTHER||Intra-subject variance|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Intra-subject variability of NRS Scores for Part 1, 2, and 4 participants was a designated primary endpoint.~Estimates of intra-subject variance and SD from a mixed model for repeated measures with change from baseline in NRS level as the outcome, repeated effect of visit and random effect of subject. Variance Components covariance structure was assumed. The data from all scheduled post-baseline visits was used."||||
95744116|NCT01320722|191459287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8||||0.72
95744117|NCT01320722|191459288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.77
95744118|NCT01320722|191459289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.57
95796814|NCT03034967|191563410|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.5|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.5|0.7|
95796815|NCT03034967|191563410|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.8|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.8|0.7|
95796816|NCT03034967|191563410|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.6|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|5.6|0.7|
95796817|NCT03034967|191563410|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|6.9|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|6.9|0.9|
95796818|NCT03034967|191563410|OTHER|Bayesian proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.7|||||Hazard Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.||DNX vs. Placebo statistics calculated using a Bayesian proportional hazards model including treatment, gender, exacerbation history (\<=1/\>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status at Screening, country and post-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 at Screening.|2.7|0.2|
95858501|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-80.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 3 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95940627|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-227.95||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.725|-7.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-7.175|-448.725|0.0396
95989429|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.0|-14.0|<0.001
95796819|NCT03034967|191563413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.59||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||2.59|0.88|0.208
95796820|NCT03034967|191563413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.73|0.482
95796821|NCT03034967|191563413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.53||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||2.53|0.86|0.239
95796822|NCT03034967|191563413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.26||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.26|0.75|0.426
95796823|NCT03034967|191563413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.58||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline SGRQ total score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||1.58|0.52|0.763
95796824|NCT03034967|191563415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.76||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 5 mg has been presented.|||1.76|0.58|0.973
95796825|NCT03034967|191563415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.63||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 10 mg has been presented.|||1.63|0.53|0.825
95796826|NCT03034967|191563415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.66||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 25 mg has been presented.|||1.66|0.55|0.887
95796827|NCT03034967|191563415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.13||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 35 mg has been presented.|||2.13|0.69|0.567
95858502|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95940628|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-352.366||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.315|-131.418|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-131.418|-573.315|0.0002
95940629|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.449||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-327.445|94.547|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||94.547|-327.445|0.5616
95940630|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-162.635||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.57|50.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||50.299|-375.570|0.2176
95989430|NCT02889796|191953847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.0|-12.0|<0.001
95796828|NCT03034967|191563415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.2||Analysis performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a logit link function including treatment, Baseline CAT score, smoking status at Screening, country, visit, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|Linear mixed model||Odds Ratio, 90% credible interval for Placebo and Danirixin 50 mg has been presented.|||2.20|0.72|0.501
95796829|NCT00790036|191563431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value was obtained from the one-sided unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.69|0.276
95796830|NCT00790036|191563432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||There was no formal testing of the OS between treatment since the primary endpoint was not statistically significant.||||||1.09|0.52|
95796831|NCT00790036|191563433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07||||||||1.07|0.41|
95796832|NCT02921256|191563442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
95796833|NCT02921256|191563442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
95858503|NCT03863080|191674794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-61.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of IgG 4 subclass has been presented.|||||<0.001
95989431|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.96||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-8.96|-12.70|<0.001
95796834|NCT04428151|191563461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.97|1.11|0.9963
95940631|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-236.196||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-451.334|-21.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-21.059|-451.334|0.0242
95940632|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-294.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-434.513|-154.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-154.050|-434.513|<.0001
95940633|NCT04800211|191847064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-116.17||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.521|43.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||43.180|-275.521|0.1524
95796835|NCT04428151|191563462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1). The reported p-value is nominal.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||1.28|0.74|0.4181
95989432|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|-5.87||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.87|-9.58|<0.001
95989433|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-7.45||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-7.45|-11.33|<0.001
95989434|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.42||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.42|-9.29|<0.001
95744119|NCT01320722|191459290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.8
95744120|NCT01320722|191459290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
95940634|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-32.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.375|-26.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-26.208|-39.375|<.0001
95989435|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.961|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-6.13||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-6.13|-9.90|<0.001
95744121|NCT01320722|191459291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.6
95744122|NCT01320722|191459291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.7
95744123|NCT01320722|191459292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.3
95744124|NCT01320722|191459292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.1
95744125|NCT01320722|191459293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.||Week 8||||0.35
95744126|NCT01320722|191459293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.7
95744127|NCT01320722|191459293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Statistical significance was set for a 2-tailed P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.06
95744128|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.92
95744129|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall DBP||||0.64
95744130|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.80
95744131|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Statistical significance was set for P\>0.05.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP at Week 8||||0.97
95744132|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.34
95744133|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysi|||Overall DBP||||0.59
95744134|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBF||||0.57
95744135|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.08
95744136|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall SBP||||0.59
95744137|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.53
95796836|NCT04428151|191563463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.5||||0.9266219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0. The reported p-value is nominal.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by baseline PD-L1 TPS (\<50% versus ≥50%) and baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).|||2.3|-15.4|0.9266219
95940635|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.398|-18.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-18.443|-33.398|<.0001
95940636|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.99|-18.979|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-18.979|-31.990|<.0001
95744138|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Awake SBP||||0.55
95744139|NCT01320722|191459294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||Asleep SBP||||0.80
95744140|NCT01320722|191459295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.98
95744141|NCT01320722|191459295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.07
95744142|NCT01320722|191459295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.97
95744143|NCT00021541|191459298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.012
95744144|NCT00021541|191459298|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: tipifarnib group F=7.40||||0.015
95744145|NCT00021541|191459298|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Post hoc test: placebo group F=0.19||||0.66
95744146|NCT03950674|191459305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.12511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.42||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.42|0.27|0.12511
95744147|NCT03950674|191459306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.03127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.15||One-sided p-value based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||1.15|0.07|0.03127
95744148|NCT00830167|191459312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025. Actual significance level was calculated based on O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function of Lan and DeMets (1983).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0046
95744149|NCT00830167|191459313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was conducted using 2-sided test with the significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that there was a difference between the pregabalin and the placebo groups.||||0.0078
95744150|NCT00830167|191459314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.85||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-5.85|-13.12|<0.0001
95744151|NCT00830167|191459315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.68||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||8.68|1.29|0.9958
95744152|NCT00830167|191459316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.21||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-1.21|-8.77|0.0049
95744153|NCT00830167|191459317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.47||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.47|0.11|0.0007
95744154|NCT00830167|191459318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|11.38||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||11.38|3.58|<0.0001
95744155|NCT00830167|191459319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|14.87||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||14.87|7.74|1.0000
95744156|NCT00830167|191459320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-0.33||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.33|-5.65|0.0137
95744157|NCT00830167|191459321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||2.35|0.90|0.0687
95744158|NCT00830167|191459322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.40|-1.06|<0.0001
95744159|NCT00830167|191459323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.35|-6.31|0.0144
95744160|NCT00830167|191459324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.03||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.03|-0.59|0.0376
95744161|NCT00830167|191459325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.15|-1.12|0.0052
95744162|NCT00830167|191459326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.40|-0.42|0.4768
95940637|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.135|-19.663|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-19.663|-34.135|<.0001
95744163|NCT00830167|191459327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.11|-0.74|0.0729
95744164|NCT00830167|191459328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.00|-0.81|0.0238
95796837|NCT02421939|191563480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm|Stratified analysis where tratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.||0.830|0.490|0.0004
95858504|NCT03863080|191674795|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-62.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 340 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||0.0009
95940638|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.716|-21.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-21.103|-31.716|<.0001
95940639|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.021||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.278|-0.763|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-0.763|-13.278|0.0280
95940640|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.902||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.881|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.077|-12.881|0.0972
95940641|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.189|-14.353|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-14.353|-37.189|<.0001
95940642|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.019||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.833|-7.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.205|-32.833|0.0005
95858505|NCT03863080|191674795|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-101.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Placebo and RVT-1401 680 mg/week of Anti-AChR-IgG has been presented.|||||<0.0001
95940643|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.463||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.825|-7.101|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||-7.101|-29.825|0.0002
95940644|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.997||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.619|-8.375|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-8.375|-33.619|0.0002
95940645|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.061|-11.955|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-11.955|-29.061|<.0001
95989436|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-4.58||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.58|-8.35|<0.001
95989437|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-5.93||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.93|-9.88|<0.001
95989438|NCT02889796|191953849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-4.62||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.62|-8.56|<0.001
95744165|NCT00830167|191459329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.10|-0.89|0.0075
95989439|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||18.9|5.7|<0.001
95989440|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||13.1|-0.1|0.043
95989441|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||22.8|9.8|<0.001
95989442|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.7|1.5|0.011
95989443|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|27.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||27.0|14.9|<0.001
95989444|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12.||19.9|7.3|<0.001
95989445|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|22.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||22.8|10.5|<0.001
95989446|NCT02889796|191953851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||20.3|7.8|<0.001
95989447|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
95989448|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
95989449|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.7|-0.9|<0.001
95744166|NCT00830167|191459330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0023
95744167|NCT00830167|191459331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.29|-0.57|0.2568
95744168|NCT00830167|191459332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.15|-0.72|0.1011
95744169|NCT00830167|191459333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.35||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.35|-0.44|0.4165
95744170|NCT00830167|191459334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.88||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||6.88|1.70|0.0006
95744171|NCT00830167|191459335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.29||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.29|-1.93|0.1805
95744172|NCT00830167|191459336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.1||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.10|-0.81|0.0770
95744173|NCT00830167|191459337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.19||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||4.19|-0.54|0.0648
95940646|NCT04800211|191847065|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.978||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.216|11.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||11.172|-9.216|0.8504
95940647|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.957|-20.557|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-20.557|-41.957|<.0001
95744174|NCT00830167|191459338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.41||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.41|-2.23|0.2068
95744175|NCT00830167|191459339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.54||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||3.54|-4.00|0.5480
95744176|NCT00830167|191459340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.8||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||7.80|1.04|0.0052
95858506|NCT02000115|191674819|NON_INFERIORITY|8.0% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|1.5||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.7||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·0%)|We analysed the primary effectiveness endpoint in the intention-to- treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||5.7||0.006
95858507|NCT02000115|191674820|NON_INFERIORITY|8.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in percentages between groups|4.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||p for non-inferiority|Kaplan-Meier estimates|Kaplan-Meier was used as the method for calculating the endpoint rate|Non-inferiority of the Portico valve to commercially available valves was shown if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference in event rates between groups was less than the non-inferiority margin (8·5%)|We analysed the primary safety endpoint in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate event rates, the Greenwood method to calculate the standard error of the Kaplan-Meier estimates, and assuming an asymptotic normal distribution for event rate estimates.||8.1||0.03
95858508|NCT02000115|191674822|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 4%|Difference in percentages between groups|0.4||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.3||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions.|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 4%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||2.3||0.001
95858509|NCT02000115|191674823|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|||p for non-inferiority|two-sample t-test|The test statistic is based on two sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -10, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-3.5|<0.0001
95744177|NCT00830167|191459341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|5.37||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||5.37|-0.08|0.0287
95744178|NCT00830167|191459342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.01|-0.97|0.0262
95744179|NCT00830167|191459343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||0.27|-0.83|0.1561
95744180|NCT00830167|191459344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.18||The analysis was conducted using 1-sided test with the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pregabalin and placebo groups. The alternative was that the pregabalin group was superior to the placebo group.||-2.18|-10.20|0.0013
95744181|NCT02224053|191459345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|113.46|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||113.46|100.26|
95744182|NCT02224053|191459346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|101.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.65|109.16|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 80% to 125% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within subject CV assumed to be 23%. 5% change in exposure also assumed.||109.16|94.65|
95744183|NCT02224053|191459355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|101.21||||||AZ5104||101.21|88.77|
95744184|NCT02224053|191459355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geomteric mean ratio|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.89|95.91||||||AZ7550||95.91|83.89|
95744185|NCT02224053|191459356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|102.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|108.07|||||AZD9291+omeprazole / AZD9291 alone|AZ5104||108.07|96.87|
95744186|NCT02224053|191459356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio|94.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.92|98.33||||||AZ7550||98.33|89.92|
95744187|NCT00360490|191459374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
95744188|NCT00360490|191459375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|62.59|||<|0.001||95.0|50.56|74.61|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with successful treatment is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||74.61|50.56|<0.001
95744189|NCT00360490|191459376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-70.2|-28.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to End of Study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-28.3|-70.2|<0.001
95744190|NCT00360490|191459377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the absolute change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||||<0.001
95744191|NCT00360490|191459378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.8|-37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the percent change from Baseline MBL to Mid-study MBL is equal in the LNG IUS group and the MPA group.||-37.4|-63.8|<0.001
95940648|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.234|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-44.234|<.0001
95940649|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.971|-16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-16.053|-46.971|<.0001
95744192|NCT00360490|191459388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.06||||||95.0|14.75|37.36||||||A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the improvement rate will be provided for cycle 6||37.36|14.75|
95744193|NCT01929681|191459414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.049
95744194|NCT01929681|191459415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.182
95744195|NCT01929681|191459416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.449|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.449
95796838|NCT02421939|191563482|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.089||1-sided P-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT||1.089|0.577|0.0415
95796839|NCT02421939|191563483|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.6||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|18.4||Stratified P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Treatment difference = gilteritinib -chemotherapy.||18.4|2.8|0.0106
95796840|NCT02421939|191563484|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889||||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.563||Unstratified p-value|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR of \< 1 indicates a reduction in the hazard rate in favor of the gilteritinib arm.|The LFS was analyzed for participants who achieved remission using the stratified log-rank test with strata to control for response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy. Duration of LFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates.||1.563|0.506|0.6654
95950216|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for 5/99 strain.|Vaccines Group Differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||2|0|
95744196|NCT01929681|191459417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.444|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.444
95744197|NCT01929681|191459418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed effects analysis||||||<0.182
95744198|NCT03505151|191459419|OTHER||Ratio T/R|44.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.9||||90.0|32.62|61.06|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Absolute bioavailability was evaluated using an Analysis of variance model (ANOVA) on BI 409306 AUC0-inf versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||61.06|32.62|
95744199|NCT03505151|191459420|OTHER||Ratio T/R|47.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.8||||90.0|27.38|81.55|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) of the mean|Ratios of BI 409306 for Cmax versus 0.1 mg BI 409306 C-13/N-15 i.v. was evaluated using ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed. The dose normalised PK endpoints were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||81.55|27.38|
95744200|NCT03403439|191459427|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|222.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.47|242.49|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 14.2.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||242.49|203.47|
95989450|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.001
95989451|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
95989452|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
95989453|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.8|-1.1|<0.001
95989454|NCT02889796|191953853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
95989455|NCT02889796|191953855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||13.1|5.8|<0.001
95989456|NCT02889796|191953855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2||7.7|1.4|0.004
95989457|NCT02889796|191953855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||21.1|11.3|<0.001
95989458|NCT02889796|191953855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4||15.8|6.5|<0.001
95989459|NCT02889796|191953855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||33.3|20.6|<0.001
95989460|NCT02889796|191953855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|25.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24||25.8|13.1|<0.001
95989461|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||6.7|2.1|<0.001
95989462|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2.||2.6|-0.5|0.17
95989463|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||14.4|7.1|<0.001
95858510|NCT02000115|191674824|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 6%|Difference in percentages between groups|5.6||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.5||p for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning test|The test statistic is based on the Farrington-Manning method of testing non-inferiority of proportions|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of proportions (Portico - CAV) is \< 6%, then non inferiority is demonstrated.|||8.5||0.40
95989464|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|9.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4.||9.0|2.6|<0.001
95989465|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|38.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||38.0|26.4|<0.001
95989466|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24.||24.6|13.4|<0.001
95989467|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||19.9|5.6|<0.001
95989468|NCT02889796|191953857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||6.5|-7.5|0.88
95989469|NCT02889796|191953857|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
95744201|NCT03403439|191459428|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|127.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|139.17|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 13.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||139.17|117.65|
95744202|NCT03403439|191459429|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|229.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.82|252.93|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 15.9.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.||252.93|207.82|
95744203|NCT04662710|191459445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type|||1.00|0.71|.0244
95744204|NCT04662710|191459446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy|||1.01|0.75|0.0330
95744205|NCT04662710|191459447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, performance status, and chemotherapy type|Log Rank||HR Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.90|0.62|.0012
95744206|NCT04662710|191459448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and chemotherapy type.|||0.92|0.66|0.0019
95744207|NCT04662710|191459449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||21.5|6.9|<0.0001
95744208|NCT04662710|191459450|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|20.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||ORR comparison between groups is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by region, ECOG performance status, and type of chemotherapy||20.6|7.7|<0.0001
95744209|NCT01705717|191459477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
95796841|NCT02421939|191563485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.206||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.886||Unstratified|Log Rank||Based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm.|||1.886|0.022|0.1189
95989470|NCT02889796|191953857|NON_INFERIORITY|For non-inferiority test, the approach proposed by Liu 2014 was used to demonstrate that each filgotinib dose preserves more than 50% of the effect of adalimumab on the response rate of DAS28 (CRP) \< 2.6 at using NRI.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value of non-inferiority test was calculated from approach proposed by \[Liu 2014\].|Method proposed by [Liu 2014]|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Adalimumab at Week 24.||||<0.001
95744210|NCT01705717|191459478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95744211|NCT02339415|191459485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||0.21|-0.06|0.26
95744212|NCT02339415|191459486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|included predictors: treatment, assigned treatment sequence and pre-treatment biomarker level.|because biomarkers were analyzed on natural log scale, the estimated parameter is the log-transformed mean percent difference in treatment effect on Edoxaban vs. Placebo.|||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
95744213|NCT00003404|191459493|OTHER||rate of occurance|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The local recurrence rate was estimated by dividing the number of recurrences by the total sample size. An exact 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for this rate was determined by binomial distribution.|||8|0|
95744214|NCT00676650|191459526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.097||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Disease Progression Base.|||1.097|0.762|0.1678
95744215|NCT00676650|191459527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.89||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model stratified by ECOG and Disease Progression Base.|||0.890|0.591|<0.001
95744216|NCT00676650|191459528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.561||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0||p-value from 2-sided Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||19.0|1.0|0.040
95796842|NCT02421939|191563486|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|42.6||Unstratified 2-sided P-value|2-sided Fisher's exact test|||Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy. The 95% CIs were asymptotic confidence limits using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||42.6|22.3|<0.0001
95796843|NCT02421939|191563487|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.2||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.1||Unstratified 2-sided P-value.|2-sided Fisher's exact test|Treatment difference = gilteritinib - chemotherapy.||||19.1|1.2|0.0333
95796844|NCT02421939|191563488|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2567||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||C1D8: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.0000
95796845|NCT02421939|191563488|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1574||||0.8037|||||||ANCOVA|||C2D1: Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. Least Square (LS) Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.||||0.8037
95796846|NCT02421939|191563489|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference,|18.6|||<|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|27.4||Stratified 1-sided P-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT. Pooled strata were used as shown in Table 12.3.3.2. Treatment differences were adjusted based on pooled strata. Treatment difference = gilteritinib 120 mg - chemotherapy.||27.4|9.8|<0.0171
95796847|NCT04478266|191563492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.209||||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.557||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025 level.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on presence of De-novo metastatic disease, Postmenopausal women and Visceral metastasis according to IRT.|Letrozole + Palbociclib versus Amcenestrant + Palbociclib|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to ensure a strong control of the overall Type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at one-sided 2.5% for the primary and the first secondary outcome.||1.557|0.939|0.9304
95796848|NCT04773028|191563513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93054.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95796849|NCT02966834|191563536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.75|
95940650|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.522|-26.872|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-26.872|-47.522|<.0001
95796850|NCT02966834|191563536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.31||||||||0.31|-2.07|
95796851|NCT02966834|191563536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.28||||||||0.28|-2.03|
95796852|NCT02966834|191563536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.03||||||||0.03|-2.29|
95796853|NCT02966834|191563536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.65||||||||0.65|-1.71|
95796854|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||||Symptoms|||2.3|-1.9|
95796855|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||||Symptoms|||2.5|-1.5|
95796856|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||Symptoms|||0.8|-3.1|
95796857|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||Symptoms|||2.0|-1.8|
95796858|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||||Symptoms|||1.9|-2.0|
95796859|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||||Itch|||2.2|-1.3|
95796860|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.8|
95796861|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Itch|||1.2|-1.9|
95940651|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-17.923|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-17.923|-44.960|<.0001
95796862|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||||Itch|||0.5|-2.6|
95796863|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Itch|||1.3|-1.9|
95796864|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.2|||||Fatigue|||3.2|-4.5|
95796865|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||||Fatigue|||4.2|-2.8|
95796866|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||Fatigue|||7.0|0.0|
95940652|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.597||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.34|-13.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.853|-43.340|0.0002
95940653|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.943|-19.166|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-19.166|-40.943|<.0001
95940654|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.904||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.563|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.563|-16.370|0.2667
95989471|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.2|-5.9|<0.001
95744217|NCT00653159|191459535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject completed the final study visit at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, study completion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4003
95796867|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||Fatigue|||5.1|-1.8|
95744218|NCT00653159|191459536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4136|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced heavy bleeding. Under the null hypothesis, heavy bleeding rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4136
95940655|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|8.767||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|22.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||22.485|-4.950|0.2085
95744219|NCT00653159|191459537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject became pregnant within 6 months of IUD insertion. Under the null hypothesis, pregnancy rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.4783
95744220|NCT00653159|191459538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2174|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject experienced expulsion of the IUD. Under the null hypothesis, expulsion rates are similar for both IUD types.||||0.2174
95744221|NCT00653159|191459539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided test||"Fisher's exact test was used to examine the significance of the association between IUD type (Paragard or Mirena) and whether or not the subject reported being satisfied (happy or very happy) at the 6 month study visit. Under the null hypothesis, satisfaction rates are similar for both IUD types."||||1.0000
95744222|NCT02697617|191459544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.024
95744223|NCT02697617|191459545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.14
95744224|NCT02697617|191459547|OTHER||||||||||||||||||comparison by paired t-test|||
95744225|NCT02697617|191459548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|Paired t-test|||||||0.15
95744226|NCT02697617|191459549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||First analyzed using a Linear Mixed Model to assess if there were carryover effects and then subsequently analyzed using paired t-tests to compare the mean differences between treatments.|paired t test|||||||0.4
95744227|NCT02152982|191459577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1673|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1673
95744228|NCT02152982|191459578|OTHER|Interaction test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Type 3 likelihood-ratio p-value|||||1.50|0.53|0.6659
95744229|NCT02152982|191459579|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.29|0.86|0.3164
95744230|NCT02152982|191459580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7018
95744231|NCT02152982|191459581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0003
95744232|NCT02754492|191459600|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for the single platelet product group. The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.950|
95744233|NCT02754492|191459600|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 8.0 × 10\^6 for the double platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
95796868|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||||Fatigue|||3.6|-3.6|
95796869|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Cognitive|||2.6|-2.5|
95796870|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Cognitive|||1.7|-2.9|
95796871|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.1|
95796872|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Cognitive|||2.8|-1.8|
95796873|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||||Cognitive|||2.5|-2.2|
95796874|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Emotional|||0.4|-2.1|
95796875|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||||Emotional|||1.3|-0.9|
95796876|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
95989472|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-1.6|-4.3|<0.001
95744234|NCT02754492|191459600|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a residual WBC count of \< 12.0 × 10\^6 for the triple platelet product group, or \< 5.0 × 10\^6 for each transfusable unit . The FDA requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy adult subjects will be enrolled in this study to ensure 93 evaluable single platelet product collections, 93 evaluable double platelet product collections, and 93 evaluable triple platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of at least 95% of platelet units with an acceptable residual WBC level with 95% confidence. With 93 platelet products, this allowed for at most 1 failure.|||0.968|
95744235|NCT02754492|191459601|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 3.0 × 10\^11 for the single platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0107|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.95|||||||Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.950|
95744236|NCT02754492|191459601|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 6.2 × 10\^11 for the double platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
95744237|NCT02754492|191459601|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the subject's platelet product has a platelet yield of ≥ 9.3 × 10\^11 for the triple platelet product group. The requirements are met if the lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 75%.|Simple Sample Proportion|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.968||||||When estimated proportion is 100%, standard error of the mean is estimated as 0.|Up to 350 healthy subjects were enrolled to ensure 93 evaluable single, double, and triple platelet product collections. With 93 platelet products being collected, 16 failures or less was required to show that the proportion of units with an acceptable platelet yield is at least 75% with 95% confidence.|||0.968|
95744238|NCT00487695|191459613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Our hypothesis was that the yield for neoplasia would be higher using confocal laser endomicroscopy compared to standard endoscopy. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in yield for neoplasia when CLE is used compared to standard endoscopy. We estimated that the yield for neoplasia would increase from 10% to 40% using CLE and the calculated sample size was 37. We planned to enroll 48 patients to allow for possible dropouts.||||0.01
95744239|NCT00487695|191459614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared.||||0.89
95744240|NCT00487695|191459615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||0.002
95940656|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|12.455||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|27.505|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||27.505|-2.595|0.1041
95940657|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.353||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.41|-5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-5.295|-45.410|0.0058
95796877|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||Emotional|||0.3|-1.9|
95940658|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-38.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.062|-12.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-12.197|-65.062|0.0010
95940659|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.967||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.443|-15.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-15.491|-72.443|0.0005
95940660|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.293||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.159|-11.428|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-11.428|-51.159|0.0003
95940661|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-40.209||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.941|-14.477|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-14.477|-65.941|0.0004
95940662|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-41.052||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.965|-13.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-13.138|-68.965|0.0011
95989473|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.8|-6.6|<0.001
95989474|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.001
95796878|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||||Emotional|||1.1|-1.2|
95796879|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.0|||||Social|||3.0|-2.4|
95989475|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.3|<0.001
95989476|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-5.8|<0.001
95989477|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.5|-6.9|<0.001
95989478|NCT02889796|191953863|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.9|-5.3|<0.001
95989479|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.4|-7.1|<0.001
95989480|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 2. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.001
95989481|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.6||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-4.6|-7.6|<0.001
95989482|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-3.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.1|-6.0|<0.001
95989483|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-5.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.4|-8.2|<0.001
95744241|NCT00487695|191459617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The number of biopsies showing neoplasia was determined for each procedure (confocal laser endomicroscopy, standard EGD). These were compared. This analysis looks at the patients referred for Barrett's surveillance EGD (no suspected neoplasia).||||1.0
95989484|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.7|-6.5|<0.001
95796880|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||||Social|||3.7|-1.3|
95940663|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-42.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.902|-24.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||-24.116|-60.902|<.0001
95940664|NCT04800211|191847066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.915||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.855|18.025|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||18.025|-23.855|0.7835
95940665|NCT04800211|191847067|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.309|-1.228|0.0002
95940666|NCT04800211|191847067|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.972|-0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood WBC (x 10\^3/uL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||-0.068|-0.972|0.0175
95940667|NCT04800211|191847068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.408||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population with Outliers Excluded)||4.705|0.110|0.0362
95940668|NCT04800211|191847068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.692||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|3.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Serum HDL-C (mg/dL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.953|-0.569|0.2142
95989485|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-5.3||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-5.3|-7.8|<0.001
95989486|NCT02889796|191953865|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-3.5|-6.1|<0.001
95744242|NCT00487695|191459618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||The null hypothesis would be that CLE does not decrease the number of biopsies needed to make a diagnosis compared to standard endoscopy||||<0.0001
95744243|NCT01358877|191459662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.68|0.0430
95744244|NCT01358877|191459665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.98|0.67|0.0327
95744245|NCT01358877|191459668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||The O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary of the Lan-DeMets alpha-spending function for the first interim OS analysis was HR\<0.52; p\<0.00001.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.21|0.66|0.4673
95744246|NCT01358877|191459669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||The p-value threshold according to the alpha-spending function at this final analysis was 0.0496.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.69|0.0441
95744247|NCT01358877|191459672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||0.99|0.63|0.0430
95744248|NCT01358877|191459675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.04|0.64|0.1007
95744249|NCT01358877|191459678|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.8|0.0|
95744250|NCT01358877|191459679|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||The difference in percentage of participants with a primary cardiac event between the pertuzumab and placebo arms. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-0.1|
95744251|NCT01358877|191459680|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.0|
95744252|NCT01358877|191459681|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.9|-1.1|
95744253|NCT01358877|191459682|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.5|-0.3|
95744254|NCT01358877|191459683|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson correction.|||0.4|-0.4|
95744255|NCT01358877|191459699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test, which included nodal status, protocol version, central hormone receptor status, and adjuvant chemotherapy regimen as stratification factors in the randomization.||1.00|0.66|0.0446
95744256|NCT03480022|191459747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.002
95744257|NCT03480022|191459748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.006
95744258|NCT03480022|191459749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures nested design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
95744259|NCT03480022|191459750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||ANOVA|one-way ANOVA||||||<0.002
95744260|NCT03480022|191459751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.007
95744261|NCT03480022|191459752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.049
95989487|NCT02889796|191953867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.01||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.77|0.042
95989488|NCT02889796|191953867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||-0.02|-0.77|0.039
95989489|NCT02889796|191953868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||11.1|2.2|0.002
95989490|NCT02889796|191953868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|3.9||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.5.||8.6|-0.8|0.073
95989491|NCT02889796|191953868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||12.5|1.5|0.009
95989492|NCT02889796|191953868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|10.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ 0.||10.6|-0.6|0.061
95989493|NCT02889796|191953868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|5.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||9.4|1.6|0.004
95989494|NCT02889796|191953868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in non-progression rate|4.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24 for change in mTSS ≤ SDC (1.36).||8.8|0.7|0.012
95989495|NCT02889796|191953872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.4||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.4|1.9|<0.001
95796881|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||||Social|||2.7|-2.3|
95940669|NCT04800211|191847069|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-39.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.396|-3.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-3.605|-75.396|0.0250
95940670|NCT04800211|191847069|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.896|32.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||32.016|-37.896|0.9997
95950217|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot2 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||8|-2|
95796882|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||||Social|||0.1|-4.8|
95796883|NCT02966834|191563537|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||||Social|||2.4|-2.8|
95796884|NCT02966834|191563538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.7|38.2||||||||38.2|-251.7|
95744262|NCT03480022|191459753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.011
95744263|NCT03480022|191459754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.038|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.038
95744264|NCT03480022|191459755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.048
95744265|NCT03480022|191459756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.018
95744266|NCT03480022|191459757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
95744267|NCT03480022|191459758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.034
95940671|NCT04800211|191847070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-54.398||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.281|68.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||68.485|-177.281|0.6778
95940672|NCT04800211|191847070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.395||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.697|71.908|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||71.908|-168.697|0.7497
95744268|NCT03480022|191459759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
95796885|NCT02966834|191563538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.5|23.8||||||||23.8|-198.5|
95744269|NCT03480022|191459760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95744270|NCT03480022|191459761|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95744271|NCT03480022|191459762|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95744272|NCT03480022|191459763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.021
95744273|NCT03480022|191459764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.009
95744274|NCT03480022|191459765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
95744275|NCT03480022|191459766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
95796886|NCT02966834|191563538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.6|126.5||||||||126.5|-125.6|
95796887|NCT02966834|191563538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.5|54.8||||||||54.8|-211.5|
95796888|NCT02966834|191563538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.7|110.7||||||||110.7|-170.7|
95796889|NCT02966834|191563540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|15.5||||||||15.5|-58.4|
95989496|NCT02889796|191953872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|1.0|<0.001
95744276|NCT03480022|191459767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.042|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.042
95744277|NCT03480022|191459768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.033|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.033
95989497|NCT02889796|191953872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.1|<0.001
95989498|NCT02889796|191953872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||4.1|2.0|<0.001
95989499|NCT02889796|191953876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.8|0.9|<0.001
95989500|NCT02889796|191953876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.6|0.002
95989501|NCT02889796|191953876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.5|0.4|0.006
95989502|NCT02889796|191953876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.7||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.7|0.7|0.001
95989503|NCT02889796|191953876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||2.0|-0.1|0.086
95989504|NCT02889796|191953876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||1.9|-0.2|0.12
95989505|NCT02889796|191953880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.8|<0.001
95989506|NCT02889796|191953880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.2|1.2|<0.001
95744278|NCT03480022|191459769|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95744279|NCT03480022|191459770|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95796890|NCT02966834|191563540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|16.4||||||||16.4|-41.9|
95796891|NCT02966834|191563540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|20.0||||||||20.0|-49.9|
95858511|NCT02000115|191674825|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin on -36 meters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|||p for non-inferiority|two sample t-test|The test statistic is based on a two-sample t-test|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (1-sided) for the difference of (Portico - CAV) is \> -36, then non inferiority is demonstrated.||||-15.4|0.0003
95858512|NCT03397966|191674840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The investigators tested the effect of treatment (BNP vs. control) on the primary endpoint using mixed effects modeling, adjusting for treatment sequence, to assess the effect of treatment on each endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint is change in resting energy expenditure, calculated as final resting energy expenditure adjusted for baseline level, using linear regression. The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of treatment on each endpoint. The investigators adhered to intention-to-treat principles. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.063
95858513|NCT03397966|191674841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant effect of BNP on adipose gene expression of UCP1 compared with placebo. The alternative hypothesis is that UCP1 expression would be significantly higher after BNP treatment compared with placebo.||||0.07
95858514|NCT04922216|191674842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.20|-0.61|0.52
95858515|NCT04922216|191674842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.63|-1.19|0.54
95989507|NCT02889796|191953880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.8||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.8|1.5|<0.001
95989508|NCT02889796|191953880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.9||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||3.9|1.6|<0.001
95989509|NCT02889796|191953886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|0.0|0.049
95796892|NCT02966834|191563540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|10.4||||||||10.4|-63.3|
95796893|NCT02966834|191563540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|37.1||||||||37.1|-36.7|
95796894|NCT02966834|191563541|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.73|12.74||||||||12.74|-52.73|
95989510|NCT02889796|191953886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 4. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||5.0|-0.0|0.069
95989511|NCT02889796|191953886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
95989512|NCT02889796|191953886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 12. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||9.0|4.0|<0.001
95796895|NCT02966834|191563541|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|1.39||||||||1.39|-50.80|
95796896|NCT02966834|191563541|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.39|8.16||||||||8.16|-53.39|
95796897|NCT02966834|191563541|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.44|0.09||||||||0.09|-63.44|
95796898|NCT02966834|191563541|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|26.74||||||||26.74|-38.33|
95744280|NCT03480022|191459771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.016
95744281|NCT03480022|191459772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.028
95744282|NCT03480022|191459773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
95744283|NCT03480022|191459774|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95744284|NCT03480022|191459775|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated measures general linear model (SS/drug treatments by visits) where arm of drug therapy as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and 32 weeks of treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95744285|NCT02616380|191459785|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
95744286|NCT02616380|191459786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
95744287|NCT02616380|191459786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Physical Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
95796899|NCT02966834|191563542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-6.8||||||||-6.8|-205.1|
95940673|NCT04800211|191847071|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.01||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.447|-7.573|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-7.573|-32.447|0.0003
95744288|NCT02616380|191459786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 12||||<0.0001
95744289|NCT02616380|191459786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Mental Component Score at Week 24||||<0.0001
95744290|NCT02616380|191459787|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 12 weeks||||<0.0001
95744291|NCT02616380|191459787|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline in EQ-5D-3L at 24 weeks||||<0.0001
95744292|NCT02616380|191459788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
95796900|NCT02966834|191563542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|17.6||||||||17.6|-148.5|
95744293|NCT02616380|191459788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Overall Work Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
95744294|NCT02616380|191459788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 12||||<0.0001
95744295|NCT02616380|191459788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change From Baseline in Activity Impairment at Week 24||||<0.0001
95744296|NCT02616380|191459789|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|The mean change was tested with a paired t-test without adjusting for baseline disease severity.||||||<0.0001
95744297|NCT00766493|191459795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.077||Reject H0 if z\<-1.96, or 1-sided p\<0.025.|One Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample normal approximation to the binomial test.|The 2-sided 95% CI is reported for descriptive purposes; the statistical hypothesis test is 1-sided.|"This study is designed to test the primary null hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome of all death, stroke, and/or MI when using the GORE Embolic Filter is equal to or higher than a Performance Goal (PG) of 6.4% established from published carotid stenting studies utilizing distal embolic protection, versus the alternative hypothesis that the composite MAE outcome is less than the performance goal.~The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a 1-sided Type I error rate of 0.025."||0.077|0.021|0.0001
95796901|NCT02966834|191563542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|50.9||||||||50.9|-136.5|
95796902|NCT02966834|191563542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.2|29.5||||||||29.5|-161.2|
95796903|NCT02966834|191563542|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.6|45.3||||||||45.3|-153.6|
95796904|NCT02966834|191563543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.929|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-11.929|
95796905|NCT02966834|191563543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.962|2.289||||||||2.289|-6.962|
95796906|NCT02966834|191563543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.679|3.215||||||||3.215|-7.679|
95796907|NCT02966834|191563543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.413|4.43||||||||4.430|-7.413|
95796908|NCT02966834|191563543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|11.063||||||||11.063|-0.591|
95796909|NCT02966834|191563544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.7|
95796910|NCT02966834|191563544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1||||||||2.1|-1.5|
95796911|NCT02966834|191563544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||||||||2.7|-1.2|
95796912|NCT02966834|191563544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.1|
95940674|NCT04800211|191847071|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.837|-10.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Plasma sICAM-1 (ng/mL) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-10.295|-34.837|<.0001
95744298|NCT03407729|191459804|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a 1) Left Thalamus seed and 2) Left Middle Temporal Gyrus seed, cluster size was set at 50 voxels and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05. This was used to compare the differences between the two study groups in terms of number of activated voxels during during cognitive testing using the N-back.|||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 and statistical power was set at a minimum of 0.80.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95744299|NCT01849458|191459807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.0|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||40|25.2|0.0001
95744300|NCT01849458|191459808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|42.7|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||42.7|28.7|0.0001
95744301|NCT01849458|191459809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|50.1|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (6M-Baseline)||50.1|37.4|0.0001
95796913|NCT02966834|191563544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.5|
95796914|NCT02966834|191563545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.08|
95796915|NCT02966834|191563545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.09|
95796916|NCT02966834|191563545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.06|
95796917|NCT02966834|191563545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
95796918|NCT02966834|191563545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.10|
95858516|NCT04922216|191674842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.31|-0.50|0.39
95940675|NCT04800211|191847072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-179.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.708|-133.022|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-133.022|-225.708|<.0001
95744302|NCT01849458|191459810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|55.2|||2-sided, paired t-test|||Difference from baseline (12M-Baseline)||55.2|43.2|0.0001
95744303|NCT03919695|191459852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.73|||GEE model specifying a logistic distribu||time x arm effect for the comparison at 6-month follow-up|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model specifying a logistic distribution examining the time x arm interaction||.73|.11|.002
95744304|NCT04291508|191459858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.6|0.65
95744305|NCT04291508|191459858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.5|0.464
95744306|NCT04291508|191459859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.3|-12.0|0.26
95796919|NCT02966834|191563546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.63||||||||0.63|-0.33|
95796920|NCT02966834|191563546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.51|
95796921|NCT02966834|191563546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.34|
95796922|NCT02966834|191563546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.54|
95796923|NCT02966834|191563546|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41||||||||0.41|-0.54|
95796924|NCT02966834|191563556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||12.02|0.69|
95796925|NCT02966834|191563556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.02|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.02|0.48|
95796926|NCT02966834|191563556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
95796927|NCT02966834|191563556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.76|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.76|0.84|
95796928|NCT02966834|191563556|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.13|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.13|0.43|
95796929|NCT02966834|191563557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.47|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||4.47|0.41|
95796930|NCT02966834|191563557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.65|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||10.65|0.95|
95744307|NCT04291508|191459859|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
95744308|NCT04291508|191459860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|-1.0|0.35
95940676|NCT04800211|191847072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-153.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.93|-107.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Total NNAL (ng/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-107.509|-198.930|<.0001
95940677|NCT04800211|191847073|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|-2.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.054|-3.084|<.0001
95744309|NCT04291508|191459860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-3.4|0.45
95744310|NCT04291508|191459861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-1.9|0.83
95744311|NCT04291508|191459861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-0.8|0.10
95744312|NCT04291508|191459862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-1.2|0.55
95744313|NCT04291508|191459862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.7|-1.6|0.18
95744314|NCT04291508|191459863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-0.8|0.21
95744315|NCT04291508|191459863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-3.4|0.40
95744316|NCT04291508|191459864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-0.8|0.23
95744317|NCT04291508|191459864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.4|-2.2|0.22
95744318|NCT04291508|191459865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.6|0.58
95744319|NCT04291508|191459865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.5|-1.4|0.13
95744320|NCT04291508|191459866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|-11.8|0.26
95744321|NCT04291508|191459866|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|8.7|||Fisher Exact|||||8.7|-35.8|0.31
95744322|NCT04291508|191459867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.2|-1.6|0.76
95744323|NCT04291508|191459867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.5|-4.9|0.78
95744324|NCT04291508|191459868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-2.3|0.84
95744325|NCT04291508|191459868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.0|-0.9|0.10
95744326|NCT04291508|191459869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.3|||Chi-squared|||||8.3|-10.9|0.79
95744327|NCT04291508|191459869|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.3|-17.5|1.00
95744328|NCT04291508|191459870|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Chi-squared|||||7.2|-3.7|0.53
95744329|NCT04291508|191459870|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|13.0|||Fisher Exact|||||13.0|-17.0|1.00
95744330|NCT04291508|191459871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.9|0.70
95744331|NCT04291508|191459871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-2.7|0.96
95744332|NCT04291508|191459872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-2.3|1.00
95744333|NCT04291508|191459873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.2|-13.1|0.31
95744334|NCT04291508|191459873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
95744335|NCT04291508|191459874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.5|||Chi-squared|||||7.5|-8.5|0.90
95744336|NCT04291508|191459874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||||-4.0|-51.7|0.02
95744337|NCT04291508|191459875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.4|||Chi-squared|||||-2.4|-12.2|0.003
95940678|NCT04800211|191847073|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.586|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.092|-2.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Whole Blood COHb (% Saturation) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||-2.081|-3.092|<.0001
95744338|NCT04291508|191459875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||||15.6|-2.3|0.52
95744339|NCT04291508|191459876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.2|0.68
95744340|NCT04291508|191459876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||||0.4|-0.7|0.62
95940679|NCT04800211|191847075|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.04|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.04|-0.19|0.0839
95940680|NCT04800211|191847075|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1 (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.66|0.53|0.0089
95940681|NCT04800211|191847076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.66|-1.13|0.7101
95940682|NCT04800211|191847076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.59|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.59|-1.12|0.7325
95940683|NCT04800211|191847077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.66|0.31|0.0136
95744341|NCT04291508|191459877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.8|||Chi-squared|||||8.8|-7.8|0.90
95744342|NCT04291508|191459877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|8.9|||Chi-squared|||||8.9|-40.1|0.2
95744343|NCT04291508|191459878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.1|0.88
95744344|NCT04291508|191459878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.6|0.10
95744345|NCT01841736|191459911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.69|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.69|0.42|0.0005
95989513|NCT02889796|191953886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||6.0|-0.0|0.060
95989514|NCT02889796|191953886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.0||MMRM model included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factors, and baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Filgotinib 100 mg vs Placebo at Week 24. LS-Mean, 95% CI, and P-value were provided from MMRM. Missing change scores were not imputed using the MMRM approach assuming an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for the repeated measures.||8.0|2.0|0.003
95940684|NCT04800211|191847077|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.08|||ANCOVA||The ANCOVA includes study group, gender, and age class as fixed effects, and baseline score as the covariate. Least-squares means (LS Means) are calculated from the ANCOVA.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Screening) for Percentage of Predicted FEV1/FVC (%) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||3.08|0.80|0.0009
95940685|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.870|-0.795|0.9294
95940686|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.277||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|1.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.142|-0.587|0.5290
95940687|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.321|-1.337|0.2291
95940688|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.525||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|1.361|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.361|-0.311|0.2179
95989515|NCT02814565|191953904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6179
95989516|NCT02814565|191953905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4338
95744346|NCT01841736|191459913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.84|1.51|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank||||1.51|0.84|0.7
95950218|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot1 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ 98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot difference in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at 1 month after the third dise, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||4|-6|
95989517|NCT02814565|191953905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1657
95989518|NCT02814565|191953906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0393
95989519|NCT02814565|191953907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0330
95989520|NCT02814565|191953907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0262|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0262
95989521|NCT02814565|191953908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5756|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5756
95989522|NCT02814565|191953908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4395
95989523|NCT02814565|191953908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0905|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 14. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0905
95989524|NCT02814565|191953909|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 3. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
95796931|NCT02966834|191563557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.53|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.53|0.62|
95989525|NCT02814565|191953909|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 7. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||1.0000
95989526|NCT02814565|191953909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Day 14. A two-tailed Fisher's exact test to compare the number of responders between the Placebo and the Cyclobenzaprine HCl 15 mg treatment group to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance."||||0.2757
95989527|NCT02814565|191953910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.3020
95989528|NCT02814565|191953910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2367|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2367
95989529|NCT02814565|191953910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0250
95989530|NCT02814565|191953911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.4428
95989531|NCT02814565|191953911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1163|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1163
95989532|NCT02814565|191953911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0489
95989533|NCT02814565|191953912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5275|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.5275
95989534|NCT02814565|191953912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0880
95989535|NCT02814565|191953912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2542|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2542
95796932|NCT02966834|191563557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.92|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.92|0.74|
95796933|NCT02966834|191563557|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.51|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.51|0.69|
95744347|NCT02459418|191459927|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|164.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.82|197.45||||||A mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. Least squares (LS) means and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||197.45|137.82|
95744348|NCT02459418|191459928|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|123.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|140.28||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||140.28|108.12|
95744349|NCT02459418|191459929|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-∞) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS mean ratio|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|174.49||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||174.49|102.42|
95796934|NCT02966834|191563558|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.04|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.04|0.27|
95940689|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.401||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||1.016|-0.213|0.2002
95940690|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||0.509|-1.089|0.4760
95940691|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.699||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.113|-1.512|0.0914
95940692|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.122|1.777|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.777|-1.122|0.9705
95940693|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.977||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.465|-0.512|0.3280
95940694|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 6). (mITT Population)||1.230|-1.667|0.9951
95989536|NCT02814565|191953913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 3. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.6920
95858517|NCT04922216|191674842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||1.30|-0.52|0.70
95940695|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.225||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|2.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.693|-0.244|0.1367
95940696|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.101||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|2.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||2.091|0.111|0.0294
95989537|NCT02814565|191953913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 7. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0749
95989538|NCT02814565|191953913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Wilcoxon Sum Rank Test|||Day 15. The 2-sample Wilcoxon sum rank test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2371
95989539|NCT02787863|191953939|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
95989540|NCT02787863|191953940|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
95989541|NCT02634580|191953949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.23|-31.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.48|-47.23|<0.0001
95989542|NCT02634580|191953950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.68|-31.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-31.60|-48.68|< 0.0001
95989543|NCT02634580|191953951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|-61.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-61.3|-93.9|<0.0001
95989544|NCT02634580|191953952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|-62.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-62.0|-96.7|<0.0001
95989545|NCT02634580|191953953|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||70.70|34.10|<0.0001
95989546|NCT02634580|191953954|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|52.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.36|67.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C level).|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||67.52|30.36|< 0.0001
95940697|NCT04800211|191847078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.424|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Test 2 on Visit 7 (Week 12). (mITT Population)||0.928|-1.424|0.6792
95940698|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.638||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.137|-0.860|0.4012
95940699|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.163||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|3.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.983|0.343|0.0201
95940700|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|2.948|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||2.948|-0.528|0.1709
95940701|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.593||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.035|0.150|0.0307
95989547|NCT02634580|191953955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-20.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.08|-30.80|<0.0001
95989548|NCT02634580|191953956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-20.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.04|-31.63|<0.0001
95796935|NCT02966834|191563558|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.91|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.91|0.73|
95940702|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.588||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|3.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.302|-0.126|0.0691
95940703|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.487||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.137|0.838|0.0034
95940704|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.849||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.075|0.622|0.0034
95940705|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.178||||0.8123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|1.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.299|-1.654|0.8123
95989549|NCT02634580|191953957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-26.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-26.68|-40.38|< 0.0001
95989550|NCT02634580|191953958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-25.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-25.94|-40.94|<0.0001
95989551|NCT02634580|191953959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.04|-42.30|< 0.0001
95989552|NCT02634580|191953960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.98|-29.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.22|-43.98|<0.0001
95989553|NCT02634580|191953961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.26|-21.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-21.97|-35.26|< 0.0001
95744350|NCT02459418|191459930|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|11.5||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median differences and corresponding 90% CIs were calculated using an exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.5|4.5|
95744351|NCT02459418|191459932|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected AUC(0-last) were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|163.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|282.67||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||282.67|94|
95744352|NCT02459418|191459933|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline corrected Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA using the bioequivalence interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|177.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.65|249.81||||||An ANOVA model with sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as random effect was used. LS means and 90% CIs for treatment differences on log-scale were obtained and back-transformed to provide geometric LS mean ratios of AFOLIA over Gonal-f® RFF.||249.81|125.65|
95744353|NCT02459418|191459934|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|12.29||||||Non-transformed Tmax was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test to assess the differences between Gonal-f® RFF and AFOLIA. Median difference and corresponding 90% CIs were was calculated using an Exact Hodges-Lehmann estimate with an exact confidence interval.||12.29|-9.91|
95744354|NCT00683592|191459935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-2.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline MADRS total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.6|-4.4|0.009
95744355|NCT00683592|191459936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-D 17 total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.2|-3.1|0.026
95744356|NCT00683592|191459937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Improve|-0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with terms for treatment group and center. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-0.5|0.004
95796936|NCT02966834|191563558|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.08|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||3.08|0.35|
95940706|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.226|1.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.267|-2.226|0.5879
95940707|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.596||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.304|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Control is NOT equal to zero on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.111|-2.304|0.4910
95940708|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.816||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.967|3.599|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||3.599|-1.967|0.9673
95796937|NCT02966834|191563558|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||6.42|0.73|
95796938|NCT02966834|191563558|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.99|||||Analysis was performed using Logistic regression. No covariates were used.|||5.99|0.67|
95744357|NCT00683592|191459938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean Change|-1.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for treatment group and center, adjusting for baseline HAM-A total score. Missing values at week 8 were handled using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.||-0.1|-2.4|0.037
95744358|NCT00683592|191459939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.134||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS response rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.221|0.047|0.002
95744359|NCT00683592|191459940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.147|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests were used to compare MADRS remission rates between the treatment groups, stratifying by center. The asymptotic confidence interval of the risk difference was estimated by the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||0.147|-0.008|0.066
95744360|NCT01848210|191459941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|10.51|||Regression, Linear|||||10.51|-19.81|0.531
95744361|NCT04592419|191459953|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-3.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||0.30|-3.11|.0004
95744362|NCT04592419|191459954|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept among BRVO participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.02|-4.24|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model treatment, visit, treatment × visit interaction, RVO subtype, baseline BCVA, disease duration, and geographical location as covariates.||||-0.71|-4.24|.0243
95744363|NCT00381849|191459970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.32
95744364|NCT00381849|191459970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.23
95744365|NCT00381849|191459970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.41
95744366|NCT00381849|191459970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of CaOx between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.32
95744367|NCT00381849|191459971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.49
95744368|NCT00381849|191459971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.64
95744369|NCT00381849|191459971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.72
95950219|NCT00657709|191872507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided (5% CIs of the differences in the percentages of subjects at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two comparisons, rMenB Lot2 and rMenB Lot3 would be equivalent for NZ98/254 strain.|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The lot-to-lot differences in these percentages and associated 95% CIs were computed for each pair of rMenB+OMV lots.||The three vaccine lots would be considered equivalent if for each of the three strains and each pair of vaccine lots, the 95% CIs of the differences in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 at one month after the third dose, were entirely within the interval \[-10%, 10%\].||1|-9|
95744370|NCT00381849|191459971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for supersaturation of Brushite between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.84
95744371|NCT00381849|191459974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.69
95744372|NCT00381849|191459974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 6 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.25
95744373|NCT00381849|191459974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between six weeks' treatment on cystone and 6 weeks' treatment on placebo.||||0.15
95744374|NCT00381849|191459974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t test for urinary cystine between baseline and after 46 weeks' treatment on cystone.||||0.20
95744375|NCT00381849|191459975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.85
95744376|NCT00381849|191459975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.63
95744377|NCT00381849|191459975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.97
95744378|NCT00381849|191459975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Density; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.15
95744379|NCT00381849|191459976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.81
95744380|NCT00381849|191459976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.78
95744381|NCT00381849|191459976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.96
95744382|NCT00381849|191459976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Kidney Stone Volume; P-value comparing one year to baseline||||0.13
95744383|NCT05661344|191459996|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.89|118.98|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.7"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||118.98|91.89|
95744384|NCT05661344|191459996|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|130.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|191.75|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.75|89.34|
95744385|NCT05661344|191459997|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.47|114.71|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 34.8"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.71|60.47|
95744386|NCT05661344|191459997|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|68.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|101.41|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.0"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||101.41|46.48|
95744387|NCT05661344|191459998|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|120.38|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of mild hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to mild hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.1"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||120.38|92.36|
95744388|NCT05661344|191459998|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|191.05|||||"Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate hepatic impairment / adjusted geometric mean of normal hepatic function matched to moderate hepatic impairment)\*100.~Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 41.4"|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included the effect 'degree of hepatic impairment' as a fixed effect and 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||191.05|89.96|
95744389|NCT05212948|191459999|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy|Efficacy|34.2||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|44.6||One-sided P-value was calculated to test the null hypothesis, vaccine efficacy ≤30%.|Poisson Regression Model|Robust Error Variance||Vaccine efficacy was calculated with its 95% confidence interval and defined as 1 minus the relative risk (S-268019-b versus placebo), which included the intervention group, baseline age (continuous) as factors as well as the log of the follow-up time as an offset.||44.6|21.9|0.2409
95796939|NCT02966834|191563559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|39.0||||||||39.00|-2.59|
95796940|NCT02966834|191563559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.53||||||||29.53|-7.42|
95796941|NCT02966834|191563559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|36.06||||||||36.06|0.82|
95796942|NCT02966834|191563559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|43.95||||||||43.95|7.00|
95796943|NCT02966834|191563559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|31.99||||||||31.99|-5.47|
95796944|NCT02966834|191563560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|35.1||||||||35.10|-5.13|
95796945|NCT02966834|191563560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.84||||||||24.84|-10.90|
95796946|NCT02966834|191563560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|28.82||||||||28.82|-5.27|
95796947|NCT02966834|191563560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|39.7||||||||39.70|3.96|
95796948|NCT02966834|191563560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|39.69||||||||39.69|3.46|
95796949|NCT02966834|191563561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|27.06||||||||27.06|-14.76|
95796950|NCT02966834|191563561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|25.84||||||||25.84|-11.32|
95796951|NCT02966834|191563561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|26.85||||||||26.85|-8.59|
95796952|NCT02966834|191563561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|38.51||||||||38.51|1.36|
95796953|NCT02966834|191563561|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|45.87||||||||45.87|8.20|
95796954|NCT02966834|191563562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.92||||||||0.92|-1.46|
95796955|NCT02966834|191563562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.62||||||||0.62|-1.58|
95796956|NCT02966834|191563562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.53|
95744390|NCT05347693|191460016|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.29~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Two-group χ² test~ * Significance level (α): 5% (two-sided)~ * Power: 80%~* Assumed proportions with NK (K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L, inclusive) at 180 days post-discharge:~  * Arm A: 0.88~ * Arm B: 0.59~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|Model included response as the dependent variable, and randomised treatment and participant recruitment country as independent factors.|OR \>1 indicated increased odds of K+ between 3.5 and 5.0 mmol/L on SZC compared to SoC.|||1.66|0.39|0.558
95744391|NCT05347693|191460017|EQUIVALENCE|"Prespecified estimates for sample size calculation~* Equivalence margin: 0.262~* Sample size estimate parameters:~  * Log-Rank Test for Equality of Survival Curves~ * α: 5%~ * Power: 80%~* HR (SZC/SoC): 0.329~* Assumed proportions without the main secondary composite outcome (event-free) at 180 days post-discharge~  * Arm A: 83% (17% with the outcome/event of interest)~ * Arm B: 56.8% (43.2% with the outcome/event of interest)~Note: Assumed proportions for statistical planning; not actual results"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.51|0.56|0.743
95744392|NCT05347693|191460018|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.79|0.58|0.951
95744393|NCT05347693|191460019|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence rate ratio|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.53|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||2.53|0.86|0.152
95744394|NCT05347693|191460020|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.35|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||4.35|0.50|0.515
95744395|NCT05347693|191460021|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Randomised treatment group and participant recruitment country were used as the independent variables. SoC group used as reference level in Cox model.|An HR \<1 favoured SZC to be associated with a longer time to first component of composite endpoint than SoC.|||1.83|0.07|0.258
95744396|NCT05347693|191460022|EQUIVALENCE|This outcome is unpowered.|Incidence risk ratio|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.81|||Negative binomial regression model|Model included the randomised treatment group as the independent variable and duration of time in study as an offset.|A rate ratio \<1 favours SZC compared to SoC.|||1.81|0.10|0.239
95744397|NCT04968925|191460036|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.54|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||22.54|0.80|
95744398|NCT04968925|191460037|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.16|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||10.16|1.16|
95744399|NCT04968925|191460038|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.76|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|Phase I was not powered to test for non-inferiority for any endpoints. The data collected from this Phase was used to estimate the sample size required to achieve the primary endpoints for Phase II of the study.||6.76|1.05|
95744400|NCT04968925|191460039|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.09|2.83|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.83|1.09|
95744401|NCT04968925|191460040|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.66|1.02|2.28|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.28|1.02|
95744402|NCT04968925|191460041|SUPERIORITY|"The Fallback Method was used to test primary hypotheses in Phase II. An alpha of 0.167 was allocated for each test. Every successful test passed the unused alpha to the next."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|It was calculated based on Phase I using Stroup's Method that 200 subjects were required to test superiority for each endpoint in Phase II.||2.03|0.77|
95796957|NCT02966834|191563562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.12||||||||0.12|-2.03|
95796958|NCT02966834|191563562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.40|
95796959|NCT02966834|191563563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.49|
95796960|NCT02966834|191563563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.61||||||||0.61|-1.41|
95796961|NCT02966834|191563563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.72||||||||0.72|-1.24|
95796962|NCT02966834|191563563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.39|
95796963|NCT02966834|191563563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.28|
95989554|NCT02634580|191953962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-20.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.09|-34.00|< 0.0001
95989555|NCT02634580|191953963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-30.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-30.50|-43.65|<0.0001
95989556|NCT02634580|191953964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-29.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-29.20|-43.39|<0.0001
95989557|NCT02634580|191953965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.83|-20.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-20.43|-41.83|<0.0001
95989558|NCT02634580|191953966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.57|-18.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||-18.84|-43.57|<0.0001
95989559|NCT02634580|191953967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|18.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||18.13|-11.15|0.63
95989560|NCT02634580|191953968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|30.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||30.87|-7.29|0.22
95989561|NCT02634580|191953969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|14.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||14.14|1.78|0.012
95989562|NCT02634580|191953970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||12.00|-0.82|0.086
95989563|NCT02634580|191953971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|13.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||13.87|-15.22|0.93
95989564|NCT02634580|191953972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|27.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C level), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Evolocumab - Ezetimibe|||27.43|-12.15|0.44
95989565|NCT02397473|191953989|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-6.72|0.036
95989566|NCT02397473|191953990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Koch's nonparametric randomization-based ANCOVA.||||||0.046
95989567|NCT02397473|191953991|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.57|-3.23|0.493
95989568|NCT02397473|191953992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.046||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|7.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.469|1.242|0.016
95989569|NCT02397473|191953993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.312||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|3.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.426|.502|0.575
95989570|NCT02397473|191953994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures.||||1.819|.512|0.910
95989571|NCT02397473|191953995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Pseudolikelihood-based repeated measures model||||1.923|0.449|0.841
95989572|NCT04735653|191954021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used instead of ANOVA due to the non-normality of the adherence outcomes. We did not block on clinic due to differences in sample characteristics by site.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Medication adherence was compared between groups with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||<0.001
95989573|NCT04735653|191954022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A chi-squared test was used instead of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test due to site differences. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95744403|NCT00835796|191460056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|94.2|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109|94.2|
95744404|NCT00835796|191460057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.7||||||90.0|94.0|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|94.0|
95744405|NCT00835796|191460058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.8||||||90.0|94.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|94.5|
95796964|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Duration|||0.5|-0.7|
95796965|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Duration|||0.9|-0.2|
95940709|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|5.968|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.968|-0.683|0.1787
95940710|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.806||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|5.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.018|-1.406|0.5243
95940711|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|4.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 1 (Week 12), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.507|-0.966|0.3956
95989574|NCT04735653|191954023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||||Adjustment for site was not performed. Site differences will be incorporated into multivariable models to investigate moderating effects with treatment on the outcome in future analyses.|||-0.1|-0.5|
95989575|NCT04589988|191954026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.068
95744406|NCT01884844|191460059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
95744407|NCT02327325|191460069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between physical activity only and the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the physical activity group had greater improvement than the wait list group.||0.35|-6.24|0.08
95744408|NCT02327325|191460069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA \& CBT group to the wait list group. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior on this outcome to the wait list group.||0.06|-6.69|0.06
95744409|NCT02327325|191460070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||0.64|-12.85|0.07
95796966|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||||Duration|||0.1|-1.0|
95796967|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||||Duration|||0.7|-0.3|
95796968|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||||Duration|||0.6|-0.4|
95796969|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.8|
95796970|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.5|
95989576|NCT04589988|191954027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.063
95744410|NCT02327325|191460070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||3.48|-11.69|0.28
95744411|NCT02327325|191460071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||7.96|-0.69|0.097
95744412|NCT02327325|191460071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||7.39|-1.55|0.196
95744413|NCT02327325|191460072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||-1.34|-6.85|<0.01
95796971|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Degree|||0.5|-0.6|
95796972|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Degree|||0.3|-0.7|
95796973|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||||Degree|||0.4|-0.6|
95940712|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.068||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 3 (Week 18), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||5.295|-1.160|0.3810
95950220|NCT00657709|191872510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (FHA) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.94|0.76|
95989577|NCT04589988|191954028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.724
95744414|NCT02327325|191460072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA + CBT only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA + CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||0.86|-4.85|0.17
95744415|NCT02327325|191460073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA only group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA group was superior to the wait list group.||5.19|-4.86|0.95
95744416|NCT02327325|191460073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison of the PA+CBT group with the wait list control. Rejection of the null hypothesis means that the PA+CBT group was superior to the wait list group.||1.07|-7.07|0.97
95796974|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Direction|||0.7|-0.7|
95744417|NCT04443569|191460100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 1||||0.3
95744418|NCT04443569|191460100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 2||||0.9
95744419|NCT04443569|191460100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 3||||0.07
95796975|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.7|
95796976|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Direction|||0.5|-0.8|
95796977|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||||Direction|||0.2|-1.0|
95796978|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Direction|||0.6|-0.6|
95796979|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.1|
95796980|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||||Disability|||0.5|-0.8|
95796981|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
95796982|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
95796983|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Disability|||0.3|-1.0|
95989578|NCT04589988|191954029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.447
95989579|NCT04589988|191954030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.696
95989580|NCT04589988|191954031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.798
95989581|NCT04589988|191954032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, and depression score at baseline.||||0.135
95989582|NCT04589988|191954033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291||||||P value shown is for group by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the effects of time (6-month follow-up versus baseline), group (REBIL versus control) and the interaction of group and time on the outcome. A significant interaction of group and time would indicate that the two groups had significantly different changes in the outcome over time. The model adjusted for age, sex, race, work status, and depression score at baseline.||||0.291
95989583|NCT04589988|191954034|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.83||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.76|||Negative binomial regression||IRR reflects REBIL intervention group versus control group.|Fall rates were compared between REBIL and control groups using negative binomial regression. The model adjusted for age, sex, ace, and depression score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that fall rates do not differ between groups.||1.76|0.40|0.631
95989584|NCT01415752|191954035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.25
95744420|NCT04443569|191460100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Op Day 4||||0.09
95744421|NCT04443569|191460101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95744422|NCT02104817|191460107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.90|0.837
95989585|NCT01415752|191954036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||||0.178
95989586|NCT03083886|191954061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.997|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||.997|.87|.04
95744423|NCT02104817|191460108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.84|0.269
95744424|NCT02104817|191460109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.93|0.402
95989587|NCT03083886|191954061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.45|||GEE with log link and Poisson errors|||||1.45|1.35|<0.001
95744425|NCT02104817|191460110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.87|0.940
95744426|NCT02104817|191460111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.81|0.092
95744427|NCT02104817|191460112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.75|0.016
95744428|NCT02104817|191460113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.90|0.372
95744429|NCT02104817|191460114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.89|0.336
95796984|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.9|
95796985|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
95796986|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||||Distribution|||0.0|-1.0|
95796987|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||||Distribution|||0.2|-0.9|
95796988|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||||Distribution|||0.3|-0.7|
95796989|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.3|-3.3|
95796990|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||2.1|-2.2|
95796991|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.7|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||0.7|-3.5|
95796992|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.2|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.2|-3.0|
95796993|NCT02966834|191563564|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||||5-D Itch Total Score|||1.6|-2.7|
95796994|NCT02966834|191563568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.28||||||||0.28|-1.69|
95796995|NCT02966834|191563568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.26||||||||0.26|-1.49|
95796996|NCT02966834|191563568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-1.76|
95796997|NCT02966834|191563568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.28||||||||-0.28|-2.05|
95796998|NCT02966834|191563568|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.85|
95796999|NCT02966834|191563569|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.471||||||||1.471|0.635|
95797000|NCT02966834|191563569|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.712||||||||1.712|0.8|
95797001|NCT02966834|191563569|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.316||||||||1.316|0.627|
95797002|NCT02966834|191563569|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.005||||||||1.005|0.474|
95797003|NCT02966834|191563569|OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.207||||||||1.207|0.564|
95797004|NCT02966834|191563570|OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.995||||||||1.995|0.932|
95797005|NCT02966834|191563570|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|2.887||||||||2.887|1.456|
95950221|NCT00657709|191872510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIs.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis component (Pertactin) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.89|0.67|
95989588|NCT03083886|191954062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-3.9|-7.7|<0.001
95797006|NCT02966834|191563570|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.758|3.436||||||||3.436|1.758|
95797007|NCT02966834|191563570|OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.206|4.435||||||||4.435|2.206|
95797008|NCT02966834|191563570|OTHER||LS mean ratio|2.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|3.81||||||||3.81|1.915|
95797009|NCT02814526|191563571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.29
95797010|NCT02814526|191563572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
95797011|NCT02814526|191563573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009447||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8284
95797012|NCT02814526|191563574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02024||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7086
95797013|NCT02814526|191563575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95797014|NCT02814526|191563576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
95797015|NCT02814526|191563577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
95797016|NCT02814526|191563578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
95797017|NCT02814526|191563579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
95797018|NCT02814526|191563580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
95797019|NCT02814526|191563581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0005||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.817
95797020|NCT02814526|191563582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
95797021|NCT02814526|191563583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
95797022|NCT02814526|191563584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
95797023|NCT03513952|191563591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.10 will be considered for the test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||Estimations were done separately in each treatment arm; the difference between treatments was not calculated.|||0.428
95797024|NCT03513952|191563592|EQUIVALENCE|"Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the CBR was performed, which is used for testing zero effect or equivalence between treatments. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 will be considered for the test."|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-36.3|0.702
95797025|NCT02431299|191563656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Whether there were significant changes in the IMRS baseline scores to IMRS follow up scores.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.78, df = 182||||||<0.01
95797026|NCT02431299|191563657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesized that higher levels of IMR competence would predict higher IMRS outcomes.||||<0.05
95797027|NCT03082729|191563707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
95797028|NCT03082729|191563708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
95797029|NCT03082729|191563709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
95797030|NCT03082729|191563710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
95797031|NCT03082729|191563711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
95797032|NCT03082729|191563712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.315
95797033|NCT03082729|191563713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
95797034|NCT03082729|191563714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
95797035|NCT03082729|191563715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.390
95797036|NCT03082729|191563716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
95797037|NCT03082729|191563717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
95797038|NCT03082729|191563718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.225
95797039|NCT03082729|191563719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
95797040|NCT03082729|191563720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
95797041|NCT03082729|191563721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
95797042|NCT03082729|191563722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
95797043|NCT03082729|191563723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95797044|NCT03082729|191563724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771
95744430|NCT02104817|191460115|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.97|0.112
95744431|NCT02104817|191460116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||The hypothesis is tested at the 5% level. A hierarchical test sequence is used to address the issue of multiple testing.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.97|0.091
95744432|NCT02104817|191460117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.83|0.408
95744433|NCT02104817|191460118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.63|0.233
95744434|NCT02104817|191460119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.81|0.770
95744435|NCT02104817|191460120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||This endpoint was not in the testing sequence and therefore not under type I error control.|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.90|0.278
95940713|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.084||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|6.216|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||6.216|-0.049|0.0557
95950222|NCT00657709|191872510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMCs (GMCrMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3+InfanrixHexa / GMCInfanrixHexa)|Geometric group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||ANOVA|GMCs and 95% CIs were constructed by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means of the log10-transformed titers and their associated 95% CIS.||Immunogenicity of the pertussis components (PT) of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccines given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the ratio of GMCs one month after the third vaccination is ≥0.67.||0.91|0.71|
95989589|NCT03083886|191954062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.6|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-2.6|-5.9|<0.001
95989590|NCT03083886|191954063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-5.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.7|-9.4|<0.001
95744436|NCT00108082|191460121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.7651||95.0|-1.83|2.49|||ANCOVA|||The null hypotheses (tested hierarchically) were that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril on LV mass regression was no different than the effect of atenolol + lisinopril, and that the effect of carvedilol CR + lisinopril was no different than the effect of lisinopril + lisinopril. The primary analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for treatment, stratification by hypertension class, region, and baseline value, at a 0.05 level of significance.||2.49|-1.83|0.7651
95744437|NCT00108082|191460121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.1711||95.0|-0.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-0.70|0.1711
95744438|NCT03302078|191460141|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.15|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.5|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.15|98.31|
95744439|NCT03302078|191460142|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|79.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.96|89.4|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 16.0|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||89.40|69.96|
95744440|NCT03302078|191460143|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T/R) ratio (%)|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|107.3|||||To get geometric mean ratio and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (%) = 5.9|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||107.30|97.80|
95797045|NCT03082729|191563725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.491
95797046|NCT03082729|191563726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.924
95797047|NCT03082729|191563727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.868
95797048|NCT03082729|191563728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
95797049|NCT03082729|191563729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
95797050|NCT03082729|191563730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.453
95797051|NCT03082729|191563731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
95797052|NCT03082729|191563732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
95797053|NCT03082729|191563733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
95797054|NCT03082729|191563734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963
95797055|NCT03082729|191563735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
95797056|NCT03082729|191563736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
95797057|NCT03082729|191563737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
95797058|NCT03082729|191563738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
95797059|NCT03082729|191563739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
95797060|NCT03082729|191563740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
95744441|NCT01405469|191460153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66|<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||this pilot study was created ro evaluate sample size for the following multicenter study, based on manometric outcomes. Mean values between baseline and follow-up were compared using Student ' s t -test for paired samples. P values less then 0.05, two-sided, were considered significant.R 2.13.1(R Development Core Team (2011). Subgroups (partial vs. complete myotomy) were compared using an analysis of variance test adjusted for initial values.||||<0.001
95744442|NCT00323258|191460183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in proportion of participants adherent to triple therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample size of 286 patients(143 patients per group).Based on an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15% in the intervention group (eg, 85% in the intervention group, 70% in the control group), a 2-sided test with α level of .05, a 15% dropout rate, and power of 0.80.||||.50
95797061|NCT03082729|191563741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
95989591|NCT03083886|191954063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-5.0|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||-5.0|-8.4|<0.001
95797062|NCT03082729|191563742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.331
95797063|NCT03082729|191563743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.538
95797064|NCT03082729|191563744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
95797065|NCT03082729|191563745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925
95797066|NCT03082729|191563746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
95797067|NCT03082729|191563747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
95989592|NCT03083886|191954064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.8|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||6.8|2.6|<0.001
95797068|NCT03082729|191563748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.667
95797069|NCT03082729|191563749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
95797070|NCT03082729|191563750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
95797071|NCT03082729|191563751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
95797072|NCT03082729|191563752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
95797073|NCT03082729|191563753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
95797074|NCT03082729|191563754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.911
95797075|NCT03082729|191563755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
95797076|NCT03082729|191563756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
95797077|NCT03082729|191563757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
95797078|NCT03082729|191563758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
95797079|NCT03082729|191563759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.488
95797080|NCT03082729|191563760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
95797081|NCT03082729|191563761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
95797082|NCT03082729|191563762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
95797083|NCT03082729|191563763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
95797084|NCT03082729|191563764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
95797085|NCT03082729|191563765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
95797086|NCT03082729|191563766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.884
95797087|NCT03082729|191563767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
95797088|NCT03082729|191563768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95797089|NCT03082729|191563769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
95797090|NCT03082729|191563770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
95797091|NCT03082729|191563771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95797092|NCT03082729|191563772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
95797093|NCT03082729|191563773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.555
95797094|NCT03082729|191563774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
95797095|NCT03082729|191563775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
95797096|NCT03082729|191563776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95797097|NCT03082729|191563776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95797098|NCT03082729|191563776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
95797099|NCT03082729|191563777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95797100|NCT03082729|191563777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95797101|NCT03082729|191563777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
95797102|NCT03082729|191563778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797103|NCT03082729|191563778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797104|NCT03082729|191563779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797105|NCT03082729|191563779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797106|NCT03082729|191563780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797107|NCT03082729|191563780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797108|NCT03082729|191563781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95797109|NCT03082729|191563781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95940714|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.445||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 1 + Test 2 is NOT equal to Control on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||4.490|0.400|0.0195
95744443|NCT00323258|191460184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to combined beta-blocker and statin therapy in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."|||||=|0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||=0.11
95744444|NCT00323258|191460185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to beta-blockers in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.03
95797110|NCT03082729|191563783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
95940715|NCT04800211|191847079|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.277||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the MMRM includes study group, study visit, study group by study visit interaction, gender, age class, BMI class as fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate, with a variance-covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. Alternate hypothesis: Absolute change from Baseline (Week 1) for Urine Nicotine Equivalents (mg/g creatinine) in Test 2 is NOT equal to Test 1 on Visit 5 (Week 24), relative to the start of the 12-week ALCS-RA-16-06-EV study. (mITT Population)||1.060|-3.615|0.2817
95940716|NCT04164888|191847108|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.95|-70.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.18|-98.95|<0.0001
95797111|NCT03082729|191563783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
95940717|NCT04164888|191847108|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-80.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.58|-66.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-66.29|-94.58|<0.0001
95940718|NCT04164888|191847108|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-84.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-70.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Applying the LOCF method (Last Observation Carried Forward) did not result in any changes at Day 29 or Day 57 due to the lack of missing values and resulted in similar results at Day 85.||-70.75|-99.00|<0.0001
95940719|NCT04164888|191847109|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-48.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.06|-32.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-32.99|-63.06|<0.0001
95940720|NCT04164888|191847109|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-49.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|34.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||34.69|-64.50|<0.0001
95940721|NCT04164888|191847109|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-51.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.34|-36.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with LOCF||Similar changes from baseline were observed for Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 compared to Day 29, Day 57, and Day 85 LOCF.||-36.64|-67.34|<0.0001
95797112|NCT03082729|191563784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95797113|NCT03082729|191563784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.762
95940722|NCT05218096|191847111|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|15.0|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||15.0|-28.8|0.6797
95989593|NCT03083886|191954064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.9|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||7.9|4.1|<0.001
95797114|NCT03082729|191563785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.973
95797115|NCT03082729|191563785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
95797116|NCT03082729|191563786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951
95797117|NCT03082729|191563786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.661
95797118|NCT03082729|191563787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
95797119|NCT03082729|191563787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
95797120|NCT03082729|191563788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.322
95797121|NCT03082729|191563788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
95797122|NCT03082729|191563789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
95797123|NCT03082729|191563789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
95797124|NCT03082729|191563790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
95797125|NCT03082729|191563790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
95797126|NCT03082729|191563791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
95797127|NCT03082729|191563791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219
95858518|NCT04922216|191674842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 6 months).||0.36|-1.45|0.47
95940723|NCT05218096|191847111|OTHER|Difference|Difference|-7.1||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.8|19.3|||Barnard's Unconditional Exact Test||CI calculated using the Chan and Zhang method.|||19.3|-34.8|0.7341
95940724|NCT01824875|191847231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||Hazard ratio of Arm B/Arm A|||1.07|0.46|
95940725|NCT01824875|191847232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95940726|NCT02359890|191847299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with events|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.5|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval.|||6.5|0.7|
95940727|NCT02359890|191847301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of patient with acute success|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is derived using the exact Clopper-Pearson interval|||98.6|92.0|
95940728|NCT05256017|191847303|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-7.2|
95797128|NCT03082729|191563792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
95797129|NCT03082729|191563792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
95797130|NCT03082729|191563793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.302
95797131|NCT03082729|191563793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
95797132|NCT03082729|191563794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
95797133|NCT03082729|191563794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
95797134|NCT03082729|191563795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812
95797135|NCT03082729|191563795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
95940729|NCT05256017|191847304|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs (by PT, for PTs reported in ≥1% of participants in either arm) from the investigational product administration (Day 1) to the Month 4 follow-up visit.||1.4|-4.1|
95940730|NCT05256017|191847305|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.6|-1.6|
95989594|NCT03083886|191954065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.7|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.7|5.0|<0.001
95989595|NCT03083886|191954065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|8.4|||GEE with identity link and normal errors|||||8.4|5.0|<0.001
95797136|NCT03082729|191563796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283
95797137|NCT03082729|191563796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.250
95797138|NCT03082729|191563797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
95797139|NCT03082729|191563797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249
95797140|NCT03082729|191563798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
95797141|NCT03082729|191563798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.632
95797142|NCT03082729|191563799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
95797143|NCT03082729|191563799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
95797144|NCT03082729|191563800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95797145|NCT03082729|191563800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95797146|NCT03082729|191563801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.533
95797147|NCT03082729|191563801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
95797148|NCT03082729|191563802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
95797149|NCT03082729|191563802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
95797150|NCT03082729|191563803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.102
95797151|NCT03082729|191563803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
95797152|NCT03082729|191563804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
95797153|NCT03082729|191563804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
95797154|NCT03082729|191563805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
95797155|NCT03082729|191563805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
95797156|NCT03082729|191563806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
95797157|NCT03082729|191563806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
95797158|NCT03082729|191563807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
95797159|NCT03082729|191563807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
95797160|NCT03082729|191563808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.440
95797161|NCT03082729|191563808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
95797162|NCT03082729|191563809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.278
95797163|NCT03082729|191563809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
95797164|NCT03082729|191563810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
95797165|NCT03082729|191563810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.284
95744445|NCT00323258|191460186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis. Null hypothesis: The will be no difference in the proportion of participants who are \>/= 75% adherent to statins in the treatment arm compared to those who receive usual care."||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Sample Size calculated as 286 total or 143 patient per treatment group. Based on a baseline adherence rate of 70%, an estimated absolute improvement in medication adherence of 15.0% in the intervention group, we would require 122 patients per group assuming a 2-sided test with alpha-level of .05 and power of .80. To sustain a 15% dropout/ loss to follow-up rate, about 143 patients per group (286 patients total) would need to be consented.||||0.34
95744446|NCT01841073|191460243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95744447|NCT01841073|191460244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
95744448|NCT01841073|191460245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95744449|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||feel more attractive||||0.02
95797166|NCT03082729|191563811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.880
95797167|NCT03082729|191563811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95797168|NCT03082729|191563812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
95858519|NCT04922216|191674843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard dietary monitoring to simplified dietary monitoring on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.84|-0.36|0.43
95940731|NCT05256017|191847306|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.4|-3.2|
95940732|NCT05256017|191847307|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.6|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.6|-2.6|
95744450|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||tanning helps relax||||0.001
95797169|NCT03082729|191563812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.199
95797170|NCT03082729|191563813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.814
95940733|NCT05256017|191847308|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.8|-2.2|
95940734|NCT05256017|191847309|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.7|-2.3|
95744451|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||confident with a tan||||0.34
95744452|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Social activity||||0.0004
95744453|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Important to protect skin from the sun||||0.66
95744454|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Concern about develop skin cancer||||0.16
95744455|NCT04404907|191460247|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Chances of getting skin cancer are high||||0.29
95797171|NCT03082729|191563813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
95797172|NCT03082729|191563814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.494
95797173|NCT03082729|191563814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960
95797174|NCT03082729|191563815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777
95744456|NCT01653405|191460252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
95744457|NCT01653405|191460253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||test of differences|||||||0.43
95744458|NCT01653405|191460254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||difference in differences|||||||<0.001
95744459|NCT01653405|191460255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Difference in differences|||||||<0.001
95744460|NCT01653405|191460256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||difference in differences|||||||0.002
95744461|NCT03174158|191460257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori p value threshold \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95744462|NCT03174158|191460257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|a priori threshold p\<0.05||||||0.18
95744463|NCT03174158|191460257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||a priori threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95797175|NCT03082729|191563815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95797176|NCT03082729|191563816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
95797177|NCT03082729|191563816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.869
95797178|NCT03082729|191563817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
95797179|NCT03082729|191563817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95797180|NCT03082729|191563818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
95797181|NCT03082729|191563818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
95797182|NCT03082729|191563819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.260
95797183|NCT03082729|191563819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526
95797184|NCT03082729|191563820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
95797185|NCT03082729|191563820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.690
95797186|NCT03082729|191563821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.542
95797187|NCT03082729|191563821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.344
95797188|NCT03082729|191563822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
95797189|NCT03082729|191563822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95797190|NCT03082729|191563823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
95797191|NCT03082729|191563823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
95797192|NCT03082729|191563824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95797193|NCT03082729|191563824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
95744464|NCT00283842|191460266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.084
95797194|NCT03082729|191563825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.392
95797195|NCT03082729|191563825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177
95797196|NCT03082729|191563826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.584
95797197|NCT03082729|191563826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
95858520|NCT04922216|191674843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Weekly adaptive goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive goals coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (adaptive activity goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.18|-1.01|0.17
95940735|NCT05256017|191847310|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||5.3|0.3|
95744465|NCT00283842|191460266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.084
95940736|NCT05256017|191847311|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||1.3|-2.4|
95940737|NCT05256017|191847312|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3|||||"ER: calculated as occurrence rate of the TEAE in the acoziborole arm minus occurrence rate of the TEAE in the placebo arm.~CI: calculated using the Wilson score interval."|||0.3|-3.5|
95940738|NCT05256017|191847313|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.1||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported during hospitalization.||5.1|-3.7|
95744466|NCT00283842|191460266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.001
95744467|NCT00283842|191460266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.027
95744468|NCT00283842|191460267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 50mg.||||0.375
95744469|NCT00283842|191460267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 100mg.||||0.342
95744470|NCT00283842|191460267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 200mg.||||0.342
95940739|NCT05256017|191847313|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.9||||||Occurrence and excess rate (95% CI) of any TEAEs reported after the hospitalization period.||0.9|-8.2|
95940740|NCT05256017|191847314|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.0||||||||0.0|-3.1|
95940741|NCT05256017|191847315|OTHER||Excess rate (ER)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.7||||||Of note, all AEs reported during this study were TEAEs.||3.7|-7.2|
95940742|NCT05256017|191847333|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.4|-2.1|
95940743|NCT05256017|191847334|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|21.1||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||21.1|-22.0|
95744471|NCT00283842|191460267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Hochberg|||Statistical analysis provided for 400mg.||||0.375
95744472|NCT05068661|191460268|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.40|0.486
95797198|NCT03082729|191563827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
95797199|NCT03082729|191563827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
95797200|NCT03082729|191563828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
95797201|NCT03082729|191563828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
95797202|NCT03082729|191563829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
95797203|NCT03082729|191563829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
95940744|NCT05256017|191847335|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.3||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||1.3|-3.6|
95744473|NCT05068661|191460269|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||This is adjusted P value for hypotension|Chi-squared|||||1.06|0.69|0.148
95744474|NCT05068661|191460270|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||This is adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.98|>0.999
95744475|NCT05068661|191460271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.9||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.18||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||3.18|1.14|0.128
95744476|NCT05068661|191460272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.04|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.35|0.80|>0.999
95744477|NCT05068661|191460273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.97|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.93|>0.999
95744478|NCT05068661|191460274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.25|0.52|>0.999
95797204|NCT03082729|191563830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
95797205|NCT03082729|191563830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
95797206|NCT03082729|191563831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.362
95797207|NCT03082729|191563831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
95797208|NCT03082729|191563832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.813
95797209|NCT03082729|191563832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95797210|NCT03082729|191563833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
95797211|NCT03082729|191563833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
95797212|NCT03082729|191563834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.251
95797213|NCT03082729|191563834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.329
95797214|NCT03082729|191563835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215
95797215|NCT03082729|191563835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
95797216|NCT03082729|191563836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.307
95797217|NCT03082729|191563836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
95940745|NCT05256017|191847336|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.4||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||0.4|-1.9|
95940746|NCT05256017|191847337|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|-6.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-6.6|-15.3|
95940747|NCT05256017|191847338|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|-8.7||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.7|-14.4|
95940748|NCT05256017|191847339|OTHER||Placebo-corrected change from baseline|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-8.6||||||Placebo-corrected change from baseline (ΔΔ), calculated using an ANCOVA model adjusted for sex and age.||-8.6|-14.9|
95940749|NCT05256017|191847340|OTHER||Estimate|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|-7.85||||||Estimated ΔΔQTcF (in ms) computed from a concentration-response (C-R) model between dry blood spot concentration of acoziborole and changes from baseline in QTcF parameter||-7.85|-13.5|
95940750|NCT06504862|191847392|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|133.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.52|170.11|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||170.11|105.52|
95940751|NCT06504862|191847393|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|124.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.13|160.43|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 42.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||160.43|96.13|
95744479|NCT05068661|191460275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||Adjusted P value|Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.58|>0.999
95744480|NCT05068661|191460276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||Adjusted P value|Regression, Linear|||||1.22|0.86|>0.999
95744481|NCT00550147|191460295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1933|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.72|-1.52|<0.05
95744482|NCT00550147|191460296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2056|<|0.05||95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-0.91|-1.75|<0.05
95744483|NCT00550147|191460297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.06|<|0.05||95.0|-74.3|-20.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-20.2|-74.3|<0.05
95744484|NCT00550147|191460298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-1.29|-7.04|<0.05
95744485|NCT00550147|191460299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.05||95.0|-17.76|-8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (comparing augmentation period start score with end score), 23 df. Value is Visit 10 score minus Visit 5 score (null hypothesis=0).|This was a comparison of pre-post change in a single group, with treatment administered open-label.|This was a repeated-measures analysis, using a single group of subjects who were administered quetiapine in addition to OROS mph. Results reported here are for the augmentation period (Visit 5-10). See Kronenberger et al. (2007, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology) for additional information.||-8.82|-17.76|<0.05
95744486|NCT01567527|191460305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.678|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|Significance level 0.05.||0.678|0.299|< 0.0001
95940752|NCT06504862|191847394|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|230.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|195.68|271.04|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||271.04|195.68|
95797218|NCT03082729|191563837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.139
95797219|NCT03082729|191563837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
95797220|NCT03082729|191563838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
95797221|NCT03082729|191563838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.285
95858521|NCT04922216|191674843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Fixed message decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive message decision points coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (message decision points) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of weekly adaptive activity goals versus daily adaptive activity goals on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.13|-0.06|0.08
95858522|NCT04922216|191674843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (message decision rules) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of standard decision rules to adaptive decision rules on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.91|-0.28|0.58
95858523|NCT04922216|191674843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF (2,622)|No choice points coded as 0 (reference) and Choice coded as 1; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater (more negative) weight loss.|ITT analysis for factor 5 (participant choice) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of no participant message choice versus participant message choice on weight change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||0.28|-0.91|0.55
95940753|NCT06504862|191847395|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|301.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|247.19|368.19|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||368.19|247.19|
95940754|NCT06504862|191847396|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|90.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.3|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||90.12|76.48|
95940755|NCT06504862|191847397|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|75.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.03|83.95|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 17.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.95|68.03|
95940756|NCT06504862|191847398|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.17|158.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 22.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||158.36|120.17|
95940757|NCT06504862|191847399|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|149.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.12|193.25|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 44.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||193.25|116.12|
95797222|NCT03082729|191563839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.804
95797223|NCT03082729|191563839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
95797224|NCT03082729|191563840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
95797225|NCT03082729|191563840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.355
95797226|NCT03082729|191563841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.101
95797227|NCT03082729|191563841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
95797228|NCT03082729|191563842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
95797229|NCT03082729|191563842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95797230|NCT03082729|191563843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
95797231|NCT03082729|191563843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.378
95797232|NCT03082729|191563844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
95797233|NCT03082729|191563844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815
95797234|NCT03082729|191563845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
95797235|NCT03082729|191563845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95797236|NCT03082729|191563846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
95797237|NCT03082729|191563846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
95797238|NCT03082729|191563847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
95744487|NCT01567527|191460305|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|3.34|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||3.34|1.475|
95744488|NCT01567527|191460306|SUPERIORITY|Using a hierarchical procedure to preserve the overall Type I error rate at 0.05, after testing the primary outcome.|Percentage Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.5|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for any mood episode||-12.5|-36.7|< 0.0001
95744489|NCT01567527|191460307|SUPERIORITY|Using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach. Analyses included the categorically fixed effects of treatment, region, trial week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuously fixed covariates of baseline-score-by-week interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-subject errors and Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.17|||Mixed model repeated measure analysis|||||-0.17|-0.69|= 0.0011
95744490|NCT01567527|191460308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.465|||Log Rank||"Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.~HR is estimated for Aripiprazole IM depot relative to Placebo."|||0.465|0.04|= 0.0002
95744491|NCT01567527|191460308|SUPERIORITY|Using the Cox proportional hazards model with term for treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.151|24.865|||||HR is estimated for Placebo relative to Aripiprazole IM depot.|||24.865|2.151|
95744492|NCT01321177|191460344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0145
95744493|NCT01742208|191460348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.14||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.78|-7.49||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison of the 2 Expansion Groups was based on an ANCOVA model with covariates of baseline mean total daily bolus insulin, treatment group, factor used to stratify the randomization (screening A1C \<= 8%, \> 8%), and random effect of participant\*treatment group.||-7.49|-42.78|0.007
95744494|NCT01091363|191460365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|12.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.99|1.67|<0.01
95858524|NCT04922216|191674844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.39|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard dietary monitoring coded as 0 (reference) and simplified dietary monitoring coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard dietary monitoring and simplified dietary monitoring (factor 1).||1.39|0.70|0.95
95744495|NCT01091363|191460366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model predicting a binary logistic outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.32|||Mediation Analysis|||Mediation analyses were performed to examine the effect of the intervention on abstinence via the three theoretic variables (attitudes, perceived family norms, and self-efficacy), using the Hayes' PROCESS computation tool for a serial multiple mediator model with a binary outcome variable (quitting vs. smoking).||6.32|0.34|0.02
95744496|NCT04892147|191460368|OTHER|"Mean value of Enjoyment (8-item summed scale) tested against the value of a Neutral Likert response (Neutral value = 3)."|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The reported value is a calculated -p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95744497|NCT04892147|191460369|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.259||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.259
95744498|NCT04892147|191460370|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.711||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.711
95744499|NCT04892147|191460371|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.214||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.214
95858525|NCT04922216|191674844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Weekly adaptive activity goals coded as 0 (reference) and daily adaptive activity goals coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between weekly adaptive activity goals and daily adaptive activity goals (factor 2).||2.05|1.03|0.03
95858526|NCT04922216|191674844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Fixed decision points coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision points coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between fixed message decision points and adaptive message decision points (factor 3).||1.20|0.60|0.36
95744500|NCT04892147|191460372|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.317||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.317
95744501|NCT04892147|191460373|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.056||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.056
95744502|NCT04892147|191460374|EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were conducted using general linear models, controlling for baseline levels only with treatment group as the predictor of interest.||||||0.562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.562
95744503|NCT01898598|191460389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Response Rates|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|32.1||||||The 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was computed using the exact unconditional confidence limits method.||32.1|-71.6|
95744504|NCT01898598|191460390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|14.2||||||||14.2|-85.3|
95744505|NCT01157234|191460394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|55.53||||||||55.53|1.93|
95744506|NCT01157234|191460395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|29.12||||||||29.12|-12.58|
95744507|NCT01157234|191460396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|9.2||||||||9.20|-6.74|
95744508|NCT01157234|191460400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|23.4||||||||23.40|0.48|
95744509|NCT01157234|191460401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|69.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.83|||TWO_SIDED|99.7|12.71|126.37||||||||126.37|12.71|
95744510|NCT01157234|191460402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|68.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|13.02|123.36||||||||123.36|13.02|
95744511|NCT01157234|191460403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.32|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.25|51.03||||||||51.03|-48.25|
95744512|NCT01157234|191460404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96|||TWO_SIDED|99.17|-48.74|54.22||||||||54.22|-48.74|
95744513|NCT00493792|191460407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||||1.77|0.29|0.47
95744514|NCT00493792|191460408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.23|0.06
95744515|NCT00493792|191460409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|.45|0.193
95744516|NCT00745134|191460425|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
95744517|NCT01503333|191460450|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at post-intervention. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at post-intervention.|parameter estimate|-0.08||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypotheses: Post-intervention, weighted mean minutes of MVPA/week will be greater by 16 minutes among girls in intervention than control schools. Mean minutes per week is determined by multiplying mean minutes/hour by 90 hours that girls are awake in a week (10 hours awake on each weekend day; 14 hours awake on each weekday).||0.05|-0.21|.207
95797239|NCT03082729|191563847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383
95797240|NCT03082729|191563848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
95858527|NCT04922216|191674844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|Standard decision rules coded as 0 (reference) and adaptive decision rules coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between standard message decision rules and adaptive message decision rules (factor 4).||1.42|0.72|0.95
95744518|NCT01503333|191460451|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on CV fitness according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline CV fitness, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, cardiovascular (CV) fitness will be higher among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.36|0.03|.018
95744519|NCT01503333|191460452|OTHER|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on BMI-z according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models for BMI-z included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline BMI-z, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, BMI z-score will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||0.01|-0.05|.191
95744520|NCT01503333|191460453|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed models were used to analyze intervention effect on % body fat according to intention-to-treat, with school pairs treated as random effect and students nested within school and treatment condition. Models included main intervention predictor (control or intervention), incorporated cluster random effect, specified school pairs (random intercept), and controlled for baseline % body fat, age, physical activity, race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and year cohort.|parameter estimate|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Immediately post-intervention, percent body fat will be significantly lower among girls in the intervention than control schools.||-0.10|-0.64|.007
95744521|NCT01503333|191460454|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed-effect models were applied to examine the intervention effect on MVPA at 9-month follow up. Models included the group variable, cluster random effect of school, and the following fixed effects: age, BMI z-score, race, SES, ethnicity, pubertal stage, and study year. Baseline MVPA was included when evaluating the intervention effect at follow up.|parameter estimate|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.21|.118
95744522|NCT01503333|191460455|OTHER||parameter estimate|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-square test p\>.05.26.||||
95797241|NCT03082729|191563848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
95797242|NCT03082729|191563849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95797243|NCT03082729|191563849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
95797244|NCT03082729|191563850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
95797245|NCT03082729|191563850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
95797246|NCT03082729|191563851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95989596|NCT03237065|191954077|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for stratum, using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-49.8|-76.6|<0.0001
95989597|NCT03237065|191954078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan- Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.0511
95744523|NCT01503333|191460456|OTHER||parameter estimate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
95744524|NCT01503333|191460457|OTHER||parameter estimate|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
95744525|NCT01503333|191460458|OTHER||parameter estimate|30.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
95858528|NCT04922216|191674844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.69|||Chi-squared|DF (1)|No message choice coded as 0 (reference) and message choice coded as 1; an odds ratio \> 1 indicates that the odds of achieving 5% weight loss are higher in the group coded as 1.|Chi-square test of the difference in proportion reaching 5% weight loss from baseline to 6 months between no message choice and message choice (factor 5).||1.69|0.85|0.29
95989598|NCT03237065|191954079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-31.6|-57.7|<0.0001
95989599|NCT03237065|191954080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.62|0.30|<0.0001
95989600|NCT03237065|191954080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.32|<0.0001
95989601|NCT03237065|191954080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.96|0.49|<0.0001
95989602|NCT03237065|191954080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.46|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.46|0.99|<0.0001
95989603|NCT03237065|191954080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.51|0.98|<0.0001
95744526|NCT01503333|191460459|OTHER||parameter estimate|24.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Path analysis|||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||<.001
95797247|NCT03082729|191563851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
95989604|NCT03237065|191954080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.43|0.91|<0.0001
95744527|NCT01503333|191460460|OTHER||parameter estimate|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Path analysis was performed to examine study mediation model. Maximum likelihood estimates were computed. Model fit was evaluated based on fit indices: (a) Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ≥.95, (b) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥.95, (c) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤.05; (d) standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) ≤.08; and (e) chi-squar||||
95744528|NCT04241133|191460461|OTHER|The experimental and control groups were not compared due to the inability to collect post data with the control group because of stay at home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported P-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.||The experimental group was tested for significant difference in Healthy Eating Index 2015 (HEI-2015) scores at baseline and 12 weeks. SAS macros provided by the National Cancer Institute were used to compute HEI-2015 scores for each dietary recall at pre- (baseline) and post-intervention (12 weeks) using the Simple HEI Scoring Algorithm.||||<0.05
95744529|NCT03653026|191460467|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|34.7||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||34.7|23.2|<0.001
95744530|NCT03653026|191460468|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|41.6||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||41.6|28.6|<0.001
95744531|NCT03653026|191460469|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||20.3|11.4|<0.001
95744532|NCT03653026|191460470|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|57.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||57.1|41.7|<0.001
95744533|NCT03653026|191460471|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|45.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||45.1|28.8|<0.001
95744534|NCT03653026|191460472|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|36.2||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - placebo|||36.2|24.1|<0.001
95744535|NCT03653026|191460473|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|35.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (\<= 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||35.3|19.0|<0.001
95797248|NCT06023563|191563884|OTHER|The required sample size for medium effect size (f = 0.25) and power of 0.80 was calculated to be 6 participants in each group (n =12) (G\*power 3.1.9.7 software). Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistical package (version 29.0.1.0).|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||A virtual reality active video gaming intervention will be more effective than traditional physical therapy based balance exercises, both based on motor learning principles, in improving static and dynamic balance in youth and young adults with ASD and these improvements will be retained at 4 weeks after the intervention.||||< 0.05
95797249|NCT06023563|191563885|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95797250|NCT06023563|191563886|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95797251|NCT06023563|191563887|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95797252|NCT06023563|191563888|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95797253|NCT06023563|191563889|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95797254|NCT06023563|191563890|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95744536|NCT03653026|191460474|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|37.4||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.4|20.9|<0.001
95744537|NCT03653026|191460475|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.1||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||46.1|29.8|<0.001
95744538|NCT03653026|191460476|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.98|37.36||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||37.36|24.98|<0.001
95744539|NCT03653026|191460477|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|15.3||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for Baseline corticosteroid use (yes or no), Baseline Adapted Mayo score (≤ 7 or \> 7), and bio-IR status (bio-IR or non-bio-IR).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||15.3|7.2|<0.001
95744540|NCT03653026|191460478|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|7.73||The primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were tested with multiplicity adjustment using a fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure to ensure a strong control of family-wise type I error rate at significance level alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).|Mixed-effect model repeated measurement|MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and strata (Baseline Adapted Mayo score, corticosteroid use, and bio-IR status).|Difference = Upadacitinib 45 mg - Placebo|||7.73|4.19|<0.001
95744541|NCT01091103|191460515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9427
95744542|NCT01091103|191460516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3370
95744543|NCT01856192|191460564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.03
95744544|NCT01332968|191460570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.85|0.51|0.0012
95744545|NCT01332968|191460571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Log Rank|Stratified by chemotherapy regimen and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk group.||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
95744546|NCT01332968|191460572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.65|0.0028
95744547|NCT01332968|191460573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.56|0.0118
95744548|NCT01332968|191460574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038||95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0038
95858529|NCT02864394|191674863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio, HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test.||1.14|0.61|0.1276
95744549|NCT01332968|191460575|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|5.68|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.68|-2.02|0.30
95744550|NCT01332968|191460575|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||10.5|-1.8|0.17
95744551|NCT01332968|191460576|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.3|-2.0|0.33
95744552|NCT01332968|191460576|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.5||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.4|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.4|-2.3|0.17
95744553|NCT01332968|191460577|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-5.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.78|||Log Rank|||Without PET||-0.78|-10.2|0.02
95744554|NCT01332968|191460577|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|5.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Log Rank|||With PET||13.3|-2.8|0.32
95744555|NCT01332968|191460578|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|-4.9||||0.02||95.0|-9.3|0.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||0.6|-9.3|0.02
95744556|NCT01332968|191460578|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|4.1||||0.33||95.0|-3.6|11.8|||Log Rank|||With PET||11.8|-3.6|0.33
95744557|NCT01332968|191460579|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.85|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.85|-0.19|0.052
95744558|NCT01332968|191460579|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.9|||Log Rank|||With PET||8.9|-2.3|0.30
95744559|NCT01332968|191460580|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.6|-0.3|0.049
95744560|NCT01332968|191460580|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|3.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.5|||Log Rank|||With PET||9.5|-1.7|0.22
95744561|NCT01332968|191460581|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|1.7||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.8|||Log Rank|||Without PET||6.8|-3.5|0.58
95744562|NCT01332968|191460581|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|19.4|||Log Rank|||||19.4|3.9|0.006
95744563|NCT01332968|191460582|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.5|||Log Rank|||Without PET||5.5|-4.0|0.80
95744564|NCT01332968|191460582|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in %|10.1||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.6|||Log Rank|||With PET||17.6|2.6|0.009
95744565|NCT01332968|191460583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3577||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.63|0.3577
95744566|NCT01332968|191460584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.25||95.0|0.58|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.58|0.25
95744567|NCT01332968|191460585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.62|0.0015
95744568|NCT01332968|191460586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0004||95.0|0.56|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0004
95744569|NCT01332968|191460587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.71|
95744570|NCT01332968|191460588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19||||||||1.19|0.50|
95744571|NCT01332968|191460589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.63|
95797255|NCT06023563|191563891|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's test|||||||< 0.05
95744572|NCT01332968|191460590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.55|0.88||||||||0.88|0.55|
95744573|NCT01332968|191460591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.001
95744574|NCT01332968|191460592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004||95.0|0.54|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.54|0.004
95744575|NCT01067521|191460651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.799||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|"Relapses were estimated by a baseline-adjusted, Negative Binomial Regression with an offset based on the log of subject's exposure to treatment. The model included the following covariates: - Baseline EDSS score. - Log of the prior 2-year number of relapses. - Volume of T2 lesions at baseliner. - Status of Gd-enhancing T1 activity at baseline (=0 no Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline; =1 at least one Gd-enhancing T1 at baseline). - CGR."||0.799|0.539|<0.0001
95744576|NCT01067521|191460652|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.78||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative binomial regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|Negative binomial regression||0.780|0.546|<.0001
95744577|NCT01067521|191460653|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.699||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|Negative Binomial Regression||GA 40 mg vs. placebo|||0.699|0.436|<0.0001
95744578|NCT01067521|191460654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.033||The overall significance level for this study is 5%|ANCOVA||GA 40 mg vs Placebo|||0.033|-0.154|0.2058
95744579|NCT01067521|191460655|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0744||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6995|0.9925||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Entire Study The Negative Binomial Regression model covariates: • treatment group • PCBL (Placebo-Controlled Baseline) Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score as 1 degree of freedom variable • Log of the # of relapses in the 2 years prior to PCBL • Volume of T2 lesions at PCBL • Status of Gd-enhancing T1 lesion activity at PCBL (=0 if no Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at PCBL; =1 if at least one Gd-enhancing T1 lesion at PCBL) • Country or Geographical Region (CGR)||0.9925|0.6995|0.0409
95744580|NCT01067521|191460656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.914||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6 Negative binomial regression||0.914|0.592|0.0056
95744581|NCT01067521|191460656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.765||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12 Negative binomial regression||0.765|0.524|<0.0001
95744582|NCT01067521|191460656|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.797||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36 Negative binomial regression||0.797|0.557|<0.0001
95744583|NCT01067521|191460657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.773||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative Binomial Regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||0.773|0.4|0.0005
95744584|NCT01067521|191460657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.679||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.679|0.388|<0.0001
95744585|NCT01067521|191460657|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.854||not adjusted for multiplicity|Negative binomial regression||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.854|0.514|0.0015
95744586|NCT01067521|191460658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|-0.003||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 6||-0.003|-0.166|0.0425
95744587|NCT01067521|191460658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.012||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 12||0.012|-0.184|0.0844
95797256|NCT00090103|191563912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.8||||0.18||95.0|0.58|1.11||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
95797257|NCT00090103|191563912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||0.45|0.26|<0.001
95797258|NCT00090103|191563914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||0.18
95797259|NCT00090103|191563914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Log rank test with stratification by cluster.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95797260|NCT00090103|191563916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.52|0.8|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with stratification by cluster.||||0.80|0.52|<0.001
95744588|NCT01067521|191460658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.8701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.225||not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Early Start vs Delayed Start|Month 36||0.225|-0.91|0.8701
95744589|NCT00936351|191460666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
95744590|NCT01540045|191460669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.013
95744591|NCT01540045|191460670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated body fat before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.671
95744592|NCT01540045|191460670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we evaluated lean body mass before and after 2 cycles of cisplatin/paclitaxel based chemotheprapy||||0.694
95744593|NCT01540045|191460671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
95744594|NCT01540045|191460672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) was used to assess and classify patients as having severe or moderate malnourishment (B or C) or as being well nourished (A).||||0.607
95744595|NCT01540045|191460673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds compared to \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.015
95744596|NCT01540045|191460673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||animal protein consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.010
95744597|NCT01540045|191460673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||FAT consumption was estimated by questionnaire SNUT difference between ≥ Sweet perception thresholds vs \< Sweet perception thresholds after chemotherapy||||0.004
95940758|NCT06504862|191847400|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|134.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.56|171.34|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||171.34|105.56|
95940759|NCT06504862|191847401|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|248.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.03|293.07|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 27.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||293.07|211.03|
95940760|NCT06504862|191847402|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|82.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.27|89.96|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 13.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||89.96|76.27|
95797261|NCT00090103|191563916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.48|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.48|<0.001
95797262|NCT00090103|191563917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.65
95744598|NCT01540045|191460675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.28
95744599|NCT01540045|191460676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.889
95744600|NCT01540045|191460676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in functional role of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.293
95744601|NCT01540045|191460676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in emotional functioning of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.009
95744602|NCT01540045|191460676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in fatigue scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.213
95744603|NCT01540045|191460676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in appetite loss of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.595
95744604|NCT01540045|191460676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in constipation scale of quality of life between ≤ compared to \> umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.068
95744605|NCT01540045|191460677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95797263|NCT00090103|191563917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Hanenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.10
95797264|NCT00090103|191563918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.95
95744606|NCT01540045|191460678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||clinically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peripheral neuropathy scale of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.240
95744607|NCT01540045|191460679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in status global of quality of life between \> ó = compared to \< umami recognition threshold after chemotherapy by EORT questionnaire||||0.036
95744608|NCT01540045|191460680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.312
95744609|NCT01540045|191460681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.608
95744610|NCT01540045|191460682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.035
95744611|NCT01540045|191460683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the paired analysis of taste acuity we used Wilcoxon for difference between baseline and 6 weeks later.||||0.402
95744612|NCT01540045|191460684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.109
95744613|NCT01540045|191460685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||for the paired analysis of taste acuity, we used Mc Nemar test for dividing into high and low sensibility to umami, bitter and sweet tastes.||||0.092
95797265|NCT00090103|191563918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Log Rank|Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by cluster.||||||0.24
95797266|NCT00320086|191563947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.05
95797267|NCT00055237|191563948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion estimate,binomial exact 95%CI|31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|58.7|||sample estimate with 95% CI||As stated in the Outcome statistical Analysis 1. Section, the confidence interval was calculated using binomial exact statistics. The standard deviation is based on that calculation.|||58.7|11|
95797268|NCT01126424|191563971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.986||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.58|26.607|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||26.607|-68.580|0.3771
95797269|NCT01126424|191563971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|17.508||||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.854|63.87|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||63.870|-28.854|0.4487
95797270|NCT01126424|191563972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.152||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|18.326|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||18.326|-0.023|0.0505
95797271|NCT01126424|191563972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.846||||0.6753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|10.713|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||10.713|-7.020|0.6753
95744614|NCT01540045|191460686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||We divide dilutions in two groups and dichotomized the patients into high and low sensibility to bitter taste. (PERCEPTION)||||0.022
95744615|NCT03828539|191460687|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||0.27|0.13|<.001
95744616|NCT03828539|191460688|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.71|2.06|<.001
95744617|NCT03828539|191460689|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||||3.12|1.70|<.001
95744618|NCT03828539|191460690|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||2.43|1.26|<0.001
95744619|NCT03828539|191460690|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is obtained from a logistic regression model that includes treatment group and stratification factor (MMD at baseline)||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||2.69|1.29|0.005
95744620|NCT04387617|191460691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.8|0.5
95744621|NCT02522780|191460753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.54||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||2.54|0.96|>0.05
95744622|NCT02522780|191460754|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||The p-value was based on Generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach with binary outcomes (clinical remission) and an unstructured working correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|Generalised estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 6 months.||2.03|0.76|>0.05
95744623|NCT02522780|191460755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.44||The p-value was based on log-rank test using pathway of randomization as the stratification factor, at a 0.05 significance level.|Log Rank|||Times to relapse were compared between treatment groups up to 6 months.||1.44|0.25|>0.05
95744624|NCT02522780|191460756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79||The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by controlling pathway of randomization, at a 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at Month 6.||0.79|0.19|<0.05
95744625|NCT02522780|191460757|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured correlation matrix , at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in CRP levels over 6 months was reported.||0.7|-2.7|>0.05
95797272|NCT01126424|191563973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.507||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|1.279|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||1.279|-2.293|0.5684
95940761|NCT06504862|191847403|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|143.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.78|166.33|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean T/adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: participant (considered as random) and treatment (considered as fixed). These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||166.33|123.78|
95940762|NCT02606422|191847564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95940763|NCT04625465|191847585|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|0.042||||0.869|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.869
95940764|NCT04625465|191847586|OTHER||Difference in the log odds ratios|-0.32||||0.21|||||||Multilevel logistic regression|||"Multilevel logistic regression of daily IPV perpetration on alcohol use (Level 1) nested within participant (Level 2) with interaction between alcohol use and CBT Intervention.~Testing the difference in odds ratio between groups 1 (No Intervention and Attention Control ) and 2 (CBT Texts Intervention) H0: OR1 = OR2"||||.210
95940765|NCT05566639|191847595|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 10%|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE)|1.7||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|22.2|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards||rVE = 100 \* (1 - HR) % was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard (mRNA-1010 vs active comparator), where HR was the hazard ratio between mRNA-1010 vs the active comparator.|||22.2|-24.1|0.1715
95940766|NCT03643744|191847674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
95940767|NCT03643744|191847674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.727
95940768|NCT03643744|191847675|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95940769|NCT04487860|191847677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7905|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7905
95940770|NCT04487860|191847677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7372
95940771|NCT04487860|191847677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2989
95940772|NCT04487860|191847677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3328
95940773|NCT04487860|191847678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8989|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8989
95744626|NCT02522780|191460758|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-66.92|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|6.36||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in fecal calprotectin levels over 6 months was reported.||6.36|-140.2|>0.05
95744627|NCT02522780|191460759|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.77||The p-value was based on a repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix, at a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean treatment difference in IBDQ total scores over 6 months was reported.||3.77|-4.41|>0.05
95744628|NCT02033317|191460778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.14
95797273|NCT01126424|191563973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.792||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|0.538|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.538|-2.122|0.2348
95797274|NCT01126424|191563974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.127|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.127|-0.208|0.6275
95940774|NCT04487860|191847678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6768
95940775|NCT04487860|191847678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8209|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8209
95940776|NCT04487860|191847678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3106
95940777|NCT04487860|191847679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8593|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8593
95940778|NCT04487860|191847679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9594|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9594
95940779|NCT04487860|191847679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9041
95744629|NCT02033317|191460779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||= 0.02
95744630|NCT02786927|191460780|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95744631|NCT02786927|191460781|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95744632|NCT02786927|191460782|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95940780|NCT04487860|191847679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7147|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7147
95744633|NCT01801917|191460785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.586||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
95744634|NCT01801917|191460785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.022||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 2mg group vs. placebo||||
95744635|NCT01801917|191460785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.963||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. For this table the value is the posterior probability of achieving an increase in MMT24 and a decrease in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
95744636|NCT01801917|191460785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian|0.837||||||||||||||It was a Bayesian analysis with non-informative prior for co-primary endpoints, MMT-24 and CK, with dual criteria for statistical significance: ≥ 90% posterior probability (PP) of achieving an increase from baseline in MMT24 and decrease in CK and clinical relevance: ≥ 50% PP achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK vs. placebo. . For this table the value is the PP of achieving an increase of 15 points in MMT24 and a decrease of 30% in CK in 10mg group vs. placebo||||
95744637|NCT03259789|191460799|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
95744638|NCT03259789|191460801|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.86|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-0.86|-1.83|< 0.0001
95744639|NCT03259789|191460803|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-7.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.32|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-4.32|-9.83|< 0.0001
95744640|NCT03259789|191460804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.95||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 6 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||12.95|1.70|0.0014
95744641|NCT03259789|191460804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.92||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 12 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||8.92|1.96|0.0001
95744642|NCT03259789|191460804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.04||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 18 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||5.04|1.31|0.0030
95744643|NCT03259789|191460804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.58||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates|The odds ratios of bexagliflozin group over the placebo group at each visit will be estimated from LS means based on the model with the corresponding p-values and their two-sided 95% CIs presented.|Odds ratio at Week 24 was calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin group over placebo group.||7.58|1.99|< 0.0001
95744644|NCT03259789|191460806|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||||-1.57|-3.45|< 0.0001
95858530|NCT02864394|191674864|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Log Rank|||OS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||0.95|0.60|0.0076
95744645|NCT03259789|191460808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.38||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 6 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.38|-0.74|< 0.0001
95940781|NCT03100149|191847846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.21|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-4.21|0.2385
95940782|NCT03100149|191847846|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-2.82|0.7169
95744646|NCT03259789|191460808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.46||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 12 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.46|-0.86|< 0.0001
95744647|NCT03259789|191460808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 18 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.30|-0.69|< 0.0001
95744648|NCT03259789|191460808|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||P-value is presented based on one-sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes country, treatment, visit, treatment and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates||Model-adjusted change from baseline at week 24 was calculated as the difference in LS Mean between bexagliflozin group and placebo group.||-0.32|-0.74|< 0.0001
95744649|NCT02063217|191460816|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (standard error), units = %. 17(7.2) increase in overnight amyloid-beta 40 concentrations over waking baseline between the sleep deprivation group and controls.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||0.07
95744650|NCT02063217|191460816|SUPERIORITY|Mixed linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean= 7%, standard error = 7.6%. 7% increase in overnight amyloid beta 40 concentrations over the waking baseline between the sleep induction group and control group.|Mixed linear modeling of change in overnight amyloid beta concentrations from waking baseline between 01:00 and 11:00. Data provided for amyloid beta-40.||||1.0
95744651|NCT03566238|191460836|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.435||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2195|0.6551|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.6551|0.2195|0.0015
95858531|NCT02864394|191674865|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.07|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test.||1.07|0.54|0.0534
95940783|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.13|-0.30|0.6116
95940784|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.3||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IA||0.30|-0.13|0.6188
95940785|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.4||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.40|-0.48|0.9062
95940786|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.46||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part IB||0.46|-0.43|0.9621
95940787|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.34||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.34|-0.71|0.6510
95940788|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|0.65||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part I Total||0.65|-0.41|0.7709
95940789|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|1.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||1.01|-0.33|0.5177
95940790|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.9095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part II Total||0.61|-0.73|0.9095
95940791|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|-0.27||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||-0.27|-3.49|0.1354
95940792|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|0.61||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Total||0.61|-2.64|0.4217
95940793|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.56|-0.38|0.8053
95940794|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.73||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Rigidity||0.73|-0.22|0.4970
95940795|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.779||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|-0.07||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||-0.07|-2.07|0.1703
95940796|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.5729|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.45|0.56||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Bradykinesia||0.56|-1.45|0.5729
95940797|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.19||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||-0.19|-1.02|0.0628
95989605|NCT03237065|191954081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|18.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||18.59|9.38|<0.0001
95989606|NCT03237065|191954081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.23|9.45|<0.0001
95989607|NCT03237065|191954081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|28.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.59|14.72|<0.0001
95989608|NCT03237065|191954081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.28|43.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.06|29.28|<0.0001
95989609|NCT03237065|191954081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|45.72|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.72|29.99|<0.0001
95989610|NCT03237065|191954081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|42.26|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||42.26|26.80|<0.0001
95989611|NCT03237065|191954083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|-73.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-73.8|-119.8|<0.0001
95989612|NCT03237065|191954083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.4|-34.9|0.1064
95989613|NCT03237065|191954083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-251.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.2|-196.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-196.2|-307.2|<0.0001
95989614|NCT03237065|191954083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.7|-54.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.5|-103.7|<0.0001
95940798|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Resting Tremor||0.01|-0.82|0.2125
95940799|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|0.06||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.06|-0.22|0.4577
95797275|NCT01126424|191563974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.046||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.103|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||0.103|-0.194|0.5361
95797276|NCT01126424|191563975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.655||||0.6315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.858|24.167|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||24.167|-14.858|0.6315
95797277|NCT01126424|191563975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.457||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.976|16.062|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||16.062|-18.976|0.8670
95797278|NCT01126424|191563976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.919||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.814|216.976|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of solifenacin versus placebo change from Baseline at 6 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||216.976|-372.814|0.5953
95797279|NCT01126424|191563976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|157.783||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.015|497.581|||ANCOVA|The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment, period, subjects as a random effect and baseline as a covariate.||"Comparison of oxybutynin versus placebo change from Baseline at 2 hours~The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was the same in both treatments."||497.581|-182.015|0.3526
95744652|NCT03566238|191460836|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.211||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.4557|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis was based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusting PFIC type. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."||0.4557|0.021|0.0174
95744653|NCT03566238|191460837|SUPERIORITY|"Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|Least Square (LS) mean difference|28.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|46.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||46.64|9.83|0.0019
95744654|NCT03566238|191460837|SUPERIORITY|"An ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline pruritus score at AM and PM, PFIC type, and age category was used for treatment comparisons. A pooled analysis for the closed testing procedure was applied to control multiplicity. The 1-sided adjusted p-value for an individual dose was calculated as the maximum value of the unadjusted p-value for the pooled analysis and the unadjusted p-value for the individual doses.~1-sided adjusted p-value was reported."|LS mean difference|21.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|41.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the Proportion of Positive Pruritus Assessments at Participant Level over the 24-Week Treatment Period - Albireo ObsRO Instrument (AM and PM Scores).||41.54|1.87|0.0163
95744655|NCT02416934|191460849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5392|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7176||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9761|-0.1022|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DSQ between Dexamethasone and Saline at Day 1 post-op||-.1022|-2.9761|0.036
95797280|NCT02127671|191563977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-22.9|
95744656|NCT02416934|191460849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2543|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1151|-0.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Bazaz between Dexamethasone and Saline at 6 months post-op||-.0930|-1.1151|<.05
95797281|NCT02127671|191563979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||||||||0.9|-0.7|
95940800|NCT03100149|191847847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MDS-UPDRS Part III Subscore: Axial Symptoms||0.13|-0.15|0.9182
95797282|NCT02127671|191563983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-17.6|
95797283|NCT02127671|191563984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.3|
95940801|NCT03100149|191847848|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.01||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.05|0.3582
95940802|NCT03100149|191847848|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.0||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.06|0.1955
95940803|NCT03100149|191847849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.54||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-0.09|0.3611
95940804|NCT03100149|191847849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.75||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.13|0.0727
95940805|NCT03100149|191847850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.18||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.50|0.4265
95797284|NCT02127671|191563985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-2.6||||||||-2.6|-18.4|
95797285|NCT02127671|191563986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.5||||||systolic||1.5|-5.1|
95797286|NCT02127671|191563986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5||||||diastolic||0.5|-3.8|
95797287|NCT02127671|191563988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.7||||||||4.7|-13.3|
95744657|NCT02416934|191460850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1273|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5153|8.0902|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the changes in VNDI between Dexamethasone and Saline from baseline to last visit||8.0902|-4.5153|<.05
95744658|NCT02416934|191460851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Fisher's Exact Test|Fisher Exact|||||||.375
95744659|NCT00494013|191460860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.026||95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin determir, injected once or twice daily, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||-0.03|-0.39|0.026
95744660|NCT00494013|191460861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
95744661|NCT00494013|191460861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.213||95.0|-0.28|0.06||P-value for 12 Week HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||0.06|-0.28|0.213
95744662|NCT00494013|191460861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
95744663|NCT00494013|191460861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.038||95.0|-0.38|-0.01||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir).|||-0.01|-0.38|0.038
95797288|NCT02127671|191563989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-12.7|
95797289|NCT02127671|191563990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||||3.8|-1.8|
95797290|NCT02127671|191563991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|29.6||||||||29.6|-13.4|
95858532|NCT02864394|191674866|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||Log Rank|||PFS was not formally tested. Treatment comparison (HR) based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%). A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS ≥50% vs. TPS 1-49%).||1.08|0.66|0.0847
95989615|NCT03237065|191954083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-40.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.5|-83.0|<0.0001
95744664|NCT00494013|191460862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
95744665|NCT00494013|191460862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
95744666|NCT00494013|191460863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per Liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.107||95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The first gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to determir.||0.23|-0.02|0.107
95744667|NCT00494013|191460864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||P-value for Average 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.952
95744668|NCT00494013|191460864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||P-value for Average Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.856
95744669|NCT00494013|191460864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Average Post-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.790
95744670|NCT00494013|191460864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for Average Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.632
95744671|NCT00494013|191460865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
95797291|NCT00621530|191564003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculation assumed that all subjects would have an area of hypersensitivity surrounding the wound at 48 hours. We found that only 1 subject in the placebo group and 3 subjects in the ketorolac group had non-zero areas of hypersensitivity.||||=0.94
95797292|NCT00621530|191564004|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.78
95797293|NCT00621530|191564005|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.87
95797294|NCT00621530|191564006|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.66
95797295|NCT00621530|191564007|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||=0.83
95858533|NCT02864394|191674867|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||30.7|11.5|<0.0001
95744672|NCT00494013|191460865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95744673|NCT00494013|191460865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Events.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
95744674|NCT00494013|191460866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
95744675|NCT00494013|191460866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.001
95744676|NCT00494013|191460866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.226
95744677|NCT00494013|191460868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.93|2.06||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Determir).|The second gatekeeping hypothesis was that Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension was noninferior to detemir with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint (last observation carried forward).||2.06|0.93|<0.001
95858534|NCT02864394|191674868|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||ORR was not formally tested. Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression status (TPS\>=50% vs. TPS 1-49%). If no participants were in one of the treatment arms involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison. A nominal one-sided p-value for testing was calculated.||21.6|8.8|<0.0001
95858535|NCT02223858|191674930|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 patients (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.791|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.791
95744678|NCT00494013|191460869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.074
95744679|NCT00494013|191460870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.039
95744680|NCT00494013|191460871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
95744681|NCT00593827|191460872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
95744682|NCT00593827|191460873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
95744683|NCT00593827|191460876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95744684|NCT02614196|191460899|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-2.55|<.001
95744685|NCT02614196|191460899|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.44|<.001
95744686|NCT02614196|191460900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.32||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.32|2.03|
95744687|NCT02614196|191460900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.96|1.81|
95744688|NCT02614196|191460900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.06||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.06|1.78|
95744689|NCT02614196|191460900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.17||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.17|1.84|
95744690|NCT02614196|191460900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.12||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.12|1.50|
95744691|NCT02614196|191460900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.81||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.81|1.87|
95744692|NCT02614196|191460901|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|11.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.31|6.33|<.001
95744693|NCT02614196|191460901|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.90|4.88|<.001
95744694|NCT02614196|191460902|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-2.29|<.001
95744695|NCT02614196|191460902|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.001
95744696|NCT02614196|191460903|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.47|.002
95744697|NCT02614196|191460903|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.41|.012
95744698|NCT02614196|191460904|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-10.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.11|-20.27|<.001
95744699|NCT02614196|191460904|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-8.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.44|-18.67|<.001
95744700|NCT02614196|191460905|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.69|-12.61|<.001
95744701|NCT02614196|191460905|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.72|-11.71|<.001
95940806|NCT03100149|191847850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.16||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.49|0.4063
95940807|NCT03100149|191847851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.15||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.15|0.48|0.3847
95940808|NCT03100149|191847851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.36||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.57|0.7055
95989616|NCT03237065|191954083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-5.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.9|-30.1|0.0039
95989617|NCT03237065|191954084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.5||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.1|16.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.1|-131.1|0.1243
95744702|NCT02614196|191460906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.001
95858536|NCT02223858|191674931|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscales, and a 80% power.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.880
95989618|NCT03237065|191954084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|91.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||91.0|-49.7|0.5547
95989619|NCT03237065|191954084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-155.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.7|-76.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-76.6|-234.7|0.0005
95989620|NCT03237065|191954084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|31.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||31.5|-86.0|0.3516
95989621|NCT03237065|191954084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|13.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.7|-62.3|0.1988
95989622|NCT03237065|191954084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|41.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.2|-18.6|0.4379
95989623|NCT03237065|191954085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.70|-1.06|0.6869
95989624|NCT03237065|191954085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.22|-2.29|0.1037
95989625|NCT03237065|191954085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.25|-2.99|0.0213
95744703|NCT02614196|191460906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive||||<.001
95744704|NCT03201003|191460965|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||65.2|44.1|<0.0001
95744705|NCT03201003|191460966|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|69.3|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||69.3|44.2|<0.0001
95744706|NCT03201003|191460967|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|57.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|69.1|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||69.1|41.2|<0.0001
95858537|NCT02223858|191674932|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 360 (180 non-Hispanic white and 180 non-Hispanic African American) was chosen based on a priori power calculations to detect a 3-way interaction between treatment group, race, and time, assuming a 20% change in baseline, the WOMAC pain subscale, and a 80% power.||||||0.901|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for site.||||||0.901
95940809|NCT03100149|191847852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.87|0.41||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.87|0.4142
95940810|NCT03100149|191847852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.47||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.81|0.4486
95940811|NCT03100149|191847853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.94|1.42||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.3769
95940812|NCT03100149|191847853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|1.53||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.53|1.02|0.1658
95940813|NCT03100149|191847854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.33||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.77|0.9542
95940814|NCT03100149|191847854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.13||Nominal p-values are displayed for descriptive purposes only.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.63|0.4567
95940815|NCT05321082|191847895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline intake of AF (nintedanib) treatment, baseline HRCT pattern, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (corrected for hemoglobin) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.00|0.61|0.0507
95940816|NCT05321082|191847895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, baseline intake of AF (nintedanib) treatment, baseline HRCT pattern, age (continuous), baseline FVC % predicted, and baseline DLCO % predicted (corrected for hemoglobin) as covariates. Breslow's method was applied for tied event times. A two-sided p-value from the Wald test assessed the treatment effect. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.99|0.60|0.0395
95940817|NCT05321082|191847896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.96|0.51|0.0258
95940818|NCT05321082|191847896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.82|0.43|0.0017
95940819|NCT05321082|191847897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.96|0.57|0.0237
95940820|NCT05321082|191847897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.99|0.59|0.0427
95940821|NCT05321082|191847898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|81.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.95|116.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[mL\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||116.32|45.95|<0.0001
95940822|NCT05321082|191847898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|67.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.91|102.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors; tests used two-sided α per multiple testing strategy.|Adjusted mean difference in FVC change from baseline at Week 52 between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group.|Based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[mL\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||102.46|31.91|0.0002
95940823|NCT05321082|191847899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.78|0.34|0.0017
95940824|NCT05321082|191847899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model that included baseline antifibrotic therapy (AF group vs non-AF group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline FVC % predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted (corrected for Hb) and treatment as covariates.||0.78|0.34|0.0018
95744707|NCT03201003|191460968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (with equally spaced scores) stratified by country||Treatment difference in Maximum Severity||||<0.0001
95744708|NCT00685035|191460990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
95744709|NCT02426541|191460997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||5.54|-2.18|0.3794
95744710|NCT02426541|191460998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.96|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||2.96|-5.60|0.5317
95744711|NCT02426541|191460999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.07|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for sex and baseline||||3.07|-3.07|0.9984
95744712|NCT04254198|191461142|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.0474|0.509||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, marital status, and overall health status.|The beta coefficient (0.231) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CES-D scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the Least Squares (LS) Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.509|-0.0474|0.0473
95744713|NCT04254198|191461143|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.0464|0.72||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and the interaction between cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (0.383) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on log-transformed CD-RISC scores. Delta method used for calculating confidence intervals for the LS Mean changes over time per arm with cov=compound symmetry.|||0.720|0.0464|0.0067
95744714|NCT04254198|191461144|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.215|-0.28||To adjust for multiplicity due to three primary outcomes, the p-value should be compared to a Bonferroni-corrected type-I error level of 0.05/3 = 0.017.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model with beta distribution, adjusted for cohort, site, overall health status and interaction between arm and cohort.|The beta coefficient (-0.747) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on MOS-SS scores on a logit scale. The CIs for the LS Mean changes over time per arm were estimated via the delta method and are reported on the original MOS-SS scale.|||-0.280|-1.215|0.0002
95940825|NCT05321082|191847900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in predicted Forced Vital Capacity % between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Based on MMRM, with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[% pred\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.23|1.15|<0.0001
95744715|NCT04254198|191461145|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for cohort and site.|The beta coefficient (-0.913) is for the treatment x time interaction effect on non-transformed PSS scores.|||2.00|-3.82|0.4510
95744716|NCT00876265|191461166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% CI or the difference between LS mean (Belotero) and LS mean (Zyplast) lies entirely above -Δ, noninferiority of Belotero will be concluded (first step). If, in addition, the CI lies entirely above 0, superiority of Belotero over Zyplast will be concluded (second step).|Adjusted (LS) mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.323||Treatment term and all significant (p ≤ 0.10) covariate and covariate by treatment interactions will be retained in the final ANCOVA model. From the final ANCOVA model, adjusted (LS) means for Belotero and Zyplast was computed.|ANCOVA|||"The null, H0, and the alternative hypothesis, H1, are as follows:~H0(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ -Δ versus H1(1): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> -Δ H0(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) ≤ 0 versus H1(2): adjusted mean(dadj\[i\]) \> 0 The sample size calculation was based on the following assumptions: Type I error α = 0.025 (one sided); Power = 90%; Non-inferiority margin Δ = 0.25; Estimated common standard deviation (SD) = 0.75. Under these assumptions, a total of 100 evaluable subjects were needed."||0.323|-0.228|0.733
95744717|NCT01118026|191461185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9669
95744718|NCT01933919|191461204|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Fluvoxamine-Placebo)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates and treatment as fixed effect.|The model included the fixed effects of treatment, with baseline JCY-BOCS (10-item) total score and age as covariates.|||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
95744719|NCT00809965|191461278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.020
95940826|NCT05321082|191847900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in predicted Forced Vital Capacity % between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Based on MMRM, with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline FVC \[% pred\] at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||2.98|0.90|0.0003
95940827|NCT05321082|191847901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||0.87|0.54|0.0018
95744720|NCT00809965|191461278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.028
95797296|NCT02107898|191564017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-59.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.8|-68.5|<0.0001
95797297|NCT02107898|191564018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-61.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.3|-69.4|<0.0001
95797298|NCT02107898|191564019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|-57.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-57.7|-65.3|<0.0001
95797299|NCT02107898|191564020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.8|-58.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.3|-65.8|<0.0001
95797300|NCT02107898|191564021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-49.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.1|-57.5|<0.0001
95858538|NCT00043979|191674945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||7 participants who did not receive a transplant compared with 21 participants transplanted.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||.0003
95744721|NCT00809965|191461279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.97|0.72|0.016
95744722|NCT00809965|191461279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.98|0.73|0.025
95744723|NCT00809965|191461280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.07|0.81|0.320
95744724|NCT00809965|191461280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.10|0.83|0.508
95797301|NCT02107898|191564022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-49.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-57.8|<0.0001
95797302|NCT02107898|191564023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.5|-61.5|<0.0001
95797303|NCT02107898|191564024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-54.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-54.8|-62.3|<0.0001
95797304|NCT02107898|191564025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-38.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.4|-44.6|<0.0001
95858539|NCT00414596|191674948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary pain end-point was assessed by a mixed effect model with time (visit) and as fixed effects and subject as random effect.||"Hypothesis: Patients with chronic low back pain who undergo spinal decompression with a standardized 6-week regimen consisting of 20 treatments with the spinal decompression system would experience \>50% reduction in their verbal score of pain intensity.~Power Analysis: Mean pain scores at time of enrollment were assumed to equal 6 with potential reduction in pain of 50%. To obtain 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05, sample size was estimated as 20 patients."||||.0001
95858540|NCT02688777|191675021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95858541|NCT02688777|191675022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95797305|NCT02107898|191564026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-54.9|<0.0001
95797306|NCT02107898|191564027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.1|-57.9|<0.0001
95858542|NCT02688777|191675023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set for p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95858543|NCT02688777|191675024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95858544|NCT02688777|191675025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95858545|NCT02688777|191675026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold set at p \< 0.05 for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95858546|NCT02688777|191675027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A prior threshold for significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95858547|NCT02688777|191675028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95858548|NCT02688777|191675029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95940828|NCT05321082|191847901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||0.89|0.56|0.0038
95989626|NCT03237065|191954085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.34|-3.47|0.0176
95797307|NCT02107898|191564028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-36.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.4|-41.7|<0.0001
95940829|NCT05321082|191847902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in DLCO \[% pred\] between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline DLCO \[% pred\] at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients. Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form page (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.11|-2.90|0.3793
95940830|NCT05321082|191847902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in DLCO \[% pred\] between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), which included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline DLCO \[% pred\] at each visit. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model repeated measures within patients. Baseline use of antifibrotic therapy, as recorded in the concomitant medication case report form page (CRF), was included as a covariate.||1.53|-2.50|0.6354
95940831|NCT05321082|191847903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.14|0.65|0.2967
95940832|NCT05321082|191847903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included baseline use of antifibrotic therapy (antifibrotic group vs non-antifibrotic group), baseline HRCT pattern, age, baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage predicted, baseline diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) percentage predicted (corrected for hemoglobin levels), and treatment group as covariates.||1.20|0.68|0.4815
95940833|NCT05321082|191847904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nerandomilast 9mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Dyspnea score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.54|-3.30|0.4748
95940834|NCT05321082|191847904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Dyspnea score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Dyspnea score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.15|-3.69|0.3042
95940835|NCT05321082|191847905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nerandomilast 9 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Cough score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||1.33|-5.08|0.2506
95797308|NCT02107898|191564029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|552.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.6|2886.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2886.8|105.6|<0.0001
95797309|NCT02107898|191564030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1367.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.8|13578.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||13578.3|137.8|<0.0001
95940836|NCT05321082|191847905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.9311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Cough score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Cough score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.35|-3.07|0.9311
95940837|NCT05321082|191847906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nerandomilast 9mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Fatigue score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||2.57|-2.46|0.9668
95940838|NCT05321082|191847906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean difference represents the model-estimated difference in symptom change (L-PF Fatigue score) between the Nerandomilast 18 mg group and the Placebo group at Week 52.|Analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, baseline antifibrotic therapy at each visit, baseline HRCT pattern at each visit, the fixed continuous effects of baseline L-PF Fatigue score at each visit and unstructured covariance for repeated measures. Baseline antifibrotic therapy and HRCT pattern as entered in the CRF pages were used as covariates.||3.46|-1.58|0.4644
95940839|NCT03474107|191847907|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.702||||0.00142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.886||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P-value of overall survival is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.00679 based on the number of observed deaths.|Stratified Log rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.886|0.556|0.00142
95940840|NCT03474107|191847908|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.615|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.748||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis. P-value was based on log-rank test. P value of PFS is ≤ the predetermined 1-sided significance level of 0.02189 based on the number of observed PFS events.|Stratified Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, ECOG PS, geographic region and liver metastasis as the explanatory variables.|||0.748|0.505|<0.00001
95940841|NCT03474107|191847909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95940842|NCT03474107|191847910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were ECOG PS, Region and Liver Metastasis.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95940843|NCT00085735|191847935|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis of comparing LDCSI vs. SDCSI, a one-sided 80% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by RT group (IFRT vs. PFRT)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, LDCSI would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0||1.9||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-7 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed to have power of 0.80 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate due to the use of LDCSI compared to SDCSI.||1.9||
95940844|NCT00085735|191847935|NON_INFERIORITY|A hazard ratio of 1.6 is used as the non-inferiority margin. For the final analysis comparing IFRT vs. PFRT, a one-sided 94% upper confidence limit of the hazard ratio based on a stratified approach will be estimated (stratified by age group and RT group (LDCSI vs. SDCSI)). If the upper confidence limit is lower than 1.6, IFRT would be deemed to be non-inferior. If not, non-inferiority would not be established.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|94.0||1.3||||||The comparison is based on all eligible randomized patients 3-21 years of age without anaplastic histology or excess residual disease or disseminated disease by central review as per the protocol document. Using a one-sided log rank test with type I error of 0.20, this study was designed with power of 0.94 to detect a 10% reduction in cure rate and power of 0.65 to detect a 5% reduction in cure rate, due to the use of IFRT compared to PFRT.||1.3||
95940845|NCT04563546|191847978|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95940846|NCT04563546|191847979|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
95940847|NCT04563546|191847980|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Unadjusted p-value. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95940848|NCT03952338|191848038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|-4.07|0.97
95940849|NCT03952338|191848039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.44|-3.00|0.57
95940850|NCT03952338|191848040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-0.32|0.09
95940851|NCT03952338|191848041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-0.22|0.08
95940852|NCT03952338|191848042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.17|0.09
95940853|NCT03952338|191848043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-1.39|0.95
95940854|NCT03952338|191848044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.06|0.01
95940855|NCT03952338|191848045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.96|0.09|0.04
95940856|NCT03952338|191848046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.23|0.27|0.236
95744725|NCT00809965|191461281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.80|0.185
95744726|NCT00809965|191461281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.081
95744727|NCT00809965|191461282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.73|0.011
95744728|NCT00809965|191461282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||Log Rank||Based upon the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.78|0.070
95744729|NCT02780167|191461283|OTHER||Estimate difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.4|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||4.4|-0.7|0.1210
95744730|NCT02780167|191461283|OTHER||Estimate difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.8|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||13.8|-1.8|0.1065
95940857|NCT03952338|191848047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.62|0.220
95744731|NCT02780167|191461283|OTHER||Estimate difference|21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|37.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||37.6|5.5|0.0184
95744732|NCT02780167|191461283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|56.6|||Emax model|Emax model with non-responder imputation (NRI)|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||56.6|19.7|0.0032
95744733|NCT02780167|191461284|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.667||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.88|20.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with observed cases (OC)|Test group: PF-04965842 10 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||20.05|-11.88|0.6731
95744734|NCT02780167|191461284|OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.474||0.561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.16|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 30 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||10.13|-21.16|0.5610
95744735|NCT02780167|191461284|OTHER||LS mean difference|-23.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.043||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.76|-8.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 100 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-8.88|-38.76|0.0091
95744736|NCT02780167|191461284|OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.23|-32.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with OC|Test group: PF-04965842 200 mg QD, Reference group: Placebo.|||-32.47|-62.23|<0.0001
95744737|NCT05552261|191461313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.2|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.2|-6.7|0.5158
95744738|NCT05552261|191461313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-9.2|0.0670
95744739|NCT05552261|191461313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.8|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||2.8|-4.4|0.6307
95744740|NCT05552261|191461313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.6|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||-0.6|-5.6|0.0357
95744741|NCT05552261|191461314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|1.743|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.743|-0.353|0.2836
95744742|NCT05552261|191461314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.539||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.628|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||1.628|-0.550|0.5153
95744743|NCT05552261|191461314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.295|0.527|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.527|-1.295|0.2530
95744744|NCT05552261|191461314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|0.451|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.451|-1.574|0.3828
95744745|NCT05552261|191461316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.064|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.064|-0.110|0.7450
95744746|NCT05552261|191461316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.177|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.177|0.071|<0.0001
95744747|NCT05552261|191461316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.021|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.021|-0.134|0.1619
95744748|NCT05552261|191461316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.154|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||0.154|0.020|0.0100
95744749|NCT02003222|191461372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||0.76|0.25|0.003
95744750|NCT02003222|191461373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: Blinatumomab + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy alone|||0.89|0.31|0.015
95744751|NCT02003222|191461374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.65|||Log Rank|||||2.65|0.22|0.67
95744752|NCT02003222|191461375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Log Rank|||||3.63|0.28|1.00
95744753|NCT02003222|191461376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.11|||Log Rank||hazard ratio: blinatumomab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone|||2.11|0.17|0.41
95858549|NCT02688777|191675030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95858550|NCT02688777|191675031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95940858|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.55|-0.37|0.70
95940859|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.69|-0.84|0.85
95940860|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY|Total fruits|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.29|0.29
95940861|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.26|-0.06|0.07
95940862|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.05|-1.16|0.92
95940863|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||0.89|-1.29|0.72
95940864|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.74|-0.12|0.15
95940865|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.71|-0.78|0.92
95940866|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||0.94|-1.47|0.67
95940867|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.84|-1.45|0.61
95940868|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||0.04|-2.34|0.06
95940869|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.57|-0.51|0.32
95940870|NCT03952338|191848048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.92|-0.56|0.63
95940871|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total vegetables||0.50|-0.61|0.85
95940872|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Greens and beans||0.70|-0.88|0.82
95940873|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total fruits||0.93|-0.43|0.48
95940874|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole fruits||1.46|-0.04|0.06
95940875|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Whole grains||1.84|-0.63|0.34
95940876|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dairy||2.62|0.31|0.01
95940877|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total protein||0.69|-0.27|0.39
95940878|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Seafood and plant proteins||0.70|-0.90|0.81
95940879|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatty acids||-0.04|-2.57|0.04
95940880|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sodium||0.48|-1.86|0.25
95940881|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Refined grains||1.40|-1.25|0.91
95940882|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Saturated fats||1.13|-0.98|0.89
95940883|NCT03952338|191848049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Added sugars||0.97|-0.55|0.59
95940884|NCT03952338|191848050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.67||Marginal food insecurity|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||||0.67|0.03|0.01
95940885|NCT03952338|191848050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||1.82|0.17|0.34
95940886|NCT03952338|191848050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.76|0.03|0.02
95940887|NCT03952338|191848051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Marginal food insecurity||1.29|0.06|0.10
95940888|NCT03952338|191848051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Moderate food insecurity||2.21|0.21|0.52
95940889|NCT03952338|191848051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Severe food insecurity||0.56|0.02|0.01
95940890|NCT03952338|191848052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||12.66|0.68|0.15
95940891|NCT03952338|191848052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||7.13|0.20|0.86
95940892|NCT03952338|191848053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||Medium malnutrition risk||5.38|0.31|0.74
95940893|NCT03952338|191848053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects multinomial logistic regression||High malnutrition risk||41.3|0.73|0.10
95940894|NCT03952338|191848054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.65|0.64
95940895|NCT03952338|191848055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-0.57|0.90
95940896|NCT03952338|191848056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|5.92||Males|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.92|-14.05|0.43
95940897|NCT03952338|191848056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||4.66|-3.75|0.83
95940898|NCT03952338|191848057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.57||Age 18-59 years|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.57|-5.65|0.66
95940899|NCT03952338|191848057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|10.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Age 60+ years||10.93|-4.36|0.40
95940900|NCT03952338|191848058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|21.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Males||21.63|-9.13|0.43
95797310|NCT02107898|191564031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-36.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-36.0|-48.0|<0.0001
95797311|NCT02107898|191564032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.1|-30.9|<0.0001
95797312|NCT02107898|191564033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.4|2.1|0.0020
95797313|NCT02107898|191564034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|0.2|0.0382
95797314|NCT02107898|191564035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-35.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.7|-47.0|<0.0001
95797315|NCT02107898|191564036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.6|-24.4|0.0007
95797316|NCT02107898|191564037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.3|3.7|<0.0001
95797317|NCT02107898|191564038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.0|3.6|<0.0001
95940901|NCT03952338|191848058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Females||5.41|-3.23|0.62
95940902|NCT03952338|191848059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||18-59 years||4.66|-4.76|0.99
95940903|NCT03952338|191848059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||60+ years||12.80|-5.48|0.43
95989627|NCT03237065|191954085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.27|-3.01|0.0999
95797318|NCT00297167|191564051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-19.32|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-19.32|-31.73|<0.001
95797319|NCT00297167|191564052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-16.14|||ANOVA|||P-Value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA)model which included main effects for treatment and sequence and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||-16.14|-26.85|<0.001
95797320|NCT02313155|191564067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.858|11.592|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H1N1 Strain||11.592|-24.858|
95940904|NCT04753697|191848066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-2.97|0.0005
95797321|NCT02313155|191564067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.779|2.87|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|A/H3N2 Strain||2.870|-33.779|
95940905|NCT04753697|191848067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||32.2|20.6|<0.0001
95940906|NCT04753697|191848068|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|25.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||25.5|11.3|<0.0001
95940907|NCT04753697|191848068|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI(%)|17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.0||Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|10.1|<0.0001
95940908|NCT04753697|191848069|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|46.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status||||46.7|33.3|<0.0001
95940909|NCT04753697|191848070|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||33.6|17.8|<0.0001
95940910|NCT04753697|191848070|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Imputed data is used for all in CMH test, which is stratified by Steroid Inadequate Responder/Intolerant status.||||35.7|19.7|<0.0001
95744754|NCT01957150|191461407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06|||||Treatment comparison for overall weeks|||0.06|-0.97|
95744755|NCT01957150|191461408|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.24|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||0.24|-1.17|
95744756|NCT01957150|191461409|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI for the overall treatment difference change from Baseline between FF/VI and VI was greater than -1 % year|Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.36|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.36|-1.16|
95940911|NCT04753697|191848071|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-3.55|0.0006
95940912|NCT04753697|191848071|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.0002||95.0|-3.78|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.20|-3.78|0.0002
95940913|NCT04753697|191848072|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
95940914|NCT04753697|191848073|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
95940915|NCT04753697|191848073|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-4.1|<0.0001
95940916|NCT04753697|191848074|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-19.51|||ANCOVA|||||-19.51|-25.50|<0.0001
95989628|NCT03237065|191954085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-1.77|0.8878
95989629|NCT03237065|191954086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.66|25.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||25.95|17.66|<0.0001
95744757|NCT01957150|191461410|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.13|||||Overall Weeks for Male|||-0.13|-1.90|
95744758|NCT01957150|191461411|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.78|||||Overall Weeks for female|||0.78|-0.87|
95744759|NCT01957150|191461412|OTHER||Percentage Change from Baseline|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.1|||||Overall week|||0.10|-1.11|
95744760|NCT02618382|191461414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
95744761|NCT02618382|191461415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Paired comparison of hematoma thickness at defined time point means determined by ANOVA for continuous variables.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
95858551|NCT02688777|191675032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95858552|NCT02688777|191675033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95940917|NCT04753697|191848075|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-14.4|||ANCOVA|||||-14.40|-21.85|<0.0001
95940918|NCT04753697|191848075|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-15.53|||ANCOVA|||||-15.53|-22.90|<0.0001
95940919|NCT04753697|191848076|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||||-21.89|-28.92|<0.0001
95940920|NCT04753697|191848077|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-18.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-18.91|-25.17|<0.0001
95940921|NCT04753697|191848077|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-21.56|||ANCOVA|||||-21.56|-27.73|<0.0001
95940922|NCT04753697|191848078|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-6.40|0.0005
95940923|NCT04753697|191848079|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN LSM|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-7.14|0.0022
95940924|NCT04753697|191848079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.425||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||||-2.41|-8.00|0.0003
95940925|NCT04753697|191848080|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE RATE AFTER MI (%)|16.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|27.2|||ANCOVA|||||27.2|6.7|0.0016
95940926|NCT01658930|191848099|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of inferiority in the difference of 3 year pelvic recurrence rates between simple and radical hysterectomy group was 4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0162|0.0232|||||Difference between simple and radical hysterectomy groups.|||0.0232|-0.0162|
95940927|NCT01658930|191848100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.67|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||2.67|0.47|
95940928|NCT01658930|191848101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|18.4|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group of radical hysterectomy group.|||18.4|0.79|
95940929|NCT01658930|191848102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.45|||||Hazard ratio is simple hysterectomy group to radical hysterectomy group.|||3.45|0.69|
95744762|NCT02618382|191461416|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P values for differences among time point means were determined by ANOVA for continuous variables and by chi-squared test for categorical values in grouped mRS scores.|ANOVA|||Nonparametric tests were used for statistical comparison, including the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test for multiple groups and the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 groups. P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data tabulation and analysis were performed using R statistical software version 3.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).||||<0.05
95744763|NCT00098475|191461417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The low-dose response would be considered unacceptable if the difference in response rates was 15% or greater (the upper confidence limit exceeds the 15% acceptable difference) regardless of a decrease in toxicity rate.|Difference in response rate between arms|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.052|0.162||||||The study was designed to determine if a reduced dose of dexamethasone in combination with CC-5013 reduced toxicity rate without reducing response rate. The standard-dose response was expected to be 70%. The low dose would be deemed unacceptable if the difference in response rate between arms was \>=15%. The null hypothesis was that response rates were equal and the alternative was that the low-dose response was no worse than 55%. The design had a 1-sided 0.10 type I error rate and 95% power.||0.162|0.052|
95744764|NCT04269993|191461419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
95744765|NCT01344018|191461420|SUPERIORITY|"Time assessment biases were taken into account for the primary endpoint:~* Surgery alone arm: abdominal recurrence occurring prior to week 14 assessment was counted as occurring at week 14; progression occurring after the week 14 was counted as occurring at week 24.~* Preoperative RT arm: abdominal recurrence occurring was counted as occurring at week 14; and any abdominal recurrence occurring after and prior to or during the week 24 will be counted as occurring at week 24."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|The time assessment biases correction described before was not applied to patients for whom death was the first event.|The arm having surgery alone was the reference arm.|Sample size was determined to provide 90% power for detecting a Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.52 (which corresponds to a 20% difference in ARFS rate at 5 years, from 50% in the surgery arm to 70% in the experimental arm) at a global 2-sided 5% significance level assuming ARFS followed an exponential distribution in both arms. This test required 102 events at the time of the statistical analysis.||1.44|0.71|0.955
95744766|NCT01344018|191461425|SUPERIORITY|ARFI was described using cumulative incidence curves. ARFI was compared between the two treatment arms using a Fine and Gray model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Fine and Gray model|||||1.60|0.74|0.658
95744767|NCT01344018|191461426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36||A 5% significance level was considered as a threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||||1.36|0.58|0.595
95744768|NCT01344018|191461427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.65|0.615
95744769|NCT02151149|191461434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.21|0.84|0.9258
95744770|NCT02151149|191461441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81|||Stratified Log Rank|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||0.81|0.33|0.0036
95797322|NCT02313155|191564067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.048|6.547|||||Seroconversion rate difference between treatment groups was obtained by subtracting the value of TAK-850 I.M. from TAK-850 S.C.|B Strain||6.547|-30.048|
95744771|NCT02151149|191461442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Stratified log-rank test|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma).||||1.25|0.54|0.3537
95744772|NCT02151149|191461443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|2.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on stratification factors of ECOG PS at screening (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous cell carcinoma vs. non-squamous cell carcinoma)..||||2.511|0.971|0.0597
95744773|NCT02413008|191461460|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The variations of the levels of FSH after treatment was studied in each women at baseline, week 3 and week12 weeks, the variation of levels between two arms were analysed using a non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.~The intra individual variation (differences between the pre study determinations screening and baseline) was compared to the variation between baseline and the values obtained at every study visit."||||0.10
95797323|NCT03116230|191564105|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment A vs Control||||||0.005
95797324|NCT03116230|191564105|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Treatment B vs Control||||||0.64
95797325|NCT05258721|191564109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95797326|NCT05258721|191564110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95797327|NCT05258721|191564111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95797328|NCT00879658|191564151|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.524||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|1.257||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.|||An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|1.257|0.219|0.148
95858553|NCT02919995|191675038|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.038||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|1.007|0.0196
95858554|NCT02919995|191675038|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.024||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.052|||ANCOVA|||||1.052|0.997|0.0802
95989630|NCT03237065|191954086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|13.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||13.33|-4.05|0.2923
95989631|NCT03237065|191954086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|26.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||26.74|12.37|<0.0001
95989632|NCT03237065|191954086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|40.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||40.14|25.96|<0.0001
95989633|NCT03237065|191954086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.43|14.20|<0.0001
95989634|NCT03237065|191954086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|16.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||16.90|1.16|0.0250
95744774|NCT02413008|191461460|OTHER|The primary endpoint, the variation of FSH between week 12 and baseline and also comparing by arm will be analyzed using a non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test).||||||0.413|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The variations in the intensities for each one of the symptoms and signs of the vaginal atrophy, after 3 and 12 weeks, in each treatment arm, will be compared using the non-parametric test Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon.||||0.413
95744775|NCT02413008|191461460|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95744776|NCT02413008|191461461|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 1||||<0.05
95744777|NCT02413008|191461461|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 3||||<0.05
95744778|NCT02413008|191461461|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Variation in serum levels of FSH at week 8||||>0.05
95744779|NCT02413008|191461462|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 1||||>0.05
95744780|NCT02413008|191461462|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 3||||>0.05
95744781|NCT02413008|191461462|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn Test|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 8||||>0.05
95744782|NCT02413008|191461462|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in serum levels of Luteinizing hormone (LH) from baseline to week 12||||0.135
95744783|NCT02413008|191461463|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.043
95744784|NCT02413008|191461463|OTHER|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.649
95744785|NCT02413008|191461463|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 8 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.588
95744786|NCT02413008|191461463|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12 in plasma levels of estriol||||0.67
95744787|NCT02413008|191461464|OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 1 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.342
95744788|NCT02413008|191461464|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3 in plasma levels of estradiol.||||0.523
95744789|NCT02413008|191461464|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 8||||0.523
95744790|NCT02413008|191461464|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estradiol from baseline to week 12||||0.163
95744791|NCT02413008|191461465|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 1||||0.418
95744792|NCT02413008|191461465|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 3||||0.642
95744793|NCT02413008|191461465|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 8||||0.175
95744794|NCT02413008|191461465|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in plasma levels of estrona from baseline to week 12||||0.084
95744795|NCT02413008|191461466|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 3||||<0.01
95744796|NCT02413008|191461466|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pH between baseline and week 12||||0.057
95744797|NCT02413008|191461467|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 3||||0.14
95744798|NCT02413008|191461467|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dyspareunia from baseline to week 12||||0.25
95744799|NCT02413008|191461468|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||0.28
95744800|NCT02413008|191461468|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||0.34
95989635|NCT03237065|191954087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.11|-0.22|0.5134
95858555|NCT02919995|191675038|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.986||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.017|||ANCOVA|||||1.017|0.957|0.3487
95940930|NCT01658930|191848103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.14|||||Hazard ratio of simple to radical hysterectomy.|||3.14|0.38|
95940931|NCT02589795|191848164|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of subjects with primary safety outcomes were compared in a pairwise manner between the three randomised groups, using Fisher's exact tests.||||>0.05
95940932|NCT02589795|191848165|OTHER|Inequality test|||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons||Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons to compare the levels of antigen-specific serum IgG in the three groups at Week 22.||||>0.05
95940933|NCT03687086|191848197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|1.03|.039
95940934|NCT03687086|191848198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 Weeks vs. baseline)||||3.29|-0.52|0.155
95940935|NCT03687086|191848199|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||2.20|-1.88|0.880
95940936|NCT03687086|191848200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
95940937|NCT03687086|191848201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.78|-0.96|0.843
95940938|NCT03687086|191848202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.12|1.67|0.001
95940939|NCT03687086|191848203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (9 weeks vs. baseline)||||0.50|-1.14|0.443
95940940|NCT03687086|191848204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (Program A vs. Program B) by Time (6 months vs. baseline)||||0.58|-1.41|0.409
95940941|NCT01928394|191848213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||SCLC Arm N Expansion as compare to SCLC Arm N-I Dose Level 2- Expansion||4.26|1.06|0.0309
95858556|NCT02919995|191675039|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.072||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.026|0.0043
95858557|NCT02919995|191675039|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.055||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|1.014|0.0109
95858558|NCT02919995|191675039|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.984||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.942|0.4306
95858559|NCT02919995|191675040|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.065||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|1.021|0.0064
95858560|NCT02919995|191675040|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.049||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.089|||ANCOVA|||||1.089|1.011|0.0149
95858561|NCT02919995|191675040|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.945||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.027|||ANCOVA|||||1.027|0.945|0.466
95940942|NCT02398656|191848214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||||||||1.04|0.88|
95940943|NCT05602220|191848216|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.817
95940944|NCT05602220|191848217|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.162||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
95940945|NCT05602220|191848218|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.096
95940946|NCT05602220|191848219|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.449||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.640
95940947|NCT05602220|191848220|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed-effects model fit to participants' latent performance scores across 10 time bins.~Comparison of performance changes over time between groups."|beta parameter|0.0001419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036816||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072164|0.072448|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.072448|-0.072164|0.997
95940948|NCT05764525|191848223|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares mean|6.938||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|11.731|||ANOVA|||||11.731|2.145|0.0047
95940949|NCT01868997|191848269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.293|23.825||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value are obtained from a logistic regression model with treatment and smoking status as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.825|3.293|< 0.001
95940950|NCT01868997|191848270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.221||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.561|17.375|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||17.375|4.561|0.001
95940951|NCT01868997|191848271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|-1.772|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.772|-2.843|< 0.001
95940952|NCT01868997|191848272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|-1.098|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.098|-2.073|< 0.001
95940953|NCT01868997|191848273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.827|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.549|21.773|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||21.773|6.549|< 0.001
95940954|NCT01868997|191848274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|13.901|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures|||||13.901|-1.255|0.101
95989636|NCT03237065|191954087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.32|-0.24|0.7579
95989637|NCT03237065|191954087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|-0.41|0.3169
95989638|NCT03237065|191954087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.18|-0.76|0.0018
95989639|NCT03237065|191954087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.24|-0.77|0.0003
95989640|NCT03237065|191954087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.50|0.1063
95744801|NCT02413008|191461469|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 3||||0.14
95940955|NCT06201559|191848292|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for Cmax following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for Cmax was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|110.91|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||110.91|86.79|
95940956|NCT06201559|191848293|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R should be between 80.00 -125.00%. If the intra-subject variability for AUC(0-t) following replicate administrations of the comparator product was \> 30%, the acceptance criteria for AUC(0-t) was widened to a maximum of 69.84-143.19%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.86|109.73|||||Geometric least square means were combined to perform statistical analysis of T as T1 + T2 and R as R1 + R2.|||109.73|86.86|
95940957|NCT03526887|191848381|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|19.1|||Log Rank|||||19.1|9.4|0.016
95940958|NCT04119843|191848402|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.824|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.165|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.165|0.743|<0.001
95940959|NCT04119843|191848402|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.892|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.043|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.043|0.552|<0.001
95940960|NCT04119843|191848402|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.813|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.813|0.494|<0.001
95940961|NCT04119843|191848403|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.196|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.196|0.759|<0.001
95744802|NCT02413008|191461469|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in vaginal dryness from baseline to week 12||||<0.01
95797329|NCT00879658|191564151|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|0.34||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.956||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||0.956|0.121|0.041
95940962|NCT04119843|191848403|SUPERIORITY|Reader success of the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.909|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.267|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.267|0.766|<0.001
95744803|NCT02413008|191461470|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 3||||0.03
95744804|NCT02413008|191461470|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in total score of symptoms of vaginal atrophy from baseline to week 12||||0.04
95744805|NCT02413008|191461471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||<0.001
95744806|NCT02413008|191461471|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa betweeen baseline and week 12||||<0.01
95989641|NCT03237065|191954088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|11.85|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.85|-2.72|0.2166
95989642|NCT03237065|191954088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.19|-13.47|0.2997
95744807|NCT02413008|191461472|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 3||||0.13
95744808|NCT02413008|191461472|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in dryness of the mucosa between baseline and week 12||||<0.01
95744809|NCT02413008|191461473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 3||||<0.001
95744810|NCT02413008|191461473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to week 12||||<0.001
95744811|NCT02413008|191461474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 3 and baseline||||<0.001
95744812|NCT02413008|191461474|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total score of signs between week 12 and baseline||||<0.001
95797330|NCT00879658|191564151|SUPERIORITY||Negative binomial regression model|1.051||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|2.273||Pairwise comparison and p-values refer to ARR on active treatment compared to placebo. An ARR-ratio \<1 favors active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment compared to placebo based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for treatment group and baseline number of relapses in prev 2 yrs.||||2.273|0.486|0.899
95797331|NCT00879658|191564152|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.915||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.925|||Regression, Logistic|"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."||||2.925|0.288|0.879
95744813|NCT02413008|191461475|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 3||||<0.0001
95744814|NCT02413008|191461475|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in maturation value from baseline to week 12||||0.006
95744815|NCT00721955|191461476|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95744816|NCT00721955|191461476|SUPERIORITY|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95744817|NCT00721955|191461477|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis|||||<|0.0001||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95744818|NCT00721955|191461477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95744819|NCT00781079|191461482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.5
95858562|NCT02919995|191675041|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.061||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.107|||ANCOVA|||||1.107|1.017|0.0093
95744820|NCT00781079|191461483|SUPERIORITY||Z tests if Reg coeff are diff from 0|-0.58||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
95858563|NCT02919995|191675041|OTHER||Contrast ratio|1.042||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.082|||ANCOVA|||||1.082|1.004|0.0333
95940963|NCT04119843|191848403|SUPERIORITY|Reader success for the primary analysis was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.985|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (combined MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of combined MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.985|0.638|<0.001
95940964|NCT04119843|191848405|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.805|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.971|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||0.971|0.555|<0.001
95940965|NCT04119843|191848405|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.054|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.054|0.464|<0.001
95940966|NCT04119843|191848405|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.747|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion border delineation mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.747|0.429|<0.001
95940967|NCT04119843|191848406|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.166|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 1||1.166|0.726|<0.001
95940968|NCT04119843|191848406|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.261|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.082|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 2||1.082|0.380|<0.001
95940969|NCT04119843|191848406|SUPERIORITY|Reader success was achieved if the reading results demonstrated superiority of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI for both lesion border delineation and lesion contrast. The acceptance by two out of three readers was considered to be a successful demonstration of efficacy in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.927|||t-test, 1 sided|p-values show a one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|Positive changes in lesion contrast mean difference (mangoral-enhanced MRI compared to unenhanced MRI) represents a better outcome.|Paired difference of mangoral-enhanced MRI versus unenhanced MRI: Reader 3||0.927|0.517|<0.001
95940970|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.03|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||1.03|-3.60|0.27
95940971|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.04|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.04|-2.53|0.83
95989643|NCT03237065|191954088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|8.56|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||8.56|-7.75|0.9221
95744821|NCT00781079|191461484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Models included site, age, race, ethnicity. This is the calculated p value.|Regression, Linear|||comparisons between the PS and Usual Care groups were completed with a regression testing the interaction of group (PS vs Usual Care) and time (baseline vs follow-up) for the outcome measure. The measure was analyzed with mixed effect hierarchical regressions which accounted for the nesting of site under treatment, subjects within sites, and subjects over time.||||.05
95744822|NCT00781079|191461485|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff from 0|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.58
95744823|NCT00781079|191461486|SUPERIORITY||Z test if reg coeff is diff than 0|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
95744824|NCT00781079|191461487|SUPERIORITY||Z test if ref coeff is diff than 0|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
95744825|NCT01499160|191461497|OTHER|Not done due to low accrual||||||||||||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual||Not done due to low accrual|Not done due to low accrual|||
95858564|NCT02919995|191675041|OTHER||Contrast ratio|0.982||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.024|||ANCOVA|||||1.024|0.941|0.3693
95940972|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.01||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.28|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.28|-4.30|0.08
95940973|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.65|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.65|-3.77|0.16
95940974|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.54|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||0.54|-3.84|0.14
95940975|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Active treatment minus vehicle, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||-0.17|-4.47|0.04
95940976|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.74|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.74|0.17|0.04
95940977|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.48|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.48|-1.14|0.32
95940978|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|2.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.5|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||4.50|-0.08|0.06
95940979|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.45||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.73|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||2.73|-1.84|0.70
95940980|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.1|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.10|-1.31|0.42
95940981|NCT01037881|191848452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.81||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|3.0|||ANOVA|||LEO 29102 treatment minus Elidel, adjusted for the effect of (pooled) country.||3.00|-1.38|0.47
95940982|NCT03532282|191848501|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.15||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.001
95940983|NCT03532282|191848502|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.01
95940984|NCT03532282|191848503|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.0006
95940985|NCT03532282|191848504|SUPERIORITY||coefficient beta for change trajectory|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model incorporating all assessment time points.||||||0.05
95940986|NCT02844465|191848543|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 5 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Boston Naming Test score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-BNT - BSL-BNT) = mean difference in the Boston Naming Test score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
95940987|NCT02844465|191848544|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test will be performed using a paired t-test, with a non-inferiority delta (δ) of one Reliable Change Index (RCI) of 15 points, to test the hypothesis of no reduction. A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 will be used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||"It is hypothesized that the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score will not decrease from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) + δ \> 0 Where μ (V-RAVLT - BSL-RAVLT) = mean difference in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test 5-Trial Total score from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
95940988|NCT02844465|191848545|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the QOLIE-31 score will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) \> 0 Where M (V-QOLIE-31 - BSL-QOLIE-31) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
95797332|NCT00879658|191564152|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.745||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|7.167||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||7.167|0.484|0.399
95940989|NCT02844465|191848546|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.||||||0.0004|||||||Sign test|||"It is hypothesized that the SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36 - BSL-SF-36-MCS) \> 0 Where M (V- SF-36-MCS - BSL- SF-36-MCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire MCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||0.0004
95858565|NCT00297258|191675085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.0||||0.653||90.0|11.0|47.6|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||47.6|11.0|0.653
95989644|NCT03237065|191954088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.69||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-5.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-5.32|-26.07|0.0034
95940990|NCT02844465|191848547|OTHER|A sign test will be used to determine if the median categorical change is significantly greater than zero.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||"It's hypothesized that the SF-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) will increase (improve) from baseline to 12 months following the Visualase procedure. The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are as follows:~Null Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL-SF-36-PCS) \> 0 Where M (V-SF-36-PCS - BSL- SF-36-PCS) = sign-test statistic (\[increases-decreases\]/2) in the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire PCS from baseline to Month 12 post Visualase."||||<0.0001
95940991|NCT02844465|191848548|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypotheses associated with this endpoint are:~Null Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ ≤ 0 Alternate Hypothesis: π V - 64% + δ \> 0 Where πV is the proportion of subjects treated with Visualase experiencing no seizures.~An exact 95% CI for the percentage of subjects who are seizure free will be calculated and its lower boundary compared to zero after subtraction of the historical open surgical resection percentage of 64% and the addition of the equivalence delta percentage of 10%."|Proportion of Participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|65.8||||||||65.8|46.2|
95940992|NCT05671653|191848553|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.25|98.38||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||98.38|80.25|
95940993|NCT05671653|191848553|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.21|88.76||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||88.76|55.21|
95940994|NCT05671653|191848554|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|57.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.27|83.29||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 4).||83.29|39.27|
95940995|NCT05671653|191848554|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|44.94||||||Reference: Cohort 1: Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + Midazolam 2 mg + Omeprazole 20 mg (Period 7).||44.94|19.60|
95940996|NCT05671653|191848555|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.97|131.85||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||131.85|108.97|
95940997|NCT05671653|191848555|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|185.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|318.44||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||318.44|108.00|
95940998|NCT05671653|191848556|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.09|111.93||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 80 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 5).||111.93|95.09|
95940999|NCT05671653|191848556|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|135.06||||||Reference: Cohort 1: LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 2). Test: Cohort 1: PF-07081532 260 mg QD + LE 0.15 mg \& EE 0.03 mg (Period 8)||135.06|60.24|
95941000|NCT05671653|191848557|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.97|107.87||||||Reference: Cohort 2: Midazolam 2 mg (Period 1). Test: Cohort 2: Semaglutide 2.4 mg QW + Midazolam 2 mg (Period 3).||107.87|79.97|
95941001|NCT05196919|191848603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.693||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|30.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||30.97|-22.57|1.00
95941002|NCT05196919|191848603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|33.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||33.03|-17.12|0.99
95941003|NCT05196919|191848604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.676||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||3.19|-15.49|0.1933
95989645|NCT03237065|191954088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.93|-11.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-11.16|-33.93|0.0002
95744826|NCT02707276|191461498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|mean raw change active-sham; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline MADRS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in MADRS scores.||||<0.76
95744827|NCT02707276|191461498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline covariate|Pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.33
95744828|NCT02707276|191461499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw change active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline HARS scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in HARS scores.||||<0.61
95744829|NCT02707276|191461499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.32
95744830|NCT02707276|191461500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|repeated measures ANCOVA|raw active-sham mean; pooled standard deviation|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores as covariate for treatment and order effects of difference in PANAS (Positive sub scale) scores.||||<0.78
95744831|NCT02707276|191461500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|baseline as covariate|pooled deviation|ANCOVA: Analysis of group differences in change scores with baseline as a covariate||||<0.99
95744832|NCT04718129|191461504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.085|||Regression, Linear|||||.085|.003|.048
95744833|NCT02212457|191461505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M14459 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||1.02|0.53|
95941004|NCT05196919|191848604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.434||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a phase 2a safety study that was not statistically powered for efficacy assessments.||14.00|-3.73|0.2511
95941005|NCT02505984|191848644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95744834|NCT02212457|191461505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain M07-0241084 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.94|0.54|
95744835|NCT02212457|191461505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain 96217 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.85|0.51|
95744836|NCT02212457|191461505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded when, at 1 month after the second meningococcal vaccination (Visit Month 3), the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-group ratios of GMTs (ABCWY\_0\_2 versus rMenB\_0\_2) was greater than 0.5 for each of the four serogroup B test strains.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority response against N. meningitidis serogroup B test strain NZ98/254 of the MenABCWY vaccine to that of the Bexsero vaccine, administered according to 0, 2 month schedule.||0.66|0.37|
95797333|NCT00879658|191564152|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.697||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|8.296||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||8.296|0.438|0.454
95797334|NCT00879658|191564152|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.509||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.511||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||1.511|0.166|0.223
95797335|NCT00879658|191564152|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|0.785||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|2.392||"Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model.~\- An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment."|Regression, Logistic|||||2.392|0.253|0.668
95858566|NCT00297258|191675085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
95941006|NCT02505984|191848644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
95941007|NCT02505984|191848644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
95941008|NCT02505984|191848644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95941009|NCT02505984|191848645|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9
95941010|NCT02505984|191848645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95941011|NCT02505984|191848646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95941012|NCT02505984|191848646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95941013|NCT02505984|191848647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
95858567|NCT00297258|191675085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|49.0|||<|0.001||90.0|34.3|63.2|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||63.2|34.3|<0.001
95941014|NCT02505984|191848647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95941015|NCT02505984|191848647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95941016|NCT04176601|191848651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.15||||||||7.15|1.49|
95941017|NCT04176601|191848652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.15||||||||8.15|1.26|
95941018|NCT04176601|191848653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|6.14||||||||6.14|1.59|
95941019|NCT03511664|191848654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.29|0.57|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.57|0.29|< 0.001
95941020|NCT03511664|191848655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log-rank test||Primary OS Analysis||0.74|0.52|<0.001
95941021|NCT03511664|191848655|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Cox PH model stratified by LDH (≤260 vs. \>260 IU/L), liver metastases (yes/no), ECOG score (0-1 vs. 2), and NAAD inclusion in best supportive care at randomization (yes/no). IRT data used for stratification|Final OS analysis||0.81|0.58|
95941022|NCT03511664|191848657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|103.24|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||103.24|6.05|< 0.001
95941023|NCT03511664|191848658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|10.55|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||10.55|3.18|< 0.001
95941024|NCT03511664|191848660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.62|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.62|0.40|< 0.001
95941025|NCT03511664|191848661|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.38|0.24|< 0.001
95941026|NCT03511664|191848663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.0|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||20.0|6.3|< 0.001
95941027|NCT03511664|191848664|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|65.1|||Chi-squared|Two-sided Wald's Chi-square test (stratified)||||65.1|8.6|< 0.001
95941028|NCT01922050|191848697|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.69|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.69|0.40|<0.001
95941029|NCT01922050|191848697|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.61|0.35|<0.001
95941030|NCT01922050|191848697|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.48|0.28|<0.001
95941031|NCT01922050|191848697|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.17|0.66|0.38
95941032|NCT01922050|191848697|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||0.93|0.52|0.013
95941033|NCT01922050|191848697|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.07|||Negative binominal regression|Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group and analysis site as factors.||||1.07|0.58|0.13
95941034|NCT01922050|191848698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.04|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.04|0.27|0.57
95941035|NCT01922050|191848698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.33||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.13|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||3.13|0.56|0.51
95941036|NCT01922050|191848698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.21|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.21|0.86|0.11
95941037|NCT01922050|191848698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.43|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||4.43|0.72|0.21
95941038|NCT01922050|191848698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.55||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.98|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||5.98|1.09|0.031
95941039|NCT01922050|191848698|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.43||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.75|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.75|0.74|0.29
95941040|NCT01922050|191848699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.69||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.69|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.69|1.06|0.026
95941041|NCT01922050|191848699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.84|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||2.84|1.13|0.013
95941042|NCT01922050|191848699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.25|||Log binomial regression|||||3.25|1.35|<0.001
95941043|NCT01922050|191848699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Log binomial regression|||||1.47|0.76|0.73
95941044|NCT01922050|191848699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Log binomial regression|||||1.67|0.92|0.16
95744837|NCT00420095|191461529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority hypothesis testing where paired t-test for equivalence of means was used to estimate the sample size.~Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. Adjusted means were presented.||Mixed model where period, sequence, treatment are fixed effects and patient within sequence are random effects.||0.10|-0.20|0.497
95744838|NCT00420095|191461530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.497||95.0|-0.1|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.10|0.497
95744839|NCT00420095|191461531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.419||95.0|-0.48|0.2||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.20|-0.48|0.419
95744840|NCT00420095|191461532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.741||95.0|-1.09|0.78||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.78|-1.09|0.741
95744841|NCT00420095|191461533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (7%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.644
95744842|NCT00420095|191461533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||P-value for the HbA1c Percentage Criteria (6.5%)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.672
95744843|NCT00420095|191461535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.67||95.0|-0.16|0.11||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted means||||0.11|-0.16|0.670
95797336|NCT00879658|191564153|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.996||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.||||5.669|0.731|0.178
95941045|NCT01922050|191848699|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|1.17||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Log binomial regression|||Log binomial regression with treatment group as factor and baseline AK count included as covariate.||1.57|0.87|0.30
95941046|NCT05469464|191848700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-18.2|0.505
95941047|NCT05469464|191848700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.3|||ANCOVA|||||12.3|-15.8|0.812
95744844|NCT00112294|191461573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.069||Since only 1 primary comparison was conducted, no adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model, with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Primary analysis was comparison of PFS between arms performed by 2-sided alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that PFS was equal in both groups. Power calculations indicated that \>=510 events (IRRC progressions/deaths) would lead to \>=90% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.75.||1.069|0.761|0.2358
95941048|NCT05469464|191848700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-24.6|0.118
95744845|NCT00112294|191461574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.675||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.436|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||2.436|1.152|0.0066
95744846|NCT00112294|191461575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.741|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio is presented for C/T/C to T/C.|The 2 groups were compared by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||1.741|0.918|0.1501
95941049|NCT06473662|191848792|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0039
95797337|NCT00879658|191564153|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|4.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|14.681||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.681|1.328|0.014
95858568|NCT00297258|191675085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0||||0.003||90.0|28.4|55.5|||binomial exact method||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR, a PR, or SD.|||55.5|28.4|0.003
95858569|NCT01166282|191675122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.17|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.69|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-99.69|=0.039
95941050|NCT06473662|191848793|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0166
95941051|NCT06473662|191848795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0474
95941052|NCT03916276|191848810|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95941053|NCT03916276|191848811|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941054|NCT03916276|191848812|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941055|NCT03916276|191848813|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941056|NCT03916276|191848814|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95744847|NCT00112294|191461578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.051||An interim analysis on survival was performed. Final p-value was adjusted using an alpha spending function. At the interim analysis (data not reported here) the type 1 error was 0.0001, and the rest is for the final look.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio of C/T/C to T/C was estimated by means of a stratified Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment as the single covariate.|Confidence intervals were calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Analysis was a comparison of survival between groups by means of a 2-sided, alpha=0.05 level, log-rank test, stratified by ECOG PS (0/1) and intended on-study taxane (docetaxel or paclitaxel). Null hypothesis was that survival was equal in both treatment arms. Power calculations indicated that \>= 558 events would lead to at \>=75% power at the 5% level for rejecting the null hypothesis, given a true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.051|0.754|0.1685
95744848|NCT00112294|191461579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement of symptoms was compared between groups by means of a CMH (alpha = 0.05 level) test stratified by ECOG PS (0 or 1) and intended on-study taxane (paclitaxel, docetaxel), as recorded at the time of randomization.||||0.26
95744849|NCT01886872|191461642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.58||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm B (Ibrutinib) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.58|0.26|<0.001
95744850|NCT01886872|191461642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm A (Rituximab, Bendamustine Hydrochloride)||0.59|0.25|<0.001
95744851|NCT01886872|191461642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.62||(1-sided)|Log Rank|||Arm C (Ibrutinib, Rituximab) versus Arm B (Ibrutinib)||1.62|0.62|0.49
95744852|NCT00979212|191461696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||One-sided test at significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis (H0) was that the experimental treatment was not effective vs the alternative hypothesis (HA) that it was. H0: OR ≤ 1 vs. HA: OR \> 1, where odds ratio (OR)= \[p2\*(1- p1)\]/ \[p1\*(1- p2)\], p1 denotes the mediastinal clearance rate (MCR) on Induction chemoradiation; p2 denotes the MCR on Induction chemoradiation + panitumumab. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the MCRs; the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method. 97 patients were required.||||0.96
95744853|NCT00337428|191461703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95744854|NCT00337428|191461704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95744855|NCT00337428|191461705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95744856|NCT00337428|191461706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95744857|NCT00337428|191461707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744858|NCT00337428|191461708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95941057|NCT03916276|191848815|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941058|NCT03916276|191848816|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95744859|NCT00337428|191461709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744860|NCT00337428|191461710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%|||||<|0.001|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744861|NCT00337428|191461711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744862|NCT00337428|191461712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744863|NCT00337428|191461713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744864|NCT00337428|191461714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95744865|NCT00337428|191461715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group - nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions; Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95941059|NCT03916276|191848817|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941060|NCT03916276|191848818|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95989646|NCT03237065|191954088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.42|-14.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-14.21|-35.42|<0.0001
95989647|NCT03237065|191954089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.03|-0.10|0.3048
95989648|NCT03237065|191954089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.13|-0.02|0.1641
95989649|NCT03237065|191954089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.02|0.1333
95989650|NCT03237065|191954089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.16|-0.17|0.9385
95989651|NCT03237065|191954089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.14|0.00|0.0408
95989652|NCT03237065|191954089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.12|-0.03|0.2376
95989653|NCT03237065|191954091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.05|-0.67|0.0882
95989654|NCT03237065|191954091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.06|-0.74|0.0941
95989655|NCT03237065|191954091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.66|-0.02|0.0628
95989656|NCT03237065|191954091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.79|0.14|0.0056
95989657|NCT03237065|191954091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.55|0.00|0.0492
95989658|NCT03237065|191954091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.64|-0.05|0.0882
95858570|NCT01166282|191675123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||=|0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.08|-5.32|=0.382
95858571|NCT01166282|191675124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||=|0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.97|||1-way ANOVA|||||1.97|-8.78|=0.209
95858572|NCT01166282|191675125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.26|||1-way ANOVA|||||2.26|-4.49|=0.509
95989659|NCT03237065|191954092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|22.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.3|-35.3|0.6568
95989660|NCT03237065|191954092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|45.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||45.5|-94.0|0.4929
95989661|NCT03237065|191954092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.3|-21.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-21.1|-162.3|0.0113
95989662|NCT03237065|191954092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.4|-162.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-162.3|-318.4|<0.0001
95989663|NCT03237065|191954092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-196.1|-74.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-74.0|-196.1|<0.0001
95989664|NCT03237065|191954092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.2|-22.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-22.2|-113.2|0.0039
95858573|NCT01166282|191675126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||=|0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|40.5|||Fisher Exact|||||40.5|-18.5|=0.514
95858574|NCT01166282|191675127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|-2.0|=0.111
95858575|NCT01166282|191675128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|61.6|||Fisher Exact|||||61.6|8.1|=0.031
95858576|NCT01995838|191675131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.06|-0.03|0.0651
95858577|NCT01995838|191675131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.70|-0.44|0.6490
95858578|NCT01995838|191675131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.94|-0.09|0.1059
95858579|NCT01995838|191675131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.55|-0. 54|0. 9818
95858580|NCT01995838|191675131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.85|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.85|-0.08|0. 1071
95858581|NCT01995838|191675131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||1.17|0.19|0.0063
95858582|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.94|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||7.94|1.19|0.0083
95858583|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.01|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.01|0.86|0.0151
95858584|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|8.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||8.93|2.54|0.0005
95989665|NCT03237065|191954093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|48.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||48.5|-0.0|0.0503
95989666|NCT03237065|191954093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.8|-5.5|0.5794
95989667|NCT03237065|191954093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-54.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-54.3|-70.1|<0.0001
95989668|NCT03237065|191954093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-3.5|-10.4|0.0001
95989669|NCT03237065|191954093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-2.4|-9.1|0.0008
95989670|NCT03237065|191954093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)- based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.6|-8.1|0.0040
95989671|NCT03237065|191954094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-2.6|-18.8|0.0090
95989672|NCT03545906|191954095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.075
95989673|NCT03545906|191954096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
95744866|NCT00337428|191461716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95989674|NCT03545906|191954097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.039
95989675|NCT03545906|191954098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.265
95744867|NCT00337428|191461717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95858585|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Days 1-2||11.45|4.73|<0.0001
95989676|NCT04311086|191954163|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
95744868|NCT00337428|191461718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95744869|NCT00337428|191461719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group) must be greater than 0.67.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95858586|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||12.93|7.20|<0.0001
95858587|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|13.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||13.08|7.18|<0.0001
95858588|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|3.9|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.90|-3.22|0.8505
95989677|NCT04311086|191954164|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
95989678|NCT04311086|191954165|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment||||>0.05
95744870|NCT02418455|191461720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-48.44||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||||-48.44|-73.56|< 0.0001
95744871|NCT02418455|191461728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test|||||||0.2655
95744872|NCT02418455|191461729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.22||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||-0.22|-1.77|0.0122
95744873|NCT02418455|191461729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.31||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||-0.31|-2.12|0.0086
95744874|NCT02418455|191461729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 48||-0.37|-1.58|0.0016
95989679|NCT04311086|191954166|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
95744875|NCT02418455|191461729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.26||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.26|-1.41|0.1792
95744876|NCT02418455|191461729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.15||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.15|-0.85|0.1731
95858589|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.94||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.66|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||7.66|0.22|0.0380
95744877|NCT02418455|191461730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.05||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 12||0.05|-0.78|0.0843
95744878|NCT02418455|191461730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.98||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 24||0.98|-1.03|0.9618
95744879|NCT02418455|191461730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Change at Week 48||0.61|-0.92|0.6954
95744880|NCT02418455|191461730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.93||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 96||0.93|-0.50|0.5492
95858590|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.76||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.12|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||9.12|2.40|0.0008
95858591|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|11.32|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||11.32|4.24|<0.0001
95858592|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|10.92|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||10.92|4.86|<0.0001
95989680|NCT04311086|191954170|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||<0.05
95989681|NCT04311086|191954171|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95989682|NCT04311086|191954172|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
95989683|NCT04311086|191954173|OTHER|A propensity score will be estimated for each patient from a multivariable logistic regression model, which is the probability that the patient is in DYSTAL cohort. In this model, the DYSTAL cohort (binary variable) is the outcome variable, and the following covariates will be considered as independent variables for propensity score analysis model: baseline Office and 24-hour ABPM (continuous) SBP and DBP, age (continuous), gender (dichotomous), BMI (continuous), diabetes (dichotomous).|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison to the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED study (NCT02439749) using a propensity score stratification (sub classification) adjustment.||||>0.05
95989684|NCT00355394|191954174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95989685|NCT00355394|191954175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95989686|NCT00355394|191954176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
95989687|NCT00355394|191954177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95989688|NCT00355394|191954178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95989689|NCT00355394|191954179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95989690|NCT00756938|191954181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.22||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|8.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||8.90|-6.45|0.753
95989691|NCT00756938|191954182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.81||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for dose, weight (as a continuous covariate) and presence of co-morbidities/end organ damage||||9.51|-5.90|0.643
95989692|NCT04823949|191954191|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.88|||Chi-squared|||||1.88|1.33|<0.001
95989693|NCT04823949|191954192|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|0.52|.530
95989694|NCT04823949|191954193|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.53||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.90|0.92|.059
95989695|NCT04823949|191954194|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.04|||Fisher Exact|||||3.04|0.23|.792
95989696|NCT04823949|191954195|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.94|.210
95989697|NCT00441545|191954214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1130
95858593|NCT01995838|191675132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|12.02|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||12.02|5.72|<0.0001
95989698|NCT00441545|191954215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0249
95989699|NCT02347176|191954218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.968||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.99|-6.78|0.143
95989700|NCT02347176|191954218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-0.51|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.51|-8.22|0.027
95989701|NCT02347176|191954218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.13|-8.76|0.011
95989702|NCT02347176|191954219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.29|0.974
95989703|NCT02347176|191954219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.65|0.61|0.281
95989704|NCT02347176|191954219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.37|0.95|0.061
95989705|NCT06142643|191954290|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
95989706|NCT06142643|191954291|OTHER|"A responder was defined by subjects with a score 1 (very much improved), 2 (much improved) or 3 (improved) on the GAIS.~Inferential analysis for the primary evaluation criterion For the derived outcome responder rate at M1 (1 month after injection) for the GAIS Investigator, a binomial exact test (bilateral approach) vs 60% was applied for the overall score. This test compared the proportion of improvement to 60%."|||||<|0.0001||||||Power of 80%, significant result (alpha = 5%).|t-test, 2 sided|Null hypothesis stated that less than 60% of subjects were responders with GAIS. Under the alternative hypothesis, 75% of subjects were responders.||||||<0.0001
95858594|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.09|0.54|0.1407
95858595|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY|Days 1-2|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.55||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||||0.80|0.38|0.0018
95989707|NCT04982250|191954299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.0|||||Risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using regression models with Gaussian distributions, identify links, study group fixed effects, and index peer random effects (to adjust for clustering).|The sample size calculation was based on the primary PrEP initiation outcome at follow-up; 80 clusters (40 per study group) provided 80% power to detect a 17% difference in PrEP initiation between the enhanced (80%) and standard (63%) groups, assuming three referred peers per cluster (75% of those recommended), an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.05, and an alpha level of 0.05.||11|-26|
95858596|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.83|0.43|0.0025
95858597|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.76|0.38|0.0006
95858598|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.7|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||0.70|0.38|<0.0001
95858599|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.54|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2:||0.54|0.29|<0.0001
95858600|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||1.08|0.49|0.1158
95858601|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.75|0.33|0.0010
95858602|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.69|0.32|<0.0001
95989708|NCT04982250|191954304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|54.0||||||||54|24|
95989709|NCT04982250|191954305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.0||||||||13|-10|
95989710|NCT04982250|191954306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|2.0||||||||2|-40|
95989711|NCT04982250|191954307|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|2.5||||||||2.5|-36.3|
95989712|NCT04982250|191954308|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.2|
95989713|NCT04289116|191954315|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|1.36||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.20
95858603|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
95858604|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.57|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.57|0.29|<0.0001
95858605|NCT01995838|191675133|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.48|0.24|<0.0001
95858606|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|2.33|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||2.33|-24.48|0.1050
95858607|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.7501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|11.87|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||11.87|-16.46|0.7501
95858608|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.26||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|1.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||1.43|-23.94|0.0818
95858609|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.81||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.18|-6.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-6.43|-33.18|0.0038
95858610|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.75|17.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||17.93|-40.75|<0.0001
95858611|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.59|-14.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 1-2||-14.09|-37.59|<0.0001
95858612|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4642||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|20.98|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||20.98|-9.60|0.4642
95858613|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|13.64|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||13.64|-18.27|0.7754
95858614|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.69||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|3.75|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||3.75|-25.14|0.1461
95858615|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.73||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|0.51|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||0.51|-29.97|0.0581
95858616|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-7.74|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.74|-33.86|0.0019
95858617|NCT01995838|191675134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.12|-7.91|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 14-15||-7.91|-35.12|0.0020
95858618|NCT01995838|191675138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.09|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.09|-7.20|0.1483
95858619|NCT01995838|191675138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.69|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||3.69|-4.96|0.7720
95989714|NCT04289116|191954315|SUPERIORITY||Chi Square|0.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.58
95989715|NCT04289116|191954316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.08
95989716|NCT04289116|191954316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis only includes participants who participated in the We Test - Index arm and Individual HIV Testing and Counseling - Index arm on their own.||||0.02
95797338|NCT00879658|191564153|OTHER|Pairwise comparison of treatments to placebo are based on odds ratios estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for treatment group and using number of relapses in the previous 2 years as a covariate.|Logistic regression model|1.266||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.494||Proportions are estimated from the logistic regression model. - An odds ratio of \> 1 indicates an increased odds in favor of the active treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.494|0.468|0.642
95797339|NCT00879658|191564154|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.408|||Regression, Logistic|new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose groups and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.408|0.047|<0.001
95858620|NCT01995838|191675138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.44|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.44|-2.44|0.4548
95858621|NCT01995838|191675138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.39||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|1.72|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||1.72|-6.51|0.2530
95989717|NCT02392429|191954335|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the NPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the NPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.64 by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the NPV was greater than 0.64 using the exact binomial test.|||||>|0.99|||||||binomial exact test|||||||>0.99
95989718|NCT02392429|191954336|NON_INFERIORITY|we tested the null hypothesis that the PPV of the post-treatment FLT PET/CT scan was less than or equal to the PPV of the day 14 nadir bone marrow biopsy (estimated to be 0.79by Hussein et al) against the one-sided alternative hypothesis that the PPV was greater than 0.79 using the exact binomial test.||||||0.06|||||||binomial exact test|||||||0.06
95989719|NCT02392429|191954340|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.68|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.68
95744881|NCT02418455|191461730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.42||From generalized estimating equation model including baseline value and visit as a categorical variable. Change from baseline in Liver Ultrasound (cm) as a dependent variable. Covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|generalized estimating equation|||Change at Week 144||0.42|-1.55|0.2618
95744882|NCT03807440|191461744|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
95797340|NCT00879658|191564154|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.307||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.771||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.771|0.123|0.012
95858622|NCT01995838|191675138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.41||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|5.93|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||5.93|-1.11|0.1794
95941061|NCT03916276|191848819|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95941062|NCT03916276|191848820|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941063|NCT03916276|191848821|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941064|NCT03916276|191848822|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941065|NCT03916276|191848823|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941066|NCT03916276|191848824|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941067|NCT03916276|191848825|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941068|NCT03916276|191848826|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941069|NCT06415292|191848827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P-value reported here is the calculated p-value. The p-value theshold for significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95941070|NCT05170841|191848914|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.566
95941071|NCT05170841|191848915|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
95744883|NCT03807440|191461745|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95858623|NCT01995838|191675138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and treatment as covariates.||Days 16-17||4.63|-2.74|0.6148
95744884|NCT03807440|191461746|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
95744885|NCT03807440|191461747|OTHER|||||||0.8071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8071
95744886|NCT03807440|191461747|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7640
95744887|NCT03807440|191461748|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
95744888|NCT03807440|191461749|OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0042
95744889|NCT03807440|191461750|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
95744890|NCT03807440|191461751|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3990
95744891|NCT03807440|191461751|OTHER|||||||0.3842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3842
95858624|NCT01262989|191675143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.95||||||90.0|97.17|109.07|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||109.07|97.17|
95941072|NCT05170841|191848916|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
95941073|NCT05170841|191848917|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
95941074|NCT05170841|191848918|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.031
95941075|NCT05170841|191848919|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
95941076|NCT05170841|191848920|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.011
95941077|NCT05170841|191848921|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.007
95941078|NCT05170841|191848922|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.013
95941079|NCT05170841|191848923|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
95941080|NCT05170841|191848924|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.022
95941081|NCT05170841|191848925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95941082|NCT05170841|191848926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95941083|NCT05170841|191848927|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
95941084|NCT05170841|191848928|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.01
95941085|NCT05170841|191848929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.04
95941086|NCT05170841|191848930|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.016
95941087|NCT05170841|191848931|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
95941088|NCT05170841|191848932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.042
95941089|NCT05170841|191848933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.037
95941090|NCT05170841|191848934|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.045
95941091|NCT05170841|191848935|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.029
95941092|NCT05170841|191848936|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.027
95941093|NCT05170841|191848937|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.035
95941094|NCT05170841|191848938|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
95989720|NCT02392429|191954341|EQUIVALENCE|no margin was assumed||||||0.08|||||||log-rank test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed for the positive and negative scan groups, and the null hypothesis that the survival distributions of the two groups were equal was tested using the log-rank test.||||0.08
95989721|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||No sample size calculation was performed. In the survey took part 57 patients from the parent study and OLE. The study did not have a formal hypothesis. The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (OLE visit 0) in the WOMAC-T at the end of 12-month follow-up (EOF) visit was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
95797341|NCT00879658|191564154|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.358||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.358|0.036|<0.001
95941095|NCT05233800|191848940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|3.84|<0.05
95941096|NCT02432261|191848951|SUPERIORITY|We did not statistically power this study.|difference of proportion of subjects|57.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||The difference of proportion = NES/Testosterone - Testosterone|||||0.003
95941097|NCT06122194|191848972|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|112.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|135.22||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were expressed as percentages.||135.22|93.01|
95941098|NCT06122194|191848972|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.79|225.35||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||225.35|155.79|
95941099|NCT06122194|191848972|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.4|185.21||||||Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||185.21|127.40|
95941100|NCT06122194|191848973|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|115.54||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||115.54|91.09|
95941101|NCT06122194|191848973|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|141.17||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||141.17|110.81|
95941102|NCT06122194|191848973|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|121.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.65|136.43||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07817883 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect in Periods 1 to 4. The ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs were expressed as percentages.||136.43|108.65|
95941103|NCT04726371|191848989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of infections over follow-up.|Test of joint null hypothesis from model|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A Poisson GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline infection incidence, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and for intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||0.89
95941104|NCT04726371|191848990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||A Wald test was used to test against the null hypothesis that intervention main effect and interaction effects between intervention and time trends were simultaneously zero and assess for differences in the mean trend of scores over follow-up.|Wald test|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.||A GLMM was fit with a main effect for intervention group, linear and quadratic time trends, and interaction effects between intervention and the time trend variables. The model was adjust for stratification factors, baseline fidelity score, agency and included random intercept for group home.|"The point estimates for intervention main effect, intervention by linear time effect, and intervention by time\^2 interaction effect are described in the paper Tailored vs. General COVID-19 prevention for adults with mental disabilities residing in group homes: a randomized controlled effectiveness-implementation trial by Bartels S, Levison JH, Trieu HD, et al., published in 2024 in BMC Public Health, doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18835-w."|||>.99
95941105|NCT04726371|191848991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.84||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the combined population of residents with SMI and ID/DD. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.84|0.79|>.99
95744892|NCT03807440|191461752|OTHER|||||||0.0605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0605
95744893|NCT03807440|191461753|OTHER|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6329
95744894|NCT03807440|191461753|OTHER|||||||0.7181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7181
95858625|NCT01262989|191675144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|102.79||||||90.0|96.99|108.93|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||108.93|96.99|
95858626|NCT01262989|191675145|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.47||||||90.0|87.59|101.9|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||101.90|87.59|
95858627|NCT00573144|191675146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95858628|NCT00573144|191675147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95858629|NCT00573144|191675148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95858630|NCT02691507|191675182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858631|NCT02691507|191675182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.002
95744895|NCT03807440|191461754|OTHER|||||||0.5233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5233
95744896|NCT03807440|191461756|OTHER|||||||0.3662|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3662
95744897|NCT03807440|191461757|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5110
95744898|NCT03807440|191461758|OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0921
95744899|NCT03807440|191461759|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
95744900|NCT03807440|191461760|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744901|NCT03807440|191461761|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<.0001
95744902|NCT03807440|191461762|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744903|NCT03807440|191461763|OTHER|||||||0.3201|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3201
95744904|NCT03807440|191461764|OTHER|||||||0.3288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3288
95744905|NCT03807440|191461764|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1710
95744906|NCT03807440|191461765|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0130
95797342|NCT00879658|191564154|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.375||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.86||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.860|0.163|0.021
95797343|NCT00879658|191564154|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.478||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.037||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.037|0.220|0.062
95858632|NCT02691507|191675182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.795||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|1.998||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.998|-1.196|0.616
95744907|NCT03807440|191461766|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
95744908|NCT03807440|191461767|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3978
95744909|NCT03807440|191461768|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0055
95744910|NCT03807440|191461768|OTHER|||||||0.0041|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0041
95744911|NCT03807440|191461769|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744912|NCT03807440|191461770|OTHER|||||||0.0399|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0399
95744913|NCT03807440|191461770|OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0401
95744914|NCT03807440|191461788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744915|NCT03807440|191461789|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744916|NCT03807440|191461790|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0008
95744917|NCT03807440|191461792|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744918|NCT03807440|191461793|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95858633|NCT02691507|191675183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858634|NCT02691507|191675183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858635|NCT02691507|191675183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|2.46||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.460|-0.767|0.297
95744919|NCT03807440|191461794|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744920|NCT03807440|191461795|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744921|NCT03807440|191461796|OTHER|||||||0.9184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9184
95744922|NCT03807440|191461796|OTHER|||||||0.9911|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9911
95744923|NCT03807440|191461797|OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6967
95744924|NCT03807440|191461797|OTHER|||||||0.6439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6439
95744925|NCT03807440|191461798|OTHER|||||||0.9414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9414
95744926|NCT03807440|191461798|OTHER|||||||0.8142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8142
95744927|NCT03807440|191461799|OTHER|||||||0.7837|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7837
95744928|NCT03807440|191461799|OTHER|||||||0.7538|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7538
95744929|NCT03807440|191461800|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
95744930|NCT03807440|191461801|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744931|NCT03807440|191461802|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1906
95744932|NCT03807440|191461803|OTHER|||||||0.6198|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6198
95744933|NCT03807440|191461803|OTHER|||||||0.7297|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7297
95744934|NCT03807440|191461805|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744935|NCT03807440|191461806|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
95744936|NCT03807440|191461806|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
95744937|NCT03807440|191461807|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95744938|NCT03807440|191461810|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0030
95744939|NCT02760433|191461830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.03|0.337|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population. The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 are expected to be at least 45%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.337|0.030|0.004
95744940|NCT02760433|191461830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.038|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate at Week 12 for the placebo group is estimated to be 20% in this study population .The OKZ ACR20 response rate for 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 is expected to be at least 50%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.353|0.038|0.0029
95989722|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|353.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.27||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.91|527.45||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||527.45|178.91|0.00
95989723|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
95989724|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
95989725|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||F value|23.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|"To compare the efficacy of 1 and 2 NOLTREX courses with placebo was used ANCOVA adjusted for the baseline value with fixed factor of treatment group"||The between-group comparison of changes from baseline (study 1 visit 1) in the WOMAC-T at visit 5 was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and, as a post hoc test, the Tukey test.||||0.00
95989726|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||LS-means difference|-292.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.04||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-480.37|-104.01|||Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-104.01|-480.37|0.00
95989727|NCT06523491|191954342|SUPERIORITY||[LS-means difference|-645.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.68||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-876.07|-414.67||Difference between Least-square means was tested at a level of p \<0.05 via Tukey's multiple comparison test.|Tukey's HSD|||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Tukey test.||-414.67|-876.07|0.00
95989728|NCT03266016|191954347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.77|||Proportional Odds Logistic Regression|||This analysis is comparing length of weaning between REDvent acute group and control acute group.||2.77|1.01|.045
95989729|NCT03266016|191954347|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6||||||Weaning Phase||2.6|0.7|
95744941|NCT02760433|191461831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.041|0.281|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.281|0.041|0.0021
95744942|NCT02760433|191461831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.139|0.396|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 was estimated to be 5% in the placebo group and 18% and 21% in 64 mg q4w and q2w OKZ groups, respectively, resulting in an expected difference of 13 and 16 percentage points between respective OKZ groups and placebo.||0.396|0.139|<0.0001
95858636|NCT02691507|191675184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95744943|NCT02760433|191461832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|=|0.1814|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.11||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.1814
95858637|NCT02691507|191675184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95989730|NCT03266016|191954348|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||||Negative binomial model.|||1.25|0.84|
95989731|NCT03266016|191954349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
95989732|NCT03266016|191954350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||||||||2.47|0.44|
95989733|NCT03266016|191954351|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds logistic regression|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55||||||||2.55|1.01|
95989734|NCT01299766|191954365|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74|||Poisson regression with robust SE (GEE)|||Poisson regression with robust standard errors (GEE) was used to jointly model decline in HVLT-R Total Recall score ≥ 6 words at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by treatment group. The model included time, treatment, time-by-treatment interaction terms, and baseline HVLT-R Total Recall score.||0.74|0.02|.02
95989735|NCT01299766|191954366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Slopes|2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects linear regression was used to model the trajectory. Fixed effects for time (as a continuous variable), treatment group, time-by-treatment group interaction, and age at baseline were included. Random intercepts and slopes were included to account for within-subject correlation.||5.07|-.14|.064
95989736|NCT01916980|191954383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in least squares (LS) mean for the Desloratadine: Eczema/Dermatitis group||||<0.001
95989737|NCT01916980|191954383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes terms of visit, group and visit by group interaction; visit is treated as a categorical variable||Analysis of the change from Baseline in LS mean for the Desloratadine: Dermal Pruritus group||||<0.001
95989738|NCT01354028|191954396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1303||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom =1||"Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in sleep efficiency in preterm infants on the day of massage versus the day without massage.~Power calculation: the sample size was determined by convenience for this pilot study"||||0.1303
95989739|NCT01354028|191954399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Pearson's chi square|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in massage therapy or no massage therapy in number of infants who will be asleep at the end of massage or the corresponding time frame on the non massage day.~Pearson's chi square=4.98"||||0.026
95989740|NCT00805740|191954409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|53.3||||||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||53.3|-12.3|
95989741|NCT00805740|191954410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|55.6||||||2-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.6|-13.6|
95989742|NCT00805740|191954410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|47.3||||||6-week follow-up: The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||47.3|-23.3|
95989743|NCT00805740|191954412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|27.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||27.9|-39.0|
95744944|NCT02760433|191461832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|=|0.0227|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|0.02||p-value was greater than the threshold p-value of 0.0125|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.35|=0.0227
95744945|NCT02760433|191461833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.278||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.278|0.020|
95744946|NCT02760433|191461833|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.027|0.294||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made||||||0.294|0.027|
95744947|NCT02760433|191461834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.052|0.083||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.083|-0.052|
95858638|NCT02691507|191675184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|2.426||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.426|-0.973|0.394
95858639|NCT02691507|191675185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858640|NCT02691507|191675185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858641|NCT02691507|191675185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.709||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.709|-1.140|0.690
95858642|NCT02691507|191675186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858643|NCT02691507|191675186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858644|NCT02691507|191675186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.735||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|1.397||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.397|-1.556|0.914
95858645|NCT02691507|191675187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858646|NCT02691507|191675187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95989744|NCT05022641|191954424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6
95989745|NCT05022641|191954425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.65
95989746|NCT05022641|191954426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.02
95989747|NCT05022641|191954427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95989748|NCT05022641|191954429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6
95989749|NCT03881007|191954430|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.17||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.84|0.359
95989750|NCT03881007|191954431|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|136.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||136.56|1.52|0.024
95989751|NCT03881007|191954432|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|0.61|0.774
95989752|NCT03881007|191954433|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.59||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|0.2|0.323
95797344|NCT00879658|191564155|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|Lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.376|||Regression, Logistic|new lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model||||0.376|0.063|<0.001
95941106|NCT04726371|191848992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported to correct for multiplicity for testing outcomes with 6 combinations of outcomes and subpopulations.|Regression, Cox|||A Cox frailty model was fit to evaluate differences in the hazard of vaccination uptake between arms separately within the staff population. This model included a main effect for intervention arm and additionally adjusted for stratification factors, GH agency, and GH-level log-normal frailties.||1.15|0.86|>.99
95941107|NCT04231331|191849002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on our previous study, we assumed a common baseline mean EROA of 0.21 cm2 with a common standard deviation of 0.11 cm2. Given these assumptions, we calculated that a sample size of 204 patients randomly assigned to two groups, would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.05 cm2 in the EROA between the ertugliflozin and placebo groups, using a two-sided t test with an alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95941108|NCT04068311|191849011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
95941109|NCT04068311|191849012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95941110|NCT04068311|191849013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95941111|NCT04068311|191849014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95941112|NCT03257410|191849043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.501|19.156|||||Method=ANCOVA|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio-17H is \> 0 then superiority will be demonstrated.||19.156|10.501|
95941113|NCT03257410|191849044|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the mean estimated treatment difference between Theranova 400 and Elisio 17H is \> -0.1765 g/dL then non-inferiority can be claimed. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is \> 0, then superiority may be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.069|||ANCOVA|||||0.069|-0.098|
95941114|NCT03257410|191849045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95941115|NCT03257410|191849045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95941116|NCT03257410|191849046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95941117|NCT03257410|191849046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95941118|NCT03257410|191849047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95941119|NCT03257410|191849047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95941120|NCT03257410|191849048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.583||0.0684|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 4||||0.0684
95941121|NCT03257410|191849048|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.937||0.0806|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||Week 24||||0.0806
95941122|NCT03257410|191849053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0347
95941123|NCT03257410|191849053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.0036
95941124|NCT03257410|191849053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.129
95941125|NCT03257410|191849053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.1149
95941126|NCT03257410|191849053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.0688
95941127|NCT03257410|191849053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.6097|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.6097
95941128|NCT03257410|191849054|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1472
95941129|NCT03257410|191849054|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.154||0.1207|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1207
95941130|NCT03257410|191849055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488||0.9775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9775
95941131|NCT03257410|191849055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.5538
95941132|NCT03257410|191849056|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.1100
95941133|NCT03257410|191849056|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.4607
95941134|NCT03257410|191849057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04454||0.0791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 4||||0.0791
95941135|NCT03257410|191849057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04302||0.9505|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||||0.9505
95941136|NCT03257410|191849057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04271||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.1521
95941137|NCT03257410|191849057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04652||0.2489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 16||||0.2489
95941138|NCT03257410|191849057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05025||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 20||||0.4936
95941139|NCT03257410|191849057|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.1497
95744948|NCT02760433|191461834|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.023|0.134||Due to the hierarchical nature of pre-planned statistical testing (gate-keeping strategy) a formal statement could not be made|||means continuity correction applied because expected cell counts \< 5|||0.134|-0.023|
95744949|NCT04254809|191461839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.25||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regressing scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.25|-1.02|.001
95744950|NCT04254809|191461840|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Threshold for significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as 0, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-month follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-0.23|-0.99|.002
95744951|NCT04254809|191461841|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.05||Threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Regression, Linear||REST coded as -, HSL coded as 1; negative slope reflects greater standardized reductions in outcome among REST compared to HSL.|Intention to treat analyses carried last observation forward for all participants enrolled at baseline. Standardized residual change score calculated by regression scores at one-week follow-up onto scores at baseline.||-.05|-0.86|.03
95744952|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.308||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.60
95744953|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.367||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.56
95744954|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear regression||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.44
95858647|NCT02691507|191675187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|1.314||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.314|-1.796|0.757
95744955|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.55||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.15
95744956|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.947||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.39
95858648|NCT02691507|191675188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858649|NCT02691507|191675188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858650|NCT02691507|191675188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|1.129||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.129|-2.075|0.556
95858651|NCT02691507|191675189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95744957|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.004||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
95744958|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regulation||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.483||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.53
95744959|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.543||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.19
95744960|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.32
95744961|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=32.844||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.11
95744962|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.559||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.31
95744963|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|F=14362.699||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.005
95744964|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.056||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
95744965|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.94
95744966|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.01||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.29
95744967|NCT03702816|191461854|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.173||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Frontal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.72
95744968|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.424||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.54
95989753|NCT03881007|191954435|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|0.86|0.279
95989754|NCT00847587|191954437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 8 additional hours was chosen to be clinically relevant, as many common medical interventions (such as epidural anesthesia, cesarean delivery, labor induction, and general stress) have been reported to delay time to lactogenesis stage II by up to 12 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|120.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was assumed that both groups would have a mean of 54 hours to lactogenesis with a common standard deviation of 12 hours based on previous reports of lactogenesis in women with uncomplicated vaginal deliveries. Setting the noninferiority margin at 8 additional hours, using an alpha 0.05 level comparison, to achieve 80% power a sample size of n=34 evaluable subjects was required in each group. The calculation was performed using N Solution 2007 Professional Software.||7.7|-10.6|<0.05
95989755|NCT00847587|191954438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-1.3|<0.05
95989756|NCT02653768|191954441|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.0||||||This analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 3-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||-2.0|-8.2|
95989757|NCT02653768|191954441|OTHER|As noted above, a statistical test was not specified at this time point. Rather, the data for all time points were included in the model and are presented here descriptively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3||||||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-month follow-up. We have not included a p-value because there was no pre-specified hypothesis for this time point. Rather, these are additional data obtained from the overall model, for which the 9-month time point was primary and included a pre-specified hypothesis.||2.3|-5.2|
95989758|NCT02653768|191954441|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up. This is the primary outcome assessment time point.||-3.2|-10.5|0.0003
95989759|NCT02653768|191954442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis between-group difference in change from baseline to 9-month follow-up for the 30 second chair stand.||1.3|-0.6|0.43
95989760|NCT02653768|191954443|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-6.1|0.23
95797345|NCT00879658|191564155|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.228||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.641||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.641|0.081|0.005
95989761|NCT01970176|191954456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95989762|NCT01970176|191954457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95989763|NCT01970176|191954458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95797346|NCT00879658|191564155|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.188|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.509||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.509|0.070|<0.001
95797347|NCT00879658|191564156|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.279||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.628||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.628|0.124|0.002
95858652|NCT02691507|191675189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95989764|NCT01202656|191954487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.72
95989765|NCT02499029|191954592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||A series of hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the effects of treatment group (NAC or placebo) on PTSD symptomatology, craving, substance use, and depression. Baseline levels of the respective outcome measures were entered in Step 1 of the model to adjust for any baseline differences. Treatment group was entered as the predictor in Step 2. The significance threshold was set at a p-value of .05 (two-sided) for all statistical tests.||||.05
95989766|NCT02161211|191954601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Chi-squared|df = 2||Null hypothesis = no difference in frequency in relapse between groups||||.673
95989767|NCT02161211|191954602|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|-0.278||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.084|||Wald Chi-squared|Negative binomial regression with offset of natural log of possible drinking days||||.084|-.64|.133
95989768|NCT02161211|191954602|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-squared|0.101||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||Wald Chi-squared|||||.44|-.24|.562
95989769|NCT02161211|191954603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|F(2,105) = .019||||||.982
95989770|NCT02161211|191954604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion between the groups||||.685
95989771|NCT02161211|191954605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no significant difference in frequency of hazardous drinking between groups||||.608
95989772|NCT01707693|191954609|SUPERIORITY|repeated measures mixed model analysis of covariance, with the baseline measurement as a covariate.||||||0.023||||||P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied. P-values are one-sided.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
95744969|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.447||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.53
95744970|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.773||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.23
95744971|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|F=3.615||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.01
95744972|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.039|||||||Regression, Linear|F=9.204||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.039
95744973|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.209||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.33
95744974|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.801||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.07
95744975|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|F=10.374||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.03
95744976|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.024||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.27
95744977|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|F=15.568||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.16
95941140|NCT03257410|191849058|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.9001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 12||||0.9001
95744978|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Linear|F=5.238||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.262
95797348|NCT00879658|191564156|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.396||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.861||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.861|0.182|0.019
95797349|NCT00879658|191564156|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.4||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.400|0.059|<0.001
95744979|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|F=221.308||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.043
95744980|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.430||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.26
95744981|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.269||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.38
95744982|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=13.164||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
95744983|NCT03702816|191461855|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.312||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Cingulate GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.37
95744984|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.233||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.64
95744985|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.011||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.92
95744986|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.790||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.22
95744987|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.720||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.42
95744988|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.305||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.61
95744989|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.95
95744990|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.435||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.55
95744991|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.787||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.43
95744992|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|F=316.379||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.036
95744993|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Linear|F=2.032||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.39
95744994|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Linear|F=425.337||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.031
95744995|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.274|||||||Regression, Linear|F=4.739||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.274
95744996|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.263||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.66
95744997|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|F=12.244||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.07
95941141|NCT03257410|191849058|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.372||0.3279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 24||||0.3279
95941142|NCT03257410|191849059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.6576|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6576
95941143|NCT03257410|191849060|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0058
95744998|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.762||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.48
95744999|NCT03702816|191461856|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|F=7.107||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Parietal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.12
95745000|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.038||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.85
95745001|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.042||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.84
95745002|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.021||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.35
95745003|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.610||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.25
95745004|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.779||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.25
95745005|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.455||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
95745006|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.650||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.47
95941144|NCT03257410|191849061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
95941145|NCT03257410|191849062|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0285
95745007|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.131||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.74
95745008|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.075||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
95745009|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.831||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.41
95745010|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.079||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.83
95745011|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.879||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.52
95745012|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.001||Linear Regression of Memory Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.98
95745013|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.005||Linear Regression of Executive Function Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.95
95745014|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|F=1.733||Linear Regression of Speed Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.32
95745015|NCT03702816|191461857|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.249||Linear Regression of Language Composite Scores and Temporal GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.67
95745016|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.098||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.76
95745017|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.513||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in Control Subjects||||0.49
95745018|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.008||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.93
95745019|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.430||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in MCI Subjects||||0.54
95745020|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.142||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.77
95745021|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.496||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in AD Subjects||||0.61
95745022|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|F=8.046||Linear Regression of DRS Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.11
95745023|NCT03702816|191461858|OTHER|Linear Regression||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|F=0.051||Linear Regression of MoCA Scores and Whole Brain GE180 SUVR in PD Subjects||||0.84
95745024|NCT04784637|191461901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
95745025|NCT04784637|191461901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95745026|NCT04784637|191461902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95745027|NCT04784637|191461902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95797350|NCT00879658|191564156|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.454||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.945||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.945|0.219|0.035
95941146|NCT03257410|191849063|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.9069|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9069
95941147|NCT03257410|191849064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8413
95941148|NCT03257410|191849065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0125
95941149|NCT03257410|191849066|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.6891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6891
95941150|NCT03257410|191849067|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.6043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6043
95941151|NCT03257410|191849068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5067
95745028|NCT05103657|191461919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.43|||Mixed Models for repeated measures||"Least Squares mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.43|-3.31|0.9726
95797351|NCT00879658|191564156|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.555||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.283|1.09||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.090|0.283|0.087
95941152|NCT03257410|191849069|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0297
95941153|NCT03257410|191849070|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.1325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1325
95941154|NCT03257410|191849071|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2304
95941155|NCT03257410|191849072|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.846||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5785
95941156|NCT03257410|191849073|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.918||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
95941157|NCT03257410|191849074|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.314||0.0434|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0434
95941158|NCT03257410|191849075|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3281
95941159|NCT03257410|191849076|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0463
95941160|NCT03257410|191849077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1925
95941161|NCT03257410|191849078|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
95797352|NCT00879658|191564157|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.273||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.273|0.033|<0.001
95941162|NCT03257410|191849079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.5709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5709
95941163|NCT03257410|191849080|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.217
95941164|NCT03257410|191849081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.2386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2386
95941165|NCT03257410|191849082|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1769
95941166|NCT03257410|191849083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8102
95941167|NCT03257410|191849084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9672
95941168|NCT03257410|191849085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.623||0.2697|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2697
95941169|NCT03257410|191849088|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7189
95941170|NCT03257410|191849089|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
95941171|NCT03257410|191849090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
95941172|NCT03257410|191849091|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0733
95941173|NCT03257410|191849092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.467||0.5326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5326
95941174|NCT03257410|191849093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.3042|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3042
95941175|NCT03257410|191849094|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.5534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5534
95941176|NCT03257410|191849095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.2958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2958
95941177|NCT03257410|191849096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0998|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0998
95941178|NCT03257410|191849097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9952
95941179|NCT03257410|191849098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.3063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3063
95941180|NCT03257410|191849099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.1098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1098
95941181|NCT03257410|191849100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.797||0.0766|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0766
95941182|NCT03257410|191849101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2886
95941183|NCT03257410|191849102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.4513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4513
95941184|NCT03257410|191849103|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.5992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5992
95941185|NCT03257410|191849104|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3836|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3836
95941186|NCT03257410|191849105|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284||0.0769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0769
95941187|NCT03257410|191849106|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95941188|NCT03257410|191849107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.1825|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1825
95941189|NCT03257410|191849108|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.0957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0957
95941190|NCT03257410|191849109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
95941191|NCT03257410|191849110|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.1824|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1824
95941192|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|15.65|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||15.65|-10.66|0.75
95941193|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.76|-18.49|0.50
95941194|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.48|14.84|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||14.84|-11.48|0.83
95941195|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.91|6.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||6.15|-7.91|0.84
95941196|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|8.9|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||8.90|-5.13|0.66
95941197|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|7.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.68|-6.38|0.88
95941198|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-200.7|93.05|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.05|-200.70|0.54
95941199|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.51||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.01|105.98|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||105.98|-187.01|0.65
95941200|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-199.87|93.88|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3% Type: ROI||93.88|-199.87|0.55
95941201|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.85|8.56|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||8.56|-81.85|0.18
95797353|NCT00879658|191564157|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.47||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.470|0.069|<0.001
95941202|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.49||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.58|22.59|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||22.59|-67.58|0.41
95941203|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.06|11.34|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.34|-79.06|0.22
95941204|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-183.08|121.76|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||121.76|-183.08|0.74
95941205|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.77||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-250.79|53.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||53.25|-250.79|0.28
95941206|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-214.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-367.31|-62.48|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-62.48|-367.31|0.02
95941207|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.44|73.66|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||73.66|-81.44|0.93
95941208|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-268.37|-113.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% , Type: Entire Image||-113.67|-268.37|<.0001
95941209|NCT04183283|191849156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-329.79|-174.68|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: Entire Image||-174.68|-329.79|<.0001
95941210|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.28|8.15|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||8.15|-8.28|0.99
95941211|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.78|7.6|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||7.60|-8.78|0.91
95941212|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.69|10.74|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: ROI||10.74|-5.69|0.61
95941213|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.58|7.0|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||7.00|-9.58|0.80
95941214|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.83|9.72|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||9.72|-6.83|0.77
95941215|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|10.14|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: Vehicle, Type: Entire Image||10.14|-6.45|0.71
95941216|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.27|16.51|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||16.51|-53.27|0.38
95941217|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.76|31.83|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||31.83|-37.76|0.89
95941218|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.0|24.77|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: ROI||24.77|-45.00|0.63
95941219|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.31||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.21|3.58|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||3.58|-26.21|0.21
95941220|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.04|11.67|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||11.67|-18.04|0.72
95941221|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.35|4.44|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 3%, Type: Entire Image||4.44|-25.35|0.25
95941222|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.27||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.71|37.25|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||37.25|-22.71|0.69
95941223|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.6|9.2|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||9.2|-50.60|0.25
95941224|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.77|-4.81|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10%, Type: ROI||-4.81|-64.77|0.06
95941225|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.4|35.42|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||35.42|-15.4|0.51
95941226|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.98|-28.29|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-28.29|-78.98|<0.001
95745029|NCT05103657|191461920|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.650|0.608|0.9945
95745030|NCT05103657|191461921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.912||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.504|||Regression, Logistic||BI 1358894 125 mg vs. Placebo|Logistic regression was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment and presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no).||1.504|0.552|0.7167
95745031|NCT05103657|191461922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.32|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures||"Least Square mean of BI 1358894 125 mg - Least Square mean of Placebo."|Least Square (LS) means differences and confidence intervals were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, and the stratification indicator of presence of significant childhood trauma (yes vs. no), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CAPS-5 total severity score, time since index event (in years) and the treatment-by-visit interaction. Patient is considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.32|-3.00|0.7230
95745032|NCT02020967|191461927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|39.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Predictor variable: Lips enlargement||39.11|1.38|0.0196
95745033|NCT00608634|191461932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
95745034|NCT00608634|191461932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95858653|NCT02691507|191675189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.824|0.278||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.278|-2.824|0.106
95941227|NCT04183283|191849157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.91|-54.09|||ANOVA|||Ring/CA conc: 10% Type: Entire Image||-54.09|-104.91|<.0001
95941228|NCT04005794|191849161|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Social latency t = 3.215|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95941229|NCT04005794|191849162|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.213
95941230|NCT04005794|191849163|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95941231|NCT04005794|191849164|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95745035|NCT00608634|191461933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95745036|NCT00633022|191461977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term,|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID versus Placebo||0.06|-0.14|0.4519
95745037|NCT00633022|191461977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.5789
95745038|NCT00633022|191461978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg twice daily versus placebo||0.10|-0.15|0.6986
95745039|NCT00633022|191461978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, fitting fixed effect treatment term, and including baseline TBR value as a covariate.|The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily and Placebo.|Losmapimod 7.5 mg once daily versus Placebo||0.12|-0.13|0.9486
95858654|NCT02691507|191675190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95941232|NCT04005794|191849165|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95941233|NCT00104676|191849166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||To detect an absolute difference of 20% in progression-free survival at 3-years between Arm I and Unfav-Dose-Dense Arm II (46% versus 66%) with the possibility that 80 events (progressive disease and death) may be observed during this period, a total of 196 participants, 98 per group needed to be included, with an additional 25% of patients for a total of 260 participants required.||1.00|0.44|0.05
95941234|NCT00104676|191849167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31|||Log Rank|Adjusted on the stratification factor (treatment centers)||||1.31|0.46|0.34
95941235|NCT01959607|191849200|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.94|126.11|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||126.11|84.94|
95941236|NCT01959607|191849201|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|96.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|109.07|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||109.07|85.10|
95941237|NCT04117347|191849257|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861723|0.1309519|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1309519|-0.0861723|
95941238|NCT04117347|191849257|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363877|0.1730965|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for left amygdala.||0.1730965|-0.0363877|
95745040|NCT00688844|191462023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655574|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.060658||0.692782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate BMI across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.692782
95745041|NCT00688844|191462024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005401|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0243|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate total body bone mineral density (BMD) one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||<0.001
95745042|NCT00688844|191462025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.419224|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4666||0.017941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % lean mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.017941
95745043|NCT00688844|191462026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.208889|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51967||0.026009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate % fat mass across one year via DXA in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.026009
95745044|NCT00688844|191462027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5187|STANDARD_DEVIATION|362.9412||0.303864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate plasma phenylalanine across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.303864
95745045|NCT00688844|191462028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9549|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.10814||0.00088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate protein intake (grams per day) across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.00088
95745046|NCT00688844|191462029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131676|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.797247||0.3811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Objective was to evaluate dietary phenylalanine intake across one year in PKU patients introduced to sapropterin after baseline. Study was prospective cohort in design.||||0.3811
95745047|NCT01374451|191462031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.543|||Log Rank|||||1.543|0.636|0.488
95745048|NCT00178711|191462043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary hypothesis was a two-sided test assessing whether the induction of hypothermia modified the percentage of subjects with poor outcomes at 6 months after injury. Percentages in each group were compared using a generalized linear model with a binomial distribution and log link function, logistic regression model with admission age and baseline GCS as covariates.||1.53|0.76|=0.67
95745049|NCT04640194|191462055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.61|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||2.61|0.39|
95745050|NCT04640194|191462055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.27|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.27|0.46|
95745051|NCT04640194|191462055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.15|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.15|0.73|
95745052|NCT04640194|191462055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.01|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||5.01|0.83|
95745053|NCT04640194|191462055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.66|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||3.66|0.35|
95745054|NCT04640194|191462055|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.22|||||A hazard ratio \> 1 favours the alteplase dose group over standard of care alone.|Adjusted Hazard Ratio: Cox proportional hazard model containing fixed effect for treatment,ventilation status at baseline and age. The confidence intervals was determined using the Wald method to determine the variance.||4.22|0.33|
95745055|NCT04640194|191462056|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.892|24.8734|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||24.8734|-10.892|
95745056|NCT04640194|191462056|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3075|43.6615|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||43.6615|2.3075|
95745057|NCT04640194|191462056|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.127|36.9012|||||Chan and Zhang exact confidence interval.|||36.9012|-24.127|
95745058|NCT04640194|191462057|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|5.5|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||5.5|-38.6|
95745059|NCT04640194|191462057|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|11.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||11.6|-35.1|
95745060|NCT04640194|191462057|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.1||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|12.9|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for treatment.||12.9|-51.1|0.2419
95745061|NCT04640194|191462058|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|19.1|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.1|-37.1|
95745062|NCT04640194|191462058|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.0|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.0|-37.2|
95745063|NCT04640194|191462058|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.3|||The delta method and average marginal.||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% CI is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline D-dimer status, age, days of NIV support and treatment.||39.3|-10.3|0.2523
95745064|NCT04640194|191462059|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.6|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||10.6|-4.4|
95745065|NCT04640194|191462059|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.8|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Parameters included in model: treatment,ventilation status at baseline, and age.||11.8|-3.2|
95745066|NCT04640194|191462060|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|19.2|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||19.2|-29.0|
95745067|NCT04640194|191462060|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|6.3|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted risk difference and 95% confidence interval is based upon average marginal effect Delta method, adjusting for baseline ventilation status, age and treatment.||6.3|-36.8|
95745068|NCT04640194|191462061|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|52.33|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||52.33|-28.45|
95745069|NCT04640194|191462061|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|54.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|110.36|||||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Based upon Hedges-Lehmann estimator handling deaths as failure and Wilcoxon rank sum test methodology.||110.36|0.49|
95745070|NCT04640194|191462063|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.6|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||7.6|-7.5|0.9856
95941239|NCT04117347|191849257|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0676154|0.1545869|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy B (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1545869|-0.0676154|
95941240|NCT04117347|191849257|OTHER|Dose Response Relationship.|Coefficient for an indicator|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0888691|0.1255146|||||coefficient for an indicator for Light Therapy C (vs. Light Therapy A)|Analysis for right amygdala.||0.1255146|-0.0888691|
95941241|NCT05446168|191849270|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.03||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -4.05, df = 7||||-0.03|-0.12|0.005
95745071|NCT04640194|191462063|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|7.3|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level and age.||7.3|-8.5|0.8729
95745072|NCT04640194|191462064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|145.1|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Unadjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment.||145.1|-3.3|0.0603
95745073|NCT04640194|191462064|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.5||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|168.0|||ANCOVA||Calculated as alteplase dose group - standard of care alone.|Adjusted mean difference: A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Adjustment was made for treatment, the number of days under NIV support, baseline D-Dimer level, baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and age.||168.0|6.3|0.0362
95745074|NCT01049581|191462083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA was used and the result reveled (F1, 17 = 7.565, η2= 0.308, p = 0.007)||||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in gross motor performance in pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.007
95745075|NCT01049581|191462084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA : p value 0.393|Mean Difference (Net)|1.762||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Effect Size η2~0.023"|ANCOVA|F1,17= 0.380||We hypothesize that Children with CP receiving PAT would have better outcomes in motor function and translate to ADL||||0.393
95745076|NCT01049581|191462085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||null hypothesis : there is no difference in social participation between pediatric aquatic therapy group and conventional therapy group||||0.332
95745077|NCT01745952|191462089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED||||||negative binomial model + overdispersion|||||||0.9819
95941242|NCT05446168|191849271|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups. Exploratory analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.81||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|12.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.17, df = 11||||12.47|-3.81|0.27
95941243|NCT01828099|191849286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.42|<0.001
95941244|NCT05875467|191849312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
95941245|NCT05875467|191849313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.928
95941246|NCT05875467|191849314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.022
95941247|NCT05875467|191849315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
95941248|NCT02038777|191849356|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||An exact test for a single proportion (1-sided significance level: 0.05) was used.|Exact test for a single proportion|||||||<.0001
95745078|NCT00834613|191462093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.45||||||90.0|99.87|107.15|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.15|99.87|
95745079|NCT00834613|191462094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.21|100.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.11|95.21|
95745080|NCT00834613|191462095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.63||||||90.0|95.22|100.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.1|95.22|
95941249|NCT04299464|191849429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.432||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.291|1.428|||ANCOVA|||||1.428|-2.291|0.7650
95941250|NCT04299464|191849429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.4444||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|-2.250|0.7517
95941251|NCT04299464|191849438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.741||||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.631|6.114|||ANCOVA|||||6.114|-2.631|0.6082
95941252|NCT04299464|191849438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-1.715||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.204|2.774|||ANCOVA|||||2.774|-6.204|0.6228
95941253|NCT04299464|191849439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-2.983||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.957|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-5.957|0.1987
95941254|NCT04299464|191849439|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.474||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.326|-1.622|||ANCOVA|||||-1.622|-7.326|0.0460
95941255|NCT04299464|191849440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.279||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.021|3.578|||ANCOVA|||||3.578|-1.021|0.4746
95941256|NCT04299464|191849440|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.697||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|4.94|||ANCOVA|||||4.940|0.453|0.1244
95941257|NCT03676192|191849441|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (-12.5, 12.5).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.83||||||Logistic regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||7.83|-7.02|
95941258|NCT03676192|191849441|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity criterion had been set such that the confidence limits of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of ORR from each treatment group was entirely bounded by the interval (0.7368, 1.3572).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0136|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8767|1.1719||||||Log-binomial regression model including treatment groups (CT-P16 and EU-approved Avastin) as a fixed effect and region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as covariates was used.||1.1719|0.8767|
95745081|NCT01994980|191462096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95745082|NCT00096460|191462126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|62.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|89.6||||||||89.6|43.8|
95941259|NCT03676192|191849444|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.10|0.77|
95941260|NCT03676192|191849445|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Adjusted stratified Cox regression model is used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for receiving CT-P16 compared with receiving EU-approved Avastin using region (EMEA vs. America vs. Asia), sex (female vs. male), disease status at baseline (recurrence vs. metastatic), and ECOG performance score at baseline (0 vs. 1) as stratification factors.||1.19|0.77|
95941261|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Abnormal tissular architecture||||0.023
95941262|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell size||||0.01
95941263|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell shape||||0.01
95941264|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Homogeneous cell fluorescence||||0.013
95941265|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Blood vessel dysplasia||||0.16
95941266|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Organized conjunctive fibers||||0.17
95941267|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Full chia seed sign||||0.049
95941268|NCT04731129|191849448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||General physician conclusion||||0.0041
95941269|NCT03386578|191849460|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.94||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative maternal adverse events was calculated between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and the PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Maternal participants in Cohort 2/Step 2 contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.94|0.89|
95941270|NCT03386578|191849461|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5||||||Odds ratio comparing the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between the PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group.||1.50|0.52|
95941271|NCT03386578|191849461|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test the differences in the proportion of mothers with adverse pregnancy outcomes between PrEP-exposed (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 2) groups.||||0.68
95745083|NCT00096460|191462126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Survival Probability|85.7||||||95.0|63.3|100.0||||||||100|63.3|
95745084|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.22|74.08||||||TAK-272F: Least square mean (LS) mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for natural log-transformed data.||74.08|35.22|
95745085|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|117.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.32|171.07||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.07|81.32|
95745086|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.14|395.76||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.76|188.14|
95745087|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|183.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.36|265.81||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||265.81|126.36|
95745088|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.95|149.9||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.90|68.95|
95745089|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.23|200.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||200.50|92.23|
95745090|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|62.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.17|107.45||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||107.45|36.17|
95745091|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.08|160.64||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||160.64|54.08|
95941272|NCT03386578|191849462|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.38||||||The incidence rate ratio of cumulative infant AEs between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed (Cohort 2/Step 1) reference group was based on incidence per person-time follow-up. Cohort 2/Step 2 infants contributed person-time to both Cohort 2/Step 1 and Step 2.||2.38|0.70|
95797354|NCT00879658|191564157|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.434||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.434|0.069|<0.001
95941273|NCT03386578|191849463|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant whole-body bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.18
95941274|NCT03386578|191849464|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.39
95745092|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|274.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.1|472.63||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||472.63|159.10|
95745093|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|261.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|151.5|450.05||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||450.05|151.50|
95745094|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|112.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.34|182.41||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||182.41|69.34|
95745095|NCT02367872|191462150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|176.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.97|286.67||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||286.67|108.97|
95745096|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|57.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.76|87.14||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||87.14|37.76|
95745097|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|77.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.72|117.03||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||117.03|50.72|
95745098|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|206.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.88|313.54||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||313.54|135.88|
95941275|NCT03386578|191849465|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant lumbar-spine bone mineral content (WB-BMC) at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.12
95941276|NCT03386578|191849466|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.70
95941277|NCT03386578|191849467|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine levels at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.58
95745099|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.21|217.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||217.39|94.21|
95745100|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|85.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.03|142.61||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||142.61|51.03|
95745101|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|131.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.74|220.04||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||220.04|78.74|
95745102|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|70.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.42|122.53||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||122.53|40.42|
95745103|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|55.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.61|95.81||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||95.81|31.61|
95745104|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|125.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.35|219.3||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||219.30|72.35|
95745105|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|103.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|180.95||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||180.95|59.70|
95745106|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|91.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.45|171.06||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.06|49.45|
95745107|NCT02367872|191462151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.91|259.15||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||259.15|74.91|
95745108|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|51.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.45|74.49||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||74.49|35.45|
95858655|NCT02691507|191675190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95941278|NCT03386578|191849468|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.08
95745109|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|171.68||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||171.68|81.70|
95745110|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|272.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|188.21|395.5||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||395.50|188.21|
95745111|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|184.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.02|266.91||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||266.91|127.02|
95745112|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|101.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.04|149.64||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||149.64|69.04|
95745113|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|136.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.78|201.09||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||201.09|92.78|
95745114|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|59.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|102.99||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.99|33.99|
95745115|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|168.9||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||168.90|55.75|
95745116|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|260.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.39|452.6||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||452.60|149.39|
95858656|NCT02691507|191675190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.407|40.247||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||40.247|13.407|<0.001
95858657|NCT02691507|191675191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95941279|NCT03386578|191849469|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant creatinine clearance rate at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1)||||0.52
95745117|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|319.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.31|555.34||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||555.34|183.31|
95745118|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|130.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.66|207.18||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.18|81.66|
95745119|NCT02367872|191462152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|192.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.94|306.83||||||M-I: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||306.83|120.94|
95745120|NCT02367872|191462153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.05|90.56||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||90.56|40.05|
95745121|NCT02367872|191462153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|97.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.77|146.46||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||146.46|64.77|
95745122|NCT02367872|191462153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.21|167.82||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.82|74.21|
95745123|NCT02367872|191462153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|138.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.29|208.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||208.70|92.29|
95745124|NCT02367872|191462153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.91|207.87||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.87|87.91|
95745125|NCT02367872|191462153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|323.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|210.54|497.85||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||497.85|210.54|
95797355|NCT00879658|191564158|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.259||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.670|0.100|0.005
95941280|NCT03386578|191849470|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at birth between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.30
95745126|NCT02367872|191462154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|67.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.17|108.39||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||108.39|42.17|
95745127|NCT02367872|191462154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.73|102.12||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||102.12|39.73|
95745128|NCT02367872|191462154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|84.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.67|135.38||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||135.38|52.67|
95745129|NCT02367872|191462154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|108.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.7|174.01||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||174.01|67.70|
95745130|NCT02367872|191462154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|113.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.62|184.24||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||184.24|69.62|
95745131|NCT02367872|191462154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|312.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|192.34|509.0||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||509.00|192.34|
95745132|NCT02367872|191462155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|60.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.35|91.27||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||91.27|40.35|
95745133|NCT02367872|191462155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.17|147.41||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||147.41|65.17|
95745134|NCT02367872|191462155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.25|167.96||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 4R) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||167.96|74.25|
95941281|NCT03386578|191849471|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test was used to evaluate the difference in mean infant length-for-age z-score at week 26 between PrEP-exposed group (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2/Step 2) and PrEP-unexposed group (Cohort 2/Step 1).||||0.06
95941282|NCT03386578|191849472|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95941283|NCT04911296|191849600|OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
95797356|NCT00879658|191564158|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.276||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.676||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.676|0.112|0.005
95797357|NCT00879658|191564158|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.409||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.409|0.034|<0.001
95941284|NCT04911296|191849601|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
95941285|NCT03625115|191849622|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley cognitive scores between the groups.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95941286|NCT03625115|191849623|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|8.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who completed a multidisciplinary evaluation (referral completed).||||.004
95941287|NCT03625115|191849624|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi square (1)|0.05||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of independence to determine if there was a significant difference between intervention arms for those who began early intervention services.||||.82
95941288|NCT03625115|191849625|EQUIVALENCE|A two-tailed t-test was done to compare the mean Bayley language scores between the groups.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95941289|NCT03625115|191849627|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 1 between groups||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of factor 1 items from the parent engagement questionnaire. Factor 1 (Buy-in) I am open to getting EI for my child. EI can help my child. EI can teach me new ways to help my child.||||.858
95941290|NCT03625115|191849627|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 2 between groups||||||0.995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 2 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 2 (early intervention consequences):~EI could have negative consequences for my child. Getting EI for my child reflects negatively on me as a parent."||||.995
95941291|NCT03625115|191849627|EQUIVALENCE|two tailed t-test to compare the means of factor 3 between groups||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of factor 3 items from the parent engagement questionnaire.~Factor 3 (Knowledge/Self-Efficacy):~I know how to get EI for my child. I understand how the EI process works. If I have questions about EI, I know who to call. 12. I know my child's rights to EI under the law."||||.049
95941292|NCT03625115|191849628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression was run to determine if the intervention arm, adjusted for child sex, income, maternal education, and primary care site, was associated with the completion of early intervention referrals for families with an adverse childhood experience survey score of greater than 2.||3.21|1.09|.02
95941293|NCT05622812|191849798|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|56.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||56.5|21.6|<0.001
95941294|NCT05622812|191849799|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|57.6||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||57.6|23.1|<0.001
95941295|NCT05622812|191849799|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||57.8|25.6|<0.001
95941296|NCT05622812|191849799|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|47.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||47.1|13.2|0.003
95941297|NCT05622812|191849800|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|99.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||100.0|97.1|<0.001
95941298|NCT05622812|191849800|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|98.2||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||98.2|76.9|<0.001
95941299|NCT05622812|191849800|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|92.4||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 9||92.4|68.6|<0.001
95941300|NCT05622812|191849800|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|73.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|85.5||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||85.5|61.9|<0.001
95941301|NCT05622812|191849801|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|93.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.2|98.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 3||98.0|88.2|<0.001
95941302|NCT05622812|191849801|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|94.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 6||94.3|81.4|<0.001
95941303|NCT05622812|191849801|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|88.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|||88.1|72.7|<0.001
95941304|NCT05622812|191849801|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|80.3||Two-sided p-value calculated using Fisher's Exact Test. The threshold of significance at \<0.05.|Fisher's Exact Test.||Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation.|Month 12||80.3|62.8|<0.001
95941305|NCT04433208|191849802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95745135|NCT02367872|191462155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|139.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.88|210.11||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 5R-Part 2) and the reference group (Cohort 1R) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||210.11|92.88|
95745136|NCT02367872|191462155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|135.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.75|207.92||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 2H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||207.92|87.75|
95745137|NCT02367872|191462155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Cohort Ratio (%)|325.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.32|500.7||||||TAK-272F: LS mean cohort ratios for the test groups (Cohort 3H) and the reference group (Cohort 1H) with their 95% CIs were calculated using an ANOVA model for natural log-transformed data.||500.70|211.32|
95745138|NCT05718648|191462173|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|129.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.62|182.31|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||182.31|91.62|
95745139|NCT05718648|191462173|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|137.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.06|212.12|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.4|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||212.12|89.06|
95745140|NCT05718648|191462174|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|131.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|186.22|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 37.7|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||186.22|93.32|
95745141|NCT05718648|191462174|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|127.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.92|188.99|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||188.99|85.92|
95745142|NCT05718648|191462175|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|86.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.88|114.15|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 30.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||114.15|64.88|
95797358|NCT00879658|191564158|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.683||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|1.991||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.991|0.234|0.485
95941306|NCT05093842|191849808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95941307|NCT05093842|191849809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95745143|NCT05718648|191462175|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.8|164.16|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 66.2|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||164.16|56.80|
95745144|NCT05718648|191462176|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|83.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.91|113.51|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 33.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||113.51|60.91|
95941308|NCT05093842|191849810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95941309|NCT05093842|191849811|OTHER|Descriptive rates were calculated.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
95941310|NCT05093842|191849812|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
95745145|NCT05718648|191462176|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|90.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|156.26|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 68.5|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||156.26|52.40|
95745146|NCT05718648|191462177|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|128.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|189.02|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.8|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||189.02|87.42|
95745147|NCT05718648|191462177|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|136.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.41|209.69|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 52.1|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||209.69|88.41|
95745148|NCT05718648|191462178|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|125.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|183.4|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of severe renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 39.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||183.40|85.27|
95745149|NCT05718648|191462178|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|187.92|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of moderate renal impairment / adjusted geometric mean matching control)\*100. Intra-matched pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 43.6|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic (PK) endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'degree of renal impairment' as fixed effect as well as 'matched pair' as random effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||187.92|85.30|
95745150|NCT00401245|191462211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.024
95745151|NCT00401245|191462212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||< 0.001
95797359|NCT00879658|191564158|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.591||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.193||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.193|0.292|0.142
95941311|NCT05093842|191849813|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
95941312|NCT05093842|191849814|OTHER|Descriptive statistics only|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only|||
95941313|NCT04778397|191849826|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.132||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.637|||Stratified log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.637|0.783|0.5070
95941314|NCT04778397|191849827|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.183||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.654|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy vs intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites)).|1.654|0.845|0.3237
95941315|NCT04778397|191849828|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.389||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.848|||Stratified Log-rank test|P-value for comparing the event free survival functions from the two treatment groups was from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization.|||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors: therapy appropriateness, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside the US sites).|1.848|1.043|0.0661
95941316|NCT04778397|191849829|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.506|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.506|0.123|
95941317|NCT04778397|191849830|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.559|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.559|0.009|
95745152|NCT00401245|191462212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
95745153|NCT00401245|191462212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||<0.001
95745154|NCT00401245|191462213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.092
95745155|NCT00401245|191462213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.997
95745156|NCT00401245|191462213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor||||0.009
95745157|NCT00401245|191462214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50 mg QOD, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.078
95745158|NCT00401245|191462214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50/25 mg, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.005
95941318|NCT04778397|191849831|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.428|||||||Odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for randomization stratification factors (appropriateness for non-intensive therapy versus intensive therapy, age (\< 75 years, \>=75 years), geographic region (US sites, outside US sites)).|0.428|0.108|
95745159|NCT00401245|191462214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||For DVS 50mg/Placebo, ANOVA was used to compare the DESS score between each tapering regimen and the control regimen (no tapering) for the titration population, where treatment was kept as the factor.||||0.929
95745160|NCT00401245|191462216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Overall comparison was made between each titration regimen and the control regimen (100 mg).||||0.017
95745161|NCT00401245|191462223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 4) value with 0.||||<0.001
95745162|NCT00401245|191462223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 8) value with 0.||||< 0.001
95745163|NCT00401245|191462223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the base value and post-baseline (Week 12) value with 0.||||<0.001
95745164|NCT00401245|191462223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made between the difference in the means from the baseline value and post-baseline (Week 16) value with 0.||||<0.001
95745165|NCT02344745|191462246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95745166|NCT02344745|191462247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
95745167|NCT02344745|191462248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95745168|NCT02344745|191462249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95745169|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER|||||||0.9931||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Beta model fit.|Model assumption: 75% of max effect is achieved at 2 mg, 87.5% at 5 mg, 25% at 25 mg, max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809, scalar parameter = 26||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9931
95745170|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER|||||||0.9225||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 2 mg||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9225
95745171|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER|||||||0.9287||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|Model assumption: 25% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 75% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9287
95941319|NCT03987022|191849865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.16
95941320|NCT03987022|191849866|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95941321|NCT03987022|191849867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
95941322|NCT03987022|191849868|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95941323|NCT03987022|191849869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
95941324|NCT03987022|191849870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
95745172|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER|||||||0.7646||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.7646
95745173|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER|||||||0.9335||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod linear in log model fit.|No assumption needed.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.9335
95745174|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER|||||||0.8199||||||An alpha of 0.05 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of max effect achieved at 5 mg and 50% of max effect achieved at 10 mg of BI 425809.||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) was used.||||0.8199
95745175|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.18||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.18|-1.09|0.9340
95745176|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.44||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.44|-0.84|0.6041
95745177|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.9||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.90|-0.38|0.1926
95745178|NCT02788513|191462250|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.12||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|MMRM|MMRM information is described in the description section.||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||1.12|-1.16|0.9739
95745179|NCT02788513|191462251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.52||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||1.52|-1.48|0.979
95745180|NCT02788513|191462251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.0||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||2.00|-1.01|0.521
95745181|NCT02788513|191462251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.02||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.02|-3.04|0.047
95745182|NCT02788513|191462251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.67||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance model included baseline value for the secondary endpoint measure, MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline and treatment.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||-0.67|-3.65|0.005
95745183|NCT02788513|191462252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.11|-0.32|0.343
95941325|NCT03987022|191849871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95941326|NCT03987022|191849872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
95941327|NCT03987022|191849873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95941328|NCT01627574|191849875|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.42|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.42|.056|>.05
95941329|NCT03308877|191849884|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Covariates include education \& percent days abstinent at baseline.|Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis 1: Affective psychopathy scores will moderate response to a BMI such that individuals with lower scores will benefit relative to controls, but individuals with higher psychopathy scores will not benefit from the intervention in terms of percent days abstinent.||||.07
95941330|NCT03308877|191849884|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Sensitivity analysis: proximal follow-up (3 months following BMI or SC)||||.02
95941331|NCT03308877|191849884|OTHER||B|0.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.156|||Regression, Linear|bias corrected bootstrap||Increased readiness to change will be associated with decreased substance use.||.156|.007|<.01
95941332|NCT03308877|191849885|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.74
95941333|NCT03308877|191849886|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.88
95941334|NCT03806790|191849887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|49.16|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis on the Full Analysis Set (FAS)||49.16|0.68|0.120
95941335|NCT03806790|191849888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.6|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 1 (FAS)||4.60|1.36|0.004
95941336|NCT03806790|191849888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.97|||Fisher Exact|||End of Week 2 (FAS)||14.97|1.57|0.003
95941337|NCT03806790|191849889|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.59|||ANOVA|||FAS||-0.59|-1.64|<0.001
95941338|NCT04685135|191849915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Log Rank|HR and CI are from stratified Cox proportional hazard model||||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
95941339|NCT04685135|191849917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.56|||Cochran Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|||||8.56|2.56|<0.0001
95941340|NCT03655028|191849979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The co-variate used in the analysis was the 6 minute walk distance at baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95745184|NCT02788513|191462252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.16|-0.26|0.645
95745185|NCT02788513|191462252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.30|-0.13|0.448
95745186|NCT02788513|191462252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32||p-values are nominal without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included MMSE stratification (\>=20, \<20) at baseline (BL) and treatment, CIBIS is included as BL adjustment term.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||0.32|-0.11|0.340
95745187|NCT05707403|191462253|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|73.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.32|79.48|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 8.8 %.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||79.48|67.32|
95745188|NCT05707403|191462254|OTHER||Ratio (T/R) [%]|33.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|38.36|||||Ratio \[%\] is calculated as Test / Reference Intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variation (gCV) = 14.1 %|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model and then then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the 'formulation' effect was considered as fixed.||38.36|29.40|
95745189|NCT02156154|191462255|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11||significance criterion of P \< .044.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference = IV Acetaminophen - Placebo group|A total of 28 patients (5%) were missing monitoring data (14 patients in each group). Values for these patients were obtained using multivariable imputation with 5 imputation data sets. The imputation regression model included all of the baseline, intraoperative, surgical, and postanesthesia care unit variables and all of the secondary outcomes||0.11|-0.18|0.29
95745190|NCT02156154|191462256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.71|0.15||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.15|-0.71|0.07
95745191|NCT02156154|191462257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.51|0.29||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|||0.29|-0.51|0.46
95745192|NCT02156154|191462258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.49|0.76||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.76|-0.49|0.56
95745193|NCT02156154|191462259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.29|0.13||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as differences in means between the study groups, assessed using a 2-sample t test.|||0.13|-0.29|0.30
95745194|NCT02156154|191462260|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.94||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.63|1.39||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.39|0.63|0.65
95745195|NCT02156154|191462261|SUPERIORITY||Ratios of geometric means|0.86||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.61|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment effect data are reported as ratios of geometric means, assessed using a 2-sample t test after logarithmic transformation of outcomes.|||1.21|0.61|0.22
95745196|NCT02156154|191462262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.88|1.45||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||Risk ratio = Treatment/Placebo|||1.45|0.88|0.18
95745197|NCT02156154|191462263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.4|0.57|1.43||Confidence intervals were adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Chi-squared||RR = Treatment/Placebo|||1.43|0.57|0.53
95745198|NCT02156154|191462264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.4|-0.39|0.36||Adjusted for 8 comparisons using Bonferroni correction (.05/8 = .006), for a significance criterion of P \< .006.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment effect is reported as median difference, estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift.|||0.36|-0.39|0.99
95745199|NCT01729026|191462294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.75||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.35||Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, subjects in the Adoption group had a mean improvement of 15.20 points on the PCL-5 compared to 7.77 points in the Wait-list group.|Mixed effects regression models|||The analyses were mixed effect regression models with repeated measures at randomization (baseline) and at the 3-month post-randomization follow-up using a 2 x 2 design. Treatment (Adoption group vs Wait-list group), time (baseline and 3-month follow-up) and their interaction were the fixed design effects. The treatment by time interaction tests the significance of the difference between baseline and 3-month follow-up between the Adoption and Wait-list groups.||0.35|-1.85|0.141
95745200|NCT01729026|191462295|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.982
95745201|NCT01729026|191462296|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.160
95745202|NCT01729026|191462297|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.36||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.23|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.23|-2.49|0.015
95745203|NCT01729026|191462298|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95745204|NCT01729026|191462299|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects regression models|-1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.31|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||-0.31|-2.50|0.010
95745205|NCT01729026|191462300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
95745206|NCT01729026|191462301|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||||0.188
95745207|NCT01729026|191462303|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|1.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects regression models|||||||0.031
95745208|NCT01729026|191462304|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.3||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||effect size (Cohen's d)|||||1.40|-0.80|0.541
95745209|NCT01729026|191462305|SUPERIORITY||effect size (Cohen's d)|0.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||effect size (Cohen's d)|||Please note that a minus number indicates an increase in pain ratings.||||0.139
95745210|NCT00483548|191462316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.7921||95.0|-3.07|2.34||Due to planned interim analysis of primary endpoint, to control type I error at 2-sided alpha=0.05, a nominal 2-sided p-value ≤0.0476 needed at final analysis to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment effect.|ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|No other adjustment made for multiple comparisons since all comparisons, except for single primary comparison, are considered secondary.|Mixed-effects repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model: fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, mood stabilizer type, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.|N=141 per arm (282 total) needed for 85% power for 2-sided alpha=0.05 based on true mean difference=4.0 and standard deviation (SD)=11.0 for primary endpoint. Interim Analysis (IA) planned when 60% of subjects had completed study or discontinued prematurely to assess efficacy (nominal 2-sided p-value less than or equal to \[≤\] 0.0076) or futility (nominal 2-sided p-value greater than or equal to \[≥\] 0.5099).||2.34|-3.07|0.7921
95797360|NCT00879658|191564159|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.|lesion ratio|0.161|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.421||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model|Regression, Logistic|||||0.421|0.062|<0.001
95941341|NCT03655028|191849980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307||||||The co-variant used to adjust the ANCOVA was the baseline step count/day.|ANCOVA|||||||.307
95941342|NCT03655028|191849981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||this comparison is made between distance walked during 6MW at 12 weeks and distance walked during 6MW at 24 weeks|ANCOVA|||||||0.106
95745211|NCT00483548|191462317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7223||95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA Mixed-effects repeated-measures|||Week 6; MMRM analysis of covariance model with fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, fixed continuous effect of baseline value and subject as random effect.||0.36|-0.25|0.7223
95745212|NCT00483548|191462318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.846||||0.5029||95.0|0.52|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving remission (MADRS total score ≤ 12) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.38|0.52|0.5029
95745213|NCT00483548|191462319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.949||||0.8266||95.0|0.59|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio measures the odds of achieving response (≥ 50 % reduction in MADRS total score) from ziprasidone treated subjects versus placebo; a value \> 1 favors ziprasidone.|Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.52|0.59|0.8266
95745214|NCT00483548|191462320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.7924||95.0|0.59|1.5||Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6; LOCF; Logistic regression model with treatment, country, and type of mood stabilizer.||1.50|0.59|0.7924
95745215|NCT00483548|191462321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0594||95.0|-3.42|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-3.42|0.0594
95745216|NCT00483548|191462321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.223||95.0|-3.27|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.77|-3.27|0.2230
95745217|NCT00483548|191462321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.6971||95.0|-2.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.72|-2.57|0.6971
95745218|NCT00483548|191462321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5485||95.0|-2.89|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-2.89|0.5485
95745219|NCT00483548|191462321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.8322||95.0|-2.6|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.10|-2.60|0.8322
95797361|NCT00879658|191564159|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.197||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.527||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.527|0.074|0.001
95941343|NCT03655028|191849982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline PCS score was used at the co-variate|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
95941344|NCT03655028|191849983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Covariate was baseline MCS score|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95941345|NCT03655028|191849984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
95941346|NCT02709161|191849985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95745220|NCT00483548|191462322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1771||95.0|-0.29|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.29|0.1771
95745221|NCT00483548|191462322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1765||95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-0.37|0.1765
95745222|NCT00483548|191462322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6765||95.0|-0.27|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.27|0.6765
95745223|NCT00483548|191462322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.977||95.0|-0.24|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.24|0.9770
95745224|NCT00483548|191462322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7907||95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|-0.30|0.7907
95745225|NCT00483548|191462323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0392||95.0|-0.43|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.43|0.0392
95745226|NCT00483548|191462323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2803||95.0|-0.38|0.11|||ANOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.38|0.2803
95941347|NCT02709161|191849986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95941348|NCT04028284|191849995|OTHER|Two-sided inferential test||||||0.02||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.05 for the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95745227|NCT00483548|191462323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.9835||95.0|-0.26|0.26|||ANOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.26|0.9835
95745228|NCT00483548|191462323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7062||95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.7062
95941349|NCT04028284|191849996|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95941350|NCT04028284|191849997|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95941351|NCT04028284|191849998|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95745229|NCT00483548|191462323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9518||95.0|-0.31|0.29|||ANOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.31|0.9518
95745230|NCT00483548|191462323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4757||95.0|-0.2|0.42||Analysis of variance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Week 6; LOCF||0.42|-0.20|0.4757
95745231|NCT00483548|191462324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6362||95.0|-1.12|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.82|-1.12|0.6362
95745232|NCT00483548|191462324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.4565||95.0|-0.98|2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.17|-0.98|0.4565
95745233|NCT00483548|191462324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.477||95.0|-1.08|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||2.30|-1.08|0.4770
95745234|NCT00483548|191462325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1277||95.0|-0.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 1; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.60|-0.20|0.1277
95745235|NCT00483548|191462325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.2345||95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.68|-0.41|0.2345
95745236|NCT00483548|191462325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8337||95.0|-1.05|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 3; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.30|-1.05|0.8337
95941352|NCT04028284|191849999|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95941353|NCT04028284|191850000|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95941354|NCT04028284|191850001|OTHER|Inferential two-sided test||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95941355|NCT04089059|191850036|SUPERIORITY|Poisson regression for comparison of incidence rate against performance goal (0.43)|||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||<0.0001
95941356|NCT04089059|191850039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HF Hospitalization events 6 months before implant vs 6 months after implant||||<0.0001
95941357|NCT04089059|191850040|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the incidence rate of HF hospitalizations or emergency department / hospital outpatient IV diuretic visits of Former Control Arm versus Modified Intent to Treat Arm at 6 months post-implant/Subgroup Analysis||||||0.0697|||||||Poisson Regression|||||||0.0697
95941358|NCT04089059|191850043|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.0952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0952
95941359|NCT04089059|191850043|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0090
95745237|NCT00483548|191462325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4646||95.0|-0.73|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.59|-0.73|0.4646
95745238|NCT00483548|191462325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3993||95.0|-0.67|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 5; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.67|-0.67|0.3993
95745239|NCT00483548|191462325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7647||95.0|-1.08|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; LOCF; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||1.46|-1.08|0.7647
95745240|NCT00483548|191462326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0108||95.0|0.99|7.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||7.50|0.99|0.0108
95745241|NCT00483548|191462327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.001||95.0|-7.24|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||Total SDS: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||-1.87|-7.24|0.0010
95745242|NCT00483548|191462328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Days Lost: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.12|-1.00|0.1230
95745243|NCT00483548|191462328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Days Unproductive: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.50|-0.84|0.6232
95745244|NCT00483548|191462329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0096||95.0|0.04|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.31|0.04|0.0096
95745245|NCT00483548|191462329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8134||95.0|-0.13|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.13|0.8134
95745246|NCT00483548|191462329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0226||95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.29|0.02|0.0226
95941360|NCT04089059|191850043|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mPAP values at baseline to values at 6 months.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95941361|NCT04089059|191850045|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of KCCQ at baseline and at 6 months||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0026
95745247|NCT00483548|191462330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0193||95.0|0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.23|0.02|0.0193
95745248|NCT00483548|191462330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4745||0.16|-0.07|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.16|-0.07|0.4745
95745249|NCT00483548|191462330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2613||95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.05|0.2613
95745250|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0271||95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.21|0.01|0.0271
95745251|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7462||95.0|-0.07|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.07|0.7462
95745252|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9574||95.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.08|-0.08|0.9574
95745253|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0844||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.10|-0.01|0.0844
95745254|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.5779||95.0|-0.04|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.04|0.5779
95797362|NCT00879658|191564159|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.416||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.331||new Gd-enhanced T1 lesions was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial generalized estimating equation regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise treatment comparison between different BAF312 dose group and placebo used a two-sided significance level of 5% without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.331|0.130|0.139
95941362|NCT04089059|191850046|OTHER|Test of difference in distribution of NYHA class from baseline (all patients were class III at baseline).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification is a system used to evaluate and classify the severity of heart failure based on symptoms, patient's physical activity, and quality of life. Its scale ranges from class 1 to 4 with class 1 indicating the least severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the best functionality) and class 4 indicating the most severe heart failure symptoms (i.e., the poorest functionality), with higher classes indicating poorer functioning as relates to heart failure.||||<0.0001
95941363|NCT04089059|191850047|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of baseline 6MWT vs 6 month 6MWT.||||||0.1086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1086
95745255|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.7455||95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Global severity score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.05|0.7455
95989773|NCT01707693|191954610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.|ANCOVA|\* P-value calculated from repeated measures model adjusting for age with a log transformation applied.||||||0.011
95745256|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3278||95.0|-0.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 2; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.05|-0.02|0.3278
95745257|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9097||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 4; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.03|-0.03|0.9097
95797363|NCT00879658|191564160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.227
95941364|NCT04089059|191850050|SUPERIORITY|Compare NTproBNP at baseline with 6 months||||||0.0628|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0628
95941365|NCT03728608|191850060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.92
95941366|NCT03728608|191850061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.65
95941367|NCT03728608|191850062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.96
95941368|NCT03728608|191850063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||survival analysis|||||||0.77
95941369|NCT03728608|191850064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
95745258|NCT00483548|191462331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9864||95.0|-0.04|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Incapacitation score: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.04|0.9864
95745259|NCT00483548|191462332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.5519||95.0|-3.5|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Q-LES-Q: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||6.53|-3.50|0.5519
95745260|NCT00483548|191462332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5238||95.0|-0.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Medications: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.18|-0.35|0.5238
95745261|NCT00483548|191462332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.536||95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Overall life satisfaction: Week 6; Observed cases; Analysis of covariance model with treatment, country, type of mood stabilizer as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||0.36|-0.19|0.5360
95941370|NCT03728608|191850065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
95941371|NCT03728608|191850066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.97
95941372|NCT03728608|191850067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
95745262|NCT03223909|191462343|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of groups in the baseline visit versus final visit"||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
95745263|NCT03223909|191462343|NON_INFERIORITY|"it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis between groups in the final visit"||||||0.848|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.848
95745264|NCT03223909|191462344|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.468
95745265|NCT03223909|191462345|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95745266|NCT03223909|191462345|NON_INFERIORITY|population analysis was per protocol||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.650
95941373|NCT04587453|191850092|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.5|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Responders were considered those meeting an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||22.5|-11.2|
95941374|NCT04587453|191850093|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|33.0|||||Mantel-Haenzel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with 75% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects with missing data or subjects who had received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders in the primary analysis of the primary estimand.||33.0|-2.9|
95941375|NCT04587453|191850094|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|2.3|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||2.3|-12.4|
95941376|NCT04587453|191850095|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||||ANCOVA. Worst observation carried forward for all subjects who prior to Week 16 had received rescue medication. Multiple imputation of missing values for subjects who had not received rescue medication.|||0.5|-2.7|
95941377|NCT04587453|191850096|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least a reduction of 4 in the worst daily pruritus NRS score were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data at Week 16 were imputed as non-responders.||14.2|-21.7|
95989774|NCT01707693|191954611|OTHER|2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
95745267|NCT03223909|191462346|NON_INFERIORITY|"It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%~Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit."||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95745268|NCT03223909|191462346|NON_INFERIORITY|It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20% Statistical analysis of Humylub® Ofteno (PRO-087) versus Systane® Ultra PF at the final visit.||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95745269|NCT03223909|191462347|NON_INFERIORITY|"the statistical analysis was carried out by intention to treat~It was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%"||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.930
95745270|NCT03223909|191462348|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.548
95797364|NCT00879658|191564160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.020
95797365|NCT00879658|191564160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
95797366|NCT00879658|191564160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.122
95797367|NCT00879658|191564160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.034
95797368|NCT00879658|191564161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.335
95941378|NCT04587453|191850097|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|33.2|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with a reduction of 90% in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||33.2|-3.0|
95745271|NCT03223909|191462349|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.170
95745272|NCT03223909|191462350|NON_INFERIORITY|it was considered as not inferior when the treatments did not present differences greater than 20%||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.085
95745273|NCT00974350|191462362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.44|||ANOVA|LS Mean difference from SABER-Placebo||Pain Intensity on Movement AUCs1-72 hours Including Pain Assessed Upon Taking Opioid Rescue - ITT||-0.44|-1.84|0.0031
95745274|NCT00974350|191462363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study sites||Proportion of Patients Not Taking Any Supplemental Opioid Analgesic Medication||||0.0909
95797369|NCT00879658|191564161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.022
95797370|NCT00879658|191564161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||Calculated using weighted logistic regression model adj. for tx group and baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions. Weight used is equal to 1 if all post-baseline scans up to month 3 are available and (k-x)/k if x scans out of k scans are missing.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
95745275|NCT05070754|191462368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
95745276|NCT05070754|191462369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
95745277|NCT05070754|191462370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||Chi-squared|||Outcome measures 1-3 were all tested together. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the degree of lesion resolution between the two treatment methods.||||0.534
95745278|NCT05070754|191462371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95745279|NCT05070754|191462372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in median pain levels between SOC and NTAP treated lesions.||||0.142
95745280|NCT04010227|191462374|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.40|-0.23|0.60
95745281|NCT04010227|191462375|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.96
95745282|NCT04010227|191462376|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.75
95745283|NCT04010227|191462377|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.4||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.40|-0.23|0.33
95858658|NCT02691507|191675191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.004
95745284|NCT04010227|191462378|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.29|0.91
95941379|NCT04587453|191850098|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|20.3|||||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by baseline IGA.|Subjects with at least 50% reduction in EASI were considered responders. Subjects who had received rescue medication were considered non-responders. Subjects with missing data were imputed as non-responders.||20.3|-9.0|
95745285|NCT04010227|191462379|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.38|-0.25|0.74
95745286|NCT04010227|191462379|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.14||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.45|-0.18|0.24
95745287|NCT04010227|191462379|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient existential quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.78
95745288|NCT04010227|191462379|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value for study group x time interaction for patient social quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.44|-0.19|0.29
95797371|NCT00879658|191564162|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.129||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.561||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.561|0.030|0.006
95941380|NCT04587453|191850099|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|6.3|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||6.3|-14.9|
95989775|NCT01707693|191954612|OTHER|counts of stage of change||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Armitage trend test||||||.001
95745289|NCT04010227|191462380|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver physical quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.35|-0.28|0.92
95745290|NCT04010227|191462380|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.06||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37||P-value for study group x time interaction for caregiver psychological quality of life. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 76. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.37|-0.26|0.79
95745291|NCT04010227|191462381|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 144. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.34|-0.30|0.94
95745292|NCT00702507|191462391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.7|||||Percentage of participants with overall cure at the test-of-cure visit (Day 14) of the initial episode for participants in the MITT Population|||36.7|22.4|
95745293|NCT00372996|191462428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.118|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value from an unstratified log-rank text|Hazard ratio was based on Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.118|0.744|0.560
95745294|NCT00372996|191462429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.572|1.02||2-sided p-value from unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.020|0.572|0.331
95745295|NCT00372996|191462430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.79||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.6|||Pearson chi-square test|||||17.6|-8.0|0.463
95745296|NCT03538262|191462497|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
95745297|NCT03538262|191462497|OTHER|Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95941381|NCT04587453|191850100|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Repeated measurements Model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.8|-0.7|
95745298|NCT03538262|191462498|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.011
95745299|NCT03538262|191462498|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
95745300|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.007
95745301|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
95745302|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.004
95745303|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
95745304|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
95745305|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
95989776|NCT04673786|191954624|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -10% to 10%|Treatment difference (%) and 90% CI|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.32|||ANCOVA|Multiple imputation (MI) with the Missing at random (MAR) assumption was applied.||||4.32|-0.23|
95941382|NCT04587453|191850101|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 1 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||0.6|-0.9|
95941383|NCT04587453|191850102|OTHER|No formal testing was performed. CIs are presented with two sided 95% degree of confidence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.9|||||Repeated measurements model: Change=Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week+Baseline IGA. Data after permanent discontinuation of IMP/initiation of rescue medication not included (4 subjects excluded). Week 2 change imputed as 0 if no post-baseline assessments.|||-0.9|-5.6|
95941384|NCT03125070|191850105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95941385|NCT03125070|191850106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95989777|NCT00143455|191954630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.0556||95.0|0.995|1.536|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.||1.536|0.995|0.0556
95989778|NCT00143455|191954631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.343||||0.143||95.0|0.905|1.993|||Chi-squared|||||1.993|0.905|0.143
95989779|NCT00143455|191954632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority test was combined with a superiority test based on a closed testing procedure. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (control/test) estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model, with an indicator for the control arm, was less than 0.80.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.011||95.0|1.071|1.701|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.701|1.071|0.0110
95989780|NCT00143455|191954633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.354||||0.0831||95.0|0.961|1.908|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.908|0.961|0.0831
95989781|NCT00143455|191954634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7544||95.0|0.771|1.208|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.208|0.771|0.7544
95989782|NCT03850912|191954637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.104||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (chemo and surgical patients combined)||1.290|0.944|0.214
95989783|NCT03850912|191954637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.927||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.201|0.715|0.565
95941386|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Female vs. Male||||0.27
95941387|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Age \<70 vs. \>=70||||0.88
95941388|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Race and ethnicity: white AND non-Hispanic versus any other combination of race and ethnicity (BIPOC)||||0.98
95941389|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Education: High school or less versus at least some college or vocational/technical program||||0.19
95941390|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Income: \<$100,000 annual versus \>=$100,000 annual||||0.24
95941391|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||PHQ score at baseline: no depression (\<10), mild depression (10-14), moderate depression (15-19), severe depression (\>=20)||||0.28
95941392|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer the survey items for this measure are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||CTXD score at baseline \<0.9 (not distressed) or \>=0.9 (distressed)||||0.33
95941393|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|Participants that did not answer this survey item are shown as unknwon in the table and are excluded from the statistical test.||Cardiometabolic Healthcare Utilization (HCU-C) score at baseline: \>.80 versus \<.80||||0.10
95941394|NCT03125070|191850107|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Secondary cancer screening healthcare utilization (HCU-SM) at baseline: \>=.80 versus \<.80||||0.31
95941395|NCT03125070|191850108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95941396|NCT03125070|191850109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
95941397|NCT02800356|191850133|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.404
95941398|NCT02800356|191850134|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.232
95989784|NCT03850912|191954637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.490|1.008|0.042
95989785|NCT03850912|191954638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.272|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.272|1.000|0.050
95989786|NCT03850912|191954638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.225|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.225|0.836|0.903
95989787|NCT03850912|191954638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.418|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.418|1.040|0.014
95745306|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
95745307|NCT03538262|191462499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
95745308|NCT03538262|191462500|OTHER|||||||0.996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.996
95745309|NCT03538262|191462500|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.054
95745310|NCT03538262|191462500|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.025
95797372|NCT00879658|191564162|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.159||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.578||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.578|0.044|0.005
95797373|NCT00879658|191564162|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.052||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.405||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.405|0.007|0.005
95941399|NCT02800356|191850135|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.001
95941400|NCT02800356|191850138|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for paired samples with Bonferroni post-hoc analysis||||||0.267
95941401|NCT04625725|191850149|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|76.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.05|89.96|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Primary Analysis||89.96|46.05|<0.001
95745311|NCT03538262|191462500|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.006
95745312|NCT03538262|191462501|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.145
95745313|NCT03538262|191462501|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.029
95745314|NCT03538262|191462502|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<.001
95745315|NCT03538262|191462502|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
95941402|NCT04625725|191850149|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|83.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.26|91.21|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|Final Analysis||91.21|67.26|<0.001
95745316|NCT03538262|191462503|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.382
95745317|NCT03538262|191462503|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
95745318|NCT03538262|191462504|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.688
95745319|NCT03538262|191462504|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.293
95745320|NCT03538262|191462505|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.446
95745321|NCT03538262|191462505|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.565
95745322|NCT03538262|191462506|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.006
95745323|NCT03538262|191462506|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.937
95745324|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.041
95745325|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
95745326|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
95745327|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
95745328|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
95745329|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
95745330|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
95745331|NCT03538262|191462507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
95745332|NCT03538262|191462508|OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.595
95745333|NCT03538262|191462508|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.440
95745334|NCT03538262|191462508|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.909
95745335|NCT03538262|191462508|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.068
95745336|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.074
95745337|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||<0.001
95745338|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||<0.001
95745339|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||<0.001
95745340|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||<0.001
95745341|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||<0.001
95745342|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||<0.001
95941403|NCT04625725|191850151|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|46.05|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||46.05|21.44|<0.001
95745343|NCT03538262|191462509|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||<0.001
95745344|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.200
95745345|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 6||||0.888
95745346|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.837
95797374|NCT00879658|191564162|SUPERIORITY||lesion ratio|0.271||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.807||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.||0.807|0.091|0.019
95797375|NCT00879658|191564162|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.504||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.337||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.337|0.190|0.169
95941404|NCT04625725|191850152|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|91.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.31|98.09|||Poisson regression||Estimates are based on a Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment, and age group, with the log of the follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||98.09|61.31|0.001
95941405|NCT04625725|191850153|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|52.43||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.61|82.13|||Poisson regression|||||82.13|-26.61|0.137
95989788|NCT03850912|191954639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.139|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.139|0.881|0.978
95989789|NCT03850912|191954639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.046|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.046|0.697|0.126
95745347|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.394
95745348|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.268
95745349|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 18||||0.039
95745350|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.979
95941406|NCT03295721|191850165|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-122.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.76|-80.34|||ANOVA|||||-80.34|-163.76|< 0.0001
95989790|NCT03850912|191954639|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.302|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.302|0.933|0.254
95989791|NCT03850912|191954640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||1.183|0.964|0.209
95745351|NCT03538262|191462510|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 24||||0.014
95745352|NCT03538262|191462511|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 3||||0.285
95745353|NCT03538262|191462511|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 9||||0.267
95745354|NCT03538262|191462511|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 15||||0.564
95745355|NCT03538262|191462511|OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 21||||0.034
95745356|NCT03538262|191462512|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 12||||0.409
95745357|NCT03538262|191462512|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis for BL to Month 0.149||||0.149
95745358|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.38|
95745359|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.60|
95745360|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.70|
95745361|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.93|
95745362|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.69|
95745363|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.06||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.09|
95745364|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.27||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.94|
95745365|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.0||||||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.21|
95745366|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.03||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-1.24|
95745367|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.84|
95797376|NCT00879658|191564163|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.499||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.499|0.091|<0.001
95941407|NCT03295721|191850166|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.777|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.07|-33.25|||ANOVA|||||-33.25|-107.07|= 0.0002
95941408|NCT03295721|191850167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95941409|NCT03295721|191850168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.177||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.265|||Fisher Exact|||||.265|.085|0.0001
95989792|NCT03850912|191954640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.992||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.159|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (medical oncology patients only)||1.159|0.850|0.924
95745368|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.01||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-1.53|
95745369|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.47||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.47|-1.07|
95745370|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.08||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.65|
95745371|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.55||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.06|
95941410|NCT03295721|191850169|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.0022
95941411|NCT00429364|191850179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95941412|NCT00429364|191850180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95941413|NCT00429364|191850181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95941414|NCT00429364|191850182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95989793|NCT03850912|191954640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.286|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing control versus intervention patients (surgical patients only)||1.286|0.979|0.099
95745372|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.15||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.72|
95745373|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.54||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.54|-1.05|
95745374|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.15||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.80|
95745375|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.61|-1.04|
95745376|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.65|
95745377|NCT02725411|191462544|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-0.88|
95745378|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.77|
95745379|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.14||||||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.96|
95745380|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.43||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-1.48|
95745381|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.51||||||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.51|-1.43|
95745382|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.91|-1.04|
95745383|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.44||||||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.44|-1.53|
95745384|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.05||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.05|-1.06|
95745385|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.53||||||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.53|-1.60|
95745386|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.88||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-1.71|
95797377|NCT00879658|191564163|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.24||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.779||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.074|0.018
95941415|NCT00429364|191850183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95941416|NCT00429364|191850184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95745387|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.14||||||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.14|-1.47|
95745388|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.71||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.71|-1.90|
95745389|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.25||||||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.25|-1.44|
95745390|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.28||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-2.43|
95745391|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.32||||||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.32|-1.41|
95745392|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.57||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-2.17|
95797378|NCT00879658|191564163|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparison of treatments are based on a negative binomial GEE regression model accounting for repeated measures on each patient, adjusted for baseline number of Gd-enhanced T1 lesions and treatment group x month (the month number of each lesion count measurement) interaction, using the log link.|lesion ratio|0.231||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.653||p-value corresponds to the lesion ratio and 95% CI of lesion ratio for active treatment in comparison to placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.653|0.081|0.006
95797379|NCT00157755|191564179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.215
95797380|NCT00157755|191564179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in the frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in frequency of weekly vomiting episodes from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||1.0
95797381|NCT00157755|191564180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.903
95941417|NCT00429364|191850185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are based on a linear regression mixed-effect model comparing slopes under compound symmetry, with adjustment for baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95745393|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.64||||||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.64|-1.16|
95745394|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.35||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-2.37|
95745395|NCT02725411|191462546|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.42||||||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.42|-1.35|
95745396|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|26.3||||||Week 16: \>=30%||26.3|-0.8|
95745397|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|12.4||||||Week 16: \>=30%||12.4|-15.8|
95797382|NCT00157755|191564180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from when stimulation was turned OFF to when stimulation was turned ON, µ ≠ 0"||||0.932
95941418|NCT00429364|191850186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression model adjusted for age at study visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95941419|NCT00429364|191850187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
95941420|NCT00429364|191850188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95745398|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.0||||||Week 16: \>=50%||32.0|4.2|
95745399|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.3||||||Week 16: \>=50%||16.3|-10.7|
95745400|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|20.7||||||Week 16: \>=70%||20.7|0.6|
95745401|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.1||||||Week 16: \>=70%||18.1|-1.4|
95745402|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.5||||||Week 16: \>=90%||6.5|-4.3|
95745403|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.8||||||Week 16: \>=90%||7.8|-3.7|
95745404|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|25.7||||||Week 24: \>=30%||25.7|-2.3|
95745405|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.6||||||Week 24: \>=30%||12.6|-15.9|
95745406|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 24: \>=50%||25.8|-2.4|
95797383|NCT00157755|191564181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95989794|NCT03850912|191954641|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.328||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-0.062|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||-0.062|-2.593|0.04
95989795|NCT03850912|191954641|OTHER||Difference|-1.958||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-0.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.646|-3.269|0.004
95989796|NCT03850912|191954642|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.925||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.985|0.136|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.136|-1.985|0.09
95745407|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|18.9||||||Week 24: \>=50%||18.9|-9.1|
95745408|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|24.8||||||Week 24: \>=70%||24.8|2.9|
95745409|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|21.0||||||Week 24: \>=70%||21.0|-0.2|
95745410|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4||||||Week 24: \>=90%||11.4|-0.7|
95745411|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 24: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
95797384|NCT00157755|191564181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change from baseline in the long-term frequency of weekly vomiting episodes, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95989797|NCT03850912|191954642|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.474|-0.557|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-0.557|-2.474|0.002
95989798|NCT03850912|191954643|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.767||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.532|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.433|-2.532|0.17
95989799|NCT03850912|191954643|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.198|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.259|-1.137|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||-1.137|-3.259|<0.0001
95745412|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|30.9||||||Week 40: \>=30%||30.9|3.1|
95745413|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|13.7||||||Week 40: \>=30%||13.7|-14.8|
95745414|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.0||||||Week 40: \>=50%||31.0|3.0|
95745415|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.7||||||Week 40: \>=50%||18.7|-9.0|
95745416|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|29.4||||||Week 40: \>=70%||29.4|4.6|
95745417|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|18.9||||||Week 40: \>=70%||18.9|-4.5|
95745418|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.5||||||Week 40: \>=90%||13.5|1.4|
95745419|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.6||||||Week 40: \>=90%||10.6|-0.1|
95745420|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.8||||||Week 56: \>=30%||25.8|-2.4|
95745421|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|10.5||||||Week 56: \>=30%||10.5|-17.9|
95745422|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|25.9||||||Week 56: \>=50%||25.9|-2.5|
95745423|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.4||||||Week 56: \>=50%||11.4|-16.5|
95745424|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|30.5||||||Week 56: \>=70%||30.5|5.6|
95745425|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|20.0||||||Week 56: \>=70%||20.0|-3.6|
95745426|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.4||||||Week 56: \>=90%||15.4|1.6|
95745427|NCT02725411|191462550|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||Week 56: \>=90%||8.5|-2.2|
95745428|NCT02725411|191462566|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||4.1|-4.1|
95745429|NCT02725411|191462566|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested in the study.|Difference in proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.5||||||95% CI of proportion is the Agresti-Coull confidence limit.||8.5|-2.2|
95745430|NCT02911935|191462601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.34||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||The primary analysis tested the statistical null hypothesis of equal recurrent wheeze rates between the azithromycin and placebo groups.||2.34|0.95|0.08
95745431|NCT02911935|191462601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||p-value is adjusted for race, parental history of asthma, ever exposed to smoke and ever exposed to pets. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.29|0.92|0.11
95745432|NCT02911935|191462602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.61||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Log Rank|||||4.61|0.83|0.12
95745433|NCT02911935|191462603|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.62||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.62|0.86|0.31
95745434|NCT02911935|191462604|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.22||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.48|0.6|0.57
95745435|NCT02911935|191462605|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.34||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.57||unadjusted P-value. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||2.57|0.70|0.38
95745436|NCT02911935|191462606|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22||Unadjusted. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Negative Binomial Regression Analysis|||||1.22|0.7|0.56
95745437|NCT04979858|191462636|OTHER|The statistical analysis involved the use of a single-factor ANOVA test to assess the importance of the various factors associated with the design of the Focal Mask (the Treatment) that would impact its performance in reducing the spread of COVID-19, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Bonferroni t-test was conducted post hoc to assess the statistical significance of the various factors.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95745438|NCT02418754|191462657|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.58||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.22||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||1.22|-4.37|0.2052
95745439|NCT02418754|191462657|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and treatment group, baseline angiographic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) subtype (predominantly or minimally classic versus occult versus occult with no classic lesions) as fixed factors.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||To control for the family-wise type I error rate of 5%, for each of the 2 REGN2176-3 groups the 2-sided hypothesis comparing REGN2176-3 (1 mg: 2 mg) vs. Intravitreal Aflibercept Injection (IAI) 2 mg was tested at a significance level of α = 2.5%.||0.61|-4.00|0.0982
95989800|NCT03850912|191954644|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.8084||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.431|-2.048|0.2
95989801|NCT03850912|191954644|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.652||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.496|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.496|-1.800|0.27
95745440|NCT00462839|191462665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post-hoc comparison of 500ml, 1000ml and 2000ml volumes were greater in the non-calibrated drape first group. Post-hoc comparisons made using Bonferroni correct t-test for 8 comparisons.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing all levels of blood estimation (P=0.0002). Post-hoc comparisons using Bonferroni corrects t-tests.||||<0.05
95797385|NCT00157755|191564182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||0.014
95989802|NCT03850912|191954645|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.617||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.386|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.386|-1.620|0.23
95989803|NCT03850912|191954645|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.434||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.431|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||1.431|-0.563|0.39
95745441|NCT00462839|191462666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.76
95745442|NCT00462839|191462667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.72
95745443|NCT00462839|191462668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.89
95745444|NCT00860262|191462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus Telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.3|-12.9|<0.0001
95745445|NCT00860262|191462676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.1|-6.7|0.0002
95745446|NCT00860262|191462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-8.2|-13.1|<0.0001
95745447|NCT00860262|191462677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.3|0.0001
95745448|NCT00860262|191462678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-7.7|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-7.7|-12.6|<0.0001
95745449|NCT00860262|191462678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
95745450|NCT00860262|191462679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-5.4|-10.2|<0.0001
95745451|NCT00860262|191462679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.3|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-2.3|-7.0|0.0001
95745452|NCT00860262|191462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus telmisartan 80 mg|||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
95745453|NCT00860262|191462680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference calculated as T80+A10 minus amlodipine 10 mg|||-0.9|-5.7|0.0077
95745454|NCT01160640|191462718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value for proportion of women who had clearance of anaerobic organisms from the endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.046
95745455|NCT01160640|191462720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value for proportion of women who did not have M. genitalium detected in the cervix or endometrium at the 30-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
95745456|NCT01160640|191462721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value for proportion of women who experienced resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of PID at the 3-day visit|Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
95745457|NCT01525628|191462758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|251.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.54|307.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||307.43|205.54|1.0000
95745458|NCT01525628|191462758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|131.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.4|163.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||163.57|105.40|0.6514
95745459|NCT01525628|191462759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|381.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|317.01|458.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||458.19|317.01|1.0000
95745460|NCT01525628|191462759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|123.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0||0.4718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|161.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.51|94.66|0.4718
95745461|NCT01525628|191462760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|306.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|250.93|374.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||374.26|250.93|1.0000
95745462|NCT01525628|191462760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|129.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5||0.6185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.26|161.71|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 201335 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||161.71|104.26|0.6185
95797386|NCT00157755|191564182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A one-sided significance level of 0.025 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|binomial, 1 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The percentage of responders was less than or equal to 50%;~Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of responders was greater than 50%"||||<0.001
95941421|NCT00429364|191850189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
95941422|NCT00429364|191850190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95941423|NCT00429364|191850191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
95941424|NCT00429364|191850192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95941425|NCT00429364|191850193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95941426|NCT00429364|191850194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95941427|NCT00429364|191850196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
95941428|NCT00429364|191850198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.13
95941429|NCT00429364|191850200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
95941430|NCT00429364|191850202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.10
95941431|NCT05873556|191850234|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.27|0.74|0.83
95745463|NCT01525628|191462761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|286.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.51|357.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||357.97|228.51|1.0000
95745464|NCT01525628|191462761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|150.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.1||0.821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.81|211.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||211.91|106.81|0.8210
95745465|NCT01525628|191462762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|349.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|269.12|454.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||454.93|269.12|1.0000
95745466|NCT01525628|191462762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|176.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.95|247.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||247.50|125.95|0.9533
95745467|NCT01525628|191462763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|322.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.24|406.34|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||406.34|256.24|1.0000
95745468|NCT01525628|191462763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|145.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.2||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.83|217.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 207127 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||217.69|97.83|0.7461
95745469|NCT01525628|191462764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|355.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|298.13|422.83|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||422.83|298.13|1.0000
95745470|NCT01525628|191462764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|120.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.3||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.68|174.01|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||174.01|83.68|0.4337
95745471|NCT01525628|191462765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|397.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|330.79|478.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||478.22|330.79|1.0000
95745472|NCT01525628|191462765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|142.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.1||0.7346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|203.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||203.44|99.49|0.7346
95745473|NCT01525628|191462766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|403.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|332.19|490.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||490.99|332.19|1.0000
95941432|NCT05873556|191850234|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.83|0.61
95989804|NCT03850912|191954646|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.829|0.429|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (medical oncology cohort only)||0.429|-1.829|0.22
95989805|NCT03850912|191954646|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|0.472|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariable regression analyses (surgical cohort only)||0.472|-1.632|0.28
95745474|NCT01525628|191462766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|116.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.1||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.38|181.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI 208833 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||181.47|75.38|0.3968
95745475|NCT01525628|191462767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|408.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.15|529.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||529.90|315.15|1.0000
95745476|NCT01525628|191462767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|301.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.1||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|204.61|443.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||443.35|204.61|0.9993
95745477|NCT01525628|191462768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|450.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|343.67|590.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||590.57|343.67|1.0000
95858659|NCT02691507|191675191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.301|27.352||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||27.352|11.301|<0.001
95858660|NCT02691507|191675192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858661|NCT02691507|191675192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.009
95858662|NCT02691507|191675192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.829|24.187||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.187|7.829|<0.001
95941433|NCT05873556|191850235|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.72|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.72|0.79|0.45
95989806|NCT03850912|191954647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (chemo and surgical patients combined)||0.913|0.776|<0.001
95745478|NCT01525628|191462768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|341.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.1||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.22|510.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||510.13|229.22|0.9996
95858663|NCT02691507|191675193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858664|NCT02691507|191675193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.003
95858665|NCT02691507|191675193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.684|20.82||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||20.820|5.684|<0.001
95989807|NCT03850912|191954647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.885|0.688|<0.001
95858666|NCT02691507|191675194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858667|NCT02691507|191675194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.049
95941434|NCT05873556|191850235|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.79|0.77|0.46
95941435|NCT05873556|191850236|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.77|0.62
95941436|NCT05873556|191850236|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.48|0.87|0.34
95941437|NCT05873556|191850237|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.54|0.76|0.66
95941438|NCT05873556|191850237|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=93 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.75|0.92
95941439|NCT04047602|191850238|EQUIVALENCE|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.|Binomial Proportion|0.083||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.385||The p-value reported is the one-sided p-value from the exact equivalence binomial test using an alpha value of 0.05.|Exact Binomial Test||The binomial proportion 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson (Exact) method.|The observed proportion of evaluable patients with symptomatic radiation necrosis was calculated and tested against a baseline 6-month symptomatic radiation necrosis rate of 16% at a type I error rate of 5% using a one-sided binomial exact test. The null hypothesis is that the observed proportion is equivalent to 16% or 0.160.||0.385|0.002|0.234
95941440|NCT04047602|191850241|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.285
95941441|NCT04047602|191850242|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
95941442|NCT04047602|191850243|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
95941443|NCT04047602|191850246|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across SRS groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.248
95941444|NCT04047602|191850247|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across brain metastases groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.292
95941445|NCT04047602|191850248|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Klein Method|||The method of Klein et al., (Klein et.al., 2007) was used to compare the 12-month survival probabilities across ICI groups. The null hypothesis was that the survival probabilities were equal.||||0.289
95941446|NCT05683340|191850309|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.482||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-16.85|||MMRM||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-16.85|-26.71|0.001
95941447|NCT03505008|191850316|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 90% CI for the intergroup difference in SDAI remission rates to exceed the non-inferiority margin of -15%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||||||
95941448|NCT03916185|191850387|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|32.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||32|-32|>0.99
95941449|NCT03916185|191850387|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-15.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-46|0.53
95941450|NCT03916185|191850387|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|52.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||52|-29|0.66
95941451|NCT03916185|191850388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||20|-20|>0.99
95941452|NCT03916185|191850388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||13|-25|>0.99
95941453|NCT03916185|191850388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|34.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||34|-26|>0.99
95745479|NCT01525628|191462769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|466.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.6||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|357.02|610.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||610.66|357.02|1.0000
95745480|NCT01525628|191462769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|298.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|79.2||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.22|476.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168 at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||476.15|187.22|0.9972
95745481|NCT01525628|191462770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|528.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.0||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|415.88|672.75|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||672.75|415.88|1.0000
95745482|NCT01525628|191462770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|384.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.2||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|251.56|586.16|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||586.16|251.56|0.9998
95745483|NCT01525628|191462771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|569.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.49|725.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||725.57|447.49|1.0000
95745484|NCT01525628|191462771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|441.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.9||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.81|680.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||680.82|286.81|0.9999
95745485|NCT01525628|191462772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 9 (%)|606.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|471.42|779.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 17 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 9||779.74|471.42|1.0000
95941454|NCT03916185|191850389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
95989808|NCT03850912|191954647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.990|0.799|0.032
95989809|NCT03850912|191954648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.949|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.949|0.839|<0.001
95745486|NCT01525628|191462772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 9 (%)|377.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.0||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.48|611.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of BI CD 6168-ag at Day 66 vs. Day 9 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 9||611.91|233.48|0.9994
95797387|NCT00157755|191564183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95941455|NCT03916185|191850389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|18.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||18|-18|>0.99
95941456|NCT03916185|191850389|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|41.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||41|-17|>0.99
95989810|NCT03850912|191954648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.872||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.954|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.954|0.796|0.003
95989811|NCT03850912|191954648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.909||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.989|0.835|0.027
95989812|NCT03850912|191954649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.636|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.682|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.682|0.593|<0.001
95745487|NCT01525628|191462773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|117.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||117.69|80.00|0.0500
95941457|NCT03916185|191850390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
95745488|NCT01525628|191462773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|97.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.37|118.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||118.79|79.37|0.0564
95745489|NCT01525628|191462773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|114.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.36|141.66|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.66|92.36|0.2375
95745490|NCT01525628|191462773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|139.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.63|159.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||159.00|121.63|0.9082
95745491|NCT01525628|191462773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|143.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||143.84|104.11|0.4111
95745492|NCT01525628|191462773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|121.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.7||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.24|141.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||141.45|104.24|0.3719
95797388|NCT00157755|191564183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in total symptom score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95797389|NCT00157755|191564184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95797390|NCT00157755|191564184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in PCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.043
95797391|NCT00157755|191564185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.009
95941458|NCT03916185|191850390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||79|22|<0.001
95941459|NCT03916185|191850390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|56.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|86.0|||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||86|9|0.011
95941460|NCT03916185|191850390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|6.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|36.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||36|-25|>0.99
95941461|NCT03916185|191850390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|5.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|48.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||48|-31|>0.99
95941462|NCT03916185|191850390|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|44.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||44|-38|>0.99
95941463|NCT03916185|191850391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|91.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||91|44|<0.001
95941464|NCT03916185|191850391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||83|27|<0.001
95989813|NCT03850912|191954649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.679|0.550|<0.001
95745493|NCT01525628|191462774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|88.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.8||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.39|100.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||100.89|77.39|0.1037
95745494|NCT01525628|191462774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|159.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.8||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.06|227.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||227.93|111.06|0.8723
95745495|NCT01525628|191462774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|259.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.5||0.983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.65|447.21|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||447.21|150.65|0.9830
95745496|NCT01525628|191462774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.52|207.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||207.52|129.52|0.9689
95745497|NCT01525628|191462774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|219.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.84|314.26|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||314.26|153.84|0.9933
95745498|NCT01525628|191462774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|214.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.8||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.88|315.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of caffeine at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||315.09|145.88|0.9865
95989814|NCT03850912|191954649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.719|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.719|0.597|<0.001
95989815|NCT03850912|191954650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology and surgical patients combined)||0.811|0.729|<0.001
95989816|NCT03850912|191954650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.858|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (medical oncology patients only)||0.858|0.737|<0.001
95745499|NCT01525628|191462775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|96.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|105.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||105.13|87.77|0.0015
95745500|NCT01525628|191462775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|85.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.32|95.57|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||95.57|76.32|0.1617
95745501|NCT01525628|191462775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.03|82.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||82.54|65.03|0.8930
95797392|NCT00157755|191564185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Paired t-test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in MCS score from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.001
95989817|NCT03850912|191954650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.796|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analysis comparing intervention responders versus non-responders (surgical patients only)||0.796|0.686|<0.001
95993821|NCT01264939|191963430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.68||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||2.68|1.47|<0.0001
95989818|NCT00848354|191954663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by country, was used to calculate p-value. Assuming ACR50 response at Week 24 to be 23% in the DMARD combination therapy group and 37% in the etanercept + methotrexate group, a study enrolling 276 participants assigned to etanercept + methotrexate and 138 participants assigned to DMARD combination therapy has 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates testing at the type I error = 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
95989819|NCT00848354|191954664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95745502|NCT01525628|191462775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.67|98.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||98.13|86.67|0.0005
95745503|NCT01525628|191462775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|73.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.55|83.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||83.39|65.55|0.8646
95745504|NCT01525628|191462775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|83.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.45|68.15|0.8378
95745505|NCT01525628|191462776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.15|106.91|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||106.91|90.15|0.0005
95745506|NCT01525628|191462776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|81.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.19|87.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||87.82|75.19|0.3638
95745507|NCT01525628|191462776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|83.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||83.22|60.44|0.8975
95745508|NCT01525628|191462776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|86.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|96.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||96.11|77.62|0.1144
95745509|NCT01525628|191462776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|64.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.42|69.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||69.20|60.42|1.0000
95745510|NCT01525628|191462776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|63.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.3||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.19|71.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of tolbutamide at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||71.07|57.19|0.9988
95797393|NCT00157755|191564186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95797394|NCT00157755|191564186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 2-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||<0.001
95745511|NCT01525628|191462777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|144.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.3|163.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||163.36|128.30|0.9749
95745512|NCT01525628|191462777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|152.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.6|181.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||181.89|128.60|0.9703
95745513|NCT01525628|191462777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.85|124.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||124.99|84.85|0.0500
95745514|NCT01525628|191462777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|124.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.91|142.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||142.99|107.91|0.4697
95745515|NCT01525628|191462777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|120.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.47|134.38|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||134.38|108.47|0.2906
95745516|NCT01525628|191462777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|93.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.33|109.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.86|80.33|0.0460
95745517|NCT01525628|191462778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|151.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5||0.9941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.79|170.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||170.64|134.79|0.9941
95797395|NCT00157755|191564187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.016
95745518|NCT01525628|191462778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|163.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.0||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.91|193.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||193.64|137.91|0.9926
95745519|NCT01525628|191462778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|98.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|118.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||118.63|81.20|0.0392
95797396|NCT00157755|191564187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||A significance level of 0.05 was applied to the test. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||"Null hypothesis: There was no change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ = 0;~Alternative hypothesis: There was a change in 4-hour gastric emptying from baseline to 12 months, µ ≠ 0"||||0.236
95941465|NCT03916185|191850391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|85.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|97.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was vaccine arm - placebo.|||97|42|<0.001
95941466|NCT03916185|191850391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|12.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine.|||40|-17|0.66
95941467|NCT03916185|191850391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|30.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV ΔNS2/Δ1313/I1314L Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||30|-36|>0.99
95941468|NCT03916185|191850391|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-24.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|20.0||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Comparison was RSV 6120/ΔNS2/1030s Vaccine - RSV 276 Vaccine.|||20|-50|0.28
95941469|NCT03916185|191850392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95745520|NCT01525628|191462778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|122.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.15|151.55|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||151.55|99.15|0.4374
95745521|NCT01525628|191462778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|130.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.57|158.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||158.18|107.57|0.6470
95745522|NCT01525628|191462778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.9||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.32|109.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||109.54|70.32|0.2372
95745523|NCT01525628|191462779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|130.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||130.00|106.49|0.1519
95745524|NCT01525628|191462779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|117.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.06|142.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day17 vs. Day 1||142.52|96.06|0.2827
95745525|NCT01525628|191462779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|92.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.6||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.38|114.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||114.07|74.38|0.1326
95745526|NCT01525628|191462779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|95.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.63|113.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||113.24|80.63|0.0432
95745527|NCT01525628|191462779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|75.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.64|88.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||88.82|63.64|0.7367
95797397|NCT01719653|191564188|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 was lower than 3,4,5; 2 was lower than 5. Modified Chicago BPS Total Score -- 1 were lower than 5. Chicago BPS Fluid Score -- 1 was dryer than 3,4,5; 2 was dryer than 3,4,5; 3 was wetter than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.005
95797398|NCT01719653|191564189|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||1 was lower than 4,5.|t-test, 2 sided|||"All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.~1=G+PEG-306 2=G+PEG-357 3=G+PEG-Split 4=PEG+Asc-Split 5=SS-Split"||||<0.001
95797399|NCT01719653|191564190|OTHER||||||>|0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||All 5 arms were compared pair-wise.||||>0.005
95941470|NCT03916185|191850392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95941471|NCT03916185|191850392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95941472|NCT03916185|191850392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95941473|NCT03916185|191850392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95941474|NCT03916185|191850392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
95941475|NCT03916185|191850393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95941476|NCT03916185|191850393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95941477|NCT03916185|191850393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95941478|NCT03916185|191850393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95941479|NCT03916185|191850393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95989820|NCT00848354|191954665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for vitality domain at Week 24.||||0.0003
95745528|NCT01525628|191462779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|70.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.84|86.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||86.56|56.84|0.8547
95745529|NCT01525628|191462780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|135.39|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||135.39|77.89|0.1159
95745530|NCT01525628|191462780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|99.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|127.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||127.64|78.33|0.0651
95745531|NCT01525628|191462780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.3||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.5|98.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||98.07|62.50|0.5658
95745532|NCT01525628|191462780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 9 vs. Day 1 (%)|108.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.2||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|133.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 9 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 9 vs. Day 1||133.99|87.46|0.1286
95745533|NCT01525628|191462780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 17 vs. Day 1 (%)|87.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.8||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.56|104.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 17 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 17 vs. Day 1||104.30|73.56|0.1898
95745534|NCT01525628|191462780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside 80% to 125%|Ratio of gmeans Day 66 vs. Day 1 (%)|78.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.3||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|99.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'subject' as random, whereas the 'treatment' as fixed effect.|Relative bioavailability of 1-OH-Midazolam at Day 66 vs. Day 1 -was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|Day 66 vs. Day 1||99.51|61.81|0.5575
95941480|NCT03916185|191850393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Statistical significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95745535|NCT02627001|191462791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<0.001
95745536|NCT01992094|191462792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H1N1||1.1|0.9|
95745537|NCT01992094|191462792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain H3N2||1.1|0.9|
95745538|NCT01992094|191462792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.0|0.8|
95941481|NCT04228042|191850407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95989821|NCT00848354|191954665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for mental component at Week 24.||||0.0002
95989822|NCT00848354|191954665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for physical component at Week 24.||||<0.0001
95941482|NCT04228042|191850407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95941483|NCT04228042|191850407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95941484|NCT04228042|191850407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95745539|NCT01992094|191462792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.0|0.9|
95745540|NCT01992094|191462793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain H1N1||4.2|-5.3|
95745541|NCT01992094|191462793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strainH3N2||1.9|-7.2|
95745542|NCT01992094|191462793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||2.8|-6.2|
95745543|NCT01992094|191462793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference between seroconversion rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||0.2|-8.9|
95745544|NCT01992094|191462799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||0.7|0.6|
95745545|NCT01992094|191462800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||-15.5|-23.2|
95745546|NCT01992094|191462801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c or TIV2c /GMT QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1.|Ratios of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.5||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||0.5|0.5|
95745547|NCT01992094|191462802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points.|Difference between seroconversion rates|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.7||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||-17.7|-25.5|
95745548|NCT03429049|191462834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The NRS least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.17|-0.84|0.1904
95745549|NCT03429049|191462835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC A least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||-0.33|-5.07|0.0257
95941485|NCT05485779|191850424|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.17||||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.27|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 30.4. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.27|1.07|0.6358
95941486|NCT05485779|191850424|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.9. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|0.963|0.5506
95797400|NCT01101178|191564204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.21|114.47|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||114.47|105.21|
95989823|NCT00848354|191954666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on ranks of change in mTSS with treatment group and center main effects and the Baseline rank as covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0270
95745550|NCT03429049|191462836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC B least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.13|-2.01|0.0855
95745551|NCT03429049|191462837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.096||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The WOMAC C least squares mean difference in change from baseline between treatment arms was analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). It included terms for treatment, pooled study center, baseline K L grade category for the index knee, baseline BMI category, sex, study week, treatment by visit study week interaction, and baseline average daily pain with walking NPRS (0-10) score as covariates, using an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-15.86|0.0550
95745552|NCT01560819|191462860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||A power calculation was not done for this pilot study. Changes in PUCAI post-treatment were compared with baseline using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
95745553|NCT00951093|191462898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P value adjusted for multiple comparisons|Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||<0.001
95745554|NCT00951093|191462899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.002
95745555|NCT00951093|191462900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|||||||< 0.001
95745556|NCT00951093|191462901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.020
95745557|NCT00951093|191462902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
95745558|NCT00951093|191462903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||0.001
95745559|NCT00951093|191462904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Friedman´s test|followed by nonparametric pairwise multiple comparisons||||||< 0.001
95745560|NCT00996437|191462905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference in Cumulative Prob|4.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||Log Rank|After adjusting for potential confounding factors, time to vitrectomy remained similar between treatment groups.||The cumulative probabilities of vitrectomy by 16 weeks in each group were computed using the life-table method. Treatment group comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. The treatment difference in cumulative probabilities and 95% confidence interval were reported.||13|-4|0.37
95745561|NCT00996437|191462906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value corresponds with recurrent vitreous hemorrhage evaluated on clinical exam between the two treatment arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95745562|NCT00996437|191462907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3|||Log Rank|||||2.30|1.03|0.05
95745563|NCT00996437|191462908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|GLM with GEE method|Number of subjects with baseline OCT ss=0 and OCT ss\>0 and no vitrectomy at follow up. A generalized GLM with GEE was used for treatment comparisons.||Signal strength was analyzed as a composite outcome defined as OCT signal strength \> = and no vitrectomy vs. OCT signal strength = 0.||||0.87
95745564|NCT00996437|191462909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value corresponds to the 12 week visit treatment comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparisons were performed using a longitudinal mixed model adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||||||.04
95745565|NCT00996437|191462911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value corresponds with the 12 week visit treatment comparison|Fisher Exact|At the each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact test.||||||.023
95745566|NCT00996437|191462912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|At each time point, treatment comparison analysis was performed using a Fisher Exact Test.||||||0.27
95745567|NCT00831233|191462982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|1.61||FAS.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.61|-7.51|0.1973
95745568|NCT00831233|191462982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The trial was positive if the treatment contrast of degarelix versus goserelin plus bicalutamide in adjusted (for baseline total IPSS, age, and country) mean change from baseline in total IPSS was statistically significantly smaller (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ=3 points in both the FAS and the PP analysis set.~If the Week 12 treatment assessment of IPSS was missing the LOCF approach was used, i.e., the IPSS closest to and before Week 12 was used."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.291||PP analysis set.|ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||-0.291|-11.5|0.0398
95745569|NCT00831233|191462983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-6.58|0.2298
95745570|NCT00831233|191462983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.02|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.02|-5.98|0.6917
95989824|NCT00848354|191954667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95745571|NCT00831233|191462984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.553||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.22|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||4.22|-5.33|0.8151
95745572|NCT00831233|191462984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.38|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||5.38|-2.46|0.455
95745573|NCT00831233|191462984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.08|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||6.08|-2.04|0.3186
95745574|NCT00831233|191462985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|68.2|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 4. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||68.2|-37.8|0.5627
95745575|NCT00831233|191462985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|60.9|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 8. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||60.9|-49.1|0.8284
95745576|NCT00831233|191462985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|58.8|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Week 12. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||58.8|-34.4|0.5984
95989825|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||18.2|2.25|<0.0001
95989826|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.49||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||9.49|2.62|<0.0001
95745577|NCT00831233|191462986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.64|||ANCOVA|The baseline score, age, and country were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis for the FAS.||Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment and country as factors and age and baseline value as covariates.||1.64|-17.3|0.1018
95745578|NCT02051595|191462995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate (beta) from mixed model|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.039||A priori threshold was set to p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses modeled change in vancomycin concentrations (independent variable defined by time). Analyses were adjusted for covariates.|Negative beta value indicates that vancomycin concentration decreased following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).|||-0.039|-0.098|<0.0001
95745579|NCT00407745|191463033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.2||Significance was declared if the 2-tailed test for the difference between treatment groups was significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group is equal to the mean DAAC for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean DAAC for the placebo group differs from the mean DAAC for the pregabalin group.~ANCOVA model included baseline severity of pain and Baseline Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Total Score as covariates and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors."||-0.20|-0.98|0.0032
95745580|NCT00407745|191463034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing procedure was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in a hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value was significant at 0.05 level (\<=0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline severity (pain) and baseline PCS as covariates and effects for treatment and pooled center as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0066
95745581|NCT00407745|191463035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|3.328||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used terms for baseline pain score and baseline PCS total score as covariate, and pooled center and treatment as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group||3.328|1.032|0.0390
95797401|NCT01101178|191564205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.71|96.64|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||96.64|92.71|
95797402|NCT01101178|191564206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|97.02|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.02|92.90|
95989827|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.94||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.94|2.19|<0.0001
95745582|NCT00407745|191463036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test was used with adjusting for pooled center.||Null hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The raw mean score for the pregabain group was not equal to the raw mean score for the placebo group.||||0.0006
95745583|NCT00407745|191463037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.56||Serial gate-keeping multiple testing was used. If primary comparison for DAAC was significant, then variables were assessed in hierarchical manner. Significance was declared if unadjusted p-value at 0.05 level and preceding tests were significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline sleep interference score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.56|-1.60|<0.0001
95745584|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.05|-0.94|0.0295
95745585|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.22|-1.11|0.0033
95745586|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.09||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.09|-0.98|0.0185
95745587|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.10|0.0040
95989828|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|6.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.53|2.57|<0.0001
95989829|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.16||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.16|2.51|<0.0001
95797403|NCT04739800|191564224|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.31|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||2.31|0.44|
95797404|NCT04739800|191564224|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.84|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||2.84|0.52|
95797405|NCT04739800|191564224|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|3.08|0.58|
95858668|NCT02691507|191675194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.138||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.766|22.387||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||22.387|5.766|0.001
95858669|NCT02691507|191675195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858670|NCT02691507|191675195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.024
95797406|NCT04739800|191564227|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 2 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.47|||||This is the Hazard Ratio for Group 2 compared to Group 1.|||4.47|0.44|
95797407|NCT04739800|191564227|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.19|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 3 compared to Group 1.|||4.19|0.40|
95941487|NCT05485779|191850425|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.13||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.22|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.22|1.04|0.3653
95989830|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||5.93|2.46|<0.0001
95989831|NCT00848354|191954670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|8.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||8.53|3.41|<0.0001
95989832|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.21|2.37|<0.0001
95745588|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.26|0.0004
95745589|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.27||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.27|-1.17|0.0018
95745590|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.14|0.0027
95745591|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.21||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.21|-1.11|0.0041
95745592|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
95745593|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.23||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.23|-1.14|0.0031
95797408|NCT04739800|191564227|EQUIVALENCE|This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.08|||||This is the Hazard Ratio of Group 4 compared to Group 1.|||3.08|0.58|
95797409|NCT05227677|191564229|SUPERIORITY|FAS analysis||||||0.9917||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.9917
95989833|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.11||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.11|2.19|<0.0001
95797410|NCT05227677|191564229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6555|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.6555
95797411|NCT05227677|191564230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0649||||||The threshold for statical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS analysis||||0.0649
95797412|NCT05227677|191564230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0342
95797413|NCT05227677|191564231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2199||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Chi-squared|||FAS Analysis||||0.2199
95745594|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.17|-1.08|0.0076
95745595|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.04|-0.95|0.0328
95745596|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.11|-1.02|0.0150
95745597|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
95941488|NCT05485779|191850425|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.2933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 27.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.31|1.01|0.2933
95797414|NCT05227677|191564231|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.||||||0.0769|||||||Chi-squared|||PPS analysis||||0.0769
95797415|NCT05227677|191564232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0200
95797416|NCT05227677|191564232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0147
95941489|NCT05485779|191850426|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|1.41|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 64.3. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.41|0.908|0.4600
95941490|NCT05485779|191850426|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.45|||Lack of Fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 65.6. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.45|0.795|0.3157
95941491|NCT05485779|191850427|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.2||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.37|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.2. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 3 to 60 mg AQ280||1.37|1.02|0.2350
95941492|NCT05485779|191850427|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.19||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5|||Lack of fit 1-sided p-value|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 58.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Single Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280||1.50|0.880|0.1632
95797417|NCT05227677|191564233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||FAS analysis||||0.0256
95797418|NCT05227677|191564233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||PPS analysis||||0.0181
95797419|NCT05227677|191564234|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit3 (FAS)||||>0.999
95797420|NCT05227677|191564234|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.6175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 4 (FAS)||||0.6175
95745598|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.24||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.24|-1.15|0.0030
95989834|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.43||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||4.43|1.90|<0.0001
95745599|NCT00407745|191463038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.3||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, study center, time (week), baseline pain score, baseline PCS total score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.30|-1.22|0.0011
95745600|NCT00407745|191463039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|4.546||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression used terms for treatment, baseline pain score as covariate, baseline PCS total score, and pooled center as cofactor.||Null hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of responder for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of responder for the placebo group.||4.546|1.103|0.0256
95745601|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.35||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 1.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
95745602|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.43||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week2~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.43|-1.31|<0.0001
95797421|NCT05227677|191564234|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.|||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit 3 (PPS)||||>0.999
95858671|NCT02691507|191675195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.679||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.862|23.66||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||23.660|4.862|0.004
95858672|NCT02691507|191675196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858673|NCT02691507|191675196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.015
95858674|NCT02691507|191675196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|21.252||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.252|4.291|0.004
95858675|NCT02691507|191675197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||<0.001
95858676|NCT02691507|191675197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis was no difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between the baseline score and the post-baseline score.||||0.034
95858677|NCT02691507|191675197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|24.621||The significance level threshold level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline as response, baseline score as covariate and treatment as factor.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||24.621|0.805|0.037
95858678|NCT00472576|191675245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|3.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean differences reflect groups differences at end point.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||3.671|0.911|.001
95745603|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.36|-1.24|0.0004
95745604|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.32||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.32|-1.20|0.0008
95745605|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 5.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.38|<0.0001
95745606|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.48|-1.37|<0.0001
95745607|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 7.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.35|<0.0001
95745608|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.46|-1.35|<0.0001
95745609|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.5||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 9.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.50|-1.39|<0.0001
95745610|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 10.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
95745611|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 11.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.49|-1.39|<0.0001
95745612|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 12.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.37|<0.0001
95797422|NCT05227677|191564234|EQUIVALENCE|Compare the percentage of hypoglycemia in each group and whether the percentage of hypoglycemia is equivalent between the GA guided therapy group and the Standard therapy group.||||||0.5979||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Fisher Exact|||At Visit4 (PPS)||||0.5979
95797423|NCT05227677|191564235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0404
95797424|NCT05227677|191564235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0330
95797425|NCT05227677|191564236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0408
95941493|NCT05485779|191850428|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.04|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 5.66. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.04|0.915|
95745613|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.47||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 13.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.47|-1.38|<0.0001
95745614|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.51||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 14.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.51|-1.41|<0.0001
95745615|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.63||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 15.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.63|-1.53|<0.0001
95745616|NCT00407745|191463040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 16.~A longitudinal analysis of weekly mean changes using repeated measures mixed models which compared treatments at each week and the last scheduled study week based on this model (to assess durability of treatment effect) was used.~Effects for treatment, pooled center, time (week), baseline score, and treatment by time interaction were included as covariates. The covariance structure was compound-symmetric."||-0.61|-1.51|<0.0001
95745617|NCT00407745|191463041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline mBPI-10 Total Score as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.02|-1.08|0.0438
95745618|NCT00407745|191463042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.72||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/above level: within 2 dermatomes above or below the neurological level of injury (NLI).~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.72|-1.06|0.7103
95745619|NCT00407745|191463042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Static Mechanical Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level: more than 2 dermatomes below the NLI.~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.06|-1.28|0.0747
95745620|NCT00407745|191463043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.54||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.54|-0.97|0.5689
95941494|NCT05485779|191850429|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|1.02|||||Within-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 20.5. Data analyzed using a mixed model included treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. ln(parameter)=treatment+subject+random error, with subject fitted as a random effect.|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess the Effect of Food on Single Oral Doses of 16 mg AQ280||1.02|0.635|
95745621|NCT00407745|191463043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Dynamic Mechanical Allodynia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-0.87|0.4764
95989835|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||4.96|2.06|<0.0001
95745622|NCT00407745|191463044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.40|0.3362
95745623|NCT00407745|191463044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.31||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Punctate Hyperalgesia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.31|-0.96|0.3113
95745624|NCT00407745|191463045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.2721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.48||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.48|-1.67|0.2721
95745625|NCT00407745|191463045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.4906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Temporal Summation to stimuli as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.90|-0.43|0.4906
95745626|NCT00407745|191463046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.46||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.46|-1.42|0.3123
95745627|NCT00407745|191463046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.18||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Allodynia as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.18|-1.28|0.1360
95745628|NCT00407745|191463047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.65||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"At/Above level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.65|-1.53|0.4257
95745629|NCT00407745|191463047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline QANeP - Cold Hyperalgesia Subscales as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Below level~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.28|-1.34|0.2005
95941495|NCT05485779|191850431|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.15||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.34|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 28.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.34|0.954|0.1558
95941496|NCT05485779|191850432|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.26|||Lack of Fit 2-sided model|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 24.0. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error|Statistical Analysis of AQ280 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 QD for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.26|0.946|0.5458
95941497|NCT05485779|191850433|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.941||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.28||Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Lack of fit 2-sided||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 54.7. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.602|0.4856
95989836|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.21|2.46|<0.0001
95745630|NCT00407745|191463048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - 12 Items Total Intensity Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.01|-0.09|0.1377
95745631|NCT00407745|191463049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Burning Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.11|0.3312
95745632|NCT00407745|191463050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Pressing Spontaneous Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.00|-0.13|0.0440
95745633|NCT00407745|191463051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paroxysmal Pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.02|-0.12|0.1370
95941498|NCT05485779|191850434|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.28|||Lack of fit 2-sided|Lack of Fit Model: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + dose + random error|Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 45.5. Data were analyzed using a power model. ln(parameter) = intercept + slope ×ln(dose) + random error.|Statistical Analysis of Metabolite AQ282 Primary Pharmacokinetic Endpoints to Assess Dose Proportionality of Multiple Oral Doses of 9 to 60 mg AQ280 once daily for 7 Consecutive Days in a Fasted State||1.28|0.666|0.1455
95745634|NCT00407745|191463052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Evoked pain as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.05|-0.06|0.8911
95745635|NCT00407745|191463053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Paresthesia/Dysesthesia as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.04|-0.10|0.3731
95745636|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 1 - Burning pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.13|0.3312
95745637|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.12||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 2 - Squeezing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.12|-1.37|0.0976
95797426|NCT05227677|191564236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0322
95797427|NCT05227677|191564237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0303
95941499|NCT05163496|191850474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS score from the preparation 1 session to day 28 would be the same in both niacin and psilocybin groups. The alternative hypothesis was that the change in the psilocybin group would be greater than the change in the niacin group, with an assumed true effect size of 1.06 SD units based on findings in prior studies. With 15 participants per group, this study had 80% power to observe a statistically significant difference between groups.||||<.001
95941500|NCT02724969|191850486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.272
95941501|NCT02724969|191850487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.082
95989837|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|6.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.22|2.45|<0.0001
95989838|NCT00848354|191954672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|7.78||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.78|3.13|<0.0001
95989839|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|40.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||40.9|0.66|0.1086
95797428|NCT05227677|191564237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0264
95797429|NCT05227677|191564238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0374
95797430|NCT05227677|191564238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0313
95797431|NCT05227677|191564239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0086
95797432|NCT05227677|191564239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0156
95797433|NCT05227677|191564240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0118
95797434|NCT05227677|191564240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0191
95745638|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.01||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 3 - Pain like pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.01|-1.54|0.0538
95745639|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.38||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 5 - Electric shocks~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.38|-1.15|0.3239
95745640|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.25||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 6 - Stabbing pain~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.25|-1.23|0.1912
95797435|NCT05227677|191564241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
95797436|NCT05227677|191564241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0175
95797437|NCT05227677|191564242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAS analysis||||0.0065
95797438|NCT05227677|191564242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0188||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PPS analysis||||0.0188
95797439|NCT05227677|191564243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0087
95797440|NCT05227677|191564243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0152
95797441|NCT05227677|191564244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0103
95797442|NCT05227677|191564244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0176
95797443|NCT04880850|191564252|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin glargine) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||0.15|-0.11|<0.0001
95858679|NCT00472576|191675246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.981|2.901||This test is a comparison of the MK-0657 condition to the placebo condition.|Mixed Models Analysis||The primary outcome of interest is whether the groups differ at the end of the study, so the means represent values at that point in time.|A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation was used to examine the effects of treatment (MK-0657 and placebo) over time (treatment day) with the baseline of each phase as a covariate. A main effect for phase of study was also included. Schwarz's Bayesian criteria was used to determine the best fitting variance-covariance structure which was an autoregressive moving average model. Bonferroni adjusted simple effects tests were used to evaluate significant effects.||2.901|-6.981|.272
95858680|NCT02557139|191675249|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
95858681|NCT02557139|191675249|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax null hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 48.00%|125.00|80.00|0.23
95989840|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|12.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||12.3|1.04|0.0392
95745641|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.85||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 8 - By light touching~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.85|-0.55|0.6720
95745642|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.56||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 9 - By pressure~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.56|-0.74|0.7821
95745643|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.55||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 10 - By something cold~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.55|-0.84|0.6851
95745644|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 11 - Pins and needles~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.41|-1.12|0.3610
95745645|NCT00407745|191463054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline NPSI - Individual Item Score as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||"Item 12 - Tingling~Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group."||0.52|-1.07|0.4915
95745646|NCT00407745|191463055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0536||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.0536
95745647|NCT00407745|191463056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3107||95.0||||p-values are adjusted for baseline score. Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with improvement for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with improvement for the placebo group.||||0.3107
95745648|NCT00407745|191463057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.59||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS 9-item Sleep Problems Index as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.59|-9.19|0.0262
95745649|NCT00407745|191463058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-2.78||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep disturbance as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-2.78|-14.55|0.0041
95745650|NCT00407745|191463059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.492||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|12.66||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Adequacy as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.66|-1.11|0.0998
95745651|NCT00407745|191463060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.501||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.61||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Snoring as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||12.61|-1.20|0.1048
95745652|NCT00407745|191463061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.417||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.37||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline MOS - Awaken Short of Breath or with headache as covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.37|-9.91|0.0347
95941502|NCT02724969|191850488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.355
95941503|NCT02724969|191850489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.780
95941504|NCT02724969|191850490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.588
95745653|NCT00407745|191463062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.76||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Sleep Quantity as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.76|0.01|0.0436
95745654|NCT00407745|191463063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|8.49||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline MOS - Somnolence as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||8.49|-2.44|0.2761
95745655|NCT00407745|191463064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|5.491||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model included Pooled Center and Treatment as the categorical factors, and Optimal Sleep Score at Baseline as the covariate.||Null hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - The rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the pregabain group was not equal to the rate of subjects with optimal sleep for the placebo group.||5.491|1.443|0.0024
95745656|NCT00407745|191463065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.17||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Anxiety as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||0.17|-1.54|0.1164
95745657|NCT00407745|191463066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.11||Significance was declared if p-value \<=0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms of baseline HADS - Depression as a covariate and pooled center and treatment as fixed (class) cofactors.||Null hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was the same as the mean of the measure for the placebo group; Alternative hypothesis - the mean of the measure for the pregabalin group was different from the mean of the measure for the placebo group.||-0.11|-1.87|0.0279
95745658|NCT00955552|191463067|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of Ártico vs Cosamin DS® regarding the decrease of pain scale (VAS) in the PP population (N = 86).|||||<|0.05||||||For numeric variables Test -t student or ANOVA will be used. It will be considered statistically significant P-value less than 0,05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95745659|NCT02960438|191463073|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|2.2||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|24.46|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.46|-19.96|0.374
95745660|NCT02960438|191463073|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|11.1||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|29.64|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.64|-7.42|0.102
95745661|NCT02960438|191463073|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|9.3||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|27.77|||Regression, Logistic||Estimate was calculated based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.77|-9.25|0.188
95941505|NCT01236781|191850540|EQUIVALENCE|no margin is assumed.||||||0.46||||||1 degree of freedom;|McNemar|Exact test||"To account for the paired nature of the design, McNemar's test will be used to compare the call-back rates.~H0: assumes no difference between the tests (modalities)"||||0.46
95745662|NCT03449199|191463124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||0.34|-0.44|0.7953
95858682|NCT02557139|191675250|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability: 34.25%|125.00|80.00|<0.001
95858683|NCT02557139|191675250|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-inf) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability;|125.00|80.00|0.16
95858684|NCT02557139|191675250|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of fed vs. fasted is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect of food on belumosudil tablets.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|< 0.001
95858685|NCT02557139|191675250|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval for the comparison of belumosudil tablet (test drug) vs. the belumosudil capsule (reference drug) is within the acceptance range 80.00% to 125.00%, then it is concluded that there is no effect on the use of belumosudi tablet compared to belumosudil capsule.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means (%)|100.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|AUC(0-last) Null Hypothesis: Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means = 100%|Intra-subject variability = 38.16%|125.00|80.00|0.18
95941506|NCT01236781|191850543|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin||||||0.2188||||||Due to the paired nature of the data an exact McNemar's Test is used|McNemar|Exact test||H0: no difference between the 2 modalities||||0.2188
95745663|NCT03449199|191463124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in log-transformed UACR was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment, and randomization strata of sUA and UACR as independent variables. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data. In this study, multiplicity was not considered since the study objective is exploratory.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0311
95745664|NCT03449199|191463125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|5.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||5.78|-2.35|0.4055
95745665|NCT03449199|191463125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|7.46|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of sUA and UACR levels as independent variables, Baseline eGFR as covariate is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||7.46|-0.62|0.0960
95745666|NCT03449199|191463126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-1.74|-3.13|<0.0001
95745667|NCT03449199|191463126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.54|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||-2.54|-3.91|<0.0001
95989841|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||13.6|2.04|<0.0001
95989842|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|13.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||13.6|2.39|<0.0001
95745668|NCT03449199|191463127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-102.02||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.81|134.78|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), an ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||134.78|-338.81|0.3955
95745669|NCT03449199|191463127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-197.49||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.73|37.75|||ANCOVA|||For Week 12 (visit of the primary outcome), ANCOVA model with treatment, randomization strata of UACR levels as independent variables is fitted. The last observation carried forward imputation was used for missing data.||37.75|-432.73|0.0991
95745670|NCT03449199|191463128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Missing observations at Study Week 12 are imputed as nonresponse.|Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.2791
95745671|NCT03449199|191463128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CLs, and p-values are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for treatment group, randomization strata of Baseline sUA (\<6.0 vs ≥6.0 mg/dL) and Baseline UACR (200 to \<300 mg/g vs 300 to ≤3000 mg/g), Baseline UACR and Baseline sUA levels. Odds ratio for a baseline covariate is the ratio of odds over one unit increase of the covariate and it is assumed constant. P-value represents the statistical significance level of odds ratio differing from 1.||||0.0507
95745672|NCT02744755|191463168|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.27|-0.24|
95989843|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||7.09|2.02|<0.0001
95858686|NCT02592798|191675268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|33.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||33.3|-46.8|
95858687|NCT02592798|191675268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|24.3|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||24.3|-63.3|
95858688|NCT02592798|191675269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6495|2.3855|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||2.3855|-1.6495|
95858689|NCT02592798|191675269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7933|5.6954|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||5.6954|-1.7933|
95858690|NCT02592798|191675270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1483|0.4119|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Double-Blind Period Day 113|||0.4119|-0.1483|
95858691|NCT02592798|191675270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5107|0.7551|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||0.7551|-0.5107|
95858692|NCT02592798|191675271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|44.7|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Open Label Period Day 113|||44.7|-44.7|
95858693|NCT02592798|191675272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1395|6.7645|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||6.7645|-8.1395|
95858694|NCT02592798|191675272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9402|6.5402|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||6.5402|-13.9402|
95745673|NCT02744755|191463168|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.23||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 12 will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2017 and Humira is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.23|-0.19|
95745674|NCT02744755|191463169|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.27|-0.11|
95745675|NCT02744755|191463169|EQUIVALENCE|A 0.6 change in DAS28-CRP score is considered as no clinically meaningful difference by EULAR criteria and is therefore used as the equivalence margin limits \[0.6,-0.6\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, body weight as per CRF, prior therapy as per CRF, region as per CRF as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-CRP values as covariate.||0.24|-0.08|
95745676|NCT03180801|191463191|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.03
95745677|NCT03180801|191463191|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower MMID rate than placebo.||||0.07
95745678|NCT03180801|191463192|OTHER|One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rates of vaccine group is higher than the placebo group.||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if the TEAE rates pre-inoculation recorded for the treatment group are higher than for placebo.||||0.647
95745679|NCT03180801|191463192|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group recorded pre-inoculation is higher than placebo.||||1.00
95745680|NCT03180801|191463192|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.0240
95745681|NCT03180801|191463192|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||Fisher Exact|||One sided Fisher's exact test is used to test if TEAE rate of vaccine group post-inoculation is higher than the placebo group.||||0.186
95989844|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.60|2.02|<0.0001
95745682|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.465|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.465
95745683|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least one symptom||||0.074
95745684|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms||||0.024
95745685|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects experiencing at least two symptoms.||||0.230
95745686|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.09
95745687|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects with detectable virus shedding||||0.22
95745688|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.23
95745689|NCT03180801|191463194|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher exact test is used to test if vaccine group has lower rate of subjects asymptomatic with detectable virus shedding||||0.12
95745690|NCT03180801|191463195|OTHER|||||||0.0501|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.0501
95858695|NCT02592798|191675272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5736|4.5736|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Physical function|||4.5736|-6.5736|
95745691|NCT03180801|191463195|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter shedding duration than placebo.||||0.3139
95745692|NCT03180801|191463196|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.102
95745693|NCT03180801|191463196|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has a smaller shedding AUC than placebo.||||0.481
95745694|NCT03180801|191463197|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.128
95745695|NCT03180801|191463197|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower peak viral shedding than placebo.||||0.601
95745696|NCT03180801|191463198|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.142
95745697|NCT03180801|191463198|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has shorter duration of symptoms than placebo.||||0.147
95745698|NCT03180801|191463199|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.080
95745699|NCT03180801|191463199|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer average number of symptoms than placebo.||||0.271
95989845|NCT00848354|191954674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|7.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.46|2.36|<0.0001
95745700|NCT03180801|191463200|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.099
95745701|NCT03180801|191463200|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has fewer peak symptoms than placebo.||||0.178
95745702|NCT03180801|191463201|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.064
95745703|NCT03180801|191463201|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||One-sided Wilcoxon test is used to test if vaccine group has lower FLU-PRO scores than placebo.||||0.201
95745704|NCT03180801|191463202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison on day -2||||<0.001
95745705|NCT03180801|191463202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparion on day -2||||<0.001
95745706|NCT03180801|191463202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
95745707|NCT03180801|191463202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 35||||<0.001
95745708|NCT03180801|191463202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
95745709|NCT03180801|191463202|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison on day 63||||<0.001
95745710|NCT01049412|191463203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
95745711|NCT01049412|191463204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.29||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.83|<0.001
95745712|NCT01049412|191463205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.05||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.28|0.242
95745713|NCT01049412|191463206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
95745714|NCT01049412|191463206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5%."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
95745715|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.88||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for 0300 hour BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-0.28|0.392
95989846|NCT00848354|191954676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95745716|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.3||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning FBG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.79|0.464
95745717|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.07||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for morning 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-1.04|0.151
95745718|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.03||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-1.05|0.079
95858696|NCT02592798|191675273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.595|29.485|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Fatigue|||29.4850|-4.5950|
95745719|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.05||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for midday 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.99|0.070
95745720|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.34||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening pre-meal BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.39|0.008
95745721|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.41||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for evening 2-hr postprandial BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.38|0.003
95745722|NCT01049412|191463208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.55||"The statistical significance level is 0.10.~P-value is for bed time BG."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.64|0.001
95745723|NCT01049412|191463213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.037
95745724|NCT01049412|191463214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Final)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|-0.25||The statistical significance level is 0.10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.69|<0.001
95745725|NCT03440424|191463224|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|157.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.18|210.87|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||210.87|118.18|
95745726|NCT03440424|191463224|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|163.24|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||163.24|91.49|
95745727|NCT03440424|191463225|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.95|151.17|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||151.17|98.95|
95941507|NCT05256654|191850547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (Triglycerides (TG) \<250 milligram per deciliter (mg/dL) or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||11.9|-15.5|0.691
95745728|NCT03440424|191463225|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.53|127.61|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||127.61|83.53|
95745729|NCT03440424|191463226|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|162.16|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||162.16|96.76|
95745730|NCT03440424|191463226|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.98|149.13|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||149.13|88.98|
95941508|NCT05256654|191850547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-3.9|-23.6|0.008
95941509|NCT05256654|191850547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.9|-18.3|0.140
95941510|NCT05256654|191850548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-43.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.1|-63.3|<.001
95745731|NCT03440424|191463227|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|131.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|180.4|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||180.40|96.46|
95745732|NCT03440424|191463227|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|149.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.34|204.47|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||204.47|109.34|
95745733|NCT03440424|191463228|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|125.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|177.74|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||177.74|87.96|
95858697|NCT02592798|191675273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5917|16.8717|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Pain interference|||16.8717|-2.5917|
95858698|NCT02592798|191675273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1068|10.3468|||||Abatacept - Placebo for Mobility|||10.3468|-12.1068|
95858699|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
95858700|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||24.7|16.1|
95858701|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.4|11.9|
95858702|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.5|8.7|
95858703|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
95858704|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|31.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.7|18.5|
95858705|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|26.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||26.6|15.7|
95858706|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.4|10.1|
95941511|NCT05256654|191850548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-63.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-63.9|-74.8|<.001
95941512|NCT05256654|191850548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-72.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-72.0|-80.4|<.001
95941513|NCT05256654|191850549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||14.0|-14.6|0.854
95745734|NCT03440424|191463228|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|153.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.39|221.66|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||221.66|106.39|
95745735|NCT03440424|191463229|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|128.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|188.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||188.02|88.35|
95745736|NCT03440424|191463229|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|166.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|246.99|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|||246.99|112.31|
95745737|NCT03440424|191463230|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|96.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|134.06|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||134.06|70.15|
95745738|NCT03440424|191463230|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|72.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.12|99.6|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||99.60|52.12|
95745739|NCT03440424|191463230|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|84.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|118.19|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||118.19|60.21|
95745740|NCT03440424|191463230|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.89|92.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.05|46.89|
95745741|NCT03440424|191463230|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.37|131.3|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||131.30|68.37|
95745742|NCT03440424|191463230|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.24|106.09|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||106.09|55.24|
95745743|NCT03440424|191463232|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|99.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.91|127.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||127.81|76.91|
95745744|NCT03440424|191463232|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|69.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.03|89.79|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||89.79|54.03|
95745745|NCT03440424|191463232|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.88|99.21|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||99.21|62.88|
95989847|NCT00848354|191954678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.0||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||10.00|3.88|<0.0001
95745746|NCT03440424|191463232|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.31|79.38|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||79.38|50.31|
95745747|NCT03440424|191463232|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.5|130.51|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||130.51|68.50|
95745748|NCT03440424|191463232|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|71.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.03|99.12|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||99.12|52.03|
95745749|NCT03440424|191463233|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|106.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.95|135.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||135.62|83.95|
95745750|NCT03440424|191463233|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|85.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.41|108.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||108.90|67.41|
95745751|NCT03440424|191463233|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|75.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.28|91.31|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||91.31|62.28|
95745752|NCT03440424|191463233|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.76|92.02|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||92.02|62.76|
95745753|NCT03440424|191463233|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|95.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.92|126.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||126.94|71.92|
95745754|NCT03440424|191463233|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.06|98.94|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||98.94|56.06|
95745755|NCT03440424|191463234|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|113.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.16|150.05|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||150.05|85.16|
95745756|NCT03440424|191463234|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|137.7|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||137.70|78.16|
95745757|NCT03440424|191463234|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|98.78|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||98.78|62.57|
95941514|NCT05256654|191850549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.4|-26.0|0.002
95941515|NCT05256654|191850549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.1|-21.9|0.033
95941516|NCT05256654|191850550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.2|-13.8|0.143
95941517|NCT05256654|191850550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-10.5|-22.0|<.001
95745758|NCT03440424|191463234|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.38|126.9|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||126.90|80.38|
95745759|NCT03440424|191463234|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|109.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|147.88|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||147.88|81.07|
95745760|NCT03440424|191463234|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|142.08|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.08|77.89|
95745761|NCT03440424|191463235|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|115.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|159.42|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||159.42|83.51|
95941518|NCT05256654|191850550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.2|-27.9|<.001
95941519|NCT05256654|191850551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||0.9|-21.1|0.068
95745762|NCT03440424|191463235|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.66|161.62|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M4 metabolite||161.62|84.66|
95745763|NCT03440424|191463235|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|78.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|100.81|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||100.81|61.06|
95989848|NCT00848354|191954679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|17.39||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value.||17.39|3.49|<0.0001
95745764|NCT03440424|191463235|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|116.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.95|151.56|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M9 metabolite||151.56|89.95|
95745765|NCT03440424|191463235|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|128.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||128.28|70.31|
95745766|NCT03440424|191463235|OTHER||Percent ratio of geometric mean|103.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.43|142.28|||||Percent ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of test by geometric mean of reference, then multiplying the value by 100.|M10 metabolite||142.28|75.43|
95745767|NCT02445287|191463254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.920
95745768|NCT02445287|191463255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
95745769|NCT02445287|191463256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval = (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
95941520|NCT05256654|191850551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-17.6|-32.6|<.001
95941521|NCT05256654|191850551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-15.7|-31.1|<.001
95941522|NCT05256654|191850552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-25.1|-45.8|<.001
95941523|NCT05256654|191850552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.3|-56.4|<.001
95941524|NCT05256654|191850552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-45.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-45.9|-58.4|<.001
95941525|NCT05256654|191850553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-21.2|-52.2|<.001
95941526|NCT05256654|191850553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-43.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-43.8|-62.4|<.001
95745770|NCT02445287|191463257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
95745771|NCT01589601|191463292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8719||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0289|11.7728|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7728|-2.0289|0.1641
95745772|NCT01589601|191463292|SUPERIORITY|6 Months|Mean Difference (Net)|9.4938||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9406|18.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.0470|0.9406|0.0299
95745773|NCT01589601|191463293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7157||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3054|11.7368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline||||11.7368|-6.3054|0.5531
95745774|NCT01589601|191463293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.773||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8409|22.7052|||Mixed Models Analysis|6 Months||||22.7052|0.8409|0.0350
95745775|NCT01589601|191463294|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2436||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9817|0.4945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4945|-2.9817|0.1592
95745776|NCT01589601|191463294|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7946||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5285|0.9393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9393|-2.5285|0.3657
95797454|NCT00315341|191564290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||shift table analyses|||categorized changes in ALT/AST from BL:(1)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)≤2X upper limit of normal(ULN)\& remained at this level;(2)BL transaminases ≤2X ULN(either ALT/AST)but increased(either ALT/AST)above this level at any time;(3)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& decreased and remained at ≤2X ULN(both ALT/AST);(4)BL transaminases(both ALT/AST)\>2X ULN \&remained at this level(both ALT/AST);(5)BL transaminases \>2X ULN(either ALT/AST)\& increased 2X above this level ever(either ALT/AST).||||< 0.05
95941527|NCT05256654|191850553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-63.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|55.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||55.5|-70.3|<.001
95797455|NCT04338581|191564309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of F-VASI35 Responders between the two treatment groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares AMG 714 and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.411
95989849|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.46||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.46|2.24|<0.0001
95797456|NCT01080261|191564332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 91% statistical power to demonstrate that the 9-month rate for MACE (accounting for an expected 9-month attrition rate of 10%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MACE rate of 8.2%.|Percent of patients experiencing a MACE|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.9|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the percentage of patients experiencing a MACE event (primary endpoint) in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 24.1% (based on historical outcomes with plain balloon angioplasty \[20.2%\] plus an adjustment of 3.9% for small vessels).||4.9||<0.0001
95745777|NCT01589601|191463294|SUPERIORITY|HADS Anxiety 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8269||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6375|-0.0164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0164|-3.6375|0.0480
95745778|NCT01589601|191463294|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9097||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4253|0.6058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6058|-2.4253|0.2372
95745779|NCT01589601|191463294|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6592||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2862|0.9678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9678|-2.2862|0.4237
95745780|NCT01589601|191463294|SUPERIORITY|HADS Depression at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9379||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5672|-0.3085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3085|-3.5672|0.0202
95745781|NCT01589601|191463296|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 2 weeks|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4666|4.3493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3493|-2.4666|0.5857
95745782|NCT01589601|191463296|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 3 months|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1174||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7246|4.9594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9594|-2.7246|0.5655
95745783|NCT01589601|191463296|SUPERIORITY|FACIT-Sp at 6 months|Mean Difference (Net)|3.9809||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4581|7.5036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5036|0.4581|0.0271
95745784|NCT01589601|191463298|SUPERIORITY|All-cause readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.56|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.56
95745785|NCT01589601|191463298|SUPERIORITY|Cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.8|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.80
95745786|NCT01589601|191463298|SUPERIORITY|Heart failure readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.92|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.92
95745787|NCT01589601|191463298|SUPERIORITY|Non-cardiovascular readmissions, Poisson regression with log link and Pearson scale||||||0.12|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.12
95797457|NCT02385318|191564344|EQUIVALENCE|85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.38|14.44|||Yates correction|||||14.44|-4.38|
95941528|NCT05256654|191850554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||8.5|-15.2|0.506
95941529|NCT05256654|191850554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.3|-27.2|<.001
95941530|NCT05256654|191850554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-11.0|-27.0|<.001
95745788|NCT00434837|191463304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 3-year analysis.||||.27
95745789|NCT00434837|191463305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 7-year analysis.||||.08
95745790|NCT00434837|191463306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.22
95745791|NCT00434837|191463307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0078
95745792|NCT00434837|191463308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0018
95745793|NCT00434837|191463309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.015
95745794|NCT00434837|191463310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.003
95941531|NCT05256654|191850555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||5.2|-11.2|0.428
95989850|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.55||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||8.55|2.91|<0.0001
95941532|NCT05256654|191850555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-2.3|-14.7|0.009
95745795|NCT00434837|191463311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.0006
95797458|NCT00300053|191564345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.020
95941533|NCT05256654|191850555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-6.0|-18.0|<.001
95989851|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|12.02||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||12.02|2.93|<0.0001
95745796|NCT00434837|191463312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
95745797|NCT00434837|191463313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.34
95745798|NCT00434837|191463314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.17
95941534|NCT05256654|191850556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||23.7|-8.4|0.412
95941535|NCT05256654|191850556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.1|-19.7|0.104
95745799|NCT00434837|191463315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.25
95745800|NCT00434837|191463316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.61
95745801|NCT00434837|191463317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.15
95745802|NCT00434837|191463318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.53
95745803|NCT00434837|191463319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.82
95745804|NCT00434837|191463320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.03
95745805|NCT00434837|191463321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.67
95745806|NCT00434837|191463323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.051
95745807|NCT00434837|191463324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 15-year analysis.||||.14
95745808|NCT00434837|191463325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.067
95745809|NCT00434837|191463326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||These results were from the 7-year analysis.||||.54
95745810|NCT00434837|191463327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||These results are from the 15-year analysis.||||.08
95745811|NCT00345033|191463336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in total cholesterol is over 99%.||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
95745812|NCT00345033|191463337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in weight will be over 99%.||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
95745813|NCT00345033|191463338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Body Mass Index (BMI) will be over 99%.||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.229
95745814|NCT00345033|191463339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in glucose metabolism to be 90%.||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
95797459|NCT00300053|191564345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.035
95797460|NCT00300053|191564345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 6 months after treatment.||||0.167
95745815|NCT00345033|191463340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in triglycerides will be 81%.||||||0.982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.982
95745816|NCT00345033|191463341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A priori power calculation determined the power to detect a change in Insulin Resistance will be 90%.||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
95745817|NCT01881737|191463343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Paired t test|||Effect Size Cohen's d = -0.05||||0.848
95745818|NCT01881737|191463344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t test|Effect Size Cohen's d = 0.53||||||0.009
95745819|NCT01881737|191463345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||paired t test|Effect size Cohen's d = 0.38||||||0.38
95941536|NCT05256654|191850556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||6.7|-16.2|0.363
95941537|NCT05256654|191850557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||2.3|-22.2|0.101
95941538|NCT05256654|191850557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-1.0|-20.6|0.033
95941539|NCT05256654|191850557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-0.6|-20.3|0.040
95941540|NCT05256654|191850558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-13.6|-40.5|<.001
95941541|NCT05256654|191850558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-33.2|-50.5|<.001
95941542|NCT05256654|191850558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model uses log-transformed outcome and baseline variables, including terms for baseline, strata (TG \<250 mg/dL or \>=250 mg/dL at screening), and the interaction between treatment and time.|||-35.9|-52.5|<.001
95941543|NCT05207982|191850581|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study utilized a multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling. Separate models were developed for each participant which include the daily weights from the baseline, treatment and follow-up phases. Given the nature of the data, we hypothesized different slopes for the baseline vs treatment phases. Overall weight change was a primary outcome measure.|Multiple baseline single case experimental design in which analysis of the daily weights (for each participant) involved discontinuous growth curve analysis using multi-level modeling.|||
95941544|NCT03314688|191850582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95941545|NCT03314688|191850583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.33
95745820|NCT01881737|191463347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95745821|NCT02102932|191463359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.92|108.78||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.78|101.92|0.0000
95745822|NCT02102932|191463359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.91|106.65||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.65|99.91|0.0000
95745823|NCT02102932|191463359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|107.54||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.54|99.73|0.0000
95941546|NCT03314688|191850583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.44
95941547|NCT03314688|191850583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.29
95797461|NCT00300053|191564345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANCOVA|||Frequency of angina episodes per week 12 months after treatment.||||0.181
95797462|NCT00300053|191564346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.014
95941548|NCT03314688|191850584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q1: In the past month, how often did you take your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills as the doctor prescribed? = 'All the time'||||0.69
95745824|NCT02102932|191463359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.36|106.37||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.37|99.36|0.0000
95745825|NCT02102932|191463360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|112.07||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.07|97.56|0.0001
95745826|NCT02102932|191463360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.32|112.7||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.70|99.32|0.0001
95745827|NCT02102932|191463360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|109.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.63|98.18|0.0000
95745828|NCT02102932|191463360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|95.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|102.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||102.03|89.88|0.0000
95745829|NCT02102932|191463361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.44|112.8||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.80|100.44|0.0000
95745830|NCT02102932|191463361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|110.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.8|118.24||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||118.24|103.80|0.0021
95797463|NCT00300053|191564346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.017
95797464|NCT00300053|191564346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 6 months||||0.097
95797465|NCT00300053|191564346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to 12 months||||0.134
95797466|NCT01134042|191564364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.193|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.277|||ANCOVA|||||0.277|0.108|<0.001
95797467|NCT01134042|191564364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.294|||ANCOVA|||||0.294|0.127|<0.001
95797468|NCT01134042|191564364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI: 0.025, 1-sided significance level) for the mean difference in change from Baseline in clinic visit trough FEV1 of FF 200 µg OD versus FP 500 µg BID was greater than -125 milliliters.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.102||||||||0.102|-0.066|
95797469|NCT01134042|191564365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.270|0.001|0.048
95941549|NCT03314688|191850584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q2: In the past month, how often did you forget to take one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.91
95797470|NCT01134042|191564365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.206||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.339|||ANCOVA|||||0.339|0.073|0.003
95858707|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
95941550|NCT03314688|191850584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Q3: In the past month, how often did you decide to skip one or more of your aromatase inhibitor (AI)/tamoxifen pills? = 'Never'||||0.13
95941551|NCT04484428|191850688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.773
95941552|NCT04484428|191850689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.972
95941553|NCT04484428|191850690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.617
95941554|NCT04484428|191850691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.796
95941555|NCT04484428|191850692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.960
95941556|NCT04484428|191850693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
95745831|NCT02102932|191463361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|101.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|108.39||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.39|94.82|0.0000
95941557|NCT04484428|191850694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
95941558|NCT04484428|191850695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
95745832|NCT02102932|191463361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|111.63||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.63|95.08|0.0002
95941559|NCT05828017|191850696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
95941560|NCT05828017|191850696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference between Variation #1 and the standard curve in terms of mean preference counts per participant.||||0.015
95941561|NCT05828017|191850697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
95941562|NCT05828017|191850697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.03569|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.03569
95941563|NCT05828017|191850698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.069
95941564|NCT05828017|191850698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.6976
95941565|NCT05828017|191850699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||<0.001
95941566|NCT05828017|191850699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean preference counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.0013
95941567|NCT05828017|191850700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.522
95941568|NCT05828017|191850700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.27
95941569|NCT05828017|191850701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.28
95941570|NCT05828017|191850701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.11
95941571|NCT05828017|191850702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.52
95941572|NCT05828017|191850702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.26
95941573|NCT05828017|191850703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.16
95941574|NCT05828017|191850703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.37
95941575|NCT05828017|191850704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.08
95941576|NCT05828017|191850704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.31
95941577|NCT05828017|191850705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.21
95941578|NCT05828017|191850705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.085
95745833|NCT02102932|191463362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.29|110.86||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||110.86|99.29|0.0000
95745834|NCT02102932|191463362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|106.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.88||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||114.88|98.39|0.0008
95745835|NCT02102932|191463362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|104.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.68|112.82||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.82|96.68|0.0003
95745836|NCT02102932|191463362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|96.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|104.99||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||104.99|88.90|0.0004
95745837|NCT02102932|191463363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.97|108.45||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||108.45|101.97|0.0000
95745838|NCT02102932|191463363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.75|106.5||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.50|99.75|0.0000
95745839|NCT02102932|191463363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|103.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.37|107.04||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||107.04|99.37|0.0000
95745840|NCT02102932|191463363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.25||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||106.25|99.10|0.0000
95745841|NCT02102932|191463364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|111.68||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T1) versus Reference (R1)) i.e. T1/R1. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||111.68|99.34|0.0000
95745842|NCT02102932|191463364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|105.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|112.85||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T2) versus Reference (R2)) i.e. T2/R2. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||112.85|99.09|0.0001
95989852|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|9.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.21|2.27|<0.0001
95745843|NCT02102932|191463364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|102.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|109.03||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T3) versus Reference (R3)) i.e. T3/R3. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||109.03|97.11|0.0000
95745844|NCT02102932|191463364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means|93.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|100.36||P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125|ANOVA||Ratio of the geometric means for treatments (Test (T4) versus Reference (R4)) i.e. T4/R4. The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation:~'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||100.36|87.74|0.0002
95745845|NCT03496298|191463365|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of efpeglenatide 4 mg+6 mg versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||One-sided p-value based on log rank test of hazard ratio for the incidence of both 1.8 and less and 1.3 or less.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|<.0001
95745846|NCT03496298|191463366|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.918||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.918|0.583|0.0069
95745847|NCT03496298|191463367|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.96|0.65|0.02
95745848|NCT03496298|191463368|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was claimed when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of hazard ratio was less than 1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.794||Two-sided p-values based on log rank test of hazard ratio.|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with region (North America, Latin America, Europe, other), randomization stratum of SGLT2 inhibitor use (current use, potential future use, neither current nor potential future use) and treatment (efpeglenatide 4 mg, efpeglenatide 6 mg, placebo) as fixed effect factor.||0.794|0.574|<.0001
95745849|NCT01658995|191463369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|-31.4|0.37
95745850|NCT01658995|191463370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95745851|NCT02058160|191463387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.397||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as covariates. A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple endpoint analyses.||-0.397|-0.633|<0.0001
95745852|NCT02058160|191463388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||32.10|18.94|<0.0001
95745853|NCT02058160|191463388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|25.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||25.62|13.90|<0.0001
95941579|NCT05828017|191850706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.86
95941580|NCT05828017|191850706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||1
95941581|NCT05828017|191850707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.607||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||||0.009
95941582|NCT05828017|191850707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean counts per participant between the standard curve and variation #1.||||0.61
95941583|NCT05828017|191850708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in mean SRT50 scores between the standard curve, variation #1, and no preference counts.||1.00|0.11|<0.001
95745854|NCT02058160|191463389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.925|-2.939||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate.||-2.939|-3.925|<0.0001
95941584|NCT05828017|191850708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||This is to see if there is a difference in SRT 50 scores between the standard curve and variation #1.||1|0|0.357
95745855|NCT02058160|191463390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.93|-1.808|<0.0001
95797471|NCT00671060|191564419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Rates of success were compared across study arms. The study was a separate, non-comparative efficacy study. In order to have 80% power (alpha=.05) to demonstrate that each misoprostol regimen was 95%, ± 5%, effective, we enrolled 73 women in each arm of the study, or 146 women total. The sample size also provided 80% power (alpha=.05) to detect a significant difference between treatments should 200μg prove 98% effective and 100μg prove 88% effective.||||<0.05
95941585|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<0.01
95941586|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.94
95941587|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in most preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.94
95941588|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||0.017
95941589|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #3.||||0.02
95941590|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in somewhat preferred (i.e. rated in the middle) program counts between variations #2 and #4||||0.006
95941591|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2, #3, and #4||||<.0001
95941592|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.38||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #3||||0.08
95941593|NCT05828017|191850709|SUPERIORITY||Total Count - Cramer's V|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This is to see if there is a difference in the least preferred program counts between variations #2 and #4||||<0.001
95941594|NCT05012163|191850710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket and patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent messages offering $1 cash.||||.506
95941595|NCT05012163|191850710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378||||||Comments: Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those sent active control messages.||||0.378
95941596|NCT05012163|191850710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered scratch-off tickets for vaccination and those in other arms (Analyses 1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering a scratch-off lottery ticket in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering scratch-off tickets compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
95941597|NCT05012163|191850710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent active control messages and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent active control messages compared to those who were not sent messages.||||<.001
95941598|NCT05012163|191850710|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.||||||0.121|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent active control messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those sent active control messages.||||.121
95989853|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|2.74|<0.0001
95989854|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.72|3.00|<0.0001
95989855|NCT00848354|191954680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|15.63||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.63|3.74|<0.0001
95989856|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
95989857|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.82||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.82|2.85|<0.0001
95989858|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.38|2.50|<0.0001
95989859|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|6.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.41|2.37|<0.0001
95989860|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|9.76||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.76|3.19|<0.0001
95989861|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|9.52||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||9.52|3.16|<0.0001
95989862|NCT00848354|191954682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.21||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.21|3.87|<0.0001
95989863|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.40|2.30|<0.0001
95989864|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|7.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.71|3.07|<0.0001
95745856|NCT02058160|191463391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.64|-1.154|<0.0001
95745857|NCT02058160|191463392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|20.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|26.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening.||26.66|14.98|<0.0001
95745858|NCT02058160|191463393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|1.246||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, scheduled visits, treatment-by-visit interaction and country as fixed effects and baseline daily insulin glargine dose-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||1.246|-1.762|0.7362
95989865|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|8.41||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.41|2.98|<0.0001
95989866|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.58||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||7.58|2.55|<0.0001
95989867|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.74||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.74|3.15|<0.0001
95989868|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|11.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||11.73|3.25|<0.0001
95745859|NCT03604549|191463441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.44||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.25|||Chi-squared||Lipiodol UF is the numerator and Saline is the denominator for RR|||1.25|0.16|0.10
95745860|NCT03604549|191463442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference reported as Lipiodol UF - Saline|||1.68|-1.59|0.96
95745861|NCT00926367|191463451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.||||||>0.05
95745862|NCT00926367|191463453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-tailed p≤ 0.05 was taken as the level of significance for all comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
95745863|NCT01294449|191463471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.161|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D group over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD group. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|The sample size for the analysis included subjects from the original MADIT-CRT IDE (NCT00180271) that did not participate in the Registry portion, these subjects are censored at the time of study conclusion, withdrawal or death during the IDE. This was done as the Registry is a post approval continuation of the follow-up from the MADIT-CRT IDE trial. This is not a pooled analysis from separate studies.||1.161|0.670|0.370
95745864|NCT01294449|191463471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was calculated as the hazard rate of mortality in the CRT-D arm over the hazard rate of mortality in the ICD arm. A hazard ratio lower than 1 represents a reduction in relative risk of mortality for CRT-D compared to ICD.|These data represent the indicated sub population of left bundle branch block subjects only. (Left bundle branch block N= 110 ICD group: 181 CRT-D group)||0.960|0.484|0.028
95745865|NCT02304406|191463517|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.1304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.77|0.80|0.1304
95745866|NCT02304406|191463518|OTHER|||||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6422
95745867|NCT02304406|191463519|OTHER|||||||0.4524|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4524
95745868|NCT02304406|191463520|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9010
95989869|NCT00848354|191954684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|11.33||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.33|3.67|<0.0001
95989870|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.13||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||9.13|1.05|0.0349
95989871|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.60|1.98|<0.0001
95989872|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.88|2.10|<0.0001
95745869|NCT02304406|191463521|OTHER|||||||0.9067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9067
95745870|NCT02304406|191463522|OTHER|||||||0.8785|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8785
95745871|NCT02304406|191463523|OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9231
95745872|NCT02304406|191463524|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9780
95745873|NCT02304406|191463525|OTHER|||||||0.1144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1144
95745874|NCT02304406|191463526|OTHER|||||||0.0862|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0862
95745875|NCT02304406|191463527|OTHER|||||||0.0294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0294
95745876|NCT02304406|191463528|OTHER|||||||0.6877|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6877
95745877|NCT01976728|191463545|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.012||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||The primary efficacy analysis compared the pooled ovulation rate of the LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group to placebo.||||0.0120
95745878|NCT01976728|191463546|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0553||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||P4 levels of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0553
95745879|NCT01976728|191463547|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses was tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0383||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Clinical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0383
95745880|NCT01976728|191463548|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0246||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||Biochemical pregnancy rates of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0246
95745881|NCT01976728|191463549|SUPERIORITY|The hypotheses were tested using a stratified one-sided Fisher's exact test in the FAS including the randomization scheme as the stratification factor.||||||0.0011||||||The SAS PROC FREQ with permutation-based Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with exact p-value derived from all possible permutations was employed for the calculation of p-value for the stratified Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The success threshold at each analysis corresponded to a nominal p-value \<0.0130 to maintain an overall one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||LH surge detection of the pooled LutrePulse 15 μg and 20 μg group were compared to placebo.||||0.0011
95745882|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1344
95745883|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2726
95745884|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 10: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
95745885|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1275||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1275
95745886|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1088||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1088
95745887|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
95797472|NCT00303186|191564425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||5.10|2.40|<0.0001
95941599|NCT05012163|191850710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Pairwise comparisons between patients offered cash for vaccination and those in active or passive control (Analyses 5 and 6) were analyzed in the same regression.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in vaccination rates between patients sent messages offering $1 cash in exchange for vaccination and those sent no study messages; Alternative hypothesis: the vaccination rate is higher in patients sent messages offering $1 cash compared to those who were not sent messages.||||.002
95941600|NCT04070573|191850718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.28
95941601|NCT04070573|191850719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.31
95989873|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.06|2.02|<0.0001
95745888|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.0796
95745889|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1757||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test||||0.1757
95797473|NCT00303186|191564425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||5.78|1.65|<0.001
95941602|NCT04070573|191850720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Risk difference direction = 81mg arm minus 162mg arm.|||||0.61
95941603|NCT04070573|191850723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95941604|NCT05062330|191850727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation|||||4.13|1.67|<0.0001
95941605|NCT05838027|191850779|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|12.55||||||||12.55|0.84|
95941606|NCT05838027|191850780|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.64||||||||2.64|0.24|
95941607|NCT05838027|191850781|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.82||||||||4.82|-3.78|
95745890|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0584||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0584
95745891|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
95797474|NCT00303186|191564425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.76|-1.50|0.518
95797475|NCT00303186|191564426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.38|23.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||23.07|12.38|<0.0001
95797476|NCT00303186|191564426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|18.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.21|6.99|<0.0001
95797477|NCT00303186|191564426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.61|-5.70|0.833
95797478|NCT00303186|191564427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.18|2.26|<0.0001
95941608|NCT05838027|191850782|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.4||||||||1.40|-1.01|
95745892|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0143
95745893|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0060
95745894|NCT01976728|191463550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥14 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.1573
95745895|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 12: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
95797479|NCT00303186|191564427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.87|1.59|<0.0001
95797480|NCT00303186|191564427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.27|-0.83|0.309
95797481|NCT00303186|191564429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|8.301|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||8.301|1.619|0.004
95797482|NCT00303186|191564430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|-1.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-1.355|-12.155|0.015
95797483|NCT00303186|191564431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.41||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.666|2.546|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.546|-1.666|0.676
95797484|NCT00303186|191564432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.486|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||2.05|0.918|<0.0001
95797485|NCT00303186|191564432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.99|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||2.99|1.01|<0.001
95797486|NCT00303186|191564432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.32||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.46|-0.35|0.223
95797487|NCT00303186|191564433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|7.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 12: swollen joints.||7.47|5.10|<0.0001
95745896|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2374||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2374
95941609|NCT05838027|191850783|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|2.0||||||||2.00|-7.43|
95745897|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2636||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.2636
95941610|NCT05838027|191850784|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.16||||||||4.16|-5.45|
95941611|NCT05838027|191850785|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.74||||||||2.74|0.46|
95941612|NCT05838027|191850786|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. Categorical outcomes were assessed with ordered logistic models and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except Medication Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.29|
95941613|NCT05838027|191850789|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.03||||||||3.03|-1.90|
95941614|NCT05838027|191850790|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.32|
95941615|NCT05838027|191850791|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|IRR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63||||||||1.63|0.23|
95941616|NCT05838027|191850792|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.54|
95941617|NCT05838027|191850793|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.49||||||||5.49|0.19|
95941618|NCT05838027|191850794|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||||0.43|-2.64|
95745898|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4795||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4795
95745899|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 15: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
95745900|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3711
95797488|NCT00303186|191564433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|7.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||7.92|4.48|<0.0001
95797489|NCT00303186|191564433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: swollen joints and Month 60: swollen joints.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
95797490|NCT00303186|191564433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|11.13|||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 12: tender joints.||11.13|6.86|<0.0001
95941619|NCT05838027|191850795|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.8||||||||6.80|-1.35|
95745901|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.4142
95745902|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0838||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 18: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 20 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.0838
95745903|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||The p-value was based on the stratified (by randomization scheme) Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 10 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3173
95745904|NCT01976728|191463551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3778||||||The p-value was based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test without stratification.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|SAS PROC FREQ with modified ridit score (MODRIDIT option) was used for the stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test.||Day 21: Number of follicles with a mean diameter ≥18 mm in the LutrePulse 15 μg group was compared to placebo, using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.||||0.3778
95797491|NCT00303186|191564433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||11.10|6.10|<0.0001
95797492|NCT00303186|191564433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.92||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: tender joints and Month 60: tender joints.||3.07|-1.76|0.588
95797493|NCT00303186|191564437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.29||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||3.82|-1.30|0.330
95941620|NCT05838027|191850796|SUPERIORITY|All panel-data marginal models use robust standard errors. The binary outcome, Future Preference: Behavioral task was assessed with a logistic model and continuous outcomes were assessed with GEE population-averaged models, except All Health Care Expenditures which used Poisson models to account for count data. Some outcomes are missing additional data (not \>10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.36||||||||0.36|-1.74|
95941621|NCT00670241|191850830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.70|2.05|< 0.001
95745905|NCT01976728|191463552|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|1.35||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.87||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||7.87|-5.16|0.6732
95745906|NCT01976728|191463552|SUPERIORITY||LSM|5.7||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|12.15||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||12.15|-0.76|0.0814
95745907|NCT01976728|191463552|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.55||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.93||p-value for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Maximum P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||13.93|1.16|0.0223
95797494|NCT00303186|191564437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.28||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.37|16.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||16.26|-33.37|0.449
95797495|NCT00303186|191564437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.17||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|7.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.04|-37.04|0.165
95797496|NCT00303186|191564438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.44|35.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||35.91|26.44|<0.0001
95797497|NCT00303186|191564438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|35.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||35.10|22.42|<0.0001
95797498|NCT00303186|191564438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||4.60|-8.70|0.538
95745908|NCT01976728|191463553|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.679||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.404|4.762||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 10 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||4.762|-3.404|0.7355
95745909|NCT01976728|191463553|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.602||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.444|6.648||p-value for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 15 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 15 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||6.648|-1.444|0.1980
95745910|NCT01976728|191463553|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|4.88||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|8.882||p-value for the LutrePulse 10 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported.|ANCOVA|PROC GLM was used for ANCOVA.|The LSM difference on the treatment groups and 95% CI for the LutrePulse 20 µg group compared to placebo based on the fitted linear model were reported. Type III sum-of-squares for the LSMs were used for statistical comparisons.|Mean P4 levels in the LutrePulse 20 µg group were compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model including the randomization scheme and treatment group as factors and baseline value as covariate.||8.882|0.878|0.0187
95745911|NCT01976728|191463554|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.03||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.46|-0.39|0.8772
95745912|NCT01976728|191463554|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.07||||0.7805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.44|0.7805
95797499|NCT00303186|191564439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.04|37.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||37.63|30.04|<0.0001
95941622|NCT00670241|191850831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.46|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.40|1.46|<0.001
95941623|NCT00670241|191850832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-22.6|-6.9|||ANOVA|||||-6.90|-22.6|<0.001
95941624|NCT03687762|191850916|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941625|NCT03687762|191850917|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941626|NCT03687762|191850918|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95745913|NCT01976728|191463554|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.12||||0.6095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.58||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in FSH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||0.58|-0.35|0.6095
95745914|NCT01976728|191463555|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.51||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.22||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.22|-0.20|0.1520
95745915|NCT01976728|191463555|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.93||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.72||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.72|0.14|0.0221
95797500|NCT00303186|191564439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.96|44.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||44.12|31.96|<0.0001
95941627|NCT03687762|191850919|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941628|NCT03687762|191850920|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95745916|NCT01976728|191463555|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.76||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.44||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in LH levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.44|0.07|0.0316
95745917|NCT01976728|191463557|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|73.0||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.66|218.65||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 10 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||218.65|-72.66|0.3147
95745918|NCT01976728|191463557|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|95.18||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.01|253.36||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 15 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||253.36|-63.01|0.2290
95745919|NCT01976728|191463557|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|46.99||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.64|189.61||The p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||LSM difference and CIs were derived from an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The mean change in E2 levels from Day 10 pre-treatment (prior to first dose) in the LutrePulse 20 μg/Pulse group was compared to placebo using an ANCOVA model with randomization scheme and treatment as factors and baseline value as covariate.||189.61|-95.64|0.5066
95745920|NCT00513617|191463576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0705||0.08||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from the Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.080
95797501|NCT00303186|191564439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|7.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||7.38|-2.62|0.343
95941629|NCT03687762|191850921|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95941630|NCT03687762|191850922|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941631|NCT03687762|191850923|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95745921|NCT00513617|191463576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.133||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo was subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.133
95745922|NCT00513617|191463578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0713||0.915||||||Alpha was set at 0.5|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.915
95745923|NCT00513617|191463578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1047||0.918||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.918
95745924|NCT00513617|191463579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1101||0.015||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from Low dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.015
95941632|NCT03687762|191850924|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce a greater proportion of people decreasing their dose relative to those increasing their dose during treatment.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95941633|NCT03687762|191850925|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941634|NCT03687762|191850926|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95797502|NCT00303186|191564440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.88|36.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||36.49|25.88|<0.0001
95941635|NCT03687762|191850927|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941636|NCT03687762|191850928|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941637|NCT03687762|191850929|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941638|NCT03687762|191850930|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941639|NCT03687762|191850931|OTHER|We hypothesized negligible between condition differences, although within each condition, we hypothesized that each treatment would produce medium effect size improvements.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95941640|NCT04479761|191850995|OTHER|T test derived from a linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and healthy controls for the reported condition.|||||0.005
95941641|NCT04479761|191850996|OTHER|T tests derived from linear mixed effects model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||we provided the mean difference between the vestibular group and the controls on the reported condition.|||||0.008
95941642|NCT05098158|191851010|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||<0.001
95941643|NCT05098158|191851011|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.003
95941644|NCT05098158|191851012|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.011
95941645|NCT05098158|191851013|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.168
95941646|NCT05098158|191851014|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.456
95941647|NCT05098158|191851015|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.517
95797503|NCT00303186|191564440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|36.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||36.09|21.52|<0.0001
95941648|NCT05098158|191851016|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest data||||0.012
95941649|NCT05098158|191851017|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
95941650|NCT05098158|191851018|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t tests had .05 set as level of significance to reject null hypothesis. Sample powered to generate effect size for future studies.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|||||Actual p value results above; Not adjusted due to pilot study aim to generate effect size comparing pre and posttest data|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t tests of pre and posttest dat||||0.941
95941651|NCT05098158|191851019|OTHER|Descriptive statistics to report the percentage of offered telehealth sessions that were attended \[#attended/#offered = % attended\]|percentage|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95941652|NCT04909801|191851054|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9026
95941653|NCT04909801|191851055|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.5824
95941654|NCT04909801|191851056|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534||95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.5|0.3534
95941655|NCT04909801|191851057|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.5|0.6140
95941656|NCT04909801|191851059|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.5|0.4996
95941657|NCT04909801|191851059|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4490
95745925|NCT00513617|191463579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1553||0.557||||||Alpha was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null is tested using the F-test from a random effects longitudinal mixed model, with treatment and baseline measurement as fixed effects.|Placebo subtracted from High dose|Null hypothesis is no difference between high vs. placebo and low vs. placebo in change from baseline at Week 12 post-randomization. Separate models were fit for pediatric and adult populations, however the combined population is entered here.||||0.557
95745926|NCT03244475|191463583|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2||The corrected p-value of 0.01 was chosen after the standard cluster analysis for correcting family-wise error across different voxels.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||The analysis was performed for the voxel-wise delta-band activity from the frontal pole and inferior frontal gyri. Spatial smoothing and logarithm transformation (e-based) were performed. Resting-state MEG activity differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||2.2|1.1|0.01
95745927|NCT03244475|191463584|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745928|NCT03244475|191463585|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745929|NCT03244475|191463586|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95797504|NCT00303186|191564440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.77||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||3.07|-9.74|0.301
95745930|NCT03244475|191463587|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745931|NCT03244475|191463588|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745932|NCT03244475|191463589|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745933|NCT03244475|191463590|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745934|NCT03244475|191463591|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745935|NCT03244475|191463592|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95797505|NCT00303186|191564441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|50.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||50.40|2.01|<0.0001
95797506|NCT00303186|191564441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|18.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||18.57|7.81|<0.0001
95797507|NCT00303186|191564441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||1.77|-6.40|0.132
95797508|NCT00303186|191564442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|150.1|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|46.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||46.04|-13.52|<0.0005
95797509|NCT00303186|191564442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.33|83.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||83.29|22.33|<0.0001
95797510|NCT00303186|191564442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|147.25||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|77.64|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||77.64|-10.84|0.034
95745936|NCT03244475|191463593|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the DIFFERENCE scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745937|NCT03244475|191463594|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was carried out for the difference scores to assess group differences between TES and Sham groups.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was chosen due to potential non-normal distribution for the difference scores.||Differences between pre- and post-treatment measures were obtained as difference scores for TES and Sham separately. The null hypothesis was that there was no group difference in the pre- and post-treatment difference scores between TES and Sham groups||||0.05
95745938|NCT01652729|191463603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2167||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
95745939|NCT01652729|191463603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.06|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.06|-0.70|0.0209
95745940|NCT01652729|191463603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2278||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.11|-0.79|0.1347
95745941|NCT01652729|191463604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0489
95745942|NCT01652729|191463604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Subjects Achieving HbA1c \<7% at Week 28.||||0.0103
95745943|NCT01652729|191463605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|1.7|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||1.7|-21.8|0.0924
95745944|NCT01652729|191463605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.037||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-15.1|||mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-15.1|-46.7|0.0001
95745945|NCT01652729|191463606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4058||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||0.87|-0.73|0.8625
95745946|NCT01652729|191463606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5419||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.2||Nominal p-value|mixed model for repeated measure|MMRM includes treatment, baseline HbA1c (\<9% or ≥9%), week of visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject random effect.||||-0.20|-2.34|0.0198
95745947|NCT01652729|191463607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.71||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.23|-4.68||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||-4.68|-67.23|0.0248
95745948|NCT01652729|191463607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.02|18.25||Nominal p-value|general linear model|Includes treatment and baseline HbA1c (\< 9% or ≥ 9%) as fixed factors, and baseline 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations as a covariate.||||18.25|-60.02|0.2914
95745949|NCT03173170|191463612|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.0622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9569|1.1792||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.1792|0.9569|
95745950|NCT03173170|191463613|OTHER||Mean ratio|1.4892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3851|1.6012||||||A paired t-test on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed. The means and difference of means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the itraconazole effect and 90% CIs.||1.6012|1.3851|
95797511|NCT00303186|191564444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.62|0.35|<0.0001
95797512|NCT00303186|191564444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
95797513|NCT00303186|191564444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.14|-0.24|0.600
95797514|NCT00303186|191564445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
95941658|NCT04909801|191851059|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.5|0.8090
95745951|NCT05966090|191463614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non - Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between the Control group (at Day 91) versus Co-administration group (at Day 91) for anti-gE Ab 1-month after the second HZ/su vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, for logarithm-transformed concentration, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine, compared to 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine administered alone.||1.42|1.08|
95745952|NCT05966090|191463615|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5|ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.35|0.97|
95745953|NCT05966090|191463616|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control group (at Day 61) versus Co-administration group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titer 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine dose was \<=1.5.|ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||The ANCOVA model, for logarithm-transformed titers, included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as a covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine when co-administered with the first dose of HZ/su vaccine, compared to RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administered alone.||1.15|0.84|
95745954|NCT03235479|191463643|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|0.5|0.0298
95745955|NCT03235479|191463644|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|3.4|0.0016
95745956|NCT03235479|191463645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|4.4|0.0005
95745957|NCT03235479|191463646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.6|0.8|0.0299
95745958|NCT03235479|191463647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.2|4.4|0.0006
95745959|NCT03235479|191463648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.9||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.4|0.1815
95745960|NCT01628549|191463657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.53||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|5.38|||ANCOVA|||||5.38|-2.32|0.4344
95745961|NCT01628549|191463657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.46||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|0.52|0.0266
95797515|NCT00303186|191564445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-0.12|-0.31|<0.0001
95941659|NCT04909801|191851059|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.9||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||3.6|0.9|0.0739
95745962|NCT01628549|191463657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.37||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||ANCOVA|||||8.36|0.39|0.0317
95745963|NCT01628549|191463658|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|3.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|14.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.38|-7.82|0.3300
95745964|NCT01628549|191463658|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|13.2||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.60|0.54|0.0159
95745965|NCT01628549|191463658|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo in success rate|4.1||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|15.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.87|-7.44|0.4834
95745966|NCT02958319|191463692|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL|GENERAL LINEAL MODEL OF REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.82
95745967|NCT03173560|191463707|NON_INFERIORITY|Odd ratio for ORR24W was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group and prior programmed cell death protein 1/ programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) treatment from IxRS data. Non-inferiority would be claimed if 1-sided P value is \<=0.045 at the final analysis for the non-inferiority test with the non-inferiority margin of the odd ratio =0.76.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.32|0.59|0.2676
95797516|NCT00303186|191564445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||0.06|-0.08|0.789
95797517|NCT00303186|191564446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.59|24.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 12.||24.22|14.59|<0.0001
95797518|NCT00303186|191564446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|-6.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline and Month 60.||-6.59|-18.77|0.0001
95941660|NCT04909801|191851059|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.4201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.6|0.7|0.4201
95941661|NCT04909801|191851059|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||2.0|0.6|0.7928
95941662|NCT04909801|191851060|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.4|0.2701
95941663|NCT04909801|191851060|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.5|0.4863
95941664|NCT04909801|191851060|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.9513
95745968|NCT03173560|191463708|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of participants with intolerable Grade 2 or any Grade \>=Grade 3 TEAEs within 24 weeks was tested using CMH method at 2-sided α=0.05, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data. The treatment difference and 95% CI were also calculated based on asymptotic normal approximation.|Difference|3.2||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|-5.5|0.4763
95745969|NCT03173560|191463709|OTHER|The hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% CIs were estimated using the Cox regression model with Efron's method for ties, stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and prior PD-1/PD-L1 treatment.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.86||||||||1.86|1.08|
95941665|NCT04909801|191851060|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.6|0.8536
95941666|NCT04909801|191851060|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.6|0.9223
95941667|NCT04909801|191851060|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.6|0.9026
95941668|NCT04909801|191851061|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.6|0.2|0.3411
95941669|NCT04909801|191851061|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.3|0.4|0.2546
95745970|NCT03173560|191463710|OTHER|Odd ratio for ORR was analyzed along with 90% CI for each treatment arm using CMH method stratified by MSKCC prognostic group and PD-1/PD-L1 treatment from IxRS data.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||||||||1.14|0.52|
95745971|NCT04728620|191463813|SUPERIORITY|single group|mean|79.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is 71 or less."||||0.001
95745972|NCT04728620|191463815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95745973|NCT04728620|191463816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95745974|NCT04728620|191463817|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended A1c monitoring frequency||||1
95745975|NCT04728620|191463817|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended urine microalbumin screening frequency||||1
95797519|NCT00303186|191564446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.22||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|10.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12 and Month 60.||10.92|-1.21|0.115
95941670|NCT04909801|191851061|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.5|0.4558
95941671|NCT04909801|191851061|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.6|0.9544
95941672|NCT04909801|191851061|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.4|0.5|0.5450
95941673|NCT04909801|191851061|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.4|0.2227
95941674|NCT04909801|191851062|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.4|0.3|0.3200
95941675|NCT04909801|191851062|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.4992
95941676|NCT04909801|191851062|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.7|0.6|0.8963
95941677|NCT04909801|191851062|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.5|0.4544
95941678|NCT04909801|191851062|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.6|0.8985
95941679|NCT04909801|191851062|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.5824
95941680|NCT04909801|191851063|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||4.1|0.6|0.4152
95941681|NCT04909801|191851063|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.5|0.6|0.5917
95941682|NCT04909801|191851063|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.6|0.7|0.3348
95941683|NCT04909801|191851063|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.4|0.4|0.3959
95941684|NCT04909801|191851063|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.7|0.6225
95941685|NCT04909801|191851063|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.5|0.5|0.6140
95941686|NCT04909801|191851064|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.4|0.8084
95941687|NCT04909801|191851064|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.3|0.5|0.7470
95941688|NCT04909801|191851064|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.3|0.7|0.5233
95941689|NCT04909801|191851064|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.5|0.7295
95941690|NCT04909801|191851064|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.6|0.7621
95941691|NCT04909801|191851064|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.6|0.5|0.6861
95941692|NCT04909801|191851065|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.2|0.5|0.3117
95797520|NCT00303186|191564447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 12: physical component score.||-4.47|-10.34|<0.0001
95797521|NCT00303186|191564447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||-3.32|-8.56|<0.0001
95797522|NCT00303186|191564447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.83||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: physical component score and Month 60: physical component score.||3.68|-1.19|0.308
95797523|NCT00303186|191564447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 12: mental component score.||1.80|-3.14|0.589
95797524|NCT00303186|191564447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Baseline: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.06|-9.12|0.003
95941693|NCT04909801|191851065|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.6120
95745976|NCT04728620|191463817|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended pneumonia vaccination frequency||||1
95745977|NCT04728620|191463817|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of recommended diabetes eye exam frequency||||1
95745978|NCT00393705|191463843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2519||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.2519
95745979|NCT00393705|191463844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7%. Additional statistically significant terms from the model below were baseline HbA1c and treatment by lead-in interaction.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0287
95797525|NCT00303186|191564447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, Month 12: mental component score and Month 60: mental component score.||-2.18|-9.23|0.002
95858708|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|25.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||25.7|15.3|
95941694|NCT04909801|191851065|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.3|0.5|0.4339
95941695|NCT04909801|191851065|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.6|0.8|0.1963
95745980|NCT00393705|191463844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0471||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%. Additional statistically significant term from the model below was baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|Model: Logit(p(response)/1-p(response)) = U + r' X, where u = intercept parameter, X = vector of parameters (treatment, baseline value, lead-in).||||||0.0471
95797526|NCT00267670|191564449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Sample size estimates were based on 30% reduction in ALT in the treatment group \& 15% reduction in the placebo group. With a sample size of 30 planned (20 treatment:10 placebo), the study was designed to have a power of 90% to detect a difference in means of 1.25 standard deviations (ES=1.25), \& a power of 80% to detect a difference in means of 1.1 standard deviations (ES=1.1), based on calculations using power index, z-table, \& accounting for unequal sample size: n1 = 20, n2 = 10, a = 0.05.||||0.46
95797527|NCT00267670|191564450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between mean hepatic expression of TNF-alpha receptors in patient with NASH. This was a secondary outcome and no power analysis was done.||||0.16
95797528|NCT00267670|191564451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95797529|NCT00267670|191564452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95858709|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||25.1|15.9|
95941696|NCT04909801|191851065|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.3|0.8|0.3275
95745981|NCT00393705|191463846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
95941697|NCT04909801|191851065|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.6|0.9113
95941698|NCT04909801|191851066|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.4|0.1247
95941699|NCT04909801|191851066|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.4|0.6|0.5656
95941700|NCT04909801|191851066|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.8970
95941701|NCT04909801|191851066|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.6|0.7|0.9175
95941702|NCT04909801|191851066|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.7|0.7|0.5996
95858710|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||18.9|11.9|
95745982|NCT00393705|191463847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0002
95858711|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
95941703|NCT04909801|191851066|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.3534
95745983|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||P-value for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0129
95745984|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Breakfast.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0027
95745985|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1947
95745986|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Lunch.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0077
95745987|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1885||95.0||||P-value for Pre-Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.1885
95745988|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5525||95.0||||P-value for 2-Hours After Dinner.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.5525
95745989|NCT00393705|191463848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4994||95.0||||P-value for 3:00 A.M.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.4994
95745990|NCT00393705|191463850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||P-value for Total Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.7230
95941704|NCT04909801|191851067|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.3|0.2|0.1641
95745991|NCT00393705|191463850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0063
95941705|NCT04909801|191851067|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.5|0.5|0.5905
95989874|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||6.96|2.78|<0.0001
95745992|NCT00393705|191463850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes/30 Days.|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.8876
95745993|NCT00393705|191463851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0009
95745994|NCT00393705|191463852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0056
95745995|NCT00393705|191463852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421||95.0||||P-value for Week 12|ANCOVA|Model: Value = Treatment + Lead-in + Treatment\*Lead-in + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Value at baseline + error.||||||0.0421
95745996|NCT00243152|191463894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual analog scale (VAS) ratings in the scanner. Measures of pain ratings to evoked stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the affected side.||||<0.05
95941706|NCT04909801|191851067|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.5|0.6|0.7146
95745997|NCT00243152|191463894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for heat applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
95745998|NCT00243152|191463894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
95745999|NCT00243152|191463894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for cold applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
95746000|NCT00243152|191463894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the affected side.||||>0.05
95746001|NCT00243152|191463894|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS rating in the scanner. Measures of pain rating to evoke stimuli during scanning for brush applied to the unaffected side.||||>0.05
95746002|NCT00810602|191463898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.0||||||Hypothesis: The addition of vorinostat will reduce the incidence of grade 2-4 acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) to 25% or lower by day 100.||36|13|
95746003|NCT00810602|191463900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Cumulative Incidence of GVHD|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|30.0||||||||30|8|
95941707|NCT04909801|191851067|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.7|0.7|0.7416
95941708|NCT04909801|191851067|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.5|0.6|0.9026
95941709|NCT04909801|191851067|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.2|0.5|0.2605
95941710|NCT04909801|191851068|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||1.1|0.3|0.1078
95746004|NCT02625974|191463917|OTHER|A direct comparison|Difference in cure rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.2||||||||24.2|3.7|
95746005|NCT02625974|191463918|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.45|||||Person-year = 754|||3.45|1.21|
95746006|NCT02625974|191463923|OTHER|Incidence rate and 95% CI of seronegative conversion|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.16|||||Person-year = 379|||4.16|0.91|
95746007|NCT02625298|191463971|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95746008|NCT04773600|191463973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.962|5.183|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA Success at Week 4||5.183|1.962|<0.0001
95746009|NCT04773600|191463974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.996|5.687|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site|Stratified by pooled study site|vIGA Success at Week 4 in Participants with Baseline vIGA = 'Moderate'||5.687|1.996|<0.0001
95746010|NCT04773600|191463975|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|8.658|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||8.658|2.281|<0.0001
95746011|NCT04773600|191463976|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|4.782|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||4.782|0.832|0.1156
95746012|NCT04773600|191463977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|5.066|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 4||5.066|1.448|0.0014
95941711|NCT04909801|191851068|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.7||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.2|0.4|0.1855
95941712|NCT04909801|191851068|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.4|0.6|0.5223
95746013|NCT04773600|191463978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|7.927|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 2||7.927|1.591|0.0015
95746014|NCT04773600|191463979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|35.764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|≥4-Point Reduction in WI-NRS at Week 1||35.764|1.717|0.0020
95746015|NCT04773600|191463980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|4.964|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.964|2.108|<0.0001
95746016|NCT04773600|191463981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.191|5.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||5.240|2.191|<0.0001
95746017|NCT04773600|191463982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|5.854|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.854|2.097|<0.0001
95746018|NCT04773600|191463983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.312|4.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||4.993|1.312|0.0050
95746019|NCT03581188|191463985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.0||||||Odds ratios report differences between groups at follow-up.||14|0.9|
95746020|NCT03581188|191463986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||||||||5.7|0.8|
95746021|NCT03581188|191463988|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||||||||2.1|1.1|
95746022|NCT03581188|191463989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||||||||2|0.6|
95746023|NCT03581188|191463990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.0||||||For new melanoma diagnoses, we calculated the difference in proportions and confidence intervals using the χ2 method without continuity correction. We included baseline measurement of the outcome in the models as a covariate to estimate between group difference in change from baseline.||23|-2|
95746024|NCT03581188|191463991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|19.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at unscheduled visit||19|2|
95746025|NCT03581188|191463991|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0||||||New melanoma diagnoses prompted at scheduled visit||10|-9|
95746026|NCT03581188|191463992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||||3|-5.8|
95746027|NCT00693225|191464075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95858712|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|30.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||30.1|16.9|
95941713|NCT04909801|191851068|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.8||||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.3|0.5|0.4078
95941714|NCT04909801|191851068|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.8|0.7|0.5238
95941715|NCT04909801|191851068|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.3|0.5|0.4740
95941716|NCT04909801|191851069|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.9|0.5|0.6565
95797530|NCT01033136|191564504|EQUIVALENCE|To test if MCET is equivalent to CPT in decreasing PTSD symptoms, we test the equivalence of the proportion of patients whose CAPS scores decrease by 10 from baseline, by testing whether the difference in proportions between the 2 interventions ≤ to the equivalence margin δb of .20. Results are reported based on 3-month follow-up data.||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
95941717|NCT04909801|191851069|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||2.1|0.6|0.7010
95746028|NCT01077817|191464098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to alendronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||1.5|0.7|
95746029|NCT01077817|191464098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to etidronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.0|0.9|
95746030|NCT01077817|191464098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to ibandronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||16.7|1.4|
95746031|NCT01077817|191464098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to risedronate treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.5|1.0|
95746032|NCT01077817|191464098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Logistic Regression Model|The case-cohort hazard ratio estimate for drug exposure was based on analysis of all cases of esophageal cancer and their comparison sample.||A hazard ratio estimate was calculated from the case-control matched set to measure the risk association between exposure to raloxifene treatment and incidence of esophageal cancer.||2.2|0.2|
95746033|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||1.3|0.7|
95797531|NCT01033136|191564505|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p \<.05 and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom: 2, 54||Longitudinal analysis of PDSS scores||||0.68
95797532|NCT05383209|191564507|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|13.4||||||||13.4|-24.9|
95858713|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|28.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||28.7|17.6|
95941718|NCT04909801|191851069|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||2.1|0.8|0.3683
95941719|NCT04909801|191851069|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||1.8|0.7|0.6372
95746034|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.8|
95797533|NCT05383209|191564507|OTHER||Slope|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|20.6||||||||20.6|-20.6|
95797534|NCT05383209|191564508|OTHER||Difference in response percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0||||||||26.0|-13.2|
95858714|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|22.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||22.3|12.7|
95941720|NCT04909801|191851069|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||2.0|0.8|0.2922
95746035|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of ibandronate~compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||3.4|0.5|
95797535|NCT03416179|191564536|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.532|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2 compared to Placebo + Cytarabine 100 mg/m\^2 IV + Daunorubicin 60 mg/m\^2.||1.532|0.755|0.6579
95797536|NCT03416179|191564537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.388|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model; under proportional hazards, hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Glasdegib 100 mg PO QD + Azacitidine compared to Placebo + Azacitidine||1.388|0.775|0.5955
95746036|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risendronate~compared to non-initiators of risendronate. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.0|0.9|
95746037|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of this hazard ratio, esophageal cancer cases occurring during the entire follow-up period were used."||2.3|0.3|
95746038|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~alendronate compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.5|0.7|
95746039|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~etidronate compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.9|0.7|
95746040|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.1|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~ibandronate compared to non-initiators of ibandronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||11.1|0.8|
95746041|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~risedronate compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios,~only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.0|1.1|
95746042|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of~raloxifene compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 721+ day hazard ratios, only~esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 721 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.7|0.1|
95797537|NCT03416179|191564538|OTHER|||||||0.5095|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.5095
95797538|NCT03416179|191564539|OTHER|||||||0.8359|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8359
95941721|NCT04909801|191851069|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.7|0.7|0.8178
95746043|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Proportional Hazards Regression Model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of alendronate~compared to non-initiators of alendronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||1.6|0.5|
95746044|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.|Proportional hazards regression model|||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of etidronate~compared to non-initiators of etidronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.0|0.6|
95797539|NCT00149643|191564580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Groups' categorical baseline measures were compared by chi-square analysis, corrected for continuity. Statistical analyses were completed on an intent to-treat study group basis. Outcome measures for depression and for cannabis use and alcohol use across treatment groups were compared by repeated measures analysis of variance. The last observation carried forward (LOCF)method was used for handling missing data in the data analyses.||||<0.05
95941722|NCT04909801|191851070|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.0||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29||2.2|0.4|0.9599
95941723|NCT04909801|191851070|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.9||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.7|0.5|0.7899
95941724|NCT04909801|191851070|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85||1.9|0.7|0.6305
95941725|NCT04909801|191851070|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 113||2.0|0.8|0.3491
95941726|NCT04909801|191851070|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.2||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 141||1.9|0.7|0.4916
95746045|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of risedronate~compared to non-initiators of risedronate. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||2.5|0.4|
95797540|NCT04666298|191564593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2|-49.0||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-49.0|-64.2|<.0001
95797541|NCT04666298|191564593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.3|-67.6|<.0001
95941727|NCT04909801|191851070|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept vs. Adalimumab|Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 169||1.8|0.7|0.5697
95746046|NCT01077817|191464099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.9|||Proportional hazards regression model|Year of birth, calendar quarter of cohort entry, and exposure history were stratified in this model.||"A hazard ratio was calculated to estimate the risk of esophageal cancer among initiators of raloxifene~compared to non-initiators of raloxifene. For calculation of 1441+ day hazard ratios, only esophageal cancer cases occurring at least 1441 days from initiation of study drug (data not shown) were used."||3.9|0.2|
95746047|NCT01186016|191464100|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A priori threshold for the P-Value was.05 or less.|ANOVA|||The scores on the Genetic Knowledge Test for both groups between baseline and the end of the educational sessions were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.01
95746048|NCT01186016|191464101|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of .05 or less.|ANOVA|||Data for Self-Efficacy for Quitting/Resisting Smoking were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA using three time points: baseline, end of the educational sessions, and end of the smoking cessation sessions.||||0.44
95746049|NCT01186016|191464102|OTHER|Nominal data were analyzed with Chi Square.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold P-Value for statistical significance was .05 or less.|Chi-squared|||||||.88
95746050|NCT03750695|191464105|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Repeated measures linear regression||||<0.05
95746051|NCT04480307|191464107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.031||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.124|0.5084
95746052|NCT04480307|191464107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.057|||Bayesian|Difference of change from baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.057|-0.121|
95746053|NCT04480307|191464108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.052|0.9472
95746054|NCT04480307|191464108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.059|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori.||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.059|-0.036|
95746055|NCT04480307|191464109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.154||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.524|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T1 lesion volume parameter||0.524|-0.216|0.4027
95746056|NCT04480307|191464109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.071|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for T2 lesion volume parameter||0.071|-0.051|0.7428
95746057|NCT04480307|191464110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.003||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.013|0.7314
95746058|NCT04480307|191464110|SUPERIORITY||Difference of change from Baseline|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.023|||Bayesian|Difference of change from Baseline a posteriori||Bayesian analysis is done using a non-informative prior on the mean observed difference.||0.023|-0.010|
95746059|NCT04480307|191464111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|0|0.7662
95746060|NCT00108550|191464164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.105||There was no need for multiple comparisons adjustment for the primary outcome, since there was only one. However, secondary analyses were adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of covariates (age, gender, etc) was evaluated (modeled as fixed effects) in secondary analyses.|The analysis was performed on transformed (rather than raw) Descriptor Differential Score Pain Intensity scores.|The null hypothesis was that Gabapentin is no better than placebo in reducing back pain. A mean-matching variance stabilizing transformation was applied to Descriptor Differential Scale Pain intensity (DDS) scores. Scores were modeled as a function of time (week) and group (gabapentin, placebo) in a mixed effects model. Random (subject-specific)intercept and slopes were fitted to the data. With alpha = .05 and N = 65 per group power is .8 to detect effect size =.4 standard deviations (SD).||0.105|-0.044|0.4237
95746061|NCT00108550|191464165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.872||Primary analyses was multivariable linear regression with fixed and random effects. After the Bonferroni adjustment a p-value would have been considered significant at 0.05 level if \<0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a secondary analysis; the null hypothesis is that Gabapentin performs no better than placebo in reducing the Roland and Morris score.||0.872|-1.940|0.458
95746062|NCT01557920|191464174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||pathological swallows under anesthesia vs. wakefulness: 25.9% vs. 4.9%|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95941728|NCT04909801|191851071|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|-0.0|0.0977
95746063|NCT01557920|191464174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of pathological swallow-rate increase by carbon-dioxide during anesthesia and wakefulness||||<0.001
95746064|NCT01557920|191464179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The number of swallows per hour: 1.7±3.3 during anesthesia vs. 28.0±22.3 during wakefulness|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95746065|NCT04974580|191464188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.84||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is NRT receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving NRT.|Comparison of NRT vs. no-NRT in model adjusted for receipt of digital component||1.84|0.91|0.14
95746066|NCT04974580|191464188|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||A priori threshold was 0.10|Regression, Logistic||Reported OR is Digital receipt vs. not, so values \>1 indicate higher odds of abstinence among those receiving the Digital component.|Comparison of Digital vs. no Digital in model adjusted for receipt of NRT component||1.47|0.73|0.84
95746067|NCT04381481|191464198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746068|NCT04381481|191464199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||snacks with warning compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746069|NCT04381481|191464200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746070|NCT04381481|191464201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95941729|NCT04909801|191851071|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.5|-0.1|0.2889
95746071|NCT04381481|191464202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
95746072|NCT04381481|191464203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746073|NCT04381481|191464204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746074|NCT04381481|191464205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746075|NCT04381481|191464206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746076|NCT04381481|191464207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
95746077|NCT04381481|191464208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.01
95746078|NCT04381481|191464209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746079|NCT04381481|191464210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95746080|NCT04381481|191464211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||beverages with claim compared to control beverage||||<0.001
95941730|NCT04909801|191851071|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.3|0.7676
95746081|NCT04381481|191464212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746082|NCT04381481|191464213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746083|NCT04381481|191464214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746084|NCT04381481|191464215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746085|NCT04381481|191464216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746086|NCT04381481|191464217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746087|NCT04381481|191464218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746088|NCT04381481|191464219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746089|NCT04381481|191464220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746090|NCT04381481|191464221|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746091|NCT04381481|191464222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746092|NCT04381481|191464223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746093|NCT04381481|191464224|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746094|NCT04381481|191464225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||warning snacks compared to control snack||||<0.001
95746095|NCT00476593|191464226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis: the use of diclofenac/dexamethasone does not influence macular thickness in treated eyes compared with untreated eyes of same subject.|t-test, 2 sided|The possible effect of both anti-inflammatory medications was tested in relation to participants' age and gender||Subjects who received diclofenac or dexamethasone eye drops in one eye. Macular thickness in both were compared between same subjects' eyes after 3 day's treatment. Diclofenac and dexamethasone treated eyes were not compared with each other, but with the contralateral eye of same subject by a paired Student's t-test in each medication group||||0.018
95746096|NCT00476593|191464226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient's healthy eyes were compared with sex and age matched healthy controls with Two Sample Student't t-test. Null hypothesis was that quiet, currently unaffected eyes of patients had same macular thickness as age and sex matched controls.||||0.024
95746097|NCT00559364|191464272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group and pooled site as fixed effects and wash-out phase CFA% value as covariate was used.||||<0.0001
95746098|NCT01235442|191464275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI(=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure(Yes or no).||||2.87|1.46|<0.001
95941731|NCT04909801|191851071|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.6157
95941732|NCT04909801|191851071|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.4|0.3904
95941733|NCT04909801|191851071|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.3|-0.4|0.8359
95941734|NCT04909801|191851072|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.4||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.1|-2.3|0.7852
95746099|NCT01235442|191464276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.75||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.75|1.40|<0.001
95746100|NCT01235442|191464277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.64||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||2.64|1.21|0.009
95797542|NCT04666298|191564593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-58.6||One-sided adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons using Dunnett´s multiple t-test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-58.6|-72.0|<.0001
95941735|NCT04909801|191851072|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.3|-2.0|0.6336
95941736|NCT04909801|191851072|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.7|-3.5|0.4879
95941737|NCT04909801|191851072|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.2812
95941738|NCT04909801|191851072|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1205
95941739|NCT04909801|191851072|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
95941740|NCT04909801|191851073|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.0|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.0|-1.6|0.4107
95941741|NCT04909801|191851073|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.6824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.2|||longitudinal|||Day 57||3.2|-2.1|0.6824
95941742|NCT04909801|191851073|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||longitudinal|||Day 85||1.9|-3.4|0.5793
95941743|NCT04909801|191851073|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.2|-4.2|0.2883
95797543|NCT00844519|191564609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.17
95941744|NCT04909801|191851073|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.5|-3.9|0.1285
95941745|NCT04909801|191851073|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.2815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||1.2|-4.2|0.2815
95941746|NCT04909801|191851078|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||0.5|0.1|0.0099
95941747|NCT04909801|191851078|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 57||0.4|-0.1|0.1519
95941748|NCT04909801|191851078|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.2505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||longitudinal|||Day 85||0.4|-0.1|0.2505
95941749|NCT04909801|191851078|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.2|-0.3|0.5248
95941750|NCT04909801|191851078|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||0.2|-0.3|0.1778
95941751|NCT04909801|191851078|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.2|-0.3|0.8510
95941752|NCT04909801|191851079|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.3||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5|||longitudinal|||Day 29||3.5|-0.9|0.2319
95941753|NCT04909801|191851079|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.5|0.5572
95941754|NCT04909801|191851079|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.1|-2.0|0.9366
95941755|NCT04909801|191851079|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||longitudinal|||Day 113||1.0|-3.5|0.1508
95941756|NCT04909801|191851079|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.6|0.0303
95941757|NCT04909801|191851079|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.8|-3.3|0.2333
95941758|NCT04909801|191851080|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||longitudinal|||Day 29||4.2|-0.3|0.0938
95941759|NCT04909801|191851080|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||longitudinal|||Day 57||2.7|-1.6|0.6053
95941760|NCT04909801|191851080|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||longitudinal|||Day 85||2.3|-1.9|0.8570
95941761|NCT04909801|191851080|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||longitudinal|||Day 113||0.5|-3.0|0.1592
95941762|NCT04909801|191851080|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.2|||longitudinal|||Day 141||-0.2|-3.7|0.0319
95941763|NCT04909801|191851080|SUPERIORITY|Abatacept - Adalimumab|Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7|||longitudinal|||Day 169||0.7|-3.4|0.2059
95941764|NCT05274074|191851089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|-3.4|0.57
95941765|NCT05274074|191851090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.5|0.53
95941766|NCT05274074|191851091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|-3.3|0.41
95941767|NCT05274074|191851092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||1.6|-3.5|0.45
95941768|NCT05274074|191851093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||6.2|0.5|0.02
95797544|NCT00844519|191564609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||within-arm, pre-post change in FMD||||0.90
95941769|NCT05274074|191851094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||Regression, Linear|||||3.3|-4.9|0.69
95941770|NCT05194956|191851095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|13.15|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|P-values are calculated taking sequence and period effects into account.|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)||13.15|3.75|0.0006
95941771|NCT05194956|191851095|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1984
95941772|NCT05194956|191851095|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.7494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7494
95941773|NCT05194956|191851095|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects modelling|Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.29|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.33|-21.29|0.001
95941774|NCT05194956|191851096|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|0.91||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.91|-7.71|0.1230
95941775|NCT05194956|191851096|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8423
95941776|NCT05194956|191851096|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9544|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9544
95941777|NCT05194956|191851097|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.12||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-0.12|-6.69|0.0439
95941778|NCT05194956|191851097|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.3878|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3878
95941779|NCT05194956|191851097|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.9772|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9772
95989875|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.90|2.80|<0.0001
95797545|NCT00622518|191564616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value is based on rating\*group interaction term|linear mixed model|||||||.002
95941780|NCT05194956|191851098|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|17.79||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||17.79|1.50|0.0213
95941781|NCT05194956|191851098|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1583
95797546|NCT06001866|191564644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
95941782|NCT05194956|191851098|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.4709|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4709
95941783|NCT05194956|191851099|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.46||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||9.46|1.09|0.0146
95941784|NCT05194956|191851099|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.5911|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5911
95941785|NCT05194956|191851099|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5825
95941786|NCT05194956|191851100|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|0.69||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-11.12|0.0817
95941787|NCT05194956|191851100|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0910
95941788|NCT05194956|191851100|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.2278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2278
95941789|NCT05194956|191851101|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.69|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||0.69|-5.17|0.1347
95941790|NCT05194956|191851101|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9259
95941791|NCT05194956|191851101|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.8225|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8225
95941792|NCT05194956|191851102|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Median Difference (Net)|-11.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-1.83||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-1.83|-20.47|0.0200
95941793|NCT05194956|191851102|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.9104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9104
95941794|NCT05194956|191851102|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.5194|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5194
95941795|NCT05194956|191851103|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.71|-15.75||From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA||This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-15.75|-30.71|<0.00005
95746101|NCT01235442|191464278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No) with with modified ridit scores.||||||0.006
95746102|NCT01235442|191464279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|van Elteren test|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||||<0.001
95941796|NCT05194956|191851103|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.1369|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1369
95941797|NCT05194956|191851103|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3366
95941798|NCT05194956|191851104|SUPERIORITY|All units of measure reported for this analysis are the mean within-patient differences between alginate and scan VAS scores (i.e. alginate score - scan score)|Mean Difference (Net)|-120.0|||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.54|-90.38|||Two-period two-treatment crossover ANOVA|From a 2-period 2-treatment crossover ANOVA, taking sequence and period effects into account|This estimation value assumes period and sequence effects are equal between the treatments.|||-90.38|-149.54|<0.00005
95746103|NCT01235442|191464280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.85||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is adjusted for baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF (Yes or No).||||1.85|0.92|0.135
95746104|NCT01235442|191464281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.87||Overall significance level for primary and secondary endpoints controlled based on a combination of sequential testing and Hommel procedures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The test is stratified by baseline BMI (=\<35 or \>35) and prior anti-TNF exposure (Yes or No).||||1.87|0.96|0.135
95746105|NCT04458467|191464306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95746106|NCT04458467|191464307|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95746107|NCT04511208|191464432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.7|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.001
95746108|NCT04511208|191464433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.26||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.08|-0.44|0.006
95746109|NCT04511208|191464434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.005|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.005|-0.45|0.046
95746110|NCT04511208|191464435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.07||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B PST Score||2.38|-2.51|0.955
95746111|NCT04511208|191464435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.62||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.71|||Repeated measures linear model|||C3B VMT Score||3.71|-2.48|0.686
95746112|NCT04511208|191464436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.68|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||4.68|1.28|0.007
95746113|NCT04511208|191464436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.28|||Repeated measures linear model|||Sensitivity analysis||-0.28|-1.82|0.009
95746114|NCT04511208|191464437|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.38|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-0.38|-1.75|0.004
95746115|NCT04511208|191464438|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.13|||Repeated measures linear model|||||-2.13|-3.80|<0.001
95746116|NCT00749658|191464443|OTHER|Two tailed testing||||||0.07|||||||SAS|||||||0.07
95797547|NCT06001866|191564644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95746117|NCT03298880|191464447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.3|||mixed linear regression|||||5.3|2.1|<0.001
95746118|NCT03298880|191464447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8|||mixed linear regression|||||3.8|0.8|0.003
95746119|NCT01488448|191464455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95746120|NCT01488448|191464456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
95746121|NCT01488448|191464457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.97
95746122|NCT01488448|191464458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95746123|NCT01488448|191464459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95746124|NCT01488448|191464460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95746125|NCT01488448|191464463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95797548|NCT06001866|191564645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95797549|NCT06001866|191564645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95797550|NCT06001866|191564646|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.78|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.78
95797551|NCT06001866|191564646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<.00001
95941799|NCT05194956|191851104|SUPERIORITY|Sequence effects||||||0.8509|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8509
95941800|NCT05194956|191851104|SUPERIORITY|Period effects||||||0.0355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0355
95941801|NCT05452460|191851106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in RT as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in RT as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
95941802|NCT05452460|191851107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in ACC the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in ACC as the covariate.||||||> .05
95941803|NCT05452460|191851108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in N2 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in N2 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
95941804|NCT05452460|191851109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in P3 the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in P3 as the covariate.||||||> 0.05
95941805|NCT05452460|191851110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-test condition difference in TTE the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-test condition difference in TTE as the covariate.|\[F(1, 52) = 13.35, p = .001, ηp2 = .211\]|||||< 0.01
95746126|NCT01475487|191464482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 21 participants per group was required to detect a 40% absolute difference in the complication rate between DP and US guided techniques assuming a 45% complication rate in the DP (control) group and using the Fisher's exact test for the comparison of independent proportions. A total of 23 and 24 participants were recruited in the DP and US group, respectively.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95746127|NCT01475487|191464483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.94|||Fisher Exact||Risk of injury ( none-mild vs moderate -severe) for all participants|||5.94|1.39|0.001
95746128|NCT01475487|191464483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Grade 3-4 comparison of None-mild and moderate-severe||||<0.001
95746129|NCT01475487|191464484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.72|||Fisher Exact||This is the risk ratio for 1 vs 2 attempts|||2.72|0.12|0.701
95746130|NCT01475487|191464485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|39.48|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Grade 3-4||39.48|0.79|0.043
95746131|NCT01214239|191464486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.0001
95746132|NCT01214239|191464487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.527|-0.238|||ANCOVA|||||-0.238|-0.527|<0.0001
95746133|NCT01214239|191464488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.677|-0.323|||ANCOVA|||||-0.323|-0.677|<0.0001
95797552|NCT06001866|191564647|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
95797553|NCT06001866|191564647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95941806|NCT05452460|191851111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in VO2max Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in VO2max||||||> 0.05
95941807|NCT05452460|191851112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 3 (ASSESSMENT TIME) × 2 (Experiment Phase)||||||< 0.01
95746134|NCT01214239|191464489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.705|-0.318|||ANCOVA|||||-0.318|-0.705|<0.0001
95746135|NCT01214239|191464490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
95746136|NCT01214239|191464491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0003||95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||||-5.2|-17.2|0.0003
95746137|NCT01214239|191464492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0086||95.0|-15.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-15.4|0.0086
95746138|NCT01214239|191464493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0135||95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-17.0|0.0135
95746139|NCT01214239|191464494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0113||95.0|-17.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.1|0.0113
95797554|NCT06001866|191564648|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.75|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.75
95797555|NCT06001866|191564648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.01
95797556|NCT06001866|191564649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95746140|NCT01214239|191464496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.552||||0.0021||95.0|1.407|4.629|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0%||4.629|1.407|0.0021
95746141|NCT01214239|191464498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.583||||0.25||95.0|0.724|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||3.46|0.724|0.2500
95746142|NCT01214239|191464499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.527||||0.0005||95.0|1.494|4.276|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||||4.276|1.494|0.0005
95746143|NCT00987831|191464500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||Definition of Moderate Disease was \</= 3 BILAG B (moderate) organ scores, no A (severe) scores and SLEDAI \</=10. Severe disease was \> 3 BILAG B or \>/= BILAG A or SLEDAI \> 10 or meets definition for severe flare on the SELENA SLEDAI Flare Index|Log Rank|||||95|5|0.2738
95746144|NCT01923311|191464533|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG AUCtau in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG AUCtau is 0.36 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|135.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.24|158.49||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieved similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||158.49|116.24|
95797557|NCT06001866|191564649|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.62
95797558|NCT06001866|191564650|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.16
95797559|NCT06001866|191564650|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.33|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.33
95797560|NCT06001866|191564651|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.54
95797561|NCT06001866|191564652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95797562|NCT00207740|191564661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that for combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming a standard deviation of 23%, there is 86% power to detect a 10% difference at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.802
95797563|NCT00207740|191564661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.945
95797564|NCT00207740|191564661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.717
95941808|NCT05452460|191851113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The main effect of the Stroop block on accuracy showed a decrease from the first block to the fifth block.|ANOVA|Four-way mixed-design ANOVA: 2 (GROUP) × 2 (CONDITION) × 5 (BLOCK) × 2 (Phase)||||||< 0.01
95941809|NCT05452460|191851114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test mean score Covariate: Pre-test mean score||||||< 0.05
95941810|NCT05452460|191851115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed anger Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed anger||||||> 0.05
95989876|NCT00848354|191954686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|9.85||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.85|3.82|<0.0001
95941811|NCT05452460|191851116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
95941812|NCT05452460|191851117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed depression Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed depression||||||> 0.05
95989877|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||6.60|2.74|<0.0001
95989878|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.18|2.94|<0.0001
95989879|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|8.61||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.61|3.15|<0.0001
95989880|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|9.93||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||9.93|3.36|<0.0001
95989881|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|13.09||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.09|3.91|<0.0001
95941813|NCT05452460|191851118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed fatigue Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed fatigue||||||> 0.05
95989882|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||15.80|4.50|<0.0001
95989883|NCT00848354|191954688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||10.47|3.50|<0.0001
95989884|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
95989885|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
95797565|NCT00207740|191564661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|ANCOVA|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.357
95797566|NCT00207740|191564662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.286
95797567|NCT00207740|191564662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.742
95797568|NCT00207740|191564662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
95941814|NCT05452460|191851119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
95941815|NCT05452460|191851120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Factor: Group Outcome: Post-test condition difference in changed confusion Covariate: Pre-test condition difference in changed confusion||||||> 0.05
95941816|NCT04447040|191851123|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|31.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|42.07|||ANOVA|||||42.07|20.90|<0.001
95989886|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
95797569|NCT00207740|191564662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
95858715|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.2|0.8|
95941817|NCT04447040|191851123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.02|51.75|||ANOVA|||||51.75|31.02|<0.001
95746145|NCT01923311|191464534|EQUIVALENCE|A total of 12 test study participants compared to 334 HIV-infected reference study participants will provide at least 90% power to conclude exposure equivalence of EVG Cmax in test study vs reference study, assuming the expected geometric mean ratio is 1, equivalency boundary is 70% to 143%, 2 one-sided tests are each performed at an alpha level of 0.05, and the standard deviation of EVG Cmax is 0.28 ng•h/mL (natural log scale, estimated from EVG population PK modeling).|GLSM Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|146.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|168.94||||||To determine whether the proposed EVG dose in children achieves similar systemic exposure to adults, statistical comparisons were performed with PK data from the current study (test) and adult data from population PK modeling in study GS-US-183-0145 (NCT00708162) (reference).||168.94|127.35|
95746146|NCT04403399|191464558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95746147|NCT04403399|191464559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
95746148|NCT04403399|191464560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95746149|NCT04412057|191464576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size provided greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 in the proportion of subjects alive and free of respiratory failure using a Chi-square exact test at a one-sided significance level of 0.05. This calculation assumed that the proportion alive and free of respiratory failure will be 0.60 in the placebo group and 0.85 in the CERC-002 group.||7.88|1.04|0.0440
95746150|NCT04412057|191464577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|6.82|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects alive at Day 28/ET in the CERC-002 group was compared to that in the placebo group using logistic regression methods. The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group. Model based point estimate (i.e., odds ratio \[OR\]), 90% confidence interval \[CI\], and one-sided p-value were reported.||6.82|0.59|0.1762
95746151|NCT04100096|191464578|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.7||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), treatment group (TG), visit, ADT status, and TG by visit interaction (BVI), gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.70|-2.75|0.2430
95746152|NCT04100096|191464579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||Comparison was carried out using MMRM, with study center (pooled), TG, visit, ADT status, and TG BVI, gender BVI, age BVI as factors and baseline BVI as covariate. An unstructured covariance was used.|MMRM|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7759
95746153|NCT04100096|191464580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 2||0.20|-0.32|0.6585
95746154|NCT04100096|191464580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.06||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 4||0.06|-0.57|0.1181
95746155|NCT04100096|191464580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 6||0.13|-0.51|0.2431
95858716|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|26.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||26.5|16.6|
95941818|NCT04447040|191851123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|46.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|57.27|||ANOVA|||||57.27|36.44|<0.001
95941819|NCT04447040|191851123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.57|64.51|||ANOVA|||||64.51|43.57|<0.001
95941820|NCT04447040|191851123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|59.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.468|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.16|70.68|||ANOVA|||||70.68|49.16|<0.001
95941821|NCT04447040|191851124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.542|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|48.54|||ANOVA|||||48.54|22.79|<0.001
95941822|NCT04447040|191851124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|49.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.407|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|61.65|||ANOVA|||||61.65|36.44|<0.001
95941823|NCT04447040|191851124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|53.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.437|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.97|66.31|||ANOVA|||||66.31|40.97|<0.001
95941824|NCT04447040|191851124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.19|73.67|||ANOVA|||||73.67|48.19|<0.001
95941825|NCT04447040|191851124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|67.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.49|80.67|||ANOVA|||||80.67|54.49|<0.001
95941826|NCT04447040|191851125|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.44|18.63|||ANOVA|||||18.63|6.44|<0.001
95746156|NCT04100096|191464580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.02||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 8||0.02|-0.61|0.0638
95746157|NCT04100096|191464580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 10||0.22|-0.44|0.5050
95746158|NCT04100096|191464580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|MMRM||Derived from an MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, (pooled) trial site, visit, ADT status (with/without background ADT), treatment BVI, gender BVI, covariates of baseline BVI and age BVI.|Week 12||0.21|-0.48|0.4277
95941827|NCT04447040|191851125|SUPERIORITY||LS MEAN Difference|17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|23.7|||ANOVA|||||23.70|11.76|<0.001
95746159|NCT04100096|191464581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.30|-0.18|0.6225
95746160|NCT04100096|191464581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.31|-0.35|0.9145
95746161|NCT04100096|191464581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.08|-0.52|0.1535
95746162|NCT04100096|191464581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||0.10|-0.50|0.1922
95746163|NCT04100096|191464581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.25|-0.40|0.6488
95746164|NCT04100096|191464581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.23||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||0.23|-0.40|0.5992
95746165|NCT04100096|191464582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 2||0.19|-0.29|0.6579
95746166|NCT04100096|191464582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.16||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 4||0.16|-0.43|0.3728
95941828|NCT04447040|191851125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|27.88|||ANOVA|||||27.88|15.89|<0.001
95941829|NCT04447040|191851125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|25.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.98|31.03|||ANOVA|||||31.03|18.98|<0.001
95797570|NCT00207740|191564663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||||||When interpreting this p-value along with the other co-primary endpoint, Hochberg procedure was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the number of severe exacerbations per patient from baseline through week 24 for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab. Assuming 1 severe exacerbation over 6 months per patient in the placebo group, there is 79% power to detect a 35% reduction in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab group at a 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
95797571|NCT00207740|191564663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.779
95797572|NCT00207740|191564663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.649
95797573|NCT00207740|191564663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||||||The nominal p-value is for descriptive purpose only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a secondary analysis.||||0.256
95797574|NCT00207740|191564664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.894
95797575|NCT00207740|191564664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.572
95941830|NCT04447040|191851125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.11|35.5|||ANOVA|||||35.50|23.11|<0.001
95941831|NCT04447040|191851126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95941832|NCT04447040|191851126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95941833|NCT04447040|191851126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95941834|NCT04447040|191851126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95941835|NCT04447040|191851126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95941836|NCT04447040|191851127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wald method|||||||0.014
95941837|NCT04447040|191851127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wald method|||||||0.002
95941838|NCT04447040|191851127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
95941839|NCT04447040|191851127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
95941840|NCT04447040|191851127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald method|||||||<0.001
95746167|NCT04100096|191464582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.09||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 6||0.09|-0.50|0.1684
95797576|NCT00207740|191564664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.731
95797577|NCT00207740|191564664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.856
95746168|NCT04100096|191464582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.13||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 8||-0.13|-0.74|0.0046
95746169|NCT04100096|191464582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 10||0.11|-0.51|0.2087
95746170|NCT04100096|191464582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Comparison between TGs was carried out using the CMH Row Mean Score Differ Test controlling for trial site.|Week 12||-0.02|-0.64|0.0389
95746171|NCT04100096|191464587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.5||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.50|-0.14|0.2720
95746172|NCT04100096|191464587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.56|0.63|0
95746173|NCT04100096|191464587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.73||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||1.73|0.63|0
95746174|NCT04100096|191464587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.21||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||2.21|0.92|0
95746175|NCT04100096|191464587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||2.45|0.99|0
95746176|NCT04100096|191464587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.19|0.68|0.0002
95797578|NCT00207740|191564665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.273
95989887|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
95746177|NCT04100096|191464588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 12||2.68|-0.07|0.0620
95746178|NCT04100096|191464589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.||Week 2||0.17|-0.08|0.4613
95797579|NCT00207740|191564665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.382
95797580|NCT00207740|191564665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.350
95746179|NCT04100096|191464589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.55|0.21|0
95746180|NCT04100096|191464589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.61|0.21|0.0001
95746181|NCT04100096|191464589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.80|0.33|0
95746182|NCT04100096|191464589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.88|0.34|0
95746183|NCT04100096|191464589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.80|0.23|0.0004
95746184|NCT04100096|191464591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.25|-0.04|0.1687
95746185|NCT04100096|191464591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.29||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.29|-0.06|0.1874
95746186|NCT04100096|191464592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.02|-0.25|0.0974
95797581|NCT00207740|191564665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
95797582|NCT00207740|191564666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.986
95797583|NCT00207740|191564666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
95797584|NCT00207740|191564666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.858
95797585|NCT00207740|191564666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95746187|NCT04100096|191464592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.08|-0.20|0.3910
95746188|NCT04100096|191464593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.04|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.26|0.04|0.0063
95746189|NCT04100096|191464593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19||ANCOVA model, with treatment as main effect and baseline value as covariate, is used for change from baseline of case comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.19|-0.01|0.0670
95746190|NCT00991510|191464647|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.865|0.984|||ANOVA|||A total of 100 subjects were planned to be enrolled, allowing for 10% drop-out rate. Based on previous single dose studies, the intra-subject coefficients of variation were 14% and 50% for AUC and Cmax, respectively. Based on the literature similar intra subject coefficients of variation were observed in steady-state patients. With these expected CV(%) and an expected ratio of Cmax within 0.95 and 1.05, the study should have a power of at least 80 % to show bioequivalence with 80 subjects.||0.984|0.865|
95746191|NCT00991510|191464648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|1.023|||ANOVA|||||1.023|0.899|
95746192|NCT00991510|191464649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|0.968|||ANOVA|||||0.968|0.787|
95746193|NCT00991510|191464650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was accepted if the calculated 90 % CIs were within 0.80-1.25.|adjusted least-squares mean ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.106|||ANOVA|||||1.106|0.877|
95746194|NCT00784134|191464655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.115|||Chi-squared|||||0.115|-0.062|0.554
95746195|NCT00784134|191464655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87||Multivariable logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume.|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.87|0.75|0.465
95746196|NCT00784134|191464656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.25||Generalized ordered logit model adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical) compares odds ratio for mRS score \> K v. \<= K for K = 1 - 4; Alt v. Sal.|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||1.25|0.63|0.484
95746197|NCT00784134|191464656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.71||The same generalized ordered logit model, adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical), compares odds ratio for mRS score greater than 5 versus mRS score equal or less than 5 (dead versus alive).|Generalized ordered Logit Model|||||0.71|0.28|<0.001
95746198|NCT00784134|191464657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.111|||Chi-squared|||||0.111|-0.059|0.552
95746199|NCT00784134|191464657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||Multivariable logit model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Multivariable Logit Model|||||1.90|0.80|0.350
95746200|NCT00784134|191464658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8||Random effects model with site as random effect adjusted for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).|Random Effects Model|||||1.80|0.78|0.428
95746201|NCT00784134|191464659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 30 days||2.10|0.75|0.384
95746202|NCT00784134|191464659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|Generalized estimating equation model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||Logit mRS scores 0-3 at 180 days||1.64|0.62|0.964
95746203|NCT00784134|191464660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0056
95746204|NCT00784134|191464661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||AUC/ Logit Model|||||||<0.001
95746205|NCT00784134|191464662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.771
95746206|NCT00784134|191464663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.098
95746207|NCT00784134|191464664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Linear Models|||||||0.450
95746208|NCT00784134|191464665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.501
95746209|NCT00784134|191464666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.795
95746210|NCT00784134|191464667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.784
95746211|NCT00784134|191464668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.592
95746212|NCT00784134|191464669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.105
95746213|NCT00784134|191464670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
95746214|NCT00784134|191464671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.055||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.008|||Fisher Exact|||||0.008|-0.111|0.055
95746215|NCT00784134|191464672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.035||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014|-0.084|0.202
95746216|NCT00784134|191464673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.030|-0.022|0.771
95746217|NCT00784134|191464674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.036|||Fisher Exact|||||0.036|-0.028|0.811
95746218|NCT00784134|191464675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.144||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.057|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.057|-0.230|0.0017
95746219|NCT00784134|191464676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.86|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Adjusted Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, GCS, thalamus, stability ICH volume and stability IVH volume (categorical).||||0.86|0.41|0.006
95746220|NCT00784134|191464677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.217|||Chi-squared|||||0.217|-0.088|0.410
95746221|NCT00784134|191464678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Chi-squared|||||0.128|-0.096|0.781
95746222|NCT00784134|191464679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.152|||Chi-squared|||||0.152|-0.113|0.773
95746223|NCT00784134|191464680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|-0.085|0.587
95746224|NCT00784134|191464681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.121|||Chi-squared|||||0.121|-0.09|0.775
95746225|NCT00784134|191464682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.169|||Chi-squared|||||0.169|-0.132|0.808
95746226|NCT00784134|191464683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.099|||Chi-squared|||||0.099|-0.165|0.625
95746227|NCT00784134|191464684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.218|||Chi-squared|||||0.218|-0.043|0.191
95746228|NCT00784134|191464685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0066||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.211|||Chi-squared|||||0.211|-0.197|0.949
95797586|NCT00207740|191564667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the endpoint for placebo is the same as that in the combined 100 mg and 200 mg golimumab.||||0.833
95797587|NCT00207740|191564667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.814
95797588|NCT00207740|191564667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.897
95797589|NCT00207740|191564667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.726
95858717|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||20.1|11.6|
95746229|NCT00784134|191464686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.014||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.126|||Chi-squared|||||0.126|-0.098|0.812
95797590|NCT03806296|191564730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.07|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||-0.07|-0.77|0.018
95797591|NCT03806296|191564730|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||1.07|0.28|0.001
95797592|NCT03806296|191564731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||1.59|0.61|<0.001
95797593|NCT03806296|191564731|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||-0.43|-1.09|<0.001
95797594|NCT03806296|191564732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.24|-0.64|0.365
95858718|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||14.0|8.1|
95746230|NCT00784134|191464687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.194|||Chi-squared|||||0.194|-0.076|0.394
95746231|NCT00784134|191464688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.312
95746232|NCT00784134|191464689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.075||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.16||Analysis of dichotomous eGOS, comparing Upper Severe Disability scores to Lower Severe Disability scores|Chi-squared|||||0.160|-0.011|0.087
95746233|NCT00784134|191464689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43||Adjusted Multivariable Logit Model comparing eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or greater versus Lower Severe Disability and worse; Alteplase versus Saline|Multivariable Logit Model|||||2.43|0.98|0.064
95746234|NCT00784134|191464689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.89||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Moderate Disability or worse versus Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||2.89|0.70|0.336
95746235|NCT00784134|191464689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52||Adjusted generalized ordered logit model odds ratios for eGOS scores of Upper Severe Disability or worse versus Moderate Disability + Good Recovery; Alteplase versus Saline|Generalized Ordered Logit Model|||||1.52|0.57|0.783
95746236|NCT00784134|191464690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95746237|NCT00784134|191464691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
95746238|NCT00784134|191464692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95746239|NCT00784134|191464693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
95746240|NCT00784134|191464694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.634
95746241|NCT00784134|191464695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.255
95746242|NCT00784134|191464696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
95746243|NCT00784134|191464697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882
95746244|NCT00784134|191464698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.551
95746245|NCT00784134|191464699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
95746246|NCT00784134|191464700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.376
95746247|NCT00966381|191464719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95746248|NCT00966381|191464720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95746249|NCT00966381|191464721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95746250|NCT03686150|191464751|OTHER|This was a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D.||||||||||||||||Part 1 of this study was to perform a population PK analysis of 25(OH)D after oral administration of Vitamin D in children who are overweight or obese and have asthma. Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|Based on the interim analysis of the VDORA study, the PK of 25(OH)D after Vitamin D supplementation in children was well characterized by a 2-compartment population PK model with linear absorption and elimination kinetics. A loading dose of 50,000 IU followed by a daily dose of 8,000 IU was recommended.|||
95941841|NCT02010242|191851128|SUPERIORITY|All statistical analyses were performed on a comparison-wise basis without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA comparing GKT137831 vs placebo after controlling for the baseline UACR level. The UACR were log-transformed prior to analysis. The model included treatment group and log-transformed baseline UACR value as predicted variables. The results were back-transformed exponentially to calculate geo. mean values and associated 90% CIs and 1-sided p-values. The null hypothesis was that the difference in the adjusted mean logarithm of UACR was equal to 0||||1.000
95941842|NCT04359654|191851178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95941843|NCT04359654|191851179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95941844|NCT04359654|191851181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95941845|NCT04359654|191851182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported LS means are antilogs of the LS means estimated on the log scale.||||0.021
95746251|NCT03686150|191464752|OTHER|This is one-sample test of proportion testing the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants with 25(OH)D level \>= 40 ng/mL is 50%.||||||0.0001|||||||z-test|||This is a one-sample test of proportion.||||0.0001
95746252|NCT00412737|191464758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.283||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|The null hypothesis tested was that there was no difference between the proportions of participants who met the primary endpoint in the two treatment groups.||4.1|-2.3|0.772
95746253|NCT00412737|191464759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.37||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.5|-2.1|0.534
95746254|NCT00412737|191464760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.431||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6|||Fisher Exact||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.7|0.381
95746255|NCT00412737|191464761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.2|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.2|-0.6|
95746256|NCT00412737|191464762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.7|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.7|0.1|
95746257|NCT00412737|191464763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||4.6|-1.9|
95746258|NCT00412737|191464764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Relative Risk Reduction = (1.0 - Relative Risk).|||5.1|-1.4|
95746259|NCT02174276|191464777|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.12|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.120|-0.155|0.805
95746260|NCT02174276|191464777|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.063||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.202|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.202|-0.075|0.370
95746261|NCT02174276|191464777|SUPERIORITY|Estimated differences in treatment effects between GS-4774 treatment groups and the TDF only group at Week 24 are presented with the 95% CIs and unadjusted P-values.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.056||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.082|||Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||The null hypotheses was that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in each of the TDF + GS-4774 groups was equal to the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg in the TDF only group. Each null hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative hypothesis that the mean change from baseline in serum HBsAg was not equal between each of the respective GS-4774 dose groups and the TDF only group.||0.082|-0.194|0.426
95746262|NCT00216060|191464796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|8.4|||Regression, Cox|||||8.40|0.51|0.3
95746263|NCT00216060|191464797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||univariate analysis|||||||0.12
95746264|NCT00216060|191464799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95746265|NCT00216060|191464801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95746266|NCT00216060|191464802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.010
95746267|NCT00216060|191464803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95746268|NCT02250651|191464887|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
95941846|NCT05586490|191851290|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6375||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.429
95746269|NCT02250651|191464887|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
95797595|NCT03806296|191564732|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoints, and sex.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
95941847|NCT05586490|191851291|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.75||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.351
95941848|NCT05586490|191851292|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.937
95941849|NCT05586490|191851293|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||||0.044
95746270|NCT02250651|191464887|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
95746271|NCT02250651|191464887|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
95746272|NCT02250651|191464888|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382||95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
95797596|NCT03806296|191564733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|8.82|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||8.82|-2.18|0.234
95797597|NCT03806296|191564733|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-6.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||-1.06|-11.25|0.018
95941850|NCT05586490|191851294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.42
95941851|NCT05586490|191851294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device group and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.50
95797598|NCT03806296|191564734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.94|0.07|0.024
95797599|NCT03806296|191564734|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.35|-0.55|0.660
95941852|NCT05586490|191851295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.986
95941853|NCT05586490|191851295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.479
95941854|NCT05586490|191851296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.098
95746273|NCT02250651|191464888|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133||95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
95746274|NCT02250651|191464889|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013||95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
95746275|NCT02250651|191464889|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364||95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
95746276|NCT02250651|191464890|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304||95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
95746277|NCT02250651|191464890|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272||95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
95746278|NCT02250651|191464891|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038||95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
95746279|NCT02250651|191464891|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741||95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
95746280|NCT02250651|191464892|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3738||95.0|-1.17|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.44|-1.17|0.3738
95797600|NCT03806296|191564735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.03|0.592
95797601|NCT03806296|191564735|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.11|0.550
95797602|NCT03806296|191564736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.04|-0.07|0.550
95797603|NCT03806296|191564736|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|-0.02||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.10|0.556
95941855|NCT05586490|191851296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.729
95746281|NCT02250651|191464892|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8514||95.0|-0.88|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.73|-0.88|0.8514
95746282|NCT02250651|191464893|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0401||95.0|-1.57|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.57|0.0401
95746283|NCT02250651|191464893|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.41|-1.12|0.3621
95746284|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.48|0.0382
95797604|NCT03806296|191564737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a linear regression model to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on each a priori outcome, accounting for age and sex.||0.06|-0.01|0.124
95797605|NCT03806296|191564737|SUPERIORITY||Time X Group interaction|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Aim 2, this mixed effect model tested the effect of group (Control vs Manipulation) on changes in each a priori outcome, accounting for group, timepoint, and sex.||0.06|-0.05|0.925
95797606|NCT03806296|191564738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.752||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.513|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (lower RR indicates less likelihood of cannabis use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary cannabis use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||1.513|0.374|0.42
95797607|NCT03806296|191564739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.236||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.171|||Poisson GLM with robust standard error||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher RR indicates higher likelihood of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group)|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a Poisson generalized linear model (GLM) to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on a binary alcohol use outcome (yes/no in the past 3 months), accounting for age and sex.||2.171|0.704|0.461
95746285|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.14|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.14|-1.29|0.1133
95797608|NCT03806296|191564739|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|3.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|7.9|||negative binomial glm||Early/Middle Sleep group was the reference group (higher IRR indicates greater days of alcohol use in the Late Sleep group than in the Early/Middle Sleep group).|For these Aim 1 analyses comparing the Early/Middle vs Late Sleep groups, the Late Sleep-Control and Late Sleep-Manipulation were combined into a single Late Sleep group. We used a negative binomial GLM to test the effect of group (Early/Mid vs Late) on days of alcohol use, accounting for age and sex.||7.90|1.36|0.007
95797609|NCT02612155|191564749|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95858719|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.8|
95941856|NCT05586490|191851297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.15||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.0580
95941857|NCT05586490|191851297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.718
95941858|NCT05586490|191851299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.816
95941859|NCT05586490|191851299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0048||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.985
95941860|NCT05586490|191851300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (alternate device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.59
95941861|NCT05586490|191851300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.16||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Estimated difference between groups (research device and no device group) controlling for pre-trial measurements, gender, and age.||||||0.51
95746286|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.43|-1.76|0.0013
95746287|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.05|-1.38|0.0364
95746288|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.29|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.29|-1.22|0.2304
95746289|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.17|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 0: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.17|-1.34|0.1272
95746290|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.76|0.0038
95746291|NCT02250651|191464894|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.06|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6, Hour 2: The hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 mmHg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.06|-1.36|0.0741
95989888|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
95746292|NCT02795676|191464895|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval for the treatment difference is above the non-inferiority margin, which was met. No p-value was calculated as this is not relevant for non-inferiority.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.444|1.726|||Regression, Linear|The primary efficacy analysis compared eGFR slope between the treatment arms using a 2-stage model with quantile regression.||||1.726|-2.444|
95858720|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|34.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||34.6|20.5|
95941862|NCT00661141|191851304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8727||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.8727
95989889|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
95941863|NCT00661141|191851307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Overall p-value testing cohort difference from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort, 5.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.0023
95746293|NCT01201486|191464903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Percentage Sensitivity|||||||
95941864|NCT00661141|191851307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg Cohort, 3.0 mg/kg cohort||||0.386
95746294|NCT03222037|191464941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for high lumniance low contrast|Comparison between the Test and the SCR treatments was carried out using 97.5% confidence intervals for the least-square mean differences.||-0.02|-0.09|
95746295|NCT03222037|191464941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval was below 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.06|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model with Kenward and Roger method for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test- SCR. This comparison is for Low luminance high contrast|||-0.01|-0.06|
95746296|NCT03222037|191464942|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance is declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is above 0 or if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is below 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - SCR.|Comparison between the Test and SCR treatments was carried out using least-square mean differences||0.08|0.01|0.0066
95746297|NCT00496262|191464943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.0001||90.0|||||2-sided, 1-sample t-test||The entire ITT population was used for a conservative analysis of the mean change in MCF. The mean change was set to 0 for any subject with missing MCF data.|This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between MCF pre-infusion and 1 hour post-infusion.||||<0.0001
95746298|NCT02010996|191464956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95746299|NCT01493596|191464957|OTHER|Comparison of event rates across dose groups.|percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||There were a total of 5 non-serious adverse events for an AE rate of 14.3%|Descriptive statistics for evaluation of AEs|Descriptive statistics of adverse events|||
95746300|NCT02030535|191465001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.252||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation|Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Placebo.|||0.252|0.187|<0.0001
95858721|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|24.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||24.1|13.5|
95941865|NCT00661141|191851307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||1.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0006
95941866|NCT00661141|191851307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154||||||P-values for pairwise comparison between cohorts from ANOVA|ANOVA|||3.0 mg/kg, 5.0 mg/kg||||0.0154
95941867|NCT00661141|191851314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.45|147.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||147.67|90.45|
95941868|NCT00661141|191851314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|126.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.94|155.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||155.87|101.94|
95746301|NCT02030535|191465001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.284||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment and period; patient baseline and period baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect|Mixed models repeated measures analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom. Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.|Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg minus Placebo.|||0.284|0.220|<0.0001
95746302|NCT02030535|191465001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.001|||||Tio+Olo 5/5μg minus Tiotropium 5μg + Olodaterol 5μg.|Descriptive comparison. Statistical Analyses 1 \& 2 were included in the hierarchical testing sequence (alpha protected), and analysis 3 was not included in the hierarchical testing sequence (not alpha protected)||-0.001|-0.065|
95746303|NCT03941834|191465020|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||||||Analysis were performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.2|0.1|
95746304|NCT03941834|191465025|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline Penn-FPS-R as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||11.5|-6.8|
95746305|NCT03941834|191465026|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.9||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline pain disability index as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||6.9|-3.8|
95746306|NCT03941834|191465027|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; and participant as a random effect.||0.5|-0.7|
95746307|NCT03941834|191465028|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||||||Analysis was performed using a mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, period and sequence; baseline NPRS as a covariate; and participant as a random effect.||1.4|0.1|
95746308|NCT03941834|191465029|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|229.6||||||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and baseline NPRS score as a covariate.||229.6|0.7|
95746309|NCT02190279|191465063|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANOVA|||At 1 hour post injection.||||0.0033
95746310|NCT02190279|191465063|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||At 2 hour post injection.||||0.012
95746311|NCT02190279|191465064|EQUIVALENCE|One way analysis variance.|||||<|0.05|||||||variance|||||||<0.05
95746312|NCT02688387|191465073|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0667|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9657|1.1784|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.1784|0.9657|
95746313|NCT02688387|191465073|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.1534|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.1534|0.9293|
95746314|NCT02688387|191465073|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.0423|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0423|0.9288|
95797610|NCT05233761|191564756|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.5|0.1|0.0350
95797611|NCT05233761|191564757|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.6|0.4|0.0019
95797612|NCT05233761|191564757|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||1.2|-.6|0.52
95858722|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||18.0|10.1|
95941869|NCT00661141|191851314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.66|163.65|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.65|115.66|
95941870|NCT00661141|191851314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.83|108.07|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||108.07|62.83|
95989890|NCT00848354|191954690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
95989891|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3054||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||0.3054
95746315|NCT02688387|191465073|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9151|1.0188|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0188|0.9151|
95746316|NCT02688387|191465074|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9965|1.0646|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0646|0.9965|
95989892|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.53||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.53|0.58|0.4044
95746317|NCT02688387|191465074|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.0473|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0473|0.9820|
95746318|NCT02688387|191465074|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9693|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.0092|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||1.0092|0.9310|
95746319|NCT02688387|191465074|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9553|1.0799|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0799|0.9553|
95941871|NCT00661141|191851314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|115.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|145.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||145.67|91.19|
95941872|NCT00661141|191851314|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|131.98|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||131.98|96.14|
95941873|NCT00661141|191851317|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|139.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.18|211.51|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||211.51|92.18|
95941874|NCT00661141|191851317|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|120.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.8|134.03|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||134.03|108.80|
95941875|NCT00661141|191851317|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|143.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.87|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||190.87|107.72|
95941876|NCT00661141|191851317|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.35|126.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||126.10|84.35|
95746320|NCT02688387|191465075|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9943|1.0623|||||X1 Vs R1, ambrisentan|||1.0623|0.9943|
95746321|NCT02688387|191465075|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9832|1.0466|||||X2 Vs R2, ambrisentan|||1.0466|0.9832|
95746322|NCT02688387|191465075|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|0.9972|||||X1 Vs R1, tadalafil|||0.9972|0.9265|
95746323|NCT02688387|191465075|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3A of the study is designed to test the bioequivalence of a FDC of ambrisentan 10 mg + tadalafil 40 mg (test) relative to reference monotherapies of ambrisentan 10 mg \& tadalafil 40 mg taken concurrently (reference) in healthy participants in both the fed and fasted states.|Ratio|1.0122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9562|1.0715|||||X2 Vs R2, tadalafil|||1.0715|0.9562|
95746324|NCT02688387|191465076|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9348|1.1027|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.1027|0.9348|
95746325|NCT02688387|191465076|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9758|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9044|1.0529|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0529|0.9044|
95746326|NCT02688387|191465077|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0168|1.0617|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0617|1.0168|
95746327|NCT02688387|191465077|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9106|1.056|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0560|0.9106|
95746328|NCT02688387|191465078|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0138|1.0596|||||Y1 Vs R3, ambrisentan|||1.0596|1.0138|
95746329|NCT02688387|191465078|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9145|1.0547|||||Y1 Vs R3, tadalafil|||1.0547|0.9145|
95746330|NCT02688387|191465079|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0166|1.2287|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.2287|1.0166|
95746331|NCT02688387|191465079|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.1196|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0429|1.2019|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.2019|1.0429|
95746332|NCT02688387|191465080|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.071|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0710|1.0009|
95858723|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: Before vaccination||1.3|0.9|
95746333|NCT02688387|191465080|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.0834|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0834|0.9910|
95746334|NCT02688387|191465081|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0351|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0002|1.0713|||||Y2 Vs R4, ambrisentan|||1.0713|1.0002|
95746335|NCT02688387|191465081|EQUIVALENCE|Part 3B of the study is set to establish bioequivalence between the Fixed Dose Combination of an additional two dose strengths (ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 40 mg and ambrisentan 5 mg + tadalafil 20 mg).|Ratio|1.0324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9929|1.0734|||||Y2 Vs R4, tadalafil|||1.0734|0.9929|
95746336|NCT01115855|191465158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.36|0.53|
95746337|NCT01115855|191465159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.31|0.56|
95746338|NCT01115855|191465160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.87||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.87|0.81|
95746339|NCT01115855|191465161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.24||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||6.24|0.92|
95746340|NCT01115855|191465162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.44|
95797613|NCT05233761|191564757|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
95797614|NCT05233761|191564757|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (% TST) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (% TST) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.0|-.5|0.24
95746341|NCT01115855|191465163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.25||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.25|0.45|
95746342|NCT01115855|191465164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||0.97|0.45|
95746343|NCT01115855|191465165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.33||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=-50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.33|0.49|
95746344|NCT01115855|191465166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.10|0.45|
95746345|NCT01115855|191465167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||1.28|0.53|
95746346|NCT01115855|191465168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.53||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||3.53|0.18|
95746347|NCT01115855|191465169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.85||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||17.85|0.07|
95746348|NCT01115855|191465170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.56||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||11.56|0.39|
95746349|NCT01115855|191465171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.66||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||5.66|0.05|
95746350|NCT01115855|191465172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.04||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Model with baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV) and baseline eGFR (30--\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>-=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) covariates.||8.04|0.16|
95746351|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.92|-9.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-9.94|-195.92|
95746352|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-95.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.51|-7.04||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-7.04|-184.51|
95746353|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-125.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.5|-54.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-54.68|-195.50|
95746354|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.77|-31.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-31.11|-232.77|
95746355|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-132.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-240.94|-23.84||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-23.84|-240.94|
95746356|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-117.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.49|-12.87||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-12.87|-221.49|
95746357|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-101.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.36|64.36||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.36|-267.36|
95746358|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-110.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.49|85.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||85.93|-307.49|
95746359|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-119.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|158.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2137.82|1898.59||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1898.59|-2137.82|
95746360|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-144.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2692.95|2403.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||2403.76|-2692.95|
95858724|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|31.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||31.3|19.9|
95941877|NCT00661141|191851317|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.61|139.67|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||139.67|108.61|
95941878|NCT00661141|191851317|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|137.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.3|152.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||152.59|123.30|
95941879|NCT00661141|191851319|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.42|136.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||136.84|108.42|
95746361|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-77.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|966.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2131.88|1977.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1977.37|-2131.88|
95746362|NCT01115855|191465174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-102.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.61|-32.0||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||-32.00|-172.61|
95746363|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-364.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|763.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1863.06|1133.76||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1133.76|-1863.06|
95746364|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-247.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|711.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1642.43|1148.14||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1148.14|-1642.43|
95746365|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-370.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|699.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1742.51|1002.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||1002.22|-1742.51|
95746366|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-664.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11059.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141189.93|139861.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||139861.75|-141189.93|
95746367|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-414.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3071.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39445.52|38615.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||38615.54|-39445.52|
95746368|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|23.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10794.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21649.89|21697.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21697.60|-21649.89|
95746369|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-245.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6698.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85358.69|84868.22||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||84868.22|-85358.69|
95797615|NCT05233761|191564758|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS + REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||13.3|1.7|0.0117
95746370|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|170.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10730.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21375.69|21716.66||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||21716.66|-21375.69|
95797616|NCT05233761|191564758|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in SWS Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.9|0.7|0.0126
95797617|NCT05233761|191564758|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in REM sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in REM Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||5.3|-2.7|0.51
95858725|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|22.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||22.8|14.5|
95941880|NCT00661141|191851319|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|163.56|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||163.56|93.55|
95941881|NCT00661141|191851319|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|150.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|242.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||242.63|93.14|
95941882|NCT00661141|191851319|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|122.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.45|183.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analysis for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||183.00|82.45|
95746371|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-58.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12765.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30160.25|30042.7||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||30042.70|-30160.25|
95746372|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-212.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11073.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22723.82|22299.33||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||22299.33|-22723.82|
95746373|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-80.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11486.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146026.28|145865.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||145865.96|-146026.28|
95746374|NCT01115855|191465175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-187.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|240.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-662.67|287.23||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||287.23|-662.67|
95746375|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.96||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||3.96|-0.55|
95746376|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.42||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.42|0.07|
95746377|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.6||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.60|1.11|
95746378|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.9||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.90|1.81|
95746379|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|8.94||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.94|2.36|
95746380|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.75||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||6.75|0.12|
95746381|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|7.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.25|-0.06|
95802491|NCT02864914|191578397|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.41|0.52|
95989893|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.26||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||6.26|1.02|0.0388
95989894|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|6.34||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||6.34|1.31|0.0059
95746382|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||8.44|0.86|
95746383|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.68||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||7.68|0.02|
95746384|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||9.25|0.08|
95746385|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|10.07||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||10.07|-1.82|
95746386|NCT01115855|191465176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.8||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 : ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||5.80|0.56|
95746387|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-61.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.44|63.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||63.37|-186.44|
95746388|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.27|81.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||81.39|-131.27|
95746389|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.28|72.13||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||72.13|-97.28|
95746390|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-78.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.25|64.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||64.31|-221.25|
95746391|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-79.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.88|52.63||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||52.63|-211.88|
95746392|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.01|268.71||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||268.71|-230.01|
95746393|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.21|152.11||||||Change from baseline at Month 29: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||152.11|-194.21|
95855450|NCT00541658|191670538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
95941883|NCT00661141|191851325|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|69.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.88|97.78|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||97.78|48.88|
95941884|NCT00661141|191851325|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|124.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.77|174.5|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||174.50|88.77|
95989895|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.29||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||9.29|1.99|<0.0001
95989896|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.24||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||12.24|2.88|<0.0001
95746394|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.55|115.97||||||Change from baseline at Month 33: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||115.97|-197.55|
95941885|NCT00661141|191851325|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|124.27|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||124.27|89.24|
95746395|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.11|158.15||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.15|-247.11|
95746396|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-238.31|182.93||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||182.93|-238.31|
95746397|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.17|158.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 48: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||158.24|-221.17|
95746398|NCT01115855|191465177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|54.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 13 :ANCOVA with treatment effect and covariates of the NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||54.83|-58.91|
95746399|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37||||||Change from baseline at Month 5 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.37|-0.21|
95746400|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3||||||Change from baseline at Month 9 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.30|-0.34|
95746401|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.39||||||Change from baseline at Month 13: Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.39|-0.27|
95746402|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.45||||||Change from baseline at Month 17 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.45|-0.41|
95746403|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||||||Change from baseline at Month 21 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.24|-0.56|
95746404|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25||||||Change from baseline at Month 25 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.25|-0.55|
95746405|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||||||Change from baseline at Month 29 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.31|-0.49|
95746406|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.44||||||Change from baseline at Month 33 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.44|-0.57|
95746407|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.54||||||Change from baseline at Month 37 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.54|-0.50|
95797618|NCT05233761|191564758|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Light Sleep (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||0.2|-13.7|0.0574
95746408|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.83||||||Change from baseline at Month 42 :Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.83|-0.44|
95746409|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.89||||||Change from baseline at Month 48 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.89|-0.63|
95746410|NCT01115855|191465179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11||||||Change from baseline at Week 4 : Mixed effect model of repeated measurements with covariates of the treatment, Week, interaction between treatment and week, baseline NYHA cohort (II, III/IV), baseline eGFR (30-\<50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2, \>=50 ml/min/1.73 m\^2) and baseline value.||0.11|-0.36|
95746411|NCT01316419|191465189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean SBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
95746412|NCT01316419|191465192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean DBP change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
95746413|NCT01316419|191465194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.1099
95858726|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|17.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At delivery||17.5|10.8|
95989897|NCT00848354|191954692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|23.32||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||23.32|3.61|<0.0001
95941886|NCT00661141|191851325|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.66|138.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||138.54|56.66|
95941887|NCT00661141|191851325|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|70.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.16|146.59|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||146.59|34.16|
95941888|NCT00661141|191851325|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|86.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.78|132.73|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||132.73|55.78|
95941889|NCT00661141|191851328|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|117.0|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||117.00|69.54|
95941890|NCT00661141|191851328|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|112.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.72|121.54|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||121.54|103.72|
95941891|NCT00661141|191851328|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|106.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.81|116.24|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||116.24|96.81|
95941892|NCT00661141|191851328|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|104.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.5|129.84|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||129.84|83.50|
95941893|NCT00661141|191851328|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|100.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.86|129.49|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||129.49|77.86|
95941894|NCT00661141|191851328|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|108.42|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||108.42|82.70|
95941895|NCT00661141|191851330|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|94.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.01|1113.63|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|||1113.63|78.01|
95941896|NCT00661141|191851330|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|107.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.42|131.1|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|3 participants in Cohort 3 had some residual 4-MP detected on Day 2 (Placebo treatment). As a result, the data for the participants on Day 2 were excluded from these statistical analyses, which could be compared with the analyses below where all available data were included.||131.10|87.42|
95941897|NCT00661141|191851330|SUPERIORITY||ratio of parameter means|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|112.97|||||Ratio of parameter means (Antizol/placebo, expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale. 90% confidence interval for ratio of parameter means (expressed as a percent), transformed back to the linear scale.|Analyses for Cohort 3 where all available data were included.||112.97|84.84|
95941898|NCT05290493|191851335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0672
95941899|NCT05290493|191851336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2045
95941900|NCT05290493|191851337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2931
95941901|NCT05290493|191851338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7799
95941902|NCT05290493|191851339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7974|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7974
95941903|NCT05290493|191851340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8286|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8286
95941904|NCT02361216|191851421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||AKclear100 at Week 8: full analysis set. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference at Week 8 in AKclear100 rates between ingenol mebutate gel 0.027% and vehicle gel. This hypothesis was tested against the 2-sided alternative of a difference between the 2 treatment groups.||14|2.82|<0.001
95746414|NCT01316419|191465195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0197
95746415|NCT01316419|191465196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4543
95746416|NCT01316419|191465197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0152
95746417|NCT01316419|191465198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the WHOQOL-BREF is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0013
95746418|NCT01316419|191465199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The change of QOL data collected using the EQ VAS is analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||<0.0001
95746419|NCT01316419|191465201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean LDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.0006
95746420|NCT01316419|191465202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean HDL-C change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.4248
95746421|NCT01316419|191465203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean Triglyceride change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t test|||||||0.5579
95746422|NCT01316419|191465204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean total cholesterol change from baseline at the last visit will be analyzed by paired t-test|Paired t-test|||||||0.0006
95746423|NCT01796964|191465233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 12 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.19|1.93|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 12.||1.93|-4.19|
95746424|NCT01796964|191465234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority at week 16 is concluded at one-sided alpha level of 0.10 if the lower limit of the corresponding two-sided 80% confidence interval for the treatment difference (ESBA 1008 - EYLEA) is greater than -5 letters.|Treatment difference (ESBA - Eylea)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|2.56|||||Treatment differences were based on least squares estimates.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and baseline BCVA categories (\< 55 and ≥ 55 letters) as class variables was used to estimate the treatment group differences (ESBA1008 - EYLEA) in the primary efficacy endpoint, BCVA Change from baseline to Week 16.||2.56|-3.72|
95746425|NCT04025684|191465242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA Model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.11|<.0001
95746426|NCT04025684|191465242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.1||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.10|-0.14|<0.0001
95746427|NCT04025684|191465242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
95746428|NCT04025684|191465242|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.08||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect and the baseline mean RPI overall value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.08|-0.12|<0.0001
95941905|NCT02361216|191851422|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.027% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||11.1|4.16|<0.001
95746429|NCT04025684|191465243|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.37||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.37|-0.62|<0.0001
95746430|NCT04025684|191465243|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.49||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.49|-0.75|<0.0001
95746431|NCT04025684|191465243|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.42||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.42|-0.68|<0.0001
95746432|NCT04025684|191465243|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.44||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group as a fixed effect, and the baseline mean TPI overall value and RPI stratification level as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed with comparison in pre-treatment and post-treatment within the treatment group.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
95746433|NCT03008837|191465259|OTHER|Using seed-based analysis with a right posterior insula seed, cluster size was set at 40 voxels, and p-value was thresholded at p\<0.05 to compare the differences between the two groups in terms of connectivity between the right posterior insula and areas of the DMN identified based on a priori hypotheses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Standard therapy control (post-pre) was subtracted from PENFS (post-pre).|PENFS (post-pre) - Standard Therapy (post-pre)||||<0.05
95858727|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: Before vaccination||1.4|0.9|
95746434|NCT01844531|191465265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.529|102.52||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.520|93.529|0.0000
95746435|NCT01844531|191465265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.57|102.65||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with all effects as fixed.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||102.65|93.57|<.0001
95797619|NCT05233761|191564758|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Awake Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||6.9|-2.4|0.3
95797620|NCT05233761|191564758|SUPERIORITY|The mean nightly difference in Total Sleep Time (min) in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment difference in percentages was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in Total Sleep Time (min) sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups.||2.4|-16.1|0.14
95941906|NCT02361216|191851423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance rates|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The pre-specified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.5|4.04|<0.001
95989898|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|56.88||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||56.88|0.96|0.0250
95797621|NCT05233761|191564759|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of better sleep in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.3|-.7|0.53
95797622|NCT05233761|191564759|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep induction in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.7|-0.6|0.32
95797623|NCT05233761|191564759|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep duration in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.4|0.20
95797624|NCT05233761|191564759|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of sleep depth in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.6|-0.7|0.45
95858728|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|44.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Weeks after vaccination||44.4|27.0|
95941907|NCT02361216|191851424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of clearance|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.32||Negative binominal regression with log baseline count as offset variable and treatment group, anatomical location stratum and pooled site as factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.32|0.24|<0.001
95941908|NCT02056834|191851450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.0166
95746436|NCT01844531|191465265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|106.633||Model included effects:sequence;subjects within sequences;period and treatment with subjects within sequences as random effect.|ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500 , PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA). The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||106.633|99.077|0.0000
95746437|NCT01844531|191465265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.36|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 (T2) : Empa5 + Met500 (R2), PK set AUCinfpred \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.36|98.78|<.0001
95746438|NCT01844531|191465266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.542|104.628|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.628|88.542|0.0006
95746439|NCT01844531|191465266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|97.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.41|105.68|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 (T1) : Empa12.5 + Met500 (R1), PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.68|89.41|0.0004
95746440|NCT01844531|191465266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.772|102.093|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.093|91.772|0.0000
95746441|NCT01844531|191465266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|102.32|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUCinfpred \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.32|91.79|<.0001
95797625|NCT05233761|191564759|SUPERIORITY|"The mean nightly difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control at the end of the two four-week treatment phases was analyzed using a two-sided test with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority. The P-value and 95% confidence interval for the estimate of treatment differences was estimated and constructed using the above-mentioned method."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the perception of vivid dreams in participants that received CBD-terpenes and the placebo control; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference among the two treatment groups."||1.9|-0.8|0.4
95797626|NCT04235374|191564760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95941909|NCT02056834|191851451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the percent change from baseline within each treatment group.||||0.3785
95941910|NCT02056834|191851452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95746442|NCT01844531|191465267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|102.686|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.686|93.530|0.0000
95858729|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|29.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after vaccination||29.6|18.2|
95941911|NCT02056834|191851453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-Test p-value tests the significance of the change from baseline within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95797627|NCT04235374|191564761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95941912|NCT05552508|191851514|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All participants||||0.0327
95941913|NCT05552508|191851514|OTHER|||||||0.0359|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \>=4 mucus plugs||||0.0359
95941914|NCT05552508|191851514|OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<4 mucus plugs||||0.1088
95941915|NCT05552508|191851514|OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Non-OCS-dependent participants||||0.0391
95941916|NCT05552508|191851515|OTHER|||||||0.0423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0423
95941917|NCT05552508|191851516|OTHER|||||||0.9465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9465
95941918|NCT05552508|191851517|OTHER|||||||0.3455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3455
95941919|NCT05552508|191851518|OTHER|||||||0.2484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2484
95941920|NCT05552508|191851519|OTHER|||||||0.9405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9405
95858730|NCT04032093|191675354|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At delivery||21.7|12.0|
95858731|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|14.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.1|8.1|
95941921|NCT05552508|191851520|OTHER|||||||0.6867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6867
95941922|NCT05552508|191851521|OTHER|||||||0.7554|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7554
95941923|NCT03221426|191851640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.01501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.98|0.67|0.01501
95941924|NCT03221426|191851641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|15.3|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)||||15.3|8.0|<0.00001
95746443|NCT01844531|191465267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.55|102.81|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||102.81|93.55|<.0001
95746444|NCT01844531|191465267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.146|106.522|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.522|99.146|0.0000
95746445|NCT01844531|191465267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|106.25|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[nmol\*h/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||106.25|98.85|<.0001
95746446|NCT01844531|191465268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.882|109.555|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.555|99.882|0.0000
95746447|NCT01844531|191465268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|104.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.76|109.53|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||109.53|99.76|<.0001
95746448|NCT01844531|191465268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.917|108.258|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.258|97.917|0.0000
95746449|NCT01844531|191465268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|102.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.72|108.14|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[nmol/L\] for EMPAGLIFLOZIN (PLASMA EDTA)||108.14|97.72|<.0001
95746450|NCT01844531|191465269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.056|100.819|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.819|89.056|0.0001
95746451|NCT01844531|191465269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|94.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.64|100.54|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.54|88.64|0.0001
95858732|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|5.5|
95858733|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|23.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||23.4|10.7|
95941925|NCT03221426|191851642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||1.06|0.71|0.07503
95941926|NCT03221426|191851647|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification|||1.03|0.65|0.04125
95746452|NCT01844531|191465269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.006|100.034|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.034|88.006|0.0002
95746453|NCT01844531|191465269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|93.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|100.43|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set Cmax \[ng/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.43|87.94|0.0003
95746454|NCT01844531|191465270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.256|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||104.256|88.000|0.0008
95746455|NCT01844531|191465270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.78|105.41|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa12.5 : Empa12.5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||105.41|88.78|0.0006
95746456|NCT01844531|191465270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|95.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.199|100.934|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||100.934|91.199|0.0000
95746457|NCT01844531|191465270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio FDC/single tablets|96.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|101.19|||ANOVA||\*Results reported as Standard Error of the mean are Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means and relative bioavailability - analysis with fixed effects for all terms comparison FDC Empa5 : Empa5 + Met500, PK set AUClast \[ng\*h/mL\] for METFORMIN (PLASMA EDTA)||101.19|91.28|<.0001
95746458|NCT04894084|191465284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.49|||Poisson loglinear model|||||0.49|0.07|<0.001
95746459|NCT04894084|191465285|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0||"Low degree + Very low degree / Not at all were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."||99|72|<0.0001
95746460|NCT04894084|191465286|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0||"Some degree, High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For reliability answered on a 5-point scale the answers some, high, or very high degree was considered acceptable and grouped against answers of 'low or very low' degree of reliability.||93|56|0.0106
95746461|NCT04894084|191465287|OTHER||Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||"Same, Better and Much better were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||For secondary endpoints an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. For ability to move with test product it was tested if the proportion evaluating same or better was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. The answers of 'same, better or much better' was grouped against the answers of 'worse or much worse' ability to move.||100|78|<0.0001
95746462|NCT04894084|191465288|OTHER|Users worry of leakage given on a 5-point scale was analyzed by a proportional odds ratio model taken the paired design into consideration to compare the results from V1 and V2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional odds ratio model|||||||<0.001
95746463|NCT04894084|191465289|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
95797628|NCT04235374|191564762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95797629|NCT04235374|191564763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95797630|NCT04235374|191564764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95989899|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.45||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||5.45|1.00|0.0466
95858734|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.5|
95989900|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.36||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||5.36|1.50|0.0007
95797631|NCT04530344|191564765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.990|0.180|0.0414
95797632|NCT04530344|191564766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.606|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor between treatment and vehicle.||Cox regression model stratified by stratification factor (treatment assignment in the parent studies) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.||0.606|0.165|0.0003
95797633|NCT05252702|191564803|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 78% vs. H1: CFR \> 78%~where 78% was the performance goal (PG)."|binomial proportion|90.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.0|||The CFR was estimated as a binomial proportion and a one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound of the CFR was calculated using the normal approximation. The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.|||||87|<0.0001
95797634|NCT05252702|191564804|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFR ≤ 76.5% vs. H1: CFR \> 76.5%~where 76.5% is the performance goal. The CFR was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the 97.5% lower confidence bound of CFR was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates."|Kaplan-Meier|88.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|84.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 76.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|||||84.5|<0.0001
95797635|NCT05252702|191564805|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|90.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.5|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 82.5%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 3 month was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 82.5% vs. H1: Rate \> 82.5%~where 82.5% was the performance goal (PG)."|||87.5|<0.0001
95858735|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.6|4.5|
95941927|NCT03221426|191851648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.04493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia), tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa), and chemotherapy backbone (XP/FP vs. FLOT)|||1.03|0.71|0.04493
95941928|NCT03221426|191851649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.00589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia vs. Non-Asia) and tumor staging (II vs. III vs. IVa)|||0.95|0.67|0.00589
95941929|NCT05365958|191851652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
95941930|NCT05365958|191851653|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures t-test of differences|||||||<.001
95941931|NCT05618587|191851742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95989901|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.18||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||5.18|1.70|<0.0001
95858736|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||19.9|11.1|
95989902|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.05||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||5.05|1.85|<0.0001
95989903|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.87||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||6.87|2.47|<0.0001
95858737|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.6|6.5|
95858738|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||28.0|13.1|
95941932|NCT05618587|191851743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95941933|NCT05618587|191851744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95941934|NCT05618587|191851745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95941935|NCT05618587|191851746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95941936|NCT05618587|191851747|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard unconditional exact test|||||||1.0
95941937|NCT05618587|191851748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95941938|NCT05618587|191851749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95941939|NCT05618587|191851750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95746464|NCT04894084|191465290|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|65.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|84.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||84|43|0.21
95746465|NCT04894084|191465291|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|78.3||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|93.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||93|56|0.0106
95746466|NCT04894084|191465292|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.093
95746467|NCT04894084|191465293|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion with a positive response was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||100|78|<0.0001
95746468|NCT04894084|191465294|OTHER|By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion answering I felt more confident was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level.|Exact test in the binomial distribution|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|99.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||99|72|<0.0001
95746469|NCT04894084|191465295|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|34.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|57.0||"Yes, to the better was tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||57|16|0.21
95746470|NCT04894084|191465296|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|47.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.0||"Higher degree and Much higher degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||69|27|1.00
95746471|NCT04894084|191465297|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|56.5||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|77.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||77|34|0.678
95746472|NCT04894084|191465299|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level. For questions answered on a 5-point scale the answers was grouped in 2 (e.g. higher or much higher against the rest of the answers)."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|69.6||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|87.0||"High degree and Very high degree were tested against the rest of the answers in this analysis."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||87|47|0.0931
95858739|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||11.4|4.2|
95941940|NCT05618587|191851751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95746473|NCT04894084|191465300|OTHER|"For secondary endpoints where the possible answer is Yes or No, the proportion of subjects answering Yes was calculated. By use of an exact test in the binomial distribution a 95% confidence interval was estimated for the proportion. It was tested if the proportion was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level."|Exact test in the binomial distribution|87.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|97.0|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|||||97|66|0.0005
95746474|NCT01573533|191465303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.49
95746475|NCT01573533|191465304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.41
95746476|NCT01573533|191465305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs 12 months||||0.06
95941941|NCT05618587|191851752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95941942|NCT05618587|191851753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95941943|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.13519
95941944|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.8556
95746477|NCT02551679|191465307|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.046||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|7.255|||ANCOVA|||The primary hypothesis of this study is that ACP-01 is superior to placebo in terms of the earlier time from treatment with Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) to either de-novo gangrene, or doubling of wound size, or major amputation, or death.||7.255|0.577|0.258
95797636|NCT05252702|191564806|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|92.8|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|89.7|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 80%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The Rate at 12 months was estimated as a binomial proportion and the one-sided 97.5% LCB of the Rate was calculated using the normal approximation.|"The primary effectiveness endpoint #1 hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: Rate ≤ 80% vs. H1: Rate \> 80%~where 80% was the performance goal (PG)."|||89.7|<0.0001
95797637|NCT05252702|191564807|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|98.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|96.6|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the PG of 83%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.||"The primary effectiveness endpoint #2 hypothesis was formally expressed as:~H0: RateAV ≤ 83% vs. H1: RateAV \> 83%~where 83% is the performance goal."|||96.6|<0.0001
95797638|NCT05252702|191564808|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|91.3||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower confidence bound exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 84%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value from a one-sided Z-test for the binomial proportion was to be calculated and compared to the 0.025 significance level.||"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 3 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 84% vs. H1: CFRA \> 84%~where 84% was the performance goal."|||88.1|0.0003
95797639|NCT05252702|191564809|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier|91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|87.1|||The null hypothesis was to be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the LCB exceeded the Performance Goal (PG) of 82%.|one-sided Z-test|The p-value for the one-sided Z-test was to be calculated and compared to the 2.5% significance level.|The 97.5% lower confidence bound (LCB) of CFRA was calculated using the Greenwood variance estimates.|"The secondary safety endpoint hypothesis at 12 months was formally expressed as:~H0: CFRA ≤ 82% vs. H1: CFRA \> 82%~where 82% is the performance goal."|||87.1|<0.0001
95746478|NCT02000531|191465339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.61|>0.05
95746479|NCT02285634|191465355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
95746480|NCT02285634|191465355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
95746481|NCT02285634|191465355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
95858740|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|11.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||11.8|4.5|
95858741|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|14.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.2|8.3|
95989904|NCT00848354|191954694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|11.38||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||11.38|3.72|<0.0001
95746482|NCT02285634|191465356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95746483|NCT02285634|191465356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95746484|NCT02285634|191465356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
95746485|NCT02285634|191465357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
95746486|NCT02285634|191465357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
95746487|NCT02285634|191465357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
95746488|NCT02285634|191465358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
95746489|NCT02285634|191465358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
95746490|NCT02285634|191465358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
95746491|NCT00317642|191465367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.28|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.28|0.78|0.9951
95746492|NCT00317642|191465367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata remission after first pre-study induction regimen (CR1) \< 6 months||1.57|0.81|0.4674
95858742|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.5|6.5|
95858743|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|15.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.9|7.1|
95858744|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||12.9|5.2|
95858745|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.5|3.1|
95746493|NCT00317642|191465367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24|||Log Rank|||Participants stratified by calculated strata CR1\>= 6 months||1.24|0.58|0.3963
95746494|NCT00317642|191465368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - overall remission (OR)||||<0.0001
95746495|NCT00317642|191465368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population - Complete Remission (CR)||||0.0005
95941945|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.46943
95941946|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.0449
95941947|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.504
95746496|NCT00317642|191465368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0022
95746497|NCT00317642|191465368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Overall Remission (CR+CRi)\]||||0.0019
95746498|NCT00317642|191465368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \<6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0353
95746499|NCT00317642|191465368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by calculated strata - CR1 \>=6 months \[Complete Remission (CR)\]||||0.0096
95746500|NCT00317642|191465373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.8|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.80|0.49|0.0001
95746501|NCT00317642|191465373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93|||Log Rank|Comparison P-value is from a log-rank test with no strata||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months||0.93|0.49|0.0131
95746502|NCT00317642|191465373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0022||95.0|0.4|0.83|||Log Rank|Comparison p-value is from a log-rank test with no strata.||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||0.83|0.40|0.0022
95941948|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.772193
95941949|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.5414
95941950|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.070
95941951|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.546
95941952|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.756
95746503|NCT00317642|191465374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||1.23|0.77|0.8209
95941953|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.700
95941954|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.397
95941955|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.093
95941956|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.323
95941957|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.182
95941958|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement of line in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.880
95941959|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) tothe patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.496
95746504|NCT00317642|191465374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.81|0.5071
95746505|NCT00317642|191465374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.59|0.2906
95746506|NCT00317642|191465375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population.||0.79|0.49|<.0001
95746507|NCT00317642|191465375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.53|0.0486
95746508|NCT00317642|191465375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.37|0.0002
95746509|NCT00317642|191465376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Full Analysis Set (FAS) population||||<0.0001
95746510|NCT00317642|191465376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \<6 months.||||0.0088
95746511|NCT00317642|191465376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Participants stratified by randomization strata CR1 \>=6 months||||0.0017
95746512|NCT00317642|191465377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95746513|NCT00317642|191465377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0506||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0506
95746514|NCT00317642|191465377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95746515|NCT03662308|191465379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95746516|NCT00572039|191465405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve TVF functional reserve measures at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average TVF scores were examined, adjusting for baseline TVF score and the vision severity stratification variable. To approximate an interval scale and compensate for ceiling and floor effects, we linearized TVF scores using a logit transform. 106 PST and 112 ST participants provided data at 3 months.||0.29|-0.14|.47
95746517|NCT00572039|191465406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.77|||ANCOVA|||To test the efficacy of PST to improve NE-VFQ scores at 3 months, we used an analysis of covariance in which group differences (PST vs ST) in 3-month average NEI-VFQ scores were examined, adjusting for baseline score and the vision severity stratification variable.||2.77|-1.96|.7
95746518|NCT01142908|191465411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||3.1|-2.8|0.93
95746519|NCT01142908|191465412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||4.3|-1.5|0.34
95746520|NCT01142908|191465414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||1.8|-2.0|0.91
95746521|NCT01142908|191465415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||2.2|-1.5|0.70
95746522|NCT01142908|191465416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-3.9|0.1
95746523|NCT01142908|191465417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||1.7|-2.4|0.74
95797640|NCT05252702|191564810|OTHER||mixed effects model for repeated measure|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests (TOST), with an alpha level of 0.025, and n-1 degrees of freedom.||"An analysis of these data provided an estimate of the 95% confidence interval for the mean slope across analyzable subjects, which had a pre-specified success criterion requiring that this confidence interval must fall between slopes of 65% and 135%. The following hypothesis was evaluated:~H0: Mean Slope \< 0.65 or Mean Slope \> 1.35~H1: 0.65 ≤ Mean Slope ≤ 1.35"||1.04|0.78|<0.001
95746524|NCT01142908|191465419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.3|-0.4|0.87
95746525|NCT01142908|191465420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||logit-difference (Net)|0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Gen. Est. Equation with a Logit Link|Method Used Expanded: Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.5|-0.2|0.36
95746526|NCT01142908|191465422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.6|-10.3|0.08
95797641|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
95941960|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.905
95746527|NCT01142908|191465423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||5.0|-6.6|0.79
95746528|NCT01142908|191465425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.2|0.83
95746529|NCT01142908|191465426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, diabetes, and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months.||0.2|-0.4|0.54
95746530|NCT01142908|191465428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 6 months||0.2|-0.6|0.29
95746531|NCT01142908|191465429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender and smoking status stratification variables|Direction of the test of comparison is Pharmacist Intervention minus Control|Comparison at 12 months||0.4|-0.5|0.72
95746532|NCT04364763|191465457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||p-value is for Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0352
95797642|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
95746533|NCT04364763|191465457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||p-value is for Day 28|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison made for Day 7 and Day 28||||0.2350
95797643|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95941961|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.692
95746534|NCT00452543|191465459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Results would be used to estimate effect size to set the stage for an adequately powered larger study in the future.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Threshold for significance was set a priori at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinking days.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
95746535|NCT00452543|191465460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p \<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per week.Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups.||||<0.05
95746536|NCT00452543|191465461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This was a test of non-inferiority between the effects of acamprosate vs. placebo. Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis is discussed above."|||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p\<0.05 was set a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analyses evaluated the null hypothesis that there would be no difference in the effect of acamprosate vs. placebo on total drinks consumed per drinking day.~Power analysis was originally based on ITT analysis with 40 subjects, and assumed 30% difference in alcohol consumption (50% vs. 20% reduction in the acamprosate and placebo groups, respectively). With alpha of 0.05, we estimated 74% power to detect a difference between the two groups."||||<0.05
95746537|NCT01386125|191465462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.22|0.0007
95746538|NCT01386125|191465463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference is LS Means|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|<0.0001
95746539|NCT01098539|191465464|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.15|-0.49|<0.0001
95746540|NCT02508116|191465484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The sample size calculation was based on two factors: 1) the rate of pre-study prasugrel/ticagrelor use (\~20%) and 2) anticipated increase in prasugrel/ticagrelor prescribing based on the frequency CYP2C19 LOF variants (\~30-35%). We estimated a 15% difference in the use of prasugrel/ticagrelor in the two groups (35% in the genotyped group and 20% in the control group). A sample size of 138 per group (a total of 276) would provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 to detect this difference.||2.42|1.07|0.03
95746541|NCT02508116|191465486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||The incidence of first MACE between the groups were compared by use of Kaplan-Meier estimators; statistical tests were based on log-rank tests.||||0.27
95746542|NCT02630316|191465488|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|21.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|37.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||37.0|7.0|0.0043
95746543|NCT02630316|191465489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95746544|NCT02630316|191465490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||p-value is calculated with log-rank test stratified by baseline 6MWD category.|Log Rank||p-value was 0.0202 for the proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are calculated with proportional hazards model with treatment and Baseline 6MWD (continuous) as explanatory variables.|||0.92|0.40|0.0410
95746545|NCT02630316|191465491|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|20.0||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category|ANCOVA|||||34.0|7.0|0.0041
95746546|NCT02630316|191465492|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|15.0||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.0||p-value is obtained from nonparametric ANCOVA adjusted for Baseline 6MWD category.|ANCOVA|||||29.0|0.0|0.0432
95746547|NCT03712124|191465493|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-6.44||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.18|103.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Day 14 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||103.31|-116.18|0.9030
95746548|NCT03712124|191465494|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|98.45||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.81|161.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with change from baseline at Day 28 as the dependent variable and baseline maximum tolerated volume and treatment as covariates.||161.08|35.81|0.0042
95746549|NCT00346164|191465516|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
95941962|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 3|||0.262
95941963|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.828
95941964|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.268
95746550|NCT00346164|191465517|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0049
95746551|NCT00346164|191465518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
95941965|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.975
95746552|NCT00346164|191465519|OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of the resection extent of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and histologic (POG) grade.||||0.0096
95746553|NCT00346164|191465520|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic) after accounting for the effects of site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +), and histologic (POG) grade.||||<0.0001
95746554|NCT00346164|191465521|OTHER|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|Firth logistic regression is used to overcome the issue of quasi-complete separation of data points.||The logistic regression model was used to evaluate prognostic impact of histologic (POG) grade after accounting for the effects of disease extent (non-metastatic; metastatic), site of the primary tumor (body wall; extremity; head/neck; visceral), tumor size (\<=5cm; \>5cm), tumor depth (deep; superficial), tumor invasiveness (invasive; non-invasive), and extent of resection of the primary tumor (less than total resection; margin -; margin +) .||||0.0228
95746555|NCT00346164|191465523|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.88||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.88|0.76|
95746556|NCT00346164|191465524|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48||||||Kappa statistic and its 95% confidence interval are used to assess agreement beyond random.||0.48|0.36|
95746557|NCT01263561|191465525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size calculation determined that 52 eyes were required to detect a 2.0 mmHg IOP difference with a power of 80%.||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
95746558|NCT01263561|191465526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||.24
95746559|NCT01263561|191465527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation only performed for main outcome measure of IOP.||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Above p is for number of subjects with any complication. P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.80
95746560|NCT00104247|191465547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95941966|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 30|||0.499
95746561|NCT03314662|191465548|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.27|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||1.27|1.05|
95746562|NCT03314662|191465548|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log 10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aTIV/aQIV - performed for strain A/H3N2||1.09|0.90|
95746563|NCT03314662|191465548|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: aTIV/aQIV|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Yamagata||1.08|0.90|
95797644|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95797645|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95941967|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.750
95941968|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.433
95941969|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
95746564|NCT03314662|191465548|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratios of GMTs (aTIV/aQIV) do not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio: (aTIV/aQIV)]|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||GMT ratios (adjusted) obtained from a GLM fitted on log-transformed (base 10) post-vaccination HI titer as outcome variable and covariate terms: treatment, pre-vaccination HI titer (log10 transformed), age, sex, vaccination history, study site|Comparison Group Selection: aQIV/aTIV - performed for strain B/Victoria||1.08|0.89|
95746565|NCT03314662|191465549|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.76||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H1N1||7.76|-1.30|
95746566|NCT03314662|191465549|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.96||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain A/H3N2||4.96|-4.23|
95746567|NCT03314662|191465549|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.27||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Yamagata||3.27|-5.13|
95746568|NCT03314662|191465549|NON_INFERIORITY|aQIV was considered non-inferior to aTIV-1 or aTIV-2 if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the differences between the SCRs (aTIV - aQIV) do not exceed 10% for each of the four strains|Other [SCR difference (aTIV minus aQIV)]|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.55||||||Comparison Group Selection: aTIV minus aQIV - for strain B-Victoria||2.55|-5.07|
95746569|NCT03314662|191465552|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the Full Analysis Set (FAS) Immunogenicity comprised all subjects who were randomized, received at least 1 study vaccination, and provided immunogenicity data at Day 1 and Day 22.|GMT ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.7||||||B/Yamagata strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.70|0.58|
95746570|NCT03314662|191465552|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the GMT ratio (GMTaTIV/GMTaQIV); Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (aTIV/aQIV) was \<1. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|GMT ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||||||B/Victoria Strain: GMT Ratio (aTIV/aQIV)||0.78|0.64|
95746571|NCT03314662|191465555|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-1 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-8.81||||||B/Yamagata Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-1 - aQIV).||-8.81|-15.12|
95746572|NCT03314662|191465555|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of aQIV vs. aTIV-2 for the alternate B strain was assessed using the difference in SCR (SCRaTIV-SCRaQIV) at Day 22. Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs (aTIV-aQIV) was \<0, for both B strains. The superiority comparison was based on the FAS Immunogenicity.|SCR difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-8.11||||||B/Victoria Strain: SCR Difference (aTIV-2 - aQIV)||-8.11|-13.54|
95746573|NCT00925301|191465559|SUPERIORITY||Difference|12.5||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex|The difference between the percentage of successes between migalastat and placebo treatment groups|||37.3|-13.4|0.2996
95746574|NCT00925301|191465562|OTHER|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach with fixed effects of treatment, time (Month 6 and Month 12), mutation type (amenable or non-amenable), time by treatment interaction, time by mutation type interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix to account for repeated measures within a participant was assumed.||||||0.014||||||Significant at the 0.050 level|MMRM|||||||0.014
95746575|NCT00925301|191465563|OTHER||Difference LSMeans|-0.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significant at the 0.010 level|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in the average number of kidney ICs was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with covariate adjustment for the baseline value and factors for treatment group and the treatment by baseline interaction.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0078
95746576|NCT01117766|191465564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.92|-1.29|0.7319
95941970|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 90|||0.834
95746577|NCT01117766|191465564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.57|-1.61|0.3404
95746578|NCT01117766|191465565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.872||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.2|45.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||45.56|-70.20|0.6539
95746579|NCT01117766|191465565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.807||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|30.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||30.72|-78.54|0.3678
95746580|NCT01117766|191465566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.35|-1.84|0.0071
95746581|NCT01117766|191465566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.19|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.19|-1.36|0.1294
95746582|NCT01117766|191465567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.298||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.12|-6.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-6.96|-116.12|0.0300
95797646|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
95797647|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
95746583|NCT01117766|191465567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.501||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.67|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||7.55|-105.67|0.0844
95797648|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
95797649|NCT06442800|191564811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
95797650|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
95746584|NCT01117766|191465568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.14|-0.83|0.7506
95746585|NCT01117766|191465568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.64|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.64|-0.61|0.9673
95746586|NCT01117766|191465569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.5502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.78|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||1.78|-0.99|0.5502
95746587|NCT01117766|191465569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.96|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis was based on the average pain score across all levels of stimuli.||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||0.96|-1.15|0.8536
95797651|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
95797652|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95746588|NCT01117766|191465570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.34|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||-0.34|-2.73|0.0132
95858746|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||18.7|10.5|
95746589|NCT01117766|191465570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||In statistical analyses, scores were further grouped to 1-3 'improved', 4 'no change' and 5-7 'worsened'.|Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.05|-1.95|0.0403
95746590|NCT01117766|191465571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.74|-1.12|0.6631
95746591|NCT01117766|191465571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.59|-2.48|0.0022
95746592|NCT01117766|191465572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 3 (Visits 3 and 6)||0.53|-2.60|0.1753
95797653|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95797654|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95797655|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
95797656|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
95797657|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||<0.001
95797658|NCT06442800|191564812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
95797659|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multiple cancers vs. Control||||<0.001
95797660|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dementia vs. Control||||<0.001
95797661|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Colorectal cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95797662|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95797663|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Throat and mouth cancer vs. Control||||<0.001
95797664|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Liver disease vs. Control||||<0.001
95797665|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypertension vs. Control||||<0.001
95858747|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.7|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||18.7|7.4|
95858748|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||18.3|7.7|
95858749|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|14.5|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.5|5.5|
95858750|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||8.8|3.3|
95941971|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.526
95941972|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon singed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.816
95746593|NCT01117766|191465572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (Visits 4 and 7)||-0.27|-2.75|0.0198
95746594|NCT01117766|191465573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.292||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|8.54|||ANCOVA|||||8.54|-17.13|0.4999
95746595|NCT05766787|191465577|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, sequence, visit, and lens by visit interaction) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID022821 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.01||
95746596|NCT01867606|191465580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95746597|NCT01867606|191465582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95746598|NCT01435928|191465597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.45|0.039
95746599|NCT01435928|191465598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.54|0.070
95797666|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Current warning vs. Control||||0.02
95941973|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.650
95941974|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the forehead post injection day 180|||0.095
95746600|NCT01435928|191465599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.029
95941975|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.618
95941976|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.340
95941977|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.150
95941978|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum test||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 3|||0.361
95746601|NCT01435928|191465600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.015
95746602|NCT01435928|191465601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.218
95746603|NCT01435928|191465602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.021
95746604|NCT01435928|191465603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|LOCF||||||0.056
95746605|NCT01634854|191465608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95746606|NCT00739973|191465615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-7.12|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.12|-12.81|<0.001
95746607|NCT00739973|191465616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean Difference|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.94|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.94|-7.70|0.001
95746608|NCT00739973|191465617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|-11.0|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-11.0|-16.68|<0.001
95746609|NCT00739973|191465618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.04|-10.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-10.4|-16.04|<0.001
95746610|NCT00739973|191465619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.22|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.22|-7.77|<0.001
95797667|NCT06442800|191564813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in predicted proportions|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Guidelines vs. Control||||<0.001
95797668|NCT04058717|191564822|OTHER||H-statistic|10.23||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
95746611|NCT00739973|191465620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-1.19|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-1.19|-4.77|0.001
95746612|NCT00739973|191465621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|-6.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.87|-10.39|<0.001
95797669|NCT04058717|191564823|OTHER||H-statistic|7.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.056
95797670|NCT04058717|191564824|OTHER||H-statistic|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
95797671|NCT04058717|191564825|OTHER||Slope|4.13||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.248
95941979|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.428
95746613|NCT00739973|191465622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.4|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-6.40|-9.94|<0.001
95746614|NCT00739973|191465623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Sqaure Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.53|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.53|-4.14|0.011
95746615|NCT00739973|191465624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-9.05|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.05|-12.57|<0.001
95746616|NCT00739973|191465625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-3.03|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.03|-6.56|<0.001
95746617|NCT00739973|191465626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.18|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-2.18|-5.78|<0.001
95746618|NCT00739973|191465627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-7.87|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-7.87|-11.41|<0.001
95746619|NCT00739973|191465628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.51|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-4.51|-8.00|<0.001
95746620|NCT00739973|191465629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.83|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.83|-4.42|0.004
95746621|NCT00739973|191465630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-9.35|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-9.35|-12.85|<0.001
95746622|NCT00739973|191465631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-0.07|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-0.07|-5.73|0.056
95746623|NCT00739973|191465632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.001||95.0|-19.91|-14.3|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-14.3|-19.91|<0.001
95746624|NCT00739973|191465633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-3.62|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.62|-9.29|<0.001
95941980|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.834
95941981|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.318
95746625|NCT00739973|191465634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.11|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region asntwo factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-3.11|-8.90|<0.001
95746626|NCT00739973|191465635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-17.88|<0.001
95746627|NCT00739973|191465636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-5.02|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-5.02|-10.63|<0.001
95746628|NCT00739973|191465637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.73|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||0.73|-5.04|0.143
95746629|NCT00739973|191465638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.21|-13.6|||ANCOVA|A two-way analysis of covariance model with treatment and region as two factors, and the baseline as a covariate.||||-13.6|-19.21|<0.001
95746630|NCT02413294|191465642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This t-test analyzes the change in mean between the midpoint interview immediately prior to the start of the intervention and the follow-up interview at the conclusion of the intervention.|Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.37
95746631|NCT02413294|191465643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.42
95746632|NCT02413294|191465644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||0.65
95797672|NCT04058717|191564826|OTHER||H-statistic|9.33||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
95797673|NCT04058717|191564827|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.289
95858751|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||12.3|7.4|
95746633|NCT02413294|191465645|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis, like the measures themselves, tracks the significance of the change from end of pre-intervention period to end of intervention period, so while only a single comparison group is listed, because it is all one population group, there are two sets of data for that group.||||1.0
95746634|NCT02413294|191465646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
95746635|NCT02413294|191465647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.65
95746636|NCT02413294|191465648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.94
95746637|NCT02413294|191465649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.81
95746638|NCT02413294|191465650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.40
95746639|NCT02413294|191465651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.46
95746640|NCT02413294|191465652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||<0.01
95746641|NCT02413294|191465653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.28
95746642|NCT02413294|191465654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.67
95746643|NCT02413294|191465655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.56
95941982|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 30|||0.311
95746644|NCT02413294|191465656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Paired T test, 2-sided|||Pre-intervention period means are compared to intervention period means for all subjects.||||0.82
95746645|NCT02875028|191465661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95746646|NCT00109837|191465674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion in 1-year CCR|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.25|||||||The regimen would be of no further interest if the true 1-year continuous complete remission (CCR) rate was less than 45% (null). Sample size was chosen for an alternative of 65%, power of 92% and type-1 error of 4.6%.|||0.25|
95746647|NCT01989676|191465676|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the risk ratio of ORR of PF-05280014 versus that of trastuzumab-EU by Week 25 (+/-14 days) was within a pre-specified margin of 0.80 to 1.25.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.049||||||Risk Ratio and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are unstratified and based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.049|0.842|
95746648|NCT01989676|191465677|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the PFS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.26|0.80|0.505
95746649|NCT01989676|191465678|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the DOR distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.27|0.67|0.304
95746650|NCT01989676|191465679|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.929||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.316||1-sided log-rank test was used to compare the OS distribution between the two treatment groups and was stratified by prior trastuzumab exposure (Yes/No) and ER status (ER positive vs. ER negative).|Log Rank||The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was based on the Cox's proportional hazard model.|||1.316|0.656|0.339
95746651|NCT00546910|191465689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||P-value is for Time Active overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Time Active was tested at rank 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.87|0.52|<0.001
95746652|NCT00546910|191465689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57||P-value is for Distance overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Distance was tested at rank 5.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.57|0.98|<0.001
95746653|NCT00546910|191465689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35||P-value is for Area overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Area was tested at rank 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.81|<0.001
95746654|NCT00546910|191465689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22||P-value is for Microevents overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Microevents was tested at rank 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.22|0.78|<0.001
95797674|NCT02799602|191564828|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.801||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.801|0.568|<0.0001
95797675|NCT02799602|191564831|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.357|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.421||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.421|0.302|<0.0001
95797676|NCT02799602|191564833|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.950|0.660|0.0058
95797677|NCT02799602|191564835|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.718||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.718|0.516|<0.0001
95797678|NCT02799602|191564837|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.94||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.940|0.539|0.0081
95797679|NCT02799602|191564839|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio, log|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.458||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.458|0.328|<0.0001
95797680|NCT02799602|191564841|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.043||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.217||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|1.217|0.894|0.7073
95746655|NCT00546910|191465689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value is for Motion Simplicity overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Motion Simplicity was tested at rank 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.58|0.18|<0.001
95746656|NCT00546910|191465690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.99||P-value for ADHD-RS Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||14.99|8.20|<0.001
95746657|NCT00546910|191465691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.46||P-value for CGI-S ADHD score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||Comparison of atomoxetine vs. placebo at Visit 7 (Week 8)||1.46|0.76|<0.001
95746658|NCT00546910|191465692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|7.92||P-value for Total Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||7.92|3.55|<0.001
95746659|NCT00546910|191465692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.44||P-value for Evening subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||5.44|2.49|0.001
95746660|NCT00546910|191465692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.93||P-value for Morning subscore|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.93|0.42|<0.002
95746661|NCT00546910|191465692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.93||P-value for Item 11 (difficulty falling asleep).|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.31|<0.001
95746662|NCT00546910|191465693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value is for Reaction Time Variation overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Reaction time variation was tested at rank 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.35|0.66|<0.001
95746663|NCT00546910|191465693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.93||P-value is for Omission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Omission error was tested at rank 7.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.93|0.46|<0.001
95746664|NCT00546910|191465693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||P-value is for Mean Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Mean reaction time was tested at rank 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.65|0.17|<0.001
95746665|NCT00546910|191465693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||P-value is for Normalized Variation of Reaction Time overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Normalized Variation of Reaction Time was tested at rank 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.73|0.26|<0.001
95746666|NCT00546910|191465694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.68||P-value is for Commission Error overall for morning, noon and evening. Primary tests were performed hierarchically to adjust for multiplicity. Commission Error was tested at rank 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.68|0.31|<0.001
95746667|NCT00546910|191465694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31||P-value is for Anticipatory Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Anticipatory Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.31|0.02|0.022
95746668|NCT00546910|191465695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||P-value is for Error Rate overall for morning, noon and evening. Error Rate was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||1.18|0.69|<0.001
95746669|NCT00546910|191465695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is for Multi Response overall for morning, noon and evening. Multi Response was not tested in the primary analysis but is a secondary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Positive values for the mean difference are in favor of the atomoxetine arm.||||0.28|0.05|0.178
95746670|NCT02760264|191465699|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
95941983|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.885
95746671|NCT02760264|191465701|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
95941984|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.457
95941985|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.745
95746672|NCT02760264|191465703|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
95746673|NCT02760264|191465704|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
95746674|NCT02760264|191465706|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
95746675|NCT02760264|191465708|OTHER|Treatment levels were not compared.|||||||||||||||||"Safety Population was used for this analysis. Safety Population includes all subjects who receive at least one dose of vamorolone study medication.~Treatment levels were not compared."|||
95746676|NCT03346070|191465716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.1|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.10|1.18|0.0075
95746677|NCT03346070|191465716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|69.03|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||69.03|9.72|<0.0001
95746678|NCT03346070|191465716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|61.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|266.77|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||266.77|14.13|<0.0001
95746679|NCT03346070|191465716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.93|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.93|1.44|0.0005
95746680|NCT03346070|191465716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.01|||Log Rank||Cox regression model|||3.01|1.50|<0.0001
95746681|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.3||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-9.6|0.602
95746682|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-13.4|0.969
95746683|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.7|0.567
95746684|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.0|-8.8|0.571
95941986|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 90|||0.757
95746685|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.9|-11.6|0.950
95746686|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||15.9|-8.4|0.528
95746687|NCT03346070|191465717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|9.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.6|-6.8|0.709
95746688|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-12.3|0.738
95746689|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|26.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.3|-1.7|0.077
95746690|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.4|-12.0|0.717
95746691|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.7|-9.9|0.486
95746692|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||12.4|-16.2|0.849
95746693|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-4.9||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-18.2|0.339
95746694|NCT03346070|191465718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|-2.6|0.149
95746695|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|6.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||6.7|-13.9|0.299
95746696|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.4|-9.9|>0.999
95746697|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.0|-13.7|0.326
95858752|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|12.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||12.4|5.7|
95746698|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.5||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.1|-13.6|0.335
95746699|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||11.9|-11.1|0.935
95746700|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||7.3|-13.8|0.326
95746701|NCT03346070|191465719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.4||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.5|-7.5|0.299
95746702|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-12.7|
95746703|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.2|-19.6|
95746704|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.7|-8.1|
95746705|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|13.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||13.1|-18.0|
95746706|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|19.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||19.2|-9.6|
95746707|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||17.0|-12.5|
95746708|NCT03346070|191465720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|7.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.8|-11.4|
95746709|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||9.1|-15.2|
95746710|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|1.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.3|-22.3|
95746711|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.8|-18.8|
95746712|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|1.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.8|-21.2|
95746713|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|10.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.5|-17.0|
95746714|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|15.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||15.5|-14.0|
95746715|NCT03346070|191465721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||1.2|-13.9|
95746716|NCT03346070|191465722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.3|-13.4|
95746717|NCT03346070|191465722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|10.8|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||10.8|-12.3|
95746718|NCT03346070|191465722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||7.0|-13.7|
95746719|NCT03346070|191465722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.7|-11.2|
95746720|NCT03346070|191465722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-11.5|
95746721|NCT03346070|191465722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||12.0|-11.0|
95746722|NCT03346070|191465723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|16.9|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||16.9|-10.8|
95746723|NCT03346070|191465723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.2|-57.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-57.6|-87.2|
95746724|NCT03346070|191465723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.8|-61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-61.1|-88.8|
95746725|NCT03346070|191465723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|14.2|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||14.2|-7.2|
95746726|NCT03346070|191465723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||11.0|-4.8|
95746727|NCT03346070|191465724|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.86|0.48|
95746728|NCT03346070|191465724|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.12|0.06|
95746729|NCT03346070|191465724|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.19|0.10|
95746730|NCT03346070|191465724|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.71|0.40|
95746731|NCT03346070|191465724|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.48|
95746732|NCT03346070|191465725|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.80|0.50|
95746733|NCT03346070|191465725|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.13|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.13|0.07|
95746734|NCT03346070|191465725|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.20|0.11|
95746735|NCT03346070|191465725|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.72|0.44|
95746736|NCT03346070|191465725|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.70|0.51|
95802492|NCT02864914|191578398|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.73|0.41|
95941987|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.562
95941988|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.828
95941989|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.005
95746737|NCT03346070|191465726|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.81|0.54|
95941990|NCT05167864|191851755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank sum||||the correlation of dynamic strain (decreased compression) to the patient satisfaction improvement in the lines between the eyebrows post injection day 180|||0.437
95941991|NCT01828112|191851772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.001
95941992|NCT05565820|191851818|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 2.246 Cohen's d: .590|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 2 proportion of live lice - Nix Day 2 proportion of live lice|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.025
95746738|NCT03346070|191465726|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.17|0.09|
95746739|NCT03346070|191465726|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.27|0.14|
95746740|NCT03346070|191465726|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.83|0.52|
95746741|NCT03346070|191465726|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77|||||Log transformation and t-distribution|||0.77|0.57|
95746742|NCT00988208|191465734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.0||p-value is based on unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.00|1.17|0.0017
95746743|NCT00988208|191465735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.66|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log-rank test||||1.66|1.05|0.0187
95746744|NCT00988208|191465736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.176|||Chi-squared|||||1.176|0.665|0.3975
95746745|NCT00934596|191465746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|57.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95746746|NCT00934596|191465749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|72.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95746747|NCT00934596|191465754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As data for these small groups were non-parametric the median and quartiles were used for comparison of groups by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||<0.001
95746748|NCT00880087|191465758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||9.2|-14.5|0.63
95746749|NCT00880087|191465759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||13.7|-8.0|0.56
95746750|NCT00880087|191465760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.70
95746751|NCT00880087|191465761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.46
95746752|NCT01002794|191465765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: The sample size calculation was based on the change in KOOS4 from baseline to two year follow-up. To detect a 10 point difference with a standard deviation of 15, with a level of power of 90%, level of significance of 0.05, and an estimated 15% dropout rate at two years, we determined that we would need 56 participants in each group. To allow for a 20% crossover rate, we randomised 140 participants.||||<0.05
95746753|NCT00418522|191465801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||A confidence interval (CI) approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||0|-0.38|<0.0001
95746754|NCT00418522|191465801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0516||95.0|-0.38|0.0|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||0|-0.38|0.0516
95746755|NCT00418522|191465802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0052||95.0|1.22|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.22|0.0052
95746756|NCT00418522|191465803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0022||95.0|1.29|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.29|0.0022
95746757|NCT00418522|191465804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.248||95.0|0.4|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.40|0.2480
95746758|NCT00418522|191465805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6091||95.0|-7.31|12.46|||ANCOVA|||||12.46|-7.31|0.6091
95746759|NCT00418522|191465806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.96|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.66|43.25|||ANCOVA|||Time 0 (fasting) at Week 26.||43.25|22.66|<0.0001
95746760|NCT00418522|191465806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.55|40.59|||ANCOVA|||Time 30 at Week 26.||40.59|16.55|<0.0001
95746761|NCT00418522|191465806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.96||||0.0044||95.0|5.96|31.96|||ANCOVA|||Time 60 at Week 26.||31.96|5.96|0.0044
95746762|NCT00418522|191465806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69||||0.3168||95.0|-6.45|19.83|||ANCOVA|||Time 90 at Week 26.||19.83|-6.45|0.3168
95746763|NCT00418522|191465806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.9222||95.0|-12.12|13.39|||ANCOVA|||Time 120 at Week 26.||13.39|-12.12|0.9222
95746764|NCT00418522|191465806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.695||95.0|-14.51|9.69|||ANCOVA|||Time 180 at Week 26.||9.69|-14.51|0.6950
95941993|NCT05565820|191851818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05.|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z 2.469 Cohen's d .660|Direction of comparison: Vamousse Day 7 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 7 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of lice free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.014
95746765|NCT00418522|191465807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.61||||0.1207||95.0|-21.76|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Breakfast, Week 26.||2.54|-21.76|0.1207
95746766|NCT00418522|191465807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-39.77|-18.44|||ANCOVA|||Post-Lunch, Week 26.||-18.44|-39.77|<0.0001
95746767|NCT00418522|191465807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-44.17|-23.35|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dinner, Week 26.||-23.35|-44.17|<0.0001
95746768|NCT00418522|191465808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21||||0.0735||95.0|-0.5|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol at Week 26.||10.91|-0.50|0.0735
95746769|NCT00418522|191465808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0017||95.0|0.79|3.39|||ANCOVA|||HDL-c at Week 26.||3.39|0.79|0.0017
95746770|NCT00418522|191465808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.1369||95.0|-1.1|7.96|||ANCOVA|||LDL-c at Week 26.||7.96|-1.10|0.1369
95746771|NCT00418522|191465808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26||||0.5684||95.0|-10.4|18.92|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides at Week 26.||18.92|-10.40|0.5684
95746772|NCT00418522|191465809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.5673||95.0|-0.58|1.06|||ANCOVA|||hs-CRP at Week 26.||1.06|-0.58|0.5673
95746773|NCT00418522|191465809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.6099||95.0|-2.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Leptin at Week 26.||1.75|-2.97|0.6099
95746774|NCT00418522|191465809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28||||0.7684||95.0|-12.94|17.51|||ANCOVA|||Spot urine microalbumin at Week 26.||17.51|-12.94|0.7684
95746775|NCT00418522|191465810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.5005||95.0|-0.69|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Adiponectin at Week 26.||1.42|-0.69|0.5005
95746776|NCT00418522|191465810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.685||95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ApoB at Week 26.||0.04|-0.03|0.6850
95746777|NCT00418522|191465811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.7||||0.1856||95.0|-43.37|160.77|||ANCOVA|||||160.77|-43.37|0.1856
95746778|NCT00418522|191465812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.72||||0.1862||95.0|-51.34|13.89|||ANCOVA|||||13.89|-51.34|0.1862
95746779|NCT00418522|191465818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0055||95.0|0.35|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.35|0.0055
95746780|NCT00418522|191465819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0053||95.0|0.12|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|0.12|0.0053
95858753|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.4|6.4|
95746781|NCT00418522|191465821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test utilized a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||A CI approach was presented with a two-sided 95% CI of the difference between treatment and control.|The null hypothesis was that the inhaled human insulin group was inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, while the alternate hypothesis is that the inhaled human insulin group was not inferior to the insulin glargine group with respect to 26-week change from baseline in HbA1c, given the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.||-0.08|-0.47|<0.0001
95746782|NCT00418522|191465821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0062||95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||ANCOVA||The superiority test used a one-sided 2.5% level of significance.|With an established non-inferiority claim, an additional test for superiority was conducted (ie, the margin was 0.0%).||-0.08|-0.47|0.0062
95797681|NCT02799602|191564843|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Darolutamide+docetaxel arm over Placebo+docetaxel arm. Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.906||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||||One-sided p-value from log-rank test, stratified by EOD (Non-regional lymph nodes metastases only vs. Bone metastases with or without lymph node metastases vs. Visceral metastases with or without lymph node metastases or with or without bone metastases) and ALP (\<ULN vs. \>=ULN).|0.906|0.523|0.0037
95941994|NCT05565820|191851818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha: .05|Z-test for difference in proportions|Z: 1.920 Cohen's d: .513|Vamousse Day 14 proportion live lice free - Nix Day 14 proportion live lice free|"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of lice-free subjects in the Vamousse Spray 'n' Go group does not exceed that in the Nix Creme Rinse Lice Treatment group.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."||||.054
95941995|NCT05565820|191851819|SUPERIORITY|"To check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also performed.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1148||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.537||Alpha = .05 t: 2.567 df (adjusted, see comment below): 16.83 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.830 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .005 Cohen's d = 1.023|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.83|Direction of comparison: Vamousse prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O - Nix prop. reduction in live lice count from Day O|"Null hypothesis: At Day 2 the mean proportion of decrease from Day 0 in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 2 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.537|.052|.020
95941996|NCT05565820|191851819|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.543||Alpha = .05 t: .976 df: 54 Mann-Whitney Z: 3.021 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .003 Cohen's d = .294|t-test, 2 sided|Levine's test for violation of equality of variances nonsignificant; no df adjustment necessary.||"Null hypothesis: At Day 7 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 7 change proportions deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on their mean change proportions."||.543|-.187|.334
95941997|NCT05565820|191851819|SUPERIORITY|"The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was also conducted to check on the effect of the non-normality of the change proportions.~The null hypothesis is one-tailed. However, for consistency with the practice of reporting conservative p-values in clinical studies, the two-tailed p-value will be reported."|Difference between proportions|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1034||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.454||Alpha = .05 t: 2.276 df(adjusted, see comment below): 16.2 Mann-Whitney Z: 2.478 p(2-tailed) of Mann-Whitney Z: .013 Cohen's d = .947|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom for the t-test were adjusted for inequality of variances between the groups using the Satterthwaite correction: df(adj) = 16.2||"Null hypothesis: At Day 14 the proportion of decrease from baseline in the number of live lice in the Vamousse group does not exceed that in the Nix group.~The distribution of the Day 0 to Day 14 change proportion deviated significantly from normality by the Shapiro-Wilk test for both the Vamousse and combined samples. However, the t-test is robust to such departures from normality for samples of this size and was used to compare the two groups on the mean change proportions."||.454|.016|.037
95941998|NCT05086796|191851820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|2.91|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and length of hospital stay in days.|2.91|1.51|
95989905|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.07||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||7.07|2.90|<0.0001
95797682|NCT03573297|191564845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.43|0.48|0.5745
95746783|NCT02695719|191465822|SUPERIORITY||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||No adjustment was made as there was only one primary comparison.|Van Elteren Test|The Van Elteren test is a stratified version of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test which provides approximate sample size for the van Elteren analysis.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|Assuming equal allocation, a power of 90%, an alpha level of 0.05 for a 2-sided test, a placebo mean of 4 (standard deviation of 2.7), and a treatment mean of 5.9 (standard deviation of 4) for SBM frequency at Week 1 and using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, a total sample size of 146 is required. Analysis was conducted using van Elteren test.||1.9|0.1|0.007
95746784|NCT01005329|191465829|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The rate of the acute specified AEs (adverse events) from previous (and prior to ClinicalTrials.gov requirements) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9708 of RT + cisplatin was 44% and the hypothesis is that the addition of bevacizumab to IMRT + cisplatin will not increase this rate beyond 60%. This study was designed with a 1-sided, upper bound confidence interval to estimate this AE rate. Twenty-seven evaluable patients were required to have 95% confidence that the true grade 3+ non-hematologic treatment-related AE rate is not greater than 60%. Please note that this is a 95% ONE-SIDED confidence bound which is equivalent to the upper bound of a two-sided 90% confidence interval.|||
95746785|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in length z-score.||||0.857
95746786|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in weight z-score.||||0.901
95746787|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Analysis with treatment as factor; baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||Between group comparison for change from baseline in head circumference z-score.||||0.807
95858754|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||6.8|2.9|
95941999|NCT05086796|191851821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.15|1.93|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator. There are two primary outcome measures, so the type I error level was adjusted to alpha = 0.025.||Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who linked to follow-up OUD care by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 97.5% confidence interval (CI) and with covariates treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|1.93|1.15|
95942000|NCT05086796|191851822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who initiated MOUD in the hospital between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.41|1.35|
95746788|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.595
95746789|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for length z-score.||||0.016
95797683|NCT03573297|191564845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51||P-value is based on the log-rank test stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Cariprazine 1.5 or 3.0 mg/day vs. Placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable, stratified by modified index episode (manic or depressive) and region (US, non-US).|||1.51|0.52|0.6308
95797684|NCT02696798|191564854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.17|0.017
95797685|NCT02696798|191564854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.33|1.48|0.003
95797686|NCT02696798|191564855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.26|0.006
95797687|NCT02696798|191564855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.16|0.013
95797688|NCT02696798|191564856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-1.32|<0.001
95746790|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.347
95746791|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for weight z-score.||||0.040
95746792|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.892
95746793|NCT00868296|191465840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Final evaluation compared to baseline within group comparison for head circumference z-score.||||0.006
95746794|NCT01280617|191465841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Continuous variables analyzed using 2-tailed t test or Mann Whitney tes.. Categorical variables analyzed using Chi-Square or Fisher's Exact test||||||<0.05
95746795|NCT01280617|191465841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95797689|NCT02696798|191564856|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-1.30|<0.001
95797690|NCT02696798|191564857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.21|0.015
95858755|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.3|2.5|
95858756|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|16.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||16.6|9.2|
95797691|NCT02696798|191564857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|6.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.49|1.29|0.010
95942001|NCT05086796|191851823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.39|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported any post-discharge MOUD utilization between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: treatment arm, site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|2.39|1.23|
95942002|NCT05086796|191851824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.03|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare the proportions of participants who reported receiving any post-discharge outpatient medical care for their OUD between arms by calculating the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), and prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no).|3.03|1.18|
95942003|NCT05086796|191851825|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.43|||||The START arm is the numerator, Usual Care is the denominator.||Multivariable negative binomial regression with a log link function was used to compare opioid use-days between the two treatment arms by calculating the incident rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) with covariates: site (3 sites), prior exposure to MOUD (yes vs. no), and baseline opioid use days.|2.43|0.64|
95942004|NCT05419830|191851844|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep time dip in systolic BP. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
95746796|NCT00573170|191465843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5||Compares odds ratio.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||2.5|0.7|0.378
95746797|NCT01311557|191465867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed around each of the ratios: Pertussis toxoid (PT) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.05||||||||1.05|0.843|
95746798|NCT01311557|191465867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.13||||||||1.13|0.944|
95746799|NCT01311557|191465867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: Anti-Pertactin (PRN) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2.~The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025."|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.18||||||||1.18|0.928|
95746800|NCT01311557|191465867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was constructed around each of the ratios: anti-Fimbriae types 2 and 3 (FIM) GMT Group 1 / GMT Group 2. The GMT hypothesis was supported by the data if the lower bound of the calculated 95% CI was \> 0.67. This was the equivalent of testing the null hypothesis using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.06||||||||1.06|0.731|
95797692|NCT02696798|191564858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.81|<0.001
95797693|NCT02696798|191564858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.76|<0.001
95746801|NCT04205162|191465873|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.331
95746802|NCT04205162|191465873|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.122
95746803|NCT04205162|191465874|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of etafilcon A||||0.130
95942005|NCT05419830|191851845|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in nocturia frequency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
95942006|NCT05419830|191851846|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in NPi. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
95942007|NCT05419830|191851847|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in PSQI scores. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
95746804|NCT04205162|191465874|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of verofilcon A||||0.924
95797694|NCT02696798|191564859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-1.63|<0.001
95797695|NCT02696798|191564859|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-1.89|<0.001
95797696|NCT02696798|191564860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|33.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.98|0.41|0.242
95797697|NCT02696798|191564860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|47.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||47.54|0.62|0.127
95797698|NCT02696798|191564861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.86|1.50|0.006
95797699|NCT02696798|191564861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.18|1.55|0.006
95797700|NCT02696798|191564862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2863||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7629|3.3007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.3007|-1.7629|0.550
95797701|NCT02696798|191564862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3338||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7151|3.536|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MCS||3.5360|-1.7151|0.495
95797702|NCT02696798|191564862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0204|7.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.4090|3.0204|<0.001
95797703|NCT02696798|191564862|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.494|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCS||7.0230|2.4940|<0.001
95746805|NCT03110380|191465878|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 260 participants per treatment group would provide at least 90% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% in difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the two treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.8|1.0|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is at least 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL as determined by the US FDA-defined snapshot algorithm at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the B/F/TAF group is less than 4% higher than the DTG + F/TAF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48.||1.0|-2.8|
95746806|NCT03110380|191465878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
95746807|NCT03110380|191465879|NON_INFERIORITY|It would be concluded that B/F/TAF is noninferior to DTG+F/TAF if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between treatment groups (B/F/TAF group -DTG+F/TAF group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.3|6.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95.001% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.8|-2.3|
95746808|NCT03110380|191465880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-18.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|11.0|||ANOVA|P-value, difference in least squares means (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.||||11|-46|0.23
95746809|NCT01098110|191465885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-7.16||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-7.16|-15.42|<0.0001
95746810|NCT01098110|191465885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-9.12||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-9.12|-17.33|<0.0001
95746811|NCT01098110|191465886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.13|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.13|-4.80|<0.0001
95746812|NCT01098110|191465886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-2.46|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.46|-5.11|<0.0001
95746813|NCT01098110|191465887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.41|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.41|-3.53|<0.0001
95746814|NCT01098110|191465887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.97|-4.08|<0.0001
95746815|NCT01098110|191465888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-3.35|-7.56|<0.0001
95797704|NCT02696798|191564863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-1.94|0.026
95746816|NCT01098110|191465888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-4.44||Statistical significant: p=\<0.05, two sided|ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-4.44|-8.62|<0.0001
95746817|NCT01098110|191465889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-2.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.09|-4.72|<0.0001
95797705|NCT02696798|191564863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-1.63|0.149
95797706|NCT02696798|191564864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.001
95942008|NCT05419830|191851848|OTHER|Three-group ANCOVA comparisons were completed using pre- to post-intervention changes in sleep efficiency. Analysis was adjusted for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95797707|NCT02696798|191564864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.2|<0.001
95858757|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||17.9|7.1|
95858758|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|15.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||15.2|7.0|
95858759|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.0|3.7|
95942009|NCT02567409|191851854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.98|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||1.98|0.69|
95746818|NCT01098110|191465889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-2.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.35|-4.97|<0.0001
95746819|NCT01098110|191465890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.26|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.26|-3.47|<0.0001
95746820|NCT01098110|191465890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.84|-4.03|<0.0001
95746821|NCT01098110|191465891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.70|-3.73|<0.0001
95746822|NCT01098110|191465891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-2.08|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-2.08|-4.09|<0.0001
95746823|NCT01098110|191465892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.83|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.83|-2.41|<0.0001
95746824|NCT01098110|191465892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.47|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.47|-3.04|<0.0001
95746825|NCT01098110|191465893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.78|-2.04|<0.0001
95746826|NCT01098110|191465893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.91|-2.16|<0.0001
95797708|NCT02696798|191564865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-10.0|0.001
95797709|NCT02696798|191564865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.978|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||||-3.4|-11.2|<0.001
95797710|NCT02696798|191564866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7463|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.187|-13.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.444|-28.187|<0.001
95858760|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||7.0|2.7|
95858761|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: At birth||14.9|8.6|
95858762|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.0|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 1 Month after birth||14.0|7.4|
95858763|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 2 Months after birth||22.1|10.2|
95797711|NCT02696798|191564866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.518|-10.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.163|-25.518|<0.001
95797712|NCT02696798|191564867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1275||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.053|-0.555|0.018
95858764|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.6|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 4 Months after birth||9.6|3.9|
95858765|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|A 50%: 6 Months after birth||6.9|2.9|
95858766|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: At birth||21.2|12.5|
95858767|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|19.1|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 1 Month after birth||19.1|8.6|
95942010|NCT02567409|191851855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.48|||||Hazard ratio relative to arm B.|||2.48|0.71|
95942011|NCT02567409|191851856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
95942012|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.71
95942013|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of actual suicide attempts||||0.43
95942014|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.66||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.66|0.10|0.21
95942015|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.34||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP||3.34|0.51|0.57
95942016|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.97||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on the rate of actual suicide attempts in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.97|0.44|0.77
95746827|NCT01098110|191465894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|28.1||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||28.1|9.2|0.0001
95746828|NCT01098110|191465894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|32.6||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.6|13.7|<0.0001
95746829|NCT01098110|191465895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square (LS) means difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.28|-0.75|<0.0001
95746830|NCT01098110|191465895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline a response variable, baseline score a covariate, treatment groups and regions as explanatory variables.|Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.36|-0.82|<0.0001
95746831|NCT01098110|191465896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.4||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||32.4|12.0|<0.0001
95797713|NCT02696798|191564867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|-0.431|0.194
95797714|NCT02696798|191564868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-0.53|0.170
95942017|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on time to actual suicide attempt||1.69|0.48|0.74
95942018|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.48||False Discovery Rate q-vale \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the time to actual suicide attempt||1.48|0.42|0.45
95746832|NCT01098110|191465896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|38.8||Adjusted for region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||38.8|18.9|<0.0001
95942019|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.72||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE||1.72|0.13|0.25
95942020|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.87||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.87|0.54|0.62
95942021|NCT03825588|191851939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.59||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Regression, Cox|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||2.59|0.47|0.83
95942022|NCT03825588|191851940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving ASAP (ASAP+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (BRITE+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events|We used standard univariate statistics to compare partici- pants' baseline sociodemographics and clinical characteris- tics by arm \[(ASAP vs No ASAP where comparison is 6 www.jaacap.org (ASAP+TAU) and (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) vs (TAU alone) and (BRITE+TAU); and BRITE vs No BRITE where comparison is (ASAP+BRITE+TAU) and (BRITE+TAU) vs (ASAP+TAU) and (TAU Alone)\], site, retention, pre- post-COVID and recruitment venue. We then tested for equality of the 2 cells (ASAP vs no ASAP, BRITE vs no BRITE) or 4 cells (ASAP+BRITE+TAU vs BRITE +TAU vs ASAP+TAU vs TAU Alone) without covariates on the rates of and time to suicidal behavior using the appropriate (t or F, c2, Kaplan-Meier, Cox models) test statistics. We then used mixed-effects regression models with arm (2 and 4 cells), time, and their interaction for continuous data. Presented percentages are based on all observed data.|||0.19
95942023|NCT03825588|191851940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||False Discovery Rate q-value \> 0.99|Chi-squared|||Compare participants receiving BRITE (BRITE+TAU and ASAP+BRITE+TAU) to those who do not (ASAP+TAU and TAU) on the rate of suicidal events||||0.89
95746833|NCT01546519|191465897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.78||||||Cmax Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.78|0.95|
95746834|NCT01546519|191465897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.83||||||Cmax Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.83|0.92|
95746835|NCT01546519|191465897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.37||||||Cmax Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.37|0.55|
95746836|NCT01546519|191465897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.71||||||Css Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.71|0.90|
95746837|NCT01546519|191465897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.8||||||Css Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.80|0.89|
95797715|NCT02696798|191564868|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.04|-1.57|0.800
95797716|NCT02696798|191564869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.521||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.34|0.547
95797717|NCT02696798|191564869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-2.06|0.064
95746838|NCT01546519|191465897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41||||||Css Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.41|0.55|
95746839|NCT01546519|191465898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.73||||||AUC0-24hr Mild HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.73|0.89|
95746840|NCT01546519|191465898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.89||||||AUC0-24hr Moderate HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.89|0.91|
95746841|NCT01546519|191465898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39||||||AUC0-24hr Severe HI vs. Normal: Based on pooled variance estimates||1.39|0.53|
95746842|NCT00779402|191465912|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.433|||Log Rank|Log Rank Test (two sided) stratified by Gleason Score and Radiation Therapy||||1.433|0.693|0.65
95746843|NCT01315028|191465924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95746844|NCT01315028|191465925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Parametric and non-parametric descriptive data were summarised and presented. All data analyses were based on the Intention to Treat (ITT) principle. For the main analysis, Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was performed to identify signals suggesting treatment effects on the outcome measures. Effect sizes were also calculated in order to further examine suggestive trends in the data indicating appropriate outcomes for further research.||||0.996
95746845|NCT01315028|191465926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95746846|NCT01315028|191465927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95746847|NCT02438540|191466073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746848|NCT02438540|191466074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746849|NCT02438540|191466075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746850|NCT02438540|191466076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746851|NCT02438540|191466077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95746852|NCT02438540|191466078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|multiple comparatives||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
95746853|NCT02438540|191466078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.60±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
95746854|NCT02438540|191466078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|from 0.59±0.03 mg/dl before treatment to 0.57±0.03 mg/dl after treatment, P=0.082||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||CRP is known to be an independent parameter|ANOVA|||||||0.082
95746855|NCT02438540|191466079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746856|NCT02438540|191466080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95797718|NCT02696798|191564870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.0|0.861
95797719|NCT02696798|191564870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-1.4|0.626
95746857|NCT02438540|191466081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746858|NCT02438540|191466082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95797720|NCT02696798|191564871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-1.6|0.504
95746859|NCT02438540|191466083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746860|NCT02438540|191466084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746861|NCT02438540|191466085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746862|NCT02438540|191466086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746863|NCT02438540|191466087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746864|NCT02438540|191466088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746865|NCT02438540|191466089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746866|NCT02438540|191466090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95746867|NCT01175473|191466095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-154.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.3|-128.54||Linear fixed effects model with fixed terms for treatment, study site and GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) at baseline as covariate was used (using Statistical Analysis System \[SAS®\] PROC MIXED procedure).|Linear fixed effects model|No alpha adjustment was performed.||To detect a difference of 100 or 150 h\*mg/dL in change from baseline to Day 28 in GLU-AUC(0:30-4:30h) between lixisenatide and liraglutide, 60 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 170 or 250 h\*mg/dL, respectively, with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-128.54|-180.30|<0.0001
95746868|NCT00373425|191466123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.104||If the primary analysis of DFS was not statistically significant, the hierarchical testing procedure would stop and all key secondary efficacy analyses would be nonsignificant; any further analysis of these outcomes would be considered exploratory.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio: erlotinib to placebo|The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. The primary analysis of DFS was performed when at least 410 events had accrued. If the result of the primary analysis of DFS was statistically significant favoring the erlotinib treatment arm, the null hypothesis of no treatment difference of key secondary efficacy variables was tested under a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.104|0.741|0.3235
95746869|NCT00373425|191466128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.144|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis that DFS distributions of the 2 arms were equivalent was tested using an unstratified 2-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level.||1.144|0.780|0.5620
95746870|NCT03297294|191466146|SUPERIORITY|at week 12|least squares mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.4|0.101
95797721|NCT02696798|191564871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.1|0.860
95989906|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||6.80|2.36|<0.0001
95989907|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.72||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||9.72|2.82|<0.0001
95989908|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.47||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||10.47|2.63|<0.0001
95989909|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|13.48||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||13.48|3.16|<0.0001
95989910|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|18.17||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||18.17|3.86|<0.0001
95942024|NCT03825588|191851940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.1||False Discovery Rate q-value = 0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare participants the 4 arms on the rate of suicidal events in a 2x2 factorial design. Interaction effect of ASAP and BRITE.||1.10|0.11|0.08
95942025|NCT03825588|191851940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||False Discovery Rate q \> 0.99|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of ASAP.||2.55|0.51|0.74
95942026|NCT03825588|191851940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.69||False Discovery Rate q=0.72|Regression, Logistic|||Compare the 4 arms on time to actual suicide attempt in a 2x2 factorial design. Main effect of BRITE.||3.69|0.77|0.19
95942027|NCT03331835|191851950|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.93|54.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg).||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||54.79|30.93|<0.001
95942028|NCT03331835|191851951|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.81|56.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|95% CI and p-value are derived from CMH analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg)||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||56.71|32.81|<0.001
95942029|NCT03331835|191851952|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.78|55.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||55.84|31.78|<0.001
95942030|NCT03331835|191851953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.76|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (≤100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||42.10|20.76|<0.001
95989911|NCT00848354|191954696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|15.62||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||15.62|3.94|<0.0001
95942031|NCT03331835|191851954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-1.33|-4.83|<0.001
95989912|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|5.73||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||5.73|2.35|<0.0001
95989913|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||7.22|3.00|<0.0001
95989914|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|8.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||8.06|3.05|<0.0001
95942032|NCT03331835|191851955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.03|-9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-9.68|-23.03|<0.001
95989915|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.96||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||8.96|3.18|<0.0001
95989916|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|10.06||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||10.06|3.23|<0.0001
95942033|NCT03331835|191851956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.||-4.81|-13.00|<0.001
95942034|NCT03331835|191851960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, baseline weight group, and the baseline PSI total score as explanatory variables. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-3.53|-6.31|<0.001
95942035|NCT03331835|191851961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The endpoint is analysed by using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups are defined as randomised treatment.||-0.82|-4.32|0.004
95942036|NCT03331835|191851962|SUPERIORITY|Estimated risk difference, 95% CI and p-value are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis stratified by weight group at baseline (\<=100 kg, \> 100 kg). Non-responder Imputation (NRI) was used to impute missing data. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|40.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.75|53.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.16|28.75|<0.001
95942037|NCT03331835|191851963|SUPERIORITY|The endpoint was analysed by using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment group, week, interaction between treatment and time, baseline value, and baseline weight group as fixed factors. Within participant covariance was estimated by an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment groups were defined as randomised treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-3.24|0.028
95942038|NCT06029452|191851964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Sensitivity|0.853|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.815||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.815|
95942039|NCT06029452|191851964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|Specificity|0.584|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.539||||||Sensitivity was defined as the probability that an individual with the disease in the population were screen positive for disease by the algorithm (TP). Sensitivity = TP / (TP + FN).||||0.539|
95942040|NCT04204083|191851983|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95942041|NCT04204083|191851984|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95942042|NCT04204083|191851985|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95942043|NCT04934072|191852014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely above -1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.96|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||0.96|-0.05|
95942044|NCT04934072|191852014|OTHER|Non-superiority Analysis: Non-superiority of FKS518 to US-Prolia was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the difference in mean percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD laid entirely below 1.45%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.2|||||Difference : FKS518 - US-Prolia|||1.20|0.19|
95942045|NCT01199133|191852107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.41|> 0.05
95746871|NCT03297294|191466147|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||At week 12||0.2|-1.3|0.168
95746872|NCT03297294|191466151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.9|0.7|0.255
95746873|NCT03297294|191466152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.6|0.8|0.100
95746874|NCT02260258|191466260|EQUIVALENCE|Time variable log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimate represents geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||A priori threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.7|0.82
95942046|NCT05309291|191852108|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for λ FLC RR can be expressed as: Ho: μT-μR ≤ -3.783. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -3.783 where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|19.15|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the λ FLC RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||19.15|14.84|<0.0001
95950223|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age,would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-1|
95950224|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for diphtheria toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-12|
95746875|NCT02260258|191466261|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out all patients (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)|Incidence rate ratio|1.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Negative binomial regression|||All patients analyzed (N = 37 in NMB and 43 in Usual Care)||1.9|1.0|0.09
95746876|NCT02260258|191466261|EQUIVALENCE|LOS truncated at 28 days and compared using negative binomial regression controlling for stratification and site. Effect estimates represent incidence rate ratios. The parameter estimate, p value and CI provided below are from the negative binomial regression carried out on ICU survivors alone (n = 14 in NMB and 14 in Control)|Incidence rate ratio|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||Negative binomial regression|||ICU survivors alone analyzed (n = 14 in each arm)||2.0|0.8|0.35
95746877|NCT02260258|191466262|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes all patients (n=37 in NMB and n = 43 in control). Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the full data (n= 37 in NMB and 43 in Control)||1.9|0.9|0.18
95746878|NCT02260258|191466262|EQUIVALENCE|Duration log transformed and compared using linear regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Includes patients surviving to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (n=14 in each group). Two patients discharged from the hospital on mechanical ventilation have duration truncated at time of discharge and are considered survivors to extubation. Effect estimates represent geometric mean difference. Values above 1.0 favor longer duration in the NMB arm.|Geometric mean difference|1.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Linear|Duration log transformed and so parameter estimate represents geometric mean difference.||Anaysis for the patients surviving to extubation (n= 14 in both groups)||2.9|0.7|0.32
95746879|NCT02260258|191466263|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|0.5|0.63
95746880|NCT02260258|191466264|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison made using logistic regression controlling for shock stratification and site. Effect estimates represent odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.6|0.35
95746881|NCT00438659|191466267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95746882|NCT04052698|191466373|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.10194|0.26558|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26558|0.10194|<0.0001
95746883|NCT04052698|191466375|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test where the mean ratio is less than 0.5 utilizing a negative binomial counting regression model. One-sided alpha level of 2.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07664|0.25187|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25187|0.07664|<0.0001
95746884|NCT05068284|191466389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||20.6|-6.3|
95746885|NCT05068284|191466389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.0|6.7|
95989917|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|14.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||14.20|4.37|<0.0001
95989918|NCT00848354|191954698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.65||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||9.65|3.40|<0.0001
95746886|NCT05068284|191466389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||52.2|4.9|
95746887|NCT05068284|191466389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|53.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||53.6|1.0|
95746888|NCT05068284|191466390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|43.6|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||43.6|-19.8|
95746889|NCT05068284|191466390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|63.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||63.8|-4.8|
95746890|NCT05068284|191466390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|51.8|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||51.8|-13.7|
95746891|NCT05068284|191466390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|60.3|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||60.3|-13.6|
95746892|NCT05068284|191466391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|41.0|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||41.0|-18.5|
95746893|NCT05068284|191466391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|71.9|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||71.9|5.0|
95746894|NCT05068284|191466391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|56.2|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||56.2|-7.0|
95746895|NCT05068284|191466391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|74.5|||||Risk difference = (ABBV-154 - placebo)|||74.5|3.8|
95746896|NCT03404401|191466403|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95746897|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) - Immediate memory||||0.861
95746898|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT - Delayed memory||||0.668
95746899|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||RBMT-Delayed corrected for immediate memory||||0.713
95746900|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Short-term memory||||0.028
95989919|NCT00848354|191954700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95746901|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Total immediate memory||||0.227
95746902|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Learning Score||||0.130
95746903|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test- Delayed memory||||0.106
95746904|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Delayed corrected for total memory||||0.350
95746905|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||15 Words Test - Recognition||||0.093
95746906|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit Span forward - Short-term memory||||0.614
95746907|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Immediate memory||||0.111
95746908|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rey Complex Figure - Delayed memory||||0.451
95746909|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time auditory response||||0.905
95746910|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Reaction time visual response||||0.502
95746911|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of omission errors||||0.531
95746912|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Divided attention-Number of commission errors||||0.681
95746913|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Reaction time for target stimuli||||0.713
95746914|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of omission errors||||0.229
95746915|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Visual scanning - Number of commission errors||||0.329
95746916|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time tonic alertness||||0.192
95746917|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Alertness - Reaction time phasic alertness||||0.164
95746918|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Semantic fluency||||0.536
95746919|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phonemic fluency||||0.572
95746920|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backward - Working memory||||0.632
95746921|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition A||||0.512
95746922|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Time condition B||||0.861
95746923|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making Test - Condition B/A||||0.958
95746924|NCT01546922|191466418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied, resulting in a significance level of 0.001.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social cognition||||0.819
95746925|NCT00255151|191466432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
95746926|NCT00255151|191466432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
95746927|NCT00255151|191466432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
95746928|NCT00255151|191466433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95942047|NCT05309291|191852109|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis to demonstrate non-inferiority using a 10% margin for ß2-MG RR can be expressed as Ho: μT-μR ≤ -7.848. The alternative hypothesis is expressed as: Ha: μT-μR \> -7.848, where μT denotes the Theranova 400 treatment mean and μR denotes the FX 800 treatment mean.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|T-test was utilized to generate a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in means.||Non-inferiority of the Theranova 400 Dialyzer compared to the FX 800 Dialyzer in regard to the β2-MG RR at the mid-week treatment day dialysis session was assessed.||0.16|-2.54|<0.0001
95942048|NCT02575950|191852110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-3.96|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean values and difference is from ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline total lesion count as covariate and participants as random effect. 100 simulations of monotone multiple imputation is performed. Summary statistics are found across these 100 simulations.||-3.96|-14.71|<.001
95942049|NCT03334695|191852122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.012
95942050|NCT05654662|191852145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0032
95942051|NCT05654662|191852146|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.6|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|||-2.6|-10.6|0.0013
95942052|NCT05654662|191852147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0181|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0181
95942053|NCT05654662|191852147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||0.0541
95942054|NCT05654662|191852148|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.0|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-1.0|-6.7|0.0091
95942055|NCT05654662|191852148|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.8|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-1.8|-8.8|0.0031
95746929|NCT00255151|191466433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95746930|NCT00255151|191466433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
95746931|NCT00255151|191466435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
95746932|NCT00255151|191466435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
95942056|NCT05654662|191852149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942057|NCT05654662|191852149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942058|NCT05654662|191852149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942059|NCT05654662|191852150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.01|-0.05|0.0051
95942060|NCT05654662|191852150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.01|-0.07|0.0034
95942061|NCT05654662|191852150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.02|-0.08|0.0022
95942062|NCT05654662|191852151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942063|NCT05654662|191852151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942064|NCT05654662|191852151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942065|NCT05654662|191852152|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.04|-0.12|<0.0001
95942066|NCT05654662|191852152|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
95942067|NCT05654662|191852152|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
95942068|NCT05654662|191852153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942069|NCT05654662|191852153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942070|NCT05654662|191852153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942071|NCT05654662|191852154|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.25|0.0012
95942072|NCT05654662|191852154|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.05|-0.29|0.0058
95942073|NCT05654662|191852154|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.42|<0.0001
95942074|NCT05654662|191852155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942075|NCT05654662|191852155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95942076|NCT05654662|191852155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline)||||<0.0001
95989920|NCT00848354|191954702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95989921|NCT00848354|191954704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95746933|NCT00255151|191466435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
95797722|NCT02696798|191564872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-3.0|0.362
95942077|NCT05654662|191852156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 3||-0.06|-0.26|0.0022
95942078|NCT05654662|191852156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 6||-0.04|-0.30|0.0099
95989922|NCT00848354|191954706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95746934|NCT00255151|191466436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95746935|NCT00255151|191466436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95797723|NCT02696798|191564872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-3.3|0.303
95942079|NCT05654662|191852156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.16|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test product minus reference product.|Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.16|-0.45|<0.0001
95942080|NCT06262477|191852179|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed Cmax was analysed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kilograms \[kg\], ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of geometric least square means (GLSM), and corresponding confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.974|1.13||||||||1.13|0.974|
95942081|NCT06262477|191852180|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-inf was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.988|1.15||||||||1.15|0.988|
95942082|NCT06262477|191852181|EQUIVALENCE|The natural log (ln)- transformed AUC0-t was analyzed using ANCOVA model, which included actual treatment \& body weight category (\<75 kg, ≥75 kg) as factors. The ratio of GLSM, and corresponding CI was obtained by taking the exponential of the differences in LSMs and corresponding CIs on the ln scale.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.3|0.985|1.15||||||||1.15|0.985|
95942083|NCT05507333|191852211|OTHER||Proportion of clinically cured patients|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4073|0.7909|||||"The proportion of clinically cured patients at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with continuity correction."|"It was assumed that the true clinical cure rate was 54% in the treatment group, therefore a sample size of 24 patients was needed to obtain 80% power to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the clinical cure rate was above 30%. A sample size of 26 was used to account for patients with missing data.~Hypotheses for the primary endpoint:~Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 30%.~Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 30%"||0.7909|0.4073|
95942084|NCT05507333|191852212|OTHER||Proportion with cont. clinical response|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5366|0.9729|||||"The proportion of participants with continued clinical response at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented together with a two-sided 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9729|0.5366|
95797724|NCT02696798|191564873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.5|0.813
95746936|NCT00255151|191466436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
95746937|NCT02597582|191466448|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A previous study found that the mean operation time was 165 minutes for patients undergoing LigaSure vessel sealing system-assisted total laryngectomy plus neck dissection and 195 minutes for those receiving conventional hemostasis.~With a difference in operative duration of 30 minutes between the two groups,9 the estimated sample size needed to demonstrate a two-sided significance level of 0.05 with 80% power should be at least 18 participants in each treatment arm."||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95746938|NCT02597582|191466449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
95797725|NCT02696798|191564873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.0|0.410
95797726|NCT02696798|191564875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.9|<0.001
95797727|NCT02696798|191564875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.6|0.005
95797728|NCT02696798|191564876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.5|0.088
95797729|NCT02696798|191564876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|0.366
95746939|NCT02597582|191466450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
95797730|NCT02696798|191564877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-0.60|-21.65|0.038
95797731|NCT02696798|191564877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.341||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.23|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Overall Work Impairment Score||-3.10|-24.23|0.012
95797732|NCT02696798|191564877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||0.5|-13.2|0.071
95942085|NCT05507333|191852213|OTHER||Proportion with clin and mycol. cure|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2091|0.5927|||||"The proportion of participants with clinical and mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.5927|0.2091|
95746940|NCT02597582|191466452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.524|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
95746941|NCT02597582|191466453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|as above||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
95746942|NCT01239472|191466454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95746943|NCT01239472|191466455|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95746944|NCT03852524|191466473|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The sample size (41 patients per study group; 82 patients total) for this superiority trial was calculated with a power of 90% (alpha = 0.05) and based on the assumption that 50% of subjects in the placebo group would experience a bowel movement by postoperative day 3, as compared to 85% in the treatment group. Additionally, a 10% lost-to-follow up rate was assumed.||||0.81
95797733|NCT02696798|191564877|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.1|-15.5|0.024
95746945|NCT02147587|191466477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.033|1.424|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.424|1.033|
95746946|NCT02147587|191466478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.877|1.209|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.209|0.877|
95746947|NCT02147587|191466478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMFR|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.924|1.294|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMFRs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMFRs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMFRs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMFR for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.294|0.924|
95797734|NCT04091451|191564881|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of the incidence of HZ recurrence between HZ/su group and Placebo group was below (\<) 5.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.46|||Poisson||IRR = incidence rate of HZ recurrence in HZ/su group divided by the incidence rate of HZ recurrence in Placebo group. Poisson method was used to adjust for differences in follow-up time across individuals.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of HZ/su vaccine compared to placebo in terms of incidence of HZ recurrence from 30 days post-second vaccination (Month 3) until study end (duration of approximately 2 years to 4 years and 5 months).||0.46|0.00|
95797735|NCT03907488|191564895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||One sided P-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis of PFS used a stratified log rank test statistic and is reported as two-sided test. Stratified Cox regression was used to estimate treatment hazard ratios for treatment effect. 95% two-sided intervals are reported. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS curves.||||<0.005
95797736|NCT04070703|191564975|SUPERIORITY|The co-primary outcome data were analyzed via a Group by Time mixed-effects model with repeated measures on the second factor (i.e., outcome measures assessed at baseline and 6 months. In the presence of a Group by Time interaction effect, pre-specified follow-up pair-wise comparisons were performed to determine between-group differences.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|2.1|0.0125
95797737|NCT04070703|191564975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.07|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|.07|.0125
95989923|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
95989924|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||0.0007
95989925|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0009
95746948|NCT02147587|191466479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.821|1.375|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Day 1|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||1.375|0.821|
95989926|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
95989927|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0005
95989928|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
95989929|NCT00848354|191954708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95989930|NCT00848354|191954710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95989931|NCT00848354|191954712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95746949|NCT02147587|191466479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.967|1.618|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 4|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||1.618|0.967|
95989932|NCT00848354|191954714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95989933|NCT00848354|191954716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1975
95989934|NCT00848354|191954717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0044
95989935|NCT00848354|191954718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95989936|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 2.||||<0.0001
95989937|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 4.||||<0.0001
95746950|NCT02147587|191466479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.862|1.459|||ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA model for the log-transformed GMTs are adjusted for baseline factors. GMTs and 80% CIs are back-transformed from log scale.|Ratio of GMTs (Tofacitinib/Placebo) at Week 12|GMT for Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||1.459|0.862|
95746951|NCT02147587|191466480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|20.56|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Day 1)||20.56|-4.05|
95746952|NCT02147587|191466480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.57|26.03|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 4)||26.03|1.57|
95746953|NCT02147587|191466480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.66|15.83|||80% CI based on Chan and Zhang method|||Tofacitinib versus Placebo (Week 12)||15.83|-10.66|
95746954|NCT03476317|191466495|EQUIVALENCE|Median difference in calprotectin for controls from day 12 to baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95746955|NCT02690935|191466585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642||||||No adjustment of the p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are similar H1: The efficacy of 2LALERG and placebo are different||||0.642
95746956|NCT02690935|191466586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||No adjustment for multiplicity|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: 2LALERG and placebo have the same effect on the quality of life H1: 2LALERG and placebo do not have the same effect on the quality of life||||0.829
95746957|NCT01439724|191466592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.158||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.498|||Chi-squared|||The primary end point of the study was the incidence of grade 3-4 oral mucositis (OM) according to the WHO scale. Assuming an α =0.05 and a β = 0.20, with the estimates of proportion being 0.40 for placebo (P0) and 0.15 for LLLT (P1) a total of 94 patients were evaluated. One-sided test error was the basis for the sample size determination and all the reported P-values were derived from two-sided statistical tests. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||0.498|0.050|0.05
95746958|NCT04234464|191466597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum percentage fall in post-dose pre-exercise FEV₁ up to 60 minutes post-exercise challenge is analyzed using a mixed effects model adjusted for treatment, treatment period, treatment sequence as categorical fixed effects, period-specific pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||16.94|10.09|<0.001
95746959|NCT04234464|191466598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.311|25.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model with logit link adjusted for treatment, treatment period and treatment sequence as fixed effects, pre-dose baseline FEV₁ and average pre-dose baseline FEV₁ as continuous covariates, and a random subject within treatment sequence effect.||25.805|4.311|<0.001
95746960|NCT03635983|191466602|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.96|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||0.96|0.45|0.0311
95746961|NCT03635983|191466603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3988||95.0|0.89|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.89|0.3988
95797738|NCT04070703|191564976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.8|16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.6|2.8|.0125
95858768|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|26.2|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 2 Months after birth||26.2|11.9|
95942086|NCT05507333|191852214|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3375|0.7286|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 7-14 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7286|0.3375|
95989938|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0002
95746962|NCT03635983|191466604|SUPERIORITY|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.00071|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab.|||1.22|0.72|0.6361
95746963|NCT03635983|191466608|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided|Strata adjusted odds ratio (NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab over Nivolumab||1.02|0.48|0.0626
95746964|NCT03635983|191466609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3713||95.0|0.9|1.33||Log-rank stratified 2-sided. Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.03|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is NKTR-214 + Nivolumab over Nivolumab|||1.33|0.90|0.3713
95746965|NCT03635983|191466613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.32|1.24|||||Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Negative: \<1%)||1.24|0.32|
95746966|NCT03635983|191466613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.02|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Interaction P-value|Logistic regression model with treatment, PD-L1 Status and treatment by PD-L1 Status interaction. Responders includes CR+PR|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivolumab (PD-L1 Positive: \>=1%)||1.02|0.39|0.9939
95797739|NCT04070703|191564976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|98.75|12.6|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.2|12.6|.0125
95797740|NCT04070703|191564977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.5|0.05
95797741|NCT04070703|191564977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.3|-.7|.05
95942087|NCT05507333|191852215|OTHER||Proportion with mycological cure|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4598|0.9384|||||"The proportion of participants with mycological cure at Day 25 (Yes) was calculated and presented with a 95% CI. The CI was based on the Wilson score for the proportion of participants recorded as Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9384|0.4598|
95746967|NCT03635983|191466614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.43|0.81|
95746968|NCT03635983|191466614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.83|1.51|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.51|0.83|
95797742|NCT04070703|191564978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8|-20|.05
95797743|NCT04070703|191564978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16|-28|.05
95989939|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||||0.0007
95746969|NCT03635983|191466615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.4|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 negative: \<1%)||1.40|0.66|
95746970|NCT03635983|191466615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.58|1.33|||||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|Bempegaldesleukin+Nivolumab vs. Nivo (PD-L1 positive: \>=1%)||1.33|0.58|
95797744|NCT04070703|191564979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.1|-.4|<.05
95797745|NCT04070703|191564979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|.4|<.05
95797746|NCT04070703|191564980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|.5|<.05
95797747|NCT04070703|191564980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.6|<.05
95942088|NCT05507333|191852216|OTHER||Proportion with absence of Candida|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3719|0.7603|||||"The proportion of participants that did not show Candida hyphae in the wet smear (absence of/Yes) at Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the proportion of Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.7603|0.3719|
95942089|NCT05507333|191852217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-3.23|||||The mean change in the score for composite vulvovaginal signs and symptoms from Screening to Day 7-14 was calculated and presented together with a 95% CI.|||-3.23|-5.77|
95989940|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0001
95797748|NCT04070703|191564981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-.4|<.05
95797749|NCT04070703|191564981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|3.1|<.05
95797750|NCT04070703|191564982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.7|-.3|<.05
95746971|NCT02578745|191466630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
95746972|NCT02578745|191466631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.67|||Chi-squared|||||6.67|.42|0.72
95797751|NCT04070703|191564982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.4|<.05
95746973|NCT02578745|191466632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95746974|NCT02578745|191466633|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95746975|NCT02578745|191466634|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95746976|NCT02578745|191466635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
95746977|NCT00330460|191466636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.22%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.7|<0.0001
95797752|NCT04070703|191564983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4|-1.4|<.05
95797753|NCT04070703|191564983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|.8|<.05
95797754|NCT04070703|191564984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-.1|<.05
95797755|NCT04070703|191564984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|1.6|<.05
95797756|NCT04070703|191564985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.8|-.7|<.05
95797757|NCT04070703|191564985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.1|<.05
95797758|NCT04070703|191564986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-.3|<.05
95797759|NCT04070703|191564986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.2|-1.8|<.05
95797760|NCT04070703|191564987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2|-.4|<.05
95797761|NCT04070703|191564987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|3.1|<.05
95797762|NCT04070703|191564988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.03|-.04|<.05
95797763|NCT04070703|191564988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.11|.03|<.05
95942090|NCT05507333|191852218|OTHER||Proportion with reduction CVVS score|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6872|0.9697|||||"The proportion of participants having a reduction in signs and symptoms (CVVS scores) on Day 7-14 vs. Screening was calculated and presented with a 95% CI based on the Wilson score for the prop. with Yes with a continuity correction."|||0.9697|0.6872|
95942091|NCT04797858|191852222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0077||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.056|||Fisher Exact|||||0.056|-0.021|0.45
95746978|NCT00330460|191466637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -2.29%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.7|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.7|<0.0001
95942092|NCT04797858|191852223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.015||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.03|||Fisher Exact|||||0.03|-0.0004|0.11
95746979|NCT00330460|191466638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.65%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.6|1.4||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1.4|0.6|<0.0001
95942093|NCT01880515|191852251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.99||||||||0.99|0.17|
95942094|NCT01880515|191852254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.41
95942095|NCT05247034|191852255|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942096|NCT05247034|191852255|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95797764|NCT04070703|191564989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6|-2|<.05
95942097|NCT05247034|191852255|OTHER|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0125
95989941|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 20.||||<0.0001
95989942|NCT00848354|191954720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0021
95989943|NCT00848354|191954721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0001
95989944|NCT00848354|191954721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
95746980|NCT00330460|191466639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -1.04%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|1.0||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||1|0.3|<0.0001
95797765|NCT04070703|191564989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|166.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166|84|<.05
95797766|NCT04070703|191564990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.1|-.3|<.05
95942098|NCT05247034|191852256|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For 1 Hz||||>0.05
95942099|NCT05247034|191852256|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
95942100|NCT05247034|191852256|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
95942101|NCT05247034|191852256|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1, 5 and 10 Hz||||>0.05
95942102|NCT05247034|191852257|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942103|NCT05247034|191852257|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Friedman|||||||0.042
95942104|NCT05247034|191852257|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Friedman|||||||0.015
95942105|NCT05247034|191852258|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
95942106|NCT05247034|191852258|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
95942107|NCT05247034|191852258|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Z Test|||||||>0.05
95942108|NCT05247034|191852259|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942109|NCT05247034|191852259|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942110|NCT05247034|191852259|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942111|NCT05247034|191852260|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942112|NCT05247034|191852260|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942113|NCT05247034|191852260|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942114|NCT05247034|191852261|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942115|NCT05247034|191852261|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942116|NCT05247034|191852261|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942117|NCT05247034|191852262|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942118|NCT05247034|191852262|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942119|NCT05247034|191852262|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942120|NCT05247034|191852263|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942121|NCT05247034|191852263|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942122|NCT05247034|191852263|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
95942123|NCT05247034|191852264|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942124|NCT05247034|191852264|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942125|NCT05247034|191852264|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Friedman|||||||>0.05
95942126|NCT05247034|191852265|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942127|NCT05247034|191852265|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942128|NCT05247034|191852265|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0027
95942129|NCT05247034|191852266|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942130|NCT05247034|191852266|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942131|NCT05247034|191852266|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0430
95746981|NCT00330460|191466640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.9||The reported p-value was the one-sided adjusted p-valued based on multiplicity adjustment of the secondary efficacy endpoints|ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.3|0.0001
95746982|NCT02663882|191466641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.503
95746983|NCT02663882|191466642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.765
95746984|NCT02663882|191466643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.717
95746985|NCT02663882|191466644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||The non-smoking-related self control task was the comparison group in relation to the smoking-related self control task||||0.302
95746986|NCT05070390|191466649|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|2.44|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.44|0.62|
95746987|NCT05070390|191466650|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|4.83|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||4.83|0.55|
95746988|NCT05070390|191466651|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.99|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||2.99|0.70|
95746989|NCT05070390|191466654|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.62|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.62|0.41|
95746990|NCT05070390|191466655|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.42|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.42|0.60|
95746991|NCT05070390|191466658|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
95746992|NCT05070390|191466659|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|3.1|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||3.10|0.22|
95746993|NCT05070390|191466660|OTHER|GMR: Panel A-Moderate RI/Panel B-Healthy controls|GMR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.13|||||GMR and 90% CI were estimated using a linear mixed effects model and referencing a t-distribution.|||1.13|0.13|
95942132|NCT05247034|191852267|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942133|NCT05247034|191852267|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942134|NCT05247034|191852267|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95942135|NCT05247034|191852268|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942136|NCT05247034|191852268|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95942137|NCT05247034|191852268|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942138|NCT05247034|191852269|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942139|NCT05247034|191852269|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942140|NCT05247034|191852269|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95942141|NCT05247034|191852270|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942142|NCT05247034|191852270|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942143|NCT05247034|191852270|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95942144|NCT05247034|191852271|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942145|NCT05247034|191852271|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942146|NCT05247034|191852271|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95942147|NCT05247034|191852272|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparing row Change from baseline at Week 12"||||>0.05
95942148|NCT05247034|191852272|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
95942149|NCT05247034|191852272|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95942150|NCT04615273|191852328|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis included treatment arm, region, baseline age group, gender, concomitant oral estrogen, Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (AGHD) onset as factors \& baseline trunk percent fat as the covariates. Multiple imputation method was used to impute missing data.||-1.14|-2.94|<.0001
95942151|NCT03677141|191852332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|21.07||||||||21.07|-30.61|
95942152|NCT05280574|191852419|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.1|||Distinct-effects GEE model||Average relative effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component composite (SpO2 \<85%, RR \>30/min, RR \<4/min, HR \<45/min, HR \>130/min) of cumulative durations.||We assessed the treatment effect of unblinded versus blinded monitoring across the 5-component primary outcome composite of cumulative durations by estimating the average relative effect on the log-transformed count data (counts of observations beyond a given threshold at 1 Hz). Specifically, we employed a distinct-effects (i.e., separate treatment effect estimated for each component) generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to account for within-subject correlation across components with the vector of the 5 cumulative durations as the dependent variable and treatment as independent. We then averaged the component-specific effects and tested whether the average effect equals zero (on the log scale), and reported results as the ratio of geometric means of unblinded versus blinded monitoring.|1.1|0.51|< 0.05
95942153|NCT05363163|191852422|OTHER|If the mean volume variation was higher than 0 and the p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05, the H0 hypothesis was rejected, and the primary endpoint demonstrated.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of the statistical test lower than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95942154|NCT05237284|191852435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CAFS at Week 24 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test to compare mean scores between the treatment groups at Week 24.||||0.6999
95942155|NCT05237284|191852438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||1.350|-0.310|0.2182
95746994|NCT00551616|191466663|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.98|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.58%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||2.98|1.04|<0.001
95746995|NCT00551616|191466663|OTHER||% of observed pregnancies|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.94|||Chi-squared||Expected pregnancy rate = 5.43%|Comparison of % of observed pregnancies vs % of expected pregnancies based on Trussell 1998||3.94|1.68|<0.001
95746996|NCT03877926|191466682|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 2 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|0.93|
95746997|NCT03877926|191466682|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 1 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14||||||||1.14|0.96|
95746998|NCT03877926|191466682|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs for the Day 64 TNA NF50 GMT ratios between AV7909 Lot 2 and Lot 3 had to be within 0.5 to 2.0 equivalence margin.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||||||||1.13|0.95|
95746999|NCT03877926|191466684|OTHER||Percentage of participants|66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|68.1||||||||68.1|64.5|
95747000|NCT03877926|191466685|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -15% was used for the difference in percentage of AV7909 participants (pooled from three AV7909 study groups \[Lot 1, 2, and 3\]) vs. BioThrax participants who achieved TNA NF50 ≥0.29 at Day 64. The success criterion was defined as the lower bound of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of AV7909 vs. BioThrax participants being greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|29.2||||||||29.2|20.0|
95747001|NCT03877926|191466686|OTHER|Relative risk of serious adverse events incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.5|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||6.5|0.9|
95747002|NCT03877926|191466687|OTHER|Success criteria was defined as the lower bound for the 95% CI for the proportion of participants pooled from all three AV7909 study groups with TNA NF50 ≥0.15 to be ≥67%.|Percentage of participants|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|98.3||||||||98.3|97.2|
95747003|NCT03877926|191466689|OTHER|Relative risk of adverse events of special interest (events of autoimmune etiology) incidence between AV7909 (combined from all three AV7909 lots) and BioThrax.|Relative risk (AV7909/BioThrax)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.0|||||The 95% CI of the relative risk was derived using the Farrington-Manning relative risk score statistic.|||5.0|0.3|
95797767|NCT04070703|191564990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.4|-.7|<.05
95797768|NCT00770809|191565017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.13
95942156|NCT05237284|191852439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.419||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.075|3.914|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline SVC, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction, and baseline SVC-by-visit interaction.||3.914|-3.075|0.8134
95989945|NCT00848354|191954721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0003
95747004|NCT02240186|191466692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95747005|NCT02240186|191466693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95747006|NCT02240186|191466694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95797769|NCT00770809|191565017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||Participants were stratified by clinical stage (II vs III) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||||0.072
95747007|NCT00588731|191466729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.90
95747008|NCT00588731|191466730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
95747009|NCT01998243|191466731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.6|||Chi-squared||risk ratio (RR)|||2.60|0.53|0.689
95747010|NCT01998243|191466732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.01|||Chi-squared||all in all balloon and postsurgical morbidity in group A vs. group B.|||3.01|0.84|0.144
95747011|NCT01998243|191466733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.937
95747012|NCT01998243|191466734|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95747013|NCT01998243|191466735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.673
95797770|NCT05028569|191565024|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.69|-0.62|=0.914
95942157|NCT05237284|191852440|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the LS Geometric Mean Ratios|0.961||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.027|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, log transformed baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, and log transformed baseline NfL-by-visit interaction.||1.027|0.899|0.2356
95747014|NCT01684878|191466753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.88||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||2 sided log-rank|||The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan vs paclitaxel), previous anti-angiogenic therapy (yes versus no), and progression-free interval (PFI) since platinum therapy (\< 3 months versus 3-6 months). A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the pertuzumab + chemotherapy treatment arm.||1.27|0.62|0.4983
95747015|NCT01684878|191466755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|6.06||||0.4102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.3|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% CI for difference of 2 rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||18.3|6.0|0.4102
95797771|NCT05028569|191565024|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, included as a continuous variable rather than the binomial stratification variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.55|-0.76|=0.745
95942158|NCT05237284|191852441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.005||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|0.183|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline megascore, baseline NfL, disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline megascore-by-visit interaction.||0.183|-0.193|0.9565
95942159|NCT05237284|191852446|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.414||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.878|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM including treatment group, visit, randomization strata of the geographic region, ALS onset region, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol, treatment-by-visit interaction, disease duration, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline serum neurofilament light chain (NfL), disease duration-by-visit interaction, baseline NfL-by-visit interaction and baseline ALSFRS-R score-by-visit interaction.||0.878|-1.706|0.5289
95942160|NCT05237284|191852447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, randomization strata of the geographic region of the study site, ALS onset region (bulbar or other areas), use of riluzole (yes or no), use of edaravone (yes or no), use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (yes or no), disease duration (from first symptom onset to the screening visit), baseline ALSFRS-R score and baseline NfL.||||0.1830
95942161|NCT03213873|191852456|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.0|0.57
95942162|NCT03213873|191852457|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.03|0.25
95942163|NCT03213873|191852458|SUPERIORITY||Interaction effect time x group|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|0.75
95942164|NCT03583333|191852469|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was 12.5%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Adjusted differences and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||12.4|-1.5|0.024
95942165|NCT03583333|191852469|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentage|5.2||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.||||12.4|-1.5|0.938
95942166|NCT03583333|191852470|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.9|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.9|-8.7|
95942167|NCT03583333|191852471|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|16.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||16.8|-12.4|
95942168|NCT03583333|191852472|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|14.3|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.3|-7.6|
95942169|NCT03583333|191852473|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.6|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||6.6|-15.8|
95942170|NCT03583333|191852474|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.1|||||Adjusted differences and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||13.1|-17.8|
95942171|NCT03583333|191852475|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|19.8|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||19.8|-16.5|
95942172|NCT03583333|191852476|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|14.4|||||Adjusted difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||14.4|-19.8|
95942173|NCT03583333|191852477|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.6|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||10.6|-6.5|
95942174|NCT03583333|191852478|OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.4|||||Difference and the 95% CIs are based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization stratum.|||1.4|-10.7|
95942175|NCT03421340|191852486|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin of 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||exact|||||||0.029
95942176|NCT03421340|191852487|SUPERIORITY|Not powered|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-8|
95942177|NCT03421340|191852488|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.0|143.0||||||||143|120|
95942178|NCT03421340|191852489|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-7.5||||||||-7.5|-11.6|
95942179|NCT05736458|191852571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Of the 23 participants who completed all study procedures, 2 participant's data was unusable for this analysis. Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for participant's high and low controllability target.||||0.66
95747016|NCT01684878|191466760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio (stratified)|0.9||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.32|||2 sided log-rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favored the Pertuzumab + Chemotherapy treatment group|The stratified time-to-event analysis included the treatment group variable plus the following stratification factors: selected chemotherapy cohort (gemcitabine versus topotecan versus paclitaxel), previous angiogenic therapy (yes versus no) and PFI since platinum therapy (\<3 months versus 3-6 months).||1.32|0.61|0.5960
95747017|NCT00479388|191466782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006||95.0|-7.7|-1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline LDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||-1.3|-7.7|0.006
95747018|NCT00479388|191466783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|13.4|17.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time, baseline HDL-C-by-time and concomitant statin group-by-time interaction.||||17.9|13.4|<=0.001
95747019|NCT00479388|191466784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<=|0.001||95.0|-19.2|-11.7|||Repeated measures analysis|ANCOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender, concomitant statin group and Tukey's normal score of baseline.||||-11.7|-19.2|<=0.001
95747020|NCT01396421|191466836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.4||Primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) which included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed.||-4.40|-12.0|<0.0001
95747021|NCT01396421|191466836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-3.30|-12.0|0.0006
95747022|NCT01396421|191466836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Traetment difference|-8.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||-4.37|-13.1|<0.0001
95747023|NCT01396421|191466836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.89||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Sample size was determined to achieve 90% power at alpha level of 0.025 (two-sided) to a detect treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 6 (last observation carried forward) between a brexpiprazole treatment of 4 mg/day (or 2 mg/day) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||2.49|-8.27|0.2910
95747024|NCT01396421|191466837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Difference between the average effect of brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day and placebo was tested first at alpha level of 0.05. If statistically significant, then comparisons for each group (brexpiprazole 2 and 4 mg/day) versus placebo were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.56|0.0006
95942180|NCT05736458|191852572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS to post-rTMS 2-back accuracy scores for a high controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.43
95858769|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.4|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 4 Months after birth||14.4|5.7|
95858770|NCT04032093|191675356|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|9.9|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences in the logarithms of the titers (RSV group - placebo group) and the corresponding CIs (CIs based on the Student t distribution).|B 50%: 6 Months after birth||9.9|3.9|
95942181|NCT05736458|191852572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 20||Statistics are from 2-tailed t-test comparing pre-rTMS and post-rTMS 2-back percent accuracy scores for a low controllability TMS target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.04
95942182|NCT05736458|191852573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 11||Statistics are from 2-tailed paired t-test comparing 2-back accuracy score before and after rTMS to a high controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||<0.05
95942183|NCT05736458|191852574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 19||Statistics are from paired 2 tailed t-test comparing 2-back percent changes (Post-rTMS - pre-rTMS) scores for participant's high and low controllability target. Alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0.||||0.27
95942184|NCT02990338|191852575|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|0.814||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Log Rank|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Stratification was based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.|Confidence interval (CI) for Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated with log-log transformation of survival function and methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley.||0.814|0.436|0.0005
95797772|NCT05028569|191565026|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.01|-0.42|=0.414
95942185|NCT02990338|191852576|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines (2 or 3 versus \>3) according to IRT.||||||<0.0001
95989946|NCT00848354|191954723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
95747025|NCT01396421|191466837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.38||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.15|-0.61|0.0012
95747026|NCT01396421|191466837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
95747027|NCT01396421|191466837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.||||0.26|-0.31|0.8491
95747028|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.5||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.09|-3.09|0.0644
95747029|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.99||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.41||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||-0.41|-3.58|0.0139
95747030|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.35||||0.7231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.32||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||2.32|-1.61|0.7231
95747031|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.14||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-1.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-1.93|-8.36|0.0018
95747032|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.75||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|-1.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.17|-6.33|0.0045
95942186|NCT02990338|191852580|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the type I error rate meaning no further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.015||One-sided significance level was 0.02 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Log Rank|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|Stratified on age (\<75 years versus \>=75 years) and number of previous lines of therapy (2 or 3 versus \> 3) according to IRT.|||1.015|0.594|0.0319
95747033|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.84||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|5.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||5.02|-1.34|0.2568
95747034|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.82||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-1.82|-6.97|0.0009
95747035|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.23|-6.67|0.0360
95942187|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.16|25.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||25.54|-21.16|0.853
95942188|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.57|38.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||38.65|-28.57|0.767
95747036|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.6||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||4.60|-4.53|0.9876
95747037|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-3.93||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-3.93|-11.3|<0.0001
95989947|NCT00848354|191954723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0264
95747038|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-1.47||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-1.47|-8.85|0.0062
95747039|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.93||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.9||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||5.90|-2.05|0.3407
95747040|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.86||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.86|-11.9|0.0001
95747041|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-3.14|-11.2|0.0005
95747042|NCT01396421|191466838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.12||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|3.83||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5|Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.|||3.83|-6.07|0.6570
95747043|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6553
95747044|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.08|-0.13|0.6170
95797773|NCT05028569|191565026|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with Baseline monthly headache days as covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject/residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.76|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.76|-0.66|=0.889
95942189|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|36.62||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df,112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||36.62|-30.93|0.868
95747045|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates..|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1||||0.15|-0.10|0.6446
95747046|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||-0.01|-0.29|0.0347
95942190|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|25.52||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.05|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||25.52|-24.26|0.960
95942191|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.97|42.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.48|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.82|-25.97|0.630
95747047|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasr squares mean|-0.12||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.27|0.0825
95747048|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2||||0.30|-0.05|0.1678
95747049|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||-0.03|-0.39|0.0219
95942192|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|42.36||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = 0.44|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||42.36|-26.77|0.657
95747050|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.09||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.09|-0.27|0.3275
95747051|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 3||||0.40|-0.04|0.1173
95942193|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|15.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.56|-25.72|0.627
95989948|NCT00848354|191954723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
95989949|NCT00848354|191954725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0005
95989950|NCT00848354|191954725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
95989951|NCT00848354|191954725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95747052|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.21||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||-0.21|-0.63|<0.0001
95747053|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.19||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.01|-0.40|0.0662
95747054|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 4||||0.22|-0.30|0.7587
95747055|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.17||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.17|-0.61|0.0006
95747056|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.34||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||-0.11|-0.56|0.0032
95747057|NCT01396421|191466839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 5||||0.23|-0.32|0.7619
95747058|NCT01396421|191466840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.46||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.98||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.98|-0.06|0.0557
95747059|NCT01396421|191466840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.42||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||5.42|0.37|0.0250
95747060|NCT01396421|191466840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.58||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.74||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 6||||4.74|-1.58|0.3264
95747061|NCT01396421|191466841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.99||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-3.88|0.0010
95747062|NCT01396421|191466841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.22||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.77||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.67|0.0029
95989952|NCT00848354|191954727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-values. ANCOVA was ran at each time-point shown, however as p-values obtained were identical, only one p-value is presented (which is applicable to each time-point - Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24 - independently).||||<0.0001
95747063|NCT01396421|191466841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.11||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.90|0.2227
95747064|NCT01396421|191466842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.39||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.44|0.0069
95747065|NCT01396421|191466842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.76||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.76|-2.81|0.0007
95747066|NCT01396421|191466842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatmetn difference|-1.07||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.2||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.33|0.0996
95989953|NCT00848354|191954728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0061
95942194|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.86|15.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.91|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||15.86|-42.86|0.364
95942195|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.42||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|21.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.15|-38.00|0.574
95747067|NCT01396421|191466843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.22||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.22|-0.77|0.0004
95747068|NCT01396421|191466843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0002
95747069|NCT01396421|191466843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22||The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for trial center was applied to CGI-I score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.50|0.4505
95747070|NCT01396421|191466844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.91||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.14|0.0032
95747071|NCT01396421|191466844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.05|1.23|0.0004
95747072|NCT01396421|191466844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.27||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.76||CMH general association test controlling for trial was applied to the analysis of response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.76|0.92|0.1576
95747073|NCT01396421|191466845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.14||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-2.06|0.0246
95747074|NCT01396421|191466845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.22||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.26||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-2.19|0.0131
95747075|NCT01396421|191466845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.85||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-1.53|0.5706
95747076|NCT01396421|191466846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.39||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.||||0.85|0.18|0.0143
95747077|NCT01396421|191466846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.87||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.65||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.46|0.6606
95747078|NCT01396421|191466846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.77||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68||CMH general association test controlling for trial center was applied to the analysis of discontinuation rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.35|0.5115
95747079|NCT01396421|191466847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.34||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.91||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.77|0.0014
95747080|NCT01396421|191466847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.47||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-3.91|0.0008
95747081|NCT01396421|191466847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.89||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.89||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-2.66|0.3263
95942196|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.96|12.94||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.94|-23.96|0.557
95942197|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.65||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|12.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -1.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||12.35|-39.64|0.302
95747082|NCT01396421|191466848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.25||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-2.35|0.0155
95747083|NCT01396421|191466848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.68||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.62||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.73|0.0019
95747084|NCT01396421|191466848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.86||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-2.17|0.1956
95942198|NCT02938923|191852599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.33|18.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 217) = -0.61|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||18.06|-34.33|0.541
95747085|NCT01396421|191466849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
95747086|NCT01396421|191466849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.97||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-2.98|0.0001
95747087|NCT01396421|191466849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.52||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-1.96|0.2572
95747088|NCT01396421|191466850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.07||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.87|0.0085
95747089|NCT01396421|191466850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.08||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.28||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.88|0.0081
95747090|NCT01396421|191466850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.33||||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.66||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-1.31|0.5172
95747091|NCT01396421|191466851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.34||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.35||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-1.03|0.3284
95747092|NCT01396421|191466851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.65||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.04||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.34|0.0655
95747093|NCT01396421|191466851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.64||MMRM with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center, visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, baseline visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-1.07|0.6251
95747094|NCT01886937|191466906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95747095|NCT06442410|191466917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747096|NCT06442410|191466918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747097|NCT06442410|191466919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747098|NCT06442410|191466920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747099|NCT06442410|191466921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747100|NCT06442410|191466922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747101|NCT06442410|191466924|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747102|NCT06442410|191466925|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747103|NCT06442410|191466926|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747104|NCT06442410|191466927|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747105|NCT06442410|191466928|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747106|NCT06442410|191466929|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747107|NCT06442410|191466930|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.65 cm was selected based on a previous study of a similar therapy against traditional SCS|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95747108|NCT04947150|191466931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA were used.||||||.255
95747109|NCT04947150|191466932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.560
95747110|NCT04947150|191466933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.319
95747111|NCT04947150|191466934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.032
95747112|NCT04947150|191466935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.044
95747113|NCT04947150|191466936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.010
95747114|NCT04947150|191466937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.073
95747115|NCT04947150|191466938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 1) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.872
95747116|NCT04947150|191466939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.145
95747117|NCT04947150|191466940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.173
95747118|NCT04947150|191466941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.012
95747119|NCT04947150|191466942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
95747120|NCT04947150|191466943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747121|NCT04947150|191466944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747122|NCT04947150|191466945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747123|NCT04947150|191466946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full (Wave 2) sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.382
95747124|NCT04947150|191466947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747125|NCT04947150|191466948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.178
95747126|NCT04947150|191466949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.081
95747127|NCT04947150|191466950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.343
95747128|NCT04947150|191466951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.369
95747129|NCT04947150|191466952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.055
95747130|NCT04947150|191466955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.001
95747131|NCT04947150|191466956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.079
95942199|NCT02938923|191852600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|357.72||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.75|1091.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.97|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1091.19|-375.75|0.336
95747132|NCT04947150|191466957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.581
95747133|NCT04947150|191466958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747134|NCT04947150|191466959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747135|NCT04947150|191466960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747136|NCT04947150|191466961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747137|NCT04947150|191466965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Sample T-test||||||<.05
95747138|NCT04947150|191466967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.006
95747139|NCT04947150|191466968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||<.001
95747140|NCT04947150|191466969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.220
95747141|NCT04947150|191466970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||||||.623
95942200|NCT02938923|191852600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|936.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-147.56|2021.42||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2021.42|-147.56|0.090
95747142|NCT04947150|191466971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.577
95747143|NCT04947150|191466972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747144|NCT04947150|191466973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<.001
95747145|NCT04947150|191466974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.008
95747146|NCT04947150|191466975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.601
95747147|NCT04947150|191466976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.088
95747148|NCT04947150|191466977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.210
95747149|NCT04947150|191466978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.060
95747150|NCT04947150|191466979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.370
95747151|NCT04947150|191466980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.556
95747152|NCT04947150|191466981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||.913
95747153|NCT04947150|191466982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||.241
95747154|NCT04039919|191466991|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6513|0.9461||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9461|0.6513|
95747155|NCT04039919|191466992|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.8342|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6999|0.9942||||||The log-transformed PK parameters was analyzed by a mixed ANOVA with period and treatment as fixed effects and study participant as the random effect. The estimates and confidence intervals are back-transformed after the analysis.||0.9942|0.6999|
95747156|NCT05918822|191467015|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to log (ln)-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimate and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.31|90.91|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||90.91|74.31|
95747157|NCT05918822|191467015|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90 percent (%) CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|57.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.18|63.84|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||63.84|52.18|
95747158|NCT05918822|191467015|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir Cmax with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|49.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.07|60.0|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of Cmax of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||60.00|40.07|
95747159|NCT05918822|191467016|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|104.2|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||104.20|91.39|
95747160|NCT05918822|191467016|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|82.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|87.61|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||87.61|76.84|
95747161|NCT05918822|191467016|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUClast with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.11|81.51|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUClast of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||81.51|60.11|
95747162|NCT05918822|191467017|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment B versus Treatment A.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|99.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.12|106.11|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment B (Test) versus Treatment A (Reference)||106.11|94.12|
95747163|NCT05918822|191467017|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for differences between Treatment C (test) versus Treatment B (reference). Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for ratios of Treatment C versus Treatment B.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|81.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.93|86.73||||||Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 1: Treatment C (Test) versus Treatment B (Reference)||86.73|76.93|
95747164|NCT05918822|191467017|OTHER|A mixed-effects model was applied to ln-transformed plasma maribavir AUC0-infinity with treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. Point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were constructed for the differences between Treatment E (test) versus Treatment D (reference). The point estimates and their associated 90% CIs were then back transformed to provide point estimates and 90% CIs for the ratios of Treatment E versus Treatment D.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|88.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.94|102.78|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Test/Reference).|Comparison of AUC0-infinity of Maribavir: Part 2: Treatment E (Test) versus Treatment D (Reference)||102.78|76.94|
95942201|NCT02938923|191852600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|579.21||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-515.36|1673.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.05|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1673.78|-515.36|0.297
95942202|NCT02938923|191852600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|383.36||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.06|1032.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1032.79|-266.06|0.245
95989954|NCT00848354|191954728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0730
95747165|NCT03478865|191467032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.83||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||2.83|-7.91|0.259
95747166|NCT03478865|191467032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||4.12|-4.66|0.818
95747167|NCT03478865|191467033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.56||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|6.12||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||6.12|-13.24|0.365
95747168|NCT03478865|191467033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.23||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|19.41||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the post-treatment follow-up visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||19.41|-12.94|0.480
95747169|NCT02973321|191467075|OTHER|The overall Type 1 error for multiple comparisons of the HbA1c and body weight was controlled by a Hierarchical testing procedure. Testing was performed in following sequence: 1. 1st trend test for HbA1c, 2. 1st trend test for body weight, 3. 2nd trend test for HbA1c, 4. 2nd trend test for body weight, 5. 3rd trend test for HbA1c, 6. 3rd trend test for body weight.|||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st trend test||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Overall 1st trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of +3, +1, -1, -3 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide. Here it is test 1 of testing order.||||< 0.0001
95747170|NCT02973321|191467075|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|-0.552||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Second Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, +1, 0, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 3 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.552|-1.359|< 0.0001
95747171|NCT02973321|191467075|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|-0.444||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Visit 4 (Day 1) BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Third Trend test based on a contrast with coefficients of 0, 0, +1, -1 and 0 for SAR425899 0.20 mg, 0.16 mg, 0.12 mg, placebo and liraglutide, respectively. Here, it is test no. 5 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.444|-1.264|< 0.0001
95797774|NCT05028569|191565027|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|2.2|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|11.46|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||11.46|-7.08|=0.451
95942203|NCT02938923|191852600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|836.64||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|1740.32||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1740.32|-67.04|0.069
95942204|NCT02938923|191852600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|453.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.13|1365.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 107) = 0.98|Difference between changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1365.68|-459.13|0.327
95942205|NCT02938923|191852601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.16||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-391.74|426.05||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.08|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||426.05|-391.74|0.934
95942206|NCT02938923|191852601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.64||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.02|1167.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.84|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1167.31|-42.02|0.068
95747172|NCT02973321|191467076|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|1st Trend test||Placebo, SAR425899 0.12,0.16,0.20 mg: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 2 of hierarchical testing sequence.||||0.0012
95747173|NCT02973321|191467076|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant|LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.309|-1.832||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|2nd Trend test||SAR425899 0.16 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 4 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-1.832|-5.309|< 0.0001
95747174|NCT02973321|191467076|OTHER|Hierarchical testing procedure continued only, if the previous comparison was statistically significant.|LS Mean difference|-2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.264|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|3rd Trend test||3rd Trend Test: SAR425899 0.12 mg vs Placebo: Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c value (\<8, \>=8 %), randomization strata of Day 1 BMI (\<35.0 kg/m\^2, \>=35.0 kg/m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate. Here, it is test no. 6 of hierarchical testing sequence.||-0.77|-4.264|0.0047
95747175|NCT02296853|191467090|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|54.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.98|69.56|||||Here, GLSM is geometric least square mean.|TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||69.56|41.98|
95747176|NCT02296853|191467090|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|63.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.9|92.7||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||92.70|42.90|
95747177|NCT02296853|191467090|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|94.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|122.99||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||122.99|72.48|
95747178|NCT02296853|191467091|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.66|64.25||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||64.25|31.66|
95747179|NCT02296853|191467091|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.77|124.72||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||124.72|64.77|
95747180|NCT02296853|191467091|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|82.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|119.31||"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.31|56.58|
95747181|NCT02296853|191467092|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|51.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|65.36||||||TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||65.36|40.11|
95747182|NCT02296853|191467092|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|62.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|91.82||||||TFV: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||91.82|41.92|
95858771|NCT01356277|191675373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted, ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|We estimated a sample size of 75 participants per group to have 85% power to detect a 20% difference in taking adherence between groups, using 2-sided tests and setting alpha at 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 40%. Targeted enrollment of 176 participants accounted for 15% drop-out. Only participants with electronic pillbox data could be included. For participants who withdrew or stopped using the pillbox, all available pillbox data were included.||2.39|1.15|0.006
95942207|NCT02938923|191852601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|545.49||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|1155.79||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1155.79|-64.81|0.079
95942208|NCT02938923|191852601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.73||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.4|432.86||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||432.860|-365.40|0.867
95942209|NCT02938923|191852601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|665.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.68|1225.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.36|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1225.81|105.68|0.020
95747183|NCT02296853|191467092|EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size calculations were done in Query Advisor 6.0 by using the Two-group t-test of equal means (equal n's) module with α (one-sided) = 0.05, upper equivalence limit = ln(2.0) = 0.691, and expected difference = 0."|GLSM ratio percentage|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.62|119.8||||||Free (unbound) TAF: Severe Hepatic Impairment Group vs. Matched Normal Hepatic Function Group||119.8|72.62|
95747184|NCT03460158|191467096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1524||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the relative change in volume and relative change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 2 weeks post injection||||0.8822
95747185|NCT03460158|191467096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1466||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 4 weeks post injection||||0.2223
95747186|NCT03460158|191467096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t test with equal variances the null hypothesis is the change in volume and change in patient reported outcomes will be the same at 12 weeks post injection||||0.0015
95747187|NCT00263887|191467098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The main effect ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline to endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment and center as fixed factors, change in logarithm of total lung volume and baseline measurement as covariates.||||0.049
95747188|NCT01028911|191467135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|128.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|217.21||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||217.21|75.90|
95747189|NCT01028911|191467136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|119.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|189.16||||||Day 30: Natural log transformed AUCtau of donepezil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, day and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||189.16|75.90|
95747190|NCT01011556|191467144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.489|-5.851|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-5.851|-8.489|<0.001
95747191|NCT01011556|191467144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.822|-6.144|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-6.144|-8.822|<0.001
95747192|NCT01011556|191467144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 3.5% was used.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.448|-4.891|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-4.891|-7.448|<0.001
95747193|NCT01011556|191467145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.716|-3.452|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-3.452|-5.716|<0.001
95747194|NCT01011556|191467145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.006|-2.727|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.727|-5.006|<0.001
95747195|NCT01011556|191467145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.652|-2.464|||ANCOVA|Analyses were performed using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate and pooled site and treatment as fixed effects.||||-2.464|-4.652|<0.001
95747196|NCT01011556|191467146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.663|-3.392||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-3.392|-5.663|<0.001
95858772|NCT01356277|191675374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted ordinal logistic regression|An odds ratio greater than 1.0 indicates higher adherence in Intervention participants compared with controls.|||2.50|1.21|0.003
95747197|NCT01011556|191467146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.086|-2.8||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.800|-5.086|<0.001
95747198|NCT01011556|191467146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.627|-2.43||p-value is for change in BMD at 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-2.430|-4.627|<0.001
95747199|NCT01011556|191467146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.856|-6.151||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.151|-8.856|<0.001
95747200|NCT01011556|191467146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.835|-6.091||p-value for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-6.091|-8.835|0.001
95858773|NCT01356277|191675375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon ranksum|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the SD of tacrolimus trough levels between intervention and control.||||0.49
95858774|NCT01356277|191675376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95858775|NCT01356277|191675377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95797775|NCT05028569|191565027|SUPERIORITY|P-value is obtained from Logistic Regression. Model includes treatment (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, and placebo), country and strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects in this by visit logistic covariate analysis of variance (ANCOVA). Confidence intervals (Clopper-Pearson) are based on binomial-distribution assumptions.|Response Rate Difference|1.2|||=|0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|10.4|||Regression, Logistic||Response Rate Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||10.40|-7.94|=0.762
95797776|NCT05028569|191565028|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.74|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.74|-0.48|=0.686
95797777|NCT05028569|191565028|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline monthly acute headache medication days as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|=|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-0.57|=0.913
95797778|NCT05028569|191565029|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|3.93|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||3.93|-3.18|=0.837
95797779|NCT05028569|191565029|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) for primary analysis of the visit at Month 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline MSQ v2.1 RFR Domain Score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|4.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||4.31|-2.74|=0.662
95797780|NCT05028569|191565030|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||1.63|-1.32|=0.834
95942210|NCT02938923|191852601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|632.02||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.38|1197.66||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 102) = 2.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1197.66|66.38|0.029
95942211|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|21.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 0.07|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||21.01|-19.61|0.946
95942212|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.44||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|53.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.69|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||53.13|-4.25|0.094
95747201|NCT01011556|191467146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.802||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|-4.86||p-value is for change in BMD at 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Percentage change in BMD = treatment+baseline+pooled site+visit+treatment\*visit interaction. Repeat measure occurred at each visit.||||-4.860|-7.510|0.001
95747202|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
95858776|NCT01356277|191675378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates were compared between intervention and control groups using Chi square||||0.26
95858777|NCT01356277|191675379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
95942213|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.74||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|52.67||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||52.67|-5.19|0.107
95942214|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|24.3||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 0.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||24.30|-14.68|0.627
95747203|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
95797781|NCT05028569|191565030|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline AIM-D Physical Impairment domain score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|=|0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||1.90|-1.06|=0.578
95797782|NCT05028569|191565031|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 195 U - Placebo|BOTOX 195 U vs Placebo||0.96|-1.69|=0.589
95747204|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
95747205|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
95747206|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
95747207|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.003
95747208|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
95747209|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
95747210|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.029
95942215|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|52.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||52.01|-2.20|0.072
95747211|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
95747212|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||<0.001
95747213|NCT01011556|191467147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.047
95747214|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.822
95747215|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.406
95797783|NCT05028569|191565031|SUPERIORITY|P-value/95% CI are obtained from a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for primary analysis of the 2 visits across Months 5 and 6. Tx (BOTOX 195 U, BOTOX 155 U, placebo), month (Months 1-6), country, strata of previous exposure to migraine prophylactic treatment, and Tx group-by-month interaction as fixed effects, with the Baseline total HIT-6 score as a covariate, included as a continuous variable. Subject and residual errors are random effects.|LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|=|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||LS Mean Difference = BOTOX 155 U - Placebo|BOTOX 155 U vs Placebo||0.64|-2.00|=0.310
95747216|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||0.312
95747217|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
95747218|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||<0.001
95747219|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 3 months.||||||0.952
95747220|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||<0.001
95747221|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.011
95747222|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 6 months.||||||0.997
95747223|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.003
95747224|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.112
95747225|NCT01011556|191467148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 12 months.||||||0.988
95747226|NCT01011556|191467149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
95747227|NCT01011556|191467149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
95747228|NCT01011556|191467149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Pairwise comparison p-value at 1 month.||||||<0.001
95747229|NCT05212883|191467160|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||Comparison of the likelihood to test before gathering for age \< 18 vs. age \>= 18.||1.3|0.8|
95747230|NCT03095118|191467180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.001
95747231|NCT03095118|191467181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Proteinuria baseline values compared to 12 month follow up values||||0.004
95747232|NCT03095118|191467183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values compared to 6 month follow up values||||0.15
95747233|NCT03095118|191467184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine baseline values comparted to 12 month follow up values||||0.16
95747234|NCT00436917|191467217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample of 60 participants was estimated to provide percentage statistics accuracy to within 13% with 95% confidence.||||0.01
95747235|NCT00127166|191467242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.009||95.0|-5.66|-0.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period||||-0.84|-5.66|0.009
95747236|NCT00127166|191467243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-52.71||||0.006||95.0|-89.76|-15.66|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||-15.66|-89.76|0.006
95747237|NCT00127166|191467244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|4.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.58|5.64|||ANCOVA|Participant, treatment, period \& covariate for FEV1 %-predicted Treatment test is adjusted for period \& FEV1 %-predicted at pre-exercise baseline||||5.64|2.58|<0.001
95747238|NCT00127166|191467245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.035||95.0|1.02|1.55|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model terms: treatment and period|Dispersion not applicable to time to event data|||1.55|1.02|0.035
95942216|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.1||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|47.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||47.49|-7.29|0.149
95942217|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|12.95||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = -0.19|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||12.95|-15.71|0.849
95942218|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.47||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|35.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|(df, 110) = 1.15|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||35.78|-4.83|0.134
95942219|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.86||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|37.39||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 110) = 1.63|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||37.39|-3.68|0.107
95942220|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|13.17||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = -0.03|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||13.17|-13.64|0.973
95747239|NCT00127166|191467246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|5.32|||ANOVA|Model terms: participant, treatment and period. The treatment test is adjusted for period.||||5.32|2.28|<0.001
95747240|NCT01876368|191467250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-4.73|<0.001
95747241|NCT01955044|191467262|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DHA levels||||0.05
95747242|NCT00605917|191467281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was starting dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of starting dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95747243|NCT00605917|191467282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.002
95747244|NCT00605917|191467283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was family history of psychiatric disorder. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without family history of psychiatric disorder in the participants of responders."||||0.032
95747245|NCT00605917|191467284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was smoking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three types of smoking status in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95747246|NCT00605917|191467285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95747247|NCT00605917|191467286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.001
95747248|NCT00605917|191467287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to administration of Sertraline in the participants of responders."||||0.028
95747249|NCT00605917|191467288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95747250|NCT00605917|191467289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."|Chi-squared|not adjusted, p=0.050||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.030
95747251|NCT00605917|191467290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.013
95858778|NCT02839200|191675380|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Model|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all ACT-541468 doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cranrprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
95942221|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.49||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|33.54||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||33.54|-4.56|0.135
95942222|NCT02938923|191852602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|34.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 189) = 1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||34.00|-4.55|0.134
95942223|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.76|-0.34|0.125
95942224|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.61||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.61|-1.90|0.758
95747252|NCT00605917|191467291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.004
95747253|NCT00605917|191467292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was drinking status. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between five types of drinking status in the participants of responders."||||0.004
95747254|NCT01506908|191467293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 5 minutes||-10.2|-21.6|<0.0001
95747255|NCT01506908|191467294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-4.2||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 1 minute.||0.0|-8.4|0.0511
95747256|NCT01506908|191467295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 3 minutes.||-6.4|-16.7|<0.0001
95747257|NCT01506908|191467296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 7 minutes.||-11.7|-23.8|<0.0001
95747258|NCT01506908|191467297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4 mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered the population's change from post-cue baseline in craving score mean to be equal in both treatment groups at 10 minutes.||-11.4|-24.4|<0.0001
95747259|NCT01610063|191467299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for QIDS-C16||||<0.0001
95747260|NCT01610063|191467300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for HAMD-17||||<0.0001
95858779|NCT02839200|191675380|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||4.7|-18.7|0.241
95942225|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.41||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.41|-3.12|0.455
95942226|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 1.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.00|-0.72|0.229
95747261|NCT01610063|191467301|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for PHQ-9||||0.002
95747262|NCT01917968|191467332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|6.5||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|13.2||Statistical significance is considered at 0.05 level.|Z statistics|P-value is calculated using a Z statistics from the propensity score adjusted estimates. Missing values are handled using multiple imputation.||||13.2|-0.2|0.056
95747263|NCT01917968|191467333|NON_INFERIORITY|With type I error of 0.05 and type II error of 0.20 (power 80%), 298 subjects (149 subjects per arm) are needed to detect non-inferiority with a margin of 10%.|Adjusted difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.9|||||The propensity score adjusted difference in SAE rate of Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh (TVM) vs. NTR was estimated.|||1.9|-2.7|
95858780|NCT02839200|191675380|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.0|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||1|-22.6|0.072
95747264|NCT02248662|191467358|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted percentages for receipt of mastectomy were calculated by setting covariates to their observed mean values.|This group is the reference group.|Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||||<0.05
95858781|NCT02839200|191675380|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-4.5|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-4.5|-27.9|0.007
95858782|NCT02839200|191675380|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.9|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||-13.9|-37.3|< 0.001
95942227|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.16|-1.97|0.647
95942228|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.41|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-3.12|0.680
95858783|NCT02839200|191675380|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|3.3|||ANCOVA||Parameter Dispersion Type and Dispersion Value: Standard error of the LS mean|||3.3|-20.4|0.155
95858784|NCT02952820|191675384|SUPERIORITY||least squares geometric mean (LSGM)ratio|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on mixed effect model repeated measurement analysis (MMRM) model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (missing not at random/complete case missing value \[MNAR/CCMV\]).||0.843|0.636|<.0001
95858785|NCT02952820|191675384|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.810|0.607|<.0001
95858786|NCT02952820|191675385|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.781|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.842|0.725|<.0001
95942229|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 1.96|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.97|-0.02|0.052
95858787|NCT02952820|191675385|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.752|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.811|0.698|<.0001
95858788|NCT02952820|191675385|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.893|0.735|<.0001
95858789|NCT02952820|191675385|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|0.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.848|0.698|<.0001
95858790|NCT02952820|191675385|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.778|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.878|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.878|0.690|<.0001
95858791|NCT02952820|191675385|SUPERIORITY||LSGM ratio|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with log transformation of sSOL and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the study baseline sSOL as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||0.869|0.681|<.0001
95858792|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.961|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.961|2.638|<.0001
95942230|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||2.46|-1.79|0.754
95747265|NCT02248662|191467358|OTHER|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56||A two-sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Unadjusted associations between patient characteristics and the three-level cluster of treatment intensity for primary DCIS were evaluated using Chi-squared tests. We used multivariable modeling to adjust for potential confounders. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching to balance regional treatment intensity for primary DCIS with respect to the covariates included in the multivariable models.||1.56|0.71|<0.05
95747266|NCT02248662|191467358|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|1.27|<0.05
95747267|NCT00562120|191467359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.302
95747268|NCT00562120|191467359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
95747269|NCT00562120|191467359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.229
95747270|NCT00562120|191467359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.544
95747271|NCT00562120|191467359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.710
95942231|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.06|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.00|-3.28|0.294
95942232|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.78|0.13|0.031
95747272|NCT00562120|191467359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.816
95942233|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.32|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.16|-1.56|0.752
95989955|NCT00848354|191954728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95747273|NCT00562120|191467360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.269
95747274|NCT00562120|191467360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.097
95747275|NCT00562120|191467360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.252
95747276|NCT00562120|191467360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.479
95747277|NCT00562120|191467360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.521
95747278|NCT00562120|191467360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
95747279|NCT00562120|191467361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.130
95747280|NCT00562120|191467361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.663
95747281|NCT00562120|191467361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.138
95942234|NCT02938923|191852603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.71||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.22|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.71|-3.03|0.223
95942235|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.46|0.24|0.006
95942236|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.97|-0.81|0.863
95942237|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.12||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.12|-1.67|0.091
95942238|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.65|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.44|0.21|0.009
95747282|NCT00562120|191467361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.124
95942239|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.02|-0.76|0.778
95942240|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.19|-1.59|0.124
95942241|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 2.24|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||1.31|0.08|0.027
95942242|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.78|-0.97|0.833
95942243|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.10|-1.67|0.080
95942244|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = 2.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
95747283|NCT00562120|191467361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.134
95942245|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -0.21|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.84|0.834
95942246|NCT02938923|191852604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.01||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 214) = -1.94|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.01|-1.52|0.054
95942247|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.74||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.99|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.74|-0.25|0.326
95942248|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.54|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.49|-0.87|0.587
95942249|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.25|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.25|-1.12|0.213
95942250|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.83|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.78|-0.32|0.410
95747284|NCT00562120|191467361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.978
95747285|NCT00562120|191467362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.357
95747286|NCT00562120|191467362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.952
95747287|NCT00562120|191467362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.480
95942251|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.51||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.63|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.51|-0.99|0.527
95942252|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.23|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.28|-1.23|0.219
95942253|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.93|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.69|-0.25|0.355
95747288|NCT00562120|191467362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.043
95747289|NCT00562120|191467362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.087
95747290|NCT00562120|191467362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.753
95942254|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.59|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.47|-0.88|0.554
95942255|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -1.24|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.26|-1.10|0.219
95942256|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.95|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.68|-0.24|0.345
95747291|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.011
95747292|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.127
95942257|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.69|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.43|-0.88|0.494
95942258|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.21||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.35|Difference between the BADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Basic Activities of Daily Living (BADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.21|-1.11|0.180
95942259|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.4|Difference between the changes of IADL of EX+T - EX+P|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.50|-0.75|0.693
95942260|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.98|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.43|-1.27|0.327
95942261|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = -0.69|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.56|-1.15|0.493
95942262|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.49||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.39|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.49|-0.72|0.698
95942263|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.47||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.84|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.47|-1.17|0.404
95747293|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.103
95747294|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.218
95942264|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.55|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.60|-1.06|0.585
95942265|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.85|Difference between IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.31|0.399
95942266|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0.59|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.98|-0.53|0.554
95942267|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.76||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 112) = 0|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an unstructured covariance structure.||0.76|-0.76|0.998
95942268|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.88|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.73|-0.28|0.378
95942269|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.91||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.51|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.91|-0.53|0.608
95989956|NCT00848354|191954729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0066
95989957|NCT00848354|191954729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0036
95942270|NCT02938923|191852605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.11|Difference between the IADL changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) subscale based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-0.76|0.915
95942271|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.33||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.33|-1.36|0.602
95747295|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.905
95942272|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.56||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.75|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.56|-3.48|0.454
95747296|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.273
95747297|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
95747298|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.055
95747299|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.012
95942273|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.09||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.13|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.09|-3.98|0.262
95942274|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.47|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.40|-1.47|0.639
95942275|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.78|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-3.66|0.438
95942276|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -1.12|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.14|-4.14|0.265
95747300|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.048
95747301|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.496
95942277|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.07||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.59|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.07|-1.11|0.555
95942278|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.15|-2.39|0.917
95989958|NCT00848354|191954729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95989959|NCT00848354|191954730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
95747302|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Nasal Itching: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.190
95747303|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
95747304|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.019
95747305|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.009
95747306|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.061
95747307|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.778
95802493|NCT02864914|191578398|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.55|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.55|0.30|
95942279|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.68||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.52|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.68|-2.87|0.606
95942280|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = 0.60|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.04|-1.09|0.549
95942281|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.06||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.14|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.06|-2.38|0.887
95942282|NCT02938923|191852606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.59||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 234) = -0.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.59|-2.87|0.574
95942283|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.11||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||5.11|-3.19|0.649
95942284|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|8.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.23|-3.22|0.389
95942285|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|7.31||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.31|-4.22|0.598
95942286|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|5.02||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||5.02|-3.26|0.676
95942287|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|8.19||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.85|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||8.19|-3.24|0.394
95942288|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|7.35||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.55|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.35|-4.15|0.585
95942289|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
95942290|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|8.16||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.76|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||8.16|-3.62|0.449
95797784|NCT04609553|191565043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.64
95797785|NCT04609553|191565043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. Specifically, no adjustments were made for child expressive language since it was only measured at 18 months.|||0.46
95797786|NCT04609553|191565044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.84
95797787|NCT04609553|191565044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.82
95802494|NCT02864914|191578398|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.05|0.45|
95855451|NCT00541658|191670538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
95942291|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.64||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.57|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure.||7.64|-4.20|0.567
95942292|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.65||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.26|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.65|-3.56|0.794
95989960|NCT00848354|191954730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0013
95942293|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.64|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.75|-3.97|0.526
95942294|NCT02938923|191852607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|7.23||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.45|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Compound Symmetry covariance structure in the model with covariates.||7.23|-4.55|0.654
95747308|NCT00562120|191467363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||Rhinorrhea: An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.102
95747309|NCT00562120|191467364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
95747310|NCT00562120|191467364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
95797788|NCT04609553|191565044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.001
95858793|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.133|7.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||7.452|4.133|<.0001
95942295|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.98||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.53|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||2.98|-1.72|0.597
95942296|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.33|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||1.04|-5.41|0.184
95942297|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|0.44||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.71|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC) on Physical Health domain|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||0.44|-6.07|0.089
95942298|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.28||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.47|Difference in the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.28|-2.01|0.635
95747311|NCT00562120|191467364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on a one-sided test. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.000
95747312|NCT00562120|191467364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.217
95747313|NCT00562120|191467364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.156
95747314|NCT00562120|191467364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on two-sided test which was underpowered and presented for descriptive purposes only. There were no further adjustments for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA mixed model was assessed with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||||0.848
95942299|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.46||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.17|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||1.46|-5.76|0.242
95942300|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|0.85||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -1.51|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.85|-6.42|0.132
95747315|NCT00948792|191467374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (30-minutes post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.8
95747316|NCT00948792|191467375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in post-transfusion platelet counts (6-hour post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.26
95747317|NCT00948792|191467376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the change in post-transfusion platelet counts (30 minutes and 6 hours post-transfusion) between the two groups.~We opted to determine the number of transfusions that would be required to detect difference of 20,000 platelets/mm3 (with a standard deviation of 20,000). The number shown to demonstrate this was 44."||||0.09
95747318|NCT02093923|191467384|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
95747319|NCT02093923|191467384|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.77||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.18|-46.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-46.90|-97.18|0.0050
95747320|NCT02093923|191467384|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-91.08||||0.0012||95.0|-97.93|-61.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-61.57|-97.93|0.0012
95942301|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.31|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.81|-0.77|0.193
95747321|NCT02093923|191467385|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
95747322|NCT02093923|191467385|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-84.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.07|-63.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-63.46|-93.07|<.0001
95747323|NCT02093923|191467385|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.81|-71.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-71.50|-94.81|<.0001
95802495|NCT02864914|191578398|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.86|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.86|0.20|
95942302|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.75||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.86|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||4.75|-1.86|0.390
95747324|NCT02093923|191467386|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
95747325|NCT02093923|191467386|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-82.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-58.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-58.64|-92.50|<.0001
95797789|NCT04609553|191565044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple, potentially highly correlated primary outcomes, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment across primary outcomes and timepoints within domain (total=3 outcomes within the language development). Right skewed variables with minimum values of zero were log-transformed after adding one. minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for child communicative development was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.16
95747326|NCT02093923|191467386|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-87.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.55|-69.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-69.06|-94.55|<.0001
95747327|NCT02093923|191467387|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-100.00|-100.00|<.0001
95747328|NCT02093923|191467387|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-85.24||||0.0141||95.0|-96.79|-32.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-32.03|-96.79|0.0141
95747329|NCT02093923|191467387|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change in Mean Rate|-89.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.68|-51.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The result was based on General Estimating Equation (GEE) analysis. Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) approach with Poisson distribution assumption was applied to the repeated-measures mixed model with independence working correlation structure. The treatment group was a fixed effect and the number of baseline HAE attacks per week was included as a covariate in the GEE.||-51.13|-97.68|0.0040
95802496|NCT02864914|191578398|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.76|0.56|
95942303|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.25||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.04|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure.||3.25|-3.39|0.965
95942304|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.82||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 1.30|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.82|-0.79|0.195
95942305|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.63||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = 0.81|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.63|-1.93|0.418
95942306|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.13||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 233) = -0.10|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Physical Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous Toeplitz covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.13|-3.46|0.921
95942307|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.88||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.77|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||4.88|-0.26|0.078
95942308|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|3.43||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.02|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.43|-3.51|0.982
95747330|NCT02449473|191467416|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group as fixed effect and baseline log-transformed airway submucosal eosinophils as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. All group comparisons from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|1.43||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in airway submucosal eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. The null hypothesis was that the change in airway submucosal eosinophils at Week 12 on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding change on placebo.||3.27|0.63|0.3862
95747331|NCT02449473|191467417|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.21||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood eosinophil count; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.48|1.00|0.0546
95747332|NCT02449473|191467418|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed differential sputum eosinophils and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.57||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in differential sputum eosinophils; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||6.00|0.06|0.6334
95747333|NCT02449473|191467419|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed blood free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in blood free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.40|0.88|0.3769
95747334|NCT02449473|191467420|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures analysis included treatment group, baseline log-transformed sputum free ECP and visit as fixed effects. Treatment-by-visit interaction was also included. The analysis was performed using log-transformed data. A REML approach was used. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to model the within-subject errors.|LS geometric mean ratio|0.49||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison of change from baseline, expressed as a ratio, in sputum free ECP concentration; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.20|0.20|0.1126
95747335|NCT02953678|191467421|OTHER||Exact method for binomial distributions|54.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|66.8||||||||66.8|42.7|
95747336|NCT04034355|191467436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.521||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0462|2.2113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2113|1.0462|0.0280
95747337|NCT03535857|191467448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Pairwise t- test|||||||0.546
95747338|NCT03064438|191467453|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.162|5.727|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.727|-2.162|0.366
95747339|NCT03064438|191467454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 2||||0.1099
95747340|NCT03064438|191467454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 4||||0.1653
95747341|NCT03064438|191467454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8437|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 8||||0.8437
95942309|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.15||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.32|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||1.15|-5.85|0.187
95942310|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|4.58||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.76|Difference of the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||4.58|-0.26|0.080
95747342|NCT03064438|191467454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4644|||||||Van Elteren test|||Percent change from baseline at Week 12||||0.4644
95747343|NCT03064438|191467455|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95747344|NCT03064438|191467456|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|5.211|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||5.211|-2.571|0.495
95747345|NCT03064438|191467456|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.014|2.045|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.045|-5.014|0.399
95747346|NCT03064438|191467456|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.965|6.407|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.407|-1.965|0.290
95747347|NCT03064438|191467456|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.953|5.469|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.469|-1.953|0.343
95747348|NCT03064438|191467457|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|2.155|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||2.155|-0.894|0.407
95747349|NCT03064438|191467457|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|1.109|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||1.109|-0.342|0.291
95747350|NCT03064438|191467457|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||1.073|-0.763|0.734
95747351|NCT03064438|191467457|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.197|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in pustule lesions at Week 12||1.197|-1.128|0.952
95747352|NCT03064438|191467458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.069|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||0.069|-0.215|0.313
95747353|NCT03064438|191467458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||0.152|-0.141|0.942
95747354|NCT03064438|191467458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.226|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in nodule lesions at Week 8||0.226|-0.067|0.284
95747355|NCT03064438|191467458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.105|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||0.105|-0.198|0.542
95747356|NCT03064438|191467459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.135|6.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 2||6.139|-2.135|0.333
95747357|NCT03064438|191467459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|2.822|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 4||2.822|-4.882|0.591
95747358|NCT03064438|191467459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|6.758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 8||6.758|-1.840|0.254
95747359|NCT03064438|191467459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.131|5.779|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Week 12||5.779|-2.131|0.356
95747360|NCT02502734|191467473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025, 1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1217|0.0176||Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the confidence interval (0.025,1-sided significance test level) for the mean difference in lower-leg growth rate of FF 50 mcg OD versus Placebo was greater than -0.20mm/week.|ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates period-level baseline and subject-level baseline lower-leg length, age, gender, treatment and period.||||0.0176|-0.1217|
95747361|NCT02075606|191467485|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Clinical symptomatic response as dependent variable and CTC presence at baseline as explanatory variable was used to perform the logistic regression analysis.||1.65|0.02|=0.126
95747362|NCT03420768|191467492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.7||||||||17.70|0.13|
95747363|NCT03420768|191467492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|20.23||||||||20.23|0.26|
95747364|NCT01483625|191467505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0516|0.1654|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Random:Patient. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||Tiotropium 18 mcg minus Placebo||0.1654|-0.0516|0.3025
95747365|NCT01483625|191467506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9053|1.078|||2sample t quantiles with pooled variance|||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo||1.0780|0.9053|0.7823
95942311|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.83||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.28|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.83|-3.76|0.781
95747366|NCT01483625|191467507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.9025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1489|0.1686||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo at Week 12|Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects:treatment,visit,treatment by visit,baseline and baseline by visit. Patient was random. A spatial power covariance structure was used.||||0.1686|-0.1489|0.9025
95747367|NCT01483625|191467510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0115||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0157|1.8938|||t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval is based on 2 sample t quantiles using pooled variance.||Comparison Tiotropium 18 mcg Vs Placebo Over 12 Weeks||1.8938|-10.0157|0.1797
95747368|NCT04019054|191467518|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group.||||||0.518|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.518
95747369|NCT04019054|191467519|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is within-group differences.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05. Observed power η2=0.39.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
95797790|NCT04609553|191565045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.93
95855452|NCT00541658|191670539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.41||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.11|||Fisher Exact|||||2.11|0.08|0.4505
95942312|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.56|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.69|-5.94|0.121
95942313|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.73||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.45|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||3.73|-0.57|0.148
95942314|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.45||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.39|Differences between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||2.45|-3.64|0.699
95747370|NCT04019054|191467519|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Analysis described here is between-group differences.|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95942315|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.89||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.4|Difference in the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure.||0.89|-5.24|0.163
95747371|NCT04019054|191467520|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is within-group difference over time.||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05. Result above describes within group testing over time. Observed power η2=0.43.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95747372|NCT04019054|191467520|SUPERIORITY|Repeated-measure MANOVA was utilized to compare control and active group. This allowed for examination between and within each group. Result described here is the between-group comparison|||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95747373|NCT04019054|191467521|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of skin conductance level (SCL) as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.01
95747374|NCT04019054|191467521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The second statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of skin conductance level (SCL) (as a function of step and timepoint).||||0.029
95747375|NCT04019054|191467522|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
95747376|NCT04019054|191467522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||0.63
95747377|NCT04019054|191467522|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
95942316|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.69||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = 1.49|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||3.69|-0.51|0.137
95942317|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.29||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -0.46|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||2.29|-3.68|0.648
95942318|NCT02938923|191852608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|0.72||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 232) = -1.50|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison of Mental Health Domain based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to three months from mixed model ANOVA with a Heterogeneous AR Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.||0.72|-5.29|0.135
95747378|NCT04019054|191467522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<0.001
95747379|NCT04019054|191467522|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
95747380|NCT04019054|191467522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of anticipatory distress as a function of step and group.||||0.047
95747381|NCT04019054|191467523|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U statistic|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-sided Mann-Whitney U Test (nonparametric) utilized to compare the ability of the groups to tolerate treatment intensity.||||0.027
95747382|NCT04019054|191467525|OTHER|A pair of chi-square analyses were performed to validate blinding of the study (based on questionnaires completed by subjects and raters). Given the small sample size, Fisher's exact method was utilized. The number of correct and incorrect guesses for each group were examined once for the subject guesses and once for the rater's guesses.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|For the subjects, p=0.64 using Fisher's exact method. For the raters, p=1 using Fisher's exact method.||||||>.05
95747383|NCT04019054|191467526|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
95747384|NCT04019054|191467526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and timepoint.||||>.05
95747385|NCT04019054|191467526|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of treatment group and timepoint. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<.001
95747386|NCT04019054|191467526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of group and timepoint.||||<.001
95747387|NCT04019054|191467526|OTHER|This was a goodness of fit test of a multi-level model, fit was tested using a wald chi-square test.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|This was specifically a wald chi-square test, performed in Stata for the purpose of assessing goodness-of-fit of a mixed effects model||Goodness of fit test of a two-variable negative binomial multi-level model of maximum distress as a function of step and group. This multi-level model was generated using the menbreg function in Stata 16||||<0.001
95747388|NCT04019054|191467526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||a priori threshold for significance of p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This statistical analysis involved testing of the step-by-timepoint interaction in the two-variable negative binomial model of maximum distress as a function of step and group.||||0.024
95747389|NCT01040793|191467536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|1.043|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.199|1.043|0.0018
95797791|NCT04609553|191565045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 9-month follow-up, A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.04
95858794|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|4.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||4.146|0.307|0.0230
95942319|NCT02938923|191852609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.058||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.23|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.058|-0.073|0.821
95942320|NCT02938923|191852609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.108||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.27|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.108|-0.082|0.789
95747390|NCT01040793|191467536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0052||95.0|1.03|1.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.184|1.030|0.0052
95942321|NCT02938923|191852609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.116||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.42|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive AR(1) covariance structure.||0.116|-0.075|0.672
95747391|NCT01040793|191467537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0155||95.0|0.016|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.152|0.016|0.0155
95747392|NCT01040793|191467537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.098|<0.0001
95747393|NCT01040793|191467538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.1176||95.0|-0.757|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|-0.757|0.1176
95942322|NCT02938923|191852609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.009||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.38||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EX+P)|0.009|-0.013|0.703
95747394|NCT01040793|191467538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.7591||95.0|-0.486|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.355|-0.486|0.7591
95747395|NCT01040793|191467539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.234|0.094|<0.0001
95747396|NCT01040793|191467539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.265|0.125|<0.0001
95747397|NCT01040793|191467540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0245||95.0|0.01|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.146|0.010|0.0245
95747398|NCT01040793|191467540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.240|0.105|<0.0001
95747399|NCT01040793|191467541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2897||95.0|-0.211|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.063|-0.211|0.2897
95942323|NCT02938923|191852609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.014||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = -0.25||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+T - EUC)|0.014|-0.017|0.803
95942324|NCT02938923|191852609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.016||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|t (df, 92) = 0.01||Comparison based on contrasts between two groups at baseline to six months from mixed model ANOVA with an Autoregressive (1) covariance structure in the model with covariates.|Difference between the changes (EX+P - EUC)|0.016|-0.015|0.991
95942325|NCT04271046|191852641|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.97
95747400|NCT01040793|191467541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.7199||95.0|-0.162|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.112|-0.162|0.7199
95747401|NCT01040793|191467542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5313||95.0|-0.196|0.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.379|-0.196|0.5313
95747402|NCT01040793|191467542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0198||95.0|0.055|0.628|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.628|0.055|0.0198
95855453|NCT00541658|191670539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.2||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||||3.90|0.37|0.7719
95942326|NCT04271046|191852642|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95942327|NCT04271046|191852643|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
95747403|NCT01040793|191467543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1048||95.0|-0.19|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.018|-0.190|0.1048
95747404|NCT01040793|191467543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0246||95.0|-0.224|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.015|-0.224|0.0246
95747405|NCT01040793|191467544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.318|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.108|-0.318|<0.0001
95747406|NCT01040793|191467544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0005||95.0|-0.293|-0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.082|-0.293|0.0005
95747407|NCT01040793|191467545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.071|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.228|0.071|0.0002
95747408|NCT01040793|191467545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.076|0.0001
95747409|NCT01040793|191467546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.303|0.162|<0.0001
95942328|NCT04271046|191852644|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
95942329|NCT04271046|191852651|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.08
95942330|NCT04271046|191852652|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
95747410|NCT01040793|191467546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.273|0.133|<0.0001
95747411|NCT01040793|191467547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3109||95.0|-0.053|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.166|-0.053|0.3109
95747412|NCT01040793|191467547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.608||95.0|-0.081|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.081|0.6080
95747413|NCT01040793|191467548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.6809||95.0|-0.087|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.133|-0.087|0.6809
95747414|NCT01040793|191467548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.858||95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.100|0.8580
95797792|NCT04609553|191565045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.08
95942331|NCT04271046|191852653|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
95942332|NCT04271046|191852654|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
95989961|NCT00848354|191954730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||0.0002
95942333|NCT04271046|191852655|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
95942334|NCT04271046|191852656|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95989962|NCT00848354|191954731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0021
95747415|NCT01040793|191467549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
95747416|NCT01040793|191467549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.148|0.073|<0.0001
95747417|NCT01040793|191467550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.151|<0.0001
95747418|NCT01040793|191467550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.236|0.153|<0.0001
95942335|NCT04271046|191852657|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63
95747419|NCT01040793|191467551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
95747420|NCT01040793|191467551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.047|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.191|0.047|0.0013
95747421|NCT01040793|191467552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.333|0.196|<0.0001
95942336|NCT04271046|191852658|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
95942337|NCT04271046|191852659|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
95942338|NCT04271046|191852660|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
95942339|NCT04271046|191852661|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
95942340|NCT04271046|191852662|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
95942341|NCT04271046|191852663|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.85
95942342|NCT04271046|191852664|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
95942343|NCT01570361|191852666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Prior to the final analysis, study had two interim analyses. Hence alpha level is 0.0231 for primary analysis adjusted for the two interim analyses.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0009
95942344|NCT01570361|191852667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0118
95747422|NCT01040793|191467552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.212|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.350|0.212|<0.0001
95747423|NCT01040793|191467553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.405|0.156|<0.0001
95747424|NCT01040793|191467553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.416|0.166|<0.0001
95747425|NCT01040793|191467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.441|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.719|0.441|<0.0001
95747426|NCT01040793|191467554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001||95.0|0.412|0.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.691|0.412|<0.0001
95747427|NCT00707447|191467588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||There was only one primary outcome variable, thus no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
95747428|NCT00707447|191467589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||independent t-tests for between group comparisons, dependent t-tests for within group comparisons||||<.05
95747429|NCT00707447|191467590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747430|NCT00707447|191467591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747431|NCT00707447|191467592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747432|NCT00707447|191467593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747433|NCT00707447|191467594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747434|NCT00707447|191467595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747435|NCT00707447|191467596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95797793|NCT04609553|191565045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the social emotional domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=2 outcomes within the social emotional). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for social emotional development was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.03
95855454|NCT03818256|191670560|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-1.03|0.8511
95942345|NCT01570361|191852668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||The alpha level is 0.025 for this secondary endpoint.|Log Rank|One-sided test||||||0.0041
95942346|NCT05513937|191852677|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95747436|NCT00707447|191467597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95747437|NCT00508027|191467604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: There is no change in plasma biomarker levels before and after simivastatin treatment. With 12 patients in each group and assuming a 5% risk of Type I error (two-tailed α = 0.05) and estimated SD for the change in NOx (or sVCAM-1) of 48%, power will be 80% to detect a 40% change from baseline for each group, and a 55% difference in the change in biomarker levels between dose groups. Matched paired t-tests were used to measure changes in biomarker levels from baseline.||||<0.05
95747438|NCT02013531|191467628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in the MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
95747439|NCT02013531|191467629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 6.||||<0.0001
95747440|NCT02013531|191467635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in Mean change from Baseline in HAM-A total score at Week 6 was tested at a significance level of 0.05. Because this was an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
95747441|NCT01352182|191467647|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95747442|NCT01352182|191467648|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95747443|NCT01352182|191467649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
95747444|NCT01352182|191467650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
95747445|NCT01352182|191467651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95747446|NCT01352182|191467652|OTHER|linear regression|Slope|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3741||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
95747447|NCT03396874|191467653|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|87.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.58|100.0||The exact p-value cannot be entered as it is equal to 2.2e-16.|Exact binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) (true positives / (true positives + false positives)) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence or absence of prostate cancer confirmed by histopathology on a per-patient basis. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|81.58|<0.0000001
95747448|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|92.3|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|binomial proportion test|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)||PPV, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the positive predictive value (PPV) of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available. On a per-patient basis, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100|90.0|<0.0000001
95942347|NCT04181736|191852678|OTHER||F-statistic|6.621||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for circuit function, with five repeated measures for each circuit measure defining the cognitive control circuit.||||0.020
95747449|NCT03396874|191467654|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|95.29|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.3|100.0||Per patient basis p-value = 2.2e-16|Sensitivity|||Sensitivity, composite standard, per-patient basis: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.3|<0.0000001
95747450|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.1|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, prostate or prostate bed: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.2|<0.0000001
95747451|NCT03396874|191467654|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|91.72|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16 Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, prostate/prostate bed: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.74|<0.0000001
95747452|NCT03396874|191467654|OTHER|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|90.78|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.74|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In the prostate or prostate bed, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|85.74|<0.0000001
95747453|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|96.97|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, pelvic lymph nodes: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In pelvic lymph nodes, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|93.20|<0.0000001
95747454|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|91.25|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.19|100.0||p-value = 2.9e-15|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, soft tissues: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|84.19|<0.0000001
95942348|NCT04181736|191852683|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.002||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to week 2.||2.002|0.937|<0.001
95942349|NCT04181736|191852683|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|3.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.757|3.547||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in HDRS-17 depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||3.547|2.757|<0.001
95942350|NCT04181736|191852684|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-1.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.724|-0.774||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in QIDS-SR depression scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||-0.774|-1.724|< 0.001
95797794|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.002
95797795|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.80
95942351|NCT04181736|191852685|OTHER||F-statistic|19.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for cognitive control function, with six repeated measures for behavioral tests of cognitive control.||||<0.001
95942352|NCT04181736|191852686|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.881||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.438||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in SWLS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||1.438|0.324|0.002
95942353|NCT04181736|191852687|OTHER||F-statistic|11.913||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Repeated Measures General Linear Model|||Test of the effect of guanfacine using a general linear model including a within subjects' effect for treatment (pre- versus post-treatment sessions) and for quality with four repeated measures for domains of quality of life.||||0.003
95989963|NCT00848354|191954731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||<0.0001
95747455|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|93.59|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.99|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, soft tissues: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In soft tissues, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|86.99|<0.0000001
95747456|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|PPV|95.17|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.12|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||PPV, composite standard, bone: PPV of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy where available (composite standard of truth). In bone tissues, the PPV of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the PPV at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the PPV is greater than 50%.||100.00|91.12|<0.0000001
95747457|NCT03396874|191467654|SUPERIORITY|Exact binomial proportion test, R statistical software package: R version 4.3.1 (2023-06-16)|Sensitivity|100.0|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.85|100.0||p-value = 2.2e-16|Exact binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity, composite standard, bone: We determined the sensitivity of 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET for presence of prostate cancer confirmed by conventional imaging, clinical follow-up, and histopathology/biopsy (composite standard of truth). In bone, the sensitivity of conventional imaging ranges between 30-50%. The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity at 50% will be tested against the alternative hypothesis that the sensitivity is greater than 50%.||100.00|97.85|<0.0000001
95989964|NCT00848354|191954731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95747458|NCT02646917|191467672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Goodman and Baron's qualitative acne scar severity scores. Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.||||<0.008
95747459|NCT02646917|191467673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxen signed-rank test|||Null hypothesis 4 (no change).||||<.001
95747460|NCT02646917|191467674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero||||<0.01
95747461|NCT02646917|191467675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 0 (no change in the appearance of acne scars).||||<0.01
95747462|NCT02646917|191467676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Calculated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal to 4 (no change).||||||<0.01
95747463|NCT04569786|191467682|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.34||1-sided|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA) method|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.34|0.63|0.649
95747464|NCT04569786|191467682|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.495||90.0|0.68|1.48||1-sided|LDA model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.48|0.68|0.495
95747465|NCT04569786|191467682|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.6||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||1.60|0.75|0.339
95747466|NCT04569786|191467682|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower limit of the 90% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V590/Placebo) being \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.05).|GMT Ratio|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.28||1-sided|LDA Model|GMT ratios and 90% CIs, and p-values are estimated from an LDA model and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.||||3.28|1.56|<0.001
95747467|NCT00680186|191467690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0002||95.0|0.69|1.85||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference (RD) (at day 180) and for the HR (up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on primary endpoint|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||Hazard ratio (HR) vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.85|0.69|0.0002
95747468|NCT00680186|191467690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the RD based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|1.3||Non-inferiority P-Value.Two co-primary analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the RD (at day 180) and for the HR (events up to end of ptp) analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.3|-1.0|<0.0001
95747469|NCT00680186|191467690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||||95.0|0.64|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the earliest of last contact date or day 180.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE. This analysis was performed as sensitivity analysis for statistical analysis 1.||1.8|0.64|
95942354|NCT04181736|191852688|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.2||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.208||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of GIR on changes in C-SSRS scores from pre-treatment to post-treatment sessions.||0.208|-0.608|0.283
95747470|NCT00680186|191467691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.6932||95.0|-1.1|1.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.6|-1.1|0.6932
95747471|NCT00680186|191467691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6383||95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.60|0.75|0.6383
95747472|NCT00680186|191467692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.6||||0.1703||95.0|-0.3|1.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.5|-0.3|0.1703
95747473|NCT00680186|191467692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.1054||95.0|0.9|3.01|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.01|0.90|0.1054
95942355|NCT04564209|191852689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||||||.455
95942356|NCT04564209|191852690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||.415
95942357|NCT04564209|191852691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||||||.443
95942358|NCT04564209|191852692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||.457
95942359|NCT04564209|191852693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|||||||.099
95942360|NCT04564209|191852694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||.338
95942361|NCT04564209|191852695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANOVA|||||||.723
95942362|NCT04564209|191852697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.578
95942363|NCT04564209|191852698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.998
95942364|NCT04564209|191852699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.864
95942365|NCT04505410|191852700|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95747474|NCT00680186|191467693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.4||||0.2283||95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.1|0.2283
95747475|NCT00680186|191467693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.2101||95.0|0.26|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.35|0.26|0.2101
95747476|NCT00680186|191467694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.2||||0.083||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.5|0.0|0.0830
95747477|NCT00680186|191467695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.7348||95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.0|-0.7|0.7348
95747478|NCT00680186|191467695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8939||95.0|0.61|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of ptp.||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.77|0.61|0.8939
95747479|NCT00680186|191467696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||RD vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic fatal and non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall RD obtained based on the KM estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.3|-1.0|0.3210
95747480|NCT00680186|191467696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of ptp). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.29|0.3021
95747481|NCT00680186|191467697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||||95.0|0.36|1.32|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of MBE was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.32|0.36|
95747482|NCT00680186|191467697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.81|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|HR vs. Warfarin (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of any bleeding was compared between treatment groups using the Cox PH model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
95747483|NCT00810888|191467726|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons as a prior hypothesis critical value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test||||1.00
95747484|NCT00810888|191467727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||Only the randomized subjects will be compared||||0.66
95747485|NCT00810888|191467728|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|38.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|64.6|||Fisher Exact|||||64.6|17.6|0.004
95747486|NCT00810888|191467729|SUPERIORITY||Specificity|94.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.6|98.1|||Fisher Exact|||||98.1|85.6|0.004
95747487|NCT00810888|191467730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
95747488|NCT00810888|191467731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
95747489|NCT00810888|191467732|OTHER|A Kappa test of overall agreement was used|Kappa|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||||A kappa of \>0.75 is considered excellent agreement|||0.93|0.61|
95747490|NCT00810888|191467733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Groups 1 and 2 only the spot positive subjects randomized to interventional drug or placebo||||0.25
95747491|NCT00292227|191467781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||||90.0|-2.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.12|-2.63|
95747492|NCT00292227|191467782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||||90.0|-2.21|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.19|-2.21|
95747493|NCT00292227|191467783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||||90.0|-1.12|2.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.80|-1.12|
95747494|NCT00292227|191467784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||||90.0|-1.8|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.80|
95747495|NCT00292227|191467785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||90.0|-2.25|2.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.02|-2.25|
95747496|NCT00292227|191467786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||90.0|-2.14|2.28|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.28|-2.14|
95747497|NCT00292227|191467787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||||90.0|-2.84|1.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.72|-2.84|
95747498|NCT00292227|191467788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||||90.0|-2.29|1.78|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.78|-2.29|
95797796|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.79
95802497|NCT02864914|191578399|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.76|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.76|1.74|
95942366|NCT05123027|191852704|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.62||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed with a longitudinal mixed effects negative binomial model incorporating the total score at earlier time points as well as 180 days. Fixed effect covariates included baseline score, treatment, days, site, stratum, and an interaction between treatment and days. A random effect was included to account for correlation within each participant.||1.62|0.30|0.399
95747499|NCT00292227|191467789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||||90.0|-3.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.91|-3.25|
95797797|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Reading Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for reading activities was the value of the outcome minus the effect of baseline and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and both treatment and baseline fixed effects.|||0.96
95802498|NCT02864914|191578399|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.36|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.36|1.77|
95747500|NCT00292227|191467790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||||90.0|-0.34|3.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.73|-0.34|
95747501|NCT00292227|191467791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||||90.0|-1.7|2.32|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.32|-1.70|
95747502|NCT00292227|191467792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||90.0|-0.65|3.96|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.96|-0.65|
95747503|NCT00292227|191467793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||||90.0|-1.78|1.36|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.36|-1.78|
95855455|NCT03818256|191670564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.474|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.474|0.150|0.8169
95855456|NCT03818256|191670565|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.175||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.78|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||2.780|-2.860|0.9285
95855457|NCT03818256|191670566|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.007||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.033|-0.018|0.5669
95942367|NCT05123027|191852705|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45||Threshold for significance: p\< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was modeled similar to the primary outcome, an over dispersed Poisson regression model with fixed effect covariates for treatment arm, treatment days, site, and stratum with an interaction between treatment arm and treatment days. Note that no baseline score covariate was included as all participants will be considered to have achieved 0 steps at baseline. A random intercept was included for each subject to account for repeated measures.||1.45|0.83|0.53
95989965|NCT00848354|191954732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||0.0062
95747504|NCT00292227|191467794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||90.0|-2.37|1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.30|-2.37|
95747505|NCT00292227|191467795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||||90.0|-2.3|1.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.49|-2.30|
95747506|NCT00292227|191467796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||||90.0|-2.34|1.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.35|-2.34|
95747507|NCT00292227|191467797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||||90.0|-1.76|2.17|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.17|-1.76|
95747508|NCT00292227|191467798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||||90.0|-2.99|0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.53|-2.99|
95747509|NCT00292227|191467799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||||90.0|-3.87|0.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.63|-3.87|
95747510|NCT00292227|191467800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||||90.0|-2.55|0.93|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||0.93|-2.55|
95797798|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.22
95942368|NCT05879991|191852716|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.21|82.65|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.~The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||82.65|70.21|
95797799|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||<0.001
95802499|NCT02864914|191578399|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.12|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.12|1.11|
95942369|NCT05879991|191852721|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.12|30.79|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 16.0|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||30.79|22.12|
95747511|NCT00292227|191467801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||||90.0|-2.13|1.39|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.39|-2.13|
95747512|NCT00292227|191467802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.6|1.25|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.25|-2.60|
95747513|NCT00292227|191467803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||||90.0|-0.69|3.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||3.03|-0.69|
95747514|NCT00292227|191467804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||||90.0|-1.14|2.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||2.73|-1.14|
95747515|NCT00292227|191467805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard deviation of 12ms was assumed for sample size calculation. Sample size was calculated to have 90% power to show the non-inferiority of rotigotine against placebo with respect to the non-inferiority margin of 10ms (α=0.05, 1-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||||90.0|-2.33|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included the factors site, treatment, gender, and time-matched baseline QTcI as covariate.|The direction of the estimate is Rotigotine - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANCOVA model.|The analysis was based on a non-inferiority comparison of rotigotine vs placebo using a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (or, equivalently, the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval) for the time-matched changes from Baseline in QTcI.||1.50|-2.33|
95858795|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.635|5.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||5.595|1.635|0.0003
95989966|NCT00848354|191954732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0007
95747516|NCT00292227|191467806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||||95.0|-1.04|1.71|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.71|-1.04|
95747517|NCT00292227|191467807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||||95.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||1.68|-0.72|
95942370|NCT05879991|191852722|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|83.59|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean zongertinib / adjusted geometric mean \[14C\]zongertinib)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included the effect 'subjects' as a random effect and 'treatment' as a fixed effect. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||83.59|70.92|
95942371|NCT01960452|191852723|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2791
95942372|NCT01960452|191852723|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95942373|NCT01960452|191852724|OTHER|Group comparison, for both absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.1069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.1069
95942374|NCT01960452|191852724|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.546
95942375|NCT01960452|191852725|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute (spatially z-score normalized across all electrodes for each subject)||||||0.2918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only reporting values for approximate 10-20 channel CP1||||0.2918
95942376|NCT01960452|191852725|OTHER|Group comparison, for absolute multiple comparisons correction across electrodes using threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE)||||||0.761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.761
95942377|NCT02668692|191852726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|10.95|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of the FAS.||10.95|0.35|=0.68
95747518|NCT00292227|191467808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51||||||95.0|0.3|2.73|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||2.73|0.30|
95942378|NCT02668692|191852726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||=|0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.72||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||10.72|0.34|=0.68
95942379|NCT02668692|191852727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for the FAS.||0.74|0.11|=0.009
95747519|NCT00292227|191467809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5||||||95.0|11.78|15.22|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||15.22|11.78|
95942380|NCT02668692|191852727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63||Treatment comparison by Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Odds of 'overall improvement' in LEO 80185 gel group relative to Dovobet® ointment group.|Statistical analysis of the PPAS.||0.63|0.08|=0.003
95942381|NCT05464069|191852748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Significant level \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
95942382|NCT06193070|191852782|OTHER|A one-tailed paired t-test was run to examine within subject mean difference on the cancer nutrition information beliefs scale pre- and post-game.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold was set at alpha \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A paired samples t-test was run on pre- and post-game mean scores within subjects.||All participants were exposed to the intervention, and pre- and post-game scores within subject were examined.||||<.001
95942383|NCT03926130|191852789|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|23.0|<0.000001
95942384|NCT03926130|191852790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|18.8|<0.000001
95942385|NCT03926130|191852791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|13.7|<0.000001
95942386|NCT03926130|191852792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|44.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.8|33.4|<0.000001
95942387|NCT03926130|191852792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3||||0.513623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.3|-4.7|0.513623
95942388|NCT03926130|191852793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.001431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|5.3|0.001431
95942389|NCT03926130|191852794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.4|27.7|<0.000001
95797800|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.96
95797801|NCT04609553|191565046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||Analysis for the Parent Verbal Responsiveness Scale at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. The adjusted value for verbal responsiveness was the value of the outcome minus the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) estimated from a mixed linear model with random individual-specific intercepts and treatment fixed effects.|||0.12
95797802|NCT04609553|191565047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
95797803|NCT04609553|191565047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Dialogic reading behavior was measured at a single timepoint (9 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
95797804|NCT04609553|191565048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.78
95855458|NCT01342211|191670567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.759||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|13.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||13.83|-25.09|0.5661
95855459|NCT01342211|191670567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.422||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|16.49|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||16.49|-21.08|0.8080
95989967|NCT00848354|191954732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95989968|NCT00848354|191954733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 8.||||<0.0001
95942390|NCT03926130|191852794|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10%. We do not have power calculation in the SAP for this endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.8|||Z test|||||12.8|-1.4|<0.0001
95747520|NCT00292227|191467810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.02||||||95.0|9.12|12.93|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.93|9.12|
95942391|NCT03926130|191852795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.5|3.2|0.003414
95747521|NCT00292227|191467811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3||||||95.0|9.94|12.67|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||12.67|9.94|
95747522|NCT00292227|191467812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28||||||95.0|6.85|9.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.70|6.85|
95747523|NCT00292227|191467813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||||95.0|7.57|11.02|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||11.02|7.57|
95797805|NCT04609553|191565048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p-value is adjusted using the minP approach for potentially highly correlated outcomes. Then, p \< 0.05 was used as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.|We followed the intent to treat principle, with participants included based on their group assignment. Because of the multiple correlated timepoints within the parental behavior domain, we used the step-down minP method (a re-sampling approach), to assess the effects of treatment (total=6 outcomes within the parental behavior). minP-adjusted p-values were calculated with ANOVA models comparing outcomes adjusted for baseline- and correlations due to repeated-measure effects (as appropriate) for both active treatments versus control. Discipline strategies were measured at a single timepoint (18 months), so no adjustment was necessary.|||0.96
95942392|NCT03926130|191852796|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||1.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.24|0.000011
95942393|NCT03926130|191852797|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-2.01|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.42|<0.000001
95942394|NCT03926130|191852798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|18.9|<0.000001
95942395|NCT03926130|191852799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.4|10.2|<0.000001
95942396|NCT03926130|191852800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.8|18.2|<0.000001
95942397|NCT03926130|191852801|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.05|<0.000001
95942398|NCT03926130|191852802|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|-1.22|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.48|<0.000001
95942399|NCT03926130|191852803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95942400|NCT03926130|191852804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.732715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-18.0|0.732715
95942401|NCT03926130|191852805|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|27.92|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|33.18|||ANCOVA|||||33.18|22.67|<0.000001
95942402|NCT03926130|191852807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.000213|TWO_SIDED|99.5|4.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|4.1|0.000213
95942403|NCT03926130|191852808|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|13.1|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|13.1|<0.000001
95942404|NCT01866163|191852809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|94.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||Multiple imputations were used to handle missing data.||94.30|9.72|<0.001
95942405|NCT01866163|191852810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.67|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-2.67|-3.90|<0.001
95942406|NCT01866163|191852811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.78|||ANOVA|||The mean value and CIs were adjusted for the effect of pooled centres and baseline m-PASI. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data.||-0.78|-1.76|<0.001
95942407|NCT04200313|191852899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942408|NCT04200313|191852899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942409|NCT04200313|191852900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942410|NCT04200313|191852900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with a 1% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942411|NCT04200313|191852901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95747524|NCT00292227|191467814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.87||||||95.0|7.47|10.28|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||10.28|7.47|
95942412|NCT04200313|191852901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942413|NCT04200313|191852902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942414|NCT04200313|191852902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942415|NCT04200313|191852903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942416|NCT04200313|191852903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95747525|NCT00292227|191467815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6||||||95.0|7.25|9.96|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||9.96|7.25|
95797806|NCT04609553|191565049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.80
95797807|NCT04609553|191565049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.06
95797808|NCT04609553|191565049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2."||||0.81
95797809|NCT04609553|191565049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.08
95942417|NCT04200313|191852904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942418|NCT04200313|191852904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942419|NCT04200313|191852905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942420|NCT04200313|191852905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942421|NCT04200313|191852906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95942422|NCT04200313|191852906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95797810|NCT04609553|191565050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.07
95942423|NCT03580356|191852998|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.183|25.615|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||25.615|3.183|<.0001
95942424|NCT03580356|191852998|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.319|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.319|0.650|0.6646
95942425|NCT03580356|191852998|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.058|32.638|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||32.638|4.058|<.0001
95942426|NCT03580356|191852998|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|1.181||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.667|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.667|0.836|0.1730
95942427|NCT03580356|191852999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.554|-7.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-7.439|-12.554|<.0001
95942428|NCT03580356|191852999|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|2.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||2.221|-1.392|0.6735
95942429|NCT03580356|191852999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.313|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.664|-8.518|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||-8.518|-13.664|<.0001
95942430|NCT03580356|191852999|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Treatment contrast in LS mean (change), Adults only||1.128|-2.489|0.2305
95942431|NCT03580356|191853001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|-2.929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||-2.929|-5.281|<.0001
95942432|NCT03580356|191853001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.928|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.928|-0.727|0.5943
95942433|NCT03580356|191853001|SUPERIORITY|Adults only|LS Mean|-4.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.678|-3.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||||-3.314|-5.678|<.0001
95747526|NCT00292227|191467816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.52||||||95.0|6.31|8.72|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.72|6.31|
95747527|NCT00292227|191467817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.58||||||95.0|6.21|8.95|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||8.95|6.21|
95747528|NCT00292227|191467818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.19||||||95.0|4.94|7.45|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence).|The direction of the estimate is Moxifloxacin - Placebo. Mean difference was estimated from the ANOVA model.|For the analysis of the assay sensitivity, an ANOVA with the factors treatment, period, sequence, and subject(sequence) for comparison of moxifloxacin vs placebo (cross-over comparison) was performed. The point estimates for the difference between placebo and positive control (moxifloxacin) and the respective 95% confidence intervals were calculated.||7.45|4.94|
95747529|NCT01835548|191467819|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.2|||ANCOVA|||||-8.20|-13.9|<0.0001
95747530|NCT02105701|191467831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747531|NCT02105701|191467831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747532|NCT02105701|191467831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747533|NCT02105701|191467831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR12 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747534|NCT02105701|191467834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95797811|NCT04609553|191565050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.91
95942434|NCT03580356|191853001|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.2467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM)||Adults only||0.540|-1.120|0.2467
95747535|NCT02105701|191467834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747536|NCT02105701|191467834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747537|NCT02105701|191467834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Test|||The hypothesis was that at least 1 treatment arm would have a SVR24 rate \>58%.||||<0.001
95747538|NCT03234608|191467835|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.44|0.56
95747539|NCT03234608|191467836|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.84|-1.28|0.73
95797812|NCT04609553|191565050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.39
95942435|NCT03580356|191853003|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|6.063|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||6.063|1.955|<.0001
95747540|NCT03234608|191467837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Individual Level Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale.||0.33|-0.35|0.94
95747541|NCT03234608|191467837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for Relationship-Dependent Healthcare Self-Efficacy Sub-scale||0.52|-0.33|0.65
95747542|NCT03234608|191467838|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||0.79|-1.25|0.66
95747543|NCT03234608|191467839|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.69||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||1.69|-1.40|0.85
95747544|NCT01362296|191467849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||P-value from the stratified log-rank was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for gender (male versus female).|||1.75|0.75|0.5197
95747545|NCT04230876|191467880|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.047|||=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Within the 28 participants, changes in the COSI scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.28).|ANOVA|||||||=0.269
95747546|NCT04230876|191467881|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.031|||=|0.401|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the IOI-HA scores measured after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,23)=.733).|ANOVA|||||||=0.401
95989969|NCT00848354|191954733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 16.||||0.0073
95747547|NCT04230876|191467882|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the APHAB benefit scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,25)=.002).|ANOVA|||||||=0.968
95747548|NCT04230876|191467883|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.028|||=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the SSQ-12 scores after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the improvements seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=.756).|ANOVA|||||||=0.392
95942436|NCT03580356|191853003|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.167|0.602|0.8524
95747549|NCT04230876|191467884|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.005|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Among the 28 participants, changes in the hours per day of hearing aid usage seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks of CC TV every day (F(1,26)=.131).|ANOVA|||||||=0.720
95942437|NCT03580356|191853003|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|8.004|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||8.004|2.577|<.0001
95942438|NCT03580356|191853003|SUPERIORITY|Wald chi-square test based on logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for the odds ratio||Adults only||1.540|0.794|0.2764
95942439|NCT03580356|191853004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.389|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|1.561|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.561|1.235|<.0001
95942440|NCT03580356|191853004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.029||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.111|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.111|0.952|0.2369
95942441|NCT03580356|191853004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.603|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.603|1.268|<.0001
95942442|NCT03580356|191853004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.056||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|95% confidence interval for the relative risk ratio||Adults only||1.140|0.978|0.0830
95942443|NCT05715528|191853008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.211||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.211|0.997|0.0681
95942444|NCT05715528|191853012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.147|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.147|0.935|0.5558
95942445|NCT05715528|191853013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6469|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.6469
95942446|NCT05715528|191853014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|5.464|||Log-rank test|P value was based on log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression.|||5.464|0.045|0.5581
95942447|NCT05715528|191853016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.02||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||p-value was from Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|MMRM||95% CI was from MMRM with baseline viral load and randomization strata as covariates.|||0.08|-0.03|0.4254
95942448|NCT05715528|191853017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.256||P-value calculated from stratified Log-rank test with randomization stratification factor as the strata.|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI for hazard ratio were estimated using the Cox regression with randomization stratification factor as a covariate.|||1.256|1.032|0.0015
95942449|NCT05715528|191853018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.6978
95942450|NCT05715528|191853023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Fisher's exact test|P-value was from the Fisher's exact test.||||||0.5707
95747550|NCT04230876|191467885|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.052|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes in the NU-6 seen after four weeks using the Amptify were compared to the changes seen after four weeks watching 20 minutes of CC TV (F(1,26)=1.43).|ANOVA|||||||=0.242
95747551|NCT01181531|191467890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Unadjusted. Model contains baseline stratification factor for type of Vitamin D administered at the site|Mixed Models Analysis||Cinacalcet - Vitamin D|Null hypothesis: no difference in % change from baseline in PTH comparing the two treatment arms.||5.4|-15.4|0.346
95747552|NCT01181531|191467891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.29|0.92|0.110
95942451|NCT03314740|191853055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||cox model|||||1.14|0.5|0.265
95942452|NCT03314740|191853055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.55|||cox- model|||||1.55|0.68|0.904
95942453|NCT02846545|191853146|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.178|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.28|= 0.0004
95942454|NCT02846545|191853147|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||=|0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-0.81|= 0.8020
95942455|NCT02846545|191853148|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of hypoglycemia rates|0.9|||=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.966|||Poisson regression model|||Hypoglycemia rate was analyzed by using a Poisson regression model with the number of hypoglycemia events through Week 52 as the response, treatment and gender as fixed factors, age and baseline HbA1c as covariates, and the duration of study participation through week 52 in logarithm as an offset variable.||0.966|0.838|= 0.0036
95747553|NCT01181531|191467892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||stratified by type of Vitamin D at site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is Cinacalcet: Vitamin D|||2.39|0.74|0.346
95942456|NCT06468982|191853157|SUPERIORITY|To evaluate whether intra-aortic balloon pump catheter support contributes to a more rapid decrease in troponin levels and faster myocardial recovery, daily troponin levels were analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the threshold value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|The hypothesis that IABP causes a rapid increase in troponin levels was analyzed using ANOVA, and the p-value was reported.||After testing for normality, the baseline characteristics of the two groups will be analyzed using the Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Differences between the intra-aortic balloon pump group and the control group in terms of repeated measurements will be analyzed using mixed ANOVA.||||0.05
95747554|NCT00545688|191467894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|16.82||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|3.5|0.0094
95747555|NCT00545688|191467894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
95747556|NCT00545688|191467894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-12.15||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-0.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5|-23.8|0.0198
95747557|NCT00545688|191467894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
95747558|NCT00545688|191467894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|-21.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-8.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by breast cancer type (operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory) and estrogen and or progesterone positivity (either positive versus both negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-8.5|-35.1|0.0010
95747559|NCT00545688|191467894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, with Simes multiplicity adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0030
95747560|NCT00545688|191467909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||1.40|0.34|0.2983
95942457|NCT06468982|191853158|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The prognostic value of risk factors for in-hospital mortality was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression analysis||0.78|0.38|<0.05
95942458|NCT02326974|191853159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||By estimating that the overall pCR with T-DM1 plus pertuzumab would be approximately 40%, and 20% of the population classified as heterogeneous, the study would have 80% power with 136 evaluable patients to detect a difference in pCR of 44.9% in the non-heterogenous versus 20.3% in the heterogenous subgroup. The study had a 90% power to detect difference in pCR of 43.4% in the non-heterogenous versus 8.8% in the heterogenous subgroup if the observed prevalence of HER2 heterogeneity was 10%.||||<0.001
95747561|NCT00545688|191467909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||2.30|0.68|0.4722
95747562|NCT00545688|191467909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|PFS||3.93|1.07|0.0268
95747563|NCT00545688|191467909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.27|0.28|0.1805
95747564|NCT00545688|191467909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||1.64|0.42|0.5901
95747565|NCT00545688|191467909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HR is based on Cox proportional hazard regression stratified by breast cancer type and hormone positivity.|DFS||4.32|1.08|0.0250
95989970|NCT00848354|191954733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided, without any adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with Baseline as covariate and factors for treatment and country as class variables was used to calculate p-value. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||||<0.0001
95747566|NCT02339090|191467910|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance: annualized height velocity between somavaratan and daily rhGH ≤ -2.0 cm/year|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.24||||||An ANCOVA model will be used to determine the adjusted (least squares) means and standard error (SE) to determine the confidence interval (CI) of the difference. ANCOVA model included treatment group, region, and gender as fixed effects; with baseline age and baseline IGF-I SDS as covariates.||-0.24|-2.32|
95747567|NCT04243096|191467921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|2.60|<0.0001
95747568|NCT04243096|191467922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
95747569|NCT04243096|191467923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.03|<0.0001
95747570|NCT04243096|191467924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.04|<0.0001
95747571|NCT04243096|191467925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.01|<0.0001
95747572|NCT04243096|191467926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0013
95747573|NCT04243096|191467927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.02|0.0003
95747574|NCT04243096|191467928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|0.02|<0.0001
95989971|NCT00915343|191954734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862||Comparison of log S-cortisol AUC between OD and TID regimens was adjusted for both period effect and subject effect using generalized linear model (GLM) in statistical analysis system (SAS).|ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
95747575|NCT04243096|191467929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|0.06|<0.0001
95747576|NCT04243096|191467933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.31|6.60|<0.0001
95747577|NCT04243096|191467934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and presence of comorbidities.|Change from baseline to week 12|||16.48|9.65|<0.0001
95747578|NCT04243096|191467935|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.5||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-39.7|0.1196
95747579|NCT04243096|191467937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.04|<0.0001
95747580|NCT04243096|191467938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-5.76|<0.0001
95747581|NCT04243096|191467939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.46|<0.0001
95747582|NCT04243096|191467940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.22|<0.0001
95747583|NCT04243096|191467941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-3.37|<0.0001
95747584|NCT04243096|191467942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.11|1.31|0.0134
95747585|NCT04243096|191467943|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|1.16|<0.0001
95747586|NCT04243096|191467944|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.97|0.0030
95747587|NCT04243096|191467945|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|0.23|<0.0001
95747588|NCT04243096|191467946|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||51.67|18.70|<0.0001
95747589|NCT04243096|191467947|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-2.57|<0.0001
95797813|NCT04609553|191565050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||"Analysis at the 18-month follow-up.~\\A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3."||||0.10
95797814|NCT04609553|191565051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.19
95747590|NCT00442546|191467963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
95747591|NCT00442546|191467963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392||A step-down procedure was used for multiple comparisons adjustment. If the difference between the high dose and placebo groups was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the next step conducted where the low dose group was compared to placebo.|ANOVA|Least squares means from the ANOVA model with main effects of treatment and center and Baseline mean worst pain score.|Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
95747592|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.426||0.4091||95.0|-54.332|22.203|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.203|-54.332|0.4091
95747593|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.388||0.4234||95.0|-53.74|22.645|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||22.645|-53.740|0.4234
95747594|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.517||0.0284||95.0|-68.972|-3.884|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||-3.884|-68.972|0.0284
95747595|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.57||0.0816||95.0|-61.632|3.663|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||3.663|-61.632|0.0816
95747596|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.752||0.8147||95.0|-20.446|25.964|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||25.964|-20.446|0.8147
95747597|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.589||0.7187||95.0|-27.064|18.7|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||18.700|-27.064|0.7187
95747598|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.148||0.7416||95.0|-23.516|16.804|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||16.804|-23.516|0.7416
95797815|NCT04609553|191565051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.18
95747599|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.283||0.2577||95.0|-29.017|7.869|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||7.869|-29.017|0.2577
95747600|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.387||0.9982||95.0|-36.431|36.352|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||36.352|-36.431|0.9982
95747601|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.184||0.5552||95.0|-59.756|33.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||33.107|-59.756|0.5552
95747602|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.655||0.2032||95.0|-118.463|38.463|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||38.463|-118.463|0.2032
95747603|NCT00442546|191467964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.661||0.0348||95.0|-258.354|-18.646|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|144 hours||-18.646|-258.354|0.0348
95747604|NCT00442546|191467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.499||0.3602||95.0|-4.79|13.062|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||13.062|-4.790|0.3602
95747605|NCT00442546|191467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.637||0.7352||95.0|-7.626|10.771|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 2||10.771|-7.626|0.7352
95747606|NCT00442546|191467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.156||0.6435||95.0|-9.392|15.111|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.111|-9.392|0.6435
95747607|NCT00442546|191467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361||0.6123||95.0|-9.422|15.895|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 4||15.895|-9.422|0.6123
95747608|NCT00442546|191467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.663||0.6356||95.0|-11.683|18.984|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||18.984|-11.683|0.6356
95747609|NCT00442546|191467965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.747||0.907||95.0|-14.593|16.411|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Week 6/ET||16.411|-14.593|0.9070
95747610|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1190.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.062||0.0656||95.0|-2754.304|373.004|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||373.004|-2754.304|0.0656
95747611|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.1||0.9277||95.0|-1789.352|1821.752|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, 72 hours||1821.752|-1789.352|0.9277
95747612|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.692||0.935||95.0|-263.972|275.515|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||275.515|-263.972|0.9350
95747613|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.33||0.6139||95.0|-164.494|216.98|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 24 hours||216.980|-164.494|0.6139
95747614|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.776||95.0|-25.451|19.611|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||19.611|-25.451|0.7760
95747615|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.833||0.819||95.0|-17.066|13.846|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Ketorolac, 48 hours||13.846|-17.066|0.8190
95942459|NCT02518048|191853202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.76||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group).|ANOVA|||A last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was used to account for drop-outs and missing values in the analysis of end of treatment values.||-1.76|-2.58|<0.001
95747616|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|390.483||0.8603||95.0|-861.171|722.7|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||722.700|-861.171|0.8603
95747617|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.376||0.9642||95.0|-796.945|762.155|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 24 hours||762.155|-796.945|0.9642
95747618|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|484.957||0.8476||95.0|-880.865|1068.251|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1068.251|-880.865|0.8476
95747619|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|105.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|457.374||0.8185||95.0|-813.584|1024.67|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 48 hours||1024.670|-813.584|0.8185
95747620|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-682.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|495.241||0.1792||95.0|-1696.759|332.15|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||332.150|-1696.759|0.1792
95747621|NCT00442546|191467966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|501.808||0.6216||95.0|-1278.347|777.469|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, 72 hours||777.469|-1278.347|0.6216
95747622|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-494.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.253||0.1996||95.0|-1452.72|464.72|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||464.720|-1452.720|0.1996
95747623|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-195.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.958||0.6335||95.0|-1369.338|979.038|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Acetylsalicylic Acid, Week 2.||979.038|-1369.338|0.6335
95989972|NCT00915343|191954735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-111.989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|89.999|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||89.999|-133.980|<0.0001
95747624|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.355||0.929||95.0|-657.992|603.41|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||603.410|-657.992|0.9290
95747625|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.969||0.8937||95.0|-501.241|570.815|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 2||570.815|-501.241|0.8937
95747626|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|198.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|491.153||0.6912||95.0|-847.93|1245.804|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||1245.804|-847.930|0.6912
95747627|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|349.047||0.6024||95.0|-558.248|929.704|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 4||929.704|-558.248|0.6024
95747628|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-256.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|407.391||0.5372||95.0|-1120.551|606.709|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||606.709|-1120.551|0.5372
95747629|NCT00442546|191467967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-287.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|328.227||0.3948||95.0|-982.843|408.778|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|Paracetamol, Week 6/ET||408.778|-982.843|0.3948
95747630|NCT00442546|191467968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1169.654||0.9341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14983.36|14740.362|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||14740.362|-14983.36|0.9341
95747631|NCT00442546|191467970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|302.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|302.9|302.9|||ANOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean Difference|||302.900|302.900|<0.0001
95747632|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1661||95.0|-0.293|0.051|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.051|-0.293|0.1661
95747633|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3604||95.0|-0.254|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.093|-0.254|0.3604
95747634|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.1299||95.0|-0.29|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.037|-0.290|0.1299
95747635|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1167||95.0|-0.29|0.032|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.032|-0.290|0.1167
95747636|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5271||95.0|-0.234|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.234|0.5271
95747637|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6731||95.0|-0.215|0.139|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.139|-0.215|0.6731
95942460|NCT02518048|191853205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.32||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Total Skin Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.32|-0.53|<0.001
95747638|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5936||95.0|-0.247|0.142|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.142|-0.247|0.5936
95942461|NCT02518048|191853205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.41||Least Square Means difference from ANOVA with treatment group as fixed effect and subject as random effect (105 treated sites per treatment group)|ANOVA|||Echo-Poor Band Thickness: LEO 90100 vs. Betesil®||-0.41|-0.69|<0.001
95942462|NCT06149338|191853232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95747639|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8368||95.0|-0.206|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.167|-0.206|0.8368
95747640|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.8659||95.0|-0.242|0.204|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.204|-0.242|0.8659
95747641|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.7151||95.0|-0.266|0.184|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.184|-0.266|0.7151
95747642|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2121||95.0|-0.249|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.056|-0.249|0.2121
95747643|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5607||95.0|-0.197|0.107|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.107|-0.197|0.5607
95747644|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.7797||95.0|-0.13|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.173|-0.130|0.7797
95747645|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.8761||95.0|-0.143|0.167|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.167|-0.143|0.8761
95747646|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8619||95.0|-0.121|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.144|-0.121|0.8619
95747647|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7256||95.0|-0.111|0.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.159|-0.111|0.7256
95942463|NCT06149338|191853232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95942464|NCT06149338|191853233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.0001
95942465|NCT06149338|191853234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.0041
95942466|NCT06149338|191853234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95942467|NCT06149338|191853235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7895||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7895
95747648|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8659||95.0|-0.11|0.131|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.131|-0.110|0.8659
95747649|NCT00442546|191467974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0203||95.0|0.023|0.27|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.270|0.023|0.0203
95747650|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5791||95.0|-0.187|0.105|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.105|-0.187|0.5791
95747651|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6829||95.0|-0.178|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.117|-0.178|0.6829
95747652|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4516||95.0|-0.19|0.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.085|-0.190|0.4516
95747653|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3014||95.0|-0.207|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.064|-0.207|0.3014
95747654|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7628||95.0|-0.171|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.125|-0.171|0.7628
95747655|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.711||95.0|-0.176|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.120|-0.176|0.7110
95747656|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7382||95.0|-0.183|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.130|-0.183|0.7382
95747657|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.6586||95.0|-0.183|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.116|-0.183|0.6586
95747658|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.7691||95.0|-0.195|0.145|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.145|-0.195|0.7691
95747659|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.507||95.0|-0.229|0.115|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.115|-0.229|0.5070
95747660|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.5802||95.0|-0.166|0.093|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.093|-0.166|0.5802
95747661|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.919||95.0|-0.122|0.136|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.136|-0.122|0.9190
95747662|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.6559||95.0|-0.09|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.143|-0.090|0.6559
95747663|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8552||95.0|-0.108|0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.130|-0.108|0.8552
95747664|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6364||95.0|-0.072|0.117|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.117|-0.072|0.6364
95747665|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.2127||95.0|-0.035|0.157|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.157|-0.035|0.2127
95942468|NCT03154190|191853246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Regression, Cox|||||0.47|0.20|
95747666|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.8746||95.0|-0.086|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.101|-0.086|0.8746
95747667|NCT00442546|191467975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0286||95.0|0.011|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.202|0.011|0.0286
95747668|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.1078||95.0|-0.367|0.036|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.036|-0.367|0.1078
95747669|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.6406||95.0|-0.252|0.155|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.155|-0.252|0.6406
95747670|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2404||95.0|-0.289|0.073|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.073|-0.289|0.2404
95747671|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1005||95.0|-0.327|0.029|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.029|-0.327|0.1005
95942469|NCT03154190|191853247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||||0.75|0.30|
95942470|NCT03154190|191853250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.62||||||||0.62|0.33|
95942471|NCT03154190|191853252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7||||||||0.70|0.36|
95942472|NCT03154190|191853257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|10.55||||||||10.55|1.88|
95942473|NCT06037668|191853265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1134
95747672|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2109||95.0|-0.349|0.078|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.078|-0.349|0.2109
95747673|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2399||95.0|-0.342|0.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.086|-0.342|0.2399
95747674|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.2272||95.0|-0.346|0.083|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.083|-0.346|0.2272
95747675|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.4417||95.0|-0.285|0.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.125|-0.285|0.4417
95747676|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.9502||95.0|-0.299|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.281|-0.299|0.9502
95747677|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.355||95.0|-0.426|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.156|-0.426|0.3550
95747678|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1888||95.0|-0.304|0.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.060|-0.304|0.1888
95747679|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.3774||95.0|-0.262|0.1|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.100|-0.262|0.3774
95747680|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9452||95.0|-0.178|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.166|-0.178|0.9452
95747681|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.7663||95.0|-0.201|0.148|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.148|-0.201|0.7663
95747682|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5777||95.0|-0.104|0.186|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.186|-0.104|0.5777
95747683|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2916||95.0|-0.069|0.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.227|-0.069|0.2916
95747684|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.8389||95.0|-0.15|0.122|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.122|-0.150|0.8389
95747685|NCT00442546|191467976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0734||95.0|-0.012|0.266|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.266|-0.012|0.0734
95747686|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1949||95.0|-0.276|0.057|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.057|-0.276|0.1949
95747687|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.5431||95.0|-0.22|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.116|-0.220|0.5431
95747688|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2164||95.0|-0.247|0.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.056|-0.247|0.2164
95747689|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.1251||95.0|-0.266|0.033|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.033|-0.266|0.1251
95942474|NCT06037668|191853266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.003100
95747690|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4079||95.0|-0.247|0.101|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.101|-0.247|0.4079
95747691|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.4562||95.0|-0.24|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.108|-0.240|0.4562
95747692|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.4526||95.0|-0.254|0.114|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.114|-0.254|0.4526
95747693|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6186||95.0|-0.221|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.132|-0.221|0.6186
95747694|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8712||95.0|-0.237|0.202|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.202|-0.237|0.8712
95747695|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4784||95.0|-0.3|0.143|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.143|-0.300|0.4784
95747696|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2635||95.0|-0.232|0.064|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.064|-0.232|0.2635
95747697|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6009||95.0|-0.187|0.108|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.108|-0.187|0.6009
95747698|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.8559||95.0|-0.13|0.156|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.156|-0.130|0.8559
95942475|NCT06037668|191853267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.050300
95942476|NCT06037668|191853268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1178
95747699|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.9841||95.0|-0.147|0.144|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.144|-0.147|0.9841
95797816|NCT04609553|191565051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.18
95797817|NCT04609553|191565051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.45
95989973|NCT00915343|191954736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|110.417||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.755|204.078|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||204.078|16.755|0.0357
95989974|NCT00915343|191954737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-38.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.276|25.876|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||25.876|-50.276|<0.0001
95747700|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.6771||95.0|-0.095|0.146|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.146|-0.095|0.6771
95797818|NCT04609553|191565052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||<.001
95797819|NCT04609553|191565052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.68
95942477|NCT06037668|191853269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1003||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.1003
95942478|NCT06037668|191853270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4832||||||p-values are calculated by independent t-test|Independent t-test|||||||0.4832
95942479|NCT05970861|191853339|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: there is no statistical significance between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: statistical significance exists between the mean percentages of microbiota units of the main and control groups after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.05
95989975|NCT00915343|191954738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-65.782||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.201|22.362|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||22.362|-109.201|0.0033
95989976|NCT00915343|191954739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-148.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.469|-106.561|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-106.561|-189.469|<0.0001
95989977|NCT00915343|191954740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-108.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.193|-76.42|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-76.420|-140.193|<0.0001
95747701|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.3717||95.0|-0.067|0.178|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.178|-0.067|0.3717
95747702|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9863||95.0|-0.114|0.116|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.116|-0.114|0.9863
95747703|NCT00442546|191467977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0355||95.0|0.009|0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.243|0.009|0.0355
95797820|NCT04609553|191565052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.16
95942480|NCT05970861|191853339|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the mean percentages of gut microbiota units.~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the mean percentages of gut microbiota units."||||<0.05
95989978|NCT00915343|191954741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.27||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.512|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.512|0.028|0.0214
95989979|NCT00915343|191954742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-1.042||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.015|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.015|-2.098|0.0714
95989980|NCT00915343|191954743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.007||||0.6687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.024|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.024|-0.038|0.6687
95989981|NCT00915343|191954744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.049||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.093|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.093|0.006|0.0280
95989982|NCT00915343|191954745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|5.509||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|10.268|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||10.268|0.751|0.0003
95989983|NCT00915343|191954746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.533|-7.067|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-7.067|-20.533|<0.0001
95989984|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.064||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.097|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h for TID treatment.|AUC0-4h||1.097|1.032|0.0002
95989985|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.675|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-12h for TID treatment.|AUC4-12h||0.675|0.563|<0.0001
95747704|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.8071||95.0|-0.35|0.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.449|-0.350|0.8071
95747705|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.8282||95.0|-0.359|0.447|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.447|-0.359|0.8282
95747706|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.8972||95.0|-0.353|0.403|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.403|-0.353|0.8972
95747707|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8159||95.0|-0.329|0.418|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.418|-0.329|0.8159
95747708|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8577||95.0|-0.337|0.405|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.405|-0.337|0.8577
95747709|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8158||95.0|-0.415|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-0.415|0.8158
95747710|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4243||95.0|-0.229|0.541|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.541|-0.229|0.4243
95747711|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.2742||95.0|-0.164|0.574|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||0.574|-0.164|0.2742
95747712|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.5569||95.0|-0.302|0.165|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.165|-0.302|0.5569
95747713|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3762||95.0|-0.13|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||0.336|-0.130|0.3762
95747714|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.6203||95.0|-0.229|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.383|-0.229|0.6203
95747715|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.3343||95.0|-0.155|0.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.455|-0.155|0.3343
95747716|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2213||95.0|-0.096|0.41|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.410|-0.096|0.2213
95747717|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.2863||95.0|-0.118|0.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.399|-0.118|0.2863
95747718|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.305||95.0|-0.077|0.245|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.245|-0.077|0.3050
95747719|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0155||95.0|0.039|0.368|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.368|0.039|0.0155
95747720|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.9243||95.0|-0.164|0.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.181|-0.164|0.9243
95747721|NCT00442546|191467978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0201||95.0|0.033|0.386|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.386|0.033|0.0201
95747722|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.1537||95.0|-1.093|0.173|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.173|-1.093|0.1537
95747723|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.2208||95.0|-1.038|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.241|-1.038|0.2208
95747724|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8355||95.0|-0.707|0.572|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.572|-0.707|0.8355
95747725|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.5024||95.0|-0.875|0.43|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.430|-0.875|0.5024
95747726|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.8116||95.0|-0.489|0.624|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.624|-0.489|0.8116
95747727|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.7325||95.0|-0.667|0.469|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.469|-0.667|0.7325
95747728|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.8133||95.0|-0.614|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.614|0.8133
95747729|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.9307||95.0|-0.588|0.538|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.538|-0.588|0.9307
95747730|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.2682||95.0|-1.364|0.385|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.385|-1.364|0.2682
95747731|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.4784||95.0|-1.116|0.528|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.528|-1.116|0.4784
95747732|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.0255||95.0|0.084|1.239|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.239|0.084|0.0255
95747733|NCT00442546|191467979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.1591||95.0|-0.18|1.076|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.076|-0.180|0.1591
95747734|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0359||95.0|-1.52|-0.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.052|-1.520|0.0359
95747735|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0161||95.0|-1.644|-0.17|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.170|-1.644|0.0161
95747736|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.7416||95.0|-0.733|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.523|-0.733|0.7416
95747737|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3527||95.0|-0.939|0.336|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.336|-0.939|0.3527
95747738|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5419||95.0|-0.776|0.409|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.409|-0.776|0.5419
95747739|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.9333||95.0|-0.628|0.577|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.577|-0.628|0.9333
95747740|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.142||95.0|-0.827|0.12|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.120|-0.827|0.1420
95747741|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.829||95.0|-0.535|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.429|-0.535|0.8290
95747742|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.0138||95.0|-1.989|-0.233|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||-0.233|-1.989|0.0138
95797821|NCT04609553|191565052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.39
95942481|NCT05970861|191853340|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between antiphospholipid antibody levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||>0.05
95942482|NCT05970861|191853341|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between uric acid blood levels before and after the mare's milk administration."||||0.01
95747743|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.23||95.0|-1.332|0.325|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.325|-1.332|0.2300
95747744|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5151||95.0|-0.36|0.711|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||0.711|-0.360|0.5151
95747745|NCT00442546|191467980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.146||95.0|-0.155|1.022|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.022|-0.155|0.1460
95747746|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.5786||95.0|-1.17|0.655|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.655|-1.170|0.5786
95747747|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.957||95.0|-0.895|0.946|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.946|-0.895|0.9570
95747748|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.986||95.0|-0.862|0.847|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.847|-0.862|0.9860
95747749|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.7336||95.0|-1.021|0.72|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.720|-1.021|0.7336
95747750|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.2939||95.0|-0.336|1.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.104|-0.336|0.2939
95747751|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.4615||95.0|-0.459|1.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.008|-0.459|0.4615
95747752|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.6433||95.0|-0.845|0.523|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.523|-0.845|0.6433
95942483|NCT05970861|191853342|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after the mare's milk administration."||||<0.01
95747753|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.9466||95.0|-0.678|0.726|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.726|-0.678|0.9466
95747754|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.4967||95.0|-1.66|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.812|-1.660|0.4967
95747755|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.8659||95.0|-1.06|1.257|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.257|-1.060|0.8659
95797822|NCT04609553|191565053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.87
95747756|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.0311||95.0|0.093|1.895|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.895|0.093|0.0311
95747757|NCT00442546|191467981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.0441||95.0|0.027|1.962|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.962|0.027|0.0441
95747758|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.0284||95.0|-1.835|-0.104|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.104|-1.835|0.0284
95747759|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.5516||95.0|-1.141|0.611|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.611|-1.141|0.5516
95747760|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.479||95.0|-1.02|0.48|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.480|-1.020|0.4790
95747761|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9947||95.0|-0.765|0.77|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.770|-0.765|0.9947
95747762|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.8943||95.0|-0.605|0.692|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.692|-0.605|0.8943
95747763|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.9767||95.0|-0.674|0.654|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.654|-0.674|0.9767
95747764|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8117||95.0|-0.59|0.752|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.752|-0.590|0.8117
95797823|NCT04609553|191565053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.14
95797824|NCT04609553|191565053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.007
95942484|NCT05970861|191853342|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group.~Alternate hypothesis: Statistically significant difference exists between the scores on a scale (PCS, MCS) after 2 measurements in the control group."||||>0.05
95942485|NCT05970861|191853342|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk does not significantly influence the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS).~Alternate Hypothesis: The freeze-dried mare's milk significantly influences the scores on the scales (PCS, MCS)."||||<0.01
95747765|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7216||95.0|-0.818|0.567|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.567|-0.818|0.7216
95747766|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.8558||95.0|-1.286|1.07|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.070|-1.286|0.8558
95747767|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.4501||95.0|-1.53|0.685|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.685|-1.530|0.4501
95747768|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4682||95.0|-0.57|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.570|0.4682
95747769|NCT00442546|191467982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5347||95.0|-0.675|1.289|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.289|-0.675|0.5347
95747770|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0613||95.0|-1.568|0.037|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.037|-1.568|0.0613
95747771|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.023||95.0|-1.741|-0.13|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||-0.130|-1.741|0.0230
95747772|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8306||95.0|-0.703|0.875|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.875|-0.703|0.8306
95747773|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.2814||95.0|-1.242|0.363|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.363|-1.242|0.2814
95747774|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.8637||95.0|-0.636|0.757|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.757|-0.636|0.8637
95747775|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9585||95.0|-0.727|0.689|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.689|-0.727|0.9585
95747776|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.3975||95.0|-0.906|0.361|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.361|-0.906|0.3975
95942486|NCT04011644|191853358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Quanbeck,A.et al. A randomized trial testing digital medicine support models for mild-to-moderate alcohol use disorder. npj Digit. Med.7,248(2024)||||||0.688
95942487|NCT04011644|191853359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
95942488|NCT04011644|191853360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95747777|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.6386||95.0|-0.799|0.491|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.491|-0.799|0.6386
95747778|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.702|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.0813||95.0|-1.493|0.089|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.089|-1.493|0.0813
95747779|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.31||95.0|-1.114|0.358|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.358|-1.114|0.3100
95747780|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0231||95.0|0.118|1.545|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.545|0.118|0.0231
95747781|NCT00442546|191467983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.2367||95.0|-0.311|1.237|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.237|-0.311|0.2367
95747782|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.8868||95.0|-0.947|0.82|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.820|-0.947|0.8868
95747783|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5733||95.0|-1.142|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.634|-1.142|0.5733
95747784|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.7385||95.0|-0.884|0.628|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.628|-0.884|0.7385
95747785|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8353||95.0|-0.849|0.687|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.687|-0.849|0.8353
95747786|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.5737||95.0|-0.51|0.918|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.918|-0.510|0.5737
95747787|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.364||95.0|-1.06|0.391|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.391|-1.060|0.3640
95747788|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.4315||95.0|-0.393|0.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.917|-0.393|0.4315
95942489|NCT04011644|191853362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.908
95942490|NCT04011644|191853364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.206
95747789|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.6727||95.0|-0.525|0.812|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.812|-0.525|0.6727
95747790|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.3361||95.0|-1.496|0.517|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.517|-1.496|0.3361
95747791|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.9634||95.0|-0.955|0.912|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.912|-0.955|0.9634
95747792|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2098||95.0|-0.257|1.15|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.150|-0.257|0.2098
95747793|NCT00442546|191467984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.49||95.0|-0.497|1.027|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.027|-0.497|0.4900
95747794|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.9912||95.0|-1.07|1.082|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||1.082|-1.070|0.9912
95747795|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8076||95.0|-1.227|0.957|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.957|-1.227|0.8076
95747796|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6978||95.0|-0.727|1.085|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.085|-0.727|0.6978
95747797|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5344||95.0|-1.219|0.634|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.634|-1.219|0.5344
95942491|NCT04011644|191853365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||A univariate analysis (Analysis of Covariance or ANCOVA) was conducted to compare the number of hospital days among the three groups controlling for baseline assessment of the dependent variable and design factors (i.e., Sex and Severity).||||0.104
95942492|NCT04011644|191853366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95942493|NCT04011644|191853367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
95942494|NCT04011644|191853368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.555
95747798|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.8721||95.0|-0.819|0.695|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.695|-0.819|0.8721
95747799|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3179||95.0|-1.173|0.383|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.383|-1.173|0.3179
95747800|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.8037||95.0|-0.648|0.835|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.835|-0.648|0.8037
95747801|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7731||95.0|-0.656|0.881|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.881|-0.656|0.7731
95747802|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.4461||95.0|-1.684|0.748|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.748|-1.684|0.4461
95747803|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.3568||95.0|-1.679|0.612|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.612|-1.679|0.3568
95747804|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0623||95.0|-0.032|1.227|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.227|-0.032|0.0623
95747805|NCT00442546|191467985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.3529||95.0|-0.364|1.005|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.005|-0.364|0.3529
95747806|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.1448||95.0|-1.434|0.212|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.212|-1.434|0.1448
95747807|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1148||95.0|-1.494|0.163|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.163|-1.494|0.1148
95747808|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.3285||95.0|-1.35|0.454|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.454|-1.350|0.3285
95747809|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.2205||95.0|-1.49|0.346|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.346|-1.490|0.2205
95747810|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.6266||95.0|-0.958|0.578|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.578|-0.958|0.6266
95747811|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.2077||95.0|-1.284|0.281|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.281|-1.284|0.2077
95747812|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.5626||95.0|-0.982|0.536|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.536|-0.982|0.5626
95747813|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.3507||95.0|-1.145|0.408|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.408|-1.145|0.3507
95747814|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.7276||95.0|-1.498|1.05|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||1.050|-1.498|0.7276
95747815|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.353||95.0|-1.748|0.631|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 3||0.631|-1.748|0.3530
95747816|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.0283||95.0|0.13|2.242|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||2.242|0.130|0.0283
95747817|NCT00442546|191467986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.6934||95.0|-0.918|1.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Month 6||1.372|-0.918|0.6934
95747818|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0476||95.0|-3.089|-0.017|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.017|-3.089|0.0476
95747819|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.0237||95.0|-3.293|-0.243|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.243|-3.293|0.0237
95747820|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.4925||95.0|-0.516|1.069|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||1.069|-0.516|0.4925
95747821|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8299||95.0|-0.727|0.905|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.905|-0.727|0.8299
95747822|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9185||95.0|-0.766|0.691|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.691|-0.766|0.9185
95747823|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.3619||95.0|-1.07|0.392|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.392|-1.070|0.3619
95747824|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.4309||95.0|-0.538|1.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.254|-0.538|0.4309
95747825|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.9778||95.0|-0.895|0.921|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.921|-0.895|0.9778
95942495|NCT04011644|191853369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.131
95942496|NCT04011644|191853373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
95747826|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.8503||95.0|-1.411|1.706|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.706|-1.411|0.8503
95747827|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.0183||95.0|-3.364|-0.326|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.326|-3.364|0.0183
95747828|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.286||95.0|-3.598|1.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||1.316|-3.598|0.2860
95747829|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856||0.204||95.0|-7.479|2.06|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.060|-7.479|0.2040
95747830|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.6332||95.0|-0.722|0.44|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.440|-0.722|0.6332
95747831|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.5183||95.0|-0.402|0.794|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.794|-0.402|0.5183
95747832|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.6341||95.0|-0.75|0.458|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.458|-0.750|0.6341
95747833|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4607||95.0|-0.868|0.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.395|-0.868|0.4607
95747834|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.7499||95.0|-0.541|0.75|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.750|-0.541|0.7499
95747835|NCT00442546|191467987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.8231||95.0|-0.584|0.733|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.733|-0.584|0.8231
95747836|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709||0.1486||95.0|-2.452|0.379|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.379|-2.452|0.1486
95747837|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706||0.0089||95.0|-3.311|-0.494|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||-0.494|-3.311|0.0089
95747838|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.8995||95.0|-0.635|0.722|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.722|-0.635|0.8995
95747839|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.3918||95.0|-1.0|0.394|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.394|-1.000|0.3918
95942497|NCT01447719|191853381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|98.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||98|78|
95942498|NCT01447719|191853382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
95747840|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9942||95.0|-0.648|0.652|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.652|-0.648|0.9942
95942499|NCT01447719|191853383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation coefficient|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.||Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
95747841|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.5352||95.0|-0.859|0.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.448|-0.859|0.5352
95747842|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.8055||95.0|-0.662|0.85|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.850|-0.662|0.8055
95747843|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.256||95.0|-1.22|0.327|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.327|-1.220|0.2560
95747844|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.641||0.8744||95.0|-1.184|1.387|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.387|-1.184|0.8744
95747845|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.614|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.0115||95.0|-2.851|-0.378|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.378|-2.851|0.0115
95942500|NCT01447719|191853384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a positive scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|80|
95942501|NCT01447719|191853385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|100.0||||||Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 5 blinded readers||100|78|
95747846|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.9497||95.0|-3.047|2.893|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||2.893|-3.047|0.9497
95747847|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.992||0.5288||95.0|-6.467|3.773|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||3.773|-6.467|0.5288
95942502|NCT03969563|191853466|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR and Brain Health groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.694
95747848|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2595||95.0|-0.813|0.22|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.220|-0.813|0.2595
95747849|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9605||95.0|-0.546|0.519|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.519|-0.546|0.9605
95747850|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.4107||95.0|-0.702|0.288|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.288|-0.702|0.4107
95747851|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.2271||95.0|-0.836|0.2|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.200|-0.836|0.2271
95747852|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9552||95.0|-0.535|0.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.506|-0.535|0.9552
95747853|NCT00442546|191467988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.9899||95.0|-0.533|0.526|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.526|-0.533|0.9899
95747854|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471||0.2211||95.0|-0.35|1.506|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||1.506|-0.350|0.2211
95747855|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.477||0.0916||95.0|-1.75|0.132|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||0.132|-1.750|0.0916
95747856|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9312||95.0|-0.863|0.791|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.791|-0.863|0.9312
95747857|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1658||95.0|-1.428|0.247|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|8 hours||0.247|-1.428|0.1658
95747858|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.9921||95.0|-0.958|0.948|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.948|-0.958|0.9921
95747859|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.1367||95.0|-1.66|0.229|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|12 hours||0.229|-1.660|0.1367
95747860|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.3561||95.0|-1.053|0.38|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.380|-1.053|0.3561
95747861|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.426||95.0|-1.012|0.429|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||0.429|-1.012|0.4260
95747862|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7975||95.0|-0.703|0.914|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.914|-0.703|0.7975
95747863|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.6947||95.0|-0.65|0.974|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|32 hours||0.974|-0.650|0.6947
95747864|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6954||95.0|-1.101|0.736|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.736|-1.101|0.6954
95747865|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.8665||95.0|-1.032|0.87|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|40 hours||0.870|-1.032|0.8665
95747866|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.4216||95.0|-0.45|1.072|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.072|-0.450|0.4216
95797825|NCT04609553|191565053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.34
95942503|NCT03969563|191853467|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on non-significant difference between MBSR vs Brain Health group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.837
95747867|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.4673||95.0|-0.487|1.056|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||1.056|-0.487|0.4673
95747868|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5624||95.0|-0.614|1.125|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||1.125|-0.614|0.5624
95797826|NCT04609553|191565054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.99
95855460|NCT01342211|191670567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.404||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.47|-18.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-18.97|-56.47|0.0001
95747869|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.3705||95.0|-1.286|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|56 hours||0.482|-1.286|0.3705
95747870|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.4539||95.0|-1.302|0.586|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||0.586|-1.302|0.4539
95747871|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.0373||95.0|-2.107|-0.065|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|64 hours||-0.065|-2.107|0.0373
95747872|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.76||95.0|-0.796|1.087|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||1.087|-0.796|0.7600
95747873|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.2506||95.0|-1.507|0.397|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.397|-1.507|0.2506
95747874|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.2567||95.0|-0.77|2.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||2.823|-0.770|0.2567
95747875|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.882|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||0.0167||95.0|-3.408|-0.356|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|80 hours||-0.356|-3.408|0.0167
95747876|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.6953||95.0|-1.456|2.159|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||2.159|-1.456|0.6953
95747877|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.894||0.208||95.0|-2.962|0.668|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|88 hours||0.668|-2.962|0.2080
95747878|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975||0.3805||95.0|-1.116|2.849|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.849|-1.116|0.3805
95797827|NCT04609553|191565054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 9-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.07
95797828|NCT04609553|191565054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 2.||||0.41
95747879|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.89||95.0|-1.965|1.713|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||1.713|-1.965|0.8900
95747880|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.1821||95.0|-1.103|4.448|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||4.448|-1.103|0.1821
95747881|NCT00442546|191467989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.768||0.6505||95.0|-3.693|5.395|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|104 hours||5.395|-3.693|0.6505
95747882|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0388||95.0|-2.004|-0.053|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.053|-2.004|0.0388
95747883|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.0004||95.0|-2.798|-0.822|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||-0.822|-2.798|0.0004
95747884|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.6274||95.0|-0.995|0.601|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.601|-0.995|0.6274
95747885|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.135||95.0|-1.432|0.194|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||0.194|-1.432|0.1350
95747886|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.1106||95.0|-1.605|0.166|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||0.166|-1.605|0.1106
95747887|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.0248||95.0|-1.939|-0.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||-0.133|-1.939|0.0248
95942504|NCT03663205|191853468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.912|||One-sided, Log Rank Test||Stratified by stratification factors: disease stage (IIIB or IV) and the level of PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (\>=50%, 1% to 49%, \<1%)|||0.912|0.465|0.0054
95942505|NCT03663205|191853475|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 coughing score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in coughing score||3.1|-7.4|
95747888|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.2335||95.0|-0.582|2.33|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||2.330|-0.582|0.2335
95747889|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.0258||95.0|-2.939|-0.198|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||-0.198|-2.939|0.0258
95747890|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.3878||95.0|-3.207|6.939|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||6.939|-3.207|0.3878
95747891|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.1762||95.0|-3.74|15.559|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.559|-3.740|0.1762
95942506|NCT03663205|191853475|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 dyspnea score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in dyspnea score||2.1|-4.4|
95747892|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379||0.1754||95.0|-1.261|0.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.231|-1.261|0.1754
95747893|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.1413||95.0|-1.329|0.191|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.191|-1.329|0.1413
95747894|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.1731||95.0|-1.023|0.185|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.185|-1.023|0.1731
95747895|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.6829||95.0|-0.747|0.49|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||0.490|-0.747|0.6829
95747896|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2436||95.0|-0.943|0.241|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.241|-0.943|0.2436
95747897|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.119||95.0|-1.108|0.127|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.127|-1.108|0.1190
95747898|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.4117||95.0|-0.897|0.369|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.369|-0.897|0.4117
95747899|NCT00442546|191467990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.6294||95.0|-0.794|0.482|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||0.482|-0.794|0.6294
95942507|NCT03663205|191853475|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.2|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC13 chest pain score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in chest pain score||1.2|-7.6|
95942508|NCT03663205|191853476|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.7|||||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with QLQ-LC30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life score on the response variable and treatment by study visit interaction and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Least squares mean difference in Global Health Status/Quality of Life score||8.7|-0.9|
95989986|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.525|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-12h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-12h for TID treatment.|AUC6-12h||0.525|0.424|<0.0001
95747900|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7958||95.0|-7.391|5.673|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||5.673|-7.391|0.7958
95747901|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.322||0.9733||95.0|-6.436|6.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Day 1||6.659|-6.436|0.9733
95747902|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.946||0.822||95.0|-6.898|8.675|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||8.675|-6.898|0.8220
95747903|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.917||0.4736||95.0|-10.542|4.917|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|1 hour||4.917|-10.542|0.4736
95747904|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.045||0.5113||95.0|-10.639|5.316|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||5.316|-10.639|0.5113
95747905|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9266||95.0|-7.425|8.154|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|2 hours||8.154|-7.425|0.9266
95747906|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347||0.9699||95.0|-8.423|8.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.751|-8.423|0.9699
95747907|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.232||0.9482||95.0|-8.085|8.635|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|3 hours||8.635|-8.085|0.9482
95747908|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.391||0.7969||95.0|-16.842|13.012|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||13.012|-16.842|0.7969
95747909|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.1991||95.0|-25.533|5.487|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|4 hours||5.487|-25.533|0.1991
95989987|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.588||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.775|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC12-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC12-24h for TID treatment.|AUC12-24h||0.775|0.446|0.0003
95747910|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.737||0.0321||95.0|13.976|158.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||158.693|13.976|0.0321
95747911|NCT00442546|191467991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.295||0.0353||95.0|5.837|84.091|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|5 hours||84.091|5.837|0.0353
95747912|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.055||0.5736||95.0|-30.792|17.169|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||17.169|-30.792|0.5736
95747913|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.786||0.8003||95.0|-26.438|20.455|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||20.455|-26.438|0.8003
95747914|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.371||0.5125||95.0|-27.369|13.74|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||13.740|-27.369|0.5125
95747915|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227||0.4773||95.0|-27.563|12.976|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||12.976|-27.563|0.4773
95747916|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.101||0.2142||95.0|-36.055|8.226|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.226|-36.055|0.2142
95747917|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.245||0.2989||95.0|-34.197|10.659|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||10.659|-34.197|0.2989
95747918|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.612||0.3829||95.0|-53.429|134.449|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||134.449|-53.429|0.3829
95747919|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.322||0.5531||95.0|-120.59|66.092|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||66.092|-120.59|0.5531
95747920|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.491||0.2738||95.0|-89.376|126.402|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||126.402|-89.376|0.2738
95942509|NCT05932407|191853479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Crude hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||2.0|0.1|
95942510|NCT05932407|191853479|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted hazard ratio was adjusted from crude hazard ratio by covariance 1 (age and gender), and covariance 2 (antithrombotic drug administration, NSAID administration, and hypertension).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9||||||Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablets to SSRIs for intracranial hemorrhage was reported. Adjusted hazard ratio of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group relative to the control group (SSRI Treatment group) was calculated by the rate of Vortioxetine Tablet Treatment group divided by the rate of SSRI Treatment group.||1.9|0.1|
95942511|NCT04424316|191853499|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|31.3|
95942512|NCT04424316|191853500|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|69.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||69.5|33.2|
95942513|NCT04424316|191853501|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|64.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||64.5|30.3|
95942514|NCT04424316|191853502|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|49.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|62.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||62.8|31.4|
95942515|NCT04424316|191853503|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|93.9||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||93.9|57.5|
95942516|NCT04424316|191853504|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|86.8||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.8|50.3|
95942517|NCT04424316|191853505|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4|83.6||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||83.6|49.4|
95747921|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519||0.7987||95.0|-4.343|5.63|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.630|-4.343|0.7987
95747922|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.8875||95.0|-5.177|4.485|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||4.485|-5.177|0.8875
95747923|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.949||0.4319||95.0|-2.324|5.398|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.398|-2.324|0.4319
95747924|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.935||0.407||95.0|-2.223|5.443|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||5.443|-2.223|0.4070
95942518|NCT04424316|191853506|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|82.5||||||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||82.5|50.6|
95942519|NCT04424316|191853522|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|86.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||86.7|37.1|
95747925|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.641||0.4968||95.0|-4.371|2.133|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.133|-4.371|0.4968
95747926|NCT00442546|191467992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.427||95.0|-1.972|4.626|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||4.626|-1.972|0.4270
95747927|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.862|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.7742||95.0|-6.775|5.052|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||5.052|-6.775|0.7742
95747928|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.025||0.0996||95.0|-0.96|10.971|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||10.971|-0.960|0.0996
95747929|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.7738||95.0|-4.698|6.304|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||6.304|-4.698|0.7738
95747930|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.1328||95.0|-1.284|9.669|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.669|-1.284|0.1328
95747931|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.012||0.7585||95.0|-5.027|6.882|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||6.882|-5.027|0.7585
95747932|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997||0.19||95.0|-1.979|9.871|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||9.871|-1.979|0.1900
95747933|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.693||0.2365||95.0|-3.004|11.865|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||11.865|-3.004|0.2365
95747934|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.1616||95.0|-2.202|12.814|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||12.814|-2.202|0.1616
95747935|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.911||0.8819||95.0|-17.98|15.838|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||15.838|-17.98|0.8819
95747936|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.4676||95.0|-37.7|19.558|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||19.558|-37.70|0.4676
95747937|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.925|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.195||0.3813||95.0|-2.403|6.254|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.254|-2.403|0.3813
95747938|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.341|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.2966||95.0|-2.07|6.751|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||6.751|-2.070|0.2966
95747939|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.4474||95.0|-3.122|7.046|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.046|-3.122|0.4474
95747940|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0416||95.0|0.204|10.427|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.427|0.204|0.0416
95747941|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.5935||95.0|-3.694|6.438|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||6.438|-3.694|0.5935
95747942|NCT00442546|191467993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674||0.3966||95.0|-3.006|7.551|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.551|-3.006|0.3966
95747943|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.631||0.5117||95.0|-3.457|6.916|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||6.916|-3.457|0.5117
95747944|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.675||0.0154||95.0|1.258|11.805|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|24 hours||11.805|1.258|0.0154
95747945|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353||0.7022||95.0|-3.738|5.54|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||5.540|-3.738|0.7022
95747946|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.129|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|48 hours||9.129|-0.110|0.0557
95747947|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.552||0.2161||95.0|-1.874|8.215|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||8.215|-1.874|0.2161
95747948|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0058||95.0|2.098|12.172|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|72 hours||12.172|2.098|0.0058
95747949|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993||0.1283||95.0|-1.853|14.223|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||14.223|-1.853|0.1283
95747950|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.033||0.008||95.0|3.056|19.291|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|96 hours||19.291|3.056|0.0080
95747951|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0018||95.0|7.414|18.468|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||18.468|7.414|0.0018
95747952|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533||0.0038||95.0|8.859|27.023|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|120 hours||27.023|8.859|0.0038
95747953|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.5953||95.0|-3.045|5.296|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||5.296|-3.045|0.5953
95747954|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.1267||95.0|-0.952|7.613|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||7.613|-0.952|0.1267
95747955|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.339||0.2647||95.0|-1.997|7.231|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||7.231|-1.997|0.2647
95747956|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0181||95.0|0.995|10.548|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.548|0.995|0.0181
95797829|NCT04609553|191565054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05.|ANOVA|||Analysis at the 18-month follow-up. A total of 630 parent-infant dyads (210 per arm) were needed to achieve 80% power to detect a 0.3 standard deviation (SD) difference assuming approximately 20% attrition. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between Arm 1 and Arm 3.||||0.03
95747957|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.5507||95.0|-3.161|5.91|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||5.910|-3.161|0.5507
95747958|NCT00442546|191467994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.3164||95.0|-2.317|7.124|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||7.124|-2.317|0.3164
95747959|NCT00442546|191467995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4365||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4365
95747960|NCT00442546|191467995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4023
95747961|NCT00442546|191467996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.4024
95747962|NCT00442546|191467996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1910
95747963|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.497||0.3483||95.0|-2.573|7.268|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||7.268|-2.573|0.3483
95747964|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.498||0.2078||95.0|-1.766|8.077|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.077|-1.766|0.2078
95797830|NCT03834168|191565062|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression (Cosinor Fit)|||||||0.003
95797831|NCT03834168|191565062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95942520|NCT04424316|191853522|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|80.3||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||80.3|28.6|
95942521|NCT04424316|191853522|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.8||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||76.8|23.9|
95942522|NCT04424316|191853522|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|74.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||74.6|23.8|
95797832|NCT03345004|191565065|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.091|||=|0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.408|0.845|= 0.5009
95942523|NCT04424316|191853522|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|48.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||48.6|-11.1|
95747965|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.436||0.4299||95.0|-7.836|18.088|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.088|-7.836|0.4299
95747966|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.726||0.4482||95.0|-8.4|18.693|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||18.693|-8.400|0.4482
95797833|NCT03345004|191565065|SUPERIORITY||Estimated ratio|1.557|||=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.153|1.126|= 0.0078
95797834|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.76|0.57|
95797835|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.52|
95797836|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.58|
95989988|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.935|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h for TID treatment.|AUC0-10h||0.935|0.856|<0.0001
95747967|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.426||0.6472||95.0|-6.818|10.89|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||10.890|-6.818|0.6472
95747968|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.642||0.4992||95.0|-6.129|12.442|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.442|-6.129|0.4992
95747969|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.149||0.6072||95.0|-7.578|12.891|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.891|-7.578|0.6072
95747970|NCT00442546|191467997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.906||0.3146||95.0|-4.789|14.714|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.714|-4.789|0.3146
95747971|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.0739||95.0|-0.407|8.76|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.760|-0.407|0.0739
95747972|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.327||0.074||95.0|-0.409|8.761|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.761|-0.409|0.0740
95747973|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.418||0.2615||95.0|-5.628|20.224|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||20.224|-5.628|0.2615
95942524|NCT04424316|191853523|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 90 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||25.7|-10.1|
95747974|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.707||0.6266||95.0|-10.22|16.795|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||16.795|-10.22|0.6266
95747975|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.2963||95.0|-3.747|12.086|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||12.086|-3.747|0.2963
95747976|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151||0.1375||95.0|-2.054|14.55|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||14.550|-2.054|0.1375
95747977|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.895||0.2703||95.0|-4.298|15.161|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||15.161|-4.298|0.2703
95747978|NCT00442546|191467998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.664||0.104||95.0|-1.607|16.933|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||16.933|-1.607|0.1040
95747979|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.8545||95.0|-5.635|6.793|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||6.793|-5.635|0.8545
95747980|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.155||0.5006||95.0|-4.088|8.344|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||8.344|-4.088|0.5006
95747981|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.248||0.7217||95.0|-13.66|19.569|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||19.569|-13.66|0.7217
95747982|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4203||95.0|-10.35|24.372|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||24.372|-10.35|0.4203
95747983|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.9859||95.0|-11.3|11.102|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.102|-11.30|0.9859
95942525|NCT04424316|191853523|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|20.7||||||Vaccine efficacy within 120 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.7|-9.8|
95942526|NCT04424316|191853523|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|20.1||||||Vaccine efficacy within 150 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||20.1|-6.5|
95942527|NCT04424316|191853523|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0||||||Vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||16.0|-9.5|
95747984|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.873||0.9915||95.0|-11.68|11.811|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||11.811|-11.68|0.9915
95747985|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.9843||95.0|-13.06|12.808|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||12.808|-13.06|0.9843
95747986|NCT00442546|191467999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.201||0.7055||95.0|-9.974|14.677|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||14.677|-9.974|0.7055
95747987|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.9405||95.0|-0.614|0.661|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.661|-0.614|0.9405
95747988|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.5641||95.0|-0.749|0.415|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.415|-0.749|0.5641
95747989|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
95747990|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
95747991|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.1925||95.0|-3.596|0.94|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||0.940|-3.596|0.1925
95747992|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.982||0.9654||95.0|-2.568|2.479|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||2.479|-2.568|0.9654
95747993|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.235||95.0|-6.712|2.008|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.008|-6.712|0.2350
95747994|NCT00442546|191468000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.742||95.0|-1.806|2.399|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.399|-1.806|0.7420
95747995|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5299||95.0|-0.458|0.874|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.874|-0.458|0.5299
95797837|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|0.53|
95797838|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.57|
95797839|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.98|0.61|
95797840|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.51|0.53|
95797841|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.89|0.38|
95797842|NCT02081807|191565091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.50|
95797843|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.69|0.38|
95942528|NCT04424316|191853523|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|14.6||||||Vaccine efficacy within 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||14.6|-6.6|
95942529|NCT04424316|191853524|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.7||||||Vaccine efficacy at 210 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||57.7|25.6|
95797844|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.86|0.68|
95942530|NCT04424316|191853524|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|54.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 240 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||54.1|21.3|
95797845|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.65|
95797846|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.26|0.88|
95797847|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.92|
95942531|NCT04424316|191853524|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.9||||||Vaccine efficacy at 270 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||49.9|16.1|
95797848|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.94|
95797849|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.66|0.39|
95942532|NCT04424316|191853524|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|47.1||||||Vaccine efficacy at 360 days after birth. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]), where P is the number of cases in the RSVpreF group divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval was adjusted using Bonferroni procedure and accounting for the primary endpoints results. Vaccine efficacy was presented in percentage.||47.1|15.2|
95989989|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.765|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC4-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC4-10h for TID treatment.|AUC4-10h||0.765|0.632|<0.0001
95797850|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||MarketScan-Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.68|0.49|
95989990|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.605|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC6-10h for OD treatment divided by AUC6-10h for TID treatment.|AUC6-10h||0.605|0.482|<0.0001
95747996|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2442||95.0|-0.964|0.253|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Discharge||0.253|-0.964|0.2442
95747997|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||0.5226||95.0|-1.181|2.181|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||2.181|-1.181|0.5226
95747998|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.8557||95.0|-2.156|1.823|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 2||1.823|-2.156|0.8557
95747999|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.324||95.0|-3.751|1.512|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||1.512|-3.751|0.3240
95748000|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.9503||95.0|-2.853|3.003|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 4||3.003|-2.853|0.9503
95748001|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.3618||95.0|-6.379|2.712|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.712|-6.379|0.3618
95748002|NCT00442546|191468001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.7226||95.0|-1.859|2.525|||ANOVA||Mean difference (final values) = Least squares mean difference|Week 6/ET||2.525|-1.859|0.7226
95748003|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.2473
95748004|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Discharge||||0.0239
95748005|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6118||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6118
95748006|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.6730
95748007|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5954||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.5954
95748008|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.7784
95748009|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7293||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.7293
95748010|NCT00442546|191468002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5202||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6/ET||||0.5202
95748011|NCT00442546|191468003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.1509
95748012|NCT00442546|191468003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3822||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||0.3822
95748013|NCT00442546|191468003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.2825
95748014|NCT00442546|191468003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7733||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 6||||0.7733
95748015|NCT00248170|191468005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3150
95748016|NCT03203642|191468047|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0082||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0217|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0112|-0.0217|0.5265
95748017|NCT03203642|191468048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0111||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0264|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0180|-0.0264|0.7076
95748018|NCT03203642|191468049|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0404|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0160|-0.0404|0.3895
95942533|NCT06097494|191853537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||||Calculated as the odds of a person diagnosed with vitiligo having with depression versus people not diagnosed with vitiligo|||1.15|1.01|
95942534|NCT06097494|191853538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.3|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.30|1.09|
95942535|NCT06097494|191853539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||||Calculated as the odds of people diagnosed with vitiligo having anxiety or depression compared to people not diagnosed with vitilligo.|||1.17|1.03|
95942536|NCT06097494|191853540|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.32|||||Adjusted incident rate ratio for increased primary care use was calculated by comparing patients with vitiligo versus matched controls not having vitiligo,using negative binomial regression.|||1.32|1.26|
95942537|NCT06097494|191853542|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2|||||Hazard ratios for mental health referrals was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.20|0.93|
95942538|NCT06097494|191853543|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||||Hazard ratios for unemployment was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.15|0.76|
95942539|NCT06097494|191853544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.24|||||Hazard ratios for time off work was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.24|1.06|
95942540|NCT06097494|191853545|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||||Hazard ratios for sleep disturbance was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression model and reflect a comparison of the incidence rates between people diagnosed with vitiligo and people not diagnosed with vitiligo.|||1.31|1.02|
95942541|NCT04763772|191853594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.8|||Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-14|0.2
95748019|NCT03203642|191468050|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model included treatment group as a factor and the Baseline htTKV (log10 transformed) as a covariate for the analysis. The outcome measure was tested at 2-sided 0.05 level to control Type I error rate.||- 0.0278|-0.0248|0.9093
95748020|NCT01252719|191468087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10%, the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.7||||||||4.7|-5.5|
95748021|NCT01252719|191468088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the non-inferiority (NI) of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||||||||8.4|-1.6|
95748022|NCT01252719|191468089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin was concluded.|Difference in Proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.5|
95748023|NCT03135899|191468107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.048|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.165|-0.048|
95748024|NCT03135899|191468107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.144|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.070|-0.144|
95748025|NCT03135899|191468107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.266|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||-0.047|-0.266|
95748026|NCT03135899|191468109|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||0.977|0.595|
95748027|NCT03135899|191468109|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.199|0.715|
95748028|NCT03135899|191468109|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|1.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo. Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|The mixed effects model included 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects, 'patient' as a random effect, and 'period baseline' as well as 'patient baseline' as covariates. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the mean of the period baselines for each patient. Covariance structure variance component (VC) was used for random subject effect.||1.095|0.651|
95942542|NCT03735979|191853652|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that argatroban was better than placebo was 0.002."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.002
95942543|NCT03735979|191853652|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"The P-value is the posterior probability that study drug has a higher benefit than control. The a priori threshold for a successful trial is 0.985.~The posterior probability that eptifibitide was better than placebo was 0.04."|Bayesian|Primary analysis compared treatment group with placebo, with adjustment for baseline NIHSS score in a Bayesian normal dynamic linear model.|The posterior mean of study treatment minus placebo.|||||0.04
95989991|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.412|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.504|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC10-24h for OD treatment divided by AUC10-24h for TID treatment.|AUC10-24h||0.504|0.338|<0.0001
95797851|NCT02081807|191565092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.64|0.49|
95989992|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.843|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(0-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(0-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(0-inf)||0.843|0.714|<0.0001
95989993|NCT00915343|191954747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.069||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.521|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC(24h-inf) for OD treatment divided by AUC(24h-inf) for TID treatment.|AUC(24h-inf)||2.521|0.453|0.8770
95989994|NCT00915343|191954748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|0.862|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau for OD treatment divided by AUCtau for TID treatment.|||0.862|0.753|<0.0001
95989995|NCT00915343|191954749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.851|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUCtau/dose for OD treatment divided by AUCtau/dose for TID treatment.|||0.851|0.734|<0.0001
95989996|NCT00915343|191954750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|0.831|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-24h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-24h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.831|0.741|<0.0001
95748029|NCT03135899|191468111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.95|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 100 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.95|1.31|
95942544|NCT03533257|191853674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3654
95942545|NCT03533257|191853675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.6698
95942546|NCT03533257|191853676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3086
95942547|NCT03533257|191853677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.5552
95942548|NCT03533257|191853678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.0361
95942549|NCT03533257|191853679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.3585
95942550|NCT03533257|191853680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8996|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis assessed the difference in estimated change-from-baseline values at the 24-week model estimate using LS means estimates from the MMRM.||||||0.8996
95942551|NCT03442309|191853702|NON_INFERIORITY|NI margin for arrest difference of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.01||||||||0.01|-.22|
95942552|NCT03442309|191853703|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority OR (OR δ, 0.63)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
95989997|NCT00915343|191954751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.885|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.926|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-10h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-10h/dose for TID treatment.|||0.926|0.844|<0.0001
95748030|NCT03135899|191468111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.53|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 400 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||3.53|1.22|
95797852|NCT02081807|191565093|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.11|0.69|
95942553|NCT05465239|191853707|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for control subjects.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.001
95942554|NCT05465239|191853707|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis of metabolic energy consumption using the unpowered vs powered walker for subjects with walking disabilities.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95942555|NCT05423730|191853708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|57.2|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||57.20|-49.75|
95942556|NCT05423730|191853709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.96|63.9|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||63.90|-47.96|
95942557|NCT05423730|191853710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.67|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||0.67|-1.95|
95989998|NCT00915343|191954752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|1.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.086|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC0-4h/dose for OD treatment divided by AUC0-4h/dose for TID treatment.|||1.086|1.020|0.0020
95989999|NCT00915343|191954753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|<0.0001
95990000|NCT00915343|191954754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|-0.001|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.001|-0.002|<0.0001
95990001|NCT00915343|191954755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.055||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.334|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.334|-0.444|0.7827
95990002|NCT00915343|191954756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.001||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.0|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||-0.000|-0.001|0.0015
95990003|NCT00915343|191954757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|12.646|||ANOVA||The quotient was defined as AUC Extrapolation for OD treatment divided by AUC Extrapolation for TID treatment.|||12.646|2.940|<0.0001
95748031|NCT03135899|191468111|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.47|||Regression, Cox||BI 443651 1200 μg is compared to placebo.|The cox proportional hazard model included treatment and period as fixed effect and patient baseline as covariate. No hypothesis was tested. The patient baseline was obtained by calculating the median of the period baselines for each patient. A hazard ratio greater than 1 gives that active treatment is not-inferior to placebo.||4.47|1.50|
95748032|NCT02070757|191468112|NON_INFERIORITY|Meropenem minus ceftolozane/tazobactam. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|7.39|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||7.39|-5.13|
95748033|NCT02070757|191468113|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical Response difference is calculated as ceftolozane/tazobactam minus meropenem. For ceftolozane/tazobactam to be non-inferior to meropenem the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -12.5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|8.29|||||The % difference between groups is the weighted proportion difference using MRc stratum weights for diagnosis and age categories. The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference.|||8.29|-6.17|
95748034|NCT02070757|191468114|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|11.75|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||11.75|-2.83|
95748035|NCT02070757|191468115|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|7.67|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||7.67|-10.21|
95748036|NCT02070757|191468116|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.0||||||95.0|-5.11|18.93|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||18.93|-5.11|
95748037|NCT02070757|191468118|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.57|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||3.57|-6.41|
95748038|NCT02070757|191468119|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||6.04|-7.67|
95748039|NCT02070757|191468120|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|12.02|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||12.02|-8.91|
95748040|NCT02070757|191468121|OTHER|The % difference is the weighted proportion difference using Mehrotra-Railkar continuity-corrected-minimum risk (MRc) stratum weights for strata of diagnosis (VABP, ventilated HABP) and age (\<65, \>=65) categories.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|10.44|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in Percentage of Participants||10.44|-3.38|
95748041|NCT01659736|191468142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the condition (active TMS versus Sham) by time (pre, post, 3-month follow-up) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
95942558|NCT05423730|191853711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|43.09|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||43.09|-9.45|
95942559|NCT05423730|191853712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|28.4|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||28.40|-3.31|
95797853|NCT02081807|191565093|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.02|0.66|
95990004|NCT00915343|191954758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|33.532||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734|65.329|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||65.329|1.734|0.0396
95990005|NCT00915343|191954759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Period-adjusted quotient|0.08||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.177|||Fisher's non-parametric permutation test|||||0.177|-0.017|0.1032
95748042|NCT01833533|191468157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
95748043|NCT01833533|191468157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 65% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
95748044|NCT01833533|191468158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95748045|NCT01833533|191468159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|93.7|
95748046|NCT01833533|191468159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|94.3|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (75%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||94.3|86.2|
95764238|NCT03737357|191498647|NON_INFERIORITY|The tolerance range or non-inferiority margin characterizes the largest absolute difference which is considered to be dismissible. A MBL of less than 0.5mm within the first year after implant loading constitutes an acceptable clinical standard(10, 18, 19). In this clinical trial, a non-inferiority margin of 20% of the acceptable clinical standard was chosen, which amounts to 0.1mm.|paired difference|0.01||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Non-inferiority one-sided paired t-tests using a non-inferiority margin of -0.10mm.|The paired difference is (SLActive® bone level change from baseline (CFB) - SLA® CFB (i.e. resorption))||In the PP population, the paired difference between SLActive® and SLA® bone level change from baseline (CFB) was estimated at 0.01 mm with a standard deviation of 0.444 mm (95% CI: -Inf, 0.11; p = 0.074), based on a one-sided paired t-test with a non-inferiority margin of 0.10 mm.|||0.074
95942560|NCT05423730|191853713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|27.69|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||27.69|-0.77|
95942561|NCT05423730|191853714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|21.24|||||Estimates represent percentage change in log-transformed hormone levels for wine versus grape juice from linear mixed models including participant as a random effect and interaction terms for drink and sequence (Kenward approach).|||21.24|-21.92|
95942562|NCT00971087|191853762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|3D + s2D will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit one-sided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05. That is, our null hypothesis is that the AUC for 3D + s2D is 0.05 less than the AUC for 2D FFDM. A difference of 0.05 is considered a clinically significant difference.||||||0.009|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3D + s2D to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance.||||0.009
95942563|NCT00971087|191853763|NON_INFERIORITY|A multi-reader, multi-case ROC analysis will be used to compare 3DS to 2D FFDM. The areas under the curve (AUC) will be used to compare ROC performance. 3DS will be considered non-inferior to 2D FFDM if the lower limit onesided 95% CI for the difference in AUCs (3DS minus 2D FFDM) is greater than -0.05.||||||0.045|||||||MRMC ROC Analysis|||||||0.045
95942564|NCT00677365|191853785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.38||Repeated Measure Model|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference||-0.38|-1.54|0.0014
95942565|NCT00677365|191853786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.52|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio for need of anti-pseudomonal antimicrobials; Estimates are obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including terms for treatment, region, baseline P.aeruginosa density (log10 ), highest baseline MIC of levofloxacin against P. aeruginosa (log2 ), and baseline percent predicted FEV1 (quartiles)||0.52|0.09|0.0007
95942566|NCT00677365|191853787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.61||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between MP-376 240 mg and Placebo groups||14.17|3.05|0.0026
95748047|NCT01833533|191468159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI (calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution)for the difference in percentage of participants must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.5|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥90% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm (100 participants) and ≥85% in the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (200 participants) provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV arm compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV arm (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||-1.5|-12.0|
95748048|NCT00530348|191468193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariates was used.||1.23|0.40|0.2173
95748049|NCT00530348|191468194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.63|0.32|<0.0001
95748050|NCT00530348|191468195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation, covariate adjustment for geographic region, was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||0.61|0.33|<0.0001
95748051|NCT00530348|191468196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.4188
95797854|NCT02081807|191565093|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
95748052|NCT00530348|191468197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0115|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by MSFC. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.0115
95748053|NCT00530348|191468198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and baseline T2 lesion volume was used. Secondary endpoints were analyzed sequentially as: Proportion of participants relapse free at Year 2, Change from baseline in EDSS, Percent change from Baseline in magnetic resonance imaging-T2 hyperintense lesion volume at Year 2, Acquisition of disability measured by multiple sclerosis functional composite. Each endpoint could only be formally tested if prior endpoint was significant.||||0.3080
95942567|NCT00677365|191853788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference Between Placebo and MP-376 240 mg BID groups||17.25|4.63|0.0008
95942568|NCT00677365|191853789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference from MP-376 240 mg BID to placebo groups||11.67|-2.68|0.2174
95942569|NCT02577354|191853809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Cui p-value adjustment for sample size re-estimation at interim analysis; Multiple imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.138
95990006|NCT00915343|191954760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.078||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.094|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Patient||0.094|-0.250|0.3767
95990007|NCT00915343|191954760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean|-0.064||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.107|||Fisher's test|Fisher's non||Investigator||0.107|-0.235|0.4625
95797855|NCT02081807|191565094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||3.30|1.03|
95942570|NCT02577354|191853810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
95942571|NCT02577354|191853811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Friedman's regression analysis|Multiple Imputation utilized for 3 participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.0499
95942572|NCT02577354|191853813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95990008|NCT00915343|191954761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Patient||||0.6072
95990009|NCT00915343|191954761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||Investigator||||1.0000
95990010|NCT00915343|191954762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.6||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.3332
95748054|NCT00983476|191468230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .27 (p=.08); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .29 (p=.06).|Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.11
95748055|NCT00983476|191468231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: In-person MOVE SMI visit x group Beta estimate is .40 (p=.02); Reference group is Web-based MOVE SMI: Usual care plus handouts visit x group Beta estimate is .44 (p=.01).|In the obese sample, difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) by study arm at 6 months after controlling for BMI 6 months prior to baseline using a repeated measures mixed model with arm, time, and the interaction of arm by time||||0.02
95748056|NCT00983476|191468232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was not statistically significant.|||||0.32
95748057|NCT00983476|191468233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.11
95748058|NCT00983476|191468234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.47
95748059|NCT00983476|191468235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.51
95748060|NCT00983476|191468236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||No comparison between groups was conducted because overall model test was NS.|||||0.83
95748061|NCT02462486|191468250|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||2.4|-5.0|
95942573|NCT02577354|191853814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95748062|NCT02462486|191468250|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of the 95.1% confidence interval for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab is greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar group is established.|Percentage Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||-0.5|-9.0|
95748063|NCT02462486|191468251|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.4|2.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.0|-2.4|
95748064|NCT02462486|191468251|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|0.6|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-3.8|
95748065|NCT02462486|191468252|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.1|14.0|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.0|-7.1|
95748066|NCT02462486|191468252|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|16.5|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-baseline CRT interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||16.5|-4.7|
95748067|NCT02462486|191468253|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|8.4|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||8.4|-5.5|
95748068|NCT02462486|191468253|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||4.5|-9.1|
95748069|NCT02462486|191468254|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.5|0.3|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-3.5|
95748070|NCT02462486|191468254|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.9|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment group, region, baseline BCVA in the study eye, baseline VFQ score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-3.9|
95942574|NCT02577354|191853815|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95748071|NCT02412722|191468308|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.76||||||||0.76|0.46|
95942575|NCT02577354|191853816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95942576|NCT02577354|191853817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.335
95748072|NCT02412722|191468309|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.36||||||||1.36|0.59|
95748073|NCT02412722|191468310|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.49||||||||1.49|0.72|
95748074|NCT02412722|191468314|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.47||||||||1.47|0.78|
95748075|NCT02412722|191468315|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.68||||||||1.68|0.75|
95748076|NCT02412722|191468316|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.26||||||||1.26|0.67|
95748077|NCT02740179|191468371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||P value for Change in Coronary Flow Reserve on Cardiac PET|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95748078|NCT02740179|191468372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P value for Change in Stress Myocardial Blood Flow on Cardiac MRI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95748079|NCT02740179|191468373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
95942577|NCT02577354|191853825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Wald asymptotic test of proportions|Multiple imputation used for three participants lost to follow-up.||||||0.048
95942578|NCT02577354|191853826|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"P-value for Satisfied with Treatment. Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95748080|NCT02740179|191468374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
95748081|NCT02740179|191468375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed on log transformation of data||||||0.03
95748082|NCT02740179|191468376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P value for Change in Plasma IL-6|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.09
95748083|NCT02740179|191468377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P value for Change in Plasma hsCRP|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.36
95748084|NCT02740179|191468378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P value for Change in Plasma MCP-1|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.88
95748085|NCT02740179|191468379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P value for Change in Plasma sCD163|t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.17
95748086|NCT02740179|191468380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Analyses performed after log transformation of data||||||0.28
95748087|NCT02740179|191468381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
95748088|NCT02740179|191468382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95748089|NCT02740179|191468383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
95748090|NCT02740179|191468384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
95748091|NCT02740179|191468385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
95748092|NCT02740179|191468386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95748093|NCT02776553|191468399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
95942579|NCT02577354|191853828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95990011|NCT00915343|191954762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|0.9||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||Comparison of Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3405
95748094|NCT02776553|191468400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95748095|NCT02776553|191468401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
95748096|NCT03827018|191468409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.92||Comparison of KPL-301 and placebo with respect to time to flare calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by randomization strata.|||0.92|0.15|0.0263
95748097|NCT03827018|191468410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|33.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|55.8||Two-sided p-value and 95% CI for the difference in sustained remission between two arms using normal approximation. Placebo arm is the reference.|normal approximation|||Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||55.8|10.7|0.0038
95748098|NCT03827018|191468411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.95|0.27|0.0277
95748099|NCT03827018|191468412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||0.98|0.19|0.0378
95748100|NCT03827018|191468413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06||Calculated by using a log-rank test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate, and stratified by randomization strata.|Secondary endpoints were analyzed in hierarchical order.||1.06|0.22|0.0651
95748101|NCT03827018|191468414|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-326.45||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-675.99|23.09||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.09|-675.99|0.0667
95748102|NCT03827018|191468415|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|31.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|50.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.8|11.1|0.0201
95748103|NCT03827018|191468416|OTHER|Descriptive statistic|Difference in percentages|9.5||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|27.8||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-8.7|0.5533
95748104|NCT03827018|191468417|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Difference in percentages|39.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|61.3||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||61.3|17.2|0.0031
95942580|NCT04173247|191853835|OTHER|A t-test with 180 degrees of freedom to compare the mean DLQI score over the 6 weeks in arm1 to the mean DLQI score over six weeks in arm2.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
95990012|NCT00915343|191954763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Physical Component Score||||0.8418
95797856|NCT02081807|191565094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.71|0.65|
95748105|NCT03827018|191468418|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Least Squares (LS) means difference|-380.82||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-919.66|158.02||Calculated using ANCOVA with treatment arm and randomization strata as discrete variables, and corticosteroid starting dose as a continuous variable|ANCOVA|||||158.02|-919.66|0.1629
95797857|NCT02081807|191565094|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.10|
95942581|NCT04214834|191853839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Given that the model was on the log scale, mean difference and 95% confidence interval were derived from 1,000 bootstrap resamples.|A logarithmic transformation was applied to the outcome, centers were added as random effects to account for variation between them.||4.29|1.70|<0.001
95942582|NCT01116895|191853861|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-32.6|0.89
95748106|NCT02148445|191468462|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%.||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
95748107|NCT02148445|191468463|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior studies using precessation NRT, we estimate a 2-fold increase in cessation outcomes in the GMT group compared to the SC group. Given our recruitment of patients at all levels of readiness to quit, we estimate a 12 month cessation rate of 10%. With 199 participants, in each arm, we will have an 80% power to detect a 2-fold difference or greater with a Type I error rate of 5%. This sample size will provide comparable power for looking at 6 month sustained cessation.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
95748108|NCT02148445|191468464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95748109|NCT02148445|191468465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95942583|NCT01116895|191853861|OTHER||Least square mean difference|4.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|35.3|||ANOVA|||||35.3|-26.2|0.77
95797858|NCT02081807|191565095|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.12|0.63|
95942584|NCT01116895|191853861|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|22.8|||ANOVA|||||22.8|-36.2|0.65
95942585|NCT03812614|191853920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in HbA1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language.||1.14|-0.05|0.07
95942586|NCT03812614|191853921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the change in A1c as a function of time (included using restricted cubic splines), the interaction between time and intervention arm, baseline A1c and whether PT-SP live together (stratification variables), baseline insulin use, age, vital hunger, and preferred language||0.64|-0.67|0.96
95748110|NCT02148445|191468466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95748111|NCT02148445|191468467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
95748112|NCT02148445|191468468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
95748113|NCT02148445|191468469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95748114|NCT02148445|191468470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95748115|NCT02148445|191468472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 self-reported abstinence||||0.08
95748116|NCT02148445|191468472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 3 biochemically verified abstinence||||0.06
95748117|NCT02148445|191468472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, self-reported abstinence||||0.22
95748118|NCT02148445|191468472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6, biochemically verified abstinence||||0.34
95748119|NCT02148445|191468472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12, self-reported abstinence||||0.66
95748120|NCT02148445|191468473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
95748121|NCT02148445|191468474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95748122|NCT02148445|191468475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95748123|NCT02148445|191468476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95748124|NCT02148445|191468477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0918|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0918
95748125|NCT03450629|191468478|EQUIVALENCE|8 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
95748126|NCT03450629|191468478|EQUIVALENCE|10 AM +/- 30 min||||||0.0291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0291
95748127|NCT03450629|191468478|EQUIVALENCE|4 PM +/- 30 min||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95748128|NCT02792218|191468479|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.495|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.655|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.655|0.375|<0.001
95748129|NCT02792218|191468480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
95797859|NCT02081807|191565095|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.96|0.57|
95748130|NCT02792218|191468481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|0.956|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.956|0.445|0.029
95748131|NCT02792218|191468482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
95748132|NCT02792218|191468483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||0.930|0.396|0.022
95748133|NCT02792218|191468484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.952|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.952|0.952|0.092
95797860|NCT02081807|191565095|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.94|0.45|
95797861|NCT02081807|191565096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.78|0.18|
95797862|NCT02081807|191565096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.72|0.58|
95797863|NCT02081807|191565096|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.87|0.38|
95797864|NCT02081807|191565098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.59|0.25|
95942587|NCT03812614|191853922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||3.38|-6.40|0.55
95797865|NCT02081807|191565098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.95|0.51|
95942588|NCT03812614|191853923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient SBP was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||10.91|0.57|0.03
95797866|NCT02081807|191565098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.03|0.43|
95748134|NCT02792218|191468485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.983|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2302 to address this endpoint.||1.983|0.709|0.516
95748135|NCT02792218|191468486|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.049|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.049|0.013|<.001
95748136|NCT02792218|191468487|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.33|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.33|0.21|<.001
95748137|NCT02792218|191468487|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.34|0.15|<.001
95748138|NCT02792218|191468487|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.22|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.22|0.15|<.001
95748139|NCT02792218|191468488|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.98|0.89|0.011
95748140|NCT02792218|191468488|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.77|0.69|<.001
95748141|NCT02792218|191468488|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.82|0.72|<.001
95942589|NCT03812614|191853924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.58|-2.15|0.76
95942590|NCT03812614|191853925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient diabetes distress was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.46|-2.11|0.72
95942591|NCT03812614|191853926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Change in patient health eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.29|-0.76|0.38
95942592|NCT03812614|191853927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient physical activity was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-1.11|0.70
95942593|NCT03812614|191853928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.74|-0.53|0.75
95942594|NCT03812614|191853928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.91|-0.98|0.94
95942595|NCT03812614|191853928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.46|0.42
95748142|NCT02792218|191468489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.118
95942596|NCT03812614|191853929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient self-efficacy was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.52|-0.54|0.96
95748143|NCT02792218|191468492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||||0.847|0.486|0.002
95748144|NCT02792218|191468493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||||0.898|0.481|0.008
95748145|NCT01557582|191468516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EDV percent difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.56|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EDV|||7.56|2.24|
95748146|NCT01557582|191468516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ESV percent difference|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.76|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for ESV|||4.76|-1.17|
95748147|NCT01557582|191468516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||EF percent difference|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.33|||||Mean percent difference and 95% CI for EF|||3.33|0.72|
95748148|NCT02723773|191468526|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.72|84.61|||Poisson regression method||VE=1 - the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||84.61|73.72|
95748149|NCT02723773|191468527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.55|93.36|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||93.36|75.55|
95748150|NCT02723773|191468527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.17|94.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||94.35|74.17|
95748151|NCT02723773|191468527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|77.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|83.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||83.14|69.37|
95748152|NCT02723773|191468527|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|80.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||80.92|62.94|
95748153|NCT02723773|191468528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.89|90.12|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50 YOA Group.||90.12|84.89|
95748154|NCT02723773|191468528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.25|95.37|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||95.37|86.25|
95748155|NCT02723773|191468528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.66|96.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||96.24|86.66|
95942597|NCT03812614|191853930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||9.78|-3.92|0.40
95942598|NCT03812614|191853931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.68|-0.18|0.11
95942599|NCT03812614|191853932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.55|-0.19|0.34
95942600|NCT03812614|191853934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.23|-2.67|0.47
95748156|NCT02723773|191468528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.98|89.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||89.33|82.98|
95950225|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥0.1 IU/mL for that antigen.||2|-2|
95748157|NCT02723773|191468528|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.91|87.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||87.93|79.91|
95748158|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.07|99.53|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.53|93.07|
95748159|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.57|99.92|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.92|80.57|
95858796|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|6.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.377|2.068|0.0001
95942601|NCT03812614|191853935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||0.27|-0.78|0.35
95942602|NCT03812614|191853936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient healthy eating was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.01|-1.00|0.06
95942603|NCT03812614|191853937|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.54|-1.22|0.45
95942604|NCT03812614|191853938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient diabetes medication adherence was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.35|-0.86|0.40
95942605|NCT03812614|191853938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient blood pressure medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.88|-0.90|0.98
95942606|NCT03812614|191853938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient cholesterol medication adherence (days/week meds were taken) was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6month change in patient A1c). Analyses were ITT and thus based on data from all enrolled patients.||0.61|-1.42|0.43
95942607|NCT03812614|191853939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|||0.01|-1.00|0.06
95942608|NCT03812614|191853940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient activation was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||6.49|-7.22|0.92
95942609|NCT03812614|191853941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient satisfaction with SP support was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||1.99|0.21|0.02
95942610|NCT03812614|191853942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Change in patient perception of supportive and non-supportive behaviors was analyzed in a manner similar to that described for the primary outcome (6-month change in patient A1c).||0.70|-0.01|0.06
95942611|NCT03812614|191853943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.|Positive coefficient favors I-DSMES; negative coefficient favors FAM-ACT|4.57|-2.19|0.49
95942612|NCT03812614|191853944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive coefficient favors FAM-ACT; negative coefficient favors I-DSMES|Support Persons (SPs) were surveyed twice, once at baseline and again at the end of their participation in the study. For SPs enrolled before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=77), the follow-up survey was conducted at 12 months. Due to factors related to the pandemic, the length of the protocol was reduced from 12 to 6 months. Thus, SPs enrolled after the pandemic started (n=145) received their follow-up survey at 6 months, and 6-month change was used for predetermined SP outcomes.||1.66|-0.09|0.08
95942613|NCT05652010|191853945|OTHER|Comparative study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2634|1.2659||P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model. As it was an exploratory study no adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.|P=0.164 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||1.2659|0.2634|0.164
95942614|NCT05652010|191853946|OTHER||Binominal|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Exact test in the binomial distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of very satisfied/satisfied was sign. different from 50% when using a 5% test level|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|||0.97|0.75|<0.0001
95942615|NCT05652010|191853947|OTHER|The binomial proportion is based on subjects that have answered the questions. Exact test in the binomial distribution.|Binominal|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Exact test in the binominal distribution|Exact test in the binomial distribution tested if the proportion of YES was significantly different from 50% when using a 5% test level||||0.92|0.66|<0.0001
95748160|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.32|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 1.||100.00|79.32|
95748161|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|99.76|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.76|92.46|
95748162|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.96|99.71|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 1.||99.71|90.96|
95748163|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.15|96.57|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.57|86.15|
95748164|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.78|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.15|70.78|
95797867|NCT02081807|191565099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.67|
95797868|NCT02081807|191565099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.97|
95797869|NCT02081807|191565099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.63|0.47|
95858797|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|6.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.501|2.220|<.0001
95942616|NCT05652010|191853948|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.259||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.855||P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model|P=0.027 for testing the hypothesis that OR=1|||0.855|0.078|0.027
95942617|NCT04490109|191853951|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0148|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0148
95942618|NCT04490109|191853951|SUPERIORITY|The ANCOVA model for primary endpoint change from Baseline to Week 4 in average WI-NRS will have treatment group and Baseline weekly average WI-NRS as explanatory variables. Hypothesis will be tested using a Dunnett Testing Method, applying pairwise comparisons of each group to vehicle using a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10. Treatment effect will be estimated as least squares means using vehicle as reference and adjusted using Dunnett Testing Method and presented with one-sided 90% CI.||||||0.0143|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 576 subjects may be enrolled to account for 16.7% drop out rate prior to completing the study. A total of 160 evaluable subjects per group are required to achieve at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in mean WI-NRS change from Baseline to Week 4 between one of two active doses of B244 and vehicle control when assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 and applying a Dunnett Testing Method at a one-sided familywise error rate of 0.10.||||0.0143
95942619|NCT04490109|191853953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0205
95797870|NCT02081807|191565100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.77|
95942620|NCT04490109|191853954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0044
95942621|NCT04490109|191853954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0077
95942622|NCT04490109|191853955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0400
95942623|NCT04490109|191853955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0486
95942624|NCT04490109|191853957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0246
95942625|NCT04490109|191853957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0366
95990013|NCT00915343|191954763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Change From Baseline to 6 months in Quality of Life (QoL) Assessed by Short Form-36 Survey (SF-36) For Mental Component Score||||0.3550
95748165|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|95.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.11|99.89|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 2.||99.89|72.11|
95748166|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.13|96.93|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.93|85.13|
95748167|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.82|96.88|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 2.||96.88|82.82|
95942626|NCT04490109|191853958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The frequency and rate of WI-NRS and AI-NRS responders will be reported and compared between treatment groups using a logistic regression model. Generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures and within-subject variability may also be applied.||||0.0467
95942627|NCT04490109|191853959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0293
95942628|NCT04490109|191853960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0045
95942629|NCT04490109|191853960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0043
95990014|NCT00915343|191954764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-2.9||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0823
95990015|NCT00915343|191954765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5982
95748168|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.98|96.59|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 3.||96.59|84.98|
95748169|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.20|
95748170|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.39|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 3.||100.00|89.39|
95748171|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|95.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 3.||95.51|79.81|
95748172|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.99|93.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 3.||93.35|68.99|
95748173|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.31|95.24|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.24|80.31|
95748174|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.62|99.85|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.85|60.62|
95748175|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|99.04|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 4.||99.04|66.10|
95748176|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.96|95.13|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.13|77.96|
95748177|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|95.33|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 4.||95.33|73.30|
95748178|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.31|92.63|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.63|68.31|
95748179|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.83|98.61|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 6.||98.61|46.83|
95748180|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.79|99.82|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 6.||99.82|48.79|
95858798|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.236|6.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.861|2.236|0.0001
95942630|NCT04490109|191853961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0026
95748181|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.64|93.05|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 6.||93.05|63.64|
95748182|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|92.5|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 6.||92.50|54.30|
95748183|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|83.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.76|92.51|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.51|67.76|
95748184|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|93.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.67|99.84|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 7.||99.84|56.67|
95748185|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 7.||98.31|32.04|
95797871|NCT02081807|191565100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.36|1.07|
95797872|NCT02081807|191565100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.72|0.48|
95797873|NCT02081807|191565101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.80|0.44|
95797874|NCT02081807|191565101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.57|0.98|
95797875|NCT02081807|191565101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.54|
95797876|NCT02081807|191565102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.08|0.79|
95797877|NCT02081807|191565102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.35|1.05|
95797878|NCT02081807|191565102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.44|
95797879|NCT02081807|191565104|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|78.0|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||078|0.59|
95797880|NCT02081807|191565104|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.16|0.93|
95748186|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.54|91.58|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 7.||91.58|59.54|
95858799|NCT02952820|191675386|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.373|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sSE as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||6.960|2.373|<.0001
95942631|NCT04490109|191853961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0005
95942632|NCT04490109|191853962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0348
95942633|NCT04490109|191853962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference in treatment groups in change from Baseline values at post-baseline visits will be analyzed using a mixed model with repeated measures.||||0.0173
95942634|NCT04490109|191853963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0228
95942635|NCT04490109|191853963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0015
95942636|NCT04490109|191853964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0003
95942637|NCT04490109|191853965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0195
95942638|NCT04490109|191853966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0365
95990016|NCT00915343|191954766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|2.3||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's test|Fisher's non-parametric two-sample permutation test||||||0.0632
95942639|NCT04490109|191853967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0086
95942640|NCT04490109|191853967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0035
95942641|NCT04490109|191853968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0074
95942642|NCT04490109|191853968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Responder rates for IGA and EASI will be summarized using descriptive statistics and analyzed using a logistic regression model at each respective timepoints.||||0.0008
95942643|NCT02994927|191854003|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|< 0.0001
95942644|NCT02994927|191854003|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving disease remission at Week 26 and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|3.4|||=|0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|12.8|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||12.8|-6.0|= 0.2387
95942645|NCT02994927|191854004|NON_INFERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|< 0.0001
95990017|NCT00915343|191954767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.8676
95990018|NCT00915343|191954768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9700
95990019|NCT00915343|191954769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.2624
95990020|NCT00915343|191954770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95990021|NCT00915343|191954772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
95990022|NCT00915343|191954773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-272.3||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0034
95990023|NCT01318109|191954774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|-0.579||||||||-0.579|-0.923|
95748187|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|78.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|92.08|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 7.||92.08|51.24|
95748188|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.98|92.14|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.14|65.98|
95942646|NCT02994927|191854004|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of subjects achieving sustained disease remission at Week 52, and the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference in proportions (avacopan minus prednisone) was estimated for the comparison between the avacopan group and the prednisone group. For both the noninferiority and superiority tests, the one-sided P-values are presented. Statistical significance was claimed based on the one-sided type-I error of 0.025.|Common difference in remission rates|12.5|||=|0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.3|||Summary score test||Summary Score estimate of the common difference and Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits for the common difference|||22.3|2.6|= 0.0066
95748189|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.52|42.67|
95748190|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.04|98.31|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 8.||98.31|32.04|
95748191|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.97|92.45|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 8.||92.45|59.97|
95748192|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.91|93.4|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 8.||93.40|52.91|
95748193|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.89|86.16|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 9.||86.16|52.89|
95797881|NCT02081807|191565104|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.67|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.67|0.47|
95942647|NCT05525104|191854037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
95942648|NCT05525104|191854038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
95797882|NCT02081807|191565105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.82|0.34|
95797883|NCT02081807|191565105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.29|0.55|
95942649|NCT05525104|191854042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95942650|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.30|-0.12|0.4641
95942651|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||LS means difference||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.21|-0.21|0.9894
95990024|NCT01318109|191954774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.019|-0.697||||||||-0.697|-1.019|
95797884|NCT02081807|191565105|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.42|0.41|
95797885|NCT02081807|191565106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.15|0.60|
95748194|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|90.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 9.||90.52|3.52|
95748195|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|95.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 9.||95.11|-3.24|
95748196|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|89.35|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 9.||89.35|51.78|
95748197|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|75.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|91.07|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 9.||91.07|43.69|
95797886|NCT02081807|191565106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.14|0.63|
95797887|NCT02081807|191565106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.18|0.53|
95942652|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-0.52|0.0199
95942653|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.11|-0.34|0.3907
95942654|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.38|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.38|-0.17|0.5393
95942655|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.24|-0.33|0.7931
95797888|NCT02081807|191565107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.84|0.50|
95797889|NCT02081807|191565107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.01|0.69|
95797890|NCT02081807|191565107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.76|0.37|
95797891|NCT02081807|191565108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic-Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.88|0.47|
95942656|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.35|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.35|-0.92|0.0004
95942657|NCT02865538|191854097|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.13|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.13|-0.45|0.3739
95990025|NCT01318109|191954775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.247|
95748198|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|71.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|85.18|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 10.||85.18|49.03|
95748199|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.89|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 10.||100.00|77.89|
95748200|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.71|99.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 10.||99.77|29.71|
95748201|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|60.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.55|79.83|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 10.||79.83|26.55|
95748202|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|74.87|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 10.||74.87|-2.41|
95748203|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.03|92.22|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.22|63.03|
95748204|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.67|98.52|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group over Year 11.||98.52|42.67|
95797892|NCT02081807|191565108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.65|
95797893|NCT02081807|191565108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.92|0.39|
95797894|NCT02081807|191565109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.04|0.47|
95942658|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.077||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|10.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||10.42|0.16|0.0900
95942659|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.55|0.63|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||0.63|-9.55|0.1487
95942660|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-5.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-5.15|-15.20|0.0012
95942661|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.142||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.37|-0.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.90|-11.37|0.0548
95942662|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.337||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|12.15|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||12.15|1.03|0.0522
95942663|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.61|0.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.48|-10.61|0.1326
95990026|NCT01318109|191954775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.143||||||||-0.143|-0.242|
95748205|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.07|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group over Year 11.||100.00|65.07|
95748206|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|79.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.82|92.3|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group over Year 11.||92.30|52.82|
95748207|NCT02723773|191468529|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.41|89.77|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group over Year 11.||89.77|33.41|
95748208|NCT02723773|191468530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.75|96.79|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control\>=50 YOA Group.||96.79|64.75|
95748209|NCT02723773|191468530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group over Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 50-59 YOA Group and Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|46.59|
95748210|NCT02723773|191468530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-860.45|99.15|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.15|-860.45|
95748211|NCT02723773|191468530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.66|95.95|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||95.95|53.66|
95748212|NCT02723773|191468530|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|86.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.83|97.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||97.49|56.83|
95942664|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.73|-6.83|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-6.83|-17.73|0.0004
95942665|NCT02865538|191854098|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.408||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.47|-2.11|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-2.11|-13.47|0.0253
95942666|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||4.0|-1.2|0.3796
95855461|NCT01342211|191670567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.514|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.08|-30.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, background statin, treatment by background statin interaction, and baseline.||-30.14|-68.08|<0.0001
95942667|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|0.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||0.3|-4.9|0.1413
95942668|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|-2.9|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-2.9|-8.1|0.0007
95942669|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 7 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-5.8|0.0624
95942670|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|3.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||3.3|-0.7|0.2930
95942671|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|-0.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-0.4|-4.4|0.0512
95942672|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-3.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-3.0|-7.0|<0.0001
95748213|NCT02723773|191468531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|89.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.67|95.7|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||95.70|78.67|
95748214|NCT02723773|191468531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.79|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|77.79|
95748215|NCT02723773|191468531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|74.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.17|99.49|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||99.49|-155.17|
95748216|NCT02723773|191468531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.29|94.72|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||94.72|73.29|
95748217|NCT02723773|191468531|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.87|95.41|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||95.41|73.87|
95942673|NCT02865538|191854099|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-1.3|||Linear mixed-effects model||Day 14 Change from Day -1|||-1.3|-5.5|0.0080
95797895|NCT02081807|191565109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||1.05|0.60|
95797896|NCT02081807|191565109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.||This is a pooled analysis involving data from both MarketScan and Optum databases. MarketScan and Optum Clinformatic- Apixaban vs. Warfarin (as reference group).||0.73|0.24|
95855462|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||13.92|0.10|0.8998
95942674|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||1.80|-0.12|0.1482
95942675|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.09|-1.99|0.0734
95942676|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|-0.86|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.86|-2.74|0.0022
95942677|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.12|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 1|||-0.12|-2.08|0.0660
95942678|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|2.20|0.15|0.0593
95942679|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||0.10|-1.95|0.1354
95990027|NCT01318109|191954776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.303||||||||-0.303|-0.469|
95990028|NCT01318109|191954776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|-0.323||||||||-0.323|-0.484|
95942680|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|-1.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-1.20|-3.21|0.0005
95942681|NCT02865538|191854100|OTHER|Descriptive Analysis|LS means difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|-0.34|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Week -1 to Week 2|||-0.34|-2.43|0.0309
95942682|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|8.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||8.5|-27.8|0.3768
95990029|NCT01318109|191954777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.621|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|-0.486||||||||-0.486|-0.757|
95990030|NCT01318109|191954777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.569||||||||-0.569|-0.814|
95748218|NCT02723773|191468532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.68|99.81|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group over Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=50 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.81|43.68|
95748219|NCT02723773|191468532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-247.21|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control 60-69YOA Group over Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control 60-69 YOA Group and Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|-247.21|
95748220|NCT02723773|191468532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.45|99.79|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=60YOA Group over Historical Control \>=60YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=60 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.79|37.45|
95748221|NCT02723773|191468532|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|99.75|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of LTFU+Control \>=70YOA Group over Historical Control \>=70YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between LTFU+Control \>=70 YOA Group and Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||99.75|19.81|
95748222|NCT02723773|191468533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.57|99.17|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=50 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=50 YOA Group.||99.17|71.57|
95748223|NCT02723773|191468533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1830.98|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 50-59YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 50-59YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 50-59 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 50-59 YOA Group.||100.00|-1830.98|
95748224|NCT02723773|191468533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.55|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE=1-RR. RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su 60-69YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control 60-69YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su 60-69 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control 60-69 YOA Group.||100.00|17.55|
95748225|NCT02723773|191468533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|92.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.17|99.11|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=60 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=60 YOA Group.||99.11|69.17|
95748226|NCT02723773|191468533|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|Vaccine efficacy|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.93|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE = 1 - RR. RR = the ratio of the incidence rates of HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group over Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group. The VE of HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications in this study was descriptively summarized by age strata and overall.|Comparison of vaccine efficacy (VE) in prevention of HZ related complications between HZ/su \>=70 YOA Group and Placebo/Historical Control \>=70 YOA Group.||98.91|60.93|
95797897|NCT00984867|191565110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives, based on data from both strata combined|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
95855463|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.063||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||19.48|0.22|0.5273
95942683|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.1|-6.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-6.8|-43.1|0.0248
95942684|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-43.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.1|-25.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-25.8|-62.1|0.0001
95748227|NCT01730040|191468664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.9|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-22.2|-55.9|< 0.0001
95748228|NCT01730040|191468664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.7|-6.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-6.5|-40.7|= 0.0004
95748229|NCT01730040|191468664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-65.0|-33.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-33.5|-65|< 0.0001
95748230|NCT01730040|191468664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.4|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.9|-48.4|< 0.0001
95748231|NCT01730040|191468664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.4|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-47.4|<0.0001
95748232|NCT01730040|191468665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-59.2|-25.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1% level.||-25.7|-59.2|< 0.0001
95748233|NCT01730040|191468665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.9|-7.8||Threshold for significance≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.8|-41.9|= 0.0002
95748234|NCT01730040|191468665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-69.2|-36.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-36.5|-69.2|< 0.0001
95748235|NCT01730040|191468665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.3|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-51.3|< 0.0001
95797898|NCT00984867|191565111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
95748236|NCT01730040|191468665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.0|-16.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.8|-50.0|< 0.0001
95858800|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-14.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.614|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.411|-7.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.245|-21.411|<.0001
95858801|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.813|-9.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-9.626|-23.813|<.0001
95748237|NCT01730040|191468666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.0|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.6|-54|<0.0001
95748238|NCT01730040|191468666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.0|<0.0001
95748239|NCT01730040|191468666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.7|-24.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.3|-47.7|<0.0001
95748240|NCT01730040|191468666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.2|-15.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.4|-39.2|<0.0001
95748241|NCT01730040|191468666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.8|-8.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.9|-32.8|<0.0001
95748242|NCT01730040|191468667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-55.8|-33.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-33.1|-55.8|<0.0001
95748243|NCT01730040|191468667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-38.0|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-38.0|<0.0001
95748244|NCT01730040|191468667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-48.1|-24.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-24.5|-48.1|<0.0001
95797899|NCT00984867|191565112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1106|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-0.62|-1.05|<0.0001
95942685|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-42.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.9|-23.8|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 1|||-23.8|-61.9|0.0004
95748245|NCT01730040|191468667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.6|-15.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.8|-39.6|<0.0001
95748246|NCT01730040|191468667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.2|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-32.2|<0.0001
95748247|NCT01730040|191468668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.6|-42.0|<0.0001
95748248|NCT01730040|191468668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-10.7|-36.6|<0.0001
95748249|NCT01730040|191468668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-50.8|-26.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-26.0|-50.8|<0.0001
95748250|NCT01730040|191468668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.2|-18.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.6|-43.2|<0.0001
95748251|NCT01730040|191468668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.1|-15.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.1|-40.1|<0.0001
95748252|NCT01730040|191468669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.6|-20.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.6|-44.6|<0.0001
95748253|NCT01730040|191468669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-37.3|<0.0001
95748254|NCT01730040|191468669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-51.2|-25.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-25.4|-51.2|<0.0001
95748255|NCT01730040|191468669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.6|-17.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.1|-42.6|<0.0001
95748256|NCT01730040|191468669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-13.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.4|-39.4|<0.0001
95748257|NCT01730040|191468670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-44.7|-16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-16.1|-44.7|<0.0001
95748258|NCT01730040|191468670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.1|-7.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.1|-36.1|=0.0002
95942686|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|35.1|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||35.1|-14.2|0.4819
95990031|NCT01318109|191954778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-12.4||||||||-12.40|-26.12|
95748259|NCT01730040|191468670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-54.7|-27.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-27.5|-54.7|<0.0001
95748260|NCT01730040|191468670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.7|-16.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.6|-43.7|<0.0001
95748261|NCT01730040|191468670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.8|-40.3|<0.0001
95942687|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1|22.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||22.2|-27.1|0.8694
95748262|NCT01730040|191468671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-47.0|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-19.0|-47.0|<0.0001
95942688|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.79||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.6|0.7|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||0.7|-48.6|0.1105
95990032|NCT01318109|191954778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-16.12||||||||-16.12|-30.43|
95748263|NCT01730040|191468671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.6|-8.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.1|-36.6|<0.0001
95748264|NCT01730040|191468671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-57.4|-29.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-29.7|-57.4|<0.0001
95942689|NCT02865538|191854101|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|LS means difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5||0.239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.2|7.4|||Linear mixed-effects model||Change from Day -1 to Day 7|||7.4|-44.2|0.2390
95990033|NCT01318109|191954779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.54|-10.66||||||||-10.66|-24.54|
95990034|NCT01318109|191954779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-14.39||||||||-14.39|-28.32|
95748265|NCT01730040|191468671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-46.0|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.3|-46.0|<0.0001
95942690|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.837||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.837
95942691|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.428||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.428
95942692|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.269||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.269
95942693|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.015||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.015
95942694|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.163||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.163
95942695|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.14||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.140
95990035|NCT01318109|191954780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|-11.79||||||||-11.79|-25.95|
95990036|NCT01318109|191954780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|-10.9||||||||-10.90|-25.43|
95748266|NCT01730040|191468671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.4|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-13.2|-41.4|<0.0001
95748267|NCT01730040|191468672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.9|-13.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.2|-32.9|<0.0001
95748268|NCT01730040|191468672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.8|-5.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-5.8|-25.8|<0.0001
95797900|NCT00984867|191565113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-21.4||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-21.40|-34.45|<0.0001
95942696|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.079||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.079
95990037|NCT01318109|191954781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-10.16||||||||-10.16|-26.32|
95748269|NCT01730040|191468672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.4|-18.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.4|-39.4|<0.0001
95748270|NCT01730040|191468672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.4|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-32.4|<0.0001
95748271|NCT01730040|191468672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-29.1|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-29.1|<0.0001
95748272|NCT01730040|191468673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-41.6|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.3|-41.6|<0.0001
95748273|NCT01730040|191468673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.4|-15.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.2|-35.4|<0.0001
95748274|NCT01730040|191468673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.9|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-35.9|<0.0001
95748275|NCT01730040|191468673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.5|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.9|-31.5|<0.0001
95748276|NCT01730040|191468673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-25.2|-6.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-6.6|-25.2|<0.0001
95748277|NCT01730040|191468674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.3|-21.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.6|-45.3|<0.0001
95748278|NCT01730040|191468674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-35.2|<0.0001
95748279|NCT01730040|191468674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.0|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.6|-39.0|<0.0001
95748280|NCT01730040|191468674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-32.3|-12.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.7|-32.3|<0.0001
95748281|NCT01730040|191468674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.7|-4.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-4.9|-24.7|<0.0001
95748282|NCT01730040|191468675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-31.4|-13.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-13.8|-31.4|<0.0001
95748283|NCT01730040|191468675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.6|-7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.0|-24.6|<0.0001
95748284|NCT01730040|191468675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-26.9|-11.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.4|-26.9|<0.0001
95748285|NCT01730040|191468675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-23.3|-7.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.6|-23.3|<0.0001
95748286|NCT01730040|191468675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.7|-1.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-1.9|-17.7|=0.0015
95748287|NCT01730040|191468676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.9|71.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.7|3.9|<0.0001
95748288|NCT01730040|191468676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.8|14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||14.6|0.8|=0.0284
95748289|NCT01730040|191468676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|11.6|596.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||596.8|11.6|<0.0001
95950226|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the routine infant vaccines, when given concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, would be considered non-inferior to that of routine infant vaccines given alone, for Tetanus toxoids antigen, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than or equal to the cut-off level ≥1.0 IU/mL for that antigen.||1|-9|
95748290|NCT01730040|191468676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3|38.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||38.3|1.3|=0.0025
95748291|NCT01730040|191468676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|52.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||52.2|1.6|=0.0011
95748292|NCT01730040|191468677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|128.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.2|1157.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1157|14.2|<0.0001
95748293|NCT01730040|191468677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.6|75.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||75.4|1.6|=0.0015
95748294|NCT01730040|191468677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.7|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.8|101.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||101.1|1.8|=0.0008
95748295|NCT01730040|191468678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|116.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|14.7|927.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||927.5|14.7|<0.0001
95748296|NCT01730040|191468678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.5|68.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||68.8|2.5|<0.0001
95748297|NCT01730040|191468678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.9|51.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||51.9|1.9|=0.0004
95748298|NCT01730040|191468679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|17.3|1520.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1520.5|17.3|<0.0001
95748299|NCT01730040|191468679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|3.1|126.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||126.3|3.1|<0.0001
95748300|NCT01730040|191468679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.2|88.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||88.1|2.2|=0.0002
95748301|NCT01730040|191468680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-36.3|-5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-5.9|-36.3|=0.0004
95748302|NCT01730040|191468680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.2|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.6|-40.2|<0.0001
95748303|NCT01730040|191468680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-45.6|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-45.6|<0.0001
95748304|NCT01730040|191468681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||=|0.4456|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.0|12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant) for atorvastatin 40 mg baseline stratification).||12.9|-7.0|=0.4456
95748305|NCT01552369|191468697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0396
95748306|NCT01552369|191468697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3|||Competing risk regression|Death was considered a competing risk.|The risk of CMV disease is 2.2x higher in the prophylaxis group when compared to the preemptive group|||7.3|1.01|0.048
95748307|NCT01552369|191468698|SUPERIORITY|log-rank test for equality of survivor functions||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
95748308|NCT01552369|191468699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of rejection in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||1.58|0.45|0.60
95797901|NCT00984867|191565114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4659||0.5583||95.0|-3.75|2.03||Not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||2.03|-3.75|0.5583
95855464|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.924||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|490.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||490.67|5.93|0.0004
95990038|NCT01318109|191954781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|-13.88||||||||-13.88|-30.87|
95748309|NCT01552369|191468700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.92|||Mantel Haenszel||The odds of graft loss in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive group|||6.92|0.13|0.96
95748310|NCT01552369|191468701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.69|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of late disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||8.69|1.21|0.014
95942697|NCT06946888|191854102|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.151||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.151
95942698|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.63||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.63
95942699|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.608||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.608
95942700|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.244||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.244
95990039|NCT01318109|191954782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|2.37||||||||2.37|-20.14|
95990040|NCT01318109|191954782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|3.52||||||||3.52|-16.34|
95797902|NCT00984867|191565115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0. The study consisted of two strata: sitagliptin monotherapy group and sitagliptin plus metformin group||-7.90|-21.73|
95990041|NCT01328951|191954784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.22|0.85|0.8183
95990042|NCT01328951|191954784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.32|0.87|0.5256
95990043|NCT01328951|191954785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.45|||Chi-squared|||||7.45|-8.25|0.9207
95748311|NCT01552369|191468702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.23|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of bacterial infection in prophylaxis subjects compared to preemptive|||2.23|0.61|0.64
95855465|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|4214.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4214.35|18.65|<0.0001
95748312|NCT01552369|191468703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.62|||Mantel Haenszel||Odds of fungal disease in prophylaxis group compared to preemptive|||7.62|0.66|0.18
95748313|NCT01552369|191468704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95748314|NCT01552369|191468705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
95748315|NCT01552369|191468706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
95748316|NCT01552369|191468707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
95748317|NCT03694808|191468710|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.89|0.8|
95748318|NCT03694808|191468710|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.38|0.66|
95748319|NCT03694808|191468711|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.15|0.88|
95748320|NCT03694808|191468711|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.4|0.53|
95748321|NCT03694808|191468712|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||2.79|1.23|
95748322|NCT03694808|191468712|NON_INFERIORITY|2-sided t-test performed on log-transformed titers; estimate and 95% confidence interval of log-scale difference exponentiated to generate GMT ratio and its 95% CI below.|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.26|0.61|
95748323|NCT03694808|191468713|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.308|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.308|-0.001|
95748324|NCT03694808|191468713|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.089|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.089|-0.2|
95797903|NCT00984867|191565116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|26.4||Not significant. Hierarchical testing procedure stopped at previous endpoint|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0.||26.4|11.1|
95748325|NCT03694808|191468714|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.373|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.373|0.063|
95748326|NCT03694808|191468714|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.123|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.123|-0.139|
95748327|NCT03694808|191468715|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.291|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.291|-0.019|
95748328|NCT03694808|191468715|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.164|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.164|-0.117|
95748329|NCT03694808|191468716|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.64|0.29|
95748330|NCT03694808|191468716|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.69|0.29|
95748331|NCT03694808|191468717|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||1.16|0.71|
95797904|NCT01928849|191565186|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|Univariable Logistic regression||||1.74|0.34|0.53
95797905|NCT01928849|191565187|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of residual limb pain between treatment groups||||0.95
95797906|NCT01928849|191565187|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of rate of Phantom limb pain between treatment groups||||0.74
95797907|NCT01928849|191565188|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
95797908|NCT01928849|191565188|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of opioid consumption postoperative hours 24-48||||0.27
95950227|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 1 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBV-IPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-5|
95748332|NCT03694808|191468717|NON_INFERIORITY|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI should not exceed 1.5 for non-inferiority|Ratio of GMT (Fluzone/Fluad)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||1.33|0.69|
95748333|NCT03694808|191468718|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.414|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||-0.414|-0.674|
95748334|NCT03694808|191468718|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|-0.025|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||-0.025|-0.311|
95797909|NCT01928849|191565189|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI average pain score||||0.59
95942701|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.052||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.052
95942702|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.229||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.229
95942703|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.184||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.184
95942704|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.148||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.148
95942705|NCT06946888|191854103|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.143||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.143
95942706|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the first week of tracking. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
95748335|NCT03694808|191468719|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference in proportions|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.013|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 1 (2018-2019)||0.013|-0.221|
95748336|NCT03694808|191468719|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference between seroconversion rates (Fluzone - Fluad), upper bound of two-sided 95% CI of difference should not exceed 10 percentage points for non-inferiority|Difference of proportions|-0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.015|||Test of proportions|2sided proportions test to estimate 95% CI difference in seroconversion rates; upper limit differences compared to 10%, per non-inferiority guidance||Statistical Analysis Year 2 (2019-2020)||0.015|-0.241|
95748337|NCT02322788|191468726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.29|1.52|<0.001
95748338|NCT02322788|191468726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||2.20|1.46|<0.001
95748339|NCT02322788|191468726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.13|0.75|
95942707|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.273||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.273
95942708|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.424||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.424
95942709|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.482||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.482
95942710|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
95950228|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 2 of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Acellular Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Inactivated Poliovirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTPa-HBVIPV) when given concomitantly with rMenB and Pneumococcal 7-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||-1|-11|
95797910|NCT01928849|191565189|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of BPI Interference question sum||||0.16
95797911|NCT01928849|191565190|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95797912|NCT01928849|191565191|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS numeric pain score||||0.42
95797913|NCT01928849|191565191|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DVPRS supplemental question sum||||0.19
95748340|NCT02322788|191468726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The details of the sample size calculation is document at Section 8.2 the study protocol.|Estimated mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effect model based on restricted maximum likelihood analysis is used to estimate the treatment effect. PC20 in natural log scale is the response variable, treatment and period are the fixed effects, and patient within sequence is a random effect.||1.08|0.72|
95748341|NCT00455962|191468737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using previously collected data from a group of 18 predominantly Caucasian women undergoing a similar infusion we determined that 22 women would be necessary to identify a 30% difference in peak LH levels, the primary outcome measure, between AAW and CW with 80% power at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.69
95748342|NCT01546142|191468748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.983|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.311|3.849|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||3.849|2.311|<0.001
95748343|NCT01546142|191468749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.908|13.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (that there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||13.520|2.908|<0.001
95748344|NCT01546142|191468750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.299|18.622|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||18.622|3.299|<0.001
95748345|NCT01546142|191468751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
95748346|NCT01221090|191468768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|||We used a multilevel statistical model including time (in days) as a continuous variable, where 0=baseline. The lowest level of the hierarchy was repeated measurements of HbA1c on each subject, with participants themselves constituting the 2nd level. Forward selection was utilized, in which powers of time were added one at a time to the base model including treatment group effects. Interaction terms between time \& treatment effects were added gradually and evaluated with likelihood ratio tests.||||0.771
95748347|NCT01221090|191468769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimates.||||||0.2176
95748348|NCT01221090|191468770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.572
95748349|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar."||||0.26
95748350|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Test blood sugar the recommended times."||||0.21
95748351|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Exercise at least 30 minutes."||||0.53
95748352|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Participate in a specific exercise session."||||0.24
95748353|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Check feet."||||0.18
95990044|NCT01328951|191954787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.11|0.80|0.4759
95748354|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Wash feet."||||0.19
95748355|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Soak feet."||||0.87
95748356|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Dry between toes."||||0.53
95748357|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Inspect inside of shoes."||||0.32
95748358|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Follow healthful eating plan."||||0.37
95748359|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Space carbohydrates."||||0.72
95748360|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat 5+ servings of fruits and vegetables."||||0.59
95748361|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat high-fat foods."||||<0.004
95748362|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Eat packaged foods (e.g., sweets and desserts)."||||0.66
95748363|NCT01221090|191468771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANOVA|||"This analysis was to compare the average difference in days for the diabetes self-care activity, Followed a healthful eating plan."||||0.68
95748364|NCT01221090|191468772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust Variance Estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days physical health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.685
95950229|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the polio type 3 of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2,4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT titers ≥1:8 was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
95748365|NCT01221090|191468772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days mental health was not good in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.997
95748366|NCT01221090|191468772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Robust variance estimation.||"This analysis was to compare the quality of life measure, Number of days poor physical/mental health prevented usual activity in the past 30 days at the 12 month follow-up visit."||||0.3067
95748367|NCT00440466|191468776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a difference in the mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment of -0.3 g/dL between QW and Q2W groups, a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL, and a noninferiority margin of 1 g/dL, a sample size of approximately 200 subjects (100 per group) would provide 90% power to demonstrate that Q2W group would not inferior to QW group for an overall 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.153|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-2-weeks (Q2W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.153|-0.208|
95748368|NCT00440466|191468776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the same assumptions in the sample size calculation for the QW and the Q2W, 100 subjects would be needed for the Q4W. However, because Study EPO-AKD-3001 and the current study both included QW and Q2W groups, the sample size would add up to 200 for each group if combined, the sample size in the Q4W group in the current study was increased to 200 subjects in order to enroll a comparable and sufficiently large number of subjects in each of the 3 extended dosing groups across the 2 studies.|Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.063|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment between the every-4-weeks (Q4W) and once-weekly (QW) groups would be lower than -1 g/dL.||0.063|-0.249|
95748369|NCT00440466|191468778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.7|||95% Confidence Interval|||||21.7|0.1|
95748370|NCT00440466|191468778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||11.2|-9.1|
95748371|NCT00440466|191468779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.372|||ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.113|
95748372|NCT00440466|191468779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.320|-0.098|
95748373|NCT00440466|191468780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|18.3|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||18.3|-2.0|
95748374|NCT00440466|191468780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|10.3||||||95.0|1.5|19.2|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.2|1.5|
95748375|NCT00440466|191468781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.1|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||19.1|-7.7|
95748376|NCT00440466|191468781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.6|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||20.6|-2.5|
95748377|NCT00440466|191468782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|9.5|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||9.5|-15.8|
95748378|NCT00440466|191468782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0|||95% of Confidence Interval|||||8.0|-13.9|
95748379|NCT00440466|191468783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.08||||||95.0|-0.367|0.208|||ANOVA|||||0.208|-0.367|
95748380|NCT00440466|191468783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.289|||ANOVA|||||0.289|-0.206|
95797914|NCT01928849|191565192|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 0-24||||0.27
95748381|NCT02065713|191468792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.026
95748382|NCT02997657|191468793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95748383|NCT02997657|191468794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
95797915|NCT01928849|191565192|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RASS postoperative hours 24-48||||0.26
95797916|NCT00770367|191565194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A twosample comparison of mean treatment differences conducted using a pre-determined significance level of alpha level \<0.05. 2 a comparison of means for NOx levels at 12 weeks b/w groups. 3 on the change F2-isoprostanes at 12 weeks b/w groups.||||.37
95797917|NCT00435942|191565196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|Proportion free|0.97|||>|0.8|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.93||||1-sided z-test|97.5% 1-sided confidence interval||The proportion of subjects in the Effectiveness sample who were free from major device-related AEs at 1-year post-procedure was compared against a performance goal of 0.80 using a 1-sided z-test (normal approximation to the binomial) at an alpha level of 0.025. Rejection of the null hypothesis would provide evidence that this performance goal (proportion-free greater than 0.80) was met.|||.93|>0.80
95942711|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.806||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.806
95748384|NCT02997657|191468795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
95797918|NCT01104766|191565247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-10.1|0.0044
95797919|NCT01104766|191565247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||||-4.7|-12.9|<0.0001
95990045|NCT01328951|191954787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Stratified according to tumor histology, stage of disease, objective response at Baseline, bevacizumab use, smoking status, and region of enrollment.||1.06|0.72|0.1635
95990046|NCT01328951|191954788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Event-Free Rate|-2.89||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.93|||Chi-squared|||||3.93|-9.70|0.4069
95797920|NCT01104766|191565247|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-11.0|0.0008
95797921|NCT01104766|191565248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
95797922|NCT01104766|191565248|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
95797923|NCT01104766|191565248|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0001
95797924|NCT04896385|191565349|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.004
95797925|NCT04896385|191565349|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||repeated measures correlation|||F-VASI||||0.41
95797926|NCT04896385|191565349|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.0002
95797927|NCT04896385|191565349|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||repeated measures correlation|||T-VASI||||0.91
95797928|NCT01394276|191565375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0237
95797929|NCT01394276|191565376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact binomial proportion test|||||||0.0003
95797930|NCT01394276|191565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.4|-0.3|0.8080
95797931|NCT01394276|191565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.5|0.4884
95797932|NCT01394276|191565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.7|0.0947
95748385|NCT02997657|191468796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
95748386|NCT02997657|191468797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95748387|NCT02997657|191468798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95748388|NCT02997657|191468799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95748389|NCT01612884|191468807|OTHER|Student's T-test||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95748390|NCT01612884|191468808|OTHER|Chi-Square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
95748391|NCT01612884|191468809|OTHER|Chi-Square|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95748392|NCT02129647|191468829|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 122 (60 to 265)|||
95748393|NCT02129647|191468830|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 135 (100 to 240)|||
95748394|NCT02129647|191468831|OTHER||||||||||||||||||10 tissue matched historical controls were analyzed. The Median (Full Range) of the histoscore was 12 (0 to 100)|||
95748395|NCT01715896|191468834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-3.5||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|9.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||9.8|-16.8|0.666
95748396|NCT01715896|191468835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|4.8|||Logit response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||4.8|-22.0|0.293
95748397|NCT01715896|191468836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|1.4|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||1.4|-21.1|0.156
95748398|NCT01715896|191468837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||0.0|-23.2|0.108
95748399|NCT01715896|191468838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-10.3||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|3.0|||Logit Response Model||P-value and 90% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the model of logit (response) = strata + treatment.|||3.0|-23.7|0.2080
95748400|NCT01715896|191468845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|-7.42||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.24|2.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term.|||2.40|-17.24|0.213
95748401|NCT01715896|191468847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04|||Proportional odds analysis||Odds ratio, 90% CI and p-value were was calculated using proportional odds analysis of response model including treatment as a factor.|||1.04|0.36|0.129
95748402|NCT01715896|191468848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.6||||0.108||90.0|-23.2|0.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|DAS28 (CRP) remission: p-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||0.0|-23.2|0.108
95748403|NCT01715896|191468848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|The analysis reported DAS28 (CRP) low disease activity response.||1.4|-24.8|0.145
95748404|NCT01715896|191468849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using the Log rank test.||||||0.328
95748405|NCT01715896|191468850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weibull model|P-value was calculated using an Weibull model.||||||0.003
95748406|NCT01715896|191468851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.7||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|9.0|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|P-value estimated from fisher's exact test when number of golimumab or active responders was less than 5.||9.0|-12.4|0.795
95942712|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.786||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.786
95990047|NCT01328951|191954789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|2.78||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|6.35|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.35|-0.78|0.1097
95748407|NCT01715896|191468852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-2.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-2.5|-21.0|0.048
95748408|NCT01715896|191468853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-3.1|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-3.1|-20.6|0.035
95990048|NCT01328951|191954789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.72|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||3.72|0.87|
95748409|NCT01715896|191468854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-7.5||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|-1.5|||Regression, Logistic||90% CI was calculated for the treatment difference in proportion of responders using logisitic regression with strata and treatment as factors.|||-1.5|-13.6|0.061
95748410|NCT01715896|191468855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|1.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in swollen joint count at Day 169.||1.32|-1.33|0.993
95748411|NCT01715896|191468855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.23||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in Tender joint count at Day 169.||3.77|-1.31|0.424
95748412|NCT01715896|191468856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|12.24|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||12.24|-2.46|0.272
95748413|NCT01715896|191468857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.46||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|11.84|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||11.84|-2.92|0.319
95797933|NCT01394276|191565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.8181
95748414|NCT01715896|191468858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.74|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.74|-0.42|0.640
95748415|NCT01715896|191468859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.34|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including terms for treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|||0.34|0.03|0.055
95748416|NCT01715896|191468860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.41|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.41|0.79|0.752
95748417|NCT01715896|191468861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.3|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 90% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.|||1.30|0.84|0.725
95748418|NCT01045993|191468870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
95748419|NCT01045993|191468871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical alternative hypothesis tested is that the survival curves of time to first perceptible relief confirmed by meaningful relief are not identical between two treatment groups, or equivalently, the hazard ratio between two treatment groups is not equal to 1.||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Proportional hazards regression model|P-value calculated using proportional hazards model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.046
95748420|NCT01045993|191468872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment term only in the model.||||||<0.001
95748421|NCT01045993|191468873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value calculated using ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.002
95748422|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
95748423|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.016
95748424|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
95748425|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.002
95748426|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
95748427|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||<0.001
95748428|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.003
95748429|NCT01045993|191468875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.001
95748430|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||60 minutes timepoint||||0.012
95748431|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||120 minutes timepoint||||0.002
95748432|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||180 minutes timepoint||||0.033
95990049|NCT01328951|191954791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|1.99||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|9.72|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the Anderson-Hauck method.|||9.72|-5.74|0.6062
95797934|NCT01394276|191565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.4|0.9721
95990050|NCT01328951|191954791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.49|||||The 95% CI for OR was constructed using the Wald method.|||1.49|0.79|
95748433|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||240 minutes timepoint||||0.096
95748434|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||300 minutes timepoint||||0.002
95748435|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||360 minutes timepoint||||0.005
95748436|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||420 minutes timepoint||||0.008
95748437|NCT01045993|191468876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||480 minutes timepoint||||0.004
95748438|NCT01045993|191468877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.268
95748439|NCT01045993|191468877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.419
95748440|NCT01045993|191468877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.086
95748441|NCT01045993|191468878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.067
95748442|NCT01045993|191468878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.757
95990051|NCT00970853|191954792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The original sample for this study (N=302) was sufficient for an 80% detection of differences in means of at least 1/2 standard deviation. This analysis presents the results of the follow-up of the original sample.||||||0.39||||||non-adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95748443|NCT01045993|191468878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.219
95748444|NCT01045993|191468879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.043
95748445|NCT01045993|191468879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.388
95748446|NCT01045993|191468879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.039
95748447|NCT01045993|191468880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.797
95748448|NCT01045993|191468881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.371
95748449|NCT01045993|191468882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||||||0.122
95748450|NCT01045993|191468883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.355
95748451|NCT01045993|191468883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.371
95748452|NCT01045993|191468883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-values from ANOVA model with treatment treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.216
95797935|NCT01394276|191565388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of DAS28 between the two groups was calculated.||0.5|-0.3|0.5832
95797936|NCT01394276|191565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.2|-5.1|0.4211
95797937|NCT01394276|191565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-7.9|0.6749
95797938|NCT01394276|191565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|15.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||15.9|-3.0|0.1817
95797939|NCT01394276|191565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||11.4|-5.8|0.5182
95748453|NCT01045993|191468884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.054
95748454|NCT01045993|191468884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.600
95748455|NCT01045993|191468884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.294
95748456|NCT01045993|191468885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Maximum degrees||||0.088
95748457|NCT01045993|191468885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Minus 5 degrees||||0.625
95748458|NCT01045993|191468885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA model with treatment term only in the model.||At Plus 5 degrees (beyond maximum)||||0.034
95748459|NCT01045993|191468886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistically significant treatment difference was declared if the probability of random occurrence between the treatment groups p-value was ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scores.||||||<0.001
95797940|NCT01394276|191565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||22.6|4.9|0.0025
95748460|NCT00474851|191468887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + conjugated estrogens)=0.05 p (within group for subjects receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.65 p (between the two groups)=0.10|RMANOVA|||"Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.10
95748461|NCT00474851|191468888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + estrogens)=0.0001 p (within group for participants receiving norethindrone + placebo)=0.31 p (between groups)=0.02|RMANOVA|||"The time course of each measurement from baseline to 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was compared between arms by repeated-measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA), with an autoregressive covariance model to account for visit-to-visit correlation within subjects.~The primary test of treatment efficacy was time × treatment interaction. Adjusted changes over time and differences between trial arms were constructed from parameters of the RMANOVA."||||0.02
95797941|NCT01394276|191565389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of fatigue between the two groups was calculated.||12.1|-4.4|0.3540
95797942|NCT01394276|191565390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.7343
95797943|NCT01394276|191565390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 1: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.0|-0.4|0.1098
95797944|NCT01394276|191565390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 2: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.3|0.4932
95942713|NCT06946888|191854104|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.497||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.497
95950230|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the hepatitis B surface antigen component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with NT ≥10.0 mIU/ml was greater than -10%||-1|-5|
95797945|NCT01394276|191565390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 4: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.1|-0.4|0.2468
95942714|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.857||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.857
95942715|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.684||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.684
95942716|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.333||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.333
95942717|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.09||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.090
95942718|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.545||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.545
95942719|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.251||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.251
95950231|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferiority that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥0.15 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||1|-3|
95797946|NCT01394276|191565390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 6: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.2|-0.2|0.9639
95797947|NCT01394276|191565390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Month 12: mean difference of scores of HAQ between the two groups was calculated.||0.3|-0.2|0.6696
95942720|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.701||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.701
95942721|NCT06946888|191854105|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.08||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.080
95942722|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.636||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.636
95942723|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
95942724|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.627||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.627
95942725|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.474||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.474
95942726|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.378||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.378
95748462|NCT03233958|191468889|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95748463|NCT03233958|191468890|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95748464|NCT03233958|191468891|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95942727|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.768||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.768
95942728|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.909||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.909
95990052|NCT00970853|191954793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.99
95748465|NCT03233958|191468892|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
95748466|NCT03233958|191468893|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.147
95748467|NCT03233958|191468894|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.197
95748468|NCT03233958|191468895|OTHER|Due to the single group, pre-post design, the analysis simply investigated the effect of time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95748469|NCT00860743|191469012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95748470|NCT00860743|191469013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
95748471|NCT02697773|191469027|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
95748472|NCT02697773|191469027|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
95748473|NCT02697773|191469028|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed data sets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0065
95748474|NCT02697773|191469028|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.37|0.0002
95797948|NCT01933594|191565402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95797949|NCT01933594|191565403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.94
95797950|NCT01933594|191565403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.74
95797951|NCT01933594|191565403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.18
95797952|NCT01933594|191565403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.16
95797953|NCT01933594|191565404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95950232|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PRP-Hib component of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with Hib capsular polysaccharide (PRP) antibody response greater than the protective cutoff of ≥1.0 μg/mL was greater than -10%.||7|-7|
95748475|NCT02697773|191469029|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0109
95748476|NCT02697773|191469029|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary endpoints was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 2.5/5 mg vs placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg vs placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary endpoints.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0038
95748477|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.08|0.0020
95748478|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.10|0.0014
95748479|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.31|<.0001
95748480|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.30|<.0001
95748481|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.03|0.0085
95748482|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0657
95748483|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-1.25|0.0012
95797954|NCT01933594|191565405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.9
95797955|NCT01933594|191565405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.07
95748484|NCT02697773|191469030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
95748485|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.17|0.0004
95748486|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.33|<.0001
95748487|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.45|<.0001
95748488|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.53|<.0001
95748489|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.07|0.0057
95748490|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.02|0.0114
95748491|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.33|0.0004
95942729|NCT06946888|191854106|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.449||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.449
95942730|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.593||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.593
95748492|NCT02697773|191469032|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.52|<.0001
95797956|NCT01933594|191565405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
95797957|NCT01933594|191565405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.92
95797958|NCT01933594|191565406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 6 hours post infusion||||0.44
95748493|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.32|0.0236
95748494|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.27|0.0958
95748495|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.40|0.0007
95748496|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.36|0.0040
95942731|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.994||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.994
95942732|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.959||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.959
95950233|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL was, for the pneumococcal antigen PnC4.||0|-4|
95990053|NCT00970853|191954794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95748497|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.31|0.0498
95748498|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.24|0.2380
95748499|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.34|0.0426
95748500|NCT02697773|191469034|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.45|0.0014
95797959|NCT01933594|191565406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 12 hours post infusion||||0.024
95797960|NCT01933594|191565406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.37
95748501|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.61|1.22|0.0027
95748502|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.36|0.0004
95942733|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.946||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.946
95942734|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.715||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.715
95748503|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.95|1.33|0.0008
95748504|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.37|0.0004
95748505|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.87|0.86|0.2283
95748506|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.03|0.93|0.1066
95748507|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.10|0.0154
95748508|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|1.38|0.0006
95797961|NCT01933594|191565406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.79
95748509|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.07|0.92|0.1139
95748510|NCT02697773|191469036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.31|0.0014
95748511|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.30|0.0009
95748512|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.90|1.36|0.0004
95797962|NCT01933594|191565406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.34
95797963|NCT01933594|191565407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95797964|NCT01933594|191565408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95990054|NCT00970853|191954795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.40
95990055|NCT00970853|191954796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.56
95990056|NCT00970853|191954797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
95990057|NCT00970853|191954798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
95748513|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.29|0.0015
95990058|NCT00970853|191954799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.61
95748514|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
95797965|NCT01933594|191565409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95990059|NCT00970853|191954800|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In our original sample of 302, we had 80% power to detect significant differences of at least .5 standard deviation between groups.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
95748515|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.07|0.0251
95748516|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.06|0.0276
95990060|NCT04685876|191954801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.355
95990061|NCT04685876|191954801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.578
95990062|NCT04685876|191954803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.248
95990063|NCT04685876|191954803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.297
95990064|NCT04685876|191954804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
95990065|NCT04685876|191954804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.395
95748517|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.71|1.03|0.0404
95797966|NCT01933594|191565411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.19
95797967|NCT01933594|191565411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.63
95797968|NCT01933594|191565411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.94
95797969|NCT01933594|191565411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.66
95797970|NCT01933594|191565411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
95990066|NCT04685876|191954805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.152
95990067|NCT04685876|191954805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.482
95990068|NCT02177201|191954806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The antiemetic effect was not significantly different for two groups in this study||||0.05
95990069|NCT02177201|191954806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||77 patients was needed in each groups for an 20% effect size, 5% alpha and 80% statistical power for postoperative vomiting.||||<0.05
95990070|NCT05853380|191954807|OTHER|The primary outcome was considered successful if the bootstrapped upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. Power was assessed by bootstrapping 95% confidence intervals at different n sizes on a product development population.|RMSD|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87||||||Subjects with simultaneously collected HR and PR comparator data were assigned to the comparison group.|The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the significance threshold of \< 3.0. The study tested hypothesis of accuracy \< 3.0 RMSD by showing the upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was \< 3.0. The upper 95% confidence interval on the RMSD was 0.87, meeting the target threshold of \< 3.0.|0.87|0.67|
95990071|NCT03505021|191954850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.547|||ANCOVA|||||2.547|-2.032|0.8253
95990072|NCT03505021|191954851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|37.12|||ANCOVA|||||37.12|-15.74|0.4277
95990073|NCT03505021|191954852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.051||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.327|||Regression, Cox|||||1.327|0.833|0.6733
95990074|NCT03505021|191954853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.762||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|8.654|||ANCOVA|||||8.654|-1.129|0.1295
95990075|NCT03505021|191954854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.040|0.6230
95990076|NCT03505021|191954855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.666|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.666|0.1752
95990077|NCT01641939|191954890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||One sided p-value with correction for interim treatment selection due to adaptive seamless phase design.|Log Rank|Log-Rank test, inverse normal combination test.||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||1.60|0.87|0.8589
95748518|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|0.70|0.3486
95748519|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.42|0.0002
95748520|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.32|0.0006
95748521|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.05|1.41|0.0002
95748522|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.15|1.46|<.0001
95748523|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.18|1.28|0.0024
95748524|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.34|1.35|0.0011
95748525|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0172
95748526|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.14|0.0173
95748527|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0118
95748528|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.32|1.10|0.0132
95748529|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.92|1.35|0.0005
95748530|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%:Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.13|0.0100
95748531|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.12|1.28|0.0023
95748532|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.04|0.0322
95748533|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|0.81|0.2005
95748534|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|0.82|0.1923
95748535|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|1.28|0.0013
95748536|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.73|1.68|<.0001
95797971|NCT01933594|191565412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion||||0.73
95858802|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.568|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||2.540|-13.568|0.1796
95797972|NCT01933594|191565412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 14 days post infusion||||0.9
95797973|NCT01933594|191565413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.8
95797974|NCT01933594|191565413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.73
95748537|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.45|<.0001
95797975|NCT01933594|191565413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.84
95797976|NCT01933594|191565413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.88
95797977|NCT01933594|191565413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.64
95797978|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.34
95797979|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
95797980|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
95797981|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.008
95797982|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 2 weeks post infusion 4||||0.55
95797983|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 5 weeks post infusion 4||||0.48
95797984|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.54
95797985|NCT01933594|191565421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 18 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
95990078|NCT01641939|191954891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||2.03|0.32|
95797986|NCT01933594|191565423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.95
95797987|NCT01933594|191565423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.07
95797988|NCT01933594|191565423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.26
95797989|NCT01933594|191565424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.89
95797990|NCT01933594|191565424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.14
95797991|NCT01933594|191565424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.74
95797992|NCT01933594|191565425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.71
95797993|NCT01933594|191565425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.79
95797994|NCT01933594|191565425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.38
95797995|NCT01933594|191565426|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||1
95797996|NCT01933594|191565426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.92
95797997|NCT01933594|191565426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.66
95797998|NCT01933594|191565427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||1
95797999|NCT01933594|191565427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.9
95798000|NCT01933594|191565427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.47
95798001|NCT01933594|191565428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.63
95798002|NCT01933594|191565428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||hange from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
95798003|NCT01933594|191565428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.028
95798004|NCT01933594|191565429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.62
95798005|NCT01933594|191565429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
95798006|NCT01933594|191565429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.69
95990079|NCT01641939|191954891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.92||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy.||4.92|0.82|
95990080|NCT01641939|191954891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96||||||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Trastuzumab Emtansine 3.6 mg||0.96|0.23|
95990081|NCT01641939|191954893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Reference group: Standard Taxane Therapy||1.43|0.89|0.308
95990082|NCT05064059|191954923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.20|0.80|0.4183
95990083|NCT05064059|191954924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.64||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.64|1.09|0.9967
95990084|NCT05064059|191954925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.1||One-sided, nominal p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||10.1|2.5|0.0007
95990085|NCT05064059|191954929|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.08||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|0.93||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||0.93|-7.09|0.1318
95990086|NCT05064059|191954930|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.95||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|3.02||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||3.02|-4.93|0.6370
95748538|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.67|1.26|0.0014
95748539|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.99|1.33|0.0008
95990087|NCT05064059|191954931|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.86||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.57||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||9.57|-1.85|0.1846
95748540|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.37|0.0005
95748541|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.16|0.0127
95990088|NCT05064059|191954932|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.56||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|6.08||Two-sided p-value based on t-test.|t-test, 2 sided||Calculated using a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||6.08|-4.96|0.8410
95990089|NCT05064059|191954933|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||1.58|0.64|0.5094
95990090|NCT05064059|191954934|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.33||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.33|0.98|0.9704
95748542|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.64|1.22|0.0075
95942735|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.422||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.422
95942736|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.379||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.379
95942737|NCT06946888|191854107|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.302||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.302
95942738|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.913||||||This is the first week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 1.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.913
95942739|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.802||||||This is the second week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 2.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.802
95950234|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 6B antigen greater than -10%.||8|-4|
95748543|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.17|0.0061
95798007|NCT01933594|191565430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.28
95798008|NCT01933594|191565430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.15
95798009|NCT01933594|191565430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.81
95798010|NCT01933594|191565431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
95798011|NCT01933594|191565431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.22
95748544|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.88|1.33|0.0007
95748545|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with \>=50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.29|0.0010
95748546|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.02|0.0411
95748547|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.14|0.0090
95748548|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|0.89|0.1149
95748549|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.79|0.87|0.1351
95748550|NCT02697773|191469037|SUPERIORITY|The two comparisons for 'Participants with ≥50% reduction from baseline in WOMAC Pain at Week 16' (tanezumab 2.5 mg treatment group versus placebo and tanezumab 2.5/5 mg treatment group versus placebo) were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure and an overall significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.48|<.0001
95748551|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.11|1.45|0.0001
95748552|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.59|<.0001
95748553|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.04|0.0312
95748554|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.19|1.40|0.0003
95748555|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.01|1.48|0.0005
95748556|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.94|1.45|0.0006
95798012|NCT01933594|191565431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.031
95748557|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.32|1.02|0.0436
95798013|NCT01933594|191565432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 48 hours post infusion||||0.13
95798014|NCT01933594|191565432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 7 days post infusion||||0.39
95798015|NCT01933594|191565432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 28 days post infusion||||0.12
95798016|NCT01933594|191565433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.7
95798017|NCT01933594|191565433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.51
95748558|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.69|0.84|0.1348
95748559|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.58|<.0001
95798018|NCT01933594|191565433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
95942740|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.605||||||This is the third week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 3.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.605
95942741|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.35||||||This is the fourth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 4.||Generalized Estimating Equations were used to analyze repeated measures data and to assess the interaction effect between group and time. Potential interfering factors such as age and years of work experience were controlled during the analysis, and the effect size (Cohen's d) and its 95% confidence interval were calculated to assist in interpreting the clinical significance. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version XX or R version XX, and the significance level was set at p \< 0.05.||||0.350
95942742|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||1||||||This is the fifth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 5.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||1.000
95942743|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.744||||||This is the sixth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 6.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.744
95950235|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa\_HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 9V, greater than -10%.||1|-2|
95990091|NCT05064059|191954935|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization.|||2.98|1.11|0.9905
95748560|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.46|<.0001
95798019|NCT01933594|191565434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.78
95798020|NCT01933594|191565434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.41
95798021|NCT01933594|191565434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 10 weeks post infusion 4||||0.94
95798022|NCT01933594|191565435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD4||||0.69
95942744|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.202||||||This is the seventh week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 7.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.202
95748561|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.57|1.62|<.0001
95748562|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.74|<.0001
95942745|NCT06946888|191854108|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model included group (intervention group vs. control group), week (categorical: 0-8), group × week interaction, and age as covariates. Robust (sandwich) standard errors were used. Regression coefficients (B), standard errors, Wald chi-squared statistics, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for group × week comparisons are reported.||||||0.918||||||This is the eighth week of tracking data. A P value \< 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.|Generalized Estimating Equations, GEE|Repeated-measures GEE was used to examine the group × time interaction between week 0 and week 8.||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were chosen over repeated-measures analysis of variance or generalized linear mixed models because they provide estimates of the population mean, are robust to correlated error specifications, can accommodate missing data under the MAR/MCAR assumptions, and do not require sphericity. All tests were two-tailed, with α = 0.05.||||0.918
95942746|NCT04244175|191854125|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|||=|0.986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.38|10.61|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||10.61|-10.38|=0.986
95942747|NCT04244175|191854125|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|1.42|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.04|11.87|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||11.87|-9.04|=0.823
95942748|NCT04244175|191854125|SUPERIORITY|RRatio was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and the Baseline seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference|0.76|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|9.76|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||9.76|-8.23|=0.888
95942749|NCT04244175|191854126|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|19.3||||||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||19.3|-12.0|
95942750|NCT04244175|191854126|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|16.2||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||16.2|-16.1|
95942751|NCT04244175|191854126|SUPERIORITY|The percent reduction relative to Placebo was calculated.|Percent reduction relative to Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|15.8||||||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||15.8|-11.4|
95748563|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.70|1.47|0.0003
95748564|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.89|1.55|0.0001
95798023|NCT01933594|191565435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD4||||0.27
95798024|NCT01933594|191565436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pNFKB+% on CD8||||0.81
95798025|NCT01933594|191565436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in pS175% on CD8||||0.81
95798026|NCT01933594|191565437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.37
95798027|NCT01933594|191565437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
95942752|NCT04244175|191854127|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|2.618|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.618|0.616|=0.587
95942753|NCT04244175|191854127|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.303|||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|2.723|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||2.723|0.624|=0.554
95942754|NCT04244175|191854127|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression with treatment group and Baseline seizure frequency as covariates was used to calculate the Odds ratio, 90% confidence interval, and p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.420|0.684|=0.513
95942755|NCT04244175|191854128|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||>0.999
95942756|NCT04244175|191854128|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.618|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.618
95748565|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.82|1.07|0.0310
95748566|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.34|1.24|0.0088
95748567|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.03|0.0360
95748568|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.51|1.19|0.0039
95748569|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.13|1.43|0.0002
95748570|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.20|0.0040
95748571|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|1.10|0.0175
95748572|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.19|0.0065
95748573|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.94|0.0796
95748574|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.27|0.95|0.0718
95748575|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.36|0.0004
95748576|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.93|1.78|<.0001
95748577|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.09|1.44|0.0001
95748578|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.04|1.42|0.0002
95748579|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|1.41|0.0003
95748580|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.46|1.52|<.0001
95748581|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.68|1.18|0.0113
95748582|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.85|1.25|0.0064
95942757|NCT04244175|191854128|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is from Fisher's exact test for number of responders.|||||=|0.422|||||||Fisher's exact test|||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||||=0.422
95942758|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.021
95942759|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.5|=0.342
95748583|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.07|0.0200
95748584|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.43|0.0002
95748585|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.34|0.0005
95748586|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.11|0.0141
95748587|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.26|0.0022
95798028|NCT01933594|191565437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.28
95942760|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.0|-0.6|=0.059
95942761|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.9|=0.040
95748588|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|0.80|0.2286
95748589|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|0.84|0.1808
95748590|NCT02697773|191469039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.36|1.57|<.0001
95748591|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.34|0.88|0.1463
95748592|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.62|0.60|0.9644
95798029|NCT01933594|191565437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.16
95798030|NCT01933594|191565437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.12
95798031|NCT01933594|191565438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 1||||0.027
95798032|NCT01933594|191565438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 2||||0.004
95748593|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.02|0.0422
95748594|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|0.85|0.1995
95748595|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.84|0.75|0.4878
95748596|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.67|0.68|0.7856
95748597|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.39|1.00|0.0476
95748598|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.12|0.0124
95748599|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.62|1.05|0.0307
95748600|NCT02697773|191469041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of osteoarthritis, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.35|0.95|0.0846
95942762|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.1|-0.8|=0.152
95993822|NCT01264939|191963431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
95748601|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0319
95748602|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1:Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.68|0.0139
95748603|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0011
95748604|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.93|0.0053
95748605|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0014
95748606|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.17|0.0002
95798033|NCT01933594|191565438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 72 hours post infusion 2||||0.1
95942763|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.8|=0.044
95748607|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.33|<.0001
95748608|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-1.36|<.0001
95748609|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.16|0.0015
95748610|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0023
95748611|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.89|0.0512
95748612|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.85|0.0693
95748613|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.14|0.0043
95748614|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.13|0.0041
95748615|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-1.19|0.0024
95942764|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.199
95748616|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.22|0.0015
95798034|NCT01933594|191565438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 3||||0.022
95798035|NCT01933594|191565438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 24 hours post infusion 4||||0.17
95855466|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.262||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.21|0.06|0.0860
95855467|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2.25|0.15|0.4308
95798036|NCT04153864|191565443|NON_INFERIORITY|The Non-Inferiority Margin (NIM) was defined as 10% of the mean EPDS score in the Specialist group (8.91), which corresponded to a value of 0.89. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).||0.86||<0.05
95798037|NCT04153864|191565443|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.92), which corresponded to a value of 1.16. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.77||<0.05
95798038|NCT04153864|191565443|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean EPDS score in the In-Person group (8.81), which corresponded to a value of 1.15. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in EPDS scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this is per protocol analysis. Due to institutional pandemic-related restrictions, 21 participants were switched from In-Person to Telemedicine and met criteria for the per protocol analyses.||0.91||<0.05
95798039|NCT04153864|191565445|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 10% of the mean GAD-7 score for the Specialist group (6.36), which corresponded to a value of 0.64. This predetermined NIM of 10% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.57|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered by Non-Specialists will be non-inferior to BA delivered by Specialists if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority margin (NIM).This analysis was performed on 3-months post-randomization scores.||0.57||<0.05
95798040|NCT04153864|191565445|NON_INFERIORITY|The NIM was defined as 13% of the mean GAD-7 score in the In-Person group (6.29), which corresponded to a value of 0.82. This predetermined NIM of 13% aligns with noninferiority guidelines and ensures clinically meaningful conclusions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Activation (BA) delivered via Telemedicine will be non-inferior to BA delivered In-Person if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated mean difference in GAD-7 scores is less than the pre-specified 13% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Please note, this presents the Intention to Treat (ITT) analysis.||0.73||<0.05
95798041|NCT06354257|191565451|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of EE.||1.41|0.55|
95942765|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.7|=0.171
95798042|NCT06354257|191565451|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the AUC(0-inf) of LNG.||1.23|0.98|
95942766|NCT04244175|191854130|SUPERIORITY|The PGI-C score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.125
95942767|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.2|-0.3|=0.767
95855468|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.272||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|43.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.56|1.57|0.0127
95855469|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.528||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|97.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||97.00|1.89|0.0096
95855470|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|61.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||61.54|0.02|0.9519
95942768|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.5|0.0|=0.178
95942769|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.3|-0.1|=0.542
95748617|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.16|0.0063
95748618|NCT02697773|191469042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline diary average pain as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.30|0.0008
95748619|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.47|<.0001
95748620|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.47|<.0001
95748621|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.67|<.0001
95748622|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.66|<.0001
95748623|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.25|0.0007
95798043|NCT06354257|191565452|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of EE.||1.09|0.85|
95748624|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.20|0.0013
95748625|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.51|<.0001
95748626|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.67|<.0001
95942770|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.0|-0.6|=0.106
95942771|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.4|-0.2|=0.663
95748627|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0007
95748628|NCT02697773|191469044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<.0001
95748629|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.22|<.0001
95748630|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.29|<.0001
95748631|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.46|<.0001
95748632|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.49|<.0001
95748633|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.12|0.0024
95748634|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0078
95748635|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.35|0.0002
95855471|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|58.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||58.00|0.02|0.9740
95942772|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.4|=0.488
95942773|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.0|-0.7|=0.100
95942774|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.3|-0.3|=0.969
95942775|NCT04244175|191854131|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-S score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.1|-0.4|=0.344
95990092|NCT05064059|191954936|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Asia Pacific; EMEA/Americas), presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No) and time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization (\>=18 months, \<18 months).|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, presence of liver metastasis \& time from initial diagnosis of metastatic disease to randomization|||3.26|1.06|0.9853
95748636|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.57|-1.50|<.0001
95748637|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.16|0.0034
95748638|NCT02697773|191469046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.33|0.0003
95748639|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.10|0.0026
95748640|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.10|0.0023
95748641|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
95748642|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.35|<.0001
95798044|NCT06354257|191565452|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CI for each ratio was compared to 0.8 and 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was performed using linear mixed effect models with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|One-sided tests (alpha=0.05) were used. 90% CIs for each ratio were compared to 0.8-1.25. No drug interaction is shown if CIs for AUC(0-inf) and Cmax of EE and LNG fall within 0.8-1.25.|A confirmatory hypothesis testing to test the effect of GSK3036656 on the Cmax of LNG.||1.19|0.97|
95798045|NCT01654276|191565476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95855472|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.286||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|549.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||549.78|1.46|0.0273
95942776|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.2|-0.7|=0.010
95748643|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0066
95748644|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.79|0.1506
95748645|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.25|0.0021
95798046|NCT00846365|191565538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.8|-8.4|<0.001
95798047|NCT00846365|191565538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.4||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.4|-9.1|<0.001
95942777|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||0.1|-0.4|=0.376
95942778|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 15)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 15)||-0.1|-0.5|=0.044
95942779|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
95942780|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
95990093|NCT05227690|191954954|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
95798048|NCT00846365|191565539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.7||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-8.5|<0.001
95798049|NCT00846365|191565539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-4.8||Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 level per the predefined stepwise testing strategy used.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and Baseline as a covariate.||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
95855473|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.508||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|2384.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||2384.03|5.50|0.0022
95942781|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 43)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 43)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
95942782|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.3|-1.0|=0.005
95748646|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.32|0.0008
95748647|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.09|0.0167
95748648|NCT02697773|191469048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects,baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.17|0.0073
95748649|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.09|0.0058
95748650|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.31|0.0002
95748651|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.44|<.0001
95748652|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.56|<.0001
95748653|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.0091
95748654|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.92|0.0668
95942783|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||0.2|-0.5|=0.549
95748655|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.36|0.0011
95748656|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.48|0.0002
95990094|NCT05227690|191954954|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
95942784|NCT04244175|191854132|SUPERIORITY|The CGI-I score over time was analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment group and visit was included as fixed factors in the MMRM. Participant was included as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated measures.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (Day 71)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (Day 71)||-0.1|-0.7|=0.048
95942785|NCT04244175|191854133|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|3.26|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo||3.26|-4.23|=0.829
95748657|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-1.20|0.0059
95748658|NCT02697773|191469050|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.39|0.0005
95748659|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.70|-2.48|0.6984
95748660|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.48|-4.84|0.2953
95748661|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.74|-13.59|0.1911
95748662|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.71|-13.89|0.1857
95748663|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.52|-14.12|0.1707
95858803|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.129||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.098|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||1.088|-15.098|0.0898
95748664|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.07|-14.85|0.1380
95990095|NCT05227690|191954955|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
95748665|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.94|-8.58|0.1151
95748666|NCT02697773|191469053|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.98|-8.51|0.1195
95748667|NCT02697773|191469064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.18|0.1444
95748668|NCT02697773|191469064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.09|0.0335
95748669|NCT02697773|191469065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0809
95748670|NCT02697773|191469065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0239||||||P-value was based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0239
95748671|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.48|0.0761
95748672|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.96|0.44|0.0312
95748673|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.95|0.45|0.0262
95748674|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.79|0.37|0.0013
95748675|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.64|0.6706
95748676|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.43|0.69|0.9720
95798050|NCT00846365|191565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-3.7|-7.5|<0.001
95748677|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.29|0.61|0.5311
95748678|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.12|0.53|0.1712
95748679|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.54|0.73|0.7475
95748680|NCT02697773|191469066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.33|0.63|0.6564
95748681|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.73|0.4833
95748682|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||||1.03|0.65|0.0942
95748683|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.67|0.3371
95748684|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.58|0.0508
95855474|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.216||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||1.12|0.04|0.0684
95748685|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.71|0.7280
95748686|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.15|0.65|0.3244
95748687|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.27|0.65|0.5681
95748688|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.09|0.55|0.1387
95748689|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.48|0.76|0.7275
95798051|NCT00846365|191565543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-5.2||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for Week 8. ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect. Post-baseline p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||-5.2|-9.1|<0.001
95798052|NCT03829475|191565555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95798053|NCT00764517|191565574|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.16|0.002
95798054|NCT00764517|191565575|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.21|0.011
95798055|NCT01433913|191565578|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95798056|NCT01433913|191565579|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95798057|NCT01433913|191565580|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95798058|NCT01433913|191565581|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95748690|NCT02697773|191469068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.31|0.67|0.7090
95748691|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.62|0.58|0.9164
95748692|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY|Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.|LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.47|0.3542
95748693|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.68|0.51|0.8065
95748694|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.20|0.36|0.1752
95798059|NCT01433913|191565582|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95798060|NCT01433913|191565586|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95798061|NCT01433913|191565587|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95798062|NCT01433913|191565588|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95798063|NCT01433913|191565589|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95798064|NCT01433913|191565590|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95798065|NCT00460798|191565612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Obective Response Rate (Percent)|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|46.0|||||Exact method based on binomial distribution|Objective Response Rate (ORR) = Percentage of participants with best overall response of CR or PR||46.0|35.5|
95798066|NCT01953237|191565625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5580
95798067|NCT01186770|191565668|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.83||||0.1692||95.0|-1.21|6.86||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||6.86|-1.21|0.1692
95798068|NCT01186770|191565668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.51||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|10.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||10.55|2.47|0.0016
95798069|NCT01186770|191565668|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|13.18||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||13.18|5.09|< 0.0001
95798070|NCT01186770|191565669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.84||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||1.84|0.82|0.3076
95748695|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.73|0.48|0.7837
95748696|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.52|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.52|0.43|0.5062
95748697|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.82|0.40|0.6821
95748698|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.65|0.36|0.5032
95748699|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.61|0.58|0.5796
95748700|NCT02697773|191469070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||2.00|0.44|0.8725
95748701|NCT02243293|191469086|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared to historical control (in genotype 2 (GT2) DAA-naive participants in Part 4, arm S) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|96.5|
95748702|NCT02377063|191469095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Firmicutes after juice consumption||||0.014
95748703|NCT02377063|191469095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|ANOVA|||Comparison was made to day 4 minus day 0 (baseline) change of phylum Bacteroidetes after juice consumption||||0.026
95748704|NCT03407612|191469136|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the baseline HOS-ADL measures.||||0.67
95748705|NCT03407612|191469136|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.73
95748706|NCT03407612|191469136|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 12 week postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.87
95748707|NCT03407612|191469136|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis considers the 6 month postoperative HOS-ADL measures.||||0.78
95748708|NCT03407612|191469137|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95748709|NCT03407612|191469138|EQUIVALENCE|p \< 0.05 required for groups to have non-equivalent results.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95748710|NCT02631837|191469151|NON_INFERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that women would accept a higher conversion rate of 15% for vNOTESbased on a telephone interview of 10 women treated by total vaginal NOTES hysterectomy. Women were asked to choose among ﬁve cut-off rates (5, 10, 15, 20 or 25%). Most women indicated 15%. We would conclude non-inferiority when the upper limit of the one-sided 95% conﬁdence interval for the difference in the proportions of women between both comparisons would be below 15%.||||||0.0221||||||The Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority was performed with 5% significance level and yielded P = 0.0221 in a sensitivity analysis assuming one conversion in the vNOTES and 0 conversions in the laparoscopy group.|Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0221
95748711|NCT02631837|191469152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.13|-0.56|0.007
95748712|NCT02631837|191469152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95748713|NCT02631837|191469154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.8|||Mann-Whitney U test|Two-sided test||||-1.8|-10|0.006
95748714|NCT02631837|191469155|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95748715|NCT02631837|191469156|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
95748716|NCT02631837|191469157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||-0.10|-0.47|0.009
95748717|NCT02631837|191469158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
95748718|NCT02631837|191469159|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-22.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||-22|-46|< 0.01
95748719|NCT02631837|191469160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.7604
95748720|NCT02631837|191469161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3071
95748721|NCT02631837|191469162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4541
95748722|NCT02631837|191469163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4514||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.4514
95748723|NCT02631837|191469164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
95748724|NCT02631837|191469165|SUPERIORITY|We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.||||||0.3473||||||We tested a treatment arm by time interaction to study changes in differences for the outcomes during the follow-up period. In absence of such an interaction (p\>0.05 for the interaction term), the main effect of treatment was tested.|Arm by time interaction|||||||0.3473
95748725|NCT02631837|191469167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-555.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||36.0|||Mann-Whitney U test|||||36|-1,044|0.110
95748726|NCT01197417|191469175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment||Null hypothesis of equal distributions of primary length of stay between treatment arms within all randomization strata||||0.24
95748727|NCT01197417|191469176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.12
95942786|NCT04244175|191854133|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|3.46|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo||3.46|-3.87|=0.927
95942787|NCT04244175|191854133|SUPERIORITY|Changes from Baseline in QOLIE-31 Overall Scores was compared using an ANCOVA model with the Baseline score as a covariate and treatment group included in the model as fixed effects in the mITT population. This estimand included available post-Baseline response data that occurred before discontinuation of treatment or the addition of rescue medication.|LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||=|0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|2.88|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo||2.88|-3.57|=0.859
95942788|NCT04244175|191854134|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.013|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.096|0.069|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.069|-0.096|=0.788
95942789|NCT04244175|191854134|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.077|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.006|0.16|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.160|-0.006|=0.126
95748728|NCT01197417|191469177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.39
95748729|NCT01197417|191469178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||<0.01
95748730|NCT01197417|191469179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.11
95748731|NCT01197417|191469180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.78
95748732|NCT01197417|191469181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren test|Randomization strata were defined by enrollment site, age group and hydroxyurea use within the last three months prior to enrollment.||||||0.46
95748733|NCT02914236|191469192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the mean improvement in NOSE score exceeded 15 points||||||<0.0001
95748734|NCT02914236|191469193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial test|Success threshold required at least 55% of subjects to be responders||||||<0.0001
95748735|NCT03614494|191469271|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|36.4|||Chi-squared|||||36.4|26.2|<0.0001
95748736|NCT03614494|191469272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.197||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.906|||Logistic regression, Firth's bias reduct|||||0.906|0.021|0.036
95748737|NCT01567826|191469282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95748738|NCT01567826|191469283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95748739|NCT02062801|191469290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95748740|NCT02062801|191469291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
95748741|NCT02062801|191469292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.56
95748742|NCT00296491|191469314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.001||95.0|12.5|33.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = FSC - MON|||33.8|12.5|<0.001
95942790|NCT04244175|191854134|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.032|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.039|0.103|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-2)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-2)||0.103|-0.039|=0.461
95748743|NCT00296491|191469315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given estimates, and assuming a significance level of a=0.05, a sample size of 133 subjects per treatment was determined to be sufficient to provide 80% power to show equivalance.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.127||95.0|-24.6|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference=FSC+MON-FSC|||6.9|-24.6|<0.127
95748744|NCT00619359|191469326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates (Fosaprepitant minus Aprepitant), calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the overall phase. Study had 90% power to detect non-inferiority for this outcome measure.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||||95.0|-4.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-4.1|
95748745|NCT00619359|191469327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥7.3 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for Complete Response in the delayed phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-3.5|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.5|
95748746|NCT00619359|191469328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the CI for the difference in response rates, calculated using the methodology of Miettinen and Nurminen, had a lower limit ≥8.2 percentage points, fosaprepitant was considered at least as effective as aprepitant for No Vomiting in the overall phase.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||||95.0|-5.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-5.3|
95748747|NCT04706507|191469352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.098
95748748|NCT04706507|191469353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95748749|NCT04706507|191469354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of respiratory support free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.130
95748750|NCT04706507|191469355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.02|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo arm is the comparison group.||5.02|1.40|0.003
95748751|NCT04706507|191469356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.68|||Regression, Cox||The placebo arm is the comparison arm (denominator). The incidence rate uses the person-years at risk for each of the study arms.|the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms. The placebo group is the comparator group.||3.68|1.32|0.002
95798071|NCT01186770|191565669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.29|1.03|0.0339
95748752|NCT04706507|191469357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95748753|NCT04706507|191469358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
95748754|NCT04706507|191469360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in the number of ICU free days between the active drug arm and the placebo drug arm based on the student's t-test.||||0.037
95748755|NCT04706507|191469361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This analysis evaluated any level of CMV reactivation.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||<0.001
95748756|NCT04706507|191469361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||This analysis evaluate CMV reactivation \> 1000 UI/mL.|Fine-Gray competing risks regression|This analysis will include death as a competing risk if it occurs on the same day of the last negative CMV test date.||||||0.3
95748757|NCT02654587|191469363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91||OS in patients with ICI secondary resistance|t-test, 2 sided||p=0.017|||0.91|0.38|<0.05
95748758|NCT02654587|191469363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||OS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary resistance)||1.19|0.62|0.36
95748759|NCT02654587|191469364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.79|0.27|0.004
95748760|NCT02654587|191469364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-progression survival in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.83|0.39|0.0035
95748761|NCT02654587|191469365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS \>1 in patients with ICI secondary resistance||0.80|0.23|0.006
95748762|NCT02654587|191469365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to worsening ECOG PS in the ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||0.92|0.35|0.02
95748763|NCT02654587|191469366|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.045|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ C30 Global Health Status in Patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
95748764|NCT02654587|191469366|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Physical functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.07
95748765|NCT02654587|191469366|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Role functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||<0.05
95748766|NCT02654587|191469366|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Emotional functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.36
95748767|NCT02654587|191469366|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.24||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Cognitive functioning in patients with ICI secondary resistance||||0.24
95748768|NCT02654587|191469366|SUPERIORITY|QLQ-C30 Social functioning|P Value|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95748769|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.06||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Fatigue in ICI secondary resistance||||0.06
95942791|NCT04244175|191854134|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.032|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.089|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.089|-0.154|=0.661
95942792|NCT04244175|191854134|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.115|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.237|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.237|-0.008|=0.124
95942793|NCT04244175|191854134|SUPERIORITY|The Least Square Means (LS Means), difference in LS Means, 90% confidence interval for the difference, and the p-value for the difference are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.041|||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.146|||ANCOVA||CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID - Placebo (HUI-3)|CVL-865 7.5 mg BID / 25 mg BID vs Placebo (HUI-3)||0.146|-0.064|=0.518
95942794|NCT02585323|191854143|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|13.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|24.5|||ANCOVA|||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 13 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||24.5|1.6|0.05
95942795|NCT02585323|191854144|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-29.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.8|16.7|||ANCOVA|||||16.7|-75.8|0.05
95748770|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0003||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Constipation in ICI secondary resistance||||0.0003
95748771|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.8||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Dyspnea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.80
95748772|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting in ICI secondary resistance||||0.21
95748773|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Pain in ICI secondary resistance||||0.45
95748774|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Insomnia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.87
95748775|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.59||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Appetite loss in ICI secondary resistance||||0.59
95748776|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Diarrhea in ICI secondary resistance||||0.88
95748777|NCT02654587|191469367|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Financial difficulties in ICI secondary resistance||||0.37
95748778|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Alopecia in ICI secondary resistance||||<0.0001
95748779|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Peripheral neuropathy in ICI secondary resistance||||0.03
95748780|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Sore mouth in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
95748781|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia in ICI secondary resistance||||0.01
95748782|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.35||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in arm and shoulder||||0.35
95748783|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in chest in ICI secondary resistance||||0.43
95748784|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.78||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Pain in other parts||||0.78
95748785|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC 13 Hemoptysis in ICI secondary resistance||||0.23
95748786|NCT02654587|191469368|SUPERIORITY||P Value|0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 Coughing in ICI secondary resistance||||0.54
95748787|NCT02654587|191469369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.75|0.43|0.87
95748788|NCT02654587|191469369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||DCR at 6 months in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||1.46|0.36|0.37
95748789|NCT02654587|191469370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in patients with ICI secondary resistance||2.0|0.82|0.29
95748790|NCT02654587|191469370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Median PFS in ITT patients with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)||2.28|1.18|<0.05
95748791|NCT02654587|191469371|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ICI secondary resistance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.11|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.11|0.10|0.07
95748792|NCT02654587|191469371|SUPERIORITY|ORR in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.002
95748793|NCT02654587|191469372|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response at 6 months in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.3|||Regression, Cox|||||5.30|0.25|0.88
95748794|NCT02654587|191469372|SUPERIORITY|Duration of Response at 6 months in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Cox|||||4.60|0.43|0.57
95942796|NCT02585323|191854145|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-7.8|0.05
95942797|NCT02585323|191854146|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|-4.2|0.05
95942798|NCT02585323|191854147|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-3.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.2|||ANCOVA|||||7.2|-14.9|0.05
95942799|NCT02585323|191854148|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|2.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-3.3|0.05
95942800|NCT02585323|191854149|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|-5.0|0.05
95942801|NCT02585323|191854150|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-1.7|0.05
95748795|NCT02654587|191469373|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ICI secondary resistance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.31|||Regression, Cox|||||3.31|1.03|0.04
95748796|NCT02654587|191469373|SUPERIORITY|Time to next lung cancer therapy in ITT population with ICI resistance (primary and secondary)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.07|0.02
95748797|NCT02654587|191469374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.86|1.00|<0.05
95748798|NCT00285584|191469408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
95748799|NCT00285584|191469409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank test||||0.3
95748800|NCT00285584|191469410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|27.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of cumulative incidence proportions||27.8|0.4|0.3
95748801|NCT00285584|191469411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95748802|NCT01043926|191469455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.43|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.43|0.74|
95798072|NCT01186770|191565669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0043||95.0|1.2|2.66||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with treatment as effect and analysis region as covariate.||2.66|1.20|0.0043
95942802|NCT02585323|191854151|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-6.6|0.05
95942803|NCT02585323|191854152|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.2|0.05
95748803|NCT01043926|191469456|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Cmax GMR = Cmax GM for Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency Participants ÷ Cmax GM for Healthy Participants~A 90% CI for the Cmax GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the upper limit bound of the 90% CI for the Cmax GMR fell below 2.00, then the hypothesis would be met and the Cmax of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the geometric mean Cmax is no more than 2.00."|Cmax Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.29|||ANCOVA|||"The GM for each participant group and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for Cmax using an ANCOVA model.~The Cmax GMR of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the Cmax of suvorexant following a single 20-mg oral dose would be similar between participants with moderate hepatic insufficiency and healthy matched control participants."||1.29|0.68|
95748804|NCT00842530|191469494|SUPERIORITY|The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|56.6||||||Vaccine efficacy of CYD dengue vaccine: The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||56.6|-13.4|
95748805|NCT00842530|191469495|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|75.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|99.6||||||Vaccine efficacy against severe VCD (IDMC)||99.6|-377|
95748806|NCT00842530|191469495|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|50.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.0|96.4||||||Vaccine efficacy of against severe VCD (WHO 1999)||96.4|-585|
95748807|NCT00842530|191469496|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|74.9||||||Vaccine efficacy:- 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to Inj. 3||74.9|-38.4|
95748808|NCT00842530|191469496|SUPERIORITY|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant only if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|56.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 2 up to end of Active Phase||56.5|3.3|
95942804|NCT02585323|191854153|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.2|0.05
95942805|NCT02585323|191854154|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.05
95942806|NCT02585323|191854155|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.05
95942807|NCT02585323|191854156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.1|0.05
95942808|NCT02585323|191854157|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.6|0.05
95942809|NCT02585323|191854158|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted diff in mean change at T0-T1|0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.05
95748809|NCT00842530|191469502|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|53.5||||||Vaccine efficacy: 28 days Post-Inj. 1 up to end of Active Phase||53.5|4.1|
95748810|NCT00842530|191469502|OTHER|The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy. The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups. The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine against severe VCD cases was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 0%.|Vaccine efficacy (%)|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|54.3||||||Vaccine efficacy: Day 0 up to end of Active Phase||54.3|6.7|
95748811|NCT03200535|191469536|SUPERIORITY|Superiority analysis|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95748812|NCT03200535|191469537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95748813|NCT02516410|191469546|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.2|||=|0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.6|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||2.6|-0.3|= 0.1176
95748814|NCT04146363|191469562|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|21.6|<0.000001
95942810|NCT03550170|191854173|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|9.11|||||Comparison of teleconference to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||9.11|0.67|
95942811|NCT03550170|191854173|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established using the prespecified margin of inferiority of 10 points on the total composite score of the Fatigue Impact Scale.|Slope|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|11.26|||||Comparison of internet to one-to-one at 6 months.|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) served as the primary analysis tool for modeling the longitudinal scores of the primary outcome - Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS).||11.26|0.98|
95942812|NCT03550170|191854174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95942813|NCT04820322|191854200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95942814|NCT04820322|191854201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95748815|NCT04146363|191469563|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|33.3|<0.000001
95942815|NCT04820322|191854202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95942816|NCT04820322|191854203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
95748816|NCT04146363|191469564|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.218644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|-0.6|0.218644
95748817|NCT04146363|191469565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.000498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|5.7|0.000498
95748818|NCT04146363|191469566|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.4|22.1|<0.000001
95748819|NCT04146363|191469567|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.3|21.3|<0.000001
95748820|NCT04146363|191469568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.915|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-38.1|<0.000001
95748821|NCT04146363|191469569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|41.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.3|24.6|<0.000001
95748822|NCT04146363|191469570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.9|26.3|<0.000001
95748823|NCT04146363|191469571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.151|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-30.2|||ANCOVA|||||-30.2|-46.4|<0.000001
95748824|NCT04146363|191469572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-22.4|<0.000001
95748825|NCT04146363|191469573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.000412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|6.2|0.000412
95748826|NCT04146363|191469574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.1|<0.000001
95748827|NCT04146363|191469575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|28.3|<0.000001
95748828|NCT04146363|191469576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.8|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|52.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.3|31.2|<0.000001
95748829|NCT04146363|191469577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-22.1|||ANCOVA|||||-22.1|-42.6|<0.000001
95748830|NCT04146363|191469578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-0.9|<0.000001
95942817|NCT04820322|191854204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
95942818|NCT04820322|191854205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
95942819|NCT04820322|191854206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95942820|NCT04820322|191854207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95942821|NCT04820322|191854208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95942822|NCT04820322|191854209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95942823|NCT04820322|191854210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95942824|NCT03988621|191854228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.03||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean HSCN scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 0.65 (95% CI: -1.27 to -0.03) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-0.03|-1.27|0.04
95748831|NCT04146363|191469579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.0|26.2|<0.000001
95748832|NCT04146363|191469580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.275529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.9|-0.8|0.275529
95748833|NCT04146363|191469581|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.016656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.6|1.9|0.016656
95748834|NCT04146363|191469582|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|13.7|0.000003
95748835|NCT04146363|191469583|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.244105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-0.8|0.244105
95748836|NCT04146363|191469584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.01445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.4|2.2|0.014450
95748837|NCT04146363|191469585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.9||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|14.9|0.000002
95798073|NCT01186770|191565670|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.55||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.55|-0.36|0.6920
95942825|NCT03988621|191854229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.98||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Self Care Inventory scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 5.05 (95% CI: 1.12 to 8.98) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||8.98|1.12|0.01
95942826|NCT03988621|191854230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-2.52||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean PSS scale scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to decrease by 4.50 (95% CI: -6.48 to -2.52) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|||-2.52|-6.48|<0.0001
95993823|NCT01264939|191963432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
95748838|NCT04146363|191469586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.59|-24.0|||ANCOVA|||||-24.00|-36.59|<0.000001
95748839|NCT04146363|191469588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.072375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|-2.3|0.072375
95748840|NCT04146363|191469588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.106653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|-4.5|0.106653
95748841|NCT04146363|191469589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.029857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.2|2.8|0.029857
95748842|NCT04146363|191469589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.019744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|4.6|0.019744
95748843|NCT04146363|191469590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.268265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|-12.2|0.268265
95748844|NCT04146363|191469590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
95748845|NCT04146363|191469591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.185361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.6|-9.3|0.185361
95748846|NCT04146363|191469591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.192776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|42.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.7|-9.4|0.192776
95748847|NCT04146363|191469592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.756||0.714208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-11.15|0.714208
95748848|NCT04146363|191469592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4748||0.237855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|-15.01|0.237855
95748849|NCT04146363|191469593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.2|0.1|<0.000001
95748850|NCT04146363|191469593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.1|<0.000001
95748851|NCT04146363|191469594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.0|<0.000001
95748852|NCT04146363|191469595|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-8.9|<0.000001
95748853|NCT04146363|191469596|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.716224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.80|-6.93|0.716224
95748854|NCT04146363|191469597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.089275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-9.73|0.089275
95748855|NCT04146363|191469598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.796||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.88|0.000040
95748856|NCT04146363|191469599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.000127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.33|||ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-4.07|0.000127
95748857|NCT04146363|191469600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.455291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.455291
95748858|NCT04146363|191469601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||6.9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-10.1|0.000069
95748859|NCT03660241|191469602|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|138.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|204.61|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group.||204.61|93.74|
95748860|NCT03660241|191469602|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.3|171.43|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||171.43|57.30|
95990096|NCT05227690|191954955|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
95990097|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.2|-3.2|=0.3596
95990098|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||1.6|-2.7|=0.6053
95990099|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|=|0.8149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-3.4|=0.8149
95748861|NCT03660241|191469603|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|182.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|285.71|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.71|117.09|
95748862|NCT03660241|191469603|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|215.41|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||215.41|68.32|
95748863|NCT03660241|191469604|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|165.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||165.57|59.80|
95748864|NCT03660241|191469604|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|167.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|289.64|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||289.64|97.20|
95942827|NCT03988621|191854231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.73||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Active Coping Subscale||4.73|-0.41|0.099
95942828|NCT03988621|191854231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.62||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference may not be consistent with difference sample means presented in outcome measure data table.|Avoidance Coping Subscale||0.62|-2.38|0.25
95942829|NCT03988621|191854231|SUPERIORITY|The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minimization Coping Subscale||1.18|-1.81|0.68
95990100|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|=|0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||2.9|-3.2|=0.9058
95748865|NCT03660241|191469605|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|154.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|226.26|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||226.26|105.11|
95748866|NCT03660241|191469605|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|287.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.72|418.89|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||418.89|196.72|
95748867|NCT03660241|191469606|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.82|176.81|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||176.81|106.82|
95748868|NCT03660241|191469606|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|177.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.91|232.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||232.92|135.91|
95748869|NCT03660241|191469607|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|269.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|196.61|370.18|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||370.18|196.61|
95748870|NCT03660241|191469607|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|571.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|447.27|730.05|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||730.05|447.27|
95748871|NCT03660241|191469612|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.45|174.92|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||174.92|102.45|
95748872|NCT03660241|191469612|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|180.57|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||180.57|92.86|
95748873|NCT03660241|191469613|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|210.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.6|285.8|||ANOVA|||Test: the moderate renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||285.80|154.60|
95748874|NCT03660241|191469613|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|290.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|217.39|388.69|||ANOVA|||Test: the severe renal impairment group; Reference: the normal renal function group||388.69|217.39|
95748875|NCT00441350|191469615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95748876|NCT00441350|191469616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
95798074|NCT01186770|191565670|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.97||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.97|0.06|0.0274
95942830|NCT03988621|191854232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.04||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Score||1.04|-3.68|0.27
95942831|NCT03988621|191854232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.53||The p-value for the group-by-time interaction is presented, as well as the estimated mean and confidence interval for difference in 6-month change between intervention and treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Mental Health scores of participants in the intervention group were estimated to increase by 3.35 (95% CI: 0.17 to 6.53) units more than that of participants in the control group from baseline to 6-months.|Mental Health Score||6.53|0.17|0.04
95942832|NCT03988621|191854235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3472||||0.5433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5153|3.5218|||Regression, zero inflated poisson||Estimation accounts for the zero-inflated distribution of hospitalization count, thus estimate is inconsistent with mean values in the Outcome Measure Data table|||3.5218|0.5153|0.5433
95942833|NCT03988621|191854236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0143||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7766|1.3247|||Zero-inflated poisson regression|||||1.3247|0.7766|0.9173
95942834|NCT03988621|191854237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6486
95748877|NCT00441350|191469617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
95748878|NCT00441350|191469618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95748879|NCT00380692|191469619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.0|-3.4||P-value for treatment group differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-10.0|<0.001
95748880|NCT00380692|191469620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.921||95.0|-0.5|0.4||P-value for treatment differences over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.5|0.921
95748881|NCT00380692|191469621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.369||95.0|-1.8|0.7||P-value for treatment differences in Oppositional Score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.8|0.369
95798075|NCT01186770|191565670|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.98||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as effect and analysis region and baseline as covariates.||0.98|0.07|0.0237
95748882|NCT00380692|191469621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.024||95.0|-3.7|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.024
95748883|NCT00380692|191469621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.179||95.0|-1.7|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Cognititve/Attention score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.7|0.179
95748884|NCT00380692|191469621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.077||95.0|-5.6|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in ADHD score at 8 weeks|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-5.6|0.077
95748885|NCT00380692|191469623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.028||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for treatment differences in Time to fall asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
95748886|NCT00380692|191469623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.407||95.0|-0.3|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Difficulty falling asleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.407
95748887|NCT00380692|191469623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.652||95.0|-0.6|0.4||P-value for treatment differences in Total hours of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.652
95748888|NCT00380692|191469623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.112||95.0|-1.7|0.2||P-value for treatment differences in Quality of sleep score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.7|0.112
95748889|NCT00380692|191469623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.188||95.0|-2.9|0.6||P-value for treatment differences in Functional outcome during day score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.9|0.188
95748890|NCT00380692|191469624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.452||95.0|-3.5|1.6||P-value for treatment differences in Irritability score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-3.5|0.452
95748891|NCT00380692|191469624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.85||95.0|-2.4|2.0||P-value for treatment differences in Lethargy score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|-2.4|0.850
95748892|NCT00380692|191469624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.014||95.0|-2.8|-0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Stereotypic score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.8|0.014
95942835|NCT03988621|191854238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6791
95942836|NCT02905331|191854295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95942837|NCT02905331|191854296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95942838|NCT02905331|191854301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95942839|NCT04102111|191854306|OTHER||Least Squares Means|37.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|95.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||95.8|-21.0|0.288
95942840|NCT02542631|191854313|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size determination was based on the primary endpoint, A1C change from Baseline to Week 24. Assuming that the true mean difference in A1C change for Finesse versus Pen was -0.1% with a SD of 1.2%, a study population of 250 completers (125 per arm) was required to achieve a power of 90% for non-inferiority with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Non-inferiority p-value was calculated with 2-sided comparison of the difference in treatment effects between Finesse and Pen with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
95748893|NCT00380692|191469624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.01||95.0|-7.8|-1.1||P-value for treatment differences in Hyperactivity score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-7.8|0.010
95748894|NCT00380692|191469624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.045||95.0|-1.7|0.0||P-value for treatment differences in Inappropriate speech score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.045
95748895|NCT00380692|191469625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.069||95.0|-8.1|0.3||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-8.1|0.069
95748896|NCT00380692|191469626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.598||95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.6|0.598
95748897|NCT00380692|191469627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.318||95.0|-33.3|11.0||P-value for treatment differences in Total score at 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||11.0|-33.3|0.318
95748898|NCT00380692|191469628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.948||95.0|-5.5|5.2||P-value for treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|-5.5|0.948
95748899|NCT00380692|191469628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.399||95.0|-9.7|3.9||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-9.7|0.399
95798076|NCT00689936|191565683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.85|0.61|0.00006
95798077|NCT00689936|191565683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||0.82|0.60|0.00001
95798078|NCT00689936|191565683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.70349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.20|0.89|0.70349
95748900|NCT00380692|191469628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.57||95.0|-4.3|7.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate relevant nontargets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-4.3|0.570
95748901|NCT00380692|191469629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.0||0.352||95.0|-193.5|69.8||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.8|-193.5|0.352
95748902|NCT00380692|191469629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.3||0.553||95.0|-160.3|86.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.2|-160.3|0.553
95748903|NCT00380692|191469629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.7||0.904||95.0|-107.1|121.1||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||121.1|-107.1|0.904
95748904|NCT00380692|191469630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.9||0.748||95.0|-152.8|110.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.3|-152.8|0.748
95748905|NCT00380692|191469630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.5||0.299||95.0|-234.3|72.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections irrelevant target over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||72.5|-234.3|0.299
95748906|NCT00380692|191469630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.1||0.84||95.0|-119.3|146.5||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections relevant nontarget over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.5|-119.3|0.840
95748907|NCT00380692|191469631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.126||95.0|-1.2|9.9||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-1.2|0.126
95748908|NCT00380692|191469631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.297||95.0|-5.2|1.6||P-value for Treatment\*Error Rate absent over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-5.2|0.297
95748909|NCT00380692|191469631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.023||95.0|-9.4|-0.7||P-value for Treatment\*Targets Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.4|0.023
95748910|NCT00380692|191469632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.7||0.228||95.0|-230.4|56.0||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.0|-230.4|0.228
95748911|NCT00380692|191469632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|87.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.3||0.26||95.0|-65.6|240.8||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||240.8|-65.6|0.260
95748912|NCT00380692|191469632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.5||0.239||95.0|-47.3|188.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.2|-47.3|0.239
95748913|NCT00380692|191469632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.1||0.128||95.0|-35.9|281.4||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||281.4|-35.9|0.128
95990101|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|=|0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-4.4|=0.5419
95748914|NCT00380692|191469633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-175.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.0||0.051||95.0|-351.5|0.5||P-value for Treatment differences in Standard Deviation of Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-351.5|0.051
95748915|NCT00380692|191469633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|218.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.8||0.018||95.0|38.0|398.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.2|38.0|0.018
95748916|NCT00380692|191469633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|173.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6||0.103||95.0|-35.7|383.0||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||383.0|-35.7|0.103
95748917|NCT00380692|191469633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|205.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.9||0.042||95.0|7.5|403.6||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Standard Deviation hits Load 1 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||403.6|7.5|0.042
95748918|NCT00380692|191469634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.128||95.0|-16.9|2.3||P-value for Treatment difference in Accuracy over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-16.9|0.128
95748919|NCT00380692|191469635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.022||95.0|-11.2|-1.0||P-value for Treatment difference in Stability of Movement over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-11.2|0.022
95748920|NCT00380692|191469636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.43||95.0|-2.4|5.7||P-value for Treatment difference in Error Rate over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-2.4|0.430
95748921|NCT00380692|191469636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.005||95.0|-11.8|-2.2||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rate irrelevant targets over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.2|-11.8|0.005
95798079|NCT00689936|191565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.79|0.59|<0.00001
95748922|NCT00380692|191469637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.221||95.0|-9.6|2.3||P-value for Treatment differences in Error Rates over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-9.6|0.221
95748923|NCT00380692|191469637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.307||95.0|-2.1|6.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Error Rates compatible signals over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|-2.1|0.307
95748924|NCT00380692|191469638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.9||0.752||95.0|-163.1|119.1||P-value for Treatment differences in Reaction Time over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.1|-163.1|0.752
95798080|NCT00689936|191565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.81|0.60|<0.00001
95748925|NCT00380692|191469638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.9||0.564||95.0|-47.0|84.3||P-value for Treatment\*Condition Mean Reaction Time correct rejections Load 2 over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||84.3|-47.0|0.564
95748926|NCT01332578|191469640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.92||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.31|-15.81|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was determined.|Null hypothesis was no difference between test hot drink and standard paracetamol tablets.||-15.81|-27.31|0.0004
95748927|NCT03923699|191469665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.08|0.85|0.41
95748928|NCT03923699|191469666|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.10|0.92|0.92
95748929|NCT03923699|191469667|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.09|0.89|0.68
95748930|NCT03923699|191469668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.92|0.42
95748931|NCT03923699|191469669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.99
95748932|NCT03923699|191469670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.05|0.95|0.95
95748933|NCT03923699|191469671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.00|0.29
95748934|NCT03923699|191469672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||0.00|-0.01|0.37
95748935|NCT03923699|191469673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.13|0.95|0.30
95748936|NCT03923699|191469674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.02|0.98|0.85
95748937|NCT03923699|191469675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, poisson|||||1.02|0.97|0.51
95748938|NCT01173471|191469694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||12.6|-15.2|0.822
95748939|NCT01173471|191469694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||4.3|-10.1|0.413
95748940|NCT01173471|191469696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 200 mg OD - Placebo OD)|||3.7|-4.8|0.758
95942841|NCT02542631|191854314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.81|0.26
95942842|NCT02542631|191854315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|3.7||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ACNOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||3.70|-9.63|0.38
95748941|NCT01173471|191469696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is (AZD4017 400 mg BID - Placebo BID)|||1.2|-2.5|0.467
95748942|NCT04060719|191469702|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.74|11.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.28|9.74|
95748943|NCT04060719|191469703|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|30.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.76|35.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 25.2.|Relative bioavailability||35.02|25.76|
95748944|NCT04060719|191469704|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.66|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subject' (random) and 'treatment' (fixed).|Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the mixed effects model. Ratio is calculated as Test/Reference. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.8.|Relative bioavailability||11.18|9.66|
95748945|NCT04578886|191469725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.4|2.3|0.22
95748946|NCT04578886|191469725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3307||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0571|1.6751||unadjusted for covariates|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: The administration of guanfacine in critically ill patients in the intensive unit has no effect on the duration of delirium.~Continuous variables will be summarized using sample mean and sample variance whereas categorical variables will be summarized as proportions. Logistic regression models will examine whether age, gender, or comorbities associated with incidence of delirium when Guanfacine is administered."||1.6751|1.0571|0.0150
95748947|NCT03756883|191469734|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|111.94||||||||111.94|92.68|
95748948|NCT03756883|191469735|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval for the test-to-reference ratio was calculated using a procedure similar to Fieller's method.|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|110.61||||||||110.61|87.10|
95942843|NCT02542631|191854316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.28|-0.28|0.99
95748949|NCT03756883|191469736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of the test product over the placebo.||||<0.0001
95798081|NCT00689936|191565684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.14|0.86|0.91161
95942844|NCT02542631|191854317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.93||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.64|0.71
95942845|NCT02542631|191854318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and week 24 value as a covariate was used to compare devices for continuous measures.||||0.24|-0.12|0.52
95748950|NCT03756883|191469736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of Reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
95748951|NCT03756883|191469737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of test over placebo.||||<0.0001
95748952|NCT03756883|191469737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Superiority of reference to placebo.||||<0.0001
95748953|NCT03347838|191469746|SUPERIORITY||Observed response rate|0.526||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the 6-month response rate is less than or equal to 0.3.||1|0.32|0.03
95748954|NCT02310763|191469804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7343|3.32||The significance level is 0.05.|ANCOVA||Least square mean difference was calculated by placebo minus domagrozumab.|||3.3200|-0.7343|0.2088
95748955|NCT02310763|191469808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0845||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7354|1.5663||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.5663|-1.7354|0.9191
95748956|NCT02310763|191469808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5837||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2978|4.4652||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4652|-3.2978|0.7642
95748957|NCT02310763|191469808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2712||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3799|7.9223||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.9223|-7.3799|0.9423
95748958|NCT02310763|191469809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0693||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||0.0693|-0.0693|0.9993
95990102|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|=|0.8585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.7|-3.1|=0.8585
95748959|NCT02310763|191469809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0259||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1107|0.0589||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||0.0589|-0.1107|0.5464
95748960|NCT02310763|191469809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1227|0.0386||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||0.0386|-0.1227|0.3041
95748961|NCT02310763|191469810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||2.5|-0.9|0.3522
95942846|NCT02542631|191854319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|14.67||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||14.67|3.65|0.001
95990103|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.1|=0.5521
95990104|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-4.6|=0.7540
95748962|NCT02310763|191469810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.2|0.7|0.0061
95748963|NCT02310763|191469810|SUPERIORITY|Week 49|Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|||3.8|-0.5|0.1268
95748964|NCT02310763|191469811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 17||2.1|-2.9|0.7337
95798082|NCT00689936|191565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.67|0.00234
95942847|NCT02542631|191854320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.32||Statistical test of device effects was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05, and confidence interval (CI) was calculated at 95%, 2-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in score as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline score as a covariate was used to compare devices.||||8.32|0.33|0.03
95942848|NCT02542631|191854321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95748965|NCT02310763|191469811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 33||2.7|-2.4|0.8893
95748966|NCT02310763|191469811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left ankle, Week 49||1.3|-4.3|0.2939
95748967|NCT02310763|191469811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 17||3.6|-2.1|0.5995
95748968|NCT02310763|191469811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 33||5.6|0.2|0.0385
95748969|NCT02310763|191469811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right ankle, Week 49||3.2|-3.3|0.9927
95748970|NCT02310763|191469812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||1.0|-1.7|0.6049
95748971|NCT02310763|191469812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||4.4|-1.0|0.2065
95748972|NCT02310763|191469812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||1.2|-1.3|0.9391
95942849|NCT02641730|191854322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-4.383|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.383|-11.000|<0.001
95748973|NCT02310763|191469813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|20.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||20.3|-16.7|0.8499
95748974|NCT02310763|191469813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||29.8|-12.0|0.4008
95942850|NCT02641730|191854322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.468|-0.748|||Mixed-Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.748|-7.468|0.017
95942851|NCT04068792|191854394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.467|2.416||||||||2.416|-4.467|
95748975|NCT02310763|191469813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|27.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||27.0|-30.0|0.9160
95748976|NCT02310763|191469814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.517||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 17||0.517|-0.287|0.5726
95748977|NCT02310763|191469814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.248||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 33||0.248|-0.574|0.4334
95748978|NCT02310763|191469814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.321||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow extension, Week 49||0.321|-0.573|0.5767
95798083|NCT00689936|191565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.82903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.20|0.86|0.82903
95942852|NCT03995979|191854417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value was calculated using a paired t test|Paired t-test|||A compositional analysis with species-level alpha diversity will be performed between the three conditions (Pre-Dietary Restriction, Dietary Restriction, and Post-Dietary Restriction,) with ANOVA testing. Furthermore, a differential abundance analysis will be performed to further identify and confirm prevalent organisms associated with the experimental dietary restriction.||||0.05
95942853|NCT04967599|191854419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.81
95942854|NCT04967599|191854420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.46
95942855|NCT04967599|191854421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
95942856|NCT04967599|191854422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.59
95942857|NCT04967599|191854423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.29
95748979|NCT02310763|191469814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.446||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 17||0.446|-0.489|0.9274
95748980|NCT02310763|191469814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|-0.006||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 33||-0.006|-0.872|0.0469
95748981|NCT02310763|191469814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.255||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow extension, Week 49||0.255|-0.587|0.4362
95748982|NCT02310763|191469815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.156||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.367||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 17||0.367|-0.679|0.5557
95748983|NCT02310763|191469815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.303||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.235||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 33||0.235|-0.841|0.2669
95748984|NCT02310763|191469815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.276||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left elbow flexion, Week 49||0.276|-0.598|0.4665
95748985|NCT02310763|191469815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.399||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 17||0.399|-0.564|0.7335
95748986|NCT02310763|191469815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.361||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.156||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 33||0.156|-0.877|0.1695
95748987|NCT02310763|191469815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.234||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right elbow flexion, Week 49||0.234|-0.612|0.3783
95798084|NCT00689936|191565685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.9||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.90|0.66|0.00119
95942858|NCT04967599|191854424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
95942859|NCT04704869|191854437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
95942860|NCT04099732|191854480|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|183.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.35|204.56|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.56|164.35|
95942861|NCT04099732|191854481|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|174.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.73|195.68|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.7|Relative bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||195.68|154.73|
95942862|NCT04099732|191854482|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.84|129.15|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||129.15|109.84|
95748988|NCT02310763|191469816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.586||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.13||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 17||0.130|-1.303|0.1078
95748989|NCT02310763|191469816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046||||0.8967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|0.746||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 33||0.746|-0.654|0.8967
95748990|NCT02310763|191469816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.378||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.371||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left hip abduction, Week 49||0.371|-1.128|0.3196
95798085|NCT00689936|191565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.37|||Fisher Exact|||||2.37|1.41|<0.00001
95942863|NCT04099732|191854483|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|119.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|131.94|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.9.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||131.94|107.68|
95942864|NCT04099732|191854484|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|186.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|169.7|204.71|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.1.|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||204.71|169.70|
95942865|NCT04099732|191854485|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|120.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.78|130.23|||||Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 11.1|Relative Bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'subjects' as random and 'treatment' as fixed.||130.23|110.78|
95942866|NCT03636490|191854524|OTHER|We tested an association between change in urinary sodium excretion rate with stress and ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.0021||||0.0032||95.0|0.0007|0.0034|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, mean DBP during the baseline period, and 24-hour creatinine clearance.||||0.0034|0.0007|0.0032
95942867|NCT03636490|191854525|OTHER|We tested an association between ratio of awake-to-asleep urinary sodium excretion rate and SBP dipping.|unstandardized B coefficients|0.8244||||0.037||95.0|0.0487|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, BMI, smoking, alcohol use, glucose, 24-hr sodium and potassium excretion, 24-hr creat clear, and FENa|Data are unstandardized B coefficients (95% CI)|||1.6000|0.0487|0.037
95798086|NCT00689936|191565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.53065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||||1.44|0.83|0.53065
95798087|NCT00689936|191565686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||||2.15|1.29|0.00010
95942868|NCT04734197|191854539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; the sample size of approximately 280-350 subjects (between 40 and 50 subjects per each of the 7 treatment groups) was based on medical judgement.||||0.0040
95942869|NCT04734197|191854540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3111|||||||Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||"Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis included fixed effects of baseline TBUT, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~Least squares means (LSMs) of the absolute TBUT change from baseline and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.3111
95942870|NCT04734197|191854541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"MMRM analysis included fixed effects of baseline Schirmer test score, age, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.~LSMs of the absolute change from baseline in Schirmer test score and their 95% CIs were estimated from the MMRM model for each treatment group."||||0.2027
95942871|NCT04310423|191854551|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interaction for alcohol cue-induced alcohol craving.||||0.036
95942872|NCT04310423|191854552|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way Treatment x Time interaction||||>0.05
95942873|NCT04310423|191854553|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
95942874|NCT04310423|191854554|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment x Time interactions||||>0.05
95942875|NCT04310423|191854555|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Main effect of treatment on alcohol cue-elicited brain activation||||<0.001
95942876|NCT05850052|191854556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.79|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.79|0.85|0.26
95942877|NCT05850052|191854557|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.27|||proportional-odds cumulative logit model|||||1.27|0.82|0.86
95748991|NCT02310763|191469816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.689||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.386|0.008||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 17||0.008|-1.386|0.0526
95748992|NCT02310763|191469816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.41||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 33||0.410|-1.082|0.3739
95748993|NCT02310763|191469816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.079|0.436||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right hip abduction, Week 49||0.436|-1.079|0.4019
95748994|NCT02310763|191469817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.107||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.61||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 17||0.610|-0.825|0.7676
95748995|NCT02310763|191469817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.322||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.454||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 33||0.454|-1.098|0.4127
95798088|NCT00689936|191565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.68|||Fisher Exact|||||2.68|1.53|<0.00001
95798089|NCT00689936|191565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.54|||Fisher Exact|||||1.54|0.85|0.40500
95798090|NCT00689936|191565687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32|||Fisher Exact|||||2.32|1.35|0.00004
95942878|NCT05850052|191854558|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|30.0|||Fisher Exact|||||30|0.32|0.36
95748996|NCT02310763|191469817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|0.919||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left knee extension, Week 49||0.919|-0.693|0.7815
95748997|NCT02310763|191469817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|0.451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 17||0.451|-0.924|0.4975
95942879|NCT04881461|191854596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.17||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 86% power for the primary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||3.17|0.60|0.0036
95748998|NCT02310763|191469817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.294|0.359||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 33||0.359|-1.294|0.2646
95748999|NCT02310763|191469817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.149||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|0.71||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right knee extension, Week 49||0.710|-1.008|0.7320
95749000|NCT02310763|191469818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.437||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.437|-0.525|0.8569
95749001|NCT02310763|191469818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.663|0.355||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 33||0.355|-0.663|0.5495
95798091|NCT00689936|191565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.76|0.51|<0.00001
95798092|NCT00689936|191565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.72|0.50|<0.00001
95942880|NCT04881461|191854597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39||Adjusted P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction.|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The endpoint analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The trial was designed to have 95% power for this key secondary endpoint using the primary (trial product) estimand."||0.39|-0.04|0.1111
95942881|NCT04881461|191854598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.67||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.67|-0.01|0.0417
95749002|NCT02310763|191469818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.521||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Left shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.521|-0.566|0.9340
95798093|NCT00689936|191565688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.23|0.86|0.76740
95798094|NCT00689936|191565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.51|<0.00001
95749003|NCT02310763|191469818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.239||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 17||0.239|-0.711|0.3279
95749004|NCT02310763|191469818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.757||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|-0.196||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 33||-0.196|-1.318|0.0086
95749005|NCT02310763|191469818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.439||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.165|0.286||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Right shoulder abduction, Week 49||0.286|-1.165|0.2328
95749006|NCT02310763|191469819|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.211||||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8353|3.2573|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||3.2573|-2.8353|0.8908
95749007|NCT02310763|191469820|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.819||||0.4748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4514|3.0895|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||3.0895|-1.4514|0.4748
95749008|NCT02310763|191469821|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0097||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0692|0.0887|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0.0887|-0.0692|0.8070
95749009|NCT02310763|191469822|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0506||||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0594|0.1607|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||0.1607|-0.0594|0.3643
95749010|NCT02310763|191469823|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||0|-5.7|0.0483
95990105|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|=|0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.7|-5.7|=0.4842
95749011|NCT02310763|191469824|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-0.8|-7.0|0.0146
95749012|NCT02310763|191469825|EQUIVALENCE|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.6||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 3 minus natural history control group.|||13.6|-76.9|0.1669
95749013|NCT02310763|191469826|SUPERIORITY|The comparator was the natural history control group. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-66.3||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.5|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by Sequence 1 minus natural history control group.|||-8.1|-124.5|0.0267
95749014|NCT02310763|191469827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0692||||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4345|0.2961||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.2961|-0.4345|0.7033
95749015|NCT02310763|191469827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2114||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8472|1.27||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.27|-0.8472|0.6893
95749016|NCT02310763|191469827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6439||||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4292|9.1414||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||9.1414|-14.4292|0.6469
95749017|NCT02310763|191469828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3289||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7649|0.1072||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1072|-0.7649|0.1353
95749018|NCT02310763|191469828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3457||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9614|2.6528||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||2.6528|-1.9614|0.7648
95749019|NCT02310763|191469828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.2893||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6409|26.2194||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||26.2194|-9.6409|0.3562
95749020|NCT02310763|191469829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5582||||0.1163||95.0|-1.2615|0.1451||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1451|-1.2615|0.1163
95749021|NCT02310763|191469829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0944||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0798|3.2686||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2686|-3.0798|0.9503
95749022|NCT02310763|191469829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2881||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8328|10.2566||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||10.2566|-32.8328|0.2947
95749023|NCT02310763|191469830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0159||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.1588||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.1588|-0.1270|0.8229
95749024|NCT02310763|191469830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0132||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.0772||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||0.0772|-0.1036|0.7709
95749025|NCT02310763|191469830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0889||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.2996||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.2996|-0.1219|0.3746
95749026|NCT02310763|191469831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0934||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0613||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0613|-0.2481|0.2294
95749027|NCT02310763|191469831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0117||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1339|0.1105||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.1105|-0.1339|0.8485
95749028|NCT02310763|191469831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0562||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2187|0.3312||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3312|-0.2187|0.6645
95749029|NCT02310763|191469832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1013||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2622|0.0597||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||0.0597|-0.2622|0.2101
95749030|NCT02310763|191469832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0359||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1326|0.0608||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.0608|-0.1326|0.4603
95749031|NCT02310763|191469832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1039||||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1386|0.3463||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||0.3463|-0.1386|0.3739
95749032|NCT02310763|191469833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.9|-4.5|0.8925
95749033|NCT02310763|191469833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.2|-0.7|0.2107
95749034|NCT02310763|191469833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.5|-0.9|0.2298
95749035|NCT02310763|191469834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||7.1|-0.1|0.0554
95749036|NCT02310763|191469834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||4.0|-0.9|0.2027
95749037|NCT02310763|191469834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||6.3|-0.5|0.0926
95749038|NCT02310763|191469835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||6.3|-2.4|0.3597
95749039|NCT02310763|191469835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||3.3|-2.3|0.7345
95749040|NCT02310763|191469835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||7.7|0.4|0.0320
95749041|NCT02310763|191469836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.8||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||3.8|-1.3|0.3345
95749042|NCT02310763|191469836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||0.4|-2.9|0.1400
95749043|NCT02310763|191469836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.6||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.6|-5.4|0.6764
95749044|NCT02310763|191469837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|14.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||14.2|-1.2|0.0970
95749045|NCT02310763|191469837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||1.3|-1.9|0.6919
95749046|NCT02310763|191469837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.9|-5.8|0.6736
95749047|NCT02310763|191469838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||1.5|-1.5|0.9582
95749048|NCT02310763|191469838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<= 8 seconds||1.5|-1.8|0.8629
95749049|NCT02310763|191469838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||3.7|-5.5|0.6746
95749050|NCT02310763|191469839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||30.7|-42.4|0.7483
95749051|NCT02310763|191469839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|21.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||21.2|-23.9|0.9053
95749052|NCT02310763|191469839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|79.7||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||79.7|-53.4|0.6896
95749053|NCT02310763|191469840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|27.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||27.5|-34.8|0.8117
95749054|NCT02310763|191469840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|35.2||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||35.2|-20.6|0.6018
95749055|NCT02310763|191469840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3||||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|106.0||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||106.0|-73.4|0.7152
95749056|NCT02310763|191469841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|46.1||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\<3.5 seconds||46.1|-32.1|0.7190
95749057|NCT02310763|191469841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|27.3||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>=3.5 and \<=8 seconds||27.3|-58.9|0.4634
95749058|NCT02310763|191469841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|108.5||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Baseline 4SC\>8 seconds||108.5|-100.7|0.9400
95749059|NCT02310763|191469845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.945||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7597|5.1309||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||5.1309|0.7597|0.0087
95798095|NCT00689936|191565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.72|0.52|<0.00001
95798096|NCT00689936|191565689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.17|0.85|0.99537
95942882|NCT04881461|191854599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.3||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.30|-0.15|0.4984
95942883|NCT04881461|191854600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.27|-0.12|0.4438
95942884|NCT04881461|191854601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.38|0.01|0.0363
95942885|NCT04881461|191854602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.31||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand.."||2.31|0.06|0.0329
95942886|NCT04881461|191854603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.79||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||2.79|0.66|0.0016
95942887|NCT04881461|191854604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.92||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.92|-0.42|0.4502
95942888|NCT04881461|191854605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.23||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.23|-0.14|0.1177
95942889|NCT04881461|191854606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.79||Observed P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||0.79|-0.37|0.4604
95942890|NCT04881461|191854607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.15||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.15|-0.01|0.0549
95942891|NCT04881461|191854608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.93|0.30|0.0049
95942892|NCT04881461|191854609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.95||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.95|0.54|0.0004
95942893|NCT04881461|191854610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.63|0.25|0.0054
95798097|NCT00689936|191565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95798098|NCT00689936|191565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46672
95798099|NCT00689936|191565690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95798100|NCT00689936|191565691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95798101|NCT00689936|191565691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.46987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46987
95798102|NCT00689936|191565691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95942894|NCT04881461|191854611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||Observed P-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates in the model: treatment, season and their interaction, ongoing asthma status, and country and season interaction|Placebo vs 5-grass mix SLIT-drops|"The null hypothesis was defined as no difference in means between treatment arms. The analysis was based on a 5% significance level. The endpoint was analysed using primary (trial product) estimand."||1.71|0.52|0.0002
95990106|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.4|-5.0|=0.6999
95990107|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|=|0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.4|-7.5|=0.1765
95990108|NCT05227690|191954956|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|=|0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||3.3|-5.6|=0.6007
95990109|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.09|-0.15|=0.5822
95990110|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.13|-0.11|=0.9244
95990111|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.17|=0.9348
95990112|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.21|=0.7160
95990113|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.6883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.24|=0.6883
95990114|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.14|=0.5973
95990115|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.38|=0.1392
95990116|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|=|0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.23|-0.21|=0.9421
95798103|NCT00689936|191565692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.68|0.00012
95798104|NCT00689936|191565692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.93|0.71|0.00187
95749060|NCT02310763|191469845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.918||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0461|5.8811||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.8811|-0.0461|0.0536
95749061|NCT02310763|191469845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.087||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4069|7.7677||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||7.7677|0.4069|0.0298
95749062|NCT02310763|191469846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.575||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1213|3.2715||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 17||3.2715|-0.1213|0.0684
95749063|NCT02310763|191469846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.612||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1521|5.0711||The significance level is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 33||5.0711|0.1521|0.0376
95749064|NCT02310763|191469846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.208||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1318|6.2844||The significance level is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated by domagrozumab minus placebo.|Week 49||6.2844|0.1318|0.0411
95749065|NCT03208673|191469869|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric mean|0.5628||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4395|0.7204|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7204|0.4395|.001
95749066|NCT03208673|191469870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal||||0.025
95749067|NCT03208673|191469870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Temporal||||0.312
95749068|NCT03208673|191469871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comfort||||<0.001
95749069|NCT03208673|191469871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Dry||||<0.001
95749070|NCT03208673|191469871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gritty||||<0.001
95749071|NCT03208673|191469871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Vision||||<0.001
95749072|NCT00904748|191469872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.03|105.82|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.82|92.03|
95749073|NCT00904748|191469872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.67|104.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.26|90.67|
95749074|NCT00904748|191469873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|80.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.38|90.26|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||90.26|72.38|
95749075|NCT00904748|191469873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20%.|ratio between geometric means|78.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.53|87.96|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||87.96|70.53|
95749076|NCT00904748|191469874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|105.93|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||105.93|92.76|
95749077|NCT00904748|191469874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Percent of reference to detect for 2-1 tests and power = 20.0%.|ratio between geometric means|97.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.56|104.56|||ANOVA||Estimated value = ratio (% reference).|Ratio between geometric means of Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||104.56|91.56|
95749078|NCT00904748|191469875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 1 study treatment (chewable without water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.50|-0.14|
95749079|NCT00904748|191469875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||Difference in Tmax between Test 2 study treatment (chewable with water) and reference study treatment (coated with water).||0.28|-0.27|
95749080|NCT04844021|191469878|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.31|0.13|
95749081|NCT04844021|191469878|OTHER|We used a multiple hypothesis testing framework to evaluate the effectiveness of Nudge+ vs. Nudge, considering: 1) Nudge+ is more effective than Nudge by over 10 percentage points (PP); 2) Nudge+ is as effective as Nudge, with a difference of no greater than 10 PP in either direction; and 3) Nudge+ is less effective than Nudge by over 10 PP. The 10 PP margin was selected based on discussions with health system leaders and previous studies to ensure the differences were clinically meaningful.|Marginal probability|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.61||If the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference did not contain any values within a region (Nudge+ superior, equivalence, Nudge+ inferior), that region could be rejected.||||The primary analysis involved fitting generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a binomial distribution and logit link to estimate reach (primary endpoint) for Nudge and Nudge+ along with the risk difference between conditions.||0.61|0.37|
95749082|NCT02598895|191469884|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary efficacy endpoint was percent patients achieving PSA decline of 50% or more from baseline (PSA50), assessed in the time prior to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or 1 year after the last study medication. The historical comparison was PSA50 of 26%. The target response rate was 60%. The study followed an optimal two-stage Simon design (Simon, 1989) where the null hypothesis that the true PSA response rate PSA50 was 0.26 was tested against a one-sided alternative.|See above|||
95749083|NCT01192399|191469894|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.0001
95749084|NCT01103479|191469903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.38||Random effects model adjusting for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|0.62|0.32
95942895|NCT05265065|191854616|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.~The sample size calculation assumed an estimated seroresponse rate of 95% in both half- and full-dose arms, a non- inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference), a one-sided significance level of5%, and no loss to follow- up. Under this scenario, a sample size of 100 per arm provides 90% power to compare seroresponse rates between arms under the non-inferiority framework."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference) and a one-sided significance level of 5%.||2.0|-7.7|
95942896|NCT05265065|191854618|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||11.3|-16.1|
95942897|NCT05265065|191854618|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.2|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||3.2|-9.5|
95942898|NCT05265065|191854618|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -10% (absolute difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|16.1|||Regression, Logistic||The difference in seroresponse was adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between first and second dose, duration between second and third (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||16.1|-17.1|
95942899|NCT05265065|191854619|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.04|0.86|0.228
95942900|NCT05265065|191854620|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.15|0.77|0.537
95749085|NCT01103479|191469904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.2||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.53|0.28
95749086|NCT01103479|191469905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43||Random effects model adjusted for clustering by clinic|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|0.60|0.42
95749087|NCT01103479|191469906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||Linear model adjusting for stratification by clinic and participant age|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|0.94|0.38
95749088|NCT01523587|191469911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.956||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model without the randomization stratification variable was used for each subgroup category, along with the corresponding log-rank test.||0.956|0.693|0.0103
95749089|NCT01523587|191469912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|0.973||P-value from log-rank stratified by Race (two-sided). Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Race.|Log Rank|||A Cox proportional-hazards model, stratified by race, was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two treatment groups.||0.973|0.727|0.0193
95942901|NCT05265065|191854620|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||1.11|0.89|0.922
95942902|NCT05265065|191854620|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93|||Regression, Linear||Adjusted for age group, priming vaccine, duration between 1st and 2nd dose, duration between 2nd and 3rd (study) dose, study day of blood draw, and baseline anti-spike IgG (IgG).|||0.93|0.54|0.014
95942903|NCT04778410|191854635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1794|||||||One Group Chi-Square test|The p-value was based on one group Chi-Square test for the null hypothesis CR rate was 0.19 at one-sided alpha of 0.1 in Cohort 2.||||||0.1794
95942904|NCT04084574|191854676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|6.9||The threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||6.9|-16.8|0.3968
95942905|NCT04084574|191854677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.07926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||0.44|-0.33|0.07926
95749090|NCT01523587|191469913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.32||Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.32|0.98|0.0551
95749091|NCT01523587|191469914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib), 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by race.||||2.06|1.18|0.0020
95942906|NCT04084574|191854679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.3||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|58.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||58.6|-34.2|0.0673
95942907|NCT04084574|191854680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|189.3||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|136.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||136.4|-157.8|0.8821
95942908|NCT04084574|191854681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from baseline for Standard of Care group minus Behavioral Diet Counseling group.|||3.1|-2.0|0.6479
95749092|NCT01523587|191469915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|2.28|||ANCOVA||Mean was adjusted for baseline sum of diameters and race.|The analysis will compare the treatments using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for minimum sum of diameters, using baseline sum of diameters as a covariate. The randomization strata will be included as classification factors.||2.28|-4.67|0.500
95749093|NCT01523587|191469917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Coughing.||1.09|0.72|0.2562
95749094|NCT01523587|191469917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Dyspnoea||0.94|0.66|0.0078
95749095|NCT01523587|191469917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||p-value calculated using log rank test stratified by race|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs Erlotinib) from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by race.|The results shown relate to Time to Deterioration in Pain||1.18|0.82|0.8690
95749096|NCT01523587|191469918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-0.88|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Coughing.||-0.88|-6.15|0.0091
95749097|NCT01523587|191469918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-1.25|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Dyspnoea.||-1.25|-5.75|0.0024
95798105|NCT00689936|191565692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.08|0.84|0.45973
95798106|NCT00689936|191565693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.67|0.00002
95798107|NCT00689936|191565693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.00126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.92|0.72|0.00126
95798108|NCT00689936|191565693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.27704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.06|0.83|0.27704
95798109|NCT00689936|191565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.78|0.56|<0.00001
95942909|NCT04084574|191854682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference in mean blood pressure change from baseline for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||24.0|-10.0|0.4044
95942910|NCT04084574|191854683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.91||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.60|-0.97|0.2374
95942911|NCT04084574|191854684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.62||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||8.33|-13.71|0.6188
95749098|NCT01523587|191469918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.15|||Regression, Cox|||The results shown relate to Change in scores over time for: Pain.||-0.15|-5.33|0.0384
95798110|NCT00689936|191565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.88|0.63|0.00067
95798111|NCT00689936|191565694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.75|0.12333
95798112|NCT00689936|191565695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.73||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||.73|0.54|<0.00001
95798113|NCT00689936|191565695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.83|0.61|0.00001
95798114|NCT00689936|191565695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.05821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0||The p-value is based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.76|0.05821
95798115|NCT00689936|191565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.38|||Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.75|0.93824
95798116|NCT00689936|191565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.08836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||Fisher Exact|||||1.03|0.56|0.08836
95798117|NCT00689936|191565696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.04974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.79|||Fisher Exact|||||1.79|1.01|0.04974
95942912|NCT04084574|191854685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.03|-2.82|0.0546
95749099|NCT00560937|191469929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone vs. placebo post-treatment compared to baseline.||||.048
95749100|NCT00560937|191469930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95749101|NCT00560937|191469931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95942913|NCT04084574|191854686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||Between group difference from 12 weeks to 24 weeks for Behavioral Diet Counseling group minus Standard of Care group.|||0.98|-0.98|1.00
95749102|NCT00560937|191469932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test of change scores, pregnenolone compared to placebo post-treatment vs. pre-randomization.||||1.0
95749103|NCT00560937|191469933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95749104|NCT04117945|191469942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.8874
95749105|NCT04117945|191469943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9683
95749106|NCT04117945|191469944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.0448
95749107|NCT04117945|191469945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||0.9007
95749108|NCT03360539|191469949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.1|
95749109|NCT03360539|191469950|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.3|
95749110|NCT03360539|191469951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-2.9|
95749111|NCT03360539|191469952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-1.5|
95749112|NCT03360539|191469953|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.4|-2.3|
95749113|NCT03360539|191469954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.6|-2.4|
95749114|NCT03360539|191469955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.3|-1.6|
95798118|NCT00689936|191565697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.02134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.59|||Fisher Exact|||||2.59|1.08|0.02134
95749115|NCT03360539|191469956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|28.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in grams|||28.0|-43.7|
95749116|NCT03360539|191469957|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-2.4|
95798119|NCT00689936|191565697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||Fisher Exact|||||1.59|0.64|1.00000
95798120|NCT00689936|191565697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.02374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.53|||Fisher Exact|||||2.53|1.08|0.02374
95798121|NCT00689936|191565698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.11152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.21|||Fisher Exact|||||3.21|0.91|0.11152
95749117|NCT03360539|191469958|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.5|-0.6|
95749118|NCT03360539|191469959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in weeks|||0.2|0.0|
95749119|NCT03360539|191469960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.8|-0.3|
95749120|NCT03360539|191469961|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-2.5|
95749121|NCT03360539|191469962|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.4|-1.1|
95749122|NCT03360539|191469963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.7|-4.7|
95749123|NCT03360539|191469964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.9|-0.5|
95749124|NCT03360539|191469968|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.5|-3.2|
95749125|NCT03360539|191469969|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-3.0|
95749126|NCT03360539|191469970|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||1.08|0.95|
95749127|NCT03360539|191469971|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.9|0.1|
95749128|NCT03360539|191469972|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-2.1|
95749129|NCT03360539|191469974|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-3.1|
95749130|NCT03360539|191469975|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.7|-2.4|
95749131|NCT03360539|191469976|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.4|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.4|-8.0|
95749132|NCT03360539|191469984|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.8|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.8|-2.4|
95749133|NCT03360539|191469985|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-1.1|
95749134|NCT03360539|191469986|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of injuries|||0.1|-0.1|
95749135|NCT03360539|191469987|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||-0.1|-5.3|
95798122|NCT00689936|191565698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.86336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.83|||Fisher Exact|||||1.83|0.47|0.86336
95798123|NCT00689936|191565698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.96|0.07321
95990117|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|=|0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.16|-0.30|=0.5431
95749136|NCT03360539|191469988|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in number of visits|||0.1|-0.7|
95749137|NCT03360539|191469989|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.0|-0.4|
95942914|NCT04084574|191854687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.89|1.00
95749138|NCT03360539|191469990|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||5.0|-0.4|
95798124|NCT00689936|191565699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.00043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.45|||Fisher Exact|||||4.45|1.55|0.00043
95942915|NCT01385202|191854689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|78.4||In the worst-case scenario analysis, over seventy-percent (70.2%, 80/114) of the primary effectiveness cohort (PEC) were free from documented symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmias during their effectiveness evaluation period.|Fisher Exact|The lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals was 60.9%, significantly higher than the pre-determined performance goal of 50% (p\<0.0001).|The confidence intervals above are the 95% exact binomial confidence intervals.|The null hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be less than or equal to the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%. The alternative hypothesis was that the rate of freedom from documented symptomatic AF/AFL/AT at 12 months would be greater than the pre-determined performance criterion of 50%.||78.4|60.9|<0.0001
95942916|NCT01385202|191854689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Primary effectiveness rate|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|82.0|||||The 95% confidence intervals above were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method.|||82|66|
95942917|NCT01223352|191854721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||No statistical test of hypothesis was set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.20|0.61|
95942918|NCT01223352|191854722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric means|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||No statistical hypothesis tests were set for this study. The analysis of PK data was carried out descriptively.|||b.i.d. bosentan regimen was taken as reference|||1.05|0.48|
95942919|NCT00303459|191854732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|97.31|0.582|1.187|||Log Rank|||||1.187|0.582|0.2508
95942920|NCT00303459|191854733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.673|0.8385
95990118|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|=|0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.26|-0.20|=0.8160
95798125|NCT00689936|191565699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.31274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||||2.43|0.78|0.31274
95798126|NCT00689936|191565699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.01936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||||3.19|1.13|0.01936
95942921|NCT00303459|191854734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|37.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.8|5.9|0.0106
95942922|NCT00303459|191854735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk of improvement|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.61|||Fisher Exact|||||1.61|0.60|1.0000
95749139|NCT03360539|191469991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.2|-2.3|
95749140|NCT03360539|191469992|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
95749141|NCT03360539|191469993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.5|-1.0|
95749142|NCT03360539|191469994|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.1|-2.6|
95798127|NCT00689936|191565700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.82128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2.80|0.46|0.82128
95798128|NCT00689936|191565700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.11041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.19|0.11041
95942923|NCT00303459|191854736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.344|||Log Rank|||||1.344|0.544|0.4974
95942924|NCT00303459|191854737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage change over placebo|-23.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-11.79|||Repeated measures analysis|||||-11.79|-33.69|0.0003
95942925|NCT00303459|191854738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.39|-0.42|0.9566
95942926|NCT00303459|191854739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.076|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.076|-0.036|0.5571
95942927|NCT00303459|191854740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-3.7|0.4086
95942928|NCT05683158|191854772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference between two groups of movement unit in forward direction|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
95942929|NCT05683158|191854772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Statistics difference among forward, ipsilateral and contralateral directions in within group|To determine the sample size, the G\*Power software was utilized, incorporating an effect size (d) of 1.9, alpha level of 0.05, and power of 0.8. A sample size of six individuals per group was considered sufficient to achieve adequate statistical power, which are α ≤ 0.05, power = 0.8, and β = 0.2.||||<.001
95942930|NCT04631016|191854786|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.024||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.015|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.063|-0.015|0.216
95942931|NCT04631016|191854789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.57|0.186
95942932|NCT04631016|191854810|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.067||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.116||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis at Week 12.||0.116|0.017|0.044
95942933|NCT04631016|191854810|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.12||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger correction has been used for degrees of freedom approximation in the generation of model.||Results are based on the MMRM analysis at Week 28.||0.120|0.020|0.036
95942934|NCT04109066|191854811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT.~Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method."|Arm A over Arm B||3.27|1.29|0.0021
95942935|NCT04109066|191854811|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.9|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by PD-L1 by SP142 (\< 1% vs. \>= 1%), AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||16.9|4.0|
95942936|NCT04109066|191854812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.11|||||Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency. Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm B) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|Arm A over Arm B||6.11|1.58|
95942937|NCT04109066|191854812|OTHER||Adjusted Difference of pCR Rates|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|37.5|||||"Strata adjusted difference in pCR (Arm A-B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.~Stratified by AC Dose-Frequency Chemotherapy Regimen (Q2W vs. Q3W) per IRT."|||37.5|10.7|
95942938|NCT02510235|191854820|NON_INFERIORITY|"To declare non-inferiority between treatments, a change in the SANDE overall score of 12 mm was required, with an estimated standard deviation of 13 (approximately 70% of the mean at 28 ± 4 days after treatment).~The left inferior limits of confidence interval were determined and compared with the non-inferiority limit defined in the testing hypothesis.~Testing Hypothesis:~H0: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin ≤ - 12~/ H1: meanHyaluronic - meanLubricin \> - 12"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.87||||Student t-test for unpaired data.|||Values at Day 28 ± 4 (end of treatment) for the SANDE overall VAS score were compared between treatment groups using a Student's t-test for unpaired data.|||-8.87|
95749143|NCT03360539|191469995|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.7|-2.4|
95942939|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|6.11|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score||Foreign Body Sensation in the Study Eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||6.11|-7.66|0.8226
95942940|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.44|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Burning/Stinging in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||9.44|-3.13|0.3178
95942941|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|11.3|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Itching in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||11.30|1.74|0.0085
95942942|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.3124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.13|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Pain in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.13|-3.31|0.3124
95942943|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|13.12|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Sticky feeling in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||13.12|0.40|0.0377
95749144|NCT03360539|191469996|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||0.6|-1.9|
95749145|NCT03360539|191469998|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.3|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||1.3|-4.3|
95749146|NCT03360539|191469999|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.0|-3.4|
95749147|NCT03360539|191470000|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.7|-1.0|
95749148|NCT03360539|191470001|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.2|-3.0|
95749149|NCT03360539|191470002|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.9|-2.6|
95749150|NCT03360539|191470003|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||2.6|-1.5|
95749151|NCT03360539|191470004|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.37|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.37|-0.1|
95749152|NCT03360539|191470005|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||0.5|-0.45|
95749153|NCT03360539|191470006|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||4.0|0.3|
95749154|NCT03360539|191470007|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||||Adjusted between-group difference, in months|||1.1|0.1|
95749155|NCT03360539|191470008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted between-group difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.0|||||Adjusted between-group difference in the percentage of participants|||3.0|-0.7|
95749156|NCT01769274|191470022|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
95749157|NCT01769274|191470022|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Hierarchical rank test|||||||1.0000
95749158|NCT02409329|191470032|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.313||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.017||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.017|-0.610|.0493
95942944|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|8.83|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Blurred vision in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||8.83|-4.62|0.5321
95749159|NCT02409329|191470032|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.240|-0.380|0.260
95798129|NCT00689936|191565700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.91|||Fisher Exact|||||5.91|1.01|0.07302
95749160|NCT02409329|191470033|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.615||A priori threshold p\<.05.|Wald statistic|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.615|0.196|<.001
95749161|NCT02409329|191470033|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.45||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. For the HbA1c model, we allowed for a three-way interaction between time, treatment group, and baseline HbA1c because there was descriptive evidence that the effect was modified by baseline HbA1c values. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.450|-0.031|0.003
95798130|NCT00933933|191565730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.62|99.88|||Exact binomial|||||99.88|99.62|
95798131|NCT00933933|191565731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.31|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.31|
95798132|NCT00933933|191565731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.63|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.63|
95942945|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|10.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Photophobia in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||10.68|-6.04|0.5790
95990119|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.10|-0.39|=0.2534
95749162|NCT02409329|191470034|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.54||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|1.09||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.090|-0.012|0.376
95749163|NCT02409329|191470034|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.278||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.875||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.875|-0.319|0.434
95749164|NCT02409329|191470035|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.399||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.637||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations||0.637|0.160|0.0012
95749165|NCT02409329|191470035|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.152||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.426||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.426|-0.121|0.003
95764239|NCT01526057|191498655|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time (AUC 0-inf) are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|115.21|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.21|96.91|
95798133|NCT00933933|191565731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|98.18|
95798134|NCT00933933|191565732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.18|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.18|
95942946|NCT02510235|191854822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|49.68|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Total ocular tolerability score in Study eye was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, which evaluates changes from baseline across all time points in a single analysis. This method provides one overall value for comparison, as it incorporates all time points into a unified analysis. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome across time points, consistent with the repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||49.68|-17.41|0.3383
95798135|NCT00933933|191565732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.48|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.48|
95798136|NCT00933933|191565733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.06|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|99.06|
95798137|NCT00933933|191565733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|100.0|||Exact binomial|||||100.00|94.40|
95798138|NCT01532089|191565735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.31|||Log Rank|Comparisons of PFS between arms were conducted using a stratified log-rank test.||||1.31|0.50|0.39
95990120|NCT05227690|191954957|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.6774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.30|=0.6774
95749166|NCT02409329|191470036|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.061||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.095||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.095|-0.218|0.632
95798139|NCT01532089|191565736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.81|||Log Rank|||||2.81|0.71|0.33
95798140|NCT01532089|191565737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
95942947|NCT02510235|191854823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.19|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||3.19|-5.07|0.6484
95942948|NCT02510235|191854824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.51|-0.71|0.7408
95942949|NCT02510235|191854825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.87|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study Eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.87|-0.78|0.8596
95942950|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Meibomian glands in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.20|-0.16|0.7891
95942951|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented. The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.24|0.6075
95942952|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Eyelid - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.14|0.6639
95942953|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Erythema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value is not duplicated or triplicated, reflecting the global outcome consistent with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.29|-0.10|0.3482
95942954|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Conjunctiva - Oedema in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.09|-0.34|0.2422
95942955|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Lens in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.14|-0.11|0.8645
95990121|NCT05227690|191954958|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.9|||=|0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||3.99|0.90|=0.0904
95798141|NCT01995201|191565745|OTHER|||||||0.5231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5231
95749167|NCT02409329|191470036|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|0.005||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.1||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||1.100|-0.202|0.572
95749168|NCT02409329|191470037|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3 and 6 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|369.0||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|881.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|6-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||881|-142|0.703
95749169|NCT02409329|191470037|SUPERIORITY|We performed an omnibus test of the treatment effect at 3, 6, 12, and 15 months using a robust variance-covariance based Wald statistic. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|26.0||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-459.0|511.0||A priori threshold p\<.05.|GEE, Wald test|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).|15-month point estimate|Any REACH vs. Helpline and A1c results. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||511|-459|0.465
95749170|NCT02409329|191470038|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.12|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.12|-1.38|
95749171|NCT02409329|191470038|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH only relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.39|-1.00|
95749172|NCT02409329|191470038|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH\_FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.05|||||6-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||-0.05|-1.26|
95942956|NCT02510235|191854826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Cornea transparency in Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.04|-0.11|0.3790
95990122|NCT05227690|191954958|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and Baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio|1.96|||=|0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||4.13|0.93|=0.0756
95798142|NCT03329001|191565788|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.9706|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9706|0.8550|
95798143|NCT03329001|191565789|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8631|0.9841|||||Relative bioavailability (AUC\[tablet\]/AUC\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||0.9841|0.8631|
95798144|NCT03329001|191565790|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.0593|||||Relative bioavailability (Cmax\[tablet\]/Cmax\[capsule\]) was assessed using ANOVA model accounting for sequence, participants nested with sequences, period and treatment.|||1.0593|0.8489|
95798145|NCT03329001|191565795|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-t|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9199|1.0006|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0006|0.9199|
95749173|NCT02409329|191470038|SUPERIORITY|Testing superiority of REACH+FAMS relative to control. We used ordinary least squares linear regression with Huber-White heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs for the intervention effect at each time.|Predicted mean difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.51|||||12-month point estimate|To evaluate if REACH only and REACH+FAMS had similar effects on HbA1c relative to control, we subsetted to participants with baseline HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.5% to maximize our power for these analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a working-exchangeable correlation structure and identity link, adjusting for baseline and allowing a time-treatment interaction. Multiply imputed data (m=1,000) using chained equations.||0.51|-0.96|
95749174|NCT03291041|191470039|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|34.75||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0354
95749175|NCT03291041|191470040|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0168
95798146|NCT03329001|191565796|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for AUC0-inf|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9164|0.9986|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||0.9986|0.9164|
95942957|NCT02510235|191854827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.21|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.21|-0.26|0.8363
95942958|NCT02510235|191854828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||1.02|-0.62|0.6248
95942959|NCT02510235|191854829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.49|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance included as sources of variability treatment, site and baseline tolerability score.||Study eye analytic statistic is presented.The Statistical Analysis section reports results from a repeated measures ANOVA, which analyzes changes from baseline (Visit 2 - Day 1) across all time points in a single unified analysis. This approach provides one overall comparison value by incorporating all time points. Consequently, the reported value represents the global outcome, consistently with repeated measures ANOVA methodology.||0.49|-0.82|0.6153
95942960|NCT00450216|191854831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.3||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing gastric ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing gastric ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||15.3|4.4|<0.0001
95942961|NCT00450216|191854832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.6||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing UGI (i.e., gastric and/or duodenal) ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of UGI ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing UGI ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prior UGI ulcer history.||17.6|6.1|<0.0001
95749176|NCT03291041|191470041|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|90.56||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0785
95749177|NCT03291041|191470042|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|78.45||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0225
95749178|NCT03291041|191470043|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0198
95749179|NCT03291041|191470044|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.55||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0347
95749180|NCT03291041|191470045|SUPERIORITY|LS mean and p-value are from ANCOVA with treatment and time-zone-shift as main effects and baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.44||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0840
95749181|NCT03291041|191470046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0765
95749182|NCT04184999|191470049|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|207.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
95749183|NCT01631682|191470077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after propranolol was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
95942962|NCT00450216|191854833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.8||CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (yes/no) and prior UGI ulcer history (yes/no) at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the number of participants developing duodenal ulcers throughout 24 weeks of treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks. The cumulative number of participants developing duodenal ulcers at 24 weeks was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin and prio UGI ulcer history at randomization.||6.8|1.0|0.0006
95942963|NCT05541484|191854843|OTHER|Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|||||<|0.0001||||||Spearman's ρ given non-normal variable distributions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95942964|NCT05157841|191854855|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.74|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-109.6|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-109.6|-218.3|<0.00001
95942965|NCT05157841|191854856|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL and bupivacaine HCI|Least square mean difference|0.39|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The superiority of EXPAREL to bupivacaine hydrochloric acid (HCI) was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.55|0.28|<0.00001
95942966|NCT05157841|191854857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|2.01|0.0003
95749184|NCT01631682|191470077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was initially presented (CS+R) and then followed by a series of extinction trials after a 10-min delay would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus (CS+N) that was not extinguished without a 10-min delay.||||>.05
95749185|NCT01631682|191470077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after mifepristone was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||<.05
95749186|NCT01631682|191470077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||This study used a within-groups design. Each subject provides his/her own comparison data. It was predicted that that a conditioned stimulus that was reactivated (CS+R) after intranasal oxytocin was administered would result in a smaller SCR than a conditioned stimulus that was not reactivated (CS+N).||||>.05
95942967|NCT05157841|191854858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as main effect and site as categorical and age as continuous covariates.||||0.93|0.45|0.0089
95942968|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariate of age.||||0.0|-1.7|0.0296
95942969|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.1||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.1|-3.6|<0.00001
95942970|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-2.5|-4.1|<0.00001
95749187|NCT00749411|191470086|NON_INFERIORITY|GSK233705/GW642444 were declared non-inferior to placebo for heart rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean heart rate was less than +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.5|||||Analysis performed using a Repeated Measures Model with covariates of baseline pulse rate, sex, age, smoking status, treatment and Day and Day by treatment and Day by baseline interactions.|||3.5|-5.5|
95764240|NCT01526057|191498655|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|106.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|116.41|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||116.41|97.65|
95855475|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.081||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||3.99|0.29|0.9068
95942971|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.00001
95942972|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.6|-0.9|0.3419
95942973|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.3|-2.5|<0.00001
95942974|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-1.6|-2.8|<0.00001
95942975|NCT05157841|191854859|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.9|-2.1|<0.00001
95942976|NCT04243759|191854863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
95942977|NCT04243759|191854864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subjects comparison of drinks per drinking day with full intervention app access versus daily assessment via the app only||0.95|-0.24|.232
95942978|NCT03364127|191854890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.51|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.51|-.76|0.702
95942979|NCT03364127|191854891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.79|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||.79|-.58|0.77
95990123|NCT05227690|191954965|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|=0.2418
95749188|NCT02006628|191470088|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-2.8||||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline as the response variable, treatment as fixed effect, and individual baseline subscore and age as covariates.||||0.9|-6.5|0.1332
95749189|NCT02006628|191470089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|Responder (yes/no) is the dependent variable with treatment included as factor and age and baseline P, G, and N scores included as covariates.||||8.00|0.86|0.0896
95749190|NCT02006628|191470090|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.4||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.5|0.0188
95749191|NCT02006628|191470091|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|0.0||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|0.9647
95749192|NCT02006628|191470092|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-1.3||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.2|0.1963
95942980|NCT03364127|191854892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.09|||ANCOVA|Full information maximum likelihood for missing data and to retain participants for intention to treat model. Adjusted for baseline value.||||4.09|-1.76|0.436
95942981|NCT03364127|191854893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.54||Kaplan-Meier curves by treatment arm were examined to determine the rates of return to baseline over the 12-week follow-up period .|Log Rank|||Goal was to assess duration of effect among those who showed a response to the intervention (1.5 or greater decrease in PIN).||6.54|1.13|0.017
95749193|NCT02006628|191470093|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-3.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-7.9|0.1167
95749194|NCT02006628|191470094|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.3||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.5|0.0443
95749195|NCT02006628|191470095|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|-0.5||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.0182
95749196|NCT02006628|191470096|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (GWP42003-placebo)|1.31||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-0.10|0.0677
95749197|NCT00834652|191470097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95942982|NCT02278211|191854914|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.89|0.20
95942983|NCT02278211|191854915|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|5.12|||Log Rank|||||5.12|1.15|0.02
95942984|NCT02997202|191854932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|1.005|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.005|0.459|0.0518
95749198|NCT03998436|191470105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.126||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.17|||Chi-squared|||||4.17|1.08|0.0276
95749199|NCT03998436|191470106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.708||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.99|||Chi-squared|||||5.99|1.22|0.0126
95749200|NCT02566993|191470122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.148|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.148|0.815|0.9029
95749201|NCT02566993|191470123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2826|||||||Normal test|||||||0.2826
95749202|NCT02566993|191470124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6216|||||||Normal test|||||||0.6216
95749203|NCT02566993|191470125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9708|||||||Normal test|||||||0.9708
95749204|NCT02566993|191470126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.996|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||0.996|0.693|0.3257
95749205|NCT02566993|191470127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0851
95749206|NCT02566993|191470128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||Normal test|||||||0.0129
95749207|NCT02566993|191470130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6616|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.6616
95749208|NCT02566993|191470131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.812|||Log Rank|||||0.812|0.416|0.0012
95749209|NCT02566993|191470132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.14||||||||1.140|0.744|
95749210|NCT02566993|191470133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.863||||||||0.863|0.549|
95749211|NCT02566993|191470135|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.376||||||||1.376|0.616|
95749212|NCT02566993|191470136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.736||||||||0.736|0.346|
95749213|NCT02566993|191470137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||||||||1.500|0.840|
95749214|NCT02566993|191470138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.786||||||||1.786|0.955|
95749215|NCT02566993|191470140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|1.843||||||||1.843|0.455|
95749216|NCT02566993|191470141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|2.36||||||||2.360|0.506|
95749217|NCT02566993|191470142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.113||||||||1.113|0.765|
95942985|NCT02997202|191854933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.293|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.293|0.554|0.4394
95942986|NCT02997202|191854936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.308||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1352|4.6922|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine \& Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||4.6922|1.1352|0.0209
95942987|NCT02997202|191854937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.261|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were conditioning regimen intensity MAC vs RIC/NMA, time from transplant to randomization (30 to 60 days vs 61 to 90 days), and the presence of MRD (present vs absent/unknown) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.261|0.686|0.6417
95942988|NCT02997202|191854938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8938||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5574|1.433|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD II to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||1.4330|0.5574|0.6410
95942989|NCT02997202|191854938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4254||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6103|3.3289|||Fine-Grays model|||"aGVHD III to IV:~Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate."||3.3289|0.6103|0.4128
95749218|NCT02566993|191470143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.961||||||||0.961|0.645|
95749219|NCT02566993|191470145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.307||||||||1.307|0.624|
95749220|NCT02566993|191470146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.799||||||||0.799|0.392|
95749221|NCT02566993|191470147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.99||||||||1.990|0.838|
95749222|NCT02566993|191470148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.019||||||||2.019|0.824|
95798147|NCT03329001|191565797|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least-squares means of the test (tablet) to reference (capsule) product was within 0.80 - 1.25% for Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9124|1.014|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence. Ratio of geometric least square mean of niraparib tablet to niraparib capsule is presented.|||1.0140|0.9124|
95942990|NCT02997202|191854939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
95942991|NCT02997202|191854940|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.236||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9116|1.6757|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||1.6757|0.9116|0.1725
95942992|NCT02997202|191854941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4537||||0.2029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5126|23.2687|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD Eradication||23.2687|0.5126|0.2029
95942993|NCT02997202|191854941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7073||||0.4077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3116|1.6055|||Fine-Grays Model|||MRD 10\^-4 Detection||1.6055|0.3116|0.4077
95942994|NCT02997202|191854942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2243|0.6199|||Fine-Grays Model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||0.6199|0.2243|<0.001
95749223|NCT02566993|191470150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.641||||||||2.641|0.403|
95749224|NCT02566993|191470151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|2.75||||||||2.750|0.373|
95749225|NCT04976621|191470165|OTHER|Because this was a feasibility study, we did not compute inferential statistics and did not include a power calculation.||||||||||||Because this was a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed.||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
95749226|NCT04976621|191470166|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
95749227|NCT04976621|191470167|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This feasibility study assessed preliminary evidence of treatment response. We have reported only descriptive statistics for quantitative findings. We have not reported inferential statistics, in keeping with the purpose of the VA SPiRE grant mechanism through which the study was funded. We assessed change in participant response by comparing the mean change in the outcome from baseline to follow-up in Group 1 (BA) and Group 2 (TAU). We inspected trends and directions of change in both groups.|Because this is a feasibility study, inferential statistics were not computed. We examined the trends and direction of change in the baseline mean score and follow-up mean score between the two groups.|||
95749228|NCT04976621|191470168|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are being used.|||
95942995|NCT02997202|191854943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4848||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9886|2.23|||Fine-Grays model|||Based on Fine and Gray's model adjusting for conditioning regimen intensity (MAC vs RIC/NMA), time from transplant to randomization (30-60 days vs 61-90 days) \& presence of MRD (present vs absent/indeterminate) based on the pre-transplant BM aspirate.||2.2300|0.9886|0.0568
95942996|NCT06356285|191854944|EQUIVALENCE|Quasibinominal models were used as the outcomes are bounded count variables. Accepting a two-sided p-value adjusted for 3 comparisons, the study was designed with 80% power to detect a minimal detectable effect size between the trial arms and control for the primary outcome.|Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A two-sided p-value, as shown in the table, which was adjusted for 3 comparisons|Quasibinominal regression|||||||0.017
95942997|NCT03370913|191854984|SUPERIORITY||% Reduction from Baseline|-77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were for 2-sided test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|Superiority was tested by1-sample t-test to test null hypothesis that change is \>=0. Only negative changes represent efficacy.|77% reduction|Change from baseline in the ABR for all bleeds (post-baseline EEP value - baseline value)||||<0.0001
95942998|NCT04163991|191855026|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.21||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.21|-1.47|0.0296
95749229|NCT04976621|191470169|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe acceptability/satisfaction for those who received the BA intervention. This tool is completed after the last intervention session when the qualitative interview is also conducted.|Descriptive statistics are used in this feasibility study. We are not using inferential statistics to test for statistical significance.|||
95749230|NCT04976621|191470170|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics are used to describe recruitment.|||
95749231|NCT04976621|191470171|OTHER||||||||||||||||||One measure of retention was the percent in each group who completed the study, meaning completed the Time 2 follow-up interview (that occurred 3-4 months after the baseline interview). Another measure of retention was the percent in the treatment group that completed four or more treatment sessions.|||
95749232|NCT04976621|191470172|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each of five participants who received the intervention, we reviewed a transcript of 1 intervention session for treatment fidelity. The criterion is that no more than 15% of sessions observed or audiotaped will have a mean less than 2.0.|||
95749233|NCT00754442|191470191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|95%||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at baseline||||0.1
95749234|NCT00754442|191470191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 4 hours||||0.002
95798148|NCT03329001|191565802|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.3154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1742|1.4735|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4735|1.1742|
95942999|NCT04163991|191855026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0355
95943000|NCT04163991|191855026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|-0.18||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.18|-1.44|0.0364
95749235|NCT00754442|191470191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no statistical difference between patients and controls at 8 hrs||||0.003
95749236|NCT05611996|191470196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.772||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.336|-0.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = Post-intervention - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to post-intervention for all study participants.||-0.230|-3.336|0.025
95749237|NCT05611996|191470196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.057|-0.784||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Score difference = 3-month - Baseline|Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores from baseline to 3-month for all study participants.||-0.784|-4.057|0.005
95749238|NCT05611996|191470196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9039|-0.1897||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference of the PHQ-9 score by each unit increase of the time(each week increase)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores over time for all study participants.||-0.1897|-0.9039|0.0040
95749239|NCT03053583|191470197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Posthoc analysis of POGO scores were compared using the Kruskall Wallis test with Mann-WHitney test for pairwise comparisons||||<0.05
95749240|NCT04479475|191470236|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric statistical test. We used it to assess repeated measures of missed methadone doses.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact p-value reported due to small sample size|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||We opted not to include the 95% confidence interval due to the non-parametric nature of the data.|||||0.0094
95749241|NCT05363683|191470238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
95749242|NCT05363683|191470240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.114
95749243|NCT05363683|191470241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95749244|NCT05363683|191470242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
95749245|NCT05363683|191470243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.936
95749246|NCT05363683|191470244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
95990124|NCT05227690|191954965|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.5720
95990125|NCT05227690|191954965|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.7459
95990126|NCT05227690|191954965|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6729
95943001|NCT04163991|191855026|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.13||Results are from MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|MMRM||LS Mean difference is VIB4920 minus placebo. Differences less than 0 favor VIB4920.|||-0.13|-1.41|0.0478
95943002|NCT04163991|191855037|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.94||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.94|0.43|0.0584
95943003|NCT04163991|191855037|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.76||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.11||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.11|0.51|0.2274
95943004|NCT04163991|191855037|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.77||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||1.14|0.52|0.2794
95943005|NCT04163991|191855037|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.57||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.85|0.39|0.0199
95943006|NCT04163991|191855038|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.79||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.79|0.52|0.0007
95943007|NCT04163991|191855038|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.76||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.76|0.50|0.0003
95943008|NCT04163991|191855038|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.74||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.74|0.48|0.0001
95943009|NCT04163991|191855038|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean versus placebo|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.59||Results are from MMRM analysis on log(ratio to baseline) with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and log(baseline) included in the model.|MMRM||Ratio of geometric mean is for VIB4920:placebo. Ratios less than 1 indicate a decrease.|||0.59|0.38|< 0.0001
95990127|NCT05227690|191954966|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|-0.1|=0.3783
95943010|NCT04163991|191855039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|8.0||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||8.0|0.2|0.7750
95943011|NCT04163991|191855039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.5||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||(Lower limit of 90% CI is \< 0.1.) Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.5|0.1|0.6974
95749247|NCT05363683|191470245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.370
95749248|NCT05363683|191470246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.379
95749249|NCT03005067|191470247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.553||P-value was based on the Wald statistic Chi-Square test, from an ANCOVA model with treatment, center, and Day 1 dosing time stratification as factors and baseline NSS (Day 1 prior to the first dose) as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference of LS mean is 1146A Formulation Nasal Spray - Placebo Nasal Spray. 95% CI is for difference of LS means.|||0.553|-0.279|0.516
95749250|NCT05575063|191470259|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary safety endpoint was met (Safety Population), as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in IOP spike rate, estimated to be 0.08% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-5.07%; 5.23%\]).|Not Measured|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values in this section are in percentage.|||5.23|-5.07|
95749251|NCT05575063|191470260|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyzed numbers are in percentage. The success criterion for the primary effectiveness endpoint was met (modified ITT Population) as the investigational device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) demonstrated non-inferiority to the control device (HEALON EndoCoat OVD) with respect to the difference in mean ECC percent change, estimated to be -0.50% (with the 95% confidence interval of \[-3.37%; 2.37%\]).|Difference in Percent Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||All values are in percentage.|||2.37|-3.37|
95749252|NCT02278718|191470261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|||Wilcoxon test statistic was estimated using generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan test stratified by center group, age group, % TBSA group, proportion of FT area group and number of TWs group. A negative (positive) statistic is associated with longer (shorter) time to the event when treated with NexoBrid vs. Standard of Care. P-value was calculated using the re-randomization test.||||0.0008
95749253|NCT02278718|191470262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.09|||Fisher Exact|||Incidence of Surgical Excision for Eschar Removal for NexoBrid vs SOC||0.090|0.007|<0.0001
95749254|NCT02278718|191470263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1374
95749255|NCT02278718|191470264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5045
95749256|NCT02278718|191470265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.054|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.054|0.163|0.0545
95749257|NCT04440449|191470266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95798149|NCT03329001|191565803|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.2771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1537|1.4137|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.4137|1.1537|
95798150|NCT03329001|191565804|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9408|1.3164|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence, and random effect for participant nested within sequence.|||1.3164|0.9408|
95798151|NCT02178956|191565832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||two-sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.02|0.86|0.8596
95798152|NCT02178956|191565833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||two sided|Log Rank|stratified log rank test stratified by region, time to progression on 1st line therapy and disease measurability.|HR is for napabucuasin + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel. Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification variables including region, time to progression on first line therapy and disease measurability.|||1.19|0.85|0.9028
95798153|NCT02178956|191565834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.44|0.60|0.7359
95798154|NCT02178956|191565835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.3||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by actual stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|Odds ratio for napabucasin vs. Placebo. Based on Logistic Regression Model adjusting for actual Stratification variables at baseline including region, and time to progression on first-line therapy.|||1.30|0.66|0.6555
95749258|NCT04440449|191470267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
95749259|NCT03212794|191470271|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.87||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.87
95749260|NCT03212794|191470272|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.82||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||=0.82
95749261|NCT03212794|191470273|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.92
95749262|NCT03212794|191470274|OTHER||||||=|0.85||||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Log Rank|If no event occurred, the data from those individuals were right censored.||||||=0.85
95749263|NCT00484419|191470283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0061
95749264|NCT00484419|191470283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.1090
95749265|NCT00484419|191470283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
95749266|NCT00484419|191470284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0234
95749267|NCT00484419|191470284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||<0.0001
95749268|NCT00484419|191470284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For a treatment group, assuming a within-subject standard deviation of at most 1.15, a 2-sided t-test of the null hypothesis that the change from baseline (CFB) is zero will have 67% to 85% power to detect a difference of 0.4 to 0.5 with a sample size of 50 randomized subjects.||||0.0011
95943012|NCT04163991|191855039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.7||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.7|0.1|0.9318
95943013|NCT04163991|191855039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|5.1||Results are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline DAS28-CRP score included in the model.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is VIB4920/placebo, with associated 90% CI and p-value. Odds ratios greater than 1 favor VIB4920.|||5.1|0.2|0.9108
95943014|NCT04163991|191855040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
95943015|NCT04163991|191855040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
95943016|NCT04163991|191855040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.01||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.09||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||20.09|0.45|0.3407
95943017|NCT04163991|191855040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|10.6||Based on Cox regression method with treatment group included in the model.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is VIB4920/placebo. Hazard ratios less than 1 favor VIB4920.|||10.60|0.10|0.9805
95943018|NCT02933489|191855131|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT = AB-MR|Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace|0.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0116|||McNemar||"Wald interval with Bonett-Price Laplace, described in :~Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions. Statist. Med. 2014; 33:2850-75."|The proportion of participants who had an invasive cancer, verified by pathology, detected by each modality (the invasive cancer detection rates) will be made using exact McNemar's test.||0.0116|0.0022|0.002
95943019|NCT02933489|191855132|EQUIVALENCE|PPV DBT = PPV AB-MR||||||0.15||||||"Generalized estimating equation (GEE) regression with the p-value from the resulting score test.~5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance"|Leisenring|Leisenring W, Alonzo T, Pepe MS. Comparisons of predictive values of binary medical diagnostic tests for paired designs. Biometrics. 2000;56:345-351||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.15
95943020|NCT02933489|191855133|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT short term follow-up rate = AB-MR short term follow-up rate|||||<|0.0001||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5=0.01 corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP)|McNemar|exact p-value||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR short term follow-up rates||||<0.0001
95943021|NCT02933489|191855133|EQUIVALENCE|H0: DBT additional imaging rate =AB-MR additional imaging rate||||||0.02||||||To adjust for multiplicity, using the Bonferroni correction, secondary comparisons are compared against an adjusted alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01, corresponding to the 5 secondary comparisons outlined in the SAP|McNemar|exact p-values||The exact p-value from McNemar's test is reported for for comparing the DBT against the AB-MR additional imaging rates||||0.02
95943022|NCT02933489|191855134|EQUIVALENCE|Sensitivity DBT = Sensitivity AB-MR||||||0.001||||||The comparison of the sensitivity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||0.001
95943023|NCT02933489|191855134|EQUIVALENCE|Specificity DBT = Specificity AB-MR|||||<|0.001||||||The comparison of the Specificity of AB-MR and DBT uses a two-sided exact McNemar's test to account for the paired design 5 secondary comparisons were planned: alpha level of 0.05/5 = 0.01 for p-value significance|McNemar|||||||<0.001
95943024|NCT00626795|191855142|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.71|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||10.71|-1.59|
95943025|NCT00626795|191855142|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower confidence limit greater or equal to -12.5% indicates non-inferiority.|Difference in percentage|-3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|3.57|||||Estimated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, stratifying by country and disease (impetigo/SITL).|||3.57|-10.28|
95943026|NCT04499521|191855152|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.5||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Bladder D2cc||0.50|-0.27|
95943027|NCT04499521|191855152|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Bladder D2cc||0.96|-0.94|
95943028|NCT04499521|191855152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.16||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM A Rectum D2cc||0.16|-0.54|
95943029|NCT04499521|191855152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.29||||||Mean difference between Gauze and Gel ARM B Rectum D2cc||0.29|-0.67|
95943030|NCT04780581|191855155|EQUIVALENCE|log-rank statistic test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of equal survival curves. Estimates of rate and risk ratios are shown with 95% confidence intervals. All the p-values are 2-sided and shown without adjustment for multiple testing, and p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.).||5.1|0.2|0.984
95943031|NCT04780581|191855155|EQUIVALENCE|Log-rank method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1||||||||9.1|-8.8|
95943032|NCT04780581|191855156|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3.0|0.4|0.833
95749269|NCT00484419|191470287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0077
95798155|NCT03769493|191565838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
95798156|NCT03769493|191565839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
95943033|NCT04780581|191855156|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-14.2|
95943034|NCT04780581|191855157|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.3|||Chi-squared|||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||9.3|0.2|0.661
95943035|NCT04780581|191855157|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.9||||||non-invasive mechanical ventilation||6.9|-10.2|
95943036|NCT04780581|191855157|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||high-flow oxygen requirements||2.2|0.2|0.549
95943037|NCT04780581|191855157|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.1||||||high-flow oxygen requirements||15.1|-8.2|
95943038|NCT04780581|191855157|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.3|||Chi-squared|||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||3.3|0.4|0.809
95943039|NCT04780581|191855157|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|11.1||||||Invasive mechanical ventilation or intubation requirements analysis||11.1|-13.0|
95943040|NCT04780581|191855158|EQUIVALENCE|T-test|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5|-5|0.908
95943041|NCT04780581|191855159|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Secondary infections||2.5|0.3|0.758
95943042|NCT04780581|191855159|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7||||||Secondary infections||13.7|-10.1|
95943043|NCT04780581|191855159|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Chi-squared|||Hyperglycaemia||12.3|1.4|0.007
95943044|NCT04780581|191855159|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-5.6||||||Hyperglycaemia||-5.6|-31.8|
95943045|NCT04780581|191855159|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.4|||Chi-squared|||Psychotic states||4.4|-8.5|0.319
95943046|NCT04780581|191855160|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.4|0.962
95943047|NCT04780581|191855160|EQUIVALENCE|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|14.9||||||||14.9|-14.2|
95943048|NCT01651000|191855162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95943049|NCT01651000|191855163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95943050|NCT01651000|191855164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95855476|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.251||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.31|0.61|0.2235
95943051|NCT05412004|191855215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|-14.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.20|-25.82|<0.001
95943052|NCT05412004|191855215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-23.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-17.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-17.93|-29.61|<0.001
95943053|NCT05412004|191855216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-47.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.76|-29.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-29.55|-65.76|<0.001
95943054|NCT05412004|191855216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-56.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.73|-38.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-38.70|-73.73|<0.001
95943055|NCT05412004|191855217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|54.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.79|30.76|<0.001
95943056|NCT05412004|191855217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|60.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.65|36.55|<0.001
95943057|NCT05412004|191855218|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.27|39.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.22|18.27|<.001
95943058|NCT05412004|191855218|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.12|44.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.31|22.12|<0.001
95943059|NCT05412004|191855219|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-70.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.619|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.94|-49.31||||||||-49.31|-90.94|
95943060|NCT05412004|191855219|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-61.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.66|-37.93||||||||-37.93|-84.66|
95943061|NCT05412004|191855220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.03||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-0.12|-3.95|0.037
95943062|NCT05412004|191855220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Related Impairment||-1.17|-5.69|0.003
95943063|NCT05412004|191855220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep Disturbance||-1.58|-6.21|<0.001
95943064|NCT05412004|191855220|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-4.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||Sleep-Related Impairment||-1.56|-6.97|0.002
95943065|NCT05412004|191855221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-14.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-14.19|-17.99|<0.001
95943066|NCT05412004|191855221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-17.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-15.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-15.28|-19.29|<.001
95943067|NCT05412004|191855222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.22||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.21|0.752
95943068|NCT05412004|191855222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.51||ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.57|0.350
95943069|NCT05412004|191855223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|-4.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-4.77|-10.48|<0.001
95749270|NCT00484419|191470287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
95749271|NCT00484419|191470287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0483||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0483
95749272|NCT00484419|191470288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0133
95749273|NCT00484419|191470288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0004
95749274|NCT00484419|191470288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0125
95749275|NCT00484419|191470291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8596||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.8596
95749276|NCT00484419|191470291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0257
95749277|NCT00484419|191470291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1862
95749278|NCT00484419|191470292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7094||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.7094
95749279|NCT00484419|191470292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1394||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1394
95798157|NCT04225832|191565841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.26||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm||Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|6.26|1.01|.049
95798158|NCT04225832|191565842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Logistic|Regression results control for immigration status and length of time in U.S.|Odds ratio is for indicator of intervention arm|||1.81|0.62|.83
95943070|NCT05412004|191855223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with baseline, geographic region, sex, baseline OSA severity Group, treatment (Type III sum of squares) as covariates.||||-0.65|-6.75|0.017
95749280|NCT00484419|191470292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.4528
95749281|NCT00484419|191470294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0374
95749282|NCT00484419|191470294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
95749283|NCT00484419|191470294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0001
95943071|NCT03781089|191855224|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95749284|NCT00484419|191470295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2701||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2701
95749285|NCT00484419|191470295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.6117
95749286|NCT00484419|191470295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.2007
95749287|NCT00484419|191470297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
95749288|NCT00484419|191470297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.1864
95749289|NCT00484419|191470297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0999||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0999
95749290|NCT00484419|191470298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||<0.0001
95749291|NCT00484419|191470298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0566
95749292|NCT00484419|191470298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value presents results from 1-sample t-test for within-treatment difference from baseline.||||0.0217
95749293|NCT00754494|191470325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.762
95749294|NCT00754494|191470325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.125
95943072|NCT03781089|191855225|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95943073|NCT02246127|191855288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.32|0.32|0.229
95943074|NCT02246127|191855289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.19|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.19|0.90|0.135
95943075|NCT02246127|191855290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||1.75|0.77|0.474
95943076|NCT02246127|191855292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
95943077|NCT02246127|191855294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.012
95943078|NCT02246127|191855295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.001
95943079|NCT02246127|191855296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.37|||Regression, Cox|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.37|0.86|0.168
95943080|NCT02246127|191855298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||||0.072
95943081|NCT02246127|191855300|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.73|||Log Rank|||significant differences between both arms is assumed in case p-val \< 0.05||2.73|0.94|0.079
95943082|NCT02720068|191855311|OTHER|Difference in Percentage|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.9|||||Confidence interval based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-7.3|
95943083|NCT03952520|191855329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|48.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||48.1|26.5|
95943084|NCT03952520|191855330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.1|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.1|2.0|
95855477|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|42.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||42.82|1.59|0.0120
95943085|NCT03952520|191855332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||0.4|-0.2|
95943086|NCT03952520|191855333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||2.0|-3.1|
95943087|NCT03952520|191855334|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.5|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||26.5|5.0|
95943088|NCT03952520|191855335|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.0|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||10.0|-6.9|
95943089|NCT03952520|191855337|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.8|||||This generalized linear model was adjusted for engagement of site leadership and used generalized estimating equations to account for clustering by HIV test site. The Standard Approach is the referent.|||13.8|-1.5|
95943090|NCT04757753|191855387|NON_INFERIORITY|"πN = 2-year successful treatment rate of PA1704 πR = 2-year successful treatment rate of BioRoot™ RCS Δ = πN - πR ΔL = non-inferiority margin fixed to 13% or 0.13~Hypotheses are :~H0 : Δ ≤ -ΔL H1 : Δ \> -ΔL The χ2 of Dunnett \& Gent is used to assess the non-inferiority"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0074|0.0087||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The statistical analysis was done on the proportion difference of the treatment efficacy, defined on loose criteria, at 24 months, in PP population.||0.0087|-0.0074|0.03
95943091|NCT04868656|191855393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||0.8|-5.0|0.15
95943092|NCT04868656|191855394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.6|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); adjusted length of stay (greater than or equal to 4.7 days versus less than 4.7 days); prior implementation of STRIDE (yes vs. no).||16.6|-6.0|0.34
95943093|NCT04868656|191855395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model includes the arm indicator variable only; model does not include stratification variables due to potential for overfitting.||2.5|0.1|0.23
95943094|NCT02492711|191855429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.979|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.979|0.593|0.0334
95943095|NCT02492711|191855430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.165|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||1.165|0.774|0.6204
95943096|NCT02492711|191855432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.87|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Cox Proportional Model|||0.870|0.556|0.0014
95749295|NCT00754494|191470325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.855
95749296|NCT00754494|191470326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.369
95749297|NCT00754494|191470326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.085
95749298|NCT00754494|191470326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.233
95749299|NCT00754494|191470327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.651
95749300|NCT00754494|191470327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
95749301|NCT00754494|191470327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of pEGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median pEGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.261
95749302|NCT00754494|191470328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.654
95749303|NCT00754494|191470328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.030
95749304|NCT00754494|191470328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||A log-transformation of total EGFR was utilized in primary analyses because of the highly skewed distribution observed in this outcome. The general linear model was used to estimate and compare the relative change in median total EGFR with adjustment for actin as a normalizing factor. The estimated relative change (post:pre) in the median, corresponding 95% confidence interval, and p-value for testing the null hypothesis of equal medians comparing pre- and post-measurements were reported.||||0.083
95749305|NCT03176784|191470339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.66
95749306|NCT03176784|191470339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|.85
95749307|NCT03176784|191470339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.4|0.7|1.00
95749308|NCT03176784|191470340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.8|.44
95943097|NCT05061017|191855443|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95943098|NCT05061017|191855444|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95943099|NCT05954546|191855497|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.72|||||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.|Statistical analysis data is presented for Encorafenib+Binimetinib (RWD) relative to Encorafenib+Binimetinib (CTD) (reference).||1.72|0.62|
95749309|NCT03176784|191470340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.8|.61
95749310|NCT03176784|191470340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||2.0|0.9|.12
95749311|NCT03176784|191470341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.43
95749312|NCT03176784|191470341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.5|.37
95749313|NCT03176784|191470341|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.6|0.7|.81
95798159|NCT04225832|191565843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||a-priori threshold was p\<.05 for two-sided p-value Regression employed nonresponse weights to account for any bias associated with completing any follow-up survey.|Regression, Linear|Regression results control for immigration status, length of time in U.S., and baseline value of the outcome|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm|"Unlike the observed at any FU primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant."||||.14
95943100|NCT03734029|191855504|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4012|0.6444||Two-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test, Hazard ratio and 95% CI from stratified Cox proportional hazards model using stratification factors: HER2 status, number of prior lines of chemotherapy, hormone Receptor/CDK status, as defined by IXRS.|Log Rank|||||0.6444|0.4012|<0.0001
95943101|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|8.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||8|-7|0.8842
95943102|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|27.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||27|10|<0.0001
95943103|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|47.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|38.0|56.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||56|38|<0.0001
95749314|NCT03176784|191470342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.65
95990128|NCT05227690|191954966|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.2|=0.2242
95749315|NCT03176784|191470342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.3|0.6|.60
95749316|NCT03176784|191470342|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Study site (Madison vs Milwaukee) was included as a covariate.||||1.5|0.7|.86
95749317|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a responder rate (π) of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant delta (Δ) of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.0986
95798160|NCT05473039|191565844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2629
95798161|NCT05473039|191565845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3582
95798162|NCT05473039|191565846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2187
95749318|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.5682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.5682
95798163|NCT05473039|191565847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3005
95798164|NCT05473039|191565848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0314
95798165|NCT05473039|191565849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9214
95943104|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|70.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||70|46|<0.0001
95990129|NCT05227690|191954966|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.8626
95990130|NCT05227690|191954966|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|=0.6106
95749319|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.8543
95749320|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|-0.1673||||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.0284||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0284|-0.3630|0.9167
95749321|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.6052
95749322|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for spasticity pattern.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.5369
95749323|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for country.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.7732
95749324|NCT01682148|191470343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on a π of 63% in the reference group, a clinically relevant Δ of 17%, α=2.5% (one sided) and power=80%, the sample size estimate yielded 122 valid subjects per group. Including a 10% addition for premature withdrawals, 136 subjects per group were necessary to be randomised in the study (i.e., a total of 272 subjects).|Treatment difference|0.0707||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1948|0.3362||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for MAS at Baseline.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.3362|-0.1948|0.1758
95749325|NCT01682148|191470345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.1324||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3531|0.0884||Based on a generalised linear model including factors for treatment, spasticity pattern, country and MAS baseline score.|Generalised linear model||Difference of the two clinical success rates (NMJ Targeted minus Current Clinical Practice).|A responder was defined as a subject with at least one level decrease on the MAS scale.||0.0884|-0.3531|0.2400
95798166|NCT05473039|191565849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||0.042
95798167|NCT05473039|191565849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fasting glucose at the start of COH compared to baseline fasting glucose.||||<0.001
95798168|NCT05473039|191565850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59695
95798169|NCT05473039|191565850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.466503
95990131|NCT05227690|191954967|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.4219
95749326|NCT01682148|191470346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 4.||||0.9448
95749327|NCT01682148|191470346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5458|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country, and Baseline VAS as a covariate.||Mean change in VAS from Baseline to Week 12.||||0.5458
95749328|NCT01682148|191470347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4006|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA included factors for treatment, spasticity pattern and country.||||||0.4006
95749329|NCT01682148|191470348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.5747
95749330|NCT01682148|191470349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1802|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.1802
95749331|NCT02563769|191470360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95749332|NCT02563769|191470360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95749333|NCT02709486|191470364|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0088
95749334|NCT02709486|191470364|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.97|0.0006
95943105|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|72.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||72|47|<0.0001
95749335|NCT02709486|191470365|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.93|0.0008
95749336|NCT02709486|191470365|SUPERIORITY|Step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. Tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-1.05|<.0001
95943106|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|80.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|89.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||89|71|<0.0001
95798170|NCT05473039|191565850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AST at the start of COH compared to baseline AST.||||0.959877
95798171|NCT05473039|191565851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062810
95798172|NCT05473039|191565851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.417757
95798173|NCT05473039|191565851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ALT at the start of COH compared to baseline ALT.||||0.968525
95798174|NCT05473039|191565852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686488
95798175|NCT05473039|191565852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.395120
95798176|NCT05473039|191565852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cholesterol at the start of COH compared to baseline cholesterol.||||0.127135
95990132|NCT05227690|191954967|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|=0.3933
95990133|NCT05227690|191954967|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|0.0|=0.7366
95990134|NCT05227690|191954967|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 10 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 10 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|=0.4639
95990135|NCT03423342|191955009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The updated p-value is calculated and not a threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95990136|NCT03423342|191955010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95749337|NCT02709486|191470366|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.1092
95749338|NCT02709486|191470366|SUPERIORITY|A step-down testing procedure within each of the primary outcome measures was applied to maintain Type I error. Tanezumab 5 mg versus placebo was tested first and if found significant, then the testing was continued for Tanezumab 2.5 mg versus placebo. A tanezumab treatment group was declared as superior to placebo if the corresponding treatment contrast was significant over all 3 primary outcome measures.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0051
95798177|NCT05473039|191565853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257496
95798178|NCT04279483|191565863|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.74
95798179|NCT04279483|191565863|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.69
95855478|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||9.92|0.01|0.5449
95990137|NCT03423342|191955011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95990138|NCT03423342|191955012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95990139|NCT03423342|191955013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95990140|NCT03423342|191955014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95990141|NCT00662792|191955070|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.158|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-12||0.158|0.102|<0.0001
95990142|NCT00662792|191955070|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.097|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs Tiotropium (Tio18GEL) for FEV1 AUC0- 12||0.097|0.042|<.0001
95990143|NCT00662792|191955070|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.004|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.004|-0.052|0.0914
95749339|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.94|<.0001
95749340|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.61|0.0149
95749341|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.08|<.0001
95749342|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.07|<.0001
95749343|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.92|<.0001
95749344|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.07|<.0001
95749345|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
95798180|NCT04279483|191565864|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that cigarettes smoked would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the Nontobacco retailer group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.49
95943107|NCT00624442|191855516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding systolic ejection time PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
95943108|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||2|-1|0.3665
95749346|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.09|<.0001
95749347|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.93|0.0005
95798181|NCT04279483|191565864|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed effects|Slope|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was evaluated at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Our hypothesis was that craving would be higher for those in the Tobacco retailer group, relative to the control group, during the intervention phase but not the baseline phase. We tested the interaction between study phase and experimental condition, in a model where the baseline was the reference study phase and Tobacco group was the reference experimental condition.||||0.72
95943109|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|1.0|||<|0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||3|0|<0.0357
95749348|NCT02709486|191470367|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.93|0.0004
95749349|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.95|<.0001
95749350|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.70|0.0014
95749351|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.09|<.0001
95749352|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.08|<.0001
95943110|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|1|0.0004
95943111|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|3.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||4|1|0.0086
95943112|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|2.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||5|0|0.032
95943113|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM placebo corrected diff from baseline|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.0||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis is based on the following model: CFB Parameter = Bin Group + Baseline + Error, treating patients as a random effect.||Placebo corrected change from baseline least squares mean +/- the standard error of the mean||6|3|<0.0001
95943114|NCT00624442|191855517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis based on the following model: Change from baseline = Concentration + Baseline + Error, treating patients as random effect||"All available concentration data are used in the model as a continuous variable.~p-value based on individual plasma concentration of CK-1827452 vs. corresponding fractional shortening PD assessment (not binned based on plasma concentration)"||||<0.0001
95749353|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.93|<.0001
95749354|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
95749355|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.11|<.0001
95943115|NCT04174170|191855543|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.03||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|4.16|||MMRM|||||4.16|-2.09|0.5165
95749356|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.15|<.0001
95749357|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.00|<.0001
95749358|NCT02709486|191470369|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC physical function subscale and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-1.00|<.0001
95749359|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.33|<.0001
95749360|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.27|0.0022
95798182|NCT00876343|191565880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.7|0.006
95798183|NCT00876343|191565880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-4.6|<0.001
95943116|NCT04174170|191855543|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.71||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.46|||MMRM|||||2.46|-3.88|0.6593
95943117|NCT04174170|191855544|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.03||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.31|-0.25|0.8215
95943118|NCT04174170|191855544|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.8584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.26|-0.31|0.8584
95990144|NCT00662792|191955071|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-Inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
95749361|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.35|<.0001
95749362|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.43|<.0001
95798184|NCT00230737|191565883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3594.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95798185|NCT01192178|191565917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.819||Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for investigative center|Regression, Cox||The risk of having an asthma exacerbation during the treatment period was analyzed.|||1.819|0.519|0.928
95798186|NCT00296517|191565932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.805||95.0|-1.6|2.0|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: The population mean change from baseline on HAM-D total score at Week 12 of the placebo group is equal to the population mean change from baseline on HAMD total score at Week 12 of the Bupropion hydrochloride sustained release group.||2.0|-1.6|0.805
95990145|NCT00662792|191955071|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.093|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of FEV1AUC12-24||0.093|0.036|<.0001
95798187|NCT00296517|191565942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
95798188|NCT02164916|191565944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.31|0.001
95798189|NCT01155570|191565952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95943119|NCT04174170|191855545|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.16||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.69||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.69|-11.00|0.2331
95749363|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0029
95749364|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.37|<.0001
95749365|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.40|<.0001
95749366|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<.0001
95749367|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0352
95749368|NCT02709486|191470371|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline PGA of osteoarthritis and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.37|<.0001
95749369|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.59|<.0001
95798190|NCT01155570|191565953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95943120|NCT04174170|191855545|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-1.85||MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-1.85|-15.82|0.0134
95749370|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.12|0.0085
95749371|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.88|1.89|<.0001
95749372|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.28|1.62|<.0001
95749373|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.75|1.33|0.0005
95749374|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.73|1.32|0.0005
95749375|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.86|1.31|0.0009
95798191|NCT01155570|191565954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95798192|NCT01155570|191565955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95798193|NCT01155570|191565956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95943121|NCT04664881|191855548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.71
95943122|NCT04664881|191855549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiovascular Death||||0.99
95943123|NCT04664881|191855549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction||||0.36
95943124|NCT04664881|191855549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Arrhythmias||||0.13
95990146|NCT00662792|191955071|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.028|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.028|-0.086|0.0001
95990147|NCT00662792|191955072|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.166|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of Peak FEV1||0.166|0.102|<.0001
95749376|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.89|1.32|0.0008
95749377|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|1.41|0.0002
95749378|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.57|1.23|0.0022
95749379|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.54|1.21|0.0032
95749380|NCT02709486|191470373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment||2.69|1.27|0.0013
95749381|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.59|1.30|0.0006
95798194|NCT01155570|191565957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95990148|NCT00662792|191955072|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.098|||ANOVA|Analysis of with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.025 one-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of PeakFEV1.||0.098|0.034|<.0001
95749382|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.16|1.08|0.0160
95749383|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.07|1.34|0.0008
95749384|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.5118
95749385|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.81|1.25|0.0093
95749386|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.01|0.71|0.3017
95749387|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.58|0.60|0.2160
95749388|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.08|0.29|0.7174
95798195|NCT01155570|191565962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95798196|NCT01155570|191565963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95798197|NCT01155570|191565964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95943125|NCT04664881|191855549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cardiac Arrest||||0.99
95943126|NCT01474122|191855625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.194||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.861|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 3 mg and in placebo|||1.861|0.766|0.434
95943127|NCT01474122|191855625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.208||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.886|||NB-2||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in macitentan 10 mg and in placebo|||1.886|0.773|0.407
95943128|NCT01474122|191855626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.564|||Chi-squared|||||1.564|0.442|0.5668
95990149|NCT00662792|191955072|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.006|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||0.006|-0.058|0.1093
95990150|NCT00662792|191955073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as d=0.050 L.|Differences of adjusted means|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.092|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Salmeterol (Salm50DPI) of trough FEV1||0.092|0.024|0.0008
95990151|NCT00662792|191955073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for FEV1 endpoints was defined as a delta of 0.050 L.|Difference of adjusted means|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.063|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Non-inferiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) of trough FEV1||0.063|-0.004|0.0857
95990152|NCT00662792|191955073|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.003|||ANOVA|"Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient with centre, treatment, and period.~α = 0.025 one-sided"|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|The Tiotropium free combination (T18GEL+S\_DPI) was included in order to characterise this treatment in comparison with the FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE). No formal hypotheses were defined.||-0.003|-0.071|0.0317
95990153|NCT00662792|191955074|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.124|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. salmeterol (Salm50DPI) for FEV1 AUC0-24||0.124|0.071|<.0001
95943129|NCT01474122|191855626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.789||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.484|||Chi-squared|||||1.484|0.420|0.4624
95943130|NCT01474122|191855627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.582|||Chi-squared|||||2.582|0.572|0.6117
95990154|NCT00662792|191955074|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.093|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|H1: Superiority of FDC Tiotropium/Salmeterol (T+S\_PE) vs. Tiotropium (TIO18GEL) for FEV1 AUC24||0.093|0.041|<.0001
95990155|NCT00662792|191955074|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|-0.014|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.014|-0.067|0.0029
95990156|NCT00662792|191955075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.132|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.132|0.034|0.0010
95990157|NCT00662792|191955075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.226|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.226|0.127|<.0001
95990158|NCT00662792|191955075|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.005|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.005|-0.095|0.0757
95990159|NCT00662792|191955076|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.137|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.137|0.033|0.0015
95990160|NCT00662792|191955076|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.171|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.171|0.066|<.0001
95943131|NCT01474122|191855627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.264|||Chi-squared|||||2.264|0.485|0.9047
95943132|NCT01474122|191855628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.347
95943133|NCT01474122|191855628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.165
95943134|NCT01474122|191855629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.339
95943135|NCT01474122|191855629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.312
95943136|NCT01474122|191855630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.319
95943137|NCT01474122|191855630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.221
95943138|NCT02163694|191855631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-rank test|||PFS was compared between the treatment groups using the log-rank test, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor \[ER\] and/or progesterone receptor \[PgR\] positive versus ER/PgR negative).||||0.003
95943139|NCT02163694|191855631|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.728||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||0.900|0.590|0.003
95943140|NCT02163694|191855632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.410
95943141|NCT02163694|191855632|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.914||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.333|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|||A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by prior platinum therapy (Yes versus No) and receptor status (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive versus ER/PgR negative) was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval comparing the two treatment arms.||1.333|0.737|0.410
95943142|NCT02163694|191855633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
95943143|NCT02163694|191855634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Nominal P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ER/PgR status and prior platinum therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.715
95943144|NCT02163694|191855635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
95990161|NCT00662792|191955076|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.032|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.032|-0.138|0.0017
95990162|NCT00662792|191955077|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.131|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.131|0.037|0.0005
95990163|NCT00662792|191955077|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.194|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.194|0.100|<.0001
95990164|NCT00662792|191955077|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.018|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.018|-0.113|0.0074
95990165|NCT00662792|191955078|SUPERIORITY||Differences of adjusted means|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.109|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.109|-0.008|0.0898
95990166|NCT00662792|191955078|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.201|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.201|0.083|<.0001
95990167|NCT00662792|191955078|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.002|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.002|-0.116|0.0601
95990168|NCT00662792|191955079|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.033|-0.089|0.3652
95749389|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.45|<.0001
95749390|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.54|1.29|0.0006
95943145|NCT02163694|191855635|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|0.737||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.908|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|Stratified by prior platinum therapy (yes vs no) and receptor status (ER and/or PgR positive vs ER/PgR negative).||||0.908|0.597|0.004
95950236|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 vaccine when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC14 antigen, greater than -10%.||3|-4|
95990169|NCT00662792|191955079|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.103|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.103|-0.020|0.1816
95990170|NCT00662792|191955079|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.033|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-0.033|-0.157|0.0026
95990171|NCT00662792|191955080|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||16.8|6.9|<.0001
95990172|NCT00662792|191955080|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|29.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||29.2|19.2|<.0001
95990173|NCT00662792|191955080|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||1.6|-8.5|0.1804
95798198|NCT01155570|191565965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95749391|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.23|0.0024
95749392|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.16|1.49|<.0001
95749393|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.14|1.04|0.0373
95749394|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.72|1.27|0.0046
95749395|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.47|0.92|0.0683
95798199|NCT01155570|191565967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95950237|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was, for PnC 18C antigen greater than -10%.||1|-3|
95749396|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.66|1.22|0.0214
95749397|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.30|0.0006
95749398|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.28|1.16|0.0048
95749399|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.65|1.27|0.0012
95749400|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.47|1.68|<.0001
95749401|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.74|0.99|0.0537
95798200|NCT01155570|191565968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95990174|NCT00662792|191955081|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|3.5|0.0008
95749402|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|1.58|0.0001
95749403|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.27|0.82|0.1155
95749404|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.96|1.13|0.0271
95798201|NCT01155570|191565969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95798202|NCT01155570|191565970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95798203|NCT01155570|191565971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95798204|NCT01155570|191565972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95749405|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.63|1.30|0.0007
95798205|NCT01155570|191565973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison versus Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95943146|NCT03816397|191855636|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 118 subjects (59 in each group) provides 88% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2.0 for the time to treatment failure comparing the group randomized to discontinue adalimumab to the group randomized to continue using adalimumab, assuming a median time until treatment failure of 10 weeks in the group that discontinues adalimumab (Arm 1) and of 20 weeks in the group that continues on adalimumab (Arm 2), an equal allocation between groups, and a 10% total loss to follow-up.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Log Rank||For the HR, the numerator is the placebo group (stop adalimumab) and the denominator is the adalimumab group (continue adalimumab).|A Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare time to treatment failure between the adalimumab and placebo groups up to the primary endpoint of 48 weeks, with country and conventional DMARD use included as fixed effects in the model. The null hypothesis was an hazard ratio (HR) of 1. Hypothesis testing was based on a permutation test of the log hazard ratio (100,000 replicates). The model was checked for the assumption of proportional hazards by assessing Schoenfeld residuals.||21.2|3.6|<0.0001
95943147|NCT04496752|191855641|EQUIVALENCE|Weighted Cohen's kappa statistics were computed between DCTClock-pen and MMSE, and between DCTClock-tablet and MMSE. A TOST (two one-sided test) of equivalence was planned, with a difference in kappa of 0.2 specified a priori as significant.|Difference in Cohen's Kappa|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.19|||||The difference is Cohen's kappa is (tablet - pen). The confidence interval is estimated with a nonparametric bootstrap (5000 samples).|||0.19|-0.05|
95943148|NCT03662022|191855644|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.95|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|2.23||The significance level was determined at 0.017, to account for the fact that we made three comparisons, thus conclusions can be drawn by examining if the 98.3% CI for the incidence rate ratio (IRR) contains the critical value of 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|0.40|<0.017
95943149|NCT03662022|191855644|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.34|0.017
95943150|NCT03662022|191855644|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.22|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|0.22|<0.017
95943151|NCT05275556|191855645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.23||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Poisson Regression|||||0.23|0.07|0.0002
95943152|NCT05275556|191855646|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||Threshold for significance is 0.025.|Resampling based|||||0.03|-0.15|0.09
95943153|NCT05275556|191855647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Threshold for significance is 0.025.||||11.2|-0.3|0.031
95943154|NCT05275556|191855648|OTHER||rate|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943155|NCT05275556|191855649|OTHER|2 sided test for differences between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Permutation test|||||||0.169
95943156|NCT05275556|191855650|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis: 52.4 in Colonoscopy (Standard of Care), 59.6 in CAD-e Device|||
95943157|NCT05275556|191855651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.4||Nominal p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.4|-0.2|0.0578
95943158|NCT05275556|191855652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.0|-1.5|0.7813
95943159|NCT05275556|191855653|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17||||||||0.17|0.05|
95943160|NCT05275556|191855654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||12.9|3.7|0.0004
95943161|NCT05275556|191855655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.1|-1|0.1185
95749406|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.56|1.26|0.0011
95749407|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.52|1.27|0.0009
95798206|NCT01922934|191565974|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95798207|NCT01143324|191565999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.3||||||||1.3|1.2|
95798208|NCT01143324|191566000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.9|-3.6|<0.0001
95798209|NCT01143324|191566001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.3|-4.2|<0.0001
95798210|NCT01143324|191566002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|0.30|<0.0001
95798211|NCT01143324|191566004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.0|||||||||||||61/226 patients underwent a rehabilitation programs between 6 and 12 months follow up visit, making it 27.0 % of the total.|||||
95749408|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.91|1.47|<.0001
95749409|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.78|1.18|0.0064
95749410|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.58|1.09|0.0180
95749411|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||15.08|2.09|0.0006
95798212|NCT01143324|191566005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.2|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at treated level was 1.2% (3/252) patients.|||||
95798213|NCT01143324|191566006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|1.6|||||||||||||The rate of additional lumbar spinal surgeries at the same level was 1.6% (4/252) patients.|||||
95943162|NCT05275556|191855656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.2||nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||9.2|-0.4|0.0752
95943163|NCT05275556|191855658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage between both arms is reported. H0: Colonoscopy (Standard of Care) percentage \<= CADe Device percentage (i.e. test of superiority)||2.6|-3.2|0.8194
95943164|NCT05275556|191855659|OTHER|Test for difference|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69||Nominal p-value|Exact poisson|||||1.69|1.14|0.0008
95798214|NCT01143324|191566007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage at 12 months|47.6||||||||||||||||||
95943165|NCT04679389|191855669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95943166|NCT04679389|191855670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95943167|NCT04679389|191855671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95943168|NCT04679389|191855672|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95943169|NCT04679389|191855675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95749412|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.13|1.64|0.0034
95749413|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0022
95749414|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.25|0.0014
95943170|NCT04679389|191855676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95943171|NCT05257603|191855677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|5.72|||ANOVA|||||5.72|3.24|<0.99
95749415|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.33|0.0003
95798215|NCT01143324|191566009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from pre-op mean|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.5|-25.5|<0.0001
95798216|NCT01143324|191566010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.7||||||||||||||||||
95798217|NCT01143324|191566011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||95.0|2.9|3.4||||||||3.4|2.9|
95798218|NCT02354118|191566032|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95798219|NCT00720759|191566067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A general linear model was employed. The independent variables were baseline WMFT score, treatment (condensed vs distributed), treatment (d-cycloserine vs placebo), and treatment interaction effect. The dependent measure was WMFT score at 3 months post treatment.||||<0.05
95798220|NCT03100747|191566077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.97|1.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.97|0.039
95798221|NCT03100747|191566077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.54|2.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|1.54|<0.0001
95798222|NCT03100747|191566077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.29|1.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|1.29|<0.0001
95798223|NCT03100747|191566082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.65|1.08||p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.65|0.094
95943172|NCT05257603|191855678|OTHER||||||<|0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.29
95943173|NCT05257603|191855679|OTHER||||||<|0.99|||||||ANOVA|||A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean difference in key presses from time 1 to time 2 between the intervention (RPCW) and Control conditions.||||<0.99
95749416|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.36|1.19|0.0030
95943174|NCT05257603|191855680|OTHER||||||<|0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.45
95749417|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.24|0.96|0.0754
95749418|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.06|0.0253
95749419|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.83|1.30|0.0098
95749420|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.13|0.72|0.2230
95749421|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.12|1.07|0.0201
95943175|NCT05257603|191855681|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Given the exploratory nature of the analysis we were looking for a trend in improvement in emotion regulation (i.e., p\<.10) following the intervention condition compared to control.|ANOVA|||||||<.10
95749422|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.44|1.22|0.0021
95749423|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
95749424|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.64|1.32|0.0004
95749425|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.01|0.86|0.2031
95749426|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|0.95|0.0867
95749427|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.22|0.77|0.1746
95749428|NCT02709486|191470375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.57|0.87|0.1039
95749429|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.68|1.33|0.0003
95749430|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|1.04|0.0286
95749431|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.27|0.93|0.1031
95943176|NCT05257603|191855682|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA was used to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
95990175|NCT00662792|191955081|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||15.5|5.6|<.0001
95943177|NCT05257603|191855683|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||A priori threshold for a trend set at p\<.10 for condition effect (intervention v control).|ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial. The current pilot RCT was not powered to find significant effects.||||<.10
95943178|NCT05257603|191855684|OTHER||||||<|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA with time (4) as the within-subjects variable and condition (2) as the between-subjects variable was conducted to provide preliminary information for estimating sample sizes needed for a larger Stage II efficacy trial.||||<.098
95943179|NCT02777593|191855685|OTHER|Performance goal tested using Exact method calculation to estimate the 95% one-sided lower confidence level (95% LCL) on the proportion of participants with primary endpoint success. If the 95% LCL exceeded 0.64, then the the null hypothesis was to be rejected and the PG was met.|95% Exact Lower Confidence Limit|0.751|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||"Primary endpoint success was defined as the proportion of analysis-eligible participants without a primary endpoint event and with 12-Month imaging performed.~Results were tested against a performance goal (PG) of 0.64 (i.e. 64%), derived from historical GORE TAG® and Conformable TAG® data.~Additionally, using a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and Exact Test, minimum power of 80%, the sample needed was 70 patients. With attrition, 85 patients were required."||||
95943180|NCT04024059|191855693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737|||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|4.195|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.195|0.719|=0.22
95943181|NCT04024059|191855693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.035|||=|0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.461|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.461|0.435|=0.938
95943182|NCT04024059|191855694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|4.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.336|0.733|=0.202
95943183|NCT04024059|191855694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|3.336|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.336|0.571|=.474
95943184|NCT04024059|191855695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.497|0.299|=0.328
95943185|NCT04024059|191855695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.627|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.627|0.322|=0.435
95943186|NCT05785130|191855696|SUPERIORITY|T0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||T0|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.74
95943187|NCT05785130|191855696|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|133.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||T1|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||0.75
95990176|NCT00662792|191955081|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-8.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-8.0|-17.9|<.0001
95943188|NCT05785130|191855696|SUPERIORITY|T|Median Difference (Final Values)|235.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T2|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
95943189|NCT05785130|191855696|SUPERIORITY|T3|Median Difference (Final Values)|214.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||T3|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 58 participants were randomized in a 1:1 between two arms on baseline, the first intervention day(T1), the third intervention day(T2), and follow up two days later after intervention (T3) . Sample size was determoned using G-power repeated measures, between factors(α = 0.05, power = 0.8). Assumption a discontinution rate of 10%.||||<0.01
95943190|NCT03351998|191855697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|365.55||0.6051|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.6051
95943191|NCT03351998|191855697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.0||0.9434|TWO_SIDED||||||signed rank test|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9434
95943192|NCT03351998|191855697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|179.54||0.9408|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.9408
95943193|NCT03351998|191855698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.7458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.7458
95943194|NCT03351998|191855698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.4056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.4056
95990177|NCT00662792|191955082|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||14.6|5.7|<.0001
95943195|NCT03351998|191855698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 12 month change.||||||0.1932
95943196|NCT03904576|191855707|OTHER||Difference of least squares means (T-R)|-7.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.082|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.949|-3.661||||||Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||-3.661|-10.949|
95943197|NCT03904576|191855707|OTHER||Difference in %|-24.396|||||||||||||Difference of least squares means in % (ratio to Placebo) (T-R)/R\*100%|Mixed effects model including effects for 'treatment', 'period' and 'subject' as well as covariates 'period baseline' and 'subject baseline'.||||
95943198|NCT01992913|191855713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||"Fisher's exact Test, right-sided probability based on a directional hypothesis."|Fisher Exact|||We conducted a 2 X 2 chi-square analysis of differences in proportion.||||<.05
95943199|NCT01992913|191855713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.13|||Chi-squared|ChiSq = 3.6562, df = 1|OR, iCBT / TAU in job attainment|Chis Sq: group (iCBT/TAU) X Job attained (Yes/No)||7.13|0.97|<.06
95749432|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.10|0.85|0.2033
95749433|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.86|1.34|0.0064
95749434|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.23|0.65|0.3706
95749435|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.41|0.61|0.2121
95749436|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.11|0.39|0.4859
95749437|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.17|1.60|<.0001
95798224|NCT03100747|191566082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.38|0.67||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons, the a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
95943200|NCT01992913|191855714|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|df (1, 30) for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 6 month assessment points.||.89|-2.67|<0.33
95990178|NCT00662792|191955082|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|21.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||21.9|12.9|<.0001
95990179|NCT00662792|191955082|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S\_DPI)|||-3.7|-12.7|0.0004
95749438|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.50|<.0001
95749439|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.87|1.27|0.0020
95749440|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.40|1.53|<.0001
95749441|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.14|1.21|0.0107
95749442|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.02|1.18|0.0126
95749443|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||10.26|0.70|0.1516
95990180|NCT00662792|191955083|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|18.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||18.9|7.2|<.0001
95749444|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|16.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||16.05|1.25|0.0210
95798225|NCT03100747|191566082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.45|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (adjusted for multiple comparisons) is 0.0167.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.45|<0.0001
95943201|NCT01992913|191855714|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 12 month assessment points.||2.19|-1.14|<.54
95943202|NCT01992913|191855714|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effects logistic regression model was conducted on a binary work variable, with a random intercept, using the baseline measure as a binary covariate.|Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|F (1, 130) = 1.0, p\<0.37, for the group X assessment interaction, adjusting for baseline differences in hours worked at the start of the intervention.||Compare the groups on proportions in employment at the 18 month assessment point.||1.73|-1.32|<0.71
95749445|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|1.18|0.0034
95749446|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.26|0.0010
95749447|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.71|1.27|0.0014
95749448|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.46|<.0001
95749449|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.55|1.49|0.0007
95749450|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.24|1.39|0.0018
95749451|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||12.79|1.31|0.0150
95749452|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||11.78|1.22|0.0211
95749453|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.84|1.43|<.0001
95749454|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.10|1.55|<.0001
95749455|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.00|1.47|<.0001
95749456|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.96|1.46|<.0001
95798226|NCT03100747|191566087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.64|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.17|0.64|0.24
95943203|NCT01992913|191855716|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.19
95798227|NCT03100747|191566087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.49|0.0037
95798228|NCT03100747|191566087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.57|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.57|0.08
95855479|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|16.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||16.85|0.22|0.5585
95749457|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.76|1.10|0.0180
95990181|NCT00662792|191955083|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|28.9|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||28.9|17.2|<.0001
95990182|NCT00662792|191955083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.6|-11.2|0.0769
95990183|NCT00662792|191955084|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||9.1|-3.5|0.3775
95990184|NCT00662792|191955084|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||13.4|0.7|0.0285
95990185|NCT00662792|191955084|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||-2.5|-15.2|0.0065
95990186|NCT00662792|191955088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning PEF||10.4|1.0|0.0182
95990187|NCT00662792|191955088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning PEF||11.1|1.6|0.0091
95749458|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.94|1.18|0.0072
95798229|NCT01035788|191566136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p value was obtained from the contrast of the linear mixed model||We sought to obtain a sample size of 18 per group to provide 80% power to detect a .97 standard deviation difference in mean change in CAPS between MB-CBCT and the CBCT-Communication Skills at treatment end based on a two-tailed t-test at 5% significance. Linear mixed models with repeated measures were performed to address the primary hypotheses that MB-CBCT would result in a greater improvement for Veterans and their partners than CBCT-Communication Skills at the end of treatment.||13.2|-1.39|.849
95798230|NCT04828161|191566138|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.86|<0.001
95798231|NCT04828161|191566138|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.014
95990188|NCT00662792|191955088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning PEF||-3.3|-12.8|0.0010
95990189|NCT00662792|191955088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening PEF||16.2|5.8|<.0001
95990190|NCT00662792|191955088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|28.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening PEF||28.6|18.1|<.0001
95990191|NCT00662792|191955088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening PEF||6.8|-3.8|0.5766
95990192|NCT00662792|191955089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.071|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Morning FEV1||0.071|0.008|0.0137
95990193|NCT00662792|191955089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.059|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.059|-0.005|0.0981
95990194|NCT00662792|191955089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Morning FEV1||0.010|-0.054|0.1827
95990195|NCT00662792|191955089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.092|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Evening FEV1||0.092|0.022|0.0014
95990196|NCT00662792|191955089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.140|0.070|<.0001
95990197|NCT00662792|191955089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.056|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Evening FEV1||0.056|-0.015|0.2584
95798232|NCT04828161|191566138|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.68|0.002
95798233|NCT05555290|191566156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.52|48.04|||||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model. The dependent variable was change from mannitol baseline in AUC0-60 min (in mL) post mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||48.04|-60.52|
95798234|NCT05555290|191566157|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-7.71||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.95|46.54|||Linear mixed effects model||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in AUC(0-60 min) (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||46.54|-61.95|0.762
95798235|NCT05555290|191566158|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|37.25|||||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in AUC(0-60 min) (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||37.25|-55.53|
95798236|NCT05555290|191566159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-25.78||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.77|19.2|||Linear mixed effects model||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in AUC(0-60 min) (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||19.20|-70.77|0.257
95798237|NCT05555290|191566160|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-12.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.99|53.48|||||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was change from mannitol baseline in AUC(0-15 min) (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||53.48|-77.99|
95798238|NCT05555290|191566161|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-13.69||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.05|51.66|||Linear mixed effects model||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in AUC0-15 min (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||51.66|-79.05|0.656
95749459|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.84||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||47.22|2.49|0.0015
95798239|NCT05555290|191566162|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-20.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.13|30.21|||||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was change from mannitol baseline in AUC(0-15 min) (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||30.21|-71.13|
95943204|NCT01992913|191855716|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 6 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.99
95749460|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|37.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||37.96|1.96|0.0044
95798240|NCT05555290|191566163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-31.56||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.6|16.47|||Linear mixed effects model||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in AUC(0-15 min) (in mL) post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||16.47|-79.60|0.195
95798241|NCT05555290|191566164|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-32.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.29|40.37|||||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was change from mannitol baseline in FEV1 result (in mL) at 7 hours post mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||40.37|-106.29|
95798242|NCT05555290|191566165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-36.29||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.71|37.13|||Linear mixed effects model||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in FEV1 result (in mL) at 7 hours post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||37.13|-109.71|0.303
95798243|NCT05555290|191566166|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|91.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.16|154.03|||||The analysis was performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was the change from mannitol baseline in FEV1 result (in mL) at 480 min post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||154.03|28.16|
95943205|NCT01992913|191855716|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the 12 month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.94
95943206|NCT01992913|191855716|SUPERIORITY|This is mixed model analysis of the group X assessment interaction. This analysis is the test of mean differences in level of functioning at the baseline assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|df (1, 114)||||||<0.14
95749461|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0018
95749462|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.50|1.26|0.0011
95749463|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.38|1.19|0.0035
95749464|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.43|1.22|0.0022
95749465|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.72|1.11|0.0155
95749466|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.20|0.88|0.1549
95858804|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-13.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.486||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.218|-4.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-4.631|-22.218|0.0028
95858805|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.578||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.053|-1.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-1.104|-19.053|0.0277
95749467|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||7.37|1.18|0.0212
95749468|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.57|1.06|0.0373
95749469|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.57|1.29|0.0006
95749470|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|1.51|<.0001
95749471|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.18|1.09|0.0152
95749472|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.45|1.23|0.0018
95749473|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.31|0.93|0.0970
95858806|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.014||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.306|-7.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-7.643|-27.306|0.0005
95749474|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.98|0.79|0.3435
95858807|NCT02952820|191675387|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.951||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.378|-2.964|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sWASO as a covariate. Missing values are imputed using multiple imputation and assumed to be missing not at random (MNAR/CCMV).||-2.964|-22.378|0.0105
95749475|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||9.27|1.17|0.0236
95749476|NCT02709486|191470376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|8.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC physical function subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||8.81|1.12|0.0296
95749477|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.90|1.17|0.0132
95749478|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.02|0.87|0.1274
95749479|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.76|1.44|0.0016
95749480|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||6.03|1.84|<.0001
95798244|NCT05555290|191566167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|91.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.69|145.68|||Linear mixed effects model||The analysis is performed using a linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable is change from mannitol baseline in FEV1 result (in mL) at 480 min post-mannitol challenge 1.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||145.68|36.69|0.001
95749481|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.49|1.20|0.0089
95749482|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.10|1.42|0.0012
95749483|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.98|1.45|0.0006
95749484|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||5.21|1.92|<.0001
95749485|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.06|1.10|0.0203
95749486|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||4.86|1.77|<.0001
95749487|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||2.55|0.95|0.0775
95798245|NCT05555290|191566168|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the upper 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was less than the non-inferiority margin of 3.5 min.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||||The analysis was performed using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||2.00|-1.50|
95798246|NCT05555290|191566169|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test||The analysis was performed using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||2.00|-1.50|0.514
95990198|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.02|-0.11|0.0027
95749488|NCT02709486|191470378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline patient global assessment of osteoarthritis scale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||3.21|1.21|0.0064
95749489|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.70|<.0001
95749490|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.58|0.0009
95749491|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.00|<.0001
95749492|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.77|0.0001
95749493|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.06|<.0001
95749494|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 3: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.77|0.0006
95798247|NCT05555290|191566170|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the upper 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was less than the non-inferiority margin of 3.5 min.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||||The analysis was performed using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||2.00|-1.50|
95749495|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.20|<.0001
95749496|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.06|<.0001
95749497|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.59|-1.20|<.0001
95749498|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.25|<.0001
95749499|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.93|0.0001
95798248|NCT05555290|191566171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test||The analysis was performed using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||2.00|-1.50|0.627
95798249|NCT05555290|191566174|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-24.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.16|66.12|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was peak fall in FEV1 derived as FEV1 baseline (- 30 min) - FEV1 result recorded at mannitol challenge 2 completion prior to study intervention (at 490 minutes).|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||66.12|-115.16|
95749500|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.13|<.0001
95749501|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.05|<.0001
95749502|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 10: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.10|<.0001
95749503|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.06|<.0001
95749504|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.13|<.0001
95798250|NCT05555290|191566175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-35.13||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.16|52.9|||Linear mixed effects model||Analysis was performed using linear mixed-effects model. The dependent variable was peak fall in FEV1 derived as FEV1 baseline (- 30 min) - FEV1 result recorded at mannitol challenge 2 completion prior to study intervention (at 490 minutes).|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||52.90|-123.16|0.429
95943207|NCT04881110|191855845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|14.5|8.0|<0.001
95749505|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.87|0.0040
95749506|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0005
95749507|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
95749508|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 20: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.05|0.0002
95749509|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.78|0.0506
95855480|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.059||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|147.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||147.65|3.00|0.0022
95855481|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.851||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|165.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<70 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||165.99|3.15|0.0020
95855482|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.12|0.48|0.3750
95855483|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.23|0.28|0.9140
95749510|NCT02709486|191470379|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.91|0.0086
95749511|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.07|<.0001
95749512|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.94|<.0001
95749513|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.03|<.0001
95749514|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.15|<.0001
95749515|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.91|0.0004
95749516|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.31|<.0001
95749517|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.14|<.0001
95798251|NCT05555290|191566176|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower 95% confidence limit of the point estimate of the treatment effect was greater than the non-inferiority margin of -150 mL.|Difference in least squares means|-58.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.06|21.6|||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed-effects model. Dependent variable was peak fall in FEV1 derived as FEV1 7 hours post mannitol challenge1 - FEV1 result recorded at mannitol challenge 2 completion, before initiation of study intervention.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||21.60|-139.06|
95749518|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.18|<.0001
95749519|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.00|0.0002
95749520|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.12|<.0001
95749521|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline pain in the index joint as covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.99|0.0013
95855484|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.548||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|43.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||43.57|2.09|0.0036
95749522|NCT02709486|191470381|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC stiffness subscales and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.25|<.0001
95749523|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.96|<.0001
95749524|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.73|0.0004
95749525|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.04|<.0001
95749526|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.08|<.0001
95749527|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.90|<.0001
95749528|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.13|<.0001
95749529|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-1.09|<.0001
95749530|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.12|<.0001
95749531|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.95|0.0001
95749532|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
95749533|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.89|0.0015
95749534|NCT02709486|191470383|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC average scores and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.07|<.0001
95855485|NCT01342211|191670568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.093||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|26.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85, \<100 mg/dL: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||26.10|1.42|0.0149
95943208|NCT04881110|191855845|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.9|||Chi-squared||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.90|1.26|<0.001
95943209|NCT04881110|191855846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.8|0.06
95943210|NCT04881110|191855847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|7.4|-14.3|0.52
95943211|NCT04881110|191855848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|1.2|-3.6|0.33
95749535|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-0.96|<.0001
95749536|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.67|0.0139
95749537|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.13|<.0001
95749538|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.55|-1.16|<.0001
95749539|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.91|0.0003
95943212|NCT04881110|191855849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.1|-1.7|0.10
95798252|NCT05555290|191566177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-61.96||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.16|18.24|||Linear mixed effects model||Analysis was performed using linear mixed-effects model. Dependent variable was peak fall in FEV1 derived as FEV1 7 hours post mannitol challenge1 - FEV1 result recorded at mannitol challenge 2 completion, before initiation of study intervention.|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||18.24|-142.16|0.118
95943213|NCT04881110|191855850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|3.5|-2.8|0.81
95990199|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||0.03|-0.06|0.4587
95990200|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.08|-0.01|0.1535
95990201|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.05|-0.14|0.0002
95990202|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.14|0.0006
95990203|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.06|0.5784
95749540|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.04|<.0001
95749541|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
95749542|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.14|<.0001
95749543|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.98|0.0006
95749544|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.96|0.0009
95749545|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.78|0.0377
95749546|NCT02709486|191470385|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when walking on a flat surface and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.96|0.0019
95749547|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.99|<.0001
95990204|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|24 hours||-0.04|-0.14|0.0003
95990205|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|24 hours||-0.02|-0.12|0.0042
95990206|NCT00662792|191955090|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|24 hours||0.05|-0.05|0.9978
95990207|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Daytime||-0.11|-0.55|0.0029
95749548|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.87|0.0002
95749549|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.29|<.0001
95749550|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.28|<.0001
95749551|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-1.11|<.0001
95749552|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.35|<.0001
95749553|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.11|<.0001
95749554|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.23|<.0001
95749555|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.03|0.0005
95749556|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.13|<.0001
95749557|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.82|0.0246
95943214|NCT04881110|191855851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|5.8|-5.8|0.99
95943215|NCT04881110|191855852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|22.9|-32.6|0.72
95990208|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Daytime||-0.14|-0.58|0.0012
95749558|NCT02709486|191470387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets includes treatment, randomization stratification variables (index joint and highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade) as fixed effects, baseline WOMAC pain when going up or down stairs and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
95749559|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.29|-3.90|0.6427
95749560|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.04|-7.22|0.4208
95749561|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.79|-6.03|0.8204
95749562|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||1.13|-10.16|0.1157
95749563|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||3.47|-6.12|0.5845
95749564|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Work Time Missed: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||2.11|-7.97|0.2514
95749565|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-13.97|0.0717
95749566|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-5.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-5.26|-20.11|0.0010
95749567|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-2.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.77|-17.85|0.0079
95749568|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|-2.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.63|-18.49|0.0096
95950238|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 19F antigen, greater than -10%.||4|-3|
95749569|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|4.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.41|-12.97|0.3302
95749570|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Impairment While Working: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||6.30|-11.78|0.5483
95749571|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.76|-14.26|0.0774
95990209|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Daytime||0.25|-0.02|0.0829
95943216|NCT04881110|191855853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|-0.07|-0.7|0.02
95943217|NCT04881110|191855854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.3|-0.04|0.12
95749572|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-4.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-4.81|-20.15|0.0017
95749573|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-1.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-1.99|-16.83|0.0135
95749574|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.17|-17.91|0.0129
95749575|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||4.96|-12.66|0.3869
95749576|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.6485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|7.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Overall Work Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||7.08|-11.31|0.6485
95749577|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|-3.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.03|-9.34|0.0001
95749578|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-6.00|-12.26|<.0001
95749579|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-2.50|-9.51|0.0008
95943218|NCT04881110|191855855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.3|-8.5|0.25
95749580|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||-3.51|-10.44|<.0001
95749581|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect.||0.60|-6.76|0.1004
95749582|NCT02709486|191470390|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Percent Activity Impairment: WPAI parameters were analyzed using ANCOVA model which included covariates of the corresponding baseline score, baseline diary average pain, index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade (2, 3 or 4), and treatment, with study site as a random effect||-1.30|-8.59|0.0079
95990210|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Night-time||-0.04|-0.30|0.0115
95990211|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Night-time||0.04|-0.22|0.1772
95749583|NCT02709486|191470405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.46|0.02|0.0027
95749584|NCT02709486|191470405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model included baseline diary average pain, baseline WOMAC pain score, classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment. Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model.||0.54|0.05|0.0033
95749585|NCT02709486|191470406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0002
95749586|NCT02709486|191470406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||P-value based on the log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.0007
95749587|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.59|0.29|<.0001
95858808|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.488|30.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 Nights After the First Dose (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||30.579|13.488|<.0001
95990212|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.27|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Night-time||0.27|-0.18|0.6895
95749588|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.78|0.38|0.0010
95749589|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.70|0.36|<.0001
95749590|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.88|0.44|0.0067
95858809|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|31.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.258|40.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights after the first dose (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||40.334|23.258|<.0001
95858810|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.269||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.418|22.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||22.102|1.418|0.0259
95858811|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.757|32.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||32.505|11.757|<.0001
95749591|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.89|0.45|0.0087
95858812|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|17.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.906||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.781|28.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||28.968|5.781|0.0034
95858813|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|21.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.946||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.014|33.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||33.359|10.014|0.0003
95990213|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|Over 24 hours||-0.21|-0.84|0.0013
95990214|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|Over 24 hours||-0.15|-0.78|0.0040
95749592|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.04|0.53|0.0787
95943219|NCT04881110|191855856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|115.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|115.1|59.9|<0.001
95943220|NCT04881110|191855857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|0.01|-0.09|0.18
95943221|NCT04881110|191855858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|18.1|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|18.1|-0.6|0.06
95749593|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0129
95749594|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.91|0.47|0.0124
95749595|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.98|0.50|0.0399
95749596|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||0.87|0.45|0.0060
95798253|NCT05555290|191566178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|50.39||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.56|135.33|||Linear mixed effects model||Analysis was performed using linear mixed effects model. Dependent variable was peak fall in FEV1 derived as FEV1 at 480 min - FEV1 result recorded at mannitol challenge 2 completion, before initiation of the study intervention (at 490 min).|Statistical Comparison of the Treatment A (PT027) versus Treatment B (PT007)||135.33|-34.56|0.241
95855486|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.674||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||8.83|0.32|0.5436
95943222|NCT04881110|191855859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|2.6|-0.09|0.06
95943223|NCT04881110|191855861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||||To evaluate the change of variables over time, we subtracted the values at the start from values at the end. A 2-sample t test was used to compare differences between the interventions. The χ2 test was used for comparing proportions of participants in the 2 groups who reached the primary end point after the intervention. Relative risks (RRs) and 95%Cis were calculated to demonstrate the relationship between the intervention and the achievement of the primary end point. A 2-sided P \< .05 was considered statistically significant.|28.3|21.8|<0.001
95990215|NCT00662792|191955091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.48|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|Over 24 hours||0.48|-0.16|0.3287
95749597|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.42|0.72|0.9449
95749598|NCT02709486|191470407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95%CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline WOMAC pain subscale, baseline diary average pain, and classification variables index joint, highest Kellgren-Lawrence grade and treatment.||1.18|0.60|0.3238
95855487|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.734||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.63|0.12|0.7420
95749599|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Least square (LS) Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.54|0.0001
95749600|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.61|0.0067
95749601|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.82|0.51|0.0003
95749602|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.93|0.58|0.0112
95749603|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.92|0.56|0.0093
95749604|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.96|0.59|0.0237
95749605|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.98|0.56|0.0374
95749606|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.0|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.00|0.57|0.0468
95749607|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.03|0.59|0.0751
95749608|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.06|0.61|0.1305
95749609|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.16|0.63|0.3057
95749610|NCT02709486|191470409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.11|0.61|0.2056
95990216|NCT00662792|191955092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.03|0.9956
95749611|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.99|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||0.99|0.39|0.0441
95749612|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.17|0.46|0.1895
95749613|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.01|0.35|0.0567
95749614|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.44|0.2960
95749615|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.12|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.12|0.37|0.1215
95943224|NCT03279978|191855863|OTHER||Slope|0.7124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5702|0.8546||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8546|0.5702|
95749616|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.34|0.44|0.3569
95749617|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.25|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.25|0.36|0.2096
95749618|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.28|0.37|0.2387
95749619|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.29|0.39|0.2627
95749620|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group||1.31|0.40|0.2863
95749621|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.58|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.58|0.43|0.5560
95749622|NCT02709486|191470411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.53|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: LS Mean was ratio of treatments. Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of baseline WOMAC Pain subscale score, baseline diary average pain score, index joint, Kellgren Lawrence grade, and treatment group.||1.53|0.42|0.5076
95749623|NCT02377921|191470433|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.74||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.09||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model includes change from Baseline (BL) as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and BL values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||3.09|-1.61|0.5387
95749624|NCT02377921|191470434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.58||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||1.58|-2.38|0.6938
95749625|NCT02377921|191470435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||2.86|-5.83|0.5023
95749626|NCT02377921|191470436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.57||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference = Ace-ER - placebo|||0.57|-2.01|0.2739
95749627|NCT02377921|191470437|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-6.27|0.1235
95749628|NCT02377921|191470438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.55||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.55|-1.40|0.3907
95943225|NCT03279978|191855863|OTHER||Slope|0.5964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4777|0.7151||||||Dose proportionality for AUC0-24 of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). In this study AUCtau,1 = AUC0-24|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7151|0.4777|
95749629|NCT02377921|191470439|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.98||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|5.68||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||5.68|-27.64|0.1964
95990217|NCT00662792|191955092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7100
95855488|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.151||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|167.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||167.62|4.73|0.0002
95855489|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.214||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|643.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||643.42|7.88|0.0001
95943226|NCT03279978|191855864|OTHER||Slope|0.6445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5124|0.7766||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7766|0.5124|
95943227|NCT03279978|191855864|OTHER||Slope|0.6223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4747|0.7699||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7699|0.4747|
95749630|NCT02377921|191470440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.86||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER - placebo|||0.86|-3.66|0.2241
95749631|NCT02377921|191470441|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.75||GEE model includes change from Baseline as dependent variable, visit, treatment and visit by treatment as fixed factors, and Baseline values, sex, and region as covariates, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||Difference: Ace-ER 6 g/day - placebo|||0.75|-1.39|0.5608
95749632|NCT02443545|191470443|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
95749633|NCT02443545|191470443|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
95749634|NCT02443545|191470443|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in LIC was significantly different from 0.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0000
95749635|NCT02443545|191470444|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.3146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.3146
95749636|NCT02443545|191470444|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI T2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.9454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.9454
95858814|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|18.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.324||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.14|30.969|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be missing at random (MAR).||30.969|6.140|0.0034
95749637|NCT02443545|191470444|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in MRI 2\* was significantly different from 0.||||||0.4336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.4336
95749638|NCT02443545|191470445|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.9952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 1 year of deferiprone therapy||||0.9952
95943228|NCT03279978|191855865|OTHER||Slope|0.6401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4545|0.8258||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.8258|0.4545|
95749639|NCT02443545|191470445|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 2 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0008
95943229|NCT03279978|191855865|OTHER||Slope|0.5811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0864|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4013|0.7609||||||Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7609|0.4013|
95749640|NCT02443545|191470445|OTHER|One-sample t-test, to determine whether the change from baseline in serum ferritin was significantly different from 0||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline after 3 years of deferiprone therapy||||0.0420
95749641|NCT00536484|191470451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, center and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction.|The LS mean difference \& 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline = 12.9 (centered baseline used in model)|Null hypothesis: the mean change from baseline in micturitions per 24 hours in the fesoterodine group is the same as in the placebo group at Week 12. A sample size of 350 in each arm had at least 85% power to detect a difference of 0.8 between flexible dose fesoterodine \& placebo assuming a standard deviation of 3.52 using a 2-sample t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level. Accounting for 10% of randomized subjects not having the primary endpoint data, 390 subjects were needed in each arm||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
95749642|NCT00536484|191470452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0136||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment, baseline covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.8|0.0136
95749643|NCT00536484|191470452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002||95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
95749644|NCT00536484|191470453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1057||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.9|0.1057
95749645|NCT00536484|191470453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0338||95.0|-1.1|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-1.1|0.0338
95749646|NCT00536484|191470453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0003||95.0|-1.5|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.5|0.0003
95749647|NCT00536484|191470454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1666||95.0|-0.6|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.6|0.1666
95749648|NCT00536484|191470454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0506||95.0|-0.8|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.8|0.0506
95749649|NCT00536484|191470454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0014||95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.2|-1.0|0.0014
95749650|NCT00536484|191470455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2054||95.0|-0.4|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.4|0.2054
95749651|NCT00536484|191470455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0225||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.0|-0.6|0.0225
95749652|NCT00536484|191470455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0167||95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.1|-0.6|0.0167
95749653|NCT00536484|191470456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8019||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8019
95990218|NCT00662792|191955092|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.04|-0.02|0.3659
95990219|NCT00662792|191955093|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.02|-0.04|0.4416
95749654|NCT00536484|191470456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3881||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3881
95749655|NCT00536484|191470456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.324||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.3240
95749656|NCT00536484|191470457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8279||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 2 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.8279
95749657|NCT00536484|191470457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059||95.0|-0.2|0.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 6 minus Baseline||0.1|-0.2|0.5059
95749658|NCT00536484|191470457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0806||95.0|-0.4|0.0||Significance level p \<0.05|ANOVA|||Week 12 minus Baseline||0.0|-0.4|0.0806
95749659|NCT00536484|191470458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0203||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.3|-3.2|0.0203
95749660|NCT00536484|191470458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0007||95.0|-4.2|-1.1||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
95749661|NCT00536484|191470458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-1.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-1.7|-4.9|<0.0001
95749662|NCT00536484|191470459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-10.7|-4.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|Week 12 minus Baseline||-4.9|-10.7|<0.0001
95855490|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.203||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||4.74|0.01|0.3210
95855491|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||12.27|0.39|0.3786
95855492|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.576||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|38.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||38.38|1.50|0.0144
95855493|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.465||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|116.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||116.60|3.59|0.0007
95855494|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.161||||0.8626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||6.30|0.21|0.8626
95943230|NCT03279978|191855866|OTHER||Slope|0.6005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0722|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4534|0.7477||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fasted groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7477|0.4534|
95990220|NCT00662792|191955093|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.02|-0.03|0.7058
95749663|NCT00536484|191470460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|5.3|11.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Concern domain"||11.5|5.3|<0.0001
95749664|NCT00536484|191470460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001||95.0|3.9|10.2||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Coping domain"||10.2|3.9|<0.0001
95749665|NCT00536484|191470460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0036||95.0|1.5|7.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate||"Week 12 minus Baseline~Sleep domain"||7.8|1.5|0.0036
95749666|NCT00536484|191470460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007||95.0|1.6|5.8||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~Social interaction domain"||5.8|1.6|0.0007
95749667|NCT00536484|191470460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001||95.0|3.6|8.9||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline as covariate and baseline by treatment interaction|Since centered baseline was used in the model, the LS mean difference and its 95% CI were calculated at mean baseline|"Week 12 minus Baseline~HRQL scale score total"||8.9|3.6|<0.0001
95749668|NCT00536484|191470461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0087
95749669|NCT00536484|191470461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0008
95749670|NCT00536484|191470461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
95749671|NCT00536484|191470462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0129
95990221|NCT00662792|191955093|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.05|-0.01|0.1494
95798254|NCT04800094|191566236|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on all measurements assuming independency.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.4459|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI) derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record. A higher HRI value indicates greater liver fat accumulation, which reflects a worse outcome, while a lower HRI suggests less hepatic fat and a better outcome."||||
95943231|NCT03279978|191855866|OTHER||Slope|0.5799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0656|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|0.7156||||||Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 730357 in plasma - fed groups was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).|Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|0.7156|0.4441|
95749672|NCT00536484|191470462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 6||||0.0100
95749673|NCT00536484|191470462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0||||Significance level p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test used modified ridit scores which were based on the ranks of the observations rather than the observed values.||Treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0009
95749674|NCT00536484|191470463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.4||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 2 minus Baseline||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
95749675|NCT00536484|191470463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 6 minus Baseline||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95749676|NCT00536484|191470463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.7||Significance level p \<0.05|ANCOVA|Terms for center, treatment and baseline covariate||Week 12 minus Baseline||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
95749677|NCT04179019|191470464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the 24h urine aldosterone excretion rate. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.96
95749678|NCT04179019|191470465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, plasma aldosterone concentration following 2 weeks of amlodipine therapy was compared to the baseline pre-treatment aldosterone concentration. The null hypothesis was that amlodipine therapy would result in no change in the plasma aldosterone value. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.29
95749679|NCT04179019|191470466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The intra-individual, paired, change in plasma aldosterone concentration in response to an acute dose of amlodipine (6h post-dose) was compared to the baseline pre-treatment response to an acute dose of amlodipine. The null hypothesis was that an acute amlodipine dose would result in no acute change in the plasma aldosterone levels. Because only 2 participants completed the pilot study, the validity of the results is low.||||0.83
95749680|NCT01770431|191470467|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|14.7315||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95749681|NCT01770431|191470468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||||0.81|0.55|<0.0001
95798255|NCT04800094|191566236|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on the subject level averages of multiple measurements.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.5431|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI) derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record. A higher HRI value indicates greater liver fat accumulation, which reflects a worse outcome, while a lower HRI suggests less hepatic fat and a better outcome."||||
95943232|NCT04159519|191855871|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.1062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0485|0.2609||||||Comparison with reference arm||0.2609|-0.0485|
95943233|NCT04159519|191855872|OTHER|Comparison|Least square mean difference|-0.0343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2527|0.1841|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment arm, visit, baseline value, and treatment-by-visit interaction with an unstructured covariance structure.||Comparison with reference arm||0.1841|-0.2527|
95943234|NCT03493542|191855888|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.58|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 6||1.58|1.28|<0.0001
95990222|NCT00662792|191955094|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.06|-0.06|0.9980
95990223|NCT00662792|191955094|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.08|-0.04|0.4618
95943235|NCT03493542|191855888|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.55|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 11||1.55|1.25|<0.0001
95749682|NCT02139124|191470505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.6||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo."||2.6|-6.6|0.6750
95855495|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||7.51|0.30|0.6237
95943236|NCT03493542|191855888|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.7|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 16||1.70|1.37|<0.0001
95943237|NCT03493542|191855888|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of GMT ratio (9 to 19 years old/20 to 26 years old) was greater than 0.67 for each HPV type.|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.9|||ANOVA||GMT Ratio = GMT (9-19 yr)/GMT(20-26 yr)|Anti-HPV 18||1.90|1.45|<0.0001
95990224|NCT00662792|191955094|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.12|0.00|0.0418
95749683|NCT02139124|191470505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.2||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo||-2.2|-11.5|0.0013
95749684|NCT02139124|191470505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||The model includes terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||2.7|-6.8|0.6720
95855496|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.029||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|36.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||36.65|1.76|0.0072
95855497|NCT01342211|191670569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.557||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|113.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: The standard logistic regression model was used to assess treatment effect.||113.20|3.73|0.0005
95855498|NCT00400179|191670579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3952||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3952
95855499|NCT00400179|191670580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0808
95943238|NCT03493542|191855909|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 6||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
95749685|NCT02139124|191470505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.2||The model include terms for treatment and baseline Clinician ADHD-5-RS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Analyses utilize ANCOVA models with Dunnett's adjustments for multiple pairwise comparisons for each active dose group with placebo.||"The null hypothesis is the mean Clinician ADHD-5-RS total score at Visit 6 is not different between the active treatment and placebo"||-3.2|-12.9|0.0002
95749686|NCT02691741|191470506|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029||||||||-0.029|-0.093|
95749687|NCT02691741|191470507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|-0.029|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||-0.029|-0.093|0.002
95749688|NCT02691741|191470508|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.019|
95749689|NCT02691741|191470508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.455
95749690|NCT02691741|191470509|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on the treatment difference is less than 0.1 logMAR unit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|-0.023||||||||-0.023|-0.078|
95749691|NCT02691741|191470509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.003
95749692|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.41|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-1.59|-5.41|
95749693|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.18|-1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-1.89|-5.18|
95749694|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|-2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-2.43|-5.77|
95943239|NCT03493542|191855909|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 11||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
95943240|NCT03493542|191855909|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 16||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
95990225|NCT00662792|191955095|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.03|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Tio18GEL)|||0.03|-0.08|0.4206
95749695|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.14|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-1.28|-5.14|
95749696|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.41|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.51|-4.41|
95749697|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.03|-2.84|
95749698|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||1.29|-2.53|
95749699|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||1.99|-1.84|
95749700|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.22|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||1.10|-3.22|
95749701|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.57|-4.88|
95749702|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.32|-3.77|
95749703|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.33|-1.90|
95749704|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.11|-5.56|
95749705|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||1.25|-2.75|
95749706|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.38|-1.49|
95749707|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||4.58|0.58|
95749708|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||4.98|0.73|
95749709|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.85|6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||6.03|1.85|
95749710|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.61|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.95|3.61|
95943241|NCT03493542|191855909|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (9 to 19 years old minus 20 to 26 years old) in seroconversion percentages being greater than -5 percentage points for each HPV type.|Difference in percentages (%)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference of Seroconversion percentage HPV 18||1.2|-1.1|<0.0001
95749711|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.99|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||8.89|4.99|
95749712|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||5.34|0.93|
95749713|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.40|-0.23|
95943242|NCT04675034|191855940|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|0.67|||ANCOVA|Least Square (LS) mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.670|-0.968|0.360
95943243|NCT04675034|191855940|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.619|0.027|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.027|-1.619|0.029
95749714|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.30|-0.57|
95749715|NCT03465436|191470516|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.63|-2.21|
95749716|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.03|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.60|5.03|
95749717|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.47|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||14.10|10.47|
95749718|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.54|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||13.00|9.54|
95749719|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.97|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.87|9.97|
95855500|NCT00400179|191670581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.86|0.9158
95749720|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.17|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.79|9.17|
95749721|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||13.87|10.10|
95749722|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.32|14.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.05|10.32|
95749723|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.83|13.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.52|9.83|
95749724|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.39|6.10|
95749725|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.07|5.66|
95749726|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.38|4.32|
95749727|NCT03465436|191470516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.38|3.88|
95749728|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.52|-6.47|
95749729|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.42|-7.18|
95749730|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.57|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-3.82|-7.57|
95749731|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.30|-6.64|
95749732|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-2.19|-6.87|
95749733|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-0.59|-4.90|
95749734|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.86|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.39|-3.86|
95749735|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.44|-3.77|
95855501|NCT00400179|191670582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.77|0.0320
95855502|NCT00400179|191670583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.80|0.1983
95749736|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.94|-3.17|
95749737|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-0.35|-4.58|
95749738|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.43|-3.87|
95749739|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||2.72|-1.14|
95749740|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.57|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.71|-6.57|
95749741|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-0.39|-4.59|
95749742|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||1.09|-3.02|
95943244|NCT04675034|191855940|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.009|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.009|-1.618|0.026
95943245|NCT04675034|191855940|SUPERIORITY||Combined estimate for LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.245|||ANCOVA|Least Square mean and treatment group difference with associated 95% CIs are modelled using ANCOVA on imputed data.||||0.245|-1.423|0.083
95943246|NCT02624050|191856054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|log-binomial regression|||||||0.01
95943247|NCT02624050|191856055|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold of significance was \<0.05|log binomial regression|||||||0.37
95749743|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||3.73|-0.46|
95943248|NCT02624050|191856060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||"Because the data were skewed, the natural logarithmic transformation was used prior to analysis for inference.~Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05"|Ratio of Geometric Means|This p-value is for 15 min after induction of anesthesia||||||0.277
95990226|NCT00662792|191955095|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (Salm50DPI)|||0.06|-0.05|0.8723
95990227|NCT00662792|191955095|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance with terms for centre, patient within centre, treatment, and period. α = 0.05 two-sided.|(T+S\_PE) - (T18GEL+S-DPI)|||0.11|-0.01|0.1005
95749744|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||3.81|-0.59|
95749745|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||4.57|0.25|
95749746|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||6.12|2.48|
95749747|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.02|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||7.27|3.02|
95749748|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||4.79|0.75|
95749749|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||4.05|-0.55|
95749750|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||3.69|-0.19|
95749751|NCT03465436|191470517|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 10 milliseconds.|LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.48|-2.44|
95749752|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.72|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||9.41|4.72|
95749753|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.94|13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||13.69|9.94|
95749754|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.16|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||12.74|9.16|
95749755|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||13.43|9.5|
95943249|NCT04835363|191856065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
95943250|NCT04835363|191856066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
95943251|NCT04835363|191856067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.012
95943252|NCT04835363|191856068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.078
95943253|NCT04835363|191856069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95943254|NCT04835363|191856070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.797
95943255|NCT04835363|191856071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.358
95943256|NCT04835363|191856072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
95943257|NCT04835363|191856073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.496
95943258|NCT04835363|191856074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.241
95943259|NCT04835363|191856075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95749756|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||12.71|8.9|
95943260|NCT04835363|191856076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.019
95749757|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.42|14.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||14.28|10.42|
95749758|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.76|14.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||14.54|10.76|
95943261|NCT04835363|191856077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.141
95943262|NCT04835363|191856077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||DISENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES||||0.496
95943263|NCT02360371|191856092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed methods|||||||0.567
95943264|NCT02360371|191856093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Mixed Model|||||||0.805
95943265|NCT05215054|191856097|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.||||||||||||||||Difference of changes from baseline in WSRS score for Gana V versus Sculptra|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95%CI of the difference of changes from baseline between test device and control is inferior or equal to 0.5.To assess assay sensitivity, the proportion of responders with Gana V®, defined as improvement of ≥1-grade in the WSRS when compared to D0 pre-injection must be ≥50% at the 6 months visit after baseline.|||
95749759|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.23|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||13.10|9.23|
95943266|NCT05485935|191856108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.24|72.64||The pass criteria were based on results analysing the 2 primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the H0 on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||72.64|19.24|0.001
95943267|NCT05485935|191856109|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.35|0.07|<0.001
95943268|NCT05485935|191856110|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||0.40|0.04|<0.001
95943269|NCT05485935|191856111|SUPERIORITY|The pass criteria were based on the results analysing the two primary endpoints in a hierarchical fashion: rejecting the null hypothesis on the first endpoint (Residual urine at first flow-stop) before continuing to the second (Number of flow-stop episodes).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|47.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This was a superiority investigation in which the null hypothesis of the primary endpoints was to be rejected, at a 5% significance (alpha 0.05), to demonstrate the superiority of the investigational device.||47.6|9.5|0.004
95943270|NCT02765412|191856130|OTHER|multilevel model|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusts for age, gender, race, comorbidities, implementation group, travel distance, and VAMC indicator|OR corresponding to the interaction between implementation group and lung cancer risk, a ratio of odds ratios. The OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the SI group versus the OR for screening based on lung cancer risk in the II group|||0.78|0.58|0.081
95943271|NCT02765412|191856131|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||Two-sided test; the a priori threshold being 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Satisfaction rating on a scale of 0 to 10; Difference is Arm 1 - Arm 2|Simple t-test comparing mean satisfaction ratings between arms||0.46|-0.16|0.35
95943272|NCT06603766|191856225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95943273|NCT06603766|191856226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95749760|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||10.22|6.02|
95749761|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.01|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||10.19|6.01|
95749762|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||8.28|4.23|
95749763|NCT03465436|191470517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.47|8.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||8.01|3.47|
95749764|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|32.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.5|54.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||54.28|11.50|
95749765|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.81|122.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.50|77.81|
95749766|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|107.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|130.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||130.91|83.31|
95749767|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.32|92.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||92.63|56.32|
95749768|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.77|109.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||109.61|68.77|
95749769|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|74.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.41|94.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||94.55|55.41|
95749770|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.03|69.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||69.63|36.03|
95943274|NCT06603766|191856227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95943275|NCT06603766|191856228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
95943276|NCT06603766|191856229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95943277|NCT06603766|191856230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95749771|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.86|59.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||59.35|24.86|
95749772|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|62.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.39|82.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||82.83|42.39|
95749773|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.49|79.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||79.61|32.49|
95943278|NCT04093869|191856243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|14.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Full alpha of 0.05 was allocated to this as the sole primary outcome.|Regression, Linear||A negative mean difference would represent a better outcome in the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||14|-6|0.40
95749774|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.79|59.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||59.63|11.79|
95749775|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.66|15.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||15.47|-24.66|
95749776|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|76.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||76.35|36.72|
95749777|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|122.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||122.72|83.88|
95749778|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|94.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.15|113.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||113.26|75.15|
95749779|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|83.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|99.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||99.00|67.98|
95749780|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||120.00|87.28|
95749781|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|89.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||107.29|71.24|
95749782|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|65.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.28|82.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||82.30|48.28|
95749783|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|52.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.1|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||69.60|36.10|
95798256|NCT04800094|191566236|OTHER|To account for within subject variance in repeated measures by two different operators, a method with MIXED model for repeated measurements was used to estimate the correlation between two techniques with repeated measures. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Model|0.4871|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI) derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record. A higher HRI value indicates greater liver fat accumulation, which reflects a worse outcome, while a lower HRI suggests less hepatic fat and a better outcome."||||
95943279|NCT04093869|191856244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|85.0|||||A positive value for the estimate represents a greater distance walked for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||85|-44|
95943280|NCT04093869|191856245|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-316.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|336.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-979.0|346.0|||||A positive value for the estimate would represent more steps per day for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||346|-979|
95943281|NCT04093869|191856246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|34.0||||||||34|-5|
95943282|NCT04093869|191856247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better QOL survey score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.11|-0.1|
95943283|NCT04093869|191856248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3|||||A negative value for the estimate would represent a better Frailty index score for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||0.30|-0.22|
95749784|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|86.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|105.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||105.82|66.36|
95749785|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.32|101.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||101.91|58.32|
95749786|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|67.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|90.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||90.51|44.64|
95749787|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.01|25.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||25.55|-10.01|
95749788|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.44|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-5.60|-38.44|
95749789|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-38.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.15|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-20.60|-57.15|
95749790|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.35|-4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.91|-39.35|
95749791|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.15|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-2.56|-32.15|
95749792|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.17|16.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||16.12|-18.17|
95749793|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.81|12.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||12.27|-21.81|
95749794|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.36|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.24|-33.36|
95749795|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.94|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.37|-32.94|
95749796|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|23.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||23.11|-10.86|
95749797|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.25|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||19.80|-15.25|
95749798|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.46|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||9.56|-33.46|
95749799|NCT03465436|191470518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.32|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||16.69|-17.32|
95749800|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.41|-0.37|
95749801|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.15|-0.61|
95749802|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.23|-0.47|
95749803|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-0.07|-0.81|
95749804|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-0.15|-0.95|
95749805|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.00|-0.77|
95749806|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.10|-0.72|
95749807|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.66|
95749808|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.09|-0.98|
95943284|NCT04093869|191856249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.20|
95943285|NCT04093869|191856250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.13|
95990228|NCT01703858|191955137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.501|105.272|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.272|92.501|0.0000
95749809|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.31|-0.58|
95749810|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.12|-0.70|
95749811|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.84|0.01|
95749812|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.21|-0.59|
95749813|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.89|0.06|
95749814|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.93|0.19|
95943286|NCT04093869|191856251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.12|
95943287|NCT04093869|191856252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.6|||||A positive value for the estimate represents better self-efficacy for the CSTEX arm compared to the SOC-ED arm.|||1.60|-0.83|
95943288|NCT03142009|191856267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.04|-.45|.021
95943289|NCT03142009|191856268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-.01|.075
95943290|NCT01527188|191856273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-198.18||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.82|-6.55|||ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-389.82|0.0427
95943291|NCT01527188|191856273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-171.82||||0.0793||95.0|-363.87|20.24|||ANCOVA|||||20.24|-363.87|0.0793
95749815|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.77|0.02|
95749816|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.88|0.13|
95749817|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.71|-0.05|
95749818|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||0.67|-0.02|
95749819|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||0.84|0.16|
95749820|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.36|-0.56|
95749821|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.33|-0.56|
95749822|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.06|-0.84|
95749823|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.45|-0.37|
95749824|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||0.28|-0.45|
95749825|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||0.27|-0.46|
95749826|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||0.60|-0.10|
95749827|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||0.40|-0.38|
95749828|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||0.37|-0.34|
95749829|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||0.25|-0.44|
95749830|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.76|
95749831|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.73|
95749832|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-0.17|-1.03|
95749833|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.04|-0.82|
95749834|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||0.09|-0.70|
95749835|NCT03465436|191470519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.61|-0.23|
95749836|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-0.16|-2.90|
95749837|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-3.88|-6.29|
95749838|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.32|-6.81|
95943292|NCT01527188|191856273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-118.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.9|69.04|||ANCOVA|||The statistical test is not applicable due to the step-down approach performed to address the multiplicity issue.||69.04|-305.90|
95749839|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.01|-5.00|
95749840|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|-3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-3.65|-5.91|
95749841|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.08|-5.20|
95749842|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.87|-2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.01|-3.87|
95749843|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-1.42|-3.42|
95749844|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-3.06|-6.17|
95749845|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-2.26|-5.38|
95749846|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-0.97|-4.33|
95749847|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.46|-1.22|
95798257|NCT04800094|191566237|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on all measurements assuming independency.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.1742|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation  derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95943293|NCT01527188|191856274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-125.61||||0.0323||95.0|-240.53|-10.69|||ANCOVA|||||-10.69|-240.53|0.0323
95943294|NCT01527188|191856274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-122.23||||0.0376||95.0|-237.38|-7.08|||ANCOVA|||||-7.08|-237.38|0.0376
95749848|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.16|-2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||-2.02|-4.16|
95749849|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.65|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||-4.58|-6.65|
95749850|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||-4.35|-6.42|
95749851|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.55|-3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||-3.72|-5.55|
95798258|NCT04800094|191566237|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on the subject averages of multiple measurements.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation  derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95798259|NCT04800094|191566237|OTHER|To account for within subject variance in repeated measures by two different operators, a method with MIXED model for repeated measurements was used to estimate the correlation between two techniques with repeated measures. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Correlation estimated from a mixed model|0.1756|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation  derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95943295|NCT01527188|191856274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-91.18||||0.1119||95.0|-203.74|21.38|||ANCOVA|||||21.38|-203.74|0.1119
95950239|NCT00657709|191872511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the 7 components of PCV7 when given concomitantly with rMenB and DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the cutoff of ≥0.35 μg/mL, was for PnC 23F antigen, greater than -10%.||2|-8|
95749852|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.77|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||-4.87|-6.77|
95749853|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||-3.96|-6.03|
95749854|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||-2.71|-4.68|
95749855|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.21|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||-2.17|-4.21|
95749856|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.83|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||-4.95|-7.83|
95749857|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.73|-4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||-4.02|-6.73|
95749858|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.25|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||-3.17|-6.25|
95749859|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||0.63|-1.74|
95749860|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||30 minutes postdose||2.33|0.32|
95749861|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour postdose||3.40|1.19|
95749862|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours postdose||2.28|0.31|
95749863|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours postdose||1.97|0.17|
95749864|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2.5 hours postdose||1.23|-0.81|
95749865|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 hours postdose||1.56|-0.50|
95749866|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours postdose||2.44|0.29|
95749867|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours postdose||2.34|0.09|
95749868|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 hours postdose||0.99|-1.97|
95749869|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours postdose||0.83|-1.54|
95749870|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 hours postdose||2.34|-0.87|
95749871|NCT03465436|191470520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 hours postdose||1.04|-1.29|
95749872|NCT01172821|191470559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.264|0.159|<0.0001
95798260|NCT04800094|191566238|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on all observations assuming independency.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Tissue stiffness derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95943296|NCT00709956|191856308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-1.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|9.4||If the primary endpoint reaches significance, treatment effect of the secondary endpoint is determined at a 2-sided nominal of 0.05. Since hierarchy of the endpoints to be tested has been predefined, no correction for multiple testing will be applied|Generalized linear model|Subject (sequence), treatment, and period as fixed effect||With a sample size of at least 63 patients and based on the assumptions on the primary endpoint (normal distribution, SD of the difference of 30 m) the study was designed to detect a significant treatment effect with 90% power, assuming a difference exceeding 12.5 m between the mean values of the 6MWD following the iloprost power 15 treatment and the one following the placebo treatment.||9.4|-12.3|0.7883
95943297|NCT04079517|191856311|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparing mean difference in symptom score (95% confidence intervals). Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication of differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences in symptom score between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).||Post hoc analysis. Not powered, but to give an indication on differences between standard dose (20mg) and the non-approved dose (10mg).|||
95943298|NCT04039113|191856313|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.06||1-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.06|0.64|0.1042
95943299|NCT04039113|191856313|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11||2-sided p-value|Negative Binomial|||||1.11|0.61|0.2085
95943300|NCT04518943|191856333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-634.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1924.0|655.0|||linear mixed model|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignment, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||655|-1924|0.418
95943301|NCT04518943|191856333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1697.0||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3000.0|-385.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-385|-3000|0.033
95943302|NCT04518943|191856333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|820.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-347.0|1988.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1988|-347|0.248
95943303|NCT04518943|191856333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1121.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|2323.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 12. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.|Positive values represent a positive effect of requests for advice on steps compared to no request for advice.|2323|82|0.125
95943304|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.|Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|0.70|-1.05|0.739
95943305|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of financial rewards compared to non-financial rewards.|This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.39|-1.42|0.347
95950240|NCT00657709|191872512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the FHA antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||4|-9|
95993775|NCT00619957|191963378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.11||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.02|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-6.02|-24.20|0.0012
95749873|NCT01172821|191470559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.222|0.116|<0.0001
95749874|NCT01172821|191470560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.120|<0.0001
95749875|NCT01172821|191470560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.190|0.076|<0.0001
95749876|NCT01172821|191470561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.168|0.052|0.0002
95749877|NCT01172821|191470561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.147|0.030|0.0031
95749878|NCT01172821|191470562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.149|0.025|0.0061
95749879|NCT01172821|191470562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.146|0.021|0.0093
95749880|NCT01172821|191470563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.252|0.150|<0.0001
95749881|NCT01172821|191470563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.112|<0.0001
95749882|NCT01172821|191470564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.052|0.0002
95749883|NCT01172821|191470564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.145|0.033|0.0019
95749884|NCT01172821|191470565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.025|38.494|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||38.494|19.025|<0.0001
95990229|NCT01703858|191955137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.331|78.962|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||78.962|62.331|0.9644
95798261|NCT04800094|191566238|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on the subject averages of multiple measurements.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.0902|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Tissue stiffness derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95798262|NCT04800094|191566238|OTHER|To account for within subject variance in repeated measures by two different operators, a method with MIXED model for repeated measurements was used to estimate the correlation between two techniques with repeated measures. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Correlation estimated from a mixed model|0.0841|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Tissue stiffness derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95798263|NCT04800094|191566239|OTHER|The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to test the same day inter-operator reliability. The estimated inter-operator correlation coefficient and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.63||||||To assess the difference in quantitative ultrasound biomarker measurements which acquired from the same subject on the same day by two different operators who have undergone standardized training for LFQ data acquisition.||0.63|0.02|
95798264|NCT04800094|191566240|OTHER|The proportion of subjects who have at least one unacceptable image quality due to inadequate acoustic scanning windows, motion artifacts, or other technical limitations and the associated 2-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals were calculated and summarized by each operator and overall.|Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||"To evaluate the LFQ data acquisition failure rate for the biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI)"||0|0|
95943306|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares change in efficacy from baseline to week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.57|-0.35|0.293
95943307|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.30|-0.67|0.599
95749885|NCT01172821|191470565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.985|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.401|37.956|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||37.956|18.401|<0.0001
95749886|NCT01172821|191470566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.144|-0.122|0.8700
95798265|NCT04800094|191566241|OTHER|The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the same day inter-operator reliability. The estimated inter-operator correlation coefficient and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.97||||||To assess the difference in quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation measurements which acquired from the same subject on the same day by two different operators who have undergone standardized training for LFQ data acquisition.||0.97|0.88|
95798266|NCT04800094|191566242|OTHER|The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to test the inter-operator reliability. The estimated inter-operator correlation coefficient and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported|Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.8||||||To assess the difference in quantitative ultrasound biomarker measurements which acquired from the same subject on the same day by two different operators who have undergone standardized training for LFQ data acquisition.||0.8|0.36|
95749887|NCT01172821|191470566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.9612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.130|-0.137|0.9612
95943308|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.40|0.58|0.007
95943309|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.70|0.86|0.002
95943310|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.94|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares efficacy at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.94|0.10|0.068
95728104|NCT06624072|191425986|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|102.18|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 10.3%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||102.18|89.37|
95728105|NCT06624072|191425987|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T1/R|104.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|119.65|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 20.4%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||119.65|91.00|
95728106|NCT06624072|191425988|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|68.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.23|77.11|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 17.9%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||77.11|61.23|
95728107|NCT06624072|191425989|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T1/R|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.22|109.25|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 8.6%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||109.25|97.22|
95728108|NCT06624072|191425990|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means, T2/T1|95.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.47|102.42|||||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 10.4%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the effect 'subjects within sequences' as random and the other effects of sequence, period and treatment were considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||102.42|89.47|
95728109|NCT00408876|191426115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
95728110|NCT00408876|191426115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.447
95728111|NCT00408876|191426115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.084
95728112|NCT00408876|191426115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.964
95728113|NCT00408876|191426115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.451
95728114|NCT00408876|191426115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.333
95728115|NCT00408876|191426116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.318||95.0|-0.62|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.62|0.318
95728116|NCT00408876|191426116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.005||95.0|-0.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-0.83|0.005
95728117|NCT00408876|191426116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.124||95.0|-0.61|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.61|0.124
95728118|NCT00408876|191426116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.183||95.0|-0.7|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.70|0.183
95728119|NCT00408876|191426116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.778||95.0|-0.48|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-0.48|0.778
95728120|NCT00408876|191426116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.13|0.210
95728121|NCT00408876|191426117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.161||95.0|-2.32|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-2.32|0.161
95728122|NCT00408876|191426117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.019||95.0|-2.59|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.59|0.019
95728123|NCT00408876|191426117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.01||95.0|-2.74|-0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.38|-2.74|0.010
95728124|NCT00408876|191426117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.526||95.0|-1.83|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.83|0.526
95943311|NCT04518943|191856334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.14|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.14|-0.76|0.740
95728125|NCT00408876|191426117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.397||95.0|-1.96|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-1.96|0.397
95728126|NCT00408876|191426117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.813||95.0|-1.35|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.35|0.813
95728127|NCT00408876|191426118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.657||95.0|-0.5|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.50|0.657
95728128|NCT00408876|191426118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.384||95.0|-0.76|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.76|0.384
95728129|NCT00408876|191426118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.04||95.0|-1.1|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.10|0.040
95728130|NCT00408876|191426118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.253||95.0|-1.03|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.03|0.253
95728131|NCT00408876|191426118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.034||95.0|-1.36|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.36|0.034
95728132|NCT00408876|191426118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.232||95.0|-0.86|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.86|0.232
95728133|NCT00408876|191426119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.365||95.0|-0.39|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.39|0.365
95728134|NCT00408876|191426119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.232||95.0|-0.95|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.95|0.232
95728135|NCT00408876|191426119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.314||95.0|-0.9|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.90|0.314
95728136|NCT00408876|191426119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.062||95.0|-1.41|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-1.41|0.062
95728137|NCT00408876|191426119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.083||95.0|-1.36|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-1.36|0.083
95728138|NCT00408876|191426119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.859||95.0|-0.54|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.54|0.859
95728139|NCT00408876|191426120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.984||95.0|-0.34|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.34|0.984
95728140|NCT00408876|191426120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.004||95.0|-0.7|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.13|-0.70|0.004
95728141|NCT00408876|191426120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-0.81|<0.001
95728142|NCT00408876|191426120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.018||95.0|-0.76|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-0.76|0.018
95728143|NCT00408876|191426120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.003||95.0|-0.87|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-0.87|0.003
95728144|NCT00408876|191426120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.442||95.0|-0.4|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.40|0.442
95728145|NCT00408876|191426121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.464||95.0|-0.52|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.14|-0.52|0.464
95728146|NCT00408876|191426121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.36|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.36|0.052
95728147|NCT00408876|191426121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.052||95.0|-1.37|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.37|0.052
95728148|NCT00408876|191426121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021||95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
95728149|NCT00408876|191426121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.02||95.0|-1.83|-0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.16|-1.83|0.020
95728150|NCT00408876|191426121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.988||95.0|-0.7|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.70|0.988
95728151|NCT00408876|191426122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.543||95.0|-0.46|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-0.46|0.543
95728152|NCT00408876|191426122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.053||95.0|-1.1|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.10|0.053
95728153|NCT00408876|191426122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.024||95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.09|-1.21|0.024
95728154|NCT00408876|191426122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.03||95.0|-1.43|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.07|-1.43|0.030
95728155|NCT00408876|191426122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.014||95.0|-1.54|-0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-1.54|0.014
95728156|NCT00408876|191426122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.727||95.0|-0.66|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.66|0.727
95728157|NCT00408876|191426123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.813||95.0|-0.63|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.63|0.813
95728158|NCT00408876|191426123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.035||95.0|-1.21|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.21|0.035
95728159|NCT00408876|191426123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.054||95.0|-1.17|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.17|0.054
95728160|NCT00408876|191426123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.051||95.0|-1.43|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.43|0.051
95728161|NCT00408876|191426123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.07||95.0|-1.39|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-1.39|0.070
95728162|NCT00408876|191426123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.872||95.0|-0.54|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.64|-0.54|0.872
95728163|NCT00408876|191426124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79||95.0|-0.68|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.89|-0.68|0.790
95728164|NCT00408876|191426124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.005||95.0|-1.57|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.28|-1.57|0.005
95728165|NCT00408876|191426124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.009||95.0|-1.52|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.52|0.009
95728166|NCT00408876|191426124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.011||95.0|-1.83|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.83|0.011
95728167|NCT00408876|191426124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.016||95.0|-1.77|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-1.77|0.016
95855503|NCT04780061|191670584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An area under the curve approach was used to analyze the primary outcome, whereby participants' scores for each assessment were summed over the 21-day period. For missing values, we imputed the mean of the most recent and first subsequent measurement or carried the last observation forward if there was no subsequent measurement.||||0.53
95943312|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator..||0.47|-0.19|0.481
95943313|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.52|-0.16|0.388
95943314|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.34|-0.38|0.926
95943315|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.20|-0.54|0.446
95943316|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.42|-0.27|0.711
95943317|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares efficacy at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.15|-0.55|0.345
95943318|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.36|-0.33|0.928
95943319|NCT04518943|191856335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares intrinsic motivation at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and survey-based outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.16|-0.55|0.372
95943320|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 12 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.3|-1.60|0.767
95728168|NCT00408876|191426124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.857||95.0|-0.6|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.60|0.857
95728169|NCT00408876|191426125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.948||95.0|-0.81|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.76|-0.81|0.948
95728170|NCT00408876|191426125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.096||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-1.20|0.096
95728171|NCT00408876|191426125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.239||95.0|-1.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.05|0.239
95728172|NCT00408876|191426125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.196||95.0|-1.32|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-1.32|0.196
95728173|NCT00408876|191426125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.367||95.0|-1.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.17|0.367
95728174|NCT00408876|191426125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.637||95.0|-0.5|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.50|0.637
95728175|NCT00408876|191426126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.887||95.0|-0.76|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-0.76|0.887
95728176|NCT00408876|191426126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.006||95.0|-1.4|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-1.40|0.006
95728177|NCT00408876|191426126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.392||95.0|-0.84|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.84|0.392
95990230|NCT01703858|191955137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.648|94.346|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.346|73.648|0.2835
95990231|NCT01703858|191955137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.7||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.923|130.867|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.867|104.923|0.1599
95990232|NCT01703858|191955137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.072|107.719|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.719|88.072|0.0020
95728178|NCT00408876|191426126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.036||95.0|-1.48|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.05|-1.48|0.036
95728179|NCT00408876|191426126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.573||95.0|-0.92|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-0.92|0.573
95798267|NCT04800094|191566243|OTHER|The proportion of subjects who have at least one unacceptable image quality due to inadequate acoustic scanning windows, motion artifacts, or other technical limitations and the associated 2-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals were calculated and summarized by each operator and overall.|Proportion|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.6||||||"To evaluate the LFQ data acquisition failure rate for the biomarker Tissue stiffness (kPa)"||15.6|0.0|
95798268|NCT04800094|191566244|OTHER|The proportion of subjects who have at least one unacceptable image quality due to inadequate acoustic scanning windows, motion artifacts, or other technical limitations and the associated 2-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals were calculated and summarized by each operator and overall.|Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||"To evaluate the LFQ data acquisition failure rate for the biomarker Acoustic attenuation (dB/cm/MHZ)"||0.0|0.0|
95728180|NCT00408876|191426126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.064||95.0|-0.03|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.03|0.064
95728181|NCT00408876|191426127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.374||95.0|-1.15|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.43|-1.15|0.374
95728182|NCT00408876|191426127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.007||95.0|-1.55|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.55|0.007
95728183|NCT00408876|191426127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.169||95.0|-1.12|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-1.12|0.169
95728184|NCT00408876|191426127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.182||95.0|-1.35|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.35|0.182
95728185|NCT00408876|191426127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.802||95.0|-0.91|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.91|0.802
95728186|NCT00408876|191426127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.191||95.0|-0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.22|0.191
95728187|NCT00408876|191426128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.556||95.0|-1.1|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-1.10|0.556
95728188|NCT00408876|191426128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.041||95.0|-1.42|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.03|-1.42|0.041
95728189|NCT00408876|191426128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.22||95.0|-1.14|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.14|0.220
95728190|NCT00408876|191426128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.278||95.0|-1.33|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.33|0.278
95728191|NCT00408876|191426128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.673||95.0|-1.04|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|-1.04|0.673
95728192|NCT00408876|191426128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.422||95.0|-0.42|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.42|0.422
95728193|NCT00408876|191426129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.234||95.0|-1.03|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.03|0.234
95728194|NCT00408876|191426129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.40|-1.46|<0.001
95728195|NCT00408876|191426129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.213||95.0|-0.87|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.87|0.213
95728196|NCT00408876|191426129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.105||95.0|-1.19|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-1.19|0.105
95728197|NCT00408876|191426129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.876||95.0|-0.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.60|0.876
95728198|NCT00408876|191426129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.033||95.0|0.05|1.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.13|0.05|0.033
95728199|NCT00408876|191426130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.73|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.73|0.925
95728200|NCT00408876|191426130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.008||95.0|-1.49|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.49|0.008
95728201|NCT00408876|191426130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.132||95.0|-1.12|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-1.12|0.132
95728202|NCT00408876|191426130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.024||95.0|-1.67|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.12|-1.67|0.024
95749888|NCT01172821|191470567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.012|-0.241|0.0305
95943321|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|2.69|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores in week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.69|-1.12|0.500
95943322|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||2.61|-1.43|0.631
95943323|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1.44|-2.69|0.620
95943324|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|2.12|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of pre-commitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 12. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||2.12|-1.77|0.886
95749889|NCT01172821|191470567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.033|-0.198|0.1602
95798269|NCT03848715|191566245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.16
95855504|NCT04780061|191670586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95855505|NCT04780061|191670587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.81
95855506|NCT02344108|191670593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95855507|NCT02344108|191670594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95728203|NCT00408876|191426130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.184||95.0|-1.3|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.25|-1.30|0.184
95728204|NCT00408876|191426130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.262||95.0|-0.27|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|-0.27|0.262
95728205|NCT00408876|191426131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.849||95.0|-0.84|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.84|0.849
95728206|NCT00408876|191426131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.024||95.0|-1.36|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.36|0.024
95728207|NCT00408876|191426131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.773||95.0|-0.73|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.73|0.773
95728208|NCT00408876|191426131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.097||95.0|-1.43|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.43|0.097
95728209|NCT00408876|191426131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.96||95.0|-0.79|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.79|0.960
95728210|NCT00408876|191426131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.28|0.00|0.052
95728211|NCT00408876|191426132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
95728212|NCT00408876|191426132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.507
95728213|NCT00408876|191426132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.056
95728214|NCT00408876|191426132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.816
95728215|NCT00408876|191426132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.208
95728216|NCT00408876|191426132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.212
95728217|NCT00408876|191426133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.885
95728218|NCT00408876|191426133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
95728219|NCT00408876|191426133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
95728220|NCT00408876|191426133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.095
95728221|NCT00408876|191426133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.040
95728222|NCT00408876|191426133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.635
95728223|NCT00408876|191426134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.575
95728224|NCT00408876|191426134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.009
95728225|NCT00408876|191426134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95855508|NCT02344108|191670595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95855509|NCT02344108|191670596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
95855510|NCT02344108|191670597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
95855511|NCT02344108|191670598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
95855512|NCT02344108|191670599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95855513|NCT02344108|191670600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
95855514|NCT02344108|191670601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
95855515|NCT02344108|191670602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
95728226|NCT00408876|191426134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.115
95728227|NCT00408876|191426134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
95728228|NCT00408876|191426134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.072
95728229|NCT00408876|191426135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.516
95728230|NCT00408876|191426135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
95728231|NCT00408876|191426135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95728232|NCT00408876|191426135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.112
95728233|NCT00408876|191426135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.010
95728234|NCT00408876|191426135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.219
95728235|NCT00408876|191426136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.309
95728236|NCT00408876|191426136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
95728237|NCT00408876|191426136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95728238|NCT00408876|191426136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.116
95728239|NCT00408876|191426136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.033
95728240|NCT00408876|191426136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.480
95728241|NCT00408876|191426137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.709
95728242|NCT00408876|191426137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.012
95728243|NCT00408876|191426137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.001
95728244|NCT00408876|191426137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.097
95728245|NCT00408876|191426137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.023
95728246|NCT00408876|191426137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.435
95728247|NCT00408876|191426138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.931
95728248|NCT00408876|191426138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
95728249|NCT00408876|191426138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95728250|NCT00408876|191426138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
95728251|NCT00408876|191426138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.007
95728252|NCT00408876|191426138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.416
95728253|NCT00408876|191426139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.634
95728254|NCT00408876|191426139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.031
95728255|NCT00408876|191426139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.002
95728256|NCT00408876|191426139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
95728257|NCT00408876|191426139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.003
95728258|NCT00408876|191426139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.313
95728259|NCT00408876|191426140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.910
95728260|NCT00408876|191426140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.026
95728261|NCT00408876|191426140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95728262|NCT00408876|191426140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.090
95728263|NCT00408876|191426140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.006
95728264|NCT00408876|191426140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.171
95728265|NCT00408876|191426141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.733
95728266|NCT00408876|191426141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.022
95728267|NCT00408876|191426141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95728268|NCT00408876|191426141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.128
95728269|NCT00408876|191426141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.013
95728270|NCT00408876|191426141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.225
95728271|NCT00408876|191426142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.890
95728272|NCT00408876|191426142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.079
95728273|NCT00408876|191426142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.035
95728274|NCT00408876|191426142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.117
95728275|NCT00408876|191426142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.060
95728276|NCT00408876|191426142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.647
95728277|NCT00408876|191426143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.243
95728278|NCT00408876|191426143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.110
95728279|NCT00408876|191426143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.236
95749890|NCT01172821|191470568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.74|0.81|0.4012
95749891|NCT01172821|191470568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||1.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.42|0.67|1.1727
95749892|NCT01172821|191470569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.795|29.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||29.431|11.795|<0.0001
95749893|NCT01172821|191470569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.513|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.907|33.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.607|15.907|<0.0001
95749894|NCT01172821|191470570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.547||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.074|24.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||24.908|7.074|0.0004
95749895|NCT01172821|191470570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.302|30.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||30.193|12.302|<0.0001
95749896|NCT01172821|191470571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.220|-2.125|0.1114
95749897|NCT01172821|191470571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.999|-1.355|0.7665
95749898|NCT01172821|191470572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.018|0.0111
95943325|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|-2.03|-2.03|1.88|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares phq8 mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC to compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||1.88|-2.03|0.950
95749899|NCT01172821|191470572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.003|0.0395
95749900|NCT01172821|191470573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.131|0.005|0.0357
95855516|NCT02344108|191670603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95855517|NCT02344108|191670604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95855518|NCT02344108|191670605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95943326|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 12. It compares phq mental health scores at week 12 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.61|-3.51|0.248
95943327|NCT04518943|191856336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||This is the results of advice vs no-advice factor at week 24. It compares phq mental health scores at week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, indicator for week 12 or 24 week, and interactions between factors and week indicator.||0.79|-3.25|0.317
95749901|NCT01172821|191470573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.129|0.002|0.0422
95749902|NCT01172821|191470574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.086|-0.427|0.1927
95749903|NCT01172821|191470574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.367|-0.148|0.4053
95749904|NCT01172821|191470575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.028|-0.079|0.3501
95749905|NCT01172821|191470575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.061|-0.047|0.8045
95749906|NCT01172821|191470576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
95749907|NCT01172821|191470576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
95749908|NCT03821272|191470591|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.45||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||||0.77|0.17|0.31
95855519|NCT04050553|191670606|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.67|-3.64|0.7556
95749909|NCT03821272|191470592|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.31
95749910|NCT03821272|191470593|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.56||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Fisher Exact|||||0.86|0.21|0.58
95749911|NCT03821272|191470594|SUPERIORITY||non-recurrence rate|0.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.99|||Fisher Exact|||||0.99|0.28|0.58
95749912|NCT05626803|191470607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749913|NCT05626803|191470607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749914|NCT05626803|191470607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0003
95749915|NCT05626803|191470609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749916|NCT05626803|191470609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749917|NCT05626803|191470609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749918|NCT05626803|191470611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749919|NCT05626803|191470611|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749920|NCT05626803|191470611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0017
95855520|NCT04050553|191670607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-174.77||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.34|-59.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.21|-290.34|0.0043
95855521|NCT04050553|191670608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-488.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-621.25|-355.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-355.36|-621.25|<0.0001
95855522|NCT04050553|191670609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.08|1.69|0.0023
95943328|NCT04518943|191856337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1685.0|1616.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of financial vs non-financial reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive financial rewards compared to those who received nonfinancial rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1616|-1685|0.972
95943329|NCT04518943|191856337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2428.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4134.0|-722.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values represent a positive effect of lottery-based rewards compared to loss-based rewards.|This is the results of lottery vs loss-framed reward factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive lottery-based rewards compared to those who received loss-based rewards. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||-722|-4134|0.019
95728280|NCT00408876|191426143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
95728281|NCT00408876|191426143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.036
95728282|NCT00408876|191426143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0|||||Repeated Measures|||||||0.756
95728283|NCT00408876|191426144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.465||95.0|-0.84|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|-0.84|0.465
95728284|NCT00408876|191426144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.002||95.0|-1.3|-0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.29|-1.30|0.002
95728285|NCT00408876|191426144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.233||95.0|-0.82|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.82|0.233
95728286|NCT00408876|191426144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.075||95.0|-1.19|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-1.19|0.075
95728287|NCT00408876|191426144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.798||95.0|-0.71|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.71|0.798
95728288|NCT00408876|191426144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.066||95.0|-0.03|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.03|0.066
95728289|NCT00408876|191426145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.869
95728290|NCT00408876|191426145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.141
95728291|NCT00408876|191426145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95728292|NCT00408876|191426145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
95728293|NCT00408876|191426145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
95728294|NCT00408876|191426145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.587
95728295|NCT00408876|191426146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.356
95728296|NCT00408876|191426146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.472
95728297|NCT00408876|191426146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
95728298|NCT00408876|191426146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
95728299|NCT00408876|191426146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
95728300|NCT00408876|191426146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.779
95728301|NCT00408876|191426147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.747||95.0|-1.47|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|-1.47|0.747
95728302|NCT00408876|191426147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.045||95.0|-2.12|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-2.12|0.045
95728303|NCT00408876|191426147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.58||95.0|-0.76|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.76|0.580
95728304|NCT00408876|191426147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.185||95.0|-2.14|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-2.14|0.185
95728305|NCT00408876|191426147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.438||95.0|-0.77|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.77|0.438
95728306|NCT00408876|191426147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.012||95.0|0.3|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.44|0.30|0.012
95728307|NCT00408876|191426148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.729||95.0|-2.16|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.16|0.729
95728308|NCT00408876|191426148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.352||95.0|-1.14|3.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-1.14|0.352
95728309|NCT00408876|191426148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.465||95.0|-3.0|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-3.00|0.465
95728310|NCT00408876|191426148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.677||95.0|-2.09|3.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.21|-2.09|0.677
95728311|NCT00408876|191426148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.345||95.0|-3.92|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.38|-3.92|0.345
95728312|NCT00408876|191426148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.102||95.0|-4.04|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-4.04|0.102
95728313|NCT00408876|191426149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.977||95.0|-2.91|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.91|0.977
95728314|NCT00408876|191426149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.451||95.0|-1.44|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-1.44|0.451
95728315|NCT00408876|191426149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.15||95.0|-0.63|4.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.11|-0.63|0.150
95728316|NCT00408876|191426149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.524||95.0|-1.96|3.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.83|-1.96|0.524
95728317|NCT00408876|191426149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.78||||0.23||95.0|-1.13|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-1.13|0.230
95728318|NCT00408876|191426149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.491||95.0|-1.55|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.23|-1.55|0.491
95728319|NCT00408876|191426150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.645||95.0|-0.49|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-0.49|0.645
95728320|NCT00408876|191426150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.027||95.0|0.07|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.12|0.07|0.027
95749921|NCT05626803|191470613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749922|NCT05626803|191470613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749923|NCT05626803|191470613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749924|NCT05626803|191470615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0059
95749925|NCT05626803|191470615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
95749926|NCT05626803|191470615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.1899
95749927|NCT05626803|191470617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749928|NCT05626803|191470617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||<.0001
95749929|NCT05626803|191470617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Computed by using ANCOVA model with log transformed data as response variable and treatment as a fixed factor and baseline value as covariate.||||||0.0020
95749930|NCT04495283|191470650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-114.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.65|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-80.01|||ANOVA|||||-80.01||<0.001
95749931|NCT04495283|191470651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.549|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-42.32|||ANOVA|||||-42.32||<0.001
95749932|NCT04843566|191470682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
95749933|NCT04843566|191470682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
95749934|NCT04843566|191470682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
95749935|NCT04843566|191470683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Pain||||0.002
95798270|NCT01138735|191566286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by analysis center, using general association statistics||"null hypothesis: no difference in Success rate in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle).~power calculation: 90%"||||<0.001
95798271|NCT01138735|191566287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity is required. The tests will be conducted as two-sided, each at the 0.05 significance level. The trial will be claimed 'positive' if all primary analyses are shown statistically significant at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|normality assumption is not met. ANCOVA Model: Ranked Change in Total Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment.||null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline in total lesion count in two treatment groups (adapalene/benzoyl peroxide vs Topical Gel Vehicle)||||<0.001
95749936|NCT04843566|191470683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately following biopsy - Discomfort||||0.05
95749937|NCT04843566|191470683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Pain||||<0.0001
95749938|NCT04843566|191470683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7-day post biopsy - Discomfort||||0.07
95749939|NCT04843566|191470684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95749940|NCT04843566|191470685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||Gleason grade \>=2||||0.59
95749941|NCT04843566|191470686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infection||||0.04
95749942|NCT04843566|191470686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Urinary retention||||0.30
95749943|NCT04843566|191470686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Bleeding requiring intervention||||0.31
95749944|NCT02287909|191470696|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-6.9|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|985.0|-38.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|-38|>0.05
95749945|NCT00107042|191470718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2954|||||||Fisher Exact|||The study wasn't powered to compare the 2 arms but to detect a large difference. A quantitative antibody (a'body) response was measured, but for sample size and power considerations, the outcome was considered to be binary. The primary analysis involved straightforward computation of point estimates and exact confidence intervals of immunogenicity in each arm. The data for primary analysis used the Intent-to-Treat for subjects who were vaccinated at least once. Missing titers were not imputed.||||0.2954
95749946|NCT00107042|191470718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|87.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.26|95.17|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||95.17|74.26|
95749947|NCT00107042|191470718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|94.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.88|98.86|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the 'Twinrix arm is presented here."||98.86|84.88|
95749948|NCT00107042|191470719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis included an assessment of quantitative titer values in each of the two arms using confidence intervals and examining the frequency distributions of the titers in each arm. Transformations were considered (log10) for the titers based on the distributional properties observed in the sample, with the goal of attaining approximate normality of the transformed data.||||0.0608
95749949|NCT00107042|191470719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean response|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.53|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Recombivax arm is presented here."||2.53|2.05|
95749950|NCT00107042|191470719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.76|||95% confidence interval|||"Two-sided confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both the Recombivax and Twinrix arms. The CI for the Twinrix arm is presented here."||2.76|2.40|
95749951|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1757||0.1667|||||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of treatment arm (Recombivax vs. Twinrix) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.1667
95943330|NCT04518943|191856337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|418.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-999.0|1836.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of precommitment (PC) vs no PC factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for PC compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1836|-999|0.627
95943331|NCT04518943|191856337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1417.0|1807.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the results of advice vs no advice factor at week 24. It compares change in steps from baseline to week 24 between subjects randomized to receive a request for advice to other subjects compared to those who received no request. A linear mixed-effect model was estimated with independent variables of demographics, steps and outcomes at baseline, indicators for each of the four factor assignments, linear week with a spline at week 12, and interactions between factors and weeks.||1807|-1417|0.842
95943332|NCT05550636|191856338|OTHER||adjusted gMean Ratio (%)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|107.4|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 23.9%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||107.4|79.3|
95749952|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficent|-0.0025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1792||0.989||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of site effect(Other sites vs. Baltimore) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.9890
95749953|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|0.2053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1885||0.2796||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age(15 - 17 year old particpants vs. 12 - 14 year old participants) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2796
95749954|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regresssion coeffcient|-0.4726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1734||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of gender(Females vs. Males) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0080
95749955|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1905||0.2543||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Hispanic ethnicity (Not Hispanic vs. Hispanic) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2543
95798272|NCT01138735|191566288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with row mean difference statistic using relative to an identified distribution(RIDIT) score, controlling for analysis center||||||<0.001
95943333|NCT05550636|191856339|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.9|88.2|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.4%|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||88.2|68.9|
95990233|NCT01703858|191955138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|89.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.893|104.973|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||104.973|75.893|0.1261
95798273|NCT01138735|191566289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Ranked Change in Inflammatory Lesion Counts = Ranked Baseline Inflammatory Lesion Counts, Analysis Center, Treatment||||||<0.001
95749956|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3292||0.3661||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Other/Mixed Race is presented.||||0.3661
95749957|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3497||0.9812||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of racial background(White vs. Other/Mixed vs. Black/African American) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between White vs. Black/African American is presented.||||0.9812
95749958|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2314||0.7766||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Females(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7766
95749959|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.2929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2508||0.2492||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Tanner Stage for Males(Stage 5 vs. Stages 1 - 4) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.2492
95749960|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coeffcient|-0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1826||0.0877||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) vs. Overweight and Obsese (\>= 25.0)) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0877
95749961|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0113||0.0117||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of BMI at Baseline(continuous variable) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers.||||0.0117
95943334|NCT05550636|191856340|OTHER||adjusted gmean Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.9|104.9|||||Adjusted gMean ratio of test/reference (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 24.4|The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoint was logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model includes effects accounting for the sources of variation: treatment. The effect 'subjects' is considered as random, whereas the treatment effect is considered as fixed. Quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence interval.||104.9|76.9|
95943335|NCT02502266|191856341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.995|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||0.995|0.424|
95943336|NCT02502266|191856341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.284|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.284|0.539|
95943337|NCT02502266|191856341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.773|||||The hazard ratio estimate compares Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Experimental regimens with at least a 17% reduction in the estimated PFS event rate (compared to standard chemotherapy) (HR estimate \< 0.83) were recommended for further evaluation in the phase III trial.||1.773|0.745|
95749962|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2163||0.7899||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of smokng cigarettes(Never Smoked vs. Has Smoked) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.7899
95749963|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.5339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.0607||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of sexual identity(Straight (heterosexual) vs. Gay (homosexual), Bi (bisexual), and Not Sure or Undecided) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0607
95749964|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2779||0.167||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which the subject first had unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15-17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. \<= 14 year olds is presented."||||0.1670
95749965|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2065||0.8682||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of age at which subject had first unforced sex (Never vs. \<= 14 year olds vs. 15 - 17 year olds) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between never vs. 15-17 year olds is presented."||||0.8682
95749966|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1896||0.4219||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of total number of lifetime sex partners (0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4219
95749967|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.7752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.002||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0020
95749968|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.2921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2086||0.1659||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.1659
95798274|NCT03895203|191566298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.583|10.943|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.943|4.583|<0.001
95798275|NCT03895203|191566299|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.187|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.125|||ANCOVA|||||-0.125|-0.249|<0.001
95943338|NCT02502266|191856342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.597|1.06||The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization|Log Rank||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.060|0.597|0.145
95943339|NCT02502266|191856342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.726|1.0|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the factors provided at randomization.|The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.00|0.726|1.0
95943340|NCT02502266|191856343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.771|1.368||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib and Olaparib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib and Olaparib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.368|0.771|
95749969|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-1.6163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2839||0||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Male Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.0000
95749970|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2463||0.4701||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. 1-5 partners is presented.||||0.4701
95749971|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.1083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3488||0.7572||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of Total Number of Female Lifetime Sex Partners(0 partners vs. 1-5 partners vs. \>= 6 partners) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups. In this statistical analysis, information for the comparison between 0 partners vs. \>= 6 partners is presented.||||0.7572
95749972|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.0307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1809||0.8657||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever drank alcohol (No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.8657
95749973|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.0917||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever smoked marijuana(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.0917
95749974|NCT00107042|191470722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.3474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3924||0.3788||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||This is a regression analysis for testing the effect of whether a subject ever used drugs not prescribed(No vs. Yes) on vaccine response as measured in log10 titers. The null hypothesis is no difference between groups.||||0.3788
95749975|NCT00107042|191470723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Recombivax' group.|||10.76|0.60|0.2068
95749976|NCT00107042|191470724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.01|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Other Sites' group.|||6.01|0.38|0.5524
95749977|NCT00107042|191470725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.36|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the '15-17 year' age group|||9.36|0.36|0.4646
95749978|NCT00107042|191470726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Female' group.|||2.30|0.09|0.3390
95749979|NCT00107042|191470727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|29.78|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Hispanic: NO' group.|||29.78|1.58|0.0102
95749980|NCT00107042|191470727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|34.95||Since Hispanic (no, yes) was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Hispanic: NO group."|||34.95|1.56|0.0118
95749981|NCT00107042|191470728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.84|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||3.84|0.04|0.4241
95749982|NCT00107042|191470728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|50.76|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'White' group.|||50.76|0.34|0.2685
95749983|NCT00107042|191470729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|15.44|||Univariate regression, logistic||The reference group is the 'Stage 5' group.|||15.44|0.05|0.9390
95798276|NCT03895203|191566301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.211|178.918|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.918|22.211|<0.001
95798277|NCT03895203|191566302|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.229|5.444|||ANCOVA|||||5.444|3.229|<0.001
95798278|NCT03895203|191566303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.668|8.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.088|3.668|<0.001
95749984|NCT00107042|191470730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.39|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Stage 5 group."|||7.39|0.30|0.6181
95749985|NCT00107042|191470731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Normal and Underweight (\<25.0) group."|||1.60|0.10|0.1943
95749986|NCT00107042|191470732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked cigarettes: NO group."|||1.86|0.10|0.2542
95749987|NCT00107042|191470733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.69|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.69|0.03|0.0161
95749988|NCT00107042|191470733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.74||Since sexual identity was a factor with a p-value of \< 0.15 in the unadjusted univariate regression analysis, it was entered into the initial full multivariate model.|Multivariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Straight (heterosexual) group."|||0.74|0.02|0.0222
95749989|NCT00107042|191470734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|11.83|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex)group."|||11.83|0.12|0.8945
95749990|NCT00107042|191470734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.7|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Never (had sex) group."|||0.70|0.02|0.0190
95798279|NCT03895203|191566304|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.524|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.130|-0.524|0.001
95798280|NCT03895203|191566305|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.904||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.074|1.180|0.008
95943341|NCT02502266|191856343|OTHER|No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.795|1.413||No p-values are provided because testing each of these null hypotheses was conditioned on first rejecting hypothesis concerning PFS.|||The hazard ratio estimate compares Cediranib to chemotherapy. If Cediranib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm IV was suspended for futility at the end of Phase 2 analysis, so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.413|0.795|
95943342|NCT02166463|191856351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Used a one-sided log-rank test between 2 arms||Assuming a 3-year EFS of 82% (5-year EFS of 78.4%, long term EFS of 76%) for standard arm, the study will have approximately 86% power for detecting an 8% improvement in 3-year EFS in the Bv-AVEPC arm (3-year EFS of 90%, 5-year EFS of 88.0%, long term EFS of 86.7%) in log rank test.||||0.0001
95749991|NCT00107042|191470735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.48|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group"|||0.48|0.01|0.0042
95749992|NCT00107042|191470735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.6893||95.0|||||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 partners group.~Two sided 95% confidence interval: Lower Limit = 0.17; upper limit = infinity"|||||0.6893
95749993|NCT00107042|191470736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is hte 0 Partners group."|||0.19|0.00|0.0003
95749994|NCT00107042|191470736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.01|||Univariate regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||10.01|0.00|1.0000
95749995|NCT00107042|191470737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.86|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group"|||4.86|0.05|0.5503
95943343|NCT02231749|191856359|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.2|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||22.2|9.8|<0.0001
95749996|NCT00107042|191470737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.46|||Univariate Regression, Logistic||"The reference group is the 0 Partners group."|||10.46|0.13|0.8904
95749997|NCT00107042|191470738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.92|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever drank alcohol: NO group."|||1.92|0.12|0.3010
95798281|NCT03895203|191566306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.437||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.559|7.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.574|1.559|0.002
95798282|NCT03895203|191566308|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.111|||ANCOVA|||||-0.111|-0.452|0.001
95798283|NCT04725188|191566318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.53|0.0910
95798284|NCT04725188|191566318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.96|0.9622
95798285|NCT04725188|191566319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||26.9|2.1|0.0113
95798286|NCT04725188|191566319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-9.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||0.0|-19.6|0.9750
95943344|NCT02231749|191856360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.44|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.44|<0.0001
95943345|NCT02231749|191856361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.64|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.64|0.0331
95943346|NCT02231749|191856362|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.2||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.7|||DerSimonian and Laird Test|||||12.7|1.8|0.0191
95943347|NCT02231749|191856363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.8|0.49|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.49|0.0003
95943348|NCT02231749|191856364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.8498
95749998|NCT00107042|191470739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever smoked marijuana: NO group."|||1.00|0.06|0.0501
95749999|NCT00107042|191470740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.61|||Univariate regression, logistic||"The reference group is the Ever used drugs not prescribed: NO group."|||3.61|0.04|0.3846
95750000|NCT00107042|191470741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3827
95750001|NCT00107042|191470741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.84|92.04|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||92.04|68.84|
95750002|NCT00107042|191470741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.69|95.47|||||Response rate=Total number subjects responded/Total number subjects in arm|||95.47|75.69|
95750003|NCT00107042|191470742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding rate|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.74|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% CI|||||99.95|89.74|
95750004|NCT00107042|191470743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate|91.49||||||95.0|79.62|97.63||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95 % confidence interval|||||97.63|79.62|
95798287|NCT04725188|191566320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.50|0.0943
95798288|NCT04725188|191566320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.70|0.5974
95798289|NCT04914845|191566344|SUPERIORITY||estimated/derived from the number of dos|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This trial had a 3+3 study design. Escalation/de-escalation through cohorts were based on DLT events. MTD based on DLT events was determined to be 30mg|MTD was determined to be 30 mg|30 mg|||
95798290|NCT04914845|191566345|SUPERIORITY||estimated/derived from the number of|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This trial had a 3+3 study design. Escalation/de-escalation through cohorts were based on DLT events. Established recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was determined to be 30mg||30 mg|||
95750005|NCT00107042|191470744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.93|99.95||A p-value has not been entered because there is only one study arm in this analysis.|Exact 95% confidence interval||"For overall response, if a subject is reactive at either 1-month or 12-month, then the overall response is considered Positive. If a subject is non-reactive at both 1-month and 12-month, then the overall response for this subject is Negative."|||99.95|89.93|
95750006|NCT00107042|191470745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2938
95750007|NCT00107042|191470745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.83|94.43|||95 % confidence interval|||||94.43|70.83|
95750008|NCT00107042|191470745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Responding Rate %|93.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.46|98.66|||95% confidence interval|||||98.66|82.46|
95750009|NCT03919448|191470747|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|101.55||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.19|114.34||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.34|90.19|0.9766
95750010|NCT03919448|191470747|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.95||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|113.55||Power of ANOVA: 0,93|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||113.55|89.75|0.9766
95798291|NCT04717557|191566436|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95798292|NCT04717557|191566436|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95798293|NCT04717557|191566437|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95798294|NCT04717557|191566438|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95798295|NCT04717557|191566439|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.5
95943349|NCT00412607|191856388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of mortality|13.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||17.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval is a one-sided with upper confidence level = 17.5% computed using the exact binomial test.|"Assumptions for sample size calculation: 10% attrition rate, Type I error of 0.05, anticipated 12-month mortality rate is 0.19, a region of indifference of 0.07, power of 0.8; the required sample size is 249 per nQuery Exact test for single proportion method.~The null hypothesis is that the 12-month mortality rate is greater than or equal to 0.26; the alternative is that the rate is less than 0.26. This hypothesis is evaluated with one-sided exact binomial test at α= 0.05."||17.5||
95943350|NCT03547271|191856419|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.842|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||0.842|0.565|
95943351|NCT03547271|191856419|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.58|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||5.58|4.00|
95943352|NCT03547271|191856419|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|Slope|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.78|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||1.78|1.33|
95943353|NCT03547271|191856419|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>1/1.5 for all 4 serogroups.|GMT ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.04|||||95% CI of the GMT ratio was calculated using a normal approximation of log-transformed titers.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||2.04|1.55|
95943354|NCT03547271|191856420|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.56|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||-6.56|-17.74|
95943355|NCT03547271|191856420|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|9.62|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||9.62|4.44|
95943356|NCT03547271|191856420|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|4.7|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction|Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.70|-0.49|
95943357|NCT03547271|191856420|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups.|Difference in percentage of participants|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.77|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||5.77|0.34|
95943358|NCT01499368|191856446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority: The Lower limit is not lower than -15%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95943359|NCT01499368|191856447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.05
95943360|NCT04319887|191856461|OTHER||||||||||||||||||statistical analysis section may be deleted|||
95943361|NCT03990883|191856482|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|3.7|||McNemar|||||3.7|-2.96|<0.0001
95750011|NCT03919448|191470747|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area Under the Serum Concentration-time Curve of Bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|100.59||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|114.77|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||114.77|88.16|0.9766
95750012|NCT03919448|191470748|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.82||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|101.57||Power of ANOVA: 0,95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.57|81.21|0.3617
95750013|NCT03919448|191470748|EQUIVALENCE|The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test to reference ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|94.87||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|105.99||Power of ANOVA: 0.95|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||105.99|84.91|0.3617
95750014|NCT03919448|191470748|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.73||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|108.05|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||108.05|84.82|0.3617
95750015|NCT03919448|191470749|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|90.46||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.64|101.47||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||101.47|80.64|0.3529
95750016|NCT03919448|191470749|EQUIVALENCE|80.00-125.00% acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.02||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|106.49||Power of ANOVA: 0.94|ANOVA|||||106.49|84.80|0.3529
95750017|NCT03919448|191470749|EQUIVALENCE|As supplementary information, Test Product 1 vs. Test Product 2 shall also be compared. The comparable bioavailability was achieved if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the test1-to-test2 ratios of the geometric means of Cmax, Area under the serum concentration-time curve of bevacizumab (ABC0-t) fell within the 80.00-125.00 % acceptance criteria.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|95.19||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.17|107.67|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis (H0) of ANOVA is that there is no difference among group means. The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that at least one group differs significantly from the overall mean of the dependent variable.||107.67|84.17|0.3529
95858815|NCT02952820|191675388|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|22.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.392||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.137|35.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline sTST as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||35.234|10.137|0.0004
95750018|NCT00773734|191470780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.7|||Chi-squared|||||13.7|-2.6|0.1846
95750019|NCT00773734|191470780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|33.7|||Chi-squared|||||33.7|12.4|<0.0001
95750020|NCT00773734|191470780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|46.6|||Chi-squared|||||46.6|23.9|<0.0001
95750021|NCT00773734|191470782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.8|-0.4|0.0590
95750022|NCT00773734|191470782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|36.0|||Chi-squared|||||36.0|8.3|0.0023
95858816|NCT02952820|191675389|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|13.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep onset responders: Statistical analysis 1||21.10|6.24|0.0004
95750023|NCT00773734|191470782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|48.9|||Chi-squared|||||48.9|21.6|<0.0001
95750024|NCT00773734|191470784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.2|||Chi-squared|||||8.2|-1.5|0.1776
95750025|NCT00773734|191470784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.5|||Chi-squared|||||14.5|1.6|0.0158
95750026|NCT00773734|191470784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|17.2|||Chi-squared|||||17.2|3.2|0.0051
95750027|NCT00773734|191470789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.6|-24.8|0.0156
95750028|NCT00773734|191470789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-13.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-13.9|-36.4|<0.0001
95750029|NCT00773734|191470789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-21.7|-44.0|<0.0001
95750030|NCT00773734|191470791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.3|||Chi-squared|||||7.3|-11.7|0.6541
95858817|NCT02952820|191675389|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|12.53||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Onset Responders: Statistical analysis 2||19.86|5.20|0.0009
95750031|NCT00773734|191470791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|24.1|||Chi-squared|||||24.1|0.6|0.0402
95858818|NCT02952820|191675389|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|14.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|22.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 3||22.33|6.97|0.0002
95943362|NCT03990883|191856483|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|3.71||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.71|-3.71|<0.0001
95990234|NCT01703858|191955138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|54.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.4||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.711|73.157|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||73.157|40.711|0.9808
95990235|NCT01703858|191955138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.2||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.175|124.731|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||124.731|72.175|0.1449
95990236|NCT01703858|191955138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|169.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.7||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.093|231.419|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||231.419|124.093|0.9463
95993776|NCT00619957|191963379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|-7.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-7.49|-25.24|0.0003
95728321|NCT00408876|191426150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.006||95.0|0.22|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|0.22|0.006
95728322|NCT00408876|191426150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.18||95.0|-0.21|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.21|0.180
95728323|NCT00408876|191426150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.069||95.0|-0.05|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.05|0.069
95728324|NCT00408876|191426150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.564||95.0|-0.38|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.38|0.564
95728325|NCT00408876|191426151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.929||95.0|-0.92|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.92|0.929
95728326|NCT00408876|191426151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.147||95.0|-0.21|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.21|0.147
95728327|NCT00408876|191426151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.7||95.0|-0.64|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-0.64|0.700
95728328|NCT00408876|191426151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.279||95.0|-0.44|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-0.44|0.279
95728329|NCT00408876|191426151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.822||95.0|-0.86|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.09|-0.86|0.822
95728330|NCT00408876|191426151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.299||95.0|-1.22|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-1.22|0.299
95728331|NCT00408876|191426152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.766||95.0|-1.33|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.98|-1.33|0.766
95728332|NCT00408876|191426152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.217||95.0|-0.35|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-0.35|0.217
95728333|NCT00408876|191426152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.88||95.0|-0.89|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.04|-0.89|0.880
95728334|NCT00408876|191426152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.193||95.0|-0.39|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.94|-0.39|0.193
95728335|NCT00408876|191426152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.675||95.0|-0.92|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.92|0.675
95728336|NCT00408876|191426152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.288||95.0|-1.5|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-1.50|0.288
95728337|NCT00408876|191426153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.501||95.0|-1.66|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.66|0.501
95728338|NCT00408876|191426153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.524||95.0|-0.69|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.69|0.524
95728339|NCT00408876|191426153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.089||95.0|-0.14|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.91|-0.14|0.089
95728340|NCT00408876|191426153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.234||95.0|-0.49|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|-0.49|0.234
95728341|NCT00408876|191426153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.04||95.0|0.06|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.56|0.06|0.040
95728342|NCT00408876|191426153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.289||95.0|-0.48|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.59|-0.48|0.289
95943363|NCT03990883|191856484|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.96||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.07||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||4.07|-9.99|0.025
95943364|NCT03990883|191856485|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|7.52||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||7.52|-8.42|0.009
95950241|NCT00657709|191872512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the Pertactin antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV when given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 at 2, 4 and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||-3|-16|
95728343|NCT00408876|191426154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.862||95.0|-0.27|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.32|-0.27|0.862
95728344|NCT00408876|191426154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.368||95.0|-0.13|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.13|0.368
95728345|NCT00408876|191426154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.628||95.0|-0.18|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.18|0.628
95728346|NCT00408876|191426154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.573||95.0|-0.21|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|-0.21|0.573
95728347|NCT00408876|191426154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.819||95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.819
95728348|NCT00408876|191426154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.687||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|-0.30|0.687
95728349|NCT00408876|191426155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.972||95.0|-0.48|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.48|0.972
95728350|NCT00408876|191426155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99||95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.40|0.990
95728351|NCT00408876|191426155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.793||95.0|-0.35|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.35|0.793
95728352|NCT00408876|191426155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.981||95.0|-0.5|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.49|-0.50|0.981
95728353|NCT00408876|191426155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.857||95.0|-0.45|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.45|0.857
95728354|NCT00408876|191426155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.805||95.0|-0.36|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.46|-0.36|0.805
95728355|NCT00408876|191426156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.34||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.75|-0.26|0.340
95728356|NCT00408876|191426156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.848||95.0|-0.45|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.45|0.848
95728357|NCT00408876|191426156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.573||95.0|-0.54|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.54|0.573
95728358|NCT00408876|191426156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.272||95.0|-0.79|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.79|0.272
95728359|NCT00408876|191426156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.161||95.0|-0.88|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.88|0.161
95728360|NCT00408876|191426156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.711||95.0|-0.5|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.50|0.711
95728361|NCT00408876|191426157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.713||95.0|-1.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.95|-1.39|0.713
95728362|NCT00408876|191426157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.288||95.0|-0.44|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.49|-0.44|0.288
95728363|NCT00408876|191426157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.351||95.0|-1.44|0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.51|-1.44|0.351
95728364|NCT00408876|191426157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.219||95.0|-0.44|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.93|-0.44|0.219
95728365|NCT00408876|191426157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.686||95.0|-1.43|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-1.43|0.686
95728366|NCT00408876|191426157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.05||95.0|-1.97|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.97|0.050
95728367|NCT00408876|191426158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.663||95.0|-0.06|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-0.06|0.663
95728368|NCT00408876|191426158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.33||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.02|0.330
95728369|NCT00408876|191426158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.143||95.0|-0.01|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.01|0.143
95728370|NCT00408876|191426158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.218||95.0|-0.02|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.08|-0.02|0.218
95728371|NCT00408876|191426158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.1||95.0|-0.01|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.01|0.100
95728372|NCT00408876|191426158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.614||95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.614
95728373|NCT00408876|191426159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.786||95.0|-1.83|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-1.83|0.786
95728374|NCT00408876|191426159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.445||95.0|-1.85|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-1.85|0.445
95728375|NCT00408876|191426159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.043||95.0|0.04|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.04|0.043
95950242|NCT00657709|191872512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|{PConcomitant Vaccine +rMenB+OMV NZ lot1+lot2+lot3 minus PConcomitant Vaccine}|Percentage group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of the PT antigen of DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine given concomitantly with rMenB and PCV7 vaccine at 2, 4, and 6 months of age would be considered non-inferior to that of the routine vaccinations given alone if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects was greater than -10%.||2|-7|
95950243|NCT03122860|191872516|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.13|0.179
95728376|NCT00408876|191426159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.721||95.0|-1.92|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-1.92|0.721
95728377|NCT00408876|191426159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.053||95.0|-0.02|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-0.02|0.053
95728378|NCT00408876|191426159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.006||95.0|0.54|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.27|0.54|0.006
95728379|NCT00408876|191426160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.378||95.0|-0.48|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.48|0.378
95728380|NCT00408876|191426160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.723||95.0|-0.84|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|-0.84|0.723
95728381|NCT00408876|191426160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.542||95.0|-0.95|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.95|0.542
95728382|NCT00408876|191426160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.245||95.0|-1.39|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|-1.39|0.245
95728383|NCT00408876|191426160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.169||95.0|-1.48|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-1.48|0.169
95728384|NCT00408876|191426160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.796||95.0|-0.82|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.82|0.796
95728385|NCT00408876|191426162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95728386|NCT00408876|191426162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95728387|NCT00408876|191426162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95728388|NCT00408876|191426163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95728389|NCT00408876|191426164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
95728390|NCT00408876|191426165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95728391|NCT00408876|191426165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95728392|NCT00408876|191426166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95728393|NCT00408876|191426167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95728394|NCT00408876|191426168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95728395|NCT00408876|191426169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95728396|NCT00408876|191426170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
95728397|NCT00408876|191426171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95728398|NCT00408876|191426171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95728399|NCT00408876|191426171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95728400|NCT00408876|191426172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.348||95.0|-4.28|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-4.28|0.348
95728401|NCT00408876|191426172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.04||95.0|0.11|4.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.89|0.11|0.040
95728402|NCT00408876|191426172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.191||95.0|-0.81|4.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.03|-0.81|0.191
95728403|NCT00408876|191426172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89||||0.009||95.0|0.97|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.80|0.97|0.009
95728404|NCT00408876|191426172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.044||95.0|0.08|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|0.08|0.044
95728405|NCT00408876|191426172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.473||95.0|-3.33|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|-3.33|0.473
95728406|NCT00408876|191426173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.846||95.0|-3.61|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|-3.61|0.846
95728407|NCT00408876|191426173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.934||95.0|-3.45|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.17|-3.45|0.934
95728408|NCT00408876|191426173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.234||95.0|-1.32|5.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.39|-1.32|0.234
95728409|NCT00408876|191426173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.794||95.0|-4.58|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.50|-4.58|0.794
95728410|NCT00408876|191426173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.64||||0.426||95.0|-2.4|5.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.67|-2.40|0.426
95728411|NCT00408876|191426173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.207||95.0|-1.21|5.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.55|-1.21|0.207
95728412|NCT00408876|191426174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.901||95.0|-2.54|2.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.89|-2.54|0.901
95728413|NCT00408876|191426174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.926||95.0|-2.35|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.35|0.926
95728414|NCT00408876|191426174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62||||0.002||95.0|1.35|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.90|1.35|0.002
95728415|NCT00408876|191426174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.841||95.0|-3.02|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.46|-3.02|0.841
95728416|NCT00408876|191426174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.014||95.0|0.71|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.19|0.71|0.014
95728417|NCT00408876|191426174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.001||95.0|1.44|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|1.44|0.001
95728418|NCT00408876|191426175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.057||95.0|-1.41|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-1.41|0.057
95728419|NCT00408876|191426175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.128||95.0|-1.05|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-1.05|0.128
95728420|NCT00408876|191426175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.007||95.0|-1.42|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.42|0.007
95728421|NCT00408876|191426175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.518||95.0|-0.48|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.96|-0.48|0.518
95728422|NCT00408876|191426175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.734||95.0|-0.85|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.85|0.734
95750032|NCT00773734|191470791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|8.8|0.0011
95750033|NCT00773734|191470795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-7.5|-33.0|0.0020
95858819|NCT02952820|191675389|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|9.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Maintenance Responders: Statistical analysis 4||17.35|2.29|0.0110
95858820|NCT02952820|191675391|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.15|-1.27|0.0137
95858821|NCT02952820|191675391|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.38|-1.51|0.0011
95858822|NCT02952820|191675391|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.57|-1.75|0.0001
95728423|NCT00408876|191426175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.239||95.0|-0.97|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.97|0.239
95728424|NCT02629965|191426193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.153|0.077|<0.001
95728425|NCT02629965|191426194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.211|14.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|14.548|-6.211|0.4291
95728426|NCT02629965|191426195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.704||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.692|174.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|174.694|-155.692|0.9098
95728427|NCT02629965|191426196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.217|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.633|-1.217|0.5338
95728428|NCT02629965|191426197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|2.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|2.926|-1.048|0.3524
95728429|NCT02629965|191426198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.966|7.481|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|7.481|-2.966|0.3949
95728430|NCT02629965|191426199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|9.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|9.411|-4.572|0.4955
95728431|NCT02629965|191426200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.176|0.091|<0.0001
95728432|NCT02629965|191426201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.123|0.088|<0.0001
95750034|NCT00773734|191470795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-17.0|||ANCOVA|based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||-17.0|-42.9|<0.0001
95750035|NCT00773734|191470795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-42.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||-29.5|-55.2|<0.0001
95750036|NCT00773734|191470797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-3.1|0.1322
95750037|NCT00773734|191470797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.3|-5.9|<0.0001
95750038|NCT00773734|191470797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.8|-4.3|0.0047
95750039|NCT00773734|191470799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.3||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||5.8|0.9|0.0078
95798296|NCT04717557|191566440|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Underpowered - no statistically significant difference.||||>0.5
95798297|NCT04717557|191566441|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95943365|NCT03990883|191856486|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.11||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.11|-3.85|<0.0001
95943366|NCT03990883|191856487|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis to be tested was: H0: pA-pB ≤ d0 versus H1: pA-pB \> d0 where, pA is the response rate for Princess® FILLER Lidocaine, pB is the response rate for the Comparator, and d0 is the non-inferiority margin set at -10%. The hypothesis was tested using a 1-sided, McNemar type test at an alpha of 0.025 with a delta of 0.10 (10%).~Assuming pA to be 87% and pB to be 88% a sample size of 222 subjects had been calculated to be sufficient to achieve a power of 90%."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.16||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. A hierarchical approach is used and results are confirmative if all tests previously performed within the hierarchy achieve significance at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|McNemar|||||3.16|-4.05|<0.0001
95750040|NCT00773734|191470799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.5||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.0|1.0|0.0068
95943367|NCT06408870|191856578|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.08|106.75|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.0."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.75|101.08|
95950244|NCT03122860|191872516|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-1.34|0.031
95950245|NCT03122860|191872516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.81|0.675
95750041|NCT00773734|191470799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|3.6||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||6.1|1.1|0.0045
95750042|NCT00773734|191470800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.8|-1.6|0.6097
95750043|NCT00773734|191470800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.6|-0.9|0.2424
95750044|NCT00773734|191470800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.9528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.3|-2.2|0.9528
95750045|NCT02177136|191470897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0434
95750046|NCT02177136|191470897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||||||0.0665
95750047|NCT01286558|191470923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||||95.0|-0.22|3.14|||ANCOVA|||||3.14|-0.22|
95750048|NCT01286558|191470924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||||95.0|-0.36|4.64|||ANCOVA|||||4.64|-0.36|
95750049|NCT01286558|191470925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||||95.0|-2.58|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-2.58|
95750050|NCT01286558|191470926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-4.16|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-4.16|
95798298|NCT04717557|191566442|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95798299|NCT04717557|191566443|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95798300|NCT04717557|191566444|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5||||||Underpowered due to early termination.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.5
95855523|NCT04050553|191670610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 100 mg/dL.||0.00|-0.13|0.0505
95855524|NCT04050553|191670610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 63 mg/dL.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0104
95750051|NCT01286558|191470927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||||95.0|-2.57|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-2.57|
95943368|NCT06408870|191856579|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.83|110.01|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 14.5."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||110.01|100.83|
95943369|NCT06408870|191856580|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.95|106.65|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual pair geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 9.1."|The statistical model applied was an analysis of variance (ANOVA), with 'subjects within sequence' as a random effect and 'sequence,' 'period,' and 'treatment' as fixed effects.||106.65|100.95|
95943370|NCT05030584|191856599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.05||The type I error rate was controlled at a one-sided α=0.025 level.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||"For category Change from baseline."||-1.05|-2.04|<0.0001
95943371|NCT02446600|191856611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.105||The p-value is one-sided. Per the protocol, the statistical significance threshold was \<0.025. Type 1 error was controlled using hierarchical testing strategy.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified by the minimization factors provided at randomization|The hazard ratio estimate compares olaparib+cedirinib to chemotherapy. If olaparib+cedirinib is superior, the hazard ratio is \<1.0.|Arm II was suspended for futility at the interim analysis so was not analyzed at the final analysis.||1.105|0.663|0.077
95943372|NCT04940624|191856736|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-15.64|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|0.24||The p-value was calculated by Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||0.24|-31.30|=0.061
95943373|NCT04940624|191856737|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-14.29|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|1.53||The p-value was calculated by the Rank ANCOVA model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||1.53|-30.51|=0.089
95943374|NCT04940624|191856738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||7.96|1.30|=0.010
95943375|NCT04940624|191856739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was based on CMH test stratified by age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years).||||9.49|1.36|=0.008
95943376|NCT04940624|191856741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.72|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.72|1.33|=0.004
95750052|NCT01286558|191470928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-4.27|0.99|||ANCOVA|||||0.99|-4.27|
95750053|NCT02130583|191470936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.034
95943377|NCT04940624|191856742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.87|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||4.87|1.37|=0.003
95750054|NCT01287039|191470949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3726|0.6737||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6737|0.3726|<0.0001
95943378|NCT04940624|191856743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.26|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Alertness||2.26|0.56|=0.741
95943379|NCT04940624|191856743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.02|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Communication||2.02|0.54|=0.901
95943380|NCT04940624|191856743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||Disruptive Behaviors||2.28|0.58|=0.693
95943381|NCT04940624|191856744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.03|||=|0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.52||P-value was based on MMRM analysis with change from baseline as outcome and baseline score as fixed continuous effect; treatment group, age stratum, analysis visit, and analysis visit by treatment group interaction as fixed categorical effects.|MMRM|||||1.52|-7.59|=0.189
95950246|NCT03122860|191872516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.022
95750055|NCT01287039|191470950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.198|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.198|0.076|<0.0001
95750056|NCT01287039|191470951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.428|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.428|0.048|0.0143
95798301|NCT02512419|191566446|SUPERIORITY||regression parameter (median diff)|37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|Models regressed outcome at 6 months on treatment assigned, baseline value of the outcome and actigraph wear time. Effect sizes reported are adjusted|Effects are unstandardized regression coefficients. They represent difference in median outcome between conditions at 6m controlling for baseline and covariates.|To examine potential intervention effects on the primary outcome (MVPA at 6 months), we used a series of quantile regression models which model median outcome at follow-up as a function of baseline value of the outcome (MVPA), treatment condition and covariates. Note that the adjusted difference in median MVPA between conditions at follow-up will not equal the difference in median minutes as seen in the unadjusted tables as these estimates are adjusted||||.04
95798302|NCT02512419|191566447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.83||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression|||Quantile regression was used.||||0.10
95798303|NCT04133909|191566448|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100 mg/Placebo)|0.79||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (less than or equal to \[\<=\]2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline percent (%) predicted Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable.||0.94|0.66|0.011
95798304|NCT04133909|191566449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate or severe exacerbations in previous year \<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs former).||0.93|0.64|0.009
95855525|NCT04050553|191670610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 45 mg/dL.||-0.06|-0.32|0.0068
95855526|NCT04050553|191670610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Overall Hypoglycemia Symptom Score at concentration of 72 mg/dL.||0.08|-0.30|0.2302
95943382|NCT04940624|191856745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.13|||Cumulative Logit Model|P-value was calculated using the Cumulative Logit model including treatment and age group as factors.||||7.13|1.87|<0.001
95943383|NCT04940624|191856746|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-9.97|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|7.87|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||7.87|-29.01|=0.565
95728433|NCT02629965|191426202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.197|0.130|<0.0001
95855527|NCT04050553|191670611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For systolic blood pressure.||4.27|-5.28|0.8298
95728434|NCT02629965|191426203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.162|0.103|<0.0001
95728435|NCT02629965|191426204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.156|0.100|<0.0001
95728436|NCT02629965|191426205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.056|<0.0001
95728437|NCT02629965|191426206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.114|0.058|<0.0001
95728438|NCT02629965|191426207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.108|0.059|<0.0001
95728439|NCT02629965|191426208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures includes treatment and period as fixed effects, study baseline as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Adjusted mean of differences between treatments and standard error||Mixed effect repeated measurement was used to calculate adjusted mean values as well as treatment contrasts together with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values.|0.189|0.114|<0.0001
95728440|NCT02330081|191426209|NON_INFERIORITY|The FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of platelet recovery must be ≥ 66% of fresh control platelet values|Risk Ratio (RR)|83.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet recovery of treatment over control||||76.2|
95798305|NCT04133909|191566450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.09|0.60|0.161
95798306|NCT04133909|191566451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.57|0.87|0.291
95943384|NCT04940624|191856747|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-8.13|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-26.31|10.13|||ANCOVA|The Rank ANCOVA model used treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||10.13|-26.31|=0.637
95943385|NCT04940624|191856748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.4|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||5.40|-3.81|
95855528|NCT04050553|191670611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.96||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For diastolic blood pressure.||4.67|-0.76|0.1516
95943386|NCT04940624|191856749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2||||||||11.2|0.1|
95943387|NCT04940624|191856750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||||Least square mean difference was estimated using a linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors.|||1.0|-3.1|
95943388|NCT02567435|191856812|SUPERIORITY||3-Year EFS|65.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.44
95943389|NCT02567435|191856813|SUPERIORITY||3-Year OS|78.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
95943390|NCT06393127|191856894|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|111.36|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.36|99.07|
95943391|NCT06393127|191856895|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|113.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.7|125.05|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 32.8|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||125.05|102.70|
95950247|NCT03122860|191872516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.79|0.780
95728441|NCT02330081|191426210|NON_INFERIORITY|One of the FDA validation level requirements for test platelet quality is that the lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit of the mean platelet survival time must be ≥58% of fresh control platelet mean survival time|Mean Ratio Survival Time|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|77.0||||||Estimate is the ratio of the mean platelet survival time of treatment over control||||77.0|
95728442|NCT00895583|191426237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Two-sided alpha equals (=) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||1.3|0.4|0.239
95728443|NCT00895583|191426238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||1.4|0.5|0.422
95728444|NCT00895583|191426239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.4|0.5|0.524
95728445|NCT00895583|191426239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.2|0.4|0.298
95728446|NCT00895583|191426240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.0|0.3|0.055
95728447|NCT00895583|191426240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.3|0.4|0.330
95728448|NCT00895583|191426241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.5|0.4|0.543
95728449|NCT00895583|191426241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||1.8|0.6|1.000
95728450|NCT00895583|191426243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.5||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||5.5|0.5|0.019
95728451|NCT00895583|191426243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||1.1|-4.8|0.215
95728452|NCT00895583|191426243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||3.9|-2.7|0.722
95728453|NCT00895583|191426243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline GFR as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||4.4|-3.0|0.710
95750057|NCT01287039|191470952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0681||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.132|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week and overall change, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment and sex as fixed factors, and covariates for height and baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||-0.132|-0.399|0.0001
95750058|NCT01287039|191470953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.575|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline usage of oral corticosteroid (yes or no) and geographical region (US or other).|Reslizumab vs placebo|Kaplan-Meier estimate of probability (5) of not experiencing a CAE by week 52. The first CAEs for each patient occurring after randomization and up to 2 weeks after the end of treatment period were analyzed. Patients without a CAE within this time frame were censored at two weeks after the treatment completion date or study discontinuation, whichever came first.||0.750|0.440|<0.0001
95750059|NCT01287039|191470954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.083|||Mixed model repeated measures|||For each week, inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.083|0.034|<0.0001
95750060|NCT01287039|191470955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1632||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|0.045|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, OCS use at enrollment as fixed factors, and covariate for baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures.||0.045|-0.597|0.0919
95798307|NCT04133909|191566452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to compare the proportion of responders between the mepolizumab and placebo arms in the mITT and mITT2 populations. The model includes fixed categorical covariates (treatment group, smoking status, geographic region) and a fixed continuous covariate (baseline score).||1.12|0.60|0.209
95798308|NCT04133909|191566453|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.96|||Negative binomial model|||Analysis performed using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment group, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year (\<=2, 3, \>=4 as ordinal), baseline % predicted FEV1 and smoking status (current vs. former smoker), and with logarithm (time on- and off-treatment) as an offset variable. Estimates based on weighting applied to each level of class variable determined from observed proportions.||0.96|0.43|0.032
95798309|NCT02003924|191566461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.292|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.352||P-value was based on stratified log-rank test by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.352|0.241|<0.0001
95750061|NCT01287039|191470956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 16 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.418|-0.514|<0.0001
95798310|NCT02003924|191566462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.081||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.||0.081|0.054|<0.0001
95798311|NCT02003924|191566463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.258||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS. Threshold for significance at 0.02 level.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain the family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05, a parallel testing strategy between OS (with allocated type I error rate 0.03) and remaining key secondary endpoints (time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02) was performed. Testing was performed only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.258|0.168|<0.0001
95855529|NCT04050553|191670612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89||||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-4.10|0.5776
95855530|NCT04607005|191670660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.067
95950248|NCT03122860|191872517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|4.91|||ANCOVA|||||4.91|-8.32|0.612
95950249|NCT03122860|191872517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|-10.47|0.223
95950250|NCT03122860|191872517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.57|||ANCOVA|||||8.57|-4.89|0.590
95950251|NCT03122860|191872517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-14.03|0.031
95855531|NCT04607005|191670661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.02||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.92|0.043
95858823|NCT02952820|191675391|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.76|-1.96|<.0001
95858824|NCT02952820|191675391|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.90|<.0001
95858825|NCT02952820|191675391|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline ISI score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.71|-1.92|<.0001
95943392|NCT06393127|191856896|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|104.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|111.14|||||Ratio \[%\] = (adjusted geometric mean of T / adjusted geometric mean R)\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 18.5|"Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, which included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects within sequences as random effect, sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale."||111.14|99.10|
95943393|NCT00357682|191856897|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.24||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in low dose PPI (20mg) patients to high dose PPI (80mg) patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and aspirin randomisation group.||1.57|0.98|0.068
95943394|NCT00357682|191856897|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Accelerated Failure Time|||Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) analysis comparing time to primary event in aspirin patients to non-aspirin patients. Included in AFT model are stratification factors (Barrett's length, age group and presence of baseline intestinal metaplasia) and PPI randomisation group.||1.58|1.01|0.037
95943395|NCT00357682|191856898|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.82|||Accelerated Failure Time|||All recordings of death, regardless of the cause are used in this analysis and both PPI groups are compared.||1.82|1.01|0.039
95943396|NCT00357682|191856898|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.25||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 163 deaths in the aspirin comparison with all-cause mortality as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.9 years IQR: (8.2 , 10.0) Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.70|0.92|0.159
95943397|NCT00357682|191856899|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 81 diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison with adenocarcinoma oesophageal cancer as the endpoint. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9)||1.61|0.67|0.864
95728454|NCT00895583|191426244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope difference (SRL-TAC)|-1.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with GFR as the dependent variable and study day as the independent variable.|Slope difference (sirolimus \[SRL\] minus tacrolimus \[TAC\])||0.5|-4.2|0.131
95728455|NCT00895583|191426246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.8||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 6||0.8|-8.6|0.105
95728456|NCT00895583|191426246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.3||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 12||14.3|1.1|0.023
95728457|NCT00895583|191426246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.4||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 18||6.4|-6.8|0.955
95728458|NCT00895583|191426246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|14.6||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||Change from randomization at Month 24||14.6|-8.2|0.582
95728459|NCT00895583|191426247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95728460|NCT00895583|191426248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 12 Post-transplantation||||1.000
95728461|NCT00895583|191426248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization to Month 24 post-transplantation||||0.215
95728462|NCT00895583|191426249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||||0.499
95728463|NCT00895583|191426249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.067
95728464|NCT00895583|191426249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 18||||0.061
95728465|NCT00895583|191426249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||0.020
95728466|NCT00895583|191426252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-therapy Period||||1.000
95728467|NCT00895583|191426252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-therapy Period||||1.000
95728468|NCT00895583|191426253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.284
95728469|NCT00895583|191426253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||||0.046
95728470|NCT00895583|191426253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Month 24||||1.000
95750062|NCT01287039|191470956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|-0.419|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"Eosinophil Count Over 52 Weeks~Inferential statistics were from mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, oral glucocorticosteroids use at enrollment as fixed factor, and covariate baseline value and patient as a random effect. Unstructured covariance structure was assumed for the repeated measures."||-0.419|-0.491|<0.0001
95750063|NCT01287039|191470958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.4499|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3255|0.622||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Requiring Systemic Corticosteroids The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||0.6220|0.3255|<0.0001
95750064|NCT01287039|191470958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.6595||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.355||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||CAE Due to Hospitalization or ER visit The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group and randomization stratification factors as model factors and the logarithm of follow up time excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.3550|0.3210|0.2572
95943398|NCT00357682|191856899|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.02||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 70 diagnoses of adenocarcinoma in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years, IQR: (8.1 , 10), Range: (0 , 11.5)||1.64|0.64|0.921
95943399|NCT00357682|191856900|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant.|Time Ratio|1.36||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.02|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are 103 such diagnoses in the PPI dose comparison. Median follow-up is 8.7 years IQR: (8.1 , 9.9) Range: (0 , 11.48)||2.02|0.92|0.119
95943400|NCT00357682|191856900|SUPERIORITY|5% significance level is considered statistically significant|Time Ratio|1.51||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.29|||Accelerated Failure Time|||There are a total of 92 conversions to HGD in the aspirin comparison. Median follow-up is 8.8 years IQR (8.1 , 10.0) Range (0 , 11.5)||2.29|1.00|0.053
95943401|NCT04602611|191856932|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.0547||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.4773||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.||0.4773|-0.3680|0.80
95750065|NCT01272921|191470979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||Z score|||||0.54|0.49|<0.001
95750066|NCT01272921|191470979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.21|||Z score|||||0.21|0.18|<0.001
95855532|NCT04607005|191670662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.5||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-2.37|0.003
95855533|NCT04607005|191670663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.51||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.35|0.002
95943402|NCT04602611|191856933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.||The study was designed with co-primary objectives evaluating acute care utilization (ACU) and 6-month OS rate. Power/sample size were calculated based on the OS objective. The overall type I error rate was alpha=0.05; the co-primary objectives were powered at the 2-sided alpha=0.025 significance level. Three hundred evaluable subjects would have provided \>=93% power to detect a 20% reduction in ACU (assuming there were 6 ACUs per year in SOC arm). The study did not achieve targeted enrollment.|The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 6 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 52/87(60%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 35/87 (40%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 58/95 (61%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 37/95 (39%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.88.|||0.88
95943403|NCT04602611|191856934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made in this analysis.|||The proportions of evaluable subjects surviving at 12 months were analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table using Fisher's Exact test. In the SOC arm, 23/87(26%) evaluable subjects were alive at 12 months and 64/87(74%) were not. In the ONN + SOC arm, 28/95 (29%) evaluable subjects were alive at 6 months and 67/95 (71%) were not. The p-value estimated using Fisher's Exact test on this 2x2 contingency table was p=0.74.|||0.74
95950252|NCT03122860|191872517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.92|||ANCOVA|||||3.92|-9.70|0.403
95950253|NCT03122860|191872518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|-9.04|0.432
95950254|NCT03122860|191872518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.02|||ANCOVA|||||2.02|-10.69|0.180
95950255|NCT03122860|191872518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.72|||ANCOVA|||||7.72|-5.33|0.718
95950256|NCT03122860|191872518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-14.54|0.017
95950257|NCT03122860|191872518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|5.29|||ANCOVA|||||5.29|-8.06|0.682
95950258|NCT03122860|191872519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.16|0.822
95728471|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 12||||<0.001
95728472|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||TC, Month 24||||<0.001
95728473|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.824|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 12||||0.824
95728474|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||HDL-C, Month 24||||0.735
95728475|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 12||||<0.001
95728476|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||LDL-C, Month 24||||0.001
95728477|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 12||||<0.001
95728478|NCT00895583|191426254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||Triglycerides, Month 24||||0.028
95728479|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Baseline||||0.429
95728480|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 12||||0.326
95728481|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Anti-hypertensives, Month 24||||0.517
95728482|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agents (insulin), Baseline||||1.000
95728483|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 12||||1.000
95728484|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (insulin), Month 24||||0.223
95728485|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Baseline||||0.498
95728486|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 12||||0.566
95728487|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Diabetes agent (non-insulin), Month 24||||0.423
95728488|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Baseline||||0.033
95728489|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 12||||0.900
95728490|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Lipid-lowering agents, Month 24||||0.802
95728491|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Baseline||||0.260
95728492|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 12||||0.086
95728493|NCT00895583|191426255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||ESAs, Month 24||||0.723
95728494|NCT00895583|191426256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.11||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 12; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.11|1.38|<0.001
95728495|NCT00895583|191426256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.26||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Upr/Cr as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic pre-randomization value as covariate.||Change from pre-randomization at Month 24; treatment ratio (SRC/TAC) in adjusted geometric mean fold-change from baseline.||2.26|1.39|<0.001
95728496|NCT00895583|191426257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Pre-randomization||||1.000
95728497|NCT00895583|191426257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period||||0.020
95728498|NCT00895583|191426257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period||||0.021
95728499|NCT00895583|191426258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95728500|NCT00895583|191426259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy Period, any treatment||||<0.001
95728501|NCT00895583|191426259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy Period, any treatment||||0.685
95728502|NCT00895583|191426260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.521|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.521
95728503|NCT00895583|191426261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.265
95728504|NCT00895583|191426262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.61||0.672|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.672
95728505|NCT00895583|191426263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.504|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|||||0.504
95990237|NCT01703858|191955138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|81.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.3||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.811|99.848|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||99.848|65.811|0.4564
95990238|NCT01703858|191955139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|98.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|105.225|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|B : BI-113608 vs. A : BI-113608 - Comparison with oral solution||105.225|92.500|0.0000
95990239|NCT01703858|191955139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|70.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.43|79.038|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|C : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||79.038|62.430|0.9635
95990240|NCT01703858|191955139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|83.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.774|94.412|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Food effect||94.412|73.774|0.2771
95990241|NCT01703858|191955139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|117.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.958|130.787|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|E : BI-113608 vs. C : BI-113608 - Food effect||130.787|104.958|0.1584
95990242|NCT01703858|191955139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric means (%)|97.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.066|107.741|||ANOVA|Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means. CIs were calculated based on the residual error.|Analysis of variance includes the effects: sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment in crossover; subject and treatment in fixed sequence. Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|D : BI-113608 vs. B : BI-113608 - Pantoprazole effect||107.741|88.066|0.0020
95990243|NCT02342015|191955140|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95990244|NCT02342015|191955141|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
95990245|NCT00993031|191955156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Chi-squared|||||2.67|.26|.76
95990246|NCT00993031|191955157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|.29|.76
95990247|NCT00993031|191955158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|.36|.45
95990248|NCT00993031|191955160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|.89|.21
95990249|NCT00993031|191955161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Chi-squared|||||1.83|.98|.06
95990250|NCT03506295|191955177|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.496||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.469|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.469|0.168|0.7878
95990251|NCT01834729|191955184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.78
95855534|NCT04607005|191670664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.55||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-2.52|0.003
95855535|NCT04607005|191670665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-2.51|0.002
95990252|NCT01834729|191955185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Least squares means|||||||0.57
95990253|NCT00288080|191955186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398|||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect an improvement in the 4-year overall survival rate from 86% (AS+RT) to 93% (AS+RT+CT). Assuming an exponential survival distribution for each arm, then an absolute improvement of 7% in the 4-year overall survival rate translates to a 51% relative reduction (hazard ratio 0.49) in the yearly death rate. Under a 1-sided significance level of 0.05 and 90% power, at least 78 deaths and 486 cases were required to perform the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0398
95990254|NCT00288080|191955187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Biochemical control rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-sided log-rank test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.22
95750067|NCT01272921|191470980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.0||Post hoc comparison were made against the 30-mL volume group and corrected for 6 comparisons using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-17.00|0.05
95750068|NCT01272921|191470980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-6.00|-15.00|0.05
95750069|NCT01272921|191470980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-4.00|-10.00|0.05
95750070|NCT01272921|191470980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample selected for this study,70 per drug group (or 10 in each of the 7 groups), achieves 88% power to detect a minimal difference of 4 hours in duration at a significance level (α) of 0.05 and a standard deviation of 3 hours using Williams test. We chose a difference of 4 hours as this was the interval used for assessment in the postoperative period at night. We sought to detect a difference that was equal to 1 observation period difference.||-2.00|-7.00|0.05
95750071|NCT03265288|191470981|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|0.7716||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8397|2.3828||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Primary analysis of the treatment effect at the Week 24 visit on the intent to treat population (ITT) Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.3828|-0.8397|0.3449
95750072|NCT03265288|191470981|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.0053||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.0807||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 in the intent to treat population (ITT), Null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.0807|-0.0700|0.0667
95943404|NCT04602611|191856935|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|0.1574||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3905|0.7054||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.7054|-0.3905|0.57
95943405|NCT04602611|191856936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.309||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|Unadjusted log-rank test|The estimated hazard ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care; the model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|||1.309|0.570|0.45
95943406|NCT04602611|191856937|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of negative binomial model|-0.4194||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0763|0.2374||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Negative binomial|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; coefficient was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated coefficient was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.2374|-1.0763|0.21
95943407|NCT04602611|191856938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|6.15||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was estimated without adjustments (the sole covariate was treatment).|The estimated odds ratio was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||6.15|1.75|<0.01
95943408|NCT04602611|191856939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.6939||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9538|0.5659||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model was estimated without adjustments (sole covariate was treatment; slope was the estimated treatment effect) using 180 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.5659|-5.9538|0.11
95950259|NCT03122860|191872519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.27|0.162
95950260|NCT03122860|191872519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.34|0.267
95950261|NCT03122860|191872519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.685
95950262|NCT03122860|191872519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.09|0.342
95950263|NCT03122860|191872520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-8.36|0.500
95950264|NCT03122860|191872520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|-11.80|0.082
95950265|NCT03122860|191872520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-8.36|0.552
95950266|NCT03122860|191872520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-13.16|0.033
95950267|NCT03122860|191872520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-5.79|0.887
95950268|NCT03122860|191872521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|3.72|||ANCOVA|||||3.72|-7.99|0.473
95750073|NCT03265288|191470981|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.2258||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|2.4438||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Secondary analysis of the overall treatment effect from baseline through Week 24 on the per protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment difference||2.4438|0.0078|0.0486
95943409|NCT04602611|191856940|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1197||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0315|0.4378||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|This univariate model was not adjusted for other covariates; this model was estimated using 84 degrees of freedom.|The estimated slope was associated with Oncology Nurse Navigation with reference to Standard of Care.|||0.4378|-0.0315|0.09
95943410|NCT02532621|191856978|NON_INFERIORITY|"Cumulative patency at 6 months was evaluated using the estimated patency from a Kaplan Meier survival analysis. The test statistic took the following form:~Z-test statistic = (P - 0.75) / SE (P) Where, (P) represents the Kaplan Meier estimate of cumulative patency at 6 months, and the standard error SE (P) is estimated using the method of Peto et al (1977)."|Cumulative patency|92.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A one-sided p-value of 0.025 was considered evidence of statistical significance for the primary study endpoint.|one-sided binomial exact test|||"The primary endpoint was evaluated by comparison with a performance goal of 75% that was determined from medical literature.~The sample size of 158 patients was estimated as follows:~* Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative patency rate at 6 months (exact binomial estimation for sample size)~* Type I error (alpha): 0.025 (one-sided)~* 80% Statistical power~* 8% Lost-to-follow up rate"||||<0.001
95750074|NCT03265288|191470981|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|2.6628||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|5.5325||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor ppFEV1 (\<70% or ≥70%) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup ≥70%, n=29 (LAU-7b), n=27 (Placebo)"||5.5325|-0.2069|0.0687
95943411|NCT03982186|191857024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-2.3|||=|0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.38|-5.97|= 0.848
95943412|NCT03982186|191857024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|7.4|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|13.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||||13.68|1.07|= 0.027
95990255|NCT00288080|191955189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||Distant failure rates at 4 years were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by a two-side log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.21
95990256|NCT00288080|191955190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0484|||||||Log Rank|||Disease-free survival rates were compared by a two-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0484
95990257|NCT02682901|191955198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
95990258|NCT02682901|191955199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
95990259|NCT02682901|191955200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means are statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
95728506|NCT00895583|191426264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.637
95728507|NCT00895583|191426265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.955
95728508|NCT00895583|191426266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|216.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|198.84||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.279
95728509|NCT00895583|191426267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.337|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||0.337
95728510|NCT00895583|191426268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 24)||||0.025
95728511|NCT00895583|191426268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 1 year (from baseline up to On-Therapy Month 12)||||0.012
95728512|NCT00895583|191426268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||New onset at 2 years (from On-Therapy Month 12 to On-Therapy Month 24)||||1.000
95728513|NCT00895583|191426269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
95728514|NCT00895583|191426269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (12-Month)||||1.000
95728515|NCT00895583|191426269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Non-insulin (24-Month)||||0.386
95728516|NCT00895583|191426269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Insulin (24-Month)||||1.000
95728517|NCT00895583|191426270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.129
95728518|NCT00895583|191426271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95728519|NCT00895583|191426272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.276
95728520|NCT00895583|191426273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.158
95728521|NCT01149616|191426274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95728522|NCT01149616|191426275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
95728523|NCT01149616|191426276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated, and threshold for significance calculated at less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.05
95728524|NCT01070394|191426311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.001
95728525|NCT01070394|191426312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.569
95943413|NCT03982186|191857024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|9.1|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|14.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.07|4.16|= 0.917
95728526|NCT01070394|191426312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES In-Clinic, a subset of the overall AMSES||||.827
95943414|NCT03982186|191857024|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|-6.7|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.67|1.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.25|-14.67|= 0.917
95943415|NCT04479787|191857064|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
95943416|NCT04479787|191857065|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||< 0.0001
95728527|NCT01070394|191426312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||The following p-value is for AMSES, Evening, a subset of the AMSES||||.569
95728528|NCT01070394|191426313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||.001
95943417|NCT04479787|191857066|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
95943418|NCT04479787|191857067|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
95943419|NCT04479787|191857068|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
95943420|NCT04479787|191857069|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sided Z-Test|||||||<0.0001
95943421|NCT04479787|191857070|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
95943422|NCT04479787|191857071|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Two-sample t-test.|||||||<0.0001
95943423|NCT00353496|191857086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified according to progression status at baseline and prior therapy.||||0.73|0.30|<0.001
95943424|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Accuracy|0.6587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.7408||||||||0.7408|0.5690|
95943425|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.8736|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943426|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Specificity|0.4872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943427|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.7917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95728529|NCT01070394|191426314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|||||||<.001
95728530|NCT01070394|191426315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||<.0001
95728531|NCT01070394|191426316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE regression model|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||||||0.001
95728532|NCT00634283|191426319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95728533|NCT00634283|191426319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold was set at 0.05, 2-tailed, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PFC over the one-week placebo lead-in period was compared between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naive groups using a between groups t-test.|"Group differences in PFC changes over time during administration of venlafaxine were assessed using mixed-model analysis.~we compared brain functional changes over the course of venlafaxine treatment between antidepressant-experienced and antidepressant-naïve subjects using linear mixed model analysis (random intercept model) conducted using full maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Changes in PFC were calculated from the end of placebo lead-in to 48 hours, and 1, 2, and 4 weeks, yielding a within-group factor of time with four levels. We employed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure to reflect our assumption that PFC measurements closer together in time would be more highly correlated."|||0.32
95728534|NCT01743677|191426324|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.15|0.56||||||||0.56|-3.15|
95728535|NCT01743677|191426325|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.43||||||||0.43|-3.28|
95728536|NCT01743677|191426326|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-0.44||||||||-0.44|-4.15|
95728537|NCT01743677|191426327|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.5||||||||0.50|-3.21|
95728538|NCT01743677|191426328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|2.93||||||||2.93|-0.78|
95728539|NCT01743677|191426329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.71||||||||2.71|-1.00|
95943428|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.6333|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943429|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1212|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943430|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Specificity|0.9032|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943431|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.3077|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943432|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.7434|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943433|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943434|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Specificity|0.8833|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943435|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.1765|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943436|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9725|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943437|NCT03512301|191857202|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.4446|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2791|0.6101||||||||0.6101|0.2791|
95943438|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER|Linear Regression. Power calculations for linear regression between CAMCI and MoCA were found to be sufficiently powered with a Pearson's R of at least 0.3 at 80% power and that equated to a test-set size of 98.|Pearson Correlation|0.5073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3892|0.6091|||||Linear Regression Equation: \[CAMCI Score\] = -5.42 + 1.40 X \[MoCA Score\]|||0.6091|0.3892|
95943439|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Accuracy|0.5556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4644|0.644||||||||0.6440|0.4644|
95943440|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9747|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943441|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Specificity|0.3913|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943442|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.5625|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943443|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943444|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.1905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943445|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Specificity|0.9841|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943446|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.9231|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943447|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.5487|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943448|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943449|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Specificity|0.8917|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943450|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.2353|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943451|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.9817|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943452|NCT03512301|191857203|OTHER||Quadratic Weighted Kappa|0.3931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2401|0.5461||||||||0.5461|0.2401|
95855536|NCT04607005|191670666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.37||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.90|0.012
95855537|NCT04607005|191670667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.42||p-Value was based on a ANCOVA Model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-2.93|0.009
95855538|NCT04607005|191670668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.35||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.99|0.005
95990260|NCT02682901|191955201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.524
95990261|NCT02682901|191955202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630
95728540|NCT01743677|191426330|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|3.0||||||||3.00|-0.71|
95728541|NCT01743677|191426331|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|4.0||||||||4.00|0.29|
95728542|NCT01743677|191426332|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|3.21||||||||3.21|-0.50|
95728543|NCT01743677|191426333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.62|12.96||||||||12.96|9.62|
95728544|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.44||||||0.25 hour post-dose||2.44|-2.11|
95728545|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|4.06||||||0.5 hour post-dose||4.06|-0.49|
95728546|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.26||||||1 hour post-dose||5.26|0.71|
95728547|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|3.36||||||2 hours post-dose||3.36|-1.19|
95728548|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|4.44||||||4 hours post-dose||4.44|-0.11|
95728549|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|2.33||||||8 hours post-dose||2.33|-2.22|
95728550|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|2.76||||||12 hours post-dose||2.76|-1.79|
95728551|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|4.38||||||16 hours post-dose||4.38|-0.17|
95728552|NCT01743677|191426334|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|3.06||||||24 hours post-dose||3.06|-1.49|
95728553|NCT01132118|191426373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value calculated was for the difference betweeen the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.930
95728554|NCT01132118|191426373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||The P-value was calculated for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.785
95728555|NCT01132118|191426374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||||||Unadjusted P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.575
95728556|NCT01132118|191426374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.308
95728557|NCT01132118|191426375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference betweeen change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo suing Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.468
95728558|NCT01132118|191426375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.902
95728559|NCT01132118|191426376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.004
95728560|NCT01132118|191426376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.004
95728561|NCT01132118|191426377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.009
95728562|NCT01132118|191426377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.011
95728563|NCT01132118|191426378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Unadjusted|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.730
95728564|NCT01132118|191426378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||Adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.208
95728565|NCT01132118|191426379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Unadjusted P-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxychloroquine versus placebo using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.487
95728566|NCT01132118|191426379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||||||P-value adjusted for weight change.|Regression, Linear|||P-value for the difference between the change during hydroxycholorquine versus placebo from a linear regression model.||||0.884
95728604|NCT03294538|191426457|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.2897|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.2897
95858826|NCT02952820|191675392|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 1): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.12|-3.44|0.0670
95943453|NCT02438137|191857233|SUPERIORITY|In multiple linear regression models, the effect of DMF treatment on mean RDI change (beta-coefficient) was -11.3 respiratory events per hour (p=0.0124).|beta-coefficient for treatment effect|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple linear regression models were used to calculate treatment effect (DMF or placebo) on mean RDI change, controlling for change in age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, and time spent in REM sleep.|A mixed effects model, which treated RDI as a repeated measure and used individual ID as random effect, adjusted for age, gender, BMI, time spent in supine sleep, was also conducted. In this model, the effect of DMF compared to placebo, controlling for all other covariates, is a 28% decrease in Month 4 RDI (p=0.033).|||0.0124
95943454|NCT00692913|191857235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.12|<0.001
95750075|NCT03265288|191470981|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.391||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.922|3.7041||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for stratification factor co-administration of CFTR modulator (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving CFTR modulators, n=41 (LAU-7b), n=46 (Placebo)"||3.7041|-0.9220|0.236
95750076|NCT03265288|191470981|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|1.1302||||0.5323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4447|4.7052||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|"Secondary analysis of treatment effect at the Week 24 visit for à priori defined subgroup co-administration of ETI - elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (yes/no) in intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment difference.~Here presented is the analysis for subgroup receiving ETI, n=18 (LAU-7b), n=23 (Placebo)"||4.7052|-2.4447|0.5323
95798312|NCT02003924|191566464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.885||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per interactive voice/web recognition system (IXRS).|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|To maintain family-wise 2-sided type I error rate at 0.05,parallel testing strategy between OS(with allocated type I error rate 0.03)and remaining key secondary endpoints(time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy with allocated type I error rate 0.02)was performed.OS tested at error rate 0.05 when both time to PSA progression and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy were significant. When either failed to show significance.OS was tested at error 0.03.||0.885|0.608|0.0011
95943455|NCT00692913|191857236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares means|-9.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.49|-4.93|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.93|-14.49|<0.001
95943456|NCT00692913|191857237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-7.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.95|-3.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.20|-10.95|<0.001
95943457|NCT00692913|191857238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.13|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||0.35|0.13|<0.001
95943458|NCT00692913|191857239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.01||||0.047||95.0|0.01|2.0|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Lumbar Spine.|||2.00|0.01|0.047
95943459|NCT00692913|191857239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82||||0.035||95.0|0.06|1.58|||Traditional Longitudinal data analysis|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.|FOSAVANCE minus Referred-Care. Analysis was for Total Hip.|||1.58|0.06|0.035
95750077|NCT03265288|191470983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5036||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2199|1.1532||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Arachidonic Acid (AA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.1532|0.2199|0.1047
95750078|NCT03265288|191470983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8773||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3793|2.0291||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT, null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.0291|0.3793|0.7596
95943460|NCT00692913|191857240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of falls (falls/patient-year)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.675||95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression|Adjusted by the terms for treatment, baseline 25(OH) D level stratum, age, and region and offset variable of log (total patient-years in the study).||||0.19|-0.12|0.675
95943461|NCT00692913|191857241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.35||||0.001||95.0|-13.19|-3.54|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-3.54|-13.19|0.001
95943462|NCT00692913|191857242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.94|-4.21|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|The model was adjusted by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level stratum, age, and region.||||-4.21|-11.94|<0.001
95943463|NCT04098575|191857267|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95943464|NCT04098575|191857268|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.835
95943465|NCT04098575|191857269|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antihypertensive drugs||||<0.001
95943466|NCT04098575|191857269|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Lipid-lowering agents||||<0.001
95943467|NCT04098575|191857269|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Antiplatelet, anticoagulant drugs||||<0.001
95750079|NCT03265288|191470983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0532||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5209|2.1296||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of normalization with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of normalization with LAU-7b|Highest normalization of AA/DHA ratio during treatment Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.1296|0.5209|0.8852
95750080|NCT03265288|191470986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3025
95750081|NCT03265288|191470987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.8||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Protocol-Defined IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||3.80|0.63|0.3366
95943468|NCT04098575|191857269|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucose-lowering therapies||||<0.001
95943469|NCT04098575|191857270|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \< 65||||<0.001
95750082|NCT03265288|191470987|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.64||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|ALL IV antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.64|0.68|0.3936
95943470|NCT04098575|191857270|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 65 ≤ 75||||0.001
95943471|NCT04098575|191857270|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: 75 - 80||||<0.001
95943472|NCT04098575|191857270|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Group: \> 80||||<0.002
95943473|NCT04098575|191857271|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95943474|NCT04098575|191857272|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95943475|NCT04098575|191857273|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95943476|NCT04098575|191857274|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
95750083|NCT03265288|191470987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||alpha is set to 0.05|Regression, Cox||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds of a pulmonary exacerbation for LAU-7b and placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of a pulmonary exacerbation with LAU-7b|Combined IV- or Oral antibiotics-treated pulmonary exacerbation events. Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||1.79|0.75|0.5011
95750084|NCT03265288|191470988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1955|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1955
95855539|NCT04607005|191670669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.4||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-2.02|0.004
95855540|NCT04607005|191670670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-2.57||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.57|-18.68|0.010
95943477|NCT04098575|191857275|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.475
95943478|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Insulin||||<0.001
95943479|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Metformin||||<0.001
95943480|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Acarbose||||0.157
95943481|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfonylurea||||<0.001
95943482|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors||||0.071
95943483|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared|||Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists||||0.317
95943484|NCT04098575|191857276|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Sodium-glucose transport protein-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors other than empagliflozin||||<0.001
95943485|NCT04098575|191857277|OTHER||||||<|0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.002
95943486|NCT04098575|191857280|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.000
95943487|NCT02879318|191857409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.25||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.1.|Log Rank|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant therapy.||||1.25|0.71|0.72
95943488|NCT02879318|191857410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.29|0.75|0.91
95943489|NCT02879318|191857411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by ECOG performance status and prior adjuvant chemotherapy||||2.72|0.81|0.28
95943490|NCT00003222|191857434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.13
95943491|NCT00003222|191857435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||This is a test for differences between the response rates of the two arms. The null hypothesis is that the arms have equal response rates and the alternative hypothesis is that they are different.||||0.004
95943492|NCT02112916|191857460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.091|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the EFS of the randomized patients (T-ALL+T-LLy) on Arm A vs Arm B. Study was designed to accrue 1200 eligible, evaluable randomized patients (to provide 90.5% power to detect an improvement in 4-year EFS from 85% to 90% with an alpha of 0.05 (one-sided log-rank test) (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.6483). Study was closed to accrual early due to results from AALL0434 for nelarabine.||1.091|0.561|0.074
95943493|NCT03839446|191857505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.65|0.18|0.777
95943494|NCT03839446|191857505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Percent of blasts present in the bone marrow.||1.01|0.96|0.200
95943495|NCT03839446|191857505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.014
95943496|NCT03839446|191857506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.86|||Regression, Cox||Intermediate / Favorable vs Poor|Cytogenetic status||3.86|0.17|0.801
95943497|NCT03839446|191857506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||% bone marrow blasts||1.01|0.95|0.168
95750085|NCT03265288|191470989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.12||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds of an antibiotic treatment with LAU-7b|Number per subject of intravenous antibiotic treatments required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.12|0.86|0.1909
95750086|NCT03265288|191470990|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.04||alpha is set to 0.05|Poisson regression||Odds ratio \< 1 means lower odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b, odds ratio close to 1 means similar odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b or placebo, odds ratio \> 1 means higher odds in terms of days of antibiotics with LAU-7b|Number of days of intravenous antibiotics required for a pulmonary exacerbation, excludes Cycle 1 pulmonary exacerbations, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.04|0.60|0.7473
95750087|NCT03265288|191470991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.89||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.154|0.374||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.374|-6.154|0.0822
95750088|NCT03265288|191470991|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-576.0||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1177.0|25.4||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Intent-to-Treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||25.4|-1177|0.0603
95750089|NCT03265288|191470991|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-3.853||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.297|-0.408||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||-0.408|-7.297|0.0287
95750090|NCT03265288|191470991|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|-620.0||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1228.0|12.0||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo|Calprotectin, Per-Protocol population (PP), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||12|-1228|0.0459
95750091|NCT03265288|191470992|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.39||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body weight, Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.08|-0.86|0.1006
95943498|NCT03839446|191857506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||% CD33 expression in leukemia blasts||0.99|0.94|0.015
95943499|NCT02382003|191857513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, 0.030=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.833=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 7.053=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.366=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.005
95943500|NCT02382003|191857513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.449||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.799
95990262|NCT02682901|191955203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.537
95990263|NCT02682901|191955204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530
95990264|NCT02682901|191955205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Between treatment group (bromocriptine-QR vs. placebo) differences in change from baseline to week 24 was analyzed using Independent Samples T-tests. Means were statistically significantly different at the 5% level (P \< 0.05) two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95750092|NCT03265288|191470993|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-0.137||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.038||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Body mass index, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||0.038|-0.312|0.1246
95750093|NCT03265288|191470994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||alpha is set to 0.05|ANOVA|||Intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||||0.7640
95750094|NCT03265288|191470995|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means difference|-2.758||||0.2996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.998|2.482||alpha is set to 0.05|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||CFQ-R Respiratory subscore, intent to treat population (ITT), null hypothesis is no treatment effect||2.482|-7.998|0.2996
95764241|NCT01526057|191498655|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC 0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.38|110.2|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||110.20|92.38|
95764242|NCT01526057|191498656|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|104.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.75|117.06||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||117.06|92.75|
95750095|NCT02790034|191471000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3184||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.741|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||17.157|-27.741|0.6411
95943501|NCT02382003|191857513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.085||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 0.026=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 0.094=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 0.170=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.136|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx, 7.328=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut, 4.722=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Anx, 3.547=No-train+Anx\~Pos+Neut, No-train(all)\~50/50(all)≤3.988|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.011
95943502|NCT02382003|191857514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.551||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||"=Positive\~No-training, 0.130=Positive\~50/50 training, 0.269=50/50\~No-training~Alpha = .05"|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=Positive\~No-training, 2=Positive\~50/50 training, 2=50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 4.075=Positive\~50/50 training, 2.630=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.003
95943503|NCT02382003|191857514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.933||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime||Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.140
95943504|NCT02382003|191857514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.018||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,0.049=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.198,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.104,0.014=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.627=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,0.021=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.764=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≥0.067|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Anx,6.041=No-train+Neut\~Pos+Neut,Positive(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.240,50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤4.534,8.525=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut,0.933=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx,7.686=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Anx,0.537=Pos+Anx\~50/50+Neut,Pos+Neut\~50/50(all)≤5.395|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.049
95943505|NCT02382003|191857515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\<0.001, 0.124=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 31.921=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.175=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
95943506|NCT02382003|191857515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.634||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.728
95950269|NCT03122860|191872521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-12.33|0.040
95950270|NCT03122860|191872521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.79|||ANCOVA|||||7.79|-4.35|0.577
95950271|NCT03122860|191872521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.01|||ANCOVA|||||-3.01|-14.90|0.003
95855541|NCT04607005|191670671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-3.6||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.60|-19.19|0.004
95950272|NCT03122860|191872521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|5.96|||ANCOVA|||||5.96|-6.37|0.947
95950273|NCT03122860|191872522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|2.73|||ANCOVA|||||2.73|-8.83|0.299
95950274|NCT03122860|191872522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-13.24|0.021
95950275|NCT03122860|191872522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|-4.75|0.675
95950276|NCT03122860|191872522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-2.55|||ANCOVA|||||-2.55|-14.70|0.006
95950277|NCT03122860|191872522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|6.59|||ANCOVA|||||6.59|-5.99|0.925
95855542|NCT04607005|191670672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.21||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-1.43|0.009
95943507|NCT02382003|191857515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 0.026=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 0.002=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 0.091=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≥ 0.081, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)\< 0.001|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 7.306=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 12.672=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 4.802=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train(all)≤5.037, Positive(all)\~50/50(all)≥16.239|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||<0.001
95750096|NCT02790034|191471000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1869||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.119|9.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary inferential comparison between treatment groups used a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based, mixed-effects repeated measures model approach (MMRM) with 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups for % change from baseline in the number of apnea episodes. Model included % change from baseline as response, the fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the continuous terms age and baseline value as covariate.||9.186|-43.119|0.2011
95750097|NCT02678442|191471013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95750098|NCT02678442|191471015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95750099|NCT02678442|191471016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95750100|NCT02678442|191471017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
95750101|NCT01117337|191471028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95750102|NCT01117337|191471029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
95750103|NCT03575871|191471030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|9.6|0.0008
95943508|NCT02382003|191857516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||=Positive\~No-training, Positive\~50/50 training\< 0.001, 0.100=50/50\~No-training Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Positive\~No-training, 2=df Positive\~50/50 training, 2=df 50/50\~No-training|=Positive\~No-training, 15.288=Positive\~50/50 training, 4.605=50/50\~No-training|Effect of CBM-I condition: The main effect of CBM-I was represented by three binary variables in the main effect models (Positive vs. No-training control; 50/50 vs. No- training control; Positive vs. 50/50). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||< 0.001
95750104|NCT03575871|191471030|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|18.6|<0.0001
95750105|NCT03575871|191471031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|44.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|23.3|<0.0001
95750106|NCT03575871|191471031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|60.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.9|40.0|<0.0001
95750107|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|11.0|0.0002
95750108|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|40.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.2|22.3|<0.0001
95750109|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|18.9|<0.0001
95750110|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|55.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.7|37.2|<0.0001
95750111|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|38.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.0|16.8|<0.0001
95750112|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|28.9|<0.0001
95750113|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.6|18.9|<0.0001
95943509|NCT02382003|191857516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.011||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||=Neutral\~Anxiety prime Alpha = .05|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=df Neutral\~Anxiety prime|=Neutral\~Anxiety prime|Effect of Imagery Prime Type: The main effect of imagery prime was represented by one binary variable (neutral vs. anxiety imagery). Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach (mixed effects models with multiple imputation of missing values) to minimize bias due to missing data estimation. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.135
95750114|NCT03575871|191471032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|49.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.1|28.1|<0.0001
95750115|NCT03575871|191471033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
95750116|NCT03575871|191471033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-2.8|<0.0001
95750117|NCT03575871|191471035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.9|2.8|0.0150
95750118|NCT03575871|191471035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|15.0|<0.0001
95750119|NCT03575871|191471035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|29.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|10.9|0.0004
95750120|NCT03575871|191471035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|53.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|34.8|<0.0001
95750121|NCT03575871|191471035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|41.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|19.7|<0.0001
95750122|NCT03575871|191471035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|36.8|<0.0001
95950278|NCT03122860|191872523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.18|0.062
95950279|NCT03122860|191872523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.54|0.001
95798313|NCT02003924|191566465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.149||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.149|0.801|0.6534
95750123|NCT03575871|191471036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.2|0.0459
95750124|NCT03575871|191471036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|20.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.5|7.8|0.0005
95750125|NCT03575871|191471036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.9||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.3|0.0019
95798314|NCT02003924|191566466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.507||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by PSA doubling time (\< 6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior or concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Log Rank||HR was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by factors defined above, and was relative to placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||0.507|0.282|<0.0001
95750126|NCT03575871|191471036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|39.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.9|23.6|<0.0001
95750127|NCT03575871|191471036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|21.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.4|2.4|0.0246
95750128|NCT03575871|191471036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.9|17.0|<0.0001
95750129|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value was not estimable since there were no events.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
95750130|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2262
95750131|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.1|-2.2|0.2223
95750132|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0597
95750133|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
95950280|NCT03122860|191872523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.75|0.693
95750134|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.5||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-0.2|0.0586
95750135|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
95750136|NCT03575871|191471037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.3||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.4|1.2|0.0244
95750137|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.2|14.8|<0.0001
95798315|NCT02003924|191566469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|73.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.91|77.02||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 50%||77.02|70.91|<0.0001
95950281|NCT03122860|191872523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.39|0.012
95750138|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.6|33.9|<0.0001
95798316|NCT02003924|191566469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|55.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.28|58.76||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease from Baseline \>= 90%||58.76|52.28|<0.0001
95798317|NCT02003924|191566469|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|11.54||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA doubling time (\<6 months, \>= 6 months) and prior concurrent use of a bone targeting agent (yes, no) as per IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Decrease to Undetectable Level||11.54|7.75|<0.0001
95950282|NCT03122860|191872523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.49|0.697
95950283|NCT03122860|191872524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-9.04|0.254
95943510|NCT02382003|191857516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.402||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx\<0.048, Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut\<0.001, 0.055=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≥0.139, 0.034=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 0.340=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≥ 0.087|Likelihood Ratio Tests|2=all df|=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Neut, 6.076=Pos+Anx\~No-train+Anx, 14.525=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Neut, 5.811=Pos+Neut\~No-train+Anx, 50/50(all)\~No-train+Anx≤3.950, 6.770=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Neut, 2.158=No-train+Neut\~50/50+Anx, Pos(all)\~50/50(all)≤4.876|Effect of CBM-I condition and Imagery Prime Type interaction: Each cell of the interaction was represented by one of 5 binary variables, set to 1 if a participant was in that group, and 0 otherwise; the sixth group (No-training + neutral prime) was considered a reference group, and was represented by all variables being 0. Due to high attrition, latent growth curve modeling was used instead of the planned approach. Because omnibus tests were not run, results for all comparisons are listed below.||||0.009
95990265|NCT01331304|191955214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Because this study has co-primary outcomes (CGI-EI and NCAs), the analyses of the treatment effect in the two primary hypotheses each involved a two-tailed alpha-level of 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the first co-primary aim, mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessments of the CGI-EI over 6 months.||||0.59
95990266|NCT01331304|191955215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the second co-primary, patient monthly rates of NCAs (determined by dividing total number of NCAs during follow-up by the length of follow-up - to account for attrition and resulting differential exposure time) for treatment groups were compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.118
95990267|NCT01331304|191955216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated collection of measures relevant to calculation of the Framingham Risk Score over 6 months||||0.11
95990268|NCT01331304|191955217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis of this secondary outcome was not corrected for multiple comparisons. Therefore, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effects linear regression analyses compared the two intervention groups on the repeated assessment of the LIFE-RIFT over 6 months||||0.70
95990269|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Specificity|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
95990270|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the true negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
95990271|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
95990272|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of true positives over the number of total positives.|||||
95990273|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
95750139|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|42.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|17.5|<0.0001
95990274|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
95990275|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
95990276|NCT03694925|191955261|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
95990277|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Specificity|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
95798318|NCT01811238|191566508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|"The primary endpoint will be the actual reduction rate of pain intensity (0 -10) score at 8 weeks.~It will be analyzed by using paired t-test."||||||<0.05
95990278|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Specificity|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Specificity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the number of the number of aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of aseptics.|||||
95990279|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
95990280|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. Sensitivity is the number of septic positives over the number of septics.|||||
95990281|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
95990282|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Positive predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50mg/L cut off. The numerator is the septic positives and the denominator are the total positives.|||||
95990283|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>14 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.|||||
95990284|NCT03694925|191955262|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. The numerator is the aseptic negatives and the denominator is the number of total negatives.||Negative predictive value was calculated using 2x2 tables using \>50 mg/L cut off. NPV=98.5%|||
95943511|NCT05648890|191857521|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST test before operation.||||<0.0001
95943512|NCT05648890|191857522|OTHER|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used .|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's ran correlation coefficient|Spearman's ran correlation coefficient was used for correlation between two quantities.||Correlation between MMSE and TEGEST after operation||||< .001
95943513|NCT05648890|191857523|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and Clock drawing test before operation.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||<0.0001
95990285|NCT02301403|191955270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.14|1.69|<.001
95750140|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|61.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|37.8|<0.0001
95750141|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.3|18.8|<0.0001
95750142|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.6|35.7|<0.0001
95750143|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|60.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.1|37.2|<0.0001
95750144|NCT03575871|191471038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|71.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.0|49.1|<0.0001
95750145|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.5||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.8|-1.7|0.1623
95750146|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|14.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||14.7|3.4|0.0070
95750147|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.4|4.0|0.0049
95943514|NCT05648890|191857524|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between TEGEST and clock drawing test after operation.||||<0.001
95943515|NCT05648890|191857525|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficien|||Correlation between MMSE and Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.001
95943516|NCT05648890|191857525|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test before operation.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Clock drawing before operation.||||0.023
95943517|NCT05648890|191857526|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation between Clock drawing test and MMSE after operation.||||<0.0001
95943518|NCT05648890|191857527|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with MMSE before operation.||||<0.0001
95990286|NCT01128829|191955282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each subject served as their own control. We compared insulin concentrations when subjects consumed sucralose before a glucose load (experimental condition) with those on the day consumed water before a glucose load (control condition).||||0.025
95798319|NCT01811238|191566509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|The change(difference) in EQ-5D score at Week 8 from baseline was analyzed by using paired t-test.||||1.12|0|<0.05
95798320|NCT00434434|191566521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.13
95798321|NCT00434434|191566521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0133
95798322|NCT00434434|191566522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.09
95798323|NCT00434434|191566522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney||||||0.0028
95943519|NCT05648890|191857527|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with TEGEST before operation.||||<0.0001
95943520|NCT05648890|191857527|OTHER|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Spearman's rank correlation coefficient|||Correlation of Clinical frailty scale with Clock drawing test before operation.||||<0.0001
95990287|NCT02302963|191955293|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|||||<|0.001|||||||GLM Repeated Measures|Repeated-measures general linear model was used to compare HCLC versus SAP data. A P-value of \< 0.001 was considered the threshold for significance.||||||<0.001
95750148|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|30.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|15.5|<0.0001
95750149|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|22.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.0|7.2|0.0013
95943521|NCT05648890|191857528|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living at a house or in apartment and relationships with Clinical frailty scale.||||.562
95943522|NCT05648890|191857529|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test was used.||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Respondents living with with family or alone and relationship with Clinical frailty scale.||||0.129
95943523|NCT05648890|191857530|OTHER|Mann-Whintney test was used.||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Relationship between respondents living at home with stairs and respondents living at home with an elevator and Clinical frailty scale.||||0.019
95943524|NCT04977583|191857594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2625||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.904|0.679|0.6243
95943525|NCT04977583|191857594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2553||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|2.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This test compares Arm 1 (screening) to arm 3 (assistance)||2.469|0.908|0.1146
95943526|NCT04977583|191857595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2078||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.447|||Poisson|We used total needs as an offset||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 2 (awareness)||1.447|0.641|0.856
95943527|NCT04977583|191857595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1999||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.681|||Poisson|||This test is comparing Arm 1 (screening) to Arm 3 (assistance)||1.681|0.768|0.5248
95943528|NCT04977583|191857596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 2||1.400|0.536|.5582
95943529|NCT04977583|191857596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.381|||Regression, Logistic|||This is Arm 1 compared to Arm 3||1.381|0.528|0.5196
95943530|NCT04977583|191857597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2794||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.821|0.2105
95943531|NCT04977583|191857597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2816||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4574|1.379|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.379|0.4574|.4143
95943532|NCT04977583|191857598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9665|1.0336|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.0336|0.9665|0.9775
95990288|NCT03434977|191955296|OTHER||Ratio|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.986||||||The shown data were ratio of fed conditions divided by fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the least square (LS) means difference (fed-fasted) or confidence interval (CI). The difference in LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||0.986|0.890|
95990289|NCT03434977|191955297|OTHER||LS-Means Difference|0.9083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1821|1.6345||||||The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (non-natural log) PK parameters tmax as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.6345|0.1821|
95798324|NCT02774889|191566531|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.27|0.55
95943533|NCT04977583|191857598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9832|1.0534|||ANOVA|||This arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.0534|0.9832|0.3194
95943534|NCT04977583|191857599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1613||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4107|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.4107|0.7497|0.8623
95943535|NCT04977583|191857599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9962|1.8844|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.8844|0.9962|0.0534
95750150|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.1|23.1|<0.0001
95943536|NCT04977583|191857600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1304|40.5121|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||40.5121|0.1304|0.5701
95943537|NCT04977583|191857600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.467||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2571|80.8746|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||80.8746|0.2571|0.3016
95943538|NCT04977583|191857601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2438||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|2.454|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.454|0.944|0.0870
95798325|NCT02774889|191566532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-2.89|||Fisher Exact|||at 3 months||-2.89|-6.61|0.001
95798326|NCT02774889|191566532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-1.68|||Fisher Exact|||at 6 months||-1.68|-6.47|0.001
95798327|NCT02774889|191566533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.16|0.00|0.05
95798328|NCT02774889|191566533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.22|0.07|0.0003
95798329|NCT02774889|191566534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.44|-0.40|0.88
95990290|NCT03434977|191955298|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUClast as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.943|
95750151|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|11.9|0.0001
95750152|NCT03575871|191471039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.6|<0.0001
95750153|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.7|-3.7|
95750154|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.8|0.3261
95750155|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-2.7|0.3207
95750156|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.8|0.0810
95750157|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-2.7|0.3207
95750158|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-0.7|0.0810
95750159|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.1|0.3|0.0419
95858827|NCT02952820|191675392|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.25|-3.83|0.0257
95750160|NCT03575871|191471040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.2|1.8|0.0180
95750161|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-22.3|-38.1|<0.0001
95858828|NCT02952820|191675392|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.34|-4.02|0.0206
95750162|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-34.4|-50.3|<0.0001
95750163|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.7|-38.1|<0.0001
95750164|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.3|-52.8|<0.0001
95750165|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-36.2|<0.0001
95750166|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-30.4|-50.0|<0.0001
95750167|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-19.7|-43.1|<0.0001
95750168|NCT03575871|191471041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-44.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.0|-56.4|<0.0001
95943539|NCT04977583|191857601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2897||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|3.264|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||3.264|1.048|0.0354
95943540|NCT04977583|191857602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|1.553|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||1.553|0.246|0.3063
95943541|NCT04977583|191857602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.803|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||1.803|.256|.4378
95943542|NCT04977583|191857603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8265||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|2.5687|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 2||2.5687|0.1006|0.4134
95943543|NCT04977583|191857603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8283||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3588|9.223|||ANOVA|||This is arm 1 compared to arm 3||9.2230|0.3588|0.4705
95943544|NCT04977583|191857604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|2.987|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||2.987|1.044|0.0347
95750169|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.5|-35.5|<0.0001
95750170|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-25.1|-43.1|<0.0001
95750171|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-20.4|-39.0|<0.0001
95750172|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.1|-49.8|<0.0001
95750173|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-21.2|-44.6|<0.0001
95798330|NCT02774889|191566534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.37|-0.48|0.83
95798331|NCT02774889|191566535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.54|-0.20|0.36
95943545|NCT04977583|191857605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3489||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|3.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis compares arm 1 to arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and Arm 1 is the denominator|||3.436|0.875|0.1160
95943546|NCT04977583|191857605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3475||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.202|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.695|1.202|0.0134
95943547|NCT04977583|191857606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.512|16.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||This analysis is arm 1 compared to compared to arm 3. Arm 3 is the numerator and arm 1 is denominator.|||16.570|1.512|0.0094
95950284|NCT03122860|191872524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-13.10|0.031
95950285|NCT03122860|191872524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.28|||ANCOVA|||||4.28|-7.20|0.616
95950286|NCT03122860|191872524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||||-1.82|-13.41|0.010
95950287|NCT03122860|191872524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.46|||ANCOVA|||||5.46|-5.74|0.961
95950288|NCT00257894|191872535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Effect size close to zero (eta squared of .01)|ANOVA|Interaction effect term from group by time ANOVA||||||.57
95950289|NCT00257894|191872536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Effect size about zero (eta squared = .01)|ANOVA|Interaction term from a group by time ANOVA||||||.60
95950290|NCT00257894|191872537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Effect size (eta squared) = 0|ANOVA|Interaction term of a group by time ANOVA||||||.79
95950291|NCT00257894|191872538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||For test of drug by time interaction effect|ANOVA|Medium effect size, eta squared = .061||Analysis of variance, group by time (Day 0 vs. Day 10).||||.21
95950292|NCT02852824|191872553|OTHER||Slope|0.9058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7973|1.0142||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used a statistical method.||1.0142|0.7973|
95943548|NCT04977583|191857606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6532||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|6.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is a comparison of arm 1 and arm 2. Arm 2 is the numerator and arm 1 is the denominator.|||6.746|0.521|0.3377
95943549|NCT03391466|191857624|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.514||Stratified (randomization factors) log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)), stratified using randomization stratification factors.|||0.514|0.308|<0.0001
95943550|NCT03391466|191857625|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, one-sided tailed test, stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) as data collected on case report forms.|Difference in ORR|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|42.1||Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified (randomization factor) CMH test.|95% CI for the difference in ORR was from Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||42.1|23.2|<0.0001
95943551|NCT03391466|191857626|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.007||Stratified log-rank (randomization factor) p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization factor) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.||The Rho family spending function with parameter (Rho = 6) was used to allocate alpha between the interim and primary OS analysis. Given that fewer than the anticipated 210 events were observed at the data cutoff date for the primary OS analysis (25 January 2023), the efficacy boundary for the primary OS analysis was recalculated using the Rho family spending function based on the actual observed event numbers (177 deaths) resulting in an efficacy boundary at 1-sided significance level of 0.0249.|1.007|0.530|0.027
95943552|NCT03391466|191857627|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.736||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.108||Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Log Rank||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care.|||1.108|0.488|0.0695
95943553|NCT03391466|191857628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.487||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by response to first-line therapy and second-line age-adjusted IPI as data collected on case report forms.|Log Rank|Stratified (randomization stratification factors) log-rank test.|Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.487|0.290|<0.0001
95943554|NCT03391466|191857629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.545|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.545|0.327|
95750174|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-28.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-28.9|-52.2|<0.0001
95943555|NCT03391466|191857630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.669|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.669|0.383|
95943556|NCT03391466|191857631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.532|||||Stratified Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CIs for axicabtagene ciloleucel relative to standard of care therapy. The Breslow method was used to handle the ties for the Cox regression models.|||0.532|0.318|
95943557|NCT03391466|191857632|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|23.9||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||23.9|12.3|<0.0001
95943558|NCT03391466|191857632|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|9.8||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|17.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.0|2.6|0.0124
95943559|NCT03391466|191857632|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|4.4||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||12.0|-3.3|0.2655
95943560|NCT03391466|191857633|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|18.2||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.2|8.0|<0.0001
95750175|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-27.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-27.4|-51.8|<0.0001
95798332|NCT02774889|191566535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.77|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.77|-0.11|0.14
95798333|NCT02774889|191566536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.85|-0.43|0.52
95798334|NCT02774889|191566536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.85|-0.31|0.36
95943561|NCT03391466|191857633|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|5.1||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||11.0|-0.9|0.1253
95943562|NCT03391466|191857634|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.081||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.138||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||0.138|0.024|0.0112
95943563|NCT03391466|191857634|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|0.028||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.091||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||0.091|-0.034|0.3703
95943564|NCT03391466|191857635|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|18.8||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 100.||18.8|8.5|<0.0001
95750176|NCT03575871|191471042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-48.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-36.0|-60.4|<0.0001
95750177|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2353
95750178|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.8|0.8|0.0332
95750179|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.4|0.0227
95750180|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.1|0.0001
95750181|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|21.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.3|7.7|0.0008
95943565|NCT03391466|191857635|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|11.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|17.1||False Discovery Rate Methodology|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Day 150.||17.1|5.4|0.0004
95943566|NCT03391466|191857635|SUPERIORITY||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|3.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||False Discovery Rate Methodology.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures Differences in Change from Baseline.||Difference in mean change of scores from Baseline at Month 9.||10.0|-2.3|0.2549
95943567|NCT04327843|191857657|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed||||||0.001
95943568|NCT04327843|191857658|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.43
95750182|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|18.1|<0.0001
95750183|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|26.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.5|10.5|0.0003
95750184|NCT03575871|191471043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.4|<0.0001
95750185|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|18.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.9|6.5|0.0011
95798335|NCT02774889|191566537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.32|-0.58|0.43
95798336|NCT02774889|191566537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.49|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.49|-0.42|0.26
95798337|NCT02774889|191566538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.61|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.61|-0.09|0.16
95943569|NCT04327843|191857659|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.07||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.07
95943570|NCT04327843|191857660|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.10
95943571|NCT04327843|191857661|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
95750186|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|40.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.6|24.6|<0.0001
95750187|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|38.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.2|18.5|<0.0001
95750188|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|43.2|<0.0001
95750189|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|17.0|<0.0001
95750190|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|57.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||57.1|35.2|<0.0001
95943572|NCT04327843|191857662|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||1.00
95750191|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|47.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.1|25.4|<0.0001
95750192|NCT03575871|191471044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|49.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|60.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||60.3|38.9|<0.0001
95750193|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-2.2|0.2261
95943573|NCT04327843|191857664|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.75||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.75
95990291|NCT03434977|191955299|OTHER||Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.056||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC∞ as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.056|0.942|
95990292|NCT03434977|191955300|OTHER||Ratio|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.041||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters T1/2z as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.041|0.932|
95750194|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.0|0.3|0.0451
95750195|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.8|0.0171
95798338|NCT02774889|191566538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||0.17|-0.55|0.29
95798339|NCT02774889|191566540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.40|-2.66|0.91
95798340|NCT02774889|191566540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||2.15|-2.79|0.80
95943574|NCT04327843|191857665|OTHER|This is a prospective study with a repeated measures design.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|It was dependent sample pairwise t-tests, two tailed.||||||0.14
95943575|NCT04868617|191857725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.3|=0.015
95943576|NCT04868617|191857726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.5|=0.035
95750196|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|24.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.5|10.9|<0.0001
95990293|NCT03434977|191955301|OTHER||Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.091||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRTlast, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.091|1.006|
95990294|NCT03434977|191955302|OTHER||Ratio|1.037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.081||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters MRT∞, ev as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.081|0.996|
95990295|NCT03434977|191955303|OTHER||Ratio|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.071||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters λz as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.071|0.959|
95990296|NCT03434977|191955304|OTHER||Ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.062||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters CL/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.062|0.947|
95990297|NCT03434977|191955305|OTHER||Ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.068||||||The shown data were the ratio of the fed conditions divided by the fasted conditions, taking anti-logs of the LS means difference (fed-fasted) or CI. The difference in the LS means between treatment conditions (fed-fasted) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Vz/F as dependent variable, and treatment condition, group, and period as independent variables.||1.068|0.916|
95990298|NCT06033079|191955362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.95||||||||2.95|0.32|
95990299|NCT06033079|191955363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
95990300|NCT06033079|191955364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.37||||||||2.37|0.30|
95990301|NCT06033079|191955365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.82||||||||1.82|0.32|
95990302|NCT06033079|191955366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.51||||||||7.51|0.34|
95990303|NCT06033079|191955367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.42||||||||1.42|0.13|
95750197|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.5||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.5|5.5|0.0018
95798341|NCT02774889|191566541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.64|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||2.64|-1.44|0.54
95990304|NCT06033079|191955368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.9||||||||7.90|0.41|
95990305|NCT01250379|191955370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in the analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|||0.97|0.65|0.0204
95990306|NCT01250379|191955370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||0.97|0.67|0.0245
95990307|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.88|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-neg||0.88|0.40|0.0088
95990308|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: HR-pos/HER-neg||1.05|0.67|0.1196
95990309|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS \<6 months||0.90|0.43|0.0110
95990310|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: PFS ≥6 months||1.03|0.65|0.0816
95990311|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.98|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: taxane chemo||0.98|0.31|0.0395
95990312|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: non-taxane chemo||1.06|0.68|0.1385
95990313|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.75|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: vinorelbine chemo||0.75|0.22|0.0029
95990314|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH ≤ 1.5 ULN||0.96|0.62|0.0171
95990315|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: LDH \> 1.5 ULN||1.16|0.46|0.1797
95990316|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 65 years of age||0.97|0.62|0.0229
95990317|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 65 years of age||1.16|0.51|0.2139
95990318|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 70 years of age||0.89|0.59|0.0021
95990319|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.39|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 70 years of age||2.39|0.64|0.5216
95990320|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: \< 3 metastatic organ sites||0.94|0.58|0.0148
95990321|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: ≥ 3 metastatic organ sites||1.17|0.61|0.3102
95990322|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free ≤ 6 weeks||1.04|0.64|0.0967
95990323|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: B-free \> 6 weeks||1.00|0.51|0.0489
95990324|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 24 months||0.92|0.41|0.0176
95990325|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 24 months||1.11|0.66|0.2318
95990326|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free ≤ 12 months||1.03|0.26|0.0568
95750198|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
95943577|NCT04955431|191857791|OTHER|We performed a 2-way Repeated Measures ANOVA to compare changes in blood IL-6 levels from baseline to post simulated firefighting on control days (Normal Sleep) and experimental days (Sleep Restriction).|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95943578|NCT04955431|191857792|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95798342|NCT02774889|191566541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||3.81|-1.49|0.38
95798343|NCT02774889|191566543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.71|||Fisher Exact|||Inside Balance||3.71|0.06|0.04
95798344|NCT02774889|191566543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|3.51|||Fisher Exact|||Outside Balance||3.51|-0.02|0.05
95943579|NCT06415045|191857793|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.55|124.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.58|106.55|
95943580|NCT06415045|191857794|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|85.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|107.06|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 39.4|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||107.06|68.80|
95943581|NCT06415045|191857795|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|115.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.38|124.46|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 13.5|Relative bioavailability of Nerandomilast administered in fed state (Test) compared with Nerandomilast administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||124.46|106.38|
95943582|NCT00391443|191857825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.097|||Log Rank|||||1.097|0.658|0.2110
95943583|NCT00391443|191857826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk reduction|0.17||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39|||Fisher Exact|||||0.39|-0.13|0.2542
95943584|NCT05934292|191857827|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.31|||||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.31|0.98|
95943585|NCT05934292|191857827|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.74|||Geometric Mean Ratio||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.74|0.74|
95990327|NCT01250379|191955371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Log Rank|||Subgroup analysis: D-free \> 12 months||1.05|0.66|0.1143
95990328|NCT01250379|191955372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson methodology.|||12.4|-4.2|0.3457
95990329|NCT01250379|191955374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.99|0.51|0.9825
95990330|NCT01250379|191955374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.34|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||2.34|0.73|0.3601
95990331|NCT01250379|191955377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.06|0.59|0.1080
95990332|NCT01250379|191955377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.02|0.59|0.0625
95990333|NCT01250379|191955379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.05|0.68|0.1349
95750199|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|8.8|0.0005
95943586|NCT05934292|191857827|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.78|1.10|
95943587|NCT05934292|191857827|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.77|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.77|0.77|
95943588|NCT05934292|191857828|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.46|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||2.46|1.05|
95943589|NCT05934292|191857828|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.72|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.72|0.37|
95943590|NCT05934292|191857828|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.54|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||2.54|0.80|
95943591|NCT05934292|191857828|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.78|0.78|
95943592|NCT05934292|191857829|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.37|0.71|
95943593|NCT05934292|191857829|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.04|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls.|||1.04|0.34|
95943594|NCT05934292|191857829|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.27|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.27|0.64|
95943595|NCT05934292|191857829|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.78|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls.|||1.78|0.78|
95943596|NCT05934292|191857832|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.02|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.02|0.43|
95943597|NCT05934292|191857832|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.35|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.35|0.58|
95943598|NCT05934292|191857832|OTHER||Geomtric Mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.91|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.91|0.36|
95943599|NCT05934292|191857832|OTHER||Geomtric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.29|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.29|0.57|
95943600|NCT05934292|191857833|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.67|0.83|
95798345|NCT02774889|191566543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|3.81|||Fisher Exact|||Strength||3.81|-0.08|0.06
95798346|NCT02774889|191566544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.17|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 3 months||2.17|0.54|0.003
95798347|NCT02774889|191566544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|2.24|||Fisher Exact|||Balance Exercises at 6 Months||2.24|-0.22|0.11
95943601|NCT05934292|191857833|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.5|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||1.50|0.78|
95943602|NCT05934292|191857833|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.89|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Pre-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||0.89|0.50|
95943603|NCT05934292|191857833|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.97|||||GMR and 90% CI for AUC0-inf were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel C-ESRD Enlicitide Decanoate Post-Hemodialysis/ Panel D-Healthy Controls|||1.97|1.00|
95943604|NCT05934292|191857838|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
95943605|NCT05934292|191857838|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
95943606|NCT05934292|191857839|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.74|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.74|0.14|
95990334|NCT01250379|191955379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.03|0.68|0.0863
95990335|NCT01250379|191955381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.02|0.65|0.0744
95750200|NCT03575871|191471045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|19.3|<0.0001
95750201|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.3|<0.0001
95943607|NCT05934292|191857839|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.22|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.22|0.04|
95943608|NCT05934292|191857840|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.55|||||GMR and 90% CI were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel A-Moderate Renal Impairment (RI)/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.55|0.16|
95943609|NCT05934292|191857840|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.36|||||GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a linear fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values. GMR: Panel B-Severe RI/Panel D-Healthy controls|||0.36|0.06|
95990336|NCT01250379|191955381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.00|0.66|0.0503
95750202|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.5|<0.0001
95750203|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.6|<0.0001
95750204|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.5|-3.8|<0.0001
95750205|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
95798348|NCT02774889|191566545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.89|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 3 months||1.89|0.23|0.01
95990337|NCT01250379|191955384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Log Rank||The 95% CI was estimated using Cox proportional hazards methodology. The stratification factors used in stratified analysis were hormone receptor status, first-line PFS, choice of chemotherapy, and LDH level.|||1.21|0.76|0.7253
95990338|NCT01250379|191955384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16|||Log Rank||Unstratified analysis.|||1.16|0.75|0.5332
95750206|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.3|<0.0001
95750207|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.2|0.0006
95750208|NCT03575871|191471046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-3.0|<0.0001
95750209|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|<0.0001
95750210|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
95750211|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
95798349|NCT02774889|191566545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.67|||Fisher Exact|||Strength Exercises at 6 months||1.67|-0.16|0.11
95798350|NCT02774889|191566546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||3.30|-1.30|0.38
95798351|NCT02774889|191566546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.73|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||4.73|0.43|0.02
95990339|NCT01928381|191955409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-0.34|0.5695
95990340|NCT01928381|191955409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.43|0.8905
95750212|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-3.6|<0.0001
95750213|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
95750214|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
95750215|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0164
95750216|NCT03575871|191471047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category), baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.5|<0.0001
95750217|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-26.6|<0.0001
95750218|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.4|-37.9|<0.0001
95750219|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.2|-28.1|<0.0001
95750220|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.4|-42.3|<0.0001
95943610|NCT04899674|191857844|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|103.8|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||103.8|86.3|
95943611|NCT04899674|191857845|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans[%]|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|110.7|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=31.5."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||110.7|74.3|
95990341|NCT01928381|191955409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.30|0.4822
95990342|NCT01928381|191955410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabalin|||0.82|-0.20|0.2237
95990343|NCT01928381|191955410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||In direction of Pregabain, positive control|||0.08|-0.93|0.0978
95750221|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-12.1|-26.8|<0.0001
95750222|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-26.3|-41.0|<0.0001
95990344|NCT01928381|191955410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.62|0.6610
95750223|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.9|-32.3|<0.0001
95750224|NCT03575871|191471048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-24.3|-42.6|<0.0001
95750225|NCT00391079|191471050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.17||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The change in pain NRS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.29|-0.62|0.468
95798352|NCT02774889|191566547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||0.97|-0.33|0.33
95943612|NCT04899674|191857846|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans [%]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|104.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of BI 1358894 + bupropion)/(gMean of bupropion alone).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=13.9."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed.||104.3|86.7|
95943613|NCT05155306|191857853|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|99.7|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.067.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.7|79.5|
95943614|NCT05155306|191857853|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.9|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.022.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.9|94.4|
95750226|NCT00391079|191471051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.038|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each Sativex and placebo.||2.038|0.840|0.2338
95750227|NCT00391079|191471052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-1.83||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|1.72|||ANOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The change in NPS score from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||1.72|-5.39|0.3103
95950293|NCT02852824|191872554|OTHER||Slope|0.9528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8581|1.0475||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0475|0.8581|
95950294|NCT02852824|191872555|OTHER||Slope|0.9439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8697|1.0182||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0182|0.8697|
95750228|NCT00391079|191471053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.24||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates a reduction in breakthrough analgesic medication in favour of Sativex.|The change in average number of tablets taken daily from baseline to the end of study was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and centre group and treatment as factors.||0.09|-0.57|0.1567
95750229|NCT00391079|191471054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.29|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated means indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|||0.29|-0.53|0.5643
95750230|NCT00391079|191471055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.47||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.179|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of greater than 1 indicates and improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.179|0.991|0.0552
95750231|NCT00391079|191471056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.48|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in estimated treatment difference indicates an improvement in sleep quality in favour of Sativex.|||0.48|-0.39|0.8330
95750232|NCT01746264|191471059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value for change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.59
95750233|NCT01746264|191471060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow up visit.||||<0.001
95750234|NCT01746264|191471061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||<0.01
95950295|NCT02852824|191872556|OTHER||Slope|0.9708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8975|1.044||||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Power model is used as statistical method.||1.0440|0.8975|
95950296|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.2||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Unadjusted)||9.2|-0.9|
95950297|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.3||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.3|-0.4|
95950298|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.6||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Unadjusted)||5.6|-6.2|
95950299|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Unadjusted)||3.5|-4.0|
95950300|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.9||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Unadjusted)||8.9|-1.9|
95950301|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.0||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Unadjusted)||5.0|-2.1|
95950302|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.8||||||Tx 1 - SBP (Adjusted)||9.8|-0.4|
95950303|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.5||||||Tx 1 - DBP (Adjusted)||6.5|0.6|
95950304|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9||||||Wk 3 - SBP (Adjusted)||6.9|-5.0|
95950305|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||Wk 3 - DBP (Adjusted)||4.9|-2.8|
95950306|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|10.0||||||Wk 6 - SBP (Adjusted)||10.0|-0.4|
95950307|NCT01020435|191872560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8||||||Wk 6 - DBP (Adjusted)||5.8|-1.2|
95950308|NCT00337610|191872563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.36|-0.67|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic agent (AHA) \[medication\] (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.67|-1.36|<0.001
95750235|NCT01746264|191471063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
95750236|NCT01746264|191471064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3-month follow-up.||||0.21
95750237|NCT01746264|191471065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.02
95750238|NCT01746264|191471066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.0123
95750239|NCT01746264|191471067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.09
95750240|NCT01746264|191471068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.27
95750241|NCT01746264|191471069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.18
95943615|NCT05155306|191857853|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.1|227.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.069.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||227.5|180.1|
95750242|NCT01746264|191471070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.33
95750243|NCT01746264|191471071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.05
95750244|NCT01746264|191471072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.41
95750245|NCT01746264|191471073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.32
95943616|NCT05155306|191857853|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|173.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.3|190.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.055.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||190.8|158.3|
95750246|NCT01746264|191471074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline to 3 month follow-up.||||0.47
95750247|NCT02791893|191471075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.47
95750248|NCT02791893|191471075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase are not included limiting the sample to 10 subjects in each condition (N=20). Post-intervention pain severity was regressed on pre-intervention pain severity and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
95750249|NCT02791893|191471076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.||"A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase were assigned a score of 1 indicating no change in their condition. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions."||||0.23
95750250|NCT02791893|191471076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was an independent t-test comparing the conditions on their perception of change since starting the intervention.|Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Post-intervention PGIC scores were compared between conditions.||||0.23
95750251|NCT02791893|191471077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.88||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.13
95750252|NCT02791893|191471077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention physical function scores was regressed on pre-intervention physical function and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.12
95750253|NCT02791893|191471078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.58
95798353|NCT02774889|191566547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||6 months||1.27|-0.02|0.06
95798354|NCT02774889|191566548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.28|||Fisher Exact|||3 months||1.28|-0.03|0.06
95750254|NCT02791893|191471078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention headache days was regressed on pre-intervention headache days and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.49
95750255|NCT02791893|191471079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|A power analysis was conducted with G\*Power, specifying a standard Type I error (α = .05) and desired power of .80. Results indicated that a total sample of 26 would be sufficient. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.18
95943617|NCT05155306|191857854|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|99.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.106.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||99.0|69.6|
95943618|NCT05155306|191857854|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|112.0|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.070.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.0|88.7|
95943619|NCT05155306|191857854|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|153.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|187.3|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.121.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.3|126.0|
95943620|NCT05155306|191857854|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|121.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.6|147.8|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.120.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||147.8|99.6|
95943621|NCT05155306|191857855|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|100.4|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.066.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.4|80.4|
95943622|NCT05155306|191857855|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|104.1|||||Ratio is calculated as test/reference. Geometric Standard Error = 1.021.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.1|96.8|
95943623|NCT05155306|191857855|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|202.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.6|228.5|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.072.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||228.5|179.6|
95943624|NCT05155306|191857855|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio [%]|172.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.2|187.7|||||Ratio is calculated as fed/fasted. Geometric Standard Error = 1.050.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.7|158.2|
95943625|NCT00786864|191857884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p=|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p=0.001
95943626|NCT00786864|191857885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
95750256|NCT02791893|191471079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA||Condition difference = Active - Sham|Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the blinded phase had their baseline scores carried forward. Post-intervention depression scores were regressed on pre-intervention depression scores and condition, using an ANCOVA model.||||0.25
95750257|NCT02791893|191471080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|This was a dependent t-test comparing pre-intervention scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the intent-to-treat analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase had their most recent score carried forward. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.004
95943627|NCT00786864|191857886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.001
95943628|NCT00786864|191857887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||p<0.01
95943629|NCT03373916|191857888|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
95943630|NCT03373916|191857889|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95943631|NCT03373916|191857890|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95943632|NCT03373916|191857891|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95943633|NCT03373916|191857892|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95943634|NCT02422615|191857911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.593||||4.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.480|0.00000041
95943635|NCT02422615|191857912|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.724||||0.00455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.924|||Log Rank|||||0.924|0.568|0.00455
95943636|NCT02422615|191857913|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.492|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|0.703||||||||0.703|0.345|
95943637|NCT01288443|191857924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 100 mg Q2W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~5. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level"||||<0.0001
95943638|NCT01288443|191857924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95943639|NCT01288443|191857924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95943640|NCT01288443|191857924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95943641|NCT01288443|191857924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95750258|NCT02791893|191471080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||This was a dependent t-test comparing baseline scores to the scores collected at the end of the open label phase.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regardless of original condition assignment, patients' 2.5-month pain scores at the end of the open label phase were compared to their baseline scores using a dependent samples t-test. Below are the results of the per protocol analysis. Patients that did not complete the assessment after the open-label phase were excluded. All patients included in this comparison received at least 10 weeks of VNS therapy.||||0.005
95750259|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
95750260|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup A was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup A compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
95750261|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
95750262|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup C was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.003||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup C compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.003
95943642|NCT01617369|191857934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test performed. Null hypothesis is that no difference in clearance 30 min and 4 hr after HS inhalation exists||||<.05
95943643|NCT01574716|191857935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.50|0.77|= 0.6562
95943644|NCT01574716|191857936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.57|0.82|=0.4469
95943645|NCT01574716|191857937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.83|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|||1.83|0.82|0.3153
95750263|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
95943646|NCT01574716|191857938|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test|Based on Cox PH model|Difference equal to (=) (MORAb 8.0 mg/kg + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel) minus (Placebo + Gemcitabine/Docetaxel). Confidence interval based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||10.9|-12.0|= 1.000
95943647|NCT00195403|191857980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in PGA at Month 3 was evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
95943648|NCT00195403|191857981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in number of joints with tenderness, pain, and limitation of motion or swelling at Month 3 were evaluated using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
95943649|NCT05288348|191857982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|11.33||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||||11.33|-6.19|0.56
95943650|NCT05288348|191857982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed methods ANOVA||Adjusted for age, sex, respiratory rate and injury type||9.48|-10.5|0.92
95943651|NCT05288348|191857983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60min||3.37|-17.66|0.18
95943652|NCT05288348|191857983|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.92||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANOVA||VNRS @ 60 min Adjusted for sex and injury type||15.10|-9.30|0.63
95943653|NCT05288348|191857983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.59||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|1.21||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 90 min||1.21|-22.39|0.08
95943654|NCT05288348|191857983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.36||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA|Adjusted for ISS|VNRS @90min adjusted||20.80|-6.13|0.28
95943655|NCT05288348|191857983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VNRS @ 120 min||4.56|-23.60|0.18
95750264|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup W was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.||||||0.071||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup W compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||0.071
95750265|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad+ vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad+ vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
95750266|NCT00262041|191471081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of MenACWY Ad- vaccine against the serogroup Y was assessed to that of the MenACWY PS vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportions was greater than -10%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 who received MenACWY Ad- vaccine group against serogroup Y compared with that of MenACWY PS vaccine.||||<0.001
95750267|NCT03028740|191471105|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|-8.2|0.2067
95750268|NCT03028740|191471105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6341|1.1044|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1044|0.6341|
95750269|NCT03028740|191471107|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.5||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5|-4.8|0.2827
95750270|NCT03028740|191471107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5032|1.2229|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.2229|0.5032|
95750271|NCT03028740|191471108|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.3|-8.7|0.4054
95750272|NCT03028740|191471108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6709|1.1744|||||Odds Ratio was based on Mantel-Haenszel estimates comparing Cenicriviroc vs Placebo, controlling for factors (randomization strata: fibrosis stage \[2 vs 3\] and presence or absence of T2DM at Baseline).|||1.1744|0.6709|
95750273|NCT01138826|191471133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|105.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.09|113.61||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||113.61|98.09|
95750274|NCT01138826|191471133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.98|115.69||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||115.69|99.98|
95798355|NCT02774889|191566548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.81|||Fisher Exact|||||0.81|-0.45|0.59
95798356|NCT04603066|191566553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204257||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2624635|0.2216122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2216122|-0.2624635|0.8651
95798357|NCT04603066|191566554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01727052||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005895|0.03513063|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03513063|-0.0005895|0.056
95943656|NCT05288348|191857983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Method ANOVA||VNRS @ 120min adjusted for sex, HR, RR, and injury type||10.20|-20.70|0.50
95943657|NCT05288348|191857984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||PGA @ 30 min|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95943658|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.89|||General Addative Model|||"SPID 30~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||1.89|-4.77|0.39
95943659|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.95|||General Additive Model|||"SPID 30, Adjusted Analysis~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||4.95|-1.50|0.29
95943660|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.47|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 60min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||6.47|-6.63|0.98
95943661|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|6.98|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 60 Adjusted~Last observed carried forward to address missingness"||6.98|-5.76|0.85
95943662|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.26||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|11.28|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 90 mn last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||11.28|-8.75|0.8
95990345|NCT02531646|191955412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
95750275|NCT01138826|191471133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|109.6||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1036 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||109.60|94.70|
95750276|NCT01138826|191471134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.27|110.94||||||||110.94|97.27|
95750277|NCT01138826|191471134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|104.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.67|111.3||||||||111.30|97.67|
95750278|NCT01138826|191471134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|107.15||||||||107.15|94.02|
95750279|NCT01138826|191471135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.05|106.33||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||106.33|91.05|
95750280|NCT01138826|191471135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|95.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|102.84||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||102.84|88.16|
95750281|NCT01138826|191471135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|104.54||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1146 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||104.54|89.58|
95750282|NCT04323098|191471138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057||||||P-value was based on two-sided t-test against 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0057
95990346|NCT02531646|191955413|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence interval (-0.25, 0.25)||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|Equivalence test|||||||0.000
95750283|NCT04572243|191471157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.01|-28.14||||||||-28.14|-144.01|
95750284|NCT04572243|191471158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|44.35||||||||44.35|0.81|
95858829|NCT02952820|191675392|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-1.18|-4.91|0.0014
95990347|NCT02531646|191955414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician.They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
95990348|NCT02531646|191955415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
95990349|NCT02531646|191955416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
95990350|NCT02531646|191955418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||"Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05~All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician. They were rounded to fit four digits."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.000
95990351|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|18.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.97|21.67||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||21.67|14.97|<.001
95750285|NCT03891329|191471176|OTHER|No comparison of two groups, just single arm design|SADE-free rate in the study group|0.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Serious Adverse Device Effects (SADE) possibly or securely related to the Cor Family devices until the 3- month follow-up are counted for this primary endpoint.~The following hypothesis has been defined:~Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%"||1|0.9|0.05
95750286|NCT03891329|191471177|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method|||||||||||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method will be applied to estimate the 3-month SADE-free rate at 92 days after implantation (sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint) and the 12-month SADE-free rate at 365 days after implantation.|||
95750287|NCT04625062|191471180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Traditional treatment condition - biofeedback treatment condition|||||.72
95750288|NCT02985879|191471203|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||2.63|-2.63|=0.998
95750289|NCT02985879|191471203|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.58|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.58|-1.63|=0.464
95750290|NCT02985879|191471205|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.93|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1.93|-1.52|=0.812
95750291|NCT02985879|191471205|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.16|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||3.16|-0.30|=0.104
95798358|NCT06366087|191566628|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCinf lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.724|0.670|
95943663|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.44||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.92|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 90 min Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||9.92|-10.2|0.92
95943664|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|16.9|||Generalized Additive Model|||SPID @ 120 min last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value||16.90|-10.45|0.64
95750292|NCT02985879|191471206|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.36|=0.756
95750293|NCT02985879|191471206|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.18|-0.44|=0.409
95750294|NCT02985879|191471207|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.54|=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|19.53|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||19.53|-33.86|=0.597
95855543|NCT04607005|191670673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.28||p-Value was based on a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-1.49|0.004
95943665|NCT05288348|191857985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|11.3|||Generalized Additive Model|||"SPID 120 Adjusted~last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation technique to fill out the missing values by carrying forward the last observed value"||11.30|-15.60|0.75
95990352|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|62.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.21|67.74||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||67.74|58.21|<.001
95990353|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.11||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.33||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||2.33|-0.10|0.128
95990354|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|88.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.77|90.76||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||90.76|85.77|<.001
95990355|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|44.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.51|55.23||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||55.23|34.51|<.001
95990356|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-17.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.21|-13.25||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-13.25|-21.21|<.001
95990357|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.46|82.2||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||82.20|58.46|<.001
95750295|NCT02985879|191471207|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.56|=|0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|20.42|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||20.42|-33.04|=0.642
95990358|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-61.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.76|-55.18||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||-55.18|-68.76|<.001
95990359|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|25.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.37|35.48||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||35.48|15.37|<.001
95990360|NCT01582308|191955431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|87.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|94.61||P-value of between-treatment comparison of percent inhibition of DPP-4 activity.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis model included fixed effects terms for treatment and period.||94.61|80.06|<.001
95990361|NCT03521791|191955468|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.133
95990362|NCT03521791|191955469|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
95990363|NCT03521791|191955470|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.333|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.333
95990364|NCT03521791|191955471|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
95990365|NCT03521791|191955472|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.394|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
95990366|NCT03521791|191955473|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
95855544|NCT04607005|191670674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.26|0.026
95855545|NCT04607005|191670675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88||p-Value was based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.88|0.25|0.018
95855546|NCT03589859|191670676|OTHER|This was a physiology study, not a treatment trial. The test was for a change in VOR gain.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare pre- and post-training VOR gains||||<0.001
95990367|NCT03521791|191955475|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
95990368|NCT03521791|191955476|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.117|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.117
95990369|NCT03521791|191955477|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered not inferior if the differences between the groups do not exceed 20%.||||||0.626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.626
95990370|NCT03968419|191955502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.56|21.23||||||Difference in MPR rate||21.23|-25.56|
95990371|NCT02109159|191955505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||1.4|0.8|0.44
95990372|NCT02109159|191955505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Chi-squared||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||1.7|0.8|0.47
95990373|NCT02109159|191955506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis including all participants randomised.|||0.04|-0.02|0.53
95990374|NCT02109159|191955506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||This analysis was conducted on a per-protocol (PP) basis including only those who watched the videos.|||0.8|-0.5|0.56
95990375|NCT04660643|191955526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-22.9|<.001
95990376|NCT04660643|191955527|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.0|<.001
95750296|NCT02985879|191471208|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|7.51|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||7.51|-2.48|=0.323
95750297|NCT02985879|191471208|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|5.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.02|-4.86|=0.974
95750298|NCT02985879|191471213|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.23|-0.31|=0.761
95750299|NCT02985879|191471213|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.32|=0.678
95750300|NCT02985879|191471214|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.653
95750301|NCT02985879|191471214|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|=|0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.57|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||5.57|-3.50|=0.748
95750302|NCT02985879|191471215|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.74|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-0.60|=0.828
95750303|NCT02985879|191471215|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||0.87|-0.46|=0.543
95750304|NCT02985879|191471216|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.44|=|0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|44.63|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||44.63|-55.66|=0.829
95750305|NCT02985879|191471216|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.92|=|0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.94|18.23|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||18.23|-83.94|=0.206
95764243|NCT01526057|191498656|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|100.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|113.11||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.11|89.20|
95990377|NCT04660643|191955528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
95990378|NCT04660643|191955529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.7|-14.1|<.001
95990379|NCT04660643|191955530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
95990380|NCT04660643|191955531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-10.14|<.001
95990381|NCT04660643|191955532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.38|<.001
95990382|NCT04660643|191955533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.4|-37.7|<.001
95750306|NCT02985879|191471217|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|11.65|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||11.65|-3.65|=0.304
95750307|NCT02985879|191471217|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|12.19|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||12.19|-3.11|=0.243
95750308|NCT02985879|191471218|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.86||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.76|79.94|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||79.94|-132.76|0.625
95764244|NCT01526057|191498656|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity for a given test-to-reference comparison would be demonstrated if the 90% CI for the test-to-reference ratios in Cmax and AUC0-inf are within the 80.00% to 125.00% range.|Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.57|108.6||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||108.60|85.57|
95990383|NCT04660643|191955534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-3.28|-7.76|<.001
95990384|NCT04660643|191955534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-3.15|-9.87|<.001
95990385|NCT04660643|191955534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.8|0.6|0.014
95990386|NCT04660643|191955534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.1|-24.0|<.001
95990387|NCT04660643|191955534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16|-24.9|<.001
95990388|NCT04660643|191955534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-3.0|-17.9|0.008
95990389|NCT04660643|191955535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-4.6|-8.1|<.001
95990390|NCT04660643|191955535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.4|-4.8|<.001
95990391|NCT04660643|191955536|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|1.7|<.001
95990392|NCT04660643|191955537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.8|<0.001
95990393|NCT04660643|191955538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.72|168.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||168.09|54.72|<0.001
95990394|NCT04660643|191955539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|121.99|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5% body weight reduction from baseline||121.99|18.32|<0.001
95990395|NCT04660643|191955539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.46|148.39|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10% body weight reduction from baseline||148.39|34.46|<0.001
95990396|NCT04660643|191955539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.06|152.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15% body weight reduction from baseline||152.14|42.06|<0.001
95990397|NCT04660643|191955539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|140.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.06|300.29|||Regression, Logistic|||≥20% body weight reduction from baseline||300.29|66.06|<0.001
95990398|NCT04660643|191955540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.013|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.046|||Log Rank||Unstratified hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model with Baseline Weight (kg), Analysis Country, Sex, IWRS MTD at Week 36, Weight at randomization (kg) as covariates.|||0.046|0.004|<.001
95990399|NCT04660643|191955541|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-6.8|<.001
95990400|NCT04660643|191955542|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-18.8|<.001
95990401|NCT04660643|191955543|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.5|<.001
95990402|NCT04660643|191955544|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.2|-15.1|<.001
95990403|NCT04660643|191955545|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-10.40|<.001
95990404|NCT04660643|191955546|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.39|<.001
95990405|NCT04660643|191955547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-40.6|<.001
95750309|NCT02985879|191471218|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.47|=|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.34|142.71|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||142.71|-76.34|=0.550
95750310|NCT02985879|191471219|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|1739.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2502.95|=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3201.75|6680.02|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||6680.02|-3201.75|=0.488
95990406|NCT04660643|191955548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-4.72|-9.27|<.001
95750311|NCT02985879|191471219|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|3684.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2487.32|=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1225.46|8595.29|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||8595.29|-1225.46|=0.140
95750312|NCT02985879|191471220|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|207.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.68|=|0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.98|1378.88|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 2000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 2000 mg vs Placebo||1378.88|-962.98|=0.726
95750313|NCT02985879|191471220|SUPERIORITY|The analysis utilized a likelihood-based, mixed-effects model, repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline for each postbaseline value and compared each ABBV-8E12 dose group with the placebo group. The model, which used all observed data, included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, site, visit, baseline score-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for the corresponding baseline score.|LS Mean Difference|133.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|611.91|=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1075.26|1342.4|||Mixed-effects model, repeated measures||ABBV-8E12 4000 mg - Placebo|ABBV-8E12 4000 mg vs Placebo||1342.40|-1075.26|=0.828
95750314|NCT03861481|191471249|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Rozimab - Placebo)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.892|0.788|||||MMRM analysis (fixed effect terms: treatment, baseline iRODS score, prior Ig therapy administration route, assessment week, treatment by week interaction; random effect term: study participant). LS Mean Difference \> 0 favours rozanolixizumab.|||0.788|-0.892|
95990407|NCT04660643|191955548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol||-4.21|-10.91|<.001
95990408|NCT04660643|191955548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.418||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||5.43|-0.14|0.064
95990409|NCT04660643|191955548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-15.3|-24.7|<.001
95990410|NCT04660643|191955548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-16.4|-25.8|<.001
95990411|NCT04660643|191955548|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.793||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.98|-4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FFA||-4.06|-18.98|0.004
95990412|NCT04660643|191955549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP||-5.1|-8.7|<.001
95750315|NCT02119286|191471319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.152|0.091|<0.001
95750316|NCT02119286|191471319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.141|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.141|0.081|<0.001
95990413|NCT04660643|191955549|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP||-2.6|-5.1|<.001
95990414|NCT04660643|191955550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|1.7|<.001
95990415|NCT04660643|191955551|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|6.5|<.001
95990416|NCT02322710|191955555|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the observed difference between healing rates at D21 (Urgotul® - Tullegras M.S.®) in the PP population did not exceed +10%.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||10.0||||||||10.0||
95990417|NCT00741156|191955556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95750317|NCT02119286|191471320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.179|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.179|0.114|<0.001
95750318|NCT02119286|191471320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.167|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.167|0.103|<0.001
95750319|NCT00922272|191471330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95750320|NCT00922272|191471332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-3.4|0.4182
95750321|NCT00922272|191471333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6705
95750322|NCT00922272|191471334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affective Flattening||||<0.0001
95750323|NCT00922272|191471334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Alogia||||<0.0001
95750324|NCT00922272|191471334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Avolition-Apathy||||<0.0001
95750325|NCT00922272|191471334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anhedonia-Asociality||||<0.0001
95750326|NCT00922272|191471334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention||||<0.0001
95750327|NCT00922272|191471335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Affective Flattening||0.5|-0.4|0.8771
95798359|NCT06366087|191566629|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.697|||Mixed Models Analysis||Bioequivalence will be considered met if the 90% CI of the ratio for AUCt lies within 80.00 to 125.00%.|||0.697|0.640|
95750328|NCT00922272|191471335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Alogia||1.1|0.0|0.0584
95750329|NCT00922272|191471335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Avolition-Apathy||0.6|-0.3|0.5215
95750330|NCT00922272|191471335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Anhedonia-Asociality||0.7|-0.3|0.4835
95750331|NCT00922272|191471335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Attention||0.7|-0.4|0.5723
95750332|NCT00922272|191471336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive subscale||||<0.0001
95750333|NCT00922272|191471336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative subscale||||<0.0001
95750334|NCT00922272|191471336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Psychopathology subscale||||<0.0001
95750335|NCT00922272|191471337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Positive subscale||1.5|-0.3|0.1975
95750336|NCT00922272|191471337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Negative subscale||2.3|-0.3|0.1228
95750337|NCT00922272|191471337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||General Psychopathology subscale||3.9|-0.4|0.1115
95750338|NCT00922272|191471344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0307||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0307
95750339|NCT00922272|191471345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|||||6.2|-0.6|0.1072
95750340|NCT00922272|191471346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.366||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3660
95750341|NCT00922272|191471347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-5.0|0.4347
95750342|NCT00922272|191471348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4312||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4312
95750343|NCT00922272|191471349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.4|0.0874
95750344|NCT00922272|191471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Skills||||<0.0001
95750345|NCT00922272|191471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication Skills||||0.0002
95750346|NCT00922272|191471350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Financial Skills||||0.0028
95750347|NCT00922272|191471351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Skills||2.4|-5.3|0.4637
95750348|NCT00922272|191471351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Communication Skills||2.4|-4.1|0.6137
95750349|NCT00922272|191471351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Financial Skills||1.3|-3.5|0.3482
95750350|NCT00922272|191471352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0174||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||0.0174
95750351|NCT00922272|191471352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0461||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||0.0461
95750352|NCT00922272|191471352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Metacognition Index||||0.0146
95750353|NCT00922272|191471353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||2.7|-3.8|0.7418
95750354|NCT00922272|191471353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Recognition Index||4.1|-2.6|0.6429
95750355|NCT00922272|191471353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||2.1|-4.8|0.4364
95750356|NCT03438396|191471426|OTHER|The statistical hypotheses was tested to address ORR \<= 11% vs. ORR \> 11%.||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided exact test|||||||0.0002
95750357|NCT01744093|191471439|OTHER|Descriptive proportion|Proportion (percent)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|45.6|||||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|||45.6|4.0|
95855547|NCT00626106|191670685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.11|0.542
95750358|NCT01744093|191471440|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (percent)|6.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|30.2|||Fisher Exact||Exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval.|Null hypothesis adverse event rate (grade 2 or higher toxicity) = 45.5%||30.2|0.16|0.002
95750359|NCT01490931|191471469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750360|NCT01490931|191471473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750361|NCT01490931|191471474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750362|NCT01490931|191471475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750363|NCT01490931|191471476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750364|NCT01490931|191471477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0001
95750365|NCT01490931|191471478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750366|NCT01490931|191471479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95798360|NCT06366087|191566630|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.088|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|0.088|
95750367|NCT01490931|191471480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in pain intensity on the VAS were statistically compared to baseline pain utilizing paired t tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The median onsets of first perceptible and meaningful relief (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated and then used to construct Kaplan-Meier Curves of the distribution of pain relief times.||||<0.0001
95750368|NCT02990806|191471506|EQUIVALENCE|A test for equivalence was carried out using an asymmetric margin (-12%, 15%) pre-specified in protocol and a two 1-sided test (TOST) analysis with α=0.05 for each 1-sided statistical test.|Percentage difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.5||||||||11.5|-4.3|
95750369|NCT01602172|191471542|EQUIVALENCE|Results of the regression models were used to reject null hypotheses of equivalence with p-values of comparisons across groups in changes in alcohol related measures using p-values \< 0.05 as significant.||||||0.05||||||First, significance of the regression model was viewed. When the overall model was significant, tests of the co-efficients were viewed. Primary effects of interest were the treatment group X time interactions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Measures were compared with linear mixed effects regression models to compare impact of BI compared to usual care conditions. Analyses reported here included only those that completed the 6 month interview (71/82 baseline participants).||||.05
95750370|NCT01056640|191471548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|2.297|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, 2-sample t-test and Chi-square analysis were all used.||All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat method. Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sample t test, or Chi-Square analysis was used to compare baseline characteristics. The primary end points of combined and individual percentages of hospitalizations and ED visits were compared using Chi-Square test. Statistical adjustment was planned only if there were statistical differences in clinical variables between the groups. All tests for significance used a 2-sided P value of .05.||2.297|0.747|0.05
95750371|NCT02696031|191471563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.7||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.70|1.09|0.0197
95750372|NCT02696031|191471563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16||2.76|1.12|0.0146
95990418|NCT01815229|191955558|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value applies to cell count at removal|t-test, 2 sided|||Tracheal lavages (TL) were done in intubated humans to obtain cell counts.||||<0.05
95798361|NCT06366087|191566631|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.189|0.120|
95750373|NCT02696031|191471564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.63||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||3.63|1.35|0.0017
95750374|NCT02696031|191471564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.36||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52||4.36|1.64|<.0001
95750375|NCT02696031|191471565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.74|1.14|0.0108
95750376|NCT02696031|191471565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.78|1.16|0.0087
95750377|NCT02696031|191471565|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.49||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.49|1.34|0.0016
95750378|NCT02696031|191471565|SUPERIORITY|week 52|Median Difference (Net)|2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.19||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|4.19|1.62|<.0001
95750379|NCT02696031|191471566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.43|1.06|0.0260
95750380|NCT02696031|191471566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.54|1.11|0.0149
95750381|NCT02696031|191471567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.58||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|3.58|1.43|0.0005
95750382|NCT02696031|191471567|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.94||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|2.94|1.16|0.0094
95750383|NCT02696031|191471568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.39||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.39|1.95|<.0001
95750384|NCT02696031|191471568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|7.1||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNF-alpha status as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.|7.10|1.87|0.0001
95750385|NCT02696031|191471569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.24|-1.26|0.0041
95750386|NCT02696031|191471569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.13||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.13|-1.15|0.0143
95750387|NCT02696031|191471570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.07||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|4.07|1.58|0.0001
95750388|NCT02696031|191471570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.89||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 16|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.89|1.51|0.0002
95750389|NCT02696031|191471570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.24||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.24|1.22|0.0056
95750390|NCT02696031|191471570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.78||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders."|3.78|1.45|0.0005
95764245|NCT01526057|191498657|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|113.12|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.12|95.10|
95750391|NCT02696031|191471571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.38||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.38|-1.39|0.0006
95750392|NCT02696031|191471571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.47||unadjusted p-value|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.47|-1.47|0.0002
95750393|NCT02696031|191471572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.67||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.67|-2.54|0.0008
95750394|NCT02696031|191471572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|-0.84|-2.72|0.0002
95750395|NCT02696031|191471573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||0.0012
95750396|NCT02696031|191471573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
95750397|NCT02696031|191471574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|3.45|0.98|0.0577
95750398|NCT02696031|191471574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.41||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|||week 52|"Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were from a logistic regression model with treatment, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors and baseline weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing responses for any reason were imputed as non-responders. Patients were considered as non-responders after treatment switch decision."|5.41|1.65|0.0003
95750399|NCT02696031|191471575|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance|0.84|0.58|0.0002
95750400|NCT02696031|191471575|SUPERIORITY||Relative Treatment Effect|0.7||||0.0002||95.0|0.58|0.84||unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||week 16|Analysis was done on the log(e) ratio of the treatment value vs. baseline value to normalize the distribution of the hsCRP at each visit. LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and p-value were from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, stratification factor and TNFi status as factors, log(e) baseline and weight as covariates, treatment by visit and log(e) baseline by visit as interaction terms and an unstructured covariance structure.|0.84|0.58|0.0002
95750401|NCT02696031|191471576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.34||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.34|1.20|0.0006
95750402|NCT02696031|191471576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.22||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit, stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure.|4.22|1.06|0.0011
95750403|NCT02696031|191471577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
95750404|NCT02696031|191471577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|||week 16|"LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and stratification factor (CRP+/MRI+, CRP+/MRI-, CRP-/MRI+) and TNFi status as factors, weight and baseline score as covariates.~Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI, MAR assumption) prior to running ANCOVA."|||<0.0001
95750405|NCT02696031|191471578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
95750406|NCT02696031|191471578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The endpoint was analyzed by composite estimand strategy. Extreme unfavorable value is assigned for patients with treatment escape or missing data.||||||<.0001
95750407|NCT00350402|191471612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.147|11.362|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 38; t = 3.576|Treatment effect size: Cohen's D =1.142|Hypothesis: Parkinson patients assigned to high intensity IMST will show greater improvement in facial movement (entropy) relative to those undergoing Sham IMST.||11.362|3.147|< 0.001
95750408|NCT00350402|191471613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.955|<|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Scores on PDQ-39 would show bigger change for the IMST group than the Sham treatment group. The sample size was not powered for the PDQ-39 (but rather for the primary outcome variable).||3.68|-16.41|<0.459
95750409|NCT00350402|191471614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.221|<|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.874|18.978|||t-test, 2 sided|t-value = 2.47, with 37 df||Hypothesis: Changes in MIP following treatment would be greater for participants in the IMST versus the Sham treatment group. This is a validity check on for the IMST intervention.||18.978|1.874|<0.018
95750410|NCT00350402|191471615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|<|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0834|10.17||No adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|38 df, t= 2.058 However, due to inequality of variance (Levine test), the adjusted p-value = \<0.049, and adjusted df = 27.3||Hypothesis: Facial entropy changes would be greater in IMST group than sham treatment group. Sample size was based on preliminary data suggesting total N of 40 would be adequate for detecting change in entropy (of approximately 50%).||10.17|.0834|<0.047
95750411|NCT00645944|191471620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-7.5|0.039
95750412|NCT02610816|191471660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity, since a single primary endpoint is analyzed|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment of degrees of freedom is needed.||The primary treatment comparison was to compare change in PEESS V2.0 scores of 1FED versus 4FED. The primary null hypothesis was 4FED would be no more effective than 1FED. This was designed as a superiority trial.||||0.04
95750413|NCT02610816|191471661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95750414|NCT02610816|191471661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||This is a calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95750415|NCT02610816|191471662|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95750416|NCT02610816|191471665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
95750417|NCT02610816|191471666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
95750418|NCT02610816|191471667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
95750419|NCT03545191|191471671|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.435|-6.961||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.961|-17.435|<0.0001
95750420|NCT03545191|191471671|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-22.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.996|-17.567||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-17.567|-27.996|<0.0001
95750421|NCT03545191|191471672|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.494|-6.23||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-6.23|-17.494|<0.0001
95750422|NCT03545191|191471672|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.945|-12.661||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-12.661|-23.945|<0.0001
95750423|NCT03545191|191471673|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-8.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.014|-3.629||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.629|-13.014|0.0005
95750424|NCT03545191|191471673|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.022|-6.687||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.687|-16.022|<0.0001
95750425|NCT03545191|191471674|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-7.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.265|-2.923||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.923|-12.265|0.0015
95750426|NCT03545191|191471674|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.348|-6.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-6.994|-16.348|<0.0001
95750427|NCT03545191|191471675|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|12.62|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.953|20.288||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||20.288|4.953|= 0.0013
95750428|NCT03545191|191471675|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|22.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.405|29.708||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||29.708|14.405|< 0.0001
95943666|NCT05288348|191857986|SUPERIORITY||z statistic|0.46||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.96|||two sided test of proportion|||||1.96|-1.96|0.64
95943667|NCT05288348|191857987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.22||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.66|||General Additive Models|||||0.66|-1.11|0.61
95943668|NCT05288348|191857987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.28||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.65|||General Additive Model|||6 item screener adjusted analysis||0.65|-1.23|0.54
95943669|NCT05288348|191857988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.46|||Ordinal Polytomous Logisitic Regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min.||4.46|1.24|0.009
95943670|NCT05288348|191857988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.29|||Ordinal polytomous logistic regression|||Healthcare Professional Global Assessment of method of pain control at 30 min. adjusted for ISS and Race||4.29|1.18|0.01
95943671|NCT05288348|191857989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.22|0.96
95943672|NCT05288348|191857989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.04|||||Adjusted for age, sex and SpO2|||5.04|0.17|
95943673|NCT05288348|191857990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|24.92||||||||24.92|0.04|
95943674|NCT05288348|191857990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.28|||||Adjusted for Heart Rate and Injury Severity Score|||14.28|0|
95943675|NCT05288348|191857991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.37||||||||8.37|0.39|
95943676|NCT05288348|191857991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.6|||||Adjusted for SpO2|||8.60|0.39|
95943677|NCT05288348|191857993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.12||||||||5.12|0.02|
95943678|NCT05288348|191857993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.56|||||Adjusted for heart rate|||4.56|0.02|
95943679|NCT05288348|191857994|SUPERIORITY||difference of proportion|0.135|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95943680|NCT05288348|191857995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||Regression, Cox|||||1.61|0.69|0.90
95943681|NCT05288348|191857995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted for Race and ISS||1.81|0.75|0.48
95943682|NCT05288348|191857997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||Non parametric General Addative Model|||||0.15|-0.15|0.99
95943683|NCT05288348|191857997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||Adjusted||0.15|-0.16|0.96
95943684|NCT05288348|191857998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16|||Non Parametric General Additive Model|||||0.16|-0.17|0.84
95943685|NCT05288348|191857998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.16|-0.19|0.84
95943686|NCT05288348|191857999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.22|-0.17|0.81
95943687|NCT05288348|191857999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.22|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.22|-0.20|0.91
95943688|NCT05288348|191858000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||||0.18|-0.25|0.74
95943689|NCT05288348|191858000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||Non Parametric Generalized Additive Mode|||Adjusted||0.18|-0.30|0.63
95943690|NCT04612244|191858022|NON_INFERIORITY|"PT will be deemed to be non-inferior to PC if it can be established that the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, where Ψeff is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate (under simulation) at level 0.05. In the absence of missing data, the posterior distributions for PT and PC would be conjugate Beta distributions."||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint for this study is Treatment Success, which will be analyzed as a test of non-inferiority of the event rate at 12 months using a noninferiority margin of 15%.~The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: PT ≤ PC - 0.15 versus HA: PT \> PC - 0.15 where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal (Control) Group."||||0.05
95943691|NCT04612244|191858024|SUPERIORITY|"The null and alternative hypotheses are provided below. H0: PT ≤ PC versus HA: PT \> PC where PT is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Pulsed Field Group, and PC is the Treatment Success rate at 12 months in the Thermal Group.~Modeling will be identical primary endpoint and superiority concluded if the posterior probability Pr(HA \| data) \> Ψeff, sup, where the threshold Ψeff,sup is a pre-specified threshold value that controls the one-sided type I error rate at level 0.025."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The secondary effectiveness endpoint for the ADVENT Trial is Treatment Superiority uses the same definition as the primary effectiveness endpoint for Treatment Success, but the test is for superiority between MITT subjects in the PFA and Thermal Groups.||||0.025
95943692|NCT05714059|191858072|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c, from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
95990419|NCT01276821|191955574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non - Inferiority Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis Efficacy of nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is not higer than as compared to L-Epinephrine given with 0.9% normal saline in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis.~Alternate Hypothesis:~Nebulised hypertonic saline (3%) with L-Epinephrine is superior to 0.9% Normal saline with L-Epinephrine in the management of children aged 6 weeks to 24 months with mild to moderately severe bronchiolitis."||1.82|0.78|<0.05
95990420|NCT03193398|191955585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Difference in LS Means (BTRX-246040 - Placebo)||3.6|-6.3|0.5939
95990421|NCT03193398|191955586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Investigator-administered MADRS-6 Total Score at week 8||2.3|-4.4|0.5503
95990422|NCT03193398|191955587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||2.8|-1.1|0.3906
95990423|NCT03193398|191955588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1||+/-|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||3.1|-1.3|0.4187
95990424|NCT03193398|191955589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|5.5|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||5.5|-11.5|0.4869
95990425|NCT03193398|191955590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||MMRM|MMRM: mixed model for repeated measures||||4.7|-2.4|0.5178
95990426|NCT05425563|191955601|OTHER||Slope|8.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8792|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
95990427|NCT05425563|191955602|OTHER||Slope|8.0809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
95990428|NCT05425563|191955603|OTHER||Slope|8.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
95990429|NCT05425563|191955610|OTHER||Slope|34.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
95990430|NCT05425563|191955611|OTHER||Slope|33.9754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95990431|NCT05425563|191955612|OTHER||Slope|31.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .001
95990432|NCT00997516|191955623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95858830|NCT02952820|191675392|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.52|-4.48|0.0134
95990433|NCT00997516|191955624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95990434|NCT00997516|191955633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall body satisfaction||||0.86
95990435|NCT00997516|191955633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Damage to body||||0.18
95990436|NCT00997516|191955633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical attractiveness||||0.04
95990437|NCT00997516|191955633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Masculinity/femininity||||0.34
95990438|NCT00997516|191955633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Looking at oneself naked||||0.63
95990439|NCT00997516|191955634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of abdomen||||0.48
95990440|NCT00997516|191955634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Cosmetic appearance of scars||||0.09
95990441|NCT00997516|191955634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with scars||||0.25
95990442|NCT00997516|191955634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort of scars||||0.81
95990443|NCT00997516|191955634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall impression of scars||||<0.01
95990444|NCT01394705|191955695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.65
95990445|NCT01394705|191955695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95990446|NCT01394705|191955696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95990447|NCT02475655|191955698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 5.||||0.67
95990448|NCT02475655|191955701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to week 4/5.||1.04|0.69|0.18
95990449|NCT02475655|191955703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. One-sided 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants experiencing safety milestones from Entry to Week 12.||||0.40
95990450|NCT02475655|191955707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.27|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 1/2.||6.90|-4.27|0.70
95990451|NCT02475655|191955707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|8.29||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to Week 4/5.||8.29|-5.06|0.69
95750429|NCT03545191|191471676|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|9.93|||=|0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|19.082||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||19.082|0.782|= 0.0334
95750430|NCT03545191|191471676|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|19.77|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.623|28.918||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||28.918|10.623|< .00001
95750431|NCT03545191|191471677|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|0.015||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.015|-1.515|= 0.0547
95750432|NCT03545191|191471677|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.75|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.508|-0.983||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.983|-2.508|< .00001
95798362|NCT06366087|191566632|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.217|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.309|0.217|
95798363|NCT06366087|191566633|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.416|0.318|
95950309|NCT00337610|191872564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.2|<|0.001||95.0|-37.7|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-13.3|-37.7|<0.001
95950310|NCT00337610|191872565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8|<|0.001||95.0|-74.7|-33.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-33.6|-74.7|<0.001
95950311|NCT00337610|191872566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic medication (on Monotherapy AHA or on Metformin-based combination therapy)||||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
95950312|NCT01860079|191872576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Categorical data were analyzed with χ2.Comparisons were also analyzed by χ2 between the early discharge and standard treatment arm for the primary outcomes.||||<0.05
95950313|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0882||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0882
95950314|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8032
95950315|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9003||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9003
95950316|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9523||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9523
95950317|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9071
95950318|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7509
95950319|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2824
95950320|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4017
95950321|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4497
95950322|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.1650
95950323|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 5 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3494
95950324|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4781||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 7 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4781
95950325|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9847||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9847
95950326|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9731||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9731
95950327|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6984||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6984
95950328|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6265||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6265
95950329|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7848
95950330|NCT02978183|191872577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5789
95950331|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8165||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8165
95950332|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6590
95950333|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7455
95950334|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9212
95764246|NCT01526057|191498657|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|105.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.64|115.3|||||Rituximab-Pfizer is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.30|96.64|
95943693|NCT05714059|191858072|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of -0.50% with a margin of 0.4%. A significance level of 0.025 (one-sided) was used|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.6|-0.8|<0.001
95943694|NCT05714059|191858073|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
95943695|NCT05714059|191858073|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5%.|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
95943696|NCT05714059|191858074|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was estimated for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
95943697|NCT05714059|191858074|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) was estimated and compared by a non-inferiority test to the threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2%.|Mean value (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) were summarized from last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period for this endpoint|||0.3|0.1|<0.001
95943698|NCT05714059|191858075|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|71.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|73.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||73.3|69.5|<0.001
95943699|NCT05714059|191858075|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) was estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% by a simple superiority test|Mean value (Final Values)|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|81.8|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||81.8|78.7|<0.001
95943700|NCT03593356|191858078|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.717
95943701|NCT03593356|191858081|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.789.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.784
95943702|NCT03593356|191858082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.474
95943703|NCT03593356|191858089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.791.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
95943704|NCT03593356|191858090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.646.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.871
95943705|NCT03593356|191858091|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.872
95950335|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9509
95950336|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7897||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7897
95764247|NCT01526057|191498657|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.18|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data.||111.18|93.13|
95950337|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3183
95950338|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.7604
95750433|NCT03545191|191471678|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.99||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.014||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.014|-1.990|0.0534
95750434|NCT03545191|191471678|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|-1.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|-0.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||-0.905|-2.905|= 0.0002
95750435|NCT03545191|191471679|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.90|0.70|0.0003
95750436|NCT03545191|191471679|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.82|0.65|<0.0001
95750437|NCT03545191|191471680|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.89|0.68|0.0002
95750438|NCT03545191|191471680|OTHER||LSGM ratio to placebo|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 50 mg vs placebo).||0.83|0.64|<0.0001
95750439|NCT01277718|191471684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Least Squares (LS) Means (in %)|111.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.02|124.99|||||LS mean was calculated from Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||124.99|98.02|
95750440|NCT01277718|191471684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|108.77|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||108.77|85.06|
95750441|NCT01277718|191471684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|119.91|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for AUCinf were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of AUCinf LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||119.91|94.53|
95750442|NCT01277718|191471685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|118.03|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||118.03|85.09|
95750443|NCT01277718|191471685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.51|101.33|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.33|72.51|
95750444|NCT01277718|191471685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means (in %)|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|101.17|||||LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis. Ratio of Cmax LS means for log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).|||101.17|72.94|
95750445|NCT03919162|191471689|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.152||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of ABC score between the PQ912 and Placebo group after 24 weeks of treatment.~P-values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the 1-sided hypothesis that the rate of decrease of ABC score is greater for the PQ912 group than for the Placebo group. The test should be carried out at a 1-sided 40% significance level, using the mixed effects model. Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data.||0.152|-0.036|0.2261
95750446|NCT03919162|191471690|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.00526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00742||0.4814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02017|0.00964||"Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change of EEG theta power between the PQ912 and Placebo groups after 24 weeks of treatment.~Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤ 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qEEG data, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|"Initially after Phase 2A, a futility analysis was planned with a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group to test the hypothesis that increase in EEG theta power is greater for Placebo than for PQ912 (1-sided, alpha = 0.05). Higher theta power is worse; hence this alternative hypothesis indicates benefit of the drug.~Due to early termination of the study and limited sample size, analysis of Phase 2A data was done in the same manner as final analysis of Phase 2B data."||0.00964|-0.02017|0.4814
95764248|NCT01526057|191498658|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.81|115.12||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||115.12|92.81|
95764249|NCT01526057|191498658|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|113.04||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||113.04|90.82|
95950339|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7343
95750447|NCT03919162|191471691|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.92||Tests were declared statistically significant if the calculated p-value is ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CDR-SB score, time, treatment group, and time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of CDR-SB scores between the PQ912 and the Placebo arms. The primary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with within-participant change in CDR-SB score as the outcome. The study planned with 207 participants (including 25% drop-out) per group to have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 points in CDR-SB score. Power calculation was based on a 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05.||0.92|-1.03|0.9135
95750448|NCT03919162|191471692|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.345|5.238||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in CFC2 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline CFC2, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: The key secondary CFC2 follows the primary endpoint (Clinical Dementia Rating - Sum of Boxes), if it is statistically significant, followed by the remaining secondary endpoints in the order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan. Hierarchical testing is stopped as soon as a non-significant result is encountered. If the primary hypothesis is met, then a test for a statistically significant difference will be conducted for the CFC2, however at 4% significance level||5.238|-3.345|0.6528
95750449|NCT03919162|191471693|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.303||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ABC as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ABC score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.303|-0.103|0.3241
95750450|NCT03919162|191471694|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.02857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01846||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06746|0.01032||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in qEEG as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline qECG data, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||0.01032|-0.06746|0.1398
95750451|NCT03919162|191471695|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.01||The analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in FAQ as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline FAQ score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction.|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||3.01|-4.22|0.7377
95750452|NCT03919162|191471696|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|2.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.292|6.36||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in ADAS-Cog-13 as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect covariates: APOE status, initial diagnosis, site, baseline ADAS-Cog-13 score, time, treatment group, time by treatment group interaction|Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||6.360|-2.292|0.3496
95750453|NCT03919162|191471697|SUPERIORITY||Difference LS Mean|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|1.62||The secondary analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the within-participant change compared between active arm and placebo in NPI as the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = PQ912 - Placebo|A hierarchical approach is taken: If the primary and key secondary endpoint are both statistically significant the remaining secondary endpoints will be tested in the hierarchical order defined per Statistical Analysis Plan until a non-significant result is encountered: Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) Battery Composite Score, Quantitative EEG, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale 13, Neuropsychiatric Inventory.||1.62|-7.81|0.1933
95750454|NCT02149121|191471704|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.08|106.99|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||106.99|88.08|
95990452|NCT02475655|191955707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|12.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine clearance from Entry to 10/12.||12.5|0.16|0.09
95990453|NCT02475655|191955709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.03|-0.06|0.58
95990454|NCT02475655|191955709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to Week 4/5.||0.04|-0.06|0.79
95990455|NCT02475655|191955709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|-0.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in creatinine from Entry to 10/12.||-0.02|-0.11|0.016
95990456|NCT02475655|191955711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-679.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1146.0|-212.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 1/2.||-212|-1146|0.018
95990457|NCT02475655|191955711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-651.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1110.0|-192.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 4/5.||-192|-1110|0.021
95750455|NCT02149121|191471704|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|103.86|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||103.86|85.40|
95750456|NCT02149121|191471704|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|113.85|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.85|93.32|
95750457|NCT02149121|191471705|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|105.04|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||105.04|87.39|
95750458|NCT02149121|191471705|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.85|98.72|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||98.72|81.85|
95764250|NCT01526057|191498658|SUPERIORITY||Test-to-reference ratio: adjusted means|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.83|109.4||||||A 90% CI on the estimated difference between 2 treatment groups was constructed using a 1-way ANOVA model based on natural log-transformed data. The estimated differences for the log-transformed PK parameters were then transformed to relative ratios of PK parameters by exponentiation.||109.40|87.83|
95764251|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.78|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.78|0.31|
95990458|NCT02475655|191955711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-461.0|528.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in absolute neutrophil count (ANC) from Entry to Week 10/12.||528|-461|0.91
95990459|NCT02475655|191955713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.15||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 1/2.||0.15|-0.42|0.45
95990460|NCT02475655|191955713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|-0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 4/5.||-0.23|-0.87|0.005
95990461|NCT02475655|191955713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.95||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in hemoglobin from Entry to Week 10/12.||0.95|-0.65|0.75
95990462|NCT02475655|191955715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37754.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19609.0|55898.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 1/2.||55898|19609|<0.001
95990463|NCT02475655|191955715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27832.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9849.0|45815.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 4/5.||45815|9849|0.012
95990464|NCT02475655|191955715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5376.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8592.0|19344.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in platelet values from Entry to Week 10/12.||19344|-8592|0.52
95990465|NCT02475655|191955717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|9.14||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||9.14|0.78|0.05
95990466|NCT02475655|191955717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.47|11.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||11.8|4.47|<0.001
95990467|NCT02475655|191955717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.95||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.81||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) (SGOT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||6.81|1.08|0.025
95990468|NCT02475655|191955719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|8.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 1/2.||8.33|1.46|0.020
95750459|NCT02149121|191471705|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|117.08|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||117.08|97.03|
95750460|NCT02149121|191471706|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|100.55|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||100.55|89.61|
95990469|NCT02475655|191955719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.84|17.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 4/5.||17.1|4.84|0.004
95764252|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.88|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.88|0.60|
95990470|NCT02475655|191955719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|8.39||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) (SGPT) values from Entry to Week 10/12.||8.39|0.88|0.043
95990471|NCT02475655|191955720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from baseline to Week 10/12.||1.44|0.84|0.56
95990472|NCT02475655|191955720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Plasma Interleukin 6 (IL-6) from Week 4/5 to Week 10/12.||1.73|1.09|0.026
95750461|NCT02149121|191471706|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.01|94.28|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||94.28|84.01|
95750462|NCT02149121|191471706|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of PK was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means in AUC0-last, AUC0-inf, and Cmax was entirely contained within the PK equivalence bounds of 80% and 125% for the following comparisons: CT-P10 versus Rituxan, CT-P10 versus MabThera, and Rituxan versus MabThera.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|106.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.56|113.13|||||Point estimates (geometric least squares means and ratios of geometric means) were calculated by back-transforming the least squares means.|Primary PK analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||113.13|100.56|
95990473|NCT02475655|191955721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 4/5.||0.99|0.80|0.07
95990474|NCT02475655|191955721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to Week 12.||1.12|0.80|0.59
95990475|NCT02475655|191955721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.24||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in soluble CD14 (sCD14) from Week 4/5 to Week 12.||1.24|0.90|0.56
95990476|NCT02475655|191955722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|142.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.6|227.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 2.||227|57.6|0.007
95750463|NCT02149121|191471707|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the treatment difference in the change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 24 was entirely within the equivalence margin of ±0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.2|||||Adjusted least squares means and standard error, estimate of treatment difference \[CT-P10 - (Rituxan + MabThera)\] and 2-sided 90% confidence interval calculated from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti TNF alpha blocker status at baseline (intolerance case versus inadequate response), and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.||0.20|-0.22|
95750464|NCT02149121|191471712|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.46|113.33||||||Secondary PD analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with results as the response, treatment group, as fixed effect and baseline values, gender, region, race, study part, interaction of treatment group with study part, prior anti-TNF alpha blocker status, and RF or anti-CCP status fitted as covariates.|Estimate of Geometric Least Square Mean and ratio of Geometric Least Square Means (CT-P10/reference products) were obtained from back transforming the least square means from the ANCOVA.|113.33|92.46|
95750465|NCT01244061|191471720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|11.55||The statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis firstly for CAR Weeks 9-12, and then secondly for CAR Weeks 9-52 until a p-value \> 0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis would be declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The study was conducted on a sample size to achieve at least 90% power for the treatment comparison in the primary efficacy endpoint assuming an odds ratio of 3.36 with a placebo abstinence rate of 12% and varenicline abstinence rate of 31%. The intent of the primary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment.||11.55|4.34|<0.0001
95764253|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.73|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.73|0.66|
95764254|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.56|0.73|
95990477|NCT02475655|191955722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|74.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|156.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 5.||156.7|-8.23|0.14
95764255|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.62|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.62|0.68|
95764256|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.69|0.66|
95990478|NCT02475655|191955722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.0|65.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Baseline to Week 12.||65.5|-143|0.54
95990479|NCT02475655|191955722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-112.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-231.0|5.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|There is no difference between the two arms in the change in CD4+ T cell counts from Week 5 to Week 12.||5.90|-231|0.12
95990480|NCT02475655|191955724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 5.||1.49|0.65|0.94
95990481|NCT02475655|191955724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Entry to Week 12.||1.46|0.37|0.46
95990482|NCT02475655|191955724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|GEE|A GEE model for binary data was used to compare changes in iSCA because a substantial proportion of data was below the assay limit.|Risk ratio is Ruxolitinib risk divided by No Study Treatment risk.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in HIV-1 RNA by iSCA from Week 5 to Week 12.||1.48|0.46|0.59
95990483|NCT02475655|191955725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 5.||1.01|0.76|0.11
95990484|NCT02475655|191955725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.33||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF alpha) from entry to Week 12.||1.33|0.64|0.71
95750466|NCT01244061|191471721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|20.41||Statistical significance was declared for each hypothesis in the order above until a p-value \>0.05 was obtained, at which point the hypothesis was declared to be not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||The sample size was sufficient to achieve 80% power for the treatment comparison in the key secondary end point for an odds ratio of 2.55 with a placebo abstinence rate of 6% and varenicline abstinence rate of 14%. The intent of the key secondary efficacy analysis was to evaluate the hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation from Week 9 to the end of non-treatment follow up period at Week 52.||20.41|3.97|<0.0001
95750467|NCT01244061|191471722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|10.44||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||||10.44|3.25|<0.0001
95990485|NCT02475655|191955726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.86||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 5.||1.86|0.87|0.30
95990486|NCT02475655|191955726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|4.49||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 1 beta (IL-1 beta) from entry to Week 12.||4.49|0.56|0.46
95990487|NCT02475655|191955727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 5.||1.84|0.90|0.24
95990488|NCT02475655|191955727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.74||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 7 (IL-7) from entry to Week 12.||1.74|0.81|0.46
95764257|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.00|0.70|
95990489|NCT02475655|191955732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 5.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|1.72|0.77|0.56
95990490|NCT02475655|191955732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|2.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 10 (IL-10) from entry to Week 12.||2.01|0.47|0.95
95990491|NCT02475655|191955733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 5.||1.56|1.15|0.002
95750468|NCT01244061|191471723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.51||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 12 assessment||12.51|4.92|<0.0001
95750469|NCT01244061|191471723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.64||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 24 assessment||4.64|1.86|<0.0001
95750470|NCT01244061|191471723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.97||The statistical test was two-sided and at a 0.05 level of significance. No adjustment was made for the analysis of multiple secondary endpoints.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis model included main effect of treatment and pooled center.||Week 52 assessment||4.97|1.88|<0.0001
95750471|NCT03078478|191471739|SUPERIORITY||Treatment rate ratio|0.88||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||The number of episodes is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model includes treatment, number of OADs, region, sex and dosing time as fixed factors, and age as a covariate. Missing values are imputed through multiple imputation by treatment arm, based on a Poisson model.||1.06|0.73|0.1715
95750472|NCT02858726|191471755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
95750473|NCT02858726|191471755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||0.2|-1.9|0.107
95750474|NCT02858726|191471755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.2|-2.3|0.019
95750475|NCT02858726|191471756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-4.8|-16.0|<0.001
95750476|NCT02858726|191471756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-1.4|-13.1|0.016
95750477|NCT02858726|191471756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and covariates for prior anti-itch medication usage and baseline score.||||-0.8|-12.8|0.026
95750478|NCT02756637|191471765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.11|0.98|
95750479|NCT02756637|191471765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The Hazard Ration is the ratio of survival rates between patients with high NLR and low NLR.||1.14|0.90|
95750480|NCT00595335|191471798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' CAS score at 6 months.||||0.73
95750481|NCT00595335|191471799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 6 months.||||0.75
95750482|NCT00595335|191471799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
95750483|NCT00595335|191471801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in proptosis in the right eye at 12 months.||||0.97
95750484|NCT00595335|191471801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change between the two groups in change in proptosis in left eye at 12 months.||||0.86
95750485|NCT00595335|191471802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the right eye between the two groups.||||0.98
95750486|NCT00595335|191471802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in lid fissure in the left eye between the two groups.||||0.49
95750487|NCT00595335|191471803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 6 months.||||0.21
95750488|NCT00595335|191471803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups in extraocular motility at 12 months.||||0.64
95750489|NCT00595335|191471804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 6 months.||||0.36
95750490|NCT00595335|191471804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 6 months.||||0.91
95750491|NCT00595335|191471804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 physical score at 12 months.||||0.29
95750492|NCT00595335|191471804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the arms for QoL SF-12 mental score at 12 months.||||0.18
95750493|NCT00595335|191471805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the change between the two groups' failure rate at 12 months.||||0.85
95750494|NCT01131299|191471852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum sample size to detect an 8 mg/dl change in total plasma cholesterol between the placebo and alpha cyclodextrin periods is 62 subjects. The power is 80% by using the normal approximation to a one-sample (paired) two-tail t-test at an alpha of 0.05.||||0.82
95750495|NCT01131299|191471853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95750496|NCT01131299|191471854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95750497|NCT01131299|191471855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95750498|NCT00118378|191471885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95750499|NCT00118378|191471886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95750500|NCT00118378|191471887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 4 CD4 cell count||||.150
95750501|NCT00118378|191471888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.459
95750502|NCT00836719|191471917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.01||95.0|3.4|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Anisotropic power spatial covariance matrix with terms for time and the registered voxel. Kenward Rogers approx. for degrees of freedom.|Dependent variable: NAA. Main effect: visit. Covariates Cre, %GM, %WM, %CSF and %lesion in the voxel.|N-Acetylaspartate acid (NAA) levels were measured at baseline and exit (6 months). Voxels with less than 30% error in NAA and Creatine (Cre) were used.NAA, Cre and Proton Density were log transformed.||16.2|3.4|<0.01
95750503|NCT01763918|191471941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.11|-53.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.35|-65.11|<0.001
95750504|NCT01763918|191471941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.55|-69.00|<0.001
95750505|NCT01763918|191471942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.83|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-65.83|<0.001
95750506|NCT01763918|191471942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.27|-59.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||Within each dose frequency, the null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 12 or in the percent change from baseline at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.83|-71.27|<0.001
95750507|NCT01763918|191471943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.1|-85.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-85.2|-105.1|<0.001
95750508|NCT01763918|191471943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-97.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-87.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-87.7|-107.1|<0.001
95750509|NCT01763918|191471944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-92.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.9|-82.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-82.8|-102.9|<0.001
95764258|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.73|0.28|
95764259|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.54|0.43|
95750510|NCT01763918|191471944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-78.9|-103.8|<0.001
95750511|NCT01763918|191471945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|73.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||73.4|52.8|<0.001
95750512|NCT01763918|191471945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|85.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||85.1|66.9|<0.001
95750513|NCT01763918|191471946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use||||74.6|53.7|<0.001
95750514|NCT01763918|191471946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|69.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use.||||69.8|47.6|<0.001
95750515|NCT01763918|191471947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.41|-50.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.59|-61.41|<0.001
95798364|NCT06366087|191566634|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.396|0.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.492|0.396|
95750516|NCT01763918|191471947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.24|-54.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.77|-65.24|<0.001
95798365|NCT06366087|191566635|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.608|0.532|
95798366|NCT06366087|191566636|OTHER|Estimation only. Estimates are back-transformed and based on a random effects linear model with log10 numeric response variable, adjusting for study route received, dosing sequence, and period, with a random effect for subject nested within dosing sequence.|Ratio of geometric least-square means|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.620|0.524|
95798367|NCT04044690|191566650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.371008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|2.309||Threshold of significance at \<= 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule applied following MI.|||2.309|0.551|0.371008
95798368|NCT04044690|191566651|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.360939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.651|9.57||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||9.570|-6.651|0.360939
95798369|NCT04044690|191566652|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.730994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|5.33||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||5.33|-10.15|0.730994
95798370|NCT04044690|191566653|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.3||||0.001647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.82||Descriptive p-value.|MMRM|||||-1.82|-8.72|0.001647
95750517|NCT01763918|191471948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.47|-49.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.12|-60.47|<0.001
95750518|NCT01763918|191471948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.95|-47.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.96|-61.95|<0.001
95750519|NCT01763918|191471949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-44.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.46|-54.32|<0.001
95750520|NCT01763918|191471949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|-50.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.38|-59.58|<0.001
95950340|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1530
95990492|NCT02475655|191955733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in TInterleukin 15 (IL-15) from entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.86|0.60
95990493|NCT02475655|191955734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 5.||1.07|0.82|0.40
95990494|NCT02475655|191955734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Interleukin 18 (IL-18) from entry to Week 12.||1.27|0.83|0.82
95990495|NCT02475655|191955735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 5.||2.02|1.11|0.028
95990496|NCT02475655|191955735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|5.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 1 (TGF beta-1) from entry to Week 12.||5.25|0.79|0.21
95990497|NCT02475655|191955736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.79||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 5.||1.79|1.08|0.031
95990498|NCT02475655|191955736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 2 (TGF beta-2) from entry to Week 12.||2.02|0.46|0.93
95990499|NCT02475655|191955737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|4.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 5.||4.05|0.61|0.43
95990500|NCT02475655|191955737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Transforming Growth Factor beta 3 (TGF beta-3) from entry to Week 12.||1.50|0.30|0.41
95990501|NCT02475655|191955738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.07|-0.61|0.038
95990502|NCT02475655|191955738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.51||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.51|0.03|0.07
95750521|NCT01763918|191471950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-43.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.63|-54.55|<0.001
95750522|NCT01763918|191471950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.73|-43.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.10|-55.73|<0.001
95764260|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.42|0.49|
95750523|NCT01763918|191471951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.43|-41.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.76|-51.43|<0.001
95750524|NCT01763918|191471951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.21|-44.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.11|-54.21|<0.001
95750525|NCT01763918|191471952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-40.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.88|-51.27|<0.001
95750526|NCT01763918|191471952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.86|-37.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.98|-52.86|<0.001
95750527|NCT01763918|191471953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-47.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.99|-58.35|<0.001
95750528|NCT01763918|191471953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-61.08|<0.001
95750529|NCT01763918|191471954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.16|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.41|-60.16|<0.001
95750530|NCT01763918|191471954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.14|-40.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.96|-58.14|<0.001
95750531|NCT01763918|191471955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-24.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.41|-38.33|<0.001
95750532|NCT01763918|191471955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-24.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.09|-37.91|<0.001
95750533|NCT01763918|191471956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.28|-23.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.87|-39.28|<0.001
95750534|NCT01763918|191471956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.61|-20.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.88|-35.61|<0.001
95750535|NCT01763918|191471957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-15.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.24|-29.48|<0.001
95750536|NCT01763918|191471957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.05|-24.43|<0.001
95750537|NCT01763918|191471958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.26|-27.92|<0.001
95750538|NCT01763918|191471958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-1.74|-21.38|<0.001
95764261|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.22|0.50|
95943706|NCT03593356|191858094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.184|TWO_SIDED|||||We use OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. We report unadjusted p-values.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.184
95750539|NCT01763918|191471959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|12.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.40|4.36|<0.001
95750540|NCT01763918|191471959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|13.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.85|5.10|<0.001
95750541|NCT01763918|191471960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|13.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.74|4.66|<0.001
95750542|NCT01763918|191471960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1466.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||1466|3.48|<0.001
95750543|NCT01763918|191471961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|-15.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.81|-29.46|<0.001
95750544|NCT01763918|191471961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.25|-7.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.84|-23.25|<0.001
95750545|NCT01763918|191471962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.29|-12.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.66|-29.29|<0.001
95750546|NCT01763918|191471962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|0.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C and ezetimibe use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.68|-19.01|<0.001
95750547|NCT05528861|191471990|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-3.6|0.8174
95750548|NCT05528861|191471991|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.6|0.5857
95750549|NCT05528861|191471992|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-2.2|0.9633
95750550|NCT05528861|191471993|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.25||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.78|||Fisher Exact|||||23.78|-11.40|0.1201
95750551|NCT00518882|191472013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test is below 0.4%|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.47|-0.18||No multiplicity concerns|ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA with treatment, country and previous OAD treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.~2 hypotheses were tested: H01: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide + Δ, HA1: µliraglutide \< µexenatide + Δ; Δ=0.4%. If non-inferiority was concluded, a test for superiority was established by a 1-sided test of the hypothesis H02: µliraglutide ≥ µexenatide against HA2: µliraglutide \< µexenatide. Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was below 0%."||-0.18|-0.47|<.0001
95750552|NCT00518882|191472014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.803|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.364|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.139|<0.0001
95750553|NCT00518882|191472014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.924||0.9872||95.0|-1.36|0.134|||Paired t-test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.134|-1.36|0.9872
95750554|NCT00518882|191472015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.119|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.137|-0.823|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.823|-1.137|<0.0001
95750555|NCT00518882|191472015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.105|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.687|||Paired t-test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the exenatide→liraglutide group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Weeks 0 and 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.687|-1.010|<0.0001
95750556|NCT00518882|191472018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.38||||0.2235||95.0|-0.99|0.23||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the body weight in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.23|-0.99|0.2235
95750557|NCT00518882|191472019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.24||0.0793||95.0|-0.86|0.05|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.05|-0.86|0.0793
95750558|NCT00518882|191472019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.67||0.0075||95.0|-1.26|-0.2|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.20|-1.26|0.0075
95750559|NCT00518882|191472020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.63|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-2.61|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.61|-3.90|<0.0001
95750560|NCT00518882|191472020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.44|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.55|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.55|-3.85|<0.0001
95750561|NCT00518882|191472021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.37|-0.65||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the fasting plasma glucose in the liraglutide and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.65|-1.37|<0.0001
95750562|NCT00518882|191472022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.84|<|0.0001||95.0|0.48|1.0|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ26=0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.00|0.48|<0.0001
95750563|NCT00518882|191472022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.4864||95.0|-0.48|0.23|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.23|-0.48|0.4864
95750564|NCT00518882|191472023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.62|-0.92|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.92|-1.62|<0.0001
95750565|NCT00518882|191472023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.23|-0.42|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.42|-1.23|<0.0001
95750566|NCT00518882|191472024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|1.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.8|1.86||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.86|0.80|<.0001
95750567|NCT00518882|191472025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.9849||95.0|-0.52|0.53||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.53|-0.52|0.9849
95750568|NCT00518882|191472026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.01||||0.0005||95.0|0.44|1.57||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.57|0.44|0.0005
95750569|NCT00518882|191472027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.866||0.2972||95.0|-0.626|0.192|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.192|-0.626|0.2972
95764262|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.44|0.57|
95750570|NCT00518882|191472027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.253|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|1.637|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.637|0.660|<0.0001
95750571|NCT00518882|191472028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.307||0.8396||95.0|-0.424|0.521|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.521|-0.424|0.8396
95750572|NCT00518882|191472028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.419||0.7278||95.0|-0.604|0.423|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.423|-0.604|0.7278
95750573|NCT00518882|191472029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.053||0.3271||95.0|-0.219|0.654|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.654|-0.219|0.3271
95750574|NCT00518882|191472029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.775||0.0003||95.0|0.497|1.634|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.634|0.497|0.0003
95750575|NCT00518882|191472030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.662|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.605|-0.562|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.562|-1.605|<0.0001
95750576|NCT00518882|191472030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.467||0.0003||95.0|-1.517|-0.458|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.458|-1.517|0.0003
95750577|NCT00518882|191472031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.158||0.3859||95.0|-0.331|0.853|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.853|-0.331|0.3859
95750578|NCT00518882|191472031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.838||0.2119||95.0|-0.956|0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.214|-0.956|0.2119
95750579|NCT00518882|191472032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.975||0.229||95.0|-0.917|0.2211|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.2211|-0.917|0.2290
95750580|NCT00518882|191472032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23||0.0002||95.0|-1.449|-0.459|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.459|-1.449|0.0002
95750581|NCT00518882|191472033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.73||||0.0124||95.0|0.16|1.31||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.31|0.16|0.0124
95750582|NCT00518882|191472034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.39||||0.143||95.0|-0.91|0.13||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.13|-0.91|0.1430
95750583|NCT00518882|191472035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.54||||0.038||95.0|0.03|1.05||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||1.05|0.03|0.0380
95750584|NCT00518882|191472036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.827||0.77||95.0|-0.344|0.463|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.463|-0.344|0.7700
95764263|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.1|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.10|0.88|
95750585|NCT00518882|191472036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.27||0.0042||95.0|0.23|1.212|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.212|0.230|0.0042
95750586|NCT00518882|191472037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.041||0.0026||95.0|0.238|1.106|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.106|0.238|0.0026
95943707|NCT03593356|191858097|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.427.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.415
95750587|NCT00518882|191472037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.989||0.6845||95.0|-0.541|0.356|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.356|-0.541|0.6845
95750588|NCT00518882|191472038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.705||0.1041||95.0|-0.066|0.706|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.706|-0.066|0.1041
95750589|NCT00518882|191472038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.114||0.0151||95.0|0.114|1.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||1.052|0.114|0.0151
95750590|NCT00518882|191472039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.857|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.861|-2.763|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.763|-3.861|<0.0001
95750591|NCT00518882|191472039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.56|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.673|-2.589|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-2.589|-3.673|<0.0001
95750592|NCT00518882|191472040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.703|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.457|-1.403|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.403|-2.457|<0.0001
95750593|NCT00518882|191472040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.654|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.731|-1.618|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.618|-2.731|<0.0001
95750594|NCT00518882|191472041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.752|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.747|-1.676|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.676|-2.747|<0.0001
95750595|NCT00518882|191472041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-2.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.625|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.104|-1.997|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-1.997|-3.104|<0.0001
95750596|NCT00518882|191472042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|29.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.81|41.93||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||41.93|16.81|<.0001
95750597|NCT00518882|191472043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-18.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.811|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.988|-9.382|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-9.382|-26.988|<0.0001
95750598|NCT00518882|191472043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.997||0.5304||95.0|-5.327|10.307|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||10.307|-5.327|0.5304
95950341|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3307||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3307
95950342|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3399
95950343|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5137
95750599|NCT00518882|191472044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|24.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.326|<|0.0001||95.0|16.348|33.374|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||33.374|16.348|<0.0001
95750600|NCT00518882|191472044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|11.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.145||0.092||95.0|-1.835|24.093|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||24.093|-1.835|0.0920
95750601|NCT00518882|191472045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.11||||0.0946||95.0|-0.23|0.02||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.02|-0.23|0.0946
95858831|NCT02952820|191675392|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and study baseline FSS score as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||-0.54|-4.57|0.0128
95943708|NCT03593356|191858098|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.567|TWO_SIDED|||||We reported the Westfall-Young adjusted p-value, using OLS regression with site fixed effects and baseline covariates. The unadjusted p-value was 0.541.|Regression, Linear||Positive (negative) estimates indicate the high cash gift group had a higher (lower) mean than the low cash gift group. Our measure of dispersion of parameter estimates is the standard error of estimate as described in our analysis plan.|||||0.567
95750602|NCT00518882|191472046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.774||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.216|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.001|0.0513
95750603|NCT00518882|191472046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.804||0.0513||95.0|-0.001|0.233|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.233|-0.001|0.0513
95750604|NCT00518882|191472047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.859||0.2764||95.0|-0.187|0.054|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.054|-0.187|0.2764
95750605|NCT00518882|191472047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.1911||95.0|-0.043|0.216|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.216|-0.043|0.1911
95750606|NCT00518882|191472048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.04||||0.4412||95.0|-0.15|0.06||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.06|-0.15|0.4412
95764264|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||2.18|0.78|
95764265|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.45|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||2.45|0.36|
95764266|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.44|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||1.44|0.41|
95764267|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.31|0.47|
95764268|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.13|0.48|
95764269|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.36|0.55|
95764270|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||1.95|0.85|
95764271|NCT01526057|191498677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.73|0.70|
95764272|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||1.79|0.12|
95764273|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.26|0.20|
95764274|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.41|0.43|
95764275|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.74|0.61|
95858832|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.353|0.057|0.0067
95943709|NCT02549352|191858329|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.71|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|||23.71|2.58|<0.001
95943710|NCT02549352|191858330|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|10.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||10.51|3.32|<0.001
95950344|NCT02978183|191872578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9962||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9962
95750607|NCT00518882|191472049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.606||0.4746||95.0|-0.054|0.115|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.115|-0.054|0.4746
95750608|NCT00518882|191472049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.1281||95.0|-0.024|0.188|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.188|-0.024|0.1281
95750609|NCT00518882|191472050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.604|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.39|-0.214|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.214|-0.390|<0.0001
95750610|NCT00518882|191472050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.647|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.303|-0.11|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.110|-0.303|<0.0001
95950345|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3259
95764276|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.74|0.56|
95764277|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.36|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||1.36|0.34|
95764278|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||||Rituximab-EU is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-EU versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.63|0.46|
95764279|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.6|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 3.||2.60|0.27|
95764280|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 5.||1.62|0.31|
95764281|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 9.||1.40|0.41|
95764282|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 13.||1.57|0.51|
95764283|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.68|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 17.||1.68|0.51|
95764284|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.19|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 21.||2.19|0.68|
95764285|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.62|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-Pfizer at Week 25 (EOT).||1.62|0.44|
95764286|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|7.2|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 3.||7.20|0.44|
95764287|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.86|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 5.||3.86|0.52|
95764288|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 9.||1.87|0.51|
95764289|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 13.||1.50|0.50|
95764290|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.69|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 17.||1.69|0.52|
95764291|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.5|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 21.||3.50|0.93|
95764292|NCT01526057|191498678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||||Rituximab-US is the numerator.|Statistical analysis of rituximab-US versus rituximab-EU at Week 25 (EOT).||1.89|0.51|
95764293|NCT02273388|191498698|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.59|1.48|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 5 minutes before infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||1.48|-10.59|
95750611|NCT00518882|191472051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0277||95.0|-0.13|-0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.01|-0.13|0.0277
95750612|NCT00518882|191472052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.003||95.0|0.021|0.102|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.102|0.021|0.0030
95750613|NCT00518882|191472052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.1452||95.0|-0.012|0.079|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.079|-0.012|0.1452
95750614|NCT00518882|191472053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306|<|0.0001||95.0|0.223|0.315|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.315|0.223|<0.0001
95750615|NCT00518882|191472053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|<|0.0001||95.0|0.259|0.364|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.364|0.259|<0.0001
95750616|NCT00518882|191472054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.01||||0.5105||95.0|-0.02|0.04||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.04|-0.02|0.5105
95750617|NCT00518882|191472055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.222||95.0|-0.034|0.008|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.008|-0.034|0.2220
95750618|NCT00518882|191472055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.141||0.7923||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.024|-0.018|0.7923
95750619|NCT00518882|191472056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159||0.0254||95.0|-0.05|-0.003|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.003|-0.050|0.0254
95750620|NCT00518882|191472056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.165||0.2244||95.0|-0.04|0.009|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.009|-0.040|0.2244
95750621|NCT00518882|191472057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.18||||0.0485||95.0|-0.37|0.0||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.00|-0.37|0.0485
95750622|NCT00518882|191472058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.1161||95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.21|-0.02|0.1161
95750623|NCT00518882|191472058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.7888||95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.12|-0.16|0.7888
95798371|NCT04044690|191566654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.335347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.766||Descriptive p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Exact logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, region (Japan vs. non-Japan) and Baseline MMT-8 (≤ 142 points vs. \>142 points).|Rubin's rule for combination applied following MI.|||2.766|0.520|0.335347
95802500|NCT02864914|191578399|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.66|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||2.66|1.48|
95950346|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9785
95750624|NCT00518882|191472059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07||0.0003||95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.13|-0.43|0.0003
95750625|NCT00518882|191472059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.2078||95.0|-0.35|0.08|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.08|-0.35|0.2078
95750626|NCT00518882|191472060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.07||||0.0014||95.0|-0.11|-0.03||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||-0.03|-0.11|0.0014
95750627|NCT00518882|191472061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.269||0.0018||95.0|0.023|0.098|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.098|0.023|0.0018
95750628|NCT00518882|191472061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.272||0.5499||95.0|-0.028|0.052|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.052|-0.028|0.5499
95750629|NCT00518882|191472062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.273|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|-0.062|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.062|-0.140|<0.0001
95750630|NCT00518882|191472062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.302||0.0012||95.0|-0.118|-0.03|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.030|-0.118|0.0012
95750631|NCT00518882|191472063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.02||||0.1119||95.0|-0.05|0.01||There were no multiplicity concerns.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model included treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value of the endpoint as covariate. The objective was to demonstrate that treatment with liraglutide was different from treatment with exenatide. Thus the null hypothesis and its alternative were H0: µliraglutide = µexenatide against HA1:µliraglutide ≠ µexenatide where µliraglutide and µexenatide is the mean value of the endpoint in the liraglutide arm and exenatide arm, respectively.||0.01|-0.05|0.1119
95750632|NCT00518882|191472064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168||0.1342||95.0|-0.041|0.006|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||0.006|-0.041|0.1342
95750633|NCT00518882|191472064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.189||0.0344||95.0|-0.057|-0.002|||Paired t test|||A paired t test was made within the treatment group and 95% confidence intervals for the difference between Weeks 26 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78 - µ26 = 0 against HA: µ78 - µ26 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means (Week 26 and Week 78) was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.002|-0.057|0.0344
95750634|NCT00518882|191472065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.176|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.105|-0.056|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.056|-0.105|<0.0001
95750635|NCT00518882|191472065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.192|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.094|-0.038|||Paired t test|||The analysis was made with a paired t test within the treatment group and 95% CIs for the difference between Weeks 0 and 78 were constructed. H0 was µ78- µ0=0 against HA: µ78 - µ0 ≠ 0. A difference between the two means was concluded when H0 was rejected at the 5% level.||-0.038|-0.094|<0.0001
95750636|NCT04740931|191472068|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|
95950347|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5112||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5112
95950348|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7771
95950349|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6232||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6232
95950350|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8895||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8895
95950351|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8974
95950352|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9604||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.9604
95950353|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.5301
95950354|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0386
95950355|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1034
95950356|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0985
95950357|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2342
95950358|NCT02978183|191872579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3016
95950359|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4927
95950360|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8686||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8686
95950361|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5772||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5772
95950362|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9700
95950363|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
95950364|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9532
95950365|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7522||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7522
95950366|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6804||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6804
95950367|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6267||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6267
95950368|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0976
95950369|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4687|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4687
95950370|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0421
95950371|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6085||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6085
95950372|NCT02978183|191872580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9634
95950373|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3322||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.3322
95950374|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8026||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.8026
95950375|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9981||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Pre-CAC||||0.9981
95950376|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5645||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5645
95950377|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5455
95950378|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6980
95950379|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6115||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6115
95950380|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4528||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.4528
95950381|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7551||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7551
95950382|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5318||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5318
95950383|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9748||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9748
95950384|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7706
95950385|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3414||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3414
95950386|NCT02978183|191872581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4361||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.4361
95950387|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0603
95950388|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4857||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.4857
95950389|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9815||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9815
95950390|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6213||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6213
95950391|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1831||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.1831
95950392|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6489
95950393|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2622||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2622
95950394|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.2397
95950395|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3202||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3202
95950396|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2663||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2663
95950397|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5672
95950398|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5055
95950399|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8143
95990503|NCT02475655|191955739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|-0.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.13|-1.62|0.05
95990504|NCT02475655|191955739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.88|-0.16|0.16
95990505|NCT02475655|191955740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.97||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.97|-2.46|<0.001
95990506|NCT02475655|191955740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25hi+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-0.50|0.68
95990507|NCT02475655|191955741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.69||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.69|-0.70|0.98
95990508|NCT02475655|191955741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD25+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.82|-1.13|0.79
95990509|NCT02475655|191955742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|5.22||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||5.22|1.75|0.001
95990510|NCT02475655|191955742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|0.68|-3.28|0.28
95990511|NCT02475655|191955743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|9.31||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||9.31|3.76|<0.001
95990512|NCT02475655|191955743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|3.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD127+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||3.18|-3.56|0.92
95990513|NCT02475655|191955744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.47||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.47|-0.61|0.82
95990514|NCT02475655|191955744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.34|0.18|0.033
95990515|NCT02475655|191955745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.55||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.55|-0.53|0.98
95990516|NCT02475655|191955745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.57||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Ki67+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.57|-0.46|0.37
95990517|NCT02475655|191955746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.72|-1.87||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.87|-4.72|<0.001
95990518|NCT02475655|191955746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||-0.03|-1.42|0.09
95750637|NCT04740931|191472068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Tested at a two-sided p\<0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept (at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level).||1.6|-2.5|0.6715
95750638|NCT04740931|191472070|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.4|
95750639|NCT04740931|191472086|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.7|
95750640|NCT00063882|191472121|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Greenwood's T||Reference level = Brachytherapy only|Target sample size was 586; 532 patients were needed to test hypothesis of better FFP in the EBRT + Brachytherapy arm over the Brachytherapy Only arm. The trial is designed to detect a 10% improvement in 5-year FFP with 90% power, 1-sided alpha of 0.025. The Z-test statistic for the difference between the 2 5-year FFP rates with the standard errors estimated by Greenwood's method will be used.||1.12|0.60|0.21
95855548|NCT02677493|191670687|EQUIVALENCE|"All statistical significance testing was performed at a two-sided significance level (α) of 5%.~Exceptionally, non-inferiority was tested at a one-sided CI of 97.5%."||||||0.09135|||||||ANCOVA|||To evaluate if the seroconversion (SCR) and seroprotection (SPR) rates on Day 28 after vaccination of IL-YANG Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Inj. meet the following criteria in all age groups of healthy male and female adults at the age of 19 or older.||||0.09135
95943711|NCT02549352|191858331|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of clearance rates|7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|15.61|||Mantel Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel estimate (0.037% relative to vehicle), adjusted for pooled sites.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||15.61|3.70|<0.001
95943712|NCT02549352|191858332|SUPERIORITY||Week 8 AK count ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.36||Negative binominal regression with treatment group and pooled site as factors and log baseline count as offset variable.|Mantel Haenszel||0.037% relative to vehicle.|The p-values for secondary endpoints have been corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method to account for multiplicity. The prespecified multiplicity adjustment by the Holm-Bonferroni method requires the ordering of the p-values for the secondary endpoints by size.||0.36|0.25|<0.001
95943713|NCT02379351|191858333|OTHER|This pilot study is primarily descriptive statistics||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics - parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated (Chi-squared)||||||.1
95943714|NCT02379351|191858334|NON_INFERIORITY|Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Data analysis will use mostly descriptive statistics: parametric and nonparametric statistics will be used as indicated.|||Likert Scale of Provider Satisfaction|||<0.01
95943715|NCT00979459|191858338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the AUC(0 to infinity) geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.99||||||||0.99|0.86|
95943716|NCT00979459|191858339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Administration of a single dose of two 40 mg MK-1006 FCT is similar to a single dose of four 20 mg MK-1006 DFC will be satisfied if the 90% confidence interval for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (FCT/DCF) is contained within (0.70, 1.43).|Geometric mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.24||||||||1.24|0.92|
95943717|NCT00220805|191858352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy comparison for the change in LogMAR from baseline to endpoint was a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment group and center as fixed factors (main effect model).||||0.49
95943718|NCT00220805|191858353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.76
95943719|NCT00220805|191858354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for centers (including a Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odd ratios across centers)||||||0.13
95943720|NCT00220805|191858355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.21|0.90
95943721|NCT00220805|191858357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted to centers||||||0.74
95943722|NCT03614663|191858363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.321
95943723|NCT03614663|191858364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.149
95943724|NCT03614663|191858365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.607
95943725|NCT03614663|191858366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.426
95943726|NCT03614663|191858367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.02
95943727|NCT03614663|191858368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.091
95943728|NCT03614663|191858369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.135
95943729|NCT03614663|191858370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||MMRM - Mixed model for repeated measures|||||||0.056
95943730|NCT01128595|191858371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.701||||||||0.701|0.330|
95943731|NCT01128595|191858371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.73||||||||0.730|0.355|
95943732|NCT01128595|191858371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.388||||||||0.388|0.001|
95943733|NCT01128595|191858371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.143||||||||0.143|-0.198|
95943734|NCT01128595|191858371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.501||||||||0.501|0.140|
95943735|NCT01128595|191858374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.636||||||||0.636|0.332|
95943736|NCT01128595|191858374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.638||||||||0.638|0.330|
95943737|NCT01128595|191858374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.327||||||||0.327|0.009|
95750641|NCT00063882|191472122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.54|0.63|0.95
95750642|NCT00063882|191472123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.58|0.64|0.97
95750643|NCT00063882|191472124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.9||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.90|0.36|0.77
95750644|NCT00063882|191472125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.13||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||3.13|0.33|0.99
95750645|NCT00063882|191472126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.76||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||2.76|0.46|0.81
95750646|NCT00063882|191472127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|||1.17|0.51|0.22
95750647|NCT00063882|191472128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ GU/GI||1.67|0.76|0.53
95750648|NCT00063882|191472128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 2+ Overall||1.53|0.73|0.73
95858833|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||First 7 nights (Statistical analysis 2): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.320|0.023|0.0237
95990519|NCT02475655|191955747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.29|-3.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-3.50|-7.29|<0.001
95750649|NCT00063882|191472128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.19||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||2.19|0.54|0.81
95750650|NCT00063882|191472128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.69||One-sided significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||1.69|0.51|0.82
95750651|NCT00063882|191472129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.68||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ GU/GI||4.68|1.20|0.01
95750652|NCT00063882|191472129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.1||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = Brachytherapy Only|Grade 3+ Overall||3.10|1.06|0.029
95750653|NCT00063882|191472130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||<0.0001
95750654|NCT00063882|191472130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.09||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary- Incontinence||||0.33
95750655|NCT00063882|191472130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
95750656|NCT00063882|191472130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||0.001
95750657|NCT00063882|191472130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.12||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sexual|Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|||0.23
95750658|NCT00063882|191472131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary||||0.0002
95750659|NCT00063882|191472131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Incontinence||||0.42
95750660|NCT00063882|191472131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Urinary-Irritative||||<0.0001
95750661|NCT00063882|191472131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Bowel||||<0.0001
95750662|NCT00063882|191472131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.27||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level of 0.01|t-test, 2 sided||Minimally important difference (MID) defined as an effect size of at least 0.5. Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7.|Sexual||||0.0072
95750663|NCT01298778|191472147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||acute pain scores with movement at 24 hours||||0.05
95750664|NCT04070287|191472155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95750665|NCT04070287|191472156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95750666|NCT04070287|191472157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95750667|NCT04070287|191472158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95750668|NCT04070287|191472159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95750669|NCT04070287|191472160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95750670|NCT00606502|191472170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||||||||1.14|0.61|
95750671|NCT01949116|191472217|NON_INFERIORITY|The P-value for the risk difference is from an asymptotic non-inferiority analysis for the proportion (risk) difference with a 15% non-inferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.072||||0.0367|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.134|||Farrington-Manning score (exact)||LDMTX - Placebo|||0.134||0.0367
95750672|NCT01949116|191472218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by Statin Use (study stratification factor)||||0.85|-0.67|0.55
95943738|NCT01128595|191858374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14||||||||0.140|-0.140|
95943739|NCT01128595|191858374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.464||||||||0.464|0.168|
95943740|NCT01128595|191858375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.393||||||||0.393|0.031|
95943741|NCT01128595|191858375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.536||||||||0.536|0.147|
95943742|NCT01128595|191858375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.672||||||||0.672|0.282|
95943743|NCT01128595|191858375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.463||||||||0.463|0.066|
95943744|NCT01128595|191858375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.343||||||||0.343|-0.072|
95943745|NCT01128595|191858376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.215||||||||0.215|-0.037|
95943746|NCT01128595|191858376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.371||||||||0.371|0.101|
95943747|NCT01128595|191858376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.398||||||||0.398|0.127|
95943748|NCT01128595|191858376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.312||||||||0.312|0.036|
95943749|NCT01128595|191858376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.171||||||||0.171|-0.118|
95943750|NCT05274321|191858381|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.22||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.22
95943751|NCT05274321|191858382|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval. .||||||0.02||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.02
95943752|NCT05274321|191858383|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.03||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.03
95943753|NCT05274321|191858384|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was determined by taking 10% of the standard of care change score. Noninferiority was determined for each outcome if the noninferiority margin did not overlap with the regression coefficient's 95% confidence interval.||||||0.25||||||Wald P values were calculated by testing whether the regression coefficient met or exceeded the noninferiority margin.|Regression, Linear|The threshold for significance is 0.0167.||Absolute between-eye differences were calculated for each participant by subtracting the standard of care (SOC) change score from the Nanodropper change score. The confidence interval (CI) is 95%.||||0.25
95943754|NCT05441449|191858404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95943755|NCT05441449|191858404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95943756|NCT05441449|191858404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95943757|NCT05441449|191858405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.043
95943758|NCT05441449|191858405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
95943759|NCT05441449|191858405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95943760|NCT05441449|191858406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
95943761|NCT05441449|191858406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95943762|NCT05441449|191858407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.374
95943763|NCT05441449|191858407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
95943764|NCT05441449|191858407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
95943765|NCT02502526|191858431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95943766|NCT02502526|191858432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95943767|NCT02502526|191858432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
95943768|NCT02502526|191858433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.520
95943769|NCT02502526|191858433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.817
95943770|NCT05495945|191858503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95943771|NCT05495945|191858504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95750673|NCT03399318|191472231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. A t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.|t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis of the primary outcome variable, Tmax, involved fitting an analysis of 206 covariance model with treatment group as the factor of interest, country and disease severity 207 (CM=yes, no) as stratification factors, and admission temperature as a covariate. The estimated 208 treatment effect and associated 95% confidence interval, as well as a t-test for significance of the treatment effect, were derived from this model.||||<0.0001
95750674|NCT03399318|191472232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Seizure occurrence defined as a three-level ordinal variable was analyzed using a 223 multinomial logistic regression model because there was evidence that the proportional odds 224 assumption did not hold. This model included treatment group as the factor of interest and 225 country and disease severity as stratification factors. The adjusted treatment group odds ratio, 226 and its associated 95% confidence interval were derived from this model.||.27|.03|<0.05
95750675|NCT03399318|191472233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.7||The covariance matrix for the within-participant observations was 232 modeled using an unstructured pattern.|ANCOVA|Time to parasite clearance was 235 evaluated using a discrete-time proportional hazards model with a complementary log-log link.|The adjusted treatment group difference in mean area 233 under the log10(HRP2 level) × time curve was estimated using appropriate contrasts among the 234 treatment group means over time that quantify this comparison.|Parasite clearance measured by log10 (HRP2 level) was analyzed with a repeated 228 measures analysis of covariance model (mixed model repeated measures)35 with terms for 229 treatment group, country, disease severity, log10(HRP2 level) at admission, time (treated as a 230 categorical variable), and interaction terms for admission log10(HRP2 level) and time, and for 231 treatment group and time.|The model included terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity.|17.7|-5.1|<0.05
95750676|NCT03399318|191472234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.52||An ordinal logistic regression model assuming 216 proportional odds with terms for treatment group, country, and disease severity as covariates was used to derive the estimated adjusted treatment group odds ratio and 95%CI|Regression, Logistic|Sensitivity analyses with best-case and worst-case imputation were 219 performed to accommodate missing data||A secondary efficacy measure included fever exposure as measured by the area under 214 the temperature × time curve for T≥38.5°C during the 72-hour follow-up period, categorized as 215 0, \> 0 and \< 2, and ≥ 2 degree-hours.||.52|.20|<0.05
95750677|NCT04632706|191472239|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.803
95750678|NCT04632706|191472241|OTHER|||||||0.689||||||If the p-value is more than 0.05 then dose proportionality can not be confirmed.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessment of dose proportionality on D2 and D28||||0.689
95750679|NCT00430950|191472272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.2648||95.0|-1.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||"The ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect and baseline mean trough sitting dBP as covariate.~Significance level alpha = 5%. Power = 80%.~The following statistical superiority hypothesis was tested:~Superiority of OM/HCTZ combination therapy 40/25 mg over OM/HCTZ 20/25 mg"||0.42|-1.51|0.2648
95750680|NCT00430950|191472273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.4246||95.0|-1.26|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-1.26|0.4246
95750681|NCT00430950|191472274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7019||95.0|-1.84|1.24|||ANCOVA||refers to 8 week change; from week 8 to week 16|||1.24|-1.84|0.7019
95750682|NCT00430950|191472274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7328||95.0|-1.71|1.21|||ANCOVA||refers to 4 week change; from week 8 to week 12|||1.21|-1.71|0.7328
95750683|NCT00430950|191472275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0016||95.0|-2.58|-0.6|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.60|-2.58|0.0016
95750684|NCT00430950|191472275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031||95.0|-2.61|-0.53|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.53|-2.61|0.0031
95750685|NCT00430950|191472275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0073||95.0|-2.58|-0.4|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) diastolic blood pressure (dBP)|||-0.40|-2.58|0.0073
95750686|NCT00430950|191472275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0021||95.0|-3.71|-0.82|||ANCOVA||24 hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.82|-3.71|0.0021
95750687|NCT00430950|191472275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0031||95.0|-3.76|-0.76|||ANCOVA||daytime Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.76|-3.76|0.0031
95750688|NCT00430950|191472275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.0104||95.0|-3.61|-0.48|||ANCOVA||night-time Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) systolic blood pressure (sBP)|||-0.48|-3.61|0.0104
95750689|NCT00430950|191472276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.85|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.85|
95750690|NCT01138111|191472312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The baseline neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0001
95750691|NCT01138111|191472312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 12 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0011
95943772|NCT05495945|191858505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95943773|NCT05495945|191858506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95950400|NCT02978183|191872582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6901||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6901
95950401|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4032||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.4032
95950402|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2946||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2946
95950403|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2863||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2863
95950404|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0891||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.0891
95750692|NCT01138111|191472312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 24 month neocortical SUVR in those subjects who progressed to AD over the 2 year follow-up was compared to the neocortical SUVR of those that did not progress by a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.||||0.0008
95750693|NCT03069417|191472316|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at post-treatment time point.||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95750694|NCT03069417|191472316|SUPERIORITY|Conducted at 3-month follow-up time point.||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
95750695|NCT03069417|191472317|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time calculated at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.29|-3.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.15|-22.29|< 0.05
95750696|NCT03069417|191472318|SUPERIORITY|Interaction evaluated at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-11.1|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-3.83||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.83|-18.41|< 0.005
95750697|NCT03069417|191472318|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at 3-month follow-up time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-13.8|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-22.50|< 0.005
95750698|NCT03069417|191472320|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-10.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-19.58|< 0.05
95750699|NCT03069417|191472320|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for time at post-treatment time point.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|-12.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-22.14|< 0.01
95750700|NCT03069417|191472321|SUPERIORITY|Main effect for condition.|Fixed effects coefficient (β)|6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.88|0.50|< 0.05
95750701|NCT00440115|191472322|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations demonstrated that 250 participants per group would have 95% power to compare combined high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||(High-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management) vs pharmacotherapy management|||1.61|0.78|0.54
95750702|NCT00440115|191472322|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations indicated that 250 participants per group would have 80% power to compare high-intensity disease management and moderate-intensity disease management with pharmacotherapy management, on the basis of 10% (pharmacotherapy management), 15% (moderate-intensity disease management), and 25% (high-intensity disease management) self-reported quit rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||High-intensity disease management vs moderate-intensity disease management|||2.02|0.88|0.18
95750703|NCT03179163|191472336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A priori power analysis (power = 0.80,a= 0.05) confirmed a sample size of n= 10 was needed to determine a meaningful difference of 10% in the (flux/MAP)\*logAch(mol/L) . All data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA . When appropriate, post hoc Tukey-Kramer corrections were applied to correct for multiple comparisons. Significance was set a priori at a\<0.05.||||=0.01
95750704|NCT06400745|191472354|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0232||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||0.0232||
95750705|NCT00710749|191472357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
95858834|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 3): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.261|-0.107|0.4120
95750706|NCT00710749|191472357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95750707|NCT00710749|191472357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95750708|NCT03959527|191472399|NON_INFERIORITY|A single oral 3 g dose of zoliflodacin would be considered as non-inferior to a combination of a single IM 500 mg dose of ceftriaxone and a single 1 g oral dose of azithromycin if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the microbiological cure rate of the combination therapy minus zoliflodacin was less than 12% (prespecified non-inferiority \[NI\] margin for the primary endpoint).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.65|||||95% CI of the treatment difference of ceftriaxone+ azithromycin combination minus zoliflodacin|Point estimate for the treatment difference in proportion of ceftriaxone/azithromycin combination and zoliflodacin with microbiological cure and 2-sided 95% CI calculated by Newcombe score method.||8.65|1.38|
95750709|NCT01013649|191472439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.15|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|A total of 200 deaths between the arms will provide 80% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 28.8 months and 90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median overall survival from 22 to 30.6 months (HRs of 0.76 and 0.72, respectively, in favor of the erlotinib arm) with the addition of erlotinib and a 1-sided alpha of 0.15||1.38|0.79|0.62
95950405|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5347||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5347
95950406|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3733||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3733
95950407|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.2506
95950408|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8667||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8667
95950409|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7640
95950410|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8008||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8008
95750710|NCT01013649|191472440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.18||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm III|316 deaths from step 2 randomized patients provides 80% power, with 0.05 1-sided alpha, to detect an OS increase (HR=0.76 in favor of arm IV), corresponding to increasing median OS from 17 to 22.5 months with the addition of RT. For analysis triggered by patients having 5 years potential follow-up from step 2 randomization, it is projected that at least 265 events will be observed, providing at least 72% power. The trigger used for the primary analysis was 5-years of follow-up (270 deaths).||1.18|0.79|0.38
95990520|NCT02475655|191955747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of Bcl2+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.05|-2.51|0.11
95990521|NCT02475655|191955748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.7||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||0.70|-3.78|0.26
95990522|NCT02475655|191955748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|1.62||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||1.62|-2.41|0.74
95990523|NCT02475655|191955749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||3.00|-1.90|0.71
95990524|NCT02475655|191955749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|2.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of a4b7+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.78|-2.15|0.83
95990525|NCT02475655|191955750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|-0.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-0.50|-2.16|0.010
95990526|NCT02475655|191955750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.68||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CX3CR1+ among CD4+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||0.68|-1.02|0.74
95990527|NCT02475655|191955751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.27||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 5.||-1.27|-5.22|0.008
95990528|NCT02475655|191955751|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|2.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in the expression of CD38+HLADR+ among CD8+ T-cells from Entry to Week 12.||2.05|-2.38|0.90
95990529|NCT02475655|191955754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|4.61||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 5.||4.61|-1.83|0.47
95990530|NCT02475655|191955754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|5.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) from Entry to Week 12.||5.18|-0.77|0.22
95990531|NCT02475655|191955755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.34||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|2.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||2.35|-11.0|0.28
95990532|NCT02475655|191955755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|-3.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-3.02|-16.6|0.019
95750711|NCT01013649|191472441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31|||||Reference level = Arm I|||1.31|0.80|
95990533|NCT02475655|191955756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.02|1.41||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||1.41|-3.02|0.55
95750712|NCT01013649|191472442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||||Reference level = Arm III|||0.99|0.68|
95750713|NCT02246439|191472458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6081||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0194|2.5368||"This P-Value is for the All ages group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||The odds ratio and p-value were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. For the 'All ages' category, the odds ratio and p-value were stratified by age.||2.5368|1.0194|0.0406
95750714|NCT02246439|191472458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|27.2024||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2024|0.8470|0.0729
95750715|NCT02246439|191472458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4755||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|2.3741||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age and older group"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3741|0.9170|0.1089
95750716|NCT02246439|191472459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8647|2.1216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.1216|0.8647|0.1843
95943774|NCT04121741|191858516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.864
95943775|NCT04121741|191858516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for FMD% (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of FMD% for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.913
95943776|NCT04121741|191858517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.290
95943777|NCT04121741|191858517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.462|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for RHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of RHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.462
95943778|NCT04121741|191858518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing video intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing coach intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.005
95950411|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4729
95950412|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4742||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4742
95950413|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2922||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2922
95750717|NCT02246439|191472460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.752||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1058|2.776|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||2.7760|1.1058|0.0166
95750718|NCT02246439|191472461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6677||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4093|1.0892|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.0892|0.4093|0.1049
95750719|NCT02246439|191472462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6566||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3826|1.1268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||1.1268|0.3826|0.1235
95750720|NCT02246439|191472464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589||||||This P-Value is for the BSS=7 group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5890
95750721|NCT02246439|191472465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9782||||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7803|1.2264||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cox proportioanl hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.2264|0.7803|0.8487
95750722|NCT02246439|191472465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4756||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6549|3.325||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.3250|0.6549|0.3479
95750723|NCT02246439|191472465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9445||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7469|1.1943||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age of older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.1943|0.7469|0.6332
95750724|NCT02246439|191472466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0275||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8036|1.3138||"This P-Value was for the All ages group."|Cox proportional hazards method|Stratified by age.||||1.3138|0.8036|0.8289
95750725|NCT02246439|191472466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5744||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6388|3.8802||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||3.8802|0.6388|0.3241
95750726|NCT02246439|191472466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7688|1.2801||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cox proportional hazards method|||||1.2801|0.7688|0.9511
95750727|NCT02246439|191472467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3012||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6221|8.5129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5129|0.6221|0.2005
95750728|NCT02246439|191472468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6674||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1638|2.7191|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7191|0.1638|0.5720
95750729|NCT02246439|191472469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1591||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|9.7735||"This P-Value is for the No nausea or mild nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||9.7735|0.4770|0.3186
95750730|NCT02246439|191472469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.575||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6096|4.0696||"This P-Value is for the Moderate nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0696|0.6096|0.3473
95750731|NCT02246439|191472469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0971||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|4.5747||"This P-Value is for the Severe nausea group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.5747|0.9614|0.0633
95750732|NCT02246439|191472469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6397||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6649|4.0437||"This P-Value is for the Nausea as bad as it could have been group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||4.0437|0.6649|0.2797
95750733|NCT02246439|191472470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8673||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1572|3.0131||"This P-Value is for the All ages group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age.||||3.0131|1.1572|0.0103
95750734|NCT02246439|191472470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0934
95750735|NCT02246439|191472470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
95750736|NCT02246439|191472471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7699|25.145||"This P-Value is for the \<18 years of age group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1450|0.7699|0.0924
95750737|NCT02246439|191472471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7356||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0527|2.8615||"This P-Value is for the 18 years of age or older group."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.8615|1.0527|0.0303
95750738|NCT02246439|191472472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7922||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1188|2.871|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8710|1.1188|0.0152
95750739|NCT02246439|191472473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0789||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2676|3.4095|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4095|1.2676|0.0037
95750740|NCT01383421|191472475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95750741|NCT01383421|191472477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.058
95750742|NCT01383421|191472479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95750743|NCT01383421|191472481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.027
95750744|NCT01383421|191472481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.006
95943779|NCT04121741|191858518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||Using Bonferroni correction for 3 primary outcomes (FMD, RHI, fRHI), a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.0167.|Regression, Linear|Included outlier detection and removal with estimation of standard models for a three-treatment, cross-over design.|Estimated mean difference for fRHI (singing coach intervention compared to control) is shown. Estimates of fRHI for singing video intervention compared to control also performed.||"Please reference the following pre-print manuscript for additional statistical analyses.~Bagherimohamadipour M, Hammad M, Visotcky A, Sparapani R, Kulinski J. Effects of Singing on Vascular Health in Older Adults with Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial. medRxiv \[Preprint\]. 2024 Jul 27:2024.07.25.24311033. doi: 10.1101/2024.07.25.24311033. PMID: 39108506; PMCID: PMC11302710."|||0.570
95943780|NCT01084863|191858533|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence was predefined based on acceptance criteria, 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|116.78||||||||116.78|93.64|
95750745|NCT01383421|191472481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.018
95750746|NCT01383421|191472482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.059
95750747|NCT01383421|191472482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.003
95750748|NCT01383421|191472482|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.010
95750749|NCT01383421|191472483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.788||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.023
95750750|NCT01383421|191472483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.002
95750751|NCT01383421|191472483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.002
95990534|NCT02475655|191955756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.04||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||-0.04|-3.36|0.09
95990535|NCT02475655|191955757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|0.23||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.23|-3.17|0.15
95990536|NCT02475655|191955757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|1.35||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in classical monocytes (CD14+CD16-) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||1.35|-4.59|0.37
95990537|NCT02475655|191955758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.51|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||0.80|-2.51|0.39
95750752|NCT01383421|191472487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.625|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.625
95750753|NCT01383421|191472487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.441||0.736|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.736
95750754|NCT01383421|191472487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.700
95750755|NCT01383421|191472487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.561||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.023
95750756|NCT01383421|191472488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.736||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.890
95750757|NCT01383421|191472488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.835
95750758|NCT01383421|191472488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205||0.883|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.883
95750759|NCT01383421|191472488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||0.019
95798372|NCT02452190|191566686|SUPERIORITY|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to test the primary and secondary endpoints while controlling the overall Type I error rate at 0.05. At the point where p\>0.05, no further comparisons were interpreted inferentially.|CAE rate ratio (reslizumab vs placebo)|0.79||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.124||The treatment effect was tested using the likelihood based Chi-square test at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|||The frequency of CAEs was analyzed using the generalized linear model (GLM) for data from the negative binomial distributions that is commonly referred to as the negative binomial (NB) regression model. The primary NB model included the treatment group, randomization stratification factors, and number of prior exacerbations as model factors and the logarithm of treatment duration excluding the summed duration of exacerbations in the treatment period as an offset variable.||1.124|0.562|0.194
95750760|NCT01383421|191472489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.873|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI absenteeism||||0.873
95750761|NCT01383421|191472489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.598||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI presenteeism||||0.753
95750762|NCT01383421|191472489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.159||0.461|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI overall work impairment||||0.461
95750763|NCT01383421|191472489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.624|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||WPAI activity impairment||||<0.001
95750764|NCT01383421|191472490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.017
95750765|NCT01383421|191472490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.164
95750766|NCT01383421|191472490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.003
95750767|NCT01383421|191472490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.335
95750768|NCT01383421|191472491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.021
95750769|NCT01383421|191472491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.106
95750770|NCT01383421|191472491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||0.002
95750771|NCT01383421|191472491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.269
95750772|NCT01383421|191472492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM convenience||||0.049
95750773|NCT01383421|191472492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM effectiveness||||0.011
95750774|NCT01383421|191472492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM global satisfaction||||<0.001
95750775|NCT01383421|191472492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.657||0.272|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||TSQM side effects||||0.272
95750776|NCT01383421|191472493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.154|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 24||||0.154
95750777|NCT01383421|191472493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.198|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 52||||0.198
95750778|NCT01383421|191472493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.131|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference and P value are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding Baseline values.||Week 78||||0.131
95750779|NCT01383421|191472497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Necessity||||0.019
95750780|NCT01383421|191472497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Between Group Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0526||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was set at P = 0.05.|ANCOVA|P value is from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline.||Concern||||0.560
95750781|NCT00364949|191472504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95750782|NCT00364949|191472505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95750783|NCT00364949|191472506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
95750784|NCT00364949|191472507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.770
95750785|NCT00364949|191472508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
95750786|NCT02040779|191472530|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.116||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.185||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. If the 2-sided p-value resulting from the ANCOVA model for comparing beclomethasone dipropionate BAI 160 mcg/day versus placebo was less than 0.05, then the comparison of the 80 mcg/day versus placebo was to be interpreted inferentially.||0.185|0.048|0.0010
95750787|NCT02040779|191472530|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.124||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.193||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or non-corticosteroid therapy) at the time of screening visit and during the run-in period and treatment.|ANCOVA||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|||0.193|0.054|0.0005
95750788|NCT02040779|191472531|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.911||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|15.621||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||15.621|0.202|0.0443
95750789|NCT02040779|191472531|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|13.645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.843|21.446||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||21.446|5.843|0.0007
95943781|NCT03473223|191858539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8126|1.0538||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0538|0.8126|0.121
95943782|NCT03473223|191858540|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.971||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8442|1.1171||1-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression model|||||1.1171|0.8442|0.341
95798373|NCT04851964|191566702|SUPERIORITY|For participants whose NPS data collected after NP surgery were replaced with the worst possible score (WPS). Data collected after SCS for NP were replaced with the worst post-baseline observation prior to the SCS for NP (WOCF). Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.399|-1.757||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in NPS = Treatment + Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD + Prior NP surgery + Region + Baseline NPS||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in NPS at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||-1.757|-2.399|<.0001
95750790|NCT02040779|191472532|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.405||||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.905|13.715||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||13.715|-2.905|0.2014
95750791|NCT02040779|191472532|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|10.902||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.303||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||19.303|2.500|0.0112
95943783|NCT03473223|191858541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8132|1.0106||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0106|0.8132|0.038
95943784|NCT03473223|191858542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8511|1.0224||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0224|0.8511|0.069
95943785|NCT03473223|191858543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6399|1.0695||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0695|0.6399|0.074
95943786|NCT03473223|191858544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7801|1.0603||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.0603|0.7801|0.113
95943787|NCT03473223|191858545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.153||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7867|1.6886||1-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.6886|0.7867|0.767
95943788|NCT02890355|191858597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.78||a priori threshold for statistical significance, one sided p=0.02|Log Rank|||||1.78|0.85|0.28
95943789|NCT02890355|191858599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.96|0.09
95943790|NCT02722434|191858657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
95943791|NCT02722434|191858658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95943792|NCT02722434|191858659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sensory Subscale||||0.79
95943793|NCT02722434|191858659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motor Subscale||||0.43
95943794|NCT02722434|191858659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Autonomic Subscale||||0.97
95943795|NCT02760654|191858695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95943796|NCT02760654|191858696|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943797|NCT02760654|191858697|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943798|NCT02760654|191858698|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943799|NCT02760654|191858699|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943800|NCT02760654|191858700|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95943801|NCT02760654|191858701|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943802|NCT02760654|191858702|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD) were calculated for the 7 items of the Adapted Acceptability E-Scale|Calculated Mean and Standard Deviation|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95943803|NCT02760654|191858703|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943804|NCT02760654|191858704|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95943805|NCT00712179|191858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 15% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.981
95943806|NCT00712179|191858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at self selected speed at 0%, 15% and 30% of body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern||||0.84
95943807|NCT00712179|191858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at different speeds with 30% body weight support will have no effect on EMG pattern.||||0.16
95943808|NCT00712179|191858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Walking at fastest comfortable speeds with different amount of body weight supports will not affect the EMG pattern.||||0.073
95943809|NCT00712179|191858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of non-paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have no effect on EMG pattern of paretic leg.||||<0.001
95943810|NCT00712179|191858705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: Modification of paretic leg loading and movement by the therapist will have significant effect on EMG pattern of non-paretic leg.||||0.94
95943811|NCT00945321|191858730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels.|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.02|0.84|0.001
95950414|NCT02978183|191872583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3657||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.3657
95950415|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.6600
95750792|NCT02040779|191472533|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.068||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.068|-0.708|0.0175
95750793|NCT02040779|191472533|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.358||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.038||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.038|-0.678|0.0285
95750794|NCT02040779|191472534|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.137||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.011||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 160 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||-0.011|-0.263|0.0335
95750795|NCT02040779|191472534|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.127||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.001||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures||BDP 80 mcg BAI - Placebo BAI|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BDP 160 mcg BAI vs placebo and 2) the am PEF for BDP 80 mcg BAI vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||0.001|-0.255|0.0509
95750796|NCT02040779|191472536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2384
95750797|NCT02040779|191472536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0208
95750798|NCT03702049|191472541|OTHER|Change in score at 3 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in score at 3 months||||0.603
95750799|NCT03702049|191472541|OTHER|Change at 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.805
95750800|NCT03702049|191472542|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||3 month outcome||1.79|0.39|0.672
95750801|NCT03702049|191472542|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month outcome||1.34|0.18|0.165
95750802|NCT03702049|191472543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month outcome||||0.719
95802501|NCT02864914|191578400|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.72|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.72|0.37|
95750803|NCT03702049|191472543|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month outcome||||0.626
95750804|NCT03702049|191472544|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.36|0.1668
95750805|NCT03702049|191472545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|32.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 month outcome||32.7|-29.6|0.9198
95750806|NCT03702049|191472545|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|50.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month||50.7|-25.6|0.5015
95750807|NCT03197558|191472546|SUPERIORITY|Upper confidence limit of mean VAS score hypothesized to be less than (superior) to a performance goal of 45 mm.|Bootstrap method|14.35|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.35||||||Mean VAS score compared to performance goal using a bootstrap method test at 2.5% significance.||14.35||
95750808|NCT00866658|191472547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.65||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%),sulfonylurea use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 145 patients in each arm would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided t test at 5% significance level.||-0.650|-1.116|<0.0001
95750809|NCT02384941|191472600|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||<0.001
95750810|NCT02384941|191472600|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||||||< 0.001
95750811|NCT02384941|191472601|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|19.36||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint of each treatment comparison was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||19.36|4.28|0.002
95750812|NCT02384941|191472601|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.64||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||29.64|14.10|< 0.001
95950416|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.6877
95750813|NCT02384941|191472602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.85||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.85|-2.85|< 0.001
95750814|NCT02384941|191472602|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.94||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-2.94|-3.95|< 0.001
95950417|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3340
95950418|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7874
95950419|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3812||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3812
95950420|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6987|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6987
95950421|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6832||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6832
95950422|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.8521
95950423|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7516||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7516
95950424|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6252||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6252
95950425|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8321
95950426|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8173||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8173
95950427|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5445||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5445
95950428|NCT02978183|191872584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6810
95950429|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.0111
95950430|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
95950431|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.2390
95950432|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3068
95950433|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4914
95950434|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5185||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5185
95950435|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.5262
95950436|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.6098
95950437|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8849||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8849
95950438|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6941||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6941
95950439|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5728
95950440|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5931||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5931
95950441|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7513||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7513
95950442|NCT02978183|191872585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.7297
95950443|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.1259
95950444|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9234||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9234
95950445|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8816
95950446|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5703
95950447|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.5428
95950448|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7454
95950449|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8195||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8195
95950450|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.0909
95950451|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4881||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.4881
95950452|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3391||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3391
95950453|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6065||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.6065
95950454|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3393||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.3393
95950455|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8364
95950456|NCT02978183|191872586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8858||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.8858
95950457|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8818||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: Pre-CAC||||0.8818
95950458|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 10 minutes Post-CAC||||0.8679
95750815|NCT02384941|191472603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.30|-3.30|0.10
95750816|NCT02384941|191472603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-1.50|-5.09|< 0.001
95750817|NCT02384941|191472604|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.48||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.48|-1.50|< 0.001
95802502|NCT02864914|191578401|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.71|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||4.71|3.46|
95750818|NCT02384941|191472605|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.3||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||3.3|1.8|< 0.001
95750819|NCT02384941|191472606|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||Threshold for significance \< 0.05.|MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
95750820|NCT02493777|191472608|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
95750821|NCT02493777|191472609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
95950459|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7856||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7856
95950460|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7507
95950461|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8189
95950462|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.9206
95950463|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 7: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.9591
95950464|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: Pre-CAC||||0.5302
95950465|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7591||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 10 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7591
95950466|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8978||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 15 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8978
95950467|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7179||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 20 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7179
95950468|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7262||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 25 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.7262
95950469|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: 30 Minutes Post-CAC||||0.8275
95950470|NCT02978183|191872587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|ANCOVA|||Day 8: All Post-CAC Time Points||||0.6180
95950471|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity were not employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950472|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950473|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950474|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7312||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.7312
95950475|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 7: 30 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950476|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 10 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950477|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 15 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950478|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 20 minutes post-CAC||||>0.9999
95950479|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4297||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 25 minutes post-CAC||||0.4297
95950480|NCT02978183|191872588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4791||||||Adjustments for multiplicity will not be employed|Fisher Exact|||Day 8: 30 minutes post-CAC||||0.4791
95950481|NCT00092456|191872678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
95990538|NCT02475655|191955758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|1.19||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||1.19|-2.59|0.54
95750822|NCT00468728|191472610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.8||||||H0: C(OPT-80) - C(VAN) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||6.8|-4.8|
95750823|NCT00468728|191472611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.0|||Chi-squared|||||-7.0|-21.6|<0.001
95750824|NCT00468728|191472612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.001||95.0|5.4|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|5.4|0.001
95750825|NCT02312713|191472636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.12|-6.84|0.06
95750826|NCT02312713|191472636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.08|-5.26|0.39
95750827|NCT02312713|191472636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.85|-6.24|0.14
95750828|NCT02312713|191472636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.11|-6.37|0.17
95750829|NCT02312713|191472636|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.56|-2.23|0.65
95750830|NCT02312713|191472636|NON_INFERIORITY|The IBET intervention will be non-inferior to the standard PT intervention, indicated by a mean WOMAC score less than 5 points higher than standard PT.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.05|-4.13|0.51
95858835|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1 (Statistical analysis 4): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 1), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.258|-0.111|0.4347
95990539|NCT02475655|191955759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|-0.06||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-0.06|-12.0|0.10
95750831|NCT02312713|191472637|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.98|0.15|0.01
95750832|NCT02312713|191472637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.65|-0.19|0.28
95750833|NCT02312713|191472637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.49|-0.35|0.75
95750834|NCT02312713|191472637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.7|-0.16|0.22
95750835|NCT02312713|191472637|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||-0.16|-0.84|0.00
95750836|NCT02312713|191472637|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.39|-0.31|0.83
95750837|NCT02312713|191472638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.75||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|15.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||15.07|0.43|0.04
95750838|NCT02312713|191472638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.82|-6.59|0.78
95750839|NCT02312713|191472638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||12.33|-2.56|0.20
95750840|NCT02312713|191472638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||8.99|-6.74|.78
95750841|NCT02312713|191472638|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||3.21|-8.94|0.35
95750842|NCT02312713|191472638|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for the 2 Minute Step Test.||6.42|-6.40|1.00
95990540|NCT02475655|191955759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||-1.73|-11.1|0.026
95990541|NCT02475655|191955760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|7.82||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.82|-7.26|0.95
95990542|NCT02475655|191955760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|4.45||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||4.45|-12.6|0.43
95990543|NCT02475655|191955761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|7.54||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||7.54|-5.08|0.74
95990544|NCT02475655|191955761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|11.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||11.5|-3.94|0.42
95990545|NCT02475655|191955762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.99|1.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 5.||1.73|-2.99|0.66
95990546|NCT02475655|191955762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.93|0.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) from Entry to Week 12.||0.80|-3.93|0.27
95990547|NCT02475655|191955763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|-2.46||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 5.||-2.46|-11.7|0.013
95990548|NCT02475655|191955763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CD163+ from Entry to Week 12.||5.07|-8.06|0.70
95990549|NCT02475655|191955764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 5.||0.07|-0.05|0.79
95990550|NCT02475655|191955764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CCR2+ from Entry to Week 12.||0.08|-0.07|0.91
95990551|NCT02475655|191955765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.82|3.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 5.||3.12|-8.82|0.43
95990552|NCT02475655|191955765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.53|6.6||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib mean minus No Study Treatment mean.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in patrolling monocytes (CD14dimCD16+) expressing CX3CR1+ from Entry to Week 12.||6.60|-6.53|0.99
95750843|NCT02312713|191472639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.30|-1.56|0.19
95750844|NCT02312713|191472639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.98|-0.89|0.93
95750845|NCT02312713|191472639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.93|-0.97|0.97
95750846|NCT02312713|191472639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time||1|-0.91|0.93
95750847|NCT02312713|191472639|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||1.38|-0.16|0.12
95750848|NCT02312713|191472639|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Unilateral Stand Time.||0.77|-0.78|1.00
95750849|NCT02312713|191472640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||.94|-1.55|0.63
95750850|NCT02312713|191472640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||0.6|-1.58|0.37
95750851|NCT02312713|191472640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.59|-0.95|0.62
95750852|NCT02312713|191472640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.35|-0.87|0.67
95990553|NCT02475655|191955766|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.73||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 5.||2.73|1.29|0.007
95990554|NCT02475655|191955766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Cellular HIV-1 DNA from entry to Week 12.||1.90|0.90|0.23
95990555|NCT02475655|191955767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.72||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 5.||1.72|0.87|0.32
95750853|NCT02312713|191472640|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.66|-0.40|0.23
95750854|NCT02312713|191472640|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for 30 Second Chair Stand.||1.64|-0.17|0.11
95750855|NCT02312713|191472641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.8|-1.58|0.52
95750856|NCT02312713|191472641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.85|-1.86|0.46
95750857|NCT02312713|191472641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.58|-1.85|0.3
95750858|NCT02312713|191472641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.16|-2.61|0.08
95750859|NCT02312713|191472641|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.74|-1.23|0.63
95750860|NCT02312713|191472641|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Timed Up and Go.||0.41|-1.85|0.21
95750861|NCT02312713|191472642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.02|-1.59|0.05
95750862|NCT02312713|191472642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.02|-1.82|0.05
95750863|NCT02312713|191472642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.27|-1.37|0.19
95750864|NCT02312713|191472642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.05|-1.83|0.06
95750865|NCT02312713|191472642|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||0.89|-0.43|0.49
95750866|NCT02312713|191472642|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.78|-0.77|0.99
95750867|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||4.92|-1.77|0.36
95750868|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||6.14|-1.11|0.17
95750869|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.94||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||8.06|-0.19|0.06
95750870|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||7.79|-1.08|0.14
95750871|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Pain.||6.4|-1.67|0.25
95750872|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Standard Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Pain.||5.18|-3.48|0.70
95750873|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||1.79|-4.43|0.40
95750874|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||3.59|-2.93|0.84
95750875|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 month for KOOS ADL.||5.94|-1.73|0.28
95750876|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 month for KOOS ADL.||6.77|-1.2|0.17
95750877|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS ADL.||7.18|-0.32|0.07
95750878|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS ADL.||6.34|-1.44|0.22
95764294|NCT02273388|191498698|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|-1.11|||||Comparison vs. 1hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 1 hour after infusion end. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-1.11|-13.18|
95990556|NCT02475655|191955767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.56||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in cellular HIV-1 total RNA from entry to Week 12.||1.56|0.68|0.91
95750879|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||4.06|-4.47|.92
95750880|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||5.24|-4.15|.82
95750881|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9|-1.59|0.17
95750882|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.01||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.74|0.29|0.04
95750883|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||9.1|-1.28|0.14
95750884|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS Sport/Rec.||11.03|-0.1|0.05
95750885|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||3.96|-3.29|.86
95750886|NCT02312713|191472643|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||6.13|-0.96|0.15
95750887|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||8.11|-0.85|0.11
95750888|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|12.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||12.08|3.39|0
95750889|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for KOOS QOL.||7.67|-1.08|0.14
95750890|NCT02312713|191472643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for KOOS QOL.||9.37|0.92|0.02
95750891|NCT02312713|191472644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.5|-4.67|0.02
95750892|NCT02312713|191472644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||1.09|-3.22|0.33
95750893|NCT02312713|191472644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.74|-2.52|0.72
95750894|NCT02312713|191472644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||2.86|-1.56|0.56
95750895|NCT02312713|191472644|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.9|0.48|0.01
95750896|NCT02312713|191472644|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||3.52|-0.1|0.06
95750897|NCT02312713|191472645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||-0.26|-4.67|0.03
95750898|NCT02312713|191472645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||-0.55|-4.31|0.01
95750899|NCT02312713|191472645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||1.27|-3.24|0.39
95750900|NCT02312713|191472645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.29|-3.58|0.1
95750901|NCT02312713|191472645|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||3.29|-0.33|0.11
95990557|NCT02475655|191955768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any on-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 1, 2, 4, or 5).||||0.40
95990558|NCT02475655|191955768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the percentage of participants with detectable CMV at any post-treatment time point (ever shedding at weeks 10 or 12).||||0.87
95990559|NCT02475655|191955772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.88||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 5.||1.88|0.15|0.40
95990560|NCT02475655|191955772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|4.34||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Two-sided 10% alpha.|t-test, 2 sided|2-sample t-test with equal variance.|Mean difference is Ruxolitinib geometric mean minus No Study Treatment geometric mean. All values were log10 transformed prior to calculating change and conducting analyses and back transformed for presentation.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the fold change in Integrated DNA from entry to Week 12.||4.34|0.20|0.93
95990561|NCT03021642|191955807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.67|103.96||||||||103.96|93.67|
95990562|NCT03021642|191955808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.43|103.59||||||||103.59|88.43|
95990563|NCT03021642|191955809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.8|103.36||||||||103.36|90.8|
95750902|NCT02312713|191472645|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||2.37|-0.8|0.33
95750903|NCT02312713|191472646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.04|-1.62|0.06
95750904|NCT02312713|191472646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.77|-0.77|1.00
95750905|NCT02312713|191472646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||0.41|-1.29|0.31
95750906|NCT02312713|191472646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||0.57|-1.01|0.58
95750907|NCT02312713|191472646|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||1.03|-0.33|0.32
95750908|NCT02312713|191472646|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||0.43|-0.86|0.51
95750909|NCT02312713|191472647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months.||26.22|-12.31|0.48
95990564|NCT03021642|191955810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.025|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.025|-1.000|0.8981
95750910|NCT02312713|191472647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|23.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months.||23.91|-9.69|0.41
95993777|NCT00619957|191963380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-11.99|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-11.99|-19.29|<0.0001
95990565|NCT01175902|191955824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"To prove the non-inferiority of Cosopt to Xalatan, the sample size calculation was based on the assumption that non-inferiority margin of trough IOP of 1.5mmHg. A sample size of n=21 patients per group, this study has 80% power (1-β=0.80) and α=0.05, crossover-designed analysis.~In this study, the upper limit of the 95% CI is expected above the maximal acceptable clinically significant difference of 1.5 mmHg of IOP."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.|Comparison between two arms were made for IOP, systolic BP, diastolic BP and OPP at each time period.||||0.05
95990566|NCT02474082|191955830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|35.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.40|7.79|<.0001
95990567|NCT04317274|191955852|OTHER||Slope|-0.19||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Note: original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the high cholesterol group.||||0.21
95750911|NCT02312713|191472647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.82||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months.||12.91|-26.55|0.50
95750912|NCT02312713|191472647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|24.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months.||24.35|-10.31|0.43
95750913|NCT02312713|191472647|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months.||2.19|-29.73|0.09
95750914|NCT02312713|191472647|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|14.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet-Based Exercise Training at 12 months.||14.23|-14.41|0.99
95750915|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises||2.66|0.05|0.04
95750916|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.6|-0.18|0.09
95750917|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.19|-0.49|0.22
95750918|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Strengthening Exercises.||2.78|-0.08|0.06
95750919|NCT02312713|191472648|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Strength.||0.58|-1.6|0.36
95750920|NCT02312713|191472648|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Strength.||1.31|-1.03|0.81
95750921|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||3.03|0.67|0.00
95750922|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||2.68|0.55|0.00
95750923|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Stretching.||2.57|0.16|0.03
95750924|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Stretching.||3.16|0.98|0.00
95858836|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 5): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.289|-0.141|0.4992
95750925|NCT02312713|191472648|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Stretching.||0.5|-1.46|0.33
95990568|NCT04317274|191955852|OTHER||Slope|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Original plan was to conduct ANOVAs, but failed tests of assumptions||We tested for interaction effect of order and video version within the colorectal cancer group.||||<0.001
95750926|NCT02312713|191472648|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Stretching.||1.34|-0.44|0.32
95750927|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.8|-0.61|0.21
95750928|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||4|0.13|0.04
95750929|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.62|0.15|0.03
95750930|NCT02312713|191472648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Internet Based Exercise Training and Wait List Control at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||3.97|0.01|0.05
95750931|NCT02312713|191472648|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 4 months for Aerobic Exercise.||2.2|-0.62|0.27
95750932|NCT02312713|191472648|NON_INFERIORITY|Since there were not sufficient data in prior literature to specific an a priori non-inferiority margin, for this and other secondary outcomes we based conclusions and discussions on magnitude of differences between the group, descriptively. This strategy was specified in the protocol.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the comparison between Physical Therapy and Internet Based Exercise Training at 12 months for Aerobic Exercise.||1.54|-1.69|0.93
95750933|NCT01553747|191472649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
95750934|NCT01553747|191472649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
95750935|NCT01553747|191472650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.001
95750936|NCT01553747|191472650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
95750937|NCT05444543|191472679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
95750938|NCT05444543|191472680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95750939|NCT02994355|191472689|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||||1.52|1.16|<0.05
95990569|NCT04317274|191955853|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the high cholesterol group.||||<.001
95990570|NCT04317274|191955853|OTHER||Slope|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient]|||We examined the correlation between SDM Process and SDM-Q9 scores in the colorectal cancer group.||||<.001
95750940|NCT02994355|191472690|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|1.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.3|||Poisson regression|||||1.30|1.15|<0.05
95750941|NCT02994355|191472691|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence rate ratio|3.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.55|||Poisson regression|||||4.55|2.29|<0.05
95750942|NCT00703508|191472701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0234
95750943|NCT00703508|191472701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0740
95750944|NCT00703508|191472701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698||||||Ovulation rate vs Testosterone post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.4698
95750945|NCT00703508|191472701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1180
95750946|NCT00703508|191472701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0311||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.0311
95750947|NCT00703508|191472701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||||||Ovulation rate vs Matsuda Index post-treatment, threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.1586
95750948|NCT01064323|191472703|OTHER|Paired T-test to detect if there was a change from baseline to 5 minutes into intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC)||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.02
95750949|NCT01064323|191472710|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95750950|NCT00486018|191472721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
95750951|NCT00486018|191472721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|10.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.6|13.6||The Hochberg-Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust for comparisons of the two ranibizumab groups with the sham-injection group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.|ANOVA|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).||||13.6|7.6|<0.0001
95990571|NCT00699907|191955881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.012
95990572|NCT00699907|191955881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
95990573|NCT00699907|191955882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
95990574|NCT00699907|191955882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
95990575|NCT00699907|191955883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0006
95990576|NCT00699907|191955883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
95990577|NCT00699907|191955884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.009
95990578|NCT00699907|191955884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
95990579|NCT00699907|191955885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.037
95990580|NCT00699907|191955885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
95990581|NCT00699907|191955886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.010
95990582|NCT00699907|191955886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
95990583|NCT00699907|191955887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
95750952|NCT00486018|191472722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||38.0|15.6|<0.0001
95990584|NCT00699907|191955887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||>0.05
95990585|NCT00699907|191955888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.006
95990586|NCT00699907|191955888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
95990587|NCT00699907|191955889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
95990588|NCT00699907|191955889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.005
95750953|NCT00486018|191472722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.1|42.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.6|20.1|<0.0001
95750954|NCT00486018|191472723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.0141||95.0|1.6|9.9|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||9.9|1.6|0.0141
95750955|NCT00486018|191472723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.2815||95.0|-1.5|8.3|||Fisher Exact||Exact confidence interval based on inverting the exact two-sided score test.|||8.3|-1.5|0.2815
95990589|NCT00725075|191955907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-2.26||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||1.74|-6.25|0.267
95990590|NCT00725075|191955907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change From Baseline|-0.08||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the baseline value as covariate and with treatment group and center as fixed factors||Comparison of Mean Change in Baseline: Least Squared Estimates with Statistical Inference.||3.74|-3.91|0.966
95990591|NCT02340663|191955920|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95990592|NCT02340663|191955921|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
95990593|NCT02340663|191955922|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665
95990594|NCT02340663|191955923|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
95990595|NCT02340663|191955924|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.626
95990596|NCT02340663|191955925|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
95990597|NCT02340663|191955926|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.255
95990598|NCT02340663|191955927|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.049
95990599|NCT02340663|191955930|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
95990600|NCT02340663|191955931|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The P-value given is the computed value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95990601|NCT02340663|191955932|OTHER|||||||0.544|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.544
95990602|NCT02340663|191955933|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.220
95990603|NCT02340663|191955934|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.081
95990604|NCT02340663|191955935|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95990605|NCT02340663|191955936|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.731
95990606|NCT02340663|191955937|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.238
95990607|NCT02340663|191955938|OTHER|||||||0.952||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.952
95990608|NCT02340663|191955939|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|ANOVA|||||||0.53
95990609|NCT02340663|191955940|OTHER|||||||0.292||||||"The P-value refers to the difference in group means, see Group Means row in the table."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
95990610|NCT02340663|191955941|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.||||0.289
95990611|NCT02340663|191955942|OTHER|||||||0.287||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
95990612|NCT02340663|191955943|OTHER|||||||0.505||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
95990613|NCT02340663|191955944|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
95990614|NCT02340663|191955945|OTHER|||||||0.923||||||The P-value refers to the main effect of treatment group, i.e., differences between SOVA bite splints and Michigan bite splints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.923
95990615|NCT01459705|191955955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-22.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
95990616|NCT01459705|191955955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95990617|NCT01459705|191955955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95990618|NCT01459705|191955956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95990619|NCT01459705|191955957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|13.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95990620|NCT01687712|191956082|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.7|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.7|-1.3|
95750956|NCT00486018|191472724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.0|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||55.0|36.0|<0.0001
95750957|NCT00486018|191472724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.9|50.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ²|Stratified by baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters).|Weighted estimates adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||50.2|29.9|<0.0001
95750958|NCT00486018|191472725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-148.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-183.6|-113.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-113.8|-183.6|<0.0001
95750959|NCT00486018|191472725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|-134.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-172.7|-96.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline value of central foveal thickness.||||-96.8|-172.7|<0.0001
95750960|NCT00486018|191472726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|4.1||||0.0214||95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||7.6|0.6|0.0214
95750961|NCT00486018|191472726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|6.4||||0.0002||95.0|3.0|9.8|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Near Activities Subscale score.||||9.8|3.0|0.0002
95750962|NCT00486018|191472727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|3.8||||0.0248||95.0|0.5|7.0|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||7.0|0.5|0.0248
95750963|NCT00486018|191472727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares means|5.1||||0.0014||95.0|2.0|8.3|||ANCOVA|Pairwise ANCOVA models adjusted for baseline visual acuity score (≤ 34, 35-54, ≥ 55 letters) and baseline Distance Activities Subscale score.||||8.3|2.0|0.0014
95750964|NCT05478252|191472758|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin semaglutide J versus insulin semaglutide B was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 2.5%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.30|<.0001
95750965|NCT04846881|191472767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4753||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in overall composite T-score of the MCCB at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the stratification factor (screening MCCB overall composite T-score) and fixed effects for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as a repeated measure with unstructured covariance structure for within-participant dependencies. The primary comparison was iclepertin 10 mg daily vs. placebo at Week 26.||1.656|-0.211|0.1291
95750966|NCT04846881|191472768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6042||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|1.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in SCoRS at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||1.901|-0.472|0.2375
95764295|NCT02273388|191498698|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|2.46|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour infusion \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 4 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||2.46|-9.61|
95990621|NCT01687712|191956083|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in pregnancy rates (Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA) did not exceed 8% (i.e. a one-sided hypothesis test at the 2.5% level of significance). The difference in rates (\& Wald CI) was estimated using a logistic regression model with binomial distribution and identity link, with treatment and site as factors.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.1|||||"Note that risk in this context is the risk of clinical pregnancy. The difference is in the direction Gonal-f® RFF - AFOLIA."|"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 \> ∆ and H1: p2- p1 ≤ ∆,~where p1 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the AFOLIA treatment group, p2 is the clinical pregnancy rate in the Gonal f® treatment group, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin of 8%."||8.1|-2.5|
95990622|NCT01687712|191956087|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were tested against a null of zero at the two-side 5% significance level.||||||0.612||||||P-values are based upon Type III sums of squares.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and Site are included as factors.||"The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:~H0: p2- p1 = 0 and H1: p2- p1 ≠0,~where p1 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the AFOLIA treatment group and p2 is the least squares adjusted mean number of oocytes retrieved in the Gonal f® treatment group."||||0.612
95750967|NCT04846881|191472769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|2.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in VRFCAT at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||2.419|-1.753|0.7541
95750968|NCT04846881|191472770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger method estimated denominator degrees of freedom and adjusted standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference in PRECIS at Week 24 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|The model included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||0.099|-0.074|0.7769
95990623|NCT03979274|191956097|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|98.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.68||||||||102.68|94.55|
95750969|NCT04846881|191472771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.925|0.654|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference in ToL at Week 26 between the iclepertin 10 mg and the Placebo group.|For change from baseline to Week 26 in the T-score of the number of correct responses on ToL, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score (\<30, ≥30), and baseline number of correct responses on ToL T-score were fitted to the data.||0.654|-2.925|0.2133
95750970|NCT07106489|191472775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.8705
95750971|NCT07106489|191472776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9161
95750972|NCT07106489|191472777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.4166
95750973|NCT07106489|191472778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.9995
95750974|NCT07106489|191472779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0422
95750975|NCT07106489|191472780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.0027
95750976|NCT07106489|191472781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Beetroot effect|||||0.2598
95750977|NCT07106489|191472782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Beetroot effect|||||0.1725
95750978|NCT02960893|191472794|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||Significance was evaluated at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|Fixed effects: treatment, baseline (BL) gait severity, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction; Covariate: BL Total SARA score; Random effect: subject||||0.9|-0.5|0.519
95750979|NCT03692312|191472800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.875||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.51|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||3.51|-0.01|0.0514
95990624|NCT03979274|191956098|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|97.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.34|104.26||||||||104.26|91.34|
95990625|NCT03979274|191956101|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.03||||||||101.03|98.45|
95750980|NCT03692312|191472801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.88|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.88|-0.20|0.2124
95750981|NCT03692312|191472802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||6.96|2.51|<0.0001
95750982|NCT03692312|191472803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.39|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||5.39|0.96|0.0059
95750983|NCT03692312|191472804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.14|-0.30|0.4634
95750984|NCT03692312|191472805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.79|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.79|-1.49|0.5385
95990626|NCT03979274|191956102|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio|99.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.7|100.85||||||||100.85|97.70|
95750985|NCT03692312|191472808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.83|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||1.83|-1.26|0.7110
95990627|NCT01844895|191956114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model of log (Cminss) with device and substudy baseline weight category (\< 60 kg,60-100 kg, \> 100 kg) as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used. Point estimates and 90% CIs for device differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. PK comparability was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratios of geometric means were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.00|0.83|
95990628|NCT04202679|191956137|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||5.00|1.08|0.0216
95990629|NCT04202679|191956138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|22.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.66|3.56|<0.0001
95990630|NCT04202679|191956139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.55||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||9.55|2.02|<0.0001
95990631|NCT04202679|191956140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|18.11||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05||18.11|2.03|0.0001
95990632|NCT04202679|191956141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.52||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||7.52|1.13|0.0194
95990633|NCT04202679|191956142|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-23.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.81|-12.51||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-12.51|-33.81|<0.0001
95990634|NCT04202679|191956143|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-4.36||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-4.36|-8.42|<0.0001
95990635|NCT04202679|191956144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.73||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-0.73|-2.49|0.0003
95990636|NCT04202679|191956145|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||1.30|-0.22|0.1658
95990637|NCT04202679|191956153|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.04||Threshold of significance was \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w versus Placebo|||-0.04|-1.18|0.0370
95750986|NCT03692312|191472809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.75|-0.57|0.7861
95750987|NCT03692312|191472810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.31|-0.19|0.6282
95750988|NCT03692312|191472811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
95750989|NCT03692312|191472812|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||MMRM|||Analysis is a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment, visit, age group and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix has been used.||0.98|0.60|0.0379
95750990|NCT03692312|191472814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.078
95750991|NCT03692312|191472816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.29
95750992|NCT03692312|191472818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to the placebo group for mean change from baseline (absolute value); two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.077
95750993|NCT03692312|191472819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cmax upper quantiles group compared to placebo group for mean Raw Score; two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variance.||||0.071
95990638|NCT01227902|191956197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|52.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||52.9|27.1|
95990639|NCT01227902|191956197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|44.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||44.9|19.1|
95990640|NCT01227902|191956197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|64.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||64.8|35.2|
95990641|NCT01227902|191956197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|70.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||70.5|43.3|
95990642|NCT01227902|191956197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|51.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a \>=50% reduction in partial-onset seizure frequency from Baseline.|||51.4|37.6|
95990643|NCT02363478|191956217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of contractions, resting LES pressure and IRP between baseline and week 4.||||||<0.05
95990644|NCT02363478|191956220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This statistical analysis applies to changes of amplitude of heartburn, regurgitation, chest pain and dysphagia between baseline and week 4.||||||0.05
95990645|NCT00930059|191956222|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.9||The primary test of significance was 1-sided, and a nominal Type I error rate a = 0.05 was employed.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean difference and p-values were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.90|-1.52|0.3353
95990646|NCT00930059|191956223|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.38||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.38|-0.99|0.6073
95990647|NCT00930059|191956223|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|0.84||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.84|-1.56|0.3086
95990648|NCT00930059|191956223|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|0.58||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-values were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||0.58|-1.82|0.1970
95990649|NCT00930059|191956224|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 3: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.29|-0.18|0.6547
95990650|NCT00930059|191956224|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.31||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 6: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.31|-0.16|0.7020
95990651|NCT00930059|191956224|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 9: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.06|-0.41|0.1138
95990652|NCT00930059|191956224|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.04||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|Linear model|||Week 12: Inferential statistics were based on linear model with fixed effects for visit (nominal scale) and visit by treatment interaction, and a random effect for participant.||0.04|-0.44|0.0816
95750994|NCT03439852|191472880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for repeated measures was conducted to compare 2 conditions over time. The model included group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||1.39|0.26|<0.05
95750995|NCT03439852|191472881|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.64||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling conducted for repeated measures comparing minutes per week of light-to-moderate physical activity for participants in two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||2.64|-0.37|0.05
95990653|NCT00930059|191956226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.7634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.27||No adjustments have been made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.27|-0.89|0.7634
95990654|NCT00930059|191956226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|2.45||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.45|-0.75|0.8077
95990655|NCT00930059|191956226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|2.57||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||2.57|-0.66|0.8350
95990656|NCT00930059|191956226|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|1.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: LS mean difference and p-value were based on ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment, baseline value, scheduled visit and visit by treatment interaction as covariates, and participant effect as random effect.||1.48|-1.78|0.4377
95990657|NCT02554929|191956268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.74||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SAD.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||0.74|-0.91|0.002
95990658|NCT02554929|191956268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.48||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Values above are for the primary outcome measure of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV, Clinical Severity Rating (ADIS-CSR) score for SM.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.48|-0.95|0.002
95990659|NCT02554929|191956271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|8.08||P value adjusted for multiple comparison; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value of the estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between change in CGAS scores for participants in the CBT arm, in comparison to those in the socialization arm, from pre-treatment to 6-month follow-up.|In our previous study, 42% participants in the CBT arm lost their primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or selective mutism (SM) post-intervention versus none of the comparison group participants. In the present study, we conservatively estimated that 10% of comparison group children will lose their primary diagnosis. A sample size of 70 achieves a power of 81% to detect a 32% difference between treatments, using a two-sided Chi-squared test with a significance level of 0.05.||8.08|-4.28|0.002
95990660|NCT04187092|191956287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The 12-week changes in the KOOS scores, and the 12-week changes in the IKDC scores were analyzed by way of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Covariates: Age and sex of the subject, the subject's baseline outcome measure, the subject's baseline IKDC Total score, and the subject's standardized intake date (i.e., i.e., subject's intake date minus the intake date of the first enrolled subject) served as the ANCOVA concomitant adjustment variables||||<0.05
95990661|NCT02939131|191956297|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not. The study was designed for at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.8 standard deviations (SD), which corresponded to a difference of four points. We assumed an intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) between 0.02 and 0.16 and allowed for 10% non-evaluability. In a pre-planned interim analysis, we estimated the ICC based on the entry QIDS-SR to be 0.10.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|-0.94|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|||-0.94|-6.79|0.01
95990662|NCT02939131|191956298|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|||65.5|23.1|<0.001
95990663|NCT02939131|191956299|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|||52.9|8.9|0.01
95990664|NCT02939131|191956300|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|262.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Group mean for ESC is subtracted from the group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site mean CD4 cell counts.|||262|-223|0.86
95990665|NCT02939131|191956301|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from the group mean of the COMB-R group. The group means are the means of the site mean log10 HIV RNA copies/mL.|||0.99|-0.65|0.66
95990666|NCT02939131|191956302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R group had a site-level average of more days in last 30 with missed HIV medication doses.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 24.||4.0|0.1|0.04
95990667|NCT02939131|191956302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference reflects greater number of days with missed HIV medication doses in last 30 days for COMB-R group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed HIV medication doses reported at week 48.||5.2|-5.0|0.96
95750996|NCT03439852|191472882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation. The response was transformed using squared root to satisfy the model assumption.||0.88|-2.31|0.05
95750997|NCT03439852|191472883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel modeling for the repeated measures was conducted comparing the two conditions over time. In the multilevel models, participants were nested within Catholic Clubs, adjusting for within-club and within-subject correlations. The model includes group, time, and the interaction between group and time, adjusting for within-subject correlation.||4.60|-2.67|<0.05
95750998|NCT03439852|191472884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-1.11|<0.05
95750999|NCT03439852|191472885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-1.15|<0.05
95751000|NCT03439852|191472886|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures generalized linear model test effects of time/group, \& interaction rate met MVPA, adjusting for within subject correlation.||||1.11|-2.10|<0.05
95751001|NCT04551911|191472891|OTHER|||||||0.7856|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment as the main effect, and baseline aggregate symptom score, baseline 25D level, and body weight as covariates||||||0.7856
95751002|NCT02054130|191472909|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.63|0.23|<0.001
95751003|NCT02054130|191472909|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
95751004|NCT02054130|191472909|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Negative bnomial regression|||||0.58|0.20|<0.001
95751005|NCT04271735|191472976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95751006|NCT01939496|191473038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|0.163|||ANCOVA|||||0.163|-6.743|0.062
95751007|NCT01939496|191473038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.382|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||||-1.469|-8.382|0.006
95990668|NCT02939131|191956303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the COMB-R group rated adherence to HIV medications better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 24.||0.4|-1.1|0.27
95990669|NCT02939131|191956303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking HIV medication doses; reported at week 48.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
95990670|NCT02939131|191956304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.1|0.14
95751008|NCT03050918|191473160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||we used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
95751009|NCT03050918|191473161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95858837|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3 (Statistical analysis 6): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.471|0.039|0.0208
95751010|NCT03050918|191473161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
95751011|NCT03050918|191473162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95751012|NCT03050918|191473162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
95751013|NCT03050918|191473163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||.05
95751014|NCT03050918|191473164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95751015|NCT03050918|191473165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95751016|NCT03050918|191473167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||We used the O'Brian-Fleming α-spending function, allowing for an α-level of significance of 0.005 and 0.048 for the interim and final analyses, respectively.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95751017|NCT03832738|191473171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.8||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|0.39|0.558
95751018|NCT03832738|191473171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.1||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.10|1.07|0.035
95990671|NCT02939131|191956304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the COMB-R group rated their adherence better than the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take HIV medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||1.1|-0.6|0.49
95990672|NCT02939131|191956305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group had more days with missed depression medications than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 24.||4.4|0.0|0.05
95990673|NCT02939131|191956305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported more days with missed doses than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, number of days in last 30 with any missed depression medication doses reported at week 48.||7.1|-12.5|0.53
95990674|NCT02939131|191956306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 24.||0.2|-1.5|0.13
95990675|NCT02939131|191956306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group were better at taking their medications.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how good was participant at taking depression medication; reported at week 48.||2.0|-1.1|0.53
95990676|NCT02939131|191956307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 24.||0.1|-1.3|0.07
95990677|NCT02939131|191956307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate those in the COMB-R group reported better adherence than those in the ESC group.|Comparison of COMB-R and ESC groups, how often did participant take depression medication as instructed; reported at week 48.||2.3|-0.8|0.28
95990678|NCT02939131|191956308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.44
95990679|NCT02939131|191956310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The average number of scheduled study visits through week 24 was computed for each site. The analysis was of these site-level averages. These values were compared between study groups||0.3|-0.4|0.67
95990680|NCT02939131|191956310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||We computed the average number of scheduled study visits through week 48 for each site. We then averaged the site-level values and compared study groups.||0.5|-0.7|0.74
95751019|NCT03832738|191473172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.89|0.086
95990681|NCT02939131|191956311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the mean of the ESC group from the mean of the COMB-R group. Because a lower score indicated less severe depressive symptoms, a negative value indicated superiority.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||0.76|-4.74|0.14
95990682|NCT02939131|191956312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|50.0|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with response for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. A positive value indicates the COMB-R group had a higher mean percent of participants with response compared to the ESC group.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||50.0|0.5|0.05
95990683|NCT02939131|191956313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|44.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean of the site percents with remission for the ESC group from the COMB-R group so a positive value indicates the COMB-R group has more participants with remission.|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.||44.8|-12.3|0.24
95990684|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.28||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates that the treatment difference (lower QIDS-SR score with COMB-R than with ESC) was greater for females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||11.28|2.30|0.01
95990685|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|1.93||This is the test of effect modification by age group|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates the treatment difference is greater for younger compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||1.93|-7.05|0.23
95751020|NCT03832738|191473172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|9.75||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.75|1.45|0.006
95751021|NCT03832738|191473173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.25||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.25|0.06|>0.999
95990686|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.95||This is the test of the effect modification of viral suppression status|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with viral suppression at study entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||2.95|-8.48|0.31
95990687|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|5.95||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR depression level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment difference among those with moderate levels of depression compared to severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups.Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.95|-4.29|0.72
95990688|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.31||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would indicate a greater treatment difference for those with perinatal HIV acquisition compared to behavioral acquisition.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||5.31|-5.91|0.91
95990689|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|6.57||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage level|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment effect for those with less than HIV CDC Stage 3 compared to those with CDC Stage 3 HIV illness.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||6.57|-3.91|0.57
95990690|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|13.59||This is the test of effect modification of CD4 Stage 3 at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 count at entry compared to those with Stage 3 CD4 count.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups..||13.59|-1.73|0.10
95990691|NCT02939131|191956314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.6||This is the test of effect modification by Nadir Stage 3 level at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compare to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences.This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For QIDS-SR, since a lower score reflects fewer depression symptoms, a positive treatment effect is a negative difference value between groups.||4.60|-7.74|0.58
95990692|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.53|-19.1||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment response (higher percent with response in COMB-R than in ESC group) among females compared to males.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||-19.10|-116.53|0.01
95990693|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|94.38||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.38|-8.23|0.09
95990694|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.13|55.49||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with suppressed viral status at entry compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||55.49|-51.13|0.93
95751022|NCT03832738|191473173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|41.2||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.20|0.36|0.244
95751023|NCT03832738|191473175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|19.62||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.62|1.38|0.009
95751024|NCT03832738|191473175|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|29.08||p-value was estimated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior exposure to biologic therapy (Yes/No) and body weight (\<90 kg/≥90 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|1.86|0.002
95751025|NCT03852459|191473185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4272|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4272
95751026|NCT05486065|191473250|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.25|0.0002
95751027|NCT05486065|191473250|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.19|0.0003
95751028|NCT05486065|191473250|SUPERIORITY|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.50|<.0001
95751029|NCT05486065|191473250|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.05||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47|||ANCOVA|||The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.||0.47|-0.38|0.8305
95751030|NCT05486065|191473250|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.72|0.1678
95751031|NCT05486065|191473250|OTHER|The change in HbA1c from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) with randomised treatment and stratification factor, sex as fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Missing values were imputed using Jump to reference method.|Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.67|0.2445
95751032|NCT01568866|191473320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.651|||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|"The PFS interim analysis was to be performed using a group sequential monitoring plan.~The monitoring plan included an O'Brien-Fleming type of efficacy stopping boundary constructed using the Lan-DeMets alpha spending function to ensure a 1-sided Type I error rate ≤ 0.025."||0.651|0.437|< 0.0001
95751033|NCT01568866|191473321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.964||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The hazard ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|The second interim analysis of overall survival was to be conducted after 394 events had been reached. A one-sided significance level was determined using the O'Brien-Fleming-type α spending function based on the actual number of events (α=0.0123).||0.964|0.648|0.0100
95751034|NCT01568866|191473322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.032|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|2.718||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor treatment, lines of prior treatment, ISS stage, and choice of route of bortezomib administration.|||2.718|1.519|< 0.0001
95751035|NCT01568866|191473324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.21||The multiplicity in testing secondary endpoints was adjusted per group using the sequential Holm procedure to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio (carfilzomib/bortezomib) was estimated using the unconditional Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||0.210|0.089|<0.0001
95751036|NCT03864042|191473328|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.40|0.978|
95751037|NCT03864042|191473328|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.215|0.308|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.308|0.215|
95751038|NCT03864042|191473329|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.998|
95751039|NCT03864042|191473329|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.40|1.12|
95751040|NCT03864042|191473330|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.62|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.62|1.12|
95751041|NCT03864042|191473330|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.517|0.748|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.748|0.517|
95751042|NCT03864042|191473331|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.975|
95751043|NCT03864042|191473331|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.16|
95751044|NCT03864042|191473332|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.2|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.20|0.922|
95751045|NCT03864042|191473332|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.29|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.29|0.992|
95751046|NCT03864042|191473333|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.19|0.990|
95751047|NCT03864042|191473333|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.22|1.00|
95751048|NCT03864042|191473334|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.08|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.08|0.741|
95990695|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|49.0||This is the test of effect modification by entry QIDS-SR depression level.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a greater treatment response for those with severe depressive symptoms at study entry compared to those with moderate depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||49.00|-42.28|0.87
95990696|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.91|105.2||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate a larger treatment response for those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||105.20|-21.91|0.17
95990697|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|124.83||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a greater treatment response for those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with CDC classification less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||124.83|-26.02|0.17
95990698|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.76|94.15||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect greater treatment response for those with CD4 Stage 3 compared to those with less than Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.15|-70.76|0.71
95990699|NCT02939131|191956315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.48||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.46|94.5||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Nadir stage at study entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value reflects a larger treatment response among those with Stage 3 Nadir CD4 compared to those with less than Stage 3 Nadir CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR response, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||94.50|10.46|0.02
95990700|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.84|7.72||This is the test of effect modification by sex at birth|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value indicates a greater treatment effect (higher percent with remission for COMB-R than for ESC) among females.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||7.72|-97.84|0.09
95990701|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.38|46.2||This is the test of effect modification by age group.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a larger treatment effect among younger participants compared to older participants.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||46.20|-43.38|0.95
95751049|NCT03864042|191473334|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.573|0.835|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.835|0.573|
95751050|NCT03864042|191473335|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|2.04|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.04|0.861|
95751051|NCT03864042|191473335|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|1.56|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.56|0.659|
95751052|NCT03864042|191473336|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.33|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.33|0.762|
95751053|NCT03864042|191473336|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.948|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.948|0.543|
95751054|NCT03864042|191473337|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|6.4|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||6.40|2.94|
95751055|NCT03864042|191473337|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|3.96|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||3.96|1.82|
95751056|NCT03864042|191473338|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.954|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.954|0.595|
95751057|NCT03864042|191473338|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.596|0.957|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.957|0.596|
95751058|NCT03864042|191473339|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.27|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.27|0.864|
95751059|NCT03864042|191473339|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.72|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.72|1.17|
95751060|NCT03864042|191473340|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.25|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.25|0.920|
95751061|NCT03864042|191473340|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.204|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.204|0.151|
95751062|NCT03864042|191473341|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.38|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.38|1.18|
95751063|NCT03864042|191473341|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.14|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.14|0.974|
95751064|NCT03864042|191473342|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.43|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.43|1.09|
95751065|NCT03864042|191473342|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.449|0.587|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.587|0.449|
95751066|NCT03864042|191473343|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|1.17|
95751067|NCT03864042|191473343|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.16|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.16|0.979|
95751068|NCT03864042|191473344|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.26|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.26|0.947|
95751069|NCT03864042|191473344|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.46|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.46|1.10|
95990702|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|51.65||This is the test of effect modification by viral suppression status.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with suppressed viral load compared to those without viral suppression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.65|-40.47|0.79
95751070|NCT03864042|191473345|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|1.02|
95751071|NCT03864042|191473345|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.38|1.14|
95751072|NCT03864042|191473346|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.12|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.12|0.721|
95751073|NCT03864042|191473346|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.544|0.848|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.848|0.544|
95751074|NCT03864042|191473347|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.98|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.98|0.800|
95751075|NCT03864042|191473347|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|1.3|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.30|0.526|
95751076|NCT03864042|191473348|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|1.39|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.39|0.688|
95751077|NCT03864042|191473348|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|0.9|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.900|0.445|
95751078|NCT03864042|191473349|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.74|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||3.74|2.08|
95751079|NCT03864042|191473349|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|2.11|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||2.11|1.17|
95751080|NCT03864042|191473350|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.928|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||0.928|0.637|
95751081|NCT03864042|191473350|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.736|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.889|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||0.889|0.610|
95751082|NCT03864042|191473351|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|1.23|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.23|0.803|
95751083|NCT03864042|191473351|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.83|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.83|1.20|
95751084|NCT03864042|191473352|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.32|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.32|0.902|
95751085|NCT03864042|191473352|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.93|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.93|0.720|
95751086|NCT03864042|191473353|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.36|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||2.36|0.915|
95751087|NCT03864042|191473353|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.519|1.39|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.39|0.519|
95751088|NCT03864042|191473354|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.87|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.87|0.775|
95751089|NCT03864042|191473354|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.593|1.49|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.49|0.593|
95751090|NCT03864042|191473355|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.67|||||Day 1 / Day -7|||1.67|0.830|
95751091|NCT03864042|191473355|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.41|||||Day 14 / Day -7|||1.41|0.680|
95751092|NCT03864042|191473356|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|1.09|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.09|0.585|
95751093|NCT03864042|191473357|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.11|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.11|0.935|
95751094|NCT03864042|191473358|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.613|0.945|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||0.945|0.613|
95751095|NCT03864042|191473359|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.22|||||Day 21 / Day 14|||1.22|0.929|
95751096|NCT00788593|191473478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.023||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|2.701|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on LS mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) which included participant as random effect, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and placebo baseline CFA value as covariate.||2.701|-0.656|0.228
95751097|NCT00788593|191473479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95751098|NCT00788593|191473479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95751099|NCT00788593|191473480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95751100|NCT00788593|191473480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95751101|NCT00515034|191473484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|26.8|||normal approximation to the binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem/cilastatin) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are provided.||26.8|-54.4|
95751102|NCT00515034|191473485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percent of participants who are clinically cured including 95% confidence intervals are provided.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|50.6|||normal approximation to binomial||Treatment difference (doripenem minus imipenem) in percent of participants who are clinically cured.|There is no formal hypothesis test for this outcome. Only summary data are presented.||50.6|-13.2|
95751103|NCT01392326|191473486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|8.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.85|3.46|<0.0001
95751104|NCT01392326|191473486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.62|3.37|<0.0001
95751105|NCT02508259|191473496|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that before and after treatment ADOS scores were equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.9|-2.3|0.0028
95751106|NCT02508259|191473497|EQUIVALENCE|The child-specific difference in EOWPVT scores were compared for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||6.1|-14.5|0.32
95751107|NCT02508259|191473498|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was tested that the child-specific ABC subscores for stereotypy were unchanged before and after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-1.1|-6.9|0.019
95751108|NCT02508259|191473499|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, we tested the equivalence of the child-specific ATEC subscore for language before and 6-weeks after treatment with suramin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.49|-2.7|0.034
95751109|NCT02508259|191473500|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, overall ASD symptom scores, measured by CGI were compared between suramin and placebo groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.15|||ANOVA|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||-0.15|-3.4|0.05
95751110|NCT02508259|191473501|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the child-specific RBQ score was tested for equivalence before and 6-weeks after suramin treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In this analysis, each child was used as their own control to examine before and after suramin treatment effects in a paired t-test design. This study was a small pilot study of safety and activity of suramin. The small subject numbers of just 5 per group make it impossible to draw any strong conclusions about efficacy. Future studies are required.||4.0|-10.4|0.28
95751111|NCT01036490|191473514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95751112|NCT01036490|191473515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95751113|NCT01036490|191473518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95751114|NCT01036490|191473519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95751115|NCT04560998|191473529|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.13||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.211|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.211|1.056|0.0004
95751116|NCT04560998|191473530|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.08||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.156|1.004|0.0380
95751117|NCT04560998|191473531|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate|1.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.518|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.518|0.478|0.0108
95751118|NCT04560998|191473532|SUPERIORITY||The Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.11||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.197|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.197|1.033|0.0046
95751119|NCT02856880|191473623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|40.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.37|47.99||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque Glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||47.99|32.37|<0.0001
95751120|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|26.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|33.88||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||33.88|18.94|<0.0001
95751121|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|5.37||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||5.37|-11.18|0.4823
95798374|NCT04851964|191566703|SUPERIORITY|For participants whose NCS data collected after NP surgery were replaced with the worst possible score (WPS). Data collected after SCS for NP were replaced with the worst post-baseline observation prior to the SCS for NP (WOCF). Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|-0.865||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in bi-weekly mean NCS = Treatment + Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD + Prior NP surgery + Region + Baseline NCS||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in bi-weekly mean NCS at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||-0.865|-1.214|<.0001
95751122|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.86||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|18.59||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||18.59|3.13|0.0072
95751123|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|13.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|21.53||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||21.53|6.01|0.0009
95751124|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.44||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|15.95||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||15.95|0.93|0.0286
95751125|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.32||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|12.79||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||12.79|-2.15|0.1573
95751126|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-21.43||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||-21.43|-37.20|<0.0001
95751127|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|31.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.18|39.3||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||39.30|24.18|<0.0001
95751128|NCT02856880|191473624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.42||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|9.92||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque glycolysis for the first named treatment.|||9.92|-5.08|0.5174
95751129|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-233.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-332.88|-133.55||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-133.55|-332.88|<0.0001
95751130|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.53||||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|140.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||140.96|-69.90|0.5018
95751131|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.73||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.07|78.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||78.61|-128.07|0.6325
95751132|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.26||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.72|42.21||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||42.21|-162.72|0.2427
95751133|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|102.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||102.61|-100.50|0.9834
95751134|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-61.31||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.14|38.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||38.52|-161.14|0.2226
95751135|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|268.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.98|371.51||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is second named treatment(non-SLS negative control) minus first named treatment (SLS negative control) such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque|||371.51|165.98|<0.0001
95751136|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-293.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.03|-190.91||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-190.91|-396.03|<0.0001
95751137|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-294.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.43|-193.62||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||-193.62|-395.43|<0.0001
95751138|NCT02856880|191473625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-25.78||||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.53|74.96||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a greater inhibition of plaque regrowth for the first named treatment.|||74.96|-126.53|0.6086
95751139|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-273.92||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1550.45|1002.61||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1002.61|-1550.45|0.6664
95751140|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|674.06||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-692.21|2040.33||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2040.33|-692.21|0.3249
95751141|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|677.09||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-784.16|2138.35||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2138.35|-784.16|0.3544
95751142|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04||||0.9967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1469.45|1475.52||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1475.52|-1469.45|0.9967
95751143|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|766.64||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.26|2236.54||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2236.54|-703.26|0.2976
95751144|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-763.6||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2144.45|617.25||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||617.25|-2144.45|0.2702
95751145|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|947.97||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.95|2257.9||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||2257.90|-361.95|0.1511
95751146|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-270.88||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1680.58|1138.82||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1138.82|-1680.58|0.6998
95751147|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1037.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2361.33|286.29||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant -level pre-treatment values and period minus participant -level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||286.29|-2361.33|0.1210
95751148|NCT02856880|191473626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-89.54||||0.8935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1439.5|1260.41||Obtained from ANCOVA including period and treatment as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and participant-level pre-treatment values and period minus participant-level pre-treatment values as covariates in the model.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference indicates a smaller live:dead stain ratio for the first named treatment.|||1260.41|-1439.50|0.8935
95751149|NCT03573505|191473629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.73|||Log Rank|||A cox proportional hazards model with terms for treatment (BG00011 vs. placebo) and randomization stratification factor is used. A stratified log-rank test is used to compare the 2 treatment groups using randomization stratus as the stratification factor. An HR (Hazard Ratio) \< 1 indicates lower risk of event for the BG00011 group where HR is based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment (Placebo, BG00011) as the categorical covariate.||4.73|0.85|0.112
95751150|NCT00515541|191473649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A P-value \<0.05 when compared to baseline is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Group B baseline vs. Group B Week 12||||0.01
95751151|NCT00515541|191473650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 6.||||<0.001
95751152|NCT00515541|191473650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median of Groups A, B, and C grouped together was compared Baseline to Week 12.||||<0.001
95751153|NCT02588950|191473651|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|1.08|
95751154|NCT02588950|191473655|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSMean Ratio|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.761|
95751155|NCT02588950|191473656|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.6||||||||2.60|-1.60|
95751156|NCT05855616|191473660|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.533||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|5.892|||t-test, 1 sided|||||5.892|0.048|1.00
95751157|NCT05855616|191473661|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.176||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.790|0.039|0.013
95751158|NCT05855616|191473663|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.137
95990703|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.97||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.88|26.94||This is the test of effect modification by QIDS-SR level at entry.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with moderate depression symptomatology at entry compared to those with severe depression.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||26.94|-58.88|0.42
95751159|NCT05855616|191473664|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.764
95751160|NCT05855616|191473665|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.055
95751161|NCT01936519|191473668|EQUIVALENCE|Mann Whitney U Test was performed|Mean Difference (Net)|27.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.61||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|70.8||Cockcroft-Gault Clearance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Cockcroft Gault Creatinine clearance 2 year data.||70.80|-16.17|0.283
95751162|NCT01936519|191473669|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Median Difference (Final Values)|34.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|58.21|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the MDRD Clearance 2 year data row data.||58.21|9.95|0.013
95751163|NCT01936519|191473670|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|47.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on the Iothalamate Clearance 2 year data.||47.72|-3.28|0.099
95751164|NCT01936519|191473670|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric statistical tests were used for all analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous outcomes and Pearson's chi-square test for binary outcomes. Univariate statistical tests were used for all comparisons. Cohen's d was utilized for all comparisons to provide information about effect size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.29||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|57.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power and sample size. The assumption was made that eGFR would improve from 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 43 mL/min/1.73 m2. It was determined that a sample size of 12 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of -9.0 (the difference between a group 1 mean of 34.0 and a group 2 mean of 43.0) assuming that the common standard deviation was 7.5 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Data from the 2 year time point was used for analysis."||57.1|1.04|.032
95751165|NCT01936519|191473670|EQUIVALENCE|Difference of zero hypothesized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed on 2 year data time point.||-0.003|-1.11|0.015
95751166|NCT02072824|191473681|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||0.42|-0.19|0.4606
95751167|NCT02072824|191473681|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Linear model with log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and treatment, age stratum, and geographical region as fixed factor effects.||-0.06|-0.80|0.0223
95751168|NCT02072824|191473682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.2418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.373|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||1.373|0.284|0.2418
95751169|NCT02072824|191473682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.622||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|4.086|||Regression, Logistic|||The dichotomized responder variable was analyzed using a logistic regression model via maximum likelihood estimation with treatment group, age stratum, and geographical region as a fixed effect covariates.||4.086|0.644|0.3050
95764296|NCT02273388|191498698|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|-2.63|||||Comparison vs. 1 hour \[2h-1h\]|Change from baseline to 24 hours after infusion start. Linear mixed model with sequence, course, treatment (both infusion types i.e. 1 hour duration and 2 hour duration) and time as fixed effects and treatment\*time as interaction effect, as well as the continuous , fixed covariate of baseline value.||-2.63|-14.70|
95751170|NCT00986180|191473727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was recalculated due to Amendment INT-1. The non-inferiority margin for SPID120 was set as 120. The common standard deviation for the SPID120 data was estimated to be 230. Seventy nine subjects in each arm would have 90% power to demonstrate the non-inferiority of NUCYNTA to oxycodone IR with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025. This would have required enrollment of total 158 mITT subjects for each stratum. The original sample size (292 mITT subjects) was derived for SPID72.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.9703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.9|-32.1|0.9703
95751171|NCT00986180|191473728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-10.1|0.7691
95751172|NCT00986180|191473729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|-17.3|0.9282
95751173|NCT00986180|191473730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.75||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|56.8|||ANCOVA|||||56.8|-60.1|0.9562
95751174|NCT00986180|191473731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.4|||ANCOVA|||||10.4|-13.5|0.7973
95751175|NCT00986180|191473732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|15.8|||ANCOVA|||||15.8|-20.8|0.7882
95751176|NCT00986180|191473733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.82||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|26.0|||ANCOVA|||||26.0|-36.1|0.7491
95751177|NCT00986180|191473734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.03||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|45.4|||ANCOVA|||||45.4|-68.6|0.6897
95751178|NCT00986180|191473735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||||15.4|-12.2|0.8226
95751179|NCT00986180|191473736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8880
95751180|NCT00986180|191473737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4115
95990704|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.99||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|61.22||This is the test of effect modification by mode of transmission.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with perinatal transmission compared to behavioral transmission.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||61.22|-41.24|0.68
95990705|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.62|42.2||This is the test of effect modification by HIV CDC stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment response among those with HIV CDC Stage 3 classification compared to those with less than Stage 3 classification.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||42.20|-70.62|0.57
95751181|NCT00986180|191473738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8495
95751182|NCT00986180|191473739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7846
95751183|NCT00986180|191473740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4790
95751184|NCT00986180|191473741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3147
95751185|NCT00986180|191473742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5411|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5411
95751186|NCT00986180|191473743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6137
95751187|NCT00986180|191473744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7246
95751188|NCT00986180|191473745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4882
95751189|NCT00986180|191473746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7201
95751190|NCT00986180|191473748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
95751191|NCT00986180|191473750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0401
95751192|NCT00986180|191473752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4679|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4679
95751193|NCT00986180|191473754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1454
95751194|NCT00986180|191473755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1541
95751195|NCT00986180|191473757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.06|0.92|
95751196|NCT00986180|191473758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|1.17|
95751197|NCT00986180|191473759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.11|1.45|
95751198|NCT00986180|191473760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.67|0.54|
95751199|NCT00986180|191473761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5828
95751200|NCT00986180|191473762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
95751201|NCT01642914|191473766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0054
95751202|NCT01642914|191473766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for equality of distribution||||||0.0012
95751203|NCT01642914|191473779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.193||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.3||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.300|.086|0.0006
95751204|NCT01642914|191473779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.227||p-Values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||.227|.064|0.0022
95751205|NCT01642914|191473780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.72|1.09|.0054
95751206|NCT01642914|191473780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by geographic region.||||1.55|0.99|0.0470
95751207|NCT01642914|191473786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.56||p-values were obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for geographic region, comparing each linaclotide dose versus placebo in a pairwise manner.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.56|1.09|0.0264
95751208|NCT02712333|191473824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|7.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|10.41||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels (presented as relative intensities in high perfomance liquid chromatography-mass spectrum) by treatments (intervention group vs control group)||10.41|4.65|<0.05
95751209|NCT02712333|191473824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
95751210|NCT02712333|191473825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|3.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.54||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisone levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||5.54|1.85|<0.01
95751211|NCT02712333|191473825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
95751212|NCT02712333|191473826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|5.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.14||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum epinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||7.14|3.21|<0.01
95751213|NCT02712333|191473826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
95751214|NCT02712333|191473827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|11.28|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|15.21||the p-value has been adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum norepinephrine levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||15.21|7.37|<0.01
95990706|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.97||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.12|51.17||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 Stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A negative value would reflect a greater treatment effect among those with less than Stage 3 CD4 levels compared to those with Stage 3 CD4.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||51.17|-141.12|0.26
95990707|NCT02939131|191956316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|72.02||This is the test of effect modification by CD4 nadir stage.|t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would reflect a greater treatment effect by those with Stage 3 CD4 Nadir compared to those with less than Stage 3.|An interaction effect is computed based on subgroup differences within sites. The mean subgroup difference is computed for each treatment group and the interaction effect is the difference of those group mean differences. This is equivalent to taking the differences of the treatment effects between subgroups. Note: For the percent of participants with QIDS-SR remission, a positive treatment effect is a positive difference between groups.||72.02|-52.97|0.72
95751215|NCT02712333|191473827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||fold change|1.57|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||fold change is calculated by measurments from the sham purification group/measurements from the real purification group|||||<0.01
95751216|NCT02712333|191473828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum SBP levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||1.59|0.09|<0.01
95751217|NCT02712333|191473829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|0.31|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||0.96|-1.59|>0.05
95751218|NCT02712333|191473830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% increase per 10μg/m3 increase of PM2.5|1.24|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we analyzed the serum cortisol levels by treatment (intervention group vs control group)||3.63|-1.14|>0.05
95751219|NCT06005597|191473835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-48.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.33|-38.89|||ANCOVA|||||-38.89|-58.33|<.0001
95751220|NCT06005597|191473836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.893|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-18.35|||ANCOVA|||||-18.35|-37.53|<.0001
95751221|NCT06005597|191473837|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-16.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.918||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-7.12|||ANCOVA|||||-7.12|-26.40|0.0007
95751222|NCT06005597|191473838|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.993|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.64|-22.07|||ANCOVA|||||-22.07|-41.64|<.0001
95751223|NCT06005597|191473839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.84|||ANCOVA|||||-36.84|-53.43|<.0001
95751224|NCT06005597|191473840|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.467|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.99|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.40|-35.99|<.0001
95751225|NCT06005597|191473841|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|-21.53|||ANCOVA|||||-21.53|-38.28|<.0001
95751226|NCT06005597|191473842|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-12.82|||ANCOVA|||||-12.82|-26.73|<.0001
95751227|NCT06005597|191473843|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|-17.22|||ANCOVA|||||-17.22|-33.67|<.0001
95990708|NCT02939131|191956317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|28.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||28.1|-8.4|0.26
95751228|NCT06005597|191473844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-7.36|||ANCOVA|||||-7.36|-21.06|<.0001
95751229|NCT06005597|191473845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.236||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-6.93|||ANCOVA|||||-6.93|-23.53|0.0003
95751230|NCT06005597|191473846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.493||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-2.57|||ANCOVA|||||-2.57|-16.26|0.007
95751231|NCT03463993|191473847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The p-value above is the calculated P value based on hematocrit.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA) 10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.549
95751232|NCT03463993|191473847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||This is the calculated p-value based on hemoglobin .|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that intravenous Tranexamic Acid (TXA)10mg/kg plus Oxytocin 5IU does not result in a lower incidence of primary postpartum haemorrhage compared to Oxytocin alone after elective caesarean section||||0.138
95751233|NCT03463993|191473848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||0.789 is the calculated p-value for visually estimated blood loss: Visually estimated blood loss (ml): Group A mean 483.73 (standard deviation182.56); Group B 479.61 (139.49); p-value 0.789|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
95858838|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 7): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.378|-0.089|0.2248
95751234|NCT03463993|191473848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||0.968 is the calculated p-value based on hematocrit. Hematocrit-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml): Group A mean 650.06 (standard deviation 631.50); Group B 653.05 (796.03); p-value 0.968|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
95751235|NCT03463993|191473848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||Hemoglobin-based calculation of estimated blood loss(ml) mean(standard deviation): Group A 644.30 (692.27); Group B 707.68 (948.01); p-value 0.447|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
95751236|NCT03463993|191473849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95751237|NCT03463993|191473850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95751238|NCT03360916|191473939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|125.59||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.9530
95751239|NCT03360916|191473939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|130.12||0.7908|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.7908
95751240|NCT03360916|191473939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.19||0.1344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.1344
95751241|NCT03360916|191473940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0005
95990709|NCT02939131|191956317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with alcohol use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||24.6|-37.1|0.66
95751242|NCT03360916|191473940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0021
95751243|NCT03360916|191473940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is within group 3 month change||||||0.0025
95751244|NCT03835325|191473944|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size calculation was based on the following hypothesis test:~H0: there is no improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~H1: there is an improvement in memory capacity between the initial (VS) and final (VF) assessments, assessed by the self-efficacy factor of the MIAr questionnaire.~or H0: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS) ≤ 0 H1: AUTO-EF (VF) - AUTO-EF (VS)\> 0"||||<0.001
95751245|NCT01231373|191473952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.04|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of polidocanol treatment groups versus placebo (absolute change from baseline to week 8 in patient assessment of symptoms of varicose veins (VVSymQ) score.||-2.04|-4.63|<0.0001
95751246|NCT01231373|191473952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-5.26|<0.0001
95751247|NCT01231373|191473952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-4.33|<0.0001
95751248|NCT01231373|191473953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.0001
95751249|NCT01231373|191473953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
95751250|NCT01231373|191473953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.97|<0.0001
95751251|NCT01231373|191473954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-1.59|<0.0001
95751252|NCT01231373|191473954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.90|<0.0001
95751253|NCT01231373|191473954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-1.83|<0.0001
95751254|NCT01258101|191474044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to Arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|53.5||||||||53.5|10.5|
95751255|NCT01258101|191474044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.6||||||||7.6|-14.0|
95751256|NCT01258101|191474044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|19.1||||||||19.1|-4.7|
95751257|NCT01258101|191474044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-42.2|
95751258|NCT01258101|191474046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||||0.2|-1.0|
95751259|NCT01258101|191474046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (24 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-6.4|
95751260|NCT01258101|191474046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||||1.4|-1.4|
95751261|NCT01258101|191474046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis was applied to arms Peginterferon/Ribavirin 800 mg (24 weeks) and Peginterferon/Ribavirin 400 mg (16 weeks).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.5|
95751262|NCT01258101|191474054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.2667
95943812|NCT00945321|191858730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15||Hochberg's step-up procedure was applied to preserve the overall alpha level for the primary hypothesis that involved comparison at two oral dose levels|two one-sided tests|The P-value obtained was the maximum of two P-values from two one-sided tests (GMR (Oral/IV) ≤0.80 vs. GMR\>0.80 and GMR≥1.25 vs. GMR\<1.25).||||1.15|0.96|<0.001
95943813|NCT00945321|191858730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.76||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.76|1.23|
95990710|NCT02939131|191956318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value indicates higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with regular frequency alcohol use at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||31.7|-22.3|0.71
95990711|NCT02939131|191956318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|59.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants at each site with regular alcohol use at week 48 was computed. These site-level percents were compared across treatments||59.6|-6.3|0.10
95990712|NCT02939131|191956319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The average number of drinks per day reported at week 24 was computed for each site and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.2|-2.6|0.09
95751263|NCT01258101|191474054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9999
95751264|NCT01258101|191474054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9891|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.9891
95943814|NCT00945321|191858730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.32||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.32|0.88|
95943815|NCT00945321|191858730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.46||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.46|1.01|
95751265|NCT03438227|191474082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
95751266|NCT03438227|191474083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
95943816|NCT00945321|191858730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.75||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.75|1.16|
95751267|NCT03438227|191474084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
95751268|NCT03438227|191474085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
95751269|NCT03438227|191474086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95751270|NCT03438227|191474087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.194
95751271|NCT03438227|191474088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
95751272|NCT03438227|191474089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95751273|NCT03438227|191474090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
95751274|NCT03438227|191474091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95751275|NCT03438227|191474092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
95751276|NCT03438227|191474093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.933
95751277|NCT03438227|191474094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
95751278|NCT03438227|191474095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.633
95943817|NCT00945321|191858731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.56|1.13|
95990713|NCT02939131|191956319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level average numbers of drinks per day reported at week 48 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.8|0.79
95990714|NCT02939131|191956320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group anc vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking at week 24 were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.87
95990715|NCT02939131|191956320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level averages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa|The site-level average number of days with binge drinking reported at week 48 were computed and the site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.8|-0.8|0.99
95990716|NCT02939131|191956321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|26.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 24 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||26.0|-19.7|0.77
95990717|NCT02939131|191956321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|38.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|The percent of participants with tobacco use ever at week 48 were computed for each site. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||38.4|-8.9|0.20
95751279|NCT01564459|191474109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.587||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|0.464|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.464|-1.637|0.269
95751280|NCT01564459|191474110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.687||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.527|0.154|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|terms for treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction||||0.154|-1.527|0.108
95751281|NCT02728752|191474118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-4.6|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16 for Total Activity Score||-4.6|-11.5|<0.0001
95751282|NCT02728752|191474124|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||12.8|4.4|0.0001
95751283|NCT02728752|191474125|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
95751284|NCT02728752|191474131|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|With treatment, stratum and baseline as fixed effects, and site as random effect|Difference in LS Means of changes from baseline to week 16 (Octagam - Placebo)|LS Means difference between changes from baseline to week 16||-0.5|-1.9|0.0010
95751285|NCT00653991|191474136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95990718|NCT02939131|191956322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular use of tobacco at week 24. The percent of participants at each site with regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were compared across treatment groups.||33.3|-2.8|0.09
95751286|NCT03166124|191474138|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.953|
95751287|NCT03166124|191474138|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|0.974|
95751288|NCT03166124|191474139|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.12|0.96|
95751289|NCT03166124|191474139|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.10|0.94|
95751290|NCT02340221|191474153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||Log Rank|||||0.89|0.56|0.0037
95990719|NCT02939131|191956322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|55.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of regular frequency use of tobacco at week 48. Site level percentages of the numbers of participants with regular tobacco use were computed and compared across treatment groups.||55.3|-14.0|0.21
95751291|NCT02340221|191474154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.58|0.0008
95751292|NCT02340221|191474155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.6|0.0002
95751293|NCT02340221|191474156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|1.7|<0.0001
95751294|NCT02340221|191474157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.58|0.4151
95751295|NCT02340221|191474158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.75|0.9974
95751296|NCT02340221|191474159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9||||||||2.9|1.2|
95751297|NCT02340221|191474160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||||||||3.0|1.2|
95751298|NCT02340221|191474161|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.59|||Log Rank|||||2.59|0.23|0.6708
95943818|NCT00945321|191858731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.25|0.86|
95943819|NCT00945321|191858731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.34||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.34|0.96|
95943820|NCT00945321|191858731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.68||||||The effect of a standard high-fat breakfast and a standard light breakfast on aprepitant plasma pharmacokinetics (AUC0-∞ and Cmax) following a single 165 mg oral dose of aprepitant and following a single 185 mg oral dose of aprepitant will be estimated in healthy young adult subjects||1.68|1.16|
95943821|NCT00336505|191858773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.5667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||8.9|-4.8|0.5667
95943822|NCT00336505|191858775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Delta will be determined by the highest clinical cure-rate between the Cethromycin treatment group and the Clarithromycin treatment group, as follows: Greater than or equal to 90%, delta = -10%; Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90%, delta = -15%, Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80%, -20%)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||>|0.9999||95.0|-4.5|5.1|||Fisher Exact|||The rate of clinical cure in each treatment group was calculated (number of cures/number of patient eligible for analysis). Non-inferiority will be demonstrated when the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in the clinical cure rate at the Test-of-Cure visit between treatment groups (Cethromycin -Clarithromycin) is greater than delta, and includes zero, for both Per-Protocol (PP) and Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analyses.||5.1|-4.5|>0.9999
95943823|NCT00366249|191858777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railker|-5.5||||||95.0|-11.0|0.1|||||Adjusted for Perfusion, Extent, Depth/tissue loss, Infection, and Sensation (PEDIS) score|Analysis provided for Cure||0.1|-11.0|
95943824|NCT00366249|191858779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.7||||||95.0|-12.3|-1.1|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|Analysis provided for Cure||-1.1|-12.3|
95943825|NCT00366249|191858781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis tested for non-inferiority. Non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mehrotra and Railkar|-6.3||||||95.0|-13.6|1.0|||||Adjusted for PEDIS score|||1.0|-13.6|
95943826|NCT01105975|191858782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.9|92.1|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.1|64.9|<0.001
95943827|NCT01105975|191858783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|-6.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.7|-21.2|0.002
95943828|NCT01105975|191858784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.6|69.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||69.8|43.6|<0.001
95943829|NCT01105975|191858784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.001||90.0|84.5|110.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||110.8|84.5|<0.001
95943830|NCT01105975|191858784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|145.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||145.2|118.5|<0.001
95943831|NCT01105975|191858785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-10.5|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-10.5|-24.6|<0.001
95943832|NCT01105975|191858785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|-19.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-19.2|-33.2|<0.001
95943833|NCT01105975|191858785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-32.7|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-32.7|-47.0|<0.001
95943834|NCT01105975|191858786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.3|||<|0.001||90.0|66.2|92.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||92.4|66.2|<0.001
95943835|NCT01105975|191858786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|101.8|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||101.8|75.2|<0.001
95943836|NCT01105975|191858787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|-4.2|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-4.2|-18.3|0.009
95943837|NCT01105975|191858787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|-6.4|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-6.4|-20.6|0.002
95943838|NCT01185600|191858823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
95943839|NCT01185600|191858824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0391
95943840|NCT01185600|191858825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.372
95943841|NCT01185600|191858826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1007
95943842|NCT01185600|191858827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0964
95943843|NCT01185600|191858828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1739
95943844|NCT01185600|191858829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7205|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7205
95943845|NCT01185600|191858830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Binomial|1.64||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided||"Using Negative Binomial Regression the following ratio and corresponding 95% CI were obtained:~(# of AE's, Unwashed Group / (# of AE's, Washed Group) = 1.64 95% C.I. = \[1.06 - 2.55\]"|||2.55|1.06|0.0176
95943846|NCT04353492|191858847|OTHER|tested by a lower tailed test at 0.05 significance level|||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regresion|||The null hypothesis (H0): ARR \>= 0.18||||<0.0001
95990720|NCT02939131|191956323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|28.3|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||28.3|-12.4|0.41
95990721|NCT02939131|191956323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|36.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||36.8|-10.9|0.26
95990722|NCT02939131|191956323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|29.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 24 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||29.5|-20.2|0.69
95751299|NCT02340221|191474162|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.35|0.51|0.8286
95751300|NCT02340221|191474163|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.51|0.0023
95943847|NCT01500200|191858849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.014
95943848|NCT01500200|191858849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to PBO using stage-specific MMRM for change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using pre-specified weights.||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified weights (0.6/0.4 for Stage 1/Stage 2). Within each stage ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 8mg/8mg S2 vs Placebo S2.||||0.699
95943849|NCT00112359|191858853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.98||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|12.47||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 14.||12.47|3.50|0.0006
95943850|NCT00112359|191858854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.43||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 42.||11.43|1.22|0.0154
95943851|NCT00112359|191858857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.288|14.299||Analysis based on two-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of the methods used to control the family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.), and Day 0 FEV1. Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in percent change in FEV1 at Day 28.||14.299|6.288|<0.0001
95943852|NCT00112359|191858858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|-0.791||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences calculated as AZLI-placebo.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change in log10 PA CFUs in sputum at Day 28.||-0.791|-2.115|< 0.0001
95943853|NCT00112359|191858859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2364||95.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.025 a priori threshold for statistical significance as part of methods used to control family-wise type 1 error.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment for proportion of subjects using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics at least once during study.||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants using additional (nonprotocol-specified) antipseudomonal antibiotics during study.||||0.2364
95751301|NCT02340221|191474164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.0095
95751302|NCT00103402|191474171|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|The exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test was used to control for clustering by clinical center.||Sample-size calculations were based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference of 20 between response rates (40% placebo and 60% alfuzosin) for the Fisher's exact test. We calculated that a total sample of 270 participants would be required (135 per study group). This proposed sample size included a 20% increase to adjust for clustering within clinical sites and a 5% increase for interim monitoring.||11.0|-11.2|0.99
95950702|NCT01574105|191873214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes of 26 in heparin resistant group and 26 in heparin sensitive group achieve 90% power at the 0.025 level of significance to detect a non-inferiority using a one-sided two-sample t-test, assuming a noninferiority margin is 200 milliliters in the postoperative chest tube loss.|||||<|0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For the analysis of the patient characteristics Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fischer's exact tests were used. An upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between resistant and sensitive groups for all values of chest tube losses was computed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and compared with pre-specified noninferiority limits. Covariates in the ANCOVA model included patient characteristics differing between two groups with a p-value \<0.1.||||<0.1
95751303|NCT00103402|191474172|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis compared rates for the primary outcome between study groups, using the exact conditional test version of the Mantel-Haenszel test to control for clustering by clinical center.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||Mantel Haenszel|||Marked or moderate improvement at 12 weeks Absolute Difference in Rates % (95% CI)||2.5|-9.0|0.90
95858839|NCT02952820|191675393|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6 (Statistical analysis 8): Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Month 6), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the study baseline Mean Rating on Morning Sleepiness as a covariate. Missing values are not imputed and assumed to be MAR.||0.497|0.026|0.0298
95751304|NCT00103402|191474173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Total score (0-43) change from baseline||1.5|-2.7|0.70
95751305|NCT00103402|191474173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain score (0-21) change from baseline||0.8|-1.4|0.64
95751306|NCT00103402|191474173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Urinary score (0-10) change from baseline||0.4|-0.8|0.62
95751307|NCT00103402|191474173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Quality of life score (0-12) change from baseline||0.4|-0.4|.99
95751308|NCT00103402|191474174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Total Score||1.2|-1.8|0.45
95751309|NCT00103402|191474174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Sensory Score||1.0|-1.4|0.47
95858840|NCT03070964|191675422|SUPERIORITY||Exact binomial estimator|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4||||||||48.4|2.1|
95858841|NCT00826462|191675522|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations||||A linear GEE regression model adjusted for the significant covariates at p \< 0.05 from the univariate GEE logistic regression models calculated for success|||<0.01
95751310|NCT00103402|191474174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||McGill Affective Score||0.4|-0.6|0.89
95751311|NCT00103402|191474175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical component summary (0-100) change in scores||1.3|-2.3|0.60
95751312|NCT00103402|191474175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mental component summary (0-100) Absolute Difference between Groups (95% CI)||4.6|-0.4|0.16
95751313|NCT00103402|191474176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-2.4|0.08
95751314|NCT00103402|191474177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.0|-2.6|0.94
95751315|NCT00103402|191474178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.3|0.06
95751316|NCT00603291|191474189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline body weight, baseline HbA1c stratum, and prior antihyperglycemic medication stratum||||4.80|2.05|<0.0001
95751317|NCT00603291|191474190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-3.92|<0.0001
95751318|NCT04285567|191474234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|40.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||40.87|12.33|0.0004
95858842|NCT00826462|191675522|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||linear generalized estimating equations|||||||<0.01
95858843|NCT00826462|191675526|OTHER||||||||||||||||||linear generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression model adjusted for significant covariates; between groups estimated odds ratio (OR) for no pain on two isometric movements using logistic GEE regression model adjusted for significant covariates; 99 % confidence intervals|||
95858844|NCT00539942|191675540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Unable to analyze data||||<.05
95858845|NCT00880919|191675552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Mean changes were calculated using each groups linear and quadratic effects||||.015
95950703|NCT01248715|191873216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.460
95950704|NCT01248715|191873217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
95950705|NCT01248715|191873218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.732
95950706|NCT01248715|191873219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
95950707|NCT01248715|191873220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
95950708|NCT01248715|191873221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.796
95950709|NCT01248715|191873222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9999
95950710|NCT00813709|191873223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|0.816|||Log Rank|||||0.816|0.378|0.002
95950711|NCT00813709|191873223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.839|||Log Rank|||||0.839|0.391|0.006
95950712|NCT00813709|191873223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.510|0.654|0.941
95950713|NCT00813709|191873224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.205
95950714|NCT00813709|191873224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.263
95950715|NCT00813709|191873224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.629
95950716|NCT04883541|191873382|SUPERIORITY|the t-test in independent groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95950717|NCT04239911|191873386|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|6.85|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of leaving their current job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||6.85|0.14|0.974
95990723|NCT02939131|191956323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|The site-level percentages of participants ever using any illegal substance excluding marijuana (cannabis) reported at week 48 were computed and compared across treatment groups.||23.5|-24.8|0.96
95990724|NCT02939131|191956324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|44.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates a higher site-level percentage of participants reporting regular use fof marijuana in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis for regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 24. The percent of participants at each site reporting regular use (of those reporting any use) was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||44.1|-23.9|0.53
95990725|NCT02939131|191956324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|34.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of marijuana (cannabis) at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||34.9|-35.1|1.0
95990726|NCT02939131|191956324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|65.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 24. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||65.5|-16.2|0.18
95990727|NCT02939131|191956324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|22.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages of regular substance use in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group.|This is the analysis of regular use of any illegal substance, excluding cannabis, at week 48. Of those reporting ever used, the percent at each site reporting regular use was computed. These site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||22.9|-59.5|0.34
95990728|NCT02939131|191956325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|39.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||39.6|-12.9|0.29
95990729|NCT02939131|191956325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|24.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis for week 48. The percentage of participants at a site who reported using sex as a commodity was calculated and the site-level percentages were averaged and compared across treatments.||24.5|-17.0|0.70
95990730|NCT02939131|191956326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.4|-13.7|0.71
95990731|NCT02939131|191956326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||8.1|-17.5|0.44
95990732|NCT02939131|191956327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||19.8|-5.3|0.23
95990733|NCT02939131|191956327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Scores were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||12.7|-17.5|0.73
95990734|NCT02939131|191956328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate site-level averages were higher in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 24. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.5|-0.4|0.24
95990735|NCT02939131|191956328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis for week 48. Numbers of partners were averaged by site and the site-level averages were averaged and compared across treatment groups.||1.0|-0.3|0.22
95990736|NCT02939131|191956329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|23.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate higher site-level percents of low frequency condom use in COMB-R treatment group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 24 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||23.9|-40.4|0.57
95751319|NCT04285567|191474236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|20.78||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||34.90|6.66|0.0053
95751320|NCT04285567|191474237|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|31.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.55|46.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||46.71|16.55|< .0001
95990737|NCT02939131|191956329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate higher site-level percentages in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|This is the analysis for week 48 data. We computed the percent of participants reporting low frequency of condom use in past three months by site, averaged the site-level percents and compared these averages across treatment arms.||9.5|-53.1|0.15
95858846|NCT00241839|191675573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|8.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for possibly unequal variance was made|A positive value of the estimated value would favor the allopurinol arm. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We compared the drop in baseline of diastolic BP for the two treatment groups Allopurinol vs. Placebo by a Satterthwaite corrected t-test.||8.7|-0.17|0.059
95943854|NCT00112359|191858860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|15.11||"Primary endpoint analysis based on 2-sided test with an 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline CFQ-R RSS, and disease severity (FEV1 \>50% or \<=50% pred.). Treatment differences: AZLI-placebo.||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS score at Day 28.~A sample size of 70 participants per treatment group provided approximately 77% power to detect an 8-point difference in CFQ-R RSS score between treatment groups, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 20 and a Type I error rate of 0.05."||15.11|4.31|0.0005
95943855|NCT00112359|191858861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Comparison by treatment group for proportion of participants hospitalized at least once between Day 0 and Day 42 (or 14 days after last study dose).||Null hypothesis was there was no difference between 75 mg AZLI TID and placebo treatment groups in number of participants hospitalized at least once during the study.||||0.0640
95943856|NCT01260896|191858863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|113.54|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.54|100.54|
95943857|NCT01260896|191858864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|110.55|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.55|100.37|
95943858|NCT01260896|191858865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|108.73|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.73|97.80|
95943859|NCT01260896|191858866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|114.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.29|119.35|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||119.35|109.29|
95943860|NCT01260896|191858867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|108.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.84|111.79|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.79|104.84|
95943861|NCT01260896|191858868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.85|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.85|92.92|
95943862|NCT00312208|191858869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.978||95.0|0.86|1.16||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.978
95751321|NCT04285567|191474238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.68||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|21.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||21.41|-2.05|0.1119
95751322|NCT04285567|191474239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.44||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|32.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||32.93|1.96|0.0154
95943863|NCT00312208|191858870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.371||95.0|0.75|1.11||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.75|0.371
95943864|NCT03066609|191858877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.02|438.67|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||438.67|54.02|<0.0001
95943865|NCT03066609|191858877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|557.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|187.2|1663.4|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||1663.4|187.2|<0.0001
95751323|NCT04285567|191474240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|18.93||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|36.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||36.95|0.91|0.0054
95751324|NCT04285567|191474241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|26.79||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|49.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||49.72|3.86|0.0038
95751325|NCT04285567|191474243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.05||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|11.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|P-value estimated using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.||11.84|-5.73|0.4199
95751326|NCT00856973|191474279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|19.83|||ANCOVA|Bonferroni adjustment was use for multiple comparisons|Difference calculated as Eszopiclone minus placebo|This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment grou||19.83|-5.17|>0.05
95751327|NCT00856973|191474279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.23|14.65|||ANCOVA|||This endpoint was analyzed using ANCOVA with treatment group (pooled low dose eszopiclone, pooled high dose eszopiclone, and placebo) as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate. Contrast statements were used to perform pairwise comparisons of the eszopiclone treatment groups to placebo. A Bonferroni adjustment was used for the 2 pairwise comparisons. Least squares means and the standard errors were presented for each treatment group.||14.65|-10.23|>0.05
95943866|NCT03066609|191858878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.81|222.72|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||222.72|25.81|<0.0001
95943867|NCT03066609|191858878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|149.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.83|432.42|||Regression, Logistic|||IGA||432.42|51.83|<0.0001
95943868|NCT03066609|191858879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|489.59|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||489.59|26.94|<0.0001
95943869|NCT03066609|191858879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|246.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.41|1037.1|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 90||1037.1|58.41|<0.0001
95943870|NCT01324310|191858910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|124.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2|140.5|||ANOVA||"Geometric means ratio (Romidepsin + Ketoconazole/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||140.5|110.2|
95943871|NCT01324310|191858911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|123.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.6|139.6|||ANOVA|||||139.6|109.6|
95943872|NCT01324310|191858912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|124.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|142.4|||ANOVA|||||142.4|109.0|
95943873|NCT01324310|191858913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|109.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|126.4|||ANOVA|||||126.4|94.9|
95943874|NCT01324310|191858914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|0.095|||Wilcoxon signed- rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + ketoconazole minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||0.095|-0.485|0.7422
95943875|NCT03170882|191858919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.341|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,international staging system(ISS),prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better PFS in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.341|0.535|=0.477
95751328|NCT01388166|191474307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95751329|NCT01388166|191474308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95751330|NCT01388166|191474309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95943876|NCT03170882|191858920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.427|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|2.677|||Log Rank||HR obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. HR \<1 was deemed to indicate longer survival time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm as compared to Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||2.677|0.761|=0.265
95943877|NCT03170882|191858921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR was based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable and age, ISS and prior lines of therapy. OR \>1 was deemed to indicate better response in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.90|0.43|=0.634
95943878|NCT03170882|191858923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|1.073|||||HR was obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age, ISS, prior lines of therapy. HR \>1 was deemed to indicate quicker response time in Ixazomib + Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide + Dexamethasone arm.|||1.073|0.288|
95943879|NCT03170882|191858924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.361|||Log Rank||HR: obtained by unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age,ISS,prior lines of therapy. HR\<1 was deemed to indicate better disease progression prevention in Ixazomib+Dexamethasone arm over Pomalidomide+Dexamethasone arm.|||1.361|0.506|=0.459
95943880|NCT03260569|191858940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95764297|NCT04331808|191498719|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|3.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||3.1|-21.0|
95943881|NCT03213457|191858948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.711|8.176||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||8.176|3.711|< 0.001
95943882|NCT03213457|191858948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.968|6.331||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||6.331|2.968|< 0.001
95990738|NCT02939131|191956330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|27.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site level percents were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 24, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||27.2|-40.9|0.65
95990739|NCT02939131|191956330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|-5.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages were higher in the COMB-R group and vice versa.|We computed the site-level percentages of participants reporting low frequency condom use at week 48, then averaged the site-level percentages by treatment group and compared these group average percents.||-5.8|-69.7|0.02
95990740|NCT02939131|191956331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates COMB-R participants attended more sessions than ESC|We averaged the number of counseling sessions for each site and compared these site-level averages.||8.1|-3.0|0.33
95990741|NCT02939131|191956336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|38.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants in the COMB-R group were taking medications, based on site-level percentages.|This is the analysis for the percent of participants on any psychiatric medication at week 24. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||38.2|-0.9|0.06
95990742|NCT02939131|191956336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference means the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||35.5|-0.7|0.06
95990743|NCT02939131|191956336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|40.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates the site-level percentages of those taking medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||40.6|4.2|0.02
95990744|NCT02939131|191956336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.6|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level percentages of those on medication were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-SSRI antidepressant medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||9.6|-17.3|0.54
95990745|NCT02939131|191956336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate the site-level percentages of those on medications were higher in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of the percent of participants on non-antidepressant psychiatric medications. Site-level percentages were compared across treatments.||15.4|-25.4|0.60
95990746|NCT02939131|191956337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|24.8|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on any psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||24.8|-32.5|0.77
95990747|NCT02939131|191956337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more study time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on single SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||33.5|-37.3|0.91
95990748|NCT02939131|191956337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|26.9|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive value would indicate more time on medication in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||26.9|-60.2|0.40
95751331|NCT01421342|191474318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75||Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results from largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmenting Antidepressant+Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.75|0.97|0.076
95751332|NCT01421342|191474318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.89||Co-primary hypothesis: Second ordered test after ordering largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|Co-primary hypothesis: After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||1.89|1.06|0.018
95751333|NCT01421342|191474318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of remission for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|If either if the first two hypothesis tests for the co-primary hypotheses were significant, perform the test of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole vs. Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.||1.48|0.84|0.46
95990749|NCT02939131|191956337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate more time on medication in COMB-R group.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on a single non-SSRI psychiatric medication across treatment groups.||40.1|-67.0|0.52
95990750|NCT02939131|191956337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.0|785.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Because of sparseness, the confidence intervals for this site-level analysis are very large.|A positive difference indicates more time on medication in the COMB-R group. There was data from only one site in the ESC group and 2 sites in the COMB-R group. The confidence interval for the difference is quite large and the test is unreliable.|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on non-SSRI+other psychiatric medication across treatment groups. This analysis is unstable because of sparseness.||785.7|-778.0|0.96
95751334|NCT01421342|191474319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.39|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||2.39|0.78|0.70
95990751|NCT02939131|191956337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|23.0|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would reflect more time on medications in the COMB-R group|This is the analysis comparing site-level mean percents of study time on antidepressant medication across treatment groups.||23.0|-31.4|0.74
95990752|NCT02939131|191956338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site level average interim counseling sessions was higher in the COMB-R group.|We compared the site-level average number of interim counseling sessions between treatment groups.||8.2|-2.8|0.29
95990753|NCT02939131|191956340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates higher site-level averages in the COMB-R group.|The average score for all participants at each site was computed. These site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||0.38|0.02|0.03
95751335|NCT01421342|191474319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.94|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|||1.94|0.65|0.68
95751336|NCT01421342|191474319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.59|||Log Rank||Represents relative odds of relapse for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.59|0.58|0.87
95751337|NCT01421342|191474320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.||1.50|0.89|0.28
95943883|NCT03213457|191858949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.605||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.605|1.275|< 0.001
95943884|NCT03213457|191858949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.326||P-value for test of difference is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.326|1.146|0.007
95943885|NCT03213457|191858950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.809||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.809|-1.180|< 0.001
95943886|NCT03213457|191858951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.845||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.845|-1.190|< 0.001
95990754|NCT02939131|191956341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate the site-level averages were higher in the COMB-R group compared to the ESC group and vice versa|The average of scores for all participants' clinicians at each site was computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatments.||0.29|-0.43|0.69
95990755|NCT02939131|191956342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference would indicate site-level averages were higher for the COMB-R group than the ESC group and vice versa.|The average scores for all participants' prescribing clinicians at each site were computed and these site-level averages were compared across treatment groups.||1.03|0.26|0.004
95751338|NCT01421342|191474320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center (site)|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.33|<0.0001
95764298|NCT04331808|191498720|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.0||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.00|0.33|
95950718|NCT04239911|191873386|EQUIVALENCE|A p\< 0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.72|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Outcome measures workers' intentions of searching for a new job. Responses included 7-point likert scale of very strongly disagree-very strongly agree. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare outcome between and within study arm. Mixed effects included a variable for time point (baseline/90 days), indicator for study arm, a study arm by time point interaction and subject random intercept."||7.72|0.08|0.846
95943887|NCT03213457|191858952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.156|-0.823||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.823|-1.156|< 0.001
95943888|NCT03213457|191858953|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|-0.08||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.080|-0.367|0.002
95943889|NCT03213457|191858954|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.085||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.085|-0.329|< 0.001
95993824|NCT01264939|191963433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-3.96||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.96|-7.25|<0.0001
95751339|NCT01421342|191474320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.05||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||2.05|1.17|0.002
95751340|NCT01421342|191474321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68||After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion with Switching to Bupropion was performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion / Switching to Bupropion|||1.68|0.95|0.11
95751341|NCT01421342|191474321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by participating medical center|Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Switching to Bupropion-SR|After ordering results form largest p-value to smallest (Hochberg approach) the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Switching to Bupropion-SR was performed at the 0.025 significance level.||2.29|1.26|<0.001
95751342|NCT01421342|191474321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.86||Following the gate-keeping strategy of the analysis plan, complete the comparison of Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole with Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic||Represents relative odds of response for Augmentation Antidepressant + Aripiprazole / Augmentation Antidepressant + Bupropion-SR|||1.86|1.01|0.043
95751343|NCT01429051|191474335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model with episode baseline PI as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||||1.179|0.41|0.002
95751344|NCT02011113|191474403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis(H0: p = 0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||0.0027
95751345|NCT02274844|191474414|SUPERIORITY|The outcomes were all continuous or ordinal measures, thus unadjusted hypothesis tests used t-tests or the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate, and statistical modeling used linear regression. ANCOVA was used to adjust for baseline covariates with imbalance across treatment arms (race) and baseline values of the measures.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05||The main hypotheses tested were that intervention participants would have higher medication adherence and significantly greater improvement in A1c, BP, LDL-C, and measures of quality of life, and self-efficacy compared to control participants.|ANCOVA|||The study was powered to detect clinically meaningful differences in physiologic risk factors; it had four primary outcomes.Power estimates accounted for clustering of patients within towns, using a variance inflation factor, conservatively estimating power for ICC=0.01-0.05. Process measures were selected to understand which aspects of the intervention were particularly effective, assessing both program satisfaction and peer coach effectiveness.||0.05|-0.23|0.22
95751346|NCT03261960|191474444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95751347|NCT04295135|191474457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.05
95751348|NCT04295135|191474458|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
95751349|NCT04295135|191474459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
95751350|NCT04295135|191474460|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
95764299|NCT04331808|191498721|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|17.1||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||17.1|-13.6|
95764300|NCT04331808|191498722|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.04||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.04|0.71|
95764301|NCT04331808|191498723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.55|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||Day 14||3.55|0.40|
95764302|NCT04331808|191498723|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.53|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.53|0.33|
95764303|NCT04331808|191498723|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.65|0.25|
95764304|NCT04331808|191498723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 14||1.15|0.12|
95764305|NCT04331808|191498723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.47|0.32|
95764306|NCT04331808|191498723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.49|0.30|
95764307|NCT04331808|191498724|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.28|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||1.28|0.27|
95764308|NCT04331808|191498724|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.71|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 7|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.71|0.43|
95764309|NCT04331808|191498724|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.42|0.40|
95764310|NCT04331808|191498724|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.82|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre||Day 4|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|1.82|0.39|
95764311|NCT04331808|191498724|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||1.47|0.32|
95764312|NCT04331808|191498724|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.32|
95764313|NCT04331808|191498725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.7||adjusted on age and centre||||||1.7|-6.9|
95764314|NCT04331808|191498726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.01|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.01|0.98|
95764315|NCT04331808|191498726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.52|0.82|
95764316|NCT04331808|191498726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.03|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.03|0.80|
95764317|NCT04331808|191498727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.27|1.02|
95764318|NCT04331808|191498727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.63|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.63|0.80|
95764319|NCT04331808|191498727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.17|0.84|
95764320|NCT04331808|191498728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.81|0.73|
95764321|NCT04331808|191498728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.24|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.24|0.73|
95764322|NCT03649347|191498730|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.720|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.798; main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.711||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
95764323|NCT03649347|191498731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interaction effect: p\<.001, np2=.542|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.598; and main effect of group: p\<.001, np2=.439||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 96%, critical F=4.76.||||<.001
95798375|NCT04851964|191566704|SUPERIORITY|For participants whose loss of smell data collected after NP surgery were replaced with the worst possible score (WPS). Data collected after SCS for NP were replaced with the worst post-baseline observation prior to the SCS for NP (WOCF). Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.834||The p-value is unadjusted, and is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in bi-weekly mean loss of smell=Treatment+Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD+Prior NP surgery+Region+Baseline loss of smell||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in bi-weekly mean loss of smell at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||-0.834|-1.177|<.0001
95798376|NCT04851964|191566705|SUPERIORITY|For participants whose SNOT-22 total score collected after NP surgery were replaced with the worst possible score (WPS). Data collected after SCS for NP were replaced with the worst post-baseline observation prior to the SCS for NP (WOCF). Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-27.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.512|-22.37||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in SNOT-22 = Treatment + Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD + Prior NP surgery + Region + Baseline SNOT-22 total score||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in SNOT-22 at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||-22.370|-32.512|<.0001
95798377|NCT04851964|191566706|SUPERIORITY|For participants whose LMK score collected after NP surgery were replaced with the worst possible score (WPS). Data collected after SCS for NP were replaced with the worst post-baseline observation prior to the SCS for NP (WOCF). Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.371|-5.03||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in LMK score = Treatment + Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD + Prior NP surgery + Region + Baseline LMK score||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in LMK at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||-5.030|-6.371|<.0001
95798378|NCT04851964|191566707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.16||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression was adjusted for treatment, baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD status, prior NP surgery status, and region.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of incidence for subjects on Tezepelumab.|Null Hypothesis: Hazard ratio of time to first SCS for NP and/or surgery decision (tezepelumab/placebo) = 1||0.16|0.03|<.0001
95798379|NCT04851964|191566708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression adjusted for treatment, baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD status, prior NP surgery status, and region.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of incidence for subjects on Tezepelumab.|Null Hypothesis: Hazard ratio of time to first surgery decision (tezepelumab/placebo) = 1||0.09|0.00|<.0001
95798380|NCT04851964|191566709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.25||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression adjusted for treatment, baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD status, prior NP surgery status, and region.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of incidence for subjects on Tezepelumab.|Null Hypothesis: Hazard ratio of time to first SCS use for NP (tezepelumab/placebo) = 1||0.25|0.04|<.0001
95798381|NCT04851964|191566710|SUPERIORITY|For participants whose bi-weekly mean NPSD TSS collected after NP surgery were replaced with the worst possible score (WPS). Data collected after SCS for NP were replaced with the worst post-baseline observation prior to the SCS for NP (WOCF). Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.959|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.085|-5.833||The p-value is unadjusted and it is statistically significant at 0.01 level under multiple testing strategy.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in NPSD TSS = Treatment + Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD + Prior NP surgery + Region + Baseline NPSD TSS||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in bi-weekly mean NPSD TSS at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||-5.833|-8.085|<.0001
95798382|NCT04851964|191566711|SUPERIORITY|Observed pre-BD FEV1 data were used in the analysis regardless of NP surgery and SCS/biologic for NP. Missing data were imputed assuming MAR. Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.005||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.111||The p-value is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 = Treatment + Baseline co-morbid asthma/AERD/NSAID-ERD + Prior NP surgery + Region + Baseline pre-BD FEV1||Null Hypothesis: Difference in mean change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 at 52 weeks (tezepelumab minus placebo) = 0||0.111|-0.121|0.9362
95798383|NCT05468853|191566870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.0452
95798384|NCT05468853|191566871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.1182
95798385|NCT05468853|191566872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1861|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.1861
95798386|NCT05468853|191566873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.1380
95798387|NCT05468853|191566874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71946|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.71946
95798388|NCT05468853|191566875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19941|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.19941
95798389|NCT05468853|191566876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1969|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.1969
95858847|NCT00241839|191675574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||Positive numbers indicate a drop. We compared baseline minus value at treatment end for the two treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used for potentially unequal variances.|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|||4.3|-2.0|0.47
95798390|NCT05468853|191566877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2536|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Adjusted for stimulation order||||||0.2536
95798391|NCT04435626|191566945|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold =0.04967;|stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.95|0.74|0.0072
95798392|NCT04435626|191566947|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||Two-sided p-value; p-value threshold=0.04967;|Stratified Andersen-Gill model|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|stratified Andersen-Gill model with robust sandwich estimate for the covariance matrix of recurrent events|Rate Ratio (Finerenone/Placebo)||0.94|0.71|0.0062
95798393|NCT04435626|191566949|OTHER|mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.34||Two-sided p-value;|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Difference in LS Mean||2.34|0.79|<.0001
95798394|NCT04435626|191566950|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||Two-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (finerenone /placebo)||1.15|0.88|0.9295
95798395|NCT04435626|191566951|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio|1.33||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.89||two-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Cause-specific Hazard Ratio||1.89|0.94|0.1071
95798396|NCT04435626|191566952|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test|cause-specific hazard ratio|0.93||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||two-sided p-value|stratified log-rank||stratified Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio||1.06|0.83|0.2794
95798397|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.12|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to the odds among observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.12|1.01|.03
95798398|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.17|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.17|0.99|.07
95798399|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.41|0.92|.23
95798400|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.25|0.83|.85
95798401|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.42|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.42|0.96|.12
95798402|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.09|0.74|.29
95798403|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.51|1.05|.01
95798404|NCT05625061|191567017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.25|0.84|.77
95798405|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to the odds among observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.04|0.97|1.00
95798406|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.03|0.92|.48
95798407|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.17|0.85|1.00
95798408|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.09|0.82|.48
95943890|NCT03213457|191858955|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.050|-0.270|0.004
95751351|NCT04295135|191474461|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||<0.01
95751352|NCT04295135|191474462|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A multi-level linear probability model that included patient demographics, clinician random effects, and indicator variables for (a) site; (b) treatment and control clinicians; and (c) pre-/post-OneSheet access.|Regression, Linear|Model also included an interaction term for treatment and post-OneSheet access.|The coefficient estimates the causal effect of OneSheet on our outcomes. Unit of analysis was patient visit.|||||>0.05
95751353|NCT02408068|191474484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|77.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.89|84.86|||ANOVA|||Results obtained using a mixed effects ANOVA with fixed effects for study period, sequence, treatment and subject (sequence) (excl. tmax).||84.86|70.89|
95751354|NCT02408068|191474485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|108.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.3|114.72|||ANOVA|||||114.72|102.30|
95751355|NCT02408068|191474486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.75|1.25|0.0005
95990756|NCT02939131|191956343|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|14.36|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtract group mean for ESC from group mean for COMB-R. The group means are the means of the site-level percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 24. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.36|-14.04|0.98
95798409|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.12|0.83|.69
95751356|NCT02408068|191474487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|83.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.58|91.74||||||||91.74|75.58|
95751357|NCT02408068|191474488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LSmean ratio|118.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.58|126.54||||||||126.54|111.58|
95858848|NCT00241839|191675575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Sattherthwaite correction was used|The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable. The 24 hour was in the opposite direction of the cuff.|||-2.6|-11.0|0.0020
95751358|NCT02408068|191474489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.38|2.25|0.0014
95751359|NCT00886288|191474520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95751360|NCT01300052|191474528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|21.8||||||Difference in percentage was calculated as values of AN2728 Ointment, 2% group minus values of AN2728 Ointment, Vehicle group.||21.8|-14.3|
95751361|NCT00706381|191474539|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|7.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.0001
95751362|NCT00706381|191474539|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
95943891|NCT03213457|191858956|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.283|-0.746||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.746|-4.283|0.005
95943892|NCT03213457|191858957|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.088||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.088|-0.298|0.284
95943893|NCT03213457|191858958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.083||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||0.083|-0.279|0.286
95943894|NCT03213457|191858959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.066||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.066|-0.375|0.005
95943895|NCT03213457|191858960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.773|-0.216||P-value for test of difference at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.216|-4.773|0.032
95943896|NCT03213457|191858961|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.774|-0.508||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.508|-1.774|< 0.001
95943897|NCT03213457|191858962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.788||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.788|-1.978|< 0.001
95943898|NCT03213457|191858963|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.002|-0.915||P value for the test of the difference is from an MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline pain score, and random effect for participant.|MMRM|||Ranked secondary endpoints were tested following a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Testing began with testing each of the co-primary endpoints using alpha of 0.05 (2-sided) for elagolix plus E2/NETA compared to placebo. If both co-primary endpoints achieved statistical significance with elagolix plus E2/NETA as compared to placebo, continued testing was performed for the ranked secondary endpoints following a fixed-sequence testing procedure in the order of endpoints presented.||-0.915|-2.002|< 0.001
95943899|NCT02278185|191859005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test|This study did not meet it's target accrual goal and thus is underpowered to detect a statistically significant difference between the two groups.|||0.46
95751363|NCT00706381|191474539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Percent change from placebo|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.89
95858849|NCT00241839|191675576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction was used.|Allopurinol was associated with a significant decrease in uric acid over the treatment period as compared to placebo. The analysis is limited to those with both baseline and 8-10 week data on this variable.|We expected allopurinol to be associated with a decrease in uric acid.||2.59|1.72|<0.001
95943900|NCT02278185|191859005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|Cohort characteristics for Metabolic Syndrome, the SPPB, the SHIM/FACT-P, and PSA were summarized by event and arm using counts and percentages for categorical variables and the mean, standard deviation, median, and quartiles for continuous variables. The difference between metabolic syndrome and treatment were evaluated with the Chi-square test. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was utilized to examine the difference between Month 1 and Month 12 SPPB scores. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the difference of SHIM/FACT-P scores and PSA between arms. These tests were chosen to account for the non-normal distributions of the continuous variables. The difference between PSA progression between arms was examined using the Fisher Exact Test. A heat map of scores ordered by the highest average score was also created. P-values are reported based on a null hypothesis of no difference against a two-sided alternative. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inst|||0.46
95943901|NCT02278185|191859016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The results are presented in the following format: N Mean (Std Dev) Median (Q1, Q3). In all cases (Overall, Arm 1, and Arm 2) we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the samples come from the same population of scores at Month 1 versus Month 12 at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.5
95943902|NCT04440228|191859020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Assumptions of ANOVA were violated, so we conducted a Related-Samples Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks|ANOVA|F=6.54, df=3||Repeated measures ANOVA examining change over time across the three partner school districts.||||0.088
95943903|NCT04440228|191859021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.373|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.373|0.036|<0.05
95943904|NCT04440228|191859022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.219|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.219|-0.064|.277
95943905|NCT04440228|191859023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.083|||Regression, Linear|||We conducted paired t-tests to evaluate simple pre-to-post changes in the primary outcome measures. We fitted linear mixed-effects regression models for each outcome variable, specifying random intercepts for participant ID to account for repeated measures and within-individual clustering. The core model included a binary post-training indicator as the primary predictor, along with the baseline value of the corresponding outcome as a covariate.||0.083|-0.082|0.996
95943906|NCT03442777|191859094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99||controlled for type of ward (ICU/Non-ICU)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.99|0.41|0.04
95943907|NCT01561300|191859104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.17|-2.16|0.09
95943908|NCT01561300|191859105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Tea- Control|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||1.66|-2.44|0.70
95943909|NCT01561300|191859106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.75||Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tea-placebo|Null hypothesis: no difference between Tea and Control.||0.75|-1.15|0.66
95943910|NCT00246805|191859112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0|||Z-test for proportions|||VRS ON vs. VRS OFF||61|36|<0.0001
95943911|NCT00724126|191859143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.03
95943912|NCT00724126|191859144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.02
95943913|NCT05405244|191859145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Snack intake||||0.45
95943914|NCT05405244|191859145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Milkshake intake||||0.28
95943915|NCT05405244|191859146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pleasantness||||0.89
95943916|NCT05405244|191859146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desire to consume||||<0.001
95943917|NCT03455985|191859151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
95943918|NCT03455985|191859152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
95943919|NCT03455985|191859153|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95990757|NCT02939131|191956343|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided||We subtracted the group mean for the ESC group from that of the COMB-R group. The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 24.The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||12.98|-7.85|0.60
95990758|NCT02939131|191956343|SUPERIORITY|We tested the null hypothesis that the treatment group means were equal vs. not.The group mean is the mean of the site-specific percentages of participants with events as defined above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|11.02|||t-test, 2 sided||The ESC group mean percent of participants reporting a trigger event was subtracted from the COMB-R group mean.|This is the analysis of the triggering events (psychiatric hospitalizations or suicide attempts) through week 24. A participant is counted once if they had reported any such event prior to the upper bound of the week 24 window. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event were computed.The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.02|-2.21|0.17
95990759|NCT02939131|191956344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|14.13|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ signs/symptoms through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||14.13|-13.85|0.98
95990760|NCT02939131|191956344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.89|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new Grade 3+ diagnoses through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||19.89|-8.60|0.40
95943920|NCT03455985|191859154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
95943921|NCT03601715|191859163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
95943922|NCT03601715|191859164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
95943923|NCT03601715|191859165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests.|ANOVA|||Based on a pilot test with eight subjects, we calculated that we would need 18 subjects to give 90% power to detect the most efficient arrangement with a α level of .05. Considering losses to follow up , we increased the sample size by 10%.|Effect size was calculated through partial eta squared and correlated using Cohen index (.1 to .3 as small, .3 to .5 as medium, and over .5 as large).|||<0.05
95943924|NCT01074294|191859169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between Least Squares (LS) means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||3.19|-1.80|0.5845
95943925|NCT01074294|191859170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.18||The p-value was derived using ANCOVA model with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.18|-1.37|0.8832
95943926|NCT01074294|191859171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.86||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.86|-0.72|0.3864
95943927|NCT01074294|191859172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58||The p value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, trial center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.58|0.10|0.0061
95943928|NCT01074294|191859173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.46||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 5 value as covariate.|ANCOVA||This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.46|-1.64|0.6932
95990761|NCT02939131|191956344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|11.29|||t-test, 2 sided||A positive difference indicates more participants with events in the COMB-R group.|This is the analysis of new trigger events through week 48. The percent of participants at each site with at least one such event was computed. The average of these site-level percents was calculated for each treatment arm. These averages were compared.||11.29|-5.27|0.44
95943929|NCT01074294|191859174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.2781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.28||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.28|-0.66|0.2781
95751364|NCT00706381|191474539|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.41
95751365|NCT00706381|191474540|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.8||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.096
95751366|NCT00706381|191474540|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|260.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|191.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
95751367|NCT00706381|191474540|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.3||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||0.83
95751368|NCT00706381|191474540|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from placebo|125.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percent change from placebo was calculated for each participant and then a t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that this difference was equal to 0.||||<0.0001
95751369|NCT01901874|191474544|OTHER|"Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=16.9% with 95.1% confidence.~Wa = expected weight (proportion) anatomic = 35% Pa = CEA expected anatomic MAE = 11% Wc = expected weight (proportion) comorbid = 65% Pc = CEA expected comorbid MAE = 14% D = noninferiority delta = 4%~PG = 0.35 x 11% + 0.65 x 14% + 4% = 16.9%"|Weighted binomial proportion|0.0448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0241|<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.1||0.0846||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.049 (from simulation) to ensure overall type-1 error rate ≤ 0.05.|Binomial test (normal approximation)||Weighted by expected fractions of anatomic and comorbid high risk subjects (35% and 65%, respectively). Standard error based on H0.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or greater proportion with 1-year MAE compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≥ 16.9% vs H1: P \< 16.9%, where P is the true proportion of CAS subjects with 1-year MAE and 16.9% is the PG based on outcomes reported for patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA).~N=280 subjects provide ≥90% power to exclude PG with 95.1% confidence if P=10.2% under H1."||0.0846||<0.00001
95751370|NCT01901874|191474552|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.047|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.047|0.007|
95751371|NCT01901874|191474553|OTHER||Cumulative probability|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.052|||||Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (Greenwood's formula for standard error)|||0.052|0.009|
95751372|NCT01698775|191474590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.33||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.63|0.035
95751373|NCT01698775|191474591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|8.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||8.8|-16.3|
95751374|NCT01698775|191474592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||7.2|-2.6|
95751375|NCT01698775|191474593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal status stratum.|||10.3|-12.2|
95751376|NCT01698775|191474594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.8||||||||9.8|-3.6|
95751377|NCT01698775|191474595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.7|-16.5|0.540
95751378|NCT01698775|191474598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||cLDA|||||1.9|-2.7|0.720
95751379|NCT01030341|191474602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<50 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
95751380|NCT01030341|191474602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hypoglycemic excursions (\<70 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
95751381|NCT01030341|191474602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of euglycemic excursions (70-180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.005
95751382|NCT01030341|191474602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>180 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||0.04
95751383|NCT01030341|191474602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Type I error: 0.05; power: 0.9|||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with independent working correlation to account for correlated data comparing screening and treatment phases||Null hypothesis: Difference of 0% in the frequencies of hyperglycemic excursions (\>300 mg/dL) during the screening phase and treatment phase respectively.||||<0.0001
95751384|NCT01030341|191474603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95751385|NCT01030341|191474603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in total GCSI score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95751386|NCT01030341|191474603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95798410|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.14|0.85|.89
95798411|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.12|0.82|.61
95798412|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.17|0.81|.75
95798413|NCT05625061|191567018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.15|0.88|.88
95798414|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.05|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to the odds among observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.05|1.00|.02
95798415|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.11|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.11|1.00|.07
95858850|NCT02910986|191675577|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||The percentage with improved knowledge (defined as having an incorrect response at T0 and a correct response at T1) was compared between study groups with chi-square tests.||||> 0.05
95943930|NCT01074294|191859174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.49||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.49|-1.15|0.4673
95943931|NCT01074294|191859174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.79||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.79|-1.54|0.5719
95943932|NCT01074294|191859174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.83||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||2.83|-1.70|0.6262
95751387|NCT01030341|191474603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in GCSI composite score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95751388|NCT01030341|191474603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95751389|NCT01030341|191474603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Mean change = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: No difference in PAGI-QOL score from screening to 24 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95751390|NCT00472797|191474653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean|2.73|||<|0.001||97.5|2.73|2.73||P-Value denotes percent change from baseline to week 12 for all combined subjects.|t-test, 1 sided|||A one-sided paired t-test across all subjects by combining the titrated and non-titrated new formulation groups was performed.||2.73|2.73|<0.001
95751391|NCT00472797|191474654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||||||P-value denotes difference between treatment groups|ANOVA|||||||0.466
95751392|NCT00472797|191474654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95858851|NCT02910986|191675578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95751393|NCT00472797|191474654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value denotes the mean percent change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.003
95751394|NCT00472797|191474655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value refers to change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ for all subjects combined.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test for change from baseline to week 12||Change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all subjects combined. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response||||<0.001
95751395|NCT00472797|191474655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value refers to differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluated differences between treatment groups in change in total score from baseline to week 12 for all domains, except global side effect score, in the MSTCQ. Lower scores indicate a more favorable response.||||0.110
95943933|NCT01074294|191859174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.87||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.87|-1.06|0.2638
95943934|NCT01074294|191859175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.37|-0.52|0.3804
95943935|NCT01074294|191859175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.39||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.39|-0.86|0.6422
95943936|NCT01074294|191859175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.55|-1.00|0.6707
95943937|NCT01074294|191859175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.64|-1.04|0.6638
95943938|NCT01074294|191859175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.36|-0.56|0.2252
95943939|NCT01074294|191859175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.7||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.70|-1.14|0.6970
95943940|NCT01074294|191859176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.11||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.11|-0.64|0.6008
95943941|NCT01074294|191859176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.27|-0.72|0.5859
95943942|NCT01074294|191859176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.34||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.34|-0.96|0.7406
95943943|NCT01074294|191859176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.37|-1.14|0.8568
95943944|NCT01074294|191859176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.64||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.64|-0.96|0.6044
95943945|NCT01074294|191859176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.66||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.66|-1.08|0.6772
95990762|NCT04033367|191956345|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-6.9||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-6.90|-24.13|<0.001
95751396|NCT00472797|191474656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value refers to differneces in total score from baseline to week 12 between treatment groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates total score from baseline to week 12 for differences between each treatment group.||||0.302
95751397|NCT00472797|191474658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value denotes differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.|ANOVA|||Analysis evaluates differences between treatment groups in change in diameter of injection site redness from baseline to week 12.||||0.899
95751398|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 12||||<0.001
95751399|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Week 36||||0.234
95751400|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.001
95751401|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.004
95858852|NCT02910986|191675579|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
95943946|NCT01074294|191859177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.15|-0.87|0.7881
95943947|NCT01074294|191859177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.19|-1.38|0.8841
95943948|NCT01074294|191859177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.17|-1.61|0.7589
95943949|NCT01074294|191859177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.93||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.93|-1.01|0.5375
95943950|NCT01074294|191859177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.08||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.08|-0.92|0.4456
95943951|NCT01074294|191859177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.89||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.89|-1.21|0.6670
95943952|NCT01074294|191859178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.01||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.01|-0.97|0.9708
95751402|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Physical Component - Change from Baseline to Exisit Visit LOCF||||0.036
95751403|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 12||||0.002
95751404|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Baseline to Week 36||||0.468
95751405|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Mental Component - Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 1||||0.602
95751406|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Extension Visit 3||||0.414
95751407|NCT00472797|191474659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Change from Baseline to Exit Visit LOCF||||0.991
95751408|NCT03395639|191474670|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major or CRNM bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.18|
95751409|NCT03395639|191474670|OTHER|Difference in adjudicated major bleeding rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
95751410|NCT03395639|191474670|OTHER|Difference in all adjudicated bleeding (major, CRNM, minor) rates were assessed.|Annualized rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.24|
95751411|NCT00942331|191474678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||1.06|0.72|0.1707
95751412|NCT01194973|191474711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|117.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.77|142.59|||ANOVA|||||142.59|92.77|<0.0001
95858853|NCT02910986|191675579|OTHER||difference between EC and UC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-6.0|11.2||||||||11.2|-6.0|
95858854|NCT02910986|191675579|OTHER||difference between INT and UC|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.3|14.3||||||||14.3|-4.3|
95943953|NCT01074294|191859178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.63||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.63|-0.65|0.3970
95943954|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 7||1.50|0.68|0.9568
95798416|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.16|0.93|.49
95798417|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.35|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.35|1.06|.005
95798418|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.25|0.98|.09
95751413|NCT01194973|191474717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|102.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.15|136.82|||ANOVA|||||136.82|68.15|<0.0001
95751414|NCT00767520|191474719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.148|||||||Un-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.148
95751415|NCT01338987|191474736|OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||||||0.0075
95798419|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.16|0.91|.63
95798420|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.04|0.82|.17
95858855|NCT02910986|191675579|OTHER||difference between INT and ENH|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.0|11.9||||||||11.9|-7.0|
95943955|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 9||1.31|0.63|0.6308
95943956|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Falling Asleep: Week 11||1.32|0.64|0.6698
95943957|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 7||1.15|0.50|0.2012
95751416|NCT02480582|191474759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.01
95751417|NCT02480582|191474760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in wanting for high fat foods between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.05
95751418|NCT02480582|191474761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Where significant effects were obtained post hoc analyses, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in hunger AUC between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||||||<0.001
95751419|NCT02480582|191474762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food.||"Energy intake measured by ad-libitum test meals (breakfast, lunch, dinner) during each intervention condition.~Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in total energy intake between almonds, cheese savouries and no food."||||<0.05
95751420|NCT00720226|191474763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants demonstrating 5-35% emphysema on baseline CT scan||||0.06
95751421|NCT00720226|191474764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with 5-35% emphysema at baseline||||0.55
95751422|NCT03856593|191474821|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly MME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|Please note that 10% of means in the pre-intervention period were trimmed to remove outliers.||-0.07|-0.20|<0.05
95751423|NCT03856593|191474822|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the interaction coefficient for the difference-in-difference in average weekly MME pre-to-post letter between study arms. It was used to acquire the estimated average weekly VME post-letter in the Outcome Measure Data table.|||-0.02|-0.15|<0.05
95751424|NCT03407118|191474848|SUPERIORITY||ratio of least square means|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.17||||||||1.17|0.803|
95751425|NCT04017754|191474858|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant for at difference in frequency of low p-MBL level(\<500 ug/l) between groups.|Prevalence proportion ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.38|||Chi-squared||The numerator is the risk of low p-MBL in the study sample with RPL patients and the denominator is the risk of low p-MBL in control group 1 of female blood donors.|Comparing the risk of low p-MBL level between RPL patients and MBL reference group. We hypothesized that more RPL patients had a low p-MBL level; thus, the null hypothesis was that no difference existed.||2.38|1.34|<0.001
95751426|NCT03508687|191474882|OTHER|||||||0.517||||||paired t test; baseline vs. week 12 (n = 5)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.517
95751427|NCT03508687|191474882|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test (n = 5)||||||0.345
95751428|NCT00775684|191474971|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t test||||=0.1
95751429|NCT00775684|191474971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated measure (baseline and 6 months)||||< 0.05
95798421|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.59|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.59|0.91|.20
95798422|NCT05625061|191567019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.15|0.91|.74
95943958|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 9||1.16|0.52|0.2365
95990763|NCT04033367|191956346|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.96|-17.78||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-17.78|-37.96|<0.001
95751430|NCT00775684|191474972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within group changes over 6 months (delta= final - baseline) were compared.||||>0.1
95751431|NCT00775684|191474973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||To determine if exenatide or sitagliptin induced significant changes from baseline, the change for each measure (Δ = final - baseline) for each group was compared with the change in the glimepiride group using independent Student t tests||||>0.1
95751432|NCT00775684|191474974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
95751433|NCT02025751|191474976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.597
95751434|NCT01635062|191474977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower plasma renin activity (PRA), when sodium restricted, when compared to placebo.||||0.69
95751435|NCT01635062|191474978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would raise renal plasma flow, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.89
95751436|NCT01635062|191474979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis was that calcitriol therapy would lower urine protein, when sodium loaded, when compared to placebo.||||0.80
95751437|NCT00359788|191474984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
95751438|NCT00359788|191474985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0042||95.0|-0.032|0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.072|-0.032|0.0042
95751439|NCT00359788|191474986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
95751440|NCT00359788|191474987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.114|-0.046|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.046|-0.114|<0.0001
95751441|NCT00359788|191474988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.0447||95.0|0.001|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.106|0.001|0.0447
95751442|NCT00359788|191474989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.171|-0.092|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.092|-0.171|<0.0001
95751443|NCT00359788|191474990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.152|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.19|-0.113|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.113|-0.19|<0.0001
95943959|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Difficulty Staying Asleep: Week 11||0.96|0.44|0.0312
95943960|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 7||1.81|0.69|0.6408
95943961|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 9||1.96|0.79|0.3467
95943962|NCT01074294|191859179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.59||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Waking Up Too Early: Week 11||1.59|0.65|0.9437
95943963|NCT01074294|191859180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||2.12|-1.30|0.6357
95943964|NCT01074294|191859180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.48||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||2.48|-1.56|0.6536
95943965|NCT01074294|191859180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.06||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||2.06|-2.20|0.9475
95943966|NCT01074294|191859180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.29||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||3.29|-1.31|0.3973
95943967|NCT01074294|191859180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|3.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||3.91|-0.96|0.2336
95943968|NCT01074294|191859180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.44||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||3.44|-1.55|0.4553
95943969|NCT01074294|191859181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.27||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.27|-0.70|0.5647
95943970|NCT01074294|191859181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.12||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.12|-1.15|0.9739
95990764|NCT04033367|191956347|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-9.56||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-9.56|-20.56|<0.001
95751444|NCT00359788|191474991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.175|<0.0001
95751445|NCT00359788|191474992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
95751446|NCT00359788|191474993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.835||95.0|-0.092|0.114|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.114|-0.092|0.835
95751447|NCT00359788|191474994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
95943971|NCT01074294|191859181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.09|-1.40|0.8077
95798423|NCT05625061|191567020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|-1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test examining change from baseline. (6-month weight - baseline weight).||-1.74|-3.16|< .0001
95798424|NCT05625061|191567021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test evaluating if the mean percent weight change is significantly different than 0. The null hypothesis is that percent weight change is equal to 0.||-1.91|-3.40|< .0001
95798425|NCT05625061|191567022|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.624|||t-test, 2 sided|||A one-sample t-test evaluating if the proportion of days weighed is significantly different from 0.||0.624|0.547|< .0001
95858856|NCT04954833|191675580|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR. A value of 0.05 logMAR is approximately 2.5 letters on the ETDRS chart.|LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.02|-0.01|
95798426|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to randomized to not receive a message.||0.02|-0.03|.43
95858857|NCT04954833|191675581|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used. A 10% of difference in the rate of lens fit acceptance is considered clinically significant.|Posterior mean difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.01|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference between the Test and Control (Test - Control) was used to evaluate non-inferiority.|Interval presented is a 95% Credible interval|||0.010|-0.009|
95943972|NCT01074294|191859181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.65||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.65|-0.98|0.6119
95943973|NCT01074294|191859181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.76||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.76|-0.94|0.5513
95943974|NCT01074294|191859181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.95||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.95|-0.81|0.4185
95943975|NCT01074294|191859182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.09||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.09|-0.80|0.7556
95990765|NCT04033367|191956348|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
95990766|NCT04033367|191956349|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-1.53||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||-1.53|-5.68|<0.001
95751448|NCT00359788|191474995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.157|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.236|-0.078|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.078|-0.236|<0.0001
95751449|NCT00359788|191474996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.4386||95.0|-0.059|0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.137|-0.059|0.4386
95751450|NCT00359788|191474997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.0001||95.0|-0.374|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||||-0.191|-0.374|0.0001
95751451|NCT00359788|191474998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.274|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.274|-0.449|<0.0001
95751452|NCT00359788|191474999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.375|-0.196|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.196|-0.375|<0.0001
95751453|NCT00359788|191475000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.207|-0.142|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.142|-0.207|<0.0001
95751454|NCT00359788|191475001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.205|-0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.131|-0.205|<0.0001
95990767|NCT04033367|191956350|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.97||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|28.79||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab versus Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||28.79|-8.86|0.297
95751455|NCT00359788|191475002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.221|-0.143|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.143|-0.221|<0.0001
95858858|NCT06170242|191675582|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in least square (LS) means|-540.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-680.8|-400.33|||ANCOVA|||High Dose versus (vs) Placebo||-400.33|-680.80|<0.0001
95943976|NCT01074294|191859182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.59||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.59|-0.60|0.3710
95943977|NCT01074294|191859182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.21|-0.99|0.8464
95943978|NCT01074294|191859182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.91||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.91|-0.53|0.2664
95943979|NCT01074294|191859182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.42||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||2.42|-0.17|0.0876
95943980|NCT01074294|191859182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.77||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.77|-0.89|0.5119
95943981|NCT01074294|191859183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-1.03|0.8986
95943982|NCT01074294|191859183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.55||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||1.55|-1.02|0.6850
95943983|NCT01074294|191859183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.1||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||1.10|-1.61|0.7108
95943984|NCT01074294|191859183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.36||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||1.36|-1.50|0.9236
95990768|NCT02723201|191956360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.505|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed least square (LS) means and its CI, respectively.||0.505|0.320|<0.001
95751456|NCT00359788|191475003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.175|-0.097|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.097|-0.175|<0.0001
95751457|NCT00359788|191475004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.125|-0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.044|-0.125|<0.0001
95751458|NCT00359788|191475005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.0997||95.0|-0.076|0.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.007|-0.076|0.0997
95751459|NCT00359788|191475006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.101||95.0|-0.007|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.08|-0.007|0.101
95751460|NCT00359788|191475007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.193|0.098|<0.0001
95990769|NCT02723201|191956360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.216||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.455|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.455|1.016|0.249
95990770|NCT02723201|191956360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.041|0.074|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.074|0.041|<0.001
95990771|NCT02723201|191956360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.685||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.499|0.939|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of Cmax with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.939|0.499|0.054
95990772|NCT02723201|191956362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.648||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.497|0.844|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.844|0.497|0.007
95990773|NCT02723201|191956362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.18||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.088|1.279|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||1.279|1.088|0.423
95990774|NCT02723201|191956362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.176|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.176|0.077|<0.001
95990775|NCT02723201|191956362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.836||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.731|0.957|||ANOVA|||ANOVA was performed on the natural logarithms of AUC∞ with regimen as the fixed effects and participant as the random effect. The point estimate and 90% CI was obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS means and its CI, respectively.||0.957|0.731|0.037
95990776|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.11|0.65|0.306
95858859|NCT06170242|191675582|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-523.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-674.46|-371.78|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-371.78|-674.46|<0.0001
95990777|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.09|0.60|0.874
95990778|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.19|0.91|0.646
95990779|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.28|0.82|0.869
95990780|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.88|0.30|0.044
95990781|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.46|0.28|<0.001
95990782|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.49|0.27|<0.001
95990783|NCT04669678|191956368|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|0.35|<0.001
95990784|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||2.74|0.57|0.641
95990785|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.80|0.87|0.204
95990786|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||2.15|0.77|0.415
95990787|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.06|1.23|0.027
95990788|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.73|0.73|0.274
95990789|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||3.13|1.07|0.065
95990790|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.75|0.79|0.252
95990791|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.33|1.57|0.002
95990792|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20||1.34|0.46|0.460
95990793|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||2.20|1.15|0.019
95990794|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||4.27|1.10|0.061
95990795|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.71|0.99|0.106
95990796|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||3.36|0.93|0.144
95990797|NCT04669678|191956369|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||4.16|1.36|0.011
95990798|NCT03216382|191956371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.93
95990799|NCT03216382|191956372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.74
95751461|NCT00359788|191475008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0411||95.0|-0.108|-0.002|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.002|-0.108|0.0411
95751462|NCT00359788|191475009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.0354||95.0|-0.116|-0.004|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.004|-0.116|0.0354
95751463|NCT00359788|191475010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.041||95.0|-0.121|-0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.003|-0.121|0.041
95751464|NCT00359788|191475011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.5387||95.0|-0.076|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.04|-0.076|0.5387
95751465|NCT00359788|191475012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.0372||95.0|0.004|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|0.004|0.0372
95751466|NCT00359788|191475013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.066|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|0.066|<0.0001
95751467|NCT00359788|191475014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.216|0.108|<0.0001
95943985|NCT01074294|191859183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.61||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||1.61|-1.35|0.8576
95751468|NCT00359788|191475015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.157|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.157|0.055|<0.0001
95943986|NCT01074294|191859183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.37||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||1.37|-1.67|0.8483
95943987|NCT01074294|191859184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 6||0.15|-0.22|0.6976
95943988|NCT01074294|191859184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 7||0.17|-0.25|0.6986
95943989|NCT01074294|191859184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 8||0.19|-0.30|0.6507
95990800|NCT03216382|191956372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||this value represents the interaction between condition and the intervention time period (squared) The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on uncontrollability of worry||||.44
95751469|NCT00359788|191475016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0023||95.0|-0.136|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.136|0.0023
95751470|NCT00359788|191475017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087||||0.0019||95.0|-0.142|-0.033|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.033|-0.142|0.0019
95751471|NCT00359788|191475018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.0044||95.0|-0.139|-0.026|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.026|-0.139|0.0044
95751472|NCT00359788|191475019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.1182||95.0|-0.103|0.012|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.012|-0.103|0.1182
95751473|NCT00359788|191475020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.4814||95.0|-0.037|0.078||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.078|-0.037|0.4814
95751474|NCT00359788|191475021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.129|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.129|0.019|0.008
95751475|NCT00359788|191475022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|0.082|<0.0001
95751476|NCT00359788|191475023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.449|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.29|-0.449|<0.0001
95751477|NCT00359788|191475024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.44|-0.272|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.272|-0.44|<0.0001
95751478|NCT00359788|191475025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.451|-0.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.264|-0.451|<0.0001
95751479|NCT00359788|191475026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.285|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.376|-0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.194|-0.376|<0.0001
95751480|NCT00359788|191475027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0003||95.0|-0.261|-0.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.079|-0.261|0.0003
95990801|NCT03216382|191956373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.17
95751481|NCT00359788|191475028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.2992||95.0|-0.143|0.044|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.044|-0.143|0.2992
95943990|NCT01074294|191859184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 9||0.20|-0.32|0.6550
95943991|NCT01074294|191859184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 10||0.38|-0.15|0.3959
95943992|NCT01074294|191859184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||The p-value was derived using MMRM method with treatment, study center, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction as class effects, and week 5 value as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference between LS means derived from the MMRM model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Change at Week 11||0.35|-0.23|0.6763
95943993|NCT01074294|191859185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.91|-0.37|0.4089
95943994|NCT01074294|191859186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||Week 11 data is included here. The planned sample size of 225 participants (150 in brexipiprazole arm and 75 in the placebo arm) yielded at least 80% power to detect effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test.|||0.20|-0.80|0.2331
95943995|NCT01074294|191859187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.00|-0.01|0.0670
95943996|NCT01074294|191859188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|1.98||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||1.98|-30.5|0.0849
95943997|NCT01074294|191859189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.6||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||2.60|-3.52|0.7663
95943998|NCT01074294|191859190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.51||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|33.29||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||33.29|1.73|0.0298
95990802|NCT03216382|191956374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time .|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine linear change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.50
95751482|NCT00359788|191475029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.0984||95.0|-0.015|0.177|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.177|-0.015|0.0984
95990803|NCT03216382|191956374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The apriori threshold for significance was a= 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and intervention period (days 7-14, squared).|Mixed Models Analysis|||HLM piecewise analysis was used to examine quadratic change from day 1-7 (visit 1 to visit 2) and change from day 7-14 (visit 2 to visit 3) on self-focused attention||||.02
95751483|NCT00359788|191475030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.379|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.379|0.178|<0.0001
95751484|NCT00359788|191475031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0004||95.0|-0.293|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.293|0.0004
95751485|NCT00359788|191475032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0003||95.0|-0.314|-0.095|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.095|-0.314|0.0003
95751486|NCT00359788|191475033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832||||0.012||95.0|-0.293|-0.072|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.072|-0.293|0.012
95751487|NCT00359788|191475034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.044||95.0|-0.219|0.003|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.003|-0.219|0.044
95943999|NCT01074294|191859191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2563
95944000|NCT01074294|191859192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.67||||0.6644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|20.06||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||20.06|-31.4|0.6644
95944001|NCT01074294|191859193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.8418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.45||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.45|-0.56|0.8418
95944002|NCT01074294|191859194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.18||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.18|-0.69|0.2513
95990804|NCT03216382|191956375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.46
95990805|NCT03216382|191956376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.53
95990806|NCT03216382|191956377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05. The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.07
95990807|NCT03216382|191956378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the apriori threshold for significance was 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.58
95751488|NCT00359788|191475035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3634||95.0|-0.058|0.158|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.158|-0.058|0.3634
95751489|NCT00359788|191475036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163||||0.0032||95.0|0.055|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.27|0.055|0.0032
95944003|NCT01074294|191859195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.71||The p-value was derived from ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and week 5 value as covariate, is used for change from week 5 comparisons.|ANCOVA||The difference between LS means derived from the ANCOVA model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|||0.71|-0.48|0.7037
95944004|NCT01074294|191859196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||0.23|-0.17|0.7572
95751490|NCT00359788|191475037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.378|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.378|0.173|<0.0001
95990808|NCT03216382|191956379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.86
95990809|NCT03216382|191956380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||the apriori threshold for significance was a = 0.05 The p value reflects the test of an interaction between condition and time.|ANOVA|||||||.39
95751491|NCT00359788|191475038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175||||0.0015||95.0|0.067|0.283|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.283|0.067|0.0015
95751492|NCT00359788|191475039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.0002||95.0|-0.296|-0.091|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.091|-0.296|0.0002
95990810|NCT03178487|191956411|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Response Rate Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|12.6|<0.001
95751493|NCT00359788|191475040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.323|-0.108|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.108|-0.323|<0.0001
95751494|NCT00359788|191475041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.198||||0.0006||95.0|-0.309|-0.086|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.086|-0.309|0.0006
95751495|NCT00359788|191475042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.0896||95.0|-0.21|0.015|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.015|-0.21|0.0896
95751496|NCT00359788|191475043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8937||95.0|-0.103|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.118|-0.103|0.8937
95858860|NCT06170242|191675582|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS means|-536.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-641.71|-430.89|||ANCOVA|||Pooled EDP-323 vs Placebo||-430.89|-641.71|<0.0001
95751497|NCT00359788|191475044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.0269||95.0|0.014|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|0.014|0.0269
95858861|NCT06170242|191675583|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.81|-4.85|<0.0001
95858862|NCT06170242|191675583|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.89|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.89|-5.44|<0.0001
95858863|NCT06170242|191675584|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.29||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.92|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.50|0.6330
95858864|NCT06170242|191675584|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.14||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||1.17|-1.46|0.8309
95858865|NCT06170242|191675586|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo.||-0.61|-2.53|0.0021
95858866|NCT06170242|191675586|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the qRT-PCR viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.09||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Lose Dose vs Placebo||0.18|-2.35|0.0905
95858867|NCT06170242|191675589|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-203.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.18|-135.07|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-135.07|-272.18|<0.0001
95858868|NCT06170242|191675589|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-215.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.84|-141.22|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-141.22|-288.84|<0.0001
95858869|NCT06170242|191675590|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.40|-4.05|<0.0001
95858870|NCT06170242|191675590|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.34|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.34|-4.11|<0.0001
95858871|NCT06170242|191675591|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.44||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.68|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||2.68|0.20|0.0238
95944005|NCT01074294|191859196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||0.17|-0.28|0.6132
95944006|NCT01074294|191859196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||0.27|-0.25|0.9312
95858872|NCT06170242|191675591|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|1.68||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||2.99|0.36|0.0134
95858873|NCT06170242|191675593|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-2.18||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.12|-4.23|0.0389
95858874|NCT06170242|191675593|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the cell culture viral load value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.31||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||1.10|-3.73|0.2713
95858875|NCT06170242|191675595|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-280.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-404.44|-156.77|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-156.77|-404.44|<0.0001
95858876|NCT06170242|191675595|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-301.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.53|-173.76|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-173.76|-428.53|<0.0001
95858877|NCT06170242|191675596|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-2.02|-5.26|<0.0001
95944007|NCT01074294|191859196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||0.24|-0.30|0.8073
95944008|NCT01074294|191859196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||0.29|-0.26|0.9168
95944009|NCT01074294|191859196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||The p-value was derived from CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||0.25|-0.34|0.7432
95944010|NCT01074294|191859197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.42|0.60|0.6014
95944011|NCT01074294|191859197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.63|0.64|0.9225
95944012|NCT01074294|191859197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.3||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.30|0.58|0.4803
95944013|NCT01074294|191859197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.27|0.65|0.5876
95944014|NCT01074294|191859197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.18|0.64|0.3727
95944015|NCT01074294|191859197|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.71|0.6265
95944016|NCT01074294|191859198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.03|0.40|0.8586
95944017|NCT01074294|191859198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.99||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||1.99|0.46|0.8984
95944018|NCT01074294|191859198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.74||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.74|0.57|0.9778
95944019|NCT01074294|191859198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.50|0.56|0.7315
95944020|NCT01074294|191859198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.6518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.42|0.57|0.6518
95944021|NCT01074294|191859198|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.23|0.55|0.3472
95944022|NCT01074294|191859199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.16||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.16|0.44|0.9577
95944023|NCT01074294|191859199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.27|0.63|0.5864
95944024|NCT01074294|191859199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.6||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.60|0.57|0.8723
95944025|NCT01074294|191859199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.52|0.65|0.9872
95944026|NCT01074294|191859199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.3171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.23|0.52|0.3171
95944027|NCT01074294|191859199|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.27||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.27|0.60|0.4782
95751498|NCT00359788|191475045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.335|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.335|0.111|0.0001
95944028|NCT01074294|191859200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.19||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||3.19|0.45|0.7232
95944029|NCT01074294|191859200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.13|0.46|0.9860
95944030|NCT01074294|191859200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.95||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.95|0.52|0.9858
95944031|NCT01074294|191859200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.78||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.78|0.58|0.9466
95944032|NCT01074294|191859200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.0||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||2.00|0.63|0.6962
95944033|NCT01074294|191859200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.51||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.51|0.57|0.7637
95944034|NCT01074294|191859201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.33||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 6||2.33|0.73|0.3631
95944035|NCT01074294|191859201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 7||2.35|0.78|0.2786
95944036|NCT01074294|191859201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.62||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 8||1.62|0.72|0.7062
95944037|NCT01074294|191859201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.35||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 9||1.35|0.67|0.7844
95944038|NCT01074294|191859201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.48||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 10||1.48|0.77|0.6940
95944039|NCT01074294|191859201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39||The p-value was derived from CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference between LS means derived from the CMH model. This comparison was tested for statistical significance at a 0.05 (two-sided) significance level.|Week 11||1.39|0.76|0.8697
95751499|NCT00359788|191475046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042||||0.7196||95.0|-0.275|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.275|0.7196
95751500|NCT00359788|191475047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069||||0.6189||95.0|-0.343|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.343|0.6189
95944040|NCT03280030|191859205|OTHER|Success criteria is considered based on point estimated Hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio, log|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|2.818||||||||2.818|0.624|
95944041|NCT00747565|191859241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETDRS line scores used for statistical comparisons with mean Snellen values reported above.||||<0.0001
95944042|NCT03367156|191859268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Linear Model|||||0.7|-0.8|0.48
95944043|NCT03367156|191859269|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1|-0.7|>0.99
95944044|NCT03367156|191859270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Linear Model|||||1.6|-0.7|0.97
95990811|NCT03178487|191956412|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.68|-1.14|<0.001
95990812|NCT03178487|191956413|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.|LS Mean Difference|-6.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-4.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.41|-9.01|<0.001
95990813|NCT03178487|191956414|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASDAI 50; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|21.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|8.5|0.002
95990814|NCT03178487|191956415|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASQoL; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.30|-2.78|0.016
95990815|NCT03178487|191956416|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including ASAS PR; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|Response Rate Difference|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.6|10.0|<0.001
95990816|NCT03178487|191956417|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASFI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-1.60|0.001
95990817|NCT03178487|191956418|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including BASMI(lin); within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.02|-0.43|0.030
95990818|NCT03178487|191956419|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including MASES; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.00|-1.68|0.049
95993825|NCT01264939|191963434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-3.06||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.06|-6.28|<0.0001
95751501|NCT00359788|191475048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.6197||95.0|-0.36|0.215|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.215|-0.36|0.6197
95751502|NCT00359788|191475049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112||||0.4582||95.0|-0.408|0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.184|-0.408|0.4582
95751503|NCT00359788|191475050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6538||95.0|-0.376|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.236|-0.376|0.6538
95751504|NCT00359788|191475051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.4145||95.0|-0.495|0.205|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.205|-0.495|0.4145
95944045|NCT03367156|191859271|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Linear Model|||||1.0|-0.8|0.78
95990819|NCT03178487|191956420|SUPERIORITY|To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint. The testing sequence included a group of endpoints tested by the Hochberg procedure, including WPAI; within the group, the allocated α was adjusted based on the magnitude of p values.|LS Mean Difference|-5.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.78|-13.82|0.190
95944046|NCT03367156|191859272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6|||Linear Model|||||9.6|-10.6|0.93
95944047|NCT03367156|191859273|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Linear Model|||||1.8|-0.6|0.93
95944048|NCT03367156|191859274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Linear Model|||||1.1|-0.9|0.82
95944049|NCT03367156|191859275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.9|||Linear Model|||||6.9|-17.9|0.38
95944050|NCT01478594|191859362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.718|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|An interim futility analysis was to be performed when approximately 83 PFS events (50% of the total PFS events) were observed. The Lans DeMets beta spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary was used to derive the futility boundary. If the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was greater than 1.0581, enrollment was to be stopped. With this futility stopping rule, the adjusted study power was 78.6%.||1.718|0.693|0.706
95990820|NCT03178487|191956421|OTHER|"To preserve the overall type I error rate at α=0.05 level, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoints. The testing began with the primary endpoint at α=0.05 and continued conditional on significance of higher-ranked endpoint.~ASAS HI was to be evaluated only if the group of endpoints tested by Hochberg procedure were all significant."|LS Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.37||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped during the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and Screening hsCRP level and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-2.37|0.007
95990821|NCT03178487|191956422|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factor of Screening hsCRP level.|||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|38.0|10.2|0.001
95990822|NCT03178487|191956423|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.08||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-2.08|-5.31|<0.001
95798427|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.01|-0.05|.19
95944051|NCT01478594|191859364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|2.218|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||2.218|0.561|0.754
95944052|NCT01478594|191859365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).||||||0.718
95944053|NCT01478594|191859366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.389||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|3.194|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||3.194|0.604|0.437
95944054|NCT01478594|191859367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.358|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were LDH status (\< 1.5 x ULN or ≥ 1.5 x ULN), origin of cancer (rectal or colon) and number of metastatic sites (1 or ≥ 2).|HR presented for the stratified analysis, which was based on the Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in the HR in favor of tivozanib.|||1.358|0.746|0.967
95944055|NCT01478594|191859370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|2.375|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.375|0.746|
95944056|NCT01478594|191859370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|1.16|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.160|0.285|
95944057|NCT01478594|191859371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|4.073|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.073|0.635|
95990823|NCT03178487|191956424|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-4.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-4.14|-8.27|<0.001
95990824|NCT03178487|191956425|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and Screening hsCRP level as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-4.01|<0.001
95990825|NCT01340209|191956428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.106|-0.082|0.7971
95990826|NCT01340209|191956428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.207|0.018|0.0203
95990827|NCT01340209|191956429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||0.068|-0.141|0.4944
95990828|NCT01340209|191956429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||0.188|-0.023|0.1270
95990829|NCT01340209|191956430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.282||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.634|24.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||24.630|-23.634|0.9677
95990830|NCT01340209|191956430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|34.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.346||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.919|58.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium Respimat 5 μg minus placebo||58.432|9.919|0.0058
95990831|NCT01340209|191956431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.182||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.388|26.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||26.680|-9.388|0.3468
95751505|NCT00359788|191475052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.6048||95.0|-0.408|0.238|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.238|-0.408|0.6048
95990832|NCT01340209|191956431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.238||0.5013||95.0|-11.927|24.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||24.359|-11.927|0.5013
95990833|NCT01340209|191956432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.196||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.601|29.517|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||29.517|-6.601|0.2132
95751506|NCT00359788|191475053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3137||95.0|-0.503|0.162|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.162|-0.503|0.3137
95990834|NCT01340209|191956432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.245||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.759|34.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||34.555|-1.759|0.0766
95990835|NCT01340209|191956433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.637|1.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 2.5 µg minus placebo||1.436|-2.637|0.5629
95990836|NCT01340209|191956433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|2.601|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for treatment, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week||Difference calculated as Tiotropium 5 μg minus placebo||2.601|-1.473|0.5871
95751507|NCT00359788|191475054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.7195||95.0|-0.395|0.273|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.273|-0.395|0.7195
95990837|NCT00353418|191956461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6119||95.0|0.68|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Sample sizes of 133 and 267 patients for RBV 800 mg daily and RBV 1000 or 1200 mg daily, respectively, provided the following probabilities of detecting the specified differences in SVR with a 0.05 level two-sided chi-square test of significance:~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.40; Probability - 0.49~RBV 800 mg SVR - 0.30; RBV 1000 or 1200 mg SVR - 0.45; Probability - 0.83"||1.93|0.68|0.6119
95990838|NCT01081795|191956494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1646
95798428|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.07|-0.16|.50
95751508|NCT00359788|191475055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.7947||95.0|-0.367|0.282|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.282|-0.367|0.7947
95751509|NCT00359788|191475056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.6049||95.0|-0.446|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.26|-0.446|0.6049
95944058|NCT01478594|191859371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.521|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.521|0.375|
95944059|NCT01478594|191859372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.366|
95944060|NCT01478594|191859372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|2.646|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.646|0.614|
95858878|NCT06170242|191675596|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-2.05|-5.35|<0.0001
95944061|NCT01478594|191859373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.507|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.507|0.345|
95944062|NCT01478594|191859373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.795|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.795|0.672|
95944063|NCT01478594|191859374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.564|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.564|0.580|
95944064|NCT01478594|191859374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.531|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.531|0.397|
95944065|NCT01478594|191859375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|5.956|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||5.956|0.636|
95944066|NCT01478594|191859375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.538|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.538|0.422|
95944067|NCT01478594|191859376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.991|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.991|0.303|
95944068|NCT01478594|191859376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.501|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.501|0.615|
95944069|NCT01478594|191859377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|2.63|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.630|0.343|
95990839|NCT01081795|191956494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4479
95944070|NCT01478594|191859377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.918|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.918|0.503|
95944071|NCT01478594|191859378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|3.214|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.214|0.468|
95944072|NCT01478594|191859378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|3.396|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.396|0.447|
95944073|NCT01478594|191859379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.1|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.100|0.307|
95944074|NCT01478594|191859379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|3.873|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.873|0.585|
95944075|NCT01478594|191859380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|2.385|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.385|0.356|
95990840|NCT01081795|191956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.1|0.1547
95990841|NCT01081795|191956495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2624
95990842|NCT01081795|191956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.2464
95751510|NCT00359788|191475057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.8109||95.0|-0.437|0.342|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.342|-0.437|0.8109
95751511|NCT00359788|191475058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.527||||0.1471||95.0|-0.186|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.186|0.1471
95751512|NCT00359788|191475059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265||||0.3192||95.0|-0.258|0.788|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.788|-0.258|0.3192
95751513|NCT00359788|191475060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.351||||0.182||95.0|-0.165|0.867|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.867|-0.165|0.182
95751514|NCT00359788|191475061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1777||95.0|-0.166|0.893|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.893|-0.166|0.1777
95751515|NCT00359788|191475062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363||||0.1805||95.0|-0.169|0.895|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.895|-0.169|0.1805
95751516|NCT00359788|191475063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.1777||95.0|-0.17|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.913|-0.17|0.1777
95751517|NCT00359788|191475064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.5725||95.0|-0.395|0.714|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.714|-0.395|0.5725
95798429|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||GEE, beta link function|||||0.10|-0.04|.40
95798430|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.05|-0.13|.38
95990843|NCT01081795|191956496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|0.3148
95990844|NCT01081795|191956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8762
95751518|NCT00359788|191475065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.6765||95.0|-0.449|0.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.69|-0.449|0.6765
95751519|NCT00359788|191475066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247||||0.3943||95.0|-0.323|0.818|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.818|-0.323|0.3943
95751520|NCT00359788|191475067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291||||0.3091||95.0|-0.271|0.852|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.852|-0.271|0.3091
95751521|NCT00359788|191475068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317||||0.2911||95.0|-0.273|0.907|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.907|-0.273|0.2911
95751522|NCT00359788|191475069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.7458||95.0|-0.549|0.766|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.766|-0.549|0.7458
95751523|NCT00359788|191475070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.698||||0.0004||95.0|4.836|16.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.56|4.836|0.0004
95990845|NCT01081795|191956497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3031
95990846|NCT01081795|191956498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1145
95751524|NCT00359788|191475071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.257||||0.0023||95.0|4.055|18.458|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||18.458|4.055|0.0023
95751525|NCT00359788|191475072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.772||||0.0015||95.0|4.942|20.602|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.602|4.942|0.0015
95751526|NCT00359788|191475073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.568||||0.0013||95.0|5.342|21.795|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.795|5.342|0.0013
95751527|NCT00359788|191475074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.052||||0.005||95.0|3.676|20.428|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.428|3.676|0.005
95751528|NCT00359788|191475075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.107||||0.0159||95.0|2.095|20.119|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.119|2.095|0.0159
95990847|NCT01081795|191956498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Month 6: ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3971
95990848|NCT01081795|191956499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.3|0.1866
95990849|NCT01081795|191956499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1507
95990850|NCT01081795|191956501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.1743
95751529|NCT00359788|191475076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.057||||0.0219||95.0|1.613|20.501|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||20.501|1.613|0.0219
95751530|NCT00359788|191475077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.655||||0.0048||95.0|4.207|23.104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||23.104|4.207|0.0048
95751531|NCT00359788|191475078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.231||||0.0058||95.0|4.153|24.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||24.31|4.153|0.0058
95751532|NCT00359788|191475079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.597||||0.0248||95.0|1.483|21.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.71|1.483|0.0248
95751533|NCT00359788|191475080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.001||||0.0325||95.0|0.924|21.079|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||21.079|0.924|0.0325
95751534|NCT00359788|191475081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.074||||0.0153||95.0|2.726|25.422|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||25.422|2.726|0.0153
95990851|NCT01081795|191956501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.2165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||ANCOVA method using the treatment group as the factor and using the value obtained during the baseline measurement period as the covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2165
95990852|NCT01081795|191956502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.1||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.0||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||14.0|-3.8|0.3083
95990853|NCT01081795|191956502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0||||0.7235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.6||Month 6|Fisher Exact|||||10.6|-6.6|0.7235
95990854|NCT00430508|191956510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.97|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-6.97|<0.0001
95751535|NCT00359788|191475082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.755||||0.6105||95.0|-8.532|5.022|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||5.022|-8.532|0.6105
95751536|NCT00359788|191475083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.8249||95.0|-6.642|8.326|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.326|-6.642|0.8249
95751537|NCT00359788|191475084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.4896||95.0|-5.001|10.421|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.421|-5.001|0.4896
95751538|NCT00359788|191475085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.898||||0.0935||95.0|-1.172|14.968|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.968|-1.172|0.0935
95751539|NCT00359788|191475086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.419||||0.4339||95.0|-5.17|12.007|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||12.007|-5.17|0.4339
95751540|NCT00359788|191475087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.971||||0.845||95.0|-10.74|8.799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||8.799|-10.74|0.845
95990855|NCT00430508|191956510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-2.03|||ANCOVA|||||-2.03|-4.79|<0.0001
95990856|NCT00430508|191956510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1788||95.0|-2.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.32|0.1788
95990857|NCT00430508|191956511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.54|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.54|<0.0001
95990858|NCT00430508|191956511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.39|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.39|<0.0001
95990859|NCT00430508|191956511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1081||95.0|-2.19|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-2.19|0.1081
95990860|NCT00430508|191956512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.13|-4.66|||ANCOVA|||||-4.66|-10.13|<0.0001
95990861|NCT00430508|191956512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-2.91|||ANCOVA|||||-2.91|-7.4|<0.0001
95990862|NCT00430508|191956512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0255||95.0|-4.79|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-4.79|0.0255
95990863|NCT00430508|191956513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.0|-4.26|||ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-9.00|<0.0001
95990864|NCT00430508|191956513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.7|-2.81|||ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-6.70|<0.0001
95990865|NCT00430508|191956513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0812||95.0|-3.66|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-3.66|0.0812
95990866|NCT00430508|191956514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||||95.0|1.69|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|1.69|
95751541|NCT00359788|191475088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194||||0.9696||95.0|-9.811|10.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||10.199|-9.811|0.9696
95751542|NCT00359788|191475089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.129||||0.3252||95.0|-5.117|15.376|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||15.376|-5.117|0.3252
95751543|NCT00359788|191475090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.062||||0.452||95.0|-6.558|14.683|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.683|-6.558|0.452
95751544|NCT00359788|191475091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14||||0.4388||95.0|-6.372|14.651|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||14.651|-6.372|0.4388
95751545|NCT00359788|191475092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.185||||0.8288||95.0|-9.595|11.964|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||11.964|-9.595|0.8288
95751546|NCT00359788|191475093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.204||||0.4929||95.0|-7.857|16.264|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||16.264|-7.857|0.4929
95751547|NCT00359788|191475094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204||||0.0754||95.0|-0.021|0.429|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.429|-0.021|0.0754
95751548|NCT00359788|191475095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251||||0.0765||95.0|-0.027|0.528|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.528|-0.027|0.0765
95751549|NCT00359788|191475096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151||||0.163||95.0|-0.061|0.363|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.363|-0.061|0.163
95751550|NCT00359788|191475097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285||||0.0085||95.0|0.073|0.496|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.496|0.073|0.0085
95751551|NCT03182582|191475122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t test|||A sample size of 22 patients was required to achieve 80% power, using a two-tailed test with α = 0.05.||||0.003
95751552|NCT01232491|191475132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.49||||0.132||95.0|-0.15|1.13||If the p-value for the two-sided test was less than 5%, and D (the estimated treatment difference \[dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention\]) was less than 0 then superiority for dietary intervention was considered confirmed.|Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors and age and weight at baseline as covariates. Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference (dietary intervention versus no dietary intervention), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0 kg.||1.13|-0.15|0.132
95751553|NCT01232491|191475133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.17||||0.137||95.0|-0.05|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, use of insulin secretagogue at screening, sex and region as factors, and age and BMI at baseline as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.137
95751554|NCT01232491|191475134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.13||||0.053||95.0|0.0|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and HbA1c at baseline as covariate.||0.26|-0.00|0.053
95751555|NCT01232491|191475135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.07||||0.674||95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model with treatment, strata, use of insulin secretagogue at screening and region as factors and FPG at baseline as covariate.||0.39|-0.25|0.674
95944076|NCT01478594|191859380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.22|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.220|0.462|
95751556|NCT00461253|191475140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at menarche and physical activity (primary analysis)|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.12|0.88|
95751557|NCT00461253|191475140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||||Breast cancer OR for ever use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD, crude|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.17|0.93|
95764324|NCT03649347|191498733|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005||||||Interaction effect: p\<.005, np2=.481|ANOVA|Main effect of time: p\<.001, np2=.572; and main effect of group p\<.001, np2=.626||A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to assess main effects of group (AR therapy intervention versus no treatment control), time (baseline, one week follow up, and one month follow up) as well as an interaction effect. The P-Value shown below is for the interaction effect. Post-hoc power analysis indicated actual power 99%, critical F=3.49.||||<.005
95764325|NCT03048552|191498736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.148
95944077|NCT01478594|191859381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|2.512|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||2.512|0.334|
95990867|NCT00430508|191956514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||||95.0|1.5|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|1.50|
95990868|NCT00430508|191956514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|1.07|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.07|
95764326|NCT03048552|191498737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95764327|NCT03048552|191498738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
95764328|NCT03048552|191498740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.625
95751558|NCT00461253|191475140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis; adjusted for BMI, family history of breast cancer, age at first birth, age at first menarche, physical activity (primary analysis)"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.39|0.52|
95751559|NCT00461253|191475140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a prevalence of current Mirena use among fertile women of 8% in Finland and 2% in Germany, it was estimated that 3,500 cases and 14,000 controls would be needed to exclude a 1.5-fold breast cancer risk for Mirena users compared with users of copper IUDs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.41|||||"Breast cancer OR for current use of LNG-IUD vs. Cu-IUD at time of breast cancer diagnosis, crude"|In this matched case-control study, conditional logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between a woman being a breast cancer case or a control (dichotomous dependent variable), and a set of actual or potential prognostic factors (covariates) for breast cancer (incl. the use of Mirena). Conditional logistic regression uses a maximum likelihood approach for estimating the covariates; data are stratified and the likelihoods are computed relative to each stratum.||1.41|0.58|
95751560|NCT02297438|191475141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.867||1-sided p-value from the adjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral vs. non-visceral) per Randomization.||0.867|0.529|0.0012
95751561|NCT02297438|191475142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.14778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.139||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.139|0.651|0.14778
95798431|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.04|-0.10|.40
95751562|NCT02297438|191475143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.1||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.100|0.805|0.154
95944078|NCT01478594|191859381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|3.455|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||3.455|0.554|
95751563|NCT02297438|191475144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.066||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.066|0.762|0.206
95944079|NCT01478594|191859382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|4.32|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||4.320|0.548|
95944080|NCT01478594|191859382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.85|||||The hazard ratio was calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazard model including treatment arms as the covariate. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Tivozanib arm.|||1.850|0.299|
95944081|NCT01988402|191859407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95944082|NCT00571649|191859436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.771||||0.0211||95.0|0.618|0.962||Hochberg procedure: A 2-sided p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the 1-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.025, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (91.4% for superiority) with 4% event rate at day 35 for comparator and 40% relative risk reduction.||0.962|0.618|0.0211
95798432|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.03|-0.13|.22
95944083|NCT00571649|191859437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI (Confidence Interval) was less than 1.5|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.968||||0.0025||95.0|0.713|1.314||Hochberg procedure: A 1-sided p-value of less than 0.025 would be considered significant, if the 2-sided p-value of the other primary efficacy outcome measure was less than 0.05, elsewise a p-value of less than 0.0125 would be considered significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||A sample size of 2876 valid patients per group was estimated to obtain a joint power of at least 90% for both primary endpoints (98.6% power for non-inferiority) with 1.8% event rate at day 10 for comparator and 35% relative risk reduction.||1.314|0.713|0.0025
95751564|NCT02297438|191475145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.315||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.095||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.095|0.825|0.135
95751565|NCT02297438|191475146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.392||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|2.346||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.346|0.825|0.117
95751566|NCT02297438|191475149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.673||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.673|0.533|0.471
95751567|NCT02297438|191475150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.621||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.621|0.474|0.383
95751568|NCT02297438|191475151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.082||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.082|0.725|0.248
95751569|NCT02297438|191475152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.349||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|2.509||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Fisher Exact||An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole group.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||2.509|0.731|0.189
95751570|NCT02297438|191475153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.36502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.286||1-sided p-value was from exact test.|Log Rank||Assuming Cox proportional hazards, hazard ratio less than 1 indicates reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Letrozole.|Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.||1.286|0.698|0.36502
95944084|NCT00571649|191859438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.931||||0.3758||95.0|0.795|1.091||Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the two primary efficacy outcome measures were significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.091|0.795|0.3758
95944085|NCT00571649|191859439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.991||||0.9473||95.0|0.753|1.304||"Test hierarchy: A p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant, if the tests for the 2 primary efficacy outcomes and for Composite endpoint of VTE (any DVT, non fatal PE) and all-cause mortality up to Day 35 + 6 days were significant."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||||1.304|0.753|0.9473
95944086|NCT00571649|191859448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|3.251||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted relative risks were calculated using asymptotic methods, with weights based upon sample sizes per strata (geographic region).||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.251|1.854|<0.0001
95944087|NCT00571649|191859449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.628|3.171||2-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There was no sample size estimation as this was not planed as confirmatory analysis||3.171|1.628|<0.0001
95944088|NCT04191824|191859454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.1||In order to maintain an overall alpha of 0.05 and account for two interim analyses, a two-sided alpha of 0.0492 was used for assessing the statistical significance in the final analysis of this primary endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-2.7|0.7769
95944089|NCT04191824|191859455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.151|||Chi-squared|||||0.151|0.061|<0.0001
95944090|NCT04191824|191859456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.12|||Chi-squared|||||0.120|-0.006|0.0753
95944091|NCT04191824|191859457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.016|||Chi-squared|||||0.016|-0.013|0.8044
95944092|NCT04191824|191859458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.002|||Chi-squared|||||0.002|-0.105|0.0570
95944093|NCT04191824|191859459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.072|||Chi-squared|||||0.072|0.018|0.0012
95944094|NCT04191824|191859460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.006||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.055|||Chi-squared|||||0.055|-0.066|0.8483
95944095|NCT02397096|191859470|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) once daily (QD) ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-3.784|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.877|0.31|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|0.310|-7.877|
95944096|NCT02397096|191859471|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.92|-10.38|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-10.38|-18.92|<0.0001
95944097|NCT02397096|191859472|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-23.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.05|||ANCOVA||95% CIs and 2-sided p-values were calculated from an ANCOVA model with terms for baseline lipid level, use of lipid-lowering therapy at Study Day 1 and treatment.|||-18.05|-28.00|<0.0001
95944098|NCT02397096|191859473|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -8 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.706|2.952|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.||Superiority of an immediate switch to DOR/3TC/TDF over continuation of the baseline regimen was defined by a lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates being greater than zero (contingent upon satisfying the multiplicity criteria).|2.952|-4.706|
95990869|NCT00430508|191956515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.78|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-6.78|<0.0001
95751571|NCT02297438|191475160|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.031||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.08|-0.02|0.1914
95751572|NCT02297438|191475161|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.358||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.83|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||5.83|0.88|0.0078
95751573|NCT02297438|191475162|SUPERIORITY||Mean|0.476||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.92|||Mixed effects model||A positive change indicates improvement from baseline and a negative change indicates deterioration.|The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||3.92|-2.97|0.7862
95751574|NCT00605865|191475226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95798433|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.18|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.18|-0.11|.59
95944099|NCT02397096|191859474|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|23.5|||||95% CIs were calculated based on t-distribution.|||23.5|-31.6|
95944100|NCT02397096|191859475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|15.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals were based on t-distribution.|||15.4|-41.1|
95944101|NCT02397096|191859476|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.977|0.864|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||0.864|-7.977|
95944102|NCT02397096|191859477|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.591|3.738|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||3.738|-4.591|
95944103|NCT02397096|191859478|NON_INFERIORITY|DOR/3TC/TDF QD ISG is concluded to be non-inferior to baseline regimen DSG if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -4 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.529|2.064|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||2.064|-2.529|
95944104|NCT03500549|191859482|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using a mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM). The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean Hb changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.34||Superiority was tested at the 5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||5.34|2.33|<0.0001
95944105|NCT03500549|191859483|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified non-inferiority margins (NIM) and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of -20%. Stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified (Miettinen-Nurminen) method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.7677||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level.|Miettinen-Nurminen|||||0.7677|0.4830|<0.0001
95944106|NCT03500549|191859484|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 10.|LS mean difference|-163.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.91|-137.3||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-137.30|-189.91|<0.0001
95990870|NCT00430508|191956515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.54|-1.78|||ANCOVA|||||-1.78|-4.54|<0.0001
95751575|NCT00605865|191475227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drug. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drug in the participants of responders."||||0.039
95858879|NCT06170242|191675597|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.08||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||0.03|-2.19|0.0552
95751576|NCT00605865|191475228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.011
95751577|NCT00605865|191475229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||0.010
95751578|NCT00605865|191475230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was average daily dose. The null hypothesis is there is no difference of five types of average daily dose in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95751579|NCT00605865|191475231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without suicidal ideation(including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.014
95751580|NCT00605865|191475232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.021
95751581|NCT00605865|191475233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was target disease severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between three grade of target disease severity in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95751582|NCT00605865|191475234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was history of treatment prior to Sertralin. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without history of treatment prior to Sertralin in the participants of responders."||||0.003
95751583|NCT00605865|191475235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was outpatient or inpatient. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between outpatient or inpatient in the participants of responders."||||0.012
95751584|NCT00605865|191475236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without complications in the participants of responders."||||0.019
95944107|NCT03500549|191859485|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis was based on prespecified NIM and non-inferiority was achieved if the lower confidence limit or upper confidence limit of the 95% CI of the treatment difference met the prespecified NIM of 20.|LS mean difference|-4.63||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-181.3|172.04||Non-inferiority was tested at the 2.5% level. MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||172.04|-181.30|0.9557
95944108|NCT03500549|191859486|OTHER|Non-inferiority was not assessed because of the prespecified hierarchical testing. Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.87||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|18.25||MRMM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||18.25|5.49|0.0005
95944109|NCT03500549|191859487|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5452|0.8039|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.8039|0.5452|
95944110|NCT03500549|191859488|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.6639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5309|0.7968|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.7968|0.5309|
95944111|NCT03500549|191859489|OTHER|Stratified CMH chi-square test was used for treatment comparison and the 95% CI for difference in percentage between treatments is constructed using the stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|0.3043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1493|0.4593|||||The difference in percentage and 95% CI is calculated based on stratified Miettinen-Nurminen method stratified by randomization factor so it it is not a direct difference of two reporting groups.|||0.4593|0.1493|
95944112|NCT03500549|191859490|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-21.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|-11.36||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-11.36|-32.49|0.0002
95944113|NCT03500549|191859491|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||-0.01|-0.28|0.0369
95944114|NCT03500549|191859492|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|59.1||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|101.32||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||||101.32|16.88|0.0069
95944115|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|18.62||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|37.13||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Global Health Status/QoL: Difference in LS mean||37.13|0.12|0.0486
95944116|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|12.86||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|20.86||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning: Difference in LS mean||20.86|4.86|0.0023
95990871|NCT00430508|191956515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1452||95.0|-2.43|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.43|0.1452
95990872|NCT00430508|191956516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.79|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-6.79|<0.0001
95990873|NCT00430508|191956516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.79|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-4.79|<0.0001
95990874|NCT00430508|191956516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1629||95.0|-2.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-2.52|0.1629
95990875|NCT00430508|191956517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.4|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||||-3.62|-7.40|<0.0001
95990876|NCT00430508|191956517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.0009||95.0|-4.12|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-4.12|<0.0009
95990877|NCT00430508|191956517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1985||95.0|-2.55|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-2.55|0.1985
95990878|NCT03138876|191956519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95990879|NCT00408694|191956594|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis, H0: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≤ 0.05. Alternative hypothesis, HA: Incidence of patients with either grade 4 hemorrhage or any grade 5 adverse event for the protocol treatment regimen ≥ 0.15.|If 3 of the first 14 patients or 4 of the first 42 patients experience the specified adverse events, then the regimen is considered unacceptable as calculated by the Fleming method for a two-stage design with type I error and the statistical power were set at 0.14 and 0.83, respectively.|||
95990880|NCT03889639|191956603|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-56.16||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.99|17.05|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||17.05|-193.99|0.1673
95990881|NCT03889639|191956603|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.24|41.91|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||41.91|-356.24|0.3540
95751585|NCT00605865|191475237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was 15 years and higher of age or not. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between 15 years and higher of age or not in the participants of responders."||||0.010
95751586|NCT00605865|191475238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between four groups of age in the participants of responders."||||0.015
95751587|NCT00605865|191475239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95990882|NCT03889639|191956603|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|13.49||||0.7674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.05|66.89|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||66.89|-126.05|0.7674
95990883|NCT03889639|191956603|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|85.02||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.02|96.88|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.88|28.02|0.0178
95990884|NCT03889639|191956604|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|10.17||||0.7736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.49|56.73|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||56.73|-86.49|0.7736
95990885|NCT03889639|191956604|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|37.07||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|71.32|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||71.32|-38.08|0.2480
95751588|NCT02307266|191475245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
95751589|NCT02307266|191475245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0206
95751590|NCT02944383|191475249|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-4.25|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.25|-33.07|0.0063
95990886|NCT03889639|191956604|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|38.5||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.61|75.85|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||75.85|-56.61|0.3081
95990887|NCT03889639|191956604|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model without adjusting for Baseline T2 lesion activity as all participants had at least one T2 lesion at Baseline.|Relative reduction in lesions|89.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.39|96.41|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||96.41|68.39|0.0001
95751591|NCT02944383|191475249|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.88|7.05|||Ranked ANCOVA|Randomized treatment group \& randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as covariate.|Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||7.05|-25.88|0.2350
95751592|NCT02944383|191475250|OTHER|||||||0.1663||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1663
95751593|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6195||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6195
95751594|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0436||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0436
95751595|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5000
95751596|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0007
95751597|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1161||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1161
95751598|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1830
95751599|NCT02944383|191475250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8762
95751600|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1780
95944117|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|24.43||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|40.01||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Role functioning: Difference in LS mean||40.01|8.84|0.0027
95944118|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|4.11||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|19.8||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Emotional functioning: Difference in LS mean||19.80|-11.58|0.6013
95944119|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|9.56||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|23.64||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning: Difference in LS mean||23.64|-4.52|0.1792
95944120|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|11.27||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|24.92||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Functional Scales - Social functioning: Difference in LS mean||24.92|-2.38|0.1039
95944121|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-20.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.29|-6.19||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue: Difference in LS mean||-6.19|-35.29|0.0062
95944122|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|8.35||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and vomiting: Difference in LS mean||8.35|-8.38|0.9975
95751601|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7615||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7615
95751602|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0162
95751603|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.3710
95751604|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
95751605|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0988||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0988
95751606|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2594||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2594
95751607|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9099||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9099
95751608|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0219
95751609|NCT02944383|191475251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494||||||Ranked ANCOVA results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group and randomized baseline statin (yes or no) are included as factors, and outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3494
95798434|NCT05625061|191567023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily active minutes goal that was met among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.06|-0.10|.62
95798435|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to randomized to not receive a message.||0.01|-0.01|1.00
95798436|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.04|-0.10|.40
95944123|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|14.85||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Pain: Difference in LS mean||14.85|-20.36|0.7554
95944124|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-14.57||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.76||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea: Difference in LS mean||0.76|-29.90|0.0620
95751610|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0391
95751611|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2455||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2455
95751612|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0260
95751613|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5704||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.5704
95751614|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
95751615|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0846||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0846
95944125|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|16.3||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia: Difference in LS mean||16.30|-15.67|0.9686
95751616|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1763||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1763
95798437|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.02|-0.07|.38
95858880|NCT06170242|191675597|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.38||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||0.92|-1.69|0.5599
95944126|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.95||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|7.33||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss: Difference in LS mean||7.33|-23.23|0.3002
95944127|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|1.79||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|19.29||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Constipation: Difference in LS mean||19.29|-15.70|0.8374
95944128|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|16.52||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea: Difference in LS mean||16.52|-19.28|0.8775
95944129|NCT03500549|191859493|OTHER|Analysis was a between-treatment-group comparison using an MMRM. The difference between pegcetacoplan and eculizumab LS mean changes from Baseline at Week 16 was calculated along with its 2-sided 95% CI and associated P-value from the MMRM model for the ITT set, censored for transfusions.|LS mean difference|-7.4||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|6.95||MMRM includes treatment + baseline value + analysis visit + strata + analysis visit × treatment, where strata is the combination of randomization stratification factors.|MMRM|||Symptom Scales - Financial difficulties: Difference in LS mean||6.95|-21.76|0.3066
95944130|NCT03500549|191859494|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test P-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% CI is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||4.0|2.0|<0.0001
95944131|NCT01371994|191859510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and Baseline daily pad usage (≤ 3 and \> 3).||The treatment difference in the primary efficacy variable was tested using a log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center and by Baseline daily pad usage (≤3 and \>3) at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.1745
95751617|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5576||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5576
95944132|NCT01371994|191859511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4833|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 4||||0.4833
95944133|NCT01371994|191859511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5761|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 8||||0.5761
95944134|NCT01371994|191859511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0592|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison at Week 12||||0.0592
95751618|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.66||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-4.39||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.39|-24.68|0.0086
95751619|NCT02944383|191475252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.06||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|3.64||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.64|-15.02|0.1516
95944135|NCT01371994|191859511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mental-Haenszel test stratified by (pooled) center||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||||0.0390
95944136|NCT01371994|191859513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 4||0.38|-0.14|0.3604
95944137|NCT01371994|191859513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 8||0.52|-0.03|0.0761
95990888|NCT03889639|191956605|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 5 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-62.16||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.44|16.38|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 5 mg/Placebo||16.38|-214.44|0.1525
95990889|NCT03889639|191956605|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 15 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|-47.38||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.91|47.4|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 15 mg/Placebo||47.40|-312.91|0.4606
95990890|NCT03889639|191956605|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 30 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|2.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.96|60.54|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 30 mg/Placebo||60.54|-138.96|0.9490
95990891|NCT03889639|191956605|SUPERIORITY|Relative reduction in lesions in SAR442168 60 mg (Cohorts 1 and 2) when compared with placebo (Cohort 2) with 95% CI were reported. Analysis was performed using a negative binomial regression model adjusted for Baseline gadolinium-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesion activity (presence/absence).|Relative reduction in lesions|65.05||||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.21|93.77|||Negative binomial regression model|Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.||SAR442168 60 mg/Placebo||93.77|-96.21|0.2324
95990892|NCT00087646|191956609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Group A Vs Group D||3.31|1.21|0.0060
95751620|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0386
95751621|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1206
95751622|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0364
95751623|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4312||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4312
95751624|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
95751625|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0407
95751626|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1433
95751627|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2866||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2866
95751628|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0056
95944138|NCT01371994|191859513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.64|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison at Week 12||0.64|0.07|0.0149
95944139|NCT01371994|191859513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model including treatment and (pooled) center as fixed factors.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.52|0.02|0.0325
95944140|NCT01371994|191859515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.19|-0.60|0.5186
95990893|NCT00087646|191956610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.51|0.63|0.9228
95990894|NCT00087646|191956611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|1.40|0.0006
95944141|NCT01371994|191859515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.17|-0.52|0.4521
95944142|NCT01371994|191859517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.47|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||0.47|-0.07|0.1493
95944143|NCT01371994|191859517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||0.44|-0.07|0.1499
95944144|NCT01371994|191859519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||1.23|-0.16|0.1279
95944145|NCT01371994|191859519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.23|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||1.23|-0.11|0.1038
95944146|NCT01371994|191859521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|3.63|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||3.63|-4.19|0.8876
95944147|NCT01371994|191859521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.21|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||3.21|-8.10|0.3950
95990895|NCT00087646|191956612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 12||4.18|1.66|<.0001
95990896|NCT00087646|191956612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24||1.79|0.89|0.1955
95990897|NCT00087646|191956612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48||1.93|0.95|0.0883
95990898|NCT00087646|191956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 12)||3.19|1.67|<.0001
95990899|NCT00087646|191956613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Groups A vs Groups D (Week 24)||1.60|0.85|0.3389
95751629|NCT02944383|191475253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789||||||Results are obtained using a model where outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0789
95944148|NCT01371994|191859523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|6.81|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.81|-2.82|0.4126
95944149|NCT01371994|191859523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.85|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.85|-3.92|0.6959
95944150|NCT01371994|191859525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.91|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||8.91|-2.26|0.2402
95944151|NCT01371994|191859525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||6.70|-4.50|0.6980
95944152|NCT01371994|191859527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.89|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison at Week 12||6.89|-2.80|0.4067
95944153|NCT01371994|191859527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including Baseline value as a covariates and fixed effects for (pooled) center and treatment.||Comparison of end of treatment analysis||5.10|-4.21|0.8507
95944154|NCT01371994|191859528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Based on a Log-rank test stratified by (pooled) center.||||||0.2700
95990900|NCT01665144|191956634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.95|0.65|0.0134
95990901|NCT01665144|191956635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.10|0.80|0.4398
95990902|NCT01665144|191956636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-613.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-800.2|-426.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 12||-426.0|-800.2|<0.0001
95990903|NCT01665144|191956636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-777.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-990.6|-564.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Month 24||-564.4|-990.6|<0.0001
95990904|NCT01665144|191956636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-695.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.3|-513.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Average over Month 12 and Month 24||-513.3|-877.3|<0.0001
95990905|NCT01665144|191956637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.92|0.60|0.0058
95990906|NCT01665144|191956638|SUPERIORITY||ARR ratio|0.445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.587|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.587|0.337|<0.0001
95798438|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.05|-0.05|1.00
95798439|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.00|-0.09|.08
95798440|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.06|-0.04|.70
95798441|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.06|-0.02|.33
95944155|NCT01983683|191859531|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||1.3|-10.7|
95990907|NCT01665144|191956639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.41|<0.0001
95798442|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.12|-0.11|1.00
95798443|NCT05625061|191567024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||GEE, beta link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This ratio outcome was analyzed using a beta link function. The regression coefficient represents the estimated difference in the proportion of the daily red foods limit that was tracked among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive the message.||0.04|-0.06|.70
95798444|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.00|0.95|.12
95798445|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.01|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.01|0.94|.27
95858881|NCT06170242|191675598|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-1.04||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-0.10|-1.97|0.0307
95990908|NCT01665144|191956641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.19|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.19|-3.85|0.0764
95990909|NCT01665144|191956641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.44|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||1.44|-3.89|0.3671
95990910|NCT01665144|191956642|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.126|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.191|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.191|0.083|<0.0001
95990911|NCT01665144|191956642|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.362|||Negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.362|0.087|<0.0001
95751630|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0277
95751631|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2502
95751632|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0161
95751633|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6567||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6567
95751634|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0010
95751635|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1257
95751636|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1440
95798446|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.|Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||GEE, log link function|||||1.08|0.88|.56
95798447|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.10|0.91|1.00
95798448|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.04|0.87|0.26
95858882|NCT06170242|191675598|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the TSS value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-0.53||||0.4119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-1.81|0.4119
95944156|NCT01983683|191859531|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Sensitivity analysis with imputation for a single day with missing UBM data between one day before end-of-treatment (EOT) and 2 days after EOT||2.3|-9.6|
95751637|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7642
95751638|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.31|-4.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-4.51|-28.31|0.0107
95751639|NCT02944383|191475254|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.32||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|5.52||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.52|-16.73|0.2466
95751640|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0211
95990912|NCT01665144|191956643|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.328|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 12||0.328|0.215|<0.0001
95990913|NCT01665144|191956643|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.196|||Regression model|Repeated measures negative binomial regression model||Month 24||0.196|0.103|<0.0001
95990914|NCT01665144|191956644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.247|||Repeated measures model|||Month 12||0.247|0.103|<0.0001
95990915|NCT01665144|191956644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.236|||Repeated measures model|||Month 24||0.236|0.021|0.0196
95944157|NCT01983683|191859532|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of CCR for cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above -10%|Difference between 2 proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.6|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson' score method|||0.6|-10.4|
95944158|NCT01983683|191859533|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of cadazolid versus vancomycin is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) is above zero|Difference between 2 proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||9.4|-6.1|
95944159|NCT01983683|191859534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24||two-sided p-value (alpha 5%) based on log-rank test stratified by first occurrence / first recurrence and geographical region.|Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.7794
95944160|NCT01983683|191859535|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the diarrhea domain scores||0.17|-0.26|0.6871
95944161|NCT01983683|191859535|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.025||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the abdominal symptoms domain scores||0.20|-0.15|0.7833
95751641|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1304||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1304
95751642|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.0318
95751643|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4607||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.4607
95751644|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0012
95944162|NCT01983683|191859535|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.061||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||Two-sided 5% alpha level was used|ANOVA|ANOVA model for repeated measurements was fitted using all values from Day 1 (baseline) to Day 12.|The Least Square Means of the treatments differences for the changes from baseline at Day 3 were obtained using estimate statements|Comparison of the other symptoms domain scores||0.21|-0.09|0.4145
95990916|NCT01665144|191956645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses at baseline||1.11|0.68|
95751645|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0592
95751646|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1170
95751647|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3138
95944163|NCT01983683|191859536|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||4.2|-6.5|
95944164|NCT01983683|191859537|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||3.3|-6.5|
95944165|NCT01983683|191859538|OTHER||Difference between 2 proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.4|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|Exploratory analysis||16.4|1.1|
95944166|NCT01983683|191859539|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis|Difference between 2 proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.9|||||CI for the difference between two proportions are estimated using the Wilson's score method|||10.9|-5.5|
95944167|NCT03400150|191859545|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.025
95944168|NCT02866942|191859604|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||McNemar|||||||0.26
95944169|NCT00372775|191859609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.8|||||Two-Sided Confidence Interval (CI) from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||8.8|0.0|
95944170|NCT00372775|191859611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR (percent)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.9|||||Two-Sided CI from Exact Method using the F Distribution|||21.9|0.1|
95990917|NCT01665144|191956645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses at baseline||0.91|0.49|
95990918|NCT01665144|191956645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.06|0.69|
95990919|NCT01665144|191956645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With superimposed relapses post-treatment||1.19|0.53|
95990920|NCT01665144|191956646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Rapidly evolving patients||0.91|0.46|
95990921|NCT01665144|191956646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Not rapidly evolving patients||1.09|0.69|
95990922|NCT01665144|191956647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|||With moderate or severe course of disease||0.99|0.65|
95751648|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0090
95751649|NCT02944383|191475255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1317||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1317
95751650|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2395||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.2395
95751651|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6380
95751652|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7468||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7468
95798449|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.06|0.89|.49
95944171|NCT00372775|191859614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.3|||||Probability of survival along with the corresponding 2-sided confidence interval for the log \[-log(one-year survival rate)\] calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a confidence interval for the one-year survival|||34.3|14.0|
95944172|NCT03577106|191859687|OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||t(20)=3.3, p\<0.005|paired t-test|||Mean difference using a paired t-test||||<0.005
95944173|NCT02347332|191859697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.8329
95944174|NCT02347332|191859698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3576
95944175|NCT02347332|191859699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.467
95944176|NCT02347332|191859700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.243
95944177|NCT02347332|191859701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold significance value p\<0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.6289
95944178|NCT01970007|191859712|OTHER||Freedom from MAE rate (%)|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.5|98.6|||One-sided Exact binomial test||One-sided Exact binomial test|||98.6|93.5|<0.0001
95944179|NCT01970007|191859713|OTHER||12-month quantitative patency rate (%)|89.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|93.4|||Binomial test for one proportion||Binomial test for one proportion|||93.4|85.1|<0.0001
95944180|NCT01970007|191859714|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.6||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity|paired t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05.||||-2.6|-3.5|<0.0001
95751653|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8483||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8483
95751654|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0008
95944181|NCT01970007|191859715|OTHER||Change from Baseline Mean|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.7||p-value is adjusted for multiplicity.|pair t-test|A paired t-test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm's procedure to control for a family-wise Type I error rate of 0.05||||-3.7|-4.7|<0.0001
95944182|NCT05230433|191859721|OTHER||Percent Consumed|86.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||High fat agents were weighed pre- and post- providing the shake to the participant. All containers were tared to take into account straw, lid, and glass weight. Percentage of high-fat challenge consumed was calculated by post-shake weight / pre-shake weight. 13 out of 15 partcipants drank \>75% of the shake.||||0.15
95944183|NCT05230433|191859722|OTHER|No test vs. control groups.||||||0.65||||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Pearson Correlation|||Fold change from 60 to 180 minutes of average medium chain acylcarnitine was calculated for each participant. Pearson correlation between BMI percentile and fold change was calculated.|Pearson Correlation between both secondary outcomes reported: BMI percentile and fold change between acylcarnitine at 60 minutes and 180 minutes post the high fat challenge.|||0.65
95944184|NCT00754065|191859737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||F-statistic|9.3218||||0.0024||||||Comparison of EV/DNG vs. EE/NGM|ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA model with treatment and pain strata (headache and pelvic pain) as factors||||0.0024
95944185|NCT04250194|191859856|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 10%.|absolute difference in percentage points|5.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|One-sided two-sample z-test||Difference in diagnostic accuracy = navigational bronchoscopy % - transthoracic biopsy %|||17.2|-6.5|0.003
95944186|NCT00857766|191859888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.42||||0.065||95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference is calculated as FSC 250/50 minus Placebo and is adjusted for treatment, investigator, sex, smoking status, age, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, treatment by sex interaction, age by BMI interaction, and baseline value.|||0.03|-0.88|0.065
95944187|NCT00857766|191859889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.469||95.0|-2.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-2.3|0.469
95944188|NCT00857766|191859890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares analysis|127.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.5|<|0.001||95.0|57.0|197.0|||ANCOVA|||||197|57|<0.001
95990923|NCT01665144|191956647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Without moderate or severe course of disease||1.13|0.47|
95751655|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0938
95751656|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3201||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3201
95751657|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9010
95751658|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.31||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-1.49||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.49|-39.06|0.0156
95751659|NCT02944383|191475256|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.98||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|17.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||17.26|-28.51|0.3456
95751660|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.3714
95751661|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4415||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4415
95751662|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7902||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.7902
95751663|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.6999
95944189|NCT01961609|191859891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|65.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.375|52.4|76.7|||two-sided binomial exact test||A Bonferroni adjustment adjusting for 8 analyses have been applied.|||76.7|52.4|<0.0001
95751664|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0015
95751665|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0796||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0796
95944190|NCT01759862|191859945|SUPERIORITY|Our calculations showed that by enrolling 50 patients we will be able to detect a 25cc/min absolute difference in eGFR between the two arms with power above 80%, and a two-sided Type I probability error of \<0.05.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to treat analysis||||0.32
95944191|NCT01759862|191859946|SUPERIORITY|Enrolling 25 patients in each group will allow us to detect a difference of 200ng/mg cr in urinary NGAL levels between the two groups with a power of 80% and a two-sided type I probability error of 0.05.||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
95751666|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4225||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4225
95751667|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7687||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7687
95751668|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0437
95944192|NCT01759862|191859947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
95944193|NCT04027439|191859963|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.138|<0.0001
95944194|NCT04027439|191859963|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.088|<0.0001
95944195|NCT04027439|191859963|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.181|||ANCOVA|||||1.181|1.089|<0.0001
95944196|NCT04027439|191859963|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.084||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.128|||ANCOVA|||||1.128|1.041|0.0001
95944197|NCT04027439|191859964|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.105|0.0004
95944198|NCT04027439|191859964|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.228||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.365|||ANCOVA|||||1.365|1.104|0.0004
95944199|NCT04027439|191859964|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.196||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.326|||ANCOVA|||||1.326|1.080|0.0012
95944200|NCT04027439|191859964|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.121||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.009|0.0348
95751669|NCT02944383|191475257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2735
95751670|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1042
95751671|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6204||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6204
95751672|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.8659
95751673|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9658||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9658
95751674|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8238||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8238
95944201|NCT04027439|191859964|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.055||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.172|||ANCOVA|||||1.172|0.949|0.3106
95944202|NCT04027439|191859965|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.154||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.301|||ANCOVA|||||1.301|1.024|0.0208
95944203|NCT04027439|191859965|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.353|||ANCOVA|||||1.353|1.064|0.0041
95990924|NCT01060059|191956664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline Gender (Male vs. Female), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.46|0.62|0.831
95751675|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4874||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4874
95751676|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9467
95751677|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7467||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7467
95944204|NCT04027439|191859965|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.167||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.311|||ANCOVA|||||1.311|1.039|0.0108
95944205|NCT04027439|191859965|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.225|||ANCOVA|||||1.225|0.965|0.1641
95944206|NCT04027439|191859966|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.229||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|1.369|||ANCOVA|||||1.369|1.102|0.0005
95944207|NCT04027439|191859966|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.231||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.372|||ANCOVA|||||1.372|1.104|0.0005
95944208|NCT04027439|191859966|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.188||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.320|1.070|0.0022
95944209|NCT04027439|191859966|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.106||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.233|||ANCOVA|||||1.233|0.993|0.0658
95944210|NCT04027439|191859974|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.183|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.234|||ANCOVA|||||1.234|1.134|<0.0001
95944211|NCT04027439|191859974|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.092|<0.0001
95944212|NCT04027439|191859974|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.131|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.084|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.180|1.084|<0.0001
95944213|NCT04027439|191859974|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.08||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.036|0.0004
95944214|NCT04027439|191859975|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.169|||ANCOVA|||||1.169|1.078|<0.0001
95944215|NCT04027439|191859975|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.122|||ANCOVA|||||1.122|1.035|0.0004
95944216|NCT04027439|191859975|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.081||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|1.039|0.0002
95944217|NCT04027439|191859975|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.041||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.083|||ANCOVA|||||1.083|1.001|0.0437
95944218|NCT04027439|191859976|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.087||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.139|||ANCOVA|||||1.139|1.038|0.0006
95944219|NCT04027439|191859976|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.083||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.135|||ANCOVA|||||1.135|1.034|0.0010
95944220|NCT04027439|191859976|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.096||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.149|||ANCOVA|||||1.149|1.047|0.0002
95944221|NCT04027439|191859976|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.039||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.088|||ANCOVA|||||1.088|0.993|0.0971
95944222|NCT04027439|191859977|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.106|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.106|<0.0001
95944223|NCT04027439|191859977|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.109|<0.0001
95944224|NCT04027439|191859977|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.062|<0.0001
95751678|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.77|10.75||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||10.75|-10.77|0.9081
95751679|NCT02944383|191475258|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.38||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|6.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.86|-11.82|0.5480
95751680|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1485||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1485
95751681|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6008||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6008
95751682|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9409
95751683|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9292||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 6||||0.9292
95751684|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8455||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8455
95944225|NCT04027439|191859977|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.126|||ANCOVA|||||1.126|1.052|<0.0001
95751685|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5256||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5256
95751686|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9217
95751687|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7401||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7401
95751688|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9386||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9386
95858883|NCT06170242|191675599|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.37||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-4.40|-22.34|0.0042
95944226|NCT04027439|191859978|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.189|||ANCOVA|||||1.189|1.113|<0.0001
95944227|NCT04027439|191859978|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|1.185|||ANCOVA|||||1.185|1.109|<0.0001
95944228|NCT04027439|191859978|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.144|||ANCOVA|||||1.144|1.071|<0.0001
95944229|NCT04027439|191859978|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.13|||ANCOVA|||||1.130|1.059|<0.0001
95858884|NCT06170242|191675599|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-13.19||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|-4.0|||ANCOVA|||Low Dose vs Placebo||-4.00|-22.38|0.0058
95944230|NCT04027439|191859979|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.141|||ANCOVA|||||1.141|1.066|<0.0001
95944231|NCT04027439|191859979|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|1.042|<0.0001
95944232|NCT04027439|191859979|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.067||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.104|||ANCOVA|||||1.104|1.032|0.0002
95944233|NCT04027439|191859979|OTHER||Contrast Ratio|1.048||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|1.013|0.0066
95944234|NCT02646618|191860010|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|0.6|0.0038
95944235|NCT02646618|191860011|NON_INFERIORITY|We set δ=2% as a relative margin to the 5% weight loss as clinically meaningful cut point and because 2% is not so small a difference in average weight loss between study conditions that we would have to recruit a prohibitively large sample.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.4|0.1485
95944236|NCT02646618|191860013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2480
95944237|NCT02646618|191860018|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.0||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|237.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||237|-50|0.2025
95751689|NCT02944383|191475259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6352||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6352
95751690|NCT02944383|191475260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0165
95751691|NCT02944383|191475260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3075
95751692|NCT02944383|191475260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1069||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1069
95751693|NCT02944383|191475260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6101||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6101
95751694|NCT02944383|191475260|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-12.04||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-1.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.08|-23.79|0.0351
95751695|NCT02944383|191475260|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|4.25||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.25|-9.86|0.3746
95944238|NCT02646618|191860019|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in energy (kcal/day) intake, the study is powered at 90% to detect whether the Get Social condition is not inferior to the Traditional condition with a noninferiority margin of 182 kcal/day (SD=500 kcal/day)|Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|77.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77|-226|0.3323
95751696|NCT02944383|191475261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0133
95751697|NCT02944383|191475261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2044||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2044
95751698|NCT02944383|191475261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0855
95751699|NCT02944383|191475261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5114||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5114
95751700|NCT02944383|191475261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0289
95751701|NCT02944383|191475261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.2950
95751702|NCT02944383|191475262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1992
95751703|NCT02944383|191475262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9945||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9945
95751704|NCT02944383|191475262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5139||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5139
95751705|NCT02944383|191475262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8085
95751706|NCT02944383|191475262|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|4.85||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.85|-6.31|0.7644
95751707|NCT02944383|191475262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.66||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||6.66|-4.34|0.9499
95751708|NCT02944383|191475263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1521
95751709|NCT02944383|191475263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8982||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8982
95751710|NCT02944383|191475263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6228||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6228
95751711|NCT02944383|191475263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9622
95751712|NCT02944383|191475263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6643||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6643
95751713|NCT02944383|191475263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9071||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9071
95751714|NCT02944383|191475264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5647
95751715|NCT02944383|191475264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1073
95751716|NCT02944383|191475264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3858||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3858
95944239|NCT02646618|191860021|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.3905|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.3905
95944240|NCT02646618|191860022|NON_INFERIORITY|For secondary noninferiority outcomes, we used 90% power to calculate noninferiority margins given N=131 per arm, setting alpha=.05 and using observed SDs from the literature. For change in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity minutes per day at 12 months, the noninferiority margin is 9.2 min/day(SD=25 min/day). However, we could not analyze the data in that manner and used the test described above.||||||0.4741|||||||Generalized estimating equation|||We examined the proportion of participants engaging in 150+ minutes/week of moderate/vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) using generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and incorporating repeated measures over time. For participants missing MVPA at either follow-up timepoint, we used a baseline observation carried forward approach to impute their activity level (150+ vs \<150 MVPA mins/week) at that timepoint.||||0.4741
95944241|NCT03885232|191860081|SUPERIORITY|We applied a mixed zero-inflated beta regression model that included a fixed binary factor for treatment arm, a random effect for clinic to account for correlation within clinics, and unbalanced parent demographics across study arms.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.6|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Generalized linear mixed effects regression models||||1.60|0.68|0.9
95990925|NCT01060059|191956664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.76||Baseline Medical conditions (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||1.76|0.74|0.554
95858885|NCT06170242|191675600|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-18.72||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||High Dose vs Placebo||-6.84|-30.61|0.0026
95751717|NCT02944383|191475264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0916||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0916
95751718|NCT02944383|191475264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|5.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.26|-5.56|0.9473
95751719|NCT02944383|191475264|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.54||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.95||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||9.95|-1.83|0.0911
95751720|NCT02944383|191475265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4623||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4623
95751721|NCT02944383|191475265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1678||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1678
95751722|NCT02944383|191475265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4390
95751723|NCT02944383|191475265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1290
95751724|NCT02944383|191475265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9627||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9627
95751725|NCT02944383|191475265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0911
95751726|NCT02944383|191475266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2882
95751727|NCT02944383|191475266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4474
95751728|NCT02944383|191475266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7875||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7875
95751729|NCT02944383|191475266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0600
95751730|NCT02944383|191475266|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.9832
95751731|NCT02944383|191475266|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.00|0.00|0.1352
95751732|NCT02944383|191475267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2857
95751733|NCT02944383|191475267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4486||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4486
95751734|NCT02944383|191475267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7640
95990926|NCT01060059|191956664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.42||Baseline gastrointestinal symptoms (yes vs. no)|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis was used to find factors associated with treatment choice at baseline. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing are omitted in this analysis. Weight was removed (high correlation with BMI) and also fasting blood glucose (lab value) was removed (high correlation with HbA1c). Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones-with modes.||3.42|0.43|0.714
95993826|NCT01264939|191963435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||0.0006
95751735|NCT02944383|191475267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0560
95751736|NCT02944383|191475267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.9954
95751737|NCT02944383|191475267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1298
95751738|NCT02944383|191475268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
95751739|NCT02944383|191475268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1806
95751740|NCT02944383|191475268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2657||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2657
95751741|NCT02944383|191475268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5996
95751742|NCT02944383|191475268|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-11.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|2.08||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.08|-28.81|0.0270
95751743|NCT02944383|191475268|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|15.5||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||15.50|-16.88|0.5263
95798450|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.07|0.88|.54
95798451|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.13|0.91|.72
95751744|NCT02944383|191475269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0345
95751745|NCT02944383|191475269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2709||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2709
95798452|NCT05625061|191567025|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.96||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of active minutes per day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.04|0.88|.34
95751746|NCT02944383|191475269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3255||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3255
95751747|NCT02944383|191475269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7391
95751748|NCT02944383|191475269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0808||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0808
95751749|NCT02944383|191475269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6509||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6509
95751750|NCT02944383|191475270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0004
95751751|NCT02944383|191475270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0412
95751752|NCT02944383|191475270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1937||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1937
95751753|NCT02944383|191475270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4740
95751754|NCT02944383|191475270|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.32||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.13|3.89||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||3.89|-34.13|0.0116
95751755|NCT02944383|191475270|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|14.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.26|-23.85|0.1109
95751756|NCT02944383|191475271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0002
95751757|NCT02944383|191475271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0161
95751758|NCT02944383|191475271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3043
95751759|NCT02944383|191475271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4639||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4639
95944242|NCT03885232|191860082|SUPERIORITY||Other|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Calculated individual survey means for vaccine hesitant parents who participated in the survey. Survey consisted of 15 questions with a 7-point Likert scale. We then created a dichotomous variable where 1 = mean \> or equal to 6; 0 = mean \< 6.||||<0.05
95751760|NCT02944383|191475271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0210
95751761|NCT02944383|191475271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0992
95751762|NCT02944383|191475272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1512
95751763|NCT02944383|191475272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8400
95751764|NCT02944383|191475272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0244||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0244
95751765|NCT02944383|191475272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1803||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1803
95858886|NCT06170242|191675600|SUPERIORITY|P-values are from ANCOVA with treatment group as main effect and the baseline value as a covariate. The baseline value is defined as the biospecimen value at the time of first dose of IMP.|Difference in LS mean|-19.28||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-7.26|||ANCOVA|||||-7.26|-31.30|0.0022
95944243|NCT03885232|191860083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.64|||Generalized linear mixed effects regress|Adjusted for: study arm, study period (pre vs. post), years in practice, provider type, interaction between study arm and study period||"1. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians using presumptive and Motivational Interviewing techniques between intervention and control.~2. Ho: No difference in the proportion of clinicians time spent talking to vaccine hesitant parents between intervention and control."||5.64|0.66|<0.05
95751766|NCT02944383|191475272|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-24.41||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.73|-9.94||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-9.94|-42.73|0.0307
95751767|NCT02944383|191475272|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|7.68||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.68|-23.33|0.5326
95751768|NCT02944383|191475273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1705||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1705
95751769|NCT02944383|191475273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9193||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9193
95798453|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.01|0.98|1.00
95990927|NCT01060059|191956665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if Baseline HbA1c was 1% more, was it associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.78|0.60|<0.001
95990928|NCT01060059|191956666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if longer duration of diabetes was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.96|0.055
95990929|NCT01060059|191956667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if older age (1 year older), was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.99|0.95|<0.001
95990930|NCT01060059|191956668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher BMI (1 kg/m\^2 higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.23|1.15|<0.001
95990931|NCT01060059|191956669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if greater height (1 cm higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.05|1.00|0.026
95990932|NCT01060059|191956670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline creatinine (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||0.77|0.18|0.007
95751770|NCT02944383|191475273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0224
95751771|NCT02944383|191475273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2387
95944244|NCT00115934|191860113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.013||95.0|-17.8|-2.4|||Fisher Exact||The risk difference is defined as the percent of subjects with events in the RVPAS group minus the percent of subjects with events in the MBTS group.|The original sample size of 456 was based on 85% power, with a two-sided, two sample test of proportions (anticipating 28% MBTS subjects with events, 16% RVPAS subjects with events), and an alpha of 0.05. The critical p-value was 0.044 because four interim analyses were performed. The target trial size was increased from 466 to 554 to account for crossovers. The stopping boundary was crossed at the 4th interim look; however, the trial was not halted, because all subjects were enrolled.||-2.4|-17.8|0.013
95990933|NCT01060059|191956670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting HDL cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|0.97|0.094
95990934|NCT01060059|191956670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting total cholesterol (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.01|1.00|0.259
95990935|NCT01060059|191956670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|If several variables had Spearman's rho \> 0.4 (for continuous) and Cramer's V \> 0.4 (for categorical covariates), only one was left in the model.||Logistic regression analysis was used to determine if higher baseline fasting triglycerides (1mg/dL higher) was associated with treatment choice at baseline. Odds ratios were determined and if the odds ratio was greater than 1, it indicated it is more likely to initiate exenatide treatment. Covariates with more than 30% observations missing were omitted in this analysis. Missing values for remaining numeric covariates were replaced with means, and for categorical ones - with modes.||1.00|1.00|0.123
95990936|NCT01920711|191956681|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8698||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7526|1.0052||1-sided p-value 0.0294|Proportional Rates Model (LWYY)|Treatment as fixed-effect factor and stratified by region and with robust variance estimate.||Primary Composite Events||1.0052|0.7526|0.0587
95990937|NCT01920711|191956681|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8511||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7216|1.0039||1-sided p-value 0.0278|Joint Frality Model|Treatment and region as fixed-effect factors||Total Hospitalizations for heart failure||1.0039|0.7216|0.0556
95990938|NCT01920711|191956681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9531||||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7863|1.1551||1-sided p-value 0.3120|Cox's proportional hazard model|||Cardiovascular Death||1.1551|0.7863|0.6241
95990939|NCT01920711|191956682|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean of Difference|1.0264||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|2.0576|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Clinical Summary Score||2.0576|-0.0047|0.0510
95990940|NCT01920711|191956683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4475||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1294|1.8552|||Repeated measures cumulative odds model|The response variable is the change from baseline to any scheduled time points up to Month 8.||NYHA Class Change||1.8552|1.1294|0.0035
95990941|NCT01920711|191956684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5041||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3312|0.7673|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Composite renal endpoint||0.7673|0.3312|0.0014
95990942|NCT01920711|191956684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9295||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0581|14.861|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Renal Death||14.861|0.0581|0.9588
95990943|NCT01920711|191956684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5774||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2272|1.4672|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||Reaching ESRD||1.4672|0.2272|0.2484
95990944|NCT01920711|191956684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4407||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2798|0.6942|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||\>=50% decline in eGFR from baseline||0.6942|0.2798|0.0004
95990945|NCT01920711|191956685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9696||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8352|1.1255|||Cox's proportional hazards model|Treatment as fixed factor and stratified by region.||All-cause mortality||1.1255|0.8352|0.6846
95751772|NCT02944383|191475273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0600
95990946|NCT03551743|191956692|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-65.02||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0344
95990947|NCT03551743|191956692|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-92.38||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
95990948|NCT03551743|191956692|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-46.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95990949|NCT03551743|191956693|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|88722.37||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
95990950|NCT03551743|191956693|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|151500.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95990951|NCT03551743|191956693|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|198560.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
95990952|NCT03551743|191956694|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-76.05||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1874
95990953|NCT03551743|191956694|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-27.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.386
95944245|NCT00115934|191860114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
95944246|NCT00115934|191860115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95990954|NCT03551743|191956694|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95944247|NCT00115934|191860116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95751773|NCT02944383|191475273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6878||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.6878
95751774|NCT02944383|191475274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0298
95751775|NCT02944383|191475274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0196
95751776|NCT02944383|191475274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2219
95751777|NCT02944383|191475274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4078
95751778|NCT02944383|191475274|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.34||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|1.3||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||1.30|-31.68|0.0605
95751779|NCT02944383|191475274|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|7.32||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.32|-19.91|0.1768
95751780|NCT02944383|191475275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0084
95751781|NCT02944383|191475275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0047
95751782|NCT02944383|191475275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1574
95751783|NCT02944383|191475275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3235||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3235
95944248|NCT00115934|191860117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95944249|NCT00115934|191860118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95751784|NCT02944383|191475275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0367
95751785|NCT02944383|191475275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0948||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0948
95751786|NCT02944383|191475276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0037
95751787|NCT02944383|191475276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1328||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1328
95858887|NCT03682770|191675629|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|39.189||The p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline body weight.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method|||39.189|1.266|0.0420
95944250|NCT00115934|191860119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||0.004
95944251|NCT00115934|191860120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
95944252|NCT00115934|191860121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95944253|NCT00115934|191860122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95944254|NCT00115934|191860123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95944255|NCT00115934|191860124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95944256|NCT00115934|191860125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95944257|NCT00115934|191860126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in the poisson regression was the log of the number of patients in each treatment arm.||||||0.003
95944258|NCT00115934|191860127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.20
95751788|NCT02944383|191475276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4364||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4364
95751789|NCT02944383|191475276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8129||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8129
95751790|NCT02944383|191475276|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.29||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.54|2.35||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||2.35|-36.54|0.0347
95751791|NCT02944383|191475276|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|23.62||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||23.62|-25.78|0.3617
95751792|NCT02944383|191475277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0085
95751793|NCT02944383|191475277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2112
95751794|NCT02944383|191475277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7301||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7301
95751795|NCT02944383|191475277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6283
95751796|NCT02944383|191475277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0919||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0919
95944259|NCT00115934|191860128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Poisson Regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.002
95944260|NCT00115934|191860129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Poisson regression|The offset parameter used in this analysis was the log of the number of patients per treatment arm.||||||0.03
95944261|NCT03777657|191860130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94||The superiority boundary at the primary overall survival analysis was predefined using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary approximated using the Hwang-Shih-DeCani spending function at 0.0092.|One-sided Log Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank Test stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis (yes vs no).|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.94|0.59|0.0056
95944262|NCT03777657|191860131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92||The one sided P value boundary for superiority of overall survival in all randomized participants at final analysis was 0.0226 based on 776 actual observed deaths.|One-Sided Log-Rank Test|One-Sided Log-Rank test stratified by region (Asia vs Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression (\<5% vs ≥5%), and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.92|0.70|0.0011
95944263|NCT03777657|191860132|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.83|0.56|
95751797|NCT02944383|191475277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5497||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.5497
95751798|NCT02944383|191475278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0009
95751799|NCT02944383|191475278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0351
95751800|NCT02944383|191475278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1561||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1561
95751801|NCT02944383|191475278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0268
95944264|NCT03777657|191860133|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||||Odds ratio between arms weas calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America) and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||2.04|1.03|
95944265|NCT03777657|191860134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||The stratified hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, including treatment arm as a covariate, and region, PD-L1 expression, and presence of peritoneal metastasis as strata.|||0.90|0.67|
95751802|NCT02944383|191475278|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-22.3||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.96|-1.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.67|-42.96|0.0516
95751803|NCT02944383|191475278|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.06||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|4.88||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.88|-32.83|0.0125
95751804|NCT02944383|191475279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0023
95751805|NCT02944383|191475279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0356
95751806|NCT02944383|191475279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2284||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2284
95751807|NCT02944383|191475279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0213
95751808|NCT02944383|191475279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0330
95944266|NCT03777657|191860135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||||Odds ratio between arms were calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by regions (Asia versus Europe/North America), PD-L1 expression and presence of peritoneal metastasis.|||1.72|1.03|
95944267|NCT03777657|191860138|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.94|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 4||3.94|-0.33|
95944268|NCT03777657|191860138|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.74|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||4.74|0.29|
95944269|NCT03777657|191860138|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.16||||||Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 4||3.16|-0.27|
95751809|NCT02944383|191475279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0221
95944270|NCT03777657|191860138|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.43|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||4.43|0.49|
95751810|NCT02944383|191475280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.67||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.67||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||5.67|-10.17|0.2632
95751811|NCT02944383|191475280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.71||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL||9.71|-6.77|0.5382
95751812|NCT02944383|191475280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||1.01|-0.51|0.1727
95751813|NCT02944383|191475280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL||0.51|-0.51|0.4567
95944271|NCT03777657|191860139|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.15|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 4||1.15|-3.79|
95990955|NCT01641120|191956738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||<.05
95990956|NCT01641120|191956739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.193
95990957|NCT01641120|191956740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||0.035
95751814|NCT02944383|191475280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.47||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.47|-1.21|0.6142
95751815|NCT02944383|191475280|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.29||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|HDL||1.29|-2.23|0.2409
95944272|NCT03777657|191860139|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.24|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Fatigue at Cycle 6||-0.24|-5.78|
95944273|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.31|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 4||0.31|-2.53|
95944274|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.12|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Index-Score at Cycle 6||-0.12|-3.12|
95944275|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.11|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 4||0.11|-3.13|
95944276|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.76|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dysphagia/Odynophagia Scale at Cycle 6||0.76|-2.31|
95944277|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.2|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 4||-0.20|-4.26|
95944278|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.27|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Pain/Discomfort Scale at Cycle 6||0.27|-4.03|
95944279|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.99|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 4||0.99|-2.85|
95944280|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.77|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Dietary Restrictions Scale at Cycle 6||0.77|-3.42|
95944281|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.09|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 4||0.09|-3.28|
95944282|NCT03777657|191860140|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.06|||||Mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-STO22 scores from cycle 1 to 6 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, baseline mean score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in QLQ-STO22 Upper Gastro-Intestinal Symptoms at Cycle 6||0.06|-3.55|
95944283|NCT04503681|191860170|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|-1.1|0.473
95751816|NCT02944383|191475281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.2721
95798454|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.99||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.01|0.97|.33
95944284|NCT04503681|191860171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.8|0.338
95944285|NCT00065182|191860214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.248|||Log Rank||Unadjusted hazard ratio.|||1.248|0.813|0.9460
95944286|NCT00065182|191860214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.21|||||Adjusted hazard ratio.|||1.210|0.788|
95944287|NCT03983434|191860240|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
95944288|NCT03983434|191860241|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95990958|NCT01641120|191956741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||||||.005
95751817|NCT02944383|191475281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5669||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL||||0.5669
95751818|NCT02944383|191475281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.1686
95751819|NCT02944383|191475281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL||||0.4308
95751820|NCT02944383|191475281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5495||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.5495
95751821|NCT02944383|191475281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2384||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||HDL||||0.2384
95751822|NCT02944383|191475282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-13.99||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.76|2.55||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||2.55|-33.76|0.0781
95751823|NCT02944383|191475282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|19.01||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|VLDL \& Chylomicron particles||19.01|-19.36|0.9901
95751824|NCT02944383|191475282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-25.23||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.62|-5.1||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||-5.10|-43.62|0.0717
95944289|NCT03983434|191860242|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95944290|NCT03983434|191860243|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.079|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.079
95944291|NCT03983434|191860244|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
95944292|NCT03983434|191860246|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
95751825|NCT02944383|191475282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.09||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|3.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|LDL Particles||3.76|-36.78|0.1548
95751826|NCT02944383|191475282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-47.16||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.58|-5.78||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||-5.78|-119.58|0.0428
95751827|NCT02944383|191475282|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.13||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.44|19.48||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|IDL Particles||19.48|-121.44|0.1836
95751828|NCT02944383|191475283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1251||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.1251
95751829|NCT02944383|191475283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9047||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||VLDL \& Chylomicron Particles||||0.9047
95751830|NCT02944383|191475283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.0788
95944293|NCT03983434|191860247|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.14
95944294|NCT03983434|191860248|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.074
95944295|NCT03983434|191860249|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95944296|NCT03983434|191860250|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95944297|NCT03983434|191860251|OTHER|Due to the skewness of the data, outcome measures were summarized using median and interquartile range.||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
95944298|NCT01536093|191860252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95944299|NCT01536093|191860253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
95944300|NCT01536093|191860254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95944301|NCT01536093|191860255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
95751831|NCT02944383|191475283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||LDL Particles||||0.1222
95751832|NCT02944383|191475283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.0734
95751833|NCT02944383|191475283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||IDL Particles||||0.4210
95751834|NCT02944383|191475284|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|9.07||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||9.07|-8.12|0.9672
95751835|NCT02944383|191475284|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.69|-5.31|0.7993
95751836|NCT02944383|191475285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8602||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8602
95751837|NCT02944383|191475285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.8555
95798455|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.02|0.93|.20
95944302|NCT01536093|191860256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95944303|NCT01536093|191860257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95990959|NCT02167945|191956799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95993827|NCT01264939|191963436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Multiplicity plan applied to the efficacy endpoints provided strong control of the type I error rate at 0.05 level by pre-specifying the hierarchical order of the efficacy endpoint tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
95751838|NCT02944383|191475286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0583
95751839|NCT02944383|191475286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2289||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2289
95751840|NCT02944383|191475286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0416
95798456|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.05|0.95|1.00
95944304|NCT01499849|191860280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.7|1.3|<0.001
95944305|NCT01499849|191860281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.8|1.2|0.005
95751841|NCT02944383|191475286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0150
95751842|NCT02944383|191475286|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-26.21||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-1.26||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-1.26|-54.29|0.0718
95798457|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.96||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.01|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.01|0.92|.09
95798458|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.16|0.91|.63
95798459|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.04|0.82|.17
95798460|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.59|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.59|0.91|.20
95798461|NCT05625061|191567026|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||GEE, log link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. The rate ratio reflects the multiplicative change in the number of red foods day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to observations in which the participant was randomized to not receive a message.||1.15|0.91|.74
95798462|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to randomized to not receive a message.||1.03|0.98|1.00
95798463|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.04|0.95|.66
95798464|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.10|0.87|.74
95944306|NCT01499849|191860282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.6|1.3|0.001
95944307|NCT03802994|191860289|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences between groups were compared using the paired t test||||<0.05
95944308|NCT03802994|191860289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95944309|NCT03802994|191860289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95944310|NCT03802994|191860290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95944311|NCT03802994|191860290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95944312|NCT03802994|191860291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95944313|NCT03802994|191860292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95944314|NCT00622700|191860294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.869||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure, starting with the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo was used. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.869|0.379|0.0087
95944315|NCT00622700|191860294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.949||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The second step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to CDMS. Time to conversion to CDMS was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.949|0.416|0.0271
95944316|NCT00622700|191860295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.822||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The third step was the test of teriflunomide 14 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.822|0.515|0.0003
95993828|NCT01173653|191963481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi square|23.02|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95751843|NCT02944383|191475286|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.68||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|7.31||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||7.31|-50.00|0.1248
95751844|NCT02944383|191475287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2397||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.2397
95751845|NCT02944383|191475287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5399
95751846|NCT02944383|191475287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0409
95751847|NCT02944383|191475287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0073
95751848|NCT02944383|191475287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0976
95751849|NCT02944383|191475287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1899||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1899
95751850|NCT02944383|191475288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1747||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1747
95798465|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.16|0.86|1.00
95798466|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.09|0.90|.84
95798467|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.06|0.88|.39
95858888|NCT03682770|191675630|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|1.305||P-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101) of the LS mean change using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA|||||1.305|0.031|0.0400
95944317|NCT00622700|191860295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.871||P value was derived using Wald chi-squared test in the Cox proportional hazard model.|Wald chi-squared|||A step-down hierarchical testing procedure was used. The fourth step was the test of teriflunomide 7 mg versus placebo for time to conversion to DMS. This was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, region, and baseline monofocal/multifocal status as covariates.||0.871|0.540|0.0020
95751851|NCT02944383|191475288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4576||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4576
95858889|NCT03682770|191675631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.91||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.612|27.44||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kilo allergy unit per liter \[kUA/L\] vs \>100 kUA/L) and body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||27.440|-3.612|0.0806
95944318|NCT04035447|191860316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapy (ST)||||0.519
95751852|NCT02944383|191475288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1549
95751853|NCT02944383|191475288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2427
95944319|NCT04035447|191860316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with Therapist (SWT)||||0.150
95944320|NCT04035447|191860316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Improvement (Item 13)||||0.309
95944321|NCT04035447|191860318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.696
95944322|NCT04035447|191860319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
95751854|NCT02944383|191475288|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.51||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|8.73||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.73|-6.26|0.1379
95751855|NCT02944383|191475288|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.02||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||0.51|-13.10|0.2490
95751856|NCT02944383|191475289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1550
95751857|NCT02944383|191475289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6604||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6604
95751858|NCT02944383|191475289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0952||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0952
95751859|NCT02944383|191475289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3006||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3006
95798468|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.17|0.95|.36
95858890|NCT03682770|191675633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.668|32.474||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||32.474|-11.668|0.3530
95944323|NCT04035447|191860320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.274
95944324|NCT04035447|191860321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Outcomes were compared at post-intervention visit: 3-month (A2) for intervention participants, 9-month (A4) for waitlist control participants.||||0.600
95944325|NCT04035447|191860322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.1848
95944326|NCT04035447|191860323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.07||||||0.6153
95944327|NCT04035447|191860324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.28||||||0.0563
95944328|NCT04035447|191860325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.0265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.31||||||0.0265
95944329|NCT04035447|191860325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.2084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of 0.18||||||0.2084
95944330|NCT04035447|191860326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.3512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Effect size (Hedges' g) of -0.13||||||0.3512
95751860|NCT02944383|191475289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0642
95751861|NCT02944383|191475289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3185||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3185
95751862|NCT02944383|191475290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.0679
95751863|NCT02944383|191475290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4126||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.4126
95944331|NCT05966155|191860348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-1.54|0.677
95944332|NCT05966155|191860349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-1.4|0.1264
95944333|NCT05966155|191860350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The by-group means and the estimated mean difference are independently rounded to the nearest tenth. As a result, the mean difference it not exactly equivalent to the difference in the two reported means.|||1.1|-0.4|0.3692
95944334|NCT05966155|191860351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8492|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8492
95944335|NCT05966155|191860352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0246
95944336|NCT05966155|191860353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
95944337|NCT05966155|191860354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0776
95858891|NCT03682770|191675634|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.37||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|1.029||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.029|-0.281|0.2628
95944338|NCT05966155|191860355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
95944339|NCT02029235|191860374|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: No difference between groups~Power analysis: A sample size of 16 in each group had an 80% power to detect a difference in means of 10 mm."||||0.24
95944340|NCT02029235|191860375|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference between groups||||0.06
95944341|NCT00979121|191860394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in % of pts alive at 60 days|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.2||The monitoring boundaries were designed to have a low probability of stopping for futility before 750 patients. The maximum sample size was 1000 patients. Efficacy stopping was based on mortality; futility stopping was based on mortality and VFDs.|Proc lifetest|Proc lifetest was used to calculate mortality mean and variance due to one subject lost to follow up who was censored.||Hospital mortality to day 60 was estimated using the Kaplan Meier estimate, with patients discharged home before day 60 considered alive at day 60. The analysis was stratified by co-enrolled treatment assignments for 81 patients also enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of two different nutritional strategies. A maximum of 1000 patients were to be enrolled, providing a 92% probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for the effect on mortality if a true difference in mortality was 9%.||10.2|-2.3|0.21
95944342|NCT00979121|191860395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96||95.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Ventilator, ICU free, and organ failure free days were analyzed by analysis of variance, utilizing treatment assignment where applicable.||1.5|-1.6|0.96
95944343|NCT02130557|191860422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.547||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.233||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|A total sample size of 500 Ph+ participants is required for the study to provide \>= 90% power to detect at least 15% difference (assuming 25% in the imatinib vs 40% in the bosutinib arm) in the MMR rates at 12 months (48 weeks) with a 1-sided alpha of 2.5%, and 2 interim futility analyses at 33% and 66% of patients with adequate follow-up with early stopping for futility only (non-binding, O'Brien-Fleming analog beta spending function).||2.233|1.072|0.0100
95944344|NCT02130557|191860423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.418||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|2.037||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.037|0.986|0.0303
95944345|NCT02130557|191860424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.44|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||2.44|0.49|
95944346|NCT02130557|191860425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.61||1-sided p-value based on CMH test for general association between treatment and response with stratification by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3) at time of randomization. Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for the odds ratio adjusted for sokal risk group and region are based on Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits.|If the primary analysis was significant, each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was tested via Bonferroni's procedure at the 1-sided level of 0.0125.||2.610|1.160|0.0037
95944347|NCT02130557|191860426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||||Hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|The medians have not been reached in either arm, as such, the premature estimated hazard ratio is provided.||1.13|0.14|
95944348|NCT02130557|191860427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.17||1-sided p-value based on Gray's test for comparing cumulative incidence function between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1-3). Statistical significance threshold: 1-sided 0.0125.|Gray's test||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the proportional subdistribution hazards model stratified by Sokal risk group and region.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.17|0.35|0.0749
95944349|NCT02130557|191860428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test for comparing survival curves between treatment arms stratified by sokal risk group and region. OS was not tested as EFS was not significant.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (95% CIs) are based on the treatment effect (Bosutinib compared with Imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group at randomization and region) Cox proportional hazards model for the hazard of the respective event.|If each member of the short-term family (CCyR by Month 12, MMR by Month 18) was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially via the Holm's testing procedure at the 1-sided family wise level of 0.025. If one member of the short-term family was significant, EFS and OS were tested sequentially at 1-sided 0.0125.||1.73|0.37|0.2827
95751864|NCT02944383|191475290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0095
95751865|NCT02944383|191475290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0172
95751866|NCT02944383|191475290|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-23.23||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.54|-3.64||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||-3.64|-41.54|0.0359
95751867|NCT02944383|191475290|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.62|5.61||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.61|-38.62|0.0812
95798469|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.31|0.89|.44
95798470|NCT05625061|191567027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily weighing goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.13|0.90|.86
95798471|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to randomized to not receive a message.||1.02|0.97|1.00
95798472|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.03|0.94|.67
95798473|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.10|0.93|.82
95798474|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.18|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.18|0.99|.09
95798475|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.00|0.83|.05
95798476|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.06|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.06|0.90|.63
95798477|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.13|0.93|.69
95798478|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.10|0.91|1.00
95944350|NCT01532999|191860438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks. Data structure involved repeated measures over time nested within participant, who in turn, was nested within a therapy group. Models included a random intercept, a random slope, and fixed effects for treatment condition, time, and the stratification variable (site). Rejection of the null hypothesis of no treatment effect if this interaction was statistically significant (two-tailed α = .05).||||0.5
95944351|NCT01532999|191860439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.57
95944352|NCT01532999|191860441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
95944353|NCT01532999|191860442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.8
95944354|NCT01532999|191860443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.4
95944355|NCT01532999|191860444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Three-level mixed-effects linear regression analysis comparing MBSR and PCGT groups over 9 weeks.||||0.35
95944356|NCT01532999|191860445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.3
95944357|NCT01532999|191860446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Mixed effects logistic regression analysis.||||0.7
95944358|NCT03333109|191860447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.77|0.002
95944359|NCT03333109|191860447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
95944360|NCT03333109|191860448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||2.07|1.12|0.007
95944361|NCT03333109|191860448|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for stratification factor after missing data were imputed as non-response (NRI).||||3.15|1.55|<0.001
95944362|NCT03333109|191860449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.07|<0.001
95944363|NCT03333109|191860449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.71|<0.001
95944364|NCT03333109|191860450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-2.99|0.004
95944365|NCT03333109|191860450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.36|-4.07|<0.001
95944366|NCT00918203|191860469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|0.86|0.2133
95944367|NCT00918203|191860472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Log Rank|||||1.57|0.68|0.8731
95944368|NCT00918203|191860473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
95944369|NCT04066075|191860482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The p-value represents the difference between telerehabilitation and usual care.|Multilevel linear regression model|||Multilevel modeling in linear regression analyses accounted for within-patient correlations for the 3 assessments at baseline, 1-month and 4-months. Rasch analysis using the method of successive dichotomizations was applied to estimate person measures. Power calculation: a matched pairs t-test revealed 18 subjects per group would detect a within-subject mean improvement of 0.14-logits with 0.17-logits standard deviation for the differences, 0.80 power and 0.05 type 1 error probability.||||0.73
95944370|NCT01830595|191860499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95944371|NCT01830595|191860501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95944372|NCT01830595|191860502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95944373|NCT00227266|191860537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman's correlation|0.93|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation|||MHFMS-Extend was not normally distributed at p=0.048. Test-retest reliability of MHFMS-Extend measurements from the first (S1) to the second (S2) screening visit was analyzed using Spearman's correlation.||||<0.001
95944374|NCT02678689|191860542|SUPERIORITY|The two-sample T-test with unequal variance was conducted at a significance level of 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||< 0.0001
95944375|NCT02678689|191860543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.393|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.393|0.021|<.0001
95944376|NCT02678689|191860544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Cox Model Wald Test||Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group|||0.000|0.000|0.0032
95944377|NCT02678689|191860545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
95944378|NCT02678689|191860546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, unequal variance|||||||<.0001
95944379|NCT02678689|191860547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.209||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.735|||Cox Model Wald Test|The p value is a test that the hazard ratio equal to 1.|"Hazard ratio is based on Cox proportional hazards model with a factor of study group.~Hazard Ratio (HR) 190-203 vs DEM-CHILD."|||0.735|0.059|0.0081
95944380|NCT02941549|191860619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|20.7|||ANCOVA|||||20.7|-34.5|0.5946
95944381|NCT02941549|191860619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|16.8|||ANCOVA|||||16.8|-36.9|0.7309
95944382|NCT02941549|191860620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.308||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-2.11|0.0763
95944383|NCT02941549|191860620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.727||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.100|-1.554|0.0058
95751868|NCT02944383|191475291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1362||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.1362
95751869|NCT02944383|191475291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6458||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.6458
95751870|NCT02944383|191475291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0209
95751871|NCT02944383|191475291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0822||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0822
95751872|NCT02944383|191475291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0504
95751873|NCT02944383|191475291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.1315
95751874|NCT02944383|191475292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0843
95751875|NCT02944383|191475292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3587
95798479|NCT05625061|191567028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of meeting the daily active minutes goal the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.05|0.86|.31
95944384|NCT00705406|191860631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.188|||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-value is from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI are based the Cox Regression Model including parameters for treatment, controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.|||1.188|0.723|0.222
95751876|NCT02944383|191475292|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|12.99||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|25.51||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.51|-0.54|0.0843
95751877|NCT02944383|191475292|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.39||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||21.39|-3.70|0.3587
95751878|NCT02944383|191475293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0768
95751879|NCT02944383|191475293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4346
95751880|NCT02944383|191475293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0768||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.0768
95751881|NCT02944383|191475293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4346
95751882|NCT02944383|191475294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5411||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.5411
95751883|NCT02944383|191475294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2574||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2574
95751884|NCT02944383|191475294|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|14.86||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||14.86|-9.59|0.5411
95751885|NCT02944383|191475294|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.31||||0.2574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|5.76||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||5.76|-19.30|0.2574
95751886|NCT02944383|191475295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3998
95751887|NCT02944383|191475295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.3659
95751888|NCT02944383|191475295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3998||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3998
95751889|NCT02944383|191475295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3659||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.3659
95798480|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive a message compared to randomized to not receive a message.||1.04|0.98|.51
95944385|NCT00705406|191860632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value for comparisons at all time points. P-value was based on the van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||>0.05
95944386|NCT00705406|191860633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren test|P-value is based on van Elteren test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.421
95944387|NCT00705406|191860634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic|P-values are from a Wilcoxon-Gehan test statistic controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.885
95944388|NCT00705406|191860635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for smoking status and hemisphere of enrollment.||||||0.306
95944389|NCT03611556|191860645|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-8.0||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|12.1||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by cluster of differentiation 73 (CD73) level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -20.9 to 5.2|12.1|-27.6|0.3614
95751890|NCT02944383|191475296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8823||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.8823
95751891|NCT02944383|191475296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3788||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.3788
95751892|NCT02944383|191475296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1091||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1091
95751893|NCT02944383|191475296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6867||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6867
95751894|NCT02944383|191475296|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.07||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|36.34||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||36.34|-12.22|0.3156
95944390|NCT03611556|191860645|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|3.8||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.7||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test was stratified by CD73 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||80% Confidence Interval 2-Sided: -7.4 to 15.0|20.7|-13.2|0.6503
95944391|NCT03611556|191860652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.983|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.983|0.790|
95944392|NCT03611556|191860652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.131|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.131|0.498|
95944393|NCT03611556|191860654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.837|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.837|0.726|
95944394|NCT03611556|191860654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.105|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by CD73 level with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.105|0.468|
95990960|NCT02167945|191956799|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.358|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.358|0.044|<0.001
95751895|NCT02944383|191475296|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|25.43||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA||Estimates generated from Hodges-Lehmann method.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||25.43|-24.58|0.9734
95751896|NCT02944383|191475297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9772||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.9772
95751897|NCT02944383|191475297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5213||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 10||||0.5213
95751898|NCT02944383|191475297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1582||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1582
95751899|NCT02944383|191475297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4588||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4588
95751900|NCT02944383|191475297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4264||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.4264
95751901|NCT02944383|191475297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8107||||||Results are obtained using a model where the outcome is ranked, randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), \& randomized qualifying TG stratum are included as factors, \& outcome (ranked) at baseline is included as a covariate.|Ranked ANCOVA|||EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||||0.8107
95858892|NCT03682770|191675635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.36||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.004|20.282||P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by screening peanut-specific IgE level (\<=100 kUA/L vs \>100 kUA/L) and baseline body weight (\<30 kg, \>=30 kg and \<60 kg, or \>=60 kg).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in percentage derived by MH method|||20.282|-25.004|0.8140
95990961|NCT02167945|191956800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95751902|NCT02944383|191475298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|19.08||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||19.08|1.51|0.0093
95751903|NCT02944383|191475298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.07||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 10||8.07|0.82|0.1070
95751904|NCT02944383|191475298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.53||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.87|0.0865
95751905|NCT02944383|191475298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|Week 12||4.48|0.55|0.3990
95751906|NCT02944383|191475298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.42||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||8.42|0.90|0.0772
95751907|NCT02944383|191475298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.48||Logistic regression results are obtained using a model with randomized treatment group, randomized baseline statin (yes or no), and baseline TG value as independent factors.|Regression, Logistic||The OR is an estimate of the odds of achieving a TG value \< 500 mg/dL associated with the corresponding Gemcabene group relative to the placebo group at a given visit.|EOS (average of week 10 and 12)||4.48|0.53|0.4315
95751908|NCT00094458|191475299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
95751909|NCT00094458|191475299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.006
95944395|NCT03611556|191860658|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|21.9||||||||21.9|-25.2|
95751910|NCT00094458|191475299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.022
95798481|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.04|0.94|.70
95944396|NCT03611556|191860658|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|27.0||||||||27.0|-12.6|
95944397|NCT03611556|191860658|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|13.9||||||||13.9|-58.3|
95944398|NCT03611556|191860658|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|26.6||||||||26.6|-39.1|
95944399|NCT03611556|191860659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.985|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.985|0.676|
95944400|NCT03611556|191860659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.968|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.968|0.377|
95944401|NCT03611556|191860659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|3.917|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.917|0.622|
95944402|NCT03611556|191860659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|3.576|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.576|0.638|
95944403|NCT03611556|191860661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.693|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||1.693|0.584|
95944404|NCT03611556|191860661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.973|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||0.973|0.366|
95944405|NCT03611556|191860661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|5.437|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||5.437|0.716|
95751911|NCT00094458|191475300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||<0.001
95751912|NCT00094458|191475300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.023
95751913|NCT00094458|191475300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by duration of Crohn's disease and corticosteroid treatment at Baseline||||||0.055
95751914|NCT03247517|191475334|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0232
95944406|NCT03611556|191860661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.707|||||Hazard ratio for comparison between treatment groups obtained from Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties handled by the Efron method.|||3.707|0.550|
95944407|NCT02392234|191860762|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||5.8|3.7|< 0.0001
95944408|NCT02392234|191860762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.8|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||7.8|5.7|< 0.0001
95944409|NCT02392234|191860763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||12.2|7.2|<0.0001
95944410|NCT02392234|191860763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.6|8.7|<0.0001
95944411|NCT02392234|191860765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||9.9|6.3|<0.0001
95944412|NCT02392234|191860765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||13.2|9.6|<0.0001
95944413|NCT02392234|191860766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-2.3|-6.7|<0.0001
95944414|NCT02392234|191860766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-7.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||-7.3|-11.7|<0.0001
95944415|NCT00174252|191860792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|93.7|||||95% CI was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to no."||93.7|74.2|
95944416|NCT00174252|191860792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.0||||||95.0|6.3|25.8|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using the F-distribution.|"Applies to yes."||25.8|6.3|
95944417|NCT00174252|191860806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.002
95944418|NCT00174252|191860807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.023||95.0||||Bilateral test multiple comparison threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.023
95944419|NCT00174252|191860808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.708
95944420|NCT00174252|191860809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.325||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for height SD at baseline.||||||0.325
95944421|NCT03683576|191860818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.142|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.142|0.398|0.1425
95944422|NCT03683576|191860818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.677||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.149|0.399|0.1482
95944423|NCT03683576|191860818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.651||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.100|0.385|0.1086
95944424|NCT03683576|191860819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.06|-0.36|0.1647
95798482|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.16|0.90|.76
95798483|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.17|0.94|.38
95798484|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.13|0.88|.87
95798485|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.14|0.90|.74
95944425|NCT03683576|191860819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.07|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.07|-0.37|0.1737
95944426|NCT03683576|191860819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.03|-0.40|0.0879
95990962|NCT02167945|191956800|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.031||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.38|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.380|0.003|0.007
95990963|NCT02167945|191956801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95751915|NCT03247517|191475334|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-8.9|0.0091
95751916|NCT03247517|191475335|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.8|0.0042
95798486|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||0.99|0.76|.03
95944427|NCT03683576|191860820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016||||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.123|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.123|-0.091|0.7718
95944428|NCT03683576|191860820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.041||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.149|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.149|-0.067|0.4562
95751917|NCT03247517|191475335|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.9|0.0003
95751918|NCT03247517|191475336|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.6854
95751919|NCT03247517|191475336|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-5.8|0.0518
95751920|NCT03247517|191475337|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.20|0.2062
95751921|NCT03247517|191475337|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.23|0.0519
95751922|NCT03247517|191475338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.2|5.5|0.0068
95944429|NCT03683576|191860820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.180|-0.030|0.1631
95944430|NCT03683576|191860821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|0.995|||Regression, Cox||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.995|0.519|0.0466
95798487|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.38|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.38|0.82|.66
95798488|NCT05625061|191567029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11|||GEE, logit link function|||Analysis used generalized estimating equations (GEE) with an independence working residual correlation matrix to account for nesting of observations within individuals. This binary outcome was analyzed using a logit link function. The odds ratio represents the odds of staying at or under the daily red foods limit the following day among observations in which the participant was randomized to receive this type of message compared to randomized to not receive this type of message.||1.11|0.87|.75
95798489|NCT02629159|191567030|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|34.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|39.2||This comparison was the primary analysis for US/FDA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.2|29.0|<0.001
95944431|NCT03683576|191860821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.071|||Regression, Cox||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.071|0.558|0.1222
95751923|NCT03247517|191475338|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|30.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.5|4.6|0.0095
95751924|NCT03247517|191475339|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-9.1|0.7629
95798490|NCT02629159|191567030|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||13.8|1.2|0.018
95798491|NCT02629159|191567031|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|26.5||This comparison was the primary analysis for EU/EMA regulatory purposes, and a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.5|18.6|<0.001
95944432|NCT03683576|191860821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|0.967|||Regression, Cox||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.967|0.505|0.0304
95944433|NCT03683576|191860822|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.797||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.268|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||1.268|0.501|0.3382
95944434|NCT03683576|191860822|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.748||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.195|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||1.195|0.469|0.2248
95944435|NCT03683576|191860822|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.889||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.397|||Negative binomial regression model||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||1.397|0.565|0.6090
95990964|NCT02167945|191956801|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.156|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.156|0.009|<0.001
95751925|NCT03247517|191475339|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-12.1|0.7648
95751926|NCT03247517|191475340|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.7|-4.6|0.0069
95751927|NCT03247517|191475340|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.5|-5.2|0.0005
95751928|NCT03247517|191475340|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.2|0.0424
95751929|NCT03247517|191475340|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-0.1|-4.1|0.0390
95751930|NCT03247517|191475341|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-3.4|0.3813
95751931|NCT03247517|191475341|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-2.4|0.9506
95944436|NCT03683576|191860823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.081|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||0.081|-0.127|0.6645
95944437|NCT03683576|191860823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.144|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||0.144|-0.074|0.5288
95944438|NCT03683576|191860823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.079||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.182|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||0.182|-0.025|0.1362
95944439|NCT03683576|191860824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.122||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.007|20.251|||ANCOVA||GB001 20 mg vs. Placebo|||20.251|-8.007|0.3957
95751932|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0254
95751933|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0899
95751934|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0070
95751935|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0031
95798492|NCT02629159|191567031|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.1||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.1|5.3|<0.001
95798493|NCT02629159|191567032|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|-1.194||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use, and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.194|-1.469|<0.001
95798494|NCT02629159|191567032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.295||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.295|-0.638|<0.001
95944440|NCT03683576|191860824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.948||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|28.474|||ANCOVA||GB001 40 mg vs. Placebo|||28.474|-0.578|0.0598
95944441|NCT03683576|191860824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.588||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.522|19.698|||ANCOVA||GB001 60 mg vs. Placebo|||19.698|-8.522|0.4376
95990965|NCT02167945|191956802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.860
95944442|NCT05509816|191860828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least square means (LSMs) and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the geometric least square means (GLSMs) and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.02|0.849|
95990966|NCT02167945|191956802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.997
95990967|NCT02167945|191956803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||0.608
95751936|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0065
95751937|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0070
95751938|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1||||0.0063
95751939|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2||||0.0123
95751940|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3||||0.0003
95751941|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4||||0.0001
95751942|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5||||0.0025
95751943|NCT03247517|191475342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6||||0.0033
95751944|NCT03623386|191475360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
95751945|NCT03623386|191475361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.481
95751946|NCT03623386|191475362|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||>0.05
95751947|NCT03623386|191475363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p value reflects the effect of time.|ANOVA|||Testing for main effects (group), time effect and the interaction of group and time.||||0.026
95751948|NCT00903448|191475379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The least squares treatment means, i.e. adjusted treatment means, and standard errors were computed from the analysis of variance models.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This study enrolled 40 subjects in order to complete a target of at least 30 evaluable subjects. For the purpose of determination of sample size, it was assumed that at least 30 subjects would have complete data for all 3 treatment periods. Assuming the true mean difference in % time that gastric pH \> 4.0 between Prilosec OTC and Prevacid was at least 6.5, it was estimated that there would be at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference in 2-sided testing at the 5% significance level.||||< 0.0001
95751949|NCT03687658|191475380|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.066|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.066
95751950|NCT03687658|191475381|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial distribution using a logit link function||||||0.273|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.273
95944443|NCT05509816|191860829|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LSMs and differences in LSMs were back transformed to produce the GLSMs and ratio between GLSMs. These were reported along with the 90% CI for the ratio.|A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.16|0.989|
95751951|NCT03687658|191475382|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a Poisson distribution using a log link function||||||0.403|||||||Generalized linear mixed model|||||||0.403
95944444|NCT05509816|191860830|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||0.868|0.777|
95944445|NCT05509816|191860831|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.828|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model was used to estimate drug-drug interaction using the Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Participant + Random Error, where Participant is fitted as a random effect.||1.12|0.828|
95990968|NCT02167945|191956803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||The Hazard Ratio for experiencing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to those who did not achieve SVR12 is infinite and the CI is not bounded due to zero events in one of the groups.|Cox proportional hazards model|||A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||||0.992
95751952|NCT04397445|191475383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is 0 (-6.9 to 0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.54
95751953|NCT04397445|191475383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for ranitidine vs. placebo as the aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased NDMA exposure. Comparisons were performed separately with each diet without adjustment for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between ranitidine and placebo is -1.1 (-9.1 to 11.5) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.71
95798495|NCT02629159|191567033|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.37||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.37|-0.97|<0.001
95798496|NCT02629159|191567033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.51|-0.23|0.448
95798497|NCT02629159|191567034|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.253||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.253|-0.372|<0.001
95990969|NCT02167945|191956804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-rank test|||Comparisons between participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 and those who did not were performed using a log-rank test.||||<0.001
95798498|NCT02629159|191567034|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.036||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.036|-0.184|0.004
95944446|NCT06688357|191860868|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.920. Only 1 comparison with 2 means, thus no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample t-test conducted to examine difference in pre-post intervention change scores for the active vs sham intervention groups. Cohen's d was calculated to determine effect size.||||.077
95944447|NCT06688357|191860869|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.779||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.504; only 1 comparison of 2 values, thus no adjustment is necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test; Cohen's d effect size||||.159
95944448|NCT06688357|191860870|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.356||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 0.688; only 1 comparison, adjustment not necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent samples t-test, cohen's d effect size||||.503
95798499|NCT02629159|191567035|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|22.3|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.3|9.9|
95798500|NCT02629159|191567035|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.||||||<0.001
95858893|NCT03682770|191675636|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.599||P-value is based on treatment difference of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline tolerated cumulative amount of peanut protein DBPCFC (log transformed) as covariate and the treatment screening peanut-specific IgE level and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.599|-0.699|0.8805
95858894|NCT03682770|191675638|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage|-85.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.47|-73.91||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate,- and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-73.91|-99.47|<0.0001
95858895|NCT03682770|191675639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-68.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.4||P-value was based on treatment difference (vs. Continuously on Placebo + AR101) in percent change from baseline using rank-based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate, and stratification factors and the treatment as fixed factors.|ANCOVA||Median difference and its 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-56.40|-86.71|<0.0001
95858896|NCT02863419|191675640|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin. The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|<0.0001
95859696|NCT02963506|191677336|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||6.48|1.04|=0.040
95798501|NCT02629159|191567035|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|35.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.0|25.6|<0.001
95944449|NCT06688357|191860871|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.922||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.893; only one comparison of 2 scores, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons was necessary|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||Independent sample t-test used to examine pre-post intervention change scores in active vs sham groups; Cohen's d was calculated to estimate effect size||||0.08
95944450|NCT06688357|191860872|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.793||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|||||t (13) = 1.533; only 1 comparison, no adjustment necessary|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-test, Cohen d effect size||||.149
95944451|NCT06688357|191860873|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.905||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = 1.749; only 1 comparison with 2 values, thus no adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||independent sample t-test was used to examine difference in Post-Pre intervention change in the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size was estimated using Cohen's d.||||.104
95944452|NCT06688357|191860874|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|-0.267||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -.516; only 1 comparison of 2 means, no adjustment needed|t-test, 2 sided|||independent sample t-tests examining Post-Baseline differences for the Active vs the Sham groups; Effect size computed using Cohen's d score||||.614
95798502|NCT02629159|191567036|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.15||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|3.52|<0.001
95798503|NCT02629159|191567036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.62||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.62|0.62|0.002
95944453|NCT06688357|191860875|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.652||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||t(13) = -1.260; only 1 comparison of 2 values, no need for adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||independent samples t-test, effect size computation (cohen's d)||||.230
95858897|NCT02863419|191675640|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.0|-0.3|0.0645
95944454|NCT05120856|191860909|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.106369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4985347||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083479|-0.129259||This is the p value for the overall group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model compared groups' change across all time points Time was coded as a continuous variable (i.e., 0, 4, 8, and 16).|This is the effect estimate for the group x time interaction.|||-0.129259|-2.083479|.026
95751954|NCT04397445|191475384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 9.3 (3.8 to 25.0) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.005
95751955|NCT04397445|191475384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 1-sided lower P value \<.05 for NDMA as the cured-meats diet was designed to have higher NDMA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyses, per the statistical analysis plan, as NDMA urine data were not normally distributed|The median of the paired differences (interquartile range) between the cured-meats diet and noncured-meats diet is 6.4 (0 to 23.4) ng. The median of the paired differences is calculated by first determining the difference between the two treatments for each individual participant and then determining the median of those values. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test that was used for NDMA analyses is also based on first determining the difference between the treatment groups for each individual participant.|||0.007
95751956|NCT04397445|191475385|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.01|0.87|0.92
95751957|NCT04397445|191475385|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.1||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator).|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.10|0.81|0.74
95751958|NCT04397445|191475385|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.23|0.90|0.52
95751959|NCT04397445|191475385|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||1.19|0.93|0.42
95751960|NCT04397445|191475386|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.91|0.72|0.001
95798504|NCT02629159|191567037|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|35.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.8|26.5|<0.001
95751961|NCT04397445|191475388|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.11||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||1.11|0.91|0.46
95751962|NCT04397445|191475388|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25||A 1-sided lower P value \<.05 was considered significant for the exploratory analyses of ranitidine vs. placebo because the study aim was to evaluate if ranitidine increased DMA exposure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from ranitidine (numerator) with placebo (denominator)|1.25|0.80|0.49
95751963|NCT04397445|191475388|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence.||0.95|0.67|0.02
95751964|NCT04397445|191475388|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||A 2-sided P value \<.05 was used for DMA as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||As DMA data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence|This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator)|0.98|0.65|0.03
95751965|NCT04397445|191475389|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89||Exploratory analyses on the effect of diet used a 2-sided P value \<.05 for ranitidine as the diet was not expected to affect these outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis||This compares the results from the cured-meats diet (numerator) with the noncured-meats diet (denominator).|As ranitidine data were log-normally distributed, analyses were based on a mixed-effect analysis of geometric means with terms for treatment, period, and sequence||0.89|0.66|0.002
95751966|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Analysis of Variance(ANOVA)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
95751967|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
95751968|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
95751969|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
95751970|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
95859764|NCT01243242|191677642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using the median test for independent samples|Median|||For the primary endpoint (CAARS change), median test was applied as the primary analysis due to outlier numbers observed ; secondary analysis of the primary endpoint utilized ANCOVA with adjustment to age, gender and site (which is usually expected to influence the endpoint) as well as baseline values. Additional parametric T-test was applied, but was found less effective due to outlier values.||||0.0093
95944455|NCT05120856|191860909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.737||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.098|22.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||planned between-group post-hoc comparison at 4-week follow-up||22.149|-12.098|.565
95944456|NCT05120856|191860909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.891||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.774|14.077|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 8-week follow-up||14.077|-20.774|.706
95751971|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
95751972|NCT03728634|191475423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma TTR Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
95751973|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 45 mg||||<0.001
95751974|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 60 mg||||<0.001
95751975|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 90 mg||||<0.001
95751976|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 45 mg||||<0.001
95751977|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 60 mg||||<0.001
95751978|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Multiple-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 99: 90 mg||||<0.001
95751979|NCT03728634|191475424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Exact Test (2-sided)|||Change From Baseline in Plasma RBP4 Levels Following Single-Dose Administration of ION-TTR-LRx at Day 29: 120 mg||||0.036
95751980|NCT03537274|191475448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.078
95751981|NCT03537274|191475448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95751982|NCT03537274|191475448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95751983|NCT03537274|191475449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.128
95751984|NCT03537274|191475449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95751985|NCT03537274|191475449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95751986|NCT01338649|191475461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test on two groups of differences||||||0.0211
95751987|NCT04688931|191475462|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.68|0.29|
95751988|NCT04688931|191475463|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.70|0.30|
95751989|NCT04688931|191475465|OTHER|The analysis is descriptive in nature.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||||The hazard ratio represents the relative risk of having an event in the treatment arm (numerator) versus the control arm (denominator).|||0.86|0.24|
95751990|NCT00974974|191475473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
95751991|NCT00974974|191475474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
95944457|NCT05120856|191860909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.332|11.491|||t-test, 2 sided|||Planned post-hoc comparison between groups at 16-week follow-up||11.491|-25.332|.461
95751992|NCT00361335|191475476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VI at α = 0.05.||||0.051
95798505|NCT02629159|191567037|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority test of upadacitinib versus adalimumab was evaluated using the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Response Rate Difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.5|||||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||22.5|10.0|
95944458|NCT05120856|191860909|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4798||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0229626|-0.1419329||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||In an additional sensitivity analysis, past-week alcohol use data was excluded if a participant reported having been in residential/inpatient treatment where they could not access alcohol for the whole of the past week at the time of follow-up. This resulted in data for one participant in the ApBM group being excluded at week 8, and 1 control being excluded at week 16.||-0.1419329|-2.0229626|.0252
95944459|NCT05120856|191860910|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05||This is the p value for the time x group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the test for the overall CEQ-F scores||0.05|-0.08|.633
95751993|NCT00361335|191475476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31% response in the Group I at α = 0.05.||||0.073
95751994|NCT00361335|191475476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group III at α = 0.05.||||0.093
95798506|NCT02629159|191567037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use||||||<0.001
95798507|NCT02629159|191567038|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|28.8||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.8|19.4|<0.001
95798508|NCT02629159|191567038|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|10.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|16.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.7|4.2|0.001
95944460|NCT05120856|191860910|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||This is for the time x group interaction for the intensity subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the test of the CEQ-F Intensity subscale score||0.05|-0.11|.411
95944461|NCT05120856|191860910|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||p value for the time x group interaction for Imagery subscale|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of CEQ-F Imagery subscale score||0.06|-0.08|.808
95751995|NCT00361335|191475476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups VII vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group VII at α = 0.05.||||0.465
95751996|NCT00361335|191475476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the Group II at α = 0.05.||||0.872
95798509|NCT02629159|191567039|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-44.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-32.69||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.69|-55.39|<0.001
95944462|NCT05120856|191860910|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||This is the p value for the time x group interaction for the Intrusiveness subscale score|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is for the analysis of the CEQ-F Intrusiveness subscale score||0.08|-0.09|.886
95944463|NCT05120856|191860911|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.212||This is the p value for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.212|-0.046|.207
95944464|NCT05120856|191860912|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.3||This is the p value for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.352|.876
95751997|NCT00361335|191475476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Sample size: The sample size of 125 patients in each of the 5 randomized groups will provide at least 90 percentage power to detect a difference in the ACR 50 response rates between groups assuming 13 percentage response in Group V and \~29-31 percentage response in the combined group (I and III) at α = 0.05.||||0.175
95751998|NCT00361335|191475477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
95751999|NCT00361335|191475477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.032
95752000|NCT00361335|191475477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752001|NCT00361335|191475477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.795
95752002|NCT00361335|191475477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.844
95752003|NCT00361335|191475477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response at Week 24 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.540
95752004|NCT00361335|191475478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752005|NCT00361335|191475478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752006|NCT00361335|191475478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752007|NCT00361335|191475478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.002
95752008|NCT00361335|191475478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.043
95752009|NCT00361335|191475478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752010|NCT00361335|191475479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752011|NCT00361335|191475479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752012|NCT00361335|191475479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752013|NCT00361335|191475479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95752014|NCT00361335|191475479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.003
95752015|NCT00361335|191475479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in DAS28 response using CRP at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.001
95752016|NCT00361335|191475480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs VI at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.005
95752017|NCT00361335|191475480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
95752018|NCT00361335|191475480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups III vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.014
95752019|NCT00361335|191475480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups I and VII at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.996
95752020|NCT00361335|191475480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups II vs V at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.738
95752021|NCT00361335|191475480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||No adjustments were made to control for multiplicity|2-sided ANOVA on van der Waerden|||Hypothesis: Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in PCS score of SF-36 at Wk 14 comparing Groups V vs I, V vs III, V vs II, and V vs IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.788
95752022|NCT01765582|191475502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|2.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease versus non liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right versus left) after correction post-randomization.||2.71|0.96|0.132
95752023|NCT01765582|191475503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.88|||Log Rank|||Stratified by extent of metastatic disease (liver-limited disease vs. non-liver-limited disease) and tumor location (right vs. left) after correction post-randomization.||0.88|0.53|0.005
95752024|NCT00714493|191475534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95798510|NCT02629159|191567039|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.89|4.05||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||4.05|-23.89|0.164
95798511|NCT02629159|191567040|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.16||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA and EU/EMA.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.16|3.13|<0.001
95798512|NCT02629159|191567040|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.51||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.76||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||2.76|0.27|0.017
95798513|NCT02629159|191567041|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|LS Mean Difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-3.27||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for US/FDA only.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-3.27|-9.63|<0.001
95944465|NCT05120856|191860913|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.004||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.004|-0.142|.064
95944466|NCT05120856|191860914|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.22||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.220|-0.338|.679
95944467|NCT05120856|191860916|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.24||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.240|-0.097|.403
95944468|NCT05120856|191860917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.021||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of psychological well-being ratings.||0.021|-0.126|.161
95944469|NCT05120856|191860917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.042||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of physical well-being ratings||0.042|-0.099|.425
95944470|NCT05120856|191860917|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.027||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects model analysis of quality of life ratings||0.027|-0.106|.247
95944471|NCT05120856|191860918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.369||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|23.97||This is the p value for the group x time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.97|-16.68|.725
95944472|NCT04538352|191860925|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.||||||0.009||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||0.009
95993778|NCT00619957|191963381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|-16.59|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.59|-25.61|<0.0001
95752025|NCT00714493|191475535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95752026|NCT00076804|191475538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.42
95798514|NCT02629159|191567041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-13.71||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-13.71|-18.89|<0.001
95752027|NCT00076804|191475539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Chi-squared|one degree of freedom||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.89
95752028|NCT00076804|191475540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.14
95752029|NCT00076804|191475541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Logistic regression analysis \& Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare outcomes after adjusting for the relevant covariates,including study arm, age, sex, baseline CD4 cell counts and viral load and pill count adherence|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Unadjusted endpoint analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using all patients enrolled to compare outcomes in the DOT vs. Self-ART arm. For viral load analyses, missing values were considered detectable (missing¼failure analysis). As-treated analyses were also conducted using patients remaining in the study with available data.Crosssectional comparisons between study groups were conducted using two sample t-test,Wilcoxon rank-sum test,chi-squared orFisher's exact and Kaplan-Meier||||0.61
95752030|NCT00354341|191475547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with last observation carry forward (LOCF) method.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8811
95752031|NCT00354341|191475548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.8864
95752032|NCT00354341|191475549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.5681
95752033|NCT00354341|191475550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.1578
95752034|NCT00354341|191475551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA with LOCF|||||||0.2913
95752035|NCT00354341|191475552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95752036|NCT00251719|191475554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|2.34||||0.234||95.0|-1.45|6.14||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.14|-1.45|0.234
95752037|NCT00251719|191475554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|4.85||||0.019||95.0|1.2|8.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.50|1.20|0.019
95752038|NCT00251719|191475554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
95752039|NCT00251719|191475555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.768
95752040|NCT00251719|191475555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.064
95752041|NCT00251719|191475555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
95752042|NCT00251719|191475556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.727
95752043|NCT00251719|191475556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.064
95752044|NCT00251719|191475556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.174
95752045|NCT00251719|191475557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|1.65||||0.167||95.0|-1.65|4.96||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||4.96|-1.65|0.167
95944473|NCT04538352|191860926|OTHER|p value of contrast difference compared from MDI to Semaglutide group at specific time point, testing whether contrast difference is equal to 0, which means there is no difference between two groups. The determination of statistical significance was made using Bonferroni-adjusted p-value, setting the significance threshold at 0.01 after multiplicity correction.|||||<|0.001||||||p value is adjusted for the multiple comparison. The significance threshold is set to 0.01.|Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|||"Linear mixed effect model was conducted for each endpoint to assess mean change at each time point, with time, treatment groups, the interaction of treatment groups and time, and baseline variables included and adjusted in each model.~Mean change difference between patients with MDI and those with Semaglutide (MDI - Semaglutide)"||||<0.001
95944474|NCT03905694|191860940|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-71.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.52|-66.42|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6) and baseline spot urinary oxalate:creatine ratio as fixed effects. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient error.||-66.42|-77.52|
95944475|NCT00092534|191860966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent relative risk reduction|96.6||||||95.0|88.2|99.6|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||99.6|88.2|
95944476|NCT03849937|191861013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95798515|NCT02629159|191567042|SUPERIORITY|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.|Response Rate Difference|7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.1||This comparison was a ranked key secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence for EU/EMA only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.1|3.0|<0.001
95798516|NCT02629159|191567042|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||1.5|-8.2|0.187
95798517|NCT02629159|191567043|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|23.7||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.7|16.3|<0.001
95798518|NCT02629159|191567043|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||16.4|6.5|<0.001
95798519|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.195|0.777|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.777|-0.195|
95944477|NCT03849937|191861013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Time 1 to Time 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
95944478|NCT03849937|191861013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Time 2 to Time 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95944479|NCT03849937|191861014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effective Communication||||<.001
95944480|NCT03849937|191861014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Appropriate Communication||||<.001
95944481|NCT03849937|191861014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes elderspeak||||<.001
95944482|NCT03849937|191861014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recognizes person-centered communication||||<.001
95944483|NCT06212752|191861078|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||||GMR and associated 96% confidence interval (Cl) were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.27|0.95|
95944484|NCT06212752|191861079|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.88|||||GMR and associated 95% CI were calculated using the Welch's t test. GMR was calculated as geometric mean (GM) of Pembrolizumab Formulated with Berahyaluronidase Alfa to GM of Pembrolizumab.|||1.88|1.14|
95944485|NCT02195232|191861123|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95944486|NCT00811941|191861128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.35|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. Null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||0.35|-2.10|0.160
95944487|NCT00811941|191861129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|2.23|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 110 participants in the placebo group and 320 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||2.23|-9.17|0.232
95944488|NCT00811941|191861130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.41|0.59|0.689
95798520|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2843|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.206|0.769|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.769|-0.206|
95944489|NCT00811941|191861131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.37|0.046
95990970|NCT02167945|191956804|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard Ratio|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.313|||Cox proportional hazards model||The estimated value represents the hazard ratio for developing the event in the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who achieved SVR12 compared to the group of participants in studies M14-222 and M14-423 who didn't achieve SVR12.|A Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was constructed. The covariates for the model included baseline age, BMI, HCV genotype 1 subtype (1b, non-1b), IL28B genotype (CC, non-CC), prior treatment history (naive, experienced), baseline HCV RNA levels, baseline fibrosis stage (F0-1, F2, F3, F4), baseline albumin, baseline creatinine clearance, baseline platelet count, history of diabetes (yes, no), APRI, race (white, other), and alcohol use status (current, former, non-drinker).||0.313|0.057|<0.001
95990971|NCT02167945|191956806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.21|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.21|-3.30|0.026
95752046|NCT00251719|191475557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|3.39||||0.03||95.0|0.27|6.5||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||6.50|0.27|0.030
95752047|NCT00251719|191475557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.413
95752048|NCT00251719|191475558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
95752049|NCT00251719|191475558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.125
95752050|NCT00251719|191475558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.993
95990972|NCT02167945|191956806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.91|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.91|-1.97|0.472
95990973|NCT02167945|191956806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.4|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.40|-2.47|0.159
95752051|NCT00251719|191475559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.117
95752052|NCT00251719|191475559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.124
95752053|NCT00251719|191475559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.949
95752054|NCT03709823|191475569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-20.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.141|-9.821||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-9.821|-31.141|0.0002
95752055|NCT03709823|191475569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-22.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.791|-11.342||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-11.342|-32.791|< 0.0001
95752056|NCT03709823|191475569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-5.9||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.463|4.66||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||4.660|-16.463|0.2708
95752057|NCT03709823|191475569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-2.81||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.438|7.82||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||7.820|-13.438|0.6018
95798521|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|1.299|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.299|0.017|
95798522|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.189|1.49|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||1.490|0.189|
95798523|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4954|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|1.512|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.512|-0.177|
95752058|NCT03709823|191475569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Commercial Sched.|-12.17||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.869|2.535||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||2.535|-26.869|0.1025
95752059|NCT03709823|191475570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-14.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.216|-6.009||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-6.009|-23.216|0.0010
95752060|NCT03709823|191475570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-16.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.862|-7.548||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-7.548|-24.862|0.0003
95752061|NCT03709823|191475571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-12.41||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.695|-3.135||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||-3.135|-21.695|0.0091
95752062|NCT03709823|191475571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-9.3||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.667|0.075||Based on analysis of variance models with percent of expected cigarettes smoked as the dependent variable, treatment and body mass index class as main fixed effects, with covariate of baseline cigarettes.|ANOVA|||||0.075|-18.667|0.0518
95752063|NCT00557076|191475572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Because 50% of the planned sample size was randomized, achieved power for the DOCS is 0.51.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|21.9|||t-test, 1 sided|DOCS scores were transformed to interval level measures using a many-faceted Rasch model anchored to values from a larger validation data set|The mean difference between the baseline and endpoint DOCS test was compared between the FAST and Sham groups.|The planned sample of 15 per group provided 80% power for a one-sided t-test to detect be-tween group endpoint differences in DOCS averages equivalent to an effect size of .91 (9 units). Clinically, this assumes that the FAST protocol would facilitate progression from one clinical state to another (e.g., vegetative (VS) to minimally conscious (MCS) states). The hypothesized effect was based on average DOCS change for a severe TBI sample receiving three weeks of acute rehabilitation.||21.9|-11.1|.465
95752064|NCT00557076|191475573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.00493|||t-test, 1 sided|CNC scores were transformed to interval level measures using Rasch partial credit and Facets models. We then re-scaled these logits to 0-100 scales.|The mean difference was calculated for each group using the eighth CNC measure minus the Baseline CNC measure.|Power was not calculated for the CNC because the effect size was not published.||-.00493|-1.51|0.049
95798524|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4887|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.078|1.746|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||1.746|0.078|
95944490|NCT00811941|191861132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.08|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 104 participants in the placebo group and 306 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.36|0.217
95752065|NCT00557076|191475573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||To confirm that CNC results were not an anomaly at the final measurement and that the overall CNC response pattern was consistent, mixed-effect longitudinal models were conducted.|t-test, 1 sided||The Baseline CNC measure and seven post-Baseline CNC measures (for a total of eight CNC measures) were used to calculate the slope.|||||.0022
95752066|NCT00688376|191475574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values, least squares (LS) mean, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as covariate.||4.8|-3.22|0.694
95752067|NCT00688376|191475575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|4.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.09|-4.38|0.9458
95752068|NCT00688376|191475576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|6.85|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6.85|-9.56|0.743
95752069|NCT00688376|191475576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|7.84|||ANCOVA|||RTVSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||7.84|-7.42|0.9561
95752070|NCT00688376|191475576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.04|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 6 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||9.04|-3.97|0.4385
95798525|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.803|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.803|0.150|
95798526|NCT04437368|191567059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|2.022|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.022|0.445|
95798527|NCT04437368|191567060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|3.979|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.979|-0.441|
95798528|NCT04437368|191567060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.863|3.412|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||3.412|-0.863|
95944491|NCT00811941|191861133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.93||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 319 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.05|0.83|0.273
95752071|NCT00688376|191475576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.0|||ANCOVA|||RTSS Change from Baseline to Week 12 (LOCF). P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||6|-6.74|0.9088
95752072|NCT00688376|191475577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite Score Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.96|-1.5|0.2886
95752073|NCT00688376|191475577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||5.69|-1.54|0.2555
95752074|NCT00688376|191475577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.7||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.99|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||4.99|-1.63|0.3155
95752075|NCT00688376|191475577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Working Memory Scale Analysis. P-values, LS mean, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||3.16|-3.55|0.9075
95752076|NCT00894738|191475590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that mean DEXA total percent fat is similar between the two groups of interest. The primary statistical model consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor (AP-Treated Vs Non-AP Treated) and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) was the dependent variable.||||0.49
95752077|NCT00894738|191475591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value listed is for DEXA total percent fat and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha level was set to 5%.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis consisted of treatment group as a 2-level factor variable and DEXA total percent fat as a covariate. An interaction term between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat was also generated. Hepatic triglyceride content was the dependent variable. DEXA total percent fat was found to be significant while treatment group and the interaction between treatment group and DEXA total percent fat were not significant.||||<0.0001
95990974|NCT02167945|191956806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.36|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.36|-2.95|0.125
95752078|NCT01340768|191475592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.94||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.94|0.29|0.028
95752079|NCT01340768|191475593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83||P-value for association between treatment groups and proportions controlling for prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.83|0.29|0.006
95752080|NCT01846273|191475689|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 5 letters|Least Squares Mean|3.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.38||||ANCOVA||||||0.38|<0.001
95752081|NCT01846273|191475690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95752082|NCT01032018|191475759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of back-transformed means.|-3.5||||0.01||95.0|-6.1|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The trial was powered to detect a between-group difference in the 6-month change in depression symptoms. Assuming 5% attrition rate, we estimated that a sample of 150 patients would be needed to have 80% power to detect a clinically meaningful differential change in depression scores between groups of 0.46 SD.||-0.7|-6.1|0.01
95752083|NCT00609518|191475848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||Linear probability model|||||0.28|-0.10|
95752084|NCT00609518|191475849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4902||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4902
95752085|NCT00609518|191475850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6791||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6791
95752086|NCT00609518|191475850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.49|0.54|
95752087|NCT00609518|191475851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5870
95752088|NCT00609518|191475851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the covariate included in this model.||||1.38|0.57|
95752089|NCT01276301|191475876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|107.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||107.02|98.87|
95798529|NCT04437368|191567060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|4.468|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||4.468|-0.386|
95798530|NCT04437368|191567060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3857|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.099|3.655|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||3.655|-1.099|
95798531|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|8.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||8.1|-10.3|
95798532|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|3.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||3.7|-16.3|
95752090|NCT01276301|191475877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.38|99.97|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||99.97|85.38|
95752091|NCT01276301|191475878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.87|106.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed terms for sequence, period, treatment and random term for subject within sequence.|Standard error of the mean is actually the Intra-Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa plus verapamil divided by empa||106.83|98.87|
95752092|NCT01196078|191475925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.88||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|26.19||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group \[ECOG\] status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in tumor response rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||26.19|-0.22|0.0388
95752093|NCT01196078|191475926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.79||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|31.33||Between-treatment difference computed using logistic regression with treatment and multiple factors (gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for the difference in the disease control rate determined using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||31.33|-3.54|0.1061
95752094|NCT01196078|191475927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9505|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9505
95752095|NCT01196078|191475929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.2314
95752096|NCT01196078|191475931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894|||||||Log Rank|Data were stratified by gender, ECOG status, histology status, and smoking status.||||||0.9894
95752097|NCT01196078|191475933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||PWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.0060
95990975|NCT02167945|191956806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.29|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.29|-1.78|0.756
95752098|NCT01196078|191475933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6871|||||||ANOVA|||SWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.6871
95752099|NCT01196078|191475933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5104|||||||ANOVA|||EWB Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.5104
95752100|NCT01196078|191475933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9927|||||||ANOVA|||FWB, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.9927
95752101|NCT01196078|191475933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|||||||ANOVA|||LCS, Baseline versus Endpoint||||0.3581
95752102|NCT04972123|191475975|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||||||0.521||||||The primary end point was evaluated via a large sample Z-test for proportions. The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.|Large sample Z-test for population prop|The test statistic was compared to a Pocock monitoring boundary at both an interim analysis and at the final analysis.||Primary endpoint -- ITT primary endpoint analysis||||0.521
95752103|NCT04972123|191475976|SUPERIORITY|Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.||||||0.574||||||Time to event was compared between groups via a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Secondary endpoint -- Time to event for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.574
95752104|NCT04972123|191475977|SUPERIORITY|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||||||1||||||Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|Incidence of asystole were compared between groups using Fisher exact test.||Secondary endpoint -- Incidence of asystolic pause \> 3 seconds for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||1.000
95752105|NCT04972123|191475978|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 1 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.732||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.732
95752106|NCT04972123|191475978|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 4 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.591||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.591
95752107|NCT04972123|191475978|SUPERIORITY|Reporting for the 8 hour fatigue score only.||||||0.034||||||Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Measures of fatigue were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Secondary endpoint -- Measures of Fatigue for evaluable ITT population who had a primary event.||||0.034
95752108|NCT04647721|191475979|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.5. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was constructed using the repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.07|
95752109|NCT04647721|191475980|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|6.35||||||||6.35|-6.35|
95752110|NCT04647721|191475981|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.74||||||||6.74|-3.08|
95798533|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|4.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||4.1|-14.5|
95798534|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-1.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-1.6|-21.7|
95798535|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.4|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.5|-18.4|
95798536|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-22.1|
95798537|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|6.9|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.9|-12.7|
95990976|NCT02167945|191956806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.75|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-2.32|0.315
95990977|NCT02167945|191956807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.75|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.75|-3.30|0.216
95990978|NCT02167945|191956807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.17|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.17|-3.58|0.074
95752111|NCT05070546|191475988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.6|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.60|1.25|
95752112|NCT05070546|191475988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohort 2 (Group 3 in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67 for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78|||Geometric Mean Ratio|||||1.78|1.34|
95752113|NCT05070546|191475989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 1\[Group1\] and 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.9|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.9|0.3|
95752114|NCT05070546|191475989|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Cohort 3 (Group 5) versus Cohorts 1 (Group 1) and 2 (Group 3) in terms of RSV A2 Strain neutralizing antibody titers against 14 days after vaccination, using a non-inferiority margin of -10% for the GMT ratio (Cohort 3 \[Group 5\]/Cohort 2 \[Group 3\]).|Difference in Seroresponse rate|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.5|||Difference in Seroresponse rate|||||10.5|-1.6|
95752115|NCT04380090|191475995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.86|0.65|0.41
95990979|NCT02167945|191956807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.05|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.05|-3.67|0.056
95990980|NCT02167945|191956807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.16|-2.84|0.411
95990981|NCT02167945|191956807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||0.11|-3.55|0.065
95990982|NCT02167945|191956807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.25|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24||-0.25|-3.91|0.026
95990983|NCT02167945|191956808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.14|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes (PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.14|-3.86|0.035
95752116|NCT04380090|191475996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.24|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||2.24|0.28|0.66
95752117|NCT04380090|191475997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.63|||ordinal regression model||OR for Propylene Glycol use (vs Docusate Sodium), adjusted for operative time and sex (female vs. male)|||3.63|0.45|0.65
95752118|NCT04380090|191475998|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95752119|NCT04380090|191475999|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a p-value greater or equal to 0.05 (no difference between groups)||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95752120|NCT04988152|191476033|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
95752121|NCT04988152|191476034|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.1908|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.1908|0.9281|
95752122|NCT04988152|191476037|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
95798538|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|2.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||2.7|-17.9|
95990984|NCT02167945|191956808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.42|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 12~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.42|-3.88|0.015
95990985|NCT02167945|191956808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.048
95752123|NCT04988152|191476038|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1236|2.2413|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.2413|1.1236|
95752124|NCT04988152|191476053|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8519|1.35|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.3500|0.8519|
95752125|NCT04988152|191476055|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0673|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9286|1.2268|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||1.2268|0.9286|
95798539|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|12.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||12.5|-7.4|
95798540|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|9.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||9.6|-11.1|
95990986|NCT02167945|191956808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.22|||ANCOVA||F2 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F2 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||1.22|-2.67|0.466
95990987|NCT02167945|191956808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.13|||ANCOVA||F3 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F3 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.13|-3.70|0.035
95990988|NCT02167945|191956808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.43|||ANCOVA||F4 - F0-F1|"F0-F1 vs F4 at Post-treatment Week 24~The difference between baseline fibrosis stage groups in mean change from baseline was analyzed using ANCOVA with baseline fibrosis stage (F0-F1, F2, F3 and F4) as a factor and baseline patient reported outcomes(PRO) score and SVR12 status as covariates."||-0.43|-4.01|0.015
95990989|NCT02623335|191956814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Options questions||||0.353
95990990|NCT02623335|191956814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Expectations questions||||0.923
95990991|NCT02623335|191956814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Risks questions||||0.255
95990992|NCT02623335|191956814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|239047259.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Advance directives questions||||0.094
95752126|NCT04988152|191476059|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.5129|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates.|||2.5129|1.1500|
95752127|NCT04988152|191476061|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.5766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1777|2.1106|||||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence intervals were obtained from ANCOVA model, with AUClast as the dependent variable, and ethnicity and body weight were covariates|||2.1106|1.1777|
95752128|NCT01610453|191476086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||A sample size calculation with alpha 0.05, power 0.8, and cut-off level of HPD at 40 mm. 146 women should be included. The calculation was based from a previous study, in which 93% with HPD ≤40 mm and 57% of with HPD \> 40 mm delivered vaginally.|Chi-squared|||Women were categorized in accordance to fetal descent measured by ultrasound. Head-perineum distance ≤40 mm was used as cut-off level. Vaginal delivery was the primary outcome measure.||||<0.01
95752129|NCT01610453|191476087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95752130|NCT00988065|191476088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
95798541|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|11.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.5|-8.7|
95798542|NCT04437368|191567066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|7.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.8|-13.8|
95798543|NCT05722015|191567080|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.06|1.22|||Welch's t test|One-sided p-value was calculated using the Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of geometric mean (GM) of Cycle 1 AUC0-6 weeks in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 96% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.22|1.06|<0.00001
95798544|NCT05722015|191567081|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.8.|GMR|1.67|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.0|1.52|1.84|||Welch's t test|One sided p-value was calculated using Welch's t test.|GMR was calculated as the ratio of GM of Cycle 3 Ctrough in Arm 1 to that of Arm 2. The associated 94% CI were calculated using Welch's t test.|||1.84|1.52|<0.00001
95990993|NCT02623335|191956815|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T2 and T1||||0.84
95990994|NCT02623335|191956815|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores between T3 and T1||||0.645
95990995|NCT02623335|191956816|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.37||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
95990996|NCT02623335|191956817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.412
95990997|NCT02623335|191956818|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95990998|NCT02623335|191956819|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-0.72||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.106
95990999|NCT02623335|191956819|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|-1.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.007
95991000|NCT02623335|191956820|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.034
95752131|NCT00988065|191476088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.3|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||9.3|2.1|
95752132|NCT00988065|191476089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.7||||||95.0|-1.8|3.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||3.7|-1.8|
95752133|NCT00988065|191476089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|||2.5|-2.5|
95944492|NCT00811941|191861134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 108 participants in the placebo group and 318 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.10|0.90|0.916
95944493|NCT00811941|191861135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.29|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-2.85|0.017
95944494|NCT00811941|191861136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-0.42|||Adjusted change from Baseline - Month 13||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-13); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.42|-12.53|0.036
95944495|NCT00811941|191861137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values were imputed using individual-patient predicted values of TAC derived from the MMRM model.||1.52|0.67|0.976
95944496|NCT00811941|191861138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.44|0.056
95944497|NCT00811941|191861139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029||95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 52||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 95 participants in the placebo group and 258 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment by- time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-0.50|0.029
95944498|NCT00811941|191861140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 98 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.90|0.67|0.001
95944499|NCT00811941|191861141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 97 participants in the placebo group and 259 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the logtransformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.99|0.79|0.037
95944500|NCT05580003|191861176|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.71|107.18|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||107.18|95.71|
95991001|NCT02623335|191956820|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.12||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment (T3)||||0.019
95991002|NCT02623335|191956821|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|1.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6-8 weeks post-enrollment (T2)||||0.022
95991003|NCT02623335|191956821|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|0.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-4 months post-enrollment post-enrollment (T3)||||0.053
95991004|NCT02623335|191956823|SUPERIORITY||Effect estimate|5.04||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95991005|NCT02435849|191956856|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR within 3 months is less than or equal to 20%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
95752134|NCT00988065|191476090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.0||||||95.0|-0.5|5.7|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||5.7|-0.5|
95752135|NCT00988065|191476090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.0||||||95.0|-2.5|2.5|||||95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (treatment group minus placebo) according to Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985; 4:213-226).|Comparison of participants who had Level 1 or Level 2 diagnostic certainty.||2.5|-2.5|
95752136|NCT00700817|191476103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6||||0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.43||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority.||-0.43|-0.77|0.0001
95752137|NCT00700817|191476103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.34||||0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.16||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).||ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Hieracheal testing of non-inferiority followed by superiority. Liraglutide 1.2 mg versus sitagliptin only tested if liraglutide 1.8 mg was superior to sitagliptin.||-0.16|-0.51|0.0001
95752138|NCT00700817|191476104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.63||||0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.44||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.8 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.44|-0.81|0.0001
95752139|NCT00700817|191476104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority concluded if upper confidence interval of test was below 0.4%. Superiority concluded if upper limit of confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated Treatment Difference, LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.59|-0.22||Multiple comparisons not applicable due to the hieracheal testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment and country (fixed effects) and baseline HbA1c (covariate).|Lira 1.2 - Sita|ANCOVA with treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.22|-0.59|0.0001
95752140|NCT00700817|191476106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.07|-0.41|0.0060
95752141|NCT00700817|191476106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change within treatment group|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.23||Multiple comparisons is not applicable.|paired t-test|The analysis is not a controlled comparison, and there are no adjustments||The t-test was performed to examine whether the change in HbA1c from week 52 to week 78 were different from 0 within each treatment group.||-0.23|-0.67|0.0001
95944501|NCT05580003|191861176|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.28|108.5|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUCinf||108.50|97.28|
95944502|NCT05580003|191861176|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|104.8|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||104.80|91.32|
95752142|NCT01144364|191476262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.254
95752143|NCT01144364|191476264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12||Overall DFS|Cox proportional-hazards|Adjusted for randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||||1.12|0.31|0.105
95752144|NCT01144364|191476265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
95752145|NCT01144364|191476266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.751
95752146|NCT01144364|191476268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||Cox proportional-hazards|||Analysis of overall PFS with Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for the randomization stratum and the known prognostic factors.||1.05|0.38|0.079
95752147|NCT01144364|191476271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09||Univariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Cox model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.09|0.40|0.103
95752148|NCT01144364|191476271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.04||Multivariate analysis|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, FL International prognostic index (FLIPI) score.||||1.04|0.37|0.071
95752149|NCT01144364|191476272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06||Univariate analysis|Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model stratified for the stratification groups.||||1.06|0.39|0.084
95752150|NCT01144364|191476272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|Fine and Gray model adjusted for stratification group, age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and FLIPI score||||1.00|0.38|0.052
95752151|NCT02192164|191476292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.757334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.594019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.916307|0.401638||||||||0.401638|-5.916307|
95752152|NCT02192164|191476293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.911449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426517|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73847|1.915572||||||||1.915572|-3.73847|
95752153|NCT03123861|191476316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95944503|NCT05580003|191861176|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|109.7|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|AUClast||109.70|95.60|
95991006|NCT02435849|191956858|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
95991007|NCT02435849|191956859|OTHER|testing the null hypothesis that ORR with MRD negative within 3 months is less than or equal to 15%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<.0001
95991008|NCT01017952|191956891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.99|0.66|0.040
95991009|NCT01017952|191956891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.97|0.64|0.024
95991010|NCT01017952|191956891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.85|0.56|<0.001
95991011|NCT01017952|191956892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.177
95991012|NCT01017952|191956892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.66|0.036
95991013|NCT01017952|191956892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||Regression, Cox|||||0.82|0.54|<0.001
95991014|NCT01017952|191956893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.07|0.65|0.154
95991015|NCT01017952|191956893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.99|0.60|0.041
95991016|NCT01017952|191956893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.84|0.51|<0.001
95991017|NCT01017952|191956894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.034||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.066||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.066|0.003|0.034
95991018|NCT01017952|191956894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.056|-0.008|0.143
95991019|NCT01017952|191956894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.026||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.057|-0.006|0.115
95991020|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.56|-77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.11|-81.56|<0.0001
95991021|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-87.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0887|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.8|-85.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-85.84|-88.80|<0.0001
95991022|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-85.65|-81.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.78|-85.65|<0.0001
95991023|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.15|-90.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-90.98|-93.15|<0.0001
95991024|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.64|-82.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-82.74|-86.64|<0.0001
95991025|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-92.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-93.85|-91.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta 1-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-91.74|-93.85|<0.0001
95752154|NCT03123861|191476317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95752155|NCT03123861|191476318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95991026|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.69|-76.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.96|-81.69|<0.0001
95991027|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-88.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-90.06|-87.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-38: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-87.18|-90.06|<0.0001
95991028|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0824|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.11|-76.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-76.52|-81.11|<0.0001
95991029|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-86.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.82|-84.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.55|-87.82|<0.0001
95991030|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-79.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.36|-77.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-77.78|-81.36|<0.0001
95991031|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-84.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0715|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.34|-83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ABeta x-42: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-83.50|-86.34|<0.0001
95991032|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|72.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|55.37|92.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||92.40|55.37|<0.0001
95991033|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|98.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|75.92|122.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-alpha: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||122.96|75.92|<0.0001
95991034|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-80.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-81.84|-78.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-78.33|-81.84|<0.0001
95991035|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-83.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.92|-81.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||sAPP-beta: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-81.69|-84.92|<0.0001
95991036|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-78.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-80.06|-76.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate||-76.62|-80.06|<0.0001
95991037|NCT02793232|191956943|SUPERIORITY||Percent change from baseline|-85.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-86.57|-84.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Abeta total: General linear model with treatment, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.05|-86.57|<0.0001
95991038|NCT01064167|191956951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Given that the frequency of RBC transfusion for OPCAB surgery is about 55%, to detect 35% reduction in TA group, with power=o.8 and α=0.05, a group of 107 patients in each arm is required. We estimated a crossover rate of 20%. The final sample size for randomization purposes increased to a total of 260 patients. The Chi-square test was used to test the differences in categorical variables between both groups.If one or more cells had an expected count less than 5, Fisher's Exact Test was used.||||<0.05
95991039|NCT01064167|191956952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95991040|NCT04849780|191956953|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two arms would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean change from baseline overall comfort. Sample size was determined using a 2-sided Satterthwaite t-test assuming unequal variances with an alpha level of 5%. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Population Mean Difference|29.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.602|33.732|||Bootstrapping methods||Population Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2|||33.732|24.602|
95991041|NCT04849780|191956954|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.6|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 1 minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-8.6|-12.7|
95991042|NCT04849780|191956955|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size was determined based on the primary hypothesis only. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|LS Mean|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|32.9|||Heterogeneous Mixed model analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A), minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||32.9|19.0|
95991043|NCT04849780|191956956|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 3 points was used.|LS Mean|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-7.0|||Heterogeneous mixed model analysis||Mean difference was calculated as Arm 2 (senofilcon A) minus Arm 2 (subjects' own contact lens)|||-7.0|-10.1|
95752156|NCT03123861|191476319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95752157|NCT02220725|191476320|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-70.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.43|-65.91|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-65.91|-85.43|<0.0001
95752158|NCT02220725|191476320|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.95|-47.03|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-47.03|-57.95|<0.0001
95752159|NCT02220725|191476321|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.92|-64.45|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-64.45|-78.92|<0.0001
95752160|NCT02220725|191476323|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Shift|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-12.73|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-12.73|-23.05|<0.0001
95752161|NCT02220725|191476324|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1142.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1006.1|1281.4|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1281.40|1006.10|<0.0001
95752162|NCT02220725|191476324|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1205.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1034.17|1400.79|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1400.79|1034.17|<0.0001
95991044|NCT02979431|191956980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
95991045|NCT02979431|191956980|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||=0.001
95991046|NCT02979431|191956980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was analysed using log-rank test to compare time-to-BQL between each of the ALX-0171 treatment groups and the combined placebo group. The tests were performed in a sequential way to preserve the family-wise error rate at 0.05.||||<0.001
95991047|NCT02979431|191956981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5843|=|0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A comparison for change from Baseline in GSS to Day 2, 5 hours post-dose was performed using a contrast analysis on a longitudinal mixed model with random factor subject and fixed effects baseline value, treatment group and timepoint, including the treatment-by-timepoint interaction term. All data up to + including Day 3 were used in the longitudinal mixed model. The Kenward-Roger approximation of degrees of freedom was used.The model was fitted using an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||||=0.271
95991048|NCT02979431|191956981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.4904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|=|0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.404
95991049|NCT02979431|191956981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.2156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5842|=|0.713|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.713
95991050|NCT02063035|191956995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1318
95991051|NCT01405053|191956999|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.558||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|15.7|||ANCOVA|||The primary statistical model for comparing the 2 treatment groups was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) mixed model for repeated measures with baseline score, age, and sex as covariates, and treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as factors.||15.7|-10.5|0.6928
95752163|NCT04932941|191476326|SUPERIORITY||Common risk difference|-0.276||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.634|11.081|||Mantel Haenszel||Strata-adjusted Mantel Haenszel (MH) method for difference in proportions controlling for stratification factors (COVID-19 severity: moderate, severe, and age group: less than or equal to 65 years, greater than 65 years).|||11.081|-11.634|0.962
95752164|NCT03020719|191476372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.081||||0.2521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥ -0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 weight-for-age z-score, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.059|-0.221|0.2521
95944504|NCT05580003|191861177|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.13|77.65|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||77.65|58.13|
95752165|NCT03020719|191476373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.01|-0.18|0.0890
95944505|NCT05580003|191861177|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.14|85.67|||||A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effect and participant nested within sequence as random effect. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|||85.67|64.14|
95944506|NCT05580003|191861213|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.98|87.09|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||87.09|60.98|
95944507|NCT05580003|191861213|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.35|85.52|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUCinf||85.52|68.35|
95944508|NCT05580003|191861213|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.7|82.27|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||82.27|65.70|
95944509|NCT05580003|191861213|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.36|85.13|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|AUClast||85.13|66.36|
95944510|NCT05580003|191861214|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|97.75|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||97.75|60.21|
95944511|NCT05580003|191861214|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|70.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.7|93.67|||||A paired t-test was used. Values had been back-transformed from natural log scale. Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages|||93.67|53.70|
95944512|NCT03170648|191861275|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||T2 (post) vs.T1(pre)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95944513|NCT03509909|191861279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
95944514|NCT05601882|191861311|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|15.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||15.5|6.6|<0.0001
95944515|NCT05601882|191861312|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||24.2|12.5|<0.0001
95944516|NCT05601882|191861313|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||20.0|9.4|<0.0001
95944517|NCT05601882|191861314|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.0|10.2|<0.0001
95944518|NCT05601882|191861315|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||16.9|9.6|<0.0001
95944519|NCT05601882|191861316|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|9.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
95991052|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
95991053|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
95991054|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
95991055|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
95991056|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
95991057|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.003|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0|||
95991058|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.035|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.001|||
95991059|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.176|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.018|||
95991060|NCT03604445|191957011|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.129|||||||||||||Posterior probabilities of the DLT rate lying in the intervals \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing), and \[0.33,1\] (overdosing) are reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.|Probability of DLT rate in \[0.33, 1\] = 0.83|||
95858898|NCT02863419|191675640|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
95991061|NCT02642094|191957036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0020
95991062|NCT02642094|191957037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
95991063|NCT02642094|191957038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95991064|NCT02642094|191957039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0072
95991065|NCT02642094|191957040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3093
95991066|NCT02551159|191957053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.32|0.69|0.787
95991067|NCT02551159|191957055|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.39|0.80|0.634
95991068|NCT02551159|191957057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.8||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.94|0.287
95991069|NCT02551159|191957057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.76||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.76|0.99|0.028
95991070|NCT02551159|191957058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.37||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.37|0.10|<0.001
95991071|NCT02551159|191957058|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of number with a response||0.57|0.20|<0.001
95991072|NCT02551159|191957060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27||2 sided|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.27|0.83|0.811
95991073|NCT02551159|191957060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis of number of deaths||1.25|0.87|0.624
95991074|NCT02551159|191957063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.68|1.10|0.006
95991075|NCT02551159|191957063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.53||2 sided|Log Rank|||||1.53|1.06|0.008
95991076|NCT02551159|191957064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|0.13|<0.001
95991077|NCT02551159|191957064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41||2 sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|0.20|<0.001
95991078|NCT00993928|191957072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q3: Percent change in sleep latency from baseline to week 7.||||0.85
95991079|NCT00993928|191957072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Q6A: Percent change in time to fall back asleep from baseline to week 7.||||0.86
95991080|NCT00993928|191957074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
95991081|NCT00993928|191957076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare percent change from baseline to week 7 Distress Thermometer score.||||0.64
95991082|NCT00632853|191957106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8741|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8741
95944520|NCT05601882|191861317|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||18.8|9.4|<0.0001
95944521|NCT05601882|191861318|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||23.3|13.9|<0.0001
95944522|NCT05601882|191861319|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis categories \[(vIGA-AD (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\])\] and age (12 to \< 18; 18 to \< 40; ≥40 to \< 64 years)|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib (Period 1) - Dupilumab (Period 1)|Upadacitinib (Period 1) vs Dupilumab (Period 1)||13.1|5.4|<0.0001
95944523|NCT05501600|191861326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
95991083|NCT01462266|191957146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2|||Longitudinal data analysis|Adjusting for participant's use of metformin at Visit 1/Screening Visit (i.e., on metformin, or not on metformin)||||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
95991084|NCT02288273|191957166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95991085|NCT02321436|191957181|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified log rank test.||||||0.0176||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Log Rank|||||||0.0176
95944524|NCT05501600|191861327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081616|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081616
95944525|NCT00650078|191861331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.64||The p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment, geographic region, gender, and median age class as factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.39|0.0010
95944526|NCT00650078|191861332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-6.1||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test p-value|Hodges-Lehman method|The difference between the treatment groups was assessed using the median and the 95% CI of the median computed using the Hodges Lehmann method.||||-6.1|-31.7|0.0015
95991086|NCT02321436|191957181|OTHER|The treatment difference (Dysport® versus placebo) was tested using a non-parametric, two-sided, stratified Wilcoxon test.||||||0.048||||||Significance level (α) = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0480
95991087|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||-0.47|-1.54|0.0005
95991088|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.47||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||-0.47|-1.63|0.0007
95991089|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.48||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||-0.48|-1.62|0.0006
95991090|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||-0.31|-1.36|0.0027
95991091|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.26||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||-0.26|-1.39|0.0052
95991092|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.31||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||0.31|-1.35|0.2037
95944527|NCT05890794|191861336|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.842|58.858||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PPi.||58.858|22.842|0.0005
95944528|NCT05890794|191861336|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error|Difference in LS Means|-11.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-5.82||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis for PPi.||-5.82|-16.52|<0.0001
95944529|NCT05890794|191861337|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.831|40.941||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PLP.||40.941|20.831|<0.0001
95944530|NCT05890794|191861337|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.289||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-9.2||Significant test: two-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PLP.||-9.20|-35.81|0.0024
95944531|NCT05890794|191861338|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4335.66||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6652.753|-2018.576||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for ALP activity.||-2018.576|-6652.753|0.0019
95944532|NCT05890794|191861339|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.25||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.319|48.812||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for urine PEA.||48.812|-2.319|0.0693
95944533|NCT05890794|191861339|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.986||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.88|40.35||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for urine PEA.||40.35|-57.88|0.7086
95944534|NCT05890794|191861340|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.43||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.516|338.344||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL.||338.344|36.516|0.0199
95944535|NCT05890794|191861340|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.767||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|6.89||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in relative maximum change from baseline (LS Means) between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL.||6.89|-31.92|0.2034
95944536|NCT05890794|191861341|OTHER|The difference in dose group means (0.8 mg/kg - 3.2 mg/kg) was calculated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.868|2.084||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|A 2-sided t-test was carried out to determine whether there is a difference in means between the 0.8 mg/kg and 3.2 mg/kg dose groups.||Analysis of the difference in fold change from baseline between dose groups of ilofotase alfa by a 2-sided t-test for PL/PLP ratio.||2.084|-3.868|0.5195
95944537|NCT05890794|191861341|OTHER|The difference between LS Means of fold change from baseline between dose groups was calculated. The analysis was performed using an MMRM model with fixed effects for baseline value, dose group, timepoint, interaction between dose group and timepoint, as well as random effects for patient and error.|Difference in LS Means|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33||Significant test: 2-sided; significance level 5%.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of the difference in fold change form baseline (LS Means) between dose levels of ilofotase alfa by an MMRM analysis for PL/PLP ratio.||1.33|0.69|<0.0001
95991093|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.94||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||0.94|-1.25|0.7656
95752166|NCT03020719|191476374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted from randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.15|-0.28|0.5730
95991094|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.23||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||1.23|-1.46|0.8521
95991095|NCT02321436|191957182|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.81||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||0.81|-1.24|0.6582
95752167|NCT03020719|191476375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).|Model incorporates Week 12 measurements, assumes unstructured covariance for within-subject measurements, and includes a subject-level random intercept.|||0.40|-0.17|0.4259
95752168|NCT03020719|191476376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.96|||ANCOVA|Model adjusted for randomization strata: sex, baseline age (\<6 years, ≥6 years), and baseline weight-for-age z-score category (\< -0.52, ≥-0.52).||||0.96|-2.06|0.4666
95991096|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 2 (Week 4).||11.1|-9.5|0.8754
95991097|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 3 (Week 6).||11.1|-12.8|0.8805
95991098|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 4 (Week 8).||9.6|-14.0|0.6992
95991099|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|12.8||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 5 (Week 10).||12.8|-13.0|0.9882
95991100|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|21.2||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 6 (Week 12).||21.2|-11.9|0.5646
95991101|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|9.0||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 7 (Week 16).||9.0|-34.0|0.2325
95991102|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|11.1||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 8 (Week 20).||11.1|-39.4|0.2441
95752169|NCT03020719|191476377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with AE|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||13.6|-13.6|1.0000
95991103|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|15.7||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 9 (Week 24).||15.7|-33.7|0.4311
95991104|NCT02321436|191957183|OTHER|Differences between treatment groups and p-values are based on an analysis of variance performed at each visit, taking into account treatment and spasticity status as fixed effects. Baseline value is value assessed at Visit 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|24.3||p value significance level = 5%|ANOVA|||Differences between treatment groups at Visit 10 (Week 28).||24.3|-33.3|0.7310
95859765|NCT01243242|191677643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) and to Visits 3 through 5 in the primary endpoint, CAARS, and secondary endpoint scales, CGI-S, TOVA and AAQoL between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0195
95752170|NCT03020719|191476377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants with SAE|-13.3||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|2.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||2.9|-30.5|0.1945
95752171|NCT03020719|191476378|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.21||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.52|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||1.52|0.96|0.1087
95944538|NCT00490139|191861348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.00|0.71|0.048
95859766|NCT01243242|191677644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||p value for the difference between groups in change from Screening to Termination was calculated using ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline score, gender, site and age.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied for comparing the differences in changes from screening/baseline (Visit 1) to termination (Visit 6) between the study groups with adjustment to confounders (baseline score, site, age, gender, dose and past exposure to any other ADHD drug).||||0.0093
95944539|NCT00490139|191861348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.13|0.81|0.610
95944540|NCT00490139|191861349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.02|0.77|
95944541|NCT00490139|191861349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.05|0.80|
95944542|NCT00490139|191861350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.62|0.078
95944543|NCT00490139|191861350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratification was by chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.16|0.71|0.433
95991105|NCT02321436|191957184|OTHER|||||||0.6128||||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value represents the strength of the association between treatment and global assessments of changes at the last visit, adjusted for symptomatic status at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p value significance level = 5%||||||0.6128
95991106|NCT01680900|191957187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.48|-2.60|0.05
95991107|NCT01680900|191957188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95991108|NCT01680900|191957189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.08|-0.75|<0.05
95991109|NCT01680900|191957193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.21|-0.74|0.05
95991110|NCT04247425|191957202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.59
95991111|NCT04247425|191957203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.02
95991112|NCT04247425|191957204|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||1.0
95991113|NCT04247425|191957205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline compared to end of 12 week exercise intervention||||0.09
95991114|NCT02324270|191957254|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of mean changes between test and reference products was contained within the interval, \[0.80,1.25\], then the products were considered to be equivalent.|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08||||||||1.08|0.94|
95991115|NCT02324270|191957255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95991116|NCT02324270|191957255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95991117|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.73|122.96|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||122.96|91.73|
95991118|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|50.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.34|59.1|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 22||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||59.10|42.34|
95991119|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.85|55.68|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||55.68|39.85|
95991120|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.49|68.92|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 15||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||68.92|49.49|
95991121|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.78|99.43|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||99.43|73.78|
95991122|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|80.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|93.62|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||93.62|69.48|
95991123|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.61|104.09|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||104.09|77.61|
95991124|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|98.2|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||98.20|72.94|
95991125|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|179.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.57|212.99|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||212.99|151.57|
95991126|NCT04024501|191957256|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|122.11|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 21||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||122.11|90.18|
95991127|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|100.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|118.65|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||118.65|84.94|
95991128|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.74|49.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||49.00|34.74|
95991129|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|41.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.61|48.81|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||48.81|34.61|
95991130|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|53.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.09|63.59|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||63.59|45.09|
95991131|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.19|91.06|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||91.06|65.19|
95752172|NCT03020719|191476378|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.12||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the GSH group was 179.22 and in the Placebo group was 177.19.||0.67|0.01|0.0122
95859767|NCT03860818|191677707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of inpatient hospitalization during study||||<.001
95944544|NCT00490139|191861351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (lap plus tras versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.03|0.70|
95944545|NCT00490139|191861351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (tras followed by lap versus tras) was based on the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for the stratification factors of chemotherapy timing, hormone receptor status, and axillary lymph node status.|||1.04|0.71|
95944546|NCT00490139|191861352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96||||||||0.96|0.68|
95944547|NCT00490139|191861352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||||||||1.10|0.79|
95944548|NCT00490139|191861353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
95944549|NCT00490139|191861353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to distant recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|0.81|
95944550|NCT00490139|191861354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
95944551|NCT00490139|191861354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Time to CNS recurrence was analyzed using competing risks methodology with death (without event) as a competing risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|0.74|
95944552|NCT04640974|191861357|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95991132|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.94|90.71|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.71|64.94|
95991133|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.93|100.03|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||100.03|70.93|
95944553|NCT04640974|191861358|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95944554|NCT04640974|191861359|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95944555|NCT03301467|191861364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.9|0.9670
95944556|NCT03301467|191861365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test||"Test for normality showed that mean change and mean percent change were not normally distributed. As per SAP, Van Elteren's test was then applied to test mean percent change.~SAP=Statistical Analysis Protocol"|||||0.3083
95944557|NCT03301467|191861366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.4591
95944558|NCT03301467|191861367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square general association statistic||||||0.3106
95944559|NCT03301467|191861368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.5|0.3368
95991134|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|99.64|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||99.64|70.65|
95991135|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|204.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.22|243.42|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||243.42|171.22|
95991136|NCT04024501|191957257|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.06|129.83|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||129.83|92.06|
95991137|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|124.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.09|154.54|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 2/Treatment 1||154.54|101.09|
95991138|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|33.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.15|42.01|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 1||42.01|27.15|
95752173|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.87|-1.14|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 25 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.14|-2.87|
95859768|NCT03860818|191677707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95859769|NCT03860818|191677708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical analysis applies to all rows.||||||<0.001
95859770|NCT03860818|191677709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9064
95752174|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||||95.0|-3.49|-1.8|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 75 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.80|-3.49|
95752175|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||||95.0|-3.9|-1.9|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 250 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.90|-3.90|
95752176|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38||||||95.0|-4.59|-2.17|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 500 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.17|-4.59|
95752177|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73||||||95.0|-5.15|-4.31|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 700 mg bid minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-4.31|-5.15|
95752178|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.93||||||95.0|-2.68|-1.18|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 125 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-1.18|-2.68|
95752179|NCT00518622|191476387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||||95.0|-2.78|-2.13|||||Mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for MK7009 600 mg qd minus mean (Day 8 - baseline) HCV RNA for placebo|||-2.13|-2.78|
95752180|NCT01583218|191476396|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.209||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.366|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.366|0.013|0.038
95752181|NCT01583218|191476397|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.216||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.359|0.041|0.018
95752182|NCT01583218|191476398|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.254||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.387|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.387|0.092|0.003
95752183|NCT01583218|191476399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.554
95944560|NCT03301467|191861369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0401
95944561|NCT03301467|191861370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|21.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||21.85|-0.16|0.0534
95944562|NCT03301467|191861371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.67||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||19.78|1.56|0.0221
95944563|NCT03301467|191861372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|11.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||11.08|-3.08|0.2638
95752184|NCT01583218|191476400|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.326||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.576|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.576|-0.069|0.092
95752185|NCT01583218|191476401|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.295||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.542|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.542|-0.085|0.11
95752186|NCT01583218|191476402|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)|0.358||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.580|0.020|0.039
95752187|NCT03334721|191476507|SUPERIORITY|"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term. Analysis used Linear Mixed Modeling with Fixed Factors."|Test III Tests of Fixed Effects (F)|0.141||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment Condition Factor (0 = Placebo, 1 = Gabapentin)|Mixed Models Analysis|df = 1, 20.183|||"Given the crossover design through which the data were collected, the statistical model also included a Visit (1 vs. 2) factor and a Visit by Treatment Condition interaction term."|||0.711
95752188|NCT01663727|191476512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.91|0.51|0.0007
95752189|NCT01663727|191476512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.55|0.97|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis.||0.97|0.55|0.0046
95752190|NCT01663727|191476512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|||A stratified multivariate Cox regression model, including treatment, VEGF-A level, and interaction between treatment and VEGF-A level (low, high) as factors was used to estimate the interaction p-value of the treatment with VEGF-A level for PFS. Analysis for the interaction of treatment effect with the plasma VEGF-A levels was a secondary objective.||||0.4619
95752191|NCT01663727|191476514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.75|0.5877
95752192|NCT01663727|191476514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.21|0.78|0.8004
95752193|NCT01663727|191476516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.14|0.63|0.2745
95752194|NCT01663727|191476516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.17|0.65|0.3616
95752195|NCT01663727|191476517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|20.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|30.11|||Fisher|||||30.11|11.45|<0.0001
95752196|NCT01663727|191476519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||0.88|0.47|0.0038
95944564|NCT03301467|191861373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||9.77|-2.14|0.2069
95752197|NCT01663727|191476519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.5|0.93|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis.||0.93|0.50|0.0101
95752198|NCT01663727|191476520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|21.53||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.32|||Fisher|||||34.32|8.73|0.0017
95752199|NCT01663727|191476521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were plasma VEGF-A level (low/high), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.19|0.54|0.2737
95752200|NCT01663727|191476521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.19|0.56|0.2959
95752201|NCT01663727|191476522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors were prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes/no) and estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor status (positive, negative).||1.18|0.41|0.1783
95752202|NCT01663727|191476522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazards ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.22|0.45|0.2429
95752203|NCT01461226|191476571|OTHER|Mixed models analysis|mixed models|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95752204|NCT01461226|191476571|OTHER||mixed models|0.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline difference between groups|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95752205|NCT01461226|191476571|OTHER|Mixed models|Slope|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
95752206|NCT01461226|191476571|OTHER|mixed models|mixed models|4.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||change after 10 months between groups||||0.04
95752207|NCT02440022|191476594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0562
95752208|NCT02440022|191476595|NON_INFERIORITY|Where δ = 10% is the non-inferiority margin, which is the range of difference that is considered not clinically important. A non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Test was used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025. In addition to the p-value of the test, the confidence intervals of the rate in each group and the difference between the two groups is calculated.||||||0.002|||||||Binary Analysis|||"H0: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 ≤ p2 - δ)~H1: The primary safety rate p1 in the DCB treatment group through 30 days post index procedure is non-inferior to that p2 of the PTA treatment group. (i.e. p1 \> p2 - δ)"||||0.002
95944565|NCT03301467|191861374|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.98||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.45|0.67|0.9284
95944566|NCT03301467|191861375|SUPERIORITY||LSM UPCR Ratio|0.86||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM UPCR Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.21|0.60|0.3778
95752209|NCT02440022|191476601|OTHER|||||||0.716||||||P-value was type 3 test of the interaction of treatment group and pre-dilation balloon type.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.7160
95752210|NCT00792935|191476622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|||Using a standard deviation of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of at least 65 participants per treatment group would be required to have an 80% power to detect a true difference of 12.5 mg/dL between MK-0941 and glimepiride as measured by change from baseline in 24-hour WMG at Week 6.||9.6|-7.9|0.847
95752211|NCT00792935|191476623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|-7.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.||The estimated value represents the difference in percentages, MK-0941 minus Glimepiride.|||8.7|-23.6|0.361
95752212|NCT01796912|191476630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95752213|NCT01796912|191476631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95752214|NCT01796912|191476632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95752215|NCT01796912|191476633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95752216|NCT01796912|191476634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95752217|NCT01796912|191476635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95752218|NCT01796912|191476636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95752219|NCT00841906|191476641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95752220|NCT04442490|191476730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.0141
95752221|NCT04442490|191476731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217 or placebo), baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|||0.0|-0.4|0.1193
95752222|NCT04442490|191476732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 3||-2.0|-4.0|<0.0001
95752223|NCT04442490|191476732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 8||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
95752224|NCT04442490|191476732|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from baseline at Day 42||0.6|-2.4|0.2344
95752225|NCT04442490|191476733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||Day 15|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.98|0.99|0.0599
95752226|NCT04442490|191476733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure.Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.94|0.95|0.0889
95752227|NCT04442490|191476734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||GEE Model|||Day 15|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.66|0.76|0.5495
95752228|NCT04442490|191476734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.6|||GEE Model|||Day 42|Model used is GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, antidepressant use at baseline, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having HAM-D remission for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|1.60|0.74|0.6790
95752229|NCT04442490|191476735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.16|||GEE Model|||Placebo, SAGE-217|Model used was a GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S baseline score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with Unstructured covariance structure. Odds ratio was the estimate of the odds of having CGI-I response for participants treated with SAGE-217 relative to that for participants treated with placebo.|2.16|1.07|0.0191
95752230|NCT04442490|191476736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.3|-4.4|0.0238
95752231|NCT04442490|191476737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Model used was MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Placebo, SAGE-217||-0.2|-2.5|0.0199
95752232|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.5|-0.5|0.3216
95752233|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.8|-0.2|0.1247
95752234|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.0|-0.2|0.1111
95944567|NCT03301467|191861376|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.76||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.04|0.55|0.0810
95944568|NCT03301467|191861377|SUPERIORITY||LSM MCP-1 Ratio|0.87||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LSM MCP-1 Ratio Week 26 vs Baseline, Avacopan:Placebo|||1.15|0.66|0.3233
95752235|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Physical Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.0|-0.3|0.1449
95752236|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||MMRM||Model used is MMRM with treatment(SAGE-217/placebo), baseline SF-36v2 domain/component score, antidepressant use at baseline(Yes/No)assessment time point and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.0|-1.3|0.8242
95752237|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.1|-1.4|0.8329
95752238|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.1|-1.4|0.8127
95752239|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.5435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Role-Physical Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||1.6|-0.9|0.5435
95752240|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||1.8|-0.7|0.3551
95859771|NCT03860818|191677710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95752241|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||1.6|-1.1|0.7495
95752242|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.7|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.7|-1.1|0.6471
95752243|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.5|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.5|-0.5|0.1832
95752244|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||2.2|0.2|0.0168
95752245|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||2.0|-0.1|0.0787
95798545|NCT02685735|191567096|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.882||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastophizing-optimism construct.||||0.882
95944569|NCT03301467|191861378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.9|-4.6|0.6025
95944570|NCT03301467|191861378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0422||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1043|0.0198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0198|-0.1043|0.1797
95944571|NCT03301467|191861379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||3.8|-7.9|0.4898
95752246|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.6|-0.7|0.4273
95752247|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||MMRM|||General Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||2.2|-0.2|0.0938
95752248|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||4.3|0.9|0.0033
95944572|NCT03301467|191861379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0199||||0.4826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0757|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||EQ-5D-5L Index Score||0.0360|-0.0757|0.4826
95944573|NCT03301467|191861380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4019||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0402|3.844|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.8440|-3.0402|0.8161
95944574|NCT03301467|191861380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0052||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5994|4.6099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||4.6099|-4.5994|0.9982
95752249|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||5.1|1.1|0.0029
95944575|NCT03301467|191861381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1518||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3192|3.0156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Physical Component Score||3.0156|-3.3192|0.9242
95752250|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.9|-0.2|0.0791
95752251|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.2|||MMRM|||Vitality Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.2|-0.2|0.0761
95752252|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.1|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.1|-0.5|0.1568
95752253|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.0|-0.9|0.2807
95752254|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||2.4|-1.8|0.7751
95752255|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Social Functioning Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.9|-0.3|0.0913
95752256|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.2|-0.9|0.2863
95752257|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.7|-0.7|0.1801
95752258|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
95752259|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||MMRM|||Role-Emotional Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||3.6|-1.2|0.3274
95752260|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.4|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 8||3.4|-0.2|0.0873
95752261|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 15||3.9|-0.3|0.0871
95752262|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.3|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 28||3.3|-1.1|0.3095
95944576|NCT03301467|191861381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0283||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4972|5.5537|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures models with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate.||SF-36v2: Mental Component Score||5.5537|-3.4972|0.6534
95944577|NCT03762850|191861384|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.51|<0.0001
95944578|NCT03762850|191861385|OTHER||Slope difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.03|0.0582
95944579|NCT03762850|191861386|OTHER||Slope difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.07|0.0369
95944580|NCT02232737|191861387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
95944581|NCT02232737|191861387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
95944582|NCT03801148|191861388|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log (ln)-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric least square mean (LSM) ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9171|1.0473||||||||1.0473|0.9171|
95944583|NCT03801148|191861388|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed-Cmax, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0025|1.1501||||||||1.1501|1.0025|
95944584|NCT03801148|191861389|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0455|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.0855||||||||1.0855|1.0070|
95944585|NCT03801148|191861389|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUClast, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0192|1.1046||||||||1.1046|1.0192|
95991139|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|27.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.72|33.61|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 2||33.61|21.72|
95752263|NCT04442490|191476739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0|||MMRM|||Mental Health Domain Score: Change from Baseline at Day 42||4.0|-0.6|0.1477
95944586|NCT03801148|191861390|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0186|1.0933||||||||1.0933|1.0186|
95991140|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.61|45.82|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 3/Treatment 4||45.82|29.61|
95752264|NCT04442490|191476740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 8||0.1|-2.1|0.0828
95752265|NCT04442490|191476740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 15||0.1|-2.4|0.0606
95991141|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.15|113.36|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 1||113.36|74.15|
95752266|NCT04442490|191476740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.2|-2.3|0.1079
95752267|NCT04442490|191476740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment (SAGE-217/placebo), baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use at baseline (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with Unstructured covariance structure.|Change from Baseline at Day 42||0.7|-1.9|0.3951
95752268|NCT02836496|191476747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline oral corticosteroid (OCS) (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95752269|NCT02836496|191476747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.64|0.12|0.003
95752270|NCT02836496|191476748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg per day and \>20mg perday prednisone or equivalent) and region||||||0.020
95752271|NCT02836496|191476748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using odds ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Odds ratio \<1 indicated lower odds of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with placebo.|||0.85|0.13|0.022
95991142|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.33|90.7|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 25||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 4/Treatment 2||90.70|59.33|
95991143|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|67.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.37|84.12|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 1||84.12|54.37|
95752272|NCT02836496|191476749|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67||Cox proportional hazards regression analysis adjusted for Baseline OCS dose and region.|Regression, Cox||Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented. Hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk of HES flare with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.67|0.18|0.002
95752273|NCT02836496|191476750|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon test stratified by Baseline OCS (0-\<=20 mg/day, \>20 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) and region.|Treatment comparison between placebo and mepolizumab 300 mg using rate ratio and 95% CI has been presented. Rate ratio \<1 indicates a lower flare rate with Mepolizumab compared with Placebo.|||0.63|0.19|0.002
95752274|NCT02836496|191476751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.036
95752275|NCT02737332|191476760|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|1.019||||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.077||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.077|0.964|0.4879
95752276|NCT02737332|191476761|OTHER|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.994||||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0451|2.192||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.192|0.0451|0.3642
95752277|NCT02737332|191476761|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.4069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.338|1.939||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.939|0.338|0.4069
95752278|NCT02737332|191476761|EQUIVALENCE|One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|Geometric mean ratio|1.039||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|2.617||The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||2.617|0.412|0.7186
95752279|NCT02737332|191476762|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95752280|NCT02737332|191476763|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|0.999||||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.018||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.||ANOVA-model-based Least-Square Mean|1.018|0.980|0.9211
95991144|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|67.3|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 2||67.30|43.50|
95991145|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.15|250.32|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 3||250.32|160.15|
95991146|NCT04024501|191957258|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|91.75|||Mixed Model Analysis|The number of subjects in this analysis: 23||Pairwise comparison: Treatment 5/Treatment 4||91.75|59.30|
95991147|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.043|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 0 hr.|||1.043|0.946|0.791
95991148|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
95991149|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.001||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.051|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 15 min.|||1.051|0.953|0.975
95991150|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 1 hr 45 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
95991151|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.003||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.053|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr.|||1.053|0.955|0.908
95752281|NCT02737332|191476763|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.168||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.515||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.515|0.900|0.3037
95991152|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.025||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.077|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 2 hr 45 min.|||1.077|0.977|0.312
95991153|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr.|||1.058|0.960|0.763
95991154|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.15|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 30 min.|||1.150|1.043|<0.001
95991155|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.098|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 3 hr 45 min.|||1.098|0.996|0.070
95944587|NCT03801148|191861390|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infobs, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infobs.|GMR|1.0468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0027|1.0929||||||||1.0929|1.0027|
95991156|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.971||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.02|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 15 min.|||1.020|0.925|0.238
95991157|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.975||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.023|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 30 min.|||1.023|0.928|0.298
95991158|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.994||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.044|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 4 hr 45 min.|||1.044|0.947|0.821
95944588|NCT03801148|191861391|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 30 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0188|1.0935||||||||1.0935|1.0188|
95991159|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.991||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.04|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr.|||1.040|0.944|0.715
95991160|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.008||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.058|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 15 min.|||1.058|0.960|0.759
95991161|NCT01475734|191957270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.05|||ANOVA||The estimated value represents the ratio of geometric least squares means (albiglutide 50 mg) to placebo at 5 hr 30 min.|||1.050|0.952|>0.999
95991162|NCT01734655|191957287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
95991163|NCT01734655|191957288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
95991164|NCT01734655|191957289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation analysis|||||||<.01
95991165|NCT03569202|191957332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8837||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7081|10.4756||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||10.4756|-6.7081|0.662
95991166|NCT03569202|191957332|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7199|-18.5692||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-18.5692|-30.7199|<0.0001
95991167|NCT03569202|191957332|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6036|-20.4529||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-20.4529|-32.6036|<0.0001
95991168|NCT03569202|191957333|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9808||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6005|7.639||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.6390|-13.6005|0.575
95991169|NCT03569202|191957333|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2593|2.7593||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7593|-12.2593|0.2098
95991170|NCT03569202|191957333|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7692||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2785|5.7401||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||5.7401|-9.2785|0.6381
95991171|NCT03569202|191957334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8462||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6792|2.3715||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||2.3715|-0.6792|0.271
95991172|NCT03569202|191957334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7115||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.7901||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||2.7901|0.6330|0.0025
95752282|NCT02737332|191476763|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||One-way ANOVA model with treatment as the independent variable, and the least-square means and standard error of Testosterone levels under each treatment and the between-treatment difference in LS means was reported.|ANOVA||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|||1.000|1.000|
95752283|NCT02737332|191476764|OTHER|||||||0.5495|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5495
95752284|NCT02737332|191476764|OTHER|||||||0.2616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2616
95752285|NCT02737332|191476764|OTHER|||||||0.3632|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3632
95752286|NCT02737332|191476764|OTHER|||||||0.3393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3393
95798546|NCT02685735|191567102|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without gabapentin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the gabapentin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).||||||0.137||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the gabapentin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, age, sex, pupil diameter, and catastrophizing-optimism construct.||||0.137
95859697|NCT02963506|191677336|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|10.86||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||10.86|1.83|=0.001
95991173|NCT03569202|191957334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8654||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2132|1.944||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.9440|-0.2132|0.1134
95752287|NCT02737332|191476768|OTHER|||||||0.1917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1917
95752288|NCT01517659|191476772|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.27||||||||3.27|2.23|
95752289|NCT00063635|191476773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
95991174|NCT03569202|191957335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1731||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1016|7.4477||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||7.4477|-3.1016|0.412
95991175|NCT03569202|191957335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01923||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7105|3.749||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||3.7490|-3.7105|0.9918
95991176|NCT03569202|191957335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1538||||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8836|1.5759||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||1.5759|-5.8836|0.2516
95991177|NCT03569202|191957336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5093||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007267|1.0113||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||1.0113|0.007267|0.047
95991178|NCT03569202|191957336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5596||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2046|0.9146||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.9146|0.2046|0.0026
95752290|NCT00063635|191476773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||Since two primary comparisons are planned, a P-value of 0.025 will be considered significant, applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
95752291|NCT00063635|191476774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
95752292|NCT00063635|191476774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
95752293|NCT00063635|191476775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95752294|NCT00063635|191476775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
95752295|NCT00063635|191476776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95752296|NCT00063635|191476776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95752297|NCT00063635|191476777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95752298|NCT00063635|191476777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95752299|NCT00063635|191476778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95752300|NCT00063635|191476778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
95752301|NCT00063635|191476779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95752302|NCT00063635|191476779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95752303|NCT00063635|191476780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.77
95752304|NCT00063635|191476780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
95991179|NCT03569202|191957336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05032||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3047|0.4053||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||0.4053|-0.3047|0.7770
95752305|NCT00063635|191476781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95752306|NCT00063635|191476781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
95752307|NCT00063635|191476782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
95752308|NCT00063635|191476782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
95752309|NCT00063635|191476783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
95798547|NCT02685735|191567103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|14 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis (H0) is that modeled trajectory of change in pain intensity report after total hip or total knee arthroplasty does not differ between oral gabapentin and placebo in a manner dependent on its interaction with preferred cognitive style and pre-surgery pupil resting diameter . The alternative hypothesis (H1) is that there is a difference between the two groups which is dependent on these interactions.|A likelihood ratio test was conducted to compare these two models, conditional on the difference in the degrees of freedom in both models. A statistically significant likelihood ratio test would be interpreted as evidence that the three mechanistic predictors (Catastrophising-Optimism construct, Study Group, resting Pupil diameter) impact some aspect of the change in pain that occurs after surgery. If a statistically significant effect is observed, the individual interaction parameters will be interpreted.|||<0.0001
95944589|NCT03801148|191861391|EQUIVALENCE|ln-transformed- AUC0\_infpred, was analyzed using an ANOVA model to assess the relative bioavailability of dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TOB compared with dexlansoprazole 60 mg capsule manufactured at TPC. Geometric LSM ratios were calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC0\_infpred.|Geometric LSM ratio|1.0472|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0029|1.0934||||||||1.0934|1.0029|
95944590|NCT03244800|191861395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95944591|NCT03244800|191861396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95944592|NCT03244800|191861397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95944593|NCT03244800|191861398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95944594|NCT03244800|191861399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95944595|NCT03244800|191861400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|72.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.03|1.61|0.040
95944596|NCT00975585|191861461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.058|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have non-inferior (less than or equal to) average corneal staining than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.031|-0.058|
95991180|NCT03569202|191957337|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.7604||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.447
95752310|NCT00063635|191476783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
95752311|NCT02792959|191476824|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
95752312|NCT02792959|191476825|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
95752313|NCT02792959|191476826|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
95752314|NCT02792959|191476827|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.091||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
95752315|NCT02792959|191476828|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
95752316|NCT02792959|191476829|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|3.361||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.067
95752317|NCT02792959|191476830|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.296
95752318|NCT02792959|191476831|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
95752319|NCT02792959|191476832|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.794
95752320|NCT02792959|191476833|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
95752321|NCT02792959|191476834|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.273||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.602
95752322|NCT02792959|191476835|SUPERIORITY|alpha=5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.705||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.192
95991181|NCT03569202|191957337|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.014
95752323|NCT00415194|191476840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.082
95752324|NCT00415194|191476841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.166
95752325|NCT00415194|191476842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Unadjusted normal distribution|p-value is based on an unadjusted, normal distribution approximation for differences in rates.||||||0.061
95752326|NCT00415194|191476843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.53|0.56|0.811
95752327|NCT00415194|191476844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.07|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.07|0.69|0.20
95752328|NCT01297465|191476846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and country|The primary efficacy variable was to be analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, adjusted for treatment and country.|The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes is less than (-3) or greater than (+3) between the two treatment arm. The alternate hypothesis was that the difference is between (-3) and (+3). The study had 80% power to show that the group randomized to Pergoveris® has an absolute difference of no more than 3 oocytes retrieved in comparison to the group randomized to GONAL-f®/Pergoveris®||0.59|-3.15|
95752329|NCT02397408|191476886|OTHER||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.008
95752330|NCT03801265|191476889|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.770
95752331|NCT03801265|191476890|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.826
95752332|NCT03801265|191476891|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.859
95752333|NCT03801265|191476892|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.904
95752334|NCT03801265|191476893|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.122
95752335|NCT03801265|191476894|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.379|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.379
95752336|NCT03801265|191476895|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.881|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.881
95752337|NCT03801265|191476896|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.818
95752338|NCT03801265|191476897|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.678
95798548|NCT01069939|191567108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.65|0.02|0.41||An interim analysis was done so that the significance level was adjusted using the Pocock-like alpha-spending function with Lan-DeMets approach. The adjusted significance level was the two-sided 3.35%.|Log Rank|||The above two groups were compared.||0.41|0.02|<0.001
95798549|NCT01706328|191567135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.059|||ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.008|0.137
95798550|NCT07016191|191567191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the two-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95858899|NCT02863419|191675640|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
95858900|NCT02863419|191675640|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.3|0.0056
95991182|NCT03569202|191957337|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.070
95991183|NCT03569202|191957338|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.6396||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.522
95991184|NCT03569202|191957338|OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.119
95798551|NCT07016191|191567192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the two-sided 5% level|Chi-squared|||||||0.067
95752339|NCT03801265|191476898|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.002
95752340|NCT03801265|191476899|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
95752341|NCT03801265|191476900|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.271|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.271
95752342|NCT03801265|191476901|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.810
95752343|NCT03801265|191476902|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.676
95752344|NCT03801265|191476903|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.908|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.908
95752345|NCT03801265|191476904|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.270
95752346|NCT03801265|191476905|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.015
95752347|NCT03801265|191476906|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.203
95752348|NCT03801265|191476907|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 0.5. The true difference between the means is assumed to be -0.2. The significance level (alpha) of the test is 0.05. The data are drawn from populations with standard deviations of 0.7 and 0.3 (PASS 15 Power Analysis and Sample Size Software (2017). NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA, ncss.com/software/pass).||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.672
95752349|NCT00140426|191476913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74|||Regression, Cox|Time to reaching ease of eating level 3 assessed using Cox regression as some patients did not reach it during the study.|The hazard ratio is for the placebo group versus the treatment group. A hazard ratio \<1 implies that the placebo group had a lower risk of achieving EOE level 3, although not statistically significant. Achieving EOE level 3 was the desired endpoint.|||1.74|0.41|0.55
95752350|NCT00140426|191476917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95752351|NCT00140426|191476917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95858901|NCT02863419|191675640|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.4|0.0001
95858902|NCT02863419|191675641|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.9|0.0003
95991185|NCT03569202|191957338|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.900
95991186|NCT03569202|191957339|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|-0.5387||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.590
95752352|NCT00140426|191476919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference was for placebo - risperidone.|Null hypothesis: no difference in change from baseline to end of treatment for CAPT total score||0.33|-0.71|0.47
95752353|NCT00140426|191476920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95752354|NCT00140426|191476921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95752355|NCT00140426|191476922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95752356|NCT00140426|191476923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95752357|NCT02149108|191476924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 favors Nintedanib.|||0.69|0.49|<0.0001
95752358|NCT02149108|191476925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from log-rank test stratified by regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomisation (less than 24 months vs 24 months or more ) and region.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio below 1 favors Nintedanib.|||1.19|0.86|0.8659
95752359|NCT02149108|191476927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.47||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for regorafenib pre-treatment (yes vs no), time from onset metastatic disease until randomization in the trial (less than 24 months vs. 24 months or more) and region.|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates benefit to Nintedanib.|||4.47|2.00|<0.0001
95752360|NCT01675661|191476933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|OR=1.00||For the primary outcome measure, a repeated-measures logistic regression model was used to analyze the odds of a negative urine cannabinoid test as an indicator of abstinence across all 12 weeks of treatment. A generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to adjust for this correlation with multiple samples per participant. The model for the primary analysis included the main effect of treatment, main effect of time, site effects, effect of smoking tobacco, and timeXtreatment interaction.||1.59|0.63|0.985
95752361|NCT02337959|191476992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95752362|NCT02337959|191476993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Both the predicate and investigational images were randomized for the monitors. Predicate images could display on the left or the right and vice versa with the investigational. There were formulas in the spreadsheet that gave the preferences a numerical value, and subsequently became part of the analysis.||||0.000
95858903|NCT02863419|191675641|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-3.0|-4.7|<0.0001
95752363|NCT02623348|191476998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|linear mixed modeling|||||||<0.01
95752364|NCT01974440|191477010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.037|||Log Rank|||||1.037|0.626|0.0922
95752365|NCT01974440|191477011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|1.682|||Log Rank|||||1.682|0.312|0.4505
95752366|NCT00535587|191477024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.94|<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
95858904|NCT02863419|191675641|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
95858905|NCT02863419|191675641|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral sema 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.2|-4.8|<0.0001
95858906|NCT02863419|191675662|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.80|0.75|0.4915
95944597|NCT00975585|191861462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.25|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.021|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior (less than or equal to)in visual acuity to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.010|-0.021|
95991187|NCT03569202|191957339|OTHER|||||||0.043||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.043
95991188|NCT03569202|191957339|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.442
95991189|NCT03569202|191957341|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|0.9208||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.357
95752367|NCT00279955|191477044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.292||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.67|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at 6 month visit, Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE)/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) at 6 months, and Diuretics at 6 month.|||3.67|1.17|0.0119
95752368|NCT00279955|191477045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.277||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.27|||Regression, Cox||The estimated parameter in a Cox regression model was adjusted by age, gender, NYHA class at 6 month visit, ACE/ARB at 6 months, and and at least one day where CRT pacing \<90% in last 21 days of DREP.|||3.27|1.11|0.0185
95944598|NCT00975585|191861463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|0.117|0.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have a higher rating of overall comfort than lotrafilcon B after two weeks of wear.||0.402|0.117|
95752369|NCT00279955|191477046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.311||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.31|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model has been used here, and the estimated parameter has been adjusted by including covariates age, gender, and NYHA class at 6 months.|||3.31|0.98|0.0578
95944599|NCT00975585|191861464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|97.46|-0.218|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is lotrafilcon B at 2 weeks minus lotrafilcon B at 4 weeks. Analysis adjusted for duration of wear, stie, duration of wear by site interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that lotrafilcon B contact lenses have a lower rating of overall comfort after 4 weeks of wear compared to after 2 weeks of wear.||0.098|-0.218|
95944600|NCT00975585|191861465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.123|-0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in limbal redness 5 to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||-0.051|-0.123|
95944601|NCT00975585|191861466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.068|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by site interaction as fixed effects, subject and eye nested within subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses are non-inferior in bulbar redness to lotrafilcon B contact lenses after two weeks of wear.||0.008|-0.068|
95944602|NCT00975585|191861467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-0.411|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B. Analysis adjusted for lens type, site, lens type by stie interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effects.|The alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A contact lenses have less frequency of dryness than lotrafilcon B contact lenes after two weeks of wear.||-0.117|-0.411|
95944603|NCT00853593|191861498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.951|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.906||||||The Model 4396 lead will be considered safe if the proportion of subjects free of Model 4396 lead-related complications at one month post-implant is greater than 80% (i.e. the one sided 95% lower confidence bound must be at least 80%).||||.906|
95991190|NCT03569202|191957341|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.001
95752370|NCT00975286|191477050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|-0.171||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms; randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and TZD use (yes/no); country as fixed effects; baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 225 patients in each arm would provide a power of 98% (or 90%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.171|-0.463|<0.0001
95991191|NCT03569202|191957341|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.065
95991192|NCT03569202|191957342|OTHER||Wilcoxon Z statistic|1.044||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||||0.296
95991193|NCT03569202|191957342|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||0.012
95991194|NCT03569202|191957342|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Within-group change from baseline||||>0.05
95991195|NCT03569202|191957344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9911||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6117|11.6295||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Between-group comparison, change from baseline||11.6295|-15.6117|0.764
95944604|NCT00853593|191861499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||||||||1.8||
95944605|NCT00853593|191861500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.7||||||||2.7||
95944606|NCT00853593|191861501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.967||||||||.967|.887|
95944607|NCT00853593|191861502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.993||||||||.993|.944|
95944608|NCT00853593|191861503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.987||||||||.987|.930|
95944609|NCT00853593|191861504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|0.979||||||||.979|.917|
95944610|NCT00853593|191861510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||||||||2.7||
95944611|NCT02350634|191861523|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
95944612|NCT02350634|191861524|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.681|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||<0.001
95944613|NCT02350634|191861525|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.644||||0.00278|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.00278
95944614|NCT02350634|191861526|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.437||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.12
95944615|NCT02350634|191861527|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.324||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0712
95944616|NCT02350634|191861528|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.564||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.0958
95944617|NCT02350634|191861529|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|-0.189||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided correlation test (rho ≠ 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha = 0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation test|||Null hypothesis is no correlation (correlation coefficient = 0)||||0.558
95944618|NCT04241848|191861535|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
95944619|NCT04241848|191861535|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.240
95944620|NCT04241848|191861535|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5xSTS), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.04
95944621|NCT04241848|191861538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.129
95991196|NCT03569202|191957344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0625||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.928|-6.197||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.1970|-27.9280|0.0038
95944622|NCT04241848|191861538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.250
95944623|NCT04241848|191861538|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.073
95944624|NCT04241848|191861539|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.091|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.091
95944625|NCT04241848|191861539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.296
95944626|NCT04241848|191861539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Ten Meter Walk Test (10MWT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.427
95944627|NCT04241848|191861540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.063
95944628|NCT04241848|191861540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.447
95944629|NCT04241848|191861540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.096
95944630|NCT04241848|191861541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.035
95991197|NCT03569202|191957344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0714||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.285|-6.8579||A two-sided p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||Within-group change from baseline||-6.8579|-23.2850|0.0011
95991198|NCT00454779|191957356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.002|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.002|0.395|0.051
95752371|NCT01462318|191477065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.153|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.153|0.894|
95752372|NCT01462318|191477065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.063|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.063|0.951|
95752373|NCT01462318|191477065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.127|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.127|0.880|
95752374|NCT01462318|191477065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.145|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of maximum observed concentration \[Cmax\]).||1.145|0.930|
95752375|NCT01462318|191477066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|1.342|||||test/reference = dextromethorphan+DAC HYP/dextromethorphan|Pairwise comparison: dextromethorphan. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.342|0.764|
95752376|NCT01462318|191477074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.276|||||test/reference = midazolam+DAC HYP/midazolam|Pairwise comparison: midazolam. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.276|0.912|
95752377|NCT01462318|191477074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.075|||||test/reference = S-warfarin+DAC HYP/S-warfarin|Pairwise comparison: S-warfarin. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.075|0.952|
95752378|NCT01462318|191477074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.392|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.392|0.804|
95752379|NCT01462318|191477074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.005|1.238|||||test/reference = caffeine+DAC HYP/caffeine|Pairwise comparison: caffeine. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants. Excludes participants with high predose concentration (\>5% of Cmax).||1.238|1.005|
95944631|NCT04241848|191861541|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.677|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.677
95752380|NCT01462318|191477076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.105|||||test/reference = omeprazole+DAC HYP/omeprazole|Pairwise comparison: omeprazole. Based on linear mixed model with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participants.||1.105|0.697|
95752381|NCT00270257|191477077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||||||||2.8|0.7|
95752382|NCT00270257|191477077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate per 100 person-years|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.7||||||||3.7|1.2|
95752383|NCT00270257|191477077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.694||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.562|||Regression, Cox|||||1.562|0.308|0.3769
95752384|NCT00270257|191477078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.844||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.289||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104.|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for site||||1.289|0.553|0.4325
95752385|NCT00270257|191477079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.194||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.194|0.536|0.2749
95752386|NCT00270257|191477080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.746||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.369||Analysis is done for visit 104|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site||||1.369|0.407|0.3446
95752387|NCT00270257|191477081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8712||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6477|1.1718||P value applies for the comparison at visit 104 only. See the estimation comments for the other visits|Generalized linear model|adjusted for site.||||1.1718|0.6477|0.3620
95752388|NCT00270257|191477082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.6|||||29 events over 132 person-years|||31.6|14.7|
95752389|NCT00270257|191477082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.0|||||8 events over 174 person-years|||9.0|2.0|
95752390|NCT00270257|191477083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.08|||||9 events over 336 person-years|||5.08|1.22|
95752391|NCT00270257|191477083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident rate of 100 person-years|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1|||||0 events over 37 person-years|||10.1|0.00|
95752392|NCT02920918|191477097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||We expected a baseline peak oxygen consumption (VO2) of 14.5 mL/kg/min. A sample size of 40 patients per group (total of 80 patients) provided sufficient power to detect a mean difference in the interval change in peak VO2 of 1.50±1.76 mL/kg/min (primary endpoint) expected with Canagliflozin compared to Sitagliptin, which we predict to have no significant effect on peak VO2 (0±1.76 mL/kg/min).||||0.083
95752393|NCT02920918|191477098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
95752394|NCT00450619|191477100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.041
95752395|NCT00450619|191477100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5019||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Hazard Ratio|||||||0.046
95752396|NCT00450619|191477104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.35|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.35|0.37|0.30
95752397|NCT03347422|191477118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|88.04||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by baseline hemoglobin (\< median versus \>=median) and geographic region (Asia/Other, North America, and Europe).|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when primary outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||88.04|2.88|<0.001
95991199|NCT00454779|191957356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.048
95798552|NCT07016191|191567193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the two-sided 5% level|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95798553|NCT07016191|191567194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the two-sided 5% level|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95752398|NCT03347422|191477120|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.38||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||3.38|1.75|<0.001
95752399|NCT03347422|191477121|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|13.85||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05 level.||13.85|4.00|<0.001
95752400|NCT00158600|191477153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.12||||0.0347||95.0|2.07|54.17||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in distance walked from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||54.17|2.07|0.0347
95858907|NCT02863419|191675662|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.48|0.21|<0.0001
95858908|NCT02863419|191675663|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 1.8 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||2.22|0.62|0.6252
95858909|NCT02863419|191675663|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.09|<0.0001
95858910|NCT05021978|191675683|OTHER|||||||0.1048||||||Change from baseline to Day 7 in TETRAS Upper Limb Score|Mixed Models Analysis|Includes timepoint as fixed effect and baseline TETRAS score as a covariate. Within subject variability modeled using unstructured covariance pattern.||Sample size is a convenience sample determined according to feasibility to provide sufficient and safety data to inform the development of future controlled studies with PRAX-944. In the open-label phase of the trial (Part A ), at least 10 participants would provide an 80% probability of observing at least 1 AE with an underlying incidence of 15% or greater and provide approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.0 on the primary endpoint change from baseline in TETRAS Upper Limb score.||||0.1048
95858911|NCT05021978|191675683|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Change from baseline to Day 14 in TETRAS UL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
95858912|NCT05021978|191675687|OTHER|||||||0.4025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline to Day 7||||||0.4025
95858913|NCT05021978|191675687|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||Change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0766
95858914|NCT05021978|191675688|OTHER|||||||0.2501||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2501
95858915|NCT05021978|191675688|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Chnage from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1874
95858916|NCT05021978|191675689|OTHER|||||||0.4722||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4722
95858917|NCT05021978|191675689|OTHER|||||||0.6215||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
95858918|NCT05021978|191675689|OTHER|||||||0.9648||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9648
95858919|NCT05021978|191675689|OTHER|||||||0.2855||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2855
95858920|NCT05021978|191675689|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
95858921|NCT05021978|191675689|OTHER|||||||0.2364||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 14|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2364
95858922|NCT05021978|191675693|OTHER|||||||0.0216|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0216
95858923|NCT05021978|191675694|OTHER|||||||0.1042||||||Change from baseline Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1042
95858924|NCT05021978|191675694|OTHER|||||||0.0257||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0257
95858925|NCT05021978|191675695|OTHER|||||||0.2971||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2971
95858926|NCT05021978|191675695|OTHER|||||||0.2034||||||Change from baseline Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2034
95858927|NCT05021978|191675695|OTHER|||||||0.1105||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1105
95858928|NCT05021978|191675696|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0050
95858929|NCT05021978|191675696|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
95858930|NCT05021978|191675696|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0061
95858931|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.9776||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9776
95858932|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.1962||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1962
95858933|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.9419||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9419
95858934|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.0668||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0668
95858935|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.9191||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9191
95752401|NCT00158600|191477154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.4||||0.0055||95.0|1.03|5.77||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. A fixed testing sequence procedure was used to preserve an overall error rate of 5% for the co-primary efficacy endpoints by linking the test of FVC to the result of 6MWT.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in % predicted FVC from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||5.77|1.03|0.0055
95752402|NCT00158600|191477155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.18||||0.1093||95.0|-0.73|7.08||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in QMT from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||7.08|-0.73|0.1093
95752403|NCT00158600|191477156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.37||||0.8333||95.0|-3.83|3.09||The threshold for determining statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|ANCOVA|||The difference between alglucosidase alfa and placebo treatment groups in change in PCS from baseline to last observation was estimated by ANCOVA after adjusting for baseline value and randomization strata.||3.09|-3.83|0.8333
95752404|NCT01659866|191477186|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95991200|NCT00454779|191957357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|24.12|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||24.12|-11.67|
95991201|NCT00454779|191957357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||||95.0|0.57|3.33|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||3.33|0.57|
95752405|NCT04870138|191477189|OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95752406|NCT04870138|191477191|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided single sample t-test with alpha=0.05||Null hypothesis: The proportion of the strain in the inoculum = 0.5||||<0.0001
95752407|NCT04078126|191477251|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.054|0.3450
95752408|NCT04078126|191477252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.054|0.3675
95752409|NCT04078126|191477253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.047|0.7563
95752410|NCT04078126|191477254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.139|0.5419
95752411|NCT04078126|191477255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|1.18|||ANCOVA|||||1.18|-8.39|0.1337
95752412|NCT04078126|191477256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.29|0.0431
95752413|NCT04078126|191477257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||||1.81|-4.87|0.3625
95752414|NCT04078126|191477258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|0.003|0.0375
95752415|NCT04078126|191477259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.096|||ANCOVA|||||0.096|-0.086|0.9089
95858936|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.6075||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6075
95858937|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.246||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (right) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2460
95858938|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.6736||||||Item 6 Archimedes Spiral (left) change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6736
95858939|NCT05021978|191675697|OTHER|||||||0.8511||||||Item 7 Handwriting change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8511
95858940|NCT05021978|191675698|OTHER|||||||0.1505||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1505
95858941|NCT05021978|191675698|OTHER|||||||0.0543||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
95858942|NCT05021978|191675698|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0015
95858943|NCT05021978|191675699|OTHER|||||||0.8638||||||Change from baseline to Day 7|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8638
95858944|NCT05021978|191675699|OTHER|||||||0.0605||||||Change from baseline to Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0605
95858945|NCT05021978|191675699|OTHER|||||||0.0871||||||Change from baseline to Day 42|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0871
95858946|NCT00912795|191675722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|0.62|
95858947|NCT00912795|191675723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||||||||3.2|0.50|
95858948|NCT00912795|191675724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.5||||||||7.5|0.81|
95858949|NCT00912795|191675725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.3||||||||6.3|.62|
95858950|NCT00473382|191675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|30.2||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||30.2|11.4|<0.0001
95858951|NCT00473382|191675726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|42.8||An adjustment was made for multiple treatment comparisons of the ranibizumab dose groups with the control group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||42.8|23.8|<0.0001
95752416|NCT03056157|191477260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.236||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1519 )= -2.19, d = 0.15.||-0.18|-3.34|0.03
95752417|NCT03056157|191477260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to- treat data for SDS scores, t(160)= -15.74, d = 2.97.||-6.11|-10.12|<.001
95752418|NCT03056157|191477260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(160) = -12.72, d = 1.86.||-6.11|-8.35|<0.001
95752419|NCT03056157|191477260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = -0.90, d = 0.05.||0.86|-2.13|0.49
95752420|NCT03056157|191477260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 2.11, d = 0.11.||2.17|0.06|<0.001
95752421|NCT03056157|191477260|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores, t(1510) = 3.45, d = 0.18||2.81|0.75|<0.001
95752422|NCT03056157|191477261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.56|1.01|0.03
95798554|NCT04390750|191567195|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.11|-0.11|0.939
95798555|NCT04390750|191567195|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.09||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.02|-0.21|0.103
95798556|NCT04390750|191567196|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|0.0||||0.995||95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.16|-0.16|0.995
95944632|NCT04241848|191861541|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step Length of Paretic (Pa) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.022
95752423|NCT03056157|191477261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.71|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced improvement from baseline to post-treatment in SDS in AD-MIL versus PCT.||0.71|0|0.01
95944633|NCT04241848|191861542|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.098
95944634|NCT04241848|191861542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.666
95944635|NCT04241848|191861542|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of Step lengths of the non-paretic (NP) Lower Extremities (LE), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.007
95752424|NCT03056157|191477261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.87|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced no change in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.87|0.35|.69
95752425|NCT03056157|191477261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|5.83|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportion of participants who experienced deterioration in SDS from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.83|0|0.50
95752426|NCT03056157|191477262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.39||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.93, d = 0.10.||3.79|-10.57|0.35
95752427|NCT03056157|191477262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for BIPF scores, t(116) = -3.27, d = 0.61.||-3.44|-13.83|0.001
95752428|NCT03056157|191477262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
95752429|NCT03056157|191477262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -1.79, d = 0.20.||0.52|-10.86|0.08
95752430|NCT03056157|191477262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -2.72, d = 0.30.||-1.57|-9.72|0.007
95752431|NCT03056157|191477262|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B-IPF scores, t(326) = -0.23, d = 0.03.||3.50|-4.44|0.82
95752432|NCT03056157|191477263|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.32, d = 0.03.||3.36|-4.68|0.75
95798557|NCT04390750|191567196|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 3 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.12||||0.132||95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the primary endpoint of 3 months.||0.04|-0.28|0.132
95752433|NCT03056157|191477263|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.01, d = 1.97.||-6.12|-12.12|<0.001
95752434|NCT03056157|191477263|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -6.11, d = 2.01.||-5.76|-11.16|<0.001
95752435|NCT03056157|191477263|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.28||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.59, d = 0.06.||5.52|-10.08|0.56
95752436|NCT03056157|191477263|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|10.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.25, d = 0.13.||10.92|-0.24|0.22
95752437|NCT03056157|191477263|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SDS scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 3.18, d = 0.33.||10.69|2.52|0.002
95752438|NCT03056157|191477264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = 0.10, d = 0.01.||10.69|-9.60|0.92
95752439|NCT03056157|191477264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.64|-8.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.23, d = 1.39.||-8.52|-23.64|<0.001
95752440|NCT03056157|191477264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -4.77, d = 1.57.||-9.72|-23.40|<0.001
95858952|NCT00473382|191675727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||11.5|5.4|<0.0001
95858953|NCT00473382|191675727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||13.3|6.4|<0.0001
95858954|NCT00473382|191675728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|21.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|31.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||31.9|10.8|0.0002
95858955|NCT00473382|191675728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|37.9||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||37.9|16.4|<0.0001
95858956|NCT00473382|191675729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|7.1||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||12.6|1.7|0.0119
95944636|NCT04241848|191861543|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.001
95752441|NCT03056157|191477264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-26.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-9.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(367) = -3.15, d = 0.33.||-9.84|-42.60|0.002
95752442|NCT03056157|191477264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-18.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -2.67, d = 0.28.||-4.92|-32.40|0.01
95752443|NCT03056157|191477264|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for B- IPF scores, the Pre-Post PCT Time slope was -5.25 \[95% CI = -10.21, -0.29\], p-value = 0.04, t(116) = -2.08, d = 0.39.||-0.29|-10.21|0.04
95752444|NCT03056157|191477265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = -1.69, d = 0.48.||1.22|-13.97|0.10
95752445|NCT03056157|191477265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -4.71, d = 1.67.||-7.62|-18.96|<0.001
95798558|NCT04390750|191567197|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.06|-0.16|0.402
95798559|NCT04390750|191567197|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on plaque levels between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.1||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in plaque levels at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||0.01|-0.21|0.072
95944637|NCT04241848|191861543|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while not wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||=0.009
95944638|NCT04241848|191861543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group comparison of the Stair Climb Power Test (SCPT), from Baseline to after completing 36 training sessions. Assessed while wearing the Powered Exoskeleton.||||0.018
95944639|NCT01447706|191861557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.18|0.007
95752446|NCT03056157|191477265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.92||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(32) = -2.75, d = 0.97.||-1.87|-11.96|0.001
95752447|NCT03056157|191477265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.22||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.97, d = 0.28.||16.05|-5.60|0.34
95944640|NCT01447706|191861557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.98|||Log Rank|||||2.98|1.08|0.023
95944641|NCT00859781|191861570|SUPERIORITY||proportion difference|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.52|||Fisher Exact||Direction = 177Lu-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases minus 111ln-J591 + Ketoconazole proportion free of radiographically evident metastases.|||0.52|0.008|0.08
95944642|NCT04057820|191861580|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.65|0.46|<0.0001
95944643|NCT04057820|191861581|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.47|||Mixed-effect Poisson w/ robust err var|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.47|0.30|<0.0001
95944644|NCT04057820|191861582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.9||||||||4.9|-0.4|
95944645|NCT04057820|191861583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|37.9||||||||37.9|8.1|
95944646|NCT04057820|191861584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76||||||||1.76|0.37|
95944647|NCT04057820|191861585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.3|
95752448|NCT03056157|191477265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.93||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|14.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 1.40, d = 0.40.||14.41|-2.55|0.17
95752449|NCT03056157|191477265|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(49) = 0.21, d = 0.06.||7.44|-6.04|0.83
95752450|NCT03056157|191477266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 0.30, d = 0.03.||4.20|-3.12|0.76
95752451|NCT03056157|191477266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.14, d = 1.03.||-1.56|-6.96|0.002
95752452|NCT03056157|191477266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(37) = -3.88, d = 1.27.||-2.40|-7.32|<0.001
95752453|NCT03056157|191477266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -1.50, d = 0.16.||1.44|-11.16|0.13
95752454|NCT03056157|191477266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = -0.87, d = 0.09.||3.00|-7.68|0.38
95752455|NCT03056157|191477266|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores for the COVID-19 cohort, t(373) = 1.42, d = 0.15.||5.88|-0.96|0.26
95944648|NCT04057820|191861586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.99||||||||3.99|0.94|
95944649|NCT04057820|191861587|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.48||||||||2.48|1.13|
95944650|NCT04057820|191861588|SUPERIORITY||Incidence ratio ratio (IRR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for study design (i.e., fixed time effect and random site effect) and randomization scheme stratification indicator.||||0.64|0.49|
95944651|NCT04057820|191861590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||||||||1.47|0.71|
95944652|NCT05630833|191861659|OTHER||Lower 10th percentile (%)|48.2|||||||||||||Lower 10th percentile of therapeutic successes was calculated from the predictive distribution.|As defined in Statistical Analysis Plan, consistency with the global studies is demonstrated if the success criterion for gepotidacin is set to require a therapeutic response rate greater than lower 10th percentile value of the predictive distribution.||||
95944653|NCT03044158|191861698|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01||||||||2.01|1.21|
95944654|NCT03044158|191861699|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66||||||||1.66|0.99|
95944655|NCT03044158|191861700|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||||||||0.62|0.39|
95944656|NCT03044158|191861701|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (adjusted)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.12||||||||2.12|1.04|
95944657|NCT03044158|191861702|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (adjusted)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.56||||||||0.56|0.21|
95944658|NCT03044158|191861703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.35||||||||1.35|0.44|
95944659|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-5.95|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-1.954|||ANCOVA|||||-1.954|-9.946|= 0.004
95944660|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.161|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.161|10.161|||ANCOVA|||||10.161|2.161|= 0.003
95944661|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|25.936|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.317|31.556|||ANCOVA|||||31.556|20.317|< 0.001
95944662|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.476|||=|0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.457|||ANCOVA|||||3.457|-10.41|= 0.325
95944663|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.211|||=|0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.798|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-3.798|= 0.918
95944664|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|32.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.484|37.71|||ANCOVA|||||37.71|26.484|< 0.001
95944665|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.753|28.166|||ANCOVA|||||28.166|16.753|< 0.001
95944666|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|26.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.529|31.765|||ANCOVA|||||31.765|20.529|< 0.001
95944667|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|28.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.921|34.32|||ANCOVA|||||34.32|22.921|< 0.001
95944668|NCT05485805|191861721|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.966|28.375|||ANCOVA|||||28.375|16.966|< 0.001
95944669|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.602|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.548|-0.656|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.656|-2.548|< 0.001
95944670|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.976|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|1.923|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.923|0.029|= 0.043
95944671|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.766|7.427|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.427|4.766|< 0.001
95944672|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.31|||=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.332|1.951|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||1.951|-1.332|= 0.711
95944673|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.626|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.575|0.323|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.323|-1.575|= 0.196
95944674|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.744|8.402|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.402|5.744|< 0.001
95944675|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.055|7.757|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.757|5.055|< 0.001
95944676|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.141|6.801|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||6.801|4.141|< 0.001
95944677|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.383|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.033|8.732|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||8.732|6.033|< 0.001
95944678|NCT05485805|191861722|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|7.131|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||7.131|4.43|< 0.001
95944679|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.269|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||-0.269|-0.903|< 0.001
95944680|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.454|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.771|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.771|0.136|= 0.005
95944681|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|2.815|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.815|1.923|< 0.001
95944682|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.169|||=|0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.719|0.382|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.382|-0.719|= 0.548
95944683|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.132|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.186|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||0.186|-0.451|= 0.415
95944684|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.377|3.268|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.268|2.377|< 0.001
95944685|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.654|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.654|1.748|< 0.001
95944686|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|2.683|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.683|1.791|< 0.001
95944687|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.654|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.202|3.106|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||3.106|2.202|< 0.001
95944688|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|2.521|||ANCOVA|||0-2 hours post-dose||2.521|1.615|< 0.001
95944689|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.338|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.133|-0.542|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||-0.542|-2.133|< 0.001
95944690|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.016|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.813|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||1.813|0.22|= 0.012
95944691|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.982|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|7.101|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.101|4.864|< 0.001
95944692|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.048|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.428|0.332|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.332|-2.428|= 0.136
95944693|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.321|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.477|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||0.477|-1.119|= 0.43
95944694|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|6.999|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|8.116|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||8.116|5.881|< 0.001
95798560|NCT04390750|191567198|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 1 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04|||Linear mixed effects model|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.04|-0.36|0.014
95798561|NCT04390750|191567198|OTHER|The effect estimate reflects the adjusted difference in change from baseline on gingival inflammation between Treatment Group 2 and Control at 6 months.|Interaction coefficient|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.07|||Linear mixed effects model.|Linear mixed effects model with arm-by-time interaction.||A linear mixed effects model including an arm-by-time interaction was used to estimate between-arm differences in change in gingival inflammation at the secondary endpoint of 6 months.||-0.07|-0.39|0.005
95798562|NCT04919161|191567227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due sample size differences and pairwise nature of the data, a Kruskal-Wallis was conducted.||Null hypothesis for this analysis is that there will be no differences between pre-scores and post-scores across the different treatment arms. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
95798563|NCT04919161|191567227|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0025
95798564|NCT04919161|191567227|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||=0.0001
95798565|NCT04919161|191567227|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
95858957|NCT00473382|191675729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|4.5||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||10.1|-1.2|0.1384
95858958|NCT00473382|191675730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.6||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||14.6|2.0|0.0102
95858959|NCT00473382|191675730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.3||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||17.3|5.1|0.0005
95858960|NCT00473382|191675731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-72.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-72.0|-151.6|<0.0001
95944695|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.934|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.798|6.07|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.07|3.798|< 0.001
95944696|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.661|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.543|6.779|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||6.779|4.543|< 0.001
95944697|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|5.951|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.816|7.085|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||7.085|4.816|< 0.001
95944698|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|4.613|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.478|5.749|||ANCOVA|||0-4 hours post-dose||5.749|3.478|< 0.001
95944699|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.963|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.254|-0.673|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||-0.673|-3.254|= 0.003
95752456|NCT03056157|191477267|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -3.65, d = 0.39.||-3.07|-10.23|<0.001
95752457|NCT03056157|191477267|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -9.14, d = 1.60.||-9.32|-14.43|<0.001
95752458|NCT03056157|191477267|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(131) = -4.10, d = 0.72.||-2.72|-7.74|<0.001
95752459|NCT03056157|191477267|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.87, d = 0.09.||4.45|-1.73|0.39
95752460|NCT03056157|191477267|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = 0.07, d = 0.001.||2.26|-2.10|0.94
95752461|NCT03056157|191477267|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.28||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CAPS-5 scores, t(348) = -1.15, d = 0.12.||0.91|-3.48|0.25
95752462|NCT03056157|191477268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|63.18|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced probable recovery in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||63.18|1.29|0.01
95752463|NCT03056157|191477268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced improvement in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||3.75|0.61|0.40
95752464|NCT03056157|191477268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced no change in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.70|0.36|0.58
95752465|NCT03056157|191477268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|1.2|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants who experienced deterioration in CAPS-5 from baseline to post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.20|0.003|0.06
95752466|NCT03056157|191477269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with a PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.06|0.22|0.07
95752467|NCT03056157|191477269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 3MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.56|0.28|0.33
95752468|NCT03056157|191477269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants with PTSD Diagnosis in CAPS-5 at 6MFU in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.08|0.15|0.05
95752469|NCT03056157|191477270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -3.01, d = 0.13.||-2.10|-7.16|.003
95752470|NCT03056157|191477270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-12.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -11.50, d = 1.81.||-10.80|-14.43|<0.001
95752471|NCT03056157|191477270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(161) = -7.40, d = 1.16.||-6.20|-9.77|<0.001
95752472|NCT03056157|191477270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = -0.45, d = 0.02.||2.52|-4.01|0.65
95944700|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|1.641|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.933|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||2.933|0.35|= 0.013
95752473|NCT03056157|191477270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 1.94, d = 0.10.||4.63|-0.03|0.05
95752474|NCT03056157|191477270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PCL-5 scores, t(1542) = 2.61, d = 0.13.||5.34|0.75|0.001
95752475|NCT03056157|191477271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.84|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing probable recovery in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||5.84|1.01|0.04
95752476|NCT03056157|191477271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.95|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing improvement in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.95|0.25|0.49
95752477|NCT03056157|191477271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.32|||Fisher Exact|||Odds ratio comparison of the proportions of participants experiencing no change in PCL-5 at post-treatment in AD-MIL versus PCT.||1.32|0.25|0.18
95752478|NCT03056157|191477272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = -1.46, d = 0.07||0.34|-2.29|0.14
95752479|NCT03056157|191477272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -12.41, d = 1.96.||-4.90|-6.80|<0.001
95752480|NCT03056157|191477272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(161) = -10.29, d = 1.62.||-3.94|-5.82|<0.001
95752481|NCT03056157|191477272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 0.42, d = 0.02.||1.53|-0.99|0.68
95752482|NCT03056157|191477272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 3.02, d = 0.15.||2.24|0.48|0.003
95752483|NCT03056157|191477272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for PHQ-9 scores, t(1550) = 2.37, d = 0.12.||1.99|0.19|0.02
95752484|NCT03056157|191477273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = -1.35, d = 0.15.||0.09|-0.49|0.18
95991202|NCT00454779|191957358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|23.85|||||With Mantel-Haenszel weights within strata defined by randomization factors recorded in the IVRS|||23.85|-8.29|
95991203|NCT00454779|191957358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||||95.0|0.62|5.26|||||Calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment indicator and randomization factors (recorded on the CRF) as covariates|||5.26|0.62|
95991204|NCT00454779|191957361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.717|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors|Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone|||1.717|0.709|0.663
95752485|NCT03056157|191477273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -2.44, d = 0.46.||-0.05|-0.47|0.02
95944701|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.377|11.006|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.006|7.377|< 0.001
95944702|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-1.642|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.881|0.597|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.597|-3.881|= 0.15
95944703|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-0.322|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|0.972|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||0.972|-1.617|= 0.625
95944704|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|10.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|12.645|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||12.645|9.02|< 0.001
95944705|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.707|9.392|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.392|5.707|< 0.001
95944706|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|8.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.055|10.683|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||10.683|7.055|< 0.001
95944707|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.351|11.031|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||11.031|7.351|< 0.001
95991205|NCT00454779|191957361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors||||||0.666
95991206|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.84||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.84|0.37|<0.001
95752486|NCT03056157|191477273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.69, d = 0.12.||0.14|-0.26|0.62
95752487|NCT03056157|191477273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(314) = 1.34, d = 0.15.||0.39|-0.07|0.18
95944708|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|7.228|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.386|9.07|||ANCOVA|||0-6 hours post-dose||9.07|5.386|< 0.001
95944709|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.398|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.185|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||-0.61|-4.185|= 0.009
95944710|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.189|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||4.189|0.61|= 0.009
95944711|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.898|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.384|14.412|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.412|9.384|< 0.001
95944712|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.225|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.327|0.877|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||0.877|-5.327|= 0.159
95944713|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.002|||=|0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.795|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||1.795|-1.792|= 0.998
95944714|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|14.298|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.787|16.809|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||16.809|11.787|< 0.001
95944715|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|12.226|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.226|7.12|< 0.001
95944716|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.387|14.413|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.413|9.387|< 0.001
95752488|NCT03056157|191477273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = 1.49, d = 0.28.||0.30|-0.04|0.14
95944717|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|12.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.523|14.623|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||14.623|9.523|< 0.001
95944718|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|9.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.123|12.227|||ANCOVA|||0-8 hours post-dose||12.227|7.123|< 0.001
95944719|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.949|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.803|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||-0.095|-5.803|= 0.043
95944720|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|3.694|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|6.55|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||6.55|0.837|= 0.011
95944721|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.504|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|20.517|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.517|12.49|< 0.001
95944722|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-3.437|||=|0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.389|1.515|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||1.515|-8.389|= 0.173
95944723|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|0.744|||=|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|3.608|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||3.608|-2.119|= 0.61
95991207|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.62|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.29||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.83|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||1.29|0.30|<0.01
95944724|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.189|24.206|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||24.206|16.189|< 0.001
95944725|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.992|17.143|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.143|8.992|< 0.001
95752489|NCT03056157|191477273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Justification scores, t(113) = -0.38, d = 0.07.||0.13|-0.19|0.71
95944726|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|17.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.236|21.261|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||21.261|13.236|< 0.001
95944727|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|16.761|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|20.831|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||20.831|12.69|< 0.001
95944728|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|13.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.738|17.886|||ANCOVA|||0-12 hours post-dose||17.886|9.738|< 0.001
95944729|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-2.312|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.635|4.011|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.011|-8.635|= 0.473
95944730|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|27.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.188|35.973|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||35.973|18.188|< 0.001
95944731|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|-6.928|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.044|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||4.044|-17.9|= 0.215
95944732|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|2.468|||=|0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.876|8.813|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||8.813|-3.876|= 0.445
95944733|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|20.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.122|29.183|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||29.183|11.122|< 0.001
95752490|NCT03056157|191477274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = -3.41, d = 0.39.||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
95944734|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|24.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.914|33.952|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||33.952|15.914|< 0.001
95944735|NCT05485805|191861723|OTHER||Geometric LS means|22.621|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.594|31.648|||ANCOVA|||0-24 hours post-dose||31.648|13.594|< 0.001
95944736|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||=|0.963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.963
95752491|NCT03056157|191477274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -6.41, d = 1.20.||-0.44|-0.83|<0.001
95752492|NCT03056157|191477274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -1.83, d = 0.34.||0.02|-0.36|0.07
95944737|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.118
95944738|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944739|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||=|0.244|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.244
95944740|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||=|0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.139
95944741|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944742|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944743|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944744|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944745|NCT05485805|191861724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944746|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||=|0.647|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.647
95944747|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||=|0.714|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.714
95944748|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.065
95944749|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||=|0.742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.742
95944750|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944751|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944752|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944753|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944754|NCT05485805|191861726|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944755|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
95944756|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
95944757|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944758|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
95944759|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944760|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944761|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944762|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944763|NCT05485805|191861727|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944764|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||=|0.162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.162
95944765|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||=|0.319|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.319
95944766|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944767|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||=|0.343|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.343
95944768|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||=|0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||= 0.772
95944769|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944770|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944771|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944772|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944773|NCT05485805|191861728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95944774|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.14|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.44|= 0.334
95944775|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|0.04|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.25|= 0.783
95944776|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.08|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.5|= 0.687
95944777|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.53|= 0.927
95944778|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.4|= 0.492
95944779|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.04|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.46|= 0.836
95944780|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.11|||=|0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.53|= 0.611
95944781|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.19|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.6|= 0.371
95944782|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.07|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.49|= 0.752
95944783|NCT05485805|191861731|OTHER||geometric LS mean square|-0.21|||=|0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|= 0.321
95944784|NCT01958021|191861773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||3.29e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.720|0.429|0.00000329
95752493|NCT03056157|191477274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(314) = 3.13, d = 0.06.||0.57|0.13|0.002
95752494|NCT03056157|191477274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = 2.21, d = 0.42.||0.34|0.02|0.03
95752495|NCT03056157|191477274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Hindsight-Bias scores, t(113) = -2.22, d = 0.42.||-0.02|-0.32|0.03
95752496|NCT03056157|191477275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = 2.46, d = 0.28.||0.57|0.06|0.01
95944785|NCT01958021|191861774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.932|||Log Rank|||||0.932|0.628|0.004
95944786|NCT01958021|191861775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.000155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000155
95944787|NCT01958021|191861776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
95944788|NCT02798471|191861783|NON_INFERIORITY|The edoxaban-to-comparator hazard ratio will be computed with 95% confidence interval (CI) (two-sided) based on this model. Edoxaban will be considered non-inferior to comparator if the upper limit of the 95% CI is ≤1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.719|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for the composite primary efficacy endpoint||1.719|0.594|0.9694
95944789|NCT04172675|191861800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61|||Unstratified Log rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||0.61|0.13|=0.0007
95944790|NCT00731692|191861856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.80|0.544
95944791|NCT00458783|191861871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) distinct-effects model||||1.2|0.50|0.08
95944792|NCT00458783|191861872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.6||||||||1.6|0.25|
95944793|NCT00458783|191861873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.0||||||||2.0|0.26|
95944794|NCT00458783|191861874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.4||||||||1.4|0.59|
95944795|NCT00458783|191861875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.8||||||||1.8|0.43|
95944796|NCT00458783|191861876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.8||||||||2.8|0.24|
95944797|NCT00458783|191861877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.5|0.80|
95944798|NCT00458783|191861878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.1||||||||1.1|0.16|
95944799|NCT00458783|191861879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.7||||||||1.7|0.39|
95944800|NCT00458783|191861880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|0.50|
95944801|NCT00458783|191861881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||||3.2|0.18|
95944802|NCT00458783|191861882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.29|0.94|0.9
95944803|NCT00458783|191861883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||Regression, Cox||The 95%CI is interim adjusted.|||1.18|0.85|0.07
95944804|NCT06307457|191861886|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.031
95944805|NCT06307457|191861887|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all age groups.||||0.012
95944806|NCT06307457|191861888|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.061
95944807|NCT06307457|191861889|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all CCI scores.||||0.080
95944808|NCT06307457|191861890|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.2
95944809|NCT06307457|191861891|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for all number of comorbidities.||||0.093
95944810|NCT06307457|191861892|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||>0.9
95944811|NCT06307457|191861892|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.9
95752497|NCT03056157|191477275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.001||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.06, d = 0.01.||0.18|-0.17|0.95
95944812|NCT06307457|191861892|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.4
95944813|NCT06307457|191861893|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants cardiac disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
95944814|NCT06307457|191861893|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with vascular disease comorbidity reported.||||0.3
95944815|NCT06307457|191861893|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for participants with metabolic disease comorbidity reported.||||0.7
95944816|NCT06307457|191861894|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
95944817|NCT06307457|191861895|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for visceral disease status.||||0.005
95944818|NCT06307457|191861896|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.14
95944819|NCT06307457|191861897|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for bone disease status.||||0.2
95944820|NCT06307457|191861898|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.047
95944821|NCT06307457|191861899|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is provided combined for endocrine status.||||0.041
95752498|NCT03056157|191477275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -3.32, d = 0.62.||-0.13|-0.50|0.01
95752499|NCT03056157|191477275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(314) = -2.02, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.41|0.04
95752500|NCT03056157|191477275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = -2.18, d = 0.03.||-0.02|-0.30|0.03
95752501|NCT03056157|191477275|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for RGI Wrongdoing scores, t(113) = 0.70, d = 0.13.||0.20|-0.09|0.48
95752502|NCT03056157|191477276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = 0.76, d = 0.09.||2.52|-1.12|0.45
95944822|NCT02568215|191861915|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|8.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|42.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|wald|||The primary PE analysis tests the null hypothesis PE equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis PE not equal to zero using a 2-sided alpha equal 0.05 level Wald test of the equality of log cumulative hazard functions at the week 80 visit for the pooled VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||42.6|-45.1|0.70
95944823|NCT02568215|191861915|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|35.5||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the low-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||35.5|-85.3|
95752503|NCT03056157|191477276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -1.79, d = 0.34.||0.12|-2.52|0.08
95752504|NCT03056157|191477276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(113) = -3.00, d = 0.56.||-0.66|-3.15|0.003
95752505|NCT03056157|191477276|SUPERIORITY||standardized effect size of the slope|-0.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.39, d = 0.04.||1.17|-1.75|0.70
95752506|NCT03056157|191477276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -1.11, d = 0.12.||0.46|-1.64|0.27
95752507|NCT03056157|191477276|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for TRSI scores, t(317) = -0.57, d = 0.06.||0.72|-1.32|0.57
95752508|NCT03056157|191477277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 2.35, d = 0.26.||6.25|0.56|0.02
95752509|NCT03056157|191477277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = -6.53, d = 1.21.||8.90|4.78|<0.001
95752510|NCT03056157|191477277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(116) = 3.44, d = 0.64.||5.40|1.47|0.001
95752511|NCT03056157|191477277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = 0.66, d = 0.07.||3.03|-1.50|0.51
95752512|NCT03056157|191477277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -0.32, d = 0.04.||1.35|-1.89|0.75
95752513|NCT03056157|191477277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SOS-10 scores, t(326) = -1.28, d = 0.14.||0.55|-2.61|0.20
95752514|NCT03056157|191477278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 2.93, d = 0.33.||0.43|0.08|0.004
95752515|NCT03056157|191477278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 5.56, d = 1.04.||0.48|0.23|<0.001
95752516|NCT03056157|191477278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 1.61, d = 0.30.||0.22|-0.02|0.11
95752517|NCT03056157|191477278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.10, d = 0.10.||0.15|-0.13|0.92
95752518|NCT03056157|191477278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.31, d = 0.03.||0.12|-0.08|0.75
95944824|NCT02568215|191861915|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|59.3||||||A secondary analysis assesses the overall PE of the high-dose VRC01 group versus the placebo group.||59.3|-30.7|
95944825|NCT02568215|191861917|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|94.4||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant less than 1||94.4|17.3|
95944826|NCT02568215|191861917|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.5|70.2||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant 1-3||70.2|-187.5|
95752519|NCT03056157|191477278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(319) = 0.18, d = 0.02.||0.11|-0.09|0.86
95752520|NCT03056157|191477279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.56||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.43, d = 0.16.||0.97|-6.10|0.15
95752521|NCT03056157|191477279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -4.07, d = 0.76||-2.73|-7.83|<0.001
95752522|NCT03056157|191477279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(116) = -2.19, d = 0.41.||-0.28|-5.16|0.03
95752523|NCT03056157|191477279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.38||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.97, d = 0.11.||1.42|-4.17|0.33
95752524|NCT03056157|191477279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -1.51, d = 0.17.||0.46|-3.54|0.13
95752525|NCT03056157|191477279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DAR scores, t(325) = -0.17, d = 0.02.||1.79|-2.12|0.87
95752526|NCT03056157|191477280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -2.03, d = 0.23.||-0.01|-0.72|0.04
95752527|NCT03056157|191477280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116)= -6.40, d = 1.19.||-0.58|-1.09|<0.001
95752528|NCT03056157|191477280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(116) = -3.78, d = 0.70.||-0.22|-0.71|0.002
95858961|NCT00473382|191675731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.7|-94.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANCOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here. The statistical analysis was not performed at Month 48.||-94.8|-169.7|<0.0001
95858962|NCT00473382|191675732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-4.3||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.8||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||0.8|-9.3|0.0853
95858963|NCT00473382|191675732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|-5.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.7||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.7|-9.8|0.0073
95944827|NCT02568215|191861917|OTHER||Prevention Efficacy (PE)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|43.3||||||PE against IC80 of least sensitive variant \> 3||43.3|-83.1|
95752529|NCT03056157|191477280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.56, d = 0.06.||0.21|-0.37|0.58
95752530|NCT03056157|191477280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.96, d = 0.11.||0.11|-0.31|0.34
95752531|NCT03056157|191477280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Psychological Aggression scores, t(319) = -0.19, d = 0.02.||0.18|-0.22|0.85
95752532|NCT03056157|191477281|SUPERIORITY|We log-transformed CTS2 scores because they were heavily positively skewed in conjunction with zero-inflation.|Slope|-0.23||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319)= -1.82, d = 0.20.||0.02|-0.48|0.07
95752533|NCT03056157|191477281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = -1.39, d = 0.16.||-0.05|-0.31|0.17
95752534|NCT03056157|191477281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(116) = 1.18, d = 0.13.||0.27|-0.07|0.24
95752535|NCT03056157|191477281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.37, d = 0.04.||0.15|-0.23|0.71
95752536|NCT03056157|191477281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -1.00, d = 0.11.||0.07|-0.21|0.32
95752537|NCT03056157|191477281|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for CTS2 Physical Assault scores, t(319) = -0.51, d = 0.06.||0.10|-0.17|0.61
95752538|NCT03056157|191477282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(318) = -0.33, d = 0.04||0.36|-0.50|0.74
95752539|NCT03056157|191477282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.77, d = 0.14.||0.19|-0.43|0.44
95752540|NCT03056157|191477282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.34, d = 0.06.||0.24|-0.35|0.74
95752541|NCT03056157|191477282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.57, d = 0.11.||0.25|-0.45|0.57
95752542|NCT03056157|191477282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.22|-0.28|0.82
95944828|NCT04732000|191861971|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1373||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Mann Whitney test, 2-sided|||||||0.5490
95944829|NCT00683800|191861993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.98|-3.80|<0.001
95944830|NCT00683800|191861994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-1.82|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-1.82|-3.77|<0.001
95944831|NCT00683800|191861995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.16|-0.40|<0.001
95944832|NCT00683800|191861996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided).||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
95944833|NCT00683800|191861997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|0.72|||||The 90% CI for excess risk was obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk of DVS SR 100 mg over placebo per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||0.72|-2.86|
95944834|NCT00683800|191861998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving a response as defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 12 was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||||<0.001
95944835|NCT00683800|191861999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.36|2.24|<0.001
95752543|NCT03056157|191477282|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for DSI-SS scores, t(114) = 0.58, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.17|0.57
95944836|NCT00683800|191861999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 50% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.10|1.75|<0.001
95944837|NCT00683800|191862000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.81|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 4-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||7.81|2.47|<0.001
95944838|NCT00683800|191862000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants achieving at least 75% hot flush reduction from baseline at 12-week was compared between DVS and placebo treatment groups with a logistic regression model with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||5.09|1.96|<0.001
95944839|NCT00683800|191862001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A log-rank test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944840|NCT00683800|191862002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-1.00|-3.07|<0.001
95752544|NCT03056157|191477283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -1.42, d = 0.16.||0.43|-2.63|0.16
95752545|NCT03056157|191477283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114)= -1.35, d = 0.25.||0.35|-1.87|0.18
95944841|NCT00683800|191862002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-1.51|-4.12|<0.001
95944842|NCT00683800|191862003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 6)||-0.12|-0.51|0.002
95944843|NCT00683800|191862003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 100 mg with matching placebo. The comparison was performed at significance level of p=0.05 (two sided). (At month 12)||-0.11|-0.54|0.003
95752546|NCT03056157|191477283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 0.63, d = 0.12.||1.39|-0.71|0.53
95752547|NCT03056157|191477283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(316) = -0.89, d = 0.12.||0.73|-1.93|.37
95752548|NCT03056157|191477283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = -0.08, d = 0.02.||0.92|-1.00|0.94
95752549|NCT03056157|191477283|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for QDS scores, t(114) = 1.21, d = 0.23.||1.48|-0.35|0.23
95752550|NCT03056157|191477284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.98||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 2.49, d = 0.28.||7.13|0.83|0.01
95752551|NCT03056157|191477284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 4.16, d = 0.78.||7.13|2.55|<0.001
95752552|NCT03056157|191477284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.85||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(114) = 0.78, d = 0.15.||3.02|-1.31|0.44
95798566|NCT04919161|191567227|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison would be that there would be no significant difference between post-scores of the two treatment groups.||||>0.9999
95798567|NCT04919161|191567228|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: ScoreChange=(PostTest) - (PreTest). These changes in score were then compared.|||||=|0.3045||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.3045
95944844|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.64|-3.05|<0.001
95752553|NCT03056157|191477284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.17, d = 0.02.||2.75|-2.32|0.88
95752554|NCT03056157|191477284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.60, d = 0.07.||2.37|-1.27|0.55
95944845|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.51|-0.99|<0.001
95752555|NCT03056157|191477284|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCS scores, t(316) = 0.38, d = 0.04.||2.10|-1.42|0.70
95944846|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.45|-0.89|<0.001
95752556|NCT03056157|191477285|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(318) = -0.25, d = 0.03.||0.25|-0.32|0.80
95752557|NCT03056157|191477285|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = 0.57, d = 0.11.||0.16|-0.09|0.57
95752558|NCT03056157|191477285|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(115) = -0.23, d = 0.04.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
95752559|NCT03056157|191477285|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for SCBSC scores, t(320) = 0.57, d = 0.06.||0.23|-0.13|0.57
95752560|NCT03056157|191477286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 3.16, d = 0.32.||6.35|1.48|0.002
95752561|NCT03056157|191477286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 4.66, d = 0.85.||5.92|2.41|<0.001
95752562|NCT03056157|191477286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(121) = 0.63, d = 0.11.||1.94|-1.44|0.78
95752563|NCT03056157|191477286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = -0.34, d = 0.01.||0.24|-0.34|0.73
95752564|NCT03056157|191477286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 0.56, d = 0.06.||0.27|-0.15|0.58
95752565|NCT03056157|191477286|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||In a mixed model analysis of intent-to-treat data for VLQ scores, t(408) = 1.07, d = 0.11.||0.31|-0.10|0.28
95752566|NCT04168190|191477292|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|9.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||9.0|-29.3|
95752567|NCT04168190|191477292|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.6|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||24.6|-18.1|
95752568|NCT04168190|191477292|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|39.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||39.3|-7.7|
95752569|NCT04168190|191477292|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.1|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||42.1|-4.1|
95752570|NCT04168190|191477292|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||26.5|-13.2|
95752571|NCT04168190|191477292|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||22.8|-16.0|
95752572|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
95752573|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|31.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||31.0|-11.4|
95944847|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.02|-0.13|0.162
95944848|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 was outcome variable, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-1.84|<0.001
95752574|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||28.3|-7.4|
95752575|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.2|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||20.2|-13.1|
95752576|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|33.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||33.8|-7.5|
95752577|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|37.3|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||37.3|-4.6|
95752578|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|34.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||34.5|-8.5|
95752579|NCT04168190|191477293|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|23.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Headache||23.8|-17.2|
95752580|NCT04168190|191477294|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
95752581|NCT04168190|191477294|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL minus Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|||11.5|-11.5|
95752582|NCT04168190|191477295|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site erythema||6.8|-2.8|
95944849|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.46|0.066
95752583|NCT04168190|191477295|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|17.1|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site pain||17.1|0.1|
95752584|NCT04168190|191477295|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Injection site swelling||8.4|-2.0|
95752585|NCT04168190|191477296|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Fatigue||13.5|0.8|
95752586|NCT04168190|191477296|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Arthralgia||3.8|-3.8|
95752587|NCT04168190|191477296|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.0|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Myalgia||7.0|-3.8|
95752588|NCT04168190|191477296|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.9|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Headache||9.9|-2.7|
95752589|NCT04168190|191477297|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||||Phase 2: V116 minus Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|||1.5|-1.5|
95752590|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.22|0.82|<0.001
95752591|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.56|0.95|<0.001
95752592|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.41|0.90|<0.001
95752593|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.16|<0.001
95752594|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.24|0.71|<0.001
95752595|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.21|0.80|<0.001
95798568|NCT04919161|191567229|SUPERIORITY|Prior to analysis, the score change or difference between post-test and pre-test were calculated for each participant as: PercentScoreChange = (\[(PostTest)-(PreTest)\]/\[PreTest\]) x 100%|||||=|3152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Two-Tailed Welch t test|Due to unequal standard deviation, a two-tailed Welch's t test was used.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=3152
95798569|NCT04919161|191567230|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9568||||||Prior to analysis, the score change between post assessment and pre-assessment was calculated. The threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|An unpaired T-test was used. Normality and F-test for Variances were conducted and found to be normal.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||=0.9568
95944850|NCT00683800|191862004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Week 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.50|-0.79|<0.001
95944851|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.18|-2.57|<0.001
95944852|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.41|-0.90|<0.001
95944853|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
95944854|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.04|-0.13|0.282
95944855|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.82|-1.66|<0.001
95752596|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.47|0.87|<0.001
95752597|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.93|<0.001
95752598|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.90|1.78|<0.001
95752599|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.55|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.55|1.86|<0.001
95752600|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.16|1.24|<0.001
95798570|NCT04919161|191567231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the pairwise nature and abnormal distribution of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null Hypothesis, there would be no difference between the pre-score and post-score of each treatment group. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
95944856|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.41|0.140
95944857|NCT00683800|191862005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 6: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6, and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
95991208|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.77||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.31|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||3.77|0.36|<0.01
95752601|NCT04168190|191477298|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.33 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.36|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.36|1.43|<0.001
95752602|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|4.23|<0.001
95752603|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|8.62|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||8.62|5.37|<0.001
95798571|NCT04919161|191567231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
95798572|NCT04919161|191567231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||<0.0001
95944858|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Total score was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-1.00|-2.42|<0.001
95752604|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.90|2.31|<0.001
95752605|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|18.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.98|25.57|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||25.57|12.98|<0.001
95752606|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|19.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|29.4|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.40|12.87|<0.001
95798573|NCT04919161|191567231|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
95944859|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Anxiety scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.30|-0.81|<0.001
95944860|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Depression scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.40|-0.83|<0.001
95944861|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Sexual Dysfunction scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.01|-0.17|0.082
95944862|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Psychological scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.75|-1.61|<0.001
95944863|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Somatic scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.25|0.865
95752607|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|29.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.72|43.09|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||43.09|20.72|<0.001
95752608|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|32.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.83|44.89|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||44.89|22.83|<0.001
95798574|NCT04919161|191567231|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis. The reported P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for this comparison is that there would be no significant difference in the pre-score measurements between groups.||||>0.9999
95752609|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.25|50.23|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||50.23|24.25|<0.001
95991209|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.51|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.26|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.38|0.19|<0.05
95752610|NCT04168190|191477299|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|11.26|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||11.26|7.19|<0.001
95752611|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.42|0.58|
95752612|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.76|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.76|0.71|
95944864|NCT00683800|191862006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Month 12: Change from baseline of the GCS Vasomotor scale subscore was analyzed using a Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), for which changes from baseline at week 12, month 6 and month 12 were outcome variables, with treatment, week, and interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects with participant as a random effect, and with the baseline score as covariate.||-0.29|-0.61|<0.001
95944865|NCT00683800|191862007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944866|NCT00683800|191862008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944867|NCT00683800|191862009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95752613|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.99|0.63|
95752614|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.84|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||3.84|1.19|
95752615|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.21|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.21|0.74|
95752616|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||3.63|1.19|
95944868|NCT00683800|191862010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944869|NCT00683800|191862011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944870|NCT00683800|191862012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944871|NCT00683800|191862013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95798575|NCT04919161|191567232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to missing measurements and the pairwise nature of the pre- and post-scores, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, datasets were tested for normality using a Shapiro-Wilk test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
95944872|NCT00683800|191862014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95752617|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.46|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||1.46|0.37|
95752618|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||2.00|0.50|
95752619|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.41|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.41|0.40|
95752620|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.48|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||2.48|0.70|
95944873|NCT00683800|191862015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944874|NCT00683800|191862016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944875|NCT00683800|191862017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95752621|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.37|
95752622|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.69|0.58|
95752623|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||1.85|0.57|
95752624|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.97|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.97|0.90|
95752625|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.32|0.67|
95798576|NCT04919161|191567232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
95944876|NCT00683800|191862018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test was used to compare the treatment groups.||||<0.001
95944877|NCT00683800|191862019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|2.9|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||2.9|-0.68|
95944878|NCT00683800|191862021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|6.71|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||6.71|-2.08|
95944879|NCT00683800|191862022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Formula|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.51|3.67|||||The 90% CI for excess risk is obtained using the Wald Formula.|Excess risk over placebo of DVS SR 100 mg per 1000 woman-years of exposure, defined as the difference in the exposure adjusted rates between the treatment groups, was obtained.||3.67|-3.51|
95752626|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.45|0.98|
95944880|NCT03211247|191862105|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.36|44.49|||Wald test||The 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates was calculated.|Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Farrington-Manning 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Farrignton-Manning 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||44.49|22.36|<0.001
95752627|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.38|0.42|
95752628|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||2.91|0.87|
95798577|NCT04919161|191567232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
95944881|NCT03371017|191862111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.73|0.5891
95944882|NCT03371017|191862112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.76|0.6139
95944883|NCT03371017|191862113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.69||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|13.51|||Z-test|||||13.51|-8.14|0.6264
95752629|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.17|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||2.17|0.50|
95752630|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.50|1.02|
95752631|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.68|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.68|1.21|
95752632|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||5.03|1.64|
95752633|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.93|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.93|0.93|
95798578|NCT04919161|191567232|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
95798579|NCT04919161|191567232|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||>0.9999
95858964|NCT00473382|191675733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|14.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|21.1||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||21.1|6.8|0.0002
95944884|NCT03371017|191862114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.76||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|14.07|||Z-test|||||14.07|-6.55|0.4750
95944885|NCT03371017|191862115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.15||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|11.75|||Z-test|||||11.75|-9.45|0.8315
95944886|NCT03371017|191862116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.37||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|10.69|||Z-test|||||10.69|-7.96|0.7738
95944887|NCT03371017|191862117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1387
95944888|NCT03371017|191862118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7317
95944889|NCT03371017|191862119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.31||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|22.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.37|0.24|0.0337
95944890|NCT03371017|191862120|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.15||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|9.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.34|-11.63|0.9755
95944891|NCT03371017|191862121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.48|0.1359
95991210|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.28||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.79|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.28|0.66|<0.001
95752634|NCT04168190|191477300|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.43|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||3.43|1.07|
95944892|NCT03371017|191862122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.63|0.8225
95944893|NCT03371017|191862125|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|11.67||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|21.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.87|1.47|0.0172
95944894|NCT03371017|191862126|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.18||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|9.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis||9.77|-9.41|0.8679
95944895|NCT03371017|191862127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.46|0.2846
95944896|NCT03371017|191862128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.61|0.9853
95944897|NCT03371017|191862129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.21|0.63|0.4117
95944898|NCT03371017|191862130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.30|0.68|0.7215
95944899|NCT03160885|191862145|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.4||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||16.4|5.8|<0.001
95944900|NCT03160885|191862146|SUPERIORITY|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.3||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary endpoints tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.The null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between tralokinumab and placebo were tested against the 2-sided alternative that there is a difference.||27.3|15.8|<0.001
95944901|NCT03160885|191862147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|20.9||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'Composite', subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested sequentially at a 5% significance level.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|Reduction of Worst Daily Pruritus NRS weekly average ≥4 at Week 16 was tested after the sequential testing of IGA 0/1 and EASI75 if these tests showed statistical significance||20.9|10.3|<0.001
95944902|NCT03160885|191862148|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using the Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.1||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-10.1|-18.0|<0.001
95944903|NCT03160885|191862149|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustment using Holm method.|Difference of least square means|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'hypothetical'. Repeated measurements model on post-baseline data. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change was imputed as 0.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.001
95752635|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|9.25|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||9.25|1.99|
95944904|NCT03160885|191862150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|54.9||Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||54.9|13.4|0.004
95752636|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|11.91|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||11.91|2.53|
95944905|NCT03160885|191862150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|40.9||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.~P value was considered non-significant"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This test was not statistically significant and hence next maintenance endpoint in the sequential testing procedure was not evaluated|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||40.9|-1.2|0.084
95944906|NCT03160885|191862151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|50.0||Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment are considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||50.0|17.3|<0.001
95944907|NCT03160885|191862151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|46.4||Test not evaluated for statistical significance. Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication or were transferred to open-label treatment were considered non-responders.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference compared to placebo, stratified by region.|"Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure in the order:~IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, EASI75 at Week 52 between Q2W vs Placebo, IGA 0/1 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo, and EASI75 at Week 52 between Q4W vs Placebo"||46.4|13.7|0.001
95944908|NCT03160885|191862154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|36.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||36.1|22.5|<0.001
95944909|NCT03160885|191862155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.0||"Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data or subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and disease severity.|||17.0|8.3|<0.001
95944910|NCT03160885|191862156|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.5||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 2 change will be imputed as 0.||-7.5|-12.2|<0.001
95944911|NCT03160885|191862157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||11.6|4.4|<0.001
95944912|NCT03160885|191862158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|25.1||"Based on the primary analysis of the 'composite' estimand. Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or with missing data at Week 16 were considered non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by region and disease severity.|||25.1|12.8|<0.001
95944913|NCT03160885|191862159|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity.|Repeated measurements model|||Data collected after permanent discontinuation of IMP or initiation of rescue medication not included. In case of no post-baseline assessments before initiation of rescue medication, the Week 1 change will be imputed as 0.||-0.8|-1.7|<0.001
95944914|NCT03160885|191862160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|26.2||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||26.2|13.9|<0.001
95752637|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|9.85|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||9.85|2.59|
95944915|NCT03160885|191862161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|36.3||"Subjects who received rescue medication prior to Week 16 or have missing data at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.~The statistical test was not controlled for multiplicity."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline disease severity.|||36.3|21.4|<0.001
95944916|NCT02307682|191862191|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.5|0.0003
95944917|NCT02307682|191862191|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.8|-2.1|<0.0001
95944918|NCT02307682|191862192|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.3|-2.4|0.0001
95944919|NCT02307682|191862192|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.9|-1.9|<0.0001
95944920|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.9|-1.4|
95944921|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.1|-1.4|
95944922|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.4|
95944923|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||1.2|-1.7|
95944924|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.2|-1.8|
95752638|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|17.5|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||17.50|4.55|
95944925|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||1.6|-1.5|
95944926|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||1.5|-1.8|
95944927|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||2.1|-1.1|
95944928|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.0|-2.2|
95944929|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||1.2|-2.2|
95944930|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.3|-2.1|
95752639|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||8.15|2.38|
95991211|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.98||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.01|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||1.98|0.32|<0.05
95752640|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|9.16|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||9.16|2.64|
95944931|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||1.6|-1.9|
95944932|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||1.7|-1.9|
95991212|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.46||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||1.46|0.25|<0.001
95991213|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.74|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury perpetration % change from baseline||2.44|0.45|<0.001
95991214|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.78||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.59|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||1.78|0.13|<0.01
95991215|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|0.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.47||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -1.81|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||1.47|0.16|>0.05
95991216|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.08||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.10|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||2.08|0.60|<0.001
95991217|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient Estimate|1.09|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.95||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.17|E-TAU arm is the referent group|Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner injury % change from baseline||2.95|0.40|<0.01
95991218|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -4.69||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.001
95991219|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.32||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
95991220|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -2.90||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
95991221|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -1.02||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to partner injury % change from baseline||||>0.05
95752641|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||5.91|1.97|
95752642|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|6.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|11.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.45|3.78|
95752643|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|20.4|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.40|4.35|
95752644|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||20.62|4.34|
95944933|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||2.2|-1.4|
95752645|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.05|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||6.05|1.95|
95752646|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||8.45|2.69|
95752647|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|19.35|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||19.35|3.36|
95752648|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|39.01|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||39.01|6.68|
95944934|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||1.3|-2.4|
95944935|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||2.5|-1.2|
95944936|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.8|-2.9|
95798580|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|Due to the missing measurement and the pairwise nature of the perturbation levels between participants, a Kruskal Wallis test was completed.||Null hypothesis is there are no differences between groups. Prior to hypothesis testing, normality testing was conducted using a Shapiro-Wild test to inform if parametric or non-parametric testing was required.||||<0.0001
95944937|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||1.6|-2.1|
95944938|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||1.6|-2.2|
95991222|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z Score: -4.01||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to non-partner physical aggression % change from baseline||||<0.01
95944939|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||2.1|-1.9|
95752649|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|16.95|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||16.95|4.93|
95752650|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|25.32|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||25.32|7.28|
95752651|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|15.36|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||15.36|5.56|
95752652|NCT04168190|191477301|OTHER|Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMC Ratio|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|20.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||20.87|7.49|
95752653|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.47|0.67|
95752654|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3||1.57|0.72|
95991223|NCT01337973|191957370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than .05 less than .01 and less than .001 respectively.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z score: -3.21||Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of primary and secondary outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests. This test applies to overall non-partner injury % change from baseline||||<0.01
95991224|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.47||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.52|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.47|0.62|<0.001
95991225|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.98|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.18|<0.01
95991226|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.13|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||1.8|0.4|<0.05
95991227|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.48|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.32|0.54|<0.05
95991228|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.71||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.94|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||1.71|0.78|<0.001
95991229|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.61|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.16||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.56|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||2.16|0.17|<0.05
95991230|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|1.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.44||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.86|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||2.44|0.57|<0.01
95991231|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||coefficient estimate|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -3.51|E-TAU arm is the referent group|"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||1.48|0.61|<0.001
95991232|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -4.65||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to heavy drinking % change from baseline"||||<0.001
95991233|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.45||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to cocaine use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
95991234|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -1.5||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to marijuana use % change from baseline"||||>0.05
95991235|NCT01337973|191957371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05. Scores are reported stratified by whether they are less than 0.05, less than 0.01, and less than 0.001.|Wilcoxon Z|Wilcoxon Z value: -2.58||"Bivariate analyses examined change from baseline to follow up of substance use outcomes measures using Wilcoxon sign rank tests.~This test applies to illicit drug use % change from baseline"||||<0.05
95752655|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.54|1.42|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.42|0.54|
95752656|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.8|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F||1.80|0.68|
95752657|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||1.54|0.59|
95752658|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A||2.15|0.81|
95752659|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.23|0.85|
95752660|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.96|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F||3.96|1.03|
95752661|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||1.67|0.44|
95752662|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.69|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F||3.69|0.97|
95752663|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.08|0.46|
95798581|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Reported p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was established as p\<0.05.|Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||Null hypothesis for any comparisons would be that there is no significant mean perturbation level between sessions.|The p-value reported above was the result for 15 comparisons of the recorded perturbation levels in sessions: 1 vs 2, 2 vs 3, 3 vs 4, 3 vs 5, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, 4 vs 6, 4 vs 7, 4 vs 8, 5 vs 6, 5 vs 7, 5 vs 8, 6 vs 7, 6 vs 8, and 7 vs 8.|||>0.9999
95752664|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8||1.38|0.58|
95752665|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.15|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.15|0.62|
95752666|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.04|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N||2.04|0.58|
95752667|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.71|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||2.71|0.90|
95944940|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||1.9|-2.1|
95752668|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.23|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A||3.23|1.08|
95752669|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.49|0.53|
95752670|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.87|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A||1.87|0.66|
95752671|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||3.27|0.89|
95752672|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.62|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F||4.62|1.24|
95752673|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.34|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.34|1.16|
95752674|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.51|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F||3.51|1.21|
95752675|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.91|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||1.91|0.77|
95752676|NCT04168190|191477302|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.45|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A||2.45|0.99|
95798582|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0629|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0629
95944941|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||2.2|-1.8|
95944942|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.3|-2.5|
95752677|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|33.1|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||33.10|5.90|
95798583|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0069
95944943|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.8|-2.1|
95752678|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|34.35|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A||34.35|6.05|
95752679|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.39||||||95.0|4.29|12.75|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||12.75|4.29|
95944944|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.8|-2.2|
95752680|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.42|16.28|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A||16.28|5.42|
95752681|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||3.63|1.25|
95752682|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.79|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C||4.79|1.64|
95752683|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.67|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||7.67|1.88|
95944945|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.9|-2.2|
95944946|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.5|-2.5|
95944947|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.4|-2.7|
95752684|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|11.94|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F||11.94|2.88|
95752685|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|13.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|33.32|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||33.32|5.68|
95752686|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.91|47.0|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A||47.00|7.91|
95944948|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.1|
95991236|NCT01688050|191957372|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|All-cause mortality rate (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.88|||||Wald method|||5.88|0|
95752687|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|65.82|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||65.82|8.64|
95752688|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|39.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|109.65|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B||109.65|14.15|
95752689|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|19.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|43.74|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||43.74|9.03|
95752690|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|69.03|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F||69.03|13.98|
95752691|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|57.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.15|132.78|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||132.78|25.15|
95798584|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0003
95798585|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
95798586|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
95798587|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||<0.0001
95798588|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6497|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.6497
95798589|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0743|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0743
95752692|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|58.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|134.33|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31||134.33|25.10|
95752693|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.8|||||Phase 1: V116 0.5 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||10.80|4.45|
95752694|NCT04168190|191477303|OTHER|Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.|GMT Ratio|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|12.24|||||Phase 1: V116 1.0 mL/Phase 1: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B||12.24|5.00|
95752695|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 3. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.30|0.90|<0.001
95798590|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0198|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0198
95944949|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.9|-2.2|
95944950|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.7|-2.3|
95944951|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.9|-2.2|
95944952|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||2.0|-2.1|
95944953|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.9|-2.2|
95944954|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||2.3|-2.0|
95944955|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.8|-2.4|
95944956|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.4|-1.8|
95944957|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||2.1|-2.1|
95944958|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.7|-1.5|
95944959|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||2.8|-1.4|
95944960|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.7|-1.5|
95944961|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||2.4|-1.8|
95944962|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.5|-1.8|
95991237|NCT01688050|191957373|OTHER|The primary safety endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Aortic injury-related mortality rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.1|||||Exact method|||7.1|0|
95798591|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0017
95798592|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.0006
95752696|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 7F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|0.99|<0.001
95798593|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5297|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.5297
95798594|NCT04919161|191567233|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2595|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|||||||=0.2595
95944963|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||2.4|-1.9|
95944964|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.9|
95944965|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||2.5|-1.8|
95944966|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.5|-1.9|
95944967|NCT02307682|191862197|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.6|
95944968|NCT02307682|191862198|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.1|-1.9|
95944969|NCT02307682|191862198|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||1.6|-1.5|
95944970|NCT02307682|191862198|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.6|-1.8|
95944971|NCT02307682|191862198|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||1.8|-1.7|
95944972|NCT02307682|191862199|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.2|-2.0|
95944973|NCT02307682|191862199|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||1.8|-1.6|
95944974|NCT02307682|191862199|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.7|-1.9|
95944975|NCT02307682|191862199|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 96||1.9|-1.7|
95944976|NCT02307682|191862200|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
95944977|NCT02307682|191862200|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||2.5|-1.7|
95944978|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.2|-4.2|
95944979|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.8|-2.8|
95752697|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 19A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.52|1.02|<0.001
95798595|NCT04919161|191567234|OTHER|This is a descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||=|0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4671|15.3||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the proportion of males and females between treatment arms.||15.300|0.4671|=0.3898
95752698|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 22F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.75|1.06|<0.001
95752699|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 33F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.06|0.69|<0.001
95752700|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 8. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.18|0.78|<0.001
95752701|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 9N. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.64|1.04|<0.001
95752702|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.32|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 10A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.32|1.44|<0.001
95752703|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 11A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
95752704|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.04|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 12F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||3.04|1.75|<0.001
95944980|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.9|-4.4|
95991238|NCT01688050|191957374|OTHER|The primary effectiveness endpoint of this study is analyzed using only descriptive statistics and it is not analyzed for the purpose of statistical inference|Device success rate (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|100.0|||||Wald method|||100|90.6|
95752705|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.22|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 17F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.22|1.49|<0.001
95752706|NCT04168190|191477306|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.83|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 20A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||2.83|1.81|<0.001
95798596|NCT04190225|191567238|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|37.28|||quantile regression||Median difference is not the difference in the two medians, but is the median of differences between groups (why it is 18.4 and not 23)|||37.28|4.67|0.04
95798597|NCT04190225|191567239|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|32.76|||quantile regression|||||32.76|8.35|0.03
95798598|NCT04190225|191567240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||quantile regression|||||||<.001
95991239|NCT04428411|191957401|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95991240|NCT04428411|191957402|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95991241|NCT04428411|191957403|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95991242|NCT04428411|191957404|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95991243|NCT04428411|191957405|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95991244|NCT04428411|191957406|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95991245|NCT04428411|191957407|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95991246|NCT04428411|191957408|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95752707|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|4.84|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 6A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.84|2.95|<0.001
95944981|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||10.0|-1.2|
95944982|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-5.9|
95944983|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||11.0|-0.5|
95944984|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.0|-3.7|
95944985|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.3|-3.8|
95944986|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.1|-5.9|
95944987|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.4|
95944988|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||7.3|-4.2|
95944989|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||13.4|0.8|
95944990|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.5|-4.3|
95944991|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.4|-3.4|
95944992|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.2|-5.0|
95944993|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||14.4|1.5|
95944994|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.0|-5.4|
95944995|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||14.5|2.1|
95752708|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|9.64|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||9.64|6.12|<0.001
95991247|NCT04428411|191957409|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95991248|NCT04428411|191957410|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
95944996|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||8.1|-4.4|
95944997|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||15.1|2.0|
95944998|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.1|-5.2|
95944999|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.8|0.7|
95945000|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-6.8|
95945001|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||15.0|2.2|
95945002|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||9.2|-3.9|
95945003|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||11.4|-1.5|
95945004|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.1|-5.9|
95945005|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||9.7|-3.1|
95945006|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.5|-6.5|
95945007|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.4|-1.3|
95945008|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.2|-2.9|
95945009|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||12.3|-0.4|
95945010|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.0|-4.2|
95945011|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||11.9|-0.2|
95945012|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.9|-3.0|
95945013|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||11.4|-1.1|
95945014|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||12.8|-1.5|
95752709|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.17|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 15C. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||4.17|2.60|<0.001
95752710|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|10.41|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 16F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||10.41|7.19|<0.001
95752711|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|9.9|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23A. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model||9.90|6.20|<0.001
95752712|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|5.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.94|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 23B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||6.94|4.53|<0.001
95752713|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|29.74|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 24F. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||29.74|19.35|<0.001
95752714|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|12.33|||P-value was estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 31. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||12.33|8.32|<0.001
95945015|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||11.6|-1.0|
95945016|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.6|-5.1|
95991249|NCT04428411|191957410|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
95752715|NCT04168190|191477307|SUPERIORITY|Superiority can be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMC ratio (V116/PPSV23) is \>1.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|18.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|21.45|||P-value is estimated from a cLDA model.||Phase 2: V116/Phase 2: Pneumovax™23|Serotype 35B. Geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value are estimated from a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model.||21.45|15.59|<0.001
95752716|NCT04561375|191477355|SUPERIORITY||Proportional odds ratio|0.37||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07|||proportional odds logistic regression|In the analysis, 100 µg and 150 µg were merged as one level since too few cases used 150 µg.||||1.07|0.13|0.067
95752717|NCT04561375|191477356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.8|26.0|||Regression, Linear|||||26|-5.8|0.147
95752718|NCT04561375|191477357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|34.0|||Regression, Linear|||||34|-18|0.463
95752719|NCT04561375|191477358|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-25|0.032
95752720|NCT02992418|191477360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was greater than (\>) 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.997||||||Anti-PT||0.997|0.721|
95752721|NCT02992418|191477360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.18||||||Anti-FHA||1.18|0.892|
95752722|NCT02992418|191477360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.46||||||Anti-PRN||1.46|0.836|
95752723|NCT02992418|191477360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between groups (Group 1/ Group 2) was \> 1/1.5 for each antigen. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 4 antigens achieved non-inferiority.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.33||||||Anti-FIM2+3||1.33|0.827|
95752724|NCT02992418|191477361|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|5.04||||||Anti-D||5.04|-4.53|
95991250|NCT04428411|191957411|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
95752725|NCT02992418|191477361|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the percentage difference was \> -10% for all antigens.|Percentage difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.37||||||Anti-T||1.37|-2.87|
95752726|NCT02992418|191477362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.44||||||Serotype 1||1.44|0.862|
95752727|NCT02992418|191477362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||||||Serotype 2||1.47|0.97|
95752728|NCT02992418|191477362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.16||||||Serotype 3||1.16|0.739|
95798599|NCT01970371|191567260|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|51.2|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||51.2|-0.7|
95945017|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||15.4|2.7|
95945018|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.4|-3.7|
95945019|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.3|-2.2|
95945020|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.9|-3.0|
95945021|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||14.6|1.9|
95945022|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.1|
95945023|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|12.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.5|-0.0|
95945024|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.3|-1.2|
95991251|NCT04428411|191957411|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
95752729|NCT02992418|191477362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 1/Group 2) was \> 1/2 for each serotype. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.999||||||Serotype 4||0.999|0.644|
95752730|NCT03127644|191477391|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00571|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00420|-0.00571|<0.0001
95752731|NCT03127644|191477391|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00337|-0.00185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confirmatory testing proceeded sequentially (ZS 10g TID, then ZS 5g TID).|Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 48 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00185|-0.00337|<0.001
95752732|NCT03127644|191477392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.142|213.152|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||213.152|10.142|<0.0001
95798600|NCT01970371|191567261|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|52.5|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||52.5|0.7|
95991252|NCT04428411|191957412|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 4||||0.0001
95991253|NCT04428411|191957412|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Baseline and Month 12||||0.0001
95991254|NCT02918019|191957431|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.39|0.0049
95752733|NCT03127644|191477392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.497|382.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||382.337|13.497|<0.0001
95752734|NCT03127644|191477393|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000645||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00359|-0.00104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00104|-0.00359|0.0004
95752735|NCT03127644|191477393|OTHER||Treatment difference in slopes|-0.00401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000637|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00527|-0.00275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Negative exponential rate of change relative to placebo indicates more rapid reduction (correction) of S-K.|Exponential rate of change in S-K through to 24 hours was analysed with a mixed effect model (random slope model).||-0.00275|-0.00527|<0.0001
95752736|NCT03127644|191477394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.329|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||4.329|0.419|0.6167
95752737|NCT03127644|191477394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.006|58.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment and baseline S-K as explanatory variables was used.||58.697|4.006|<0.0001
95752738|NCT03127644|191477398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0586
95991255|NCT02918019|191957431|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.54|0.1838
95991256|NCT02918019|191957431|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.63||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.91|||Poisson regression|||||0.91|0.44|0.0144
95991257|NCT00094757|191957468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.39||Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)|ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-0.82|<0.001
95991258|NCT00094757|191957468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.26|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status (on vs. not on prior therapy)||||-0.26|-0.70|<0.001
95752739|NCT03127644|191477398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0006
95752740|NCT03127644|191477399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0250
95752741|NCT03127644|191477399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||Nominal p value|Log Rank|||||||0.0064
95752742|NCT01156142|191477410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.1|-6.7|<0.001
95752743|NCT01156142|191477411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.1|0.1|0.0018
95752744|NCT01156142|191477412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.3|2.9|0.001
95752745|NCT01156142|191477413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|-1.2|0.0297
95752746|NCT01156142|191477414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||Chi-squared|||At 2 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.1392
95752747|NCT01156142|191477414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6989|||||||Chi-squared|||At 4 hours after initial mouthwash||||0.6989
95752748|NCT01156142|191477415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0018
95752749|NCT01843348|191477483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|Least square mean|-9.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.88|||ANOVA|||The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin||-4.88|-13.82|<0.0001
95752750|NCT01843348|191477483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial tests the null hypotheses that the treatment difference (investigational minus reference) in mean eGFR at re-assigned visit Month 12 is lower than the non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 7 mL/min per 1.73m2 versus the alternative that the treatment difference is equal to or greater than the non-inferiority margin|Least squares mean|-5.56||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.55||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with tx, center, donor type factors. Raw and adjusted means were presented with one-sided p-values for un-shifted and shifted hypothesis, respectively. Significance level = 2.5% (one-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.55|-9.56|0.0067
95752751|NCT01843348|191477484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.093||||||TAC+Certican - TAC+MPA - difference between groups||0.093|-0.029|
95752752|NCT01843348|191477484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.221||||||CycA+Certican -Tac+MPA - difference between groups||0.221|0.076|
95752753|NCT01843348|191477488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.028|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.087|||Pearson's chi-square test|||BPAR - treatment differences at Month 12||0.087|-0.032|< 0.001
95752754|NCT00251641|191477494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||The treatment comparison for this endpoint was carried at the 4.9% level of significance.||||<0.001
95752755|NCT00251641|191477495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
95752756|NCT00251641|191477496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
95991259|NCT00094757|191957469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-8.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-8.9|-30.5|<0.001
95991260|NCT00094757|191957469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline, prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy status||||-6.1|-27.6|<0.002
95991261|NCT00523991|191957537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.27||"There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS-Means"|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline in the model.||||0.27|0.18|<0.001
95945025|NCT02307682|191862201|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||13.8|1.4|
95945026|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.9|-4.3|
95945027|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||12.2|0.6|
95945028|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.7|-6.6|
95945029|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||8.0|-4.7|
95945030|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.1|-6.2|
95945031|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||12.7|-0.8|
95945032|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||7.7|-6.0|
95945033|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||12.2|-1.5|
95945034|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.0|-6.5|
95945035|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.2|-1.8|
95945036|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||9.5|-4.0|
95991262|NCT00523991|191957541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95752757|NCT00251641|191477497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Multiplicity adjustment was provided using the Hochberg test.|Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||||||<0.001
95752758|NCT00876018|191477504|OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.004
95945037|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||11.3|-3.5|
95945038|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.2|-5.9|
95945039|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||11.2|-3.4|
95945040|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-8.2|
95752759|NCT00876018|191477504|OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.147
95798601|NCT01970371|191567262|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in clinical cure percentage at the TOC visit between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.9|26.8|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||26.8|-26.9|
95945041|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.5|-3.2|
95945042|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-7.3|
95945043|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.6|-5.2|
95945044|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.6|-7.8|
95752760|NCT00876018|191477505|OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.002
95752761|NCT00876018|191477505|OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.003
95752762|NCT00876018|191477506|OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.153
95752763|NCT00876018|191477506|OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.903
95752764|NCT00876018|191477507|OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.143
95752765|NCT00876018|191477507|OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||0.678
95752766|NCT00888459|191477526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.432
95752767|NCT01000493|191477539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|6.65||The mixed effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score and the treatment by week and Baseline. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 12.|||6.65|-17.9|0.3624
95752768|NCT01000493|191477540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.3156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.76|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||6.76|0.54|0.3156
95752769|NCT01000493|191477540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.3024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.5|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||1.50|0.27|0.3024
95752770|NCT01000493|191477540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.28|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 8. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||7.28|0.79|0.1208
95752771|NCT01000493|191477540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Logistic regression analysis|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline CAPS total score.|Comparison between Placebo and Orvepitant 60 mg at Week 1. Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo.|||15.4|0.70|0.1331
95752772|NCT01000493|191477542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|3.61||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||3.61|-5.35|0.7015
95752773|NCT01000493|191477542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|9.84||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||9.84|-4.22|0.4292
95752774|NCT01000493|191477542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.62||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total CAPS score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.62|-14.9|0.3702
95798602|NCT01970371|191567263|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the unadjusted hazard ratio between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin:plazomicin) is based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|14.61|||1-sided logrank test|||||14.61|1.08|
95945045|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||10.0|-4.8|
95945046|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.2|-4.4|
95991263|NCT00523991|191957545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.19|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.19|<0.001
95752775|NCT01000493|191477543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.82|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||5.82|0.04|0.5719
95752776|NCT01000493|191477543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.908||95.0|0.07|20.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||20.1|0.07|0.9080
95752777|NCT01000493|191477543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|12.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to place. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||12.5|0.07|0.9486
95752778|NCT01000493|191477545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.85||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||2.85|-1.51|0.5426
95798603|NCT01970371|191567264|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between groups in Cohort 1 (colistin minus plazomicin) is based on the unconditional exact method.|Difference Estimate|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|40.3|||1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||40.3|-13|
95991264|NCT00523991|191957561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.18||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"Terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95991265|NCT00523991|191957562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.25||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.25|0.16|<0.001
95991266|NCT00523991|191957563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium vesus placebo||0.28|0.18|<0.001
95991267|NCT00523991|191957564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.29||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.29|0.20|<0.001
95752779|NCT01000493|191477545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||3.75|-2.73|0.7552
95752780|NCT01000493|191477545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||2.83|-7.27|0.3827
95752781|NCT01000493|191477545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|3.75||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS A/N subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.75|-7.71|0.4915
95752782|NCT01000493|191477546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.74||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||1.74|-1.93|0.9190
95752783|NCT01000493|191477546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.0||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||4.00|-1.37|0.3326
95752784|NCT01000493|191477546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.77||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||3.77|-3.91|0.9712
95752785|NCT01000493|191477546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.6711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.39||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline CAPS hyperarousal subscore and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.39|-5.22|0.6711
95752786|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.92||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scales (CGI-S) score.|Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||6.92|0.36|0.5532
95752787|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||3.93|0.54|0.4508
95752788|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||2.62|0.42|0.9234
95752789|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.53|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||6.53|0.94|0.0662
95798604|NCT03331562|191567274|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Fisher Exact||Lower bound cannot be estimated because there were 0 events in the comparison group.||||0|.31
95798605|NCT00311168|191567368|SUPERIORITY|A target of an 80% reduction in percentage of ventricular pacing with VIP™ is proposed in this study. In order to achieve an 80% power of detecting an 80% reduction in the percentage of ventricular paced events and using a two group two-sided t-test of equal means, a minimum sample size of 39 patients per group was required. To account for possible withdrawal or loss to follow-up, this study targeted to enroll 100 patients (50 per group).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-52.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in the percentage of intrinsic ventricular events is presented as, VIP Off - VIP On.|||-52.9|-67.5|<0.0001
95945047|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.2|-7.1|
95945048|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.9|
95945049|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||9.2|-4.5|
95991268|NCT00523991|191957565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001||95.0|0.2|0.3||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.30|0.20|<0.001
95752790|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.48|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||5.48|0.61|0.2767
95752791|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|10.5|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||10.5|0.96|0.0588
95752792|NCT01000493|191477547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.1|||Logistic regression analysis||Odds ratios represent the odds of improvement, relative to placebo. The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for Baseline total CGI-S score. Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||14.1|0.78|0.1032
95798606|NCT03488524|191567459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.9||Significance testing was 2-tailed and considered statistically significant if the calculated p-value was ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope.||Participants who did not enter the open-label extension (OLE) were included in this analysis.||7.90|0.56|0.0239
95798607|NCT03488524|191567460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.644||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.995|||Hazard ratio|||Cox Proportional Hazards analysis||0.995|0.416|0.0475
95798608|NCT03488524|191567461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.957|||Hazard Ratio|||||0.957|0.403|0.0308
95798609|NCT03488524|191567462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.75|0.80|0.0291
95945050|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-6.8|
95945051|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.4|-5.8|
95945052|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.2|-6.1|
95945053|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.6|-8.6|
95945054|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||7.1|-7.0|
95945055|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||11.0|-3.5|
95945056|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||10.8|-3.0|
95945057|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||13.0|-1.4|
95752793|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1.|||0.05|-0.29|0.1743
95752794|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||0.05|-0.46|0.1181
95752795|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.34|-0.35|0.9698
95752796|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.09||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||0.09|-0.69|0.1341
95798610|NCT03488524|191567463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.923||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|12.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.47|-2.95|0.2261
95945058|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.5|-4.1|
95752797|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||-0.18|-1.04|0.0064
95752798|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.10|-0.98|0.1095
95752799|NCT01000493|191477548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.27||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, baseline CGI-S score, and the treatment by week and baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||0.27|-0.90|0.2814
95752800|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.5||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 1|||-0.50|-3.33|0.0083
95752801|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.18||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 2.|||-0.18|-3.71|0.0311
95752802|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.47||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 4.|||0.47|-4.26|0.1155
95752803|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-0.45||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 6.|||-0.45|-5.33|0.0210
95752804|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.1||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 8.|||0.10|-5.83|0.0582
95945059|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||9.7|-4.8|
95945060|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||12.3|-1.6|
95945061|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.6|-5.4|
95945062|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.4|-4.8|
95945063|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.2|-5.0|
95991269|NCT00523991|191957569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity area under the curve at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.24|<0.001
95991270|NCT00523991|191957573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and trough forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
95991271|NCT00523991|191957577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and peak forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.42|0.24|<0.001
95991272|NCT00523991|191957593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.28||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.28|0.14|<0.001
95991273|NCT00523991|191957594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.36||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.36|0.21|<0.001
95991274|NCT00523991|191957595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.38|0.23|<0.001
95798611|NCT03488524|191567464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|20.69||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.69|0.63|0.0372
95798612|NCT03488524|191567465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503||||||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
95798613|NCT00724945|191567470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.08591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||95.0|-0.08591|-0.06857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal would be better than or equal to 0.1 logMAR units.||-0.06857|-0.08591|
95945064|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||7.4|-6.9|
95945065|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.5|-5.1|
95945066|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||10.1|-3.9|
95945067|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.1|-5.0|
95752805|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.49||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 10.|||0.49|-6.25|0.0927
95798614|NCT00724945|191567471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008816||||97.5|0.02711|0.04445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens would be better than or equal to 0.17 logMAR units.||0.04445|0.02711|
95798615|NCT00724945|191567472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1279||||97.5|-0.1797|0.07407|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A multifocal minus balafilcon A multifocal.|Alternative hypothesis: senofilcon A multifocal lens will have subjective vision that is non-inferior to balafilcon A multifocal.||0.07407|-0.1797|
95798616|NCT04901624|191567473|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Personal + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.97|0.42|0.003
95798617|NCT04901624|191567473|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Loss Protection relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||2.24|0.68|<0.001
95798618|NCT04901624|191567473|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Coefficient for mixed effects regression comparing Time 2 attendance to Time 1 attendance for Family + Lottery relative to reference group (Personal + Lottery).|||1.96|0.26|0.01
95945068|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||11.8|-2.5|
95945069|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||10.6|-3.4|
95991275|NCT00523991|191957596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.25|0.4||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.40|0.25|<0.001
95991276|NCT00523991|191957597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.45||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and forced vital capacity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.45|0.26|<0.001
95752806|NCT01000493|191477555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.8954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|3.83||The MMRM analysis model included treatment, week, Baseline total HAM-D score, and the treatment by week and Baseline by week interaction terms. Week was used as the repeated effect in the model.|MMRM analysis||Comparison between placebo and orvepitant 60 mg once daily at Week 12.|||3.83|-4.36|0.8954
95752807|NCT00534794|191477573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.532
95752808|NCT00534794|191477574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||ITT (Intent to Treat)||||0.927
95764087|NCT02730663|191498222|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and percentage of patients who achieved clinical success at the time of stent removal are presented. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is to be calculated to confirm the degree of non-inferiority for the reference value (96%) and the difference (Investigational device - reference value) and if the lower limit of the confidence interval is -10% or higher, the noninferiority will be considered to be confirmed.|Reference value|-0.07||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||A two-tail test was performed for statistics at a significance level of 0.05 unless otherwise specified.|t-test, 2 sided|||The clinical success rate at the time point of stent removal is reported 86.2% according to the approval data of the commercially available AXIOS stent submitted to the US FDA. The clinical success rates of EUS-guided transluminal drainage using a lumen-appending stent were 93.3% (29 cases), 100% (8 cases) and 100% (7 cases) respectively in the studies performed afterwards by Shah RJ (2015), Gornals JB (2012) and Moon JH (2014). The weighted average calculated for each study was about 96%.||||0.05
95798619|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.4|-0.98|0.409
95798620|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||1.10|-0.09|0.098
95798621|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that money was the biggest barrier to getting the vaccine.||0.73|-0.71|0.982
95945070|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||12.2|-1.6|
95945071|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.2|-3.0|
95798622|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.12|-0.67|0.177
95798623|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.74|-0.08|0.117
95798624|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who indicated that their medical provider was the most trusted source of COVID-19 information.||0.50|-0.39|0.809
95798625|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.41|-0.34|0.847
95798626|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.38|-0.39|0.993
95798627|NCT04901624|191567474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of Time 2 attendance between study arms among respondents who scored below or equal to 5 on the risk aversion scale (scale of 0-10, with 0 being more risk averse and 10 being more risk prone).||0.33|-0.51|0.671
95945072|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.7|-1.9|
95945073|NCT02307682|191862202|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||12.6|-1.0|
95945074|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.0|-7.7|
95945075|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||8.7|-5.3|
95798628|NCT07085845|191567489|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is established if p\>0.05.||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95945076|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-7.4|
95945077|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||5.3|-8.9|
95945078|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.9|-8.1|
95798629|NCT07085845|191567490|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is established if p\>0.05.||||||0.47||||||Pain was dichotomized into a binary variable (0=no pain, 1=any amount of pain).|Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95798630|NCT00143507|191567507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.10|0.91|0.945
95798631|NCT00143507|191567508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.22|0.94|0.316
95798632|NCT00143507|191567509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.72|0.159
95798633|NCT00143507|191567510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.86|0.850
95798634|NCT00143507|191567511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.16|0.92|0.547
95798635|NCT00143507|191567512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.12|0.71|0.331
95752809|NCT04764630|191477575|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.95||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.28|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 10-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (10, 12.5, and 15 min). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.28|0.002
95752810|NCT04764630|191477576|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.98||||0.018|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.03|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.03|0.018
95752811|NCT04764630|191477577|SUPERIORITY|To demonstrate an increase in naloxone concentration, the lower bound of the one-sided 97.79% interval for the geometric mean ratio must exclude 1. The results will be transformed back to the original scale by exponentiation to provide treatment geometric means.|Geometric mean ratio|1.69||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.6|1.06|||Testing will be conducted sequentially (i.e., start at the initial time and progress forward, stopping if success is achieved) at a 1-sided 0.0221 significance level since an increase in naloxone exposure is expected.|t-test, 1 sided||Data is shown for 4.5-minute timepoint (first time point tested where an increased was observed). This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Up to three different time points have been pre-specified for the comparison (4.5, 7, and 10 minutes). Time points will be evaluated from earliest to latest time. Testing will proceed until either one passes or all pre-specified time points fail. Subject-level naloxone concentrations will be log-transformed. Naloxone concentrations below the lower limit of quantification will result in that time point from that subject being removed for comparisons involving that treatment arm.|This was the first timepoint in the comparison that showed an increase in the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 doses every 2.5 min) compared to the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) and is the reported outcome for this endpoint.||1.06|0.013
95798636|NCT00143507|191567513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.02|0.67|0.078
95945079|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||8.8|-4.8|
95945080|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.7|-9.8|
95945081|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||8.6|-5.3|
95945082|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.6|-9.7|
95945083|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-11.4|
95945084|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.1|-7.6|
95752812|NCT04764630|191477578|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.00|0.78|0.10
95752813|NCT04764630|191477578|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.92|0.65|0.018
95764088|NCT04779879|191498233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.09|0.98|
95798637|NCT00143507|191567514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.40|0.83|0.583
95798638|NCT00143507|191567515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.11|0.81|0.501
95798639|NCT00143507|191567516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.04|0.78|0.141
95798640|NCT00143507|191567517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.06|0.86|0.411
95798641|NCT00143507|191567518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.15|0.94|0.484
95945085|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||10.0|-4.4|
95798642|NCT00143507|191567519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake as a covariate. P-value: Log-rank test stratified on beta-blocker intake factor.|||1.13|0.90|0.835
95945086|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.9|-7.2|
95945087|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.8|-6.3|
95991277|NCT00523991|191957604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.927||95.0|-0.38|0.41||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms include treatment, site, and albuterol use at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.41|-0.38|0.927
95991278|NCT00523991|191957605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.174
95764089|NCT04779879|191498234|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, and Baseline logarithm (base10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.11|0.94|
95764090|NCT04779879|191498263|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.11|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.11|1.00|
95798643|NCT02239328|191567571|OTHER|Multilevel random coefficient models estimated the mean score of each PROMIS domain as a function of time elapsed between date of surgery and assessment (in years), and patient comorbidity. Statistical significance of estimated fixed effects were assessed by the F-test statistic for type 3 tests, p \< 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95798644|NCT01932606|191567580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95798645|NCT01932606|191567581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure.||||0.0003
95945088|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||9.2|-4.7|
95945089|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||10.3|-3.9|
95945090|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-12.6|
95945091|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.9|-12.7|
95945092|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.1|
95991279|NCT00523991|191957606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.186
95991280|NCT00523991|191957607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.045
95798646|NCT01932606|191567581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure.||||0.01
95798647|NCT01932606|191567581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure.||||0.002
95991281|NCT00523991|191957608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.223
95798648|NCT01932606|191567581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the 2 arms for change in PCWP.||||<0.0001
95798649|NCT01932606|191567582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95798650|NCT01932606|191567583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.11
95798651|NCT01932606|191567583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean blood pressure.||||0.2
95945093|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||7.9|-6.2|
95945094|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.9|-9.6|
95945095|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.4|-9.1|
95945096|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.1|-11.1|
95945097|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.5|-10.4|
95945098|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
95945099|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-9.7|
95991282|NCT00523991|191957609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.010
95991283|NCT00523991|191957610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.086
95991284|NCT00523991|191957612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.729||95.0|-2.97|4.24||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.24|-2.97|0.729
95991285|NCT00523991|191957613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.149||95.0|-5.9|0.9||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.90|-5.90|0.149
95991286|NCT00523991|191957614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.763||95.0|-4.0|2.93||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.93|-4.00|0.763
95991287|NCT00523991|191957615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.313||95.0|-5.45|1.75||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.75|-5.45|0.313
95991288|NCT00523991|191957616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.682||95.0|-4.6|3.01||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||3.01|-4.60|0.682
95991289|NCT00523991|191957617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.043||95.0|-7.39|-0.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||-0.13|-7.39|0.043
95752814|NCT04764630|191477578|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for Cmax will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||1.01|0.75|0.12
95945100|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||7.9|-5.5|
95798652|NCT01932606|191567584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR.||||0.7
95798653|NCT01932606|191567585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery compliance.||||0.1
95991290|NCT00523991|191957619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.823||95.0|-6.01|4.79||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.79|-6.01|0.823
95991291|NCT00523991|191957620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.767||95.0|-7.86|5.81||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.81|-7.86|0.767
95991292|NCT00523991|191957621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.754||95.0|-4.12|5.67||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.67|-4.12|0.754
95991293|NCT00523991|191957622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.995||95.0|-6.31|6.27||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.27|-6.31|0.995
95798654|NCT01932606|191567586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR.||||0.3
95798655|NCT01932606|191567587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW.||||0.3
95798656|NCT01932606|191567588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in VO\_2.||||0.8
95798657|NCT01932606|191567589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for arteriovenous oxygen content difference.||||0.1
95798658|NCT01932606|191567590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output.||||0.4
95945101|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.5|-7.2|
95991294|NCT00523991|191957623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.72||95.0|-7.77|5.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||5.39|-7.77|0.720
95752815|NCT04764630|191477579|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.91|0.76|0.002
95752816|NCT04764630|191477579|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.81|0.70|<0.001
95945102|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||8.4|-5.8|
95764091|NCT04779879|191498264|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment and Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load.|||1.07|0.97|
95798659|NCT01932606|191567591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume.||||0.4
95798660|NCT01932606|191567592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in right atrial pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
95798661|NCT01932606|191567592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in pulmonary artery systolic pressure (exercise).||||0.01
95945103|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.9|-7.2|
95991295|NCT00523991|191957624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88||||0.064||95.0|-12.1|0.35||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LS Means"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.35|-12.10|0.064
95764092|NCT04779879|191498265|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.09|0.93|
95764093|NCT04779879|191498266|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, Baseline logarithm (base 10) viral load and randomization stratification factor (prior exposure to an authorized or approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine).|||1.10|0.94|
95798662|NCT01932606|191567592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in mean pulmonary artery pressure (exercise).||||0.0002
95798663|NCT01932606|191567592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PCWP (exercise).||||0.0002
95945104|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.5|-7.9|
95945105|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-6.6|
95945106|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-9.4|
95945107|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-10.0|
95945108|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||8.2|-6.2|
95945109|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||9.3|-5.5|
95945110|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||9.6|-5.1|
95945111|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.9|-5.0|
95945112|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.3|-3.9|
95945113|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||8.1|-6.1|
95945114|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.9|-5.1|
95945115|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.4|-5.9|
95764094|NCT04779879|191498327|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.89|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.89|0.48|
95798664|NCT01932606|191567593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in heart rate.||||0.3
95945116|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.8|-8.5|
95945117|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.7|-9.7|
95945118|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-7.9|
95945119|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-9.1|
95945120|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||11.2|-2.9|
95945121|NCT02307682|191862203|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.0|-6.6|
95764095|NCT04779879|191498327|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.79|||||Drug bioavailability was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and weight at Baseline as covariates.|||0.79|0.43|
95764096|NCT04779879|191498328|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.95|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.95|0.67|
95798665|NCT01932606|191567594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in systolic blood pressure.||||0.2
95798666|NCT01932606|191567594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.05
95945122|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-1.4|
95945123|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||4.0|-0.5|
95945124|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.5|-2.6|
95945125|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-1.7|
95945126|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-3.3|
95945127|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.7|-3.2|
95945128|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.4|-3.0|
95798667|NCT01932606|191567595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PVR after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
95798668|NCT01932606|191567596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in PA compliance after study drug (exercise)||||0.3
95945129|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.1|-2.4|
95945130|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-2.2|
95945131|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||5.3|-0.3|
95945132|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.2|-2.6|
95945133|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||4.6|-1.8|
95945134|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.3|-2.9|
95945135|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.6|-2.3|
95945136|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.1|-2.0|
95798669|NCT01932606|191567597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in SVR after study drug (exercise).||||0.007
95798670|NCT01932606|191567598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in LVSW after study drug (exercise)||||0.0003
95798671|NCT01932606|191567599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in oxygen consumption (VO\_2) after study drug (exercise).||||0.02
95945137|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.7|-1.0|
95945138|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-1.5|
95945139|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.5|0.0|
95945140|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-2.1|
95945141|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.3|-0.7|
95945142|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-2.2|
95945143|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.2|-1.4|
95752817|NCT04764630|191477579|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-inf will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.97|0.85|0.014
95798672|NCT01932606|191567600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in arteriovenous oxygen difference after study drug (exercise).||||0.6
95798673|NCT01932606|191567601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in cardiac output after study drug (exercise).||||0.002
95945144|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.9|-3.2|
95945145|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.3|-2.7|
95945146|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-3.3|
95945147|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-2.5|
95945148|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.6|-2.4|
95945149|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.3|-1.5|
95945150|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.6|-3.5|
95798674|NCT01932606|191567602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for change in stroke volume after study drug (exercise).||||0.0002
95945151|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.9|-2.9|
95945152|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-2.4|
95945153|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.7|-1.3|
95945154|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-3.1|
95945155|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-2.9|
95945156|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-2.6|
95945157|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.3|-2.7|
95945158|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.1|
95945159|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.0|-2.1|
95945160|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-4.8|
95945161|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.9|-4.6|
95945162|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.4|-2.6|
95945163|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-3.7|
95945164|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.4|-3.7|
95945165|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-4.1|
95945166|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.5|-2.2|
95945167|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-3.0|
95945168|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.9|-2.9|
95945169|NCT02307682|191862204|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-3.6|
95945170|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.2|-3.7|
95945171|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.4|-2.6|
95945172|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.3|-3.3|
95945173|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.9|-3.0|
95945174|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-4.6|
95798675|NCT03881371|191567603|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.643|-0.555||"Analysis was based on a covariance model (ANCOVA) with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily OFF time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.555|-1.643|<.0001
95945175|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.6|-3.5|
95945176|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.9|-4.2|
95945177|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.0|-5.0|
95945178|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.4|-4.1|
95945179|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.7|-2.3|
95945180|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.1|-3.9|
95945181|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.2|-1.8|
95945182|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.7|-3.5|
95945183|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.4|-3.6|
95945184|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.6|-3.2|
95798676|NCT03881371|191567604|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.382||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline NRS measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.382|-0.440|0.8901
95798677|NCT03881371|191567605|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.515||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.515|0.274|0.0049
95945185|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-3.2|
95798678|NCT03881371|191567606|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.753||"ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline mean total daily ON time with no/non-troublesome Dyskinesia measurement as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable."|ANCOVA|||||1.753|0.392|0.0021
95798679|NCT03881371|191567607|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.842|-3.141||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-3.141|-8.842|<.0001
95945186|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.3|-2.6|
95945187|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||5.9|-2.1|
95945188|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.9|-4.3|
95945189|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.8|-3.6|
95945190|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.8|-3.7|
95945191|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.7|-3.7|
95991296|NCT00523991|191957626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.718||95.0|-7.21|4.98||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||4.98|-7.21|0.718
95945192|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-2.2|
95945193|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.3|-2.9|
95945194|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.8|-3.5|
95945195|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.3|-1.6|
95945196|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-2.3|
95945197|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.7|-2.2|
95798680|NCT03881371|191567608|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.511||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part II (ADL) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-0.511|-2.521|0.0033
95798681|NCT03881371|191567609|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749|-1.856||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factors, baseline UPDRS part III (motor function) score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.856|-5.749|0.0002
95798682|NCT03881371|191567610|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-S at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||0.000|0.000|0.0150
95798683|NCT03881371|191567611|SUPERIORITY||Median|0.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by centre.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Non-parametric 95% confidence interval was presented for the treatment difference in CGI-C score at each post-baseline visit as reported by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||1.000|0.000|0.0007
95945198|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-4.8|
95945199|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.9|-3.8|
95945200|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-3.1|
95945201|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||6.4|-2.8|
95945202|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.2|-3.4|
95945203|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.6|-2.8|
95945204|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.5|-6.6|
95945205|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.8|-6.1|
95945206|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.1|-5.6|
95945207|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.9|-2.9|
95945208|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.1|-5.8|
95945209|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.5|-3.2|
95945210|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.0|-4.2|
95945211|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.7|-3.2|
95991297|NCT00523991|191957627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.912||95.0|-7.9|7.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.06|-7.90|0.912
95991298|NCT00523991|191957628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.162||95.0|-1.55|9.13||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.13|-1.55|0.162
95991299|NCT00523991|191957629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.471||95.0|-4.51|9.69||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||9.69|-4.51|0.471
95991300|NCT00523991|191957630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.961||95.0|-6.52|6.84||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.84|-6.52|0.961
95991301|NCT00523991|191957631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.158||95.0|-11.73|1.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||1.94|-11.73|0.158
95991302|NCT00523991|191957633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.469||95.0|-3.01|6.49||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||6.49|-3.01|0.469
95798684|NCT03881371|191567612|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-1.128||ANCOVA with treatment and centre as independent factor, baseline Summary Index score as covariate and change from baseline as dependent variable.|ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (Safinamide - Placebo)||-1.128|-5.589|0.0033
95945212|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.2|-5.8|
95945213|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.6|-5.2|
95945214|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.1|-5.5|
95945215|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.4|-5.3|
95945216|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.4|-5.7|
95945217|NCT02307682|191862205|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.3|-3.4|
95945218|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.5|-2.4|
95945219|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||6.8|-1.8|
95945220|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.8|-4.1|
95945221|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||6.8|-1.7|
95752818|NCT04764630|191477580|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.89|0.75|0.001
95752819|NCT04764630|191477580|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 2 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.80|0.69|<0.001
95752820|NCT04764630|191477580|OTHER|Treatment differences on the log-scale will be estimated for the PK parameters. Geometric mean ratio and 90% CIs will be obtained by exponentiation of the treatment effect and 90% CIs based on the log-transformed scale. Dose-proportionality will be concluded if the confidence interval includes 1. Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dose-normalized comparisons were exploratory.|This compares results from the 4 naloxone dose arm (2 every 2.5 min) (numerator) with the 4 naloxone dose arm (1 every 2.5 min) (denominator).|Dose-adjusted values for AUC0-t will be calculated based on noncompartmental PK parameter results, normalized to per mg of naloxone administered. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, comparisons of log-transformed dose-adjusted PK parameters will be performed. Treatment will be a fixed effect. Participant will be included as a random effect on the intercept.||0.96|0.85|0.014
95752821|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-3.0|
95945222|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||6.5|-2.3|
95945223|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||7.9|-0.9|
95945224|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.0|-5.4|
95945225|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.2|-6.2|
95945226|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-5.4|
95764097|NCT04779879|191498329|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.62|0.69|
95764098|NCT04779879|191498330|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.82|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||1.82|0.68|
95764099|NCT04779879|191498331|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.12|||||Dose proportionality was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment (250mg, 500mg) as a covariate, for each parameter of interest.|||2.12|0.77|
95764100|NCT02854527|191498356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|105.33|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||105.33|88.22|
95991303|NCT00523991|191957634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79||||0.079||95.0|-0.68|12.26||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||12.26|-0.68|0.079
95991304|NCT00523991|191957635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.051||95.0|-0.02|8.23||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||8.23|-0.02|0.051
95991305|NCT00523991|191957636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43||||0.075||95.0|-0.35|7.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||7.21|-0.35|0.075
95991306|NCT00523991|191957637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.306||95.0|-1.39|4.38||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||4.38|-1.39|0.306
95991307|NCT00523991|191957638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.363||95.0|-7.39|2.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and work productivity at baseline~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||2.73|-7.39|0.363
95752822|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.8|-1.4|
95798685|NCT06001021|191567658|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.78||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|-32.19||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||-32.19|-38.90|0.000
95945227|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.4|-2.9|
95945228|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.9|-5.2|
95945229|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||8.8|-1.4|
95945230|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-6.8|
95945231|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.8|-4.7|
95945232|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.4|-5.0|
95945233|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-6.1|
95945234|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||7.7|-1.8|
95945235|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.8|-2.7|
95798686|NCT06001021|191567659|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008). Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis.~2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.14||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.59|28.32||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||28.32|19.59|0.000
95752823|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.1|-1.1|
95945236|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.0|-5.9|
95945237|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.9|-4.7|
95945238|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.5|-5.7|
95945239|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.3|-6.5|
95945240|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.9|-2.7|
95945241|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.4|-4.3|
95752824|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.6|
95945242|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.3|-4.6|
95945243|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.6|-3.9|
95991308|NCT00523991|191957640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.668||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.668
95945244|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-4.0|
95945245|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.2|-3.8|
95945246|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.6|-4.5|
95752825|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0789|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.8|-2.4|
95945247|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.8|-3.8|
95945248|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.3|-2.9|
95945249|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||7.9|-2.8|
95945250|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.5|-5.5|
95945251|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.3|-5.1|
95945252|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||6.7|-4.3|
95945253|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-5.2|
95945254|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-4.6|
95945255|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.3|-4.7|
95945256|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
95945257|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.2|-4.8|
95945258|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.7|-3.1|
95945259|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||8.7|-2.9|
95945260|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.5|
95945261|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.4|-4.6|
95945262|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.9|-4.5|
95752826|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
95752827|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-7.2|
95752828|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-5.4|
95752829|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-4.2|
95798687|NCT06001021|191567660|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.43||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.33|95.46||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||95.46|78.33|0.00
95798688|NCT06001021|191567661|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008).~Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150-4. PMID: 18537788."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.15||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.41|25.12||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||||25.12|19.41|0.000
95991309|NCT00523991|191957641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.78||95.0|-0.02|0.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.03|-0.02|0.780
95991310|NCT00523991|191957642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.61||95.0|-0.03|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.03|0.610
95991311|NCT00523991|191957643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.554||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.554
95752830|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-6.7|
95752831|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.6|-2.4|
95991312|NCT00523991|191957644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.549||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.549
95991313|NCT00523991|191957645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.568||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.04|-0.02|0.568
95991314|NCT00523991|191957647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.358||95.0|-0.18|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.18|0.358
95991315|NCT00523991|191957648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.219||95.0|-0.2|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.20|0.219
95991316|NCT00523991|191957649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.518||95.0|-0.1|0.19||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.19|-0.10|0.518
95991317|NCT00523991|191957650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.455||95.0|-0.09|0.21||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.21|-0.09|0.455
95752832|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.6|-1.4|
95798689|NCT06001021|191567662|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.55||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.02|17.87||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval|ANCOVA|||Physical Domain of Quality of Life||17.87|15.02|0.000
95798690|NCT06001021|191567662|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.16|18.04||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Psychological Domain of Quality of Life||18.04|15.16|0.000
95945263|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.4|-4.5|
95945264|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||8.7|-3.1|
95945265|NCT02307682|191862206|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.2|-4.7|
95945266|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-7.7|
95945267|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.8|-8.5|
95945268|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.6|-8.9|
95945269|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.6|-7.7|
95945270|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-8.9|
95945271|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.0|-10.0|
95945272|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.5|-6.3|
95945273|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.4|-6.2|
95945274|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.0|-10.4|
95945275|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-9.4|
95945276|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.9|-4.6|
95945277|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||5.7|-6.6|
95991318|NCT00523991|191957651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927||95.0|-0.16|0.15||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.15|-0.16|0.927
95991319|NCT00523991|191957652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.933||95.0|-0.17|0.16||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and logarithm of baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.16|-0.17|0.933
95945278|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.7|-6.5|
95945279|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.4|-4.9|
95945280|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||7.5|-3.9|
95945281|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||11.5|-1.0|
95945282|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.4|-8.5|
95991320|NCT00523991|191957653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.996
95991321|NCT00523991|191957654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.196
95945283|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||6.4|-6.0|
95991322|NCT00523991|191957655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.800
95991323|NCT00523991|191957656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.215
95991324|NCT00523991|191957657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.205
95752833|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-4.2|
95798691|NCT06001021|191567662|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.52|9.01||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain of Quality of Life||9.01|7.52|0.000
95798692|NCT06001021|191567662|SUPERIORITY|"In the Superiority Trial, the statistical test aims to show that the treatment group gives better results than the control group. In an equivalence trial, the statistical test aims to show that two treatments are not too different in characteristics, where not too different is defined in a clinical manner (Lesaffre, 2008)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.07||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|25.81||The significance level is 0.10 with 90% confidence interval.|ANCOVA|||||25.81|21.64|0.000
95945284|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||6.4|-5.2|
95945285|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.0|-7.4|
95945286|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.5|-8.8|
95945287|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-8.4|
95945288|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.3|-9.5|
95991325|NCT00523991|191957658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.622
95991326|NCT00523991|191957659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Site as stratum||tiotropium versus placebo||||0.446
95798693|NCT03112603|191567665|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.80|1.86|<0.0001
95945289|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.6|-8.6|
95945290|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-8.8|
95991327|NCT00523991|191957661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.819||95.0|-0.05|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.05|0.819
95991328|NCT00523991|191957662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.204||95.0|-0.1|0.02||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.02|-0.10|0.204
95991329|NCT00523991|191957663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.67||95.0|-0.08|0.05||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.670
95991330|NCT00523991|191957664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.63||95.0|-0.09|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.630
95798694|NCT03112603|191567667|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.51||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.510|0.268|<0.0001
95752834|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0276|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.2|-2.8|
95752835|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-4.6|
95752836|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-6.9|
95752837|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-3.6|
95752838|NCT02037165|191477597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-5.0|
95798695|NCT03112603|191567668|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.485|||||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||0.485|0.268|
95798696|NCT03112603|191567669|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.52||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|||3.52|1.34|0.0011
95945291|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.1|-6.8|
95752839|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-4.6|
95752840|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-6.5|
95798697|NCT03112603|191567671|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.39||The one-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a stratified CMH test.|||4.39|1.75|<0.0001
95798698|NCT03112603|191567673|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|1.331||The p-value was derived from a 1-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from a stratified Cox model using cGvHD severity at randomization as strata.|||1.331|0.544|0.2396
95798699|NCT00848185|191567699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for three groups||||<0.001
95752841|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-6.7|
95752842|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.0|-5.3|
95752843|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-3.5|
95945292|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.1|-5.9|
95945293|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.0|-6.6|
95945294|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.4|-5.7|
95945295|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.1|-9.0|
95945296|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 64||5.5|-7.2|
95991331|NCT00523991|191957665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.704||95.0|-0.1|0.07||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|terms for treatment, site, and baseline value Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans||tiotropium versus placebo||0.07|-0.10|0.704
95752844|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-3.0|
95798700|NCT03785366|191567801|OTHER|"For the primary analysis, a ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect was used to analyze the uncorrected PK parameters Cmax, Cmean, and AUC0-56 days.~Analysis methodology for the secondary analysis mirrored the approach for the primary analysis applied to the baseline-corrected PK parameters."|test to Reference geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.80|
95945297|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.7|-6.6|
95945298|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.3|-4.3|
95945299|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.1|-6.3|
95945300|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.6|-7.2|
95945301|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-8.5|
95945302|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||10.2|-2.4|
95945303|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.8|-5.1|
95945304|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.6|-2.5|
95945305|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||9.0|-3.5|
95945306|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||9.0|-3.0|
95945307|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||6.4|-5.8|
95945308|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.5|-6.6|
95945309|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||6.1|-6.0|
95945310|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||9.5|-2.8|
95945311|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-4.3|
95945312|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||7.8|-4.7|
95945313|NCT02307682|191862207|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||9.0|-3.8|
95945314|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||8.4|-24.2|
95945315|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-1.1|-31.9|
95945316|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||3.0|-30.4|
95945317|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-2.9|-35.0|
95991332|NCT00523991|191957666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.579||95.0|-0.11|0.06||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||0.06|-0.11|0.579
95752845|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8557|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.8|
95752846|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-5.0|
95798701|NCT00315445|191567871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P values are from a repeated measures model|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0350
95798702|NCT00315445|191567871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624||||||Repeated measures analysis to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center. Missing values = last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates: gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0624
95798703|NCT00315445|191567872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|48.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||48.7|40.2|
95798704|NCT00315445|191567872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|52.4|||Day 84 Mean|||||52.4|43.3|
95798705|NCT00315445|191567872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.7|50.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||50.2|41.7|
95945318|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-3.1|-36.3|
95991333|NCT00523991|191957668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.54||||0.916||95.0|-464.02|416.94||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||416.94|-464.02|0.916
95991334|NCT00523991|191957669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.42||||0.899||95.0|-520.19|457.34||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||457.34|-520.19|0.899
95991335|NCT00523991|191957670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|181.99||||0.495||95.0|-341.75|705.73||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||placebo versus tiotropium||705.73|-341.75|0.495
95798706|NCT00315445|191567873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|26.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||26.2|5.2|
95798707|NCT00315445|191567873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.7|32.0|||Day 84 Mean|||||32.0|10.7|
95798708|NCT00315445|191567873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|35.2|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.2|16.0|
95798709|NCT00315445|191567874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452||||||Multiple linear regression|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures analysis was performed to assess the effects due to treatment, center, and treatment by center interaction. Observations within each subject were assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive model. Missing values were extrapolated by the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Covariates were gender, age, race, weight, baseline pain, and previous opioid use which were incorporated into the model when P \< 0.10, using a backward elimination procedure.||||0.0452
95991336|NCT00523991|191957671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.83||||0.318||95.0|-250.37|768.03||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||768.03|-250.37|0.318
95798710|NCT00315445|191567874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0962|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0962
95798711|NCT00315445|191567875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.3|35.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||35.6|24.3|
95798712|NCT00315445|191567875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.0|40.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||40.3|29.0|
95798713|NCT00315445|191567875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.1|42.5|||Day 84 Mean|||||42.5|32.1|
95798714|NCT00315445|191567876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.4||||||90.0|50.3|56.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||56.6|50.3|
95798715|NCT00315445|191567876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.8|58.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.3|51.8|
95945319|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-8.3|-40.7|
95752847|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-4.5|
95752848|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-4.7|
95752849|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.4|-7.6|
95798716|NCT00315445|191567876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.3|58.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||58.6|52.3|
95798717|NCT00315445|191567879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.8|67.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||67.9|49.8|
95945320|NCT02307682|191862208|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-1.7||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-1.7|-38.0|0.0159
95945321|NCT02307682|191862208|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-10.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-10.5|-45.1|0.0008
95945322|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|22.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||22.3|-11.8|
95945323|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|20.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.5|-14.1|
95945324|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-7.2|-44.3|
95945325|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-11.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-11.6|-47.5|
95798718|NCT00315445|191567879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.9|65.3|||Day 84 Mean|||||65.3|45.9|
95798719|NCT00315445|191567879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.1|70.9|||Day 84 Mean|||||70.9|53.1|
95945326|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.9|-29.2|
95798720|NCT00315445|191567880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|68.6|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.6|61.3|
95798721|NCT00315445|191567880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|68.8|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.8|61.7|
95798722|NCT00315445|191567880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Day 84 Mean|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|68.7|||Day 84 Mean|||||68.7|62.0|
95798723|NCT00315445|191567885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.054|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.054
95798724|NCT00315445|191567885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.138|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.138
95798725|NCT00315445|191567886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0105|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcomes no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0105
95798726|NCT00315445|191567886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.0024|||||||Regression, Cox|For the secondary outcome measure no alpha adjustment for multiple comparison was performed.||||||0.0024
95798727|NCT00315445|191567887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.033
95798728|NCT00315445|191567887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.043
95752850|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-6.0|
95798729|NCT00315445|191567888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.011
95945327|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||5.5|-29.8|
95945328|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-0.7|-39.6|
95945329|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-4.2|-42.1|
95945330|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.7|-35.5|
95945331|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-1.7|-37.6|
95945332|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-8.0|-46.6|
95945333|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-10.9|-48.2|
95945334|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||8.9|-27.5|
95945335|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.5|-30.3|
95945336|NCT02307682|191862208|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-4.6||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-4.6|-43.1|0.0075
95945337|NCT02307682|191862208|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-10.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-10.4|-47.6|0.0012
95945338|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||2.4|-33.6|
95945339|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||3.3|-33.4|
95945340|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-1.1|-38.9|
95945341|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-0.7|-39.4|
95798730|NCT00315445|191567888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.034
95798731|NCT00315445|191567889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.038
95798732|NCT00315445|191567889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
95991337|NCT00523991|191957672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.18||||0.45||95.0|-338.04|760.39||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||760.39|-338.04|0.450
95991338|NCT00523991|191957673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.46||||0.858||95.0|-512.2|615.12||All secondary analyses are exploratory and therefore no corrections for multiple hypotheses testing are made. The results have to be interpreted in a descriptive manner.|ANCOVA|"terms for treatment, site, and baseline value~Mean Difference (Final Values) means difference in LSMeans"||tiotropium versus placebo||615.12|-512.20|0.858
95991339|NCT03439033|191957675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||McNemar||Risk difference reflects PSMA PET/MRI Scan detection proportion minus MRI scan detection proportion.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
95991340|NCT01700192|191957690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.40|-1.20|<0.001
95991341|NCT01700192|191957690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-9.7||||||||-9.7|-25.0|
95991342|NCT01700192|191957693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.30|-1.00|<0.001
95991343|NCT01700192|191957693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-7.3||||||||-7.3|-24.4|
95991344|NCT01700192|191957694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Zero-inflated Log-normal Model|||||0.05|-0.35|0.154
95991345|NCT01700192|191957694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|4.3||||||||4.3|-41|
95991346|NCT01700192|191957695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.60|-1.70|<0.001
95991347|NCT01700192|191957695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-24.6|
95991348|NCT01700192|191957696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.10|-9.10|<0.001
95991349|NCT01700192|191957696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference Relative to Placebo|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-8.3||||||||-8.3|-22.7|
95991350|NCT03175549|191957707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|29.38||A priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error was calculated using bootstrap methods which is considered best for MEM.|||29.38|-10.22|0.36
95991351|NCT03175549|191957708|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posted results show mean change in drinking for the drug group relative to placebo for each day of the 11 days of ad libidum drinking (Days 1-11) permitted during the 14 days (2 weeks) of medication.||||<0.025
95991352|NCT03175549|191957708|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|473 daily observations within 43 individuals.|The apremilast group showed a significantly more rapid reduction in drinks per day relative to placebo.|||||0.025
95991353|NCT02105415|191957716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.7|||ANCOVA|||5 minutes||2.7|-6.9|0.385
95991354|NCT02105415|191957716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|||10 minutes||2.8|-10.8|0.241
95991355|NCT02105415|191957716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.6|||ANCOVA|||15 minutes||5.6|-7.2|0.802
95991356|NCT02105415|191957717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.605
95991357|NCT02105415|191957718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|||Pre-treatment||||0.212
95991358|NCT02105415|191957718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||New-onset pressors (within 3 minutes)||||0.308
95991359|NCT02105415|191957718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANCOVA|||Delayed-onset pressors (within 24 hrs)||||0.691
95991360|NCT02105415|191957720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
95991361|NCT02105415|191957721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANCOVA|||Red blood cell||||0.069
95991362|NCT02105415|191957721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Non-red blood cell||||0.046
95798733|NCT00315445|191567890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
95991363|NCT02105415|191957721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANCOVA|||Colloid||||0.502
95991364|NCT02105415|191957722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.994
95991365|NCT02105415|191957723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
95991366|NCT01724528|191957735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|-196.794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-154.988|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||-154.988|-238.600|<0.0001
95991367|NCT01724528|191957736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares means difference|4.097||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6467|8.8406|||ANCOVA|||Treatment, TLS risk (intermediate/high) and sUA level at baseline (≤ 7.5 mg/dL and \> 7.5 mg/dL) were inserted in the ANCOVA model as covariates||8.8406|-0.6467|0.0903
95991368|NCT01724528|191957737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0231||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0153|0.0654|||Wilson's confidence interval|||||0.0654|-0.0153|0.1993
95991369|NCT01724528|191957738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.875||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4408|1.7369|||Chi-squared|||||1.7369|0.4408|0.8488
95991370|NCT01724528|191957739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.994||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9691|1.0199|||Chi-squared|||||1.0199|0.9691|1.0000
95991371|NCT05574062|191957744|NON_INFERIORITY|-7.5% non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|
95991372|NCT05574062|191957745|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|
95991373|NCT05574062|191957746|NON_INFERIORITY|non- inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|
95991374|NCT05574062|191957747|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (run-in) values|||11.72|8.04|<.0001
95945342|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-0.5|-37.0|
95945343|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||6.1|-31.4|
95945344|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-7.6|-46.7|
95945345|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-3.4|-41.6|
95945346|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||3.9|-33.8|
95945347|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||6.2|-32.6|
95945348|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-10.5|-49.3|
95945349|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-6.8|-46.0|
95945350|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-0.4|-38.2|
95945351|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||3.7|-35.0|
95798734|NCT00315445|191567890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.066
95945352|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-4.5|-45.0|
95945353|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-3.4|-43.9|
95945354|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-0.5|-38.4|
95945355|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||8.0|-31.5|
95945356|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-7.4|-47.3|
95945357|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-4.2|-44.3|
95945358|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||3.9|-34.2|
95945359|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||7.1|-32.1|
95798735|NCT00315445|191567891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.607
95991375|NCT05574062|191957748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model adjusted for baseline (screening) values|||-0.46|-0.76|<.0001
95752851|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-4.9|
95752852|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.825|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-5.3|
95752853|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-3.8|
95752854|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8252|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-5.0|
95991376|NCT05574062|191957749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression model adjusted for baseline (period1) values|||0.31|-0.03|0.1097
95991377|NCT05574062|191957750|NON_INFERIORITY|non inferiority margin of -7.5%|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|
95991378|NCT05574062|191957751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Regression, Linear||Linear regression adjusted for baseline (continuation phase period 1) values|||2.38|-0.04|0.0581
95798736|NCT00315445|191567891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.940
95945360|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-11.3|-50.6|
95945361|NCT02307682|191862208|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-5.9|-46.2|
95945362|NCT02307682|191862209|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-1.2||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-1.2|-37.7|0.0183
95945363|NCT02307682|191862209|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-4.4||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.4|-40.4|0.0075
95945364|NCT02307682|191862210|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-4.1|-42.4|
95945365|NCT02307682|191862210|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-38.3|
95945366|NCT02307682|191862211|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.7|-32.6|
95991379|NCT00695565|191957802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis does not take into account the subjects' screening capsaicin response (measure of nociceptor function).||||0.168
95752855|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-6.2|
95752856|NCT02037165|191477598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.3|-3.9|
95945367|NCT02307682|191862211|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-3.3|-36.5|
95945368|NCT02307682|191862211|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.5|-36.4|
95945369|NCT02307682|191862211|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-1.8|-36.9|
95945370|NCT02307682|191862212|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.1|-0.8|
95945371|NCT02307682|191862212|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-0.2|-1.0|
95945372|NCT02307682|191862212|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-0.2|-1.1|
95945373|NCT02307682|191862212|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.0|-0.9|
95945374|NCT02307682|191862212|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.3|
95945375|NCT02307682|191862212|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-0.3|-1.1|
95945376|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|17.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||17.5|-3.3|
95945377|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||10.9|-10.2|
95798737|NCT00315445|191567892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.702
95945378|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||12.6|-8.4|
95945379|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||9.2|-12.5|
95945380|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||10.0|-11.2|
95798738|NCT00315445|191567892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.634
95945381|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||7.9|-13.9|
95945382|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||11.4|-11.1|
95945383|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.5|-16.1|
95945384|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||20.3|-1.6|
95945385|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||18.5|-3.4|
95945386|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||7.6|-14.7|
95945387|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||5.3|-17.9|
95945388|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||12.9|-8.8|
95798739|NCT01299909|191567893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.67|0.35
95945389|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||13.8|-8.7|
95945390|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||14.1|-8.4|
95945391|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||11.5|-11.7|
95945392|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|13.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||13.6|-8.8|
95945393|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||10.9|-12.2|
95945394|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||11.7|-10.7|
95945395|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||7.8|-15.0|
95945396|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||15.9|-6.1|
95945397|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||13.1|-10.0|
95798740|NCT01299909|191567894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
95798741|NCT01299909|191567895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.02
95798742|NCT01299909|191567896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|df=(1,57)||||||0.03
95798743|NCT03479905|191567903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0004
95991380|NCT00695565|191957802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Each subject was screened for responsiveness of nociceptors in the skin to a capsaicin stimulus (rated on 0-10 pain scale; 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain). The interaction term composed of treatment assignment and capsaicin threshold was examined at the prespecified alpha level of 0.1.~This analysis includes subjects with a capsaicin rating of ≥ 2. Thirty (30) subjects in the Placebo group and 33 subjects in the active Clonidine Topical Gel (ARC-4558) group had capsaicin scores ≥ 2."||||0.014
95991381|NCT01106846|191957816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.947
95991382|NCT01314716|191957875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in least squares mean|4.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||8.2|1.1|0.011
95991383|NCT01314716|191957876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.0||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.0|-2.7|0.56
95991384|NCT01327157|191957878|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results.|t-test, 1 sided|The comparison between the groups in each study period (initial) was done through the t-test for two independent samples.||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the first query to check the status of discomfort before treatment in both groups, using VAS..~Statistical significance was considered for values of p \<0.05 and it was used The Minitab statistical software, version 15.1 to obtain the results"||||0.524
95991385|NCT01327157|191957879|EQUIVALENCE|"Only the treatment group was analysed. The dental contacts were evaluated in models and gnathostats demarcated after the points were counted in the models before and after treatment If an increase in the number of dental contacts after occlusal adjustment was detected, in relation of the models.~The models are made in the first and last query, after four visits with one month interval between them."|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The brand carbon mark was done on the treatment group in the first and last query.||||<0.001
95991386|NCT01327157|191957880|EQUIVALENCE|The comparison among the groups, from the results obtained by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), was done through analysis of variance models (ANOVA) with two factors. The comparison among the groups, in each period of the study (initial and final) was done through t test for two independent samples.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We assessed the quality of oral functions in the last query to check the status of discomfort after ninety days in both groups, control and treatment, using VAS.~The statistical significance was considered to p\<0.05 values and it was used the Minitab statistics software, 15.1 version, to get the results."||||0.002
95991387|NCT01327157|191957881|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.705
95991388|NCT01327157|191957882|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
95798744|NCT05711719|191567925|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis compares the absolute change in coronary cross-sectional area (mm²) from that at rest to that during isometric handgrip exercise in the Vericiguat group between that measured at baseline and that measured at six weeks following initiation of titrated dose.||||0.0005
95991389|NCT02851173|191957883|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group.||||0.79
95991390|NCT02851173|191957883|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. MCI group.||||0.87
95991391|NCT02851173|191957883|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. CU group. 3 outliers removed, whose scores were outside 1.5 times the interquartile range.||||0.16
95991392|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.22
95991393|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.69
95991394|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.25
95991395|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.86
95991396|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.28
95991397|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.12
95991398|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.26
95991399|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||The contract of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.83
95991400|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 1.||||0.55
95991401|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left medial frontal/superior frontal gyrus.||||0.76
95991402|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior parietal lobule.||||0.38
95798745|NCT05711719|191567926|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis compares the relative change in coronary cross-sectional area (%) from that at rest to that during isometric handgrip exercise in the vericiguat group between that measured at baseline and that measured at six weeks following initiation of titrated dose.||||0.0002
95752857|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.8|
95945398|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||12.1|-10.5|
95945399|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||11.1|-12.2|
95945400|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.2|-9.5|
95945401|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||13.1|-10.6|
95945402|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||12.4|-10.6|
95945403|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||13.5|-10.4|
95945404|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||11.2|-11.9|
95945405|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||14.6|-9.7|
95945406|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.3|-11.7|
95945407|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||11.7|-12.2|
95945408|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||13.9|-9.3|
95945409|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||14.0|-9.8|
95945410|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||8.7|-14.5|
95945411|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||10.1|-13.7|
95945412|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||13.7|-10.0|
95764101|NCT02854527|191498357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|93.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|103.97|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R1.||103.97|83.49|
95752858|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.9|-0.5|
95752859|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.7|
95752860|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.9|-1.4|
95752861|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-2.0|
95798746|NCT05711719|191567927|OTHER|Two-group analysis||||||0.528|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.528
95798747|NCT05711719|191567928|OTHER|Multiple linear regression|Slope|6.34|||||TWO_SIDED|||||0.0497|Regression, Linear|||||||
95798748|NCT03900845|191567945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and study interventions was carried out using conditional F-tests.||||.037
95798749|NCT03900845|191567945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.031
95945413|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||11.8|-12.2|
95945414|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||14.7|-9.1|
95752862|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.3|
95752863|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-4.3|
95798750|NCT03900845|191567945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.220
95798751|NCT03900845|191567945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.510
95798752|NCT03900845|191567946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and study interventions was carried out using conditional F-tests.||||0.380
95798753|NCT03900845|191567947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and study interventions was carried out using conditional F-tests.||||0.160
95798754|NCT03900845|191567948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and study interventions was carried out using conditional F-tests.||||0.400
95798755|NCT03900845|191567949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and study interventions was carried out using conditional F-tests.||||0.320
95752864|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-4.2|
95798756|NCT03915067|191567996|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|80.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.1|51.5|<0.0001
95798757|NCT03915067|191567996|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|76.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|88.9||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and C-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||88.9|63.6|<0.0001
95798758|NCT03915067|191568019|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|73.5||P-value was derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.5|42.3|<0.0001
95945415|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|12.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||12.3|-11.3|
95945416|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|11.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.5|-11.9|
95945417|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||11.7|-12.0|
95945418|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|9.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||9.8|-13.2|
95945419|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||11.0|-12.6|
95945420|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||13.3|-9.8|
95945421|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||12.8|-11.1|
95945422|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|7.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.6|-15.6|
95945423|NCT02307682|191862213|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFTns categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||8.0|-15.8|
95945424|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-3.3|-16.4|
95945425|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-7.3|-21.3|
95945426|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-14.6|
95798759|NCT03915067|191568019|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|84.1||P-value derived from CMH model stratified by investigator site and P-APPS at Day 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||84.1|56.4|<0.0001
95798760|NCT02034591|191568020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|0.748||||||||0.748|0.621|
95798761|NCT02034591|191568021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.863||||||||0.863|0.766|
95945427|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-9.5|-20.9|
95752865|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-3.5|
95752866|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-4.2|
95752867|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-1.5|
95945428|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.4|-13.8|
95945429|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-8.7|-18.9|
95945430|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-3.7|-16.8|
95945431|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-13.4|-25.8|
95945432|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.9|-2.0|
95945433|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.9|-4.3|
95945434|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-6.0|-19.1|
95752868|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.8|
95798762|NCT02034591|191568022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.764|0.86||||||||0.860|0.764|
95798763|NCT02034591|191568023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.942||||||||0.942|0.830|
95798764|NCT02034591|191568024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.997||||||||0.997|0.905|
95798765|NCT02034591|191568025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|0.994||||||||0.994|0.903|
95798766|NCT01496456|191568058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for baseline lesion size and for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.002
95798767|NCT01496456|191568059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression, controlled for correlation among pairs of teeth using the GEE method.||||||0.045
95752869|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.9|
95752870|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.2|-2.0|
95752871|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.6|
95798768|NCT01496456|191568060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Discreet Time Survival Analysis|Controlled for correlation among tooth pairs (GEE model).||||||0.0077
95798769|NCT00712920|191568061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03||95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.10|-1.70|0.03
95798770|NCT00712920|191568061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08||95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.1|-1.5|0.08
95945435|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-17.6|-29.7|
95945436|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.4|-8.7|
95945437|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.4|-11.2|
95945438|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-1.0|-14.3|
95945439|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-6.2|-19.3|
95752872|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.7|
95798771|NCT00712920|191568062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6419|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3924||0.102||95.0|-1.41|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.13|-1.41|0.102
95798772|NCT00712920|191568062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3935||0.044||95.0|-1.56|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.02|-1.56|0.044
95798773|NCT00712920|191568063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4394|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3631||0.226||95.0|-1.15|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||0.27|-1.15|0.226
95798774|NCT00712920|191568063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1252|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3649||0.002||95.0|-1.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline to Day 28||-0.41|-1.84|0.002
95798775|NCT00712920|191568064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.292
95752873|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.0|-2.2|
95752874|NCT02037165|191477599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.3|-2.9|
95945440|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.2|-13.2|
95945441|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-4.9|-15.9|
95945442|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||0.9|-11.5|
95945443|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.6|-17.7|
95945444|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.7|-5.1|
95945445|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||2.4|-8.7|
95945446|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-5.5|-17.8|
95945447|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-9.7|-21.2|
95945448|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.0|-8.0|
95945449|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||-3.4|-13.7|
95945450|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.7|-12.6|
95798776|NCT00712920|191568064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||||||0.040
95798777|NCT00884065|191568077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.49|-9.93|>0.05
95798778|NCT00884065|191568078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.01||95.0|5.72|17.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.08|5.72|<0.01
95798779|NCT00884065|191568079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|12.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.45|2.03|<0.01
95798780|NCT00884065|191568080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-1.53|>0.05
95945451|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-3.8|-16.0|
95945452|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||0.7|-9.9|
95752875|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.4|
95945453|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-3.4|-13.9|
95945454|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.2|-13.1|
95991403|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left inferior parietal lobule.||||0.93
95991404|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Left middle frontal gyrus 2.||||0.41
95991405|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right superior frontal gyrus.||||0.06
95798781|NCT00884065|191568081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|-3.81|>0.05
95798782|NCT00884065|191568082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.09|0.08|<0.01
95945455|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-6.0|-17.8|
95945456|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-2.5|
95945457|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.7|-6.7|
95991406|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right middle frontal gyrus.||||0.18
95991407|NCT02851173|191957884|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy). Right inferior frontal gyrus.||||0.84
95991408|NCT02851173|191957885|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.53
95991409|NCT02851173|191957885|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.74
95991410|NCT02851173|191957886|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction.||||0.72
95798783|NCT01625182|191568083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.7|0.6|0.9838
95798784|NCT01922011|191568092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is greater than -15%|Common Difference|-6.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.4|||Wald||Daptomycin - Comparator|95% confidence interval of the common difference was based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.||7.4|-19.4|0.421
95798785|NCT01922011|191568093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|||7.9|-21.6|0.467
95798786|NCT01922011|191568094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.2||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOIV visit||5.0|-17.5|0.313
95945458|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.6|-12.8|
95945459|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-7.0|-18.2|
95945460|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.5|-7.0|
95945461|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.7|-11.4|
95945462|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.1|-11.8|
95945463|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-6.4|-17.0|
95945464|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.1|-10.1|
95945465|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.0|-10.0|
95991411|NCT02851173|191957886|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||The contrast of interest was the Time x Treatment Group interaction. In this sub-group analysis, we performed a sub-population analysis (N=36), including only participants who performed the 2Back task to criterion (\>50% accuracy).||||0.97
95945466|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.5|-11.7|
95945467|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-6.3|-17.3|
95945468|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.5|-4.0|
95945469|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||-0.3|-9.7|
95945470|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.1|-11.4|
95798787|NCT01922011|191568094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-7.9||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.0|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At EOT visit||4.0|-19.8|0.239
95798788|NCT01922011|191568094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|5.8|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|At TOC visit||5.8|-19.1|0.370
95752876|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.4|
95945471|NCT02307682|191862214|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.2|-16.4|
95945472|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.9|
95945473|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||7.4|-4.1|
95945474|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.3|-10.0|
95945475|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||4.5|-7.7|
95752877|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-4.1|
95798789|NCT01922011|191568095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||5.4|-26.3|0.230
95945476|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.3|-7.6|
95945477|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||5.8|-5.4|
95945478|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.6|-8.3|
95752878|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
95945479|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.9|-10.0|
95945480|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||16.2|5.0|
95993779|NCT00619957|191963382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.98|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.98|-27.80|<0.0001
95752879|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-2.1|
95798790|NCT01922011|191568095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|4.4|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||4.4|-28.5|0.164
95798791|NCT01922011|191568095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-15.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.1|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||1.1|-31.2|0.043
95945481|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|15.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||15.4|4.7|
95945482|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.7|-9.8|
95945483|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.0|-14.9|
95945484|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||8.4|-2.1|
95945485|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||5.1|-6.3|
95945486|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||6.1|-5.8|
95945487|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-8.4|
95798792|NCT01922011|191568095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wald|||MRSA||||0.450
95798793|NCT01922011|191568095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wald|||Other Pathogen||||0.280
95945488|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.4|-6.4|
95945489|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.0|-7.8|
95945490|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.7|-9.6|
95945491|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-10.2|
95798794|NCT01922011|191568096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-6.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.5|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|EOT||5.5|-18.2|0.272
95991412|NCT00670007|191957930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.279|||=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.089|0.53||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) was a linear random regression model with country, inspiration state, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.530|-1.089|= 0.752
95991413|NCT00670007|191957930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.371|||=|0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|0.417||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for TLC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.417|-1.159|= 0.823
95991414|NCT00670007|191957930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.176|||=|0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.738||A 1-sided P-value \< 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Early Start minus Delayed Start (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being \> zero) will indicate superiority of Early Start compared with Delayed Start.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (for FRC) was a linear random regression model with country, time since Day 1 \[CE1226\_4001\], and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and subject and subject-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.738|-1.09|= 0.648
95991415|NCT00670007|191957931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.53||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|1.12||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||1.120|-2.179|0.526
95991416|NCT00670007|191957931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.486||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.154||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.154|-2.126|0.558
95991417|NCT00670007|191957931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.019||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.858|1.895||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||1.895|-1.858|0.984
95752880|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.1|
95945492|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||9.9|-1.0|
95991418|NCT00670007|191957932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.294||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|4.233||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC + FRC combined) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect.||4.233|-3.645|0.883
95991419|NCT00670007|191957932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|-0.151||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.172|3.87||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for TLC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||3.870|-4.172|0.941
95991420|NCT00670007|191957932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.787||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.014||Two-sided P-value|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the percent change in lung density (for FRC) from baseline to 2 years was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects.||6.014|-2.440|0.404
95991421|NCT00200057|191957941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||No multiplicity adjustments were made for the primary outcome analysis. Two-tailed p-values were considered statistically significant if they were less than 0.05.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
95991422|NCT00200057|191957942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.81|0.64|<0.0001
95991423|NCT00200057|191957943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95798795|NCT01922011|191568096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-4.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|7.9|||Wald||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|TOC||7.9|-17.6|0.480
95945493|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.5|-3.3|
95752881|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
95798796|NCT01922011|191568097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|4.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|Overall Baseline Infecting Pathogen||4.2|-24.8|
95945494|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.1|-6.2|
95945495|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.5|-6.4|
95945496|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.7|-2.2|
95945497|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||7.4|-3.2|
95945498|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||8.1|-3.5|
95945499|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.8|-5.8|
95945500|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.8|-6.6|
95945501|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.1|-5.8|
95945502|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.1|-6.4|
95945503|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.6|-8.7|
95945504|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||10.7|0.3|
95945505|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.2|-3.2|
95945506|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.7|-6.1|
95798797|NCT01922011|191568097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|2.8|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|SA||2.8|-27.2|
95798798|NCT01922011|191568097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Common difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|5.2|||||95% confidence interval of the common difference ( Daptomycin minus Vancomycin or Nafcillin) is based on stratified Newcombe confidence interval (CI) with minimum risk weights, with age cohort as the stratification factor.|MSSA||5.2|-25.4|
95752882|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.9|-3.0|
95945507|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||1.9|-9.0|
95945508|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.1|-1.9|
95945509|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||6.4|-3.9|
95945510|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-4.7|
95945511|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-5.2|
95945512|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||7.3|-3.3|
95945513|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.8|-5.7|
95945514|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||9.7|-1.7|
95945515|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||5.6|-5.3|
95945516|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.9|-1.3|
95945517|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||6.0|-4.3|
95945518|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.2|-6.4|
95945519|NCT02307682|191862215|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.9|-10.8|
95945520|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-7.7|
95945521|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.4|-11.4|
95991424|NCT00200057|191957944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95752883|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
95798799|NCT04063163|191568133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.763|||Log Rank|||Defined as a period from randomization through death regardless of causality. Data of patients without a death record will be censored on the last known survival date. COX proportional risk model will be used to estimate HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI); the Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate the median, and the Kaplan-Meier curve will be plotted.||0.763|0.496|<0.001
95945522|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.3|
95945523|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.2|-9.8|
95945524|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.5|-11.5|
95945525|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.3|-12.8|
95945526|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-1.1|-11.8|
95945527|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.9|-14.4|
95945528|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||8.3|-2.8|
95945529|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.5|-3.4|
95945530|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||0.9|-9.7|
95945531|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-1.3|-12.3|
95991425|NCT00200057|191957945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95991426|NCT00200057|191957946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95764102|NCT02854527|191498358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|102.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|112.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||112.25|93.82|
95798800|NCT04063163|191568134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.576|||Log Rank|||||0.576|0.381|0.001
95798801|NCT05495997|191568137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.015
95798802|NCT05495997|191568138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.993
95752884|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.1|-3.7|
95752885|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.5|-4.3|
95798803|NCT05495997|191568139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 6 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.517
95798804|NCT05495997|191568140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Imagery Group (PD-MI) compared to Psychoeducation Control Group (PD-Con) at 18 weeks compared to baseline (group-by-time interaction)||||0.817
95945532|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.2|-4.2|
95945533|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||1.7|-8.4|
95945534|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.2|-6.2|
95945535|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.4|-7.5|
95945536|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.7|-9.5|
95945537|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.6|-10.6|
95752886|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-3.6|
95798805|NCT04357795|191568141|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95798806|NCT04357795|191568142|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95798807|NCT04357795|191568143|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95798808|NCT04357795|191568144|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95798809|NCT04357795|191568145|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0323|||||||Paired t-test|OD- Right eye p value||||||0.0323
95945538|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.3|-10.2|
95945539|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.8|-12.2|
95945540|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.3|-6.6|
95945541|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||0.1|-10.0|
95991427|NCT00200057|191957947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||The Hochberg procedure for multiplicity adjustment was used for all secondary objectives.|Exact Binomial|||The exact Binomial test (two-sided) for one-sample proportions was used to test the null hypothesis that the success rate is equal to 0.5.||0.79|0.62|<0.0001
95991428|NCT00778830|191957953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8078|2.1491||||||||2.1491|0.8078|
95752887|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.3|
95752888|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-3.1|
95798810|NCT04357795|191568145|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.3447||||||OS: P-Value|Paired t-test|||||||0.3447
95798811|NCT04357795|191568146|OTHER|Single group analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95945542|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||1.4|-9.4|
95945543|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-2.7|-13.6|
95798812|NCT04357795|191568147|OTHER|Single group analysis||||||0.0029|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0029
95798813|NCT05845619|191568149|SUPERIORITY|There was no power calculation because this was a pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Numerator: pilot; denominator: prospective controls|In this pilot study, we hypothesized that pilot participants would have a reduced risk of viremia 6 months after the intervention compared to controls.||1.76|0.83|0.33
95991429|NCT04652804|191958003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.19||||||Reference group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.19|1.00|
95991430|NCT04652804|191958003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||||||Reference Group: Low Intensity Intervention||1.05|0.90|
95798814|NCT05845619|191568149|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation, pilot study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.73|0.41
95798815|NCT02595892|191568150|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.98|||Log Rank|||||.98|.33|0.044
95798816|NCT02595892|191568153|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-Sided Fisher's exact test.||||||0.44
95798817|NCT05168800|191568167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.99
95798818|NCT05168800|191568167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or greater than 2.15 standard deviations of the mean for the superiority analyses.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.98
95945544|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-5.1|
95945545|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.8|-6.2|
95945546|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||1.2|-9.4|
95991431|NCT04652804|191958003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.15|0.80|
95991432|NCT04652804|191958003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Reference group: High Intensity Intervention||1.04|0.77|
95752889|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-2.0|
95945547|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-0.8|-11.5|
95945548|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.0|-7.3|
95945549|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.1|-7.9|
95945550|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.7|-10.5|
95945551|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-1.8|-12.5|
95945552|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.0|-6.0|
95945553|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.9|-6.3|
95945554|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-0.4|-10.1|
95945555|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-2.3|-12.2|
95945556|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.3|-5.2|
95945557|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||3.5|-5.8|
95945558|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.8|-8.4|
95945559|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||1.5|-8.5|
95945560|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.2|-9.8|
95945561|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||-0.7|-10.4|
95991433|NCT00927368|191958017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.29||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.29|-0.61|< 0.001
95991434|NCT00927368|191958017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.61||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.61|-0.29|0.03
95991435|NCT00927368|191958017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.33||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.33|-0.57|< 0.001
95991436|NCT00927368|191958017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.57|-0.33|0.02
95991437|NCT00927368|191958017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.16||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.16|-0.72|< 0.001
95991438|NCT00927368|191958017|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.72||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for pain was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the mean time-weighted average pain score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||0.72|-0.16|0.11
95991439|NCT00927368|191958018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|34.0||Significance criterion of 0.02082 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||34|-17|0.04
95752890|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-2.3|
95798819|NCT05168800|191568167|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 1800 LTCWs (600 per arm) was identified to provide 80% power to detect an 8% difference in the rate of individuals reporting vaccine confidence between arms with 95% confidence. This sample size was sufficient to retain 80% power to detect a 10% difference after 40% attrition. Per study design, the equivalence margin is +/- 10% with anticipated attrition using the binomial confidence interval.||||||0.85||||||To achieve a group-wise 95% confidence for the primary outcome, each of the three tests were evaluated with acceptance based on a 98.4% confidence interval, or +/- 2.45 standard deviations of the mean for the equivalency test.|Groupwise binomial comparison|||||||0.85
95798820|NCT05168800|191568168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.93
95798821|NCT05168800|191568168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
95798822|NCT05168800|191568168|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
95798823|NCT05168800|191568169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95798824|NCT05168800|191568169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
95945562|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.0|-7.4|
95991440|NCT00927368|191958018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.00347 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.002
95752891|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2343|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-4.1|
95752892|NCT02037165|191477600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.6|
95752893|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-1.5|
95752894|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
95752895|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-0.2|
95752896|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.6|-1.0|
95798825|NCT05168800|191568169|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95798826|NCT05168800|191568170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
95798827|NCT05168800|191568170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95798828|NCT05168800|191568170|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95798829|NCT05168800|191568171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
95798830|NCT05168800|191568171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
95798831|NCT05168800|191568171|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.48|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.48
95798832|NCT05168800|191568172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.95
95798833|NCT05168800|191568172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.98
95798834|NCT05168800|191568172|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.66|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.66
95945563|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-1.1|-11.0|
95991441|NCT00927368|191958018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating catheter minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.0||Significance criterion of 0.01735 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||21|-25|0.03
95752897|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.4|-1.2|
95752898|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1751|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.9|
95752899|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.9|-3.7|
95752900|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-2.1|
95752901|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.7|-1.9|
95752902|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-4.0|
95752903|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.8|-1.8|
95752904|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.2|-0.4|
95798835|NCT05168800|191568173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95798836|NCT05168800|191568173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
95798837|NCT05168800|191568173|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
95798838|NCT05168800|191568174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
95798839|NCT05168800|191568174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
95991442|NCT00927368|191958018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating catheter is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.0||Significance criterion of 0.00694 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating catheter on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||23|-24|0.005
95991443|NCT00927368|191958018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean stimulating needle minus mean ultrasound alone is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|25.0||Significance criterion of 0.01041 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing stimulating needle to ultrasound alone on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||25|-22|0.006
95991444|NCT00927368|191958018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority analysis used the 0.5-point noninferiority delta in a 1-tailed test of the treatment effect regression parameter (i.e., testing the null hypothesis that mean ultrasound alone minus mean stimulating needle is greater than 0.5 points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|29.0||Significance criterion of 0.01388 after adjusting for group sequential design and applying Holm Bonferroni procedure to account for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary analysis for opioid was a linear regression model comparing ultrasound alone to stimulating needle on the log of cumulative opioid consumption score for a patient in the first 48 hours.||29|-20|0.02
95991445|NCT00927368|191958019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus stimulating catheter.||||0.11
95991446|NCT00927368|191958019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|75.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating needle versus ultrasound guidance alone||75|6|0.01
95991447|NCT00927368|191958019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|102.0|||ANOVA|||Stimulating catheter versus ultrasound guidance alone||102|31|< 0.001
95991448|NCT00927368|191958020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incremental cost (additional cost of stimulating needle compared to ultrasound alone).|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
95991449|NCT00927368|191958020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We estimated incremental cost, or additional cost of stimulating needle + catheter stimulation to stimulating needle alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
95752905|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-1.0|
95991450|NCT00927368|191958020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incremental cost, measured in dollars|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We calculated incremental cost, or the additional cost of stimulating needle + stimulating catheter to ultrasound alone.|We calculated incremental cost, defined as the additional cost of one strategy to the next less costly strategy.||||
95991451|NCT03244033|191958021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.57|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site (p\<.001) and for whether physician contextualized plan (AOR 2.14, p=.001), and random effects of physician and patient.||Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of red flag improved/resolved (vs. not) during outcome period with fixed effects of intervention, site, and whether contextual factor was incorporated into care plan, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||1.64|.57|.91
95991452|NCT03244033|191958022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of red flag, visible/concealed recorder, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR\>1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider probing red flag (vs. not) during visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, \\whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, and whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||3.86|1.13|0.02
95798840|NCT05168800|191568174|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
95798841|NCT05168800|191568175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
95798842|NCT05168800|191568175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95798843|NCT05168800|191568175|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.88
95798844|NCT05168800|191568176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.92
95798845|NCT05168800|191568176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.97
95798846|NCT05168800|191568176|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.83|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.83
95798847|NCT05168800|191568177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.88
95798848|NCT05168800|191568177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.49
95752906|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.6|
95752907|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference of 200 mg BI mi|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.7|
95752908|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-3.0|
95752909|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-2.2|
95798849|NCT05168800|191568177|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.23|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.23
95798850|NCT05168800|191568178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.90
95945564|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.1|-4.9|
95945565|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||1.4|-7.6|
95752910|NCT02037165|191477601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.6|-3.0|
95752911|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.7|-2.7|
95798851|NCT05168800|191568178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.94
95798852|NCT05168800|191568178|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.86|||||||Adjusted Wald test|||||||0.86
95798853|NCT05168800|191568179|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
95798854|NCT05168800|191568179|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.0
95798855|NCT05168800|191568179|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.49|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.49
95798856|NCT05168800|191568180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.88
95945566|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||5.1|-5.3|
95798857|NCT05168800|191568180|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||1.00
95945567|NCT02307682|191862216|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.8|-8.5|
95752912|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.2|
95752913|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.7|
95798858|NCT05168800|191568180|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.02|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.02
95798859|NCT05168800|191568181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.82
95798860|NCT05168800|191568181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.97
95798861|NCT05168800|191568181|EQUIVALENCE|The study was not powered for secondary outcome analyses.||||||0.18|||||||Two-sample z test|||||||0.18
95945568|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.1|
95945569|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-15.3|
95945570|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.2|-16.6|
95991453|NCT03244033|191958023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, source of factor, recorder visible/concealed, and random effects of physician and patient.|OR \> 1 indicates greater likelihood in intervention group vs. control.|Logistic mixed effects regression modeling likelihood of provider incorporating contextual factor into care plan (vs. not) at visit with fixed effects of intervention, site, whether red flag was select on pre-visit questionnaire, whether audiorecorder was visible to provider, whether factor was identified by provider probe, whether factor was revealed by patient, and random effects of patient and provider. Red flags may be clustered in patients; patients are clustered in providers.||5.41|1.32|.006
95991454|NCT01486199|191958034|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing absorptive clearance in CF children vs adult controls||||0.002
95798862|NCT05360056|191568233|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|paired t-test|||Paired t-test was performed comparing the %Time in range from 2 weeks to 12 weeks||||0.03
95798863|NCT05360056|191568235|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon signed rank|9.85|||<|0.0001|||||||paired Wilcoxon rank test|||||||<0.0001
95991455|NCT01486199|191958035|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mucociliary clearance in CF children compared to healthy adults||||0.20
95764103|NCT02854527|191498359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|103.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R2.||115.46|93.60|
95798864|NCT00927472|191568322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0386
95798865|NCT00927472|191568323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3675
95798866|NCT00927472|191568324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0490
95798867|NCT00927472|191568325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95798868|NCT00927472|191568326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95798869|NCT00927472|191568327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
95798870|NCT00927472|191568328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3817
95798871|NCT00927472|191568329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1059
95798872|NCT00927472|191568330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1088
95798873|NCT00927472|191568331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1527
95945571|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-5.4|-19.7|
95945572|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.6|-14.8|
95752914|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
95752915|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
95798874|NCT05317546|191568332|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.33||||||alpha \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||An a priori power analysis was conducted to ensure power to detect differences in neurometabolite levels in the dACC. Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.33
95945573|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-3.9|-17.4|
95945574|NCT02307682|191862217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.5|-17.3|0.0030
95945575|NCT02307682|191862217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-10.9||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-10.9|-25.3|<0.0001
95945576|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||19.0|5.2|
95945577|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||18.2|3.8|
95945578|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-17.7|
95945579|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-16.1|-30.5|
95945580|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||9.0|-4.8|
95991456|NCT01486199|191958036|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing absorptive clearance at t=0 vs t=2 years in pediatric CF subjects||||0.24
95752916|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
95945581|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-11.8|
95991457|NCT01486199|191958037|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing mucociliary clearance at t=0 and t=2yrs in pediatric CF subjects||||0.87
95798875|NCT05317546|191568333|SUPERIORITY|We used linear mixed effects models containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) with random intercepts. For 1H-MRS models, brain tissue composition \[Gray Matter: Brain Matter or GM:BM defined as GM/(GM+WM)\] was included as a covariate.||||||0.75||||||alpha \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for brain tissue composition||Due to type of modeling, participants were included even if they did not complete the second medication allocation.||||0.75
95945582|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.1|-12.0|
95945583|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.2|-18.0|
95752917|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.7|-3.7|
95752918|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.3|
95752919|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-2.3|
95752920|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-2.5|
95945584|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||0.8|-12.5|
95945585|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.4|-16.2|
95991458|NCT01890421|191958078|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|-0.7||||0.8694|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||-8.5|0.8694
95991459|NCT01890421|191958078|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||21.7|<0.0001
95752921|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.2|-4.5|
95752922|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.6|
95752923|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.8|-3.5|
95798876|NCT05317546|191568334|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Several studies have demonstrated that CBD can modulate resting-state or task-based BOLD signal under similar study design (acute dosing, 600 mg CBD) with sample sizes smaller than our sample. Due to the modeling, only participants with usable data from both medication allocation visits were included. Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages.||||>0.05
95798877|NCT05317546|191568335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.82
95798878|NCT05317546|191568336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We were not able to complete a power calculation for this task. We used linear mixed effects models, containing the main effect of medication (CBD vs. placebo), visit (visit 1 vs. visit 2), and sequence (CBD/placebo vs. placebo/CBD) and cue-by-medication interaction terms. Random intercepts were included to account for individual differences.||||0.21
95798879|NCT04707469|191568337|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.27||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.12||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.12|-0.42|0.0006
95798880|NCT04707469|191568337|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete datasets,and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.|Treatment difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference.|ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-0.38|-0.68|<.0001
95798881|NCT04635423|191568376|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|89.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|98.2||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||98.2|55.4|<0.001
95991460|NCT01890421|191958078|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|24.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.6||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant cad per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - primary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||16.6|<0.0001
95798882|NCT04635423|191568377|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|45.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||45.5|34.5|
95798883|NCT04635423|191568378|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||Difference in percentages calculated as % V503 minus % Placebo.|||5.2|-4.4|
95945586|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.6|-15.7|
95752924|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0983|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.0|-3.3|
95752925|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.5|-2.8|
95752926|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.6|-3.7|
95752927|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.2|-3.1|
95752928|NCT02037165|191477602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0986|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-1.4|
95945587|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-5.5|-20.5|
95752929|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.2|-12.5|
95764104|NCT02854527|191498360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|101.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.61|93.54|
95764105|NCT02854527|191498361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|98.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|105.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R3.||105.09|91.85|
95764106|NCT02854527|191498362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|105.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|114.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the first primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.40|96.39|
95764107|NCT02854527|191498363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|104.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.95|114.53|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the second primary outcome measure of treatment R4.||114.53|94.95|
95752930|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.6|
95752931|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.0|-13.3|
95752932|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.3|-8.9|
95752933|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1554|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.8|-10.7|
95752934|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.4|
95945588|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||13.0|-0.8|
95945589|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.6|-7.5|
95945590|NCT02307682|191862217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-3.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.3|-17.4|0.0020
95752935|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-8.7|
95752936|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7688|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-10.3|
95945591|NCT02307682|191862217|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-13.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.1||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-6.1|-20.7|0.0001
95752937|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.857|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.4|-7.0|
95752938|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.07|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-.07|-13.2|
95752939|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.4|-10.9|
95752940|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2806|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.9|-10.1|
95945592|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||8.1|-5.4|
95945593|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||1.2|-11.8|
95945594|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.7|-10.3|
95752941|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.2|-7.8|
95945595|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.4|-14.1|
95945596|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.3|-10.1|
95752942|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||6.1|-6.2|
95798884|NCT04635423|191568381|SUPERIORITY||Observed Efficacy (%)|63.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|86.0||one-sided p-value based on exact binomial method proposed by Chan and Bohidar|Exact Binomial Method Chan and Bohidar||The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) against the primary efficacy endpoint is greater than 0%.|||86.0|2.7|0.023
95752943|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-6.1|
95752944|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.7|-8.8|
95798885|NCT01147458|191568454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
95798886|NCT01147458|191568454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
95798887|NCT01147458|191568455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|1.04|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.04|0.08|0.067
95798888|NCT01147458|191568455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.701|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.28|-0.67|0.701
95798889|NCT01147458|191568456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.29|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.29|-0.15|
95945597|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.6|-14.0|
95945598|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-0.1|-14.7|
95945599|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-5.4|-19.5|
95945600|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||13.5|0.3|
95945601|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||8.4|-4.9|
95752945|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.5|-11.2|
95798890|NCT01147458|191568456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.35|-0.09|
95798891|NCT01147458|191568457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.239|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.85|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||2.85|-0.34|
95798892|NCT01147458|191568457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.95|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.28|-1.95|
95991461|NCT01890421|191958079|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|7.4||||0.0455|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||0.5|0.0455
95991462|NCT01890421|191958079|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference]|34.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|25.2||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||25.2|<0.0001
95991463|NCT01890421|191958079|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|30.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|21.7||||McNemar 1-sided test,alpha level of 2.5%|||Statistical analysis 3 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - additional secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on the blinded readers' assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||21.7|<0.0001
95991464|NCT01890421|191958084|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|35.8|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 5%|||Statistical analysis 1 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||35.8|18.5|<0.0001
95752946|NCT02037165|191477603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.6|-8.7|
95752947|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.3|-8.9|
95798893|NCT01147458|191568458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|4.25|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||4.25|-0.13|
95798894|NCT01147458|191568458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|1.88|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.88|-2.53|
95798895|NCT01147458|191568459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.03|1.58|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||1.58|-0.03|
95991465|NCT01890421|191958084|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|34.4|||McNemar 2-sided test,alpha level of 10%|||Statistical analysis 2 for presence of a myocardial perfusion defect indicating significant CAD per participant on gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI versus unenhanced wall motion CMRI images - secondary analysis of sensitivity comparison based on investigator's assessment. Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI. Maximum stenosis severity at least \>=50% by QCA.||34.4|19.9|<0.0001
95991466|NCT04871711|191958094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|16.1||5% significance level (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||16.1|3.6|0.006
95752948|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.3|-9.8|
95798896|NCT01147458|191568459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.65|-0.97|
95752949|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-0.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-0.3|-11.9|
95798897|NCT01147458|191568460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.20|-0.18|
95798898|NCT01147458|191568460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.07|
95752950|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4987|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||0.1|-13.8|
95752951|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.1|-12.6|
95752952|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-11.9|
95752953|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|4.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.3|-10.5|
95798899|NCT01147458|191568461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.12|
95945602|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.7|-15.7|
95752954|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.186|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.5|-12.1|
95798900|NCT01147458|191568461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a mixed model with random participant effect, period and treatment as fixed effects, utilizing the baseline scores (one for each treatment period) as inter- and intra- participant covariates.||0.31|-0.11|
95798901|NCT01017250|191568478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.04
95798902|NCT01017250|191568479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
95945603|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-5.6|-19.8|
95752955|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.1|-9.5|
95752956|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5461|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||1.4|-8.7|
95752957|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-7.4|
95752958|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||2.5|-9.0|
95798903|NCT01017250|191568480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.02
95798904|NCT01017250|191568481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.0005
95798905|NCT01017250|191568482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.53
95798906|NCT01017250|191568483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.002
95752959|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4569|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.0|-9.8|
95752960|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.5|-7.0|
95798907|NCT01017250|191568484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.76
95798908|NCT01017250|191568485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||This was a test on the change from baseline to the post-SRS time point for all patients.||||0.34
95798909|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.09|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for primary efficacy composite endpoint.||1.09|0.40|= 0.101
95798910|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.91|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for Symptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||2.91|0.43|= 0.814
95798911|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.07|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic lower extremity distal DVT.||2.07|0.08|= 0.260
95798912|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic upper extremity DVT.||2.39|0.19|= 0.538
95798913|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for symptomatic non-fatal PE.||3.52|0.29|= 0.977
95798914|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.11|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for asymptomatic lower extremity proximal DVT.||1.11|0.11|= 0.063
95798915|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.62|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for incidental PE.||1.62|0.21|= 0.301
95798916|NCT02555878|191568486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.18|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for VTE-related death.||3.18|0.03|= 0.314
95752961|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.8|-9.4|
95752962|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.1|-11.5|
95798917|NCT02555878|191568487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.49|||Log Rank|||||6.49|0.59|= 0.265
95798918|NCT01164475|191568499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|9.17|||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison was done using the logistic regression model, adjusted for country and baseline PB CD34+ cell count.||9.17|0.44|0.395
95798919|NCT06717399|191568572|OTHER|The number of participants (n=15) was calculated using an effect size of 0.89. This effect size was based on a randomized clinical trial utilizing a structured mindfulness meditation program on moderate sleep disturbances in older adults (Black et al. 2015). A power of 0.8 and a significance level of 0.05 was utilized to calculate the sample size, a minimum of 12 participants is required to demonstrate significance in this study. To account for 20% attrition total participants needed is 15.||||||0.00058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null Hypothesis:~● There will not be a change in sleep quality after participation in eight mindfulness meditation sessions as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index."||||0.00058
95945604|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-5.9|
95945605|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||2.6|-9.8|
95945606|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||2.5|-11.2|
95945607|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-1.0|-15.3|
95945608|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.6|-8.9|
95945609|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||1.7|-11.2|
95945610|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.7|-10.8|
95752963|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||8.8|-7.7|
95798920|NCT06717399|191568573|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95798921|NCT00177671|191568583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.41|||Log Rank|||We followed the intention to treat principle. We used Kaplan-Meier curves to quantify the percentage of participants who were free of depression recurrence over time. Cox proportional hazard models quantified hazard ratios comparing the 2 treatment groups.||4.41|1.00|.05
95752964|NCT02037165|191477604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||4.7|-8.8|
95991467|NCT04871711|191958095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.6||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.6|15.5|<0.001
95752965|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-29.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.3|29.0|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.0|-88.3|
95752966|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-16.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.8613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.5|42.9|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||42.9|-75.5|
95752967|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|57.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||57.5|-42.2|
95752968|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-20.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.311|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.7|25.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||25.8|-66.7|
95752969|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.1894|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|33.4|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||33.4|-58.6|
95752970|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.7285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|46.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||46.5|-47.8|
95752971|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-19.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.6359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|35.7|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||35.7|-74.3|
95798922|NCT02293499|191568585|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.043
95752972|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-25.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.5524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.9|29.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||29.5|-79.9|
95752973|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|36.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 50 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||36.5|-70.9|
95752974|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|18.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 0:30h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||18.5|-97.7|
95752975|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-37.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5797|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|21.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 1:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||21.6|-95.7|
95752976|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-52.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.8429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-3.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 2:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-3.1|-101.8|
95945611|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-3.5|-17.3|
95945612|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||11.0|-2.3|
95945613|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-9.8|
95945614|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||0.7|-13.2|
95945615|NCT02307682|191862217|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-6.6|-19.7|
95945616|NCT02307682|191862218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0574
95752977|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.0541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-14.1|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 3:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-14.1|-105.6|
95945617|NCT02307682|191862218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-test row mean score (scores=table) stratified by age categories (\<75, ≥75 years) and baseline fluid status)||||||0.0012
95752978|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-39.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.9336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|5.5|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 4:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||5.5|-85.5|
95858965|NCT00473382|191675733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage at Month 24|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.4||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).|The percentage for each group and the difference in percentage between groups were estimated using the weighted average of the observed percentages and the differences in observed percentages over the strata using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||36.4|20.2|<0.0001
95945618|NCT02307682|191862219|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-6.5||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.3||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 3 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||0.3|-13.2|0.0331
95945619|NCT02307682|191862219|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-10.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.5||1-sided testing for superiority of brolucizumab 6 mg versus aflibercept 2 mg|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for age categories (\<75, \>=75 years) and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for the treatment difference estimated using bootstrap method.|||-3.5|-17.1|0.0013
95945620|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.3|-0.5|
95945621|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||2.1|-0.9|
95945622|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.8|
95945623|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.4|-1.9|
95945624|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.9|-1.6|
95945625|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.7|-1.9|
95945626|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified|ANCOVA|Analyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 3mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||2.7|-1.2|
95945627|NCT02307682|191862220|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least squares mean difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANCOVA|nalyzed using pairwise ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect factor and corresponding baseline value of the endpoint as a covariate.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||3.0|-0.9|
95945628|NCT05080777|191862224|EQUIVALENCE|Group, Time, and Group x Time effect tests were performed using MLM.||||||0.295||||||.P-value shown is based on the Group x Time F statistic used in multilevel modeling (MLM)|Multilevel modeling (MLM)|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.295
95945629|NCT05080777|191862225|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and group x time effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.57||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.570
95945630|NCT05080777|191862226|EQUIVALENCE|Group, time, and time x group effect tests were performed using multilevel modeling (MLM).||||||0.461||||||P-value shown is based on the group x time F statistic used in MLM.|MLM|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no group differences, no time differences, and no group x time differences, in changes over time between the two treatment groups. Because this was a pilot and feasibility study, no power calculations were conducted.||||0.461
95991468|NCT04871711|191958096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|31.7||Evaluated at 5% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||31.7|14.0|<0.001
95752979|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-38.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4683|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.6|7.6|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 5:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||7.6|-85.6|
95752980|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-63.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.3484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.1|-9.3|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 6:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-9.3|-118.1|
95752981|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.2866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.6|-7.2|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 22:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||-7.2|-115.6|
95752982|NCT02037165|191477605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.7541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|3.8|||||Adjusted mean treatment difference between 200 mg BI 1026706 and placebo in the change from baseline. This analysis represents the results evaluated at 24:00h after the dose administration.|A repeated measures model was applied to the change from baseline of the endpoint which included the fixed effects 'period', 'treatment', 'mean of the period baselines of primary PD endpoint', 'baseline of primary PD endpoint of the respective period', and 'session', the random effect 'subject', and the interaction terms 'mean of the period baselines × session', 'baseline of the respective period × session', 'period × session', and 'treatment × session'.||3.8|-102.6|
95752983|NCT01673698|191477636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0041
95752984|NCT01673698|191477637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95752985|NCT01673698|191477638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5610
95752986|NCT05011123|191477659|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||1.8|-3.4|
95752987|NCT05011123|191477660|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.0|-4.0|
95752988|NCT04221789|191477683|OTHER|differences in proportions|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2||Statistical significance threshold p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||Ho no difference in treatment success between groups. The study was originally powered to detect a 15% difference between groups||1.20|1.02|0.049
95752989|NCT04221789|191477684|OTHER|comparison of proportions and relative risk with 95% CI|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||<|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||statistical significance if p value \<0.05|Chi-squared||intervention / control|Ho No difference between arms. 80% power to detect a 10% difference||0.97|0.50|<0.043
95752990|NCT04394351|191477696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.37|392.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||392.82|7.37|<0.0001
95752991|NCT04394351|191477696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|399.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||399.54|5.47|<0.0001
95752992|NCT04394351|191477697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|178.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.84|1682.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1682.4|18.84|<0.0001
95752993|NCT04394351|191477697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|410.23||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was derived by CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Odds ratio and corresponding CI are based on CMH test stratified by baseline weight group|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||410.23|7.45|<0.0001
95752994|NCT04394351|191477698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-107.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.249|-74.9|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-74.900|-139.249|<0.0001
95752995|NCT04394351|191477698|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-98.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.463|-65.37||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-65.370|-132.463|<0.0001
95752996|NCT04394351|191477699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0325|-0.7714|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7714|-1.0325|<0.0001
95752997|NCT04394351|191477699|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|-0.644||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6440|-0.9170|<0.0001
95752998|NCT04394351|191477700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0095|-0.7568|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.7568|-1.0095|<0.0001
95752999|NCT04394351|191477700|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.769|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9013|-0.6362||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-0.6362|-0.9013|<0.0001
95753000|NCT04394351|191477701|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.95|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9500|-2.4400|<0.0001
95945631|NCT04218357|191862270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equation with standard errors, and an unstructured correlation matrix with medication and time as within-subject factors.||All outcomes were assessed in real-time in the laboratory testing probenecid compared to placebo condition during the alcohol administration procedure.||||0.05
95753001|NCT04394351|191477701|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.82||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.8200|-2.4500|<0.0001
95945632|NCT05048394|191862288|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95753002|NCT04394351|191477702|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.96|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.9600|-3.3500|<0.0001
95753003|NCT04394351|191477702|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.62||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-1.6200|-3.3100|<0.0001
95753004|NCT04394351|191477703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-2.63|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.63|-4.94|<0.0001
95753005|NCT04394351|191477703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.1||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||-2.10|-4.59|<0.0001
95753006|NCT04394351|191477704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.038|||ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.038|-0.244|0.1526
95753007|NCT04394351|191477704|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.146||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.146|-0.155|0.9533
95753008|NCT04394351|191477705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.527|3.422||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||3.422|-0.527|0.1507
95945633|NCT05048394|191862289|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as a difference of 0.||||||0.14||||||Threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95945634|NCT05256797|191862293|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.71||||||Hazard ratio||0.71|0.66|
95945635|NCT05037513|191862306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
95945636|NCT05037513|191862307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|62.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.2|0.8|<0.05
95753009|NCT04394351|191477705|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.107|2.117||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||2.117|-2.107|0.9965
95798923|NCT02293499|191568585|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
95991469|NCT04871711|191958097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||18.9|5.7|0.001
95753010|NCT04394351|191477706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.03||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.030|-0.139|0.2064
95753011|NCT04394351|191477706|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.112||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.112|-0.069|0.6361
95753012|NCT04394351|191477707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.330|-0.072|0.2086
95753013|NCT04394351|191477707|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.286||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.286|-0.088|0.2975
95753014|NCT04394351|191477708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.615|1.007||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.007|-4.615|0.2085
95753015|NCT04394351|191477708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.972|1.26||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||1.260|-3.972|0.3098
95753016|NCT04394351|191477709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.186||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab High Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.186|-0.046|0.2360
95753017|NCT04394351|191477709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.181||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||CI was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs. placebo) of the LS mean change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, baseline weight group strata as fixed factors.|Part A: Dupilumab Low Dose versus Part A: Pooled Placebo||0.181|-0.037|0.1939
95753018|NCT05205772|191477765|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95753019|NCT05205772|191477765|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95753020|NCT05205772|191477765|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95753021|NCT05205772|191477765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
95753022|NCT05205772|191477765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95753023|NCT05205772|191477765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
95753024|NCT05205772|191477766|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
95753025|NCT05205772|191477767|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for age.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
95753026|NCT05205772|191477768|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
95798924|NCT02293499|191568585|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.4119||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on quality of life||||.0079
95753027|NCT04319718|191477773|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.025
95753028|NCT04319718|191477774|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.47
95753029|NCT04319718|191477778|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
95753030|NCT04319718|191477779|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.51
95753031|NCT04319718|191477780|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.09
95753032|NCT04319718|191477781|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
95753033|NCT04319718|191477781|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.24
95753034|NCT04319718|191477781|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.27
95753035|NCT03188666|191477784|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.6||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-51.8|0.0741
95753036|NCT03188666|191477785|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.9||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|30.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.9|-80.8|0.3726
95753037|NCT03188666|191477786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
95753038|NCT03188666|191477787|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.6||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-53.9|0.0756
95753039|NCT03188666|191477788|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.8||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.1|30.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||30.5|-86.1|0.3407
95753040|NCT03188666|191477789|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.96|0.2656
95945637|NCT05886777|191862314|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.782|1.249|||||GMRs and 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.249|0.782|
95945638|NCT05886777|191862315|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.697|1.162|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.162|0.697|
95945639|NCT05886777|191862316|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.605|1.168|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating mean differences of the logarithms of titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.168|0.605|
95991470|NCT04871711|191958098|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|15.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||15.6|5.3|<0.001
95753041|NCT03188666|191477790|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.01|0.2651
95753042|NCT03188666|191477797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared number of new lesions per participant by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
95753043|NCT03188666|191477798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0027
95753044|NCT03188666|191477799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|McNemar|||Compared percent of participants with new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0047
95753045|NCT03188666|191477802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3663||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3663
95753046|NCT03188666|191477803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0010
95798925|NCT02293499|191568585|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|2.1132||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of ACQ Total score subscale on quality of life||||.0172
95753047|NCT03188666|191477809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total new lesion volume per participant by CT at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0039
95753048|NCT03188666|191477810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273||||||Week 56 vs. Week 28|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compared total lesion activity per participant in new lesions by PET at week 28 (relative to baseline) and week 56 (relative to week 28).||||0.0273
95753049|NCT03188666|191477811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2123||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2123
95753050|NCT03188666|191477812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||Period 2 vs. Period 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1528
95753051|NCT03696953|191477832|OTHER|t test comparing||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95753052|NCT03696953|191477833|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95753053|NCT03696953|191477833|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95753054|NCT03696953|191477834|OTHER|T test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 36 week AP-GI-SA Scores between probiotic and placebo groups at 36 weeks||||0.01
95753055|NCT03696953|191477835|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95753056|NCT03696953|191477836|OTHER|T test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95753057|NCT03222583|191477906|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 96% if the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage was \> 90%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.9||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||98.9|95.5|
95753058|NCT03222583|191477907|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT1-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 97% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 91%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|98.3|
95753059|NCT03222583|191477908|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of GT2-infected participants in Arm A with SVR12 was non-inferior to the historical SVR12 rate of 95% if the LCB of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage was \> 89%.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||In order to control the Type I error rate, a fixed sequence testing procedure was used for the 3 ranked primary efficacy endpoints. Only if success had been demonstrated for the first primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the second primary endpoint. Similarly, only if success had been demonstrated for the second primary endpoint was testing to proceed to the third primary endpoint.||100.0|95.4|
95753060|NCT04280705|191477912|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|1.12|<0.001
95753061|NCT04280705|191477936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.058
95753062|NCT04280705|191477937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Barnard's Exact Test|||||||0.010
95753063|NCT04280705|191477949|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|1.08|0.002
95945640|NCT05886777|191862317|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 1, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.618|1.014|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.014|0.618|
95945641|NCT05886777|191862318|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.785|1.423|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.423|0.785|
95945642|NCT05886777|191862319|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|1.402|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.402|0.909|
95991471|NCT04871711|191958099|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.4||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||29.4|12.6|<0.001
95753064|NCT04280705|191477950|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|1.12|<0.001
95753065|NCT04280705|191477951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|1.10|<0.001
95753066|NCT04280705|191477952|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58||||||This analysis is for Asian participants||1.58|0.73|
95753067|NCT04280705|191477952|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants||1.72|0.91|
95753068|NCT04280705|191477952|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.57||||||This analysis is for White participants||1.57|1.06|
95753069|NCT04280705|191477952|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.58||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||2.58|1.10|
95753070|NCT04280705|191477953|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.55|1.10|
95753071|NCT04280705|191477953|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants||1.73|0.94|
95753072|NCT04280705|191477954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.56||||||This analysis is for Male participants||1.56|1.09|
95753073|NCT04280705|191477954|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.66||||||This analysis is for Female participants||1.66|1.03|
95753074|NCT00368979|191478018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.003||95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.7|0.003
95753075|NCT00912093|191478023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
95753076|NCT00912093|191478024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
95753077|NCT00912093|191478025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Peto Peto Wilcoxon|||||||0.012
95753078|NCT00912093|191478026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
95753079|NCT00912093|191478027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Peto-Peto Wilcoxon|||||||<0.001
95753080|NCT03514641|191478034|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
95753081|NCT03514641|191478035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.54|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.54|-4.32|0.0117
95753082|NCT03514641|191478036|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83||Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP|Covariance|||||1.83|0.92|0.1317
95753083|NCT03514641|191478037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.3|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.30|1.11|0.0113
95753084|NCT03514641|191478038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|-2.42|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-2.42|-6.83|<0.0001
95753085|NCT03514641|191478039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.62|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.62|1.32|0.0004
95753086|NCT03514641|191478040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.12|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.12|-1.79|0.0863
95753087|NCT03514641|191478041|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.08|1.06|0.0232
95945643|NCT05886777|191862320|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.773|1.434|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.434|0.773|
95753088|NCT03514641|191478042|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.91|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.91|1.13|0.0140
95753089|NCT03514641|191478043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.92|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.92|-3.70|0.0011
95753090|NCT03514641|191478044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.35|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||2.35|1.13|0.0094
95798926|NCT02293499|191568586|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||0.295
95753091|NCT03514641|191478045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-0.83|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||-0.83|-5.57|0.0083
95753092|NCT03514641|191478046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.19|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.19|-1.87|0.1085
95753093|NCT03514641|191478047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.17|||Covariance|Covariance model diabetes status, eGFR at screening, pre-treatment status, treatment, and baseline 24-hour mean SBP||||0.17|-2.67|0.0837
95753094|NCT01831765|191478078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixed effect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.07|-0.23|
95753095|NCT01831765|191478078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomised treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c analysed using a mixedeffect model for repeated measurements including visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36. The model included treatment, region and strata (combination of bolus adjusting method, basal treatment regimen and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and frequently sampled meal test subgroup) as fixed effects, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.12|-0.04|
95753096|NCT02605993|191478087|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 253 for Cohorts 1 to 4, with an estimated standard deviation (SD) of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
95753097|NCT02605993|191478087|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281. A sample size of 20 participants from the combined cohorts was required to provide approximately 95% power to detect a mean paired difference in LDH from Baseline of -40% at Day 281 for Cohort 4 only, with an estimated SD of 45%. This was based on a 2-sided paired t-test, with 5% type I error rate. To account for a possible 15% dropout rate, up to 26 participants were enrolled.||||<0.0001
95753098|NCT02605993|191478088|OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0214
95753099|NCT02605993|191478088|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.0313
95753100|NCT02605993|191478089|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||tatistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0625
95753101|NCT02605993|191478089|OTHER|MMRM||||||0.5||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.||||0.5000
95753102|NCT02605993|191478090|OTHER|||||||0.4871||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.4871
95798927|NCT02293499|191568586|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
95945644|NCT05886777|191862321|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 1,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.807|1.515|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 1\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.515|0.807|
95991472|NCT04871711|191958100|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
95753103|NCT02605993|191478090|OTHER|||||||0.4688||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.4688
95753104|NCT02605993|191478091|OTHER|||||||0.0023||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0023
95753105|NCT02605993|191478092|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0 for the combined cohorts.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohorts 1 to 4 combined at Day 253.||||0.0029
95753106|NCT02605993|191478092|OTHER|||||||0.125||||||Hypothesis testing was performed at the 0.05 level of significance. P-value tested whether the percent changes differed from 0.|MMRM|||Statistical Analysis presented is of Cohort 4 at Day 281.||||0.1250
95753107|NCT00117325|191478107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.67|0.050
95753108|NCT00117325|191478108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Week 1-4|ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.05|-0.74|0.027
95753109|NCT00117325|191478109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatment.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis.|Effectiveness of study medication for relieving non-allergic rhinitis symptoms over the entire treatment period (Total response) was analyzed.|||0.184
95753110|NCT00117325|191478110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.00|-0.70|0.051
95753111|NCT00117325|191478111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.304||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD up to Week 4 analysis||0.03|-0.64|0.076
95753112|NCT00117325|191478112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.51||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||0.75|-9.77|0.093
95753113|NCT00117325|191478113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.372||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD Week 1-4 analysis.||-0.90|-11.8|0.023
95945645|NCT05886777|191862322|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.769|1.288|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.288|0.769|
95753114|NCT00117325|191478114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.01|-0.24|0.061
95753115|NCT00117325|191478114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal Congestion||0.01|-0.25|0.061
95945646|NCT05886777|191862323|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A, RSV B as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ4) \<=ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.836|1.429|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.429|0.836|
95945647|NCT05886777|191862324|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.594|1.19|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.190|0.594|
95945648|NCT05886777|191862325|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 2,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|1.125|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 2\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.125|0.632|
95945649|NCT05886777|191862326|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.123|1.801|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.801|1.123|
95945650|NCT05886777|191862327|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.977|1.651|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.651|0.977|
95945651|NCT05886777|191862328|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.208|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.208|0.610|
95945652|NCT05886777|191862329|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 was evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 7, 3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.764|1.34|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.340|0.764|
95753116|NCT00117325|191478114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.03|-0.22|0.138
95753117|NCT00117325|191478115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.02|-0.24|0.087
95753118|NCT00117325|191478115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
95753119|NCT00117325|191478115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.25|0.106
95753120|NCT00117325|191478116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rhinorrhea||-0.00|-0.26|0.048
95753121|NCT00117325|191478116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Nasal congestion||0.01|-0.26|0.076
95753122|NCT00117325|191478116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg for post-nasal drip||0.04|-0.22|0.164
95753123|NCT00117325|191478117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for Rhinorrhea||0.03|-0.22|0.136
95753124|NCT00117325|191478117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1||95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for nasal congestion||0.02|-0.24|0.100
95753125|NCT00117325|191478117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for post-nasal drip||0.02|-0.24|0.100
95753126|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 1||-0.10|-0.80|0.011
95753127|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.325||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 2||0.05|-0.70|0.089
95753128|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.393||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 3||0.00|-0.79|0.052
95753129|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 4||0.13|-0.65|0.187
95753130|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.298||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 5||0.12|-0.72|0.164
95753131|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 6||-0.15|-1.00|0.008
95945653|NCT05886777|191862330|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.914|3.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||3.232|1.914|
95945654|NCT05886777|191862331|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.049|1.612|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.612|1.049|
95753132|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 7||0.05|-0.80|0.082
95753133|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 8||0.20|-0.67|0.296
95753134|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 9||0.24|-0.62|0.383
95945655|NCT05886777|191862332|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.155|2.165|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||2.165|1.155|
95945656|NCT05886777|191862333|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to QIV was evaluated by following hypothesis for each of 4 strains included in QIV as measured by HAI titer: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ5) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, and ln(μ1) and ln(μ5) are natural log of the geometric mean of HAI titers 1 month after vaccination for Group 7,5, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|4.604|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 7\] minus Reference Group \[Group 5\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||4.604|2.640|
95945657|NCT05886777|191862334|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.131|1.808|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.808|1.131|
95945658|NCT05886777|191862335|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis(H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to RSVpreF was evaluated by following hypothesis for both RSV A and B as measured by NT: H0: ln(μ1)- ln(μ4) \<= ln(0.5) where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority, ln(μ1), ln(μ4) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6, 4, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.773|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 4\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.773|1.060|
95945659|NCT05886777|191862336|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.673|1.3|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.300|0.673|
95991473|NCT04871711|191958101|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||14.7|3.8|0.004
95753135|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 10||-0.00|-0.92|0.048
95753136|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.172||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 11||0.29|-0.64|0.469
95753137|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 12||0.12|-0.80|0.151
95753138|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.344||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 13||0.12|-0.81|0.145
95753139|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 14||0.21|-0.68|0.297
95753140|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 15||0.07|-0.82|0.094
95753141|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 16||0.03|-0.89|0.064
95753142|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.563||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 17||-0.09|-1.03|0.019
95753143|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.457||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 18||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
95753144|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.633||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 19||-0.17|-1.09|0.007
95991474|NCT04871711|191958102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|30.6||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.6|14.4|<0.001
95991475|NCT04871711|191958103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||26.5|12.5|<0.001
95753145|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 20||0.24|-0.69|0.348
95753146|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.76|0.243
95753147|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 22||-0.12|-1.07|0.014
95753148|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.474||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 23||0.01|-0.96|0.055
95753149|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.464||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 24||0.02|-0.95|0.062
95753150|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 25||0.05|-0.91|0.079
95753151|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 26||-0.10|-1.06|0.019
95753152|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 27||0.01|-0.97|0.056
95753153|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM iTNSS at Day 28||-0.11|-1.20|0.018
95753154|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 1||0.1|-0.56|0.194
95753155|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 2||0.08|-0.61|0.134
95753156|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 3||0.05|-0.67|0.091
95753157|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 4||0.08|-0.64|0.131
95753158|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 5||0.23|-0.49|0.483
95753159|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 6||0.10|-0.70|0.137
95753160|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 7||0.10|-0.69|0.142
95753161|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 8||0.15|-0.64|0.220
95753162|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.79|0.081
95753163|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.453||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 10||-0.04|-0.87|0.034
95753164|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 11||0.11|-0.74|0.150
95753165|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.333||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 12||0.08|-0.74|0.111
95753166|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 13||0.19|-0.69|0.261
95753167|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 14||0.09|-0.78|0.123
95798928|NCT02293499|191568587|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.140
95753168|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 15||0.01|-0.84|0.056
95753169|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.566||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 16||-0.13|-1.00|0.011
95753170|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 17||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
95753171|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.301||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 18||0.13|-0.74|0.175
95753172|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.449||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 19||-0.02|-0.87|0.039
95753173|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.315||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 20||0.12|-0.75|0.152
95798929|NCT02293499|191568587|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
95753174|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.424||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 21||0.02|-0.87|0.063
95753175|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.454||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 22||-0.01|-0.90|0.044
95753176|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 23||0.14|-0.77|0.179
95753177|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 24||-0.04|-0.92|0.034
95753178|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 25||0.31|-0.62|0.505
95753179|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.317||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 26||0.15|-0.79|0.186
95753180|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.283||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 27||0.18|-0.75|0.234
95753181|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for rTNSS at Day 28||-0.12|-1.17|0.017
95991476|NCT04871711|191958104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|30.9||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||30.9|12.4|<0.001
95753182|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 1||0.06|-0.70|0.095
95753183|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 2||0.15|-0.61|0.236
95753184|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.255||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 3||0.14|-0.65|0.205
95753185|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 4||0.05|-0.73|0.084
95753186|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 5||0.26|-0.55|0.475
95753187|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 6||0.14|-0.73|0.178
95753188|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 7||0.04|-0.85|0.071
95753189|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.111||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 8||0.33|-0.55|0.621
95753190|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 9||0.25|-0.66|0.372
95753191|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
95798930|NCT02293499|191568588|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.268
95753192|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 11||0.14|-0.75|0.183
95753193|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.226||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 12||0.22|-0.67|0.320
95753194|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.188||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 13||0.28|-0.66|0.431
95753195|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 14||0.15|-0.75|0.191
95753196|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 15||-0.02|-0.94|0.043
95753197|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.619||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
95753198|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.495||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.02|-0.97|0.040
95753199|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 18||0.18|-0.71|0.249
95753200|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 19||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
95753201|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 20||0.23|-0.71|0.321
95753202|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.568||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 21||-0.09|-1.04|0.019
95753203|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.419||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 22||0.07|-0.91|0.092
95753204|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 23||0.28|-0.69|0.404
95753205|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.546||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 24||-0.06|-1.03|0.027
95753206|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 25||0.26|-0.71|0.357
95753207|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 26||0.10|-0.90|0.114
95798931|NCT02293499|191568588|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.14
95753208|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 27||0.19|-0.81|0.228
95753209|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for AM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.16|-1.29|0.012
95753210|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.093||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 1||0.30|-0.49|0.643
95753211|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 2||0.10|-0.66|0.150
95753212|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 3||0.12|-0.70|0.162
95753213|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 4||0.17|-0.65|0.242
95753214|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.223||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 5||0.18|-0.63|0.278
95753215|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.282||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 6||0.15|-0.71|0.200
95753216|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 7||0.27|-0.60|0.456
95753217|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.385||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 8||0.04|-0.81|0.076
95753218|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.396||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 9||0.05|-0.85|0.084
95753219|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.481||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 10||-0.02|-0.94|0.040
95753220|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 11||0.06|-0.87|0.090
95991477|NCT04871711|191958105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|32.7||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||32.7|15.2|<0.001
95991478|NCT04871711|191958106|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|27.5||Evaluated at 4% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||27.5|11.8|<0.001
95991479|NCT04871711|191958107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||24.3|10.1|<0.001
95753221|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.432||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 12||0.02|-0.88|0.060
95753222|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.277||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 13||0.20|-0.75|0.252
95753223|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 14||0.19|-0.79|0.229
95753224|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.373||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 15||0.08|-0.83|0.109
95753225|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 16||-0.01|-0.96|
95753226|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 17||-0.23|-1.17|0.003
95753227|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 18||0.15|-0.81|0.182
95753228|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 19||0.15|-0.75|0.194
95753229|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 20||0.10|-0.80|0.129
95753230|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.292||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 21||0.19|-0.77|0.232
95753231|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.499||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 22||-0.02|-0.98|0.042
95753232|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.356||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 23||0.13|-0.84|0.150
95753233|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.398||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 24||0.06|-0.86|0.090
95753234|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 25||0.46|-0.52|0.909
95753235|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.233||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 26||0.26|-0.73|0.354
95798932|NCT02293499|191568589|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.001||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.238
95753236|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 27||0.20|-0.78|0.245
95753237|NCT00117325|191478118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.601||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method was used adjusting for baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||Placebo versus Fluticasone Furoate 110 mcg QD for PM rTNSS at Day 28||-0.03|-1.17|0.038
95753238|NCT04620135|191478180|SUPERIORITY||The least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.31||Analyzed as ANCOVA with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with MCMC and regression-based multiple imputation to impute missing data.|ANCOVA||||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint employed an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 as the response, baseline mean diurnal IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect, using the ITT population with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and regression based multiple imputation (MI) techniques to impute missing data. The least squares (LS) mean difference (netarsudil - ripasudil) was presented with a 2-sided p-value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A success criterion for the superiority of netarsudil to ripasudil was defined as the 2-sided p value ≤ 0.05 for testing the difference (netarsudil QD - ripasudil BID) to 0 and the point estimate of the LS mean difference of \< 0.|-1.31|-2.17|<0.00001
95753239|NCT01442688|191478184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.995|
95753240|NCT01442688|191478185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.940|
95945660|NCT05886777|191862337|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) to assess noninferiority with respect to BNT162b2 will be evaluated by following hypothesis for both SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strain and reference strain as measured by NT:H0: ln(μ2)- ln(μ3) \<= ln(0.5)where ln(0.5) corresponds to a 2-fold margin for noninferiority and ln(μ2) and ln(μ3) are natural log of geometric mean of NT 1 month after vaccination for Group 6,3, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.281|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Intervention Group \[Group 6\] minus Reference Group \[Group 3\]) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|||1.281|0.740|
95945661|NCT06140290|191862372|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|115.94|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||115.94|101.20|
95945662|NCT06140290|191862373|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.02|134.22|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||134.22|108.02|
95945663|NCT06140290|191862374|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.17|126.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||126.38|105.17|
95945664|NCT06140290|191862375|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the reference treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|114.73|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using a mixed effect model, with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||114.73|99.33|
95945665|NCT06140290|191862376|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.76|108.38|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA (Analysis of variance) model with treatment as a fixed effect.||108.38|77.76|
95753241|NCT02701413|191478191|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95753242|NCT02701413|191478195|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95753243|NCT04795908|191478200|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.1997|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1997
95753244|NCT04795908|191478201|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistical significant differences between groups||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
95753245|NCT04795908|191478202|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.6228|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6228
95753246|NCT04795908|191478203|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8984
95753247|NCT04795908|191478204|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.8188|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8188
95753248|NCT04795908|191478205|NON_INFERIORITY|Looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0288|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0288
95945666|NCT06140290|191862376|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.33|122.19|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||122.19|86.33|
95945667|NCT06140290|191862377|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.42|107.37|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.37|69.42|
95945668|NCT06140290|191862377|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|124.7|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.70|76.99|
95945669|NCT06140290|191862378|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.1|107.68|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||107.68|73.10|
95945670|NCT06140290|191862378|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.74|120.83|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||120.83|78.74|
95753249|NCT04795908|191478206|NON_INFERIORITY|looking for statistically significant differences between groups||||||0.0524|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0524
95753250|NCT00311311|191478210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.07||P-value and 95% CI for least square (LS) mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.070|0.001|0.0445
95753251|NCT00311311|191478210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.064||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||0.064|0.004|0.0288
95753252|NCT00311311|191478210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.060|0.004|0.0269
95798933|NCT02293499|191568589|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.43
95798934|NCT02293499|191568589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.203||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.024
95753253|NCT00311311|191478210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.060|-0.005|0.0970
95753254|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 12 Months Post-transplant||1.09|0.39|<.0001
95753255|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.67|0.15|0.0022
95753256|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.19||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 12 Months Post-transplant||0.19|-0.03|0.1612
95991480|NCT04871711|191958108|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|34.3||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||34.3|17.2|<0.001
95991481|NCT04871711|191958109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|33.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.0|15.5|<0.001
95753257|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 12 Months Post-transplant||0.86|0.26|0.0005
95753258|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 18 Months Post-transplant||1.02|0.30|0.0006
95753259|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.61|0.08|0.0126
95753260|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 18 Months Post-transplant||0.17|-0.04|0.2380
95753261|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 18 Months Post-transplant||0.88|0.27|0.0003
95753262|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 24 Months Post-transplant||1.00|0.17|0.0065
95798935|NCT02293499|191568590|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.484
95991482|NCT04871711|191958110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-23.8||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HECSI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-23.8|-46.7|<0.001
95753263|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.60|-0.04|0.0845
95753264|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 24 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.06|0.3742
95753265|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 24 Months Post-transplant||0.92|0.27|0.0006
95753266|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.03||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|TC 36 Months Post-transplant||1.03|-0.16|0.1488
95945671|NCT06140290|191862379|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment F) with practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.01|112.17|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||112.17|79.01|
95753267|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.62||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|LDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.62|-0.33|0.5460
95753268|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.16||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|HDL 36 Months Post-transplant||0.16|-0.12|0.7511
95753269|NCT00311311|191478213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.06||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|Tg 36 Months Post-transplant||1.06|0.20|0.0048
95753270|NCT00311311|191478214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.91||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.91|-0.36|0.1757
95753271|NCT00311311|191478214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.89||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.89|-0.00|0.0509
95753272|NCT00311311|191478214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.31||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.31|-0.09|0.0683
95753273|NCT00311311|191478215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.47||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|30.85||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.85|-105.79|0.2741
95945672|NCT06140290|191862379|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Here, Etrasimod 2mg (Treatment G) without practice session was the test treatment, while Etrasimod 2mg IR tablet (Treatment A) was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.04|124.16|||||Ratio (Test/Reference) and its associated 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect.||124.16|86.04|
95945673|NCT02036970|191862387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|12.74||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PAH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated and compared with placebo through 16 weeks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk16 as primary endpoint.||12.74|-16.22|0.8133
95945674|NCT02036970|191862387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|17.2||The p-value comparison is for the difference in the change in 6WMD from baseline at Week 16 for bardoxolone methyl relative to placebo in participants with pulmonary hypertension (PH)|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Net) = Bardoxolone methyl - Placebo.|Overall treatment effect in participants with PH. Mean overall treatment effect across all visits for change from baseline in 6MWD was estimated \& compared with placebo through 16 wks of treatment using mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), with treatment group, visit, and the interaction between treatment \& visit as fixed factors. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was assumed. Data from Wks 4, 8, 12, and 16 were used in the model with the change from baseline at Wk 16 as the primary endpoint||17.20|-23.54|0.759
95753274|NCT00311311|191478215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.97||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.48|37.53||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||37.53|-77.48|0.4865
95753275|NCT00311311|191478215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.54|57.59||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||57.59|-62.54|0.9339
95753276|NCT00311311|191478216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.011||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.011|-0.005|0.4892
95753277|NCT00311311|191478216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.012||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||0.012|-0.000|0.0514
95798936|NCT02293499|191568590|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
95753278|NCT00311311|191478216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.02||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.020|-0.002|0.1180
95753279|NCT00311311|191478217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.93||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||8.93|2.20|0.0016
95753280|NCT00311311|191478217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||6.80|1.01|0.0091
95753281|NCT00311311|191478217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.2468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||6.10|-1.60|0.2468
95798937|NCT02293499|191568591|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.0||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.648
95753282|NCT00311311|191478218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.94||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||3.94|-2.05|0.5282
95753283|NCT00311311|191478218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.07||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||5.07|-2.53|0.5057
95753284|NCT00311311|191478218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|7.18||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.18|-4.00|0.5701
95753285|NCT00311311|191478220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||12 months post-transplant||0.48|0.03|0.0280
95753286|NCT00311311|191478220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||24 months post-transplant||0.48|0.04|0.0190
95945675|NCT02000752|191862396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|7.59||||t-test, 1 sided||||||7.59|<0.001
95945676|NCT02000752|191862397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95945677|NCT02000752|191862398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|2.13||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.01||||t-test, 1 sided||||||1.01|0.16
95945678|NCT02000752|191862399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||0.2|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.84||||t-test, 2 sided||||||0.84|0.2
95945679|NCT00047385|191862422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|0.932||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||"Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduces lung cancer mortality relative to chest x-ray.~Power: 90% for a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality."||0.932|0.733|0.004
95945680|NCT00047385|191862423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.988||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Only one analysis performed.|Weighted log-rank (details below)|Weights in weighted log-rank statistic increased linearly from zero at randomization to full weight at 4 years and thereafter.||Alternative hypothesis: LDCT screening reduced all-cause mortality relative to chest x-ray.||0.988|0.864|0.02
95945681|NCT00047385|191862424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.23|||||Denominator: LDCT Group Numerator: CXR Group|||1.23|1.03|
95753287|NCT00311311|191478220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|||36 months post-transplant||0.60|-0.07|0.1182
95753288|NCT00311311|191478221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.49||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||1.49|-2.09|0.7361
95753289|NCT00311311|191478221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.26||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.26|-2.32|0.5549
95753290|NCT00311311|191478221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|2.17||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||2.17|-3.69|0.6058
95753291|NCT00311311|191478222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.84||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||2.84|-1.63|0.5902
95945682|NCT01728324|191862438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|81.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.34|85.87|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.|The adjusted response rate was tested against the historical control SVR rate of 68% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 76.3, 85.9).|The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 24 weeks of treatment with DBV/FDV/RBV in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||85.87|76.34|<0.0001
95945683|NCT01728324|191862438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted response rate|75.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.63|81.14|||z-test|A stratified one sample z-test with 50% reference for PegIFN-ineligible and 71% for PegIFN-eligible patients was performed.||The proportion of patients achieving SVR12 achieved with 16 weeks of treatment of non-cirrhotic and 24 weeks of treatment of cirrhotic patients was compared to an acceptable minimum SVR rate achieved with an approved direct acting anti-viral (DAA) in combination with PegIFN from historical data. The acceptable minimum SVR rate was an average of 71% (reference for PegIFN-eligible) and 50% (for PegIFN-ineligible patients), weighted by the sample size in each stratum.||81.14|70.63|0.0020
95945684|NCT01728324|191862439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR12 Rates difference|6.4||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.2|||Koch's method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch's method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||14.2|-1.4|0.0532
95945685|NCT01728324|191862440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR4 Rates difference|3.6||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.9|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||10.9|-3.7|0.1671
95945686|NCT01728324|191862441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR24 Rates difference|-6.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.1|||Koch´s method|Adjusted for PegIFN eligibility using Koch´s method, with continuity correction.||Koch's stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel methods were used to compare durations, adjusting for stratification factors.||1.1|-14.8|0.0447
95945687|NCT03542305|191862443|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.73|136.31|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||136.31|79.73|
95945688|NCT03542305|191862443|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|118.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.43|154.24|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||154.24|91.43|
95945689|NCT03542305|191862443|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|141.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|203.66|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||203.66|97.82|
95945690|NCT03542305|191862444|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.48|152.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Mild renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||152.02|66.48|
95945691|NCT03542305|191862444|OTHER||Slope|88.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|123.06|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Moderate renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||123.06|64.18|
95945692|NCT03542305|191862444|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|150.63|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Normal renal function was the reference group. Severe renal impairment was test group. The estimate was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.|||150.63|56.58|
95945693|NCT01335867|191862455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.14
95945694|NCT01335867|191862457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.24
95945695|NCT01335867|191862458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.20
95945696|NCT01335867|191862459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.64
95798938|NCT02293499|191568591|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.07||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.04
95798939|NCT02293499|191568592|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.003||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.020
95798940|NCT02293499|191568592|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.23
95798941|NCT02293499|191568593|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.002||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the change between treatment groups (Adult led vs. peer led asthma self-management). Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.049
95798942|NCT02293499|191568593|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||For each model, partial eta squared (η2) was reported as the effect size for the overall change over time. Partialη2 is the proportion of variance explained by a given variable out of the variance remaining after excluding variance explained by other predictors. Partial η2\> 0.14 indicates large effects, while η2= 0.06 to 0.14 medium and \< 0.06 small effects||||.00
95798943|NCT02293499|191568593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.294||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
95798944|NCT02293499|191568593|SUPERIORITY||Sobel Statistic|-2.3505||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Sobel|||Mediator analysis of AMI-SEI subscale on ACQ total||||.0093
95945697|NCT01619059|191862460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||Tested at alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
95945698|NCT01619059|191862461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.576||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.1||Secondary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.05, applying the hierarchical order for the sequential testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-14.9|0.2014
95798945|NCT00970944|191568605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We will have 80% power to detect a one point difference in DRS score between the groups across the four week treatment window. With this sample size, we will be able to detect any unforeseen adverse events that have a prevalence of at least 2.5% in each group with 90% probability. With 92 patients per group we will be able to estimate the rate of adverse events to within ±10%.||||0.045
95945699|NCT01619059|191862462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.6||||||||3.6|-11.0|
95945700|NCT01619059|191862463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0||||||||21.0|3.4|
95798946|NCT00970944|191568606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.007||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||The final analysis used a significance level of 0.045.|Mixed Models Analysis|Final analysis adjusted for early v. late enrollment relative to date of injury, baseline CRS-R rating category (MCS vs. VS), and site.||The planned sample size of 184 patients provided 80% power to detect a difference between the AH and placebo in the rate of Disability Rating Scale (DRS) score change of 0.3 points/week (1.22 DRS point mean difference by the end of the 4-week treatment interval). Two blinded interim analyses were conducted at 60 and 120 patients recruited using the O'Brien-Fleming boundary, with alpha levels of 0.0005 and 0.014. The final analysis used an alpha level of 0.045.||-0.07|-0.41|0.007
95945701|NCT01787032|191862471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|373.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|346.029|403.507|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||403.507|346.029|
95945702|NCT01787032|191862471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|243.267|292.914|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.914|243.267|
95798947|NCT02489773|191568631|OTHER|Calculate the pearson correlation within whole subjects (across Group 1 and Group 2)|pearson correlation coefficient|0.6342|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95798948|NCT02489773|191568631|OTHER|Diffenrence between Pearson correlations within whole subjects (accross Group 1 and Group 2) and PG, 0.8.|Difference with PG 0.8|-0.1658|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2204|-0.1113|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1113|-0.2204|>0.9999
95798949|NCT02489773|191568632|OTHER|The difference in Spearman correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficients|0.249|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.364|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.364|0.130|<0.0001
95798950|NCT02489773|191568633|OTHER|The difference in Kendall correlation coefficient between GA and MBG vs HbA1c and MBG in the first 3-month period in Group 1.|Difference in correlation coefficient|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.265|0.096|<0.0001
95798951|NCT02111980|191568654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95945703|NCT01787032|191862472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|261.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.692|322.633|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||322.633|211.692|
95945704|NCT01787032|191862472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|213.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|175.783|259.051|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||259.051|175.783|
95945705|NCT01787032|191862473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|372.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|345.456|402.477|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||402.477|345.456|
95945706|NCT01787032|191862473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|266.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|242.955|292.456|||ANOVA|A bioequivalence acceptance range was not specified and no hypothesis was tested as the main focus was on estimation.|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale: included effects accounting for following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'patients within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'. Random effect: 'patients within sequences', others considered as fixed effects.|||292.456|242.955|
95945707|NCT03335488|191862508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|0.0|1.0000
95945708|NCT03335488|191862510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 1||||0.8464
95945709|NCT03335488|191862510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 2||||0.1040
95945710|NCT03335488|191862510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Initial Treatment Period Week 3||||0.0979
95945711|NCT03335488|191862510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9808|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 0 Hr||||0.9808
95945712|NCT03335488|191862510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8329|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 4 Hr||||0.8329
95945713|NCT03335488|191862510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2544|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||End of Initial Treatment Period Week 4 - 8 Hr||||0.2544
95945714|NCT03335488|191862511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8579||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.8579
95945715|NCT03335488|191862512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7155||||||P-value is from a t-test comparing log-transformed RAVICTI vs NaPBA values.|t-test|||||||0.7155
95945716|NCT04200664|191862571|OTHER|Kendall tau b correlation analysis test was performed between the number of cognitive domains affected and the both ears 3-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2kHz) or both ears 4-frequency pure tone average (at 0.5/1/2/4kHz).|Kendall Tau-b|0.462||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Kendall tau-b|Kendall tau b non-parametric correlation analysis was performed.||||||0.176
95945717|NCT06193590|191862573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95945718|NCT06193590|191862574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1
95945719|NCT06193590|191862576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95945720|NCT02823028|191862608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.779
95945721|NCT02415127|191862624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442||||||From a repeated-measures ANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit with baseline score and investigative site as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix, testing ACTIMMUNE® vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a hierarchical manner. Each endpoint was tested in sequential order and the current endpoint must have shown statistical significance (p \< 0.05) prior to performing testing the next endpoint. The primary endpoint, FARS-mNeuro, was to be tested first, followed by the key secondary endpoint, ADL, followed by the other secondary endpoints, T25FW, FARS-mNeuro responder rate, and FARStot.||||0.5442
95945722|NCT01855750|191862629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.180|0.720|0.5167
95945723|NCT01855750|191862630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.279|||Log Rank|||||1.279|0.704|0.7311
95945724|NCT01855750|191862631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.183|||Log Rank|||||1.183|0.710|0.5027
95945725|NCT01855750|191862632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.8229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.296|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square|||||1.296|0.722|0.8229
95945726|NCT01855750|191862633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.407|||Log Rank|||||1.407|0.754|0.8549
95945727|NCT01855750|191862634|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.358||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.654|||Log Rank|||||1.654|1.115|0.0021
95945728|NCT05116163|191862688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Difference in the mean of percent of quality metrics achieved in the intervention arm minus the control arm.|||||<0.001
95945729|NCT05116163|191862689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1164
95945730|NCT05116163|191862690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.6781
95945731|NCT05116163|191862691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention group mean - control group mean|||||0.4795
95945732|NCT05116163|191862692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison of 3-month vs. baseline adherence scores in patients of providers in the intervention arm vs. control||||0.056
95945733|NCT05116163|191862693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
95945734|NCT05116163|191862694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean from intervention arm - control arm.|||||0.3957
95945735|NCT05116163|191862695|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||||||Comparing the incidence rate of ED visits for the intervention vs. control arms.||1.64|0.63|
95945736|NCT05116163|191862696|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing incidence rates of outpatient visits in the intervention vs. control arms.||1.36|1.07|
95991483|NCT04871711|191958111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.6||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline DLQI score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-2.6|-4.7|<0.001
95945737|NCT05116163|191862697|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.73||||||Incidence rate ratio comparing the incidence rates of hospitalizations in the intervention vs. control arm patients.||9.73|1.69|
95945738|NCT05116163|191862698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs. pre IAT d-scores comparing the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.3882
95945739|NCT05116163|191862699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs. pre IAT d-scores between the intervention and control groups.||||0.3615
95945740|NCT05116163|191862700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing post vs pre IAT d-scores in the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.9432
95945741|NCT05116163|191862701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1453|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post vs pre IAT d-scores for the intervention vs. control arms.||||0.1453
95945742|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7695||95.0|-0.856|1.15||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician treatment arm."||1.15|-.856|.7695
95945743|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.0878||95.0|-1.88|0.13||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm."||.13|-1.88|.0878
95945744|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.635||95.0|-0.76|1.25||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/physician treatment arm."||1.25|-.76|.635
95945745|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.897||95.0|-1.0709|0.9394||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the older adult treatment arm."||.9394|-1.0709|.897
95945746|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.9823||95.0|-1.0164|0.9939||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the physician/older adult treatment arm."||.9939|-1.0164|.9823
95945747|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.3337||95.0|-1.4979|0.5124||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm."||.5124|-1.4979|.3337
95945748|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077||0.694||95.0|-0.8049|1.2054||ALPHA=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult/physician treatment arm."||1.2054|-.8049|.694
95945749|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Actual Intercept value|54.9056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5077|<|0.0001||95.0|53.9003|55.9109||this is the Intercept value for the GLMM evaluating all combinations of treatment and time- in other words, this is the mean well-being t-score across all combinations of tx and time. Estimates in these analyses are deviations from this intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the intercept (all tx=0).||55.9109|53.9003|<.0001
95945750|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1152||95.0|-0.1254|0.01383||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This test evaluates the effect of time (measured as weeks since baseline).||.01383|-.1254|.1152
95945751|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.3555||95.0|-0.1022|0.03699|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician treatment arm\*time."||.03699|-.1022|.3555
95753292|NCT00311311|191478222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.7536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.95||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||1.95|-2.68|0.7536
95753293|NCT00311311|191478222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33||||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|1.86||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||1.86|-4.53|0.4066
95753294|NCT00311311|191478223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.47||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|30.4||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||30.40|-11.46|0.3678
95753295|NCT00311311|191478223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.72||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|27.97||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||27.97|-6.53|0.2179
95753296|NCT00311311|191478223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|38.32||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||38.32|-14.39|0.3663
95798952|NCT00924482|191568686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient (R^2)|0.63||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression between the average of six thermodilution cardiac output measurements was compared to the average of six ECOM output measurements||||||
95798953|NCT03755076|191568704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95945752|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.0546||95.0|-0.00136|0.1379||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister treatment arm\*time."||.1379|-.00136|.0546
95753297|NCT00311311|191478224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||0.8|0.0|0.0410
95753298|NCT00311311|191478224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||0.6|0.0|0.0275
95753299|NCT00311311|191478224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||0.6|-0.1|0.1841
95753300|NCT00311311|191478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.3||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.9|6.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||12 months post-transplant||6.3|-108.9|0.0797
95753301|NCT00311311|191478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3||||0.2341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|22.2||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA|LS mean difference||24 months post-transplant||22.2|-88.7|0.2341
95753302|NCT00311311|191478225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|59.8||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||59.8|-90.3|0.6854
95798954|NCT03755076|191568705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95798955|NCT00695019|191568791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
95798956|NCT00695019|191568792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95798957|NCT00695019|191568793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.77
95798958|NCT00695019|191568794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.30
95798959|NCT00695019|191568795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95798960|NCT00695019|191568796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023||95.0||||Analysis not adjusted to account for baseline differences between the groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0023
95798961|NCT00695019|191568797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fibrotest provides an estimate of liver fibrosis based on the values of 5 serum markers. Scores range from 0 to 1 with higher scores indicating a greater level of liver fibrosis. A negative change in Fibrotest score is therefore deemed to indicate improvement (reduction in fibrosis), while a positive change indicates worsening condition.||||0.21
95798962|NCT00695019|191568798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95798963|NCT00695019|191568798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95753303|NCT00311311|191478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.6|-36.9||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|12 months post-transplant||-36.9|-108.6|0.0002
95753304|NCT00311311|191478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|-26.6||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||-26.6|-108.5|0.0017
95753305|NCT00311311|191478226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.2|-6.5||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value,treatment group,time and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects,and subjects as random effect.ALPAH is unadjusted.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||-6.5|-118.2|0.0293
95753306|NCT00311311|191478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Consent to Conversion||||0.2573
95945753|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4616||95.0|-0.04364|0.09557||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.09557|-.04364|.4616
95945754|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.1592||95.0|-0.0198|0.1194||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.1194|-.0198|.1592
95945755|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.4899||95.0|-0.09396|0.04526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Physician/Older Adult treatment arm\*time."||.04526|-.09396|.4899
95945756|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.000697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.9842||95.0|-0.06891|0.0703||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the sister/older adult treatment arm\*time."||.0703|-.06891|.9842
95945757|NCT04837937|191862712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03516||0.7217||95.0|-0.08216|0.05705||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing all levels and combinations of treatments and time as fixed effects, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for effect on the outcome of change in Neuro-QoL positive affect and well being score. This result is for the Sister/Older Adult/Physician treatment arm\*time."||.05705|-.08216|.7217
95945758|NCT04837937|191862713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55||0.21||95.0|-1.9|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|2-sided paired t-Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Anxiety score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.42|-1.90|.21
95945759|NCT04837937|191862714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.0021||95.0|-5.28|-1.2||Threshold for significance was 0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Zarit Caregiver Burden Score, Baseline to 1-month post-intervention. Test was a 2-sided dependent samples t-test.||-1.20|-5.28|.0021
95945760|NCT04837937|191862715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.1||95.0|-2.62|0.25||Alpha for statistical significance was 0.05|2-Sided Paired T Test|||Univariate ANOVA- analytic variable is change in PROMIS Fatigue score from baseline to T3. Test is a paired T-Test.||.25|-2.62|.10
95753307|NCT00311311|191478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Conversion to Month 12||||0.6386
95753308|NCT00311311|191478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 12 to Month 24||||0.0709
95753309|NCT00311311|191478228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Lipid-Lowering From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
95753310|NCT00311311|191478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Consent to Conversion||||0.4286
95753311|NCT00311311|191478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Conversion to Month 12||||1.0000
95753312|NCT00311311|191478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 12 to Month 24||||1.0000
95753313|NCT00311311|191478229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was calculated from 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Alpha is unadjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Use Anti-hypertension From Month 24 to Month 36||||1.0000
95753314|NCT00311311|191478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|14.7||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|18 months post-transplant||14.7|-50.7|0.2718
95753315|NCT00311311|191478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|12.1||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|24 months post-transplant||12.1|-41.6|0.2729
95798964|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi-square test is to detect the difference in the prevalence of hypertension between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.244||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.244
95753316|NCT00311311|191478230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|7.3||P-value and 95% CI for LS mean difference were calculated from repeated measures ANCOVA mixed model with baseline value, treatment group, time, and treatment group by time interaction as fixed effects, and subjects as random effect.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference|36 months post-transplant||7.3|-23.8|0.2902
95753317|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.88|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.88|1.17|
95753318|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.35|0.91|
95753319|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.74|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.93|
95753320|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.63|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.63|1.55|
95753321|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.13|2.21|
95753322|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.18|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.07|
95753323|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.||2.97|1.36|
95764329|NCT03172494|191498743|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin degludec was considered as confirmed if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference lied entirely below 0.4%. Non-inferiority was investigated on the FAS.|Mean treatment difference|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous oral anti-diabetic (OAD) treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-0.46|-0.73|<0.0001
95991484|NCT04871711|191958112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.2|<0.001
95991485|NCT04871711|191958113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD itch score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.2|-2.3|<0.001
95753324|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.73|
95991486|NCT04871711|191958114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.0||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HESD pain score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-1.0|-2.1|<0.001
95753325|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.50|1.42|
95753326|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.2|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.20|1.43|
95753327|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.17|
95798965|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is to detect the difference in prevalence of diabetes mellitus between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.584||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.584
95991487|NCT04871711|191958115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
95753328|NCT00546572|191478237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion). Statistical significance demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 1.|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.09|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.09|2.69|
95798966|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of insulin resistance between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.067||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.067
95798967|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of dyslipidemia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.365||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.365
95798968|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of metabolic syndrome between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.033||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.033
95753329|NCT00546572|191478238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|49.9|||||Exact 2-sided CI (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS expressed as a percentage.|"Serotype 6A: difference in proportions, 13vPnC - 23vPS, expressed as a percentage.~Statistical significance was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) was \> 0."||49.9|37.4|
95753330|NCT00546572|191478239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.26|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||13.26|7.00|
95753331|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.85|
95753332|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.11|0.91|
95753333|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.92|0.68|
95753334|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.94|0.73|
95753335|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.40|1.03|
95753336|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.35|1.02|
95753337|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.65|
95753338|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
95753339|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.79|
95753340|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.23|0.97|
95753341|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.89|
95753342|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.83|
95753343|NCT00546572|191478240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.14|||||Confidence intervals are back transformations of a CI based on the student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the titers.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC) / (13vPnC)\] calculated using all participants with available data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.14|1.60|
95753344|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|1.10|
95753345|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.34|0.91|
95753346|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.25|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.25|1.66|
95753347|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|1.21|
95753348|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.07|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.07|2.78|
95753349|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.67|0.80|
95753350|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.62|1.18|
95753351|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.13|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.13|0.62|
95753352|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.69|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.53|
95798969|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteopenia between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.196||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.196
95753353|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.1|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|1.37|
95753354|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.93|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|1.09|
95753355|NCT00546572|191478241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 % confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|9.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||9.82|5.36|
95798970|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of osteoporosis between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||1.000
95753356|NCT00546572|191478242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.92|16.44|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC / 13vPnC )- (23vPS)\].|"Serotype 6A: ratio of GMT (13vPnC / 13vPnC to 23vPS) calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.~Statistical significance was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio was \>2."||16.44|8.92|
95798971|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|||||||0.572||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected less than 5.||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of vitamin D deficiency between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.572
95798972|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|||||||0.698||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence in renal disease between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||0.698
95945761|NCT04837937|191862716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.83||0.9754||95.0|-1.36|1.41|||2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in PROMIS short form General Self Efficacy T-Score, baseline to one month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired (dependent sample) t-test.||1.41|-1.36|.9754
95945762|NCT04837937|191862718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1296|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.91||0.77||95.0|-0.74|1.0||Threshold for significance is 0.05|2-sided Paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-Score between baseline and 1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided paired t-test.||1.00|-.74|.77
95945763|NCT04837937|191862719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7618|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16||0.1694||95.0|-0.33|1.85||alpha threshold for significance was 0.05.|two-sided paired T-Test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in T-score between baseline and one month post-intervention. Test is a two-sided paired t-test.||1.85|-.33|.1694
95945764|NCT04837937|191862724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.44||0.76||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Avoiding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.76
95753357|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-5.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.6|-17.3|<0.001
95753358|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-9.1|0.129
95798973|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of kidney tubular dysfunction between INSTI and non-INSTI groups.||||||0.848||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.848
95798974|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>1.3) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||0.274||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.274
95798975|NCT03483584|191568858|OTHER|Chi square test is used to detect the difference in prevalence of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) between INSTI and non-INSTI groups||||||1||||||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test is used when any cells have expected count less than 5.||||||1.000
95945765|NCT04837937|191862724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.33||0.13||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Compromising Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.13
95945766|NCT04837937|191862724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.76|<|0.0001||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Forcing Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||<.0001
95945767|NCT04837937|191862724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.62||0.86||||||Alpha for Significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Problem Solving Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.86
95945768|NCT04837937|191862724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.32||||||Alpha for significance=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Yielding Score (out of 100) between Baseline and 1 Month Post-Intervention.||||.32
95753359|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.3|-11.3|0.002
95798976|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|6.45|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||6.450|0.352|
95945769|NCT04837937|191862725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.18||0.0012||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in total Negotiation Knowledge score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0012
95753360|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-3.2||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Redness: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.3|0.028
95753361|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-7.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-7.0|-18.5|<0.001
95753362|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-10.2|0.048
95945770|NCT04837937|191862725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.933|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.33||0.0018||||||alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Interests score, Baseline 1-month. Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.||||.0018
95945771|NCT04837937|191862725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.69||0.91||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Power score, Baseline 1-month.||||.91
95945772|NCT04837937|191862725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.35||0.11||||||Threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||Univariate ANOVA on change in Negotiation Knowledge Rights score, Baseline 1-month.||||.11
95945773|NCT04837937|191862727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.73|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.09|-1.07||Threshold for significance is alpha=0.05.|2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA on change in negative affect score, baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2 sided dependent sample t-test.||-1.07|-3.09|<.0001
95945774|NCT04837937|191862727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86||0.4305||95.0|-0.52|1.21|||2-sided dependent sample t-test|||Univariate ANOVA of change in positive affect score between baseline-1 month post-intervention. Test is a 2-sided dependent sample t-test.||1.21|-.52|.4305
95945775|NCT02298842|191862728|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
95945776|NCT02298842|191862729|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size of 60 was chosen to meet the FDA pH requirements that the lower 95% confidence limit on the proportion of platelet test units with pH\> 6.2 will be at least 95%. This will be achieved if zero failures (pH\<=6.2) is seen.|Simple sample proportion|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.1||||Exact Bionomial Confidence Interval||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"A success is defined as pH22°C at Day 5 and Day 7 being at least 6.2. A one-sided 95% lower confidence limit will be used to assess the proportion of successes at Day 5 and Day 7. If the lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval exceeds 0.95, the Test product will meet the FDA acceptance criteria."|||95.1|
95945777|NCT02298842|191862730|NON_INFERIORITY|If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.099|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6367|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||16.738|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selectin's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||16.738||
95945778|NCT02298842|191862731|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.418|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5531|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.544||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-1.544|
95945779|NCT02298842|191862732|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7882|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.499||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-2.499|
95753363|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-5.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-5.1|-14.2|<0.001
95798977|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|14.919|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing hypertension in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.919|0.251|
95798978|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|1.155|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.155|0.099|
95798979|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|1.948|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing diabetes mellitus in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.948|0.132|
95798980|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.397|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.397|0.395|
95945780|NCT02298842|191862733|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.056|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.02||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||40.020|
95945781|NCT02298842|191862734|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% upper limit of the confidence interval is less than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.314|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||13.981|||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that P-selection's mean difference, Test - 1.25 \* Control, is greater or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is less than 0.||13.981||
95945782|NCT02298842|191862735|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.422|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.407||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that ESC's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.407|
95945783|NCT02298842|191862736|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.389|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0544|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.915||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that HSR's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||-4.915|
95945784|NCT02298842|191862737|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher value is considered to indicate better platelet quality. If the 97.5% lower limit of the confidence interval is greater than 0, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative suggesting the Test product is not inferior to the Control product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.821||||||Estimated from an ANCOVA with effects of treatment and subject nested within sequence.|The null hypothesis is that Morphology's mean difference, Test - 0.8 \* Control, is less than or equal to 0, and the alternative is that the mean difference is greater than 0.|||36.821|
95945785|NCT06072170|191862739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.659|0.998||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.998|0.659|
95753364|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-2.7|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Swelling: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-2.7|-7.9|<0.001
95798981|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.759|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing insulin resistance in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||1.759|0.444|
95991488|NCT04871711|191958116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment, region, baseline IGA-CHE score, and baseline HEIS PDAL score.||Primary analysis of primary estimand 'composite'. Missing data for subjects who did not attend the visit was imputed as WOCF (including baseline value). For subjects who received rescue treatment or subjects who have permanently discontinued the IMP, observed data was considered non-response by using WOCF (including baseline value).||-0.40|-0.79|<0.001
95753365|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chan & Zhang|-6.8||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-14.0|0.062
95753366|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-4.0||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||3.3|-11.3|0.284
95753367|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-10.6|-21.7|<0.001
95753368|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Pain: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-3.5|0.539
95753369|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-11.1|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: any; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-11.1|-23.1|<0.001
95753370|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-9.0|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: mild; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-9.0|-20.8|<0.001
95753371|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.4|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: moderate; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.4|-4.8|0.020
95991489|NCT04871711|191958117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.9||Evaluated at 1% significance level (two-sided) using hierarchical tests, alpha splitting and alpha recycling controlling overall type 1 error at 5% (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, stratified by region and baseline IGA-CHE score.|Based on the primary analysis of the primary estimand 'composite'. Subjects with missing data, subjects who received rescue treatment, or subjects who permanently discontinued IMP were considered non-responders.||33.9|15.0|<0.001
95753372|NCT00546572|191478243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1|||Limitation of arm movement: any; differe||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Limitation of arm movement: severe; difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-4.9|0.042
95753373|NCT00546572|191478248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-7.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.6|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|New generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-15.2|0.034
95753374|NCT00546572|191478248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-6.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3|||Chan & Zhang||Exact 2-sided confidence interval and corresponding p-value (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.|Aggravated generalized muscle pain: difference in proportions, \[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS\], expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-13.6|0.039
95753375|NCT03979820|191478253|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|544.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|340.57|870.09|||ANOVA||"The arm Phenelzine/Phenelzine + Tyramine represented the numerator. The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||870.09|340.57|
95764330|NCT03172494|191498743|SUPERIORITY||Mean treatment difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and previous OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.49|-0.76|<0.0001
95764331|NCT00625872|191498815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.08||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||3.08|-3.93|0.7232
95764332|NCT00625872|191498816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|4.82||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||4.82|-8.04|0.1941
95753376|NCT03979820|191478253|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean TSFs|123.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.09|196.95|||ANOVA||"The arm 10 mg BI 1467335/10 mg BI 1467335 + Tyramine represented the numerator.~The arm Placebo/Placebo + Tyramine represented the denominator."|"The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale for each treatment relative to placebo.~TSF was log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included the fixed effects 'treatment'."||196.95|77.09|
95753377|NCT01229735|191478257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value is from likelihood ratio test of treatment group regression coefficient against 0.|Regression, Logistic|||The Odds Ratio (OR) for LEV vs TPM is based on logistic regression modeling of subject retention by treatment and center pooling category. A profile likelihood confidence interval for the OR is presented.||1.7|0.7|=0.7007
95753378|NCT02800213|191478266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.280
95753379|NCT00536263|191478267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.008||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.079||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.079|-0.063|0.860
95753380|NCT00536263|191478267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.217||P-values are unadjusted; Hochberg's adjustment for multiple comparisons was used to maintain the overall 0.05 significance level in test of superiority using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion with HBeAg loss.~Based on the targeted sample size, there was 80% statistical power (2-sided 0.05 alpha) to detect a true 36% HBeAg loss rate in this treatment arm versus a true rate of 23% in the control arm."||0.217|0.061|<0.001
95753381|NCT00536263|191478267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks with respect to PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks was to be concluded if the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference of the rates (PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*24 weeks minus PEG 1.5 mcg/kg\*48 weeks) was greater than the noninferiority margin of -10%.|Pairwise rate difference|-0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|-0.065||||||||-0.065|-0.198|
95753382|NCT00536263|191478268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.011||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.052|-0.074|0.700
95753383|NCT00536263|191478268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.123|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||||0.123|-0.014|0.125
95753384|NCT00536263|191478268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.122|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.122|
95753385|NCT00536263|191478269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.016||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.047|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.047|-0.078|0.598
95753386|NCT00536263|191478269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.041||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.108|-0.027|0.24
95753387|NCT00536263|191478269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.112|-0.001||||||End of treatment||-0.001|-0.112|
95753388|NCT00536263|191478269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.006||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.063|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.063|-0.075|0.830
95753389|NCT00536263|191478269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.208|0.053|0.001
95753390|NCT00536263|191478269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.136||||||90.0|-0.201|-0.071||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.071|-0.201|
95945786|NCT06072170|191862739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.843|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.973||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.973|0.713|
95945787|NCT06072170|191862739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.637|0.984||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.984|0.637|
95753391|NCT00536263|191478270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.072||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.151|-0.007|0.076
95753392|NCT00536263|191478270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.135||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.053|0.001
95753393|NCT00536263|191478270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.009||||||End of treatment||0.009|-0.135|
95753394|NCT00536263|191478270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.017||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.092|-0.058|0.662
95753395|NCT00536263|191478270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.220|0.059|<0.001
95753396|NCT00536263|191478270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.053||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.053|-0.191|
95753397|NCT00536263|191478271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.019||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.061|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.061|-0.023|0.373
95753398|NCT00536263|191478271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.049||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.096|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.096|0.003|0.040
95753399|NCT00536263|191478271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.072|0.011||||||End of treatment||0.011|-0.072|
95753400|NCT00536263|191478271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.043|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.043|-0.041|0.969
95945788|NCT06072170|191862739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.814|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.994||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||0.994|0.633|
95945789|NCT06072170|191862739|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.039||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.039|0.720|
95991490|NCT01913483|191958119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9458||||||The primary endpoint analysis was to assess the superiority of bivalirudin versus UFH in BARC ≥3 bleeds within the 48 hours post study drug initiation or at hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.|Chi-squared|||Assuming a bleeding event rate of 5.0% in the heparin control treatment group and 3.2% in the bivalirudin group (36% relative risk reduction, a sample size of 3900 participants was to provide more than 80% power with a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05). This estimate took into consideration that the interim efficacy analysis was to be performed when approximately 70% of participants were enrolled using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.||||0.9458
95991491|NCT03550066|191958206|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit, d, is selected as the largest difference that is clinically acceptable. Here the non-inferiority limit is d=.6 (a medium to large effect size).||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance: \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95991492|NCT00466310|191958210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted p value is .0041|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A wilcoxon rank sum test was performed comparing baseline plasmalogen values, comparing schizophrenia subjects vs controls.P values from this analysis were adjusted for false discovery rates by the method of Storey and Tribshiani.||||0.0149
95753401|NCT00536263|191478271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.045||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.094|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.094|-0.004|0.074
95753402|NCT00536263|191478271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.085|-0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.003|-0.085|
95753403|NCT00536263|191478272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.019|-0.027|0.724
95753404|NCT00536263|191478272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.048|-0.012|0.243
95753405|NCT00536263|191478272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||End of treatment||0.002|-0.046|
95753406|NCT00536263|191478272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.019|-0.027|0.724
95753407|NCT00536263|191478272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.018||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.048|-0.012|0.232
95753408|NCT00536263|191478272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.002||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.002|-0.046|
95753409|NCT00536263|191478273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.056||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.145|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.145|-0.033|0.219
95753410|NCT00536263|191478273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.126||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.216|0.037|0.006
95753411|NCT00536263|191478273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.006||||||End of treatment||0.006|-0.148|
95753412|NCT00536263|191478273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.082||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.168|-0.004|0.067
95753413|NCT00536263|191478273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.268|0.092|<0.001
95753414|NCT00536263|191478273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.174|-0.021||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.021|-0.174|
95753415|NCT00536263|191478274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.041|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.041|-0.039|0.995
95753416|NCT00536263|191478274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.054||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.103|0.005|0.031
95753417|NCT00536263|191478274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.094|-0.012||||||End of treatment||-0.012|-0.094|
95753418|NCT00536263|191478274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.024||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.078|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.078|-0.030|0.389
95753419|NCT00536263|191478274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.184|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.184|0.058|<0.001
95753420|NCT00536263|191478274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.152|-0.041||||||24 weeks after EOT||-0.041|-0.152|
95753421|NCT00536263|191478275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.012|-0.012|0.991
95753422|NCT00536263|191478275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.033|-0.006|0.181
95753423|NCT00536263|191478275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.030|
95753424|NCT00536263|191478275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.012|-0.012|0.971
95753425|NCT00536263|191478275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.013||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.033|-0.006|0.179
95753426|NCT00536263|191478275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.003||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.003|-0.030|
95753427|NCT00536263|191478276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||End of treatment||||0.991
95753428|NCT00536263|191478276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.004||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.013|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||End of treatment||0.013|-0.004|0.322
95753429|NCT00536263|191478276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.003||||||End of treatment||0.003|-0.012|
95753430|NCT00536263|191478276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Stratified by genotype~Due to zero responses in the 2 arms, pairwise rate difference \& corresponding 95% confidence interval were not applicable."||24 weeks after EOT||||0.991
95753431|NCT00536263|191478276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.009||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by genotype||24 weeks after EOT||0.021|-0.003|0.157
95753432|NCT00536263|191478276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.001||||||24 weeks after EOT||0.001|-0.019|
95753433|NCT00536263|191478277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.014
95753434|NCT00536263|191478277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||<0.001
95753435|NCT00536263|191478277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|comparison of post-treatment versus baseline values||||||0.010
95753436|NCT00536263|191478277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.2|0.631
95753437|NCT00536263|191478277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|-0.3||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and genotype were the fixed effects and baseline was the covariate.||||0.8|-1.4|0.617
95753438|NCT00536263|191478277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pairwise rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.1|
95753439|NCT00985712|191478342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model details are given in the section of Measure Description.||Superiority criterion is met if the upper limit of Confidence Interval (CI) is below zero.||0.26|-0.17|0.6692
95753440|NCT00985712|191478343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3551||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3551
95753441|NCT00985712|191478343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.5%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2026
95753442|NCT00985712|191478344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was adjusted for baseline values.||||||0.9070
95753443|NCT00985712|191478345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9817
95753444|NCT00985712|191478346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1187
95753445|NCT01640873|191478351|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.4|30.4||The posterior probability that the reduction in FPG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is 0.06, and hence, the FPG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||30.4|-47.4|0.356
95945790|NCT06072170|191862741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.123||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.123|0.768|
95753446|NCT01640873|191478353|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19||The posterior probability that the reduction in 24h-WMG is ≥ 20 mg/dL is \< 0.01, and hence, the 24h- WMG hypothesis was not met.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.19|0.92|0.2714
95753447|NCT01640873|191478354|OTHER|Day 1|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.55|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.55|0.99|0.060
95753448|NCT01640873|191478354|OTHER|Day 3|Geometric mean Ratio|1.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.47|0.98|0.065
95753449|NCT01640873|191478354|OTHER|Day 16|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.37|||ANOVA|Placebo-corrected (MK-8655 / placebo)||||1.37|0.89|0.217
95753450|NCT04700280|191478356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-6.2|0.617
95753451|NCT04700280|191478358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.41|-1.70|0.3089
95753452|NCT04700280|191478358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.43|-1.97|0.2834
95945791|NCT06072170|191862741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.821|
95945792|NCT06072170|191862741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.249||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.249|0.901|
95945793|NCT06072170|191862741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.222||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.222|0.870|
95945794|NCT06072170|191862741|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.178||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.178|0.844|
95945795|NCT06072170|191862742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.143||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.143|0.775|
95945796|NCT06072170|191862742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.134||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of 7-Hydroxy-Mitragynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.134|0.815|
95945797|NCT06072170|191862742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.207||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Paynantheine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.207|0.866|
95945798|NCT06072170|191862742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.145||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciogynine Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.145|0.790|
95945799|NCT06072170|191862742|OTHER|Proportionality analysis was done using a power model.|Slope|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|1.191||||||Statistical Analysis for Dose-Proportionality of Speciociliatine Dose Adjusted Pharmacokinetic Parameters (Pharmacokinetic Population)||1.191|0.859|
95945800|NCT06072170|191862746|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|30.78||||||||30.78|6.16|
95945801|NCT06072170|191862749|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squared Mean|45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|61.67|||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for High Visual Analog Scale (Emax)||61.67|30.20|<0.001
95945802|NCT03070392|191862755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.37|<0.0001
95945803|NCT03070392|191862757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.0139
95753453|NCT04700280|191478358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.30|-2.02|0.7109
95753454|NCT04700280|191478359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.859
95753455|NCT04700280|191478359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||4.8|-3.8|0.837
95753456|NCT02749292|191478361|EQUIVALENCE|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.9|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant. Both rows were included and combined in the statistical analysis (ANCA-PR3 and ANCA-MPO) to assess the difference in treatment strategies.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses."||0.90|0.15|0.045
95753457|NCT02749292|191478362|OTHER|chi square test||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: No difference in the proportion of patients with SAEs in each arm"||||0.87
95753458|NCT02749292|191478367|OTHER||||||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the mean number of infusions per patient in each arm.||||<0001
95753459|NCT02749292|191478368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the mean change from baseline Vasculitis Damage Index between each arm. A t-test was used.||-0.06|-0.34|0.17
95753460|NCT02749292|191478369|OTHER|Using a two-sided log-rank test with an alpha level of 0.05, a projected relapse risk of 15% in the superior group and 30% in the inferior group, and an estimated enrollment time of 36 months, it was determined that 200 patients were required to detect a significant difference with a power of 0.80. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the deleterious impact of rituximab on vaccination efficacy, the trial was concluded before reaching the target enrollment of 200.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.36|||Log Rank|||"The difference between the two treatment strategies was assessed using the log-rank test. P values of 0.05 were considered significant.~Null hypothesis: No difference in the ANCA and B-cell arm in the probability of relapses"||5.36|0.50|0.42
95753461|NCT00257920|191478371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.67||95.0|-0.023|0.015||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<= 0.050 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the mean calcium absorption fraction between Zemplar Injection and Hectorol Injection. The power calculation applied to the primary efficacy analysis.||0.015|-0.023|0.670
95753462|NCT00257920|191478372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.573||95.0|-0.024|0.014||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. A single hypothesis was tested by the primary efficacy analysis. All hypothesis tests were two-tailed and P-values \<=0.050 were considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in mean calcium absorption between Zemplar and Hectorol. Approximately 42 subjects were to be randomized assuming 36 subjects would available in the per-protocol set. A sample size of 36 subjects has 80% power to detect a mean difference of -0.018 assuming the Zemplar group mean is 0.139, the Hectorol group mean is 0.157 and the STD is 0.037. The ANOVA model included effects for sequence, subject-within-sequence, period and treatment regimen.||0.014|-0.024|0.573
95753463|NCT01189500|191478388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.7|104.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||104.85|96.70|
95753464|NCT01189500|191478390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|105.17|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||105.17|94.02|
95753465|NCT01189500|191478395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|92.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|100.0|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||100.00|84.71|
95753466|NCT01189500|191478401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|112.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.44|116.9|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||116.90|107.44|
95753467|NCT01189500|191478406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|111.81|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||111.81|99.74|
95753468|NCT01189500|191478407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.51|113.67|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Tamoxifen 40 mg (test) versus Tamoxifen 40 mg (reference)||113.67|103.51|
95753469|NCT03629028|191478416|NON_INFERIORITY|Data compared to meta-analysis conducted in Sardo et al., 2017||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared or Fisher's test statistic was used to compare the categorical variables.||The sample size was calculated based on the study of Sardo et al. The website http://powerandsamplesize.com/Calculators was used. As a result of the sample size calculation with 90% power and 0.05 alpha error, it was planned to include 141 patients in each group.||||0.05
95945804|NCT00378898|191862767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
95945805|NCT02372799|191862794|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.4||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.27|||MMRM|||||2.27|-3.08|0.7662
95945806|NCT02372799|191862794|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.39||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.81|||MMRM|||||0.81|-5.60|0.1433
95945807|NCT02372799|191862795|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.04||||0.7387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||MMRM|||||0.22|-0.31|0.7387
95945808|NCT02372799|191862795|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.2||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.12|-0.52|0.2158
95945809|NCT00089609|191862803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
95945810|NCT01429454|191862807|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.51
95945811|NCT01429454|191862808|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
95753470|NCT03431974|191478422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of LD-AMT established using a step-down analysis approach with one-sided Fisher's exact tests. First, the analysis for subjects attaining PASI 75 will be performed, then, if that analysis shows a significant treatment effect, analysis for subjects attaining a sPGA success will be performed.||||0.43
95753471|NCT01301508|191478428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2898 Topical Ointment, 1% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.008
95753472|NCT01301508|191478428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||p-value was calculated for the statistical significant difference between greater decrease in vehicle lesion and greater decrease in active lesion for the AN2728 Topical Ointment, 2% + Ointment Vehicle group.|Two-sided sign test|||||||0.017
95753473|NCT01106014|191478438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.46|0.78||one-sided p-value|Log Rank|||The primary analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set by a one-sided unstratified log-rank test||0.78|0.46|<0.0001
95753474|NCT01106014|191478439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|24.0||One-sided p-value of the nonparametric ANCOVA, adjusted for 6-minute walk distance at baseline|ANCOVA||Point estimate and 2-sided 99% CI for location shift using the HodgesLehmann method|Non-parametric ANCOVA with 6MWD as covariate at baseline. Missing values were imputed based on the following imputation rules: 1) if patient was unable to walk at week 26, 0 meter was imputed, 2) if rule 1 did not apply, the second lowest observed 6MWD value (10 meters) at Week 26 was imputed. Missing values were imputed for 21.6% of the subjects.||24|1|0.0027
95753475|NCT01106014|191478440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|It was assumed that the probabilities for absence of worsening in WHO FC at Week 26 were the same for both treatment groups|Odds Ratio, log|1.161||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.811|1.664||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by WHO FC at baseline. For patients with missing NYHA/WHO FC at Week 26, the NYHA/WHO FC is considered as having worsened from baseline at Week 26. Missing values were imputed for 18.3% of subjects .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.664|0.811|0.2843
95753476|NCT05071313|191478509|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||||||A/Victoria||1.14|0.89|
95753477|NCT05071313|191478509|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28||||||A/Tasmania||1.28|0.97|
95753478|NCT05071313|191478509|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.05||||||B/Washington||1.05|0.79|
95753479|NCT05071313|191478509|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Group 2 versus Group 1 in terms of the HI antibody titers against all four influenza vaccine strains 28 days after vaccination with fluzone, using a non-inferiority margin of 1.5 for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 1).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||B/Phuket||1.10|0.85|
95753480|NCT03107026|191478560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.66|0.1187
95753481|NCT03107026|191478560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-0.93|0.0045
95753482|NCT03107026|191478561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.68|0.0256
95753483|NCT03107026|191478561|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.83|0.0025
95753484|NCT03107026|191478562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.854|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.854|0.726|0.5342
95753485|NCT03107026|191478562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.882|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.882|0.738|0.4905
95753486|NCT03107026|191478563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-4.16|0.0154
95945812|NCT03229408|191862855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.004
95945813|NCT03229408|191862856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.03
95945814|NCT03229408|191862857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||0.180
95945815|NCT03229408|191862858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002|||||||Unpaired T-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.002
95753487|NCT03107026|191478563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.969||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-5.31|0.0005
95753488|NCT00807248|191478578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-2.34|0.6405
95753489|NCT00807248|191478578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.35|||ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.41|0.6227
95753490|NCT00807248|191478579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.11|||ANCOVA|||||-3.11|-7.98|<0.0001
95945816|NCT03229408|191862859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.04
95945817|NCT03229408|191862860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.003
95945818|NCT03229408|191862861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.0004
95945819|NCT03229408|191862862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||Unpaired t-test, 2-Sided|||||||<0.007
95945820|NCT04119063|191862863|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95945821|NCT04119063|191862864|OTHER|Paired t-test||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95945822|NCT04119063|191862865|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95945823|NCT04119063|191862866|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
95798982|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|5.139|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||5.139|0.274|
95798983|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|5.688|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing dyslipidemia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||5.688|0.257|
95798984|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|3.739|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.739|0.196|
95798985|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.534|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.631|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing metabolic syndrome in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||2.631|0.108|
95798986|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|11.35|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||11.350|0.172|
95798987|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|9.317|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteopenia in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||9.317|0.119|
95798988|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
95798989|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence of osteoporosis was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing osteoporosis in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
95798990|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|7.122|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||7.122|0.679|
95798991|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|3.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|14.833|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing vitamin D deficiency in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||14.833|0.850|
95798992|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|3.077|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.077|0.465|
95798993|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.638|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing renal diseases in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||4.638|0.510|
95945824|NCT04119063|191862867|OTHER|Paired t-tests comparing change in % difference following high vs low frequency gait training.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
95945825|NCT01367236|191862868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Linear|||24 weeks||||0.68
95945826|NCT01367236|191862868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Linear|||48 weeks||||0.43
95945827|NCT01367236|191862869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0009
95945828|NCT02628626|191862921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95945829|NCT02628626|191862922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.24
95945830|NCT02628626|191862923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.44
95945831|NCT02628626|191862924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95753491|NCT00807248|191478579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-7.53|<0.0001
95753492|NCT00807248|191478579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-3.56|||ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-8.43|<0.0001
95753493|NCT00807248|191478580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.84|||ANCOVA|||||-2.84|-7.13|<0.0001
95753494|NCT00807248|191478580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.32|||ANCOVA|||||-2.32|-6.60|<0.0001
95753495|NCT00807248|191478580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.13|||ANCOVA|||||-3.13|-7.41|<0.0001
95753496|NCT00807248|191478581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
95753497|NCT00807248|191478581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.14|||ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.15|0.0006
95798994|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|1.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.331|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||3.331|0.408|
95798995|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|2.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|7.18|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing kidney tubular dysfunction in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||7.180|0.615|
95753498|NCT00807248|191478581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.10|-5.13|<0.0001
95753499|NCT00807248|191478582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.85|<0.0001
95798996|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.995|||||Wald chi square test is used to investigate whether INSTI group had a higher risk of developing of HANA conditions compared with non-INSTI group, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||1.995|0.159|
95945832|NCT02628626|191862925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks||||0.56
95945833|NCT02628626|191862926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95945834|NCT02628626|191862927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||Small (staining only)||||0.11
95945835|NCT02628626|191862927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Moderate (requires change of underwear)||||0.06
95753500|NCT00807248|191478582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.72|0.0004
95753501|NCT00807248|191478582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.87|<0.0001
95753502|NCT00807248|191478583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.72|0.0007
95753503|NCT00807248|191478583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.69|0.0013
95753504|NCT00807248|191478583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.92|<0.0001
95753505|NCT00807248|191478584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.82|0.0002
95753506|NCT00807248|191478584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.72|0.0006
95753507|NCT00807248|191478584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-2.00|<0.0001
95753508|NCT00807248|191478585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.89|<0.0001
95753509|NCT00807248|191478585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
95753510|NCT00807248|191478585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
95753511|NCT00807248|191478586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
95753512|NCT00807248|191478586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.0001
95753513|NCT00807248|191478586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.97|<0.0001
95753514|NCT02504671|191478614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|24.52|||Regression, Logistic||95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.52|0.18|0.547
95945836|NCT02628626|191862927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Large (requires complete change of clothes)||||0.36
95945837|NCT02628626|191862928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
95945838|NCT02628626|191862929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95945839|NCT02628626|191862930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
95945840|NCT02628626|191862931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
95945841|NCT02628626|191862932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
95753515|NCT02504671|191478614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|62.44|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.44|0.81|0.077
95753516|NCT02504671|191478614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|72.14|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||72.14|0.98|0.053
95753517|NCT02504671|191478614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.4|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.40|0.63|0.122
95753518|NCT02504671|191478614|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|48.83|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.83|0.60|0.134
95753519|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|8.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||CRP, Week 12|||8.05|-7.13|0.905
95753520|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.28|-11.00|0.387
95753521|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||4.87|-10.04|0.495
95753522|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.68||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.92|2.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||2.55|-17.92|0.140
95753523|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|-3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-3.52|-23.85|0.009
95753524|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-7.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.35|-27.44|<0.001
95753525|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.62|-5.45|0.118
95945842|NCT02628626|191862933|SUPERIORITY|approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
95753526|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-0.14|-6.20|0.041
95753527|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.003
95753528|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TC28, Week 12|||1.01|-5.61|0.172
95753529|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.62|-7.22|0.020
95753530|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-2.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-2.45|-8.98|<0.001
95753531|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.12|-10.13|0.518
95753532|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||CRP, Week 12|||5.49|-9.50|0.599
95753533|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-2.48|-22.78|0.015
95753534|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-7.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||PtGA, Week 12|||-7.10|-27.27|<0.001
95753535|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||0.05|-6.00|0.054
95753536|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||SJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.05|<0.001
95753537|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-0.33|-6.92|0.031
95753538|NCT02504671|191478615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||TJC28, Week 12|||-3.02|-9.61|<0.001
95753539|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753540|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
95945843|NCT02628626|191862934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||Lifestyle Score||||0.67
95753541|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.9|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||1.9|-12.7|
95753542|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
95753543|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753544|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95945844|NCT02628626|191862934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Coping Score||||0.80
95753545|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753546|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753547|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753548|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
95945845|NCT02628626|191862934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||Depression Score||||0.49
95945846|NCT02628626|191862934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||Embarrassment Score||||0.60
95945847|NCT02628626|191862935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||Approximately 4 weeks post-treatment||||0.78
95945848|NCT03102034|191862963|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.0|90.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||90|56|
95945849|NCT03102034|191862963|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||47|3|
95945850|NCT03102034|191862964|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|44.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||44|10|
95945851|NCT03102034|191862964|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|36.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||36|0|
95753549|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753550|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753551|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|41.3|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.3|12.7|
95753552|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753553|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753554|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753555|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753556|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753557|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753558|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753559|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753560|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753561|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753562|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753563|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753564|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753565|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753566|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753567|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95945852|NCT03102034|191862969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95945853|NCT03102034|191862970|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95945854|NCT02962102|191863007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.52
95945855|NCT02962102|191863007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
95945856|NCT02962102|191863008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95945857|NCT02962102|191863008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95945858|NCT02962102|191863009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95945859|NCT02962102|191863009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95753568|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753569|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753570|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753571|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753572|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753573|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753574|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753575|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753576|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95945860|NCT03414684|191863036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that hazard ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||1.84|0.49|0.88
95753577|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753578|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753579|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753580|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753581|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753582|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753583|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753584|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753585|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
95753586|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
95753587|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753588|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753589|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753590|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753591|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753592|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753593|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753594|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753595|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95945861|NCT03414684|191863037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.18|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to the effect of treatment on Arm A|||4.18|0.29|1
95945862|NCT03414684|191863039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.50|0.43|0.49
95945863|NCT03414684|191863040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.43|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.32|1
95945864|NCT03414684|191863041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.12|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.12|0.13|0.36
95945865|NCT03414684|191863042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.43|0.43|0.68
95945866|NCT03414684|191863043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.62|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||1.62|0.18|0.27
95945867|NCT03414684|191863044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|7.78|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||7.78|0.08|1
95753596|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753597|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753598|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753599|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753600|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753601|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753602|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95798997|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|3.493|||||Wald chi square test is used to detect the difference in incidence rates in the INSTI group compared with the non-INSTI group (as reference group) after adjustment of covariates, with IRR \>1 meaning higher risk of developing new HANA conditions.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing intermediate or advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 1.3) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||3.493|0.244|
95945868|NCT03414684|191863046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.16|||Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||2.16|0.26|0.61
95945869|NCT03414684|191863047|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.93|||Fisher Exact||Reference level is Arm B, such that the odds ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||5.93|0.10|1
95945870|NCT03414684|191863049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.89|||Log Rank||Reference level is Arm B, such that the hazard ratio corresponds to treatment on Arm A|||3.89|0.14|0.73
95945871|NCT04038580|191863064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would have the same SCS||||0.553
95945872|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Frustration sub-scale||||||0.536|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that all sockets would be the same||||0.536
95945873|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Perceived Response||||||0.598|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.598
95945874|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Social Burden||||||0.072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
95945875|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Ambulation Sub-scale||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
95945876|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Prosthesis Utility||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
95945877|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Residual Limb Health||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.254
95753603|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753604|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|38.1|||||Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.1|10.5|
95753605|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753606|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753607|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753608|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753609|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753610|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753611|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753612|NCT02504671|191478616|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753613|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.01|-0.64|0.046
95753614|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||0.03|-0.62|0.071
95753615|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.05|-0.69|0.022
95753616|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.11|-0.67|0.160
95945878|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Appearance||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.032
95945879|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Sounds||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.352
95945880|NCT04038580|191863065|SUPERIORITY|Well-being||||||0.077|||||||ANOVA|||||||.077
95945881|NCT04038580|191863066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and participant as random factor||||||0.95
95945882|NCT04038580|191863067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with sockets as fixed effect and subjects as random effect||||||.853
95945883|NCT04038580|191863068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||0.565
95945884|NCT04038580|191863070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as fixed factor and subjects as random factor||||||.374
95753617|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||0.07|-0.71|0.103
95945885|NCT04038580|191863072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|general linear model with socket as a fixed factor and subjects as a random factor||||||.574
95945886|NCT04484623|191863120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.73||P-Value presented to 3 decimal places from one-sided stratified Log-Rank test adjusting for the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy (1 vs. 2/3 vs. \>=4) and prior bortezomib (yes or no) according to IVRS strata with a covariate of treatment.|||0.73|0.37|<0.001
95753618|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.80|0.034
95945887|NCT01613417|191863204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.6||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||5.6|-4.6|0.8516
95945888|NCT01613417|191863204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||3.8|-3.8|1.0
95945889|NCT01613417|191863204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on primary endpoint. 185 patients were deemed necessary for the lower limit of the observed 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference to exceed -5% with 85% power.|Percentage PH better minus GV better|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference in percentage ProHance better minus percentage Gadovist/Gadavist better (%)|||1.5|-0.5|1.0
95753619|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||0.07|-0.87|0.096
95753620|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.09|-1.02|0.020
95753621|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.29|-1.22|0.001
95753622|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.10|-0.93|0.110
95753623|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
95753624|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.10|-1.11|0.020
95753625|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||0.12|-0.97|0.128
95753626|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.24|-1.33|0.005
95753627|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.29|-1.36|0.003
95753628|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||0.12|-1.17|0.110
95753629|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.23|-1.53|0.008
95945890|NCT01613417|191863205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945891|NCT01613417|191863205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945892|NCT01613417|191863205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945893|NCT01613417|191863206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945894|NCT01613417|191863206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6875
95945895|NCT01613417|191863206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945896|NCT01613417|191863207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945897|NCT01613417|191863207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95753630|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.60|-1.88|<0.001
95753631|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.56|-1.15|0.500
95753632|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.15|-1.83|0.021
95753633|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.18|-1.83|0.017
95753634|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.83|-0.98|0.871
95753635|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.29|-1.46|0.190
95945898|NCT01613417|191863207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95753636|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.20|-1.51|0.130
95753637|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.20|-2.24|0.019
95753638|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.55|-2.51|0.002
95753639|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.43|-2.34|0.005
95753640|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
95753641|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1|||-0.17|-0.80|0.003
95753642|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.09|-0.86|0.017
95753643|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2|||-0.13|-0.90|0.009
95753644|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.20|-1.13|0.005
95945899|NCT01613417|191863208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945900|NCT01613417|191863208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95945901|NCT01613417|191863208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95753645|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4|||-0.55|-1.48|<0.001
95753646|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||0.04|-0.99|0.073
95753647|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6|||-0.34|-1.36|0.001
95753648|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.35|-1.43|0.001
95753649|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8|||-0.56|-1.65|<0.001
95753650|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.03|-1.32|0.039
95753651|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12|||-0.63|-1.91|<0.001
95945902|NCT01613417|191863209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.2758
95945903|NCT01613417|191863209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.0676
95991493|NCT00644787|191958227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference of 7.5 mm in VAS score was selected as the threshold value for clinical non-inferiority of Fentanyl 1-day transdermal patch to Fentanyl 3-day transdermal patch.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.23||||||||6.23|-3.50|
95991494|NCT00546052|191958242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.999||95.0|-0.02|0.06|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5%.||0.06|-0.02|0.999
95991495|NCT00546052|191958243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.999||95.0|0.01|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is + 0.5mmol/L.||0.07|0.01|0.999
95991496|NCT00546052|191958245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.001||95.0|-17.62|-16.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg||-16.27|-17.62|<0.001
95991497|NCT00546052|191958246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.39|<|0.001||95.0|-10.29|-9.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null hypothesis value is 0 mm Hg.||-9.39|-10.29|<0.001
95991498|NCT00546052|191958247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
95991499|NCT00546052|191958248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||<0.001
95991500|NCT00546052|191958249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.084
95991501|NCT00546052|191958250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.654
95991502|NCT00546052|191958251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.5||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.336
95991503|NCT00546052|191958252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
95991504|NCT00546052|191958253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.8||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.001
95991505|NCT00546052|191958254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Single Cohort Study. Statistical Analysis is based on change from baseline. Null Hypothesis value is 0.||||0.613
95991506|NCT03048422|191958255|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7||||||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|
95753652|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||0.07|-1.61|0.073
95991507|NCT03048422|191958255|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.3||||||Difference in proportions for per-protocol analysis.||10.3|1.6|
95991508|NCT03048422|191958255|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.7|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for superiority and intention-to-treat analysis.||10.7|2.0|0.005
95991509|NCT03048422|191958256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
95991510|NCT03048422|191958256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.1|-8.8|0.97
95991511|NCT03048422|191958256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-17.1|0.047
95753653|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16|||-0.30|-1.91|0.007
95991512|NCT03048422|191958257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|2.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.9|-14.2|0.098
95991513|NCT03048422|191958257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|11.7|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.7|-5.9|0.26
95991514|NCT03048422|191958257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.8|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF).||5.8|-11.3|0.26
95753654|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.10|-1.65|0.083
95753655|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20|||0.03|-1.63|0.059
95753656|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.50|-2.46|0.003
95753657|NCT02504671|191478617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for DAS28(CRP) Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24|||-0.89|-2.75|<0.001
95753658|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.4|1.1|0.037
95753659|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|10.8||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|0.144
95753660|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|0.033
95753661|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|22.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||22.2|-11.3|0.437
95753662|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|2.7||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||18.9|-13.5|0.755
95753663|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|0.023
95753664|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.006
95798998|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rates of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group as reference group at 2 years.||0|0|
95945904|NCT01613417|191863209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.5267
95798999|NCT03483584|191568859|OTHER|Poisson loglinear|Incidence rate ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||No incidence in advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \>2.67) was reported in non-INSTI group at 2 years.|Adjusted Incidence rate ratio (IRR) was expressed as a ratio of incidence rate of developing advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 \> 2.67) in INSTI group compared with non-INSTI group at 2 years after adjusted by age, sex, treatment-naive or experienced, duration of HIV diagnosis, baseline body weight and CD4 count.||0|0|
95945905|NCT01613417|191863210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.6201
95799000|NCT04426656|191568860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.85
95945906|NCT01613417|191863210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.4514
95945907|NCT01613417|191863210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7722|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.7722
95945908|NCT01613417|191863211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.3173
95753665|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|0.039
95753666|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|29.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|0.008
95753667|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|21.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|0.044
95753668|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||40.0|-2.2|0.083
95753669|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|48.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.3|5.8|
95753670|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.8|-11.2|
95753671|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
95753672|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|54.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||54.0|10.9|
95753673|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
95799001|NCT04426656|191568861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95799002|NCT04426656|191568862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
95799003|NCT04426656|191568863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
95799004|NCT04426656|191568864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.928
95753674|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|50.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||50.6|8.9|
95753675|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|66.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||66.0|25.9|
95753676|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
95753677|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|53.3|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||53.3|11.6|
95753678|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|58.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||58.5|17.2|
95753679|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|38.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.4|-0.5|
95753680|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
95753681|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|68.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.1|29.2|
95753682|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|35.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.4|-3.0|
95753683|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
95753684|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
95753685|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753686|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753687|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753688|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753689|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753690|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753691|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753692|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753693|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753694|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753695|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753696|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753697|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753698|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753699|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753700|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753701|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753702|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753703|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753704|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753705|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753706|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95753707|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|37.7|||||Difference to placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.7|5.6|
95753708|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|37.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||37.6|0.2|
95753709|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|43.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||43.4|5.2|
95753710|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
95799005|NCT04426656|191568865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.678
95799006|NCT04426656|191568866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison test was made using the outcome variable measured at Week 12.||||0.26
95799007|NCT04426656|191568867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.08
95799008|NCT04426656|191568868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.03
95945909|NCT01613417|191863211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.5637
95991515|NCT03048422|191958258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|6.3|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.||6.3|-12.8|0.25
95991516|NCT03048422|191958258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-12.1|0.32
95753711|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
95945910|NCT01613417|191863211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||0.0455
95945911|NCT01613417|191863212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.6949
95945912|NCT01613417|191863212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.1317
95945913|NCT01613417|191863212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||McNemar test of difference (ProHance minus Gadovist/Gadavist) in accuracy for tumor characterization||||0.0124
95753712|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
95753713|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|61.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||61.2|19.9|
95753714|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|48.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.9|5.2|
95753715|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|56.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.5|13.8|
95753716|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|47.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||47.9|6.2|
95753717|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|73.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.2|34.9|
95753718|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|42.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.4|0.9|
95753719|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|70.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|31.8|
95753720|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
95799009|NCT04426656|191568869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This comparison was made using data at Week 12.||||0.58
95799010|NCT04426656|191568870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison was made using data measured at Week 12.||||0.85
95799011|NCT01964404|191568880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p-FDR|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95799012|NCT01964404|191568882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.4|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.4|-0.77|0.31
95799013|NCT01964404|191568882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.18|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||0.18|-2.4|.62
95945914|NCT02927249|191863228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.56||||||||1.56|0.91|
95945915|NCT02927249|191863229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.69||||||||1.69|0.74|
95945916|NCT02927249|191863230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52||||||||1.52|0.83|
95945917|NCT01767467|191863241|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A vaccine over placebo) for anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations at Month 2 was greater than (\>) 3.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Concentration|29.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|41.96||The p-value is relative to the null hypothesis Ho: Vaccine / Placebo = 1|Repeated measurement model|||The objective aimed to evaluate anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2 following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo, in subjects with haematologic malignancies excluding subjects with Non-Hodgkin B-cell Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.||41.96|21.09|<0.0001
95945918|NCT01700205|191863269|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.018|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0363|-0.0002|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0002|-0.0363|<0.05
95991517|NCT03048422|191958258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|3.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||3.2|-14.3|0.11
95753721|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|75.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||75.4|38.2|
95991518|NCT03048422|191958259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions between arms for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||22.0|9.3|< 0.0001
95991519|NCT03048422|191958260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference in proportions for intention-to-treat analysis with null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF).||3.2|-3.3|0.97
95991520|NCT03048422|191958261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||3.1|1.9|< 0.001
95991521|NCT03048422|191958262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||9.1|-1.8|0.19
95753722|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|46.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.9|7.1|
95753723|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|73.0|||||Difference to placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.0|35.1|
95753724|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95945919|NCT01700205|191863270|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos). We provide below the parameter estimates for WLZ scores only.|Slope|-0.023||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0362|-0.0093|||Generalized Estimating Equations|GEE analysis conducted on each type of Z score separately with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age; 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction.||||-0.0093|-0.0362|0.001
95945920|NCT01700205|191863271|OTHER|A priori power analyses determined that a sample size of 94 is required to detect a difference of 0.67 with 90% power and a 5% type 1 error rate. We conducted an intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the 113 infants using separate generalized estimating equations that included treatment group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age), and group × time interaction for each type of Z score (0.5-12.5 mos).|Slope|-0.02||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.019|||Generalized Estimating Equation|GEE analysis conducted with group (CMF, EHF), time (infant age, 0.5-12.5 months) and their interaction||||0.019|-0.058|0.32
95945921|NCT01700205|191863272|OTHER|ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor were conducted on intent-to-treat sample|||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|We conducted a ANOVA with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subject factor.||ANOVAs were conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.05
95945922|NCT01700205|191863273|OTHER|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|ANOVA was conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on the intent-to-treat sample.||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor||||0.72
95945923|NCT01700205|191863274|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.72|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.72
95991522|NCT03048422|191958262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-5.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-5.2|-17.9|< 0.001
95753725|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|75.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.4|89.9|||||Difference to placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||89.9|61.4|
95753726|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753727|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
95945924|NCT01700205|191863275|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||||0.02|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||Repeated Measures ANOVA conducted with group (CMF, EHF) as between-subjects factor on intent-to-treat sample||||0.02
95945925|NCT00176202|191863308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95753728|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753729|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|85.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||85.5|55.0|
95753730|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753731|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
95753732|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95945926|NCT00176202|191863308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95753733|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
95753734|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753735|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|78.4|||||Difference to placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||78.4|45.9|
95753736|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753737|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Difference to placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
95753738|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753739|NCT02504671|191478619|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Difference to placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
95753740|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753741|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95753742|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95945927|NCT00176202|191863309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
95945928|NCT00176202|191863309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95753743|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 1, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 1 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753744|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95753745|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
95753746|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
95945929|NCT00176202|191863310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|-1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||In case of both risperidone and divalproex sodium.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95945930|NCT00176202|191863310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95945931|NCT00176202|191863311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||baseline is compared to LOCF to determine the p value.||||<0.01
95945932|NCT00176202|191863311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95950719|NCT04239911|191873389|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 was considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||The comparison group is enhanced usual care arm|"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the doctor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. all other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||0.94|0.03|0.043
95950720|NCT04239911|191873389|EQUIVALENCE|A p\<0.05 considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|||"Preventable 911 calls if had been able to reach the nurse/supervisor. Dichotomized into agree, strongly agree, and very strongly vs. other responses. We used logistic mixed regression model to compare trajectory of all outcomes between and within study arms. Mixed effects included a fixed effects categorical variable for time point (baseline/90days), and indicator for study arm (enhanced usual care/intervention), a study arm by time point interaction and subject specific random intercept."||4.58|0.22|0.99
95991523|NCT03048422|191958262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.2|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.2|-14.6|0.022
95799014|NCT01964404|191568883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.45|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different PANSS Negative symptom scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||3.45|-1|0.28
95991524|NCT03048422|191958263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.1|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.1|-5.9|0.61
95753747|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753748|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753749|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95753750|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
95753751|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.7|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.7|9.3|
95753752|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
95753753|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
95753754|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
95799015|NCT01964404|191568883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.85|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different PANSS Positive negative scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||2.85|-1.1|0.39
95991525|NCT03048422|191958263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||6.6|-9.4|0.74
95799016|NCT01964404|191568884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.424||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|-3.18||We set threshold of p\<.01 for statistical significance due to multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for pre-drug exposure cognitive functioning||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different verbal learning scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||-3.18|-16.06|0.004
95753755|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
95753756|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753757|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
95753758|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|27.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||27.9|-11.7|
95753759|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|30.9|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.9|-9.3|
95753760|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|7.0|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.0|-17.8|
95991526|NCT03048422|191958263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Difference between arms with null hypothesis of no difference (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.8|-7.4|0.86
95991527|NCT03048422|191958264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG groups - EFV/FTC/TDF).||11.9|-3.4|0.27
95753761|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|10.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.6|-16.0|
95753762|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
95753763|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753764|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753765|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
95799017|NCT01964404|191568885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|15.75|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||15.75|-3.62|.22
95799018|NCT01964404|191568885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.7|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different anxiety scores compared to the placebo group adjusting for the SCZ only group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||5.70|-5.87|0.98
95753766|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
95753767|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
95753768|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753769|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753770|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753771|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753772|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753773|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753774|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|42.7|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|6.0|
95799019|NCT01964404|191568886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|90.9|||ANOVA|||This analysis tested whether the dronabinol group had different drug experience ratings of liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The marijuana cigarette group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||90.9|10.9|0.13
95950482|NCT00092456|191872678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If equivalence was established in all 3 pairwise comparisons for a given serotype, the 3 lots were considered consistent for that serotype. Each comparison consisted of 2 one-sided tests of equivalence with α=0.05. Statistical significance for the 2 one-sided equivalence tests for each pair of lots was established if the p-values for the hypothesis tests were each less than 0.05. This corresponds to the 2-sided 90% CI for the fold difference in the 2 lots being contained entirely within (0.5,2)|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The reported p-value is for all 5 serotypes, no multiplicity adjustment made, and Type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level. P\<0.05 implies that the difference is statistically significantly less than the prespecified difference of 2 fold.|ANOVA|||A pairwise comparison of lots was made for each serotype, for each pair of lots.||||<0.001
95753775|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
95753776|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
95753777|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
95753778|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
95753779|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
95799020|NCT01964404|191568886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.95||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|94.07|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis tested whether the marijuana cigarette group had different drug liking scores compared to the placebo group. (The dronabinol group was tested separately per our analytic plan.)||94.07|8.01|.002
95799021|NCT01964404|191568887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-1.0|0.002
95799022|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|Student t-Test|||Right Cingulate Body||||0.0012
95799023|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Posterior Cingulate||||0.02
95753780|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
95753781|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
95753782|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95753783|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|32.4|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.4|-5.4|
95945933|NCT04941482|191863317|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.2|-1.9|<0.05
95945934|NCT04941482|191863318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Fatigue Severity Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|2.5|-7.6|<0.05
95945935|NCT04941482|191863319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Mini-Mental State Examinationscore before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|1.3|-5.4|<0.05
95950721|NCT03456856|191873390|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||repeated measures linear model|||The estimated mean treatment difference (95% CI) takes into account a presumed -5 bpm change from baseline heart rate in the absence of ivabradine (as seen in the placebo group in the SHIFT study, (NCT02441218, PMID 20801500).||-1.0|-8.0|0.013
95950722|NCT00841321|191873416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||PASAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.1|-0.5|.1
95753784|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.7|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||49.7|9.8|
95753785|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
95799024|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Anterior Cingulate||||0.0015
95753786|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
95753787|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
95753788|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
95753789|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
95753790|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
95753791|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95753792|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|26.3|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.3|-10.1|
95753793|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
95799025|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.0015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Prefrontal Cortex||||0.0015
95753794|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|57.8|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.8|17.9|
95753795|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.0|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.0|-10.6|
95753796|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|32.6|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||32.6|-0.2|
95799026|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.0138||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Insula||||0.0138
95799027|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Pons Micturition Center||||0.049
95799028|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Cerebellum||||0.001
95799029|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
95799030|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Right Lentiform Nucleus||||0.026
95799031|NCT03033355|191568888|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|student t-test|||Left Amygdala/parahippocampal Gyrus||||0.015
95799032|NCT05965427|191568906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
95799033|NCT05965427|191568907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis of Any of the specified clinical complications measure"||||0.005
95799034|NCT05965427|191568908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95753797|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
95753798|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||6.3|-11.7|
95753799|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.7|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.7|-3.1|
95753800|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
95753801|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.5|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.5|-6.9|
95799035|NCT05965427|191568910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to not presenting with skin lesions measure"||||0.002
95799036|NCT05965427|191568914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug treatment for mpox measure"||||0.114
95799037|NCT05965427|191568915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical analysis relates to any drug for complications measure"||||<0.001
95799038|NCT05965427|191568916|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis relates to lesion onset measure"|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95799039|NCT04556097|191568927|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a negative binomial distribution and log link that provides rate ratio estimate of the relative difference.|The rate ratio is estimated for intervention patients as compared to controls.|||1.20|0.31|0.05
95799040|NCT04556097|191568928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.12|||Difference in differences|Difference in differences model with a Gaussian distribution and identity link that provides linear estimate of the relative point difference.||||1.12|-6.53|0.05
95799041|NCT03160170|191568993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95799042|NCT03160170|191568994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95799043|NCT03160170|191568995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95799044|NCT02811159|191568996|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.1797
95799045|NCT02811159|191568997|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1250
95799046|NCT02811159|191568998|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
95753802|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
95753803|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|62.6|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||62.6|23.8|
95753804|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-14.1|
95799047|NCT02811159|191568999|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
95799048|NCT02811159|191569000|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
95799049|NCT02811159|191569001|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||1.0000
95799050|NCT02811159|191569002|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.8750
95799051|NCT02811159|191569003|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
95799052|NCT02811159|191569004|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.5000
95799053|NCT02811159|191569005|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.2500
95799054|NCT02811159|191569006|OTHER|||||||0.0645|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0645
95799055|NCT04835441|191569009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.107
95799056|NCT04835441|191569010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.308
95799057|NCT04835441|191569011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
95799058|NCT04835441|191569012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||Kaplan-Meier methods|||||||0.788
95799059|NCT04835441|191569013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.792
95753805|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
95753806|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.7|1.1|
95753807|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||10.3|-10.3|
95753808|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
95753809|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|21.3|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||21.3|-5.1|
95753810|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753811|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95799060|NCT04835441|191569014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Mixed models for repeated measures|||||||0.302
95945936|NCT04941482|191863320|SUPERIORITY|Over 6 months, the number of patients who losted to follow-up of intervention and control group were respectively 9:0 (after 1 month), 9:0 (after 3 months), and 9:3 (after 6 months).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Barthel Index score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|14.7|-14.5|<0.05
95991528|NCT03048422|191958265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|7.5|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference combined DTG arms-EFV/FTC/TDF.||7.5|-7.6|0.49
95753812|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753813|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753814|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753815|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753816|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753817|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95799061|NCT04835441|191569015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.506
95799062|NCT04835441|191569016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.659
95799063|NCT01033942|191569029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6983||||||The p-value is for the difference in treatment (TX) groups overall. The interaction between TX group and study time that tests whether the TX groups differed over time could not be tested due to small no. of subjects that missed visits during study.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6983
95799064|NCT01033942|191569030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8722
95799065|NCT01033942|191569031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6921||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6921
95753818|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753819|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753820|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753821|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753822|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95799066|NCT01033942|191569032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4655||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4655
95991529|NCT03048422|191958266|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.0|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of combined DTG arms - EFV/FTC/TDF.||12.0|-3.8|0.15
95991530|NCT03048422|191958267|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-0.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||-0.3|-17.3|0.043
95991531|NCT03048422|191958267|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||8.6|-9.3|0.95
95991532|NCT03048422|191958267|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-17.6|0.037
95991533|NCT03048422|191958268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.06|0.50|0.095
95991534|NCT03048422|191958268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.19|0.58|0.30
95991535|NCT03048422|191958268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Regression, Ordinal|||Null hypothesis of odds ratio equal to 1, with odds of experiencing a worse outcome equal between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.88|0.42|0.008
95991536|NCT03048422|191958269|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||2.1|-1.2|0.28
95753823|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753824|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95799067|NCT01033942|191569033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799068|NCT01033942|191569034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2297
95753825|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95991537|NCT03048422|191958269|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||1.4|-1.5|0.47
95991538|NCT03048422|191958269|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Survival probabilities were compared based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||2.2|-1.3|0.31
95991539|NCT03048422|191958270|SUPERIORITY|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimated difference of DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3|||Z-test|||||1.3|-3.4|0.20
95991540|NCT03048422|191958270|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TDF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-0.9|-8.9|0.008
95991541|NCT03048422|191958270|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.2|||Z-test|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival probabilities. Comparisons of survival probabilities was based on a Z-test using Greenwoods estimate of the standard error. The null hypothesis was no difference between arms, with estimate of risk difference DTG+FTC/TAF-EFV/FTC/TDF.||-2.2|-9.7|<0.001
95753826|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753827|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95799069|NCT01033942|191569035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1886||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1886
95799070|NCT01033942|191569036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1908|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1908
95799071|NCT01033942|191569037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2240
95799072|NCT01033942|191569038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1538||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1538
95799073|NCT01033942|191569039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2151
95991542|NCT03048422|191958271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.093||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.023|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.023|-0.208|0.12
95991543|NCT03048422|191958271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.158|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.158|-0.061|0.39
95753828|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753829|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753830|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753831|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753832|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753833|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753834|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753835|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753836|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753837|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95991544|NCT03048422|191958271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.072|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference in weekly change in creatinine clearance from baseline (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.072|-0.161|0.45
95991545|NCT03048422|191958272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||10.5|-11.3|0.94
95753838|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753839|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|33.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.2|4.7|
95753840|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753841|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753842|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95991546|NCT03048422|191958272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|14.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||14.9|-6.5|0.44
95753843|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95753844|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753845|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753846|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753847|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753848|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753849|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753850|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753851|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753852|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95991547|NCT03048422|191958272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at delivery (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||9.3|-1.8|0.18
95799074|NCT01033942|191569040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2809
95753853|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753854|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753855|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753856|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753857|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753858|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753859|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753860|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753861|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753862|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753863|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95799075|NCT01033942|191569041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1850
95753864|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753865|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753866|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753867|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753868|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753869|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753870|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753871|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
95945937|NCT04941482|191863321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|3.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Physical domain score of Stroke Impact Scale before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|3.7|-18.8|<0.05
95991548|NCT03048422|191958272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||31.1|-8.9|0.27
95799076|NCT01033942|191569042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2366||||||Not all participants answered every question|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2366
95799077|NCT01033942|191569043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4089||||||Not all subjects answered every question.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4089
95799078|NCT01033942|191569044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95753872|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95799079|NCT01033942|191569045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799080|NCT01033942|191569046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799081|NCT01033942|191569047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7007
95945938|NCT04941482|191863322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-3.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Treatment Difference = Intervention group - Control group|We calculated that 92 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 3.43 points in mean score in improving physical and mental health after stroke (based on J.Sims et al in 2008) between intervention and control groups from baseline to the 6th month. The sample size was determined using a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (a=0.05). Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 5.49 and a discontinuation rate of 10%.|(1) Variables with multiple measurements over time were compared using the repeated measures ANOVA test to assess changes in Stroke Impact Scale score before and after intervention in two groups, calculating the time\*group interaction; (2) Effect sizes after intervention are measured using Cohen's D, with values indicating small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d ≥ 0.8) effects.|-0.3|-15.2|<0.05
95945939|NCT00291694|191863329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95945940|NCT00291694|191863330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups, two-sided. Endpoint not specifically powered for effect.||||0.053
95945941|NCT00291694|191863331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95945942|NCT00291694|191863332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95945943|NCT00291694|191863333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95991549|NCT03048422|191958272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.1|-22.6|0.048
95753873|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753874|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753875|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753876|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95799082|NCT01033942|191569048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799083|NCT01033942|191569049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799084|NCT01033942|191569050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8934|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8934
95799085|NCT01033942|191569051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799086|NCT01033942|191569052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799087|NCT01033942|191569053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9999
95799088|NCT01033942|191569054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4003
95799089|NCT01033942|191569055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6462|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6462
95799090|NCT01033942|191569056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8505
95799091|NCT01033942|191569064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7434
95799092|NCT01033942|191569065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6153|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6153
95799093|NCT01033942|191569066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2000
95799094|NCT01033942|191569067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5265
95799095|NCT01033942|191569068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2559|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2559
95799096|NCT01033942|191569069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3846
95799097|NCT01033942|191569070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5133
95799098|NCT01033942|191569071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1661
95799099|NCT01033942|191569072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0729
95799100|NCT01033942|191569073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1912
95799101|NCT01033942|191569074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2829
95799102|NCT01033942|191569075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2685
95799103|NCT01033942|191569076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2342
95799104|NCT01033942|191569077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7314
95799105|NCT01033942|191569078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3770
95799106|NCT01033942|191569079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7004
95799107|NCT01033942|191569080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4668
95799108|NCT01033942|191569081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7573|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7573
95799109|NCT01033942|191569082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0356
95799110|NCT01033942|191569083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3176
95799111|NCT01033942|191569084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1348
95799112|NCT01033942|191569085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0420
95799113|NCT01033942|191569086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4906|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4906
95799114|NCT01033942|191569087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0544
95799115|NCT01033942|191569088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5645|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5645
95799116|NCT01033942|191569089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7847
95799117|NCT01033942|191569090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0288
95799118|NCT01033942|191569091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0945
95799119|NCT01033942|191569092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3884|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3884
95753877|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753878|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753879|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753880|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753881|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753882|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753883|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 1, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 1. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753884|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|46.8|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.8|12.7|
95753885|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|55.4|||||Week 2, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.4|20.3|
95753886|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753887|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 2, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 2. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753888|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
95753889|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|56.1|||||Week 4, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||56.1|19.5|
95753890|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
95799120|NCT01033942|191569093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2235
95799121|NCT01033942|191569094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0467
95753891|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 4, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
95753892|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 4, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 4. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753893|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|33.8|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.8|-6.8|
95753894|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|45.2|||||Week 6, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.2|3.5|
95753895|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
95753896|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|17.6|||||Week 6, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.6|-12.2|
95753897|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753898|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Week 6, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 6. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753899|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|52.4|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||52.4|12.4|
95753900|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|55.1|||||Week 8, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||55.1|15.1|
95753901|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
95753902|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 8, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753903|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753904|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.6|||||Week 8, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||15.6|-4.8|
95753905|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|48.4|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.4|11.0|
95753906|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|59.5|||||Week 12, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 8. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||59.5|21.6|
95753907|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
95753908|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 12, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
95753909|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||14.1|-8.7|
95753910|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 12, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 12. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
95753911|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|44.1|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||44.1|4.5|
95753912|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|70.5|||||Week 16, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.5|32.2|
95753913|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|35.7|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||35.7|2.1|
95753914|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|29.4|||||Week 16, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.4|-2.4|
95753915|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|17.8|||||Week 16, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 16. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||17.8|-7.0|
95753916|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.2|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.2|2.0|
95753917|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|43.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|63.0|||||Week 20, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||63.0|23.5|
95799122|NCT01033942|191569095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6331|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6331
95799123|NCT01033942|191569096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0948
95799124|NCT01033942|191569097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5826|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5826
95991550|NCT03048422|191958272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms at week 26 (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||20.5|-21.0|0.98
95753918|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|41.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||41.8|6.9|
95753919|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|38.8|||||Week 20, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||38.8|4.5|
95753920|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.5|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.5|3.3|
95753921|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 20, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 20. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95799125|NCT01033942|191569098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0087
95799126|NCT01033942|191569099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1934
95799127|NCT01033942|191569100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2146
95753922|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|46.3|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||46.3|7.7|
95753923|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|65.2|||||Week 24, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.2|26.7|
95753924|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.6|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||30.6|-3.6|
95753925|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|33.7|||||Week 24, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||33.7|-1.2|
95753926|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95753927|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|28.1|||||Week 24, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 24. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|-1.1|
95753928|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95799128|NCT01033942|191569101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5317
95799129|NCT01033942|191569102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1733|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1733
95799130|NCT01033942|191569103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1747
95799131|NCT01033942|191569104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1203
95753929|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|64.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|80.8|||||Week 28, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||80.8|48.9|
95753930|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95799132|NCT01033942|191569105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8243
95753931|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|36.4|||||Week 28, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||36.4|6.8|
95753932|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753933|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 28, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 28. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753934|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753935|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 32, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
95753936|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753937|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|42.7|||||Week 32, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.7|11.4|
95753938|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753939|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 32, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 32. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95799133|NCT01033942|191569106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6202
95799134|NCT01033942|191569107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8351
95799135|NCT01033942|191569108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0484
95799136|NCT01033942|191569109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4207
95799137|NCT01033942|191569110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2187|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2187
95799138|NCT01033942|191569111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
95799139|NCT01033942|191569112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1524
95799140|NCT01033942|191569113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4700
95945944|NCT01706159|191863334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.3056||90.0|0.01|3.05||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||A sample size of 90 subjects, with a 2:1 (active:placebo) randomization ratio, would ensure 80% power to detect a difference between active treatment and placebo at Week 8 with a 2-sided significance level of 10% based on a Fisher's exact test.||3.05|0.01|0.3056
95945945|NCT00989196|191863393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the comparison of the PK profile of Human-cl rhFVIII with Kogenate, the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio or log-ratio of Human-cl rhFVIII over Kogenate for selected, dose independent or dose adjusted, PK parameters will be presented. In addition a formal statistical procedure will test whether the ratio of mean AUCs is within a 80 to 125% range to show bioequivalence.|Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.107||||||||1.107|0.874|
95945946|NCT04762277|191863403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.4|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||23.4|-31.7|
95991551|NCT03048422|191958273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||1.3|-3.1|0.40
95753940|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753941|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|73.4|||||Week 36, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||73.4|40.1|
95753942|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753943|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 36, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
95753944|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
95799141|NCT01033942|191569114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4686
95799142|NCT01033942|191569115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3791|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3791
95799143|NCT01033942|191569116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7374|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7374
95799144|NCT01033942|191569117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9363
95799145|NCT01033942|191569118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6267
95799146|NCT01033942|191569119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6434
95753945|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 36, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 36. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95945947|NCT04762277|191863404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.5|-38.8|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-38.8|-154.5|
95945948|NCT04762277|191863405|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.339|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.339|-0.129|
95945949|NCT04762277|191863406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-2.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.3|-25.6|
95753946|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753947|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 40, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
95753948|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753949|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.7|||||Week 40, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||45.7|13.8|
95753950|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95753951|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 40, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 40. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753952|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753953|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.2|||||Week 44, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|34.5|
95753954|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753955|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|51.6|||||Week 44, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||51.6|18.7|
95753956|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753957|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.5|||||Week 44, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 44. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||31.5|6.3|
95753958|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95945950|NCT04762277|191863407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-2.7|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as : Spesolimab- Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||-2.7|-36.9|
95991552|NCT03048422|191958273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.6|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-0.6|-8.0|0.023
95753959|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|51.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|70.9|||||Week 48, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||70.9|37.3|
95753960|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753961|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|48.7|||||Week 48, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||48.7|16.2|
95753962|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753963|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|34.9|||||Week 48, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 48. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||34.9|8.4|
95945951|NCT04762277|191863408|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.186|||||Risk difference was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference is calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.186|-0.132|
95945952|NCT04762277|191863409|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.338|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.338|-0.067|
95753964|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753965|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|65.6|||||Week 52, ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||65.6|31.7|
95753966|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753967|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 52, ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
95753968|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753969|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Week 52, ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 52. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753970|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753971|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|57.3|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR20. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||57.3|23.7|
95753972|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|26.5|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||26.5|0.5|
95753973|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.6|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR50. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||39.6|9.1|
95753974|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.0|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||23.0|-1.4|
95753975|NCT02504671|191478620|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|29.9|||||Week 62 (follow-up), ACR70. Difference to Placebo is presented for Week 62 (follow-up). 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||29.9|2.6|
95753976|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753977|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753978|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95799147|NCT01033942|191569120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8582|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8582
95945953|NCT04762277|191863410|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.375|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.375|-0.079|
95991553|NCT03048422|191958273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.8|||Wald test of two proportions|||Null hypothesis of no difference between groups (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||-1.8|-8.7|0.003
95991554|NCT03048422|191958275|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-8.8|0.16
95753979|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753980|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753981|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95753982|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95799148|NCT01033942|191569121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5778
95799149|NCT01033942|191569122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9881
95991555|NCT03048422|191958275|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.3|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.3|-8.7|0.38
95753983|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95753984|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753985|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753986|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753987|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753988|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753989|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95753990|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95753991|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753992|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95753993|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95753994|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753995|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753996|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95753997|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95753998|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95753999|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754000|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754001|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754002|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754003|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754004|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95799150|NCT01033942|191569123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9771
95754005|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754006|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95799151|NCT01033942|191569124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2301|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2301
95991556|NCT03048422|191958275|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Wald test of two proportions|||||-0.9|-11.8|0.023
95991557|NCT03048422|191958276|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.5|||Wald test of two proportions|||||1.5|-13.9|0.12
95754007|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95945954|NCT04762277|191863411|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.089|||||Risk Difference was calculated as: Spesolimab - Placebo. 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for treatment difference was calculated by Chan and Zhang method.|The difference in the proportion of patients with a response between Spesolimab and placebo was analysed using a logistic regression model. The model included treatment and stratification factor (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive population versus TNFi-failure population) as two categorical variables.||0.089|-0.331|
95945955|NCT04762277|191863412|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.3|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||4.3|-4.4|
95945956|NCT04762277|191863413|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.9|||||Difference of Least Squares Means was calculated as: Spesolimab-Placebo.|MMRM accounting for the following sources of variation: fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, the effect of stratum (stratification according to TNFi-naive population vs. TNFi-failure population) and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. The unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient measurements. To estimate denominator degrees of freedom the Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||6.9|-9.5|
95945957|NCT05251363|191863437|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Ho: SADE-free rate ≤ 87.5% Ha: SADE-free rate \> 87.5% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall SADE-free rate through 3 months) to the performance goal of 87.5%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall SADE-free rate must be greater than 87.5% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the SADE-free rate is significantly higher than 87.5%.||||<0.0001
95945958|NCT05251363|191863438|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test|||H0: Implant Success Rate ≤ 80% Ha: Implant Success Rate \> 80% Used an exact binomial test comparing the observed proportion (implant success rate) to the performance goal of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall implant success rate must be greater than 80% to reject the null hypothesis (Ho), which would demonstrate evidence that the rate of successful Solia S LBBA implants is significantly higher than 80.0%.||||< 0.0001
95991558|NCT03048422|191958276|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.0|||Wald test of two proportions|||||10.0|-6.0|0.63
95754008|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95991559|NCT03048422|191958276|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin was a 10% difference between groups.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.4|||Wald test of two proportions|||||3.4|-11.7|0.28
95754009|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754010|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95945959|NCT05251363|191863439|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale ≤ 2.8 Ha: Improvement in QOL Physical Function Scale \> 2.8 Exact one-sample t-test comparing mean improvement in QOL from baseline to 12-mo post-implant to a goal of +2.8. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the improvement in QOL must be \> +2.8 to reject H0.||||<0.001
95754011|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754012|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95945960|NCT03835754|191863451|OTHER|Confidence internal is 88.8%, upper bound limit 99.2%|Clopper Pearson exact confidence interva|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|99.2||||||||99.2|88.8|
95945961|NCT05325294|191863523|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||0.1|-0.2|0.133
95945962|NCT05325294|191863523|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
95991560|NCT03048422|191958277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.103|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.103|0.013|0.011
95991561|NCT03048422|191958277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|-0.014|0.19
95991562|NCT03048422|191958277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.133|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.133|0.040|< 0.001
95991563|NCT03048422|191958278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.048|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.048|-0.005|0.11
95945963|NCT05325294|191863524|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
95754013|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95945964|NCT05325294|191863524|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of -7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
95945965|NCT05325294|191863525|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.5|0.3|<0.001
95991564|NCT03048422|191958278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.049|-0.000|0.055
95754014|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754015|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95754016|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95754017|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95754018|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95754019|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754020|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754021|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-2.5|
95754022|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|68.2|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||68.2|-1.9|
95754023|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754024|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754025|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754026|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95799152|NCT01001104|191569127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at 12 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95799153|NCT01001104|191569127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95754027|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754028|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754029|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95799154|NCT01001104|191569127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95799155|NCT01001104|191569127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95991565|NCT03048422|191958278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.07|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.070|0.022|< 0.001
95754030|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754031|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754032|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95754033|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754034|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95799156|NCT01001104|191569128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
95799157|NCT01001104|191569128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95754035|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754036|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754037|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754038|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754039|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754040|NCT02504671|191478621|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||Index based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95799158|NCT01001104|191569128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95799159|NCT01001104|191569128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95945966|NCT05325294|191863525|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.3|0.2|<0.001
95754041|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754042|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754043|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754044|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754045|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754046|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754047|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754048|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95799160|NCT01001104|191569129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test.|Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
95799161|NCT01001104|191569129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.358
95799162|NCT01001104|191569129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95799163|NCT01001104|191569129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95799164|NCT01001104|191569130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95799165|NCT01001104|191569130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.2||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95799166|NCT01001104|191569130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.54||||0.003||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95799167|NCT01001104|191569130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.48|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95991566|NCT03048422|191958279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.045|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - DTG+FTC/TDF).||0.045|0.001|0.041
95754049|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754050|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754051|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754052|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754053|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754054|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95799168|NCT01001104|191569131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95945967|NCT05325294|191863526|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|70.7|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||70.7|66.6|<0.001
95754055|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754056|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754057|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754058|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95945968|NCT05325294|191863526|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|79.4|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR70-180 mg/dL) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||79.4|75.7|<0.001
95754059|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754060|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754061|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||42.8|0.4|
95754062|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754063|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754064|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754065|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754066|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754067|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754068|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754069|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95799169|NCT01001104|191569131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95945969|NCT04649047|191863527|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.23|-5.6|0.036
95945970|NCT04649047|191863528|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.10|-1.02|-0.77
95754070|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95945971|NCT04649047|191863529|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42||||-0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-7.69|-0.51
95945972|NCT04649047|191863530|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.03|-0.32|0.49
95991567|NCT03048422|191958279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.055|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TDF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.055|0.013|0.002
95991568|NCT03048422|191958279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.078|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis of no difference between arms (DTG+FTC/TAF - EFV/FTC/TDF).||0.078|0.036|< 0.001
95754071|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754072|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754073|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754074|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754075|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754076|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754077|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754078|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754079|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754080|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754081|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754082|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754083|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754084|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754085|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754086|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754087|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754088|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95945973|NCT04649047|191863531|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54||||-0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.82|-19.9|-0.48
95754089|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754090|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95945974|NCT04649047|191863532|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.46||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.0|384.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||384.7|-256|0.13
95945975|NCT04649047|191863533|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.02|0.98|0.88
95754091|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754092|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754093|NCT02504671|191478622|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Boolean based ACR/EULAR, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95799170|NCT01001104|191569131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.63|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95799171|NCT01001104|191569131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.49|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95799172|NCT01001104|191569132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.987
95799173|NCT01001104|191569132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95799174|NCT01001104|191569132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.45||||0.311||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.311
95799175|NCT01001104|191569132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26||||0.556||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.556
95799176|NCT01001104|191569133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||This is the p-value from the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
95799177|NCT01001104|191569133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.91||||0.917||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.917
95799178|NCT01001104|191569133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.81||||0.264||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
95754094|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 4, Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754095|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754096|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95754097|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95799179|NCT01001104|191569133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4||||0.346||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
95799180|NCT01001104|191569134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the linear trend test at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95799181|NCT01001104|191569134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.1||||0.036||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM Least Squares (LS) Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
95799182|NCT01001104|191569134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.73||||0.002||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95799183|NCT01001104|191569134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary comparisons are based on the MMRM LS Mean Value at week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95799184|NCT01001104|191569136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||This is the p-value from the Cochran-Armitage trend test (dose-effect).|Cochran-Armitage|||||||0.073
95799185|NCT01001104|191569136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95799186|NCT01001104|191569136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
95754098|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95799187|NCT01121926|191569153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax,ss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|56.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.99|63.94|||||Test/reference (%)|||63.94|49.99|
95945976|NCT04649047|191863534|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
95945977|NCT04649047|191863535|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.18|0.82|0.78
95945978|NCT04649047|191863536|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|7.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.16|-0.32|0.58
95945979|NCT04649047|191863537|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.94|-0.10|0.61
95945980|NCT04649047|191863538|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.16|-1.50|0.46
95945981|NCT04649047|191863539|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.73|0.43|0.71
95945982|NCT04649047|191863540|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T test (pre- post-)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||-0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-8.12|-0.52
95945983|NCT00768716|191863606|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95945984|NCT00768716|191863607|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95945985|NCT00768716|191863608|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95754099|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95754100|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.5|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||2.5|-7.9|
95754101|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|19.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||19.4|-3.2|
95754102|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754103|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754104|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
95754105|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754106|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754107|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754108|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95799188|NCT01121926|191569154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCss is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|85.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.05|90.67|||||Test/reference (%)|||90.67|81.05|
95945986|NCT00768716|191863610|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95754109|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754110|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754111|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95754112|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754113|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754114|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754115|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754116|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754117|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754118|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754119|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754120|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754121|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754122|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754123|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95945987|NCT00768716|191863611|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95945988|NCT00768716|191863612|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95945989|NCT01276509|191863613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.249|-0.149|0.3393
95945990|NCT01276509|191863613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.068|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.316|-0.068|0.1433
95945991|NCT01276509|191863613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.036|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 8||0.335|-0.036|0.0922
95945992|NCT01276509|191863613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.158|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.225|-0.158|0.3864
95945993|NCT01276509|191863613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.131|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.253|-0.131|0.3005
95945994|NCT01276509|191863613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.198|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at Week 12||0.176|-0.198|0.5385
95945995|NCT01276509|191863616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.299|-0.052|0.1234
95991569|NCT01738971|191958291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|3.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|see above description of analysis taking into account cluster randomisation||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in progestogen only pill group compared to control."||5.13|1.90|<0.001
95754124|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754125|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95754126|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95799189|NCT02175758|191569160|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.96|152.48||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||152.48|109.96|
95799190|NCT02175758|191569160|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|129.29||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||129.29|93.25|
95945996|NCT01276509|191863616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.234|-0.092|0.2378
95945997|NCT01276509|191863616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.062|0.266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 8||0.266|-0.062|0.1529
95945998|NCT01276509|191863616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.146|0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.222|-0.146|0.3661
95945999|NCT01276509|191863616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.136|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.246|-0.136|0.3169
95946000|NCT01276509|191863616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.116|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference from placebo at week 12||0.248|-0.116|0.2755
95946001|NCT05349721|191863627|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.86||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|27.59|||ANCOVA|Estimates were derived from the ANCOVA model (following multiple imputation), where participant ranks served as the response variable.||||27.59|-13.86|0.516
95946002|NCT03861052|191863650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.27|<0.001
95946003|NCT03861052|191863650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.45|<0.001
95946004|NCT03861052|191863650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-1.71|<0.001
95754127|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754128|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754129|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 2. Difference to Placebo for Week 2 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754130|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 4. Difference to Placebo for Week 4 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.6|||7.9|-2.5|
95946005|NCT03861052|191863651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|21.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.55|4.53|<0.001
95946006|NCT03861052|191863651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|54.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.71|7.73|<0.001
95946007|NCT03861052|191863651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|460.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||460.58|15.80|<0.001
95946008|NCT03861052|191863652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.1|-30.7|<0.001
95946009|NCT03861052|191863652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.8|-37.5|<0.001
95946010|NCT03861052|191863652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.9|-40.6|<0.001
95754131|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95946011|NCT03861052|191863653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|||||-13.2|-21.4|<0.001
95946012|NCT03861052|191863653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-26.1|<0.001
95946013|NCT03861052|191863653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.2|||ANCOVA|||||-22.2|-30.5|<0.001
95946014|NCT03861052|191863654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1|-6.4|<0.001
95946015|NCT03861052|191863654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-9.1|<0.001
95946016|NCT03861052|191863654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-11.3|<0.001
95754132|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 6. Difference to Placebo for Week 6 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754133|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95799191|NCT02175758|191569160|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|149.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.12|176.21||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||176.21|127.12|
95946017|NCT03861052|191863655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|26.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.46|7.88|<0.001
95946018|NCT03861052|191863655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.12|87.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.45|23.12|<0.001
95946019|NCT03861052|191863655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|82.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|171.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||171.52|39.84|<0.001
95946020|NCT03861052|191863656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-3.67|<0.001
95946021|NCT03861052|191863656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-4.43|<0.001
95946022|NCT03861052|191863656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-4.55|<0.001
95946023|NCT03861052|191863657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
95946024|NCT03861052|191863657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
95946025|NCT03861052|191863657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
95946026|NCT03861052|191863658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.4|10.7|<0.001
95754134|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 8. Difference to Placebo for Week 8 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95754135|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.4|-7.4|
95754136|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.7|||||CDAI, Week 12. Difference to Placebo for Week 12 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||11.7|-6.3|
95754137|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754138|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||5.4|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 16. Difference to Placebo for Week 16 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95946027|NCT03861052|191863658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.3|14.9|<0.001
95946028|NCT03861052|191863658|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|29.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7|18.1|<0.001
95946029|NCT03861052|191863659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.2|11.7|<0.001
95946030|NCT03861052|191863659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|36.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.0|18.0|<0.001
95946031|NCT03861052|191863659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.4|22.0|<0.001
95946032|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|0.939|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.939|0.485|
95946033|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.911|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.911|0.467|
95946034|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|1.051|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||1.051|0.517|
95946035|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.02|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||1.020|0.497|
95946036|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.973|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.973|0.567|
95946037|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.943|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.943|0.547|
95946038|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.896|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||0.896|0.353|
95946039|NCT03678688|191863688|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.871|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||0.871|0.338|
95946040|NCT03678688|191863728|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|3.175|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||3.175|0.626|
95946041|NCT03678688|191863728|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.151|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.151|0.362|
95946042|NCT03678688|191863728|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.656|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Fieller's method.|||2.656|0.736|
95754139|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||7.9|-2.5|
95754140|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 20. Difference to Placebo for Week 20 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754141|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754142|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 24. Difference to Placebo for Week 24 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754143|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 28. Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95754144|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754145|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 32. Difference to Placebo for Week 32 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754146|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95946043|NCT03678688|191863728|SUPERIORITY||EBA Ratio|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|2.206|||||The confidence interval for the EBA ratio is estimated using Taylor's method.|||2.206|0.564|
95946044|NCT00799409|191863768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-22.3||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.3|-35.0|<0.0001
95946045|NCT00799409|191863769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score adjusted by Hochberg's step up procedure|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-22.2|-34.4|<0.0001
95946046|NCT00799409|191863770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.4||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||7.4|4.3|<0.0001
95946047|NCT00799409|191863771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|6.5||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||6.5|3.8|<0.0001
95754147|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 36. Difference to Placebo for Week 36 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754148|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754149|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|24.5|||||CDAI, Week 40. Difference to Placebo for Week 40 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||24.5|2.5|
95946048|NCT00799409|191863772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|13.3||P-Values are determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-Values at each timepoint are determined by using contrast statements in the repeated measures mixed model.|Placebo minus CONCERTA|||13.3|8.7|<0.0001
95946049|NCT00799409|191863773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.59||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.59|-3.72|<0.0001
95946050|NCT00799409|191863774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-16.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|-12.06||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-12.06|-19.99|<0.0001
95946051|NCT00799409|191863775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-17.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-17.47|-27.43|<0.0001
95754150|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754151|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 44. Difference to Placebo for Week 44 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754152|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.8|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||20.8|0.8|
95754153|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 48. Difference to Placebo for Week 48 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95754154|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754155|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.9|||||CDAI, Week 52. Difference to Placebo for Week 52 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||16.9|-0.7|
95799192|NCT02175758|191569162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level. If superiority was demonstrated in the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group, then the SVR12 rate for participants aged 3 to \< 12 years would be compared with 80% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95799193|NCT02175758|191569162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate for the 3 to \< 12 Years Old group was compared with the historical SVR12 rate of 80% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95799194|NCT02299167|191569183|OTHER|The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Mean (95% CI) of effective dose in 90% (|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.1|||||The ED50% of spinal bupivacaine was estimated using a modified Dixon's up-and-down method|Descriptive statistics were considered to calculate the mathematic mean (SD) of demographic, surgical, and other postoperative continuous data and to calculate the median (range) of sensory and motor block levels, as well as the degree of patient and surgeon satisfaction||2.1|1.7|
95799195|NCT04327271|191569206|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.25% set as lower bound of 95% CI for the maximum mean difference between the proportion of cumulative AEs between control and 2wT arms to conclude that 2wT is non-inferior. This margin was set considering the average AE rate of 0.5% from routine SSA MC programs at scale, and assuming that 2wT increases AE ascertainment to 2.0%, similar to 1.9% of Zimbabwe RCT and the widely-accepted standard 2% AE rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|||||||With 10% loss to follow-up (LTFU), a sample size of 1104 men provides at least 80% power to rule out a decrease in AE ascertainment of more than 0.25% based on the lower bound of the one-sided 95% CI. The one tailed alpha was set 0.05.|||-.09|
95799196|NCT04327271|191569207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21|||Fisher Exact|||The mean number of in-person clinic visit, excluding non-study visits, were compared between the two arms using a t-test. The proportion of potential AEs was calculated as number of potential AE responses divided by the total number of daily responses (no AE and potential AE). A superiority test was performed on the safety outcomes using a two-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value using Fisher's exact test.||1.21|1.03|0.001
95799197|NCT02290184|191569211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|A multi-level regression was employed to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected confidence interval (CI).|cross-level interaction|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.0|-1.1|||||"Multilevel regression analysis was used. The primary test of between-group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months.||-1.1|-3.0|
95799198|NCT02290184|191569212|SUPERIORITY|Multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.9|-1.4|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in % weight change compared to the active control from baseline to 3-months||-1.4|-3.9|
95799199|NCT02290184|191569213|SUPERIORITY|A multi-level regression was used to test differences between the 2 arm's change trajectories of their estimated simple slopes. Bootstrapped full information maximum likelihood models were estimated to obtain nonparametric, bias-corrected CI.|cross-level interaction|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.91|||||"Multilevel regression was used. The primary test of between -group change effect is also called the cross-level interaction between time and group. Simple slopes were also tested to determine if the change was significant within each group."|Hypothesis: Intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in waist-circumference (cm) compared to the Active Control from baseline to 3-months||-.91|-4.5|
95799200|NCT01525589|191569244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0909
95799201|NCT01525589|191569248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95799202|NCT01525589|191569252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0561|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0561
95799203|NCT03043573|191569341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7011||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8605|30.4583|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||30.4583|-31.8605|0.9644
95799204|NCT03043573|191569341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4595||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3472|37.2661|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||37.2661|-32.3472|0.8880
95946052|NCT00799409|191863776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.16||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.16|-1.69|0.1800
95754156|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754157|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|28.1|||||CDAI, Week 62 (follow-up). Difference to Placebo for Week 62 (follow-up) is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||28.1|4.3|
95754158|NCT02504671|191478623|OTHER||Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.7|||||Difference to Placebo for Week 28 is presented. 95% CI were constructed using asymptotic Wald confidence limits without correction.|||12.7|-1.9|
95754159|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, SDAI|||0.00|-8.18|0.050
95754160|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||0.52|-7.84|0.086
95799205|NCT03043573|191569341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5119||||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5024|35.4785|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||35.4785|-36.5024|0.9773
95799206|NCT03043573|191569341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6667||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0598|78.3931|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 52||78.3931|-47.0598|0.6173
95799207|NCT03043573|191569342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1302||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5767|4.8371|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.8371|-2.5767|0.5454
95858966|NCT00473382|191675734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
95858967|NCT00473382|191675734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||To manage the type I error rate while testing multiple secondary efficacy endpoints for statistical significance, a type I error management plan was implemented. Secondary endpoints were prioritized and tested using a hierarchical testing procedure.|ANOVA|The analysis was stratified by baseline BCVA score (≤55, \>55 letters), baseline HbA1c (≤8%, \>8%), and prior therapy for ME in the study eye (yes, no).||The analysis summarized in this section is for the Month 24 time point, comparing the outcome for patients randomized to ranibizumab versus sham injections during the controlled treatment period. The statistical analysis for the Outcome Measure at Month 36 is not shown here.||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95799208|NCT03043573|191569342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9618||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8038|6.7275|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||6.7275|-0.8038|0.1212
95799209|NCT03043573|191569342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.095||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7476|4.9377|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.9377|-2.7476|0.5710
95799210|NCT03043573|191569342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5524||||0.4377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5256|2.4209|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||2.4209|-5.5256|0.4377
95799211|NCT03043573|191569342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8937||||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4439|5.2312|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.2312|-3.4439|0.6813
95799212|NCT03043573|191569342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9457||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|7.1148|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.1148|-1.2234|0.1620
95799213|NCT03043573|191569343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0319||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6668|2.7305|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.7305|-2.6668|0.9813
95799214|NCT03043573|191569343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0564||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4397|3.3268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||3.3268|-3.4397|0.9735
95858968|NCT01189032|191675739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||It's the p-value of linear trend. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.004
95858969|NCT01189032|191675739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||It's the p-value of Saturated at 1% DE-089. It's adjusted for multiplicity.|maximum contrast method|To confirm dose-response relation, two contrasts were provided; linear trend (-1, 0, 1), and saturated at 1% DE-089 ophthalmic solution (-2, 1, 1).||||||0.006
95754161|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.23|-8.43|0.038
95754162|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||1.05|-9.18|0.119
95754163|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.72||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|0.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||0.40|-9.85|0.071
95799215|NCT03043573|191569343|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0611||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1885|4.3107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3107|-2.1885|0.5164
95799216|NCT03043573|191569343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0651|1.0651|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||1.0651|-5.0651|0.1970
95799217|NCT03043573|191569343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0907|3.8146|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||3.8146|-3.0907|0.8342
95799218|NCT03043573|191569343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2424|4.7758|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||4.7758|-2.2424|0.4717
95799219|NCT03043573|191569344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9318||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8176|5.9539|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||5.9539|-11.8176|0.5130
95799220|NCT03043573|191569344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4835||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2306|7.2967|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||7.2967|-15.2306|0.4835
95799221|NCT03043573|191569344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.156||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3357|6.0238|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||6.0238|-16.3357|0.3590
95799222|NCT03043573|191569344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1083||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1598|15.3765|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||15.3765|-13.1598|0.8760
95946053|NCT00799409|191863777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.4||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.40|-2.25|0.0057
95754164|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-0.42|-10.53|0.034
95754165|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.78||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-0.94|-12.61|0.023
95754166|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.28||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|-1.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-1.47|-13.09|0.014
95946054|NCT00799409|191863778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|1.44||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||1.44|-14.05|0.1091
95754167|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|-3.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-3.47|-14.99|0.002
95754168|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.65||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||0.32|-11.62|0.063
95754169|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.30|-12.28|0.040
95754170|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-0.90|-12.69|0.024
95754171|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|-0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-0.01|-13.15|0.050
95754172|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.60|-15.71|0.006
95946055|NCT00799409|191863779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.20|-0.70|0.2653
95946056|NCT00799409|191863780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-2.17||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.17|-10.81|0.0038
95946057|NCT00799409|191863781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.75||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|-2.53||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-2.53|-6.96|0.0001
95946058|NCT00799409|191863782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-1.47||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-1.47|-10.04|0.0092
95754173|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-2.41|-15.32|0.007
95754174|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|0.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||0.68|-14.49|0.074
95754175|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|-2.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.74|-17.99|0.008
95754176|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|-6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-6.67|-21.64|<0.001
95754177|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||6.43|-10.19|0.656
95754178|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||1.19|-15.19|0.093
95754179|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.26||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||0.78|-15.30|0.076
95754180|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||9.74|-8.14|0.860
95754181|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.99|-14.40|0.196
95799223|NCT03043573|191569345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0606||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|0.0628|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A Baseline||0.0628|-0.1841|0.3248
95946059|NCT00799409|191863783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.33|-0.37|0.9195
95754182|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|2.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.48|-14.48|0.164
95754183|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.65||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|0.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||0.69|-21.99|0.066
95754184|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.49|-27.25|0.003
95754185|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-5.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-5.03|-26.30|0.004
95754186|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-0.65|-8.91|0.024
95754187|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,SDAI|||-3.70|-11.84|<0.001
95754188|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-1.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.60|-11.74|0.010
95754189|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-1.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,SDAI|||-1.78|-11.91|0.008
95754190|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-2.67|-14.20|0.004
95799224|NCT03043573|191569345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6953||||0.3615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2261|0.8354|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails A - Week 12||0.8354|-2.2261|0.3615
95946060|NCT00799409|191863784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-19.39||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-19.39|-59.70|0.0002
95946061|NCT00799409|191863785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.04||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.04|-0.13|0.0002
95754191|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-6.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,SDAI|||-6.75|-18.26|<0.001
95754192|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-1.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-1.01|-12.99|0.022
95754193|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,SDAI|||-4.24|-16.07|<0.001
95754194|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-4.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-4.66|-17.70|<0.001
95946062|NCT00799409|191863786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.03|-0.07|0.4625
95991570|NCT01738971|191958291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative probability|2.57||||0.006||95.0|1.55|4.27||see above comments regarding analysis taking cluster randomised account into consideration|t-test, 2 sided|||"Cluster randomised study design - statisitical analysis takes this into account. Analaysis was conducted at a cluster level and the proportions in each cluster using effective contraception were compared between groups by 2-sample t tests, weighted by the different number of patients in each cluster.~Comparison of number of women using effective contraception at 6-8 weeks in rapid access group compared to control."||4.27|1.55|0.006
95754195|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-7.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,SDAI|||-7.44|-20.57|<0.001
95754196|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-2.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-2.11|-17.26|0.013
95754197|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,SDAI|||-9.32|-24.39|<0.001
95754198|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.03||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|2.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||2.18|-14.24|0.149
95799225|NCT03043573|191569345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9917||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9664|3.9498|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Baseline||3.9498|-1.9664|0.5046
95799226|NCT03043573|191569345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0607||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2821|0.1607|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 12||0.1607|-4.2821|0.0679
95799227|NCT03043573|191569345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8929||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1825|0.3968|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 24||0.3968|-2.1825|0.1669
95799228|NCT03043573|191569345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8115|0.9543|||t-test, 2 sided|||Trails B - Week 52||0.9543|-3.8115|0.2178
95946063|NCT00799409|191863787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.05|-0.09|0.6262
95754199|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-1.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,SDAI|||-1.55|-17.32|0.019
95754200|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|2.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||2.14|-15.32|0.138
95754201|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.99|-0.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,SDAI|||-0.42|-16.99|0.040
95754202|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.77|-4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-4.98|-26.77|0.005
95754203|NCT02504671|191478624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-10.53||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,SDAI|||-10.53|-31.20|<0.001
95754204|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.20|-7.89|0.063
95754205|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.28|-7.95|0.067
95754206|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-0.39|-8.46|0.032
95946064|NCT00799409|191863788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.08|-0.08|0.9980
95946065|NCT00799409|191863789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.02|-0.19|0.0151
95754207|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.17||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|0.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||0.84|-9.17|0.102
95754208|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||1.49|-8.43|0.170
95754209|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-0.27|-10.13|0.039
95754210|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.57|-12.82|0.012
95754211|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-1.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-1.16|-12.30|0.018
95754212|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|-3.66||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-3.66|-14.73|0.001
95754213|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.48||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|0.35||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.35|-11.31|0.065
95754214|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|0.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.00|-11.69|0.050
95754215|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-0.87|-12.38|0.024
95946066|NCT00799409|191863790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||-0.03|-0.15|0.0043
95946067|NCT00799409|191863791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.00|-0.08|0.0371
95754216|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||0.02|-12.84|0.051
95754217|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|-2.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.22|-14.97|0.008
95754218|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-2.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-2.43|-15.06|0.007
95799229|NCT03043573|191569346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.558||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3747|4.4908|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||4.4908|-1.3747|0.2932
95946068|NCT00799409|191863792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||P-Values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|ANCOVA||Placebo minus CONCERTA|||0.01|-0.06|0.0965
95946069|NCT02949297|191863815|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|Clopper-Pearson|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0|||||One-sided Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval|||95||
95946070|NCT01767688|191863855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.11|0.79|
95754219|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||0.58|-14.19|0.071
95754220|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|-2.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.44|-17.17|0.009
95754221|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|-6.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-6.59|-21.17|<0.001
95754222|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|6.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||6.26|-9.63|0.676
95754223|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.33||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|1.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.44|-14.11|0.110
95754224|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||1.23|-14.12|0.099
95754225|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|9.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||9.69|-7.61|0.812
95754226|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.39||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|2.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.96|-13.75|0.204
95754227|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||2.30|-14.09|0.157
95754228|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.37||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|1.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||1.42|-20.15|0.088
95754229|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.83|-25.40|0.004
95946071|NCT01767688|191863856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.10|0.81|
95754230|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-4.80|-25.01|0.004
95754231|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||0.17|-7.96|0.060
95754232|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-3.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1,CDAI|||-3.36|-11.42|<0.001
95754233|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-1.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.14|-11.06|0.016
95754234|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|-1.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2,CDAI|||-1.91|-11.78|0.007
95754235|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.92||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.48|-2.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-2.37|-13.48|0.005
95754236|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4,CDAI|||-6.64|-17.74|<0.001
95754237|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.62||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||0.21|-11.45|0.059
95754238|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6,CDAI|||-4.38|-15.97|<0.001
95754239|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-4.00|-16.75|0.002
95799230|NCT03043573|191569346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7043||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4659|4.8744|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||4.8744|-1.4659|0.2871
95799231|NCT03043573|191569346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9167||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4737|4.307|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||4.3070|-2.4737|0.5910
95799232|NCT03043573|191569346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0238||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0469|2.9993|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9993|-5.0469|0.6128
95946072|NCT01767688|191863857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.28|0.51|
95946073|NCT01767688|191863858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|||||1.15|0.93|
95946074|NCT00357994|191863863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.76||Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline and the natural logarithm of the mean daily dose of rescue medication on valid symptom diary days as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.05|0.0015
95946075|NCT00357994|191863864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||3.17|0.56|0.0059
95754240|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8,CDAI|||-7.41|-20.18|<0.001
95754241|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-2.31||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-2.31|-17.03|0.010
95754242|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.97|-9.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,CDAI|||-9.30|-23.97|<0.001
95754243|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||2.30|-13.37|0.165
95754244|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.85||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16,CDAI|||-1.32|-16.39|0.022
95754245|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||1.89|-14.99|0.127
95754246|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.67||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|-0.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20,CDAI|||-0.67|-16.67|0.034
95754247|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|-5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-5.07|-25.78|0.004
95754248|NCT02504671|191478625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-10.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for CDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,CDAI|||-10.06|-29.70|<0.001
95754249|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.16|-0.14|0.938
95754250|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.15|-0.15|0.981
95754251|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.16|0.857
95754252|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.13|0.592
95754253|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.18|-0.16|0.917
95754254|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.23|0.545
95946076|NCT00357994|191863865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-1.4|-12.6|0.0155
95991571|NCT00762515|191958311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline is used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95991572|NCT00762515|191958312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|baseline to be used a factor||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95754255|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.24|-0.16|0.707
95754256|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.15|0.603
95754257|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.27|0.473
95754258|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.22|-0.21|0.987
95754259|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.25|0.713
95799233|NCT03043573|191569346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9276||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0231|5.8783|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 36||5.8783|-2.0231|0.3326
95799234|NCT03043573|191569346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0741||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8522|6.0004|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||6.0004|-1.8522|0.2935
95799235|NCT05370326|191569387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|5.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.46|-3.67|0.69
95799236|NCT05370326|191569392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.89|0.67
95799237|NCT05370326|191569393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.34|-1.16|0.50
95799238|NCT05370326|191569394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.51|-1.09|0.74
95799239|NCT05370326|191569396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95946077|NCT00357994|191863866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the baseline CGI-S as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.1|-1.4|0.0258
95946078|NCT00357994|191863867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||-0.8|-5.3|0.0086
95991573|NCT00692211|191958313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Study powered to detect 10% difference in proportion of screening adherence based on alpha of 0.05, beta 0.20.||2.32|1.04|0.01
95799240|NCT05370326|191569397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95799241|NCT00639379|191569403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.436|0.967|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens orientation within 5 degrees.||0.967|0.436|
95799242|NCT00639379|191569404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.65|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416|||||TWO_SIDED|98.98|0.68|1.416|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is senofilcon A toric / alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for proportion of eyes with lens stability within 5 degrees.||1.416|0.680|
95799243|NCT00639379|191569405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.0517|0.1868|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for lens comfort.||0.1868|-0.0517|
95799244|NCT00639379|191569406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08566|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.2337|-0.01185|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric for subjective vision.||-0.01185|-0.2337|
95799245|NCT00639379|191569407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01265|||TWO_SIDED|98.98|-0.01267|0.01986|||||The mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to alphafilcon A toric by having a lower level of corneal staining.||0.01986|-0.01267|
95799246|NCT01991314|191569435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We calculated, on the premise that there is non-inferiority between adolescent and adult groups in the difference in increase of mean haemoglobin levels of 0.35g/dL, with estimated standard deviation 0.7g/dL following treatment, that 45 patients in each group would be required, derived using power 80% power, 1-sided significance level 0.05 and R 0.5 for the covariate; this calculation took into account planned ANCOVA methodology and 20% patients who might be lost to follow up or withdraw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||To test the hypothesis of non-inferiority with maximal statistical power, ANCOVA (one-tailed P\<0.05) was employed to compare the change in mean haemoglobin levels between adults and adolescents after accounting for necessary covariates|ANCOVA|||||||0.23
95799247|NCT01991314|191569436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions (expressed as percentages) of total number of participants in each group who were iron intolerant||Chi squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.||||<0.05
95799248|NCT01991314|191569437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unpaired Students t test||||0.96
95799249|NCT01991314|191569438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||0.49
95799250|NCT01991314|191569439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.85
95799251|NCT01991314|191569440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney U test||||0.69
95799252|NCT01991314|191569441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test||||<0.0001
95799253|NCT00879359|191569442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||||99|64|
95858970|NCT00531661|191675746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||0.0002
95858971|NCT00531661|191675747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implantation cases free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implantation cases was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
95946079|NCT00357994|191863868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||5.6|-2.8|0.5020
95799254|NCT02260986|191569448|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|36.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||36.26|16.34|<0.0001
95946080|NCT00357994|191863869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.146|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding Baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||0.146|-0.005|0.0670
95946081|NCT00357994|191863870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||Since the null hypothesis for the primary analysis was rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, hierarchical testing was performed for secondary variables on the Full Analysis data set at the 0.50 level using a gatekeeping procedure to preserve family-wise error rate.||1.7|-10.7|0.1501
95946082|NCT00357994|191863871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.82|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.82|-0.98|0.8574
95754260|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.31|0.357
95754261|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.19|0.748
95754262|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.34|0.327
95754263|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.32|0.395
95754264|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.710
95754265|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.21|-0.30|0.740
95754266|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.36|0.398
95754267|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.52|-0.19|0.364
95754268|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.46|-0.23|0.503
95754269|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.647
95754270|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.33|-0.37|0.910
95754271|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.26|-0.42|0.660
95754272|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.17|-0.50|0.340
95754273|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.39|-0.34|0.902
95754274|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.28|-0.42|0.687
95754275|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.25||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.25|-0.44|0.599
95754276|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.11|-0.19|0.588
95754277|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, HAQ-DI|||0.06|-0.23|0.259
95946083|NCT00357994|191863872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-1.8|-19.1|0.0184
95754278|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.358
95754279|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.26|0.325
95754280|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.28|0.473
95754281|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.38|0.085
95754282|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.23|-0.20|0.897
95754283|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
95754284|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.09|-0.36|0.238
95754285|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, HAQ-DI|||0.02|-0.44|0.071
95754286|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for SDAI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.13|-0.38|0.340
95754287|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, HAQ-DI|||0.01|-0.49|0.059
95754288|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.44|-0.26|0.607
95754289|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, HAQ-DI|||0.32|-0.34|0.959
95754290|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.20|-0.49|0.401
95754291|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, HAQ-DI|||0.12|-0.54|0.207
95754292|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.27|-0.44|0.637
95754293|NCT02504671|191478626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for HAQ-DI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, HAQ-DI|||0.14|-0.53|0.251
95754294|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.90|-9.81|0.511
95754295|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|4.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||4.60|-10.13|0.461
95946084|NCT00357994|191863873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-2.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-2.5|-20.6|0.0129
95946085|NCT00357994|191863874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.6|-9.0|0.5246
95754296|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||-0.39|-15.03|0.039
95754297|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|5.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||5.01|-10.86|0.469
95754298|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|1.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||1.85|-13.82|0.133
95858972|NCT00531661|191675748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all patients implanted was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
95946086|NCT00357994|191863875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||3.1|-12.0|0.2423
95946087|NCT00357994|191863876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.4|-9.9|0.2243
95991574|NCT05900115|191958373|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
95991575|NCT05900115|191958374|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
95754299|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.23|-15.40|0.057
95754300|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.03||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||5.61|-11.67|0.490
95754301|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-0.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-0.86|-17.91|0.031
95754302|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.67|-3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-3.74|-20.67|0.005
95754303|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|4.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||4.85|-13.83|0.345
95754304|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.26|-17.30|0.090
95754305|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.36||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|0.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||0.83|-17.55|0.074
95754306|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|4.34||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||4.34|-15.57|0.268
95754307|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|-4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.70|-24.43|0.004
95754308|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-4.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-4.16|-23.72|0.005
95754309|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.02||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|3.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||3.32|-17.36|0.182
95754310|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-3.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-3.87|-24.42|0.007
95754311|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|-8.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-8.01|-28.35|<0.001
95754312|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.89||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|10.36||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||10.36|-20.15|0.527
95754313|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.95||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.72|-1.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||-1.19|-30.72|0.034
95754314|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|0.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||0.70|-28.42|0.062
95858973|NCT00531661|191675749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0077
95754315|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|13.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||13.47|-14.85|0.924
95754316|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.82|0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||0.48|-26.82|0.058
95754317|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.49||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-0.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.08|-26.91|0.049
95754318|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|10.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||10.07|-22.84|0.445
95799255|NCT02260986|191569448|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|33.28||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||33.28|20.33|<0.0001
95799256|NCT02260986|191569449|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.72|55.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||55.66|35.72|<0.0001
95799257|NCT02260986|191569449|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.|difference in percentages|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|47.81||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level for both comparisons.||47.81|33.74|<0.0001
95799258|NCT02260986|191569450|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.53|49.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||49.65|28.53|<0.0001
95799259|NCT02260986|191569450|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||38.39|23.84|<0.0001
95799260|NCT02260986|191569451|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|48.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||48.31|27.56|<0.0001
95858974|NCT00531661|191675750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0292
95858975|NCT00531661|191675751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0280
95946088|NCT00357994|191863877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||2.8|-10.8|0.2407
95858976|NCT00531661|191675752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0236
95946089|NCT00357994|191863878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-6.8|-20.8|0.0002
95991576|NCT05900115|191958375|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
95754319|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.14||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.87|5.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||5.58|-25.87|0.205
95858977|NCT00531661|191675753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Regression|||||||<0.0001
95946090|NCT00357994|191863879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||6.9|-13.6|0.5213
95991577|NCT05900115|191958376|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
95754320|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|3.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||3.41|-27.55|0.125
95754321|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|2.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||2.41|-12.26|0.187
95754322|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.63||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|1.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 1, Pain score|||1.67|-12.93|0.130
95754323|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||0.03|-15.72|0.051
95754324|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-2.6||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 2, Pain score|||-2.60|-18.27|0.009
95754325|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.94||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|0.58||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||0.58|-16.47|0.068
95754326|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.47|-5.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Pain score|||-5.44|-22.47|0.001
95754327|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.36||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|1.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||1.89|-16.62|0.118
95754328|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.19||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 6, Pain score|||-3.19|-21.68|0.009
95754329|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|-6.65||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-6.65|-26.38|0.001
95754330|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.27|-10.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 8, Pain score|||-10.52|-30.27|<0.001
95799261|NCT02260986|191569451|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.31|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.||42.05|27.31|<0.0001
95946091|NCT00357994|191863880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.4|0.3741
95946092|NCT00357994|191863881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||-0.1|-2.4|0.0361
95946093|NCT00357994|191863882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.1|0.3578
95946094|NCT00357994|191863883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||4.4|-7.4|0.6088
95754331|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27|-1.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-1.73|-22.27|0.022
95754332|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|-7.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Pain score|||-7.70|-28.18|<0.001
95799262|NCT02260986|191569452|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.72|34.19||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.19|12.72|<0.0001
95754333|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.18|1.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||1.79|-28.18|0.084
95946095|NCT00357994|191863884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (LS Mean)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|18.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons are based on an ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and with the corresponding baseline as a covariate.||||18.9|4.0|0.0033
95946096|NCT01354444|191863898|OTHER||Coefficient|1.48||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.796|6.761|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis compares immediate recall before and after 6 months between the treatment and placebo group.||6.761|-3.796|0.565
95946097|NCT01354444|191863899|OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in total Tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.481
95754334|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.87||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|2.27||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 16, Pain score|||2.27|-26.02|0.099
95754335|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.91||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.68|-0.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.14|-27.68|0.048
95754336|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-0.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 20, Pain score|||-0.13|-26.32|0.048
95754337|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.11|2.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||2.64|-29.11|0.102
95754338|NCT02504671|191478627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-1.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Pain Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Pain score|||-1.62|-31.79|0.030
95754339|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|3.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||3.52|-2.31|0.683
95754340|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||6.07|0.31|0.030
95754341|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.47||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.47|-0.25|0.074
95754342|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||4.80|-1.88|0.390
95754343|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.75||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.75|-0.91|0.154
95754344|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, PCS|||5.02|-1.56|0.302
95754345|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.88|-3.50|0.521
95754346|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|6.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.20|-3.63|0.606
95754347|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.32|-2.41|0.320
95754348|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.64|-4.65|0.811
95754349|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.55|-3.65|0.830
95754350|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||3.54|-4.61|0.795
95946098|NCT01354444|191863899|OTHER|||||||0.0562|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in Abeta42 between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.0562
95946099|NCT01354444|191863899|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in p-tau between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.314
95946100|NCT01354444|191863899|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Rank sum test|||This analysis compares the change in oligomeric Abeta between the treatment and placebo group from baseline to 6 months later.||||0.438
95946101|NCT00982072|191863901|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95754351|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.64|-3.00|0.548
95754352|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.77|-2.85|0.505
95754353|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|5.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||5.39|-3.15|0.605
95754354|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||6.90|-6.03|0.895
95946102|NCT03559205|191863906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||0.70|-0.74|0.96
95946103|NCT03559205|191863907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||2.04|-2.31|0.90
95946104|NCT03559205|191863907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Week Analysis||5.19|-1.17|0.21
95946105|NCT03559205|191863907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||4.83|-2.95|0.63
95946106|NCT03559205|191863908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||6.26|-1.00|0.15
95991578|NCT05900115|191958377|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
95991579|NCT05900115|191958378|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.18
95991580|NCT05900115|191958379|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
95991581|NCT05900115|191958380|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
95991582|NCT05900115|191958381|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary dichotomous outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|.38|0.85
95991583|NCT05900115|191958382|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
95991584|NCT00880750|191958405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.47, 3.47).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.18|
95991585|NCT00880750|191958406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A standard 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference in least square means of the primary pharmacodynamic (PD) variable between the granules formulation and the reference chewable tablet formulation. A critical reference representing +/- 20% of the reference chewable tablet formulation least squares mean was constructed. PD equivalence was to be claimed if the 90% CI was completely contained within the critical reference range of (-3.40, 3.40).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.80|-3.17|
95991586|NCT00880750|191958407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.34||||||90.0|1.26|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation AUC 0-48 was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.42|1.26|
95754355|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.42||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||8.42|-3.84|0.461
95754356|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||4.99|-7.10|0.732
95754357|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||2.88|-3.11|0.941
95754358|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||6.67|0.78|0.013
95754359|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.92||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily Pain|||5.84|-0.01|0.051
95991587|NCT00880750|191958408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.26||||||90.0|1.2|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|After application of the log transformation Cmax was analysed using a mixed effect linear model.||The LS means and associated SEs for granules and tablets as well as the difference between granules and tablets were determined. From the LS mean and SE of the difference, a 90% CI was constructed for the difference of the logs of granules and tablets. An exponential transformation was applied to the lower and upper limits of the CI. This created a point estimate and 90% CI for the ratio of LS means for granules to tablets.||1.33|1.20|
95991588|NCT00880750|191958409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|The median difference and 90% CI for the median difference was then calculated based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test||||0.50|0.00|
95991589|NCT03242954|191958410|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.101|||Regression, Linear|||||0.101|0.001|0.5148
95991590|NCT03242954|191958411|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.389|||Regression, Linear|||||0.389|0.169|<.0001
95991591|NCT03242954|191958412|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.073|||GEE Linear model|||||0.073|0.001|0.4324
95991592|NCT03242954|191958413|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's f square|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.374|||GEE Linear model|||||0.374|0.175|<.0001
95754360|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.12|-2.07|0.403
95946107|NCT03559205|191863908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2 analysis||6.45|-2.02|0.30
95754361|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||6.40|-0.76|0.122
95754362|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily Pain|||5.62|-1.45|0.247
95754363|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|9.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.32|-3.61|0.384
95754364|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.16||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||11.16|-1.07|0.105
95754365|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|9.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily Pain|||9.17|-2.76|0.290
95754366|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||2.50|-3.52|0.738
95754367|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.97|-1.99|0.513
95754368|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.08||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, General Health|||3.08|-2.83|0.934
95754369|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.68||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.68|-2.43|0.687
95754370|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||4.91|-1.20|0.233
95754371|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, General Health|||3.59|-2.44|0.708
95754372|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|8.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.93|-2.34|0.250
95946108|NCT03559205|191863908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||5.90|-4.89|0.85
95946109|NCT03559205|191863909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Care and respect||0.74|-0.51|0.72
95754373|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.76||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|8.09||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||8.09|-2.57|0.307
95754374|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|7.79||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, General Health|||7.79|-2.74|0.345
95754375|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||0.52|-0.19|0.950
95991593|NCT02265913|191958422|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% of success|Equivalence ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|105.0|||Fieller's method|||||105|92|
95754376|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||4.87|-3.11|0.664
95754377|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.96||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Mental Health|||3.96|-3.99|0.994
95754378|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.03|-1.84|0.250
95754379|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||7.64|-1.22|0.154
95754380|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Mental Health|||6.89|-1.88|0.262
95946110|NCT03559205|191863909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Understanding \& engagement||0.83|-0.38|0.46
95946111|NCT03559205|191863910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||2-weeks||0.42|-0.13|0.30
95946112|NCT03559205|191863910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||3-months||0.52|-0.20|0.38
95946113|NCT03559205|191863911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.88|-1.48|0.61
95754381|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|7.93||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||7.93|-5.28|0.693
95754382|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.28||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|9.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||9.54|-2.98|0.302
95754383|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Mental Health|||6.77|-5.54|0.844
95799263|NCT02260986|191569452|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.42|34.58||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.58|20.42|<0.0001
95799264|NCT02260986|191569453|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|43.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|54.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||54.65|32.50|<0.0001
95799265|NCT02260986|191569453|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.91|50.06||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||50.06|34.91|<0.0001
95799266|NCT02260986|191569454|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-17.43||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.43|-35.04|<0.0001
95799267|NCT02260986|191569454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.83|-20.73||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-20.73|-32.83|<0.0001
95799268|NCT02260986|191569455|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|38.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|49.66||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||49.66|26.96|<0.0001
95799269|NCT02260986|191569455|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|33.45||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||33.45|18.76|<0.0001
95946114|NCT03960645|191864007|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|41.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.71|46.32||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio (%).||46.32|36.71|
95754384|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.04|-2.71|0.698
95754385|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||5.70|-0.94|0.159
95754386|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Physical Functioning|||4.83|-1.76|0.360
95754387|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.82||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.69|-1.04|0.151
95754388|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.86|-0.83|0.124
95754389|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|6.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Physical Functioning|||6.80|-0.79|0.120
95754390|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.70|-5.98|0.814
95754391|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|4.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||4.67|-5.49|0.873
95799270|NCT02260986|191569456|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|51.35||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||51.35|28.76|<0.0001
95799271|NCT02260986|191569456|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.81|34.76||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 52 were considered as non-responders.||34.76|19.81|<0.0001
95799272|NCT02260986|191569457|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.34|48.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||48.40|27.34|<0.0001
95799273|NCT02260986|191569457|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.65|34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 24 were considered as non-responders.||34.70|20.65|<0.0001
95799274|NCT02260986|191569458|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|31.15||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||31.15|10.59|<0.0001
95799275|NCT02260986|191569458|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|10.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.||17.31|4.15|0.0021
95858978|NCT00531661|191675754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from DSRC to OPC of 0.80.||"Analysis of DSRC was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate for all implanted patients was at least 80%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 80%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 80%"||||<0.0001
95946115|NCT03960645|191864007|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.04|49.79||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.79|40.04|
95946116|NCT03960645|191864007|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|40.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.77|44.76||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||44.76|36.77|
95946117|NCT03960645|191864007|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.95|49.34||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||49.34|39.95|
95754392|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Physical Functioning|||5.26|-4.80|0.928
95754393|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|2.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.86|-5.44|0.541
95799276|NCT02260986|191569459|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|17.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||17.63|1.61|0.0062
95799277|NCT02260986|191569459|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|5.5||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|10.51||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity (IGA baseline values: IGA=3 vs IGA=4). Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.||10.51|0.56|0.0344
95946118|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.45|71.56||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||71.56|63.45|
95754394|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||2.81|-5.39|0.535
95754395|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Emotional|||3.05|-5.10|0.620
95754396|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.76|-4.08|0.881
95754397|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,Role Emotional|||5.07|-3.74|0.767
95754398|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|4.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Emotional|||4.61|-4.12|0.913
95754399|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.63||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||7.63|-5.81|0.790
95754400|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|6.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||6.87|-5.86|0.876
95754401|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Emotional|||4.99|-7.59|0.684
95754402|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||4.01|-2.28|0.588
95754403|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.0||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.00|-1.21|0.229
95754404|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Role Physical|||5.49|-0.67|0.125
95799278|NCT02260986|191569460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.297|-1.322||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-1.322|-2.297|<0.0001
95858979|NCT00531661|191675755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||exact test of binomial proportions|P-value from exact test of binomial proportions compared proportion of all implanted patients free from pressure sensor failure to OPC of 0.90.||"Analysis of sensor failures was based on the following pre-specified objective performance criteria: the lower limit of the two-sided 95.2% confidence interval on the freedom from pressure sensor failure rate for all implanted patients was at least 90%. The statistical hypotheses were:~Null: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) ≤ 90%~Alternative: (Freedom from device / system-related complications) \> 90%"||||<0.0001
95754405|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|4.12||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.12|-2.92|0.736
95754406|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||5.23|-1.80|0.338
95754407|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.4||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Role Physical|||4.40|-2.55|0.600
95754408|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.86|-4.34|0.657
95754409|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|5.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||5.17|-5.41|0.965
95754410|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|6.37||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Role Physical|||6.37|-4.14|0.675
95754411|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|3.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||3.89|-4.54|0.880
95754412|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.33|-1.00|0.135
95754413|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|4.71||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||4.71|-3.56|0.785
95799279|NCT02260986|191569461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.37|-17.82||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-17.82|-46.37|<0.0001
95754414|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|4.8||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.80|-3.69|0.797
95754415|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.23|-4.23|>0.999
95754416|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|4.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||4.46|-3.91|0.896
95754417|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|4.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||4.24|-10.02|0.424
95754418|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|6.29||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.29|-7.16|0.898
95799280|NCT02260986|191569462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.583|-14.187||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-14.187|-22.583|<0.0001
95858980|NCT03599089|191675759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95946119|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.95|67.75||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||67.75|60.95|
95754419|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|2.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||2.84|-10.42|0.260
95754420|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||4.90|-2.85|0.603
95754421|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.39|-0.26|0.068
95754422|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.43||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||6.43|-1.17|0.174
95754423|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|5.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||5.98|-2.04|0.334
95754424|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.91|-1.09|0.153
95946120|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.88|72.66||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||72.66|65.88|
95754425|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|6.13||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.13|-1.78|0.279
95754426|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|8.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,Vitality|||8.91|-5.04|0.584
95754427|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.73|-3.44|0.346
95754428|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.48|-3.55|0.370
95754429|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.83||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||5.83|0.06|0.045
95799281|NCT02260986|191569463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.46|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-21.9|-33.46|<0.0001
95858981|NCT03599089|191675760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0245
95858982|NCT03599089|191675761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0019
95858983|NCT05038982|191675788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.09|118.48||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||118.48|38.09|<0.001
95946121|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|65.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.79|68.57||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.57|61.79|
95946122|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|92.14||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||92.14|65.40|
95754430|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.01||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, PCS|||7.01|1.22|0.006
95754431|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|5.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||5.23|-1.44|0.264
95754432|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.55||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.88||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12,PCS|||6.88|0.22|0.037
95754433|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|7.14||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||7.14|-2.81|0.392
95799282|NCT02260986|191569464|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-3.02||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-3.02|-5.31|<0.0001
95799283|NCT02260986|191569465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|-5.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||-5.93|-8.85|<0.0001
95799284|NCT02260986|191569466|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.37||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurements as covariate and the treatment, region and baseline IGA strata as fixed factors.||0.37|-2.27|0.1596
95858984|NCT05038982|191675788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.12||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|98.76||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|ANOVA||Percent PP-NRS reduction comparing subject's values at Week 0 to values at Week 12|||98.76|8.55|0.0142
95946123|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.76|76.96||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||76.96|50.76|
95754434|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|6.39||MMRM analysis adjusted for PCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, PCS|||6.39|-3.09|0.493
95754435|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.26||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||5.26|-2.94|0.577
95754436|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.2||MMRM analysis adjusted for MCS Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, MCS|||4.20|-4.01|0.964
95754437|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||6.28|-2.35|0.370
95946124|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.57|82.88||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.88|58.57|
95754438|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.54||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, MCS|||7.54|-1.05|0.138
95946125|NCT03960645|191864008|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|56.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|68.96||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.96|46.32|
95754439|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.667
95946126|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|51.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.48|57.97||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||57.97|46.48|
95946127|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.48|63.36||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||63.36|52.48|
95754440|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, MCS|||7.56|-4.85|0.203
95754441|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.41||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||6.41|0.49|0.023
95754442|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Bodily pain|||8.03|2.14|<0.001
95799285|NCT04868682|191569542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided||The parameter estimate is the difference in means (treatment vs. control) during the first 180 nights following randomization.|||1.91|0.65|.0001
95799286|NCT04868682|191569543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||0.87|-2.29|0.378
95799287|NCT04868682|191569544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||-1.27|-4.09|<0.001
95754443|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|5.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||5.70|-1.49|0.249
95754444|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|6.99||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Bodily pain|||6.99|-0.13|0.059
95754445|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|10.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.90|-1.47|0.134
95754446|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|10.97||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Bodily pain|||10.97|-0.58|0.078
95754447|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|4.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.62|-1.32|0.275
95754448|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.91||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, General health|||4.91|-1.03|0.199
95754449|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.74||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||3.74|-2.36|0.654
95754450|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.33||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, General health|||5.33|-0.74|0.138
95754451|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||7.17|-3.62|0.516
95754452|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, General health|||8.46|-1.77|0.198
95754453|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|3.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||3.84|-4.15|0.941
95754454|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.05||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Mental health|||4.05|-3.94|0.979
95754455|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||6.84|-2.03|0.287
95754456|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.45||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|7.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Mental health|||7.85|-0.96|0.125
95754457|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|8.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Mental health|||8.49|-4.18|0.503
95754458|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.01||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|10.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24,Mental health|||10.98|-0.96|0.099
95754459|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|5.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.21|-1.45|0.268
95754460|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.45||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Physical functioning|||5.77|-0.87|0.147
95754461|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|6.73||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||6.73|-0.99|0.145
95754462|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.54||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Physical functioning|||8.61|0.97|0.014
95754463|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|5.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.61|-4.66|0.856
95754464|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.55||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Physical functioning|||5.55|-4.24|0.793
95754465|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.69||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||4.69|-3.51|0.778
95754466|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role emotional|||3.50|-4.70|0.773
95754467|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||5.49|-3.34|0.631
95754468|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.07||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role emotional|||7.07|-1.71|0.230
95754469|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.84||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||6.84|-6.03|0.901
95946128|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.03|53.94||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||53.94|43.03|
95946129|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|54.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.39|61.21||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||61.21|48.39|
95946130|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|75.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.7|85.7||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.70|66.70|
95754470|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|8.59||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role emotional|||8.59|-3.54|0.412
95754471|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.98||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||4.98|-1.22|0.234
95754472|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.66||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|5.77||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Role physical|||5.77|-0.46|0.094
95754473|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.94||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||4.94|-2.08|0.423
95754474|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.86||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Role physical|||6.86|-0.16|0.061
95754475|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|6.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||6.57|-4.16|0.657
95754476|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|5.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Role physical|||5.95|-4.22|0.737
95754477|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.11|-1.22|0.165
95754478|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|7.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Social Functioning|||7.56|-0.77|0.109
95754479|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|6.21||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||6.21|-2.26|0.359
95754480|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|8.56||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Social Functioning|||8.56|0.14|0.043
95754481|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|6.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.49|-7.15|0.923
95754482|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.7||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Social Functioning|||6.70|-6.11|0.927
95754483|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||8.46|0.82|0.018
95754484|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|7.17||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 4, Vitality|||7.17|-0.49|0.087
95754485|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||6.64|-1.35|0.193
95754486|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.97||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|7.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 12, Vitality|||7.95|-0.01|0.051
95754487|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|10.02||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||10.02|-3.31|0.321
95754488|NCT02504671|191478628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|9.44||MMRM analysis adjusted for Baseline, treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, Vitality|||9.44|-3.18|0.328
95754489|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.67||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||2.67|-3.97|0.701
95946131|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.76|88.05||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||88.05|68.76|
95946132|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|85.29||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.29|70.33|
95993780|NCT00619957|191963383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-16.47|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.47|-39.84|<0.0001
95754490|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|4.78||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||4.78|-1.79|0.370
95754491|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|5.81||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||5.81|-0.71|0.125
95754492|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.5||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||5.50|-1.66|0.292
95754493|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.11||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.11||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT sscore|||6.11|-1.04|0.163
95754494|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.61||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||6.61|-0.46|0.087
95754495|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.92||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.92|-5.40|0.808
95754496|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.38||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||5.38|-6.31|0.874
95754497|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|4.95||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24,FACIT score|||4.95|-6.58|0.780
95754498|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.85||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.85|0.29|0.033
95754499|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.81||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|6.1||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, FACIT score|||6.10|-0.48|0.094
95754500|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.49||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||7.49|0.34|0.032
95754501|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|8.89||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, FACIT score|||8.89|1.77|0.004
95754502|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|6.64||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||6.64|-5.19|0.808
95754503|NCT02504671|191478629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for FACIT Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, FACIT score|||7.48|-3.74|0.511
95754504|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.9||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.90|-1.04|0.888
95754505|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.46||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.46|-1.46|0.307
95754506|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.04||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.04|-1.95|0.041
95754507|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.32||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||0.32|-1.60|0.191
95754508|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.24||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.24|-2.16|0.014
95754509|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.45||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.45|-2.34|0.004
95754510|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.23||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.23|-1.94|0.656
95754511|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.57||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.57|-1.43|0.928
95754512|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.28||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||1.28|-1.68|0.788
95754513|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.3||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||-0.30|-2.22|0.010
95946133|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|85.15||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||85.15|69.78|
95946134|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.16|87.0||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||87.00|56.16|
95754514|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.03||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 4, BFI score|||0.03|-1.89|0.059
95754515|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.48||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.48|-2.40|0.003
95754516|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 12, BFI score|||-0.62|-2.53|0.001
95754517|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.76||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.76|-2.28|0.324
95754518|NCT02504671|191478630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.87||MMRM analysis adjusted for BFI Baseline score, treatment group, visit and treatment group by visit and Baseline by visit interactions.|MMRM||Week 24, BFI score|||0.87|-2.02|0.432
95754519|NCT01687478|191478644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.8|||||The Confidence Interval is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between Olanzapine + Fluoxetine and Placebo + Fluoxetine.|||1.80|-5.04|
95754520|NCT03688282|191478661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95754521|NCT04796779|191478662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95754522|NCT04796779|191478663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
95754523|NCT04796779|191478664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95754524|NCT04796779|191478665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Direct likelihood model|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95754525|NCT04796779|191478666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||To preserve the overall type I error for the multiple secondary outcomes, a hierarchical gatekeeping approach was used.|Robust regression using M-estimation|The model was adjusted for the baseline value of the metric, age, prior CGM and pump use, and site as a fixed effect.||||||0.57
95754526|NCT03493386|191478780|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.07|0.97|
95754527|NCT03493386|191478780|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||AUC(0-inf)|||1.07|0.97|
95946135|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.79|82.34||||||TAF: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||82.34|53.79|
95754528|NCT03493386|191478781|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Cmax|||1.12|0.97|
95754529|NCT03493386|191478788|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-t)|||1.01|0.82|
95754530|NCT03493386|191478788|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.01|||||AUC (0-inf)|||1.01|0.82|
95754531|NCT03493386|191478789|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean doesn't fall within a range of 0.80 to 1.25 i.e., null hypothesis is not rejected the bioequivalence is established if the point estimate falls within a range of 0.90 to 1.11|Ratio of geomtric mean|0.89||||||90.0|0.73|1.08||||||||1.08|0.73|
95754532|NCT00289536|191478839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1662|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log initial recovery will be the same in each dose group.||||0.1662
95754533|NCT00289536|191478840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0965||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean log AUC/dose will be the same in each dose group.||||0.0965
95754534|NCT00289536|191478841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with dose as fixed effect||Null Hypothesis: The mean terminal half-life will be the same in each dose group.||||0.5057
95754535|NCT00289536|191478849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7048||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: Relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.7048
95754536|NCT00289536|191478849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0322||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||.0322
95754537|NCT00289536|191478849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Rco with dose groups combined.||||0.0056
95754538|NCT00289536|191478850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3696||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of initial recovery to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.3696
95754539|NCT00289536|191478850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of AUC/Dose to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||0.0001
95754540|NCT00289536|191478850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis: relationship of terminal half-life to pre-infusion level of VWF:Ag with dose groups combined.||||<0.0001
95754541|NCT00988442|191478856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Two-sided 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants with virologic suppression, defined as HIV-1 RNA less than 200 copies/mL at week 48 between the standard of care and standard of care + enhanced telephone support groups.||||1.000
95754542|NCT00271154|191478884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 1 = mean 12-month change in LVESVi in group 2.||||<0.0001
95799288|NCT04868682|191569545|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the outcome from baseline to 6-months for the treatment group versus the same improvement in respect to the control group.|||1.18|-1.40|0.865
95799289|NCT00063622|191569546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.001
95858985|NCT05038982|191675790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.5||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||12.5|6.3|0.002
95858986|NCT05038982|191675790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||10.6|1.6|0.0215
95754543|NCT00271154|191478885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: Percentage worsened in CRT OFF group = Percentage worsened in CRT ON group||||0.10
95754544|NCT00759187|191478886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors)|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95858987|NCT05038982|191675791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|14.3||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||14.3|5.9|0.002
95858988|NCT05038982|191675791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.6||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.6|0.77|0.02
95754545|NCT00123474|191478898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6||||||6 Month Analysis||11.6|-6.0|
95754546|NCT00123474|191478899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6||||||||10.6|-6.8|
95754547|NCT00123474|191478899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg total daily dose relative to 140 mg total daily dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.9|
95754548|NCT00123474|191478910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|15.3||||||6 Month Analysis||15.3|-11.7|
95754549|NCT00123474|191478910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.6||||||6 Month Analysis||17.6|-9.3|
95754550|NCT00123474|191478910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the MCyRRQD minus MCyRRBID difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
95799290|NCT00063622|191569546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Given the fact that there were two planned primary comparisons, Bonferroni-adjusted P values of less than 0.025 were considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mantel Haenszel|||The proportions in each active-treatment group (pioglitazone and vitamin E) in whom there was improvement in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis were compared with the proportion of subjects in the placebo group in whom there was improvement.||||0.04
95799291|NCT00063622|191569547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95799292|NCT00063622|191569547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95799293|NCT00063622|191569548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95799294|NCT00063622|191569548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95799295|NCT00063622|191569549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95799296|NCT00063622|191569549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95799297|NCT00063622|191569550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95799298|NCT00063622|191569550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95754551|NCT00123474|191478910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of 100 mg QD Total Daily Dose relative to 140 mg QD Total Daily Dose was deduced if the lower bound of the 95% CI difference was greater than or equal to -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.1||||||24 Month Analysis||14.1|-11.2|
95754552|NCT01929031|191479028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.767|49.708|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||49.708|33.767|<0.0001
95754553|NCT01929031|191479028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.497|44.437|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||44.437|28.497|<0.0001
95754554|NCT01929031|191479028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.868|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.493|17.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||17.759|6.493|<0.0001
95754555|NCT01929031|191479029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.937|10.113|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo|||10.113|6.937|<0.0001
95754556|NCT01929031|191479029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.384|9.559|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine|||9.559|6.384|<0.0001
95754557|NCT01929031|191479029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.472|4.716|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI (VRS), and treatment.|Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen|||4.716|2.472|<0.0001
95754558|NCT01929031|191479030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
95754559|NCT01929031|191479030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
95754560|NCT01929031|191479030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.2389
95754561|NCT01929031|191479031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Placebo||||<0.0001
95754562|NCT01929031|191479031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Caffeine||||<0.0001
95754563|NCT01929031|191479031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified for baseline pain intensity as measured on the 4-point VRS.||Ibuprofen/Caffeine vs. Ibuprofen||||0.0001
95754564|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||0.89|0.79|
95754565|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.99|0.93|
95754566|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||1.00|0.96|
95754567|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||0.84|0.69|
95754568|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Sensitivity = true positives/(true positives + false negatives); It indicates how likely is the test to detect the presence of a characteristic in someone with the characteristic.||1.00|0.97|
95754569|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Specificity = true negatives/(false positives + true negatives); It indicates how likely the test is to detect the absence of a characteristic in someone without the characteristic.||0.95|0.83|
95754570|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Positive Predictive Value = true positives/(true positives + false positives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a positive test result will actually have the characteristic.||0.98|0.90|
95799299|NCT00063622|191569551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95799300|NCT00063622|191569551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95946136|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|57.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.04|70.91||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.91|46.04|
95946137|NCT03960645|191864010|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|55.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.65|68.42||||||TAF: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||68.42|44.65|
95946138|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.45|31.93||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||31.93|21.45|
95946139|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.23|32.78||||||BIC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.78|22.23|
95991594|NCT05512949|191958434|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.7||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||1.0|0.5|0.045
95754571|NCT01366443|191479032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||"The calculation for the Wilson CI is computed using the cii (confidence interval immediate) command in Stata version 11.2, with the Wilson option."|Negative Predictive Value = true negatives/(true negatives + false negatives); It indicates how likely it is that someone with a negative test result will actually not have the characteristic.||1.00|0.94|
95754572|NCT00321594|191479033|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1400.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD was not reached and the maximum dose of 1400 mg/m2 is used in Phase II portion|MTD is defined as the dose below which \>=2 of 3 or \>= 2 of 6 patients experience DLT||||
95754573|NCT00369382|191479035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.004
95754574|NCT00369382|191479037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.018
95858989|NCT05038982|191675792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.18||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||8.18|2.70|0.0078
95754575|NCT00369382|191479037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<.001
95946140|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.74|32.74||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||32.74|25.74|
95946141|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|29.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.47|33.93||||||BIC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||33.93|26.47|
95946142|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.63|75.49||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||75.49|54.63|
95946143|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|42.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.55|50.34||||||FTC: Second Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||50.34|36.55|
95946144|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|64.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|70.61||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 12 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||70.61|59.30|
95946145|NCT03960645|191864011|OTHER||GLSM ratio (%)|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.57|55.64||||||FTC: Third Trimester (Test) vs. Week 6 Post-partum (Reference). A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio (%).||55.64|39.57|
95754576|NCT00369382|191479037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.012
95754577|NCT00369382|191479037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.072
95754578|NCT00369382|191479037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.175
95754579|NCT00369382|191479038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.031
95858990|NCT05038982|191675793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|19.89||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||19.89|5.57|0.0098
95754580|NCT00369382|191479038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
95858991|NCT05038982|191675793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.66||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||16.66|3.10|0.0117
95946146|NCT03392194|191864022|OTHER|The purpose of this small pilot randomized control trial (RCT) was to assess feasibility and acceptability of conducting community based sleep hygiene and yoga interventions, to be scaled and tested in a future, larger RCT.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|50.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Due to main findings, analysis to explore potential mediators of effect were not pursued, despite original plan to explore explanatory variables.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in change in sleep duration between the two intervention arms.||50.39|-46.35|0.932
95946147|NCT00918333|191864023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95946148|NCT03345979|191864036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95946149|NCT03345979|191864036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95754581|NCT00369382|191479038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.020
95754582|NCT00369382|191479038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.151
95950723|NCT00841321|191873416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||Stroop Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline.Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
95754583|NCT00369382|191479038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.295
95754584|NCT00369382|191479038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline creatinine clearance (MDRD) as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.010
95754585|NCT00369382|191479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 4||||0.009
95799301|NCT02202616|191569552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.21|0.14|
95799302|NCT02202616|191569553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Descriptive Statistics with 95% CI|The mean change from baseline along with the 95% confidence interval used to assess the precision of the estimate||||0.17|0.11|
95799303|NCT02202616|191569554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.3|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit.||Week 4||2.30|1.74|
95754586|NCT00369382|191479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 16||||<0.001
95754587|NCT00369382|191479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 24||||0.002
95754588|NCT00369382|191479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 32||||0.030
95754589|NCT00369382|191479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 40||||0.121
95754590|NCT00369382|191479040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline serum creatinine as a covariate and treatment group and center as factors||Change from baseline to Week 52||||0.001
95754591|NCT00369382|191479042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope difference (CNI - SRL)|-2.311||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.282|0.66||alpha is unadjusted|Random coefficient model||Random coefficient model with each participant's creatinine clearance function of time on treatment; intra-subject regression coefficients considered random.|||0.660|-5.282|0.126
95754592|NCT00369382|191479044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||For-cause Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.206
95754593|NCT00369382|191479044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha is unadjusted|Fisher Exact|||Standard of Care Biopsy-Confirmed Acute Rejection compared between treatment groups||||0.476
95754594|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the anxiety domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.52
95754595|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the depression domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.12
95754596|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the fatigue domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.54
95799304|NCT02202616|191569554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85|||Standard Descriptive Statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline and corresponding 95% confidence intervals will be displayed for each visit||Week 16||2.85|2.21|
95799305|NCT02202616|191569555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-4.3|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 4||-4.3|-5.7|
95799306|NCT02202616|191569555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.7|||standard descriptive statistics|The estimated mean change from baseline to Week 4 along with the 95% confidence interval||Week 16||-5.7|-7.3|
95799307|NCT05523297|191569577|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was one-sided Farrington-Manning score test with non-inferiority margin 10% at a significance level of 2.5%. If the 95% CI for treatment effect not only lay above -10% (the non-inferiority margin) but also above 0, then there was evidence of superiority.|percent difference|17.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|26.4|||Two-sided Farrington-Manning score test.||Difference between Octaplex and FP arms for effectiveness|||26.4|8.7|<0.0001
95799308|NCT05523297|191569578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.88|1.26|0.0022
95799309|NCT05523297|191569579|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-170.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.24|-91.22|||ANOVA|||12 hours after chest closure||-91.22|-250.24|<0.0001
95754597|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the pain interference domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.006
95754598|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the physical function domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.044
95754599|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the satisfaction with social role domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.85
95754600|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in t-scores of the sleep disturbances domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.88
95754601|NCT01565616|191479065|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is the paired difference in raw scores of the pain intensity domain of the PROMIS-57 quality of life scale. 16 participants with paired measurements of the PROMIS-57 survey (baseline and 1 year) are included in this analysis.||||0.53
95754602|NCT00986453|191479071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4697||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4697
95754603|NCT00986453|191479072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1470
95950724|NCT00841321|191873416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||COWAT Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.2|0.5
95754604|NCT00986453|191479073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
95754605|NCT00986453|191479074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0776||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0776
95754606|NCT00986453|191479075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95754607|NCT00609466|191479092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|70.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|35.9|105.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||105.6|35.9|<0.0001
95799310|NCT05523297|191569579|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-231.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-338.17|-125.67|||ANOVA|||24 hours after chest closure||-125.67|-338.17|<0.0001
95754608|NCT00609466|191479093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for time (in hours) to first rescue medication use. No multiplicity adjustment.|Log Rank|Adjusted for site||||||<0.0001
95754609|NCT00609466|191479094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|37.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|22.7|52.2||No multiplicity adjustment used|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.2|22.7|<0.0001
95754610|NCT00609466|191479095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|9.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|13.6||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||13.6|6.2|<0.0001
95754611|NCT00609466|191479096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.2|28.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||28.0|13.2|<0.0001
95754612|NCT00609466|191479097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|36.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|20.7|52.0||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||52.0|20.7|<0.0001
95754613|NCT00609466|191479098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means|108.2||||0.0002||95.0|51.9|164.5||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||164.5|51.9|0.0002
95799311|NCT05523297|191569580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
95754614|NCT03512262|191479099|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LSM) Means Difference|7.3165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|5.0668|9.5663||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||9.5663|5.0668|<0.0001
95754615|NCT03512262|191479100|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.1209|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9948|3.2469||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||3.2469|0.9948|<0.0001
95754616|NCT03512262|191479101|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.8221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.3972|4.2471||Significance level of 0.01.|ANCOVA|Missing values were imputed using a multiple imputation method.||||4.2471|1.3972|<0.0001
95754617|NCT00922987|191479129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95799312|NCT05523297|191569580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||4.52|1.83|<0.0001
95799313|NCT05523297|191569580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||5.15|1.97|<0.0001
95799314|NCT05523297|191569581|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Counting regression|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
95799315|NCT05523297|191569582|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.71||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88|||Counting regression|||||0.88|0.57|0.0015
95799316|NCT05523297|191569583|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||Counting regression|||During the first 24 hours after IMP start||0.82|0.46|0.0010
95799317|NCT05523297|191569583|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Counting regression|||During the first 7 days after IMP start||0.76|0.45|<0.0001
95799318|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
95946150|NCT00734578|191864057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.5||||0.002||95.0|-7.5|-1.4||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-1.4|-7.5|0.002
95946151|NCT00734578|191864057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.3|-2.3||Both SPD503 groups were compared with placebo using Dunnett's adjustment. Each treatment comparison was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level (Dunnett's adjusted).|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between SPD503 AM or placebo and that there was no difference between SPD503 PM or placebo. 90% power was needed to detect an effect size of at least 0.4 between either SPD503 group and placebo.||-2.3|-8.3|<0.001
95946152|NCT00734578|191864058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.024
95946153|NCT00734578|191864058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.003
95946154|NCT00734578|191864059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.013
95754618|NCT00586482|191479155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided p value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.12
95754619|NCT00586482|191479156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95754620|NCT00586482|191479157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95754621|NCT00586482|191479158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95754622|NCT00586482|191479159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95754623|NCT04763564|191479160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05. Significance level liraglutide vs. placebo in percent reduction of bowel frequency at week 4 vs. baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||<0.03
95754624|NCT04763564|191479163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 2 treatment modalities, Liraglutide and Placebo, were compared. A repeated-measures mixed model was fitted to the data, with treatment (liraglutide or placebo), period, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and the repeated measures within the subject as a random effect.||||0.01
95754625|NCT02766374|191479172|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE regression|||||||>0.1
95754626|NCT00852969|191479173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.41|-10.79|0.71
95754627|NCT00852969|191479174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.24|-7.20|0.29
95754628|NCT02358343|191479182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood ratio test obtained from logistic regression analysis adjusting for site||||||0.77
95754629|NCT02358343|191479183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.13||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Wald Test|The Wald test is for the week 12 comparative treatment effect from a longitudinal model of QIDS-C adjusting for clinical site.|The week 12 mean difference estimated from the longitudinal model is the difference between antidepressant drug therapy (drug) and the cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) at 12 weeks, (drug - CBT).|All participants randomized to treatment (N=120) were included in the pre-specified longitudinal model of QIDS-C used to estimate comparative treatment effect at 12 weeks (primary outcome). The model adjustment for clinical site and included baseline, 6 week and 12 week QIDS-C scores. Week 0 (baseline) and week 6 measurements are not pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes. The Observational Cohort arm was not included in the analysis.||-0.13|-3.54|0.035
95754630|NCT02358343|191479184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||a priori threshold for significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|Likelihood Ratio Test from logistic regression analysis adjusting for clinical site.||||||0.96
95754631|NCT02358343|191479185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.02|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.02|-7.4|
95754632|NCT02358343|191479186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.8|-3.1|
95754633|NCT02358343|191479187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||-0.1|-6.2|
95754634|NCT02358343|191479188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.0|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||19.0|1.3|
95754635|NCT02358343|191479189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||1.4|-0.2|
95754636|NCT02358343|191479190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||5.1|0.1|
95754637|NCT02358343|191479191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.5|-0.5|
95754638|NCT02358343|191479193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.7|-0.5|
95754639|NCT02358343|191479194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||||The mean difference estimate is from a negative binomial model adjusted for clinical site. It is the rate of sessions skipped/shortened in the Drug group (numerator) compared to CBT (denominator).|||1.10|0.55|
95754640|NCT02358343|191479195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.34|-0.54|
95754641|NCT02358343|191479196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.75|||||The mean difference estimate is from longitudinal model adjusted for clinical site. It is the difference in scores between treatment groups (Drug - CBT) at 12 weeks. All participants are included in the longitudinal model (N=120).|||0.75|-0.25|
95754642|NCT01951885|191479217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|47 patients per arm were needed to detect a 25% improvement in mucositis based on a one-sided test with 5% significance and 80% power.||||||0.05
95754643|NCT01951885|191479220|NON_INFERIORITY|Cumulative incidence methods are compared using the Gray test with a p-value \<0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95754644|NCT01951885|191479221|NON_INFERIORITY|Hospital stay will be compared between groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with a p value of 0.05.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95754645|NCT01951885|191479222|NON_INFERIORITY|TPN use will be compared using the Chi-square test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95754646|NCT01951885|191479223|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95754647|NCT01951885|191479224|NON_INFERIORITY|Progression-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between patients receiving Tac/MTX versus Tac/mini-MTX/MMF using the log-rank test|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95754648|NCT01951885|191479227|NON_INFERIORITY|Infusion times will be compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95754649|NCT01951885|191479228|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
95754650|NCT01951885|191479229|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
95754651|NCT01951885|191479230|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95754652|NCT01951885|191479231|NON_INFERIORITY|100-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
95754653|NCT01951885|191479233|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
95754654|NCT01951885|191479234|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
95754655|NCT01951885|191479235|NON_INFERIORITY|180-day incidence of complications will be compared using the Gray test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Gray Test|||||||<0.05
95754656|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.6||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.60|1.46|< 0.0001
95754657|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.58||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.58|0.36|<0.0001
95764108|NCT02854527|191498364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R1) (%)|96.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.08|101.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R1) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R1.||101.20|92.08|
95764109|NCT02854527|191498365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R2) (%)|97.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|104.41|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R2) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R2.||104.41|90.87|
95764333|NCT00625872|191498818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Sequential Processing): Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0532
95946155|NCT00734578|191864059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
95946156|NCT00734578|191864060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-1.7||||0.019||95.0|-3.2|-0.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.3|-3.2|0.019
95946157|NCT00734578|191864060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-1.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.1|-4.0|<0.001
95946158|NCT00734578|191864061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.002||95.0|-4.0|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-4.0|0.002
95754658|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.78||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.78|1.65|<0.0001
95754659|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.87||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.87|1.76|<0.0001
95754660|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||0.64|0.42|<0.0001
95754661|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.11||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.11|1.95|<0.0001
95799319|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.82|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||4.82|0.15|0.8522
95799320|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Negative binomial regression|||RBCs (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
95799321|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.65||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||0.92|0.45|0.0169
95799322|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.57||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.76|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 24 hours after IMP start)||1.76|0.18|0.3288
95799323|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||Negative binomial regression|||FP including IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.06|0.04|<0.0001
95799324|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.63||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.84|||Negative binomial regression|||FP excluding IMP (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||2.84|0.14|0.5439
95946159|NCT00734578|191864061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-3.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-1.5||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.5|-4.5|<0.001
95799325|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Negative binomial regression|||Red blood cells (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.74|0.47|<0.0001
95946160|NCT00734578|191864062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
95946161|NCT00734578|191864062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||<0.001
95946162|NCT00734578|191864063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.4||||0.001||95.0|-3.9|-0.9||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.9|-3.9|0.001
95946163|NCT00734578|191864063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-2.2||||0.003||95.0|-3.6|-0.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-0.7|-3.6|0.003
95946164|NCT00734578|191864064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-5.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-2.2|-8.0|<0.001
95946165|NCT00734578|191864064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Placebo-adjusted difference in LS mean|-4.7||||0.002||95.0|-7.6|-1.7||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||-1.7|-7.6|0.002
95754662|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|2.72||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.72|2.56|<0.0001
95754663|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|1.96||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.96|1.68|<0.0001
95754664|NCT03986138|191479237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|2.41||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis for primary objective was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||2.41|2.26|<0.0001
95754665|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.05|-0.05|<0.0001
95764110|NCT02854527|191498366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R3) (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.58|101.58|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R3 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R3) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R3.||101.58|93.58|
95764334|NCT00625872|191498818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3383||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Simultaneous Processing): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3383
95764335|NCT00625872|191498818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Achievement): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6830
95799326|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.58||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Negative binomial regression|||Platelets (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||0.84|0.40|0.0042
95946166|NCT00734578|191864065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.971||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.971
95946167|NCT00734578|191864065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.502||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not powered for secondary outcome measures.||||0.502
95946168|NCT02095145|191864066|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.190
95946169|NCT02095145|191864066|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
95946170|NCT02095145|191864069|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.948
95946171|NCT02095145|191864069|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.711
95764336|NCT00625872|191498818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Non-Verbal): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.4935
95764337|NCT00625872|191498818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3458||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For K-ABC Test (Mental Processing Composite): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3458
95946172|NCT02095145|191864069|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.038
95946173|NCT02095145|191864069|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.445
95946174|NCT02095145|191864070|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 13 p-value||||0.743
95946175|NCT02095145|191864070|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 26 p-value||||0.305
95946176|NCT02095145|191864070|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 39 p-value||||0.111
95946177|NCT02095145|191864070|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline to Week 52 p-value||||0.395
95754666|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.10|-0.05|<0.0001
95754667|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.01|-0.10|<0.0001
95754668|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.05|-0.06|<0.0001
95754669|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.07|-0.07|<0.0001
95754670|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.02|-0.08|<0.0001
95946178|NCT02095145|191864071|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 13||||0.743
95946179|NCT02095145|191864071|OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 26||||0.527
95946180|NCT02095145|191864071|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 39||||0.879
95754671|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.09|-0.06|<0.0001
95754672|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.07|<0.0001
95754673|NCT03986138|191479238|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
95946181|NCT02095145|191864071|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline PSA to Week 52||||0.810
95946182|NCT02095145|191864072|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Comparison of both arms at baseline||||0.556
95946183|NCT02095145|191864072|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at Week 26||||0.647
95946184|NCT02095145|191864072|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||comparison of both arms at end of study, week 52||||0.948
95946185|NCT02095145|191864073|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.580
95946186|NCT02095145|191864074|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Benign core p-value||||0.344
95754674|NCT00292188|191479287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.01||95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline mean pain score and pooled country||The study is powered to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 between treatment groups in the weekly mean pain score. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in weekly mean pain scores between pregabalin and placebo.||-0.15|-1.09|0.010
95754675|NCT00292188|191479288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.031||95.0|-1.6|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.08|-1.60|0.031
95754676|NCT00292188|191479289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003||95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.33|-1.61|0.003
95754677|NCT00292188|191479290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.099||95.0|-3.69|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||0.32|-3.69|0.099
95946187|NCT02095145|191864074|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Adjacent core p-value||||0.371
95946188|NCT02095145|191864074|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Tumor core p-value||||0.766
95946189|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Nuc)||||0.304
95946190|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Nuc)||||0.230
95946191|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Nuc)||||0.298
95946192|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cyt)||||0.247
95946193|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cyt)||||0.093
95946194|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cyt)||||0.066
95946195|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Benign (Cell)||||0.247
95754678|NCT00292188|191479291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.819||95.0|-1.87|2.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.34|-1.87|0.819
95754679|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.099||95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 1||0.05|-0.56|0.099
95754680|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.15||95.0|-0.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 2: FAS||0.10|-0.62|0.150
95754681|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01||95.0|-0.93|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 3: FAS||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
95754682|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.137||95.0|-0.74|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 4: FAS||0.10|-0.74|0.137
95754683|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.041||95.0|-0.9|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 5: FAS||-0.02|-0.90|0.041
95754684|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.009||95.0|-1.03|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 6: FAS||-0.15|-1.03|0.009
95754685|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.035||95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 7: FAS||-0.04|-1.01|0.035
95754686|NCT00292188|191479292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.019||95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Mixed Models. Adjusted for treatment, week, baseline pain score, pooled country and treatment-week.||Week 8: FAS||-0.10|-1.10|0.019
95754687|NCT00292188|191479293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.032||95.0|1.05|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||30% responder||3.21|1.05|0.032
95946196|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Adjacent (Cell)||||0.128
95946197|NCT02095145|191864075|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: IGF-1 Tumor (Cell)||||0.128
95946198|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.297
95799327|NCT05523297|191569584|OTHER||Mean ratio|0.49||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.56|||Negative binomial regression|||Cryoprecipitate (During the first 7 days after IMP start)||1.56|0.15|0.2241
95799328|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.52|0.32|0.8364
95946199|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.233
95754688|NCT00292188|191479293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.088||95.0|0.92|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|logstic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline pain score and pooled country.||50% responder||3.46|0.92|0.088
95754689|NCT00292188|191479294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|-1.25|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||-0.34|-1.25|0.001
95754690|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0||95.0|-15.89|-5.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Disturbance||-5.55|-15.89|0.000
95754691|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.7||95.0|-4.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Snoring||6.40|-4.30|0.700
95754692|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.04||95.0|-11.62|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Awaken Short of Breath/Headache||-0.28|-11.62|0.040
95754693|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.846||95.0|-0.92|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Quantity||0.76|-0.92|0.846
95754694|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.001||95.0|4.19|17.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Adequacy||17.07|4.19|0.001
95754695|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.324||95.0|-2.3|6.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Somnolence||6.92|-2.30|0.324
95754696|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0||95.0|-14.71|-4.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-6||-4.33|-14.71|0.000
95754697|NCT00292188|191479295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0||95.0|-11.52|-3.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||Sleep Problems Index-9||-3.56|-11.52|0.000
95799329|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.11|1.42|0.0002
95946200|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.371
95946201|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.198
95993781|NCT00619957|191963384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|-16.87|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||-16.87|-37.63|<0.0001
95754698|NCT00292188|191479296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.267||95.0|0.76|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression adjusted for treatment group, baseline score and pooled country.||||2.64|0.76|0.267
95754699|NCT00292188|191479304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.09||95.0|-8.28|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-8.28|0.090
95754700|NCT03716076|191479314|OTHER|mixed-effects linear regression|||||||||||||||||To compare time values to baseline, post-hoc Tukey's test was applied|||
95754701|NCT04709835|191479337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.27|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.27|-0.49|0.7144
95754702|NCT04709835|191479337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.3373|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.74|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.74|-0.11|0.3373
95754703|NCT04709835|191479337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.16|-0.66|0.4260
95799330|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.91|0.89|0.1742
95946202|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.233
95946203|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.074
95946204|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.234
95754704|NCT04709835|191479338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.74|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.74|0.53|
95754705|NCT04709835|191479338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|2.32|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.32|0.76|
95799331|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
95799332|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.55|1.12|0.0129
95799333|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||FP excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.94|0.63|0.3297
95799334|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|||RBCs (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.76|1.20|0.0049
95799335|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Platelets (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.84|0.86|0.2417
95799336|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Cryoprecipitate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||3.38|0.58|0.4618
95799337|NCT05523297|191569585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Any individual ABP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.47|0.99|0.0564
95946205|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.233
95946206|NCT02095145|191864076|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.233
95754706|NCT04709835|191479339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.44|1.7|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||1.70|0.44|
95754707|NCT04709835|191479339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|2.03|||||Hazard ratio (80% CI) was estimated with a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted).|||2.03|0.56|
95754708|NCT04709835|191479340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|10.16|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||10.16|-0.16|
95754709|NCT04709835|191479340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|5.41|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 3||5.41|-9.20|
95754710|NCT04709835|191479340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.82|16.4|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||16.40|-4.82|
95754711|NCT04709835|191479340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.4|10.65|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 5||10.65|-12.40|
95754712|NCT04709835|191479340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.64|15.42|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||15.42|-10.64|
95754713|NCT04709835|191479340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Positivity|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.39|12.88|||||Confidence interval estimated with the Farrington-Manning method.|Day 7||12.88|-13.39|
95754714|NCT04709835|191479352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.7351|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.28|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 3||0.28|-0.48|0.7351
95754715|NCT04709835|191479352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 5||0.30|-0.50|0.7524
95754716|NCT04709835|191479352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.33|||ANCOVA||A difference in adjusted means of \<0 favors RO7496998 (AT-527).|Day 7||0.33|-0.48|0.8083
95946207|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.167
95946208|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.391
95754717|NCT04711902|191479353|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|39.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|68.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||68.95|10.87|
95754718|NCT04711902|191479354|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Marginal difference|11.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|30.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.91|-7.18|
95754719|NCT04711902|191479355|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.68|
95754720|NCT04711902|191479356|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-2.35|
95754721|NCT04711902|191479357|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated scores (MMRM)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|7.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.46|0.94|
95754722|NCT04711902|191479358|OTHER|estimation and confidence interval|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.58|
95754723|NCT03786718|191479359|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One sample median test|||Due to nonnormality, we used nonparametric tests to analyze the data. This analysis is a one sample median test of participants' median SUS score compared to the threshold score of 68 indicative of 'above average' usability.||||<0.001
95754724|NCT03786718|191479363|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.77
95754725|NCT03786718|191479364|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in General Diet sub-scale score||||0.02
95754726|NCT03786718|191479364|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Specific Diet sub-scale score||||0.13
95754727|NCT03786718|191479364|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Exercise sub-scale score||||0.35
95754728|NCT03786718|191479364|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Blood-glucose Testing sub-scale score||||0.67
95754729|NCT03786718|191479364|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||Analysis for pre-post change in Foot Care sub-scale score||||0.65
95754730|NCT03786718|191479365|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.001
95799338|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||1.73|0.69|0.6956
95799339|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.70|1.12|0.0317
95799340|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
95754731|NCT03786718|191479366|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.86
95754732|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.30
95754733|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||1.00
95754734|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.63
95754735|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.02
95754736|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.55
95754737|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.0009
95754738|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
95799341|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.334||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 24 hours after IMP start)||2.07|0.86|0.1981
95799342|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Fibrinogen concentrate (Within 7 days after IMP start)||1.87|0.75|0.4599
95799343|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.337||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|50.7|||Regression, Logistic|||rFVIIa (Within 7 days after IMP start)||50.70|1.12|0.0317
95754739|NCT03786718|191479367|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||1.00
95754740|NCT03786718|191479368|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.15
95754741|NCT03786718|191479369|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.23
95754742|NCT03786718|191479369|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||1.00
95754743|NCT03786718|191479369|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.'||||0.51
95754744|NCT03786718|191479369|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.63
95754745|NCT03786718|191479370|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test|||||||0.01
95754746|NCT01781481|191479376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Inter-rater reliability|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inter rater reliability for a subset of 40 patients whose Pediatric INTERMED was scored by two trained raters. The median inter-rater reliability coefficient was .87.|||||
95754747|NCT01781481|191479376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's Alpha|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Overall internal consistency of the overall Pediatric INTERMED scale (34 items).|||||
95946209|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.713
95946210|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.452
95946211|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.391
95946212|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.713
95946213|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.344
95946214|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.391
95799344|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|796.37|||Regression, Logistic|||PCC excluding IMP (Within 7 days after IMP start)||796.37|2.90|<0.0001
95754748|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Correlation between the biological and psychological domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED. The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.05
95754749|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Social domain scores on the Pediatric INTERMED.||||<0.01
95754750|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between the Biological and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95754751|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Biological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95754752|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Psychology and Social Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95754753|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.01
95754754|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95946215|NCT02095145|191864077|OTHER|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.713
95946216|NCT02095145|191864078|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.865
95946217|NCT02095145|191864078|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||1.000
95946218|NCT02095145|191864078|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.066
95754755|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Family/Caregiver Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95754756|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Social and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95799345|NCT05523297|191569586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Any coagulation factor product (Within 7 days after IMP start)||2.21|0.93|0.1073
95799346|NCT05523297|191569589|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after CPB end||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
95946219|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||1.000
95754757|NCT01781481|191479377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Family/Caregiver and Health Service Pediatric INTERMED domain scores.||||<0.01
95754758|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis||||>0.05
95754759|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and IBD Disease Severity (at time of Study Participation).||||<0.01
95754760|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\< .05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (child rating).||||<0.01
95754761|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Functional Disability Index (parent rating).||||<0.01
95799347|NCT05523297|191569589|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6429|3.2013|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after IMP start||3.2013|0.6429|0.3782
95799348|NCT05523297|191569589|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.332||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5902|3.0062|||Regression, Logistic|||Within 24 hours after surgery start||3.0062|0.5902|0.4899
95799349|NCT05523297|191569590|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||ANOVA|||||-0.04|-0.26|0.0081
95946220|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.903
95946221|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||1.000
95946222|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.269
95946223|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
95946224|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||1.000
95946225|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.425
95946226|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.270
95946227|NCT02095145|191864079|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||1.000
95946228|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Benign p-value||||0.625
95946229|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Adjacent p-value||||0.128
95946230|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Nuc Tumor p-value||||0.045
95946231|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Benign p-value||||0.105
95946232|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Adjacent p-value||||0.066
95993782|NCT00619957|191963385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.8794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.71|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.71|-1.99|0.8794
95754762|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being scale.||||<0.01
95754763|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
95754764|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
95754765|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of Immunomodulators.||||>0.05
95754766|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Biological Domain Score and Use of ant-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
95754767|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis.||||>0.05
95754768|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview).||||>0.05
95754769|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Report)||||>0.05
95754770|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent)||||<0.01
95754771|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being.||||>0.05
95754772|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Surgeries.||||>0.05
95754773|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone.||||>0.05
95754774|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\< 0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficent|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)||||<0.05
95754775|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Chronicity Item (Historical Biological) and use of anti-TNFa medications.||||>0.05
95754776|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754777|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.01
95754778|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (child rating)."||||<0.01
95754779|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||<0.01
95799350|NCT05523297|191569591|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.63||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.45|41.18|||ANOVA|||||41.18|-60.45|0.6735
95799351|NCT05523297|191569592|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.93||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|414.28|||ANOVA|||||414.28|-450.13|0.9033
95754780|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
95754781|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Surgeries"||||>0.05
95754782|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
95754783|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators."||||>0.05
95799352|NCT05523297|191569593|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-1.10|0.1808
95799353|NCT05523297|191569594|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-14.78|0.9698
95754784|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Symptom Severity Item (Current/Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
95754785|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05. The P-Value indicated above was found for all the correlations which were examined.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlations between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic Dilemma Item (Historical Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent) and each of the following variables: Disease Severity at Diagnosis, Disease Severity at Interview, Functional Disability Index - Child, Functional Disability Index- Parent, Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being, Number of Surgeries, Number of Courses of Prednisone, Use of Immunomodulators, Use of Anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
95754786|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754787|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and IBD Disease Severity at time of study participation."||||<0.05
95754788|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)"||||<0.05
95754789|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||>0.05
95799354|NCT05523297|191569595|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|3.42|||ANOVA|||||3.42|-9.61|0.3363
95946233|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cyt Tumor p-value||||0.005
95946234|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Benign p-value||||0.129
95754790|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of LIfe: General Well-Being Scale"||||<0.01
95946235|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Adjacent p-value||||0.066
95946236|NCT02095145|191864080|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change From Baseline: Cell Tumor p-value||||0.013
95946237|NCT02095145|191864081|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Benign p-value||||0.143
95946238|NCT02095145|191864081|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Adjacent p-value||||0.037
95946239|NCT02095145|191864081|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline: Tumor p-value||||0.111
95946240|NCT02095145|191864082|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||0.068
95946241|NCT02095145|191864082|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.004
95946242|NCT02095145|191864082|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.002
95754791|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
95754792|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
95754793|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators. ."||||>0.05
95754794|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Diagnostic/Therapeutic Challenge Item (Current Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications"||||>0.05
95754795|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95764338|NCT00625872|191498820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6256||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Distractibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.6256
95764339|NCT00625872|191498820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Alertness): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
95764340|NCT00625872|191498820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Flexibility): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||1.0000
95764341|NCT00625872|191498820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Go/No Go): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.1234
95764342|NCT00625872|191498820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3291||95.0||||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|Kruskal-Wallis|||For KITAP Test (Vigilance): Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA model was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3291
95764343|NCT00625872|191498839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.0||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||6.00|-5.71|0.9560
95754796|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Disease Severity at time of study participation (Pediatric INTERMED interview)."||||>0.05
95754797|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||>0.05
95754798|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Parent Rating)"||||>0.05
95754799|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well-Being"||||>0.05
95754800|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
95754801|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone since diagnosis."||||<0.05
95754802|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significiance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.01
95754803|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The Threshold for significance is p\<0.05)|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Therapeutic Complexity Item (Current Biological) and Use of ant-TNFa Medications (infliximab or adalimumab)."||||<0.01
95946243|NCT02095145|191864082|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||<0.001
95754804|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754805|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Disease Severity at study participation."||||<0.05
95754806|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (Child Rating)."||||<0.01
95754807|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.01.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Functional Disability Index (parent rating)."||||<0.01
95754808|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Impact Quality of Life: General Well Being Scale."||||<0.05
95946244|NCT02095145|191864083|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 13||||1.000
95946245|NCT02095145|191864083|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 26||||0.180
95946246|NCT02095145|191864083|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 39||||0.620
95946247|NCT02095145|191864083|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change from Baseline Week 52||||0.536
95946248|NCT02095145|191864085|OTHER|||||||0.231|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Tumor Volume from baseline to end of study per arm||||0.231
95754809|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Surgeries."||||>0.05
95754810|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Number of Courses of Prednisone."||||>0.05
95754811|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of Immunomodulators (azathioprine or methotrexate)."||||<0.05
95754812|NCT01781481|191479391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Complications and Life Threat Item (Vulnerability Biological) and Use of anti-TNFa Medications."||||>0.05
95754813|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754814|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754815|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
95946249|NCT05613907|191864169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.885||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.005
95946250|NCT05613907|191864169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.512||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.895|-0.705|||ANOVA|||||-0.705|-34.895|0.040
95946251|NCT05613907|191864169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|13.429|||ANOVA|||||13.429|-5.829|0.940
95754816|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
95754817|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
95754818|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||0.01
95754819|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.05
95754820|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754821|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
95754822|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.05
95754823|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
95754824|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
95946252|NCT05613907|191864170|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.862||||0.388|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant difference in the EuroQol 5-D domains at 1 year compared to baseline.||||0.388
95754825|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754826|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95799355|NCT05523297|191569596|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.42||||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|11.16|||ANOVA|||||11.16|-6.33|0.5736
95799356|NCT05523297|191569597|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.19||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|10.67|||ANOVA|||||10.67|-37.05|0.2667
95799357|NCT05523297|191569598|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.25||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|25.38|||ANOVA|||||25.38|-0.87|0.0658
95799358|NCT05523297|191569599|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||ANOVA|||||0.02|-0.40|0.0726
95946253|NCT05613907|191864171|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-0.033||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no statistical difference in patient self-reported ability to perform basic self-care||||0.974
95799359|NCT05523297|191569604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.183||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4211|3.3235|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3235|0.4211|0.7497
95946254|NCT05613907|191864172|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.564||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||The null hypothesis is no improvement in ability to perform usual activities at 1 year.||||0.118
95946255|NCT05613907|191864173|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-2.364||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.018
95946256|NCT05613907|191864174|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic|-1.311||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in anxiety and/or depression compared to the initial visit.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.190
95946257|NCT05613907|191864175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.604||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.762|-2.39|||ANOVA|||||-2.390|-50.762|0.027
95754827|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
95754828|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||<0.05
95754829|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
95754830|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754831|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754832|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95799360|NCT03921541|191569690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95799361|NCT03921541|191569691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5961
95799362|NCT03921541|191569692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1087
95799363|NCT03921541|191569693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95754833|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
95754834|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
95754835|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
95754836|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Social Domain Score (social needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
95754837|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Internalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754838|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Externalizing Problems (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754839|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Children's Depression Inventory: Total Score||||<0.01
95754840|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children: Total Score.||||>0.05
95754841|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Emotional Scale||||<0.01
95754842|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Social Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754843|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Activities Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754844|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Academic Competence Scale (Child Behaviour Checklist).||||<0.01
95754845|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Impact Quality of Life: Social Scale||||<0.01
95754846|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Pediatric Inventory for Parents: Difficulty Score (parenting stress).||||<0.01
95946258|NCT05613907|191864175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.715||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.837|-3.394|||ANOVA|||||-3.394|-51.837|0.024
95754847|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Psychological Domain Score (psychological needs) and Family Inventory of Life Events (family stress measure).||||<0.01
95946259|NCT05613907|191864175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.374|11.836|||ANOVA|||||11.836|-13.374|1.000
95754848|NCT01781481|191479392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Caregiver/Family Domain Score (caregiver/family needs) and Family Inventory of Resources for Management (family resources measure).||||<0.01
95754849|NCT01781481|191479393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|34.47||||||||34.47|2.02|
95754850|NCT01781481|191479394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|43.02||||||||43.02|1.70|
95754851|NCT01781481|191479395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|24.36||||||||24.36|2.17|
95754852|NCT01781481|191479396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|122.84||||||||122.84|5.00|
95754853|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Hospital Services involved in the child's care.||||<0.01
95754854|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Inpatient Hospitalizations since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
95754855|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Number of Surgeries since IBD diagnosis.||||<0.01
95754856|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Domain Score (health system needs/complexity) and Family Financial Well Being||||<0.01
95754857|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
95799364|NCT03921541|191569694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95946260|NCT05613907|191864176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.052||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.05|-6.15|||ANOVA|||||-6.150|-37.050|0.048
95754858|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||<0.01
95754859|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Diagnosis."||||<0.01
95754860|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Access to Health Care Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
95754861|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
95754862|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754863|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Number of Surgeries since child's diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754864|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Treatment Experience Item (historical/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||>0.05
95754865|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
95754866|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754867|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754868|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Organization of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
95946261|NCT05613907|191864176|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.893|13.751|||ANOVA|||||13.751|-12.893|1.000
95754869|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
95754870|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754871|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Number of Surgeries Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754872|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Coordination of Care Item (current/health system) and Family Financial Well Being."||||>0.05
95754873|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospital Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||>0.05
95754874|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Hospitalizations since Child's IBD Diagnosis. Services Involved in the Child's Care."||||<0.01
95754875|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Number of Surgeries since Child's IBD Diagnosis."||||>0.05
95754876|NCT01781481|191479397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||"Correlation between Pediatric INTERMED Health System Impediments Item (vulnerability/health system) and Family Financial Well-Being."||||<0.01
95764344|NCT00625872|191498855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||1.25|-0.15|0.1107
95764345|NCT00625872|191498857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.21||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||8.21|1.13|0.0161
95764346|NCT00625872|191498866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.2||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Triceps SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.20|-0.89|0.1870
95764347|NCT00625872|191498866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.19||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Subscapular SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||0.19|-0.49|0.3494
95946262|NCT05613907|191864176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.186||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.762|29.333|||ANOVA|||||29.333|-4.762|0.163
95754877|NCT01781481|191479398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 Threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
95754878|NCT01781481|191479399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.01|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of calls to the IBD Nurse. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
95754879|NCT01781481|191479400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rsquare change statistic|0.05|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of extra appointments with the IBD team. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3).||||<0.01
95754880|NCT01781481|191479401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of ER Visits. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.05
95764348|NCT00625872|191498866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.01||The statistical test was 2-sided and performed at the 5 percent significance level.|ANCOVA|||Suprailiac SDS: ANCOVA method was used to calculate p-value with treatment, baseline value, study duration and site as covariates.||-0.01|-0.54|0.0458
95764349|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|7.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.451|8.992|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||8.992|5.451|
95764350|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|7.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.467|9.279|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||9.279|5.467|
95799365|NCT03921541|191569695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95946263|NCT03789656|191864177|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||The primary efficacy endpoint was completed with the Efficacy Analysis Set (EAS), which included all treated subjects in Group 1. The median (Interquartile range) for change from baseline in IGF-1xULN to Week 13/EoT and p-value from the Wilcoxon signed rank test were presented. Baseline was defined as the mean of all IGF-1xULN values prior to first dose. Last on treatment assessment was used for EoT if subject discontinued before Week 13.||||0.6285
95946264|NCT03789656|191864178|OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||exact binomial test assuming the null pr|Null proportion = 0.5||||||0.3877
95946265|NCT06214052|191864195|OTHER||Emax|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||||||||||||||
95946266|NCT06214052|191864195|OTHER||EC50|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.0||||||||||||||||
95946267|NCT03896581|191864209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.402|22.969|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.969|5.402|<0.001
95946268|NCT03896581|191864210|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.233|||ANCOVA|||||-0.233|-0.420|<0.001
95946269|NCT03896581|191864212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.365|73.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.940|12.365|<0.001
95946270|NCT03896581|191864213|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.386|7.688|||ANCOVA|||||7.688|4.386|<0.001
95946271|NCT03896581|191864214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.119|27.999|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.999|6.119|<0.001
95946272|NCT05643885|191864230|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
95946273|NCT05643885|191864231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
95946274|NCT05643885|191864232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
95764351|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|2.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.961|3.646|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.646|1.961|
95764352|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|7.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.428|9.571|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||9.571|5.428|
95764353|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|7.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.106|10.425|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||10.425|6.106|
95764354|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|1.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|1.869|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seronegative participants|||1.869|1.229|
95764355|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|6.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.562|10.092|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||10.092|4.562|
95764356|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|6.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|9.909|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||9.909|4.030|
95764357|NCT04917861|191498881|OTHER||GMR|7.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.056|12.18|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-seropositive participants|||12.180|4.056|
95764358|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|5.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.149|6.802|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.802|4.149|
95764359|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|5.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.128|6.922|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||6.922|4.128|
95764360|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|2.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.721|3.14|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||3.140|1.721|
95946275|NCT05643885|191864233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
95946276|NCT05643885|191864234|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2303|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2303
95946277|NCT05643885|191864235|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7403|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7403
95946278|NCT05643885|191864236|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2414|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2414
95946279|NCT05643885|191864237|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2592|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2592
95946280|NCT05643885|191864238|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4837|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.4837
95754881|NCT01781481|191479402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R2Change|0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A hierarchical multiple (linear) regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive relation between the Pediatric INTERMED indicator of case complexity and the number of hospital services involved in child's care. Gender, and time since diagnosis were entered as covariates (Step 1), followed by current disease severity (Step 2) and the Pediatric INTERMED Complexity Index (Step 3). Diagnostic tests for collinearity were conducted and all assumptions for the analysis were met.||||<0.01
95754882|NCT00372411|191479403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|4.58||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||4.58|-0.23|0.08
95754883|NCT00372411|191479403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||5.18|0.57|0.02
95754884|NCT00372411|191479403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.65||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is of change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline FM value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||2.65|-2.94|0.92
95764361|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|4.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.322|5.363|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||5.363|3.322|
95764362|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|6.62|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||6.620|4.243|
95946281|NCT05643885|191864239|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1355|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.1355
95946282|NCT05643885|191864240|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6066|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6066
95946283|NCT05643885|191864241|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3795|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.3795
95946284|NCT05643885|191864242|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6618|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.6618
95946285|NCT05643885|191864243|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2337|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.2337
95946286|NCT05643885|191864244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||<0.0001
95946287|NCT05643885|191864244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||<0.0001
95946288|NCT05643885|191864244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||laboratory or pathology visits||||<0.0001
95946289|NCT05643885|191864244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||<0.0001
95946290|NCT05643885|191864244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||<0.0001
95946291|NCT05643885|191864244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary/other services||||<0.0001
95946292|NCT05643885|191864245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||<0.0001
95764363|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.407|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||1.407|1.033|
95764364|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|6.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.358|9.674|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||9.674|4.358|
95764365|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|5.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|8.665|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||8.665|3.430|
95764366|NCT04917861|191498882|OTHER||GMR|6.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.928|11.784|||||GMR (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||11.784|3.928|
95764367|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|76.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|82.68|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||82.68|69.10|
95764368|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.29|83.67|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||83.67|70.29|
95764369|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|35.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.47|43.74|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||43.74|27.47|
95764370|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.25|92.29|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||92.29|76.25|
95764371|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|87.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.71|93.17|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||93.17|78.71|
95764372|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|20.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|29.75|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||29.75|13.47|
95764373|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|67.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.69|77.07|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.07|55.69|
95764374|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|67.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.36|77.44|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||77.44|55.36|
95764375|NCT04917861|191498883|OTHER||percentage difference|57.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.81|69.08|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||69.08|43.81|
95754885|NCT00372411|191479403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|1.81||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||1.81|-2.97|0.63
95754886|NCT00372411|191479404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.24||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol, comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||13.24|2.03|0.009
95754887|NCT00372411|191479404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.56||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||11.56|0.34|0.04
95754888|NCT00372411|191479404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.94||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline SIS value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.94|-3.87|0.81
95754889|NCT00372411|191479404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.12||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||5.12|-2.74|0.55
95754890|NCT00372411|191479405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|2.7||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||2.70|-11.52|0.22
95754891|NCT00372411|191479405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-2.6||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||-2.60|-13.61|0.005
95764376|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|75.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.12|81.49|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.49|68.12|
95799366|NCT03921541|191569697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95946293|NCT05643885|191864246|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.729|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.7290
95946294|NCT05643885|191864247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3686|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.3686
95946295|NCT05643885|191864247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2747|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.2747
95764377|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|75.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.94|81.38|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||81.38|67.94|
95946296|NCT05643885|191864247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1049|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.1049
95946297|NCT05643885|191864247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.8425
95764378|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|31.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.23|38.96|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for all participants|||38.96|24.23|
95946298|NCT05643885|191864247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9755|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.9755
95946299|NCT05643885|191864247|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0582|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.0582
95946300|NCT05643885|191864248|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9796|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.9796
95946301|NCT05643885|191864249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0379|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0379
95946302|NCT05643885|191864249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9034|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.9034
95946303|NCT05643885|191864249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5452|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.5452
95764379|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.87|85.85|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||85.85|66.87|
95764380|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|82.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.02|89.43|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||89.43|73.02|
95764381|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|17.41|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-negative participants|||17.41|4.63|
95764382|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|72.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.56|80.83|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 Low Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||80.83|61.56|
95764383|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|67.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.72|76.78|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[2-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||76.78|55.72|
95764384|NCT04917861|191498884|OTHER||percentage difference|63.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.75|74.0|||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1893 High Dose \[1-Dose Regimen\] vs. Placebo) for flavivirus-positive participants|||74.00|50.75|
95754892|NCT00372411|191479405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|8.89||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis is change at 12 weeks minus baseline adjusted for the study site as a fixed effect, the Comorbidity Disease Index, and baseline WMFT value.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||8.89|-7.03|0.82
95754893|NCT00372411|191479405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.93||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Secondary analysis used longitudinal methods to assess the effect of treatment on outcomes over 36 weeks with visits at 6, 12, 24, and 36 weeks.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||4.93|-9.20|0.55
95754894|NCT00372411|191479406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.11||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.11|-1.73|0.08
95754895|NCT00372411|191479406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.06||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||-0.06|-1.62|0.03
95754896|NCT00372411|191479407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Because randomization to usual care was stopped after 15 months as specified by the protocol comparisons of robot-assisted therapy with usual care included only patients who were recruited during this period.||0.26|-0.25|0.95
95754897|NCT00372411|191479407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04||All p-values are 2-sided with a significance level of 0.022 to adjust for multiple comparisons and interim analyses.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance at 12 weeks, adjusted for study site as a fixed effect, Comorbidity Disease Index, and the baseline value of the outcome.||Comparisons between robot-assisted therapy and intensive comparison therapy included all patients who underwent randomization and were evaluated.||0.04|-0.42|0.10
95754898|NCT00667810|191479426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.05||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model for repeated-measures (MMRM). The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||0.05|-3.71|0.057
95754899|NCT00667810|191479426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in ADAS-Cog/11 total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 2.65 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||2.10|-1.73|0.848
95754900|NCT00667810|191479427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.49||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.49|-2.48|0.459
95754901|NCT00667810|191479427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.07||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparison. The Hochberg approach is used to control for multiplicity between the two dose levels (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) of bapineuzumab.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in DAD total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants in each group provided approximately 90% power to detect a 6.56 point advantage at Week 78. This calculation was based on a 2-sided test with alpha set at 0.05, the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity.||5.07|-3.04|0.623
95754902|NCT00667810|191479428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 0.186 unit advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo for PiB PET binding at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||0.09|-0.15|0.654
95799367|NCT03921541|191569698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95799368|NCT03921541|191569699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95799369|NCT03921541|191569700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0208
95799370|NCT03921541|191569701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4434
95799371|NCT03921541|191569702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5301|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5301
95799372|NCT03921541|191569703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2515
95799373|NCT04633447|191569725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6|||=|0.638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.9|-14.7|=0.638
95754903|NCT00667810|191479429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||The analysis is based on the pooled bapineuzumab (with subjects in the bapineuzumab 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg groups combined) treatment difference estimated at Week 71. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 15 ng/L advantage in p-tau for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||1.02|-15.38|0.085
95754904|NCT00667810|191479430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.57|-1.55|0.437
95799374|NCT04333498|191569740|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-221.03||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.33|-45.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-45.73|-396.33|.014
95799375|NCT04333498|191569741|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1103.96||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-296.532|2502.722|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2502.722|-296.532|0.122
95799376|NCT04333498|191569742|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.614|3.391|||t-test, 2 sided|||Adherence percentage||3.391|-8.614|.218
95799377|NCT04333498|191569742|OTHER|Linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Slope|0.046||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.128|||Regression, Linear|||||0.128|-0.036|0.272
95946304|NCT05643885|191864249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1644|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.1644
95754905|NCT00667810|191479430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MRI BBSI was analyzed using a REML based MMRM. The number of participants gave 90% power to detect a 5.05-cm3 advantage for a bapineuzumab dose group over placebo on reduction in brain volume as measured by the BBSI at Week 71. The calculations were based on 2-sided tests with alpha set at 0.05 and the use of the Hochberg procedure to control for multiplicity for 2 individual doses.||3.66|-1.54|0.423
95799378|NCT01565694|191569743|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95799379|NCT01565694|191569743|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
95799380|NCT01565694|191569744|OTHER|P-Value was obtained from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that Change from Baseline=0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95799381|NCT01565694|191569745|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.029
95799382|NCT01565694|191569745|OTHER|P-Value was from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.026
95946305|NCT05643885|191864249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.0650
95754906|NCT00667810|191479431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-3.40|0.212
95799383|NCT01565694|191569746|OTHER|From a Wilcoxon Signed Rank testing the null hypothesis is that the Median at Week 24 is equal to Baseline Median.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95754907|NCT00667810|191479431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.52|-1.76|0.725
95799384|NCT01565694|191569747|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.006
95799385|NCT01565694|191569747|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 30 cmH20.||||0.001
95799386|NCT01565694|191569748|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.001
95946306|NCT05643885|191864249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3866|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.3866
95946307|NCT05643885|191864250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.566|||||||Weighted t-test|||||||=0.5660
95799387|NCT01565694|191569748|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to week 24 LOCF in bladder volume at 40 cmH20.||||0.004
95799388|NCT01565694|191569749|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.003
95799389|NCT01565694|191569749|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.028
95799390|NCT01565694|191569750|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.068
95799391|NCT01565694|191569750|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.075
95946308|NCT05643885|191864251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0425|||||||Weighted t-test|||Physician office visits||||=0.0425
95946309|NCT05643885|191864251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8634|||||||Weighted t-test|||ER only visits||||=0.8634
95946310|NCT05643885|191864251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0399|||||||Weighted t-test|||Laboratory or pathology visits||||=0.0399
95946311|NCT05643885|191864251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0996|||||||Weighted t-test|||Radiology||||=0.0996
95946312|NCT05643885|191864251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7655|||||||Weighted t-test|||Surgical services||||=0.7655
95946313|NCT05643885|191864251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1499|||||||Weighted t-test|||Ancillary or other services||||=0.1499
95754908|NCT00667810|191479432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-1.15|0.149
95754909|NCT00667810|191479432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|6.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.46|-2.44|0.375
95754910|NCT00667810|191479433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not specifed.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
95754911|NCT00667810|191479433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.567
95754912|NCT00667810|191479434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.079
95754913|NCT00667810|191479434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.675
95754914|NCT00667810|191479435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Not spsecified.||||0.846
95754915|NCT00667810|191479435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.797
95799392|NCT01565694|191569751|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95799393|NCT01565694|191569751|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
95754916|NCT00667810|191479436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.933
95754917|NCT00667810|191479436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
95754918|NCT00667810|191479438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.277
95754919|NCT00667810|191479438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.996
95754920|NCT00667810|191479440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.855
95754921|NCT00667810|191479440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
95754922|NCT00667810|191479441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.33|-0.65|0.516
95754923|NCT00667810|191479441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DS score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
95754924|NCT00667810|191479442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.24|-0.96|0.238
95754925|NCT00667810|191479442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in CDR-SOB total score was analyzed using a REML based MMRM.||0.43|-0.78|0.564
95754926|NCT01055132|191479460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|-0.0013|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear, period and lens were included as fixed effects; site, patient, eye\*patient, period\*patient and period\*eye\*patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference(test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for monocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.0013|-0.041|
95946314|NCT03137459|191864282|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.105|||||Analysis performed using GEE to account for clustering of participants within practices.|||.105|.014|
95754927|NCT01055132|191479461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|-0.003|||linear mixed model|Sequence of wear,lens period and lens were included in the model as fixed effects; site, patient, period\*patient were included as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence limit is below 0.05 LogMAR.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Binocular visual performance on logMAR scale at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.||-0.003|-0.027|
95754928|NCT01055132|191479462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|Least-square mean difference|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|19.79|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and Site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for comfort at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||19.79|4.05|
95754929|NCT01055132|191479463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on historical data, a minimum of 42 subjects is needed to achieve a minimum of 80% power with 0.05 type I error.|least-square mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.8|||linear mixed model|Sequence of lens wear, lens period and lens type were included in the model as fixed effects; and site and patient as random effects.|Comparison between study lenses was carried out using 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference (test minus control). The non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval is higher than -5.|Ho:The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for overall quality of vision at 1-week follow-up. A non-inferiority margin of -5 units was used.||14.80|0.58|
95754930|NCT02618408|191479516|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.08||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|1.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.22|-15.38|0.0916
95799394|NCT01565694|191569752|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95799395|NCT01565694|191569752|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
95858992|NCT05038982|191675794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|15.94||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||15.94|4.46|0.002
95799396|NCT01565694|191569753|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95799397|NCT01565694|191569753|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
95799398|NCT01565694|191569754|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95799399|NCT01565694|191569754|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
95858993|NCT05038982|191675795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.63||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||1.63|0.57|0.0078
95858994|NCT05038982|191675796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.27||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.27|0.025|0.0391
95946315|NCT03137459|191864282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||||Determined using mixed effects models, accounting for clustering of participants in practices and adjusting for unbalanced covariates: education, employment, stage of change for each ACP behavior|||2.93|1.14|
95946316|NCT03137459|191864283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.15|||||Adjusted for clustering|||.150|.014|
95946317|NCT03137459|191864283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.0|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as described in primary outcome|||2.0|.96|
95799400|NCT01565694|191569755|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.010
95799401|NCT01565694|191569755|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.004
95946318|NCT03137459|191864284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.201|||||Accounting for clustering|||.201|.066|
95946319|NCT03137459|191864284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusted for covariates as presenting for primary outcome|||2.47|1.22|
95799402|NCT01565694|191569756|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||<0.001
95799403|NCT01565694|191569756|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||<0.001
95858995|NCT05038982|191675796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||0.31|-.080|0.28
95946320|NCT03137459|191864285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.188||||||||.188|-.05|
95946321|NCT03137459|191864285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.85|||||Accounting for clustering and adjusting for covariates as described for primary outcome|||1.85|.72|
95946322|NCT01737398|191864301|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.73||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|-13.03|||MMRM|||||-13.03|-26.43|0.00000004
95946323|NCT01737398|191864302|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|-5.06|||MMRM|||||-5.06|-18.29|0.0006
95799404|NCT01565694|191569757|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24.||||0.568
95799405|NCT01565694|191569757|OTHER|P-Value was calculated from a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of change from baseline to Week 24 LOCF.||||0.573
95799406|NCT02906618|191569794|OTHER|A mixed-effect analysis of variance model was applied to the log-transformed dose-adjusted AUC(0-∞) of LY3039478 after oral dosing and IV administration of 13C 15N 2H-LY3039478. The model contained a fixed effect for formulation (oral or IV) and a random effect for participant.|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.572|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.615||||||||0.615|0.532|
95799407|NCT04766333|191569805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23|||Regression, Logistic||Healthcare Arm is the reference category|||1.23|0.17|<0.05
95799408|NCT00541229|191569821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.8||||0.004||95.0|-53.1|-10.5|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||-10.5|-53.1|0.004
95799409|NCT00541229|191569821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.6|-20.2|||ANOVA|Model term: treatment||For this comparison, the mean in the placebo group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group.||-20.2|-63.6|<0.001
95858996|NCT05038982|191675797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|7.235||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.235|0.035|0.0684
95858997|NCT05038982|191675797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.656|1.456||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||||1.456|-3.656|0.375
95946324|NCT00108355|191864324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Initial estimation: median time to recurrence of ascites of 38 days in the study group and 20 days in the control group in a fixed duration of 6 months (5% type-I error (2 sided) and an 80% power). However, due to low accrual and based on randomized trials using vasoconstrictors in the prevention of PCD and a study that showed that midodrine leads to a significant improvement in effective arterial blood volume, each of which had sample sizes of 24-25 patients,we decided on a sample size of 30.||||<0.05
95754931|NCT02618408|191479516|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|8.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on the results of a prespecified interim analysis, the enrollment of the low dose SPN-810 arm was halted, and this treatment arm was dropped. Accordingly, all analysis of primary and secondary endpoints focused on the comparison of SPN-810 high dose and placebo||8.27|-11.78|0.7136
95754932|NCT02618408|191479517|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.46|0.0238
95754933|NCT02618408|191479517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.02|-0.47|0.0683
95946325|NCT04921358|191864326|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% Tumor Cells (TC) vs \>=1% TC).|||1.39|0.75|
95754934|NCT02618408|191479517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.02|-0.51|0.0742
95754935|NCT02618408|191479518|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.3713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.30|0.3713
95754936|NCT02618408|191479518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.06|-0.45|0.1367
95754937|NCT02618408|191479518|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.09|-0.49|0.1729
95754938|NCT02618408|191479519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.456||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the physical functioning summary score at Visit 6.||5.02|-0.72|0.1407
95946326|NCT04921358|191864327|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||1.07|0.62|
95946327|NCT04921358|191864328|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by histological subtype (nonsquamous vs squamous), race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and PD-L1 expression (\<1% TC vs \>=1% TC).|||0.83|0.50|
95946328|NCT02824198|191864345|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.79||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.79|0.998|
95946329|NCT02824198|191864345|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.829||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.829|0.439|
95754939|NCT02618408|191479519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.24|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the psychosocial health summary score at Visit 6||1.24|-2.29|0.5586
95754940|NCT02618408|191479520|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.45|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Stress summary score Visit 6.||3.45|-4.70|0.7637
95754941|NCT02618408|191479520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.58|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.58|-1.95|0.8365
95754942|NCT02618408|191479520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.02|-2.24|0.4606
95754943|NCT02618408|191479520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.46|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||1.46|-1.84|0.8222
95754944|NCT02618408|191479521|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.43|0.1031
95754945|NCT02618408|191479521|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 5|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.56|0.0250
95754946|NCT02618408|191479521|SUPERIORITY|This analysis pertains to Visit 6|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0384
95754947|NCT02618408|191479522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the inattention subscale at Visit 6.||0.06|-0.27|0.1935
95754948|NCT02618408|191479522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.05|-0.32|0.1445
95754949|NCT02618408|191479522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the oppositional defiant disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.03|-0.36|0.1064
95754950|NCT02618408|191479522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the combined scale score at Visit 6||0.04|-0.28|0.1418
95946330|NCT02824198|191864345|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.28||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.28|0.746|
95946331|NCT02824198|191864345|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \> 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.75|0.918|
95946332|NCT00887224|191864358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Significance declared if p-value ≤0.05. The estimated probability obtained via Kaplan-Meier estimate.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95754951|NCT03914950|191479552|OTHER|"The calculation of power and sample size is based on a formula that selects the sample size so that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval by the expected specificity of the new method most probably exceeds the specificity value of the current method.~Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of the values of SUVmax of the early and delayed images with and without TOF of all pancreatic lesions was done in correlation with the histopathological findings."||||||0.78|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||It was calculated that 118 participants would have at least 90% power to demonstrate an improvement in specificity of 25% (to 70%) with the new method assuming a specificity of the current method of 45% at a prevalence of malignant lesions of 70% (corresponding to 30% benign lesions). Assumptions included a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.78
95754952|NCT03914950|191479552|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||DeLong-test|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||0.95
95754953|NCT01155024|191479555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 participants required to detect one value change in rating for the SCS scale, with 80% power.|||||>|0.4||95.0||||Two-Sided|t-test, 2 sided|||Alpha level of 0.05||||>0.4
95754954|NCT02633488|191479604|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence defined as less that 2 SD in FMD between 2 treatments|||||>|0.05||||||FMD % change exceeded the threshold of our statistical significance test, i.e. the null hypothesis that there was no effect of metformin remained tenable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95754955|NCT01383135|191479637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||GraphPad (GraphPad Software, San Diego, Calif) was used for the paired two-sample t test and was performed to compare SUVmax values. P \< .05 was considered to indicate a significant difference|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison made between baseline tumor values and tumor values 6-weeks post-bevacizumab therapy||||.034
95754956|NCT03167723|191479654|NON_INFERIORITY|15% Non-Inferiority||||||0.036|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.036
95754957|NCT01524679|191479665|SUPERIORITY|The Fisher Test with asymptotic test statistic provided by the analysis software was used.|||||<|0.0001||||||This was the only a priori defined primary endpoint. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|There was no adjustment for other variables intended for the primary analysis. Confounding variables were analysed in subsequent analyses.||Nullhypothesis was the equality of response rates of the treatment group and the control group. Treatments were compared by a two-sided Fisher test on a level of significance of 0.05. The study was appropriately powered (80%) for this analysis.||||<0.0001
95754958|NCT01524679|191479666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7525||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5382|1.0521|||ANCOVA|||||1.0521|0.5382|0.0957
95799410|NCT00541229|191569821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis stated that the lower bound of 80% one-sided confidence interval for the comparison in 24-hour WMG reduction between sitagliptin 200 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg is above -5 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1||||||80.0|0.61|9999999.0|||||This is a 1-sided 80% confidence interval and the upper bound 9999999 was used here to indicate positive infinity.|This was pre-defined as a non-superiority test, i.e., to show that sitagliptin 200 mg is not superior to sitagliptin 100 mg. For this comparison, the mean in the sitagliptin 100 mg group was subtracted from the mean in the sitagliptin 200 mg group.||9999999|0.61|
95754959|NCT01524679|191479667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4621|0.7106|||ANCOVA|||||0.7106|0.4621|0.0005
95754960|NCT03397771|191479668|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.963
95754961|NCT03397771|191479669|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was conducted according to the nul hypothesis, assuming no difference between treatment arms||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
95799411|NCT00876395|191569828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.73|0.1166
95799412|NCT00876395|191569829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.0049
95946333|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.08|-0.09|0.9627
95754962|NCT04040322|191479679|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference in change|-1.26||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.4210
95754963|NCT01971970|191479684|EQUIVALENCE|The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,FDR 1.5fold,FDRvalue≤ 0.05|||The number of genes with a 1.5 fold change (FDR value ≤ 0.05; paired t-test) from week 0 to week 8 were assessed for pediatric IBD or adult IBD patients.||||< 0.05
95799413|NCT00876395|191569832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7276|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.7276
95799414|NCT00876395|191569833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.4085
95799415|NCT00876395|191569834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9573|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.9573
95799416|NCT00876395|191569835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6382|||||||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square|||||||0.6382
95799417|NCT01312129|191569845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||=0.05 is the actual computed p-value via the ANOVA.|ANOVA|The ANOVA is comparing the % increase in BOLD response above baseline during cue presentation (Alcohol vs. Control) b/w placebo \& Sulfasalazine .||||||=.05
95799418|NCT01787838|191569860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.96|||Chi-squared|||Prospective data from 12 months were compared to data that had been collected for the previous 12 month period to determine statistical significance and trended outcomes for comparative periods. Patients were screened for eligibility during the first 12 months, and staff and patients received the interventions during the second 12 month period.||1.96|1.65|<.0001
95754964|NCT01971970|191479685|OTHER|||||||0.2616||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults on continued anti-TNF therapy over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding continued anti-TNF therapy, reflecting maintenance of response at 12 and 18 months.||||0.2616
95754965|NCT01971970|191479686|OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Kaplan-Meier curve comparing the percentage of children and adults with therapy intensification over the course of study duration|gehan-breslow-wilcoxon test|||Kaplan-Meier curves were produced by dividing the population in the following groups i) paediatric versus adult patients.These groups were used to statistically compare the proportions of patients over time regarding the escalation of anti-TNF therapy (dose increase above 5 mg/kg and/or interval shortening to less than 8 weeks)||||0.0177
95754966|NCT04558918|191479690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|338.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|4564.14||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||4564.14|25.07|<0.0001
95754967|NCT04558918|191479690|SUPERIORITY||Difference in marginal proportion|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|87.6||||||||87.6|71.2|
95754968|NCT04558918|191479691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|495.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.41|10066.53||two sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model using Firth||||10066.53|24.41|<0.0001
95754969|NCT04558918|191479691|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|76.9||||||||76.9|56.4|
95754970|NCT04558918|191479694|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.53|
95754971|NCT04558918|191479695|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.68||||||||1.68|-4.01|
95754972|NCT04558918|191479696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|108.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.25|681.24||two sided unadjusted p-value|Conditional logistic regression|||||681.24|17.25|<0.0001
95799419|NCT05177094|191569862|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.40|-0.70|
95799420|NCT05177094|191569863|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.64|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.64|-0.66|
95799421|NCT05177094|191569864|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.72|
95754973|NCT04558918|191479696|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in marginal proportion|68.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|83.9||||||logistic regression model||83.9|51.4|
95754974|NCT04558918|191479697|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean diff.|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|4.12||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||4.12|3.20|<0.0001
95754975|NCT04558918|191479698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|11.29||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||11.29|5.28|<0.0001
95754976|NCT04558918|191479699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.04|-100.26||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-100.26|-132.04|<0.0001
95754977|NCT04558918|191479700|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.10|0.89|0.8361
95754978|NCT04558918|191479701|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.1||||0.01183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.61||two sided unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model|||||0.61|0.02|0.01183
95754979|NCT04558918|191479701|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.04||||||||0.04|-1.24|
95754980|NCT04558918|191479702|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.03||||0.31731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||two sided unadjusted p-value|Poisson model|||||0.10|-0.03|0.31731
95754981|NCT04558918|191479703|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|20.23||||||||20.23|-16.86|
95754982|NCT04558918|191479704|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3||||||||1.30|0.97|
95754983|NCT02256436|191479707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - All Participants||1.19|0.81|0.41648
95754984|NCT02256436|191479708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - All Participants (Note: ECOG PS=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status)||0.91|0.59|0.00224
95754985|NCT02256436|191479709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.26443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - PD-L1 positive participants||1.24|0.68|0.26443
95754986|NCT02256436|191479710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - PD-L1 positive participants||0.86|0.43|0.00239
95799422|NCT05177094|191569865|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.46|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.46|-0.98|
95799423|NCT05177094|191569866|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-0.61|
95799424|NCT05177094|191569867|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.58|
95799425|NCT05177094|191569868|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.45|-0.68|
95799426|NCT05177094|191569869|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.77|-0.65|
95799427|NCT05177094|191569870|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|4.28|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.28|-10.43|
95799428|NCT05177094|191569871|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|7.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.00|-10.04|
95946334|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.21|-0.02|0.1046
95754987|NCT02256436|191479711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.23958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||1.28|0.61|0.23958
95946335|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.25|0.02|0.0228
95946336|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||0.29|0.05|0.0064
95754988|NCT02256436|191479712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.00483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.88||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||OS - Strongly PD-L1 positive participants||0.88|0.37|0.00483
95754989|NCT02256436|191479715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|17.2||||0.00061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.4||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||29.4|6.8|0.00061
95754990|NCT02256436|191479716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|15.6||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.7||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - PD-L1 Positive Participants||25.7|6.5|0.00049
95754991|NCT02256436|191479717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.00068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|16.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per RECIST 1.1 - All Participants||16.2|3.9|0.00068
95754992|NCT02256436|191479718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.07066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.11|0.53|0.07066
95754993|NCT02256436|191479719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.08745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||1.10|0.60|0.08745
95754994|NCT02256436|191479720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.05328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||PFS per mRECIST - All Participants||1.04|0.71|0.05328
95754995|NCT02256436|191479721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.5||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|34.2||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - Strongly PD-L1 Positive Participants||34.2|10.1|0.00009
95754996|NCT02256436|191479722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|21.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.5||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - PD-L1 Positive Participants||31.5|11.1|0.00002
95754997|NCT02256436|191479723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|13.8||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|20.3||One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in %=0; H1: difference in %\>0|Miettinen & Nurminen method|Treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG PS, presence/absence of liver metastases, hemoglobin and time from completion of most recent chemotherapy||ORR per mRECIST - All Participants||20.3|7.4|0.00001
95754998|NCT02666352|191479731|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
95754999|NCT02666352|191479731|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
95755000|NCT02666352|191479732|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.31||||||||2.31|0.88|
95946337|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||0.39|0.11|<0.001
95946338|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.43||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||0.43|0.12|<0.001
95755001|NCT02666352|191479732|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15||||||90.0|1.33|3.48||||||||3.48|1.33|
95755002|NCT02666352|191479733|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.31||||||||2.31|0.89|
95755003|NCT02666352|191479733|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.47||||||||3.47|1.33|
95755004|NCT02666352|191479734|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.15||||||||2.15|0.81|
95755005|NCT02666352|191479734|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.94||||||||2.94|1.11|
95755006|NCT02666352|191479740|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
95755007|NCT02666352|191479740|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.16||||||||1.16|0.61|
95755008|NCT02666352|191479741|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.11||||||||1.11|0.58|
95755009|NCT02666352|191479741|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.86||||||90.0|0.62|1.18||||||||1.18|0.62|
95799429|NCT05177094|191569872|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.54|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.54|-0.32|
95799430|NCT05177094|191569873|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.65|-0.24|
95799431|NCT05177094|191569874|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|44.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.73|204.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||204.00|-114.73|
95799432|NCT05177094|191569875|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.86|34.49|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||34.49|-231.86|
95946339|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||0.47|0.19|<0.001
95755010|NCT02666352|191479742|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.05||||||||1.05|0.57|
95755011|NCT02666352|191479742|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.99||||||||0.99|0.54|
95755012|NCT02666352|191479743|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.13||||||||1.13|0.61|
95858998|NCT05038982|191675798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.04||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||2.04|-3.44|0.207
95946340|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||0.49|0.17|<0.001
95946341|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.62||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||0.62|0.25|<0.001
95755013|NCT02666352|191479743|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.01||||||||1.01|0.55|
95755014|NCT02666352|191479744|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||||1.15|0.60|
95755015|NCT02666352|191479744|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.13||||||||1.13|0.59|
95755016|NCT02666352|191479748|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.9||||||||0.90|0.52|
95755017|NCT02666352|191479748|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.86||||||||0.86|0.50|
95755018|NCT02666352|191479749|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.86||||||||0.86|0.48|
95755019|NCT02666352|191479749|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.61||||||90.0|0.46|0.82||||||||0.82|0.46|
95755020|NCT02666352|191479750|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.01||||||||1.01|0.62|
95755021|NCT02666352|191479750|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.02||||||||1.02|0.63|
95755022|NCT02666352|191479751|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.05||||||||1.05|0.61|
95755023|NCT02666352|191479751|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
95755024|NCT02666352|191479752|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.89||||||||0.89|0.57|
95755025|NCT02666352|191479752|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|0.91||||||||0.91|0.58|
95755026|NCT02666352|191479755|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.58||||||||1.58|0.85|
95755027|NCT02666352|191479755|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.85||||||||1.85|1.00|
95755028|NCT02666352|191479756|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.68||||||||1.68|0.91|
95799433|NCT05177094|191569876|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.05|
95799434|NCT05177094|191569877|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
95799435|NCT01115231|191569882|OTHER|multivariable logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||||||||4.42|0.93|
95799436|NCT02397837|191569898|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95799437|NCT02397837|191569899|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95799438|NCT02397837|191569900|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95799439|NCT02397837|191569901|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95799440|NCT02397837|191569902|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95799441|NCT02397837|191569903|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95799442|NCT02397837|191569904|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Tabulation of participants with suicidal acknowledgements over 12-week study|||
95799443|NCT02397837|191569905|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95799444|NCT02397837|191569906|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95799445|NCT02397837|191569907|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95755029|NCT02666352|191479756|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.58||||||90.0|1.17|2.14||||||||2.14|1.17|
95799446|NCT01201863|191569937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.07816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3315||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||comparison of slopes|Slopes by group and slope difference||To investigate a difference in change in outcome over time between treatment and control, a trend analysis was used in place of a profile analysis, where both control and treatment arms are described more parsimoniously i.e. by a slope (change in outcome over time) (Fitzmaurice 2011).||||0.9540
95799447|NCT01149785|191569938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|316.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|286.17|349.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||349.73|286.17|
95799448|NCT01149785|191569939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|328.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|296.42|363.63||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||363.63|296.42|
95755030|NCT02666352|191479757|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.33||||||||1.33|0.60|
95755031|NCT02666352|191479757|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.34||||||||1.34|0.60|
95799449|NCT01149785|191569942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|144.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.42|164.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||164.33|126.42|
95799450|NCT01149785|191569945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|519.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|460.42|586.5||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||586.50|460.42|
95755032|NCT02666352|191479758|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.30|0.45|
95755033|NCT02666352|191479758|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.14||||||||1.14|0.40|
95799451|NCT01149785|191569946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|516.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|457.88|583.72||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib metabolite (PF-06260182) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||583.72|457.88|
95799452|NCT01149785|191569948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|161.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.09|182.09||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||182.09|143.09|
95799453|NCT00817063|191569952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|5.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
95799454|NCT00817063|191569952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|31.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||31.7|18.0|<0.001
95799455|NCT00817063|191569953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-17.85|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.85|-30.40|<0.001
95799456|NCT00817063|191569954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.07|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||6.07|2.71|<0.001
95799457|NCT00817063|191569954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|32.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.3|18.7|<0.001
95799458|NCT00817063|191569955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-13.73|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||-13.73|-31.00|<0.001
95799459|NCT00817063|191569956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
95799460|NCT00817063|191569957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.068
95799461|NCT00817063|191569958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95799462|NCT00817063|191569967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|1.204||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD||1.204|-0.226|0.179
95799463|NCT00817063|191569967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|1.071||The analysis of covariance model includes treatment, age at Baseline, gender, menopausal status of females, baseline BMD score and duration of treatment exposure (\<12weeks, \>=12 weeks) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Femur BMD||1.071|-0.077|0.089
95799464|NCT03439514|191569975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.936||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.246|34.118||Two-sided p-value|Van Elteren test||The Week 24 change from baseline in 6MWT between PF 07265803 and placebo was estimated using the stratified HL median difference, considering only participants who survived 24 weeks.|||34.118|-24.246|0.818
95755034|NCT02666352|191479759|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.6||||||||1.60|0.90|
95755035|NCT02666352|191479759|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.87||||||||1.87|1.06|
95755036|NCT00302081|191479764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.041||95.0|-0.1|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks)\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks)\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 1.5-dose group and 0.643 (144/224 subjects) in the 1.0-dose group, for a risk difference of -0.02.||This is an evaluation of the effect of the peginterferon alfa-2b dose (1.0 vs 1.5 micrograms/kg/week) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.10|0.041
95755037|NCT00302081|191479764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority for SVR was concluded if the lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. Otherwise, noninferiority was concluded for both dose and treatment duration comparisons if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs were greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.495||95.0|-0.17|1.0||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons (\[PEG2b 1.0/R(24 weeks)\] - \[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]) and (\[PEG2b 1.5/R(16 weeks\]-\[PEG2b 1.5/R(24 weeks\]).|z-test (non-inferiority margin=-0.1)|SVR rates are 0.665 (153/230 subjects) in the 24-week group and 0.566 (129/228 subjects) in the 16-week group, for a risk difference of -0.10.||This is an evaluation of the effect of treatment duration (24 weeks vs 16 weeks) on the primary outcome measure.||1|-0.17|0.495
95755038|NCT00446199|191479785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755039|NCT00446199|191479785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755040|NCT00446199|191479785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
95755041|NCT00446199|191479786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/ van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95799465|NCT03439514|191569981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.13|0.2257
95799466|NCT03439514|191569982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.63|||Log Rank|||||4.63|0.30|0.8370
95799467|NCT03086343|191570015|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of upadacitinib 15 mg versus abatacept was tested using the 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
95799468|NCT03086343|191570016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.35||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the fixed factor; corresponding baseline value and the stratification factor of prior bDMARD used as covariates|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||-0.35|-0.69|< 0.001
95799469|NCT03086343|191570017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.2||This comparison was a ranked secondary endpoint in the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The stratification factor of prior failed bDMARD was used.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib 15 mg - Abatacept|In order to preserve Type I error, a step-down approach was used to test the primary and ranked secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order where statistical significance at the 0.05 level could be claimed for a lower ranked endpoint only if the previous endpoint in the sequence met the requirements of significance.||23.2|10.4|< 0.001
95799470|NCT04900272|191570018|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.785
95799471|NCT04900272|191570019|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.583
95799472|NCT04900272|191570020|OTHER|||||||0.5015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5015
95799473|NCT04900272|191570021|OTHER|||||||0.3536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3536
95799474|NCT04900272|191570022|OTHER|||||||0.2688|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2688
95799475|NCT04900272|191570023|OTHER|||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
95799476|NCT04900272|191570024|OTHER|||||||0.473|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.473
95799477|NCT04900272|191570025|OTHER|||||||0.4161|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4161
95799478|NCT04900272|191570026|OTHER|||||||0.3356|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3356
95799479|NCT04900272|191570027|OTHER|||||||0.9825|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9825
95799480|NCT00693303|191570028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.27
95799481|NCT00195429|191570029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95799482|NCT00195429|191570030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Student's t-test|||||||0.361
95799483|NCT02903914|191570051|OTHER|||||||0.0731|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0731
95799484|NCT02903914|191570051|OTHER||pairwise geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.11||||||||1.110|0.784|
95799485|NCT02903914|191570051|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.271||||||||1.271|0.908|
95799486|NCT02903914|191570051|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.034|1.463||||||||1.463|1.034|
95799487|NCT02903914|191570052|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1496
95799488|NCT02903914|191570053|OTHER|||||||0.2867|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2867
95755042|NCT00446199|191479786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755043|NCT00446199|191479786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the number of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755044|NCT00446199|191479787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755045|NCT00446199|191479787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755046|NCT00446199|191479787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0||||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0096
95755047|NCT00446199|191479788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755048|NCT00446199|191479788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755049|NCT00446199|191479788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 4 in the mean daily severity of hot flushes is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||0.0005
95755050|NCT00446199|191479789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755051|NCT00446199|191479789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755052|NCT00446199|191479789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3 mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal pH is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755053|NCT00446199|191479790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755054|NCT00446199|191479790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755055|NCT00446199|191479790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon/van Elteren|Stratification by center||Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The distribution of the change from baseline to week 12 in vaginal maturation value is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a shift in the distribution.||||<0.0001
95755056|NCT00446199|191479791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0314
95755057|NCT00446199|191479791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8780
95799489|NCT02903914|191570053|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.23||||||||1.230|0.825|
95755058|NCT00446199|191479791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.5908
95755059|NCT00446199|191479792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0027
95755060|NCT00446199|191479792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4463
95755061|NCT00446199|191479792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0303
95755062|NCT00446199|191479793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4397||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4397
95755063|NCT00446199|191479793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.0132
95755064|NCT00446199|191479793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.3250
95946342|NCT00887224|191864360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||0.61|0.28|<0.001
95946343|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.47|-0.41|0.8853
95755065|NCT00446199|191479794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9555||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.9555
95755066|NCT00446199|191479794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1743||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.1743
95755067|NCT00446199|191479794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.4395
95755068|NCT00446199|191479795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8966||95.0||||no correction for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8966
95755069|NCT00446199|191479795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7512||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.7512
95755070|NCT00446199|191479795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8751||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo on complete 2\*4 table||||0.8751
95755071|NCT00446199|191479796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1067||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.1067
95755072|NCT00446199|191479796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.6011
95755073|NCT00446199|191479796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4408||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.4408
95755074|NCT00446199|191479797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.0144
95755075|NCT00446199|191479797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5589
95755076|NCT00446199|191479797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.5500
95755077|NCT00446199|191479798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.2179
95755078|NCT00446199|191479798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7749||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.7749
95755079|NCT00446199|191479798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8307||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification for center||Comparison of active treatment arm with placebo||||0.8307
95755080|NCT00446199|191479799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.2|-22.0||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-22.0|-33.2|<0.0001
95755081|NCT00446199|191479799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.8|-16.6||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-16.6|-27.8|<0.0001
95755082|NCT00446199|191479799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.0007||95.0|-15.4|-4.2||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline||-4.2|-15.4|0.0007
95799490|NCT02903914|191570053|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.311||||||||1.311|0.892|
95755083|NCT00446199|191479800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.9|17.8||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||17.8|-29.9|<0.0001
95755084|NCT00446199|191479800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-20.2|-8.1||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-8.1|-20.2|<0.0001
95755085|NCT00446199|191479800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0054||95.0|-14.6|-2.5||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-2.5|-14.6|0.0054
95755086|NCT00446199|191479801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.28|-0.859||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.859|-1.280|<0.0001
95755087|NCT00446199|191479801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.013|-0.593||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.593|-1.013|<0.0001
95755088|NCT00446199|191479801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.361||||0.0007||95.0|-0.57|-0.152||significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|treatment, center and baseline value used as covariate|Change in active treatment arm minus change in placebo arm|Comparison between E2 (0.3mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 12 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.152|-0.570|0.0007
95755089|NCT00446199|191479802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.813|-0.458||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.5mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.458|-0.813|<0.0001
95755090|NCT00446199|191479802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.205||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between DRSP/E2 (0.25mg/0.5mg) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.205|-0.560|<0.0001
95755091|NCT00446199|191479802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.0233||95.0|-0.381|-0.028||Significance level of 1.7% is used to adjust (Bonferroni) for the comparison of three active arms with Placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, and Baseline value used as covariate||Comparison between E2 (0.3) and Placebo with respect to a shift in the distribution of the end point. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to week 4 is identical in both arms, alternative: there is a difference in the mean change from baseline.||-0.028|-0.381|0.0233
95799491|NCT02903914|191570053|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.507||||||||1.507|1.011|
95755092|NCT00375492|191479805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0030
95755093|NCT00375492|191479806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
95755094|NCT00375492|191479808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1985||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.1985
95755095|NCT00375492|191479809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1827
95755096|NCT00375492|191479810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1584
95755097|NCT00375492|191479811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8279||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8279
95755098|NCT00375492|191479812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8334
95755099|NCT00375492|191479813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2881||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2881
95755100|NCT00375492|191479814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0654
95755101|NCT00375492|191479815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.728
95755102|NCT00375492|191479816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
95755103|NCT00006721|191479836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||1.05|0.6|0.11
95755104|NCT00006721|191479840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.54|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for the stratification factor (serum beta-2 microglobulin level)|CHOP + Tositumomab versus CHOP + Rituximab|||2.54|0.95|0.08
95799492|NCT02903914|191570054|OTHER|||||||0.6167|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6167
95755105|NCT04732221|191479844|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-9.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.9||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||2.9|-21.3|0.068
95755106|NCT04732221|191479844|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-10.3|-33.7|<0.001
95755107|NCT04732221|191479844|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-6.4||A 1-sided p-value was obtained from fitting a Robust regression estimate based on a Huber-type M estimator including terms for treatment and WHO-FC (Class II and Class III/IV) at baseline|Robust Regression|Missing data at week 12 due to death were imputed using the worst observed value and other missingness were imputed using J2R method|Least Square Mean of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported|||-6.4|-33.4|0.002
95755108|NCT00062010|191479894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|21.3||||||The study was designed to have adequate (90%) power to distinguish a true response rate of 50% from a null rate of 35% assuming total accrual of 76 patients in two stages. The design mandated that at least 13 objective responses be observed among 34 patients in the first stage in order to continue to the second stage. These were not observed, so the study stopped after the first stage. 90% exact binomial confidence intervals are provided for the response rate.||21.3|2.4|
95755109|NCT00824616|191479952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.58|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|||||0.58|-0.81|0.745
95799493|NCT02903914|191570054|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.255||||||||1.255|0.820|
95799494|NCT02903914|191570054|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.281||||||||1.281|0.849|
95799495|NCT02903914|191570054|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.447||||||||1.447|0.945|
95799496|NCT02903914|191570058|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.0745
95799497|NCT02903914|191570058|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.341||||||||1.341|0.947|
95799498|NCT02903914|191570058|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.18||||||||1.180|0.833|
95799499|NCT02903914|191570058|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.064|1.486||||||||1.486|1.064|
95799500|NCT02903914|191570059|OTHER|||||||0.0518|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0518
95799501|NCT02903914|191570060|OTHER|||||||0.1723|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1723
95799502|NCT02903914|191570060|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.42||||||||1.420|0.941|
95799503|NCT02903914|191570060|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.198||||||||1.198|0.794|
95799504|NCT02903914|191570060|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.503||||||||1.503|1.012|
95799505|NCT02903914|191570061|OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1705
95799506|NCT02903914|191570061|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.359||||||||1.359|0.863|
95799507|NCT02903914|191570061|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.719|1.132||||||||1.132|0.719|
95799508|NCT02903914|191570061|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.554||||||||1.554|0.945|
95799509|NCT02903914|191570065|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.057||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.483|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.483|0.753|0.7702
95755110|NCT00824616|191479953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|5.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Between-treatment difference (MK-0941 group minus Placebo group) in the percentage of participants who experienced one or more episodes of hypoglycemia.||25.4|-13.7|0.537
95755111|NCT05958888|191479956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<0.001
95755112|NCT05958888|191479956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome.The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<0.001
95755113|NCT05958888|191479956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
95799510|NCT02903914|191570065|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.012||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.346|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.346|0.762|0.9384
95799511|NCT02903914|191570065|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.07||||0.6733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.809|1.415|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.415|0.809|0.6733
95799512|NCT02903914|191570065|OTHER||pairwise GMR|1.238||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.847|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.847|0.830|0.3456
95799513|NCT02903914|191570066|OTHER|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.0441
95799514|NCT02903914|191570066|OTHER|||||||0.4092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.4092
95799515|NCT02903914|191570066|OTHER|||||||0.7748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.7748
95799516|NCT02903914|191570066|OTHER|||||||0.1948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fed versus Fasted||||0.1948
95799517|NCT02903914|191570067|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.92||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.363|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.363|0.620|0.7050
95755114|NCT05958888|191479956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.10
95755115|NCT05958888|191479956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
95755116|NCT05958888|191479956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.25
95755117|NCT05958888|191479957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
95755118|NCT05958888|191479957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
95755119|NCT05958888|191479957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
95755120|NCT05958888|191479957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.12
95799518|NCT02903914|191570067|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.929||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.31|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.310|0.658|0.7030
95799519|NCT02903914|191570067|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.999||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.377|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.377|0.725|0.9952
95799520|NCT02903914|191570067|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.742||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.394|1.397|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = food effect)||Fed versus Fasted||1.397|0.394|0.4012
95799521|NCT02903914|191570068|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.992||||0.9623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.349|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.349|0.729|0.9623
95755121|NCT05958888|191479957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
95755122|NCT05958888|191479957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
95755123|NCT05958888|191479958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||.01
95755124|NCT05958888|191479958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||.23
95755125|NCT05958888|191479958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.01
95755126|NCT05958888|191479958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.58
95755127|NCT05958888|191479958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.85
95755128|NCT05958888|191479958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.58
95799522|NCT02903914|191570069|OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||||0.7540
95799523|NCT02903914|191570070|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.951||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.261|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.261|0.718|0.7514
95799524|NCT02903914|191570071|OTHER||pairwise GMR|0.954||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|1.277|||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = formulation)||Tablet (test) versus Capsule (reference)||1.277|0.712|0.7707
95799525|NCT02266576|191570134|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs month 6||||0.04
95946344|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.52||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||1.52|0.23|0.0081
95946345|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.47||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||1.47|0.28|0.0038
95991595|NCT05512949|191958434|NON_INFERIORITY|The ID-dose regimen is considered non-inferior if the lower bound of the confidence interval (original scale) is no less than half that of the standard dose, giving a NI margin of 0.5 (NI= -0.301 log10 scale).|Geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR)|0.4||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6||Significance can be considered if P \<0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test with unequal variance, noninferiority (NI) margin of 0.5 and two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||The selection of the noninferiority (NI) margin was based on the pivotal Phase 3 trial by Pittman et al., in 2019 comparing one dose of ACAM2000 and the now licensed 2-dose standard MVA-BN regimen, which provided an estimated relative (peak) immune response of approximately 2-times higher for MVA-BN. An NI margin of 0.5 corresponds to an immune response of the lower-dose MVA-BN at least as high as what would be expected for ACAM2000.||0.6|0.3|0.162
95755129|NCT05958888|191479959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||>.99
95755130|NCT05958888|191479959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||>.99
95755131|NCT05958888|191479959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||.47
95755132|NCT05958888|191479959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||>.99
95799526|NCT02266576|191570134|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12||||0.02
95799527|NCT02266576|191570135|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 6 in physical component score||||0.004
95799528|NCT02266576|191570135|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|The linear regression model was used, adjusted for within cohort correlation, within participant correlation, and gender.||Baseline vs month 12 in physical component score||||0.01
95799529|NCT03807843|191570148|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 28 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 28 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.1|1.2|0.004
95799530|NCT03807843|191570148|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.8|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 56 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 56 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||2.8|1.5|<0.001
95991596|NCT05512949|191958437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
95799531|NCT03807843|191570148|OTHER||V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio|1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Mixed Effects Model|||"Day 196 V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR Ratio~The ratio of V184 GMFR/Placebo GMFR at Day 196 was derived from the mixed effects model used to determine GMFR."||1.7|0.9|0.121
95799532|NCT00138294|191570153|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.91||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2007-2008)||0.91|0.87|
95991597|NCT05512949|191958437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.708
95755133|NCT05958888|191479959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.45
95755134|NCT05958888|191479959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.70
95755135|NCT05958888|191479960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
95755136|NCT05958888|191479960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
95799533|NCT00138294|191570154|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.71||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.71|0.67|
95799534|NCT00138294|191570155|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.76||||||Overall Effectiveness against MAARI during the Epidemic Period (2008-2009)||0.76|0.73|
95799535|NCT02493855|191570157|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.311|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.311
95799536|NCT02493855|191570157|SUPERIORITY|This study was an exploratory study to evaluate the effect of ribavirin on the slope of the second phase of HCV RNA decline in participants who received the 3-direct-acting antiviral agent regimen.||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.561
95799537|NCT03384966|191570184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.4|154.8||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values."||154.8|22.4|< 0.0001
95755137|NCT05958888|191479960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
95755138|NCT05958888|191479960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
95755139|NCT05958888|191479960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||<.001
95755140|NCT05958888|191479960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.72
95755141|NCT05958888|191479961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
95799538|NCT03384966|191570184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.1|162.3||A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, based on an overall Type-I error rate of 0.05 adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni approach (two comparisons).|Chi-squared|||"The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of each selatogrel dose versus placebo. The proportion of responders for each of the two doses of selatogrel was compared to placebo.~No imputation was considered for handling missing values in the main analysis."||162.3|23.1|< 0.0001
95799539|NCT03384966|191570188|OTHER|Logistic regression (Type III analysis)||||||0.1915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1915
95946346|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.03||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||2.03|0.76|<0.001
95946347|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.39||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||2.39|0.86|<0.001
95755142|NCT05958888|191479961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
95755143|NCT05958888|191479961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
95755144|NCT05958888|191479961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||<.001
95755145|NCT05958888|191479961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.01
95755146|NCT05958888|191479961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.04
95799540|NCT03384966|191570190|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-27.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach.||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment to 8 hours after injection.||-19.6|-35.4|<.0001
95799541|NCT03384966|191570190|OTHER||LS Mean difference with placebo|-31.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value significance level is set to 0.025, i.e. type I error (0.05) adjusted for multiplicity (2 comparisons) using a Bonferroni approach||Longitudinal analysis of the treatment effect, from start of treatment up to 8 hours after injection.||-23.1|-39.0|<.0001
95799542|NCT05561140|191570237|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-10.9|=1.0000
95858999|NCT05038982|191675798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.389|3.389||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||3.389|-3.389|0.8125
95946348|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.54||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||2.54|0.83|<0.001
95755147|NCT05958888|191479962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Text vs. Control||||<.001
95755148|NCT05958888|191479962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Control||||<.001
95755149|NCT05958888|191479962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Control||||<.001
95755150|NCT05958888|191479962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Icon vs. Text||||.43
95755151|NCT05958888|191479962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Text||||.81
95755152|NCT05958888|191479962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni-Holm method, correcting for six tests within each outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Graphic vs. Icon||||.81
95755153|NCT03244644|191479963|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.0|||||The Bayesian posterior probability of superiority was 0.99136. This value exceeded the pre-specified threshold of 0.9750338 (nominal 0.025 one-sided level).|A hierarchical, closed-testing procedure (Bayesian hierarchical model) was utilized for the primary endpoint. The Bayesian hierarchical model formally incorporated data from the previous Phase 2B study (NCT02299570) of RBX2660. This analysis tested the hypothesis that the response rate of RBX2660 was superior to Placebo and was performed at the nominal 0.00125 and 0.025 one-sided levels.||24.0|2.3|
95755154|NCT03244644|191479964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||P-value for secondary outcome evaluated from baseline through 6 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.156
95991598|NCT03988907|191958446|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
95946349|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.86||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||2.86|1.23|<0.001
95755155|NCT02227147|191479980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.4|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|66.6|||Chi-squared|||||66.6|14.2|=0.006
95755156|NCT02227147|191479981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.1|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|62.7|||Chi-squared|||||62.7|9.4|=0.013
95755157|NCT02227147|191479982|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|47.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - central reviewer||47.1|-9.0|=0.191
95755158|NCT02227147|191479982|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.7|||=|0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|39.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - central reviewer||39.1|-17.7|=0.464
95755159|NCT02227147|191479982|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|14.9|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|43.1|||Chi-squared|||week 4 - investigator||43.1|-13.4|=0.308
95755160|NCT02227147|191479982|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|23.6|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|51.3|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||51.3|-4.2|=0.106
95755161|NCT02227147|191479983|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|9.5|||=|0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.9|-6.9|=0.255
95755162|NCT02227147|191479983|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.8|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.1|||Chi-squared|||week 6||17.1|-15.6|=0.927
95755163|NCT02227147|191479983|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|18.6|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|37.8|||Chi-squared|||week 8||37.8|-0.7|=0.062
95755164|NCT02227147|191479984|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.1|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-5.6|=0.745
95755165|NCT02227147|191479985|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.8|||=|0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|13.7|||Chi-squared|||week 4||13.7|-21.3|=0.672
95755166|NCT02227147|191479985|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|0.5|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.6|||Chi-squared|||week 6||19.6|-18.5|=0.955
95755167|NCT02227147|191479985|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-3.6|||=|0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||week 8||16.7|-23.9|=0.727
95755168|NCT02227147|191479986|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.6|||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.4|=0.207
95755169|NCT02227147|191479987|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-13.3|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-30.5|=0.110
95799543|NCT05561140|191570239|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-8.2|||=|0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for stratification factors.||-0.8|-15.6|=0.0297
95755170|NCT01783548|191480024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.66||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||Based on other studies, the standard deviation for the change from baseline over the first 6 weeks of treatment in the average of AM and PM rTNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 450 subjects aged 6 to 11 years (300 on active treatment of BDP and 150 on placebo) provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference of 0.65 in rTNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.24|-1.08|0.002
95946350|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.84||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||2.84|1.06|<0.001
95799544|NCT05561140|191570240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-8.1|||=|0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-26.9|=0.3456
95946351|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.3||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||3.30|1.31|<0.001
95991599|NCT03988907|191958447|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.20|1.02|
95991600|NCT03988907|191958448|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
95991601|NCT03988907|191958449|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27||||||||1.27|0.99|
95991602|NCT03988907|191958450|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.3||||||||1.30|1.11|
95991603|NCT03988907|191958451|OTHER|Descriptive statistics. A sample size of 26 evaluable participants ensures that the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the geometric population mean of the individual exposure ratios of Day 16 to Day 1 will lie within the 0.75 to 1.33 limits of the geometric population mean with at least 80% probability (power).|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.41||||||||1.41|1.14|
95991604|NCT01307033|191958475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||Constained logitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||2.2|-1.7|
95991605|NCT01307033|191958476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares means|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.5|||Constained longitudinal data analysis|Model included treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.5|-5.0|
95991606|NCT02274688|191958478|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||Wald Chi-Square=11.29, df=3, P=0.01|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.01
95991607|NCT02274688|191958479|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.01, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
95991608|NCT02274688|191958480|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.25, df=3, p=0.23|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.23
95991609|NCT02274688|191958481|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.55|||||||Wald Chi-Square=2.12, df=3, p=0.55|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.55
95946352|NCT00887224|191864361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||3.32|1.39|<0.001
95799545|NCT03487445|191570290|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 8 mg is described in statistical analysis 2: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 8 mg dose.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.001
95755171|NCT01783548|191480025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.18||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.18|-0.99|0.004
95755172|NCT01783548|191480026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.23|-1.00|0.002
95799546|NCT03487445|191570290|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 8 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.142||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.142
95799547|NCT03487445|191570290|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis comprised a 2-step testing strategy. The first test, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 50% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<50%) and is reported below. The second step for the Selatogrel 16 mg is described in statistical analysis 4: In this second analysis the subsequent null hypothesis of treatment effect less or equal to 85% was tested for the 16 mg dose.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 50% vs. H1: p \> 50%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||<0.0001
95799548|NCT03487445|191570290|SUPERIORITY|This statistical analysis reports the second of the 2-step testing strategy. This second test for the 16 mg Selatogrel dose, carried out at an alpha level of 0.025, determined whether the proportion of responders (patients with a PRU value \<100) was ≥ 85% (null hypothesis: proportion of responders \<85%).||||||0.009||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% vs. H1: p \> 85%)|one-sided z-test|A p-value significance level was set to 0.025, an overall level of 0.05 and adjusted for multiplicity using the Bonferroni approach.||The main analysis (mFAS, treatment dose as received) of treatment effect on the primary endpoint was conducted independently for each dose.||||0.009
95755173|NCT01783548|191480027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.17|-0.91|0.004
95799549|NCT03487445|191570291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.2280
95799550|NCT03487445|191570291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||P-value for hypotheses (H0: p \<= 85% versus H1: p \> 85%)|One-sided Z-test|||As per the main analysis (mFAS) the supporting analysis on the per-protocol set this analysis of treatment effect was conducted independently for each dose, i.e., 8 and 16 mg.||||0.0201
95799551|NCT02320175|191570315|OTHER|We compared percent top-box experience ratings pre- vs. post-intervention using a GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes, clustered by site. Top-box score was calculated as the percentage of participants that gave the top-most response for the given survey item (e.g., 5=Extremely; 5=Excellent). Missing data was accounted for through use of multiple imputations appropriate for missing data in clustered studies.|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE chi-squared test for binary outcomes|||||||<.05
95946353|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.27||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 1||0.27|-0.24|0.9142
95946354|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 2||0.91|0.15|0.0069
95991610|NCT02274688|191958482|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.52, df=3; p=0.32|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.32
95991611|NCT02274688|191958483|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.26|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.02, df=3, p=0.26|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.26
95755174|NCT01853930|191480028|SUPERIORITY|The purpose of the superiority test is to show if laboratory based training is superior to an independent home-based training option.||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.157 df= 30||||||0.876
95755175|NCT01394952|191480074|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.33% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.0 (after adjustment for the interim analysis).~Once superiority was achieved for the primary endpoint, multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.33|0.79|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Primary CV endpoint||0.99|0.79|0.026
95755176|NCT01394952|191480075|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Death from CV causes||1.06|0.78|0.211
95755177|NCT01394952|191480075|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal MI||1.16|0.79|0.652
95755178|NCT01394952|191480075|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Nonfatal stroke||0.95|0.61|0.017
95755179|NCT01394952|191480076|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||Time to all cause mortality||1.01|0.80|0.067
95799552|NCT00975923|191570318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||infection rates per device days|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||p-value and confidence intervals|Regression, Linear|||Infection rates were analyzed using hierarchical negative binomial regression models to model infection rate changes over time and account for clustering of ICUs within hospitals and adjusting for baseline covariates. Power was calculated a priori with a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and group size of 30; a 50% decrease in infection rates in the Collaborative group and 15% for the Tool Kit group, yielding power ranging from 82% to 91% for testing group differences.||3.0|1.0|<.05
95799553|NCT00975923|191570319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentages|10.0|||<|5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||Power calculation used alpha = .05 and group size = 30.The estimated effect was a 50% decrease in infection rates for the Collaborative Group and from 10% to 15% decrease in the Tool Kit group.Power ranged from 82%-91% for testing group differences.|It was hypothesized that the Collaborative group would engage in more processes and tools than the Tool Kit group. Power was based on infection rates.||||<05
95799554|NCT00221104|191570325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.29|0.73|0.8234
95799555|NCT00221104|191570326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.74|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||0.74|0.15|0.0047
95799556|NCT00221104|191570327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||1.91|0.81|0.3075
95755180|NCT01394952|191480077|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||microvascular endpoint||0.93|0.79|<0.001
95859000|NCT05038982|191675799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|7.08||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||7.08|2.52|0.0039
95991612|NCT02274688|191958484|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||Wald Chi-Square=4.44, df=3, p=0.22|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.22
95991613|NCT02274688|191958485|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||F(3,507)=2.24, P=0.08|Regression Poisson|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||=0.08
95755181|NCT01394952|191480078|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||Heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure clinic visit||1.12|0.77|0.456
95755182|NCT01394952|191480079|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjustments using the graphical approach were performed for secondary efficacy endpoints in order to control the overall Type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.0467.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hospitalization for unstable angina||1.54|0.84|0.413
95755183|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||2.6|0.8|
95755184|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.2|1.1|
95755185|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.4||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.4|1.6|
95755186|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.6||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||4.6|1.4|
95755187|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||3.0|0.9|
95755188|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.0||||||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||7.0|2.2|
95991614|NCT02274688|191958486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wald Chi-Square=3.24, df=3, p=0.36|||"Mixed Model Regression; Data from all 171 patients at all time points used in this intent-to-treat analytic approach.~We hypothesize intervention patients will demonstrate diminished outcome severity over time when compared to nurse notification patients, as evidenced by a significant group by time interaction effect."||||0.36
95991615|NCT01773421|191958506|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
95755189|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.4||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||28.4|9.5|<0.001
95755190|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|76.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|118.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||118.6|49.5|<0.001
95755191|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|115.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||115.6|40.1|<0.001
95755192|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|70.7||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||70.7|23.8|<0.001
95755193|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|128.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|190.3||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||190.3|87.0|<0.001
95755194|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|126.1||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||126.1|30.5|<0.001
95755195|NCT01986010|191480087|OTHER||GMT Ratio|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|124.6||Hypothesis is GMT Ratio \>1|Two sample t-test|||GMT Ratio: GMT V160/GMT placebo||124.6|31.9|<0.001
95755196|NCT01948986|191480096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|132.27|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.27|80.32|
95991616|NCT01773421|191958507|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.2||||||||1.2|1.02|
95755197|NCT01948986|191480096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|156.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.83|191.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||191.23|127.83|
95755198|NCT01948986|191480096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|170.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.02|207.98|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||207.98|139.02|
95755199|NCT01948986|191480096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|155.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.38|193.8|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||193.80|124.38|
95755200|NCT01948986|191480097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.66|132.61|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||132.61|80.66|
95755201|NCT01948986|191480097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|151.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.05|185.34|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||185.34|124.05|
95755202|NCT01948986|191480097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|168.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.53|205.49|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||205.49|137.53|
95755203|NCT01948986|191480097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|151.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.69|189.36|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||189.36|121.69|
95755204|NCT01948986|191480099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|101.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|130.87|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||130.87|78.83|
95755205|NCT01948986|191480099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|143.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.15|176.37|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||176.37|117.15|
95755206|NCT01948986|191480099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|140.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.4|172.23|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||172.23|114.40|
95755207|NCT01948986|191480099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|90.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|112.96|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||112.96|71.99|
95755208|NCT01948986|191480106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Heathy Normal/T2DM Normal)|80.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.41|108.76|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||108.76|59.41|
95755209|NCT01948986|191480106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|53.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.64|68.63|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||68.63|41.64|
95755210|NCT01948986|191480106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.)|43.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.85|55.78|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||55.78|33.85|
95755211|NCT01948986|191480106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Severe Renal Impair./Pooled Norm.|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.04|38.21|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect. The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|||38.21|22.04|
95755212|NCT01948986|191480123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mild Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|76.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.58|121.19|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||121.19|48.58|
95755213|NCT01948986|191480123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Mod. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|86.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.78|136.65|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||136.65|54.78|
95755214|NCT01948986|191480123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio: Sev. Ren. Impa./T2DM Norm. Renal|72.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.63|118.58|||||Adjusted geometrics mean values were used. The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||118.58|44.63|
95755215|NCT01948986|191480125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mild Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|49.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.22|90.93|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||90.93|27.22|
95755216|NCT01948986|191480125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Mod. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.85|69.64|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||69.64|20.85|
95755217|NCT01948986|191480125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Sev. Renal Impair./T2DM Norm. Ren|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.32|26.58|||||The model was an ANOVA model with renal function group as a fixed effect.|||26.58|7.32|
95755218|NCT02994940|191480126|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|21.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|44.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||44.2|-2.5|0.127
95755219|NCT02994940|191480127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.851
95755220|NCT02994940|191480128|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|2.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-1.0|0.109
95755221|NCT02994940|191480129|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehman estimator|7.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|4.0|0.0001
95859001|NCT05038982|191675799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0376|4.638||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||4.638|-0.0376|0.0547
95755222|NCT01584843|191480130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.81|2.14||LSD=Least Significant Difference|Fisher LSD method|||||2.14|-21.81|0.091
95755223|NCT01584843|191480130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|8.23|||Fisher LSD method|||||8.23|-20.39|0.338
95755224|NCT01584843|191480130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|17.33|||Fisher LSD method|||||17.33|-9.83|0.524
95755225|NCT01584843|191480130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.46|-1.24|||Fisher LSD method|||||-1.24|-24.46|0.031
95755226|NCT01584843|191480130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-5.38|||Fisher LSD method|||||-5.38|-28.06|0.005
95755227|NCT01584843|191480130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|7.47|||Fisher LSD method|||||7.47|-15.21|0.490
95755228|NCT01355159|191480169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.90|0.37
95755229|NCT01355159|191480171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28|||Chi-squared|||||2.28|0.74|0.37
95755230|NCT01355159|191480172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.31|0.21
95755231|NCT01355159|191480173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.82|0.71
95755232|NCT01355159|191480174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.86|0.87
95755233|NCT01355159|191480175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Chi-squared|||||3.96|0.37|0.75
95755234|NCT01355159|191480176|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.84|||Chi-squared|||||2.84|0.81|0.19
95755235|NCT01355159|191480177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.63|-0.96|0.61
95755236|NCT01355159|191480178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.30|0.14
95755237|NCT01355159|191480179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.41|0.37
95755238|NCT01355159|191480180|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.81|0.82
95755239|NCT01355159|191480181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
95755240|NCT01355159|191480182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||Chi-squared|||||1.05|0.37|0.07
95755241|NCT01355159|191480183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.54|0.65
95755242|NCT01355159|191480184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.09|0.10
95755243|NCT01355159|191480185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.04||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|8.57|||Chi-squared|||||8.57|0.49|0.33
95755244|NCT01355159|191480186|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.00|0.47|0.94
95755245|NCT01355159|191480187|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.97|0.06
95755246|NCT01355159|191480188|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Chi-squared|||||9.14|0.61|0.21
95755247|NCT01355159|191480189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.80|0.38
95755248|NCT01355159|191480190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-5.84|046
95755249|NCT01355159|191480191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.44|||Chi-squared|||||2.44|0.31|0.79
95755250|NCT01355159|191480192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||Chi-squared|||||10.92|0.37|0.42
95764385|NCT01128179|191498898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1121||||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3389|0.1146||The a priori significance level was 5%. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Assuming that the natural logarithm transformed serum intact FGF-23 is normally distributed with a mean of 3.5 and a standard deviation of 0.46, 33 subjects randomised 2:1 (lanthanum carbonate to placebo) will be sufficient to detect with 80% power at the 5% 2-sided significance level a decrease of 0.5 in the mean difference (placebo minus lanthanum carbonate) of the log-transformed data at Week 12.||0.1146|-0.3389|0.3186
95859002|NCT05038982|191675800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|11.07||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||We are comparing baseline scores at Week 0 to scores taken at the end of the treatment period in Week 12.||11.07|6.93|0.0003
95755251|NCT03276221|191480194|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.215
95755252|NCT03276221|191480195|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the paired associates learning module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of picking the correct box for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate better memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.495
95946355|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.95||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 3||0.95|0.21|0.0023
95991617|NCT01773421|191958508|EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with sequence, treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed to obtain the treatment estimates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.27||||||||1.27|1|
95755253|NCT03276221|191480196|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.050
95755254|NCT03276221|191480197|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.532|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial span module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of reaching a longer span for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher span lengths for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.532
95755255|NCT03276221|191480198|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.226
95755256|NCT03276221|191480199|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.369|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.369
95859003|NCT05038982|191675801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.011|8.846||Threshold of significance at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.846|4.011|<0.0001
95946356|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 4||1.28|0.49|<0.001
95946357|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.32||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 6||1.32|0.43|<0.001
95755257|NCT03276221|191480200|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.647|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.647
95755258|NCT03276221|191480201|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.511|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the verbal recognition memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct choice for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher memory performance for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.511
95755259|NCT03276221|191480202|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.312
95755260|NCT03276221|191480203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.27||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.836
95755261|NCT03276221|191480204|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median incongruency cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for incongruent trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.898
95755262|NCT03276221|191480205|SUPERIORITY||Slope|16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the multitasking test module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the multitasking cost for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher costs for multitasking trials for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.068
95755263|NCT03276221|191480206|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making a correct response for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher accuracy for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.150
95764111|NCT02854527|191498367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric mean ratio (T/R4) (%)|107.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|119.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects: 'sequence', 'subject within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.|Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R4 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted gMean ratio (T/R4) and its 2-sided 90% CI. Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|This statistical analysis assess the effect of the other cocktail compounds in treatment T on the secondary outcome measure of treatment R4.||119.39|97.04|
95946358|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 10||1.58|0.58|<0.001
95991618|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.8||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||bFGF (high versus low)||1.80|0.63|0.8127
95991619|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.08||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||E-selectin (high versus low)||3.08|1.06|0.0285
95755264|NCT03276221|191480207|SUPERIORITY||Slope|179.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|281.76||0.525|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the one touch stockings of Cambridge module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.525
95755265|NCT03276221|191480208|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-10.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the stop signal task module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the inhibition latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower inhibition for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.038
95755266|NCT03276221|191480209|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.576|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of making an error for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher error commission for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.576
95755267|NCT03276221|191480210|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the spatial working memory module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the log probability of trials with strategic responding for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher rates of strategic responding for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.296
95764112|NCT00866359|191498368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.9|-2.4|<0.0001
95764113|NCT00866359|191498369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares mean difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-18.0|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the oral ulcer pain VAS at Day 85, with treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline oral ulcer pain VAS as a covariate.|||-18.0|-35.5|<0.0001
95764114|NCT00866359|191498372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.32|-54.82||The last post-baseline observation was carried forward to Day 85 for participants who discontinued the study before Day 85. For participants who did not have Day 85 visit on the targeted date, the total AUC was adjusted by the actual study days.|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-54.82|-125.32|<0.0001
95764115|NCT00866359|191498375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the number of ulcers at Day 85, with treatment group, gender, and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline ulcer number as a covariate.|||-0.8|-2.7|0.0007
95764116|NCT00866359|191498376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||adjusted difference (percentage)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|54.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for gender.|Adjusted difference in proportions = weighted average of treatment differences across gender with the CMH weights.|||54.5|23.6|<0.0001
95946359|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||1.58|0.66|<0.001
95859004|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33||Threshold of significance set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNA sequencing (RNASeq) performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
95859005|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.18|-0.56|0.0003
95859006|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.039||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||0.039|-0.47|0.0952
95859007|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||Threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for CPUO patient skin at Week 0 versus Week 12 (end of treatment) The CPUO patients only had one biopsy collected at the timepoints because there are no visible lesions. CPUO patients only had one biopsy taken which will be referred to as Lesional sites. CPUO will compare Lesional biopsies at week 0 to Lesional biopsies at week 12.||-0.13|-0.64|0.004
95859008|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.053||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 0.||-0.053|-0.81|0.0277
95755268|NCT03276221|191480211|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the discriminability measure for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate higher discriminability rates for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.650
95755269|NCT03276221|191480212|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55||0.223|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Bonferroni correction across outcomes for the rapid visual information processing module. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|The estimate is the mean difference in the median response latency for the abstinence group above and beyond the monitoring group (positive values indicate slower responses for the abstinence group).|The mean difference in scale scores between the abstinence and monitoring groups was estimated via a binomial model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for monitoring, 1 for abstinence). The model adjusted for change at weeks 2, 3, and 4 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||||0.223
95755270|NCT02615171|191480228|OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0106
95946360|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 18||1.83|0.76|<0.001
95946361|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.76||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 22||1.76|0.70|<0.001
95946362|NCT00887224|191864362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||1.79|0.75|<0.001
95755271|NCT02615171|191480229|OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0027
95755272|NCT02615171|191480230|OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7829
95755273|NCT00507546|191480263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.70
95755274|NCT00507546|191480264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Friedman|||||||0.35
95755275|NCT05091307|191480356|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for non-inferiority (NI) was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||ANOVA|||A/Victoria (H1N1): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.53|1.09|
95764117|NCT00866359|191498377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Based on an Ancova model for change from baseline with treatment group, gender and interaction of treatment group and gender as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.5|-1.7|0.0007
95764118|NCT01625091|191498401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95859009|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.049||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th1 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at week 12.||0.049|-0.85|0.077
95755276|NCT05091307|191480356|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.45|||ANOVA|||A/Cambodia (H3N2): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.45|1.05|
95755277|NCT05091307|191480356|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANOVA|||B/Victoria (B/Victoria): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.19|0.84|
95755278|NCT05091307|191480356|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||ANOVA|||B/Phuket (B/Yamagata): Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.21|0.88|
95755279|NCT05091307|191480357|NON_INFERIORITY|The criterion for NI was the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR was below 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||ANOVA|||Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) models, CIs around the difference (Group 2 \[control group\] minus Group 1 \[CoAd group\]) was calculated and back-transformed (by exponentiation: 2\^CI) to CIs around a geometric mean ratio (GMR: GMTControl/GMTCoAd).||1.26|0.97|
95799557|NCT00221104|191570328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.14|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||9.14|0.61|0.1986
95799558|NCT00221104|191570329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.22|||Stratified log-rank test|log-rank test adjusted for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Cox proportional hazard model with for the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype, high blood pressure, and diabetes mellitus|the stratification factors at randomization: stroke subtype (atherothrombotic infarction vs. others), high blood pressure (≥150/90 mmHg vs. not), and diabetes mellitus (absence vs. presence)||2.22|0.45|0.9953
95799559|NCT02989389|191570336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||10.96|-29.52|0.215
95859010|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.024||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.024|-0.64|0.0363
95946363|NCT00887224|191864363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted odds ratio|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.2||Obtained from logistic regression analysis using Remission (Yes/No) at each time point as a response variable; logistic model with treatment and sites as factors and baseline HAM-D17 total score as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Wald 95% CI for adjusted odds ratio.||4.20|1.93|<0.0001
95946364|NCT00887224|191864364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14||-1.24|-3.03|<0.001
95991620|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||ICAM (high versus low)||1.85|0.64|0.7478
95755280|NCT03611543|191480375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Information related to the INVESTIGATIONAL group.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||<0.0001
95799560|NCT02989389|191570336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.79|-48.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-48.43|-69.79|<0.001
95799561|NCT02989389|191570336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-90.21|-82.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-40||-82.92|-90.21|<0.001
95799562|NCT02989389|191570336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.69|-2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-2.51|-33.69|0.015
95799563|NCT02989389|191570336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.23|-56.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-56.92|-72.23|<0.001
95799564|NCT02989389|191570336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.97|-78.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aβ 1-42||-78.38|-88.97|<0.001
95799565|NCT00373672|191570422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance model with time (baseline, 6 weeks) as the within-subjects factor and treatment group (armodafinil, placebo) as the between-subjects factor.||||<0.016
95799566|NCT04871074|191570423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.74
95859011|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.062||The threshold of significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th2 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.062|-0.63|0.10
95799567|NCT04871074|191570424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||DeLong's Test|||||||.66
95799568|NCT04871074|191570425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects model, fixed effects coefficient test with a Wald test||||||.135
95799569|NCT04871074|191570429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects estimate, Wald test||||||.39
95799570|NCT04132050|191570442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent of Participants|36.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|59.3|||Fisher Exact||"The difference in the achievement rate of Stable platelet response (= platelet count of ≥ 50000/μL at 4 or more of the 6 visits from Weeks 14 to 24) between two groups and its two-sided 95% CI were calculated."|||59.3|3.1|0.030
95859012|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.27||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.27|-0.89|0.0009
95859013|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th17 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.20|-0.77|0.2326
95859014|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 0 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 0.||-0.18|-0.85|0.0047
95859015|NCT05038982|191675803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0076||The threshold for significance is set at 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Th22 GSVA from RNASeq performed on skin biopsies. The comparison is for lesional PN patient skin at Week 12 versus non lesional PN patient skin at Week 12.||0.0076|-0.83|0.0539
95859016|NCT01469377|191675805|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.9||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.6|-2.4|0.2404
95946365|NCT00887224|191864364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.34||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26||-1.34|-3.29|<0.001
95946366|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|5.87||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Absenteeism||5.87|-3.82|0.6772
95946367|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|5.24||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Absenteeism||5.24|-5.91|0.9059
95991621|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.33||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||PlGF (high versus low)||2.33|0.58|0.6761
95799571|NCT01913353|191570513|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 1 (after 2 doses of MVA-BN) is non-inferior to Group 2 (after 1 dose of ACAM2000) in terms of PRNT GMTs at the respective peak visit (Week 6 in Group 1 / Week 4 in Group 2) was predefined as '1/2 (i.e. 0.5)' for the GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2).|GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|2.397||||||||2.397|1.562|
95799572|NCT01913353|191570514|SUPERIORITY|Predefined threshold of clinical relevance for the area attenuation ratio (AAR): 40%|Area attenuation ratio (AAR)|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.3|||||The AAR, i.e. the reduction in MLA \[1 - MLA ratio (Group 1/Group 2)\] after scarification was to be significantly above 40%. The MLA ratio and the corresponding 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the shift for log-transformed MLAs.|||98.3|96.6|
95799573|NCT01260948|191570537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|103.53|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.53|94.13|
95799574|NCT01260948|191570538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|98.47|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.47|91.30|
95799575|NCT03018938|191570549|NON_INFERIORITY|If Lower limit (L) \>-0.4%, the Non-inferiority (NI) of basal insulin analog QD to insulin analog mid mixture BID is established; If Upper limit (U) \<0.4%, the NI of insulin analog mid mixture BID to basal insulin analog QD is established|LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0959||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.346|0.1009
95799576|NCT03018938|191570550|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||||-0.026|-0.376|0.0246
95799577|NCT03018938|191570551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.95|0.0941
95755281|NCT02081209|191480398|OTHER||sucess percentage|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.4|87.3||||||||87.3|76.4|
95755282|NCT02081209|191480398|OTHER||sucess percentage|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|85.1||||||||85.1|68.1|
95755283|NCT02081209|191480398|OTHER||sucess percentage|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|89.5||||||||89.5|65.0|
95755284|NCT02081209|191480398|OTHER||sucess percentage|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.6|98.8||||||||98.8|84.6|
95755285|NCT02081209|191480399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95755286|NCT02081209|191480399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||||2.1|0.5|
95755287|NCT02081209|191480399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.1||||||||4.1|2.0|
95755288|NCT02081209|191480400|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Data from the 16-week follow-up questionnaire were tabulated for all subjects with completed questionnaires.. All confidence intervals were calculated at 95%. Alpha was calculated to be 0.05, critical probability (p\*) was calculated to be 0.975. Assuming normal distribution of survey recipients, a standard deviation of 1.96 is used to calculate the standard margin of error.|||
95755289|NCT05538065|191480408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.78|1.10|0.002
95755290|NCT05538065|191480408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and binary errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||1.57|1.01|0.039
95755291|NCT05538065|191480409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|94.6||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||94.6|-36.6|0.386
95755292|NCT05538065|191480409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|106.1||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||106.1|-29.9|272
95755293|NCT05538065|191480410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|47.0||Adjusted for multiple testing|Regression, Linear|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||47.0|-74.5|0.657
95755294|NCT05538065|191480410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|91.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for multiple testing||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with an identity link and normally-distributed errors, adjusting for provider-level clustering and Holm-Bonferroni multiple comparisons.||91.0|-60.7|0.696
95755295|NCT02752906|191480443|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non- inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|9.38||||||Serogroup A||9.38|0.735|
95755296|NCT02752906|191480443|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|8.76||||||Serogroup C||8.76|2.16|
95755297|NCT02752906|191480443|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.907|4.55||||||Serogroup Y||4.55|-0.907|
95755298|NCT02752906|191480443|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentage was \> -10%, the non-inferiority assumption was rejected.|Percentage Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.9||||||Serogroup W||10.9|4.30|
95755299|NCT04663295|191480447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.9||One-sided test at significant level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed rank test comparing baseline and study period.||||7.9|3.3|<0.001
95755300|NCT04715932|191480479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression).||||3.69|0.60|0.3849
95764119|NCT01625091|191498402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95946368|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.91||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.55||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Presenteeism||13.55|0.27|0.0414
95946369|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|14.71||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Presenteeism||14.71|1.77|0.0129
95946370|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.61||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Work Productivity Loss||14.61|0.34|0.0402
95946371|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|15.53||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Work Productivity Loss||15.53|1.43|0.0187
95755301|NCT04715932|191480480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.88|0.71|0.3139
95755302|NCT04715932|191480481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.14|0.65|0.5886
95755303|NCT04715932|191480482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.27|0.38|0.2328
95755304|NCT04715932|191480483|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.14||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression).||||1.37|0.95|0.1560
95755305|NCT04715932|191480484|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.6233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.33|0.84|0.6233
95991622|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.09||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGF A (high versus low)||2.09|0.72|0.4601
95755306|NCT04715932|191480485|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.37|0.78|0.8290
95755307|NCT04715932|191480486|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated poisson regression)||||1.40|0.69|0.9222
95755308|NCT04715932|191480487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8834
95755309|NCT04715932|191480488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.77|0.59|0.9416
95755310|NCT04715932|191480489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.55|0.49|0.6296
95755311|NCT04715932|191480490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.41|0.3711
95755312|NCT04715932|191480491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.61|0.42|0.5696
95755313|NCT04715932|191480492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.26|0.7583
95755314|NCT04715932|191480493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.58|0.20|0.8091
95755315|NCT04715932|191480494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||9.42|0.30|0.5591
95755316|NCT04715932|191480495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||||0.9983
95755317|NCT04715932|191480496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.82|0.90|0.1068
95799578|NCT03018938|191570552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.72|0.8592
95859017|NCT01469377|191675805|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||-0.6|-3.7|0.0114
95755318|NCT04715932|191480497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.98|0.57|0.8382
95755319|NCT04715932|191480498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.51|0.59|0.5912
95755320|NCT04715932|191480500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.35|0.45|0.3686
95755321|NCT04715932|191480501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.86|0.59|0.8711
95755322|NCT04715932|191480502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.87|0.57|0.9124
95755323|NCT04715932|191480503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.37|0.36|0.2952
95755324|NCT04715932|191480504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.62|0.5894
95755325|NCT04715932|191480505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.89|0.45|0.7887
95755326|NCT04715932|191480506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.70|0.20|0.6348
95755327|NCT04715932|191480507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.92|0.04|0.4257
95799579|NCT03018938|191570553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|0.000|0.0497
95799580|NCT03018938|191570554|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1955||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.031|||ANCOVA|||||1.031|0.263|0.0010
95799581|NCT03018938|191570555|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2191||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.7|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.700|-0.161|0.2193
95799582|NCT03018938|191570555|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3331||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.571|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.571|-0.739|0.8014
95755328|NCT04715932|191480508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.11|0.89|0.1113
95755329|NCT04715932|191480509|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.47|0.71|0.2613
95755330|NCT04715932|191480510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.49|0.27|0.7273
95755331|NCT04715932|191480511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.19|0.19|0.8909
95946372|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.8||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 14 Activity Impairment||11.80|3.33|<0.001
95946373|NCT00887224|191864365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|12.1||"P-value obtained from mixed model: change from baseline = baseline + site + treatment + visit + treatment\*visit with Unstructured covariance structure."|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM).||Adjusted difference from placebo: Week 26 Activity Impairment||12.10|3.14|<0.001
95755332|NCT04715932|191480512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.67|0.87|0.1438
95755333|NCT04715932|191480513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.68|0.71|0.3440
95946374|NCT03883828|191864366|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Linear Regression|-0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.15||Two-sided p-values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||||-0.15|-0.75|0.004
95946375|NCT03883828|191864367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Symptoms Domain||||||0.20
95946376|NCT03883828|191864367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Emotions Domain||||||0.05
95946377|NCT03883828|191864367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A 2-sided P ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Functioning Domain||||||0.73
95755334|NCT04715932|191480514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.56|0.58|0.5968
95755335|NCT04715932|191480515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.76|0.62|0.3620
95755336|NCT04715932|191480516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.27|0.91|0.0875
95755337|NCT04715932|191480517|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.32|0.36|0.8397
95755338|NCT04715932|191480518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.40|0.6265
95755339|NCT04715932|191480519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||8.91|0.16|0.8528
95755340|NCT04715932|191480520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.35|0.77|0.2983
95755341|NCT04715932|191480521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.66|0.5611
95755342|NCT04715932|191480522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.58|0.65|0.4643
95755343|NCT04715932|191480523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.62|0.53|0.5063
95755344|NCT04715932|191480524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.47|0.80|0.2292
95755345|NCT04715932|191480525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.07|0.65|0.6097
95755346|NCT04715932|191480526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.16|0.54|0.8389
95755347|NCT04715932|191480527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.17|0.45|0.9764
95755348|NCT04715932|191480528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.40|0.46|0.4403
95755349|NCT04715932|191480529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.60|0.39|0.5112
95755350|NCT04715932|191480530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.46|0.9306
95755351|NCT04715932|191480531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.36|0.23|0.6046
95755352|NCT04715932|191480532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||2.34|0.57|0.6963
95764120|NCT01625091|191498403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95755353|NCT04715932|191480533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||1.88|0.22|0.4250
95755354|NCT04715932|191480534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.65|0.27|0.8797
95755355|NCT04715932|191480535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|37.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||37.03|0.37|0.2634
95755356|NCT04715932|191480536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.06|0.73|0.2710
95799583|NCT03018938|191570556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2033||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.891|||ANCOVA|||FBG||0.891|0.092|0.0160
95799584|NCT03018938|191570556|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3028||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.582|||ANCOVA|||PPG||0.582|-0.608|0.9661
95799585|NCT03018938|191570558|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2776||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.211|||ANCOVA|||||1.211|0.122|0.0166
95799586|NCT03018938|191570559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2864||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.316|||ANCOVA|||||1.316|0.192|0.0086
95799587|NCT03018938|191570562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.89|0.2009
95799588|NCT03018938|191570563|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.72|0.8054
95799589|NCT03018938|191570564|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.8|0.7553
95799590|NCT00191100|191570565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PFS Probability Difference at 3 Years|0.095||||0.029||95.0|0.01|0.179||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Z Statistic||Difference in progression-free survival probability between Gem/Cis/Rad and Cis/Rad. The difference in PFS probability between the two treatment arms can also be presented as a percentage (ie, PFS at 3 years was 9.5% better in the Gem/Cis/Rad arm).|||0.179|0.010|0.029
95799591|NCT00191100|191570566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
95946378|NCT00790699|191864369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||RM-ANOVA|||The results were evaluated to determine if any statistically significant changes in any of these measures between the first and final visit occurred and if these changes were associated with membership in the treatment or control group.||||>.05
95946379|NCT03732807|191864370|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.11|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.17|37.91|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.91|21.17|<0.000001
95799592|NCT00191100|191570567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||"Note: There were 2 patients with unknown site of progressive disease; these patients were counted as a Local failure.~Note: There was 1 patient with both local and distant failure; this patient was counted as a Local failure."||||0.096
95799593|NCT00191100|191570568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||The p-value is two-sided and was tested at the 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
95799594|NCT00191100|191570569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0224
95799595|NCT00191100|191570570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0227
95946380|NCT03732807|191864370|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.78|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|29.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||29.18|13.65|<0.000001
95755357|NCT04715932|191480537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||4.30|0.77|0.1748
95755358|NCT04715932|191480538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||3.63|0.34|0.8513
95755359|NCT04715932|191480539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed model (repeated binary logistic regression)||||5.07|0.29|0.7906
95755360|NCT02740699|191480540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0256
95755361|NCT02740699|191480541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||||||0.0254
95755362|NCT02740699|191480542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
95755363|NCT02740699|191480543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95755364|NCT02740699|191480544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
95755365|NCT02740699|191480545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
95755366|NCT00655876|191480553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Log Rank|||The sample size was based on the primary hypothesis of a 29% reduction in the hazard rate of death with cetuximab, corresponding to an increase in 2-year overall survival (OS) from 41% to 53% and a hazard ratio (λ\[exp\]/λ\[cont\]) of 0.71 in favor of the cetuximab arm. Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 400 patients were required to reach 281 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.025, 4.5 years of accrual, 2 years of follow-up, and 4 interim analyses.||1.16|0.70|0.47
95755367|NCT00655876|191480554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||1.28|0.66|0.65
95799596|NCT01769586|191570571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Chi-squared|||||.50|.24|<0.001
95799597|NCT00924651|191570603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.3327|||ANCOVA|||||0.3327|-0.3710|0.9148
95799598|NCT02734667|191570604|SUPERIORITY||t statistic from GLM/regression|-0.47||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
95799599|NCT02734667|191570605|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|-2.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
95946381|NCT03732807|191864370|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|21.85|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|30.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||30.23|14.65|<0.000001
95755368|NCT00655876|191480556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level = 0.025||||||0.66
95755369|NCT00655876|191480557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||6-8 weeks post-treatment||||0.04
95755370|NCT00655876|191480557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||1 year||||0.77
95755371|NCT00655876|191480557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||2 years||||0.17
95755372|NCT00699374|191480585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and tumor invasion condition.|Log Rank|||||1.50|1.14|0.9993
95755373|NCT00699374|191480586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE, and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.99|0.8857
95755374|NCT00699374|191480587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test controlling the effects of geographic region, prior TACE and tumor invasion condition|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.98|0.8459
95991623|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.29||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-1 (high versus low)||1.29|0.46|0.3193
95755375|NCT00593736|191480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.646
95755376|NCT00593736|191480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.084
95755377|NCT00593736|191480597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.929
95755378|NCT00593736|191480598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.854
95755379|NCT00593736|191480598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.383
95755380|NCT00593736|191480598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.883
95755381|NCT00593736|191480599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS Means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
95755382|NCT00593736|191480599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
95755383|NCT00593736|191480599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.269
95755384|NCT00593736|191480600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.920
95755385|NCT00593736|191480600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.382
95755386|NCT00593736|191480600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.439
95755387|NCT00593736|191480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.973
95755388|NCT00593736|191480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
95755389|NCT00593736|191480601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.816
95764121|NCT01625091|191498404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95764122|NCT04182334|191498414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
95755390|NCT00593736|191480602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.661
95755391|NCT00593736|191480602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.341
95755392|NCT00593736|191480602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
95755393|NCT00593736|191480603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.365
95755394|NCT00593736|191480603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.121
95755395|NCT00593736|191480603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.268
95946382|NCT03732807|191864370|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.75||||0.000154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|20.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||20.36|6.69|0.000154
95946383|NCT03732807|191864371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|19.75|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.91|27.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||27.59|11.91|<0.000001
95991624|NCT00700180|191958523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.45||Multiple logistic regression model with treatment, biomarker level (dichotomized) and baseline prognostic factors as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||VEGFR-2 (high versus low)||2.45|0.85|0.1758
95755396|NCT00593736|191480604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.900
95755397|NCT00593736|191480604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.525
95755398|NCT00593736|191480604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.418
95755399|NCT00593736|191480605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.051
95755400|NCT00593736|191480605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.926
95799600|NCT02734667|191570606|SUPERIORITY||t-statistic from GLM/regression results|3.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes between the CGM and control groups at 6 months while adjusting for participant gender, age, annual household income, days since diagnosis, and baseline A1c.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.003
95799601|NCT01482221|191570628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.695||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.152||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.152|-4.519|0.630
95755401|NCT00593736|191480605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.166
95755402|NCT00593736|191480606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.511
95755403|NCT00593736|191480606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
95755404|NCT00593736|191480606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.188
95755405|NCT00593736|191480607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.691
95755406|NCT00593736|191480607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.323
95859018|NCT01469377|191675806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.1||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.3|-2.5|0.2404
95991625|NCT00700180|191958525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.78|0.9454
95991626|NCT00700180|191958526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Responses Rates|9.34||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||21.0|-2.4|0.1737
95755407|NCT00593736|191480607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.324
95755408|NCT00593736|191480608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.197
95764123|NCT04182334|191498415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
95764124|NCT04182334|191498416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
95764125|NCT04182334|191498417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.326
95764126|NCT04182334|191498418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.463
95764127|NCT04182334|191498419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
95764128|NCT04182334|191498420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.505
95764129|NCT04182334|191498421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
95764130|NCT04182334|191498422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
95764131|NCT04182334|191498423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
95764132|NCT01959295|191498426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The superiority of ASP2151 200mg to ASP2151 placebo was assessed by Mantel-Haenszel method, adjusted by disease type (labial/facial herpes and recurrent genital herpes) .||||0.5086
95764133|NCT05878093|191498435|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.15|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-1.15|-2.53|<0.0001
95764134|NCT05878093|191498436|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.54||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.12|-0.97|0.0126
95764135|NCT05878093|191498437|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-1.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.69|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.69|-2.67|0.0008
95764136|NCT05878093|191498438|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-0.62||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-0.17|-1.08|0.0072
95764137|NCT05878093|191498439|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least square mean difference|-9.52||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-2.24|||ANCOVA||Data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, and screening blood eosinophil count strata as covariates.|||-2.24|-16.81|0.0104
95764138|NCT04479852|191498442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||0.5|-4.1|0.133
95764139|NCT04479852|191498443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.0|-0.5|0.059
95764140|NCT04479852|191498444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in HAM-D score from baseline.|||0.4|-2.7|0.159
95764141|NCT04479852|191498445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in SDS score from baseline.|||0.5|-2.5|0.188
95764142|NCT04479852|191498446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in QIDS score from baseline.|||0.2|-2.0|0.091
95799602|NCT01482221|191570628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.701||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.563|2.134||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.134|-4.563|0.476
95799603|NCT01482221|191570629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.816||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.628|1.522||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.522|-5.628|0.630
95799604|NCT01482221|191570629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.485||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.485|-2.720|0.630
95755409|NCT00593736|191480608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.871
95755410|NCT00593736|191480608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.737
95755411|NCT00593736|191480609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.972
95755412|NCT00593736|191480609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.117
95755413|NCT00593736|191480609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.811
95755414|NCT00593736|191480610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.659
95991627|NCT00700180|191958527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||11.7|-8.2|0.6148
95755415|NCT00593736|191480610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.337
95755416|NCT00593736|191480610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.853
95755417|NCT00593736|191480611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
95755418|NCT00593736|191480611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.495
95755419|NCT00593736|191480611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.800
95755420|NCT00593736|191480612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
95755421|NCT00593736|191480612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.134
95755422|NCT00593736|191480612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.130
95946384|NCT03732807|191864371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.33||||0.000526||95.0|4.93|17.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||17.74|4.93|0.000526
95946385|NCT03732807|191864371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.88||||0.000311||95.0|5.42|18.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||18.33|5.42|0.000311
95946386|NCT03732807|191864371|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.09||||0.002922||95.0|3.1|15.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear mixed effect model without imputation using observed data up to Week 24 was used as the imputation model. A single complete imputed data set for Week 24 was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method as the analysis model.||15.07|3.10|0.002922
95755423|NCT00593736|191480613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.063
95755424|NCT00593736|191480613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
95755425|NCT00593736|191480613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.521
95755426|NCT00593736|191480614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.675
95799605|NCT01482221|191570630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.089||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.089|0.544|0.852
95799606|NCT01482221|191570630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|2.115||The adjusted p-values protect the overall family-wise error rate across the 6 key comparisons of AZD6765 100 mg and 50 mg to placebo (for MADRS change from baseline to 6 weeks and to 12 weeks and for Sustained Response).|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model including treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.115|0.552|0.821
95799607|NCT01482221|191570631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.686|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.686|0.485|0.751
95799608|NCT01482221|191570631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.233|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.233|0.650|0.555
95799609|NCT01482221|191570632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.301|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.301|0.699|0.434
95946387|NCT03732807|191864372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.24|||<|1e-06||95.0|13.23|28.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.49|13.23|<0.000001
95946388|NCT03732807|191864372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|11.68||||0.000337||95.0|5.82|19.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.07|5.82|0.000337
95946389|NCT03732807|191864372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.17||||0.000228||95.0|6.27|19.53|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.53|6.27|0.000228
95946390|NCT03732807|191864372|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|9.39||||0.001875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|16.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.46|3.86|0.001875
95755427|NCT00593736|191480614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
95755428|NCT00593736|191480614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.205
95755429|NCT00593736|191480615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.643
95991628|NCT00700180|191958529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.68|0.7587
95755430|NCT00593736|191480615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.032
95755431|NCT00593736|191480615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.875
95755432|NCT00593736|191480616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.286
95755433|NCT00593736|191480616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.318
95755434|NCT00593736|191480616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.483
95755435|NCT00593736|191480617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.040
95755436|NCT00593736|191480617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.610
95946391|NCT03732807|191864373|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|42.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.68|54.25|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||54.25|31.68|<0.000001
95946392|NCT03732807|191864373|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|36.18|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.22|47.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||47.14|25.22|<0.000001
95755437|NCT00593736|191480617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.368
95755438|NCT00593736|191480618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.352
95946393|NCT03732807|191864373|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|39.96|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|51.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||51.06|28.85|<0.000001
95755439|NCT00593736|191480618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
95755440|NCT00593736|191480618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.297
95755441|NCT00593736|191480619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.053
95755442|NCT00593736|191480619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
95755443|NCT00593736|191480619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.783
95755444|NCT00593736|191480620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.566
95799610|NCT01482221|191570632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.334|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.334|0.377|0.286
95946394|NCT03732807|191864373|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|32.72|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|43.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||43.50|21.95|<0.000001
95991629|NCT00700180|191958531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.87|0.3120
95755445|NCT00593736|191480620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.543
95755446|NCT00593736|191480620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.847
95755447|NCT00593736|191480621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.356
95755448|NCT00593736|191480621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.964
95946395|NCT00195819|191864433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1||||0.06||95.0|-0.5|40.7|||Chi-squared|||||40.7|-0.5|0.060
95755449|NCT00593736|191480621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.799
95755450|NCT00593736|191480622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.698
95755451|NCT00593736|191480622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.385
95755452|NCT00593736|191480622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.641
95755453|NCT00593736|191480623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.979
95755454|NCT00593736|191480623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.194
95755455|NCT00593736|191480623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
95859019|NCT01469377|191675806|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||p-values were from an mixed-effects model for repeated measures with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the matched parallel gate-keeping procedure.||||0.0|-2.8|0.1140
95755456|NCT00593736|191480624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.975
95755457|NCT00593736|191480624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.639
95755458|NCT00593736|191480624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.109
95755459|NCT00593736|191480625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.823
95755460|NCT00593736|191480625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.004
95755461|NCT00593736|191480625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.296
95755462|NCT00593736|191480626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.092
95946396|NCT00195819|191864476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.387||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
95755463|NCT00593736|191480626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.025
95755464|NCT00593736|191480626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.732
95755465|NCT00593736|191480627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.298
95755466|NCT00593736|191480627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.276
95755467|NCT00593736|191480627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.430
95755468|NCT00593736|191480628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.349
95755469|NCT00593736|191480628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.203
95755470|NCT00593736|191480628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.444
95755471|NCT00593736|191480629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.581
95755472|NCT00593736|191480629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.257
95755473|NCT00593736|191480629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.688
95755474|NCT00593736|191480630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.561
95946397|NCT05794191|191864477|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|22.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.425|36.391||||||||36.391|5.425|
95755475|NCT00593736|191480630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.595
95755476|NCT00593736|191480630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.795
95755477|NCT00593736|191480631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
95755478|NCT00593736|191480631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.177
95755479|NCT00593736|191480631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.044
95755480|NCT00593736|191480632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.475
95755481|NCT00593736|191480632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.635
95755482|NCT00593736|191480632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.782
95755483|NCT00593736|191480633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.192
95755484|NCT00593736|191480633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.618
95755485|NCT00593736|191480633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.152
95755486|NCT00593736|191480634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.379
95755487|NCT00593736|191480634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.057
95946398|NCT05794191|191864478|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|34.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.249|51.275||||||||51.275|13.249|
95946399|NCT05794191|191864479|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.408|26.302||||||||26.302|-50.408|
95946400|NCT05794191|191864480|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.883|43.961||||||||43.961|-46.883|
95755488|NCT00593736|191480634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.808
95755489|NCT00593736|191480635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.284
95755490|NCT00593736|191480635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.344
95946401|NCT05794191|191864481|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|17.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.994|28.536||||||||28.536|3.994|
95946402|NCT05794191|191864482|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|25.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|38.781||||||||38.781|9.400|
95946403|NCT05794191|191864483|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-7.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.076|18.569||||||||18.569|-42.076|
95946404|NCT05794191|191864484|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.916|41.871||||||||41.871|-34.916|
95755491|NCT00593736|191480635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.558
95755492|NCT00593736|191480636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.867
95799611|NCT01482221|191570633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|3.007|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.007|0.672|0.357
95946405|NCT05794191|191864485|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|8.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.705|11.086||||||||11.086|5.705|
95755493|NCT00593736|191480636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.244
95755494|NCT00593736|191480636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.620
95755495|NCT00593736|191480637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.206
95755496|NCT00593736|191480637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.559
95755497|NCT00593736|191480637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.074
95755498|NCT00593736|191480638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.796
95755499|NCT00593736|191480638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.546
95755500|NCT00593736|191480638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.479
95946406|NCT05794191|191864486|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|11.445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.089|14.679||||||||14.679|8.089|
95946407|NCT05794191|191864487|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.427|12.493||||||||12.493|1.427|
95946408|NCT05794191|191864488|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-3.716|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.626|4.488||||||||4.488|-12.626|
95946409|NCT05794191|191864489|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.685|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.213|17.022||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||17.022|10.213|
95946410|NCT05794191|191864489|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|13.261||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.261|1.707|
95946411|NCT05794191|191864489|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.691|3.26||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.260|-15.691|
95946412|NCT05794191|191864489|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.056|12.66||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.660|7.056|
95946413|NCT05794191|191864490|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|13.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.149|16.978||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 0-3 years||16.978|10.149|
95755501|NCT00593736|191480639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.766
95755502|NCT00593736|191480639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.912
95755503|NCT00593736|191480639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.952
95755504|NCT00593736|191480640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.722
95799612|NCT01482221|191570633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.84|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.840|0.622|0.463
95799613|NCT01482221|191570634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|2.031|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.031|0.532|0.911
95799614|NCT01482221|191570634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.613|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.613|0.382|0.509
95799615|NCT01482221|191570635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.609|2.264||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.264|-2.609|0.889
95799616|NCT01482221|191570635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|2.501||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.501|-2.477|0.992
95799617|NCT01482221|191570635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|3.678||Analysis for change in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.678|-1.448|0.392
95799618|NCT01482221|191570635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|3.908||Analysis for changed in SDS total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline SDS score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.908|-1.327|0.333
95946414|NCT05794191|191864490|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|7.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|13.276||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 3-5 years||13.276|1.708|
95946415|NCT05794191|191864490|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-5.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.809|3.166||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: 5-7 years||3.166|-15.809|
95946416|NCT05794191|191864490|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|9.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.617||||||IPTW\*IPCW + imbalanced variables: overall follow up||12.617|7.000|
95755505|NCT00593736|191480640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.262
95755506|NCT00593736|191480640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.717
95755507|NCT00593736|191480641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.498
95755508|NCT00593736|191480641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.664
95755509|NCT00593736|191480641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.428
95946417|NCT00229970|191864559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.022||95.0|0.01|0.16|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.16|0.01|0.022
95755510|NCT00593736|191480642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.519
95755511|NCT00593736|191480642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.179
95755512|NCT00593736|191480642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.935
95755513|NCT00593736|191480643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.425
95755514|NCT00593736|191480643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.406
95755515|NCT00593736|191480643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.720
95946418|NCT00229970|191864559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|0.09|0.24|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and using the baseline Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second (FEV1) as a covariate.||||0.24|0.09|<0.001
95946419|NCT03739866|191864574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95755516|NCT00593736|191480644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.294
95755517|NCT00593736|191480644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.474
95755518|NCT00593736|191480644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.999
95755519|NCT00593736|191480645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.655
95755520|NCT00593736|191480645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.331
95946420|NCT03739866|191864574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95946421|NCT03739866|191864574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95946422|NCT03739866|191864574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95946423|NCT03739866|191864574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95946424|NCT00853580|191864588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
95946425|NCT00853580|191864589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
95946426|NCT00853580|191864590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
95946427|NCT00853580|191864591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95946428|NCT00853580|191864592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
95946429|NCT00853580|191864593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
95946430|NCT00853580|191864594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
95946431|NCT00853580|191864595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
95946432|NCT00853580|191864596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
95946433|NCT00853580|191864597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
95946434|NCT00853580|191864598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
95946435|NCT00853580|191864599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
95946436|NCT00853580|191864600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
95946437|NCT00853580|191864601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
95946438|NCT00853580|191864602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
95946439|NCT00853580|191864603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
95946440|NCT00853580|191864604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
95946441|NCT00853580|191864605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
95946442|NCT00853580|191864606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.30
95946443|NCT00853580|191864607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
95946444|NCT01034306|191864608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352||||||normal approximation to the binomial test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0352
95946445|NCT01034306|191864609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2472
95946446|NCT01034306|191864610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1972
95946447|NCT03057600|191864611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2252|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.2252
95946448|NCT03057600|191864611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.9437
95946449|NCT03057600|191864611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.5797
95946450|NCT03057600|191864611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||exact one-sample binomial tests|||||||0.0243
95755521|NCT00593736|191480645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.362
95799619|NCT01482221|191570636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.34|-0.49|0.728
95799620|NCT01482221|191570636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.29|-0.54|0.562
95799621|NCT01482221|191570636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.19||Analysis for change in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.64|0.283
95799622|NCT01482221|191570636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||Analysis for changed in CGI-S total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline CGI-S score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.55|-0.29|0.540
95799623|NCT01482221|191570637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|3.141|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||3.141|0.962|0.067
95799624|NCT01482221|191570637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.558|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.558|0.798|0.230
95799625|NCT01482221|191570638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.447|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||2.447|0.780|0.268
95859020|NCT02453711|191675829|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.85|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.05 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-0.85|-6.55|=0.0055
95859021|NCT02453711|191675829|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.49|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.1 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-3.49|-9.16|<0.0001
95946451|NCT01953692|191864620|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||>0.9999
95946452|NCT01953692|191864621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||>0.9999
95946453|NCT01953692|191864622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 10%. H0: p ≤ 0.10 versus H1: p \> 0.10||||0.0306
95946454|NCT01953692|191864623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7696||||||one-sided p-value|exact binomial distribution|||Comparison to a fixed efficacy target of 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 versus H1: p \> 0.25||||0.7696
95946455|NCT02157948|191864695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Testing: The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) in percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for assessing non-inferiority.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
95755522|NCT00593736|191480646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.684
95755523|NCT00593736|191480646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.399
95755524|NCT00593736|191480646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.611
95755525|NCT00593736|191480647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.157
95755526|NCT00593736|191480647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.463
95755527|NCT00593736|191480647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.774
95755528|NCT00593736|191480648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.413
95946456|NCT02157948|191864695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Testing: The lower and upper bounds of the same 2-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference were compared with the equivalence margin of ±1.44% for assessing equivalence.|Difference from CP2|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.57||Two-sided p-value based on the prespecified equivalence margin of ±1.44% for lumbar spine.|ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison was analyzed using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline BMD value interaction. The effect of denosumab CP4 on lumbar spine BMD at 12 months relative to the effect of denosumab CP2 was estimated by the least-squares mean of the treatment difference (denosumab CP4 - denosumab CP2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.57|-0.72|< 0.001
95946457|NCT03387189|191864778|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||0.91|0.17|0.031
95946458|NCT03387189|191864779|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.03|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for length of second stage cesarean section, fetal station, delivery method, use of instrumentation , parity, and gestational age|Y = Intervention + Time + Intervention\*Time + Covariates. Provided estimation parameter is the OR from the interaction term and can be interpreted as the differential change in odds of outcome from pre to post period associated with the intervention.|||4.03|0.53|0.465
95946459|NCT03387189|191864780|SUPERIORITY|alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.5|-20.4|0.01
95946460|NCT03387189|191864781|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-76.0|0.75
95946461|NCT03387189|191864782|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.0|0.02
95755529|NCT00593736|191480648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.093
95755530|NCT00593736|191480648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.982
95755531|NCT00593736|191480649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.441
95755532|NCT00593736|191480649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.082
95755533|NCT00593736|191480649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.549
95755534|NCT00593736|191480650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.860
95764143|NCT04479852|191498447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater increase in Q-LES-Q score from baseline.|||4.6|-1.2|0.243
95764144|NCT04479852|191498448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||-1.0|-6.8|.008
95755535|NCT00593736|191480650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.997
95755536|NCT00593736|191480650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.834
95755537|NCT00593736|191480651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.837
95755538|NCT00593736|191480651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.321
95755539|NCT00593736|191480651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.978
95755540|NCT00593736|191480652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.513
95755541|NCT00593736|191480652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.751
95755542|NCT00593736|191480652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.242
95755543|NCT00593736|191480653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.307
95946462|NCT03387189|191864785|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.116||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24|||Fisher Exact|||||0.24|-0.01|0.10
95946463|NCT03387189|191864787|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|17.8|||Fisher Exact|||||17.8|-0.12|0.81
95755544|NCT00593736|191480653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.765
95755545|NCT00593736|191480653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.727
95755546|NCT00593736|191480654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.902
95755547|NCT00593736|191480654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.590
95755548|NCT00593736|191480654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.290
95755549|NCT00593736|191480655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.685
95755550|NCT00593736|191480655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.214
95755551|NCT00593736|191480655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.055
95755552|NCT00593736|191480656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.589
95946464|NCT03387189|191864788|SUPERIORITY|Alpha - 0.05|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Fisher Exact|||||0.13|-0.11|1.0
95946465|NCT02502461|191864792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7||Bonferroni correction|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|0.1|0.04
95946466|NCT03697603|191864794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.1|-2.7|0.0312
95946467|NCT03697603|191864794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||MMRM|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.4|-3.0|0.0089
95946468|NCT03697603|191864795|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.8|-2.8|0.1964
95946469|NCT03697603|191864795|OTHER||Diff|5.5||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.7|||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||13.7|-2.8|0.1969
95946470|NCT04218864|191864801|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Linear Mixed regression models (LMM) have been used to identify any difference between the intervention and the control groups over time with regards to the continuous outcomes. Group (intervention vs. control), a 5-category time (baseline, 6 week, 3 month, 6 month, 12 month) and group-by-time interaction are covariates in the model. A random subject intercept is used to account for clustering within subject.||||>0.05
95991630|NCT00254566|191958593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.8|3.9|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence Interval|95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.9|-5.8|
95946471|NCT04218864|191864802|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
95755553|NCT00593736|191480656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.156
95755554|NCT00593736|191480656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled center as class effects and baseline value as a covariate.||The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was made using the ANCOVA model.||||0.041
95755555|NCT00552578|191480733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.523||95.0|0.0098|2.8215|||Fisher Exact|||Intent to treat||2.8215|0.0098|0.523
95799626|NCT01482221|191570638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.75|||GEE for repeated measures|||Generalized linear model of the repeated measures (GEE) with logic link including treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline CGI-S total score as a covariate.||1.750|0.533|0.909
95946472|NCT04218864|191864803|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for the primary outcome.||||>0.05
95946473|NCT04218864|191864804|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome.||||>0.05
95946474|NCT04218864|191864805|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Linear|Results presented are unadjusted for any covariates.||Statistical Analysis strategy is identical to that for primary outcome measure.||||>0.05
95946475|NCT02063659|191864807|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-53.955|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.955|-25.119|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-25.119|-84.955|< 0.001
95991631|NCT00254566|191958594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in the percentage of participants with Cure and the 95% CI|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciporcal of the variance. Stratification will be by steriod use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
95946476|NCT02063659|191864807|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimator of difference|-89.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.104|-63.863|||Wilcoxon rank sum|||The primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the u5-HIAA at randomization.|Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo.|-63.863|-113.104|< 0.001
95946477|NCT05785832|191864817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
95946478|NCT05785832|191864818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|17.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||17|11|<0.001
95946479|NCT05785832|191864819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-15.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-15|-26|<0.001
95755556|NCT00552578|191480735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||No adjustment|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used and tested the hypothesis that neither group would be more likely to complete the study protocol.||||0.015
95755557|NCT01992523|191480742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or medians (quartiles) as appropriate, and categorical data as proportions (%). Data were compared by means of the chi-2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables, as appropriate. A P value \< .05 was considered statistically significant. All tests were two-sided.||||0.006
95755558|NCT04536935|191480746|SUPERIORITY|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the PHQ-9 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-1.8|<.001
95946480|NCT05785832|191864820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-11|-17|<0.001
95946481|NCT05785832|191864821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.6|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-6.6|-11.7|<0.001
95755559|NCT04536935|191480747|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the GAD-7 and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.|Slope|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-1.6|<.001
95755560|NCT04536935|191480748|OTHER|A series of mixed effects models using restricted maximum likelihood estimation were built to test linear time change on the DERS and to test for condition differences at follow-up and change slope. Models were built in an outwardly nested fashion, such that an initial null model was computed, followed by models that added a random intercept, random time component, condition assignment, and condition x time interaction effects.||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.73
95755561|NCT04536935|191480749|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
95755562|NCT04536935|191480750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.22
95755563|NCT04536935|191480751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||.48
95755564|NCT04536935|191480752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95755565|NCT00296231|191480787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Student's t-test was used to compare pre and post intervention pCO2 values.||||0.011
95755566|NCT04091659|191480789|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.49|||SEM||||The control group, standard education was the reference for this model.|0.49|-0.85|0.65
95755567|NCT04091659|191480790|EQUIVALENCE|To determine if the two training approaches were comparable to one another a margin of +/- 1 was used in differences of both OOKS and OOAS scale scores based on previously established literature. An equivalence test of differences using two one-sided tests on data from a cluster-randomized design was conducted using structural equation modeling. Sample sizes of 35 and 57 in group two, obtained by sampling 9 clusters, achieve 85% power to detect equivalence. The significance level is 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.5|||SEM||The control group, standard education, was the reference|||0.50|0.02|0.02
95755568|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Overall comparison of treatment groups for incidence of ILI|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95755569|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparision of ILI incidence in subjects age 50 and older at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95755570|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Comparison of ILI in subjects age \< 50 at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95755571|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95755572|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in subjects not vaccinated against seasonal influenza prior to enrollment|Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95755573|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in male subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95755574|NCT00895947|191480791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Comparison of ILI incidence in female subjects|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95755575|NCT00895947|191480792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting any cold/flu symptoms during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95755576|NCT00895947|191480792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe feverishness|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95755577|NCT00895947|191480792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe head congestion|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95755578|NCT00895947|191480792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting moderate to severe sore throat|Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95755579|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to think clearly|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95755580|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to sleep well|Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95755581|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to breathe easily|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
95755582|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to walk, climb stairs and exercise|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95755583|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to perform daily activities|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95755584|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work outside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95755585|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to work inside the home|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95946482|NCT05785832|191864822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
95946483|NCT05785832|191864823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||A hierarchical procedure was used to control for the overall type I error. Since the P value for this outcome was more than 0.05, no additional P values are provided for subsequent secondary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.1|-0.4|
95755586|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to interact with others|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95755587|NCT00895947|191480793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Proportion of subjects reporting one of more days that cold/flu symptoms impacted ability to live personal life|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95755588|NCT00895947|191480794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they felt sick|Chi-squared|||||||0.66
95755589|NCT00895947|191480794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they missed work|Chi-squared|||||||0.88
95755590|NCT00895947|191480794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the doctor|Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95755591|NCT00895947|191480794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they visited the pharmacy|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
95755592|NCT00895947|191480794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they took cold/flu medication|Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95755593|NCT00895947|191480794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group reporting one or more days they skipped a planned activity|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95755594|NCT00895947|191480795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a confirmed viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.61
95755595|NCT00895947|191480795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95755596|NCT00895947|191480795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe influenza infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95755597|NCT00895947|191480795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects in each group with a moderate/severe viral respiratory infection other than influenza|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95755598|NCT00895947|191480796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting the definition of acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
95755599|NCT00895947|191480796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||Proportion of subjects meeting with moderate/severe acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95755600|NCT00895947|191480796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe febrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95755601|NCT00895947|191480796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Proportion of subjects with moderate/severe afebrile acute respiratory illness during treatment|Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95755602|NCT01243112|191480809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis is that no difference would be measured between treatment arms.||||0.359
95755603|NCT01243112|191480810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.490
95755604|NCT02792699|191480815|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|152371.4|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755605|NCT02792699|191480815|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|159236.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755606|NCT02792699|191480815|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|172213.2|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755607|NCT02792699|191480815|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|1.0323||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0323|0.8870|
95755608|NCT02792699|191480815|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8204|0.9542||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9542|0.8204|
95755609|NCT02792699|191480815|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUCinf was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8575|0.997||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9970|0.8575|
95755610|NCT02792699|191480816|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|368.43|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755611|NCT02792699|191480816|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|374.44|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755612|NCT02792699|191480816|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|393.29|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755613|NCT02792699|191480816|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9356|1.0348||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0348|0.9356|
95946484|NCT05785832|191864824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.04|-0.09|
95946485|NCT05785832|191864825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.0|-0.1|
95859022|NCT02453711|191675829|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-6.46|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.2 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.46|-12.15|<0.0001
95859023|NCT02453711|191675829|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|-6.03|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.3 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-6.03|-11.72|<0.0001
95755614|NCT02792699|191480816|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9368|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8912|0.9848||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9848|0.8912|
95859024|NCT02453711|191675829|OTHER||Treatment difference (%-points)|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-8.72|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 0.4 mg - placebo pool|J2R-MI: Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the pooled placebo arms based on a jump to reference multiple (x1000) imputation (J2R-MI) approach. Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, region and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Dunnett's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||-8.72|-14.38|<0.0001
95859025|NCT00750438|191675902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.972
95859026|NCT00750438|191675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 24 weeks||||0.559
95859027|NCT00750438|191675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.062
95991632|NCT00254566|191958595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the difference in clinical success rates is greater than -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Risk difference is the difference in percentage of participants with cure and the 95% Confidence|95% CI for the difference in cure rates will be constructed using a method of linear stratification that weights according to the reciprocal of the variance. Stratification will be by steroid use at time of randomization.||3.4|-8.5|
95755615|NCT02792699|191480816|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9521|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9055|1.001||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0010|0.9055|
95991633|NCT00254566|191958596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.5|3.3|||||Risk difference is the difference in eradication rates of pathogens by treatment|||3.3|-4.5|
95755616|NCT02792699|191480817|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|42203.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755617|NCT02792699|191480817|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|43378.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755618|NCT02792699|191480817|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|44925.3|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755619|NCT02792699|191480817|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9174|1.0318||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0318|0.9174|
95755620|NCT02792699|191480817|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9394|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8863|0.9958||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9958|0.8863|
95755621|NCT02792699|191480817|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-14day was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9104|1.024||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0240|0.9104|
95859028|NCT00750438|191675903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.099
95859029|NCT00750438|191675904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
95859030|NCT00750438|191675905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.001
95859031|NCT00750438|191675905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 24 weeks||||0.723
95859032|NCT00750438|191675905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.027
95859033|NCT00750438|191675906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
95859034|NCT00750438|191675906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
95859035|NCT00750438|191675906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.549
95859036|NCT02908672|191675907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||0.97|0.64|0.0224
95859037|NCT02908672|191675908|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratified Hazard Ratio|||1.07|0.67|0.1607
95859038|NCT02908672|191675909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.63||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.15|-6.90|0.6997
95859039|NCT02908672|191675911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.1191
95755622|NCT02792699|191480818|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|149590.5|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755623|NCT02792699|191480818|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|155778.7|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755624|NCT02792699|191480818|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|166811.0|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755625|NCT02792699|191480818|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.0303||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0303|0.8950|
95859040|NCT02908672|191675912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.2||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|17.04|||Z-test|||||17.04|-0.65|0.0693
95946486|NCT05785832|191864826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||1.2|-0.5|
95859041|NCT05232682|191675979|OTHER||F-test|2.41||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1183
95859042|NCT05232682|191675980|OTHER||F-test|0.07||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9308
95755626|NCT02792699|191480818|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8363|0.9616||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an analysis of covariance ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9616|0.8363|
95755627|NCT02792699|191480818|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for AUC0-12wk was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8707|1.0016||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0016|0.8707|
95755628|NCT02792699|191480819|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean|304.04|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755629|NCT02792699|191480819|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|305.8|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95755630|NCT02792699|191480819|OTHER||LS Geometric Mean|320.87|||||||||||||Estimated using an analysis of covariance model adjusted for weight and geographic region.|||||
95859043|NCT05232682|191675981|OTHER||F-test|2.1||||0.1517|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1517
95859044|NCT05232682|191675982|OTHER||F-test|0.14||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8747
95859045|NCT05232682|191675983|OTHER||F-test|1.19||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3269
95859046|NCT05232682|191675984|OTHER||F-test|1.14||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha value for significance set at p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3411
95859698|NCT02963506|191677336|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||13.48|2.27|<0.001
95859699|NCT02963506|191677336|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|12.92||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||12.92|2.19|<0.001
95859700|NCT02963506|191677337|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.24|-0.86|<0.001
95946487|NCT05785832|191864827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||21|1|
95755631|NCT02792699|191480819|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[US\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9461|1.0448||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0448|0.9461|
95755632|NCT02792699|191480819|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (ABP 798) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9021|0.9953||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||0.9953|0.9021|
95755633|NCT02792699|191480819|EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity between the test (rituximab \[US\]) and reference (rituximab \[EU\]) for Cmax was demonstrated if the 90% CI for the GMR following the second infusion of the first dose was within the bioequivalence criteria of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.0015||||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and confidence interval (CI) was estimated from an ANCOVA model adjusted for weight and geographic region. The GMR was obtained by exponentiating the difference of the means on the natural log scale. The CI was obtained by exponentiating the CI for the difference between the means on the log scale.||1.0015|0.9070|
95755634|NCT02792699|191480828|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the change from baseline at week 24 of DAS28-CRP between ABP 798 and rituximab with an equivalence margin of (-0.6, 0.6).|LS Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.264||||||If PK similarity was established between rituximab (US) and rituximab (EU), the 2 rituximab arms were to be combined into a single reference group for the primary assessment of clinical equivalence of DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 using a repeated measures analysis with DAS28-CRP change from baseline as the response and the stratification variables, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline DAS28-CRP as predictors, and unstructured covariance matrix in the model.||0.264|-0.225|
95755635|NCT02792699|191480828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.353|0.213||||||||0.213|-0.353|
95755636|NCT02792699|191480828|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.171|0.392||||||||0.392|-0.171|
95755637|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.203|0.33||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.330|-0.203|
95755638|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.411|0.117||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.117|-0.411|
95755639|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.502|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.233|0.772||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.772|0.233|
95755640|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.539||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.539|0.000|
95755641|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.55||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.550|-0.040|
95755642|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.135|0.455||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.455|-0.135|
95755643|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.564||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.564|-0.040|
95755644|NCT02792699|191480829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.216|0.376||||||Analysis of change from baseline at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline DAS28-CRP and the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.376|-0.216|
95946488|NCT05785832|191864828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|2|
95946489|NCT05785832|191864829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|12|
95946490|NCT05785832|191864830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||38|11|
95946491|NCT05785832|191864831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||33|11|
95946492|NCT05785832|191864832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||32|10|
95946493|NCT05785832|191864833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||31|9|
95946494|NCT05785832|191864834|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||12|7|
95946495|NCT05785832|191864835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
95946496|NCT05785832|191864836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||0.01|-0.07|
95755645|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7696|1.1332||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1332|0.7696|
95755646|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1495|0.0775||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0775|-0.1495|
95755647|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8436|1.2801||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2801|0.8436|
95946497|NCT05785832|191864837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-6.0|
95991634|NCT00254566|191958597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.33||||0.159||95.0|0.9|2.0||p-value was estimated from Cox's Proportional Hazard model with steriod use and country as factors and baseline FEV1 fitted as covariate|Regression, Cox|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time taken for 1st 25th quartile of subjects to experience recurrence of AECB. Estimate of median time to event couldn't be calculated because \<50% of subjects in analysis population experienced a recurrence. The ratio of the treatment groups' recurrence rate (hazard ratio) estimated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for steroid use, frequency of AECB in previous 12 months, country and baseline Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1).||2.0|0.9|0.159
95991635|NCT00254566|191958598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.57||95.0|-0.21|0.12|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use, and country fitted as factor and baseline CCQ total scores and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.12|-0.21|0.57
95991636|NCT00254566|191958598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.82||95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.10|-0.13|0.82
95991637|NCT00254566|191958599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81||95.0|-0.21|0.17|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.17|-0.21|0.81
95755648|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.091|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0910|
95755649|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7573|1.0179||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0179|0.7573|
95755650|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0794|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1834|0.0247||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0247|-0.1834|
95755651|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|1.2394||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2394|0.8770|
95755652|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0348|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0758|0.1454||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1454|-0.0758|
95755653|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8743|1.1671||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1671|0.8743|
95755654|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0835|0.1234||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1234|-0.0835|
95755655|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0793|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9244|1.2601||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2601|0.9244|
95755656|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0493|0.1615||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1615|-0.0493|
95755657|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7759|1.0091||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0091|0.7759|
95755658|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1789|0.0237||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0237|-0.1789|
95946498|NCT05785832|191864838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-10.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-10|-18|
95946499|NCT05785832|191864839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups||-2.7|-5.2|
95946500|NCT05785832|191864840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||24|8|
95755659|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.1605||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.1605|0.8585|
95755660|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1038|0.1054||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1054|-0.1038|
95755661|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|0.9196||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9196|0.6722|
95755662|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3066|-0.0941||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0941|-0.3066|
95755663|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7587|1.0215||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0215|0.7587|
95755664|NCT02792699|191480830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1037|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2066|-0.0007||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||-0.0007|-0.2066|
95755665|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.3388||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3388|0.6400|
95755666|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0181|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.0847||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0847|-0.1209|
95755667|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7328|1.6119||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6119|0.7328|
95755668|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0803|0.1205||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1205|-0.0803|
95755669|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5387|0.9346||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.9346|0.5387|
95755670|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1109|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2231|0.0013||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0013|-0.2231|
95755671|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7829|1.5127||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.5127|0.7829|
95946501|NCT05785832|191864841|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|41.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||41|12|
95946502|NCT05785832|191864842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|45.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||45|21|
95755672|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0626|0.1508||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1508|-0.0626|
95755673|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7273|1.2705||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2705|0.7273|
95755674|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1081|0.1122||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1122|-0.1081|
95755675|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.3305||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3305|0.7560|
95764145|NCT04479852|191498449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.006
95946503|NCT05785832|191864845|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percent of participants.|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|22.0|||||Estimation represents the difference in percent of participants in each arm who achieved the outcome.|||22|8|
95946504|NCT05785832|191864846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|0.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0|-20|
95946505|NCT05785832|191864847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.4|-4.4|
95946506|NCT05785832|191864848|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||2.5|0.5|
95755676|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1056|0.1135||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1135|-0.1056|
95755677|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6797|1.0316||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0316|0.6797|
95799627|NCT01482221|191570639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.13|-2.29|0.505
95799628|NCT01482221|191570639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.91||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 6|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.91|-1.56|0.842
95859047|NCT00702715|191675989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the estimated median treatment difference in recovery time must have fallen entirely within the pre-specified interval between -60 sec to +60 sec in order to claim equivalence|Median Difference (Final Values)|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|143.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||143.0|36.0|
95859048|NCT00702715|191675990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|120.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||120.0|36.0|
95859049|NCT00702715|191675991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the secondary endpoint no equivalence margin was specified (i.e., no formal null-hypothesis was specified); the median difference and associated 95% CI were to further characterize the efficacy of severe renal impaired subjects and controls.|Median Difference (Final Values)|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|103.0|||Hodges-Lehmann and Moses||Estimated median treatment difference (severe renal impairment minus normal renal function) in recovery time (seconds)|||103.0|31.0|
95859050|NCT00689260|191675992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-Value based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test for difference in medians between log aware and log unaware||||0.908
95859051|NCT02563067|191675996|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.96|0.50|0.059
95859052|NCT02563067|191675996|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.01|0.52|0.114
95859053|NCT02563067|191675997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.32|-0.02|0.369
95859054|NCT02563067|191675997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.30|-0.04|0.824
95859055|NCT02563067|191675998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.01|-0.36|0.369
95859056|NCT02563067|191675998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.10|-0.28|0.824
95859057|NCT02563067|191675999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.154|-0.018|0.369
95946507|NCT05785832|191864849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4.7|-2.5|
95755678|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2029|0.0302||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0302|-0.2029|
95859058|NCT02563067|191675999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.124|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.124|-0.048|0.824
95859059|NCT02563067|191676000|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.07|0.62|0.369
95859060|NCT02563067|191676000|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.0|||negative binomial regression model|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||1.00|0.58|0.348
95946508|NCT05785832|191864850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||0.7|-3.4|
95946509|NCT05785832|191864851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||3.7|0.5|
95755679|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.878|1.4264||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4264|0.8780|
95755680|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0288|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.1402||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1402|-0.0827|
95755681|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8376|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6807|1.0307||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0307|0.6807|
95755682|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0781|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2014|0.0452||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0452|-0.2014|
95755683|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|1.3321||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3321|0.8351|
95755684|NCT02792699|191480831|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1021|0.1303||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1303|-0.1021|
95755685|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2818|1.2462||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.2462|0.2818|
95755686|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1285|0.0136||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0136|-0.1285|
95946510|NCT05785832|191864852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.1||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||11.1|-1.4|
95755687|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3383|1.6519||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.6519|0.3383|
95755688|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0962|0.0308||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0308|-0.0962|
95755689|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3704|1.0872||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0872|0.3704|
95755690|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0569|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1448|0.031||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0310|-0.1448|
95755691|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.445|1.3874||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.3874|0.4450|
95946511|NCT05785832|191864853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|4.0||||||Adjusted Difference Between Groups.||4|-45|
95755692|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1237.0|0.0403||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0403|-1237|
95755693|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5772|1.4838||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4838|0.5772|
95755694|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.078|0.1092||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1092|-0.0780|
95755695|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8398||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.8398|0.6722|
95946512|NCT04016896|191864872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95946513|NCT04016896|191864873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95946514|NCT04016896|191864874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95946515|NCT04016896|191864875|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.38|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95950725|NCT00841321|191873416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5||95.0|-0.3|0.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison. Nominal value. Per protocol univariate tests would only be considered significant in the multivariate test was significant.|ANCOVA|||CVLT-II Delayed Recall Exit Z-score least square means difference adjusted for baseline. Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from treatment with Ginkgo.||0.3|-0.3|0.5
95755696|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.1119||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1119|-0.0630|
95755697|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6675|1.4384||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.4384|0.6675|
95755698|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0707|0.1456||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1456|-0.0707|
95755699|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.787||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7870|0.7833|
95755700|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0752|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0297|0.1802||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1802|-0.0297|
95755701|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.493|1.0017||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.0017|0.4930|
95799629|NCT01482221|191570639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.51||Analysis for change in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.51|-1.98|0.788
95799630|NCT01482221|191570639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.12||Analysis for changed in QIDS-SR-16 total score from baseline to Week 12|Mixed models for repeated measures|||MMRM includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction as explanatory variables. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline QIDS-SR-16 total score by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.12|-0.42|0.133
95799631|NCT01047501|191570654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-16.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-16.2|-26.7|<0.0001
95799632|NCT01047501|191570654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-15.7|0.0005
95799633|NCT01047501|191570655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A sample size of 194 was required to provide 90.6% power to detect a difference of 15% between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo in percent change from baseline in fasting TG levels, assuming an SD of 45% in TG measurements and a significance level (p value) of 0.05, and 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority (p 0.025, 1-sided) of the LDL-cholesterol response between AMR101 4 g/day and placebo with a +6% margin. To accommodate a 10% drop-out rate, recruitment was planned for 648 randomized patients.||-1.7|-10.5|0.0067
95859061|NCT02563067|191676001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.21|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.21|-0.07|0.824
95755702|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.0294||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.0294|-0.2110|
95755703|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7601|1.7246||||||Risk ratio (ABP 798/ABP 798 versus Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798\]) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||1.7246|0.7601|
95755704|NCT02792699|191480832|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0804|0.1357||||||Risk difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA as covariates.||0.1357|-0.0804|
95755705|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.673|3.675||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.675|-7.673|
95755706|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.185|6.274||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 8, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.274|-5.185|
95755707|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.224|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.102|-2.346||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||-2.346|-14.102|
95755708|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.052|3.933||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 12, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.933|-8.052|
95755709|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.62|4.979||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||4.979|-7.620|
95755710|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.691|7.15||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 24, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||7.150|-5.691|
95755711|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.207|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.562|1.417||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||1.417|-8.562|
95755712|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.497|6.424||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 40, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||6.424|-6.497|
95755713|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.455|0.197||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[EU\]/Rituximab \[EU\]) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||0.197|-13.455|
95755714|NCT02792699|191480833|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.883|3.691||||||Analysis of the LS mean difference (ABP 798/ABP 798 - Rituximab \[US\]/ABP 798) at week 48, based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification variables geographic region, seropositivity, and number of prior biologic therapies used for RA.||3.691|-9.883|
95755715|NCT02792699|191480834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1083|0.0593|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0593|-0.1083|
95755716|NCT02792699|191480834|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.0984|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region, seropositivity and prior biologic use as covariates in the model.|||0.0984|-0.0610|
95859062|NCT02563067|191676001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.26|-0.02|0.824
95755717|NCT04420273|191480839|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||1-month survey||||<0.001
95755718|NCT04420273|191480839|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||2- months||||<0.001
95755719|NCT04420273|191480839|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|McNemar's chi-square with continuity correction||3-months||||<0.001
95755720|NCT04420273|191480840|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755721|NCT04420273|191480841|OTHER||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.1
95755722|NCT04420273|191480842|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755723|NCT04420273|191480843|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755724|NCT04420273|191480844|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.459
95755725|NCT04420273|191480844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755726|NCT04420273|191480845|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755727|NCT02737748|191480847|OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2217
95755728|NCT02737748|191480848|OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0324
95755729|NCT02737748|191480849|OTHER|||||||0.3975|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3975
95755730|NCT00392236|191480919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.083
95755731|NCT00643565|191480983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.41|0.61|0.7189
95755732|NCT00643565|191480984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25|||Log Rank|||The HR was calculated based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, with stratification factors of age and histology/disease risk.||1.25|0.51|0.3211
95755733|NCT01674647|191481011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.73|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.02% (0.40% - 2.34%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.73|0.15|
95755734|NCT01674647|191481012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.67|||no test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.26% - 1.27%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.80% (0.27% - 2.00%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.67|0.21|
95755735|NCT01674647|191481013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.0|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.20% (0.04% - 0.71%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||2.00|0.06|
95755736|NCT01674647|191481014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.55|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.61% (0.27% - 1.29%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 1.22% (0.53% - 2.51%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||1.55|0.16|
95755737|NCT01674647|191481019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.47|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.41% (0.14% - 1.02%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.41% (0.07% - 1.41%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||5.47|0.18|
95755738|NCT01674647|191481020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.49|||no statistical test performed||Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for rivaroxaban (Xarelto, BAY59-7939): 0.51% (0.20% - 1.17%). Crude estimate of the cumulative incidence for Vitamin K antagonist (VKA): 0.61% (0.17% - 1.72%).|Descriptive comparison of crude estimates of the cumulative incidence and estimation of risk ratio, all with 95% confidence intervals||3.49|0.20|
95755739|NCT00899470|191481022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate bioequivalence (BE) of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.940|
95755740|NCT00899470|191481022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs Reference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.075||||Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|0.929|
95755741|NCT00899470|191481023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.993|
95755742|NCT00899470|191481023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.058|0.986|
95764146|NCT04479852|191498450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline.|||6.3|-0.8|0.134
95764147|NCT04479852|191498451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favors the SP-624 treatment group, i.e., a greater reduction in CGI-S score from baseline.|||0.6|-0.3|0.437
95764148|NCT04100018|191498455|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.19||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.01|Log Rank|Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.||||1.19|0.77|0.5901
95991638|NCT00254566|191958599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.87||95.0|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.12|0.87
95755743|NCT00899470|191481024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.066|0.990|
95755744|NCT00899470|191481024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed condition), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Geometric Means Ratio Test vs. Reference|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of saxagliptin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of saxagliptin and metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.060|0.985|
95755745|NCT00899470|191481026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted and fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin, respectively.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.084|0.939|
95755746|NCT00899470|191481026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 98% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 93% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For Cmax of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log(Cmax) of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.111|0.962|
95755747|NCT00899470|191481027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.964|
95755748|NCT00899470|191481027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(0-T) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(0-T)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.108|0.981|
95764149|NCT04100018|191498456|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|99.41|0.84|1.43||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0059. Additional accuracy for p-value: 0.005866.|Log Rank||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.43|0.84|0.3572
95991639|NCT00254566|191958600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.385||95.0|-0.27|0.1|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.10|-0.27|0.385
95991640|NCT00254566|191958600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.56||95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.09|-0.17|0.56
95859063|NCT02563067|191676002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.03|-0.28|0.824
95755749|NCT00899470|191481028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fasted ), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.973|1.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% CI were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fasted state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fasted state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fasted state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.088|0.973|
95755750|NCT00899470|191481028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If no difference between bioavailabilities of metformin from FDC tablet vs. co-administration of saxagliptin tablet and metformin (fed), then 20 subjects provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin. If 5% difference then 20 subjects provided 95% power to conclude BE with respect to AUC(INF) of metformin.|Geometric Mean Ratio, Test vs. Reference|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.986|1.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Bioequivalence=90% CIs for the test|For AUC(INF) of metformin, the point estimate and 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for the ratio of the geometric mean of the Test formulation in fed state: the geometric mean of the Reference formulation in fed state|To demonstrate BE of FDC tablets (Test) versus co-administration of saxagliptin and metformin IR tablets (Reference) formulations in fed state, linear mixed model analysis was performed on log\[AUC(INF)\] of metformin. Factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.102|0.986|
95755751|NCT01941940|191481047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755752|NCT01941940|191481053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755753|NCT01941940|191481055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755754|NCT01941940|191481055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755755|NCT01941940|191481055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755756|NCT01941940|191481056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755757|NCT01941940|191481056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755758|NCT01941940|191481056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95859064|NCT02563067|191676002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.08|-0.23|0.824
95859065|NCT02563067|191676003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.119|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.119|-0.019|0.369
95755759|NCT01941940|191481059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755760|NCT01941940|191481059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755761|NCT01941940|191481059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-68: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755762|NCT01941940|191481059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755763|NCT01941940|191481059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755764|NCT01941940|191481059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||TJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755765|NCT01941940|191481060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755766|NCT01941940|191481060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95859066|NCT02563067|191676003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.13|||ANCOVA|adjusted p-value, closed testing procedure across the primary and key secondary null hypotheses. Overall type I error rate controlled at two-sided 5%.||||0.130|-0.008|0.595
95755767|NCT01941940|191481060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-66: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755768|NCT01941940|191481060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755769|NCT01941940|191481060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755770|NCT01941940|191481060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||SJC-28: Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755771|NCT01941940|191481061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755772|NCT01941940|191481061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
95799634|NCT01047501|191570655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo with a significance level of 0.05. Non-inferiority tests for percent change from baseline in LDL-C were performed between AMR101 and placebo to determine if AMR101 was statistically non-inferior to placebo with regard to increases in LDL-C. The pre-specified LDL-C criterion for noninferiority was the upper boundary 97.5% confidence interval not crossing the +6% threshold.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.5|-7.9|0.0867
95950726|NCT00841321|191873416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||MANCOVA|MANCOVA||MANCOVA for all four cognitive tests at exit adjusting for baseline. Individual ANOVAs were to follow if the multivariate test was significant.||||0.19
95755773|NCT01941940|191481061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and CDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755774|NCT01941940|191481062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755775|NCT01941940|191481062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755776|NCT01941940|191481062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
95859067|NCT00839319|191676005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Correlations between serum hormone levels and IT hormones, and between IT hormones were performed on 23 subjects in 4 groups using Spearmen technique.||||||<0.05
95755777|NCT01941940|191481063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755778|NCT01941940|191481063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755779|NCT01941940|191481063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and SDAI at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755780|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95859068|NCT02015637|191676052|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rate|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|1.36||||||||1.36|-13.18|
95755781|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755782|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755783|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755784|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755785|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755786|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR20 at Week 52||||0.0004
95755787|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR50 at Week 52||||0.0004
95755788|NCT01941940|191481064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and ACR70 at Week 52||||0.0004
95755789|NCT01941940|191481065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755790|NCT01941940|191481065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755791|NCT01941940|191481065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between DAS28-ESR and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755792|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755793|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755794|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755795|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755796|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755797|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95950727|NCT00841321|191873417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.7|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Perceived Deficits Questionnaire||4.7|-5.7|0.4
95950728|NCT00841321|191873417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.7||95.0|-3.2|4.8|||ANCOVA||Positive values indicate a beneficial effect from Ginkgo.|Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Questionnaire||4.8|-3.2|0.7
95755798|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755799|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755800|NCT01941940|191481066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755801|NCT01941940|191481067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
95799635|NCT01047501|191570656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-9.9|-17.2|0.0001
95799636|NCT01047501|191570656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.0140
95799637|NCT01047501|191570657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-17.0||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-17.0|-31.9|0.0001
95799638|NCT01047501|191570657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-2.5|-18.3|0.0170
95799639|NCT01047501|191570658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-15.7||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-15.7|-22.2|0.0001
95799640|NCT01047501|191570658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-4.5|-11.6|0.0004
95755802|NCT01941940|191481067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755803|NCT01941940|191481067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between CDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||<0.0001
95799641|NCT01047501|191570659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-6.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.1|-12.3|0.0001
95799642|NCT01047501|191570659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-6.9|0.0170
95799643|NCT04602000|191570664|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by age (≥60 vs. \<60 years), baseline comorbidities (Yes vs. No) and region (US vs. EU vs. Other)|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights was presented.|||-4.5|-11.7|<0.0001
95799644|NCT01846871|191570693|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95799645|NCT01846871|191570694|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95799646|NCT01846871|191570695|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
95799647|NCT01846871|191570696|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95799648|NCT01257542|191570703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||p-value was calculated using negative binomial regression model with treatment, site and baseline of cough count terms with log (exposure time) as the offset parameter.|Negative binomial regression|||Odds Ratio and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were assessed from the negative binomial regression model.||1.15|0.59|0.252
95755804|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755805|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755806|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755807|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755808|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755809|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755810|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR20 at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755811|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR50 at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755812|NCT01941940|191481068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and ACR70 at Week 52||||<0.0001
95755813|NCT01941940|191481069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 2||||<0.0001
95755814|NCT01941940|191481069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 24||||<0.0001
95755815|NCT01941940|191481069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for association between SDAI and EULAR at Week 52||||0.0016
95755816|NCT01941940|191481072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755817|NCT01941940|191481072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755818|NCT01941940|191481072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755819|NCT01941940|191481073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95799649|NCT01257542|191570704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-square (LS) means from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||0.08|-0.60|0.134
95799650|NCT01257542|191570705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.33|-0.45|0.768
95799651|NCT01257542|191570705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.23|-0.64|0.358
95755820|NCT01941940|191481073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755821|NCT01941940|191481073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755822|NCT01941940|191481074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755823|NCT01941940|191481074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755824|NCT01941940|191481074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755825|NCT01941940|191481075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95799652|NCT01257542|191570705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.10|-0.74|0.139
95799653|NCT01257542|191570705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.25|-0.68|0.364
95950729|NCT00841321|191873417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.4||95.0|-1.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Community Integration Questionnaire||0.8|-1.3|0.4
95755826|NCT01941940|191481075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755827|NCT01941940|191481075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755828|NCT01941940|191481077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 2 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755829|NCT01941940|191481077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755830|NCT01941940|191481077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||<0.0001
95755831|NCT01941940|191481078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 24 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.0045
95755832|NCT01941940|191481078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1992|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 52 was performed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Signed Rank Tests for dependent sample.||||0.1992
95764150|NCT04100018|191498457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||12.1|-4.5|
95764151|NCT04100018|191498460|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.0|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate based on DerSimonian and Laird method. Stratified by visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||7.0|-5.2|
95764152|NCT04100018|191498461|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||||Stratification factor is visceral disease (YES vs NO) as entered in the IRT.|||1.16|0.86|
95946516|NCT03964974|191864936|SUPERIORITY|2-sided hypothesis tests were utilized to compare ISI score over time in the two treatment conditions.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-1.104||This is the calculated p-value. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Persons in the CBTI-CB condition were hypothesized as realizing greater reduction in insomnia severity as measured by the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) over time compared to the Sleep Hygiene Education (SHE) condition. 80% power was estimated to detect a medium or larger effect size (d\>0.52) on sleep- and functioning-related outcomes, even with a more conservative alpha set at 0.017 (i.e., 0.05/3 for the 3 outcomes).|Parameter is estimated difference in final means, CBTi-CB - Control. Minus sign denotes greater decrease for CBTi-CB. Effect size for Time X Condition = 0.81|-1.104|-7.510|0.0041
95991641|NCT00254566|191958601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.62||95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|Estimated from ANCOVA with treatment, steriod use and country fitted as factors and baseline CCQ total score and FEV1 fitted as covariates||||0.16|-0.26|0.62
95991642|NCT00254566|191958601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8||95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated from linear mixed model with treatment, steroid use, FEV1, country and time point as factors and baseline CCQ scores as a covariate||||0.14|-0.18|0.80
95991643|NCT03106779|191958602|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference in the MMR rate|12.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factor, i.e. cytogenetic response status (MCyR vs no MCyR) at screening||||22.30|2.19|0.029
95755833|NCT04135196|191481097|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Regression, Linear|||"The power analysis for the overall study was based on 12-month change in UD iBMC. The power calculation, based on pilot data, determined that 20 participants per group would have 80% power to detect a 1.0±1.1% change.~The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group."|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.101, F=2.244, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.119~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.374, t=2.114, p=0.041, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.030\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.007, Beta=0.221, t=1.247, p=0.220, 95% CI of B: \[-0.005, 0.022\]"|||0.119
95755834|NCT04135196|191481097|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.438, F=12.836, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.599, t=4.050, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.018, 0.055\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.041, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.678, t=4.589, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.023, 0.060\]"|||<0.01
95755835|NCT04135196|191481098|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.011, F=0.213, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.809~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=0.039, t=0.209, p=0.836, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.014\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.006, Beta=-0.077, t=-0.412, p=0.682, 95% CI of B: \[-0.015, 0.010\]"|||0.809
95755836|NCT04135196|191481098|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.107, F=1.971, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.155~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.284, t=1.526, p=0.137, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.027\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.342, t=1.837, p=0.075, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.030\]"|||0.155
95755837|NCT04135196|191481099|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=\<0.001, F=0.009, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.991~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.009, Beta=0.025, t=0.133, p=0.894, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.018\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.008, Beta=0.012, t=0.063, p=0.950, 95% CI of B: \[-0.016, 0.017\]"|||0.991
95764153|NCT01050530|191498490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.93|-2.08|<0.0001
95764154|NCT01050530|191498491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-300.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.2|-75.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-75.1|-526.2|0.0093
95764155|NCT01339403|191498492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||Kaposi's sarcoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
95991644|NCT02288247|191958617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.96|0.53|0.027
95991645|NCT02288247|191958618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.82||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.82|0.41|0.002
95991646|NCT02288247|191958620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||From the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by disease progression (radiographic, non-radiographic) in Period 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.142
95991647|NCT02288247|191958623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.13||From the Cox proportional hazards model with covariates for treatment and disease progression in Period 1 (radiographic, nonradiographic).|Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.13|0.47|0.994
95991648|NCT00964431|191958634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.816|13.275|||ANCOVA|||||13.275|5.816|<0.001
95991649|NCT00356031|191958641|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
95755838|NCT04135196|191481099|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.216, F=4.548, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.455, t=2.607, p=0.014, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.447, t=2.563, p=0.015, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.052\]"|||0.018
95946517|NCT01256359|191864948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.498|1.138||p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.|Regression, Cox||HR is Adjusted for M status, performance status|||1.138|0.498|0.130
95946518|NCT01256359|191864948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.723||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.465|1.123|||Regression, Cox||This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome. This includes all 83 patients but the analysis additionally adjusted for LDH, target lesion sum and time interval between randomisation and baseline CT scan as well as mstatus, performance status||1.123|0.465|0.113
95946519|NCT01256359|191864948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3016||||||This analysis assesses if allowing for interval censoring is consistent with the primary outcome results.|Generalised log-rank|Generalised log-rank taking into account interval censoring, analysed using SAS package version 9.2. Method by Zhao and Sun, 2004||This is a sensitivity analysis, including all 83 randomised patients. Patients are assessed periodically for the response (progression), the time when the event occurred is not directly observed but is known to take place within some time interval. Progression is known only to have occurred at some time between visits, the exact time is not known. We carried out interval censored analysis to demonstrate if allowing for interval censoring gives a different interpretation of the primary outcome.||||0.3016
95946520|NCT01256359|191864948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.348||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.602|3.016|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted for centre|Sensitivity analysis adjusting for centre. All 83 randomised patients were included in analysis. Centres were the three biggest recruiters and all other 13 centres are combined.||3.016|0.602|0.305
95946521|NCT01256359|191864949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|31.4|||Log Rank||This is the estimated difference in PFS rate i.e. % difference between arms|||31.4|-3.4|0.187
95946522|NCT01256359|191864950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|2.369|||Regression, Cox|p value \< 0.1 one-sided considered to be significant.||||2.369|0.797|0.169
95946523|NCT01256359|191864951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Objective response rate calculated as number of patients with CR or PR over all patients randomised.||||0.059
95991650|NCT00356031|191958642|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
95991651|NCT01482910|191958646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.4||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline BCVA as a covariate, and treatment group and baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters) as fixed factors|Least square mean difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from ANCOVA, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: mean changes are identical in both groups. A sample size of 300 subjects with a 3:1 (EYLEA to PDT) randomization ratio is sufficient to detect the superiority of EYLEA to PDT assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a power of 90%, a treatment difference of 7.5 letters and a common standard deviation of 14 letters.||13.4|6.8|<0.0001
95764156|NCT01339403|191498492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|14.2|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.2|10.3|<0.001
95946524|NCT01256359|191864952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||Analysis adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score||1.84|0.71|0.318
95946525|NCT01256359|191864990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.649|1.612|||Regression, Cox||Analysis Adjusted for M status, performance status|This is a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome.||1.612|0.649|0.468
95946526|NCT01256359|191864991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.468|1.109|||Regression, Cox||Analysis was adjusted for mstatus, performance status|This is the per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome.||1.109|0.468|0.106
95946527|NCT01256359|191864992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.53||p-value is for the interaction term|Regression, Cox||HRs (95% CI) between treatment groups are given for Wild type and NRAS mutated separately. The above HR is for WT.|Model with interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables||1.53|0.25|0.824
95946528|NCT01256359|191864993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.6||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.60|0.16|0.072
95946529|NCT01256359|191864993|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.33|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.33|0.73|
95946530|NCT01256359|191864995|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for with Mstatus and Performance Score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.68|0.348
95946531|NCT01256359|191864996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.58||p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox|Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables|"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.58|0.24|0.797
95755839|NCT04135196|191481100|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.090, F=1.968, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.153~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.352, t=1.973, p=0.055, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.013\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.156, t=0.874, p=0.387, 95% CI of B: \[-0.004, 0.009\]"|||0.153
95755840|NCT04135196|191481100|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMC was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMC was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.331, F=8.152, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.473, t=2.930, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.020\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=0.617, t=3.828, p=0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.008, 0.025\]"|||0.001
95755841|NCT04135196|191481101|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.009, F=0.176, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.840~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.091, t=0.489, p=0.628, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.101, t=0.544, p=0.589, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.003\]"|||0.840
95755842|NCT04135196|191481101|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.563, F=21.225, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.009, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.739, t=5.669, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.716, t=5.495, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.005, 0.012\]"|||<0.001
95755843|NCT04135196|191481102|OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.077, F=1.665, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.202~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.005, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.303, t=-1.689, p=0.099, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.001\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=-0.266, t=-1.484, p=0.146, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.002\]"|||0.202
95755844|NCT04135196|191481102|OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.057, F=0.995, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.381~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.254, t=1.327, p=0.194, 95% CI of B: \[-0.002, 0.011\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.003, Beta=0.038, t=0.200, p=0.843, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.008\]"|||0.381
95859069|NCT02015637|191676053|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Wald test was constructed for comparisons between delafloxacin and ceftriaxone. A hierarchical approach was implemented for the primary and secondary analyses to control for the overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 due to multiple comparisons.|Difference in cure rates|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-3.87||||||||-3.87|-16.03|
95946532|NCT01256359|191864996|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.45|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||1.45|0.350|
95946533|NCT01256359|191864997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97||Model includes interaction term between NRAS status and treatment group and stratification variables. p-value is for interaction term.|Regression, Cox||"HRs for treatment effect (AZD6244 vs Placebo ) are estimated for NRAS WT and NRAS mutated patients separately.~Hazard ratios (95%CI) given above are for NRAS WT patients."|||1.97|0.18|0.120
95755845|NCT04135196|191481103|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.018, F=0.365, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.697~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.004, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.158, t=-0.854, p=0.398, 95% CI of B: \[-0.012, 0.005\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=-0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.004, Beta=-0.078, t=-0.423, p=0.675, 95% CI of B: \[-0.010, 0.006\]"|||0.697
95946534|NCT01256359|191864997|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.38|||||HR for NRAS mutated patients|||5.38|0.73|
95946535|NCT00670488|191865147|OTHER||AUC0-48hr GMR|3.26||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
95799654|NCT01257542|191570705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.90|0.039
95946536|NCT00670488|191865147|OTHER||AUC 0-48hr GMR|3.18||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 AUC 0-48 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) AUC 0-48hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.~AUC 0-48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
95946537|NCT00670488|191865148|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.59||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
95946538|NCT00670488|191865148|OTHER||Cmax GMR|2.67||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.~Cmax GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
95946539|NCT00670488|191865149|OTHER||C48hr GMR|4.33||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
95946540|NCT00670488|191865149|OTHER||C48hr GMR|3.58||||||||||||||"The Last Day (Day 27)/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day (Day 27) C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.~C48hr GMR for last dose (Day 27) calculated using only data from participants who completed cycle one dosing as scheduled and had sufficient data for calculation."||||
95991652|NCT01482910|191958647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.9||Hierarchical testing procedure was used in the order of pre-defined fixed sequence (primary endpoint first, then confirmatory secondary efficacy point next). A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for baseline BCVA group (\<45 letters vs ≥45 letters)|Proportion difference (EYLEA-PDT) was estimated from CMH, where a positive value is in favor of EYLEA.|Null hypothesis: proportions are identical in both groups||12.9|0.4|0.0359
95991653|NCT01552681|191958660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is testing for treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with adjustments for screening stimulated salivary flow.|ANCOVA|||Missing Week 24 assessments were imputed by carrying forward the last observed post-baseline value.||||0.33
95991654|NCT00510276|191958689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|8.2||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.20|1.44|0.005
95755846|NCT04135196|191481103|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.215, F=4.516, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.018~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.484, t=2.773, p=0.009, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.0524\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.005, Beta=0.406, t=2.325, p=0.026, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.022\]"|||0.018
95755847|NCT04135196|191481104|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.123, F=2.799, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.073~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.413, t=2.361, p=0.023, 95% CI of B: \[0.000, 0.006\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.002, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.198, t=1.129, p=0.265, 95% CI of B: \[-0.001, 0.004\]"|||0.073
95755848|NCT04135196|191481104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBMD was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBMD was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.480, F=15.256, df1=2, df2=33, p=\<0.001~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.590, t=4.153, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.012\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.002, Beta=0.734, t=5.164, p=\<0.001, 95% CI of B: \[0.006, 0.014\]"|||<0.001
95755849|NCT04135196|191481105|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.108, F=2.428, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.101~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.053, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.024, Beta=0.388, t=2.200, p=0.034, 95% CI of B: \[0.004, 0.101\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.022, Beta=0.226, t=1.280, p=0.208, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.074\]"|||0.101
95755850|NCT04135196|191481105|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD iBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in iBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=01.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
95946541|NCT00670488|191865152|OTHER||AUC0-168hr GMR|1.91||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
95946542|NCT00670488|191865152|OTHER||AUC 0-168hr GMR|1.54||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 AUC 0-168 hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day AUC 0-168hr GM ÷ Day 1 AUC 0-48hr GM.||||
95755851|NCT04135196|191481106|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.019, F=0.395, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.676~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.012, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.146, t=0.787, p=0.436, 95% CI of B: \[-0.019, 0.042\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.001, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.014, Beta=0.013, t=0.070, p=0.945, 95% CI of B: \[-0.028, 0.029\]"|||0.676
95755852|NCT04135196|191481106|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD cBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in cBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|Overall model fit: R\^2=0.072, F=1.288, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.289 Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.154, t=0.814, p=0.422, 95% CI of B: \[-0.022, 0.051\] Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.029, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.018, Beta=0.304, t=1.604, p=0.118, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.066\]|||0.289
95755853|NCT04135196|191481107|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.111, F=2.491, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.096~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.026, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.391, t=2.222, p=0.032, 95% CI of B: \[0.032, 0.049\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.015, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.240, t=1.362, p=0.181, 95% CI of B: \[-0.007, 0.037\]"|||0.096
95755854|NCT04135196|191481107|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD ecBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in ecBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.063, F=1.103, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.344~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.014, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.015, Beta=0.113, t=0.595, p=0.556, 95% CI of B: \[-0.036, 0.065\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.038, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.025, Beta=0.283, t=1.481, p=0.148, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.089\]"|||0.344
95764157|NCT01339403|191498492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|3.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.3|||Poisson Regression|||Invasive cervical cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.3|1.0|0.059
95946543|NCT00670488|191865153|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.95||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
95946544|NCT00670488|191865153|OTHER||Cmax GMR|1.33||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 Cmax GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day Cmax GM ÷ Day 1 Cmax GM.||||
95946545|NCT00670488|191865154|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.61||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
95946546|NCT00670488|191865154|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.86||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
95946547|NCT00670488|191865154|OTHER||C48hr GMR|1.49||||||||||||||The Last Day/Day 1 C48hr GMR was calculated as follows: Last Day C48hr GM ÷ Day 1 C48hr GM.||||
95946548|NCT00670488|191865157|OTHER||GMR|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.347||||||"pAkt Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)~= Day 15 Geometric Mean (GM) ÷ Baseline GM"||0.347|0.051|
95946549|NCT00731614|191865168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|||||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||Conducted a repeated measures ANOVA comparing CBT+mirror retraining with Supportive Therapy across 11 time points. The primary hypothesis was a group by time interaction. Due to missing data, a total of 9 and 14 participants, respectively could be included in analyses.||||.322
95764158|NCT01339403|191498492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.8|||Poisson Regression|||Non-AIDS-defining cancers: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.8|1.5|<0.001
95946550|NCT01604824|191865188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.486|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.31|-28.12||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.12|-79.31|= 0.0009
95946551|NCT01604824|191865188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.965|=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.21|17.35||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||17.35|-69.21|= 0.0056
95946552|NCT01604824|191865189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.39|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||-22.7|-76.39|= 0.0021
95764159|NCT01339403|191498492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|166.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.4|223.5|||Poisson Regression|||AIDS-defining cancer: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||223.5|123.4|<0.001
95946553|NCT01604824|191865189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876|=|0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.36|18.92||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||LS means (SE), mean difference, 95% CI, and p-values were derived from ANCOVA with treatment group as factor and baseline as covariate.||18.92|-70.36|= 0.0045
95946554|NCT01604824|191865190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.487|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.96|-23.77||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-23.77|-74.96|= 0.0016
95946555|NCT01604824|191865190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.471|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.12|15.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||15.60|-65.12|= 0.0063
95946556|NCT01604824|191865191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.224|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.85|-14.66||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-14.66|-46.85|= 0.0017
95946557|NCT01604824|191865191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294|=|0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-7.34||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-37.11|= 0.0096
95755855|NCT04135196|191481108|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain magnitude. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=1.132, df1=2, df2=40, p=0.332~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.016, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.011, Beta=0.271, t=1.493, p=0.143, 95% CI of B: \[-0.006, 0.039\]~Contrast between the high strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.007, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.010, Beta=0.115, t=635, p=0.529, 95% CI of B: \[-0.014, 0.028\]"|||0.332
95764160|NCT01339403|191498493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||1.5|1.3|<0.001
95859070|NCT01317277|191676072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||In between-group analyses, overall MEMS adherence was defined as % of doses taken.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods.||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.68
95946558|NCT01604824|191865192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.867|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.71|-27.74||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.74|-71.71|= 0.0005
95764161|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|75.7|||Poisson Regression|||Wasting syndrome: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||75.7|57.1|<0.001
95764162|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|428.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.2|628.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||628.5|292.2|<0.001
95764163|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|9.5|||Poisson Regression|||Pneumonia, recurrent: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.5|7.9|<0.001
95764164|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|97.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.5|124.8|||Poisson Regression|||Cytomegalovirus: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||124.8|75.5|<0.001
95764165|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|74.9|||Poisson Regression|||Esophageal Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||74.9|48.3|<0.001
95764166|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|136.8|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium avium complex: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||136.8|70.8|<0.001
95764167|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|189.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.3|319.5|||Poisson Regression|||Cryptococcosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||319.5|112.3|<0.001
95764168|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|7.4|||Poisson Regression|||Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||7.4|5.2|<0.001
95764169|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|594.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.5|2411.7|||Poisson Regression|||Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||2411.7|146.5|<0.001
95764170|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|14.4|||Poisson Regression|||Lung Candidiasis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||14.4|7.8|<0.001
95764171|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|87.5|||Poisson Regression|||Toxoplasmosis of brain: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||87.5|30.3|<0.001
95764172|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.9|||Poisson Regression|||Coccidiomycosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||12.9|3.0|<0.001
95764173|NCT01339403|191498494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Poisson Regression|||Histoplasmosis: Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||23.1|7.4|<0.0001
95764174|NCT01339403|191498495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.1|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.1|4.3|<0.001
95764175|NCT01339403|191498496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|8.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||8.2|6.0|<0.001
95764176|NCT01339403|191498497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|9.6|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||9.6|7.1|<0.001
95755856|NCT04135196|191481108|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in UD tBV was not proportional to strain rate. Raw change in tBV was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"Overall model fit: R\^2=0.054, F=0.946, df1=2, df2=33, p=0.399~Contrast between the low strain rate group and the control group: B=0.008, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.119, t=0.619, p=0.540, 95% CI of B: \[-0.017, 0.032\]~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.017, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.264, t=1.375, p=0.178, 95% CI of B: \[-0.008, 0.042\]"|||0.399
95755857|NCT04135196|191481109|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~There were no significant relationships found between change in cortical thickness and strain magnitude group at any time point (p\>0.05)."|||
95755858|NCT04135196|191481109|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in cortical thickness was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 3 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in cortical thickness and strain rate group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the high strain rate group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 3 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.258, F=4.519, df1=2, df2=26, p=0.021~Contrast between the high strain rate group and the control group: B=0.036, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.012, Beta=0.574, t=2.967, p=0.006, 95% CI of B: \[0.011, 0.061\]"|||
95755859|NCT04135196|191481110|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain magnitude. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|"At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.~At 9 months, there was a significant overall linear relationship between change in BV/TV and strain magnitude group. Additionally, the coefficient representing the contrast between the control group and the low strain magnitude group was also significant. All other comparisons were not statistically significant (p\>0.05).~Stats for 9 months:~Overall model fit: R\^2=0.240, F=5.057, df1=2, df2=32, p=0.012~Contrast between the low strain magnitude group and the control group: B=0.003, Std. Error of estimate of B=0.001, Beta=0.562, t=3.180, p=0.003, 95% CI of B: \[0.001, 0.006\]"|||
95755860|NCT04135196|191481110|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis was that change in bone volume fraction (BV/TV) was not proportional to strain rate. At each time point, raw change relative to baseline was analyzed as the dependent variable in a linear regression model with coefficients representing contrasts between the two experimental groups and the control group.|At each time point, the overall fit of the linear regression model was assessed with an F-test of overall significance. Additionally, the significance of each coefficient representing contrasts between each experimental group and the control group was assessed using t-tests.|||>0.05
95755861|NCT03736213|191481124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, two-tailed|df = 6|Ultrasound biofeedback treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower normalized acoustic values, a negative difference indicates an advantage for US biofeedback.|||||.13
95799655|NCT01257542|191570705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.16||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity verbal rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.16|-0.75|0.206
95799656|NCT01257542|191570706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.45|-1.43|0.304
95799657|NCT01257542|191570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||1 hour: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.97|-1.03|0.954
95946559|NCT01604824|191865192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.545|=|0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.63|-22.03||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|ANCOVA|||||-22.03|-76.63|= 0.0037
95946560|NCT03758742|191865207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95946561|NCT02542943|191865272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.13||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.134||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.134|-0.400|0.4350
95946562|NCT02542943|191865272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.7605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.34||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. For the Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment. For Week 8 comparisons of the two test groups against the control group, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|||0.340|-0.192|0.7605
95946563|NCT02542943|191865273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.031||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.031|-0.445|0.0873
95755862|NCT00290251|191481136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|performed on log-transformed delta change in total fibroid volume from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.43
95755863|NCT00290251|191481136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Performed on log-transformed delta change||Ulipristal acetate groups one and two were first compared and found to be similar (see statistical analysis 1), so they were combined into a single treatment group for comparison to placebo group||||0.003
95755864|NCT00290251|191481137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The Delta of scores from treatment end to baseline was used to compare by ANOVA.|ANOVA|Adjustment for age||No sample size calculation was made.||||< 0.05
95755865|NCT00642694|191481174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95755866|NCT00910091|191481189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.1895
95755867|NCT00910091|191481190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0203
95799658|NCT01257542|191570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||2 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.65|-1.54|0.426
95799659|NCT01257542|191570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||3 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.60|-1.49|0.396
95799660|NCT01257542|191570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||4 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.66|-1.63|0.402
95799661|NCT01257542|191570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.69||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||5 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.38|-1.75|0.204
95946564|NCT02542943|191865274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.130|-0.270|0.4921
95946565|NCT02542943|191865274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.216||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.216|-0.183|0.8728
95946566|NCT02542943|191865274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.115||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.115|-0.287|0.4003
95755868|NCT00910091|191481192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.6980
95755869|NCT00910091|191481193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.3078
95755870|NCT00910091|191481194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||||0.0484
95755871|NCT01007942|191481200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.65|0.0067
95755872|NCT04492020|191481209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.69|1.63|<.0001
95755873|NCT04492020|191481210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.78|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.78|1.63|<.0001
95755874|NCT04492020|191481211|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.96|||generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||1.96|1.40|<.0001
95755875|NCT04492020|191481212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.66|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|||||2.66|1.39|<.0001
95755876|NCT01175811|191481213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.14|
95755877|NCT01175811|191481214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.15|
95755878|NCT01175811|191481215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
95755879|NCT01175811|191481215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 12 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.822
95755880|NCT01175811|191481215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=6.5% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.417
95755881|NCT01175811|191481215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for the comparison of participants achieving \<=7.0% HbA1c at 24 weeks. P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity and should be interpreted as nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
95755882|NCT01059344|191481235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
95755883|NCT01059344|191481236|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755884|NCT01059344|191481237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755885|NCT01059344|191481238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95755886|NCT01059344|191481239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755887|NCT01059344|191481240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95755888|NCT01059344|191481241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95755889|NCT01447420|191481264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Participants without measurement at the end of the 24 week untreated follow-up period were considered as non-responders.||IL28B Genotypes (CC, CT or TT)||||0.0007
95755890|NCT01447420|191481267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.14|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia after the first month of treatment vs No anemia||4.14|0.69|
95755891|NCT01447420|191481267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.59|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|Anemia in the first month of treatment vs No anemia||2.59|0.28|
95755892|NCT01447420|191481267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|13.12|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs CT||13.12|2.27|
95755893|NCT01447420|191481267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|13.61|||||Odds Ratio for SVR estimated from the logistic regression model.|IL28B - CC vs TT||13.61|1.19|
95755894|NCT02731326|191481269|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 for recurrence detection (α = .05). Kaplan-Meier curves were created for recurrence detection in the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period. Differences in time to recurrence between groups were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline variables that differed significantly between groups were included as covariates and adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed.||2.30|1.06|0.05
95755895|NCT02731326|191481270|EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 2 (α = .05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Treatment arm equals numerator. Control arm=denominator.|Kaplan-Meier curves were created for assessing time to treatment for intervention and control groups. Time to treatment was defined as the time interval from detection of a recurrent arrhythmia to treatment for that arrhythmia.||0.58|0.09|0.05
95799662|NCT01257542|191570707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, site and baseline cough severity numerical rating scale terms.|ANOVA|||6 hours: treatment difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from ANOVA model.||0.39|-2.06|0.179
95799663|NCT01257542|191570708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39||p-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.39|-0.21|0.523
95946567|NCT02542943|191865275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8106
95755896|NCT02731326|191481271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.19|<.0001
95755897|NCT02731326|191481272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95755898|NCT02731326|191481273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95755899|NCT05472662|191481274|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|1.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||4.20|-0.48|0.113
95755900|NCT05472662|191481275|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.58||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.25|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||2.25|-1.10|0.483
95755901|NCT05472662|191481275|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|0.23||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.90|-1.45|0.782
95755902|NCT05472662|191481275|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.16|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||1.16|-1.97|0.599
95755903|NCT05472662|191481275|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.99|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.99|-1.24|0.815
95755904|NCT05472662|191481275|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was demonstrated if the 95% CI of the adjusted mean difference in relative change from baseline in FEV1 between HFA-152a and HFA-134a was within the equivalence limits \[-10% ; +10%\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.69||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject, and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."||0.64|-2.01|0.294
95755905|NCT05472662|191481276|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.061|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 5 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.061|-0.032|0.519
95755906|NCT05472662|191481276|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.13|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 15 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.130|-0.009|0.085
95755907|NCT05472662|191481276|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.054|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 30 min post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.054|-0.045|0.858
95799664|NCT01257542|191570709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.24||p-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores controlling site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and the associated 95% CI were based on the weighted Gamma statistics.||0.24|-0.35|0.796
95799665|NCT00081458|191570719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95799666|NCT00081458|191570720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An efficacy responder was defined as achieving at least a 20% reduction from Baseline to Week 20 and maintained at Week 24 in weekly actual PN infusion volume.||||0.005
95799667|NCT04837521|191570751|SUPERIORITY||γ01|0.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||analysis completed using the 1 week follow up data|||||.03
95799668|NCT04837521|191570752|OTHER|The conditions were expected to be similar, and the primary interest of the analysis was changes over time across both groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.49||To estimate the mean improvement in PSFS across the entire sample, we calculated a posterior predictive distribution of within-person change scores between time fixed equal to 0 and equal to -1.|Bayesian framework|||PSFS scores were analyzed using mixed-effects linear growth models with time, treatment condition, and their interaction as predictors. Random effects modeled variation in intercepts, slopes over time, and their covariance. Time was specified as a continuous variable, centered on the final observation date. The SG group served as the reference level for the treatment factor. Models were estimated in a Bayesian framework using default priors in the brms package.||4.49|2.32|
95799669|NCT03925220|191570764|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.04||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||A sample size of 400 parents and children was calculated to yield 80% power to detect one or more differences between the intervention and control arms, of 45% in talking about alcohol, 20% about marijuana, and 20% about other drugs, using a two-sided Bonferroni-corrected 1.5% level of significance (based on estimates from the pilot trial).||4.04|2.02|<0.001
95799670|NCT03925220|191570764|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using e-cigarettes or vaping"|Generalized estimation|||||3.45|1.67|<0.001
95799671|NCT03925220|191570764|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.43||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using marijuana"|Generalized estimation|||||3.43|1.62|<0.001
95799672|NCT03925220|191570764|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.08||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on smoking cigarettes"|Generalized estimation|||||5.08|2.34|<0.001
95946568|NCT02542943|191865275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.1656
95799673|NCT03925220|191570764|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.86||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on using other drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||3.86|1.58|<0.001
95799674|NCT03925220|191570764|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.06||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported frequency of conversations on drinking alcohol"|Generalized estimation|||||2.06|1.02|0.04
95946569|NCT02542943|191865275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.1419
95946570|NCT02542943|191865276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.5631
95755908|NCT05472662|191481276|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.011||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.036|-0.058|0.632
95755909|NCT05472662|191481276|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.003||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.031|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 1.5 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.031|-0.038|0.846
95799675|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio (PR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.45||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported have warned your child about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs"|Generalized estimation|||||1.45|1.18|<0.001
95799676|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.83||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have talked to your child about how to handle offers of alcoholic drinks and drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.83|1.32|<0.001
95991655|NCT00510276|191958690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|10.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.12|1.68|0.006
95991656|NCT00510276|191958691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.46||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 relationship subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||10.46|1.00|0.018
95991657|NCT00510276|191958692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|8.39||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 psychological health subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||8.39|0.33|0.034
95991658|NCT00510276|191958693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.12||A gate-keeper strategy was applied to adjust for multiple tests.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in AAQOL-29 life outlook subscale score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||7.12|-0.33|0.074
95991659|NCT00510276|191958694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CGI-ADHD-S score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.24|-0.63|<0.001
95755910|NCT05472662|191481276|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical analysis performed on the data at 3 h post-dose timepoint.~Statistical analysis was performed by means of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment group, subject and period as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline as covariate."|Assess differences between treatment groups.|0.021|-0.068|0.282
95991660|NCT00510276|191958695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in CAARS-S:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.15|-5.94|<0.001
95755911|NCT00790335|191481288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for extent of DVT and for clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. Primary outcome = no statistically significant difference between the two arms.|||1.11|0.82|0.56
95755912|NCT00790335|191481289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.98|0.17|0.38
95799677|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.63||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.63|1.73|<0.001
95946571|NCT02542943|191865276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|0.000|0.8423
95799678|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have lectured or given your child a speech about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.25|1.25|0.001
95799679|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.9||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.90|1.21|<0.001
95991661|NCT00510276|191958696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in PGI-I scores at 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.04|-0.45|0.020
95799680|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child stories of people who drink alcohol, have been drunk, or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.47|1.06|0.008
95799681|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have told your child you would be disappointed in her/him if they were to drink alcohol or use drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.10|1.29|<0.001
95946572|NCT02542943|191865276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||From Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|0.000|0.4390
95946573|NCT02542943|191865277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.308||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.308|-0.611|0.5170
95755913|NCT00790335|191481290|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for thrombus extent and clinical center|No statistically significant difference was seen.|||1.09|0.80|0.39
95755914|NCT00790335|191481291|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by extent of DVT and clinical center|Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||0.98|0.54|0.04
95755915|NCT00790335|191481292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.18||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|49.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm. More major bleeding was observed in the PCDT Arm.|||49.2|0.78|0.049
95755916|NCT00790335|191481293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||3.01|0.76|0.23
95755917|NCT00790335|191481294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm. Bleeding was more frequent in the PCDT Arm.|||6.68|1.04|0.03
95755918|NCT00790335|191481295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||1.89|0.85|0.25
95755919|NCT00790335|191481296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator = PCDT Arm; Denominator = Control Arm|||5.28|0.44|0.50
95799682|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.15||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have shown your child information on the web, TV, or in the news about the dangers of drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||2.15|1.24|<0.001
95799683|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.93||"At 3 months:~Parent-reported 'have asked your child about their thoughts and opinions about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.93|1.40|<0.001
95799684|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have given your child rules to obey about drinking alcohol and using drugs'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.74|1.12|0.003
95799685|NCT03925220|191570765|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio [PR]|1.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78||"At 18 months:~Parent-reported 'have made a comment to your child about how drinking alcohol and using drugs is bad if a character on TV is drinking or drunk'"|Generalized estimation|||||1.78|1.06|0.01
95799686|NCT04470427|191570788|OTHER||VE|93.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|94.8|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|VE (percent) is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the VE is above 30%.|VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|"Vaccine efficacy was defined as the percent reduction in the hazard of the primary endpoint (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).~Null hypothesis of Vaccine Efficacy ≤30%, 95% CI."||94.8|91.0|<.0001
95859071|NCT01317277|191676073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||MEMS adherence based on dose timing was examined for between-group differences.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods||Randomization strategy for target 75 participants of 2:1 \[iTAB(n=50):CTRL(n=25)\], resulting in 80% power to detect effect size of .71 for difference of adherence rates between groups (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney critical t=1.99, df=69.6). Final # analyzed: iTAB (n=43) \& CTRL (n=23).||||0.95
95755920|NCT00790335|191481297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Numerator: PCDT Arm; Denominator: Control Arm|||2.29|0.94|0.09
95755921|NCT00790335|191481299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.44|0.33|0.83
95799687|NCT04470427|191570794|OTHER||VE|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.6|||VE||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||99.6|92.8|
95799688|NCT04470427|191570795|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.2|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||84.2|79.5|
95799689|NCT04470427|191570796|OTHER|VE|VE|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.4|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.4|
95799690|NCT04470427|191570798|OTHER||VE|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.1|94.9|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||94.9|91.1|
95799691|NCT04470427|191570799|OTHER||VE|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|84.3|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||84.3|79.5|
95755922|NCT00790335|191481300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
95799692|NCT04470427|191570800|OTHER||VE|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.6|68.5|||||VE (percent) was estimated with 1 - Hazard Ratio (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo) from stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||68.5|56.6|
95799693|NCT04470427|191570806|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on Ratio of GMC is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of Ratio of GMC ≥ 0.67.|Ratio of GMC|6.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.509|7.52||||||Ratio of GMC 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57).||7.520|6.509|
95799694|NCT04470427|191570807|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of a booster as compared with mRNA-1273 after second dose based on SRR difference is demonstrated if lower bound of 95% CI of SRR difference \> -10%.|Difference in Seroresponse|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||||95% CI were calculated using adjusted Wald method for the paired binary data.|Seroresponse 28 days following the booster dose (BD-Day 29) compared with 28 days following second dose (Part A-Day 57)||1.8|0.1|
95799695|NCT01018979|191570810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.023
95799696|NCT01018979|191570810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyze whether the mean fold increase from the baseline to the peak time change was significant or not.||||0.038
95859072|NCT01317277|191676074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Z = -1.97|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric methods; P-Value is calculated.||Text-reported METH use days||||0.05
95755923|NCT00790335|191481301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
95755924|NCT00790335|191481302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
95755925|NCT00790335|191481303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.005
95755926|NCT00790335|191481304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
95755927|NCT00790335|191481305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.01
95799697|NCT02965456|191570820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
95799698|NCT02965456|191570821|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
95799699|NCT02965456|191570822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||0.007
95799700|NCT05073315|191570825|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Least Square Mean (GMR)|1.0516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.2273||||||||1.2273|0.9010|
95946574|NCT02542943|191865277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.633||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.633|-0.284|0.4538
95946575|NCT02542943|191865277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.788|0.136||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.136|-0.788|0.1663
95946576|NCT02542943|191865278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|0.453||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.453|-0.661|0.7137
95991662|NCT00510276|191958697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in MADRS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.19|0.282
95799701|NCT05073315|191570826|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Least Square Mean Ratio|1.0044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8717|1.1574||||||||1.1574|0.8717|
95799702|NCT05073315|191570829|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|0.29||||||||0.29|-5.23|
95799703|NCT01529268|191570836|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.1|0.8|0.34
95799704|NCT01529268|191570837|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.90
95799705|NCT01529268|191570838|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Steatosis: patients with improvement||1.1|0.5|0.15
95799706|NCT01529268|191570839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Steatosis: change in score||0.4|-0.2|0.59
95799707|NCT01529268|191570840|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|1.1|0.03
95799708|NCT01529268|191570841|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.06
95799709|NCT01529268|191570842|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.4|0.29
95799710|NCT01529268|191570843|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.1|0.15
95799711|NCT01529268|191570844|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|0.6|0.57
95799712|NCT01529268|191570845|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.76
95859073|NCT02304367|191676088|OTHER|||||||0.0428|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in osteoid thickness is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0428
95859074|NCT02304367|191676089|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OS/BS is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.9770
95755928|NCT00790335|191481306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||< 0.001
95755929|NCT00790335|191481307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Piecewise linear-regression growth-curve models with adjustment for extent of DVT, clinical center) and pre-specified baseline co-variates|Lower (better) mean scores in the PCDT Arm|||||0.03
95755930|NCT00790335|191481308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference was seen in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.37
95755931|NCT00790335|191481309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No difference was observed in the degree of change from baseline to 24 months in the two treatment groups.|||||0.99
95799713|NCT01529268|191570846|SUPERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.6|0.6|0.98
95799714|NCT01529268|191570847|SUPERIORITY|P-values and mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome, for outcome scores.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.24
95799715|NCT01529268|191570848|NON_INFERIORITY|Relative risks and p-values were calculated with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tests, stratified by clinic and weight group, for binary outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by clinic and weight group||||18.3|0.4|0.29
95799716|NCT01529268|191570849|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing change from baseline to 52 weeks in serum alanine aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum alanine aminotransferase.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-24.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum alanine aminotransferase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The change in ALT is adjusted for the baseline ALT value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-44|0.02
95799717|NCT01529268|191570849|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in serum aspartate aminotransferase on treatment group and baseline value of serum aspartate aminotransferase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum aspartate aminotransferase.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST). The change in AST is adjusted for the baseline AST value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-4|-26|0.008
95799718|NCT01529268|191570849|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase on treatment group and baseline value of gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase||Adjusted difference in mean changes in serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT). The change in GGT is adjusted for the baseline GGTvalue; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||-1|-13|0.02
95946577|NCT02542943|191865278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.651||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.651|-0.460|0.7353
95799719|NCT01529268|191570850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-value and adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in weight (kg) on treatment group and baseline weight (kg).|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline weight (kg).||Adjusted difference in mean changes in weight (kg). The change in weight is adjusted for the baseline weight value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.1|-4.1|0.25
95755932|NCT00790335|191481310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center|No significant difference in the change from baseline to 24 months between the two treatment arms.|||||0.08
95859075|NCT02304367|191676090|OTHER|||||||0.0858|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in OV/BV is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.0858
95859076|NCT02304367|191676091|OTHER|||||||0.4077|||||||t-test|||The null hypothesis that the mean change from Baseline to Week 48 in Mlt is zero was tested using a t-test.||||0.4077
95755933|NCT00790335|191481311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
95755934|NCT00790335|191481312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.03
95755935|NCT00790335|191481313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.02
95755936|NCT00790335|191481314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted by extent of thrombus and clinical center||||||0.05
95755937|NCT05005312|191481363|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|140.11|||ANOVA|||||140.11|74.20|
95755938|NCT05005312|191481364|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.81|139.21|||ANOVA|||||139.21|70.81|
95755939|NCT05005312|191481365|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|138.12|||ANOVA|||||138.12|70.65|
95755940|NCT00176423|191481370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95755941|NCT00176423|191481371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95946578|NCT02542943|191865278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.361||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.361|-0.760|0.4843
95755942|NCT00176423|191481372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95755943|NCT00176423|191481373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95755944|NCT06354998|191481394|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.245|||||GMR was a secondary endpoint.|GMR (mRNA-1273.815 versus licensed Spikevax) at Day 15 and its 95% CI was calculated based on the t-distribution for the mean difference of log-transformed antibody values and then back transformed to the original scale for presentation.||1.245|0.662|
95755945|NCT02283983|191481483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95755946|NCT03275064|191481491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|31.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.69|-30.73|
95755947|NCT03275064|191481491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.04|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.40|-27.04|
95755948|NCT03275064|191481492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|31.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||31.08|-27.70|
95755949|NCT03275064|191481492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.03|34.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||34.97|-23.03|
95755950|NCT03275064|191481493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.27|49.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||49.04|-47.27|
95755951|NCT03275064|191481493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.11|47.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||47.65|-43.11|
95755952|NCT03275064|191481494|SUPERIORITY|Week 29|Mean Difference (Net)|200.18||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.53|345.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||345.83|54.53|0.0131
95859077|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 24||||0.016
95755953|NCT03275064|191481494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|141.87||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|287.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||287.56|-3.83|0.0544
95755954|NCT03275064|191481494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|228.27||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.87|375.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||375.67|80.87|0.0067
95755955|NCT03275064|191481494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|116.21||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.52|261.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||261.94|-29.52|0.0931
95755956|NCT03275064|191481495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.10|-0.00|0.0574
95755957|NCT03275064|191481495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||0.11|0.01|0.0248
95755958|NCT03275064|191481495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.07|-0.05|0.3864
95755959|NCT03275064|191481495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||0.08|-0.05|0.3290
95755960|NCT03275064|191481496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.36|30.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||30.85|-21.36|0.6184
95755961|NCT03275064|191481496|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.16|18.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28||18.53|-33.16|0.3194
95755962|NCT03275064|191481497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.72|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||8.47|-1.72|
95755963|NCT03275064|191481497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.01|-5.22|
95755964|NCT03275064|191481497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||4.15|-6.42|
95755965|NCT03275064|191481497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.20|-12.68|
95755966|NCT03275064|191481498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||7.66|-3.49|
95755967|NCT03275064|191481498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||6.45|-4.82|
95946579|NCT02409680|191865292|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on preterm delivery.||0.98|0.81|0.012
95946580|NCT02409680|191865293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.94|0.299
95755968|NCT03275064|191481498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||8.11|-3.54|
95755969|NCT03275064|191481498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-0.10|-11.81|
95755970|NCT03275064|191481499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|9.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||9.15|-2.21|
95755971|NCT03275064|191481499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 29||5.04|-6.31|
95755972|NCT03275064|191481499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.07|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||2.82|-8.07|
95755973|NCT03275064|191481499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.61|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 53||-2.72|-13.61|
95755974|NCT03055650|191481511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
95755975|NCT03055650|191481511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change from Baseline in Meibomian Gland Secretion Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
95755976|NCT03055650|191481512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Week 1||||<0.0001
95755977|NCT03055650|191481512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.05.||Change From Baseline in Tear Break-Up Time (TBUT) at Month 1||||<0.0001
95946581|NCT02409680|191865294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|0.171
95946582|NCT02409680|191865295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.048
95755978|NCT03055650|191481513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Week 1||||<0.0001
95755979|NCT03055650|191481513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||Change From Baseline in Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED) Total Score at Month 1||||<0.0001
95755980|NCT03055650|191481514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical significance is set at α = 0.025.||||||<0.0001
95755981|NCT01791153|191481525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|18.0|66.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (less than or equal to \[\</=\] 30 mg/day, greater than \[\>\] 30 mg/day).||66.00|18.00|<0.0001
95755982|NCT01791153|191481525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|39.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|12.46|65.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||65.66|12.46|< 0.0001
95755983|NCT01791153|191481526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||< 0.0001
95755984|NCT01791153|191481526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|38.35|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|17.89|58.81||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||58.81|17.89|
95946583|NCT02409680|191865296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.73|0.125
95755985|NCT01791153|191481526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||||0.0002
95755986|NCT01791153|191481526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The tocilizumab group was to be considered as non-inferior to the placebo group if the lower limit of the two-sided 99.5% confidence interval was \>/= -22.5%.|Difference in Response Rates|35.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.5|10.41|60.41||||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||60.41|10.41|
95755987|NCT01791153|191481527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|0.46|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.46|0.11|<0.0001
95755988|NCT01791153|191481527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.18|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.82|0.18|0.0011
95755989|NCT01791153|191481527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||0.66|0.12|0.0001
95755990|NCT01791153|191481527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2|1.16|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the stratification factor of starting prednisone dose (\</=30 mg/day, \>30 mg/day).||1.16|0.20|0.0316
95755991|NCT01791153|191481528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
95755992|NCT01791153|191481528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
95755993|NCT01791153|191481528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day).||||0.0003
95755994|NCT01791153|191481528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||The treatment groups were compared using a Van Elteren's test stratified by starting prednisone dose (\<=30 mg/day, \> 30 mg/day).||||<0.0001
95755995|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.61||||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-5.86|7.07|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.07|-5.86|0.8067
95755996|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.44||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.69|9.56|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.56|-0.69|0.0252
95764177|NCT01339403|191498498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|5.9|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||5.9|5.3|<0.001
95946584|NCT02409680|191865297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.60|0.900
95946585|NCT02409680|191865298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.84|0.274
95946586|NCT02409680|191865299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.78|0.32|0.512
95946587|NCT02409680|191865300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.31|0.45|0.331
95755997|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.56||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.64|6.53|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.53|-7.64|0.8374
95755998|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.27||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.59|9.14|||Repeated measures model|||MCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.14|-2.59|0.1468
95755999|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.58|10.34|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.34|-1.58|0.0570
95799720|NCT01529268|191570851|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline BMI (kg/m2)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in body mass index (BMI). The change in BMI is adjusted for the baseline BMI value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||0.5|-1.1|0.42
95756000|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|5.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|10.32|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||10.32|0.86|0.0024
95756001|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|3.04||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.43|9.51|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.51|-3.43|0.2218
95756002|NCT01791153|191481529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.25||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.14|9.64|||Repeated measures model|||PCS: Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.64|-1.14|0.0412
95756003|NCT01791153|191481530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-15.6||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-34.3|3.1|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.1|-34.3|0.0312
95756004|NCT01791153|191481530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.8||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-27.2|3.6|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.6|-27.2|0.0476
95756005|NCT01791153|191481530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-21.9||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.4|-1.4|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-1.4|-42.4|0.0059
95799721|NCT01529268|191570852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.1|0.11
95859078|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 48||||0.030
95946588|NCT02409680|191865302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.85|0.17|0.015
95756006|NCT01791153|191481530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Square Means|-18.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.8|-0.5|||Repeated measures model|||Change at Week 52: Repeated measures model used for analysis included the following covariates and interactions: treatment, starting prednisone dose (\<=30mg/day, \>30mg/day), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, starting dose-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||-0.5|-35.8|0.0081
95756007|NCT03923530|191481566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.12
95756008|NCT03923530|191481567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.49
95756009|NCT03923530|191481568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.03
95756010|NCT03923530|191481569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.27
95756011|NCT03923530|191481570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.18
95756012|NCT03923530|191481571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8
95756013|NCT03923530|191481572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to 8 weeks||||0.76
95859079|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 96||||0.259
95946589|NCT02409680|191865303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.61|0.039
95799722|NCT01529268|191570853|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in waist circumference on treatment group and baseline value of waist circumference.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline waist circumference (cm)||Adjusted difference in mean changes in waist circumference (cm). The change in waist circumference is adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||2.6|-2.3|0.89
95756014|NCT03456960|191481614|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square means (LSM) between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.034|0.0458||||||||0.0458|-0.0340|
95756015|NCT03456960|191481615|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0079|0.1096||||||||0.1096|-0.0079|
95756016|NCT03456960|191481616|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0941|0.2034||||||||0.2034|-0.0941|
95756017|NCT03456960|191481616|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model will include a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0399|0.1424||||||||0.1424|0.0399|
95756018|NCT03456960|191481617|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.133|0.3162||||||||0.3162|-0.1330|
95756019|NCT03456960|191481617|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1519|0.3068||||||||0.3068|0.1519|
95756020|NCT03456960|191481618|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0299|0.05||||||||0.0500|-0.0299|
95756021|NCT03456960|191481619|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0281|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1662|0.11||||||||0.1100|-0.1662|
95756022|NCT03456960|191481620|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0448|0.0149||||||||0.0149|-0.0448|
95799723|NCT01529268|191570854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting serum glucose on treatment group and baseline fasting serum glucose value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-4.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline serum glucose value.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting serum glucose. The change in fasting serum glucose is adjusted for the baseline fasting serum glucose value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||3|-11|0.24
95859080|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 144||||0.346
95756023|NCT03456960|191481621|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0676|0.0286||||||||0.0286|-0.0676|
95756024|NCT03456960|191481622|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0547|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0937|0.2032||||||||0.2032|-0.0937|
95756025|NCT03456960|191481622|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0141|0.1167||||||||0.1167|0.0141|
95756026|NCT03456960|191481623|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2478|-0.0443||||||||-0.0443|-0.2478|
95756027|NCT03456960|191481623|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1674|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2084|-0.1264||||||||-0.1264|-0.2084|
95756028|NCT03456960|191481624|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2179|-0.0206||||||||-0.0206|-0.2179|
95756029|NCT03456960|191481624|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.1366|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.173|-0.1002||||||||-0.1002|-0.1730|
95756030|NCT03456960|191481625|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0734|0.103||||||||0.1030|-0.0734|
95756031|NCT03456960|191481625|EQUIVALENCE|Pivotal Study 1: The difference in the LSM between study medications (TAK-438ASA tablet - concomitant administration of TAK-438 tablet and aspirin enteric-coated tablet) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and study medication, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0463|0.0424||||||||0.0424|-0.0463|
95756032|NCT03456960|191481626|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1609|0.2667||||||||0.2667|0.1609|
95756033|NCT03456960|191481627|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1652|0.2671||||||||0.2671|0.1652|
95756034|NCT03456960|191481628|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1675|0.2706||||||||0.2706|0.1675|
95756035|NCT03456960|191481629|EQUIVALENCE|TAK-438F: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.3653|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.218|0.5126||||||||0.5126|0.2180|
95756036|NCT03456960|191481632|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0061|0.4239||||||||0.4239|-0.0061|
95756037|NCT03456960|191481632|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0639|0.0918||||||||0.0918|-0.0639|
95799724|NCT01529268|191570855|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in fasting insulin on treatment group and baseline fasting insulin.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-6.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline fasting insulin.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in fasting insulin. The change in fasting insulin is adjusted for the baseline fasting insulin value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||6|-18|0.34
95859081|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 168||||0.213
95859082|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 192||||0.873
95859083|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 216||||0.001
95799725|NCT01529268|191570856|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in HOMA-IR on treatment group and baseline HOMA-IR value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HOMA-IR.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in HOMA-IR. The change in HOMA-IR is adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1.0|-6.2|0.15
95799726|NCT01529268|191570857|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in systolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline systolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|1.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline systolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in systolic blood pressure. The change in systolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline systolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||4|-3|0.71
95799727|NCT01529268|191570858|SUPERIORITY|P-values and differences in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in diastolic blood pressure on treatment group and baseline diastolic blood pressure value.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline diastolic blood pressure.||Adjusted difference in mean changes in diastolic blood pressure. The change in diastolic blood pressure is adjusted for the baseline diastolic blood pressure value; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change.||1|-4|0.31
95799728|NCT01529268|191570859|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in self-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline self-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.77
95799729|NCT01529268|191570859|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in Pyschosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Psychosocial Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in self-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||3|-5|0.64
95799730|NCT01529268|191570859|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score.||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Physical Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-9|0.58
95946590|NCT02409680|191865304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.87|0.073
95946591|NCT02409680|191865305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.57|0.084
95991663|NCT00510276|191958698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BAI score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||1.19|-2.21|0.556
95991664|NCT00510276|191958699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Tested was the null hypothesis that AAQOL-29 total score and CAARS-Inv:SV total score are not correlated.||||<0.001
95859084|NCT02304367|191676098|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 1,25(OH)2D.||Week 240||||0.040
95859085|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95859086|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 48||||<0.0001
95859087|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 96||||0.001
95859088|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 144||||0.007
95946592|NCT02409680|191865306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.00|0.73|0.039
95946593|NCT02409680|191865307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.10|0.70|0.261
95946594|NCT02409680|191865308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.68|0.141
95946595|NCT02409680|191865309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.88|0.157
95946596|NCT02921555|191865310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95946597|NCT02921555|191865310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95756038|NCT03456960|191481633|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0048|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0048|
95756039|NCT03456960|191481633|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0712|0.0986||||||||0.0986|-0.0712|
95756040|NCT03456960|191481634|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0054|0.4246||||||||0.4246|-0.0054|
95756041|NCT03456960|191481634|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.0201|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.1092||||||||0.1092|-0.0690|
95756042|NCT03456960|191481635|EQUIVALENCE|Unchanged aspirin: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.4058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0803|0.7312||||||||0.7312|0.0803|
95799731|NCT01529268|191570859|SUPERIORITY|P-value and difference in mean changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA models, regressing changes from baseline to 52 weeks in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score on treatment group and baseline value of the parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score.|Adjusted difference in mean changes|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted difference in mean changes from baseline in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The difference in mean changes in parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score is adjusted for the baseline parent/guardian-reported Psychosocial Health summary score; therefore, the adjusted difference in mean changes is not equal to the net change. Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life.||5|-6|0.85
95799732|NCT01529268|191570860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
95799733|NCT00088153|191570864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||After controlling for baseline age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|We also used a mixed model analysis of variance (PROC MIXED), to analyze longitudinal data.||Power analysis: We have previously demonstrated that normal female adolescents gain bone density at the rate of 0.039 +/- 0.0507 per year. The pooled SD in that study was 0.046. Based on these data, with a sample size of 110 girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), half of whom are randomized to receive estrogen and half placebo (with a 10% drop-out rate), there will be an 80% chance that we will detect an increase in bone density to 75% of normal in the girls who receive estrogen.||||<0.05
95799734|NCT00088153|191570865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups for changes in P1NP levels over time||||>0.05
95799735|NCT00088153|191570866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p value was adjusted for age and weight changes|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ for changes in spine bone density z-scores over the study duration||||<0.05
95799736|NCT04738487|191570901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.35|0.83|0.6712
95756043|NCT03456960|191481635|EQUIVALENCE|Salicylic acid: The difference in the LSM between dosing condition (TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fed \[30 minutes after starting breakfast\] - TAK-438ASA tablet taken in a fasted \[without breakfast\] condition) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included a log-transformed (natural log) analysis variable as the dependent variable, and dosing condition, sequence, and period as independent variables.|LSM Difference|0.1969|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1065|0.2873||||||||0.2873|0.1065|
95799737|NCT04738487|191570902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.13|0.82|0.3320
95799738|NCT04738487|191570903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.11|0.72|0.1646
95950730|NCT04421456|191873422|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|2.84|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.84|-6.35|0.4528
95799739|NCT01063114|191570951|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|37.0||||||||37|16|
95799740|NCT01063114|191570951|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|38.0||||||||38|17|
95799741|NCT01063114|191570952|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|57.0||||||||57|34|
95799742|NCT01063114|191570952|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|77.0||||||||77|54|
95756044|NCT00532935|191481655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.||||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
95799743|NCT01063114|191570953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.01024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||-2.9|-19.2|0.01024
95946598|NCT01586104|191865356|OTHER|With 20 patients, there is 80% power to detect a difference of 100% with Standard lung RT versus 93% with IMRT assuming a standard deviation of 8 (as seen for the whole heart), a one tailed test and a Bonferroni correction for 4 statistical tests so that each test is done at p\<0.0125.|||||<|0.0125||||||The reported p value was calculated. The statistical analysis performed is attached to the outcome measure reported.|Bonferroni corrected at p<0.0125|||Feasibility will be defined as an enrolled patient receiving the IMRT treatment as planned. It is expected that the treatment will be feasible in at least 90% of patients. If the treatment is feasible in 16 or more out of 20 patients, then the treatment will be declared feasible. If the true feasibility rate is 90%, then there is a 4.3% chance that 15 or fewer feasible patients will be observed.|Lung-metastases-free survival will be estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves (minimum period of six months).|||<0.0125
95946599|NCT05293717|191865397|OTHER|This is an open-label study. No power calculation was performed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95756045|NCT00532935|191481656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-22.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-22.4|-32.7|<0.001
95756046|NCT00532935|191481657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-8.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline 2-hour PMG value.||||-8.3|-32.1|<0.001
95756047|NCT00532935|191481658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-4.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline FPG value.||||-4.9|-19.0|<0.001
95756048|NCT00532935|191481659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.8||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model included a term for treatment and a covariate for the baseline A1C value.|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 32 in the Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/1000 mg b.i.d. group vs. the Pioglitazone 45 mg q.d. group.|||2.8|1.3|<0.001
95799744|NCT01063114|191570954|OTHER||3-Year Survival Probability|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|91.3||||||||91.3|75.8|
95799745|NCT01063114|191570954|OTHER||5-Year Survival Probability|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.5||||||||88.5|71.7|
95946600|NCT03147287|191865398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.55||We reported two-sided p-values corresponding to two-sided α level of 0.10. The test statistic and p-value were taken from the Cox proportional hazards model score test.|Log Rank|The SAP intended stratified tests and models, however one stratum was only 9 patients making implementation of stratification questionable.|We checked the proportional hazards assumption by visually assessing the plot of log( log(survival)) vs log of survival times according to treatment assignment for parallelism. This was done overall and according to stratum.|The primary objective was investigated by comparing the PFS distributions between two treatment arms using a logrank test with one-sided α level of 0.05 (H0: PFS1≤PFS2; HA: PFS1\>PFS2). Hazard ratios were estimated from a Cox PH model (F+P / F, so that HR\<1 indicates reduced hazard of PFS event with F+P), with two sided 90% CIs (Wald) to align with the design and testing.||1.55|0.79|0.62
95756049|NCT04156620|191481660|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|25.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||25.71|10.12|<0.0001
95756050|NCT04156620|191481661|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|20.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|26.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.44|14.45|<0.0001
95756051|NCT04156620|191481662|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.64|-1.38|<0.0001
95756052|NCT04156620|191481663|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|22.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|29.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.95|14.36|<0.0001
95756053|NCT04156620|191481664|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-0.56|-1.33|<0.0001
95799746|NCT02141113|191571063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These changed scores show the total change in ADHD symptoms over the course of the trial. Higher values indiicate improved functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.779
95756054|NCT04156620|191481665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||4.22|1.80|<0.0001
95756055|NCT04156620|191481666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||-1.04|-2.51|<0.0001
95756056|NCT04156620|191481667|SUPERIORITY||Relative LS mean change|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16||0.51|0.37|<0.0001
95756057|NCT04156620|191481668|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|23.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.61|31.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.66|15.61|<0.0001
95756058|NCT04156620|191481669|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|12.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|17.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||17.19|7.96|<0.0001
95799747|NCT02141113|191571064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||ANOVA|||||||.834
95799748|NCT02141113|191571065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.705
95799749|NCT02141113|191571066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.322
95799750|NCT02141113|191571067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.043
95799751|NCT02141113|191571068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
95799752|NCT04950686|191571079|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.983
95756059|NCT04156620|191481670|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|15.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.47|5.64|<0.0001
95859089|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 168||||0.005
95859090|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 192||||0.004
95859091|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 216||||0.002
95946601|NCT03147287|191865399|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is two sided, for hypothesis test with two-sided α=0.10|Fisher Exact|||The objective response was reported with two-sided 90% CI and compared between two treatment arms using a (unstratified) Fisher's exact test;||||1.000
95946602|NCT03883724|191865498|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in NPi pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||0.3
95946603|NCT03883724|191865499|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome|||||<|0.01||||||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between groups BBTI vs IC|ANCOVA|between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||Change in nocturia frequency pre- vs post-intervention comparing between group analysis||||<.01
95756060|NCT04156620|191481671|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.09|-1.24|0.0234
95764178|NCT01339403|191498499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|35.2|||Poisson Regression|||Poisson regression models were used to analyze rates of clinical events by HIV and unadjusted incidence rate ratios compared risk in HIV-uninfected persons to HIV-infected persons.||35.2|11.2|<0.001
95764179|NCT05767905|191498500|OTHER||ratio|108.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|117.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means"||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||117.05|100.55|
95764180|NCT05767905|191498500|OTHER||ratio|106.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||114.54|98.39|
95764181|NCT05767905|191498500|OTHER||ratio|228.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.67|293.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||293.48|178.67|
95764182|NCT05767905|191498500|OTHER||ratio|207.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.41|261.09||||||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||261.09|164.41|
95764183|NCT05767905|191498500|OTHER||ratio|102.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment||109.30|95.55|
95764184|NCT05767905|191498501|OTHER||ratio|145.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.29|174.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||174.53|121.29|
95764185|NCT05767905|191498501|OTHER||ratio|122.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.24|147.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 3 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||147.12|102.24|
95764186|NCT05767905|191498501|OTHER||ratio|284.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|226.39|358.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed Low-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||358.06|226.39|
95764187|NCT05767905|191498501|OTHER||ratio|327.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|256.9|418.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fed High-fat was the Test treatment and Part 2 PF-06821497 Form 2 1250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment.||418.44|256.90|
95764188|NCT05767905|191498501|OTHER||ratio|118.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.36|146.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:1.Ratio of geometric means 2.90% CI of ratio of geometric means||Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 1 250 mg Fasted was the Reference treatment, and Part 1 PF-06821497 Form 2 250 mg Fasted was the Test treatment.||146.06|96.36|
95764189|NCT04542057|191498511|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01501|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1236||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to average FEV1 AUC0-12h with treatment, region, background medication strata and smoking strata as fixed effects and baseline FEV1 as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1236|0.0647|<0.0001
95764190|NCT03135015|191498532|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-14.09||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.1146
95764191|NCT03135015|191498532|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-17.42||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0519
95859092|NCT02304367|191676099|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline total FGF23.||Week 240||||0.006
95859093|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 24||||< 0.001
95756061|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.09|-0.11|
95859094|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 48||||< 0.001
95756062|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.38|
95756063|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.16|-0.37|
95756064|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.46|0.13|
95756065|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.29|-0.04|
95756066|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-0.01|-0.33|
95756067|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
95756068|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.04|-0.16|
95756069|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.10|-0.10|
95756070|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.09|-0.15|
95859095|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 96||||<0.001
95859096|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95859097|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95946604|NCT03883724|191865500|OTHER|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||between-group analysis was completed comparing of Pre- to Post-Intervention change adjusting for baseline value of the outcome||||0.3
95946605|NCT00910962|191865502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.38|0.46|0.4110
95756071|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.16|
95799753|NCT04950686|191571079|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
95799754|NCT04950686|191571080|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
95799755|NCT04950686|191571080|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
95756072|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.11|-0.13|
95756073|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.07|-0.13|
95756074|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.03|-0.23|
95799756|NCT04950686|191571081|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
95799757|NCT04950686|191571081|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
95799758|NCT04950686|191571082|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|0.24|0.682
95799759|NCT04950686|191571082|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.69|0.28|0.630
95799760|NCT04950686|191571083|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.82|0.12|0.418
95799761|NCT04950686|191571083|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|0.13|0.194
95799762|NCT04950686|191571084|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.07|0.10|0.731
95799763|NCT04950686|191571084|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.34|0.16|0.786
95799764|NCT04950686|191571085|SUPERIORITY|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|0.16|0.710
95946606|NCT00910962|191865502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.74|0.60|0.9318
95946607|NCT00910962|191865502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.46|0.56|0.6805
95756075|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.00|-0.20|
95946608|NCT00910962|191865503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.34|0.39|0.2990
95946609|NCT00910962|191865503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.90|0.60|0.8235
95946610|NCT00910962|191865503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Cox' proportional hazards model|||||1.51|0.52|0.6590
95946611|NCT00910962|191865509|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.59|0.151
95946612|NCT00910962|191865509|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.95||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.70|0.744
95756076|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.01|-0.22|
95756077|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.23|-0.44|
95756078|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.11|-0.33|
95756079|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.16|
95799765|NCT04950686|191571085|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.73|0.16|0.610
95799766|NCT04950686|191571086|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.33|.09|0.270
95799767|NCT04950686|191571086|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|18.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.57|0.08|0.465
95859098|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95946613|NCT00910962|191865509|SUPERIORITY||test to treatment ratio|0.87||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.66|0.317
95946614|NCT00910962|191865510|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.80|0.83
95946615|NCT00910962|191865510|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||ANCOVA|||||1.39|0.84|0.56
95946616|NCT00910962|191865510|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.84|0.65
95946617|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||Test to reference ratio|0.77||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.99|0.60|0.040
95991665|NCT00510276|191958700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of alcohol score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.08|-0.39|0.198
95946618|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.85|0.52|0.001
95946619|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.89|0.57|0.003
95946620|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 48 hours||0.78|0.40|<0.001
95946621|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 48 hours||0.65|0.33|<0.001
95756080|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.31|0.04|
95756081|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.34|0.07|
95756082|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.01|-0.23|
95946622|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 48 hours||0.69|0.38|<0.001
95946623|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.01|0.45|0.059
95946624|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||0.90|0.40|0.013
95991666|NCT00510276|191958701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of caffeine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.26|-0.33|0.825
95756083|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||-0.04|-0.28|
95756084|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.17|
95756085|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
95756086|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.07|-0.28|
95756087|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.02|-0.19|
95756088|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.37|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.37|0.13|
95756089|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.12|-0.12|
95946625|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||0.92|0.45|0.015
95946626|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||1.03|0.48|0.073
95946627|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.04|0.48|0.075
95756090|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.13|-0.37|
95756091|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.25|0.02|
95756092|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.24|0.01|
95799768|NCT04950686|191571087|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|11.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.95|0.07|0.702
95799769|NCT04950686|191571087|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|0.19|0.538
95799770|NCT04950686|191571088|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.084
95799771|NCT04950686|191571088|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
95799772|NCT04950686|191571089|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
95799773|NCT04950686|191571089|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.854
95799774|NCT04950686|191571090|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.499
95799775|NCT04950686|191571090|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
95799776|NCT04950686|191571091|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|0.14|0.618
95799777|NCT04950686|191571091|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.13|0.10|0.626
95799778|NCT04950686|191571092|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.18|0.23|.232
95859099|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 216||||< 0.001
95946628|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.99|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||0.99|0.50|0.044
95756093|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.11|-0.13|
95756094|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.10|-0.09|
95756095|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.14|
95756096|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.04|-0.15|
95756097|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.03|-0.19|
95756098|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.09|-0.12|
95756099|NCT00444457|191481676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 3 lots were considered equivalent if the maximum difference between any 2 lots is less than 0.693 and greater than -0.693 using the equivalence testing procedure for 3 vaccine groups given by Wiens and Iglewicz, for all 13 serotypes.|Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.17|-0.05|
95756100|NCT00444457|191481677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus toxoid: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.3|
95756101|NCT00444457|191481678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 1: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-2.1|
95756102|NCT00444457|191481678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 2: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.4|
95756103|NCT00444457|191481678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus type 3: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-1.5|
95756104|NCT00444457|191481679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For each of the 5 concomitant antigens (tetanus toxoid, poliovirus Type 1, 2, and 3, and hepatitis b antibodies), non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure for the difference in proportions, is greater than -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B: Difference in proportions (combined 13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-2.4|
95756105|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|4.75||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||4.75|-0.51|
95756106|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.10|-3.09|
95859100|NCT02304367|191676100|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline free FGF23.||Week 240||||< 0.001
95859101|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 24||||0.659
95859102|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 48||||0.752
95991667|NCT00510276|191958703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of nicotine score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||2.17|-0.53|0.233
95991668|NCT00510276|191958704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in TLFB incidence for use of marijuana score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.37|-0.24|0.676
95991669|NCT00510276|191958705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Fagerstorm Test for Nicotine Dependence score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.39|-1.00|0.382
95991670|NCT00510276|191958706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in SASS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.78|-1.24|0.656
95991671|NCT00510276|191958707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Self-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.86|-4.08|0.201
95991672|NCT00510276|191958708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference in CAARS-Inv:SV score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between the atomoxetine group and the placebo group. With approximately 220 patients per arm, assuming a 68% completion rate and an estimated effect size of atomoxetine over placebo of 0.35, using a 5% significance level, the analysis was expected to have 90% power to detect a difference between atomoxetine and placebo at week 12.||-2.72|-7.39|<0.001
95991673|NCT00510276|191958709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|17.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in Driving Behavior Survey Other-Report score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||17.63|-16.41|0.933
95991674|NCT00510276|191958710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Behavioral regulation score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.81|-5.09|0.007
95991675|NCT00510276|191958711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A emotional control section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.35|-1.50|0.219
95991676|NCT00510276|191958712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A GEC section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-2.78|-12.37|0.002
95991677|NCT00510276|191958713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inconsistency section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.29|-0.47|0.644
95991678|NCT00510276|191958714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEFS-A infrequency score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.25|-0.02|0.097
95991679|NCT00510276|191958715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Inhibit Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.37|-1.57|0.002
95991680|NCT00510276|191958716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Initiate section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.02|-1.33|0.044
95991681|NCT00510276|191958717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Metacognition section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-1.55|-7.43|0.003
95991682|NCT00510276|191958718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A negativity section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.23|-0.51|0.456
95756107|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.58||||||Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.58|-5.58|
95946629|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.78||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 4||1.10|0.55|0.157
95946630|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 4||1.28|0.63|0.548
95756108|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|9.19||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||9.19|1.55|
95756109|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.66||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||3.66|-2.77|
95756110|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-1.1||||||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||-1.10|-8.82|
95756111|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.83||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.83|-3.13|
95756112|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.73||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.73|-3.97|
95991683|NCT00510276|191958719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Organization of Materials section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.00|-1.31|0.051
95756113|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|1.88||||||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.88|-3.81|
95756114|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.95||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.95|-1.27|
95756115|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.01||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||3.01|-0.60|
95756116|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76||||||Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.76|-1.04|
95756117|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.74||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.74|-0.38|
95756118|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.99||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.99|-2.33|
95756119|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.23||||||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.23|-4.89|
95756120|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.6||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.60|-1.93|
95799779|NCT04950686|191571092|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.22|0.811
95946631|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.83||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 4||1.14|0.61|0.253
95946632|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.8||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 8||1.13|0.58|0.204
95946633|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.39|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 8||1.39|0.71|0.965
95946634|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 8||1.20|0.66|0.457
95756121|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.28||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.28|-3.46|
95756122|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.02||||||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.02|-3.87|
95946635|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 14||2.22|1.13|0.008
95946636|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.38|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 14||2.38|1.21|0.002
95946637|NCT00910962|191865511|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 14||2.21|1.21|0.001
95946638|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 24 hours||0.69|0.43|<0.001
95991684|NCT00510276|191958720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Plan/Organize section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.47|-2.19|0.002
95991685|NCT00510276|191958721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A SHIFT section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.01|-1.04|0.045
95756123|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||7.46|-1.03|
95756124|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|8.39||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||8.39|-0.27|
95756125|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|5.46||||||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.46|-3.75|
95756126|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||3.18|-1.48|
95756127|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.34||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.34|-2.78|
95756128|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.67||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.67|-3.77|
95756129|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|2.45||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.45|-10.27|
95756130|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-4.57||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-4.57|-16.80|
95756131|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-0.74||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.74|-12.76|
95756132|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.69||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.69|0.15|
95946639|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 24 hours||0.82|0.50|<0.001
95946640|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.73|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 24 hours||0.73|0.48|<0.001
95946641|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 2||0.98|0.59|0.031
95946642|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.88||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 2||1.13|0.68|0.315
95946643|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.82||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 2||1.02|0.65|0.075
95946644|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||1.02|0.65|0.068
95946645|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.97||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.22|0.78|0.824
95756133|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|3.09||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||3.09|-3.52|
95756134|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|-0.36||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||-0.36|-7.92|
95756135|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.23||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||5.23|0.12|
95756136|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.86||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.86|-2.22|
95756137|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.27||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||-0.27|-5.39|
95756138|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.3||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.30|-0.47|
95756139|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.18||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.18|-1.12|
95756140|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.52||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.52|-2.30|
95756141|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.8||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.80|-2.91|
95756142|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.19||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.19|-2.69|
95756143|NCT00444457|191481680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exact, unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.04||||||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.04|-1.40|
95756144|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.81|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||1.81|-1.61|
95756145|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.23|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.23|-2.39|
95756146|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.20|-2.54|
95859103|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 96||||0.594
95756147|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.11|-1.02|
95756148|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.04|-1.03|
95756149|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.13|
95946646|NCT00910962|191865512|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.89||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||1.09|0.73|0.246
95946647|NCT00910962|191865513|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For 72 hours||1.21|0.89|0.66
95756150|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.37|-1.25|
95756151|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.76|
95756152|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||2.18|-0.87|
95756153|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.62|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.62|-0.74|
95756154|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.04|-1.03|
95756155|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.76|-1.61|
95756156|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||2.39|-1.52|
95756157|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||1.04|-2.30|
95756158|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.74|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.74|-2.87|
95756159|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.5|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.50|-2.55|
95756160|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.57|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.57|-3.06|
95756161|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.00|-2.44|
95756162|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.05|-1.21|
95756163|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||3.16|-0.52|
95756164|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.87|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||2.87|-1.05|
95756165|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|2.53|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.53|-0.17|
95756166|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.44|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||2.44|-0.20|
95756167|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.66|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.66|-1.79|
95756168|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-2.85|
95756169|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|0.21|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.21|-9.99|
95756170|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-2.37|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-2.37|-13.14|
95946648|NCT00910962|191865513|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.07||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For 72 hours||1.25|0.92|0.39
95756171|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.84|-1.00|
95756172|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.3|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.30|-1.27|
95946649|NCT00910962|191865513|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For 72 hours||1.21|0.92|0.47
95756173|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.02|-1.84|
95756174|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.08|-1.04|
95756175|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.76|
95756176|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.56|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.56|-0.83|
95756177|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.09|-0.47|
95756178|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.0|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||2.00|-0.48|
95756179|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.49|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.49|-1.59|
95756180|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.09|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.09|-1.04|
95756181|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.04|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.04|-1.05|
95756182|NCT00444457|191481681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.07|-1.09|
95946650|NCT00910962|191865514|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.78|0.92
95946651|NCT00910962|191865514|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.08||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.85|0.52
95756183|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|3.63|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.63|-6.52|
95756184|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.15|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-2.15|-11.30|
95799780|NCT04950686|191571093|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|0.16|0.427
95859104|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.614|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 144||||0.614
95946652|NCT00910962|191865514|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.84|0.76
95946653|NCT00910962|191865515|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.93||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.20|0.72|0.57
95946654|NCT00910962|191865515|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.18|0.72|0.52
95946655|NCT00910962|191865515|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.92||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For discharge/early withdrawal||1.16|0.74|0.50
95946656|NCT00910962|191865515|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.96|0.55|0.03
95756185|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.79|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.79|-9.85|
95756186|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.07|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||2.07|-1.19|
95756187|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.06|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.06|-1.69|
95756188|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.75|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.75|-2.27|
95756189|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|1.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.82|-9.46|
95756190|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|0.76|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.76|-10.24|
95946657|NCT00910962|191865515|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||1.07|0.61|0.14
95756191|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.41|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||4.41|-6.30|
95756192|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.73|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.73|-2.14|
95799781|NCT04950686|191571093|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.68|0.25|0.337
95756193|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.39|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.39|-1.69|
95756194|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.59|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||2.59|-1.46|
95756195|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|0.2|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.20|-11.17|
95756196|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|-4.7|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-4.70|-15.31|
95756197|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.46|-9.55|
95756198|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.52|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||2.52|-4.23|
95756199|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.40|-6.35|
95756200|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.33|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.33|-5.44|
95756201|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|4.8|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.80|-3.67|
95756202|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|6.28|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||6.28|-2.38|
95946658|NCT00910962|191865515|SUPERIORITY||test to reference ratio|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.98|0.60|0.04
95946659|NCT00910962|191865516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|1.41|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||1.41|-5.25|0.254
95756203|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|5.82|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||5.82|-3.06|
95756204|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|5.08|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||5.08|-3.34|
95756205|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.18|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||1.18|-6.39|
95756206|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|0.46|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.46|-7.45|
95756207|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||8.55|-5.20|
95756208|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|2.16|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||2.16|-11.79|
95756209|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|0.54|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.54|-13.51|
95756210|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.13|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.13|-0.84|
95756211|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.11|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||4.11|-3.14|
95756212|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.4|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||1.40|-6.72|
95756213|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.02|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||3.02|-0.87|
95756214|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.71|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||1.71|-1.62|
95756215|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.92|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.92|-3.00|
95756216|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.67|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||4.67|-0.62|
95756217|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.55|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||1.55|-2.67|
95756218|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.01|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||-0.01|-5.11|
95756219|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.1|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||2.10|-0.45|
95756220|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.58|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.58|-0.75|
95756221|NCT00444457|191481683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence test of Wiens and Iglewicz used to evaluate consistency among the three 13vPnC lots.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.05|||||Exact unconditional 2-sided 95% CI on the pairwise difference in proportions; expressed as a percentage.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.05|-1.86|
95756222|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.13|-0.10|
95859105|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 168||||0.542
95946660|NCT00910962|191865516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.62|-6.29|0.106
95859106|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 192||||0.067
95859107|NCT02304367|191676101|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 216||||0.330
95859108|NCT02304367|191676101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline 24-hour urinary phosphorus.||Week 240||||0.161
95946661|NCT00910962|191865516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|0.69|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Day 3-5 (visit 1)||0.69|-5.44|0.126
95991686|NCT00510276|191958722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Self Monitor Section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.32|-1.35|0.001
95756223|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.17|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.17|-0.41|
95756224|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 4||-0.19|-0.43|
95756225|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.30|0.06|
95756226|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.23|-0.00|
95756227|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||0.06|-0.18|
95756228|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
95756229|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.07|-0.15|
95756230|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.09|-0.13|
95756231|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.06|-0.19|
95756232|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.08|-0.17|
95756233|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.15|-0.11|
95756234|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.00|-0.25|
95756235|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.12|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||-0.12|-0.37|
95859109|NCT02304367|191676102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
95859110|NCT02304367|191676102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
95946662|NCT00910962|191865516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.92|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For Week 12||0.92|-4.74|0.184
95946663|NCT00910962|191865516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.43|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For Week 12||0.43|-5.37|0.093
95859111|NCT02304367|191676102|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 96||||0.001
95859112|NCT02304367|191676102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95859113|NCT02304367|191676102|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95859114|NCT02304367|191676102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95859115|NCT02304367|191676102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
95859116|NCT02304367|191676102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TRP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
95859117|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 24||||< 0.001
95756236|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.01|-0.25|
95756237|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.11|-0.18|
95756238|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.22|-0.51|
95756239|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||-0.20|-0.47|
95756240|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.11|-0.17|
95859118|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 48||||< 0.001
95946664|NCT00910962|191865516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.4|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For Week 12||0.40|-4.78|0.096
95756241|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.22|-0.07|
95756242|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.25|-0.03|
95756243|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.06|-0.20|
95756244|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.03|-0.21|
95756245|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||0.11|-0.15|
95756246|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.18|-0.06|
95756247|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||0.04|-0.18|
95859119|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 96||||0.002
95859120|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR||Week 144||||< 0.001
95859121|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95859122|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95859123|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 216||||< 0.001
95859124|NCT02304367|191676103|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline TmP/GFR.||Week 240||||< 0.001
95859125|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 24||||< 0.001
95859126|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 48||||< 0.001
95946665|NCT00910962|191865517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.62|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||9.62|-1.18|0.124
95946666|NCT00910962|191865517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|11.47|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||11.47|0.63|0.029
95799782|NCT04950686|191571094|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.419
95756248|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||-0.01|-0.25|
95756249|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.28|0.05|
95756250|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.21|-0.00|
95756251|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||0.05|-0.17|
95756252|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.19|-0.04|
95756253|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.21|-0.02|
95756254|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||0.14|-0.10|
95946667|NCT00910962|191865517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.00|0.28|0.039
95946668|NCT00910962|191865518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|-2.79|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVEDV||-2.79|-40.27|0.025
95756255|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.15|-0.10|
95946669|NCT00910962|191865518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.58|0.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVEDV||0.29|-37.58|0.053
95946670|NCT00910962|191865518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.09||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-3.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVEDV||-3.18|-37.01|0.021
95946671|NCT00910962|191865518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|-2.14|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg (A): For LVESV||-2.14|-29.51|0.024
95756256|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.07|-0.17|
95756257|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||0.05|-0.20|
95756258|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.13|-0.11|
95756259|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.10|-0.14|
95756260|NCT00444457|191481684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log-transformed GM|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||2-sided 95% CI were constructed by back transformation of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed assay results computed using the Student t distribution.|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||0.08|-0.15|
95756261|NCT01629966|191481800|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.17|||MMRM|||||0.17|-2.71|0.0830
95756262|NCT01629966|191481800|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-0.34|||MMRM|||||-0.34|-3.26|0.0156
95799783|NCT04950686|191571094|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.808|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.808
95859127|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
95946672|NCT00910962|191865518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-3.29|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs Losmapimod 15 mg followed by Losmapimod 7.5 mg (B): For LVESV||-3.29|-31.14|0.016
95946673|NCT00910962|191865518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-4.13|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Placebo (P) vs A and B Combined (C): For LVESV||-4.13|-28.91|0.010
95946674|NCT00910962|191865519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.21||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.51|5.09|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||5.09|-49.51|0.109
95946675|NCT00910962|191865519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.22|20.96|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||20.96|-35.22|0.614
95946676|NCT00910962|191865519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.52|10.18|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||10.18|-39.52|0.243
95756263|NCT01629966|191481801|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.37||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.02|||MMRM|||||0.02|-2.75|0.0536
95756264|NCT01629966|191481801|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.11|||MMRM|||||-0.11|-2.94|0.0349
95756265|NCT01150890|191481802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1941|||||||Overall Trend test|||The primary null hypothesis was tested sequentially using a linear trend test at the significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) using logistic regression modeling.||||0.1941
95756266|NCT01150890|191481802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.09|1.0000
95756267|NCT01150890|191481802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1203||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||Chi-squared|||||0.26|-0.02|0.0966
95859128|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95756268|NCT01150890|191481802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0597||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||Chi-squared|||||0.17|-0.06|0.3208
95756269|NCT01150890|191481803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0363||||0.6831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Chi-squared|||||0.21|-0.14|0.6831
95756270|NCT01150890|191481803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.1477||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|-0.04|0.1396
95756271|NCT01150890|191481803|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0265||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||Chi-squared|||||0.19|-0.14|0.7588
95756272|NCT01150890|191481804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.4161
95756273|NCT01150890|191481804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8094|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.8094
95756274|NCT01150890|191481804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CDAI score.||||||0.3040
95756275|NCT01672970|191481825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756276|NCT01672970|191481825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756277|NCT01672970|191481826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.001
95756278|NCT01672970|191481826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.005
95756279|NCT01672970|191481827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756280|NCT01672970|191481827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756281|NCT01672970|191481828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756282|NCT01672970|191481828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
95756283|NCT01672970|191481831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95859129|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95859130|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95756284|NCT01672970|191481831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756285|NCT01672970|191481832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756286|NCT01672970|191481832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756287|NCT01672970|191481837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756288|NCT01672970|191481837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95946677|NCT00910962|191865520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.44|0.023
95946678|NCT00910962|191865520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.45|0.021
95946679|NCT00910962|191865520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.42|0.011
95946680|NCT00910962|191865521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.137
95946681|NCT00910962|191865521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.32|0.036
95946682|NCT00910962|191865521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.28|0.047
95756289|NCT01672970|191481838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756290|NCT01672970|191481838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756291|NCT01672970|191481839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756292|NCT01672970|191481839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756293|NCT01672970|191481840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756294|NCT01672970|191481840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756295|NCT01672970|191481841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756296|NCT01672970|191481841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95946683|NCT05553366|191865527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95859131|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 216||||< 0.001
95756297|NCT01672970|191481842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 3||||0.000
95756298|NCT01672970|191481842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical Analysis at Month 6||||0.000
95756299|NCT01997229|191481863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|0.96|||ANCOVA|||||0.96|-24.33|0.0698
95756300|NCT02304991|191481879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.002
95756301|NCT02304991|191481880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat; participants not completing the DBPCFC considered to have challenge score of zero||||0.0005
95756302|NCT02304991|191481881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95756303|NCT02304991|191481882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||0.01
95756304|NCT02304991|191481883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per protocol analysis of patients with available samples.||||<0.0001
95756305|NCT02304991|191481884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
95756306|NCT04568031|191481885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95756307|NCT04568031|191481885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95756308|NCT04568031|191481890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95756309|NCT04568031|191481890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95756310|NCT04568031|191481893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95756311|NCT04568031|191481893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95756312|NCT04430855|191481897|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|27.2|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo = upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved HiSCR response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (25%). The historical placebo rate of 25% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||27.2|-0.6|0.018
95756313|NCT04430855|191481897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo HiSCR data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic HiSCR was 29.2%.||25.9|-7.6|0.142
95859132|NCT02304367|191676104|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline FEP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
95859133|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 24||||0.878
95859134|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 48||||0.081
95756314|NCT04430855|191481897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.7||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved HiSCR at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||36.0|-6.6|0.087
95756315|NCT04430855|191481898|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|30.3|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference compared to historical placebo (upadacitinib 30 mg - historical placebo)|The primary analysis compared the percentage of participants in the upadacitinib 30 mg treatment group who achieved NRS30 response to that of a prespecified, single historical placebo rate (22.5%). The historical placebo rate of 22.5% was assumed based on the corresponding response rates of placebo participants satisfying the same key eligibility criteria from the 2 adalimumab HS Phase 3 studies, Study M11-313 (NCT01468207) and Study M11-810 (NCT01468233).||30.3|-2.5|0.028
95756316|NCT04430855|191481898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|4.5||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo (in-trial + synthetic)|As a supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was further analyzed by comparing upadacitinib with in-trial placebo participants combined with subjects with historical placebo NRS30 data pre-selected using propensity score matching from adalimumab studies M11-313 and M11-810 and risankizumab study M16-833 (NCT03926169), whose study populations, entry criteria and study designs were similar to this study. The placebo in-trial + synthetic NRS30 was 31.3%.||23.5|-14.6|0.323
95756317|NCT04430855|191481898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|2.2||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline Hurley Stage \[Stage \< III, Stage III\] and prior TNF use \[Yes or No\])|Response rate difference = upadacitinib 30 mg - placebo|As an additional supplemental analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved NRS30 at Week 12 was also analyzed by comparing upadacitinib 30 mg with in-trial placebo participants.||24.0|-19.6|0.421
95756318|NCT01822574|191481905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.001
95756319|NCT01822574|191481906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
95756320|NCT01822574|191481907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.240
95946684|NCT05553366|191865528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
95756321|NCT03801382|191481908|EQUIVALENCE|Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Validity and test-retest reliability were explored|||>.05
95756322|NCT00390221|191481916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.668||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.668|0.318|<0.0001
95799784|NCT04950686|191571095|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
95946685|NCT05553366|191865529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0016
95756323|NCT00390221|191481916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.503||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.721||adjusted for the number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 vs \> 2.5), and age (\<=35 vs \>35)|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.721|0.352|0.0002
95756324|NCT00390221|191481917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.97|86.35|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||86.35|65.97|<0.0001
95756325|NCT00390221|191481917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|69.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.4|80.41|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for the baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||80.41|52.40|<0.0001
95756326|NCT00390221|191481918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|78.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.33|84.22|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||84.22|71.33|<0.0001
95756327|NCT00390221|191481918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|70.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.94|77.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|adjusted for baseline number of T2 lesions||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||77.88|59.94|<0.0001
95756328|NCT00390221|191481919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio|0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.72||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.72|0.33|0.0003
95756329|NCT00390221|191481919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.67||Covariates included were number of relapses in the 1 year prior to study entry (p=0.001), baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (\<=2.5 versus \>2.5, p=0.449), and age (\<=35 versus \>35, p=0.026).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.67|0.30|<0.0001
95799785|NCT04950686|191571095|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.486
95799786|NCT04950686|191571096|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
95859135|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 96||||0.001
95946686|NCT05553366|191865530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1315
95946687|NCT05553366|191865531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0343
95946688|NCT05553366|191865532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0014
95946689|NCT05553366|191865533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
95946690|NCT05553366|191865534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8592
95946691|NCT05553366|191865535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9143
95946692|NCT05553366|191865536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0205
95756330|NCT00390221|191481920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-1.93||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.56||Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.|Analysis of Variance|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||0.56|-4.42|0.1284
95991687|NCT00510276|191958723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Task Monitor section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.19|-1.23|0.008
95799787|NCT04950686|191571096|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.226
95991688|NCT00510276|191958724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in BRIEF-A Working Memory section score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||-0.63|-1.98|<0.001
95756331|NCT00390221|191481920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Mean Change|-4.27||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.78|||Analysis of Variance|Analysis of variance for difference between treatment groups, controlling for baseline score.||For each of the secondary endpoints, a sequential closed testing procedure was used, with the first comparison (the DAC HYP 300 mg group versus placebo) and the second comparison (the DAC HYP 150 mg group versus placebo). Secondary endpoints were rank prioritized, in the order presented. If statistical significance was not achieved for an endpoint, all endpoints(s) of a lower rank were not considered statistically significant.||-1.78|-6.76|0.0008
95756332|NCT01193127|191481924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.6|1.1||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model|All data time points collected used in the analysis.|OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||1.1|0.6|0.0000
95756333|NCT01193127|191481924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0||95.0|0.5|0.9||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, ketorolac tromethamine, and vehicle), time-point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model|OMS302 - ketorolac tromethamine||||0.9|0.5|0.0000
95756334|NCT01193127|191481925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0421||95.0|-8.9|-0.2||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates|repeated measures model||OMS302 - Vehicle (BSS)|||-0.2|-8.9|0.0421
95756335|NCT01193127|191481925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-squares mean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0093||95.0|-10.3|-1.5||Repeated measures model includes treatment (OMS302, PE and vehicle), time point and LOCS II grade as covariates.|repeated measures model||OMS302 - PE|||-1.5|-10.3|0.0093
95756336|NCT01193127|191481926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.630
95756337|NCT01193127|191481926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.769
95799788|NCT04950686|191571097|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.630
95991689|NCT00510276|191958725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for baseline score, treatment, and investigator||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in ESS score changes from baseline to 12-week endpoint between atomoxetine and placebo treatment groups.||0.04|-1.42|0.065
95991690|NCT00510276|191958726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Tested was smoking status across treatment.||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.788
95756338|NCT01193127|191481926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
95991691|NCT00510276|191958727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||Tested was smoking status across treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tested was the null hypothesis that smoking status is not a predictor of strong response to atomoxetine treatment compared with placebo||||0.482
95756339|NCT01193127|191481927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
95756340|NCT01193127|191481927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
95756341|NCT01193127|191481927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
95756342|NCT01193127|191481928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.177
95859136|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95946693|NCT03274076|191865540|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|8.33|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 3 (severe) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib.||8.33|0.19|
95946694|NCT03274076|191865541|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.71|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 12 in Tofacitinib||1.71|0.25|
95991692|NCT03285243|191958728|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori, All p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95991693|NCT03285243|191958729|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori, all p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
95756343|NCT01193127|191481928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.051
95756344|NCT01193127|191481928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.497
95756345|NCT01193127|191481929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
95799789|NCT04950686|191571097|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.880
95799790|NCT04950686|191571098|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
95799791|NCT04950686|191571098|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
95799792|NCT04950686|191571099|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
95799793|NCT04950686|191571099|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
95799794|NCT04950686|191571100|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
95756346|NCT01193127|191481929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.090
95756347|NCT01193127|191481929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.439
95756348|NCT01193127|191481930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.812
95799795|NCT04950686|191571100|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
95859137|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95946695|NCT03274076|191865541|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|1.07|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 24 in Tofacitinib||1.07|0.26|
95946696|NCT03274076|191865541|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.49|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||1.49|0.49|
95946697|NCT03274076|191865541|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.52|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of grade 2 (moderate) or higher adverse events that occur throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||1.52|0.52|
95946698|NCT03274076|191865542|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|21.77|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 36 in Tofacitinib||21.77|0.68|
95946699|NCT03274076|191865542|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5169|6.7652|||||Tofacitinib represents the numerator, and Placebo represents the denominator.|H0: Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Placebo = Rate of adverse events of special interest throughout week 48 in Tofacitinib||6.7652|0.5169|
95946700|NCT03274076|191865543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1978|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.1978
95991694|NCT01727258|191958732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|14.25||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Colgate Regular. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||14.25|7.45|<0.001
95991695|NCT01727258|191958732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.729||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||1.67|-5.16|0.314
95991696|NCT01727258|191958732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|16.03||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||16.03|9.17|<0.001
95991697|NCT01727258|191958733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|8.41||If Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse is better than Colgate Regular (p\<0.05), testing would proceed to comparison of Wk 2 Mean Tactile Sensitivity Scores between Potassium Oxalate Mouthrinse and Sensodyne. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.41|3.76|<0.001
95756349|NCT01193127|191481930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
95756350|NCT01193127|191481930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
95946701|NCT03274076|191865543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4665|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4665
95946702|NCT03274076|191865543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 36 in Tofacitinib.||||0.3063
95756351|NCT01193127|191481931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.085
95756352|NCT01193127|191481931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.742
95946703|NCT03274076|191865543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in placebo = The absolute change in mRSS from week 0 to week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.6000
95946704|NCT03274076|191865544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4535|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 12 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 12 in Tofacitinib.||||0.4535
95946705|NCT03274076|191865544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8392|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 24 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 24 in Tofacitinib.||||0.8392
95946706|NCT03274076|191865544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Exact Wilcoxon|||H0: The CRISS score at week 48 in placebo = The CRISS score at week 48 in Tofacitinib.||||0.9212
95946707|NCT02909959|191865573|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.331|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.331
95756353|NCT01193127|191481931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.021
95756354|NCT01193127|191481932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.081
95756355|NCT01193127|191481932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.202
95756356|NCT01193127|191481932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.606
95799796|NCT04950686|191571101|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
95756357|NCT01193127|191481933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.893
95756358|NCT01193127|191481933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.553
95799797|NCT04950686|191571101|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
95799798|NCT04950686|191571102|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.301|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.301
95756359|NCT01193127|191481933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.412
95756360|NCT01193127|191481934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.186
95756361|NCT01193127|191481934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.191
95859138|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95946708|NCT02909959|191865574|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.98
95991698|NCT01727258|191958733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.183||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||2.52|-2.16|0.881
95991699|NCT01727258|191958733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|8.24||Significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||8.24|3.57|<0.001
95756362|NCT01193127|191481934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.167
95756363|NCT01193127|191481935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.663
95756364|NCT01193127|191481935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.326
95756365|NCT01193127|191481935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
95756366|NCT01193127|191481936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.106
95859139|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 216||||0.055
95756367|NCT01193127|191481936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.519
95756368|NCT01193127|191481936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.039
95756369|NCT01193127|191481937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.100
95756370|NCT01193127|191481937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.029
95756371|NCT01193127|191481937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.525
95756372|NCT01193127|191481938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.642
95756373|NCT01193127|191481938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
95756374|NCT01193127|191481938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.467
95756375|NCT01193127|191481939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.695
95756376|NCT01193127|191481939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
95756377|NCT01193127|191481939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.369
95756378|NCT01193127|191481940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.124
95756379|NCT01193127|191481940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
95756380|NCT01193127|191481940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
95756381|NCT01193127|191481941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.825
95756382|NCT01193127|191481941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.211
95946709|NCT02909959|191865575|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.797|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.797
95756383|NCT01193127|191481941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.589
95756384|NCT01193127|191481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.401
95756385|NCT01193127|191481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.200
95756386|NCT01193127|191481942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.478
95756387|NCT01193127|191481943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.758
95756388|NCT01193127|191481943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.521
95756389|NCT01193127|191481943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.432
95756390|NCT01193127|191481944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
95756391|NCT01193127|191481944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
95756392|NCT01193127|191481944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.381
95859140|NCT02304367|191676105|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline ALP.||Week 240||||0.041
95799799|NCT04950686|191571102|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.702
95799800|NCT04950686|191571103|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.13|0.10|0.352
95799801|NCT04950686|191571103|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.11|0.445
95799802|NCT04950686|191571104|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.60|0.12|0.039
95991700|NCT01727258|191958734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.866||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|-1.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.05|-12.38|0.020
95756393|NCT01193127|191481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.646
95799803|NCT04950686|191571104|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.17|0.073
95799804|NCT04950686|191571105|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.93|0.13|0.110
95799805|NCT04950686|191571105|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.78|0.11|0.174
95799806|NCT04950686|191571106|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
95991701|NCT01727258|191958734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||5.78|-5.52|0.964
95991702|NCT01727258|191958734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.845||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-1.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-1.23|-12.47|0.017
95756394|NCT01193127|191481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.950
95756395|NCT01193127|191481945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.160
95756396|NCT01193127|191481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95756397|NCT01193127|191481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
95799807|NCT04950686|191571106|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
95756398|NCT01193127|191481946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.303
95756399|NCT01193127|191481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.789
95756400|NCT01193127|191481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.977
95756401|NCT01193127|191481947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
95756402|NCT01193127|191481948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.632
95756403|NCT01193127|191481948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
95756404|NCT01193127|191481948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.336
95756405|NCT01193127|191481949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
95756406|NCT01193127|191481949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
95756407|NCT01193127|191481949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.353
95756408|NCT01193127|191481950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.463
95756409|NCT01193127|191481950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.406
95756410|NCT01193127|191481950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
95756411|NCT01193127|191481951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.945
95756412|NCT01193127|191481951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.438
95756413|NCT01193127|191481951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.596
95756414|NCT01193127|191481952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.811
95756415|NCT01193127|191481952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.552
95756416|NCT01193127|191481952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.549
95756417|NCT01193127|191481953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
95756418|NCT01193127|191481953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.362
95946710|NCT02909959|191865576|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.442
95756419|NCT01193127|191481953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
95756420|NCT01193127|191481954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.681
95756421|NCT01193127|191481954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
95756422|NCT01193127|191481954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.306
95756423|NCT01193127|191481955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
95756424|NCT01193127|191481955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.602
95756425|NCT01193127|191481955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.290
95756426|NCT01193127|191481956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.244
95756427|NCT01193127|191481956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.122
95756428|NCT01193127|191481956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.790
95756429|NCT01193127|191481957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.752
95756430|NCT01193127|191481957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.355||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.355
95756431|NCT01193127|191481957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
95756432|NCT01193127|191481958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.228
95756433|NCT01193127|191481958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.564
95756434|NCT01193127|191481958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.755
95756435|NCT01193127|191481959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.018
95756436|NCT01193127|191481959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
95756437|NCT01193127|191481959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.298
95756438|NCT01193127|191481960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.271
95756439|NCT01193127|191481960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.345
95756440|NCT01193127|191481960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.096
95799808|NCT04950686|191571107|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.483
95756441|NCT01193127|191481961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.320
95756442|NCT01193127|191481961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.390
95756443|NCT01193127|191481961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.230
95756444|NCT01193127|191481962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
95756445|NCT01193127|191481962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.348
95799809|NCT04950686|191571107|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.933
95756446|NCT01193127|191481962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.477
95756447|NCT01193127|191481963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.374
95756448|NCT01193127|191481963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
95756449|NCT01193127|191481963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.555
95756450|NCT01193127|191481964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
95756451|NCT01193127|191481964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.059
95756452|NCT01193127|191481964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.472
95946711|NCT02909959|191865577|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was measured at the 0.05 alpha level for a two-sided test, so the rejection region for a normally distributed T-score was +/-1.96\*SE(Diff), where SE(Diff) is the estimated standard error of the difference between the LS mean of sulforaphane and LS mean of the placebo group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.373|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was considered statistically significant if the p-value \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model with random intercept and unstructured covariance matrix from baseline to week 16.|This analysis compares LS Mean Sulforaphane - LS Mean Placebo.|The null hypothesis is that the least-square mean of sulforaphane's SRS-2 T-score minus the least-square mean of placebo group's T-score is 0.||||0.373
95756453|NCT01193127|191481965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
95756454|NCT01193127|191481965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.169
95756455|NCT01193127|191481965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.310
95946712|NCT03412747|191865634|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|47.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||47.7|30.9|
95946713|NCT03412747|191865634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.709|11.816||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.816|4.709|<0.001
95756456|NCT01193127|191481966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.075
95756457|NCT01193127|191481966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
95756458|NCT01193127|191481966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.078
95799810|NCT04950686|191571108|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
95859141|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.817
95756459|NCT01193127|191481967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.226
95756460|NCT01193127|191481967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.357
95756461|NCT01193127|191481967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.291
95756462|NCT01193127|191481968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.172
95756463|NCT01193127|191481968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.547
95756464|NCT01193127|191481968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.921
95756465|NCT01193127|191481969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.701
95756466|NCT01193127|191481969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.089
95756467|NCT01193127|191481969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.095
95756468|NCT01193127|191481970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
95756469|NCT01193127|191481970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wicoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.092
95756470|NCT01193127|191481970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.120
95756471|NCT01193127|191481971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.626
95756472|NCT01193127|191481971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.736
95756473|NCT01193127|191481971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.725
95756474|NCT01193127|191481972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.220
95756475|NCT01193127|191481972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.903
95756476|NCT01193127|191481972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.463
95756477|NCT01193127|191481973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.675
95756478|NCT01193127|191481973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|WIlcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.825
95799811|NCT04950686|191571108|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.418
95946714|NCT03412747|191865635|NON_INFERIORITY|The evaluation of non-inferiority is tested at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 and based on a 1-sided 97.5% CI and a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|36.7||||||Risk Difference: BKZ-ADA calculated using stratified CMH.||36.7|19.7|
95756479|NCT01193127|191481973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.668
95756480|NCT01193127|191481974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
95756481|NCT01193127|191481974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2066||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2066
95756482|NCT01193127|191481974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5263
95756483|NCT01193127|191481975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4222||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4222
95756484|NCT01193127|191481975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.2712
95756485|NCT01193127|191481975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8819||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8819
95756486|NCT01193127|191481976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0510
95756487|NCT01193127|191481976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.8084
95756488|NCT01193127|191481976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1495||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1495
95756489|NCT01193127|191481977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4099||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.4099
95756490|NCT01193127|191481977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6499||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6499
95756491|NCT01193127|191481977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0765||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0765
95756492|NCT01193127|191481978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0688
95756493|NCT01193127|191481978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0314
95756494|NCT01193127|191481978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0775||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0775
95756495|NCT01193127|191481979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.5369
95756496|NCT01193127|191481979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3763||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.3763
95946715|NCT03412747|191865635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.341|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.785|6.765||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.765|2.785|<0.001
95946716|NCT03412747|191865636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.515|11.046||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||11.046|3.515|<0.001
95756497|NCT01193127|191481979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6144||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.6144
95756498|NCT01193127|191481980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1374||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.1374
95991703|NCT01727258|191958735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.327||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.35|-13.50|0.039
95756499|NCT01193127|191481980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.9146
95756500|NCT01193127|191481980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on ANOVA model with covariates treatment group and the LOCS II grade group.|ANOVA|||||||0.7599
95756501|NCT01193127|191481981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
95756502|NCT01193127|191481981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
95756503|NCT01193127|191481981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95756504|NCT01193127|191481982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
95756505|NCT01193127|191481982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.647
95756506|NCT01193127|191481982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
95756507|NCT01193127|191481983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
95756508|NCT01193127|191481983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.335
95799812|NCT04950686|191571109|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|98.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||98.76|0.05|0.220
95756509|NCT01193127|191481983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
95756510|NCT01193127|191481984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95756511|NCT01193127|191481984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.559
95756512|NCT01193127|191481984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95756513|NCT01193127|191481985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.824
95756514|NCT01193127|191481985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.476
95756515|NCT01193127|191481985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.281
95756516|NCT01193127|191481986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.842
95756517|NCT01193127|191481986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.619
95756518|NCT01193127|191481986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
95756519|NCT01193127|191481987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
95799813|NCT04950686|191571109|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.3||||||||11.30|0.10|
95859142|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.042
95859143|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
95859144|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95946717|NCT03412747|191865636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.657|9.041||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.041|3.657|<0.001
95946718|NCT03412747|191865637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.683|8.318||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.318|2.683|<0.001
95946719|NCT03412747|191865637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.014|7.523||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.523|3.014|<0.001
95756520|NCT01193127|191481987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
95756521|NCT01193127|191481987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.787
95756522|NCT01193127|191481988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
95756523|NCT01193127|191481988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.166
95756524|NCT01193127|191481988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.987
95756525|NCT01193127|191481989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.134
95756526|NCT01193127|191481989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.710
95756527|NCT01193127|191481989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.310
95756528|NCT01193127|191481990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.086
95756529|NCT01193127|191481990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.183
95756530|NCT01193127|191481990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.029
95756531|NCT01193127|191481991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.206
95756532|NCT01193127|191481991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.021
95756533|NCT01193127|191481991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.026
95756534|NCT01193127|191481992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.822
95756535|NCT01193127|191481992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.424
95756536|NCT01193127|191481992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.695
95946720|NCT03412747|191865638|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.637|10.88||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||10.880|4.637|<0.001
95756537|NCT01193127|191481993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.489
95756538|NCT01193127|191481993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.459
95756539|NCT01193127|191481993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups were based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For subjects with mean count \> 30, the mean count was imputed as 45 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.990
95756540|NCT01193127|191481995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4575
95799814|NCT04950686|191571110|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|63.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.29|0.03|0.506
95799815|NCT04950686|191571110|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|36.32||||||||36.32|0.04|
95799816|NCT04950686|191571111|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.37|0.04|0.877
95799817|NCT04950686|191571111|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.92||||||||26.92|0.02|
95799818|NCT04950686|191571112|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95799819|NCT04950686|191571112|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.00001
95799820|NCT04950686|191571113|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.314
95799821|NCT04950686|191571113|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.176
95799822|NCT04950686|191571114|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95756541|NCT01193127|191481995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8318
95756542|NCT01193127|191481995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8946
95756543|NCT01193127|191481996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
95756544|NCT01193127|191481996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0839||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
95756545|NCT01193127|191481996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||||||Ocular pain medications will be identified by reviewing concomitant medications. Subject incidence of ocular pain medication use at day 1 and post day 1 will be presented. Treatment comparisons will be performed using methodology 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0920
95756546|NCT01193127|191481997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.711
95799823|NCT04950686|191571114|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95859145|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95756547|NCT01193127|191481997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.253
95756548|NCT01193127|191481997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Treatment comparisons between OMS302 and each of the other three groups are based on Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel test adjusting for the LOCS II grade group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
95756549|NCT02022748|191482002|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|151.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.03|203.86|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||203.86|112.03|
95756550|NCT02022748|191482002|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|161.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.52|212.58|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||212.58|122.52|
95756551|NCT02022748|191482002|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.07|103.98|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||103.98|78.07|
95756552|NCT02022748|191482003|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|117.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|162.22|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||162.22|84.51|
95756553|NCT02022748|191482003|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|194.7|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||194.70|95.38|
95756554|NCT02022748|191482003|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|82.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.43|98.96|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||98.96|68.43|
95799824|NCT04950686|191571115|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.132
95799825|NCT04950686|191571115|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95946721|NCT03412747|191865639|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|7.661||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.661|3.230|<0.001
95946722|NCT03412747|191865640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.207|8.593||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||8.593|3.207|<0.001
95946723|NCT03412747|191865640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.257|7.594||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: BKZ/ADA calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.594|3.257|<0.001
95991704|NCT01727258|191958735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||11.61|-1.50|0.130
95756555|NCT02022748|191482004|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|137.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.7|179.52|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||179.52|105.70|
95756556|NCT02022748|191482004|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|148.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.07|192.32|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||192.32|115.07|
95756557|NCT02022748|191482004|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.55|105.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||105.27|77.55|
95756558|NCT02022748|191482005|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|112.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.61|143.42|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.42|88.61|
95756559|NCT02022748|191482005|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|143.45|||||Treatment H is the reference treatment.|||143.45|91.19|
95756560|NCT02022748|191482005|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|93.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.31|108.0|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment B is the reference treatment.|||108.00|80.31|
95756561|NCT02022748|191482006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.75|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.75|-0.97|
95859146|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95859147|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.174
95859148|NCT02304367|191676106|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
95946724|NCT02222493|191865671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|5.11||||||Score statistic method||5.11|-9.92|
95946725|NCT02222493|191865671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence test|Proportion Difference|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|4.02||||||Score statistic method||4.02|-8.75|
95946726|NCT00145470|191865711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257||||||P-value based on the difference in the least squares (LS) means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0257
95756562|NCT02022748|191482006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.52|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||1.52|-0.96|
95756563|NCT02022748|191482006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|1.02|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||1.02|-1.73|
95756564|NCT02022748|191482007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|0.48|||||Treatment A - Treatment H.|||0.48|-2.62|
95756565|NCT02022748|191482007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.37|||||Treatment B - Treatment H.|||0.37|-2.46|
95756566|NCT02022748|191482007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.27|||||A linear mixed model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject-within-sequence as a random effect, was used to analyze the natural log-transformed values of the PK parameters. Treatment A - Treatment B.|||0.27|-1.27|
95799826|NCT04950686|191571116|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.941
95799827|NCT04950686|191571116|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.569
95799828|NCT04950686|191571117|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.354
95799829|NCT04950686|191571117|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
95799830|NCT04950686|191571118|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
95799831|NCT04950686|191571118|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
95859149|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER|||||||0.694|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 24||||0.694
95991705|NCT01727258|191958735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean tactile sensitivity VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-5.43|-18.53|<0.001
95991706|NCT01727258|191958736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-2.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-2.00|-14.51|0.010
95756567|NCT06378749|191482020|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.029
95756568|NCT06378749|191482021|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95756569|NCT06378749|191482022|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95756570|NCT06378749|191482023|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95756571|NCT06378749|191482024|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95756572|NCT04994483|191482034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.37|0.4308
95756573|NCT04994483|191482035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.4034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-0.68|0.4034
95756574|NCT00759902|191482043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|123.0||||||90.0|112.9|134.1|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||134.1|112.9|
95756575|NCT00759902|191482045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|98.5|104.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||104.9|98.5|
95756576|NCT00759902|191482046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|102.9||||||90.0|99.3|106.5|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||106.5|99.3|
95756577|NCT02213510|191482066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95756578|NCT02213510|191482067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.655
95756579|NCT02213510|191482068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.811
95756580|NCT02213510|191482069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95859150|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 48||||0.047
95991707|NCT01727258|191958736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|10.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||10.51|-1.98|0.179
95991708|NCT01727258|191958736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-6.25|-18.79|<0.001
95991709|NCT01727258|191958737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-4.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.93|-18.93|<0.001
95799832|NCT04950686|191571119|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
95799833|NCT04950686|191571119|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
95799834|NCT04950686|191571120|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
95799835|NCT04950686|191571120|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.103
95859151|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 96||||< 0.001
95859152|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95991710|NCT01727258|191958737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|12.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||12.53|-1.44|0.119
95756581|NCT02213510|191482070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
95756582|NCT02213510|191482071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.646
95859153|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95756583|NCT02213510|191482072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
95859154|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95756584|NCT02213510|191482073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.651
95859155|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 216||||0.170
95756585|NCT02213510|191482074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.588
95756586|NCT02213510|191482075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.858
95756587|NCT02213510|191482076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95756588|NCT03954834|191482077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-2.18|<0.001
95756589|NCT03954834|191482077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-2.21|<0.001
95756590|NCT03954834|191482077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
95756591|NCT03954834|191482078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.7|-7.8|<0.001
95756592|NCT03954834|191482078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.6|<0.001
95756593|NCT03954834|191482078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.2|-10.3|<0.001
95756594|NCT03954834|191482079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.12|113.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.67|21.12|<0.001
95756595|NCT03954834|191482079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|80.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|203.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||203.19|31.80|<0.001
95756596|NCT03954834|191482079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|125.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||125.73|22.30|<0.001
95756597|NCT03954834|191482080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9|-11.9|0.776
95756598|NCT03954834|191482080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8|-13.0|0.622
95756599|NCT03954834|191482080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-11.1|0.908
95756600|NCT03954834|191482081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|209.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||209.71|7.74|<0.001
95756601|NCT03954834|191482081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|178.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.19|6.53|<0.001
95756602|NCT03954834|191482081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.36|443.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||443.13|16.36|<0.001
95756603|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-31.2|-44.1|<0.001
95799836|NCT04950686|191571121|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
95799837|NCT04950686|191571121|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.054
95799838|NCT04950686|191571122|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
95991711|NCT01727258|191958737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-10.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment and baseline mean air stimulus VAS score.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-10.42|-24.52|<0.001
95756604|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-32.2|-45.1|<0.001
95756605|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Premeal - Fasting||-29.8|-43.1|<0.001
95799839|NCT04950686|191571122|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
95756606|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-47.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-47.4|-68.4|<0.001
95756607|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.3|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-39.2|-60.3|<0.001
95756608|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-46.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour Postmeal||-46.4|-68.1|<0.001
95756609|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-32.2|-49.6|<0.001
95756610|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.2|-48.6|<0.001
95756611|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Premeal||-31.1|-49.0|<0.001
95756612|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-40.4|-62.5|<0.001
95756613|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-36.2|-58.4|<0.001
95756614|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour Postmeal||-39.3|-62.1|<0.001
95756615|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-30.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.4|-47.6|<0.001
95859156|NCT02304367|191676107|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline BALP.||Week 240||||< 0.001
95756616|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-30.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-30.6|-47.9|<0.001
95756617|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-27.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Premeal||-27.5|-45.3|<0.001
95756618|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.1|-63.2|<0.001
95756619|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-40.9|-64.1|<0.001
95756620|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-41.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour Postmeal||-41.3|-65.1|<0.001
95756621|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6|-37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-37.4|-58.6|<0.001
95756622|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||-40.1|-61.3|<0.001
95756623|NCT03954834|191482082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
95991712|NCT00820755|191958739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.959||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.25|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]' versus 'other').||1.250|0.736|0.1265
95991713|NCT00820755|191958741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.0622||95.0|0.613|0.976|||Log Rank|||Exploratory analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference between maintenance therapy regimen. Model is adjusted by histology (IVRS) and tumor response status at the end of combination therapy ('CR or PR' versus 'other').||0.976|0.613|0.0622
95756624|NCT03954834|191482083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|23.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.94|6.43|<0.001
95991714|NCT02175680|191958777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|The time to Virologic Failure for the subjects treated with PRO 140 monotherapy was compared to historical data.|||The median time to Virologic Failure for historical controls was 29 days.|||<0.0001
95756625|NCT03954834|191482083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.59|42.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.18|10.59|<0.001
95756626|NCT03954834|191482083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|40.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.04|10.09|<0.001
95756627|NCT02684630|191482093|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
95756628|NCT02684630|191482094|OTHER|A procedure is a success if the donor's post-procedure platelet count is ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL, lower one-sided 95% confidence interval for the procedure success rate is at least 95%.|Simple sample proportion|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.951||||||Estimated proportion is 100%. Hence standard deviation is estimated as 0.|"Sample Size Determination:~Up to 160 participants were to be enrolled in this study to ensure 60 evaluable single platelet product collections and 60 evaluable double platelet product collections. This number was chosen to meet the FDA requirements of 95% of postprocedure participant platelet count of ≥ 100,000 platelets/μL with 95% confidence."|||0.951|
95756629|NCT00000378|191482095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||actual calculation|Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression and mixed effects model||||<0.05
95756630|NCT00505375|191482115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.0014
95756631|NCT02906930|191482116|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.3|<0.0001
95764192|NCT03135015|191498532|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||
95799840|NCT04950686|191571123|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
95799841|NCT04950686|191571123|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
95799842|NCT04950686|191571124|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
95991715|NCT04506294|191958819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.536
95991716|NCT00874250|191958820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|0.996|||Binomial Test|||||0.996|0.895|0.0024
95991717|NCT02986230|191958829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
95756632|NCT02906930|191482116|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
95756633|NCT02906930|191482116|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
95756634|NCT02906930|191482116|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
95756635|NCT02906930|191482116|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
95756636|NCT02906930|191482116|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
95764193|NCT03135015|191498533|OTHER|||||||0.1146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.1146
95799843|NCT04950686|191571124|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.579
95799844|NCT04950686|191571125|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.485
95799845|NCT04950686|191571125|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
95799846|NCT04950686|191571126|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.583|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.583
95799847|NCT04950686|191571126|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.971
95859157|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.090
95756637|NCT02906930|191482117|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
95756638|NCT02906930|191482117|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-1.9|0.0866
95756639|NCT02906930|191482117|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any additional anti-diabetic medication for all randomised subjects regardless of premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern mixed model||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to impute missing data for week 26, assuming that the missing data mechanism was missing at random within the groups used for the imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.8|-0.9|0.8692
95756640|NCT02906930|191482117|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.7075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-1.0|0.7075
95799848|NCT04950686|191571127|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
95799849|NCT04950686|191571127|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
95799850|NCT04950686|191571128|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
95799851|NCT04950686|191571128|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.578
95799852|NCT04950686|191571129|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
95859158|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.226
95946727|NCT00145470|191865714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 42||||0.0210
95756641|NCT02906930|191482117|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.8|0.0138
95946728|NCT00145470|191865715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0073
95756642|NCT02906930|191482117|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.4|<0.0001
95756643|NCT02906930|191482140|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.78|0.26|0.0043
95756644|NCT02906930|191482140|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.59||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.59|0.18|0.0002
95756645|NCT02906930|191482140|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.60|0.19|0.0002
95756646|NCT02906930|191482141|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.93||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.93|0.25|0.0300
95799853|NCT04950686|191571129|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.538|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
95799854|NCT04950686|191571130|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.662|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
95799855|NCT04950686|191571130|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
95799856|NCT04950686|191571131|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
95946729|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3928
95946730|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.7923
95946731|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.0701
95946732|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1634|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.1634
95946733|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0370
95946734|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0488
95946735|NCT00145470|191865716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0152
95946736|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3709|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 3||||0.3709
95946737|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8837|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 7||||0.8837
95946738|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 14||||0.1153
95946739|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 21||||0.0158
95946740|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0143|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 42||||0.0143
95946741|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 63||||0.0196
95946742|NCT00145470|191865717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|Based on Pearson's chi-squared test.||Day 84||||0.0148
95946743|NCT00145470|191865718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0046
95991718|NCT02986230|191958829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on the composite of cancer screening by 1 year post-index date for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in randomization process. Tests of the planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values \< 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
95991719|NCT02986230|191958830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
95991720|NCT02986230|191958830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of the HPV vaccination series by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
95991721|NCT02986230|191958831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the effect of the intervention on completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index date. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
95991722|NCT02986230|191958831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant, and odds ratios for key study group contrasts report 97.5% confidence intervals.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom for variables in the model take into account the cluster-randomized design.||Generalized linear mixed models with a logit link and binomial error distribution were used to test the intervention effect on the completion of lung cancer screening by 12 months post-index. The model included two primary contrasts: CP-CDS vs. UC and CP-CDS+SDMT vs. UC and included pre-specified covariates and variables used in the randomization process. Tests of the two planned contrasts were 2-sided with P-values less than 0.025 considered statistically significant.||||.025
95991723|NCT01469000|191958832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.93||1-sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.93|0.48|0.009
95991724|NCT01469000|191958833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||0.90|0.46|0.005
95756647|NCT02906930|191482141|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.36|0.04|0.0001
95756648|NCT02906930|191482141|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg /Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.26|0.01|0.0001
95756649|NCT00325195|191482182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95756650|NCT00325195|191482182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95859159|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.918
95756651|NCT00325195|191482183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.002
95756652|NCT00325195|191482183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
95756653|NCT00325195|191482184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q2 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.007
95756654|NCT00325195|191482184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||% of pegloticase q4 participants reporting flares compared to placebo pts during Months 4-6 treatment period||||0.321
95859160|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.616
95991725|NCT01469000|191958834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16||1 sided.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for gender, performance status, previous adjuvant /neoadjuvant treatment, age, smoking history, mutation type, and country.||||1.16|0.51|0.105
95991726|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78||||||Patient-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.78|0.77|
95991727|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42||||||Patient-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.42|0.60|
95991728|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.3||||||Patient-rated Cough: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.30|0.84|
95756655|NCT00325195|191482185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
95946744|NCT00145470|191865719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0006
95946745|NCT00145470|191865720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3497
95991729|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.71||||||Patient-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.71|0.65|
95756656|NCT00325195|191482185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.170
95799857|NCT04950686|191571131|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
95799858|NCT04950686|191571132|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.171
95991730|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02||||||Patient-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.02|0.32|
95991731|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||||||Patient-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.91|0.64|
95991732|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.77||||||Patient-rated Overall Symptoms: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.77|0.68|
95991733|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.17||||||Patient-rated Interference: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||2.17|0.88|
95991734|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74||||||Patient-rated Quality of Life: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (no symptoms) to 100 (as much as it could be).||1.74|0.72|
95756657|NCT00325195|191482186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95756658|NCT00325195|191482186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
95799859|NCT04950686|191571132|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.278
95946746|NCT00145470|191865721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7753||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.7753
95756659|NCT03469336|191482188|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2364|4.3226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.3226|0.2364|0.9883
95756660|NCT03469336|191482188|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2334|4.2671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.2671|0.2334|0.9977
95756661|NCT03469336|191482188|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2662|4.867|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The efficacy assessment of PF-06763809 was performed for the change from baseline in log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19 using a longitudinal analysis of covariance model, with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as main effects and the log of the psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB at baseline as covariate.||4.8670|0.2662|0.8600
95756662|NCT03469336|191482193|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.9763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8588|1.1594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.1594|0.8588|0.9763
95756663|NCT03469336|191482193|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.9664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.0752|0.8686|0.5081
95756664|NCT03469336|191482193|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0157|1.2252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To evaluate the AUC of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB for PF-06763809 compared to vehicle.||1.2252|1.0157|0.0249
95756665|NCT03469336|191482194|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1858|3.3977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3977|0.1858|0.7540
95756666|NCT03469336|191482194|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.7844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1834|3.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.3540|0.1834|0.7407
95756667|NCT03469336|191482194|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|0.8946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2092|3.8256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to calcipotriene/calcipotriol solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||3.8256|0.2092|0.8793
95756668|NCT03469336|191482195|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.081321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25287|4.623941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.623941|0.25287|<0.0001
95756669|NCT03469336|191482195|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.067453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249631|4.564555|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||4.564555|0.249631|<0.0001
95756670|NCT03469336|191482195|OTHER|Ratio|Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.217483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.732|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284708|5.206258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The effect of PF-06763809 compared to betamethasone solution in the change of psoriatic skin infiltrate thickness/EPB on Day 19.||5.206258|0.284708|<0.0001
95756671|NCT02109419|191482198|OTHER||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Test-retest reliability coeff.|||HHT-D reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
95756672|NCT02109419|191482198|OTHER||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson test-retest reliability coeff|||HHT-G reliability was evaluated via test-retest reliability coefficients. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<0.0001
95756673|NCT02109419|191482198|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-D was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-D and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||<.0001
95756674|NCT02109419|191482198|OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation coefficient|||Validity of the HHT-G was tested by Pearson correlation coefficients between HHT-G and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||0.0001
95799860|NCT04950686|191571133|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.283
95756675|NCT02109419|191482198|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-D was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
95756676|NCT02109419|191482198|OTHER||Chronbach's alpha|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Internal consistency reliability of the HHT-G was assessed with Chronbach's alpha. The dataset included participants from all groups.||||
95756677|NCT02393248|191482213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2841|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2841
95756678|NCT02393248|191482213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.3042
95756679|NCT02393248|191482213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.1259
95756680|NCT02393248|191482213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8214
95756681|NCT02393248|191482213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4315|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.4315
95756682|NCT02393248|191482213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.2595
95756683|NCT02393248|191482217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8577|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.8577
95756684|NCT02393248|191482217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7238|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7238
95756685|NCT02393248|191482217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5923
95799861|NCT04950686|191571133|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
95756686|NCT02393248|191482217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7634|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.7634
95756687|NCT02393248|191482217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.5749
95756688|NCT02393248|191482217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6877|||||||ANOVA|1-factor ANOVA of log-transformed, dose-normalized data (factor = dose)||||||0.6877
95756689|NCT02393248|191482221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.143
95756690|NCT02393248|191482222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.0013
95756691|NCT02393248|191482223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.319
95756692|NCT02393248|191482224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.128
95756693|NCT02393248|191482225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
95756694|NCT02393248|191482226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.305
95756695|NCT02393248|191482227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANOVA|crossover ANOVA of log-transformed data||||||0.772
95756696|NCT03560986|191482240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.17||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||1.17|-0.31|0.2522
95756697|NCT00110136|191482248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Paired t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|paired t-test||The difference is post minus pre so negative values represents fewer hot flashes after treatment.|Analysis of the change in hot flash frequency from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||0.74|-2.36|0.2629
95859161|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.041
95859162|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.002
95756698|NCT00110136|191482249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|1.72||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||Difference in hot flash score is post minus pre so a negative value represents a decrease in the frequency and/or severity of the hot flashes.|Assessment of the change in the hot flash score over time||1.72|-10.45|0.1365
95756699|NCT00110136|191482251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.92||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre) so values greater than zero reflect improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in MCS from baseline to four weeks in patients receiving St. John's wort.||5.92|-4.84|0.8320
95756700|NCT00110136|191482252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.43||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|5.71||Paired t-test on the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre), so positive numbers represent improvement in QOL.|Assess the change in PCS from baseline to four weeks; null hypothesis is no change.||5.71|-5.71|0.9995
95756701|NCT00110136|191482253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.12||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|9.822||Paired t-test; unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|paired t-test||This is the change in mood from baseline to four weeks (post minus pre). Mood is scored so that higher numbers represent better mood so positive changes represent an improvement in mood.|Assess the change in mood from baseline to four weeks. Null hypothesis is no change.||9.822|-1.12|0.1042
95756702|NCT04540406|191482254|OTHER|We employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test to assess the overall gut microbiota structural change. These tests are generally neither superiority, non-inferiority, nor equivalence tests. Instead, they are used to detect and evaluate overall differences in the microbial community structure between groups or conditions.||||||||||||||||PCoA (Principal Coordinates Analysis) + PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance) are exploratory multivariate techniques commonly used in microbiome research to assess and visualize differences in community composition. The null hypothesis for PERMANOVA is that there are no differences in the centroids (multivariate means) of the groups being compared. The microbial communities in different groups or conditions are not significantly different from each other.|To assess the overall structural changes in gut microbiota, we employed covariate-adjusted Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) and a subject-stratified PERMANOVA test. PCoA, an exploratory multivariate technique, helps visualize and interpret patterns in complex microbiome data by reducing dimensionality, with the first principal coordinate (PC1) capturing the largest variation among samples. PERMANOVA, which does not rely on standard parametric assumptions, was used to determine if there are statistically significant differences in the overall composition of microbial communities between groups based on a chosen distance metric. Our analysis aimed to explore whether microbial community compositions differed significantly between Day 0 and Day 28 within the Treatment group, accounting for inter-individual variability. Similarly, we investigated if such differences existed over the same time points in the Control group. The unit of measure was distance metrics.|||
95756703|NCT02885181|191482271|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means of Differences|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.76|- 0.74|0.978
95756704|NCT02885181|191482271|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|- 0.36|0.300
95756705|NCT02885181|191482271|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||- 0.43|- 1.92|0.002
95756706|NCT02885181|191482272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|-36.0|0.660
95756707|NCT02885181|191482272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-15.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|-44.7|0.277
95756708|NCT02885181|191482272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|40.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|65.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.6|10.7|0.009
95756709|NCT02885181|191482273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.853
95756710|NCT02885181|191482273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.7||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-32.0|0.852
95756711|NCT02885181|191482273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|-6.6|0.092
95756712|NCT02885181|191482274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-8.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|22.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|-37.9|0.360
95756713|NCT02885181|191482274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|-28.0|0.896
95756714|NCT02885181|191482274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|50.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.1|-6.6|0.072
95756715|NCT02885181|191482275|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.12||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|-0.49|0.528
95756716|NCT02885181|191482275|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.57|-0.17|0.293
95799862|NCT04950686|191571134|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
95799863|NCT04950686|191571134|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
95799864|NCT04950686|191571135|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.074
95756717|NCT02885181|191482275|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Differences|-0.33||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.03|-0.70|0.072
95756718|NCT01517373|191482276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.17||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment,duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM),time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects,baseline as the covariate,time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.17|-0.21|0.4468
95756719|NCT01517373|191482276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|-0.11||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.11|-0.48|0.0218
95756720|NCT01517373|191482276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.28||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.28|-0.65|0.0006
95756721|NCT01517373|191482276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.02|-0.65||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.65|-1.02|<0.0001
95756722|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.14|-0.09|0.6112
95799865|NCT04950686|191571135|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.828
95799866|NCT04950686|191571136|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.336
95756723|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.055|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.03||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.25|0.0550
95756724|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|-0.13||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80%CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.35|0.0032
95756725|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|-0.33||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.33|-0.55|<0.0001
95756726|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.16||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.16|-0.10|0.6146
95756727|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.19|0.2606
95756728|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0006
95799867|NCT04950686|191571136|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
95799868|NCT04950686|191571137|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.629|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
95799869|NCT04950686|191571137|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.318
95799870|NCT04950686|191571138|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.863
95799871|NCT04950686|191571138|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.299
95859163|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.137
95946747|NCT00145470|191865722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0073
95756729|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.44||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.44|-0.70|<0.0001
95859164|NCT02304367|191676108|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.368
95859165|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 24||||0.018
95859166|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 48||||0.133
95946748|NCT00145470|191865723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.0102
95799872|NCT04950686|191571139|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95946749|NCT00145470|191865724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3684||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.3684
95756730|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.6618|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.20|-0.10|0.6618
95756731|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|-0.01||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0878
95756732|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.19||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.19|-0.49|0.0022
95756733|NCT01517373|191482277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.51||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.51|-0.81|<0.0001
95756734|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.222||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.8|4.62||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.62|-8.80|0.3446
95756735|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.81|0.57||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-12.81|0.1204
95756736|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.166||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.37|-7.1||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.10|-20.37|0.0041
95756737|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.01|-14.67||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-14.67|-28.01|<0.0001
95756738|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.8|1.53||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.53|-11.80|0.1616
95756739|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.219||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.15|2.26||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.26|-11.15|0.1974
95756740|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.22|-5.02||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.02|-18.22|0.0122
95799873|NCT04950686|191571139|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
95799874|NCT04950686|191571140|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
95756741|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.37|-18.2||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-18.20|-31.37|<0.0001
95756742|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.674||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.26|5.32||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.32|-9.26|0.3645
95799875|NCT04950686|191571140|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
95756743|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.676||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|5.36||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.22|0.3672
95756744|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.598||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.69|-0.31||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.31|-14.69|0.0906
95756745|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.624||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.91|-12.46||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.46|-26.91|0.0003
95756746|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|1.93||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.93|-12.29|0.1748
95756747|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.69|-3.38||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.38|-17.69|0.0297
95756748|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.469||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.47|-5.41||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.41|-19.47|0.0118
95756749|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.04|-19.96||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-19.96|-34.04|<0.0001
95756750|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.281||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.1|0.04||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-16.10|0.1012
95756751|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.287||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.07|-2.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.91|-19.07|0.0409
95756752|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.88|-6.86|||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-6.86|-22.88|0.0089
95756753|NCT01517373|191482278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.93|-17.92||P-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-17.92|-33.93|<0.0001
95756754|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.59||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|0.08|0.0898
95756755|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|0.12|0.0555
95756756|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.61||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.61|0.12|0.0585
95946750|NCT00145470|191865725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9370
95756757|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.64||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.64|0.14|0.0454
95756758|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.55||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-0.05|0.2819
95859167|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 96||||0.321
95946751|NCT00145470|191865726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2492||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.2492
95756759|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|0.81||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.81|0.20|0.0319
95756760|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.6||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.60|0.01|0.1835
95756761|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|1.22||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.22|0.63|0.0001
95756762|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.33||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.33|-0.35|0.9689
95756763|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.67||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.02|0.2221
95756764|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.05|0.2774
95756765|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.43||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.43|0.76|<0.0001
95799876|NCT04950686|191571141|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.810
95799877|NCT04950686|191571141|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.901
95756766|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|0.98||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.98|0.17|0.0667
95756767|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.19||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.19|0.38|0.0133
95756768|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.08||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|0.29|0.0260
95756769|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.23|2.02||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.02|1.23|<0.0001
95799878|NCT04950686|191571142|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
95799879|NCT04950686|191571142|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
95756770|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.28||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.28|0.32|0.0335
95756771|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|1.01||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.01|0.05|0.1557
95991735|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||Observer-rated Loss of Appetite: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.49|0.97|
95756772|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.39||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.39|0.45|0.0132
95756773|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.2|3.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.15|2.20|<0.0001
95756774|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.46||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.46|0.45|0.0158
95946752|NCT00145470|191865727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4683
95946753|NCT00145470|191865728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.5683
95946754|NCT00145470|191865729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.9693
95946755|NCT00145470|191865730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6136||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.6136
95946756|NCT00145470|191865731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1586||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1586
95946757|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.0550
95991736|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.93||||||Observer-rated Fatigue: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.93|0.82|
95991737|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15||||||Observer-rated Cough:Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.15|0.72|
95991738|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||||||Observer-rated Dyspnea: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.83|0.64|
95756775|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.01|0.99||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.99|-0.01|0.2132
95859168|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 144||||0.218
95859169|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 168||||0.788
95946758|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7469
95946759|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3253||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 21||||0.3253
95946760|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 21||||0.3885
95946761|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5975||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 21||||0.5975
95756776|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.36||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.36|0.37|0.0263
95859170|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 192||||0.156
95756777|NCT01517373|191482286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.12|3.12||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, duration of T2DM, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|2.12|<0.0001
95756778|NCT02699060|191482289|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95756779|NCT06077149|191482301|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95756780|NCT06077149|191482302|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95756781|NCT06077149|191482303|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95756782|NCT06077149|191482304|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority in antibody response at 30 days for any RSV vaccine between the LTCF group and the community group. A sample size of 152 participants (76 per group) was expected to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of 1 month GMT to within a relative noninferiority margin of 1.5-fold using a 1-sided 0.05-level linear model-based t test comparing log (1-month titer) by population, adjusted for vaccine and log (baseline titer).||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95756783|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
95756784|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.17||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||4.95|-4.62|0.95
95756785|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.09||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.56|-2.39|0.95
95756786|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.98|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.98|-2.31|0.88
95756787|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.13||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.88
95756788|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
95756789|NCT04154631|191482308|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.26||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.66|-2.18|0.79
95756790|NCT04154631|191482309|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Acceptability Intervention Measure (AIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.77
95756791|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
95756792|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.26||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|5.56|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||5.56|-5.04|0.92
95756793|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.24|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.24|-2.04|0.92
95799880|NCT04950686|191571143|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
95799881|NCT04950686|191571143|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
95799882|NCT04950686|191571144|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.824|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.824
95946762|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 21||||0.0690
95756794|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.39||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.31|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.31|-3.10|0.78
95799883|NCT04950686|191571144|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.271
95799884|NCT04950686|191571145|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
95799885|NCT04950686|191571145|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.952
95799886|NCT04950686|191571146|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
95799887|NCT04950686|191571146|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.153
95799888|NCT04950686|191571147|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.495
95946763|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.7970
95799889|NCT04950686|191571147|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
95799890|NCT04950686|191571148|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.753|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.753
95946764|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 21||||0.8339
95991739|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.91||||||Observer-rated Hemoptysis: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||2.91|0.60|
95756795|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.75|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.75|-2.35|0.78
95991740|NCT01469000|191958838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||||||Observer-rated Pain: Time to worsening of symptom (TWS) was measured from the date of randomization to the first date of a 15-millimeter(mm) worsening from baseline on a scale of 0 (Severe) to 100 (None). This scoring system is the reverse of the patient scale. The observer scale is a categorical 5-point scale and specific descriptors are provided with each questions for each of the scores (0,25,50,75 and 100)||1.03|0.41|
95991741|NCT01116544|191958899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
95756796|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.43||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.8|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||3.80|-4.66|0.84
95756797|NCT04154631|191482310|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.58|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.58|-1.94|0.84
95799891|NCT04950686|191571148|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
95799892|NCT04950686|191571149|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.541
95799893|NCT04950686|191571149|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
95799894|NCT04950686|191571150|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.375
95799895|NCT04950686|191571150|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
95799896|NCT04950686|191571151|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95799897|NCT04950686|191571151|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
95799898|NCT04950686|191571152|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95799899|NCT04950686|191571152|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
95991742|NCT01116544|191958900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis called for sample sizes of 32 participants in each treatment group. The study was close before reaching this number of participants.|||||<|0.001||||||Hypothesis: significant increase in score (post-tx - pre-tx) for both groups|ANCOVA|FMA scores adjusted for baseline differences.||||||<0.001
95991743|NCT01116544|191958901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Across both groups, whether score increased following completion of intervention|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95991744|NCT01116544|191958902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Across both treatment groups|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95799900|NCT04950686|191571153|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
95991745|NCT01116544|191958903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data combined between 2 treatment groups||||0.001
95756798|NCT04154631|191482311|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||<0.001
95756799|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||<0.001
95756800|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.66|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-1.66|-4.58|<0.001
95756801|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-2.22|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-2.22|-5.41|<0.001
95756802|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.92|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.92|-1.78|0.94
95756803|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.25|-1.16|0.94
95756804|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.37|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.37|-0.30|0.85
95756805|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.23||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.95|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.95|-1.41|0.70
95756806|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
95799901|NCT04950686|191571153|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.137
95756807|NCT04154631|191482312|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.54|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.54|-0.68|0.82
95756808|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||<0.001
95799902|NCT04950686|191571154|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95799903|NCT04950686|191571154|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
95756809|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.21|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.21|-3.93|0.08
95991746|NCT01116544|191958904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Both treatment groups combined||||>0.05
95756810|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.44|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.44|-4.58|0.02
95756811|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.05||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||2.08|-1.99|0.97
95756812|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of acceptability (AIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.19|-0.18|0.97
95946765|NCT00145470|191865732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 21||||0.2101
95946766|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6914||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Verbal Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.6914
95946767|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8805||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Visual Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8805
95946768|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4878||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Processing Speed - CFB at Day 84||||0.4878
95946769|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8051||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Social Acuity - CFB at Day 84||||0.8051
95991747|NCT01493180|191958939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
95756813|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.30|-0.27|0.90
95991748|NCT02419508|191958973|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95991749|NCT02419508|191958974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95991750|NCT02419508|191958975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95991751|NCT02419508|191958976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95756814|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.2|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of appropriateness (IAM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.20|-0.19|0.94
95756815|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.19||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.28|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||1.28|-1.67|0.80
95756816|NCT04154631|191482313|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between treatment condition (Standard vs. Adapted) and functional impairment (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at 6-month follow-up was mediated by provider ratings of feasibility (FIM) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||0.25|-0.33|0.77
95756817|NCT04154631|191482314|SUPERIORITY||time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.94
95756818|NCT04154631|191482315|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-0.11||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment effect (Standard versus Adapted TranS-C) on change in Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) from baseline (post-training) to post-treatment.||||0.34
95756819|NCT05187013|191482341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final SBP, i.e., Final SBP - Baseline SBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final SBP - Baseline SBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -7.16 and 21.40, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 83.16%||-1.73|-12.59|0.006
95756820|NCT05187013|191482341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No improvement between baseline and final DBP, i.e., Final DBP - Baseline DBP \>= 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Final DBP - Baseline DBP \<0 Power calculation: Based on the data, the mean and SD of the change in SBP are -2.15 and 10.49, respectively. Using a one-sided paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05, we should have a power of 51.48%||0.49|-4.79|0.056
95756821|NCT05187013|191482341|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was considered to be 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|7.42|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in SBP for the general health education arm - the change in SBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in SBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||7.42|-8.76|0.87
95756822|NCT05187013|191482341|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.98|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline DBP and follow-up time|The parameter was defined as the change in DBP for the general health education arm - the change in DBP for the HTN specific education arm adjusted for follow-up time and baseline SBP|"Null hypothesis: No difference between the change in DBP between the two arms~Power calculation: With our sample size, we expect to have 80% power as long as the effect size is at least 0.72 at a 5% level."||4.98|-3.02|0.63
95756823|NCT05187013|191482342|EQUIVALENCE|The margin is taken to be 0|Odds Ratio, log|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|A mixed effect model with study arm as a fixed effect and subject-specific random effect.|For OR: the general education arm was taken as the baseline (denominator)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in medicine adherence between the two groups||2.29|-0.26|0.14
95799904|NCT04950686|191571155|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
95799905|NCT04950686|191571155|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
95756824|NCT05187013|191482343|EQUIVALENCE|The margin was taken to be 0.|Odds Ratio, log|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Regression, Logistic|Binomial regression for appointment attended/appointment scheduled.|The baseline (denominator) was taken to be the general education arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference in appointment adherence between the study arms||0.19|-0.58|0.32
95756825|NCT01096368|191482345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.627|1.197||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|The study was designed to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test. The planned sample size was 160 subjects per arm. 85 EFS events were needed, which were expected after 8 years of accrual and 2 years of follow-up. At 5% type 1 error, the study had 93% power to detect an increase in 2-year EFS from 75% (RT alone) to 87% (RT+maintenance). The design also incorporated interim analyses for futility and efficacy.||1.197|0.627|0.229
95756826|NCT01096368|191482346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.46|0.463|1.238||P-value is one-sided. After adjusting for interim analyses, the a priori threshold for significance for the final analysis is one-sided alpha=0.031.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III. Confidence interval is stage-wise adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|It was planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 1-sided log-rank test using the planned sample size of 160 subjects per arm which was optimized for the EFS outcome. A one-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison as well.||1.238|0.463|0.172
95756827|NCT01096368|191482347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.068||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.068|0.461|0.096
95756828|NCT01096368|191482348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.684||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|7.175||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of events for Arm II over hazard of events for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by EFS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||7.175|1.004|0.041
95756829|NCT01096368|191482349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.053||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over death of events for Arm III.|In stratum 1, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||1.053|0.284|0.067
95756830|NCT01096368|191482350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.601||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|17.902||P-value is two-sided and not adjusted for multiple comparisons for this exploratory subgroup comparison.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on hazard of death for Arm II over hazard of death for Arm III.|In stratum 2, it was also planned to test the superiority of RT+maintenance vs. RT alone as measured by OS using the hazard ratio via a 2-sided log-rank test. A two-sided significance threshold of 5% was planned for this comparison.||17.902|0.724|0.094
95756831|NCT02500641|191482374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5298
95756832|NCT03233230|191482381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.84|0.1746
95799906|NCT04950686|191571156|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
95799907|NCT04950686|191571156|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
95799908|NCT04950686|191571157|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
95799909|NCT04950686|191571157|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.532
95991752|NCT02419508|191958977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95756833|NCT03233230|191482381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.61|0.8283
95756834|NCT03233230|191482381|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.88|0.1298
95799910|NCT04950686|191571158|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
95799911|NCT04950686|191571158|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.443
95799912|NCT04950686|191571159|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
95799913|NCT04950686|191571159|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.726|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.726
95799914|NCT04950686|191571160|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.282
95991753|NCT02419508|191958978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95756835|NCT03233230|191482382|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0077
95756836|NCT03233230|191482382|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.17||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.07|0.0013
95799915|NCT04950686|191571160|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.591
95799916|NCT04950686|191571161|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
95799917|NCT04950686|191571161|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.359
95799918|NCT04950686|191571162|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.rt-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
95756837|NCT03233230|191482382|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.04|0.0080
95799919|NCT04950686|191571162|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
95799920|NCT04950686|191571163|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree); higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy to use a dental dam; range = 1-4|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.460
95859171|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 216||||0.155
95991754|NCT02419508|191958979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95991755|NCT02065453|191958991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The data will be analyzed using linear regression, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and chi-square analysis.||||<0.001
95991756|NCT05523973|191958996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95991757|NCT05523973|191958997|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95756838|NCT03233230|191482383|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0056
95756839|NCT03233230|191482383|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0050
95756840|NCT03233230|191482383|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|0.03|0.0053
95756841|NCT03233230|191482384|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.09||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.03|0.1419
95756842|NCT03233230|191482384|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2202
95756843|NCT03233230|191482384|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.07||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.05|0.2328
95756844|NCT03233230|191482385|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.06||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.02|0.1232
95946770|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1925||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Reasoning - CFB at Day 84||||0.1925
95756845|NCT03233230|191482385|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.14|-0.03|0.1725
95756846|NCT03233230|191482385|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.03|0.1795
95756847|NCT03233230|191482393|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.04|
95756848|NCT03233230|191482393|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
95756849|NCT03233230|191482393|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
95756850|NCT03233230|191482394|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.02|
95756851|NCT03233230|191482394|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.00|
95756852|NCT03233230|191482394|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.03|
95756853|NCT03233230|191482395|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
95756854|NCT03233230|191482395|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.10|0.00|
95756855|NCT03233230|191482395|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
95799921|NCT04950686|191571163|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
95799922|NCT04950686|191571164|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
95946771|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Executive Functioning - CFB at Day 84||||0.0514
95946772|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9898||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Working Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.9898
95756856|NCT03233230|191482396|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.03|
95756857|NCT03233230|191482396|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.02|
95756858|NCT03233230|191482396|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31||||||||0.31|0.05|
95756859|NCT02036775|191482435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|110.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|122.69|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||122.69|99.84|
95756860|NCT02036775|191482435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
95756861|NCT02036775|191482435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the area under the curve (AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.29|114.02|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||114.02|100.29|
95756862|NCT02036775|191482436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|84.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|93.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||93.25|76.96|
95756863|NCT02036775|191482436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|113.31|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||113.31|95.22|
95756864|NCT02036775|191482436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) of the peak concentration (Cmax ss) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|88.62|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||88.62|73.92|
95756865|NCT02036775|191482437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|88.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.87|98.15|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||98.15|79.87|
95756866|NCT02036775|191482437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|110.74|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||110.74|96.54|
95799923|NCT04950686|191571164|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.939
95799924|NCT04950686|191571165|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.655
95799925|NCT04950686|191571165|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.315
95799926|NCT04950686|191571166|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.966
95799927|NCT04950686|191571166|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.708|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.708
95799928|NCT04950686|191571167|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.887
95859172|NCT02304367|191676109|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline CTx.||Week 240||||0.580
95859173|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.002
95991758|NCT05523973|191958998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Sign test|||||||0.09
95756867|NCT02036775|191482437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the dose-adjusted total exposure (AUCss 0-24 norm) using an acceptance range of 80%-125%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|85.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|91.22|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||91.22|80.23|
95756868|NCT02036775|191482438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|76.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.1|82.4|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||82.40|71.10|
95756869|NCT02036775|191482438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.69|106.58|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||106.58|94.69|
95859174|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.273
95859175|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.469
95991759|NCT05523973|191958999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Sign test|||||||.722
95859176|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.828
95859177|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95859178|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.141
95859179|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.606|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.606
95859180|NCT02304367|191676110|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.907
95991760|NCT05523973|191959000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Sign test|||||||.28
95991761|NCT05523973|191959001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Sign test|||||||.15
95991762|NCT05523973|191959002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Sign test|||||||.8
95991763|NCT05523973|191959003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
95991764|NCT05523973|191959004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||||||.92
95991765|NCT00680836|191959019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.0|0.26
95756870|NCT02036775|191482438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of relative bioavailability without molar mass adjustment (dose adjustment) was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test divided by reference) for the rate of absorption at steady state (Cmax ss/AUCss 0-24) using an acceptance range of 75%-133%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.92|81.93|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV(%))|||81.93|69.92|
95756871|NCT01898650|191482471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. the threshold for significance was set a priori at 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was that blood flow would be equivalent on the unaffected and affected sides.||||0.004
95799929|NCT04950686|191571167|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
95756872|NCT02912650|191482472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.14|36.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.02|24.14|<0.001
95756873|NCT02912650|191482472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|9.8|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||9.80|1.51|0.008
95756874|NCT02912650|191482472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||18.97|10.55|<0.001
95756875|NCT02912650|191482472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|30.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||30.35|18.50|<0.001
95799930|NCT04950686|191571168|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.217
95991766|NCT00680836|191959020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|0.0|0.98
95756876|NCT02912650|191482472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|21.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||21.29|9.35|<0.001
95756877|NCT02912650|191482472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.31|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||13.31|4.90|<0.001
95756878|NCT02912650|191482473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|11.94|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.94|6.59|<0.001
95756879|NCT02912650|191482473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.84||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.71|-0.03|0.053
95756880|NCT02912650|191482473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.49|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.49|3.69|<0.001
95799931|NCT04950686|191571168|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.879|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.879
95991767|NCT00680836|191959021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95991768|NCT00680836|191959022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Chi-squared|||||0.2|-0.2|0.64
95756881|NCT02912650|191482473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|10.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.09|4.75|<0.001
95756882|NCT02912650|191482473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.36|0.98|0.008
95756883|NCT02912650|191482473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.64|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|1.85|<0.001
95756884|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|15.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.71|10.39|<0.001
95756885|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.86|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.86|1.15|0.002
95946773|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5683||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Sustained Attention - CFB at Day 84||||0.5683
95991769|NCT00680836|191959023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.7|0.72
95756886|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|8.83|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.83|5.06|<0.001
95756887|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.7|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.70|7.39|<0.001
95756888|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.78|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.78|3.44|<0.001
95756889|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.81|||ANOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.81|2.06|<0.001
95756890|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|5.05|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.05|2.63|<0.001
95756891|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.92|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.23|0.013
95756892|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.55|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.55|1.83|<0.001
95756893|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.98|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.98|1.56|<0.001
95756894|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.37|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.37|-0.07|0.064
95756895|NCT02912650|191482474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.47|||ANOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|0.76|<0.001
95756896|NCT02912650|191482475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95859181|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 24||||0.001
95756897|NCT02912650|191482475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.069
95756898|NCT02912650|191482475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756899|NCT02912650|191482475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756900|NCT02912650|191482475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756901|NCT02912650|191482475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.005
95756902|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
95756903|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
95756904|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||ANOVA|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
95946774|NCT00145470|191865733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8907||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Composite Memory - CFB at Day 84||||0.8907
95946775|NCT00145470|191865734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0613
95946776|NCT00145470|191865735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7493||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.7493
95946777|NCT00145470|191865736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.4884
95946778|NCT00145470|191865737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.1280
95946779|NCT00145470|191865737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 21||||0.0215
95756905|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
95859182|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 48||||0.149
95756906|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
95756907|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
95756908|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
95756909|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
95756910|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
95756911|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
95756912|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
95756913|NCT02912650|191482476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
95756914|NCT02912650|191482477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756915|NCT02912650|191482477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.003
95756916|NCT02912650|191482477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.031
95756917|NCT02912650|191482477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756918|NCT02912650|191482477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756919|NCT02912650|191482477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.631
95756920|NCT02912650|191482478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756921|NCT02912650|191482478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.088
95756922|NCT02912650|191482478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.133
95756923|NCT02912650|191482478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756924|NCT02912650|191482478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||<0.001
95756925|NCT02912650|191482478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||p-value was calculated by using Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by gender and baseline categorical PSR terms.||||0.887
95756926|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.14|<0.001
95756927|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.034
95756928|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.13|0.963
95756929|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.01|0.062
95756930|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|0.13|0.001
95946780|NCT00145470|191865738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1331||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||PCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.1331
95946781|NCT00145470|191865738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||P-value based on the difference in the LS means for asenapine versus placebo.|ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled investigative site as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||MCS - Change from Baseline at Day 84||||0.2024
95991770|NCT00680836|191959024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.5|0.86
95756931|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.01|-0.28|0.040
95756932|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
95756933|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.37|-0.03|0.095
95756934|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.29|-0.12|0.414
95756935|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.52|<0.001
95756936|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.61|<0.001
95756937|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.29|0.406
95756938|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.09|1.40|<0.001
95756939|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.10|0.006
95756940|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.57|0.08|0.009
95756941|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|1.07|<0.001
95756942|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.77|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.77|1.08|<0.001
95756943|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.23|-0.26|0.908
95756944|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.35|1.64|<0.001
95756945|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.15|0.002
95756946|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.82|0.32|<0.001
95756947|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.95|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|1.25|<0.001
95756948|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.78|1.07|<0.001
95756949|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.07|0.157
95756950|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.48|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.48|1.73|<0.001
95756951|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|0.11|0.005
95756952|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.52|<0.001
95946782|NCT01701401|191865751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95991771|NCT00618722|191959048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.043
95756953|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.1|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.10|1.36|<0.001
95991772|NCT00618722|191959048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.050
95756954|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
95756955|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.15|0.002
95756956|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.45|1.67|<0.001
95756957|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.13|0.004
95756958|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.82|<0.001
95756959|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.04|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.04|1.27|<0.001
95859183|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.372|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 96||||0.372
95991773|NCT00618722|191959048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||0.2|-0.7|0.249
95991774|NCT00618722|191959049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||3.1|0.7|0.003
95756960|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.58|<0.001
95756961|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.96|0.42|<0.001
95756962|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.40|1.60|<0.001
95756963|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|0.16|0.002
95756964|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.88|<0.001
95756965|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.96|1.16|<0.001
95756966|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.44|<0.001
95756967|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.44|<0.001
95756968|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.31|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.50|<0.001
95756969|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.74|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.74|0.18|0.001
95756970|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.85|<0.001
95756971|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.85|1.04|<0.001
95756972|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.17|0.36|<0.001
95756973|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|0.39|<0.001
95756974|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.98|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.98|1.13|<0.001
95756975|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.017
95991775|NCT00618722|191959049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.6|0.1|0.030
95859184|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 144||||0.116
95859185|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 168||||0.013
95946783|NCT01701401|191865751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95756976|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.37|0.77|<0.001
95756977|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.78|<0.001
95799932|NCT04950686|191571169|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.866
95799933|NCT04950686|191571169|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.695
95799934|NCT04950686|191571170|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
95799935|NCT04950686|191571170|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
95799936|NCT04950686|191571171|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
95799937|NCT04950686|191571171|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
95799938|NCT04950686|191571172|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.236
95799939|NCT04950686|191571172|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.674
95859186|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 192||||0.962
95946784|NCT01701401|191865751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95946785|NCT01701401|191865751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 24 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95756978|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.06|0.026
95859187|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 216||||0.664
95859188|NCT02304367|191676111|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline P1NP.||Week 240||||0.790
95859189|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||0.050
95946786|NCT05986617|191865872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06429||||||2-tail t-test with non-equivalent variances|t-test, 2 sided|||Power calculation: 2 factor (group, time) ANOVA design with a group\*time interaction term to estimate the proposed sample size. Using a Cohen's effect size estimate for 2 groups with 5 time-points, a sample size of 40 per group will provide \>90% to detect a moderate effect size (0.25) for group, for time and for the group\*time interaction.||||.06429
95946787|NCT04256421|191865877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> upper limit of normal \[ULN\] vs. \</= ULN) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0 vs. 1).||1.38|0.89|0.3504
95946788|NCT04256421|191865878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.44|0.90|0.2859
95946789|NCT04256421|191865879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.31|0.89|0.4440
95756979|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.01|0.42|<0.001
95946790|NCT04256421|191865880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.35|0.88|0.4205
95991776|NCT00618722|191959049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||2.8|0.4|0.012
95991777|NCT00618722|191959050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|65.2|||Fisher Exact|||||65.2|12.6|0.015
95756980|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.84|<0.001
95756981|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.017
95756982|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.60|<0.001
95756983|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.48|<0.001
95799940|NCT04950686|191571173|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
95799941|NCT04950686|191571173|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.500
95799942|NCT04950686|191571174|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
95799943|NCT04950686|191571174|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.214
95799944|NCT04950686|191571175|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.337
95946791|NCT04256421|191865881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|6.8||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|15.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||15.99|-2.57|0.1418
95946792|NCT04256421|191865882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|5.19||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|13.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||13.61|-3.33|0.2191
95946793|NCT04256421|191865887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.74||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.13|||Z-test|||Month 12||6.13|-13.60|0.4580
95991778|NCT00618722|191959050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|28.9||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|57.5|||Fisher Exact|||||57.5|0.4|0.096
95991779|NCT00618722|191959050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|44.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|68.8|||Fisher Exact|||||68.8|20.6|0.003
95756984|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.80|-0.06|0.089
95756985|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
95756986|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.44|0.60|<0.001
95756987|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
95756988|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.02|0.42|<0.001
95756989|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.25|0.002
95991780|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.6|0.0|0.078
95756990|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.72|-0.12|0.163
95946794|NCT04256421|191865887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-8.12||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.55|||Z-test|||Month 24||1.55|-17.80|0.0999
95756991|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.07|0.016
95756992|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.26|0.002
95756993|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.19|0.496
95756994|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.16|0.003
95756995|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.00|0.15|0.008
95756996|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.21|0.315
95756997|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|0.06|0.019
95756998|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.87|0.02|0.038
95756999|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.31|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.28|0.918
95757000|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.55|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|-0.05|0.105
95757001|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.85|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.01|0.045
95946795|NCT04256421|191865888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.02||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|5.88|||Z-test|||Month 12||5.88|-11.92|0.5059
95946796|NCT04256421|191865888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-5.29||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|3.65|||Z-test|||Month 24||3.65|-14.23|0.2458
95946797|NCT04256421|191865889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.48|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.48|0.68|0.9819
95946798|NCT04256421|191865890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.55|0.81|0.5122
95757002|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.22|0.355
95757003|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.07|0.127
95757004|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.12|0.171
95757005|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.25|0.790
95757006|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.47|-0.12|0.235
95757007|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.66|-0.16|0.236
95757008|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.30|0.599
95757009|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.43|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.15|0.353
95757010|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.19|0.293
95757011|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.28|0.986
95757012|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|-0.18|0.459
95757013|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.62|-0.18|0.287
95946799|NCT04256421|191865891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.79|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.79|0.81|0.3614
95946800|NCT04256421|191865892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.84|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors were LDH (\> ULN vs. \</= ULN) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).||1.84|0.90|0.1681
95757014|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.30|0.600
95757015|NCT02912650|191482479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.17|0.447
95757016|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.96|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|0.23|0.001
95757017|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.39|-0.12|0.297
95757018|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.16|-0.35|0.457
95757019|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.82|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.82|0.10|0.012
95757020|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.06|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|0.33|<0.001
95757021|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.02|||ANCOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.02|-0.49|0.076
95757022|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.63|1.42|<0.001
95757023|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.93|0.10|0.016
95799945|NCT04950686|191571175|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.957
95799946|NCT04950686|191571176|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
95757024|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.64|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.64|-0.21|0.330
95757025|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.11|0.91|<0.001
95757026|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.42|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|1.21|<0.001
95757027|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.12|||ANCOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.12|-0.73|0.163
95757028|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|4.65|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.65|3.18|<0.001
95757029|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.35|0.001
95757030|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.31|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.31|0.26|0.003
95859190|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.526
95946801|NCT04163185|191865903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95946802|NCT04163185|191865904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95946803|NCT04724694|191865905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
95799947|NCT04950686|191571176|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
95757031|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.79|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.79|2.32|<0.001
95757032|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|3.87|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.87|2.39|<0.001
95757033|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44|||ANCOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.44|-0.60|0.769
95757034|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|5.42|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.42|3.88|<0.001
95757035|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.40|0.32|0.002
95757036|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.93|0.83|<0.001
95757037|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.56|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.56|3.02|<0.001
95946804|NCT04724694|191865906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.124||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
95946805|NCT04724694|191865907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.746||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.746
95946806|NCT04724694|191865908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0002||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95946807|NCT04724694|191865909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.046||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
95946808|NCT04724694|191865910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.161||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
95946809|NCT04724694|191865911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.719||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.719
95757038|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.04|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.04|2.49|<0.001
95757039|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.06|||ANCOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.06|-0.03|0.062
95757040|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.64|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.64|4.01|<0.001
95757041|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.33|0.19|0.009
95757042|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.33|1.17|<0.001
95757043|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|4.88|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.88|3.25|<0.001
95757044|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.90|2.26|<0.001
95757045|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||ANCOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.41|<0.001
95946810|NCT04724694|191865912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.098||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.098
95991781|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated easures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.3|0.781
95991782|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.5|-0.1|0.146
95757046|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|5.52|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.52|3.82|<0.001
95991783|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|0.0|0.076
95757047|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.38|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.38|0.19|0.010
95757048|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.01|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.01|1.81|<0.001
95757049|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|4.74|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.74|3.04|<0.001
95757050|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.11|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.11|1.40|<0.001
95757051|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.23|||ANCOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.23|1.02|<0.001
95757052|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.4|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.40|3.65|<0.001
95757053|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.43|0.21|0.009
95757054|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.04|1.79|<0.001
95757055|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.58|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.58|2.83|<0.001
95757056|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.99|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.99|1.23|<0.001
95757057|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||ANCOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.22|0.97|<0.001
95757058|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.17|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||5.17|3.37|<0.001
95757059|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.44|0.18|0.012
95757060|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.0|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.00|1.72|<0.001
95757061|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.36|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.36|2.57|<0.001
95757062|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.82|1.00|<0.001
95757063|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.19|||ANCOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.19|0.92|<0.001
95859191|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.845
95757064|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.6|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.60|2.76|<0.001
95757065|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.27|-0.01|0.055
95757066|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.84|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.54|<0.001
95757067|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.97|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.97|2.14|<0.001
95799948|NCT04950686|191571177|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
95799949|NCT04950686|191571177|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
95799950|NCT04950686|191571178|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.634|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.634
95799951|NCT04950686|191571178|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.308
95799952|NCT04950686|191571179|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
95946811|NCT03410992|191865917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|496.318|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.798|2975.086||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2975.086|82.798|<0.001
95946812|NCT03410992|191865918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|657.255|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.792|4083.333||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||4083.333|105.792|<0.001
95946813|NCT03410992|191865919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|220.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.757|1683.639||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1683.639|28.757|<0.001
95946814|NCT03410992|191865920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|224.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.13|1676.425||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||1676.425|30.130|<0.001
95946815|NCT03410992|191865921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|316.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.423|2543.254||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||2543.254|39.423|<0.001
95799953|NCT04950686|191571179|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
95946816|NCT03410992|191865922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.325|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|82.856||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||82.856|14.220|<0.001
95799954|NCT04950686|191571180|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.261
95859192|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.782
95757068|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.42|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.42|0.57|0.002
95946817|NCT03410992|191865923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.728|120.295||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||120.295|15.728|<0.001
95946818|NCT03410992|191865924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.946|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.56|180.669||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haensze (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||180.669|20.560|<0.001
95946819|NCT03410992|191865925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|158.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.263|506.745||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||506.745|49.263|<0.001
95946820|NCT03410992|191865926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.622|109.672||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||109.672|18.622|<0.001
95946821|NCT03410992|191865926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.297|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.887|128.673||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||128.673|18.887|<0.001
95946822|NCT03410992|191865926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.406|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.087|101.75||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio: Bimekizumab/Placebo calculated using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. This statistical analysis is not controlled for multiplicity and is only nominal.||101.750|22.087|<0.001
95946823|NCT00413283|191865959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.972
95946824|NCT00413283|191865959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.725
95946825|NCT00413283|191865959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.312
95946826|NCT00413283|191865960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95946827|NCT00413283|191865960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95946828|NCT00413283|191865960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95991784|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.3|0.975
95946829|NCT00413283|191865961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95946830|NCT00413283|191865961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95991785|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.1|0.183
95991786|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.017
95946831|NCT00413283|191865961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
95946832|NCT00413283|191865962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.454
95946833|NCT00413283|191865962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.101
95991787|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.7|0.1|0.022
95991788|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.6|0.0|0.081
95991789|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.2|0.510
95757069|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.21|||ANCOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.21|0.91|<0.001
95757070|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.03|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||4.03|2.17|<0.001
95946834|NCT00413283|191865962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||||||0.199
95946835|NCT00413283|191865963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
95946836|NCT00413283|191865963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95946837|NCT00413283|191865963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
95946838|NCT05755906|191865979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.267|||ANCOVA||An increase in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, visit, prior maintenance medication, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline trough FEV1, and percent Albuterol reversibility.|||0.267|0.134|<0.0001
95946839|NCT05755906|191865980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0316||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.144|||ANCOVA||An increase in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, visit, prior maintenance medication, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline trough FEV1, and percent Albuterol reversibility.|||0.144|0.020|0.0096
95991790|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.2|-0.5|0.330
95757071|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.30|0.00|0.049
95757072|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.59|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.59|1.27|<0.001
95757073|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.37|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.37|1.52|<0.001
95757074|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.1|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.10|0.23|0.015
95757075|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||ANCOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.62|<0.001
95757076|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||3.40|1.56|<0.001
95757077|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.2|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.20|-0.08|0.087
95799955|NCT04950686|191571180|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.369
95799956|NCT04950686|191571181|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
95799957|NCT04950686|191571181|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
95799958|NCT04950686|191571182|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95757078|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.82|<0.001
95757079|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.84|1.00|<0.001
95757080|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.94|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.94|0.09|0.032
95757081|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56|||ANCOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.56|0.26|0.006
95799959|NCT04950686|191571182|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
95859193|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.020
95946840|NCT05755906|191865981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.192|||ANCOVA||An increase in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, timepoint, prior maintenance medication, treatment-by-timepoints interaction, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||0.192|0.114|<0.0001
95946841|NCT05755906|191865982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1008||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|-0.082|||ANCOVA||A decrease in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, 4-week interval, their interaction, prior maintenance medication, severe asthma exacerbation history, baseline daily rescue use, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||-0.082|-0.478|0.0058
95757082|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.66|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.66|0.85|<0.001
95757083|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.77|-0.49|0.669
95757084|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|0.24|0.007
95757085|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.52|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.52|0.71|<0.001
95757086|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.78|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.78|-0.05|0.063
95757087|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.39|||ANCOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|0.11|0.022
95757088|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.12|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.12|0.32|0.008
95757089|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.68|-0.58|0.876
95757090|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.13|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.13|-0.15|0.134
95799960|NCT04950686|191571183|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.585|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
95799961|NCT04950686|191571183|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
95946842|NCT05755906|191865983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.851||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|2.958|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, prior maintenance medication, baseline instrument score, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||2.958|1.158|0.0101
95757091|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.07|0.27|0.011
95946843|NCT05755906|191865984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.114||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.302|3.432|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, prior maintenance medication, baseline instrument score, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||3.432|1.302|0.0025
95757092|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.64|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.64|-0.17|0.112
95757093|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.08|||ANCOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.08|-0.20|0.179
95757094|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.85|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.85|0.09|0.032
95799962|NCT04950686|191571184|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.259
95859194|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.005
95946844|NCT05755906|191865985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.873||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.985|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, prior maintenance medication, baseline instrument score, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||2.985|1.175|0.0084
95757095|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.67|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.67|-0.56|0.850
95757096|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.95|-0.30|0.311
95757097|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.79|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.79|0.03|0.043
95757098|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.154||95.0|-0.24|1.53|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.53|-0.24|0.154
95757099|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.89|||ANCOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.89|-0.36|0.408
95757100|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.68|-0.05|0.065
95757101|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.55|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.55|-0.66|0.862
95757102|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.9|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.90|-0.32|0.352
95991791|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.3|0.720
95757103|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.73|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.73|0.00|0.049
95757104|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.39|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.39|-0.35|0.239
95757105|NCT02912650|191482480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.96|||ANCOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||0.96|-0.27|0.270
95757106|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|0.01|0.031
95757107|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.12|-0.06|0.527
95757108|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.05|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.05|-0.14|0.386
95757109|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.25|-0.02|0.084
95757110|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|0.06|0.006
95757111|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.02|-0.17|0.135
95757112|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
95757113|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.27|-0.01|0.062
95757114|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.14|-0.14|0.977
95757115|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.21|<0.001
95757116|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.34|<0.001
95859195|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 216||||0.136
95946845|NCT05755906|191865986|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Regression, Negative Binomial||A rate ratio below 1 favors study drug. The model includes budesonide dose, formoterol dose, study, severe asthma exacerbation history, prior maintenance medications, baseline tFEV1, % Albuterol reversibility, and region.|The comparison of interest is the formoterol effect.||1.25|0.54|0.3610
95946846|NCT05755906|191865987|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.48||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.97|||Regression, Negative Binomial||A rate ratio lower than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, severe asthma exacerbation history, prior maintenance medications, baseline tFEV1, % Albuterol reversibility, and region.|||0.97|0.23|0.0419
95757117|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.01|-0.27|0.069
95757118|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.90|<0.001
95757119|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.46|0.12|<0.001
95757120|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.39|0.05|0.011
95757121|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.09|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.61|< 0.001
95757122|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.16|0.67|<0.001
95757123|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.1|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.10|-0.24|0.427
95799963|NCT04950686|191571184|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
95799964|NCT04950686|191571185|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.411
95799965|NCT04950686|191571185|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.491
95946847|NCT01823224|191865989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated analysis of variance|||||||0.875
95859196|NCT02304367|191676112|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.101
95946848|NCT01823224|191865990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Manova|||||||> 0.05
95946849|NCT02148705|191866004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|288.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.549|13984.356|||Fisher Exact|||||13984.356|35.549|<0.0001
95946850|NCT02148705|191866005|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.044|||Chi-squared|||||0.044|0.003|<0.0001
95946851|NCT02148705|191866006|SUPERIORITY||Test Statistics|23.1429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Wilcoxon-Gehan Test|Analysis is adjusted for Overall TW Depths, TBSA Group, Center Group, and Number of TWs||||||<0.0001
95946852|NCT02148705|191866007|SUPERIORITY||estimate|6505.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|269.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5974.41|7037.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon tests pooled using Rubin´s rule||||7037.19|5974.41|<0.0001
95946853|NCT01583166|191866009|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.837
95946854|NCT03737110|191866018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at Run-In Baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.18|0.01|<0.0001
95757124|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.60|1.11|<0.001
95757125|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.10|0.002
95946855|NCT03737110|191866019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.727||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.438|66.428||95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.428|2.438|0.0002
95757126|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.58|0.23|<0.001
95757127|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.33|0.84|<0.001
95757128|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.70|<0.001
95946856|NCT03737110|191866019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|85.2|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||85.2|36.7|
95757129|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.31|-0.04|0.123
95757130|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.67|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|1.14|<0.001
95757131|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.05|0.012
95757132|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.75|0.38|<0.001
95757133|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.90|<0.001
95757134|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.11|0.57|<0.001
95757135|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|0.14|<0.001
95757136|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|1.11|<0.001
95799966|NCT04950686|191571186|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
95757137|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.48|0.11|0.002
95757138|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.56|<0.001
95757139|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.36|0.82|<0.001
95757140|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|0.35|<0.001
95946857|NCT03737110|191866020|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|68.0||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||68.0|34.5|< 0.0001
95757141|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.65|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.27|<0.001
95757142|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|1.06|<0.001
95799967|NCT04950686|191571186|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
95859197|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 24||||< 0.001
95757143|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.49|0.10|0.003
95757144|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.98|0.58|<0.001
95757145|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|0.76|<0.001
95757146|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|<0.001
95757147|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.68|0.29|<0.001
95757148|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|1.00|<0.001
95757149|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.50|0.10|0.003
95946858|NCT03737110|191866021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|46.826||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.826|2.136|0.0006
95991792|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.205
95757150|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.91|0.51|<0.001
95757151|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.70|<0.001
95757152|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.29|<0.001
95757153|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
95757154|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.81|<0.001
95757155|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.014
95757156|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.45|<0.001
95799968|NCT04950686|191571187|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.128
95946859|NCT03737110|191866021|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|81.3|||||Differences between percentages are reported in percentage points. The 95% confidence intervals for the differences in percentages were based on a normal approximation.|||81.3|30.6|
95946860|NCT03737110|191866022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|53.188||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.188|1.317|0.0022
95757157|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.13|0.56|<0.001
95757158|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|0.15|0.003
95757159|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.21|<0.001
95757160|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.62|<0.001
95946861|NCT03737110|191866023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.051|38.981||95% CI and p-value were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at run-in baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.981|3.051|< 0.0001
95757161|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|0.01|0.041
95757162|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.76|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.35|<0.001
95757163|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.99|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.99|0.41|<0.001
95757164|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.65|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.06|0.018
95757165|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.55|0.14|0.001
95859198|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 48||||0.238
95757166|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.48|<0.001
95757167|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|0.00|0.045
95757168|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|0.24|<0.001
95946862|NCT03737110|191866024|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|70.1||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||70.1|33.8|< 0.0001
95946863|NCT03737110|191866025|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|55.8||Two-sided p-value calculated using analysis of covariance with treatment, randomization strata and run-in baseline NRS weekly average category (NRS ≤ 2 versus NRS \>2) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference (rilonacept - placebo)|||55.8|25.3|< 0.0001
95946864|NCT03737110|191866026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.522||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.262|218.552||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||218.552|4.262|0.0002
95991793|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.410
95757169|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.84|0.28|< 0.001
95757170|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.61|0.04|0.027
95757171|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|0.04|0.020
95757172|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.85|0.29|<0.001
95757173|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.11|0.374
95757174|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.54|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|0.14|<0.001
95757175|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.76|0.20|<0.001
95757176|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.106
95757177|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|0.05|0.013
95757178|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.67|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|0.11|0.006
95757179|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.22|-0.17|0.796
95757180|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.36|-0.03|0.104
95757181|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.65|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.65|0.09|0.010
95757182|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.51|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.51|-0.05|0.114
95757183|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.34|-0.06|0.168
95757184|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.59|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.59|0.05|0.022
95757185|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.24|-0.14|0.620
95757186|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.33|-0.06|0.164
95757187|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.54|-0.00|0.052
95757188|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.45|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.45|-0.09|0.196
95757189|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.28|-0.10|0.364
95757190|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.52|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.02|0.071
95757191|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.865||95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.20|0.865
95946865|NCT03737110|191866027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.439|60.574||95% CI and p-value are analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by oral corticosteroid use and diagnosis of recurrent idiopathic pericarditis at RI baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.574|3.439|< 0.0001
95757192|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.30|-0.08|0.238
95757193|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.53|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.53|-0.00|0.054
95757194|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.40|-0.14|0.335
95757195|NCT02912650|191482481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.06|0.176
95757196|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.77|0.18|0.002
95757197|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.38|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.38|-0.03|0.098
95799969|NCT04950686|191571187|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95799970|NCT04950686|191571188|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95799971|NCT04950686|191571188|EQUIVALENCE|This arm will receive Health Aware for Young Adults in between the pretest and posttest questionnaire. Health Aware for Young Adults is a web-based sexual and relationship health promotion program. The program contains the same health content as Media Aware for Young Adults but without the media literacy education components. The program is self-paced and includes four modules.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.638
95799972|NCT04950686|191571189|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.841
95946866|NCT03737110|191866028|SUPERIORITY||Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|94.6|||normal approximation|||||94.6|56.8|< 0.0001
95757198|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.17|-0.25|0.719
95757199|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.60|0.00|0.048
95757200|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.81|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.81|0.21|<0.001
95859199|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 96||||0.286
95946867|NCT03737110|191866029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.32||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.32|0.05|< 0.0001
95757201|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||-0.00|-0.42|0.046
95757202|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.99|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.99|1.05|<0.001
95757203|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.63|-0.02|0.069
95757204|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.42|-0.24|0.604
95757205|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.69|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.69|0.75|<0.001
95757206|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.90|0.96|<0.001
95757207|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.11|-0.54|0.200
95859200|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 144||||0.093
95757208|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.46|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.46|2.32|<0.001
95859201|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 168||||0.890
95757209|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
95757210|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.95|0.14|0.008
95757211|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.83|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.83|1.69|<0.001
95757212|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.91|1.77|<0.001
95757213|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.32|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.32|-0.49|0.685
95757214|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|3.93|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.93|2.77|<0.001
95859202|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 192||||0.059
95859203|NCT02304367|191676113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623||||||Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.|GEE model|||Week 216||||0.623
95859204|NCT02304367|191676113|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline osteocalcin.||Week 240||||0.411
95757215|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.07|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.07|0.26|0.001
95757216|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.39|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.39|0.57|<0.001
95757217|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.27|2.11|<0.001
95757218|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.96|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.79|<0.001
95757219|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.73|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.73|-0.10|0.132
95757220|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.13|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.13|2.88|<0.001
95757221|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|0.17|0.007
95757222|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.8|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.80|0.91|<0.001
95757223|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.52|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.52|2.27|<0.001
95757224|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.79|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.79|1.52|<0.001
95859205|NCT02304367|191676114|OTHER|||||||0.8209|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.8209
95859206|NCT02304367|191676114|OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2851
95859207|NCT02304367|191676114|OTHER|||||||0.6689|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.6689
95859208|NCT02304367|191676114|OTHER|||||||0.1612|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1612
95859209|NCT02304367|191676115|OTHER|||||||0.4093|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.4093
95859210|NCT02304367|191676115|OTHER|||||||0.572|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5720
95859211|NCT02304367|191676115|OTHER|||||||0.3501|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.3501
95859212|NCT02304367|191676115|OTHER|||||||0.5172|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.5172
95946868|NCT03737110|191866030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as covariate and stratified by oral corticosteroid use at run-in baseline.|||0.22|0.02|< 0.0001
95946869|NCT03737110|191866031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.46||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||4.46|0.12|0.7447
95946870|NCT03737110|191866032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.87||Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Calculated based on a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as covariate and without stratification by randomization strata.|||1.87|0.07|0.2066
95946871|NCT03737110|191866033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not estimable due to low number of participants with an event.|Two-sided p-value is from the log-rank test without stratification by randomization strata.|Log Rank||||||0.00|0.0059
95991794|NCT00618722|191959051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Repeated measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.2|0.436
95757225|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|0.30|0.001
95859213|NCT02304367|191676116|OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 24||||0.0046
95946872|NCT03737110|191866045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.108||Two-sided p value calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjudicated by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who used ORT, corticosteroids or bailout rilonacept during the RW Period||0.108|0.002|< 0.0001
95946873|NCT05462990|191866102|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-8.5249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1275||0.9961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|-3.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-3.3|-13.7|0.9961
95946874|NCT02736188|191866113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.77||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||Week 8||2.77|-1.17|0.4287
95946875|NCT02736188|191866113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.21|-1.49|0.7031
95946876|NCT02736188|191866113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.32||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.32|-3.14|0.4253
95946877|NCT02736188|191866113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.38||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.38|-3.49|0.9747
95946878|NCT02736188|191866114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.47||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.47|-1.01|0.4721
95991795|NCT00618722|191959052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||12.3|-9.1|0.762
95991796|NCT00618722|191959052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|5.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|14.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||14.2|-3.8|0.248
95757226|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.09|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.09|2.79|<0.001
95757227|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.15|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.15|0.24|0.003
95757228|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.31|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.31|1.39|<0.001
95757229|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.39|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.39|2.10|<0.001
95757230|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|0.94|< 0.001
95757231|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.69|<0.001
95757232|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.0|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|2.67|<0.001
95757233|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.2|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.20|0.27|0.002
95757234|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.41|1.47|<0.001
95757235|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.26|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|1.93|<0.001
95757236|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.07|0.73|<0.001
95757237|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.67|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.67|0.73|<0.001
95757238|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|3.87|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.87|2.51|<0.001
95757239|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.23|0.29|0.002
95799973|NCT04950686|191571189|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.270
95799974|NCT04950686|191571190|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.940
95946879|NCT02736188|191866114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.64||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.64|-1.02|0.6611
95946880|NCT02736188|191866114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.35|||GEE model|Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.||Week 24||0.35|-1.22|0.2760
95946881|NCT02736188|191866114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.13||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.13|-1.69|0.6977
95757240|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.33|1.37|< 0.001
95757241|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.11|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.11|1.75|<0.001
95757242|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.03|0.66|<0.001
95757243|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.56|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.56|0.61|<0.001
95757244|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.35|1.95|<0.001
95757245|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
95757246|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.22|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.22|1.24|<0.001
95757247|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.74|1.35|<0.001
95757248|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.62|0.22|0.010
95757249|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.61|0.63|<0.001
95757250|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.88|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.88|1.47|<0.001
95757251|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.06|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.06|0.08|0.022
95757252|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.95|0.95|<0.001
95757253|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.30|0.90|<0.001
95757254|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.43|0.02|0.045
95757255|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.38|0.38|<0.001
95799975|NCT04950686|191571190|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.992
95946882|NCT02736188|191866115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.45|-0.04|0.0648
95946883|NCT02736188|191866115|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.55|-0.06|0.0692
95757256|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.47|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.47|1.09|<0.001
95757257|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.04|0.07|0.024
95946884|NCT02736188|191866115|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.44||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.52|-0.65|0.4317
95757258|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.65|0.67|<0.001
95757259|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.92|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.92|0.54|<0.001
95757260|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.32|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.32|-0.07|0.079
95757261|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.09|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.09|0.12|0.015
95757262|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.56|<0.001
95946885|NCT02736188|191866115|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.34||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.1||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.10|-1.78|0.6416
95946886|NCT02736188|191866116|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.78||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.22||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||4.22|-2.65|0.6546
95991797|NCT00618722|191959052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|19.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline SMF rating as covariate.||||19.1|-0.4|0.061
95757263|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.67|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.67|-0.29|0.438
95757264|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.29|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.29|0.31|0.001
95757265|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.75|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.75|0.37|0.003
95757266|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.25|0.204
95757267|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.10|0.12|0.014
95757268|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.53|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.53|0.15|0.018
95757269|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.52|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.52|-0.44|0.867
95757270|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
95757271|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.49|0.11|0.024
95757272|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.27|0.228
95757273|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|-0.12|0.136
95757274|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.28|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.28|-0.07|0.078
95757275|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.56|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.56|-0.38|0.716
95757276|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.79|-0.16|0.197
95757277|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.19|-0.15|0.131
95859214|NCT02304367|191676116|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline STS measurement.||Week 48||||0.0012
95946887|NCT02736188|191866116|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.69|-3.97|0.7054
95946888|NCT02736188|191866116|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.5||||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.45||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||4.45|-5.45|0.8441
95757278|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.97|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.97|-0.39|0.399
95757279|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.70|-0.25|0.349
95757280|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.12|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.12|-0.20|0.169
95799976|NCT04950686|191571191|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.470
95799977|NCT04950686|191571191|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
95799978|NCT04950686|191571192|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.931
95799979|NCT04950686|191571192|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.666
95799980|NCT04950686|191571193|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.822|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
95799981|NCT04950686|191571193|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.721
95799982|NCT04950686|191571194|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.540
95799983|NCT04950686|191571194|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.956
95799984|NCT04950686|191571195|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
95799985|NCT04950686|191571195|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.136
95946889|NCT02736188|191866116|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|8.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||8.90|-0.59|0.0864
95757281|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.44|-0.48|0.937
95946890|NCT02736188|191866117|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.06||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.78||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||0.78|-0.65|0.8603
95757282|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.69|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.69|-0.25|0.351
95757283|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.14|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.14|-0.18|0.151
95757284|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.9|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.90|-0.42|0.476
95757285|NCT02912650|191482482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.71|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|-0.22|0.310
95946891|NCT02736188|191866117|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||0.51|-0.86|0.6154
95757286|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|8.61|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||8.61|6.09|<0.001
95859215|NCT02304367|191676117|OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.6475
95946892|NCT02736188|191866117|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.47||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.2||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.20|-0.25|0.1999
95757287|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.28|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.28|0.53|0.002
95757288|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||2.88|1.09|<0.001
95757289|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|7.2|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.20|4.69|<0.001
95757290|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.63|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||6.63|4.10|<0.001
95757291|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.47|||ANCOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||1.47|-0.31|0.203
95757292|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|28.9|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||28.90|20.10|<0.001
95757293|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.52|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||7.52|1.37|0.005
95757294|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|14.48|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||14.48|8.23|<0.001
95946893|NCT02736188|191866117|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.03||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.18||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||1.18|-1.25|0.9568
95946894|NCT02736188|191866118|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.45||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.90|-1.00|0.5447
95757295|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.66|24.45|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||24.45|15.66|<0.001
95757296|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|17.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.57|8.71|<0.001
95757297|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.04|||ANCOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.04|3.80|<0.001
95757298|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.09|43.57|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||43.57|26.09|<0.001
95757299|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|11.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||11.95|-0.25|0.060
95757300|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|22.95|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||22.95|10.54|<0.001
95757301|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.26|37.71|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||37.71|20.26|<0.001
95859216|NCT02304367|191676117|OTHER|||||||0.5319|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.5319
95946895|NCT02736188|191866118|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.56||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.09||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.09|-2.22|0.5051
95946896|NCT02736188|191866118|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.27||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.9||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||1.90|-1.36|0.7478
95946897|NCT02736188|191866118|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.41||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||2.04|-2.86|0.7429
95946898|NCT02736188|191866119|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.0||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|10.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||10.49|-6.48|0.6434
95946899|NCT02736188|191866119|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.99||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|8.55||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||8.55|-12.53|0.7118
95799986|NCT04950686|191571196|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
95799987|NCT04950686|191571196|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.748|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.748
95859217|NCT02304367|191676117|OTHER|||||||0.9206|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.9206
95859218|NCT02304367|191676117|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1530
95859219|NCT02304367|191676118|OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.2125
95757302|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.08|||<|0.001||95.0|9.29|26.88|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||26.88|9.29|<0.001
95757303|NCT02912650|191482483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|17.1|||ANCOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||17.10|4.70|<0.001
95757304|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.51|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.51|1.72|<0.001
95799988|NCT04950686|191571197|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.490
95859220|NCT02304367|191676118|OTHER|||||||0.1241|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.1241
95946900|NCT02736188|191866119|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|4.15||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|14.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||14.69|-6.39|0.4399
95757305|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.71|0.16|0.002
95859221|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.410
95859222|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.210
95859223|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.060
95946901|NCT02736188|191866119|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.98||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|28.37||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||28.37|-12.41|0.4430
95946902|NCT02736188|191866120|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.28||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.46||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.46|-0.90|0.6428
95946903|NCT02736188|191866120|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.25||||0.7334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.21|-1.72|0.7334
95859224|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.076
95757306|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.86|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.86|0.30|<0.001
95757307|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.08|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.08|1.29|<0.001
95757308|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.93|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.93|1.14|<0.001
95757309|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.43|-0.13|0.303
95859225|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.171
95859226|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.141
95859227|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.263
95946904|NCT02736188|191866120|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.58||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.04||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.04|-0.89|0.4409
95946905|NCT02736188|191866120|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.99||||0.4687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.68||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.68|-1.69|0.4687
95946906|NCT02736188|191866121|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.14||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.69||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||2.69|-0.41|0.1502
95757310|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|8.58|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.58|5.86|<0.001
95757311|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.53|0.63|0.001
95757312|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.45|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.45|2.52|<0.001
95757313|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.99|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.99|4.28|<0.001
95757314|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.1|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.10|2.37|<0.001
95757315|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.86|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.86|0.95|<0.001
95946907|NCT02736188|191866121|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|-1.89|-1.89|1.49||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||1.49|-1.89|0.8188
95946908|NCT02736188|191866121|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.17||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||3.17|-1.58|0.5122
95757316|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|10.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|7.08|<0.001
95757317|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.26|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.26|0.73|0.002
95757318|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.77|3.20|<0.001
95757319|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|8.71|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.71|5.08|<0.001
95757320|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|6.24|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.24|2.58|<0.001
95757321|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.77|1.21|<0.001
95757322|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|13.08|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||13.08|7.76|<0.001
95799989|NCT04950686|191571197|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.831
95799990|NCT04950686|191571198|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
95799991|NCT04950686|191571198|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.235
95859228|NCT02304367|191676119|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.320
95946909|NCT02736188|191866121|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.72||||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|4.4||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||4.40|-2.96|0.7022
95757323|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.0|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.00|0.28|0.024
95757324|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|7.12|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.12|3.35|<0.001
95946910|NCT02736188|191866122|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.6||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 8||1.60|-1.22|0.7906
95946911|NCT02736188|191866122|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.66||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.07||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 16||2.07|-0.74|0.3531
95946912|NCT02736188|191866122|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.15||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.23||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 24||2.23|-1.92|0.8846
95946913|NCT02736188|191866122|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.08||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.79||Baseline is fit into the model as a covariate.|GEE model|||Week 48||3.79|0.38|0.0168
95757325|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|10.93|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.93|5.62|<0.001
95757326|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.86|2.51|<0.001
95757327|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.97|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.97|1.22|0.001
95757328|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.59|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.59|1.95|<0.001
95757329|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.24|0.09|0.023
95757330|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.24|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.24|1.07|<0.001
95757331|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.92|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.92|1.29|<0.001
95799992|NCT04950686|191571199|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
95946914|NCT01968967|191866169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-54.0|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-54.0|-58.3|<0.001
95946915|NCT01968967|191866170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-33.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.5|-36.5|<0.001
95757332|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.94|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.94|0.29|0.008
95757333|NCT02912650|191482484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.57|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.57|0.41|<0.001
95757334|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.82|||ANOVA|||0 to 2 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.82|2.68|<0.001
95757335|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.03|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour:Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.03|0.23|0.002
95757336|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.27|0.46|<0.001
95757337|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.19|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.19|2.05|<0.001
95757338|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.96|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.96|1.81|<0.001
95757339|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||0.64|-0.17|0.258
95799993|NCT04950686|191571199|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
95859229|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.407
95859230|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.192
95859231|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.106
95859232|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.020
95946916|NCT01968967|191866170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-29.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.8|-33.3|
95991798|NCT00925600|191959054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval, or equivalently upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority bound of 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The primary endpoint was summarized with the point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||7.2|-6.3|0.0026
95991799|NCT00925600|191959055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||2.0|-6.4|
95991800|NCT00925600|191959056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||5.3|-5.9|
95799994|NCT04950686|191571200|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.63|0.24|0.242
95757340|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.74|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.74|8.79|<0.001
95757341|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.67|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.67|0.91|0.001
95757342|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|6.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.73|3.93|<0.001
95757343|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.44|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.44|6.51|<0.001
95799995|NCT04950686|191571200|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|5.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.72|0.11|0.207
95799996|NCT04950686|191571201|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|0.51|0.576
95799997|NCT04950686|191571201|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
95799998|NCT04950686|191571202|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.45|0.22|0.467
95799999|NCT04950686|191571202|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.03|0.46|0.888
95800000|NCT04950686|191571203|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95800001|NCT04950686|191571203|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.432
95800002|NCT04950686|191571204|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
95800003|NCT04950686|191571204|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
95946917|NCT01968967|191866170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-22.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.8|-26.6|
95757344|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|7.42|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.42|3.46|<0.001
95757345|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.43|||ANOVA|||0 to 6 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.43|1.65|<0.001
95757346|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|18.62|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.62|10.74|<0.001
95757347|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.16||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.91|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.91|0.41|0.024
95757348|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|10.73|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.73|5.15|<0.001
95757349|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.59|15.45|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||15.45|7.59|<0.001
95757350|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.79|10.71|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||10.71|2.79|<0.001
95757351|NCT02912650|191482485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.56|||ANOVA|||0 to 12 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.56|2.0|<0.001
95757352|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|6.32|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.32|4.42|<0.001
95757353|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.74|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.74|0.40|0.002
95757354|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.13|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||2.13|0.77|<0.001
95757355|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|5.25|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.25|3.35|<0.001
95757356|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.88|2.96|<0.001
95757357|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.05|||ANOVA|||0-2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||1.05|-0.29|0.268
95757358|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.69|21.28|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.28|14.69|<0.001
95757359|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.17|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.17|1.57|<0.001
95757360|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|11.15|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||11.15|6.48|<0.001
95757361|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.83|17.4|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.40|10.83|<0.001
95757362|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|5.86|<0.001
95757363|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.27|||ANOVA|||0-6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||7.27|2.62|<0.001
95757364|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|26.37|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.37|17.52|<0.001
95757365|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.09|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.09|1.91|0.002
95757366|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|14.56|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.56|8.29|<0.001
95946918|NCT01968967|191866171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-48.8|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.8|-52.9|<0.001
95800004|NCT04950686|191571205|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School ID was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.277
95800005|NCT04950686|191571205|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes, we used multilevel regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect. School identifier (ID) was included as a random intercept to adjust for data nesting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
95757367|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.53|21.36|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||21.36|12.53|<0.001
95757368|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|14.97|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||14.97|6.07|<0.001
95757369|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.55|||ANOVA|||0-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.55|3.30|<0.001
95800006|NCT01022580|191571206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.89
95800007|NCT01022580|191571207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||unadj GEE|||||||0.33
95800008|NCT03720847|191571225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|||||.012
95800009|NCT03720847|191571226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.|Positive estimated value indicates a greater perimenstrual increase in the outcome in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.030
95859233|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.002
95757370|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.57|31.63|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||31.63|18.57|<0.001
95757371|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.86|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||9.86|0.74|0.023
95757372|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.55|17.8|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||17.80|8.55|<0.001
95800010|NCT03720847|191571227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.013
95800011|NCT03720847|191571228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual change in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.018
95800012|NCT03720847|191571229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value indicates greater perimenstrual increase in symptoms in the placebo condition relative to the active condition.|paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.073
95800013|NCT03720847|191571230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.25
95800014|NCT03720847|191571231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired sample t-test comparing perimenstrual change in the placebo vs. active conditions within a given participant.||||.23
95800015|NCT01500096|191571232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.15
95800016|NCT01500096|191571232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms||||0.73
95800017|NCT01500096|191571233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1329
95800018|NCT01500096|191571233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.1191
95800019|NCT01500096|191571234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7454
95800020|NCT01500096|191571234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7391
95800021|NCT01500096|191571235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6818|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.6818
95800022|NCT01500096|191571235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.0579
95859234|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.220
95946919|NCT01968967|191866171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-43.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.8|-48.5|
95946920|NCT01968967|191866171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-33.6||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.6|-38.6|
95757373|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|26.31|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||26.31|13.28|<0.001
95757374|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|18.49|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||18.49|5.36|<0.001
95757375|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|12.48|||ANOVA|||0-12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||12.48|3.27|<0.001
95757376|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|8.62|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||8.62|4.61|<0.001
95757377|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.14|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||3.14|0.34|0.015
95757378|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.76|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||5.76|2.92|<0.001
95757379|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.88|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||6.88|2.87|<0.001
95757380|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.28|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.28|0.25|0.028
95757381|NCT02912650|191482486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.02|||ANOVA|||6-8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS Mean from ANOVA with treatment, gender and baseline categorical PSR.||4.02|1.19|<0.001
95757382|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-23.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.71|-49.41|<0.001
95757383|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.95||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.56|-8.45|0.086
95757384|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.71||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.86|-8.28|0.112
95757385|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.86|-19.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.17|-45.86|<0.001
95757386|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-32.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.22|-19.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.55|-46.22|<0.001
95757387|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|0.11||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.42|-5.20|0.968
95757388|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.18|-34.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-34.58|-61.18|<0.001
95800023|NCT01500096|191571236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.17
95800024|NCT01500096|191571236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.51
95800025|NCT01500096|191571237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.7884
95800026|NCT01500096|191571237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.5532
95946921|NCT01968967|191866172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-48.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-52.1|<0.001
95757389|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|-0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.84|-11.61|0.023
95757390|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.23||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-0.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.73|-11.73|0.026
95757391|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-27.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.52|-55.51|<0.001
95757392|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-41.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|-27.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-27.89|-55.65|<0.001
95757393|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.16||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.23|-6.56|0.960
95757394|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-55.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.81|-42.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-42.65|-68.81|<0.001
95757395|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.16||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.13|-12.46|0.055
95800027|NCT01500096|191571238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.9885
95859235|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.230
95946922|NCT01968967|191866172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-43.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.1|-47.9|
95757396|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.70|-18.70|0.001
95757397|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-49.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.21|-35.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-35.60|-63.21|<0.001
95757398|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|-30.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-30.55|-58.04|<0.001
95757399|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.69||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.08|-13.46|0.151
95757400|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|-43.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-43.91|-69.96|<0.001
95800028|NCT01500096|191571238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sides Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.2898
95800029|NCT01500096|191571239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.60
95800030|NCT01500096|191571239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the IL-6 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.28
95800031|NCT01500096|191571239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
95859236|NCT02304367|191676120|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.232
95757401|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-9.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.19|-15.80|0.010
95757402|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.97|-12.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.24|-27.97|<0.001
95757403|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.64|-33.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.83|-61.64|<0.001
95800032|NCT01500096|191571239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR1 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.72
95800033|NCT01500096|191571239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.34
95800034|NCT01500096|191571239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the sTNFR2 level changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.58
95800035|NCT01500096|191571240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 5 are significantly different between arms.||||0.31
95800036|NCT01500096|191571240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.71
95859237|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.082
95946923|NCT01968967|191866172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-33.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-33.3|-38.5|
95757404|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-37.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-23.40|-50.96|<0.001
95800037|NCT01500096|191571241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.18
95800038|NCT01500096|191571241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.19
95800039|NCT01500096|191571242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.47
95800040|NCT01500096|191571242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2 sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Testing whether the changes from baseline to week 4 are significantly different between arms.||||0.41
95800041|NCT00835978|191571276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.578||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|2.448||A priori defined threshold for statistical significance was: alpha=0.10 (one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on the endpoint. Both a point estimate and a 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a normal approximation.||2.448|1.017|0.0189
95800042|NCT00835978|191571277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.348|||Log Rank|||||1.348|0.535|0.2444
95800043|NCT02827708|191571329|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
95757405|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.19||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.36|-20.02|0.013
95802503|NCT02864914|191578402|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|3.74|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.74|2.81|
95859238|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.176
95757406|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-58.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.03|-45.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-45.26|-71.03|<0.001
95757407|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|-3.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.06|-17.24|0.005
95757408|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-18.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-18.44|-35.10|<0.001
95800044|NCT02827708|191571329|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95800045|NCT02827708|191571330|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
95800046|NCT02827708|191571330|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.9|-3.5|<0.0001
95800047|NCT02827708|191571346|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.23|0.34|=0.1834
95757409|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-47.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.76|-33.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-33.72|-61.76|<0.001
95757410|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-31.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.76|-45.61|<0.001
95757411|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.42|-26.10|<0.001
95757412|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-57.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.44|-44.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-44.72|-70.44|<0.001
95859239|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.047
95757413|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.28||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-3.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.57|-18.99|0.004
95757414|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-28.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|-19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-19.35|-36.77|<0.001
95946924|NCT01968967|191866173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-55.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.2|-60.2|<0.001
95757415|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-46.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-32.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-32.04|-59.98|<0.001
95757416|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.65|-15.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-15.75|-43.65|<0.001
95757417|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-16.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-7.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.29|-26.59|<0.001
95757418|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.06|-39.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-39.75|-66.06|<0.001
95757419|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.34|-17.53|0.042
95757420|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.65|-17.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.86|-36.65|<0.001
95757421|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-43.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.83|-29.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-29.72|-57.83|<0.001
95757422|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.93|-11.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-11.57|-39.93|<0.001
95757423|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.39|-8.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-8.59|-28.39|<0.001
95757424|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|-31.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-31.58|-58.96|<0.001
95757425|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.88||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.50|-18.27|0.064
95757426|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-26.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.91|-17.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-17.05|-36.91|<0.001
95757427|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-22.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-22.07|-50.45|<0.001
95757428|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.58||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.64|-4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-4.52|-32.64|0.010
95757429|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-18.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|-7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-7.90|-28.44|<0.001
95757430|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-34.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-20.21|-48.21|<0.001
95757431|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.97||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.19|-17.12|0.179
95757432|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-10.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-10.35|-31.04|<0.001
95946925|NCT01968967|191866173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-50.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-50.0|-56.1|
95946926|NCT01968967|191866173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-46.2|
95991801|NCT00925600|191959057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3||||||The point estimate of absolute risk difference (difference in incidence rates, denosumab minus placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for the stratification factors: baseline LOCS III status (\< 3.0 at all sites \[P, C, and NO\] vs. ≥ 3.0 at any of these sites), age group (\< 75, ≥ 75 years), and patient-reported history of cataract (yes/no).||3.3|-7.6|
95757433|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.44|-12.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-12.96|-41.44|<0.001
95757434|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.04|-27.84|0.051
95757435|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-3.31|-24.21|0.010
95757436|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-23.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.31|-9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-9.20|-37.31|0.001
95757437|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-2.22||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|8.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.19|-12.63|0.676
95757438|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-13.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.57|-2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-2.74|-23.57|0.013
95946927|NCT01968967|191866174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-47.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-47.7|-55.9|<0.001
95757439|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-20.94||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.18|-6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-6.69|-35.18|0.004
95757440|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.39||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.40|-24.19|0.140
95757441|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-0.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.61|-21.51|0.038
95757442|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-17.9||||0.013||95.0|-32.13|-3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-3.79|-32.13|0.013
95757443|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.85||||0.467||95.0|-14.23|6.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||6.53|-14.23|0.467
95757444|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-10.38||||0.049||95.0|-20.73|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.02|-20.73|0.049
95757445|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-14.1||||0.05||95.0|-28.22|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.02|-28.22|0.050
95859240|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.017
95991802|NCT00624221|191959061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 40 subjects was estimated based on having 80% power to determine greater than 10% difference in cell loss between groups with estimated standard deviation of 17 and estimated correlation of 0.5.||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired difference t-test|||||||0.10
95757446|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.99||||0.255||95.0|-21.73|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||5.76|-21.73|0.255
95757447|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-6.57||||0.212||95.0|-16.89|3.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.75|-16.89|0.212
95757448|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-15.68||||0.027||95.0|-29.59|-1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||-1.77|-29.59|0.027
95757449|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-4.39||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||5.82|-14.59|0.399
95757450|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-7.5||||0.152||95.0|-17.76|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.77|-17.76|0.152
95757451|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-11.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.40|-25.05|0.106
95757452|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.59||||0.21||95.0|-22.0|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.83|-22.00|0.210
95757453|NCT02912650|191482487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-3.13||||0.545||95.0|-13.26|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||7.00|-13.26|0.545
95946928|NCT01968967|191866174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-38.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-38.8|-49.1|
95757454|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|20.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||30.94|10.54|<0.001
95757455|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.52||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.86|-4.81|0.342
95757456|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|3.62||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.22|-5.98|0.459
95757457|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|26.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||26.17|6.24|0.001
95757458|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|17.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|27.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.31|7.42|<0.001
95757459|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.91||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.42|-10.2|0.849
95757460|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.53|62.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||62.62|39.53|<0.001
95757461|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|5.16||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.30|-4.97|0.318
95757462|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|20.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.21|-0.49|0.062
95859241|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.000
95757463|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|57.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.76|33.45|<0.001
95757464|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.76|53.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||53.38|28.76|<0.001
95757465|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.74||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.17|-5.70|0.374
95757466|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.93|72.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.26|47.93|<0.001
95757467|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|4.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.81|-4.22|0.323
95757468|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|18.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.86|0.86|0.032
95757469|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.11|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||68.20|43.11|<0.001
95757470|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.71|63.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.05|37.71|<0.001
95946929|NCT01968967|191866174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|-29.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-29.0|-40.2|
95991803|NCT02804763|191959175|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0727||||||The lowest p-value (z-statistic with the highest value) was used to establish proof of dose response.|MCP-Mod|||"Multiple contrast testing (MCP-mod methodology) was used to test for a statistically significant dose-response relationship between the primary endpoint (BICLA at Week 24) and dose, which would indicate a drug effect of DZP over Placebo.~The best fitting statistically significant model could be used to estimate the dose needed to achieve desired treatment effect."||||=0.0727
95757471|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.61||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.80|-3.58|0.232
95757472|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.39|72.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.46|47.39|<0.001
95757473|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|5.51||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||13.53|-2.52|0.179
95757474|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.10|4.65|0.003
95757475|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
95757476|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
95757477|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757478|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.99|73.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||73.03|47.99|<0.001
95757479|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.08||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.89|0.135
95757480|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.64|5.30|0.002
95757481|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|54.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.36|67.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||67.29|41.36|<0.001
95757482|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|46.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|59.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.99|33.50|<0.001
95757483|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757484|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757485|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757486|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757487|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757488|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757489|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757490|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757491|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757492|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757493|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757494|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757495|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757496|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757497|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757498|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757499|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757500|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757501|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757502|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757503|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757504|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757505|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757506|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95859242|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.057
95757507|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757508|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757509|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757510|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757511|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757512|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757513|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757514|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95859243|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.071
95859244|NCT02304367|191676121|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.070
95859245|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.014
95946930|NCT01968967|191866175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-22.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-22.5|-34.4|<0.001
95946931|NCT01968967|191866175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-21.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.5|-40.6|
95946932|NCT01968967|191866175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-13.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.7|-36.8|
95757515|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757516|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757517|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757518|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|< 0.001
95757519|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757520|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001||95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.00|45.24|< 0.001
95757521|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95800048|NCT02827708|191571347|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.04|0.17|=0.0610
95800049|NCT00898807|191571377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values are two-sided and p\<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model w/ random intercept for patient, visit indicator, treatment by visit interactions and adjusted for baseline NBRS-A \& cognition.|Negative numbers favor citalopram group.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the NBRS-A, the study was designed to have 85% power to detect a standardized difference at week 9 of 40% for citalopram compared to placebo at week 9.||-0.06|-1.80|0.036
95859246|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.309
95757522|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|< 0.001
95757523|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95800050|NCT00898807|191571378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.69||All p-values are two-sided and p \<0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Proportional odds|estimated treatment effect from the proportional odds model|Positive numbers favors citalopram.|Primary assessment of efficacy was based on intention-to-treat comparison of the difference in the NBRS-A scores at week 9 and comparison at week 9 for the CGIC. For the CGIC proportional odds analysis, the study was designed to have power greater than 80% to detect a difference of 20% between citalopram and placebo in the proportions of patients who improve (or worsen).||3.69|1.23|0.007
95859247|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.036
95946933|NCT01968967|191866176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.0|4.5|<0.001
95946934|NCT01968967|191866176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|6.8||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.8|4.2|
95946935|NCT01968967|191866176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.7|3.7|
95946936|NCT01968967|191866177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-48.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-48.0|-53.3|
95757524|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757525|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087||95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757526|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757527|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757528|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95800051|NCT03928327|191571381|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.48|3.3|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect(treatment), random-effect(participants). Geometric mean ratios(GMR), 90% confidence interval(CI) calculated using exponentiation of treatment least squares means(LSMs) difference.|||3.30|2.48|
95800052|NCT03928327|191571382|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.11|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.11|0.07|
95757529|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757530|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001||95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757531|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757532|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95757533|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071||95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95800053|NCT03928327|191571383|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|7.56|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||7.56|5.20|
95800054|NCT03928327|191571384|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.07|||||Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment) and random-effect (participants). GMR and 90% CI was calculated using exponentiation of treatment LSMs difference.|||0.07|0.04|
95859248|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.096
95757534|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001||95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757535|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001||95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757536|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757537|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757538|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.24|71.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.00|45.24|<0.001
95800055|NCT00407511|191571388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of treatment/last observation carried forward (EOT/LOCF): value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline visits scores. Mean change: the arithmetic mean change and p-value from the single sample t-test. If \< = 7 and \> = 4 post-baseline scores were available, the mean pain score was computed using the available scores. The mean was not calculated if there were less than 4 post-baseline scores prior to study termination.||||< 0.0001
95800056|NCT00407511|191571389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
95800057|NCT00407511|191571389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.3|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8||-3.5|-4.3|< 0.0001
95800058|NCT00407511|191571389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
95757539|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.23||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.10|-0.63|0.071
95757540|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|23.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.69|6.55|<0.001
95757541|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757542|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757543|NCT02912650|191482488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95800059|NCT00407511|191571390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8, FAS. Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (49 to 63 days).||-3.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
95800060|NCT00407511|191571390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.1|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= 78 days).||-4.1|-5.1|< 0.0001
95800061|NCT00407511|191571390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
95800062|NCT00407511|191571391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (Day 49 to 63).||-3.4|-4.2|< 0.0001
95800063|NCT00407511|191571391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: subjects were only included if their visit fell within the computed week (\>= Day 78)||-3.7|-4.5|< 0.0001
95800064|NCT00407511|191571391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline value; mean change from Baseline was the arthmetic mean change and the p-value was from the single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
95859249|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.005
95757544|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.75|-0.44|0.156
95757545|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||2.76|-0.44|0.155
95757546|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.68||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||1.90|-3.27|0.605
95757547|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.84||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||3.89|-0.21|0.079
95757548|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-1.85||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||0.21|-3.90|0.078
95757549|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|27.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||27.62|15.33|<0.001
95757550|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Percentage of Participants wi|7.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|15.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.77|-0.19|0.056
95757551|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-0.37||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||8.43|-9.18|0.934
95757552|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|18.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.77|8.58|<0.001
95800065|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 1 assessment if their visit fell within Days 4 to 10.||-14.0|-22.3|< 0.0001
95757553|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|21.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|28.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||28.28|15.64|<0.001
95757554|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-8.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||-0.01|-16.40|0.050
95757555|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|55.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.05|64.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.73|47.05|<0.001
95757556|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|12.99||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.49|2.50|0.015
95757557|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.16||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|17.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.82|-3.51|0.188
95757558|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.85|51.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||51.38|33.85|<0.001
95757559|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|48.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.63|57.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.54|39.63|<0.001
95800066|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-32.4|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 2 assessment if their visit fell within Days 11 to 17.||-24.0|-32.4|< 0.0001
95859250|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.022
95800067|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-38.5|-30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 3 assessment if their visit fell within Days 18 to 24.||-30.0|-38.5|< 0.0001
95800068|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.2|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 4 assessment if their visit fell within days 25 to 35.||-36.7|-45.2|< 0.0001
95800069|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.2|-41.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 8 assessment if their visit fell within Days 49 to 63.||-41.4|-50.2|< 0.0001
95800070|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-52.8|-44.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subject was included as a random effect. Subjects were only included in the Week 12 assessment if their visit fell \>= Day 78.||-44.0|-52.8|< 0.0001
95757560|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|-5.98||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||4.55|-16.51|0.266
95757561|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|59.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.63|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.90|49.63|<0.001
95757562|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|18.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.69|-1.46|0.094
95757563|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|10.43||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|20.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||20.72|0.15|0.047
95757564|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.40|40.50|<0.001
95757565|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.79|59.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||59.89|38.79|<0.001
95757566|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.79||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|12.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||12.14|-8.56|0.734
95757567|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.88|70.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.03|46.88|<0.001
95800071|NCT00407511|191571394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change is the arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
95859251|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.022
95757568|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.01||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|16.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.59|-2.57|0.152
95757569|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.0||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|19.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||19.82|-0.83|0.073
95757570|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.38|63.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||63.21|39.38|<0.001
95757571|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|49.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5|61.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||61.47|37.50|<0.001
95757572|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|1.99||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|11.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||11.89|-7.91|0.694
95757573|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.37|72.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.84|48.37|<0.001
95757574|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.58||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||15.20|-2.05|0.135
95757575|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|14.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|5.50|0.002
95757576|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.31|66.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.32|41.31|<0.001
95800072|NCT00407511|191571395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-43.4|-33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 8 assessment only if their visit fell within Days 49 and 63.||-33.9|-43.4|< 0.0001
95800073|NCT00407511|191571395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-45.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on a repeated measures effect model with baseline value, center, and week as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect. Subjects were included in the Week 12 assessment only if their visit fell \>=Day 78.||-35.9|-45.5|< 0.0001
95800074|NCT00407511|191571395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF: last post-baseline assessment. Mean change= arithmetic mean change; p-value is from a single-sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
95800075|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 1: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.4|< 0.0001
95800076|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.2|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 2: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
95800077|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.9|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 3: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.2|-2.9|< 0.0001
95946937|NCT01968967|191866177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-37.8||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-37.8|-43.5|
95757577|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|45.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|58.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.66|33.21|<0.001
95757578|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.18||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.69|-1.32|0.091
95800078|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 4: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.5|-3.2|< 0.0001
95800079|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 5: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.3|< 0.0001
95859252|NCT02304367|191676122|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.004
95859253|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
95800080|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.4|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 6: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.6|-3.4|< 0.0001
95800081|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 7: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.5|< 0.0001
95800082|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 8: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
95800083|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 9: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-2.9|-3.7|< 0.0001
95800084|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 10: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
95757579|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.59|72.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||72.42|47.59|<0.001
95757580|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.03||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|14.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.43|-2.36|0.159
95757581|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|24.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.41|6.23|<0.001
95757582|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|53.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|66.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||66.50|41.08|<0.001
95757583|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.72|57.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.81|31.72|<0.001
95757584|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.28||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.64|-0.08|0.052
95757585|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|57.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.75|70.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||70.39|44.75|<0.001
95800085|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Visit 11: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.8|< 0.0001
95800086|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Parameter estimate: Mean Difference (Final Values) = least squares mean.|Week 12: LS mean, p-value, and confidence interval are based on repeated measures mixed effect model with baseline value, pooled center, and weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12 as fixed effects; subjects were included as a random effect.||-3.0|-3.7|< 0.0001
95800087|NCT00407511|191571396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||EOT/LOCF value consists of the mean of the last 7 post-baseline sleep scores; mean change = arithmetic mean change; p-value: from single sample t-test.||||< 0.0001
95800088|NCT00429299|191571432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exploratory comparison between the combined two single anti-HER2 arms and the dual anti-HER2 arm was performed (Arm 3 versus Arms 1 and 2).|percentage of participants|25.0||||0.019||90.0|13.1|36.9||Exploratory analysis|Chi-squared||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus trastuzumab treatment group with pathological complete response.|||36.9|13.1|0.019
95800089|NCT00429299|191571432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.3||||||90.0|14.5|38.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus lapatinib 1500 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||38.1|14.5|
95800090|NCT00429299|191571432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|58.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of particpants in the CT plus traztuzumab plus lapatinib 1000 mg treatment group with pathological complete response.|||58.9|34.4|
95757586|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.06||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|14.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.25|-2.13|0.147
95800091|NCT05630755|191571442|NON_INFERIORITY|A margin of 4 percentage points is used to define non-inferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.003
95800092|NCT05630755|191571442|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used|||The estimated difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|2.90|-1.86|0.192
95800093|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.232||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.33|-4.95||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.95|-12.33|0.0005
95800094|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.99|0.3||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-6.99|0.0963
95800095|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|-3.37||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.37|-10.76|0.0046
95800096|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.63|0.77||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-6.63|0.0963
95800097|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.63|-6.51||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.51|-13.63|<0.0001
95800098|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.79|-2.33||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.79|0.0158
95757587|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|24.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.21|6.39|<0.001
95757588|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.16|64.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.48|38.16|<0.001
95757589|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.74|55.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||55.82|28.74|<0.001
95800099|NCT02969018|191571461|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.24|-1.09||Hochberg adjusted p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-8.24|0.0488
95800100|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|33.87|||||||Logistic regression|33.87|2.95|
95800101|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|7.36|||||||Logistic regression|7.36|0.61|
95800102|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|30.48|||||||Logistic regression|30.48|2.71|
95800103|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
95800104|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.8|160.68|||||||Logistic regression|160.68|10.80|
95800105|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|7.55|||||||Logistic regression|7.55|0.59|
95800106|NCT02969018|191571462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|12.74|||||||Logistic regression|12.74|1.17|
95800107|NCT02969018|191571463|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|-6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.57|-11.43|<0.0001
95800108|NCT02969018|191571463|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-10.48|<0.0001
95800109|NCT00248547|191571490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.041
95800110|NCT02965833|191571494|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0073
95800111|NCT03976375|191571498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.23|0.78|0.4342
95800112|NCT03976375|191571499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50)|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.12|0.70|0.1563
95800113|NCT03976375|191571500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Docetaxel|8.4||||0.01818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|16.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen and Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb (immediate prior therapy versus not the immediate prior therapy), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%)|||16.3|0.5|0.01818
95800114|NCT03976375|191571501|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs Lenvatinib|10.2||||0.06009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||19.9|-3.1|0.06009
95800115|NCT03976375|191571505|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.36||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||2.60|-5.32|0.4998
95757590|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.27||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.49|0.04|0.049
95757591|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
95757592|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
95757593|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
95757594|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
95757595|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
95757596|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
95757597|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
95757598|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
95757599|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|24.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||24.63|7.08|<0.001
95757600|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
95757601|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|42.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.44|56.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.44|29.44|<0.001
95757602|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|9.23||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||18.40|0.06|0.048
95757603|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||71.49|45.93|<0.001
95757604|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores||14.67|-1.38|0.105
95757605|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|23.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||23.97|6.48|<0.001
95757606|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001||95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
95757607|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|57.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||57.07|30.15|<0.001
95757608|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|8.61||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|17.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||17.76|-0.55|0.065
95859254|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.019
95946938|NCT01968967|191866178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
95946939|NCT01968967|191866178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
95757609|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|58.71|||<|0.001||95.0|45.93|71.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||71.49|45.93|<0.001
95757610|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|14.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.67|-1.38|0.105
95757611|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
95757612|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.76|65.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||65.04|38.76|<0.001
95757613|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|44.89|||<|0.001||95.0|31.51|58.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||58.26|31.51|<0.001
95757614|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.45|-1.73|0.113
95757615|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
95757616|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
95757617|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
95757618|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757619|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757620|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757621|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
95757622|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
95859255|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
95946940|NCT01968967|191866178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
95946941|NCT01968967|191866179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.3|2.4|
95946942|NCT01968967|191866179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|4.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.5|2.5|
95757623|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
95757624|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757625|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757626|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95757627|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|56.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.95|69.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||69.94|43.95|<0.001
95757628|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|6.07||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|14.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||14.05|-1.91|0.136
95757629|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|13.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||22.67|5.30|0.002
95757630|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|50.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.39|64.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||64.09|37.39|<0.001
95757631|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|43.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.56|56.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||56.75|29.56|<0.001
95757632|NCT02912650|191482489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted proportions|7.91||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|16.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hour: Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard errors, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender using table scores.||16.97|-1.15|0.087
95800116|NCT03976375|191571506|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.86||||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.44|-9.16|0.1531
95757633|NCT02912650|191482490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
95757634|NCT02912650|191482490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.004
95757635|NCT02912650|191482490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
95757636|NCT02912650|191482490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
95757637|NCT02912650|191482490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||<0.001
95757638|NCT02912650|191482490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was calculated from CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR and gender.||||0.003
95757639|NCT00741936|191482501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95757640|NCT00741936|191482502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
95757641|NCT00741936|191482503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline||||||<0.05
95757642|NCT00741936|191482504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|T-Tests were implemented: 1) between two groups of each time frame; 2) between each treatment group of each time frame and its baseline.||||||<0.05
95757643|NCT00741936|191482505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between two treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
95757644|NCT00741936|191482506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||simple percentage|||||||0
95757645|NCT00741936|191482507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95757646|NCT00741936|191482508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-samples t-test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95757647|NCT00741936|191482509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95757648|NCT00741936|191482510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95757649|NCT00741936|191482511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95757650|NCT01121666|191482519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.|Shuirmann's TOST|||This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved.||||0.0003
95757651|NCT01121666|191482520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2357|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 12 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2357
95757652|NCT01121666|191482520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 15 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1395
95757653|NCT01121666|191482520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|||||Follicles of 17 mm|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3992
95757654|NCT01121666|191482522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9638
95800117|NCT03976375|191571507|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|7.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, timing of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.27|-2.31|0.3084
95800118|NCT03976375|191571508|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.04||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-2.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||-2.35|-13.73|0.0058
95800119|NCT03976375|191571509|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.89||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|7.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors of baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and baseline PD-L1 Status|||7.01|-1.23|0.1681
95859256|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.006
95757655|NCT01121666|191482527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8926
95757656|NCT01121666|191482534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was powered to test equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) of the number of oocytes retrieved with a power of 90%, an alpha error of 2.5% and a pre-determined clinical equivalence margin of +/-2.9 oocytes for the relevant population.||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Shuirmann's TOST|||||||0.0003
95757657|NCT03176459|191482542|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment difference|-16.5||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-30.8|0.0117
95757658|NCT03176459|191482543|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 36|LSM treatment difference (SE)|-30.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|14.7|||ANCOVA|||||14.7|-75.9|0.0020
95757659|NCT03176459|191482544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557|7.906|||LSM probability from logistic regression|||||7.906|1.557|0.0012
95757660|NCT03176459|191482545|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-3.2||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0543
95757661|NCT03176459|191482546|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-11.4||||0.0096|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0096
95757662|NCT03176459|191482547|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-22.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0175
95757663|NCT03176459|191482548|SUPERIORITY||Least squares treatment difference|-19.6||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0542
95757664|NCT03176459|191482549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7536|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.7536
95757665|NCT03176459|191482550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3609
95757666|NCT03118570|191482571|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.644
95757667|NCT03118570|191482571|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
95757668|NCT03118570|191482571|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
95757669|NCT03118570|191482572|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95757670|NCT03118570|191482572|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.190
95757671|NCT03118570|191482572|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.704
95757672|NCT03118570|191482573|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95757673|NCT03118570|191482573|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
95757674|NCT03118570|191482573|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.756
95757675|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.329||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.329
95757676|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.953||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.953
95757677|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
95757678|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.644||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.644
95757679|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.485||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.485
95757680|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.404||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.404
95757681|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.827||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.827
95757682|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.459||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.459
95757683|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.022||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.022
95757684|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.821||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.821
95859257|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95757685|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.911||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.911
95757686|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.152||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.152
95757687|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.668||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.668
95757688|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.109
95757689|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.358||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.358
95859258|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||< 0.001
95757690|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.742||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.742
95757691|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.567||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.567
95757692|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.430
95757693|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.634||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.634
95757694|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.146||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.146
95757695|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.521||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.521
95757696|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.991||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.991
95757697|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.069||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.069
95757698|NCT03118570|191482574|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.625||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.625
95757699|NCT03118570|191482575|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
95757700|NCT03118570|191482575|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.376||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.376
95757701|NCT03118570|191482575|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.259||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.259
95757702|NCT03118570|191482575|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.253||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with change from baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.253
95757703|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.064||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.064
95757704|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.019||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.019
95757705|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.845||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.845
95757706|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.006
95757707|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.190
95757708|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.704||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.704
95757709|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.002
95757710|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.021||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.021
95757711|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.504||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.504
95757712|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.462||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.462
95757713|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.134||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.134
95757714|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.086
95757715|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.199||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.199
95757716|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.219||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.219
95757717|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.112||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.112
95757718|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.086
95757719|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.245||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.245
95757720|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.232||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.232
95757721|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.237||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.237
95757722|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.088
95757723|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.302||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.302
95946943|NCT01968967|191866179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.9||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||4.9|2.7|
95946944|NCT01968967|191866180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||1.4|-0.9|
95757724|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.626||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.626
95757725|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.517||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 8||||0.517
95757726|NCT03118570|191482576|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.262
95757727|NCT03118570|191482577|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
95757728|NCT03118570|191482577|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.004
95757729|NCT03118570|191482577|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.080
95757730|NCT03118570|191482577|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
95757731|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.06||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.060
95757732|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.015
95757733|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.795||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.795
95757734|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.011
95757735|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.047||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.047
95757736|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.756||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.756
95757737|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.006
95757738|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.137||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.137
95757739|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.639||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.639
95757740|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.325||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.325
95757741|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.108||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.108
95757742|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.078
95757743|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.106||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.106
95757744|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.236||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.236
95757745|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.164||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.164
95800120|NCT03976375|191571510|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.31|0.63|0.6145
95757746|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.031||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.031
95757747|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.224||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.224
95859259|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.002
95991804|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||=|0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||3.8|0.7|=0.2699
95757748|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.291||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.291
95757749|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
95757750|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.188||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.188
95757751|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.503||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.503
95757752|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.385
95757753|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.727||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.727
95757754|NCT03118570|191482578|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.338||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.338
95757755|NCT03118570|191482579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||< 0.001
95757756|NCT03118570|191482579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||< 0.001
95757757|NCT03118570|191482579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||< 0.001
95757758|NCT03118570|191482579|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
95757759|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757760|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757761|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.08||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.080
95757762|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
95757763|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.238||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.238
95757764|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.035
95757765|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.687||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.687
95859260|NCT02304367|191676123|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.002
95859261|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.016
95859262|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.004
95757766|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.107||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.107
95757767|NCT03118570|191482581|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.128||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.128
95757768|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757769|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757770|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.088
95800121|NCT03976375|191571511|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||0.98|0.38|0.0398
95800122|NCT03976375|191571512|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status|||1.85|0.59|0.8724
95757771|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.184||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.184
95757772|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.144||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.144
95757773|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.028||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.028
95757774|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.694||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.694
95757775|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.143||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.143
95757776|NCT03118570|191482582|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.111||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.111
95757777|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757778|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757779|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.026||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.026
95757780|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.007
95757781|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.004||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.004
95757782|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.085||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.085
95757783|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.040
95757784|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.061||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.061
95859263|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
95757785|NCT03118570|191482583|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.189||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.189
95757786|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757787|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||< 0.001
95757788|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.035||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar||||0.035
95757789|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
95757790|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.003
95800123|NCT03976375|191571513|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16||Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.49|0.1944
95800124|NCT03976375|191571514|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.41|0.71|0.9837
95800125|NCT03976375|191571515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.16|||Log Rank|Stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|Based on stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by Baseline ECOG performance status, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy, and Baseline PD-L1 Status.|||1.16|0.60|0.2903
95757791|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.088||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total body||||0.088
95757792|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.016||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.016
95800126|NCT03409367|191571516|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, log-binomial||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio is equal to 1.||0.97|0.73|0.019
95757793|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.068
95757794|NCT03118570|191482584|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.16||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Femoral neck||||0.160
95757795|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.065||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.065
95800127|NCT03409367|191571517|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of parent-reported AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.90|0.65|0.002
95757796|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.405||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.405
95757797|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.966||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.966
95757798|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.003
95859264|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95800128|NCT03409367|191571518|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.|Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by modified UK Working Party criteria does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.15|0.65|0.323
95800129|NCT03409367|191571519|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD by CEQ does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.99|0.70|0.044
95800130|NCT03409367|191571520|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD with prescription or OTC therapies in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.84|0.55|0.0004
95800131|NCT03409367|191571521|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of recommended treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 199 missing outcomes.|Regression, proportional odds|||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.89|0.55|0.004
95800132|NCT03409367|191571522|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD, as operationalized here by the type of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||0.93|0.56|0.013
95800133|NCT03409367|191571523|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of skin infections in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms.||1.17|0.73|0.509
95800134|NCT03409367|191571524|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of asthma in the health record does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.50|0.900
95757799|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.229||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.229
95757800|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.807||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.807
95757801|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.042||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.042
95800135|NCT03409367|191571525|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|The daily emollient is in the numerator and the natural skin is in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.21|0.98|0.064
95800136|NCT03409367|191571526|EQUIVALENCE|An ordinal OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily emollient in the numerator and natural skin in the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.30|1.14|0.007
95800137|NCT03409367|191571527|EQUIVALENCE|The ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).|Daily moisturizer is the numerator and natural skin is the denominator.|The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the ordinal odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1.||2.18|0.97|0.070
95859265|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95859266|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.036
95757802|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.283
95991805|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.8||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.8|0.9|=0.1036
95757803|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.536||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.536
95757804|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.765||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.765
95757805|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.247||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.247
95757806|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.050
95757807|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.037
95757808|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.174||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.174
95757809|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.558||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.558
95757810|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.02||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.020
95757811|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.346||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.346
95757812|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.387||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.387
95757813|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.093||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.093
95757814|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.156||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.156
95757815|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.324||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.324
95757816|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.92||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.920
95757817|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.04||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.040
95859267|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.008
95757818|NCT03118570|191482585|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.643||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.643
95757819|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.285||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.285
95757820|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.544||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.544
95757821|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.615||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 6||||0.615
95757822|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.179||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.179
95757823|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.513||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.513
95757824|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.849||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 12||||0.849
95757825|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.037
95757826|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.88||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.880
95757827|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.153||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 18||||0.153
95757828|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.073||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.073
95757829|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.007||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.007
95800138|NCT03409367|191571528|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.91|||Regression, proportional odds|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization).||The null hypothesis is that the odds of belonging to the next higher category of severity are equal in the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the odds ratio (OR) is equal to 1. An OR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient use is associated with lower severity of AD symptoms among those diagnosed with AD.||1.91|0.96|0.085
95800139|NCT03409367|191571529|EQUIVALENCE|The risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of immediate food allergy reactions does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.03|0.55|0.079
95800140|NCT03409367|191571530|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, log-binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of food allergies does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.66|0.45|0.669
95800141|NCT03409367|191571531|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.95|0.62|0.013
95800142|NCT03409367|191571532|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for family history of atopy (stratified randomization) and primary care site.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1. Alternatively, a RR \< 1 could be considered evidence that daily emollient is associated with lower incidence of AD.||0.94|0.67|0.009
95946945|NCT01968967|191866180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.3|-0.1|
95757830|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.791||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Radial, Month 24||||0.791
95757831|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.01||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.010
95757832|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.553||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.553
95757833|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.652||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 6||||0.652
95757834|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||< 0.001
95757835|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.482
95757836|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.685||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 12||||0.685
95757837|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.002||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.002
95757838|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.672||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.672
95757839|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.377||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 18||||0.377
95757840|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.015||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.015
95757841|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.086||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.086
95757842|NCT03118570|191482586|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.712||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Tibial, Month 24||||0.712
95757843|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.045||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.045
95757844|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.101||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.101
95757845|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.482||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 6||||0.482
95757846|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.011||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.011
95757847|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.508||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.508
95757848|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Lean, Month 12||||0.563
95859268|NCT02304367|191676124|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.008
95757849|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.917||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.917
95757850|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.789||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.789
95757851|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.262||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 6||||0.262
95859269|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.006
95757852|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.426||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.426
95757853|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.871||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.871
95757854|NCT03118570|191482588|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.113||||||Analysis is based on a log transformed ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Fat, Month 12||||0.113
95757855|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
95757856|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
95757857|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.984||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||0.984
95757858|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95757859|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
95757860|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.857||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.857
95757861|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.001
95757862|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.079||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.079
95757863|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.912||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.912
95757864|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.054||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.054
95757865|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.95||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.950
95757866|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.555||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.555
95757867|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.221||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.221
95859270|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.003
95757868|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.393||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.393
95757869|NCT03118570|191482589|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.385||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.385
95757870|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
95757871|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
95757872|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline|||||<|0.001||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 1||||< 0.001
95757873|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.003||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.003
95757874|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.05||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.050
95757875|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.006||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.006
95757876|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.519||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.519
95757877|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.226||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.226
95800143|NCT03409367|191571533|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 121 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||0.94|0.63|0.012
95800144|NCT03409367|191571534|EQUIVALENCE|Risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Regression, log-binomial|Adjusted for primary care site. Adjusted for multiple imputations of 78 missing outcomes.||The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence of AD does not differ between the Daily Emollient and Natural Skin arms, or that the risk ratio (RR) is equal to 1.||1.10|0.73|0.303
95946946|NCT01968967|191866180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|0.3|
95946947|NCT01968967|191866181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.2||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.2|-20.0|
95757878|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.19||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.190
95757879|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.388||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.388
95757880|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.109||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.109
95946948|NCT01968967|191866181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-12.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-12.6|-20.7|
95800145|NCT03279458|191571570|OTHER|least square regression analysis|correlation coefficient (R)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||0.97|0.88|<0.05
95800146|NCT04253626|191571615|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95800147|NCT04253626|191571619|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.88
95757881|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||||0.204
95757882|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.119||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.119
95757883|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.925||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.925
95757884|NCT03118570|191482590|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.204||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.204
95757885|NCT03118570|191482591|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.588||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.588
95800148|NCT04253626|191571620|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.27
95800149|NCT04253626|191571621|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.72
95800150|NCT04253626|191571622|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group analysis of change at week 4||||0.009
95800151|NCT02383173|191571639|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|Sandwich estimators were used to adjust for the small number of clusters.||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) analyses of post-intervention data were used to account for clustering. We adjusted for age, race, cancer, length of stay and study year.||||0.445
95757886|NCT03118570|191482591|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.697||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.697
95757887|NCT03118570|191482591|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.283||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.283
95757888|NCT03118570|191482591|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.354||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.354
95757889|NCT03118570|191482591|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.43||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.430
95757890|NCT03118570|191482591|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.091||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.091
95757891|NCT03118570|191482592|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.527||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.527
95757892|NCT03118570|191482592|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.738||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.738
95757893|NCT03118570|191482592|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.465||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.465
95757894|NCT03118570|191482592|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.068||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.068
95757895|NCT03118570|191482592|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.328||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.328
95757896|NCT03118570|191482592|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.277||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.277
95757897|NCT03118570|191482593|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.092||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.092
95757898|NCT03118570|191482593|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.31||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.310
95800152|NCT04871113|191571657|OTHER||Emax|-1.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.225|-1.472|||||Emax is defined as maximum response.|||-1.472|-2.225|
95800153|NCT04871113|191571657|OTHER||EC50|68.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.866|121.29|||||EC50 is defined as the dose (in mg) that attains the 50% of the maximal effect.|||121.290|15.866|
95800154|NCT04871113|191571657|OTHER||s2e|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.368|||||e is defined as random error assumed to be normally distributed with mean zero and constant variance (s2).|||0.368|0.145|
95800155|NCT01257438|191571678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood's estimate of variance|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.79|||Log Rank|||Subjects at risk (at 6 months) is a calculation in Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses that refers to subjects who have not had ACPP failure through the 6 months (i.e., are event-free through 6 months).||0.79|0.44|<0.001
95800156|NCT01257438|191571679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is based on a non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test. The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%).||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Farrington and Manning Exact Test|The non-inferiority margin is 0.075 (or 7.5%)||||||0.007
95757899|NCT03118570|191482593|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.304||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.304
95757900|NCT03118570|191482593|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.155||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.155
95757901|NCT03118570|191482593|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.392||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.392
95757902|NCT03118570|191482593|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.464||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.464
95757903|NCT03118570|191482594|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.15||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.150
95757904|NCT03118570|191482594|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.468||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.468
95757905|NCT03118570|191482594|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.8||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.800
95800157|NCT00768053|191571752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||F test for H0: ICC = 0|F test|||Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)||||0.000
95800158|NCT00768053|191571752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standard error of measurement|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75||||||Standardized response mean: standard error of measurement||0.75|0.57|
95757906|NCT03118570|191482594|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.563||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.563
95757907|NCT03118570|191482594|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.839||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.839
95800159|NCT00768053|191571754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
95800160|NCT00768053|191571755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
95757908|NCT03118570|191482594|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.186||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.186
95946949|NCT01968967|191866181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.0|-16.5|
95946950|NCT01968967|191866182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-57.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.6|-63.1|
95757909|NCT03118570|191482595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.278||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.278
95757910|NCT03118570|191482595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.292||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.292
95757911|NCT03118570|191482595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.115||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.115
95757912|NCT03118570|191482595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.356||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.356
95800161|NCT00768053|191571756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
95800162|NCT00768053|191571757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 4||||<0.001
95800163|NCT00768053|191571758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Week 12||||<0.001
95946951|NCT01968967|191866183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-62.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-57.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-57.3|-68.3|
95757913|NCT03118570|191482595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.205||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.205
95757914|NCT03118570|191482595|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.078||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.078
95800164|NCT00768053|191571759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test for the Pearson correlation|||Time-normalized average||||<0.001
95800165|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
95859271|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||<0.001
95757915|NCT03118570|191482596|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.037||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.037
95757916|NCT03118570|191482596|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.342||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.342
95757917|NCT03118570|191482596|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.515||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.515
95757918|NCT03118570|191482596|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.786||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.786
95757919|NCT03118570|191482596|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.212||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.212
95757920|NCT03118570|191482596|SUPERIORITY|Comparison is between the Visit and Baseline||||||0.655||||||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline as outcome parameter; including categorical effects of treatment and randomization stratum as well as the associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.655
95757921|NCT03970837|191482599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.53|1.87|<0.0001
95757922|NCT03970837|191482599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||3.50|1.85|<0.0001
95757923|NCT03970837|191482599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 05mg dose of Tofacitinib differs from placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||7.90|3.66|<0.0001
95757924|NCT03970837|191482599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
95946952|NCT01968967|191866184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-58.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-58.5|-63.5|
95757925|NCT03970837|191482599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95% CI for OR are generated from the logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||The null hypothesis is defined as there is no difference between the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 and 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12, versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 05mg dose of Tofacitinib in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12.||0.66|0.34|<0.0001
95757926|NCT03970837|191482603|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-8.1|-21.3|
95800166|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||<0.001
95991806|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using a logit link function for the odds ratios and p-values.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||4.3|0.8|=0.1518
95757927|NCT03970837|191482603|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority over tofacitinib on ACR20 was concluded if the lower limit of the multiplicity corrected 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in the difference in proportions (GSK3196165 minus tofacitinib) was greater than -12%|Difference in Percentage|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Difference in proportion and 95% CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline TJC68, Baseline SJC66 and Treatment Group.||||-10.6|-23.9|
95757928|NCT00786994|191482800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||A vs C/D||||0.60
95757929|NCT00786994|191482800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||B vs. C/D||||0.83
95757930|NCT01769339|191482803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95757931|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.308
95757932|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.415
95757933|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.335
95757934|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.120
95757935|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
95757936|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.031
95757937|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.131
95757938|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.202
95757939|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.484
95946953|NCT01968967|191866185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|-60.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.9|-66.6|
95946954|NCT01968967|191866186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-63.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.6|-69.3|
95757940|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.047
95757941|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.285
95757942|NCT01195272|191482805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.315
95757943|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.288
95757944|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.318
95757945|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.400
95757946|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.317
95757947|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.137
95757948|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.052
95757949|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.354
95757950|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.266
95757951|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.378
95757952|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.422
95757953|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.444
95757954|NCT01195272|191482806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||20 hrs: Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.345
95757955|NCT01195272|191482807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.39
95757956|NCT01195272|191482807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.08
95757957|NCT01195272|191482807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
95757958|NCT01195272|191482808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
95757959|NCT01195272|191482808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.30
95757960|NCT01195272|191482808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.34
95757961|NCT01195272|191482809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
95757962|NCT01195272|191482809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.44
95757963|NCT01195272|191482809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.23
95757964|NCT01195272|191482810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.22
95757965|NCT01195272|191482810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.46
95757966|NCT01195272|191482810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.24
95757967|NCT01195272|191482811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.05
95757968|NCT01195272|191482811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.01
95757969|NCT01195272|191482811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.18
95757970|NCT01195272|191482812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.48
95757971|NCT01195272|191482812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.43
95757972|NCT01195272|191482812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.44
95757973|NCT01195272|191482813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.313
95757974|NCT01195272|191482813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.083
95757975|NCT01195272|191482813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.092
95757976|NCT01195272|191482813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.145
95757977|NCT01195272|191482813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.398
95757978|NCT01195272|191482813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.138
95757979|NCT01195272|191482814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.467
95757980|NCT01195272|191482814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.250
95757981|NCT01195272|191482814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.060
95757982|NCT01195272|191482814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.149
95800167|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.837
95946955|NCT01968967|191866187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-43.9||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.9|-47.7|
95946956|NCT01968967|191866188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-9.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-9.3|-11.8|
95946957|NCT01968967|191866189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.3|2.1|
95946958|NCT01968967|191866190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.6|
95757983|NCT01195272|191482814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.061
95757984|NCT01195272|191482814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.047
95757985|NCT01195272|191482815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.169
95757986|NCT01195272|191482815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.165
95757987|NCT01195272|191482815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.471
95757988|NCT01195272|191482815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.243
95757989|NCT01195272|191482815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.396
95757990|NCT01195272|191482815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.375
95757991|NCT01195272|191482816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 3 versus Visit 2||||0.496
95757992|NCT01195272|191482816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 2||||0.122
95757993|NCT01195272|191482816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 5 versus Visit 3||||0.070
95757994|NCT01195272|191482816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 2||||0.135
95757995|NCT01195272|191482816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 3||||0.082
95757996|NCT01195272|191482816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Visit 8 versus Visit 5||||0.461
95757997|NCT01404923|191482852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
95757998|NCT00806286|191482938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
95757999|NCT00806286|191482938|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.579||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.5|||Regression, Cox|||||2.5|1.0|0.0499
95758000|NCT00806286|191482939|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is calculated by dividing the square of the treatment group difference on the log-log scale by the standard error of the difference and referring the result to the standard normal distribution.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test||The estimated value represents the difference in treatments (%).|||||<0.0001
95758001|NCT02585934|191482943|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.22|-0.95|0.2249
95758002|NCT02585934|191482944|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.72||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.72|-0.90|0.8260
95758003|NCT02585934|191482945|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.02||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||-0.02|-0.22|0.0234
95859272|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95758004|NCT02585934|191482946|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.12||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.32|-0.07|0.2096
95946959|NCT01968967|191866190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.5|
95758005|NCT02585934|191482947|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.80|-1.09|0.7650
95946960|NCT01968967|191866190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.0|-1.2|
95946961|NCT01968967|191866191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
95946962|NCT01968967|191866191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
95946963|NCT01968967|191866191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.3|
95946964|NCT01968967|191866192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|38.02||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||38.02|19.21|
95758006|NCT02585934|191482948|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.38||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.27||the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||0.27|-1.03|0.2472
95758007|NCT04713553|191482950|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.13|0.91|
95800168|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.035
95800169|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.351
95800170|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.025
95800171|NCT00768053|191571760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
95800172|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Pain NRS value||||<0.001
95800173|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Functional disability NRS value||||0.052
95800174|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Fatigue NRS value||||0.895
95800175|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Sleep NRS value||||0.153
95800176|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Physical well-being NRS value||||0.029
95758008|NCT04713553|191482950|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.04|0.83|
95946965|NCT01968967|191866192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|16.86||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||16.86|9.84|
95946966|NCT01968967|191866192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|8.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||8.06|4.99|
95991807|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|32.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 1 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.4|-9.2|
95758009|NCT04713553|191482950|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.03|0.82|
95946967|NCT01968967|191866193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.74|121.25||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||121.25|61.74|
95946968|NCT01968967|191866193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.83|47.96||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||47.96|26.83|
95946969|NCT01968967|191866193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|34.47||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||34.47|18.90|
95758010|NCT04713553|191482951|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be achieved if the 2-sided 95% CI for GMR falls within the interval (0.67, 1.5).|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMRs and corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group.|||1.07|0.84|
95758011|NCT04713553|191482952|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of the 20 mcg dose to the corresponding 30 mcg dose was said to be achieved if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||GMRs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model with terms of age and vaccine group|||1.02|0.84|
95758012|NCT00918138|191483027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.2||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|With at least 36 participants per treatment group (72 total), there is 90% power to detect a difference of 18 mg/dL between the two treatment groups. Assuming approximately 20% of participants will discontinue without any valid post-randomization assessment at Week 4, a total of 90 participants (45 participants per treatment group) needed to be randomized.||3.2|-24.8|0.1278
95758013|NCT00918138|191483028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-7.7||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg.|||-7.7|-54.6|
95758014|NCT00918138|191483029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.5||Comparison between saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg and metformin 2000 mg significant at alpha =0.05 according to sequential testing procedure.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline to week 4 was analyzed with ANCOVA including treatment group, baseline value and country in the model.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin 1500 mg - adjusted mean change for metformin 2000 mg|||8.5|-20.0|
95758015|NCT02603393|191483032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference lies entirely to the right of (higher than) -50 mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0404||95.0|-0.053|0.001||1 sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0404
95758016|NCT02603393|191483033|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5802||95.0|0.83|1.4||2 sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.40|0.83|0.5802
95758017|NCT02603393|191483034|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.08||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.43||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||1.43|0.82|0.5651
95758018|NCT02603393|191483035|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|1.02||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.34||2-sided|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||2.34|0.44|0.9665
95758019|NCT02603393|191483036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.0573||95.0|-0.053|0.001||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.001|-0.053|0.0573
95758020|NCT02603393|191483037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0022||95.0|0.7|3.0||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||3.0|0.7|0.0022
95758021|NCT02603393|191483038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated measures Analys|||||2.6|0.2|0.0221
95946970|NCT03252249|191866246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07|||Regression, Cox||3 versus 12 months (the comparator).|The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.07|0.57|0.1232
95758022|NCT02603393|191483039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.1724||95.0|-0.587|0.105|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.105|-0.587|0.1724
95758023|NCT02603393|191483040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.1055||95.0|-0.638|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repated Measures Analysi|||||0.061|-0.638|0.1055
95758024|NCT02603393|191483041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.0641||95.0|-0.01|0.365||2-Sided|Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.365|-0.010|0.0641
95758025|NCT02603393|191483042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.061||2-Sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Analys|||||0.061|-0.025|0.4107
95758026|NCT03151408|191483066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275||||||P-value stratified by cytogenetic risk factor and ECOG performance status|Log Rank|||||||0.8275
95758027|NCT03151408|191483067|OTHER|||||||0.1244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1244
95758028|NCT03151408|191483068|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1430
95758029|NCT03151408|191483069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9977|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9977
95800177|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Emotional well-being NRS value||||0.043
95800178|NCT00768053|191571761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|A non significant test (p-value ≥ 0.05) would indicate the component had a significant influence to the global EULAR-RAID score.||Comparison of change from baseline between EULAR-RAID score and Coping NRS value||||<0.001
95800179|NCT01590875|191571778|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||no relevant statistical analysis|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||<0.01
95946971|NCT03252249|191866248|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.06|0.63|0.1220
95946972|NCT03252249|191866250|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the time to event primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.57|0.55|0.7789
95946973|NCT03252249|191866252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.05|0.58|0.0977
95758030|NCT03151408|191483070|OTHER|||||||0.9959|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9959
95758031|NCT03151408|191483071|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3502
95758032|NCT03151408|191483072|OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0502
95758033|NCT03151408|191483074|OTHER|||||||0.4656|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4656
95758034|NCT03151408|191483075|OTHER|||||||0.7063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7063
95758035|NCT03151408|191483076|OTHER|||||||0.0592|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0592
95758036|NCT03151408|191483077|OTHER|||||||0.3835|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3835
95758037|NCT03151408|191483078|OTHER|||||||0.7099|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7099
95758038|NCT03400943|191483079|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 41 (Vilaprisan) / 20 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.78|0.33|<.0001
95758039|NCT05084716|191483119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.13|2.08|<.0001
95758040|NCT05084716|191483119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|16.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.59|3.48|<.0001
95758041|NCT05084716|191483120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|27.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.85|5.96|<.0001
95758042|NCT05084716|191483120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.26|.001
95758043|NCT05084716|191483121|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d for difference in proportions|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Odds Ratio is undefined and p-value from Fisher's Exact test is reported because 0% of PrEP users had ≥80% medication coverage pre-intervention.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
95758044|NCT05084716|191483121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.34|0.16|<.0001
95758045|NCT03839823|191483122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|0.87|||one-sided stratified logrank test|||||0.870|0.429|0.003
95758046|NCT03839823|191483123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497||||||95.0|0.363|0.68||||||||0.680|0.363|
95758047|NCT03839823|191483124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
95758048|NCT03839823|191483125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.255
95758049|NCT03839823|191483126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.116
95946974|NCT03252249|191866254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.50|0.60|0.8208
95946975|NCT03252249|191866256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.26|0.87|0.6158
95758050|NCT03839823|191483127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.064||||||||1.064|0.546|
95758051|NCT01739348|191483173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-0.9|0.6287
95758052|NCT01739348|191483173|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.8|1.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.8|0.4625
95758053|NCT01739348|191483174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.1|0.4925
95758054|NCT01739348|191483174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.9|2.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.9|0.3221
95758055|NCT01739348|191483181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.4|0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8426
95758056|NCT01739348|191483181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.8264
95758057|NCT01739348|191483182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0005
95758058|NCT01739348|191483182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.1|-0.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.1|0.0002
95758059|NCT01739348|191483183|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.95||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.04|0.87|0.2138
95758060|NCT01739348|191483183|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Fold Change from Baseline|0.97||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.90|0.4330
95758061|NCT01739348|191483184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.03||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0066
95758062|NCT01739348|191483184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
95758063|NCT01739348|191483186|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.7||||0.2949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.1|-0.6|0.2949
95758064|NCT01739348|191483186|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.6|-0.4|0.1372
95758065|NCT01739348|191483187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.4721
95758066|NCT01739348|191483187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.0|0.0|0.0599
95758067|NCT03149445|191483206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-12.3|0.1045
95758068|NCT03149445|191483206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-4.0|0.7422
95758069|NCT03149445|191483206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.1|0.0460
95758070|NCT03149445|191483206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.3847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.8||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||17.8|-9.2|0.3847
95758071|NCT03149445|191483207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||2.5|-14.9|0.1326
95758072|NCT03149445|191483207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-2.9|0.5148
95758073|NCT03149445|191483207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.4||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-0.3|0.0605
95758074|NCT03149445|191483207|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.5198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.0||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||14.0|-8.8|0.5198
95758075|NCT03149445|191483208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.6||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.5|0.0058
95758076|NCT03149445|191483208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.5142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.5||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||9.5|-5.3|0.5142
95758077|NCT03149445|191483208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.3||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||11.3|-5.1|0.3794
95758078|NCT03149445|191483208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.1||P-value from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.1|0.6850
95758079|NCT00492024|191483222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.189
95758080|NCT00492024|191483227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||p-value adjusted for study center; p-value applies to percentage of subjects with success (clinical cure)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for study center||Null hypothesis is that the success rate for moxifloxacin = the success rate for placebo||||0.075
95758081|NCT06017479|191483229|OTHER|"Chi-square test as the study used chi-square analysis to compare the incidence of UTIs between the groups (p = 0.660) For this non-inferiority analysis, the study demonstrated that the odds ratio (OR) between the two groups was 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating no significant difference. Further details are provided in the study's discussion section."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.125||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there were no multiple outcome measures being compared in this analysis. The significance threshold (alpha) was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared||"The standard deviations (SD) for the groups are as follows:~For the group receiving 3g fosfomycin: 19.08 For the group receiving 500mg levofloxacin: 17.17"|This randomized controlled trial compared the incidence of UTI between two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and patients receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin one hour before a urodynamic study. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in UTI incidence between the two groups. The power calculation was based on a sample size of 126 patients.|A chi-square test was performed to compare the incidence of UTIs between the two groups: patients receiving a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin and those receiving a single dose of 3 g fosfomycin, both administered one hour before the urodynamic study (UDS). The result showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.660). An odds ratio was also calculated (OR = 0.8, 95% CI: 0.4-1.95), indicating a slightly lower likelihood of UTI in the fosfomycin group, but the difference was not significant.|1.95|0.4|0.660
95758082|NCT00936897|191483230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
95758083|NCT00936897|191483231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95800180|NCT01590875|191571779|EQUIVALENCE|Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose|||||<|0.01|||||||kappa statistic|||Kappa statistics on per pulmonary vein basis were used to determine the probability of recovery, transient recovery or no recovery with second adenosine dose compared with probability of same response after first adenosine dose||||< 0.01
95946976|NCT03252249|191866258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.07|0.48|0.1020
95758084|NCT00936897|191483232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||1.7|0.7|<0.0001
95758085|NCT00936897|191483233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA||Denosumab - Ibandronate|||2.5|1.5|<0.0001
95758086|NCT01346293|191483266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Pertussis toxoid antigen between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.2||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||10.2|0.7|
95758087|NCT01346293|191483266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Anti-Filamentous Haemagglutinin between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.5||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||21.5|2.5|
95758088|NCT01346293|191483266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|3.7|-0.2|7.9||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||7.9|-0.2|
95800181|NCT00308685|191571781|OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|5.163||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.478|7.847||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline FEV1 as covariate and fixed effects of pooled center and treatment group.||7.847|2.478|0.0002
95859273|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||< 0.001
95859274|NCT02304367|191676125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.007
95859275|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.005
95991808|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|38.0||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 2 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.0|-3.3|
95859276|NCT02304367|191676125|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
95946977|NCT03252249|191866260|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.32|0.90|0.3623
95758089|NCT01346293|191483266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the difference (DTaP-IPV minus DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination booster response rates for Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.1||||||Non-inferiority comparison of post-vaccination anti-pertussis booster response rates in the Per-protocol Analysis Set. The hypothesis was based on testing the difference between 2 proportion parameters.||9.1|0.9|
95758090|NCT01346293|191483267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertussis Toxoid antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.31||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each Pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.31|1.68|
95758091|NCT01346293|191483267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Filamentous Haemagglutinin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.88||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.88|1.30|
95758092|NCT01346293|191483267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL®) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Pertactin antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.79||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.79|1.27|
95800182|NCT01121575|191571813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|69.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.22|88.44|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||88.44|54.22|
95946978|NCT03252249|191866263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.31|0.94|0.2324
95991809|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs PBO|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|35.4||Crude difference in proportion responding and standard Wald asymptotic 95 % CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Chi-squared||Difference and 95 % Wald CI in proportion of responders for SOC + DZP dose 3 iv Q4W (FAS) versus SOC + Placebo iv Q4W (FAS).|Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.4|-5.5|
95758093|NCT01346293|191483267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV was demonstrated if the lower limits of the 2-sided 95% CIs of the ratio (DTaP-IPV / DAPTACEL® + IPOL® ) in post-vaccination GMCs for the Fimbriae types 2 and 3 antigens between groups were \> 2/3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||||||Hypothesis was based on testing the ratio between the 2 post-vaccination GMCs (GMCQ / GMCD) for each pertussis antigen and their 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals.||1.60|1.12|
95758094|NCT01568320|191483285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Freedom from Major adverse events (%)|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||82|59|
95758095|NCT01568320|191483286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Survival rate (%)|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Method|||99|87|
95800183|NCT01121575|191571814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|78.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.9|105.54|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib AUC10 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC10 was based on data from 6 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||105.54|58.90|
95800184|NCT01121575|191571816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjust geometric mean|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.71|91.12|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / crizotinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for crizotinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 11 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-06260182.||91.12|54.71|
95859277|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.009
95758096|NCT04181723|191483311|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.6|-5.7|0.0175
95758097|NCT04181723|191483312|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0030
95758098|NCT04181723|191483313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.7|0.3|0.0064
95758099|NCT04181723|191483314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-13.8|0.3376
95758100|NCT04181723|191483315|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.3649
95758101|NCT04181723|191483316|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.3|0.2114
95758102|NCT04181723|191483317|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.0|-0.6|0.0257
95800185|NCT01121575|191571819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|117.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.97|213.61|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUClast for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUClast was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||213.61|64.97|
95800186|NCT01121575|191571820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|121.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|211.66|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib AUC24 for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of AUC24 was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||211.66|70.20|
95800187|NCT01121575|191571822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjust geometric mean|130.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.46|206.73|||||Ratio of crizotinib + dacomitinib / dacomitinib alone adjust geometric mean was analyzed using the mixed effect model and displayed as percentage.|Statistical analysis was performed for dacomitinib Cmax for participants who had both Day -1 and C2D1 data. Result for the analysis of Cmax was based on data from 3 participants. No statistical analysis was performed for PF-05199265.||206.73|82.46|
95859278|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.020
95800188|NCT02583269|191571853|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||Overall FACT G score p value baseline to week 8||||0.76
95800189|NCT02583269|191571853|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G functional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.25
95859279|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.044
95859280|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95946979|NCT03252249|191866265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.72|0.66|0.8104
95946980|NCT03252249|191866267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.65|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||4.65|0.74|0.1875
95946981|NCT03252249|191866269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.23|0.74|0.7220
95946982|NCT03252249|191866271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.8851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.287|||Regression, Cox|||The primary analysis compared the primary and secondary outcomes between groups using a Cox regression model, stratifying by country to account for clustering of participants, and adjusting for cardiac history as a fixed effect (stratification factor in randomisation). Results are reported as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value.||1.287|0.804|0.8851
95946983|NCT06263673|191866272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||MDS-UPDRS score-part 1||||0.008
95946984|NCT06263673|191866272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||MDS-UPDRS score-part 2||||0.020
95946985|NCT06263673|191866272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||MDS-UPDRS score-part 3||||0.19
95758103|NCT04181723|191483318|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-0.2|0.9799
95758104|NCT04181723|191483319|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.1|-0.1|0.5304
95758105|NCT04181723|191483320|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.5|0.5855
95946986|NCT06263673|191866272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||MDS-UPDRS score-part 4||||0.33
95758106|NCT04181723|191483321|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-0.1|0.2507
95758107|NCT02304458|191483387|OTHER|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Maximum Tolerate Dose Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerate Dose Level is 3 mg/kg Nivolumab|||||
95758108|NCT04874636|191483397|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.75|-0.59|
95946987|NCT06263673|191866273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95946988|NCT06263673|191866274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.65
95758109|NCT04874636|191483398|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.00|-1.02|
95758110|NCT04874636|191483399|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.27|
95758111|NCT04874636|191483400|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.02|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.02|-0.43|
95758112|NCT04874636|191483401|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|16.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||16.14|-0.32|
95758113|NCT04874636|191483402|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.65|
95800190|NCT02583269|191571853|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||FACT G emotional well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.18
95800191|NCT02583269|191571853|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G physical well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.87
95800192|NCT02583269|191571853|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Fact G social well being p value baseline to week 8||||0.22
95800193|NCT02583269|191571861|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95800194|NCT02583269|191571862|OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks log IL-8||||0.119
95800195|NCT02583269|191571862|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 8 weeks log IL-8||||0.414
95946989|NCT06263673|191866275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.67
95758114|NCT04874636|191483403|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-34.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.34|106.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||106.69|-176.34|
95758115|NCT04874636|191483404|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-0.10|
95758116|NCT01770392|191483405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|50.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.155|53.275||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)"|||53.275|47.155|1.0000
95800196|NCT02583269|191571863|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline v. 4 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.851
95800197|NCT02583269|191571863|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. 8 weeks p value log VEGF||||0.688
95800198|NCT03244189|191571864|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||||1.20|0.77|
95800199|NCT03244189|191571865|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37||||||||1.37|0.72|
95758117|NCT01770392|191483406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|59.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.829|66.348||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||66.348|53.829|1.0000
95758118|NCT01770392|191483407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|49.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.3||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.886|53.286||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|"The model includes fixed effect for treatment and effect subjects was considered as random"|"The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (in %).~The ratio has been calculated as (nintedanib+ rifampicin) divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||53.286|46.886|1.0000
95800200|NCT03244189|191571866|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.29||||||||2.29|0.91|
95800201|NCT02999477|191571939|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05. The margin is zero.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
95800202|NCT02999477|191571939|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is no change in the amount of PD-L1 expression from baseline to after a two-week run in of nabpaclitaxel or pembrolizumab. The test was using one-sided alpha (type I error) of 0.05.||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0
95800203|NCT02810327|191572046|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MUSC Bioinformatics Core analyzed group genomic data for variant association with COPD severity score, including single variant association or type of variant association with symptoms. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using statistical package SAS 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).||||0.054
95800204|NCT05067127|191572061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.436|-0.85|||MMRM|||An mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, baseline immunosuppressants use, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline log-transformed uPCR, was utilized to analyze the log-transformed ratio of uPCR at Week 26 compared to baseline.||-0.85|-1.436|<0.0001
95800205|NCT05067127|191572062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.105|124.026|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline eGFR values, baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||124.026|6.105|<0.0001
95800206|NCT05067127|191572063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.932|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.401|113.897|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline log-transformed uPCR values, disease type, and stratification factors.||113.897|8.401|<0.0001
95859281|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.015
95946990|NCT06263673|191866275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.91
95946991|NCT00659373|191866284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95946992|NCT00087022|191866301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.737
95946993|NCT00087022|191866302|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.012|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.012
95946994|NCT00087022|191866305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.022
95946995|NCT04650581|191866310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.46|0.0007
95758119|NCT04188301|191483409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
95758120|NCT04188301|191483409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
95758121|NCT04188301|191483409|SUPERIORITY|IA vs IDA treatment groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||||2.15|0.97|0.068
95758122|NCT04188301|191483409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
95758123|NCT04188301|191483412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.38||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.38|0.84|0.192
95758124|NCT04188301|191483412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.29|0.92|0.107
95758125|NCT04188301|191483412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.15||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA groups for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.15|0.97|0.068
95758126|NCT04188301|191483412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA vs IDA3 for living female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||1.79|0.59|0.918
95758127|NCT04188301|191483415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.21||Adjusted p values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person. Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA in fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.21|0.85|0.134
95758128|NCT04188301|191483415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.44||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||4.44|1.12|0.023
95758129|NCT04188301|191483415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.85||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IDA1 vs IDA3 for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||2.85|.64|0.430
95800207|NCT05067127|191572064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.002||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|0.798|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline C3G histologic index activity score, disease type, and stratification factors.||0.798|-2.803|0.2753
95800208|NCT05067127|191572065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.392|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.477|115.852|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3c staining, disease type, and stratification factors.||115.852|6.477|<0.0001
95800209|NCT05067127|191572066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.312||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|12.122|||MMRM|||An MMRM model included fixed categorical effect for treatment group, visit, disease type, stratification factors, and the visit-by-treatment group interactions as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of baseline eGFR, was utilized to analyze the mean change from baseline to Week 26 in eGFR.||12.122|0.501|0.0333
95946996|NCT04650581|191866311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.31|0.0005
95946997|NCT04650581|191866312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.51|0.0075
95946998|NCT04614168|191866325|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
95946999|NCT04614168|191866325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95947000|NCT04614168|191866326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95947001|NCT04614168|191866326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95758130|NCT04188301|191483415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.34||Participant level random effects were included in the model to adjust for multiple worms/person. Adjusted P values were model-adjusted for repeated measurements per person.|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects logistic regression model where study participant was included as a random effect to adjust for multiple worms per person.||IA vs IDA treatment groups for fertile female O. volvulus worms in nodules after treatment.||3.34|1.09|0.023
95758131|NCT04682730|191483431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.58|0.18
95758132|NCT04682730|191483433|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total program costs in 2021 dollars|7845.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6378.0|9312.0|||||An opportunity cost approach was used. Costs estimated: Develop workbook- guideline, EHR data analyses, survey, evidence review- \& print; facilitator training/delivery/program tailoring; staff time; implemented strategies; dental sealant placements.|Mean Total Program costs per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||9312|6378|
95758133|NCT04682730|191483437|OTHER|single intervention group across 16 clinics|mean total costs/per clinic per sealant|1321.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1245.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|845.0|3208.0|||||Total cost per sealant calculated as quotient of total intervention costs ($125,521) \& total sealants placed (95), is = to mean cost/sealant across each clinic ($7845/5.938).|Mean Total Program costs per sealant per clinic for the KPNW Dental system.||3208|845|
95758134|NCT04682730|191483439|OTHER|descriptive analysis|percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||89/89 treatment plans completed by the end of the period.|||
95758135|NCT04086407|191483517|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
95758136|NCT04086407|191483518|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
95758137|NCT04086407|191483519|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||
95758138|NCT04086407|191483520|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||All statistical tests were completed with a significance of p \< 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Sample sets were statistically compared and analyzed by using two-tailed, unpaired Student t test analyses of means.|||<.05
95758139|NCT01555671|191483521|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95800210|NCT05067127|191572067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.753||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|15.716|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline proteinuria values, disease type, and stratification factors.||15.716|2.106|0.0006
95800211|NCT05067127|191572068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.341||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.863|880.544|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline albumin values, disease type, and stratification factors.||880.544|8.863|0.0001
95800212|NCT05067127|191572069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.175|9999.999|||Logistic|||The logistic model included treatment group as independent variable and adjusted for baseline C3 levels, stratification factors and disease type.||9999.999|12.175|0.0094
95800213|NCT05067127|191572070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.562||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.739|3.863|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||3.863|-2.739|0.7384
95800214|NCT05067127|191572071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.345||||0.5648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.237|5.927|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect, adjusted for baseline, disease type, and stratification factors.||5.927|-3.237|0.5648
95800215|NCT05040971|191572093|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with randomised treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-11.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|-9.42|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-9.42|-12.97|<0.0001
95800216|NCT05040971|191572094|SUPERIORITY|Week 52 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|45.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||45.21|8.68|<0.0001
95859282|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.125
95859283|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.004
95758140|NCT01081834|191483535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.088|-0.729|||ANCOVA|||||-0.729|-1.088|<0.001
95758141|NCT01081834|191483535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.342|-0.985|||ANCOVA|||||-0.985|-1.342|<0.001
95758142|NCT01081834|191483537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.23|3.10|<0.001
95758143|NCT01081834|191483537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|26.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.25|8.14|<0.001
95758144|NCT01081834|191483538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-28.78|||ANCOVA|||||-28.78|-42.22|<0.001
95859284|NCT02304367|191676126|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.018
95947002|NCT04614168|191866327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
95947003|NCT04614168|191866327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
95947004|NCT04614168|191866328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
95947005|NCT04614168|191866328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95947006|NCT04614168|191866329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95947007|NCT04614168|191866329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95947008|NCT04614168|191866330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95947009|NCT04614168|191866330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95758145|NCT01081834|191483538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-43.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.06|-36.69|||ANCOVA|||||-36.69|-50.06|<0.001
95758146|NCT01081834|191483539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.629|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-36.99|||ANCOVA|||||-36.99|-59.12|<0.001
95758147|NCT01081834|191483539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-64.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.616|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.02|-52.94|||ANCOVA|||||-52.94|-75.02|<0.001
95758148|NCT01081834|191483540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.9|<0.001
95800217|NCT03732820|191572149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.81|0.54|<0.0001
95800218|NCT03732820|191572150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||A multiple testing procedure is employed across primary (rPFS) and key secondary endpoints (OS) to strongly control overall type 1 error at 2.5% one-sided. Alpha spend for OS will not exceed 0.02135.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.00|0.67|0.0544
95800219|NCT03732820|191572151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.90|0.64|0.0025
95800220|NCT03732820|191572152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.50|0.75|0.7456
95800221|NCT03732820|191572153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.79|0.82|0.3099
95800222|NCT03732820|191572154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.22|0.55|0.3212
95800223|NCT03732820|191572155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by Metastases and Docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer stage using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.99|0.59|0.0534
95947010|NCT04614168|191866331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95947011|NCT04614168|191866331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95758149|NCT01081834|191483540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-4.0|<0.001
95758150|NCT01081834|191483541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.568|||ANCOVA|||||-1.568|-5.860|<0.001
95800224|NCT03301714|191572158|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||baseline demographics, correlated errors due to repeated measures, and bias due to lost to follow-up were accounted for via Generalized Estimating Equation (statistical threshold \<0.01)|Regression, Linear||Mean change difference in oral health related quality of life among control, intervention 1: group-based oral health education and intervention 2: individual-based oral health education using motivational interviewing.|||||.000
95859285|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.148
95947012|NCT04614168|191866332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95947013|NCT04614168|191866332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95947014|NCT04614168|191866333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0094
95947015|NCT04614168|191866334|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.99
95947016|NCT04614168|191866334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95947017|NCT04614168|191866335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95758151|NCT01081834|191483541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.556|-3.28|||ANCOVA|||||-3.280|-7.556|<0.001
95758152|NCT01081834|191483542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-14.8|0.267
95758153|NCT01081834|191483542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-19.6|0.034
95758154|NCT01081834|191483543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|2.9|<0.001
95758155|NCT01081834|191483543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.9|2.2|0.002
95947018|NCT04614168|191866335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95947019|NCT04614168|191866336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behaviour subscale||||0.25
95947020|NCT04614168|191866336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worry subscale||||0.63
95947021|NCT04614168|191866336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Behaviour subscale||||0.35
95947022|NCT04614168|191866336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Worry subscale||||0.09
95758156|NCT01544179|191483564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.13|0.65|0.273
95758157|NCT01544179|191483567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.52|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.52|1.05|0.029
95758158|NCT01544179|191483568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.55|0.760
95758159|NCT01544179|191483569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.74|0.308
95758160|NCT01544179|191483570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.53|0.770
95758161|NCT01544179|191483571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.21|0.68|0.507
95758162|NCT01544179|191483572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.54|0.725
95758163|NCT01544179|191483573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.23|0.69|0.575
95800225|NCT03188185|191572161|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05 .|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4||ALK 5461 was compared to placebo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline.Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was conducted for each stage separately, and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2).||0.4|-3.5|0.128
95800226|NCT02232698|191572198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95800227|NCT02232698|191572199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9556
95947023|NCT04614168|191866337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95947024|NCT04614168|191866337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95758164|NCT01544179|191483574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.61|0.959
95758165|NCT01544179|191483575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.20|0.66|0.437
95800228|NCT02232698|191572200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95947025|NCT04614168|191866338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Column factor p-value.|ANOVA|||||||0.77
95947026|NCT04614168|191866338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95947027|NCT04614168|191866339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail making A delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.88
95947028|NCT04614168|191866339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail Making B delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.69
95758166|NCT02045147|191483577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|10.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.65|-4.98|0.463
95758167|NCT02045147|191483577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.49|-5.23|0.634
95758168|NCT02045147|191483577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|13.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.32|-3.74|0.259
95758169|NCT02045147|191483577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.84|-3.21|0.472
95758170|NCT02045147|191483578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.5|-8.5|0.532
95758171|NCT02045147|191483578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-7.5|0.574
95758172|NCT02045147|191483578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-12.3|0.254
95758173|NCT02045147|191483578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-6.3|0.759
95758174|NCT02045147|191483579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-2.1|0.153
95758175|NCT02045147|191483579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-7.9|0.729
95947029|NCT04614168|191866339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trail making A delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.41
95947030|NCT04614168|191866339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Trail making B delta clamp 1 compared to clamp 2||||0.49
95758176|NCT02045147|191483579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-6.6|0.886
95758177|NCT02045147|191483579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-8.7|0.446
95758178|NCT02045147|191483580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.1|-5.7|0.521
95947031|NCT04614168|191866340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span forwards||||0.5
95947032|NCT04614168|191866340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span backwards||||0.5
95947033|NCT04614168|191866340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Digit span forwards||||0.53
95947034|NCT04614168|191866340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95758179|NCT02045147|191483580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.5|-1.5|0.146
95758180|NCT02045147|191483580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-8.5|0.926
95758181|NCT02045147|191483580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-6.4|0.526
95758182|NCT02045147|191483581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-9.2|0.776
95758183|NCT02045147|191483581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.7|-1.6|0.135
95758184|NCT02045147|191483581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.0|-10.9|0.556
95758185|NCT02045147|191483581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.9|-2.9|0.361
95800229|NCT02232698|191572200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis of time spent \<40 mg/dL|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95800230|NCT02232698|191572201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||<0.0001
95800231|NCT02232698|191572201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||<0.0001
95800232|NCT02232698|191572201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<40 mg/dL||||<0.0001
95800233|NCT02232698|191572202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5623|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5623
95800234|NCT02232698|191572202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.0247
95800235|NCT02232698|191572203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95800236|NCT02232698|191572206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||<0.0001
95800237|NCT02232698|191572206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.0713
95758186|NCT02045147|191483582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.6|-6.4|0.564
95800238|NCT02232698|191572206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.0001
95800239|NCT04822194|191572272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects behavioral analyses of longitudinal reappraisal training data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects require 36 per group.||||0.053
95800240|NCT04822194|191572273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed models on natural log of RMSSD, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using an approximate effect size (d=.70) previously obtained for within and between-subjects analyses of respiratory sinus arrhythmia data indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.741
95758187|NCT02045147|191483582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.3|-3.0|0.307
95859286|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.295
95758188|NCT02045147|191483582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-6.7|0.768
95758189|NCT02045147|191483582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.5|-4.2|0.785
95758190|NCT02045147|191483583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-7.5|0.917
95758191|NCT02045147|191483583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-2.2|0.181
95758192|NCT02045147|191483583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-6.3|0.772
95947035|NCT04614168|191866341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95947036|NCT04614168|191866341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95947037|NCT04614168|191866342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95758193|NCT02045147|191483583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-3.8|0.526
95758194|NCT02045147|191483584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.9|-.8|0.872
95758195|NCT02045147|191483584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.34|-.87|0.387
95758196|NCT02045147|191483584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.81|-.37|0.916
95758197|NCT02045147|191483584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.94|-.19|0.189
95758198|NCT02045147|191483585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.13|-.21|0.627
95947038|NCT04614168|191866342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95947039|NCT04221451|191866343|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-36.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.8|-27.68|||Robust ANCOVA|||Mean percent change from baseline obtained from robust analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using Huber's M estimation, including the fixed categorical effects of treatment (venglustat versus placebo) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||-27.68|-44.80|<0.0001
95758199|NCT02045147|191483585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.09|-.11|0.840
95758200|NCT02045147|191483585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.00|-.22|0.049
95758201|NCT02045147|191483585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.06|-.06|0.952
95758202|NCT02045147|191483586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|25.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.00|-11.07|.436
95758203|NCT02045147|191483586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.24|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-25.24|.088
95758204|NCT02045147|191483586|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.86|4.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.77|-25.86|0.169
95758205|NCT02045147|191483586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.37|-12.79|0.416
95758206|NCT00049530|191483587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||bionomial proportion test|||It is of interest to test the null hypothesis of 10% plasma b-FGF response rate versus the alternative hypothesis of 30% response rate. Based on the sample size of 30 eligible patients, there will be 84% power to detect this 20% difference in b-FGF response rates. This was based on a two-sided type I error of .05, using the one-sample binomial test.||||<0.001
95758207|NCT00696787|191483613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.38||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.42|0.471
95758208|NCT00696787|191483613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.28||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-1.33|0.604
95758209|NCT00696787|191483614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.35||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.42|0.510
95758210|NCT00696787|191483614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.64|0.317
95758211|NCT04058067|191483615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|-3.7|0.013
95800241|NCT04822194|191572274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value above reflects a group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses using a within-subject fMRI effect size estimate for right amygdala affective reactivity from a meta-analysis of Human Connectome Project data of approx. d=.70, applying to between-subjects effects as well, indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) to detect between-group effects should be achieved with 36 participants per group.||||0.021
95947040|NCT04221451|191866344|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.7435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|5.39|||Robust ANCOVA|The robust ANCOVA included fixed effect of treatment (venglustat versus placebo) and continuous fixed covariate of log-transformed baseline value.||Mean slope of log-transformed 9-HPT obtained from a robust ANCOVA on individual slopes of log-transformed 9-HPT using Huber's M estimation.||5.39|-2.33|0.7435
95758212|NCT04058067|191483616|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-4.2|0.035
95758213|NCT04058067|191483618|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-3.0|
95758214|NCT04058067|191483619|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.0|
95758215|NCT04058067|191483620|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-4.3|
95758216|NCT04058067|191483623|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.7|-13.7|
95758217|NCT04058067|191483623|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||9.4|-14.7|
95758218|NCT04058067|191483623|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters gain from baseline or reached BCVA of ≥84 letters at Week 52||6.9|-15.5|
95758219|NCT04058067|191483627|SUPERIORITY||DIfference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥5 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||4.4|-4.2|
95758220|NCT04058067|191483627|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥10 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||3.8|-1.6|
95758221|NCT04058067|191483627|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of subjects with ≥15 letters loss from baseline at Week 52||2.3|-2.2|
95758222|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 4|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||8.6|-7.9|
95758223|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 6|Difference - %|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||2.9|-14.3|
95758224|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 8|Difference - %|-4.0||||||95.0|-13.3|4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||4.4|-13.3|
95758225|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 12|Difference - %|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|2.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 12||2.3|-16.4|
95758226|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 16|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||-0.0|-19.2|
95758227|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 18|Difference - %|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|0.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||-0.0|-19.0|
95758228|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 20|Difference - %|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|3.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||3.9|-15.8|
95859287|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.005
95859288|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||< 0.001
95947041|NCT02516241|191866412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|98.66|0.688|1.063||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.063|0.688|0.0751
95947042|NCT02516241|191866413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|96.99|0.695|1.139||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.139|0.695|0.3039
95758229|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 24|Difference - %|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-3.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||-3.1|-23.9|
95758230|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-2.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||-2.1|-22.0|
95758231|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 32|Difference - %|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||-4.8|-26.0|
95758232|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 36|Difference - %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-8.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||Week 36||-8.9|-29.5|
95758233|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 40|Difference - %|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-8.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||-8.6|-28.7|
95758234|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 44|Difference - %|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||-4.4|-25.6|
95758235|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 48|Difference - %|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-3.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||-3.4|-23.6|
95758236|NCT04058067|191483628|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||-2.9|-23.5|
95758237|NCT04058067|191483629|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|11.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||11.2|-13.6|
95758238|NCT04058067|191483631|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|17.0|||ANOVA|||||17.0|-37.3|
95758239|NCT04058067|191483632|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|21.9|||ANOVA|||||21.9|-26.8|
95758240|NCT04058067|191483633|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|13.2|||ANOVA|||||13.2|-30.3|
95859289|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.014
95758241|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 4||13.5|-3.3|
95758242|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|20.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 6||20.6|1.4|
95758243|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 8||25.3|3.9|
95758244|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|24.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method||Proportion estimates (%) = 39.3|Week 12||24.9|2.8|
95758245|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.8||||||95.0|5.1|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 16||28.6|5.1|
95758246|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|26.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 18||26.6|3.1|
95758247|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|27.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 20||27.1|3.5|
95758248|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.2|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 24||30.2|7.2|
95758249|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|27.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||27.9|4.9|
95758250|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|24.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 32||24.4|0.4|
95758251|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 36||18.0|-5.9|
95758252|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|26.1|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 40||26.1|3.3|
95758253|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 44||25.7|1.9|
95758254|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 48||23.6|-0.8|
95758255|NCT04058067|191483634|SUPERIORITY||Difference - %|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|30.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||30.5|5.8|
95758256|NCT04058067|191483635|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||3.6|0.8|
95758257|NCT04058067|191483636|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||4.6|-13.2|
95758258|NCT04058067|191483637|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|12.4|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||12.4|-10.5|
95859290|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.140
95859291|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
95859292|NCT02304367|191676127|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.142
95859293|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.005
95947043|NCT02516241|191866414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.169||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.169|0.830|0.8637
95758259|NCT04058067|191483642|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||8.8|-13.9|
95758260|NCT04058067|191483642|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|9.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.0|-14.1|
95758261|NCT04058067|191483644|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||12.6|-4.1|
95758262|NCT04058067|191483644|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 52|Difference - %|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|9.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 52||9.3|-10.5|
95758263|NCT04058067|191483646|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
95758264|NCT04058067|191483648|OTHER|Descriptive, Week 28|Difference - %|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||Week 28||2.9|0.7|
95758265|NCT04058067|191483649|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.1|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 28||2.3|-4.1|
95758266|NCT04058067|191483649|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.3|-3.1|
95859294|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.077
95758267|NCT02704403|191483680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.09|||Regression, Logistic|test is 2-sided, alpha=0.01||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference in the response rates between the elafibranor and placebo treatment groups.||0.090|-0.003|0.0659
95758268|NCT02704403|191483681|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.457|||||No formal test due to the early termination of the study.|||1.457|0.619|
95758269|NCT02695537|191483728|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure frequency over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure frequency between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure frequency was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure frequency outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
95758270|NCT02695537|191483729|OTHER|Single group.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value reported above is the global test for change in seizure severity scores over a 12-month period.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferonni multiple comparison correction was used as a post-hoc analysis to indicate direction of change.||Null hypothesis is that there was no change in seizure severity scores between any two assessment time points during this period of analysis. Alternative hypothesis is that there were two or more assessment time points for which change in seizure severity scores was different from zero.|Generalized least squares statistical techniques were used for modeling longitudinal data after normality of seizure severity score outcome measures were achieved through log-transformations methods. The following baseline clinical variables were adjusted for: AEDs, AEDs tried, epileptic surgery, and gender. Reported results were geometric least squares mean and its associated 95% Confidence Interval. Percentage reduction in seizure severity relative to baseline were obtained by subtracting from 1 and then multiplying by 100 at all post-baseline timepoints.|||<0.0001
95758271|NCT01755767|191483733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8006|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.8006
95758272|NCT01755767|191483733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9682||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7483|1.2529|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox Regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2529|0.7483|0.8061
95758273|NCT01755767|191483735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank between treatment arms adjusted for stratification factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||||0.7509
95859295|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.046
95758274|NCT01755767|191483735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9557||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7487|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression between treatment arms adjusted for factors: vascular invasion, extra-hepatic spread, and alpha fetoprotein level.||||1.2200|0.7487|0.7160
95758275|NCT00191165|191483738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.34||95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||1.40|-0.50|0.340
95758276|NCT00191165|191483739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.388||95.0|-0.21|0.53||P-value for 12-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.53|-0.21|0.388
95758277|NCT00191165|191483739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.061||95.0|-0.02|0.99||P-value for 24-Month Height SDS Change|ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||0.99|-0.02|0.061
95758278|NCT00191165|191483740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.088||95.0|-0.18|2.44|||ANOVA||Mean Difference = High Dose - Label Dose|||2.44|-0.18|0.088
95859296|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.049
95947044|NCT02516241|191866415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.928||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.928|0.589|0.0091
95947045|NCT02516241|191866416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.359||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.359|0.799|0.7599
95758279|NCT00715624|191483741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.174||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|To control type I error, a step-down procedure described by Hochberg and Tomhane was applied.||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 300 patients in lixisenatide arm and 150 in placebo arm would provide a power of 96% (or 86%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.174|-0.550|0.0002
95758280|NCT00998309|191483767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participatns of responders."||||=0.001
95758281|NCT00998309|191483768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
95758282|NCT00998309|191483769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was type of infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental and Oral Surgery Infection in the participatns of responders."||||<0.001
95758283|NCT00998309|191483770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, and severe infection in the participatns of responders."||||=0.556
95758284|NCT00998309|191483771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was hepatic dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without hepatic dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=0.074
95758285|NCT00998309|191483772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal dysfunction in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
95758286|NCT00998309|191483773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past medical history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
95758287|NCT00998309|191483774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications  in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
95758288|NCT00998309|191483775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
95758289|NCT00998309|191483776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the participatns of responders."||||=0.470
95758290|NCT00998309|191483777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the participatns of responders."||||=1.000
95758291|NCT00998309|191483780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.657|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.657
95758292|NCT00998309|191483781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years or \>=65 in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.145
95758293|NCT00998309|191483782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Type of Infection. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, Sexual Transmitted Infection, and Dental or Oral Surgery Infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.005
95758294|NCT00998309|191483783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Infection severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference amang mild infection, moderate infection, or severe infection in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.213
95758295|NCT00998309|191483784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95758296|NCT00998309|191483785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.116
95758297|NCT00998309|191483786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past Medical History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past Medical History in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||<0.001
95859297|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.003
95800242|NCT04822194|191572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran linear mixed models, p-value reflects a group by session interaction for the UGRS composite scores.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups. Power analyses of an effect size (d=.70) previously reported for within and between-subjects analyses of questionnaire outcomes (i.e., depressive symptoms, grief rumination, perceived stress, reappraisal usage) indicate over 95% power (α=.05) to detect within-group effects and 90% power (α=0.05) for between-group effects should be achieved with 36 per group.||||0.724
95800243|NCT04822194|191572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on counterfactuals adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.835
95800244|NCT04822194|191572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on injustice adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.090
95800245|NCT04822194|191572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on meaning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.983
95758298|NCT00998309|191483787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.645
95758299|NCT00998309|191483788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.679|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was previous antibiotic treatment history (PATH). The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without previous antibiotic treatment history (PTH) in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.679
95758300|NCT00998309|191483789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was comcomittant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without comcomittant drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.234
95800246|NCT04822194|191572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on reaction adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.760
95800247|NCT04822194|191572275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on relations adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.402
95800248|NCT04822194|191572276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|We ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.092
95800249|NCT04822194|191572277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.585
95800250|NCT04822194|191572278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.70
95800251|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional problems adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups.||||0.696
95800252|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on emotional well-being adjusted for covariates, p-value reflects group by session interaction||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.452
95991810|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|32.5||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||32.5|-8.7|
95758301|NCT00998309|191483790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without non-drug therapy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs)."||||=0.039
95758302|NCT00998309|191483791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Pregnancy in Female. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Pregnancy in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events (TRAEs) in Female."||||=0.605
95800253|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran a linear mixed model on energy adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.650
95800254|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on general health perceptions adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.224
95800255|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on pain adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference in groups||||0.256
95800256|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical function adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.984
95800257|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on physical health adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.363
95800258|NCT04822194|191572279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Ran linear mixed model on social functioning adjusted for covariates, p-value above reflects group by session interaction.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.045
95800259|NCT04822194|191572280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of logged IL-6 serum, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.422
95758303|NCT03421730|191483796|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6; D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
95758304|NCT03421730|191483796|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
95758305|NCT03421730|191483796|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 25.33%.|||
95758306|NCT03421730|191483797|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|13.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%.|||
95758307|NCT03421730|191483797|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|35.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
95758308|NCT03421730|191483797|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|76.98|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=4, D: n=4||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 22.05%|||
95800260|NCT04822194|191572280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANCOVA|Ran a repeated measures ANCOVA of TNFα, p-value above reflects time by ER group interaction effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups||||0.438
95800261|NCT04615507|191572287|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Mean estimate|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.083|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.083|-0.180|
95800262|NCT04615507|191572287|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Mean estimate|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.017|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.017|-0.115|
95800263|NCT04615507|191572287|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of the mean is below the predefined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Mean estimate|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.121|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.121|0.022|
95800264|NCT04615507|191572288|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of the LSM is above the predefined threshold 32 points.|Least-square mean|59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|66.8|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom||||66.8|52.3|
95758309|NCT03421730|191483798|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
95758310|NCT03421730|191483798|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|32.42|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||B: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
95758311|NCT03421730|191483798|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%)|59.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||C: n=6, D: n=5||The intra-subject coefficient of variation was 33.04%.|||
95800265|NCT04615507|191572288|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above -5 points.|Least-square mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.2|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.2|0.9|
95800266|NCT04770779|191572327|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|17.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|27.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||27.2|8.0|0.0003
95758312|NCT00555152|191483844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95758313|NCT01559389|191483848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21||P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|The method was a paired t-test||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS score between females with UUI and their male partners||0.21|-1.23|.16
95758314|NCT01559389|191483849|SUPERIORITY||z-score|2.97||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between responders and non-responders of solifenacin treatment|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between those who respond and do not respond to treatment with solifenacin.||||.003
95758315|NCT01559389|191483850|SUPERIORITY||z-score|0.89||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized Wilcoxon statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 indicate a significant difference in the GRISS change score between the two groups|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the overall GRISS change score between male partners of female participants who respond to solifenacin and male partners of female participants who do not respond to solifenacin||||.37
95758316|NCT02871492|191483851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4294
95758317|NCT01844505|191483888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.43|0.76|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipimlimumab.|||0.76|0.43|<0.0001
95758318|NCT01844505|191483888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.31|0.57|||Stratified Log Rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
95800267|NCT04770779|191572328|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|11.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|17.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||17.0|5.1|0.0003
95800268|NCT04770779|191572329|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||19.1|7.7|<0.0001
95800269|NCT04770779|191572330|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|6.4||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||The p-value is based on the Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||10.9|1.9|0.0056
95859298|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.073
95758319|NCT01844505|191483889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.5|0.78|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||0.78|0.50|<0.0001
95758320|NCT01844505|191483889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.42|0.72|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by PD-L1 status, BRAF status, and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Ratio of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||0.72|0.42|<0.0001
95758321|NCT01844505|191483892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||0.96|0.65|
95758322|NCT01844505|191483893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.05|0.69|
95758323|NCT01844505|191483894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab over Ipilimumab.|||5.16|2.49|<0.0001
95991811|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|38.3||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||38.3|-3.2|
95993783|NCT00619957|191963386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.67|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.67|-2.62|0.6658
95758324|NCT01844505|191483894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|9.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab.|||9.22|4.38|<0.0001
95800270|NCT02347787|191572359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Determination of targeted sample size was based on detecting a between-arm difference in mean change in SF-12 Physical Component Summary of 3 points, which is the minimal clinically significant difference for this instrument. To achieve at least 80% power with a type I error rate of 5%, we required 444 total participants. To account for 25% attrition, we aimed to accrue 592 participants.||||0.30
95800271|NCT02347787|191572360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||Regression, Linear|||||0.9|-1.3|0.21
95947046|NCT02516241|191866416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.175|0.692|0.4424
95758325|NCT01844505|191483894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.8|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab - Ipilimumab.|||32.8|19.1|
95758326|NCT01844505|191483894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|45.9|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Ipilimumab.|||45.9|32.2|
95758327|NCT01844505|191483894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.42|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by PD-L1 Status, BRAF Status and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Ratio of Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||2.42|1.26|
95758328|NCT01844505|191483894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Objective Response Rates|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|20.7|||||Difference in ORR and corresponding 95% CI is based on CMH method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 Status, BRAF Mutation Status and M-stage at screening as entered into the IVRS. Difference of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab - Nivolumab.|||20.7|5.7|
95758329|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.85|0.46|
95758330|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.54|0.28|
95758331|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.87|0.45|
95758332|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.59|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.59|0.34|
95800272|NCT02347787|191572361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-0.7|0.21
95800273|NCT02347787|191572362|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.2|||Regression, Linear|||||1.2|-2.2|0.21
95800274|NCT02347787|191572363|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1.8|-14.3|0.21
95800275|NCT02347787|191572364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.41
95800276|NCT02347787|191572365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95800277|NCT02347787|191572366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.6|0.98
95947047|NCT02516241|191866420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.304||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.304|0.931|0.2579
95947048|NCT02516241|191866420|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|1.567||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.567|1.124|0.0008
95758333|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.53|0.30|
95758334|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.21|0.66|
95758335|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.71|0.45|
95758336|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.53|0.33|
95758337|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.94|0.57|
95758338|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.60|0.27|
95758339|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.54|0.22|
95758340|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.38|0.54|
95758341|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.67|0.43|
95758342|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.54|0.34|
95758343|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.01|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.01|0.63|
95758344|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.73|0.28|
95758345|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.49|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.49|0.16|
95758346|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.09|0.34|
95758347|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.52|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.52|0.49|
95758348|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.89|0.30|
95859299|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.109
95758349|NCT01844505|191483895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.09|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.09|0.33|
95758350|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.05|0.57|
95758351|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.81|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||0.81|0.43|
95758352|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||||95.0|0.55|1.04|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 1%|||1.04|0.55|
95758353|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.68|0.39|
95758354|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||0.67|0.38|
95758355|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 1%|||1.31|0.72|
95758356|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.78|0.49|
95758357|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.66|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||0.66|0.41|
95758358|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 5%|||1.08|0.66|
95758359|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.41|
95758360|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||0.91|0.38|
95758361|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 5%|||1.53|0.62|
95947049|NCT02516241|191866421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.091||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.091|0.705|0.2395
95947050|NCT02516241|191866421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.406||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.406|0.917|0.2431
95758362|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.75|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.75|0.48|
95758363|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||0.68|0.43|
95758364|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \< 10%|||1.14|0.71|
95758365|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.10|0.44|
95758366|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||0.91|0.32|
95758367|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.32|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression \>= 10%|||1.32|0.45|
95758368|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.34|||||HR of Nivolumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.34|0.37|
95758369|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||0.91|0.26|
95758370|NCT01844505|191483896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.39|||||HR of Nivolumab+Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab in participants with PD-L1 expression not evaluable at baseline|||1.39|0.34|
95758371|NCT00311402|191483903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-event rates after 1 year in the Aggrenox group and ASA group are estimated at 94.0% and 91.5%, respectively. The non-inferiority margin was set to 2%. Under these conditions, 500 patients per group were supposed to be enough to detect the non-inferiority of Aggrenox with over 80% power.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.47||||0.097||95.0|0.93|2.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.31|0.93|0.097
95758372|NCT00311402|191483904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.79||||0.223||95.0|0.7|4.54|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||4.54|0.70|0.223
95758373|NCT00311402|191483905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.0||||0.998|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||0|0.998
95758374|NCT00311402|191483906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.977||95.0|0.21|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.21|0.977
95758375|NCT00311402|191483907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.192||95.0|0.26|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.31|0.26|0.192
95758376|NCT00311402|191483908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.88||||0.215||95.0|0.69|5.07|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||5.07|0.69|0.215
95758377|NCT00311402|191483909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.443||95.0|0.79|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.69|0.79|0.443
95758378|NCT00311402|191483910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.52||||0.043||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.29|1.01|0.043
95758379|NCT00311402|191483911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.919||95.0|0.48|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||2.25|0.48|0.919
95758380|NCT00311402|191483912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.101||95.0|0.94|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||Non-event rate was calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison of groups was made by using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.||1.91|0.94|0.101
95758381|NCT02640053|191483913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95758382|NCT02640053|191483914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95758383|NCT02640053|191483915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95758384|NCT02640053|191483916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95758385|NCT02640053|191483917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95758386|NCT02640053|191483918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95758387|NCT02640053|191483919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95947051|NCT02516241|191866422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.99||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.990|1.177|0.0014
95758388|NCT02640053|191483920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95758389|NCT02472223|191483935|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|90.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95758390|NCT03496610|191483948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed given non-normal distribution of data by Shapiro Wilks Test. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in oral morphine equivalent consumption between the two groups in the first 24hrs after surgery. Original sample size calculation based on α=0.05, β=0.8, difference in means=2, and effect size of 1.0.||||0.81
95758391|NCT03496610|191483949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two groups in pain on postoperative day 7.||||0.40
95758392|NCT03496610|191483950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test performed with α=0.05. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in bloating severity between the two groups.||||0.74
95758393|NCT03496610|191483951|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Compared using the Likelihood ratio test with α=0.05. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups.||||0.38
95758394|NCT03095638|191483955|OTHER||Ratio|1.0084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8626|1.1789||||||||1.1789|0.8626|
95758395|NCT03095638|191483956|OTHER||Ratio|1.0121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8648|1.1845||||||||1.1845|0.8648|
95758396|NCT03095638|191483957|OTHER||Ration|1.0329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8623|1.2373||||||||1.2373|0.8623|
95758397|NCT03095638|191483958|OTHER||Ratio|1.6242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4986|1.7604||||||||1.7604|1.4986|
95758398|NCT03095638|191483958|OTHER||Ratio|1.5448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4253|1.6743||||||||1.6743|1.4253|
95758399|NCT03095638|191483959|OTHER||Ratio|1.6292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.503|1.7661||||||||1.7661|1.5030|
95758400|NCT03095638|191483959|OTHER||Ratio|1.5519|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4317|1.6822||||||||1.6822|1.4317|
95758401|NCT03095638|191483960|OTHER||Ratio|1.7933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6226|1.9819||||||||1.9819|1.6226|
95758402|NCT03095638|191483960|OTHER||Ratio|1.7974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6263|1.9865||||||||1.9865|1.6263|
95758403|NCT01158573|191484011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Hypothesis that leptin levels in OA is not different from the other 3 groups.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95758404|NCT01158573|191484012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95758405|NCT01158573|191484013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
95758406|NCT01158573|191484014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95758407|NCT00513682|191484017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0013
95758408|NCT00513682|191484018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
95758409|NCT02450526|191484019|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|94.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|97.7||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||97.7|90.8|<0.0001
95758410|NCT02450526|191484020|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.5|92.4||The test is two-sided at the significance level of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||92.4|82.5|<0.0001
95758411|NCT02450526|191484021|NON_INFERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||The non-inferiority of Dysport® to Botox on the ILA at maximum frown was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model||1.9|-6.7|
95758412|NCT02450526|191484022|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|73.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|88.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.4|59.1|<0.0001
95758413|NCT02450526|191484023|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between mean scores of SGA at Treatment Cycle 1, Day 29 is based on 2 separate linear mixed models, adjusting on the two stratification parameters, gender and baseline ILA severity score, and the centre.|Treatment Difference|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|2.878||The test was two-sided at the significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a linear mixed model.||2.878|2.327|<0.0001
95758414|NCT02450526|191484024|SUPERIORITY|The model includes treatment group, stratification factors, gender and baseline severity score of glabellar lines at maximum frown measured by the ILA, and centre as explanatory variables and responder (Yes or No) as response variable.|Treatment difference|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis of Dysport® to placebo was tested using a multivariate logistic regression model.||88.7|78.7|<0.0001
95764194|NCT03135015|191498533|OTHER|||||||0.0519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons||||0.0519
95800278|NCT02347787|191572368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95800279|NCT02347787|191572369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
95758415|NCT00911807|191484039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Square (Factor Treatment)|19.59||||0.6348||||||ANCOVA F-test. The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the week 28 ADAS-cog+ change score as dependent variable and the ADAS-cog+ baseline score as a covariate.||The null-hypothesis stated no differences between the three treatment groups regarding the mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog+ at week 28. A sample size of approximately 60 evaluable patients per treatment arm was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of two points in ADAS-cog+ week 28 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 3.3) between the three groups with a power of \> 80% and a probability level of alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.6348
95758416|NCT00911807|191484039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.583||95.0|-2.891|1.63||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'||1.630|-2.891|0.5830
95758417|NCT00911807|191484039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3434||95.0|-3.324|1.163||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.163|-3.324|0.3434
95758418|NCT00911807|191484039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.6962||95.0|-2.719|1.819||No adjustment for multiple testing was needed and all tests were done with retention of the full two-sided alpha-level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between all pair of means were performed with two-sample t-tests within the ANCOVA model.||Multiple testing of individual null hypotheses that control for the overall significance level alpha = 0.05 were performed by using the 'closed testing procedure'.||1.819|-2.719|0.6962
95758419|NCT01753336|191484051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-6.28||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.28|-9.79|
95758420|NCT01753336|191484051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.68||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-2.68|-7.36|
95758421|NCT01753336|191484051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|-4.47||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-4.47|-7.42|
95758422|NCT01753336|191484051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-0.27|-3.37|
95758423|NCT01753336|191484051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-2.2||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-2.20|-5.99|
95758424|NCT01753336|191484051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.81||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.81|-3.11|
95758425|NCT01753336|191484052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-9.56||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-9.56|-13.38|
95800280|NCT02347787|191572370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
95800281|NCT02347787|191572372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
95947052|NCT02516241|191866422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.209||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.209|0.729|0.6236
95800282|NCT02347787|191572373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95800283|NCT01917773|191572374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Reported MIs and SDs in healthy volunteers from an adult study were used to calculate sample size (1). A sample size of 13 patients was deemed adequate to detect a 25% change in MI with 80% power.~Reference: Rao SS, Kavelock R, Beaty J, Ackerson K, et al. Effects of fat and carbohydrate meals on colonic motor response. Gut. Feb 2000;46(2):205-211."||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 15 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.087
95800284|NCT01917773|191572374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 30 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.552
95947053|NCT02516241|191866426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.998||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.998|0.683|0.0477
95991812|NCT02804763|191959176|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs PBO|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|35.6||Generalized linear models with factors for treatment and corticosteroid strata were fit using an identity link function for the LS mean differences.|Chi-squared|||Missing values were imputed using modified non-responder imputation (mNRI) dataset: at most 1 missing BICLA (mNRI) component (scale) may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit, and missing data in the individual items within scales may have been carried forward from the immediately preceding visit. If there was still missing data after this limited imputation, the study participant was counted as a non-responder on the BICLA (mNRI) for that visit.||35.6|-5.2|
95800285|NCT01917773|191572374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze change in MI at 45 minutes. Values were considered to be significant if P \<0.05.||||0.807
95991813|NCT00445302|191959233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|119.26||||||||119.26|63.59|
95991814|NCT00445302|191959233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means(%)|106.6||||||90.0|78.99|143.87||||||||143.87|78.99|
95991815|NCT00445302|191959233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|106.76||||||90.0|79.11|144.08||||||||144.08|79.11|
95991816|NCT00445302|191959236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|121.74||||||90.0|91.86|161.43||||||||161.43|91.86|
95991817|NCT00445302|191959236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|151.44||||||90.0|115.78|198.09||||||||198.09|115.78|
95991818|NCT00445302|191959236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means (%)|169.51||||||90.0|129.59|221.72||||||||221.72|129.59|
95800286|NCT05586308|191572391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.820
95991819|NCT01400932|191959238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-15.8|||ANCOVA|||||-15.8|-26.2|<0.001
95991820|NCT01400932|191959239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991821|NCT01400932|191959239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991822|NCT01400932|191959239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991823|NCT01400932|191959239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991824|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991825|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95800287|NCT04690556|191572482|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was assessed based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in least squares mean changes in BCVA from baseline at month 12 between LUBT010 and Lucentis for the pre-defined equivalence margin of (-4 letters, 4 letters).|Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|1.58|||||Therapeutic equivalence met|LUBT010 (Proposed Ranibizumab Biosimilar) - Lucentis||1.58|-1.52|
95991826|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991827|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95800288|NCT02743494|191572514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|96.4|0.56|0.86|||Stratified log-rank test||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||0.86|0.56|0.0003
95800289|NCT02743494|191572515|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Placebo.|||1.03|0.070|0.1064
95800290|NCT05643794|191572588|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.54||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.16|||Longitudinal linear mixed effect model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.16|-1.24|0.129
95800291|NCT05643794|191572591|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.51||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.58|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 24 weeks minus PBO 24 weeks.|||0.58|-1.60|0.358
95800292|NCT05643794|191572592|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-8.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-2.96|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo|||-2.96|-13.84|0.003
95859300|NCT02304367|191676128|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.006
95991828|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991829|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95991830|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95991831|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991832|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991833|NCT01400932|191959240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991834|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991835|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991836|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991837|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991838|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; Total|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991839|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991840|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991841|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991842|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991843|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; IL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991844|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 1; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95991845|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991846|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991847|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991848|NCT01400932|191959241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12; NIL|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991849|NCT01400932|191959242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991850|NCT01400932|191959243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.174
95758426|NCT01753336|191484052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|-6.71||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for treatment Cycle 1 is presented.||-6.71|-11.08|
95758427|NCT01753336|191484052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-12.11||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-12.11|-16.74|
95758428|NCT01753336|191484052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-8.22||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 is presented.||-8.22|-12.92|
95758429|NCT01753336|191484052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|-12.1||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-12.10|-17.18|
95758430|NCT01753336|191484052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|-9.39||||||Pretreatment baseline vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS total scores from baseline (pretreatment measurement before receiving Dysport® in Study 169 or for subjects who received placebo in Study 169, baseline was Day 1 of Cycle 1 of Study 170) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 is presented.||-9.39|-14.02|
95758431|NCT01753336|191484054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-2.52||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.52|-4.46|
95758432|NCT01753336|191484054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.7||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.70|-2.81|
95758433|NCT01753336|191484054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.23||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-2.23|-3.75|
95758434|NCT01753336|191484054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.27|-1.33|
95758435|NCT01753336|191484054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.83||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-1.83|-3.64|
95758436|NCT01753336|191484054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.02||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS severity subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||-0.02|-2.00|
95758437|NCT01753336|191484055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-2.12||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-2.12|-3.64|
95758438|NCT01753336|191484055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.86||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.86|-2.79|
95758439|NCT01753336|191484055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.04||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-1.04|-2.44|
95758440|NCT01753336|191484055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.12||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.12|-1.55|
95758441|NCT01753336|191484055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.12||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.12|-1.45|
95758442|NCT01753336|191484055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.7||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12.The mean difference in the TWSTRS disability subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.70|-0.85|
95800293|NCT05643794|191572593|SUPERIORITY||Differences from Placebo|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.64|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The differences presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.64|-0.55|0.878
95947054|NCT02516241|191866426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.175||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.175|0.809|0.7885
95991851|NCT01400932|191959243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
95800294|NCT05643794|191572594|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.28||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.31|||Longitudinal mixed effects model||The difference presented is RLZ 12 weeks minus Placebo.|||0.31|-0.86|0.352
95947055|NCT02516241|191866427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.901||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||0.901|0.549|0.0053
95758443|NCT01753336|191484056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.92||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.92|-2.39|
95758444|NCT01753336|191484056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.66||||||Cycle 1-Day 1 vs Cycle 1-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 1 was determined.||-0.66|-2.22|
95758445|NCT01753336|191484056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.58||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 4.The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||-0.58|-1.84|
95758446|NCT01753336|191484056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.18||||||Cycle 2-Day 1 vs Cycle 2-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 2 was determined.||0.18|-1.08|
95758447|NCT01753336|191484056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.19||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 4. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 4 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.19|-1.57|
95758448|NCT01753336|191484056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Cycle 3-Day 1 vs Cycle 3-Week 12. The mean difference in the TWSTRS pain subscale scores from treatment cycle baseline (Day 1) at the Week 12 visit for Treatment Cycle 3 was determined.||0.73|-0.85|
95758449|NCT00620659|191484106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.615
95758450|NCT00620659|191484107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.92|-2.3||||||||-2.30|-5.92|
95758451|NCT00620659|191484108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 1.5 minutes. If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for MK0249 minus modafinil 200 mg was greater than -1.5 minutes, non-inferiority would be established.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|-2.38||||||||-2.38|-5.23|
95800295|NCT05399485|191572601|SUPERIORITY||[Difference in Least square (LS) Mean]|-1.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization), month, and month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.38|-1.73|0.0021
95800296|NCT05399485|191572602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.3||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.9||P-value \>0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mantel Haenszel|||The percentages of participants with reductions were compared between treatment groups using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation with stratification by randomization stratum (stable prophylactic migraine medication use throughout randomization; yes, no).||15.9|-1.4|0.0989
95947056|NCT02516241|191866427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.059||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.059|0.651|0.1336
95758452|NCT00620659|191484109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.079
95758453|NCT00620659|191484110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model included terms for period and treatment.||||||0.003
95800297|NCT04770753|191572632|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimated adjusted difference in response rate, 95% CI, and p-value are based on Mantel-Haenszel stratum weighted method adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.||49.8|32.0|<0.0001
95859301|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.328
95991852|NCT01400932|191959243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95991853|NCT01400932|191959243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95991854|NCT01400932|191959243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991855|NCT01400932|191959244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95758454|NCT00758680|191484117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|37.63||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|62.68|||Mixed Effect Model|||||62.68|12.58|0.015
95758455|NCT00758680|191484117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference on Last Dosing Day|92.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.56|117.04|||Mixed Effect Model|||||117.04|67.56|<0.001
95758456|NCT03480386|191484123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Light Physical Activity||||0.0788
95758457|NCT03480386|191484123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Daily Moderate Physical Activity||||0.0742
95758458|NCT03480386|191484124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0113
95758459|NCT03480386|191484125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
95758460|NCT03480386|191484126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2216|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2216
95758461|NCT03480386|191484127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4762
95758462|NCT03480386|191484128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0068
95758463|NCT03480386|191484129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1548
95758464|NCT01540773|191484152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95947057|NCT02516241|191866428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.391||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|||1.391|0.772|0.8148
95947058|NCT02516241|191866428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.134||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|monotherapy as reference.||1.134|0.636|0.2684
95947059|NCT02516241|191866429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.788||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.788|0.422|0.0005
95947060|NCT02516241|191866429|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.253|0.485||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.485|0.253|<0.0001
95947061|NCT02516241|191866430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7708
95947062|NCT02516241|191866430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.61||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.610|0.268|<0.0001
95947063|NCT02516241|191866431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.406||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.406|0.135|<0.0001
95947064|NCT02516241|191866431|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.566||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.566|0.469|0.6195
95947065|NCT02516241|191866433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.759|0.410|0.0002
95991856|NCT01400932|191959244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95758465|NCT01540773|191484153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95800298|NCT04770753|191572633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lean Square (LS) Mean|3.4||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.59|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes average change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue subscale score from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.59|1.21|0.0026
95758466|NCT03867097|191484174|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference in change|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|7.49|||ANCOVA||The Shapiro-Wilk normality test of residuals indicated that the data did not have a normal distribution (p-value 0.0108).|"Treatment comparison of change versus placebo. LS mean difference in change. When a subject had no RP attacks in the past 24 hours, the frequency was considered as zero for that day.~The LS means, SEs, CIs, and p-values came from an ANCOVA model with randomized treatment group and use of phosphodiesterase inhibitors at screening (yes, no) as factors and baseline as a covariate."||7.49|-9.04|0.8498
95947066|NCT02516241|191866433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.500|0.267|<0.0001
95947067|NCT02516241|191866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.291||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.291|0.590|0.4959
95947068|NCT02516241|191866434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.679||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.679|0.305|0.0001
95991857|NCT01400932|191959244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95991858|NCT01400932|191959244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95859302|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.015
95991859|NCT01400932|191959244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95758467|NCT03867097|191484174|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|9.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Change in the Weekly Frequency of Symptomatic Raynaud's Phenomenon Attacks From Baseline to the Double-Blind Endpoint Using Nonparametric Analysis - Modified Intent-to-Treat Population.~Treatment comparison of change versus placebo."||9.32|-9.97|0.9729
95758468|NCT00321737|191484177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
95758469|NCT00321737|191484177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
95758470|NCT00321737|191484177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99999||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99999
95758471|NCT00321737|191484178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95758472|NCT00321737|191484178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95758473|NCT00321737|191484178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06730
95800299|NCT04770753|191572634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.46|||ANCOVA|||The estimates, 95% CIs, and 2-sided p-value are based on an ANCOVA model which includes average change from baseline in Hb concentrations from Week 12 through Week 24 as the dependent variable, treatment group as the independent variable, and baseline Hb concentration and the randomization stratification factors as covariates.||11.46|7.80|<0.0001
95800300|NCT04648033|191572665|OTHER||Probability of DLT at dose level 4|0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.26||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.26|0.032|
95991860|NCT04656990|191959250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95991861|NCT04656990|191959253|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.04
95991862|NCT03657459|191959286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Chi-squared|Pearsons Chi Square||||||0.0096
95991863|NCT03657459|191959287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||no adjustment|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square||||||0.90
95758474|NCT00321737|191484180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
95758475|NCT00321737|191484180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
95758476|NCT00321737|191484180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13932||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.13932
95758477|NCT00321737|191484181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95800301|NCT05849922|191572673|OTHER||Median posterior RR difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|47.0||||||Bayesian logistic regression approach was done. Here, RR=response rate.||47|10|
95800302|NCT05849922|191572673|OTHER||Pr[Diff > 0%](%)|99.3||||||||||||||Bayesian logistic regression approach was done. Here, Pr=posterior probability of superiority.||||
95800303|NCT04251156|191572693|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-8.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.76|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-6.76|-10.17|<0.0001
95991864|NCT03706365|191959300|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.111|||Log Rank|||||1.111|0.619|0.2123
95758478|NCT00321737|191484181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparison of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95758479|NCT00321737|191484181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11257||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11257
95758480|NCT01398943|191484184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95758481|NCT01398943|191484184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95758482|NCT01398943|191484185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95758483|NCT01398943|191484185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95758484|NCT04562155|191484203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0345||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=30) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0345
95991865|NCT03706365|191959301|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.637||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.856|||Log Rank|||||0.856|0.474|0.0026
95991866|NCT03706365|191959302|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.160|0.611|0.2899
95991867|NCT03706365|191959304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|1.419|||Log Rank|||||1.419|0.377|0.3531
95991868|NCT03706365|191959305|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.285|||Log Rank|||||1.285|0.669|0.6507
95991869|NCT03706365|191959306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.131|||Log Rank|||||1.131|0.522|0.1807
95991870|NCT03706365|191959311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.665|0.6970
95758485|NCT04562155|191484203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0376||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: Emax model (ED50=50) Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0376
95947069|NCT02516241|191866435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.448||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.448|0.160|<0.0001
95947070|NCT02516241|191866435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.836||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.836|0.623|0.8074
95947071|NCT02516241|191866436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.802||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.802|0.432|0.0008
95764195|NCT03135015|191498534|OTHER|||||||0.5827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
95764196|NCT03135015|191498534|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
95764197|NCT03135015|191498535|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-8.53||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5827
95764198|NCT03135015|191498535|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|9.32||||0.5485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blinded AUC results for the 6 treatments will be subjected to repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) examining for the main effects of treatment and participant-group, and treatment\*group interaction. After demonstration of significant heterogeneity among the 6 coded treatments, differences between individual means will be assessed using Tukey's test to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.5485
95764199|NCT03135015|191498536|OTHER|||||||0.1234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1234
95764200|NCT03135015|191498536|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0331
95764201|NCT03135015|191498537|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0500
95764202|NCT03135015|191498537|OTHER|||||||0.0568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0568
95764203|NCT03135015|191498538|OTHER|||||||0.0509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0509
95764204|NCT03135015|191498538|OTHER|||||||0.5016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5016
95764205|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8444
95764206|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER|||||||0.9681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9681
95764207|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.1022
95764208|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER|||||||0.3738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.3738
95764209|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764210|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764211|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.463|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764212|NCT03135015|191498539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.282|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764213|NCT03135015|191498540|OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0111
95764214|NCT03135015|191498540|OTHER|||||||0.1684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1684
95764215|NCT03135015|191498540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.722|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764216|NCT03135015|191498540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.489|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764217|NCT03135015|191498540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.664|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764218|NCT03135015|191498540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.813|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage Change from Control|||||
95764219|NCT03135015|191498541|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-21.09||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0374
95764220|NCT03135015|191498542|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-24.22||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0098
95764221|NCT03135015|191498542|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-25.02||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0391
95764222|NCT03135015|191498543|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.28||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0034
95764223|NCT03135015|191498543|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-33.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0058
95758486|NCT04562155|191484203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0319||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=30, h=3) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0319
95758487|NCT04562155|191484203|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0603||||||Adjusted p-value|MCP-Mod method|||Detection of dose-response: sigm. Emax model (ED50=60, h=5) sigm = sigmoidal h = hill parameter Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining multiple comparison procedures (MCP) principles with modeling techniques. A generalized MCP approach (with adjustment for baseline cough count and geographic region) was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test. Pre-specified overall Type one error at alpha level of 0.1 (one-sided).||||= 0.0603
95758488|NCT01473524|191484212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
95758489|NCT01473524|191484214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
95758490|NCT01473524|191484215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
95758491|NCT01473524|191484216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association test stratified by randomization strata factor.||H0: The response rates are equal between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA. H1: The response rates are different between placebo and 5-10 mg OCA.||||<0.0001
95758492|NCT01473524|191484217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95758493|NCT01473524|191484217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95758494|NCT01473524|191484218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0004
95800304|NCT04251156|191572694|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using a binary logistic regression model with randomized treatment and type 2 diabetes status as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|13.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||23.10|7.40|<0.0001
95947072|NCT02516241|191866436|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.512||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.512|0.270|<0.0001
95947073|NCT02516241|191866437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.394||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||1.394|0.639|0.7717
95947074|NCT02516241|191866437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.682||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.682|0.303|0.0001
95947075|NCT02516241|191866438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.439||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|||0.439|0.151|<0.0001
95947076|NCT02516241|191866438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.759||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|monotherapy as reference.||1.759|0.556|0.9692
95947077|NCT02516241|191866446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.59||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||3.59|-0.6|0.1617
95758495|NCT01473524|191484218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95758496|NCT01473524|191484219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95859303|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.020
95758497|NCT01473524|191484219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95859304|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.004
95758498|NCT01473524|191484220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95758499|NCT01473524|191484220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95947078|NCT02516241|191866446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|4.29||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.29|-0.07|0.0578
95947079|NCT02516241|191866446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.32||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||4.32|-0.91|0.2003
95947080|NCT02516241|191866446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.0||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||6.00|0.57|0.0178
95947081|NCT02516241|191866446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|5.17||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||5.17|-1.96|0.3765
95947082|NCT02516241|191866446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.81||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||7.81|0.40|0.0300
95947083|NCT02516241|191866447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.36||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||4.36|-0.6|0.1373
95947084|NCT02516241|191866447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.27||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||6.27|1.26|0.0034
95991871|NCT04233229|191959387|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|39.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||39.8|15.0|<.001
95859305|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.021
95947085|NCT02516241|191866447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.39||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||5.39|-1.00|0.1774
95947086|NCT02516241|191866447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|8.65||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||8.65|2.19|0.0011
95991872|NCT04233229|191959388|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during diurnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|35.5||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||35.5|10.6|<.001
95758500|NCT01473524|191484221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||0.0003
95758501|NCT01473524|191484221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor||||||<0.0001
95859306|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.080
95758502|NCT01473524|191484222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95758503|NCT01473524|191484222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment and randomization strata factor.||||||<0.0001
95758504|NCT04516759|191484232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.32|0.9|0.1854
95758505|NCT04516759|191484233|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Baseline p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0286
95758506|NCT04516759|191484233|OTHER|||||||0.0786||||||Day 7 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0786
95859307|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||< 0.001
95758507|NCT04516759|191484233|OTHER|||||||0.2169||||||Day 14 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-side significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2169
95758508|NCT04516759|191484233|OTHER|||||||0.186||||||Day 21 p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.1860
95758509|NCT04516759|191484233|OTHER|||||||0.2256||||||Study Drug Discontinuation (SDD) p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.2256
95758510|NCT04516759|191484234|OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4006
95758511|NCT04516759|191484234|OTHER|||||||0.7482||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced equal or more than 3 days|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7482
95947087|NCT02516241|191866447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||6.38|-2.27|0.3494
95947088|NCT02516241|191866447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|11.71||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||11.71|2.96|0.0011
95947089|NCT02516241|191866448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|1.69||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.69|-4.35|0.3865
95947090|NCT02516241|191866448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.49||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||NFBLSI- 18 score (Average overall visits)||1.49|-5.05|0.2840
95758512|NCT04516759|191484234|OTHER|||||||0.6949||||||Increase in Diabetic Medication needed at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6949
95758513|NCT04516759|191484234|OTHER|||||||0.5521||||||Diabetic Medication is stable/reduced at any time during the study|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5521
95758514|NCT04516759|191484235|OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5875
95758515|NCT04516759|191484236|OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1129
95758516|NCT04516759|191484237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1556|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1556
95758517|NCT04516759|191484238|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.26|||Fisher Exact|The p-value is assessed by means of an Fisher's exact test on the one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||1.26|0.13|0.0903
95758518|NCT04516759|191484239|OTHER|||||||0.6144|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.6144
95859308|NCT02304367|191676129|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.003
95758519|NCT04516759|191484240|OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.0105
95758520|NCT04516759|191484241|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level of 2.5%||||||0.062
95758521|NCT04916444|191484242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the TWSTRS scores.||||0.691
95758522|NCT04916444|191484243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the BDI scores.||||0.816
95758523|NCT04916444|191484244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.167
95758524|NCT04916444|191484245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||Null hypothesis is that there was no interaction between the intervention and time factors on the time to complete the TMT-A task.||||0.507
95758525|NCT04916444|191484246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.056
95758526|NCT04916444|191484247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.646
95758527|NCT04314648|191484260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|16.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.48|2.38|<.001
95758528|NCT04314648|191484261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.76|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|17.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.86|1.86|<.01
95758529|NCT04314648|191484262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||2.64|.21|.64
95758530|NCT04314648|191484263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.51|||Regression, Logistic||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||20.51|.35|.35
95758531|NCT04314648|191484264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a linear regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.43
95758532|NCT04314648|191484265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Main effects of the intervention on this outcome were compared between arms by fitting follow-up values to a liner regression model, adjusted for baseline use.|||||.44
95758533|NCT04314648|191484266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|.39|.77
95758534|NCT04005352|191484268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||with significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95859309|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.207
95758535|NCT04005352|191484269|NON_INFERIORITY|4 letter margin (1-sided)|Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.3|<0.0001
95758536|NCT04005352|191484270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95758537|NCT04005352|191484271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95758538|NCT04005352|191484272|SUPERIORITY|Week 14|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||2.7|0.9|0.0510
95758539|NCT04005352|191484272|SUPERIORITY|Week 16|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||likelihood ratio test|Assessed at one-sided 0.025 significance level||||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
95758540|NCT04005352|191484275|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||p-value for treatment difference|ANOVA|||||1.5|-1.9|0.8137
95758541|NCT04005352|191484276|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.3|0.7|0.4106
95758542|NCT04005352|191484276|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||likelihood ratio test|adjusting for baseline BCVA categories (\<55, 55-\<73, ≥73 letters).||||1.4|0.7|0.4667
95800305|NCT05452239|191572752|OTHER|Testing sequence: 1. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-4); 2. Change in MMDs (Weeks 1-12); 3. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-4); 4. Change in MHDs (Weeks 1-12); 5. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-4), 6. Participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 diagnostic criteria for CM nor MOH (Weeks 1-12), 7. Change in average Daily Pain assessment score (Weeks 1-2); 8. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-4), 9. Change in MAMDs (Weeks 1-12).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.23||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 1 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.23|-4.16|<0.0001
95800306|NCT05452239|191572753|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 2 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MMDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MMDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.86|<0.0001
95800307|NCT05452239|191572754|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 3 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.22|-4.07|<0.0001
95859310|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.008
95758543|NCT04005352|191484277|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.7|0.8|0.2397
95758544|NCT04005352|191484277|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||likelihood ratio test|assessed at the 0.025 significance level||||1.8|0.9|0.1150
95758545|NCT04005352|191484278|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 28 and 32|Difference|-26.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-7.5|||ANOVA|||||-7.5|-46.3|0.0066
95758546|NCT04005352|191484278|SUPERIORITY|Weeks 60 and 64|Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-37.6|0.1714
95758547|NCT04005352|191484281|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.193
95758548|NCT04005352|191484281|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.9|0.052
95758549|NCT04005352|191484282|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|2.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-0.3|0.081
95758550|NCT04005352|191484282|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.590
95758551|NCT04005352|191484283|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.77||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-1.8|0.558
95758552|NCT04005352|191484283|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.138
95758553|NCT04005352|191484284|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-1.4|0.287
95758554|NCT04005352|191484284|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.2|0.070
95758555|NCT04005352|191484285|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-3.4|0.602
95758556|NCT04005352|191484285|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-5.3|0.086
95758557|NCT04005352|191484286|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.7|0.174
95758558|NCT04005352|191484286|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.8|0.210
95758559|NCT04005352|191484287|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.8|0.499
95758560|NCT04005352|191484287|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-5.4|0.147
95947091|NCT02516241|191866448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|1.66||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.66|-5.41|0.2970
95947092|NCT02516241|191866448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|1.83||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL TOI (Average overall visits)||1.83|-5.85|0.3026
95947093|NCT02516241|191866448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.38||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||2.38|-7.29|0.3168
95991873|NCT04233229|191959389|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time In Range (TIR) during nocturnal period at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|55.8||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||55.8|25.8|<.001
95758561|NCT04005352|191484288|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.88||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-2.8|0.643
95758562|NCT04005352|191484288|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-5.0|0.507
95758563|NCT04005352|191484289|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3.0|-2.0|0.700
95758564|NCT04005352|191484289|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-6.0|0.070
95758565|NCT04005352|191484290|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-3.6|0.741
95758566|NCT04005352|191484290|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-6.6|0.494
95758567|NCT04005352|191484291|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.76||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-0.0|0.054
95758568|NCT04005352|191484291|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.331
95758569|NCT04005352|191484292|SUPERIORITY|Week 32|LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-1.6|0.394
95758570|NCT04005352|191484292|SUPERIORITY|Week 64|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-3.6|0.728
95758571|NCT00926783|191484316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||The p-value was based on Fisher's exact test. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that rates of free from atrial arrhythmia for the two arms, Targeted and Generalized, are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the rates are not the same. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.048
95758572|NCT00926783|191484317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times for both arms are equal. The alternative hypothesis is that the total RF delivery times are not equal. Due to the lack of literature data comparing these endpoints between two randomization groups, the sample size is not statistically powered to support statistical inferences.||||0.002
95758573|NCT05502081|191484341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758574|NCT05502081|191484341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.176
95758575|NCT05502081|191484341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758576|NCT05502081|191484341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758577|NCT05502081|191484342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
95758578|NCT05502081|191484342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.021
95758579|NCT05502081|191484342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.42
95758580|NCT05502081|191484342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
95758581|NCT05502081|191484343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
95758582|NCT05502081|191484344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
95758583|NCT05502081|191484344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
95758584|NCT05502081|191484344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95758585|NCT05502081|191484344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95758586|NCT05502081|191484345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758587|NCT05502081|191484345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.119
95947094|NCT02516241|191866448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.96||MMRM model included patient, treatment, cisplatin eligibility and visceral metastasis, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables, and the appropriate baseline FACT-BL value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-BL Total score (Average overall visits)||1.96|-8.51|0.2179
95947095|NCT02516241|191866449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.6||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.6|0.8|0.2419
95947096|NCT02516241|191866449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||2.8|0.9|0.1553
95991874|NCT04233229|191959390|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-15.0||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-15.0|-40.5|<.001
95991875|NCT04233229|191959391|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Above Range (TAR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.9||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-7.9|-32.4|0.003
95991876|NCT04233229|191959392|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||1.3|-1.0|0.79
95991877|NCT04233229|191959393|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and Time Below Range (TBR) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||0.4|-0.3|0.84
95991878|NCT04233229|191959394|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and glucose variability (% CV Coefficient of Variation) at baseline (during the last 14 days completed continuous glucose monitor recording at the end of the study selection period)|Adjusted means difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.6||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||7.6|-0.2|0.060
95758588|NCT05502081|191484345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758589|NCT05502081|191484345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758590|NCT05502081|191484346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.933
95758591|NCT05502081|191484347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
95758592|NCT05502081|191484347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
95758593|NCT05502081|191484347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.185
95991879|NCT04233229|191959395|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with 2 factors: HbA1c value at baseline and study group|Adjusted means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.7||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||-0.7|-1.9|<.001
95758594|NCT05502081|191484347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95859311|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.598|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.598
95758595|NCT05502081|191484348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758596|NCT05502081|191484348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95758597|NCT05502081|191484348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758598|NCT05502081|191484348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758599|NCT05502081|191484349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758600|NCT05502081|191484349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.758
95758601|NCT05502081|191484349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758602|NCT05502081|191484349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758603|NCT05502081|191484350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.412
95758604|NCT05502081|191484351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.106
95758605|NCT05502081|191484352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95758606|NCT05502081|191484352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
95758607|NCT05502081|191484352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.156
95758608|NCT05502081|191484352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95758609|NCT05502081|191484353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.219
95758610|NCT05502081|191484354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.298
95758611|NCT05502081|191484355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
95758612|NCT05502081|191484355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
95758613|NCT05502081|191484355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95758614|NCT05502081|191484355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
95758615|NCT05502081|191484356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
95758616|NCT05502081|191484356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.232
95758617|NCT05502081|191484356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95758618|NCT05502081|191484356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.054
95758619|NCT05502081|191484357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
95947097|NCT02516241|191866449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.8|1.4|0.0003
95947098|NCT02516241|191866449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status, visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|1.1|0.0148
95758620|NCT05502081|191484357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.557
95758621|NCT05502081|191484357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95947099|NCT02516241|191866450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.4|0.7|0.2473
95991880|NCT04233229|191959396|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and total daily insulin dose at selection|Adjusted means difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|41.2||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||41.2|-78.2|0.52
95991881|NCT04233229|191959397|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted on the HbA1c stratification factor and body weight at study initiation visit|Adjusted means difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1||Study group effect|ANCOVA||Between-group adjusted means difference is calculated as analysis of covariance adjusted mean in Intervention Group - adjusted mean in Usual Care Group.|||6.1|-0.4|0.08
95758622|NCT05502081|191484357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95758623|NCT05502081|191484358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95800308|NCT05452239|191572754|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-2.02||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 4 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change From Baseline in the Number of MHDs at Weeks 1 to 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of MHDs as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of MHDs at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.02|-3.83|<0.0001
95859312|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.237
95947100|NCT02516241|191866450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.8|0.8|0.0148
95991882|NCT01235962|191959439|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.862||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.063|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.063|0.699|0.1649
95758624|NCT05502081|191484358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.51
95758625|NCT05502081|191484358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758626|NCT05502081|191484358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95991883|NCT01235962|191959440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.311|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.311|0.759|0.9880
95758627|NCT05502081|191484359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758628|NCT05502081|191484359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.891
95758629|NCT05502081|191484359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758630|NCT05502081|191484359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758631|NCT05502081|191484360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.516
95758632|NCT05502081|191484361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
95758633|NCT05502081|191484362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758634|NCT05502081|191484362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.256
95758635|NCT05502081|191484362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758636|NCT05502081|191484362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758637|NCT05502081|191484363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
95758638|NCT05502081|191484363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.797
95758639|NCT05502081|191484363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95758640|NCT05502081|191484363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95758641|NCT05502081|191484364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95758642|NCT05502081|191484365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758643|NCT05502081|191484365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.982
95758644|NCT05502081|191484365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758645|NCT05502081|191484365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758646|NCT05502081|191484366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
95758647|NCT05502081|191484366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.136
95758648|NCT05502081|191484366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.062
95758649|NCT05502081|191484366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
95758650|NCT05502081|191484367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
95758651|NCT05502081|191484368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.687
95758652|NCT05502081|191484369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
95758653|NCT05502081|191484370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95947101|NCT02516241|191866450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.0|1.2|0.0090
95947102|NCT02516241|191866450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||2.3|0.9|0.1510
95991884|NCT01235962|191959442|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.802||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.954|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.954|0.675|0.0126
95991885|NCT01235962|191959443|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.001||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.257|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.257|0.796|0.9959
95758654|NCT05502081|191484371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.574
95758655|NCT05502081|191484372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
95758656|NCT05502081|191484372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
95758657|NCT05502081|191484372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.041
95758658|NCT05502081|191484372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.616
95758659|NCT05502081|191484373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
95758660|NCT05502081|191484374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95859313|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.899
95859314|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.585
95758661|NCT05502081|191484374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
95758662|NCT05502081|191484374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758663|NCT05502081|191484374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95758664|NCT05502081|191484375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.088
95758665|NCT05502081|191484376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95758666|NCT05502081|191484377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95758667|NCT05502081|191484377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.151
95758668|NCT05502081|191484377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95758669|NCT05502081|191484377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
95758670|NCT05502081|191484378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.037
95758671|NCT05502081|191484378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.997
95758672|NCT05502081|191484378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
95758673|NCT05502081|191484378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
95758674|NCT05502081|191484379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95758675|NCT05502081|191484380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.047
95758676|NCT05502081|191484380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
95758677|NCT05502081|191484380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.036
95758678|NCT05502081|191484380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
95758679|NCT05502081|191484381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
95758680|NCT05502081|191484381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.027
95758681|NCT05502081|191484381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
95758682|NCT05502081|191484381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.38
95758683|NCT05502081|191484382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.814
95758684|NCT05502081|191484383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95758685|NCT05502081|191484384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758686|NCT05502081|191484384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758687|NCT05502081|191484384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758688|NCT05502081|191484384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.971
95758689|NCT05502081|191484385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95758690|NCT05502081|191484385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758691|NCT05502081|191484386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
95758692|NCT05502081|191484386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
95758693|NCT05502081|191484386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.452
95758694|NCT05502081|191484386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
95758695|NCT05502081|191484387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95758696|NCT05502081|191484388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
95758697|NCT05502081|191484388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
95758698|NCT05502081|191484388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95758699|NCT05502081|191484388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95758700|NCT05502081|191484389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.423
95758701|NCT05502081|191484390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
95758702|NCT05502081|191484391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
95758703|NCT05502081|191484392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.222
95800309|NCT05452239|191572755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.94||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 5 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.94|2.18|<0.0001
95800310|NCT05452239|191572755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.9||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 6 of testing order.|Regression, Logistic||Percentage of participants not fulfilling the ICHD-3 Diagnostic Criteria for CM nor MOH at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|The logistic regression model with baseline MMDs as a covariate, and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), country and previous treatment failures (≤2, \>2) as categorical variables based on the eDiary data collected over Weeks 1-4, Weeks 5-8, Weeks 9-12 and over Weeks 1-12 separately, was fitted using the maximum likelihood method and the logit link function.||4.90|1.93|<0.0001
95800311|NCT05452239|191572756|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.22||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 7 of testing order.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with the average Daily Pain at baseline as a covariate and including treatment group, country, and previous treatment failures, as categorical variables.||-0.22|-0.39|<0.0001
95802504|NCT02864914|191578403|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.88|0.56|
95947103|NCT02516241|191866451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.2|0.5|0.6763
95947104|NCT02516241|191866451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patients with improvement in fatigue||3.3|0.5|0.6539
95947105|NCT02516241|191866451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.0||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood|Patient with deterioration in pain||4.0|1.2|0.0092
95947106|NCT02516241|191866451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5||P-value was based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from logistic regression model, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status.|Regression, Logistic||The OR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for visceral metastases and cisplatin eligibility status, with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Patient with deterioration in pain||3.5|1.1|0.0324
95991886|NCT01235962|191959445|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.693||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.943|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.943|0.510|0.0201
95991887|NCT01235962|191959446|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.004||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.521|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.521|0.662|0.9865
95991888|NCT01235962|191959447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.397|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|-2.307|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.307|-4.486|<.001
95991889|NCT01235962|191959447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.043||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.917|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.917|-1.003|0.930
95991890|NCT01235962|191959447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.119||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|1.196|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.196|-0.958|0.828
95758704|NCT05502081|191484393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.252
95991891|NCT01235962|191959447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.347||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.658|0.964|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.964|-1.658|0.603
95991892|NCT01235962|191959447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.17||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.843|1.503|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.503|-1.843|0.841
95991893|NCT01235962|191959448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.283|-0.955|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.955|-2.283|<.001
95758705|NCT05502081|191484394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95758706|NCT05502081|191484395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
95758707|NCT05502081|191484395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.382
95758708|NCT05502081|191484395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
95758709|NCT05502081|191484395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
95758710|NCT05502081|191484396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.457
95758711|NCT05502081|191484397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95758712|NCT05502081|191484398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95947107|NCT02060487|191866462|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 20 mg TID versus sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.31|1.49|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.49|0.31|
95758713|NCT05502081|191484398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.605
95758714|NCT05502081|191484398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95758715|NCT05502081|191484398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95758716|NCT05502081|191484399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.293
95758717|NCT05502081|191484400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95758718|NCT05502081|191484401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
95758719|NCT05502081|191484402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.404
95758720|NCT05502081|191484403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758721|NCT05502081|191484403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.234
95758722|NCT05502081|191484403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758723|NCT05502081|191484403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95947108|NCT02060487|191866462|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 5 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR was less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|1.21|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.22|
95947109|NCT02060487|191866462|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of sildenafil 80 mg TID vs. sildenafil 20 mg TID was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 99.7% CI for HR is less than 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.3|1.84|||||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.84|0.30|
95991894|NCT01235962|191959448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24 M DFS FU)|-0.114||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.522|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.522|-0.750|0.726
95758724|NCT05502081|191484404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758725|NCT05502081|191484404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.223
95859315|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.461
95758726|NCT05502081|191484404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758727|NCT05502081|191484404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758728|NCT05502081|191484405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758729|NCT05502081|191484405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
95758730|NCT05502081|191484405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758731|NCT05502081|191484405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.213
95758732|NCT05502081|191484406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758733|NCT05502081|191484406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.478
95758734|NCT05502081|191484406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758735|NCT05502081|191484406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758736|NCT05502081|191484407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758737|NCT05502081|191484407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.413
95758738|NCT05502081|191484407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758739|NCT05502081|191484407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758740|NCT05502081|191484408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.005
95758741|NCT05502081|191484408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.155
95758742|NCT05502081|191484408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
95758743|NCT05502081|191484408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95758744|NCT05502081|191484409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95758745|NCT05502081|191484410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758746|NCT05502081|191484410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95758747|NCT05502081|191484410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95758748|NCT05502081|191484410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.011
95758749|NCT05502081|191484411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
95758750|NCT05502081|191484412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
95758751|NCT03464630|191484426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.503
95758752|NCT03464630|191484427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95758753|NCT03464630|191484428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.059
95758754|NCT03464630|191484429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.702
95758755|NCT03464630|191484430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.08
95758756|NCT03464630|191484431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.09
95758757|NCT03464630|191484432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.898
95758758|NCT03464630|191484433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||0.349
95758759|NCT03464630|191484434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is Bonferroni correction adjusted at 0.05|GLM Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95859316|NCT02304367|191676130|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.583
95991895|NCT01235962|191959448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36 M DFS FU)|-0.09||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.609|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.609|-0.789|0.801
95991896|NCT01235962|191959448|SUPERIORITY||Meat Difference (48 M DFS FU)|-0.212||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.32|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.320|-1.044|0.617
95758760|NCT02309138|191484442|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.903||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.538|1.516||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.|A relative risk \< 1 represents a benefit in the direction of the IADPSG group, while a value \> 1 represents a benefit towards the CC group.|Co-primary hypotheses #1: women diagnosed using the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those diagnosed using the Carpenter-Coustan criteria.||1.516|0.538|0.668
95758761|NCT02309138|191484442|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.853||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.493|1.475||Each co-primary hypothesis was tested at the 2.5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|In the ITT, logistic regression was used to quantify the probability of large-for-gestational age as a function of the study arm and clinic type.||"Co-primary hypothesis #2: women classified as no gestational diabetes by the IADPSG criteria will have lower rates of large-for-gestational age infants compared to those classified in the Carpenter-Coustan criteria."||1.475|0.493|0.853
95758762|NCT02309138|191484443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.046||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.291|0.847|0.6669
95800312|NCT05452239|191572757|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.67||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 8 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 to 4: Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.67|-4.59|<0.0001
95800313|NCT05452239|191572757|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-2.48||Testing continued only if the previous comparison was statistically significant. Threshold for significance: p-value \<α, where α = 0.05. Here it is test no. 9 of testing order.|Mixed model for repeated measures||Change from baseline in monthly days with acute migraine medication use at Weeks 1 - 12 (averaged over three 4-week intervals): Eptinezumab vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a REML-based MMRM with Baseline number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use as a continuous covariate and treatment group (eptinezumab versus placebo), month (Weeks 1-4, 5-8, 9-12), country, and previous treatment failures (≤2; \>2) as factors. The interaction terms treatment-by-month and previous treatment failures-by-month as well as number of monthly days with acute migraine medication use at baseline-by-month were included.||-2.48|-4.23|<0.0001
95800314|NCT06057168|191572806|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by calculating the difference in proportion of patients presenting with images of excellent or good diagnostic quality between Elucirem and Dotarem groups, and by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence Interval (CI) around this difference. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was above the pre-stated margin of non-inferiority (-12%), Elucirem was declared non-inferior to Dotarem.The Wald statistical test with a continuity correction was used for CI.|two-sided 95% confidence Interval (CI)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.053||||Construction of a two-sided 95% CI around the difference in proportion of patients with images of excellent or good diagnostic quality CBV map||||0.053|-0.089|
95800315|NCT05104476|191572816|SUPERIORITY||Bayesian Progression Model|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.13|||||Reported here is the estimated effect parameter from the Bayesian Progression Model and the associated Credibility Interval for the active arm.|||1.13|0.56|
95800316|NCT05218499|191572888|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio value below 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator for the hazard ratio is the median unbiased estimator. The confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio is calculated as a repeated CI. The p-value is obtained using a weighted inverse normal method combining one-sided p-values from two stages.||1.06|0.60|0.0956
95947110|NCT02060487|191866463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.33|1.21|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.21|0.33|0.035
95947111|NCT02060487|191866463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.22|0.89|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||0.89|0.22|<0.001
95947112|NCT02060487|191866463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.34|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio estimated from the Proportional Hazards model, stratified by actual previous PAH treatment and etiology of PAH.|||1.52|0.34|0.195
95947113|NCT02060487|191866464|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|15.0||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|30.81|||MMRM|||||30.81|-0.80|0.0627
95758763|NCT02309138|191484443|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.033||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.307|0.816|0.8394
95758764|NCT02309138|191484444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.987||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.318|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.740|0.9335
95800317|NCT05218499|191572889|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.67|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|The primary estimator and CI for the odds ratio is by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel.||5.67|1.52|
95800318|NCT05218499|191572891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.82|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate.||2.82|0.81|
95859317|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.654
95947114|NCT02060487|191866464|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|18.9||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|34.86|||MMRM|||||34.86|2.99|0.0201
95947115|NCT02060487|191866464|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|3.9||||0.6254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|19.68|||MMRM|||||19.68|-11.85|0.6254
95947116|NCT02060487|191866465|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|21.3||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|40.45|||MMRM|||||40.45|2.25|0.0286
95947117|NCT02060487|191866465|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|20.5||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|39.65|||MMRM|||||39.65|1.30|0.0364
95758765|NCT02309138|191484444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.022||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.407|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.407|0.742|0.9260
95758766|NCT02309138|191484445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|1.909|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.909|1.027|0.0322
95758767|NCT02309138|191484445|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.760|0.864|0.2643
95758768|NCT03201445|191484470|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.7|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||0.7|-16.3|
95758769|NCT03201445|191484472|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1.8|-2.1|
95758770|NCT03201445|191484474|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|24.7|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||24.7|-13.4|
95758771|NCT03201445|191484476|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4.9|-2.8|
95758772|NCT03201445|191484478|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.3|-0.1|
95758773|NCT03201445|191484480|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||4|0|
95758774|NCT02687217|191484482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95758775|NCT02687217|191484483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95758776|NCT02687217|191484484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95758777|NCT02730351|191484485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|0.39||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-3.76|0.109
95758778|NCT02730351|191484486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.01||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-4.31|0.051
95758779|NCT02730351|191484487|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method. Covariates of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, and period baseline FEV1 were included.|Regression, Logistic||12 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.26|0.80|0.266
95758780|NCT02730351|191484487|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58||Repeated measures logistic regression model with parameters estimated using the Generalized Estimating Equation method|Regression, Logistic||23 hrs: modeling the odds of having FEV1 \>/=95% of pre exercise FEV1 at each of the two time points.|||2.58|0.73|0.322
95758781|NCT02730351|191484488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.71||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values. Subject is fitted as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||12 hrs post-dose|||0.71|-2.01|0.342
95758782|NCT02730351|191484488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.07||Mixed model repeated measures analysis adjusted for fixed effects of treatment, sex, age, treatment period, smoking history, period Baseline FEV1 and the mean of the two period Baseline FEV1 values.|Mixed Models Analysis||23 hrs post-dose|||-0.07|-3.42|0.041
95758783|NCT04159935|191484499|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
95758784|NCT04159935|191484500|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
95758785|NCT04159935|191484501|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95758786|NCT04159935|191484503|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
95758787|NCT04159935|191484504|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
95758788|NCT04159935|191484505|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
95758789|NCT04159935|191484506|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95758790|NCT04159935|191484507|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
95758791|NCT04159935|191484509|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
95758792|NCT04159935|191484510|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.700
95758793|NCT04159935|191484511|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
95758794|NCT01798316|191484518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95758795|NCT03657342|191484537|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.214||1-sided p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at V9.||0.214|-0.405|0.7310
95758796|NCT03657342|191484538|SUPERIORITY||least suare mean difference|-0.064||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.084||1-sided p value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimates were from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1/FVC with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1/FVC, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1/FVC, region (North America versus all other countries together), underlying indication for lung transplant (COPD versus all others), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.||0.084|-0.212|0.8041
95758797|NCT03657342|191484539|SUPERIORITY||adjusted hazard ratio|2.601||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|16.585||1-sided p value. Adjusted Hazard Ratio calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of Treatment, Baseline FEV1, with Efron's method of tie handling.|Regression, Cox|||||16.585|0.408|0.1559
95758798|NCT02373189|191484542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The P-value indicated above is calculated.|paired t-test|means at pre and post treatment were compared within subject.||||||0.05
95758799|NCT02373189|191484543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95758800|NCT02151877|191484544|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||This test applies to the first marker, cardiac troponin I.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null: mean cardiac troponin I changes in the NO group = mean cardiac troponin I changes in the control||||>0.05
95758801|NCT02151877|191484545|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null: NO group fluid balances are the same as the control||||>0.05
95758802|NCT03258853|191484580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.001
95758803|NCT03258853|191484581|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Secondary outcomes were adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
95758804|NCT03258853|191484582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Secondary outcomes are adjusted for multiple comparisons|paired 2-sided t-test|||||||0.04
95758805|NCT03258853|191484583|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wicoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
95758806|NCT03258853|191484584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
95758807|NCT03258853|191484585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.014
95758808|NCT03258853|191484586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.14
95758809|NCT03258853|191484587|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1.0
95800319|NCT05218499|191572891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.84|||||An odds ratio value greater than 1 favors brigimadlin.|Odds ratios are calculated from a logistic regression model with the stratification factor (locally advanced vs. metastatic) included as a covariate. Exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson.||4.84|1.48|
95947118|NCT02060487|191866465|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means difference|-0.9||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|18.19|||MMRM|||||18.19|-19.94|0.9283
95947119|NCT05202262|191866507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.233|||ANCOVA||An increase in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, visit, prior maintenance medication, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline trough FEV1, and percent Albuterol reversibility.|||0.233|0.112|<0.0001
95758810|NCT03258853|191484588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
95758811|NCT03258853|191484589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||McNemar|||||||0.08
95758812|NCT03258853|191484590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
95758813|NCT03258853|191484591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||McNemar|||||||0.56
95758814|NCT03258853|191484592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||McNemar|||||||0.15
95758815|NCT03564444|191484618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
95947120|NCT05202262|191866508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0302||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.12|||ANCOVA||An increase in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, visit, prior maintenance medication, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline trough FEV1, and percent Albuterol reversibility.|||0.120|0.001|0.0447
95758816|NCT03246646|191484624|SUPERIORITY||Z test of proportions|0.66|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Z test of independent proportions|||||||>.05
95758817|NCT02352779|191484625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4843||0.1666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1666
95758818|NCT02352779|191484625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4567||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||BFI-SF||||0.1329
95758819|NCT02352779|191484625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8065||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.9826
95758820|NCT02352779|191484625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5448||0.4016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Based on a contrast using the three-arm ANCOVA.||MFSI-SF||||0.4016
95758821|NCT02569112|191484626|SUPERIORITY|A significant improvement in skin laxity reduction is defined as a mean average increase in grade of 1 as per the GAIS.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Used Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks test||The null hypothesis was that the addition of the multipolar radiofrequency with varipulse technology treatment to the cryolipolysis treatment would not show visual improvement.||||<0.01
95758822|NCT00319982|191484627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in E' Velocity comparing baseline and final study visits||||0.75
95758823|NCT00319982|191484628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Adverse Events||||0.99
95758824|NCT00319982|191484629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||>0.06
95758825|NCT00319982|191484630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||Change in LV End-Diastolic Diameter z-score from baseline to final visit||||<0.001
95758826|NCT00319982|191484632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage adherent to study medication||||0.08
95758827|NCT00319982|191484633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, sex, genotype, family relations, and baseline value|Generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation approach accounting for an exchangeable correlation structure within families||||||0.15
95758828|NCT03395405|191484699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.|HR estimated from a Cox model|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||1.64|0.33|0.459
95758829|NCT03395405|191484701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significant is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Titer values were log-transformed||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until clinical resolution between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.735
95758830|NCT03395405|191484705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Likelihood Ratio Test|||Includes participants in the Norovirus GII subgroup. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time until first negative viral load between study arms, with a two-sided alternative.||4.06|0.19|0.873
95758831|NCT00070499|191484706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
95758832|NCT00070499|191484706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
95758833|NCT00070499|191484708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.29
95800320|NCT05948085|191572899|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log-transformed AUCinf for Zavegepant were analyzed using a mixed effect model with blood collection method as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of Adjusted Means|91.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.07|96.19|||||Ratio of adjusted means of test (Tasso plus) and reference (Venous Phlebotomy) and 90% CI for ratio presented in percentage.|||96.19|87.07|
95947121|NCT05202262|191866509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.177|||ANCOVA||An increase in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, timepoint, prior maintenance medication, treatment-by-timepoints interaction, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||0.177|0.110|<0.0001
95947122|NCT05202262|191866510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1092||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.482|-0.053|||ANCOVA||A decrease in estimate favors study drug. The model includes treatment, 4-week interval, their interaction, prior maintenance medication, severe asthma exacerbation history, baseline daily rescue use, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||-0.053|-0.482|0.0146
95947123|NCT05202262|191866511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.052|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, prior maintenance medication, baseline instrument score, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||2.052|0.803|0.2977
95947124|NCT05202262|191866512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.332||||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.166|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, prior maintenance medication, baseline instrument score, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||2.166|0.819|0.2477
95947125|NCT05202262|191866513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.097|2.858|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, prior maintenance medication, baseline instrument score, baseline tFEV1, and % Albuterol reversibility.|||2.858|1.097|0.0194
95947126|NCT05202262|191866514|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.361||95.0|0.54|1.25|||Regression, Negative Binomial||A rate ratio below 1 favors study drug. The model includes budesonide dose, formoterol dose, study, severe asthma exacerbation history, prior maintenance medications, baseline tFEV1, % Albuterol reversibility, and region.|||1.25|0.54|0.3610
95947127|NCT05202262|191866515|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.7|||Regression, Negative Binomial||A rate ratio lower than 1 favors study drug. The model includes treatment, severe asthma exacerbation history, prior maintenance medications, baseline tFEV1, % Albuterol reversibility, and region.|||1.70|0.61|0.9473
95947128|NCT03191266|191866516|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|18.9||Logistic regression tested the hypothesis that the odds of continuous abstinence was greater, at 6 months following post-assessment, in the Active (n = 22) versus the Sham (n = 22) group. P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Covariate included average drinks per day 3-months prior to study.||||18.9|1.0|0.05
95947129|NCT03191266|191866517|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.3||p \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|generalized linear model|||Comparison of baseline left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) glutamate level in participants in the active rTMS group that maintained continuous abstinence over 6 months (Abstinent) versus those who resumed alcohol consumption (Resumed). Higher glutamate level is considered neurobiologically advantageous.||14.3|-1.4|0.11
95947130|NCT03191266|191866518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|556.0||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.0|1142.0||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant|generalized linear model|covariates included age and total intracranial volume.||Comparison of baseline left caudal middle frontal gyrus volume (cubic millimeters) in participants in the active rTMS group that maintained continuous abstinence over 6 months (Abstinent) versus those who resumed alcohol consumption (Resumed). Larger volumes are considered neurobiologically advantageous.||1142|-1258|0.92
95947131|NCT03191266|191866518|OTHER|age and intracranial volume were covariates|Mean Difference (Final Values)|518.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|870.0||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1361.0|2399.0||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|generalized linear model|||Comparison of baseline left rostral middle frontal gyrus volume (cubic millimeters) in participants in the active rTMS group that maintained continuous abstinence over 6 months (Abstinent) versus those who resumed alcohol consumption (Resumed). Larger volumes are considered neurobiologically advantageous.||2399|-1361|0.56
95947132|NCT03191266|191866518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|942.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1206.0||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3549.0|1663.0||age and intracranial volume were covariates|generalized linear model|||Comparison of baseline left superior frontal gyrus volume (cubic millimeters) in participants in the active rTMS group that maintained continuous abstinence over 6 months (Abstinent) versus those who resumed alcohol consumption (Resumed). Larger volumes are considered neurobiologically advantageous.||1663|-3549|0.49
95947133|NCT03191266|191866519|OTHER||Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)|1.4||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.24
95991897|NCT01235962|191959448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54 M DFS FU)|0.341||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|1.51|||adjusted for baseline score using mixedm|||||1.510|-0.828|0.565
95758834|NCT00070499|191484708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of overall survival||||0.55
95758835|NCT00070499|191484709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.074
95758836|NCT00070499|191484709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of relapse-free survival||||0.29
95758837|NCT04036799|191484714|OTHER|Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions.|Cumulative proportion of events at 5 yrs|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95859318|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.579
95758838|NCT00945100|191484718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference (unadjusted)|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|35.0|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||35|8|0.003
95991898|NCT01235962|191959449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.077||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.051|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.051|-0.205|0.238
95991899|NCT01235962|191959449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.052||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.081|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.081|-0.185|0.442
95991900|NCT01235962|191959449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.016||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.158|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.158|-0.125|0.819
95758839|NCT00945100|191484719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included interocular difference at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.1|0.01
95758840|NCT00945100|191484721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of the masked 10-week amblyopic eye visual acuity using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusting for visual acuity at randomization. The analysis was a 2-sided test for efficacy to test the null hypothesis of no treatment difference, assuming 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%.||1.0|0.3|0.002
95758841|NCT00945100|191484725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within gender was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and gender in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.04
95800321|NCT05948085|191572900|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log-transformed AUClast for Zavegepant were analyzed using a mixed effect model with blood collection method as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of Adjusted Means|91.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.43|96.22|||||Ratio of adjusted means of test (Tasso plus) and reference (Venous Phlebotomy) and 90% CI for ratio presented in percentage.|||96.22|86.43|
95947134|NCT03370133|191866535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.869|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.02|293.175||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||293.175|34.020|<0.001
95947135|NCT03370133|191866535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.056|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.874|9.466||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||9.466|3.874|<0.001
95758842|NCT00945100|191484725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within race/ethnicity was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and race/ethnicity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.89
95758843|NCT00945100|191484725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within age at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and age in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.49
95758844|NCT00945100|191484725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect within amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and visual acuity in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for the main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.37
95758845|NCT00945100|191484725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||The treatment effect within cause of amblyopia was assessed by including an interaction term between treatment group and amblyopia cause in the ANCOVA model, adjusting for amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization and main effects corresponding to the interaction term.||||0.50
95758846|NCT00945100|191484727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included amblyopic eye visual acuity at randomization as an adjustment covariate.||||1.0|0.04|
95800322|NCT05948085|191572901|EQUIVALENCE|Natural log-transformed Cmax for Zavegepant were analyzed using a mixed effect model with blood collection method as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of Adjusted Means|91.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.32|96.18|||||Ratio of adjusted means of test (Tasso plus) and reference (Venous Phlebotomy) and 90% CI for ratio presented in percentage.|||96.18|86.32|
95800323|NCT04818255|191572909|SUPERIORITY||Pearson chi-squared|24.26|||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95947136|NCT03370133|191866536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.762|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.701|384.307||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||384.307|36.701|<0.001
95947137|NCT03370133|191866536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.809|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|7.47||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||7.470|3.096|<0.001
95947138|NCT03370133|191866537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.063|72.253||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||72.253|9.063|<0.001
95991901|NCT01235962|191959449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.119||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.073|||analysis of covariance|analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.073|-0.311|0.223
95991902|NCT01235962|191959449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.203||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.028|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.028|-0.435|0.085
95947139|NCT03370133|191866538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.02|71.925||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||71.925|9.020|<0.001
95947140|NCT03370133|191866539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.394|514.862||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||514.862|29.394|<0.001
95947141|NCT03370133|191866539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.202|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.998|30.123||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||30.123|10.998|<0.001
95947142|NCT03370133|191866540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.258|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.356|35.931||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||35.931|7.356|<0.001
95947143|NCT03370133|191866541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.795|50.674||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||50.674|9.795|<0.001
95947144|NCT03370133|191866542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.049|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.201|52.077||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||52.077|10.201|<0.001
95947145|NCT03370133|191866543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.92|83.987||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs PBO) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables. Logit method was used where CMH test not possible due to very low response.||83.987|16.920|<0.001
95947146|NCT03370133|191866544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.107|12.679||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||12.679|5.107|<0.001
95947147|NCT03370133|191866545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.442|5.899||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||5.899|2.442|<0.001
95947148|NCT03370133|191866546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.73||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||6.730|2.850|<0.001
95947149|NCT03370133|191866547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.573|3.699||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups (BKZ 320 mg Q4W vs Ustekinumab) were based on the CMH test from the general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio was calculated using stratified CMH test with region and prior biologic exposure as stratification variables.||3.699|1.573|<0.001
95991903|NCT01235962|191959450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.129|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.129|-1.660|<.001
95947150|NCT05124301|191866568|OTHER||Slope|0.11||||0.0022|||||||Regression, Linear|||Tests whether resting state functional connectivity (outcome variable 1) is related to weighting of vision vs. proprioception (outcome variable 2).||||0.0022
95947151|NCT04323800|191866573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value|Restricted Mean Survival Test statistic|||||||0.42
95947152|NCT04323800|191866574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.0|||Chi-squared|||||19|-31|0.67
95947153|NCT04323800|191866575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-47.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-100|0.06
95947154|NCT05262920|191866583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0045|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||<0.0045
95947155|NCT05262920|191866583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.022
95947156|NCT05262920|191866584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.65
95947157|NCT05262920|191866584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.402
95800324|NCT04818255|191572910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the effect of disclosure (Time) x Amyloid Status effect to evaluate the impact of disclosure and result on PANAS scores.||||||.146
95947158|NCT05262920|191866585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.681
95947159|NCT05262920|191866585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.529
95947160|NCT05262920|191866586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||MANOVA|||||||<0.011
95947161|NCT05262920|191866587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.135
95947162|NCT05262920|191866587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.851
95947163|NCT05262920|191866588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.571
95947164|NCT05262920|191866589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.186
95758847|NCT00945100|191484735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the 10-week exam.||||>0.99
95758848|NCT00945100|191484737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of participants in each treatment group with a loss of 2 or more lines in the better of the initial test and retest (if indicated) fellow eye visual acuities at the final exam.||||0.12
95758849|NCT00945100|191484741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.28
95758850|NCT00945100|191484744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for the difference between treatment groups in the distribution of levels of change in Randot Preschool Stereoacuity from randomization to 10 weeks.||||0.45
95758851|NCT03047330|191484750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95758852|NCT03047330|191484750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95758853|NCT03047330|191484751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
95758854|NCT03047330|191484751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
95800325|NCT04818255|191572910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Evaluated the effect of disclosure (Time) x participant Amyloid Status on PANAS Positive subscale scores among study partners||||||.499
95947165|NCT05262920|191866590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.191
95947166|NCT05262920|191866591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.09
95947167|NCT05262920|191866592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.672
95947168|NCT05262920|191866593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||Genalized Linear Mixed Models|||||||0.221
95947169|NCT04233879|191866654|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|5.6|||||Estimated differences, CIs, \& p-value for treatment differences in percent response were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum with CMH weights; multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI corresponds to 1-sided Type 1 error of 0.02495|||5.60|-4.73|
95947170|NCT04233879|191866655|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||9.6|-0.8|
95947171|NCT04233879|191866656|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups (Group 1: DOR/ISL and Group 2: BIC/FTC/TAF)|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate percentage difference and the associated 95%CI.|||7.9|0.4|
95947172|NCT04233879|191866657|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was less than 10 percentage points. The multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is shown corresponding to a 1-sided Type 1 error of 0.02495. The estimated differences, CIs and p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Estimated Difference|-6.42||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|1.46||The estimated differences, CIs and p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Miettinen and Nurminen method||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group minus BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.46|-14.21|0.945
95947173|NCT04233879|191866658|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Estimated Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|0.2|||||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group minus BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.2|-38.0|
95947174|NCT04233879|191866659|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.48|||||The estimated differences, CIs and p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||7.48|-3.23|
95947175|NCT04233879|191866660|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|5.9|||||The estimated differences, CIs and p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||5.90|-4.25|
95758855|NCT00660907|191484752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferior margin delta = 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0569|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||Significant at alpha=0.025 (1-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \>= delta versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) \< delta (with alpha = 0.025, one-sided)||0.11|-0.11|<0.0001
95758856|NCT00660907|191484753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2483|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-4.17||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(reference) =/= 0||-4.17|-5.14|<0.0001
95758857|NCT00660907|191484754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-32.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||-32.2|-42.3|<0.0001
95800326|NCT04818255|191572911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the effect of disclosure (Time) x Amyloid Status effect to evaluate the impact of disclosure and result on PANAS scores.||||||.094
95947176|NCT04233879|191866661|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The estimated differences, and confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Estimated Difference|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|1.15|||||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group minus BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.15|-14.53|
95947177|NCT04233879|191866662|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The estimated differences, and confidence intervals (CIs) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Estimated Difference|-6.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|1.46|||||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group minus BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.46|-14.20|
95947178|NCT04233879|191866663|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Estimated Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|0.2|||||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group minus BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.2|-38.0|
95947179|NCT04233879|191866664|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by stratum with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Estimated Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|0.2|||||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group minus BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.2|-38.0|
95947180|NCT04233879|191866666|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The CIs for mean difference in CD4+ T-cell count change from baseline were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models adjusted by baseline CD4+ T-cell count, stratum, and treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.59|-50.9|||||Treatment Difference (DOR/ISL minus BIC/FTC/TAF)|||-50.90|-132.59|
95947181|NCT04233879|191866667|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The CIs for mean difference in CD4+ T-cell count change from baseline were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models adjusted by baseline CD4+ T-cell count, stratum, and treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.8|-4.8|||||Treatment Difference (DOR/ISL minus BIC/FTC/TAF)|||-4.8|-218.8|
95947182|NCT04233879|191866671|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 0.|Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.02|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|ANCOVA model was used to generate treatment difference and the associated 95%CI. The 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline weight, sex, race, stratum, and treatment.|||1.02|-0.71|0.73
95947183|NCT04233879|191866672|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 0. The CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline weight, sex, race, stratum and treatment.|Estimated Difference|-0.74||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|97.0|-2.19|0.71|||ANCOVA|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|The CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline weight, sex, race, stratum and treatment. The CIs at week 96 is 97% corresponds to a 1-sided Type 1 error of 0.015.|||0.71|-2.19|0.268
95947184|NCT04233879|191866673|OTHER|Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted. The CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline weight, sex, race, stratum and treatment.|Estimated Difference|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|6.24|||||The CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline weight, sex, race, stratum and treatment.|||6.24|-4.07|
95947185|NCT02962284|191866677|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95947186|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Kaplan-Meier|||The phase III part planned to randomize 485 patients, about 243 per arm (actual 241 patients per arm), over an estimated period of 24 months. Final analysis would occur at approximately 424 deaths, which was expected to be observed about 43 months after the accrual of the first patient. A stratified log rank analysis would have 90% power to detect a 27.5% reduction in the risk of death, i.e., a hazard ratio of 0.725, between Arm A and Arm C.||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
95947187|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.35||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: No (i.e., de novo) vs Presence of antecedent MDS or MPD"||1.35|0.86|<0.0249
95947188|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY|Effects of treatments compared in AML patients with baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.57|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.19||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline peripheral WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline WBC count ≥ 10 x 109/L vs WBC count ≤ 10 x 109/L"||2.19|1.12|<0.0249
95991904|NCT01235962|191959450|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|0.117||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.249|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.249|-0.015|0.083
95991905|NCT01235962|191959450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.236|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.236|-0.074|0.307
95991906|NCT01235962|191959450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.029||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.191|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.191|-0.249|0.796
95991907|NCT01235962|191959450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.016||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.205|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-models||||0.205|-0.237|0.885
95991908|NCT01235962|191959451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Differencec (Week 52)|-0.27||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.092|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.092|-0.633|0.143
95800327|NCT04818255|191572911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Evaluated the effect of disclosure (time) x participant amyloid status on study partners' PANAS negative subscale scores||||||.476
95991909|NCT01235962|191959451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.069||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.475|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.475|-0.336|0.736
95991910|NCT01235962|191959451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.188||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.623|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.623|-0.247|0.397
95991911|NCT01235962|191959451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.081||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.649|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.649|-0.488|0.781
95991912|NCT01235962|191959451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.278||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.539|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.539|-1.094|0.503
95991913|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 thermo)|-0.717||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.751|1.318|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.318|-2.751|0.490
95991914|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU- thermo)|-0.285||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.358|1.788|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.788|-2.358|0.788
95991915|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU- thermo)|1.18||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.901|3.262|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.262|-0.901|0.266
95991916|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.725||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.779|3.229|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.229|-1.779|0.570
95991917|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|2.023||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|6.251|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||6.251|-2.205|0.346
95991918|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.018||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.040|0.111
95991919|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.02||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.003|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.003|-0.044|0.094
95758858|NCT00660907|191484755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|35.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(reference) =/= 0||35.7|26.0|<0.0001
95758859|NCT01908907|191484756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|28.7|||Regression, Linear|Outcome was transformed using a natural logarithm transformation. Models included gestational age group since the randomization was blocked.|Since analyzed on the log scale, estimates provide are % change rather than absolute change between group.|All analyses used the intent-to-treat study population. A linear mixed model was used to assess differences in time to full feeds, days on study drug, and gestational age at discharge. These models included a random effect for multiples, which was maintained in the model after testing. Fixed effects included treatment and GA group for time to full feeds and days on study drug and treatment effect for gestational age at discharge.||28.7|0.2|0.07
95758860|NCT01908907|191484757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|This is a complex regression model including linear and quadratic growth and interactions as specified above.||Linear mixed models were used to explore growth over time (weight, length and head circumference). These models included a random effect for intercepts and slopes to account for subject specific growth over time as well as a random effect for possible correlation between twins and triplets present in the data set. Fixed effects included both a linear and quadratic time effect, GA at birth, treatment group, full feeds (yes/no), and interactions. Non-significant interactions were eliminated.||||0.048
95758861|NCT05773794|191484777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
95758862|NCT05773794|191484777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
95758863|NCT05773794|191484777|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95758864|NCT05773794|191484778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95758865|NCT05773794|191484778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95758866|NCT05773794|191484778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95758867|NCT05773794|191484779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0196
95758868|NCT05773794|191484779|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95991920|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.037|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.037|-0.018|0.490
95991921|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.009||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.043|0.580
95991922|NCT01235962|191959452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|0.017||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.063|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.063|-0.029|0.473
95991923|NCT01235962|191959453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-3.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|-2.606|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-2.606|-4.466|<.001
95991924|NCT01235962|191959453|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.102||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.738|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.738|-0.942|0.812
95991925|NCT01235962|191959453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.233||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.155|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.155|-0.690|0.621
95991926|NCT01235962|191959453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.082||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.122|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.122|-0.959|0.878
95991927|NCT01235962|191959453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.412||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|1.712|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.712|-0.887|0.533
95991928|NCT01235962|191959454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-1.515|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.078|-0.952|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.952|-2.078|<.001
95991929|NCT01235962|191959454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|0.014||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.561|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.561|-0.534|0.961
95947189|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Baseline bone marrow blast percentage ≥ 50% vs Blast percentage ≤ 50%"||1.32|0.77|<0.0249
95947190|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (pre-specified): Unfavorable cytogenetics risk by SWOG (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: Unfavorable cytogenetics vs other"||1.73|0.94|<0.0249
95800328|NCT04818255|191572912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the between-subjects effect of participant amyloid status on INI-AD Distress subscale score||||||<.001
95991930|NCT01235962|191959454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.043||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.641|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.641|-0.555|0.888
95758869|NCT05773794|191484779|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95758870|NCT01284361|191484782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|97.5|||||Seventy five of the 82 subjects (91.5%) preferred the longer commercially available catheter over the experimental 30 cm catheter.|The sample size of 81 subjects provides a 10.8% margin of error.||97.5|84.5|
95758871|NCT01392963|191484795|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95758872|NCT01564537|191484797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.939|||Log Rank||HR is estimated from Cox Regression.|||0.939|0.587|0.012
95758873|NCT01564537|191484798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|||=|0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.125|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.125|0.784|=0.495
95758874|NCT01564537|191484799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.626|||Log Rank||HR:estimated from Cox Regression with stratification factors: prior therapies, proteasome inhibitor, and ISS Stage at Screening with treatment as factor in model. \<1 hazard ratio for treatment=better prevention of death in drug arm vs control.|||1.626|0.516|=0.764
95758875|NCT01564537|191484811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.45||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve), and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is from logistic regression model with prognostic factors: prior therapies (1, 2 or 3), proteasome inhibitor (exposed, naïve),and ISS Stage at Screening (I or II, III). Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib.|||2.45|0.69|=0.332
95758876|NCT02932306|191484812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
95758877|NCT02932306|191484813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with factors of treatment group and analysis center and the respective baseline lesion count as a covariate.||||<0.001
95758878|NCT02932306|191484814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression test (using Firth's Penalized Likelihood) with factors of treatment group and analysis center.||||<0.001
95758879|NCT03783039|191484817|NON_INFERIORITY|10% margin|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0605|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.0189|||Testing whether the group difference in proportion of successes is \>-0.1 (Test Group - Control Group)|Farrington-Manning method||||||-0.0189|<0.0001
95758880|NCT03783039|191484818|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0078|0.1906|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.1906|0.0078|
95758881|NCT03783039|191484819|OTHER||Difference in proportion of successes|0.0275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0312|0.0863|||Farrington-Manning Method|Difference in proportion of successes (Test Group - Control Group)||||0.0863|-0.0312|
95758882|NCT00265395|191484824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR Rate Difference|-4.9||||0.6445||95.0|-20.4|10.6|||Asymptotic Z-test|||||10.6|-20.4|0.6445
95758883|NCT01955837|191484828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.62|0.035
95758884|NCT01955837|191484829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
95758885|NCT01955837|191484830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.58|||Log Rank|||||0.58|0.37|<0.001
95758886|NCT01955837|191484831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|1.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.4|-0.1|0.554
95758887|NCT01955837|191484832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
95758888|NCT01955837|191484833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.0|||Fisher Exact|||||38.0|20.9|<0.001
95758889|NCT01955837|191484836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.57|0.083
95758890|NCT01955837|191484837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.57|0.228
95758891|NCT01955837|191484838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59||||||||0.59|0.32|
95758892|NCT01955837|191484839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||||||||0.65|0.31|
95764224|NCT03135015|191498543|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-53.27||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0016
95764225|NCT03135015|191498543|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.19||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0125
95947191|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.222|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Region (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: EU vs US"||||<0.0249
95947192|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Age (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: ≥ 75 years old vs ≤ 75 years old"||||<0.0249
95947193|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.956|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|||||one-sided|Log Rank||Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.|"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): Gender (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Male vs Female"||||<0.0249
95947194|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): ECOG status (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment (Arm A) Levels: Status 2 vs \< 2"||||<0.0249
95991931|NCT01235962|191959454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.061||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.736|0.614|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.614|-0.736|0.858
95758893|NCT02563106|191484850|OTHER|The analysis of the primary endpoint was based on the mITT analysis set. Per-protocol and worse case analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses.The P-value was based on a one-sided z-test for the comparison of the treatment difference between the SYN-004 group and the Placebo group.|Relative Risk Reduction (%)|71.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|94.0||Study was designed to provide 80% power to detect treatment effect with one-sided alpha = 0.05 on the primary endpoint. Based on the pre-specified z-test the one-sided P=0.045.|z-test|1-sided P=0.045.|Relative Risk Reduction in SYN-004 group compared to Placebo group.|The Modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) analysis set included randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of subjects with CDI, imputing early termination without CDI as not being treatment failures.||94.0|-35.9|0.045
95758894|NCT02338193|191484851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.032|||||||ANOVA|||One Way ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast if p\>0.05||||<0.032
95758895|NCT02338193|191484852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|One Way ANOVA with Bonferoni contrast test||||||<0.05
95758896|NCT02338193|191484853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.01
95758897|NCT02338193|191484854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
95758898|NCT02338193|191484855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.007
95758899|NCT02338193|191484856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||0.023
95758900|NCT02338193|191484857|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
95859319|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.123
95758901|NCT02338193|191484858|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||>0.05
95758902|NCT02338193|191484859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast||||<0.001
95758903|NCT02338193|191484860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.001
95758904|NCT02338193|191484861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.004
95758905|NCT02338193|191484862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.02
95758906|NCT02338193|191484863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.012
95758907|NCT02338193|191484864|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||>0.05
95758908|NCT02338193|191484865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<0.028
95758909|NCT02338193|191484866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||<.03
95758910|NCT00626392|191484875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
95758911|NCT03323437|191484891|OTHER|two way anova|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95758912|NCT03323437|191484892|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||||||.68
95758913|NCT03323437|191484893|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
95758914|NCT03323437|191484894|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
95758915|NCT03323437|191484895|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.59
95758916|NCT03323437|191484896|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
95758917|NCT03323437|191484897|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||.32
95758918|NCT03323437|191484898|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||.60
95758919|NCT03323437|191484899|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||.34
95758920|NCT03323437|191484900|OTHER|two way anova||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
95758921|NCT03323437|191484901|OTHER|fisher's exact||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.66
95758922|NCT03323437|191484902|OTHER|two sided t test||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
95758923|NCT03323437|191484903|OTHER|fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95758924|NCT00843479|191484908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95758925|NCT00843479|191484909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95758926|NCT00843479|191484910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95859320|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.712
95758927|NCT00843479|191484911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95758928|NCT00843479|191484912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95947195|NCT01303796|191866701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0249||||||one-sided|Log Rank|Predictive factor adjusted; when interaction term was not significant at 10% confidence level, the interaction term was removed from the model.||"Subgroup analyses (post-hoc): HCT-CI score (covariate)~Treatment covariate: alternating sapacitabine/decitabine treatment Levels: HCT-CI score 0-2 vs HCT-CI score \>2"||||<0.0249
95758929|NCT00843479|191484913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95758930|NCT04623086|191484988|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|8.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For our power calculations, we assumed the true change in TIR to be 0% for the bridging group and 15% for the direct-conversion group, and we assumed a common standard deviation of 15% (meaning the distributions of change in TIR are separated by 1 standard-deviation unit), and thereby obtained that 20 patients in each group would provide 87% power to observe a statistically significant (at the two-sided level of .05) difference in mean change of TIR.||||0.14
95758931|NCT04623086|191484989|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95758932|NCT04623086|191484990|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|12.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95800329|NCT04818255|191572912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the between-subjects effect of participant amyloid status on study partner INI-AD Distress subscale score||||||<.001
95800330|NCT04818255|191572913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the effect of participant amyloid status on participant INI-AD Positive Subscale Scores||||||<.001
95947196|NCT01303796|191866702|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|2.782|||Fisher Exact|||||2.782|0.645|0.1468
95947197|NCT01303796|191866707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0416
95947198|NCT01303796|191866708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1568
95991932|NCT01235962|191959454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.452||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|1.309|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.309|-0.404|0.300
95758933|NCT04623086|191484991|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95758934|NCT04623086|191484992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95758935|NCT04623086|191484993|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95758936|NCT04623086|191484994|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95758937|NCT04623086|191484995|OTHER|Comparison of two groups|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
95758938|NCT03200912|191484996|EQUIVALENCE|Primary Efficacy Endpoint - AK Complete Clearance Rates at Day 57 (PP and mITT Populations)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|12.14||||||||12.14|-7.55|
95758939|NCT02980874|191485039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.1||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. Prior to evaluating the results of the CMH test, a Breslow-Day test with Tarone's adjustment was conducted to confirm the homogeneity of the odds ratios between RVO strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by the type of retinal vein occlusion, i.e., branch vs. central.|Estimated value was calculated as the percentage of subjects in the Active arm meeting the primary endpoint minus the percentage of subjects in the Control arm meeting the primary endpoint.|Based on a Pearson chi-square test, a total sample size of approximately 460 subjects provided 90% power to detect a difference of 15% between the Active and Control arms assuming the Control arm showed a proportion of 0.50 at 8 weeks. The primary analysis was a test of superiority of the Active arm over the Control arm, and was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by type of retinal vein occlusion.||3.0|-15.2|0.187
95800331|NCT04818255|191572913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Evaluated the effect of participant amyloid status on study partner INI-AD Positive Emotions subscale scores||||||<.001
95800332|NCT04818255|191572914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||0.051|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the effect of disclosure (time) by biomarker status on SSCI scores.||||||.051
95800333|NCT04818255|191572915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977||||0.399|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the effect of disclosure (time) by biomarker result on SECD Scores||||||.399
95800334|NCT04818255|191572916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Examined the effect of disclosure (time) by participant amyloid status on FTP scores||||||.615
95800335|NCT04818255|191572916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Evaluated the effect of disclosure (time) x participant amyloid status on study partners' FTP subscale scores||||||.956
95800336|NCT04818255|191572917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95947199|NCT01303796|191866709|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.013|||<|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.226||one-sided|Log Rank|||||1.226|0.837|<0.0249
95947200|NCT00403494|191866734|SUPERIORITY|PWT was transformed to the log ratio at Week 24:Baseline for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.379||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.097|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the means of the natural log-transformed ratios between the 2 treatment groups.|||0.097|-0.138|0.727
95947201|NCT00768755|191866743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). Hazard ratio (HR): the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.360|0.508|0.3037
95991933|NCT01235962|191959455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52)|-0.103||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.004|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.004|-0.211|0.059
95991934|NCT01235962|191959455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU)|-0.041||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.074|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.074|-0.155|0.487
95991935|NCT01235962|191959455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.037||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.16|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.160|-0.085|0.885
95991936|NCT01235962|191959455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|-0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.119|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.119|-0.183|0.676
95991937|NCT01235962|191959455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.015||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.153|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.153|-0.183|0.859
95991938|NCT01235962|191959456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-1.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.3|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-1.300|-1.769|<.001
95991939|NCT01235962|191959456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|0.089||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.202|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.202|-0.025|0.127
95991940|NCT01235962|191959456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (36M DFS FU)|0.123||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.255|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.255|-0.009|0.069
95991941|NCT01235962|191959456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (48M DFS FU)|0.049||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.208|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.208|-0.110|0.544
95991942|NCT01235962|191959456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|0.061||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.246|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.246|-0.124|0.518
95991943|NCT01235962|191959457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (Week 52)|-0.374||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|-0.053|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.053|-0.695|0.022
95991944|NCT01235962|191959457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diffeence (24M DFS FU)|-0.104||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.253|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.253|-0.462|0.567
95991945|NCT01235962|191959457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU)|0.072||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.446|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.446|-0.302|0.706
95758940|NCT03316378|191485057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.8||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||0.44
95758941|NCT03316378|191485057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.08
95991946|NCT01235962|191959457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU)|0.12||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.583|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.583|-0.343|0.612
95991947|NCT01235962|191959457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU)|-0.045||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.496|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.496|-0.587|0.870
95991948|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - thermo.)|-2.116||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.872|-0.359|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.359|-3.872|0.018
95991949|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - thermo)|-0.253||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|1.508|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||1.508|-2.014|0.778
95991950|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - thermo)|0.847||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.724|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.724|-1.030|0.376
95800337|NCT04818255|191572917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.255
95991951|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - thermo)|0.131||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|2.294|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||2.294|-2.032|0.905
95991952|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - thermo)|0.401||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.269|3.071|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||3.071|-2.269|0.768
95991953|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Week 52 - UI)|-0.026||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|-0.007|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||-0.007|-0.044|0.007
95991954|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (24M DFS FU - UI)|-0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.005|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.005|-0.036|0.130
95991955|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (36M DFS FU - UI)|0.007||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.03|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.030|-0.015|0.520
95991956|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (48M DFS FU - UI)|-0.014||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.011|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.011|-0.040|0.276
95800338|NCT04818255|191572918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95800339|NCT04818255|191572918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.740
95991957|NCT01235962|191959458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (54M DFS FU - UI)|-0.007||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.024|||analysis of covariance|adjusted for baseline score using mixed-model||||0.024|-0.037|0.665
95991958|NCT02211261|191959507|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|17.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.44|36.95|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||36.95|8.44|
95991959|NCT02211261|191959507|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.64|49.51|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||49.51|21.64|
95991960|NCT02211261|191959507|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|35.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|51.95|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||51.95|23.60|
95991961|NCT02211261|191959507|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|53.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.36|77.78|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.78|36.36|
95758942|NCT03316378|191485058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||<0.001
95758943|NCT03316378|191485058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||0.012
95800340|NCT04818255|191572919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95800341|NCT04818255|191572919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.237
95800342|NCT04818255|191572920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Evaluated the effect of disclosure (time) by participant amyloid status on study partner PCS scores||||||.835
95800343|NCT04818255|191572921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Evaluated the effect of disclosure (time) x participant amyloid status on study partner RSSE scores||||||.037
95947202|NCT00768755|191866743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.546|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.546|0.580|0.3565
95947203|NCT00768755|191866744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.69|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.690|0.648|0.5785
95947204|NCT00768755|191866744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.449||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|2.285|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female). HR: the stratified Cox model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||2.285|0.919|0.9392
95947205|NCT00768755|191866745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.753||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.935|1.047|0.0143
95947206|NCT00768755|191866745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.512||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test stratified by ECOG performance status (0 or 1) and gender (male or female).||2.626|0.870|0.0665
95947207|NCT01079806|191866774|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|20.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||31.4|9.1|0.0049
95947208|NCT01079806|191866775|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|54.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||54.2|29.4|<0.0001
95947209|NCT01079806|191866776|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|45.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|29.2|61.2|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||61.2|29.2|<0.0001
95947210|NCT01079806|191866777|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|50.5|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||50.5|25.9|<0.0001
95758944|NCT03316378|191485059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 1: Between groups||||1.0
95758945|NCT03316378|191485059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Specific Aim 2: Effect of time||||1.0
95800344|NCT04465955|191572952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|0.227|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q4W and Pooled Sham||0.227|-0.528|0.4345
95800345|NCT04465955|191572952|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.225|||Random coefficient model|Covariates included terms for time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline fellow eye CNV status, baseline focality, and baseline GA lesion location||Rate of Change Difference Between NGM621 Q8W and Pooled Sham||0.225|-0.536|0.4217
95800346|NCT04305496|191573031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
95947211|NCT01079806|191866778|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimate|12.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|25.7|||Normal approximation||Difference estimate is stratified by age randomization strata, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.|||25.7|-1.5|0.11
95800347|NCT04305496|191573032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.71|0.51|<0.001
95800348|NCT04305496|191573033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
95800349|NCT04305496|191573034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.65|0.38|<0.001
95950731|NCT04421456|191873422|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. For the PANSS-T score, baseline PANSS-P, baseline PANSS-N, and baseline PANSS-G are included in the model as fixed effects for the associated baseline instead of baseline PANSS-T.|Least square mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.85|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.85|-6.76|0.4226
95950732|NCT04421456|191873423|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.0|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.00|-2.25|0.4479
95758946|NCT03582826|191485073|SUPERIORITY|Paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests|Median Difference (Final Values)|79.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|163.0||Original p-value for dermatological bacteria was 6e-05. It was adjusted first by applying centered log-ratio (CLR) transformation approach then by false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons by using Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||163|26|0.02
95758947|NCT00574912|191485086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95758948|NCT01282723|191485087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of True Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly greater than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the True Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly greater than SureCALL®."||1.95|1.10|0.0093
95800350|NCT04305496|191573035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
95758949|NCT01282723|191485087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Estimation of Odds Ratio of False Positive Fraction between SureCALL® and TOCO~Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO or the SureCALL® is significantly less than TOCO.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between the False Positive Fraction of SureCALL® and of TOCO and the TOCO is significantly less than SureCALL®."||1.17|0.61|0.3204
95758950|NCT03589768|191485090|OTHER|N/A, Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|10.3|||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||10.3|-11.9|
95758951|NCT03589768|191485091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.62||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|15.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|||15.5|-6.25|0.559
95800351|NCT04305496|191573036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.76|0.34|<0.001
95800352|NCT04305496|191573037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
95947212|NCT00822900|191866921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||Regression, Generalized linear|Adjusting for injury severity, sex, and age. the binomial distribution with the log link is used to estimate treatment effect as relative risk.|A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of less than 1.00 indicating fewer favorable outcomes in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with favorable outcome in progesterone and placebo arms). Standard multiple imputation methods are used to account for missing data. The primary outcome measure is based on the stratified dichotomy approach.||1.06|0.85|0.35
95947213|NCT00822900|191866922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||||A hazard ratio of more than 1.00 indicating higher hazard of death from the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|The Cox proportional hazards model is used to compare these curves after adjustment for age, sex and injury severity.||1.63|0.86|
95947214|NCT00822900|191866924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.66|||||A risk ratio (equivalent to the relative risk) of more than 1.00 indicating more events in the progesterone group than in the placebo group.|||4.66|1.96|
95947215|NCT01638000|191866933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for difference of adjusted change from baseline between solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 50 mg was \> -0.20. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg. Overall power calculation was 80% for a 1-sided test and significance level of 0.025.|least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicated superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||The non-inferiority of mirabegron vs. solifencacin on the change from baseline to final visit in the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours.||0.06|-0.42|0.15
95947216|NCT01638000|191866934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.25||If P \<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the smallest percentage of participants with at least 1 TEAE of dry mouth, constipation or blurred vision during the double-blind period at the final visit.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥ 2) and geographic region as factors.||Difference vs Mirabegron. Differences of the percentages were calculated by subtracting the percentage of mirabegron 50 mg group from the percentage of solifenacin 5 mg group.||2.25|1.04|0.030
95947217|NCT01638000|191866935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.27|-0.19|0.71
95950733|NCT04421456|191873423|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.49|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.49|-2.92|0.1616
95991962|NCT02211261|191959509|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|7.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|11.4|||||PF-06293620 0.3 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||11.40|4.70|
95758952|NCT03589768|191485092|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.8|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|9.8|-9.3|
95758953|NCT03589768|191485093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|15.9|||Fisher Exact||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|15.9|-3.82|0.290
95758954|NCT03589768|191485095|OTHER|Only risk difference estimated and 95% CI reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||||||Difference is calculated as the proportion in the BOOSTRIX group minus the proportion in the Td group.|7.3|-6.4|
95758955|NCT03589768|191485096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth day timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|10.7|4.6|<0.0001
95758956|NCT03589768|191485096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for Prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|7.3|3.2|<0.0001
95758957|NCT03589768|191485096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) timepoint|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|4.8|1.8|<0.0001
95800353|NCT04305496|191573038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.85|||Stratified log rank test|||||0.85|0.19|0.016
95947218|NCT01638000|191866935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.47|0.053
95947219|NCT01638000|191866935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.44|0.12
95947220|NCT01638000|191866936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.9||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.11|0.73|0.33
95947221|NCT01638000|191866936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.10|0.64|0.21
95947222|NCT01638000|191866936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron.||1.32|0.71|0.83
95947223|NCT01638000|191866936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.24|0.68|0.57
95947224|NCT01638000|191866937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.25|0.36
95947225|NCT01638000|191866937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.48|0.12
95947226|NCT01638000|191866937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.07|-0.57|0.47
95947227|NCT01638000|191866938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.14|0.74|0.44
95947228|NCT01638000|191866938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.06|0.60|0.11
95947229|NCT01638000|191866938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.45|0.76|0.78
95859321|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.258
95991963|NCT02211261|191959509|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|32.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.67|50.12|||||PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||50.12|20.67|
95758958|NCT03589768|191485096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for One month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.7|0.1|0.0068
95991964|NCT02211261|191959509|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|34.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.57|52.52|||||PF-06293620 3.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||52.52|22.57|
95991965|NCT02211261|191959509|OTHER||Percentage of Test relative to Reference|51.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.26|77.31|||||PF-06293620 6.0 mg/kg SC (SAD Cohorts) is Test, PF-06293620 1.0 mg/kg IV (SAD Cohorts) is Reference.|||77.31|34.26|
95758959|NCT03589768|191485096|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares differences in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.5|0.1|0.0003
95758960|NCT03589768|191485097|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.7102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.7|0.7102
95758961|NCT03589768|191485097|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|12.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|12.0|6.2|<0.0001
95758962|NCT03589768|191485097|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|6.6|3.3|<0.0001
95758963|NCT03589768|191485097|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|5.2|2.1|<0.0001
95758964|NCT03589768|191485098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.8|0.7039
95758965|NCT03589768|191485098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|24.3|14.0|<0.0001
95758966|NCT03589768|191485098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|13.7|8.1|<0.0001
95758967|NCT03589768|191485098|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.||Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|11.1|5.0|<0.0001
95758968|NCT03589768|191485099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.8|0.8|0.2897
95758969|NCT03589768|191485099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|82.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|82.4|35.6|<0.0001
95991966|NCT00535925|191959527|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Cox Shared Frailty Model, adjusted for age, sex, SBP, Hb, eGFR, albuminuria, HbA1c, total cholesterol, triglycerides (log-scaled) to reduce bias risk.||||||<0.05
95758970|NCT03589768|191485099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|49.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|49.7|20.6|<0.0001
95800354|NCT01112267|191573077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value for percentage of participants with reduction in pain intensity was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups||||||0.0367
95800355|NCT01112267|191573078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value for change in reduction in pain intensity at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.0095
95800356|NCT01112267|191573079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 8 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0202
95758971|NCT03589768|191485099|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|34.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|34.2|10.4|<0.0001
95758972|NCT03589768|191485100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.6|0.8370
95758973|NCT03589768|191485100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|<0.0001
95758974|NCT03589768|191485100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0050
95758975|NCT03589768|191485100|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.8||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.6|0.0689
95758976|NCT03589768|191485101|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for pre-vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.6|0.7|0.8361
95947230|NCT01638000|191866938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.33||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.33|0.71|0.85
95947231|NCT01638000|191866939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.14|-0.18|0.66
95758977|NCT03589768|191485101|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after vaccination time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5136
95758978|NCT03589768|191485101|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.6|0.4237
95947232|NCT01638000|191866939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.03|-0.31|0.17
95947233|NCT01638000|191866939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|From the stratified rank ANCOVA analysis.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.02|-0.24|0.66
95947234|NCT01638000|191866940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.19|-0.44|0.43
95758979|NCT03589768|191485101|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months after delivery time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.2|0.4|0.1607
95758980|NCT03589768|191485102|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|18.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|18.3|10.2|<0.0001
95758981|NCT03589768|191485102|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|14.5|8.0|<0.0001
95758982|NCT03589768|191485102|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio. Test compares difference in log values.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|15.2|6.9|<0.0001
95758983|NCT03589768|191485102|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|3.0|1.4|0.0002
95800357|NCT01112267|191573079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 15 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.0102
95800358|NCT01112267|191573079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652||||||p-value for percentage of participants with pain relief at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Chi-squared|||||||0.4652
95800359|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in physical conditioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3524
95800360|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role physical at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
95991967|NCT03694392|191959540|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.3% (5.9%, 23.8%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
95758984|NCT03589768|191485102|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.7|0.8|0.4828
95758985|NCT03589768|191485103|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|81.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|81.0|26.6|<0.0001
95758986|NCT03589768|191485103|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|65.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|65.0|24.0|<0.0001
95758987|NCT03589768|191485103|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|17.9|6.1|<0.0001
95758988|NCT03589768|191485103|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0746
95991968|NCT03694392|191959541|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.9% (-9.2% to 35.2%)|||1.09|0.65|<0.05
95758989|NCT03589768|191485103|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.5|0.1532
95758990|NCT03589768|191485104|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.9|0.6|0.0022
95758991|NCT03589768|191485104|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|0.8|0.5|0.0008
95758992|NCT03589768|191485104|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.5|0.0261
95758993|NCT03589768|191485104|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0532
95758994|NCT03589768|191485104|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.4|0.5|0.5587
95758995|NCT03589768|191485105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.9||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.3|0.6|0.5056
95758996|NCT03589768|191485105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0||||0.9466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.5|0.7|0.9466
95758997|NCT03589768|191485105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1||||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.6|0.6911
95758998|NCT03589768|191485105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.3|0.0952
95800361|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5712||||||p-value for change from Baseline in bodily pain at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5712
95991969|NCT03694392|191959542|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 16.7% (-5.6% to 34.4%)|||1.06|0.66|<0.05
95758999|NCT03589768|191485105|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.0|0.8|0.4134
95759000|NCT03589768|191485106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for birth time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.6|0.9|0.0859
95859322|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.851|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.851
95947235|NCT01638000|191866940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||-0.04|-0.66|0.027
95947236|NCT01638000|191866940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.00|-0.64|0.053
95947237|NCT01638000|191866940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.09|-0.55|0.16
95991970|NCT03694392|191959543|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08||Adjustment for multiplicity for the secondary outcomes was performed with the use of Holm's adjustment method.|Regression, Cox|Models were adjusted for age, age squared, sex, and race or ethnic group after weighting with stabilized facility-specific propensity scores.|Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 2.4% (-8.1% to 11.9%)|||1.08|0.88|<0.05
95991971|NCT03694392|191959544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.8|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -15.7% (-79.5% to 25.5%)|||1.80|0.75|<0.05
95991972|NCT03694392|191959545|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.0% to 5.4%)|||1.06|0.95|<0.05
95759001|NCT03589768|191485106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for prior to receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 6 weeks of age)|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.3|0.8|0.2040
95759002|NCT03589768|191485106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of first dose of DTwP (approximately 10 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|2.7|1.0|0.0763
95759003|NCT03589768|191485106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for one month after receipt of last dose of DTwP (approximately 18 weeks of age) time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.1|0.2|0.0836
95759004|NCT03589768|191485106|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.6||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Test compares difference in log values.|Difference in log values back transformed into ratio.|Statistical analysis for 6 months of age time point|The ratio is calculated as the GMC of the BOOSTRIX group divided by the GMC of the Td group.|1.0|0.3|0.0672
95759005|NCT03785600|191485108|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
95759006|NCT04308226|191485113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95759007|NCT04308226|191485115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95759008|NCT00191113|191485120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interaction terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Randomized Humatrope minus As-Randomized Control"|This component of the primary analysis is inferential i.e. to ascertain definitively whether Humatrope treatment affects change in Height SDS (NCHS). Null hypothesis is no effect of Humatrope treatment.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
95759009|NCT00191113|191485121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline height SDS, baseline age, treatment, and interactions. Age and interactions terms removed when not significant.|"Effect direction is As-Treated Growth Hormone minus As-Treated No Growth Hormone"|Estimation analysis of the magnitude of effect of treatment with growth hormone upon Final Height. Null hypothesis is no effect of growth hormone upon attained height standard deviation score (National Center for Health Statistics).||1.2|0.9|<0.001
95859323|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.849
95991973|NCT03694392|191959546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.5|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 1.8% (-2.2% to 5.5%)|||5.5|-2.2|<0.05
95991974|NCT03694392|191959547|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|22.1|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 9.4% (-5.4% to 22.1%)|||22.1|-5.4|<0.05
95991975|NCT03694392|191959548|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 6.2% (-2.2% to 13.9%)|||1.02|0.86|<0.05
95991976|NCT03694392|191959549|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -6.9% (-51.6% to 24.6%)|||1.52|0.75|<0.05
95991977|NCT03694392|191959550|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 5.2% (-18.8% to 24.4%)|||1.12|0.76|<0.05
95991978|NCT03694392|191959551|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.8% (6.6% to 14.7%)|||0.93|0.85|<0.05
95991979|NCT03694392|191959552|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -0.1% (-6.2% to 5.6%)|||1.06|0.94|<0.05
95991980|NCT03694392|191959553|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -45.5% (-100.2% to -5.8%)|||2.00|1.06|<0.05
95759010|NCT00191113|191485122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
95759011|NCT00191113|191485123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001||95.0|5.7|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|5.7|<0.001
95759012|NCT00191113|191485124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95991981|NCT03694392|191959554|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.99|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.2% (1.4% to 18.2%)|||0.99|0.82|<0.05
95759013|NCT00191113|191485125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
95759014|NCT00191113|191485126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.073
95759015|NCT00191113|191485127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patients with any category of hearing loss between As-Treated Growth Hormone group and As-Treated No Growth Hormone.||||>0.999
95759016|NCT00191113|191485128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.492||||0.419||95.0|-8.631|3.646|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||3.646|-8.631|0.419
95759017|NCT00191113|191485130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.545
95759018|NCT00191113|191485132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95759019|NCT00191113|191485134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95759020|NCT00191113|191485135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.945||95.0|-0.199|0.186|||ANOVA||Direction of estimated treatment effect is Humatrope minus Control|||0.186|-0.199|0.945
95800362|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||||||p-value for change from Baseline in general health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0395
95991982|NCT03694392|191959555|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: -16.2% (-43.0% to 5.5%)|||1.43|0.95|<0.05
95991983|NCT03694392|191959556|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 15.7% (6.0% to 24.5%)|||0.94|0.76|<0.05
95991984|NCT03694392|191959557|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Relative vaccine effectiveness (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio, expressed as a percentage: 10.3% (-33.9% to 39.9%)|||1.34|0.60|<0.05
95991985|NCT01542307|191959567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.674
95991986|NCT01542307|191959568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95991987|NCT01542307|191959569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95991988|NCT01542307|191959570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95991989|NCT01542307|191959571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95991990|NCT01542307|191959572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95991991|NCT01542307|191959573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95991992|NCT01542307|191959574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
95991993|NCT05197803|191959616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (BTE)||||0.0001
95991994|NCT05197803|191959616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The study compared the results between the unaided condition vs. aided condition (RIC)||||0.0001
95991995|NCT00167245|191959657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95991996|NCT00167245|191959658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.45
95991997|NCT00167245|191959659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|-2.1|0.4
95993784|NCT00619957|191963387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.81|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.81|-2.39|0.7840
95991998|NCT00947531|191959684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.13||P-value obtained from the F-test statistic of Cerebrolysin versus Placebo as part of ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed. The overall significance level alpha was fixed at alpha = 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The study was designed to show significant differences in each of the two primary variables. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was needed.||The null-hypothesis stated no difference between the two treatment groups. A sample size of 103 evaluable patients per treatment group was estimated to allow for the detection of a significant group difference of 4.1 points in ADAS-cog+ weak 24 change score (standard deviation \[SD\] 9.0) in favor of Cerebrolysin with a power of 90% and a probability level of alpha-level 0.025 (one-sided).||-4.13|-8.22|< 0.0001
95991999|NCT01070329|191959711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||The P-value is for the main effect of treatment. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
95992000|NCT01070329|191959712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-2.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-5.77|<0.001
95992001|NCT01070329|191959713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.42||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.47|<0.001
95992002|NCT01070329|191959713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.53||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.42|<0.001
95728601|NCT03294538|191426455|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
95759021|NCT00191113|191485137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0||||P-value cannot be computed since no patients had abnormal result in either comparison group.|Fisher Exact|||||||
95759022|NCT05307510|191485138|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is under powered. N is too low.||||||0.135||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at rest||||0.135
95759023|NCT05307510|191485138|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low||||||0.716||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain at Night||||.716
95759024|NCT05307510|191485138|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis underpowered. N is too small.||||||0.509||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Pain in use||||.509
95759025|NCT05307510|191485139|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95759026|NCT05307510|191485140|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.635||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Palmar abduction of surgical hand||||.635
95759027|NCT05307510|191485140|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Radial Abduction Surgical Hand||7.4|-13.6|.521
95800363|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||||||p-value for change from Baseline in vitality at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0524
95759028|NCT05307510|191485141|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.42||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||32.0|-16.16|.495
95759029|NCT05307510|191485142|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.953||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Buttoning Buttons||||.953
95759030|NCT05307510|191485142|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.947||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Lacing and tying a shoe||||.947
95800364|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||||||p-value for change from Baseline in social functioning at Day 29 was calculated using for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.115
95800365|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7788||||||p-value for change from Baseline in role emotional at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7788
95992003|NCT01070329|191959713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
95992004|NCT01070329|191959713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.61||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-4.16|<0.001
95992005|NCT01070329|191959714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95992006|NCT01070329|191959715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||This third gated secondary outcome measure failed to meet statistical significance. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.173
95992007|NCT01070329|191959716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fourth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; prior gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-1.48|-4.13|
95992008|NCT01070329|191959717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.34||This is the p-value for the Change at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.34|0.00|0.050
95759031|NCT05307510|191485142|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.828||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Opening and closing safety pins||||.828
95759032|NCT05307510|191485142|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too low.||||||0.169||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||Managing coins||||.169
95759033|NCT05307510|191485143|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis underpowered. N too small.||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
95759034|NCT05307510|191485143|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is underpowered. N is too small||||||0.837||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.837
95759035|NCT00631657|191485146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|48.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|62.5|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline TST as covariate.|||62.5|35.0|<0.0001
95800366|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||p-value for change from Baseline in mental health at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7776
95800367|NCT01112267|191573080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||||||p-value for change from Baseline in Reptd. health transition at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0047
95947238|NCT01638000|191866941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.05|-0.05|0.99
95947239|NCT01638000|191866941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.03|-0.07|0.47
95947240|NCT01638000|191866941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.06|-0.06|0.99
95947241|NCT01638000|191866941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Final visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.07|-0.05|0.74
95759036|NCT00631657|191485149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.9||||0.2145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.8|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline SL as covariate.|||2.8|-12.6|0.2145
95759037|NCT00631657|191485150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA performed with fixed effects for treatment and (pooled) center as factors and baseline WASO as covariate.|||-15.4|-34.5|<0.0001
95759038|NCT01056289|191485157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.83|-0.51|
95759039|NCT01056289|191485157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference: DVS SR 25 mg versus DVS SR 50 mg||2.35|-1.03|
95759040|NCT01056289|191485157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: absolute difference between the 2 discontinuation regimens in DESS total scores was \>2.5. Alternative hypothesis: absolute difference was ≤2.5; tested by calculating 95% 2-sided confidence intervals (CIs) on the mean difference between the 2 regimens. If absolute values of both confidence limits were ≤2.5, then the regimens were declared equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference: Placebo versus DVS SR 25 mg||1.89|-0.88|
95800368|NCT01112267|191573081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527||||||p-value for change from Baseline in ODI- Korean version at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0527
95800369|NCT01112267|191573082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0917||||||p-value for investigator's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0917
95759041|NCT01917916|191485161|OTHER||Slope|2.4386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7504|3.1267|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter Cmax, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1267|1.7504|
95947242|NCT01638000|191866942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.20|0.89|0.67
95759042|NCT01917916|191485162|OTHER||Slope|2.6033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0993|3.1073|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-∞, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.1073|2.0993|
95759043|NCT01917916|191485163|OTHER||Slope|3.1291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3395|3.9187|||||Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is actually standard error of slope.|Dose proportionality was explored using the power model. Dose proportionality of BI 655064 was to be assessed based on the exposure parameter AUC0-tz, determined for the 4 subcutaneous dose levels. This analysis is for the overall population.||3.9187|2.3395|
95759044|NCT03301649|191485170|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|7.8||||||If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||7.8|-3.9|
95759045|NCT03301649|191485171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] method).||||<0.0001
95759046|NCT03301649|191485171|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
95759047|NCT03301649|191485172|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was demonstrated if 90% CI of percentage difference between generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion group was within the range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.5||||||If the 90% CI for the absolute difference between the percentage of participants who were considered a treatment success in the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was contained within the range (-20%, +20%) then therapeutic equivalence of the generic ivermectin lotion and sklice (ivermectin) lotion was considered to have been demonstrated.||4.5|-2.6|
95759048|NCT03301649|191485173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
95759049|NCT03301649|191485173|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by clinical site in mITT population (using LOCF method).||||<0.0001
95800370|NCT01112267|191573083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5632||||||p-value for participant's global assessment on investigational product at Day 29 was calculated for tramadol HCl/acetaminophen and placebo groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5632
95947243|NCT01638000|191866942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.99|0.073
95759050|NCT02784444|191485202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.81||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||1.81|0.44|0.747
95759051|NCT02784444|191485202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.48||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.48|0.60|0.575
95759052|NCT02784444|191485202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.27||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.27|0.83|0.158
95759053|NCT02784444|191485203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.42||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.42|0.49|0.828
95759054|NCT02784444|191485203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.21||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.21|0.70|0.299
95800371|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|115.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.04|125.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.22|107.04|
95992009|NCT01070329|191959717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.9||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||2.90|-0.12|0.071
95992010|NCT01070329|191959718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.82||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.82|0.00|0.050
95992011|NCT01070329|191959718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|0.50|0.007
95992012|NCT01070329|191959718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|3.5||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.50|-0.09|0.063
95992013|NCT01070329|191959718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.02||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.02|0.60|0.004
95759055|NCT02784444|191485203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.82||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.82|0.86|0.116
95759056|NCT02784444|191485204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.55||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||2.55|0.55|0.657
95759057|NCT02784444|191485204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.06||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.06|0.69|0.332
95800372|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Astellas Ratio|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.12|95.91|
95992014|NCT01070329|191959719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fifth gated secondary outcome measure. Statistical significance was not evaluated; the third gated secondary outcome measure failed (p\>0.05).||||-0.96|-3.18|
95992015|NCT01070329|191959720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.15||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.93|0.007
95992016|NCT01070329|191959720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
95992017|NCT01070329|191959721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
95992018|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.85|<0.001
95759058|NCT02784444|191485204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.16||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Models are adjusted for presence of diabetes mellitus, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in response rates between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||3.16|0.72|0.270
95800373|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.89|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.89|92.30|
95859324|NCT02304367|191676131|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.153
95992019|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.64|0.003
95992020|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.75|<0.001
95992021|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.27||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.86|<0.001
95764226|NCT03135015|191498544|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-31.36||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0788
95947244|NCT01638000|191866942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.37|0.92|0.25
95947245|NCT01638000|191866942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.31|0.90|0.40
95947246|NCT01638000|191866943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.20|-0.25|0.84
95947247|NCT01638000|191866943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.15|-0.24|0.63
95947248|NCT01638000|191866943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16||if p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.16|-0.28|0.59
95947249|NCT01638000|191866944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.05||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 4 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|1.00|0.068
95947250|NCT01638000|191866944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.11||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.11|0.98|0.21
95859325|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.002
95947251|NCT01638000|191866944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.95|0.52
95947252|NCT01638000|191866944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|1.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|Poisson regression|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Rate Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.10|0.96|0.44
95947253|NCT01638000|191866945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.18|-0.00|0.058
95947254|NCT01638000|191866945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.12|-0.06|0.50
95947255|NCT01638000|191866945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron 50 mg from the adjusted mean of solifenacin 5 mg.||0.10|-0.08|0.81
95764227|NCT03135015|191498544|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-30.32||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0887
95759059|NCT02784444|191485205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.7|0.392
95947256|NCT01638000|191866946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.28|0.85|0.67
95759060|NCT02784444|191485205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
95759061|NCT02784444|191485205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline NAS (0-8).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-1.0|0.028
95759062|NCT02784444|191485206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.224
95759063|NCT02784444|191485206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.4|0.096
95759064|NCT02784444|191485206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline steatosis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||-0.1|-0.6|0.007
95759065|NCT02784444|191485207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.1|0.488
95759066|NCT02784444|191485207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.3|0.291
95759067|NCT02784444|191485207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline inflammation.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.2|0.595
95759068|NCT02784444|191485208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.2|-0.4|0.416
95800374|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio|103.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.83|112.11|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and Cmax parameters||112.11|95.83|
95800375|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X100|101.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 and parameters||110.0|94.03|
95947257|NCT01638000|191866946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.03|0.026
95992022|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.75|0.008
95947258|NCT01638000|191866946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.97|0.11
95759069|NCT02784444|191485208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.0|-0.5|0.056
95759070|NCT02784444|191485208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, presence of diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 versus F2/F3, and baseline ballooning.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.4|0.220
95759071|NCT02784444|191485209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.3|-0.3|0.928
95759072|NCT02784444|191485209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.244
95759073|NCT02784444|191485209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Statistical testing was two-sided using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted by age, sex, diabetes mellitus, Vitamin E ≥ 400 IU, baseline fibrosis F1 vs. F2/F3, and baseline CRN fibrosis staging score.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in changes between the MSDC-0602K dose and placebo.||0.1|-0.5|0.228
95759074|NCT00537303|191485210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the full analysis set and the per protocol set|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.606||95.0|-0.17|0.29||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|Regimen, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) use as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.29|-0.17|0.606
95759075|NCT00537303|191485211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two treatments are declared equivalent if the 95% Confidence Interval for the estimated difference in means between the two treatment groups is included in the interval from -0.4 to 0.4 for both the Full Analysis Set and the Per Protocol set.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.816||95.0|-0.21|0.26||P-value for test of difference between treatments.|ANCOVA|||Equivalence analysis with a null hypothesis stating that there is a difference between Advanced and Basic treatment groups of more than 0.4%.||0.26|-0.21|0.816
95759076|NCT03262038|191485216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.412
95759077|NCT03262038|191485217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.633
95800376|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddys Ratio X 100|111.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.26|120.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.70|103.26|
95800377|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.27|125.49|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||125.49|107.27|
95759078|NCT03262038|191485218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
95759079|NCT03262038|191485219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.634
95759080|NCT04228783|191485227|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
95759081|NCT04228783|191485227|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
95759082|NCT04228783|191485227|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||||||||1.2|0.9|
95800378|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.27|120.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.81|103.27|
95800379|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|113.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.3|123.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||123.08|105.30|
95800380|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.08|112.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.40|96.08|
95759083|NCT04228783|191485228|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|0.8|
95759084|NCT04228783|191485228|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
95759085|NCT04228783|191485228|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of 0.5 to 2.0 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|Ratio of GMCs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||||||||1.3|0.8|
95759086|NCT03151811|191485233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0311|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0311
95947259|NCT01638000|191866946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final Visit Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.43|0.97|0.093
95759087|NCT02383810|191485262|SUPERIORITY|The overall hypothesis system was represented by the following pool of partial hypothesis systems: Hok: πGi = πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j HAk: πGi ≠πGj i = 1 to 3, and j = 2 to 4, and k = 1 to 6, and i ≠ j where πG is the probability of absence of Grade ≥2 CID for the Group. Each Ho involved 2 groups.|||||<|0.1||||||Overall alpha level 0.10 was maintained by correction for multiplicity according to Hommel's procedure.|Chi-squared|||Overall null hypothesis: All elsiglutide dose groups had equal proportion of subjects with max Grade≥2 diarrhea and this was equal to the one in the placebo group. This includes 6 individual hypotheses (i.e., 3 to compare each dose group vs. placebo and 3 to compare dose groups vs. each other). Raw p-values from Chi square tests were corrected for multiplicity according to the Hommel's procedure. Each of 6 hypotheses was then evaluated based on corrected p-value at alpha 0.10 (two-sided).||||<0.1
95759088|NCT03857750|191485268|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|124.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing onset time of rocuronium||124|40|<0.001
95759089|NCT03857750|191485268|OTHER||Odds|19.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95 % confidence interval is 7.63 to infinity|82||||<0.001
95759090|NCT03857750|191485270|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|48.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||48|14|<0.001
95947260|NCT01638000|191866947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.48|0.76|0.74
95947261|NCT01638000|191866947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.63|0.71|0.74
95947262|NCT01638000|191866947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||2.00|0.81|0.29
95947263|NCT01638000|191866947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.90|0.82|0.29
95947264|NCT01638000|191866948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.67||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 4 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.67|0.90|0.20
95947265|NCT01638000|191866948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.26||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 8 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.26|0.65|0.57
95950734|NCT04421456|191873424|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.18|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.18|-1.80|0.6787
95759091|NCT03857750|191485270|OTHER||Odds|6.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney odd||95% Confidence interval is 2.59 to infinity.|Comparing duration of action of rocuronium||||0.001
95759092|NCT02549027|191485271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.47|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.47|0.12|
95759093|NCT02549027|191485271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.41|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.41|0.10|
95800381|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio x 100|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|108.21|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||108.21|92.50|
95859326|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.030
95759094|NCT02549027|191485271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.3|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing LPS was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.30|0.08|
95759095|NCT02549027|191485272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.11|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for LPS treatment ratio.||0.11|0.02|
95759096|NCT02549027|191485275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.07|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||1.07|0.67|
95759097|NCT02549027|191485275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.86|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.86|0.54|
95800382|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.28|110.29|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.29|94.28|
95800383|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|96.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.05|104.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.09|89.05|
95800384|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|98.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||106.12|90.72|
95800385|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|110.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||110.19|94.27|
95947266|NCT01638000|191866948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.39|0.69|0.92
95947267|NCT01638000|191866948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.42|0.73|0.90
95947268|NCT01638000|191866969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.08||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.08|-3.29|0.039
95992023|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.80|0.004
95800386|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|109.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|119.25|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||119.25|100.42|
95759098|NCT02549027|191485275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.95|||||Ratio is MK-1064/placebo|Analysis used a step-down approach. Mean log treatment difference of the highest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio. If the CI lies completely below 1, testing continued to next lower MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that MK-1064 is superior to placebo in decreasing WASO was supported if the CI lies below 1 for at least one dose.||0.95|0.60|
95800387|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.28|109.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||109.03|91.28|
95800388|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.99|111.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.06|92.99|
95759099|NCT02549027|191485276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.79|||||Ratio is MK-6096/placebo|Mean log treatment difference of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed and back-transformed to obtain the 90% CI interval for WASO treatment ratio.||0.79|0.50|
95759100|NCT02549027|191485277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.01|17.2|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||17.20|-12.01|
95759101|NCT02549027|191485277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.33|19.88|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||19.88|-9.33|
95759102|NCT02549027|191485277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|20.98|||||Difference is MK-1064 - placebo|Analysis used a step-up approach. Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of the lowest MK-1064 dose versus placebo (MK-1064 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed. If the CI lies completely below 25 milliseconds, testing continued to the next higher MK-1064 dose. The hypothesis that at least one dose of MK-1064 does not produce psychomotor impairment versus placebo as assessed by CRT will be supported if the CI lies below 25 milliseconds for at least one dose.||20.98|-8.23|
95759103|NCT02549027|191485278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.7|||||Difference is MK-6096 - placebo|Mean treatment difference in change from baseline of MK-6096 versus placebo (MK-6096 - placebo) and 90% CI were computed.||25.70|-7.10|
95759104|NCT01994291|191485282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.27|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.37|-4.27|0.1271
95759105|NCT01994291|191485282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.73|-4.24|0.0699
95759106|NCT01994291|191485282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the mean difference at Week 12 is greater than -3.0 letters.|Difference in LS means|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.91|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the difference, in the mean change from baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||-0.91|-3.91|0.0399
95759107|NCT01994291|191485283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1416||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2483|-0.0467|||Barnard test|||||-0.0467|-0.2483|0.0218
95947269|NCT01638000|191866969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.13|-3.46|0.034
95950735|NCT04421456|191873424|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||2.30|-0.79|0.3351
95759108|NCT01994291|191485283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0442||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1217|0.0261|||Barnard test.|||baseline in BCVA in the PF-04634817 group,and the control group is less than or equal to -3 letters.||0.0261|-0.1217|0.4209
95759109|NCT01994291|191485283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0849||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1516|-0.0168|||Barnard test.|||||-0.0168|-0.1516|0.0778
95759110|NCT01994291|191485284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|88.56|139.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.59|88.56|<0.0001
95759111|NCT01994291|191485284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.36||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.2|89.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.43|42.20|0.0004
95759112|NCT01994291|191485284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|87.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|67.45|107.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.19|67.45|<0.0001
95800389|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|106.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|116.06|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||116.06|97.17|
95759113|NCT01994291|191485285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.13|9.83|||ANCOVA|||||9.83|6.13|<0.0001
95759114|NCT01994291|191485285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.7|7.98|||ANCOVA|||||7.98|4.70|<0.0001
95759115|NCT01994291|191485285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.66|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|5.66|<0.0001
95759116|NCT01994291|191485286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|0.13|0.0423
95947270|NCT01638000|191866969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.3||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.30|-3.90|0.022
95947271|NCT01638000|191866969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-3.68|0.043
95947272|NCT01638000|191866970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||2.65|-0.37|0.14
95947273|NCT01638000|191866970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|3.13||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.13|-0.03|0.055
95947274|NCT01638000|191866970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.25||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.25|-0.15|0.074
95947275|NCT01638000|191866970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.12||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariates.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||3.12|-0.30|0.11
95947276|NCT01638000|191866971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.01|-0.19|0.070
95947277|NCT01638000|191866971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
95759117|NCT01994291|191485286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.75|0.36|0.0004
95759118|NCT01994291|191485286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|0.30|0.0004
95759119|NCT02368314|191485323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
95800390|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.25|113.75|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||113.75|95.25|
95759120|NCT01266031|191485342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Null hypothesis is: PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is: progression free survival (PFS) 6 months of Bevacizumab = PFS 6 months of Bevacizumab + Vorinostat.||||0.26
95759121|NCT01338870|191485354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.08|0.7606
95759122|NCT01338870|191485354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.46|0.0266
95859327|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.011
95759123|NCT01338870|191485354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.06|-0.42|0.0440
95759124|NCT01338870|191485354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.71|0.0001
95759125|NCT01338870|191485354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.25|-0.60|0.0013
95947278|NCT01638000|191866971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron.Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.03|-0.26|0.015
95759126|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.98|-16.40|0.3611
95759127|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.61|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.71|-20.61|0.0969
95759128|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.11|-19.30|0.1566
95759129|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.678||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.06|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.77|-27.06|0.0052
95800391|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|110.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|120.24|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||120.24|100.66|
95947279|NCT01638000|191866971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||-0.02|-0.25|0.021
95947280|NCT01638000|191866972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.15|0.002
95759130|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-21.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.712||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-9.88|-32.30|0.0002
95759131|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.852||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.56|-11.41|0.9893
95759132|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814||0.4767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.27|-15.55|0.4767
95859328|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.186
95759133|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|8.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.55|-14.28|0.6222
95759134|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.744||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.61|-25.16|0.0159
95759135|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.735||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.44|-29.95|0.0012
95759136|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.895||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|15.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||15.43|-7.71|0.5125
95759137|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.815||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.94|-19.89|0.1455
95759138|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.794||0.8712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.31|-10.43|0.8712
95759139|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.707||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|-8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.36|-30.77|0.0006
95759140|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.696||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.90|-30.26|0.0008
95859329|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
95947281|NCT01638000|191866972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.70|0.14|0.003
95947282|NCT01638000|191866973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean diffrence|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.02|0.027
95947283|NCT01638000|191866973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest improvement at specified visit.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as covariate.||Final Visit Difference vs. Mirabegron. Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of mirabegron from the adjusted mean of solifenacin.||0.29|0.01|0.034
95992024|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability Score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
95759141|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.055||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|18.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.87|-4.90|0.2488
95759142|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.004||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.23|-19.34|0.2084
95759143|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.971||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.43|-11.01|0.9053
95759144|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.853||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|-3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.81|-26.79|0.0091
95859330|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.330
95759145|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.15|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.09|-30.15|0.0016
95800392|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|118.02|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||118.02|98.82|
95800393|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|103.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|112.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||112.94|94.56|
95800394|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|105.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.48|115.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||115.23|96.48|
95759146|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.217||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||18.70|-5.71|0.2963
95800395|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan Ration X 100|98.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.82|107.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.28|89.82|
95800396|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.96|102.65|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||102.65|85.96|
95800397|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|104.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.74|87.69|
95800398|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|104.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||104.58|87.56|
95800399|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|97.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|107.71|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||107.71|89.34|
95800400|NCT02014103|191573084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Pancea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|102.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.36|111.51|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed AUC 0-12 parameters||111.51|93.36|
95800401|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|141.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.73|160.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||160.16|125.73|
95800402|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|104.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|117.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||117.45|92.33|
95800403|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astellas Ratio X 100|116.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.87|130.87|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.87|102.87|
95800404|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|108.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|122.94|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||122.94|96.51|
95759147|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.40|-21.82|0.1159
95800405|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|94.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|106.16|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||106.16|83.33|
95800406|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr. Reddys Ratio X 100|136.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.82|153.7|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||153.70|120.82|
95859331|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.072
95800407|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|122.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.37|138.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||138.04|108.37|
95800408|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|130.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.43|147.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||147.04|115.43|
95800409|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|150.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.77|170.18|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||170.18|133.77|
95759148|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.103||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|16.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||16.68|-7.28|0.4413
95759149|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.918||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.68|-26.91|0.0099
95759150|NCT01338870|191485355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-3.21|-26.69|0.0126
95759151|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1797
95759152|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.04|-0.19|0.0234
95759153|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.18|0.0400
95759154|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.13|0.1568
95759155|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.11|-0.25|0.0010
95800410|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Mylan Ratio X 100|89.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||101.30|79.52|
95800411|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.71|107.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.90|84.71|
95800412|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|110.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|124.96|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||124.96|98.10|
95800413|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|106.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|120.15|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||120.15|94.44|
95859332|NCT02304367|191676132|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.045
95859333|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.369
95759156|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0695
95759157|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0636
95947284|NCT01638000|191866974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.81||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.81|1.08|0.010
95947285|NCT01638000|191866974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.75||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.75|1.07|0.011
95947286|NCT01638000|191866975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.62|1.02|0.037
95947287|NCT01638000|191866975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|1.01|0.045
95947288|NCT01638000|191866976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.06||Iif p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.06|1.11|0.009
95947289|NCT01638000|191866976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65,≥ 65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.65|0.99|0.065
95947290|NCT01638000|191866976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.55|1.00|0.051
95947291|NCT01638000|191866976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.47|0.95|0.14
95947292|NCT01638000|191866976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.40|0.75|0.89
95947293|NCT01638000|191866976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Week 12 (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
95947294|NCT01638000|191866977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥1 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.93|1.07|0.016
95947295|NCT01638000|191866977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥2 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.62|0.99|0.063
95992025|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.09||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.72|0.012
95764228|NCT03135015|191498544|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-39.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0266
95992026|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.70|0.029
95992027|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.75|0.037
95992028|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.81|0.006
95759158|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.20|0.0512
95759159|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.26|0.0051
95759160|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.30|0.0009
95759161|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.05|-0.19|0.2392
95800414|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|139.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||139.23|109.30|
95800415|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|115.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|130.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||130.62|102.68|
95800416|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Astellas Ratio X 100|112.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.32|127.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.20|100.32|
95800417|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Astellas Ratio X 100|101.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|114.57|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|||114.57|90.37|
95992029|NCT01070329|191959722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
95800418|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Astella Ratio X 100|113.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.82|127.83|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||127.83|100.82|
95992030|NCT01070329|191959723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.49||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-0.90|<0.001
95992031|NCT01070329|191959724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||This is the p-value for Suicidal Ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
95992032|NCT06062264|191959734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06||||||Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination|Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|1.06|1.00|
95992033|NCT06062264|191959734|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal-based PCP video reminder messages to the arm receiving standard health system portal messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.06|0.99|
95800419|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Astellas Ratio X 100|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|111.64|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||111.64|88.06|
95859334|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.026
95992034|NCT05256888|191959737|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"In a linear model to assess group effects on fatigue at 12 weeks, adjusting for baseline levels of fatigue:~Effect of group = -1.77±1.08, p=0.11, favoring the TRE group."||||0.11
95759162|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0308
95759163|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.38|0.0019
95759164|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.13|-0.36|0.0034
95759165|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.44|0.0002
95759166|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7854|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.26|-0.06|0.7854
95759167|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.02|-0.33|0.0778
95759168|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.46|0.0065
95759169|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0011
95759170|NCT01338870|191485356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, baseline-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-treatment-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.21|-0.52|0.0013
95759171|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.69|0.5636
95759172|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.72|-0.35|0.4889
95759173|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.5849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.39|-0.68|0.5849
95759174|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.70|0.5104
95859335|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||< 0.001
95859336|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.235
95992035|NCT03116113|191959743|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3181|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.3181
95992036|NCT03116113|191959743|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5177|||||||Fisher's Exact-Boschloo test|||||||=0.5177
95992037|NCT05195528|191959794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.81|22.45||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.45|11.81|<0.0001
95947296|NCT01638000|191866977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥3 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.53|1.00|0.054
95759175|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-0.83|0.2640
95759176|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-1.42|0.0464
95800420|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Sandoz/Astellas Ratio X 100|95.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.89|107.61|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||107.61|84.89|
95800421|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Dr Reddy Ratio X 100|111.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.59|125.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||125.00|98.59|
95859337|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.009
95759177|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.56|-0.83|0.7107
95800422|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Mylan Ratio X 100|99.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.38|112.04|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||112.04|88.38|
95800423|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Panacea Ratio X 100|113.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.18|128.28|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.28|101.18|
95859338|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.278
95947297|NCT01638000|191866977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.46||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥4 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.46|0.95|0.15
95947298|NCT01638000|191866977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit (≥5 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||1.44|0.77|0.75
95947299|NCT01638000|191866977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.04||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.|Participants from Canada were therefore excluded from this analysis due to low participant numbers.|Final visit (6 point improvement) Odds Rato vs. Mirabegron||2.04|0.64|0.66
95947300|NCT01638000|191866978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.57|0.97|0.082
95947301|NCT01638000|191866978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.49||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.49|0.94|0.15
95947302|NCT01638000|191866979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.53||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visit.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Week 12 Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.53|0.99|0.058
95947303|NCT01638000|191866979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5||If p\<0.05, this indicates superiority in favor of the treatment group with the largest percentage of responders at specified visitI|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, gender, age group (\<65, ≥65), number of prior antimuscarinics (1, ≥2), geographic region and baseline value as factors.||Final visit Odds Ratio vs. Mirabegron||1.50|0.99|0.069
95947304|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.211|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.211|-0.087|
95947305|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.234|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.234|-0.066|
95947306|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.102|0.294|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.294|-0.102|
95992038|NCT05195528|191959794|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|22.04||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||22.04|11.36|<0.0001
95947307|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.007|0.404|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.404|0.007|
95947308|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2135|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.155|0.55|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.550|-0.155|
95947309|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2152|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.779|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||0.779|0.068|
95947310|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2644|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.385|0.489|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.489|-0.385|
95947311|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2662|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.049|0.928|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||0.928|0.049|
95947312|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.248|0.862|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||0.862|-0.248|
95947313|NCT04566445|191866980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.058|1.063|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||1.063|-0.058|
95947314|NCT04566445|191866981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.103|1.393|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.393|-0.103|
95947315|NCT04566445|191866981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.081|1.594|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||1.594|0.081|
95759178|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-1.19|0.1564
95759179|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.38|-0.98|0.3834
95759180|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.15|-1.21|0.1279
95759181|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.28|-1.06|0.2520
95992039|NCT05195528|191959795|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|21.6||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||21.60|9.93|<0.0001
95992040|NCT05195528|191959795|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.84|19.54||P-values were obtained from the general linear model with treatment group as factor and severity and frequency of heartburn at baseline as covariates.|General linear model|||||19.54|7.84|<0.0001
95859339|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.046
95947316|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||1.7|-2.6|
95947317|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 12||0.4|-4.0|
95947318|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|0.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||0.8|-4.1|
95947319|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-2.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 24||-2.8|-7.7|
95947320|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||3.5|-2.5|
95947321|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|-1.7|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 36||-1.7|-7.7|
95947322|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|6.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||6.1|-0.9|
95947323|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|1.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 48||1.4|-5.6|
95947324|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||8.4|1.0|
95947325|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.5|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 72||4.5|-2.8|
95947326|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|11.6|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||11.6|2.7|
95947327|NCT04566445|191866986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|7.1|||mixed model repeated measures|||Week 96||7.1|-1.8|
95947328|NCT04399837|191866991|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.041||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: Dose effect is linear with the increase of dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
95947329|NCT04399837|191866991|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.033||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 95% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
95947330|NCT04399837|191866991|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|3.088||||0.002|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at low dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.002
95759182|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.03|-0.30|0.2772
95759183|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.7038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.53|-0.79|0.7038
95759184|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.23|-1.07|0.2031
95759185|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.78|0.6948
95759186|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.07|0.5691
95759187|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.21|-0.42|0.3447
95759188|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.58|-1.04|0.5769
95759189|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-1.16|0.3599
95759190|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.50|-1.10|0.4600
95759191|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.59|-1.39|0.4253
95759192|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.4349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.37|-0.59|0.4349
95759193|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.76|-1.18|0.6697
95859340|NCT02304367|191676133|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.035
95759194|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.65|-1.22|0.5501
95800424|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Accord/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.96|133.08|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.08|104.96|
95800425|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr Reddys/Mylan|89.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.61|100.93|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||100.93|79.61|
95800426|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Panacea Ratio X 100|102.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.15|115.55|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||115.55|91.15|
95800427|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Dr. Reddys/Sandoz Ratio X 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|119.88|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||119.88|94.55|
95800428|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Panacea Ratio X 100|114.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.68|128.92|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||128.92|110.68|
95947331|NCT04399837|191866991|OTHER|The generalized MCP-Mod procedure for time to event endpoints is based on the log hazard ratio of the active doses vs. placebo obtained via a Cox regression model on the time to first GPP flare.|Multiple contrast test|2.977||||0.003|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 35% of the maximum effect is achieved at medium dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 4 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax 1, Emax 2 and exponential) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.003
95947332|NCT04399837|191866991|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 12 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|1.064||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: one-sided p-value ≤ 0.01875."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% Confidence Interval are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||1.064|0.206|0.0269
95947333|NCT04399837|191866991|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of spesolimab 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first GPP flare up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.157||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.541||"One-sided p-value is computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~Threshold for statistical significance: One-sided p-value ≤0.0125."|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|||0.541|0.046|0.0005
95947334|NCT04399837|191866992|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: The proportion of patients who do not experience a GPP flare up to week 48 on BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks ≤ Placebo.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.159||"One-sided p-value was computed from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference=Spesolimab high dose-Placebo.|||-0.159|-0.621|0.0013
95992041|NCT01552902|191959796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-3.4|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least squares mean (LSM), the difference in LSM and its 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-1.3|-5.4|= 0.0013
95759195|NCT01338870|191485358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.55|-1.35|0.4081
95759196|NCT01955083|191485361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|48.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that pillar implant provide a better efficacy in the treatment of snoring than radiofrequency surgery. The sample size was estimated using the primary outcome effects (VAS) in two previously published studies (Friedman 2008; Fang 2004). Using a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test (normal parent distribution; effect size, 1.0; type I error, 0.05; power, 80%), we got a sample size of 11. For considering a 20% drop-out rate, we needed at least 14 participants.||48.4|-14.4|<0.05
95800429|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Mylan/Sandoz Ratio X 100|118.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.48|133.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||133.74|105.48|
95800430|NCT02014103|191573085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Geometric Panacea/Sandoz Ratio X 100|103.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|116.81|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% confidence interval falls within 80-125|Analysis of variance (PROC MIXED) was performed on log transformed Cmax parameters||116.81|92.13|
95759197|NCT01955083|191485362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759198|NCT01955083|191485363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759199|NCT01955083|191485364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759200|NCT01955083|191485365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759201|NCT01955083|191485366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759202|NCT01955083|191485367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759203|NCT01955083|191485368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759204|NCT01955083|191485369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759205|NCT01955083|191485370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759206|NCT01955083|191485371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759207|NCT01955083|191485372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759208|NCT01955083|191485373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95992042|NCT01552902|191959796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that included treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-6|-11|< 0.0001
95759209|NCT00206323|191485423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Primary variable change of TTS/YGTSS at the BSL to Day 70. Changes of YGTSS compared using analysis of covariance with score at day 1 as a covariate. Groups compared for incidence of AE's and of AESI based on Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were two-sided at the 5% level of significance.~The Total Tic Score is a summation of the Total Motor Tic and Total Phonic Tic Scores. The Overall Impairment Rating is rated on a 50-point scale anchored by 0 (No impairment) and 50 (Severe impairment)"||||0.0259
95759210|NCT00474266|191485448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.78||||||||6.78|0.29|
95759211|NCT00474266|191485448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.78|
95992043|NCT01552902|191959796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LSM|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM, the difference in LSM and its 95% CI, and the p-value were from a mixed effects model for repeated measures that includes treatment group, visit, interaction of the treatment group with the visit as factors, baseline score as a covariate, and an adjustment for the interaction of the baseline score with the visit. The model was based on REML method of estimation and utilized an unstructured covariance.||-2.6|-7.6|< 0.0001
95992044|NCT02064764|191959801|OTHER|Log-Rank Test For Comparing Treatment and Control||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.28
95759212|NCT00474266|191485448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.79|
95759213|NCT00474266|191485448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.06|
95759214|NCT00474266|191485449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.17||||||||3.17|-1.06|
95759215|NCT00474266|191485450|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|12.46||||||||12.46|-2.82|
95992045|NCT02064764|191959802|OTHER|||||||0.7348|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7348
95759216|NCT00474266|191485451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥ -10%|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.06|
95759217|NCT00474266|191485452|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|9.5||||||||9.5|-0.28|
95759218|NCT01687244|191485475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.8|53.6||Not applicable: the primary analysis was a calculation of a confidence interval||||The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion||53.6|16.8|
95759219|NCT01687244|191485475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||HGRF survival at 12 months|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.8|58.2|||||The proportion of subjects achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months|The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving high-grade recurrence-free survival at 12 months was reported for each dose group, together with an exact 90% confidence interval for the proportion.||58.2|18.8|
95759220|NCT06281171|191485488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95759221|NCT06281171|191485489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.996
95759222|NCT06281171|191485490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
95759223|NCT06281171|191485491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54
95759224|NCT06281171|191485492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
95759225|NCT06281171|191485493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30
95759226|NCT06281171|191485494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95759227|NCT00469911|191485604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95759228|NCT04240392|191485607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|4.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||4.055|0.462|0.5340
95759229|NCT04240392|191485608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.979|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At delivery||1.979|0.326|0.600
95947335|NCT04399837|191866993|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to first worsening of PSS up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.197|0.914||"One-sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.||0.914|0.197|0.0134
95759230|NCT04240392|191485608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|1.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||At 3 months post partum||1.975|0.254|0.471
95759231|NCT04240392|191485609|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|1.53||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At week 36||6.19|-3.13|0.518
95759232|NCT04240392|191485609|SUPERIORITY||Beta-coefficient|0.32||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Linear Mixed Model|Beta-coefficient for treatment for time interaction term|At 3 months post partum||5.06|-4.41|0.893
95800431|NCT04349644|191573157|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent vari- ables.||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.016
95800432|NCT04349644|191573157|OTHER|"A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each depen- dent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.~Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables."||||||0.288|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling Pretest.||||||0.288
95947336|NCT04399837|191866994|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Effect of BI 655130 300 mg every 4 weeks on prolonging the time to the first worsening of DLQI up to week 48 ≤ Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.259||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.62||One sided p-value was computed from the log-rank test stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.|Log Rank||spesolimab high dose vs. Placebo|"Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (confidence interval) are from Cox regression model stratified by use of systemic GPP medication at randomisation.~one-sided alpha= 0.00625"||0.620|0.109|0.0010
95947337|NCT05842941|191867019|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.351||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. (DNL343 slowed progression) was 0.3286. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by DNL343 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include baseline TRICALS score, log-transformed baseline serum NfL, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs.|1.351|0.840|
95947338|NCT05842941|191867020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5949||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.203|1.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) of use edaravone, riluzole, \& Relyvrio, BL log NfL, SVC and TRICALS score and interaction with visit|||DNL343 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline. The model include fixed terms for regimen, visit, treatment group, treatment group × visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score x visit interaction, baseline TRICALs risk score and baseline TRICALS risk score × visit interaction, baseline riluzole use and baseline riluzole use × visit interaction, baseline edaravone use and baseline edaravone use × visit interaction, baseline Relyvrio use and baseline Relyvrio × visit interaction, and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level × visit interaction|1.137|-1.203|0.9562
95992046|NCT02487108|191959811|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.931|57.855|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||57.855|19.931|<0.001
95759233|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER|||||||0.2073||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.2073
95759234|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0046
95759235|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0860
95759236|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER|||||||0.4005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4005
95759237|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is presented for Day 26-29 timepoint. P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95759238|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95859341|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.442
95859342|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.677
95759239|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95759240|NCT00761657|191485623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95759241|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0507
95759242|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER|||||||0.4502||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.4502
95759243|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||||||0.1603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.1603
95759244|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER|||||||0.9816||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.9816
95759245|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0139
95759246|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95759247|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||0.0001
95947339|NCT05842941|191867021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.401||0.4074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.69|14.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) of use edaravone, riluzole, \& Relyvrio, BL log NfL, and TRICALS score.|DNL343 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for baseline (BL) of use edaravone, riluzole, \& Relyvrio, baseline log NfL, and TRICALS score.|14.11|-34.69|0.4074
95947340|NCT05842941|191867022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4001||0.2856||95.0|-7.291|2.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) of use edaravone, riluzole, \& Relyvrio, BL log NfL, SVC and TRICALS score and interaction with visit.|DNL343 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||The model include fixed terms for regimen, visit, treatment group, treatment group × visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score x visit interaction, baseline TRICALs risk score and baseline TRICALS risk score × visit interaction, baseline riluzole use and baseline riluzole use × visit interaction, baseline edaravone use and baseline edaravone use × visit interaction, baseline Relyvrio use and baseline Relyvrio × visit interaction, and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level × visit interaction|2.156|-7.291|0.2856
95950736|NCT04421456|191873425|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-3.96|0.4504
95950737|NCT04421456|191873425|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm and visit by treatment arm interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.76|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||1.76|-4.22|0.4195
95950738|NCT04421456|191873426|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.30|-0.35|0.8850
95759248|NCT00761657|191485624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is from inter-group 2-sample t-tests comparing roxadustat change from baseline with placebo change from baseline.||||<0.0001
95759249|NCT00270855|191485668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in ARE)||||>0.05
95759250|NCT00270855|191485668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group (i.e, baseline vs. post-intervention in FESLCE)||||>0.05
95759251|NCT00270855|191485669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759252|NCT00270855|191485669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759253|NCT00270855|191485670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group.||||0.519
95759254|NCT00270855|191485670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759255|NCT00270855|191485671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||0.615
95759256|NCT00270855|191485671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95992047|NCT02487108|191959811|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.122|62.881|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||62.881|25.122|<0.001
95992048|NCT02487108|191959811|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.589|72.282|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment and center as factors and the baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||72.282|34.589|<0.001
95992049|NCT01175005|191959865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95992050|NCT02522767|191959866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.32||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.32|0.73|>0.05
95759257|NCT00270855|191485672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759258|NCT00270855|191485672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95947341|NCT05842941|191867023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9949||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.071|12.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) of use edaravone, riluzole, \& Relyvrio, BL log NfL, and TRICALS score and interaction with visit.|DNL343 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||The model include fixed terms for regimen, visit, treatment group, treatment group × visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score x visit interaction, baseline TRICALs risk score and baseline TRICALS risk score × visit interaction, baseline riluzole use and baseline riluzole use × visit interaction, baseline edaravone use and baseline edaravone use × visit interaction, baseline Relyvrio use and baseline Relyvrio × visit interaction, and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level × visit interaction.|12.642|-3.071|0.2318
95947342|NCT05842941|191867025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7628|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7628
95759259|NCT00270855|191485673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759260|NCT00270855|191485674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759261|NCT00270855|191485675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759262|NCT00270855|191485676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759263|NCT00270855|191485677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95947343|NCT05842941|191867026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8662|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8662
95992051|NCT02522767|191959869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.29||The p-value was based on chi-square test without a continuity correction.|Chi-squared|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.29|0.96|>0.05
95992052|NCT02522767|191959870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.15|||Generalized estimating equation approach|||Proportions were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.15|0.78|>0.05
95992053|NCT02522767|191959871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.02||The p-value was based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as a factor.|Times to normal stool pattern were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||2.02|0.91|>0.05
95992054|NCT02522767|191959872|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-0.08|-0.41|<0.05
95992055|NCT02522767|191959873|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.39|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.67|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimate.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.67|-5.46|>0.05
95759264|NCT00270855|191485678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759265|NCT00270855|191485678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759266|NCT00270855|191485679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759267|NCT00270855|191485679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759268|NCT00270855|191485680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759269|NCT00270855|191485680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95859343|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.027
95800433|NCT04349644|191573158|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling pretest value for CASS Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.932
95800434|NCT04349644|191573158|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.221|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for CASS Quality of Rapport.||||||0.221
95800435|NCT04349644|191573158|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.873|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Vocal Expressiveness.||||||0.873
95800436|NCT04349644|191573158|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.512|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Quality of Rapport.||||||0.512
95800437|NCT04349644|191573159|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.05
95800438|NCT04349644|191573159|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables.||||||0.393|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for Pretest.||||||0.393
95859344|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.420
95947344|NCT05842941|191867027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) of use edaravone, riluzole, \& Relyvrio, BL log NfL, and TRICALS score and interaction with visit|||The model include fixed terms for regimen, visit, treatment group, treatment group × visit interaction, baseline score and baseline score x visit interaction, baseline TRICALs risk score and baseline TRICALS risk score × visit interaction, baseline riluzole use and baseline riluzole use × visit interaction, baseline edaravone use and baseline edaravone use × visit interaction, baseline Relyvrio use and baseline Relyvrio × visit interaction, and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level and baseline log-transformed serum NfL level × visit interaction|0.152|0.008|0.0304
95947345|NCT01730937|191867032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|Original design: Hypothesized 28% reduction (HR=0.72) with SBRT (corresponds to median OS = 14.5 months). Assuming an exponential distribution and constant hazards, 292 patients were required to reach 238 OS events, with 80% statistical power, a 1-sided α of 0.05. Revised design (see limitations/caveats): For same above hypotheses, at least 155 OS events from 193 randomized patients provided 65% statistical power, with a 1-sided α of 0.05.||1.01|0.59|0.0554
95947346|NCT01730937|191867033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.99|0.48|0.034
95947347|NCT01730937|191867034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.75||Two-sided significance level=0.05|Log Rank||Reference arm = Sorafenib Alone|||0.75|0.40|0.0001
95947348|NCT06112249|191867042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3094||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"|A F-statistics=1.20 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.3094
95800439|NCT04349644|191573160|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest values.||||||0.917
95800440|NCT04349644|191573160|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest and at the follow-up periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate. Independent samples t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences on all pretest dependent variables||||||0.963|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA while controlling for pretest.||||||0.963
95859345|NCT02304367|191676134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.027
95859346|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.312
95859347|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.249
95859348|NCT02304367|191676134|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.102
95859349|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 24||||0.856
95800441|NCT04349644|191573161|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.879|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling pretest.||||||0.879
95800442|NCT04349644|191573161|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.216|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest.||||||0.216
95800443|NCT04349644|191573162|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.166|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest.||||||0.166
95800444|NCT04349644|191573162|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.331|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest.||||||0.331
95800445|NCT04349644|191573163|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.507|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest controlling for pretest.||||||0.507
95800446|NCT04349644|191573163|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up controlling for pretest.||||||0.064
95947349|NCT06112249|191867042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3966||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 2 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"|A F-statistics=0.94 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.3966
95947350|NCT06112249|191867043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0491||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"|A F-statistics=3.20 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.0491
95947351|NCT06112249|191867043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 2 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"|A F-statistics=3.93 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.0264
95947352|NCT06112249|191867044|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.8026||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=0.22 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.8026
95950739|NCT04421456|191873426|SUPERIORITY|The repeated measures model includes stratification factors (sex and region), associated baseline, visit, randomised treatment arm, visit by treatment arm interaction and visit by associated baseline interaction as fixed effects and visit repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.|Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||Mixed-effects repeated measures model|||||0.27|-0.36|0.7808
95950740|NCT04421456|191873427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|6.924|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.924|0.288|0.6707
95950741|NCT04421456|191873427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.576||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.744|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.744|0.121|0.4883
95800447|NCT04349644|191573164|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.706|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest controlling for pretest.||||||0.706
95800448|NCT04349644|191573164|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.987|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest.||||||0.987
95800449|NCT04349644|191573165|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.475|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest.||||||0.475
95800450|NCT04349644|191573165|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.668|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest.||||||0.668
95800451|NCT04349644|191573166|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.525|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for STAI STATE||||||0.525
95759270|NCT00270855|191485681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759271|NCT00270855|191485681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759272|NCT00270855|191485682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759273|NCT00270855|191485682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95947353|NCT06112249|191867044|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 2 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.9615||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=0.04 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.9615
95947354|NCT06112249|191867045|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.2128||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=1.60 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.2128
95947355|NCT06112249|191867045|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 2 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.4228||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=0.88 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.4228
95947356|NCT06112249|191867046|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.1943||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=1.69 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.1943
95947357|NCT06112249|191867046|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.354||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=1.06 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.3540
95947358|NCT06112249|191867047|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 1 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.1842||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=1.75 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.1842
95759274|NCT00270855|191485683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759275|NCT00270855|191485683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759276|NCT00270855|191485684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759277|NCT00270855|191485684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759278|NCT00270855|191485685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759279|NCT00270855|191485686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759280|NCT00270855|191485687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759281|NCT00270855|191485688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney-u test was performed|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759282|NCT00270855|191485689|OTHER|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759283|NCT00270855|191485690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a Mann-Whitney U test.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||we evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759284|NCT00270855|191485691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mann-whitney u test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95759285|NCT00270855|191485692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the ACE group||||>0.05
95759286|NCT00270855|191485692|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We evaluated differences between baseline and following the 16-week exercise intervention in the FESLCE group||||>0.05
95759287|NCT00270855|191485693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Mann-Whitney U test was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated differences in the above variable between the ACE and FESLCE following the the 16-week exercise intervention||||>0.05
95800452|NCT04349644|191573166|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.307|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for STAI Trait||||||0.307
95947359|NCT06112249|191867047|SUPERIORITY|"One-Way ANCOVA mixed effect model is performed to compare the change score from Pre Data at Post 2 among three groups. Linear mixed-effect model is used to compute test statistics and the overall significance. In each model, classroom (cluster-level) is included as random effects, and both age and education level are included as fixed covariates,"||||||0.6832||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value indicates overall significance among three groups.||"Intent to treat population (all participants assigned to Control, Peer Intervention, Staff Delivered)."|A F-statistics=0.38 is obtained for testing overall significance among three groups using mixed effect model, adjusted by age and education.|||0.6832
95947360|NCT04886258|191867127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6408||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.2|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||12.2|-2.2|0.0872
95947361|NCT02609048|191867143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-60.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.814|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.85|-49.13||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-49.13|-72.85|<0.0001
95947362|NCT02609048|191867143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-51.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-39.44||Difference in mean,p-value, and confidence intervals (CIs) estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-39.44|-63.30|<0.0001
95947363|NCT02609048|191867143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-9.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|2.54||Difference in mean,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-21.79|0.1167
95947364|NCT02609048|191867144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95992056|NCT02522767|191959874|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-289.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-514.96|-64.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to calculate estimates.|Changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||-64.42|-514.96|<0.05
95759288|NCT04684238|191485704|OTHER|Least square means of the difference between the treatment groups, including a 2-sided 95% confidence interval was reported in the statistical analysis. The noninferiority criterion was a relative difference of less than 15% between treatment groups.|Least square means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|22.13||Noninferiority was defined as the entire 95% CI for the difference being above the noninferiority margin for the relative difference of -15%. Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.13|-8.99|
95759289|NCT04684238|191485705|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set to a relative difference of -15%.|Least square means|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|21.17||Testing the hypothesis of no difference between isoflurane and midazolam.||||||21.17|-10.48|
95759290|NCT04684238|191485706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.8|0.0004
95759291|NCT04684238|191485707|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on an analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline opioid dose as covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.69|0.096
95759292|NCT04684238|191485708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.07|||Regression, Cox|||Time to extubation||7.07|1.54|0.0021
95759293|NCT04684238|191485709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||ANOVA|||Spontaneous breathing efforts. Results display a comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a mixed effects analysis of variance model with treatment group as fixed effect.||0.25|-0.15|0.636
95759294|NCT04684238|191485710|SUPERIORITY|Results display comparison between isoflurane and midazolam and are based on a Wilcoxon ranksum test.||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at ≤24 hours.||||0.55
95947365|NCT02609048|191867144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing each Seladelpar group with Placebo separately.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0036
95947366|NCT02609048|191867144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1045||||||The p-values were calculated from Fisher's exact test comparing Seladelpar 200mg versus 50 mg.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1045
95947367|NCT02609048|191867145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|234.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.647||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.28|448.14||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||448.14|21.28|0.0322
95947368|NCT02609048|191867145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|132.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.015||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|328.65||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||328.65|-63.00|0.1764
95947369|NCT02609048|191867145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|101.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.504||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.21|312.98||Difference between means, p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline AST assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in AST as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||312.98|-109.21|0.3326
95947370|NCT02609048|191867146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|185.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.379||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|398.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline ALT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||398.66|-27.10|0.0849
95947371|NCT02609048|191867146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|116.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.437||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.22|315.23||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||315.23|-82.22|0.2409
95947372|NCT02609048|191867146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|69.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.295||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.47|284.03||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline ALT assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in ALT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||284.03|-145.47|0.5154
95947373|NCT02609048|191867147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.112||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.04|-20.64||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-20.64|-70.04|0.0007
95947374|NCT02609048|191867147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-40.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.033||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.28|-18.28||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-18.28|-63.28|0.0008
95947375|NCT02609048|191867147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.401||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|20.73||Difference between means, p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline GGT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in GGT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||20.73|-29.85|0.7155
95947376|NCT02609048|191867148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.342||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-11.14||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-11.14|-57.40|0.0050
95947377|NCT02609048|191867148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-24.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.116||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.47|-4.21||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-45.47|0.0199
95947378|NCT02609048|191867148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.442||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.77|13.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor, baseline 5NT assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in 5NT as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.90|-32.77|0.4161
95947379|NCT02609048|191867149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.626||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.79||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||23.79|-11.40|0.4780
95947380|NCT02609048|191867149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.043||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.41||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-28.40|0.1459
95947381|NCT02609048|191867149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|18.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.521||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|35.57||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg by ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline in total bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||35.57|0.82|0.0407
95947382|NCT02609048|191867150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|31.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.831||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|59.67||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||59.67|3.26|0.0300
95947383|NCT02609048|191867150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.883||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|17.44||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||17.44|-35.11|0.4979
95947384|NCT02609048|191867150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.591||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|68.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated for Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in conjugated bilirubin as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||68.02|12.58|0.0058
95947385|NCT02609048|191867151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.362||0.7244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|14.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||14.08|-20.03|0.7244
95759295|NCT04684238|191485710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Need for inotropic/vasopressor agent at \>24 hours.||||0.637
95759296|NCT02618759|191485749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0745
95759297|NCT02618759|191485750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2310
95759298|NCT02618759|191485751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1059|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1059
95759299|NCT02618759|191485752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6962
95759300|NCT02618759|191485753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
95759301|NCT02618759|191485754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1044|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1044
95759302|NCT02500043|191485755|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6917||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|0.8548||One-sided P-Value.|Log Rank|||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox's proportional hazard (CPH) model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.8548|0.5597|0.0003
95759303|NCT02500043|191485756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4674|0.7008||||||TAS-102+BSC and Placebo+BSC were compared using the stratified log-rank test using the 3 randomization stratification factors (region, ECOG performance status, and prior treatment with ramucirumab). The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified CPH model and survival was summarized using Kaplan Meier estimates.||0.7008|0.4674|
95759304|NCT01635218|191485783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.0||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.0|3.1|<0.05
95759305|NCT01635218|191485783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|5.25||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.25|1.31|<0.05
95759306|NCT01635218|191485784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|7.61||The statistical significant ANOVA result (p\<0.05) suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||7.61|-0.73|0.14
95759307|NCT01635218|191485784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|5.5||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||5.5|-2.93|0.99
95759308|NCT01635218|191485785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Chi-squared|||||0.34|0.03|<0.05
95759309|NCT01635218|191485785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||Chi-squared|||||0.56|0.06|<0.05
95759310|NCT01635218|191485786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.52||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||14.52|2.72|0.002
95947386|NCT02609048|191867151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.819||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|1.8||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-30.10|0.0800
95759311|NCT01635218|191485786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.6||The ANOVA result (p\<0.05)suggests rejecting the global null hypothesis.Bonferroni post-hoc test was used to determine which means differ among groups.|ANOVA|||||9.6|-2.33|0.424
95759312|NCT01635218|191485787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.1||95.0|0.05|1.32|||Chi-squared|||||1.32|0.05|0.10
95759313|NCT01635218|191485787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.05|0.11
95759314|NCT01934335|191485801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95759315|NCT01934335|191485802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95759316|NCT01934335|191485803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95759317|NCT00168818|191485809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.7||||0.5648||95.0|-2.9|1.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.6|-2.9|0.5648
95759318|NCT00168818|191485809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the rate difference has to be below 7.7%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1339||95.0|-0.6|4.4||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.4|-0.6|0.1339
95759319|NCT00168818|191485810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.3256||95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.8|-2.5|0.3256
95800453|NCT04349644|191573166|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest for STAI State||||||0.950
95800454|NCT04349644|191573166|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.459|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest for STAI Trait||||||0.459
95800455|NCT04349644|191573167|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.215|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for Depression problems.||||||0.215
95800456|NCT04349644|191573167|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.093|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest for Anxiety problems.||||||0.093
95800457|NCT04349644|191573167|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.223|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest for Depression problems.||||||0.223
95800458|NCT04349644|191573167|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.838|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest for Anxiety problems.||||||0.838
95800459|NCT04349644|191573168|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.716|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest Depressive problems||||||0.716
95800460|NCT04349644|191573168|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.214|||||||ANCOVA|Posttest ANCOVA controlling for pretest Anxiety problems.||||||0.214
95947387|NCT02609048|191867151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|28.08||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as a factor,baseline assessment as covariate, and percent change from baseline as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||28.08|-5.73|0.1874
95947388|NCT02609048|191867152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-45.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-32.42||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-32.42|-59.50|<0.0001
95947389|NCT02609048|191867152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-34.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-21.48||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-21.48|-47.83|<0.0001
95947390|NCT02609048|191867152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.508||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|1.97||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline bone-specific AP assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|-24.58|0.0924
95947391|NCT02609048|191867153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.807||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.27|11.97||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||11.97|-40.27|0.2777
95947392|NCT02609048|191867153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-37.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.946||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.67|-12.95||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-12.95|-61.67|0.0039
95947393|NCT02609048|191867153|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|23.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.498||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|48.65||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TG assessment as a covariate, and percent change from baseline in TG as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||48.65|-2.33|0.0734
95947394|NCT02609048|191867154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.433||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|-7.07||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-7.07|-25.16|0.0010
95859350|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 48||||0.898
95947395|NCT02609048|191867154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.992||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|0.02||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-16.27|0.0504
95947396|NCT02609048|191867154|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.317||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|0.81||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline TC assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in TC as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-16.80|0.0738
95759320|NCT00168818|191485810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4||||0.7052||95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.2|-1.5|0.7052
95947397|NCT02609048|191867155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-5.46||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-5.46|-29.32|0.0057
95947398|NCT02609048|191867155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|10.08||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||10.08|-11.85|0.8703
95992057|NCT02522767|191959875|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|12.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|20.5|||Repeated-measures ANCOVA||A repeated-measures ANCOVA model with an unstructured correlation matrix was used to calculate estimates.|Change from baseline scores were compared between treatment groups over 8 weeks, at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.||20.50|5.10|<0.05
95992058|NCT03222427|191959889|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|1.18||||||||1.18|0.769|
95759321|NCT00168818|191485811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.1863||95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||0.5|-2.7|0.1863
95759322|NCT00168818|191485811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.702||95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.1|-1.4|0.7020
95759323|NCT00168818|191485812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.1||||0.3173||95.0|-3.3|1.1|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.1|-3.3|0.3173
95759324|NCT00168818|191485812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.9||||0.1274||95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.3|-0.5|0.1274
95759325|NCT00168818|191485813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0694||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0694
95759326|NCT00168818|191485813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0212
95759327|NCT00168818|191485814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5062
95759328|NCT00168818|191485814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.3717
95759329|NCT00168818|191485815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1240
95800461|NCT04349644|191573168|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.983|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest Depressive problems||||||0.983
95992059|NCT01989221|191959891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean GCSI-DD scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean GCSI-DD scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
95759330|NCT00168818|191485815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.2497
95759331|NCT00168818|191485817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4352||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4352
95759332|NCT00168818|191485817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6037||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6037
95759333|NCT00469144|191485821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.9
95759334|NCT00469144|191485821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||100 Days, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.4
95759335|NCT00469144|191485821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants in CR||||0.7
95759336|NCT00469144|191485821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 Year, Between Arms: Participants not in CR||||0.05
95759337|NCT01775189|191485823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean Difference|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||14.2|4.8|0.0001
95759338|NCT01775189|191485823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-27.6||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-27.6|-37.0|<0.0001
95759339|NCT01775189|191485823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||13.8|4.5|0.0002
95759340|NCT01775189|191485823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.3|-5.0|0.8806
95759341|NCT01775189|191485823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|46.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.1|36.8|<0.0001
95759342|NCT01775189|191485823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|46.4||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||46.4|37.1|<0.0001
95992060|NCT01989221|191959892|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean nausea and vomiting symptom scores during one week at baseline were compared to mean symptom scores during the second week of Sancuso treatment.|||||<0.01
95992061|NCT01808612|191959955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 522 participants were to be enrolled. Randomization was to be 2:1:3 (20 mg fluoxetine:40 mg fluoxetine:placebo). Assuming 5% of participants would have missing post-baseline data, the study had 85% power to detect an effect size of 0.33 (20 mg fluoxetine compared to placebo on HAMD21 total score) based on simulations with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||2.00|-0.55|0.264
95992062|NCT03072160|191959977|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||CD4|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.926
95992063|NCT03072160|191959977|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||CD8|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.445
95992064|NCT03072160|191959977|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Tregs|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.210
95759343|NCT01775189|191485824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.6||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||17.1|-4.0|0.2176
95759344|NCT01775189|191485824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-44.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-44.1|-65.1|<0.0001
95759345|NCT01775189|191485824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|15.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||15.5|-5.6|0.3502
95759346|NCT01775189|191485824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||8.9|-12.1|0.7624
95759347|NCT01775189|191485824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|70.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||70.1|49.0|<0.0001
95759348|NCT01775189|191485824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|71.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||71.7|50.6|<0.0001
95800462|NCT04349644|191573168|OTHER|A series of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to test the between-group differences on each dependent variable at the immediate posttest (Week 11) and at the follow-up (Week 21) periods separately using the pretest values as a covariate.||||||0.454|||||||ANCOVA|Follow-up ANCOVA controlling for pretest for Anxiety problems.||||||0.454
95800463|NCT00447278|191573209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|-2.25||P-value for Change from Baseline at 6 Months. P-value is not adjusted and the threshold is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure analysis with terms for corresponding baseline T-score, treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.25|-6.47|<0.001
95759349|NCT01775189|191485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.3||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||35.3|13.8|<0.0001
95759350|NCT01775189|191485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-50.9|-72.6|<0.0001
95759351|NCT01775189|191485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|29.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||29.1|7.4|0.0012
95759352|NCT01775189|191485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|4.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||4.5|-17.2|0.2507
95759353|NCT01775189|191485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|79.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.2|90.7||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||90.7|69.2|<0.0001
95992065|NCT03072160|191959977|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Natural Killer (NK) cells|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||A change is defined as being statistically significant (p\>0.05).|||0.780
95992066|NCT01046695|191959985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the TENS Unit during the first and second 24 hours.||||.005
95992067|NCT01046695|191959985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Decrease in OME use in the Control Arm during the first and second 24 hours.||||.11
95992068|NCT01046695|191959986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
95992069|NCT04426695|191959988|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.02||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.51|0.0663
95992070|NCT04426695|191959988|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.0204||95.0|-0.57|0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.0204
95992071|NCT04426695|191959988|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.05||P-value for change from baseline on log scale for each treatment group was based on the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.|ANCOVA|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||-0.05|-0.51|0.0172
95992072|NCT04426695|191959989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0431
95992073|NCT04426695|191959989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7975||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7975
95759354|NCT01775189|191485825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|97.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||97.1|75.4|<0.0001
95992074|NCT04426695|191959989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2048||||||P-value was derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.2048
95992075|NCT04426695|191959990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
95992076|NCT04426695|191959990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2415||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2415
95992077|NCT04426695|191959990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0195
95992078|NCT04426695|191959991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0085
95992079|NCT04426695|191959991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9902||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9902
95992080|NCT04426695|191959991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1486||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.1486
95992081|NCT04426695|191959992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
95992082|NCT04426695|191959992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2210
95992083|NCT04426695|191959992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0249
95992084|NCT04426695|191959993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
95992085|NCT04426695|191959993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0714||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0714
95992086|NCT04426695|191959993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0061
95759355|NCT01775189|191485826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|43.1||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||43.1|10.6|0.0015
95759356|NCT01775189|191485826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.7|-93.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||-93.0|-125.7|<0.0001
95947399|NCT02609048|191867155|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-16.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-4.71||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline HDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in HDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-4.71|-28.30|0.0076
95759357|NCT01775189|191485826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.4||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|37.8||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||37.8|5.1|0.0109
95759358|NCT01775189|191485826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.4||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|10.9||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||10.9|-21.8|0.5117
95759359|NCT01775189|191485826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|130.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.5|147.0||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||147.0|114.5|<0.0001
95759360|NCT01775189|191485826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|136.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|119.8|152.5||P-value was adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-effect model with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participants nested within the sequence as a random effect.||152.5|119.8|<0.0001
95947400|NCT02609048|191867156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-14.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.981||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-2.66||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-27.05|0.0186
95947401|NCT02609048|191867156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-10.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|1.06||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-21.17|0.0745
95947402|NCT02609048|191867156|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.0||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline LDL-C assessment as covariate,and percent change from baseline in LDL-C as response variable.|ANCOVA|||||7.00|-16.60|0.4131
95947403|NCT02609048|191867157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
95947404|NCT02609048|191867157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4667||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4667
95947405|NCT02609048|191867158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
95947406|NCT02609048|191867158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0537||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0537
95947407|NCT02609048|191867158|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95759361|NCT00118534|191485915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||The target sample size (n=1400)was designed to have 90% power to detect the difference between 6% and 11% prolonged abstinence rates in SCC and IC, respectively, using a 2-sided .05 level Chi-square test. Final enrollment was 943. The recruitment period was not extended because the achieved sample size provided 78% power to detect the hypothesized prolonged abstinence rates, and the study continued to the end of planned follow-up.||3.59|1.22|0.007
95759362|NCT00118534|191485916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|1.58|<0.001
95947408|NCT02609048|191867159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
95759363|NCT02922738|191485967|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.70|0.54
95947409|NCT02609048|191867159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0198
95947410|NCT02609048|191867159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5165||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5165
95947411|NCT02609048|191867160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0101
95947412|NCT02609048|191867160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Fisher's exact test between each Seladelpar level compared with placebo was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0055
95947413|NCT02609048|191867160|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Fisher's exact test between Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg was used to obtain the p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95947414|NCT02609048|191867162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.8|0.5379
95947415|NCT02609048|191867162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-3.3|0.8949
95947416|NCT02609048|191867162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor, baseline score as covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-4.9|0.4431
95947417|NCT02609048|191867163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|13.2||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||13.2|-28.0|0.4674
95947418|NCT02609048|191867163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.99||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|9.4||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||9.4|-27.4|0.3236
95759364|NCT02922738|191485968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95759365|NCT00724048|191485973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.13|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.13|-2.47|0.078
95759366|NCT00724048|191485973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.16||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 45 mg BID (90 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||0.16|-2.53|0.084
95759367|NCT00724048|191485973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.32||Hypothesis testing was completed only if ACR16 22.5 mg BID (45 mg) vs. placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included a term for treatment, as well as covariates for baseline mMS, and age at entry to the study.||1.32|-1.35|0.982
95759368|NCT01943994|191486035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|23.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.26|1.99|0.003
95759369|NCT02288182|191486070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test comparing the group means was planned and performed (successfully). However, due to some outliers, the central tendencies have been reported as medians (instead of arithmetic means). Therefore an additional non-parameteric test (Mann-Whitney U-test) was performed.||||0.001
95759370|NCT01197755|191486080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.28|0.05|0.004
95759371|NCT01197755|191486080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.07||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders at Week 24 with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|-0.03|0.168
95759372|NCT01197755|191486081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.16|<0.001
95759373|NCT01197755|191486082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.02|0.014
95759374|NCT01197755|191486082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.02|0.180
95759375|NCT01197755|191486083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.19|0.06|<0.001
95759376|NCT01197755|191486083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.04|-0.04|0.891
95947419|NCT02609048|191867163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|21.9||Difference between means,p-value, and CIs are estimated by comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model. Treatment group as factor, baseline score as a covariate, and change from baseline score as the response variable.|ANCOVA|||||21.9|-18.7|0.8723
95947420|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||6.0|0.8|0.0115
95800464|NCT00447278|191573209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-2.63||P-value for Change from Baseline: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-2.63|-6.56|<0.001
95800465|NCT00447278|191573210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.13||P-value for Change from Baseline: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.13|-5.08|0.002
95992087|NCT04426695|191959994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
95759377|NCT01197755|191486084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|||||0.01||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.010
95759378|NCT01197755|191486084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. ACRn was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||0.019
95759379|NCT01197755|191486085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.91|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||13.91|1.21|0.023
95759380|NCT01197755|191486085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.23||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.23|0.65|0.197
95759381|NCT01197755|191486086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.92|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||10.92|1.54|0.005
95759382|NCT01197755|191486086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.3||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||12.30|1.79|0.002
95759383|NCT01197755|191486087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|5.76||Nominal p value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||5.76|1.86|<0.001
95759384|NCT01197755|191486087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.31||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity testing procedure.|Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data||3.31|1.07|0.028
95992088|NCT04426695|191959994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3544||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3544
95800466|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-1.15||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.15|-4.92|0.002
95800467|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.2||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.20|-4.01|0.031
95800468|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.77||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.77|-1.68|0.629
95859351|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 96||||0.785
95947421|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.0||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.0|-0.5|0.1256
95947422|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Cognitive Domain Score||4.2|-0.9|0.1842
95759385|NCT01197755|191486088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.45|1.33|0.004
95759386|NCT01197755|191486088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.79||Nominal p-value presented for Group B comparison. Formal statistical testing could not be carried out due to the predefined multiplicity procedure (primary variable comparison of Group B versus Group C was non-significant).|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals are calculated using logistic regression with treatment and pooled country as factors|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.79|0.82|0.186
95759387|NCT01197755|191486089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.729
95759388|NCT01197755|191486089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Nominal p-value only. This was not included in the pre-defined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|ANCOVA|This was performed on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as covariate.||||||0.019
95759389|NCT01197755|191486090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.6||||0.009||95.0|0.65|4.56|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||4.56|0.65|0.009
95759390|NCT01197755|191486090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.44|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.44|-0.39|0.118
95759391|NCT01197755|191486091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.67||||0.487||95.0|-1.23|2.58|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.58|-1.23|0.487
95759392|NCT01197755|191486091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.62||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.51|||ANCOVA|Improvement from baseline, including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.51|-1.26|0.516
95759393|NCT00371397|191486167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||hsCRP dichotomized as undetectable/detectable. Logistic regression w/generalized estimating equations(GEE)s to determine odds ratio. Assessed hsCRP at baseline at each of the three visits; 43% of the values (n = 65) were below the assay's detectable lower bound of .3 mg/dL, and thus hsCRP was dichotomized as undetectable/detectable.||||.009
95859352|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 144||||0.932
95947423|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||7.2|0.1|0.0420
95947424|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||3.9|-2.4|0.6384
95947425|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.5||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Social Domain Score||6.5|-0.6|0.1035
95947426|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.6967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.4|-1.6|0.6967
95759394|NCT03753763|191486182|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||6.5|-6.3|0.9697
95759395|NCT03753763|191486183|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.5||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in anterior and lateral displacement from baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate||4.1|-3.1|0.7751
95759396|NCT03753763|191486184|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.2||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.7|-3.3|0.9076
95800469|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.38||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.38|-3.30|0.421
95759397|NCT03753763|191486185|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-1.1||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in UMSARS Part II.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.6|-4.8|0.5386
95800470|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|1.34||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.34|-3.44|0.388
95800471|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.29||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.09||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.09|-4.66|0.059
95800472|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.04||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.04|-6.09|0.006
95800473|NCT00447278|191573211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.91||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-0.33||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.33|-5.49|0.027
95800474|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.073||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.131||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.131|0.014|0.015
95800475|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.143||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.027|0.004
95759398|NCT03753763|191486186|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change in from baseline in MSA-QoL scale.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||18.6|-6.5|0.3364
95800476|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.094||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.192||P-value for Home Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.192|-0.005|0.063
95800477|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.075||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.172||P-value for Home Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.172|-0.022|0.131
95859353|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 168||||0.545
95947427|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||2.2|-1.3|0.6164
95859354|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 192||||0.580
95759399|NCT03753763|191486187|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA included change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||1.5|-1.1|0.7574
95800478|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.124||P-value for Daily Living Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.124|-0.020|0.156
95800479|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.143||P-value for Daily Living Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.143|0.001|0.046
95800480|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.084||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.084|-0.003|0.068
95800481|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.073||P-value for Risk Taking Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.073|-0.016|0.212
95800482|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.121||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.208||P-value for School Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.208|0.034|0.006
95800483|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236||P-value for School Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.236|0.064|<0.001
95859355|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 216||||0.462
95947428|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Function Domain Score||1.9|-2.0|0.9548
95759400|NCT03753763|191486188|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the change from baseline in UDRS.||The model included treatment, week of visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.0|-2.5|0.6393
95759401|NCT01104779|191486189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-2.4|-11.3|0.0029
95759402|NCT01104779|191486189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-5.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-5.3|-14.5|<0.0001
95759403|NCT01104779|191486190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 3-6 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0115
95759404|NCT01104779|191486190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Cariprazine 6-9 mg/day vs Placebo|||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
95759405|NCT03982199|191486199|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|80.0||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|52.2|92.9|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 1||92.9|52.2|0.00004
95759406|NCT03982199|191486199|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|75.0||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|50.1|88.5|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 2||88.5|50.1|0.00001
95759407|NCT03982199|191486199|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|69.8||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|94.211|43.7|84.7|||Poisson regression|||Case Definition 3||84.7|43.7|0.00004
95759408|NCT01565850|191486216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 150 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 2:1 ratio to 2 groups, would achieve 56% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 0.88 for both arms, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and the significance level of the test at a one-sided 0.025 level were assumed.|Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|18.1||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 24; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.||18.1|-11.4|0.64
95759409|NCT01565850|191486217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the D/C/F/TAF group is at least 12% worse than the DRV+COBI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the D/C/F/TAF group is less than 12% worse than that in the DRV+COBI +FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|-6.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||The p-value for the superiority test comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and race strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA and race stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|||7.4|-19.9|0.35
95759410|NCT01565850|191486218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21||The p-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.14|0.67
95759411|NCT01565850|191486219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-0.11|0.50
95759412|NCT01565850|191486220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|45.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|101.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||101|-10|0.11
95759413|NCT01565850|191486221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|18.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|72.0||The p-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with baseline HIV-1 RNA level (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and race (Black or non-Black) as fixed effects in the model.|ANOVA|||||72|-35|0.50
95759414|NCT04324073|191486245|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|12.2||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credibility interval here|||12.2|-11.7|
95759415|NCT04324073|191486246|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.74||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|HR adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||1.74|0.69|
95800484|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.125||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.24||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.240|0.009|0.034
95859356|NCT02304367|191676135|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||GEE model|Generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes time as the categorical variable and adjusted for Baseline measurement.||Week 240||||0.260
95759416|NCT04324073|191486247|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|8.7||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis|Adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence Interval is %Credible Interval here. Results are presented as the proportion not improved, so that an effective treatment would be associated with a decrease in proportion.|||8.7|-22.5|
95800485|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.119||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.233||P-value for Self-Concept Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.233|0.005|0.040
95800486|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.085||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.166||p-value for Social Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.166|0.003|0.042
95759417|NCT04324073|191486248|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior Hazard Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.07||Posterior probability|Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.07|0.55|
95759418|NCT04324073|191486249|SUPERIORITY|Day 14|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex||||2.03|0.23|
95759419|NCT04324073|191486249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.59|0.27|
95759420|NCT04324073|191486249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.31|
95759421|NCT04324073|191486249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||Day 14||2.25|0.40|
95759422|NCT04324073|191486249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Day 28||1.96|0.40|
95759423|NCT04324073|191486249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Day 90||1.58|0.35|
95759424|NCT04324073|191486250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.34|0.53|
95947429|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.9|-2.4|0.8286
95947430|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.8||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||7.8|0.6|0.0226
95947431|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||1.4|-6.6|0.1861
95947432|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Fatigue Domain Score||5.7|-2.4|0.4159
95947433|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||2.6|-1.3|0.4848
95947434|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Itch Domain Score||1.3|-3.1|0.4048
95947435|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.7|0.6|0.0141
95947436|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing each Seladelpar level with placebo using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||4.2|0.5|0.0138
95947437|NCT02609048|191867164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3||Difference between means,p-value,and CIs are estimated comparing Seladelpar 200 mg versus 50 mg using ANCOVA model.Treatment group as factor,baseline PBC 40 QoL domain score as covariate, change from baseline in domain score as response variable.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms Domain Score||2.3|-1.8|0.7911
95947438|NCT03769090|191867192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.879|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDA MDI treatment.||0.879|0.611|<0.001
95759425|NCT04324073|191486250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.08|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 7||2.08|0.49|
95759426|NCT04324073|191486250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||1.47|0.42|
95759427|NCT04324073|191486250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 4||2.02|0.38|
95759428|NCT04324073|191486250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.4|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and centre.|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 14||2.40|0.47|
95759429|NCT04324073|191486250|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.57|||Proportionnal odds model|Bayesian analysis. Adjusted for age and sex|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|Day 90||2.57|0.50|
95759430|NCT04324073|191486251|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||||adjusted on age and centre||||3.9|-6.1|
95759431|NCT04324073|191486252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.57|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.57|0.72|
95759432|NCT04324073|191486252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.25|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||2.25|0.74|
95759433|NCT04324073|191486252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.44|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||2.44|0.59|
95759434|NCT04324073|191486252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.55|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.55|0.74|
95759435|NCT04324073|191486253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||1.75|0.81|
95759436|NCT04324073|191486253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||1.67|0.80|
95759437|NCT04324073|191486253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.66|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 28||2.66|0.55|
95759438|NCT04324073|191486253|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.37|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted on age and centre||Day 90||2.37|0.71|
95759439|NCT04324073|191486254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||Day 28||1.44|0.42|
95759440|NCT04324073|191486254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.47|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted for age and centre||Day 90||1.47|0.49|
95759441|NCT03610516|191486276|OTHER|A repeated measures mixed model was fitted with factors for treatment group (CFZ533 or placebo) and visit.|Ratio of geometric means CFZ533/placebo|0.579||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.256||one-sided p-value|Repeated measures Mixed Model|||||1.256|0.267|0.0788
95759442|NCT00213135|191486287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.35|<0.001
95759443|NCT00213135|191486287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||Wald Chi-square test|||||0.54|0.34|<0.001
95759444|NCT00618332|191486291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
95759445|NCT00618332|191486292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.775
95947439|NCT03769090|191867192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||H0 = Null hypothesis. Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favours BDI MDI treatment.||0.992|0.702|0.041
95759446|NCT00618332|191486293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
95759447|NCT00618332|191486294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.117
95759448|NCT00618332|191486295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
95759449|NCT00618332|191486296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795
95759450|NCT00618332|191486297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.638||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
95759451|NCT00618332|191486298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
95759452|NCT00618332|191486299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968
95759453|NCT00826007|191486318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||.18|.09|<0.001
95759454|NCT03452137|191486374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, human papillomavirus (HPV) status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.26|0.70|0.6804
95800487|NCT00447278|191573212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.134||P-value for Social Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.134|-0.038|0.271
95759455|NCT03452137|191486375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.36|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.36|0.68|0.8371
95759456|NCT03452137|191486376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Log Rank||HR was estimated by Cox regression|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were response to definitive local therapy, HPV status and type of definitive local therapy as per interactive voice or web-based response system (IxRS).||1.32|0.73|0.9115
95759457|NCT03452137|191486377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.67||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|8.11|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||8.11|-9.45|0.8816
95759458|NCT03452137|191486377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.46||||0.9234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|9.78|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||9.78|-8.86|0.9234
95759459|NCT03452137|191486377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.19||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|10.88|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||10.88|-8.49|0.8090
95759460|NCT03452137|191486377|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.01||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|10.19|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||10.19|-10.17|0.9985
95759461|NCT03452137|191486378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.17||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|13.79|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||13.79|-3.44|0.2393
95759462|NCT03452137|191486378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.61||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|12.9|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||12.90|-5.69|0.4472
95759463|NCT03452137|191486378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|3.14||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|12.77|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||12.77|-6.49|0.5222
95759464|NCT03452137|191486378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.31||||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|11.26|||Z test|||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 4 years||11.26|-8.64|0.7967
95759465|NCT03452137|191486379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.77||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|10.49|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 2 years||10.49|-4.95|0.4819
95759466|NCT03452137|191486379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.25||||0.7783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|7.47|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||7.47|-9.97|0.7783
95759467|NCT03452137|191486379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-1.07||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|14.42|||Z test|||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||14.42|-16.56|0.8924
95759468|NCT02856802|191486389|NON_INFERIORITY|Assumption that 15% of placebo and 42% of DFN 02 10 mg (treated) subjects would be pain-free at 2 hours. A sample size of 50 subjects in each DB1 dosing arm provided 86% power to detect this assumed difference between placebo and DFN-02 10 mg at a 5% (2-sided) level of significance.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the statistical analysis system (SAS)® software package (version 9.3).||6.83|1.05|0.044
95759469|NCT02856802|191486390|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority conducted as specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||||||0.007||||||The corresponding p-values from Fisher's exact test were computed for the comparison between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95759470|NCT02856802|191486391|NON_INFERIORITY|No assumptions made.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Statistical testing and confidence intervals (CIs) were 2 sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with the SAS® software package (version 9.3).||3.30|0.52|0.642
95759471|NCT02126826|191486393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6193|0.9537|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9537|0.6193|
95759472|NCT02126826|191486393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8378|1.1964|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.1964|0.8378|
95759473|NCT02126826|191486395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7654|1.1367|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1367|0.7654|
95759474|NCT02126826|191486395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0834|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8655|1.3013|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3013|0.8655|
95759475|NCT02126826|191486397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.7832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6235|0.9428|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||0.9428|0.6235|
95759476|NCT02126826|191486397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8593|1.2137|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.2137|0.8593|
95759477|NCT02126826|191486399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7744|1.1122|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 300mg||1.1122|0.7744|
95759478|NCT02126826|191486399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8583|1.3037|||ANCOVA|||Investigation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 200mg||1.3037|0.8583|
95759479|NCT02152605|191486400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-6.28|<0.001
95759480|NCT02152605|191486401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.172|0.071|<0.001
95947440|NCT03769090|191867193|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.93|0.62|0.008
95759481|NCT02152605|191486402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95759482|NCT02657928|191486407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5004
95759483|NCT02657928|191486408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9127
95759484|NCT01988129|191486414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'sick' days||||0.66
95759485|NCT01988129|191486414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for 'disability/injury' days||||0.033
95759486|NCT01988129|191486414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with nested random effects for possible station-level and station-pairing correlation (3-level hierarchical linear model)||Mixed model analysis was conducted for 'disability/injury' days||||0.003
95759487|NCT01988129|191486415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95759488|NCT01988129|191486416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided||The Odds Ratio analyses compared the odds of reporting at least one injury during the study between those who did (n=560) and did not (n=629) attend the education sessions, regardless of station assignment (intervention or control).|||0.98|0.60|0.31
95759489|NCT01988129|191486417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Of the 100 participants who completed both the pre- and post-study survey (see Patient Flow), only 62 completed answered the question about sleep duration at both time points||||0.22
95759490|NCT01988129|191486418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.65
95759491|NCT01988129|191486419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.71
95759492|NCT01988129|191486421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screened|41.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of any sleep disorders; there is no comparison group||||
95759493|NCT01988129|191486421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of obstructive sleep apnea only; there is no comparison group||||
95759494|NCT01988129|191486421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of insomnia; there is no comparison group||||
95759495|NCT01988129|191486421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of restless legs syndrome only; there is no comparison group||||
95759496|NCT01988129|191486421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of firefighters screene|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This analysis describes the prevalence of the risk of shiftwork disorder only; there is no comparison group||||
95759497|NCT01988129|191486422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.31
95759498|NCT01988129|191486423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||Sleeping while stopped in traffic||||0.16
95759499|NCT01988129|191486424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.46
95759500|NCT03092219|191486426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|For this outcome measure, missing data were imputed using a LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) method.||||||0.0001
95759501|NCT00580788|191486463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTHrP 2 and PTHrP 5 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
95759502|NCT00580788|191486463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p value corresponds to a decrease by Day 8 compared to baseline in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
95759503|NCT00580788|191486465|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to all Arms/Groups at all time points compared to baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.61
95759504|NCT00580788|191486466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Value The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
95759505|NCT00580788|191486467|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.0001
95759506|NCT00580788|191486468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time from baseline for all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
95759507|NCT00580788|191486469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
95759508|NCT00580788|191486469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
95759509|NCT00580788|191486470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
95759510|NCT00580788|191486470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
95759511|NCT00580788|191486471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
95759512|NCT00580788|191486471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.01
95764229|NCT03135015|191498544|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.8||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0455
95947441|NCT03769090|191867193|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Negative binomial model|||Estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, age group, region, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. The logarithm of the time at risk is included as an offset variable. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||0.98|0.66|0.028
95947442|NCT03769090|191867194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.002
95947443|NCT03769090|191867194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||P-values are calculated via a Wilcoxon rank sum test. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||||0.06
95947444|NCT03769090|191867195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.467|1.016|0.033
95947445|NCT03769090|191867195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline ACQ-5 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.353|0.946|0.175
95947446|NCT03769090|191867196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.475|1.022|0.028
95759513|NCT00580788|191486472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value correspond to the decrease compared to baseline over time in the PTHrP 4 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||0.001
95947447|NCT03769090|191867196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with baseline AQLQ-12 as a continuous covariate and age group, region and number of severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to randomization as categorical covariates. A sequential testing strategy is used for secondary endpoints. A null hypothesis can only be rejected if all preceding null hypotheses are also rejected.||1.335|0.925|0.26
95992089|NCT04426695|191959994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212||||||P-value was derived CMH test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< = 5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value was based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To control alpha at a strict 0.05 level, this endpoint was tested hierarchically, with the virologic endpoint tested first. All hierarchical testing was done using the combined dose group.||||0.0212
95759514|NCT00580788|191486472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p=value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
95759515|NCT00580788|191486473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<0.05
95759516|NCT00580788|191486474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase comapred to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTHrP 4 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
95759517|NCT01403051|191486492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||2-sided test with type I error rate of 5%, not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test for differences between the two treatment groups, stratified by the screening 25-OH vitamin (\<=20 vs. \>20 ng/mL)||The study was sized to have 80% power to detect a 2 % difference in BMD of the hip from baseline to week 48.||||0.001
95759518|NCT01701011|191486520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the primary outcome, anxiety. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
95759519|NCT01701011|191486520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the difference in psychological well-being between three groups with a power of 95%,a ¼ 0.05 and a medium effect size ( f ¼ 0.25), a total of 297 participants were required (99 patients per group). Taking into account a 20% attrition rate, at least 124 women had to be recruited in each group.||||<0.05
95800488|NCT00447278|191573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.307||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|4.44||P-value for Total Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.440|0.173|0.034
95800489|NCT00447278|191573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.072||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|5.202||P-value for Total Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||5.202|0.942|0.005
95947448|NCT02786966|191867199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and sex||||0.6|0.2|0.0007
95947449|NCT02786966|191867200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and sex.|0.80|0.47|0.0007
95947450|NCT02786966|191867201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age and sex||||0.91|0.52|0.0093
95759520|NCT01701011|191486521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used to perform the statistical analysis. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to examine the differences between the three groups over time for the secondary outcome, depression. All models were estimated by the method of restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and the Compound Symmetry covariance structure was chosen for the repeated measures. The analysiswas performed according to the intention to treat.||||<0.05
95759521|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.52|||Bayesian|||||-0.52|-1.05|0.459
95759522|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.54|||Bayesian|||||-0.54|-1.07|0.511
95759523|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.89|||Bayesian|||||-0.89|-1.41|0.988
95759524|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.78|||Bayesian|||||-0.78|-1.30|0.934
95759525|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.61|||Bayesian|||||0.61|0.08|0.373
95759526|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.59|||Bayesian|||||0.59|0.07|0.433
95759527|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.24|||Bayesian|||||0.24|-0.28|0.978
95759528|NCT02119819|191486591|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.35|||Bayesian|||||0.35|-0.17|0.904
95759529|NCT01386983|191486607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.406||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|8.941|||Regression, Cox|||||8.941|1.297|0.0128
95759530|NCT01386983|191486608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Generalized linear model|Gamma distribution with log-link function was used.||||||0.0002
95759531|NCT03257865|191486658|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.62|||=|0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.32|||mixed-effect model repeated measure||"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||0.32|-3.56|=0.1011
95759532|NCT00811928|191486660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in incidence defined as (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100% (posaconazole minus fluconazole) had to be \< 4 in order to be considered non-inferior. IFI occurred: proven+probable|Difference for the incidence|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|0.25|||||Posaconazole minus fluconazole|||0.25|-12.21|
95759533|NCT00811928|191486661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.7|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||9.7|1.4|
95759534|NCT00811928|191486661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.3|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||21.3|8.0|
95759535|NCT00811928|191486664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|31.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|40.9|||||IFI Incidence for the Posaconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%.|||40.9|23.3|
95759536|NCT00811928|191486664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|41.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|51.4|||||IFI Incidence for the Fluconazole group = (# of participants affected with proven or probable IFI/ # of participants in the FAS population at risk)\*100%|||51.4|32.8|
95759537|NCT00811928|191486665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.3|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||7.3|0.5|
95759538|NCT00811928|191486665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.9|||||All-Cause Mortality Rate is the percentage of participants with mortality from any cause.|||11.9|2.4|
95759539|NCT04411914|191486676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0009
95759540|NCT04411914|191486677|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|"Spearman Correlation Coefficient, N=9 Prob \> \|r\| under H0: Rho=0"||||||0.0053
95759541|NCT02639052|191486702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Baseline assessment of itch VAS after itch induction but prior to Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.9704
95759542|NCT02639052|191486703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 week (Visit 2) was the first assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
95759543|NCT02639052|191486704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant difference in mean itch VAS between the two treatments (Botox mean=2.45 versus saline mean=3.20, p\<0.0001). Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||1 month (Visit 3) was the second assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||<0.0001
95759544|NCT02639052|191486705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05. P-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare treatment (Botox vs saline), time, and interaction effect between treatment \& time||3 months (Visit 4) was the third assessment of itch VAS after itch induction after Botox or saline application. Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and time, and interaction effect between treatment and time.||||0.0004
95800490|NCT00447278|191573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.721||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.899||P-value for Inattention Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.899|0.544|0.004
95800491|NCT00447278|191573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.269|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.453||P-value for Inattention Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.453|1.086|<0.001
95800492|NCT00447278|191573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.676||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.676|-0.515|0.298
95800493|NCT00447278|191573213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.865||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|1.956||P-value for Hyperactivity Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.956|-0.225|0.119
95800494|NCT00447278|191573214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.104||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.329||P-value for Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.329|-0.122|0.366
95800495|NCT00447278|191573214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.169||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.407||P-value for Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.407|-0.070|0.165
95800496|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.04||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.04|-4.74|0.054
95800497|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.26||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-1.26|-6.16|0.003
95800498|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.14||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.14|-3.33|0.033
95800499|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.88||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.88|-4.12|0.003
95800500|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.50|-1.50|0.623
95800501|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.29||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.29|-1.96|0.880
95992090|NCT04426695|191960000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0575||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0575
95992091|NCT04426695|191960000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3133||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3133
95800502|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.5||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.50|-3.31|0.149
95800503|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.98||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-4.58|0.003
95800504|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.52||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.52|-4.71|0.015
95859357|NCT01056016|191676138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.4|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage of patients with whom pediatrician in each group utilized each practice behavior at baseline and 6-months was computed. The reported statistical analysis did not account potential clustering due to the small number of practices in this study.||||=.003
95992092|NCT04426695|191960000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0849
95992093|NCT04426695|191960001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2167||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2167
95800505|NCT00447278|191573215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.98||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.98|-5.26|0.004
95800506|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.39||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.6||P-value for Achievement Change at 4 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||6.60|-1.83|0.263
95800507|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.36||P-value for Achievement Change at 6 Month LOCF. Achievement was derived from the academic achievement subdomain only.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||4.36|-3.60|0.848
95800508|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.64||P-value for Statisfaction Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.64|-3.01|0.895
95800509|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|-0.19||P-value for Satisfaction Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||-0.19|-6.22|0.038
95800510|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.98||P-value for Comfort Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||2.98|-3.59|0.854
95800511|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.92||P-value for Comfort Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.92|-5.45|0.161
95947451|NCT01277302|191867226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated interaction effect|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.5091||||||This is the p-value of the treatment by time interaction in the longitudinal model. Analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons as there was only 1 comparison. p \< 0.05 (2-sided) was required for significance.|Longitudinal mixed model|The analysis was stratified by disease (BRVO or CRVO), randomization month, and randomization BCVA score category (≤35, \>35 to ≤50, or \>50 letters).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the trend of change from Baseline in the visual acuity scores from Month 7 to Month 15 between the 2 treatment groups as assessed by the interaction term of treatment by time in a longitudinal model.||||0.5091
95947452|NCT03926026|191867341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.5|0.0471
95947453|NCT02660086|191867356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.6|0.70
95947454|NCT02660086|191867357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-0.3|0.20
95947455|NCT02660086|191867358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 12 months||0.9|-3.6|0.24
95947456|NCT02660086|191867358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in systolic BP at 24 months||3.7|-0.7|0.19
95759545|NCT02639052|191486706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1306||||||Statistical significance defined a priori as p\<0.05.|ANOVA with Repeated Measures|||Analyzed using ANOVA with repeated measures to compare main effects of treatment (Botox vs saline) and visit, and interaction effect between treatment and visit.||||0.1306
95759546|NCT00838435|191486719|OTHER|Coefficient estimates from a random coefficient model and associated p-values.|Slope|-0.5768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6004|0.4468|||||The slope shown above is based on a 2-year window.|A random coefficient model was used to calculate the slope (per year) of FSIQ over the entire study period. Factors in the model included visit and testing sequence, with change in FSIQ score as the dependent variable. Random terms include both intercept and visit. The treatment was considered successful if the lower 95% confidence limit of the mean change excluded a decline of greater than 5 points over a 2-year window.||0.4468|-1.6004|
95759547|NCT02348723|191486732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD) %|-5.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||The risk difference between dabigatran etexilate vs. warfarin, its 2-sided 95% CI, and corresponding p-value are presented.||-2.2|-8.4|0.0009
95759548|NCT00789737|191486736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||least squares mean; 80% power to detect a 0.3% change||||0.0369
95759549|NCT00789737|191486737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0373
95800512|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.58||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||1.58|-2.98|0.540
95800513|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.98||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.44||P-value for Risk Avoidance Change: 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.44|-4.40|0.106
95947457|NCT02660086|191867358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 12 months||0.1|-3.2|0.07
95759550|NCT00789737|191486742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.00001
95947458|NCT02660086|191867358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in diastolic BP at 24 months||1.6|-1.5|0.94
95947459|NCT02660086|191867359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 12 months||2.9|-5.6|0.54
95947460|NCT02660086|191867359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total cholesterol at 24 months||6.7|-3.5|0.53
95947461|NCT02660086|191867360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 12 months||2.4|-4.8|0.51
95947462|NCT02660086|191867360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL at 24 months||5.7|-3.4|0.60
95759551|NCT00678886|191486749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||Mixed meal-stimulated C-peptide AUC, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.08|-0.06|0.813
95759552|NCT00678886|191486750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||1.70|0.47|0.737
95759553|NCT00678886|191486750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.39|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||1.39|0.42|0.737
95759554|NCT00678886|191486750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||Hochberg adjusted|||Percentage of responders, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||1.46|0.45|0.481
95759555|NCT00678886|191486751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.01|-0.07|0.281
95800514|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.08||P-value for Resilience Change at 4 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||3.08|-2.49|0.833
95800515|NCT00447278|191573216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.54||P-value for Resilience Change at 6 Month LOCF.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine minus OEST.|||0.54|-5.21|0.110
95947463|NCT02660086|191867361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 12 months||5.1|-10.8|0.48
95947464|NCT02660086|191867361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in triglycerides at 24 months||11.5|-3.4|0.29
95947465|NCT02660086|191867362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 12 months||1.5|-1.9|0.80
95947466|NCT02660086|191867362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL at 24 months||1.3|-1.9|0.72
95759556|NCT00678886|191486751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.05|-0.05|0.969
95759557|NCT00678886|191486751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||Mean insulin use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.02|-0.08|0.272
95759558|NCT00678886|191486752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||0.52|-0.16|0.289
95800516|NCT00315822|191573218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.52|0.80
95947467|NCT02660086|191867363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 12 months||0.1|-0.1|0.62
95947468|NCT02660086|191867363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in hemoglobin A1C at 24 months||0.1|0.0|0.40
95947469|NCT02660086|191867364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||9.3|5.4|<0.001
95947470|NCT02660086|191867364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in green-labeled purhases during 12 month follow-up (months 13-24) compared to 12 month baseline||6.8|2.9|<0.001
95947471|NCT02660086|191867365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.7|-5.0|<0.001
95947472|NCT02660086|191867365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in red labeled purchases during 12-month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||-2.0|-4.3|<0.001
95759559|NCT00678886|191486752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||0.49|-0.15|0.538
95759560|NCT00678886|191486752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures models was adjusted for age, continent, and baseline parameter value.||HbA1c levels, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||0.36|-0.19|0.538
95759561|NCT00678886|191486761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.11|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Week 12||3.11|-0.88|0.540
95759562|NCT00678886|191486761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.56|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||3.56|-1.89|0.546
95759563|NCT00678886|191486761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.42|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|||ADRR, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||3.42|-1.56|0.462
95759564|NCT00678886|191486762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.957
95947473|NCT02660086|191867366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in healthy purchasing score during 12 month intervention (months 1-12) compared to baseline 12 months||7.0|4.2|<0.001
95947474|NCT02660086|191867366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Healthy Purchasing Score during 12 month follow up (months 13-24) compared to baseline 12 months||5.3|2.6|<0.001
95947475|NCT02660086|191867367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||||||Change in HEI scores at 12 months.||4.1|-0.6|
95947476|NCT02660086|191867367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Change in HEI scores at 24 months||3.8|-0.7|
95947477|NCT01653509|191867368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-911.48||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2712.65|889.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||889.69|-2712.65|0.3061
95759565|NCT00678886|191486762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.957
95759566|NCT00678886|191486763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 6||||0.653
95759567|NCT00678886|191486763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||Hochberg-adjusted|||Composite Rank Summary for C-Peptide AUC, HbA1c and Exogenous Insulin Use, Placebo Vs Otelixizumab at Month 12||||0.653
95759568|NCT04693416|191486785|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.252
95759569|NCT04693416|191486786|OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.546
95759570|NCT04693416|191486787|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.005
95759571|NCT04693416|191486788|OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.188
95759572|NCT04693416|191486789|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post score within arm||||0.049
95759573|NCT04693416|191486790|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post scores within arm||||0.036
95759574|NCT01372774|191486802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.35|<0.0001
95800517|NCT01692756|191573226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
95800518|NCT01692756|191573227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
95800519|NCT01692756|191573228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
95759575|NCT01372774|191486803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.76|0.70
95759576|NCT01372774|191486804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00068||||||Intracranial Brain Control Rates estimated via 1-Cumulative Incidence Rate from Competing Risk survival analysis of time to the specific recurrence type. Deaths without recurrence are censored at time of death.|Gray's K-sample|||||||0.00068
95759577|NCT01372774|191486806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95759578|NCT03433755|191486812|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.98|-63.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-63.48|-77.98|< 0.0001
95759579|NCT03433755|191486812|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-69.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.51|-62.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-62.97|-76.51|< 0.0001
95759580|NCT03433755|191486813|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.47|-62.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-62.27|-79.47|< 0.0001
95759581|NCT03433755|191486813|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-65.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.97|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-57.66|-73.97|< 0.0001
95759582|NCT03433755|191486814|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-76.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.6|-66.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-66.4|-86.6|< 0.0001
95759583|NCT03433755|191486814|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-77.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.7|-66.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-66.7|-87.7|< 0.0001
95759584|NCT03433755|191486815|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-75.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.1|-64.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-64.7|-87.1|< 0.0001
95759585|NCT03433755|191486815|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-73.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-61.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-61.8|-84.1|< 0.0001
95759586|NCT03433755|191486816|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.04|-54.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-54.37|-68.04|< 0.0001
95759587|NCT03433755|191486816|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-62.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.97|-56.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-56.32|-67.97|< 0.0001
95759588|NCT03433755|191486817|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.25|-53.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-53.65|-69.25|< 0.0001
95759589|NCT03433755|191486817|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-56.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.66|-49.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-49.63|-63.66|< 0.0001
95759590|NCT03433755|191486818|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-56.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.44|-50.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-50.07|-62.44|< 0.0001
95759591|NCT03433755|191486818|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.35|-51.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-51.65|-62.35|< 0.0001
95800520|NCT01692756|191573229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
95800521|NCT01692756|191573230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
95800522|NCT01692756|191573231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.003
95759592|NCT03433755|191486819|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.98|-48.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-48.41|-62.98|< 0.0001
95759593|NCT03433755|191486819|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-51.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|-44.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-44.37|-58.06|< 0.0001
95759594|NCT03433755|191486820|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-42.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.06|-37.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.41|-48.06|< 0.0001
95759595|NCT03433755|191486820|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.02|-39.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-39.58|-49.02|< 0.0001
95759596|NCT03433755|191486821|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-43.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.09|-37.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-37.00|-49.09|< 0.0001
95759597|NCT03433755|191486821|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.98|-34.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-34.87|-45.98|< 0.0001
95759598|NCT03433755|191486822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|92.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||92.8|72.6|< 0.0001
95759599|NCT03433755|191486822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.9|96.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||96.1|76.9|< 0.0001
95800523|NCT01692756|191573232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.007
95947478|NCT01653509|191867368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-150.99||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.97|215.99|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between treatments for MEV.||215.99|-517.97|0.4035
95992094|NCT04426695|191960001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4123
95759600|NCT03433755|191486823|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|90.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||95.6|76.6|< 0.0001
95759601|NCT03433755|191486823|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|85.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|91.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||91.9|68.2|< 0.0001
95759602|NCT03433755|191486824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|87.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|93.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||93.0|73.3|< 0.0001
95759603|NCT03433755|191486824|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|88.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|94.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||94.0|73.5|< 0.0001
95800524|NCT01692756|191573233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.63
95800525|NCT01692756|191573234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95947479|NCT01653509|191867369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.48||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV (Day 1 to day 10).||4.93|0.02|0.0486
95992095|NCT04426695|191960001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2206||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2206
95800526|NCT01692756|191573235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
95800527|NCT01692756|191573236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.02
95800528|NCT01692756|191573237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.20
95800529|NCT01692756|191573238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
95947480|NCT01653509|191867369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||0.82|-0.05|0.0799
95759604|NCT03433755|191486825|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.8|90.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||90.1|67.8|< 0.0001
95759605|NCT03433755|191486825|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|82.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|89.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test adjusted by the stratification factor.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||89.7|64.8|< 0.0001
95759606|NCT03433755|191486826|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-48.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|-39.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-39.11|-57.78|< 0.0001
95759607|NCT03433755|191486826|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|-32.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-32.24|-48.62|< 0.0001
95759608|NCT03433755|191486827|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76|-34.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-34.65|-54.76|< 0.0001
95759609|NCT03433755|191486827|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-26.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-26.59|-49.94|< 0.0001
95759610|NCT03433755|191486828|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.44|-5.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.75|-24.44|0.008
95759611|NCT03433755|191486828|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-11.05|-28.30|< 0.0001
95759612|NCT03433755|191486829|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-5.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-5.69|-29.42|0.008
95764230|NCT03135015|191498545|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-41.82||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0261
95947481|NCT01653509|191867370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|5.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for TEV.||5.35|-1.06|0.1790
95947482|NCT01653509|191867370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with a factor for treatment group.|Difference calculated as first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference between study treatments for MEV.||1.00|-0.27|0.2446
95947483|NCT01377844|191867375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
95947484|NCT01377844|191867376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline systolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-3.04|-8.02|< 0.0001
95992096|NCT04426695|191960002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0383||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0383
95992097|NCT04426695|191960002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3296||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3296
95992098|NCT04426695|191960002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0766
95759613|NCT03433755|191486829|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|-1.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-1.67|-23.04|< 0.0001
95759614|NCT03433755|191486830|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|13.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.52|3.35|0.008
95759615|NCT03433755|191486830|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.50|2.10|0.017
95759616|NCT03433755|191486831|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|13.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||13.71|2.18|0.008
95759617|NCT03433755|191486831|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|11.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||11.92|0.42|0.017
95947485|NCT01377844|191867376|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.67||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline diastolic BP, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-1.04|-4.30|0.0015
95759618|NCT03433755|191486832|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-12.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-12.81|-33.12|0.0002
95759619|NCT03433755|191486832|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-19.02|-36.60|< 0.0001
95759620|NCT03433755|191486833|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|-9.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab Q2W - Placebo Q2W|||-9.25|-34.31|0.0002
95759621|NCT03433755|191486833|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.31|-5.18||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = Evolocumab QM - Placebo QM|||-5.18|-26.31|< 0.0001
95759622|NCT01328379|191486879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.196||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.196|-0.088|0.457
95759623|NCT01328379|191486879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0732||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.262|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.262|-0.026|0.107
95800530|NCT04502524|191573239|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||For overall satisfaction, a reliable estimate could not be calculated using a logistic regression model as all the responses were the same in the Vet Flexiquit arm. We calculated the p-value using the Fisher's exact test.||||.999
95800531|NCT04502524|191573240|OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.56|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.56|-0.46|0.852
95800532|NCT04502524|191573241|OTHER||Slope|-0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.71|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.71|-1.60|0.451
95800533|NCT04502524|191573242|OTHER||Slope|-0.73||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.003|||Regression, negative binomial|||||0.003|-1.46|0.508
95800534|NCT04502524|191573243|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.13|0.602
95800535|NCT04502524|191573244|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.29|0.17|0.941
95800536|NCT04502524|191573245|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.12|0.09|0.612
95800537|NCT04502524|191573246|OTHER||Slope|0.56||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|2.26|||Regression, Linear|||||2.26|-1.13|0.504
95947486|NCT01377844|191867377|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.93||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||||-0.93|-2.52|< 0.0001
95759624|NCT01328379|191486879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.207|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CmaxSS at Visit 3||0.207|-0.078|0.375
95759625|NCT01328379|191486880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.117||To demonstrate study sensitivity with respect to efficacy and maintain an overall alpha level ≤ 0.05, a stepwise procedure was performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.117|-0.145|0.832
95759626|NCT01328379|191486880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0674||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.226|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.226|-0.039|0.167
95759627|NCT01328379|191486880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0666||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.238|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change from Baseline in Walking Speed - dependent variable and Baseline Walking Speed and Treatment - independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in walking speed at Approximately CminSS at Visit 3||0.238|-0.024|0.108
95759628|NCT01328379|191486881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lease Squares Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.25|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||4.25|-5.05|0.866
95759629|NCT01328379|191486881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|2.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.15|-7.26|0.286
95759630|NCT01328379|191486881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.366||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 3||2.49|-6.81|0.362
95759631|NCT01328379|191486882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|5.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||5.24|-3.56|0.708
95759632|NCT01328379|191486882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||4.06|-4.81|0.868
95759633|NCT01328379|191486882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|3.18|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in MSWS-12 Score as the dependent variable and baseline MSWS-12 Score and treatment as the independent variables||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in MSWS-12 at visit 2||3.18|-5.61|0.588
95992099|NCT04426695|191960003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0070
95759634|NCT01328379|191486883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.57||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|103.7|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||103.7|-33.0|0.308
95759635|NCT01328379|191486883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|87.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.9||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|156.1|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||156.1|18.2|0.014
95759636|NCT01328379|191486883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.21||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|119.3|||ANOVA|Change from Baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance as dependent variable and Baseline Six-Minute Walk Distance and Treatment as independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Six-Minute Walk Distance at visit 2||119.3|-15.9|0.133
95759637|NCT01328379|191486884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.1|-0.0|0.320
95759638|NCT01328379|191486884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.734
95992100|NCT04426695|191960003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0507
95759639|NCT01328379|191486884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in Average EQ-5D score at Visit 3||0.0|-0.1|0.185
95759640|NCT01328379|191486885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||0.1|-7.0|0.055
95759641|NCT01328379|191486885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily vs. placebo twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||2.4|-4.7|0.530
95759642|NCT01328379|191486885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline score as the dependant variable and baseline score and treatment as the independent variables.||dalfampridine-ER 5mg twice daily vs. dalfampridine-ER 10mg twice daily: Change from baseline in EQ-5D VAS score at Visit 3||5.8|-1.2|0.203
95759643|NCT02089659|191486931|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.35|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.35|0.72|
95759644|NCT02089659|191486932|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.24|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.24|0.66|
95759645|NCT02089659|191486933|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.18|0.74|
95992101|NCT04426695|191960003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0051
95992102|NCT04426695|191960004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0174
95759646|NCT02089659|191486934|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.33|||||Moderate hepatic insufficiency / Healthy controls|||1.33|0.74|
95759647|NCT01371747|191486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759648|NCT01371747|191486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759649|NCT01371747|191486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759650|NCT01371747|191486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759651|NCT01371747|191486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95992103|NCT04426695|191960004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2900
95759652|NCT01371747|191486935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759653|NCT01371747|191486936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759654|NCT01371747|191486936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759655|NCT01371747|191486936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759656|NCT01371747|191486936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759657|NCT01371747|191486936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759658|NCT01371747|191486936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759659|NCT01371747|191486937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95800538|NCT04502524|191573247|OTHER||Slope|0.11||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Regression, Linear|||||0.61|-0.40|0.670
95800539|NCT00827242|191573248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.004||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95992104|NCT04426695|191960004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0454
95992105|NCT04426695|191960005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0040
95759660|NCT01371747|191486937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-Value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759661|NCT01371747|191486937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759662|NCT01371747|191486937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759663|NCT01371747|191486937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759664|NCT01371747|191486937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||<0.001
95759665|NCT01371747|191486938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759666|NCT01371747|191486938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759667|NCT01371747|191486938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759668|NCT01371747|191486938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759669|NCT01371747|191486938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95947487|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.21||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 2||-0.21|-0.42|< 0.0001
95947488|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.41||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 6||-0.41|-0.78|< 0.0001
95947489|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 12||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.0001
95759670|NCT01371747|191486938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759671|NCT01371747|191486939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759672|NCT01371747|191486939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759673|NCT01371747|191486939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759674|NCT01371747|191486939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759675|NCT01371747|191486939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759676|NCT01371747|191486939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated values were based on summary statistics.|Each starting dose group was compared to its baseline.||||
95759677|NCT01371747|191486940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100.0|94.3|
95759678|NCT01371747|191486940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.5|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|94.5|
95759679|NCT01371747|191486940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|100.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||100|91.6|
95759680|NCT01371747|191486940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
95759681|NCT01371747|191486940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|78.9|
95759682|NCT01371747|191486940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.9|77.2|
95992106|NCT04426695|191960005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0413
95759683|NCT01371747|191486941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.0|86.7|
95759684|NCT01371747|191486941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|96.5|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.5|81.0|
95759685|NCT01371747|191486941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|89.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||89.9|69.5|
95759686|NCT01371747|191486941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|92.9|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.9|57.8|
95759687|NCT01371747|191486941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|99.0|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99|73|
95759688|NCT01371747|191486941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|77.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|92.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||92.2|54.6|
95759689|NCT01371747|191486943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|94.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||94.3|73.7|
95759690|NCT01371747|191486943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|81.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|91.2|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||91.2|68.0|
95759691|NCT01371747|191486943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|96.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||96.3|75.9|
95759692|NCT01371747|191486943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.3|59.5|
95759693|NCT01371747|191486943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|98.7|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||98.7|66.9|
95800540|NCT00827242|191573249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.029||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
95759694|NCT01371747|191486943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|99.8|||||2-sided 95% exact binomial CI|||99.8|68.1|
95759695|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrilysin (P09237) was analyzed.||||= 0.001
95759696|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.002||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of von Willebrand factor (P04275) was analyzed.||||= 0.002
95759697|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 4 (O95388) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
95759698|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.044||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta-1 proprotein (P01137) was analyzed.||||= 0.044
95759699|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.127||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TGF beta receptor type 3 (Q03167) was analyzed.||||= 0.127
95800541|NCT00827242|191573250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.057||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for BII. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.057
95947490|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.44||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 18||-0.44|-0.97|< 0.0001
95800542|NCT00827242|191573251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.002||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS storage subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95800543|NCT00827242|191573252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.02||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS voiding subscore. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
95800544|NCT00827242|191573253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.233||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS nocturia question. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.233
95800545|NCT00827242|191573254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.013||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS QoL Index. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
95759700|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.21||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of IL-15 receptor subunit alpha (Q13261) was analyzed.||||= 0.210
95759701|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Metalloproteinase inhibitor 1 (P01033) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
95947491|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.53||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 24||-0.53|-1.06|< 0.0001
95759702|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.215||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Pappalysin-1 (Q13219) was analyzed.||||= 0.215
95759703|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.745||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Proto-oncogene c-Src (P12931) was analyzed.||||= 0.745
95947492|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.66||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 36||-0.66|-1.21|< 0.0001
95759704|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Protein AMBP (P02760) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
95800546|NCT00827242|191573255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.021
95947493|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.7||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 48||-0.70|-1.28|< 0.0001
95947494|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.68||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 60||-0.68|-1.27|< 0.0001
95947495|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.64||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 72||-0.64|-1.22|< 0.0001
95947496|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 84||-0.69|-1.27|< 0.0001
95947497|NCT01377844|191867378|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline. Statistical significant is set at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline HbA1c, site, age category, gender and race||Change from baseline in HbA1c (%) at Week 96||-0.73|-1.31|< 0.0001
95947498|NCT01377844|191867379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.7||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 2, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.70|-2.79|< 0.0001
95947499|NCT01377844|191867379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.81||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 6, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.81|-3.09|< 0.0001
95947500|NCT01377844|191867379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.77||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 12, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-1.77|-3.06|< 0.0001
95947501|NCT01377844|191867379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.11||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 18, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.11|-3.30|< 0.0001
95800547|NCT00827242|191573256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value associates with difference between treatment groups for the 7 response categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Results were adjusted for baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \< 20\]; severe \[total IPSS \>= 20\]||||||0.009
95992107|NCT04426695|191960005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0032
95992108|NCT04426695|191960006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0105
95759705|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Uromodulin (P07911) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
95759706|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Aminopeptidase N (P15144) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
95759707|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.762||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of TNFRSF1A (P19438) was analyzed.||||= 0.762
95759708|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (P05121) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
95759709|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of CCN family member 2 (P29279) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
95759710|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of uPAR (Q03405) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
95800548|NCT00827242|191573257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.146||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 1 week between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
95800549|NCT00827242|191573258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between treatment groups for IPSS. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95947502|NCT01377844|191867379|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-2.02||The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means of change from baseline.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance, including treatment group, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c category, site, age category, gender and race||Difference of mean-adjusted change from baseline in FPG (mmol/L) at Week 24, between EGT0001442 and Placebo group.||-2.02|-3.24|< 0.0001
95947503|NCT01214200|191867381|OTHER|For the analysis of differences between pre and post treatment a student's t-test was used and was checked with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.01
95947504|NCT02310581|191867389|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|104.973|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2433||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.13|184.81|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||184.81|25.13|0.012
95859358|NCT03511937|191676154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|-5.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-5.0|-57.9|0.02
95947505|NCT02310581|191867389|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|86.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5385||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|162.69|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||162.69|9.94|0.028
95947506|NCT02310581|191867389|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.2459||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|144.33|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||144.33|-15.36|0.110
95947507|NCT02310581|191867392|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.739||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|24.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||24.04|4.76|0.005
95992109|NCT04426695|191960006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0622||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0622
95759711|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.917||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 14 (Q16627) was analyzed.||||= 0.917
95759712|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 16 (O15467) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95992110|NCT04426695|191960006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
95992111|NCT04426695|191960007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0275
95992112|NCT04426695|191960007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
95992113|NCT04426695|191960007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0072
95759713|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Collagen alpha-1(I) chain (P02452) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759714|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Decorin (P07585) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759715|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-C motif chemokine 2 (P13500) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759716|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (P14780) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759717|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX differences (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of E-selectin (P16581) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95764231|NCT03135015|191498545|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-36.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0391
95764232|NCT03135015|191498545|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-82.11||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0372
95764233|NCT03135015|191498545|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-55.81||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in blood glucose will be computed at 120 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.1631
95764234|NCT03135015|191498546|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-46.43||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.0303
95764235|NCT03135015|191498546|OTHER||Percentage Change from Control|-19.64||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline (CFB) in insulin will be computed at 90 minutes. The CFB results for the capsule treatments and the water control will be subjected to a paired t-test examining whether the mean difference between the two sets of observations is equal to zero.||||0.4283
95764236|NCT04583735|191498559|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.69||MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix including change from Baseline value as dependent variable \& covariates: Baseline value, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment \& visit-by-Baseline value interactions.|MMRM|||||-0.69|-2.28|0.0004
95764237|NCT01805089|191498571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95759718|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Thrombospondin-2 (P35442) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95992114|NCT04426695|191960008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1032
95759719|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of RARRES2 (Q99969) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759720|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of C-X-C motif chemokine 16 (Q9H2A7) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759721|NCT05013008|191486966|OTHER|The hypotheses 'H0i: βi=0' (i=1,…,27) were tested at a two-sided significance level of 5%, where βi was the estimator for the difference in log-transformed ratios of biomarker levels of Visit 11 to Visit 3 between finerenone and placebo group for the i-th of the 27 pre-specified biomarkers.|||||=|0.979||||||Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted P-value was calculated using the log2-scaled NPX value.|t-test, 2 sided|||The NPX difference (corresponding to log-transformed ratio to baseline) of Dickkopf-related protein 3 (Q9UBP4) was analyzed.||||= 0.979
95759722|NCT03207243|191486975|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||0.99|0.66|
95759723|NCT03207243|191486980|OTHER||Median Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.01|||||Median rate ratio (Placebo - GSK3772847) and its 95% Credible Interval has been presented|||1.01|0.44|
95759724|NCT03207243|191486981|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
95759725|NCT03207243|191487025|OTHER||Percent change|-93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-91.7||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-91.7|-94.9|<0.001
95759726|NCT03207243|191487025|OTHER||Percent change|-92.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-90.3||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.3|-94.8|<0.001
95759727|NCT03207243|191487025|OTHER||Percent change|-93.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-90.0||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.0|-95.4|<0.001
95759728|NCT03207243|191487025|OTHER||Percent change|-93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|-90.4||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-90.4|-95.3|<0.001
95800550|NCT00827242|191573259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value associates with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for IIEF-EF domain score. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95759729|NCT03207243|191487026|OTHER||Percent change|2300.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1833.9|2879.3||Week 4|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||2879.3|1833.9|<0.001
95759730|NCT03207243|191487026|OTHER||Percent change|2507.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1924.2|3259.4||Week 8|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3259.4|1924.2|<0.001
95759731|NCT03207243|191487026|OTHER||Percent change|2162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1489.1|3120.3||Week 12|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3120.3|1489.1|<0.001
95759732|NCT03207243|191487026|OTHER||Percent change|2663.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1994.6|3544.8||Week 16|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||3544.8|1994.6|<0.001
95759733|NCT00603837|191487048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.445
95759734|NCT00314951|191487095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate of the difference and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups were computed. If the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10%, the clinical non-inferiority of fidaxomicin was demonstrated. CIs for the difference of cure rates were calculated using the method recommended by Agresti and Caffo.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||||||H0: C(fidaxomicin) - C(Vancomycin) \<= -10% Power calculation is based on cure rate of 85% in both treatment groups, non-inferiority margin of 10%, 2.5% (1-sided) type I error rate with approximately 90% power gives a total of 530 subjects.||8.0|-2.9|
95759735|NCT00314951|191487096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Chi-squared|||||-2.5|-16.2|0.008
95759736|NCT00314951|191487097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|2.8|0.007
95992115|NCT04426695|191960008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3350
95759737|NCT00423319|191487098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.54||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.54|0.22|<0.0001
95759738|NCT00423319|191487098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|1.5||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||1.50|-3.54|<0.0001
95800551|NCT00827242|191573260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for Qmax. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.300
95992116|NCT04426695|191960008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1314||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1314
95947508|NCT02310581|191867392|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5331||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|17.28|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||17.28|-1.17|0.085
95759739|NCT00423319|191487099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.8||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Farrington-Manning test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.80|0.15|<0.0001
95759740|NCT00423319|191487099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-0.68||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.17||Statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Chi-squared||Apixaban-enoxaparin|||-0.17|-1.27|0.0054
95759741|NCT00423319|191487101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.15||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.64||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.64|-0.33|0.54
95759742|NCT00423319|191487101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.44||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.66||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.66|-1.53|0.43
95759743|NCT00423319|191487101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.95||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Major or CRNM. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.95|-1.38|0.72
95759744|NCT00423319|191487101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rate|-0.85||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.9||2-sided P-Value|Chi-squared||Any bleeding. Apixaban-enoxaparin|||0.90|-2.61|0.34
95759745|NCT00423319|191487111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI/stroke|||0.26|-0.34|
95947509|NCT02310581|191867392|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7393||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|19.7|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||19.70|0.42|0.041
95992117|NCT04426695|191960009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00024||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00024
95992118|NCT04426695|191960009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0054
95759746|NCT00423319|191487111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. MI|||0.34|-0.17|
95759747|NCT00423319|191487111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Stroke|||0.07|-0.35|
95759748|NCT00423319|191487111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||||Apixaban-enoxaparin. Thrombocytopenia|||0.17|-0.26|
95759749|NCT03203564|191487117|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|14.12|||||Parameter estimate is done for Placebo-corrected change-from baseline QTcF (ΔΔQTcF) for Modufolin 500 mg/m2 at end of infusion.|"The primary analysis of QTcF was based on a linear mixed-effects model with change-from-baseline QTcF as the dependent variable, time (categorical), treatment, and time-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The least-squares (LS) mean and 2-sided 90 % CIs have been calculated for the contrast Modufolin® versus placebo at each dose of Modufolin® and each post-dose time point."||14.12|0.68|
95759750|NCT04630158|191487148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|11.7||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||11.7|-8.5|0.930
95759751|NCT04630158|191487148|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|13.8||Reporting the adjusted p-value derived based on Dunett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis||||13.8|-6.4|0.699
95759752|NCT01695863|191487167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.816|||t-test, 2 sided|||Right Colon||0.816|0.269|<0.0001
95759753|NCT01695863|191487167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||Transverse Colon||0.655|0.122|0.005
95759754|NCT01695863|191487167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.484|||t-test, 2 sided|||Left Colon||0.484|-0.029|0.08
95759755|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Calcium||||0.093
95759756|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glucose||||0.801
95759757|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood Urea Nitrogen||||0.599
95759758|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Creatinine||||0.696
95759759|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sodium||||.042
95759760|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Potassium||||0.596
95759761|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Chloride||||0.107
95759762|NCT01695863|191487168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bicarbonate||||0.351
95947510|NCT02310581|191867393|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1991||3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|43.35|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||43.35|9.98|0003
95992119|NCT04426695|191960009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
95992120|NCT04426695|191960016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0533
95759763|NCT01695863|191487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0438||||0.772|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nausea||||0.772
95759764|NCT01695863|191487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2821||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vomiting||||0.028
95759765|NCT01695863|191487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2102||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bloating||||0.235
95759766|NCT01695863|191487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0547||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal pain or cramping||||0.707
95759767|NCT01695863|191487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0269||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ability to complete entire prep||||0.773
95759768|NCT01695863|191487169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0498||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difficulty/Inconvenience in completing prep||||0.766
95800552|NCT00827242|191573263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value associates with mean difference of changes from baseline to 12 weeks between treatment groups for PVR volume. Under the pre-specified fixed sequence testing procedure, the significance level of 0.05 is used for assessment.|ranked ANOVA|||||||0.500
95800553|NCT01479530|191573274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.92|0.0228
95800554|NCT01479530|191573275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
95800555|NCT01479530|191573276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.75|0.0075
95800556|NCT01479530|191573277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-3.05|0.0317
95947511|NCT02310581|191867393|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8429||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|37.56|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||37.56|5.65|0.009
95947512|NCT02310581|191867393|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1997||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|38.83|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||38.83|5.46|0.011
95947513|NCT02310581|191867394|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|63.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3971||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.45|101.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||101.31|26.45|0.001
95759769|NCT01330420|191487171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
95759770|NCT01330420|191487172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.001
95759771|NCT01330420|191487173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
95759772|NCT01330420|191487175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Due to the small sample size, the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, a non-parametric statistical test, was used to detect outcome measure changes from pre-intervention to post-intervention||||<.01
95759773|NCT00642278|191487179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.747|-0.148||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.148|-0.747|<0.001
95759774|NCT00642278|191487179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.207||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.207|-0.804|<0.001
95759775|NCT00642278|191487179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.244||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.244|-0.841|<0.001
95800557|NCT03158688|191573294|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox model hazard ratio|0.63||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.854||alpha level of 0.025|Log Rank||KdD/Kd|Stratification factors used in the Log-rank p-value (1-sided) and the Cox model hazard ratio (KdD/Kd) were as assessed at randomization: International Staging System stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3); prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no); number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>= 2).||0.854|0.464|0.0014
95800558|NCT03158688|191573295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|3.129|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||KdD/Kd|"Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.~P-values were calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test."||3.129|1.184|0.0040
95800559|NCT03158688|191573296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.364|25.858|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Mantel-Haenszel method.||25.858|2.364|
95859359|NCT03511937|191676155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.5|156.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||156.6|-295.5|0.55
95947514|NCT02310581|191867394|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5979||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|86.09|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||86.09|14.48|0.007
95947515|NCT02310581|191867394|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3984||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.45|94.31|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||94.31|19.45|0.004
95947516|NCT00273052|191867481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-8.026||||0.0141||95.0|-15.35|-0.67|||ANCOVA||Median difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||-0.67|-15.35|0.0141
95947517|NCT00273052|191867482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.6068||95.0|-2.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Mean difference = Coreg CR - Toprol XL|||3.9|-2.4|0.6068
95759776|NCT00642278|191487179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.006|-0.405||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.405|-1.006|<0.001
95947518|NCT01009645|191867509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The first contrast assessed whether or not the three newly created messages (Fact Only (FO), Fact/Myth (FM), and Fact/Myth/Refutation (FMR)) were as a group significantly different than the control message.||||<0.05
95947519|NCT01009645|191867509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The second contrast assessed whether the FO and FMR conditions were significantly different from the FM message.||||<0.05
95947520|NCT01009645|191867509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.0167 as the p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (three planned contrasts).|Contrast Analysis|Bonferroni correction used (3 planned contrasts)||Contrast analysis was used to assess difference in vaccination status. The third contrast assessed whether the FO and the FMR message conditions were significantly different.||||<0.05
95947521|NCT01009645|191867510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|used Scheffe's post-hoc analysis||||||<0.05
95947522|NCT00487240|191867511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a two-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 with 90% power assuming a 1.1 Standard Deviations (SD)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.332||95.0|-0.29|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|Hypothesis: basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension (ILPS), is inferior to basal analog insulin detemir, as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint.||0.10|-0.29|0.332
95759777|NCT00642278|191487179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.432||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.432|-1.029|<0.001
95759778|NCT00642278|191487179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|-0.265||Adjusted using Dunnett's procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.265|-0.862|<0.001
95759779|NCT00642278|191487180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
95800560|NCT03158688|191573297|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.784||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.033|||Log Rank||KdD/Kd|"Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using the stratified Cox proportional hazards models.~1-sided p-value from the log-rank test controlling for the randomization stratification factors."||1.033|0.595|0.0417
95947523|NCT00487240|191867512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.718||95.0|-0.22|0.15||P-value for 8 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference=Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.22|0.718
95759780|NCT00642278|191487180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.92|-1.98|<0.001
95759781|NCT00642278|191487180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.27|-2.33|<0.001
95759782|NCT00642278|191487180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.26|-2.32|<0.001
95759783|NCT00642278|191487180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.19|-2.25|<0.001
95800561|NCT03158688|191573306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|9.656|||||KdD/Kd|Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method.||9.656|2.007|
95947524|NCT00487240|191867512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.187||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.07|-0.34|0.187
95947525|NCT00487240|191867512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.704||95.0|-0.25|0.17||P-value for 24 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.17|-0.25|0.704
95992121|NCT04426695|191960016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0411||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0411
95759784|NCT00642278|191487180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.46|-1.51|<0.001
95759785|NCT00642278|191487182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.07|46.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||46.13|26.07|<0.001
95992122|NCT04426695|191960016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value based on stratified log-rank test with the type of background standard-of-care and baseline serostatus as stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.0229
95992123|NCT04426695|191960017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0218
95759786|NCT00642278|191487182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|59.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.34|39.17|<0.001
95759787|NCT00642278|191487182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.98|58.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||58.42|37.98|<0.001
95759788|NCT00642278|191487182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.91|59.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||59.01|38.91|<0.001
95759789|NCT00642278|191487182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|60.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.17|70.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||70.35|50.17|<0.001
95759790|NCT00642278|191487182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|6.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||6.67|-13.33|0.513
95859701|NCT02963506|191677337|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.83|-1.47|<0.001
95947526|NCT00487240|191867512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.599||95.0|-0.27|0.15||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|||0.15|-0.27|0.599
95947527|NCT00487240|191867513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95947528|NCT00487240|191867513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95947529|NCT00487240|191867513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c ≤6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
95947530|NCT00487240|191867513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value for With HbA1c \<6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
95947531|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.259
95947532|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.468
95947533|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.395
95947534|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning and Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.414
95947535|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.275
95947536|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.611
95992124|NCT04426695|191960017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0156
95992125|NCT04426695|191960017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||||0.0067
95947537|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.763
95947538|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.977
95947539|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.586
95947540|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.093
95947541|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.516
95947542|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.576
95947543|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876||95.0||||P-value for Midday SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.876
95947544|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value for Evening SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.261
95947545|NCT00487240|191867514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean SMBG Excursion|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.567
95947546|NCT00487240|191867515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.8 mmol/L was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||||95.0|-0.03|0.75|||||Least Squares Mean difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension - Detemir|If the primary analysis achieves statistical significance at a 0.05 level (that is, the null hypothesis for the primary analysis \[primary outcome measure\] is rejected), then the first secondary hypothesis (glycemic variability) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||0.75|-0.03|
95947547|NCT00487240|191867515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for M-Value|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.132
95992126|NCT04426695|191960021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2162||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2162
95947548|NCT00487240|191867515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value for MODD|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country||||||0.179
95947549|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
95947550|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
95947551|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
95947552|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.287
95947553|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.664
95947554|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.730
95947555|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
95947556|NCT00487240|191867516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.081
95759791|NCT00642278|191487184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.3|-2.2|0.009
95947557|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.280
95947558|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.193
95947559|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.042
95759792|NCT00642278|191487184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
95759793|NCT00642278|191487184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and mixed meal tolerance test.||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
95759794|NCT00642278|191487184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
95759795|NCT00642278|191487184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||-1.4|-3.3|<0.001
95759796|NCT00642278|191487184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline value, and stratification factor (participation in mixed meal tolerance test).||||1.4|-0.5|0.371
95759797|NCT02552212|191487185|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.336|31.623|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/C- Reactive Protein (MRI/CRP) classification.||31.623|7.336|<0.001
95759798|NCT02552212|191487186|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.127|13.401|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||13.401|4.127|<0.001
95759799|NCT02552212|191487196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.359|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.286|12.636|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region MRI/CRP classification.||12.636|4.286|<0.001
95759800|NCT02552212|191487197|OTHER||Difference|-1.696|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.282|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.282|-2.110|<0.001
95759801|NCT02552212|191487198|OTHER||Difference|-1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.132|-1.038|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.038|-2.132|<0.0001
95759802|NCT02552212|191487199|OTHER||Difference|-1.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.388|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.388|-2.250|<0.001
95759803|NCT02552212|191487200|OTHER||Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.909|-0.672|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.672|-1.909|<0.001
95759804|NCT02552212|191487201|OTHER||Difference|-4.8687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4014|-3.336|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-3.3360|-6.4014|<0.001
95759805|NCT02552212|191487202|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.191|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/Placebo and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||10.191|3.800|<0.001
95759806|NCT02552212|191487203|OTHER||Difference|-0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-0.117|-0.250|<0.001
95759807|NCT02552212|191487211|OTHER||Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||From an ANCOVA model including scores at Baseline, treatment group, region and MRI/CRP classification.||-1.18|-2.62|<0.001
95759808|NCT02552212|191487212|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|1.653|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio: CZP/PBO and p-value were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, region and MRI/CRP classification.||1.653|0.142|=0.247
95759809|NCT03020589|191487216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||||2.05|0.67|0.58
95759810|NCT03020589|191487217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.02|||Fisher Exact|||||2.02|0.72|0.46
95800562|NCT03158688|191573307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.35|||linear mixed effects model||The overall treatment difference (KdD - Kd)|Analysis was performed based on a linear mixed effects model. The model included fixed effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), baseline QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, randomization stratification factors (ISS stage at screening (Stage 1 or 2 vs Stage 3), prior proteasome inhibitor exposure (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs ≥ 2)), interaction between treatment and time, and random effects of participant intercept and random slope of time.||2.35|-2.52|0.9480
95800563|NCT00471107|191573308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Power analysis was based on WMS-III Word Lists performance. With an effect comparable to the effect on verbal fluency in an earlier study of left frontal TDCS in healthy subjects, it would require 10 subjects per group (30 total) for a significance level of 0.05 and 80% power.||||>0.05
95800564|NCT02942407|191573320|NON_INFERIORITY|Due to a lower recruitment rate than anticipated in the early stage of the trial, the sample size was curtailed from 760 to 230 patients. Thus, under the initial protocol assumptions, the study is considered under-powered for the two-sided upper 95% CI on the HR to rule-out the non-inferiority margin of 1.40.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin)|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|Exploratory analysis due to failure to reach initial sample size: Non-inferiority (NI) null hypothesis: HR \>= 1.4 (Non-inferiority).||2.3|0.63|0.321
95800565|NCT02942407|191573320|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis due to lack of achieving initial sample size.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||If upper limit of 95% confidence interval \< 1 this would be considered evidence of superiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox model was adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment (apixaban vs warfarin).|Time from randomization to first occurrence of outcome was modeled. If no event, censored at earliest of: most recent date of evaluation of outcome, month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), or end of study date (July 27, 2019).|||2.3|0.63|0.583
95800566|NCT02942407|191573322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.93||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of study date (July 27, 2019).||2.93|0.74|
95800567|NCT02942407|191573331|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.17||No p-value provided as analysis is considered exploratory due to study being under powered.||||Hazard ratios (apixaban vs warfarin) and 95% confidence intervals obtained using Cox model adjusted for prior warfarin status (naive vs experienced) and treatment. Time from randomization to first occurrence of the composite outcome/censoring date modeled. Those that did not experience the outcome are censored at the earliest of the following: 1) most recent date of evaluation of all of the components, 2) month 15 target (460 days + randomization date), and end of stud date (July 27, 2019).||2.17|0.67|
95859360|NCT03511937|191676156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||-4|-23|0.006
95859361|NCT03511937|191676157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|Analyses controlled for overweight/obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.010
95859362|NCT03511937|191676158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for obesity status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust standard errors.||||0.5|-0.2|0.403
95947560|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.001
95947561|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.579
95859363|NCT03511937|191676159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.8|0.1|0.005
95947562|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.531
95947563|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.017
95947564|NCT00487240|191867517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Rate|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country. Hypoglycemic Rate (Adjusted for 1 year) was used in the analysis.||||||0.038
95947565|NCT00487240|191867519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 1.5 kg was chosen to prove noninferiority of ILPS to detemir.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97||||0.003||95.0|0.34|1.6||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Baseline+Country.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Detemir.|If the first secondary null hypothesis (glycemic variability) is rejected, then the second secondary hypothesis (weight change) is tested at an error rate of 0.05.||1.60|0.34|0.003
95947566|NCT00487240|191867520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.023
95800568|NCT03692052|191573358|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson Method|Significance of p-value associated with the test of H0:Hb response rate =0.3 vs H1:Hb response rate \> 0.3.||||||<.0001
95947567|NCT00487240|191867520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.004
95947568|NCT00487240|191867520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.282
95947569|NCT00487240|191867521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.82
95947570|NCT00487240|191867521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value for Total Bolus Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.19
95759811|NCT00073021|191487263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|12.543||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|24.12|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that true rate of improvement for 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (alpha = 0.05), and power of 80%, 120 patients with moderately active ulcerative colitis were required per group to complete the study.||24.12|0.96|0.0357
95759812|NCT00073021|191487264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Between Means|-0.5||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-1.28|0.1594
95759813|NCT00073021|191487264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
95759814|NCT00073021|191487264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Teh 2-sample t-test will be used to examine the treatment effect.||||||<0.0001
95759815|NCT00073021|191487265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|3.75||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|16.93|||Chi-squared|||||16.93|-9.43|0.5774
95759816|NCT00073021|191487266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|6.19||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|17.86|||Chi-squared|||||17.86|-5.47|0.2991
95759817|NCT00073021|191487267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|2.74||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|14.73|||Chi-squared|||||14.73|-9.25|0.6543
95759818|NCT00073021|191487268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|1.05||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.29|||Chi-squared|||||12.29|-10.19|0.8542
95759819|NCT00073021|191487269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|-0.96||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|12.17|||Chi-squared|||||12.17|-14.09|0.8859
95759820|NCT00073021|191487270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.73||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|20.4|||Chi-squared|||||20.40|-0.94|0.0758
95800569|NCT05480943|191573380|OTHER|chi-square tested correlation between CRP and thiamine deficiency.||||||0.6097||||||P\<=0.05 considered significant|Chi-squared|||For the subset of 123 participants with both C-reactive protein level and plasma thiamine levels (125 had C-reactive protein results but 2 were missing plasma thiamine levels), we used Chi-Square to test for association between those who were thiamine deficient and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. A priori hypothesis was that inflammation would cause thiamine deficiency due to increased metabolic demands.||||0.6097
95800570|NCT03974022|191573392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
95800571|NCT03974022|191573392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||binomial exact test against H0|||||||<0.0001
95947571|NCT00487240|191867521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Total Basal Insulin|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment+Country||||||0.416
95947572|NCT04237792|191867541|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|0.03|<0.001
95947573|NCT04237792|191867542|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.82|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.82|0.04|0.022
95759821|NCT00073021|191487271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8308
95759822|NCT00073021|191487271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95759823|NCT00073021|191487271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95759824|NCT00073021|191487272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5340
95759825|NCT00073021|191487272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95759826|NCT00073021|191487272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Compared to baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95800572|NCT03419234|191573455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test||||||0.049
95800573|NCT04167670|191573467|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|6.76|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||6.76|-7.39|0.0037
95947574|NCT04237792|191867542|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.26|0.01|<0.001
95947575|NCT04237792|191867543|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.59|0.02|0.006
95947576|NCT04237792|191867543|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|11.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.27|0.25|0.597
95947577|NCT04237792|191867543|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.07|0.14|0.374
95947578|NCT04237792|191867543|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.44|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.44|0.02|0.001
95947579|NCT04237792|191867543|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.81|0.13|0.015
95947580|NCT04237792|191867543|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.87|0.10|0.024
95947581|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95947582|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95947583|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
95947584|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
95947585|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95759827|NCT00073021|191487273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|11.1||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|24.14|||Chi-squared|||||24.14|-1.87|0.0966
95800574|NCT04167670|191573467|NON_INFERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|12.62|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Noninferiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||12.62|-0.75|<0.0001
95800575|NCT04167670|191573468|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|52.56|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||52.56|20.54|<0.0001
95859364|NCT03511937|191676160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|43.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between treatment arms.|Analyses used logistic regression to calculate mean difference in predicted probability of purchasing a sugar-sweetened beverage.|||43|32|<0.001
95947586|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95947587|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95947588|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95947589|NCT04237792|191867544|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95947590|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
95947591|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
95947592|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.368
95759828|NCT00073021|191487274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Success Rates|9.75||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|21.89|||Chi-squared|||||21.89|-2.39|0.1173
95759829|NCT00960115|191487304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.479||This trial was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance of treatment differences with respect to a statistical test, i.e., the p value being lower than a significance level of alpha (α) = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.479|0.614|0.828
95759830|NCT02823652|191487308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95947593|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.358|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.358
95947594|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
95759831|NCT02823652|191487309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95947595|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
95947596|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
95947597|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
95947598|NCT04237792|191867545|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
95947599|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.884
95947600|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
95947601|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.236
95947602|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.733
95947603|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.128
95947604|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
95947605|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.752
95947606|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.139
95759832|NCT02823652|191487310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
95759833|NCT02823652|191487311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95947607|NCT04237792|191867546|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.051
95947608|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.124
95947609|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.186
95947610|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.470
95947611|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.845|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.845
95947612|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.621
95947613|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
95947614|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.218
95947615|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.181
95947616|NCT04237792|191867548|OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.984
95947617|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
95947618|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.106
95947619|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.196
95947620|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
95947621|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.824
95947622|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.678
95947623|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
95947624|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.160
95947625|NCT04237792|191867549|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
95947626|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||||<0.001
95947627|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-HBsAg ≥10 mIU/mL||||<0.001
95947628|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Diphtheria ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
95947629|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-Tetanus ≥0.1 IU/mL||||<0.001
95947630|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PT seroresponse||||<0.001
95947631|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FHA seroresponse||||<0.001
95992127|NCT04426695|191960021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8783
95759834|NCT01094886|191487362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.05|.008
95759835|NCT01094886|191487363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.1||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.219|-2.048|0.111
95759836|NCT01094886|191487364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.977||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.35|-2.77|0.87
95800576|NCT04167670|191573468|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.74|48.12|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||48.12|17.74|<0.0001
95800577|NCT04167670|191573469|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|15.44|||Farrington and Manning test||The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan dual therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Superiority of vonoprazan dual therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.||15.44|1.86|0.0063
95800578|NCT04167670|191573469|SUPERIORITY|P-value based on a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|Percentage Difference|12.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.81|||Farrington and Manning test|||Superiority of vonoprazan triple therapy to lansoprazole triple therapy.|The confidence interval of the difference in H pylori eradication rates between vonoprazan triple therapy and lansoprazole triple therapy was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|18.81|5.72|0.0001
95800579|NCT02642679|191573496|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we had 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VAS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point with a two sided two sample t-test each at alpha=0.17 level.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in pain. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
95759837|NCT01094886|191487365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.316|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.01|-22.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-22.26|-48.01|<0.001
95759838|NCT00658021|191487375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline HbA1c, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-1.01|0.444
95759839|NCT00658021|191487377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.562
95759840|NCT00658021|191487377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.621
95759841|NCT00658021|191487377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5% at Week 28:~Treatment group comparison is based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c and background diabetes therapy strata. P-value is from the general association statistics."||||0.229
95759842|NCT00658021|191487378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 4:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||-0.28|-1.58|0.005
95947632|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-FIM seroresponse||||<0.001
95947633|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-PRN seroresponse||||<0.001
95947634|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV1 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
95992128|NCT04426695|191960021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5583
95759843|NCT00658021|191487378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 12:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||0.65|-2.00|0.314
95759844|NCT00658021|191487378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 20:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.50|-2.24|0.692
95859365|NCT03511937|191676161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.9|1.4|<0.001
95947635|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV2 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
95947636|NCT01480258|191867587|OTHER|The immune response to PR5I vaccine was considered as acceptable if the lower bounds of the 2-sided 95% CI for the response rates were greater than 75%.|||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value|Clopper and Pearson|||Anti-IPV3 ≥1:8 dilution||||<0.001
95947637|NCT01480258|191867588|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06||Stratification by country.|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
95947638|NCT01480258|191867589|SUPERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than 0, it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was superior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.05|51.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratification by country.||||51.06|41.05|<0.001
95947639|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in PRP response rate (based on Ab titre ≥1.0 μg/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-inferiority for PRP||2.52|-5.13|<0.001
95947640|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in HBsAg response rate (based on Ab titre ≥10 mIU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|ifference in percentages|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for HBsAg||1.35|-2.66|<0.001
95947641|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Diphtheria response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Diptheria||-0.22|-2.54|<0.001
95947642|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in Tetanus response rate (based on Ab titre ≥0.1 IU/mL) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for Tetanus||0.50|-0.95|<0.001
95947643|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PT was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PT||0.49|-1.75|<0.001
95947644|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for FHA was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.26|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for FHA||-0.26|-3.47|<0.001
95992129|NCT04426695|191960021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7189||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7189
95992130|NCT04426695|191960021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
95947645|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in the percentage of seroresponder participants for PRN was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for PRN||0.39|-3.42|<0.001
95947646|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV1 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV1||0.34|-1.59|<0.001
95947647|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV2 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV2||0.49|-0.96|<0.001
95947648|NCT01480258|191867590|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate of the difference between PR5I \& INFANRIX hexa groups in IPV3 response rate (based on Ab titre ≥8 (1/dil)) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value \& 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen with stratification|Statistical analysis was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country.||Non-Inferiority for IPV3||0.82|-1.20|<0.001
95947649|NCT01480258|191867591|NON_INFERIORITY|The estimate for anti-rotavirus IgA GMT ratio (PR5I group/INFANRIX hexa group) was calculated with its 1-sided P-value and 2-sided 95% CI. If the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was greater than 0.50 (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that the Rotarix antigen response in the PR5I group was not inferior to the Rotarix antigen response in the INFANRIX hexa group.|Geometric Mean Titre (GMT) ratio|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|0.54|0.011
95759845|NCT00658021|191487378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Treatment difference in body weight at Week 28:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at visit are obtained from a MMRM including treatment, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c strata, background diabetes therapy strata, week of visit, baseline body weight-by visit interaction and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects using an unstructured covariance matrix."||1.68|-2.56|0.679
95759846|NCT00658021|191487379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|1.052|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.052|-1.614|0.679
95859366|NCT03511937|191676162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
95947650|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||ISR or systemic AE||1.4|-0.7|
95947651|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||||95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||ISR or V-related systemic AE||2.0|-0.3|
95947652|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.0||||||At least 1 ISR||6.0|-0.7|
95947653|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9||||||At least 1 solicited ISR||5.9|-0.9|
95947654|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||||||At least 1 systemic AE||1.4|-1.1|
95947655|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
95947656|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2||||||At least 1 solicited systemic AE||2.2|-0.5|
95947657|NCT01480258|191867592|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.3||||||At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE||2.3|-0.4|
95947658|NCT01480258|191867593|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.3||||||Injection-site erythema||13.3|3.0|
95759847|NCT00658021|191487380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5151||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|1.199|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for pre-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.199|-0.821|0.714
95759848|NCT00658021|191487380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5245||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|1.541|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-meal SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.541|-0.516|0.329
95759849|NCT00658021|191487380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4015||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.997|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for post-prandial excursion SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||0.997|-0.577|0.601
95800580|NCT02642679|191573497|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 80% power to detect an improvement in re-epithelialization from 14.6 days to 10 days assuming a common standard deviation of 2.9 days.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing rate. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
95800581|NCT02642679|191573498|OTHER|We set alpha=0.05/3=0.17 to account for multiple outcomes for sample size and power calculations. With 10 patients in each group, we will have 95% power to detect an improvement of 2 points in VSS score assuming a common standard deviation of 1 point.|||||||||||||||||A student t-test was used for correlated samples to determine if there were significant differences in healing quality. Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) was used for statistical analysis. Data that were considered normally distributed are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) and percentage. P-values \<0.05 were considered significant.|||
95800582|NCT03712852|191573528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||||||Multiple univariate analyses for each variable were performed. GT was analyzed by non-parametric Cliff's delta tests to assess group dominance and by a Heteroscedastic ANOVA with Games-Howell posthoc tests. A sensitivities analysis with different types of robust analyses (M-estimators and High Breakdown LTS Estimators, both with Huber's, Hampel's and Biweight's loss functions) was conducted to get an effect-size estimate by means of Bootstrap Bias Corrected and accelerated (BCa) 95% Confidence Intervals.|1.17|0.68|
95800583|NCT03712852|191573529|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.55|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|3.55|3.00|
95800584|NCT03712852|191573530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.46|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|2.46|-0.46|
95947659|NCT01480258|191867593|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3||||||Injection-site pain||8.3|-1.5|
95759850|NCT00658021|191487380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4749||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|1.248|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for overall SMBG: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline SMBG measure, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||1.248|-0.615|0.505
95759851|NCT00658021|191487381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.187||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.48|73.84|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline fasting serum insulin, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||73.84|-95.48|0.802
95800585|NCT03712852|191573531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||||||This outcome was analyzed by posthoc Nemenyi's tests|0.69|-0.40|
95800586|NCT03712852|191573532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|3.81|||||||CAL was analyzed with both Nemenyi's tests and a Moderated Regression (Treatment by Baseline values)|3.81|2.96|
95800587|NCT02421211|191573539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|6.5||||||||6.5|3.4|
95800588|NCT02421211|191573540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|2.8||||||||2.8|2.0|
95800589|NCT02421211|191573541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|3.8||||||||3.8|2.4|
95992131|NCT04426695|191960021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2103
95992132|NCT04426695|191960022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0223
95992133|NCT04426695|191960022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1256||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1256
95992134|NCT04426695|191960022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
95992135|NCT04426695|191960022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1298
95992136|NCT04426695|191960022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2642
95992137|NCT04426695|191960022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0970
95992138|NCT04426695|191960023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0147
95800590|NCT02421211|191573542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.0||||||||2.0|1.5|
95800591|NCT02421211|191573543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|1.9||||||||1.9|1.4|
95800592|NCT02421211|191573544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.0||||||||2.0|1.6|
95800593|NCT01177410|191573559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.369||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|5.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.467|1.027|0.0432
95759852|NCT00658021|191487382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.542||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|32.51|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-B: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-B, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||32.51|-40.19|0.836
95759853|NCT00658021|191487382|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.846||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference for HOMA-S: Adjusted LS Mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline values at Week 28 are obtained from multiple imputation ANCOVA including treatment, baseline %HOMA-S, screening HbA1c strata and background diabetes therapy strata as fixed effects.||7.26|-7.82|0.941
95992139|NCT04426695|191960023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0669||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0669
95992140|NCT04426695|191960023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0094
95992141|NCT04426695|191960023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1306||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1306
95992142|NCT04426695|191960023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3576||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3576
95992143|NCT04426695|191960023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1476
95992144|NCT04426695|191960024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
95800594|NCT01177410|191573559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.267||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.515|0.6059
95800595|NCT01177410|191573560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.232||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|4.664|||Proportional Odds Model|||Proportional odds model was used to compare the number of months the subjects are responders.||4.664|1.068|0.0327
95800596|NCT01177410|191573560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.148||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|2.483|||Proportional Odds Model|||||2.483|0.531|0.7260
95800597|NCT00303628|191573563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified log rank test. The above P value was for one-sided test|Log Rank|||||||0.876
95800598|NCT00303628|191573564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided stratified log rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.299
95800599|NCT03928743|191573575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.87|1.71|<0.001
95947660|NCT01480258|191867593|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||||95.0|2.1|12.9||||||Injection-site swelling||12.9|2.1|
95947661|NCT01480258|191867594|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||||||Injection-site bruising||0.3|-2.5|
95947662|NCT01480258|191867594|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||||||Injection-site haemorrhage||1.6|-1.5|
95759854|NCT02092467|191487384|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.09|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||2.09|1.04|
95947663|NCT01480258|191867594|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.4||||||Injection-site induration||6.4|-1.2|
95947664|NCT01480258|191867594|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||||||Injection-site nodule||1.5|-0.8|
95947665|NCT01480258|191867594|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.4|2.7||||||Injection-site warmth||2.7|-0.4|
95759855|NCT02092467|191487384|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||||Secondary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.43|0.70|
95800600|NCT03928743|191573576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.59|<0.001
95800601|NCT03928743|191573577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.65|<0.001
95759856|NCT02092467|191487384|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|1.00|
95800602|NCT03928743|191573578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.59|-1.48|<0.001
95947666|NCT01480258|191867595|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate whether an overall trend of risk differences existed. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.7||||||Crying||5.7|-1.3|
95800603|NCT03928743|191573579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.39|1.93|<0.001
95800604|NCT03928743|191573580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|15.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.65|2.67|<0.001
95800605|NCT03928743|191573581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|4.65|2.51|7.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.57|2.51|<0.001
95800606|NCT03928743|191573582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.63|-1.48|<0.001
95800607|NCT03928743|191573583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.96|-2.00|<0.001
95947667|NCT01480258|191867595|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.8||||||Decreased appetite||8.8|-1.6|
95947668|NCT01480258|191867595|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4||||||Irritability||5.4|-1.0|
95947669|NCT01480258|191867595|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.3||||||Pyrexia||11.3|1.5|
95947670|NCT01480258|191867595|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The aim of the 95% CI was to investigate an overall trend and not any specific difference. If 0.0 was excluded from the 95% CI, the trend could not be ruled out.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.8||||||Somnolence||9.8|1.7|
95947671|NCT01480258|191867595|OTHER|The risk differences between groups (PR5I group - INFANRIX hexa group) and their 2-sided 95% CI were calculated for the above criteria based on the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.9||||||Vomiting||6.9|-3.2|
95947672|NCT01482091|191867596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
95947673|NCT01482091|191867598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.05
95947674|NCT01482091|191867599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95947675|NCT01482091|191867602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.68
95947676|NCT01482091|191867603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95947677|NCT01482091|191867604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95947678|NCT01482091|191867608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95947679|NCT03052517|191867609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.00|0.74|
95992145|NCT04426695|191960024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0535
95992146|NCT04426695|191960024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0199
95947680|NCT03052517|191867609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.72|
95947681|NCT03052517|191867609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.09|0.87|
95947682|NCT03052517|191867610|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.02|0.76|
95947683|NCT03052517|191867610|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.99|0.73|
95947684|NCT03052517|191867610|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.08|0.86|
95947685|NCT03052517|191867611|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.51|
95947686|NCT03052517|191867611|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.39|
95947687|NCT03052517|191867611|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.14|0.54|
95947688|NCT03052517|191867612|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||1.22|0.54|
95947689|NCT03052517|191867612|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.97|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||0.97|0.41|
95947690|NCT03052517|191867612|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.11|0.55|
95947691|NCT03052517|191867613|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.23|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.23|0.47|
95947692|NCT03052517|191867613|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.64|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.64|0.59|
95992147|NCT04426695|191960024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2784
95947693|NCT03052517|191867613|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||2.10|0.70|
95947694|NCT03052517|191867614|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.56|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg / Placebo||2.56|0.56|
95947695|NCT03052517|191867614|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / Placebo||2.95|0.67|
95947696|NCT03052517|191867614|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.96|||Regression, Cox|The Cox regression model = treatment group+ severity of asthma + region as fixed class effects, stratified by randomization stratum|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors the treatment group in the numerator of the ratio.|Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg / QAW039 150mg||1.96|0.70|
95947697|NCT03052517|191867615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.047|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.047|0.626|
95759857|NCT02092467|191487384|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.19|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.19|1.00|
95759858|NCT02092467|191487385|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate Cox proportional hazard model with treatment \[All Tofacitinib (ie, tofacitinib 5 mg BID and tofacitinib 10 mg BID combined) and TNFi\] as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94|||||Primary comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between All Tofacitinib and TNFi if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \< 1.8 (non-inferiority criterion).|All Tofacitinib versus TNFi||1.94|0.91|
95759859|NCT02092467|191487385|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.71|||||Secondary Comparison. Non-inferiority was to be claimed between tofacitinib 10 mg BID and tofacitinib 5 mg BID if the upper limit of the 95% CI for HR was \<2.0 (non-inferiority criterion).|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus Tofacitinib 5 mg BID||1.71|0.77|
95947698|NCT03052517|191867615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.038|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.038|0.622|
95947699|NCT03052517|191867615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.200|0.821|
95947700|NCT03052517|191867616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 150mg /Placebo||1.125|0.667|
95947701|NCT03052517|191867616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.082|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /Placebo||1.082|0.643|
95947702|NCT03052517|191867616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.167|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = randomization stratum, treatment, severity of asthma, region as fixed effects||Statistical Analysis for Number of patients with at least one AE. Hazard Ratio = QAW039 450mg /QAW039 150mg||1.167|0.794|
95947703|NCT03617835|191867639|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.48|111.8|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||111.80|78.48|
95947704|NCT03617835|191867639|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.26|167.03|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.03|117.26|
95947705|NCT03617835|191867640|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.08|145.41|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.0.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.41|102.08|
95992148|NCT04426695|191960024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2510
95947706|NCT03617835|191867641|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|117.39|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||117.39|83.77|
95759860|NCT02092467|191487385|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.91|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus TNFi||1.91|0.81|
95759861|NCT02092467|191487385|OTHER|Hazard ratio (95% CI) was based on a univariate cox proportional hazard model with treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and TNFi) as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.18|||||Supportive analysis to the primary comparison between All Tofacitinib vs TNFi.|Tofacitinib 10 mg BID versus TNFi||2.18|0.94|
95759862|NCT00369486|191487506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline central subfield thickness|repeated measures least sq. regression|Models adjusted for baseline values and for correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of change in central subfield thickening from baseline to 34 weeks in all five groups.||||0.46
95800608|NCT03928743|191573584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.68|-2.36|<0.001
95800609|NCT03928743|191573585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|1.67|<0.001
95800610|NCT03928743|191573586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.28||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.08|-0.47|0.006
95947707|NCT03617835|191867641|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|156.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.95|184.9|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||184.90|131.95|
95759863|NCT00369486|191487507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|1.0|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection + laser groups to compare with laser only.||1.0|0.2|0.04
95759864|NCT00369486|191487507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.63||95.0|0.5|2.9|||generalized estimating equations|||Analysis combined posterior and anterior injection only groups to compare with laser only treatment group.||2.9|0.5|0.63
95759865|NCT00369486|191487508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||repeated measures least sq. regression|Adjusted for baseline values and for the correlated data from subjects with two study eyes.||Comparison of the mean change in visual acuity letter score among the five groups at 34 weeks. Negative changes represent a worsening in visual acuity.||||0.94
95759866|NCT00591773|191487559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.54|-13.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-18.54|<0.001
95800611|NCT03928743|191573587|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.38|-1.79|0.003
95800612|NCT03928743|191573588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.68|1.30|0.006
95800613|NCT04425018|191573592|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|29.0|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms."|||29.0|-5.8|0.188
95992149|NCT04426695|191960024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1702
95759867|NCT00591773|191487559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|-12.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.76|-18.13|<0.001
95800614|NCT04425018|191573593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|40.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR+ subjects"|||40.1|-2.2|0.0715
95800615|NCT04425018|191573594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|26.1|||Fisher Exact||"Estimate and corresponding Wald 95% confidence interval of the difference in pCR response rates (%) between the Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Margetuximab and Paclitaxel + Pertuzumab + Trastuzumab arms among HR- subjects."|||26.1|-36.5|0.7754
95800616|NCT01944774|191573627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.291||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.457||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.457|0.058|0.133
95800617|NCT01944774|191573627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|2.788||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.788|0.087|0.423
95992150|NCT04426695|191960025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0500
95947708|NCT03617835|191867642|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|138.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.87|163.77|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 24.8.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||163.77|116.87|
95947709|NCT03617835|191867643|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|93.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.11|112.11|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||112.11|78.11|
95947710|NCT03617835|191867643|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|139.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.64|167.4|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||167.40|116.64|
95992151|NCT04426695|191960025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0663||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0663
95759868|NCT00591773|191487560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-10.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.99|-17.81|<0.001
95759869|NCT00591773|191487560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-9.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-16.10|<0.001
95759870|NCT00591773|191487561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-8.56||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.56|-12.02|<0.001
95759871|NCT00591773|191487561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|-8.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.76|-12.23|<0.001
95759872|NCT00591773|191487562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-5.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.25|-9.25|<0.001
95759873|NCT00591773|191487562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-5.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.05|-9.06|<0.001
95759874|NCT00591773|191487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-14.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.04|-19.56|<0.001
95759875|NCT00591773|191487563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|-13.47||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.47|-19.01|<0.001
95759876|NCT00591773|191487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|-9.18||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.18|-12.86|<0.001
95992152|NCT04426695|191960025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0229
95992153|NCT04426695|191960025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
95759877|NCT00591773|191487564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-9.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.35|-13.04|<0.001
95759878|NCT00591773|191487565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-9.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.94|-15.92|<0.001
95859367|NCT03511937|191676163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.3|0.9|<0.001
95759879|NCT00591773|191487565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|-9.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.84|-15.83|<0.001
95947711|NCT03617835|191867644|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|121.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.28|145.37|||||The geometric means are adjusted by treatment. The geometric Coefficient of (within matched pair) Variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'treatment' (fixed effect), 'matched pair' (random effect). For each matched pair in the study (participant in test treatment group matched to participant in reference treatment group), a pair number was assigned for analysis purpose.||145.37|101.28|
95759880|NCT00591773|191487566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.14|<0.001
95759881|NCT00591773|191487566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-6.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.19|-10.15|<0.001
95947712|NCT01928732|191867758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Response Odds Ratio (OR). Response is defined as greater than or equal to 10 point improvement in severity.||1.65|1.00|
95947713|NCT01928732|191867758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Loss of Diagnosis Odds Ratio (OR). Loss of Diagnosis is defined as Response, plus no longer meeting DSM-5 symptom criteria and severity less than 25.||1.74|1.12|
95947714|NCT01928732|191867758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||||Odds ratios were calculated with CPT as the reference group and reflect the overall main effect of treatment across all outcome assessments (post-treatment, 3-months, and 6-months)|Overall Treatment Effect Remission Odds Ratio (OR). Remission is defined as loss of diagnosis plus severity less than 12.||2.00|1.24|
95947715|NCT01093690|191867766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||No adjustment.|Chi-squared|1-sided test||the study had 80 percent power to detect an absolute difference of 20 percent in complete response (70% for metoclopramide group vs 50% for control group)||||0.41
95759882|NCT00591773|191487567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|-14.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.64|-20.39|<0.001
95759883|NCT00591773|191487567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-14.05||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-14.05|-19.84|<0.001
95759884|NCT00591773|191487568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|-9.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.59|-13.49|<0.001
95759885|NCT00591773|191487568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-9.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.72|-13.64|<0.001
95759886|NCT00591773|191487569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|-10.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.94|-17.13|<0.001
95947716|NCT00246129|191867768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.467
95947717|NCT00246129|191867769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.138
95947718|NCT03068312|191867795|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-1.10|
95992154|NCT04426695|191960025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0388||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0388
95759887|NCT00591773|191487569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-10.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.37|-16.58|<0.001
95759888|NCT00591773|191487570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|-7.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-11.65|<0.001
95800618|NCT01944774|191573628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|1.385||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.385|0.055|0.118
95947719|NCT01852045|191867796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.545|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.545|-0.549|0.9949
95947720|NCT01852045|191867796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|0.602|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test were based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||0.602|-0.673|0.9123
95947721|NCT01852045|191867798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.694||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|52.064|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||52.064|-26.120|0.5117
95947722|NCT01852045|191867798|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|65.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.101||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.711|111.421|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||111.421|19.711|0.0055
95947723|NCT01852045|191867800|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.673||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.605|25.626|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||25.626|-52.605|0.4948
95759889|NCT00591773|191487570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-7.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.46|-11.92|<0.001
95947724|NCT01852045|191867800|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.382||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.012|45.991|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||45.991|-43.012|0.9471
95947725|NCT01852045|191867801|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.7||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\<12 years or \>=12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<=6 or \>6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.14|0.45|0.2027
95947726|NCT01852045|191867801|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.8||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21||P-values for pairwise comparisons are obtained from a 2-sided CMH test, stratified by age (\< 12 years or \>= 12 years), baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes (\<= 6 or \> 6) and anticholinergic therapy (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.21|0.40|0.1564
95947727|NCT01852045|191867802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.488||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.648|10.669|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||10.669|-19.648|0.5524
95992155|NCT04426695|191960025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0092
95759890|NCT00591773|191487571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.03|2.38|<0.001
95859368|NCT03511937|191676164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||1.1|0.7|<0.001
95947728|NCT01852045|191867802|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.181||0.8313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.427|22.795|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||22.795|-18.427|0.8313
95947729|NCT01852045|191867803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.653|3.238|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||3.238|-17.653|0.1737
95947730|NCT01852045|191867803|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.061|-2.793|||ANCOVA||Least squares estimates and contrast t-test are based on ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate and treatment group, age, baseline daytime urinary incontinence episodes, anticholinergic therapy at baseline as factors.|||-2.793|-26.061|0.0157
95947731|NCT03418545|191867820|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|82.0||The p-value and 95% CI are computed by pooling 5 imputed datasets using PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation. The p-value and 95% CI for each imputed data set is based on the Fisher's exact test and the Wald test, respectively.|Fisher Exact|||||82.0|52.9|<0.0001
95947732|NCT03418545|191867821|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.2|86.8|||||The 95% CI is based on the Wald test.|||86.8|60.2|
95947733|NCT03418545|191867823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level was performed to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at Month 3 was statistically greater than that at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95947734|NCT02684136|191867830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|baseline used as covariate||||||<0.05
95947735|NCT02684136|191867831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||baseline used as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95947736|NCT03162614|191867834|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (AduFx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
95992156|NCT04426695|191960029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0370
95992157|NCT04426695|191960029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1596|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1596
95759891|NCT00591773|191487571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.82|<0.001
95759892|NCT00591773|191487572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.27||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.27|1.90|<0.001
95759893|NCT00591773|191487572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.0||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.00|1.46|0.002
95759894|NCT00591773|191487573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.64||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.64|2.41|<0.001
95759895|NCT00591773|191487573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.79||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.79|1.83|<0.001
95759896|NCT02640482|191487575|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 89% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of using a single binomial proportion a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
95759897|NCT02640482|191487576|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for Arm A as compared with the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 95% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96% in the Arm A (180 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of ABT-493/ABT-530 to the historical rate for patients treated with the current standard of care (SOF + RBV for 12 weeks) (95%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion using a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.5|
95759898|NCT00605540|191487614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All data were analyzed using SigmaStat 3.2 (Inc., USA) software. Mean ± SD or median interquartile range (25-75%) was used depending on the data distribution. Wilcoxon test was applied to compare the characteristics at baseline to those observed after 3 years.||||0.09
95800619|NCT01944774|191573628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.999||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.999|0.104|0.636
95800620|NCT01944774|191573629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.93||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.930|0.091|0.456
95859369|NCT03511937|191676165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.001|0.055
95947737|NCT03162614|191867834|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|76.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as double full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th double dose at Month 7 (2Ped Fx Group versus Control Group).||89|49|<.001
95947738|NCT03162614|191867834|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01E administered as full doses at Month 0 and Month 1 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (PedFx Group versus Control Group).||79|37|<.001
95947739|NCT03162614|191867834|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|72.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 1 and Month 7 (Adu2Fx Group versus Control Group).||72|27|<.001
95947740|NCT03162614|191867834|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the disease for vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people.|Vaccine efficacy rate|29.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing RTS,S/AS01B administered as full dose at Month 0 and 1/5th dose at Month 7 (Adu1Fx Group versus Control Group).||46|6|0.009
95947741|NCT00621842|191867857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|df=53||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-18.0|<.01
95992158|NCT04426695|191960029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0444
95992159|NCT04426695|191960029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1802|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.1802
95759899|NCT01696058|191487630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.135|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.135|0.078|<.0001
95759900|NCT01696058|191487631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550).||0.065|0.014|0.0029
95759901|NCT01696058|191487632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.757|-0.951|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from ANCOVA model. Fixed effects include study, treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (1055), Tio+Olo 5ug (1039)."||-0.951|-2.757|<.0001
95759902|NCT01696058|191487633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.129|0.071|<.0001
95759903|NCT01696058|191487634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.164|0.072|<.0001
95759904|NCT01696058|191487635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.152|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (566), Tio+Olo 5ug (563)."||0.152|0.057|<.0001
95800621|NCT01944774|191573629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.883||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.883|0.090|0.445
95800622|NCT01944774|191573630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 500mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|2.941||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.941|0.091|0.458
95800623|NCT01944774|191573630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Clinical success rate was assumed for the experimental group (Nemonoxacin 650mg) and the control group (Moxifloxacin 400mg) were both 88%. The non-inferiority margin was defined as 15%, one-sided significance value was 0.05 (one-tailed α=0.05), power was 80%, and the assignment ratio was 1:1:1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|4.144||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.144|0.107|0.664
95947742|NCT00621842|191867859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-12.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-12.9|-17.5|<.01
95947743|NCT00621842|191867860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference score between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.88|-1.82|.49
95947744|NCT00621842|191867861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-1.68|-2.43|<.01
95947745|NCT00621842|191867862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.28|-.36|.80
95947746|NCT00621842|191867863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.36||95.0|-0.97|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||2.62|-.97|.36
95947747|NCT00621842|191867865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||.09|-1.67|.08
95947748|NCT00621842|191867866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04||95.0|-1.03|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between the 12 week time point or LOCF and baseline is zero.||-.04|-1.03|.04
95947749|NCT01989793|191867907|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 8||||0.97
95947750|NCT01989793|191867908|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 16||||0.48
95947751|NCT01989793|191867909|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference of change in isokinetic knee strength from baseline to week 24||||0.59
95947752|NCT01989793|191867910|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 8||||0.212
95947753|NCT01989793|191867911|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 16||||0.271
95947754|NCT01989793|191867912|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin=0||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance between arms||Two-sample T-test of between-arm difference in fatiguability at week 24||||0.203
95947755|NCT01989793|191867913|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.82
95992160|NCT04426695|191960029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0407
95800624|NCT01944774|191573631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.959
95992161|NCT04426695|191960029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||stratified log-rank test|||||||0.0523
95992162|NCT04426695|191960030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0245
95992163|NCT04426695|191960030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0554
95759905|NCT01696058|191487636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.076|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||"Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (555), Tio+Olo 5ug (550)."||0.076|-0.008|0.1156
95759906|NCT01696058|191487637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|7.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.145||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.028|11.446|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (552)."||11.446|3.028|0.0008
95759907|NCT01696058|191487638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.336|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.336|-0.800|<.0001
95759908|NCT01696058|191487639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 1|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.001|-0.178|0.0467
95759909|NCT01696058|191487640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.298|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12 - Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (559), Tio+Olo 5ug (555)."||-0.298|-0.668|<.0001
95759910|NCT00106964|191487655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0440
95759911|NCT00106964|191487655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0157
95759912|NCT00106964|191487659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.5822||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.5822
95759913|NCT00106964|191487659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8698||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.8698
95800625|NCT01944774|191573631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.961
95947756|NCT01989793|191867914|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
95992164|NCT04426695|191960030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0179
95992165|NCT04426695|191960030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
95992166|NCT04426695|191960030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95992167|NCT04426695|191960030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95992168|NCT04426695|191960031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
95992169|NCT04426695|191960031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
95992170|NCT04426695|191960031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95800626|NCT01944774|191573632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.960
95947757|NCT01989793|191867915|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin = 0||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test of percentage of participants with improvement in frailty score from baseline between treatment and placebo arms||||0.73
95947758|NCT01957163|191867918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.154|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.154|0.093|< 0.001
95992171|NCT04426695|191960031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0250
95992172|NCT04426695|191960031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0012
95992173|NCT04426695|191960031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
95992174|NCT04426695|191960032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0623
95992175|NCT04426695|191960032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0203
95992176|NCT04426695|191960032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0193
95992177|NCT04426695|191960032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.1206
95992178|NCT04426695|191960032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0911
95992179|NCT04426695|191960032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Difference vs. Placebo by Day 29||||0.0645
95992180|NCT04426695|191960033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0623|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0623
95992181|NCT04426695|191960033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0203
95992182|NCT04426695|191960033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0193
95992183|NCT04426695|191960033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1206|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.1206
95992184|NCT04426695|191960033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0911|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0911
95992185|NCT04426695|191960033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||MMRM|||Percent Difference vs. Placebo at Day 29||||0.0645
95947759|NCT01957163|191867918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.128|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.159|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.159|0.098|<0.001
95759914|NCT00106964|191487660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio (OR) Odds ratio depends on CD4 count resulting from interaction. For example, OR=0.29 for CD4 count = 0; OR= 2.91 for CD4 count = 460 (median CD4 count for the evaluable study population).|||1.19|0.07|0.0853
95759915|NCT00106964|191487660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.63|||Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio|||3.63|1.09|0.0244
95759916|NCT04746794|191487661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
95759917|NCT04746794|191487662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95759918|NCT04040192|191487668|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.0034
95759919|NCT04040192|191487670|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed effects of treatment group, age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Least square mean difference|34.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.274||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|66.64|||ANCOVA|||||66.64|2.53|0.0346
95759920|NCT04040192|191487671|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value was estimated by Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference and 95%CI were estimated using Hodges-Lehmann method.|||0.00|-1.00|0.0042
95759921|NCT04040192|191487672|OTHER|||||||0.6815||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.6815
95759922|NCT04040192|191487672|OTHER|||||||0.1518||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Baseline PP NRS \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction in PP NRS||||0.1518
95947760|NCT01957163|191867919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.187|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.187|0.118|<0.001
95947761|NCT01957163|191867919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|Restricted maximum likelihood (REM) - based repeated measure approach (MMRM)||||0.175|0.106|<0.001
95759923|NCT04040192|191487673|OTHER|||||||0.1933||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization|Log Rank|||||||0.1933
95759924|NCT04040192|191487674|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.3778|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=3 and \>=3 point reduction||||0.3778
95759925|NCT04040192|191487674|OTHER|p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization||||||0.487|||||||Log Rank|||Baseline ORIS Scale \>=4 and \>=4 point reduction||||0.4870
95759926|NCT04040192|191487675|OTHER|||||||0.1159||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||||||0.1159
95759927|NCT04040192|191487676|OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||DLQI for participants \>=16 years of age||||0.6973
95759928|NCT04040192|191487676|OTHER|||||||0.7456||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Children's DLQI: participants 4-\<16 yrs of age||||0.7456
95759929|NCT04040192|191487677|OTHER|||||||0.0513||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||POEM||||0.0513
95759930|NCT04040192|191487677|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||p-value was estimated by the log-rank test, stratified by age group, duration of the BID treatment in OL period, and ISGA score at randomization.|Log Rank|||Proxy POEM||||0.0217
95759931|NCT02052011|191487803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.08|
95759932|NCT00000620|191487804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.03|0.81|0.12
95764386|NCT01128179|191498899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.54||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|19.23||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of serum iPTH at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline iPTH as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||19.23|-6.15|0.2995
95764387|NCT01128179|191498900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.3252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|15.57||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline 1,25-Dihydroxy Vitamin D as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||15.57|-5.36|0.3252
95764388|NCT01128179|191498901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.845|1.403||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) when utilizing an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Urinary Fractional Excretion of Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||1.403|-8.845|0.1459
95947762|NCT00380250|191867921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.117
95947763|NCT00380250|191867922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.006
95947764|NCT00380250|191867923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.050
95947765|NCT00380250|191867924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.159
95992186|NCT04426695|191960034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
95992187|NCT04426695|191960034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9880
95759933|NCT00000620|191487805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.38||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Adjustment performed for the following pre-specified factors: sub-trial assignment (Blood Pressure Trial or Lipid Trial), assignment to intensive BP group in BP Trial, assignment to fenofibrate group in Lipid Trial, the seven clinical center networks, and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline.||1.38|1.03|0.02
95759934|NCT00000620|191487806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Blood PressureTrial was designed to enroll 4200 participant to have 94% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the intensive-therapy group as compared with the standard-therapy group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 4% per year in the standard-therapy group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.06|0.73|0.20
95759935|NCT00000620|191487807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.89||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||0.89|0.39|0.01
95759936|NCT00000620|191487808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-value is adjusted for interim monitoring. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||Recruitment for the Glycemia Trial was designed to enroll 5800 participant to have 87% power to detect a 20% reduction in the rate of MCE for patients in the fenofibrate group as compared with the placebo group, assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, a primary-outcome rate of 2.4% per year in the placebo group, and a planned average follow-up of approximately 5.6 years.||1.08|0.79|0.32
95759937|NCT00000620|191487809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||P-value presented is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjustment for the seven clinical center networks and presence of clinical cardiovascular disease at baseline as pre-specified in the study protocol.||||1.05|0.85|0.30
95759938|NCT01851330|191487810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95759939|NCT01851330|191487810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF+RBV 8 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95759940|NCT01851330|191487810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the comparison of the LDV/SOF 12 week group against the adjusted historical null rate (60%) was based on a 2-sided 1-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95759941|NCT01851330|191487810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|1.8|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||1.8|-8.3|
95759942|NCT01851330|191487810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|2.5|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||2.5|-7.2|
95759943|NCT01851330|191487810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI for the difference between groups was greater than -12%.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||5.7|-3.9|
95759944|NCT02318303|191487824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.669|-0.5485|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5485|-1.6690|<0.0001
95759945|NCT02318303|191487824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7315|-0.609|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6090|-1.7315|<0.0001
95947766|NCT00380250|191867925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.378
95947767|NCT00380250|191867926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for clinical site||||||0.588
95947768|NCT00380250|191867927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||90% statistical power to detect 70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone||||0.029
95992188|NCT04426695|191960034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2498||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2498
95759946|NCT02318303|191487824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7718||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2616|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2820|-1.2616|0.0020
95759947|NCT02318303|191487824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3563||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8445|0.1319|||ANCOVA|||||0.1319|-0.8445|0.1524
95759948|NCT02318303|191487824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4918||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.0025|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0025|-0.9810|0.0488
95759949|NCT02318303|191487824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7133||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2031|-0.2235|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2235|-1.2031|0.0043
95759950|NCT02960490|191487829|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-4.7||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|16.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.46|-25.85|0.621
95800627|NCT01944774|191573632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
95947769|NCT00380250|191867928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.028
95947770|NCT00380250|191867929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.069
95759951|NCT01590797|191487850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.001
95759952|NCT01590797|191487851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Robust Regression|Robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and type of insulin, and baseline A1C (%) as a covariate.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
95759953|NCT01590797|191487852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-14.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and the metformin stratum and type of insulin, and baseline 2-hr Post- Meal Glucose (mg/dL) as a covariate.||||-14.7|-38.4|<0.001
95759954|NCT02047734|191487888|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|0.768||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.768|0.506|<0.0001
95992189|NCT04426695|191960034|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
95992190|NCT04426695|191960034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0457
95759955|NCT02047734|191487888|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.791||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.958||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline number of GdE lesions, and Included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.958|0.652|0.0167
95800628|NCT01944774|191573633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.950
95759956|NCT02047734|191487889|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.714||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.714|0.465|<0.0001
95759957|NCT02047734|191487889|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.657||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|0.813||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions and included the natural log transformation of available number of MRI scans as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.813|0.531|0.0001
95759958|NCT02047734|191487890|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.471||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.725||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.725|0.306|0.0006
95759959|NCT02047734|191487890|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.528||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.805||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model,|Adjusted for region, age, and Baseline GdE lesions with the natural log transformation of available MRI scans at Month 24 as an offset term.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.805|0.346|0.0030
95759960|NCT02047734|191487891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.537||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World) age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.537|0.711|0.8224
95800629|NCT01944774|191573633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
95759961|NCT02047734|191487891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.798||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.206||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.206|0.528|0.2849
95759962|NCT02047734|191487892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.435||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.305||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||2.305|0.893|0.1353
95759963|NCT02047734|191487892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.815||To control for type 1 error, the key secondary endpoints were tested in order in a sequential, closed hierarchical testing procedure. Each comparison was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazard model|Adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a) based on Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, age at Baseline, and Baseline EDSS score.|||1.815|0.664|0.7154
95759964|NCT02047734|191487893|SUPERIORITY||Difference|9.4||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||15.8|2.9|0.0047
95800630|NCT01944774|191573634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.949
95800631|NCT01944774|191573634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval of OR is (\<0.001, \>999.999).|||||0.962
95800632|NCT01944774|191573635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.609||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.609|0.042|0.491
95800633|NCT01944774|191573635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.531||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|6.444||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.444|0.044|0.619
95759965|NCT02047734|191487893|SUPERIORITY||Difference|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World) and Baseline EDSS category||||13.6|0.6|0.0320
95759966|NCT02047734|191487894|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.4||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.8|0.0|0.0466
95759967|NCT02047734|191487894|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.1||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world) and Baseline EDSS category||||10.5|-0.3|0.0581
95947771|NCT00380250|191867930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.098
95947772|NCT00380250|191867931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.286
95759968|NCT02047734|191487895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.244|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.363||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.363|0.125|<0.0001
95800634|NCT01944774|191573636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|4.708||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.708|0.042|0.501
95800635|NCT01944774|191573636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
95800636|NCT01944774|191573637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|8.832||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.832|0.061|0.807
95800637|NCT01944774|191573637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
95800638|NCT01944774|191573638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|8.445||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.445|0.058|0.779
95800639|NCT01944774|191573638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.567||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|6.895||Only P values less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.895|0.047|0.656
95800640|NCT02337946|191573721|SUPERIORITY||Difference of PFS rate between groups|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.0|||||||Agresti-Caffo method was used for estimation of 95% CI.|19.0|-17.2|
95800641|NCT02337946|191573722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.43|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.43|0.60|0.7349
95800642|NCT02337946|191573723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||2.88|0.69|0.3485
95947773|NCT00380250|191867932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.337|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.337
95947774|NCT00380250|191867933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.334
95947775|NCT00380250|191867934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.242
95759969|NCT02047734|191487895|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.224||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.342||Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|ANCOVA||Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs. rest of the world), Baseline EDSS category, and brain volume at Baseline.|||0.342|0.106|0.0002
95759970|NCT02047734|191487896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.043||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.116|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means are based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.116|-0.030|0.2480
95759971|NCT02047734|191487896|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.093||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.165|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline MSFC Z-score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline MSFC Z-score.|||0.165|0.020|0.0123
95759972|NCT02047734|191487897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.345||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|2.943|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||2.943|-0.252|0.0988
95800643|NCT02337946|191573725|SUPERIORITY||Multivariable Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Multivariable Cox|The Cox regression model was adjusted by stratification factors except for study sites.||||1.33|0.60|0.5901
95800644|NCT01327703|191573730|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of Panzytrat® versus Kreon® exceeded -10%.|Treatment difference|-2.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|4.02||As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis method was used for comparison using log-transformed percent CFA as the response variable, fixed effect factors for treatment, period, treatment sequence and pooled site and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||4.02|-7.23|0.4590
95800645|NCT03491917|191573794|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is delta = 0.05.|||||<|0.01||||||The average difference in AUC was 0.023 (two-sided 95% CI: -0.012, 0.059; non-inferiority p \< 0.01 for non-inferiority margin delta = -0.05).|t-test, 2 sided|df: 417.0 for FFDM, 424.6 for DBT plus S-View, and (1, 18.9) for the difference.||The primary endpoint for this study was a non-inferior per-subject average area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) requiring correct lesion localization for DBT (digital breast tomosynthesis) plus S-View (synthesized view) versus FFDM (full field digital mammography). AUCs for each reader were estimated in each review condition based on per-subject probability of malignancy (POM) scores requiring correct lesion localization.||||<0.01
95859370|NCT03511937|191676166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.27|0.258
95947776|NCT00380250|191867935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.030
95947777|NCT00380250|191867936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.130
95947778|NCT00380250|191867937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.049
95947779|NCT00380250|191867938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.348|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.348
95947780|NCT00380250|191867939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.064
95947781|NCT00380250|191867940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.111
95947782|NCT00380250|191867941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.144
95947783|NCT00380250|191867942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by pooled center||||||0.168
95947784|NCT00380250|191867943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|||||||van Elteren nonparametic test|Adjusted for center||||||0.615
95947785|NCT00380250|191867944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.108|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.108
95947786|NCT00380250|191867945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.483
95947787|NCT00380250|191867946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.491|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.491
95947788|NCT00380250|191867947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
95947789|NCT00380250|191867948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
95947790|NCT00380250|191867949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||<0.001
95947791|NCT03822832|191867968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.4||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||3.7|-54.9|0.1492
95947792|NCT03822832|191867970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||7.0|-5.7|0.8613
95947793|NCT03822832|191867971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.8|21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||21.4|-25.8|0.8754
95947794|NCT03822832|191867972|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.176||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.176|-0.254|
95947795|NCT03822832|191867972|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.396||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.396|0.053|
95947796|NCT03822832|191867973|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.204|0.117||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.117|-0.204|
95947797|NCT03822832|191867973|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.232||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Pl|Risk difference at week 16||0.232|-0.080|
95947798|NCT03822832|191867974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||14.8|-14.6|0.9900
95947799|NCT03822832|191867975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|See endpoint description for model description.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo.|||5.5|-35.2|0.2266
95947800|NCT03822832|191867976|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.159|0.12||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 4||0.120|-0.159|
95947801|NCT03822832|191867976|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.207||||CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson and Newcombe.|Difference calculated as Spesolimab - Placebo|Risk difference at week 16||0.207|-0.050|
95947802|NCT04248803|191867996|NON_INFERIORITY|From the above mentioned non inferiority clinical trial it is hypothesized that GLUMA application will reduce postoperative sensitivity during dental restorative procedures.||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was estimated to be 504 using G Power software with 95% power and alpha value set to 0.05. The participants were randomly divided to 6 groups with randomizer.org. The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 23 software to compare the mean pain scores between the six study groups using kruskal Wallis test.||||0.05
95759973|NCT02047734|191487897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|1.849||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.44|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary Score||3.440|0.258|0.0228
95759974|NCT02047734|191487897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.38||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.553|2.313|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.313|-1.553|0.6997
95759975|NCT02047734|191487897|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.587||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.513|||ANCOVA|Based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region, Baseline EDSS category, and the Baseline summary score|Difference in means based on the analysis of covariance model, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of the World), Baseline EDSS category, and Baseline summary score.|Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary Score||2.513|-1.339|0.5501
95859371|NCT03511937|191676167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.13|-0.30|0.416
95947803|NCT03787628|191868003|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.703||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of cue-induced craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 67).|||||0.41
95947804|NCT03787628|191868004|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of spontaneous craving.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on spontaneous craving (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.99
95947805|NCT03787628|191868005|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of state anxiety.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on state anxiety (degrees of freedom = 1, 550)|||||0.84
95947806|NCT03787628|191868006|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) testing the main effect of group and time, and the group X time interaction.|F-test|0.27||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value reflects the test of the interaction between group and time on the measure of negative affect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value reflects the f test of the interaction between group and time on negative affect (degrees of freedom = 1, 550).|||||0.60
95947807|NCT02434328|191868129|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
95947808|NCT02434328|191868130|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 4 letters.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||1-sided p-value reported. Hypothesis tested according to the pre-specified hierarchical testing that ensures the global type I error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||0.5|-2.8|0.0003
95947809|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||0.0|-2.0|
95947810|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||0.2|-2.2|
95759976|NCT02047734|191487899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
95759977|NCT02047734|191487899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and Baseline EDSS category, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline||||||<0.0001
95759978|NCT01333397|191487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95759979|NCT01333397|191487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95800646|NCT02949934|191573795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, baseline drinks per day, and whether participant participated before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group.||||0.013
95800647|NCT02949934|191573796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were age, baseline AUDIT score, and baseline drinks per day.||Analysis was an ANCOVA testing the interaction between rs4680 genotype and medication group||||0.014
95800648|NCT02949934|191573797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.062
95947811|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.4|-2.4|
95947812|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||0.6|-2.3|
95759980|NCT01333397|191487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||ILA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95759981|NCT01333397|191487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 20 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95759982|NCT01333397|191487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 50 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95759983|NCT01333397|191487900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||SSA - Dysport NG 75 U Vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95800649|NCT02949934|191573798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between rs4680 genotype, medication group, and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.83
95800650|NCT02949934|191573798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model testing interaction between medication group and time, controlling for scanner||||||0.026
95992191|NCT04426695|191960034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2153||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2153
95759984|NCT05084924|191487915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 3.32||||||0.049
95759985|NCT05084924|191487916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Main effect of stimulation: F(2,32) = 6.67|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95759986|NCT01292226|191487934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA)||||||0.4505
95759987|NCT01292226|191487934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7322
95759988|NCT01292226|191487934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6798||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6798
95759989|NCT01292226|191487934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5410
95759990|NCT01292226|191487935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3892||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3892
95759991|NCT01292226|191487935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6564||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6564
95759992|NCT01292226|191487935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7772||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7772
95759993|NCT01292226|191487935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0958
95759994|NCT01292226|191487936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5796||||||Time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.5796
95759995|NCT01292226|191487936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3428||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3428
95759996|NCT01292226|191487937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||||||Free MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9372
95759997|NCT01292226|191487937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||||||Total MPA, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9904
95759998|NCT01292226|191487937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||||||Free MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3658
95759999|NCT01292226|191487937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||||||Total MPA, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.2987
95760000|NCT01292226|191487938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||||||time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.7455
95760001|NCT01292226|191487938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8504||||||Time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.8504
95760002|NCT01292226|191487939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847||||||IMPDH I, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.6847
95760003|NCT01292226|191487939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3184||||||IMPDH I, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3184
95760004|NCT01292226|191487939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3862||||||IMPDH II, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.3862
95760005|NCT01292226|191487939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||IMPDH II, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9040
95760006|NCT01292226|191487939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907||||||IMPDH activity, time 0 \[trough\]|ANOVA|||||||0.0907
95800651|NCT00849472|191573808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.64|27.55|||||The estimated value (EV) represents the percentage of participants with pCR. Participants with missing data were excluded from the denominator (n=89; 4 participants with missing data) for the calculation of the EV.|||27.55|10.64|
95947813|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||0.0|-3.0|
95947814|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||0.6|-2.5|
95760007|NCT01292226|191487939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||||||IMPDH activity, time 120 \[2 hours after administration at Week 12\]|ANOVA|||||||0.9630
95760008|NCT01292226|191487940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.4130
95760009|NCT01292226|191487940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3823||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.3823
95760010|NCT01292226|191487941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.0316
95760011|NCT01292226|191487941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.9440
95760012|NCT01292226|191487942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||||||IMPDH I|ANOVA|||||||0.1328
95760013|NCT01292226|191487942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||IMPDH II|ANOVA|||||||0.5760
95760014|NCT01292226|191487943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7332||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7332
95760015|NCT01292226|191487943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.2681
95760016|NCT01292226|191487943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7087||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.7087
95760017|NCT01292226|191487944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9432||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.9432
95760018|NCT01292226|191487944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5177||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.5177
95760019|NCT01292226|191487944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6398||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.6398
95760020|NCT01292226|191487945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0656||||||Free MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0656
95760021|NCT01292226|191487945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Total MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0131
95760022|NCT01292226|191487945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0515||||||AUC MPA|ANOVA|||||||0.0515
95760023|NCT03898908|191487954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and Week 8||||0.015
95760024|NCT03898908|191487955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||pValues below 0.05 are considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between baseline and W24||||0.754
95760025|NCT00468650|191487957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|10.0|11.93||"Statistical significance will be declared if the p-value is \<0.05.~Change from Baseline: Week 6 (LOCF) minus Baseline"|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Primary hypothesis to be tested is whether there is a significant improvement in the IIEF EF domain at the end of the 100 mg period, as compared to the baseline (Week 0) score. Sample size (N=115) provides more than 90% power to detect a change from baseline of 10 in the primary efficacy variable, assuming a standard deviation of 9, using the two-sided, single-sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05.||11.93|10.00|<0.001
95947815|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||0.5|-2.7|
95947816|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||0.7|-2.5|
95947817|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||0.4|-2.9|
95947818|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||0.5|-2.9|
95760026|NCT00468650|191487958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|6.17|8.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||8.11|6.17|<0.001
95760027|NCT00468650|191487958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.43|<|0.001||95.0|9.56|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||11.59|9.56|<0.001
95760028|NCT00468650|191487958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|<|0.001||95.0|9.93|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||11.92|9.93|<0.001
95760029|NCT00468650|191487958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|9.97|11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 endpoint minus baseline||11.92|9.97|<0.001
95760030|NCT00468650|191487959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.001||95.0|2.74|4.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.23|2.74|<0.001
95760031|NCT00468650|191487959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.05|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.71|3.05|<0.001
95800652|NCT02762604|191573820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|15.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in normal pace gait speed pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||15.12|-19.36|
95760032|NCT00468650|191487959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
95760033|NCT00468650|191487959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|<|0.001||95.0|3.04|4.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2 For the secondary outcome, the change in IIEF-EF domain from the end of 50 mg period (Week 2) to the end of 100 mg period (Week 6), the sample size (N=115) provides more than 80% power to detect a mean change of 1.75 points, assuming a standard deviation of 6, using the two-sided, single sample t-test with significance level (alpha) of 0.05||4.67|3.04|<0.001
95760034|NCT00468650|191487960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.34||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||2.34|1.45|<0.001
95760035|NCT00468650|191487960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|<|0.001||95.0|2.02|2.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.89|2.02|<0.001
95760036|NCT00468650|191487960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.13|3.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||3.05|2.13|<0.001
95760037|NCT00468650|191487960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.17|3.08||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||3.08|2.17|<0.001
95800653|NCT02762604|191573820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|32.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention||32.97|1.40|
95760038|NCT00468650|191487960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.14|3.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||3.04|2.14|<0.001
95760039|NCT00468650|191487961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|<|0.001||95.0|0.32|0.89||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.89|0.32|<0.001
95760040|NCT00468650|191487961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.02||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.02|0.47|<0.001
95760041|NCT00468650|191487961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
95800654|NCT02762604|191573821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.99|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in the number of correct letters generated pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letters generated pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.99|0.21|
95760042|NCT00468650|191487961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.47|1.01||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.01|0.47|<0.001
95760043|NCT00468650|191487962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|<|0.001||95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||1.78|1.09|<0.001
95760044|NCT00468650|191487962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|<|0.001||95.0|1.65|2.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||2.35|1.65|<0.001
95760045|NCT00468650|191487962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.89|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||2.62|1.89|<0.001
95859372|NCT03511937|191676168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.24||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.24|-0.14|0.609
95859373|NCT03511937|191676169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.5|0.1|0.002
95760046|NCT00468650|191487962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|<|0.001||95.0|1.9|2.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||2.62|1.90|<0.001
95947819|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||0.1|-3.2|
95859374|NCT03511937|191676170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||2.3|1.8|<0.001
95859375|NCT03511937|191676171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.07|-0.23|0.311
95859376|NCT03511937|191676172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.08|-0.30|0.253
95859377|NCT03511937|191676173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||0.14|-0.22|0.658
95859378|NCT03511937|191676174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.3|172.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||172.3|-271.3|0.661
95760047|NCT00468650|191487962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|1.91|2.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||2.64|1.91|<0.001
95800655|NCT02762604|191573822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|16.85|||||The estimate parameter reflects change in functional activation/deactivation pattern from pre to post intervention as a function intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery).|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in the functional activation/deactivation pattern (factor score) during imagery of walking-while talking (relative to walking and talking alone) pre and post intervention - as a function of of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||16.85|-12.04|
95947820|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||1.0|-2.4|
95947821|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||1.1|-2.5|
95760048|NCT00468650|191487963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|<|0.001||95.0|0.29|0.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||0.82|0.29|<0.001
95760049|NCT00468650|191487963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.001||95.0|0.53|1.09||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.09|0.53|<0.001
95760050|NCT00468650|191487963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
95859379|NCT03511937|191676175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Two-part regression model with robust SE|Analyses controlled for overweight/obese status and Hispanic ethnicity, which were unbalanced between arms, and estimated Huber-White robust SEs.||||26.6|-1.6|0.082
95859380|NCT02289157|191676176|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Ho: There is no difference between number of patients with wound complications between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||1.4|0.5|0.54
95947822|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||1.1|-2.5|
95947823|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||1.0|-2.7|
95760051|NCT00468650|191487963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|0.55|1.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.11|0.55|<0.001
95760052|NCT00468650|191487964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42|<|0.001||95.0|2.73|3.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.63|2.73|<0.001
95760053|NCT00468650|191487964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|<|0.001||95.0|3.94|4.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.83|3.94|<0.001
95760054|NCT00468650|191487964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.21|4.25|<0.001
95760055|NCT00468650|191487964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.17|4.23|<0.001
95760056|NCT00468650|191487964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.19|4.25|<0.001
95760057|NCT00468650|191487965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.59|0.80|<0.001
95760058|NCT00468650|191487965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.95|1.12|<0.001
95760059|NCT00468650|191487965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
95760060|NCT00468650|191487965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.95|1.13|<0.001
95800656|NCT02762604|191573823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|13.07|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails a time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||13.07|-14.15|
95800657|NCT02762604|191573824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.92|27.51|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails b time pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.51|-51.92|
95947824|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||1.2|-2.5|
95947825|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||1.2|-2.5|
95760061|NCT00468650|191487966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|<|0.001||95.0|2.28|3.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.17|2.28|<0.001
95760062|NCT00468650|191487966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.2|4.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.14|3.20|<0.001
95760063|NCT00468650|191487966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||4.40|3.44|<0.001
95760064|NCT00468650|191487966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.44|4.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||4.38|3.44|<0.001
95760065|NCT00468650|191487966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.53|<|0.001||95.0|3.42|4.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||4.37|3.42|<0.001
95760066|NCT00468650|191487967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88|<|0.001||95.0|0.62|1.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.32|0.62|<0.001
95760067|NCT00468650|191487967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.001||95.0|0.85|1.57||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||1.57|0.85|<0.001
95760068|NCT00468650|191487967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
95760069|NCT00468650|191487967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.001||95.0|0.84|1.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.55|0.84|<0.001
95760070|NCT00468650|191487968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.36|<|0.001||95.0|27.98|37.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||37.43|27.98|<0.001
95760071|NCT00468650|191487968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|46.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.27|<|0.001||95.0|41.29|51.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||51.12|41.29|<0.001
95760072|NCT00468650|191487968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.96|<|0.001||95.0|40.44|50.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||50.63|40.44|<0.001
95760073|NCT00468650|191487968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.01|<|0.001||95.0|40.25|50.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||50.31|40.25|<0.001
95760074|NCT00468650|191487968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|45.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.02|<|0.001||95.0|39.99|50.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||50.11|39.99|<0.001
95760075|NCT00468650|191487969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.001||95.0|9.89|17.79||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||17.79|9.89|<0.001
95800658|NCT02762604|191573825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.12|26.47|||||The estimate parameter is the difference in change pre to post intervention between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery group.|Linear mixed effects model were used to compare changes in trails B minus A time pre and post intervention.||26.47|-48.12|
95800659|NCT02762604|191573826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.79|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in correct letter number sequences pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.79|-2.65|
95800660|NCT02762604|191573827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|26.78|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in Stroop interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||26.78|-24.00|
95800661|NCT02762604|191573828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.94|163.47|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in flanker interference pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||163.47|-149.94|
95800662|NCT02762604|191573829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|24.41|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||24.41|5.99|
95800663|NCT02762604|191573830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.2|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in gait variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||-0.20|-3.73|
95800664|NCT02762604|191573832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|10.84|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in total free recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||10.84|-5.98|
95859381|NCT02289157|191676177|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-squared, df (3)||Ho: There is no difference between the types wound morbidity in the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.31
95760076|NCT00468650|191487969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.25|<|0.001||95.0|8.49|17.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||17.65|8.49|<0.001
95760077|NCT00468650|191487969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
95760078|NCT00468650|191487969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.26|<|0.001||95.0|8.14|17.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||17.23|8.14|<0.001
95760079|NCT00468650|191487970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|4.59|6.23||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||6.23|4.59|<0.001
95760080|NCT00468650|191487970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.96|<|0.001||95.0|7.92|9.78||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||9.78|7.92|<0.001
95760081|NCT00468650|191487970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001||95.0|8.23|10.19||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||10.19|8.23|<0.001
95760082|NCT00468650|191487970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.14|<|0.001||95.0|8.32|10.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||10.24|8.32|<0.001
95760083|NCT00468650|191487970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.15|<|0.001||95.0|8.28|10.22||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||10.22|8.28|<0.001
95760084|NCT00468650|191487971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|2.78|4.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.24|2.78|<0.001
95947826|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||1.1|-2.8|
95760085|NCT00468650|191487971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.41|<|0.001||95.0|3.08|4.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||4.74|3.08|<0.001
95760086|NCT00468650|191487971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
95760087|NCT00468650|191487971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.38|<|0.001||95.0|3.09|4.73||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.73|3.09|<0.001
95760088|NCT00468650|191487972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.001||95.0|5.77|7.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||7.59|5.77|<0.001
95760089|NCT00468650|191487972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.21|<|0.001||95.0|8.96|10.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||10.91|8.96|<0.001
95760090|NCT00468650|191487972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|<|0.001||95.0|9.62|11.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||11.56|9.62|<0.001
95800665|NCT02762604|191573833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|2.0|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed figure copy recall pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.00|-5.88|
95800666|NCT02762604|191573834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|7.28|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in word fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||7.28|-20.01|
95947827|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||1.4|-2.5|
95760091|NCT00468650|191487972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.03|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||11.58|9.68|<0.001
95760092|NCT00468650|191487972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|<|0.001||95.0|9.68|11.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||11.59|9.68|<0.001
95760093|NCT00468650|191487973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.05|2.52|<0.001
95760094|NCT00468650|191487973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.09|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|5.0||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.00|3.06|<0.001
95760095|NCT00468650|191487973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
95760096|NCT00468650|191487973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.04|<|0.001||95.0|3.06|4.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||4.96|3.06|<0.001
95947828|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||1.8|-2.1|
95760097|NCT00468650|191487974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.44|<|0.001||95.0|2.33|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||3.24|2.33|<0.001
95760098|NCT00468650|191487974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56|<|0.001||95.0|3.74|4.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Baseline||4.71|3.74|<0.001
95760099|NCT00468650|191487974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.84|<|0.001||95.0|4.2|5.28||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Baseline||5.28|4.20|<0.001
95760100|NCT00468650|191487974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001||95.0|4.25|5.31||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Baseline||5.31|4.25|<0.001
95760101|NCT00468650|191487974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|<|0.001||95.0|4.23|5.3||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Baseline||5.30|4.23|<0.001
95760102|NCT00468650|191487975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.001||95.0|1.13|1.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.85|1.13|<0.001
95760103|NCT00468650|191487975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|<|0.001||95.0|1.57|2.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.36|1.57|<0.001
95760104|NCT00468650|191487975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
95947829|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||1.1|-2.9|
95947830|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||1.3|-2.6|
95947831|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||1.6|-2.4|
95947832|NCT02434328|191868135|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||1.6|-2.5|
95947833|NCT02434328|191868136|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||0.3|-2.4|
95760105|NCT00468650|191487975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|<|0.001||95.0|1.59|2.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||2.37|1.59|<0.001
95760106|NCT00468650|191487976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|8.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.7||0.0016||95.0|3.42|14.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||14.26|3.42|0.0016
95760107|NCT00468650|191487976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.51|<|0.001||95.0|4.93|15.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||15.43|4.93|<0.001
95760108|NCT00468650|191487976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.88|<|0.001||95.0|6.7|17.88||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||17.88|6.70|<0.001
95760109|NCT00468650|191487976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.33|<|0.001||95.0|6.61|17.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||17.32|6.61|<0.001
95760110|NCT00468650|191487976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.55|<|0.001||95.0|6.51|17.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||17.40|6.51|<0.001
95760111|NCT00468650|191487977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.85||0.3324||95.0|-1.42|4.17||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||4.17|-1.42|0.3324
95760112|NCT00468650|191487977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.26||0.0249||95.0|0.4|5.84||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||5.84|0.40|0.0249
95760113|NCT00468650|191487977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.0249||95.0|0.37|5.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||5.58|0.37|0.0249
95947834|NCT02434328|191868136|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||0.7|-2.4|
95947835|NCT02434328|191868137|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12 to Week 48||0.4|-2.5|
95947836|NCT02434328|191868137|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.||Week 12 to Week 96|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|0.8|-2.4|
95947837|NCT02434328|191868138|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||1.4|-2.5|
95760114|NCT00468650|191487977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.07||0.0249||95.0|0.39|5.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||5.68|0.39|0.0249
95760115|NCT00468650|191487978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.51|<|0.001||95.0|9.38|21.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||21.36|9.38|<0.001
95760116|NCT00468650|191487978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.22|<|0.001||95.0|10.76|23.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||23.55|10.76|<0.001
95760117|NCT00468650|191487978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.44|<|0.001||95.0|11.68|24.76||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||24.76|11.68|<0.001
95760118|NCT00468650|191487978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.87|<|0.001||95.0|11.07|23.59||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||23.59|11.07|<0.001
95760119|NCT00468650|191487978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.1|<|0.001||95.0|11.31|24.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||24.04|11.31|<0.001
95800667|NCT02762604|191573835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|17.97|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in semantic fluency pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||17.97|-6.51|
95800668|NCT02762604|191573836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.03||||||A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in digit symbol substitution performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)|The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|16.03|-16.10|
95760120|NCT00468650|191487979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.1061||95.0|-0.32|3.24||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||3.24|-0.32|0.1061
95760121|NCT00468650|191487979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.33||0.3237||95.0|-1.18|3.54||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||3.54|-1.18|0.3237
95760122|NCT00468650|191487979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05||0.3236||95.0|-1.13|3.38||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||3.38|-1.13|0.3236
95760123|NCT00468650|191487979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16||0.3236||95.0|-1.15|3.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||3.45|-1.15|0.3236
95760124|NCT00468650|191487980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
95760125|NCT00468650|191487980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
95760126|NCT00468650|191487980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
95760127|NCT00468650|191487980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
95760128|NCT00468650|191487980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
95760129|NCT00468650|191487981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
95760130|NCT00468650|191487981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
95760131|NCT00468650|191487981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
95760132|NCT00468650|191487981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
95760133|NCT00468650|191487982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.24|<|0.001||95.0|50.48|66.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||66.68|50.48|<0.001
95760134|NCT00468650|191487982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|76.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.21|<|0.001||95.0|68.9|83.67||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||83.67|68.90|<0.001
95760135|NCT00468650|191487982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|77.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.26|<|0.001||95.0|70.18|85.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||85.21|70.18|<0.001
95760136|NCT00468650|191487982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.65|<|0.001||95.0|71.59|85.99||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||85.99|71.59|<0.001
95760137|NCT00468650|191487982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|78.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.89|<|0.001||95.0|71.04|85.68||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||85.68|71.04|<0.001
95760138|NCT00468650|191487983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.63|<|0.001||95.0|10.98|24.83||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||24.83|10.98|<0.001
95760139|NCT00468650|191487983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.84|<|0.001||95.0|12.44|26.56||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||26.56|12.44|<0.001
95800669|NCT02762604|191573838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|18.42|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in immediate maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||18.42|-11.14|
95800670|NCT02762604|191573839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|27.18|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in delayed maze performance pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||27.18|-20.65|
95859382|NCT02289157|191676178|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Ho: There is no difference between initial length of stay between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95947838|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||2.9|-5.1|
95947839|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.0|-9.5|
95947840|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||0.3|-10.5|
95947841|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||3.7|-8.4|
95947842|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.8|-8.8|
95947843|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||6.7|-5.2|
95947844|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-9.9|
95947845|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.7|-10.5|
95947846|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.3|-11.6|
95947847|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||1.9|-11.5|
95992192|NCT04426695|191960035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0811||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0811
95947848|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||1.8|-11.3|
95760140|NCT00468650|191487983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.99|<|0.001||95.0|12.59|26.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||26.45|12.59|<0.001
95760141|NCT00468650|191487983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.23|<|0.001||95.0|12.84|26.91||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||26.91|12.84|<0.001
95760142|NCT00468650|191487984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.6|<|0.001||95.0|48.93|65.75||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||65.75|48.93|<0.001
95760143|NCT00468650|191487984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.3|<|0.001||95.0|62.72|78.71||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||78.71|62.72|<0.001
95760144|NCT00468650|191487984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.78|<|0.001||95.0|62.41|78.85||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.85|62.41|<0.001
95760145|NCT00468650|191487984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.27|<|0.001||95.0|64.16|79.98||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.98|64.16|<0.001
95760146|NCT00468650|191487984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.48|<|0.001||95.0|63.48|79.55||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||79.55|63.48|<0.001
95760147|NCT00468650|191487985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.11|<|0.001||95.0|7.58|18.63||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||18.63|7.58|<0.001
95760148|NCT00468650|191487985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.53|<|0.001||95.0|7.84|20.37||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.37|7.84|<0.001
95947849|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||5.8|-7.1|
95947850|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.5|-7.0|
95760149|NCT00468650|191487985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.92|<|0.001||95.0|7.47|19.47||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||19.47|7.47|<0.001
95760150|NCT00468650|191487985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.16|<|0.001||95.0|7.61|19.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||19.82|7.61|<0.001
95760151|NCT00468650|191487986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|56.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.93|<|0.001||95.0|49.31|64.6||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus Baseline||64.60|49.31|<0.001
95760152|NCT00468650|191487986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46|<|0.001||95.0|63.74|77.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||77.81|63.74|<0.001
95760153|NCT00468650|191487986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.79|<|0.001||95.0|64.02|78.45||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||78.45|64.02|<0.001
95760154|NCT00468650|191487986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|72.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.41|<|0.001||95.0|65.2|79.11||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||79.11|65.20|<0.001
95760155|NCT00468650|191487986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55|<|0.001||95.0|64.54|78.65||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||78.65|64.54|<0.001
95760156|NCT00468650|191487987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.89|<|0.001||95.0|7.72|19.4||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||19.40|7.72|<0.001
95760157|NCT00468650|191487987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.31|<|0.001||95.0|8.25|20.25||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||20.25|8.25|<0.001
95760158|NCT00468650|191487987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.77|<|0.001||95.0|8.56|20.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||20.46|8.56|<0.001
95947851|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.4|-7.7|
95992193|NCT04426695|191960035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6701||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6701
95992194|NCT04426695|191960035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2006||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2006
95760159|NCT00468650|191487987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001||95.0|8.72|20.82||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||20.82|8.72|<0.001
95760160|NCT00468650|191487988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.001||95.0|-19.96|-5.2||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-5.20|-19.96|0.0010
95760161|NCT00468650|191487988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.04|<|0.001||95.0|-27.47|-13.64||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-13.64|-27.47|<0.001
95760162|NCT00468650|191487988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.64|<|0.001||95.0|-29.88|-15.18||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-15.18|-29.88|<0.001
95760163|NCT00468650|191487988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.06|<|0.001||95.0|-28.49|-14.39||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-14.39|-28.49|<0.001
95760164|NCT00468650|191487988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.29|<|0.001||95.0|-29.03|-14.7||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-14.70|-29.03|<0.001
95760165|NCT00468650|191487989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.58||0.0021||95.0|-11.06|-2.52||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-2.52|-11.06|0.0021
95760166|NCT00468650|191487989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.02||0.0027||95.0|-11.26|-2.43||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-2.43|-11.26|0.0027
95760167|NCT00468650|191487989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.0015||95.0|-11.97|-2.9||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-2.90|-11.97|0.0015
95760168|NCT00468650|191487989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0015||95.0|-12.18|-2.96||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-2.96|-12.18|0.0015
95760169|NCT00468650|191487990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.44||0.0045||95.0|-16.6|-3.14||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||-3.14|-16.60|0.0045
95947852|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-8.3|
95760170|NCT00468650|191487990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|<|0.001||95.0|-18.22|-5.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-5.27|-18.22|<0.001
95992195|NCT04426695|191960035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3313
95760171|NCT00468650|191487990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.56|<|0.001||95.0|-19.51|-6.05||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-6.05|-19.51|<0.001
95760172|NCT00468650|191487990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.94|<|0.001||95.0|-19.76|-6.5||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-6.50|-19.76|<0.001
95760173|NCT00468650|191487990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.13|<|0.001||95.0|-18.94|-5.86||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-5.86|-18.94|<0.001
95760174|NCT00468650|191487991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0||0.2567||95.0|-6.55|1.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||1.77|-6.55|0.2567
95760175|NCT00468650|191487991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.73||0.3435||95.0|-5.88|2.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||2.07|-5.88|0.3435
95760176|NCT00468650|191487991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.28||0.2||95.0|-6.89|1.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||1.46|-6.89|0.2000
95760177|NCT00468650|191487991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.48||0.2||95.0|-7.01|1.48||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||1.48|-7.01|0.2000
95760178|NCT00468650|191487992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.75||0.0558||95.0|-21.91|0.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||0.27|-21.91|0.0558
95947853|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-7.9|
95947854|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.1|-9.9|
95947855|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.3|-10.2|
95947856|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.0|-8.8|
95947857|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.5|-9.0|
95760179|NCT00468650|191487992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.81|<|0.001||95.0|-40.96|-17.35||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||-17.35|-40.96|<0.001
95760180|NCT00468650|191487992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.9|<|0.001||95.0|-43.0|-18.58||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||-18.58|-43.00|<0.001
95760181|NCT00468650|191487992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.7|<|0.001||95.0|-42.33|-18.21||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||-18.21|-42.33|<0.001
95760182|NCT00468650|191487992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.54|<|0.001||95.0|-42.82|-18.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||-18.92|-42.82|<0.001
95760183|NCT00468650|191487993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-18.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.03|<|0.001||95.0|-27.05|-9.66||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||-9.66|-27.05|<0.001
95947858|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.8|-9.9|
95947859|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||0.3|-11.8|
95947860|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||4.5|-7.9|
95992196|NCT04426695|191960035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5542||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5542
95760184|NCT00468650|191487993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.24|<|0.001||95.0|-30.84|-13.49||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||-13.49|-30.84|<0.001
95760185|NCT00468650|191487993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.86|<|0.001||95.0|-28.87|-11.69||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||-11.69|-28.87|<0.001
95760186|NCT00468650|191487993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.2|<|0.001||95.0|-29.38|-11.92||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||-11.92|-29.38|<0.001
95859383|NCT02289157|191676179|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in length of stay after readmission for wound morbidity between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.41
95947861|NCT02434328|191868139|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.8|
95947862|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.8|-7.6|
95947863|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||0.1|-13.0|
95760187|NCT00468650|191487994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.43|<|0.001||95.0|25.17|41.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||41.36|25.17|<0.001
95947864|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.4|-10.1|
95760188|NCT00468650|191487994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|61.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.77|<|0.001||95.0|52.61|70.29||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||70.29|52.61|<0.001
95947865|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.3|-7.3|
95947866|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||2.2|-11.2|
95947867|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.0|-10.7|
95947868|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||4.0|-9.6|
95947869|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.5|-9.4|
95947870|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.1|-12.1|
95947871|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.5|-9.9|
95947872|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||4.2|-10.3|
95947873|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||4.7|-8.7|
95947874|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.7|-8.0|
95947875|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.3|-9.8|
95760189|NCT00468650|191487994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.15|<|0.001||95.0|57.05|75.16||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||75.16|57.05|<0.001
95760190|NCT00468650|191487994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|64.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|<|0.001||95.0|55.91|73.77||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||73.77|55.91|<0.001
95760191|NCT00468650|191487994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.56|<|0.001||95.0|56.14|74.12||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||74.12|56.14|<0.001
95760192|NCT00468650|191487995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.19|<|0.001||95.0|19.94|35.13||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||35.13|19.94|<0.001
95760193|NCT00468650|191487995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.9|<|0.001||95.0|22.89|38.95||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||38.95|22.89|<0.001
95760194|NCT00468650|191487995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.88|<|0.001||95.0|22.59|38.27||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||38.27|22.59|<0.001
95760195|NCT00468650|191487995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.06|<|0.001||95.0|23.04|38.93||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||38.93|23.04|<0.001
95760196|NCT00468650|191487996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.1|<|0.001||95.0|13.44|31.46||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 2 minus baseline||31.46|13.44|<0.001
95800671|NCT02762604|191573840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.9|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in maze errors pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.90|-0.45|
95859384|NCT02289157|191676180|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ho: There is no difference between the number of ER visits made per person between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.38
95947876|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2|||Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-9.6|
95947877|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-8.8|
95947878|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||5.0|-8.4|
95947879|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||2.9|-10.4|
95947880|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||7.2|-6.5|
95947881|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.1|-7.5|
95947882|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.1|-10.4|
95947883|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-9.6|
95947884|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.3|-5.0|
95947885|NCT02434328|191868140|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||6.8|-7.0|
95947886|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.6|-10.4|
95760197|NCT00468650|191487996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.15|<|0.001||95.0|23.97|40.62||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus baseline||40.62|23.97|<0.001
95760198|NCT00468650|191487996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.52|<|0.001||95.0|26.59|44.04||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus baseline||44.04|26.59|<0.001
95760199|NCT00468650|191487996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.48|<|0.001||95.0|26.07|43.07||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus baseline||43.07|26.07|<0.001
95760200|NCT00468650|191487996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.29|<|0.001||95.0|25.72|42.81||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus baseline||42.81|25.72|<0.001
95760201|NCT00468650|191487997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.45||0.0014||95.0|3.61|14.74||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 4 minus Week 2||14.74|3.61|0.0014
95760202|NCT00468650|191487997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26||0.0025||95.0|3.15|14.36||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 minus Week 2||14.36|3.15|0.0025
95800672|NCT02762604|191573841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.26|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in depressive symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||2.26|-1.74|
95800673|NCT02762604|191573842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.49|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in anxiety symptoms pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||1.49|-3.38|
95947887|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-10.2|
95947888|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.3|-10.7|
95947889|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||5.7|-8.4|
95947890|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||1.5|-12.3|
95947891|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.7|-9.9|
95947892|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||0.7|-12.8|
95947893|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.8|-8.2|
95947894|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-9.2|
95947895|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-8.2|
95947896|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-8.5|
95947897|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.2|-7.4|
95992197|NCT04426695|191960035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2214||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2214
95992198|NCT04426695|191960036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0389||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0389
95992199|NCT04426695|191960036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5208||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5208
95992200|NCT04426695|191960036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1079
95992201|NCT04426695|191960036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3315||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3315
95992202|NCT04426695|191960036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5797||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5797
95992203|NCT04426695|191960036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3036
95992204|NCT04426695|191960037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
95992205|NCT04426695|191960037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
95992206|NCT04426695|191960037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
95992207|NCT04426695|191960037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
95992208|NCT04426695|191960037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2795||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2795
95992209|NCT04426695|191960037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0588
95859385|NCT02289157|191676181|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Ho: There is no difference between the number of visits made to the clinic for wound morbidity per patient between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95992210|NCT04426695|191960038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2635||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2635
95992211|NCT04426695|191960038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8013||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8013
95992212|NCT04426695|191960038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4160
95992213|NCT04426695|191960038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2194||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2194
95760203|NCT00468650|191487997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.11|<|0.001||95.0|4.32|15.97||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 LOCF minus Week 2||15.97|4.32|<0.001
95760204|NCT00468650|191487997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.36|<|0.001||95.0|4.41|16.26||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|single sample t-test||Week 6 Endpoint minus Week 2||16.26|4.41|<0.001
95760205|NCT00345943|191488000|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.|BN versus HC group effect|Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in cortical thickness (CT) at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in CT over time; and the persistence of group differences in CT over time.||||.03
95992214|NCT04426695|191960038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3240
95992215|NCT04426695|191960038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1981||||||P-value is derived Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the type of background standard-of-care (antiviral therapies and non-antiviral therapies). If np \< =5 or n(1-p) \<= 5 in any treatment group, p-value is based on Fisher Exact Test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1981
95992216|NCT00559273|191960054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
95947898|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.0|-9.8|
95992217|NCT00559273|191960054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value was the probability that the number of responders is greater than or equal to the observed number, although the true response rate was smaller or equal to 60%. Null hypothesis (H0): p-value \<=0.6; alternate hypothesis (H1): p-value \>0.6.||||<0.0001
95992218|NCT00559273|191960055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MIRCERA treatment was regarded as non-inferior to the darbepoetin alfa reference group if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.180|-0.252|<0.0001
95992219|NCT01110395|191960062|OTHER|Bland and Altman|Mean + SD|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||Bland Altman|mean + SD|Bland Altman|We have provided all the information that is available to us. The PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no further data to correct the errors.|We are unable to provide any further data that has been requested. We have supplied all the data that we can possibly provide because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him. We have no other data.|There are no other statistical analysis. We have provided all the information that is available to us. We have no other data available to us because the PI has left the institution and we are unable to contact him.|||
95992220|NCT01110395|191960062|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mean + SD|||||||<0.05
95992221|NCT00236080|191960090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Number of participants analyzed was determined by those participants who had at least 1 postbaseline efficacy assessment. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients. It is expected that the sample size will provide sufficient information for describing the specified evaluations.||||||0.1236||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|This analysis adjusted for the difference among the treatment groups at baseline.||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint.||||0.1236
95992222|NCT00236080|191960091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using the adjusted p value from Tukey's least significant difference (LSD) test for armodafinil at 200 mg/day. Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. There were 20 patients in each of the 5 treatment groups, for a total of 100 patients.||||||0.0945||||||The p-value of Overall Treatment to Placebo|ANCOVA|||Sample size requirements were not based on statistical considerations. The null hypothesis was Ho: μplacebo = μ150 = μ200 = μ250 = μprovigil versus Ha: at least 2 of the means are different, where μ represented the change from baseline to the endpoint .||||0.0945
95800674|NCT02762604|191573843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||||The estimate parameter reflects the difference in pre to post change between Imagined Gait and Visual Imagery groups.|A linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in cortical thickness pre and post intervention - as a function of intervention (Imagined Gait vs. Visual Imagery)||0.12|-0.04|
95947899|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.8|-8.6|
95947900|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||6.1|-7.8|
95859386|NCT02289157|191676182|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference between number of readmissions between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.52
95947901|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||9.2|-4.5|
95947902|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||4.9|-8.6|
95947903|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||7.5|-5.8|
95760206|NCT00345943|191488000|OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Growth curve models with between-within degrees of freedom and a random effect for the intercept and fixed effects for predictors.||Growth curve models examined the following: group (BN versus HC) differences in conflict-related BOLD signal at baseline; group differences in the rate of change in conflict-related BOLD signal over time; and the persistence of group differences in conflict-related BOLD signal over time.||0.15|-0.04|<.05
95760207|NCT05162014|191488009|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression models based on time-to-first acute pancreatitis used to estimate the hazard ratios.||||1.02|0.76|
95760208|NCT03713619|191488013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.73|1.12|0.0070
95760209|NCT03713619|191488013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of HiSCR50 response at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||2.32|0.95|0.0418
95760210|NCT03713619|191488014|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean Difference|-23.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-12.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-12.21|-33.90|<0.0001
95760211|NCT03713619|191488014|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-18.46||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.32|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of percentage change from baseline in AN count at Week 16 (multiple imputation)||-7.60|-29.32|0.0004
95760212|NCT03713619|191488015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||0.73|0.25|0.0010
95760213|NCT03713619|191488015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of Flare over 16 weeks (multiple imputation)||1.17|0.43|0.0926
95947904|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||8.4|-5.1|
95760214|NCT03713619|191488016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||3.40|1.00|0.0248
95760215|NCT03713619|191488016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.77||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis of skin pain/NRS30 response at Week 16 (pooled data, multiple imputation)||2.0|1.15|0.0044
95760216|NCT04080544|191488024|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to episodic memory.||0.18|-3.03|.081
95760217|NCT04080544|191488024|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of episodic memory.||0.19|-0.32|.604
95760218|NCT04080544|191488025|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between amyloid accumulation (annualized change score for amyloid SUVR) to temporal tau SUVR.||3.39|0.15|.033
95800675|NCT03833167|191573846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.07243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||1.10|0.53|0.07243
95800676|NCT03833167|191573847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.48|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by baseline Extracapsular extension (yes versus no) and Cortical bone invasion (yes versus no) with small strata collapsed.|||2.48|0.87|
95947905|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||10.9|-2.8|
95760219|NCT04080544|191488026|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.66||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to speed of processing.||1.66|-1.12|.699
95760220|NCT04080544|191488026|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in the prediction of speed of processing.||0.38|-0.06|.154
95760221|NCT04080544|191488027|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.36||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to reasoning function.||0.36|-2.58|.137
95760222|NCT04080544|191488027|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of reasoning.||0.37|-0.16|.428
95992223|NCT01214044|191960092|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the time of the dim light melatonin onset changed from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||A within subjects comparison was done to compare the time of the dim light melatonin onset before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11).||||0.2
95760223|NCT04080544|191488028|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.86||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to working memory.||0.86|-2.25|.376
95760224|NCT04080544|191488028|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the interaction of temporal tau SUVR and amyloid SUVR in prediction of working memory.||0.53|0.01|.039
95760225|NCT04080544|191488028|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD below the mean for amyloid||||.091
95760226|NCT04080544|191488028|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.296|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.296
95947906|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-9.3|
95947907|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||7.7|-6.1|
95947908|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||10.4|-3.0|
95760227|NCT04080544|191488028|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.017 after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (3 post hoc tests).|sim_slopes (R interactions package)|||Post hoc simple slopes test of the amyloid x tau interaction (Statistical Analysis #2) at 1SD above the mean for amyloid SUVR||||.695
95760228|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.004||A prior threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.004|0.0004|.012
95760229|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.000005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000009|0.00008||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to inferior temporal SUVR.||0.00008|-0.000009|.905
95760230|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to inferior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.006
95800677|NCT03833167|191573848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|2.09||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||2.09|-8.91|0.2227
95947909|NCT02434328|191868141|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||10.0|-3.9|
95947910|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.4|-1.6|
95760231|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to middle temporal gyrus SUVR.||0.003|0.0003|.018
95760232|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00004||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to middle temporal SUVR.||0.00006|-0.0001|.579
95800678|NCT03833167|191573849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.42||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|Log Rank||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Extracapsular extension, Cortical bone invasion, and Prior systemic therapy.|||1.42|-7.19|0.1874
95760233|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to middle temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.008
95760234|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age to superior temporal SUVR.||0.001|-0.001|.897
95760235|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00007|0.00003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to superior temporal SUVR.||0.00003|-0.00007|.539
95760236|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to superior temporal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.973
95760237|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.003|-0.001|.200
95800679|NCT03998462|191573910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95992224|NCT01214044|191960093|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Hamilton-21 score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.01||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Hamilton-21 score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.01
95760238|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00005||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|0.0001||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to entorhinal SUVR.||0.0001|-0.00005|.346
95800680|NCT03998462|191573911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
95800681|NCT03998462|191573912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
95800682|NCT05710224|191573913|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||p-value, GMT Ratio, and CI are calculated using t-distribution with the variance estimate from serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-1 GMT Ratio (V181/Butantan - DV)||0.99|0.76|<0.001
95800683|NCT05710224|191573913|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|8.35||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-2 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||8.35|6.03|<0.001
95800684|NCT05710224|191573913|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.45||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t- distribution|||DENV-3 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.53|0.39|1.000
95800685|NCT05710224|191573913|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV) to be \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.35||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.42||p-value, GMT ratio, and CI were calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody titers as the response and a single term for vaccination group.|t-distribution|||DENV-4 GMT Ratio (V181 / Butantan - DV)||0.42|0.29|1.000
95859387|NCT02289157|191676182|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the use of post operative antimicrobials between the the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.45
95760239|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.283|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing relationship of age(growth model) to entorhinal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.283
95760240|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0004|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.003|0.0004|.011
95800686|NCT05710224|191573914|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-1 Difference in percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||1.3|-1.8|<0.001
95800687|NCT05710224|191573914|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority required the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.5||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-2 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||18.5|12.0|<0.001
95800688|NCT05710224|191573914|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan-DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in percentage|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.6||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-3 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan-DV)||-1.6|-5.8|<0.001
95800689|NCT05710224|191573914|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for non-inferiority requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V181 - Butantan - DV) to be \>-10 percentage points.|Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.8||p-value, estimated difference in percentage, and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||DENV-4 Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-0.8|-6.7|<0.001
95800690|NCT05710224|191573916|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.2||||||Erythema: Difference in Percentage (V181-Butantan - DV)||7.2|1.4|
95800691|NCT05710224|191573916|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.9||||||Pain: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV).||3.9|-4.3|
95800692|NCT05710224|191573916|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3||||||Swelling: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||2.3|-1.1|
95992225|NCT01214044|191960094|OTHER|A paired t-test was done to see if the Beck Depression Inventory-II score decreased from baseline to post-treatment.||||||0.14||||||A priori threshold for significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test||"We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment.~A within subjects comparison was done to compare the Beck Depression Inventory-II score before treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 3) and after treatment with escitalopram (Study Visit 11)."||||0.14
95760241|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00009||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to parahippocampal SUVR.||0.00009|-0.00004|.536
95800693|NCT05710224|191573917|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Arthralgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.3|-5.5|
95800694|NCT05710224|191573917|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.1||||||Fatigue: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||3.1|-7.5|
95760242|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to parahippocampal SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||.013
95760243|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.003||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(linear) to fusiform SUVR.||0.003|0.001|<.001
95760244|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.00001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00003||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00004|0.00006||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(quadratic) to fusiform SUVR.||0.00006|-0.00004|.692
95760245|NCT04080544|191488029|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made.||Regression testing the relationship of age(growth model) to fusiform SUVR. Growth modeling was performed using SPSS curve estimation.||||<.001
95760246|NCT04080544|191488030|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.53||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to inferior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.53|-0.18|.331
95760247|NCT04080544|191488030|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.39|-0.24|.636
95800695|NCT05710224|191573917|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.9||||||Headache: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||1.9|-8.2|
95760248|NCT04080544|191488030|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to superior temporal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.70|0.05|.024
95760249|NCT04080544|191488030|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to parahippocampal gyrus cortical thickness.||0.18|-0.73|.235
95760250|NCT04080544|191488030|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance testing|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship between temporal tau SUVR to entorhinal gyrus cortical thickness.||1.01|-0.63|.639
95760251|NCT04080544|191488030|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to fusiform gyrus cortical thickness.||0.50|-0.13|.252
95760252|NCT04080544|191488031|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-233.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|469.31||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1163.28|695.79||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to hippocampal volume.||695.79|-1163.28|.619
95760253|NCT04080544|191488032|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|9260.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3836.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1660.52|16859.51||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to volume of white matter hypointensities.||16859.51|1660.52|.017
95947911|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.1|-2.3|
95800696|NCT05710224|191573917|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.7||||||Myalgia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.7|-13.1|
95800697|NCT05710224|191573917|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI are calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-2.3||||||Pyrexia: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||-2.3|-8.2|
95760254|NCT04080544|191488033|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to activation of inferior frontal gyrus (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.99|-0.41|.411
95760255|NCT04080544|191488033|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.81||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to middle temporal gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||0.81|-0.34|.412
95760256|NCT04080544|191488033|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.09||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to precuneus gyrus activation (beta) on the semantic judgment fMRI task.||1.09|-0.48|.438
95760257|NCT04080544|191488034|OTHER|Null-hypothesis significance test|Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.14||A priori threshold was two-sided 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||Regression testing the relationship of temporal tau SUVR to resting-state system segregation.||-0.14|-2.12|.026
95760258|NCT02629354|191488042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|113.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|130.75|||ANOVA||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was provided.||130.75|98.99|
95760259|NCT02629354|191488043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|125.97|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||125.97|96.32|
95760260|NCT02629354|191488044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|112.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|128.94|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||128.94|98.49|
95800698|NCT05710224|191573917|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and CI were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.8||||||Rash: Difference in Percentage (V181 - Butantan - DV)||11.8|1.9|
95760261|NCT02629354|191488045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.61|100.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.19|94.61|
95800699|NCT03003962|191573926|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|0.989|||Stratified Log-rank test||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.989|0.706|0.037
95992226|NCT01214044|191960095|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.06||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.66|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Hamilton-21 score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.06
95992227|NCT01214044|191960095|OTHER|Spearman's rank-order correlation (non-parametric test) was used.||||||0.48||||||Spearman's rho (rs) = 0.02|Spearman's rank-order correlation|||We hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the change in phase angle difference and the decrease in the Beck Depression Inventory-II score with escitalopram treatment. The phase angle difference is the interval, in hours, between the dim light melatonin onset (a marker of biological time) and the average midpoint of sleep during the prior week.||||0.48
95760262|NCT02629354|191488046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.74|99.28|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||99.28|93.74|
95760263|NCT02629354|191488047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|102.8|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.80|92.57|
95760264|NCT02629354|191488048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|100.73|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.73|94.50|
95760265|NCT02629354|191488049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|97.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|102.46|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||102.46|92.22|
95800700|NCT03003962|191573927|OTHER|"The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for PD-L1 expression (TC 25% to 49% versus \>= 50%) and histology and smoking status (squamous vs. non-squamous + never smoker vs.~non-squamous + former/current smoker) and using the rank tests of association approach."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.151|||Stratified log-rank test||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.151|0.793|0.628
95992228|NCT04698525|191960097|NON_INFERIORITY|"A new treatment (memantine) that is not much worse or non-inferior to the standard treatment (valproate) may be attractive if, compared to it, it is expected to cause fewer side effects or improve quality of life or if its dosing regimen is easier to tolerate."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||"Comparison between VPA and Memantine was:~0.9 p-value (two-tailed)"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Memantine 3.534 z corrected for ties 0.0004 p-value (two-tailed)~VPA 3.418 z corrected for ties 0.0006 p-value (two-tailed)"||Null hypothesis: Memantine is as effective as valproate in treating episodic migraine.|We made also student t|10|0|0.9
95992229|NCT05384041|191960102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Linear|||Intent to Treat analyses||||0.056
95992230|NCT05384041|191960103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active - Control) at Week 1||||0.048
95760266|NCT02629354|191488050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Ratio Test/Ref|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.75|100.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA with fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and product after logarithmic transformation of the data.|Relative bioavailability \[%\] was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (100\*test/reference \[T/R\]). Additionally, it's two-sided 90% CI was provided.||100.01|93.75|
95760267|NCT01284621|191488051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|96.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.05|100.18|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||100.18|93.05|
95760268|NCT01284621|191488052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by empa alone|Geometric mean ratio|104.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|111.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||111.77|97.65|
95760269|NCT01284621|191488053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|108.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.51|116.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||116.35|100.51|
95760270|NCT01284621|191488054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|103.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|119.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||119.64|89.73|
95760271|NCT01284621|191488055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone|Geometric mean ratio|98.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.0|101.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||101.42|96.00|
95800701|NCT05887401|191573976|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|61.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|112.95||The reported p-value reflects the change across time for the full sample.|Mixed Models Analysis|DF(2, 119)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in MVPA over time for the full sample.|||112.95|9.95|0.02
95992231|NCT05384041|191960104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2595
95992232|NCT05384041|191960104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1286|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1286
95992233|NCT05384041|191960104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1449
95992234|NCT05384041|191960105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.2065
95992235|NCT05384041|191960105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.1349
95760272|NCT01284621|191488056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability. Ratio calculated as empa plus ramipril divided by ramipril alone.|Geometric mean ratio|98.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.67|104.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||104.25|92.67|
95992236|NCT05384041|191960105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.1142
95760273|NCT05819203|191488066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||0.0013
95800702|NCT05887401|191573976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.36||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|113.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1, 69)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||113.61|-70.89|0.65
95800703|NCT05887401|191573976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|32.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||32.39|-152.40|0.20
95992237|NCT05384041|191960106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.231
95800704|NCT05887401|191573976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.07|122.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||122.11|-63.07|0.53
95760274|NCT05819203|191488067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of common cold during the study between both groups.||||0.0209
95760275|NCT05819203|191488068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0399|||||||Cox survival regression and p Wald|||Comparison of the mean duration of impact of common cold on quality of life during the study between both groups.||||0.0399
95800705|NCT05887401|191573976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.26|72.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,70)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||72.27|-113.26|0.66
95800706|NCT05887401|191573977|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.|Mean Difference (Net)|44.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.39|75.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(2,127)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in self-reported MVPA over time for the full sample.|||75.43|14.39|0.004
95859388|NCT02289157|191676182|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ho: There is no difference in the number of patients with Incision and Drainage and/or Extirpation between the study (icNPT) and comparison groups.||||0.44
95992238|NCT05384041|191960106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.192
95760276|NCT05819203|191488069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0015
95992239|NCT05384041|191960106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.045
95992240|NCT05384041|191960108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
95760277|NCT05819203|191488070|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Poisson regression|||||||>0.05
95992241|NCT05384041|191960109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.0026
95992242|NCT05384041|191960109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4706|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.4706
95992243|NCT05384041|191960109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.0197
95992244|NCT05384041|191960109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4858|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.4858
95992245|NCT05384041|191960109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0183|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.0183
95992246|NCT05384041|191960109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7885|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.7885
95760278|NCT05819203|191488071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0029
95760279|NCT05819203|191488072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0006
95760280|NCT05819203|191488073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0513
95760281|NCT05819203|191488074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0789|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.0789
95760282|NCT05819203|191488075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Poisson regression|||||||<0.0001
95760283|NCT05819203|191488076|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of the means of AUC on global score or ARSSQ during the first 10 days of the study between both groups.||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
95760284|NCT02952898|191488083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of GDC 695 gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
95992247|NCT05384041|191960110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||<0.001
95992248|NCT05384041|191960110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.450
95992249|NCT05384041|191960110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.008
95992250|NCT05384041|191960110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.438
95992251|NCT05384041|191960110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
95992252|NCT05384041|191960110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.355
95992253|NCT05384041|191960111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.046
95992254|NCT05384041|191960111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.351
95992255|NCT05384041|191960111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.053
95760285|NCT02952898|191488083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Two-sided, continuity-corrected Chi-square tests was used to evaluate the superiority of Diclofenac sodium gel's complete clearance proportion over that of the Vehicle treatment in the mITT population using LOCF.||||<0.0001
95760286|NCT02293863|191488114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.40|0.83|0.6050
95992256|NCT05384041|191960111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.120
95800707|NCT05887401|191573977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.32||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.96|28.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,72)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||28.32|-58.96|0.47
95800708|NCT05887401|191573977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|59.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,73)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||59.7|-27.67|0.47
95992257|NCT05384041|191960111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.170
95760287|NCT02293863|191488114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.51|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.51|0.85|0.2028
95992258|NCT05384041|191960111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.122
95760288|NCT02293863|191488116|OTHER||Difference in event rates|10.19||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.52|-0.15|0.1905
95760289|NCT02293863|191488116|OTHER||Difference in event rates|7.91||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|18.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.47|-2.64|0.3168
95760290|NCT02293863|191488117|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-7.92||||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.5|11.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.66|-27.50|0.6043
95992259|NCT05384041|191960112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
95992260|NCT05384041|191960112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.751
95760291|NCT02293863|191488117|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-14.58||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.13|6.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.97|-36.13|0.3865
95760292|NCT02293863|191488118|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
95760293|NCT02293863|191488118|OTHER||Difference in event rates|4.97||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.12|13.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||13.05|-3.12|0.2189
95760294|NCT02293863|191488118|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.14||||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|10.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||10.31|-6.04|0.6594
95760295|NCT02293863|191488118|OTHER||Difference in event rates|3.54||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.24|12.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 30||12.31|-5.24|0.5013
95760296|NCT02293863|191488118|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.21||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|10.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.69|-6.28|0.6849
95760297|NCT02293863|191488118|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.68||||0.7633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.38|10.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||10.74|-7.38|0.7633
95760298|NCT02293863|191488119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|-1.06|||ANOVA|||||-1.06|-6.41|0.2407
95760299|NCT02293863|191488119|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.49|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|-3.49|0.8339
95760300|NCT02293863|191488120|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.07|-0.60|0.2790
95992261|NCT05384041|191960112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.013
95992262|NCT05384041|191960112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.318
95992263|NCT05384041|191960112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.173
95992264|NCT05384041|191960112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Regression, Linear|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.142
95992265|NCT05384041|191960113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.026
95992266|NCT05384041|191960113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.241
95992267|NCT05384041|191960113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.059
95992268|NCT05384041|191960113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.478
95992269|NCT05384041|191960113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.009
95992270|NCT05384041|191960113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.729
95992271|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.044
95992272|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.067
95992273|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
95992274|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.006
95992275|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.036
95992276|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.016
95992277|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 1||||0.914
95992278|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 2||||0.887
95992279|NCT05384041|191960114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Difference (Active-Control) at Week 4||||0.791
95992280|NCT02086331|191960115|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Intraclass correlation of repeated measures - 0.96, p=0.08|||
95992281|NCT03543410|191960202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.489|-0.09||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.090|-6.489|0.044
95992282|NCT03543410|191960202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.273|0.017||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-6.273|0.051
95992283|NCT03543410|191960203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.658|0.095||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.658|0.143
95992284|NCT03543410|191960203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.15||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.150|-0.588|0.243
95992285|NCT01332071|191960243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|99.83|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.83|93.44|
95992286|NCT01332071|191960244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|102.5|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.50|93.25|
95992287|NCT01332071|191960245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|99.72|||||The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.72|93.32|
95992288|NCT01332071|191960246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|95.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.67|100.1|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||100.10|91.67|
95992289|NCT01332071|191960247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|99.22|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||99.22|90.70|
95992290|NCT01332071|191960248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill a specific regulatory demand of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA, in order to register a new dosage of medication.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|97.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|102.86|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated.|||102.86|93.15|
95992291|NCT02591615|191960267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2176|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2176
95992292|NCT02591615|191960268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.67|0.84
95992293|NCT00132041|191960278|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
95992294|NCT00132041|191960278|OTHER||Success rate|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.252||||||logistic regression model after specifying site as cluster (using GEE approach).||0.252|0.136|
95992295|NCT00132041|191960279|OTHER||Success rate|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.317|||||logistic regression model without correcting for the clustering effect|logistic regression was used to estimate the success rate||0.317|0.091|
95992296|NCT00132041|191960279|OTHER||Slope|-3.7913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9056|-1.6769|||Generlaized estimating equations|Multivariate logistic model. P-value for number of RFA sessions dichotomized 1: more than 1; using the latter as the reference.|This estimate is for the effect of a single RFA sessions (v multiple sessions) in the multivariate model response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.|multivariate logistic regression model was fit using GEEs to correct for site clustering effects, in which, the response variable was success/failure at 18 months and the covariates were tumor size, whether or not a patient received repeated RFA, whether or not a local tumor recurrence occurred, whether or not a remote tumor occurrence occurred, and two common confounding factors - age and gender||-1.6769|-5.9056|0.0004
95760301|NCT02293863|191488120|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.70|0.1909
95760302|NCT02293863|191488121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.7413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.77|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.77|0.7413
95760303|NCT02293863|191488121|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.77|0.99|0.4763
95760304|NCT02293863|191488122|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.78|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.78|0.8806
95760305|NCT02293863|191488122|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5447|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.80|0.5447
95992297|NCT00132041|191960280|OTHER||GEE|-0.9101||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6894|-0.1308|||Generlaized Estimating Equations|multivariate GEE model using logistic link|Estimation parameter is for tumor size when controlling for other covariates.|Effect of tumor size in the multivariate model with response:18 mo success/failure; covariates: tumor size,repeated RFA, local tumor recurrence, remote tumor occurrence, and age and gender.||-0.1308|-1.6894|0.0221
95992298|NCT00132041|191960282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2496||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||assuming unequal variance (Satterthwaite p)|t-test, 2 sided||Difference represents the size of tumors that do no recur minus those that do.|the mean tumor size in the two groups, recurred and non recurred tumors, will be compared using a t-test assuming H0: recur=non-recurr||||0.06
95992299|NCT00132041|191960284|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.38|||||Twelve tumors were detected in the liver specimens, but only one of those was identified by the CT central readers|||0.38|0.00|
95800709|NCT05887401|191573977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|53.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,71)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||53.52|-34.09|0.66
95992300|NCT00132041|191960284|OTHER||Specificity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.994|||||The central CT readers correctly identified three out of the four patients without pathologic evidence of tumor|Specificity||0.994|0.194|
95992301|NCT00132041|191960286|OTHER|McNemar's Test to compare success rates after assuming transplants as successes versus after assuming transplants as failures.||||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
95992302|NCT03990870|191960297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95992303|NCT03990870|191960300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95992304|NCT03990870|191960302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95992305|NCT02357420|191960303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Measures mixed effects model (MMRM)|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.36
95760306|NCT02293863|191488123|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|1.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.03|0.47|0.4171
95760307|NCT02293863|191488123|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.34|0.61|0.8322
95800710|NCT05887401|191573977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.04|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,72)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in self-reported MVPA over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on self-reported MVPA change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||1.73|-86.04|0.06
95800711|NCT05887401|191573978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|5.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,61)|The positive parameter estimate indicates an increase in HEI score over time for the full sample.|ITT analysis using linear mixed models comparing HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months). We fit a linear mixed model that included a random effect for participant and predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up) and all 4 factors.||5.54|-0.56|0.109
95800712|NCT05887401|191573978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Green food monitoring (reference) vs red food monitoring; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in HEI score.|ITT analysis for factor 1 (dietary self-monitoring) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of simplified dietary monitoring (green vs. red) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||5.08|-7.42|0.71
95760308|NCT02293863|191488124|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.61|7.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.76|-10.61|0.8240
95800713|NCT05887401|191573978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Nutrition goals (yes; reference) vs no goals provided; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 2 (dietary goals) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of dietary goals (yes vs. no) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||6.69|-5.82|0.89
95800714|NCT05887401|191573978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|9.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Supportive text messages (yes; reference) vs no text messages; a positive estimation parameter indicates that the reference group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 3 (supportive text messages) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of text messages (yes vs. no) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||9.93|-2.61|0.25
95992306|NCT02357420|191960303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.25
95992307|NCT02357420|191960303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||MMRM|MMRM analysis used treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed factors and baseline values as the covariates.||||||0.59
95760309|NCT02293863|191488124|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.6||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.48|8.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.28|-11.48|0.8111
95992308|NCT01872338|191960367|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.87|||negative binomial regression|||||.87|.29|.015
95992309|NCT01872338|191960368|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||negative binomial regression|||||.82|.22|.01
95760310|NCT02293863|191488125|OTHER||Difference in event rates|2.42||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.96|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.80|-6.96|0.7219
95760311|NCT02293863|191488125|OTHER||Difference in event rates|0.67||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.29|10.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.64|-9.29|0.9225
95760312|NCT02293863|191488126|OTHER||Difference in event rates|1.99||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|9.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.56|-5.57|0.5379
95760313|NCT02293863|191488126|OTHER||Difference in event rates|-1.85||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.88|6.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.88|0.3667
95992310|NCT01872338|191960369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures, overall time by condition effect||||||.34
95992311|NCT01872338|191960370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||repeated measures, overall time by condition effect|Regression, Linear|||||||.23
95992312|NCT03683394|191960379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.26||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.26|0.04|0.008
95992313|NCT03683394|191960380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||0.21|0.02|0.002
95947912|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2 mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-1.9|
95947913|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||2.3|-2.1|
95947914|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||3.3|-2.0|
95947915|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.2|-3.0|
95947916|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.3|-3.0|
95947917|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.5|-3.2|
95947918|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||3.3|-2.3|
95947919|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.6|-1.7|
95992314|NCT03683394|191960381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14||Adjusted for baseline value, sex, race/ethnicity education, comorbidity score and phone assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment effects were estimated using linear mixed models (LMMs) for the changes from baseline to each follow-up assessment.||||2.14|0.08|0.03
95992315|NCT03683394|191960382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.19||Adjusted for age and sex.|Fisher Exact|In an exploratory outcome, we examined incidence of a low CASI score or a diagnosis of MCI or dementia by treatment group.||||2.19|0.19|0.52
95992316|NCT01058096|191960391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-1.9|-6.7|0.0004
95992317|NCT01058096|191960392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM analysis||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0027
95992318|NCT03653390|191960405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
95992319|NCT03653390|191960405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.22|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||0.22|-2.71|0.11
95760314|NCT02293863|191488127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.07|0.41|0.7827
95760315|NCT02293863|191488127|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.96|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.96|0.36|0.2522
95992320|NCT03653390|191960405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.95|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.95|-3.85|<0.01
95992321|NCT03653390|191960405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.32|||Tukey's HSD test|This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.32|-2.64|0.16
95760316|NCT02968849|191488136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.30|0.81|0.84
95760317|NCT02968849|191488136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.31|0.81|0.83
95760318|NCT02968849|191488147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.28|0.85|0.66
95760319|NCT02968849|191488147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.23|0.81|0.98
95992322|NCT03653390|191960406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 6 months.||||||<0.01
95760320|NCT02968849|191488149|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.58|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.58|0.84|0.39
95760321|NCT02968849|191488149|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.54|||Wald||The hazard ratio was estimated using Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator..|||1.54|0.81|0.50
95760322|NCT02968849|191488160|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.33|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.33|0.80|0.82
95760323|NCT02968849|191488161|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.98|0.50|0.98
95947920|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||3.4|-2.7|
95992323|NCT03653390|191960406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.3||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.30|-4.05|0.018
95760324|NCT02968849|191488162|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.47|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.47|0.80|0.60
95760325|NCT02968849|191488163|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|The hazard ratio was tested using a sex-stratified log rank test.|The hazard ratio was estimated using a sex-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The vaccine group (ALVAC-HIV + subtype C gp120/MF59) represents the numerator and the placebo group represents the denominator.|||1.46|0.58|0.71
95760326|NCT03956355|191488185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95760327|NCT03956355|191488186|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95760328|NCT03956355|191488187|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95760329|NCT03956355|191488188|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95760330|NCT03956355|191488189|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
95760331|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|1.88||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error set at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously and for at least 2 out of 3 readers.||1.88|1.76|<.0001
95764389|NCT01128179|191498902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0297||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0897||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Phosphate at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Phosphate as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter||0.0897|-0.1492|0.6134
95764390|NCT01128179|191498903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0294||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0739|0.1328||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Serum Total Calcium at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Serum Total Calcium as a covariate. The study was not powered for the analysis of this parameter.||0.1328|-0.0739|0.5636
95764391|NCT01128179|191498904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0129||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2811|0.2553||The p-value was unadjusted and had no a priori significance level.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the 2 treatment groups in the mean change from baseline of Calcium-Phosphate Product at Week 12 (LOCF) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline Calcium-Phosphate Product as a covariate.||0.2553|-0.2811|0.9220
95764392|NCT01682811|191498905|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||One-sample t-test comparing the absolute value to an alternate expected value of zero.||||0.0001
95764393|NCT01682811|191498908|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons between treated and placebo lesions within subject.||||0.24
95764394|NCT01682811|191498911|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95764395|NCT00720382|191498931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Overall baseline score||||0.783
95764396|NCT00720382|191498931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 1||||0.971
95764397|NCT00720382|191498931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 3||||0.206
95992324|NCT03653390|191960406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.41||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.41|-4.12|0.012
95992325|NCT03653390|191960406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.81||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||1.81|-1.98|0.99
95992326|NCT03653390|191960407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.382
95992327|NCT03653390|191960408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.29
95992328|NCT03653390|191960409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 3 months.||||||0.057
95992329|NCT03653390|191960410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.21
95760332|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.0||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.00|1.81|<.0001
95760333|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.44||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.44|1.29|<.0001
95992330|NCT03653390|191960411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in radius of gyration from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.79
95992331|NCT03653390|191960412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in number of trips from baseline to 12 months.||||||0.26
95992332|NCT03653390|191960413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change in minutes from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
95992333|NCT03653390|191960413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|38.4||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||38.4|-95.7|0.57
95764398|NCT00720382|191498931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 6||||0.111
95764399|NCT00720382|191498931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from baseline to Month 9||||0.181
95992334|NCT03653390|191960413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|132.6||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||132.6|0.56|0.048
95992335|NCT03653390|191960413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|95.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|158.7||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||158.7|31.8|<0.01
95992336|NCT03653390|191960414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA was conducted on the change scores from baseline to 12 months.||||||<0.01
95992337|NCT03653390|191960414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.13||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Wellness Education - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.13|-2.97|0.028
95764400|NCT00720382|191498931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used as a model containing treatment group and site as fixed effects with the baseline value used as covariate||Change from Baseline to Month 12/Early Term||||0.037
95764401|NCT03493685|191498952|OTHER||Slope difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.74|0.7491
95764402|NCT03493685|191498953|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|28.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.04|3.96|0.0094
95764403|NCT03493685|191498954|OTHER||Slope difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-1.27|0.4203
95764404|NCT03493685|191498955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|-1.39|0.2708
95764405|NCT03103087|191498963|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|56.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.45|66.49||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||66.49|46.45|<0.0001
95992338|NCT03653390|191960414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.75|||Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - EnhanceWellness for Disability|||-0.75|-3.55|<0.01
95992339|NCT03653390|191960414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.83||This test inherently adjusts for multiple comparisons.|Tukey's HSD test||Difference is calculated as Control - Wellness Education|||0.83|-2.03|0.59
95992340|NCT05099640|191960423|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
95992341|NCT05099640|191960424|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
95992342|NCT05099640|191960425|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|294.24|||Chi-squared|||||294.24|5.30|<0.0001
95800715|NCT05887401|191573978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|DF(1,68)|Lesson delivery once (reference) vs weekly; a negative estimation parameter indicates that the non-referent group had greater increases in HEI score over time.|ITT analysis for factor 4 (lesson delivery) using linear mixed models comparing the effect of lesson timing (once vs. weekly) on HEI score change over time (from baseline to 3 months).||4.45|-8.11|0.57
95800716|NCT05942040|191573998|OTHER|Pre-post test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.16|0.43|0.17
95800717|NCT05259033|191574000|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Each imputed dataset is analysed separately and estimates are combined using Rubin's rules.|Estimated treatment difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy strategy||-0.33|-0.56|<0.0001
95800718|NCT06461455|191574012|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, confidence limit is more appropriate than p-value in assessing the results against the predefined non-inferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, and lens sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=LID230451-ULTRA MFfA. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.04||
95800719|NCT05638737|191574043|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|7.5||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|20.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline ALT as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables.||||20.5|-4.1|0.893
95947921|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-3.9|
95947922|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||2.3|-4.3|
95947923|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.9|-2.8|
95947924|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.2|-2.5|
95947925|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.5|-2.7|
95947926|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.6|-4.2|
95992343|NCT05099640|191960426|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|245.34|||Chi-squared|||||245.34|12.28|<0.0001
95800720|NCT05638737|191574044|SUPERIORITY|One-sided test where a negative change in relative to baseline is favourable|%-change in relative to base vs placebo|-0.9||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Participant as random effect; treatment, visit and trt:vis interaction as fixed effects; baseline Pro-C3 as covariate. Model uses log-scaled variables||||6.1|-7.5|0.396
95800721|NCT06059066|191574045|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure immediately after received intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.57
95800722|NCT06059066|191574045|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Willingness to repeat procedure asses 6-weeks after intradetrusor BTX-A injections||||0.83
95800723|NCT06059066|191574046|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total ICIQ-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.59
95859389|NCT02289157|191676183|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: scheduled vs unscheduled cesarean section and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.68||||||Ho: There is no difference between patients with wound morbidity that is significantly affected by the use of icNPT and whether or not the cesarean is scheduled or unscheduled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.68
95947927|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-2.5|
95947928|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.4|-2.5|
95992344|NCT05099640|191960427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-289.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.29|-223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-223.50|-356.29|<0.0001
95760334|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.33||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.33|2.20|<.0001
95992345|NCT05099640|191960427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-375.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.88|-315.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-315.06|-435.88|<0.0001
95992346|NCT05099640|191960427|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-395.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-463.07|-328.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-328.66|-463.07|<0.0001
95992347|NCT05099640|191960428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.45|-30.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 1 and 2: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-30.59|-54.45|<0.0001
95992348|NCT05099640|191960428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.531|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02|-52.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 3 and 4: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-52.03|-70.02|<0.0001
95992349|NCT05099640|191960428|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-54.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 5 and 6: Sepiapterin vs. Placebo||-54.35|-74.09|<0.0001
95992350|NCT05099640|191960433|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-492.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.59|-369.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-369.87|-614.59|<0.0001
95992351|NCT05099640|191960434|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-74.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.72|-51.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-51.74|-97.72|<0.0001
95992352|NCT02769728|191960437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05||||0.001
95992353|NCT02769728|191960438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.081
95800724|NCT06059066|191574046|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ICIQ QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.29
95992354|NCT02769728|191960439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.114
95992355|NCT02769728|191960440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||0.021
95992356|NCT02769728|191960441|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Friedman test|||||||1.00
95992357|NCT01262625|191960496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||Regression, Cox|||||1.75|0.61|0.19
95800725|NCT06059066|191574047|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in total NBSS-SF score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.57
95800726|NCT06059066|191574047|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF QoL score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.42
95992358|NCT01262625|191960497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.08
95800727|NCT06059066|191574047|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF incontinence domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.24
95800728|NCT06059066|191574047|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF storage and voiding domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.93
95992359|NCT01262625|191960497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||DeLong|(DeLong et al 1988)||||||0.02
95992360|NCT01925209|191960521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.331||0.221|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-19.63|54.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||||54.80|-19.63|0.2210
95992361|NCT01925209|191960521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.176||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.21|55.4|||mixed model repeated measure|||||55.40|-18.21|0.1909
95992362|NCT01925209|191960521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.121||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-37.97|35.36|||mixed models repeated measures|||||35.36|-37.97|0.9263
95992363|NCT00109473|191960539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95992364|NCT02532855|191960549|NON_INFERIORITY|For the primary hypothesis, sitagliptin will be considered non-inferior to dapagliflozin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference in least squares mean change from baseline in A1C (sitagliptin minus dapagliflozin) is less than 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin). Longitudinal data analysis (LDA), Antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), Least squares means (LSM)|Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|
95992365|NCT02532855|191960549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-0.15||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.04|||Longitudinal data analysis|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.26|0.006
95992366|NCT02532855|191960550|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.1||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||5.1|-10.7|
95992367|NCT02532855|191960551|OTHER||Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||3.0|-3.0|
95992368|NCT02532855|191960552|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-5.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.8|||LDA|LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.8|-13.3|0.138
95992369|NCT02532855|191960553|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate.||||5.3|-12.1|
95760335|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|1.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||1.85|1.69|<.0001
95760336|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.06||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.06|1.85|<.0001
95800729|NCT06059066|191574047|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NBSS-SF consequences domain score assessed before and 6-weeks after treatment||||0.64
95800730|NCT06059066|191574048|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95800731|NCT06059066|191574049|OTHER||||||<|2e-05||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in post-procedural pain as compared to baseline||||<0.00002
95800732|NCT03928704|191574159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.16|2.00|<0.001
95859390|NCT02289157|191676184|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: pfannenstiel vs midline abdominal incision and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.27|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.27
95947929|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.6|-2.4|
95947930|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.1|-3.1|
95947931|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-3.5|
95947932|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.3|-3.8|
95947933|NCT02434328|191868142|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.3|-3.8|
95947934|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-2.6|
95992370|NCT02532855|191960554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|1.4||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline glucagon AUC value as a covariate.||||1.4|-10.1|
95992371|NCT02532855|191960555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|22.0||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC value as a covariate.||||22.0|-12.2|
95800733|NCT03928704|191574160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|5.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.54|1.71|<0.001
95800734|NCT03928704|191574161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.04|-0.98|||ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.04|<0.001
95947935|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.1|-2.2|
95947936|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-2.8|
95947937|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||1.7|-4.4|
95992372|NCT02532855|191960556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, background AHA, and the baseline insulin AUC to glucagon AUC ratio value as a covariate.||||1.3|-0.1|
95992373|NCT02532855|191960557|OTHER|The percentage of participants was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques from LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in % (Sit. - Dap.)|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|23.2||||Miettinen and Nurminen (M\&N) method with multiple imputation from a LDA Model.||||23.2|7.7|
95992374|NCT02532855|191960558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM (Sit. - Dap.)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.3||||LDA model including terms for treatment, time, background AHA, the interaction of time and background AHA, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-1.2|
95992375|NCT00666926|191960572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|155.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.66|220.95|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||220.95|109.66|
95992376|NCT00666926|191960573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|315.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.6|437.97|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||437.97|227.60|
95992377|NCT00666926|191960574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent) test / reference|496.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|206.24|1195.92|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means Day 21 versus Day 1. Values have been transformed from the log scale.|Participants in the PF-00562271 125 mg BID cohort who received MDZ (test) administered prior to PF-00562271 (reference) dosing.||1195.92|206.24|
95992378|NCT01838044|191960599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between two study arms.||0.42|-0.72|0.6012
95760337|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|2.85||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.85|2.69|<.0001
95760338|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|2.67||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement - Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.67|2.49|<.0001
95760339|NCT03996447|191488190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|2.95||To demonstrate the superiority, a statistically significant (one-sided p-value ≤0.025) positive difference in mean scores in border delineation, internal morphology and degree of contrast enhancement of lesions had to be met for 2 out of 3 readers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between Paired images and Pre-contrast images for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was equal to 0. The Null hypothesis was rejected if the difference was significantly different from zero with a type 1 error at 0.025. To conclude the superiority of gadopiclenol-enhanced MRI, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for all co-criteria simultaneously.||2.95|2.84|<.0001
95992379|NCT01838044|191960600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B at Week 10.||1.83|1.02|<0.0001
95992380|NCT01838044|191960601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of weekly mean pain NRS score in Arm B compared between two study arms at Week 10.||0.95|-0.48|0.5128
95764406|NCT03103087|191498964|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|47.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|56.56||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference is based on the normal approximation.||||56.56|38.04|<0.0001
95764407|NCT03103087|191498965|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-69.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|-54.3||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.|||-54.3|-84.1|<0.0001
95992381|NCT01838044|191960603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.32|-0.22|0.7251
95764408|NCT03103087|191498966|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|55.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|74.52||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||74.52|37.25|<0.0001
95764409|NCT03103087|191498967|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|44.38||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||44.38|15.6|<0.0001
95992382|NCT01838044|191960603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 based on comparison between treatment groups.||0.46|-0.06|0.1255
95992383|NCT01838044|191960605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 5 compared between treatment groups.||0.29|-0.97|0.2856
95992384|NCT01838044|191960605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis at Week 10 compared between treatment groups.||0.41|-1.02|0.3987
95992385|NCT00330187|191960613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.4|0.9|0.07
95992386|NCT01162421|191960614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.3||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|20.8|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||||20.8|-23.4|0.907
95992387|NCT01162421|191960615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|24.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||24.1|-17.7|0.762
95992388|NCT01162421|191960615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||17.5|-28.1|0.650
95800735|NCT03928704|191574161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.61|||ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.42|0.220
95992389|NCT01162421|191960616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 6||-0.10|-1.62|0.027
95992390|NCT01162421|191960616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.667||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P= 0.05.||Month 12||-0.12|-2.79|0.033
95992391|NCT01162421|191960616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.60|-5.05|0.120
95992392|NCT01162421|191960617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.7||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||P-value is based on two sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval is based on Wilson confidence limits.|||1.6|-27.0|0.095
95992393|NCT01162421|191960618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|33.97|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.97|-9.79|0.281
95992394|NCT01162421|191960618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|48.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||48.93|4.98|0.021
95992395|NCT01162421|191960618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|28.63|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||28.63|-15.29|0.552
95992396|NCT01162421|191960618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|9.72|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||9.72|-34.04|0.281
95992397|NCT01162421|191960618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|7.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||7.78|-36.64|0.209
95992398|NCT01162421|191960618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.6||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|2.62|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||2.62|-41.74|0.091
95800736|NCT03928704|191574162|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.26|2.17|<0.001
95800737|NCT03928704|191574163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|9.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.93|2.06|<0.001
95800738|NCT03928704|191574164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.23|2.41|<0.001
95800739|NCT03928704|191574165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.87|<0.001
95800740|NCT03928704|191574166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.48|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.99|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-1.99|<0.001
95800741|NCT03928704|191574166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.26|0.019
95992399|NCT01162421|191960619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|36.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||36.26|-5.05|0.148
95992400|NCT01162421|191960619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|41.61|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.61|-0.14|0.060
95992401|NCT01162421|191960619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|31.29|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||31.29|-13.85|0.451
95992402|NCT01162421|191960619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|31.43|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||31.43|-12.82|0.413
95992403|NCT01162421|191960619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.74|15.23|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||15.23|-29.74|0.528
95992404|NCT01162421|191960619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|12.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||12.56|-31.61|0.399
95992405|NCT01162421|191960620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.06|||Fisher Exact|||Month 3||27.06|-1.70|0.111
95992406|NCT01162421|191960620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|36.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.|Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||36.53|2.74|0.031
95760340|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 1. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.02|-0.06|<0.0001
95764410|NCT03103087|191498968|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03|=|0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.8||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|-25.8|=0.2153
95764411|NCT03103087|191498969|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|=|0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-3.2||LS Means based on analysis of covariance model including treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-21.3|=0.0078
95947938|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.9|-1.7|
95947939|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||2.8|-3.9|
95947940|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||3.8|-3.2|
95947941|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||3.5|-3.8|
95947942|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||4.2|-3.0|
95947943|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.1|-2.4|
95947944|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||6.5|-1.1|
95947945|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.3|-4.0|
95947946|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.7|-2.8|
95947947|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||5.5|-2.8|
95947948|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference of proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||4.7|-2.6|
95947949|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||4.3|-4.0|
95947950|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||3.6|-4.2|
95992407|NCT01162421|191960620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|22.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||22.31|-16.74|0.780
95760341|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol was concluded if the lower bound of this confidence interval was above the non-inferiority margin set to 0.35 for at least 2 out of 3 blinded readers and for the 3 co-primary criteria simultaneously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11||The Null hypothesis was rejected if the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference \[gadopiclenol scores mean - gadobutrol scores mean\] had its lower limit above -0.35.|t-test, 2 sided|The Student's t-based 95% CIs of the difference between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol were constructed for each of 3 co-primary criteria.||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 2. The null hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 primary criteria was equal to the non inferiority margin (-0.35). The alternative hypothesis was that the difference in mean scores between gadopiclenol and gadobutrol for each of the 3 co-primary criteria was greater than the non inferiority margin.||0.11|-0.04|<0.0001
95760342|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Border delineation; Reader 3||0.05|-0.01|<0.0001
95760343|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 1||0.03|-0.04|<0.0001
95760344|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 2||0.09|-0.05|<0.0001
95760345|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Internal morphology; Reader 3||0.08|0.01|<0.0001
95947951|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||3.7|-4.0|
95760346|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 1||0.07|-0.04|0.0001
95760347|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 2||0.12|-0.03|<0.0001
95760348|NCT03996447|191488191|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin : -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Criterion: Contrast enhancement; Reader 3||0.15|0.03|<0.0001
95760349|NCT00324649|191488266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0014
95760350|NCT00324649|191488267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9713
95760351|NCT00324649|191488268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9725||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9725
95760352|NCT00324649|191488269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0078
95760353|NCT00324649|191488270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6984||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: percentages of days with compliance in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6984
95760354|NCT00324649|191488271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.1165||95.0|-0.9|29.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.|The difference is for Truvada minus zidovudine/lamivudine. The 95% confidence interval on the mean difference between treatment groups is based on the normal approximation.|"Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response.~Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response."||29.4|-0.9|0.1165
95760355|NCT00324649|191488274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0789
95800742|NCT03928704|191574167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.42|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-2.42|<0.001
95947952|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.7|-3.5|
95992408|NCT01162421|191960620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|35.04|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||35.04|-2.07|0.092
95992409|NCT01162421|191960620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|30.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||30.40|-8.86|0.290
95947953|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.4|-4.5|
95760356|NCT00324649|191488275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9633
95760357|NCT00324649|191488276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9686||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.9686
95760358|NCT00324649|191488277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6638||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.6638
95760359|NCT00324649|191488278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2907||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.2907
95947954|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-3.6|
95947955|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-4.5|
95947956|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||2.6|-5.7|
95947957|NCT02434328|191868143|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||3.2|-4.9|
95760360|NCT00324649|191488279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0072
95760361|NCT00324649|191488280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.0006
95760362|NCT00324649|191488281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.1785
95760363|NCT00261443|191488313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.893||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of mood episode|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.893|0.332|0.014
95760364|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, difference in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.15|-0.16|0.911
95760365|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.18|-0.09|0.557
95760366|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.18|0.596
95800743|NCT03928704|191574167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.09||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.83|0.199
95800744|NCT03928704|191574168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.63|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.66|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-3.66|<0.001
95800745|NCT03928704|191574168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.84||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-4.56|0.170
95800746|NCT03928704|191574169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|2.08|<0.001
95800747|NCT03928704|191574169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.27||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.95|||ANCOVA|||||13.95|0.60|0.035
95760367|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.05||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.11|-0.22|0.522
95760368|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.04|-0.30|0.142
95760369|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.03|-0.35|0.092
95760370|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
95760371|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.00|-0.43|0.050
95760372|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.40|0.064
95760373|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.05|-0.46|0.017
95760374|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.01|-0.43|0.039
95859391|NCT02289157|191676185|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between different risk factors: ruptured vs unruptured membranes and icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.55|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.55
95947958|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||3.5|-3.5|
95947959|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.4|-4.4|
95947960|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.1|-5.0|
95760375|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.05|-0.48|0.015
95760376|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.07||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.07|-0.50|0.009
95760377|NCT00261443|191488314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.28||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.50|0.013
95760378|NCT00261443|191488315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.829||Stratified Log-rank Test, controlling for type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode.|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||0.829|0.146|0.013
95760379|NCT00261443|191488316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|1.479||Stratified Log-rank Test P-value for Equality of Survival Curves|Stratified Log-rank Test||Cox proportional hazards model, with type of mood stabilizer and type of index mood episode as stratification factors, and treatment group as covariate.|||1.479|0.364|0.384
95760380|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.77||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.77|-0.73|0.955
95760381|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.06||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.95|-0.83|0.895
95760382|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.69||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.24|-1.61|0.144
95760383|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||-0.01|-2.19|0.047
95760384|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||-0.25|-2.52|0.017
95760385|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.68||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||-0.68|-3.15|0.003
95760386|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-0.89||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.89|-3.47|<0.001
95760387|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.19||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-1.19|-4.06|<0.001
95760388|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.95||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.95|-3.70|<0.001
95800748|NCT03928704|191574170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
95947961|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.2|-1.9|
95947962|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||7.8|-0.4|
95992410|NCT01162421|191960620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.86|4.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||4.01|-37.86|0.116
95800749|NCT03928704|191574170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.07|0.086
95800750|NCT03928704|191574171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.06|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.88|=0.013
95800751|NCT03928704|191574172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.62|1.84|<0.001
95992411|NCT01162421|191960621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 3||-1.2|-5.9|0.004
95992412|NCT01162421|191960621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
95992413|NCT01162421|191960621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.4|-5.1|0.021
95992414|NCT01162421|191960621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.1|-4.0|0.037
95992415|NCT01162421|191960621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.5|-3.7|0.702
95992416|NCT01162421|191960621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.8|-2.8|0.644
95760389|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.37||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-1.37|-4.19|<0.001
95859392|NCT02289157|191676186|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test for interactions between labor vs no labor stratified by icNPT vs Standard dressing||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.49
95992417|NCT01162421|191960622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-0.1|-3.7|0.039
95992418|NCT01162421|191960622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.8|-5.0|<0.001
95992419|NCT01162421|191960622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 9||-0.6|-3.8|0.008
95760390|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-1.29|-4.13|<0.001
95992420|NCT01162421|191960622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 12||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
95992421|NCT01162421|191960622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||1.2|-2.6|0.452
95992422|NCT01162421|191960622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.8|-2.3|0.343
95992423|NCT01162421|191960623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.7|-7.3|0.220
95992424|NCT01162421|191960623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-3.3|-11.0|<0.001
95859393|NCT02289157|191676187|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between patients with hypertension versus no hypertension stratified by icNPT versus standard dressing in wound morbidity||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.92
95859394|NCT02289157|191676188|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction in icNPT and Standard wound dressings stratified by women with insulin requiring diabetes and no insulin requiring Diabetes.||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.22
95992425|NCT01162421|191960623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||0.0|-7.5|0.050
95992426|NCT01162421|191960623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||3.2|-4.6|0.725
95992427|NCT01162421|191960623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.1|-5.1|0.837
95992428|NCT01162421|191960623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||2.9|-4.5|0.661
95760391|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.46||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-1.46|-4.38|<0.001
95760392|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.57||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-1.57|-4.59|<0.001
95800752|NCT01779362|191574198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||All analyses were conducted with values on a log scale and re-exponentiated for presentation.|Regression, Linear|Measures of ß-cell response were modeled simultaneously with insulin sensitivity (M/I) using 2-df seemingly unrelated regression models.||Seemingly unrelated regression was used to compare treatment arms on the combination of insulin sensitivity (M/I as calculated from the hyperglycemic clamp) and insulin secretion (steady-state C-peptide and ACPRmax as co-primary; ACPRg as major secondary,). See statistical analysis plan for further details and R code.||||>0.05
95992429|NCT01162421|191960624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.7|-4.4|0.156
95760393|NCT00261443|191488318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.54||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, and baseline value. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-1.54|-4.55|<0.001
95760394|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.94|-0.54|0.590
95760395|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.6||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.60|-1.59|0.371
95760396|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.04||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.25||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.25|-2.33|0.113
95800753|NCT01779362|191574199|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95992430|NCT01162421|191960624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-1.9|-6.1|<0.001
95992431|NCT01162421|191960624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 9||-0.1|-4.9|0.040
95800754|NCT01779362|191574200|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95800755|NCT01779362|191574201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||For all 3 secondary outcomes at M12, p\<0.001, with the Liraglutide+Metformin group different from the 3 others (all p\<0.001).|ANOVA|||Analyses were completed on a log scale and re-exponentiated for display.||||<0.001
95992432|NCT01162421|191960624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.5|-3.1|0.492
95992433|NCT01162421|191960624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||2.0|-3.2|0.649
95992434|NCT01162421|191960624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||1.4|-3.0|0.464
95992435|NCT01162421|191960625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-2.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||-2.2|-22.5|0.018
95992436|NCT01162421|191960625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-13.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.001.||Month 6||-13.7|-37.3|<0.001
95992437|NCT01162421|191960625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||2.3|-21.0|0.113
95992438|NCT01162421|191960625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||7.9|-14.9|0.544
95760397|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.29||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.29|-2.28|0.128
95760398|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.85||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.47|-2.16|0.205
95992439|NCT01162421|191960625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|11.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||11.2|-12.5|0.916
95992440|NCT01162421|191960625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||11.6|-11.8|0.983
95760399|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.13||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|0.32||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.32|-2.59|0.125
95760400|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.43||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.06|-2.92|0.061
95760401|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.06|-3.07|0.060
95760402|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.03|-3.21|0.046
95992441|NCT01162421|191960626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.6|-12.2|0.641
95992442|NCT01162421|191960626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|6.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||6.0|-16.4|0.358
95992443|NCT01162421|191960626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||16.4|-5.9|0.352
95859395|NCT02289157|191676189|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel measure used to estimate interaction between chorioamnionitis and no chorioamnionitis stratified by icNPT and standard dressing, for wound morbidity||||||0.74|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.74
95859396|NCT02284243|191676190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0180
95859397|NCT02284243|191676191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, and SPID 0-24|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95992444|NCT01162421|191960626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|10.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||10.6|-10.5|0.990
95760403|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.47||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.47|-2.77|0.164
95760404|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.53||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.10|-3.16|0.066
95760405|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-1.57||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.10|-3.24|0.066
95859398|NCT02284243|191676192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to perceptible and meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95947963|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Number of subjects with \>=5 letter loss from baseline in BCVA (letters read) at each post-baseline visit - Week 24||7.8|-1.3|
95760406|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.08||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.43||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.43|-3.73|0.014
95947964|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||7.3|-1.7|
95947965|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||5.9|-3.2|
95947966|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||8.3|-0.7|
95947967|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||5.6|-3.8|
95947968|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||7.0|-1.4|
95947969|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||3.7|-5.1|
95947970|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||6.7|-2.5|
95859399|NCT02284243|191676193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to ≥30% and ≥50% reduction in pain|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test for general association stratified by site||||||<0.05
95859400|NCT02284243|191676195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
95859401|NCT02284243|191676196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7718
95947971|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||6.4|-2.8|
95947972|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||5.8|-3.6|
95947973|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||5.4|-4.0|
95760407|NCT00261443|191488320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-2.01||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.34||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.34|-3.68|0.019
95760408|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.22|-0.13|0.597
95992445|NCT01162421|191960626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|17.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||17.1|-4.3|0.238
95992446|NCT01162421|191960626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||18.1|-4.0|0.207
95992447|NCT01162421|191960627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||9.5|-11.5|0.850
95992448|NCT01162421|191960627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|2.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.5|-19.4|0.129
95992449|NCT01162421|191960627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|11.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||11.6|-10.8|0.937
95992450|NCT01162421|191960627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|8.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||8.8|-13.5|0.670
95760409|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.02||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.21|-0.17|0.838
95760410|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.10|-0.32|0.291
95760411|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.08|-0.37|0.219
95764412|NCT03103087|191498970|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-25.5||Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-25.5|-41.2|<0.0001
95859402|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.93|
95992451|NCT01162421|191960627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||16.7|-5.9|0.341
95992452|NCT01162421|191960627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||15.3|-9.2|0.621
95992453|NCT01162421|191960628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.9|-5.3|0.697
95992454|NCT01162421|191960628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.5|-10.5|0.744
95992455|NCT01162421|191960628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.0|-7.7|0.967
95992456|NCT01162421|191960628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||9.5|-3.7|0.377
95992457|NCT01162421|191960628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|12.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||12.4|-1.5|0.122
95992458|NCT01162421|191960628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.2|-4.4|0.490
95992459|NCT01162421|191960629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-1.0|0.102
95992460|NCT01162421|191960629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
95992461|NCT01162421|191960629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.2|-0.9|0.214
95992462|NCT01162421|191960629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.3|-0.8|0.339
95992463|NCT01162421|191960629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.6|-0.6|0.973
95992464|NCT01162421|191960629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on repeated measures ANCOVA model with treatment group and visit as the fixed effects and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.5|-0.6|0.755
95992465|NCT01162421|191960630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.4||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|25.13|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||25.13|-7.09|0.316
95992466|NCT01162421|191960630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|42.85|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||42.85|6.09|0.014
95992467|NCT01162421|191960630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|17.66|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||17.66|-24.10|0.762
95992468|NCT01162421|191960630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|33.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||33.54|-7.46|0.220
95760412|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.05|-0.41|0.133
95992469|NCT01162421|191960630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|17.86|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||17.86|-24.90|0.747
95992470|NCT01162421|191960630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.4||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|18.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||18.01|-26.80|0.701
95992471|NCT01162421|191960631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.5||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|30.78|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||30.78|-9.83|0.318
95992472|NCT01162421|191960631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|44.39|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 6||44.39|1.03|0.047
95992473|NCT01162421|191960631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|27.71|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||27.71|-17.74|0.668
95764413|NCT03103087|191498973|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.33|||Fisher Exact|||||0.33|0.07|<0.0001
95764414|NCT03103087|191498978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95992474|NCT01162421|191960631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|30.56|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.56|-14.88|0.500
95992475|NCT01162421|191960631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
95992476|NCT01162421|191960631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
95992477|NCT01162421|191960632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||28.00|-12.17|0.444
95992478|NCT01162421|191960632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|41.83|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||41.83|-1.53|0.076
95992479|NCT01162421|191960632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|25.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||25.52|-20.10|0.816
95992480|NCT01162421|191960632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|30.87|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||30.87|-14.61|0.485
95992481|NCT01162421|191960632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.7||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|20.1|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||20.10|-25.52|0.816
95992482|NCT01162421|191960632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.7||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.38|11.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.99|-33.38|0.358
95992483|NCT01162421|191960633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|33.99|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||33.99|-10.84|0.316
95992484|NCT01162421|191960633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|25.54|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||25.54|-15.43|0.630
95992485|NCT01162421|191960633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|20.21|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||20.21|-20.94|0.972
95992486|NCT01162421|191960633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|6.7|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||6.70|-34.83|0.186
95992487|NCT01162421|191960633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.6||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|4.26|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||4.26|-29.46|0.142
95992488|NCT01162421|191960633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.34|11.52|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||11.52|-20.34|0.727
95992489|NCT01162421|191960634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|22.22|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||||22.22|-9.21|0.486
95992490|NCT01162421|191960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.29|-0.23|0.809
95992491|NCT01162421|191960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.09|-0.44|0.194
95992492|NCT01162421|191960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.29||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.29|-0.24|0.863
95760413|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.21||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.04|-0.46|0.092
95760414|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||-0.05|-0.56|0.018
95859403|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.01|0.96|
95992493|NCT01162421|191960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.35|-0.16|0.452
95992494|NCT01162421|191960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.33|-0.23|0.738
95992495|NCT01162421|191960635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.38||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.38|-0.21|0.572
95992496|NCT01162421|191960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.05|10.31|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||10.31|-34.05|0.299
95764415|NCT03103087|191498979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95992497|NCT01162421|191960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|19.77|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||19.77|-25.77|0.796
95992498|NCT01162421|191960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.22|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||29.22|-15.30|0.540
95992499|NCT01162421|191960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|12.19|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||12.19|-31.39|0.392
95992500|NCT01162421|191960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.3||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|19.37|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||19.37|-25.96|0.776
95992501|NCT01162421|191960636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.1||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.64|6.4|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||6.40|-38.64|0.166
95992502|NCT01162421|191960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|9.01|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 3||9.01|-30.84|0.283
95992503|NCT01162421|191960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|28.0|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 6||28.00|-12.17|0.444
95992504|NCT01162421|191960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|23.38|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 9||23.38|-20.16|0.885
95992505|NCT01162421|191960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|20.64|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 12||20.64|-22.54|0.931
95992506|NCT01162421|191960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 18||23.03|-18.63|0.836
95992507|NCT01162421|191960637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.63|23.03|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on two-sided Pearson's chi-square test.||Month 24||23.03|-18.63|0.836
95992508|NCT01162421|191960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||5.4|-3.6|0.699
95992509|NCT01162421|191960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||7.7|-2.1|0.261
95992510|NCT01162421|191960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.2|-6.2|0.514
95992511|NCT01162421|191960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.3|-7.7|0.283
95992512|NCT01162421|191960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||3.4|-7.5|0.461
95992513|NCT01162421|191960638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-6.6|0.703
95992514|NCT01162421|191960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|15.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 3||15.16|-17.94|1.000
95992515|NCT01162421|191960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|8.81|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 6||8.81|-22.34|0.468
95992516|NCT01162421|191960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.9||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.88|3.16|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 9||3.16|-27.88|0.142
95992517|NCT01162421|191960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|19.83|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 12||19.83|-11.08|0.712
95992518|NCT01162421|191960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|22.89|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 18||22.89|-8.92|0.482
95992519|NCT01162421|191960639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|7.69|||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test.||Month 24||7.69|-21.18|0.418
95992520|NCT01162421|191960640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|7.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||7.4|-16.3|0.453
95992521|NCT01162421|191960640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||4.0|-19.7|0.187
95859404|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.00|0.94|
95992522|NCT01162421|191960640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|9.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||9.4|-16.1|0.598
95992523|NCT01162421|191960640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||15.0|-8.2|0.558
95992524|NCT01162421|191960640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||15.6|-10.1|0.669
95992525|NCT01162421|191960640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||13.5|-11.3|0.865
95992526|NCT01162421|191960641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.13|-0.10|0.809
95992527|NCT01162421|191960641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.17|-0.08|0.447
95992528|NCT01162421|191960641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.09|-0.16|0.579
95800756|NCT01137812|191574204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and sitagliptin of 0.0% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.025, it was estimated that 234 patients per group would provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, comparing canagliflozin with sitagliptin.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||If the hypothesis of non-inferiority of canagliflozin to sitagliptin at Week 52 was demonstrated (ie, upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the treatment difference \[canagliflozin minus sitagliptin\] was less than 0.3) and the upper bound was less than 0.0, the superiority of the canagliflozin dose relative to sitagliptin would be concluded.||-0.250|-0.500|<0.05
95859702|NCT02963506|191677337|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.72|-1.35|<0.001
95947974|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.4|-2.8|
95947975|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||5.7|-4.3|
95947976|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.8|-4.4|
95947977|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||3.6|-6.0|
95947978|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.5|-5.2|
95947979|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.6|-5.7|
95947980|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.4|-6.5|
95947981|NCT02434328|191868144|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.8|-5.1|
95947982|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.6|-9.2|
95947983|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||3.7|-8.1|
95992529|NCT01162421|191960641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.12|-0.11|0.922
95947984|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.5|-8.4|
95947985|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||6.7|-5.4|
95947986|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||4.0|-8.2|
95947987|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||3.3|-9.0|
95992530|NCT01162421|191960641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.12|-0.14|0.894
95992531|NCT01162421|191960641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.10|-0.17|0.611
95992532|NCT01162421|191960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||6.3|-11.3|0.572
95992533|NCT01162421|191960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||18.2|-2.4|0.130
95760415|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.56|0.029
95760416|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.04|-0.57|0.024
95760417|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.035
95760418|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.02|-0.56|0.038
95760419|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
95760420|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.12|-0.67|0.006
95859405|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
95859406|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.06|0.96|
95992534|NCT01162421|191960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||8.1|-12.9|0.649
95992535|NCT01162421|191960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|6.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||6.9|-12.3|0.579
95760421|NCT00261443|191488322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.35||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.07|-0.62|0.015
95760422|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Baseline Comparison||0.16|-0.09|0.588
95760423|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.16|-0.18|0.922
95992536|NCT01162421|191960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.9||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||8.9|-11.1|0.826
95992537|NCT01162421|191960642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||9.0|-13.8|0.675
95992538|NCT01162421|191960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||4.3|-2.0|0.458
95947988|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.5|-9.3|
95947989|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||2.8|-9.6|
95947990|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||2.2|-9.6|
95947991|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||4.2|-7.6|
95947992|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.0|-7.5|
95947993|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||6.1|-5.4|
95947994|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||4.5|-7.7|
95947995|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||4.0|-7.7|
95992539|NCT01162421|191960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.1|-4.9|0.419
95992540|NCT01162421|191960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.4||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||3.4|-2.3|0.692
95992541|NCT01162421|191960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.0||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||5.0|-1.8|0.357
95992542|NCT01162421|191960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||4.7|-2.0|0.420
95947996|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.4|-10.8|
95947997|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||3.2|-8.9|
95947998|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||2.9|-9.5|
95992543|NCT01162421|191960643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||4.5|-1.8|0.380
95992544|NCT01162421|191960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.05.||Month 3||1.1|0.0|0.046
95760424|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.08|-0.30|0.266
95760425|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.06|-0.34|0.159
95760426|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.11||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.10|-0.31|0.305
95800757|NCT01137812|191574205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.48|1.30|
95947999|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.5|-7.9|
95948000|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.1|-8.1|
95948001|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||6.6|-5.6|
95760427|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.13||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.09|-0.35|0.251
95760428|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.05|-0.40|0.135
95760429|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.02|-0.46|0.073
95948002|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||3.8|-8.3|
95992545|NCT01162421|191960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is P=0.01.||Month 6||1.3|0.3|0.003
95764416|NCT03103087|191498980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95764417|NCT03103087|191498981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95764418|NCT03103087|191498982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764419|NCT03103087|191498983|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus Placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764420|NCT03103087|191498984|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764421|NCT03103087|191498985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764422|NCT03103087|191498986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95760430|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.26||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||-0.02|-0.50|0.034
95760431|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.17||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.07|-0.41|0.174
95760432|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.06|-0.43|0.132
95760433|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.07|-0.42|0.152
95760434|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.01|-0.48|0.060
95760435|NCT00261443|191488324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||Baseline: ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and index mood episode. Mean change from baseline: ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, index mood episode, baseline value.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.46|0.085
95760436|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.04||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.33|-0.25|0.774
95859703|NCT02963506|191677337|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.82|-1.45|<0.001
95760437|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.19||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.11|-0.49|0.213
95760438|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.465
95760439|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.02|-0.59|0.068
95760440|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.27||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.05|-0.58|0.095
95760441|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.082
95760442|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.03|-0.69|0.033
95764423|NCT03103087|191498987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95760443|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.31||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.02|-0.64|0.062
95760444|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.43||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||-0.10|-0.76|0.011
95760445|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||-0.04|-0.70|0.027
95859407|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.07|0.93|
95948003|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||4.5|-7.4|
95948004|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||5.8|-6.5|
95948005|NCT02434328|191868145|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for BCVA categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.1|-8.1|
95948006|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-2.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||-2.9|-32.6|
95948007|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-13.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||-13.4|-45.6|
95948008|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-13.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||-13.7|-46.9|
95948009|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-21.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||-21.6|-58.9|
95948010|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||15.0|-20.9|
95948011|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-29.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||-29.3|-66.3|
95948012|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||-5.4|-42.0|
95948013|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-15.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||-15.0|-52.4|
95948014|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-12.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||-12.9|-48.0|
95948015|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-25.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||-25.9|-63.5|
95992546|NCT01162421|191960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 9||0.8|-0.2|0.204
95760446|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.37||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||-0.04|-0.71|0.029
95760447|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.06|-0.74|0.022
95760448|NCT00261443|191488327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||-0.06|-0.75|0.023
95948016|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||-1.1|-37.3|
95948017|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-30.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||-30.9|-68.9|
95948018|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||-10.4|-45.8|
95948019|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-23.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||-23.7|-62.4|
95948020|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||-12.8|-49.5|
95948021|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-26.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||-26.8|-64.9|
95948022|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||-5.4|-42.0|
95948023|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-28.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||-28.3|-66.4|
95948024|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-9.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||-9.5|-46.5|
95948025|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4|-21.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||-21.4|-60.4|
95948026|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-12.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||-12.4|-49.6|
95948027|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||-23.3|-61.9|
95992547|NCT01162421|191960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.7|-0.2|0.227
95760449|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.09||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.36|-0.17|0.486
95760450|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.04||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.23|-0.30|0.793
95760451|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.22|-0.34|0.665
95760452|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.22|-0.35|0.650
95760453|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.06||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.23|-0.34|0.705
95760454|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.08||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.21|-0.38|0.572
95800758|NCT01137812|191574206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.89|-18.24|||ANCOVA|||||-18.24|-29.89|<0.001
95948028|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||-10.3|-47.9|
95760455|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||0.18|-0.43|0.418
95760456|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.10|-0.51|0.185
95760457|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.1||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.21|-0.41|0.536
95760458|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.24|-0.39|0.637
95859408|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.11|0.99|
95948029|NCT02434328|191868146|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-23.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||-23.3|-62.0|
95800759|NCT01137812|191574207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-3.3|<0.001
95992548|NCT01162421|191960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 18||0.5|-0.4|0.860
95800760|NCT01137812|191574208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.883|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.642|-4.175|||ANCOVA|||||-4.175|-7.642|<0.001
95800761|NCT01137812|191574209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-9.8|0.554
95800762|NCT01137812|191574210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|4.6|<0.001
95992549|NCT01162421|191960644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||P-values are two-sided and are based on ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect and Baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24||0.6|-0.3|0.476
95760459|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.29|-0.34|0.875
95760460|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.14||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.17||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||0.17|-0.46|0.378
95760461|NCT00261443|191488329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.12||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.2||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.20|-0.43|0.474
95800763|NCT03677401|191574211|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.158
95992550|NCT01850615|191960651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.72|||||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (faster aspart+basal minus basal only), which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%.|Change from baseline in HbA1c after 18 weeks of treatment was analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements (MMRM) where all calculated changes in HbA1c from baseline at visits 16, 22 and 28 were included in the analysis. This model included treatment, region and strata as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||-0.72|-1.17|
95992551|NCT00706628|191960657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0577|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0577
95760462|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.4||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 4 Comparison||0.40|-0.19|0.488
95764424|NCT03103087|191498988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764425|NCT03103087|191498989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764426|NCT03103087|191498990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764427|NCT03103087|191498991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764428|NCT03103087|191498992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764429|NCT03103087|191498993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764430|NCT03103087|191498995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo based on mixed-effect model with treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL, and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95764431|NCT03103087|191499002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
95764432|NCT00780338|191499084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.58
95764433|NCT00780338|191499086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||We first conducted an intent-to-treat analysis by fitting a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.||||.61
95760463|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.15||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 8 Comparison||0.16|-0.46|0.349
95760464|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.07||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 12 Comparison||0.25|-0.39|0.653
95760465|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.24||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 16 Comparison||0.08|-0.56|0.141
95760466|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.22||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.11||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 20 Comparison||0.11|-0.54|0.196
95760467|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 24 Comparison||0.04|-0.62|0.088
95760468|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.34||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 28 Comparison||-0.01|-0.68|0.047
95800764|NCT03677401|191574212|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.||||||0.75|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.750
95760469|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 32 Comparison||0.01|-0.67|0.057
95760470|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.02||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 36 Comparison||0.02|-0.68|0.063
95760471|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 40 Comparison||0.05|-0.65|0.091
95760472|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.29||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 44 Comparison||0.06|-0.64|0.105
95760473|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 48 Comparison||-0.01|-0.72|0.047
95800765|NCT03677401|191574213|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation||||||0.674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.674
95800766|NCT03677401|191574214|SUPERIORITY|P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.060
95992552|NCT00706628|191960657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0863
95800767|NCT03677401|191574214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.401
95800768|NCT03677401|191574214|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.185
95992553|NCT00706628|191960659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1754|1.7892||||||||1.7892|1.1754|
95992554|NCT02921425|191960671|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.003
95760474|NCT00261443|191488331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-0.33||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03||Mean change from baseline: ANOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline value. Mean change from preceding phase: ANCOVA controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, type of index mood episode, baseline CGI-BP.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences, and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Aripiprazole - Placebo; Week 52 Comparison||0.03|-0.69|0.073
95760475|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 4||1.08|0.92|0.910
95760476|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 8||1.11|0.97|0.300
95800769|NCT03677401|191574214|SUPERIORITY|P-values, LS Mean and LS SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.164|||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.164
95800770|NCT03677401|191574215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.283
95859409|NCT02637037|191676215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.96|
95948030|NCT02434328|191868147|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-18.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-18.1|-54.0|
95948031|NCT02434328|191868148|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-17.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|||-17.6|-55.1|
95948032|NCT02434328|191868149|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-14.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 48||-14.1|-47.6|
95948033|NCT02434328|191868149|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-16.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-total categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4 to Week 96||-16.1|-50.8|
95948034|NCT02434328|191868150|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||0.7|0.0|
95948035|NCT02434328|191868150|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||0.6|-0.1|
95948036|NCT02434328|191868150|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline lesion size categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||0.6|0.0|
95760477|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.01||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 12||1.08|0.95|0.744
95760478|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 16||1.17|1.02|0.015
95760479|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 20||1.14|0.97|0.264
95800771|NCT03677401|191574215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.701
95800772|NCT03677401|191574215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.033
95800773|NCT03677401|191574216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.797
95800774|NCT03677401|191574217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.845
95800775|NCT03677401|191574218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.385
95800776|NCT03677401|191574218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.786
95992555|NCT02921425|191960673|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
95992556|NCT02921425|191960674|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
95992557|NCT02921425|191960676|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||systolic blood pressure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95760480|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 24||1.11|0.99|0.090
95760481|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.08||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 28||1.17|1.00|0.056
95760482|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 32||1.05|0.93|0.756
95760483|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.05||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 36||1.13|0.98|0.177
95760484|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 40||1.13|1.01|0.021
95859704|NCT02963506|191677338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.67||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||3.67|0.80|=0.163
95992558|NCT02921425|191960676|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||diastolic blood pressure||||.001
95760485|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 44||1.16|0.96|0.216
95760486|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 48||1.15|1.01|0.017
95760487|NCT00261443|191488332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer and index mood episode.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Aripiprazole/Placebo|Week 52||1.13|0.99|0.083
95760488|NCT00261443|191488333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.08|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified Log Rank Test p-value for equality of survival curves.||||1.08|0.56|0.132
95760489|NCT00261443|191488374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.640
95992559|NCT02921425|191960678|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.019
95992560|NCT01948830|191960703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The following hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level. Non-inferiority with respect to BCVA: H01: μtreat and extend - μmonthly ≤ - Δ versus HA1: μtreat and extend - μmonthly \> - Δ where μtreat and extend and μmonthly are the unknown mean changes from baseline in BCVA to Month 12 in the treat and extend regimen and the monthly regimen, respectively. Δ is the non-inferiority margin and is pre-defined to be 5 letters for the justification of the margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95760490|NCT00261443|191488374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.423
95760491|NCT00261443|191488374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.297
95760492|NCT00261443|191488374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
95760493|NCT00261443|191488375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.656
95760494|NCT00261443|191488375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.045
95760495|NCT00261443|191488375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.532
95760496|NCT00261443|191488375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.578
95760497|NCT00261443|191488376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.619
95760498|NCT00261443|191488376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.868
95760499|NCT00261443|191488376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.284
95760500|NCT00261443|191488376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.481
95760501|NCT00261443|191488377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.184
95760502|NCT00261443|191488377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.073
95760503|NCT00261443|191488377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.020
95760504|NCT00261443|191488377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.206
95760505|NCT00261443|191488378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.142
95760506|NCT00261443|191488378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.110
95992561|NCT00091832|191960723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.245
95992562|NCT00091832|191960724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.848
95760507|NCT00261443|191488378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.022
95760508|NCT00261443|191488378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.542
95760509|NCT00261443|191488379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.916||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.916
95760510|NCT00261443|191488379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.707
95760511|NCT00261443|191488379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.665
95760512|NCT00261443|191488379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.757
95760513|NCT00261443|191488380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.871
95800777|NCT03677401|191574218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.502
95760514|NCT00261443|191488380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.362
95760515|NCT00261443|191488380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.295
95760516|NCT00261443|191488380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.519||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.519
95760517|NCT00261443|191488381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.935
95760518|NCT00261443|191488381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.174
95948037|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 4||7.3|-11.6|
95760519|NCT00261443|191488381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.527
95760520|NCT00261443|191488381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.753
95760521|NCT00261443|191488382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.850
95760522|NCT00261443|191488382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.709
95760523|NCT00261443|191488382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.326
95760524|NCT00261443|191488382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison; Aripiprazole/Placebo||||0.201
95760525|NCT00261443|191488383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Difference||1.81|-0.87|0.491
95760526|NCT00261443|191488383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.12||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value Treatment Difference||1.12|-1.21|0.945
95760527|NCT00261443|191488384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.279
95760528|NCT00261443|191488384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.247||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.247
95760529|NCT00261443|191488384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.329
95760530|NCT00261443|191488384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.928||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.928
95760531|NCT00261443|191488384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.09||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||2.09|0.66|0.584
95760532|NCT00261443|191488384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||2.08|0.76|0.369
95760533|NCT00261443|191488385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.685
95760534|NCT00261443|191488385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.792
95800778|NCT03677401|191574219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.197
95800779|NCT03677401|191574219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.694
95800780|NCT03677401|191574219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.916
95992563|NCT00091832|191960725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||||95.0|0.68|4.35|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.35|0.68|
95992564|NCT00091832|191960725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||||95.0|0.51|3.24|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.24|0.51|
95992565|NCT00091832|191960725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.34|2.29|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.29|0.34|
95992566|NCT00091832|191960725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||||95.0|0.51|3.2|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.20|0.51|
95992567|NCT00091832|191960725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||||95.0|0.7|4.34|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.34|0.70|
95992568|NCT00091832|191960726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||||95.0|0.69|4.79|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||4.79|0.69|
95992569|NCT00091832|191960726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||||95.0|0.25|1.76|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.76|0.25|
95992570|NCT00091832|191960726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.24|1.77|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.77|0.24|
95992571|NCT00091832|191960726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||||95.0|0.22|1.58|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.58|0.22|
95992572|NCT00091832|191960726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||||95.0|0.25|1.92|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||1.92|0.25|
95760535|NCT00261443|191488385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.805
95760536|NCT00261443|191488385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0||||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.533
95760537|NCT00261443|191488385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.74||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||1.74|0.35|0.545
95800781|NCT03927157|191574226|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.39|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.39|0.17|<0.001
95992573|NCT00091832|191960727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.51|1.31|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.31|0.51|
95992574|NCT00091832|191960727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.64|1.65|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.65|0.64|
95760538|NCT00261443|191488385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86||CMH General Association Test controlling for mood stabilizer.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At Any Time Treatment Comparison"||1.86|0.54|0.987
95760539|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.646||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Treatment Comparison Baseline||||0.646
95760540|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 12 Treatment Comparison||||0.006
95800782|NCT03927157|191574227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|0.16|<0.001
95800783|NCT03927157|191574228|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.14|0.001
95800784|NCT03927157|191574229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
95800785|NCT03927157|191574230|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.27|0.001
95800786|NCT02265744|191574263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9745|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9745
95992575|NCT00091832|191960727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
95992576|NCT00091832|191960727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||||95.0|0.68|1.74|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.74|0.68|
95992577|NCT00091832|191960727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.71|1.83|||||A hazard ratio \>1 indicates that the time to 65% or more reduction in uNTx from baseline was shorter in the Denosumab-treated group than in the control group.|||1.83|0.71|
95992578|NCT00091832|191960738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||||95.0|0.159|1.856|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.856|0.159|
95992579|NCT00091832|191960738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.544||||||95.0|0.159|1.859|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.859|0.159|
95992580|NCT00091832|191960738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||||95.0|0.266|2.355|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.355|0.266|
95992581|NCT00091832|191960738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||||95.0|0.389|2.963|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||2.963|0.389|
95992582|NCT00091832|191960738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||||95.0|0.158|1.847|||||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates the time to the first skeletal-related event in the denosumab-treated group was longer than that in the control group.|||1.847|0.158|
95992583|NCT00091832|191960739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||||95.0|0.51|7.17|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.17|0.51|
95760541|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.485||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 24 Treatment Comparison||||0.485
95760542|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 36 Treatment Comparison||||0.325
95760543|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 Treatment Comparison||||0.374
95760544|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Week 52 (LOCF) Treatment Comparison||||0.064
95760545|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Highest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.310
95760546|NCT00261443|191488386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model on the rank of the change from baseline, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and the rank of baseline is used for change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|||Lowest Value Treatment Comparison||||0.046
95760547|NCT00261443|191488388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALP||||0.331
95760548|NCT00261443|191488388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in ALP at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
95760549|NCT00261443|191488388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.298||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALP Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.298
95760550|NCT00261443|191488389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline ALT||||0.111
95760551|NCT00261443|191488389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in ALT at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.948
95760552|NCT00261443|191488389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison ALT Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.559
95760553|NCT00261443|191488390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline AST||||0.077
95992584|NCT00091832|191960739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.36|3.97|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||3.97|0.36|
95992585|NCT00091832|191960739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||||95.0|0.26|2.52|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||2.52|0.26|
95760554|NCT00261443|191488390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change in AST at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.255
95760555|NCT00261443|191488390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.918||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison AST Highest Change Value During Phase 3||||0.918
95760556|NCT00261443|191488391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline BUN||||0.118
95760557|NCT00261443|191488391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in BUN at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.532
95760558|NCT00261443|191488391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison BUN Highest Value of Change During Phase 3||||0.169
95760559|NCT00261443|191488392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.878
95760560|NCT00261443|191488392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Total Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.544
95760561|NCT00261443|191488392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.658||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Cholesterol (fasting) in Phase 3||||0.658
95760562|NCT00261443|191488393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatine Kinase||||0.043
95992586|NCT00091832|191960739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
95992587|NCT00091832|191960739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||||95.0|0.5|7.05|||||Adjusted for the stratum to which the participant was originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)|||7.05|0.5|
95992588|NCT02022826|191960751|OTHER||percentage of agreement|76.0||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|83.0|||McNemar|||||83|69|0.0052
95760563|NCT00261443|191488393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from baseline in Creatine Kinase at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.019
95760564|NCT00261443|191488393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatine Kinase During Phase 3||||0.176
95760565|NCT00261443|191488394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Creatinine||||0.105
95760566|NCT00261443|191488394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.634||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Creatinine at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.634
95760567|NCT00261443|191488394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Creatinine During Phase 3||||0.958
95760568|NCT00261443|191488395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Eosinophils (relative)||||0.507
95760569|NCT00261443|191488395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.834||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Eosinophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.834
95948038|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 8||6.0|-13.6|
95760570|NCT00261443|191488395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.511||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Eosinophils (relative) During Phase 3||||0.511
95760571|NCT00261443|191488396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Glucose (fasting)||||0.741
95760572|NCT00261443|191488396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.962||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Glucose (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.962
95760573|NCT00261443|191488396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in Glucose (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.592
95760574|NCT00261443|191488397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hemoglobin||||0.080
95760575|NCT00261443|191488397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hemoglobin at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.868
95859705|NCT02963506|191677338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|8.48||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||8.48|1.84|<0.001
95948039|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 12||5.3|-14.3|
95760576|NCT00261443|191488397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Change Value in Hemoglobin During Phase 3||||0.299
95760577|NCT00261443|191488398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Hematocrit||||0.187
95760578|NCT00261443|191488398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in Hematocrit During Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.377
95760579|NCT00261443|191488398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Hematocrit During Phase 3||||0.494
95760580|NCT00261443|191488399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.180
95760581|NCT00261443|191488399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.950
95760582|NCT00261443|191488399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in HDL Cholesterol (fasting) During Phase 3||||0.342
95760583|NCT00261443|191488400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-Percent Beta||||0.349
95760584|NCT00261443|191488400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.624||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-Percent Beta at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.624
95760585|NCT00261443|191488400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value in HOMA2-Percent Beta During Phase 3||||0.329
95760586|NCT00261443|191488401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline HOMA2-IR||||0.550
95760587|NCT00261443|191488401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.554||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline in HOMA2-IR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.554
95760588|NCT00261443|191488401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in HOMA2-IR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.870
95760589|NCT00261443|191488402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.004
95760590|NCT00261443|191488402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase||||0.034
95760591|NCT00261443|191488402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Lactate Dehydrogenase During Phase 3||||0.091
95760592|NCT00261443|191488403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.808
95760593|NCT00261443|191488403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.507
95800787|NCT02265744|191574263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6217|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.6217
95800788|NCT02265744|191574263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8295|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.8295
95948040|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 16||6.4|-13.7|
95760594|NCT00261443|191488403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Change Value in LDL Cholesterol (fasting)||||0.948
95760595|NCT00261443|191488404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.967||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Neutrophils (relative)||||0.967
95760596|NCT00261443|191488404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.486||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison in change from Baseline in Neutrophils (relative) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.486
95760597|NCT00261443|191488404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Neutrophils (relative), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.323
95760598|NCT00261443|191488405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline in Platelet Count||||0.663
95760599|NCT00261443|191488405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.322
95760600|NCT00261443|191488405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.358||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.358
95760601|NCT00261443|191488405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.541||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Platelet Count, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.541
95760602|NCT00261443|191488406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.412||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Prolactin||||0.412
95760603|NCT00261443|191488406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||<0.001
95760604|NCT00261443|191488406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.004
95760605|NCT00261443|191488407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Total Bilirubin||||0.630
95760606|NCT00261443|191488407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.675
95760607|NCT00261443|191488407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Total Bilirubin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.592
95760608|NCT00261443|191488408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Triglycerides (fasting)||||0.273
95760609|NCT00261443|191488408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.489
95760610|NCT00261443|191488408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Triglycerides (fasting), Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.415
95800789|NCT02265744|191574263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||Chi-squared|Nominal p-values that are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||||0.9439
95800790|NCT06262607|191574297|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|21.53|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||21.53|-9.54|0.4422
95800791|NCT00923702|191574298|NON_INFERIORITY|To test for non-inferiority of antibody concentrations in different dose groups, log-transformed mean MFIs in linear regression models were used to obtain MFI ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Antibody titres at months 0, 7, 12, 36 and 48 were compared and non-inferiority was inferred when the lower bound of the confidence interval of the ratio of the immunogenicity measures exceeded 0.5.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||ONE_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The lower bound of the 95% CI ratio of immunogeneicity measures was used instead. No p-values were estimated.|||||
95800792|NCT00923702|191574299|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95800793|NCT01086475|191574303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95800794|NCT01086475|191574304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.927
95800795|NCT01086475|191574305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
95992589|NCT02022826|191960752|OTHER||precentage of agreement|92.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|96.0|||McNemar|||||96|87|1.00
95992590|NCT01634555|191960757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan .||||1.05|0.83|
95992591|NCT01634555|191960757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.04|0.88|
95760611|NCT00261443|191488409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Uric Acid||||0.189
95760612|NCT00261443|191488409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.350
95760613|NCT00261443|191488409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Uric Acid, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.799
95760614|NCT00261443|191488410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.124||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Leukocytes||||0.124
95760615|NCT00261443|191488410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.295
95800796|NCT03446573|191574325|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in virologic failure rates between the two treatment arms was smaller than 4%.|Adjusted difference in proportion (ADP)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.7|-1.2|
95859410|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|0.99||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||0.99|0.94|
95992592|NCT01634555|191960759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Irinotecan.||||1.12|0.97|
95760616|NCT00261443|191488410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Highest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.735
95760617|NCT00261443|191488410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Lowest Value of Change in Leukocytes, Phase 3||||0.505
95760618|NCT00261443|191488412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.213||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc Bazett||||0.213
95760619|NCT00261443|191488412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc Bazett at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.708
95859411|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.02|0.97|
95992593|NCT01634555|191960759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1 for Metabolite SN-38.||||1.12|0.85|
95992594|NCT01506882|191960773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|84.2||||||"The primary efficacy variable was to be calculated as the proportion p=n/N of subjects (n) staying seizure free for 6 months out of the total number of subjects (N). For this proportion p, an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed based on the F distribution.~The hypothesis H0: p=0.4 was to be formally rejected in favor of H1: p\>0.4, if the lower confidence limit for p was greater than 0.4."||84.2|60.9|
95760620|NCT00261443|191488412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc Bazett, Phase 3||||0.107
95760621|NCT00261443|191488413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QTc (0.33)||||0.205
95760622|NCT00261443|191488413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.669||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QTc (0.33) at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.669
95760623|NCT00261443|191488413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QTc (0.33), Phase 3||||0.072
95760624|NCT00261443|191488414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline PR||||0.012
95760625|NCT00261443|191488414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in PR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.027
95760626|NCT00261443|191488414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in PR, Phase 3||||0.128
95760627|NCT00261443|191488415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.571||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline RR||||0.571
95760628|NCT00261443|191488415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.353||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in RR at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.353
95948041|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 20||14.6|-5.5|
95948042|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 24||4.7|-16.3|
95992595|NCT04025632|191960783|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds|0.55||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.57||Conducted using a 2-sided Van Elteren test, which represents an extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparing 2 treatments in a stratified experiment using within-stratum ranks assigning greater weight to rank sums from smaller strata.|2-sided Van Elteren test||The magnitude of association between treatment groups was expressed as in Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds followed by the 95% confidence intervals.|||1.57|0.19|0.464
95992596|NCT04025632|191960785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|5.535||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups was calculated using logistic regression with investigational medicinal product and strata as fixed factors.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.535|0.214|0.919
95760629|NCT00261443|191488415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in RR, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.204
95760630|NCT00261443|191488415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Prolactin, Phase 3 Safety Sample||||0.435
95800797|NCT03446573|191574326|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of switching to DTG + 3TC compared to continuation of TBR (as per FDA snapshot algorithm) was to be concluded when the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -8%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor: Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INSTI).|||3.9|-3.4|
95948043|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 28||7.0|-13.1|
95992597|NCT04025632|191960786|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.688||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.781|1.404||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase \[HMGCR\]+/anti-signal recognition particle \[SRP\]+) as fixed factors with Baseline 3TUG as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.404|-2.781|0.496
95992598|NCT04025632|191960787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.89||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|13.95||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline proximal MMT as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||13.95|-6.18|0.431
95992599|NCT04025632|191960788|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.204||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|1.448||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Physician Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||1.448|-1.855|0.800
95992600|NCT04025632|191960789|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.281||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.829||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline Patient Global Activity VAS as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.829|-3.390|0.221
95760631|NCT00261443|191488416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline QRS||||0.826
95760632|NCT00261443|191488416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in QRS at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.545
95859412|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||0.98|0.93|
95992601|NCT04025632|191960790|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.147||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|0.307||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline HAQ as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.307|-0.601|0.508
95760633|NCT00261443|191488416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in QRS, Phase 3||||0.372
95760634|NCT00261443|191488417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.27||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.27|-0.07|0.235
95800798|NCT03446573|191574352|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.057||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.164|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.164|0.960|0.257
95800799|NCT03446573|191574352|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.062||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.205|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.205|0.936|0.350
95760635|NCT00261443|191488417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value in Change Treatment Difference||0.64|0.08|0.012
95948044|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 32||8.5|-12.6|
95760636|NCT00261443|191488418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.587||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Baseline Heart Rate||||0.587
95760637|NCT00261443|191488418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison, Change from Baseline in Heart Rate at Week 52 (LOCF)||||0.386
95948045|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 36||5.1|-15.2|
95760638|NCT00261443|191488418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.405||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Highest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.405
95760639|NCT00261443|191488418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.253||95.0||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test stratified by mood stabilizer|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Treatment Comparison Lowest Value of Change in Heart Rate, Phase 3||||0.253
95948046|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 40||3.8|-17.0|
95992602|NCT04025632|191960791|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.143||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.837|||Linear Mixed Effect Model|Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline MDAAT as a covariate.|The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||0.837|-1.123|0.765
95992603|NCT04025632|191960792|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.53||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|15.55||Based on a linear model with treatment and strata (anti-HMGCR+/anti-SRP+) as fixed factors with Baseline FACIT-Fatigue Scale as a covariate.|Linear Mixed Effect Model||The difference presented is zilucoplan 0.3 mg/kg minus placebo.|||15.55|-4.49|0.265
95760640|NCT00261443|191488419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.23|-0.12|0.514
95760641|NCT00261443|191488419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.38|-0.14|0.362
95760642|NCT00261443|191488420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.04|0.904
95760643|NCT00261443|191488420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||0.11|-0.03|0.222
95760644|NCT00261443|191488421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.04|-0.03|0.808
95992604|NCT02216695|191960813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for 65 to 74 years age group with \< 65 years as the reference group|||1.40|1.30|
95992605|NCT02216695|191960813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group 75 to 84 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||1.79|1.66|
95760645|NCT00261443|191488421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.771||95.0||||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change Treatment Difference||||0.771
95760646|NCT00261443|191488422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.03|-0.05|0.576
95992606|NCT02216695|191960813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||This is OR for age group equal to greater than 85 years age group with \< 65 years as reference|||2.19|1.89|
95948047|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 44||7.9|-13.4|
95760647|NCT00261443|191488422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value treatment Difference||0.08|-0.05|0.636
95800800|NCT03446573|191574352|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.979||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.037|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.037|0.924|0.473
95800801|NCT03446573|191574352|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.956||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.026|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.026|0.891|0.212
95859413|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.00|0.95|
95760648|NCT00261443|191488423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Week 52 LOCF Treatment Difference||0.08|-0.06|0.774
95760649|NCT00261443|191488423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||ANOVA model, controlling for treatment and mood stabilizer, is used for baseline. ANCOVA model, controlling for treatment, mood stabilizer, and baseline value, is used for mean change from baseline.|ANOVA/ANCOVA|Means, differences in means, 95% CI for the differences and p-values are based on the ANOVA/ANCOVA model.||Highest Value of Change, Treatment Difference||0.14|-0.06|0.444
95760650|NCT02755649|191488437|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.87|42.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||42.05|16.87|< 0.0001
95948048|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 48||3.7|-17.6|
95992607|NCT02216695|191960814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 1998-2003 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.30|1.10|
95992608|NCT02216695|191960814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||This is the OR for 2008-13 discharge period with 2003-08 as the reference group|||1.18|1.07|
95760651|NCT02755649|191488437|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.41|45.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior Cyclosporine A (CSA) use (Yes, No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. Difference is Dupilumab minus placebo. Confidence Interval (CI) calculated using normal approximation. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16. Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated.||45.57|20.41|< 0.0001
95760652|NCT02755649|191488438|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-24.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI w/p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs placebo) of LS mean percent change using multiple imputation (MI) w/ANCOVA model w/baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-24.3|-38.85|< 0.0001
95800802|NCT03446573|191574354|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.977||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.102|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.102|0.866|0.700
95800803|NCT03446573|191574354|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.971||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.129|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UA/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.129|0.835|0.700
95800804|NCT03446573|191574354|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.969||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.036|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.036|0.907|0.356
95800805|NCT03446573|191574354|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.991||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.071|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for UP/C at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.071|0.916|0.814
95800806|NCT03446573|191574355|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.958||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.106|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.106|0.830|0.560
95760653|NCT02755649|191488438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-25.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue \& then imputed by MI.||-25.88|-40.42|< 0.0001
95760654|NCT02755649|191488439|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.07|-17.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-17.41|-35.07|< 0.0001
95760655|NCT02755649|191488439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference]|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|-19.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-19.68|-37.34|< 0.0001
95760656|NCT02755649|191488440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-21.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-21.93|-35.56|< 0.0001
95760657|NCT02755649|191488440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-26.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-26.06|-39.7|< 0.0001
95948049|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 52||7.5|-12.9|
95760658|NCT02755649|191488441|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.89|38.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||38.39|13.89|< 0.0001
95760659|NCT02755649|191488441|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.08|43.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||43.83|19.08|< 0.0001
95760660|NCT02755649|191488442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.706|-13.197||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value is based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI||-13.197|-22.706|< 0.0001
95800807|NCT03446573|191574355|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.055||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.229|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.229|0.906|0.489
95800808|NCT03446573|191574357|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.165||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.384|0.981|0.081
95948050|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 56||5.4|-15.4|
95948051|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 60||5.9|-14.3|
95760661|NCT02755649|191488442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.431|-14.895||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-14.895|-24.431|< 0.0001
95760662|NCT02755649|191488443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|36.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||36.41|13.99|< 0.0001
95760663|NCT02755649|191488443|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.95|37.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||37.65|14.95|< 0.0001
95800809|NCT03446573|191574357|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.981||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.175|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine beta-2 microglobulin/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.175|0.819|0.834
95800810|NCT03446573|191574358|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.017||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.130|0.915|0.758
95800811|NCT03446573|191574358|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.999||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.116|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.116|0.894|0.985
95800812|NCT03446573|191574360|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.015||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.139|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.139|0.904|0.806
95859414|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.08|0.97|
95948052|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 64||6.4|-14.2|
95948053|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 68||9.6|-10.7|
95948054|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 72||5.7|-14.8|
95948055|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|7.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 76||7.4|-13.1|
95948056|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 80||6.8|-14.1|
95800813|NCT03446573|191574360|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.019||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.142|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine phosphate at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.142|0.909|0.745
95800814|NCT03446573|191574361|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.935||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.052|||Mixed Model Reported Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.052|0.830|0.264
95800815|NCT03446573|191574361|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.996||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.098|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||1.098|0.903|0.932
95800816|NCT03446573|191574363|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.281|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||1.281|1.032|0.011
95800817|NCT03446573|191574363|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.007||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.121|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment ratio (DTG+3TC/ TAF based regimen) and 95% CI for Urine retinol binding protein 4/urine creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||1.121|0.905|0.895
95800818|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 24 has been presented|||0.57|0.00|0.047
95760664|NCT02755649|191488444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.04|-5.6|< 0.0001
95760665|NCT02755649|191488444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-3.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.74|-6.31|< 0.0001
95760666|NCT02755649|191488445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-5.47||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.47|-8.78|< 0.0001
95760667|NCT02755649|191488445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-5.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\])as fixed factors. Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.97|-9.29|< 0.0001
95760668|NCT02755649|191488446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|30.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|45.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||45.64|14.63|= 0.0002
95800819|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 48 has been presented|||0.68|-0.05|0.094
95760669|NCT02755649|191488446|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|31.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.11|47.05||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||47.05|16.11|= 0.0001
95948057|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 84||7.3|-13.5|
95948058|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 88||6.5|-14.6|
95760670|NCT02755649|191488447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-3.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.51|-11.64|= 0.0003
95800820|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 24 has been presented|||-0.68|-2.01|<0.001
95800821|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 48 has been presented|||-1.09|-2.59|<0.001
95800822|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 24 has been presented|||4.3|-0.1|0.066
95859415|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.95|
95948059|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.0|||ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 92||8.0|-12.6|
95992609|NCT02863068|191960815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2967||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS for all participants between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for all participants.||||0.2967
95992610|NCT02863068|191960816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2818||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.2818
95992611|NCT02863068|191960816|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms||||1.0
95992612|NCT02863068|191960817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms using a Wilcoxon signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS)||||0.3754
95760671|NCT02755649|191488447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|-5.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-5.95|-14.15|< 0.0001
95760672|NCT02755649|191488448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-1.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.43|-4.41|= 0.0001
95800823|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 48 has been presented|||5.8|0.0|0.046
95992613|NCT02863068|191960819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.1165
95992614|NCT02863068|191960819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in methemoglobin at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in methemoglobin from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4583
95760673|NCT02755649|191488448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-2.4|-5.38|< 0.0001
95760674|NCT02755649|191488449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|41.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||41.96|17.1|< 0.0001
95800824|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0381||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0117|0.0646|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 24 has been presented|||0.0646|0.0117|0.005
95800825|NCT03446573|191574371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0292||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0559|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 48 has been presented|||0.0559|0.0025|0.032
95859416|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.09|0.97|
95992615|NCT02863068|191960820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.068
95992616|NCT02863068|191960820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in total ulcerated surface area at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in total ulcerated surface area from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.5
95992617|NCT02863068|191960820|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
95800826|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 96 has been presented|||0.57|-0.22|0.386
95760675|NCT02755649|191488449|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.24|52.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||52.61|28.24|< 0.0001
95800827|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Bone-ALP at Week 144 has been presented|||0.61|-0.34|0.573
95800828|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 96 has been presented|||-1.04|-2.70|< 0.001
95800829|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for Osteocalcin at Week 144 has been presented|||-1.14|-2.77|< 0.001
95948060|NCT02434328|191868151|OTHER|Treatment difference|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|7.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analyzed using ANOVA model with baseline CSFT-neurosensory retina categories, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors.|Least squares mean difference (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg)|Week 96||7.7|-13.6|
95948061|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||-0.3|-13.2|
95948062|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-3.0|-13.8|
95948063|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-1.7|-12.2|
95948064|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-8.3|-20.8|
95992618|NCT02863068|191960820|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for differences in frequencies between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||Difference in frequency of 25% total ulcerated surface area reduction between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||1.0
95948065|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||9.6|-2.9|
95948066|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-13.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.0|-25.5|
95948067|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||-0.4|-11.6|
95948068|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-3.5|-16.5|
95948069|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-2.5|-13.6|
95800830|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 96 has been presented.|||4.4|-0.3|0.082
95800831|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for P1NP at Week 144 has been presented|||3.2|-2.3|0.765
95800832|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0151||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0438|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 96 has been presented|||0.0438|-0.0136|0.301
95948070|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-9.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.4|-21.5|
95992619|NCT02863068|191960821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants on Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.4298
95992620|NCT02863068|191960821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701||||||A matched pairs design was employed to test for changes in average pain at baseline and EOS between treatment arms for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU) using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in average pain from baseline to end of study (EOS) for participants off Hydroxyurea (HU).||||0.2701
95992621|NCT03932799|191960827|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, and health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.16|<.001
95760676|NCT02755649|191488450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-16.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab group vs. placebo)of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment,randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use\[Yes,No\])as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-16.88|-31.63|< 0.0001
95760677|NCT02755649|191488450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.49|-18.86||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata (disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-18.86|-33.49|< 0.0001
95760678|NCT02755649|191488451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.66||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens. CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-3.66|-15.8|= 0.0017
95800833|NCT03446573|191574373|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0126||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0133|0.0384|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for CTX-1 at Week 144 has been presented|||0.0384|-0.0133|0.340
95800834|NCT03446573|191574374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 24 has been presented|||1.0|-5.3|0.173
95948071|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.4|-3.2|
95948072|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-10.4|-22.4|
95948073|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.1|-8.5|
95948074|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.9|-15.7|
95948075|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||2.2|-9.8|
95948076|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.4|-21.3|
95948077|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.2|-6.1|
95993785|NCT00619957|191963388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for pooled center.||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||||<0.0001
95800835|NCT03446573|191574374|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 48 has been presented|||1.0|-5.5|0.168
95800836|NCT03446573|191574376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 96 has been presented.|||-4.7|-14.0|<0.001
95800837|NCT03446573|191574376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D at Week 144 has been presented.|||-1.7|-9.4|0.005
95859706|NCT02963506|191677338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.61||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||7.61|1.66|=0.001
95948078|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-10.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-10.5|-22.6|
95948079|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.1|-7.0|
95948080|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-5.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-5.0|-17.4|
95948081|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|0.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||0.7|-11.3|
95948082|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-5.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-5.9|-18.9|
95948083|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.0|-11.4|
95948084|NCT02434328|191868152|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-8.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-8.3|-20.3|
95948085|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||5.4|-2.5|
95948086|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||1.7|-6.1|
95948087|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||2.2|-5.3|
95948088|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||4.4|-4.5|
95948089|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||12.8|3.9|
95800838|NCT03446573|191574377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 24 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.027
95800839|NCT03446573|191574377|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 48 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.061
95800840|NCT03446573|191574379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 96 has been presented|||-0.01|-0.06|0.004
95948090|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||1.2|-7.9|
95992622|NCT03932799|191960828|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||1.31|0.53|.43
95992623|NCT03932799|191960831|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for workers' compensation-based covariates: age, gender, urban/rural residence, COVID-19 era injury, days from injury to Report of Accident, injury type, injury complexity/severity, days from injury to first opioid prescription, more than 7 days of opioids in acute phase, health care utilization during baseline period/acute phase, and time indicator for each time period (0,1,2).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.14||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Generalized estimating equation|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Outcome modeled longitudinally over the 3 time periods (3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months)~* Time periods clustered at the individual worker level~* Exchangeable working correlation structure~* Robust variance estimates"||6.14|1.50|.002
95992624|NCT03932799|191960832|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey covariates: days from injury to baseline survey, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and physical therapy (PT) utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.32|0.71|.84
95992625|NCT03932799|191960833|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.49|0.71|.88
95992626|NCT03932799|191960834|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.11||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.11|0.49|.15
95992627|NCT03932799|191960835|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.21|0.60|.38
95992628|NCT03932799|191960836|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.28||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Leisure or social activities outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.28|0.91|.12
95760679|NCT02755649|191488451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-1.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error rate at 0.05 across 2 dose regimens.CI with p-value based on treatment difference(dupilumab vs. placebo) of LS mean percent change using MI with ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment, randomization strata(disease severity\[IGA 3 vs IGA 4\] \& prior CSA use \[Yes,No\]) as fixed factors.Efficacy data from participants who received rescue treatment were set to missing after timepoint of rescue, then imputed by MI.||-1.06|-13.31|= 0.0214
95800841|NCT03446573|191574379|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum cystatin C at Week 144 has been presented|||0.00|-0.03|0.094
95800842|NCT03446573|191574380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||3.1|0.4|0.012
95800843|NCT03446573|191574380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||3.3|-0.1|0.059
95992629|NCT03932799|191960836|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.07||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Getting out with friends or family outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.07|0.74|.42
95992630|NCT03932799|191960836|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Doing household chores outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.51|0.63|.91
95992631|NCT03932799|191960836|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Using transportation outcome~* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||2.21|0.64|.59
95992632|NCT03932799|191960837|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.75|0.88|.22
95992633|NCT03932799|191960838|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.47||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||3.47|1.12|.02
95992634|NCT03932799|191960839|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.83|0.95|.10
95992635|NCT03932799|191960841|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|-0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.01|-0.03|.53
95800844|NCT03446573|191574380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 24 has been presented|||-3.7|-6.3|<0.001
95859707|NCT02963506|191677338|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|14.28||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||14.28|2.92|<0.001
95800845|NCT03446573|191574380|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 48 has been presented|||-3.4|-6.1|<0.001
95800846|NCT03446573|191574382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||6.7|1.5|0.002
95948091|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||6.4|-1.0|
95948092|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||4.0|-5.5|
95948093|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||1.8|-5.6|
95948094|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||3.1|-6.0|
95948095|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||8.0|-0.5|
95948096|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||2.2|-6.2|
95948097|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||5.1|-2.5|
95948098|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||3.1|-5.9|
95948099|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||3.4|-4.4|
95948100|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||2.1|-6.2|
95948101|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||6.5|-1.2|
95760680|NCT02755649|191488452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-4.7|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||1.58|-10.97|= 0.1486
95800847|NCT03446573|191574382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from cystatin C adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 148 has been presented|||3.8|-0.1|0.064
95948102|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||4.3|-4.2|
95948103|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||4.2|-3.5|
95800848|NCT03446573|191574382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 96 has been presented|||-3.8|-6.7|<0.001
95948104|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||4.3|-4.8|
95859417|NCT02637037|191676216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.07|0.95|
95948105|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||5.2|-3.3|
95948106|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||3.9|-4.5|
95948107|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||8.0|-0.1|
95948108|NCT02434328|191868153|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||4.6|-4.3|
95948109|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||1.5|-8.9|
95948110|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||2.5|-7.6|
95948111|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||3.7|-6.9|
95948112|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-2.7|-13.0|
95948113|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||6.2|-3.6|
95948114|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-3.1|-12.6|
95948115|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.7||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.7|-6.8|
95948116|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-0.3|-10.5|
95948117|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-0.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-0.4|-10.3|
95948118|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-0.5|-11.2|
95948119|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||5.6|-4.8|
95948120|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-3.9|-13.8|
95992636|NCT03932799|191960842|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.16||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.32|-0.00|.053
95992637|NCT03932799|191960843|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|beta|0.22||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.38||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||0.38|0.05|.01
95992638|NCT03932799|191960844|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for same covariates as primary outcomes, plus survey-based covariates: days from injury to baseline survey date, education, household income, race/ethnicity, working for pay, recovery expectations, anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, pre-injury opioid, chiropractic and PT utilization during baseline period/acute phase, cannabis for injury pain, alcohol misuse risk, current tobacco use, pain intensity/interference, Functional Comorbidity Index, health status, and quality of life.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.35||"* two-tailed test~* p-values \< 0.05 are statistically significant"|Regression, Logistic|||"* Primary predictor is binary (1 for Washington, 0 for Ohio)~* Models survey weighted~* Robust variance estimates"||1.35|0.42|.35
95992639|NCT01097629|191960845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|34.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.3|18.3|<0.00001
95992640|NCT01097629|191960846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|25.1|||<|1e-05||95.0|16.0|34.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||34.2|16.0|<0.00001
95992641|NCT01097629|191960847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-22.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.3|-36.6|<0.00001
95992642|NCT01097629|191960848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-22.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-22.1|-36.7|<0.00001
95992643|NCT01097629|191960849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.8||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-6.9||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.9|-18.8|0.00003
95800849|NCT03446573|191574382|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TAF based regimen) and its 95% CI for serum GFR from creatinine adjusted using CKD-EPI at Week 144 has been presented|||-2.8|-6.2|<0.001
95800850|NCT03446573|191574383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|5.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 24 has been presented.|||5.70|3.03|<0.001
95800851|NCT03446573|191574383|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|5.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 48 has been presented.|||5.81|3.18|<0.001
95992644|NCT01097629|191960850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.2||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-7.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-7.0|-19.4|0.00003
95992645|NCT01097629|191960851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.1||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-6.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.4|-17.8|0.00004
95993786|NCT00619957|191963389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.771||||0.7284||95.0|0.184|3.226|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||3.226|0.184|0.7284
95760681|NCT02755649|191488452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5|||=|0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||-0.65|-12.27|= 0.0319
95760682|NCT02755649|191488453|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.53|-3.6|= 0.9829
95760683|NCT02755649|191488453|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.63|-3.6|= 1
95760684|NCT02755649|191488454|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.9|||=|0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||3.97|-2.19|= 0.5619
95760685|NCT02755649|191488454|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.9|||=|0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||0.88|-2.73|= 0.3241
95859418|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.03|0.93|
95760686|NCT02755649|191488455|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-0.4|||=|0.9518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||11.9|-12.6|= 0.9518
95760687|NCT02755649|191488455|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|2.5|||=|0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 across the 2 dose regimens. Difference is dupilumab minus placebo. CI calculated using normal approximation. P-values were derived by CMH test stratified by disease severity (IGA 3 vs IGA 4) and prior CSA use (Yes,No). Participants who used rescue treatment were categorized as non-responders from time rescue treatment was initiated. Participants with missing values at Week 16 were categorized as non-responders at Week 16.||14.68|-9.64|= 0.6833
95760688|NCT03888066|191488456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|-0.067|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Difference in adjusted mean changes (SE)||-0.067|-0.128|< 0.001
95760689|NCT03888066|191488457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
95760690|NCT03888066|191488458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||"Hazard Ratio patiromer vs placebo.~The HR for the time to first hyperkalemia event for patiromer vs placebo was calculated. HR and p-value come from a Cox proportional regression model adjusted for geographic region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR.~HR = Hazard Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.87|0.45|= 0.006
95760691|NCT03888066|191488459|SUPERIORITY||Annualized event rate ratio|0.658|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.81|||Negative binomial model adjusted for cov|||"NBMAC Annualized event RR patiromer vs placebo.~NBMAC adjusted for geographical region, sex, Baseline T2DM status, Baseline K+ value, and Baseline eGFR. Rate ratio less than 1 favors patiromer.~NBMAC=Negative binomial model adjusted for covariates; RR=Rate Ratio; T2DM=Type 2 diabetes mellitus; eGFR=Estimated glomerular filtration rate"||0.81|0.534|< 0.001
95760692|NCT03888066|191488460|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.526|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|1.906|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers."||1.906|1.231|<0.001
95760693|NCT03888066|191488460|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|0.914|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.578|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio CV death and hospitalization.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.578|0.526|= 0.744
95800852|NCT03446573|191574385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 96 has been presented.|||6.43|3.47|<0.001
95948121|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.5|-7.1|
95948122|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||0.1|-11.1|
95948123|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||-0.5|-10.9|
95948124|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||0.6|-10.9|
95948125|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-0.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||-0.1|-11.0|
95948126|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-1.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-1.2|-12.5|
95948127|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||-0.3|-10.7|
95948128|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.9||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-0.9|-12.4|
95948129|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||4.4|-7.0|
95948130|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||1.3|-10.5|
95859419|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.06|0.90|
95859420|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.05||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.05|0.89|
95948131|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||0.5|-11.4|
95948132|NCT02434328|191868154|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-0.3|-11.5|
95760694|NCT03888066|191488461|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.248|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.564|||Win Ratio|||"Win ratio for composite.~Win ratio approach: Patients in the new treatment and control groups are formed into matched pairs based on their risk profiles. For each matched pair, the new treatment patient is labelled winner/loser depending on CV/hyperkalemia event first. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total numbers of losers. Unmatched win ratio is presented for this endpoint. Win ratio above 1 favors patiromer."||1.564|1.003|= 0.048
95760695|NCT02207634|191488472|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.19, calculated as 20% of the observed common standard deviation, which was estimated from observations in the placebo group by a repeated measured mixed-effect linear model with visit as a covariate. If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between the placebo and evolocumab group in mean change from baseline for Z score averaged across the visits was less than the non-inferiority margin non-inferiority criteria were met.|Treatment Difference|0.0072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0664|0.0808||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening low-density lipoprotein cholesterol \[LDL-C\] and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM strategy index Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0808|-0.0664|
95760696|NCT02207634|191488473|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.1045||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline SWM between-errors Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1045|-0.0378|
95760697|NCT02207634|191488474|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.0873||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference (placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline PAL total errors adjusted Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.0873|-0.0422|
95800853|NCT03446573|191574385|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference (DTG+3TC - TBR) and its 95% CI for serum creatinine at Week 144 has been presented.|||5.85|2.32|<0.001
95800854|NCT03446573|191574386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0017||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0085|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0085|-0.0119|0.741
95800855|NCT03446573|191574386|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0015||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0094|0.0123|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0123|-0.0094|0.792
95800856|NCT03446573|191574387|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.0126|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0126|-0.0121|0.965
95800857|NCT03446573|191574387|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0109||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.0029|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Utility (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Utility by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0029|-0.0247|0.120
95800858|NCT03446573|191574388|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||1.2|-1.4|0.879
95800859|NCT03446573|191574388|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 48. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.8|-1.9|0.414
95800860|NCT03446573|191574389|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 96. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.5|0.102
95992646|NCT01097629|191960852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.6||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.8||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||2.8|-10.1|0.26510
95992647|NCT01097629|191960853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||33.1|19.8|<0.00001
95992648|NCT01097629|191960854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-42.0|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-35.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-35.3|-48.6|<0.00001
95992649|NCT01097629|191960855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.1|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-8.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, and cohort (e-diary only, PSG-plus-e-diary).||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.4|-17.7|<0.00001
95992650|NCT01097629|191960856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-14.9|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-14.9|-28.6|<0.00001
95992651|NCT00600171|191960909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.164|||ANCOVA|||||0.164|-0.036|0.208
95992652|NCT00600171|191960909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|-0.029|0.169
95992653|NCT00600171|191960909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|0.030|0.011
95992654|NCT00600171|191960909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.220|0.023|0.016
95760698|NCT02207634|191488475|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.0727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0022|0.1477||||||A repeated measures mixed-effect linear model was used to estimate treatment difference ( placebo - evolocumab) in change from baseline and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). The model included stratification factors for Study 20110118 (final screening LDL-C and geographical region), age, education level, baseline RTI median 5-choice reaction time Z score, treatment group, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||0.1477|-0.0022|
95760699|NCT02135614|191488501|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.43||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including baseline values, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score, and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.20|0.46
95760700|NCT02135614|191488502|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.16||P-value was calculated from the ANCOVA model including the baseline value, CFS score and stratification factor as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.00|0.046
95760701|NCT02135614|191488503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value was calculated from the negative binomial model with the stratification factor as covariate.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.39
95859421|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.03||||||Dapagliflozin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Dapagliflozin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.03|0.87|
95992655|NCT00600171|191960909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.261|||ANCOVA|||||0.261|0.062|0.001
95993787|NCT00619957|191963390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.688||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.932|||Log Rank|||A total of 210 patients will be randomized to 35 mg once a week risedronate and placebo groups in 2:1 ratio. Sample size will allow detection of a difference of at least 3% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from Baseline at 24 months between risedronate and placebo with at least 90% power. This calculation is based on the assumptions that the common within-group standard deviation (SD) would be below 5%, and the dropout rate within 2 years is about 35%.||1.932|0.245|0.5293
95760702|NCT02135614|191488504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from the negative binomial model comparing the rate ratio between treatment groups, adjusted for the stratification factor.|Negative Binomial Model|||||||0.004
95800861|NCT03446573|191574389|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 144. MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, and Baseline EQ-5D Thermometer by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.2|-2.8|0.093
95948133|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 4||0.2|-14.2|
95948134|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 8||-2.5|-15.5|
95948135|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-2.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 12||-2.6|-15.0|
95948136|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.0||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 16||-9.0|-22.9|
95948137|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 20||14.8|0.9|
95948138|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 24||-13.1|-27.3|
95948139|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 28||2.4|-10.4|
95948140|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 32||-2.5|-16.7|
95948141|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 36||-3.4|-15.8|
95800862|NCT02070991|191574405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between maci. and placebo|10.08||||0.3372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|33.26|||Fisher Exact|||||33.26|-15.07|0.3372
95948142|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-9.6||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 40||-9.6|-23.4|
95948143|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 44||10.4|-3.3|
95948144|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-11.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 48||-11.8|-24.9|
95948145|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 52||3.2|-9.2|
95948146|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.8||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 56||-2.8|-16.3|
95993788|NCT00723957|191963391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41||
95800863|NCT02070991|191574406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.08||||||||1.08|0.55|
95800864|NCT02070991|191574407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (ratio of geom. means)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
95800865|NCT02070991|191574408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.9||||||||4.9|-4.3|
95993789|NCT00723957|191963391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5735|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.5735
95993790|NCT00723957|191963392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10||
95993791|NCT00723957|191963392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.1750
95992656|NCT00393718|191960931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.4%. Superiority criterion: Upper limit of confidence interval of mean difference(= Liraglutide - Glibenclamide) is less than 0.0%.|Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3||p-value is for the null hypothesis for superiority. A significance level of a one-sided 2.5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included HbA1C at baseline as a covariate and treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects.~Hypothesis for non-inferiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.4, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.4,~Hypothesis for superiority:~H0: μ0.9 - μG ≥ 0.0, H1: μ0.9 - μG \< 0.0, where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively. When non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority was evaluated based on the closed testing procedure."||-0.30|-0.70|<0.0001
95992657|NCT00393718|191960932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||||95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.27|-0.71|
95992658|NCT00393718|191960933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-12.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-18.2|-7.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-7.5|-18.2|<0.0001
95992659|NCT00393718|191960934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||||95.0|-18.6|-4.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.9|-18.6|
95992660|NCT00393718|191960935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-93.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-119.61|-66.5||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-66.50|-119.61|<0.0001
95992661|NCT00393718|191960936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-74.51||||||95.0|-105.75|-43.27|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-43.27|-105.75|
95992662|NCT00393718|191960937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|-25.0|-10.27||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-10.27|-25.00|<0.0001
95992663|NCT00393718|191960938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-17.21||||||95.0|-26.32|-8.09|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-8.09|-26.32|
95760703|NCT03022084|191488505|NON_INFERIORITY|The probability that Desyncra is non-inferior to CBT, defined by the sponsor as the event that mean TQ score change from baseline in the Desyncra arm is no more than 3.5 points worse than the mean TQ change in the CBT arm.|||||||||||||Bayesian|Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||Data collected to date were analyzed using a Bayesian approach.|||
95760704|NCT00113763|191488506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||<0.0001
95993792|NCT00723957|191963393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15||
95760705|NCT00113763|191488507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.806||||||This analysis was conducted contingent on a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, and adjusted to an a priori threshold for statistical significance at a 4% level for a multiple comparison involving objective tumor response|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline IVRS ECOG performance status and geographic region||Null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups||||0.806
95800866|NCT02070991|191574409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.2|
95993793|NCT00723957|191963393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.316|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||P-value is 1-sided||||0.316
95760706|NCT03743415|191488516|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.96||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of the symptom index, adjusting for baseline value.|Mean of SMSH alone minus mean of SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.96|-2.50|.81
95800867|NCT02070991|191574410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7||||||||3.7|-4.2|
95800868|NCT02070991|191574411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
95800869|NCT02070991|191574412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect (mean change from BL)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.6||||||||3.6|-4.5|
95800870|NCT04999020|191574431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.38||||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.55|8.48|||Barnard's unconditional exact test|||||8.48|-38.55|0.4192
95760707|NCT03743415|191488516|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included adjustment for baseline value of the symptom index.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||3.49|-4.65|.78
95760708|NCT03743415|191488516|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.32||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.32|-0.66|.27
95760709|NCT03743415|191488516|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size d=0.54 between the SMSH alone group and SMSH+TIPC group was detectable with power of .94 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.39|-0.88|.19
95760710|NCT03743415|191488517|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.36||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||6.36|-3.30|.53
95760711|NCT03743415|191488517|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||9.68|-5.70|.97
95760712|NCT03743415|191488517|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference in linear mixed effects model that included reflected average difference between arms over weeks 5-13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|5.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH alone minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. . The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||5.75|-1.83|.31
95760713|NCT03743415|191488517|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|8.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The adjusted effect size (Cohen's d=0.54) was used to power comparisons on the primary outcomes reported by groups from the second randomization. This analysis indicated that 60 per group would be required for power of .80 or greater in two-sided tests at α= 0.05.||8.74|-2.13|.61
95760714|NCT03743415|191488518|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the difference between arms at week 13.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.35|-3.12|.44
95800871|NCT02448043|191574447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
95800872|NCT02448043|191574448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523
95800873|NCT02448043|191574449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline values of both arms to completion values of both arms||||0.912
95800874|NCT02448043|191574450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Threshold is p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline nail brittleness values and completion values||||0.062
95993794|NCT00723957|191963399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1|||Regression, Cox||β3T+ subgroup|||2.10||
95948147|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 60||1.1|-12.5|
95760715|NCT03743415|191488518|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.||2.18|-2.32|.95
95859422|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment A and B.||1.07|0.96|
95948148|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-8.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 64||-8.5|-21.9|
95948149|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 68||7.5|-5.9|
95948150|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 72||-8.1|-21.4|
95948151|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 76||5.4|-7.5|
95948152|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.4||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 80||-3.4|-17.2|
95948153|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.3||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 84||2.3|-11.4|
95948154|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-4.1||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 88||-4.1|-18.2|
95948155|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.5||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 92||3.5|-9.4|
95948156|NCT02434328|191868155|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.2||Hypothesis testing not pre-specified.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical model used logistic regression adjusting for baseline fluid status, age categories, and treatment as fixed effect factors. 95% CI for difference in proportions (Brolucizumab 6mg - Aflibercept 2mg) was estimated using a bootstrap method.|Week 96||-7.2|-21.3|
95948157|NCT06943638|191868161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95948158|NCT01185340|191868172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.751
95948159|NCT00087516|191868191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-0.96|-0.62|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.62|-0.96|<0.001
95948160|NCT00087516|191868191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001||95.0|-1.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline A1C||||-0.77|-1.11|<0.001
95948161|NCT00087516|191868192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001||95.0|-24.1|-10.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-10.1|-24.1|<0.001
95948162|NCT00087516|191868192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0|-28.2|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline FPG||||-14.4|-28.2|<0.001
95948163|NCT00087516|191868193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001||95.0|-59.4|-34.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-34.1|-59.4|<0.001
95948164|NCT00087516|191868193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001||95.0|-66.7|-41.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, presence/absence of prior diabetes pharmacotherapy, baseline 2-hr PMG||||-41.6|-66.7|<0.001
95993795|NCT00723957|191963399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.9|||Regression, Cox||β3T- subgroup|||0.90||
95993796|NCT00723957|191963399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.4|||Regression, Cox||Overall population|||1.40||
95992664|NCT00393718|191960939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-19.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.99|-11.94||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-11.94|-27.99|<0.0001
95992665|NCT00393718|191960940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.03||||||95.0|-21.46|-4.6|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-4.60|-21.46|
95992666|NCT00393718|191960941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.34|-1.48||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||The analysis was performed based on an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. The following null hypothesis (H0) was statistically tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1). H0: μ0.9 = μG, H1: μ0.9 ≠ μG where μ0.9 and μG are population mean after 24-week treatment for liraglutide 0.9 mg/day and glibenclamide, respectively.||-1.48|-2.34|<0.0001
95992667|NCT00393718|191960942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.71||||||95.0|-2.25|-1.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (liraglutide - glibenclamide) was calculated under an ANOVA model with treatment group and pre-trial treatment as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.18|-2.25|
95992668|NCT00393718|191960943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.35|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.35|0.12|
95992669|NCT00393718|191960943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18||||||95.0|0.09|0.36|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.36|0.09|
95992670|NCT00393718|191960943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.11|0.34|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||0.34|0.11|
95859423|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 5/500 mg for Treatment C and D.||1.04|0.92|
95859424|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.06||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment E and F.||1.06|0.95|
95760716|NCT03743415|191488518|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.93|-1.85|.97
95859425|NCT02637037|191676217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CIs for both dapagliflozin and metformin geometric mean ratio of AUC is entirely contained within an 80.00% to 125.00% interval, it will be concluded the 2 manufacturing sites are bioequivalent.|Ratios of Geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.1||||||Metformin: Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Metformin following administration Dapagliflozin/Metformin XR 10/1000 mg for Treatment G and H.||1.10|0.94|
95859426|NCT02023697|191676226|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.878|1.272|||Log Rank||Arm B / Arm (A+C)|||1.272|0.878|0.7047
95859427|NCT02023697|191676228|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.939|1.69|||Log Rank||Arm C /Arm A|||1.690|0.939|0.3134
95992671|NCT03902080|191960959|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.02|<0.0001
95992672|NCT03902080|191960960|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.0001
95992673|NCT03902080|191960961|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.36|=0.0015
95992674|NCT03902080|191960962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269|=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-1.33|=0.0034
95992675|NCT03902080|191960963|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.0001
95992676|NCT03902080|191960964|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|21.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.02|9.13|<0.0001
95992677|NCT00168831|191960971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95992678|NCT00168831|191960971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95992679|NCT00168831|191960972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.052||0.0004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0004
95992680|NCT00168831|191960972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||0.0012
95948165|NCT01719172|191868197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was the percent (%) success in obtaining hemostasis at the Target Bleeding Site (TBS) within 5 minutes following Veriset™ application. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true success percentage was calculated. Subjects who received rescue therapy on the target bleeding site prior to obtaining hemostasis were considered failures.||||<0.0001
95948166|NCT01719172|191868198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214||||||The p-value from a one-sided exact test was based on the binomial distribution, testing that the true percent success rate was ≤ 50% versus the alternative hypothesis that the success rate was \> 50%.|t-test, 1 sided|||The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 1 minute were presented. An exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for the true percentage was calculated.||||0.0214
95948167|NCT01719172|191868199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.0||||||Time to achieve hemostasis was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis. Additionally, A 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence interval for the median was computed based on the sign test.||1.0||
95948168|NCT01711294|191868200|SUPERIORITY|Sample sizes were calculated using two-sample t-test for the primary endpoint and z-test for the secondary endpoint with power of 80% and two-sided alpha of 0.05. Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison. A p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.84||||||Hochberg step up procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon was used instead of t-test because the data was not normally distributed.||Study hypothesizes that aspiration % in the 19G Flex and 19G arms would be superior by at least 10% to 22G arm, and aspiration success rate of 19G Flex would be at least 16% greater than 22G and 19G arms. Sample size calculation was performed based on the above hypotheses reached by a consensus of all collaborators and adjusted a priori.||||0.84
95948169|NCT02605174|191868216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|1.1|0.003
95948170|NCT02605174|191868216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
95948171|NCT02605174|191868216|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
95728602|NCT03294538|191426455|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Responders in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Responders than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|20.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||<0.0001
95800875|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual. Sample sizing calculated based on results from previous methodology studies performed using the same cold pain test; primary criteria was ability to detect a significant gabapentin effect over placebo.||4.38|-3.82|
95948172|NCT02605174|191868217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.009
95948173|NCT02605174|191868217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.2|<0.001
95948174|NCT02605174|191868217|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.4|<0.001
95948175|NCT02605174|191868218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
95948176|NCT02605174|191868218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.9|1.7|<0.001
95948177|NCT02605174|191868218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
95948178|NCT02605174|191868220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9|0.5|0.002
95948179|NCT02605174|191868220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.7|0.4|<0.001
95948180|NCT02605174|191868220|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.3|<0.001
95992681|NCT00168831|191960973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95992682|NCT00168831|191960973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95992683|NCT00168831|191960974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg vs. Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
95992684|NCT00168831|191960974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg vs. Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
95992685|NCT00168831|191961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992686|NCT00168831|191961018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95800876|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.53|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.68|-3.53|
95800877|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose; mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.99|
95800878|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||5.44|-1.15|
95800879|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.48|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.89|-14.48|
95800880|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1 hour post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||8.78|2.20|
95800881|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.08|-5.53|
95800882|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.74|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-9.13|-18.74|
95800883|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1.5 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.78|-2.01|
95800884|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.32|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||6.96|-5.32|
95948181|NCT02605174|191868221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.5|0.7|0.917
95948182|NCT02605174|191868221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.129
95948183|NCT02605174|191868221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.6|0.456
95948184|NCT02605174|191868223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.2|0.7|0.522
95728603|NCT03294538|191426456|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|6.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||6.2|-9.0|
95800885|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.14|-7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-7.09|-19.14|
95800886|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||7.60|-4.45|
95800887|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.39|2.32||||||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||2.32|-7.39|
95800888|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.44|-4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-4.73|-14.44|
95859428|NCT02023697|191676232|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.892|1.297|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.297|0.892|0.6205
95859429|NCT02023697|191676234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.999||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.341|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.341|0.744|0.9958
95948185|NCT02605174|191868223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4|0.8|0.622
95948186|NCT02605174|191868223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.3|0.8|0.992
95948187|NCT02605174|191868224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.008
95948188|NCT02605174|191868224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.0|1.3|<0.001
95948189|NCT02605174|191868224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
95948190|NCT02605174|191868225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|1.1|0.007
95948191|NCT02605174|191868225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
95948192|NCT02605174|191868225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.3|1.4|<0.001
95948193|NCT00770874|191868228|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.125
95948194|NCT00770874|191868229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.48|<0.001
95760717|NCT03743415|191488518|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.20|-1.56|.74
95948195|NCT04938453|191868231|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.87|106.69|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.69|90.87|
95948196|NCT04938453|191868232|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|100.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.05|118.24|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||118.24|85.05|
95948197|NCT04938453|191868233|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs (%)|98.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.35|107.12|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of nintedanib 4 X 25 mg)/(GLSM of nintedanib 1 X 100 mg).~Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.12|91.35|
95948198|NCT02746107|191868251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|details provided in the protocol. Noninferiority margin=+/-5%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.4|||Chi-squared|||||5.4|-4|0.83
95948199|NCT02746107|191868252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||Chi-squared||(risk on 5y) - (risk on 1y)|details provided in protocol;||8.1|-1.3|0.187
95948200|NCT02746107|191868253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|20.0|||Chi-squared||patient - (physicians themselves)|||20|10.8|<0.001
95948201|NCT02746107|191868253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|adjustment for age, gender, CHA2D2s-VASC score, nr of diagrams, nr of years, presence of someone close with stroke, graduation year, speciality||||4.78|2.25|<0.001
95948202|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|positive value means higher proportion of prescription, CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was reference|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||17|1.2|0.034
95948203|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||||17|1.2|0.033
95948204|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.1|||Chi-squared|||||20.1|4.7|0.003
95948205|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|18.8|||Chi-squared|||||18.8|3.2|0.009
95760718|NCT03743415|191488519|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|4.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus mean of SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.58|-4.49|.98
95800889|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.85|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.85|-4.85|
95948206|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference, adjusted for nr diagrams, nr years, age, gender, smb close with stroke, speciality, professional degree||CHA2D2S-VASC risk score 1 was the reference||3.07|1.08|0.024
95948207|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator: CHADS-VASC 1|||2.98|1.06|0.03
95800890|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||4.22|-3.23|
95948208|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator = CHADS-VASC 1|||4.09|1.37|0.002
95948209|NCT02746107|191868254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, gender, medical and academic degrees, someone close with stroke, speciality, period of risk estimation, number of figures.|numerator=CHADS-VASC 1|||2.56|1.14|0.004
95948210|NCT01450007|191868255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95800891|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.19|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||-3.75|-11.19|
95800892|NCT01119222|191574489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8 hours post-dose: mixed effect model with random subject effect, fixed period and treatment effects and random subject-by-visit effect as residual.||3.45|-3.99|
95948211|NCT01450007|191868256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95948212|NCT01450007|191868257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
95948213|NCT01450007|191868258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 24 hours.||||0.61
95948214|NCT01450007|191868258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 48 hours.||||0.13
95948215|NCT01450007|191868258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 groups for pain scores at 1 week.||||0.25
95948216|NCT01335061|191868259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95948217|NCT01947491|191868270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95948218|NCT02224755|191868271|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.1||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-2.1|<0.001
95948219|NCT02224755|191868272|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the 95% lower confidence boundary for the difference between treatment groups (HM3 - HMII) in the occurrence of the primary end point would be greater than -10 percentage points, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 or a two-tailed P value of less than 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.8||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||9.8|<0.001
95800893|NCT01119222|191574490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.04|-4.24|
95800894|NCT01119222|191574490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.07|-5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.79|-13.07|
95800895|NCT01119222|191574490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.48|-2.80|
95800896|NCT04925934|191574525|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.8|||=|0.7474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.4|=0.7474
95800897|NCT04925934|191574525|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.9942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||14.1|-14.2|=0.9942
95800898|NCT04925934|191574526|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|37.2|||=|0.1626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|74.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||74.7|-0.3|=0.1626
95948220|NCT02224755|191868273|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Based on data in the Sponsor's device tracking database, 7% of patients with the HeartMate II LVAS receive a pump replacement by 24 months. The expected proportion of patients with the HeartMate 3 LVAS to receive a pump replacement by 24 months was assumed to be 3%. We estimated that to demonstrate superiority of HeartMate 3 to HeartMate II with a power of 80% and α = 0.05 (2-sided), a total of 1028 patients (514 per arm) were required using the Fisher's exact test.||.38|.11|<0.001
95948221|NCT00240994|191868295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with graft loss or death|0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.192|||95% Confidence Interval|95% CI using an exact binomial method||The proportion of participants with graft loss or death within 12 months post kidney transplantation is descriptively summarized with a 95% confidence interval using an exact binomial method.||0.192|0.007|
95948222|NCT01205126|191868309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.3|0.855
95948223|NCT01205126|191868310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.6|-1.0|0.615
95948224|NCT01205126|191868311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||0.7|-1.1|0.621
95948225|NCT01205126|191868312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29.||||||0.832
95948226|NCT01205126|191868313|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.5.||||||0.304|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA model using Baseline as covariate for change at Day 29||||||0.304
95948227|NCT01205126|191868314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||rank sum test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
95948228|NCT03316170|191868332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-1.75|.06
95800899|NCT04925934|191574526|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|24.1|||=|0.2873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|55.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, randomization stratification factors and Baseline CLASI-A score in the model.||55.8|-7.5|=0.2873
95992687|NCT00168831|191961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992688|NCT00168831|191961019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992689|NCT00168831|191961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992690|NCT00168831|191961020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992691|NCT00168831|191961021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992692|NCT00168831|191961021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992693|NCT00168831|191961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992694|NCT00168831|191961022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992695|NCT00168831|191961023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0169||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||0.0169
95992696|NCT00168831|191961023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95992697|NCT03213366|191961115|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0095||||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04676|0.02776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.02776|-0.04676|0.5783
95992698|NCT03213366|191961115|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01692||||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05318|0.01933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.01933|-0.05318|0.3185
95992699|NCT03213366|191961116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03674||||0.07863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00516|0.07863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||0.07863|-0.00516|0.07863
95992700|NCT03213366|191961116|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02594||||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01648|0.06836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||0.06836|-0.01648|0.1999
95859430|NCT02023697|191676238|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.823|1.385|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.385|0.823|0.7461
95992701|NCT03213366|191961117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000443||||0.8963|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.8963
95992702|NCT03213366|191961117|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004308||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks||||0.3229
95992703|NCT03213366|191961118|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008705||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|||||This t-test was for the random effects model not for comparing the difference between the arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2433
95992704|NCT03213366|191961118|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01358||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0839
95992705|NCT03213366|191961119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.302||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.2114
95992706|NCT03213366|191961119|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03149||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.2141
95859431|NCT02023697|191676240|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.549||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.041|2.306|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||2.306|1.041|0.1550
95859432|NCT02023697|191676244|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.805|1.167|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.167|0.805|0.8284
95992707|NCT03213366|191961120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0278||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0124
95859433|NCT02023697|191676246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.804|1.396|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.396|0.804|0.7896
95992708|NCT03213366|191961120|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03052||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0022
95992709|NCT03213366|191961121|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05747||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.1021
95992710|NCT03213366|191961121|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05101||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.133
95992711|NCT03213366|191961122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0209||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 weeks.||||0.0818
95992712|NCT03213366|191961122|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03103||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 weeks.||||0.0334
95992713|NCT02058147|191961126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.898|-0.665||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.665|-0.898|<0.0001
95992714|NCT02058147|191961126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|
95992715|NCT02058147|191961126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|-0.194||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Test of superiority was also performed as a secondary endpoint according to hierarchical testing procedure. Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.194|-0.384|<0.0001
95992716|NCT02058147|191961127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.63|47.59||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||47.59|33.63|<0.0001
95992717|NCT02058147|191961127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.81|42.95||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||42.95|29.81|<0.0001
95992718|NCT02058147|191961127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|20.25||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||20.25|8.37|<0.0001
95992719|NCT02058147|191961127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.13|22.58||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|"HbA1c ≤6.5%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.~Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening. This analysis was out of testing order."||22.58|10.13|<0.0001
95800900|NCT04925934|191574527|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.6|||=|0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|22.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||22.7|-5.6|=0.3220
95800901|NCT04925934|191574527|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.9|||=|0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||17.0|-11.2|=0.7364
95800902|NCT04925934|191574528|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|11.7|||=|0.2805|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|29.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||29.4|-6.1|=0.2805
95992720|NCT02058147|191961128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|-1.77||Threshold for significance ≤0.05. The hierarchical testing continued only when primary hypotheses (superiority: FRC to lixisenatide; non-inferiority: FRC to insulin glargine for HbA1c) was statistically significant.|ANCOVA||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine.|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0,≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening \& country as fixed effects \& baseline plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order.||-1.77|-2.498|<0.0001
95992721|NCT02058147|191961129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.891|-0.91||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-0.91|-1.891|<0.0001
95859434|NCT02023697|191676250|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.803|1.21|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.210|0.803|0.9274
95859435|NCT02023697|191676252|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.5754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|1.514|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.514|0.850|0.5754
95859436|NCT02023697|191676258|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.188|||Log Rank||Arm B/Arm (A+C)|||1.188|0.678|0.6214
95800903|NCT04925934|191574528|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|9.4|||=|0.3926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|27.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment, stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K only) and Baseline OGC dose included in the model.||27.3|-8.6|=0.3926
95800904|NCT04925934|191574529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.5|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|29.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||29.0|4.0|=0.0370
95800905|NCT04925934|191574529|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9|||=|0.4939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|16.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted response rate, rate difference and p-value are from logistic regression analysis with treatment and randomization stratification factors in the model.||16.4|-6.7|=0.4939
95859437|NCT02023697|191676260|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.505|1.475|||Log Rank||Arm C/Arm A|||1.475|0.505|0.7214
95859438|NCT00541385|191676265|OTHER|"Analysis of the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group. Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is ≤90%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is \>90%."|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for significance was ≤0.025.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95760719|NCT03743415|191488519|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.68|-5.48|.70
95760720|NCT03743415|191488519|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.62|-5.62|.27
95859708|NCT02963506|191677339|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|15.96||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||15.96|1.74|=0.003
95948229|NCT02935673|191868339|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.24|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.24|-0.89|
95948230|NCT02935673|191868339|SUPERIORITY||AUC(1-7) difference vs (pooled) placebo|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.62|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures, using all available viral load data of baseline and up to and including Day 7, taking missing data into account under the missing at random assumption.|0.62|-1.33|
95948231|NCT03775915|191868379|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||p-value calculated for interaction between group and day|Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for baseline, F(2,46) = 1.061, p \>0.05||||||>0.05
95948232|NCT03775915|191868380|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95948233|NCT00923078|191868403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||4.23|0.17|<0.05
95948234|NCT00923078|191868403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.31|-2.75|0.48
95948235|NCT00923078|191868403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.90|-4.95|<0.01
95948236|NCT00923078|191868404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.25|0.08|<0.05
95948237|NCT00923078|191868404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.09|-0.08|0.09
95948238|NCT00923078|191868404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.43|-0.75|0.59
95948239|NCT00923078|191868405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-0.52||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.52|-3.53|<0.01
95992722|NCT02058147|191961130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|-1.682||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.682|-2.246|<0.0001
95992723|NCT02058147|191961131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|-1.158||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Lixisenatide|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate.||-1.158|-1.645|<0.0001
95992724|NCT02058147|191961131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.892|-0.495||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value-by-visit interaction, as a covariate.||-0.495|-0.892|<0.0001
95992725|NCT02058147|191961132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.15|24.01||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8%, ≥8%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||24.01|12.15|<0.0001
95948240|NCT00923078|191868405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.94||Post-test scores following Visual Cognitive Training as compared to baseline, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.94|-3.95|0.01
95948241|NCT00923078|191868405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.08||Post-test scores following Auditory Cognitive Training as compared to Visual Cognitive Training, tested at alpha = 0.05 (uncorrected).|Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.08|-1.93|0.58
95948242|NCT00923078|191868406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.18|-6.02|0.06
95948243|NCT00923078|191868406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||-0.14|-6.34|< 0.05
95992726|NCT02058147|191961133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.45||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified on randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%) and randomization strata of second OAD use at screening.||18.45|7.5|< 0.0001
95992727|NCT02058147|191961134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.632|1.252||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs Insulin Glargine|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of second OAD use at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country as fixed effects.||1.252|-2.632|0.4857
95802505|NCT02864914|191578403|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.85|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.85|0.29|
95948244|NCT00923078|191868406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.78|-3.42|0.84
95948245|NCT00923078|191868407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.69|-1.45|0.55
95948246|NCT00923078|191868407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.07|-2.02|0.98
95948247|NCT00923078|191868407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.47|-2.66|0.57
95948248|NCT00923078|191868408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.93|-3.14|0.63
95948249|NCT00923078|191868408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.61|-3.45|0.47
95948250|NCT00923078|191868408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||2.22|-2.85|0.80
95948251|NCT00923078|191868409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Auditory Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.85|-3.06|0.26
95948252|NCT00923078|191868409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as baseline minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline and post-training scores. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||0.46|-3.41|0.13
95760721|NCT03743415|191488519|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.81|-3.40|.91
95760722|NCT03743415|191488520|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.19|-3.98|.06
95992728|NCT01751971|191961141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|37.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Positive estimated value would represent a greater reduction in AHI with oxygen (% sham) in the high vs low loop gain group.|"Primary statistical comparison was the percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %----between two phenotypic patient subgroups. Patient subgroups were defined by the loop gain (LG1) measured on the sham night as high or low (a priori cutoff LG1=0.7)."||37.1|-16|0.4
95992729|NCT01751971|191961141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimation parameter would indicate lower AHI on oxygen versus sham.|Here we aimed to confirm that there was a difference between AHI on oxygen vs sham (overall, i.e. in unselected patients). This test, however was not part of our primary objective.||24.1|10.7|<0.001
95992730|NCT01751971|191961141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|64.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Positive estimated value would indicate a greater percentage reduction in AHI (oxygen vs. sham) in favorable vs. unfavorable subgroups.|"The primary goal of the study was to identify a phenotypic subgroup of patients with sleep apnea that responds preferentially to oxygen (percent reduction in AHI----\[AHI(sham)-AHI(oxygen)\]/AHI(sham) %). We defined patient subgroups (favorable versus unfavorable) based on the four key phenotypic traits (loop gain, collapsibility, arousal threshold, muscle responses) measured on the sham night, with the use of multiple logistic regression and leave-one-out cross validation."||64.6|21.0|0.001
95992731|NCT01649947|191961147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|72.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis is comprised of evaluable patients who had measureable disease and received at least one cycle of therapy and had disease evaluated.||72|8.9|0.01
95992732|NCT00364182|191961149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-24.5||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-24.5|-36.5|<0.0001
95992733|NCT00364182|191961149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-26.6||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||-26.6|-38.5|<0.0001
95992734|NCT00364182|191961149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.2||P-values based on a model including terms for treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and the interaction of these terms with repeated measures on participants.|ANOVA|||||5.2|-1.2|0.2167
95760723|NCT03743415|191488520|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||0.11|-3.81|.09
95760724|NCT03743415|191488520|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.04|-1.77|.89
95948253|NCT00923078|191868409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||contrast calculated as Auditory Training minus Visual Training|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between post-training scores in Auditory vs. Visual Cognitive Training conditions. Linear mixed models tested fixed effects of period (3 levels; baseline, post 4-weeks, post 8 weeks), condition (3 levels; baseline, Auditory Cognitive Training, Visual Cognitive Training) and the period x condition interaction. Final model parameters were selected according to Bayesian Information Criteria. Alpha=.05 (2-sided)||1.58|-2.32|0.71
95948254|NCT02356198|191868450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95948255|NCT02356198|191868451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.102
95948256|NCT02356198|191868452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
95948257|NCT02356198|191868453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.454
95948258|NCT02356198|191868454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.212
95948259|NCT02449902|191868455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95948260|NCT02449902|191868456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95948261|NCT02449902|191868457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
95948262|NCT02449902|191868458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95948263|NCT02449902|191868459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9951
95948264|NCT02449902|191868460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1429
95948265|NCT02449902|191868461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1945|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1945
95948266|NCT02449902|191868462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95948267|NCT02449902|191868463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1820
95948268|NCT02449902|191868464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0401
95948269|NCT05613088|191868479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Log Rank|||||2.00|0.76|0.4063
95948270|NCT02831816|191868510|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.18||||||Groin 10 minutes Average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.180|-0.221|
95992735|NCT00364182|191961150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.6|0.1|0.002
95948271|NCT02831816|191868510|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.76||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.76|2.15|
95948272|NCT02831816|191868511|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product cannot be more than 0.05 log10 cfu/cm2 less than the active control.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2085|0.1215||||||Abdomen 10 minutes average treatment effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.1215|-0.2085|
95948273|NCT02831816|191868511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.25|1.70|
95948274|NCT02686658|191868512|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0072
95948275|NCT02686658|191868512|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) and square root transformation was used to compare treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares means between groups calculated as (Sham) minus (Zimura).||||0.0051
95948276|NCT02686658|191868513|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.39||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.3464
95948277|NCT02686658|191868513|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8830
95948278|NCT02686658|191868514|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.8405
95948279|NCT02686658|191868514|OTHER|Model for repeated measures (MRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED||||||Model for repeated measures (MRM)|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (Zimura) minus (Sham).||||0.5017
95948280|NCT01450397|191868541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0013
95948281|NCT01000805|191868576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This p-value is for the main effect of treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
95948282|NCT01000805|191868577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-5.83|<0.001
95948283|NCT01000805|191868578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.11||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Work/School Work score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.03|0.112
95948284|NCT01000805|191868578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.22||This the p-value for the Disrupt Social Life/Leisure score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-1.24|0.005
95948285|NCT01000805|191868578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.02||This is the p-value for the Disrupt Family Life/Home score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-1.04|0.040
95948286|NCT01000805|191868578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.29||P-value for the SDS Total score. First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes with stepwise comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-3.20|0.019
95948287|NCT01000805|191868579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This is the second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95948288|NCT01000805|191868580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||This is the third gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0082
95948289|NCT01000805|191868581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.11||This is the fourth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.11|-5.20|<0.001
95948290|NCT01000805|191868582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.89||This is the fifth gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Dmitrienko et al. 2003) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 5 secondary outcomes. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-3.50|0.001
95948291|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.97|<0.001
95992736|NCT00364182|191961150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|0.1|0.021
95760725|NCT03743415|191488520|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.58|-1.20|.47
95948292|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34||This is the p-value for main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
95948293|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.001
95948294|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
95948295|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with General Activity score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
95948296|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.37||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Mood score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.09|<0.001
95948297|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Walking Ability score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.79|0.009
95948298|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Normal Work score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.91|0.002
95948299|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.35||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Relations with Others score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-1.06|<0.001
95948300|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.01||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Sleep score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.76|0.042
95948301|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Pain Interference with Enjoyment of Life score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
95948302|NCT01000805|191868583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25||This is the p-value for the main effect of treatment for the BPI Mean Pain Interference score. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.88|<0.001
95948303|NCT01000805|191868584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
95948304|NCT01000805|191868585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for suicidal ideation. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
95948305|NCT01000805|191868586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95948306|NCT01000805|191868587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.51|1.34|<0.001
95948307|NCT01000805|191868587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.83||This is the p-value for the Change up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.83|0.97|0.001
95948308|NCT01000805|191868588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.04||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.04|-0.25|0.083
95948309|NCT01000805|191868588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.9||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-0.95|0.513
95948310|NCT01000805|191868588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|3.47||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in SBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.42|0.124
95760726|NCT03743415|191488521|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|2.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||2.39|-5.22|.45
95760727|NCT03743415|191488521|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.12||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.12|-3.59|.82
95948311|NCT01000805|191868588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.6||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline in DBP up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.98|0.638
95948312|NCT01000805|191868589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.54||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline at Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.37|<0.001
95948313|NCT01000805|191868589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51||This is the p-value for the Change from Baseline up to Week 8. P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
95948314|NCT02334215|191868591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.32
95948315|NCT02334215|191868591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.32
95948316|NCT02334215|191868592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of Interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual Conditions||||.001
95948317|NCT02334215|191868592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.84
95948318|NCT02334215|191868593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone Conditions combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.11
95948319|NCT02334215|191868593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.55
95948320|NCT02334215|191868594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.55
95948321|NCT02334215|191868594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.57
95948322|NCT02334215|191868595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.997
95948323|NCT02334215|191868595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.26
95948324|NCT02334215|191868596|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.663|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||||.663
95948325|NCT02334215|191868596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs Methadone||||0.33
95948326|NCT02334215|191868597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone arms compared to Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.007
95948327|NCT02334215|191868597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.76
95948328|NCT02334215|191868598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||0.60
95948329|NCT02334215|191868598|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||1.0
95948330|NCT02334215|191868599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.09
95948331|NCT02334215|191868599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
95948332|NCT02334215|191868600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.013
95948333|NCT02334215|191868600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.71
95948334|NCT02334215|191868601|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.32|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.32
95948335|NCT02334215|191868601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.85
95948336|NCT02334215|191868602|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.1|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.10
95948337|NCT02334215|191868602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.74
95948338|NCT02334215|191868603|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.42
95760728|NCT03743415|191488521|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 13 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.23||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||4.23|-3.13|.77
95948339|NCT02334215|191868603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.42
95948340|NCT02334215|191868604|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.28|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.28
95948341|NCT02334215|191868604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.44
95948342|NCT02334215|191868605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone combined vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||.61
95948343|NCT02334215|191868605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||0.72
95948344|NCT02334215|191868606|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation and Methadone vs. Enhanced Treatment as Usual||||||0.71|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||||||.71
95948345|NCT02334215|191868606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|||Contrast of interest: Methadone plus Patient Navigation vs. Methadone||||.86
95948346|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Erythema||0.141|-0.216|
95948347|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Swelling||0.141|-0.216|
95948348|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|ALT Increased||0.119|-0.135|
95760729|NCT03743415|191488521|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm difference at week 17 in linear mixed effects model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.34||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome was adjusted for in the model.|Mean of SMSH minus SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||3.34|-3.98|.86
95760730|NCT03104400|191488531|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|40.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.7|28.2|<0.0001
95948349|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.119|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Hemoglobin Decreased||0.119|-0.135|
95948350|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.121|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Leukocytosis||0.121|-0.205|
95948351|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.111|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|PTT Prolonged||0.111|-0.127|
95948352|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.134|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Thrombocytopenia||0.134|0.022|
95948353|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fever||0.118|0.018|
95948354|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.089|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Headache||0.089|-0.203|
95948355|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.275|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Rash||0.275|0.016|
95948356|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.126|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Arthralgia||0.126|0.030|
95948357|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.118|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Fatigue||0.118|-0.155|
95948358|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.105|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Myalgia||0.105|-0.105|
95948359|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.114|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Nausea||0.114|-0.160|
95948360|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Photophobia||0.141|-0.216|
95948361|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.088|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Retro-orbital Pain||0.088|-0.142|
95760731|NCT03104400|191488531|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|36.3|<0.0001
95760732|NCT03104400|191488532|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.22|-0.35|<0.0001
95760733|NCT03104400|191488532|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.27|-0.40|<0.0001
95760734|NCT03104400|191488533|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|24.7|<0.0001
95760735|NCT03104400|191488533|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|36.7|<0.0001
95760736|NCT03104400|191488534|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.8|32.8|<0.0001
95760737|NCT03104400|191488534|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|49.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.6|32.5|<0.0001
95760738|NCT03104400|191488535|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.14|-0.44|0.0002
95948362|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Decrease in Activity||0.141|-0.216|
95948363|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.141|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Loss of Appetite||0.141|-0.216|
95948364|NCT02678455|191868624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.218|||||Adjusted proportion difference (TV005 minus Placebo) with inverse variance weighting and Newcombe Score confidence intervals.|Vomiting||0.218|-0.165|
95948365|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|88.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|76|
95948366|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|96|
95948367|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm|percentage seropositive|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|98.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|92|
95948368|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|92.0||||||All study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|81|
95948369|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948370|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95948371|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95992737|NCT00364182|191961150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.9|0.2|0.004
95948372|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95948373|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
95992738|NCT00364182|191961150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in duration of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||0.8|-0.1|0.093
95992739|NCT00364182|191961151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.4|0.000
95992740|NCT00364182|191961151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.2|-0.5|0.0000
95992741|NCT00364182|191961151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.1|-0.5|0.002
95992742|NCT00364182|191961151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean difference in quality of sleep on the first night (24 hours post-bleed) and the second night (48 hours post-bleed).||-0.0|-0.5|0.031
95992743|NCT00364182|191961155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.9|||ANOVA|||||4.9|-9.2|0.544
95992744|NCT00364182|191961155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-7.5|0.592
95800906|NCT01068912|191574564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A step-down approach was applied to the primary analysis, with the higher dose of favipiravir first tested against placebo.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Time required from first study drug administration to alleviation of the 6 primary influenza symptoms and fever. The primary influenza symptoms included cough, sore throat, headache, nasal congestion, body aches and pains, and fatigue. Symptoms were considered alleviated when all were decreased to ≤1 and decrease persisted unchanged ≥ 21.5 hours. Fever was considered alleviated when maintained at \< 38.0°C (age 20 to \< 65 years) or \< 37.8°C (age ≥ 65 years) ≥ 21.5 hours.||||.05
95992745|NCT00364182|191961155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.4|||ANOVA|||||8.4|-1.1|0.131
95992746|NCT02928952|191961181|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.153|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.153
95948374|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
95992747|NCT02928952|191961181|SUPERIORITY|Assessed group by time differences from week 12 to week 24. Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.026
95992748|NCT02928952|191961181|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Within group analysis of intervention effect on Diabetes Distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes, PAID scale) over time stratified by hemoglobin A1c\<8.5% and =/\>8.5.||||0.012
95992749|NCT02928952|191961182|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||||0.604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||.604
95992750|NCT02928952|191961183|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.911|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.911
95992751|NCT02928952|191961184|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.940
95992752|NCT02928952|191961185|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.305|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for Age and Duration of Diabetes||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.305
95992753|NCT02928952|191961186|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||||||0.228
95948375|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95760739|NCT03104400|191488535|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment and the stratification factor current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.06|-0.36|0.0069
95760740|NCT03104400|191488536|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|29.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.8|18.8|<0.0001
95760741|NCT03104400|191488536|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.8|27.4|<0.0001
95760742|NCT03104400|191488537|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.7|13.0|<0.0001
95948376|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948377|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
95948378|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
95992754|NCT02928952|191961187|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Differing sample sizes are due to attrition and missed research visits. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.671
95760743|NCT03104400|191488537|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||33.7|16.9|<0.0001
95760744|NCT03104400|191488538|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|119.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.987|147.942|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||147.942|97.987|<0.0001
95800907|NCT03010501|191574566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95800908|NCT03010501|191574567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 80% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95800909|NCT03010501|191574567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||According to predefined comparisons, intake by weight in the 120% intervention was compared to the 100% intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95800910|NCT03010501|191574568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||According to predefined comparisons, outcomes of the 80% and 120% Food Energy Density interventions were compared to the outcome of the baseline (100%) intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95948379|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
95992755|NCT02928952|191961188|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.571|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.571
95760745|NCT03104400|191488538|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of each upadacitinib dose versus adalimumab was assessed using Koch's 3-arm approach; non-inferiority was achieved if upadacitinib preserved at least 50% of the placebo-subtracted adalimumab effect.~The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path."|Percent Adalimumab Effect Preservation|146.604|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.817|180.398|||Koch 3-Arm Test||The percent of adalimumab effect preservation is the point estimate of 3-arm non-inferiority analysis, which is calculated by (Upadacitinib - Placebo) / (Adalimumab - Placebo) \* 100.|||180.398|122.817|<0.0001
95760746|NCT03104400|191488539|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.67|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.67|3.67|<0.0001
95760747|NCT03104400|191488539|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|5.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|6.72|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.72|4.71|<0.0001
95948380|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
95948381|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-1 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
95760748|NCT03104400|191488540|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.7|2.4|<0.0001
95948382|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-2 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
95948383|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-3 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95948384|NCT02678455|191868625|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|98.0||||||Young Children study participants seropositive to DENV-4 post TV005 Vaccination There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|82|
95948385|NCT02678455|191868627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison between experienced vs dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-1 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||<0.001
95760749|NCT03104400|191488540|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.5|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.5|3.1|<0.0001
95760750|NCT03104400|191488541|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|5.6||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||11.8|-0.6|0.0815
95800911|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.6346
95948386|NCT02678455|191868627|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-2 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
95948387|NCT02678455|191868627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. Logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-3 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||0.070
95992756|NCT02928952|191961189|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.003
95948388|NCT02678455|191868627|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between experienced vs. dengue naive volunteers post TV005 vaccination. logistic model to adjust for age cohort provides unstable estimates due to quasi separation of data.|Fisher Exact|||DENV-4 percent seropositive post TV005 vaccination: difference between experienced at baseline and naive at baseline||||1.00
95992757|NCT02928952|191961190|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.632|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.632
95760751|NCT03104400|191488541|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||19.4|7.5|<0.0001
95760752|NCT03104400|191488542|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|47.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.9|25.7|<0.0001
95760753|NCT03104400|191488542|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8|50.9||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|28.8|<0.0001
95948389|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
95948390|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
95948391|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
95948392|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
95948393|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
95948394|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
95800912|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.2757
95948395|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
95948396|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
95992758|NCT02928952|191961191|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.219
95948397|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at stud day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
95992759|NCT02928952|191961192|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.931|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.931
95992760|NCT02928952|191961193|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.627|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.627
95992761|NCT02928952|191961194|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.60
95992762|NCT02928952|191961195|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.461
95948398|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95948399|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180. There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
95948400|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
95948401|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95992763|NCT02928952|191961196|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.906
95992764|NCT02928952|191961197|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models were adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.856
95992765|NCT02928952|191961198|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Test of hypothesis. Analyzed as intention to treat in mixed models with imputation as last value moved forward.||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for age and duration of diabetes.||The statistical analysis was applied to both groups.||||0.89
95992766|NCT01557166|191961220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-6.1||||0.015||95.0|-11.0|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was used with treatment, country and sex as fixed factors, and the baseline value of AHI, baseline BMI and baseline age as covariates.||Let μ liraglutide 3.0mg and μ placebo denote mean change in AHI for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo,respectively. The null-hypothesis and the alternative was H0: μliraglutide 3.0mg = μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide 3.0mg ≠ μplacebo.||-1.19|-11.0|0.015
95760754|NCT03104400|191488543|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||0.3|-0.3|0.8970
95760755|NCT03104400|191488543|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
95760756|NCT03104400|191488544|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.01|-0.15|0.0162
95800913|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.1321
95800914|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.5543
95948402|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948403|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
95992767|NCT03400800|191961234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.66|-50.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-50.35|-56.66|<0.0001
95992768|NCT03400800|191961235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.57|-46.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.77|-51.57|<0.0001
95992769|NCT03400800|191961236|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-51.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.01|-48.72||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-48.72|-55.01|<.0001
95992770|NCT03400800|191961237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.39|-46.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-46.48|-51.39|<0.0001
95992771|NCT03400800|191961238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.97|-76.57||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-76.57|-81.97|<0.0001
95800915|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3940
95800916|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.7891
95948404|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
95948405|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95948406|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
95948407|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948408|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
95948409|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
95992772|NCT03400800|191961239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|-27.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-27.81|-31.78|<0.0001
95992773|NCT03400800|191961240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.21|-36.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-36.67|-41.21|<0.0001
95992774|NCT03400800|191961241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-40.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares means difference from Placebo|||-40.60|-46.04|<0.0001
95992775|NCT02411747|191961247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta: 0.8, p significant if p \> 0.005||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent samples t-test||||0.34
95948410|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|36.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||36|10|
95948411|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
95948412|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|90.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|64|
95992776|NCT02149810|191961248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.109||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.31||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on SDNN.||The primary focus of this study was the interaction effect of treatment on heart rate variability at Weeks 0 and 12. On the assumption that this effect size is medium (Cohen's f = .25), calculations (using G\*Power) 23 indicate that a sample size of 80 yield power estimates of .99 for both the interaction and the main effect of time. The study enrolled 95 participants to account for participant attrition.||0.31|-0.09|0.28
95992777|NCT02149810|191961249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.51||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models, controlling for baseline score, were used to compare the SSM and TAU groups' change score from baseline to 12-week on LF HRV.||||0.51|-0.44|0.89
95800917|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.4829
95800918|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.4526
95760757|NCT03104400|191488544|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.07||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Adalimumab|||-0.07|-0.20|<0.0001
95800919|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.2485
95800920|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.6252
95948413|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
95948414|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
95948415|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
95948416|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|77.0||||||Adult cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||77|46|
95948417|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 a study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||42|14|
95948418|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
95948419|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
95948420|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
95948421|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
95948422|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
95948423|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|62.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||62|30|
95948424|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|51.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||51|21|
95948425|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|90|
95948426|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95800921|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.4003
95948427|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95800922|NCT00544882|191574569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8841
95800923|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.8892
95760758|NCT03104400|191488545|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-14.6||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-14.6|-19.6|<0.0001
95760759|NCT03104400|191488545|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the primary and the 14 ranked secondary endpoints was controlled using a two-part sequential graphical multiple testing procedure starting with the primary endpoint using α/2 for each dose followed by a prespecified α transfer path.|LS Mean Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-17.3||This comparison was not tested for statistical significance because the hierarchical testing procedures stopped at ACR 20 at Week 12 superiority test of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab 40 mg.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, current DMARD use (yes/no) as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.3|-22.3|<0.0001
95760760|NCT03104400|191488546|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|29.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.9|18.7|<0.0001
95760761|NCT03104400|191488546|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|44.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.3|32.8|<0.0001
95760762|NCT03104400|191488547|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|17.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.0|9.5|<0.0001
95800924|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.7678
95800925|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.5782
95800926|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.8083
95859709|NCT02963506|191677339|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|35.38||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||35.38|4.03|<0.001
95948428|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948429|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||86|58|
95948430|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|81.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||81|52|
95948431|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|54.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|23|
95948432|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
95800927|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||1.0000
95800928|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.4122
95800929|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 25 time point.||||0.6675
95800930|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.8445
95800931|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 28 time point.||||0.3772
95800932|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.1918
95800933|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6675|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 4 time point.||||0.6675
95800934|NCT00544882|191574571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9226|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.9226
95800935|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 2 time point. p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.0979
95992778|NCT02149810|191961250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-5.05|0.030
95760763|NCT03104400|191488547|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|27.3||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.3|18.5|<0.0001
95760764|NCT03104400|191488548|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|21.4||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|10.9|<0.0001
95760765|NCT03104400|191488548|OTHER||Response Rate Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the main stratification factor of current DMARD use (yes/no).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.8|20.7|<0.0001
95760766|NCT00094861|191488549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.8553||||0.355||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 2 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3550
95760767|NCT00094861|191488550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9936||||0.3189||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.3189
95760768|NCT00094861|191488551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.437||||0.5086||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade 5 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.5086
95760769|NCT00094861|191488552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.46||||0.4976||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants with no assessments were assumed as having grade ≥ 3 dysphagia in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.4976
95800936|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 4 time point.||||0.0629
95760770|NCT00094861|191488553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|-2.5325||||0.1115||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants who never received radiotherapy were assumed to have unplanned breaks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1115
95760771|NCT00094861|191488554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.4812||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for mean score difference using modified ridit score. Participants without any ECOG assessment post baseline were assumed to have ECOG status of 5 in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.0621
95760772|NCT00094861|191488555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0294||||0.8639||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.8639
95859710|NCT02963506|191677339|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|42.46||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||42.46|4.81|<0.001
95992779|NCT02149810|191961251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.36||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.37|0.021
95992780|NCT02149810|191961252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|29.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.01|-7.01|0.22
95760773|NCT00094861|191488556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.1414||||0.1996||||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage, ECOG performance status, and estimated weight loss in the 3 months before study randomization.||||||0.1996
95760774|NCT01235195|191488557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.12|109.83|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-72) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||109.83|100.12|
95800937|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 6 time point.||||0.8464
95800938|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Days 19-20 time point.||||0.6316
95800939|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 23 time point.||||0.3000
95800940|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 24 time point.||||0.0955
95800941|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1523|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 25 time point.||||0.1523
95800942|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 2 - Day 27 time point.||||0.2809
95992781|NCT02149810|191961253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|12.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.37|-8.54|0.72
95992782|NCT02149810|191961254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.46|0.018
95992783|NCT02149810|191961255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|21.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.66|-21.94|0.99
95992784|NCT02149810|191961256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of participants who responded to the intervention (≥50% decrease from baseline on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.53|1.01|0.049
95992785|NCT02149810|191961257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.64||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Generalised linear models were used to compare the proportion of the proportion of participants who achieved remission (scores ≤7 on the HRSD, defined a priori) at the end of intervention (week 12).||10.64|1.06|0.040
95992786|NCT00428597|191961258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.000118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.662||Log-rank test statistic and 2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model|||0.662|0.263|0.000118
95992787|NCT00428597|191961259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.5|||||Confidence interval (CI) using exact method based on binomial distribution.|||17.5|4.1|
95992788|NCT00428597|191961262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.409||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.894||2-sided p-value from the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.894|0.187|0.0204
95992789|NCT00428597|191961263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1543||||0.6799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.6|-4.3|0.6799
95760775|NCT01235195|191488558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|105.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|112.69|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed Cmax analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.69|98.46|
95760776|NCT01235195|191488560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of adjusted means|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.16|112.39|||||Reference treatment=Sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg hard gelatin capsule. Test treatment=sertraline hydrochloride 50 mg film-coated tablet.|Natural log-transformed AUC (0-∞) analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of adjusted mean differences (Test minus Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. Adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test divided by Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.39|100.16|
95760777|NCT01917214|191488567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0308
95948433|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.0|98.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||98|81|
95948434|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||99|85|
95948435|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|95.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||95|74|
95948436|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
95948437|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|72.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||72|41|
95948438|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||10|0|
95948439|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|92.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|67|
95992790|NCT00428597|191961264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4404||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4|-6.9|0.6058
95760778|NCT00451204|191488571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 mo, time since dx, previous glatiramer acetate tx, and previous interferon beta tx.||||1.05|0.37|0.077
95760779|NCT00451204|191488572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.08|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.08|0.39|0.098
95760780|NCT00451204|191488573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.09|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.09|0.36|0.096
95760781|NCT00451204|191488574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||1.17|0.42|0.179
95760782|NCT00451204|191488575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.88|0.28|0.016
95760783|NCT00451204|191488576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||negative binomial regression|adjusted for age, BL EDSS score, # of relapses in previous 12 months, time since dx, previous GA treatment, and previous interferon beta treatment.||||0.86|0.31|0.012
95760784|NCT01421511|191488580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the early clinical response rates at 48 to 72 Hours after the first infusion of study drug using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid responder rate minus the linezolid responder rate.|||8.2|-3.0|
95760785|NCT01421511|191488581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the programmatic clinical response at the EOT visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.1|-6.1|
95760786|NCT01421511|191488582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the EOT Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||0.3|-8.8|
95760787|NCT01421511|191488583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.3|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||5.3|-4.8|
95760788|NCT01421511|191488584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|0.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||0.2|-7.7|
95859711|NCT02963506|191677339|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|44.27||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure.||44.27|5.02|<0.001
95760789|NCT01421511|191488585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.6|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||5.6|-3.3|
95760790|NCT01421511|191488586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen without stratification.||4.9|-3.2|
95760791|NCT05384171|191488604|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.02||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.617
95992791|NCT00428597|191961265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5575||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||3.2|-10.3|0.3008
95992792|NCT00428597|191961266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7911||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.3|-2.8|0.3230
95992793|NCT00428597|191961267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5113||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||9.5|-6.5|0.7113
95992794|NCT00428597|191961268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6672||||0.6487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.5||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||5.5|-8.9|0.6487
95992795|NCT00428597|191961269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||10.1|-6.4|0.6545
95992796|NCT00428597|191961270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0035||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||2|-10|0.1936
95992797|NCT00428597|191961271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.4||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||28.4|14.3|<0.0001
95760792|NCT05384171|191488606|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.089||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group intention follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline intention scores and age)||||.214
95760793|NCT05384171|191488606|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group attitude follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline attitude scores and age)||||.894
95760794|NCT05384171|191488606|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.053||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group social norms follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline social norms scores and age)||||.359
95760795|NCT05384171|191488606|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (Effect Size)|0.058||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: Intervention and active control group perceived behavioral control follow-up means are equal when controlling for covariates (i.e., baseline perceived behavioral control scores and age)||||.322
95760796|NCT05384171|191488607|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared (effect size)|0.001||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.891
95760797|NCT03106987|191488662|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|0.868|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.868|0.372|0.0220
95760798|NCT03106987|191488662|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.708|||Stratified log-rank||Hazard Ratio (Cox Proportional Hazards model)|||0.708|0.264|0.0023
95760799|NCT01120704|191488730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.906||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.998|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||.998|.822|.045
95800943|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8829|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 28 time point.||||0.8829
95800944|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 2 time point.||||0.9262
95800945|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7811|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 -Day 4 time point.||||0.7811
95800946|NCT00544882|191574572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at Cycle 3 - Day 6 time point.||||0.3703
95800947|NCT01258855|191574610|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95800948|NCT01258855|191574611|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
95948440|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|88.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|61|
95948441|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|55|
95992798|NCT00428597|191961272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||12.1|-1.6|0.1339
95760800|NCT01120704|191488730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.982||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.081|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.081|.892|.705
95760801|NCT01120704|191488730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.044||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.149|.948|.382
95800949|NCT01258855|191574614|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
95948442|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||79|49|
95948443|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|74.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||74|44|
95948444|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|59.0||||||Adolescent cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||59|28|
95992799|NCT00428597|191961273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7816||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.7||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||8.7|-5.1|0.6138
95760802|NCT01120704|191488730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of five treatment effects, 10 two-way treatment interactions, 10 three-way treatment interactions, and two covariates : two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.050|.867|.339
95760803|NCT01120704|191488730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.945||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.040|.858|.248
95800950|NCT01258855|191574615|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
95800951|NCT03083379|191574624|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalency is defined as no statistically significant difference in dorsal region redistribution of ventilation following breath cycle 1, 2, and 3 lung expansion therapy sequences.||||||0.9|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||.90
95800952|NCT00327171|191574640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.58|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor|||1.58|0.80|0.5043
95948445|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
95948446|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
95948447|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|75.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||75|45|
95948448|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
95948449|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
95948450|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
95800953|NCT00327171|191574643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.48|0.81|0.5592
95800954|NCT00327171|191574644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||Log Rank||Estimated using Cox proportional Hazard model using treatment as the factor (4 mg/kg vs. 2mg/kg)|||1.64|0.77|0.5457
95800955|NCT01363440|191574648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.35|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|9.35|<.0001
95800956|NCT01363440|191574648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.73|13.17|||ANCOVA|||||13.17|7.73|<.0001
95800957|NCT01363440|191574649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|34.7|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.0|34.7|.0001
95800958|NCT01363440|191574649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.2|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|27.2|.0001
95800959|NCT01363440|191574650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.4|24.1|<0.0001
95948451|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|54.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||54|22|
95800960|NCT01363440|191574650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|13.5|<.0001
95800961|NCT01363440|191574651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|9.0|<.0001
95800962|NCT01363440|191574651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.4|4.4|0.0017
95800963|NCT01363440|191574652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-141.3|-80.22|||ANCOVA|||||-80.22|-141.3|<.0001
95800964|NCT01363440|191574652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-113.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-144.2|-82.75|||ANCOVA|||||-82.75|-144.2|<.0001
95800965|NCT01363440|191574653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19||||0.0168||97.5|0.33|10.04|||ANCOVA|||||10.04|0.33|0.0168
95800966|NCT01363440|191574653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|8.93|||ANCOVA|||||8.93|-0.21|0.0323
95800967|NCT01363440|191574654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.86||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.82|7.54|||ANCOVA|||||7.54|-1.82|0.1702
95800968|NCT01363440|191574654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.83|6.13|||ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.83|0.4067
95800969|NCT01771913|191574655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.310
95800970|NCT01771913|191574656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95800971|NCT01771913|191574657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.103
95800972|NCT04307394|191574659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.957
95800973|NCT03695094|191574660|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.586|0.896|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.896|0.586|
95800974|NCT03695094|191574662|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.801|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included the fixed effects of treatment group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed after the analysis. The geometric mean ratio and the respective 90% confidence interval (CI) was derived for the Inducers group vs the Neutral-control group from the ANOVA model using least-squares means difference.||0.801|0.504|
95800975|NCT04764539|191574676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.294|<|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.276|0.796||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||0.796|-1.276|<0.555
95800976|NCT04764539|191574676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5383|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.659|<|0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|1.548||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.548|-0.471|<0.2128
95800977|NCT04764539|191574676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.365|<|0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.915|1.511||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||1.511|-0.915|<0.533
95800978|NCT04764539|191574677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.388|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.763|4.539||Sample size too small for statistical power. In addition, automated speech recognition for child speech had a very poor state-of-the-art at the time of this study.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR goggles group)|The percentage of correctly transcribed words using automatic speech recognition will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||4.539|-1.763|<0.289
95948452|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|50.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||50|20|
95948453|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95992800|NCT00428597|191961274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2778||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.1||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||7.1|-6.6|0.9367
95992801|NCT00428597|191961275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.753||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.0||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||15|0.5|0.0372
95992802|NCT00428597|191961276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1463||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.9||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||6.9|-4.6|0.6939
95992803|NCT00428597|191961277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5128||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|4.2||From repeated measures mixed-effects with intercept term, treatment, time from first dose, treatment-by-time interaction and baseline score (intercept and time from dose as random effects). No p-value adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Repeated Measures Mixed-Effects Model||Estimated mean difference with 95% CI and p-value were obtained from the repeated measures mixed-effects model using data from Cycle 2 through Cycle 10.|Cycle 2 through Cycle 10||4.2|-11.2|0.3711
95948454|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
95992804|NCT04343651|191961366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
95992805|NCT04343651|191961367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.41|||Likelihood test-Cox Prop. hazards model|Stratification factors: Baseline NEWS Total score and Age.||||1.41|0.43|0.4138
95992806|NCT01583374|191961383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||6.2|-14.3|0.4383
95992807|NCT01583374|191961383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||8.5|-12.0|0.7427
95992808|NCT01583374|191961384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.32|-0.41|0.8032
95992809|NCT01583374|191961384|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.19|-0.53|0.3624
95992810|NCT01583374|191961385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-0.33|0.8618
95760804|NCT01120704|191488731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.821|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., 8 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum vs. 26 Weeks of Nicotine Patch and Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.821|1.080|.011
95992811|NCT01583374|191961385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.27|-0.45|0.6262
95992812|NCT01583374|191961386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.6958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.2|-8.1|0.6958
95800979|NCT04764539|191574678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.68|42.66||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|Articulation Accuracy does not statistically differ for the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||42.66|-49.68|0.4296
95948455|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95948456|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
95992813|NCT01583374|191961386|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value was based on the CMH test adjusting for C-reactive protein (CRP) category and baseline BASDAI score category.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of screening CRP category and baseline BASDAI score category with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||14.5|-5.8|0.4051
95992814|NCT01583374|191961387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.99|-0.49|0.5126
95992815|NCT01583374|191961387|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.01|-0.46|0.4624
95992816|NCT01583374|191961388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.76|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-1.18|0.6997
95992817|NCT01583374|191961388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.42|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||1.42|-1.50|0.9587
95992818|NCT01583374|191961389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.17|-0.06|0.3307
95992819|NCT01583374|191961389|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group, CRP and baseline BASDAI score as factors and baseline value as covariate.||||0.14|-0.08|0.5938
95992820|NCT01265524|191961396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.014
95760805|NCT01120704|191488731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.321|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Maintenance Counseling vs. Maintenance Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.321|.769|.956
95948457|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
95760806|NCT01120704|191488731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.301|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling vs. Cognitive Medication Adherence Counseling) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.301|.797|.885
95992821|NCT01265524|191961400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.0002
95992822|NCT01265524|191961401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The efficacy and the safety analyses were done using the ITT population with Week 8/EOS data for the patients who did not complete the 8-week treatment period excluded. The ITT population included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug.||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Corrections for multiplicity were not performed and P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Continuous or ordinal data were analyzed using RM-ANCOVA using change from baseline values to compare CLP and placebo treatments.||||||0.072
95992823|NCT03219164|191961421|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 14-day treatment regimen was claimed if the lower bound of 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the treatment difference (14-day course group vs 28-day course group) was above the noninferiority margin of -20%.|Difference in percentage|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|8.6|||||The difference in percentage between treatment groups, and the associated 95% CIs were constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method using age as stratification factor.|||8.6|-24.6|
95760807|NCT01120704|191488731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.852||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Without Feedback vs. Electronic Medication Monitoring Device Plus Feedback) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.092|.664|.205
95948458|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|73.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||73|42|
95948459|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|52.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||52|22|
95948460|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95992824|NCT03219164|191961423|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The historical pooled data from published results for the percentage of participants with successful PA eradication at 28 days post-treatment with TNS was estimated to be 77%.|||
95992825|NCT02613208|191961442|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.392|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
95992826|NCT02613208|191961442|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.088||||0.444|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CEA level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.444
95992827|NCT02613208|191961444|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.373|||<|0.001|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering baseline CTC count||||<0.001
95992828|NCT02613208|191961444|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Spearman coefficient|0.129||||0.241|||||||Spearman's correlation analysis|||Correlation between CTC and CA 15.3 level considering CTC count at cycle 2||||0.241
95948461|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|97.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||97|78|
95992829|NCT00206726|191961460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CR rate|0.0833||||0.014||90.0|0.0334|0.1673||2-sided p-value computed from an exact binomial test comparing the observed rate versus 2% historical rate|exact binomial test|||Comparison of CR rate versus 2 percent (%) historic control (p-value and 90% confidence interval)||0.1673|0.0334|0.014
95948462|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
95992830|NCT00008385|191961466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.37||This p value should be compared to the nominal p value of 0.0035 adjusting for the previous interim analyses|Log Rank||The 95% confidence interval was repeated confidence interval for the risk ratio|||2.37|0.64|0.294
95992831|NCT00008385|191961467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
95992832|NCT00008385|191961468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.154
95992833|NCT05148884|191961475|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0016
95760808|NCT01120704|191488731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.411|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of five treatment main effects and all treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls vs. Automated Adherence Prompting Phone Calls) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 52 weeks after target quit day.||1.411|.842|.514
95760809|NCT02458287|191488741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-54.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-value are from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction as covariates.||-54.7|-72.0|<0.001
95948463|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
95948464|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
95948465|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
95992834|NCT05148884|191961475|OTHER|||||||0.6886|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.6886
95992835|NCT05148884|191961476|OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.0281
95992836|NCT05148884|191961476|OTHER|||||||0.7953|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model (LMM) of change from baseline with treatment, visit and the interaction treatment\*visit as fixed categorical effects and subject within treatment as a random effect. The baseline value of the dependent variable has been included in the model as a continuous covariate. Kenward-Roger's improved approximation for degrees of freedom (2009) has been used.||||0.7953
95948466|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
95800980|NCT04764539|191574678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.19|<|0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|65.2||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||65.2|-25.7|<0.294
95800981|NCT04764539|191574678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9|<|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|66.36||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||66.36|-33.86|<0.419
95800982|NCT04764539|191574679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|<|0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.436|9.096||Sample size to small for statistical power.|ANOVA||difference = (iPad group mean - VR goggles group mean)|||9.096|-6.436|<0.659
95948467|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
95948468|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||70|40|
95993797|NCT00868790|191963400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-17.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.3|-6.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-6.1|-28.3|0.013
95760810|NCT02458287|191488750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-34.0|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.0|-51.9|<0.001
95760811|NCT02458287|191488751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-34.1|-45.4|<0.001
95760812|NCT02458287|191488751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-20.8|-32.5|<0.001
95760813|NCT02458287|191488752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-49.5|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-49.5|-66.2|<0.001
95760814|NCT02458287|191488752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-27.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-27.1|-44.4|<0.001
95948469|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|60.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||60|30|
95948470|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
95948471|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||Children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
95948472|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0||||||children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||35|10|
95800983|NCT04764539|191574680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.67|<|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.91|84.7|||ANOVA|Sample size too small for statistical power.|Difference = (iPad Pro group - VR Goggles group)|||84.7|-68.91|<0.789
95800984|NCT04764539|191574680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.94|<|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|101.17||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||101.17|-40.85|<0.304
95800985|NCT04764539|191574680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.26|<|0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|88.43||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||88.43|-43.91|<0.403
95760815|NCT02458287|191488753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.7|-48.6|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-48.6|-63.7|<0.001
95800986|NCT04764539|191574681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|6.11||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group - iPad Pro group)|The response to treatment stimuli will not increase from baseline for the either the iPad Pro or VR goggle participant group after having used the VAST system for 2 months.||6.11|-10.79|<0.485
95800987|NCT04764539|191574681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|<|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|11.9||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (iPad Pro group Post-Treatment - iPad Pro group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||11.9|-0.569|<0.065
95760816|NCT02458287|191488753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-29.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment groups, visit, treatment group \* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value \* visit interaction as covariates.||-29.3|-45.0|<0.001
95760817|NCT04428333|191488906|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
95760818|NCT04428333|191488907|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.87||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 20 vs 1≤ CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||23.87|0.20|0.740
95760819|NCT04428333|191488908|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
95760820|NCT04428333|191488909|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.43||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.43|0.20|0.284
95800988|NCT04764539|191574681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|17.53||Sample size is too small for statistical power.|ANOVA||Difference = (VR goggles group Post-Treatment - VR goggles group Pre-Treatment)|Comparison of pre-test and post-test outcome per group.||17.53|-10.85|<0.549
95800989|NCT01795937|191574705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|198.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|182.43|216.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir||216.09|182.43|
95800990|NCT01795937|191574706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|180.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|165.68|196.93|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison faldaprevir+itraconazole : faldaprevir.||196.93|165.68|
95800991|NCT01795937|191574707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|946.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|797.61|1123.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1123.07|797.61|
95800992|NCT01795937|191574708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3372.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2961.95|3840.47|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||3840.47|2961.95|
95800993|NCT01795937|191574711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1358.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.32|1508.29|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison atorvastatin+faldaprevir : atorvastatin.||1508.29|1224.32|
95800994|NCT01795937|191574712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1466.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1277.62|1682.95|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1682.95|1277.62|
95800995|NCT01795937|191574713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3288.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2782.04|3887.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||3887.63|2782.04|
95800996|NCT01795937|191574714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1678.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1468.52|1917.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment and random effect for subject.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|Relative bioavailability comparison rosuvastatin+faldaprevir : rosuvastatin.||1917.89|1468.52|
95760821|NCT04428333|191488912|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-20.8|
95760822|NCT04428333|191488913|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||11.3|-21.4|
95800997|NCT00845182|191574717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95800998|NCT00845182|191574717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95800999|NCT00471354|191574722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.293
95801000|NCT00471354|191574723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Language Scores|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.276
95801001|NCT00471354|191574723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Math Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.110
95801002|NCT00471354|191574723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for Correlation with Science Scores.|Spearman Partial Rank Order Correlation|||||||0.464
95801003|NCT00471354|191574724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Language Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95801004|NCT00471354|191574724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Math Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95859712|NCT02963506|191677340|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.10|-1.31|=0.094
95859713|NCT02963506|191677340|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.34|<0.001
95801005|NCT00471354|191574724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Science Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95801006|NCT00471354|191574724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline in Total Scores.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95801007|NCT00471354|191574725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95801008|NCT00471354|191574726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95801009|NCT00471354|191574728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95801010|NCT05887908|191574746|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|32.0||If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group difference \> -15.0%, non-inferiority is concluded. If non-inferiority is declared, a test for superiority will be performed. If the lower bound of the 95% CI \> 0.0%, superiority will be declared.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||32.0|10.9|
95801011|NCT05887908|191574746|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferirority margin = 15.0%|Difference in success proportion|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|23.7||If non-inferiority of the cefepime/nacubactam group is declared, a non-inferiority hypothesis test for the aztreonam/nacubactam group will be performed. For this analysis, the same approach as that used for the cefepime/nacubactam group will be used.|||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||23.7|-1.2|
95801012|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||9.9|-3.2|
95801013|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EA||14.0|1.1|
95801014|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||11.3|-2.7|
95801015|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT||10.0|-6.6|
95801016|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|18.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||18.1|-4.1|
95801017|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|16.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP||16.0|-9.5|
95760823|NCT04428333|191488914|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|13.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.1|-22.2|
95760824|NCT04428333|191488915|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.3||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||13.3|-22.8|
95760825|NCT04428333|191488932|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.71||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.71|0.42|0.329
95760826|NCT04428333|191488933|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.69||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.69|0.40|0.302
95760827|NCT04428333|191488934|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.11||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20 vs. CPS \<1) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||2.11|0.44|0.472
95801018|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||36.6|12.0|
95801019|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|24.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.9|-4.2|
95948473|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
95948474|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|88.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||88|62|
95948475|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|58.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||58|27|
95948476|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|68.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||68|37|
95948477|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
95948478|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
95948479|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-1 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
95948480|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||25|4|
95948481|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|100.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||100|86|
95760828|NCT04428333|191488935|SUPERIORITY|Other|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.9||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one sided log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS≥20 vs 1≤CPS\<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.90|0.36|0.335
95760829|NCT04853992|191488936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary endpoint, change from baseline in post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score (UASprovo) to the end of the treatment period, was compared between treatments with the null hypothesis that they are equal against the alternative that they are different. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed model, containing treatment, period and carryover effects, the factor site and additionally the value of UASprovo at baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-1.69|0.277
95801020|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|54.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||54.1|1.8|
95801021|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|61.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||61.6|1.1|
95801022|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.3|-1.3|
95801023|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|14.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.7|-5.6|
95801024|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
95801025|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||5.2|-45.4|
95801026|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|24.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||24.4|-1.7|
95801027|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||20.9|-8.7|
95801028|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|23.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||23.1|-31.9|
95801029|NCT05887908|191574747|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|37.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Composite clinical and microbiological success at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.9|-28.8|
95801030|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||6.3|-2.8|
95801031|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA||7.2|-3.5|
95801032|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.4|-4.6|
95801033|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT||6.0|-7.1|
95801034|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||11.8|-3.3|
95801035|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC||13.0|-3.9|
95801036|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.1|-4.5|
95801037|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP||12.3|-6.6|
95801038|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||6.0|-4.2|
95801039|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||8.3|-4.1|
95801040|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|20.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||20.3|-13.9|
95801041|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|36.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||36.0|-12.6|
95801042|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
95801043|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||9.6|-6.9|
95801044|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||16.8|-15.9|
95801045|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
95801046|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||13.1|-4.5|
95760830|NCT02056392|191488938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
95760831|NCT02056392|191488938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||7.7|4.4|
95760832|NCT02056392|191488939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.3|-2.0|
95760833|NCT02056392|191488939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.8|7.6|
95760834|NCT02056392|191488940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.5|-0.7|
95760835|NCT02056392|191488940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.5|8.3|
95801047|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.2|-5.3|
95760836|NCT02056392|191488941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||2.0|-1.2|
95760837|NCT02056392|191488941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||11.8|8.5|
95801048|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
95801049|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|37.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||37.3|-20.5|
95801050|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-2.6|
95859714|NCT02963506|191677340|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.91|-2.35|<0.001
95801051|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||17.8|-5.0|
95801052|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|17.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||17.6|-23.6|
95801053|NCT05887908|191574748|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|22.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Clinical outcome of cure at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.3|-30.9|
95801054|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||10.5|-1.7|
95760838|NCT02056392|191488942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||1.5|-1.8|
95760839|NCT02056392|191488942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||||90.0|10.3|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||13.6|10.3|
95801055|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA||14.3|3.9|
95760840|NCT02056392|191488943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.2|-3.1|
95760841|NCT02056392|191488943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.2|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||12.5|9.2|
95760842|NCT02056392|191488944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.1|-3.4|
95760843|NCT02056392|191488944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.4|7.1|
95760844|NCT02056392|191488945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||0.4|-2.9|
95760845|NCT02056392|191488945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.2|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||10.5|7.2|
95760846|NCT02056392|191488946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-3.1|-6.4|
95760847|NCT02056392|191488946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||9.3|6.0|
95760848|NCT02056392|191488947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||-0.9|-4.1|
95801056|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.9|-1.3|
95801057|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|11.2|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT||11.2|-4.2|
95801058|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|32.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||32.7|12.2|
95801059|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC||22.5|-2.0|
95801060|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.7|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||19.7|-2.0|
95801061|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|14.8|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP||14.8|-10.4|
95801062|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||10.5|-3.5|
95760849|NCT02056392|191488947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All one-sided 95% confidence intervals at each time point for the selumetinib difference versus placebo (2-sided 90% CIs) should be less than 10ms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||47 evaluable volunteers gives 90% power to show non-inferiority of selumetinib versus placebo across all 10 post-dose time points, using paired T-test, 1-sided alpha=0.05 and assuming a true difference of 3 msec.||5.7|2.4|
95760850|NCT06492226|191488972|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.754|103.346||||||||103.346|98.754|
95760851|NCT06492226|191488972|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.567|102.843||||||||102.843|98.567|
95760852|NCT06492226|191488973|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.63|110.514||||||||110.514|99.630|
95801063|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||14.5|2.3|
95801064|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||38.0|-6.0|
95801065|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|43.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EA by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||43.5|-8.3|
95801066|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|16.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||16.5|-0.1|
95760853|NCT06492226|191488973|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.827|109.345||||||||109.345|100.827|
95760854|NCT06492226|191488974|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.749|109.339||||||||109.339|96.749|
95760855|NCT06492226|191488974|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.006|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.308|106.93||||||||106.930|97.308|
95760856|NCT06492226|191488975|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.685|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.956|106.76||||||||106.760|94.956|
95801067|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||15.1|-3.9|
95801068|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|13.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||13.9|-20.3|
95801069|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|12.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at EOT by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||12.6|-36.0|
95801070|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|37.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||37.5|13.5|
95801071|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|23.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||23.3|-5.5|
95801072|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|48.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||48.5|-3.4|
95948482|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948483|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|90.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||90|65|
95948484|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|92.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||92|68|
95760857|NCT06492226|191488975|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the primary PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.554|103.723||||||||103.723|92.554|
95801073|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|56.0|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at TOC by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||56.0|-4.4|
95948485|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|Slope|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|84.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||84|56|
95948486|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|82.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-2 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||82|53|
95948487|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|22.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||22|3|
95948488|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0||||||Young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||94|71|
95948489|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||80|50|
95948490|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|66.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||66|34|
95948491|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
95948492|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||47|18|
95948493|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-3 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||41|14|
95948494|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 0 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||14|0|
95948495|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|89.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 28 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|75|
95948496|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|96.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 56 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||96|56|
95948497|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|63.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 180 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||63|32|
95948498|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 360 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
95948499|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 720 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||44|16|
95948500|NCT02678455|191868628|OTHER|Estimate of the percentage in each sub-group in the TV005 vaccine arm.|percentage seropositive|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|38.0||||||young children cohort: percent seropositive to DENV-4 at study day 1080 There is no comparison between arms. Only the percentage seropositive in the TV005 vaccine arm is being estimated with confidence interval.||38|12|
95948501|NCT03854734|191868647|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of Tdap||1.25|1.00|
95948502|NCT03854734|191868647|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of MCV||1.29|1.00|
95948503|NCT03854734|191868647|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) model using the framework of a log-binomial logistic regression model.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis for vaccine intention of HPV||1.14|0.96|
95992837|NCT00282243|191961500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.42|92.29|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||92.29|85.42|
95801074|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|25.9|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||25.9|0.3|
95992838|NCT00282243|191961502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|81.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.88|85.08|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 14 and 42) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 28 and 56). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||85.08|77.88|
95992839|NCT02162862|191961575|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
95992840|NCT02162862|191961575|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
95760858|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|105.025||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve (AUC0)-4h||105.025|99.090|
95992841|NCT02162862|191961575|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.102
95760859|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.419|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.062|103.833||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve (AUC0)-4h||103.833|99.062|
95760860|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.393|103.529||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-6h||103.529|98.393|
95760861|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|102.217||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-6h||102.217|98.080|
95760862|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.754|103.346||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-12h||103.346|98.754|
95760863|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.682|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.567|102.843||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-12h||102.843|98.567|
95760864|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.4|101.426||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-∞||101.426|96.400|
95760865|NCT06492226|191488976|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.863|99.232||||||PK parameters for serum insulin aspart concentrations: Area Under the Insulin Aspart Concentration-Time Curve AUC0-∞||99.232|94.863|
95760866|NCT06492226|191488977|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|89.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.557|95.064||||||||95.064|84.557|
95760867|NCT06492226|191488977|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.699|87.851||||||||87.851|76.699|
95801075|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Escherichia coli||19.3|-10.1|
95992842|NCT02162862|191961576|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
95992843|NCT02162862|191961576|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.646
95992844|NCT02162862|191961576|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
95801076|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|22.6|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||22.6|-30.4|
95760868|NCT06492226|191488978|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.997|100.07||||||||100.070|89.997|
95760869|NCT06492226|191488978|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|90.601|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.356|95.054||||||||95.054|86.356|
95760870|NCT06492226|191488979|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.411|102.58||||||||102.580|88.411|
95760871|NCT06492226|191488979|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products in relation to the conventional bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|91.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.291|100.079||||||||100.079|83.291|
95760872|NCT06492226|191488980|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 95% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products.|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.783|91.213||||||||91.213|76.783|
95801077|NCT05887908|191574749|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|31.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|Microbiological outcome of eradication at FUP by baseline pathogen: Klebsiella pneumoniae||31.5|-34.0|
95801078|NCT05887908|191574750|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
95801079|NCT05887908|191574750|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
95801080|NCT05887908|191574751|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
95801081|NCT05887908|191574751|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9||||||95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
95801082|NCT05887908|191574752|OTHER|Desriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|78.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||78.1|12.8|
95801083|NCT05887908|191574752|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|60.5|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||60.5|-18.4|
95801084|NCT05887908|191574753|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|54.3|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||54.3|-16.0|
95801085|NCT05887908|191574753|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Difference in success proportion|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|62.1|||||Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval|||62.1|-13.0|
95801086|NCT02697422|191574773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801087|NCT02697422|191574774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801088|NCT02697422|191574775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801089|NCT02697422|191574776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Smoker/tobacco use results were calculated using logistic regression. A P value of .90 was found comparing smoking/tobacco use in intervention vs control participants. A difference was not reported between intervention and control because smoking/ tobacco use was a binary variable.||||0.90
95801090|NCT02697422|191574777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801091|NCT02697422|191574778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801092|NCT02697422|191574779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801093|NCT02697422|191574780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801094|NCT02697422|191574781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801095|NCT02697422|191574782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95801096|NCT06100250|191574811|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 66|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired STI-related knowledge scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||0.01
95801097|NCT06100250|191574813|OTHER|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Paired sample t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 47|Estimation parameter represents the average of the differences between the paired observations (post-intervention score minus pre-intervention score)|Null hypothesis = Mean difference between the paired self-efficacy for specimen self-collection scores (pre-intervention and post-intervention) is 0||||<0.01
95801098|NCT01405911|191574823|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.36|-9.85|<0.001
95801099|NCT01405911|191574823|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-6.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-6.33|-11.82|<0.001
95801100|NCT01405911|191574823|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.97||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.67|-4.61|0.143
95760873|NCT06492226|191488980|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity of the test and reference products was assessed on the basis of the 90% CIs for estimates of the geometric mean ratios between the PK parameters of the test and reference products.|Geometric Mean Ratio|76.497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.75|83.897||||||||83.897|69.750|
95859715|NCT02963506|191677340|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
95760874|NCT05016960|191488986|OTHER|one group paired samples t test to compare scores at pre vs. post treatment||||||0.503|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.503
95760875|NCT05016960|191488987|NON_INFERIORITY|one group paired samples t test||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.230
95760876|NCT05016960|191488988|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.061
95760877|NCT05016960|191488989|OTHER|one group paired samples t test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95760878|NCT05016960|191488990|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95760879|NCT05016960|191488991|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.625
95760880|NCT05016960|191488992|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
95760881|NCT05016960|191488993|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.515
95760882|NCT05016960|191488994|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.410
95760883|NCT05016960|191488995|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.706
95760884|NCT05016960|191488996|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
95760885|NCT05016960|191488997|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.390
95760886|NCT05016960|191488998|OTHER|one group paired samples t test||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.38
95760887|NCT05016960|191488999|OTHER|One group paired samples t test||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
95760888|NCT04034927|191489002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|2.068|||||The numerator is the experimental arm (odds of response) and the denominator is the control arm (odds of response).|Odds ratio for experimental arm (O + T) response compared to control arm (O) response.||2.068|0.241|
95760889|NCT00856375|191489021|OTHER|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.041|||Log Rank|||||1.041|0.4|= 0.07
95760890|NCT00856375|191489022|OTHER|Hazard ratio and 95% CI from univariate Cox regression model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.486|||Log Rank|||||1.486|0.557|= 0.706
95760891|NCT00856375|191489023|OTHER|ORR 95% CI based on Exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence limits. Odds ratio 95% CI based on asymptotic confidence limits.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054|||=|0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|11.9|||Fisher Exact|||||11.9|0.355|= 0.676
95760892|NCT00856375|191489024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.018
95760893|NCT04414345|191489027|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.188||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. CNM-Au8 slowed progression) was 0.59059. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by CNM-Au8 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||"The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality.~The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes."|1.188|0.797|
95760894|NCT04414345|191489029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.68|-4.25|0.6570
95760895|NCT04414345|191489030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.403||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|CNM-Au8 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||3.58|-9.78|0.3621
95760896|NCT04414345|191489031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7398|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7398
95760897|NCT00875797|191489048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95760898|NCT00875797|191489049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|χ2 test|percentage of infection|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.05
95760899|NCT00875797|191489050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of survivers|80.0|||<|0.05||95.0||||p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|2-degrees of freedom||Chi-square||||<0.05
95760900|NCT00741286|191489051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model for a repeated measures covariance pattern model with unstructured covariances within subjects was used. Two fixed effects were included: 1 between-subjects treatment effect (group: cilostazol, control) and 1 within-subject time effect (time: baseline, 14 days, 90 days). A possible difference in treatment across 14- and 90-day follow-up was analyzed by time x treatment interactions.||||<0.05
95760901|NCT00741286|191489051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||To determine between-group differences of changes in the PIs at 14 and 90 days from the baseline study.||||<0.05
95760902|NCT00741286|191489052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95760903|NCT02597127|191489058|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760904|NCT02597127|191489058|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760905|NCT02597127|191489058|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 500 mg (Single-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Single-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760906|NCT02597127|191489058|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 100 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760907|NCT02597127|191489058|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 200 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760908|NCT02597127|191489058|SUPERIORITY|Two sample t-tests were performed to test the superiority of any dosing group over placebo. A Dunnett multiple t-test procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons with six different dosing regimens.|||||<|0.0001||||||This P-Value applies to the comparison of the mean percent change at Day 180 for the 300 mg Double-Dose) Inclisiran group versus Placebo (Double-Dose).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760909|NCT02114385|191489073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.45|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 6||1.45|1.04|<0.001
95760910|NCT02114385|191489073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 11||1.04|0.76|<0.001
95760911|NCT02114385|191489073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.21|0.89|<0.001
95760912|NCT02114385|191489073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.50|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.37|0.91|<0.001
95760913|NCT01256944|191489096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760914|NCT01256944|191489097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760915|NCT01256944|191489098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760916|NCT01256944|191489100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760917|NCT01256944|191489101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760918|NCT01256944|191489102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760919|NCT01256944|191489103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95801101|NCT01405911|191574824|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-13.86|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-13.86|-21.55|<0.001
95760920|NCT01256944|191489105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760921|NCT01256944|191489106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95760922|NCT04315506|191489149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72||The analysis was a two-intervention arm comparison. Adjustments for multiple tests and outcomes were not required.|Regression, Logistic||Odds of quitting in Enuf Snuff group (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|||1.72|0.75|0.5384
95760923|NCT04315506|191489150|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1057||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5808|0.3693||P-value above is for the treatment-by-time squared term in the statistical model for longitudinal data; quadratic change in outcome determined, compared trajectory of outcome change in EnufSnuff (SGR) compared to Enough Snuff (control)|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted.|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.3693|-0.5808|0.6624
95801102|NCT01405911|191574824|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.32|-12.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-12.50|-20.32|<0.001
95801103|NCT01405911|191574824|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.82|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||4.82|-2.22|0.469
95801104|NCT06375655|191574827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95801105|NCT06375655|191574828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.901509||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.25|||Fisher Exact|||This analysis did not power the study||10.25|0.41|0.5007
95760924|NCT04315506|191489151|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0946||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0609|0.2501||A multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was applied. The p-value provided above was for the treatment-by-time effect used to test for differences in the trajectory of change in craving reduction between the two treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multi-level, mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was conducted. (trajectory analysis)|Slope difference estimate reported above, estimate compares trajectory slope coefficient for EnufSnuff (SGR) to slope coefficient for Enough Snuff (control).|For secondary outcomes, the study was not powered. The null hypothesis was no between-treatment arm difference in the trajectory of change from baseline to six months.||0.2501|-0.0609|0.2320
95760925|NCT02661217|191489183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.896||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.021|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.021|0.786|0.099
95760926|NCT02661217|191489184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.906||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.993|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.993|0.827|0.034
95760927|NCT02661217|191489185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.006|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.006|0.916|0.089
95801106|NCT06375655|191574829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3986|232.3218|||Fisher Exact|||||232.3218|0.3986|0.3497
95760928|NCT01778634|191489194|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|22.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.27|2.53|<0.0001
95760929|NCT01778634|191489195|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link|||0.29|-0.08|0.28
95760930|NCT01778634|191489196|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins||||||0.11|||||||GEE|||||||0.11
95760931|NCT01778634|191489197|SUPERIORITY|P values are based on GEE to account for twins. The counts provided refer to to the numbers actually observed. The analysis to determine the p value accounted for the missing 11 patients using multiple imputation.||||||0.62|||||||GEE with multiple imputation|||||||0.62
95760932|NCT01778634|191489198|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95760933|NCT01778634|191489199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95760934|NCT01778634|191489200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|26.0||To include non-survivors as bad values of this outcome we imputed a high value for the participants who died. Note, because we analyzed the data using a nonparametric test, the actual value doesn't affect the analysis, only the rank of the value.|Wilcoxon test after multiple outputation||Bootstrap|||26|-15|0.94
95801107|NCT06375655|191574830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95760935|NCT01778634|191489201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95760936|NCT01778634|191489202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.44|0.88
95760937|NCT01778634|191489203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
95760938|NCT01778634|191489205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
95760939|NCT01778634|191489206|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95760940|NCT01778634|191489207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.18
95801108|NCT06375655|191574831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 1 month|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.2302
95760941|NCT01778634|191489208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
95760942|NCT01778634|191489209|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95760943|NCT01778634|191489210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.33
95760944|NCT01778634|191489211|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95760945|NCT01651793|191489215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value reference to the beverage x time interaction effect|ANCOVA|||Hypotheses were tested using a series (all outcome variables) of 2 Treatment x 4 Time point, repeated measures ANCOVAs that controlled for the prior night's sleep. Primary interests were the presence of statistically significant interactions of time and either cocoa versus placebo, cocoa + caffeine versus cocoa, or cocoa + caffeine versus caffeine-only. Significant interactions were decomposed using one-way ANOVAs and t-tests with familywise error controlled using LSD post-hoc tests.||||0.05
95760946|NCT02892149|191489218|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.10|-0.23|
95760947|NCT02892149|191489219|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.30 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.117|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.117|0.828|0.4745
95760948|NCT02892149|191489219|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.113|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 355 and 377 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 46.14 (24.71, 77.14) weeks versus 47.00 (22.43, 74.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.113|0.833|=0.4877
95760949|NCT02892149|191489220|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.12||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||-0.12|-0.25|
95801109|NCT06375655|191574831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 3 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
95801110|NCT06375655|191574831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6909776||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4025454|1.1860776||Value at 6 months|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.1860776|0.4025454|0.3
95801111|NCT06375655|191574832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.01692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 1 month postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.01692
95801112|NCT06375655|191574832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 2 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.7
95801113|NCT06375655|191574832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 3 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.3
95801114|NCT06375655|191574832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726859||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253958|5.929833||Value at 6 months postpartum|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.929833|1.253958|0.15
95760950|NCT02892149|191489221|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.097|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.097|0.832|0.3718
95801115|NCT01059851|191574849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"AUC(0-∞) GMR = AUC(0-∞) GM for Severe Renal Impairment Participants ÷ AUC(0-∞) GM for Healthy Participants.~A 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was computed from the ANCOVA model. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the 90% CI for the AUC(0-∞) GMR was contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then the hypothesis would be met and the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant would be similar in both groups of participants. That is, if the true ratio of the GM AUC(0-∞) is greater than 0.50 and no more than 2.00."|AUC(0-∞) Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.6|||ANCOVA|||"The geometric mean (GM) for each participant group and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for AUC(0-∞) using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The AUC(0-∞) geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the 2 participant groups was used to test the primary hypothesis, which was that the AUC(0-∞) of suvorexant following a single oral dose would be similar between participants with renal impairment and healthy matched control participants."||1.60|0.93|
95760951|NCT02892149|191489221|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.096|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic event Excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 420 and 449 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.07 (21.50, 71.14) weeks versus 45.29 (22.29, 72.43) weeks, respectively.||1.096|0.840|=0.4096
95760952|NCT02892149|191489222|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.131|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.131|0.777|0.3875
95760953|NCT02892149|191489222|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.144|||Gray's test|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 225 and 242 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.29 (21.71, 77.14) weeks versus 45.79 (21.14, 73.86) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.144|0.795|=0.5007
95760954|NCT02892149|191489223|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.203|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.203|0.761|0.6281
95760955|NCT02892149|191489223|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||=|0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.195|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 150 and 160 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 43.71 (27.43, 77.14) weeks versus 49.29 (24.43, 74.07) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.195|0.766|=0.6284
95760956|NCT02892149|191489224|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.136|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0017 has been reported in this section.||1.136|0.816|0.5811
95801116|NCT01039675|191574857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|UMEC/VI will be declared non-inferior to placebo in terms of weighted mean pulse rate if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval around the estimated treatment difference for weighted mean pulse rate is less than the non-inferiority margin of +10bpm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||||Estimated from repeated measures analysis of covariance.|||4.5|-5.5|
95801117|NCT02564978|191574864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.39
95801118|NCT02564978|191574865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.03|-0.06|0.48
95801119|NCT02564978|191574865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.04|-0.24|0.15
95859716|NCT02963506|191677341|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||0.07|-1.35|=0.075
95801120|NCT02564978|191574865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes (Study eye + QFE) together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.01|-0.09|0.15
95801121|NCT02564978|191574866|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.61
95801122|NCT02564978|191574866|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate was the difference in rates of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between the treatment phase and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.43
95801123|NCT02564978|191574866|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the one-sided test was \<0.025. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed Models Analysis||Study eye + QFE: study \& qualifying fellow eyes analyzed as separate observations. Estimate: difference in rate of change in mean of appropriately transformed GA area between treatment and run-in phase.|Analysis: linear spline regression with fixed knot @ Month 9 on study and qualifying fellow eyes together. Null hypothesis: difference in rates of change in mean of square-root transformed GA area between treatment phase \& run-in phase \>= 0. Square root transformation used to satisfy the linear trend assumption. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Covariance structure of random effect that provided best model fit chosen (Spatial Power). One-sided Type I error rate: 2.5%.||||0.89
95950742|NCT00379210|191873438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical tests are evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05 (corrected, when appropriate, for multiple comparisons). Analyses are performed on both response latency and accuracy on behavioral data. For latency analyses, mean response times for correct trials are calculated for each subject. Repeated-measures ANOVA are used for omnibus tests; paired t-tests are used for individual planned contrasts, with Bonferroni-corrected significance levels to maintain a .05 alpha level||||<0.01
95760957|NCT02892149|191489224|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.30 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.4878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.118|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0016 (NCT02865850) and AKB-6548-CI-0017 (NCT02892149). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 291 and 310 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.00 (29.71, 79.00) weeks versus 49.57 (25.86, 77.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.118|0.812|=0.4878
95760958|NCT00101283|191489265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|41.7|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Carboplatin arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||41.7|5.4|
95760959|NCT00101283|191489265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall Response Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|20.6|||||Overall response percent for Pemetrexed/Gemcitabine arm (percent of eligible, treated patients with complete or partial response)|The treatment was to be considered promising if a true response rate of 40% or higher was observed, whereas a rate of 15% or less would not be of interest. 3 or more responses were required to expand accrual to a second stage. This expansion did not occur.||20.6|0.0|
95760960|NCT00197496|191489337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|19.6|||Regression, Linear|||||19.6|-72.1|<0.05
95760961|NCT00197496|191489340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.2|||Regression, Linear|||||9.2|-3.6|0.40
95760962|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||<0.0001
95760963|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0002
95801124|NCT02564978|191574867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.44
95801125|NCT02564978|191574867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.2|-0.8|0.21
95801126|NCT02564978|191574867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in BCVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.8|-0.4|0.52
95801127|NCT02564978|191574868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.9|-0.4|0.48
95801128|NCT02564978|191574868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.1|-0.9|0.09
95760964|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.0004
95760965|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95760966|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95760967|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2510
95801129|NCT02564978|191574868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rates of change in LLVA between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||0.7|-0.4|0.54
95801130|NCT02564978|191574869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
95859717|NCT02963506|191677341|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.37|-1.79|=0.003
95760968|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3433||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3433
95760969|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4503
95801131|NCT02564978|191574869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on qualifying fellow eyes alone. Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||3.1|0.4|0.02
95801132|NCT02564978|191574869|SUPERIORITY|Number of eyes contributing to this analysis exceeds the number of eyes contributing to the study eye only analysis since one participant had relevant data for the qualifying fellow eye but not the study eye.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided Student's paired t-test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|t-test, 2 sided||No. of units analyzed = no. of study eyes + no. qualifying fellow eyes (QFE). However, the value contributing to analysis is the avg. of study eye \& QFE from a participant if both values are available, otherwise equal to eye with data available.|Analysis: two-sided Student's paired t-test on study and qualifying fellow eyes together (Study eye + QFE). Null hypothesis: difference in the mean rate of change of central retinal thickness as measured on OCT between the treatment phase and run-in phase is not equal to 0. Missing values: treated as missing completely at random. Two-sided Type I error rate: 5%.||2.0|0.0|0.06
95801133|NCT00567580|191574887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided significance level = 0.001|Z test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
95801134|NCT00567580|191574887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||0.003
95801135|NCT00567580|191574887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Alternative hypotheses: 10% improvement in 5-year FFP in Arm 2 and 20% improvement in Arm 3, both relative to Arm 1, which has an assumed 5-year FFP of 70%. Sample size of 1587 (529/arm) with overall one-sided 0.025 alpha provides 90% power. Interim analyses (reported here) tested at one-sided significance level of 0.001. P\<0.001 indicates comparison crossed interim efficacy boundary. See Limitations and Caveats section.||||<0.001
95801136|NCT00567580|191574888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.72||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
95801137|NCT00567580|191574888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.51|0.89||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.89|0.51|<0.001
95801138|NCT00567580|191574888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|0.51||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.51|0.30|<0.001
95801139|NCT00567580|191574889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.39|1.39||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.39|0.39|0.137
95801140|NCT00567580|191574889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.16|0.95||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||0.95|0.16|0.007
95801141|NCT00567580|191574889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.68||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.68|0.12|<0.001
95760970|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2122
95801142|NCT00567580|191574890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|1.01||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.01|0.14|0.010
95801143|NCT00567580|191574890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|2.3||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||2.30|0.14|0.177
95801144|NCT00567580|191574890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.71||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.71|0.06|<0.001
95801145|NCT00567580|191574891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.49|1.22||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.22|0.49|0.105
95801146|NCT00567580|191574891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.36|1.06||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.06|0.36|0.022
95801147|NCT00567580|191574891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.29|0.81||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||0.81|0.29|<0.001
95801148|NCT00567580|191574892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.35|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.43|0.35|0.137
95801149|NCT00567580|191574892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|1.54||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.54|0.30|0.141
95801150|NCT00567580|191574892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.21|1.03||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.03|0.21|0.014
95801151|NCT00567580|191574893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.38|0.54|0.235
95801152|NCT00567580|191574893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.61|1.6||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|||1.60|0.61|0.481
95801153|NCT00567580|191574893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|1.35||One-sided significance level = 0.0125|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|||1.35|0.53|0.213
95801154|NCT00567580|191574894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.81|3.37||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||3.37|1.81|<0.001
95760971|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2232||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.2232
95760972|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.4207
95760973|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5375||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.5375
95760974|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6633||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%||||0.6633
95801155|NCT00567580|191574894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.77||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for entry PSA level, pathology, seminal vesicle involvement, Gleason score, race, and age.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 2+ acute adverse events||1.77|1.03|0.007
95801156|NCT00567580|191574894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.16|3.6||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT Alone|Acute grade 3+ acute adverse events||3.60|1.16|0.002
95801157|NCT00567580|191574894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.27||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Regression, Logistic|Univariate model was used due to the low number of events.|Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Acute grade 3+ adverse events||2.27|0.975|0.025
95801158|NCT00567580|191574895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.88|1.26||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.26|0.88|0.268
95801159|NCT00567580|191574895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.32||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 2+ adverse events||1.32|0.93|0.101
95801160|NCT00567580|191574895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.8||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT Alone|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.80|0.83|0.119
95801161|NCT00567580|191574895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.65||One-sided significance level = 0.025|Log Rank||Reference level = PBRT + STAD|Late grade 3+ adverse events||1.65|0.82|0.170
95801162|NCT03971422|191574902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.586|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.091|-1.249||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.249|-4.091|<0.001
95801163|NCT03971422|191574902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.619|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.994|-1.163||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.163|-3.994|<0.001
95760975|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3667||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3667
95760976|NCT00673387|191489341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||||||unadjusted for multiple comparisons; significance level of 0.0492 based on the Haybittle-Peto Criterion.|t-test, 2 sided|||When multiplicity not considered, sample size of 50 participants per arm (after dropouts) was considered adequate to detect a difference of 4.5% in mean body weight change from baseline to Week 28 between one effective pramlintide + metreleptin combination treatment group versus the placebo, Pramlintide 360 mcg BID + Placebo-M, or Metreleptin 5.0 mg BID + Placebo-P treatment arms with approximately 90% power, assuming a common within-treatment standard deviation of 6.858%.||||0.3720
95801164|NCT03971422|191574903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.882||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||14.882|2.100|<0.001
95801165|NCT03971422|191574903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.273|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|11.791||p-value is nominal. Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Wald test||The OR of responder rates is estimated and tested between treatment groups using logistic regression model with treatment group, Baseline MG-ADL score and stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+). An OR \> 1 favours rozanolixizumab.|||11.791|1.653|<0.001
95760977|NCT00673387|191489345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate||||0.0404
95760978|NCT00673387|191489345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0265
95760979|NCT00673387|191489345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1357
95760980|NCT00673387|191489345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0409
95801166|NCT03971422|191574904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.901|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.634|-1.245||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.245|-6.634|<0.001
95801167|NCT03971422|191574904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.303|-2.968||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.968|-8.303|<0.001
95760981|NCT00673387|191489345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 28 based on a general linear model with factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category, and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0082
95801168|NCT03971422|191574905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.614|-1.584||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-1.584|-5.614|<0.001
95859718|NCT02963506|191677341|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.42|-1.84|=0.002
95760982|NCT00673387|191489349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0464
95760983|NCT00673387|191489349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0647
95760984|NCT00673387|191489349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0690
95760985|NCT00673387|191489349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.3717
95760986|NCT00673387|191489349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0327
95760987|NCT00673387|191489350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0049
95992845|NCT03051633|191961581|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where substance use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If substance use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.126|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use alchohol in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||-0.126|-0.714|.004
95760988|NCT00673387|191489350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0047
95760989|NCT00673387|191489350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0046
95760990|NCT00673387|191489350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0257
95760991|NCT00673387|191489350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0014
95760992|NCT00673387|191489351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0222
95760993|NCT00673387|191489351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0128
95760994|NCT00673387|191489351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0122
95760995|NCT00673387|191489351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0073
95760996|NCT00673387|191489351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a general linear model general linear model that includes baseline value and factors for treatment group, sex, baseline BMI category (\<35 kg/m2, 35 to \<40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2).||||0.0034
95760997|NCT00555360|191489372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.77|-4.62|.975
95760998|NCT00555360|191489373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|-5.78|.349
95760999|NCT00555360|191489374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|24.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.2|3.9|.007
95761000|NCT02203331|191489398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2925||0.3875|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3875
95801169|NCT03971422|191574905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.756|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.821|-2.859||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-2.859|-6.821|<0.001
95761001|NCT02203331|191489398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.2484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2975||0.2676|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.2676
95761002|NCT02203331|191489398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.1995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2922||0.3211|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3211
95761003|NCT02203331|191489398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2994||0.1721|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1721
95761004|NCT02203331|191489399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.2736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2878||0.231|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.231
95761005|NCT02203331|191489399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.3234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2927||0.1865|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1865
95761006|NCT02203331|191489399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.3081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2875||0.1955|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1955
95761007|NCT02203331|191489399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.3781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2944||0.1416|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.1416
95761008|NCT02203331|191489400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Emax|0.0081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.5794|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5794
95761009|NCT02203331|191489400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Linear|0.1148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.4301|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.4301
95761010|NCT02203331|191489400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 1|0.0401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2829||0.5337|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.5337
95761011|NCT02203331|191489400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sigmoidal Emax 2|0.1835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2899||0.3396|||||||Contrast tests for dose-response model|||The analysis was performed by using MCP-Mod method using pre-defined candidate dose-response model.||||0.3396
95761012|NCT03597464|191489406|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||4.05|1.30|0.004
95761013|NCT03597464|191489406|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||3.83|1.25|0.006
95761014|NCT03597464|191489406|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||3.16|1.04|0.035
95761015|NCT03597464|191489406|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.92|1.28|0.005
95801170|NCT03971422|191574906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.441|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.804|-4.089||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.089|-21.804|<0.001
95761016|NCT03597464|191489406|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||3.03|1.00|0.051
95761017|NCT03597464|191489407|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||8.46|1.88|<0.001
95761018|NCT03597464|191489407|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 18||4.88|1.28|0.008
95761019|NCT03597464|191489407|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||4.91|1.46|0.001
95761020|NCT03597464|191489407|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 30||3.34|1.03|0.040
95948504|NCT00264576|191868648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.04|0.70|
95761021|NCT03597464|191489407|OTHER|"The model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline UPCR, biopsy class, MMF use at baseline and region.~Subjects who withdrew from the study prior to the visit assessments and thus provide insufficient visit data were defined as non-responders."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 36||2.58|0.75|0.290
95761022|NCT03597464|191489408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Number of subjects with adequate renal response. This model is based on a logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline urine protein creatinine ratio (UPCR), biopsy class, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) use at baseline and region. An odds ratio \< unity indicates benefit for voclosporin.||0.99|0.32|0.045
95761023|NCT03597464|191489409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.8||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.5|-2.1|0.238
95761024|NCT03597464|191489409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.4|-1.8|0.215
95801171|NCT03971422|191574906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.596|-6.45||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-6.450|-23.596|<0.001
95801172|NCT03971422|191574907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.058|-0.134||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.134|-18.058|0.012
95801173|NCT03971422|191574907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.759|-5.936||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-5.936|-23.759|<0.001
95801174|NCT03971422|191574908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.958|-4.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-4.998|-18.958|<0.001
95761025|NCT03597464|191489409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.5|-1.8|0.246
95761026|NCT03597464|191489410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.26|-1.05|0.001
95761027|NCT03597464|191489410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.63||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-0.07|-1.20|0.029
95761028|NCT03597464|191489410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-0.29|-1.24|0.002
95761029|NCT03597464|191489410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-0.33|-1.49|0.002
95761030|NCT03597464|191489410|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.48||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||-0.10|-1.06|0.106
95801175|NCT03971422|191574908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.787|-3.998||Confidence intervals and p-values are based on stage-wise inverse normal combination using the Lehmacher and Wassmer method.|Lehmacher and Wassmer method||MMRM ANCOVA model included treatment group, Baseline score, region, stratification factor (MuSK+ or AChR+) and treatment group by day (interaction term) as fixed factors and participant as a random effect.|A sequential testing procedure was used. The parallel gatekeeping testing procedure with a truncated Hochberg test was used to control the familywise type I error rate at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-3.998|-17.787|<0.001
95948505|NCT00264576|191868648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.70|0.46|
95948506|NCT00264576|191868648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.36|0.95|
95761031|NCT03597464|191489411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-0.1|-5.3|0.041
95948507|NCT00264576|191868648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
95948508|NCT00264576|191868648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.75|0.50|
95801176|NCT01807520|191574982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-14.3|||Mixed model reapeated measures|||||-14.3|-39.1|<0.0001
95801177|NCT01807520|191574982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-23.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-23.5|-45.2|<0.0001
95801178|NCT02400736|191575002|SUPERIORITY|"Proportion of steady workers in each group was analyzed using a logistic regression model to calculate an odds ratio and 95% Confidence Interval. Adhering to the principle of intent-to-treat, participants were retained in the arm to which they were randomized for the 12-month follow-up period despite discontinuing the treatment intervention or exiting the study early. Missing data was counted as not worked."|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Using SamplePower 3.0 to estimate the statistical power, the target sample size of 120 (60 per group) provided 84% power to detect a 25% or greater absolute difference between groups in the percent of participants achieving 'steady worker' status (e.g., 40% in IPS vs. 15% in control arm), at the .05 level of significance, assuming a 10% attrition.||5.43|1.14|0.02
95801179|NCT02400736|191575003|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis.||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total mean time worked was compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.003
95801180|NCT02400736|191575004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||0.005
95801181|NCT02400736|191575005|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95801182|NCT02400736|191575006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||||||0.853
95761032|NCT03597464|191489411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-1.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||1.6|-5.1|0.292
95761033|NCT03597464|191489411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-2.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||1.8|-6.1|0.282
95761034|NCT03597464|191489411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.9||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||5.1|-3.2|0.659
95761035|NCT03597464|191489411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|1.8||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||6.4|-2.8|0.438
95801183|NCT02400736|191575007|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95761036|NCT03597464|191489412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-67.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.4|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||-25.1|-110.4|0.002
95761037|NCT03597464|191489412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-87.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.2|-24.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||-24.2|-151.2|0.007
95761038|NCT03597464|191489412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-47.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.8|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||-3.3|-90.8|0.035
95761039|NCT03597464|191489412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-73.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.5|-22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||-22.6|-123.5|0.005
95761040|NCT03597464|191489412|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-19.0||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.7|41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||41.7|-79.7|0.537
95761041|NCT03597464|191489413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12 (AURORA 2 baseline)||0.134|0.035|<0.001
95801184|NCT02400736|191575008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of treatment on outcome was analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects regression model.Group by time interaction tested for treatment effect.||The effect of treatment on each of secondary outcome measures were analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-effects regression model. The group by time interaction tested for the treatment effect.||||0.47
95801185|NCT02400736|191575009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
95801186|NCT02400736|191575010|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</= 0.05 or lower. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||>0.3
95801187|NCT02400736|191575011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95801188|NCT02400736|191575012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95801189|NCT01952678|191575073|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
95801190|NCT01952678|191575073|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.1|-25.8|0.4608
95801191|NCT01952678|191575073|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
95801192|NCT01952678|191575073|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.7|-17.3|1.0000
95801193|NCT01952678|191575074|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
95761042|NCT03597464|191489413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.051||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18||0.131|-0.029|0.209
95761043|NCT03597464|191489413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|0.057||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24||0.178|-0.064|0.353
95761044|NCT03597464|191489413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.036||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 30||0.105|-0.176|0.616
95801194|NCT01952678|191575074|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|12.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.2|-26.1|0.4599
95801195|NCT01952678|191575074|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
95801196|NCT01952678|191575074|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: PPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.9|-17.5|1.0000
95801197|NCT01952678|191575075|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.0|-22.0|1.0000
95801198|NCT01952678|191575075|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
95801199|NCT01952678|191575075|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||18.5|-23.0|1.0000
95801200|NCT01952678|191575075|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||20.8|-20.8|1.0000
95801201|NCT01952678|191575076|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||22.8|-22.8|1.0000
95761045|NCT03597464|191489413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.077||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 36||0.094|-0.248|0.372
95761046|NCT03377491|191489449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.68|0.039
95761047|NCT03377491|191489450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.68|0.137
95761048|NCT03377491|191489451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.151
95761049|NCT03377491|191489452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.094
95761050|NCT03377491|191489453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.029
95761051|NCT03377491|191489456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.57|0.128
95761052|NCT03377491|191489457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9311|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.9311
95801202|NCT01952678|191575076|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|26.2|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||26.2|-16.7|0.5187
95801203|NCT01952678|191575076|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|21.5|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||21.5|-21.5|1.0000
95801204|NCT01952678|191575076|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: NPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|23.9|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||23.9|-19.1|0.7123
95801205|NCT01952678|191575077|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|15.3|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.3|-13.3|1.0000
95801206|NCT01952678|191575077|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||9.8|-17.7|0.5731
95801207|NCT01952678|191575077|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.8|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||13.8|-13.8|1.0000
95801208|NCT01952678|191575077|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||14.7|-12.8|0.8340
95801209|NCT01952678|191575078|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|15.6|||Fisher Exact|||Reader A: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.6|-13.5|1.0000
95801210|NCT01952678|191575078|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader B: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||12.0|-16.1|0.8429
95801211|NCT01952678|191575078|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||Fisher Exact|||Reader C: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||15.0|-13.0|0.8214
95801212|NCT01952678|191575078|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed using the hypothesis: OPA was equal for Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Fisher Exact|||Majority Read: DaTscan™- Non-Caucasian Participants vs DaTscan™- Caucasian Participants||16.1|-12.0|0.6577
95801213|NCT06204887|191575114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95801214|NCT03767894|191575116|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.24
95801215|NCT03767894|191575116|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|t-test, 2 sided|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (ARAT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (ARAT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||0.207
95761053|NCT02878850|191489458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|12.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.75|-6.85|0.55
95761054|NCT02878850|191489459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|-12.48|0.92
95761055|NCT02878850|191489460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.53|||ANCOVA|||||2.53|-1.83|0.75
95761056|NCT02878850|191489461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.53|||ANCOVA|||||6.53|-2.64|0.40
95801216|NCT03767894|191575117|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired sample t-test)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05|Paired sample T-test|2-tailed||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (UEMF performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device).||||0.026
95801217|NCT03767894|191575119|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Baseline scores compared to Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) of the impaired (hemiparetic) hand.||||0.442
95761057|NCT02878850|191489462|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.36|2.94|||Chi-squared|||||2.94|1.36|<0.001
95761058|NCT02878850|191489463|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.65|||Chi-squared|||||3.65|0.44|0.87
95761059|NCT02878850|191489464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.08|0.08
95761060|NCT02878850|191489465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|6.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.10|-16.84|0.35
95761061|NCT02878850|191489466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.87|-1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.87|-68.87|0.04
95761063|NCT02260570|191489500|SUPERIORITY||F value|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,1,60) = 24.1, p \< 0.0001, adjusted r\^2 = 0.275||||||<0.0001
95801218|NCT03767894|191575119|OTHER|Descriptive analysis (paired Wilcoxon)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p\<0.05 p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjustment for p-value is 2.||Post Unassisted condition (BBT performed unassisted/without the use of the MyHand device) compared to Post Assisted condition (BBT performed assisted with the use of the MyHand device).||||1.0
95801219|NCT02068599|191575122|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|4.26||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|9.66||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||9.66|-1.13|0.1213
95801220|NCT02068599|191575122|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|7.11||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||7.11|-3.62|0.5231
95801221|NCT02068599|191575123|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|17.86||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|43.98||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||43.98|-8.26|0.1795
95801222|NCT02068599|191575123|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|34.96||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||LSM = least square mean||34.96|-16.95|0.4956
95801223|NCT02068599|191575124|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.61||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|9.08||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.08|-1.87|0.1963
95801224|NCT02068599|191575124|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.06||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.50|-3.39|0.4584
95801225|NCT02068599|191575125|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|23.51||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.83|122.84||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||122.84|-75.83|0.6420
95801226|NCT02068599|191575125|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-50.4||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.72|47.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||47.92|-148.72|0.3141
95801227|NCT02068599|191575126|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.16||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|15.63||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.63|-9.31|0.6184
95801228|NCT02068599|191575126|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-3.48||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|8.81||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||8.81|-15.78|0.5775
95801229|NCT02068599|191575127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.099||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.099|0.345|0.1011
95801230|NCT02068599|191575127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.819||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=50% responder rate||1.819|0.615|0.8400
95801231|NCT02068599|191575127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.494||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.494|0.531|0.6607
95801232|NCT02068599|191575127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.441||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||\>=30% responder rate||1.441|0.520|0.5777
95801233|NCT02068599|191575128|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.94||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|13.79||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.79|-5.90|0.4316
95801234|NCT02068599|191575128|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.51||||0.6126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|12.26||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||||12.26|-7.24|0.6126
95801235|NCT02068599|191575129|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.01||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.257||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.257|-0.232|0.9208
95801236|NCT02068599|191575129|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.04||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.284||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||0.284|-0.200|0.7344
95801237|NCT02068599|191575129|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.21||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.486||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.486|-0.056|0.1199
95801238|NCT02068599|191575129|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.06||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.334||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||0.334|-0.204|0.6357
95801239|NCT02068599|191575130|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.77||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.377|7.916||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||7.916|-2.377|0.2906
95859719|NCT02963506|191677341|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs placebo|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, standard error, confidence interval and p-value were derived using the ANCOVA model with treatment, geographic region and prior TNF inhibitor exposure as fixed effects and the Baseline value as covariate.||-0.81|-2.22|<0.001
95801240|NCT02068599|191575130|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.41||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.707|6.518||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2||6.518|-3.707|0.5892
95801241|NCT02068599|191575130|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.82||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.678|6.315||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||6.315|-4.678|0.7699
95801242|NCT02068599|191575130|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.74||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.721|7.193||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||7.193|-3.721|0.5320
95801243|NCT02068599|191575131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.433||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||1.433|0.501|0.5358
95801244|NCT02068599|191575131|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.423||5% level of significance|generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||For the responder analyses, participants with missing values were deemed non-responders. Analysis performed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method where binary variable responder rate (Yes/No) was modeled through logit link function, with treatment, center, week, and treatment\*week as explanatory factors. The unstructured working correlation structure was applied.||2.423|0.870|0.1532
95801245|NCT03019588|191575133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.36|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||1.36|0.58|0.2900
95801246|NCT03019588|191575134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||2.74|1.14|0.9954
95801247|NCT03019588|191575135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.3|||Z-test|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by time to progression on first line therapy (\< 6 months vs. ≥ 6 months) and ECOG PS (0 vs. 1).|||9.3|-21.6|0.7884
95801248|NCT00106535|191575138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801249|NCT00106535|191575138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801250|NCT00106535|191575139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801251|NCT00106535|191575139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801252|NCT00106535|191575140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801253|NCT00106535|191575140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801254|NCT00106535|191575149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
95801255|NCT00106535|191575149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
95801256|NCT00106535|191575150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.96|-43.56|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-43.56|-96.96|<0.0001
95801257|NCT00106535|191575150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.69|-59.22|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region and original treatment group.||||-59.22|-112.69|<0.0001
95801258|NCT00106535|191575152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-148.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.22|-90.98|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-90.98|-205.22|<0.0001
95801259|NCT00106535|191575152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-181.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.6|-124.21|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||-124.21|-238.60|<0.0001
95761064|NCT02260570|191489501|SUPERIORITY||F value|6.23||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|F(1,30) = 6.23, p = 0.0184, adjusted r\^2 = 0.144||||||0.0184
95761065|NCT00264550|191489516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group 1 is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Assuming greater than 90 % power, ACR 20 response for Group I, Group III and Group IV (120, 80, and 80 participants, respectively) as 35 % for Group I and 55 % for Groups III and IV.||||<0.001
95761066|NCT00264550|191489516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||0.001
95761067|NCT00264550|191489516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Groups I vs III and Groups I vs IV at 0.05 level of significance. Samples of sizes 120, 80, 80 patients in Group I, III, and IV provide \>90% power assuming 35% response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups(III \& IV).||||<0.001
95761068|NCT00264550|191489516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This null hypothesis is tested only if a positive test for null hypothesis Statistical Analysis 1.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: No difference between Group II and Group I with respect of ACR 20 at Wk 14. Superiority of golimumab alone vs MTX alone will be demonstrated if 2-sided test is significant. Sample of 120 patients in each Group I \& II provides \>85% power assuming 35% ACR 20 response in Group I and 55% ACR 20 in Group II.||||0.059
95801260|NCT00106535|191575177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5212.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3139.4|7285.16|||ANOVA|Adjusted for region.||||7285.16|3139.40|<0.0001
95801261|NCT00106535|191575177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7092.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5066.16|9119.36||Adjusted for region.|ANOVA|||||9119.36|5066.16|<0.0001
95801262|NCT00106535|191575193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0023
95801263|NCT00106535|191575193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|||||||<0.0001
95801264|NCT00106535|191575194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||0.0001
95761069|NCT00264550|191489517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95761070|NCT00264550|191489517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95761071|NCT00264550|191489517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95761072|NCT00264550|191489517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95761073|NCT00264550|191489518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab+MTX and Group I is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and Combined Golimumab + Methotrexate (MTX) at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95761074|NCT00264550|191489518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and III at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95761075|NCT00264550|191489518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and IV at 0.05 level of significance.||||<0.001
95761076|NCT00264550|191489518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||Null hypothesis: No difference in HAQ response at Wk 24 comparing Groups I and II at 0.05 level of significance.||||0.240
95801265|NCT00106535|191575194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's test|Stratified by region.||||||<0.0001
95801266|NCT06042855|191575243|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.03|0.89|
95801267|NCT06042855|191575244|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|6.38||||||No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||6.38|0.32|
95801268|NCT06042855|191575247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.78|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.78|0.82|
95801269|NCT06042855|191575248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.31|0.66|
95801270|NCT06042855|191575249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.41|0.57|
95801271|NCT06042855|191575250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.42|0.78|
95801272|NCT06042855|191575251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Day 7||1.32|0.85|
95801273|NCT06042855|191575251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||Day 14||1.28|0.85|
95801274|NCT06042855|191575251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53||||||Day 28||1.53|0.94|
95801275|NCT06042855|191575251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||Day 90||1.48|0.91|
95761077|NCT00264550|191489519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95761078|NCT00264550|191489519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95761079|NCT00264550|191489519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95761080|NCT00264550|191489519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.187
95761081|NCT00264550|191489520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden noramal|||||||<0.001
95761082|NCT00264550|191489520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
95761083|NCT00264550|191489520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||<0.001
95761084|NCT00264550|191489520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.097
95761085|NCT00264550|191489521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal|||||||0.551
95801276|NCT06042855|191575251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.77||||||Day 120||1.77|1.06|
95801277|NCT06042855|191575251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66||||||Day 180||1.66|1.02|
95761086|NCT00264550|191489521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.953
95761087|NCT00264550|191489521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||ANOVA on van der waerden normal scores|||||||0.293
95761088|NCT00264550|191489521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|||||||0.361
95761089|NCT02129608|191489522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
95761090|NCT02129608|191489522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.436
95761091|NCT02129608|191489523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070
95761092|NCT02129608|191489523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.950
95761093|NCT01191944|191489538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin of -4 points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9192|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.047|2.566||one-sided test relative to NI margin of -4|ANCOVA|adjusted for treatment, centre and baseline|Pramipexole IR minus Pramipexole ER, Pramipexole ER non inferior to Pramipexole IR if lower limit of confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is higher than NI margin.|The null hypothesis (H0) states that the mean change from baseline to Week 18 (or last observation carried forward \[LOCF\]) in the UPDRS II+III score for the treatment group pramipexole ER is inferior to the mean change for the treatment group pramipexole IR.||2.566|-1.047|<0.0001
95761094|NCT01191944|191489539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1836||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.787|3.826|||ANCOVA|||||3.826|-4.787|0.8261
95761095|NCT01191944|191489540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274||0.8698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|0.592|||ANCOVA|||||0.592|-0.699|0.8698
95761096|NCT01191944|191489541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7902||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7902
95761097|NCT01191944|191489542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.763|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7845||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.255|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-8.255|0.3223
95761098|NCT01191944|191489543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5581||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|6.583|||ANCOVA|||||6.583|0.437|0.0254
95761099|NCT01191944|191489544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2658||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.090|-3.848|0.7843
95761100|NCT01191944|191489545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4901||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|1.335|||ANCOVA|||||1.335|-0.598|0.4529
95761101|NCT01191944|191489546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4437||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.405|0.345|||ANCOVA|||||0.345|-1.405|0.2338
95761102|NCT01191944|191489547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2509||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.057|||ANCOVA|||||1.057|0.067|0.0263
95761103|NCT01191944|191489548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3727||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.766|||ANCOVA|||||0.766|-0.704|0.9337
95761104|NCT01191944|191489549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0798||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.188|||ANCOVA|||||0.188|-0.127|0.6995
95761105|NCT01191944|191489550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3170
95761106|NCT01191944|191489551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4756
95761107|NCT01191944|191489552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1051
95761108|NCT01191944|191489553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3138||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.771|||ANCOVA|||||0.771|-0.463|0.6237
95801278|NCT06042855|191575252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||||||Day 7||1.15|0.86|
95801279|NCT06042855|191575252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||||||Day 14||1.21|0.87|
95801280|NCT06042855|191575252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Day 28||0.92|0.58|
95801281|NCT06042855|191575252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||||||Day 90||1.02|0.70|
95801282|NCT06042855|191575252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99||||||Day 120||0.99|0.68|
95801283|NCT06042855|191575252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Day 180||1.01|0.70|
95801284|NCT06042855|191575253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Day 7||1.06|0.70|
95801285|NCT06042855|191575253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.79|
95801286|NCT06042855|191575253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1||||||Day 28||1.10|0.69|
95801287|NCT06042855|191575253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Day 90||1.25|0.80|
95801288|NCT06042855|191575253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 120||1.08|0.70|
95801289|NCT06042855|191575253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.66|
95801290|NCT06042855|191575254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09||||||Day 7||1.09|0.70|
95801291|NCT06042855|191575254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||||||Day 14||0.98|0.65|
95801292|NCT06042855|191575254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Day 28||0.85|0.47|
95761109|NCT01191944|191489555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.628|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7088||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|2.021|||ANCOVA|||||2.021|-0.765|0.3760
95761110|NCT02814890|191489565|OTHER|difference test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size: Based on our previous data, pain score at rest 48 hours postoperatively when using ropivacaine only was of 2.8 with a standard deviation of 1.4. Assuming a decrease of pain score by 1.1 being clinically significant, twenty six patents in each group would be required for a study power of 80% (α=0.05,β=0.2). Considering possible dropouts, we aimed at recruiting 30 patients in each group with a total of 60 patients.||||0.001
95761111|NCT02814890|191489566|OTHER|difference test|Kendall's tau-b correlation coefficient|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95761112|NCT02814890|191489568|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95761113|NCT03578549|191489573|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
95761114|NCT00182325|191489582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95761115|NCT00182325|191489583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95761116|NCT00182325|191489584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95801293|NCT06042855|191575254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08||||||Day 90||1.08|0.70|
95801294|NCT06042855|191575254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Day 120||0.96|0.62|
95761117|NCT00182325|191489585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95761118|NCT00182325|191489586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95761119|NCT00182325|191489587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95761120|NCT00182325|191489588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95761121|NCT00182325|191489589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95761122|NCT00182325|191489590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95761123|NCT00182325|191489591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95761124|NCT03485365|191489612|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||-0.20|-2.15|
95761125|NCT03485365|191489613|OTHER|Bayesian Repeated Measures Model|Median Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.612|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.12|||||Posterior median difference (GSK3858279 - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented.|||0.12|-2.29|
95761126|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.5|93.67|
95761127|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100|96.65|
95761128|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
95761129|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
95761130|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.71|98.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||98.02|89.71|
95761131|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||98.56|90.94|
95761132|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.47|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.47|
95761133|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
95761134|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
95761135|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|99.83|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||99.83|94.80|
95761136|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.02|91.93|
95761137|NCT03968978|191489647|OTHER||Proportion|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.93|99.02|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.02|91.93|
95761138|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.67|99.5|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||99.50|93.67|
95761139|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|100.0|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.65|
95761140|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.63|
95761141|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.63|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.63|
95761142|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.8|99.04|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||99.04|92.80|
95761143|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.85|99.83|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||99.83|94.85|
95761144|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.46|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.46|
95761145|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.38|99.48|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.38|
95761146|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.32|99.48|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||99.48|93.32|
95761147|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.44|100.0|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||100.00|96.44|
95801295|NCT06042855|191575254|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.95||||||Day 180||0.95|0.61|
95801296|NCT06042855|191575255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||||||Day 7||1.22|0.83|
95801297|NCT06042855|191575255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||||||Day 14||1.13|0.76|
95801298|NCT06042855|191575255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.8||||||Day 28||0.80|0.45|
95801299|NCT06042855|191575255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||Day 90||0.90|0.59|
95801300|NCT06042855|191575255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Day 120||0.97|0.61|
95801301|NCT06042855|191575255|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||Day 180||0.94|0.62|
95801302|NCT06042855|191575256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43||||||Day 7||1.43|0.95|
95801303|NCT06042855|191575256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Day 14||1.25|0.87|
95761148|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||100.00|96.37|
95761149|NCT03968978|191489648|OTHER||Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.37|100.0|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||100.00|96.37|
95761150|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.33|||Score CI|CI at Week 0 (in clinic)||||6.33|0.50|
95761151|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.35|||Score CI|CI at Week 4 (in clinic)||||3.35|0|
95761152|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||3.37|0|
95761153|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.37|||Score CI|CI for Week 12 (at home)||||3.37|0|
95761154|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.92|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||7.92|0.96|
95761155|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.15|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||5.15|0.17|
95801304|NCT06042855|191575256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.59||||||Day 28||1.59|0.99|
95761156|NCT03968978|191489649|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.53|||Score CI|CI for Week 0 (in clinic)||||3.53|0|
95761157|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|7.99|||Score CI|CI for Week 4 (in clinic)||||7.99|0.97|
95761158|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.68|||Other CI|CI for Week 8 (in clinic)||||6.68|0.52|
95761159|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.56|||Score CI|CI for week 12 (at home)||||3.56|0|
95761160|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 16 (at home)||||3.63|0|
95761161|NCT03968978|191489649|OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.63|||Score CI|CI for Week 20 (in clinic)||||3.63|0|
95761162|NCT01758588|191489662|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A statistical comparison and analysis of the clinical improvement (CI) proportions cannot be made because the sample size (n=5 in treatment arm, n=3 in observation arm) is too small|||
95761163|NCT03972488|191489665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.418|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||||0.418|0.182|<0.0001
95761164|NCT03972488|191489666|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|7.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|18.4|||Stratified One-sided p-value|||||18.40|3.32|<0.0001
95761165|NCT03972488|191489667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.283|||Log Rank|Stratified one-sided P-value||Global Health Status||1.283|0.570|0.2222
95761166|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95761167|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline toend of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.6719
95761168|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.5000
95761169|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95761170|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.1475
95761171|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.0420
95761172|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95761173|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.5000
95761174|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.1563
95761175|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95761176|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95761177|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2324|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to post-treatment last visit||||0.2324
95761178|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.1016
95761179|NCT02408861|191489677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.8125
95761180|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.5000
95761181|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.5000
95761182|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.2500
95761183|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
95761184|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.2061
95801305|NCT06042855|191575256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.35||||||Day 90||1.35|0.89|
95801306|NCT06042855|191575256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.48||||||Day 120||1.48|0.98|
95801307|NCT06042855|191575256|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||||||Day 180||1.46|0.96|
95801308|NCT06042855|191575257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Day 7||1.26|0.96|
95801309|NCT06042855|191575257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Day 14||1.14|0.87|
95801310|NCT06042855|191575257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||Day 28||1.07|0.81|
95801311|NCT06042855|191575257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||Day 90||1.07|0.76|
95801312|NCT06042855|191575257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06||||||Day 120||1.06|0.78|
95801313|NCT06042855|191575257|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04||||||Day 180||1.04|0.75|
95801314|NCT06042855|191575258|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.28|-0.21|
95801315|NCT06042855|191575259|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.34|
95801316|NCT00294398|191575260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95761185|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0547|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.0547
95761186|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD4+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
95761187|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.5000
95761188|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.500
95761189|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.500
95801317|NCT01181479|191575270|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Lessina for cycles 1-6.||||||0.067|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.067
95801318|NCT02114684|191575296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at week 8||||0.46
95801319|NCT02114684|191575296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of culture negative results at month 6||||0.43
95801320|NCT02114684|191575297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test|||||||0.018
95801321|NCT02114684|191575298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95761190|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
95761191|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.0195
95761192|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.0234
95761193|NCT02408861|191489678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in CD8+ T-cell counts from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.4375
95761194|NCT02408861|191489679|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95801322|NCT02114684|191575299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||There are significantly more adverse events in the active arm|Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the number of adverse events in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.01
95801323|NCT02114684|191575299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Comparison of the 8-week culture conversion rates in the two arms, controlling for HIV status||||0.45
95801324|NCT02114684|191575300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95801325|NCT01501513|191575306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95801326|NCT05675020|191575310|OTHER|The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0. We analyzed the percentage of correct responses for knowledge survey questions from pre- and post-intervention survey responses.|||||||||||||||||Participant data was collected from the REDCap pre- and post-intervention questionnaires completed by the adolescents and parents/legal guardians that participated in the project. Data was collected from October to December 2022. The sample size was nine parent-adolescent dyads. Descriptive analysis was used to assess differences in sociodemographic variables, including age, gender, race, material status, employment status, salary, height, and weight. The descriptive analysis yields frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. The statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS V27.0.|||
95801327|NCT01778985|191575321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95801328|NCT01778985|191575322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95801329|NCT01778985|191575323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95801330|NCT01778985|191575324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(18)=1.78, p=0.088||||||0.088
95801331|NCT01778985|191575325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95801332|NCT01778985|191575326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||||||t(28)=0.11, p=0.91|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95801333|NCT01778985|191575327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||t(18)=1.69, p=.10|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95801334|NCT01778985|191575328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||t(10)=2.76, p=0.020|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95801335|NCT01778985|191575329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||||||t(23)=0.28, p=0.78|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95801336|NCT01778985|191575330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||t(28)=0.67, p=0.51|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95801337|NCT01778985|191575331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||t(23)=1.23, p=0.24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95801338|NCT01778985|191575332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95801339|NCT01778985|191575333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95801340|NCT01778985|191575334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95801341|NCT01778985|191575335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95801342|NCT01778985|191575336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95801343|NCT01778985|191575337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95801344|NCT01778985|191575338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95801345|NCT01778985|191575339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95801346|NCT01778985|191575340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95801347|NCT02370394|191575353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|5.75|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||CAS Victimization Total Score at Follow Up||5.75|-14.02|0.4016
95801348|NCT02370394|191575353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.46||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|24.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in CAS Victimization Total score from Baseline to Follow Up||24.82|4.11|0.0072
95801349|NCT02370394|191575354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Safety Behavior Change Score at Follow Up||0.12|-0.21|0.6011
95801350|NCT02370394|191575354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change is Safety Behavior Change Score from Baseline to Follow Up||0.15|-0.16|0.9116
95801351|NCT02370394|191575355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances handled by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom||EOR Number of issues Effective at Accomplishing at Follow Up||1.36|-1.62|0.8646
95801352|NCT02370394|191575355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Number of Issues Effective at Accomplishing from Baseline to Follow Up||0.82|-2.54|0.3045
95801353|NCT02370394|191575356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation Scale at Follow Up||||0.9085
95801354|NCT02370394|191575356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Motivation Scale from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.3256
95801355|NCT02370394|191575357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Readiness at Follow Up||||0.4085
95801356|NCT02370394|191575357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Readiness from Baseline to Follow Up||||0.2467
95801357|NCT05890586|191575413|SUPERIORITY|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||Hazard ratios greater than one favored the active intervention for a faster time to recovery.|||1.07|0.86|
95859720|NCT03848728|191677410|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.16|||TMLE|||||1.16|1.03|0.0019
95801358|NCT05890586|191575414|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.88|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.88|0.03|
95801359|NCT05890586|191575417|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||||Hazard ratios less than one favor the active intervention of inhaled fluticasone furoate. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|The posterior was based on a covariate adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression with skeptical prior. The baseline hazard was a degree 5 M-spline function.||1.7|0.6|
95801360|NCT05890586|191575418|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||1.98|0.74|
95801361|NCT05890586|191575419|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.06|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.06|0.53|
95801362|NCT05890586|191575420|SUPERIORITY|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.22|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Adjustment variables are randomization assignment, age (as restricted cubic spline), sex, duration of symptoms prior to receipt of study drug, calendar time (as restricted cubic spline), vaccination status, geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West), call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.||2.22|0.74|
95801363|NCT05890586|191575421|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.83|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.83|0.51|
95801364|NCT05890586|191575421|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.21|0.70|
95801365|NCT05890586|191575421|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.03|0.55|
95801366|NCT05890586|191575421|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.39|0.68|
95859721|NCT00630838|191677418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.897
95859722|NCT02581410|191677466|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (No prev- Zvax over Prev-Zvax) 1 month post-dose 2 is below 1.5 in terms of anti-gE antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To compare humoral immune responses at 1 month after dose 2 of GSK1437173A (Month 3) in subjects ≥ 65 years of age who received Zostavax ≥ 5 years earlier (Prev-Zvax) as compared to subjects who have never received Zostavax (No prev-Zvax).||1.17|0.92|
95801367|NCT05890586|191575422|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.04|
95801368|NCT05890586|191575422|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|0.98|
95801369|NCT05890586|191575422|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.84|
95801370|NCT05890586|191575422|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.92|
95801371|NCT05890586|191575423|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.29|0.80|
95761195|NCT02408861|191489679|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95801372|NCT05890586|191575423|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.47|0.84|
95801373|NCT05890586|191575423|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.46|0.80|
95801374|NCT05890586|191575423|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.44|0.77|
95801375|NCT05890586|191575424|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.16|0.70|
95801376|NCT05890586|191575424|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.63|
95801377|NCT05890586|191575424|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.99|0.54|
95801378|NCT05890586|191575424|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.66|
95761196|NCT02408861|191489679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5000
95761197|NCT02408861|191489679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.5000
95761198|NCT02408861|191489679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||0.6250
95761199|NCT02408861|191489679|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 6 weeks||||1.000
95801379|NCT05890586|191575425|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.37|0.85|
95761200|NCT02408861|191489680|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
95761201|NCT02408861|191489680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||0.7500
95801380|NCT05890586|191575425|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.44|0.85|
95801381|NCT05890586|191575425|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.70|
95761202|NCT02408861|191489680|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Changes in HIV viral load from baseline to end of 46 cycles of treatment+ 16 weeks||||1.000
95761203|NCT03185013|191489707|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in percentage|11.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|21.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||21.2|-0.4|0.029
95761204|NCT03185013|191489709|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.6|
95761205|NCT03185013|191489710|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|29.4||||||||29.4|5.1|
95761206|NCT03185013|191489711|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|23.5||||||||23.5|1.7|
95801382|NCT05890586|191575425|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.37|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.37|0.78|
95801383|NCT05890586|191575426|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.05|0.68|
95801384|NCT05890586|191575426|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.70|
95761207|NCT03185013|191489712|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.3||||||||20.3|1.5|
95801385|NCT05890586|191575426|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.72|
95761208|NCT03185013|191489713|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.3||||||||10.3|-11.5|
95761209|NCT03185013|191489714|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|20.1||||||||20.1|-0.5|
95761210|NCT03185013|191489715|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||224.0|24.0|
95761211|NCT03185013|191489715|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||0.0|0.0|
95761212|NCT03185013|191489715|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2000.0|6050.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6050.0|2000.0|
95761213|NCT03185013|191489715|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|74.0|
95761214|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Location shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|20.0||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||20.00|8.33|
95761215|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
95761216|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||15.00|5.00|
95761217|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||10.00|1.67|
95761218|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|50.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.67|66.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||66.67|31.67|
95761219|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|38.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|51.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||51.67|18.33|
95761220|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|14.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|18.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||18.33|6.67|
95761221|NCT03185013|191489716|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||15.00|5.00|
95801386|NCT05890586|191575426|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
95993798|NCT00868790|191963400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.5|-12.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-12.4|-34.5|<0.001
95761222|NCT03185013|191489717|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.046||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.046|0.002|
95761223|NCT03185013|191489717|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.014||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.014|0.000|
95761224|NCT03185013|191489717|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0.|Difference in median|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.058||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.058|0.017|
95761225|NCT01175031|191489720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||signed-rank tests|||||||0.003
95761226|NCT04400682|191489753|EQUIVALENCE|0.80-1.25 margins for equivalence|Mean ratio|1.015||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9897|1.041|||ANOVA||||Ln(AUClast) : 0.989- 1.0410|1.0410|0.9897|0.0000
95761227|NCT04400682|191489754|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is required.|Mean ratio|1.0361||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9294|1.1551|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9294 - 1.1551|1.1551|0.9294|0.0033
95761228|NCT04400682|191489755|EQUIVALENCE|0.80 - 1.25 equivalence margin is not required.|Mean ratio|1.0108||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.0366|||ANOVA||||Ln(Cmax) : 0.9856 - 1.0366|1.0366|0.9856|0.0000
95761229|NCT01277601|191489795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95801387|NCT05890586|191575427|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio, log|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.6|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.60|1.05|
95761230|NCT01277601|191489795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Raw p-values comparing treatments were based on a log-rank test stratified by HBeAg status and viral genotype.|Log Rank|||||||0.002
95801388|NCT05890586|191575427|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.52|1.00|
95761231|NCT06547814|191489817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.35|0.79|
95801389|NCT05890586|191575427|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.27|0.84|
95801390|NCT05890586|191575427|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.80|
95801391|NCT05890586|191575428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.31|-0.43|
95801392|NCT05890586|191575429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.52|-0.37|
95761232|NCT04673175|191489820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided Pearson chi-squared test comparing the prevalence of clinical success between arms.||Comparison of the proportion of participants with clinical success at Day 30 between the prospective ceftolozane-tazobactam arm and matched historical controls.||||0.40
95761233|NCT04933474|191489832|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary outcome will be the baseline vs. week 8 difference-in-difference in 7-day average NRS pain intensity scores, dichotomized into if the MCID of 2 is achieved. The between arm difference of achieving the MCID of 2 will be tested using Chi-squared test.||||0.088
95761234|NCT04933474|191489833|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.103
95761235|NCT04933474|191489834|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.774
95801393|NCT05788328|191575430|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.05|113.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||113.29|66.05|
95761236|NCT04933474|191489835|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.005
95761237|NCT04933474|191489836|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sample t-test will be used to compare differences-in-differences between the arms.||||0.831
95992846|NCT03051633|191961582|SUPERIORITY|Event: dichotimized self-reported first-time alcohol intoxication in known participant history prior to data collection, where intoxication was not reported in prior measurement occasions. Episodes: Represent the period of time between measurement occasions, thus, each episode represents the measured period of time between each assessment wave. Censoring: Indicates the risk period during which particpants experienced intoxication uptake.|Hazard Ratio, log|-0.39||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|-0.018|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ration rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time alcohol initiation during a given measurement period, given that students did not become intoxicated in a previous measurement period. Thus, for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: controlling for age at first assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of substance use uptake at the end of their eight grade year||-0.018|-0.762|.037
95992847|NCT03051633|191961583|SUPERIORITY|Event: Dichotimized self-reported first-time marijuana use in known participant history prior to data-collection, where marijuana use was not previously reported in prior measurement occasions of this four-wave longitudinal study. Episodes: Episodes represent the period of time between measurement occasions, as such, each episode represents the measured period of time between each wave of assessments. Censoring: If marijuana use was reported, censoring indicator indicates the risk period.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.17||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.444|||Regression, Logistic|Discrete time hazard model represents a survival analysis, with the outcome parameters reflecting a hazard ratio rather than odds.||Discrete time hazard represents the conditional probability that a student will experience first time marijuana use during a given measurement period, given that students did not use marijuana in a previous measurement period. Thus for each model, we tested the following hypothesis: Controlling for age at first-assessment, students attending BUYOI-assigned schools will have a lower risk of marijuana use uptake by the end of their eighth-grade year, relative to students attending control schools.||0.444|-0.104|0.228
95992848|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|0.67|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.67|-6.38|
95992849|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.78|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.78|-3.75|
95992850|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.26|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.26|-3.52|
95992851|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.6|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.60|-5.34|
95992852|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.2|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.20|-2.50|
95992853|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.77|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.77|-5.67|
95992854|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.08|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.08|-3.99|
95992855|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.55|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.55|-2.68|
95992856|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.18|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.18|-4.17|
95992857|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.97|||||Week 24. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.97|-1.20|
95992858|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.73|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.73|-4.66|
95992859|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.05|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.05|-2.76|
95992860|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.86|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.86|-2.15|
95859723|NCT01424072|191677484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.023
95801394|NCT05788328|191575430|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.1|108.24|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||108.24|63.10|
95801395|NCT05788328|191575431|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.96|112.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||112.94|64.96|
95801396|NCT05788328|191575431|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.28|106.55|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||106.55|61.28|
95801397|NCT05788328|191575432|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|229.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.23|283.37|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||283.37|185.23|
95801398|NCT05788328|191575432|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|214.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|173.38|265.94|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||265.94|173.38|
95801399|NCT05788328|191575433|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|213.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.46|266.29|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||266.29|170.46|
95801400|NCT05788328|191575433|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|232.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.88|290.38|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||290.38|185.88|
95801401|NCT05788328|191575441|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.97|60.27|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 80mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 4). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||60.27|33.97|
95801402|NCT05788328|191575441|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|47.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.62|63.19|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. Reference arm was DE 150mg (Period 1) and test arm was PF-07081532 240mg QD + DE 150mg (Period 7). Ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||63.19|35.62|
95801403|NCT05788328|191575446|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|176.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.51|229.6|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 80 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 5). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||229.60|135.51|
95801404|NCT05788328|191575446|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|221.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.26|288.48|||||Ratio was of test to reference of adjusted geometric means. The reference arm was rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 2) and test arm was PF-07081532 240 mg QD+rosuvastatin 10 mg (Period 8). The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||288.48|170.26|
95801405|NCT00422461|191575461|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.36|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||0.36|-5.97|0.0822
95801406|NCT00422461|191575461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-0.85|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.85|-8.47|0.0170
95801407|NCT00422461|191575461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-2.48|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-2.48|-11.45|0.0026
95801408|NCT00422461|191575462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-0.32|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-0.32|-5.09|0.0264
95801409|NCT00422461|191575462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-1.77|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-1.77|-7.35|0.0016
95801410|NCT00422461|191575462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-3.89|||Nonlinear dose response regression model|||||-3.89|-10.03|<0.0001
95801411|NCT00422461|191575463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|4.05|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||4.05|-3.79|0.9479
95801412|NCT00422461|191575463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||-0.72|-8.78|0.0215
95801413|NCT00422461|191575463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.53|||ANCOVA|||For SBP||0.53|-7.39|0.0886
95801414|NCT00422461|191575463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.41|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||1.41|-4.30|0.3173
95801415|NCT00422461|191575463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-0.99|-6.64|0.0087
95801416|NCT00422461|191575463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||For DBP||-1.15|-6.76|0.0062
95801417|NCT00422461|191575465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.31|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.31|-5.51|0.8091
95801418|NCT00422461|191575465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|4.48|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||4.48|-5.21|0.8809
95801419|NCT00422461|191575465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff SBP||-0.29|-10.04|0.0382
95801420|NCT00422461|191575465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.29|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||0.29|-6.35|0.0731
95801421|NCT00422461|191575465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.22|-7.77|0.0077
95801422|NCT00422461|191575465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||For cuff DBP||-1.00|-7.58|0.0111
95801423|NCT00422461|191575467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|1.44|||ANCOVA|||||1.44|-5.32|0.2567
95801424|NCT00422461|191575467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-6.29|0.0860
95801425|NCT00422461|191575467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.85|0.0103
95801426|NCT00908388|191575496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||(1-Posterior probability of meeting performance goal given the data)|Bayesian adaptive|||||||.006
95801427|NCT04621760|191575526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
95801428|NCT04621760|191575527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|one sided Fisher's exct test, given small cell sizes.||||||0.62
95801429|NCT04621760|191575528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small sample size||||||0.207
95801430|NCT04621760|191575529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.496
95801431|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly identifying PrEP is a daily pill to prevent HIV"||||0.02
95801432|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion correctly responding to prompt: PrEP is for all adults"||||0.01
95801433|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified: PrEP will not work if taken once a week"||||<0.01
95801434|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test of proportion who correctly identified PrEP does not prevent STDs other than HIV"||||<0.01
95859724|NCT01424072|191677485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|This result was only to the domain Social Support.||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups in the 3rd assessment (after 60 days) and at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0,022
95801435|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, PrEP side effects do not last forever"||||<0.01
95801436|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified, A baby could be norm to HIV discordant parents without transmitting HIV"||||0.03
95801437|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test comparing proportion who correctly identified There is medication you can take after sex to prevent HIV"||||<0.01
95801438|NCT04621760|191575530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||"Test for proportion who correctly identified PrEP efficacy is \> 95%"||||0.29
95801439|NCT04621760|191575531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.04
95801440|NCT04621760|191575532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.02
95801441|NCT04621760|191575533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.05
95801442|NCT04621760|191575534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.03
95801443|NCT04621760|191575535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.07
95801444|NCT04621760|191575536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong positive skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with lowest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.10
95801445|NCT04621760|191575537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Given strong negative skew of responses, transformed into a binary variable comparing those with highest possible score versus higher score. Data then tested through tests of proportions.||||0.22
95801446|NCT04621760|191575538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used due to small cell size||||||0.51
95801447|NCT04621760|191575539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PrEP||||0.90
95761238|NCT04933474|191489837|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.44||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and week 8) and opioid use (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||2.02|1.03|0.031
95761239|NCT04233424|191489876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-2.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.0|-6.7|0.152
95761240|NCT04233424|191489877|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.6219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.3|-3.9|0.6219
95761241|NCT04233424|191489878|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.8||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Kaplan-Meier Analysis|||||1.2|-2.8|0.4373
95761242|NCT00687830|191489889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95761243|NCT00687830|191489890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95761244|NCT03774407|191489891|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This P value reported was for bladder urinary frequency change from baseline to 9 months|p value|||||||0.002
95761245|NCT02054338|191489894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves and life tables by treatment arm to describe time-dependent parameters. Stratified Cox proportional model was used to compare the 2 treatment arms. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model and logistic regression were applied to the progression-free survival and to the tumour response, respectively.||1.20|0.91|0.54
95761246|NCT02054338|191489895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.87|0.86
95761247|NCT02054338|191489896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.4|||Log Rank|||||14.4|8.7|0.10
95761248|NCT06127147|191489905|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||\<0.001|||
95761249|NCT06127147|191489906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95761250|NCT06127147|191489907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95761251|NCT06127147|191489908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95801448|NCT04621760|191575539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use abstinence||||0.75
95801449|NCT04621760|191575539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use PEP||||0.32
95801450|NCT04621760|191575539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use HIV testing||||0.40
95761252|NCT06127147|191489909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95761253|NCT06232018|191489910|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||Two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test; significance set at p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare POSAS scores between the two groups at 6 weeks . A two-sided p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study was powered to detect a mean difference of 5 points in POSAS score with 80% power and a 5% alpha error.||4|-2|0.481
95761254|NCT06232018|191489911|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|-1.5|0.228
95761255|NCT06232018|191489912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.446
95761256|NCT06232018|191489913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|70.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||70|40|<0.001
95761257|NCT06232018|191489914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.421
95761258|NCT05339087|191489915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|baseline value as covariate||||||0.043
95761259|NCT05339087|191489915|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis||||||0.045|||||||Multiple imputation|||||||0.045
95761260|NCT05339087|191489916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Secondary endpoints statistically analyzed by a hierarchical testing strategy.||0.08|-0.64|0.116
95761261|NCT04322097|191489946|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.80
95761262|NCT04322097|191489947|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95761263|NCT03879577|191490008|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|67.9|||Exact binomial|||||67.9|38.1|<0.001
95801451|NCT04621760|191575539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use STD testing||||0.34
95801452|NCT04621760|191575539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparing confidence between treatment groups of those who said they intended to use Treatment as Prevention||||0.10
95761264|NCT03879577|191490012|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-0.24|-0.91|0.0014
95761265|NCT03879577|191490013|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||-0.07|-0.91|0.023
95761266|NCT03879577|191490014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||||0.49|-0.22|0.44
95761267|NCT03879577|191490015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||0.80|-0.37|0.46
95761268|NCT03322930|191490021|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||calculated from data|t-test, 2 sided||||mean sensitivity for group; Coefficient of Repeatability for multiple tests per patient|||<0.05
95761269|NCT03344861|191490022|OTHER|No comparator arm.|Clopper-Pearson (binomial proportion)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage was calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion|Adverse events will be listed, coded by MedDRA, by system organ class and preferred term.||||<0.05
95801453|NCT04621760|191575540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95801454|NCT04621760|191575541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt The information was easy to understand"||||0.26
95801455|NCT04621760|191575541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: I got all of the information I needed"||||0.26
95801456|NCT04621760|191575541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95761270|NCT03344861|191490047|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||exact Clopper-Pearson binomial method|One-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the event percentage, calculated using exact (Clopper-Pearson) method for binomial proportion.||"All adverse event terms are coded using MedDRA Dictionary version 21.1. NCS (Non-Clinical Significant) events were not included in the summary because their CTCAE grade and relationship were not collected. Subjects are counted once within each system organ class and each preferred term. An AE is defined as treatment related if its relationship to the study drug is recorded as reasonable possibility on the CRF (Case Report Form)."||||<0.05
95761271|NCT03975491|191490051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|76.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||76.2|-17.1|0.32
95761272|NCT03975491|191490052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|34.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||34.0|-7.5|0.25
95761273|NCT03975491|191490053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||7.7|-13.7|0.52
95761274|NCT03975491|191490054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||1.51|-0.33|0.21
95761275|NCT03975491|191490056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0034|||Mixed Models Analysis||From a model that included the baseline value of the dependent variable and sex (randomization stratification factor) as covariates.|||0.0034|-0.0024|0.73
95801457|NCT04621760|191575541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||"Comparing proportions in response to prompt: The information felt useful to me"||||0.17
95801458|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of abstinence method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.74
95761276|NCT05833139|191490059|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.3|157.7|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.0|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-∞ was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||157.7|126.3|
95761277|NCT05833139|191490060|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|126.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.6|151.0|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 28.7|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. Cmax was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||151.0|106.6|
95801459|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of condoms method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.59
95801460|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.66
95801461|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of PrEP method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.49
95801462|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of HIV testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.94
95801463|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of STD testing method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.95
95761278|NCT05833139|191490061|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (T/R) [%]|142.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.0|161.9|||ANOVA||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 20.4|"The statistical model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. AUC0-tz was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model, considering the effect 'participant' as random and treatment as fixed."||161.9|126.0|
95801464|NCT04621760|191575542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||"Testing proportion of acceptability of Treatment as prevention method (proportion that responded great for me)"||||0.39
95801465|NCT04621760|191575548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.13
95801466|NCT04621760|191575549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for significance: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95801467|NCT01454063|191575550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001||95.0|0.475|0.678||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS - Placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||0.678|0.475|<0.0001
95801468|NCT01454063|191575551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076|<|0.0001||95.0|-7.307|-3.091||p-value based on the generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302-placebo) adjusted for randomization strata.||||-3.091|-7.307|<0.0001
95801469|NCT01454063|191575552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0514||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0514
95801470|NCT01454063|191575553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Treatment comparisons based on CMH test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0034
95801471|NCT01454063|191575554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata. For subjects without a score due to inability to read the ETDRS chart, the log score will be imputed as 1.6 for the purpose of treatment comparisons.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0963
95801472|NCT01454063|191575555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0532||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0532
95801473|NCT01454063|191575556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801474|NCT01286324|191575668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95761279|NCT03922529|191490069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.543|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5430
95761280|NCT03922529|191490070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7625
95761281|NCT03922529|191490071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8842
95761282|NCT03922529|191490072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.4086|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4086
95761283|NCT03922529|191490073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.3841
95761284|NCT03922529|191490074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1393|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|||The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||0.1393
95761285|NCT03922529|191490075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.9257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9257
95761286|NCT03922529|191490076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.8||0.6588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6588
95801475|NCT01286324|191575669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95801476|NCT01286324|191575670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for State Subscale||||0.47
95801477|NCT01286324|191575670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Adjusted p-value based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for Trait Subscale||||0.45
95801478|NCT01286324|191575671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P value is adjusted based on a general linear model adjusted for group and the baseline of the measure|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95801479|NCT03055195|191575677|OTHER||Proportions Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC versus Placebo SC has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
95801480|NCT03055195|191575679|OTHER||Proportion Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|12.6|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 4 has been presented.|||12.6|-14.0|
95761287|NCT03922529|191490077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9920
95761288|NCT03922529|191490078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9504|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9504
95761289|NCT03922529|191490079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6228
95761290|NCT03922529|191490080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7966|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7966
95801481|NCT03055195|191575679|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 8 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
95801482|NCT03055195|191575679|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 12 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
95801483|NCT03055195|191575679|OTHER||Proportion Difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 16 has been presented.|||23.3|-1.1|
95801484|NCT03055195|191575679|OTHER||Proportion Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|14.4|||||Difference in Proportions between Mepolizumab 100 mg SC Versus Placebo SC at Week 20 has been presented.|||14.4|-3.3|
95801485|NCT05558410|191575771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95801486|NCT05558410|191575772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2781|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2781
95801487|NCT05558410|191575773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95801488|NCT05558410|191575774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95761291|NCT03922529|191490081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5071
95761292|NCT03922529|191490082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5553|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.5553
95761293|NCT03922529|191490083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1194|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1194
95761294|NCT03922529|191490084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.9012
95761295|NCT03922529|191490085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4279|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4279
95761296|NCT03922529|191490086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.1932
95761297|NCT03922529|191490087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2723|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2723
95761298|NCT03922529|191490088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8951
95761299|NCT03922529|191490089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.2574|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2574
95761300|NCT03922529|191490090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8307|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8307
95761301|NCT03922529|191490091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.6140
95761302|NCT03922529|191490092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.7327|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7327
95761303|NCT03922529|191490093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7651|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.7651
95761304|NCT03922529|191490094|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.15||||0.3974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||Negative binomial regression models|||||1.59|0.83|0.3974
95761305|NCT03922529|191490095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2727|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.2727
95761306|NCT03922529|191490096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.4269|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4269
95761307|NCT03922529|191490097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.4354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.4354
95761308|NCT03922529|191490098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8695|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8695
95761309|NCT03922529|191490099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.7075
95761310|NCT03922529|191490100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome as a covariate using linear mixed models and multiple imputation for missing data.|The adjusted difference from a model may not necessarily match the raw difference between groups.|||||0.8936
95761311|NCT03922529|191490101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2794|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2794
95761312|NCT03922529|191490102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6177
95761313|NCT03922529|191490103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1440
95761314|NCT03922529|191490104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1122|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1122
95761315|NCT03922529|191490105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.63|0.9653
95761316|NCT06426927|191490161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95761317|NCT06426927|191490161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95801489|NCT05558410|191575775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95801490|NCT05558410|191575776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||<0.0001
95761318|NCT06426927|191490162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95801491|NCT05558410|191575777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95801492|NCT05558410|191575778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95761319|NCT06426927|191490162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95761320|NCT06426927|191490163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Post-video vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95761321|NCT06426927|191490163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Study Day 2: 30 +/- 7 days vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95761322|NCT06426927|191490164|SUPERIORITY||Average Causal Mediated Effect (ACME)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-video to post video, without covariates||||0.56
95801493|NCT05558410|191575779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0237
95801494|NCT05558410|191575780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.0080
95801495|NCT01028560|191575799|OTHER||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above is the slope for immunotherapy group . The (quadratic) slope is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||0.63|-0.24|0.38
95801496|NCT01028560|191575799|OTHER||Slope|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|The above (quadratic) slope is for control group|The above is the (quadratic) slope is for control group and is for 1 month increase in time.|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection were smoothed over two month period with median score values.||0.99|0.11|0.013
95801497|NCT01028560|191575799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|12.03||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 1 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.03|-11.76|0.978
95761323|NCT03332979|191490195|OTHER|Multivariable regression analysis will be used to enable us to explore the impact of modifiable factors reflecting preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear||||Multivariable regression will be used to explore preparation for end of life on the MMCGI-SF. The analyses will use the MMCGI-SF as the dependent variable with five predictor variables (dementia knowledge \[DKAS\], Social support \[HLQ1\], Communication with healthcare professionals \[HLW4\], advance decisions and knowledge of end of life wishes of person with dementia. There will also be 10 confounders included in the model (gender of caregiver, living arrangement of person with dementia \[at home of a care home\], aged of person with dementia, dementia severity \[CDR\], change in closeness, religiosity \[DURAL\], deprivation and relationship of the carer to the person with dementia).|||<0.05
95761324|NCT02728843|191490222|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761325|NCT02728843|191490223|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761326|NCT02728843|191490224|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761327|NCT02728843|191490225|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761328|NCT02728843|191490226|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761329|NCT02728843|191490227|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761330|NCT02728843|191490228|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95761331|NCT07004010|191490240|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman|||This statistical analysis pertains to the right dermis and evaluates the trend across baseline, Week 6, and Week 12.||||<0.001
95761332|NCT07004010|191490240|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman|||This statistical analysis pertains to the left dermis and evaluates the trend across baseline, Week 6, and Week 12.||||<0.001
95761333|NCT07004010|191490240|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||This statistical analysis pertains to the right hypodermis and evaluates the trend across baseline, Week 6, and Week 12.||||<0.001
95761334|NCT07004010|191490241|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Repeated measure|||||||0.264
95761335|NCT07004010|191490242|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Repeated measure|||Right thigh||||0.278
95761336|NCT07004010|191490242|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Repeated measure|||Left thigh||||0.061
95761337|NCT07004010|191490243|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||Right caliper||||<0.001
95761338|NCT07004010|191490243|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||Left caliper||||<0.001
95761339|NCT07004010|191490244|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated measure|||||||<0.001
95761340|NCT07004010|191490245|OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.894
95801498|NCT01028560|191575799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|12.38||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 2 and the p- value was unadjusted p value|contrast testing post mixed model]||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||12.38|-15.83|0.77
95801499|NCT01028560|191575799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|15.84||Post estimation means were tested between the intervention arms after LME model at year 3 and the p- values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.|contrast testing post mixed model||The difference is IT-Control group and the confidence interval is Bonferroni CI|Linear mixed effects model (LME) with random coefficients model was fitted with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation. The functional form of the model was quadratic and the model adjusted for gender, race, ethnicity and number of asthma hospitalizations since birth. Unequal data collection between immunotherapy and control groups were smoothed over two month period with a median score values.||15.84|-19.54|0.80
95761341|NCT02105974|191490302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.055|0.014|0.001
95761342|NCT02105974|191490303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-0.35|0.084
95761343|NCT02105974|191490304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.78|0.43|<0.001
95761344|NCT05985304|191490310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95761345|NCT04933383|191490329|SUPERIORITY||difference/ratio of least square means|180.6||||0.000813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.42|306.48|||ANCOVA|||"The primary efficacy endpoint is the change from baseline in PC20 after each treatment period (baseline is defined at Visit 1).~For primary efficacy analysis, the mean PC20 changes from baseline between AQ001S and the comparator were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for crossover design. A p-value was calculated for the difference of the parameter between AQ001S and the comparator.~Additionally, an adjusted 95%-CI for the mean difference was obtained by the ANCOVA."||306.48|106.42|0.000813
95761346|NCT00976911|191490336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8||||||||24.8|6.5|
95761347|NCT00976911|191490336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|unstratified analysis||||||0.0010
95761348|NCT00976911|191490336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
95761349|NCT00976911|191490337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.9||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by unstratified Cox regression model.|||0.900|0.225|0.0202
95801500|NCT01028560|191575800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Chi-square test (proportion of new sensitizations versus unchanged or lost sensitizations in each group, intention-to treat analysis).|Chi-squared|||||||0.677
95801501|NCT01028560|191575801|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.29||Test of parallelism (group x time) hypothesis P-value.|covariance pattern (rep. measure) model|Within group difference p-values ( baseline vs 3-years) in control and intervention arm were 0.56 and 0.20 respectively.|The estimated slope reported is for year 3 from the covariance pattern model with autoregressive covariance structure.|Covariance Pattern Model with autoregressive covariance structure with REML (Restricted Estimation of Maximum Likelihood) with time and role as categorical variable was modeled.||3.29|-2.18|0.5460
95801502|NCT01028560|191575802|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||Poisson regression model for treatment arm adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst and the time period contributed by each child in years were fitted as offset.|Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with robust variance with contributed person years used as offset was modeled.||Null hypothesis = Incidence rate of CSB in each group are same. Poisson regression adjusting for gender, race and history of hospitalization was used to analyze the corticosteroid burst.||1.96|0.82|0.289
95801503|NCT01960842|191575803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-3.5|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.50|-5.78|<0.001
95801504|NCT01960842|191575804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|6.95|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||6.95|4.21|<0.001
95801505|NCT01960842|191575805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.7|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-7.7|-16.3|<0.001
95761350|NCT00976911|191490337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0081
95761351|NCT00976911|191490339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.485|||Log Rank||Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (less than \[\<\] 3 or 3-6 months). Cox regression model was used to determine the hazard ratio.|||0.485|0.296|<0.0001
95761352|NCT00976911|191490339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.577|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.577|0.366|<0.0001
95761353|NCT00976911|191490339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Unstratified analysis||||||<0.0001
95761354|NCT00976911|191490339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|Stratified analysis:Strata were chemotherapy selected, prior anti-angiogenic therapy, and platinum-free interval.||||||<0.0001
95761355|NCT00976911|191490340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.059||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.059|0.655|0.1360
95761356|NCT00976911|191490340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|||||Unstratified analysis|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0715
95761357|NCT00976911|191490340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.116||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Log Rank|||||1.116|0.678|0.2711
95761358|NCT00976911|191490340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified analysis: The strata were chemotherapy selected (paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan), prior anti-angiogenic therapy (yes or no), and platinum-free interval (\<3 or 3-6 months).|Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.0890
95761359|NCT00976911|191490341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|8.8||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|21.4|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus Week 8/9||21.4|-3.8|0.1859
95761360|NCT00976911|191490341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|3.5||||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.9|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 16/18||20.9|-14|0.8309
95761361|NCT00976911|191490341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|9.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|34.1|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 24||34.1|-15|0.5790
95761362|NCT00976911|191490341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.8||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|30.6|||Fisher Exact||95% CI was approximated with Hauck-Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of responders at baseline versus at Week 30||30.6|-40|0.7339
95761363|NCT00230178|191490384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|21.0||||0.0009||95.0|8.6|32.7|||Wilson's method|||||32.7|8.6|0.0009
95761364|NCT00230178|191490384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate %|12.3||||0.0632||95.0|-0.9|25.0|||Wilson's method|||||25.0|-0.9|0.0632
95761365|NCT00230178|191490385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95761366|NCT00230178|191490385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95801506|NCT01960842|191575806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
95801507|NCT01960842|191575807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from score = 4|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The p-value is based on a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the hypothesis of no change (score = 4).||||<0.001
95801508|NCT01960842|191575808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.4|-4.0|=0.101
95801509|NCT01960842|191575809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||1.1|-5.3|=0.182
95801510|NCT01960842|191575810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.09|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.09|-1.90|=0.032
95801511|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Mobility Domain analysis.||-10.6|-27.8|<0.001
95801512|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|0.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Emotional Well-Being Domain analysis.||0.3|-13.3|=0.059
95801513|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|||=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.6|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Stigma Domain analysis.||0.6|-15.6|=0.070
95801514|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Social Support Domain analysis.||4.2|-7.3|=0.591
95801515|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-7.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Cognition Domain analysis.||-7.3|-20.7|<0.001
95761367|NCT01753297|191490388|OTHER|||||||0.158|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to BRFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis on BRFS was based on 61 BR events (comprised of 35 BR events in the active surveillance arm and 26 BR events in the triptorelin arm).|||0.158
95761368|NCT01753297|191490388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute hazards ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||1.09|0.38|0.100
95761369|NCT01753297|191490388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.79|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between countries: Russia compared to China.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and country: p=0.970.|4.79|0.46|0.502
95761370|NCT01753297|191490388|OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and centre: p=0.241.|||0.671
95801516|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.4|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Communication Domain analysis.||6.4|-4.2|=0.670
95801517|NCT01960842|191575811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-10.3|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||Bodily Discomfort Domain analysis.||-10.3|-25.2|<0.001
95801518|NCT01960842|191575812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.1|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||0.1|-9.8|=0.056
95801519|NCT01960842|191575813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-0.2|-1.6|=0.011
95801520|NCT01960842|191575814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.9|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-1.9|-4.4|<0.001
95801521|NCT01960842|191575815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-3.47|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.47|-5.83|<0.001
95801522|NCT01960842|191575816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-3.44|||One-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||-3.44|-5.73|<0.001
95801523|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
95801524|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paited t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
95801525|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95992861|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.817|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.53|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.53|-4.76|
95761371|NCT01753297|191490388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.35||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.39|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of =7 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."|Interactions effect between treatment group and each covariate (country, centre(country) and Gleason score) were tested one by one in separate models. An interaction effect was considered as significant if p-value was \<0.20. Interaction between treatment group and Gleason score: p=0.272.|6.39|0.87|0.093
95761372|NCT01753297|191490388|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.55|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between Gleason score categories: Gleason score of ≥8 compared to Gleason score ≤6.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||5.55|0.74|0.168
95761373|NCT01753297|191490390|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to EFS between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 2 EFS events in the active surveillance arm and 3 EFS events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.639
95761374|NCT01753297|191490390|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|9.59|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||9.59|0.24|0.653
95761375|NCT01753297|191490390|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.999
95801526|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801527|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801528|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95859725|NCT01424072|191677486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up (after 75 days). The main objective was to compare the difference among the control group, seeds and needles and to recognize significant outcomes of auriculotherapy by seeds or needles.||||0.039
95761376|NCT01753297|191490390|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||1.000
95801529|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95761377|NCT01753297|191490390|OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.583
95801530|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95859726|NCT01424072|191677486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANOVA|It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow up and then it was used the post hoc test.||Coping Strategy: Confrontation domain||||0.029
95992862|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.66|||||Week 36. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.66|-2.25|
95801531|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
95761378|NCT01753297|191490392|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to OS between both treatment groups.|1 death occurred in the active surveillance arm and 2 deaths occurred in the triptorelin arm.|||0.557
95761379|NCT01753297|191490395|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Log Rank|||A two-sided log-rank test was used to compare PSADT between both treatment groups.|Analysis was based on 9 PSADT events in the active surveillance arm and 6 PSADT events in the triptorelin arm.|||0.525
95761380|NCT01753297|191490395|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.73|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison between treatment groups: Triptorelin compared to Active surveillance.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||6.73|0.44|0.435
95761381|NCT01753297|191490395|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Country effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.761
95761382|NCT01753297|191490395|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Centre effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.652
95761383|NCT01753297|191490395|OTHER|||||||0.726|||||||Regression, Cox|||"Gleason score effect.~A Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to compute HRs and the corresponding 95% CIs with treatment group, country (China as reference), centre (the largest centre as reference), and Gleason score on prostatectomy specimen (in categories: ≤6 / =7 / ≥8, with ≤6 considered as the reference) as fixed factors."||||0.726
95801532|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801533|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801534|NCT01336972|191575825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95761384|NCT02652611|191490401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||We reported the average pain and function from 6 to 24 months postinjury with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and summarized pain and function at 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months postinjury with means and standard deviations and medians with interquartile ranges.||1.4|-0.8|=0.57
95761385|NCT02652611|191490402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.3|-2.9|0.21
95761386|NCT03577301|191490408|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3 months.||||||0.35
95761387|NCT03577301|191490408|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.97||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6 months.||||||0.58
95761388|NCT03577301|191490408|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 9 months.||||||0.64
95801535|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801536|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801537|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801538|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801539|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801540|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801541|NCT01336972|191575826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95761389|NCT03577301|191490408|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 12 months.||||||0.76
95801542|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801543|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups|paired t-test|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801544|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801545|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding||||>0.05
95801546|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95761390|NCT03577301|191490409|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|3.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3 months.||||||0.38
95801547|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801548|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||<0.05
95801549|NCT01336972|191575827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A change of 10% was chosen as representing a clinically significant change in mGFR or ERPF. For this purpose, the alpha level was set at 0.05 and the beta level (power) at 95% instead of 80%, to decrease the chance of a false-negative finding.||||>0.05
95801550|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
95801551|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
95801552|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
95801553|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
95801554|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||||>0.05
95801555|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|paired t-test|||||||>0.05
95761391|NCT03577301|191490409|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.26||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6 months.||||||0.74
95801556|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95801557|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95801558|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95801559|NCT01336972|191575828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95801560|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Final Treatment||||<0.05
95801561|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Comparison of all treatment groups versus Baseline at Post Treatment||||<0.05
95761392|NCT03577301|191490409|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.27||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9 months.||||||0.74
95761393|NCT03577301|191490409|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.66||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12 months.||||||0.300
95761394|NCT03577301|191490410|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3 months.||||||0.73
95761395|NCT03577301|191490410|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.68||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6 months.||||||0.64
95761396|NCT03577301|191490410|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|0.64||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9 months.||||||0.89
95801562|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
95801563|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
95801564|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
95761397|NCT03577301|191490410|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12 months.||||||0.78
95761398|NCT03577301|191490411|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.37||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3 months.||||||0.50
95801565|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95761399|NCT03577301|191490411|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.98||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6 months.||||||0.34
95761400|NCT03577301|191490411|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|1.59||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9 months.||||||0.66
95801566|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95801567|NCT01336972|191575832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95761401|NCT03577301|191490411|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi Square|2.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12 months.||||||0.43
95761402|NCT00447876|191490414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||Fisher Exact|||The responders rate at Week 6 was compared between treatment groups by a two-sided Fisher exact test.||0.46|-0.06|=0.182
95801568|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
95801569|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
95801570|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
95761403|NCT00447876|191490415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Gerbershagen's Global scores were compared at Week 18 using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis of variance statistic with adjustment to the baseline score.||||=0.222
95761404|NCT00447876|191490417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.837|||=|0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|13.266|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||13.266|-30.940|=0.423
95761405|NCT00447876|191490419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.173|||=|0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.294|||ANCOVA|||SPID was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||16.294|-24.640|=0.682
95761406|NCT00447876|191490421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.066|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|12.779|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pain threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||12.779|-28.910|=0.438
95801571|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||<0.05
95801572|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare PostTreatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||>0.05
95801573|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95801574|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95801575|NCT01336972|191575833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||<0.05
95801576|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired te-test|||Test to compare Final Treatment versus Baseline for all treatment groups||||<0.05
95801577|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
95801578|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
95801579|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Final Treatment||||>0.05
95801580|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||<0.05
95801581|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
95801582|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Test to compare Post Treatment versus Baseline||||>0.05
95992863|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.34|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.34|-5.95|
95992864|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|1.56|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.56|-3.39|
95992865|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.2|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.20|-3.91|
95992866|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.21|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.21|-4.99|
95761407|NCT00447876|191490423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.594|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.575|15.762|||ANCOVA|||The sum of pressure threshold difference (i.e. SPID expressed as AUC) was compared between the two treatment groups using a fixed effect ANCOVA taking into account the SPID AUC value as dependent variable, the baseline pain intensity as co-variable, and the treatment group as explicative variable.||15.762|-14.575|=0.937
95761408|NCT00447876|191490424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.3||The difference (most affected side - control side) in ROM for the dorsal extension was analyzed using a fixed effect ANCOVA, using Week 18 results as the dependent variable and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-6.8|=0.800
95761409|NCT00447876|191490425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.862|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.862
95761410|NCT00447876|191490425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.317
95761411|NCT00447876|191490425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.525|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.525
95761412|NCT00447876|191490425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.931|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.931
95761413|NCT00447876|191490425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.353|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the Investigator were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.353
95801583|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95761414|NCT00447876|191490426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.882|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 2. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.882
95761415|NCT00447876|191490426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.489|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 6. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.489
95761416|NCT00447876|191490426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.66|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 10. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.660
95801584|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95992867|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.08|||||Week 52. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||2.08|-2.97|
95761417|NCT00447876|191490426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.485|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 14. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.485
95801585|NCT01336972|191575834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test to compare treatment groups at Post Treatment||||>0.05
95801586|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||12.98|3.20|.004
95992868|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.699|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-0.58|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||-0.58|-7.39|
95992869|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.81|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||0.81|-4.54|
95761418|NCT00447876|191490426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.392|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dysport® vs placebo at Week 18. The variables for global assessment of pain assessed by the patient were described at each visit as ordinal qualitative variables and were compared between the two treatment groups by means of a non parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||=0.392
95761419|NCT00005957|191490443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) estimation is for Standard Breast Irradiation arm versus Breast Radiation plus regional radiation arm.|It was estimated that the actuarial five year survival of patients on the control arm of this trial would be 80% and a 5% increase in five year survival with experiment arm is clinically interesting to detect. A sample size of 1832 will ensure 80% power to detect such a difference with two-sided alpha of 0.05.||1.13|0.72|0.38
95761420|NCT00005957|191490444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.61|0.01
95761421|NCT00794339|191490475|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4883|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the the median survival was compared between the 2 groups.||||0.4883
95761422|NCT00794339|191490476|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin|Slope|-0.1235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6988||0.1924|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Modeling Complete Metabolic Response by T/M Ratio||||0.1924
95761423|NCT00794339|191490477|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin = 0||||||0.309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups: those at or above the median for T/M Ratio (7.3) vs. those below, and the time to primary tumor recurrence was compared between the 2 goups.||||0.3090
95761424|NCT00794339|191490478|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.5291|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake ratio as a Predictor of PELVIC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.5291
95761425|NCT00794339|191490478|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.9684|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of COMMON ILIAC Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.9684
95801587|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|13.87|||t-test, 2 sided||Paired t-test|Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||13.87|-0.40|.060
95801588|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.932||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.766
95801589|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for experimental arm||6.19|-3.41|0.533
95801590|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|4.84|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at Wk 8 and Wk 16 for control arm||4.84|-12.21|0.296
95761426|NCT00794339|191490478|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.7327|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Evaluating Tissue to Muscle (T/M) uptake Ratio as a Predictor of Para Aortic Lymph Node Metastases at Baseline||||0.7327
95761427|NCT00794339|191490488|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin=0||||||0.4981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants were divided into two groups by whether their T/M Ratio fell at or above vs. below the observed median of 7.3 and the time to observe new distant metastases was compared between the groups||||.4981
95761428|NCT02952586|191490492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.573||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.573|0.928|0.9199
95761429|NCT02952586|191490493|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.849||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.849|0.927|0.9372
95801591|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.075||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.14
95801592|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|14.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 16 for experimental arm||14.71|4.24|.002
95761430|NCT02952586|191490495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.694||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor (T) stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal (N) stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), Human papillomavirus (HPV) status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.694|0.930|0.9316
95761431|NCT02952586|191490496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.352||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test. The 3 stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.352|0.663|0.6229
95761432|NCT02952586|191490497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.624||The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The three stratification factors were tumor stage (\< T4 vs T4), Nodal stage (N0 /N1/N2a/N2b vs N2c/N3), HPV status (Positive vs Negative).|Log Rank|||||1.624|0.909|0.9061
95761433|NCT01931878|191490521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mean RLS Scale scores between 21 incoA and 21 saline injections||||0.031
95801593|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|10.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||10.01|-3.91|.291
95801594|NCT05278065|191575851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.834||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.067
95801595|NCT05278065|191575852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.71|-0.07|.068
95801596|NCT05278065|191575852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.32|-2.32|1.00
95801597|NCT05278065|191575852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.44
95761434|NCT01931878|191490522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0088
95761435|NCT01931878|191490523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0855
95761436|NCT00789035|191490545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.29||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo|||-0.29|-0.74|<0.0001
95761437|NCT00789035|191490545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.35|-0.80|<0.0001
95761438|NCT00789035|191490545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.5||No formal testing so adjustment for multiple comparisons was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline, treatment, number of previous anti-diabetic medications and country.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.94|<0.0001
95761439|NCT00295061|191490646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total sample size of 20 subjects could demonstrate comparability of an AUC(0-7days) with 90% power up to a standard deviation of 0.288 of the difference in the log scale, expected mean treatment difference of 0 (= ratio of 1), a lower equivalence limit of -0.223 (= log 0.8), upper limit of 0.223 (= log 1.25) and a one-sided alpha of 0.05 (90% CI).|Geometric least square means ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.97|1.09||||||To compare AUC 0-7 days between the two treatments (Alpha-1 MP vs. Prolastin),natural log-transformed AUC 0-7 days values were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA).||1.09|0.97|
95761440|NCT00711880|191490652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||The change in Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain scores was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale Peripheral Neuropathic Pain score as a covariate.||-0.32|-1.59|0.004
95761441|NCT00711880|191490653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-8.03||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-2.23|||ANCOVA|||The change in Neuropathic Pain Scale scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Neuropathic Pain Scale score as a covariate.||-2.23|-13.83|0.007
95761442|NCT00711880|191490654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change in sleep disturbance scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline sleep disturbance score as a covariate.||-0.19|-0.67|0.001
95801598|NCT05278065|191575853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.447||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|1.078|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||1.078|-0.184|.145
95761443|NCT00711880|191490655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in total Pain Disability Index scores was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total Pain Disability Index score as a covariate.||-2.09|-9.62|0.003
95761444|NCT00711880|191490656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change in Dynamic Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Dynamic Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.60|0.042
95761445|NCT00711880|191490657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|12.73||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in Static Allodynia Test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline Static Allodynia Test score as a covariate.||29.85|-4.40|0.144
95761446|NCT00711880|191490658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.75||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in total General Health Questionnaire score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline total General Health Questionnaire score as a covariate.||1.35|-2.84|0.483
95761447|NCT00711880|191490659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change in selective reminding test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline selective reminding test score as a covariate.||0.50|-0.46|0.924
95761448|NCT00711880|191490660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.53||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in 10/36 spatial recall test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline 10/36 spatial recall test score as a covariate.||1.38|-0.31|0.214
95761449|NCT00711880|191490661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.15||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.85|||ANCOVA|||The change in symbol digit modalities test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline symbol digit modalities test score as a covariate.||0.85|-5.15|0.158
95761450|NCT00711880|191490662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.28||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|7.04|||ANCOVA|||The change in paced auditory serial addition task score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline paced auditory serial addition task test score as a covariate.||7.04|-4.47|0.656
95801599|NCT05278065|191575853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.95|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||3.95|-1.50|0.280
95801600|NCT05278065|191575853|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.802||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.38
95801601|NCT05278065|191575854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.250|-0.077|0.268
95801602|NCT05278065|191575854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.198|-0.291|0.624
95992870|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.41|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.41|-4.12|
95761451|NCT00711880|191490663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.39|||ANCOVA|||The change in word list generation test score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and mean baseline word list generation test score as a covariate.||3.39|-3.56|0.962
95761452|NCT00711880|191490664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|32.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|48.12|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||48.12|16.40|<0.001
95761453|NCT00711880|191490666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|29.03||||0.001||95.0|13.39|44.67|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups for each question, using Fisher's Exact Test.||44.67|13.39|0.001
95761454|NCT04238650|191490668|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.11||||||||1.11|0.981|
95761455|NCT04238650|191490669|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.24||||||||1.24|1.03|
95761456|NCT04238650|191490670|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUClast was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.11||||||||1.11|0.997|
95801603|NCT05278065|191575854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
95801604|NCT05278065|191575855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.219|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.219|-0.374|0.574
95761457|NCT03633825|191490677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|1.03|=.02
95801605|NCT05278065|191575855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.252|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.252|-0.020|.077
95801606|NCT05278065|191575855|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.193||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.149
95761458|NCT03633825|191490678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.91|=.19
95761459|NCT02585778|191490679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-35.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-35.0|-60.7|<0.0001
95761460|NCT02585778|191490679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-43.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-43.6|-54.4|<0.0001
95761461|NCT02585778|191490681|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing procedure was followed for T1DM and T2DM participants separately.||-37.9|-63.4|<0.0001
95761462|NCT02585778|191490681|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-46.4|-56.9|<0.0001
95801607|NCT05278065|191575856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.163|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.163|-0.396|0.376
95801608|NCT05278065|191575856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.78|-0.036|0.065
95801609|NCT05278065|191575856|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.486||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||.006
95801610|NCT05278065|191575857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.576|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.576|-0.483|0.849
95801611|NCT05278065|191575857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.302||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||0.102|-0.706|.107
95801612|NCT05278065|191575857|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.19
95801613|NCT05278065|191575858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for experimental arm||0.760|-0.929|0.828
95992871|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|1.23|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||1.23|-5.47|
95761463|NCT02585778|191490682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-35.5|-61.2|<0.0001
95761464|NCT02585778|191490682|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-40.4|-50.9|<0.0001
95761465|NCT02585778|191490683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-32.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.8|-56.9|<0.0001
95761466|NCT02585778|191490683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-45.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-45.3|-55.2|<0.0001
95761467|NCT02585778|191490684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-30.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-30.5|-54.9|<0.0001
95761468|NCT02585778|191490684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-39.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-39.2|-49.0|<0.0001
95761469|NCT02585778|191490685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-31.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-31.3|-54.2|<0.0001
95761470|NCT02585778|191490685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-33.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-33.9|-43.4|<0.0001
95761471|NCT02585778|191490686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-28.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-28.7|-49.4|<0.0001
95801614|NCT05278065|191575858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.762||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||2.33|-0.81|0.249
95992872|NCT02631538|191961616|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.24|||||Week 68. Analysis was performed using mixed effects repeated measures model, with Baseline, treatment, visit and interactions of visit with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|||3.24|-2.21|
95761472|NCT02585778|191490686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-32.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-32.5|-40.9|<0.0001
95761473|NCT02585778|191490687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-20.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-20.7|-37.8|<0.0001
95761474|NCT02585778|191490687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-24.1|-31.2|<0.0001
95761475|NCT02585778|191490688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|1041.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||1041.8|13.1|<0.0001
95761476|NCT02585778|191490688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|196.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||196.1|36.5|<0.0001
95761477|NCT02585778|191490689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|168.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||168.3|16.6|<0.0001
95761478|NCT02585778|191490690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|137.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||137.4|8.0|<0.0001
95801615|NCT05278065|191575858|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.857||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.17
95801616|NCT05278065|191575859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|8.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||8.89|-9.25|0.965
95992873|NCT01577238|191961623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95992874|NCT00849667|191961628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.21|0.81|0.4513
95761479|NCT02585778|191490690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|51.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||51.5|14.2|<0.0001
95761480|NCT02585778|191490691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|473.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||473.7|6.5|0.0002
95761481|NCT02585778|191490691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|103.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|433.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||433.1|24.6|<0.0001
95761482|NCT02585778|191490692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-6.0|-31.4|0.0039
95761483|NCT02585778|191490692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-13.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||-13.2|-23.7|<0.0001
95761484|NCT02585778|191490693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||12.0|-4.2|0.3434
95761485|NCT02585778|191490693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||7.7|1.1|0.0100
95761486|NCT02585778|191490694|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant in relevant diabetes stratum).||0.9|-12.3|0.0902
95761487|NCT02714426|191490720|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,33) = 5.57, p = .024, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. First-order Autoregressive was best (which specifies homogeneous variance over time but allows one correlation between occasions).||||.024
95761488|NCT02714426|191490721|OTHER|||||||0.333||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.96, p = .333, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.333
95761489|NCT02714426|191490723|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-8) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31.069) = 15.046, p = .001, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.001
95761490|NCT02714426|191490724|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,34) = 0.589, p = .0.448, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.448
95761491|NCT02714426|191490725|OTHER|||||||0.439||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< .05. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. The critical effect of interest evaluated here was the Linear Occasion (1-14) x Group (Brain Health vs. Mindfulness) interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,31) = 0.616, p = 0.439, no adjustments.||Mixed effects models were used. Independent variables were linear and quadratic time/occasion, intervention group, and group-by-time interactions if appropriate. Preparatory to modeling, preliminary unconditional models were run to determine best fitting approaches for repeated and random covariance structures. Diagonal repeated covariance was best (heterogeneous variance over time, and no residual cross-time covariances).||||0.439
95992875|NCT00849667|191961628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.06|0.70|0.0761
95992876|NCT00849667|191961629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.27|0.78|0.4823
95992877|NCT00849667|191961629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13|||Log Rank|One-sided log rank test||||1.13|0.68|0.1616
95761492|NCT02617563|191490726|EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA was performed with baseline ODI as covariate, and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least square mean difference of ODI improvement between two groups was calculated to test the hypothesis for the primary objective|Difference of Least Square Means|-1.76||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|2.59|||ANCOVA|||||2.59|-6.11|0.426
95761493|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|2.33||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.33|-8.08|
95761494|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|8.65||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||8.65|-9.93|
95801617|NCT05278065|191575859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|17.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Repeated measures analysis at BL and Wk 8 for control arm||17.6|-11.1|0.522
95801618|NCT05278065|191575859|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|Corstr = AR1; test of condition x time interaction||||||0.781
95801619|NCT04625972|191575867|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|33.31||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.92|64.68|||Poisson regression||Primary Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||64.68|-25.92|0.212
95801620|NCT04625972|191575867|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|43.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|67.37|||Poisson regression||Final Analysis Estimates are based on Poisson regression with robust variance. The model includes covariate for treatment and the log of follow-up time as an offset. Estimated RRR greater than 0% provides evidence in favor of AZD7442.|||67.37|1.40|0.044
95801621|NCT04625972|191575869|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|100.0||||0.664|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1836.98||||Poisson regression||||||-1836.98|0.664
95801622|NCT04625972|191575870|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|13.9||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|30.21|||Poisson regression|||||30.21|-6.23|0.163
95761495|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|2.26||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.26|-8.07|
95761496|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.68||||||95.0|-4.96|6.16||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.16|-4.96|
95761497|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.25||||||95.0|-8.18|2.36||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.36|-8.18|
95761498|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-4.84|6.32||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.32|-4.84|
95801623|NCT04625972|191575872|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction|25.75||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-343.53|87.57|||Poisson regression|||||87.57|-343.53|0.744
95801624|NCT03837938|191575875|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%.|Difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.81|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.17|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.17|
95801625|NCT03837938|191575876|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the protocol and SAP non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|difference in rates Levopront®-Libexin®|5.43|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.31|||||||Difference in daytime resolved rates Levopront® (Test) vs Libexin® (Control) was reported|||-7.31|
95801626|NCT03837938|191575877|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95801627|NCT03837938|191575878|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||=|0.861|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.861
95801628|NCT03837938|191575879|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
95992878|NCT00849667|191961630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.72|0.2938
95992879|NCT00849667|191961630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.02|0.58|0.0318
95761499|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.69||||||95.0|-7.75|5.86||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.86|-7.75|
95761500|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|72.87||||||95.0|63.32|81.07||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||81.07|63.32|
95801629|NCT03837938|191575879|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Daytime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
95801630|NCT03837938|191575879|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nightime at Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
95801631|NCT03837938|191575879|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Nighttime at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
95801632|NCT03837938|191575880|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||Visit 2, Day 4||||<0.001
95801633|NCT03837938|191575880|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin was defined as 20%|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||at Visit 3, Day 8||||<0.001
95992880|NCT00849667|191961631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.21|0.85|0.5636
95992881|NCT00849667|191961631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test||||1.09|0.76|0.1560
95992882|NCT00849667|191961633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.0|-5.4|0.6864
95992883|NCT00849667|191961633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.4||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.6|-4.8|0.4923
95801634|NCT03837938|191575881|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as 20%|||||=|0.336|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Between groups change was tested using two sample t-test (normal data) or Mann-Whitney test (violation of normality).||||||=0.336
95801635|NCT00504309|191575883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Tukey p-values were used for post hoc comparisons.||Fasting triglycerides (mg/dL) were measured on two consecutive days and averaged for analysis at the end of each treatment period. The null hypothesis was that triglycerides did not differ between groups.||||0.002
95801636|NCT00504309|191575883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol values were compared as the average of two fasting values at the end of each treatment. Cholesterol values included LDL-C, HDL-C, total cholesterol, and calculated ratios.||||> 0.05
95801637|NCT03345095|191575896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-2.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.5|-8.6|0.0004
95761501|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|84.92||||||95.0|76.73|91.05||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||91.05|76.73|
95761502|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|57.94||||||95.0|48.01|67.42||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||67.42|48.01|
95761503|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|62.81||||||95.0|52.33|72.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||72.20|52.33|
95761504|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|92.27||||||95.0|85.26|96.54||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||96.54|85.26|
95761505|NCT00205803|191490786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|5.61||||||95.0|1.23|11.86||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||11.86|1.23|
95761506|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.9|3.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.6|-7.9|
95761507|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
95761508|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-6.9|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-6.9|
95761509|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
95801638|NCT03345095|191575897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.16|-1.27|0.15
95801639|NCT04937387|191575898|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.147|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.147|-0.030|
95801640|NCT04937387|191575898|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.025|0.115|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.115|0.025|
95801641|NCT04937387|191575898|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 and FF/VI 100/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.123|0.005|
95801642|NCT04937387|191575899|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.084|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline trough FEV1 value, visit, and interaction terms for baseline trough FEV1-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.084|-0.094|
95801643|NCT04937387|191575899|OTHER||Posterior Mean|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.103|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.103|-0.071|
95801644|NCT04937387|191575899|OTHER||Posterior Median|0.023||||||95.0|-0.086|0.11|||||Analysis was conducted in the Bayesian paradigm using the pre-specified mixture prior distribution, which was updated with the treatment difference between FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 and FF/VI 200/25 estimated in the MMRM analysis.|||0.110|-0.086|
95801645|NCT04937387|191575900|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0823|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.134|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.134|-0.190|
95859727|NCT02840461|191677488|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population. If the confidence interval is within 80-125% for the primary endpoint, then the Test and Reference treatments are considered therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|103.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|110.0||||||||110.00|97.95|
95761510|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.7|3.9||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.9|-4.7|
95761511|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
95761512|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-2.6|7.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.7|-2.6|
95992884|NCT00849667|191961636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||4.1|-4.9|0.8106
95992885|NCT00849667|191961636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% serological response||8.8|1.4|0.0064
95761513|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|97.8||||||95.0|92.3|99.7||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||99.7|92.3|
95761514|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|83.6||||||95.0|73.2|90.8||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||90.8|73.2|
95761515|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|29.5||||||95.0|19.7|40.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||40.9|19.7|
95761516|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0||||||95.0|5.9|20.4||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||20.4|5.9|
95761517|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|94.1||||||95.0|86.8|98.1||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||98.1|86.8|
95761518|NCT00205803|191490787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.6|4.0||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.0|-4.6|
95761519|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76||||||95.0|0.59|0.96||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.59|
95761520|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.62|1.48||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.48|0.62|
95761521|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.85||||||95.0|0.69|1.05||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.05|0.69|
95992886|NCT00849667|191961636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.1||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||10.2|-2.0|0.3005
95761522|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.6|1.11||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.11|0.60|
95761523|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.49|0.79||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.79|0.49|
95761524|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.67|1.09||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.67|
95761525|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.59|1.0||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.59|
95761526|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|39.78||||||95.0|27.47|57.63||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||57.63|27.47|
95761527|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|15.56||||||95.0|11.63|20.81||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||20.81|11.63|
95761528|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|8.67||||||95.0|6.65|11.29||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||11.29|6.65|
95761529|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|9.6||||||95.0|7.07|13.04||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||13.04|7.07|
95761530|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|26.78||||||95.0|20.97|34.22||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||34.22|20.97|
95761531|NCT00205803|191490788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.71||||||95.0|1.36|2.16||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.16|1.36|
95761532|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.08||||||95.0|-7.22|13.73||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.73|-7.22|
95761533|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.02||||||95.0|-7.28|21.14||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||21.14|-7.28|
95761534|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
95761535|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL and 0.1 IU/mL thresholds was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
95992887|NCT00849667|191961636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||75% serological response||9.9|-2.5|0.2445
95761536|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-5.97|5.68||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||5.68|-5.97|
95761537|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.24||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.24|-8.80|
95761538|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.64||||||95.0|-8.8|4.21||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||4.21|-8.80|
95761539|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-9.38|7.73||||||For Hepatitis b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 10 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||7.73|-9.38|
95761540|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.74||||||95.0|-11.0|6.99||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 82.00 EU/MI threshold was calculated||6.99|-11.00|
95761541|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.36||||||95.0|-17.03|3.16||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 43.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.16|-17.03|
95761542|NCT00205803|191490790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.33||||||95.0|-6.79|9.68||||||For Pertussis - Pertactin the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 18.00 EU/mL threshold was calculated||9.68|-6.79|
95761543|NCT00205803|191490791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.14||||||||2.14|0.69|
95992888|NCT00849667|191961636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.3||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.4|-2.8|0.2797
95992889|NCT00849667|191961636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.9||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Serologic response leading to normalization||13.0|-3.2|0.2136
95992890|NCT00110994|191961648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.034|||log rank test|||||1.034|0.428|0.068
95992891|NCT00110994|191961649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.57|||log rank test|||||1.570|0.627|0.973
95992892|NCT00110994|191961651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.98|||log rank test|||||0.980|0.391|0.039
95992893|NCT00110994|191961652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.427||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|1.601|||log rank test|||||1.601|0.114|0.194
95992894|NCT00110994|191961654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.908
95992895|NCT00110994|191961655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
95992896|NCT00110994|191961656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.201
95761544|NCT00205803|191490792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48||||||||1.48|0.63|
95761545|NCT00205803|191490793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.21||||||||1.21|0.57|
95992897|NCT00110994|191961657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168
95992898|NCT01879410|191961681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg minus FSC 250/50 mcg.|||0.139|0.063|<0.001
95761546|NCT00205803|191490794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53||||||Polio Type 1||1.53|0.66|
95761547|NCT00205803|191490794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49||||||Polio Type 2||1.49|0.56|
95761548|NCT00205803|191490794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.84||||||Polio Type 3||1.84|0.69|
95761549|NCT00205803|191490795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Pertussis - FHA||1.15|0.74|
95761550|NCT00205803|191490795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||||||Pertussis - PT||1.25|0.83|
95761551|NCT00205803|191490795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44||||||Pertussis - Pertactin||1.44|0.76|
95859728|NCT02840461|191677488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-3.42|||ANOVA|||||-3.42|-16.24|0.0027
95992899|NCT00773279|191961683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A two-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference, PDS290 minus FlexPen, in HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment. PDS290 was to be declared non-inferior to FlexPen® if the upper limit of that CI would be less than the non-inferiority margin 0.40 % (absolute)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.127|0.032|||Linear mixed effect model|Linear mixed effect model with period and delivery systems as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||The null hypothesis is that PDS290 be not non-inferior to FlexPen® with respect to HbA1c after 12 weeks of treatment; non-inferiority margin is 0.4 % (absolute).||0.032|-0.127|
95992900|NCT01227967|191961699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-0.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Combination Therapy minus the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Combination Therapy was better than the Oseltamivir Monotherapy and that the detectable rate in the Combination Therapy was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the Oseltamivir Monotherapy (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-0.2|-19.8|0.046
95992901|NCT03403400|191961714|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.893||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between groups in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between groups in mCTSIB||||.640
95992902|NCT03403400|191961714|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.196||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in mCTSIB||||.18
95992903|NCT03403400|191961715|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in TUG Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in TUG||||.67
95761552|NCT01595386|191490805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study sample size was powered to detect a 60% difference in LCOS between groups at α 0.05 and β 0.70, assuming the prevalence of LCOS after neonatal bypass of 65% (based on retrospective data of patients who died, required rescue steroids, ECMO, or epinephrine \> 0.1 μg/kg/min).||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95761553|NCT01595386|191490806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
95761554|NCT01595386|191490807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95761555|NCT01595386|191490808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95761556|NCT01595386|191490808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||interleukin-6 at 12, 24, and 48 hour. A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95761557|NCT01595386|191490808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||TNF-alpha at 12, 24, and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95761558|NCT01595386|191490808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin1-beta at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95761559|NCT01595386|191490808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Interleukin-8 at 24 and 48 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95761560|NCT01595386|191490808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL-10 at 4 hours.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95761561|NCT01595386|191490809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95761562|NCT01595386|191490810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95761563|NCT01595386|191490811|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95761564|NCT01595386|191490812|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
95761565|NCT01595386|191490813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95761566|NCT01595386|191490814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95761567|NCT01595386|191490815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95761568|NCT01595386|191490815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||post-operative cortisol.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95761569|NCT01595386|191490815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adrenal Insufficiency after bypass.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95761570|NCT01595386|191490815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was not a power calculation for this statistic||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Development of Low cardiac output syndrome in subjects with Adrenal Insufficiency.A p-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95761571|NCT04784533|191490830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|26.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||26.8|5.5|
95761572|NCT04784533|191490830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.9|1.3|
95761573|NCT04784533|191490830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|37.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||37.5|15.4|
95761574|NCT04784533|191490830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|31.3|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.3|8.5|
95761575|NCT04784533|191490831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 8||3.9|-2.7|
95761576|NCT04784533|191490831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||17.9|3.3|
95761577|NCT04784533|191490831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|22.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||22.8|5.3|
95761578|NCT04784533|191490831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|29.5|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||29.5|9.2|
95859729|NCT02840461|191677488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|-3.4|||ANOVA|||||-3.40|-16.25|0.0028
95801646|NCT04937387|191575900|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.276|||||||Analysis performed using mixed effect model for repeated measures with covariates of treatment, age, sex, eCRF-reported pre-study ICS dosage at screening (med, high), baseline ACQ-7 total score, visit, and interaction terms for baseline ACQ-7 total score-by-visit and treatment-by-visit, covariance structure = unstructured.|0.276|-0.052|
95801647|NCT06901544|191575901|OTHER|Comparison of 28-day mortality between groups using chi-squared test.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95801648|NCT06901544|191575902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|2.207|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.207|-0.567|0.243
95761579|NCT04784533|191490831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|31.7|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.7|9.8|
95761580|NCT04784533|191490832|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||||LS means,standard error(SE),and confidence intervals(CIs) are based on mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)analysis with effects for treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,and baseline value.The Model uses an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 4||1.8|-2.8|
95761581|NCT04784533|191490832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-2.7|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 8||-2.7|-11.9|
95761582|NCT04784533|191490832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-5.5|-19.3|
95761583|NCT04784533|191490832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.9|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-6.9|-22.2|
95761584|NCT04784533|191490832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-7.2|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-7.2|-23.7|
95761585|NCT04784533|191490832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.8|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-6.8|-24.0|
95761586|NCT04784533|191490833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|31.8|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||31.8|9.9|
95761587|NCT04784533|191490833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|25.2|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||25.2|2.5|
95761588|NCT04784533|191490833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|27.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||27.0|4.1|
95761589|NCT04784533|191490833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||25.9|2.9|
95761590|NCT04784533|191490834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 12||34.0|11.9|
95761591|NCT04784533|191490834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|33.1|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 16||33.1|10.7|
95761592|NCT04784533|191490834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|33.9|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 20||33.9|11.2|
95761593|NCT04784533|191490834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.0|||||Treatment difference is calculated as the difference between the percentage of responders in the 12 mg BID group versus the 8 mg BID group.|Week 24||31.0|8.1|
95801649|NCT06901544|191575903|OTHER|Comparison of mean PCT levels between groups using two-sample t-test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.40|0.54|0.037
95801650|NCT06922760|191575906|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.411|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.411
95801651|NCT06922760|191575906|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.161|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
95801652|NCT06922760|191575907|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
95801653|NCT06922760|191575907|OTHER|Statistical Test of Hypothesis||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
95801654|NCT05894564|191575913|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\>1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.10|0.88|
95801655|NCT05894564|191575914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.65|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||5.65|0.05|
95801656|NCT05894564|191575917|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(HR\<1))|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.28|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.28|0.31|
95992904|NCT03403400|191961715|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group Ha: There is a significant difference in TUG between the prescribed walking and control group||||.71
95801657|NCT05894564|191575918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.87|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.87|0.56|
95801658|NCT05894564|191575919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.16|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.16|0.25|
95761594|NCT04784533|191490835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|
95761595|NCT04784533|191490835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.4|-1.1|
95761596|NCT04784533|191490835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.4|-1.2|
95761597|NCT04784533|191490835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|
95761598|NCT04784533|191490836|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|
95761599|NCT04784533|191490836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 16||-0.3|-1.0|
95761600|NCT04784533|191490836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 20||-0.5|-1.2|
95761601|NCT04784533|191490836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||||LS means, SE, and CIs are based on an MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Week 24||-0.4|-1.2|
95761602|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
95761603|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
95992905|NCT03403400|191961716|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.803|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DGI||||.67
95761604|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
95761605|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.2|-0.8|
95761606|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.3|-0.8|
95801659|NCT05894564|191575920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||1.74|0.33|
95801660|NCT05894564|191575921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.21|0.71|
95801661|NCT05894564|191575921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.19|0.67|
95992906|NCT03403400|191961716|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|0.66||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the prescribed walking group and the control group in DGI Ha: There is a significant difference between the prescribed walking group and control group in DGI||||.42
95801662|NCT05894564|191575921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.19|0.61|
95801663|NCT05894564|191575921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.61|
95801664|NCT05894564|191575921|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.49|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.49|0.70|
95801665|NCT05894564|191575922|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.80|
95801666|NCT05894564|191575922|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.26|0.77|
95801667|NCT05894564|191575922|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.67|
95801668|NCT05894564|191575922|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.77|
95801669|NCT05894564|191575922|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.33|0.76|
95992907|NCT03403400|191961717|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.386||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference between the groups in DHI Ha: There is a significant difference between the groups in DHI||||.11
95801670|NCT05894564|191575923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.65|
95801671|NCT05894564|191575923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
95801672|NCT05894564|191575923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.21|0.64|
95801673|NCT05894564|191575923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.73|0.87|
95801674|NCT05894564|191575923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.64|0.85|
95801675|NCT05894564|191575924|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.74|
95801676|NCT05894564|191575924|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.10|0.59|
95801677|NCT05894564|191575924|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.59|
95801678|NCT05894564|191575924|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.62|0.83|
95992908|NCT03403400|191961717|EQUIVALENCE|comparison of variance|Test Statistics|4.351||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Ho: There is no significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group Ha: There is a significant difference in DHI between the prescribed walking group and the control group||||.04
95992909|NCT01107444|191961721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||||||The t-test was based on the logarithm of the ratio of tumor size at Cycle 2 to that at baseline as this measure follows a normal distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.284
95992910|NCT01260454|191961818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is open-label, uncontrolled data; the comparison is made between each individual's baseline.||||0.03
95992911|NCT01446419|191961827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA with factors of tx group, analysis center and tx group by analysis center interaction, and a covariate of baseline ODI score.||||||0.019
95992912|NCT01228903|191961836|EQUIVALENCE|(Doehner et al.) CHF patients on allopurinol (n= 14) had improved BA-FMD= 10.6 ± 2.0 (mean ± SE) vs placebo (n= 14, FMD= 6.7 ± 0.1); difference in means= 3.9. Yiginer et al. found a similar difference in metabolic syndrome. A sample size of 34/group will have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.9 (common standard deviation=5.6, two group t-test=0.050 two-sided significance). Accounting for a potential drop-out rate17%, n= 40/group was recruited.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value represents the difference between the change from baseline in both groups.|The null hypothesis was the there will be no difference between the placebo and allopurinol. The power for the study was calculated (as appropriate) based on the prior literature.||||0.47
95992913|NCT03434379|191961850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.79|0.42|0.0006
95992914|NCT03434379|191961850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP: \<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.52|0.0009
95992915|NCT03434379|191961851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
95992916|NCT03434379|191961852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.76|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 18 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.76|0.25|0.0026
95859439|NCT00541385|191676265|NON_INFERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of PA compared to the AL group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 using a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (Newcombe Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin for the EE population. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in 28-day PCR-corrected ACPR was not lower than 10%.|ACPR percent difference|-1.2||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||If non-inferiority of PA was demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-Square test. If the calculated p-value was \<0.05, then the superiority of PA over AL was statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate on Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate for the AL group."||2.1|-3.6|0.3728
95859440|NCT04939415|191676344|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
95859441|NCT04939415|191676345|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.023||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
95859442|NCT04939415|191676347|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.073||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
95859443|NCT04939415|191676348|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|2.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.488
95992917|NCT03434379|191961852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Log Rank|||At CCOD 30 months; Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.80|0.35|0.0019
95992918|NCT03434379|191961853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.40|0.0117
95992919|NCT03434379|191961854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.01|1.68|<0.0001
95992920|NCT03434379|191961855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.71|2.02|<0.0001
95992921|NCT03434379|191961856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.66|2.99|<0.0001
95992922|NCT03434379|191961857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.7|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.70|0.08|0.0051
95992923|NCT03434379|191961858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.12|0.0048
95992924|NCT03434379|191961859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.15|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||2.15|0.16|0.4187
95761607|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.3|-0.7|
95761608|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.3|-0.8|
95761609|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
95761610|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.2|-0.8|
95761611|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.1|-0.6|
95761612|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.1|-0.7|
95761613|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.2|-0.7|
95801679|NCT05894564|191575924|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.34|0.70|
95761614|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.2|-0.7|
95801680|NCT05894564|191575925|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.34|0.79|
95801681|NCT05894564|191575925|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.74|
95801682|NCT05894564|191575925|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.64|
95801683|NCT05894564|191575925|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.34|0.70|
95801684|NCT05894564|191575925|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.25|0.64|
95801685|NCT05894564|191575926|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.01|0.61|
95801686|NCT05894564|191575926|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.11|0.64|
95801687|NCT05894564|191575926|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.63|
95801688|NCT05894564|191575926|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.60|
95801689|NCT05894564|191575926|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.24|0.67|
95992925|NCT03434379|191961860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.46|<.0001
95992926|NCT03434379|191961861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.36|<.0001
95992927|NCT03434379|191961862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.92|0.53|0.0105
95761615|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.2|-0.7|
95761616|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.2|-0.7|
95761617|NCT04784533|191490837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||||LS means, SEs, and CIs are based on a mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score. The model is fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.3|-0.8|
95761618|NCT02731638|191490852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|Bias-corrected logistic regression, accounting for baseline culture status||||5.23|0.65|0.26
95761619|NCT02731638|191490853|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|1.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.4|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicated worsened visual acuity|||4.4|-1.2|0.25
95761620|NCT02731638|191490853|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||Regression, Linear||Positive coefficients of the logMAR value indicate worsened visual acuity|||3.6|-2.6|0.75
95761621|NCT02454608|191490860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95761622|NCT02454608|191490861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95761623|NCT02454608|191490862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95761624|NCT02454608|191490863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95761625|NCT02454608|191490864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95761626|NCT02454608|191490865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95761627|NCT02454608|191490866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95761628|NCT04856930|191490869|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.7841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.73||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|Linear repeated measures model (LRMM)|||||1.73|-2.42|0.7841
95761629|NCT04856930|191490869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|3.4||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||3.40|-0.74|0.2885
95761630|NCT04856930|191490870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.5939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|10.07||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||10.07|-19.66|0.5939
95761631|NCT04856930|191490870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|18.29||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates; baseline AN count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.29|-11.38|0.7002
95761632|NCT04856930|191490871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|23.4|||||Estimate parameter and 90% CI was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional confidence intervals (CI).|||23.4|-13.3|
95761633|NCT04856930|191490871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|21.0|||||Estimate parameter and 90% C was based on Unadjusted Risk Difference and exact unconditional CIs.|||21.0|-14.6|
95761634|NCT04856930|191490872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.7||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.70|-1.08|0.7282
95801690|NCT05894564|191575927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.81|
95992928|NCT03434379|191961863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.90|0.52|0.0063
95992929|NCT03434379|191961864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.57|||Log Rank|||Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.57|0.35|<.0001
95992930|NCT03434379|191961865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.78|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.78|0.32|0.0019
95801691|NCT05894564|191575927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.76|
95992931|NCT03434379|191961865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/= 400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.06|0.42|0.0879
95992932|NCT03434379|191961866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||Log Rank|||AFP\<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.68|0.37|<.0001
95992933|NCT03434379|191961866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||1.15|0.53|0.2159
95761635|NCT04856930|191490872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.53||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.53|-1.25|0.5019
95761636|NCT04856930|191490873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.67||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.67|-0.96|0.7698
95761637|NCT04856930|191490873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.65||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||0.65|-0.97|0.7468
95761638|NCT04856930|191490874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.46||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.57|13.14||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||13.14|-64.57|0.2750
95761639|NCT04856930|191490874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.81||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.6|18.28||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline worst HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||18.28|-60.60|0.3757
95761640|NCT04856930|191490875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.04||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.22|15.05||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||15.05|-28.22|0.6146
95761641|NCT04856930|191490875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.35|12.62||LS Mean, Standard error, 90% CI, p-value based on LRMM which included: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Hurley Stage at baseline (II vs. III) as categorical covariates and baseline average HS Pain NRS as a continuous covariate.|LRMM|||||12.62|-30.35|0.4951
95761642|NCT03126435|191490901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6647|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.6647
95761643|NCT03126435|191490902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4345|||||||Log Rank|P-Value is from a stratified log-rank test.||||||0.4345
95761644|NCT03126435|191490903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records||||||0.2632
95761645|NCT03126435|191490905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1002|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.1002
95761646|NCT03126435|191490906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors among non-missing records.||||||0.9882
95761647|NCT04841577|191490915|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine is ≤ (equal to or smaller than) 1.5.|Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.44||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-A Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-A neutralizing antibodies The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.44|1.12|
95801692|NCT05894564|191575927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.72|
95859444|NCT04939415|191676350|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|3.243||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.231
95992934|NCT03434379|191961867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.57|||Log Rank|||AFP \<400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.57|0.31|<0.0001
95801693|NCT05894564|191575927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.79|
95761648|NCT04841577|191490916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35||||||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.35|1.02|
95761649|NCT04841577|191490916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.44||||||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.44|1.03|
95761650|NCT04841577|191490916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||||||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, an ANCOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.32|1.04|
95761651|NCT04841577|191490916|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio \[Control group divided by Co Ad group\] for each of the FLU vaccine strains is ≤1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26||||||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 transformed titer as covariate.||1.26|0.95|
95761652|NCT04841577|191490917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Hong Kong/2671/2019 (H3N2) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.30|-4.13|
95761653|NCT04841577|191490917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|9.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||9.83|-0.77|
95761654|NCT04841577|191490917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|10.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||10.28|-2.21|
95761655|NCT04841577|191490917|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in seroconversion rate is ≤10% for HI antibody titers.|Difference in percentage|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||For the Flu B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria) strain, the 2-sided 95% CI on group difference in seroconversion rate (Control group minus Co-Ad group).||6.90|-6.07|
95761656|NCT04841577|191490919|OTHER||Adjusted group GMT ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over Co-Ad Group in RSV-B Neutralizing antibody GMTs at one month after RSV\_PreF3 OA investigational vaccination. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed titers of RSV-B neutralizing antibodies. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years), country and sex as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.||1.51|1.09|
95761657|NCT02370238|191490934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.81|0.71|0.589
95761658|NCT02370238|191490935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65||p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomized sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.64|0.897
95801694|NCT05894564|191575927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 120||1.01|0.64|
95859445|NCT04939415|191676351|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.034||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
95761659|NCT02370238|191490936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4909|3.963||P-value is based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios.|Zelen's test|||||3.963|0.4909|0.667
95801695|NCT05894564|191575928|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference in MTU (Active - Placebo)\<0))|Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.26|||||The mean time unwell is estimated from receipt of study drug to study day 14. The interval is a highest density credible interval.|No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.26|-0.56|
95992935|NCT03434379|191961867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.73|||Log Rank|||AFP \>/=400 ng/mL and stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence).||0.73|0.35|0.0002
95992936|NCT03434379|191961868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.73|0.39|<.0001
95992937|NCT03434379|191961868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.84|0.46|0.0019
95992938|NCT03434379|191961868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.85|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by geographic region (Asia \[excluding Japan\] vs. rest of world), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.85|0.46|0.0028
95992939|NCT03434379|191961873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||13.86|1.53|0.0036
95992940|NCT03434379|191961874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|12.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||12.87|1.72|0.0013
95761660|NCT02370238|191490938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||For the All Patients group, p-value was based on a log-rank test stratified by actual sub-populations, newly diagnosed metastatic patients and patients that had relapsed following a prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimen.|Log Rank|||||||0.767
95761661|NCT02370238|191490939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.101||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.79||P-value was based on Zelen's test for homogeneity of the odds ratios|Zelen's test|||||2.790|0.437|0.667
95761662|NCT01937871|191490942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.57||||||||-0.57|-2.25|
95761663|NCT01937871|191490946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.18||||||||0.18|-1.87|
95761664|NCT05246670|191490964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|5.74||||||||5.74|-1.33|
95761665|NCT05246670|191490964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|5.41||||||||5.41|-5.23|
95801696|NCT05894564|191575929|SUPERIORITY|Posterior probability of efficacy (P(Difference days benefit (Active - Placebo)\>0))|Difference in model estimated means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.68|||||The interval is a highest density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.68|-0.29|
95992941|NCT03434379|191961875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|17.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||17.39|1.47|0.0052
95992942|NCT03434379|191961876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.85|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||5.85|0.02|0.4581
95992943|NCT03434379|191961877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||Log Rank||Lower limit: \<0.01|Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.91|0.01|0.0100
95761666|NCT05246670|191490964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.09||||||||7.09|-2.87|
95761667|NCT02652949|191490980|SUPERIORITY||Event rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
95761668|NCT05124691|191491030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
95761669|NCT05124691|191491030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
95761670|NCT05124691|191491030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates within the three study groups, considering an overall significance level of 0.05. To account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied, resulting in an adjusted significance level of 0.0167||||<0.0001
95761671|NCT05124691|191491033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||<0.0001
95859446|NCT04939415|191676352|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.083||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.||||||1.000
95761672|NCT05124691|191491033|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pairwise comparisons of cure rates were conducted between Albendazole and FDCx3, as well as FDCx1 and FDCx3, but not between Albendazole and FDCx1, since both contain the same dose regimen of the active drug. An overall significance level of 0.05 was considered, and to account for multiple testing, a Bonferroni correction was applied.||||=0.0007
95761673|NCT05124691|191491036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95761674|NCT05124691|191491036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761675|NCT05124691|191491036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761676|NCT00428116|191491053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||WAZ-score comparison at 18 months||||0.15
95761677|NCT00428116|191491053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAZ score at 18 months||||0.45
95761678|NCT00428116|191491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||log rank or Cox regression|incidence with Cox regression utilized Anderson-Gill method to handle recurrent events||SAEs||||0.39
95761679|NCT00428116|191491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox regression Anderson Gill|||Pneumonia||||0.60
95761680|NCT00428116|191491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Pneumonia||||0.60
95761681|NCT00428116|191491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Diarrhea||||0.77
95761682|NCT00428116|191491054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Death||||0.29
95761683|NCT01890434|191491059|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|16.7||||9e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|9.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||9.3|0.00009
95801697|NCT01524705|191576042|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon||||<|0.024||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used due to nonnormality distribution|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-tailed t test with type I error = 0.05, a sample of 110 participants (55 per group) would give 90% power to detect a difference of a mean change from baseline of 5 CV units (SD = 8) between control and treatment groups. An ANCOVA model, adjusting for baseline value and clinical site, was to be performed. If residual values from the ANCOVA indicated nonnormality in distribution by Shapiro-Wilk testing, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used instead.||||<0.024
95801698|NCT01524705|191576044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95859447|NCT04939415|191676354|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.213||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||0.462
95761684|NCT01890434|191491059|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|26.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.2||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||18.2|<0.0001
95761685|NCT01890434|191491059|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|32.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|24.5||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||24.5|<0.0001
95761686|NCT01890434|191491060|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.0||||5e-05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|12.1||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 1.|||12.1|0.00005
95761687|NCT01890434|191491060|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|36.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.3||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 2.|||26.3|<0.0001
95761688|NCT01890434|191491060|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|41.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.8||||McNemar|McNemar one-sided test at alpha level of 2.5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI evaluated by Reader 3.|||31.8|<0.0001
95761689|NCT01890434|191491065|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|28.4|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of unenhanced CMRI.||28.4|12.9|<0.0001
95761690|NCT01890434|191491065|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity Difference|21.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|27.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 10%||||27.2|14.2|<0.0001
95761691|NCT01890434|191491067|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%|Sensitivity Difference|5.7||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|14.9|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by majority BR.||14.9|-5.4|0.2733
95761692|NCT01890434|191491067|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Sensitivity Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Sensitivity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with sensitivity of GSPECT evaluated by investigator.||7.2|-8.6|1.0000
95761693|NCT01890434|191491069|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|11.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|17.0|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by majority BR.||17.0|4.1|0.0010
95761694|NCT01890434|191491069|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin was set as 15%.|Specificity Difference|7.8||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.2|||McNemar|McNemar 2-sided test at alpha level of 5%||Specificity of gadobutrol-enhanced CMRI was compared with specificity of GSPECT by investigator.||13.2|1.6|0.0094
95761695|NCT01044264|191491089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|BE of the test to reference in the per protocol population|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.47|113.54|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||113.54|92.47|
95761696|NCT05147324|191491112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95761697|NCT05147324|191491113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95761698|NCT05147324|191491121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95761699|NCT01727726|191491122|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.39|-2.56|0.0078
95761700|NCT01727726|191491122|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||1.04|-1.63|0.6642
95761701|NCT01727726|191491123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.07|-0.52|0.1334
95801699|NCT01524705|191576045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95801700|NCT00412451|191576046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Fisher Exact|||||999.999|0.001|0.131
95761702|NCT01727726|191491123|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.78|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.78|0.06|0.0237
95761703|NCT01727726|191491124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.76|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 2||-0.76|-2.29|0.0001
95761704|NCT01727726|191491124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.29|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 2||-0.29|-2.15|0.0103
95761705|NCT01727726|191491124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.2|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B week 4||-0.20|-2.15|0.0185
95761706|NCT01727726|191491124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.11|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Phase B Week 4||1.11|-1.27|0.8949
95761707|NCT01727726|191491125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||-0.01|-0.29|0.0350
95761708|NCT01727726|191491125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Severity of Illness Scale Score||0.12|-0.22|0.5601
95761709|NCT01727726|191491125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||-0.04|-0.35|0.0146
95761710|NCT01727726|191491125|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-Improvement Scale Score||0.15|-0.23|0.7127
95801701|NCT00412451|191576046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|2.4|||Fisher Exact|||||2.400|0.132|0.670
95801702|NCT00412451|191576046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.346||||0.372||95.0|0.07|1.703|||Fisher Exact|||||1.703|0.070|0.372
95801703|NCT00397930|191576089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Between-group differences are expressed as differences in mean Post-Pre change for the global sleep quality PSQI score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with post-intervention PSQI score as the outcome, with Group as the factor, and pre-intervention PSQI score as the covariate.|The negative estimated value indicates that the mean Post-Pre change for the YOCAS group was less than that of the Control group.|"H0: There is no statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level.~Ha: There is a statistically significant difference in global sleep quality between post-treatment cancer survivors under the standardized yoga intervention and control protocol at the 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||0.009
95801704|NCT00505362|191576099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95801705|NCT00505362|191576100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95859448|NCT04939415|191676355|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.153||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The Chi-square metric represents the difference between the expected and observed frequencies of an event, therefore it is the ratio of frequencies.|||||1.000
95761711|NCT01727726|191491126|OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.84|0.78|0.2242
95761712|NCT01727726|191491126|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.98|0.53|0.5998
95761713|NCT01727726|191491127|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||3.49|0.66|0.3321
95801706|NCT02400580|191576113|OTHER|||||||0.517|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.517
95859449|NCT04939415|191676356|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.185||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group by Day interaction||||||0.668
95859450|NCT04939415|191676357|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.032||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.860
95859451|NCT04939415|191676358|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.035||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||0.853
95761714|NCT01727726|191491127|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.51||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||2.46|0.11|0.3917
95761715|NCT01727726|191491128|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.66|1.10|0.0032
95761716|NCT01727726|191491128|OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.24||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Phase B Week 6||1.59|0.98|0.0898
95761717|NCT01727726|191491130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.56|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||0.56|-0.25|0.4480
95761718|NCT01727726|191491130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.02|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Work/School Score||1.02|0.03|0.0380
95801707|NCT02400580|191576115|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.508
95801708|NCT01060111|191576121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6207|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.6207
95801709|NCT01060111|191576121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferioirity was to be concluded if the ratio of percentage decrease in migraine episodes was greater than 0.7. Power of calculation was 0.9, significance level was 0.025.|Ratio of percentage decrease|0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.737|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.737|0.519|0.5
95801710|NCT01060111|191576122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7247|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.7247
95801711|NCT01060111|191576123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9872|||||||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.||||||0.9872
95801712|NCT01060111|191576124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4326||||||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for treatment groups (Topiramate standard, Topiramate slow, Topiramate slow and Propranolol booster) was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.4326
95801713|NCT02993302|191576185|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95801714|NCT02993302|191576186|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95859452|NCT04939415|191676359|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.995
95761719|NCT01727726|191491130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||-0.01|-0.66|0.0436
95761720|NCT01727726|191491130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Social Life Score||0.84|0.03|0.0350
95761721|NCT01727726|191491130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0424
95761722|NCT01727726|191491130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.75|||MMRM|Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||Family Life Score||0.75|-0.09|0.1230
95761723|NCT00863772|191491138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||1.01|-0.44|0.434
95761724|NCT00863772|191491138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.79|-0.68|0.883
95761725|NCT00863772|191491139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.86|-0.59|0.720
95761726|NCT00863772|191491139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.74|-0.73|0.985
95761727|NCT01004003|191491185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.565|||||"Hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.565|0.805|
95761728|NCT01004003|191491188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.343|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.343|0.779|
95761729|NCT01004003|191491189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.473|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.473|0.522|
95761730|NCT03390426|191491242|SUPERIORITY|"this is a superiority study and the non-inferiority or equivalence analysis is not required"|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons were made using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.||We determined 30 subjects were needed to detect a 50% difference in THN incidence between the two groups using a one-sided Fisher's exact test with alpha = 0.05 and 80% power while allowing up to 20% drop-out. For primary and secondary outcomes, comparisons were made between the two groups using a two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. p-value of \<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
95761731|NCT03301623|191491282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Test is on interaction term between time (pre/post intervention) and treatment group (CDSvsPEAT) dummy variables in the regression model.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing pain interference over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.52|-2.9|.541
95761732|NCT03301623|191491283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|There were 69 providers with at least one CG-CAHPS response.|The interaction term describes the change in the PEAT group's scores in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving how satisfied patients feel over time after communicating with their physician about chronic pain treatment risks and benefits?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||7.31|1.20|.019
95801715|NCT02993302|191576187|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95801716|NCT02030418|191576256|SUPERIORITY|"The primary safety hypothesis is:~H0: CFR ≤ 86% vs. H1: CFR \> 86% Where CFR is the Complication Free Rate. The CFR is estimated as a binomial proportion and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of CFR is calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of this CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 86%."|binomial proportion|93.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|95.9|||1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||95.9|89.9|<0.001
95801717|NCT02030418|191576257|SUPERIORITY|"The primary effectiveness hypothesis is:~H0: Rate ≤ 85.0% vs. H1: Rate \> 85.0%~where Rate is the proportion of subjects experiencing success, and success is defined as: pacing threshold voltage ≤ 2.0 V at 0.4 ms at 6-month visit and sensed R-wave amplitude either ≥ 5.0 mV at the 6-month visit or ≥ value at implant."|binomial proportion|93.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|96.0||The null hypothesis is rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower bound of the CI exceeds the Performance Goal (PG) of 85%.|1-sided exact test for binomial proporti|||||96.0|89.9|<0.001
95992944|NCT03434379|191961878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||3.69|0.03|0.3477
95992945|NCT03434379|191961879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.89|0.40|0.0103
95859453|NCT04939415|191676360|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.27||||0.266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
95859454|NCT04939415|191676361|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.533||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction is reported.|||||0.039
95761733|NCT03301623|191491284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in improving physical function over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the participant level."||1.88|-2.73|.719
95761734|NCT03301623|191491285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|"Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing opioid prescriptions of more than 90 morphine milligrams equivalent (MME) over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?~Regression model includes a fixed effect for time and an interaction effect between pre/post intervention and intervention arm dummy variables. Analysis is clustered at the PCP level."||2.36|1.13|.010
95761735|NCT03301623|191491286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|Question: Which communication strategy used during the clinical encounter is more effective in reducing co-prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines over time for patients with chronic pain who were taking opioids at baseline?||1.71|.34|.510
95761736|NCT03301623|191491287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|We employed robust standard errors clustered at the participant level. Time was controlled for using a fixed effect.|The interaction term describes the effect of PEAT in the post period.|PHQ-9 was categorized by assigning scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 to the response categories (not at all: several days, more than half the days, nearly every day, respectively) and then summing. Scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represent cutpoints for mild, moderate, moderately severe and severe depression, respectively. The analysis was conducted as a multilevel ordered logistic regression.||2.34|.76|.260
95801718|NCT02030418|191576258|OTHER|"The hypothesis is intended to test whether the mean slope is within 35% of 1. The hypothesis is stated as follows:~H0: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) ≥ equivalence margin, equal to 35%~H1: absolute value (Mean Slope - 100%) \< equivalence margin, equal to 35%~The calculation of slope for individual subjects in the CAEP exercise protocol is done by setting the y-intercept to zero."|Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||two 1-sided test (TOST)|||||0.93|0.73|0.001
95801719|NCT01179516|191576326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.14||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure for each dose was applied to compare 10 mg and 15 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.14|-3.71|0.597
95801720|NCT01179516|191576326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.501||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.46|-3.44|0.745
95801721|NCT01179516|191576327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.232||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.995|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.995|0.761|0.396
95801722|NCT01179516|191576327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.963|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.963|0.748|0.435
95801723|NCT01179516|191576328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.21|-0.38|0.554
95801724|NCT01179516|191576328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.25|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.25|-0.35|0.739
95801725|NCT01179516|191576329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|3.5|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.50|-5.43|0.670
95801726|NCT01179516|191576329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.295||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.26|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||6.26|-2.80|0.451
95801727|NCT01179516|191576330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.291||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|2.211|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||2.211|0.754|0.352
95801728|NCT01179516|191576330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.928|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS total score.||||1.928|0.646|0.694
95801729|NCT01179516|191576331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.55|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.55|-3.38|0.464
95859455|NCT04939415|191676361|SUPERIORITY||F Ratio|13.897|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,23||day 0 to day 14 for the mQFPD group were examined.||||<0.001
95859456|NCT04939415|191676361|SUPERIORITY||F ratio|0.41||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 1,20||day 0 to day 14 for the Placebo Group were examined.||||0.529
95859457|NCT04939415|191676362|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.710
95761737|NCT00315731|191491314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-120)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.12|||||Ratio of AUC(0-120) is the ratio of AUC(0-120) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.12|0.85|
95761738|NCT00315731|191491315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0-168)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.11|||||Ratio of AUC(0-168) is the ratio of AUC(0-168) values following infusion of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab to those following infusion of tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab.|||1.11|0.83|
95761739|NCT00315731|191491316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of AUC(0 to infinity)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.1||||||||1.10|0.78|
95761740|NCT00315731|191491317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of AUC values after dosimetric dose of fission-derived 131I-tositumomab with historical data from tellurium-derived 131I-tositumomab|Ratio of Cmax|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||||||||1.11|0.87|
95761741|NCT02462291|191491375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||5.4|-7.9|1
95761742|NCT02462291|191491375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|40.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||40.2|26.4|<0.01
95761743|NCT02462291|191491375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-24.8|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-24.8|-38.2|<0.01
95761744|NCT02462291|191491375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|9.9|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||9.9|-3.7|1
95761745|NCT02462291|191491376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.5|-0.8|1
95801730|NCT01179516|191576331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||3.30|-1.91|0.600
95801731|NCT00896233|191576342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.81|
95801732|NCT00896233|191576342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.98|0.71|
95801733|NCT00896233|191576342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.78|
95801734|NCT00896233|191576342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.98||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||0.98|0.75|
95859458|NCT04939415|191676363|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.855||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.099
95859459|NCT04939415|191676364|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.497||||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.228
95859460|NCT04939415|191676365|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.537||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.119
95761746|NCT02462291|191491376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||-1.2|-2.6|<0.01
95761747|NCT02462291|191491376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.61|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.61|0.28|<0.01
95761748|NCT02462291|191491376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.17|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.17|-1.52|<0.01
95761749|NCT02462291|191491377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.1|-3.6|= 0.84
95761750|NCT02462291|191491377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.7|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.7|-4.3|= 0.9
95761751|NCT02462291|191491377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.69|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.69|-3.14|0.88
95761752|NCT02462291|191491377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.16|-3.73|0.89
95761753|NCT02462291|191491378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|2.73|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.73|-5.48|0.9
95761754|NCT02462291|191491378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||6.90|-1.60|0.59
95761755|NCT02462291|191491378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|1.16|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.16|-7.15|0.34
95761756|NCT02462291|191491378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|5.23|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||5.23|-3.17|0.9
95801735|NCT00896233|191576343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.80|
95801736|NCT00896233|191576343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.99||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Common ROI.||0.99|0.78|
95859461|NCT04939415|191676366|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.219||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.643
95859462|NCT04939415|191676367|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.054||||0.817|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.817
95859463|NCT04939415|191676368|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.315||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group by day interaction|||||0.578
95761757|NCT02462291|191491379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.14|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.14|-1.41|0.83
95761758|NCT02462291|191491379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.53|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||4.53|0.84|<0.01
95761759|NCT02462291|191491379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.34|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.34|-3.94|0.010
95761760|NCT02462291|191491379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.0|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||2.00|-1.64|0.84
95761761|NCT02462291|191491380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|2.95|||ANOVA|||Baseline||2.95|-0.16|0.11
95761762|NCT02462291|191491380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.41|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||2.41|-0.81|0.7
95801737|NCT00896233|191576343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.87|
95801738|NCT00896233|191576343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||ICC for measures of liver stiffness obtained by MRE (i.e., average over all 4 slices of the maximum stiffness for each slice) with respect to repeatability (precision) of multiple MRE assessments. This pertains to the Individual ROI.||1.00|0.88|
95801739|NCT00223821|191576370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|25.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||The effectiveness of each intervention was calculated by comparing the weekly frequency of incontinent episodes (derived from seven-day bladder diaries) during baseline to that in the immediate post-intervention period (week 8). The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat, in which post-treatment frequency of incontinence for non-completers was derived from the most recent week of diaries.||25.54|-5.13|.16
95859464|NCT04939415|191676369|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.215||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.643
95859465|NCT04939415|191676370|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.987||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||.159
95859466|NCT01526733|191676378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|2.71||Comparison of Day 1 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||2.71|1.71|<0.0001
95859467|NCT01526733|191676378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.08|3.29||Comparison of Day 4 Insulin (Aspart or Lispro)-rHuPH20 versus Day 1 Insulin-sham.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||||3.29|2.08|<0.0001
95859468|NCT01869764|191676440|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
95859469|NCT01869764|191676441|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
95992946|NCT03434379|191961880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.71|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.71|0.33|0.0002
95992947|NCT03434379|191961881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.07|0.43|0.0927
95761763|NCT02462291|191491380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.98|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.98|-1.17|0.88
95761764|NCT02462291|191491380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.39|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.39|-1.78|0.95
95761765|NCT02462291|191491381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.4|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.40|-0.67|0.95
95761766|NCT02462291|191491381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||0.99|-0.12|0.23
95761767|NCT02462291|191491381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.44|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.44|-0.65|0.96
95761768|NCT02462291|191491381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.01|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||1.01|-0.08|0.15
95761769|NCT02462291|191491382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.27|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.27|-1.14|0.84
95761770|NCT02462291|191491382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.54|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.54|-0.96|0.81
95761771|NCT02462291|191491382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.74|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.74|-1.71|0.86
95761772|NCT02462291|191491382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.97|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.97|-1.49|0.75
95761773|NCT02462291|191491383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|44.9|||ANOVA|||Baseline||44.9|-74.4|0.94
95761774|NCT02462291|191491383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.36||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|70.2|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||70.20|-53.47|0.87
95761775|NCT02462291|191491383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.19|30.78|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||30.78|-90.19|0.78
95761776|NCT02462291|191491383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.7|54.5|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||54.5|-67.7|0.84
95761777|NCT02462291|191491384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|4.56|||ANOVA|||Baseline||4.56|-3.73|0.74
95761778|NCT02462291|191491384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.04|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.04|-5.54|0.82
95761779|NCT02462291|191491384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|4.82|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||4.82|-3.57|0.59
95859470|NCT00357903|191676461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|53.87||||||||53.87|0.00|
95992948|NCT03434379|191961882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.06|0.43|0.0861
95761780|NCT02462291|191491384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|3.19|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||3.19|-5.28|0.69
95761781|NCT02462291|191491385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.09|||ANOVA|||Baseline||1.09|-0.64|0.9
95761782|NCT02462291|191491385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.76|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||3.76|1.96|<0.01
95761783|NCT02462291|191491385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.04|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-2.04|-3.80|<0.01
95761784|NCT02462291|191491385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.59|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.59|-1.17|0.88
95761785|NCT02462291|191491386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.37|||ANOVA|||Baseline||0.37|-0.72|0.83
95761786|NCT02462291|191491386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.29|||ANOVA|||After the treatment||1.29|0.15|0.005
95761787|NCT02462291|191491386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.09|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||-0.09|-1.21|0.013
95761788|NCT02462291|191491386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.81|||ANOVA|||PRE Vs POST||0.81|-0.31|0.87
95761789|NCT02462291|191491387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.542|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.082; 3 degrees of freedom|||||= 0.910
95761790|NCT02462291|191491388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|17.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.965; 3 degrees of freedom|||||<0.001
95992949|NCT03434379|191961883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74|||Log Rank|||Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.74|0.33|0.0004
95992950|NCT03434379|191961884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Log Rank|||Physical Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.78|0.26|0.0035
95992951|NCT03434379|191961884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.23|||Log Rank|||Role Functioning: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||1.23|0.42|0.2214
95992952|NCT03434379|191961884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||Log Rank|||GHS/QoL: Stratified by macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (presence vs. absence), and baseline AFP (\<400 vs. \>/= 400 ng/mL).||0.88|0.32|0.0135
95992953|NCT01194440|191961889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Bonferonni|Adjusting for multiple comparisons in the analyses, a Bonferonni-corrected p-value of 0.05/5 = 0.01 to represent statistical significance was used.||The primary hypothesis of the study is that administration of zoledronic acid with letrozole would result in a significant decline in the percentage of women experiencing AIMSS compared to letrozole treatment alone (historical control).||||<0.001
95992954|NCT01988090|191961922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
95992955|NCT01988090|191961924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95992956|NCT02238847|191961926|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was set at 20%. This was chosen to support a practical study size while still able to identify major differences if this were the case.|||||<|0.01||||||Reported p-value of \<0.01 is calculated p-value. (p\<0.05 was considered significant)|Exact Non-inferiority|||||||<0.01
95992957|NCT02238847|191961927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
95992958|NCT04574999|191961987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95992959|NCT04574999|191961988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95992960|NCT04574999|191961990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95992961|NCT04574999|191961991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95992962|NCT01279057|191962025|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|104.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.421|124.21||||||||124.210|87.421|
95992963|NCT01279057|191962026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95992964|NCT01279057|191962026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95992965|NCT01279057|191962027|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|106.635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.256|127.79||||||||127.790|89.256|
95992966|NCT01279057|191962028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95992967|NCT01279057|191962028|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95992968|NCT01279057|191962029|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|115.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.129|143.949||||||||143.949|94.129|
95992969|NCT01279057|191962030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
95992970|NCT01279057|191962030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0441
95992971|NCT01279057|191962031|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|117.712|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.41|146.583||||||||146.583|95.410|
95992972|NCT01279057|191962032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0018
95992973|NCT01279057|191962032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0451
95992974|NCT00542620|191962048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.691||||0.001||95.0|-1.049|-0.334||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||-0.334|-1.049|0.001
95761791|NCT02462291|191491389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|5.749||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.488; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.124
95761792|NCT02462291|191491390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.050; 3 degrees of freedom|||||1
95761793|NCT02462291|191491391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared value|1.049||||0.789|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Power of performed test with alpha = 0.050: 0.116; 3 degrees of freedom|||||0.789
95761794|NCT01549405|191491399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.002
95761795|NCT01549405|191491400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.0||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.98|132.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||132.4|52.98|0.000
95761796|NCT02075515|191491458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.86|
95761797|NCT02075515|191491458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\]|Adjustd GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.85|
95761798|NCT02075515|191491458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority Criterion: The two-sided 95 % CI of the GMC ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.88|
95761799|NCT00606632|191491476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
95761800|NCT00606632|191491476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
95761801|NCT00704132|191491480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Mean|-111.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-158.0|-63.9|||ANCOVA||Sitagliptin minus Placebo|||-63.9|-158.0|<0.001
95761802|NCT03837743|191491641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 4)||||0.022
95801740|NCT00223821|191576371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|24.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with baseline frequency of incontinent episodes as the covariate, was used to compare the treatment groups.||||24.33|-10.73|.37
95801741|NCT00983957|191576433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.195|||||Point estimates and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.195|1.023|
95801742|NCT00983957|191576434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.16|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.160|0.988|
95859471|NCT00357903|191676461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized incidence rate|1.3||||||95.0|0.97|1.71||||||||1.71|0.97|
95761803|NCT03837743|191491641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in Change (week 8)||||0.296
95761804|NCT02257385|191491654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis:the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium/vilanterol minus indacaterol + tiotropium bromide) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium/vilanterol may be deemed statistically non-inferior to indacaterol plus tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, statistical superiority would have been established.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.030|-0.029|0.964
95761805|NCT02257385|191491655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.023||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.008|-0.054|0.145
95761806|NCT05199090|191491669|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.9||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.9|-0.9|||MMRM analysis|||Comparison of adjusted means||-0.9|-2.9|0.0182
95761807|NCT05199090|191491669|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.4|-0.2|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.2|-2.4|0.1205
95761808|NCT05199090|191491669|OTHER||adjusted means|-1.3||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM analysis|||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0931
95761809|NCT05199090|191491669|OTHER||adjusted means|0.6||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.7|||MMRM analysis|||||1.7|-0.5|0.4994
95761810|NCT05199090|191491669|OTHER||adjusted means|1.0||||0.2295|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|2.1|||MMRM analysis|||||2.1|-0.1|0.2295
95761811|NCT05199090|191491669|OTHER||adjusted means|-0.7||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM analysis|||||0.0|-1.3|0.2114
95761812|NCT00384930|191491677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus Baseline.|Permutation Test|||This is the principal inferential analysis of the primary outcome.||||<0.001
95761813|NCT00384930|191491678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.025||95.0|-1.08|-0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
95761814|NCT00384930|191491678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.4||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|<0.001
95859472|NCT00606593|191676463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-10.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-3.9|||Linear model|||||-3.9|-17.0|0.0018
95859473|NCT00606593|191676463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.6|||Linear model|||||-12.6|-25.7|<0.0001
95761815|NCT00384930|191491678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.46|-1.45|<0.001
95761816|NCT00384930|191491678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.58|-0.57||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
95801743|NCT00983957|191576435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.07|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.070|0.951|
95801744|NCT00983957|191576436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|1.234|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.234|1.018|
95801745|NCT00983957|191576439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.135|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.135|0.988|
95761817|NCT00384930|191491679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.008||95.0|-1.69|-0.26||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.26|-1.69|0.008
95801746|NCT00983957|191576444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.063|1.171|||||Point estimates and 90% CIs for treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale.|Mixed effect models were fitted to log-transformed data with treatment as a fixed effect, and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements.||1.171|1.063|
95801747|NCT06875115|191576446|SUPERIORITY|The primary outcome (5-D Itch Scale score) will be analyzed by comparing the change from baseline to 4 weeks between the laser acupuncture group and the sham laser group. Continuous variables will be summarized as mean ± standard deviation. Between-group comparisons will be performed using independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate. A two-sided p value \< 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary Outcome Analysis||||<0.05
95801748|NCT01734928|191576458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77|||Based on Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.77|0.49|0.001
95801749|NCT01734928|191576459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Log Rank|The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test with stratification factors as above Cox model.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model, comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups, stratified by age, prior number of anti-myeloma regimens, and beta-2 macroglobulin at Screening.|||1.15|0.77|0.571
95801750|NCT01734928|191576461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.02|||Unstratified log-rank test|The p-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.02|0.56|0.064
95761818|NCT00384930|191491679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.4|-0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.98|-2.40|<0.001
95801751|NCT04193176|191576464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-3.67|||ANCOVA|||||-3.67|-19.67|0.004
95801752|NCT00324857|191576472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Please note that although the outcome is measured using a Likert scale, for the analysis we dichotomized the results.~P-value not adjusted for multiple comparison. Lastly, \<0.05 is the actual computed P-value."|Regression, Logistic|||Comparisons of the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (TKR) across the 4 intervention groups were performed using chi-square tests for categorical data and analysis of variance for continuous variables. Willingness were compared across the groups over time using mixed-effect logistic regressions for dichotomous outcomes.||||<0.05
95801753|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.91||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.91|0.18|<.01
95859474|NCT00606593|191676463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-24.9|||Linear model|||||-24.9|-38.0|<0.0001
95859475|NCT00606593|191676463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|-46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-39.9|||Linear model|||||-39.9|-53.3|<0.0001
95801754|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.35|.96
95801755|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.18|-0.89|<.01
95761819|NCT00384930|191491679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.6|-1.18||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.18|-2.60|<0.001
95761820|NCT00384930|191491679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.59|-1.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-1.15|-2.59|<0.001
95761821|NCT00384930|191491680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.503||95.0|-0.28|0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.14|-0.28|0.503
95761822|NCT00384930|191491680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.206||95.0|-0.34|0.07||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.07|-0.34|0.206
95761823|NCT00384930|191491680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.452||95.0|-0.28|0.13||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.13|-0.28|0.452
95761824|NCT00384930|191491680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.012||95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.06|-0.47|0.012
95859476|NCT00606593|191676464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|21.2|||Linear model|||||21.2|7.4|<0.0001
95859477|NCT00606593|191676464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.4|||Linear model|||||28.4|14.6|<0.0001
95992975|NCT00542620|191962049|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.25% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D\>0.25% against HA: D=\<0.25%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (mixing injections minus separate injections).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.594||||0.003||95.0|-0.97|-0.219||If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the mixed injection group over separate injection group was to be investigated.|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||-0.219|-0.970|0.003
95992976|NCT00542620|191962050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.59||0.573||95.0|-38.77|22.08|||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline fructosamine and the change in insulin administration mode||||22.08|-38.77|0.573
95761825|NCT00384930|191491681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.029||95.0|-0.49|-0.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.03|-0.49|0.029
95859478|NCT00606593|191676464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|41.6|||Linear model|||||41.6|27.8|<0.0001
95992977|NCT00542620|191962051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.063
95761826|NCT00384930|191491681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.002||95.0|-0.6|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.14|-0.60|0.002
95761827|NCT00384930|191491681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.66|-0.19||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.19|-0.66|<0.001
95761828|NCT00384930|191491681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-0.64|<0.001
95761829|NCT00384930|191491682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.583||95.0|-0.58|0.33||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.33|-0.58|0.583
95761830|NCT00384930|191491682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.013||95.0|-1.03|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.12|-1.03|0.013
95761831|NCT00384930|191491682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.016||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.10|-1.00|0.016
95761832|NCT00384930|191491682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.007||95.0|-1.08|-0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||-0.17|-1.08|0.007
95761833|NCT00384930|191491683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.133
95761834|NCT00384930|191491683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95761835|NCT00384930|191491683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761836|NCT00384930|191491683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata factors (4 geographic regions, 2 levels of IPSS severity, 2 levels of ED history) as fixed effect, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761837|NCT00384930|191491684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.735||95.0|-0.69|0.98||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||0.98|-0.69|0.735
95761838|NCT00384930|191491684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.355||95.0|-0.44|1.23||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.23|-0.44|0.355
95761839|NCT00384930|191491684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.433||95.0|-0.5|1.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.17|-0.50|0.433
95802506|NCT02864914|191578403|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.29|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||1.29|0.34|
95859479|NCT00606593|191676464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means treatment effect|55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.0|||Linear model|||||62.0|48.2|<0.0001
95761840|NCT00384930|191491684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.089||95.0|-0.11|1.59||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||1.59|-0.11|0.089
95761841|NCT00384930|191491685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|5.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||5.17|1.56|<0.001
95761842|NCT00384930|191491685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|6.54||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||6.54|2.95|<0.001
95859480|NCT00092443|191676479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|72.5|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|85.6|||Exact Binomial Test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||85.6|50.6|<0.001
95859481|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|56.7||||||95.0|44.0|66.8||||||||66.8|44.0|
95859482|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.7||||||95.0|0.3|9.5||||||||9.5|0.3|
95859483|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|14.5||||||95.0|6.9|25.8||||||||25.8|6.9|
95761843|NCT00384930|191491685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|7.62||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.62|4.04|<0.001
95761844|NCT00384930|191491685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.15|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|7.95||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint - Baseline. P-values from ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and baseline value of analyzed variable as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|||7.95|4.35|<0.001
95761845|NCT00384930|191491686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.005||95.0|-2.68|-0.48||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 2.5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-0.48|-2.68|0.005
95761846|NCT00384930|191491686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.51||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 5 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.51|-3.69|<0.001
95761847|NCT00384930|191491686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.99|-1.81||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 10 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.81|-3.99|<0.001
95761848|NCT00384930|191491686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.04|-1.84||P-values are from an ANCOVA model with effect of treatment group, geographic region, and IPSS baseline value (at Visit 3) as a covariate, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = 20 mg Tadalafil minus Placebo|This is a supportive analysis of the primary outcome.||-1.84|-4.04|<0.001
95761849|NCT02686138|191491720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761850|NCT02686138|191491721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761851|NCT02686138|191491722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
95761852|NCT02686138|191491723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95761853|NCT02686138|191491724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
95761854|NCT02686138|191491725|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
95761855|NCT02686138|191491726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95801756|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.38|-0.09|.23
95859484|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|5.1||||||||5.1|0.0|
95859485|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|9.0||||||95.0|3.4|18.5||||||||18.5|3.4|
95859486|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|4.8||||||||4.8|0.0|
95761856|NCT02686138|191491727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95761857|NCT02686138|191491728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.015
95761858|NCT01685840|191491746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||A sample size of 1100 patients was expected to provide approximately 90% power to detect a difference in the primary endpoint with an assumed type I error rate of 0.05, 2-sided. Analysis was adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, NT-proBNP and DM.|Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.79|0.88
95761859|NCT01685840|191491747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.62|0.37
95761860|NCT01685840|191491748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|39.0|||Bang-Tsiatis Partitioned Estimator|||||39|-20|0.53
95761861|NCT01685840|191491749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.65|0.75
95761862|NCT01685840|191491750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.82|0.76
95761863|NCT01685840|191491751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Anderson-Gill Intensity Model|||||1.72|0.97|0.08
95761864|NCT01685840|191491752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline||||0.636
95761865|NCT01685840|191491752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||||0.628
95761866|NCT01685840|191491752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||||0.586
95761867|NCT01685840|191491752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||||0.669
95761868|NCT01685840|191491752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||||0.949
95859487|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|39.7||||||95.0|27.6|52.8||||||||52.8|27.6|
95761869|NCT01685840|191491753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|2.947||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.947|-1.188|0.404
95761870|NCT01685840|191491753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|3.836||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.836|-0.881|0.219
95761871|NCT01685840|191491753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.099||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|4.63||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.630|-0.433|0.104
95761872|NCT01685840|191491753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.999||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.253|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.250|-1.253|0.228
95761873|NCT01685840|191491754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.06||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.060|-0.025|0.421
95761874|NCT01685840|191491754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.074||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||0.074|-0.018|0.239
95761875|NCT01685840|191491754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||0.070|-0.028|0.402
95761876|NCT01685840|191491754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.076||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||0.076|-0.057|0.780
95761877|NCT01685840|191491755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.902|1.64||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.640|-5.902|0.268
95761878|NCT01685840|191491755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.069||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.921|5.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||5.058|-2.921|0.599
95761879|NCT01685840|191491755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.486|3.707||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.707|-4.486|0.852
95761880|NCT01685840|191491755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.343||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.708|2.022||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||2.022|-8.708|0.221
95801757|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.22|-0.25|.90
95859488|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|1.4||||||95.0|0.0|7.7||||||||7.7|0.0|
95761881|NCT01685840|191491756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.816||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.999|2.367||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||2.367|-3.999|0.615
95761882|NCT01685840|191491756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.977|3.482||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.482|-2.977|0.878
95761883|NCT01685840|191491756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.406||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.989|2.178||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.178|-4.989|0.441
95761884|NCT01685840|191491756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.091||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.673|5.856||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.856|-3.673|0.653
95761885|NCT01685840|191491757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.226||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.097|0.645||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||0.645|-3.097|0.199
95761886|NCT01685840|191491757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.742||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.735|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||1.250|-2.735|0.465
95761887|NCT01685840|191491757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.119|1.97||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||1.970|-2.119|0.943
95761888|NCT01685840|191491757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.478||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|4.241||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||4.241|-1.286|0.294
95761889|NCT01685840|191491758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.579||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.527|1.369||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||1.369|-4.527|0.294
95761890|NCT01685840|191491758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.946||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|2.203||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.203|-4.096|0.555
95761891|NCT01685840|191491758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.798||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.178|2.583||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||2.583|-4.178|0.643
95761892|NCT01685840|191491758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.767|3.472||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||3.472|-4.767|0.757
95761893|NCT01685840|191491759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.102|4.133||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||4.133|-5.102|0.837
95859489|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|24.6||||||95.0|14.5|37.3||||||||37.3|14.5|
95761894|NCT01685840|191491759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.693||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.662|2.276||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||2.276|-7.662|0.288
95761895|NCT01685840|191491759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.539||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|3.732||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||3.732|-6.810|0.567
95761896|NCT01685840|191491759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.512||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.394|9.419||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||9.419|-4.394|0.475
95761897|NCT01685840|191491760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.057||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.364||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||6.364|-4.250|0.696
95761898|NCT01685840|191491760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.966||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.715|7.647||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.647|-3.715|0.497
95761899|NCT01685840|191491760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.564||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|12.673||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||12.673|0.456|0.035
95859490|NCT00092443|191676480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Participants|2.9||||||95.0|0.4|10.1||||||||10.1|0.4|
95761900|NCT01685840|191491760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.247|10.961||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||10.961|-5.247|0.488
95761901|NCT01685840|191491761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.383|3.417||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.417|-3.383|0.992
95761902|NCT01685840|191491761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.409|3.969||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 month||3.969|-3.409|0.882
95761903|NCT01685840|191491761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.973|4.782||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 month||4.782|-2.973|0.647
95761904|NCT01685840|191491761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.322||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.894|5.538||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||24 month||5.538|-4.894|0.903
95761905|NCT01685840|191491762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospitalizations||||0.74
95761906|NCT01685840|191491762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ER only events||||0.45
95761907|NCT01685840|191491762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rehab facilities||||0.67
95761908|NCT01685840|191491762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total admissions||||0.47
95761909|NCT01685840|191491763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hospital Costs||||0.88
95761910|NCT01685840|191491763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physician Fees||||0.69
95761911|NCT01685840|191491763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cost||||0.88
95761912|NCT00086281|191491764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.009
95801758|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.07|-0.38|.17
95859491|NCT04546672|191676489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|55.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||55.4|-31.1|0.58
95761913|NCT00086281|191491764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0244
95761914|NCT00086281|191491764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.0119
95859492|NCT04546672|191676490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.4|9.2|<0.001
95761915|NCT00086281|191491764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5055||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.5055
95761916|NCT00086281|191491764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted P-Value|ANOVA on ranks|||||||0.3132
95761917|NCT02391987|191491793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.73
95761918|NCT02391987|191491794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
95761919|NCT02391987|191491795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
95761920|NCT01252277|191491799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95761921|NCT01252277|191491800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95761922|NCT01252277|191491801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95761923|NCT01252277|191491802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95761924|NCT03516513|191491810|SUPERIORITY|t-tests||||||0.905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.905
95761925|NCT03516513|191491810|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.320
95761926|NCT03516513|191491811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.155
95761927|NCT03516513|191491811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.974
95761928|NCT03516513|191491813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.212
95761929|NCT03516513|191491814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.507
95761930|NCT03516513|191491815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.091
95761931|NCT00351533|191491831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95761932|NCT00351533|191491832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95761933|NCT00351533|191491833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95761934|NCT00351533|191491834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95761935|NCT00351533|191491835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95761936|NCT00351533|191491836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95761937|NCT00351533|191491837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95761938|NCT00351533|191491838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95761939|NCT00351533|191491839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95761940|NCT00351533|191491840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95761941|NCT00351533|191491841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95761942|NCT00351533|191491842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95761943|NCT00351533|191491843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95761944|NCT00351533|191491844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95761945|NCT00351533|191491845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95761946|NCT00351533|191491846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95761947|NCT00351533|191491847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
95761948|NCT00351533|191491848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95801759|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.28|-0.16|.58
95801760|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.37|-0.06|.15
95801761|NCT03537729|191576476|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on planned 12 sites and effect size Cohen's d=0.42 for pairwise differences between arms, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.0012, and reduction in variance due to adjustment for baseline and repeated measures with correlation of 0.4 between pairs of measures. The sample size requirement was 38 per group, or 114 total for power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.29|-0.11|.37
95801762|NCT03537729|191576477|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||-0.01|-0.07|.04
95859493|NCT04546672|191676491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||Fisher Exact|||||6.2|0.9|0.087
95859494|NCT04546672|191676492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|12.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.6|-26.4|0.48
95859495|NCT04546672|191676493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|31.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||31.1|2.3|0.02
95859496|NCT04546672|191676494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-2.2|0.27
95859497|NCT01397968|191676495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.0001
95859498|NCT01397968|191676496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95859499|NCT02970162|191676497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||LS means|Least square means|Fixed effects treatment and QMG at Baseline. Between-treatment difference in LS means (95% CI) -6.54 (-9.78, -3.29).||||||0.0004
95859500|NCT02970162|191676498|SUPERIORITY||LS means|2.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.38||CFB for SGI score was modeled as the response, with fixed effects terms for treatment and SGI at Baseline|Fixed effects linear model|This statistical test applies to the change from baseline SGI scores to Day 4 values row.||||4.38|1.53|0.0003
95761949|NCT00351533|191491849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95761950|NCT00351533|191491850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95761951|NCT00351533|191491851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95761952|NCT00351533|191491852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95761953|NCT00351533|191491853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95761954|NCT00351533|191491854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95761955|NCT00351533|191491855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95761956|NCT00351533|191491856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95761957|NCT00351533|191491857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95761958|NCT00351533|191491858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95761959|NCT02091466|191491863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for repeated measures (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline values, compared tympanic temperatures between the groups. Statistical significance was established at p \< 0.05, and the statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 20.||||<0.05
95859501|NCT02970162|191676499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0020
95859502|NCT02970162|191676500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
95992978|NCT00542620|191962052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.389
95992979|NCT00542620|191962053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.856
95761960|NCT02682927|191491864|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.72|72.8|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||72.80|47.72|
95761961|NCT02682927|191491864|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|64.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.85|74.19|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||74.19|51.85|
95761962|NCT02682927|191491865|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|32.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.19|51.33|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||51.33|6.19|
95761963|NCT02682927|191491865|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference from Placebo|49.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.31|63.43|||||Estimate was obtained from the LSMeans on the log scale as follows: 100 x \[1 - exp(LS mean active - LS mean placebo).|||63.43|31.31|
95761964|NCT02682927|191491867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.773||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|15.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.450|1.475|0.009
95761965|NCT02682927|191491867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.484|49.915|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.915|4.484|<0.001
95761966|NCT02682927|191491867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|49.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.8|3.6|0.0001
95761967|NCT02682927|191491867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|220.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||220.5|12.9|<0.0001
95761968|NCT02682927|191491870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.035
95761969|NCT02682927|191491870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95761970|NCT02682927|191491870|SUPERIORITY||Comparing active with placebo|||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0002
95761971|NCT02682927|191491870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
95761972|NCT04007991|191491889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-0.79||Change from baseline in YGTSS score as a continuous variable was based on mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with an unstructured covariance matrix.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-6.09|=0.011
95761973|NCT03462459|191491899|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional tests (Chi-squared) compared the episodes of C. difficile. Log-rank tests (Kaplan-Meier) were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression determined if treatment, age, and number of previous C. difficile episodes were predictors of recurrence.|See comments|-0.11||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|8.0|||Chi-squared||Proportional tests compared episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks (vancomycin vs. placebo) using Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests compared the non-recurrence proportions within 8 weeks with the Kaplan-Meier method.||"Statistical analyses are primarily reported for the population who were randomized in the study (as randomized). The secondary statistical analyses are reported for the population who completed all three visits (as completed treatment). Proportional tests were conducted to compare the episodes of C. difficile recurrence in eight weeks following the completion of the study intervention in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo using the Chi-squared test. Log-rank tests were conducted to compare the non-recurrence proportions within the eight-week period in patients receiving vancomycin versus placebo with the Kaplan-Meier method. A nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare distributions of the number of days to the first recurrence of CDI after starting oral vancomycin or placebo. The significance level was set to be ≤0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted in R statistical software (version 4.4.0; R Core Team, 2024)"|8.0|-35.1|0.22
95761974|NCT03462459|191491901|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional difference tests comparing the proportion of patients with VRE colonization at Visit 3, compared to baseline. Significance level was set to 0.10.||||||0.1|||||||Proportional difference test|||||||0.10
95761975|NCT00919126|191491959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.||The dose of propofol adjusted to BSA and maintenance duration was expected to be 4.0 mg/m².min in the control group, 2.8 mg/m².min in one xenon group and 3.0 mg/m².min in the other xenon group. With an expected common standard deviation of 2.0 mg/m².min, a type I error of 0.05 (two-sided) and a power of 0.80, the sample size required to show a statistically significant difference between the three groups was estimated to be 48 patients per group, resulting in a total of 144 randomised patients.||||<0.0001
95761976|NCT00919126|191491959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.328|3.724||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.724|2.328|<0.0001
95761977|NCT00919126|191491959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.011||Pairwise comparison performed using Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 50% in Oxygen minus Medical Air in Oxygen was assessed.|||3.011|1.570|<0.0001
95761978|NCT00919126|191491959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7351||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.432||Pairwise comparison was performed using the Tukey's test.|ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance was adjusted for quantity of propofol (mg) administered during the induction period, gender, type of surgery and centre.|The difference Xenon 70% in Oxygen minus Xenon 50% in Oxygen was assessed|||1.432|0.038|0.0365
95761979|NCT01644617|191491974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-2.39|-4.85|<0.001
95761980|NCT01644617|191491974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.72|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.72|-3.24|0.003
95761981|NCT01644617|191491975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.03|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.03|-3.14|<0.001
95761982|NCT01644617|191491975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.23||||0.032||95.0|-2.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-2.36|0.032
95761983|NCT01644617|191491976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.39|-2.34|0.007
95761984|NCT01644617|191491976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.54||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.29|-1.38|0.198
95761985|NCT01644617|191491977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-4.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-3.09|-6.59|<0.001
95761986|NCT01644617|191491977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.95|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.95|-4.35|0.003
95761987|NCT01644617|191491978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.13|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-1.13|-4.12|<0.001
95761988|NCT01644617|191491978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.37||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-2.96|0.091
95761989|NCT01644617|191491979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.64|-3.30|0.004
95761990|NCT01644617|191491979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.83||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.4|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.40|-2.06|0.181
95761991|NCT01644617|191491980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.62|-1.92|<0.001
95761992|NCT01644617|191491980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.77||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.11|-1.43|0.023
95761993|NCT01644617|191491981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.53||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.07|-1.13|0.082
95761994|NCT01644617|191491981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|-0.79|0.691
95761995|NCT01644617|191491982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||-0.09|-1.14|0.023
95801763|NCT03537729|191576477|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.01|-0.07|.10
95801764|NCT03537729|191576477|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the low complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.04|-0.03|.69
95992980|NCT00542620|191962054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.917
95761996|NCT01644617|191491982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.34||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.22|||ANCOVA||Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment and baseline endpoint score as fixed effects and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.22|-0.90|0.235
95761997|NCT01644617|191491985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.68|0.43|<0.001
95761998|NCT01644617|191491985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.52|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.52|0.33|<0.001
95761999|NCT01644617|191491985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.64|0.41|<0.001
95762000|NCT01644617|191491985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.48|0.30|<0.001
95762001|NCT01644617|191491986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.13|<0.001
95992981|NCT00542620|191962055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.209
95992982|NCT00542620|191962056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.220
95762002|NCT01644617|191491986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. pteronyssinus|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.25|0.12|<0.001
95762003|NCT01644617|191491986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.42|0.23|<0.001
95762004|NCT01644617|191491986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM: D. farinae|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33|||ANOVA||Analysis by ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect and adjusted for different error variation for each treatment group.|||0.33|0.16|<0.001
95801765|NCT03537729|191576478|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means for two arms was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.99|0.44|0.04
95762005|NCT01644617|191491987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|12.4||||||95.0|-3.6|28.9|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||28.9|-3.6|
95762006|NCT01644617|191491987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|26.6|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.0|
95762007|NCT01644617|191491988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|6.7|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.7|-22.6|
95762008|NCT01644617|191491988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage Versus Placebo|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-5.4|||||Analysis based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method|||-5.4|-28.5|
95762009|NCT01297985|191491989|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||"This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime; and that intervention participants would report greater increases in hopefulness than controls, also maintained longitudinally~This first model reports on Recovery over time."||||.013
95762010|NCT01297985|191491990|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this first model included depressive symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes depressive symptoms as the moderator (High depressive symptoms X time X study condition)"||||0.01
95801766|NCT03537729|191576478|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.90|0.39|.01
95801767|NCT03537729|191576478|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the moderate complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.35|0.60|.61
95801768|NCT03537729|191576478|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|1.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for cues divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.88|0.84|.26
95992983|NCT00542620|191962057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment for baseline value||||||0.234
95992984|NCT00542620|191962058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.534
95992985|NCT00542620|191962059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.722
95992986|NCT00542620|191962060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.727
95762011|NCT01297985|191491990|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this second model included anxiety symptoms as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes anxiety as the moderator (high anxiety X time X study condition)"||||0.01
95762012|NCT01297985|191491990|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|This analysis used Random Regression Modeling; this third model included the general symptom distress as moderator||"We tested 3 moderating variables: BSI depressive symptom, anxiety, and general symptom distress. In these three models, we hypothesized that the intervention participants with high levels of each type of symptoms would experience greater gains in empowerment over time than participants with low levels of symptoms, as well as control participants with both high and low symptom level.~This model includes general symptom distress as the moderator (high symptom distress X time X study condition)"||||.022
95762013|NCT01297985|191491991|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in Hopefulness that would be maintained longitudinally||||<.01
95762014|NCT01297985|191491992|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This analysis Mixed Effects Random Regression Modeling to test whether self-advocacy scores changed overtime by study condition status. Reported below are findings for the self-advocacy assertiveness sub scale.||||<0.01
95762015|NCT01297985|191491993|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.017
95762016|NCT03713632|191492000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.05|0.0149
95762017|NCT03713632|191492000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.96||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|1.22|0.0022
95762018|NCT03713632|191492001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.33||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.79|-3.88||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-28.79|0.0051
95801769|NCT03537729|191576478|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.79||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for control. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.19|0.53|.25
95801770|NCT03537729|191576478|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Ratio of mean proportions of errors|0.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Generalized mixed model analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline, and use of wheelchair on the route.|Ratio of mean proportion of errors for spaced retrieval divided by proportion of errors for cues. Log of the mean was estimated from generalized linear mixed effects models for each arm. The difference between logs of means was exponentiated.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms on the high complexity route are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||0.94|0.42|.03
95801771|NCT03537729|191576479|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|1.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Cues minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||1.60|-5.03|.31
95801772|NCT03537729|191576479|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus control.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||2.66|-4.23|.66
95762019|NCT03713632|191492001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-10.63||one-side p-value|ANCOVA|||||-10.63|-35.24|0.0001
95801773|NCT03537729|191576479|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was determined by power analysis for the adjusted wayfinding speed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.17||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included baseline value of the outcome, age, sex, and cognition score at baseline.|Spaced retrieval minus cues only.|The null hypothesis was that means of two arms are equal, the alternative was that means were not equal.||4.17|-2.30|.57
95801774|NCT03197935|191576512|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference in pCR rate|16.5||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|27.1||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3) and clinical stage at presentation (Stage II vs. III).||27.10|5.91|0.0044
95801775|NCT03197935|191576513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR|19.5||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|34.83||(one-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||34.83|4.17|0.0206
95762020|NCT03713632|191492002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.41|0.0732
95762021|NCT03713632|191492002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.29|0.0049
95762022|NCT03713632|191492003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.09||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.28|0.0026
95762023|NCT03713632|191492003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.37||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.03|0.0206
95762024|NCT02995408|191492015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.65||p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.65|-2.63|.23
95762025|NCT02995408|191492016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.78||.05 is the threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||We examined between group (3RP treatment versus wait-list) differences in pre-post change scores of resiliency.||10.78|.78|0.024
95992987|NCT00542620|191962061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.411
95762026|NCT02995408|191492017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.12||p=.05 is the threshold for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.12|3.45|0.001
95762027|NCT03277066|191492059|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.011||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0110
95762028|NCT03277066|191492059|SUPERIORITY||Lest-Squared Mean Differences|0.2835||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2835
95762029|NCT03971474|191492063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.92||If either P value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||0.92|0.51|0.05
95762030|NCT03971474|191492063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||If either p-value from the two tests (standard stratified log-rank and weighted log-rank) was \< 0.0972, the study would be considered to have rejected the null at the one-sided 10% level.|Log Rank|||Comparison of OS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test. The study had 90% power to detect the scenario with overlapping curves up to 3 months and a hazard ratio of 0.5 after 3 months, assuming exponentially distributed survival times, a median OS of 10.5 months in the SOC arm, and uniform accrual over 21-24 months. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.15
95762031|NCT03971474|191492064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95762032|NCT03971474|191492065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Proportions were compared using a chi-squared test at the one-sided 5% level.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
95762033|NCT03971474|191492068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|1.14|||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test.|Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model including the stratification factors (PD-L1 status and histology) and 80% CIs.|Comparison of IA-PFS was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the standard stratified log-rank test.||1.14|0.66|0.25
95801776|NCT03197935|191576514|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.21|0.47|
95801777|NCT03197935|191576515|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of EFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint is descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.18|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.18|0.26|
95801778|NCT03197935|191576516|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.3|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.30|0.44|
95801779|NCT03197935|191576517|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoint of DFS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.43|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.43|0.23|
95801780|NCT03197935|191576518|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|||"Stratified analysis. Strata are:~Tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs IC1/2/3) and AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III)."||1.04|0.30|
95762034|NCT03971474|191492068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|Testing was performed using a weighted log-rank test.||Comparison of IA-PFS between the RP and SOC arms was performed using a standard stratified log-rank test and a weighted log-rank test with weights equal to 1-S(t), where S(t) is the pooled survival estimate at time t (G\[rho=0, gamma=1\]). The weighted test weights later events over earlier events and has more power than the standard log-rank test under a delayed separation in the curves. This analysis reports the weighted log-rank test.||||0.14
95992988|NCT00542620|191962062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.471
95762035|NCT03971474|191492069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.1||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.10|0.50|0.16
95992989|NCT00542620|191962065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.127
95992990|NCT00542620|191962066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.1
95992991|NCT00542620|191962067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.166
95992992|NCT00542620|191962068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.023
95992993|NCT00542620|191962069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.439
95992994|NCT00542620|191962070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.202
95992995|NCT00542620|191962071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|With adjustment on baseline value||||||0.665
95762036|NCT03971474|191492069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.97||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.97|0.45|0.08
95762037|NCT03971474|191492069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.65||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.65|0.28|0.005
95762038|NCT03971474|191492069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.35||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.35|0.67|0.43
95762039|NCT03971474|191492070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.22||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \< 1% subgroup.||1.22|0.58|0.28
95762040|NCT03971474|191492070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.95||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the PD-L1 \>= 1% subgroup.||0.95|0.48|0.07
95762041|NCT03971474|191492070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.8||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the squamous histology subgroup.||0.80|0.38|0.02
95762042|NCT03971474|191492070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|1.29||One-sided p-values were calculated using a standard log-rank test.|Log Rank||Treatment effects comparing the RP arm to the SOC arm were summarized using a Cox proportional hazards model and 80% CIs.|This analysis includes the results for the non-squamous histology subgroup.||1.29|0.69|0.41
95762043|NCT01023035|191492072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|7.2|||Mantel-Haenszel, modified Koch method|||The modified Koch method was used to calculate the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) difference between the SVR rates for the Erythropoietin Use Arm versus the Ribavirin Dose Reduction Arm and corresponding 95% confidence interval with continuity correction.||7.2|-8.6|
95762044|NCT02664181|191492090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Partial remission rate was compared between both arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in partial remission rate between the two arms, with a p-value of \< 0.05 indicating significance||||0.05
95762045|NCT02664181|191492091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.13|0.06
95762046|NCT02664181|191492092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.62|||Log Rank||Data from Kaplan-Meier analyses|||1.62|0.11|0.19
95762047|NCT00699816|191492094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.43|0.01
95801781|NCT03197935|191576519|OTHER|This study was not designed nor formally powered to demonstrate statistically significant improvements in the secondary efficacy endpoints of EFS, DFS and OS. The analyses of this secondary endpoint are descriptive in nature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Stratified log-rank test|||Stratified analysis. Strata are: AJCC stage at diagnosis (II vs. III).||1.91|0.26|
95801782|NCT02357485|191576527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.004
95801783|NCT02357485|191576528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline vs 1 year Post-treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95801784|NCT02357485|191576529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95801785|NCT02357485|191576530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95801786|NCT03593629|191576531|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.37|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.05||||||||||-5.05|
95801787|NCT03593629|191576532|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.88||||||||||-8.88|
95762048|NCT00699816|191492095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.06|0.008
95762049|NCT00699816|191492096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.04|0.02
95762050|NCT01565356|191492100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa statistic|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||Cohen's (simple) kappa statistic||1.00|1.00|
95762051|NCT01406444|191492159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.03
95762052|NCT01406444|191492160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.002
95762053|NCT01406444|191492160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Linear random effects model|||||||0.04
95762054|NCT02027428|191492183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.19||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.19|0.61|0.3486
95762055|NCT02027428|191492184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0365
95762056|NCT02027428|191492185|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|1.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.519||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. The rate ratio and its 95% CI were based on the non-stratified analysis.||1.519|0.948|0.0870
95762057|NCT02027428|191492186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.22|0.62|0.4164
95762058|NCT02027428|191492187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98||Stratification factors evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at end of Induction.|stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|5% level of significance. Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||0.98|0.47|0.0381
95762059|NCT02027428|191492188|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate ratio|3.15||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|13.574||5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|||13.574|0.733|0.0978
95762060|NCT02027428|191492189|SUPERIORITY||disease control rate ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.007|||||Disease control rate ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|The rate ratio and its 95% confidence interval are based on non-stratified analysis.||1.007|0.978|
95762061|NCT02027428|191492191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.47|||||Hazard ratio: nab-paclitaxel + BSC / BSC Alone|Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model. The following stratification factors were evaluated in the sparse strata elimination algorithm: stage of disease (IIIB or IV) at diagnosis, ECOG performance status (0 or 1) at the end of Induction, and tumor response (CR/PR or SD) at the end of Induction.||1.47|0.59|
95762062|NCT01307748|191492208|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA with time (stress, post-stress) as a within factor and aroma (lavender, coconut, water) as a between-group factor was used.||The null hypothesis stated that there were no differences between the groups in cortisol level trajectory over time.||||.005
95801788|NCT03593629|191576533|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin is defined as -10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.15|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.89||||||||||-6.89|
95801789|NCT01967277|191576574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: µL ≤ µs Versus Ha: µL \> µs||||<0.001
95801790|NCT03676725|191576580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.017|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS vs. without PMS.||||0.017
95762063|NCT01307748|191492210|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate|ANCOVA|A 3 (lavender, coconut, water) by 2 ( prime, no prime) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with years of education as a covariate was used.||||||.01
95762064|NCT00490841|191492212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided exact binomial test|||"objective is to demonstrate the binary restenosis rate at 9 months is \< 28.6% OPC. Assumptions for the primary endpoint analysis:~* H0: Restenosis Rate ≥ 28.6%~* HA: Restenosis Rate \< 28.6%~* Assumed binary restenosis rate = 20%~* Power = 80%~* One-sided type I error = 5%~With the above assumptions, 161 samples would be required. To account for approximately 20% lost to follow-up rate, 202 subjects will be enrolled in the study. The sample size calculation was performed using PASS 2005."||||< 0.0001
95762065|NCT04123561|191492271|SUPERIORITY|"The primary efficacy endpoint is defined as the change from Injection 1 Baseline in WOMAC Pain on a normalized scale of 0-4 at Week 12 between the randomized TLC599 12mg and Placebo groups.~The least-squares mean, alongside its corresponding 95% confidence interval, was used to estimate the treatment difference between TLC599 and Placebo, utilizing two-sided p-values."|Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0819||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Parameters estimated via REML using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, and the Kenward-Roger method calculates denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.010|-0.331|0.0372
95762066|NCT02521376|191492284|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|43.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.59|77.62||||||||77.62|24.59|
95801791|NCT03676725|191576580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Women with PMS and with ADHD vs. other women||||0.001
95801792|NCT03676725|191576580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ADHD vs. no ADHD||||0.8
95801793|NCT02384460|191576587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.549||p-value is for Type 3 chi-square test for comparison between treatments.|Cox Model Analysis|||Cox proportional hazards model compares treatment groups with baseline target wound size, target wound age, and EB type as covariates.||1.549|0.651|0.985
95801794|NCT02384460|191576588|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 010005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.474||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 3 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.474|0.365|0.39
95762067|NCT02521376|191492284|OTHER||GMR|233.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.85|384.79||||||||384.79|141.85|
95859503|NCT00298558|191676501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.06||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.14|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.27|-0.14|0.43
95762068|NCT02521376|191492284|OTHER||GMR|219.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.74|343.84||||||||343.84|139.74|
95762069|NCT02521376|191492284|OTHER||GMR|108.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|152.48||||||||152.48|77.20|
95762070|NCT02521376|191492285|OTHER||GMR|55.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|89.42||||||||89.42|34.70|
95762071|NCT02521376|191492285|OTHER||GMR|211.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.49|339.03||||||||339.03|132.49|
95859730|NCT02840461|191677489|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (with Yates correction) for the difference between the proportion of patients in the Test and Reference groups considered to be a clinical success was contained within the pre-defined equivalence limits \[-20%, +20%\], the therapeutic equivalence of the Test to Reference product was considered supported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|14.2||||||||14.2|-2.7|
95762072|NCT02521376|191492285|OTHER||GMR|171.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.17|271.37||||||||271.37|108.17|
95762073|NCT02521376|191492285|OTHER||GMR|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|158.51||||||||158.51|72.71|
95762074|NCT00676780|191492288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.027
95762075|NCT00676780|191492289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
95762076|NCT00676780|191492290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is no change, i.e. median change = 0.0||||<0.001
95762077|NCT01613313|191492353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||No p value||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power justification has been implemented. Descriptive data provided for each arm.||||
95762078|NCT01613313|191492354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||This is a proof of concept dose escalation study. No power of justification was implemented. Descriptive statistics was provided for each arm only.||||
95762079|NCT04803305|191492355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.18|||||Week 4|||1.18|-2.38|
95762080|NCT04803305|191492356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|3.15|||||Week 1|||3.15|-0.75|
95762081|NCT04803305|191492356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.49|||||Week 2|||2.49|-0.28|
95762082|NCT04803305|191492356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.99|||||Week 3|||2.99|-0.93|
95762083|NCT04803305|191492356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.02|||||Week 5|||2.02|-2.02|
95762084|NCT04803305|191492356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.51|||||Week 6|||1.51|-3.11|
95762085|NCT04803305|191492357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|3.53|||||Week 1|||3.53|-4.18|
95762086|NCT04803305|191492357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|1.16|||||Week 2|||1.16|-5.49|
95762087|NCT04803305|191492357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|2.06|||||Week 3|||2.06|-0.62|
95762088|NCT04803305|191492357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|2.2|||||Week 4|||2.20|-1.29|
95762089|NCT04803305|191492357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||||Week 5|||2.57|-1.21|
95762090|NCT04803305|191492357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|3.39|||||Week 6|||3.39|0.34|
95762091|NCT05026177|191492364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.96|0.5335
95762092|NCT05026177|191492364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.99|0.5836
95762093|NCT05026177|191492365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-3.30|0.0763
95762094|NCT05026177|191492365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.93|0.1530
95762095|NCT03355469|191492393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.99||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|Linear ANCOVA model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.99|0.08|0.045
95762096|NCT03355469|191492393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.73||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||4.73|-2.42|0.507
95762097|NCT03355469|191492393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.83|1.14|0.014
95762098|NCT03355469|191492393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|6.42||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||6.42|-1.66|0.237
95762099|NCT03355469|191492393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.7||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.70|-2.80|0.486
95762100|NCT03355469|191492393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention FMD.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention 0 min unscaled FMD change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.19|-0.53|0.081
95762101|NCT03355469|191492394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0073||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0093|0.024||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0240|-0.0093|0.373
95762102|NCT03355469|191492394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0055|0.025||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0250|-0.0055|0.198
95762103|NCT03355469|191492394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0041||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0211||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0211|-0.0129|0.622
95762104|NCT03355469|191492394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0024||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0136|0.0088||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0088|-0.0136|0.666
95801795|NCT02384460|191576589|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get the monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation method: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.633||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.517||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 1 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 1 month was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||3.517|0.758|0.212
95801796|NCT02384460|191576589|OTHER|Multiple imputation was implemented by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a logistic regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline target wound size, target wound age, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.821||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression Analysis at Month 2 visit. Comparison between treatment groups of complete closure of target wound within 2 months was performed using a logistic regression model with multiple imputation with EB type, baseline target wound size, and baseline target wound age as covariates.||1.821|0.436|0.802
95859731|NCT00256997|191677490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5498||||||P-value was calculated by Cox proportional hazard model stratified for positive and negative symptom scale.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||||0.5498
95992996|NCT00928070|191962079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.24||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.24|-1.05|0.0018
95992997|NCT00928070|191962080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.38||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-0.38|-1.27|0.0003
95801797|NCT02384460|191576590|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.682||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|4.238||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of least-squares (LS)-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis. The MMRM approach (using restricted maximum likelihood \[REML\] estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||4.238|-2.873|0.706
95801798|NCT02384460|191576591|OTHER|Multiple imputation was used by 2 steps. The first step used MCMC to get monotonic missing data pattern. In the second step, a linear regression model was used, with the following covariates included in the imputation model: treatment, EB type, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, and non-missing data from earlier time points. The seed number was 01005 and the number of imputations was 5.|LS means difference|0.128||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.116|1.861||The p-value is calculated based on the hypothesis testing for the difference of LS-means between treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM Analysis. The MMRM approach (using REML estimation) was used on each multiply-imputed data set. The model included treatment, baseline BSAI of lesional skin, EB type, visit, and visit-treatment interaction as the fixed effects.||1.861|-2.116|0.9
95801799|NCT02384460|191576592|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.752||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in itching versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline itching score, and EB type as covariates.||2.752|0.759|0.262
95762105|NCT03355469|191492394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0032||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0169|0.0104||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0104|-0.0169|0.634
95762106|NCT03355469|191492394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0056||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention GIR.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention GIR, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.0062|-0.0174|0.336
95762107|NCT03355469|191492395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|8.69||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.69|-5.68|0.671
95762108|NCT03355469|191492395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.19||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.19|-11.84|0.170
95762109|NCT03355469|191492395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|5.97||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||5.97|-7.29|0.839
95801800|NCT02384460|191576593|OTHER|Pre-specified.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.596||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.1||p-value is from the logistic regression model for treatment comparison.|Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of participants experiencing improvement in pain versus non-improvement (including missing) was compared between the 2 treatment groups for Day 7 using the logistic regression model with baseline pain score and EB type as covariates.||1.1|0.323|0.098
95992998|NCT00928070|191962081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95859504|NCT00298558|191676501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.11||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.31|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.10|-0.31|0.17
95859732|NCT01322945|191677521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95859733|NCT03801044|191677532|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95801801|NCT01579305|191576594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is pre-defined as 15% i.e., if the difference in responder rates is significantly greater than -15% (i.e., the lower confidence limit is greater than -15%), statistical non-inferiority of VOLBELLA® to Restylane-L® is established.|Difference in responder rates|4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.7||||||Difference in responder rates is calculated as the responder rate at Month 3 for VOLBELLA® minus the responder rate at Month 3 for Restylane-L®.|The null hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3, and the alternative hypothesis is that VOLBELLA® is inferior to Restylane-L® in terms of responder rate at Month 3 with 15% pre-defined non-inferiority margin. To test the null hypothesis, a difference in responder rates of these products (VOLBELLA® - Restylane-L®) at Month 3 and a 1-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference is calculated.|||-6.7|
95801802|NCT01004393|191576623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.161
95801803|NCT03737032|191576626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS dmPFC activation will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.80
95801804|NCT03737032|191576627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with time (pre or post), condition (cTBS, iTBS, sham TBS), and time\*condition effects.||Null hypothesis: pre-post change in positive affect will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the interaction of time\*condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.23
95801805|NCT03737032|191576628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-TBS functional connectivity between the dmPFC and ventral striatum (VS) will not vary by TBS condition. This is tested using the main effect of condition in a repeated measures model.||||0.84
95801806|NCT00976391|191576633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - preprandial lispro insulin) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.00|-0.32|<0.0001
95801807|NCT04676646|191576660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.86|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||6.86|2.89|<0.001
95801808|NCT04676646|191576661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|7.55|||GEE model||An odds ratio \>1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.55|2.78|<0.001
95992999|NCT00928070|191962081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
95993000|NCT00928070|191962083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.40|-1.35|0.0003
95801809|NCT04676646|191576662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.52|||GEE model||An odds ratio greater than 1 indicated increased odds of response on SZC compared to placebo.|||7.52|2.50|<0.001
95801810|NCT04676646|191576663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors SZC to be associated with a longer time to first hyperkalaemia episode than placebo.|||0.71|0.37|<0.001
95801811|NCT04676646|191576664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio less than 1 favored SZC to be associated with a longer time to first instance of a decrease of spironolactone dose due to hyperkalaemia than placebo.|||0.73|0.17|0.006
95801812|NCT04676646|191576665|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.63|||t-test, 2 sided||A least-squares mean difference greater than 0 favors SZC compared to placebo.|||4.63|-6.64|0.724
95801813|NCT04270760|191576667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.12|-65.9||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 1 versus (vs) Group 5||-65.90|-75.12|<0.001
95801814|NCT04270760|191576667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-97.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.98|-92.77||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-92.77|-101.98|<0.001
95950743|NCT00887471|191873447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The relationship of surgical group with AHI change was evaluated by constructing a mixed linear model (MLM). The dependent variable was the logarithm of the ratio of postoperative AHI score to preoperative AHI score; this transformation was chosen in order to minimize skew of model residuals. Surgical group was introduced as a fixed factor; subject pairs constituted levels of a random blocking) factor.||||.590
95950744|NCT00887471|191873447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||P value for the variances. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear model was constructed as described above. Variance was estimated separately for each group.||||.022
95950745|NCT00887471|191873448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The relationship of surgical group with postoperative AHI ≤ 5 was evaluated by exact conditional logistic regression, predicting AHI ≤ 5 from surgical group with subject pairs as strata.||||1.00
95762110|NCT03355469|191492395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.8||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||11.80|0.86|0.024
95762111|NCT03355469|191492395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|2.83||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||2.83|-7.16|0.385
95762112|NCT03355469|191492395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|8.86||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention AIx75.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention AIx75 change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||8.86|-0.53|0.080
95762113|NCT03355469|191492396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.005||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.005|-0.069|0.088
95762114|NCT03355469|191492396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.062||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.062|-0.059|0.960
95762115|NCT03355469|191492396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.006||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.006|-0.109|0.075
95762116|NCT03355469|191492396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.028||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.028|-0.094|0.258
95801815|NCT04270760|191576667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-101.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.79|-96.47||Adjusted p-value is reported based on the Hochberg procedure to control the type I error for multiple comparisons. Each individual adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-96.47|-105.79|<0.001
95801816|NCT04270760|191576667|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.16|-95.82|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-95.82|-105.16|< 0.001
95801817|NCT04270760|191576668|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-62.67|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 1 vs Group 5||-62.67|-74.27|<0.001
95801818|NCT04270760|191576668|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-96.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.92|-90.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 2 vs Group 5||-90.33|-101.92|<0.001
95801819|NCT04270760|191576668|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-100.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.74|-95.02|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 3 vs Group 5||-95.02|-106.74|<0.001
95993001|NCT00928070|191962083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.39||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.39|-1.29|0.0003
95993002|NCT00928070|191962084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95762117|NCT03355469|191492396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.075|0.443
95762118|NCT03355469|191492396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.02||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBF.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBF change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.020|-0.126|0.144
95762119|NCT03355469|191492397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.017|0.147
95762120|NCT03355469|191492397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.017||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.017|-0.016|0.943
95762121|NCT03355469|191492397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.003||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.003|-0.027|0.108
95762122|NCT03355469|191492397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.009||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.009|-0.024|0.319
95762123|NCT03355469|191492397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.01||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.010|-0.019|0.496
95762124|NCT03355469|191492397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.007||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MFV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MFV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.007|-0.031|0.187
95762125|NCT03355469|191492398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.035||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.008.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.035|-0.495|0.086
95762126|NCT03355469|191492398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.574||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.050.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.574|-0.354|0.608
95801820|NCT04270760|191576668|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-85.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.83|-80.06|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Group 4 vs Group 5||-80.06|-91.83|< 0.001
95762127|NCT03355469|191492398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.344||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|0.09||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.017.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.090|-0.779|0.110
95762128|NCT03355469|191492398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|0.137||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.033.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.137|-0.818|0.145
95762129|NCT03355469|191492398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|0.309||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.042.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.309|-0.538|0.565
95762130|NCT03355469|191492398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|0.116||Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to decrease the false discovery rate with an overall error rate of 0.05. The B\&H P-value threshold for this comparison was 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA linear model adjusted for pre-intervention MBV.||Intention to treat Full Maximum Likelihood based comparisons of baseline covariate adjusted pre- to post-intervention MBV change, where the difference is between treatment combination #2 and treatment combination #1 (i.e. treatment combination # 2 - treatment combination #1).||0.116|-1.025|0.110
95762131|NCT02111603|191492497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of on-treatment total fecal bile acid excretion with baseline total fecal bile acid excretion.||||0.012
95762132|NCT02794870|191492516|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|78.0||||||||78|39|
95801821|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-23.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.874|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.176|-12.143|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.143|-35.176|<0.001
95801822|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.875|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.036|-11.0|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-11.000|-34.036|<0.001
95801823|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-22.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.656|-11.278|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-11.278|-34.656|<0.001
95801824|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.399|-12.993|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.993|-36.399|< 0.001
95993003|NCT00928070|191962084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95762133|NCT02794870|191492516|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|56.0||||||||56|8|
95762134|NCT02794870|191492517|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|56.0||||||||56|18|
95762135|NCT02794870|191492517|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|47.0||||||||47|3|
95762136|NCT02794870|191492522|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95762137|NCT02794870|191492523|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95762138|NCT02237092|191492531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95762139|NCT02237092|191492532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95762140|NCT02237092|191492533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
95762141|NCT02237092|191492534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||NNT|||||2.58|1.05|<0.05
95762142|NCT03668808|191492665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-140mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762143|NCT03668808|191492666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Time in Range (70-180mg/dl) in the initial 24 hours at destination, whether after Eastward travel or Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance set at 0.05; using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762144|NCT03668808|191492667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Mean ± SD CGM glucose (mg/dl) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762145|NCT03668808|191492668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \<70 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762146|NCT03668808|191492669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time 70-180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762147|NCT03668808|191492670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in CGM % time \>180 mg/dl in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762148|NCT03668808|191492671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM - Coefficient of Variation (CV) in flight, East or West travel, and in 72 hours at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec \& Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was at 0.05. Using paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the SD of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95801825|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-24.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.853|-12.859|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-12.859|-36.853|<0.001
95801826|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.59|-9.598|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.598|-33.590|<0.001
95801827|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.194|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.565|-15.277|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-15.277|-39.565|<0.001
95801828|NCT04270760|191576669|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-27.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.232|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|-14.801|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-14.801|-39.240|<0.001
95993004|NCT00928070|191962086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.43||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.43|-1.77|0.0014
95762149|NCT03668808|191492672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in CGM Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG) at 0600 local time at destination, whether after East or West travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. Criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins assuming the standard deviation of the difference is \<106 minutes.||||<0.05
95762150|NCT03668808|191492673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Liverpool Jet-Lag Questionnaire after 24 and 48 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward travel or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.01
95762151|NCT03668808|191492674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Sleep quantity measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
95762152|NCT03668808|191492675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference in Sleep efficiency measured by ActiGraph in 24 hours at the destination, whether after Eastward or after Westward travel, between Insulin Degludec and Insulin Glargine U100. Travel direction not tested. The criterion for significance was set at 0.05, and using a paired t-test analysis, a sample size of 21 subjects would achieve a power of at least 77% to detect a difference of 10% between basal insulins.||||<0.05
95762153|NCT02839772|191492676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.341, df=89.347||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function (SBF) in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.164|0.997|<0.001
95762154|NCT02839772|191492677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=4.871, df=189.789||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.367|1.002|<0.001
95993005|NCT00928070|191962086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.70|-2.10|<0.0001
95993006|NCT00928070|191962087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0002
95993007|NCT00928070|191962087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95993008|NCT00928070|191962089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.1||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.10|-0.39|0.2511
95762155|NCT02839772|191492678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=5.111, df=189.620||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.731|1.210|<0.001
95801829|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.779|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.477|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.477|-26.303|<0.001
95993009|NCT00928070|191962089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.05|-0.53|0.0189
95762156|NCT02839772|191492679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.846|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=3.154, df=189.580||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in TEWL at the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||2.846|0.656|0.002
95762157|NCT02839772|191492680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.042|-1.1078|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-4.236,df=165.310||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the top of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-1.1078|-3.042|<0.001
95762158|NCT02839772|191492681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.581|-0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.549, df=180.923||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the mid-point of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.736|-2.581|<0.001
95762159|NCT02839772|191492682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.574|-0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.471, df=186.308||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the outer lower legs by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.708|-2.574|0.001
95762160|NCT02839772|191492683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.168|-0.911|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-3.565, df=186.739||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis compared the changes in SCH at the base of the top of the feet by group from baseline after 3 months of interventions."||-0.911|-3.168|<0.001
95801830|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.107|-9.284|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 2 vs Group 5||-9.284|-24.107|<0.001
95801831|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.139|-10.131|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.131|-25.139|<0.001
95859734|NCT04672655|191677548|OTHER|||||||0.8875||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.8875
95993010|NCT00928070|191962090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0010
95762161|NCT02839772|191492684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.952||A cumulative logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald Chi squared=3.138, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of the stage of podoconiosis by group being more severe at the 4th visit."||0.952|-0.048|0.076
95993011|NCT00928070|191962092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.3||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.30|-7.04|0.0001
95993012|NCT00928070|191962092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-2.66||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-2.66|-7.27|<0.0001
95801832|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-18.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.839|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.303|-11.241|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 36.|Week 36: Group 4 vs Group 5||-11.241|-26.303|< 0.001
95993013|NCT00928070|191962093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: =\<3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.11|-0.56|0.0035
95801833|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.757|-11.323|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 1 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 1 vs Group 5||-11.323|-28.757|<0.001
95801834|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-17.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.774|-8.345|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 2 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 2 vs Group 5||-8.345|-25.774|<0.001
95801835|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-19.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.336|-10.682|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 3 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 3 vs Group 5||-10.682|-28.336|<0.001
95801836|NCT04270760|191576670|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-21.839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-12.979|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Includes treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference = percentage change in Group 4 - percentage change in Group 5 from Baseline at Week 48.|Week 48: Group 4 vs Group 5||-12.979|-30.700|<0.001
95801837|NCT05156125|191576672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|29.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||29.05|2.58|0.0184
95993014|NCT00928070|191962093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.7089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|2.92||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 4: \>3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||2.92|-2.01|0.7089
95993015|NCT00928070|191962093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: =\<2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
95993016|NCT00928070|191962093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.09||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12: \>2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.||1.09|-0.78|0.7437
95993017|NCT00928070|191962094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 4- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0009
95801838|NCT05156125|191576672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|25.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||25.58|-0.03|0.0410
95801839|NCT05156125|191576673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.73|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 13 weeks||34.42|5.73|0.0070
95801840|NCT05156125|191576673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|30.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.67|2.75|0.0162
95801841|NCT05156125|191576674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|31.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.37|0.65|0.0448
95801842|NCT05156125|191576674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|30.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||30.58|0.23|0.0417
95801843|NCT05156125|191576675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.38|-0.99|0.0499
95801844|NCT05156125|191576675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|33.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||33.53|7.94|0.0011
95801845|NCT05156125|191576676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||0.0072
95801846|NCT05156125|191576676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 13||||<0.0001
95993018|NCT00928070|191962094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0021
95993019|NCT00928070|191962096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-5.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-5.45|-12.85|<0.0001
95993020|NCT00928070|191962096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-3.61||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-3.61|-11.60|0.0002
95762162|NCT02839772|191492685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.224||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.917||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used.|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=0.410, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of mossy changes being present in the lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit."||0.917|-0.469|0.527
95762163|NCT02839772|191492686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|-0.411||A Bernouilli distribution with a logistic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=8.304, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of participants having a bad odour emanating from their lower legs/feet by group at the 4th visit. Bad odour results in a decease in quality of life."||-0.411|-2.161|0.031
95762164|NCT02839772|191492687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.514||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used|Generalized estimating equation analysis|Wald chi-square=7.745, df=1||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds of wounds being present on the lower legs/feet of participants by group at the 4th visit."||3.514|0.610|0.005
95762165|NCT02839772|191492688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group ratio estimate|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.058|TWO_SIDED|0.058|-0.069|4.25||A Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function was used.|Generalized estimation equation|df=1|Those in the experimental group were expected to have fewer work days lost due to ADL.|"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Statistical analysis calculated the odds by group of having had fewer work days lost in the previous month at the 4th visit due to ADL."||4.250|-0.069|0.058
95801847|NCT00567112|191576742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.05|0.92|>0.200
95801848|NCT00567112|191576743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||1.19|0.80|>0.200
95801849|NCT00567112|191576744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio of OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.98|0.86|0.026
95801850|NCT00567112|191576745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||0.72|0.49|<0.001
95801851|NCT00567112|191576746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
95801852|NCT00567112|191576747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (fasted)/DFC (fasted)||||>0.200
95801853|NCT00567112|191576748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||<0.001
95801854|NCT00567112|191576749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||OCT (after meal)/OCT (fasted)||||>0.200
95801855|NCT06038643|191576750|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using False Discovery Rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95801856|NCT06038643|191576753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We conducted one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to assess the effect of group (intervention vs. control) on post-intervention secondary outcomes, including cognition (Test My Brain Digital Neuropsychology Toolkit). Covariates in all models included age, sex, years of education, APOE4 status, and baseline scores.||||<0.01
95993021|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|12.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||12.25|4.09|<0.0001
95993022|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|11.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||11.15|2.77|0.0012
95993023|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.95||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.95|0.05|0.0472
95762166|NCT02839772|191492689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was \< 0.001 at all time points.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|The correlation at the 1st visit was 0.252, at the 2nd 0.306, at the 3rd 0.291 and at the 4th 0.265.||The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.||||<0.001
95762167|NCT02839772|191492690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=185.386||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in leg circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.690|-0.113|0.158
95762168|NCT02839772|191492691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|df=169.916, t=3.550||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~A reduction in foot circumference indicates an improvement in the disease."||0.895|0.255|<0.001
95762169|NCT02839772|191492692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.129|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|t=-0.117, df=178.814||"The null hypothesis was that an evidence-based skin care intervention with added glycerine does not improve skin barrier function in the legs/feet or enhance the disease related quality of life of Ethiopian people with podoconiosis when compared to the control group using the current skin care regimen.~Podoconiosis has a large effect on a person's quality of life. abnormal looking legs/feet, wounds and the related bad odour plus social isolation result in stigma and social isolation.."||1.002|-1.129|0.907
95801857|NCT00699751|191576783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.827|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of overall survival, and also for the secondary endpoints, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.827|0.578|0.00005
95801858|NCT00699751|191576784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.169|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.22|||Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to total ALP progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.22|0.131|<0.00001
95801859|NCT00699751|191576785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801860|NCT00699751|191576785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801861|NCT00699751|191576785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=30%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801862|NCT00699751|191576785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801863|NCT00699751|191576786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801864|NCT00699751|191576786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801865|NCT00699751|191576786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed Total ALP Response (\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801866|NCT00699751|191576787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Total ALP normalization|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Total ALP normalization, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95762170|NCT01569295|191492693|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard Ratio is estimated using Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.45|0.27|< 0.0001
95762171|NCT01569295|191492694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|4.62||Odds ratio,p-value and 95% Confidence Interval(CI) were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factor in EDC(del17p/TP53,immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region(IgHV) mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.62|1.98|<0.0001
95762172|NCT01569295|191492695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|79.02||Odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||79.02|10.50|<0.0001
95762173|NCT01569295|191492696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.03|0.59|0.098
95762174|NCT01569295|191492697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|76.81||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors in EDC (del17p/TP53, IgHV mutation and disease status).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.81|1.19|0.011
95762175|NCT01895777|191492703|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 20%|Difference in Rates|-0.038|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.141|0.066||p-value for non-inferiority is actually \<0.0001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in rates (SOC - DE)|The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint used the randomised set, following the intention-to-treat principle, based on adjudication-confirmed data. Age group was used as stratification factor using a Mantel-Haenszel type weighted average of differences.||0.066|-0.141|= 0.0001
95762176|NCT01895777|191492704|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.032|||Kaplan-Meier estimate||Kaplan-Meier estimate of rate difference.|Time-to event endpoint using Kaplan-Meier estimates based on adjudication-confirmed data. Due to the low event rate of major bleeding, age group stratification was not considered.||0.032|-0.032|
95762177|NCT01895777|191492710|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.78||||||Any bleeding events was analysed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model and age group as the stratification factor. A pooling of age groups was performed as no events were observed in certain age group.||1.780|0.736|
95762178|NCT01895777|191492711|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|69990000.0||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|999999999.0|||Cox proportional hazard model||Upper Limit of the 90% confidence interval was not assessable|All-cause mortality was analyzed as time-to-event endpoint using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a covariate in the model.||999999999|0.000|0.9976
95801867|NCT00699751|191576788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95762179|NCT02064296|191492720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain.||||0.3330
95762180|NCT02064296|191492720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Healthy controls||||0.6474
95762181|NCT02064296|191492720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Salience co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain||||<0.0001
95762182|NCT02064296|191492720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis covers the sensorimotor co-activation pattern at rest vs. with pressure pain for Fibromyalgia patients||||0.0004
95762183|NCT02064296|191492721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a comparison of Mock Laser Acupuncture pre-and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||0.0653
95762184|NCT02064296|191492721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a P value for the change in Traditional Acupuncture, pre and post 4 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95762185|NCT02064296|191492722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.7399
95762186|NCT02064296|191492722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glx statistical comparison||||0.6226
95762187|NCT02064296|191492723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.6344
95762188|NCT02064296|191492723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GABA statistical comparison||||0.7985
95762189|NCT01894087|191492726|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Numerator is Therapist-led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of outcome of overdose risk behavior sum score at 6 months, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.87|0.59|
95762190|NCT01894087|191492727|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Numerator is the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable linear regression of the outcome of standardized sum score of overdose symptom knowledge at 6 months follow-up, adjusted for baseline level of overdose symptom knowledge.||0.40|-0.20|
95801868|NCT00699751|191576789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline to week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801869|NCT00699751|191576790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Percentage change from baseline|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95762191|NCT01894087|191492728|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of using opioids as prescribed). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to use opioids as prescribed, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.33|0.93|
95762192|NCT01894087|191492728|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of reducing or avoiding opioid use). Numerator was the Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and the denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid or reduce opioid use, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||0.90|0.65|
95801870|NCT00699751|191576791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment|ANCOVA|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage decrease from baseline during the 24 week treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801871|NCT00699751|191576792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.768||Time to Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) progression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to PSA progression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.768|0.539|<0.00001
95801872|NCT00699751|191576793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95801873|NCT00699751|191576793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.106
95801874|NCT00699751|191576793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.032
95762193|NCT01894087|191492728|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||||This item was reverse coded; higher scores indicate lower intention to avoid overdose risk (for the strategy of not combining opioids with other drugs). Numerator was Therapist-Led Brief Intervention and denominator was Enhanced Usual Care only.|Multivariable Poisson regression of the outcome of intention to avoid combining opioids with other substances, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome.||1.19|0.80|
95762194|NCT01894087|191492729|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Numerator is Therapist-Led Brief Intervention, Denominator is Enhanced Usual Care only|Multivariable Poisson regression for the outcome of total COMM score at follow-up, adjusting for baseline level of the outcome||0.92|0.70|
95801875|NCT00699751|191576794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||\>=30% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=30% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95859505|NCT00298558|191676501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.15|-0.25|0.52
95801876|NCT00699751|191576794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||\>=50% reduction in blood level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of \>=50% reduction in blood level, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.002
95859506|NCT00298558|191676504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.17|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.12|-0.17|0.69
95993024|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.46|-0.55|0.1087
95762195|NCT00396565|191492756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-17.16|-8.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline score as a covariate||||-8.25|-17.16|<0.0001
95762196|NCT00396565|191492757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.17|-2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate.||||-2.51|-5.17|<0.0001
95762197|NCT00396565|191492758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.71|-1.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and with baseline score as a covariate||||-1.33|-3.71|<0.0001
95762198|NCT00396565|191492759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.58|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and with baseline score as a covariate||||-3.80|-8.58|<0.0001
95762199|NCT00396565|191492760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
95762200|NCT00396565|191492761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and baseline score as a covariate||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.0001
95762201|NCT02211417|191492853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.057
95762202|NCT01198132|191492863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Poisson log-linear model|||||1.32|0.48|0.3797
95762203|NCT01277211|191492873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Pearl Indices|0.61||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29|||Poisson distribution method|Differences between treatment groups was explored using an exact 95% CI for the ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||Differences between the two treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) were explored using an exact 95% CI for the Ratio of the two Pearl Indices based on the Poisson distribution.||2.29|0.19|0.531
95762204|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-3.0||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||3.1|-9.9|0.346
95762205|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-6.2||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-12.7|0.029
95762206|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-5.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.9|-11.8|0.019
95762207|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-8.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.9|-14.0|0.001
95762208|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.6|-6.4|0.556
95762209|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-9.5|0.089
95762210|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-3.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.8|-9.4|0.110
95762211|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-4.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-9.8|0.049
95762212|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.9|-6.2|0.621
95762213|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-4.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-10.0|0.041
95762214|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-3.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.9|0.046
95993025|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|9.28||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.28|2.31|0.0012
95993026|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|13.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||13.33|4.75|<0.0001
95993027|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|9.67||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.67|0.96|0.0169
95993028|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|8.17||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||8.17|-0.08|0.0546
95993029|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|5.55||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.55|-0.85|0.1497
95993030|NCT00928070|191962098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|9.23||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||9.23|1.84|0.0034
95993031|NCT00928070|191962099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|22.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment and center as factors was used to calculate p-value.||22.08|10.43|<0.0001
95993032|NCT00928070|191962100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Not satisfied, neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, satisfied: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used.||||<0.0001
95993033|NCT00928070|191962102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline value, and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.15|-0.51|0.2788
95993034|NCT00928070|191962103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 4: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||8.00|0.00|0.0021
95993035|NCT00928070|191962103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|11.0||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at 5% alpha level.|Van Elteren's test|||Change at Week 12: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||11.00|3.00|<0.0001
95762215|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-4.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.2|-9.9|0.037
95762216|NCT01277211|191492874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.0|-10.4|0.048
95762217|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 1|-6.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 1, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.1|-12.0|0.015
95762218|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 2|-4.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 2, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-10.1|0.012
95993036|NCT02908100|191962134|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.373
95993037|NCT02908100|191962134|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|-7.3|0.339
95993038|NCT02908100|191962135|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.7||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.5|-6.1|0.223
95993039|NCT02908100|191962135|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.0||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-11.8|0.737
95993040|NCT02908100|191962136|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.614
95993041|NCT02908100|191962136|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.9|-10.7|0.607
95993042|NCT02908100|191962137|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.410
95993043|NCT02908100|191962137|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.4||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|-8.5|0.418
95993044|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|14.9||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||43.7|-14|0.378
95993045|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||36.7|-21.7|0.732
95993046|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
95993047|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|8.6||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||38.7|-21.4|0.234
95993048|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
95993049|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.2||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||44.4|-14.1|0.134
95762219|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 3|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 3, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.2|-12.0|0.002
95762220|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 4|-3.6||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 4, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-8.5|0.044
95762221|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 5|-1.0||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 5, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||2.5|-5.7|0.609
95801877|NCT00699751|191576794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Confirmed PSA Response(\>=50%), is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.005
95762222|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 6|-3.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 6, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.2|-9.3|0.062
95762223|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 7|-4.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 7, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.6|-9.0|0.019
95762224|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 8|-1.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 8, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||1.6|-6.7|0.308
95762225|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 9|-4.2||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 9, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.4|-9.3|0.027
95801878|NCT00699751|191576795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.160
95801879|NCT00699751|191576796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline up to Week 12, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.004
95762226|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 10|-2.9||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 10, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||0.5|-7.6|0.098
95762227|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 11|-4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 11, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-1.0|-9.4|0.009
95762228|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 12|-6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 12, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-2.1|-11.7|0.002
95762229|NCT01277211|191492875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages, Cycle 13|-4.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||For Cycle 13, a two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage between the treatment groups (ENG-EE vs. DRSP-EE) was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-0.1|-10.2|0.043
95762230|NCT00345631|191492885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|-12.31||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The mean time to hemostasis for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-12.31|-19.04|<0.0001
95801880|NCT00699751|191576797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Percentage change from baseline in PSA at EOT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||0.009
95801881|NCT00699751|191576798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period|ANCOVA|Adjusting for the binary stratification factors, total ALP, current use of Bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.||The null hypothesis for the comparison of Maximum Percentage Decrease from Baseline in PSA response During the 24 Week Treatment Period, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||||<0.001
95993050|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-7.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.3|-37.6|0.830
95762231|NCT00345631|191492886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.87||Multiplicity is addressed for the two co-primary effectiveness endpoints via a closed testing procedure where the time to hemostasis will be assessed first and then time to ambulation only if significance is first achieved for time to hemostasis.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The mean time to ambulation for the manual compression (MC) arm is less or equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.~The trial is powered to detect a 5 minute reduction in mean time to hemostasis and a 2 hour reduction in mean time to ambulation for VCD vs. MC with over 90% power and a 5% two-sided (2.5% one-sided) Type I error"||-1.87|-5.53|0.0028
95762232|NCT00345631|191492887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is adequate to rule out a 4% or larger disadvantage for VCD vs. MC (null hypothesis: 2.5% MC vs. 6.5% VCD) in the incidence of major complications for VCD vs. MC using a 95% upper confidence bound for the VCD - MC difference with 80% power and a 5% one-sided Type I error|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.14||P-value was calculated using unconditional exact test of non-inferiority for difference of two binomial proportions (VCD vs. MC) with a margin of 4%.|unconditional exact test|||Based on pre-planned hypotheses, a minimum sample size of 390 randomized patients (260 VCD patients and 130 MC patients) would demonstrate non-inferiority for the primary safety endpoint and superiority for both co-primary effectiveness endpoints in comparing VCD vs. MC.||1.14||0.0006
95762233|NCT00345631|191492888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to eligibility for hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||0.45|-7.84|0.1540
95762234|NCT00345631|191492889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean time to hospital discharge for the manual compression (MC) arm is equal to that for the vascular closure device (VCD) arm.||2.31|-7.46|0.3612
95762235|NCT00345631|191492892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.7||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The percentages of patients achieving procedure success between the vascular closure device and manual compression arms are equal.||7.4|-4.8|0.85
95762236|NCT00517556|191492894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95762237|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
95762238|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
95801882|NCT00699751|191576799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.814||Time to first Skeletal Related Event (SRE)|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to first SRE, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.814|0.529|0.00012
95801883|NCT00699751|191576800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.8||Time to External Beam Radiotherapy|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of time to EBRT, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.8|0.511|0.00008
95801884|NCT00699751|191576801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.344||||0.00191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.695||stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Receiving Radio-isotope, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||0.695|0.17|0.00191
95762239|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
95762240|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||<0.001
95762241|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.041
95762242|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.668
95762243|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.437
95950746|NCT00424476|191873479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0006||95.0|1.3|2.59||For the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a step-down sequential testing procedure was used to control the type 1 error.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors (SELENA SLEDAI Score: ≤9 vs ≥10; proteinuria: \<2g vs ≥2g per 24hr; Race: African/indig-American vs Other)||||2.59|1.30|0.0006
95950747|NCT00424476|191873479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19||After superiority of 10 mg/kg vs placebo was established, the 1 mg/kg group was tested vs placebo (2-sided alpha=0.05).|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.19|1.10|0.0129
95801885|NCT00699751|191576802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.53277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.426||Time to Pathological Bone Fracture|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Pathological Bone Fracture, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||1.426|0.504|0.53277
95801886|NCT00699751|191576803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.89567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|2.07||Time to Surgical Intervention|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Surgical Intervention, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists||2.07|0.435|0.89567
95762244|NCT00993421|191493062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: Treatment with a combination of LY377604 + sibutramine for 24 weeks would result in weight loss that was significantly greater than treatment with either sibutramine or LY377604 alone.||||0.249
95762245|NCT00708227|191493100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
95762246|NCT00708227|191493101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95762247|NCT00708227|191493102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95762248|NCT02291510|191493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.27|38.74|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||38.74|32.27|<0.001
95801887|NCT00699751|191576804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.14486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|1.145||Time to Spinal Cord Compression|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Spinal Cord Compression, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||1.145|0.404|0.14486
95801888|NCT00699751|191576805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.00932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|0.925||Time to Other Cancer Treatment|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Other Cancer Treatment, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.925|0.571|0.00932
95801889|NCT00699751|191576806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.873||Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS|Log Rank|Stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The hazard ratio (Alpharadin:Placebo) is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by total ALP, current use of bisphosphonates and prior use of Docetaxel.|The null hypothesis for the comparison of Time to Marked Deterioration of ECOG PS, is that there is no difference between Alpharadin and placebo for that endpoint; the alternative hypothesis is that a difference exists.||0.873|0.546|0.00187
95950748|NCT00424476|191873480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.41|1.21|0.0024
95762249|NCT02291510|191493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.77|57.36|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||57.36|47.77|<0.001
95762250|NCT02291510|191493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.3|35.18|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||35.18|29.30|<0.001
95762251|NCT02291510|191493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.38|52.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||52.09|43.38|<0.001
95762252|NCT02291510|191493208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|110.1||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.68|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||120.68|100.50|0.0832
95801890|NCT00762177|191576827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801891|NCT00762177|191576828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801892|NCT00762177|191576829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801893|NCT00762177|191576830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801894|NCT00762177|191576831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801895|NCT00762177|191576832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801896|NCT00762177|191576833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95950749|NCT00424476|191873480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors.||||2.14|1.07|0.0189
95762253|NCT02291510|191493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.43|39.77|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||39.77|32.43|<0.001
95801897|NCT00762177|191576834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||the tongue will be scrapped 5 times with the edge of a tongue depressor. The depressor is vortex in sterile phosphate buffered saline(PBS) and the sample is then sonicated using a Branson 450A sonicator with a cup horn for 30 seconds. Samples diluted (10 fold) in PBS and plated using a spiral systems autoplate 4000 spiral plater on CFAT Agar||||0.05
95762254|NCT02291510|191493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.88|58.71|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||58.71|47.88|<0.001
95762255|NCT02291510|191493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.88|50.13|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||50.13|40.88|<0.001
95762256|NCT02291510|191493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|74.0|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met IR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||74.00|60.34|<0.001
95950750|NCT00424476|191873481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.0003
95762257|NCT02291510|191493209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|79.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.65|87.86|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2000 mg Met XR QD is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||87.86|71.65|0.0004
95762258|NCT00733005|191493280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.102
95762259|NCT00733005|191493281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95762260|NCT01769456|191493283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Reported p-value is the calculated value provided by SAS output.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||< 0.0001
95762261|NCT01769456|191493284|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
95762262|NCT01769456|191493285|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0003
95762263|NCT01769456|191493286|OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0236
95762264|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4656|0.2477|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2477|-0.4656|0.6102
95762265|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2076||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4758|0.2225|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2225|-0.4758|0.5452
95762266|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2055||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5139|0.1775|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.1775|-0.5139|0.4178
95801898|NCT00762177|191576835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801899|NCT00762177|191576836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801900|NCT00762177|191576837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95950751|NCT00424476|191873481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PGA score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.2712
95762267|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8375|-0.1395|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.1395|-0.8375|0.0233
95762268|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3613|0.3259|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.3259|-0.3613|0.9314
95762269|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2045||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4032|0.2847|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2847|-0.4032|0.7734
95762270|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2043||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7232|-0.036|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0360|-0.7232|0.0702
95762271|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3768|0.2937|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.2937|-0.3768|0.8359
95762272|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6962|-0.0275|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||-0.0275|-0.6962|0.0759
95762273|NCT01009814|191493311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1993||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6555|0.0149|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was 0 difference in mean log10 decrease in HIV RNA at Day 9 between two groups.||0.0149|-0.6555|0.1155
95762274|NCT02969382|191493346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.9|0.001
95762275|NCT02969382|191493347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
95762276|NCT02969382|191493348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.019
95762277|NCT02969382|191493349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.008
95762278|NCT02969382|191493350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-6.6|<0.001
95762279|NCT02969382|191493351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.8|<0.001
95801901|NCT00762177|191576838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95762280|NCT02969382|191493352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.020
95762281|NCT02969382|191493353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|4.921|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.921|1.422|0.002
95762282|NCT02969382|191493355|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
95762283|NCT02969382|191493356|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95762284|NCT02969382|191493357|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.498
95762285|NCT00886015|191493391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.93||||||||1.93|0.96|
95762286|NCT00886015|191493392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.98||||||||0.98|0.46|
95762287|NCT00886015|191493393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18||||||||1.18|0.66|
95762288|NCT00886015|191493394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98||||||||0.98|0.44|
95762289|NCT00886015|191493395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||Mild ECA compared with Normal||0.97|0.42|
95762290|NCT00886015|191493395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01||||||Moderate ECA compared with Normal||1.01|0.39|
95762291|NCT00886015|191493395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1||||||Severe ECA compared with Normal||1.10|0.35|
95762292|NCT00886015|191493396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.53||||||||1.53|0.97|
95762293|NCT01983566|191493403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|115.8||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.52|211.11||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% confidence interval (CI) based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. The estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||211.11|63.52|0.3944
95764434|NCT00780338|191499087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.09
95801902|NCT00762177|191576839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801903|NCT00762177|191576840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801904|NCT00762177|191576841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801905|NCT00762177|191576842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95762294|NCT01983566|191493404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The actual number of subjects analyzed is 16. No formal statistical hypothesis was tested.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.83||||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.803|176.281||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (bioequivalence test). P-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%.|ANOVA||This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'. The statistical analysis result is based on the adjusted means.|"The difference between the expected means for log(Dele low fat) and log(Dele fasted) was estimated by the differences in the adjusted means (Least Squares Means), and a 2 sided 90% CI based on the t-distribution was computed.~These were then back transformed. This estimation model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period', and 'treatment'."||176.281|74.803|0.3674
95762295|NCT01495702|191493446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than the NNRTI+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in proportions|5.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.0|||Fisher Exact||The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was from unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests with the standardized statistic using StatXact.|||12.0|-0.5|0.066
95762296|NCT04152863|191493450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.9||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|32.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||32.5|-9.5|0.1812
95762297|NCT04152863|191493450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.2|25.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|To ensure adequate number of participants, strata were combined according to sSAP when one treatment had 0 participants in a particular stratum.||||25.5|-16.2|0.3548
95762298|NCT04152863|191493450|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|28.2||||||||28.2|-14.6|
95762299|NCT04152863|191493451|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.27||||||||2.27|0.50|
95762300|NCT04152863|191493451|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.29||||||||2.29|0.51|
95762301|NCT04152863|191493451|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04||||||||2.04|0.50|
95762302|NCT04152863|191493453|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
95801906|NCT00762177|191576843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801907|NCT00762177|191576844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801908|NCT00762177|191576845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801909|NCT00762177|191576846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95762303|NCT04152863|191493453|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|19.2||||||||19.2|-23.1|
95762304|NCT04152863|191493453|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|21.2||||||||21.2|-21.2|
95801910|NCT00762177|191576847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801911|NCT00762177|191576848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801912|NCT00762177|191576849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95801913|NCT00762177|191576850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95762305|NCT04152863|191493454|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.02||||||||3.02|0.70|
95762306|NCT04152863|191493454|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.68||||||||2.68|0.62|
95801914|NCT05537571|191576872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.19|-77.39|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.39|-88.19|<0.0001
95801915|NCT05537571|191576872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|-76.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-76.0|-86.68|<0.0001
95801916|NCT05537571|191576872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.88|-80.26|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-80.26|-90.88|<0.0001
95801917|NCT05537571|191576873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.7|-77.57|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.57|-88.7|<0.0001
95950752|NCT00424476|191873482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8870
95950753|NCT00424476|191873482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PCS score and baseline stratification factors.||||||0.8127
95950754|NCT00424476|191873483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.08|0.99|0.0526
95950755|NCT00424476|191873483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline prednisone dose level and baseline stratification factors.||||3.31|1.08|0.0252
95801918|NCT05537571|191576873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.18|-73.17|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.17|-84.18|<0.0001
95801919|NCT05537571|191576873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.43|-77.49|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-77.49|-88.43|<0.0001
95762307|NCT04152863|191493454|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22||||||||2.22|0.60|
95762308|NCT04152863|191493456|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.79||||||||3.79|0.71|
95762309|NCT04152863|191493456|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||||||||2.68|0.47|
95762310|NCT04152863|191493456|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.02||||||||3.02|0.64|
95762311|NCT02032680|191493459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The two treatments were compared to see whether participants in one achieved a higher level on their goals (i.e., the maximum level achieved on the goal).||||0.3749
95762312|NCT03593395|191493460|OTHER|Estimation only|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.34|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||3.34|1.81|
95762313|NCT03593395|191493460|OTHER|Estimation only.|Least Square Mean Estimate|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.19|||||Estimates are from generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution log link construct and length of follow up offset. Includes fixed effects for site size, baseline acute utilization, and random effect for cluster (site).|||4.19|2.09|
95762314|NCT00719615|191493473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only risk factors significant at the 0.10 level in univariate analysis were included in the multivariate model.|Fisher Exact|||Patient characteristics for each group were assessed using descriptive statistics, including medians, range, frequencies, and proportions. Categorical outcomes were compared between the 3 groups using a Fisher's exact test. A logistic regression modeling procedure was used to compare the odds of a low vitamin D levels between patient groups while adjusting for other risk factors: gender, age, BMI, season, and TNM staging.||||<0.05
95762315|NCT03022370|191493474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.62|=0.686
95762316|NCT03022370|191493474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.51|=0.032
95762317|NCT03022370|191493475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.64|0.555
95762318|NCT03022370|191493475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.03|0.54|0.072
95762319|NCT03022370|191493476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.66|0.672
95762320|NCT03022370|191493476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.52|0.019
95762321|NCT03022370|191493477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.88|0.984
95762322|NCT03022370|191493477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63|||Regression, Linear|||||0.63|-0.51|0.839
95762323|NCT03022370|191493478|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Tobit|Log + 1 performed on data||||1.51|0.43|<0.0001
95762324|NCT03022370|191493478|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.21||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.83|||Tobit|Log plus 1 to transform data||||0.83|-0.42|0.521
95801920|NCT05537571|191576874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-79.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.25|-73.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-73.1|-85.25|<0.0001
95801921|NCT05537571|191576874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-65.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-65.8|-77.81|<0.0001
95801922|NCT05537571|191576874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.09|-71.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-71.15|-83.09|<0.0001
95801923|NCT05537571|191576875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.55|-8.09|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.09|-18.55|<0.0001
95762325|NCT03022370|191493479|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.58|||Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-1.09|0.718
95762326|NCT03022370|191493479|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.28|||Regression, Linear|||||1.28|-1.87|0.712
95762327|NCT03022370|191493480|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-3.14|0.067
95762328|NCT03022370|191493480|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.99|||Regression, Linear|||||0.99|-2.48|0.398
95762329|NCT03022370|191493481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.85|0.228
95762330|NCT03022370|191493481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.53|0.558
95762331|NCT03022370|191493482|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.52|0.679
95762332|NCT03022370|191493482|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.16|||Regression, Linear|||||1.16|-0.07|0.08
95762333|NCT03022370|191493483|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||||0.95|-1.21|0.810
95762334|NCT03022370|191493483|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.03||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.04|-2.01|0.041
95762335|NCT03022370|191493484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.67|0.635
95762336|NCT03022370|191493484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.27|0.41|0.256
95762337|NCT03022370|191493485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.73|0.526
95762338|NCT03022370|191493485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.67|0.931
95762339|NCT03022370|191493486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|0.63|0.691
95762340|NCT03022370|191493486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.60|0.692
95762341|NCT03022370|191493487|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.72|0.137
95762342|NCT03022370|191493487|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.40|-0.58|0.721
95762343|NCT03022370|191493488|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||0.24|-0.70|0.332
95762344|NCT03022370|191493488|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.71|0.468
95762345|NCT03022370|191493489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
95762346|NCT03022370|191493489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.89|0.129
95762347|NCT03022370|191493490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|0.89|0.174
95762348|NCT03022370|191493490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.64|0.836
95762349|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sevoflurane administration in developing postoperative headache||5.13|2.04|0.001
95762350|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Smoking as a factor for developing postoperative headache||2.84|1.19|0.006
95762351|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative hypotension associated with postoperative headache in total sample||3.66|1.22|0.008
95762352|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Female gender as a factor for developing postoperative headache||3.15|1.08|0.024
95762353|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|13.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of female gender and postoperative headache||13.17|1.58|0.005
95762354|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative headache||9.72|1.48|0.006
95762355|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test. Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of caffeine consumption and postoperative headache||14.06|1.06|0.041
95762356|NCT02374346|191493538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Associations between categorical variables were tested by χ2 test, while differences between categorical and continuous variables were tested by Student's t test.Univariate analysis was performed with the computation of unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to find independent factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Association of sevoflurane administration and postoperative headache||9.95|1.82|0.001
95801924|NCT05537571|191576875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|-4.68|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.68|-15.02|=0.0002
95950756|NCT00886834|191873488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95762357|NCT03097991|191493578|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.32
95762358|NCT03097991|191493578|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.53
95762359|NCT03097991|191493579|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.07
95762360|NCT03097991|191493579|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Group Effect|||.69
95762361|NCT03097991|191493580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.22
95762362|NCT03097991|191493580|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect|||||.53
95762363|NCT03097991|191493581|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.33
95762364|NCT03097991|191493581|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.69
95762365|NCT03097991|191493582|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
95762366|NCT03097991|191493582|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
95762367|NCT03097991|191493583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
95801925|NCT05537571|191576875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-9.82|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.82|-20.1|<0.0001
95801926|NCT05537571|191576876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-7.08|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.08|-17.62|<0.0001
95762368|NCT03097991|191493583|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.85
95762369|NCT03097991|191493584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint Effect|||||.56
95762370|NCT03097991|191493584|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.81
95762371|NCT03097991|191493585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint effect|||||.85
95762372|NCT03097991|191493585|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group Effect|||||.77
95762373|NCT03097991|191493586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.001
95762374|NCT03097991|191493586|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
95762375|NCT03097991|191493587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects|Group|||||<.05
95762376|NCT03097991|191493587|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||<.05
95762377|NCT03097991|191493588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|"We analyzed the CTS scales Psychological Aggression and Physical Assault. Inspection of the latter in the raw data and descriptives showed extremely consistent selection of the lowest value of the scale (no incidents of assault) across all respondents, so we did not conduct inferential tests."||||.39
95762378|NCT03097991|191493588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||<.005
95762379|NCT03097991|191493589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.24
95762380|NCT03097991|191493589|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA found a main effect of group, F(1, 155) = 6.85, p \< .05, η2G = .04.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Group|||||<.05
95762381|NCT03097991|191493590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.02
95762382|NCT03097991|191493590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.56
95762383|NCT03097991|191493591|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.30
95762384|NCT03097991|191493591|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.36
95762385|NCT03097991|191493592|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.17
95801927|NCT05537571|191576876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.44|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.44|-13.85|=0.0013
95762386|NCT03097991|191493592|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
95762387|NCT03097991|191493593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
95801928|NCT05537571|191576876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-8.84|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.84|-19.2|<0.0001
95762388|NCT03097991|191493593|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Time|||||.38
95762389|NCT03097991|191493594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parent x Group|||||.07
95762390|NCT03097991|191493594|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||<.001
95762391|NCT03097991|191493595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.92
95762392|NCT03097991|191493595|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.05
95762393|NCT03097991|191493596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.81
95762394|NCT03097991|191493596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.34
95762395|NCT03097991|191493597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.76
95993051|NCT02908100|191962138|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||27.8|-32.1|0.963
95993052|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|19.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||47.5|-9.4|0.189
95762396|NCT03097991|191493597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.53
95762397|NCT03097991|191493598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.88
95762398|NCT03097991|191493598|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.95
95762399|NCT03097991|191493599|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.47
95762400|NCT03097991|191493599|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
95762401|NCT03097991|191493600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.68
95762402|NCT03097991|191493600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.07
95762403|NCT03097991|191493601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.65
95762404|NCT03097991|191493601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.50
95762405|NCT03097991|191493602|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.48
95801929|NCT05537571|191576877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-5.73|-16.81|<0.0001
95762406|NCT03097991|191493602|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.27
95762407|NCT03097991|191493603|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group|||||.01
95762408|NCT03097991|191493603|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group x Timepoint|||||.58
95762409|NCT01906515|191493621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95762410|NCT01906515|191493622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95762411|NCT02924727|191493625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9012||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7778|1.0441|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||Primary Composite||1.0441|0.7778|0.1659
95762412|NCT02924727|191493625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7104|1.0754|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV Death||1.0754|0.7104|0.2031
95762413|NCT02924727|191493625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8653||||0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7044|1.0629|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First HF Hospitalization||1.0629|0.7044|0.1679
95762414|NCT02924727|191493625|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6831||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|1.0266|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||First Outpatient HF||1.0266|0.4546|0.0667
95762415|NCT02924727|191493626|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9133||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7824|1.0662|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death or HF hospitalization||1.0662|0.7824|0.2507
95762416|NCT02924727|191493627|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8422||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6979|1.0163|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||HF hospitalization or Outpatient HF||1.0163|0.6979|0.0732
95762417|NCT02924727|191493628|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9007||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7734|1.0489|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||CV death, Non-fatal spontaneous MI or Non-fatal stroke||1.0489|0.7734|0.1785
95762418|NCT02924727|191493629|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8361||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7018|0.9961|||Negative Binomial regression model|||Total Number of Confirmed Composite Endpoints||0.9961|0.7018|0.0452
95801930|NCT05537571|191576877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.69|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-1.69|-12.64|=0.0106
95993053|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|6.7||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q1||35.2|-21.9|0.909
95993054|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||28.4|-29.2|0.500
95993055|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q2||33.8|-27.1|0.234
95993056|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|15.5||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|46.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||46|-14.9|0.364
95762419|NCT02924727|191493630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8751||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7279|1.052|||Cox's Proportional Hazard Model|||All-Cause Death||1.0520|0.7279|0.1556
95762420|NCT00754546|191493638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between mode of exercise and treatment effect.~Twenty patients were considered adequate to provide a power of 85% with an alpha of 0.05."||||< 0.05
95762421|NCT00754546|191493638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing arformoterol with placebo with treadmill exercise||||0.024
95762422|NCT00754546|191493638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Arformoterol versus normal saline with cycle exercise||||0.038
95801931|NCT05537571|191576877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|-7.15|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.15|-18.04|<0.0001
95801932|NCT05537571|191576878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.9|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.07|-9.72|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-9.72|-54.07|=0.0051
95801933|NCT05537571|191576878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|||=|0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-7.81|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.81|-51.62|=0.0081
95801934|NCT05537571|191576878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||=|0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.89|-3.33|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-3.33|-46.89|=0.0241
95801935|NCT05537571|191576879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.8|||=|0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.86|-10.76|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-10.76|-48.86|=0.0023
95801936|NCT05537571|191576879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.4|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.23|-8.58|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.58|-46.23|=0.0046
95801937|NCT05537571|191576879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|-7.24|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-7.24|-44.67|=0.0068
95801938|NCT05537571|191576880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7|||=|0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|-8.46|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-8.46|-48.91|=0.0057
95801939|NCT05537571|191576880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.13|-6.16||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-6.16|-46.13|
95801940|NCT05537571|191576880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.93|-4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences between each active treatment group and the pooled placebo groups in the primary outcome measure.||-4.2|-43.93|0.0179
95801941|NCT04337021|191576902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||There were no statistical differences between the two treatment groups (chi-square=0.43, p=0.513)||||0.513
95950757|NCT03979040|191873509|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||||P value = .025 (one-sided) and sign test below|Sign test|||||||.025
95801942|NCT04337021|191576903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.184
95801943|NCT04337021|191576904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
95801944|NCT04337021|191576905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.723
95801945|NCT04337021|191576906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
95801946|NCT04906421|191576907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population analysis||||0.0018
95801947|NCT04906421|191576907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0035
95801948|NCT04906421|191576907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0001
95801949|NCT04906421|191576907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0003
95801950|NCT04906421|191576908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0087
95801951|NCT04906421|191576908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||ITT Population Analysis||||0.0173
95801952|NCT04906421|191576908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0022
95801953|NCT04906421|191576908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0044
95801954|NCT04906421|191576909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0102
95801955|NCT04906421|191576909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F2 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.59
95801956|NCT04906421|191576909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-Sided||Subgroup Fibrosis Stage F3 at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0032
95801957|NCT04906421|191576909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||Subgroup Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at Baseline Population Analysis||||0.0764
95801958|NCT04906421|191576910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0043
95801959|NCT04906421|191576911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||0.0018
95950758|NCT03979040|191873510|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
95762423|NCT06360081|191493644|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|99.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.78||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||102.78|97.08|<0.0001
95762424|NCT06360081|191493645|EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on two-sided 90% CIs for the ratios of the geometric means (gMean) (T/R) using an acceptance range of 80.0 to 125.0%.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means (T/R)|100.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.44||p-value was calculated for ratios outside the 80.0 to 125.0% interval.|ANOVA||Ratio as percentage \[%\] Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%.|PK endpoints were back transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each endpoint. The model included effects accounting for variation in sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the others were considered as fixed. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||105.44|96.43|<0.0001
95762425|NCT00352417|191493647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.97
95801960|NCT04906421|191576912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Stratified CMH test stratified by T2DM status at baseline (yes or no) and amount of fibrosis at baseline (F2 or F3).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided||mITT Population Analysis||||<0.0001
95801961|NCT01398475|191576939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.951|
95801962|NCT01398475|191576939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.09|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.09|0.947|
95801963|NCT01398475|191576939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|0.953|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.953|0.827|
95801964|NCT01398475|191576940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.1|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF1 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.10|0.868|
95801965|NCT01398475|191576940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.08|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fasted divided by RF fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||1.08|0.852|
95801966|NCT01398475|191576940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|0.925|||||The geometric LS mean ratio (TF2 fed divided by TF2 fasted) was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model adjusted for treatment, sequence, period, and participant.|||0.925|0.727|
95801967|NCT01398475|191576941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF1 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.500|-0.250|0.719
95801968|NCT01398475|191576941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fasted minus RF fasted.|||0.750|-0.250|0.960
95801969|NCT01398475|191576941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The median difference was calculated as TF2 fed minus TF2 fasted.|||2.00|0|0.006
95801970|NCT00441896|191576942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7391
95801971|NCT00441896|191576942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5370
95950759|NCT03979040|191873511|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -.5 was set for outcome analysis with a one-sided alpha of .025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Sign test|||||||.025
95762426|NCT00352417|191493648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite's method||||||0.37
95801972|NCT00441896|191576942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9080
95801973|NCT00441896|191576942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2539|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2539
95801974|NCT00441896|191576942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6657
95801975|NCT00441896|191576943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4249
95801976|NCT00441896|191576943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4177|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4177
95801977|NCT00441896|191576943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3033|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3033
95801978|NCT00441896|191576943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3014
95801979|NCT00441896|191576943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1839
95801980|NCT01033071|191576951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-7.6|-3.1||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.001
95801981|NCT01033071|191576951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||"Overall Type 1 error rate of 0.05 controlled using 'Closed Testing' principle (hypothesis of all treatment groups equal first tested at 0.05 significance level; upon rejection of this hypothesis, pairwise comparison was tested at the 0.05 level."|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.6|-9.2|<0.001
95801982|NCT01033071|191576954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-4.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.7|-9.4|<0.001
95993057|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q3||36.3|-22|0.310
95762427|NCT00352417|191493649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95762428|NCT00352417|191493650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on the natural log transformed data||||||<0.01
95762429|NCT00352417|191493651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95762430|NCT04205812|191493652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||The p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test at an overall 1-sided 2.5% level of significance, using O'Brien and Fleming boundary to adjust for alpha spending at interim analysis.|Log Rank||A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.93|0.60|0.0042
95762431|NCT04205812|191493653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Log Rank|The p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test for PFS.|A stratified Cox regression with Efron's method for tie handling was used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
95762432|NCT04205812|191493654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value was calculated at the 1-sided 2.5% level from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95762433|NCT03573830|191493684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.20|0.04|0.002
95762434|NCT03573830|191493685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.07|0.000
95762435|NCT03573830|191493686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.03|0.352
95762436|NCT03573830|191493687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.56||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|0.34|0.000
95762437|NCT03573830|191493688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|0.05|0.002
95762438|NCT03573830|191493689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.56||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|62.46||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||62.46|2.65|0.033
95801983|NCT01033071|191576954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.6||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.6|-11.5|<0.001
95801984|NCT01033071|191576956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.3||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.3|-8.5|<0.001
95762439|NCT03573830|191493691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|0.00|0.065
95762440|NCT03573830|191493692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.28||Threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|0.01|0.030
95762441|NCT00459355|191493750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95762442|NCT00459355|191493751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||<.0001
95762443|NCT00459355|191493752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MANCOVA|||||||.002
95762444|NCT00879255|191493758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.75|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.42||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority analysis|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.42|-11.92|> .05
95762445|NCT00879255|191493759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|2.13||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority design|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||2.13|-11.65|> .05
95801985|NCT01033071|191576956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.7||Tested at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.7|-11.0|<0.001
95801986|NCT00421733|191576976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.071
95801987|NCT00421733|191576976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.229
95801988|NCT00421733|191576976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||There were no P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA using treatment group as the factor and baseline FMV UACR as the covariate.||||||0.053
95801989|NCT00421733|191576977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
95801990|NCT00421733|191576977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
95762446|NCT00879255|191493760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority design to test the hypothesis that VTC is noninferior to in-person treatment delivery. The noninferiority margin was determined to be 10 CAPS points. We analyzed means differences in CAPS scores between the two treatment conditions (VTC minus in-person) with positive values indicating greater reductions in VTC condition. Power was estimated to be 90% with alpha = .20, and a between-group difference equaling an effect size of d = .50 (estimated 10 CAPS points).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|5.14||"The noninferiority margin is the maximum clinically meaningful amount by which VTC can be worse than the in-person delivery to allow for a conclusion of noninferiority (a priori set to 10 CAPS points)."|noninferiority test|We hypothesized that VTC is noninferior to in-person condition, which is supported if upper limit of 95% CI is less than preset noninferiority margin.|The noninferiority hypothesis would be supported if the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference in CAPS scores between the 2 conditions (VTC minus in-person scores) is less than the present noninferiority margin (10 CAPS points).|||5.14|-16.26|> .05
95762447|NCT03860974|191493761|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the non-inferiority of serratus block compared with PVB using the 95% CI associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with continuity correction. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average PACU pain scores was greater than -1.25 , we would conclude non-inferiority. The non-inferiority of serratus blocks with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested to a predefined non-inferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."|Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95762448|NCT02099786|191493930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with ASHA-significant threshold shifts between treatment arms.||8.8|.55|.27
95762449|NCT02099786|191493930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the number of participants with CTCAE grade 1 or greater hearing loss between treatment arms.||5.9|.3|.67
95762450|NCT02099786|191493931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis is no difference in audiology clinic use between treatment arms.||2.9|.29|.88
95762451|NCT02099786|191493932|NON_INFERIORITY|We require a non-inferiority margin of no more than 1.1 mortality odds among COMP-VA patients relative to Usual Care patients. This means that the upper 95% confidence bound for the fitted odds ratio must be less than 1.1 to reject the null hypothesis that COMP-VA induces extra mortality risk.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
95762452|NCT02099786|191493933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
95762453|NCT01473407|191493938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||||||Least Square (LS) mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||0.01|-0.25|
95762454|NCT01473407|191493939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of +/- 0.5 was considered relevant to demonstrate the equivalence of the two products.|LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.483|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.13||||||LS mean and 95 percent CI were derived from an ANCOVA model with fixed effect of treatment.||11.13|-10.40|
95762455|NCT01473407|191493940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7563||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.7563
95801991|NCT00421733|191576978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||0.22|-0.26|0.855
95801992|NCT00421733|191576978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.08|||ANCOVA|2-way ANCOVA: baseline UACR as covariate; fixed factors for treatment group, stratification level, and treatment by stratification level interaction||||-0.08|-0.57|0.009
95859735|NCT04672655|191677549|OTHER|||||||0.4811||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.4811
95993058|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||28.2|-32.5|0.922
95762456|NCT01473407|191493941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1061||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.1061
95762457|NCT01473407|191493942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||P-value was calculated from a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test and t-approximation was used.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.3369
95762458|NCT01807065|191493986|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.06
95762459|NCT01153425|191493989|OTHER|unpaired t-test for the difference of the means between the two arms|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test for change from baseline to 24 months||||>0.05
95762460|NCT00911300|191494043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the absolute percent difference between Fondaparinux and UFH/VKA.|||3.1|-2.0|1.000
95762461|NCT01526655|191494053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Main effect over time p\<0.001; Interaction effect p=0.65. Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.011
95762462|NCT01526655|191494054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p 0.02.~Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-values): hsCRP time 4 p 0.02; hsCRP time 5 p \<0.001.|||0.03
95801993|NCT00421733|191576979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
95801994|NCT00421733|191576979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as the factor and baseline iPTH as covariate.||||||<0.001
95993059|NCT02908100|191962139|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-5.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Plasmablast Signature Level Q4||23.7|-35.4|0.701
95762463|NCT01526655|191494055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.0001.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): WBC time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||<0.01
95762464|NCT01526655|191494056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): IL-6 time 3 p \< 0.01.|||0.03
95762465|NCT01526655|191494057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): CK time 4 p \< 0.0001.|||0.03
95762466|NCT01526655|191494058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||"P-value main effect between groups. Effect over time p \< 0.0001. Interaction effect p \< 0.01.~Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05."|ANOVA||||Tukey post hoc test (p-value): cortisol time 3 p \< 0.0001.|||0.06
95762467|NCT01526655|191494059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95762468|NCT01526655|191494060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95762469|NCT01965860|191494126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"Prior to the study a power analysis was performed to calculate the number of participants required in each of the three groups. Previous work comparing OSATS derived scores in endovascular interventions shows a Cohen D of two. Using a of .05, a power of .80, and an expected dropout rate of 10%, the minimum number of surgical trainees required per group was seven.~Null hypothesis for primary outcome: no difference in technical performance during real life procedures between the three groups"||||0.001
95801995|NCT00676052|191576989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.117||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.017|0.009
95801996|NCT00676052|191576989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.147|0.047|<0.001
95762470|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.003
95762471|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.001
95762472|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test MCQ score||||0.228
95762473|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.001
95762474|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.008
95762475|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test GRS score||||0.164
95762476|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
95762477|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.001
95762478|NCT01965860|191494126|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in Pre and Post test Examiner's checklist score||||0.190
95762479|NCT02288325|191494171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.33|0.0212
95762480|NCT03901092|191494185|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.91||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.91|0.83|
95762481|NCT03901092|191494188|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.88|0.80|
95762482|NCT03901092|191494189|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95||||||Fleiss' kappa is a statistical measure for assessing the reliability of agreement between a fixed number of raters when assigning categorical ratings to a number of items or classifying items. The hypothesis to be tested was that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval of Fleiss' Kappa will be greater than or equal to 0.6.||0.95|0.85|
95993060|NCT02908100|191962140|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|3.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||17.1|-10.9|0.692
95762483|NCT03901092|191494190|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 1||1.00|0.69|
95762484|NCT03901092|191494190|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 2||1.00|0.41|
95762485|NCT03901092|191494190|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.95||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 3||0.95|0.24|
95762486|NCT03901092|191494190|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 4||1.00|0.67|
95762487|NCT03901092|191494190|OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0||||||Cohen's kappa statistic for Reader 5||1.00|0.52|
95762488|NCT04138823|191494252|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16,0.33)|0.172|||||||||||Bayesian logistic regression model|||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95762489|NCT04138823|191494252|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.01||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95762490|NCT04138823|191494252|OTHER||Probabilty of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.362||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95762491|NCT04138823|191494252|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.046||||||||||||||Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95801997|NCT00676052|191576989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.118||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|0.019|0.007
95993061|NCT02908100|191962140|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|1.9||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||15.9|-12|0.871
95993062|NCT02908100|191962140|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||25.1|-2.8|0.105
95993063|NCT02908100|191962140|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|7.7||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||21.6|-6.1|0.286
95993064|NCT02908100|191962141|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-1.6||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||13.6|-16.8|0.936
95993065|NCT02908100|191962141|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|-2.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||12.4|-18.2|0.683
95762492|NCT04138823|191494252|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.478||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
95762493|NCT04138823|191494252|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1.00]|0.118||||||||||||||"Probability of DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.~The 200 mg BI 891065 BID dose was modelled as equivalent to a 300 mg QD dose in terms of dose-toxicity relationship."||||
95762494|NCT02800642|191494260|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a ≥ 15-letter gain in BCVA at Week 76 is ≤ 40% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||<0.0001
95762495|NCT02800642|191494261|OTHER||||||=|0.8822|||||||Exact one-sided 1-sample binomial test|||"The null hypothesis the proportion of participants with a mean treatment interval of ≥ 8 weeks is ≤ 50% on the 2.5% level of significance (one-sided) was performed using the following criterion: If the p value is less than 2.5%, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Otherwise, the null hypothesis will be regarded as not rejected and may still be true"||||=0.8822
95801998|NCT00676052|191576989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.132||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.032|0.001
95762496|NCT03452943|191494344|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-4.1|0.692
95762497|NCT01330303|191494358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.89||||||90.0|94.91|109.39|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.39|94.91|
95762498|NCT01330303|191494359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|101.91||||||90.0|95.0|109.33|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||109.33|95.00|
95762499|NCT01330303|191494360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of tamsulosin hydrochloride, produced by Synthon BV, as a branded generic, to be marketed by GlaxoSmithKline Brasil Ltda., according to the requirements of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|94.04||||||90.0|86.33|102.44|||||The ratios between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations were calculated.|||102.44|86.33|
95801999|NCT00676052|191576989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.187||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum and treatment. Missing trough FEV1 data at Day 29 was imputed using LOCF.|ANCOVA|||||0.187|0.086|<0.001
95762500|NCT04614246|191494371|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.14|-2.13|
95762501|NCT04614246|191494371|OTHER||LS-Mean|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.66|-1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.61|-2.66|
95802000|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.146||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.146|0.065|<0.001
95993066|NCT02908100|191962141|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|11.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|26.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||26.8|-3.4|0.086
95993067|NCT02908100|191962141|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Difference|0.9||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||16.1|-14.2|0.879
95993068|NCT04398732|191962162|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 12.||||0.0001
95993069|NCT04398732|191962163|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 12.||||0.0001
95993070|NCT04398732|191962164|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 12.||||0.0001
95993071|NCT04398732|191962165|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.036
95993072|NCT04398732|191962165|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
95993073|NCT04398732|191962165|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
95993074|NCT04398732|191962166|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.42
95993075|NCT04398732|191962166|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
95993076|NCT04398732|191962166|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
95993077|NCT04398732|191962167|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Student's t-test|||Baseline||||0.72
95993078|NCT04398732|191962167|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 4||||0.0001
95993079|NCT04398732|191962167|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Month 12||||0.0001
95993080|NCT04398732|191962168|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from Baseline in percent BSA at Month 4.||||0.0001
95993081|NCT04398732|191962169|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in DLQI at Month 4.||||0.0001
95993082|NCT04398732|191962170|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Student's t-test|||Statistical analysis was performed on change from baseline in PASI at Month 4.||||0.0001
95993083|NCT01570244|191962196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|140.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.84|148.47|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||148.47|133.84|
95802001|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.147||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.147|0.067|<0.001
95993084|NCT01570244|191962197|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Odds Ratio (OR)|114.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.49|124.97|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||124.97|105.49|
95762502|NCT04614246|191494371|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.48|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.43|-2.48|
95762503|NCT04614246|191494371|OTHER||LS-Mean|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.44|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||80% confidence interval (CI) for change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12||-1.45|-2.44|
95762504|NCT04614246|191494372|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.35||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.35|-0.77|
95762505|NCT04614246|191494372|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.91||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.91|-1.27|
95762506|NCT04614246|191494372|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-1.17|1.02||||||Difference of least square-mean (95% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||1.02|-1.17|
95762507|NCT04614246|191494372|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.98||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.98|-0.4|
95762508|NCT04614246|191494372|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.53||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.53|-0.89|
95762509|NCT04614246|191494372|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Difference of least square-mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.79|0.64||||||Difference of least square-mean (80% Confidence Interval, CI) - Eliapixant arms vs Placebo arm (pairwise comparison) - change in mean worst EAPP from baseline to Week 12 - pPPS||0.64|-0.79|
95802002|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.163||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.163|0.083|<0.001
95762510|NCT04140032|191494489|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in B|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant||||-0.06|-0.31|0.003
95762511|NCT04140032|191494490|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.29||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||4.91|.034|0.7
95762512|NCT04140032|191494491|SUPERIORITY||Difference between groups in change in f|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.58|0.3
95762513|NCT04140032|191494495|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
95993085|NCT01570244|191962198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|171.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.2|183.33|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Ethinylestradiol||183.33|160.20|
95993086|NCT01570244|191962201|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric mean ratio|140.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.4|144.78|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||144.78|136.40|
95993087|NCT01570244|191962202|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.81|119.92|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||119.92|110.81|
95993088|NCT01570244|191962203|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.99|162.14|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (Microgynon + Faldaprevir : Microgynon) of Levonorgestrel||162.14|145.99|
95762514|NCT04140032|191494495|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio for difference between groups|1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|p \< 0.05 considered significant|Reported dispersion parameter is standard error of log(OR)|||2.16|0.56|0.8
95802003|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.193|0.112|<0.001
95762515|NCT06075277|191494496|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|143.08|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.8|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||143.08|112.09|
95762516|NCT06075277|191494497|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.34|149.58|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 27.9.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||149.58|106.34|
95762517|NCT06075277|191494498|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|126.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.7|142.21|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 19.6.|Relative bioavailability of Zongertinib administered in fed state (Test) compared with Zongertinib administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||142.21|111.70|
95762518|NCT02603146|191494499|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.459|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.459|0.213|
95762519|NCT02603146|191494499|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.519|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.519|0.268|
95762520|NCT02603146|191494499|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.058||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.22||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.220|-0.336|0.522
95762521|NCT02603146|191494500|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.225|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.225|0.076|
95762522|NCT02603146|191494500|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of CL-RA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
95762523|NCT02603146|191494500|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of CL- RA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of CL-RA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.029||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.131||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.131|-0.188|0.668
95762524|NCT02603146|191494501|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.273|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for HCQ.|||0.273|0.088|
95762525|NCT02603146|191494501|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.289|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 12 for Placebo.|||0.289|0.099|
95762526|NCT02603146|191494501|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 12 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.014||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.15||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.150|-0.177|0.840
95762527|NCT02603146|191494502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.652
95762528|NCT02603146|191494503|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.482|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for HCQ.|||0.482|0.230|
95802004|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.216||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 1||0.216|0.135|<0.001
95802005|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.157||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.157|0.056|<0.001
95802006|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.192||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV, Day 28||0.192|0.092|<0.001
95802007|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.174||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.174|0.074|<0.001
95762529|NCT02603146|191494503|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.551|||||Using Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (and Greenwood's formula for confidence interval), estimated the cumulative probability of development of IA by Month 36 for Placebo.|||0.551|0.298|
95762530|NCT02603146|191494503|SUPERIORITY|"The analysis is based on the KM estimated risk of IA at 36 months, where risk = (1-KM estimated probability of survival). Survival for this analysis is defined as absence of IA. Estimated risks were derived from a Kaplan-Meier curve using censored time-to-event data to account for attrition under the assumption of non-informative censoring."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.069||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||The test statistic is a Wald-type chi-square statistic derived by dividing the difference of the logit-transformed KM survival estimates for each arm by the associated variance derived using the delta-method \[Klein, et. al. 2007\].|Chi-squared||Risk difference for HCQ - Placebo|||0.226|-0.363|0.452
95762531|NCT02603146|191494504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.928
95762532|NCT02603146|191494504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
95762533|NCT02603146|191494505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
95762534|NCT02603146|191494505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
95762535|NCT02603146|191494506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.576
95762536|NCT02603146|191494506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
95762537|NCT02603146|191494507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
95762538|NCT02603146|191494507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.179
95762539|NCT02603146|191494508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.634
95762540|NCT02603146|191494508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.574
95762541|NCT02603146|191494509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||Week 52 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.724
95762542|NCT02603146|191494509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Month 36 results|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
95762543|NCT02603146|191494513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
95762544|NCT06473519|191494524|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0): RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided95%CI for GMT ratios (MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV A||1.10|0.84|
95762545|NCT06473519|191494524|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of immune responses induced by MDVRSV preF compared to SDVRSV preF, assessed for RSVA\&B at 1 month after vaccination. Null hypotheses(H0):RSVA(H0A)=ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5);RSVB(H0B):ln(μMDV)-ln(μSDV)\<=-ln(1.5), where ln(μMDV)\&ln(μSDV) are means of natural log-transformed antibody concentrations 1 month after vaccination for MDV and SDV groups, respectively. Noninferiority=if lower bounds of 2-sided 95%CI for GMT ratios(MDV/SDV) were \>0.67(noninferiority margin=1.5)for RSVA\&B.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||GMR was calculated as group mean difference of logarithmically transformed antibody levels, back transformed to original units.|RSV B||1.06|0.79|
95762546|NCT02514447|191494547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Analysis was for Part 2 data: Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and sensitivity to first line treatment (sensitive or resistant) and treatment as fixed effects.||||<0.0001
95802008|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.193||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.193|0.092|<0.001
95802009|NCT00676052|191576990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||FEV1, Day 28||0.220|0.120|<0.001
95802010|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.237||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.237|0.094|<0.001
95802011|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.258|0.115|<0.001
95948509|NCT00264576|191868648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination geometric mean titers (GMTs) had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57|||ANOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.57|1.09|
95948510|NCT00264576|191868654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.03|0.70|
95948511|NCT00264576|191868654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.76|0.52|
95948512|NCT00264576|191868654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI egg-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.38|0.98|
95948513|NCT00264576|191868654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H1N1 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.12|0.76|
95948514|NCT00264576|191868654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for A/H3N2 strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||0.83|0.57|
95948515|NCT00264576|191868654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV\_f the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the ratio of the postvaccination GMTs had to be \>0.5.|Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.58|||ANCOVA|||"The following hypotheses were tested for B strain as measured by HI cell-culture-derived assay:~H0i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) ≥0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) ≤0.5 (null hypothesis); H1i: log(GMTeTIV\_f(i)) - log(GMTcTIV(i)) \<0.301 ↔ GMTcTIV(i) / GMTeTIV\_f(i) \>0.5 (alternative hypothesis); With: GMTcTIV(i)=GMT for strain i in cTIV group; GMTeTIV\_f(i)=GMT for strain i in eTIV\_f group."||1.58|1.13|
95762547|NCT02514447|191494548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (primary and key secondary myelosuppression efficacy endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.10 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using modified Poisson regression to account for the variable duration of the Treatment Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC as a covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), sensitivity to 1st line treatment (sensitive or resistant), and treatment as fixed effects. The logarithm transformation of # of cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0160
95762548|NCT05351164|191494570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95762549|NCT05351164|191494571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95762550|NCT03367572|191494576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7056||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
95762551|NCT03367572|191494576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1486|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95762552|NCT03367572|191494577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4468||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
95762553|NCT03367572|191494577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95762554|NCT03367572|191494578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Secondary Aim 1 is to determine if olanzapine is more effective than prochlorperazine in controlling nausea at Cycle 2 in participants who experienced CINV at Cycle 1 when used in combination with netupitant, palonosetron and dexamethasone.~This will be assessed by estimating the contrast D = (3 - 1) - (2 - 1), where 3 is the Arm 3 mean, 2 is the Arm 2 mean, and 1 is the Control mean, and testing whether D = 0 versus the one-sided alternative hypothesis that D \> 0."||||0.019
95762555|NCT03367572|191494579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|2.66||prochlorperazine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.65|0.386
95762556|NCT03367572|191494579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|1.13||olanzapine arm statistics|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.02|0.036
95762557|NCT04856917|191494599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.19|||LRMM|||Least square (LS) Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a linear repeated measures model (LRMM) which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||8.19|-2.47|0.3757
95762558|NCT04856917|191494599|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|6.95|||LRMM|||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.||6.95|-3.73|0.6183
95762559|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|4.8||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.80|-0.85|0.2490
95802012|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.268||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.268|0.127|<0.001
95802013|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.315||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.315|0.172|<0.001
95948516|NCT01190124|191868661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning HIV-RNA levels at baseline||||<0.001
95762560|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|5.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.99|0.28|0.0708
95762561|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|12.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.34|3.44|0.0040
95762562|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.206|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|7.94||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||7.94|-1.05|0.2060
95948517|NCT01190124|191868664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at baseline||||<0.001
95948518|NCT01190124|191868677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 24||||0.007
95948519|NCT01190124|191868678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 study groups, in order to determine if there are statistically significant differences concerning CD4 cells count at week 48||||0.001
95948520|NCT02713594|191868680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-4.5|||Abstinence Risk Difference|||||-4.5|-11.28|<.0001
95948521|NCT02713594|191868681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test value = 196.1, with 5 degrees of freedom.||||||<.0001
95948522|NCT01523392|191868690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.9|-153.3||Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects and a random effect for patient within sequence|Mixed Models Analysis||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-153.3|-213.9|<0.001
95948523|NCT01523392|191868691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-65.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after loading dose||-65.0|-142.5|<0.001
95948524|NCT01523392|191868691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-165.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.4|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after loading dose||-133.3|-197.4|<0.001
95948525|NCT01523392|191868692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.4|-109.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-109.5|-160.4|<0.001
95948526|NCT01523392|191868692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.9|-92.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-92.2|-143.9|<0.001
95948527|NCT01523392|191868692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-133.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.7|-107.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-107.1|-159.7|<0.001
95993089|NCT00464204|191962204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-331.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1033.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-640.0|-21.0||One-sided t-test assuming unequal variances (as variances were significantly different between treatment groups).No multiple comparisons were made. A priori threshold for statistical significance for the confirmatory analysis on FAS: 0.025 one-sided.|t-test, 1 sided||Considered difference: Voluven® minus NaCl 0.9 %|"Null-hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization in patients treated with Voluven® is higher than or equal to this amount in patients treated with NaCl.~Alternative hypothesis: The amount of study drug required to achieve initial hemodynamic stabilization is lower in patients treated with Voluven® than in patients treated with NaCl."||-21|-640|0.0185
95802014|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.301|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.372||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 1||0.372|0.229|<0.001
95802015|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.258||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.258|0.098|<0.001
95993090|NCT00531960|191962223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.70|0.8060
95993091|NCT00531960|191962225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.75|0.4063
95993092|NCT00531960|191962226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-17.28||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|0.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was determined by using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||0.3|-34.8|0.0444
95993093|NCT00531960|191962227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-12.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|2.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in disease control was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||2.8|-27.3|0.0944
95993094|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|15.24|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 1||15.24|-21.96|
95993095|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.01|6.4|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg versus Placebo Day 1||6.40|-30.01|
95993096|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|-8.32|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 1||-8.32|-42.99|
95993097|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|34.53|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 10 mg versus Placebo Day 28||34.53|-5.06|
95993098|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|23.08|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 50 mg vs Placebo Day 28||23.08|-14.64|
95993099|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|24.47|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|GSK962040 125 mg versus Placebo Day 28||24.47|-11.18|
95993100|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.73|2.9|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of the Placebo arm||2.90|-28.73|
95802016|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.298||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.298|0.139|<0.001
95993101|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|22.05|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 10 mg arm||22.05|-11.69|
95993102|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|19.36|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 50 mg arm||19.36|-13.13|
95993103|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|34.3|||||The least square means were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit and baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Statistical analysis is reported using LS Means.|Day 28 versus Day 1 of GSK962040 125 mg arm||34.30|4.47|
95993104|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
95762563|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.4341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|6.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||6.51|-2.33|0.4341
95948528|NCT02005172|191868713|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis used the TOST procedure for equivalence. A difference of less than 10% between devices on the proportion of diagnostic days during the monitoring period was considered to be equivalent. We hypothesized that the percentage of diagnostic days for the ELR and the KM would be 20% and 15%, respectively.||||||||||||||||For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence.|"Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation (SD), percentages) were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients. The total number of tracings and the percentage of tracings with arrhythmias for each device were also calculated.~For the primary endpoint, equivalence testing using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure was used to compare the proportion of (unpaired) days in which a diagnostic recording was made with each device during the monitoring period. Patients were asked to use both devices for the same duration. For the purpose of this study, a difference of less than 10% between devices on the rate of detection of arrhythmias was taken to indicate equivalence. The primary hypothesis was that the KM"|||
95993105|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 1 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 125.45 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
95762564|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|5.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.48|-3.59|0.7307
95762565|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.97|7.77||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||7.77|-1.97|0.3261
95762566|NCT04856917|191494600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.56|4.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.23|-5.56|0.8221
95762567|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|16.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.73|-3.84|0.3008
95802017|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.27||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.270|0.111|<0.001
95762568|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|21.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||21.19|0.40|0.0878
95762569|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.64|40.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||40.57|12.64|0.0020
95762570|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|28.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||28.09|-0.12|0.1029
95762571|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.5427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-9.25|0.5427
95762572|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|20.02||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||20.02|-10.05|0.5833
95762573|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|28.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||28.99|-7.46|0.3293
95802018|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.312||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.312|0.152|<0.001
95993106|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 1|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|-0.129|-0.320|
95948529|NCT01836523|191868743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.07||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.32|
95948530|NCT01836523|191868743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.03|-0.27|
95802019|NCT00676052|191576991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.373||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||Day 28||0.373|0.214|<0.001
95802020|NCT00676052|191576992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.182||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.182|0.015|0.021
95802021|NCT00676052|191576992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.233||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.233|0.067|<0.001
95802022|NCT00676052|191576992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.177||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.177|0.011|0.026
95948531|NCT01836523|191868743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval was \<0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||||||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||0.03|-0.21|
95993107|NCT01262898|191962232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.078||||||95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Type 2 Diabetes, Day 28|Intercept estimate was 113.23 and between participant standard deviation was 21.63|0.016|-0.171|
95802023|NCT00676052|191576992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.247||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.247|0.080|<0.001
95802024|NCT00676052|191576992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.319||Analysis performed using repeated measures with covariates of Baseline, sex, age, smoking status, responsiveness stratum, Day (nominal), treatment and Day by treatment and Day by Baseline interactions.|Repeated Measures Model|||||0.319|0.152|<0.001
95802025|NCT00875667|191576997|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test|||||0.90|0.43|0.012
95802026|NCT00875667|191576998|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.85||Stratification factors were: time from diagnosis to first dose, time from last prior anti-lymphoma therapy to first dose, prior stem cell transplant, and MIPI at baseline|Stratified Log Rank Test||The weights are based on observed events at the time the third DMC meeting was held and based on the difference between observed and expected events at the time of the primary analysis.|||0.85|0.43|0.003
95802027|NCT00875667|191576999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95802028|NCT00875667|191577000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95802029|NCT00875667|191577001|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.29|0.421
95802030|NCT00875667|191577002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.74|||Log Rank|||||1.74|0.52|0.875
95802031|NCT00875667|191577003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
95993108|NCT02304926|191962262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993109|NCT02304926|191962263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993110|NCT02304926|191962264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95802032|NCT00875667|191577004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.465
95802033|NCT00875667|191577005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.45|0.005
95802034|NCT00875667|191577006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.46|0.003
95993111|NCT02304926|191962265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95993112|NCT02304926|191962266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95948532|NCT01836523|191868744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-4.16|-5.65|<0.0001
95948533|NCT01836523|191868744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-2.81|-4.29|<0.0001
95948534|NCT01836523|191868744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for the specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as the dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and the stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-1.47|-2.91|<0.0001
95993113|NCT02304926|191962267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95762574|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|32.74||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||32.74|-3.74|0.1900
95762575|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.91|27.23||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||27.23|-3.91|0.2168
95762576|NCT04856917|191494601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.42||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|23.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||23.45|-7.82|0.4089
95762577|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|6.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||6.24|-2.16|0.4229
95762578|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|5.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||5.59|-2.91|0.6027
95762579|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|6.95||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||6.95|-1.35|0.2655
95948535|NCT01836523|191868745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.96|0.88|<0.0001
95993114|NCT02304926|191962268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993115|NCT02304926|191962269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993116|NCT02304926|191962270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993117|NCT02304926|191962271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993118|NCT02304926|191962272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993119|NCT02304926|191962273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993120|NCT02304926|191962274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993121|NCT02304926|191962275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993122|NCT02304926|191962276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95762580|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|5.44||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||5.44|-2.95|0.6229
95762581|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|9.3||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||9.30|-3.10|0.4091
95802035|NCT00875667|191577007|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.54|0.046
95802036|NCT00875667|191577008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.58|0.095
95802037|NCT00875667|191577009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|7.85|||Log Rank|||||7.85|1.95|<0.001
95802038|NCT00875667|191577010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.42|||Log Rank|||||3.42|1.24|<0.004
95948536|NCT01836523|191868745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.95||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||0.99|0.91|0.0148
95993123|NCT02304926|191962277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993124|NCT02304926|191962278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95802039|NCT00875667|191577011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.62|0.519
95802040|NCT00875667|191577012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.67|0.558
95802041|NCT00299221|191577053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing ISHLT biopsy score between groups at 1 year||||0.44
95802042|NCT04018001|191577062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0115
95802043|NCT04018001|191577062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.410198||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0492535|1.8953079||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.8953079|1.0492535|0.0227
95802044|NCT04018001|191577063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3564
95993125|NCT02304926|191962279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95993126|NCT02304926|191962280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993127|NCT02304926|191962281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95993128|NCT01960855|191962297|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.033
95993129|NCT01960855|191962297|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
95993130|NCT01960855|191962297|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95993131|NCT01960855|191962297|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95993132|NCT01960855|191962298|OTHER||||||=|0.364|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.364
95993133|NCT01960855|191962298|OTHER||||||=|0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.014
95993134|NCT01960855|191962298|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
95993135|NCT01960855|191962298|OTHER||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.008
95993136|NCT01960855|191962299|OTHER||||||=|0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.093
95993137|NCT01960855|191962299|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95993138|NCT01960855|191962299|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
95993139|NCT01960855|191962299|OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.004
95993140|NCT01960855|191962300|OTHER||||||=|0.366|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.366
95993141|NCT01960855|191962300|OTHER||||||=|0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.17
95993142|NCT01960855|191962300|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.003
95993143|NCT01960855|191962300|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.028
95993144|NCT01960855|191962301|OTHER||||||=|0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.126
95993145|NCT01960855|191962301|OTHER||||||=|0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.072
95993146|NCT01960855|191962301|OTHER||||||=|0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.012
95993147|NCT01960855|191962301|OTHER||||||=|0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.021
95993148|NCT01014585|191962308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.71|0.27|0.0004
95993149|NCT01014585|191962308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
95993150|NCT01014585|191962308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|45.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
95993151|NCT01014585|191962309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.20|0.0002
95993152|NCT01014585|191962309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|22.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
95993153|NCT01014585|191962310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.46|0.4104
95993154|NCT01014585|191962310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|18.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
95993155|NCT01014585|191962310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Days until LTR at the 25th percentile|30.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
95993156|NCT00508391|191962337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis utilized an objective performance criteria of 63% with a clinically significant difference of 12%. For the non-inferiority hypothesis, the one-sided Type I error was set to 0.05 and the statistical power was set to 80%.|Objective Performance Criteria|63.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|54.8||||Non-inferiority comparison|||"Efficacy was assessed in a non-inferiority, responder classification design where the proportion of total subjects classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing was compared to an objective performance criteria.~An effect of gender analysis was performed on the primary efficacy endpoint to compare the proportion of males and females classified as not worsened after changing from optimized to simultaneous biventricular pacing."|||54.8|
95993157|NCT00508391|191962338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis has a one-sided Type I error of 0.05 with an 80% statistical power.|Objective Performance Criteria|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.6||||Non-inferiority comparison|||Safety will be evaluated in a non-inferiority format. The null hypothesis is the percent of subjects that did not experience an adverse event with an active interventricular delay feature at two months is inferior to 90% with a clinically significant difference of 10%|||97.6|
95993158|NCT03183128|191962346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.58||P-value presented for both hypothesis tests: H0: RR≥1 and H0: RR≥0.833.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|||0.58|0.18|<0.001
95993159|NCT03183128|191962347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 4||0.67|0.19|<0.001
95762582|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|12.25||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||12.25|-0.47|0.1274
95993160|NCT03183128|191962347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 12||0.65|0.24|<0.001
95762583|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|11.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||11.01|-1.47|0.2075
95762584|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|10.64||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.64|-1.88|0.2484
95762585|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|9.45||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.45|-2.53|0.3399
95762586|NCT04856917|191494602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|13.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||13.05|1.03|0.0545
95802045|NCT04018001|191577063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9022||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7534|1.0803||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.0803|0.7534|0.2629
95993161|NCT03183128|191962347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.73||P-value presented is for the hypothesis test: H0: RR ≥1.0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate is stratified by age (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen (vancomycin, fidaxomicin).|RR defined as the recurrence rates of SER-109 divided by Placebo. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of RR, stratified by age group (\<65 years, ≥65 years) and prior antibiotic regimen for the qualifying episode (vancomycin, fidaxomicin), is reported.|CDI recurrence rates at Week 24||0.73|0.30|<0.001
95762587|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.69||0.9679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.86|18.91||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.91|-19.86|0.9679
95762588|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.83||0.9152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.87|18.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||18.35|-20.87|0.9152
95762589|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|23.32||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||23.32|-8.67|0.4490
95762590|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.72|19.6||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.60|-12.72|0.7246
95762591|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.88||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.49|45.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||45.14|-17.49|0.4655
95802046|NCT04018001|191577064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0123
95802047|NCT04018001|191577064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.0300853||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0092322|0.0509385||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0509385|0.0092322|0.0047
95802048|NCT04018001|191577065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95762592|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.33||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|62.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||62.54|-1.59|0.1178
95762593|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.71||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.22|52.52||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||52.52|-6.22|0.1938
95762594|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.85||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|59.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||59.29|0.08|0.0991
95762595|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.44||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.62|40.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||40.59|-10.62|0.3337
95762596|NCT04856917|191494603|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.48||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|56.87||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial non-inflammatory lesion count as continuous covariate|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||56.87|5.50|0.0465
95762597|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|8.56||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||8.56|-1.21|0.2150
95762598|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|10.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||10.05|0.21|0.0864
95762599|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.97|16.85||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||16.85|3.97|0.0084
95762600|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|12.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||12.01|-0.95|0.1600
95762601|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|13.41||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||13.41|-3.94|0.3671
95762602|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|16.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||16.46|-1.28|0.1587
95762603|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|17.21||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||17.21|-2.03|0.1932
95762604|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|16.37||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||16.37|-2.95|0.2518
95948537|NCT01836523|191868745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using MMRMs where all post-baseline measurements for specific variable from planned visits up to week 52 and obtained no later than 1 day after withdrawal from treatment were entered as dependent variable, and visit, treatment, country and stratification variable (4 levels: HbA1c \< 8.5% and ≥8.5%, each intersected by BMI≤27 kg/m2 and \>27 kg/m2) were included as fixed factors and the corresponding baseline value as covariate. The measurements were log-transformed before analysis||1.04|0.96|0.9615
95762605|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|15.83||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||15.83|-2.53|0.2320
95762606|NCT04856917|191494604|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|16.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||16.35|-2.08|0.2014
95762607|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|12.06||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||12.06|-4.34|0.4361
95762608|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|16.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||16.48|-0.04|0.1018
95762609|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.66|25.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||25.88|6.66|0.0059
95762610|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|19.59||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||19.59|0.26|0.0913
95762611|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|18.09||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||18.09|-7.47|0.4921
95762612|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|24.24||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||24.24|-1.95|0.1607
95762613|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|29.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||29.48|-1.02|0.1244
95762614|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|30.51||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||30.51|-0.02|0.1004
95762615|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.61|28.39||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||28.39|-3.61|0.2015
95762616|NCT04856917|191494605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|31.81||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline total facial lesion count as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||31.81|-0.27|0.1057
95802049|NCT04018001|191577065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7910474||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3167136|2.4362554||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.4362554|1.3167136|0.0002
95802050|NCT04018001|191577066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
95948538|NCT01836523|191868746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.31||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.59|1.07|0.0081
95948539|NCT01836523|191868746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.27||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.55|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.55|1.03|0.0219
95993162|NCT00896532|191962378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|9.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.9|7.5|< 0.0001
95802051|NCT04018001|191577066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0104065||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030062|0.0508746||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0508746|-0.030062|0.6143
95802052|NCT04018001|191577067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0010
95762617|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.19|-0.08|0.5157
95762618|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.34||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.34|0.06|0.0178
95762619|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.48|0.10|0.0132
95762620|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.54|0.16|0.0034
95762621|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.04|0.0510
95762622|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.47||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.47|0.03|0.0608
95762623|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.48||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.48|-0.10|0.2702
95762624|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.69||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.69|0.11|0.0249
95948540|NCT01836523|191868746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||The endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the log of the time period in which an occurrence of a hypoglycaemic episode was considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included fixed factors (treatment, country, stratification group) and a covariate (baseline HbA1c).||1.43|0.97|0.1079
95762625|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.55||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.55|-0.06|0.1853
95762626|NCT04856917|191494606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.5||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline facial IGA as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.50|-0.11|0.2974
95762627|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.63|-6.62|0.3390
95762628|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|1.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.59|-6.79|0.3243
95762629|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|5.91||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||5.91|-5.91|1.0000
95762630|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.66||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|1.63||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||1.63|-6.96|0.3320
95948541|NCT01640288|191868747|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95762631|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.45||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|10.59||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||10.59|-15.50|0.7595
95948542|NCT01640288|191868748|OTHER|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95762632|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.11||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.66|-4.57||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-4.57|-23.66|0.0209
95762633|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.56||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.99|9.87||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||9.87|-18.99|0.6094
95762634|NCT04856917|191494607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.28||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.34|2.78||P-value for the adjusted risk difference between imsidolimab and placebo was obtained from generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA score at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.78|-23.34|0.2076
95762635|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.29||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.29|-0.10|0.4482
95762636|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.33||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.33|-0.05|0.4529
95802053|NCT04018001|191577067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5211586||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1594614|1.9956882||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9956882|1.1594614|0.0025
95802054|NCT04018001|191577068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4595|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4595
95802055|NCT04018001|191577068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1225||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8873|1.4201||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|||||1.4201|0.8873|0.3354
95802056|NCT04018001|191577069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1130
95802057|NCT04018001|191577069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.0151242||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003908|0.0341568||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0341568|-0.003908|0.1194
95802058|NCT04018001|191577070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0200
95802059|NCT04018001|191577070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4143816||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0221455|1.9571335||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9571335|1.0221455|0.0364
95802060|NCT04018001|191577071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9031
95802061|NCT04018001|191577071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.008587||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044317|0.0271416||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Generalized linear model|||||0.0271416|-0.044317|0.6376
95802062|NCT04018001|191577072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3584|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3584
95802063|NCT04018001|191577072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1077385||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8489444|1.4454238||To better assess true effect of treatment,analysis with participant's baseline characteristic was adjusted to remove influence on the outcome measure.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4454238|0.8489444|0.4510
95802064|NCT04018001|191577073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0624
95802065|NCT04018001|191577074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4914
95802066|NCT00997126|191577083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
95802067|NCT01755637|191577093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean Ratio of treatments|114.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.49|130.16|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.16|100.49|
95802068|NCT01755637|191577094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|107.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.03|167.13|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||167.13|69.03|
95859507|NCT00298558|191676504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.23|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.09|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.38|0.09|<0.01
95762637|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.18||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.18|-0.20|0.9320
95948543|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.77||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.77|-0.33|
95948544|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.43||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-0.50|
95993163|NCT00896532|191962378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from placebo|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.9||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||6.9|4.3|< 0.0001
95993164|NCT00896532|191962378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|8.7||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||8.7|6.1|< 0.0001
95993165|NCT00896532|191962378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference from Placebo|8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|9.8||P-value is adjusted by the Hochberg procedure for comparisons to placebo.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||A linear mixed effects model was fit with the percent change from baseline to months 3, 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, geographic region (Latin America, North America, Europe), visit, treatment regimen (categorical), interaction of treatment regimen and visit as the independent variables.||9.8|7.3|< 0.0001
95762638|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.16||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.16|-0.22|0.3151
95762639|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.06||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.06|-0.32|0.2908
95762640|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.7277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.24||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.24|-0.15|0.7277
95948545|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.11||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.11|-0.27|
95948546|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.53||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.53|-0.52|
95762641|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.17||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.8463
95762642|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.11|-0.28|0.5281
95762643|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.11||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.11|-0.28|0.5747
95762644|NCT04856917|191494608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.14|-0.24|0.5081
95762645|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.20|-0.19|0.8338
95948547|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.5|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.50|-1.35|
95762646|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.09|-0.31|0.1142
95948548|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.24||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-1.18|
95948549|NCT00749944|191868750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-1.37|
95948550|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.39||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.39|-0.15|
95948551|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.07||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.07|-0.24|
95948552|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.22||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.22|-0.26|
95993166|NCT00848120|191962395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
95802069|NCT01755637|191577095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|111.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|130.68|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||130.68|94.76|
95802070|NCT01755637|191577096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0167||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The values were not adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as = (Experimental-Reference)|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.0011
95802071|NCT01755637|191577097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|112.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.65|121.12|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||121.12|103.65|
95802072|NCT01755637|191577098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range 80%-125%|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|113.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.4|123.71|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||123.71|103.40|
95802073|NCT01755637|191577099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between the two products was concluded if the 90% CIs (based on log transformed data and anti-logged) for the ratio of the geometric means lie completely within the range of 70% -143%.|Geometric mean ratio of treatments|114.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.99|126.93|||||Geometric mean ratio of experimental and reference product was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||126.93|102.99|
95802074|NCT02933476|191577107|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We compared off therapy UPDRS III scores at baseline to one and four weeks after stimulation.||||>0.05
95802075|NCT02933476|191577108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
95802076|NCT02933476|191577109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95802077|NCT03338023|191577130|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of LY2963016 to Lantus® was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin and over 80 percent power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
95802078|NCT03338023|191577131|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of Lantus® to LY2963016 was demonstrated at the 0.4% noninferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.32|
95802079|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||3.4|-17.0|0.191
95802080|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||5.5|-21.2|0.250
95802081|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||-1.5|-24.7|0.028
95948553|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.06||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.18|
95802082|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||9.7|-16.8|0.599
95802083|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||2.5|-24.4|0.109
95802084|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||8.6|-19.4|0.452
95802085|NCT03338023|191577132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||0300 Am Glucose||3.5|-18.3|0.180
95802086|NCT03338023|191577133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.787
95802087|NCT03338023|191577134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.201
95802088|NCT03338023|191577135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-0.4|0.885
95802089|NCT03338023|191577136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||3.6|-10.6|0.328
95802090|NCT03338023|191577136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.0|-6.5|0.467
95802091|NCT03338023|191577137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.090
95802092|NCT03338023|191577138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-2.6|0.089
95802093|NCT03338023|191577139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.770
95948554|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.78||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.58|
95948555|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.92||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.48|
95948556|NCT00749944|191868751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.72||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.72|-0.26|
95948557|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.24||||||There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.24|-0.00|
95762647|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.3433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||0.00|-0.38|0.3433
95762648|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.04||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||0.04|-0.37|0.1129
95762649|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||0.00|-0.38|0.2842
95948558|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||||||Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.29|0.18|
95948559|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.3||||||Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.30|0.02|
95948560|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.05||||||Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.19|
95948561|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.05||||||Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.05|-0.09|
95948562|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.06||||||Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-0.28|
95948563|NCT00749944|191868752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.65||||||Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.47|
95948564|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.72|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.72|-0.02|
95948565|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.54|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.54|0.16|
95948566|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|0.39|
95993167|NCT00848120|191962396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||<0.001
95762650|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.13||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||-0.13|-0.52|0.0212
95948567|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.52|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.52|0.14|
95948568|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.09|-0.06|
95948569|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|0.05|
95948570|NCT00749944|191868753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.88|-0.12|
95948571|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.43|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.43|-3.07|
95948572|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.08|-2.47|
95948573|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.89|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.89|-5.19|
95948574|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.7|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.70|-3.67|
95948575|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.26|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.26|-0.36|
95993168|NCT00848120|191962397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.001
95762651|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.14||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||0.14|-0.28|0.7665
95993169|NCT02525549|191962401|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|102.0|||Fieller's method|||||102.00|88.6|
95993170|NCT02525549|191962402|NON_INFERIORITY|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|109.4|||Fieller's method|||||109.4|92.3|
95993171|NCT03529409|191962414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.066|-.507|.01
95948576|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.3|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.30|-3.32|
95948577|NCT00749944|191868754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.97|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||3.97|-1.80|
95993172|NCT03529409|191962415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|5.5||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-1.61|.28
95762652|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.0||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||-0.00|-0.42|0.1777
95762653|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3741
95762654|NCT04856917|191494609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.09||Adjusted P-value obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (ANOVA for row means), adjusting for facial IGA at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Somers'D statistic and tanh\^(-1) transformed 90% CI.|Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||0.09|-0.33|0.3321
95802094|NCT03338023|191577140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||3.3|-3.9|0.879
95802095|NCT03338023|191577140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||4.5|-5.9|0.788
95802096|NCT03338023|191577140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||3.3|-4.5|0.775
95802097|NCT03338023|191577140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.6|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Glycemic Control Transformed Score||5.6|-3.6|0.681
95802098|NCT03338023|191577140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||3.9|-3.1|0.819
95802099|NCT03338023|191577140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||ITSQ Total Transformed Score||2.3|-3.9|0.605
95802100|NCT01668537|191577157|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that the FD formulation is non-inferior to the LF formulation in terms of ELISA GMTs at the peak visit (Week 6) was predefined as '1.5' for the GMT ratio (LF/FD). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper 95% CI of the GMT ratio (LF/FD) is entirely below 1.5|GMT ratio (LF/FD)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.896||||||||0.896|0.707|
95948578|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.32|-0.29|
95948579|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-0.17|
95993173|NCT03529409|191962416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|157.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|382.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||382|-67|.16
95802101|NCT00888849|191577185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.9||Adjusted for multiplicity via the Bonferroni-Holm method|ANOVA|||||10.9|-19.4|0.7774
95948580|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-0.55|
95802102|NCT00888849|191577186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.5||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||4.5|1.4|0.0008
95802103|NCT00888849|191577187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Adjusted for multiplicity via Bonferroni-Holm procedure|ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.7774
95802104|NCT05064800|191577188|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|233.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|315.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||315.54|172.14|
95802105|NCT05064800|191577189|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
95859736|NCT04672655|191677550|OTHER|||||||0.754||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|linear mixed effects models|||A linear mixed effects model (LMM) was used to examine outcomes measured at 3, 6, and 12 months. An unstructured covariance matrix was specified to model within-subject correlations across repeated measurements. To address missing data, the LMM utilized a likelihood-based approach under the missing-at-random (MAR) assumption, which incorporates all available data, thereby minimizing bias from incomplete follow-up measurements.||||0.754
95948581|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.99|-0.46|
95802106|NCT05064800|191577190|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 2 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
95802107|NCT05064800|191577191|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.51|231.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed Cmax of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects; participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||231.77|127.51|
95802108|NCT05064800|191577192|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|169.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.25|211.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||211.35|135.25|
95802109|NCT05064800|191577193|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|160.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.19|214.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment 1 was Reference and Treatment 3 was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClast of dabigatran was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences(AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model.The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means(Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||214.90|119.19|
95802110|NCT02122952|191577211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Pediatric Neuromuscular Clinical Research \[PNCR\], Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 0 participants were able to sit independently.||||<0.001
95802111|NCT03296345|191577227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.3|-28|0.004
95802112|NCT03296345|191577228|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95802113|NCT03296345|191577229|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95802114|NCT03296345|191577231|OTHER|A Wilcoxon sign-rank, given non parametric data, was used to compare the intervention and historical control groups for statistical significance, while a student's t-test was used to estimate effect size||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95802115|NCT00086307|191577270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||This is the omnibus effect of drug.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used to examine depressive symptoms over time. Fixed factors for drug, time, and a time by drug interaction were included in the model along with the intercept. No random factors were included because the subject factor did not contribute significantly to the model. Baseline symptoms were used as a covariate.||12.541|1.111|.018
95802116|NCT00086307|191577270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|12.541||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||12.541|1.111|.014
95802117|NCT00086307|191577270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|9.066||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The escitalopram group had a lower MADRS score than the pramipexole and escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the escitalopram group to the pramipexole and escitalopram combination group.||9.066|-2.360|.454
95802118|NCT00086307|191577270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.162||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.942|8.888||The significance level was adjusted using a Bonferroni correction.|Post hoc simple effects test||The pramipexole group had a lower MADRS score than the escitalopram group.|Post-hoc simple effects tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the pramipexole group to the escitalopram group.||8.888|-1.942|.349
95802119|NCT03158311|191577276|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|Least Square mean (LS Mean)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.139|||P-Value is one-sided|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||||-0.139|<0.001
95802120|NCT03158311|191577276|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.25 points|LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.027|||P-Value is one-sided|MMRM||||||-0.027|<0.001
95948582|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.37|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.37|-0.19|
95948583|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.76|-0.91|
95762655|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|2.14||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.14|-1.56|0.7932
95948584|NCT00749944|191868755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.85|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.85|-0.65|
95948585|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (t; fixed), subject (random), day (d; fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.20|
95948586|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.17|
95948587|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.65|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.65|-0.23|
95948588|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.41|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.41|-0.37|
95948589|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.59|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), time (fixed), d (fixed), and interactions for t-by-time, t-by-d, time-by-d and t-by-time-by-d.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.59|-0.41|
95948590|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.63|-0.44|
95948591|NCT00749944|191868756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, t (fixed), subject (random), d (fixed), and interaction for t-by-d.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.58|
95948592|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.10|-0.66|
95948593|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.35|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.35|-0.46|
95948594|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.71|-1.16|
95948595|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.73|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.73|-0.68|
95948596|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.96|-0.79|
95948597|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.82|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.82|-1.69|
95948598|NCT00749944|191868757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.68|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.68|-0.86|
95948599|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.08|-0.55|
95948600|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.46|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.46|-0.39|
95948601|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.25|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.25|-1.08|
95948602|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.90|-0.62|
95948603|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.95|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.95|-0.94|
95993174|NCT03529409|191962417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for post-treatment, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-1.51|.77
95993175|NCT03529409|191962418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.67||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.55. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.67|-2.24|.63
95993176|NCT03529409|191962419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|84.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.0|304.0||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.38. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||304|-136|.44
95993177|NCT03529409|191962420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.58||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.90. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.85|.87
95993178|NCT03529409|191962425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.55||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.89. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|-2.49|.65
95993179|NCT03529409|191962426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.1||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.66. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|-10.5|.63
95993180|NCT03529409|191962427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.28||The overall omnibus test of the time by treatment interaction was p=.94. The estimate below is for follow-up, comparing TAU to Khanya.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.28|-.34|.85
95993181|NCT05032950|191962473|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|368.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.91|425.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||425.41|318.91|
95993182|NCT05032950|191962474|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|1430.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1204.54|1697.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1697.71|1204.54|
95993183|NCT05032950|191962475|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1451.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1224.42|1721.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD) (Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1721.35|1224.42|
95993184|NCT05032950|191962480|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|387.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|335.25|447.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed Cmax of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||447.21|335.25|
95993185|NCT05032950|191962481|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1645.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1385.75|1953.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUCinf of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios||1953.11|1385.75|
95993186|NCT05032950|191962482|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|1677.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1414.59|1988.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log-transformed AUClast of midazolam was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and participant in sequence as random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (AMD)(Test-Reference) and 90%CIs were obtained from the model. The AMD and 90%CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90%CI for the ratios.||1988.69|1414.59|
95993187|NCT00484315|191962503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 1264 subjects (resulting in 1200 after accounting for 5% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155||0.9996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.85||The p-value is the posterior probability that the difference in 12-month TLF between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 4.1%, given the data observed.|Bayesian modeling||Values are based on the posterior distribution of the difference in TLF rates between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. The upper limit is the 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of the posterior distribution.|Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the 12-month TLF rate for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the 12-month TLF rate in the TAXUS Express2 control. The null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is at least 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element TLF rate is less than 4.1% greater than the TAXUS Express TLF rate.||1.85||0.9996
95802121|NCT03158311|191577277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.052||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.052|-0.046|0.892
95948604|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.51|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.51|-1.57|
95762656|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|2.73||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.73|-0.99|0.4365
95762657|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|1.54||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.54|-1.92|0.8543
95762658|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.8726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|1.58||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||1.58|-1.91|0.8726
95762659|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.35||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.35|-1.22|0.5983
95762660|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|2.86||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.86|-0.77|0.3396
95762661|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.5305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|1.01||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||1.01|-2.23|0.5305
95762662|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|3.29||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||3.29|0.09|0.0819
95762663|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|4.31||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||4.31|0.69|0.0243
95762664|NCT04856917|191494610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|3.46||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline DLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||3.46|-0.03|0.1061
95948605|NCT00749944|191868758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.75|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.75|-0.91|
95948606|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.06|-1.76|
95993799|NCT00868790|191963400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-25.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-25.0|-44.8|<0.001
95762665|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|2.97||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||2.97|-2.69|0.9333
95762666|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|4.27||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 2||4.27|-1.40|0.3972
95948607|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.17|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.17|-0.96|
95948608|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.91|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||4.91|-1.94|
95762667|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.99||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||3.99|0.23|0.0662
95948609|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.18|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.18|-1.18|
95762668|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|2.04||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 4||2.04|-1.73|0.8898
95762669|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|2.82||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||2.82|-0.85|0.3664
95762670|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|4.05||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 8||4.05|0.25|0.0655
95762671|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|2.57||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||2.57|-1.61|0.6921
95762672|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.88||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 12||4.88|0.59|0.0406
95802122|NCT03158311|191577277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.115|0.018|0.007
95802123|NCT03158311|191577277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.047||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.047|-0.050|0.945
95802124|NCT03158311|191577277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.114||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.114|0.018|0.007
95948610|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.07|-0.85|
95948611|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.79|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||6.79|-2.60|
95948612|NCT00749944|191868759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.96|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.96|-0.70|
95762673|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|1.38||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 400/200 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||1.38|-2.24|0.6872
95948613|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.26|
95948614|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.29|-0.25|
95948615|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.58|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.58|-0.37|
95948616|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.17|
95948617|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.48|-0.40|
95802125|NCT03158311|191577277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.06||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.041|0.713
95802126|NCT03158311|191577277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.146||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.146|0.046|<0.001
95802127|NCT03158311|191577278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.067||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.067|-0.113|0.308
95802128|NCT03158311|191577278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.012||P-value is one-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.012|-0.169|0.044
95802129|NCT03158311|191577278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.06||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.060|-0.125|0.245
95762674|NCT04856917|191494611|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.3392|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|2.92||LS Mean, SE, 90% CI, \& p-value was based on a LRMM which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction \& facial IGA at baseline (Grade 3 vs. 4) as categorical covariates \& baseline CDLQI as continuous covariate.|LRMM|||Imsidolimab 200/100 mg vs Placebo: Week 20||2.92|-0.81|0.3392
95762675|NCT03765788|191494674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|26.29|||||Odd Ratio (posterior median) median and 95% credibility interval calculated using the Bayesian inference|Odds Ratio||26.29|3.54|
95762676|NCT00486525|191494690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.039|-0.19|0.20
95762677|NCT00486525|191494690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.015|-0.25|0.027
95762678|NCT00486525|191494690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.018|-0.060|0.28
95762679|NCT00486525|191494690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.0021|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (TNF-a) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0021|-0.079|0.063
95762680|NCT00486525|191494691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.042|-0.2|0.2
95762681|NCT00486525|191494691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.031|-0.28|0.015
95762682|NCT00486525|191494691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.019|-0.063|0.3
95762683|NCT00486525|191494691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-6) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.013|-0.098|0.01
95762684|NCT00486525|191494692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.11|-0.31|0.33
95948618|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.78|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.78|-0.44|
95948619|NCT00749944|191868760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.40|-0.14|
95762685|NCT00486525|191494692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-0.014|-0.44|0.037
95762686|NCT00486525|191494692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.035|-0.10|0.33
95762687|NCT00486525|191494692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.0074|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of ln (IL-1b) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.0074|-0.15|0.03
95762688|NCT00486525|191494693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.15|-8.5|0.058
95762689|NCT00486525|191494693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||-2.7|-11.4|0.002
95762690|NCT00486525|191494693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF Fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-0.28|-3.1|0.019
95762691|NCT00486525|191494693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of MFSI-SF fatigue for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||-1.4|-4.2|0.0001
95762692|NCT00486525|191494694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.4|1.4|0.01
95802130|NCT03158311|191577278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|-0.032||P-value is one sided|MMRM|||Week 24||-0.032|-0.216|0.004
95802131|NCT03158311|191577279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.115||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.115|-0.079|0.719
95802132|NCT03158311|191577279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.179||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||||0.179|-0.015|0.097
95802133|NCT03158311|191577280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.61||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||||1.61|0.94|0.061
95802134|NCT03158311|191577280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46||P-value is one-sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model via GEE||||1.46|0.85|0.227
95802135|NCT03158311|191577281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||P-value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.49|0.91|0.108
95802136|NCT03158311|191577281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.7||P-Value is one sided|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model via the GEE||||1.70|1.03|0.013
95802137|NCT03158311|191577282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.049||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.049|-0.055|0.908
95802138|NCT03158311|191577282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.104|0.001|0.046
95802139|NCT03158311|191577282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.056||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.056|-0.047|0.870
95993188|NCT00484315|191962504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the TAXUS Element stent was to be accepted if the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data, was at least 95%. The sample size of 330 subjects (resulting in 280 after accounting for 15% attrition) was determined through simulations based on Bayesian modeling.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0294|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08253||0.997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1078||P-value is posterior probability that the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express was \< 0.20, given the data observed. Non-inferiority was concluded, as this probability is greater than 95%.|Bayesian modeling||Based on posterior distribution of the difference in mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) between TAXUS Element and TAXUS Express. Upper limit is 1-Sided 95% posterior credible interval, based off the 95th percentile of posterior distribution.|Natural log (ln) transformation was used to improve normality of the secondary endpoint distribution. Bayesian modeling was used to determine if the mean ln(9-month percent diameter stenosis) for the TAXUS Element stent was non-inferior to the mean ln(9-month %DS) for TAXUS Express. Null hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean was at least 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express mean. Alternative hypothesis was that the TAXUS Element mean is less than 0.20 greater than the TAXUS Express TLF mean.||0.1078||0.9970
95993189|NCT01552343|191962512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Correlation - no adjustments||||0.0187
95993190|NCT01552343|191962512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline # of voids||||0.0094
95993191|NCT01552343|191962512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - baseline NI total score||||0.0383
95993192|NCT01552343|191962512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Partial correlation - age category||||0.0133
95993193|NCT01552343|191962512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Partial correlation - gender||||0.0128
95993194|NCT01552343|191962513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score (Q1-Q11)||18.8|2.7|
95762693|NCT00486525|191494694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||11.6|1.5|0.01
95762694|NCT00486525|191494694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||3.75|0.40|0.016
95762695|NCT00486525|191494694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of vitality (SF-36) for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||4.14|0.77|0.0045
95762696|NCT00486525|191494695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control immediately post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.88|-3.0|0.28
95802140|NCT03158311|191577282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.109||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.109|0.006|0.028
95802141|NCT03158311|191577282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.083||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.083|-0.026|0.303
95802142|NCT03158311|191577282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.148||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.148|0.041|<0.001
95993195|NCT01552343|191962513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|9.6|||||Non-Responders - Responders|Overall Impact Question (Q12)||9.6|-9.6|
95993196|NCT01552343|191962516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Screening||3.1|-20.3|0.1471
95802143|NCT03158311|191577283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.087||P-value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.087|-0.048|0.563
95802144|NCT03158311|191577283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.129||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 8||0.129|-0.005|0.068
95802145|NCT03158311|191577283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.062||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.062|-0.076|0.844
95802146|NCT03158311|191577283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.125||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 16||0.125|-0.010|0.097
95948620|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.9|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.90|-1.09|
95762697|NCT00486525|191494695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Yoga minus Control 3 months post-treatment|Mixed effect models were used to test the intervention's effect on primary outcomes. Fixed effects included visit, intervention group, their interaction, and baseline outcome levels. Random effects included a subject-specific random intercept, accounting for within-subject correlation, and a random effect for yoga-group, accounting for the partially-nested data arising from small groups being present in the intervention arm but not in the control arm.||0.69|-3.2|0.21
95762698|NCT00486525|191494695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0039|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes immediately post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CES-D for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.0039|-1.3|0.051
95762699|NCT00486525|191494695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger adjustment to the degrees of freedom was used to control Type I error rates.|Model used continuous yoga practice frequency in place of group assignment to predict primary outcomes 3 months post-treatment.|Secondary analysis on change of CESD for each 10 minute increase in yoga practice frequency, adjusting for baseline outcome levels, age, and SAD.||0.10|-1.2|0.098
95762700|NCT00266630|191494699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.9||||||||-1.90|-4.10|
95762701|NCT00266630|191494703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-14.06||||||||-14.06|-25.58|
95762702|NCT01499095|191494737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.119||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.119|-0.139|
95762703|NCT01499095|191494738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.99|0.61|0.0380
95948621|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.71|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.71|-1.54|
95948622|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.60|-2.47|
95993197|NCT01552343|191962516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Nocturia Impact (NI) Total Score: Baseline||-1.2|-26.0|0.0318
95762704|NCT01499095|191494739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significant.||0.350|-0.438|0.8279
95762705|NCT01499095|191494748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.415||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline (Month 6) HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.415|-0.152|
95762706|NCT00180661|191494812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95762707|NCT00180661|191494813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95762708|NCT05992623|191494867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
95762709|NCT05992623|191494868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.617
95762710|NCT05992623|191494869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95802147|NCT03158311|191577283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.074||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.074|-0.067|0.927
95802148|NCT03158311|191577283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.159||P-Value is two-sided|MMRM|||Week 24||0.159|0.019|0.013
95948623|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.15|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||2.15|-1.57|
95993198|NCT01552343|191962516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.8||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Screening||-0.3|-31.2|0.0463
95993199|NCT01552343|191962516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Overall Impact Question (Q12): Baseline||-0.7|-34.6|0.0413
95948624|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.36|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.36|-2.23|
95948625|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.33|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||1.33|-2.81|
95993200|NCT01552343|191962517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates baseline score, treatment and age stratum (\<65, \>=65).||Treatment effect. NI total scores are transformed to a 0-100 scale where 0 is good and 100 bad.||6.3|-6.6|0.9647
95762711|NCT02548156|191494870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS mean|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||From ANCOVA of log transformed data: subject (random), treatment (fixed) and period (fixed) as factors, participant-level baseline and period-level baseline minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference from ANCOVA of log transformed data. This therefore represents the ratio of the first named treatment to the second named treatment. A ratio \>1 favors the first named treatment.|Test and Reference dentifrice combined vs. Comparator dentifrice||||<0.0001
95762712|NCT03052751|191494874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.7|||=|0.221|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline QMG score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.8||=0.221
95762713|NCT03052751|191494875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.8|||=|0.089|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|MMRM||Estimate included treatment and treatment by visit interaction effects.|"MMRM ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, covariate of Baseline MG-composite score, and random effect for participant.~The differences presented was 'UCB7665 (7 mg/kg) minus Placebo'."||0.4||=0.089
95762714|NCT03052751|191494876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.4|||=|0.036|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1||One-sided p-value was presented for difference.|ANCOVA||Estimate included treatment effect.|ANCOVA model included fixed terms for treatment group, covariate of Baseline MGADL score.||-0.1||=0.036
95762715|NCT03071692|191494912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||||||||1.16|0.92|
95762716|NCT03071692|191494913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||||||||1.20|0.92|
95762717|NCT03071692|191494914|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
95762718|NCT03071692|191494915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16||||||||1.16|0.93|
95762719|NCT03071692|191494916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
95762720|NCT03071692|191494917|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ration|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||||1.13|0.87|
95802149|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.40|1.30|
95802150|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.59||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.59|1.42|
95948626|NCT00749944|191868763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.92|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.92|-1.78|
95948627|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.19|-0.04|
95993201|NCT03179436|191962523|OTHER||Percent Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|14.1|||Percent Difference|Comparision based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||14.1|-8.7|
95762721|NCT03071692|191494918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||||||||1.09|0.69|
95762722|NCT03071692|191494919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||||||||1.41|0.95|
95762723|NCT03071692|191494920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19||||||||1.19|0.69|
95762724|NCT03071692|191494921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||||||||1.14|0.84|
95762725|NCT03071692|191494922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||||||||1.32|0.83|
95762726|NCT03071692|191494923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26||||||TT Variant||1.26|0.75|
95762727|NCT03071692|191494923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||CT Variant||1.47|0.96|
95762728|NCT03071692|191494923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||||||CC Variant||1.39|0.69|
95762729|NCT03071692|191494924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13496
95762730|NCT03071692|191494925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762731|NCT03071692|191494926|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762732|NCT03071692|191494927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96689|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96689
95762733|NCT03071692|191494928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762734|NCT03071692|191494929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09178|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09178
95762735|NCT03071692|191494930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762736|NCT03071692|191494931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95993202|NCT01078805|191962534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0177
95762737|NCT03071692|191494932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762738|NCT05219448|191494958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.0||Unadjusted p value presented. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same when compared to children in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||18.0|-3.2|0.17
95762739|NCT05219448|191494959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|14.0||Unadjusted P-value. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community A arm when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||14.0|-24.3|0.60
95762740|NCT05219448|191494959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-5.4||The P-value is unadjusted. The threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: The change in added sugar intake from baseline to 6-months will be the same for caregivers in community B when compared to caregivers in the no-treatment control arm (measured through hair biomarker).||-5.4|-44.1|0.013
95762741|NCT05387889|191494965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.054
95762742|NCT05387889|191494966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.25
95762743|NCT05387889|191494967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for the level of significance is set at less than or equal to 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.07
95762744|NCT03164616|191494982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.885||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.885|0.620|0.00093
95762745|NCT03164616|191494983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.07581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.016||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||1.016|0.724|0.07581
95948628|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.11|
95762746|NCT03164616|191494984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC alone.||0.860|0.600|0.00031
95762747|NCT03164616|191494985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.00304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.916||Analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using the Breslow approach for handling ties.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer OS than SoC alone.||0.916|0.650|0.00304
95762748|NCT03164616|191494986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.382|2.619||||||D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.619|1.382|
95762749|NCT03164616|191494986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.367||||||T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An odds ratio \>1 favors T + D + SoC compared to SoC alone. Analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 tumor expression (TC ≥50% vs TC \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB), with the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||2.367|1.260|
95762750|NCT03164616|191494989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|0.928|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.928|0.666|
95948629|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.06|
95948630|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
95762751|NCT03164616|191494989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.883|||||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for PD-L1 (TC ≥50% vs \<50%), histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and disease stage (IVA vs IVB) and using Efron method to control for ties.|T + D + SoC vs SoC alone. An HR \<1 favors T + D + SoC to be associated with a longer PFS2 than SoC alone.||0.883|0.632|
95948631|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.01|-0.27|
95762752|NCT01130597|191495016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.4|96.4|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||96.4|80.4|
95762753|NCT01130597|191495021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|92.1|||||Clopper-Pearson was used to arrive at the 95% Confidence Interval|||92.1|72.7|
95762754|NCT00207883|191495044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95948632|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.21|
95948633|NCT00749944|191868764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.03|-0.17|
95948634|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.03|
95948635|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.08|
95948636|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.11|-0.04|
95948637|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.05|-0.08|
95948638|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.06|-0.22|
95948639|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.14|
95948640|NCT00749944|191868765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.11|
95948641|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.09|-0.20|
95948642|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.12|-0.15|
95762755|NCT00307437|191495046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95948643|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.15|
95948644|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.20|
95948645|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.27|-0.17|
95948646|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.21|
95802151|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.49||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||2.49|1.37|
95802152|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.92|1.05|
95802153|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.46|0.80|
95802154|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.41|0.77|
95993203|NCT01078805|191962534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0019
95762756|NCT00307437|191495046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 1200 participants (400 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95802155|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.08|0.59|
95802156|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.30|0.72|
95802157|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.00|0.55|
95802158|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.04||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 3 hours)||1.04|0.57|
95802159|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.02||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.02|1.09|
95802160|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.28||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.28|1.25|
95948647|NCT00749944|191868766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.07|-0.17|
95948648|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.02|-0.58|
95948649|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.19|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.19|-0.69|
95993204|NCT01078805|191962534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0143
95762757|NCT00307437|191495047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95802161|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.48||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||2.48|1.36|
95802162|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.56|0.85|
95802163|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.54|0.83|
95802164|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.68|0.91|
95802165|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.05||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.05|0.57|
95802166|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||1.47|0.81|
95802167|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.93|0.51|
95802168|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 6 hours)||0.85|0.47|
95802169|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.03|1.10|
95802170|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.65||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.65|1.45|
95802171|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||2.74|1.50|
95802172|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.69|0.93|
95948650|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.20|-0.47|
95993205|NCT01078805|191962535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 6 to 12 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0689
95993206|NCT01078805|191962535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 12 to 18 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0412
95802173|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.78||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.78|0.97|
95802174|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.84|1.01|
95802175|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.14|0.62|
95993207|NCT01078805|191962535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631||95.0||||Comparison is between 0 to 6 months fracture incidence rate versus 18 to 24 months fracture incidence rate.|One-sample binomial proportion test|||||||0.0631
95762758|NCT00307437|191495047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint need to be significant first.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significancd level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95993208|NCT01078805|191962536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95993209|NCT01078805|191962537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95993210|NCT04722991|191962543|OTHER|Bayesian inference with non-informative priors|Point estimate|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.029|||||Median of posterior distribution|||0.029|-0.080|
95993211|NCT01445678|191962553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.54||||||||0.54|-8.91|
95993212|NCT01445678|191962554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|2.59||||||||2.59|-4.52|
95993213|NCT01445678|191962555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.89||||||||0.89|-7.23|
95993214|NCT01445678|191962556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.33||||||||2.33|-3.4|
95993215|NCT01445678|191962557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|0.94||||||||0.94|-9.09|
95762759|NCT00307437|191495048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
95762760|NCT00307437|191495048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Analysis of varianceon van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤90 kg vs \>90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95948651|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.09|-0.61|
95948652|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.07|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||-0.07|-0.83|
95948653|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.34|-0.50|
95993216|NCT01445678|191962558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.37||||||||2.37|-0.88|
95993217|NCT01565980|191962566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the comparison of least square (LS) means represent the effect of the trial arm. The effect sizes are calculated as Cohen's d: difference between LS means divided by the standard deviation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The outcome measure was analyzed using linear mixed effects models (LME). The main effect of the trial arm was evaluated by averaging time 2 and time 3 values of the outcomes within the LME model. The resulting least square (LS) means and their standard errors are reported.||||<.05
95993218|NCT01565980|191962567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95993219|NCT01565980|191962568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95993220|NCT01565980|191962569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95993221|NCT01565980|191962570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95993222|NCT01565980|191962571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95993223|NCT01565980|191962572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant in this study.|Descriptive statistics for outcomes|||||||<0.05
95993224|NCT00821678|191962573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-6.19|0.002
95993225|NCT00821678|191962574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.001
95993226|NCT00821678|191962575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.33|0.48
95993227|NCT00821678|191962576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|0.45|0.02
95993228|NCT00821678|191962579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.86||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|0.46|0.65
95993229|NCT00821678|191962580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|3.2|<0.001
95993230|NCT02078219|191962581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.99|-21.57|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-21.57|-36.99|<0.0001
95993231|NCT02078219|191962581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.97|-41.52|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-41.52|-56.97|<0.0001
95993232|NCT02078219|191962581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-45.67|||ANCOVA, LOCF|||||-45.67|-61.00|<0.0001
95948654|NCT00749944|191868767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.02|-0.57|
95948655|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
95948656|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.08|-0.12|
95762761|NCT00307437|191495049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.468
95948657|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.04|
95948658|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.07|
95948659|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.15|
95948660|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|0.01|
95948661|NCT00749944|191868768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.04|-0.08|
95948662|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.28|-0.05|
95948663|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.14|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.14|-0.19|
95762762|NCT00307437|191495049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||||||0.210
95762763|NCT00307437|191495049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (row mean score)|Stratified by baseline weight \[less than or equal to 90 kg vs greater than 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined q8 group and the combined q12 group, 45 mg q8 and 45 mg q12, 90 mg q8 and 90 mg q12 at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.014
95762764|NCT03690388|191495176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.13|0.36|||Log Rank|||||0.36|0.13|< 0.0001
95762765|NCT03176134|191495202|OTHER||Estimated Difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|25.3|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||25.3|-12.2|
95762766|NCT03176134|191495202|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|3.7|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||3.7|-28.7|
95948664|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.22|-0.29|
95948665|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.13|-0.20|
95948666|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.01|-0.40|
95948667|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||0.10|-0.42|
95948668|NCT00749944|191868769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (change from baseline)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis included baseline, treatment (fixed effect), subject (random effect), week (fixed effect), and interaction of treatment-by-week.|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo.||008|-0.22|
95762767|NCT03176134|191495202|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
95762768|NCT03176134|191495202|OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.4|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.4|-10.7|
95762769|NCT03176134|191495203|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
95762770|NCT03176134|191495203|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
95993233|NCT00891202|191962600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.82|-23.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitted with treatment and baseline spleen severity (low spleen severity: spleen volume less than or equal to \[\<=\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume, high spleen severity: spleen volume greater than \[\>\] 20 multiples of normal spleen volume).||-23.24|-36.82|<0.0001
95993234|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.029
95762771|NCT03176134|191495203|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
95762772|NCT03176134|191495203|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated difference in the clinical success rate and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
95762773|NCT03915652|191495204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and appointment nonadherence during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||1.02|-2.88|0.34
95762774|NCT03915652|191495205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 were combined and emergency department visits and hospitalizations during the intervention was compared with the 12 months prior.||0.39|-1.08|0.34
95762775|NCT03915652|191495206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|One sided t-test of percent of needs remaining from 100%.||Wave 1 and Wave 2 were combined and the quality metric at the end of the 12-month intervention was compared to the metric from the start of the intervention.||0.73|0.45|<0.001
95802176|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||1.40|0.77|
95802177|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.86|0.47|
95802178|NCT05067270|191577287|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||1 min post bolus (Bolus time: 9 hours)||0.83|0.46|
95802179|NCT01928771|191577288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.71|0.42|<0.001
95802180|NCT01928771|191577288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.64|0.37|<0.001
95802181|NCT01928771|191577289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.0|0.5|0.047
95802182|NCT01928771|191577289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.16|0.59|0.268
95802183|NCT01928771|191577290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||1.01|0.37|0.053
95802184|NCT01928771|191577290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.67|||Negative binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations resulting in ER/hospitalization in the previous year, and use of OCS||||0.67|0.2|<0.001
95802185|NCT01928771|191577291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.37|<0.001
95993235|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.047
95762776|NCT03915652|191495207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.8|-19.8|0.51
95762777|NCT03915652|191495208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.92|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared post to pre.||1.92|-0.43|0.17
95762778|NCT03915652|191495209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, compared pre/post intervention||6.52|-4.92|0.72
95802186|NCT01928771|191577291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations from the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.90|0.43|0.01
95802187|NCT01928771|191577292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations in the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.82|0.49|<0.001
95802188|NCT01928771|191577292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, number of exacerbations from the previous year, region, use of OCS||Time to first exacerbation||0.78|0.46|<0.001
95802189|NCT01928771|191577293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.196|0.016|0.022
95993236|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.016
95948669|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.3|0.6|
95948670|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
95802190|NCT01928771|191577293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.249|0.068|0.001
95802191|NCT01928771|191577294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.083|-0.134|0.644
95802192|NCT01928771|191577294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit and treatment by visit||||0.208|-0.003|0.057
95802193|NCT01928771|191577295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.12|-0.27|0.442
95802194|NCT01928771|191577295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.06|-0.45|0.012
95948671|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.1|0.4|
95993237|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.340
95762779|NCT03915652|191495210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 are combined; pre/post survey analysis||10.22|-6.22|0.50
95802195|NCT01928771|191577296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.08|-0.48|0.169
95802196|NCT01928771|191577296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.57|0.043
95802197|NCT01928771|191577297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.10|-1.16|0.1
95948672|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
95948673|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
95948674|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
95762780|NCT03915652|191495211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||6.47|1.06|0.01
95762781|NCT03915652|191495212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined, pre/post test||0.98|-1.27|0.77
95762782|NCT03915652|191495213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.52|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Waves 1 and 2 combined; pre/post analysis||7.52|-3.23|0.37
95762783|NCT01130532|191495238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95802198|NCT01928771|191577297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.07|-1.21|0.081
95802199|NCT01928771|191577298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|37.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||37.43|9.20|0.001
95802200|NCT01928771|191577298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|30.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Morning PEF change from baseline to Week 48||30.83|2.08|0.025
95802201|NCT01928771|191577299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|35.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||35.65|7.86|0.002
95802202|NCT01928771|191577299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|33.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||Evening PEF change from baseline to Week 48||33.28|5.09|0.008
95802203|NCT01928771|191577300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.05|0.964
95802204|NCT01928771|191577300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline proportion of nights with nocturnal awakenings, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.01|-0.11|0.012
95948675|NCT00749944|191868770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.4|0.3|
95948676|NCT00749944|191868771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||10.4|0.6|
95948677|NCT00749944|191868771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||11.8|0.7|
95762784|NCT01130532|191495238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95762785|NCT01130532|191495239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762786|NCT01130532|191495239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762787|NCT01130532|191495240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762788|NCT01130532|191495240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762789|NCT01130532|191495241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762790|NCT01130532|191495241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762791|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762792|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 1. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95802205|NCT01928771|191577301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.04|-0.34|0.111
95948678|NCT00749944|191868771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
95762793|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95802206|NCT01928771|191577301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||-0.10|-0.48|0.003
95802207|NCT01928771|191577302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.27|-0.27|0.99
95948679|NCT00749944|191868771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||7.8|0.4|
95948680|NCT00749944|191868771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||9.2|0.5|
95948681|NCT00749944|191868771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.2|0.4|
95762794|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 2. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762795|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762796|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 3. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762797|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762798|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 4. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95802208|NCT01928771|191577302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit and visit by treatment||||0.05|-0.48|0.107
95762799|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762800|NCT01130532|191495242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Question 5. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762801|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762802|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95948682|NCT00749944|191868772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.9|0.5|
95762803|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762804|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762805|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762806|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762807|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762808|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95802209|NCT01928771|191577306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.37|-0.02|0.081
95802210|NCT01928771|191577306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates treatment, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment||||0.5|0.1|0.004
95802211|NCT01560416|191577325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
95802212|NCT01560416|191577327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.68
95802213|NCT00004859|191577346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
95948683|NCT00749944|191868772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.7|
95948684|NCT00749944|191868772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.4|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.4|0.7|
95948685|NCT00749944|191868772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.0|0.5|
95948686|NCT00749944|191868772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||6.8|0.8|
95948687|NCT00749944|191868772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.3|0.8|
95762809|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762810|NCT01130532|191495243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762811|NCT01130532|191495244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95762812|NCT01130532|191495244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95762813|NCT01130532|191495245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762814|NCT01130532|191495245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762815|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762816|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for confidence to complete sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762817|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762818|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ease of erection. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762819|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762820|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for pleasure from sexual activity. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762821|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762822|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for erectile function satisfaction. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762823|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762824|NCT01130532|191495246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for satisfaction with orgasm. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95762825|NCT01130532|191495247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95802214|NCT00944645|191577358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis I: The Cmax of nicotinuric acid (NUA) following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of NUA Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.03|0.93|
95802215|NCT00944645|191577359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis II: The total urinary excretion of niacin and niacin metabolites following the administration of MK0524 (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of total urinary excretion of niacin and its metabolites is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.89|0.98||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||0.98|0.89|
95948688|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||4.9|0.5|
95948689|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.0|0.4|
95762826|NCT01130532|191495247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001||95.0||||Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95762827|NCT01130532|191495249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95762828|NCT01130532|191495249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95762829|NCT01130532|191495249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95762830|NCT01130532|191495250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.002
95762831|NCT01130532|191495250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
95762832|NCT01130532|191495250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison of Week 16 to Week 12. Sequential gatekeeping strategies were applied for multiplicity control and the p-value was not adjusted.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95993238|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Hypothesis testing for the association between outcome and coupling ratio was carried out using conditional F-tests with degrees of freedom estimated using the Kenward-Roger method.||||0.040
95993239|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 3:1||||0.036
95802216|NCT00944645|191577360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis III: The AUC0-infinity of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 AUC0-∞ is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.95|1.05||||||"Group B: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~Group A: MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.05|0.95|
95802217|NCT00944645|191577361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary research hypothesis IV: The Cmax of laropiprant following the administration of MK0524A (ER niacin 1000 mg/ laropiprant 20 mg) tablets from 2 manufacturing sites is similar (i.e., the true GMR of MK0524 Cmax is contained within the bioequivalence interval (0.80, 1.25)).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||||95.0|0.96|1.09||||||"MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) tablet from new manufacturing site (Source 2)~MK0524A (1000 mg ER Niacin/20 mg MK-laropiprant) Phase III tablet (Source 1)"||1.09|0.96|
95802218|NCT00710554|191577407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.11|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. Due to the low power of the test for interaction, the test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.11|-0.79|0.139
95802219|NCT00710554|191577408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.86||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Neuropathic Pain Scale score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||1.50|-7.22|0.198
95802220|NCT00710554|191577409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.83||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||-0.23|-1.43|0.007
95802221|NCT00710554|191577410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.68|||ANCOVA|||The change in the dynamic allodynia pain score from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.68|-0.52|0.795
95802222|NCT00710554|191577411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The change in the punctate allodynia pain threshold force from baseline to the end of treatment was analysed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and country and treatment group as factors.||0.09|-0.37|0.233
95802223|NCT00710554|191577412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.762||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The initial model incorporated treatment and centre group as factors. The odds ratio together with its 95% CI and associated p-value are presented.||2.88|1.08|0.023
95802224|NCT00710554|191577413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.25||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean Brief Pain Inventory (short form) score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.21|-0.72|0.288
95802225|NCT00710554|191577414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.04|-0.06|0.617
95802226|NCT00710554|191577415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.459||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean EuroQol-5D score was compared between treatment groups and centres using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre groups as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.09|-5.60|0.76
95802227|NCT00710554|191577416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.38||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.09|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.09|-0.85|0.112
95802228|NCT00292370|191577441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95802229|NCT01301001|191577450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.7|0.07
95802230|NCT01301001|191577451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.9|0.76
95802231|NCT01301001|191577452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.5|0.36
95802232|NCT02508207|191577489|OTHER|||||||0.7151||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7151
95802233|NCT02508207|191577490|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
95802234|NCT02508207|191577491|OTHER|||||||0.3345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.||||||0.3345
95802235|NCT02508207|191577492|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for within TEZ/IVA group was analyzed using a 2-sided, paired, t-test at a 5% level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95993240|NCT03532100|191962609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Pairwise hypothesis testing was carried out with adjustments for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|Regression, Linear|||6:1 versus 2:1||||0.028
95993241|NCT04533711|191962611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|24.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.38|-7.68|0.3086
95762833|NCT02422797|191495264|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.2|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI).|||4.2|-3.9|
95762834|NCT02422797|191495266|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INSTI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.8|-4.0|
95762835|NCT02422797|191495277|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95762836|NCT02422797|191495277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.861||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|0.967||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.967|0.767|0.011
95762837|NCT02422797|191495277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.012||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.085||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||1.085|0.943|0.745
95762838|NCT02422797|191495277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.977||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.977|0.787|0.018
95762839|NCT02422797|191495279|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95762840|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|0.773||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.773|0.686|<.001
95762841|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.954||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.954|0.785|0.004
95762842|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.864||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.864|0.719|<.001
95762843|NCT02422797|191495279|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
95762844|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.867|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.914||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.914|0.823|<.001
95762845|NCT02422797|191495279|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95762846|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|0.91||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.910|0.799|<.001
95762847|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.987||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INSTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.987|0.796|0.028
95762848|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.822||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.822|0.672|<.001
95993242|NCT04533711|191962612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.93||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|26.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.92|-5.06|0.1820
95762849|NCT02422797|191495279|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
95762850|NCT02422797|191495279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.891||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.891|0.751|<.001
95762851|NCT02422797|191495292|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.179
95762852|NCT02422797|191495292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.6|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||8.6|-1.6|
95762853|NCT02422797|191495292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.4|||||INSTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||7.4|-12.1|
95762854|NCT02422797|191495292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|3.1|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||3.1|-13.9|
95993243|NCT04533711|191962613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|308.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|667.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||667.1|-50.2|0.094
95993244|NCT04533711|191962614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|352.0||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|729.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||729.2|-25.2|0.0691
95762855|NCT02422797|191495300|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.430
95762856|NCT02422797|191495300|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.239||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.414|-0.064||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.064|-2.414|0.039
95762857|NCT02422797|191495300|OTHER|||||||0.542||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.542
95762858|NCT02422797|191495300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|0.84||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.840|-1.896|0.448
95762859|NCT02422797|191495300|OTHER|||||||0.402||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.402
95762860|NCT02422797|191495300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.037||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|0.426||P value assessed the difference between treatment groups (Symptom Bother Score - Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates were calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.426|-2.501|0.164
95762861|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.037
95802236|NCT04477486|191577494|SUPERIORITY|Comparing against a historical reference of 12.5% CRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||<0.001
95762862|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.101
95762863|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.042
95762864|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.132
95762865|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.022
95762866|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.004
95762867|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.076
95762868|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
95802237|NCT01543503|191577529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.851|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|-0.589|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline in DAS28-ESR at 24 weeks as dependent variable; therapy, site country, and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.589|-1.112|<0.001
95762869|NCT02422797|191495303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547||||||P-value assessed the HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.547
95948690|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
95762870|NCT05044195|191495345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.871||||||A/H1N1||0.871|0.738|
95762871|NCT05044195|191495345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|0.989||||||A/H3N2||0.989|0.819|
95762872|NCT05044195|191495345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.012||||||B/Yamagata||1.012|0.880|
95762873|NCT05044195|191495345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the GMT ratio: UL of the 95% CI for the inter-group GMT ratio is ≤1.5 for each vaccine strain|GMT ratio|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.067||||||B/Victoria||1.067|0.923|
95762874|NCT05044195|191495346|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-0.74||||||A/H1N1||-0.74|-7.97|
95762875|NCT05044195|191495346|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|2.48||||||A/H3N2||2.48|-6.14|
95762876|NCT05044195|191495346|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|2.0||||||B/Yamagata||2.00|-6.77|
95762877|NCT05044195|191495346|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria for the SCR difference: UL of the 95% CI for the difference in SCR is ≤10% for each vaccine strain|SCR difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.45||||||B/Victoria||0.45|-8.31|
95762878|NCT05044195|191495347|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.876||||||A/H1N1||0.876|0.745|
95762879|NCT05044195|191495347|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|0.998||||||A/H3N2||0.998|0.829|
95762880|NCT05044195|191495347|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.014||||||B/Yamagata||1.014|0.884|
95762881|NCT05044195|191495347|SUPERIORITY||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.075||||||B/Victoria||1.075|0.931|
95762882|NCT05044195|191495348|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.944||||||A/H1N1||0.944|0.803|
95762883|NCT05044195|191495348|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.032||||||A/H3N2||1.032|0.880|
95762884|NCT05044195|191495348|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.077||||||B/Yamagata||1.077|0.953|
95762885|NCT05044195|191495348|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.098||||||B/Victoria||1.098|0.963|
95762886|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.936||||||A/H1N1 (50 to 59 years)||0.936|0.751|
95762887|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.04||||||A/H3N2 (50 to 59 years)||1.040|0.821|
95762888|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.015||||||B/Yamagata (50 to 59 years)||1.015|0.845|
95802238|NCT01543503|191577530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|-0.617|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in DAS28-ESR as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; DAS28-ESR at baseline as covariates.||-0.617|-1.204|<0.001
95762889|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.087||||||B/Victoria (50 to 59 years)||1.087|0.901|
95802239|NCT01543503|191577531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.513|-10.947|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in ESR as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-10.947|-15.513|<0.001
95948691|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.4|
95948692|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.6|0.3|
95762890|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|0.864||||||A/H1N1 (60 to 64 years)||0.864|0.681|
95948693|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.8|0.4|
95948694|NCT00749944|191868773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.7|0.4|
95948695|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AB: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.3|
95948696|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||1.9|0.4|
95948697|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.2|0.4|
95762891|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.033||||||A/H3N2 (60 to 64 years)||1.033|0.766|
95762892|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.079||||||B/Yamagata (60 to 64 years)||1.079|0.879|
95762893|NCT05044195|191495356|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.133||||||B/Victoria (60 to 64 years)||1.133|0.905|
95762894|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.935||||||A/H1N1 (yes)||0.935|0.761|
95948698|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.6|0.5|
95948699|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.3|0.5|
95948700|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.7|0.6|
95948701|NCT00749944|191868774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||2.8|0.5|
95948702|NCT00749944|191868776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period AC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
95948703|NCT00749944|191868776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.6|0.0|
95948704|NCT00749944|191868776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period AE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.6|0.3|
95948705|NCT00749944|191868776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
95948706|NCT00749944|191868776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BD: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||5.7|0.0|
95948707|NCT00749944|191868776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Period BE: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||3.7|0.3|
95948708|NCT00749944|191868777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|23.6|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|There was no hypothesis testing or power calculation in this study. Period BC: Difference varenicline versus placebo. Subjects' worst scores observed in a given period were compared with the threshold criterion for analysis.||23.6|0.2|
95948709|NCT01072149|191868801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.287|0.179|<0.001
95762895|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.128||||||A/H3N2 (yes)||1.128|0.904|
95948710|NCT01072149|191868801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|0.165|<0.001
95762896|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.016||||||B/Yamagata (yes)||1.016|0.883|
95762897|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.073||||||B/Victoria (yes)||1.073|0.926|
95762898|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|0.88||||||A/H1N1 (no)||0.880|0.677|
95762899|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.941||||||A/H3N2 (no)||0.941|0.683|
95762900|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.076||||||B/Yamagata (no)||1.076|0.831|
95762901|NCT05044195|191495357|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.151||||||B/Victoria (no)||1.151|0.881|
95762902|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.894||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||0.894|0.752|
95762903|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.029||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.029|0.846|
95948711|NCT01072149|191868801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.291|0.181|<0.001
95948712|NCT01102426|191868804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.885||Cox regression: HR p=0.0062|Log Rank|||||0.885|0.447|=0.0054
95993245|NCT04533711|191962615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|10.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.94|-22.6|0.4953
95993246|NCT04533711|191962616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.49|-20.0|0.8041
95993247|NCT04533711|191962617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.99|-2.86|0.9645
95993248|NCT04533711|191962618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-5.85|0.0989
95762904|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMTratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.046||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.046|0.904|
95948713|NCT01102426|191868805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0618
95993249|NCT04533711|191962619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|-0.77|0.7667
95762905|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.094||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score \<50)||1.094|0.938|
95762906|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.902||||||A/H1N1 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.902|0.553|
95762907|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.982||||||A/H3N2 (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.982|0.549|
95948714|NCT01102426|191868806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.686||Cox regression HR: p\<0.0001|Log Rank|||||0.686|0.382|< 0.0001
95948715|NCT01102426|191868807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.0002
95762908|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.935||||||B/Yamagata (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||0.935|0.638|
95762909|NCT05044195|191495358|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.107||||||B/Victoria (Comorbidity Risk Score ≥50)||1.107|0.739|
95762910|NCT01027702|191495359|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~* If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~* If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~* If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
95762911|NCT01027702|191495360|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"This was a dose-escalation study to determine a target DLI dose at which the:~1. Probability of CD4+ cells \> 100/µL by Day +120 is at least 66% and~2. Probability of grade II and III GVHD is at most 33%, probability of grade III GVHD is at most 17%, and no grade IV GVHD occurs Patients were assigned in cohorts of 3."|"The study design consisted of two phases, a dose-escalation phase and a dose-confirmation phase. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned in cohorts of 3. The dose escalation plan was:~If a grade IV acute GVHD event was observed at any dose, no more patients were assigned to this or higher dose levels unless the methotrexate dosing was modified.~If none of the initial three patients at a dose level experienced grade II/III GVHD and \< 2/3 had a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the next three patients were assigned to the next higher dose level.~If 1 out of 3 patients had grade III GVHD or 1 - 2 out of 3 patients had grade II GVHD and/or \> 2/3 have a CD4+ count \> 100 at Day +120, the dose was repeated for the next 3 patients.~The dose of 5 x 10\^4 CD3+ cells/kg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
95762912|NCT00403585|191495362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 156.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.001
95948716|NCT01102426|191868808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||=|0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.067||Cox regression HR: p=0.1273|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||1.067|0.596|=0.1261
95948717|NCT01102426|191868809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3625|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.3625
95948718|NCT01102426|191868810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Normal approximation|||||||0.1037
95948719|NCT01102426|191868811|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.384|||=|0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|1.303||Cox regression HR: 0.1247|Log Rank|||||1.303|0.113|=0.1015
95948720|NCT01102426|191868813|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.043|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.479||Cox regression HR: 0.0105|Log Rank|||Pre-specified||0.479|0.004|=0.0001
95993250|NCT04533711|191962620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.87|0.0894
95762913|NCT02276807|191495389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
95762914|NCT02276807|191495390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (time: Baseline vs. week 12) repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
95762915|NCT02276807|191495391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.666|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU, BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
95762916|NCT02276807|191495392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline, Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
95762917|NCT02276807|191495393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|2 (Condition: TAU vs. BA-PC) X 2 (Time: Baseline vs. Week 12) Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||<0.05
95762918|NCT01750190|191495439|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.735|1.967|||ANCOVA|MI (Multiple Imputation) ANCOVA|Roxadustat - Placebo Treatment Difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as covariates and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 milliliters \[mL\]/minutes \[min\]/1.73 meters \[m\]\^2), as fixed effects.||1.967|1.735|<0.0001
95762919|NCT01750190|191495440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.73|134.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/Placebo Odds ratio|||134.48|44.73|<0.0001
95762920|NCT01750190|191495441|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2), as fixed effects.||2.037|1.730|<0.0001
95762921|NCT01750190|191495442|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|2.143|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as covariates , and treatment and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73m\^2 ), as fixed effects.||2.143|1.663|<0.0001
95948721|NCT01102426|191868816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95762922|NCT01750190|191495443|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|22.189|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Roxadustat/placebo odds ratio|||22.189|10.79|<0.0001
95762923|NCT01750190|191495444|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.65|-13.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Analysis|Roxadustat- placebo treatment difference|Treatment comparison was made using MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-13.87|-20.65|<0.0001
95948722|NCT01102426|191868817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0085
95762924|NCT01750190|191495445|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|1.245|||ANCOVA|MI ANCOVA|Roxadustat - placebo treatment difference|||1.245|-0.827|0.6924
95762925|NCT01750190|191495446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.406||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||||0.406|0.165|<0.0001
95948723|NCT01102426|191868819|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95993251|NCT02732951|191962621|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.45||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|49.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Fixed effects of treatment, prior anti-diabetic macular oedema treatment status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within patient errors.|Null hypothesis = The CSFT change from baseline at Week 12 is equal in both groups||49.13|-16.23|0.3199
95762926|NCT01750190|191495447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.267||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and the randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (\<=8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus \>=30 mL/min/1.73m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 24 Weeks of Treatment||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
95762927|NCT01750190|191495447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.276||From a Cox Proportional hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and other randomization stratification factors, except baseline Hb (≤8 g/dL versus \>8 g/dL) and eGFR (\<30 versus ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m\^2).|Cox Proportional hazards model|||First 52 Weeks of Treatment||0.276|0.138|<0.0001
95762928|NCT05534061|191495468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.56||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.56|0.62|.944
95762929|NCT05534061|191495469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||1.65|0.62|.952
95948724|NCT01102426|191868820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0029
95948725|NCT02234141|191868835|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.214||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving {1, 2, or greater than or equal to \[≥\] 3}).||||= 0.214
95762930|NCT05534061|191495470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.11||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||3.11|0.43|.768
95762931|NCT05534061|191495471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.94||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Logistic|A multilevel logistic regression model was specified.|Contingency Management Alone coded as the reference group.|||10.94|1.43|.008
95762932|NCT00535405|191495477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-12.0||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-12.0|-17.5|<0.001
95762933|NCT00535405|191495477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-10.3|-4.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-4.8|-10.3|<0.001
95762934|NCT00535405|191495477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-5.5||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week, treatment by study week interaction, and a random subject effect.||||-5.5|-11.0|<0.001
95762935|NCT00535405|191495478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001||95.0|7.64|20.83||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|"Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.~Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)"|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||20.83|7.64|<0.001
95762936|NCT00535405|191495478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001||95.0|2.51|5.85||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.85|2.51|<0.001
95762937|NCT00535405|191495478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001||95.0|2.39|5.6|||Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||5.60|2.39|<0.001
95762938|NCT00535405|191495479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001||95.0|2.04|4.55||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.55|2.04|<0.001
95762939|NCT00535405|191495479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.039||95.0|1.02|2.32||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.32|1.02|0.039
95802240|NCT01543503|191577531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.648|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.419|-9.876|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for ESR at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in ESR, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; ESR at baseline as the covariate.||-9.876|-15.419|<0.001
95948726|NCT02234141|191868835|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.27||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test).|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.270
95993252|NCT02338843|191962679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified logistic regression model. Adjusted by baseline MAP and APACHE II, vasopressin use and average NED 6 hours prior to randomization.||||13.3|4.76|<0.001
95762940|NCT00535405|191495479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.023||95.0|1.14|2.87||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.87|1.14|0.023
95762941|NCT00535405|191495480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|2.76|7.24||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||7.24|2.76|<0.001
95802241|NCT01543503|191577532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.271|-3.074|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CRP as a dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||-3.074|-10.271|<0.001
95802242|NCT01543503|191577532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.116||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|3.842|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CRP at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CRP as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CRP at baseline as the covariate.||3.842|-6.074|0.659
95762942|NCT00535405|191495480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.026||95.0|1.07|2.94||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.94|1.07|0.026
95762943|NCT00535405|191495480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.017||95.0|1.23|4.18||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.18|1.23|0.017
95762944|NCT00535405|191495481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|4.31|13.42||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.42|4.31|<0.001
95762945|NCT00535405|191495481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.67||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||4.67|1.86|<0.001
95762946|NCT00535405|191495481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|1.42|3.27||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||3.27|1.42|<0.001
95762947|NCT00535405|191495482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001||95.0|2.71|13.38||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||13.38|2.71|<0.001
95762948|NCT00535405|191495482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.069||95.0|0.96|2.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.60|0.96|0.069
95762949|NCT00535405|191495482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of odds|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Logistic Regression using GEE|Model include terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, study week and treatment by study week interaction.|Ratio of odds of achieving pre-specified LDL-C level on EZ/Simva versus Atorva|||2.90|1.10|0.039
95802243|NCT01543503|191577533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.576||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.075|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.075|-1.078|0.024
95802244|NCT01543503|191577533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.752||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|-0.267|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SJC, as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SJC, at baseline as the covariate.||-0.267|-1.238|0.002
95802245|NCT01543503|191577534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|0.169|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||0.169|-1.408|0.123
95762950|NCT02466685|191495483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95762951|NCT03295630|191495486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||||
95762952|NCT03295630|191495486|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.78||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified step count (thigh placement) and observed step count||0.78|-0.1|
95762953|NCT03295630|191495486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Difference (steps) between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed step count||||
95762954|NCT03295630|191495486|OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0||||||Correlation between accelerometer quantified steps (ankle placement) and observed steps||1.0|0.99|
95802246|NCT01543503|191577534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.216||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.039|-0.393|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for TJC at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in TJC as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; TJC at baseline as the covariate.||-0.393|-2.039|0.004
95762955|NCT02006732|191495504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.336|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.336|0.261|<0.0001
95762956|NCT02006732|191495504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.141|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.141|0.069|<0.0001
95762957|NCT02006732|191495504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.323|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.323|0.246|<0.0001
95802247|NCT01543503|191577535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.481|-1.469|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in CDAI the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-1.469|-5.481|<0.001
95802248|NCT01543503|191577535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708|-2.492|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for CDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in CDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; CDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-2.492|-6.708|<0.001
95948727|NCT02234141|191868835|OTHER|Nonparametric pairwise comparison|||||=|0.604||||||P-value was calculated using the generalized van Elteren test/van Elteren test (gvE/vE; stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test)|gvE/vE|||The protocol-specified primary analysis was to compare each selonsertib dose group with the placebo group, using Wilcoxon (van Elteren) test, with respect to change from baseline in PVR at Week 24, stratifying by randomization stratum (the underlying etiology of PAH idiopathic/heritable \[yes/no\] and the number of background PAH therapies they were receiving \[1, 2, or ≥ 3\]).||||= 0.604
95762958|NCT02006732|191495504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
95762959|NCT02006732|191495504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.232|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.232|0.156|<0.0001
95762960|NCT02006732|191495504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.051|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.051|-0.023|0.4499
95762961|NCT02006732|191495505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.203|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
95762962|NCT02006732|191495505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.076|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.076|0.002|0.0395
95762963|NCT02006732|191495505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.207|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.207|0.132|<0.0001
95762964|NCT02006732|191495505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.079|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.079|0.005|0.0269
95762965|NCT02006732|191495505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.165|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.165|0.090|<0.0001
95762966|NCT02006732|191495505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.034|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.034|-0.040|0.8669
95948728|NCT03265132|191868854|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||||1.00|0.42|0.0022
95948729|NCT02095678|191868904|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
95762967|NCT02006732|191495506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|-2.629|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.629|-6.499|<0.0001
95762968|NCT02006732|191495506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.628|0.193|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.193|-3.628|0.0780
95762969|NCT02006732|191495506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.611|-1.721|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.721|-5.611|0.0002
95762970|NCT02006732|191495506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|1.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.102|-2.741|0.4028
95762971|NCT02006732|191495506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.796|-0.897|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.897|-4.796|0.0042
95762972|NCT02006732|191495506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.804|1.008|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.008|-2.804|0.3555
95762973|NCT02006732|191495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-3.276|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.276|-6.060|<0.0001
95762974|NCT02006732|191495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.701||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|-0.723|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.723|-3.471|0.0028
95762975|NCT02006732|191495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.451|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-2.451|-5.240|<0.0001
95762976|NCT02006732|191495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.651|0.102|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.102|-2.651|0.0696
95762977|NCT02006732|191495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|-1.171|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.171|-3.971|0.0003
95762978|NCT02006732|191495507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.698||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|0.546|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.546|-2.191|0.2387
95762979|NCT02006732|191495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|0.317|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.317|0.187|<0.0001
95762980|NCT02006732|191495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.125|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.125|-0.003|0.0614
95762981|NCT02006732|191495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.370|0.240|<0.0001
95948730|NCT02095678|191868907|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95762982|NCT02006732|191495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.178|0.049|0.0005
95762983|NCT02006732|191495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.256|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.256|0.126|<0.0001
95948731|NCT02095678|191868908|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95762984|NCT02006732|191495508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.012|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.012|-0.117|0.1089
95762985|NCT02006732|191495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.725|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.725|0.665|<0.0001
95762986|NCT02006732|191495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|1.106|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.106|0.058|0.0296
95762987|NCT02006732|191495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.796|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.796|0.730|<0.0001
95762988|NCT02006732|191495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.178|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.178|0.122|0.0159
95762989|NCT02006732|191495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.148|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.148|0.078|0.0248
95762990|NCT02006732|191495509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.454|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.454|-0.590|0.7984
95762991|NCT02006732|191495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|2.0|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.000|1.245|<0.0001
95762992|NCT02006732|191495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.967|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.967|0.220|0.0019
95762993|NCT02006732|191495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|1.989|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.989|1.232|<0.0001
95948732|NCT00666705|191868918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|85.76||||||90.0|79.89|92.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 99% power that the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the area under the plasma concentration-time profile over the dosing interval (AUCτ) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||92.07|79.89|
95948733|NCT00666705|191868919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|79.48||||||90.0|67.19|94.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups. For maraviroc, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 91% power that the 90% CI for the ratio of Test (raltegravir co-administered with maraviroc) to Reference (maraviroc administered alone) treatment for the maximum concentration (Cmax) would lie within the acceptance region of (80%, 125%).||94.02|67.19|
95993800|NCT00868790|191963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-11.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-5.4|-17.5|0.002
95762994|NCT02006732|191495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.956|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.956|0.207|0.0023
95762995|NCT02006732|191495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.41|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.410|0.649|<0.0001
95762996|NCT02006732|191495510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.383|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.383|-0.359|0.9494
95762997|NCT02006732|191495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.498|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.498|0.366|<0.0001
95762998|NCT02006732|191495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.212|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.212|0.084|<0.0001
95762999|NCT02006732|191495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.522|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.522|0.387|<0.0001
95763000|NCT02006732|191495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.236|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.236|0.105|<0.0001
95763001|NCT02006732|191495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.35|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.350|0.217|<0.0001
95763002|NCT02006732|191495511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.042|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.042|-0.087|0.4974
95763003|NCT02969044|191495516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.79|||ANCOVA|||||-3.79|-14.75|<0.001
95948734|NCT00666705|191868920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|63.25||||||90.0|44.27|90.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed AUCτ was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.205) on the natural log scale for AUCτ, with 90% coverage probability.||90.39|44.27|
95993253|NCT03575104|191962694|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-11.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.604|-5.633||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-5.633|-17.604|0.0001
95763004|NCT02593110|191495534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.41||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.59|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|-54.59|0.1107
95763005|NCT02593110|191495534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|41.39|||ANCOVA|||||41.39|-21.84|0.5378
95763006|NCT02593110|191495534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.96|26.38|||ANCOVA|||||26.38|-24.96|0.9560
95763007|NCT02593110|191495535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.35||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.42|155.12|||ANCOVA|||||155.12|-92.42|0.6121
95763008|NCT02593110|191495535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.78||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.14|250.42|||ANCOVA|||||250.42|33.14|0.0116
95763009|NCT02593110|191495535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75||||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.89|111.39|||ANCOVA|||||111.39|-140.89|0.8146
95763010|NCT02593110|191495536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|12.68|||ANCOVA|||||12.68|-10.84|0.8755
95802249|NCT01543503|191577535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.229||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.652|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.652|-5.806|0.014
95802250|NCT01543503|191577535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.245||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.121|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for SDAI score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in SDAI as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; SDAI at baseline as the covariate.||-0.370|-6.121|0.027
95802251|NCT01543503|191577536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.655|-5.404|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-5.404|-12.655|<0.001
95948735|NCT00666705|191868921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|90.33||||||90.0|85.28|95.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|The alternate hypothesis of bioequivalence is that there is no difference between treatment groups.||95.68|85.28|
95763011|NCT02593110|191495536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.7|||ANCOVA|||||18.70|-13.83|0.7651
95763012|NCT02593110|191495536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.88||||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|22.41|||ANCOVA|||||22.41|-8.65|0.3776
95802252|NCT01543503|191577536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|-6.345|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Physician Global Assessment score at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity as the dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity at baseline as covariates.||-6.345|-14.130|<0.001
95802253|NCT01543503|191577540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95763013|NCT02593110|191495537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.06||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-19.91|0.1782
95763014|NCT02593110|191495537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.27||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|6.07|||ANCOVA|||||6.07|-16.61|0.3555
95763015|NCT02593110|191495537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.75||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|17.49|||ANCOVA|||||17.49|-5.99|0.3294
95763016|NCT02593110|191495538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72||||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.91|3.47|||ANCOVA|||||3.47|-20.91|0.1569
95763017|NCT02593110|191495538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|12.02|||ANCOVA|||||12.02|-16.16|0.7692
95763018|NCT02593110|191495538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|15.91|||ANCOVA|||||15.91|-9.74|0.6306
95763019|NCT02593110|191495539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|9.02|||ANCOVA|||||9.02|-24.74|0.3542
95763020|NCT02593110|191495539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|16.71|||ANCOVA|||||16.71|-17.98|0.9417
95763021|NCT02593110|191495539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.4508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|19.86|||ANCOVA|||||19.86|-8.96|0.4508
95763022|NCT04604795|191495560|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.331|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.331|0.833|
95948736|NCT00666705|191868922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (percent)|66.77||||||90.0|41.22|108.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|For raltegravir, a sample size of 18 subjects provided 90% CIs for the difference between treatments of raltegravir (±0.293) on the natural log scale for Cmax, with 90% coverage probability.||108.15|41.22|
95763023|NCT04604795|191495560|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.916|8.474|||||Log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||8.474|4.916|
95763024|NCT04604795|191495569|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.268|1.847|||||AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with fixed effects for regimen and period, and participants as random effect.|||1.847|1.268|
95763025|NCT04604795|191495569|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.141|15.423|||||Log transformed AUC(0-inf) was analyzed using a mixed model with regimen, period, and regimen by period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.|||15.423|10.141|
95763026|NCT04604795|191495606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.318|0.693|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) versus (vs) Day 3 (fasted)|||0.693|0.318|
95763027|NCT04604795|191495606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.405|0.882|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.882|0.405|
95802254|NCT01543503|191577544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.146||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|-0.024|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.024|-0.269|0.020
95802255|NCT01543503|191577544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.164||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|-0.026|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in HAQ-DI as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; HAQ-DI at baseline as covariates.||-0.026|-0.301|0.020
95802256|NCT01543503|191577545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.893||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.457|-0.329|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||-0.329|-7.457|0.032
95802257|NCT01543503|191577545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.787||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.763|1.189|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor for Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in FACIT-F score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; FACIT-F score at baseline as covariates.||1.189|-6.763|0.168
95802258|NCT01543503|191577546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.661||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.912|-1.411|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-1.411|-9.912|0.009
95802259|NCT01543503|191577546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.802|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.245|-5.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in participant's VAS score as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; participant's VAS score at baseline as covariates.||-5.360|-14.245|<0.001
95802260|NCT01543503|191577548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.108||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.017|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 24: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 6 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-1.200|-9.017|0.010
95802261|NCT01543503|191577548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.161|-3.372|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference between Tocilizumab and TNF inhibitor at Week 52: Analysis is based on an ANCOVA model with change from baseline to 12 months in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease as dependent variable; therapy and treatment as fixed effects; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease at baseline as covariates.||-3.372|-12.161|<0.001
95948737|NCT00666705|191868923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio (percent)|72.42||||||90.0|57.82|90.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Natural log transformed C12 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Ratio (percent) (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Geometric Means|||90.71|57.82|
95948738|NCT04660799|191868928|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of Ctrough SC versus Ctrough IV.|Ratio Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.79||||||Geometric mean ratio of Ctrough SC/Ctrough IV and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.79|1.28|
95948739|NCT04660799|191868929|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) should be above 0.80 in order to show non-inferiority of AUCsc versus AUCiv.|Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.42||||||Geometric mean ratio of AUCsc/AUCiv and 90% confidence interval were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for tumor load at baseline.||1.42|1.10|
95948740|NCT04660799|191868934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|45.45||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||45.45|-8.92|
95948741|NCT04660799|191868935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR Investigator|17.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|42.11||||||Investigator; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||42.11|-6.86|
95763028|NCT04604795|191495606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.194|0.427|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.427|0.194|
95763029|NCT04604795|191495606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|0.643|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.643|0.292|
95763030|NCT04604795|191495606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.617|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.617|0.280|
95763031|NCT04604795|191495606|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.903|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.903|0.410|
95763032|NCT04604795|191495608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.205|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.205|0.867|
95993254|NCT03575104|191962694|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.74||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.693|3.215||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00977; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.215|-8.693|0.3669
95763033|NCT04604795|191495608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.941|1.308|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.308|0.941|
95763034|NCT04604795|191495608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.671|0.933|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.933|0.671|
95763035|NCT04604795|191495608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.724|1.007|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.007|0.724|
95948742|NCT04660799|191868935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR IRC|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|40.88||||||IRC; Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||40.88|-12.68|
95948743|NCT04660799|191868936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.49|36.59||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||36.59|-22.49|
95763036|NCT04604795|191495608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.713|0.992|||||Day 5 (High fat meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||0.992|0.713|
95763037|NCT04604795|191495608|OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.165|||||Day 7 (Standard meal) vs Day 3 (fasted)|||1.165|0.837|
95763038|NCT02359994|191495632|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The primary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 7 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 7 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||4.8|-7.5|0.005
95763039|NCT02359994|191495633|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 10%, such that the endpoint is successfully met if the non-inferiority one-sided p-value is less than 0.025 or, equivalently, if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between PerClot and Arista hemostasis rates is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||Farrington-Manning score test||Directionality for difference in the percentage of participants achieving endpoint: PerClot - Arista|The secondary efficacy hypothesis is that the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis of the treated bleeding site at 5 minutes in the overall PerClot group is non-inferior to the percentage of participants achieving hemostasis at 5 minutes in the Arista group, the active control.||12.0|-2.4|<0.001
95763040|NCT02374138|191495657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Months||||0.93
95763041|NCT02374138|191495658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 month follow up||||0.87
95763042|NCT02374138|191495658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.25
95763043|NCT02374138|191495660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.35
95763044|NCT02374138|191495660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ICS Use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.34
95763045|NCT02374138|191495660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA Use at 6 Months||||0.35
95763046|NCT02374138|191495660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||LTRA use at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
95763047|NCT02374138|191495661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED visits over 6 months||||0.63
95763048|NCT02374138|191495661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ED Visits between 6 and 12 Month follow up||||0.44
95763049|NCT02374138|191495662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids over 6 months||||0.98
95763050|NCT02374138|191495662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Adjusted for child age, gender, and baseline value|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Courses of systemic steroids between 6m and 12m FU||||0.48
95763051|NCT02374138|191495663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.32
95763052|NCT02374138|191495663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.06
95948744|NCT04660799|191868937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRR|18.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|46.73||||||Stratified by IPI score: IPI 0-2 = low to low-intermediate risk versus IPI 3-5 = high-intermediate to high risk||46.73|-9.55|
95948745|NCT01228734|191868996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.498|<0.001
95948746|NCT00089791|191869001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.26|0.41||Logistic regression was used to generate the p-value|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.41|0.26|<0.0001
95948747|NCT00089791|191869002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0106||95.0|0.67|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.67|0.0106
95948748|NCT00089791|191869003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0362||95.0|0.37|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.37|0.0362
95948749|NCT01543204|191869008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|35.97|||Wald asymptotic test|||||35.97|-15.97|0.4505
95948750|NCT00721734|191869055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.607||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.129|0.914|||Regression, Linear|||"In order to estimate a possible effect of renal function, the relationship between the clearance of carfilzomib and creatinine clearance (CrCl) was explored using a mixed-effects model that included CrCl.~The slope of the regression of CL as a function of CrCL at Cycle 1, Day 1 was evaluated using a linear regression model that included CrCL as continuous variables (excluding the hemodialysis group)."||0.914|-2.129|0.4114
95948751|NCT05074433|191869076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.393|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.393|0.093|
95763053|NCT02374138|191495664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month follow up||||0.32
95763054|NCT02374138|191495664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 month follow up||||0.44
95763055|NCT02374138|191495665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 6 Month Follow Up||||0.70
95763056|NCT02374138|191495665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||At 12 Month Follow Up||||0.80
95802262|NCT00514917|191577594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Log Rank|P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity of tests.|The hazard ratio Leuprolide+Bicalutamide vs. Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide was estimated using an un-stratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \>1 indicates a lower risk of Docetaxel+Leuprolide, compared to Leuprolide.|"Null hypothesis: No difference between new treatment combination (Docetaxel+Leuprolide+Bicalutamide) and conventional treatment (Leuprolide+Bicalutamide).~The study was sized to have 90% power to detect a difference between treatment arms at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level with 186 events and anticipating 10% non-evaluable participants."||1.65|1.00|0.0501
95802263|NCT00387127|191577605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|10.7||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by an independent radiological review.|||37.3|-13.4|0.3658
95948752|NCT05074433|191869076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|2.929|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||2.929|0.072|
95993255|NCT03575104|191962695|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-10.25||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|-3.548||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.01563; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-3.548|-16.95|0.0028
95763057|NCT02374138|191495666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.53
95802264|NCT00387127|191577606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of par. with CR|28.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|53.6||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Complete response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a CR as determined by the investigator.|||53.6|5.7|0.0130
95948753|NCT05074433|191869076|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|3.668|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||3.668|0.101|
95948754|NCT02397707|191869088|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean (GLSM)Ratio%|411.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.72|789.08||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||789.08|214.72|
95948755|NCT02397707|191869088|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|644.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|364.67|1137.82||||||An ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1137.82|364.67|
95763058|NCT02374138|191495666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||12 Month Follow up||||0.77
95763059|NCT02374138|191495667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 6 Month Follow up||||0.53
95763060|NCT02374138|191495667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Quality of Life at 12 Month Follow up||||0.57
95763061|NCT02374138|191495668|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95763062|NCT02374138|191495671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on Brief COPE at 12 Months||||0.58
95763063|NCT02374138|191495673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.46
95763064|NCT02374138|191495673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Score on LOT-R at 12 Month Follow Up||||0.62
95763065|NCT02374138|191495675|SUPERIORITY|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.35|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||||||0.35
95763066|NCT02374138|191495676|SUPERIORITY|Daytime asthma symptoms in prior 14d at 6-month follow up||||||0.54|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.54
95763067|NCT02374138|191495676|SUPERIORITY|Daytime Asthma Symptoms at 12 month follow up||||||0.11|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.11
95948756|NCT02397707|191869089|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|399.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|210.89|755.81||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||755.81|210.89|
95948757|NCT02397707|191869089|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|599.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|342.36|1050.22||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1050.22|342.36|
95763068|NCT02374138|191495676|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 6 month follow up||||||0.82|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.82
95763069|NCT02374138|191495676|SUPERIORITY|Days of Activity Limitations at 12 month follow up||||||0.84|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.84
95763070|NCT02374138|191495676|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 6 month follow up||||||0.7|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.70
95763071|NCT02374138|191495676|SUPERIORITY|Days of Quick Relief Medicine Use at 12 month follow up||||||0.58|||||||Generalized Linear Model Analysis|By repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender||||||0.58
95763072|NCT02374138|191495677|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Parent education||||0.20
95763073|NCT02374138|191495678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS exposure at 6 Month Follow Up||||0.91
95948758|NCT02397707|191869090|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|338.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.96|677.79||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||677.79|168.96|
95948759|NCT02397707|191869090|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|713.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|384.07|1327.06||||||An ANOVA appropriate was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||1327.06|384.07|
95948760|NCT03212638|191869092|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|1.15||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.15|0.946|
95948761|NCT03212638|191869092|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.14||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.14|0.944|
95763074|NCT02374138|191495678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Repeated measures, p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||ETS Exposure at 12 Month Follow up||||0.98
95763075|NCT02374138|191495679|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
95763076|NCT02374138|191495680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 6 Months||||0.02
95948762|NCT03212638|191869092|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.74||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||0.740|0.617|
95763077|NCT02374138|191495680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value adjusted for age and gender|Generalized Linear Model Analysis|||Parent use of mental health resources at 12 Months||||0.85
95763078|NCT02374138|191495681|OTHER|Univariate test||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95763079|NCT02766283|191495701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95763080|NCT02766283|191495702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
95763081|NCT02448368|191495712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|232.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.0|266.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||266|202|
95763082|NCT02448368|191495712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|164.0|200.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||200|164|
95763083|NCT02448368|191495712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|124.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||124|91.5|
95948763|NCT03212638|191869093|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.963|
95948764|NCT03212638|191869093|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of s single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation without (T2) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.995|
95948765|NCT03212638|191869093|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.01||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.01|0.936|
95948766|NCT03212638|191869094|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.996|
95948767|NCT03212638|191869094|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|Ratio|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.03||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as the suspension formulation with (T1) water compared to the commercial tablet (R).||1.03|0.966|
95948768|NCT03212638|191869094|EQUIVALENCE|0.80, 1.25 as the bioequivalence boundaries|ratio|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.02||||||Bioequivalence of single 4 mg dose of baricitinib as fasted vs fed.||1.02|0.941|
95948769|NCT02203032|191869095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
95763084|NCT02448368|191495714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|147.0|195.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||195|147|
95763085|NCT02448368|191495714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|170.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|199.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||199|146|
95763086|NCT02448368|191495714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|129.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|146.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||146|114|
95763087|NCT02448368|191495715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|187.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||187|139|
95763088|NCT02448368|191495715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.0|188.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||188|135|
95802265|NCT00387127|191577615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rate|16.3||||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|42.1||From exact test that common odds ratio equals 1|Fisher Exact||Overall response was defined as the percentage of participants achieving a PR or CR as determined by the investigator.|||42.1|-8.6|0.1969
95802266|NCT01860404|191577673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.871
95948770|NCT02203032|191869096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
95948771|NCT02203032|191869097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Row mean score test|||||||< 0.001
95763089|NCT02448368|191495715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.0|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||147|116|
95763090|NCT02448368|191495717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||112|88.3|
95763091|NCT02448368|191495717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||117|85.5|
95802267|NCT01860404|191577674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.140
95802268|NCT01860404|191577675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.267
95802269|NCT01860404|191577676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.476
95802270|NCT01860404|191577677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.581
95802271|NCT01860404|191577678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
95802272|NCT01860404|191577679|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95802273|NCT01860404|191577680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.482
95802274|NCT01860404|191577681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
95802275|NCT01860404|191577682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.629
95802276|NCT01860404|191577683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.624
95802277|NCT01860404|191577684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2554|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2554
95802278|NCT01860404|191577685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7964
95948772|NCT02203032|191869098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.001
95948773|NCT01332266|191869206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46||||||||1.46|0.54|
95948774|NCT01332266|191869208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.73||||||||1.73|0.61|
95948775|NCT01332266|191869209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.37||||||||1.37|0.53|
95948776|NCT03302091|191869211|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.83|386.94|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||386.94|101.83|
95948777|NCT03302091|191869212|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|198.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.56|337.78|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||337.78|116.56|
95763092|NCT02448368|191495717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|143.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||143|94.8|
95763093|NCT02448368|191495718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.3|
95763094|NCT02448368|191495718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|95.0|
95763095|NCT02448368|191495718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|140.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||140|95.3|
95763096|NCT02448368|191495719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|116.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||116|98.1|
95763097|NCT02448368|191495719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.6|113.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||113|94.6|
95763098|NCT02448368|191495719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|137.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||137|93.3|
95763099|NCT03736031|191495724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.09
95763100|NCT03736031|191495725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||two-sample independent t-test|An alpha of 0.05 was used.||||||0.81
95948778|NCT03302091|191869213|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|226.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.35|327.53|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||327.53|156.35|
95763101|NCT03736031|191495726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95763102|NCT03736031|191495727|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95763103|NCT03300817|191495731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6834|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.6834
95763104|NCT05736861|191495736|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.17|0.96|
95763105|NCT05736861|191495737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.6|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||2.6|0.4|
95763106|NCT05736861|191495740|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.8|0.6|
95763107|NCT05736861|191495741|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.50|
95763108|NCT05736861|191495742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.13|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|||1.13|0.39|
95948779|NCT03302091|191869214|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|140.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.06|182.43|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||182.43|108.06|
95948780|NCT03302091|191869215|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|165.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.51|255.17|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||255.17|107.51|
95948781|NCT03302091|191869216|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio (T/R)%|128.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|165.57|||ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|"The statistical model used for the analyses of the primary endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale including the effect degree of renal impairment as a fixed effect as well as subject pair as a random effect."||165.57|99.64|
95763109|NCT05736861|191495743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.91|||||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|1.91|0.52|
95763110|NCT05736861|191495744|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.25|0.82|
95763111|NCT05736861|191495744|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.23|0.78|
95763112|NCT05736861|191495744|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.41|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.41|0.82|
95763113|NCT05736861|191495744|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.01|0.57|
95763114|NCT05736861|191495745|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.32|0.92|
95763115|NCT05736861|191495745|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.22|0.83|
95802279|NCT01860404|191577686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7749|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7749
95802280|NCT01860404|191577687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0036
95948782|NCT01536704|191869217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.88|
95802281|NCT01860404|191577688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0053
95802282|NCT01860404|191577689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8234|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8234
95948783|NCT01536704|191869217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-t) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.05|0.98|
95948784|NCT01536704|191869218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.94|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.94|0.85|
95763116|NCT05736861|191495745|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.24|0.83|
95802283|NCT01666314|191577720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1078
95802284|NCT01666314|191577721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.145||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9895|18.7606|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 favors orteronel.|||18.7606|0.9895|0.0355
95802285|NCT02021318|191577770|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus darbepoetin alfa, margin = -15% (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was \>-15%).|Difference in percentage|11.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|17.36||||||A generalized linear model as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusted for stratification factors (actual) was used to estimate the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval.||17.36|5.66|
95763117|NCT05736861|191495745|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Day 90|Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|1.10|0.72|
95763118|NCT05736861|191495746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.80|
95948785|NCT01536704|191869218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for Cmax lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.02|0.93|
95763119|NCT05736861|191495746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.25|0.78|
95802286|NCT02021318|191577771|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -0.75 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least square mean difference (LSM) is \> -0.75 g/dL).|LSM Difference|0.015||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.162|-0.131|0.839
95763120|NCT05736861|191495746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.43|0.86|
95763121|NCT05736861|191495746|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.12|0.66|
95763122|NCT05736861|191495747|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.35|0.87|
95763123|NCT05736861|191495747|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.57|0.96|
95763124|NCT05736861|191495747|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.54|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.54|0.92|
95802287|NCT02021318|191577772|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.403|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline LDL, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.296|-0.510|<0.001
95802288|NCT02021318|191577773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.78|0.26|0.004
95763125|NCT05736861|191495747|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.18|0.71|
95948786|NCT01536704|191869219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.88|0.95|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||0.95|0.88|
95763126|NCT05736861|191495748|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.47|0.97|
95763127|NCT05736861|191495748|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.33|0.84|
95763128|NCT05736861|191495748|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.95|
95802289|NCT02021318|191577774|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-1.284||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28) visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.145|-2.423|0.027
95802290|NCT02021318|191577775|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = -3 (non-inferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \> -3 points).|LSM Difference|-0.457||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|0.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit (weeks 8, 12 and 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.742|-1.656|0.454
95763129|NCT05736861|191495748|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.19|0.73|
95763130|NCT05736861|191495749|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.86|
95763131|NCT05736861|191495749|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.85|
95763132|NCT05736861|191495749|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.34|0.85|
95763133|NCT05736861|191495749|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.80|
95763134|NCT05736861|191495750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.27|0.88|
95763135|NCT05736861|191495750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.14|0.79|
95763136|NCT05736861|191495750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.09|0.75|
95763137|NCT05736861|191495750|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.93|
95763138|NCT05736861|191495751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.15|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||-0.15|-0.82|
95763139|NCT05736861|191495752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.99|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Analysis is exploratory. No hypothesis test or decision rule was evaluated.||0.99|0.18|
95948787|NCT01536704|191869219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence between two dosage treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means for AUC (0-inf) lies within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Geometric mean ratio of Cherry and Mint lozenge was determined by exponentiating least-squares means of log-transformed value.|The value was log-transformed and a linear mixed effects model was applied to this value, as the dependent variable, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participants as random effect.||1.06|0.98|
95948788|NCT01536704|191869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0006||||0.1491||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.1491
95763140|NCT03041311|191495753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment difference was evaluated using a nonparametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The nonparametric ANCOVA included study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect.||||<0.0001
95763141|NCT03041311|191495754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||The occurrence of SN was a binary variable. Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline ANC count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to1 vs. 2) and brain metastases (Yes vs. No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of # of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||<0.0001
95763142|NCT03041311|191495755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|negative binomial regression|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||||||0.0195
95763143|NCT03041311|191495756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1335||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model. The model included baseline hemoglobin as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No) and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of the number of weeks on treatment was included as an offset variable in the model.||||0.1335
95802291|NCT02021318|191577776|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, margin = 1 mmHg (non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the LSM difference is \< 1).|LSM Difference|-0.372||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.587|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.842|-1.587|0.547
95948789|NCT01536704|191869220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of Tmax was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.6790
95993801|NCT00868790|191963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.8|-15.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-15.8|-27.8|<0.001
95763144|NCT03041311|191495757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0686||||||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses (for 2 primary and 3 key secondary endpoints) in a strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Modified Poisson|Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure||Treatment group difference was analyzed using a modified Poisson regression model to account for the variable duration of the Induction Period for each patient. The model included baseline absolute neutrophil count as a covariate, the stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and brain metastases (Yes versus No), and treatment as a fixed effect. The logarithm transformation of number of Induction cycles was included as an offset variable in the modeling.||||0.0686
95763145|NCT03041311|191495758|SUPERIORITY|For time-to-event variable, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate its within group median value, 25% and 75% percentile values.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52||The 2-sided p-value was obtained from the stratified log-rank test to account for the stratification factors.|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test|The HR and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment and stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 to 1 versus 2) and presence of brain metastases (Yes versus No).|||1.52|0.64|0.9942
95763146|NCT04909853|191495780|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|165.25|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||165.25|101.93|
95763147|NCT04909853|191495780|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.18|168.55|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||168.55|113.18|
95763148|NCT04909853|191495780|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.4|196.68|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||196.68|111.40|
95763149|NCT04909853|191495781|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|153.91|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||153.91|99.64|
95763150|NCT04909853|191495781|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|187.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.52|236.46|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||236.46|148.52|
95763151|NCT04909853|191495781|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|304.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.6|390.21|||||Analysis used one-way ANOVA model with renal function as a fixed effect. The ratio of adjusted geometric means (test \[impaired\]/reference \[normal\]) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were expressed as percentages.|||390.21|237.60|
95763152|NCT01783990|191495802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.33
95763153|NCT01783990|191495803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.80
95763154|NCT01783990|191495804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.87
95763155|NCT01783990|191495805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.28
95763156|NCT01783990|191495806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.31
95763157|NCT01783990|191495807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.04
95763158|NCT01038336|191495808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
95763159|NCT01038336|191495809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95763160|NCT01038336|191495810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.072
95763161|NCT01038336|191495811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.030
95763162|NCT01038336|191495812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
95948790|NCT01536704|191869221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0641||||0.5619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5619
95763163|NCT01038336|191495813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.832
95948791|NCT01536704|191869221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0538||||0.4523||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|The value of T (1/2) was adjusted for this non-parametric analysis.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.4523
95948792|NCT01536704|191869222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0025||||0.5113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5113
95993802|NCT00868790|191963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.0|-30.0|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-30.0|-42.0|<0.001
95763164|NCT01038336|191495814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
95763165|NCT01038336|191495815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.128
95763166|NCT02366689|191495816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.04
95763167|NCT02366689|191495817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||< 0.001
95763168|NCT02366689|191495818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95763169|NCT02366689|191495819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.432
95763170|NCT02366689|191495820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95763171|NCT02366689|191495821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95763172|NCT03718832|191495822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0333487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943638||0.8638688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.415628|0.3489306||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.3489306|-0.415628|0.8638688
95763173|NCT03718832|191495822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0066385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1853917||0.9714571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371329|0.358052||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.358052|-0.371329|0.9714571
95763174|NCT03718832|191495823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1409446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106711||0.5039565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2735162|0.5554053||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5554053|-0.2735162|0.5039565
95763175|NCT03718832|191495823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1213915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2126328||0.5684854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2970052|0.5397882||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.5397882|-0.2970052|0.5684854
95763176|NCT03718832|191495824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.26835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.90353||0.2247426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.73804|8.201347||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||8.201347|-34.73804|0.2247426
95763177|NCT03718832|191495824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.20164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25555||0.2794015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.37119|9.9679||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||9.9679|-34.37119|0.2794015
95763178|NCT03718832|191495824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.12548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.550462||0.1708328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.703702|31.95466||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||31.95466|-5.703702|0.1708328
95763179|NCT03718832|191495824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59479||0.2801138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.422762|32.3743||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||32.3743|-9.422762|0.2801138
95763180|NCT03718832|191495825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.135585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.325031||0.1991028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57023|4.299061||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.299061|-20.57023|0.1991028
95763181|NCT03718832|191495825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.493798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761916||0.0480884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0295297|6.958066||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||6.958066|0.0295297|0.0480884
95763182|NCT03718832|191495825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.681804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34136||0.1276817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15188|2.788269||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.788269|-22.15188|0.1276817
95948793|NCT01536704|191869222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0042||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|This non-parametric analysis was performed on the unadjusted values of parameters.|The median difference was calculated as Cherry minus Peppermint.|The null hypothesis considered that there is no median within-subject difference between two treatment groups.||||0.5370
95763183|NCT03718832|191495825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.658257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.706497||0.3318554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698022|5.014535||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||5.014535|-1.698022|0.3318554
95763184|NCT03718832|191495826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8749266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9355095||0.3502313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714084|0.9642311||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9642311|-2.714084|0.3502313
95763185|NCT03718832|191495826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5608222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2708671||0.0390797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0282451|1.093399||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.093399|0.0282451|0.0390797
95763186|NCT03718832|191495826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.450197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9508997||0.1281032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.320109|0.419716||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.419716|-3.320109|0.1281032
95763187|NCT03718832|191495826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2794625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2717457||0.3044732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2549974|0.8139224||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.8139224|-0.2549974|0.3044732
95763188|NCT03718832|191495827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.768353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.933945||0.1007463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907847|21.44455||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||21.44455|-1.907847|0.1007463
95948794|NCT04658784|191869223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.92||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||1.92|0.13|0.32
95993803|NCT00868790|191963401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.0|-10.1|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-10.1|-30.0|0.001
95763189|NCT03718832|191495827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.472004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.150772||0.3859868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66534|14.60935||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||14.60935|-5.66534|0.3859868
95763190|NCT03718832|191495827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5461143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.440905||0.9324908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22545|12.13323||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||12.13323|-13.22545|0.9324908
95763191|NCT03718832|191495827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.752831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754947||0.6328075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08487|8.579205||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||8.579205|-14.08487|0.6328075
95763192|NCT03718832|191495828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.352141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.663846||0.0743062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8250086|17.52929||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||17.52929|-0.8250086|0.0743062
95763193|NCT03718832|191495828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.971188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.902349||0.1270654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709219|13.65159||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||13.65159|-1.709219|0.1270654
95763194|NCT03718832|191495828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.637485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.443227||0.553277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.110146|11.38512||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||11.38512|-6.110146|0.553277
95763195|NCT03718832|191495828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.925307||0.519562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.198658|10.26164||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||10.26164|-5.198658|0.519562
95763196|NCT03718832|191495829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.555117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427417||0.6976216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.363839|2.253605||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.253605|-3.363839|0.6976216
95763197|NCT03718832|191495829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4977997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041102||0.6329035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.546815|1.551216||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.551216|-2.546815|0.6329035
95948795|NCT04658784|191869224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.65||OR, 95% CI, and p-values for outcomes adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery). P-value for VAS at 6-weeks was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||OR calculated from logistic regression model, evaluating mean change in baseline VAS to 6-weeks.||5.65|0.04|1.0
95763198|NCT03718832|191495829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.386111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812939||0.445181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.954999|2.182777||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.182777|-4.954999|0.445181
95763199|NCT03718832|191495829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.101914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.860687||0.5542241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.765783|2.561956||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.561956|-4.765783|0.5542241
95763200|NCT03718832|191495830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.55812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.74244||0.2045348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35316|57.4694||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||57.4694|-12.35316|0.2045348
95763201|NCT03718832|191495830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.49781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.95579||0.3675252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93658|42.9322||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||42.9322|-15.93658|0.3675252
95763202|NCT03718832|191495830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.35256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.69115||0.6709307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8992|41.19407||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||41.19407|-63.8992|0.6709307
95763203|NCT03718832|191495830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.912496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.34891||0.6766844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.95358|33.12859||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||33.12859|-50.95358|0.6766844
95763204|NCT03718832|191495831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.870464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024497||0.356123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851219|2.110291||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.110291|-5.851219|0.356123
95802292|NCT02021318|191577777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3). Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.22|0.56|0.336
95763205|NCT03718832|191495831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8636408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.941141||0.6566494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.681041|2.95376||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.95376|-4.681041|0.6566494
95948796|NCT04658784|191869227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6- weeks.||8.7|-3.5|1.0
95763206|NCT03718832|191495831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.772051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905125||0.0484944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.519021|-0.0250809||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0250809|-7.519021|0.0484944
95763207|NCT03718832|191495831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.167034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821244||0.234947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.749627|1.415558||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.415558|-5.749627|0.234947
95763208|NCT03718832|191495832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5561156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086759||0.6091477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693002|1.58077||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.58077|-2.693002|0.6091477
95948797|NCT04658784|191869227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.2||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6-months.||3.2|-5.6|
95993256|NCT03575104|191962695|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS Mean difference to placebo|-1.95||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.666|4.764||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in WASO = baseline WASO + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in WASO (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||4.764|-8.666|0.5686
95763209|NCT03718832|191495832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3787962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032547||0.713942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409379|1.651786||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.651786|-2.409379|0.713942
95802293|NCT02021318|191577778|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.136||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.299|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.026|-1.299|0.818
95948798|NCT04658784|191869228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.9||Adjust for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-weeks.||6.9|-6.6|1.0
95763210|NCT03718832|191495832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4989275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053869||0.6362064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573807|2.571662||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||2.571662|-1.573807|0.6362064
95763211|NCT03718832|191495832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.146286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048105||0.2748884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9154561|3.208027||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3.208027|-0.9154561|0.2748884
95763212|NCT03718832|191495833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3232407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3695066||0.3823224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4036366|1.050118||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.050118|-0.4036366|0.3823224
95763213|NCT03718832|191495833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2619965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3729922||0.4829339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4718566|0.9958495||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.9958495|-0.4718566|0.4829339
95763214|NCT03718832|191495833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6983982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3476441||0.045506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.382737|-0.0140597||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0140597|-1.382737|0.045506
95802294|NCT02021318|191577779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.26|0.60|0.452
95802295|NCT02021318|191577780|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.038||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.081|0.529
95802296|NCT02021318|191577781|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on cardiovascular history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.96|1.38|<0.001
95993257|NCT03575104|191962696|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-6.45||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.282|-0.614||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.025; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.614|-12.282|0.0303
95763215|NCT03718832|191495833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6239824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336405||0.0625551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.280906|0.0329412||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0329412|-1.280906|0.0625551
95763216|NCT03718832|191495834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.276579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.636162||0.1650343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9420086|5.495166||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||5.495166|-0.9420086|0.1650343
95763217|NCT03718832|191495834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.989458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359013||0.1442126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6843682|4.663284||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||4.663284|-0.6843682|0.1442126
95763218|NCT03718832|191495834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.579811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739612||0.0335498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03574|-0.1238828||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.1238828|-3.03574|0.0335498
95763219|NCT03718832|191495834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.764632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8545352||0.0398937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.447175|-0.0820899||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||-0.0820899|-3.447175|0.0398937
95763220|NCT03718832|191495835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6294078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4409795||0.1544491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.496923|0.238107||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.238107|-1.496923|0.1544491
95802297|NCT02021318|191577782|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.98|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.98|1.39|<0.001
95802298|NCT02021318|191577783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.051||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.194|-0.091|0.478
95948799|NCT04658784|191869228|SUPERIORITY|Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change in baseline to 6-months.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.6||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||||8.6|-3.1|1
95948800|NCT04658784|191869229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||Adjusted for baseline value and type of surgery (vaginal or vaginal + minimally invasive surgery).|Regression, Linear|||Differences in mean change and 95% CI generated from general linear models. Change from baseline to 6 months.||1.3|-4.4|1.0
95948801|NCT00308308|191869271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 15% dropout rate, 589 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.08|
95948802|NCT00308308|191869272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-1.0|-2.7|<0.0001
95948803|NCT00308308|191869273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-6.3|||ANCOVA|||||-6.3|-35.4|0.0052
95948804|NCT00308308|191869274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.652|0.536|0.8311
95948805|NCT00308308|191869275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.488||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.856|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.856|0.278|0.0124
95948806|NCT00308308|191869276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.169|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||1.169|0.582|0.2786
95948807|NCT00308308|191869277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1193|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.1193
95948808|NCT00308308|191869278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2131|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|"* Based on Poisson distribution~* Model: Treatment + Time Period"||||||0.2131
95763221|NCT03718832|191495835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6081765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451915||0.1793486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.497352|0.2809987||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2809987|-1.497352|0.1793486
95763222|NCT03718832|191495835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1731023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4024787||0.6674618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9653829|0.6191784||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6191784|-0.9653829|0.6674618
95763223|NCT03718832|191495835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2208031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196435||0.5992113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047063|0.6054567||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.6054567|-1.047063|0.5992113
95763224|NCT03718832|191495836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4824561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423027||0.2549037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349686|1.314598||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.314598|-0.349686|0.2549037
95763225|NCT03718832|191495836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3545817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4230741||0.4025977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4777863|1.186949||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.186949|-0.4777863|0.4025977
95948809|NCT01686152|191869279|EQUIVALENCE|The test product was determined to be bioequivalent to the reference product if the 90% confidence interval was within -0.20 to 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0913||||||||0.0913|-0.0663|
95948810|NCT02551224|191869280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.99|0.51|<0.0001
95948811|NCT02551224|191869281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.61|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.61|0.21|<0.0001
95948812|NCT01802333|191869282|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.84
95948813|NCT01802333|191869282|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm II was compared with Arm III using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1) at the 0.045 level.||||0.42
95948814|NCT01802333|191869283|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial test, 1-sided|||||||<0.0001
95948815|NCT01802333|191869285|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for: Age (\< 40 vs. \>= 40) and Onset of AML (de novo vs. treatment related and/or AML arising from antecedent hematologic disease)||Arm I was compared with Arm II using a two-sided test of the null hypothesis (HR=1).||||0.52
95948816|NCT00704340|191869303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was selected to provide sufficient precision for 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of neurosurgical complications in each arm. The sample size was selected so that the half-width of the normal approximation-based intervals would be no more than 0.05 percentage points. This requires a sample size of 114 evaluable patients in each arm. To allow for loss to follow-up, the sample size was increased to 125 randomized patients in each treatment arm, or a total of 250 patients.||||.613
95948817|NCT00704340|191869304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.681
95948818|NCT00704340|191869305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.619
95948819|NCT03136861|191869409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||Average Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.33|1.08|0.0264
95948820|NCT03136861|191869409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Total Spinal Pain Score \<4 at Week 8||3.10|0.95|0.0720
95948821|NCT03136861|191869409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR)||Nocturnal Spinal Pain Score||4.31|1.31|0.0043
95948822|NCT03136861|191869410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model: logit (proportion) = treatment + stratification factor of prior exposure to TNF inhibitors (i.e. TNF-naïve or TNFα-IR).||BASDAI Score \<4 at Week 8||3.04|1.01|0.0466
95948823|NCT01328756|191869437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to LOTA value was assessed for differences from zero using a 2-sided, 1 sample t-test at a 0.05 significance level.||||< 0.001
95948824|NCT02362789|191869445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-5.59|||ANCOVA|||||-5.59|-31.01|0.0055
95948825|NCT00186446|191869486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(19)= -8.93||||||<.001
95948826|NCT01235936|191869489|OTHER|The primary endpoint was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0020
95948827|NCT01235936|191869490|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0156
95763226|NCT03718832|191495836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0102657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4695747||0.9825739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9346107|0.9140792||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9140792|-0.9346107|0.9825739
95763227|NCT03718832|191495836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0340184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4869778||0.9443607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9928399|0.9248032||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.9248032|-0.9928399|0.9443607
95763228|NCT03718832|191495837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.160997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376773||2.52e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0868814|0.2351126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2351126|0.0868814|0.0000252
95763229|NCT03718832|191495837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1691707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0391132||2.04e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0922183|0.2461232||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.2461232|0.0922183|0.0000204
95763230|NCT03718832|191495837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0028595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261733||0.9130816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0486635|0.0543825||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0543825|-0.0486635|0.9130816
95948828|NCT01235936|191869491|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0098|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||0.0098
95948829|NCT01235936|191869492|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0195
95948830|NCT01235936|191869493|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.8262|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.8262
95948831|NCT01235936|191869499|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0020
95948832|NCT01235936|191869500|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.2383|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.2383
95948833|NCT01235936|191869501|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
95948834|NCT01235936|191869502|OTHER|The test was based on Wilcoxon signed rank test, with an alpha level of 0.05.|||||=|0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of change from baseline on Day 29||||=0.0039
95948835|NCT03775213|191869513|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.58||||||||2.58|.91|
95948836|NCT03775213|191869514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||||||Active Monitoring||1.88|.49|
95948837|NCT03775213|191869514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.41||||||Lumpectomy||1.41|.79|
95948838|NCT03775213|191869514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||||||Lumpectomy with Radiation||1.30|.62|
95948839|NCT03775213|191869514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.47||||||Mastectomy||1.47|.48|
95948840|NCT03775213|191869515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.98||||||||1.98|.59|
95948841|NCT03775213|191869516|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.45||||||||1.45|.65|
95948842|NCT03775213|191869517|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||||.38|-.20|
95948843|NCT00786188|191869534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177||||||Week 4 frequency|Repeated measures analysis|||||||0.0177
95948844|NCT00786188|191869534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541||||||Week 8 frequency|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0541
95948845|NCT00786188|191869535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0644||||||Week 4 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0644
95948846|NCT00786188|191869535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364||||||Week 8 severity|Reapeated measures analysis|||||||0.0364
95948847|NCT00824408|191869594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.045||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.271|3.292|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||3.292|1.271|0.0030
95763231|NCT03718832|191495837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0166325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271062||0.5400053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0367394|0.0700045||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0700045|-0.0367394|0.5400053
95763232|NCT03718832|191495838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0511555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016316||0.0018721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0190582|0.0832528||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0832528|0.0190582|0.0018721
95763233|NCT03718832|191495838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0433081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168497||0.0106231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0101555|0.0764607||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0764607|0.0101555|0.0106231
95763234|NCT03718832|191495838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0138256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171112||0.4197898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0198584|0.0475096||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0475096|-0.0198584|0.4197898
95763235|NCT03718832|191495838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0179852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0171811||0.2961479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0158442|0.0518147||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0518147|-0.0158442|0.2961479
95763236|NCT03718832|191495839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4018522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001575||7.43e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2048311|0.5988733||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.5988733|0.2048311|0.0000743
95763237|NCT03718832|191495839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3643095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026922||0.0004471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16227|0.566349||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.566349|0.16227|0.0004471
95763238|NCT03718832|191495839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0006229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095781||0.9954683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2150785|0.2163243||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2163243|-0.2150785|0.9954683
95763239|NCT03718832|191495839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0161147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1115322||0.8852268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2357129|0.2034834||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2034834|-0.2357129|0.8852268
95802299|NCT02021318|191577783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.003||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.143|-0.149|0.969
95802300|NCT02021318|191577783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.009||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.140|0.910
95948848|NCT00824408|191869594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.771|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by histology (Nonsquamous vs. NOS). P-value from log-rank test stratified by histology (one-sided for volasertib 300 mg + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2; two-sided for volasertib 300 mg vs. pemetrexed 500 mg/m2).||1.771|0.735|0.2804
95948849|NCT00824408|191869595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
95948850|NCT00824408|191869595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2596|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2596
95948851|NCT00824408|191869596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.140|0.538|0.8406
95948852|NCT00824408|191869596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.081||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.949|||Log Rank|||||1.949|0.599|0.3960
95948853|NCT03292692|191869607|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.465|||Regression, Linear|Multi-level regression|Slope of intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.465|0.279|<0.001
95948854|NCT03292692|191869608|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.235|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear modeling|Slope of the intervention group compared to slope of the control group|||0.235|0.105|<0.001
95948855|NCT03292692|191869609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.974|-1.324|||Regression, Linear|Multilevel linear regression|Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre-post.|||-1.324|-2.974|<0.001
95948856|NCT03292692|191869610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.144||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.871|-0.417|||Regression, Linear||Multilevel linear modeling, with time modeled as change from pre to post.|||-0.417|-1.871|0.002
95948857|NCT01263496|191869618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|-0.184||||||||-0.184|-0.618|
95948858|NCT01263496|191869618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.739|
95948859|NCT01263496|191869618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.779|-0.401||||||||-0.401|-0.779|
95948860|NCT01263496|191869618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.894|-0.522||||||||-0.522|-0.894|
95948861|NCT01263496|191869619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.538|-0.093||||||||-0.093|-0.538|
95948862|NCT01263496|191869619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.684|-0.302||||||||-0.302|-0.684|
95948863|NCT01263496|191869619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.706|
95948864|NCT01263496|191869619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.461||||||||-0.461|-0.834|
95802301|NCT02021318|191577783|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.024||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.188|-0.140|0.775
95948865|NCT01263496|191869620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|-0.047||||||||-0.047|-0.479|
95948866|NCT01263496|191869620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|-0.192||||||||-0.192|-0.598|
95948867|NCT01263496|191869620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|-0.195||||||||-0.195|-0.616|
95993804|NCT00868790|191963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-14.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|3.2|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||3.2|-33.0|0.174
95763240|NCT03718832|191495840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9013876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4414753||0.0417413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0338441|1.768931||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.768931|0.0338441|0.0417413
95763241|NCT03718832|191495840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8939751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896126||0.0222222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1282798|1.65967||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1.65967|0.1282798|0.0222222
95763242|NCT03718832|191495840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0276596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7606961||0.9710103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467185|1.522504||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.522504|-1.467185|0.9710103
95763243|NCT03718832|191495840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0377244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6523585||0.9539117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.244338|1.319787||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1.319787|-1.244338|0.9539117
95763244|NCT03718832|191495841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1045328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1417549||0.4612408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3830955|0.1740299||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1740299|-0.3830955|0.4612408
95763245|NCT03718832|191495841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0552724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181649||0.6401864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874987|0.176954||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.176954|-0.2874987|0.6401864
95763246|NCT03718832|191495841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2761332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593125||0.2874913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7857084|0.2334419||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2334419|-0.7857084|0.2874913
95763247|NCT03718832|191495841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.155843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2092772||0.4568601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56713|0.2554439||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.2554439|-0.56713|0.4568601
95802302|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.087||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.012|0.086
95948868|NCT01263496|191869620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.780|
95948869|NCT01263496|191869621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.065||||||||0.065|-0.410|
95948870|NCT01263496|191869621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.088||||||||-0.088|-0.550|
95948871|NCT01263496|191869621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.139||||||||-0.139|-0.601|
95948872|NCT01263496|191869621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|-0.314||||||||-0.314|-0.752|
95948873|NCT01263496|191869622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.166||||||||0.166|-0.323|
95948874|NCT01263496|191869622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|-0.011||||||||-0.011|-0.471|
95948875|NCT01263496|191869622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.124||||||||-0.124|-0.590|
95948876|NCT01263496|191869622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.242||||||||-0.242|-0.692|
95948877|NCT01263496|191869623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.321|
95948878|NCT01263496|191869623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.046||||||||-0.046|-0.542|
95948879|NCT01263496|191869623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.579|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.579|
95948880|NCT01263496|191869623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.722|
95948881|NCT01263496|191869624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.182||||||||0.182|-0.279|
95948882|NCT01263496|191869624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.491|0.023||||||||0.023|-0.491|
95948883|NCT01263496|191869624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.605|-0.145||||||||-0.145|-0.605|
95948884|NCT01263496|191869624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|-0.252||||||||-0.252|-0.724|
95802303|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.165|<0.001
95993258|NCT03575104|191962696|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-2.61||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.197||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00195; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.197|-8.41|0.3782
95993259|NCT03575104|191962697|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-9.01||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.339|-2.684||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00313; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-2.684|-15.339|0.0053
95763248|NCT03718832|191495842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0539315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0267347||0.0442418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0013953|0.1064678||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1064678|0.0013953|0.0442418
95763249|NCT03718832|191495842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0546574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0272506||0.0454857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0011025|0.1082124||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.1082124|0.0011025|0.0454857
95763250|NCT03718832|191495842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0076781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188378||0.683764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0293401|0.0446963||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0446963|-0.0293401|0.683764
95763251|NCT03718832|191495842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0053342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183059||0.7708852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0306419|0.0413103||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0413103|-0.0306419|0.7708852
95763252|NCT03718832|191495843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436586||0.2245167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1388926|0.0326946||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0326946|-0.1388926|0.2245167
95802304|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.586|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.586|0.284|<0.001
95763253|NCT03718832|191495843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0815933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424438||0.0551913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1650069|0.0018204||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0018204|-0.1650069|0.0551913
95763254|NCT03718832|191495843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0506938|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0461078||0.2721373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1413002|0.0399126||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0399126|-0.1413002|0.2721373
95763255|NCT03718832|191495843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0428514||0.0640071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1637776|0.0046516||Adjusted mean difference for full controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||0.0046516|-0.1637776|0.0640071
95763256|NCT03718832|191495844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.79692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|808.862||0.9864081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1581.244|1608.838||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||1608.838|-1581.244|0.9864081
95763257|NCT03718832|191495844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|119.3302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|885.2058||0.8929133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1627.128|1865.789||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||1865.789|-1627.128|0.8929133
95802305|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.422|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.590|0.254|<0.001
95802306|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.556|0.205|<0.001
95763258|NCT03718832|191495844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1260.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1327.743||0.343724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3880.298|1359.393||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||1359.393|-3880.298|0.343724
95948885|NCT01263496|191869625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.169||||||||0.169|-0.270|
95763259|NCT03718832|191495844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1206.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1344.574||0.3709654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3860.887|1448.455||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||1448.455|-3860.887|0.3709654
95763260|NCT03718832|191495845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1290.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|732.2306||0.0795087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3215|2734.532||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2734.532|-153.3215|0.0795087
95763261|NCT03718832|191495845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1207.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|874.6068||0.1689786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.7854|2933.309||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2933.309|-517.7854|0.1689786
95763262|NCT03718832|191495845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1209.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|957.1006||0.2080145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-679.1596|3097.86||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment||3097.86|-679.1596|0.2080145
95763263|NCT03718832|191495845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1258.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1077.807||0.2445904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.3893|3386.563||Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment||3386.563|-869.3893|0.2445904
95763264|NCT03718832|191495846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.035245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757075|2.313415||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.313415|1.757075|<0.001
95763265|NCT03718832|191495846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1395364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.734473|2.282927||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment||2.282927|1.734473|<0.001
95763266|NCT03718832|191495846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.619982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2663507|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096575|2.143388||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.143388|1.096575|<0.001
95763267|NCT03718832|191495846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.559642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2680774|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032797|2.086488||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.086488|1.032797|<0.001
95763268|NCT03718832|191495847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.881776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057965|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673875|2.089677||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.089677|1.673875|<0.001
95763269|NCT03718832|191495847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.868221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.664499|2.071943||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||2.071943|1.664499|<0.001
95763270|NCT03718832|191495847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.650879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246611|2.055147||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.055147|1.246611|<0.001
95763271|NCT03718832|191495847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.636306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2052192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232994|2.039618||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||2.039618|1.232994|<0.001
95763272|NCT03718832|191495848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1104533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0769621||0.1519153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.040785|0.2616915||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.2616915|-0.040785|0.1519153
95948886|NCT01263496|191869625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.067||||||||0.067|-0.453|
95948887|NCT01263496|191869625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.152||||||||-0.152|-0.596|
95948888|NCT01263496|191869625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|-0.256||||||||-0.256|-0.723|
95948889|NCT01263496|191869626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.160|
95948890|NCT01263496|191869626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.005||||||||0.005|-0.477|
95948891|NCT01263496|191869626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|-0.113||||||||-0.113|-0.608|
95948892|NCT01263496|191869626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.191||||||||-0.191|-0.679|
95948893|NCT01263496|191869627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.196||||||||0.196|-0.262|
95948894|NCT01263496|191869627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.516|-0.008||||||||-0.008|-0.516|
95763273|NCT03718832|191495848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0594575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654489||0.3641254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691675|0.1880824||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.1880824|-0.0691675|0.3641254
95763274|NCT03718832|191495848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2062905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1288363||0.1100186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0468859|0.4594669||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.4594669|-0.0468859|0.1100186
95948895|NCT01263496|191869627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|-0.103||||||||-0.103|-0.614|
95763275|NCT03718832|191495848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1162375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015839||0.2531303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0834025|0.3158775||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||0.3158775|-0.0834025|0.2531303
95763276|NCT03718832|191495849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0584644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.040837||0.152918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1387132|0.0217844||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 6 months after trial enrollment||0.0217844|-0.1387132|0.152918
95763277|NCT03718832|191495849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0585771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304262||0.0548344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1183728|0.0012186||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 6 months after trial enrollment.||0.0012186|-0.1183728|0.0548344
95763278|NCT03718832|191495849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1691027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673022||0.0123238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3013583|-0.036847||Unadjusted mean difference; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05. Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted mean difference, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.036847|-0.3013583|0.0123238
95763279|NCT03718832|191495849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1701425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0575065||0.0032534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2831584|-0.0571266||"Adjusted mean difference for full prespecified controls; threshold for statistical significance: 0.05.~Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors."|Regression, Linear|||Adjusted mean difference for full controls, 12 months after trial enrollment.||-0.0571266|-0.2831584|0.0032534
95763280|NCT01996241|191495866|OTHER|Odds ratio (95% CI), p-value for all the outcomes.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.38|0.7|0.98
95763281|NCT01996241|191495867|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.4|0.7|0.98
95763282|NCT01996241|191495868|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.31||Adjusted for village strata and cluster, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum using individual-level data and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (in the form of cluster-level summaries).|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||2.31|0.2|0.331
95763283|NCT01996241|191495869|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.15||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.15|0.6|0.26
95763284|NCT01996241|191495870|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.55||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.55|0.7|0.79
95763285|NCT01996241|191495871|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||Adjusted models controlled for cluster, village strata, village type, caste, household literacy status, stratum (individual-level data endline) and poor learning environment at school, school dropout, and marriage (cluster-level summaries baseline)|Regression, Logistic|Mixed-effects||||1.34|0.5|0.45
95763286|NCT01295112|191495882|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00002
95802307|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.505|0.155|<0.001
95802308|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.482|0.119|0.001
95948896|NCT01263496|191869627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.174||||||||-0.174|-0.690|
95948897|NCT01263496|191869628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.11||||||||0.110|-0.346|
95948898|NCT01263496|191869628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.015||||||||-0.015|-0.539|
95948899|NCT01263496|191869628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.109||||||||-0.109|-0.637|
95948900|NCT01263496|191869628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.477|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.213||||||||-0.213|-0.741|
95948901|NCT01263496|191869629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.055||||||||0.055|-0.416|
95948902|NCT01263496|191869629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.003||||||||0.003|-0.492|
95948903|NCT01263496|191869629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.161||||||||-0.161|-0.654|
95948904|NCT01263496|191869629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.874|-0.402||||||||-0.402|-0.874|
95763287|NCT01295112|191495883|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be described by the 95% upper bound of the confidence interval on the difference in the improvement from baseline in BCVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.96||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.43|9.74||The p-value is assume superiority. The 95% upper confidence (upper end of the 90% Confidence interval) interval for the non-inferiority analysis is provided below.|t-test, 1 sided|||||9.74|-4.43|0.53
95763288|NCT01068262|191495884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.9|80.2|||Linear mixed effect model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||80.2|50.9|
95763289|NCT01068262|191495884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.7|14.9|||Linear mixed effects model|Back-transformed least squares estimates and confidence intervals from a linear mixed effect model were performed on natural log-transformed values.||||14.9|-14.7|
95763290|NCT01068262|191495885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07||Hypothesis: Following 4 weeks of Qw oral dosing of Odanacatib 50 mg, there is no clinically important difference in the true GMR (male/postmenopausal female) of the AUC0-168hr. The GMR is contained within the interval (0.4, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR); male/female|||||1.07|0.75|
95763291|NCT01068262|191495886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.04|||GMR|||||1.04|0.82|
95763292|NCT01068262|191495887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.35|||GMR|||||1.35|0.66|
95763293|NCT02604407|191495965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-4.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 12.5 mg and Placebo.|||-4.4|-11.7|<0.001
95763294|NCT02604407|191495965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of LS Mean|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-9.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups of SHP465 37.5 mg and Placebo.|||-9.7|-17.1|<0.001
95802309|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.159||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|-0.018|0.079
95802310|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.183||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.361|0.005|0.044
95763295|NCT02964312|191495969|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.5|93.9||||||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of responders at 6 months would be 50%. Since there was not direct comparison group, the hypothesis was set as a superiority comparison to a target proportion (66%) with a power level \>90%.||93.9|83.5|
95802311|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.173||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.336|0.010|0.037
95802312|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.085||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.253|-0.083|0.319
95948905|NCT01263496|191869630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|0.54||||||||0.54|-17.56|
95948906|NCT01263496|191869630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-4.18||||||||-4.18|-19.23|
95948907|NCT01263496|191869630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-6.15||||||||-6.15|-20.68|
95948908|NCT01263496|191869630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-11.83||||||||-11.83|-26.93|
95763296|NCT02964312|191495972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P values are based on paired t-tests for change from baseline with p\<0.05 indicating significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95763297|NCT03288714|191495995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.814
95763298|NCT03288714|191495996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||Null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ from the sham group with respect to the proportion of patients with clinical response at Week 6.||||.872
95763299|NCT03288714|191495997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the active sTMS treatment group does not differ||||.641
95763300|NCT03288714|191495998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.032
95763301|NCT03288714|191495999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Alpha level: .05|ANCOVA|P-value is from analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||.015
95763302|NCT03288714|191496000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Alpha level: .05|Fisher Exact|The proportion of patients is compared across treatment groups using Fisher's Exact.||||||.028
95763303|NCT03127514|191496062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A two-tailed P value of 0.05 or less was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random-slope, shared-baseline, linear mixed model was adjusted for age and prebaseline ALSFRS-R slope||||||0.03
95763304|NCT01232452|191496075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.73|0.848
95763305|NCT01232452|191496076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.338
95763306|NCT00247676|191496089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||clinical benefit response rate|37.8||||||95.0|22.5|55.2|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed CR, confirmed PR, or SD for at least 12 weeks according to RECIST, relative to total treated patients.|||55.2|22.5|
95763307|NCT00247676|191496094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||objective response rate|2.7||||||95.0|0.1|14.2|||||percentage of patients with confirmed CR or confirmed PR according to RECIST, relative to the total number of treated patients.|||14.2|0.1|
95763308|NCT00247676|191496098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.324||||||95.0|0.168|0.479|||||probability derived from Kaplan-Meier estimate.|||0.479|0.168|
95763309|NCT01349192|191496125|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.74||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.74|0.25|0.0005
95763310|NCT01349192|191496125|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.525||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.8||Test includes adjustment for two interim reviews of efficacy data. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion negative for MRSA in the treatment group minus the proportion negative for MRSA in the observation group.|||0.80|0.23|0.0004
95948909|NCT01263496|191869631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|3.8||||||||3.80|-12.67|
95763311|NCT01349192|191496126|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Proportion difference was calculated as proportion using antibiotics in the treatment group minus the proportion using antibiotics in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.34|-0.18|0.5463
95763312|NCT01349192|191496127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.42||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|11.47||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference was calculated as mean days of antibiotic use in the treatment group minus the mean days of antibiotic use in the observation group.|||11.47|-30.3|0.3683
95763313|NCT01349192|191496128|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared||Difference was calculated as proportion with a PE treated with MRSA active antibiotics in the treatment group minus the analogous proportion in the observation group. 95% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||0.03|-0.42|0.1205
95763314|NCT02414958|191496160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model Mixed effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit , and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
95763315|NCT02414958|191496160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.41|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|Model MMRM included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, pre-existing insulin therapy, visit, and treatment-by- visit interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, and baseline HbA1c-by- visit interaction. Patient was included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.41|-0.66|<0.0001
95948910|NCT01263496|191869631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.3||||||||-1.30|-17.48|
95948911|NCT01263496|191869631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|-2.54||||||||-2.54|-18.58|
95948912|NCT01263496|191869631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|-3.31||||||||-3.31|-21.44|
95948913|NCT01263496|191869632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|1.86||||||||1.86|-15.66|
95763316|NCT02414958|191496161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.4|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.40|-0.65|<0.0001
95948914|NCT01263496|191869632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-2.49||||||||-2.49|-18.97|
95948915|NCT01263496|191869632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.23||||||||-1.23|-17.20|
95948916|NCT01263496|191869632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.27|-6.72||||||||-6.72|-24.27|
95948917|NCT01263496|191869633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|6.67||||||||6.67|-11.22|
95948918|NCT01263496|191869633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|5.44||||||||5.44|-12.16|
95948919|NCT01263496|191869633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.44||||||||2.44|-13.30|
95948920|NCT01263496|191869633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|-3.06||||||||-3.06|-20.74|
95948921|NCT01263496|191869634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|7.08||||||||7.08|-11.97|
95948922|NCT01263496|191869634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|3.35||||||||3.35|-15.84|
95948923|NCT01263496|191869634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.41||||||||1.41|-15.28|
95948924|NCT01263496|191869634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-2.78||||||||-2.78|-22.67|
95948925|NCT01263496|191869635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|2.31||||||||2.31|-13.19|
95948926|NCT01263496|191869635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|5.99||||||||5.99|-13.53|
95948927|NCT01263496|191869635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|2.67||||||||2.67|-14.36|
95763317|NCT02414958|191496161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.64|-0.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
95763318|NCT02414958|191496162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.744||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.518|1.069|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.069|0.518|0.0623
95763319|NCT02414958|191496162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.726||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.502|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset||1.501|0.502|0.0480
95763320|NCT02414958|191496162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.774||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.048||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.048|0.572|0.0972
95763321|NCT02414958|191496162|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.782||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.575|1.064||Negative binomial model|MMRM||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycaemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.064|0.575|0.1180
95763322|NCT02414958|191496163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.57|-1.8|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.80|-3.57|<0.0001
95763323|NCT02414958|191496163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.15|-2.39|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline weight, baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.39|-4.15|<0.0001
95763324|NCT02414958|191496164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|8.78|14.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline time in the target range, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||14.93|8.78|<0.0001
95763325|NCT02414958|191496164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|9.81|15.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean|||15.93|9.81|<0.0001
95802313|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.129|-0.190|0.709
95763326|NCT02414958|191496165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-22.04|-11.81|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-11.81|-22.04|<0.0001
95763327|NCT02414958|191496165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-24.13|-13.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes model includes baseline IQR of glucose, baseline HbA1c, and baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects.||-13.95|-24.13|<0.0001
95802314|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.061||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.097|-0.219|0.450
95948928|NCT01263496|191869635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.72|-1.73||||||||-1.73|-20.72|
95948929|NCT01263496|191869636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.9||||||||5.90|-10.42|
95948930|NCT01263496|191869636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|3.84||||||||3.84|-15.64|
95948931|NCT01263496|191869636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-16.52|
95948932|NCT01263496|191869636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|-2.76||||||||-2.76|-22.18|
95948933|NCT01263496|191869637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.77||||||||7.77|-7.10|
95948934|NCT01263496|191869637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.21||||||||8.21|-10.16|
95948935|NCT01263496|191869637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|5.95||||||||5.95|-9.71|
95948936|NCT01263496|191869637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-0.18||||||||-0.18|-18.59|
95948937|NCT01263496|191869638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.75||||||||6.75|-10.20|
95948938|NCT01263496|191869638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|5.7||||||||5.70|-13.10|
95993260|NCT03575104|191962697|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-3.19||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|3.146||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in LPS = baseline LPS + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||3.146|-9.528|0.3233
95802315|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.065||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.101|-0.231|0.440
95802316|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.014||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.157|0.874
95802317|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.131||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.302|-0.039|0.132
95802318|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.024|0.024
95802319|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.022||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.197|-0.153|0.807
95802320|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.012||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.185|-0.160|0.890
95802321|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.029||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.144|-0.201|0.746
95802322|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.139|-0.202|0.715
95802323|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.066||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.110|0.463
95802324|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.002||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.184|-0.187|0.987
95802325|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.281|-0.074|0.251
95802326|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.067||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.117|0.473
95948939|NCT01263496|191869638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|5.0||||||||5.00|-12.94|
95948940|NCT01263496|191869638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-19.40|
95948941|NCT01263496|191869639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.15||||||||6.15|-11.00|
95948942|NCT01263496|191869639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.53|1.94||||||||1.94|-16.53|
95948943|NCT01263496|191869639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|-0.67||||||||-0.67|-17.93|
95948944|NCT01263496|191869639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.83|-1.93||||||||-1.93|-21.83|
95948945|NCT01263496|191869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|7.27||||||||7.27|-9.68|
95948946|NCT01263496|191869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|2.24||||||||2.24|-16.34|
95948947|NCT01263496|191869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-17.47|
95948948|NCT01263496|191869640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|-3.89||||||||-3.89|-23.12|
95948949|NCT01263496|191869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.8||||||||6.80|-10.09|
95993261|NCT03575104|191962698|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|16.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.224|24.035||Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.0125; statistically significant = YES|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||24.035|8.224|<.0001
95763328|NCT02414958|191496166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.121|-0.063|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.063|-0.121|<0.0001
95763329|NCT02414958|191496166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.119|-0.062|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model MMRM includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.062|-0.119|<0.0001
95763330|NCT02414958|191496167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-5.2|1.0|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model MMRM includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.0|-5.2|0.0397
95763331|NCT02414958|191496167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.6|-6.8|0.0003
95763332|NCT02414958|191496167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-2.7|0.0||Nominal p-value|MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline eGFR baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.0|-2.7|0.0457
95763333|NCT02414958|191496167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-0.3|||MMRM||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model MMRM includes baseline DBP seated, baseline estimated eGFR, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.3|-4.3|0.0006
95763334|NCT03852537|191496193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
95763335|NCT03852537|191496194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
95763336|NCT03852537|191496195|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95763337|NCT03852537|191496197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.477
95948950|NCT01263496|191869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|2.25||||||||2.25|-15.66|
95763338|NCT03852537|191496198|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95763339|NCT03852537|191496199|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95763340|NCT03852537|191496200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95763341|NCT03852537|191496201|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95763342|NCT03852537|191496203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
95763343|NCT01776632|191496224|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.03
95948951|NCT01263496|191869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|0.07||||||||0.07|-16.64|
95948952|NCT01263496|191869641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.39|-10.24||||||||-10.24|-27.39|
95763344|NCT01776632|191496225|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear mixed effects|||||||.003
95763345|NCT01776632|191496226|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.04
95763346|NCT01776632|191496227|SUPERIORITY||difference of adjusted means|-1.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects models|||||||.09
95948953|NCT01263496|191869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.254||||||||0.254|-0.219|
95948954|NCT01263496|191869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.451||||||||0.451|0.002|
95948955|NCT01263496|191869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.453||||||||0.453|0.008|
95948956|NCT01263496|191869642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.524||||||||0.524|0.041|
95948957|NCT01263496|191869643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.353||||||||0.353|-0.173|
95948958|NCT01263496|191869643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.467||||||||0.467|-0.010|
95948959|NCT01263496|191869643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.584||||||||0.584|0.095|
95993805|NCT00868790|191963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-20.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-2.4|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-2.4|-38.4|0.063
95763347|NCT02503787|191496282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A negative value for change in pain represents a reduction (improvement) of the subject's pain score. The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to 3 months equals 0. The sample provided over 90% power, with two-sided significance level of 0.05, to detect a change of 2 points.||||<0.01
95763348|NCT00174954|191496328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.785
95763349|NCT00174954|191496329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|paired t-test|||||||0.020
95763350|NCT00839254|191496330|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
95763351|NCT00839254|191496331|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster-related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
95763352|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration within the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95763353|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.04
95763354|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
95763355|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+T cell infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.46
95802327|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.022||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.160|-0.204|0.813
95802328|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.045||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.134|-0.223|0.622
95948960|NCT01263496|191869643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.752||||||||0.752|0.184|
95948961|NCT01263496|191869644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.57||||||||0.570|0.064|
95948962|NCT01263496|191869644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.786||||||||0.786|0.236|
95948963|NCT01263496|191869644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.685||||||||0.685|0.190|
95948964|NCT01263496|191869644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.022||||||||1.022|0.413|
95948965|NCT01263496|191869645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.481||||||||0.481|-0.029|
95948966|NCT01263496|191869645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.612||||||||0.612|0.104|
95948967|NCT01263496|191869645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.54||||||||0.540|0.076|
95948968|NCT01263496|191869645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.565||||||||0.565|0.098|
95948969|NCT01263496|191869646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||||||||0.410|-0.130|
95948970|NCT01263496|191869646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.516||||||||0.516|-0.026|
95948971|NCT01263496|191869646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.552||||||||0.552|0.035|
95948972|NCT01263496|191869646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.626||||||||0.626|0.032|
95948973|NCT01263496|191869647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349||||||||0.349|-0.252|
95948974|NCT01263496|191869647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.703||||||||0.703|0.138|
95948975|NCT01263496|191869647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.742||||||||0.742|0.178|
95948976|NCT01263496|191869647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.683||||||||0.683|0.085|
95948977|NCT01263496|191869648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.326||||||||0.326|-0.257|
95948978|NCT01263496|191869648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.542||||||||0.542|-0.043|
95948979|NCT01263496|191869648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.417||||||||0.417|-0.196|
95948980|NCT01263496|191869648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.656||||||||0.656|0.010|
95763356|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the total tissue at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95763357|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the center of the tumor at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
95763358|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the invasive margin at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
95763359|NCT02933255|191496441|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4 T cell helper infiltration in the normal region at time of prostatectomy compared to baseline.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
95763360|NCT02933255|191496443|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.064
95763361|NCT02933255|191496443|OTHER|The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
95763362|NCT02933255|191496443|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
95763363|NCT02933255|191496443|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.003
95763364|NCT02933255|191496443|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
95802329|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.227|-0.138|0.632
95948981|NCT01263496|191869649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.233||||||||0.233|-0.769|
95948982|NCT01263496|191869649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.855||||||||0.855|-0.156|
95948983|NCT01263496|191869649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.577||||||||0.577|-0.297|
95948984|NCT01263496|191869649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.69||||||||0.690|-0.075|
95948985|NCT01263496|191869650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.928||||||||0.928|-0.367|
95948986|NCT01263496|191869650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.194||||||||1.194|-0.035|
95948987|NCT01263496|191869650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.241||||||||1.241|0.054|
95948988|NCT01263496|191869650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.785||||||||0.785|-0.280|
95948989|NCT01263496|191869651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|0.646||||||||0.646|-1.246|
95948990|NCT01263496|191869651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|1.591||||||||1.591|-0.305|
95948991|NCT01263496|191869651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.888||||||||0.888|-0.599|
95948992|NCT01263496|191869651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.673|1.173||||||||1.173|-0.673|
95948993|NCT01263496|191869652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|2.562||||||||2.562|-4.462|
95948994|NCT01263496|191869652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.712|2.779||||||||2.779|-2.712|
95948995|NCT01263496|191869652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.273|2.073||||||||2.073|-3.273|
95948996|NCT01263496|191869652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.874|2.074||||||||2.074|-2.874|
95948997|NCT01263496|191869653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.458||||||||0.458|-0.140|
95948998|NCT01263496|191869653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.52||||||||0.520|-0.001|
95948999|NCT01263496|191869653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.398||||||||0.398|-0.126|
95949000|NCT01263496|191869653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.298|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.553||||||||0.553|0.042|
95949001|NCT01263496|191869654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|7.99||||||||7.99|-11.82|
95949002|NCT01263496|191869654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|6.4||||||||6.40|-12.45|
95949003|NCT01263496|191869654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|1.96||||||||1.96|-18.77|
95949004|NCT01263496|191869654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|0.44||||||||0.44|-18.35|
95763365|NCT02933255|191496443|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in soluble factors at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
95763366|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
95763367|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
95763368|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.233
95763369|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
95763370|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.055
95802330|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.242|-0.133|0.568
95802331|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.034||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.226|-0.158|0.729
95763371|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in TNFα at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.203
95763372|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95763373|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 4 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
95763374|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95763375|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 10 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
95763376|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
95763377|NCT02933255|191496444|OTHER|||||||0.129||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in IL-10 at 20 weeks of therapy compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.129
95763378|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
95763379|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.037||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.037
95763380|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.009
95763381|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
95802332|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.218|-0.168|0.797
95949005|NCT01263496|191869655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.19||||||||19.19|-3.88|
95949006|NCT01263496|191869655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|9.24||||||||9.24|-11.41|
95949007|NCT01263496|191869655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|10.75||||||||10.75|-12.91|
95763382|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.204||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.204
95763383|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
95763384|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
95763385|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
95949008|NCT01263496|191869655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|9.99||||||||9.99|-11.32|
95949009|NCT01263496|191869656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|16.49||||||||16.49|-7.09|
95949010|NCT01263496|191869656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|11.89||||||||11.89|-8.63|
95949011|NCT01263496|191869656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|7.98||||||||7.98|-13.36|
95949012|NCT01263496|191869656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|2.17||||||||2.17|-20.58|
95993806|NCT00868790|191963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.4|-59.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (MK-3577-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-59.8|-96.4|<0.001
95763386|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95763387|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
95763388|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
95763389|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.695||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.695
95763390|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
95763391|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.301
95763392|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
95763393|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in cDC cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.014
95763394|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.791
95802333|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.11||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.090|-0.310|0.280
95802334|NCT02021318|191577784|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.037||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.251|-0.177|0.733
95763395|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
95763396|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
95763397|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.77
95763398|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
95763399|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
95763400|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
95763401|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
95763402|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95763403|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
95763404|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.47
95763405|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.313||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ EM ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.313
95763406|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
95763407|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
95763408|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
95763409|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ ICOS+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.232
95763410|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95763411|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.131||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.131
95763412|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
95763413|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.438||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ ki67+ T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.438
95763414|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95763415|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
95763416|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.569||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.569
95763417|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in Treg ICOS+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.105
95763418|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
95763419|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.677
95802335|NCT02021318|191577785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.026||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.170|-0.119|0.727
95802336|NCT02021318|191577785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.001||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.148|-0.151|0.985
95763420|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
95763421|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.432||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK ki67+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.432
95763422|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
95763423|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
95763424|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.519
95763425|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.557||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKG2D+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.557
95763426|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.034
95763427|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.092||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.092
95763428|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.733||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.733
95763429|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.922||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in NK NKp46+ cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.922
95763430|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.176
95763431|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
95763432|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.001
95763433|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.563||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
95949013|NCT01263496|191869657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|9.84||||||||9.84|-11.44|
95949014|NCT01263496|191869657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.66||||||||7.66|-11.74|
95993807|NCT00868790|191963402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-49.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.9|-31.8|||LDA Model|Between-group difference (metformin-placebo) of LSM changes from BL to a given time point and 90% confidence intervals were estimated from LDA model.||Analysis based on an LDA model including terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). The LDA-model test was conducted at alpha level=0.10 (two sided).||-31.8|-66.9|<0.001
95763434|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
95763435|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
95763436|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.016
95763437|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD8+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.688
95802337|NCT02021318|191577785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 72-80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.154|-0.148|0.965
95802338|NCT02021318|191577785|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.016||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate and baseline Hb by visit as continuous covariates.||0.157|-0.188|0.856
95802339|NCT02021318|191577787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.22|1.36|<0.001
95802340|NCT02021318|191577790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.50|0.98|0.079
95802341|NCT02021318|191577791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.11|0.79|0.300
95949015|NCT01263496|191869657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|4.75||||||||4.75|-15.62|
95949016|NCT01263496|191869657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.83|-2.74||||||||-2.74|-23.83|
95949017|NCT01263496|191869658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|14.1||||||||14.10|-28.15|
95949018|NCT01263496|191869658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|13.02||||||||13.02|-23.93|
95949019|NCT01263496|191869658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-35.46|
95949020|NCT01263496|191869658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.75|-13.41||||||||-13.41|-47.75|
95949021|NCT01263496|191869659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|42.09||||||||42.09|-5.18|
95949022|NCT01263496|191869659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||||||||33.28|-13.56|
95949023|NCT01263496|191869659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|15.37||||||||15.37|-30.25|
95949024|NCT01263496|191869659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.75|9.15||||||||9.15|-34.75|
95949025|NCT01263496|191869660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|25.58||||||||25.58|-13.90|
95949026|NCT01263496|191869660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|24.9||||||||24.90|-18.20|
95949027|NCT01263496|191869660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|18.74||||||||18.74|-26.03|
95949028|NCT01263496|191869660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.08|0.34||||||||0.34|-47.08|
95763438|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.38
95763439|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.021
95763440|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
95763441|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in gMDSC at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.084
95763442|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.151||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.151
95763443|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
95949029|NCT01263496|191869661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.77|24.71||||||||24.71|-18.77|
95949030|NCT01263496|191869661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.21|23.94||||||||23.94|-21.21|
95993262|NCT03575104|191962698|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.37|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.507|21.226||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||21.226|5.507|= 0.0009
95993263|NCT03575104|191962699|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|19.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.125|27.994||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00781; statistically significant = YES||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||27.994|10.125|<.0001
95949031|NCT01263496|191869661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.69|10.3||||||||10.30|-32.69|
95949032|NCT01263496|191869661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.85|-12.96||||||||-12.96|-56.85|
95949033|NCT01263496|191869662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.535||||||||1.535|0.375|
95763444|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.424||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.424
95763445|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.846||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in intermediate monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.846
95802342|NCT02021318|191577795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.54|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and Region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||2.54|0.99|0.055
95802343|NCT02021318|191577798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||1.00|0.51|0.052
95949034|NCT01263496|191869662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.965||||||||1.965|0.752|
95949035|NCT01263496|191869662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.975||||||||1.975|0.724|
95949036|NCT01263496|191869662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.955||||||||1.955|0.804|
95949037|NCT01263496|191869663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.723||||||||1.723|0.344|
95949038|NCT01263496|191869663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.115||||||||2.115|0.780|
95993808|NCT00868790|191963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.8||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.1|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||3.1|-4.6|0.742
95949039|NCT01263496|191869663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.87||||||||1.870|0.616|
95949040|NCT01263496|191869663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.136||||||||2.136|0.827|
95949041|NCT01263496|191869664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|4.188||||||||4.188|-4.088|
95949042|NCT01263496|191869664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.476|6.647||||||||6.647|-3.476|
95763446|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
95763447|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.012
95763448|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.622||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.622
95763449|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in non-classical monocytes at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.492
95949043|NCT01263496|191869664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.151|9.184||||||||9.184|-8.151|
95763450|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.11
95763451|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.02
95763452|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.052||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.052
95763453|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ CM T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.844
95763454|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
95763455|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 4 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.049
95802344|NCT02021318|191577808|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.068||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||-0.124|-2.012|0.027
95802345|NCT02021318|191577808|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.603||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.401|-1.606|0.239
95802346|NCT02021318|191577809|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.528||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.127|1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.072|-2.127|0.517
95949044|NCT01263496|191869664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|4.744||||||||4.744|-2.191|
95949045|NCT01263496|191869665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.841|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|1.443||||||||1.443|0.239|
95949046|NCT01263496|191869665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.304|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.93||||||||1.930|0.679|
95949047|NCT01263496|191869665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.585||||||||1.585|0.400|
95949048|NCT01263496|191869665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.853||||||||1.853|0.674|
95949049|NCT01263496|191869666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.597|22.184||||||||22.184|9.597|
95949050|NCT01263496|191869666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.466|23.585||||||||23.585|12.466|
95949051|NCT01263496|191869666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.379|25.297||||||||25.297|14.379|
95949052|NCT01263496|191869666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.677|22.06||||||||22.060|8.677|
95949053|NCT01263496|191869667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.567|22.079||||||||22.079|6.567|
95949054|NCT01263496|191869667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.563|26.864||||||||26.864|14.563|
95763456|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER|||||||0.339||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the lead-in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.339
95763457|NCT02933255|191496446|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of changes in CD4+ naive T cells at week 10 post treatment compared to baseline in the neoadjuvant cohort.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||>0.999
95763458|NCT06418529|191496470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
95763459|NCT06418529|191496471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||||||||1.07|0.83|
95763460|NCT06418529|191496472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||||0.99|0.79|
95763461|NCT06418529|191496473|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04||||||||1.04|0.79|
95763462|NCT06418529|191496474|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||||1.05|0.81|
95763463|NCT06418529|191496475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09||||||||1.09|0.79|
95763464|NCT03620708|191496476|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|3.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95763465|NCT03620708|191496477|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|4.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.113
95763466|NCT03620708|191496478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.661||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.032
95763467|NCT03620708|191496479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.543||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of confidence in ability to quit.||||.227
95763468|NCT03620708|191496479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.338||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported importance of quitting smoking.||||.715
95763469|NCT03620708|191496479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Examination of differences between groups at follow-up on a measure of self-reported readiness to quit smoking.||||.190
95763470|NCT03620708|191496480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.728||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.188
95763471|NCT00629018|191496511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The minimal sample size for the study was calculated using a pre-specified power of 90% and P value of 0.05.||||0.01
95763472|NCT03417778|191496521|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|161.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|321.48||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the geometric least-squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||321.48|80.77|
95763473|NCT03417778|191496522|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUClast of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUClast change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.67|213.89||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUClast. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUClast between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||213.89|69.67|
95949055|NCT01263496|191869667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.125|25.002||||||||25.002|13.125|
95949056|NCT01263496|191869667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.618|23.847||||||||23.847|6.618|
95949057|NCT01263496|191869668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|14.924||||||||14.924|1.169|
95949058|NCT01263496|191869668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.767|20.133||||||||20.133|7.767|
95802347|NCT02021318|191577809|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.947||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.771|0.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An AnS, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||0.877|-2.771|0.308
95802348|NCT02021318|191577810|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.904||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.032|2.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12-28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||2.224|-4.032|0.570
95949059|NCT01263496|191869668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.191|21.251||||||||21.251|9.191|
95949060|NCT01263496|191869668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.847|20.885||||||||20.885|5.847|
95949061|NCT01263496|191869669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.719|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.657|13.782||||||||13.782|1.657|
95949062|NCT01263496|191869669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.556|18.399||||||||18.399|7.556|
95949063|NCT01263496|191869669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.808|20.345||||||||20.345|9.808|
95949064|NCT01263496|191869669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.561|19.614||||||||19.614|6.561|
95949065|NCT01263496|191869670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.55||||||||20.55|-7.03|
95949066|NCT01263496|191869670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|25.19||||||||25.19|-1.49|
95949067|NCT01263496|191869670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|24.56||||||||24.56|-5.12|
95949068|NCT01263496|191869670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|14.9||||||||14.90|-13.26|
95949069|NCT01263496|191869671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|22.91||||||||22.91|-11.11|
95949070|NCT01263496|191869671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|28.35||||||||28.35|-7.21|
95949071|NCT01263496|191869671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|26.98||||||||26.98|-10.08|
95949072|NCT01263496|191869671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|24.3||||||||24.30|-10.67|
95949073|NCT01263496|191869672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|21.13||||||||21.13|-14.95|
95949074|NCT01263496|191869672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|20.57||||||||20.57|-15.61|
95949075|NCT01263496|191869672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|19.68||||||||19.68|-21.00|
95949076|NCT01263496|191869672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|20.05||||||||20.05|-17.47|
95949077|NCT01263496|191869673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.86||||||||19.86|-11.70|
95949078|NCT01263496|191869673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|21.03||||||||21.03|-11.14|
95949079|NCT01263496|191869673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|21.73||||||||21.73|-14.42|
95949080|NCT01263496|191869673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|15.89||||||||15.89|-17.24|
95949081|NCT06922643|191869701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|27.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.8|1.63|0.008
95949082|NCT02236611|191869761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus glycopyrronium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to glycopyrronium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to glycopyrronium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.005|0.100
95949083|NCT00486954|191869763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.64|0.2088
95763474|NCT03417778|191496523|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|159.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.22|308.06||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||308.06|82.22|
95763475|NCT03417778|191496524|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for AUCinf of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit AUCinf change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|122.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.9|214.07||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the AUCinf. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||214.07|69.90|
95802349|NCT02021318|191577810|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.767||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 36-52 -The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of cardiovascular disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An total score, baseline Hb, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate as continuous covariates.||1.820|-5.354|0.334
95802350|NCT02021318|191577812|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.784||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.481|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline EQ-5D 5L VAS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||3.049|-1.481|0.497
95802351|NCT02021318|191577823|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.05||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.93|0.902
95802352|NCT02021318|191577825|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.29|0.79|0.960
95802353|NCT02021318|191577827|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.25|0.79|0.939
95802354|NCT02021318|191577828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.27|0.77|0.948
95802355|NCT02021318|191577829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.17|0.75|0.568
95802356|NCT04180696|191577849|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
95802357|NCT04180696|191577850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.455|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds logistic regression model. Baseline NYHA class and time included as fixed covariates.||Due to limited number of subjects with NYHA class III or IV during follow-up, class III, IV, and death were grouped as a single category for analysis.||2.455|0.579|0.63
95802358|NCT04180696|191577851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.175|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for NYHA class and sex.||||3.175|0.492|0.64
95802359|NCT04180696|191577852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
95802360|NCT04180696|191577853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|5.056|||Regression, Cox|||||5.056|0.206|0.98
95802361|NCT00963508|191577854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95802362|NCT00963508|191577855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
95949084|NCT00321971|191869837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention-to-treat model|The CES-D data were log-transformed for analysis|Hypothesis: The experimental intervention group will endorse lower mean levels of depressive symptoms during follow-up than the study group receiving the comparison intervention.||0.657|0.208|<.05
95949085|NCT04540952|191869840|SUPERIORITY|Power analysis indicated that with a sample size of 34 per arm, would provide 81% power to detect an effect size of 0.7 (0.7\*SD of fluid deficit) with a two-sided, two sample t test (a=0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.7|283.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||283.4|-260.7|0.93
95949086|NCT01215253|191869844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.67|0.117
95802363|NCT00002874|191577862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98||One-sided significance level = 0.046 to preserve overall significance level of 0.05 for the study.|Log Rank||Stratifying variables were fixed covariates: prior hormone therapy (yes/no), entry prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (1.6-4.0 vs. 0.2-1.5), PSA nadir after surgery (\< 0.5 vs. \>= 0.5), positive surgical margins (yes/no). Reference level = placebo arm.|||0.98|0.59|0.020
95802364|NCT00002874|191577863|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Gray's test|One-sided test|||Reference level = placebo arm|1.53|0.79|0.289
95949087|NCT01215253|191869845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.76|0.891
95949088|NCT01215253|191869846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Anderson-Gill analysis|||||0.96|0.51|0.028
95949089|NCT01215253|191869847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.38|0.398
95949090|NCT01215253|191869848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.91|0.316
95949091|NCT01215253|191869849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.84|0.577
95763476|NCT03417778|191496525|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of filgotinib falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for filgotinib compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.75|228.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||228.98|58.75|
95763477|NCT03417778|191496526|OTHER|If the upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CIs of the GLSM ratio for Cmax of GS-829845 falls within the \[50%, 200%\] bound, the null hypothesis that participants with hepatic impairment exhibit Cmax change of at least 2-fold for GS-829845 compared with participants with normal liver function will be rejected.|GLSM Ratio|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.12|175.98||||||An ANOVA model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformed values of the Cmax. Two-sided 90% CI were calculated for the GLSM ratio of Cmax between hepatic impairment group versus the matched control (normal hepatic function) group.||175.98|60.12|
95763478|NCT02932462|191496546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4557
95763479|NCT02932462|191496547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8096|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8096
95763480|NCT02932462|191496548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7652
95763481|NCT02413229|191496549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3571
95763482|NCT02413229|191496549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5224|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5224
95763483|NCT02413229|191496549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3890
95763484|NCT02413229|191496549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0325
95763485|NCT01995513|191496550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.119||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 0 percent \[%\] to less than \[\<\] 30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.119|0.612|0.2176
95763486|NCT01995513|191496551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.239||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.239|0.617|0.4500
95763487|NCT01995513|191496552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.65||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|1.51||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=50% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||1.51|-4.82|0.3101
95763488|NCT01995513|191496552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-0.04||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.82||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with \>=30% decrease from baseline in PSA response.||3.82|-3.90|0.9917
95802365|NCT00002874|191577864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.58|0.40|<0.001
95802366|NCT00002874|191577865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.46|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||1.46|0.85|0.213
95802367|NCT00002874|191577866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95802368|NCT00002874|191577867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.87|0.46|0.002
95949092|NCT01215253|191869850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.871
95763489|NCT01995513|191496553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|-5.0||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|1.75||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR.||1.75|-11.75|0.1653
95802369|NCT00002874|191577868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74|||Gray's test|One-sided test|Reference level = placebo arm|||0.74|0.32|<0.001
95763490|NCT01995513|191496553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Objective Response Rate|10.92||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|32.21||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in objective response rate was based upon standard normal approximation.|This analysis is reported for participants with CR+PR+SD.||32.21|-10.37|0.3216
95763491|NCT01995513|191496554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Progression Rate|9.09||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|25.87||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in Progression Rate was based upon normal approximation.|||25.87|-7.69|0.2963
95763492|NCT01995513|191496555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.204||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||1.204|0.616|0.3818
95949093|NCT01215253|191869851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.508
95949094|NCT01215253|191869852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.948
95949095|NCT01215253|191869853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.55|0.038
95949096|NCT01215253|191869854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.73|0.947
95763493|NCT01995513|191496562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.399||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|2.025||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by PSA response (\>=0% to \<30% vs \>=30%) at Week 13 in the open-label period and is relative to Enzalutamide-placebo with \< 1 favoring Enzalutamide.|||2.025|0.967|0.0739
95763494|NCT03105518|191496567|SUPERIORITY||1 way test, chisquare approximation|7.188||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 0; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.007
95763495|NCT03105518|191496567|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|3.6396||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 15; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.056
95763496|NCT03105518|191496567|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|15.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 30; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
95763497|NCT03105518|191496567|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|16.0972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Time 60; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||<0.0001
95763498|NCT03105518|191496568|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|2.7205||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 1; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.0991
95763499|NCT03105518|191496568|SUPERIORITY||1 way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|1.5654||||0.2109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 2; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.2109
95763500|NCT03105518|191496568|SUPERIORITY||1-way Test, ChiSquare Approximation|0.008||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||VAS at Post Operative Day 3; Follicles ≤10 vs. \> 10||||0.9287
95763501|NCT02091856|191496586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA for three groups: C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG and two time points: pre \& post||It was hypothesized that regardless of the CBT version received (conventional or religious), those in the active treatments would achieve a greater reduction in depressive and associated symptoms than participants in the wait-list condition.||||<0.001
95802370|NCT00002874|191577869|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||Log Rank|One-side test|||Reference level = placebo arm|0.71|0.50|< 0.001
95802371|NCT00002874|191577870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Acute radiotherapy toxicity||||0.060
95802372|NCT00002874|191577870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Chi-squared|||Hormone therapy and late radiotherapy toxicity||||0.029
95802373|NCT02405962|191577885|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.08|<0.05
95949097|NCT01215253|191869855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52|||Anderdon-Gill analysis|||||1.52|0.36|0.414
95949098|NCT00949234|191869856|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||There was no power calculation for this analysis. The study was mainly descriptive, but Chi-square tests were used to determine if there were differences between individuals who were retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit from individuals who were not retained at the 24 Week Follow-up visit.||||<0.05
95949099|NCT01762982|191869910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0654||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0654
95949100|NCT01762982|191869913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0078||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0078
95949101|NCT01762982|191869914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0547||95.0|||||Signed Rank Test|||Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference between the treatments being compared.||||0.0547
95949102|NCT01029704|191869932|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-16.923||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.076|3.23||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.230|-37.076|0.0989
95949103|NCT01029704|191869932|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-17.834||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.909|3.242||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||3.242|-38.909|0.0964
95949104|NCT01029704|191869932|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-19.991||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-0.312||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.312|-39.670|0.0465
95949105|NCT01029704|191869932|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-32.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.487|-12.533||P-values are from two-sided test at 5% level|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-12.533|-51.487|0.0015
95949106|NCT01029704|191869934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.434||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|-0.52||P-values are from a two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.520|-2.349|0.0025
95949107|NCT01029704|191869934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.037||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|-0.122||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.122|-1.952|0.0269
95949108|NCT01029704|191869934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.938|-1.17||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-1.170|-2.938|< 0.0001
95949109|NCT01029704|191869934|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.172||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.044|-0.301||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.301|-2.044|0.0090
95949110|NCT01029704|191869935|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.353||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|-0.039||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.039|-0.668|0.0281
95949111|NCT01029704|191869935|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.155||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.154||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.154|-0.464|0.3215
95763502|NCT02091856|191496587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|Changes in secondary outcome measures were evaluated using repeated measures ANOVA (C-CBT, R-CBT, WLCG at pre- and post-intervention).||||||>0.05
95763503|NCT02091856|191496588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95949112|NCT01029704|191869935|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.004||||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.295||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||0.295|-0.304|0.9776
95802374|NCT00990769|191577900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation concluded that 20 patients in each group would have 80% power to detect a mean difference of 4 ± 4 with alpha equal to 0.05, as would be determined by a two-sample T test.||||>0.05
95949113|NCT01029704|191869935|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.344||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|-0.046||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||-0.046|-0.642|0.0242
95949114|NCT01029704|191869937|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.688||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|42.587||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||42.587|-7.210|0.1613
95949115|NCT01029704|191869937|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|17.091||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.696|43.877||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||43.877|-9.696|0.2079
95949116|NCT01029704|191869937|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|24.379||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|47.731||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||47.731|1.028|0.0410
95802375|NCT01214720|191577906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.61|0.0002
95949117|NCT01029704|191869937|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|20.749||||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.019|44.518||P-values are from a two-sided test|ANCOVA|Analysis is based on ANCOVA with change from baseline as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect and baseline and center as covariate.||||44.518|-3.019|0.0862
95949118|NCT03845517|191869939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.5||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.5|-24.5|0.8076
95949119|NCT03845517|191869939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|18.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|-7.9|0.2189
95949120|NCT03845517|191869939|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|15.3||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.3|-11.8|0.4010
95949121|NCT03845517|191869940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|14.9||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-19.1|0.5950
95949122|NCT03845517|191869940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.6||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-5.3|0.1125
95949123|NCT03845517|191869940|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|23.6||One sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|-4.4|0.0891
95949124|NCT01109979|191869961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95949125|NCT05163353|191869973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|74.4||||||||74.4|45.6|
95949126|NCT02102724|191869999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypotheses were that there are no differences between the two groups' change scores for any study outcomes. The power analysis was based on a study of krill oil for reducing CRP levels in persons with arthritis (N = 90) that yielded an effect size (Cohen's d) of 1.2. A sample size of 37 was determined to yield a power of 0.80 to detect an effect size of 1.0 with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05.|The change scores of the two groups (week 12 minus baseline) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.|||< 0.05
95949127|NCT01323790|191870010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.188||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.548|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.548|0.911|0.202
95949128|NCT01323790|191870010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.348||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.739|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.739|1.045|0.021
95763504|NCT02091856|191496589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95763505|NCT02091856|191496590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.01
95763506|NCT05024747|191496591|OTHER||Ratio T/R|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.0|103.85||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||103.85|90.00|
95763507|NCT05024747|191496592|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.45|99.84||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||99.84|85.45|
95949129|NCT01323790|191870011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.884||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.884|0.967|0.074
95949130|NCT01323790|191870011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.489||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|2.058||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.058|1.078|0.014
95949131|NCT01323790|191870013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.69|0.09|0.010
95949132|NCT01323790|191870013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.37|<0.001
95763508|NCT05024747|191496593|OTHER||Ratio T/R|92.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.63|100.01||||||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference based on Baseline Adjusted Data.||100.01|85.63|
95763509|NCT05024747|191496594|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-0.0192||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0542|0.0044|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0044|-0.0542|0.0833
95763510|NCT05024747|191496595|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|-6.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.0000|-10.5000|0.0205
95763511|NCT05024747|191496596|OTHER||Hodges- Lehmann's median difference|0.3225||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.681|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Statistical comparison was analyzed between Test vs Reference.||0.6810|-0.0949|0.0946
95802376|NCT01214720|191577907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|3.62||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.6|||Chi-squared|Approximate 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.||||11.6|-4.3|0.3621
95802377|NCT01214720|191577908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2087||95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.74|0.2087
95802378|NCT00165698|191577921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.26
95802379|NCT00165698|191577922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.19
95949133|NCT01323790|191870014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.32|0.005
95949134|NCT01323790|191870014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.45|<0.001
95949135|NCT01323790|191870015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.45|0.12|0.001
95993809|NCT00868790|191963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|8.4|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||8.4|0.6|0.060
95763512|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.89
95949136|NCT01323790|191870015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.62|0.29|<0.001
95949137|NCT01323790|191870016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||11.06|2.37|0.002
95949138|NCT01323790|191870016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||14.84|6.03|<0.001
95949139|NCT01323790|191870017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.98|0.06|0.028
95763513|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.88
95763514|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.82
95763515|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.65
95763516|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.77
95763517|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.76
95763518|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
95802380|NCT00165698|191577923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Symbols rank sum test|||||||0.31
95802381|NCT00165698|191577924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.869
95802382|NCT00165698|191577925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.174
95802383|NCT00165698|191577926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
95802384|NCT00165698|191577927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
95802385|NCT00165698|191577928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||symbols rank sum test|||||||0.000
95949140|NCT01323790|191870017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.51|0.58|<0.001
95949141|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.080
95763519|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.71
95763520|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.60
95763521|NCT04584684|191496599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.80
95763522|NCT01311687|191496626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.35|<0.001
95763523|NCT01311687|191496627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.61|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by age, disease population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.61|0.39|<0.001
95763524|NCT01311687|191496629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.74|0.37|<0.001
95763525|NCT01311687|191496630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.92|0.54|0.009
95949142|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.32|0.011
95763526|NCT01311687|191496631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.91|0.60|0.005
95763527|NCT01311687|191496632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|17.77|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone : high dose dexamethasone|||17.77|3.19|< 0.001
95763528|NCT01311687|191496633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|21.42|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||21.42|3.32|< 0.001
95763529|NCT01311687|191496634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by age, diseases population, and prior number of anti myeloma therapy.|Hazard ratio is for Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone : High Dose Dexamethasone|||0.59|0.36|< 0.001
95763530|NCT01342081|191496651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.1|< 0.001
95802386|NCT00433290|191577931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
95993810|NCT00868790|191963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|11.7|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||11.7|3.8|0.002
95763531|NCT01342081|191496651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. Non-inferiority was claimed if the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference is 1.5 mmHg or less.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Non-inferiority was evaluated after superiority to tafluprost was confirmed.||0.1|-0.7|
95763532|NCT03440840|191496664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment||||||0.40
95763533|NCT03440840|191496665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Estimated marginal means comparisons, Tukey adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
95763534|NCT03440840|191496666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of estimated marginal means, Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||0.37
95763535|NCT03440840|191496667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Differences between estimated marginal means, Tukey correction for multiple comparisons.|||||0.61
95763536|NCT04688671|191496668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.32|0.5605
95763537|NCT03749330|191496707|EQUIVALENCE|test of difference between pre and post|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95763538|NCT02105467|191496725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided, one-sample exact test|||Superiority of SVR12 in the Immediate Treatment group was tested against the historical response rate of 73%.||||<0.001
95763539|NCT02105467|191496726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.6|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-10.8|
95763540|NCT02105467|191496727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0|||||Between-treatment difference (Immediate Treatment Group - Deferred Treatment Group) was analyzed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||2.0|-4.4|
95763541|NCT00811733|191496787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|73.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||73.4|21.3|
95763542|NCT00811733|191496787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||86.1|45.1|
95993264|NCT03575104|191962699|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|13.58|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.691|22.475||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in sTST = baseline sTST + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in sTST (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||22.475|4.691|= 0.0028
95993265|NCT03575104|191962700|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.75|||=|0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.581|0.071||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00625; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.071|-1.581|= 0.0733
95763543|NCT00811733|191496788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|61.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||61.6|11.8|
95763544|NCT00811733|191496788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR.|||82.8|40.7|
95949143|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.20|-0.11|0.552
95993266|NCT03575104|191962700|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.43|||=|0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.251|0.392||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.392|-1.251|= 0.3048
95763545|NCT04020887|191496825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|18.01||||||Difference in time to PACU discharge determination from observation to interaction phase \[ Time Frame: 6 months\]: The difference in discharge readiness time between the observation and interaction phases will be compared.||18.01|-6.01|
95763546|NCT04020887|191496826|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|35.66||||||||35.66|23.82|
95763547|NCT04020887|191496827|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|-2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|3.02||||||||3.02|-8.18|
95763548|NCT04020887|191496828|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|20.79||||||||20.79|5.16|
95763549|NCT04020887|191496829|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.07||||||||3.07|-1.63|
95763550|NCT04020887|191496830|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Proportions|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|12.71||||||||12.71|3.13|
95763551|NCT03762239|191496840|SUPERIORITY||Relative (percent) changes in the median|1.37||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|5.56|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in better performance, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in attention measures among adolescents in high schools.||5.56|-2.81|0.52
95763552|NCT03762239|191496841|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0607|0.0865|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher riskloving behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined risk taking measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0865|-0.0607|0.72
95763553|NCT03762239|191496842|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.029||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.0584|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of patience, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the combined patience measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.0584|-0.1170|0.50
95949144|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.25|-0.06|0.236
95763554|NCT03762239|191496843|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0184|0.1394|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher level of positive reciprocity behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the positive reciprocity measures among adolescents in high schools||0.1394|-0.0184|0.13
95763555|NCT03762239|191496844|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.022||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0595|0.1035|||Regression, Linear|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher Altruism behavior, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the Altruism measures among adolescents in high schools.||0.1035|-0.0595|0.58
95763556|NCT03762239|191496845|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|0.013||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1786|0.2049|||Ordered logistic regression|Using multiple imputation by chained equations. Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher trust, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the subjective trust measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.2049|-0.1786|0.89
95763557|NCT03762239|191496846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.24|-0.49|0.50
95763558|NCT03762239|191496847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|||0.10|-0.20|0.47
95802387|NCT00433290|191577931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 7 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
95859508|NCT00298558|191676504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.08|-0.20|0.27
95859509|NCT00298558|191676506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.29|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.29|0.45
95949145|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.24|0.095
95763559|NCT03762239|191496848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|1.74|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||1.74|-8.51|0.20
95763560|NCT03762239|191496849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||4.60|-5.10|0.92
95763561|NCT03762239|191496850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.22|||Conditional linear regression|Class group as strata. Adjusted for year of birth, sex as well as average temperature, relative humidity and CO2 concentration during the experiment.||||2.22|-4.94|0.46
95763562|NCT03762239|191496851|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.1446||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.0928|||Ordered logistic regression|Adjusted for a rich set or relevant controls. Standard errors clustered at the high school level.|Change comparing the filter group to the non-filter group|The hypothesis was that air filtration could result in higher assessment of math skills, relative to the classroom without air filter (normal air), in the self assessed math skills measure among adolescents in high schools.||0.0928|-0.3820|0.232
95763563|NCT04807400|191496920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.91|-25.77||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.77|-37.91|<0.001
95802388|NCT00433290|191577931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Model: Change=Treatment,NSAID use, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, Treatment\*Visit, Baseline\*Visit||Null hypothesis=the difference in the BPI average pain score between the duloxetine and placebo treatment goups at the last visit of the treatment phase is zero.||||<0.001
95949146|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
95763564|NCT04807400|191496920|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.35|-25.94||p-values are adjusted using Holm's procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-25.94|-38.35|<0.001
95763565|NCT04807400|191496922|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.13|||ANOVA|||||2.13|0.62|<0.001
95763566|NCT04807400|191496922|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||ANOVA|||||2.10|0.60|<0.001
95802389|NCT00433290|191577932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: PGI-Improvement=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, baseline severity and NSAID used for main effect p-values.||||||0.164
95802390|NCT00433290|191577933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (change = endpoint - baseline)|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.016
95802391|NCT00433290|191577934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.068
95802392|NCT00433290|191577935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline value.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.064
95763567|NCT04807400|191496923|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61|||ANOVA|||||0.61|-0.67|0.9347
95763568|NCT04807400|191496924|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|-3.62|0.6759
95802393|NCT00433290|191577936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Average Pain. Change = endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.008
95802394|NCT00433290|191577936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Change in Weekly 24-Hour Worst Pain. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.047
95802395|NCT00433290|191577937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.009
95802396|NCT00433290|191577938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95802397|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.897
95802398|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||<0.001
95802399|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.004
95949147|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.44|0.002
95763569|NCT04807400|191496924|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|-3.25|0.5756
95763570|NCT04807400|191496925|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.62|||ANCOVA|||||3.62|-3.02|0.8580
95763571|NCT04194645|191496928|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|97.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.45|104.4|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||104.40|91.45|
95802400|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.051
95802401|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.508
95802402|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.019
95802403|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.415
95802404|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.006
95949148|NCT01323790|191870019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.56|<0.001
95763572|NCT04194645|191496928|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.82|128.94|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||128.94|98.82|
95763573|NCT04194645|191496929|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|48.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.86|55.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 18.5|No formal hypothesis was tested.||55.09|41.86|
95763574|NCT04194645|191496929|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|122.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.04|143.56|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 19.8|No formal hypothesis was tested.||143.56|105.04|
95763575|NCT04194645|191496932|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T2/R)|98.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.98|105.09|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 8.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.09|91.98|
95763576|NCT04194645|191496932|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio of geometric mean (T1/T2)|112.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|129.18|||ANOVA||Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 16.9|No formal hypothesis was tested.||129.18|98.75|
95763577|NCT03656744|191496933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.199
95763578|NCT03656744|191496933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95763579|NCT03656744|191496934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
95763580|NCT03656744|191496934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.109
95763581|NCT03656744|191496935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.034
95763582|NCT03656744|191496935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95763583|NCT03656744|191496936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.884
95763584|NCT03656744|191496936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.236
95802405|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.342
95802406|NCT00433290|191577939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-values.||||||0.135
95802407|NCT00433290|191577940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||95.0||||P-value for EQ-5D Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change=Treament, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effect p-value.||||||0.209
95802408|NCT00433290|191577941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Week 13 value minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.871
95949149|NCT01323790|191870020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.54|0.011
95949150|NCT01323790|191870020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.73|<0.001
95763585|NCT03656744|191496937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.196
95763586|NCT03656744|191496937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
95763587|NCT03656744|191496938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.294
95763588|NCT03656744|191496939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
95763589|NCT03656744|191496939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.090
95763590|NCT03656744|191496940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
95763591|NCT03656744|191496940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.534
95763592|NCT03656744|191496941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
95763593|NCT03656744|191496941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
95763594|NCT03656744|191496942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
95763595|NCT03656744|191496942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.120
95763596|NCT03656744|191496943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.955
95763597|NCT03656744|191496943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.072
95763598|NCT03656744|191496944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.488
95763599|NCT03656744|191496944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.022
95763600|NCT03656744|191496945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.674
95763601|NCT03656744|191496945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95763602|NCT03656744|191496946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.588
95763603|NCT03656744|191496946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
95763604|NCT03656744|191496947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.236
95763605|NCT03656744|191496947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.944
95949151|NCT04181788|191870045|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|231.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.09|281.21||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||281.21|190.09|
95763606|NCT03656744|191496948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.267
95763607|NCT03656744|191496948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.911
95763608|NCT03656744|191496949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
95763609|NCT03656744|191496949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.855
95763610|NCT03656744|191496950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.107
95763611|NCT03656744|191496950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.489
95763612|NCT03656744|191496951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.515
95763613|NCT03656744|191496951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.887
95763614|NCT03656744|191496952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95763615|NCT03656744|191496952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
95763616|NCT03656744|191496953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.124
95763617|NCT03656744|191496953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.171
95763618|NCT00770328|191496987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95763619|NCT00770328|191496988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0114
95763620|NCT03541317|191497002|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases during Stages 1 and 2|Difference in sum of means*|9.7||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|49.4|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne, \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase.|||49.40|-30.03|0.63
95763621|NCT03541317|191497003|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\<15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|3.78||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|24.44|||weighted least squares regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017)|\*Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||24.44|-16.88|0.72
95763622|NCT03541317|191497004|SUPERIORITY|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of brief individual CBT sessions (\>15 min.) delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phases occurring during Stages 1 and 2.|Difference in sum of means*|7.85||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|28.91|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|||28.91|-13.20|0.46
95763623|NCT03541317|191497005|SUPERIORITY||Difference in sum of means*|-0.66||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|7.16|||Weighted Least Squares Regression|Marginal means under each embedded implementation strategy estimated after each of 4 post-randomization phases (NeCamp, Kilbourne \& Almirall 2017).|Difference in the sum of the means estimated at each post-randomization phase|A test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between these two strategies on the sum of the average number of group CBT sessions delivered to students by SPs over the four post-randomization phase occurring during Stages 1 and 2.||7.16|-8.49|0.87
95763624|NCT00879086|191497006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-16.7|||=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|2.4||The two treatment groups were compared, controlling for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (less than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||2.4|-36.1|=0.0941
95763625|NCT00879086|191497007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-18.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.3||Controlled for baseline pre-existing neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3), with both covariates included as binary variables.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Extended Mantel-Haenszel test statistics with stratification adjustment for pre-existing baseline neuropathy (CTCAE Grade 0 or 1) and number of prior chemotherapy regimens (greater than or equal to 3 or greater than 3)|||-0.3|-36.0|0.0492
95763626|NCT00509795|191497040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.4|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI.||3.1|-4.4|
95949152|NCT04181788|191870046|OTHER|Ratio of experimental vs control|Ratio of experimental vs control|111.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.31|143.99||||||Phase 2 600 mg SC Q6W (experimental) vs. Phase 2 300 mg SC Q4W (control)||143.99|86.31|
95949153|NCT03786471|191870108|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.78||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.18|0.33
95949154|NCT03786471|191870108|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.62||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.61|0.37||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-1.61|0.33
95949155|NCT03786471|191870108|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.33||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|0.67||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-1.32|0.46
95949156|NCT03786471|191870115|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.25||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.66||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.16|0.54
95949157|NCT03786471|191870115|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|0.74||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|-0.94|0.79
95949158|NCT03786471|191870115|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.14||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.99||Alpha = 0.025; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.70|0.79
95949159|NCT03786471|191870122|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.52||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.13||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-.09|0.48
95949160|NCT03786471|191870122|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.45||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-2.07|0.62
95949161|NCT03786471|191870122|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-1.33||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.07||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-2.58|0.23
95949162|NCT03786471|191870129|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.54|.01|0.23
95949163|NCT03786471|191870129|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.55||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \*three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.55|-.53|.98
95993811|NCT00868790|191963403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-3.9||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|2.3|||LDA Model|||LDL-C values after log transformation were analyzed using a constrained LDA model that included terms for treatment, period, the interaction of treatment by period, prior antihyperglycemic therapy status (yes/no), and randomization stratum (participation in domiciled visits \[yes/no\]). Percentage change from baseline in LDL-C after 4-week treatment was reported, after back-transformation using the delta method with an alpha-level of 0.10 (2-sided).||2.3|-10.2|0.248
95949164|NCT03786471|191870129|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.27||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.27||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.81|0.65
95949165|NCT03786471|191870134|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|-0.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.37|0.62
95949166|NCT03786471|191870134|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.14||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.26|0.01
95993812|NCT01763164|191963406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.||0.80|0.47|< 0.001
95763627|NCT00509795|191497040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.1|2.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 0.5Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||2.1|-5.1|
95949167|NCT03786471|191870134|SUPERIORITY||marginal difference of LS means|0.85||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.29||Alpha = 0.05; Hochberg correction for three pairwise comparisons \* three secondary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.42|0.001
95949168|NCT00535626|191870195|OTHER|"To test if revision rate at 5 years is less than 10% (Ha - Alternative Hypothesis).~Note: All cases enrolled in the study had to undergo revision whether from their primary procedure or a previous revision. Based on literature, 10% is the expected rate of another revision occurring in this cohort of enrolled patients."|Revision or Pending Revision Rate|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|5.46|||||The estimated 2.43% revision rate was obtained by the Kaplan-Meier method.|||5.46|1.07|
95949169|NCT00535626|191870196|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95949170|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Physical Score compared to each post-operative SF-36 Physical score is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to all intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95949171|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 month SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0139
95949172|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 1 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0254
95949173|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test whether the change from the SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 2 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.1506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.1506
95949174|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 3 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0936
95949175|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test if the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 4 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0909
95949176|NCT00535626|191870197|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative SF-36 Mental Score compared to the 5 year SF-36 Mental Score is statistically significant.||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.048
95949177|NCT00535626|191870200|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS Score compared to the 3 month LEAS Score is statistically significant.||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0011
95763628|NCT00509795|191497040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. The power is 90% according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol. Although not in the analysis plan for the study, in a separate communication, the FDA further explained that, whereas the 10% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess non-inferiority, a 5% non-inferiority margin would be used to assess clinical equivalence.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.5|3.1|||||The difference is calculated as ranibizumab minus IAI. A negative value favors the IAI 2.0Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons as conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|The statistical approach included a conditional sequence of calculations of the 95.1% CI using normal approximation of the difference between the proportion of patients with maintained vision at Week 52 for the group treated with 0.5 mg ranibizumab and the proportion of patients with maintained vision for each of the groups treated with IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye).||3.1|-4.5|
95763629|NCT00509795|191497041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|3.15||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.92|5.37||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||5.37|0.92|0.0054
95763630|NCT00509795|191497041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.8||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.03|1.43||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.43|-3.03|0.4793
95763631|NCT00509795|191497041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares Means|0.26||||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.97|2.49||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.49|-1.97|0.8179
95763632|NCT00509795|191497042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|14.1||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||14.1|-1.0|0.1042
95763633|NCT00509795|191497042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.2|1.2||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||1.2|-13.2|0.1037
95763634|NCT00509795|191497042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-7.7|7.0||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as VEGF Trap-Eye minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors VEGF Trap-Eye 2.0Q8.|The pairwise The null hypothesis is that both percentages are equal.||7.0|-7.7|0.93
95763635|NCT00509795|191497043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences Least Squares means|1.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.73|3.28||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||3.28|-0.73|0.2090
95763636|NCT00509795|191497043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.67||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.69|1.35||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 0.5Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.35|-2.69|0.5128
95763637|NCT00509795|191497043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.6||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.61|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A positive value favors IAI 2.0Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-2.61|0.5579
95763638|NCT00509795|191497044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.33||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.04|0.38||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.38|-1.04|0.3575
95763639|NCT00509795|191497044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.71||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.01|1.42||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 0.5Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.42|-0.01|0.0507
95949178|NCT00535626|191870200|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 1, 2 and 3 year LEAS are statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value applies to pre-op to 1, 2 and 3 year intervals.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95802409|NCT00433290|191577942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment, Pooled Investigator, NSAID use and Baseline for main effects p-value.||||||0.138
95802410|NCT00433290|191577943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95949179|NCT00535626|191870200|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 4 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0002
95949180|NCT00535626|191870200|OTHER|To test whether the change from the pre-operative LEAS compared to the 5 year LEAS is statistically significant.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0009
95949181|NCT02489799|191870202|EQUIVALENCE|The study was powered based on two former studies utilizing RIAS, (both powered =.8 and alpha =.05). With a 0.6 effect size, the required sample size is 72 patients (36 per group) for a one-tailed test of study hypotheses (power =.8 and alpha =.05).|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Poisson model using GEE|We fit a Poisson model using generalized estimating equations. No adjustments were made for degrees of freedom.|The incidence rate ratio compares intervention to control.|We employed two ways of interpreting this data. The first treats the outcome continuously, which is described in the results section. Here we describe the outcome treating it as a ratio. We created a variable representing the numerator of the ratio (type 1) and the denominator of the ratio (type 2) thereby treating the information in both the numerator and denominator as random (each a Poisson variable).||1.30|0.87|0.545
95949182|NCT00080119|191870300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0492|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.44|0.67|0.93
95763640|NCT00509795|191497044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.86||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.15|1.58||As adjustment of multiple comparisons, a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.049|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as IAI minus ranibizumab. A negative value favors IAI 2.0Q8|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline measure as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.58|0.15|0.0173
95763641|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|4.393|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4EBP1 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.393|0.223|
95802411|NCT00433290|191577944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95949183|NCT00080119|191870301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.3||Threshold p-value for significance = 0.0493|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for INH relative to Placebo|||1.30|0.55|0.43
95949184|NCT00508183|191870312|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95949185|NCT00508183|191870313|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95949186|NCT00508183|191870314|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95949187|NCT00508183|191870316|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95802412|NCT00433290|191577945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95949188|NCT03785756|191870317|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis was based on a two-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. The treatment difference is presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.72|41.38|||ANCOVA|Estimates from an ANCOVA model with SPID12 score as the dependent variable. Terms for treatment and baseline pain score were included as covariates.||The primary efficacy hypothesis was that SPID12 for placebo was equal to SPID12 for ibuprofen 2 × 300 mg PR tablets.||41.38|26.72|<0.0001
95949189|NCT02291861|191870347|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.79||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~The primary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group."||-0.79|-3.09|0.001
95949190|NCT02291861|191870347|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.63||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence."||-0.63|-3.00|0.003
95949191|NCT02291861|191870347|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the change in total motor AIMS score from baseline to week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||0.42|-1.84|0.217
95949192|NCT02291861|191870348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.645|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline use of dopamine receptor antagonist (DRAs).|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 36 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence."||4.645|0.960|0.059
95859510|NCT00298558|191676506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.005||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.22|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.22|0.95
95859511|NCT00298558|191676506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.43|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.88|0.43|<0.01
95859512|NCT00298558|191676507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.12|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.84|0.12|<0.01
95763642|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|3.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of EIF4E Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker EIF4E Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.628|0.316|
95763643|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|6.053|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of HDAC2 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker HDAC2 Nucleus with PFS.||6.053|0.454|
95763644|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|36.628|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PCREB Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PCREB Nucleus with PFS.||36.628|0.455|
95763645|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.253|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.253|0.180|
95763646|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.576|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIF3746 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIF3746 Nucleus with PFS.||1.576|0.083|
95859513|NCT00298558|191676507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.02|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.74|0.02|<0.01
95859514|NCT00298558|191676507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.36|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.01|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.72|0.01|<0.01
95859515|NCT00298558|191676508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.97
95949193|NCT02291861|191870348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|6.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 24 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence."||6.052|1.211|0.014
95802413|NCT00433290|191577945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for direct analgesic effect. The null hypothesis was tested by testing a1=0 versus a1≠0.|Regression, Linear|||Path analysis was used to test null hypothesis that change in BPI average pain severity depends on improvement of BDI or HADS-A, versus improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of treatment and not dependent on improvement in depression or anxiety symptoms. Model:Change in BPI average pain score=a0+a1\*treatment group+a2\*change in BDI total+a3\*change in HADS-A+a4\*BL of BPI average pain+a5\*BL of BDI total+a6\*BL of HADS-A.||||0.002
95802414|NCT00433290|191577946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95802415|NCT00433290|191577947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
95949194|NCT02291861|191870348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|"A hierarchical (fixed-sequence) testing approach was used for the analysis of the primary and key secondary endpoints to maintain the experiment-wise type I error rate of 5%.~This key secondary endpoint compared the percentage of patients considered a treatment success at week 12 between the SD-809 12 mg/day group and the placebo group, and is the sixth (last) analysis in the fixed-sequence."||2.610|0.509|0.734
95802416|NCT00433290|191577948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.913
95949195|NCT02291861|191870349|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.6||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|2.0||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.00|-9.18|0.207
95949196|NCT02291861|191870349|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|2.59||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||2.59|-8.86|0.281
95949197|NCT02291861|191870349|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.3||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.79||5% level of significance (2-sided)|ANCOVA|The statistical model was an ANCOVA with treatment group and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate.|SD-809 - placebo|||6.79|-4.10|0.627
95949198|NCT02291861|191870350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|3.285||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.285|0.694|0.296
95729080|NCT00094302|191428298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.87||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were 295 subjects (175 in the Spironolactone group and 120 in the Placebo group) experiencing this endpoint. This endpoint did not undergo adjudication by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.87|1.18|<0.01
95949199|NCT02291861|191870350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.994||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.994|0.826|0.134
95949200|NCT02291861|191870350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|1.563||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||1.563|0.302|0.372
95949201|NCT02291861|191870351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.359||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.359|1.395|0.007
95949202|NCT02291861|191870351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.716||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||10.716|1.460|0.005
95949203|NCT02291861|191870351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.316||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The statistical test was a CMH test stratified by baseline use of DRAs.|SD-809/placebo The odds ratio was the Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio.|||3.316|0.383|0.829
95729081|NCT00094302|191428299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 61 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.35|0.66|0.75
95729082|NCT00094302|191428300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
95729083|NCT00094302|191428300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
95949204|NCT02291861|191870352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.44|-9.52||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-9.52|-33.44|<0.001
95949205|NCT02291861|191870352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|-7.92||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||-7.92|-32.57|0.001
95949206|NCT02291861|191870352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|3.34||5% level of significance (2-sided). Treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline use of DRAs as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. The model was fit using an unstructured covariance structure.|mixed model for repeated measures||SD-809 - placebo|||3.34|-20.15|0.160
95763647|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|4.901|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS209 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS209 Cytoplasm with PFS.||4.901|0.473|
95763648|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|3.699|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFS65 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFS65 Nucleus with PFS.||3.699|0.223|
95949207|NCT02580799|191870359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site B variability assessment||||=0.137
95993267|NCT03575104|191962701|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-1.25|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.276||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0.00391; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||-0.276|-2.230|= 0.0120
95763649|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|7.867|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PEIFT70 Nucleus \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PEIFT70 Nucleus with PFS.||7.867|0.432|
95763650|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|3.109|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of P GSK3B Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker P GSK3B Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.109|0.276|
95763651|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.033|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PKCb2 Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PKCb2 Cytoplasm with PFS.||3.033|0.320|
95949208|NCT02580799|191870359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site C variability assessment||||=0.454
95949209|NCT02580799|191870359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site D variability assessment||||=0.211
95949210|NCT02580799|191870359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site A: Site E variability assessment||||=0.294
95802417|NCT00433290|191577949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
95802418|NCT00433290|191577950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95949211|NCT02580799|191870361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site C variability assessment||||=0.054
95949212|NCT02580799|191870361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site D variability assessment||||=1.000
95949213|NCT02580799|191870361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site B: Site E variability assessment||||=0.968
95949214|NCT02580799|191870374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site D variability assessment||||=0.246
95949215|NCT02580799|191870374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site C: Site E variability assessment||||=0.032
95949216|NCT02580799|191870374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Site D: Site E variability assessment||||=0.007
95949217|NCT02580799|191870376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site A variability assessment||||=0.988
95949218|NCT02580799|191870376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site B variability assessment||||=0.008
95949219|NCT02580799|191870376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site C variability assessment||||=0.031
95949220|NCT02580799|191870376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site D variability assessment||||=0.554
95949221|NCT02580799|191870376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Abroad: Site E variability assessment||||=0.709
95949222|NCT02037568|191870385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
95949223|NCT02037568|191870386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95949224|NCT02037568|191870387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95949225|NCT02037568|191870388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95949226|NCT02037568|191870389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
95993268|NCT03575104|191962701|OTHER|The Type I error rate was controlled for the testing of multiple null hypotheses associated with the endpoint assessed at 1 and 3 months of treatment and the two dose levels studied. Each null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis that daridorexant improved the endpoint at the given dose and time point compared to placebo. The order of testing and the alpha level applied to each null hypothesis was based on the Bonferroni-based gatekeeping procedure (see SAP for details).|LS mean difference to placebo|-0.73|||=|0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.239||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score = baseline IDSIQ sleepiness domain score + age group (\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothesis testing result: threshold for significance p = 0; statistically significant = NO||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in IDSIQ sleepiness domain score to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||0.239|-1.706|= 0.1393
95993269|NCT03575104|191962702|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.93||||0.2506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.05|0.82|0.2506
95993270|NCT03575104|191962702|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 1 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.91|0.71|0.0004
95993271|NCT03575104|191962703|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.96||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in log transformed LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 10 mg vs placebo).||1.09|0.84|0.5037
95993272|NCT03575104|191962703|OTHER||LS mean difference to placebo|0.81||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||Mixed effects model for repeated measures: log(value/baseline) = log(baseline) + age group(\< 65; ≥ 65 years) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + log(baseline) x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-treatment analysis for change from baseline in LPS (min) to Month 3 (Daridorexant 25 mg vs placebo).||0.93|0.71|0.0021
95763652|NCT00451178|191497060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.758|||||Hazard ratio comparing PFS of participants with a high expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\] versus participants with a low expression of PTEN Cytoplasm \[(R-CHOP and Enzastaurin) and (R-CHOP) combined\].|The correlation of biomarker PTEN Cytoplasm with PFS.||2.758|0.242|
95949227|NCT02037568|191870390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95763653|NCT05287230|191497064|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.061
95763654|NCT02360215|191497076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Gray's test|||Null hypothesis: the addition of HA-WBRT as compared to WBRT will increase time to neurocognitive failure from 53.8% in the WBRT arm to 42.8% in the HA-WBRT arm at 6 months. Treating death as a competing risk and using a Gray's test with two-sided α=0.05 to test for statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times, it was calculated that 230 events over both arms would provide 90% statistical power.||0.96|0.59|0.029
95802419|NCT00433290|191577951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.260
95949228|NCT02037568|191870391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
95949229|NCT02037568|191870392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95949230|NCT02037568|191870393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
95949231|NCT04492475|191870394|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.87|0.880
95949232|NCT04492475|191870411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.4||||||||13.4|0.9|
95949233|NCT04492475|191870411|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|43.9||||||||43.9|0.0|
95949234|NCT04492475|191870412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.2|
95993273|NCT00110019|191962744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for overall survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.18|0.87|0.863
95993274|NCT00110019|191962745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test is used for progression-free survival comparison, stratified on AJCC stage, ECOG Performance status and prior therapy status|Arm II is the reference group|||1.03|0.78|0.092
95993275|NCT00110019|191962746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance: P\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
95993276|NCT04276207|191962748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.142|-0.896|0.1450
95993277|NCT04276207|191962749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.262||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.117|-0.406|0.0010
95993278|NCT04276207|191962750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||-2.49|-22.73|0.0173
95993279|NCT04276207|191962750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.81|-10.69|0.0243
95993280|NCT04276207|191962751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||||0.945
95993281|NCT04276207|191962751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||||0.888
95993282|NCT01256177|191962752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
95802420|NCT00433290|191577952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.489
95949235|NCT04492475|191870412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|54.2||||||||54.2|12.3|
95802421|NCT00433290|191577953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.131
95802422|NCT00433290|191577954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
95949236|NCT04492475|191870436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
95949237|NCT04492475|191870436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66||||||||0.66|0.21|
95949238|NCT04492475|191870437|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
95949239|NCT04492475|191870437|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.82||||||||0.82|0.24|
95949240|NCT04492475|191870438|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26||||||||1.26|0.93|
95949241|NCT04492475|191870438|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.72||||||||0.72|0.21|
95949242|NCT04492475|191870439|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||||||||1.19|0.90|
95949243|NCT04492475|191870440|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.45|0.59|
95949244|NCT04492475|191870440|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27||||||This analysis is for Black and African American participants.||1.27|0.66|
95949245|NCT04492475|191870440|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.21|0.86|
95949246|NCT04492475|191870440|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.19||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants||1.19|0.59|
95949247|NCT04492475|191870441|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.19|0.86|
95949248|NCT04492475|191870441|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.05|0.65|
95949249|NCT04492475|191870442|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.10|0.78|
95949250|NCT04492475|191870442|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.29|0.86|
95949251|NCT00849485|191870443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0||||||90.0|94.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|94.5|
95949252|NCT00849485|191870444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9||||||90.0|97.6|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|97.6|
95949253|NCT00849485|191870445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|98.1|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|98.1|
95949254|NCT02833948|191870469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact probability test was used to compare the percentages of patients with the primary end point between the treatment groups.||||||0.01
95949255|NCT02833948|191870473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95949256|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.09|60.57|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||60.57|-63.09|
95949257|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.24|36.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||36.97|-91.24|
95949258|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.19|119.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||119.62|-32.19|
95949259|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.38|129.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||129.35|-6.38|
95802423|NCT00433290|191577956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Alkaline Phosphatase Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95949260|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.51|191.23|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||191.23|60.51|
95949261|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|227.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||227.45|84.99|
95949262|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|106.41|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||106.41|-3.57|
95949263|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|202.72|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||202.72|82.76|
95949264|NCT02691702|191870506|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|174.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.11|234.69|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||234.69|115.11|
95949265|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.09|-9.43|||||Test (Melatonin 0.5 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||-9.43|-133.09|
95949266|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.24|51.97|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||51.97|-76.24|
95949267|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.81|164.62|||||Test (PF-05251749 100 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||164.62|12.81|
95949268|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.38|114.35|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||114.35|-21.38|
95949269|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.94|152.66|||||Test (PF-05251749 400 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||152.66|21.94|
95763655|NCT02360215|191497077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0586
95763656|NCT02360215|191497077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\>61 year vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0048
95763657|NCT02360215|191497077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Total Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763658|NCT02360215|191497078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2656
95763659|NCT02360215|191497078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0067
95949270|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.99|197.45|||||Test (PF-05251749 750 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||197.45|54.99|
95993283|NCT01256177|191962753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||4.13|1.56|0.001
95993284|NCT01256177|191962754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score, and bipolar strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.86|1.46|0.001
95763660|NCT02360215|191497078|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recall Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recall is reported here.||||<0.0001
95949271|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.51|151.21|||||Test (PF-05251749 50 mg PM) Reference (Placebo)|||151.21|33.51|
95949272|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.31|167.27|||||Test (PF-05251749 200 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||167.27|47.31|
95949273|NCT02691702|191870507|OTHER|MMRM|Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.91|203.3|||||Test (PF-05251749 500 mg AM) Reference (Placebo)|||203.30|77.91|
95949274|NCT03205488|191870508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3626|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 150 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3626
95949275|NCT03205488|191870508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3895|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact tested the proportion of participants who met tolerability between the Nilotinib 300 group to the Placebo group.||||||0.3895
95949276|NCT03205488|191870509|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p2, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p2||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 150 group and the Placebo group.||||||1.00
95993285|NCT01256177|191962755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 1 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.15|-2.79|0.029
95993286|NCT01256177|191962755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 2 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.69|-4.16|0.006
95993287|NCT01256177|191962755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 4 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.25|-5.00|0.001
95993813|NCT01763164|191963407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was obtained from the stratified unadjusted Cox model. P-value was obtained from the one-sided stratified log rank test.||1.33|0.75|0.499
95763661|NCT02360215|191497079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.0993
95763662|NCT02360215|191497079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763663|NCT02360215|191497079|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with HVLT-R Delayed Recognition Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline Delayed Recognition is reported here.||||<0.0001
95802424|NCT00433290|191577956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for AST Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
95802425|NCT00433290|191577956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for GGT Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
95802426|NCT00433290|191577957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
95802427|NCT00433290|191577958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
95949277|NCT03205488|191870509|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ2, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ2|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4977||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0451|5.489|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 150 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.489|0.0451|0.5689
95949278|NCT03205488|191870509|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : p1 = p3, where p represents the proportion of SAEs for each group. HA : p1 ≠ p3||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact test compared a proportion of participants who experienced any serious adverse event in the Nilotinib 300 group and the Placebo group.||||||0.61
95949279|NCT03205488|191870509|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : λ1 = λ3, where λ represents the rate of SAEs for each group. HA : λ1 ≠ λ3|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5206||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0472|5.7409|||Regression, Poisson|Rates of serious adverse event between the Nilotinib 300 group and the placebo were also compared using a Poisson regression model||||5.7409|0.0472|0.5940
95949280|NCT03205488|191870510|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 150 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|1.05||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.78||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.78|0.0001
95949281|NCT03205488|191870510|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypotheses of interest (H0: δ ≤ -9.8 (7 x 1.4) vs. HA: δ \> -9.8) where δ represents the change from baseline to 6 months using the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON in the Nilotinib 300 mg treatment group. The hypotheses of interest were evaluated based on an assessment of parameter estimates from a non-linear mixed effects model, adjusted for a participant's Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each time point.|Slope|0.93||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.89||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The key secondary objective is to conduct a futility analysis within each treatment group which examines the observed change in the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON within the two dose groups compared to previously reported changes from the Pagan et al (2016) study (NCT02281474).|||-0.89|0.0001
95949282|NCT03205488|191870510|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 1 month for the three treatment groups.||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #1 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 1 month.|In order to assess which group may be driving these findings, pairwise comparisons were also utilized (Nilotinib 150 vs PBO at 1 Month, Nilotinib 300 vs PBO at 1 month, Nilotinib 300 vs Nilotinib 150 at 1 month).|||0.031
95949283|NCT03205488|191870510|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. For this analysis, a separate LMM was constructed, modeling the change from final visit on study drug to the 30 and 60 day follow up visits, while adjusting for the MDS-UPDRS Part III ON scores at the final visit on study drug as well as the Levodopa Equivalent Daily Dose (LEDD) at each visit.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #2 is to establish the degree of symptomatic effect of Nilotinib as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between the final visit on study drug and 30 days off study drug.||||0.47
95949284|NCT03205488|191870510|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using the same LMM as in the key secondary analysis, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III ON score between baseline and 6 months.|Pairwise comparisons were also examined for trends (Active 150 vs PBO at 6 Months, Active 300 vs PBO at 6 months).|||0.077
95993814|NCT01763164|191963408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.015
95993288|NCT01256177|191962755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.05|-4.12|0.045
95993289|NCT01256177|191962755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-1.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score based on observed cases (OC)||-1.04|-5.39|0.004
95993290|NCT01256177|191962756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline HAM-D total value as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in HAM-D total score based on observed cases (OC)||-0.61|-3.88|0.007
95993291|NCT01256177|191962757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for overall BP illness as covariate, trt, bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score for overall Bipolar (BP) illness based on observed cases (OC)||-0.17|-0.84|0.003
95993292|NCT01256177|191962757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline CGI-BP-S score for depression as covariate, trt, Bipolar strata, visit, trt-visit interaction as fixed effects and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 assessment in the CGI-BP-S score of depression based on observed cases (OC)||-0.13|-0.81|0.007
95993293|NCT01256177|191962758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, baseline score and bipolar Strata.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||3.36|1.26|0.004
95727855|NCT04136626|191425181|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-4.5704||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1939|-0.9468||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups.||-0.9468|-8.1939|0.0137
95802428|NCT00433290|191577959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value for SBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.285
95802429|NCT00433290|191577959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for DBP Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.668
95802430|NCT00433290|191577960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change = Endpoint minus baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95993294|NCT01256177|191962759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference vs Placebo|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Baseline MADRS item 10 score as covariate, treatment, bipolar strata, visit, treatment-visit interaction as fixed effect and centre as random.||Change from Baseline to Week 8 in MADRS item 10 score for suicidal ideation based on observed cases (OC)||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
95993295|NCT01256177|191962760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio between treatment groups was modeled by logistic regression adjusted for centre, strata and baseline score.|Quetiapine XR/Placebo|||2.38|0.03|0.233
95993296|NCT00862251|191962798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least-square means|-14.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|-9.91|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-9.91|-19.61|<0.001
95993297|NCT00862251|191962799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in Least Square Means|-13.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.79|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-6.79|-20.44|<0.001
95993298|NCT00862251|191962800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change in least squares mean|-15.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|-8.81|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||-8.81|-22.65|<0.001
95993299|NCT00862251|191962801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Change in Least Squares Means|-3.81||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|0.17|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.17|-7.78|0.060
95993300|NCT00862251|191962802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.2|2.5|<0.001
95993301|NCT00862251|191962802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.6|1.3|<0.001
95993302|NCT00862251|191962803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|2.3|<0.001
95993303|NCT00862251|191962804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.6|1.9|<0.001
95993304|NCT00862251|191962805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-5.28|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.28|-11.38|<0.001
95993305|NCT00862251|191962805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-0.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.13|-5.13|0.039
95993306|NCT00862251|191962806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.88||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|2.77|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.77|-8.53|0.316
95993307|NCT00862251|191962806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.43|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.43|-6.75|0.356
95993308|NCT00862251|191962807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.47||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.45|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||3.45|-2.50|0.756
95993309|NCT00862251|191962807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.92|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.92|-2.96|0.675
95993310|NCT00862251|191962808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.93|-7.31|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-7.31|-15.93|<0.001
95763664|NCT02360215|191497080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.5988
95763665|NCT02360215|191497080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0005
95763666|NCT02360215|191497080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part A (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part A is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763667|NCT02360215|191497081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9226|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9226
95763668|NCT02360215|191497081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0024|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0024
95763669|NCT02360215|191497081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with TMT Part B (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline TMT Part B is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763670|NCT02360215|191497082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline COWA is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763671|NCT02360215|191497082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9749
95993311|NCT00862251|191962808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.35|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||0.35|-6.71|0.078
95763672|NCT02360215|191497082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with COWA (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here. is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763673|NCT02360215|191497083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2552|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.2552
95802431|NCT00433290|191577961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95993312|NCT00862251|191962809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.23|-8.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-8.10|-20.23|<0.001
95993313|NCT00862251|191962809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Sqares Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|2.41|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.41|-7.53|0.313
95993314|NCT00862251|191962810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-4.23|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.23|-12.10|<0.001
95993315|NCT00862251|191962810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|1.4|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.40|-5.05|0.266
95993316|NCT00862251|191962811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-5.75|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-5.75|-17.16|<0.001
95763674|NCT02360215|191497083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763675|NCT02360215|191497083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with the neurocognitive composite score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline composite score is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763676|NCT02360215|191497084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.57
95763677|NCT02360215|191497084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Symptom Severity score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline symptom severity is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763678|NCT02360215|191497084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A two-sample t-test with a 2-sided type I error of 0.05 provides \>90% statistical power to detect a medium effect size of 0.5 for a comparison of the change from baseline to 6 months from the start of treatment. The comparison at six months was tested within a mixed effects model with covariates age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection, baseline score, treatment arm, and time was used.||||0.083
95763679|NCT02360215|191497085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.9118
95763680|NCT02360215|191497085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Interference Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline interference score is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763681|NCT02360215|191497086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1964|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.1964
95802432|NCT00724503|191577987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is rate of progression (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is PFS rate for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||1.12|0.77|0.551
95949285|NCT03205488|191870510|EQUIVALENCE|H0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3, where β represents the slope for each group. HA : at least one β i ≠ β j. Using a similar LMM as in the key secondary analysis, except simplified to only include baseline, month 3 and month 6, a two degree of freedom test was used to test for any differences in the slopes from baseline to 6 months for the three treatment groups.||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Additional secondary objective #3 is to assess the impact of Nilotinib on the progression of PD disability as measured by the change in the MDS\_UPDRS Part III OFF score between baseline and 6 months.||||0.17
95949286|NCT03652610|191870511|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A is \> 0.5|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted human serum bactericidal assay (hSBA) Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.20|0.64|
95949287|NCT03652610|191870512|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||1.68|0.84|
95993317|NCT00862251|191962811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.54|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||2.54|-6.81|0.371
95993318|NCT00862251|191962812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.56|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.56|-11.46|<0.001
95993319|NCT00862251|191962812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-0.12|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-0.12|-5.78|0.041
95949288|NCT03652610|191870512|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||1.58|0.96|
95949289|NCT03652610|191870512|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.58|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To compare the immunogenicity of the investigational MenACWY liquid vaccine with approximately 30% Men A FS (GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq Group) and the currently licensed MenACWY vaccine (ACWY Group), as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||1.58|0.90|
95949290|NCT03652610|191870514|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.52|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||1.52|-9.30|
95949291|NCT03652610|191870514|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.43|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||8.43|-4.70|
95949292|NCT03652610|191870514|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|11.01|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||11.01|-1.97|
95949293|NCT03652610|191870514|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||11.57|-1.11|
95729084|NCT00094302|191428301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.87
95949294|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.49|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.49|-6.47|
95949295|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|5.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.83|-6.99|
95949296|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|0.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.47|-12.33|
95729085|NCT00094302|191428301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.16
95949297|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.76|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||2.76|-8.30|
95949298|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|1.21|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||1.21|-8.65|
95949299|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|5.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.33|-6.12|
95949300|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|6.02|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||6.02|-5.49|
95993320|NCT00862251|191962813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|4.06|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||4.06|-0.93|0.218
95993321|NCT00862251|191962813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.83|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.83|-2.27|0.832
95993322|NCT00862251|191962814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-4.47|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||-4.47|-13.36|<0.001
95993323|NCT00862251|191962814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.13|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||1.13|-6.17|0.175
95993324|NCT00862251|191962815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|14.32|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||14.32|-19.88|0.749
95993325|NCT00862251|191962815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.69||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|18.1|||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|||||18.10|-8.73|0.494
95993326|NCT00624520|191962816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|891.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.18
95993327|NCT00624520|191962817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95993328|NCT00624520|191962818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95993329|NCT00624520|191962819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95949301|NCT03652610|191870515|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|6.62|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.62|-4.33|
95949302|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|1.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||1.37|-7.24|
95949303|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||5.16|-7.34|
95727856|NCT04136626|191425182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3953||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0543|10.8448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||10.8448|-2.0543|0.1796
95949304|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||0.50|-12.35|
95727857|NCT04136626|191425182|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|6.7962||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|13.2785||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment quality of life (Q-LES-Q-SF percentage scores) between the treatment groups.||13.2785|0.3140|0.0400
95727858|NCT00982410|191425187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2255|-0.0722|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NRS-1 pain level. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|EUC (Arm 2) was referent. Estimation parameter = value for Cognitive Behavior Treatment group minus value for Educational Support group.|Ho: There was no difference in average pain level across the follow-up period, between CBT group and Educational support group.||-0.07220|-1.2255|<0.05
95949305|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|3.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||3.06|-8.15|
95949306|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|0.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||0.96|-8.87|
95949307|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.65|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.65|-5.52|
95949308|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.57|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||5.57|-5.92|
95993330|NCT00624520|191962820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.048
95993331|NCT00624520|191962821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95993332|NCT00624520|191962822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95993333|NCT00624520|191962823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95993334|NCT00624520|191962824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
95993335|NCT00624520|191962825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value refers to a repeated measures within-group comparison in the CBSM group using ANCOVA with baseline DP elevation as covariate from baseline to 3 months post.|ANCOVA||Range of Cohen's d for small effect is 0.20 - 0.50|||||0.025
95993336|NCT00624520|191962826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical Analysis presented for comparison groups Cognitive Behavioral Stress Management vs. Patient Education at 6 months post|ANOVA|||"Initial sample size calculation, based on previous published data of effects sizes of anger stress management on heart rate and blood pressure responses in a veteran population, indicated a study population of 138 patients should detect a reduction in Double Product response to mental stress following psychological intervention, with over 90% power, assuming 20% drop-out rate."||||0.81
95993337|NCT00331006|191962855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1875||||0.043|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.053|||the a priori p-value was 0.05 for statistical significance|Exact Binomial|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants in which the inhibitor level falls to less than 5 BU/mL between weeks 6 to 22 and remains below 5 BU/mL at 5-7 days following re-challenge with factor VIII is no more than 0.05|||.053|0.043
95993338|NCT00331006|191962856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.524|||Exact Binomial|||No hypothesis about the value of this proportion was specified in the study design||0.524|0.073|
95993339|NCT01950819|191962864|NON_INFERIORITY|p vale for non inferiority margin is 10 %|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.3|||Logistic Regression Model|||calculated at month 12||7.3|-1.4|0.001
95993340|NCT00820573|191962894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"A general unstructured variance-covariance matrix (ANOVA) was applied for measurements at different periods. Between-group comparisons after 6 wks of treatment were assessed using the ANOVA model at alpha=0.05 (two-sided).~16 subjects provide \~90% power to detect difference in EGP of 0.28 mg/kg.min (95% CI = 0.17 mg/kg.min)."||||<0.05
95763682|NCT02360215|191497086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline cognitive factor score is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763683|NCT02360215|191497086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Cognitive Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Prior radiotherapy (yes vs. no) is reported here.||||0.0032
95763684|NCT02360215|191497087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Treatment Arm (WBRT+Memantine vs. HA-WBRT Memantine) is reported here.||||0.8877
95763685|NCT02360215|191497087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Baseline neurologic factor is reported here.||||<0.0001
95763686|NCT02360215|191497087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A mixed effects model was run with MDASI-BT Neurologic Factor Score (baseline, 2, 4, 6, and 12 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, RPA class, prior radiosurgery, prior surgical resection were the covariates considered in each model along with interaction terms treatment\*time, time\*time, time\*time\*time and remained if p\<0.05. Baseline score, treatment arm, and time were forced into the model. Age (\> 61 years vs. \<= 61 years) is reported here.||||0.0078
95949309|NCT03652610|191870516|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.90|-4.89|
95949310|NCT01742832|191870522|OTHER|Linear repeated measures regression models were constructed to assess trends over time between groups where the dependent variable was outcome measure (MADRS score) and independent variables included visit, treatment group, visit by treatment group interaction, and any baseline variables that were significant between groups.||||||0.342||||||P-value for linear regression assessing outcome measure (MADRS score) and treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
95949311|NCT04867382|191870523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.63
95949312|NCT04867382|191870524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95993341|NCT00820573|191962895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||multivariate analysis was performed to compare results amongst all four groups||||<0.05
95763687|NCT02360215|191497088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95949313|NCT04867382|191870525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
95763688|NCT02360215|191497090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95763689|NCT02360215|191497091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95949314|NCT04867382|191870526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|0.86|.12
95949315|NCT04821271|191870527|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.91|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.91
95949316|NCT04821271|191870528|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.47|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.47
95993342|NCT00820573|191962896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA||||0.05
95993343|NCT00820573|191962897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95993344|NCT01360645|191962911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-1.54|-4.70|0.0001
95993345|NCT01360645|191962912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-1.54|-4.87|0.0002
95993346|NCT01360645|191962913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.86|0.0372
95802433|NCT00724503|191577988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 450 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 12.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 530. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||< 0.05
95859516|NCT00298558|191676508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.22|-0.25|0.86
95859517|NCT00298558|191676508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.008||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.24|-0.23|0.93
95727859|NCT00982410|191425188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline WHY MPI General Activity score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Education Support group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT group minus value for Educational Support group.|||0.466|0.034|<0.05
95763690|NCT02360215|191497092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95763691|NCT02360215|191497093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95859518|NCT00298558|191676509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.23|-0.19|0.78
95859519|NCT00298558|191676509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.21|-0.21|0.96
95859520|NCT00298558|191676509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.26|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The blom transformation was used to reduce skewness in the measures. The design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model.|Blom transformed outcome was used and the design factors and baseline covariates were controlled in the model to get the adjusted means. After that, the effect size (defined in the Additional details) was calculated using the adjusted means and SD.|Effect size was defined as training improvement from baseline to year 10 minus control improvement from baseline to year 10 divided by the intrasubject standard deviation (SD) of the composite score. Positive effect sizes indicate improvement.||0.16|-0.26|0.56
95993347|NCT01360645|191962914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||||-0.03|-0.88|0.0349
95993348|NCT01360645|191962915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.25|0.0080
95993815|NCT01763164|191963408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmed ORR + Unconfirmed ORR: The p-value (2-sided) was computed from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test statistic.||||0.002
95727860|NCT00982410|191425189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days of alcohol use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.||||||<0.01
95763692|NCT02360215|191497094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95763693|NCT02360215|191497095|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95763694|NCT02360215|191497096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.47||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantine|||1.47|0.98|0.076
95763695|NCT02360215|191497097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.43||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = WBRT + Memantin|||1.43|0.91|0.242
95763696|NCT02360215|191497098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||Two-sided p-value = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95763697|NCT04467840|191497116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.86||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|12.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Opaganib - Placebo|||12.65|-4.93|0.391
95802434|NCT01186419|191577989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
95763698|NCT04467840|191497117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|12.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.60|-4.78|0.380
95763699|NCT04467840|191497118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.45|0.91|0.231
95763700|NCT04467840|191497119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.87|0.472
95763701|NCT04467840|191497120|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.378||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Log Rank|||||1.378|0.846|0.521
95763702|NCT04467840|191497121|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.51||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|6.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.18|-9.19|0.701
95763703|NCT04467840|191497122|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.99|0.043
95763704|NCT04467840|191497123|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05, only if the primary endpoint was significant. This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because the primary endpoint was not met.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|18.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.65|-2.05|0.118
95763705|NCT04467840|191497127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.28||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|23.5||unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.50|1.06|0.033
95763706|NCT04467840|191497128|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.75||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.17|-18.67|0.500
95802435|NCT00727064|191577992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
95993349|NCT01360645|191962915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.54|-2.91|0.0045
95763707|NCT04467840|191497129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.75||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.60|1.90|0.023
95763708|NCT04467840|191497130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.12||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|-18.07|0.561
95763709|NCT04467840|191497131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.07|0.01
95763710|NCT04467840|191497132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.58|0.545
95763711|NCT04467840|191497133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.276||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.732|||Log Rank|||||1.732|0.940|0.100
95763712|NCT04467840|191497135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.57|-18.44|0.012
95763713|NCT04467840|191497136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-6.46|0.304
95763714|NCT04467840|191497137|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.22||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|-1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-1.80|-16.63|0.019
95763715|NCT04467840|191497138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.37||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|20.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.39|-5.66|0.273
95763716|NCT04653454|191497157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
95763717|NCT04653454|191497157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95763718|NCT04653454|191497158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<54 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
95763719|NCT04653454|191497158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Hypoglycemic Episodes \<70 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95763720|NCT04653454|191497160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>180 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.076
95763721|NCT04653454|191497160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Hyperglycemic Episodes \>250 mg/dL|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
95763722|NCT04653454|191497161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Creatinine|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95763723|NCT04653454|191497161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||139GFR|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0002
95763724|NCT04653454|191497161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Bicarbonate|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.22
95763725|NCT04653454|191497161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Hemoglobin|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.48
95763726|NCT04653454|191497161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||MAP|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.77
95763727|NCT04653454|191497161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516||||||SpO2|Spearman Correlation coefficients|||||||0.0516
95763728|NCT03503669|191497207|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95763729|NCT03503669|191497208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95763730|NCT03503669|191497209|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95763731|NCT03503669|191497210|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95763732|NCT03503669|191497211|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95802436|NCT00727064|191577993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||<0.001
95802437|NCT00727064|191577994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.004
95802438|NCT00727064|191577995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.018
95949317|NCT04821271|191870529|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.14|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.14
95949318|NCT04821271|191870530|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.12|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.12
95949319|NCT04821271|191870531|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.69|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.69
95949320|NCT04821271|191870532|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.73|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.73
95949321|NCT04821271|191870533|OTHER|Treatment comparison||||||0.28|||||||T-test of estimated marginal means|||The null hypothesis was that there would not be treatment differences in mean MADRS total score. Linear mixed model regression using fixed effects of time, treatment, and a time-by-treatment allowed treatment effect estimates to vary by time. The model also included period specific baseline scores, average per person baseline scores (to avoid cross level bias), and period (first or second). All continuous covariates were mean centered. Alpha level of 0.05, and hypothesis was two-sided.||||0.28
95949322|NCT05640167|191870557|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 17||||||0.015
95949323|NCT05640167|191870558|OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Positive p = 0.114 Health-directed p = 0.028 Skill and Technique p = 0.013 Constructive attitudes p = 0.003 Self-monitoring \& insight p = 0.001 Health service navigation p = 0.077 Social Integration p = 0.126 Emotional well-being p = 0.093|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.114
95727861|NCT00982410|191425190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline #days illicit drug use. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.||||||>0.05
95949324|NCT05640167|191870559|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95949325|NCT05640167|191870560|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95949326|NCT05640167|191870561|OTHER|||||||0.309|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.309
95949327|NCT05640167|191870562|OTHER|||||||0.827|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.827
95949328|NCT01915914|191870592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.4993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1113|44.325|||Log Rank|||||44.3250|4.1113|<0.0001
95949329|NCT01915914|191870593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4258|10.1105|||Log Rank|||||10.1105|2.4258|<0.0001
95949330|NCT01915914|191870594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95949331|NCT01915914|191870595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95949332|NCT01915914|191870597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95949333|NCT01915914|191870598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95949334|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Week 20, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7010
95949335|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||Week 20, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
95949336|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Week 20, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0810
95949337|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0||||Week 32, CA|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2799
95949338|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1375||95.0||||Week 32, ET/L|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1375
95949339|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Week 32, AP|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1100
95949340|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394||95.0||||Week 20, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0394
95949341|NCT01915914|191870603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2237||95.0||||Week 32, Total VAS Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
95949342|NCT02144285|191870657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Bioavailability|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.6||||||||0.60|0.34|
95949343|NCT01836445|191870661|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.76|0.20
95949344|NCT01836445|191870662|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.95||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|0.80|0.60
95949345|NCT01836445|191870663|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence Ratio|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.70|0.04
95949346|NCT01836445|191870665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||Z-test|||||0.95|0.38|0.01
95949347|NCT01836445|191870666|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.150
95949348|NCT01836445|191870667|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.374|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.374
95993816|NCT01763164|191963421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.96|
95727862|NCT00982410|191425191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.66|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain tolerance. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance.|Educational Support group = referent. Estimation parameter = CBT group minus EUC group, adjusted for BL pain tolerance. Cold tolerance distribution had ceiling and floor effects; and, \~20% of participants refused cold tolerance task in follow-up.|||14.32|-5.00|>0.05
95949349|NCT01836445|191870668|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.919|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.919
95763733|NCT01811472|191497216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|1.09|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 5mg/10mg was different from placebo.||1.09|-4.46|0.3128
95763734|NCT01811472|191497216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was largely driven by the maximum true response assumed in the candidate response shapes, which is a difference of -5.2% for pradigastat vs placebo for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|-0.53|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|Degrees of freedom are adjusted using the Kenward-Roger method.||Hypothesis was tested at the 1-sided 5% significance level to assess if LCQ908 10mg/20mg was different from placebo.||-0.53|-5.25|0.0457
95763735|NCT04882241|191497229|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.39528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.70|0.50|0.39528
95763736|NCT04882241|191497230|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.33244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||||12.0|-7.7|0.33244
95949350|NCT01836445|191870668|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.493|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norms items||||0.493
95763737|NCT04882241|191497231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.52903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.22||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.22|0.48|0.52903
95763738|NCT04882241|191497236|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.34632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.05|0.34|0.34632
95763739|NCT02543944|191497239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.0944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|-0.72|0.77
95763740|NCT02543944|191497240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
95763741|NCT02543944|191497241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
95949351|NCT01836445|191870668|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.002
95949352|NCT01836445|191870669|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.067
95949353|NCT01836445|191870669|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.135|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.135
95949354|NCT01836445|191870669|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.025
95949355|NCT01836445|191870670|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.138|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.138
95949356|NCT01836445|191870671|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.173|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.173
95949357|NCT01836445|191870672|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.567|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.567
95949358|NCT01836445|191870673|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.861|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for motivation items||||0.861
95949359|NCT01836445|191870673|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.628|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for social norms items||||0.628
95949360|NCT01836445|191870673|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.151|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for behavioral skills items||||0.151
95949361|NCT01836445|191870674|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.001
95763742|NCT02543944|191497242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95763743|NCT02719184|191497243|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.45|-5.32|0.0202
95763744|NCT02719184|191497243|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.19|-7.36|0.0003
95763745|NCT02719184|191497243|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.50|-7.44|0.0033
95802439|NCT00727064|191577996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.081
95949362|NCT01836445|191870674|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.067|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.067
95949363|NCT01836445|191870674|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.637|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.637
95949364|NCT01836445|191870675|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.862|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.862
95949365|NCT01836445|191870676|OTHER|Generalized Linear Mixed Model statistical test used||||||0.762|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.762
95949366|NCT01836445|191870677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Motivation items||||0.043
95949367|NCT01836445|191870677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Social Norm items||||0.617
95993350|NCT01360645|191962915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.30|-3.96|0.0001
95993351|NCT01360645|191962915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.18|-4.01|0.0004
95993352|NCT01360645|191962915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-1.70|-4.68|0.0000
95993353|NCT01360645|191962916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.34|-2.28|0.0086
95993354|NCT01360645|191962916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.30|-2.74|0.0149
95993355|NCT01360645|191962916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-1.05|-3.78|0.0006
95993356|NCT01360645|191962916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-1.04|-4.00|0.0009
95763746|NCT02719184|191497243|OTHER|The analysis was based on a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach with diagnosis group-by-visit and baseline ALD value-by-visit terms, and unstructured covariance matrix structure for repeated measurements within subject.|Adjusted mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-0.47|-11.26|0.0334
95993357|NCT01360645|191962916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-3.28|-4.84|0.0000
95993358|NCT01360645|191962917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.08|-0.38|0.0022
95993359|NCT01360645|191962917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.05|-0.38|0.0115
95993360|NCT01360645|191962917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.03|-0.41|0.0255
95993361|NCT01360645|191962917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.16|-0.57|0.0005
95993362|NCT01360645|191962917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
95993363|NCT01360645|191962917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.17|-0.60|0.0005
95993364|NCT01360645|191962918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.10|-0.40|0.0010
95993365|NCT01360645|191962918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.02|-0.37|0.0290
95993366|NCT01360645|191962918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.01|-0.40|0.0422
95993367|NCT01360645|191962918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.18|-0.61|0.0003
95993368|NCT01360645|191962918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.20|-0.64|0.0002
95993369|NCT01360645|191962918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
95993370|NCT01360645|191962919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.02|-0.25|0.0229
95763747|NCT02719184|191497244|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|29.7|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD I group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||29.7|-27.2|0.9306
95763748|NCT02719184|191497244|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|10.1|||Random slope and intercept model|The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD II group - value from Healthy subjects group.||||10.1|-48.5|0.1983
95802440|NCT00727064|191577997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|PM compared to EM using least squares geometric means. Analysis of variance with phenotype and sequence as factors.||||||0.427
95949368|NCT01836445|191870677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Behavioral Skills items||||0.570
95949369|NCT01836445|191870678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Relationship Maintenance items||||0.036
95949370|NCT01836445|191870678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Condom Use items||||0.837
95949371|NCT01836445|191870678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis for HIV Testing items||||0.953
95949372|NCT01836445|191870679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.719
95949373|NCT03365622|191870711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.379||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.242|20.854|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the total opioid dose administered intraoperatively and postoperatively, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||20.854|-8.242|0.3938
95949374|NCT03365622|191870712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.666|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.666|-0.451|0.7051
95949375|NCT03365622|191870713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.901|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op average surgical pain, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.901|-0.349|0.3852
95949376|NCT03365622|191870714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.816||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.088|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||6.088|-5.02|0.8498
95949377|NCT03365622|191870715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.007||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.579|4.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op inspiratory capacity percentage, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||4.28|-7.579|0.5839
95950760|NCT02607956|191873512|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-7.9|1.0|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.0|-7.9|
95950761|NCT02607956|191873512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.12
95950762|NCT02607956|191873513|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.2|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.2|-7.9|
95950763|NCT02607956|191873513|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.41
95993371|NCT01360645|191962919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.00|-0.28|0.0459
95993372|NCT01360645|191962919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.0097
95993373|NCT01360645|191962919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.08|-0.42|0.0038
95993374|NCT01360645|191962919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.18|-0.54|0.0001
95993375|NCT01360645|191962919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14.||-0.15|-0.52|0.0004
95763749|NCT02719184|191497244|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-1.9|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD GOLD III group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-1.9|-65.4|0.0381
95763750|NCT02719184|191497244|OTHER|A random slope and intercept model with fixed categorical effects of diagnosis group, fixed continuous effects of time, and including diagnosis group-by-time interaction was applied. Random effect was included for subject specific intercept and time. Within-subject errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Unadjusted mean difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.3||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.3|-2.3|||Random slope and intercept model||The mean difference was calculated as value from COPD and A1AT group - value from Healthy subjects group.|||-2.3|-121.3|0.0419
95763751|NCT02955212|191497249|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|30.5|<0.001
95763752|NCT02955212|191497250|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.36|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.36|-1.86|<0.001
95993376|NCT01360645|191962920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.04|-0.27|0.0109
95993377|NCT01360645|191962920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.03|-0.25|0.1286
95993378|NCT01360645|191962920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.00|-0.32|0.0521
95993379|NCT01360645|191962920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||-0.06|-0.42|0.0084
95993380|NCT01360645|191962920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.16|-0.54|0.0003
95993381|NCT01360645|191962920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.15|-0.53|0.0006
95993382|NCT01360645|191962921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.32|-2.82|0.0139
95993383|NCT01360645|191962921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||-0.04|-3.01|0.0436
95993384|NCT01360645|191962921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.55|-2.75|0.1903
95993385|NCT01360645|191962921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.26|-3.21|0.0951
95993386|NCT01360645|191962921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.09|-3.59|0.0626
95993387|NCT01360645|191962921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||-0.06|-3.87|0.0435
95949378|NCT03365622|191870716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.078|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 1-2 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.078|-0.280|0.2479
95949379|NCT03365622|191870717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|1.145|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op dynamic pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.145|-0.177|0.1502
95949380|NCT03365622|191870718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.955|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and the 20-24 hours post-op surgical pain score, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.955|-0.278|0.2797
95949381|NCT03365622|191870719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.739||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.792|1.125|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to first narcotic use, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.125|-1.792|0.6527
95949382|NCT03365622|191870720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.||A logistic regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and incidence of nausea, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||1.000|0.217|0.0499
95993388|NCT01360645|191962922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 9||-0.47|-2.95|0.0069
95859521|NCT05307692|191676531|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.41|0.39|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.39|-3.41|0.308
95949383|NCT03365622|191870721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.165||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.321|60.304|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to discharge from PACU, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||60.304|-11.321|0.179
95949384|NCT03365622|191870722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.773|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, type of surgery and TAP block.|"The estimate reflects the adjusted difference in mean outcome between arms/groups, with the placebo IV + oral acetaminophen serving as the reference group."|A multiple linear regression model was used to examine the association between treatment assignment and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), type of surgery (laparoscopic donor nephrectomy or laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cancer), and whether the patient received a TAP block during surgery.||0.773|-0.226|0.2811
95949385|NCT04278833|191870733|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
95949386|NCT04278833|191870733|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||<0.001
95949387|NCT04278833|191870733|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||<0.001
95949388|NCT04278833|191870734|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.280
95949389|NCT04278833|191870734|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.070
95949390|NCT04278833|191870734|OTHER|||||||0.851||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.851
95949391|NCT04278833|191870735|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||<0.001
95993389|NCT01360645|191962922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 10||0.35|-2.68|0.1322
95993390|NCT01360645|191962922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 11||0.98|-2.41|0.4055
95949392|NCT04278833|191870735|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.021
95949393|NCT04278833|191870735|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.044
95949394|NCT04278833|191870736|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.226
95949395|NCT04278833|191870736|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.071
95949396|NCT04278833|191870736|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.382
95949397|NCT04278833|191870737|OTHER|||||||0.152||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at week 2||||0.152
95949398|NCT04278833|191870737|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 3.||||0.261
95949399|NCT04278833|191870737|OTHER|||||||0.437||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|paired t-tests|||Analysis of change at month 6.||||0.437
95949400|NCT04278833|191870738|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.128
95949401|NCT04278833|191870738|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95949402|NCT04278833|191870739|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
95949403|NCT04278833|191870739|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95949404|NCT05200416|191870740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|7.83|<0.001
95949405|NCT05200416|191870741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.63|-6.69|0.001
95949406|NCT02485925|191870742|OTHER||Proportion of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|86.4|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|86.4|73.9|
95859522|NCT05307692|191676532|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.29|-3.33|0.282
95949407|NCT02485925|191870743|OTHER||Proportion of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||||||95% confidence interval is based on Clopper-Pearson confidence interval|100.0|97.2|
95949408|NCT01250717|191870762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12||||||||0.12|0|
95949409|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.101
95949410|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.168|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.168
95949411|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.930
95949412|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.487|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.487
95949413|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.914|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.914
95949414|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.977
95949415|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.109
95949416|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.291
95949417|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.984
95949418|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.373
95949419|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.623|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.623
95949420|NCT00070707|191870768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.978
95949421|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.023
95949422|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.693
95949423|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.483
95949424|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.088
95949425|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.210
95949426|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.178
95949427|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.055
95949428|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.915
95949429|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.471
95949430|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.110
95949431|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.305
95949432|NCT00070707|191870769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.461
95949433|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.068
95949434|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.116
95949435|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.749
95949436|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.289|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.289
95949437|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.982|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.982
95949438|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.941|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.941
95949439|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.128
95949440|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.484
95949441|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.673
95949442|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.250
95763753|NCT02955212|191497251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and Baseline value and the stratification factor country as the covariates.|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.33|-0.55|<0.001
95859523|NCT05475483|191676551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-2.51|= 0.045
95859524|NCT05475483|191676552|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.37|0.91|= 0.078
95859525|NCT05475483|191676553|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.80|0.143
95859526|NCT05475483|191676554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-3.40|= 0.032
95859527|NCT00684060|191676555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|0.95||Threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||Comparison of change in global LVEF in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||.95|-7.05|<0.05
95859528|NCT00684060|191676556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.05||95.0|0.08|1.17|||Fisher Exact|||comparison of the proportion of events in patients in the active group to those in patients in the control group||1.17|0.08|<0.05
95859529|NCT00684060|191676557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||6.8|-9.3|<0.05
95859530|NCT00684060|191676558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group.||10.9|-9.5|<0.05
95859531|NCT00684060|191676559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||9.2|-4.1|<0.05
95859532|NCT00684060|191676560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|<|0.05||95.0|-9.9|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in the active group minus change in the control group.||6.9|-9.9|<0.05
95727863|NCT00982410|191425192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.28|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. Time interval and therapy session block were utilized to model the variance. EUC group was referent.|Adjusted for baseline CPSS PSE score. EUC group was referent. Mean difference = value for CBT minus value for Educational Support group.|||16.63|3.93|<0.005
95727864|NCT02180061|191425215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||One-sided p-value. The ORR was deemed clinically meaningful if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval exceeded 10% (p\<0.0250).|Exact Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0216
95727865|NCT01469364|191425218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2030
95727866|NCT01469364|191425219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.2527
95727867|NCT01469364|191425224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Absolute Difference|-1.52||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 PCS||||0.34
95727868|NCT01469364|191425224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.78||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measured t-test||P-Value for the SF-36 MCS||||0.18
95727869|NCT01469364|191425225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|1.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 PCS||||0.09
95727870|NCT01469364|191425225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|-1.24||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SF-36 MCS||||0.31
95727871|NCT01469364|191425226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ measure||||0.56
95727872|NCT01469364|191425227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Absolute Difference|0.15||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired Measure t-test||P-Value for SGRQ Measure||||0.68
95727873|NCT01469364|191425228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test 2 sided.||||||0.7454
95727874|NCT01469364|191425229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was completed.||||||0.9638
95727875|NCT01590433|191425248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95727876|NCT02058628|191425249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Data is represented as per CTR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|DUAC versus SKINOREN with a nominal alpha level of 5%, without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0004
95727877|NCT04527471|191425266|OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95727878|NCT01464827|191425273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.61||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Group G|"The primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison of the percentage of treatment-naïve participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs (at the 150 mg ABT-450 dose) and ribavirin for 8 weeks (Group A) versus 12 weeks (Group G).~Logistic regression with baseline log10 HCV RNA level, treatment group, Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), and geographic region (US or non-US) as predictors."||2.61|0.09|0.406
95727879|NCT01464827|191425274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.02||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 12 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), and ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.02|0.08|0.266
95727880|NCT01464827|191425274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.4||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Group A : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 8 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||2.40|0.18|0.525
95859533|NCT00684060|191676561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in infarct zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||1.3|-2.8|<0.05
95859534|NCT00684060|191676562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|<|0.05||95.0|-6.0|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in border zone wall motion in the active group minus change in global LVEF in the control group. 80 percent power based on BOOST results||0.8|-6.0|<0.05
95859535|NCT02641561|191676582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95859536|NCT02923921|191676583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.265|||Log Rank|||The primary test to compare overall survival between treatment arms was the two-sided log-rank test, stratified by region and prior therapy. The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) - (Pegilodecakin + FOLFOX Arm / FOLFOX Arm) and the corresponding 95% CI was computed using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors were based on the data recorded in interactive voice response system (IVRS).||1.265|0.863|0.6565
95859537|NCT02923921|191676584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.19|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||1.190|0.808|0.8144
95859538|NCT02923921|191676585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|0.4|0.7044
95859539|NCT02923921|191676586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||P-value is calculated by Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata Prior Therapy - interactive voice response system (IVRS), Geographic Region - IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8|0.9|0.1463
95859540|NCT02923921|191676587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.741|||Log Rank|||The estimate of hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by region and prior therapy.||2.741|0.370|0.9952
95859541|NCT02923921|191676588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|-11.6|0.2298
95859542|NCT00479687|191676657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||There was a single primary variable and the a-prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effects repeated measure model with baseline VAS, treatment, and week as fixed effects and subject nested within site as a random effect.||||||0.0380
95859543|NCT02260180|191676658|SUPERIORITY|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95859544|NCT02260180|191676658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|2-tail alpha was set to 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.0001
95859545|NCT02260180|191676659|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||||<0.0001
95859546|NCT02260180|191676659|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were conducted.|ANCOVA|Baseline PLA was the covariate. Comparisons were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||The primary efficacy analysis of mean change from baseline to Visit 8 PLA was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline PLA as the covariate. Comparisons between vehicle and each A-101 group were performed within the model using least-squares means and the common error term.||||<0.0001
95949443|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.450
95949444|NCT00070707|191870770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.774|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.774
95949445|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.078
95949446|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.492
95949447|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.945
95949448|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.359
95949449|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.802
95949450|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.716
95949451|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.158
95949452|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.281|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.281
95949453|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.901
95949454|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.433|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.433
95949455|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.730
95949456|NCT00070707|191870771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.819|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.819
95949457|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.629
95949458|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.038
95949459|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.182
95949460|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.149
95949461|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.035
95949462|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.056
95949463|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.711|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.711
95949464|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.098|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.098
95949465|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.356
95949466|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.529
95949467|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.617
95949468|NCT00070707|191870772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.422
95949469|NCT00070707|191870773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline||||||0.532|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
95763754|NCT02955212|191497252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|7.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and stratification factor of country as fixed effects and Baseline value as covariate|LS Mean Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.01|4.13|<0.001
95949470|NCT00070707|191870773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 15||||||0.739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
95949471|NCT00070707|191870773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Day 29||||||0.227|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.227
95949472|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.104
95949473|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.022
95993391|NCT01360645|191962922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 12||0.55|-3.08|0.1715
95763755|NCT02955212|191497253|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|23.4|<0.001
95949474|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.012
95949475|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
95949476|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.033
95949477|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.047
95949478|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.269
95949479|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.308|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.308
95949480|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.050
95949481|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.014
95949482|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.100
95949483|NCT00070707|191870774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.139
95949484|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.136
95949485|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.126|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.126
95949486|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.107|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.107
95949487|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.006
95949488|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.030
95949489|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.037
95949490|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.146
95949491|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.426
95949492|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.259
95949493|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.026
95949494|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.022
95949495|NCT00070707|191870775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.043
95949496|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.181
95949497|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
95949498|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
95949499|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.002
95949500|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.027
95949501|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.069
95949502|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.373
95949503|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.148
95949504|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.009
95949505|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.016
95949506|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.113
95949507|NCT00070707|191870776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.173
95949508|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.089
95949509|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.014
95949510|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.004
95949511|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.001
95949512|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.041
95949513|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.036
95993392|NCT01360645|191962922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 13||0.48|-3.33|0.1424
95993393|NCT01360645|191962922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Week 14||0.44|-3.52|0.1270
95993394|NCT01360645|191962923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.26|-0.81|0.3079
95993395|NCT01360645|191962923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.34|-0.73|0.4771
95993396|NCT01360645|191962923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 11||-0.08|-0.92|0.0195
95993397|NCT01360645|191962923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Social life: Week 14||-0.04|-0.96|0.0323
95727881|NCT01464827|191425274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.92||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Groups \[F + G + K + L\] : Groups \[H + I + M + N\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment for 12 weeks versus 24 weeks was compared using logistic regression with treatment group, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a), geographic region (US or non-US), Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), ABT-450/ritonavir dose and population (treatment-naïve or null-responders) as predictors.||4.92|0.55|0.375
95727882|NCT01464827|191425275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-12.16||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group B - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.88|-25.20|0.068
95949514|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.170
95949515|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.237
95949516|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.019
95727883|NCT01464827|191425275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.75||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Groups \[C + D + J\] - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 2 DAAs and ribavirin versus 3 DAAs and ribavirin was compared using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||0.43|-13.93|0.065
95729086|NCT00094302|191428302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline quality of life scores as the dependent variable, and the baseline quality of life score and treatment group as predictor variables. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline quality of life parameter differs by treatment group.||||0.99
95949517|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.018
95949518|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.149
95949519|NCT00070707|191870777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.231
95949520|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.745
95949521|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.250
95949522|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (AM)||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.202
95949523|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (AM)||||||0.104|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.104
95949524|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (AM)||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
95949525|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (AM)||||||0.355|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
95949526|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Baseline (PM)||||||0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.851
95993398|NCT01360645|191962923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 11||-0.18|-1.07|0.0058
95993399|NCT01360645|191962923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Family life: Week 14||-0.13|-1.07|0.0129
95993400|NCT01360645|191962924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 11||0.36|-0.71|0.5151
95993401|NCT01360645|191962924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Work/School Week 14||0.41|-0.70|0.6080
95993402|NCT01360645|191962924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 11||-0.06|-0.92|0.0267
95993403|NCT01360645|191962924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Social life-Week 14||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
95993404|NCT01360645|191962924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 11||-0.11|-1.01|0.0146
95859547|NCT00943072|191676664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|44.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|56.6||P-value for the primary endpoint was calculated using 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by regions (North America vs. Rest of World) and baseline BCVA (BCVA \> 20/200 and BCVA ≤ 20/200)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||56.6|33.0|< 0.0001
95859548|NCT00943072|191676665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.36|26.04|||ANCOVA||RD is the IAI group minus sham group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||26.04|17.36|< 0.0001
95859549|NCT00943072|191676665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|16.36|||||||||||ANCOVA||LS Mean indicates is the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
95859550|NCT00943072|191676666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-311.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.4|-234.4|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-234.4|-389.4|< 0.0001
95859551|NCT00943072|191676666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-487.1|||||||||||ANCOVA||The Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
95859552|NCT00943072|191676667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted difference|The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||-1.1|-12.2|0.0059
95859553|NCT00943072|191676668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.91|||ANCOVA||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group. 95% confidence interval is for the RD.|||9.91|2.61|0.0009
95859554|NCT00943072|191676668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|8.8|||||||||||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean indicates the difference between the IAI (EYLEA, VEGF Trap-Eye) Treatment group minus the Sham Treatment group.|||||
95859555|NCT01193257|191676669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.12085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.036|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\[less than or equal to\] \<=4, greater than \[\>\] 4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||1.036|0.739|0.12085
95859556|NCT01193257|191676670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|0.885|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region (North America, Europe and Rest of World) and brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) worst pain score at screening (\<=4, \>4) with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than 1 for the treatment indicates better prevention of the death in the Orteronel arm as compared to placebo arm.||0.885|0.653|0.00038
95859557|NCT01193257|191676671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||< 0.0001
95727884|NCT01464827|191425276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.13||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|1.51||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel-Haenszel method was used because logistic regression failed due to separation or quasi-separation.|Difference = Group E - Groups \[F + G + K + L\]|The percentage of participants with SVR24 after treatment with 3 DAAs with and without ribavirin was compared using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with Interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) and HCV subgenotype (1a or non-1a).||1.51|-15.77|0.106
95859558|NCT01193257|191676672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12778|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P-values test for odds ratio equal to 1.||||0.12778
95859559|NCT01499277|191676759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.41||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam). CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||5.41|-6.9|
95859560|NCT01499277|191676760|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measures (clinical cure rates) between ceftaroline group and vancomycin plus aztreonam group were calculated in both MITT and CE Populations at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in both MITT and CE Populations. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|7.48||||RD is the difference in clinical cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared vancomycin plus azreonam group at TOC in both MITT and CE populations.||7.48|-4.32|
95859561|NCT01499277|191676761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|10.39||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||10.39|-6.21|
95859562|NCT01499277|191676762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|12.86||||RD is the difference in favorable rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||12.86|-2.11|
95859563|NCT01499277|191676763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.06||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||7.06|-4.05|
95949527|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 1 (PM)||||||0.993|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.993
95763756|NCT02955212|191497254|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|24.3|16.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.9|16.6|<0.001
95763757|NCT02955212|191497255|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.9|15.6|<0.001
95763758|NCT02955212|191497256|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|24.0|<0.001
95763759|NCT02955212|191497257|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.5|11.0|<0.001
95949528|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 2 (PM)||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
95949529|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 3 (PM)||||||0.149|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.149
95949530|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Week 4 (PM)||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.616
95993405|NCT01360645|191962924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis for Item: Family life-Week 14||-0.14|-1.09|0.0113
95763760|NCT02955212|191497258|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of country|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.0|12.1|<0.001
95949531|NCT00070707|191870778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Change at Final Week (PM)||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
95949532|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (AM)||||0.116
95949533|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (AM)||||0.994
95949534|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (AM)||||0.961
95949535|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (AM)||||0.183
95949536|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (AM)||||0.440
95949537|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (AM)||||0.838
95949538|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline (PM)||||0.096
95763761|NCT05262387|191497259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.32||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.1|1.52|0.0494
95763762|NCT05262387|191497259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.38|21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.9|6.38|0.0028
95763763|NCT05262387|191497260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-102|0.1998
95763764|NCT05262387|191497260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.9041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.4|-53.1|0.9041
95763765|NCT02045446|191497262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.304||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.113|.01
95763766|NCT05274178|191497269|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95763767|NCT05274178|191497269|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95763768|NCT02515331|191497271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.555|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9077||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.388|-2.722||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-2.722|-14.388|0.002
95763769|NCT02515331|191497271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.852|-8.602||1-sided p-value|Longitudinal repeated measures mixed eff|||||-8.602|-20.852|<0.001
95949539|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1 (PM)||||0.362
95949540|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2 (PM)||||0.693
95949541|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3 (PM)||||0.603
95949542|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4 (PM)||||0.579
95949543|NCT00070707|191870779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week (PM)||||0.413
95949544|NCT00070707|191870780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
95949545|NCT00070707|191870780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.744
95949546|NCT00070707|191870780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.675
95949547|NCT00070707|191870781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.693
95949548|NCT00070707|191870781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.818
95949549|NCT00070707|191870781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.915
95949550|NCT00070707|191870782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.823
95949551|NCT00070707|191870782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 15||||0.202
95949552|NCT00070707|191870782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Day 29||||0.199
95949553|NCT00070707|191870783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.375
95949554|NCT00070707|191870783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.710
95949555|NCT00070707|191870783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.597|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.597
95949556|NCT00070707|191870783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.242
95993406|NCT01360645|191962925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_Last observation carry forward (LOCF) model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-1.22|-3.47|0.0001
95993407|NCT01360645|191962926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-1.12|||ANCOVA|||||-1.12|-3.47|0.0002
95763770|NCT02023983|191497311|OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
95859564|NCT01499277|191676764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.73||||RD is the difference in cure rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||8.73|-2.19|
95859565|NCT01499277|191676765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.18||||RD is the difference in relapse rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||1.18|-3.98|
95949557|NCT00070707|191870783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.696|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.696
95949558|NCT00070707|191870783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.670
95949559|NCT00070707|191870784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.865
95949560|NCT00070707|191870784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.025
95949561|NCT00070707|191870784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.288
95949562|NCT00070707|191870784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.790
95949563|NCT00070707|191870784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.211
95949564|NCT00070707|191870784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.136
95949565|NCT00070707|191870785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.667
95949566|NCT00070707|191870785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.656|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.656
95949567|NCT00070707|191870785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.458
95949568|NCT00070707|191870785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.220
95949569|NCT00070707|191870785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.775
95949570|NCT00070707|191870785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.994
95949571|NCT00070707|191870786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.363|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline||||0.363
95949572|NCT00070707|191870786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 1||||0.262
95949573|NCT00070707|191870786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 2||||0.386
95949574|NCT00070707|191870786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 3||||0.167
95949575|NCT00070707|191870786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Week 4||||0.505
95763771|NCT02023983|191497312|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95763772|NCT02676882|191497313|OTHER|A Chi Squared analysis was performed to determine how the rate of relapse in Group 1 (27.3%) compared to that of historical controls in the literature (67.7%). (Cohen, JAMA 2006)||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95949576|NCT00070707|191870786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||Change at Final Week||||0.725
95949577|NCT00070707|191870787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 15||||0.954
95949578|NCT00070707|191870787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||Asthma Symptoms: Day 29||||0.295
95949579|NCT00070707|191870788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 15||||0.268
95949580|NCT00070707|191870788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center||SAR Nasal Symptoms: Day 29||||0.154
95949581|NCT04471805|191870792|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
95949582|NCT04471805|191870793|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Post hoc analyses (paired t-tests and Bonferroni correction) and effect size (Cohen's d) were calculated to clarify significant main effects and interactions.|ANOVA|Normality and sphericity evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk test and Mauchly's test. Greenhouse-Geisser corrections used when sphericity was violated.||||||<0.05
95949583|NCT04332991|191870810|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group.|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.42|0.73|
95949584|NCT04332991|191870811|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.81|0.90|
95949585|NCT04332991|191870812|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.84|
95949586|NCT04332991|191870813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.38|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure is adjusted for : age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization.||1.38|0.69|
95949587|NCT04332991|191870814|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.57|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.57|0.68|
95949588|NCT04332991|191870815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.09|0.54|
95859566|NCT01499277|191676766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.15||||RD is the difference in success rates (Ceftaroline minus Vancomycin/Aztreonam).CI was calculated by unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% using unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen CI.|||3.15|-6.34|
95859567|NCT02974543|191676775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95859568|NCT02974543|191676776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95859569|NCT00220636|191676777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the HDRS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||<.001
95763773|NCT02676882|191497314|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the overall course of Group 2 participants' MADRS scores. (F(6, 29)=5.16, p=0.001).||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95763774|NCT03076775|191497315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95763775|NCT03076775|191497316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95763776|NCT03076775|191497317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95763777|NCT03076775|191497318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95763778|NCT03076775|191497319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95763779|NCT03076775|191497320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
95763780|NCT03076775|191497321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95763781|NCT03076775|191497322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95763782|NCT03076775|191497323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95859570|NCT00220636|191676779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|-3.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the GAFS score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.009
95859571|NCT00220636|191676780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t statistic|3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|df=13||Null hypothesis would be no change in the BDI score pre- to post- treatment with aripiprazole.||||.008
95949589|NCT04332991|191870816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.14|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.14|0.60|
95859572|NCT01388335|191676796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.691|0.95|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||0.950|0.691|
95859573|NCT01388335|191676796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.02|0.815|
95859574|NCT01388335|191676797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.5|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for S-warfarin.|||3.50|0.76|
95859575|NCT01388335|191676797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|6.84|||||Median Difference (Final Values) is for R-warfarin.|||6.84|-1.00|
95859576|NCT01388335|191676798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.44|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for S-warfarin.|||1.44|1.14|
95949590|NCT04332991|191870817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.34|0.68|
95993408|NCT01360645|191962927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA\_LOCF model with treatment and trial site as main effects, and baseline (end of Phase A \[Week 8\]) value as a covariate was used.||-0.17|-2.17|0.0219
95763783|NCT03076775|191497324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95763784|NCT01783886|191497330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|17.2|||ANCOVA||Least Square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||17.2|10.9|<0.0001
95763785|NCT01783886|191497330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.2|16.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||16.9|10.2|<0.0001
95763786|NCT01783886|191497331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.0|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH). The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||59.9|35.0|<0.0001
95763787|NCT01783886|191497331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.3|52.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.1|26.3|<0.0001
95763788|NCT01783886|191497332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.2|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||43.0|19.2|<0.0001
95763789|NCT01783886|191497332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||35.9|12.6|<0.0001
95763790|NCT01783886|191497333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|26.0|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||52.2|26.0|<0.0001
95763791|NCT01783886|191497333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH adjusted difference|40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|27.6|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||53.7|27.6|<0.0001
95763792|NCT01783886|191497334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-171.2|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-171.2|<0.0001
95859577|NCT01388335|191676798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.47|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for R-warfarin.|||1.47|1.08|
95859578|NCT01388335|191676803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.00|0.86|
95859579|NCT01388335|191676804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean.|||1.02|0.95|
95859580|NCT01388335|191676807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.03||||||90.0|0.99|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 0 hours.|||1.08|0.99|
95859581|NCT01388335|191676807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LS mean for Period 2, Day 14, 4 hours.|||1.06|0.98|
95859582|NCT00125164|191676809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.19|2.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.39|1.19|<0.0001
95763793|NCT01783886|191497334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-131.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-172.8|-89.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||-89.9|-172.8|<0.0001
95763794|NCT01783886|191497335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|11.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||11.97|-0.41|0.0364
95763795|NCT01783886|191497335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.87||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.8|12.94|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||12.94|0.80|0.0113
95763796|NCT01783886|191497336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.9|8.53|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||8.53|-2.90|0.2688
95763797|NCT01783886|191497336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.01||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.64|13.37|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser.|||13.37|2.64|0.0009
95763798|NCT00825786|191497344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.09|||Log Rank||group 2 vs. group 1 (sequential vs combined)|||1.09|0.46|0.14
95763799|NCT00825786|191497345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
95859583|NCT00125164|191676809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|1.99|3.16||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.16|1.99|< 0.0001
95763800|NCT00825786|191497346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
95763801|NCT00825786|191497347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.60
95763802|NCT00825786|191497348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
95763803|NCT00825786|191497349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
95763804|NCT00825786|191497350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
95949591|NCT04332991|191870818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.08|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||2.08|0.76|
95763805|NCT03091179|191497351|EQUIVALENCE|P value was calculated using the means and standard deviations for each of the patient characteristics.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95763806|NCT03282916|191497379|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were used to assess the treatment effects on the outcome with change score from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment, study time point, and their interaction as predictors, adjusting for baseline value of the outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.8||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusting for baseline value of ADAS-Cog11||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference in change in ADAS-Cog11 between valacyclovir and placebo treatment.~A sample size of 130 participants (65 per arm) was originally projected to detect Cohen's d of 0.50 with 80% power at 5% significance level. Recruitment target was reduced to 120 participants due to pandemic-related recruitment delays and required study completion within the extended funding timeline. For n=120, the minimum detectable effect size increased slightly to Cohen's d of 0.52."||6.80|1.03|<0.05
95763807|NCT00719186|191497389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95763808|NCT05724589|191497443|SUPERIORITY|A repeated measures ANOVA was selected to analyze changes in skin hydration across four time points within the same participants..|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.671||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects the overall test for difference in hydration over time and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The pre-defined threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|No additional adjustments were applied. Degrees of freedom and sphericity assumptions were checked.|The mean difference was calculated based on changes in skin hydration from baseline to Week 16 using repeated measures ANOVA, in accordance with the pre-specified statistical analysis plan.|Skin hydration was evaluated longitudinally using repeated measures ANOVA at Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16. This pre-specified statistical test assessed within-subject changes over time to determine the efficacy of the serum.|The overall p-value corresponds to the repeated measures ANOVA evaluating changes over four time points. No multiplicity adjustments were applied.|||1.000
95802441|NCT03882801|191577998|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Means Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.17|||||Back transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from linear mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.17|0.73|
95802442|NCT01793129|191578004|SUPERIORITY|This trial estimated the probability that the intervention has no effect on the outcome (or conversely, the probability that id does), given the data obtained in the trial and any prior evidence.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.0|||||The relative risk estimate was calculated by dividing risk under hypothermia by risk under normothermia.|Whole-body Hypothermia vs. Normothermia (Normothermia is the comparison group)|To get estimates of RR from the Bayesian logistic regression model, predicted probabilities of the outcome were generated for all infants assuming the infants were treated with and without hypothermia and with/without severe encephalopathy. Next subject level RR values were estimated for all infants and 2.5, 50, and 97.5 percentiles were calculated.|2.00|0.74|
95802443|NCT01567085|191578023|OTHER|Exact binomial test|||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was calculated from an exact binomial test, where the null hypothesis was that the true failure rate = 40%.|Exact binomial test|Exact 95% confidence interval (3.6, 17.2)||Analysis of post-transplantation treatment failure rate||||< 0.001
95949592|NCT04332991|191870819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.72|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.72|0.61|
95949593|NCT04332991|191870820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.88|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.88|0.84|
95993409|NCT01360645|191962928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-2.13|0.0376
95763809|NCT05724589|191497444|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis in this study to assess changes in Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) after serum application involved a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). This approach allows for the examination of differences in TEWL across multiple time points (baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks) within the same individuals. The use of repeated measures ANOVA accounts for the correlated nature of the data, as multiple measurements are obtained from each participant over time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.656||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess changes in hydration over time. The mean difference between baseline and 16 weeks was -3.656 (arbitrary units). Results are presented in the corresponding outcome measure table.|ANOVA|||||||0.096
95763810|NCT05724589|191497445|SUPERIORITY|The chosen test was designed to assess whether application of the intervention resulted in any statistically significant differences over time in the primary outcome measure, assuming superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|||||The pre-specified significance threshold was set at p \< 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were applied.|ANOVA|Sphericity tested; Greenhouse-Geisser applied if needed. Repeated measures ANOVA accounted for within-subject correlations.|The estimation parameter reflects the change in the R2 elasticity measure from baseline to 16 weeks. The direction of change is based on the final minus baseline value, with baseline serving as the reference point.|The statistical analysis utilized repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate changes in facial skin elasticity (R2 parameter) across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants. This approach accounts for the correlation of repeated measures over time.||||0.169
95763811|NCT05724589|191497446|SUPERIORITY|This study aimed to evaluate changes in wrinkle scores using a 4-grade percentage wrinkle improvement scale across different time points, including baseline, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The Mean Difference represents the change in wrinkle scores from baseline (Day 0) to follow-up at Week 8, Week 12, or Week 16. For example, a Mean Difference of 1.0 indicates a 1-point improvement from baseline to Week 16 (Week 16 - baseline score).|||||1.000
95763812|NCT05724589|191497447|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to detect any change in facial melanin levels due to the intervention.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.458||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value indicates no statistically significant change in facial melanin index over time. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was pre-specified at p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|Sphericity assumptions were checked and addressed as needed (e.g., Greenhouse-Geisser correction).|The estimation parameter reflects the mean change in melanin index from baseline to week 16. Baseline was used as the reference point in the analysis.|The statistical analysis assessed changes in facial melanin index after serum application using repeated measures ANOVA. This method evaluated differences across multiple time points (Baseline, Week 8, Week 12, and Week 16) within the same participants, accounting for the correlated nature of repeated measures.||||1.000
95763813|NCT05724589|191497448|SUPERIORITY|A descriptive analysis was performed. No hypothesis testing or power calculation was conducted for this outcome.|percentage of participants at week 16|44.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value reflects descriptive analysis of SGAIS improvement scores; no statistical testing for significance was conducted.|Descriptive|The evaluation involved categorical SGAIS ratings assigned by two independent dermatologists.|This estimate reflects the proportion of participants rated as showing mild improvement on the SGAIS at Week 16, as detailed in the tabular data.|Improvement in facial appearance was assessed using the Subject Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (SGAIS), rated independently by two board-certified dermatologists at multiple time points (8, 12, and 16 weeks).||||1.000
95949594|NCT04332991|191870821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.61|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated more favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.61|0.85|
95949595|NCT04332991|191870822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.0|
95949596|NCT04332991|191870823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.02|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.02|0.61|
95949597|NCT04332991|191870824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
95949598|NCT04332991|191870825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.12|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||8.12|0.78|
95949599|NCT04332991|191870826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.05|0.45|
95949600|NCT04332991|191870827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.70|0.24|
95993410|NCT01360645|191962929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.63||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.44|1.09|0.0176
95993411|NCT01360645|191962930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.54||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.35|1.01|0.0429
95763814|NCT05724589|191497449|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive summary statistics were used to report satisfaction at multiple time points. No inferential testing was performed.|percentage of participants at week 16|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical hypothesis testing was performed.|The estimated percentage reflects participants who reported a satisfaction score of 2 or 3 at week 16.|"Satisfaction was assessed at weeks 8, 12, and 16 using a quartile scale:~0 = Unsatisfied, 1 = Slightly satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Very satisfied. One participant was lost to follow-up after week 12."||||
95763815|NCT05724589|191497450|SUPERIORITY|This was a descriptive safety analysis. No inferential hypothesis testing was conducted.|Percentage adverse events by week 16|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Descriptive|No formal statistical test was conducted.|Descriptive summaries of adverse event incidence are reported in the results tables.|The analysis population includes 28 participants. One subject was lost to follow-up at week 12. Adverse events were assessed through video calls at weeks 2 and 4, and in-person visits at 2, 3, and 4 months.||||
95949601|NCT04332991|191870828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.59|0.59|
95949602|NCT04332991|191870829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.58|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.58|0.30|
95949603|NCT04332991|191870830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.18|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.18|0.48|
95949604|NCT04332991|191870831|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.96|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||3.96|0.24|
95949605|NCT04332991|191870832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.53|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.53|0.73|
95949606|NCT04332991|191870833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||1.89|0.92|
95949607|NCT04332991|191870834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.94|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||2.94|0.21|
95993412|NCT01360645|191962931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.68||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.86|0.98|0.0586
95949608|NCT04332991|191870835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.74|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|||15.74|0.06|
95949609|NCT04332991|191870836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.35|||||Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicated less favorable outcomes for patients in the hydroxychloroquine group compared with the placebo group|Outcome measure was adjusted for: age, sex, baseline COVID Outcome Scale category, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and duration of acute respiratory infection symptoms prior to randomization||1.35|0.69|
95949610|NCT03879538|191870837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.28||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of pain score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up after end of treatment for Nitrous Oxide group equals that assessed at same time points for the Control group.||0.28|-1.42|0.19
95949611|NCT03879538|191870838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of physical health Z-score between two study groups: mean of physical health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.43|-0.16|0.36
95949612|NCT03879538|191870838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.48||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous oxide minus control.|Null hypothesis for testing difference in means of mental health Z-score between two study groups: mean of mental health Z-score assessed at one-week and one-month follow-ups for Nitrous Oxide group was equal to that assessed at the same follow-up time points for Control group.||0.48|-0.31|0.66
95949613|NCT03879538|191870839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.46||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is Nitrous Oxide minus Control.|Null hypothesis: Mean of PGIC scale assessed at one-week and one-month follow-up time points for Nitrous Oxide patients is equal to that assessed at the same time points for Control patients.||0.46|-1.85|0.23
95949614|NCT02336958|191870841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95993413|NCT01360645|191962932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.90|0.97|0.0671
95949615|NCT02336958|191870842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
95949616|NCT03547154|191870843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.322
95949617|NCT03547154|191870844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Analysis of Major Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||>0.999
95949618|NCT03547154|191870845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||||||Analysis of Complete Response|Fisher Exact|Missing data considered failures||||||0.588
95949619|NCT03547154|191870846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.721|||||Overall survival was analyzed using the log-rank statistic. The HR and 95% CI for the HR were obtained using Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.721|0.429|
95949620|NCT01934452|191870851|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.8|2.2|<0.001
95949621|NCT01934452|191870852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95993414|NCT01360645|191962933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.10|1.23|0.0003
95763816|NCT00125515|191497467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||all statistical analysis were two tailed and employed an alpha significance level of 0.05.||||0.32
95763817|NCT02213289|191497580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||One-sided Z-test|This was a test of whether the observed 1-year survival rate was significantly different from historical 50% rate.||||||0.0024
95949622|NCT01934452|191870853|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extended or partial nephrectomy||||1.000
95949623|NCT01934452|191870853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without adrenalectomy||||0.809
95993415|NCT01360645|191962934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CHM general association test controlling for trial site.||||2.27|1.27|0.0002
95993416|NCT01355289|191962937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|31.62||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|57.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.84|5.39|0.0236
95993417|NCT01355289|191962937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|60.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|85.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.27|36.30|0.0003
95993418|NCT01355289|191962937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % of Responders|58.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.92|85.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||85.88|30.92|0.0003
95993419|NCT01171612|191963002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.299|||Chi-squared|||Reference group were patients who maintained antiplatelet drugs (aspirin and/or clopidogrel) during the 4 days before surgery||2.299|0.513|0.479
95993420|NCT01171612|191963002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.638||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|3.662|||Chi-squared|||||3.662|0.733|0.479
95993421|NCT00565617|191963012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95993422|NCT04666038|191963025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.536||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.746||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) \& 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.746|0.385|0.0002
95993423|NCT04666038|191963026|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.669||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.669|0.338|<0.0001
95949624|NCT01934452|191870853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Nephrectomy with or without curettage||||0.019
95763818|NCT02687529|191497589|EQUIVALENCE|The number of positive and negative CST001 assay results for each subject, across all sites and operators were compared. In order for a subject to have a concordant result, the same assay call must be observed for all replicates across all sites (6/6).|proportion of concordant calls|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.13|91.38||||||||91.38|72.13|
95949625|NCT01934452|191870853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||Open or laparoscopic nephrectomy||||0.734
95949626|NCT01934452|191870854|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-3.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-13.2|0.230
95949627|NCT01934452|191870855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid contingent||||0.695
95949628|NCT01934452|191870856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||Chi-squared|||M class||||0.316
95949629|NCT01934452|191870857|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-2.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-22.0|0.778
95949630|NCT01934452|191870858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
95993424|NCT04666038|191963027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.749||The 2-sided p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.749|0.679|0.7202
95993425|NCT04666038|191963028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.524||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.524|0.254|<0.0001
95993426|NCT04666038|191963029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.534||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated based on a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and 95% CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.534|0.280|<0.0001
95993427|NCT00110305|191963046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response rate|0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||11.3|-10.4|0.92
95993428|NCT00110305|191963046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.0||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||9.0|-13.6|0.56
95993429|NCT00110305|191963046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|8.4||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||8.4|-14.0|0.62
95993430|NCT00110305|191963046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.5||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.5|-10.5|0.80
95993431|NCT00110305|191963047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.6||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and Nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N\[t\]RTIs) used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.6|-17.1|0.45
95993432|NCT00110305|191963047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|7.7||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||7.7|-17.3|0.45
95859584|NCT00125164|191676809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0032||95.0|0.27|1.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.31|0.27|0.0032
95859585|NCT00125164|191676810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.24|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.24|< 0.0001
95859586|NCT00125164|191676810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.34|0.6||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.60|0.34|< 0.0001
95859587|NCT00125164|191676810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0495||95.0|0.0|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.22|0.00|0.0495
95859588|NCT00125164|191676818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|2.4||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||2.40|1.26|<0.0001
95859589|NCT00125164|191676818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001||95.0|2.26|3.39||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||3.39|2.26|<0.0001
95859590|NCT00125164|191676818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0002||95.0|0.5|1.51|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||1.51|0.50|0.0002
95763819|NCT02517463|191497590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The PPP from a previous study was 67.2%. Assuming the PPP in the preovulatory and post-ovulatory groups were equivalent, and taking 10% to be the maximum permitted difference for equivalence, a minimum of 273 subjects in each group would be required to confirm equivalence between the two groups with a power of 80% and type I error of 0.05. Therefore, our recruitment of 700 subjects with more than 300 in each group was sufficient."|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95763820|NCT02517463|191497591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.564
95763821|NCT02517463|191497592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95763822|NCT03086551|191497597|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
95763823|NCT03086551|191497597|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as time to complete the sequence at the pre-baseline assessment minus the time it took to complete the sequence at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Magnitude of change in sequence completion time from pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
95859591|NCT00125164|191676819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.5||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.50|0.25|<0.0001
95859592|NCT00125164|191676819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.64||The two-sided p-values for the comparisons are adjusted for multiple comparisons using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||The analysis compares each of the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups with the untreated control group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
95859593|NCT00125164|191676819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0071||95.0|0.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||The analysis compares the 80 and 120 µg/kg BID groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the covariates are the baseline height SD score stratum used in the randomization, the pretreatment height velocity, the baseline bone age, the baseline chronological age, and sex.||0.26|0.04|0.0071
95859594|NCT00670306|191676820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95859595|NCT01301027|191676857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95859596|NCT01301027|191676858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
95859597|NCT01301027|191676859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.508
95859598|NCT01301027|191676860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984
95993433|NCT00110305|191963047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|12.8||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||12.8|-12.9|0.99
95993434|NCT00110305|191963047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in response|2.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.3||The significance level for each comparison was 5% (two-sided). No further adjustment of this significance level was applied.|Regression, Logistic|This model with factors treatment, region, and N(t)RTIs used, and baseline viral load as covariate.||||13.3|-8.1|0.63
95993435|NCT00110305|191963049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.8||||||95.0|-14.7|9.1||||||||9.1|-14.7|
95993436|NCT03275870|191963103|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||p value \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95993437|NCT03275870|191963104|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||P value of \<0.05 used as threshold for significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
95993438|NCT00391599|191963114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95993439|NCT00391599|191963116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95993440|NCT04258579|191963174|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|19.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|22.67||||||||22.67|15.59|
95993441|NCT04258579|191963174|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|21.24||||||||21.24|12.50|
95993442|NCT04258579|191963174|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|18.76||||||||18.76|11.24|
95993443|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|24.5||||||||24.50|19.70|
95993444|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|21.8||||||||21.80|18.00|
95993445|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|8.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.68|10.18||||||||10.18|7.68|
95859599|NCT04308291|191676867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95859600|NCT00638014|191676884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95993446|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|26.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.32|28.94||||||||28.94|24.32|
95993447|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 1|22.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|25.23||||||||25.23|19.87|
95993448|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 2|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.87|23.13||||||||23.13|18.87|
95993449|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 3|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|9.99||||||||9.99|7.39|
95993450|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 9 weeks, Domain 4|27.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.07|29.69||||||||29.69|25.07|
95993451|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 1|22.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|25.06||||||||25.06|20.18|
95993452|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 2|21.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.84|23.32||||||||23.32|19.84|
95993453|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 3|9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|10.46||||||||10.46|7.92|
95993454|NCT04258579|191963175|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 12 weeks, Domain 4|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.53|30.09||||||||30.09|25.53|
95993455|NCT04258579|191963176|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline|22.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.56|25.34||||||||25.34|19.56|
95993456|NCT04258579|191963176|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks|20.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.65|23.41||||||||23.41|17.65|
95993457|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 1|19.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.24|22.54||||||||22.54|17.24|
95993458|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 2|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.72|25.2||||||||25.20|19.72|
95993459|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 3|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.72|18.28||||||||18.28|13.72|
95993460|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at baseline, Domain 4|17.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.34|20.24||||||||20.24|15.34|
95993461|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 1|22.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.05|26.53||||||||26.53|19.05|
95993462|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 2|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.96|30.44||||||||30.44|22.96|
95993463|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 3|17.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.57|20.33||||||||20.33|14.57|
95993464|NCT04258579|191963177|OTHER|Estimation only.|Mean value at 6 weeks, Domain 4|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.23|23.15||||||||23.15|18.23|
95993465|NCT02388295|191963183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.13|ONE_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline within treatment arm||||0.13
95993466|NCT02388295|191963183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.91|ONE_SIDED|||||not adjusted|ANOVA||larger negative values (powered to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.91
95993467|NCT02388295|191963183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.68|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|no adjustments|larger negagtive values (powereed to detect -0.50)|Change from baseline||||0.68
95993468|NCT02388295|191963183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||Looking for negative direction to indicate treatment better than placebo|Secondary objective - comparison to placebo||||0.32
95993469|NCT02388295|191963183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustment|ANOVA||lookin for negative difference compared to placebo|Secondary objective||||0.45
95993470|NCT02076165|191963186|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of participants who completed all 5 treatment sessions, comparing ABC-I to CBT-I.||||=.120
95993471|NCT02076165|191963187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual bed time. Negative values indicate the number of minutes earlier than the recommended bed time that the participant went to bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||6.32|-7.75|=.843
95763824|NCT03086551|191497597|OTHER|Cohen's d effect size was calculated to compare the magnitude of change in time to complete the movement sequence from pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms.|Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|||||
95763825|NCT03086551|191497598|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
95949631|NCT01934452|191870859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.77|||Chi-squared|||Presence of necrosis||6.77|0.90|0.077
95763826|NCT03086551|191497598|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
95949632|NCT01934452|191870859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.52|||Chi-squared|||Vascular embolism||3.52|0.44|0.673
95949633|NCT01934452|191870859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.97|||Fisher Exact|||Sarcomatoid component||3.97|0.27|1.000
95949634|NCT01934452|191870860|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.6|-1.5|0.865
95949635|NCT01934452|191870861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||Lung||||0.011
95949636|NCT01934452|191870861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||Bones||||0.132
95949637|NCT01934452|191870861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver||||0.473
95949638|NCT01934452|191870861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adrenal glands||||0.101
95949639|NCT01934452|191870861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pancreas||||0.445
95949640|NCT01934452|191870861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Lymph nodes||||0.040
95949641|NCT01934452|191870862|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Supradiaphragmatic||||1.000
95949642|NCT01934452|191870862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Infradiaphragmatic||||0.295
95949643|NCT01934452|191870863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
95949644|NCT01934452|191870864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
95949645|NCT01934452|191870865|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimator|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.0|-1.0|<0.001
95949646|NCT01934452|191870866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
95949647|NCT00257309|191870913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.23||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.38|0.21
95949648|NCT00244751|191870914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3608|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3608
95949649|NCT00244751|191870914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3575|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.3575
95949650|NCT00244751|191870915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9157|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9157
95949651|NCT00244751|191870915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9501|||||||reduced regression model|||||||0.9501
95949652|NCT00244751|191870916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6483|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (fibrosis)||||0.6483
95949653|NCT00244751|191870916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test|||Comparison for Ranked assessment (necrosis)||||0.1776
95949654|NCT01133678|191870961|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||A recommendation to stop the trial early was stipulated if the conditional power at the interim analysis (after 50 patients) was \<10% using a stochastic curtailment approach.. This would occur if the interim test statistic is t \< -0.287.|t-test, 2 sided|t-statistic = -1.330, exceeding threshold (\<-0.287, conditional power\<10%) for early termination.||||||0.190
95949655|NCT00556478|191870963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (over 3 months/Baseline)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|2.29|<0.0001
95949656|NCT00556478|191870964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|6.34|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of IPE domain ejaculatory control||6.34|3.61|<0.0001
95949657|NCT00556478|191870964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.84|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain sexual satisfaction||5.84|3.30|<0.0001
95949658|NCT00556478|191870964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.2|||ANCOVA|||IPE domain distress||3.20|1.86|<0.0001
95949659|NCT02233998|191870973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.202||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.202|-0.266|<0.001
95949660|NCT02233998|191870973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.165||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean modified gingival index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.165|-0.228|<0.001
95950764|NCT02607956|191873514|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.9|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.9|-7.8|
95763827|NCT03086551|191497598|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
95763828|NCT03086551|191497598|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Active arm.||||
95763829|NCT03086551|191497598|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as aggregate time to complete all elements at the pre-baseline assessment minus the aggregate time it took to complete all elements at the post-intervention assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The magnitude of transfer of the task specific practice to functional activities of daily live for the non-stroke affected limb was assessed by calculating the magnitude of change (Cohen's d) in time to complete the activities of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test from pre-baseline to post-intervention in the Sham arm.||||
95802444|NCT00758043|191578042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.1||||||Primary efficacy analysis was based on CI estimates (using the normal approximation, confidence limits were constructed for the difference in proportions) to rule out the inferiority of the T12/PR24/eRVR+ treatment regimen relative to the T12/PR48/eRVR+ treatment regimen. SVR24 was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at end of treatment through 24 weeks after the last planned dose.||11.1|-2.1|
95802445|NCT00758043|191578042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR24planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of -10.5%).|Difference in proportions|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.2||||||SVR24 was defined as below the limit of quantitation at 24 weeks after the planned end of treatment. For subjects who had missing data at week 24 after the planned end of treatment, the week 12 data or the last follow-up time point after week 12 was carried forward for determining SVR24.||8.2|-4.3|
95802446|NCT00758043|191578043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Difference in Proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8||||||||6.8|-7.7|
95802447|NCT00758043|191578043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimated by evaluating the treatment differences in the SVR at Week 72 planned rates (T12PR24/eRVR+ minus T12PR48/eRVR+) and the 95% CI for these groups (the entire 2 sided CI is to the right of the predefined non-inferiority margin of 10.5%).|Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.82||||||||1.82|0.49|
95802448|NCT02504775|191578083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|94.704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.329|101.54|||ANOVA|||||101.540|88.329|
95802449|NCT02504775|191578084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|95.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.826|102.574|||ANOVA|||||102.574|89.826|
95802450|NCT02504775|191578085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Log-transformed PK parameter was compared between products using a linear mixed effects model including terms for product, period, sequence as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio of Averages of Tylenol/Mejoral|106.132|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.151|132.283|||ANOVA|||||132.283|85.151|
95802507|NCT02864914|191578403|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||0.97|0.61|
95949661|NCT02233998|191870974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.413||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.413|-0.526|<0.001
95949662|NCT02233998|191870974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0286|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|-0.322||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate Whole Mouth Mean MGI at Wk 3 and Whole Mouth Mean PI at Wk 3 for both Listerine rinses vs control. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean plaque index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.322|-0.435|<0.001
95949663|NCT02233998|191870975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.019||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.019|-0.042|<0.001
95763830|NCT03086551|191497598|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison across study arm of the magnitude of improvement in aggregate time to complete all elements of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test for the non-stroke affected limb. Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size.||||
95763831|NCT03086551|191497599|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 1 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
95763832|NCT03086551|191497599|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 2 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
95763833|NCT03086551|191497599|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 3 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
95763834|NCT03086551|191497599|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation (within the same session) for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to immediately post-stimulation for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|The immediate effect of continuous theta burst stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex prior to practice was assessed by determining the magnitude of the effect of Active stimulation from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention in Session 4 of the intervention. Cohen's d was used to derive effect size. The Sham stimulation change was used as the control.||||
95763835|NCT03086551|191497600|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
95949664|NCT02233998|191870975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|-0.014||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment with baseline whole mouth mean gingival bleeding index as a covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.014|-0.038|<0.001
95949665|NCT02233998|191870976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.75|25.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||25.85|20.75|<0.001
95949666|NCT02233998|191870976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.09|22.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||22.22|17.09|<0.001
95993472|NCT02076165|191963188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The average deviation, in minutes, between the recommended and actual rise time. Positive values indicate the number of minutes later than the recommended rise time that the participant got out of bed, indicating greater non-adherence.|||7.35|-12.91|=0.590
95949667|NCT02233998|191870977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
95949668|NCT02233998|191870977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
95949669|NCT02233998|191870978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|1.30|<0.001
95763836|NCT03086551|191497600|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
95763837|NCT03086551|191497600|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Active arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
95763838|NCT03086551|191497600|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the post-intervention assessment minus the amplitude of the motor evoked potential at the pre-baseline assessment. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention for the Sham arm when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Estimate of effect size was derived using Cohen's d.||||
95763839|NCT03086551|191497601|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 120% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
95763840|NCT03086551|191497601|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated as the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Active arm minus the change from pre- to post-intervention for the Sham arm. The denominator reflected pooled variance.|Comparison of the first dorsal interosseous motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude elicited from the ipsilesional motor cortex pre-baseline to post-intervention across the Active and Sham arms when transcranial magnetic stimulator intensity was set to 150% of resting motor threshold. Comparison quantified as effect size using Cohen's d.||||
95763841|NCT00681031|191497602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the Geometric Mean Fold Rise (CMFR) from pre-vaccination to 4 weeks postvaccination is \>1.4.|GMFR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.8|||||GMFR = GMT postdose divided by GMT predose|||3.8|2.6|
95802451|NCT01230814|191578114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for VVC was p\<0.020 (two-sided).|Clustered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of positive test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which VVC was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||1.37|0.62|0.690
95949670|NCT02233998|191870978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.06|0.93|<0.001
95949671|NCT02233998|191870979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|1.316||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||2.78|0.00|0.016
95949672|NCT02233998|191870979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|0.926||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||1.85|-0.16|0.197
95949673|NCT02233998|191870980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|23.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|28.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||28.77|18.21|<0.001
95949674|NCT02233998|191870980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|23.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||23.81|13.69|<0.001
95993473|NCT02076165|191963189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|=|0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis||The proportion of nights participants who did not follow the recommendation to get out of bed if awake more than 20 minutes. Higher numbers indicate greater non-adherence.|||0.096|-0.093|=0.979
95763842|NCT01579747|191497604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Normality of distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. For normally-distributed continuous variables, the groups' distributions were described as means and standard deviations (SD). Student's t-test was used to compare groups in these cases with statistically-significant differences summarized using 95% confidence intervals as appropriate. For all comparisons, two-tailed p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
95763843|NCT03180645|191497605|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.07||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of the face as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline.|||0.06|-2.21|0.0638
95763844|NCT01512160|191497619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|2.2||||||Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was presented.||2.2|-4.3|
95763845|NCT01512160|191497619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.3||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||2.3|-4.1|
95763846|NCT01512160|191497619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|6.7||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI was presented.||6.7|0.3|
95949675|NCT02233998|191870981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|19.048|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.94|21.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||21.73|15.94|<0.001
95949676|NCT02233998|191870981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference|15.939|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|18.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-values were based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on the change from baseline.|95% Confidence limits for the location shift.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between treatment groups.||18.67|12.50|<0.001
95949677|NCT05270460|191870992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons were made using Dunnett's test at the overall alpha = 0.05 significance level|ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
95993474|NCT02076165|191963190|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.74|-2.92|=0.004
95993475|NCT02076165|191963191|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For sleep diary estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||4.23|-2.72|.003
95949678|NCT05270460|191870993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment group (PCS12852 0.1 mg, PCS12852 0.5 mg, and Placebo) and type (IG or DG) and the baseline value as a continuous covariate||||||<0.05
95949679|NCT05270460|191870994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95949680|NCT05270460|191870995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95763847|NCT01512160|191497623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.9||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||1.9|-2.8|
95763848|NCT01512160|191497623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.0||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||2.0|-2.7|
95763849|NCT01512160|191497623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|5.1||||||SPID 0-6: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||5.1|0.4|
95763850|NCT01512160|191497623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|10.5||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||10.5|-12.6|
95859601|NCT04717336|191676896|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Paired Differences|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||Paired T-Test|A paired t-test was applied across both periods because this is a cross-over study where each participant serves at their own control.||The aim of this analysis is to test whether there is a statistically significant difference in Pulse Wave Velocity when participants are on sodium chloride vs. placebo, regardless of period.||0.23|-0.22|0.98
95949681|NCT05270460|191870996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95993476|NCT02076165|191963192|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||2.57|-1.21|<0.001
95993477|NCT02076165|191963193|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). For actigraphically-estimated sleep efficiency, this represents a difference of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||3.36|-1.14|<.001
95993478|NCT02076165|191963194|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to post-treatment for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.98|-0.98|=0.048
95993479|NCT02076165|191963195|NON_INFERIORITY|We elected to use a value of δ equivalent to an effect size of d=0.40. (i.e., 4/10ths SD). With respect to ISI, this represents a 2 point difference between the treatment effects.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in the ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up for ABCI group versus the same improvement in the CBTI group.|||1.17|-2.32|=0.008
95993480|NCT00754156|191963259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95993481|NCT03618030|191963264|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom PERMP-T scores.||||.0003
95763851|NCT01512160|191497623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|11.4||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.4|-11.5|
95763852|NCT01512160|191497623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|19.1||||||SPID 0-24: LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||19.1|-4.0|
95763853|NCT01512160|191497624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|16.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||16.1|-15.6|
95763854|NCT01512160|191497624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|14.8||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||14.8|-16.5|
95763855|NCT01512160|191497624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.1||||||LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||25.1|-6.6|
95763856|NCT01512160|191497625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.5|
95763857|NCT01512160|191497625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.7|
95993482|NCT00860470|191963265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.06|0.86|0.36
95993483|NCT00860470|191963266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.20|0.88|0.78
95993484|NCT00860470|191963267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.04|0.63|0.11
95993485|NCT00860470|191963268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.99|0.81|0.02
95993486|NCT00860470|191963269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.80|<0.001
95763858|NCT01512160|191497625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.0|0.6|
95859602|NCT01958164|191676899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|89.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||89.3|23.3|
95993487|NCT00860470|191963270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.97|0.57|0.03
95949682|NCT05270460|191870997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95949683|NCT05270460|191870998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95993488|NCT00860470|191963271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.86|0.62|<0.001
95993489|NCT00860470|191963272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.93|0.81|0.87
95993490|NCT00860470|191963273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||0.91|0.85|<0.001
95993491|NCT00860470|191963274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Bonferroni-adjusted alpha=0.01 (for 5 comparisons)|GEE with log link function and exchangeable correlation was used to adjust confidence intervals for cluster randomised design; the iron-folic acid supplemented group was the referent.|||1.01|0.96|0.13
95763859|NCT01512160|191497626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.1|0.5|
95763860|NCT01512160|191497626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.8|0.4|
95763861|NCT01512160|191497626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.9|0.7|
95763862|NCT01512160|191497627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.6|
95763863|NCT01512160|191497627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|0.7|
95763864|NCT01512160|191497627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.3||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.3|0.4|
95763865|NCT05525520|191497715|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided equivalence test|Least square mean difference (LSMD)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.68|||MMRM|Treatment, type of cholestatic disease, week, and treatment-by-week interaction were fixed effects, and Baseline WI-NRS score was a covariate.|LSMD=EP547 minus placebo|||1.68|-0.77|0.4577
95949684|NCT05270460|191870999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95949685|NCT05270460|191871000|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95949686|NCT05270460|191871001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95949687|NCT01262456|191871012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
95859603|NCT01958164|191676900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|90.3|||||Difference calculated as actilyse minus saline solution|||90.3|20.7|
95993492|NCT01225562|191963276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.96|0.75|0.0080
95993493|NCT01225562|191963276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||0.95|0.74|0.0043
95993494|NCT01225562|191963277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.06|0.71|0.1547
95993495|NCT01225562|191963277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.01|0.68|0.0676
95993496|NCT01225562|191963278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.16|0.86|0.9851
95763866|NCT02556801|191497845|SUPERIORITY||Test statistic|1.823||||0.057|ONE_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Method|The primary dose-response analysis was performed by applying linear, Emax, logistic and exponential models.The p-value was based on Emax model.||||||0.057
95763867|NCT02556801|191497845|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-3.89|
95763868|NCT02556801|191497845|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|0.06||||||||0.06|-3.72|
95949688|NCT01262456|191871012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.17||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA of change from baseline at Week 1, Months 1, 2, 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary outcomes in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.17|-0.57|0.0003
95763869|NCT02556801|191497845|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.23|-0.43||||||||-0.43|-4.23|
95763870|NCT02556801|191497846|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-3.85|=0.051
95763871|NCT02556801|191497846|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.68|0.059
95763872|NCT02556801|191497846|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-4.20|0.024
95763873|NCT02556801|191497847|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.19|-2.39|0.291
95763874|NCT02556801|191497847|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.60|=0.042
95763875|NCT02556801|191497847|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-3.56|0.050
95763876|NCT02556801|191497848|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-1.93|=0.079
95763877|NCT02556801|191497848|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.89|=0.076
95949689|NCT01262456|191871013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.03||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||3.03|1.38|0.0004
95763878|NCT02556801|191497848|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|0.62|-2.13|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-2.13|=0.038
95763879|NCT02556801|191497849|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.03|=0.451
95763880|NCT02556801|191497849|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.55|=0.137
95763881|NCT02556801|191497849|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-1.45|=0.195
95763882|NCT02556801|191497850|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|-0.05|||ANOVA|||||-0.050|-0.657|=0.028
95763883|NCT02556801|191497850|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.702|-0.086|||ANOVA|||||-0.086|-0.702|=0.018
95763884|NCT02556801|191497850|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.581|0.021|||ANOVA|||||0.021|-0.581|=0.063
95763885|NCT02556801|191497851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.60|1.41|<0.001
95763886|NCT02556801|191497851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.27|1.80|<0.001
95859604|NCT01500720|191676904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.169|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|3.01||P-value was calculated from stratified two-sided log-rank test, stratifying for brain metastases and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level at the time of randomization.|Stratified Two-Sided Log-Rank Test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a COX Proportional Hazards regression model, stratifying for brain metastases and LDH level at the time of randomization.|||3.01|1.563|<0.0001
95763887|NCT02556801|191497851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.15|1.73|<0.001
95763888|NCT02556801|191497851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.42||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.93|1.05|0.029
95763889|NCT02556801|191497851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.25|1.24|0.003
95763890|NCT02556801|191497851|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgE levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.85|1.01|0.042
95763891|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.23|1.00|0.057
95763892|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.43|1.17|<0.001
95763893|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.37|1.12|<0.001
95763894|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.23||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.05|0.015
95763895|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.87|1.37|<0.001
95763896|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.62|1.19|<0.001
95763897|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.99||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.04|0.93|0.341
95763898|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.16|1.04|0.003
95949690|NCT01262456|191871013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.96||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method for 33% responder status at Week 1, Month 1, Month 2, and Month 3, adjusted for age (\<65, ≥65 years), visit, and baseline nocturnal voids.||Superiority to placebo was to be simultaneously demonstrated on the 2 co-primary endpoints in a step-down approach from highest (75 μg) to lowest dose (50 μg), thereby controlling the family-wise error rate at the 5% nominal significance level.||2.96|1.32|0.0009
95949691|NCT01262456|191871014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.12|-0.57|0.0029
95949692|NCT01262456|191871014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.06||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids.||"Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.~The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg)."||-0.06|-0.52|0.0128
95949693|NCT01262456|191871015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||3.02|1.08|0.0233
95949694|NCT01262456|191871015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.87||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||2.87|1.03|0.0386
95949695|NCT01262456|191871016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.76||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|70.51||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||70.51|15.02|0.0026
95763899|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.08|0.97|0.269
95949696|NCT01262456|191871016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.95||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.03|66.88||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||66.88|11.03|0.0064
95949697|NCT01262456|191871017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.17||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.69|-28.64||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-28.64|-143.69|0.0034
95949698|NCT01262456|191871017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.8||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.7|-19.89||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||-19.89|-135.70|0.0086
95949699|NCT01262456|191871018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.31||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.94|63.32||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||63.32|-153.94|0.4126
95949700|NCT01262456|191871018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.79||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.99|90.41||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume using last observation carried forward.||The active treatment groups were compared to placebo using a step-down approach from highest dose (75 µg) to lowest dose (50 µg).||90.41|-127.99|0.7353
95949701|NCT03692871|191871036|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|12.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||12.8|2.8|= 0.003
95949702|NCT03692871|191871036|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||4.0|-5.0|= 0.882
95949703|NCT03692871|191871036|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||11.3|1.3|= 0.014
95949704|NCT03692871|191871036|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.6|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||8.9|0.0|= 0.051
95949705|NCT03692871|191871037|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.5|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||10.5|0.4|= 0.033
95949706|NCT03692871|191871037|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.6|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||10.5|1.0|= 0.016
95949707|NCT03692871|191871037|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||=|0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||5.6|-4.7|= 0.878
95949708|NCT03692871|191871037|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||1.5|-3.8|= 0.503
95949709|NCT03692871|191871038|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Percentage of participants with a vaccine-related SAE||0.4|-0.8|
95949710|NCT03031782|191871050|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||Log Rank|Hazard ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and analysis factors||Survival analysis of time to flare - TP2 (FAS2)||0.63|0.13|<0.001
95859605|NCT01724346|191676910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.155|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.22||P-value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.220|0.110|< 0.0001
95949711|NCT01930188|191871061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-baseline responses analysed with mixed model for repeated measurements-treatment \& country (fixed) \& baseline (covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.91|-1.21|<0.0001
95949712|NCT01930188|191871061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and sitagliptin was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|treatment difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis done with mixed model for repeated measurements (treatment \& country as fixed factors \& baseline value as covariate) all nested within visit||||-0.62|-1.21|<0.0001
95949713|NCT01316913|191871069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.072|-0.027|0.377
95949714|NCT01316913|191871069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.06||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.109||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.109|0.010|0.018
95949715|NCT01316913|191871069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.037||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.087|-0.012|0.142
95949716|NCT01316913|191871069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.123|0.025|0.003
95949717|NCT02008916|191871072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.69|1.24|0.0093
95949718|NCT02008916|191871072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|1.38|0.0037
95949719|NCT02008916|191871073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.26|0.0100
95949720|NCT02008916|191871073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|1.36|0.0051
95949721|NCT02008916|191871074|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
95949722|NCT02008916|191871074|SUPERIORITY||Relative treatment effect|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Relative treatment effect = exponential of the difference in LSM on the log e scale or the geometric LSM ratio on the original scale. For values less than 1, AIN457 has a greater reduction than Placebo.|||0.60|0.33|<0.0001
95949723|NCT02008916|191871075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.92|2.01|0.0002
95949724|NCT02008916|191871075|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|9.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.38|1.89|0.0004
95949725|NCT02008916|191871076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.60|0.0347
95949726|NCT02008916|191871076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-2.00|0.0018
95949727|NCT02008916|191871080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|64.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.42|0.92|0.0593
95949728|NCT02008916|191871080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.39||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|150.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||150.79|2.49|0.0046
95949729|NCT00286325|191871149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0156||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon comparing week zero antibody value in units to week 24 antibody value in units||||=0.0156
95859606|NCT01724346|191676913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.141||P value is from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.054|< 0.0001
95949730|NCT00286325|191871150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0078|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of B cell number at week 0 to b cell number in participants at week 24||||=0.0078
95949731|NCT01213940|191871151|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limit from standard deviation of mean|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||one -way ANOVA was used for the analysis||||<0.05
95949732|NCT00210236|191871171|EQUIVALENCE|The two groups will be considered equivalent if the 5-year survival rate for group B (without lymph node dissection) is not less than 92%. This corresponds to hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1.6.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.067||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.7|||Log Rank|||||6.7|1.4|0.013
95949733|NCT01513447|191871206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95949734|NCT01513447|191871207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-230.0|171.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||171|-230|0.29
95949735|NCT03141177|191871212|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.64|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.64|0.41|<0.0001
95859607|NCT01724346|191676914|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|2.496|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|3.131||Rate ratio and p-value are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; 0-1 vs 2) and Rai stage (0/I/II vs III/IV) at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.131|1.990|< 0.0001
95949736|NCT03141177|191871213|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.89|0.4|0.89|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.89|0.40|0.0010
95949737|NCT03141177|191871214|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment C|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|4.95|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.95|2.51|<0.0001
95993497|NCT01225562|191963278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||1.04|0.76|0.1350
95763900|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.02||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.10|0.95|0.312
95763901|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.31|1.13|<0.001
95949738|NCT03141177|191871214|OTHER|Treatment A - Treatment C|Difference of Objective Response Rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|35.6|||||Strata adjusted difference in objective response rate (Nivolumab+Cabozantinib - Sunitinib) based on DerSimonian and Laird.|||35.6|21.7|
95949739|NCT02164578|191871230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||The hypothesis H0 is tested against the one-sided alternative hypothesis H1 H0: µ∆FBF,Riva, week 20 ≤ µ∆FBF, ASA, week 20 versus H1: µΔFBF, Riva, week 20 \> µΔFBF, ASA, week 20 by test procedures for continuous data.||||0.004
95949740|NCT02164578|191871231|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
95949741|NCT02164578|191871232|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for repeated measurements with baseline as covariate||||||0.045
95949742|NCT02164578|191871233|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
95949743|NCT02164578|191871234|OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
95949744|NCT02164578|191871235|OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
95949745|NCT01241448|191871278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.01||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.01|-0.58|0.094
95949746|NCT01241448|191871278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
95949747|NCT01241448|191871278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.48||No multiplicity adjustments were used to calculate the p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sixty-five randomized patients (45 completers) per arm were expected to provide at least 90% power to detect 0.8% HbA1c difference with placebo assuming a SD for change in HbA1c of 1.2% (0.05 1-sided type I error).||-0.48|-1.05|<0.01
95949748|NCT02065895|191871322|OTHER|ANOVA was used to first tests the hypothesis that there is a difference among the three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|80.3||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Sidak's correction. A priori the pimary outcome was defined as blood glucose AUC from 8 am - 12pm; however we used blood glucose AUC from 8am - 2pm to capture the entire meal response.|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were assessed by repeated measures ANOVA using Sidak's correction for multiple comparisons. All subjects were analyzed as a single group, no comparison group.||80.3|33.4|0.0011
95949749|NCT02065895|191871323|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
95949750|NCT03740737|191871325|OTHER||Treatment difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|67.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||67.1|55.5|<0.001
95949751|NCT03740737|191871326|OTHER||Treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|33.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||33.7|22.5|<0.001
95949752|NCT03740737|191871330|OTHER||Treatment difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|36.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||36.0|24.7|<0.001
95949753|NCT03740737|191871330|OTHER||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|72.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||72.1|61.2|<0.001
95949754|NCT03740737|191871331|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|34.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||34.6|23.4|<0.001
95949755|NCT03740737|191871331|OTHER||Treatment difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.5|69.1|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||69.1|57.5|<0.001
95949756|NCT03740737|191871333|OTHER||Treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|39.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||39.2|28.1|<0.001
95949757|NCT03740737|191871333|OTHER||Treatment difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|76.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||76.2|65.3|<0.001
95949758|NCT03740737|191871345|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95949759|NCT03740737|191871346|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95949760|NCT03740737|191871347|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.220
95949761|NCT03740737|191871348|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
95949762|NCT00507429|191871394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.223
95949763|NCT00569166|191871424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3679||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.3679
95949764|NCT00569166|191871424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Treatment effectiveness was measured using pairwise comparisons of hot flash score change from baseline in each paced breathing arm.||||0.4715
95949765|NCT01853384|191871436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Analysis adjusted for sites, with significance being at P \< 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.5348
95993498|NCT01225562|191963279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.7|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 90 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.70|1.96|<0.0001
95763902|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.20|1.03|0.008
95763903|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.04||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.14|0.96|0.212
95859608|NCT02876601|191676920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.408
95949766|NCT01853384|191871437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.9456
95949767|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6194||||||Treatment Week 01|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.6194
95949768|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||||||Treatment Week 02|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.7930
95949769|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362||||||Treatment Week 03|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3362
95949770|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||||||Treatment Week 04|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5263
95949771|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1997||||||Treatment Week 05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1997
95949772|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617||||||Treatment Week 06|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1617
95949773|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611||||||Treatment Week 07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2611
95949774|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7232||||||Treatment Week 08|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7232
95949775|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405||||||Treatment Week 09|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4405
95949776|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516||||||Treatment Week 10|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3516
95949777|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2821||||||Treatment Week 11|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2821
95949778|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||||||Treatment Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3722
95949779|NCT01853384|191871439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348||||||Week 12 - Primary Endpoint|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5348
95949780|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5909||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.5909
95949781|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
95949782|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1556||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.1556
95859609|NCT02876601|191676921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
95859610|NCT02876601|191676922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95949783|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3487||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.3487
95949784|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1064||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.1064
95949785|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.2888
95949786|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.6095
95949787|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.1566
95949788|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.4216
95949789|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8166||||||Week10|ANCOVA|||||||0.8166
95949790|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9114||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.9114
95949791|NCT01853384|191871441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.9733
95949792|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439||||||Week 01|ANCOVA|||||||0.7439
95949793|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6992||||||Week 02|ANCOVA|||||||0.6992
95763904|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.27|1.07|0.002
95859611|NCT02876601|191676923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.642
95859612|NCT02876601|191676924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95859613|NCT02876601|191676925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.326
95859614|NCT02876601|191676926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.796
95859615|NCT02876601|191676927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.918
95949794|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867||||||Week 03|ANCOVA|||||||0.0867
95949795|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||||||Week 04|ANCOVA|||||||0.5739
95949796|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6497||||||Week 05|ANCOVA|||||||0.6497
95949797|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Week 06|ANCOVA|||||||0.1427
95949798|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682||||||Week 07|ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
95949799|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||Week 08|ANCOVA|||||||0.0161
95949800|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973||||||Week 09|ANCOVA|||||||0.0973
95949801|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4661||||||Week 10|ANCOVA|||||||0.4661
95949802|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Week 11|ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
95949803|NCT01853384|191871442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3369||||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3369
95949804|NCT04803734|191871459|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.862||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.922|||ANOVA|||||0.922|0.807|0.0328
95949805|NCT04803734|191871460|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-t).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.941|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.909|0.976|||ANOVA|||||0.976|0.909|<0.0001
95950765|NCT02607956|191873514|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.52
95950766|NCT02607956|191873515|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.5|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||1.5|-9.4|
95950767|NCT02607956|191873515|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.16
95763905|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.25|1.06|0.004
95763906|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.09||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.24|0.96|0.126
95763907|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.45|1.13|<0.001
95763908|NCT02556801|191497852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.43|1.11|0.002
95763909|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.70|1.03|0.032
95763910|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.74|1.68|<0.001
95802452|NCT01230814|191578115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for BV was p\<0.030 (two-sided).|clutstered chi-squared statistic||For the relative risk estimate, the metronidazole plus miconazole arm represented the numerator and the placebo arm represented the denominator such that a relative risk \<1 indicates a lower percentage of test visits in the treated arm.|Each participant within a study arm was considered a cluster, with observations at a maximum of 6 visits. The percentage of visits at which BV was detected was compared between metronidazole plus miconazole arm versus placebo arm using a chi-squared statistic adjusted for clustering using the method of Donner and Klar (2000).||0.87|0.48|0.005
95949806|NCT04803734|191871461|EQUIVALENCE|To establish bioequivalence of albuterol under fasting conditions, the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the geometric means between the products should fall within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00% interval for ln-transformed AUC(0-inf).|Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.975|||ANOVA|||||0.975|0.910|<0.0001
95949807|NCT00854594|191871528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pre-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.26
95949808|NCT00854594|191871529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: post-intervention efficacies will be equal in the two study arms.||||0.74
95993499|NCT01225562|191963279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.21|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows ticagrelor 60 mg hazard / placebo hazard|||3.21|1.68|<0.0001
95763911|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.59|1.59|<0.001
95763912|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.48||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.06|1.07|0.024
95859616|NCT02876601|191676928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.877
95949809|NCT02753075|191871531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.09||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.461||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.461|-0.289|0.8290
95949810|NCT02753075|191871531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.362||For the Week 8 comparisons of two Oral Rinses against the Placebo Rinse, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.|ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.362|-0.372|0.9993
95949811|NCT02753075|191871532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.424|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.424|-0.242|0.5892
95949812|NCT02753075|191871533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.396|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.396|-0.116|0.2825
95993500|NCT00888238|191963280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.7|||<|0.001||90.0|1.47|1.93|||ANOVA|||||1.93|1.47|<0.001
95993501|NCT00888238|191963281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.3|||<|0.001||90.0|1.08|1.52|||ANOVA|||||1.52|1.08|<0.001
95859617|NCT02876601|191676929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
95859618|NCT02876601|191676930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.938
95763913|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.98|2.09|<0.001
95763914|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 ATG levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.93|1.54|<0.001
95763915|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.18||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.47|0.95|0.102
95763916|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.46|1.61|<0.001
95763917|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||1.94|1.27|<0.001
95859619|NCT05006573|191676959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.82|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Placebo) and its 95% CI are estimated using a negative binomial model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline blood eosinophil category, and number of exacerbations from previous year.|||1.82|0.71|0.5911
95859620|NCT05006573|191676960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.91|||Regression, Cox||The analysis is performed using cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, number of exacerbations in previous year and baseline eosinophil category.|||1.91|0.67|0.6677
95859621|NCT00905164|191677021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.27|105.03|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125|||105.03|94.27|
95859622|NCT00905164|191677022|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS mean (test/ref x 100)|100.13||||||90.0|97.6|102.72|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.72|97.60|
95859623|NCT00905164|191677023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|101.53||||||90.0|99.01|104.12|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.12|99.01|
95859624|NCT00976560|191677110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.35|||BMMRM|Bayesian Mixed Effects Model Repeated Measures (BMMRM)|Prior distribution of N(-4.1, 6.4009) incorporated into the posterior for the treatment difference at Week 6. The presented Confidence Interval is Highest Probability Density (HPD).||Posterior probability of the treatment difference being greater than 1.6 points in favor of GW856553 7.5mg BID as compared to placebo at Week 6 is 15.46 and for 0 is 72.98 and for 2 is 7.87.|1.35|-2.54|
95859625|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \<10.80 versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline Hgb \>= 10.80||||0.0135
95859626|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5082||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \<= 80.5 Kg versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline weight \> 80.5||||0.5082
95859627|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with ethnicity non-Hispanic or Latino||||0.9770
95859628|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline geographic ancestry as African American versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no geographic ancestry as African American||||0.0618
95859629|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender as male versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline gender female||||0.7495
95859630|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \<65 years versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline age \>=65 years||||0.7865
95859631|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad with food versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline co-ad without food||||0.0622
95859632|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2044||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline diabetes presence versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with no Baseline diabetes||||0.2044
95859633|NCT01587924|191677160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537||95.0||||The p-value is showing the interaction of each subgroup by treatment and by day|Regression, Linear|||Modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as the US and Canada versus modeled Hgb change from baseline in participants with Baseline region as not the US and Canada||||0.8537
95859634|NCT04292899|191677183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.115||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a continuous covariate.|Proportional odds model|||||1.115|0.507|0.1563
95859635|NCT04292899|191677183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.976||P-value was calculated using a proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||||0.976|0.458|0.0368
95859636|NCT04292899|191677184|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.3||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.0||P-value for comparison of the percentages between the two groups was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline clinical status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.0|-7.4|0.7678
95859637|NCT00948441|191677185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||matched pairs T test to compare infection rates during the two study periods||||0.012
95859638|NCT02469870|191677201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||ANCOVA|||To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.598
95859639|NCT02469870|191677202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||. To address hypotheses predicting differential change in outcome measures between condition over time we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models that allow for examination of cross-sectional effects and mean adjusted outcomes. The ANCOVA models (adjusted for baseline scores) were used for analyses of change in the outcome measures at posttest.||||.81
95763918|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.39||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||1.81|1.07|0.019
95763919|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||3.08|1.84|<0.001
95949813|NCT02753075|191871533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.28|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.280|-0.229|0.8448
95763920|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP1 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.19|1.31|<0.001
95763921|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.52||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||2.31|1.01|0.048
95763922|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||3.53|1.56|<0.001
95763923|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.88|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 5 months (Visit 4)||4.24|1.88|<0.001
95763924|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.67||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||2.69|1.03|0.040
95949814|NCT02753075|191871533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.371|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.371|-0.141|0.3784
95949815|NCT02753075|191871534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-10.00|0.1688
95763925|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.30|1.67|<0.001
95763926|NCT02556801|191497853|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline of serum specific IgG4 AP5 levels after 10 months (Visit 6)||4.62|1.80|<0.001
95949816|NCT02753075|191871534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.4380
95949817|NCT02753075|191871534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. Median Difference has been calculated from non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.5693
95949818|NCT02753075|191871535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7789
95763927|NCT04090125|191497923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.90|0.485
95763928|NCT04090125|191497924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.13|0.0887
95763929|NCT04090125|191497925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.05|0.296
95763930|NCT04090125|191497926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.15|0.094
95763931|NCT04090125|191497927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|8.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-0.91|0.11
95763932|NCT04090125|191497928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.59|-4.10|0.55
95763933|NCT04090125|191497929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.134
95763934|NCT04090125|191497930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.09
95763935|NCT04090125|191497931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.16|0.25
95763936|NCT04090125|191497932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.22|0.16
95763937|NCT04090125|191497933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|52.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.02|-9.29|0.167
95763938|NCT04090125|191497934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|63.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||63.14|-12.85|0.189
95763939|NCT04090125|191497939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||8.67|-3.65|0.42
95763940|NCT04090125|191497939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||8.57|-6.29|0.76
95763941|NCT04090125|191497939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life subscale||6.12|-13.20|0.46
95949819|NCT02753075|191871535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||0.000|-5.000|0.7214
95993502|NCT00348140|191963283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.2|0.739
95993503|NCT00348140|191963283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||2.4|-0.8|0.343
95993504|NCT00348140|191963284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|0.783
95993505|NCT00348140|191963284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.1|0.940
95993506|NCT00348140|191963285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.8|-1.1|=0.763
95993507|NCT00348140|191963285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.9|-1.1|=0.800
95763942|NCT04090125|191497939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|6.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||6.69|-1.61|0.22
95763943|NCT04090125|191497940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|7.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain subscale||7.85|-4.98|0.65
95763944|NCT04090125|191497940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms subscale||11.83|-3.93|0.32
95763945|NCT04090125|191497940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|12.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||12.89|-9.61|0.77
95763946|NCT04090125|191497940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|8.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Function in daily life||8.17|-1.67|0.19
95763947|NCT04090125|191497941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-4.92|0.191
95993508|NCT00348140|191963286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.7|0.611
95763948|NCT04090125|191497942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-8.28|0.0004
95763949|NCT01288807|191497943|OTHER|repeated measure ANOVA|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
95763950|NCT01288807|191497944|OTHER|two-tailed paired t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the cold threshold measured in degrees celcius before and after treatment.||||< 0.05
95763951|NCT01288807|191497945|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis looks at the pressure threshold measured in pounds per square inch before and after treatment||||> 0.05
95763952|NCT01288807|191497946|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||one-way repeated measure ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
95763953|NCT04660331|191497981|OTHER||||||||||||||||||2-sided t-test conducted for pre- and post-training results.|||
95763954|NCT04660331|191497982|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
95763955|NCT04660331|191497983|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We grouped pharmacy data on vaccines delivered pre/post intervention into six categories: HPV vaccine, Tdap, Meningococcal, Influenza, COVID-19, and other vaccines. We then compared the counts of total vaccines that were conducted in each group pre- and post-training.|||
95763956|NCT02635984|191497984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||Based on an 80 % power and an alpha of 0.05, we estimated a need for 49 patients in each treatment arm. From a review of existing literature, the sample size was based on an estimated CR achieved in 65 % of patients on triplet therapy alone and a hypothesized clinically relevant increase of 25 % for the treatment group to 90 %.||||0.003
95763957|NCT02635984|191497985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95763958|NCT02635984|191497986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95949820|NCT02753075|191871535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Median difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment. From non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimations.|||5.000|-5.000|0.8960
95949821|NCT02753075|191871536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.987|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.987|-0.084|0.0978
95949822|NCT02753075|191871536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.732|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.732|-0.333|0.4607
95949823|NCT02753075|191871536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.787|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.787|-0.283|0.3542
95993509|NCT00348140|191963286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.6|0.741
95993510|NCT00348140|191963287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.913
95763959|NCT02635984|191497987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95763960|NCT02635984|191497988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95763961|NCT02635984|191497989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95802453|NCT00669331|191578136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio Mannitol:Control|0.92||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline PE rate as predictors and log of follow-up time as an offset variable|For rate ratio, Mannitol rate is the numerator, Control rate is the denominator|||1.08|0.78|0.3115
95802454|NCT00669331|191578137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference across the 52 weeks|-2.4||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-0.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|Model included treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline SGRQ Total score.|difference calculated Mannitol-control. Negative difference is in favour of mannitol since lower scores indicate improved quality of life.|||-0.05|-4.76|0.0457
95993511|NCT00348140|191963287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.481
95763962|NCT02635984|191497990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95763963|NCT02635984|191497991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95763964|NCT04700137|191498000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-3.0|0.31
95763965|NCT04700137|191498000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.|A T-score of 50 represents the mean of the US general population (based on the 2010 Census) and 10 T-score units represents one standard deviation. Higher T-score indicates higher loneliness.|Difference in loneliness among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.2|-1.8|0.83
95763966|NCT04700137|191498001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.5|0.0|0.05
95802455|NCT00669331|191578138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.91||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, log follow-up as offset|Rate ratio is for mannitol vs control.|||1.08|0.77|0.2754
95802456|NCT00669331|191578139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model was stratified by region and baseline PE rate||||0.96|0.63|0.0218
95802457|NCT00669331|191578140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.88||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.16|||Negative binomial model|treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||Analysed using a negative binomial model with treatment, region and baseline pulmonary exacerbation rate as predictors, and with log of follow-up time as the offset variable||1.16|0.67|0.3602
95949824|NCT02753075|191871537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|0.711|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.711|-0.665|0.9474
95949825|NCT02753075|191871537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.586|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.586|-0.760|0.7987
95949826|NCT02753075|191871537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.798|||ANCOVA||From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate. Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.798|-0.578|0.7525
95949827|NCT01393600|191871538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5880
95993512|NCT00348140|191963288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.4|0.557
95993513|NCT00348140|191963288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.5|0.404
95993514|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.5|0.633
95993515|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 8||0.8|-0.4|0.575
95993516|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.7|-0.6|0.820
95993517|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 16||0.6|-0.7|0.908
95763967|NCT04700137|191498001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in suicidal ideation and behavior (C-SSRS) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.1|-0.4|0.2
95763968|NCT04700137|191498002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.5|0.45
95802458|NCT00669331|191578141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ls mean difference across 52 weeks|2.76||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline sputum weight (g).|Difference mannitol-control|||5.33|0.19|0.0355
95802459|NCT00669331|191578142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff across post-baseline visits|-0.44||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, region and baseline ESS score|Negative change indicates an improvement in ESS score. Difference calculated Mannitol - Control.|||0.11|-0.99|0.1159
95802460|NCT00669331|191578143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.56||||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|42.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model of absolute change from baseline in FEV1. Model includes terms for treatment, visit, trt\*visit, region and baseline value|ls mean difference Mannitol-Control|||42.13|-27.01|0.6677
95802461|NCT00669331|191578150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.09|0.34|0.0928
95802462|NCT00666978|191578173|SUPERIORITY|The x2 test was used to determine whether there was a difference between treatment groups (bupropion SR vs placebo) in verified 7-day point prevalence abstinence at week 26, imputing the missing participants as smokers.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35||All tests of statistical significance were two-sided, and all P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||Raw proportions were used to estimate the verified cessation rate in each group and corresponding odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval .|Based on our previous studies, sample size was determined a priori assuming a two-sided x2 test with a type I error rate of .05, a power of 80%, and a cotinine-verified abstinence rate of 15% in the placebo group and 25% in the bupropion SR group at week 26, with the assumption that those lost to follow-up would be imputed as smokers.||2.35|0.82|.23
95802463|NCT00666978|191578174|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99||This reflects Week 7.|Regression, Logistic||This reflects Week 7.|||0.99|0.95|0.0022
95802464|NCT00666978|191578175|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis relied on examining quit rates using linear regression, where the hydroxybupropion was a significant predictor of smoking cessation. CYP2B6 genotype was not a direct significant predictor of cessation in either the placebo or bupropion arm.|Regression, Linear||Bupropion adherent individuals with higher hydroxybupropion levels were more likely to be abstinent at Weeks 3, 7 and 26 compared to individuals with lower hydroxybupropion levels.|||||<0.05
95802465|NCT01428713|191578205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|536.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|162.12||0.01||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant in this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.01
95802466|NCT01428713|191578205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|157.35||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing PBAC score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.03
95802467|NCT01428713|191578205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.03||||||P value \< 0.05 is considered significant for this study|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for TA|||||0.03
95802468|NCT01428713|191578205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing Peds QL score value at baseline vs. end of 3 cycles for COCP|||||0.01
95949828|NCT01393600|191871538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-3.8|0.4184
95949829|NCT01393600|191871540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANOVA|||||1.6|-2.4|0.6761
95949830|NCT01393600|191871540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.8|||ANOVA|||||-1.8|-6.6|0.0015
95993518|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||1.1|-0.3|0.292
95763969|NCT04700137|191498002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in depression (PHQ-9) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.3|-0.7|0.51
95763970|NCT04700137|191498003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||0.7|-1.3|0.54
95993519|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 24||0.7|-0.7|0.978
95763971|NCT04700137|191498003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in anxiety (GAD-7) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||2.0|0.1|0.04
95763972|NCT04700137|191498004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among patients.||1.7|-2.1|0.84
95763973|NCT04700137|191498004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors.|T-score of 50 = mean of the US general population (2010 Census); 10 T-score units = one standard deviation. Higher T-scores = higher stress. T-scores equal to or greater than 60.5 (adults) or 60.8 (adolescents) are moderate or high risk.|Change in stress from baseline to 6 months among healthcare providers/staff.||3.7|-0.7|0.18
95763974|NCT04700137|191498005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.6|-0.6|0.38
95949831|NCT01163214|191871542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95949832|NCT01163214|191871542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95949833|NCT01163214|191871543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95763975|NCT04700137|191498005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in perceived burdensomeness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.0|-0.8|0.81
95763976|NCT04700137|191498005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among patients by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||1.8|-2.6|0.73
95949834|NCT01163214|191871543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95949835|NCT01163214|191871544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for intraoperative narcotic use.||||<0.001
95949836|NCT01163214|191871544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on day of surgery as needed.||||<0.001
95949837|NCT01163214|191871544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 1 as needed.||||0.17
95949838|NCT01163214|191871544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of arms for narcotic use on post operative day 2 as needed.||||0.51
95949839|NCT01163214|191871545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 morning.||||<0.001
95949840|NCT01163214|191871545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 1 afternoon.||||<0.001
95949841|NCT01163214|191871545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 morning.||||0.002
95949842|NCT01163214|191871545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for postoperative day 2 afternoon.||||0.97
95949843|NCT01163214|191871546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the arms for length of stay in the hospital.||||0.02
95949844|NCT01163214|191871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral nerve.||||0.49
95949845|NCT01163214|191871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for common peroneal nerve.||||0.01
95763977|NCT04700137|191498005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for the baseline score as a precision variable.||Difference in thwarted belongingness (INQ15) among healthcare providers/staff by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||3.2|-0.8|0.24
95763978|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-12.5|0.12
95802469|NCT03300336|191578213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a logit link and a binomial distribution|Odds in intervention numerator vs odds in usual care denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline timepoints), and a site-level random effect. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||0.93|0.64|0.01
95802470|NCT03300336|191578214|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|generalized linear model|generalized linear model with a log link and negative binomial distribution.|The rate ratio compares the intervention rate in the numerator vs the usual care rate in the denominator|Model included a time-varying indicator for when STRIDE program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the 7 post-baseline time points), a site-level random effect and random effects for each of the time periods. Model was not adjusted for patient characteristics. Estimated means and standard errors are provided in Outcome Measure Data table.||1.15|0.97|0.25
95763979|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-0.7||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased tobacco use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||-0.7|-11.5|0.03
95763980|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||8.5|-10.7|0.83
95763981|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased alcohol use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||12.5|-8.0|0.67
95763982|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.9||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||9.9|-4.1|0.42
95763983|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased marijuana/cannabis use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||4.5|-8.7|0.53
95949846|NCT01163214|191871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for tibial nerve.||||0.62
95763984|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among patients randomized to CC+ vs CC||1.4|-6.3|0.20
95763985|NCT04700137|191498007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.0||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Number of participants with increased illicit drug use among healthcare providers/staff randomized to CC+ vs CC||2.0|-3.4|0.62
95763986|NCT04700137|191498008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|6.3||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of patients attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||6.3|-15.4|0.41
95949847|NCT01163214|191871547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for femoral, peroneal, or tibial nerves.||||0.009
95763987|NCT04700137|191498008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.2||p\<0.05 = a priori threshold for statistical significance|GLM|Generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link and binomial variance||Difference in proportion of healthcare providers/staff attending mental healthcare appointments by intervention arm at follow-up (6 months).||16.2|-5.2|0.31
95949848|NCT00988429|191871564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.058
95949849|NCT00988429|191871564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95949850|NCT00988429|191871565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.068
95949851|NCT00988429|191871565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95949852|NCT02964234|191871566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|56.31||We clustered by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status (education, income, insurance status) baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regressions, clustering by cohort, given both interventions used a group format, and adjusting for age, education, income, insurance status, baseline mammography history, and baseline mammography intention. The null hypothesis was there would be no study arm differences. A priori power analysis suggested that a sample size of 150, assuming alpha = .05, power = .80 would lead us to detect medium/large effects (OR = 2.8).||56.31|2.01|.005
95950768|NCT02607956|191873516|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.8|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.8|-8.8|
95949853|NCT02964234|191871567|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|With GEE. Models had exchangeable correlation structure, a gamma distribution, and log link.||Analyses were conducted using GEE with an exchangeable correlation structure and a gamma distribution with log link. All models included study arm, time, and the study arm\*time. Covariates included age, education, and mammography history. With 150 Latinas, alpha = 0.05, power = 0.80, ICC = 0.0-0.05, we expected to detect small/medium interaction effects.||-0.04|-0.34|0.03
95949854|NCT02964234|191871568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|13.32||Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size.|Ordinal regression|||We used ordinal regression, given the non-normal distribution revealed by preliminary analyses. Analyses clustered by cohort and adjusted for age, SES (education, income, insurance), mammography history, mammography intention, and baseline supportive breast cancer social network size. Power analyses suggested that with 150 Latinas, alpha = .05, power = .80, we would be able to detect a small effect (Cohen's f = 0.05).||13.32|2.82|<0.0001
95993520|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||1.0|-0.6|0.691
95993521|NCT00348140|191963289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 36||0.8|-0.9|0.849
95993522|NCT00348140|191963290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.938
95763988|NCT04386616|191498037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.75|0.9266
95763989|NCT04386616|191498037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.54||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.54|0.86|0.3570
95763990|NCT04386616|191498037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.36||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.36|0.74|0.9812
95763991|NCT04386616|191498037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.82|0.5151
95763992|NCT04386616|191498038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.77|0.8373
95763993|NCT04386616|191498038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.55|0.86|0.3396
95763994|NCT04386616|191498038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.39|0.76|0.8619
95763995|NCT04386616|191498038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.5|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.50|0.82|0.4913
95763996|NCT04386616|191498039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.49|0.83|0.4711
95763997|NCT04386616|191498039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56|||Unstratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.56|0.87|0.3135
95763998|NCT04386616|191498039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.48|0.81|0.5735
95763999|NCT04386616|191498039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.46|||Stratified Log Rank|The analysis was adjusted for the baseline characteristics of region of enrollment and need for mechanical ventilation.|The hazard ratio was calculated as the UTTR1147A Arm relative to the Placebo Arm.|||1.46|0.80|0.5973
95764000|NCT04386616|191498040|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.5304|||||||Van Elteren||The median difference was calculated as the MSTT1041A Arm minus the Placebo Arm.|||||0.5304
95949855|NCT01799993|191871569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.841||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.277|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.277|0.554|0.4263
95949856|NCT01799993|191871570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6421|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6421
95949857|NCT01799993|191871571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7984
95949858|NCT01799993|191871572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7144|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7144
95949859|NCT01799993|191871573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4278|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4278
95993523|NCT00348140|191963290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of participants with evaluable data|For Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.887
95802510|NCT02864914|191578406|OTHER||Adjusted incidence rate ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|3.95|||||Adjusted incidence rate ratio = incidence rate empagliflozin / incidence rate DPP-4 inhibitors|Adjusted IR ratio was generated overall with corresponding 95% CIs through the application of a Poisson regression model where the outcome was modelled as a function of treatment cohort (empagliflozin or DPP-4 inhibitors) and propensity score decile (specified as a categorical variable) with the log of time of exposure (in years) as the offset. If any variable remained unbalanced after trimming, it was added as an independent variable in the Poisson regression model.||3.95|2.83|
95802511|NCT01740427|191578417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.718||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||0.718|0.463|<0.000001
95802512|NCT01740427|191578418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|2.03||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.030|1.008|0.0224
95802513|NCT01740427|191578419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.347||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs non-visceral) per randomization.||2.347|1.080|0.0090
95802514|NCT01740427|191578421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.619|3.722||1-sided p-value is from exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Stratified analysis: Stratified by disease site (visceral, non-visceral) per randomization.||3.722|1.619|<0.0001
95802515|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.737|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER positive||0.737|0.443|<0.0001
95802516|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.405||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.751|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for ER Negative||0.751|0.218|0.0030
95802517|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.68|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Positive||0.680|0.416|<0.0001
95864320|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9317||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9317
95802518|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.675||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.481|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Rb Negative||1.481|0.308|0.3237
95802519|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|0.705|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Positive||0.705|0.437|<0.0001
95802520|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|3.461|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Cyclin D1 Negative||3.461|0.287|0.9964
95802521|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Positive||0.670|0.400|<0.0001
95802522|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|1.364|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 Negative||1.364|0.392|0.3221
95802523|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\<175||0.742|0.455|<0.0001
95802524|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.255||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for p16 HScore\>=175||0.650|0.100|0.0022
95802525|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.742|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \<=20%||0.742|0.379|0.0002
95802526|NCT01740427|191578422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.791|||Unstratified log-rank test||Unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used.|Statistical analysis for Ki67 \>20%||0.791|0.409|0.0007
95802527|NCT01740427|191578426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||0.051|-0.004|0.0925
95802528|NCT01740427|191578427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||||1.98|-2.63|0.7822
95802529|NCT01740427|191578429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.33775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.177||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.177|0.777|0.337750
95802530|NCT01740427|191578430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.208706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.124||1-sided p-value from the stratified log-rank test.|Stratified Log Rank|||||1.124|0.755|0.208706
95802531|NCT02184156|191578450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95802532|NCT02184156|191578451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95802533|NCT00126737|191578463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.395||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Co-variates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function subscale.||||-1.38|-11.41|0.0129
95864321|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0675||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0675
95764441|NCT00780338|191499094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time. We report the interaction p value here.|Linear Growth Models|||Mirroring the intent-to-treat analysis (but comparing AGTO users to AGTO non users instead), we fitted a model with two sets of random effects, one for matched coalitions and one with random intercepts and linear functions of time to account for trajectories of repeated observations within respondent. The model included three fixed effect terms: group (AGTO vs. control), time (Baseline=0 years, Mid=1 year, Post=2 years), and an interaction between group and time.||||.02
95764442|NCT01998919|191499096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|17.0|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||17.0|-10.3|
95764443|NCT01998919|191499097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|26.8|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||26.8|-5.6|
95764444|NCT01998919|191499098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|27.7|||||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||27.7|-2.7|
95802534|NCT00126737|191578463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.174||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.079|||ANCOVA|Covariates entered into the model were BMI and WOMAC function||||0.079|-10.43|0.0535
95802535|NCT00126737|191578464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.545||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|8.659|||ANCOVA|||||8.659|0.432|0.0307
95802536|NCT00126737|191578466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.94||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.655|72.215|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||72.215|7.655|0.0158
95764445|NCT01998919|191499099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0075
95764446|NCT01998919|191499099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81|||Wald test|||||0.81|0.22|0.0099
95764447|NCT01998919|191499100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0004
95764448|NCT01998919|191499100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.7|||Wald Test|||||0.70|0.33|0.0001
95764449|NCT01998919|191499101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95764450|NCT01998919|191499101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68|||Wald test|||||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
95764451|NCT01998919|191499102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5991|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5991
95764452|NCT01998919|191499102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Wald test|||||1.23|0.58|0.3774
95764453|NCT00116779|191499103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0||||||95.0|73.0|94.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|73|
95764454|NCT00116779|191499103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.0||||||95.0|64.0|88.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|64|
95764455|NCT00116779|191499104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|90.0||||||95.0|79.0|96.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|79|
95764456|NCT00116779|191499104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|89.0||||||95.0|78.0|95.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|78|
95764457|NCT00116779|191499104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8413
95764458|NCT00116779|191499105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|93.0||||||95.0|82.0|99.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|82|
95764459|NCT00116779|191499105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|98.0||||||95.0|87.0|100.0|||||The 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|87|
95764460|NCT00116779|191499106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to 50% reduction||||.904
95764461|NCT00116779|191499106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Days to 90% reduction||||.778
95764462|NCT02792517|191499158|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.22|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.22|0.88|
95802537|NCT00126737|191578466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.97|94.54|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||94.54|29.97|0.0002
95802538|NCT00126737|191578466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.95||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.54|75.36|||ANCOVA|Total disease (co-morbidity) as covariate was entered into the model||||75.36|12.54|0.0056
95802539|NCT00126737|191578467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.129||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.767|45.492|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||45.492|10.767|0.0018
95802540|NCT00126737|191578467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.71||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.675|43.746|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence scale was entered into the model||||43.746|9.675|0.0024
95802541|NCT00126737|191578467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.747||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|36.325|||ANCOVA|Kellgren Lawrence Scale was entered into the model||||36.325|1.169|0.0368
95802542|NCT03548415|191578520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306||||||The p-value was analyzed using the nonparametric test, Van Elteren test with IGF-1 level as stratification factor.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.306
95843686|NCT02412098|191654849|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|127.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|222.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||222.01|73.57|
95843687|NCT02412098|191654850|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|80.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|144.79|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.||144.79|45.11|
95843688|NCT02412098|191654850|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|73.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.83|113.02||ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 AUCinf.|||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|||113.02|47.83|
95764463|NCT02792517|191499159|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.14|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.14|0.91|
95764464|NCT02792517|191499160|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.16|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.16|0.97|
95764465|NCT02792517|191499161|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.1|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.10|0.96|
95764466|NCT02792517|191499162|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.23|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed Cmax was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.23|0.90|
95802543|NCT01243424|191578544|NON_INFERIORITY|This was the first step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach. The upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the Hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin vs. glimepiride was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority. All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority were calculated.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride||||1.14|0.84|<0.0001
95802544|NCT01243424|191578544|SUPERIORITY|This was the second step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.84|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.84|0.3813
95802545|NCT01243424|191578545|SUPERIORITY|This was the third step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.47|0.86|1.14||P-values derived from Wald´s Chi-square test for non-inferiority.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional-hazard model with factor treatment was applied to compare linagliptin with glimepiride.||||1.14|0.86|0.4334
95961978|NCT02358668|191895948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<0.01
95764467|NCT02792517|191499163|OTHER||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.12|||||Ratio of EE/norgestimate + erenumab to EE/norgestimate alone|The log-transformed AUCtau was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.12|0.94|
95764468|NCT01269918|191499169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-5|-13|< 0.001
95764469|NCT01269918|191499169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on MAP collapsed over time was estimated using a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-4|-13|< 0.001
95764470|NCT01269918|191499170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used a noninferiority delta of 1 point. If noninferiority was detected, we proceeded to test for superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-1.1|-2.7|< 0.001
95764471|NCT01269918|191499170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on VAS pain score estimated from a 1-tailed t test from a repeated measures ANOVA model.||-0.9|-2.8|< 0.001
95764472|NCT01269918|191499171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority delta = 2 mg opioid|Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-5|-10|< 0.001
95764473|NCT01269918|191499171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on opioid consumption estimated from a Wilcoxon rank sum test||-3|-10|< 0.001
95764474|NCT01269918|191499172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on heart rate was assessed using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline heart rate.||3|-10|< 0.001
95802546|NCT01243424|191578546|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.43|1.96||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|||1.96|1.43|<0.0001
95802547|NCT01243424|191578547|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.47|1.11|1.48||p-value derived from logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression with factor for treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.48|1.11|0.0004
95802548|NCT01243424|191578551|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||p-value derived from Wald´s chi-square test.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio and confidence interval derived from Cox regression with factor treatment.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.09|0.85|0.5249
95864322|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1745||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Total Score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1745
95961979|NCT02358668|191895948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.34|0.14
95764475|NCT01269918|191499173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on SOMCT estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline SOMCT score.||0.5|-2.6|0.16
95764476|NCT01269918|191499174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Aldrete score estimated using a linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline Aldrete score.||0.03|-0.6|0.07
95764477|NCT01269918|191499175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.001|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on Nursing workload comparison estimated using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||-0.001|-1|0.009
95764478|NCT01269918|191499176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to open eyes estimated using Cox regression.||0.18|0.07|< 0.001
95764479|NCT01269918|191499177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus dexmedetomidine on time to recall assessed using Cox regression.||0.19|0.07|< 0.001
95764480|NCT01269918|191499178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to fitness discharge estimated using Cox regression.||0.95|0.48|0.022
95950801|NCT02312258|191873592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.381|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), International Staging System (ISS) stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus \[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (complete response (CR) or very good partial response (VGPR) vs partial response (PR)).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 versus\[vs\] \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.381|0.861|=0.473
96001829|NCT01096667|191981230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.58||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.36|-3.51|0.148
95764481|NCT01269918|191499179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Remifentanyl versus Dexmedetomidine on time to PACU discharge estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression||1.62|0.81|0.45
95764482|NCT01269918|191499180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative nausea estimated from chi squared test.||2.2|0.5|0.91
95764483|NCT01269918|191499181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on postoperative vomiting estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.07|0.16
95764484|NCT01269918|191499182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanyl on incidence of shivering estimated from a chi square test.||1.7|0.1|0.21
95764485|NCT01400477|191499188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||A priori vape was \<0.05|ANOVA|df 1, 37||||||0.89
95764486|NCT03885661|191499206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||mixed effects regression|testing for the outcome employed mixed effects regression. The key fixed effects were group assignment, period, and the group X period interaction.||||||0.65
95764487|NCT03442751|191499245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.4|-1.5|0.0004
95764488|NCT03442751|191499246|SUPERIORITY|last observation carried forward was used to impute missing Month 12 data|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||repeated measures mixed analysis of covariance model||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
95764489|NCT04620746|191499272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.98
95764490|NCT04620746|191499273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95764491|NCT02777372|191499283|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||Effect of group on differences in ASR t scores from follicular to luteal.||||0.139
95764492|NCT02777372|191499284|OTHER|||||||0.843||||||Effect of group on ASR t score in the first luteal phase (no medication) to the second luteal phase (sertraline).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.843
95764493|NCT02777372|191499285|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95764494|NCT03535740|191499287|OTHER|||||||0.0763||||||P-value was based on the comparison of the confirm ORR among the 90/180mg group against a fixed response rate of 20%.|Exact Binomial Test|The calculation was based on an exact binomial test with a total 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 at primary analysis.||||||0.0763
95764495|NCT00129545|191499327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The posterior probability of non-inferiority is defined as the probability that the event rate for the Device group is less than twice that for the Control group. This probability was required to be greater than 0.975 for a finding of non-inferiority. The criterion for non-inferiority was consistently met at each analysis time point demonstrating the Device group is non-inferior to the Control group.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.07|||||Relative Risk calculated as Device Rate over Control rate, with 95% Credible Intervals|||1.07|0.42|
95764496|NCT05317312|191499346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.08||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|42.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 1.25mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||42.7|-5.2|0.123
95764497|NCT05317312|191499346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|55.0|||Emax||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|55.0|14.4|<0.001
95764498|NCT05317312|191499346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|61.7|||Emax||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on the Emax model. The values that appear in the Outcome Measure Data Table are observed values.|||61.7|23.9|<0.001
95764499|NCT05317312|191499347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||||The estimated difference between 1.5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values.|||0.2|-2.0|
95764500|NCT05317312|191499347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||The estimated difference between 5mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.4|-1.8|
95764501|NCT05317312|191499347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||||The estimated difference between 15mg bid and placebo is based on Mixed Model Repeated Measures.. The values in the Outcome Measure Data are observed mean values|||0.3|-1.9|
95802549|NCT01243424|191578552|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HbA1c.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-0.03|-0.15|0.0023
95802550|NCT01243424|191578553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||-4.8|-9.7|<0.0001
95802551|NCT01243424|191578554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.47|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline LDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|LDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.1|-1.3|0.6400
95859772|NCT00505778|191677715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|1.3||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.9|-2.3|0.5016
95764502|NCT05317312|191499348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.036
95764503|NCT05317312|191499348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
95764504|NCT05317312|191499348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95764505|NCT05317312|191499349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
95764506|NCT05317312|191499349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.383
95764507|NCT05317312|191499349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95764508|NCT05317312|191499350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|52.7|||Chi-squared|||||52.7|2.0|0.042
95764509|NCT05317312|191499350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|59.3|||Chi-squared|||||59.3|9.7|0.01
95764510|NCT05317312|191499350|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|74.1|||Chi-squared|||||74.1|29.6|<0.001
95764511|NCT05317312|191499351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-6.5|||Chi-squared|||||-6.5|-55.9|0.019
95764512|NCT05317312|191499351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-41.6|0.187
95764513|NCT05317312|191499351|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|20.6|||Chi-squared|||||20.6|-68.3|0.001
95802552|NCT01243424|191578554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline HDL cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|HDL cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.0|0.0|0.0497
95802553|NCT01243424|191578554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline total cholesterol.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|Total cholesterol, this was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.6|-2.4|0.6823
95802554|NCT01243424|191578555|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline FPG.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||2.7|-9.6|0.2678
95802555|NCT01243424|191578556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline creatinine.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||0.01|-0.03|0.5165
95802556|NCT01243424|191578557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline eGFR.|Mean difference = Linagliptin mean - Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.8|0.2|0.5165
95764514|NCT02096744|191499358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|109.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||109.37|95.74|<0.0001
95764515|NCT02096744|191499359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.367|110.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.487|98.367|<0.0001
95764516|NCT02096744|191499360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group', 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||108.63|97.25|<0.0001
95802557|NCT01243424|191578558|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|0.97||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effect of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline UACR.|gMean ration= Linagliptin mean/ Glimepiride mean|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.03|0.91|0.2921
95802558|NCT01243424|191578560|EQUIVALENCE|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.13||||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.46|44.71|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the continuous covariate of baseline ISR.|Mean difference= Linagliptin mean- Glimepiride mean|||44.71|-36.46|0.8402
95802559|NCT01243424|191578561|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with terms for treatment as a fixed effect with Wald confidence Interval was used.|Linagliptin vs. Glimepiride odds is presented.|This was the fifth step in a pre-defined hierarchical testing approach.||1.18|0.86|0.9112
95802560|NCT01368185|191578569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SUA from baseline|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SUA minus baseline SUA.|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
95764517|NCT02096744|191499361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means Catapres-TTS-3(Oppanol/Vistanex) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|104.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.148|110.294|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'Group','sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|"The estimated value is actually the ratio of Catapres-TTS-3 with Oppanol and Catapres-TTS-3 with Vistanex.~The value in parameter dispersion type and dispersion value is actually the intra-individual gCV."|||110.294|98.148|<0.0001
95764518|NCT00619060|191499400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Binomial|||||||0.01
95764519|NCT00852202|191499404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7408|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7408
95802561|NCT01368185|191578570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
95802562|NCT01368185|191578571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change DBP from Baseline|-7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 DBP minus baseline DBP (n=1239).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
95802563|NCT01368185|191578572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% change SBP from Baseline|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Percent change of month 3 SBP minus baseline SBP (n=1245).|Comparison between Month 3 and Baseline||||<0.01
95802564|NCT04535362|191578584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.93
95802565|NCT04535362|191578585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.68
95843689|NCT02412098|191654851|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|66.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.33|83.04|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||83.04|53.33|
95843690|NCT02412098|191654851|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|102.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|125.45|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine Cmax.||125.45|83.03|
95843691|NCT02412098|191654852|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|76.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.65|114.77|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||114.77|50.65|
95950802|NCT02312258|191873594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.655|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.799|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTP between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.799|0.537|<0.001
95950803|NCT02312258|191873595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||=|0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.246|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS2 between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.246|0.777|=0.893
95764520|NCT00852202|191499404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9961|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9961
95764521|NCT00852202|191499405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3441
95950804|NCT02312258|191873596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|0.957|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing TTNT between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.957|0.631|=0.018
95950805|NCT02312258|191873597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.47|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing Time to End of Next Line Therapy between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.470|0.839|=0.462
95950806|NCT02312258|191873598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.727|||||||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant.|1.727|0.968|
95961980|NCT02358668|191895949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.52|<0.01
95961981|NCT02358668|191895949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.38
95764522|NCT00852202|191499405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2683|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2683
95764523|NCT05411991|191499415|SUPERIORITY||Net treatment benefit|10.5||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|31.9|||General pairwaise comparison|||||31.9|-11.9|0.357
95764524|NCT02218463|191499427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessment of complete resolution between the 2 study arms.||||0.206
95764525|NCT02218463|191499428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Time Effect||||0.0001
95764526|NCT02218463|191499428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment Effect||||0.370
95764527|NCT02218463|191499428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment by time interaction||||0.425
95764528|NCT02810457|191499512|EQUIVALENCE|A 90% CI for the ORR ratio between FKB238 and Avastin was estimated and compared to the margin (0.73 to 1.38), which was deemed to represent a clinically acceptable difference with respect to ORR. If the 90% CI was within the equivalence margin (0.73 to 1.38), an equivalence between FKB238 and Avastin, with respect to the ORR, was confirmed.|Ratio in ORR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.08||||||||1.08|0.86|
95764529|NCT02810457|191499513|OTHER|Ratio in ORR analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Ratio in ORR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||Comparison between groups: Risk ratio in ORR at Week 19 by BICR.||1.06|0.83|
95843692|NCT02412098|191654852|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|71.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.59|113.25|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|ANOVA appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of GS-623134 Cmax.||113.25|44.59|
95843693|NCT03884790|191654874|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistical analysis|||
95764530|NCT02810457|191499514|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.16|0.82|
95764531|NCT02810457|191499515|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.45|0.96|
95764532|NCT02810457|191499516|OTHER|Hazard ratio analysis of FKB238 versus Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Treatment hazard ratio \<1 favors FKB238.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox regression model adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age) with ties handled by the Efron method.||1.23|0.74|
95764533|NCT02810457|191499517|OTHER|Comparison between arms: Odds ratio.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||||Odds ratio \>1 favors FKB238.|The DCR was compared between treatment arms using logistic regression adjusting for baseline characteristics (randomization stratification factors, ECOG performance status at baseline, gender, smoking history and age).||1.58|0.64|
95764534|NCT03514459|191499528|SUPERIORITY||Prevalence ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Poisson regression|Robust standard errors||||2.20|1.54|<0.001
95802566|NCT04535362|191578587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.37
95802567|NCT04535362|191578588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The fixed effects in the mixed models were infusion rate (2.5 minutes, 5 minutes and 10 minutes (placebo)), cigarette condition (menthol vs. non-menthol), and their interaction. We also controlled for order effects of cigarette condition by including session in the models Subject was a clustering factor and different variance-covariance structures were considered within each condition and subject. The best-fitting structure was selected based on Schwartz's Bayesian Criterion.||||0.20
95961982|NCT02358668|191895950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|0.01
95764535|NCT01321749|191499571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||5.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95764536|NCT02750618|191499580|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||GEE model|||||1.19|0.73|< 0.0001
95764537|NCT02750618|191499582|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.35|||GEE model|||||2.35|2.07|< 0.0001
95764538|NCT02750618|191499583|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.45|||GEE model|||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), 95% confidence interval (CI) and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||2.45|2.01|< 0.0001
95764539|NCT02750618|191499584|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.53|||GEE model|||||-1.53|-1.98|< 0.0001
95764540|NCT02750618|191499585|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||||-1.80|-2.25|< 0.0001
95764541|NCT02750618|191499586|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||GEE model|||||1.51|0.90|< 0.0001
95764542|NCT02750618|191499587|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.76||The GEE model includes the RGI-C score as the dependent variable, visit as a factor, age and RSS at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE|||||1.76|1.27|< 0.0001
95764543|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-82.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.68|-37.15|||GEE model|||Week 4||-37.15|-128.68|0.0004
95764544|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-83.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.55|4.88|||GEE model|||Week 12||4.88|-172.55|0.0640
95764545|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-161.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.7|-136.05|||GEE model|||Week 20||-136.05|-186.70|< 0.0001
95764546|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-214.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.7|-188.28|||GEE model|||Week 40||-188.28|-241.70|< 0.0001
95764547|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-226.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.11|-204.06|||GEE model|||Week 48||-204.06|-249.11|< 0.0001
95764548|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.13|-184.77|||GEE model|||Week 56||-184.77|-248.13|< 0.0001
95764549|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-216.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.66|-191.86|||GEE model|||Week 64||-191.86|-241.66|< 0.0001
95764550|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-231.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.51|-199.93|||GEE|||Week 76||-199.93|-262.51|< 0.0001
95802568|NCT00395512|191578614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.33||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was defined as change from Baseline in HbA1c level at Week 26. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A25 + P30 group would be equal to the average changes for the P30 alone and A25 alone groups; further, under the null hypothesis, the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 26 for the A12.5 + P30 group was equal to the average change for the P30 alone group.||-0.33|-0.78|<0.001
95764551|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-237.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.94|-212.62|||GEE|||Week 88||-212.62|-262.94|< 0.0001
95764552|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-218.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.21|-188.08|||GEE|||Week 100||-188.08|-248.21|< 0.0001
95764553|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-233.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.66|-212.16|||GEE|||Week 112||-212.16|-255.66|< 0.0001
95764554|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-252.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.51|-235.93|||GEE|||Week 124||-235.93|-268.51|< 0.0001
95764555|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-267.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.61|-242.16|||GEE|||Week 136||-242.16|-293.61|< 0.0001
95764556|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.85|-223.25|||GEE|||Week 148||-223.25|-272.85|< 0.0001
95764557|NCT02750618|191499591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-248.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-270.01|-226.93|||GEE|||Week 160||-226.93|-270.01|< 0.0001
95764558|NCT04179838|191499593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons in piriform cortex|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in decoding accuracy between sleep-deprived and non-sleep deprived interventions. Paired t-test on decoding accuracy from both phases (sleep-deprived minus non-sleep deprived) against the null hypothesis of no difference.||||0.001
95764559|NCT04179838|191499594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.021
95764560|NCT04179838|191499595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.63
95764561|NCT04179838|191499596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.08
95764562|NCT04179838|191499597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.28
95764563|NCT04179838|191499598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.50
95764564|NCT04179838|191499599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there was no change after the sleep-deprived relative to the non-sleep deprived intervention. One sample t-test on percentage change in the sleep-deprived relative to non-sleep deprived phase.||||0.58
95764565|NCT02763046|191499605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.74|0.3512
95764566|NCT02763046|191499606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.60|0.68|0.4010
95764567|NCT02763046|191499606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.55|0.67|0.4382
95764568|NCT02763046|191499606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||3.50|0.91|0.0934
95764569|NCT02763046|191499606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16||2.90|0.75|0.2619
95764570|NCT02763046|191499607|SUPERIORITY||LS (least square) Mean|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|1.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.96|-22.55|0.0997
95764571|NCT02763046|191499607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|1.87|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.87|-26.47|0.0888
95764572|NCT02763046|191499607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.36|5.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||5.79|-22.36|0.2484
95764573|NCT02763046|191499608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.06||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|11.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||delayed tapering (W12) vs early tapering (W16)||11.98|-16.11|0.7735
95764574|NCT02763046|191499609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1926
95764575|NCT02763046|191499609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.23|-1.14|0.1914
95764576|NCT02763046|191499609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.35|-1.01|0.3397
95764577|NCT02763046|191499609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.04|-1.33|0.0384
95764578|NCT02763046|191499609|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||0.23|-1.05|0.2116
95764579|NCT02763046|191499610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.63|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.63|-1.38|0.5384
95764580|NCT02763046|191499610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.21|-2.43|0.9251
95764581|NCT02763046|191499610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.66|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||3.66|-0.93|0.2432
95764582|NCT03283566|191499615|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 20-30% difference in outcome (CP/G quotient) between study arms, which is equivalent to 0.08-0.12 CP/G difference and a 0.07 standard deviation, a sample size of 6 subjects (1:1 randomization) will detect a CP/G difference of at least 0.12, assuming 80% power, with a 0.05 significance level.||||||0.739|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.739
95764583|NCT00818766|191499617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.26||95.0|-11.3|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.7|-11.3|.26
95764584|NCT00818766|191499618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.93||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.3|||Fisher Exact|||||4.3|-6.1|0.77
95764585|NCT00818766|191499619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|.21
95764586|NCT00818766|191499620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.49
95764587|NCT00818766|191499622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
95764588|NCT00818766|191499623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
95764589|NCT01111318|191499641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.89|153.36|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||153.36|98.89|
95764590|NCT01111318|191499641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|146.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.02|183.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||183.02|118.02|
95764591|NCT01111318|191499641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|174.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.29|217.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||217.55|140.29|
95764592|NCT01111318|191499642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|103.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|130.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as mild divided by healthy||130.95|82.29|
95961983|NCT02358668|191895950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.28|0.41
95764593|NCT01111318|191499642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|123.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.74|155.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as moderate divided by healthy||155.55|97.74|
95764594|NCT01111318|191499642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|148.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.65|187.23|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to hepatic impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio calculated as severe divided by healthy||187.23|117.65|
95764595|NCT00725491|191499675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Whitehead|||||||<0.001
95764596|NCT01495000|191499678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|4.19|||ANCOVA|||||4.19|1.91|<0.0001
95764597|NCT00276484|191499703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-19.4|-13.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||-13.2|-19.4|<0.001
95764598|NCT00276484|191499704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.551||95.0|-1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value||||2.1|-1.1|0.551
95764599|NCT00276484|191499705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value||||-11.6|-17.1|<0.001
95764600|NCT00276484|191499706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-7.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value||||-7.9|-12.0|<0.001
95764601|NCT00276484|191499707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-11.5|-3.1|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.|||-3.1|-11.5|<0.001
95764602|NCT00276484|191499708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-12.7|-7.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value||||-7.6|-12.7|<0.001
95764603|NCT00276484|191499709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.313||95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value||||2.5|-0.8|0.313
95764604|NCT00276484|191499710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-12.6|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value||||-8.2|-12.6|<0.001
95764605|NCT00276484|191499711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-19.9|-13.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value||||-13.1|-19.9|<0.001
95764606|NCT00276484|191499712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-8.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value||||-8.2|-13.8|<0.001
95764607|NCT00276484|191499713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-17.7|-11.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value||||-11.3|-17.7|<0.001
95764608|NCT00276484|191499714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.174||95.0|-17.1|3.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.|||3.4|-17.1|0.174
95764609|NCT00276484|191499715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.37|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|12.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value||||12.84|5.45|<0.001
95764610|NCT03983980|191499716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764611|NCT03983980|191499717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764612|NCT03983980|191499718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764613|NCT03983980|191499719|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95764614|NCT03983980|191499720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95764615|NCT02321111|191499773|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95764616|NCT00114140|191499785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|||Assuming exponential distribution of survival times, the null hypothesis was a 43% increase in median survival time (40.5 mo. to 57.9 mo.) and a 21% increase in 3-year survival rate (54% to 65%). Assuming 5% ineligibility, 72 patients were required to be accrued over 3 years with 3-years of follow-up resulting in 80% power and 1-sided 0.10 significance level. (N later increased to 135 to accommodate an additional separate analysis of O-6-Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) status.)||||<0.001
95802569|NCT00395512|191578614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
95802570|NCT00395512|191578614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.63|<0.001
95802571|NCT00395512|191578615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.12|-0.55|0.003
95961984|NCT02358668|191895951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.40|0.08
95764617|NCT00114140|191499787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|7.56||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Overall survival: The sample size was increased to 135 to ensure adequate power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.5 for MGMT status, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 with an MGMT prevalence rate of at least 30%||7.56|1.64|0.0006
95764618|NCT00114140|191499787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.04||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = Methylated|Progression-free survival||6.04|1.55|0.0007
95764619|NCT01518322|191499790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0895|0.1875||||||Kappa statistics were used to determine the level of agreement between FeNO measurements and asthma diagnosis using the a dichotomous schemes a measurement greater than 35 ppb for children under the age of 12 years or greater than 50 ppb for subjects at least 12 years of age was considered high.||0.1875|-0.0895|
95764620|NCT01641640|191499794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Superiority would be demonstrated if the SVR12 rate was higher than the 60% null SVR rate based on historical control data.||||< 0.001
95764621|NCT00860795|191499800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.17
95764622|NCT00860795|191499801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
95764623|NCT00860795|191499802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
95764624|NCT00860795|191499804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.51
95764625|NCT00860795|191499805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.43
95764626|NCT00860795|191499806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
95764627|NCT05807828|191499829|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the cup angle of the Control Group for Cup Training and the cup angle of VR Group for Cup Training.||||<0.05
95764628|NCT05807828|191499829|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|291.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median difference between the stem angle of the Control Group for Stem Training and the stem angle of VR Group for Stem Training.||||<0.05
95764629|NCT05807828|191499830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|106.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student with VR training.||||<0.05
95802572|NCT00395512|191578615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
95802573|NCT00395512|191578615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 20 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
95802574|NCT00395512|191578616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 12.5 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-2.0|-20.3|0.017
95802575|NCT00395512|191578616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Pioglitazone 30 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-3.8|-22.0|0.006
95802576|NCT00395512|191578616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-15.4|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as class variables and Baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate.||Comparison of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 26 between Alogliptin 25 mg and Alogliptin 25 mg + Pioglitazone 30 mg.||-15.4|-33.5|<0.001
95802577|NCT00449007|191578666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between 6 months and baseline for Bupropion treated group.~Due to the low number of participants, the results are unreliable."||||1.0
95802578|NCT01659541|191578693|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons was made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
95802579|NCT01659541|191578694|OTHER|Statistical analyses were performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value was calculated.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control (Pre-Implant); comparisons were made at various points in the study (Week #28, #40 and #52).||||<0.05
95802580|NCT01659541|191578695|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant)) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week ##28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
95802581|NCT01659541|191578696|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
95802582|NCT01659541|191578697|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28 ,#40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Paired t test. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
95802583|NCT01659541|191578698|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation (Pre-Implant) were compared with data obtained after implantation (Week #28, #40, #52) of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Friedman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. A p value was calculated. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± Standard Error.||||<0.05
95802584|NCT03501277|191578699|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative bioavailability (BA) determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|Least Square Mean (LSM) difference|1.0706||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.1204|||ANOVA|||||1.1204|1.0230|0.014
95950807|NCT02312258|191873601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.796|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD+ at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.796|0.425|=0.001
95802585|NCT03501277|191578699|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0276||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9817|1.0757|||ANOVA|||||1.0757|0.9817|0.326
95950808|NCT02312258|191873601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.537|||=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|4.194|||Log Rank|||PFS for Participants with Known MRD- at Study Entry|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|4.194|0.563|=0.398
95802586|NCT03501277|191578699|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM diiference|0.9594||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8837|1.0415|||ANOVA|||||1.0415|0.8837|0.405
95802587|NCT03501277|191578699|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed Cmax with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|0.9257||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8523|1.0053|||ANOVA|||||1.0053|0.8523|0.124
95802588|NCT03501277|191578700|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of Cmax for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0157||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0009|1.0308|||ANOVA|||||1.0308|1.0009|0.081
95764630|NCT05807828|191499830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|133.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Each medical student carried out an implantation following VR training and without VR training. Therefore, there was a deviation (mean difference) between the predefined target and the implanted inclination for the cup or the stem version for the same medical student without VR training (control).||||<0.05
95764631|NCT05807828|191499831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for cup implantation for Control cup group and the time needed for cup implantation for VR cup group||||<0.05
95764632|NCT05807828|191499831|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median difference between the time needed for stem implantation for Control stem group and the time needed for stem implantation for VR stem group||||<0.05
95764633|NCT01870778|191499852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||Adjusted alpha p-value based on multiple testing procedure.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value||||1.15|0.83|0.3857
95764634|NCT01870778|191499853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|One-sided p-value||||1.07|0.75|0.0968
95764635|NCT01870778|191499854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||||1.08|0.81|0.3890
95764636|NCT01870778|191499855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2204||||||Based on multiple testing procedure|Wilcoxon rank sum test|One-sided p-value||||||0.2204
95802589|NCT03501277|191578700|EQUIVALENCE|Alogliptin: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0009||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9862|1.0158|||ANOVA|||||1.0158|0.9862|0.922
95764637|NCT01870778|191499856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||Adjusted p-value based on multiple testing procedure|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.88|0.2744
95764638|NCT01870778|191499857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2103|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|2-sided p-value||||||0.2103
95764639|NCT01870778|191499858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Exertional dyspnea||1.14|1.02|0.0050
95764640|NCT01870778|191499858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.14|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Orthopnea||1.14|1.02|0.0051
95764641|NCT01870778|191499858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Rales||1.05|0.95|0.9962
95764642|NCT01870778|191499858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Jugular venous pressure||1.15|1.01|0.0196
95764643|NCT01870778|191499858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value||Peripheral edema, pre-sacral edema||1.10|0.98|0.2158
95764644|NCT01870778|191499859|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9401||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8921|0.9907|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9907|0.8921|0.0209
95764645|NCT01870778|191499859|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.898||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8358|0.9649|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||0.9649|0.8358|0.0034
95764646|NCT01870778|191499859|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9074||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8355|0.9854|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||0.9854|0.8355|0.0209
95764647|NCT01870778|191499860|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.8597||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7876|0.9385|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9385|0.7876|0.0007
95764648|NCT01870778|191499860|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9539||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0579|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0579|0.8600|0.3709
95764649|NCT01870778|191499860|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9543||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8578|1.0617|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0617|0.8578|0.3893
95764650|NCT01870778|191499861|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9637||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9447|0.983|||Repeated measures model|||Day 2||0.9830|0.9447|0.0003
95764651|NCT01870778|191499861|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9922||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9677|1.0172|||Repeated measures model|||Day 5||1.0172|0.9677|0.5361
95764652|NCT01870778|191499861|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of RLX030 to placebo|0.9863||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9567|1.0169|||Repeated measures model|||Day 14||1.0169|0.9567|0.3750
95764653|NCT00708110|191499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-2.00|<0.001
95764654|NCT00708110|191499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-2.52|<0.001
95764655|NCT00708110|191499867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.02|||ANCOVA|||||-2.02|-2.94|<0.001
95764656|NCT01197911|191499892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9293|1.4182||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.4182|0.9293|
95764657|NCT01197911|191499892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2468|1.9314||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9314|1.2468|
95764658|NCT01197911|191499894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.9477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7908|1.1356||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.1356|0.7908|
95764659|NCT01197911|191499894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8941|1.3002||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One Participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.3002|0.8941|
95802590|NCT03501277|191578700|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen A (test) versus Regimen B (reference).|LSM difference|1.0486||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0051|1.0939|||ANOVA|||||1.0939|1.0051|0.066
95802591|NCT03501277|191578700|EQUIVALENCE|Pioglitazone: For each analyte, ANOVA was performed on natural logarithm transformed AUC(0-72) with factors for sequence, the participant nested within sequence, period, and regimen. For the relative BA determination, pairwise comparisons were performed to assess the relative BA of alogliptin and pioglitazone via point estimates and 90% CI for the ratio of AUC(0-72) for Regimen C (test) versus Regimen D (reference).|LSM difference|1.0267||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9839|1.0714|||ANOVA|||||1.0714|0.9839|0.308
95802592|NCT01222351|191578723|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the rate of cognitive decline between participants with and without amyloid.|Slope|-0.034||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||latent growth curve model|Latent growth curve models tested cognitive decline rate by amyloid status.|B weights were the estimates for the association between Aβ and cognitive change.|||||0.02
95802593|NCT03055507|191578724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.4|0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.5|-2.4|<0.05
95802594|NCT00098293|191578739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-9.5|
95802595|NCT00098293|191578739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.9|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentages stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.9|
95802596|NCT00098293|191578740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.5|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.5|
95802597|NCT00098293|191578740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.2|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region) was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-11.2|
95802598|NCT00098293|191578741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.22|0.64|0.4485
95802599|NCT00098293|191578741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.15|0.61|0.2724
95802600|NCT00098293|191578742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 400 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.19|0.65|0.3943
95802601|NCT00098293|191578742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Less than 50 copies/mL: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratio between treatment groups. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), geographic region (Northern or Southern Hemisphere) as covariates were used. Odds ratio \> 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.07|0.59|0.1289
95802602|NCT00098293|191578743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 48: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment least squares means (LS means) adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.329|-0.094|0.2741
95802603|NCT00098293|191578743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.3899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.328|||ANCOVA|||Change at week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.328|-0.128|0.3899
95802604|NCT00098293|191578744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1002||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.307|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.307|-0.086|0.2693
95764660|NCT01197911|191499908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9618|1.5789||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.5789|0.9618|
95961985|NCT02358668|191895951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.38|0.10
95764661|NCT01197911|191499908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.5587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2165|1.9971||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.9971|1.2165|
95764662|NCT01197911|191499909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.0027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8049|1.2492||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available.||1.2492|0.8049|
95764663|NCT01197911|191499909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GeometricLeast-Squares Mean Ratio|1.2254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9836|1.5266||||||This statistical analysis consisted of all evaluable hepatic impaired participants for whom at least one evaluable matching healthy participant was available. One participant with moderate hepatic impairment was not included in the statistical analysis of the PK parameters as there was no appropriate participant with normal hepatic function match.||1.5266|0.9836|
95764664|NCT01808573|191499968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.926|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||0.926|0.626|0.0059
95802605|NCT00098293|191578744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.309|||ANCOVA|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value would favor maraviroc.||0.309|-0.131|0.4270
95802606|NCT00098293|191578745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.827||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|45.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||45.63|7.04|0.0075
95802607|NCT00098293|191578745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.419||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.02|57.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD4 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||57.86|13.02|0.0020
95802608|NCT00098293|191578746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.13|215.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||215.46|117.13|<0.0001
95764665|NCT01808573|191499969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.073|||Log Rank|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|Lapatinib plus Capecitabine is the reference. Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting, and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.|||1.073|0.723|0.2086
95764666|NCT01808573|191499970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Gray's test|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral disease.||||||0.043
95802609|NCT00098293|191578746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|172.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.471|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.21|222.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 96: P-value was calculated using ANCOVA with the model including treatment arm and, as covariates, baseline CD8 count and the randomization strata (screening viral load and geographic region). The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the covariates was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value would favor maraviroc.||222.23|122.21|<0.0001
95802610|NCT00098293|191578747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Log Rank|||Week 48: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.45|0.83|0.5874
95843694|NCT00479713|191654881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<=|0.001||95.0|-14.1|-7.33|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-7.33|-14.10|<=0.001
95843695|NCT00479713|191654882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L)||3.0|1.5|<=0.001
95843696|NCT00479713|191654882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<=|0.001||95.0|1.8|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C (continuous)||Percentage of Participants who Attained Target LDL-C Goal of \< 70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L)||4.4|1.8|<=0.001
95843697|NCT00479713|191654883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.56|-4.84|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-4.84|-9.56|<=0.001
95764667|NCT01808573|191499971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.1201
95764668|NCT01808573|191499972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by hormone receptor status, number of prior HER2-directed regimens in the metastatic setting and visceral disease vs. non-visceral.||||||0.0328
95764669|NCT01808573|191499973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.736|||Log Rank||Lapatinib Plus Capecitabine is the reference.|||0.736|0.332|0.0004
95764670|NCT02487225|191499975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5796|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.5796
95764671|NCT02487225|191499975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8415|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.8415
95764672|NCT02487225|191499976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1109
95764673|NCT02487225|191499976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4619
95802611|NCT00098293|191578747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Log Rank|||Week 96: P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio was calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and the two randomization strata, HIV-1 RNA at screening and geographic region. Hazard ratio \< 1 would favor maraviroc.||1.40|0.86|0.4811
95802612|NCT00098293|191578754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-10.2|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-10.2|
95859773|NCT00505778|191677716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.8||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||3.5|-1.8|0.5426
95961986|NCT02358668|191895952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.12||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.67|0.01
95764674|NCT02487225|191499977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.1236
95764675|NCT02487225|191499977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9468|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.9468
95764676|NCT02487225|191499978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Admission (baseline)||||0.157
95764677|NCT02487225|191499978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5||||0.3173
95764678|NCT00489255|191499979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for treatment was stratified by site.||The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments.||1.11|0.17|0.09
95764679|NCT00489255|191499980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.90|0.21|0.025
95764680|NCT00489255|191499981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.70|0.09|0.005
95764681|NCT00489255|191499982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.48|0.23|0.65
95764682|NCT00489255|191499983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21|||ANOVA|Treatment effect in ANOVA was adjusted for site.||||0.21|-0.64|0.32
95764683|NCT00489255|191499984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.43|||ANOVA|||||-0.43|-1.71|0.001
95764684|NCT00489255|191499985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.19|||ANOVA|||||0.19|-0.20|0.95
95764685|NCT00489255|191499986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.88
95764686|NCT00489255|191499987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score) with rigid scores, stratified by site||||||0.019
95764687|NCT00489255|191499988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.29
95764688|NCT00489255|191499989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.5|0.17
95764689|NCT00489255|191499990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||0.7|0.1|0.008
95764690|NCT00489255|191499991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.6|0.49
95764691|NCT00489255|191499992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|0.4
95764692|NCT00489255|191499993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.62||95.0|0.6|2.3||Cox's proportional hazards model with site and treatment (Tigan/placebo) as factors.|Regression, Cox|||||2.3|0.6|0.62
95802613|NCT00098293|191578754|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-5.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-12.8|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Step down procedure used to control for multiple comparisons.|||-12.8|
95993829|NCT00125034|191963482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.516||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|2.335|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||Assuming a difference in rate of best confirmed response of at least 20% between the 2 treatments, ie an approximately 70% response rate under cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 \& 50% under FOLFOX-4 alone for the stratum with ECOG PS0-1 \& 66% and 45% respectively for the ECOG PS2 stratum, the common OddsR over the strata was expected to be 2.33. A sample size of approximately 146/group was calculated as necessary to detect a significant overall response of at least 2.33 at level α=0.05 with a power of 90%||2.335|0.975|0.064
95993830|NCT00125034|191963483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.551||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.717|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||4.717|1.380|0.0027
95993831|NCT00125034|191963484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.459||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.924|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||0.924|0.228|0.0290
95993832|NCT00125034|191963485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.23|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.230|0.705|0.6170
95993833|NCT00125034|191963486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.567||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|0.856|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.856|0.375|0.0064
95993834|NCT00125034|191963487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|2.679|||Stratified Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||2.679|1.104|0.0153
95993835|NCT00125034|191963488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.303|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.303|0.791|0.9050
95993836|NCT00125034|191963489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.219|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.219|0.599|0.3854
95993837|NCT00125034|191963490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.906|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.906|0.873|0.2004
95993838|NCT01375764|191963507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|-27.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-27.80|-44.08|<0.001
95993839|NCT01375764|191963507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.97|-19.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-19.67|-35.97|<0.001
95993840|NCT01375764|191963507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Tretament Difference|-26.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-17.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-17.93|-34.08|<0.001
95993841|NCT01375764|191963508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|-40.84||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.84|-53.73|<0.001
95993842|NCT01375764|191963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.9|-58.3||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-58.3|-94.9|<0.001
95993843|NCT01375764|191963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-37.1||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-37.1|-74.0|<0.001
95764693|NCT00489255|191499994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.76|||ANOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline score (score at Visit 1/Screening) as a covariate, and site and treatment as factors.||||3.76|-3.59|0.96
95993844|NCT01375764|191963509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|-34.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-34.5|-70.8|<0.001
95993845|NCT01375764|191963510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-91.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.7|-75.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-75.0|-108.7|<0001
95993846|NCT01375764|191963511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.93|-26.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-26.28|-40.93|<0.001
95993847|NCT01375764|191963511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.99|-19.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-19.32|-33.99|<0.001
95764694|NCT00489255|191499995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.02|||ANOVA|||||4.02|-4.37|0.93
95764695|NCT00489255|191499996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.34|||ANOVA|||||3.34|-4.12|0.84
95764696|NCT00489255|191499997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.11|||ANOVA|||||8.11|-2.17|0.25
95764697|NCT00489255|191499998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.40|-2.47|0.46
95764698|NCT00489255|191499999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|9.06|||ANOVA|||||9.06|-3.13|0.33
95764699|NCT00489255|191500000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|6.11|||ANOVA|||||6.11|-5.57|0.93
95764700|NCT02694328|191500030|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.88||P-value was adjusted using the Cui, Hung, and Wang (CHW) method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|ANCOVA|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.||||-0.88|-3.88|0.003
95764701|NCT02694328|191500031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-4.6||P-value was adjusted using the CHW method to account for the unblinded interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.|Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) of ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-4.6|-22.8|0.003
95764702|NCT02694328|191500032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Missing values at Week 24 were imputed using multiple imputation.|Risk difference (RD) ALKS 3831 vs. Olanzapine|||-6.5|-25.3|0.001
95764703|NCT03511105|191500047|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-30.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.662|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.07|65.51|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI has been presented.|||65.51|-127.07|
95764704|NCT03511105|191500047|OTHER||Percentage change|8.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|31.3|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||31.30|-21.41|
95764705|NCT03511105|191500048|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|22.87|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||22.87|-31.49|
95764706|NCT03511105|191500048|OTHER||Percentage change|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.837|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|41.64|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||41.64|-48.20|
95764707|NCT03511105|191500049|OTHER||Absolute Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.2|||||Absolute difference (GSK2798745 - Placebo) and 95% CrI have been presented.|||6.20|-6.28|
95764708|NCT03511105|191500049|OTHER||Percentage change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|10.16|||||Percentage change on GSK2798745 relative to placebo has been presented.|||10.16|-11.15|
95764709|NCT00572936|191500088|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<.05
95764710|NCT00572936|191500089|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95764711|NCT00572936|191500090|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.93||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.93
95764712|NCT00572936|191500091|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.84||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.84
95764713|NCT00572936|191500092|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95764714|NCT00572936|191500093|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed to compare the results between the three interventions.||||||0.89||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.89
95764715|NCT00572936|191500094|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences between outflow facility for the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95764716|NCT00572936|191500095|EQUIVALENCE|Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the differences in uveoscleral outflow between the three interventions|||||<|0.05||||||threshold for statistical analysis was \<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95764717|NCT05017246|191500138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-5.8|||Two-sample t-test|Unadjusted analysis|Intrathecal - Epidural|||-5.8|-84.0|0.0249
95764718|NCT05017246|191500139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||3.01|0.36|0.94
95764719|NCT05017246|191500140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Bootstrap resampling method|Bootstrap resampling method based on raw data was applied for due to highly right-skewed data (5,000 Bootstrap samples were selected).|Intrathecal - Epidural|||0.48|-1.01|0.59
95764720|NCT05017246|191500141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Chi-squared||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||1.48|0.61|0.82
95764721|NCT05017246|191500144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|8.95|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||8.95|0.27|0.67
95859774|NCT00505778|191677717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|BID-QD Difference in Remission Rates|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||4.7|-4.6|0.9770
95764722|NCT05017246|191500145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.2|||Fisher Exact||Estimated probability of having the event in Intrathecal group divided by that in Epidural group|||22.2|0.19|0.61
95764723|NCT02440464|191500191|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.10.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in progression-free survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||1.0
95764724|NCT02440464|191500192|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with acute grade III-IV GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 100 days post-randomization, with death prior to acute GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
95764725|NCT02440464|191500193|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to chronic GVHD treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
95764726|NCT02440464|191500194|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.||Participants in sCR/CR at Randomization||||0.890
95764727|NCT02440464|191500194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants in the best response to treatment categories between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 2 years post-transplant among participants not in sCR/CR at randomization. These proportions were compared using Fisher's Exact test.||||0.754
95764728|NCT02440464|191500196|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with progression between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with death prior to progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||1.0
95764729|NCT02440464|191500197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival time post-randomization among randomized subjects receiving Ixazomib vs Placebo maintenance therapy during the 21 month period post-randomization. This was compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.174
95764730|NCT02440464|191500198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Gray's Test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment-related mortality between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 21 months post-randomization, with progression treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.173
95764731|NCT02440464|191500200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
95764732|NCT02440464|191500200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.252
95764733|NCT02440464|191500200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3-5 toxicities between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than toxicity treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||0.258
95764734|NCT02440464|191500202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 6 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
95764735|NCT02440464|191500202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 12 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
95764736|NCT02440464|191500202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified one-sided threshold of 0.05.|Z test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with Grade 3 infections between the Ixazomib and Placebo arms during 18 months post-randomization, with death from a cause other than infection treated as a competing risk. Cumulative incidences are estimated at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomization using Aalen-Johansen estimators for each treatment group. Comparison of cumulative incidence between treatment arms was done using a Z test at fixed time points.||||1.0
95764737|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9048|0.9604||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9604|0.9048|
95764738|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9081|0.9782||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9782|0.9081|
95764739|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9419|0.9857||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9857|0.9419|
95764740|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8914|0.948||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9480|0.8914|
95764741|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9349|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8986|0.9712||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9712|0.8986|
95764742|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|0.9805||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9805|0.9190|
95859775|NCT00505778|191677718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.796|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||||1.796|0.762|0.4726
95764743|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9102|0.9722||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||0.9722|0.9102|
95764744|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9041|0.9796||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||0.9796|0.9041|
95859776|NCT00505778|191677719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference BID-QD in Least Square Mean|-0.45||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA with prior Asacol dose category as factor.||||0.20|-1.09|0.1753
95764745|NCT01608100|191500225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Area Under the Curve|0.9449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9046|0.9852||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||0.9852|0.9046|
95764746|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
95764747|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.31||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0004
95764748|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.95||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||5.95|1.59|0.0011
95764749|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764750|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764751|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.21|<0.0001
95764752|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764753|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764754|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.87||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.87|1.84|0.0002
95764755|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95961987|NCT02358668|191895952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.35|0.54
95961988|NCT02358668|191895953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.81|0.03
95961989|NCT02358668|191895953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.48|0.63
95961990|NCT02358668|191895954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.13|0.18
95961991|NCT02358668|191895954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.06|0.73
95961992|NCT02358668|191895955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
95859777|NCT00505778|191677720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish non-inferiority for primary efficacy variable at 2-sided upper confidence bound of 95% with 90% power, 442 patients per treatment group were required to be analyzable for primary efficacy analysis. Assuming 10% enrolled would not be analyzable, 1000 patients would be enrolled. If the 95% confidence interval's upper bound interval for the difference between the Asacol BID and Asacol QD group is \<10%, then non-inferiority of Asacol QD is claimed.|Difference BID-QD Remission Rates|3.6||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior Asacol dose Category||Assumed true remission rate is 70% with no difference in remission rates between QD and BID dosing.The non-inferiority margin used in hypothesis testing was set to 10%.||8.5|-1.3|0.1557
95859778|NCT01621802|191677721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses is ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.98|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.98|-0.72|
95859779|NCT01621802|191677721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|2.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-Measles antibody concentration ≥ 200 mIU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||2.97|0.02|
95864522|NCT01808092|191686867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|2.46||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in cMITT analysis set||2.46|-10.76|0.007
95950809|NCT02312258|191873601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.173|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|86.649|||Log Rank|||OS for Participants with Known MRD Status (MRD- Status, MRD+ Status) at Study Entry|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|86.649|1.194|=0.012
95961993|NCT02358668|191895955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
95961994|NCT02358668|191895956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.06
95993848|NCT01375764|191963511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.13|-17.59||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.59|-32.13|<0.001
95993849|NCT01375764|191963512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.81|-39.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-39.18|-50.81|<0.001
95764756|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764757|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|2.25|<0.0001
95764758|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|6.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
95764759|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|2.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||0.0020
95764760|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|6.05||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.05|1.41|0.0050
95764761|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|12.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value greater than the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764762|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion Percentage|3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Proportion percentage for subjects with ARCHITECT Troponin value less than or equal to the cutoff|Kaplan-Meier||||<0.0001
95764763|NCT01608100|191500226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.03||Likelihood Ratio|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio||6.03|2.08|<0.0001
95764764|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|84.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.28|91.23||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.23|75.28|
95950810|NCT02312258|191873603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011|||=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|1.621|||Log Rank||||"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.621|0.631|=0.963
95764765|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.21|||||TWO_SIDED|83.81|83.81|97.09||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.09|83.81|
95764766|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.34|97.99||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.99|86.34|
95764767|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|85.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.51|91.7||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||91.70|76.51|
95764768|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|91.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.95|96.66||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||96.66|83.95|
95764769|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|94.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.61|98.34||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||98.34|88.61|
95764770|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|87.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.3|94.04||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||94.04|77.30|
95764771|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.01||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||97.01|83.40|
95764772|NCT01608100|191500227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.74|97.74||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||97.74|84.74|
95764773|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.18|88.03||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.03|83.18|
95764774|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.66|87.5||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||87.50|82.66|
95961995|NCT02358668|191895956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.46
95764775|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|82.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.99|85.4||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||85.40|79.99|
95764776|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.12|86.17||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||86.17|81.12|
95764777|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|83.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.09|86.11||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||86.11|81.09|
95764778|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|80.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.82|83.39||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||83.39|77.82|
95961996|NCT02358668|191895957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.31|0.03
95764779|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|86.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.79|88.63||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||88.63|83.79|
95764780|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|85.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.31|88.07||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||88.07|83.31|
95764781|NCT01608100|191500228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|84.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.31|86.54||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||86.54|81.31|
95764782|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.82|
95764783|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.25|99.7||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.70|98.25|
95764784|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
95764785|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.81|98.95||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||98.95|96.81|
95764786|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.05|99.62||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.62|98.05|
95764787|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.22|99.75||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.75|98.22|
95764788|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|98.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.61|99.42||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||99.42|97.61|
95764789|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.27|99.71||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||99.71|98.27|
95764790|NCT01608100|191500229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value|99.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.26|99.76||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||99.76|98.26|
95764791|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|38.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.92|45.98||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||45.98|31.92|
95764792|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|42.76||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.76|29.03|
95764793|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.99|43.38||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||43.38|29.99|
95764794|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|36.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.43|43.56||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.56|30.43|
95764795|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.43|42.45||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||42.45|29.43|
95764796|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|37.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|44.09||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||44.09|31.71|
95764797|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|43.47||||||Time point: 0-2 hours||43.47|28.70|
95764798|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|43.16||||||Time point: 2-4 hours||43.16|29.16|
95764799|NCT01608100|191500230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|35.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|42.21||||||Time point: 4-9 hours||42.21|28.36|
95802614|NCT00098293|191578755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.4|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-6.4|
95802615|NCT00098293|191578755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.4|
95802616|NCT00098293|191578756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.9|||||||Less than 400 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-7.9|
95802617|NCT00098293|191578756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-11.5|||||||Less than 50 copies/mL: Treatment difference in percentage stratified by randomization strata was presented along with the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. Positive value would favor maraviroc. Due to its post-hoc nature, this analysis was considered descriptive only rather than inferential.|||-11.5|
95802618|NCT03193307|191578772|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|153.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.34|174.7|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =21.4."|||174.70|134.34|
95802619|NCT03193307|191578773|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|115.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.559|128.502|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 16.7."|||128.502|104.559|
95802620|NCT03193307|191578774|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|104.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.092|107.613|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.3."|||107.613|102.092|
95961997|NCT02358668|191895957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.15||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.13|0.87
95764800|NCT01999920|191500233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.064
95764801|NCT01999920|191500234|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|12.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.32|-1.32|0.11
95764802|NCT01999920|191500235|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Confidence variable||5.53|-4.85|0.89
95802621|NCT03193307|191578775|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.66|104.92|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 3.3."|||104.92|100.66|
95802622|NCT03193307|191578776|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|114.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.266|119.183|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])=7.0."|||119.183|109.266|
95802623|NCT03193307|191578777|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T2/R2) ratio (%)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.8|115.83|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 7.3."|||115.83|105.80|
95802624|NCT03193307|191578778|OTHER||Geometric Mean (T1/R1) ratio (%)|154.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.81|177.58|||||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including random effect for 'subject' and fixed effect for 'treatment' was used.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 22.4."|||177.58|133.81|
95802625|NCT04560309|191578786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.993
95802626|NCT04560309|191578787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.883
95802627|NCT04560309|191578788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.034
95802628|NCT04560309|191578789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
95802629|NCT04560309|191578790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
95802630|NCT04560309|191578791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.216
95802631|NCT04560309|191578792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.001
95802632|NCT04560309|191578793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.043
95802633|NCT04560309|191578794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.011
95802634|NCT04560309|191578795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.975
95802635|NCT04560309|191578796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95802636|NCT04560309|191578797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.549
95802637|NCT04560309|191578798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.645
95802638|NCT04560309|191578799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||After induction to anesthesia||||0.330
95802639|NCT04560309|191578799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||5 minutes after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.352
95802640|NCT04560309|191578799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||2 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.544
95802641|NCT04560309|191578799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||6 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.022
95802642|NCT04560309|191578799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||24 hour after cardiopulmonary bypass||||0.038
95802643|NCT04560309|191578800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.200
95802644|NCT04560309|191578801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.720
95859780|NCT01621802|191677722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|1.97|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.97|-0.72|
95961998|NCT02358668|191895958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.46|0.34
95802645|NCT04560309|191578802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95802646|NCT04560309|191578803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.044
95802647|NCT04560309|191578804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.349
95802648|NCT04560309|191578805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Unpaired T-Test|||||||0.950
95802649|NCT04560309|191578806|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.862|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.862
95802650|NCT04560309|191578807|SUPERIORITY|The threshold of statistical significance was p \< 0.05||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.075
95802651|NCT00345592|191578818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.503||||||||1.503|0.684|
95802652|NCT03467945|191578826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.4421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2805|88.1079||||||||88.1079|75.2805|
95802653|NCT03467945|191578826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
95802654|NCT03467945|191578826|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
95802655|NCT03467945|191578827|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|102.293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
95802656|NCT03467945|191578827|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.7255|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1665|110.49||||||||110.4900|101.1665|
95802657|NCT03467945|191578827|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.7533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5812|101.1135||||||||101.1135|92.5812|
95802658|NCT03467945|191578828|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|77.6923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.383|85.7606||||||||85.7606|70.3830|
95802659|NCT03467945|191578828|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
95802660|NCT03467945|191578828|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|79.4367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9633|87.6861||||||||87.6861|71.9633|
95802661|NCT03467945|191578829|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|108.0819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.237|114.2609||||||||114.2609|102.2370|
95802662|NCT03467945|191578829|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.6828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6166|99.0386||||||||99.0386|88.6166|
95802663|NCT03467945|191578829|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|115.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.131|121.9658||||||||121.9658|109.1310|
95802664|NCT03467945|191578830|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|82.6022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5513|89.1314||||||||89.1314|76.5513|
95802665|NCT03467945|191578830|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8819|106.9028||||||||106.9028|97.8819|
95802666|NCT03467945|191578830|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|81.0112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8823|87.6417||||||||87.6417|74.8823|
95802667|NCT03467945|191578831|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|101.8499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.5947|106.2906||||||||106.2906|97.5947|
95802668|NCT03467945|191578831|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|105.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.49|110.533||||||||110.5330|101.4900|
95802669|NCT03467945|191578831|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence boundaries of 80.000% to 125.00% were used.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.1619|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.1443|100.3546||||||||100.3546|92.1443|
95802670|NCT04595370|191578862|OTHER||F test statistics|1.07||||0.3645|||||||F-Test|||||||0.3645
95802671|NCT04595370|191578863|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-33.606||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.53|17.644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.644|-62.530|0.1588
95802672|NCT04595370|191578863|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-11.826||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.195|62.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.634|-52.195|0.6846
95802673|NCT04595370|191578863|OTHER||Percent difference between treatment|-36.127||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.85|16.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.066|-64.850|0.1398
95802674|NCT02187055|191578869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-7.73||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-16.29|0.83|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||0.83|-16.29|0.2101
95802675|NCT02187055|191578869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|-5.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-13.98|2.98|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity-adjusted||||2.98|-13.98|0.0512
95802676|NCT02187055|191578869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was a treatment difference larger than -13% at the population level|Difference in response rate|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.34|-6.4|10.86|||Normal approximation to proportions|Multiplicity adjusted||||10.86|-6.40|<0.0001
95802677|NCT02187055|191578870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.41||||||||4.41|1.23|
95802678|NCT02187055|191578870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.49||||||||3.49|0.33|
95802679|NCT02187055|191578870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.68||||||||0.68|-2.51|
95802680|NCT02187055|191578871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.18||||||||4.18|1.08|
95961999|NCT02358668|191895958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|-0.73|0.64
95802681|NCT02187055|191578871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.48||||||||3.48|0.40|
95802682|NCT02187055|191578871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-2.24|
95802683|NCT02187055|191578872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.5||||||||0.50|0.16|
95802684|NCT02187055|191578872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.39||||||||0.39|0.05|
95802685|NCT02187055|191578872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.28|
95802686|NCT02187055|191578873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.51||||||||0.51|0.15|
95802687|NCT02187055|191578873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.46||||||||0.46|0.10|
95802688|NCT02187055|191578873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.23|
95802689|NCT02187055|191578874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|2.56||||||||2.56|-4.99|
95802690|NCT02187055|191578874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.04||||||||2.04|-5.59|
95802691|NCT02187055|191578874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|3.4||||||||3.40|-4.53|
95802692|NCT02187055|191578875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|1.15||||||||1.15|-7.95|
95802693|NCT02187055|191578875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|1.43||||||||1.43|-7.55|
95802694|NCT02187055|191578875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|5.14||||||||5.14|-4.45|
95802695|NCT02187055|191578876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.94||||||||0.94|-8.29|
95802696|NCT02187055|191578876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.48||||||||1.48|-7.59|
95802697|NCT02187055|191578876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|5.47||||||||5.47|-4.24|
95802698|NCT02187055|191578877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|2.93||||||||2.93|-6.03|
95802699|NCT02187055|191578877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.47||||||||2.47|-6.51|
95802700|NCT02187055|191578877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.18||||||||4.18|-5.11|
95802701|NCT02187055|191578878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-9.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|-3.3||||||||-3.30|-15.68|
95802702|NCT02187055|191578878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.83||||||||-0.83|-12.94|
95802703|NCT02187055|191578878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in remission rate|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|9.07||||||||9.07|-3.86|
95802704|NCT02187055|191578879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|0.84||||||||0.84|-13.32|
95802705|NCT02187055|191578879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|3.37||||||||3.37|-10.69|
95802706|NCT02187055|191578879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|9.68||||||||9.68|-4.51|
95802707|NCT02187055|191578880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|0.85||||||||0.85|-13.29|
95802708|NCT02187055|191578880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-10.94|
95802709|NCT02187055|191578880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|9.39||||||||9.39|-4.79|
95802710|NCT02187055|191578881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.0||||||||0.00|-12.05|
95802711|NCT02187055|191578881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.87||||||||-0.87|-12.90|
95802712|NCT02187055|191578881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.17|
95802713|NCT02187055|191578882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|2.18||||||||2.18|-11.92|
95802714|NCT02187055|191578882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|1.52||||||||1.52|-12.49|
95802715|NCT02187055|191578882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rresponse rate|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.47||||||||6.47|-7.70|
95802716|NCT02187055|191578883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|-1.75||||||||-1.75|-14.84|
95802717|NCT02187055|191578883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|0.44||||||||0.44|-12.72|
95993850|NCT01375764|191963513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Teatment Difference|-29.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|-22.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-22.92|-36.84|<0.001
95993851|NCT01375764|191963513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-15.16||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.16|-29.10|<0.001
95764803|NCT01999920|191500235|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|10.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort with Closeness variable||10.58|-8.21|0.79
95764804|NCT01999920|191500235|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|12.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relationships as Secondary variable||12.01|-4.12|0.31
95764805|NCT01999920|191500235|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Need for Approval variable||0.58|-5.79|0.10
95764806|NCT01999920|191500235|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Preoccupation with Relationships variable||6.72|-5.30|0.80
95764807|NCT01999920|191500236|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|-19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.23|-5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.58|-34.23|0.008
95764808|NCT01999920|191500237|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.16|0.42|0.026
95764809|NCT01999920|191500238|SUPERIORITY||Standard error|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|37.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.11|5.64|0.01
95764810|NCT02058069|191500241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Alternative Hypothesis: The Investigational Device (RIO) true event rate is non-inferior to 0.066 (event rate for manual TKA) with a non-inferiority margin of 0.06. The 0.066 rate is based on literature and 0.06 was determined in consultation with FDA.|Rare Adverse Event Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0331|||||If the upper bound is \<0.126 then the primary composite safety endpoint is met. After the surgeon completed the procedure, at the conclusion of the participant's hospital stay, and 3 months post-operative were used in this single analysis.|||0.0331||
95764811|NCT02058069|191500243|OTHER|The analysis was performed using standard OC curves generated using Sample Size Analyzer® version 2.0 by Taylor Enterprise Inc. (Dr. Wayne A. Taylor).|Alignment Difference <4.38 Degrees|1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.966||||||Estimation Parameter is: proportion of participants with limb alignment difference \<4.38 degrees If the lower bound is \>0.95 then the assessment passes.||||0.966|
95764812|NCT02058069|191500244|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper bound for the one-sided 95% confidence interval will be compared with -9. If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-29.6|||t-test, 2 sided||If the upper bound is less than -9, then non-inferiority holds.|Change from pre-op to 3 months||-29.6||<0.001
95802718|NCT02187055|191578883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|8.52||||||||8.52|-4.22|
95764813|NCT02222922|191500290|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|79.38||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.01|116.65|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||116.65|54.01|0.3105
95764814|NCT02222922|191500291|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|77.23||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|110.87|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||110.87|53.80|0.2316
95764815|NCT02222922|191500292|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.97||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.05|120.22|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||120.22|60.05|0.4264
95764816|NCT02222922|191500293|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.32||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.03|121.82|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||121.82|64.03|0.5123
95764817|NCT02222922|191500294|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.15||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|185.5|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.50|44.79|0.8240
95764818|NCT02222922|191500295|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|89.58||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.94|182.62|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||182.62|43.94|0.7922
95802719|NCT02187055|191578884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-6.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-0.93||||||||-0.93|-12.61|
95802720|NCT02187055|191578884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.1||||||||3.10|-8.09|
95802721|NCT02187055|191578884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|10.23||||||||10.23|-1.68|
95802722|NCT02187055|191578885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.148||||||||0.148|-0.011|
95802723|NCT02187055|191578885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.105||||||||0.105|-0.054|
95802724|NCT02187055|191578885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.037||||||||0.037|-0.122|
95802725|NCT02187055|191578886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|2.55||||||||2.55|-10.68|
95802726|NCT02187055|191578886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|5.44||||||||5.44|-7.87|
95802727|NCT02187055|191578886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|9.43||||||||9.43|-3.72|
95802728|NCT02187055|191578887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-2.28|
95802729|NCT02187055|191578887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.01||||||||0.01|-2.16|
95950811|NCT02312258|191873607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.727|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|0.727|0.387|<0.001
95950812|NCT02312258|191873607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.058|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.058|0.526|=0.098
95950813|NCT02312258|191873607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.117|||Log Rank|||PFS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing PFS between treatment groups was based on Log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization.~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), and age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.117|0.481|=0.147
95802730|NCT02187055|191578887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||||||||1.20|-0.97|
95802731|NCT02187055|191578888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.74|
95802732|NCT02187055|191578888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||||||||2.11|-0.48|
95802733|NCT02187055|191578888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.56||||||||2.56|-0.04|
95950814|NCT02312258|191873607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.602|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Fit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.602|0.502|=0.714
95802734|NCT02187055|191578889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.22|
95802735|NCT02187055|191578889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.42||||||||0.42|-2.19|
95950815|NCT02312258|191873607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.601|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Unfit|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|3.601|0.850|=0.124
95802736|NCT02187055|191578889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||||||||1.34|-1.27|
95802737|NCT02187055|191578890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.87||||||||0.87|-1.52|
95802738|NCT02187055|191578890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.58||||||||1.58|-0.80|
95802739|NCT02187055|191578890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.91||||||||1.91|-0.47|
95802740|NCT02187055|191578891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.8||||||||-0.80|-3.25|
95802741|NCT02187055|191578891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-2.91|
95802742|NCT02187055|191578891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.55||||||||1.55|-0.89|
95802743|NCT02187055|191578892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-2.27|
95802744|NCT02187055|191578892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.82||||||||0.82|-1.40|
95802745|NCT02187055|191578892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.98||||||||1.98|-0.25|
95802746|NCT02187055|191578893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.68||||||||0.68|-1.71|
95802747|NCT02187055|191578893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.33|
95802748|NCT02187055|191578893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.57||||||||1.57|-0.83|
95802749|NCT02187055|191578894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.45||||||||0.45|-2.20|
95802750|NCT02187055|191578894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.51||||||||1.51|-1.13|
95802751|NCT02187055|191578894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.39||||||||2.39|-0.26|
95802752|NCT02187055|191578895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.39||||||||0.39|-2.54|
95993852|NCT01375764|191963513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.48||Testing based on a signficance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-14.48|-28.29|<0.001
95764819|NCT02222922|191500296|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|91.17||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.87|185.25|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||185.25|44.87|0.8240
95993853|NCT01375764|191963514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|-32.64||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.64|-43.81|<0.001
95764820|NCT02222922|191500297|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|102.31||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.08|204.9|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||204.90|51.08|0.9553
95802753|NCT02187055|191578895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.16||||||||2.16|-0.76|
95802754|NCT02187055|191578895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.24||||||||3.24|0.30|
95802755|NCT02187055|191578896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.55|
95802756|NCT02187055|191578896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.01|
95993854|NCT01375764|191963515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.56|-24.34||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-24.34|-37.56|<0.001
95802757|NCT02187055|191578896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.86||||||||1.86|-0.78|
95802758|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.279|1.427||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.427|-2.279|
95802759|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.783|1.044||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.044|-2.783|
95993855|NCT01375764|191963515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.53|-17.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-17.29|-30.53|<0.001
95764821|NCT02222922|191500298|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|81.14||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|113.54|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||113.54|57.99|0.2951
95802760|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.349|1.462||||||Work hours missed due to problems||1.462|-2.349|
95802761|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.928|2.346||||||Work hours missed other reason||2.346|-2.928|
95802762|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.832|3.64||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.640|-1.832|
95802763|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.911||||||Work hours missed other reason||3.911|-1.520|
95802764|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.37||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||9.370|0.520|
95802765|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.736|7.43||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||7.430|-1.736|
95802766|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|2.454||||||Hours worked in past 7 days||2.454|-6.650|
95802767|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|0.786||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.786|-0.373|
95802768|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.607||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.607|-0.578|
95802769|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.784|0.4||||||Problems affecting productivity||0.400|-0.784|
95802770|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.587||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.587|-0.112|
95802771|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.357||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.357|-0.341|
95802772|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.122||||||Problem affecting daily activities||0.122|-0.582|
95802773|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.748|3.553||||||% work time missed due to health||3.553|-5.748|
95802774|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.339|2.067||||||% work time missed due to health||2.067|-7.339|
95802775|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.283|3.207||||||% work time missed due to health||3.207|-6.283|
95802776|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.726|7.858||||||% impairment while working due to health||7.858|-3.726|
95802777|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.777|6.068||||||% impairment while working due to health||6.068|-5.777|
95802778|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.839|3.998||||||% impairment while working due to health||3.998|-7.839|
95802779|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.664|8.877||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.877|-4.664|
95802780|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.164|8.58||||||% overall work impairment due to health||8.580|-5.164|
95802781|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|6.51||||||% overall work impairment due to health||6.510|-7.307|
95859781|NCT01621802|191677722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in Seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-mumps antibody concentration ≥ 10 EU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
95859782|NCT01621802|191677723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_CO group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|1.84|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_CO Group minus Com\_MMR\_CO Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 1 should be at least 94.04% (=100%- the sum of type II errors associated to cohort 1."||1.84|-0.98|
95859783|NCT01621802|191677723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for group difference (Inv\_MMR\_I group minus pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) in seroresponse rates to measles, mumps and rubella viruses was ≥ -5%.|Difference in seroresponse rate (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|1.75|||||Difference in percentage (Inv\_MMR\_I Group minus Com\_MMR\_I Group) in percentage of subjects with an anti-rubella antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.|"Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettienen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=1.25%.~The global power to reach all non-inferiority objectives of Priorix vs. M-M-R II in sub-cohort 2 should be at least 98.88% (=100%- the sum of type II error associated to cohort 2."||1.75|-0.68|
95859784|NCT01621802|191677724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.92|
95859785|NCT01621802|191677724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.96|1.1|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration country - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.10|0.96|
95859786|NCT01621802|191677725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.0|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.00|0.83|
95859787|NCT01621802|191677725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.06|0.87|
95859788|NCT01621802|191677726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 1: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_CO group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|Adjusted geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Inv\_MMR\_CO group divided by Com\_MMR\_CO group) for antibodies to rubella virus.||1.09|0.97|
95950816|NCT02312258|191873607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||=|0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.627|||Log Rank|||OS Based on Frailty Status of Frail|"P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on log-rank test stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR).~Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by initial therapy (proteasome inhibitor-containing or not), ISS stage before initial therapy (stage I or II vs stage III), age (\<75 vs \>=75 years) at randomization, and best response to initial therapy (CR or VGPR vs PR), comparing the hazard rate of ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of placebo arm. A less than 1 hazard ratio was to be considered statistically significant."|1.627|0.448|=0.630
95950817|NCT01697956|191873611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP nasal aerosol versus placebo was greater than 0.80.|ratio of BDP nasal aerosol to placebo|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03||||||The standard deviation of the logarithmically transformed data on the change from baseline (expressed as a ratio) in 24-hr serum cortisol weighted mean is assumed to be 0.30. Using this standard deviation, 90 subjects (approximately 60 and 30 subjects in the BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo groups, respectively) will yield approximately 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority between BDP Nasal Aerosol and placebo, if there is no true difference between treatment groups.||1.03|0.81|
95950818|NCT01528605|191873631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
95993856|NCT01375764|191963515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.92|-15.8||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-15.80|-28.92|<0.001
95993857|NCT01375764|191963516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.77|-32.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-32.07|-43.77|<0.001
95993858|NCT01375764|191963517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.57|-27.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-27.52|-40.57|<0.001
95764822|NCT02222922|191500299|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|84.02||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.24|117.19|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||117.19|60.24|0.3769
95764823|NCT02222922|191500300|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|86.15||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.2|119.32|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||119.32|62.20|0.4385
95764824|NCT02222922|191500301|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|88.75||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.24|126.56|||ANOVA|||Test: PF-06647020 1.4 mg/kg + Fluconazole(Q3W-DDI) group; Reference: PF-06647020 2.8 mg/kg (Q3W-DDI) group.||126.56|62.24|0.5678
95764825|NCT04055740|191500331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2201|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This test measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total time of lead extraction. Average ILA grade of all patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grade and total time of lead extraction||||0.2201
95764826|NCT04055740|191500331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|This measures correlation of avg ILA grade per patient with total laser pulsations used for extraction. Avg ILA grade of patients in outcome measures.||H0: rho = 0 Spearman Correlation coefficient calculated between average ILA grades and laser pulsations||||0.5157
95764827|NCT01525329|191500333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.007
95764828|NCT01525329|191500333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
95764829|NCT01525329|191500334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95764830|NCT01525329|191500334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95764831|NCT01690117|191500336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|11.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.12|3.82|<0.001
95764832|NCT01690117|191500337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.86|1.00|<0.05
95764833|NCT01690117|191500338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.97||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.97|1.01|<0.01
95764834|NCT01690117|191500339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|3.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.45|-0.05|0.06
95764835|NCT01690117|191500340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.07|-0.65|0.30
95764836|NCT01690117|191500341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.59||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-0.66|0.24
95764837|NCT01690117|191500342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.62|-2.50|<0.05
95764838|NCT01690117|191500343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.25||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.25|-2.63|0.88
95764839|NCT01690117|191500344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-1.11||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-8.74|<0.05
95764840|NCT01690117|191500345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|-3.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.66|-13.31|<0.001
95802782|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.118|5.873||||||% activity impairment due to health||5.873|-1.118|
95802783|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.411|3.573||||||% activity impairment due to health||3.573|-3.411|
95764841|NCT01690117|191500346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.04|-7.86|0.05
95764842|NCT01690117|191500347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.45||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.96|0.91
95764843|NCT01690117|191500348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.81||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.81|-0.01|0.05
95764844|NCT01690117|191500349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|0.68|<0.05
95764845|NCT01690117|191500350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-8.40|<0.01
95764846|NCT01690117|191500351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|10.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. For the secondary outcomes inference statistics were explorative. Therefore the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.83|4.78|<0.01
95764847|NCT02568072|191500352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95764848|NCT02568072|191500353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95764849|NCT02568072|191500354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95764850|NCT00897715|191500357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||For the primary specific aim, we will compare the mean percent change on hsCRP between the intervention arm and the placebo arm using linear regression. We anticipate that the intervention will conservatively decrease hsCRP by 54%; whereas, placebo will have no effect. Accordingly, we have estimated that we will need 24 subjects in the experimental arm and 24 controls to have an 80% power, with an alpha of 0.05 to detect the above mentioned effect size.||||0.03
95764851|NCT00897715|191500358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95764852|NCT00707239|191500385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-21.6|10.9||||||Cure: Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70 percent (%) CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||10.9|-21.6|
95764853|NCT00707239|191500385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-6.1|24.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||24.8|-6.1|
95764854|NCT00707239|191500386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-14.3|14.0||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||14.0|-14.3|
95764855|NCT00707239|191500386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|4.3|31.8||||||Cure: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Clinical response (rates of cure) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||31.8|4.3|
95764856|NCT00707239|191500389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-39.6|4.2||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||4.2|-39.6|
95764857|NCT00707239|191500389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|70.0|-23.8|20.9||||||Eradication: CI was calculated using the Wilson score method, with continuity correction. Microbiological response (rates of eradication) by using a 2-sided 70% CI for the true difference in efficacy (tigecycline regimen minus imipenem/cilastatin regimen) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 15% alpha.||20.9|-23.8|
95950819|NCT01528605|191873632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was no group difference||||<0.05
95764858|NCT00707239|191500390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Nausea: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.527
95764859|NCT00707239|191500390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||0.390
95764860|NCT00707239|191500391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
95764861|NCT00707239|191500392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|||p-value was calculated using 2-tail Fischer's exact test.||||1.000
95950820|NCT01528605|191873633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis is no group difference"||||>0.05
95950821|NCT01970527|191873654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
95950822|NCT01970527|191873656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
95950823|NCT01964547|191873660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size is adequate to confirm the non-inferiority of Sativex with a clinical relevant reduction delta of 10%, assuming there is no difference between treatments in the actual change in cognition and also assuming a standard deviation for treatment difference of 10, using a one-tailed 2.5% significance level and power of 90%. Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the lower 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is greater than -10%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.41||||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate. The planned sample size was 120 participants(60 patients in the Sativex arm and 60 in the placebo arm).|||-6.41|
95802784|NCT02187055|191578897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|1.225||||||% activity impairment due to health||1.225|-5.818|
95802785|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.011||||||Utility score||0.011|-0.057|
95802786|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.013||||||Utility score||0.013|-0.054|
95802787|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.036||||||Utility score||0.036|-0.031|
95802788|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.042||||||Mobility score||0.042|-0.098|
95802789|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.06||||||Mobility score||0.060|-0.079|
95802790|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.089||||||Mobility score||0.089|-0.051|
95802791|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.127||||||Self-care score||0.127|-0.014|
95802792|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.114||||||Self-care score||0.114|-0.027|
95802793|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.058||||||Self-care score||0.058|-0.083|
95802794|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.084||||||Usual activities score||0.084|-0.062|
95802795|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.129||||||Usual activities score||0.129|-0.018|
95802796|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.118||||||Usual activities score||0.118|-0.029|
95802797|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
95802798|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.116||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.116|-0.015|
95802799|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.091||||||Pain/discomfort score||0.091|-0.041|
95802800|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.103||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.103|-0.046|
95802801|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.083|-0.066|
95802802|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||||||Anxiety/depression score||0.055|-0.094|
95802803|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.934|2.648||||||VAS score||2.648|-2.934|
95802804|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.016||||||VAS score||4.016|-1.556|
95802805|NCT02187055|191578898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|4.171||||||VAS score||4.171|-1.425|
95802806|NCT02187055|191578899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|0.808||||||||0.808|-1.706|
95802807|NCT02187055|191578899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|2.325||||||||2.325|-0.178|
95802808|NCT02187055|191578899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.779||||||||2.779|0.266|
95802809|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802810|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95843698|NCT00479713|191654884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.06||||0.056||95.0|-9.56|-0.3|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank.|||-0.30|-9.56|0.056
95843699|NCT00479713|191654885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.433||95.0|-3.21|1.38|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||1.38|-3.21|0.433
95993859|NCT01375764|191963517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|-20.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-20.27|-33.35|<0.001
95764862|NCT00707239|191500398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0479||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced nausea and did not experience nausea.||1.46|0.754|0.78
95859789|NCT01621802|191677726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority criterion for sub cohort 2: The LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the adjusted GMC ratio (Inv\_MMR\_I group divided by pooled Com\_MMR\_I group) was ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles, mumps and rubella viruses.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.|The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 97.5% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.95|
95764863|NCT00707239|191500398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84644||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, experienced vomiting and did not experience vomiting.||1.21|0.593|0.356
95764864|NCT00707239|191500399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0054||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, cure and failure/indeterminate.||1.06|0.956|0.836
95764865|NCT00707239|191500403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Intravenous antibiotic treatment: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.245
95764866|NCT00707239|191500403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||Hospital stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.484
95764867|NCT00707239|191500403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was done at 5% alpha.|ANOVA|||ICU stay: One-way ANOVA with treatment as factor was used to calculate p-value.||||0.192
95764868|NCT00776035|191500423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial blood flow, men versus women||||<0.005
95764869|NCT00776035|191500424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Average myocardial fatty acid utilization, men versus women||||<0.05
95764870|NCT04870710|191500461|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman||||Non-parametric tests were used consisting of Friedman and Durbin Conover tests|||0.10
95764871|NCT07034820|191500503|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.0||A priori statistical significance threshold for the primary endpoint was set at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied to the primary outcome analysis, as it was the sole primary endpoint.|Chi-squared||The Risk Difference (RD) indicates the absolute difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between the Nimsai Herbal Group and the Placebo Group. Calculation: Nimsai Herbal (78%) - Placebo (22%) = 56%.|Powered for 56% difference (80% power, alpha=0.05) to detect the anticipated difference in hemorrhoid regression rates between groups. The sample size of N=300 (150 participants per arm) was calculated based on an expected regression rate of 22% in the placebo group and 78% in the Nimsai Herbal group. This ensured sufficient statistical power for the primary efficacy analysis.||64|48|<0.001
95764872|NCT01184079|191500535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Sample size: (1 + 1/u)(Zα + Zβ)2 σ2 /\[log (RGMT) -δ0\] u= ratio of the size of the Standard schedule to Alternate schedule groups (u =1, for equal size groups); one-sided alpha (0.025)/4 for multiplicity of serotypes. Average log-transformed and geometric mean titers (GMTs) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval of the ratio of the GMTs were used.~Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard group to alternate group \< 1.5."|largest upper bound GMT ratio|0.82|||||||||||||Non-inferiority is determined if upper bound GMT ratio of standard 6 month group to alternate 12 month group \< 1.5.|The primary endpoint would demonstrate noninferiority if the upper bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMT for Standard schedule group divided by that of Alternate schedule group is \<1.5.||||
95764873|NCT01184079|191500537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothsesis: no difference in proportion of side effects reported between groups||||0.26
95764874|NCT03417687|191500538|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-14.7%, +14.7%).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.6||||||The primary efficacy analysis tested the mean difference in the predicted percentage of remaining pulmonary function as measured by 129Xe MRI relative to the value as measured by 133Xe scintigraphy (reference standard) if a pre-defined section of lung were resected.||3.60|-0.75|
95764875|NCT03417687|191500540|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|5.29||||||||5.29|2.12|
95764876|NCT03417687|191500541|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.26||||||||1.26|-0.476|
95764877|NCT03417687|191500542|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.505||||||||2.505|0.184|
95764878|NCT03417687|191500543|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.101|0.181||||||||0.181|-2.101|
95764879|NCT03417687|191500544|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.721|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.096|-1.345||||||||-1.345|-4.096|
95764880|NCT03417687|191500545|EQUIVALENCE|The 2 methods were considered equivalent if the 95% confidence interval for the mean within subject difference between 129Xe MRI and 133Xe scintigraphy measurements was contained within the equivalence margin (-5.0%, +5.0%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|-0.335||||||||-0.335|-3.192|
95764881|NCT03953612|191500562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
95764882|NCT03953612|191500563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||<.001
95764883|NCT03953612|191500564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects||||||0.7
95764884|NCT03953612|191500565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95802811|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802812|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802813|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802814|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95843700|NCT00479713|191654886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<=|0.001||95.0|-12.5|-6.31|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-6.31|-12.50|<=0.001
95843701|NCT00479713|191654887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<=|0.001||95.0|-13.49|-5.69|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-5.69|-13.49|<=0.001
95764885|NCT03953612|191500566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.042
95764886|NCT03953612|191500567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||. Negative binomial regression models|||||||0.125
95764887|NCT01998841|191500593|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.13|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on random coefficient regression model (RCRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: API Composite Endpoint=Treatment \* Analysis Year + interactive voice or Web-based response system (IxRS) defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||1.13|-0.48|0.43
95764888|NCT01998841|191500594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.02|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FCSRT Cueing Index = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.02|-0.003|0.16
95764889|NCT01998841|191500595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.52|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Global Score.||1.52|0.41|0.48
95764890|NCT01998841|191500596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.59|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratification factors used: Age Group, Education History, APOE4 Carrier Status.||1.59|0.53|0.76
95764891|NCT01998841|191500597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CDR-SB = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.64
95764892|NCT01998841|191500598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.75|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: RBANS Total Score = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.75|-0.40|0.55
95764893|NCT01998841|191500599|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.0006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.0024|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: PET SUVR = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.0024|-0.0037|0.69
95764894|NCT01998841|191500600|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.007|||RCRM|||Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: FDG-PET = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.007|-0.002|0.25
95764895|NCT01998841|191500601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|107.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.28||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|290.05|||RCRM|||Whole Brain: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Whole Brain (Derived) = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||290.05|-74.5|0.25
95764896|NCT01998841|191500601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.39||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.74|43.94|||RCRM|||Bilateral Hippocampus: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Bilateral Hippocampus = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||43.94|-24.74|0.58
95764897|NCT01998841|191500601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|19.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|213.08||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.78|440.62|||RCRM|||Ventricles: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: MRI Ventricles = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||440.62|-400.78|0.93
95764898|NCT01998841|191500602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|4.23|||RCRM|||tTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF tTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||4.23|-8.17|0.53
95764899|NCT01998841|191500602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43|||RCRM|||pTau: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: CSF pTau = Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||0.43|-1.43|0.28
95764900|NCT01998841|191500610|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|7522.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|313.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6903.44|8141.65|||RCRM|||Aβ1-40: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: APlasma Amyloid Beta 1-40 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||8141.65|6903.44|<0.0001
95764901|NCT01998841|191500610|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Annualized Rate of Change|556.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|508.63|603.44|||RCRM|||Aβ1-42: Analysis was based on RCRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Plasma Amyloid Peptid Beta 42 =Treatment \* Analysis Year + IxRS defined Age Group + IxRS defined Education History + IxRS defined APOE4 Carrier Status + IxRS defined CDR Global Score.||603.44|508.63|<0.0001
95764902|NCT01263938|191500677|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
95802815|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95843702|NCT00479713|191654888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<=|0.001||95.0|-9.07|-3.43|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center.||||-3.43|-9.07|<=0.001
95993860|NCT01375764|191963517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.57|-18.62||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (3 evolocumab alone dose groups and the ezetimibe group) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-18.62|-31.57|<0.001
95764903|NCT01263938|191500677|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
95764904|NCT01263938|191500677|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
95764905|NCT01263938|191500678|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||>0.999
95802816|NCT03336866|191578900|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: AUCinf. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802817|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802818|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802819|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802820|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 26. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95843703|NCT00479713|191654889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<=|0.001||95.0|-10.91|-5.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center||||-5.30|-10.91|<=0.001
95843704|NCT00479713|191654890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67||||0.172||95.0|-16.67|2.87|||Nonparametric ANOVA|ANOVA model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, stratum, baseline (categorized based on quartiles) and center|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank|||2.87|-16.67|0.172
95764906|NCT01263938|191500679|OTHER|||||||0.813||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.813
95764907|NCT01263938|191500680|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank|||Sample size calculations were based on having sufficient power to detect a change in each of the outcome variables from baseline to week 12.The effect size was calculated as (detectable difference in change in outcome) / (SD of the change). Based on preliminary in vitro data, the smallest effect size was 1.88. Assuming that only 40% of this effect will be present in vivo (effect size=0.75), alpha = 0.05 and 80% power, n=16 is needed to complete the study.||||0.625
95764908|NCT00610428|191500682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||0.0840
95764909|NCT00610428|191500682|SUPERIORITY|Survival time is defined as time to the first successful headache relief.||||||0.0383||||||p-values calculated by Log-rank Test in step-down sequence (10 mg to 5 mg)|Survival|||||||0.0383
95764910|NCT04927845|191500706|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.41|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.41|0.06|.008
95802821|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 5 (primary). Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95843705|NCT05214768|191654900|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.98||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.2|-76.3|||ANCOVA|||||-76.3|-370.2|0.003
95764911|NCT04927845|191500706|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: comparing the waitlist condition versus only intervention group participants who were program initiators||||.03
95764912|NCT04927845|191500706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||Per Protocol Analyses of Intervention Effects: concurrent service use was added as a covariate to models.||||.009
95962000|NCT02358668|191895959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.26||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.50|0.17
95764913|NCT04927845|191500707|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.11||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||||.21
95764914|NCT04927845|191500708|SUPERIORITY||between-group effect size Cohen's d|0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||linear mixed effects, groupXtime term|||||0.36|0.02|.046
95764915|NCT02547428|191500727|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-5.1|||ANCOVA||Sample size of 60 participants (30 per treatment sequence) was needed to provide minimum 85% power to detect 5 point difference between treatments at a 2-sided significance level of 5% using a paired t-test.|Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR and placebo. The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included terms for period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects, and Baseline score as a covariate, and a participate-within-sequence term as a random effect.||-5.1|-11.0|<0.001
95764916|NCT02547428|191500728|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in ADHD-RS-IV total score change from Baseline between CTN SR 400 mg/day and placebo.||-3.6|-10.7|<0.001
95764917|NCT01422200|191500763|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95764918|NCT01958437|191500765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for cognitively intact groups||||.048
95764919|NCT01958437|191500765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||RM ANCOVA (covarying order) for MCI group||||.063
95764920|NCT01958437|191500766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of stimulation covarying session order||Change between active and sham tDCS sessions for allocentric blocks||||.27
95764921|NCT01958437|191500766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95764922|NCT01958437|191500767|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||<.001
95764923|NCT01958437|191500767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Main effect of session using repeated measures ANCOVA covarying stimulation order||||||.046
95764924|NCT01958437|191500768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA (covarying stimulation order)||||.497
95764925|NCT01958437|191500768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.599
95764926|NCT01113892|191500769|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate at 6 months for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate at 6 months for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products."|Mean Difference (Net)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.9||The threshold for significance was p = .05|Exact 1-sided test||Difference = Patency (Fusion Bioline) - Patency (EXXCEL)|It was calculated that 200 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in the number of participants with primary patency between FUSION Bioline and EXXCEL groups at 6 months. It was assumed that the ratio of Above-Knee to Below-Knee procedures was 60:40; based on this, the primary patency rate for the combined Above-Knee and Below-Knee patients was 79%. Assumptions included a 10% withdrawal rate prior to the 6-month evaluation.||29.9|2.7|<.0001
95764927|NCT01113892|191500770|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used to evaluate whether subjects with any MALE event or POD were homogeneous across the treatment arms.||||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of subjects with a MALE or POD event were summarized by treatment group.||||.033
95764928|NCT01113892|191500771|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieved primary assisted patency for both treatment groups were compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.017
95802822|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 12. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802823|NCT03336866|191578901|OTHER|The effect of IXT-m200 on METH exposure was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model. The response variable in the model was the natural-log transformed change in METH exposure parameters: Cmax. The model contained fixed effects for treatment, day (categorical day postdose), natural-log transformed Day 1 baseline parameter and a treatment-by-day interaction, and a random effect for subject.|||||<|0.0001||||||Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on Day 19. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Values were compared by a statistical analysis of change from Day 1 in METH PK parameters following IXT-m200 dosing. Geometric LS Mean change from Day 1 for each treatment on each day were calculated. Geometric LS Means Ratios of change in METH exposure for each dose level of IXT-m200 compared to Placebo on each Day 5 (primary), Day 12, Day 19 and Day 26 were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95802824|NCT01125748|191579028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|33.6||||||||33.6|5.0|
95802825|NCT01107457|191579030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.079
95802826|NCT01107457|191579030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95802827|NCT01107457|191579030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95802828|NCT01107457|191579030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95802829|NCT01107457|191579031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95802830|NCT01107457|191579031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95802831|NCT01107457|191579031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95802832|NCT01107457|191579031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95802833|NCT02641353|191579063|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|93.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||93.2|77.3|
95802834|NCT02641353|191579063|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|86.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax.||86.0|71.2|
95802835|NCT02641353|191579064|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.0|92.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||92.5|83.0|
95802836|NCT02641353|191579064|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t.||121.7|109.2|
95802837|NCT02641353|191579065|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|92.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment B / Treatment A) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the bioavailability between the apremilast oral suspension and tablet formulation an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||92.6|83.2|
95802838|NCT02641353|191579065|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|121.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Treatment C / Treatment B) expressed as a percentage.|To assess the effect of food on the PK of apremilast oral suspension formulation, an ANOVA model, with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞.||121.7|109.0|
95802839|NCT02641353|191579066|OTHER||Median Difference|0.25||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment B - Treatment A) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.50|0.00|0.1508
95802840|NCT02641353|191579066|OTHER||Median Difference|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|3.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Treatment C - Treatment B) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.25|1.27|<0.0001
95802841|NCT02547935|191579073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
95764929|NCT01113892|191500772|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.137
95764930|NCT01113892|191500773|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups were compared with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||<.0001
95764931|NCT01113892|191500775|NON_INFERIORITY|"Repeated 6 month analyses for 12 month results.The non-inferiority margin was 15%. The following null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (HA) were tested, with the primary patency rate for FUSION Bioline (PF), and the primary patency rate for EXXCEL (PE).~H0: PF - PE \< - 0.15; HA: PF - PE \> - 0.15 An exact 1-sided test was used for the observed difference of patency rates between the FUSION Bioline (test) and EXXCEL (control) products, with a p-value ≤ .05 indicating significance."|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.0|||Exact 1-sided test|||||23.0|-4.8|.0001
95764932|NCT01113892|191500777|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve primary assisted patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi-Square test||||||.181
95802842|NCT02547935|191579074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-25.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-25.8|-48.2|<0.001
95802843|NCT02547935|191579074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-5.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline UACR value and log-baseline UACR value-by-week interaction.||-5.2|-34.1|0.011
95950824|NCT01964547|191873661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sativex is deemed to be non-inferior to placebo if the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI of the estimated mean treatment difference (Sativex-Placebo) is less than +5%.|Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.33|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||2.33||
95764933|NCT01113892|191500779|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Proportion of subjects who achieve secondary patency for both treatment groups will be compared using a Chi Square test||||||.68
95764934|NCT02200055|191500787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|This measurement was collected for each participant. A pre-operative and post-operative bioimpedance measurement was taken.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95764935|NCT02015611|191500833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.63
95764936|NCT02015611|191500834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, race, season, and baseline value||||||0.64
95802844|NCT02547935|191579075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.26||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||1.26|-1.32|0.953
95802845|NCT02547935|191579075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.44||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline total body weight value and log-baseline total body weight value-by-week interaction.||0.44|-2.17|0.193
95802846|NCT02547935|191579076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.4||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||5.4|-17.5|0.298
95764937|NCT02015611|191500835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.08
95764938|NCT02015611|191500836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.53
95764939|NCT02015611|191500837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.75
95764940|NCT02015611|191500838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.92
95764941|NCT02015611|191500839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.94
95764942|NCT02015611|191500840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.61
95764943|NCT02015611|191500841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.59
95764944|NCT02015611|191500842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, race, season (time-varying)||||||0.21
95764945|NCT02291237|191500869|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.55||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.78|||ANCOVA|P-value and Least Squares (LS) Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.78|-1.87|0.416
95764946|NCT02291237|191500870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.42||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline peak VO2 as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The analysis evaluated the change in Peak VO2 from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline Peak VO2, sex, and age (continuous).||0.85|-1.68|0.517
95802847|NCT02547935|191579076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|9.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e.anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||9.8|-13.6|0.746
95802848|NCT02547935|191579077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||4.8|1.8|<0.001
95802849|NCT02547935|191579077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline UACR and pooled randomisation strata.||3.0|1.1|0.013
95802850|NCT02547935|191579078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||11.2|2.6|<0.001
95802851|NCT02547935|191579078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c and pooled randomisation strata.||3.8|0.8|0.167
95802852|NCT02547935|191579079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.2||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||-1.2|-8.3|0.009
95802853|NCT02547935|191579079|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.8||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures model of the logarithms of the post-baseline to baseline ratios, included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomisation strata, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of log-baseline SBP value and log-baseline SBP value-by-week interaction.||0.8|-6.4|0.122
95802854|NCT02547935|191579080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05||Statistical significance level = 0.025.|MMRM|||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, randomisation stratification factor (i.e. anti-diabetic treatment strata), and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.||0.05|-0.38|0.142
95802855|NCT03461861|191579100|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0056||0.007567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0886|-0.0774|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this superiority trials asserts that there is no true difference in functional connectivity between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||-0.0774|-0.0886|0.007567
95802856|NCT03461861|191579101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.900593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis (H0) of this trial asserts that there is no true difference in AVLT between the interventions of placebo and AGB101, and the alternative hypothesis (H1) states that there is a difference between the interventions of placebo and AGB101. A type I error is the error of rejecting H0 when it is actually true.||4.52|1.72|0.900593
95802857|NCT01407367|191579109|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.94||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||0.94|0.16|.04
95802858|NCT01407367|191579110|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99||calculated p-value. Results adjusted for gender, race, age, BMI, MAP, eGFR, smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, education employment status, health literacy and RAAS use.|Regression, Cox|||||1.99|0.53|0.86
95802859|NCT01271855|191579111|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|0.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different pain scores. Other values would fail to reject the null hypothesis.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the visual analogue pain score scale (VAS) between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||||.35
95802860|NCT01271855|191579112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of taking additional pain medications between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group 24-hours after delivery.||6.21|0.57|.30
95802861|NCT01271855|191579113|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The z-score is a standardized version of the Wilcoxon test statistic. In this study, z-scores with an absolute value exceeding 1.96 signal the two groups have meaningfully different satisfaction scores. Other values fail to reject the null hypothesis|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain satisfaction score between participants in the Glycerin suppository group and those in the Belladonna and opioid suppository group at discharge||||.02
95802862|NCT02186171|191579114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|12.2||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||12.2|9.6|< 0.0001
95950825|NCT01964547|191873662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|8.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||8.22|1.96|0.0001
95764947|NCT02291237|191500871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|1.54||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.19|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||6.19|-3.11|0.513
95764948|NCT02291237|191500872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|4.56|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in MLHFQ from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||4.56|-4.36|0.964
95764949|NCT02291237|191500873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|-0.04||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 24 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||1.10|-1.18|0.944
95764950|NCT02291237|191500874|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference(Eleclazine - Placebo)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value and LS Means are from model with terms for sex, age (continuous), and treatment group and baseline score as the covariate.||The analysis evaluated the change in treadmill exercise time from baseline to Week 12 for the eleclazine group compared with that of the placebo group using ANCOVA including terms for baseline treadmill exercise time, sex, and age (continuous).||0.97|-0.96|0.993
95764951|NCT01866098|191500875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.83
95764952|NCT01866098|191500876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
95802863|NCT02186171|191579115|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|2.3|< 0.0001
95802864|NCT02186171|191579116|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 12 months in total hip and femoral neck to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.5|< 0.0001
95802865|NCT02186171|191579117|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|9.7||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||9.7|7.6|< 0.0001
95802866|NCT02186171|191579118|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.8|< 0.0001
95802867|NCT02186171|191579119|SUPERIORITY|The Hochberg procedure was employed to control the overall type 1 error for the percent change from baseline at 6 months at the lumbar spine, total hip and femoral neck BMD in order to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, machine type, machine type-by-baseline BMD value, baseline testosterone level, geographic region, and using a variance structure allowing for heterogeneity between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||2.1|0.4|= 0.0033
95764953|NCT01866098|191500877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.19
95764954|NCT01866098|191500878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.96
95764955|NCT01866098|191500879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.92
95764956|NCT01866098|191500880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.98
95764957|NCT01866098|191500881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.95
95764958|NCT01866098|191500882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Estimated treatment differences between groups analyzed using mixed-model analysis. Model includes the baseline value age; sex; compliance; ethnicity.||||||0.43
95764959|NCT02028676|191500893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was 1.64, see other analysis for this endpoint for details|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.73|0.73|0.59
95764960|NCT02028676|191500893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions detailed above, \>90% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 1160 children would be required to exclude an increase in progression rate of 1.6% from 2.5% to 4.1% per year in the CDM arm (upper 95% confidence limit of LCM: CDM hazard ratio 1.64).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.32||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.12|||Comparison of poisson rates|Statistical analysis plan specified that p-value was to be calculated from the log-rank test, so not provided for the risk difference|Difference is CDM minus LCM|"Assumptions:~* control group (LCM) event rate 3% per year~* rates are reduced to 2% per year in the best of the induction-maintenance arms leading to an overall rate of progression to new WHO stage 4 or death of 2.5%~* recruitment is over 1.5 years and follow-up for a minimum further 3.5 years.~* cumulative loss to follow-up is 10% at 5 years. See below for rest of sample size as this box is not big enough."||1.12|-0.47|0.43
95764961|NCT02028676|191500894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.16|0.83|0.83
95764962|NCT02028676|191500895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||Assuming a standard deviation for the change in CD4 percentage from baseline to 72 weeks of 10% (slightly higher than that observed in the PENTA 5 trial) 1200 children would provide at least 80% power to detect a difference in change in CD4% from baseline of more than 2.5% across the 3 groups (F-test with 2-sided alpha=0.05) assuming 20% missing data (loss to follow-up during the first year plus failure to attend the week 72 visit/missing sample).||||0.33
95802868|NCT01452347|191579120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|74.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|68.08|80.91|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||80.91|68.08|
95802869|NCT01452347|191579121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|84.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|70.32|101.44|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||101.44|70.32|
95802870|NCT01452347|191579122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||||95.0|88.69|102.84|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||102.84|88.69|
95802871|NCT01452347|191579123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||||95.0|86.4|123.4|||ANOVA|The Ctrough,ss (predicted or observed) was log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.|"The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.~(Observed vs Predicted)"|"Null hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was either ≤ to the lower bound or ≥ to the upper bound of the acceptance range .~Alternative hypothesis: The difference of the population average responses was both \> than the lower bound and \< than the upper bound of the acceptance range \[Note: The acceptance range for the geometric mean is 80-125%\]"||123.40|86.40|
95802872|NCT01452347|191579124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||<0.001
95802873|NCT01452347|191579125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.05
95802874|NCT01452347|191579126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.46
95802875|NCT01452347|191579127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Probability that P remains \< 10% are presented, where P=Percentage of patients with observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL|Beta Function|Probability calculated using Beta function \~B(1 + r, 1 + n - r),r=no. of patients(observed Ctrough,ss value \< 50 ng/mL), n=no. of patients evaluated||||||0.65
95950826|NCT01964547|191873663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.31|1.23|0.0142
95764963|NCT02028676|191500896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.69
95764964|NCT02028676|191500897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.0001
95764965|NCT02028676|191500897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.63|||Regression, Cox||HR is Arm B vs A|||1.63|1.07|0.01
95802876|NCT05762744|191579128|OTHER|Unpaired two-tailed t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.37||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGTs (saline or exenatide-stimulated) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.37
95764966|NCT02028676|191500897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|1.29|<0.001
95764967|NCT02028676|191500898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|631 children would be required to exclude a 12% lower suppression rate in the once daily group with at least 90% power and two-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 95% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -12%, the non-inferiority margin). 630 children retains at least 80% (rather than 90%) power to exclude a 10% (rather than 12%) lower suppression rate in the once daily group with one-sided alpha=0.05 (lower 90% confidence limit of difference between once and twice daily -10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in suppression \<80 copies/ml in once-daily minus twice-daily|||5.2|-8.4|0.65
95802877|NCT05762744|191579129|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGT (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT.||||0.66
95802878|NCT05762744|191579130|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of testing (exenatide-stimulated or saline FSIGT) does not affect data obtained in the FSIGTs.||||0.55
95802879|NCT05762744|191579131|OTHER|Unpaired, two-tailed t-test to test the null hypothesis||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.45
95802880|NCT05762744|191579132|OTHER|Two-tailed unpaired t-test to test null hypothesis||||||0.86||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the order of FSIGT (exenatide or saline) does not affect the response during an FSIGT||||0.86
95802881|NCT05762744|191579133|OTHER|Two-tailed p-test for unpaired data||||||0.44||||||The t-test was conducted on the logarithms of the variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The order of FSIGTs (exenatide-stimulated or saline) does not affect the response to an FSIGT||||0.44
95764968|NCT02028676|191500900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough"||2.37|1.14|0.007
95764969|NCT02028676|191500900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With assumptions above, at least 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 947 children would be required in the stop/continue cotrimoxazole prophylaxis comparison to exclude an increase in hospitalisation/death rate of 3% from 5% to 8% per year in the stop cotrimoxazole arm (upper 95% confidence limit of stop:continue hazard ratio 1.6).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2|||Poisson regression for risk difference||Risk difference is stop vs continue.|"Assumptions~* 5% of children receiving daily cotrimoxazole prophylaxis have a new hospitalisation or death per year~* recruitment starts 1 July 2009 with 10% children (those already on ART for \>96 weeks) entering immediately, and then the remaining children recruited over the following 15 months as they reach 96 weeks on ART. Follow-up is until March 2012.~* cumulative loss to follow-up at March 2012 is 10%. See below for further details as box is not big enough."||7.2|0.8|0.006
95764970|NCT02028676|191500901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is stop vs continue.|||1.72|0.83|0.33
95764971|NCT02028676|191500902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.44|0.49|0.45
95764972|NCT02028676|191500902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.43
95764973|NCT02028676|191500902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.31|0.33|0.23
95764974|NCT02028676|191500902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.81|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.81|0.52|0.93
95764975|NCT02028676|191500903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.89
95802882|NCT05762744|191579134|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: no differences between the two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first-phase insulin secretion.~t-test conducted on logarithms of the values"||||0.41
95802883|NCT05762744|191579134|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between two groups with respect to exenatide's effect on first phase insulin secretion||||0.38
95802884|NCT05762744|191579135|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance||||0.80
95764976|NCT02028676|191500903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.48|0.53|0.64
95764977|NCT02028676|191500903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.52|0.54|0.71
95764978|NCT02028676|191500904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.38|0.73|0.98
95764979|NCT02028676|191500904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.44
95764980|NCT02028676|191500904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.20|0.55|0.30
95764981|NCT02028676|191500904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.17|0.54|0.24
95764982|NCT02028676|191500905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.49|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM.|||1.49|0.82|0.52
95802885|NCT05762744|191579135|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: the two genotype groups do not differ with respect to the effect of exenatide on the rate of glucose disappearance during an FSIGT||||0.98
95802886|NCT01133977|191579174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||||||The current study was not powered or designed to determine superiority of the '20 mg Lenvatinib + Dacarbazine (Phase 2)' arm compared with 'Dacarbazine (Phase 2) ' arm.||0.75|0.23|
95802887|NCT03203512|191579178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment effect: p\<0.001; period effect : p=0.552; treatment x period interaction: p=0.622|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total EV numbers detected by NTA between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total EV numbers.||||<0.001
95802888|NCT03203512|191579179|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Treatment: p=0.001; period: p=0.646; treatment x period interaction: p=0.267|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total PS+EV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total PS+EV numbers.||||=0.001
95802889|NCT03203512|191579180|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.350; treatment x period interaction: p=0.572|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on PDEV numbers.||||=0.002
95802890|NCT03203512|191579180|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EDEV numbers detected by FCM between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EDEV numbers.|||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.362; treatment x period interaction: p=0.225|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95802891|NCT03203512|191579181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.010; treatment x period: p=0.608|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting lag time for TF-dependent thrombin generation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
95802892|NCT03203512|191579182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.073; treatment x period: p=0.667|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent thrombin peak concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
95802893|NCT03203512|191579183|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.138; treatment x period: p=0.872|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting the time to reach peak TF-dependent thrombin concentration between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
95802894|NCT03203512|191579184|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||Treatment: p=0.015; period: p=0.059; treatment x period: p=0.220|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent velocity index between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||=0.015
95802895|NCT03203512|191579185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.118; treatment x period: p=0.802|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EV thrombogenicity in affecting TF-dependent endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EV thrombogenicity.||||<0.001
95802896|NCT03203512|191579186|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to ADP between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
95802897|NCT03203512|191579186|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to epinephrine between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
95802898|NCT03203512|191579186|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to TRAP-6 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
95802899|NCT03203512|191579186|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to U46619 between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
95802900|NCT03203512|191579187|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of platelet function in affecting LogEC50 values in response to CRP-XL between fish oil and placebo capsules. Comparisons of this parameter after each intervention were drawn using 2-way ANOVA with the Turkey multiple comparisons test.||||>0.05
95802901|NCT03203512|191579188|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting endpoint for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
95802902|NCT03203512|191579188|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affectingamximum for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
95950827|NCT01964547|191873664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Data were analysed using ordinal logistic regression using the cumulative proportional odds model, with global impression of change as the dependent variable and treatment group as factor.||6.21|1.51|0.0019
95950828|NCT01964547|191873665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.37|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and center grouping as factors and the baseline score as covariate.||1.37|-6.09|0.212
95802903|NCT03203512|191579189|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs in affecting area under curve for ex vivo thrombus formation between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on the pro-thrombotic activity of PDEVs.||||>0.05
95802904|NCT03203512|191579190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: \<0.001; period: p=0.978; treatment x period interaction: p=0.140|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
95802905|NCT03203512|191579190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.699; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
95802906|NCT03203512|191579190|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Treatment: p=0.011; period: p=0.381; treatment x period interaction: p=0.762|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on oleic acid in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.011
95802907|NCT03203512|191579190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.512; treatment x period interaction: p=0.812|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
95802908|NCT03203512|191579190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.160; treatment x period interaction: p=0.132|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||<0.001
95802909|NCT03203512|191579190|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Treatment: p=0.013; period: p=0.500; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total MUFA in circulating EV total lipids.||||=0.013
95802910|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.169; treatment x period interaction: p=0.629|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of EPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on EPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802911|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.262; treatment x period interaction: p=0.150|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DHA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DHA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802912|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.302; treatment x period interaction: p=0.385|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DPA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DPA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802913|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.793; treatment x period interaction: p=0.522|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on linoleic acid in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802914|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.956; treatment x period interaction: p=0.238|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of dihomo-γ-linolenic acid (DGLA) in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DGLA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95950829|NCT01964547|191873668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|21.27|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment group and centre grouping as factors and baseline score as covariate.||21.27|-11.51|0.556
95950830|NCT01964547|191873668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-1.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using non-parametric methods as the distribution of data was non-normal.||0|-3|0.088
95950831|NCT01115309|191873671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95802915|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.457; treatment x period interaction: p=0.613|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on AA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802916|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.134; treatment x period interaction: p=0.260|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-3 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802917|NCT03203512|191579191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period: p=0.917; treatment x period interaction: p=0.603|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on total n-6 PUFA in plasma total phospholipids.||||<0.001
95802918|NCT03203512|191579192|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||Treatment: p=0.016; period: p=0.566; treatment x period interaction: p=0.659|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TAG between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TAG.||||=0.016
95802919|NCT03203512|191579192|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||Treatment: p=0.014; period: p=0.842; treatment x period interaction: p=0.943|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma LDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma LDL-C.||||=0.014
95802920|NCT03203512|191579192|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.077||||||Treatment: p=0.077; period: p=0.921; treatment x period interaction: p=0.793|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC.||||=0.077
95802921|NCT03203512|191579192|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.379||||||Treatment: p=0.379; period: p=0.938; treatment x period interaction: p=0.341|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma HDL-C between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma HDL-C.||||=0.379
95802922|NCT03203512|191579193|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.285||||||Treatment: p=0.285; period: p=0.954; treatment x period interaction: p=0.528|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of plasma TC/HDL-C ratio between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on plasma TC/HDL-C ratio.||||=0.285
95802923|NCT03203512|191579194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment: p\<0.001; period effect: p=0.011; treatment x period interaction: p=0.033|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of SBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on SBP.||||<0.001
95802924|NCT03203512|191579194|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Treatment: p=0.002; period: p=0.952; treatment x period interaction: p=0.114|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBP between fish oil and placebo capsules. A general linear model with fixed factors of treatment and period was conducted to determine the differences in the effect of two treatments and two periods on DBP.||||=0.002
95802925|NCT01145222|191579204|SUPERIORITY|Overall comparison between remimazolam and midazolam||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95802926|NCT00927186|191579207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The pre-specified significance level 0.05 was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802927|NCT00927186|191579208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802928|NCT00927186|191579209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802929|NCT00927186|191579209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802930|NCT00927186|191579210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802931|NCT00927186|191579210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802932|NCT00927186|191579211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802933|NCT00927186|191579211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802934|NCT00927186|191579212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802935|NCT00927186|191579212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802936|NCT00927186|191579212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95950832|NCT01115309|191873672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95802937|NCT00927186|191579212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802938|NCT00927186|191579213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802939|NCT00927186|191579213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95950833|NCT00090519|191873684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.686|||ANOVA|||||0.686|-0.714|0.969
95859790|NCT01149148|191677750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.626||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.02||A prior threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||The difference between baseline and three months is (baseline - 3 month). The difference in control and intervention is (intervention - control), which in this case is (unblinded - blinded).|The goal was to determine whether cerebral oximetry monitoring during surgery affected cognitive outcomes. Cerebral Oximetry Monitoring unblinded (intervention), and Cerebral Oxymetry Monitoring blinded (control) were given Mini Mental State Exam prior to surgery and three months after surgery. The differences between baseline and 3 month were calculated and compared between the intervention and control groups using t-test.||2.02|-1.36|0.678
95859791|NCT03436082|191677752|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95859792|NCT03436082|191677754|OTHER|We used Stata version 14.2 (StataCorp LP) to perform chi-square tests to compare syncing of the Fitbit device and response rate for the postprocedure recovery PROMs and disease-specific PROMs between patients in the bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation groups, using a p value \< 0.05 to denote statistical significance.||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
95859793|NCT00373113|191677756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|1.869||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors. The set of stratification factors included those used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Null hypothesis is that PFS (median=4.2 months) for sunitinib arm equals PFS for capecitabine arm. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect statistical difference in PFS between two treatment groups assuming the hazard ratio (sunitinib/capecitabine) is 0.75 and both arms follow exponential distribution.||1.869|1.156|0.002
95859794|NCT00373113|191677757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|1.933||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that was used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated by the stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.933|1.188|<0.001
95859795|NCT00373113|191677758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|16.1||||||||16.1|7.6|
95859796|NCT00373113|191677758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||||||||21.6|12.0|
95859797|NCT00373113|191677758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.049||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.1|||Pearson Chi-Square Test|||||1.1|-11.2|0.109
95859798|NCT00373113|191677759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.788||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|7.459|||Log Rank|||||7.459|1.042|0.037
95859799|NCT00373113|191677761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.611||2-sided log-rank test with the same set of stratification factors that were used in the randomization except study sites.|Log Rank|||||1.611|0.896|0.219
95859800|NCT04335136|191677799|OTHER|||||||0.5207||||||The level of significance was 5% (2-sided).|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis tested: H0: pAPN01 = pPlacebo; H1: pAPN01 ≠ pPlacebo (with p=proportion of patients with event).~A total of 186 patients (93 per group) was estimated to yield 80% power to detect a 20% absolute risk reduction in the primary, from 50% in the placebo group to 30% in the APN01 group, at a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. To consider patients who would be randomized but not treated, a total of 200 patients (100 per group) were planned to be enrolled."||||0.5207
95764983|NCT02028676|191500905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|||||||0.34
95764984|NCT02028676|191500905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.13|0.54|0.19
95764985|NCT02028676|191500905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.16|0.56|0.25
95764986|NCT02028676|191500906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.71
95764987|NCT02028676|191500906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.58
95764988|NCT02028676|191500907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
95764989|NCT02028676|191500907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.90
95764990|NCT02028676|191500908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.64
95764991|NCT02028676|191500908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.30
95764992|NCT02028676|191500909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.45
95764993|NCT02028676|191500910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.70
95764994|NCT02028676|191500911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||0.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.59
95764995|NCT02028676|191500911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.01
95764996|NCT02028676|191500912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.81
95764997|NCT02028676|191500912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.03
95764998|NCT02028676|191500913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
95764999|NCT02028676|191500913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95765000|NCT02028676|191500914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95765001|NCT02028676|191500914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95765002|NCT02028676|191500915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.29|0.48|0.22
95802940|NCT00927186|191579214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802941|NCT00927186|191579214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802942|NCT00927186|191579215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802943|NCT00927186|191579215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802944|NCT00927186|191579215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95802945|NCT00927186|191579215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802946|NCT00927186|191579216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802947|NCT00927186|191579216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802948|NCT00927186|191579217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95802949|NCT00927186|191579217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95802950|NCT00927186|191579218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802951|NCT00927186|191579218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802952|NCT00927186|191579218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95802953|NCT00927186|191579218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95950834|NCT00090519|191873685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.97||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.97|0.21|0.015
95765003|NCT02028676|191500916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.075|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.075|0.420|0.09
95765004|NCT02028676|191500916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.04
95765005|NCT02028676|191500916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||4.08|1.15|0.017
95765006|NCT02028676|191500916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||3.80|1.05|0.034
95765007|NCT02028676|191500917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.66|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.66|1.02|0.04
95765008|NCT02028676|191500917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.53
95765009|NCT02028676|191500917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||1.25|0.68|0.60
95765010|NCT02028676|191500917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||1.46|0.81|0.56
95765011|NCT02028676|191500918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is CDM vs LCM|||1.56|0.58|0.84
95765012|NCT02028676|191500918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Global test with 2df, adjusted for randomization stratification factors||||||0.002
95802954|NCT00927186|191579219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802955|NCT00927186|191579219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802956|NCT00927186|191579220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95802957|NCT00927186|191579220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95802958|NCT00927186|191579221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802959|NCT00927186|191579221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802960|NCT00927186|191579221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95802961|NCT00927186|191579221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95802962|NCT00927186|191579222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95950835|NCT00090519|191873686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||P-value is for first occurrence of focal/grid photocoagulation yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||||0.577
95765013|NCT02028676|191500918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|8.29|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm B vs A|||8.29|1.74|0.001
95765014|NCT02028676|191500918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.85|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is Arm C vs A|||6.85|1.39|0.006
95765015|NCT02028676|191500919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.53
95765016|NCT02028676|191500919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.46
95765017|NCT02028676|191500920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|-9.3|0.52
95765018|NCT02028676|191500921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.5|-1.2|0.39
95765019|NCT02028676|191500922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.9|-0.9|0.98
95993861|NCT01375764|191963518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-35.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group (evolocumab + ezetimibe and ezetimibe alone) and the stratification factors.|Ezetimibe is the reference.|||-35.50|-46.99|<0.001
95802963|NCT00927186|191579222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802964|NCT00927186|191579223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
95802965|NCT00927186|191579223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
95802966|NCT00927186|191579224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95802967|NCT00927186|191579224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802968|NCT00927186|191579224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
95802969|NCT00927186|191579224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
95802970|NCT00927186|191579225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.502
95802971|NCT00927186|191579225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.597
95802972|NCT00927186|191579226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
95802973|NCT00927186|191579226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.358
95802974|NCT00927186|191579227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.647
95765020|NCT02028676|191500923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||0.2|-1.9|0.12
95765021|NCT02028676|191500924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|76.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||76|-60|0.82
95765022|NCT02028676|191500925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|38.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||38|-104|0.36
95765023|NCT02028676|191500926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.0|46.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is once-daily minus twice-daily|||46|-220|0.20
95765024|NCT02028676|191500928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.64|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.64|0.11|0.20
95765025|NCT02028676|191500929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.77|0.31|0.51
95765026|NCT02028676|191500930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.16
95765027|NCT02028676|191500931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.54
95765028|NCT02028676|191500932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.08
95802975|NCT00927186|191579227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.120
95802976|NCT00927186|191579227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
95802977|NCT00927186|191579227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95802978|NCT00927186|191579228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95993862|NCT02867761|191963525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.37|0.60|0.65
95765029|NCT02028676|191500933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.52|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.52|0.72|0.82
95765030|NCT02028676|191500934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is once-daily vs twice-daily|||1.27|0.48|0.31
95765031|NCT02028676|191500935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
95765032|NCT02028676|191500936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95765033|NCT02028676|191500937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.93
95765034|NCT02028676|191500938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.25|1.50|<0.001
95765035|NCT02028676|191500939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.85|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||3.85|0.56|0.44
95765036|NCT02028676|191500940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.48|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||5.48|1.05|0.03
95765037|NCT02028676|191500941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|35.7|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||35.7|0.44|0.18
95765038|NCT02028676|191500942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.17|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||6.17|0.53|0.34
95765039|NCT02028676|191500943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.15|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||4.15|0.12|0.68
95802979|NCT00927186|191579228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95950836|NCT00090519|191873687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.87||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|0.02|0.041
95765040|NCT02028676|191500944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.07
95802980|NCT00927186|191579229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95765041|NCT02028676|191500945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.19
95765042|NCT02028676|191500946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Generalised estimating equations|Generalised estimating equations with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.34
95765043|NCT02028676|191500947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||0.2|-1.4|0.13
95765044|NCT02028676|191500948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|42.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Difference is stop minus continue|||42|-65|0.68
95765045|NCT02028676|191500949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.5|||Log Rank|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Hazard ratio is stop vs continue|||2.50|1.02|0.04
95765046|NCT02028676|191500950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Adjusted for randomization stratification factors|Generalised estimating equation|Generalised estimating equation with independent correlation structure and robust standard errors, calculated over all post-randomization visit weeks||||||0.21
95765047|NCT02586155|191500976|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.044|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.044|0.649|0.1070
95765048|NCT02586155|191500977|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.849||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.061|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.061|0.679|0.1495
95765049|NCT02586155|191500978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||Stratified long-rank|||||0.94|0.38|0.03
95765050|NCT02586155|191500979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.24|||Stratified long-rank|||||1.24|0.62|0.44
95765051|NCT02586155|191500990|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.03
95765052|NCT00972595|191500991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.93|1.03||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.03|0.93|
95765053|NCT00972595|191500992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) 8 mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN™ tablet) of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.99||||||90.0|0.93|1.05||||||"Least-Squares Mean Ratio (OE U.K. tablet / U.K. tablet): an over-encapsulated single 8 mg tablet of United Kingdom~(U.K.) ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) taken orally; a single 8 mg tablet of ZOFRAN™ (ondansetron) which is marketed in the~United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally"||1.05|0.93|
95765054|NCT00141778|191501005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Discrete variables were compared among treatment groups with a chi-square test.||||0.95
95765055|NCT00141778|191501006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95993863|NCT02867761|191963529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.30
95993864|NCT02867761|191963530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.49
95765056|NCT00141778|191501007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95950837|NCT00090519|191873688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value is for progression of nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (DR) by seven-field stereo fundus photography progression versus no progression.|Chi-squared|||||||0.475
95950838|NCT00090519|191873689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|3.92||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.92|-0.87|0.211
95950839|NCT00090519|191873690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.22||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.68|200.12||P-value is for change from baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||200.12|-73.68|0.365
95950840|NCT00090519|191873691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.66||P-value is for change from baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.66|0.38|0.009
95950841|NCT00090519|191873693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12||P-value is for occurrence of sustained moderate visual loss (SMVL) in a diabetic retinopathy (DR) study eye yes versus no.|Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.20|0.081
95950842|NCT02548585|191873703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted by baseline value.||||||< 0.0001
95950843|NCT02548585|191873704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|p-value was based on pairwise comparison using ANCOVA adjusted by baseline value.||||||0.0008
95950844|NCT01782209|191873729|OTHER||Incidence|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|21.8|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval|||21.8|13.4|
95765057|NCT00141778|191501008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95765058|NCT00141778|191501009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
95765059|NCT00141778|191501010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
95802981|NCT00927186|191579229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.198
95950845|NCT01075152|191873734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.82||A Lan-DeMets spending function analog of the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries was proposed to control the type-I error resulting from multiple interim analyses.|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio describes the risk of earlier HIV therapy in comparison to deferred HIV therapy initiation as the reference group.|"We compared the randomization arms for the primary endpoint of survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models by the intention-to-treat principle, based on two-sided type-I error with alpha=0.05.~The trial was statistically powered to detect a 25% relative survival benefit (15% absolute benefit) with 90% power and overall two-sided alpha=0.05 with an intended sample size of 500 participants. The trial was halted early by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board."||2.82|1.06|0.03
95950846|NCT01075152|191873735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.32
95950847|NCT01075152|191873736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Gray's method of cumulative incidence|||To account for the competing risk of death, the cumulative incidence function compared the randomized groups for endpoints of IRIS, relapse, and adverse events (Gray's method).||||0.06
95950848|NCT01075152|191873737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.98
95950849|NCT01075152|191873738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||We compared the randomization arms for survival using time-to-event methods of Cox proportional hazards models.||2.68|1.03|0.04
95950850|NCT01075152|191873739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.26
95950851|NCT01075152|191873740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Categorical secondary endpoints were compared with Fisher's exact tests.||||0.23
95950852|NCT01075152|191873741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||repeated measure analysis|||The overall change from baseline in Karnofsky performance status scores was compared between groups via a repeated measure analysis, unstructured covariance matrix, adjusted for baseline value.||||0.34
95765060|NCT00141778|191501011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
95765061|NCT00141778|191501012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
95765062|NCT02085447|191501016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.012
95765063|NCT02085447|191501017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.028
95765064|NCT02085447|191501018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.162
95765065|NCT02085447|191501019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.021
95765066|NCT02085447|191501020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.005
95802982|NCT00927186|191579230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95765067|NCT02085447|191501021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95765068|NCT02085447|191501022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.197
95765069|NCT02085447|191501023|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95765070|NCT02085447|191501024|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95765071|NCT02085447|191501025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95765072|NCT02085447|191501026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.053
95765073|NCT02085447|191501027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95765074|NCT02085447|191501028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.821
95765075|NCT02085447|191501029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
95765076|NCT02085447|191501030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.425
95765077|NCT02085447|191501031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.577
95765078|NCT02085447|191501032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.330
95765079|NCT02085447|191501033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.706
95765080|NCT02085447|191501034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.481
95765081|NCT02085447|191501035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.020
95802983|NCT00927186|191579230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95993865|NCT02867761|191963531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.96
95993866|NCT02867761|191963532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
95993867|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with any symptoms (shortness of breath, chest tightness, wheezing, cough, or sputum)||||0.35
95993868|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with shortness of breath||||0.61
95993869|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with chest tightness||||0.48
95993870|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with wheezing||||0.81
95993871|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with cough||||0.17
95993872|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with sputum||||0.64
95993873|NCT02867761|191963535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||P Value for percentage of days with use of albuterol.||||0.84
95993874|NCT01512264|191963579|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.58.||||0.006
95765082|NCT02085447|191501036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.103
95765083|NCT02085447|191501037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.063
95765084|NCT04052620|191501038|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: if the upper 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of Least Square (LS) mean difference was less than 13 mm then DDEA 2.32% gel BID was concluded as non-inferior.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.22|||ANCOVA|||||5.22|-3.00|0.5950
95765085|NCT04052620|191501040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||1.75|-6.61|0.2536
95765086|NCT04052620|191501040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.7|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||2.70|-4.23|0.6643
95765087|NCT04052620|191501041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.54|-1.13|0.3118
95765088|NCT04052620|191501041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.74|-3.60|0.4937
95765089|NCT04052620|191501041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.74|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.74|-1.83|0.3825
95765090|NCT04052620|191501042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||2.75|-2.23|0.8360
95765091|NCT04052620|191501042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.18|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||1.18|-3.69|0.3119
95765092|NCT04052620|191501042|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.52|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||4.52|-1.20|0.2535
95765093|NCT04052620|191501043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.6242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.71|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||3.71|-2.23|0.6242
95765094|NCT04052620|191501043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|3.77|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.77|-4.33|0.8905
95765095|NCT04052620|191501043|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.54|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||6.54|-2.29|0.3439
95765096|NCT04052620|191501044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.44|0.1554
95765097|NCT04052620|191501044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||-0.12|-0.66|0.0047
95765098|NCT04052620|191501044|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.10|-0.66|0.0082
95765099|NCT04052620|191501045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.07|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 3|||0.07|-0.30|0.2182
95765100|NCT04052620|191501045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.01|-0.36|0.0574
95765101|NCT04052620|191501045|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.03|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 8|||-0.03|-0.37|0.0194
95765102|NCT04052620|191501046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.986|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.986|-1.250|0.6545
95765103|NCT04052620|191501046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.915|0.924|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||0.924|-1.915|0.4924
95765104|NCT04052620|191501047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.823||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.675|1.57|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 1|||1.570|-1.675|0.9491
95765105|NCT04052620|191501047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.059|3.659|||ANCOVA||DDEA 2.32% gel vs DDEA 1.16% gel, Day 5|||3.659|-2.059|0.5820
95765106|NCT00473590|191501073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|2.261|||Log Rank|The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Stratified analysis||2.261|0.404|0.9179
95765107|NCT00473590|191501073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.893||The tests were exploratory because patients were not randomized to the two arms with respect to response status.|Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis.||1.893|0.369|0.6665
95859801|NCT04335136|191677799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom: 1||||1.70|0.23|0.3588
95859802|NCT01396447|191677816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.5||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|||0.5|-4.3|0.1292
95859803|NCT01396447|191677816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.6||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|||-1.6|-6.3|0.0010
95859804|NCT01396447|191677816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.|Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|||-0.1|-4.9|0.0374
95859805|NCT01396447|191677817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 0.75 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.1|-0.4|0.3025
95859806|NCT01396447|191677817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 1.5 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.2|-0.6|0.0044
95859807|NCT01396447|191677817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Repeated measures mixed-effects model||Cariprazine 3.0 mg vs Placebo|The analysis included treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment-group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and the baseline value and baseline value-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0489
95859808|NCT02136069|191677849|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.9||||0.8114||95.0|-8.7|6.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.83|-8.70|0.8114
95859809|NCT02136069|191677850|NON_INFERIORITY|with margin -12.5%|Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-12.0||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-3.26||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test was used to determine the nominal p-value.||||-3.26|-20.50|0.1293
95859810|NCT02136069|191677851|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-3.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|4.74||p-values are not multiplicity adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.74|-11.53|0.4056
95859811|NCT02136069|191677852|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-2.4||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.14||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.14|-8.88|0.4591
95859812|NCT02136069|191677853|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|5.3||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|18.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.13|-7.54|0.4196
95859813|NCT02136069|191677854|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-12.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|-2.66||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.66|-21.84|0.0118
95859814|NCT02136069|191677855|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-4.9||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|4.12||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.12|-13.76|0.2845
95859815|NCT02136069|191677856|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.3||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.84||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.84|-14.30|0.1234
95859816|NCT02136069|191677857|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|2.94||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|-12.84|0.2168
95859817|NCT02136069|191677858|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-9.5||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|0.29||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.29|-19.06|0.0564
95859818|NCT02136069|191677859|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|-6.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|2.7||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|-14.51|0.1729
95859819|NCT02136069|191677860|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|-0.8||||0.8941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|10.68||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.68|-12.01|0.8941
95859820|NCT02136069|191677869|SUPERIORITY|Week 10|Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.1||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|4.3||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||4.3|-10.6|0.4106
95859821|NCT02136069|191677869|SUPERIORITY|Week 30|Difference in Adjusted Means|-5.7||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-13.3|0.1434
95859822|NCT02136069|191677869|SUPERIORITY|Week 54|Difference in Adjusted Means|-6.1||||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|1.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-13.6|0.1103
95859823|NCT04693234|191677875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0054
95859824|NCT04693234|191677876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Binomial Exact Test|The p-value was calculated from the binomial exact test of tislelizumab combined with ociperlimab versus historical rate of 0.15.||||||0.0127
95859825|NCT05814367|191677895|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.014|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|The sample size of 38 was calculated to provide at least 90% statistical power to test Non-inferiority of the Test lens compared to the Control lens using a paired t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||0.014|-0.025|
95859826|NCT00408200|191677945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95859827|NCT02362282|191677969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95859828|NCT02004093|191677971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3967|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3967
95859829|NCT02004093|191677971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4552
95802984|NCT00927186|191579230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
95802985|NCT00927186|191579230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
95802986|NCT00927186|191579231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
95802987|NCT00927186|191579231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.052
95802988|NCT00927186|191579232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
95802989|NCT00927186|191579232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.159
95802990|NCT00927186|191579233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.979
95802991|NCT00927186|191579233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95802992|NCT00927186|191579233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.695
95802993|NCT00927186|191579233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||P-value is for double labels (DL), imputed single labels (ISL) and no labels (NL) at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.853
95802994|NCT00927186|191579234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802995|NCT00927186|191579234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802996|NCT00927186|191579235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95802997|NCT00927186|191579235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95802998|NCT00927186|191579236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95802999|NCT00927186|191579236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803000|NCT00927186|191579236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for sLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95803001|NCT00927186|191579236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for dLS/BS at 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95803002|NCT00927186|191579237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95803003|NCT00927186|191579238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95803004|NCT00927186|191579239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 6 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95803005|NCT00927186|191579239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||"P-value is a comparison of No Label vs. Single, Double, Single and Double Label at 24 months."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
95803006|NCT00927186|191579240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95803007|NCT00927186|191579241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.906
95803008|NCT00927186|191579242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
95803009|NCT00927186|191579242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
95803010|NCT00927186|191579243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803011|NCT00927186|191579244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95803012|NCT00927186|191579245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803013|NCT00927186|191579246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95803014|NCT00927186|191579247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803015|NCT00927186|191579247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95803016|NCT00927186|191579248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803017|NCT00927186|191579249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
95803018|NCT00927186|191579250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803019|NCT00927186|191579250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95803020|NCT00927186|191579251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95803021|NCT00927186|191579252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
95803022|NCT00927186|191579253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
95803023|NCT00927186|191579253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.268
95803024|NCT00927186|191579254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95803025|NCT00927186|191579255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95803026|NCT00927186|191579256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95803027|NCT00927186|191579256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for 24 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
95803028|NCT00927186|191579257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803029|NCT00927186|191579257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803030|NCT00927186|191579257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803031|NCT00927186|191579258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803032|NCT00927186|191579259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95765108|NCT00473590|191501074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|1.552|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression. The strata were number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|Stratified analysis||1.552|0.258|0.3134
95765109|NCT00473590|191501074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|1.468|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios were estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified analysis||1.468|0.251|0.2634
95803033|NCT00927186|191579259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803034|NCT00927186|191579259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803035|NCT00927186|191579260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803036|NCT00927186|191579261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 1 month.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803037|NCT00927186|191579261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 3 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803038|NCT00927186|191579261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for change from baseline at 6 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803039|NCT00927186|191579262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803040|NCT01623752|191579279|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.278
95803041|NCT01623752|191579279|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.222
95803042|NCT01623752|191579280|OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.251
95803043|NCT01623752|191579280|OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value was calculated using Paired t-test for the change in normalized progression.||||0.218
95803044|NCT01623752|191579283|OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.675
95803045|NCT01623752|191579283|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.357
95859830|NCT02004093|191677971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.49||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio equals (=) 1|Wald test|||||1.49|0.92|0.3972
95765110|NCT00473590|191501075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.276|||Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for number of prior cancer treatments (1, \> 1) and β2-microglobulin level (\< 3.5, ≥ 3.5 mg/L).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to BORT + P.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the BORT + BV group. Stratified Analysis.||1.276|0.432|0.2804
95803046|NCT01623752|191579284|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.106
95803047|NCT01623752|191579284|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.181
95803048|NCT01623752|191579285|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.015
95803049|NCT01623752|191579285|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.969
95803050|NCT01623752|191579286|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.489
95803051|NCT01623752|191579286|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.386
95803052|NCT01623752|191579287|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.364
95803053|NCT01623752|191579287|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis (P value) composite for all categories.||||0.849
95803054|NCT01421134|191579320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-10.2|<0.0001
95803055|NCT01421134|191579321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-0.96|<0.0001
95803056|NCT01421134|191579322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-3.1|<0.0001
95803057|NCT01421134|191579323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-7.2|0.0001
95803058|NCT01421134|191579324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.1|<0.0001
95803059|NCT01421134|191579325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.251|13.459|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was based on a logistic regression of response, with treatment group, baseline MADRS total score, and pooled center as fixed effects.|||13.459|3.251|<0.0001
95803060|NCT01421134|191579326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.105|8.663|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.663|2.105|<0.0001
95803061|NCT04641975|191579385|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with change from baseline at week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.||4.59|-0.15|0.121
95803062|NCT04641975|191579386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
95803063|NCT04641975|191579386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.91||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.47|18.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||18.46|-49.47|0.430
95859831|NCT02004093|191677972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.32||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|16.6|||Chi-squared|||||16.6|-3.9|0.3943
95765111|NCT00473590|191501075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.2|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio relative to BORT + P was estimated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis.||1.200|0.424|0.2009
95859832|NCT02004093|191677972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.17|||||approximate 80% confidence interval (CI) for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||2.17|0.86|
95859833|NCT02004093|191677973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3655|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3655
95859834|NCT02004093|191677973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1319
95859835|NCT02004093|191677973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.3679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.61|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.61|0.92|0.3679
95859836|NCT02004093|191677976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8129
95859837|NCT02004093|191677976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6920
95859838|NCT02004093|191677976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.82|1.32|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.32|0.82|0.8137
95859839|NCT02004093|191677979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5726
95765112|NCT01112059|191501078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.633|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.633|0.128|<0.05
95859840|NCT02004093|191677979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3903
95859841|NCT02004093|191677979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.43|||Wald test|p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1||||1.43|0.87|0.5870
95859842|NCT02004093|191677981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9261|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9261
95950853|NCT01075152|191873742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance||To describe early fungicidal activity, a linear mixed effects regression model fit with a random intercept and slope estimated the rate of clearance of log10 colony forming units (CFU) of Cryptococcus, per mL of CSF per day, for all participants with \>2 cultures obtained.||||0.44
95859843|NCT02004093|191677981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8591
95859844|NCT02004093|191677981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.41||p-value resulting from Wald test of null hypothesis that the hazard ratio=1|Wald test|||||1.41|0.74|0.9262
95859845|NCT04154189|191677991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08||One-sided P value|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (less than \[\<\]18 years, more than or equal to \[\>=\]18 years) in interactive response technology (IRT). Efron method was used for ties.|||1.08|0.27|0.0396
95765113|NCT00395161|191501097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Log Rank|Two-sided logrank test was used, stratified by immune compromised status at study entry (a factor also used to stratify the study randomization)||Null hypothesis was equal median time in both arms. Sample size calculated to yield 90% power to detect a significant effect, assuming inverse hazard rate of 1.5 using two-sided logrank test with alpha=0.05. This required recruitment until 263 patients with an event were enrolled (though the study was terminated early for futility by the DSMB).||||0.29
95859846|NCT04154189|191677992|OTHER|Difference in PFS rates, and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs): CI and p-value constructed using the difference of the 2 Kaplan-Meier PFS rates (4 months) and the 2 corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|10.2||||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|31.1||One-sided P value|Kaplan-Meier Method|||||31.1|-10.6|0.1683
95859847|NCT04154189|191677994|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.62||Nominal p-value from stratified log-rank test adjusted for the randomization stratification factor, that is, age.|Stratified Log-rank One-sided Test||Hazard ratio was based on a Cox Proportional Hazard Model including treatment group as a factor and stratified by Age (\<18 years, \>=18 years) in IRT. Efron method was used for ties.|||1.62|0.53|0.3924
95859848|NCT04154189|191677995|OTHER|Difference and 95% CI: difference of 2 Kaplan-Meier OS-1y rates and corresponding Greenwood standard errors.|Difference in Percentage|-22.9||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|1.9||One-sided P value|Kaplan Meier Method|||||1.9|-47.6|0.0352
95765114|NCT00395161|191501098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Rate analysis (see comments)|95% CIs were calculated for rates in each arm, and rates compared between arms, via approach of DR Cox, Biometrika (1953), vol 40, pp. 354-60.||Null hypothesis of equal event rates in the two study arms.||||0.81
95859849|NCT04154189|191677996|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3||||||||22.3|-6.4|
95859850|NCT04154189|191677997|OTHER|Difference calculated as Treatment Arm A: Lenvatinib + Ifosfamide + Etoposide minus Treatment Arm B: Ifosfamide + Etoposide. 2-sided 95% CI: Miettinen-Nurminen (Score) confidence limits, stratified by randomization stratification factor age (\<18 and \>=18 years).|Difference in Percentage|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.0||||||||20.0|-10.3|
95859851|NCT04380519|191678003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012||||0.434|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.88|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.880|0.434
95859852|NCT04380519|191678003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.125||||0.073|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.989|||Hochberg adjustment was applied for p-values|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.989|0.073
95859853|NCT04380519|191678005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.019||||0.393|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.892|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.892|0.393
95859854|NCT04380519|191678005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.098||||0.061|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.975|||unadjusted|Maximal Likelihood Estimator (MLE) model||||||0.975|0.061
95765115|NCT00395161|191501099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95765116|NCT00395161|191501100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95765117|NCT00395161|191501101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95765118|NCT01610492|191501109|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.01||||||||1.01|0.57|
95765119|NCT01610492|191501110|OTHER||Geometric Mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.58||||||||0.58|0.12|
95765120|NCT03093259|191501198|OTHER|One-sided 10% significance level||||||0.2096|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2096
95765121|NCT03093259|191501199|OTHER|||||||0.1588|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1588
95765122|NCT03093259|191501200|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4830
95765123|NCT03093259|191501201|OTHER|||||||0.0742|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0742
95765124|NCT03093259|191501202|OTHER|||||||0.0462|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0462
95765125|NCT02575833|191501203|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was -90 seconds.|Treatment Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|22.9||||||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of variance model with terms for treatment group and randomization strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes). If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in change from baseline in exercise duration was above the non-inferiority margin of -90 seconds, then the hypothesis that erenumab does not decrease exercise duration would be supported.||22.9|-44.9|
95765126|NCT02575833|191501204|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|1.55||||0.69|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.69
95765127|NCT02575833|191501204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.73|0.69
95803064|NCT04641975|191579387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
95803065|NCT04641975|191579387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.08||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.23|58.38|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||58.38|-53.23|0.935
95803066|NCT04641975|191579388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.10|-1.99|0.073
95803067|NCT04641975|191579388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean volume voided per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||-0.20|-1.80|0.044
95803068|NCT04641975|191579389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
95859855|NCT04380519|191678006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.44||||||||1.44|0.31|
95859856|NCT04380519|191678006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89||||||||0.89|0.12|
95765128|NCT02575833|191501204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.26|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.26|0.52|0.44
95765129|NCT02575833|191501204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced angina free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.28|0.52|0.47
95765130|NCT02575833|191501205|SUPERIORITY|The log-rank test statistic was used to compare the two treatment groups at a significance level of 0.10.|Normal score|2.2||||0.59|||||||Stratified Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 minutes or ≥ 7 minutes).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo and therefore a longer survival time.|||||0.59
95765131|NCT02575833|191501205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.69|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by stratified baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes)|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.69|0.76|0.59
95765132|NCT02575833|191501205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by continuous baseline total exercise time|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.60|0.73|0.75
95765133|NCT02575833|191501205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.87|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted by baseline total exercise time strata (\< 7 or ≥ 7 minutes), age group (\< 65, ≥ 65), and sex.|Hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer exercise-induced ST-segment depression free survival for erenumab 140 mg relative to placebo.|||1.87|0.82|0.39
95859857|NCT04380519|191678006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49||||||||1.49|0.28|
95859858|NCT04380519|191678006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||||||||0.87|0.11|
95803069|NCT04641975|191579389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA as performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||0.64|-0.74|0.910
95803070|NCT04641975|191579390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.99|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 without LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.99|0.97|0.012
95803071|NCT04641975|191579390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.82|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with change from baseline at week 12 with LOCF as response, treatment group, sex and geographical region as fixed effects and the mean number of daytime micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate. Statistically significant treatment difference at 0.10 level for mirabegron vs placebo.||3.82|1.10|0.007
95803072|NCT04641975|191579391|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.02|||Binomial regression|||Without LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.02|0.04|0.105
95803073|NCT04641975|191579391|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.05|||Binomial regression|||With LOCF: From a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex and region as factors and the log baseline rate of number of dry days (the log of the ratio of dry days at baseline and number of diary days at baseline) as covariate.||1.05|0.05|0.111
95803074|NCT02734147|191579409|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Other|||||||0.631
95803075|NCT02734147|191579410|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Other|||||||0.640
95803076|NCT02734147|191579411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95803077|NCT02734147|191579412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
95803078|NCT02734147|191579413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
95803079|NCT02734147|191579414|OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Other|||||||0.566
95803080|NCT02734147|191579415|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95803081|NCT06083493|191579427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95803082|NCT06083493|191579428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95803083|NCT04098302|191579457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95803084|NCT04098302|191579458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
95803085|NCT04098302|191579459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95803086|NCT04098302|191579460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95803087|NCT05061706|191579489|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|-3.02|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-3.02|-6.03|<0.0001
95803088|NCT05061706|191579490|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.33|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.33|-0.72|<0.0001
95803089|NCT01810952|191579505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||This is the p-value for Day 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95803090|NCT01810952|191579506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
95803091|NCT01810952|191579507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Comparison of the 5 day averages resulted in a p-value of 0.06.|t-test, 2 sided|||Daily values for each protocol were compared using t-tests.||||0.06
95803092|NCT01810952|191579508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in binomial proportions|||||0.795||||||Comparison of the number of participants in each group with glucose value \<70 mg/dL resulted in p-value 0.795.|Chi-squared|||||||0.795
95803093|NCT01810952|191579509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Comparison between groups of percent of glucose values \>180 mg/dL.|Chi-squared|||Values in each group were compared by Chi squared.||||0.055
95803094|NCT01835756|191579510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95803095|NCT01835756|191579511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95803096|NCT00601107|191579513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.22|0.17|1.000
95803097|NCT00601107|191579513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.992||95.0|0.13|4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.14|0.13|0.992
95803098|NCT00601107|191579513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.59||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons or a prior significance threshold.|Regression, Exact Logistic|||Estimate of the log odds, relative to the Placebo, in participants with at least 50 % reduction in PASI score at Week 12 or early termination was analyzed using exact logistic regression model adjusted for site and baseline PASI strata (\<=16, \>16).||4.59|0.15|1.000
95803099|NCT03892915|191579516|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93||||||||1.93|0.73|
95803100|NCT03892915|191579517|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95803101|NCT03892915|191579519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.5||||||||6.50|0.53|
95803102|NCT03892915|191579520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.64||||||||16.64|0.45|
95803103|NCT03892915|191579521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.83||||||||0.83|0.05|
95803104|NCT00191152|191579529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
95803105|NCT00191152|191579530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.361
95803106|NCT00191152|191579531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.145
95765134|NCT00550459|191501245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.55||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.5||Secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers to be analyzed only when \>=1 of the endpoints in the prior tier were significant. Since primary endpoint not stat significant, analyses of secondary endpoint tiers presented for exploratory purposes only|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age(6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline to fit primary endpoint using the ITT dataset.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment,disease severity (\<130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] or ≥130mEq/L \[mmol/L\] at baseline),age (\<65, ≥65 to \<75,and ≥75 years) (factor with 6 Degrees of Freedom), and covariate baseline used to fit primary endpoint using the intent-to-treat (ITT) dataset. Estimated treatment effect and its 95% confidence interval (CI) provided under the model with p-value. A 2-sided alpha (0.05) applied to the primary analysis. Primary analysis based on observed cases (OC).||0.50|-0.03|0.08
95803107|NCT00191152|191579532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.385
95803108|NCT00191152|191579533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.377
95803109|NCT00191152|191579534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.446
95803110|NCT00191152|191579535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.785
95803111|NCT00191152|191579536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
95803112|NCT00191152|191579537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.446
95859859|NCT04380519|191678007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.92||||||||5.92|0.93|
95859860|NCT04380519|191678007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.09||||||||4.09|0.55|
95950854|NCT01075152|191873743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||This is the interaction p-value for CSF white cell count at randomization (implying there is a statistical difference in the outcome by arm based on this parameter).|Regression, Cox|||Pre-specified subgroups formed by baseline characteristics were compared for 26 week survival with models including an interaction term between treatment arm and subgroup.||||0.02
95950855|NCT01079949|191873747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5739||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5739
95950856|NCT01079949|191873752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.1734
95950857|NCT01079949|191873753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0642
95950858|NCT01079949|191873757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4080
95950859|NCT01079949|191873760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0648
95950860|NCT01079949|191873761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6799||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.6799
95950861|NCT01079949|191873762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0634
95950862|NCT01079949|191873764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0166
95950863|NCT01079949|191873765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8812||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.8812
95950864|NCT04620733|191873773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|53.4||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and ≥ 350 U/L; baseline Pruritus NRS: \< 4 and ≥ 4).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.4|27.7|< 0.0001
95950865|NCT04620733|191873776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided p-value for pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both stratification variables (baseline ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; baseline pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4).|||33.2|18.3|< 0.0001
95950866|NCT04620733|191873777|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||||-0.5|-2.5|0.0047
95950867|NCT02221934|191873778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.176||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.283|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Responders between groups presented.|||0.283|0.070|0.002
95803113|NCT00191152|191579538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
95803114|NCT00191152|191579539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.117
95803115|NCT00191152|191579540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.801
95803116|NCT00191152|191579541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
95803117|NCT01181128|191579551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||negative binomial model|||The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is no difference between the individualized (tailored) prophylaxis regimen and the on-demand regimen. The sample size of this study was mainly based on clinical rather than statistical considerations. However it was projected to have \> 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 level of significance to detect a 60% reduction in annualized bleeding episodes, based upon this hypothesis test.||0.13|0.05|<0.001
95803118|NCT01181128|191579557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bleeding Rate Ratio|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||negative binomial model|||||0.46|0.12|<0.001
95859861|NCT04380519|191678007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.81||||||||6.81|0.94|
95859862|NCT04380519|191678007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.46||||||||4.46|0.53|
95950868|NCT03072238|191873794|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.61|0.0335
95950869|NCT03072238|191873795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.71|0.0431
95950870|NCT03072238|191873796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.76|0.5698
95950871|NCT03072238|191873797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2515
95950872|NCT03072238|191873798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.58|0.6010
95950873|NCT03072238|191873799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.72|0.1723
95950874|NCT03072238|191873800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.65|0.1566
95950875|NCT03072238|191873801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.69|0.0419
95950876|NCT03072238|191873802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.89|0.3198
95950877|NCT03072238|191873803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|1.06|0.0071
95950878|NCT03072238|191873804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.59|0.0045
95950879|NCT03072238|191873805|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.61|< 0.0001
95950880|NCT03072238|191873806|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.57|0.1359
95765135|NCT00550459|191501246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|-0.12|0.21
95765136|NCT00550459|191501247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.51||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.51|0.04|0.02
95950881|NCT03072238|191873807|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.68|0.1398
95803119|NCT05181657|191579625|OTHER|The intervention effect was determined via a two sided, 0.05 level of significance, multivariable Poisson regression model, with Intervention group as the primary predictor.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78||"Alpha significance levels used:~For the primary predictor (i.e., intervention group): alpha=0.05; For covariates: alpha=0.10; For interactions: alpha=0.15"|Poisson Regression||The estimate refers to the relative risk of getting a COVID-19 test onsite (Intervention/Control). Also, the above estimate is from the unadjusted Poisson regression model (i.e., model not adjusted for covariates and interactions).|To assess whether the active intervention was more successful than the control condition at increasing COVID-19 testing, we used univariable and multivariable Poisson regression models, with whether one received onsite testing right after the intervention as the outcome and intervention group as the main predictor. Potential clustering due to the randomization by week was accounted for by specifying an exchangeable correlation structure for participants who were recruited during the same week.||1.78|1.18|<0.05
95803120|NCT00694122|191579627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|631.6|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments were made. T-test type: Paired samples t-test (df=14) was performed using 15 within subject differences.|The comparative measures was defined as (mean AUC of glargine (Lantus)) minus (mean AUC of NPH).|||631.6|-75.9|<0.05
95803121|NCT00694122|191579628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95803122|NCT00694122|191579632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95950882|NCT03072238|191873808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.61|0.8239
95950883|NCT03072238|191873809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.66|0.6018
95950884|NCT03072238|191873810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|20.93||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|35.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.65|6.20|0.0030
95950885|NCT03072238|191873811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|16.46||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|26.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.27|6.66|0.0008
95950886|NCT03072238|191873814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|11.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|19.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.29|4.34|0.0012
95950887|NCT03072238|191873815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rate|5.87||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.90|0.83|0.0178
95950888|NCT03072238|191873816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.45|0.0246
95950889|NCT00608959|191873844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.563|<|0.001||95.0|-2.55|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.26|-2.55|<0.001
95803123|NCT00063232|191579640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||paired t-test|||"self-controlled comparison of NASH activity index at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis is no change."||||<0.001
95803124|NCT00063232|191579641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||self-controlled comparison of serum aminotransferase levels at 48 weeks and baseline. Null hypothesis: No change||||0.04
95803125|NCT00063232|191579642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.04
95843706|NCT04266795|191654933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.6|||Log Rank|P-value was comparison of EFS between treatment groups and was based on the 1-sided stratified log-rank test statistic.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (randomization strata of age and AML subtype) and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.60|0.61|=0.477
95950890|NCT00608959|191873844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.656|<|0.001||95.0|-2.57|-1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance, and assuming a SD of 1.3, a sample size of 20 subjects would provide 90% power to detect a mean change of 0.942. No information was available concerning the within-subject variability between the arms.||-1.17|-2.57|<0.001
95950891|NCT01301183|191873854|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.109||||||Adjusted for baseline age, height, bone density and 12-month weight change|ANCOVA|||||||.109
95950892|NCT01301183|191873855|OTHER|||||||0.344||||||Adjusted for age, height, baseline trabecular number and change in weight over 12 months|ANCOVA|||||||0.344
95962001|NCT02358668|191895959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-0.46|0.37
95950893|NCT03884478|191873882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.0001
95765137|NCT00550459|191501248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.67||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.67|-0.15|0.21
95803126|NCT00809146|191579643|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assay sensitivity established by extensive review of lorazepam efficacy data. Noninferiority margin of 10% established by both clinical and statistical reasoning.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16|||one-sided z statistic|||The null hypothesis of inferiority was tested with a one-sided z statistic. Sample size was estimated assuming independent proportions, 2 interim analyses, 70% control event rate; 90% power; a noninferiority margin of 10%; and a 1-sided test with type I error probability of 0.025. A sample size of 890 (445 per treatment group) was inflated by 15% (1024 subjects) to account for inadvertent repeated enrollment of the same subjects. Repeated enrollments of the same subject were not analyzed.||0.16|0.04|<0.001
95803127|NCT00809146|191579644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.34||||||||1.34|0.70|
95803128|NCT00809146|191579645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
95803129|NCT00809146|191579646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||||||||0.95|0.65|
95803130|NCT00809146|191579647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.56||||||All participants were included in this analysis of rate of recurrence because this is the most clinically relevant denominator, although, by definition, only participants who stopped could have recurrent seizures.||1.56|0.74|
95803131|NCT00809146|191579648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.98||||||||1.98|0.42|
95803132|NCT00809146|191579649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.7||||||||10.70|0.30|
95803133|NCT00809146|191579651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95950894|NCT03884478|191873882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.005
95962002|NCT02358668|191895960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.31||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.62|0.18
95803134|NCT00809146|191579652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95803135|NCT03632720|191579656|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was greater (\>) -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.54||||||Serogroup A||3.54|-1.78|
95962003|NCT02358668|191895960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.36||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.36|-0.51|0.37
95962004|NCT02358668|191895961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.09||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-4.36|0.06
95962005|NCT02358668|191895961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.58||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-1.71|0.69
95803136|NCT03632720|191579656|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.28||||||Serogroup C||2.28|-2.24|
95803137|NCT03632720|191579656|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.36||||||Serogroup Y||2.36|-2.33|
95803138|NCT03632720|191579656|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for all four serogroups.|Difference in Percentage|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.81||||||Serogroup W||1.81|-3.22|
95803139|NCT01049828|191579707|OTHER|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.|||||<|0.01||||||all correlations were transformed into z scores using Fisher's transformation and a t test evaluated group differences.|Fisher Exact|The analysis is based on a threshold-free cluster enhancement permutation technique.||Null hypothesis: Fisher's transform z scores for a seed region were comparable between the control and non-bothered tinnitus groups.||||<0.01
95803140|NCT01245062|191579708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.64||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Investigator-Assessed PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.64|0.31|<0.0001
95962006|NCT02358668|191895962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95803141|NCT01245062|191579708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||P-value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|Log Rank||Independent Review PFS. HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Trametinib compared with CT. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for prior chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic disease and Baseline lactate dehydrogenase.|||0.60|0.29|<0.0001
95803142|NCT01301092|191579725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.497|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||0.497|0.395|
95803143|NCT01301092|191579726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|2.41|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||2.41|1.84|
95803144|NCT01301092|191579727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.08|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.08|0.858|
95803145|NCT01301092|191579728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.19|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|||||1.19|0.924|
95803146|NCT03277274|191579737|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.579
95803147|NCT03277274|191579737|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95803148|NCT03277274|191579737|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
95803149|NCT03277274|191579737|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.031
95803150|NCT03277274|191579738|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.151|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.151
95803151|NCT03277274|191579738|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.017
95803152|NCT03277274|191579738|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.129|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.129
95803153|NCT03277274|191579738|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95803154|NCT03277274|191579739|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.138
95803155|NCT03277274|191579739|OTHER|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Total TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
95803156|NCT03277274|191579739|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.201|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.201
95803157|NCT03277274|191579739|OTHER|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUCinf (Free TAK-954) to compare each hepatically impaired group with the normal hepatic function group.||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95803158|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.367
95803159|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.104
95803160|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.864
95803161|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All bleeds||||.002
95803162|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||1.000
95803163|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.029
95803164|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.807
95803165|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major or Clinically Relevant (CR) non-major bleeding||||0.002
95803166|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
95803167|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.119
95803168|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||1.000
95803169|NCT00504556|191579821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Major bleeds||||0.023
95803170|NCT02391584|191579844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.025 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95803171|NCT02391584|191579848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95803172|NCT02391584|191579849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95803173|NCT02391584|191579850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95803174|NCT02391584|191579851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Dunnett's t-test was used for the multiple comparisons with baseline. A p value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95803175|NCT03606213|191579876|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||P-value week 14 versus baseline (Cohort A, arm 1; placebo)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95803176|NCT03992482|191579881|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
95803177|NCT03992482|191579882|OTHER|||||||0.0044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0044
95803178|NCT03992482|191579883|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95803179|NCT03636269|191579884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.41|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.41|1.08|0.020
95803180|NCT03636269|191579885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Cui, Hung, Wang|||||2.74|1.14|0.010
95950895|NCT03884478|191873882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol Only Arm.||||.25
95950896|NCT03884478|191873883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.025
95803181|NCT03636269|191579886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-4.3|0.171
95803182|NCT03636269|191579887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
95803183|NCT04250363|191579913|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.00284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|1.85|0.00284
95803184|NCT04250363|191579913|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.00367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.8|2.00|0.00367
95803185|NCT04250363|191579913|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|23.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.7|1.90|0.0137
95803186|NCT04250363|191579913|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.00349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.47|0.00349
95803187|NCT04250363|191579913|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6||||0.00594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|129.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||129|3.19|0.00594
95803188|NCT01507103|191579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.04||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.65||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.65|-0.72|0.794
95803189|NCT01507103|191579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.2||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.43||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.43|-0.82|0.794
95803190|NCT01507103|191579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.16||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.82||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.82|-0.49|0.794
95962007|NCT02358668|191895962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95803191|NCT01507103|191579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.02||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.57||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.57|-0.52|0.654
95803192|NCT01507103|191579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|-0.19||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.31|-0.69|0.654
95803193|NCT01507103|191579914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect estimate|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.74||Arm effect|type III SS F-test|||Category: CD8+/GrB+ The difference between baseline and surgical tumor samples was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value as covariate. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B||0.74|-0.31|0.654
95803194|NCT01507103|191579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.03||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.67|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.67|-0.73|0.921
95859863|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.67|0.08|
95993875|NCT01512264|191963579|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.27.||||0.015
95993876|NCT01512264|191963579|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.203
95993877|NCT01512264|191963579|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.63.||||0.010
95993878|NCT01512264|191963580|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and BNT test was calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
95765138|NCT00550459|191501249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.30|-0.05|0.16
95993879|NCT01512264|191963580|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.57.||||0.618
95993880|NCT01512264|191963580|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for 2 weeks of Sham Treatment + 1 week of nerTMS group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 1.31.||||1.000
95993881|NCT01512264|191963580|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and BNT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 4.35.||||0.019
95993882|NCT01512264|191963582|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.69.||||0.118
95803195|NCT01507103|191579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.44|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.44|-0.83|0.921
95803196|NCT01507103|191579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.17||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.83|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category: CD8+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline = Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.83|-0.50|0.921
95859864|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.40 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.99|0.35|
95859865|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 1.0% ammoniated mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.76|0.15|
95859866|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.36 mg/cm2 mercury and 0.5% elemental mercury in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.93|0.21|
95993883|NCT01512264|191963582|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.482
95993884|NCT01512264|191963582|OTHER|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.37.||||0.368
95993885|NCT01512264|191963582|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.70.||||0.147
95993886|NCT01512264|191963583|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.54.||||0.410
95993887|NCT01512264|191963583|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.25.||||0.695
95993888|NCT01512264|191963583|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.25.||||0.175
95765139|NCT00550459|191501250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.0||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||1.00|-4.02|0.23
95803197|NCT01507103|191579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.58|-0.54|0.890
95803198|NCT01507103|191579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|-0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.31|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm B vs Arm C) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.31|-0.70|0.890
95855367|NCT00541658|191670496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.06||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.14|||Fisher Exact|||||1.14|0.98|0.1639
95962008|NCT02358668|191895963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95962009|NCT02358668|191895963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95855368|NCT00541658|191670497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0476
95962010|NCT02358668|191895964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95962011|NCT02358668|191895964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95962012|NCT05064488|191896002|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|118.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.89|125.47||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||125.47|111.89|
95962013|NCT05064488|191896003|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|208.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.48|280.82||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||280.82|155.48|
95962014|NCT05064488|191896004|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.49|121.89||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||121.89|80.49|
95962015|NCT05064488|191896005|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters AUC0-inf based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|89.35||||||90.0|82.7|96.54||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||96.54|82.70|
95962016|NCT05064488|191896006|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates digoxin.|Ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.99|117.79||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||117.79|85.99|
95962017|NCT05064488|191896007|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates metformin.|Ratio|203.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.93|269.68||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||269.68|152.93|
95962018|NCT05064488|191896008|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates rosuvastatin.|Ratio|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.98|109.33||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||109.33|76.98|
95950897|NCT03884478|191873883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*T2 interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.11
95803199|NCT01507103|191579915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means estimate|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||type III SS F-test||Difference between Means adjusted on covariates baseline value and MSI category.|Category:CD8+/GrB+ The difference in T cell infiltration from baseline to surgery was analysed and compared across the 3 treatment arms (effect estimate for Arm A vs Arm B) based on an ANCOVA model. Difference from baseline=Surgery value-Baseline value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment arm as factor and baseline value and MSI category as covariates. No interaction included. Pairwise tests have been performed to compare Arm A with Arm C, Arm B with Arm C, and Arm A with Arm B.||0.74|-0.32|0.890
95950898|NCT03884478|191873883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.66
95950899|NCT03884478|191873884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
95950900|NCT03884478|191873884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
95950901|NCT03884478|191873884|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks at the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.88
95950902|NCT03884478|191873885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.03
95950903|NCT03884478|191873885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.059
95950904|NCT03884478|191873885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.71
95950905|NCT03884478|191873886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
95950906|NCT03884478|191873886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
95803200|NCT02421510|191579977|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.25||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.48|< 0.001
95765140|NCT00550459|191501251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||0.38|-2.04|0.18
95765141|NCT00550459|191501252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.6||ANCOVA with factors of treatment, disease severity, age, and severity by age interaction, and baseline as covariate. The estimated treatment and its 95% CI were provided under the model along with the p-value.|ANCOVA|||Per-protocol, secondary endpoints were ordered in 5 tiers and were to be analyzed only when at least 1 of the endpoints in the previous tier was significant. As the primary endpoint was not statistically significant, the analyses of subsequent secondary endpoint tiers are presented for exploratory purposes only.||6.60|2.89|<0.0001
95765142|NCT03051672|191501286|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.||||The study uses a Simon 2-stage design. In stage 1, if \>/=1 of 8 achieved OR then continue to stage 2 (enroll 19 more). If \>/= 3 of 27 respond, the regimen would be considered promising. The null ORR\<= 3% and alternative ORR\>/=20%. With this design, the probability of stopping the trial early is 58% if the true ORR is 3%. This design at 80% power to declare the combination effective, while controlling for less than 5% 1-sided type I error under the null hypothesis.|The study terminated at stage 1 and no p-value was estimated.|||
95765143|NCT01459783|191501302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|6.95||We adopted Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and used a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse burden for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||6.95|-5.13|0.76
95765144|NCT01459783|191501303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|3.55||We used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing and a significance level of .05/3 = 0.017 to interpret the results for our primary outcomes. The behavior measure is analyzed two ways: total number of problems (reported here), and reaction score.|Regression, Linear|Multivariate analyses included non-response weights and controlled for study arm, stratification variables, baseline values, \& intervention duration.|The difference in differences at 12 months is reported as in-person arm minus phone arm values from a multivariable analysis. A positive adjusted difference means worse problems for the in-person arm compared to the phone arm.|Analyses were intention-to-treat. Due to attrition and those ineligible for 12-month follow-up due to study ending before that time, we created survey non-response weights for each wave. Prior to the study, a sample size of 125 participants per group was based on the two primary outcomes, with a Type I Error of 0.025 (Bonferroni adjustment), setting a 0.5-SD difference in outcomes as clinically important, 80% power, 0.45 SD difference in difference in outcomes between groups, and 25% attrition.||3.55|-1.74|0.49
95765145|NCT04211831|191501308|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.29|||=|0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.58|||mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 24 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||0.58|-3.16|=0.1722
95765146|NCT04211831|191501308|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.24|||=|0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measures||Treatment comparison between Placebo and URO-902 48 mg using least sqaure mean difference and 95% CI has been presented.|||-0.43|-4.04|=0.0159
95765147|NCT00967330|191501310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95765148|NCT00967330|191501311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.588||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.817|||Chi-squared|||||0.817|0.423|0.0012
95765149|NCT00967330|191501312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.354|||Chi-squared|||||1.354|0.684|0.8283
95765150|NCT00967330|191501314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.06||||0.34745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.14|-0.02|0.34745
95765151|NCT00967330|191501314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.09||||0.17923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.17|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.17|0.00|0.17923
95765152|NCT00967330|191501314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Fisher Exact|||The response rate based on participants with CR at Month 6.||0.08|-0.08|1.00000
95803201|NCT02421510|191579977|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C- by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.47|< 0.001
95859867|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.9||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.90|0.05|
95765153|NCT00967330|191501314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at 4 weeks after RT.||0.38|0.12|0.00210
95765154|NCT00967330|191501314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1||||0.18761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR and PR at \>4 weeks after RT.||0.23|-0.02|0.18761
95765155|NCT00967330|191501314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|-0.05||||0.38974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||Fisher Exact|||Response rate based on participants with CR or PR at Month 6.||0.07|-0.18|0.38974
95765156|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.1002||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9855|8.186|||ANOVA|||Physical Functioning. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||8.1860|-3.9855|0.4975
95765157|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4704||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9358|7.9951|||ANOVA|||Role Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||7.9951|-10.9358|0.7600
95765158|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02278||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.035|6.9895|||ANOVA|||Emotional Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9895|-7.0350|0.9949
95950907|NCT03884478|191873886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 2 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.87
95765159|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8213||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.155|5.5125|||ANOVA|||Cognitive Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.5125|-9.1550|0.6253
95765160|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6126||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2953|10.5205|||ANOVA|||Social Functioning. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||10.5205|-7.2953|0.7219
95765161|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4989||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4046|9.4023|||ANOVA|||Global Health Status /QoL. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||9.4023|-2.4046|0.2443
95765162|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3449||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0739|3.3841|||ANOVA|||Fatigue. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.3841|-10.0739|0.3287
95765163|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.196||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3635|-0.0285|||ANOVA|||Nausea/Vomiting. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.02850|-8.3635|0.0485
95765164|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.095||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5629|-0.6271|||ANOVA|||Pain. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.6271|-17.5629|0.0354
95803202|NCT02421510|191579978|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|23.43||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% Confidence Limits (CL) were calculated using asymptotic Wald method. Only positively adjudicated severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were included in the analysis.||23.43|9.17|< 0.001
95859868|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.10 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.68||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.68|0.10|
95765165|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2088||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2784|3.8608|||ANOVA|||Dyspnoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8608|-10.2784|0.3724
95765166|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.876||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9002|4.1482|||ANOVA|||Insomnia. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||4.1482|-13.9002|0.2884
95765167|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.782||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3926|3.8282|||ANOVA|||Appetite loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.8282|-9.3926|0.4081
95765168|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9375||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0245|3.1495|||ANOVA|||Constipation. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.1495|-11.0245|0.2750
95765169|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1685||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4129|-0.9241|||ANOVA|||Diarrhoea. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-0.9241|-11.4129|0.0213
95765170|NCT00967330|191501316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7295||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0727|5.6137|||ANOVA|||Financial Problems. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.6137|-11.0727|0.5201
95765171|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2699||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2983|3.7585|||ANOVA|||Future uncertainty. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7585|-10.2983|0.3613
95765172|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1159||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4654|3.2336|||ANOVA|||Visual disorder. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.2336|-5.4654|0.6146
95765173|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1014||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2449|6.4477|||ANOVA|||Motor dysfunction. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.4477|-4.2449|0.6860
95765174|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1009||||0.9706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.468|5.2663|||ANOVA|||Communication deficit. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.2663|-5.4680|0.9706
95765175|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.3294||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.855|-1.8037|||ANOVA|||Headaches. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||-1.8037|-14.8550|0.0124
95765176|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0054||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7654|2.7545|||ANOVA|||Seizures. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||2.7545|-4.7654|0.5997
95765177|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4399||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6002|3.7204|||ANOVA|||Drowsiness. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.7204|-10.6002|0.3458
95950908|NCT03884478|191873887|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Control Arm.||||<.001
95950909|NCT03884478|191873887|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Control Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Control Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.002
95993889|NCT01512264|191963583|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and SFT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.60.||||0.518
95993890|NCT01512264|191963585|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.71.||||0.109
95765178|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.5908||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2279|3.0464|||ANOVA|||Hair loss. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||3.0464|-12.2279|0.2383
95803203|NCT02421510|191579978|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Percentage difference|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.06|24.35||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|P-values were obtained from a CMH test stratified by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of insulin delivery method (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%). The 95% CL were calculated using asymptotic Wald method.||24.35|10.06|< 0.001
95803204|NCT02421510|191579979|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.44||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-1.44|-2.53|< 0.001
95803205|NCT02421510|191579979|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-2.04|||MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects.||-2.04|-3.12|< 0.001
95803206|NCT02421510|191579980|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.53||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.53|-4.86|< 0.001
95803207|NCT02421510|191579980|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-1.93||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.93|-5.25|< 0.001
95859869|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum||1.00|0.50|
95859870|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.30 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0% palladium chloride in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.39|-0.02|
95765179|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9807||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0373|6.9988|||ANOVA|||Itchy skin. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.9988|-5.0373|0.7491
95765180|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0341||||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1508|6.0827|||ANOVA|||Weakness of legs. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||6.0827|-8.1508|0.7755
95765181|NCT00967330|191501317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.469||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1211|5.0591|||ANOVA|||Bladder control. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||5.0591|-4.1211|0.8410
95962019|NCT05064488|191896009|OTHER|A general linear model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for participant was applied to log-transformed PK parameters Cmax based on the PK analysis set to assess the effect of multiple doses of evobrutinib on the PK of the transporter substrates sumatriptan.|Ratio|81.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.23|88.42||||||Treatment differences on the log scale of transporter substrates with evobrutinib vs substrates alone.||88.42|74.23|
95962020|NCT05064488|191896023|OTHER||Ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.11|111.76||||||||111.76|102.11|
95803208|NCT02421510|191579981|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-11.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-11|-32.2|< 0.001
95803209|NCT02421510|191579981|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-15.1|-36.2|< 0.001
95803210|NCT02421510|191579982|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.7||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.7|1.3|< 0.001
95803211|NCT02421510|191579982|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DTSQs total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||2.4|1|< 0.001
95855353|NCT00541658|191670489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|0.345|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.345|-0.812|
95855354|NCT00541658|191670489|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.277|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.277|-0.869|
95855355|NCT00541658|191670490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.232|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant used.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.232|-0.763|0.2955
95855356|NCT00541658|191670491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.412|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.412|-0.674|
95855357|NCT00541658|191670491|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.695|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.695|-0.382|
95765182|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1933||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.02438|||ANOVA|||Orientation to time and place. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.02438|-0.4110|0.0817
95765183|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02955||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06234|0.003241|||ANOVA|||Immediate recall. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.003241|-0.06234|0.0773
95765184|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1429||||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.3924|||ANOVA|||Repetitions required. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3924|-0.1065|0.2608
95765185|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.003262||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3092|0.3158|||ANOVA|||Calculations. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.3158|-0.3092|0.9836
95765186|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03782||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2071|0.1315|||ANOVA|||Short-term verbal memory. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1315|-0.2071|0.6610
95803212|NCT02421510|191579983|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 200 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<= 8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0|-0.6|0.025
95765187|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08037||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2875|0.1268|||ANOVA|||Language and construct ability. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.1268|-0.2875|0.4464
95765188|NCT00967330|191501318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3128||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1658|0.5402|||ANOVA|||Total score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||0.5402|-1.1658|0.4717
95803213|NCT02421510|191579983|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||Threshold for significance \<= 0.05.|MMRM||Sotagliflozin 400 mg versus Placebo|LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week -2 A1C (\<=8.5%, \>8.5%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline DDS2 total score-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
95803214|NCT05075772|191579990|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.3|55.9|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=28.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||55.9|38.3|
95803215|NCT05075772|191579991|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.2|31.1|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)). Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=22.5"|The statistical model used for the analysis of this primary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||31.1|23.2|
95803216|NCT05075772|191579992|OTHER||Ratio of gMeans (%)|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.0|56.6|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (gMeans) was calculated as (gMean of SC injection (T))/(gMean of IV infusion (R)).~Intra-matched-pair geometric coefficient of variation=27.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of this secondary endpoint was an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The model included a fixed effect for treatment assignment and a random effect for matching pair (each matched pair in the study was assigned a number for the analysis).||56.6|39.0|
95803217|NCT03074643|191579996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.16
95803218|NCT03074643|191579996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
95765189|NCT00967330|191501319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.151||||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4983|1.1963|||ANOVA|||KPS score. ANOVA included all post-baseline data (Months 3 through 21).||1.1963|-5.4983|0.2078
95765190|NCT00931528|191501346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||Sample size calculations were based on the hypothesis that the use of tadalafil would statistically significant increase the proportion of patients maintaining spontaneous erectile function compared to the use of placebo. Based on a 2-sided Fisher exact test with alpha=0.05, 91 patients/arm would provide 80% statistical power to detect an increase from 20% to 40% in spontaneous erectile response at weeks 28-30. Although designed for the Fisher exact test, Chi-square was used and reported.||9|1|0.49
95765191|NCT00931528|191501346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, prostate-specific antigen (PSA).) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.2386
95765192|NCT00931528|191501346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7908|||||||Regression, Linear|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.)The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.7908
95765193|NCT00931528|191501346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.0467
95765194|NCT00931528|191501346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX vs. N0)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.0068
95765195|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
95950910|NCT03884478|191873887|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, relationship status, sexual identity, and sexual minority interpersonal stigma exposure in examining Time\*Arm interactions on negative consequences. To probe the significant Alcohol+Coping Arm\*Time interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in negative consequences from baseline to the 4 month follow-up in the Alcohol+Coping Arm versus the Alcohol+Control Arm.||||.43
95950911|NCT00234832|191873941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.162||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.311||No adjustment for multiple testing or interim analysis was performed. The primary outcome was tested at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Log Rank||The Cox model included factors for treatment, country, gender, and age (continuous) at Lead-in Period baseline. For the calculation of risk, the sibutramine arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator.|For the sample size calculation, a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05 was used along with power of 90%. The annual composite event rate in the placebo arm was assumed to be 7.0%. A sample of 3983 subjects in each of the 2 groups, corrected for a 30% noncompliance rate (15% in Year 1 and 6.3% in each year, Years 2 to 4), followed for at least 3 years was expected to have 90% power to detect a relative risk reduction of 15% with sibutramine relative to placebo.||1.311|1.029|0.015
95950912|NCT00234832|191873941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|1.384|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with DM only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.384|0.738|0.948
95765196|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.58
95765197|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.9501
95765198|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.1020
95765199|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 1: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[none\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, N stage, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.1855
95765200|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment arm is reported here.||||0.5739
95950913|NCT00234832|191873941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.776|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV only in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.776|0.916|0.149
95950914|NCT00234832|191873941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.182||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.365|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only subjects with CV + DM in a comparison of sibutramine and placebo.||1.365|1.024|0.022
95950915|NCT00234832|191873942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.043||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.196|||Log Rank|||||1.196|0.910|0.543
95950916|NCT00234832|191873943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.097||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.204|||Log Rank|||||1.204|0.999|0.051
95950917|NCT00234832|191873944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.276||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.571|||Log Rank|||||1.571|1.036|0.022
95962021|NCT05064488|191896024|OTHER||Ratio|211.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.34|285.91||||||||285.91|156.34|
95765201|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. RT method is reported here.||||0.0422
95803219|NCT03074643|191579997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.81
95803220|NCT03074643|191579997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.80
95803221|NCT03074643|191579998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.56
95765202|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Age is reported here.||||0.5237
95765203|NCT00931528|191501347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Year 2: Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was performed modeling the probability of non-responders. Only treatment arm (Placebo vs. Tadalafil), age (\> 65 vs. other), RT method (External RT vs. brachytherapy), and significant pretreatment characteristics \[N stage (NX)\] were retained in the model. (Dropped pretreatment characteristics: ethnicity, Zubrod, T stage, PSA.) The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. N Stage is reported here.||||0.4770
95765204|NCT00931528|191501348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.97
95765205|NCT00931528|191501348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.99
95765206|NCT00931528|191501348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.24
95765207|NCT00931528|191501349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.70
95765208|NCT00931528|191501349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.65
95765209|NCT00931528|191501349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.72
95765210|NCT00931528|191501350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.14
95803222|NCT03074643|191579998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.96
95803223|NCT03074643|191579999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.76
95950918|NCT00234832|191873945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.355||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.767|||Log Rank|||||1.767|1.038|0.025
95803224|NCT03074643|191579999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.45
95803225|NCT03074643|191580000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.75
95803226|NCT03074643|191580000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.95
95950919|NCT00234832|191873946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.582||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|4.081|||Log Rank|||||4.081|0.613|0.343
95950920|NCT00234832|191873947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.988||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.188|||Log Rank|||||1.188|0.822|0.899
95950921|NCT04454125|191873955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.61|||Generalized linear model, repeat measure|Generalized linear model (GLM) fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group arm, visit, interaction term (arm\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.61|0.23|0.32
95962022|NCT05064488|191896025|OTHER||Ratio|99.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.69|124.42||||||||124.42|79.69|
95765211|NCT00931528|191501350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.64
95765212|NCT00931528|191501350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.18
95765213|NCT00931528|191501351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.67
95765214|NCT00931528|191501351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.98
95765215|NCT00931528|191501351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.96
95765216|NCT00931528|191501352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Week 30||||0.86
95765217|NCT00931528|191501352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 1||||0.93
95765218|NCT00931528|191501352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance level = 0.05||Year 2||||0.52
95765219|NCT00813150|191501355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||Null Hypothesis: The (median) time to progression is equal in both treatment groups||1.19|0.43|0.196
95765220|NCT00813150|191501356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.43|0.196
95765221|NCT00813150|191501357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.41|0.645
95765222|NCT00813150|191501358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
95765223|NCT05085834|191501359|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zinc, μg/dL)||0.98|0.43|<0.01
95765224|NCT05085834|191501360|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(hsCRP ng/mL)||0.57|-0.57|1.00
95803227|NCT03074643|191580001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.06
95803228|NCT03074643|191580001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
95803229|NCT03074643|191580002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.48
95803230|NCT03074643|191580002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||||0.22
95803231|NCT01429623|191580024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.25|||Log Rank|||||3.25|0.74|<0.16
95962023|NCT05064488|191896026|OTHER||Ratio|88.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.04|96.19||||||||96.19|82.04|
95765225|NCT05085834|191501360|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD14, ng/mL)||0.01|-0.18|0.08
95765226|NCT05085834|191501360|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sCD163, ng/mL)||0.15|-0.21|0.77
95765227|NCT05085834|191501360|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(D-dimer, ng/mL)||0.50|-0.10|0.19
95765228|NCT05085834|191501360|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VCAM, ng/mL)||0.04|-0.41|0.10
95765229|NCT05085834|191501360|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.19||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|39.98|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(ICAM, ng/mL)||39.98|-39.16|0.98
95765230|NCT05085834|191501361|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RI , pg/mL)||0.16|-0.09|0.55
95765231|NCT05085834|191501361|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(sTNF-RII, pg/m)||0.13|-0.13|0.95
95803232|NCT01429623|191580025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.61
95803233|NCT01429623|191580026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.32
95765232|NCT05085834|191501361|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IL-6, pg/mL)||0.43|-0.30|0.73
95803234|NCT01429623|191580027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.97
95803235|NCT04053452|191580092|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7262|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
95803236|NCT04053452|191580093|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.6667|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
95803237|NCT04053452|191580094|OTHER||Area under the curve|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.|||||
95803238|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5005|0.4791||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4791|-0.5005|
95803239|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.4222||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4222|-0.6503|
95803240|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.1829||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1829|-0.5490|
95803241|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|0.5017||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5017|-0.3411|
95765233|NCT05085834|191501361|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IP-10, pg/mL)||0.47|-0.22|0.48
95803242|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4335|0.5592||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5592|-0.4335|
95803243|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5092|0.304||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3040|-0.5092|
95765234|NCT05085834|191501362|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|1819.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8530.03||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14899.37|18537.74|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(OxLDL, U/L)||18537.74|-14899.37|0.83
95950922|NCT04454125|191873955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||2.76|0.03|0.29
95765235|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Non-HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.12|0.84
95765236|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(HDL (mg/dL))||0.04|-0.19|0.18
95765237|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LDL (mg/dL))||0.15|-0.19|0.84
95765238|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.29|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(VLDL (mg/dL))||0.29|-0.15|0.55
95765239|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Cholesterol (mg/dl))||0.09|-0.11|0.78
95803244|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3057|0.4137||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4137|-0.3057|
95950923|NCT04454125|191873955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link||Outcome= severe asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 severe asthma exacerbation.|5.68|0.05|0.58
95765240|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Triglycerides (mg/dL))||0.31|-0.17|0.58
95765241|NCT05085834|191501363|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.48|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Metabolic Syndrome||0.48|-1.36|0.35
95803245|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4028|0.57||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.5700|-0.4028|
95803246|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6503|0.2838||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.2838|-0.6503|
95803247|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5714|0.195||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.1950|-0.5714|
95803248|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4667|0.3336||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3336|-0.4667|
95803249|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7018|0.3193||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.3193|-0.7018|
95803250|NCT04053452|191580095|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and length of hospital stay.||0.4596|-0.3506|
95765242|NCT05085834|191501364|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Chol:HDL Ratio)||0.20|-0.07|0.36
95950924|NCT04454125|191873955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.91|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.91|0.27|0.02
95765243|NCT05085834|191501365|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|3.6|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on BMI (kg/m2)||3.60|-4.29|0.86
95803251|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7686494||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.360
95765244|NCT05085834|191501366|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Waist-umbilicus (cm))||0.05|-0.08|0.74
95803252|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9315228||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.521
95803253|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7949528||||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.245
95803254|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8603349||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.541
95803255|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8767973||||0.415|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.415
95803256|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio, log|0.7613965||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.504
95803257|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8061505||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.393
95859871|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER|Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 3.0% sodium tetrachloropalladate in petrolatum|Kappa statistic|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||1.00|0.50|
95803258|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8336885||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.222
95803259|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1214848||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.615
95803260|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9898411||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.926
95803261|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9402829||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.519
95803262|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9347906||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.379
95859872|NCT02028208|191678012|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||||Concordance between 0.60 mg/cm2 palladium and 1.0 palladium chloride in petrolatum||Concordance between Investigational and Reference Allergen presented for allergen doses which met the minimum criteria of 70% with positive reactions.||0.17|-0.05|
95803263|NCT04053452|191580096|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8968658||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of walking (i.e., nerve ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject is ambulatory at discharge).||||0.511
95993891|NCT01512264|191963585|OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.28.||||0.485
95765245|NCT05085834|191501367|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|20.99|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Weight (lbs)||20.99|-26.97|0.81
95765246|NCT05085834|191501368|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Systolic blood pressure (mmHg))||0.03|-0.07|0.41
95765247|NCT05085834|191501368|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.36|||linear combination of coeff|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)||2.36|-5.71|0.42
95765248|NCT05085834|191501369|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(10 year ASCVD (%))||0.17|-0.26|0.70
95765249|NCT05085834|191501370|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Reactive Hyperemic Index||0.10|-0.17|0.62
95765250|NCT05085834|191501370|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|5.36|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on Augmentation Index||5.36|-4.19|0.81
95765251|NCT05085834|191501371|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(IFAB (pg/mL))||0.30|-0.26|0.90
95765252|NCT05085834|191501371|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(BDG (pg/mL))||0.47|-0.12|0.24
95765253|NCT05085834|191501372|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||v|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(LBP (ng/mL))||0.32|-0.21|0.69
95765254|NCT05085834|191501372|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used while adjusting for age and sex, and examining interactions between time and treatment. Combining linear coefficients in the equation while accounting for the multiplicative effects of treatment and time were considered to assess the true effect size of zinc supplementation on biomarkers.|β coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||linear combination of coefficients|||effect of Zinc supplementation on ln(Zonulin (ng/mL)||0.34|-0.16|0.49
95765255|NCT05842967|191501378|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.396|1.759|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||1.759|1.396|
95765256|NCT05842967|191501378|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.725|||||GMRs (ratio of GMTs from C3671023 SSA to C3671013 immunogenicity subset), 2-sided CI were calculated by exponentiating difference in LS means, corresponding CIs based on regression model. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||1.725|1.333|
95765257|NCT05842967|191501379|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV A.|||9.2|1.2|
95803264|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.057735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4273|0.3293||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3293|-0.4273|
95765258|NCT05842967|191501379|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if both the null hypothesis of GMR and the null hypothesis of difference in seroresponse rates were rejected for both RSV A and RSV B serum NTs, with a type I error (2-sided) of 5%.|Difference in percentage|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.6|||||Difference (C3671023 SSA, compared to C3671013 immunogenicity subset) in proportions, expressed as a percentage; 95% CIs for percentage difference were calculated using exact method based on Miettinen and Nurminen. Data reported here is for RSV B.|||12.6|4.2|
95765259|NCT01217112|191501407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.09|0.766
95765260|NCT01217112|191501407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.04|0.424
95765261|NCT01217112|191501407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.10|0.412
95765262|NCT01217112|191501407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.05|0.668
95765263|NCT01217112|191501408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.08|0.978
95765264|NCT01217112|191501408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.08|0.864
95765265|NCT01217112|191501408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-0.12|0.537
95765266|NCT01217112|191501408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.13|-0.02|0.260
95803265|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0359442|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.5248||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5248|-0.5480|
95803266|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1429483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1938|0.4763||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.4763|-0.1938|
95950925|NCT04454125|191873955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||0.86|0.06|0.03
95950926|NCT04454125|191873955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.95|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit) and adjusting for visit 2 moderate asthma exacerbation.|Outcome= moderate asthma exacerbation at visit (yes, no), collected via questionnaire at visits 2-7(exit). Does not include randomization (visit 1).||1.95|0.11|0.30
95765267|NCT01217112|191501409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.61|0.088
95765268|NCT01217112|191501409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.39|-0.20|0.583
95765269|NCT01217112|191501409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.43|-0.14|0.388
95803267|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3955939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6811|-0.0874||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.0874|-0.6811|
95803268|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3681051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7032|0.1185||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.1185|-0.7032|
95803269|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4938292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7112|-0.1978||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.1978|-0.7112|
95803270|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1304373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2201|0.5014||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.5014|-0.2201|
95803271|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3273268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0679|0.6612||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.6612|-0.0679|
95803272|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0552157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4213|0.361||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.3610|-0.4213|
95803273|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1666667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5389|0.2057||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2057|-0.5389|
95803274|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3194892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6539|0.2288||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.2288|-0.6539|
95803275|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.4959498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|-0.2065||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||-0.2065|-0.6860|
95803276|NCT04053452|191580097|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.3228883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6487|0.0||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and respiratory dysfunction.||0.0000|-0.6487|
95803277|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1415346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|0.4247||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4247|-0.7350|
95803278|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1987845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4377|0.8004||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.8004|-0.4377|
95803279|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0789747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.3778||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.3778|-0.5256|
95803280|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1621509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3591|0.5606||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5606|-0.3591|
95803281|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1499412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3901|0.6374||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6374|-0.3901|
95803282|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0140441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5773|0.5407||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5407|-0.5773|
95803283|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01383297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.5485||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5485|-0.5288|
95803284|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2935683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6968|0.2414||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.2414|-0.6968|
95803285|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1067521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5204|0.6392||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.6392|-0.5204|
95803286|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0549235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4633|0.5594||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.5594|-0.4633|
95803287|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2597622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6816|0.1857||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.1857|-0.6816|
95803288|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0129034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4476|0.4025||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4025|-0.4476|
95803289|NCT04053452|191580098|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02457737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3506|0.4596||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by hand dynamometer.||0.4596|-0.3506|
95803290|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Median at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
95803291|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Median at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1704986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.6584||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6584|-0.3950|
95803292|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.09040847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3821|0.5979||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5979|-0.3821|
95803293|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Median at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02501955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4158|0.479||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4790|-0.4158|
95803294|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Median at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0349215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5033|0.443||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4430|-0.5033|
95803295|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5458|0.4037||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4037|-0.5458|
95803296|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.2239171|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6514|0.2935||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2935|-0.6514|
95950927|NCT04454125|191873956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.51|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.51|-1.17|0.80
95803297|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0805076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5371|0.2974||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.2974|-0.5371|
95803298|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2910126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2791|0.7651||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.7651|-0.2791|
95803299|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02342428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4531|0.5267||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.5267|-0.4531|
95803300|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|C6|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.06536087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2786|0.4454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4454|-0.2786|
95803301|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|C7|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2207792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|0.6708||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.6708|-0.2459|
95803302|NCT04053452|191580099|OTHER|Vagus|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.14415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|0.4899||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and strength by MRC sum score.||0.4899|-0.2333|
95950928|NCT04454125|191873956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.15|0.88|0.001
95993892|NCT01512264|191963585|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.07.||||0.864
95803303|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Median at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
95803304|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Median at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9310743||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.548
95803305|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23944918||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.250
95803306|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Median at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9613236||||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.874
95803307|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Median at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9442314||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.698
95803308|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.193941||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.665
95765270|NCT01217112|191501409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.38|-0.19|0.580
95765271|NCT01217112|191501410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.37|-0.29|0.829
95765272|NCT01217112|191501410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.44|-0.22|0.575
95765273|NCT01217112|191501410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.53|-0.15|0.356
95765274|NCT01217112|191501410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.45|-0.18|0.472
95765275|NCT01217112|191501411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.59|0.115
95765276|NCT01217112|191501411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.35|-0.25|0.782
95765277|NCT01217112|191501411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.31|-0.27|0.902
95765278|NCT01217112|191501411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.28|-0.28|0.993
95803309|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0524489||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.820
95765279|NCT01217112|191501412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.23|0.956
95765280|NCT01217112|191501412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.30|-0.19|0.705
95765281|NCT01217112|191501412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.36|-0.14|0.466
95765282|NCT01217112|191501412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.25|-0.21|0.876
95765283|NCT01217112|191501413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.03|0.408
95765284|NCT01217112|191501413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.07|-0.04|0.714
95765285|NCT01217112|191501413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.09|0.267
95765286|NCT01217112|191501413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.03|0.484
95765287|NCT01217112|191501414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.09|0.560
95765288|NCT01217112|191501414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.06|-0.06|0.956
95765289|NCT01217112|191501414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.10|0.403
95765290|NCT01217112|191501414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.08|-0.04|0.617
95803310|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21669122||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.193
95993893|NCT01512264|191963585|OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.43.||||0.341
95765291|NCT01217112|191501415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.21|-0.16|0.815
95765292|NCT01217112|191501415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.26|-0.09|0.418
95765293|NCT01217112|191501415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.32|-0.05|0.236
95765294|NCT01217112|191501415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.23|-0.11|0.556
95765295|NCT01217112|191501416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.64|0.329
95765296|NCT01217112|191501416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.11|0.232
95765297|NCT01217112|191501416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.68|-0.06|0.164
95765298|NCT01217112|191501416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-0.15|0.302
95765299|NCT01217112|191501417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.614
95765300|NCT01217112|191501417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.48|-0.28|0.669
95803311|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2994068||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.314
95803312|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1015629||||0.405|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.405
95803313|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|C6|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9140133||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.389
95803314|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|C7|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7982946||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.139
95803315|NCT04053452|191580100|OTHER|Vagus|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9330042||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Nerve ultrasound measurement has no effect on the log-odds of having autonomic dysfunction (i.e., higher ultrasound measurements do not predict whether a subject has autonomic dysfunction during their hospitalization).||||0.622
95950929|NCT04454125|191873956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.61|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||3.61|0.09|0.04
95803316|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2641183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2344|0.7511||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.7511|-0.2344|
95803317|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.02596308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4859|0.5555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.5555|-0.4859|
95803318|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.05162687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3342|0.417||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4170|-0.3342|
95803319|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1714461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6473|0.2723||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.2723|-0.6473|
95803320|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0531775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.4451||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4451|-0.5830|
95803321|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1371924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3592|0.6944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6944|-0.3592|
95803322|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0134595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5145|0.4627||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4627|-0.5145|
95993894|NCT01512264|191963586|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.12.||||0.899
95765301|NCT01217112|191501417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.52|-0.28|0.621
95765302|NCT01217112|191501417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.41|-0.33|0.867
95765303|NCT01217112|191501418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|6.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.95|-1.84|0.335
95765304|NCT01217112|191501418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545||0.358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|6.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.62|-1.90|0.358
95803323|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01313517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5056|0.4833||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4833|-0.5056|
95765305|NCT01217112|191501418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.9|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.33|-3.72|0.900
95765306|NCT01217112|191501418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.486||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|10.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.19|1.86|0.019
95765307|NCT01217112|191501419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.65|0.325
95803324|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1196495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5876|0.3467||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3467|-0.5876|
95803325|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3682|0.3885||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.3885|-0.3682|
95803326|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|C6, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1194695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.6686||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.6686|-0.4220|
95803327|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|C7, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0593456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.454||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.4540|-0.5651|
95803328|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Vagus, 3 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.1920694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|0.238||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 3 months after enrollment.||0.238|-0.5490|
95803329|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.3150905|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
95803330|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1203751|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||||
95803331|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2526605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1865|0.643||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6430|-0.1865|
95803332|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.073601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5806|0.4223||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.4223|-0.5806|
95803333|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Median at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.01369735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5619|0.5236||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5236|-0.5619|
95803334|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at wrist, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2685663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2488|0.7683||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7683|-0.2488|
95803335|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at forearm, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1802776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2573|0.6027||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6027|-0.2573|
95803336|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at cubital fossa, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.2571327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2595|0.6227||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.6227|-0.2595|
95803337|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at humerus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0684867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5757|0.3944||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3944|-0.5757|
95803338|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Ulnar at axilla, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1929429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1828|0.555||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5550|-0.1828|
95803339|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|C6, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|0.1975146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3557|0.7344||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.7344|-0.3557|
95803340|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|C7, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0754722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.5083||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.5083|-0.6150|
95803341|NCT04053452|191580101|OTHER|Vagus, 6 months|Kendall's tau correlation coefficient|-0.0706753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5042|0.3963||||||Null hypothesis: There is no correlation between nerve ultrasound measurements and GBS Disability score at 6 months after enrollment.||0.3963|-0.5042|
95765308|NCT01217112|191501419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.59|-0.21|0.438
95765309|NCT01217112|191501419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.47|-0.29|0.701
95765310|NCT01217112|191501419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.27|-0.50|0.624
95765311|NCT01217112|191501420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.17|0.233
95765312|NCT01217112|191501420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.07|0.727
95765313|NCT01217112|191501420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.06|0.593
95950930|NCT04454125|191873956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.25|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||1.25|-1.87|0.70
95950931|NCT04454125|191873956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.96||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|9.2|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Score. Obtained at all visits.||9.20|-1.27|0.14
95950932|NCT04454125|191873956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|9.73|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome=Childhood Asthma Control Test Scores.||9.73|-1.19|0.13
95950933|NCT04454125|191873957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.55|-0.06|0.11
95950934|NCT04454125|191873957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.88|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.88|0.20|0.002
95950935|NCT04454125|191873957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with Normal/Gaussian distribution and identity link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Obtained at randomization and exit visits (visit 1 and visit 7).||0.75|-0.16|0.20
95950936|NCT04454125|191873958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.96|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||1.96|0.45|0.87
95950937|NCT04454125|191873958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|25.6|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||25.6|1.85|0.004
95950938|NCT04454125|191873958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.9|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported checking the AQI prior to going outside to be active||32.9|1.62|0.01
95950939|NCT04454125|191873959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||1.47|0.08|0.15
95993895|NCT01512264|191963586|OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.19.||||0.519
95765314|NCT01217112|191501420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.01|-0.20|0.075
95765315|NCT01217112|191501421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.04|0.236
95765316|NCT01217112|191501421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.09|0.579
95765317|NCT01217112|191501421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.11|-0.15|0.837
95993896|NCT01512264|191963586|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.09.||||1.000
95993897|NCT01512264|191963586|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and COWAT test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.84.||||0.140
95993898|NCT01512264|191963588|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.24.||||0.520
95993899|NCT01512264|191963588|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.97.||||0.800
95993900|NCT01512264|191963588|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -0.68.||||0.148
95993901|NCT01512264|191963588|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 4 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 0.67.||||0.787
95993902|NCT01512264|191963589|OTHER|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the rTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.12.||||0.239
95993903|NCT01512264|191963589|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 1 week of Sham Treatment + 2 weeks of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = 2.71.||||0.212
95765318|NCT01217112|191501421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.19|-0.08|0.467
95765319|NCT01217112|191501422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.64|-1.41|0.533
95765320|NCT01217112|191501422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.585||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.13|-0.84|0.804
95993904|NCT01512264|191963589|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the 2 weeks of Sham Treatment +1 week of nerTMS group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -3.10.||||0.120
95993905|NCT01512264|191963589|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t- test between time point 1 and time point 5 for the control group and WAB test were calculated. Cohen's d was calculated to determine the power of the test. The Cohen's d calculated for this test = -1.14.||||0.263
95993906|NCT00854828|191963599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95993907|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 16||0.77|0.63|< 0.001
95993908|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 18||0.80|0.64|< 0.001
95993909|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 31||0.74|0.60|< 0.001
95950940|NCT04454125|191873959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.68|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||2.68|0.35|0.94
95950941|NCT04454125|191873959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.5|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Outcome: Reported outdoor activity behavioral change in response to the AQI, obtained at all visits.||16.5|0.47|0.26
95950942|NCT04454125|191873960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the control group (Routine Care) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits||0.76|0.24|0.004
95803342|NCT00793611|191580105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|19 degrees of freedom||ITT between group differences in change scores compared for behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy groups. Power analysis: This is a pilot study underpowered find between group differences based on our power analysis(a 20% difference between groups would require 88 women, assuming 80% power and α=0.05 based on Freeman's study cited later). The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of the larger study and determine the appropriate control intervention and outcomes||||.07
95803343|NCT00793611|191580106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat.||||.17
95803344|NCT00793611|191580107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||intent to treat||||.009
95803345|NCT03156621|191580116|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM||p-value vs Placebo|||-19.9|-51.2|<0.0001
95803346|NCT03156621|191580117|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-17.3||p-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-17.3|-42.3|< 0.0001
95803347|NCT03156621|191580118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis|MMRM|||||-18.2|-47.6|< 0.0001
95803348|NCT03156621|191580119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-14.0||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||-14.0|-38.9|< 0.0001
95803349|NCT03156621|191580120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||48.8|3.1|= 0.0004
95803350|NCT03156621|191580121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|36.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||308.9|4.3|= 0.0010
95803351|NCT03156621|191580122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2|||Regression model|||||-15.2|-41.5|< 0.0001
95803352|NCT03156621|191580123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist||Exact Conditional Logistic Regression||||||3.3|= 0.0017
95803353|NCT03156621|191580124|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|=|0.3541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||P-value taken from MMRM (mixed-effect model with repeated measures) analysis.|MMRM|||||11.3|-4.1|= 0.3541
95803354|NCT03156621|191580125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
95803355|NCT03156621|191580126|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
95803356|NCT03156621|191580127|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-19.9||||||||-19.9|-51.2|
95803357|NCT03156621|191580128|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-43.3|
95803358|NCT03156621|191580129|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-18.2||||||||-18.2|-47.6|
95803359|NCT03156621|191580130|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-14.0||||||||-14.0|-28.9|
95803360|NCT03156621|191580131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-15.2||||||||-15.2|-41.5|
95803361|NCT03156621|191580132|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-4.1|
95803362|NCT03156621|191580133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-25.2|
95803363|NCT03156621|191580134|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.6|
95803364|NCT03156621|191580135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|48.8||||||≥15% reduction||48.8|3.1|
95803365|NCT03156621|191580135|SUPERIORITY|≥ 30% reduction|Odds Ratio (OR)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|308.9||||||||308.9|4.3|
95803366|NCT03156621|191580135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3||Maximum likelihood estimate does not exist|||||≥ 50% reduction|||3.3|
95803367|NCT03156621|191580136|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-0.6|
95803368|NCT03016403|191580139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.98||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.98|0.52|0.0057
95993910|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 33||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
95765321|NCT01217112|191501422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.99|-0.87|0.916
95765322|NCT01217112|191501422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||-0.25|-2.20|0.040
95765323|NCT01217112|191501423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.838||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.06|8.27|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||8.27|-28.06|0.366
95765324|NCT01217112|191501423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.692||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.81|20.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||20.03|-15.81|0.844
95765325|NCT01217112|191501423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.026||0.118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.76|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.84|-32.76|0.118
95765326|NCT01217112|191501423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.256||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.86|10.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.51|-23.86|0.518
95765327|NCT01217112|191501424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-0.66|0.576
95765328|NCT01217112|191501424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.34|-0.60|0.648
95765329|NCT01217112|191501424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.24|-0.66|0.447
95765330|NCT01217112|191501424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.16|-0.79|0.273
95765331|NCT01217112|191501425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-2.40|0.615
95765332|NCT01217112|191501425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.57|-0.70|0.342
95765333|NCT01217112|191501425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.62|-2.52|0.314
95765334|NCT01217112|191501425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.75|-1.48|0.889
95765335|NCT01217112|191501426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|168.459||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-232.02|333.8|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||333.80|-232.02|0.764
95765336|NCT01217112|191501426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|156.72||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-333.96|192.44|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||192.44|-333.96|0.654
95765337|NCT01217112|191501426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-111.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|146.276||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-357.17|134.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||134.16|-357.17|0.450
95765338|NCT01217112|191501426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.124||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-153.02|347.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||347.86|-153.02|0.517
95765339|NCT01217112|191501427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.94||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.28|76.94|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||76.94|-60.28|0.840
95765340|NCT01217112|191501427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.521||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.92|74.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||74.55|-57.92|0.834
95765341|NCT01217112|191501427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.044||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.06|53.81|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||53.81|-77.06|0.767
95765342|NCT01217112|191501427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.68||0.289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.99|109.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||109.01|-23.99|0.289
95765343|NCT01217112|191501428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.12|-0.24|0.569
95765344|NCT01217112|191501428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.17|-0.17|0.984
95765345|NCT01217112|191501428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|||v Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.30|0.176
95765346|NCT01217112|191501428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.18|-0.15|0.895
95765347|NCT01217112|191501429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.13|0.871
95765348|NCT01217112|191501429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-1.05|0.826
95803369|NCT03016403|191580140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.73||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.73|0.19|0.0243
95765349|NCT01217112|191501429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.90|-1.46|0.693
95855358|NCT00541658|191670492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|0.321|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.321|-0.836|
95950943|NCT04454125|191873960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.31|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the intervention group (AQI Intervention) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.31|0.05|<0.0001
95765350|NCT01217112|191501429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.66|-0.76|0.536
95765351|NCT01217112|191501430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.633||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|13.13|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||13.13|-15.80|0.878
95765352|NCT01217112|191501430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.377||0.919|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.18|14.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||14.89|-13.18|0.919
95765353|NCT01217112|191501430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.989||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.67|18.11|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||18.11|-8.67|0.557
95765354|NCT01217112|191501430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.328||0.275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|23.16|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||23.16|-4.76|0.275
95765355|NCT01217112|191501431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.445||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.12|38.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||38.01|-17.12|0.528
95765356|NCT01217112|191501431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.825||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.32|26.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||26.72|-26.32|0.990
95765357|NCT01217112|191501431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.369||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.37|30.15|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||30.15|-21.37|0.776
95765358|NCT01217112|191501431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.834||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.98|71.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||71.05|17.98|0.007
95765359|NCT01217112|191501432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.09|-0.70|0.717
95765360|NCT01217112|191501432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.55|-0.23|0.218
95765361|NCT01217112|191501432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.378|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.32|-0.40|0.378
95950944|NCT04454125|191873960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||generalized linear model, repeat measure|GLM fitted with binomial distribution and logit link|Estimate is for the interaction term (group\*visit) obtained from generalized linear model with repeat measures including group, visit, interaction term (group\*visit).|Obtained at all visits.||0.87|0.10|0.03
95765362|NCT01217112|191501432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.38|-0.40|0.361
95765363|NCT01217112|191501433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.417
95765364|NCT01217112|191501433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.04|-0.01|0.340
95765365|NCT01217112|191501433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.02|-0.02|0.915
95765366|NCT01217112|191501433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.01|0.465
95962521|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.4|0.3|0.9388
95765367|NCT01217112|191501434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.616||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|3.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.45|-1.96|0.646
95765368|NCT01217112|191501434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|4.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.66|-0.69|0.219
95765369|NCT01217112|191501434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.23|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.23|-1.00|0.307
95765370|NCT01217112|191501434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|4.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.22|-1.17|0.348
95765371|NCT01217112|191501435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|3.91|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.91|-0.44|0.187
95765372|NCT01217112|191501435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|2.86|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.86|-1.43|0.578
95765373|NCT01217112|191501435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|3.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.22|-0.96|0.368
95765374|NCT01217112|191501435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.67|0.696
95765375|NCT01217112|191501436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.51|-0.90|0.327
95765376|NCT01217112|191501436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.851|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.43|-1.93|0.851
95803370|NCT03016403|191580141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.23|-4.39||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of an interaction between time and intervention arm.|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|Linear mixed models (LMM) have been used with time and the interaction between time and group as fixed effects. A structure of random effects that includes random intercepts for patients was used. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points. A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-4.39|-26.23|0.0061
95803371|NCT03016403|191580142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|4.27||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.27|-19.73|0.21
95765377|NCT01217112|191501436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.69|-1.60|0.672
95962024|NCT01730950|191896045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.38|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|Null hypothesis: median survival time for both arms is 9 months; alternative hypothesis: participants receiving radiation therapy plus bevacizumab will have an improvement in median survival time to 13 months. One hundred and sixty eligible participants provides 80% power to detect a 31% reduction in the hazard ratio to 0.69 at a one-sided significance level of 0.10. Analysis was planned to occur when 135 deaths were reported, expected to occur 16 to 21 months after trial closure.||1.38|0.70|0.46
95962025|NCT01730950|191896046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.18
95962026|NCT01730950|191896047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.001
95962027|NCT01730950|191896048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Bevacizumab|||1.00|0.53|0.05
95765378|NCT01217112|191501436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.18|-2.26|0.978
95765379|NCT01217112|191501437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.76|-0.95|0.857
95765380|NCT01217112|191501437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.26|-0.58|0.543
95803372|NCT03016403|191580143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.05||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.05|-0.01|0.052
95803373|NCT03016403|191580144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.36||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.36|-0.52|0.214
95803374|NCT03016403|191580145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-0.87||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||-0.87|-7.45|0.0134
95803375|NCT03016403|191580146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.12||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||2.12|-0.9|0.42
95803376|NCT03016403|191580147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.34||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||3.34|0.2|0.0269
95843758|NCT03629886|191655183|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.37||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2815). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.37|1.06|
95765381|NCT01217112|191501437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.92|-0.74|0.859
95765382|NCT01217112|191501437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.50|-1.27|0.467
95765383|NCT01217112|191501438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.05|-1.32|0.124
95765384|NCT01217112|191501438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.909|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.79|-0.68|0.909
95765385|NCT01217112|191501438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.20|-1.12|0.245
95765386|NCT01217112|191501438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.33|-1.05|0.382
95765387|NCT01217112|191501439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.66|-2.15|0.376
95765388|NCT01217112|191501439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908||0.688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.89|-1.15|0.688
95765389|NCT01217112|191501439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.96|-1.73|0.637
95803377|NCT03016403|191580148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.32||Since there are three primary outcomes (depression, anxiety and coping scores) in the study, the significance level was set a priori at 0.0167 (alpha = 0.05/3).|Mixed Models Analysis|The pvalue corresponds to the hypothesis of the interaction effect between time and group (intervention arm).|The estimate represents the difference in expected means at the 6-month time point between the intervention and usual care arms.|A linear mixed model (LMM) with random intercepts for both patients and clinics has been used, with adjustment for cancer type and cancer stage. The study was powered for testing the hypothesis of no group differences in change over the four time points (baseline, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months). A significant group by time interaction was hypothesized.||4.32|0.8|0.0044
95803378|NCT04299425|191580157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95803379|NCT04299425|191580158|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95803380|NCT04299425|191580160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95962028|NCT00667459|191896051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.032||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.134||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.134|-0.070|0.995
95765390|NCT01217112|191501439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.63|-2.22|0.355
95765391|NCT01217112|191501440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.95|-0.39|0.482
95803381|NCT04299425|191580161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95803382|NCT01657500|191580168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|See above|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Main outcome measure was endothelial cell loss at 6 months after EK. Sample size and statistical power calculations for testing equivalence of means within 10% range were performed at 80% power/0.025 level of significance. 20% variability was assumed. 6-month endothelial cell loss) should not differ significantly for surgeon-prepared versus eye bank-prepared tissue. Assuming pairs of corneas matched by pt. diagnosis and other characteristics, the required sample size was 34 donor pairs.||||< 0.05
95803383|NCT00564070|191580171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.37|42.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent adherence to glucose monitoring for the CBT-AD Arm minus the adherence to glucose monitoring for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of glucose monitoring (i.e., 4 month)||42.9|17.37|<.0001
96001830|NCT01096667|191981232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.6||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.60|-3.01|0.196
95950945|NCT02301299|191873961|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the early hospital arrival would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG.||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly early hospital arrival rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05.|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly early arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
95765392|NCT01217112|191501440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.02|-0.65|0.708
95765393|NCT01217112|191501440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.37|-0.12|0.166
95765394|NCT01217112|191501440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.03|-0.37|0.424
95765395|NCT01217112|191501441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.94|0.022
95765396|NCT01217112|191501441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.69|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.69|1.44|0.014
95765397|NCT01217112|191501441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.25|0.45|0.053
95765398|NCT01217112|191501441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.78|1.33|0.012
95765399|NCT01217112|191501442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.85|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.85|0.84|0.032
95765400|NCT01217112|191501442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.35|1.18|0.026
95765401|NCT01217112|191501442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|6.22|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.22|0.65|0.046
95765402|NCT01217112|191501442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.512||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|6.45|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.45|1.26|0.018
95765403|NCT01217112|191501443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.25|-0.52|0.294
95765404|NCT01217112|191501443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.988||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|0.05|0.092
95765405|NCT01217112|191501443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||2.79|-0.28|0.173
95803384|NCT00564070|191580172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.15|||ANCOVA|General linear model; Controlling for baseline values|The Mean Difference was calculated as percent of HbA1c for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus percent of HbA1c for the CBT-AD Arm.|Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data; results are reported for HbA1c at the acute outcome (i.e., 4 months)||1.15|.29|=.001
95803385|NCT00564070|191580173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|31.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Mean Difference was calculated as percent pill adherence via MEMs for the CBT-AD Arm minus the percent pill adherence for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of MEMs monitoring (4 month). Higher percentages represent better adherence.||31.14|10.22|<0.0001
95803386|NCT00564070|191580174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|General linear model, controlling for baseline values.|The Mean Difference was calculated as MADRS unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm minus the MADRS unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm.|Analyses are reported for the acute outcomes of depression as assessed on the MADRS at acute outcome.||10.56|2.33|=.002
95803387|NCT00564070|191580175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.32|||ANCOVA|using GLM|The Mean Difference was calculated as CGI unit scale for the Enhanced Treatment as Usual Arm minus the CGI unit scale for the CBT-AD Arm.|||1.32|.16|=.01
95803388|NCT00564070|191580176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that differences in glucose monitoring adherence would continue to be superior in the CBT-AD condition compared to ETAU||36.1|8.6|=.002
95803389|NCT00564070|191580177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the CBT-AD condition would maintain higher medication adherence over follow up compared to ETAU||26.1|6.5|=.001
95803390|NCT00564070|191580178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that the lower depression scores would remain in the CBT arm compared to ETAU over follow up.||7.2|-1.2|.16
95803391|NCT00564070|191580179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that depression scores would remain lower in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm||1.1|-.1|.10
95803392|NCT00564070|191580180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that glucose control (HbA1C) would remain superior in the CBT-AD arm compared to the ETAU arm over follow up.||1.2|.6|.03
95803393|NCT03142334|191580204|OTHER|HR and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, US participant within M0 group by investigator.|Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastasis status, ECOG PS, and US participant within M0 group by investigator was used to calculate HR and 95% CIs.|||0.87|0.53|0.0010
95803394|NCT00682838|191580273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
95803395|NCT03566550|191580281|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
95803396|NCT03566550|191580282|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95803397|NCT03566550|191580283|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95803398|NCT03566550|191580284|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95962029|NCT00667459|191896051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.736
95803399|NCT03566550|191580285|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95803400|NCT02618187|191580289|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.766
95803401|NCT02618187|191580289|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.037
95803402|NCT02618187|191580289|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.313
95803403|NCT02618187|191580289|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.384
95803404|NCT02618187|191580289|OTHER|Null hypothesis: the two groups compared show no difference in mean ranks Alternative hypothesis: the two groups compared show a difference in mean ranks||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.237
95803405|NCT02618187|191580290|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, after Placebo Pre-Treat. tested against Daily placebo, after Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.257
95803406|NCT02618187|191580290|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
95803407|NCT02618187|191580290|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Daily Placebo, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.001
95803408|NCT02618187|191580290|SUPERIORITY|Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat. tested against Weekly SER-287, After Placebo Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.009
95993911|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 45||0.76|0.60|< 0.001
95765406|NCT01217112|191501443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.95|-0.92|0.545
95765407|NCT01217112|191501444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.214||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.75|0.59|0.038
95765408|NCT01217112|191501444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.26|2.16|0.004
95765409|NCT01217112|191501444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||4.72|0.09|0.088
95765410|NCT01217112|191501444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||5.68|1.39|0.010
95765411|NCT01217112|191501445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.814||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|6.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||6.64|0.42|0.064
95765412|NCT01217112|191501445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.237||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|10.38|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||10.38|2.72|0.008
95765413|NCT01217112|191501445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.016||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.10|0.19|0.084
95765414|NCT01217112|191501445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.25|0.84|0.041
95765415|NCT01217112|191501446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.14|0.129
95765416|NCT01217112|191501446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.09|-0.08|0.961
95765417|NCT01217112|191501446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.01|-0.16|0.128
95765418|NCT01217112|191501446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.03|-0.12|0.300
95765419|NCT01217112|191501447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.37|11.67|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||11.67|-6.37|0.625
95993912|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.78||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 52||0.78|0.64|< 0.001
95765420|NCT01217112|191501447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.519||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|16.02|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||16.02|-2.48|0.226
95765421|NCT01217112|191501447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.103||0.904|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.94|9.18|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||9.18|-7.94|0.904
95962397|NCT03607422|191896609|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|48.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.3|32.3|<0.001
95765422|NCT01217112|191501447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|15.75|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||15.75|-3.41|0.285
95765423|NCT01217112|191501448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.10|-1.81|0.138
95765424|NCT01217112|191501448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||0.55|-1.28|0.505
95765425|NCT01217112|191501448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.08|-0.73|0.743
95765426|NCT01217112|191501448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||1.29|-0.60|0.540
95765427|NCT01217112|191501450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|3.43|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.43|-2.14|0.701
95765428|NCT01217112|191501450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|7.55|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||7.55|1.99|0.006
95765429|NCT01217112|191501450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|3.64|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.64|-1.68|0.542
95765430|NCT01217112|191501450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Data was analysed by ANCOVA. The fitted ANCOVA models included the baseline parameter scores as covariate, with treatment group and gender as factors. All statistical tests were two-sided at the 10% significance level.||3.08|-2.36|0.827
95765431|NCT00080912|191501451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The original sample size was determined based on the non-inferiority. The original sample size is based on assumption of response rate on the multiple fraction arm is 70%, 260 patients were required in each treatment arm to have 80% power to exclude, with a one sided alpha of 0.05, a response rate of 60% or less in the single fraction radiation group (non-inferiority margin =10%). Given an inevaluability rate of 30%, 850 patients (425 for each treatment arm) were randomized to the study.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.2||p-value is for one-sided non-inferiority test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The upper limit of one-sided 95% CI for the response rate difference was 9.2%, which was below the pre-specified 10% non-inferiority boundary|||9.2||0.03
95765432|NCT02157935|191501452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.76||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Negative binomial model|||||0.92|0.62|0.0059
95765433|NCT02157935|191501453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
95765434|NCT02157935|191501454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.343||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.318|-0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.368|-2.318|0.0070
95765435|NCT02157935|191501455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.053|0.008|0.0091
95765436|NCT02157935|191501456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.203||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-0.353|0.0082
95765437|NCT02157935|191501457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||||-0.009|-0.048|0.0048
95765438|NCT00127231|191501461|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking frequency was analyzed using a generalized binomial mixed-effects model with the logit link function and a random intercept. The use of a binomial distribution was indicated for this analysis because the outcome was assessed using a 90-day TLFB interview, which has a cap at 90 days.||0.75|0.23|<0.005
95803409|NCT02618187|191580290|SUPERIORITY|Daily SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., tested against Weekly SER-287, After Vanco. Pre-Treat., for superiority||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.168
95803410|NCT02618187|191580291|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|13.3||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|30.54|||Fisher Exact|||||30.54|-3.87|0.4923
95803411|NCT02618187|191580291|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|40.0||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|64.79|||Fisher Exact|||||64.79|15.21|0.0237
95803412|NCT02618187|191580291|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|17.6||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|35.77|||Fisher Exact|||||35.77|-0.47|0.2579
95803413|NCT02618187|191580292|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|24.2||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|53.53|||Fisher Exact|||||53.53|-5.04|0.1973
95765439|NCT00611923|191501469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 1 between flutamide and placebo groups||||= 0.57
95765440|NCT00611923|191501469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline PMTS score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups.||||= .27
95765441|NCT00611923|191501470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 1 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.52
95765442|NCT00611923|191501470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing change in DRSP scores from baseline to Month 2 of treatment Larger positive change score indicates a greater reduction in symptoms from baseline.||||= 0.2
95765443|NCT00611923|191501471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.8
95765444|NCT00611923|191501471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.1
95765445|NCT00611923|191501472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=.15
95765446|NCT00611923|191501472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test was performed comparing the Clinical Global Improvement score at month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups||||= .05
95765447|NCT00611923|191501473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Comparison of change from baseline score to treatment month 1 between placebo and flutamide treated subjects.|||||=|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.5
95765448|NCT00611923|191501473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test analysis comparing change from baseline CGI severity score at month 2 between flutamide and placebo groups|||||<|0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.04
95765449|NCT00611923|191501474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Global Improvement score at month 1 between placebo and flutamide groups||||=0.2
95765450|NCT00611923|191501474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|paired t-test was performed comparing the Patient Globall Improvement score at treatment month 2 between placebo and flutamide groups|||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.06
95765451|NCT01634048|191501501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95765452|NCT02806908|191501504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0022
95765453|NCT02806908|191501505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0416|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0416
95765454|NCT02806908|191501506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0963|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0963
95765455|NCT02806908|191501507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3018|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3018
95765456|NCT02806908|191501508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||McNemar|||||||0.4240
95765457|NCT02806908|191501509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
95765458|NCT02806908|191501510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
95765459|NCT02806908|191501511|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95765460|NCT02806908|191501512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6291|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6291
95765461|NCT02806908|191501513|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95765462|NCT02806908|191501514|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95765463|NCT02806908|191501515|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95765464|NCT02806908|191501516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7744
95765465|NCT02806908|191501517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7539|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
95765466|NCT02806908|191501518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1141
95765467|NCT02806908|191501519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4441
95765468|NCT02806908|191501520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3423
95765469|NCT02806908|191501521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9384
95765470|NCT02806908|191501522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0939|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0939
95765471|NCT02806908|191501523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0246|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0246
95765472|NCT02806908|191501524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1475
95765473|NCT02806908|191501525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1513
95765474|NCT02806908|191501526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95765475|NCT02806908|191501527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95765476|NCT02806908|191501528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4774|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4774
95765477|NCT02806908|191501529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3801|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3801
95765478|NCT02806908|191501530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95765479|NCT04429503|191501532|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq12 minus 2q8|||1.13|-2.26|<0.0001
95765480|NCT04429503|191501532|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value for one-sided non-inferiority (NI) test at a margin of 4 letters|LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||HDq16 minus 2q8|||0.39|-3.27|0.0031
95765481|NCT04429503|191501533|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%|Adjusted Difference (%)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|10.57|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||10.57|-6.61|
95765482|NCT04429503|191501533|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.|Adjusted Difference (%)|-7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|1.84|||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted for stratification factors|||1.84|-16.88|
95765483|NCT06192589|191501550|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.52||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.52|1.34|<0.01
95803414|NCT02618187|191580292|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|30.9||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|60.96|||Fisher Exact|||||60.96|0.86|0.1783
95803415|NCT02618187|191580292|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference (SER-287 - placebo)|14.4||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|40.81|||Fisher Exact|||||40.81|-11.93|0.6195
95765484|NCT06192589|191501551|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17||Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison was the effect of cannabidiol on citalopram compared to citalopram alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.06|<0.01
95765485|NCT06192589|191501552|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.06||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.16|0.96|0.34
95765486|NCT06192589|191501552|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.26|1.00|0.10
95765487|NCT06192589|191501553|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.35|1.05|0.02
95765488|NCT06192589|191501553|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.30|0.94|0.29
95765489|NCT06192589|191501560|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.05|0.98|0.47
95803416|NCT00986583|191580300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of medians|1.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.72||This is for the primary comparison at 20 minute|ANCOVA||Ratio of medians of myoglobin measured at 20 minute for statin users vs. non-statin users|||1.72|1.05|0.018
95803417|NCT05001165|191580306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-0.1|
95803418|NCT05001165|191580307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.14|0.84|
95803419|NCT05001165|191580308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.64|<0.05
95803420|NCT05001165|191580309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.73|
95803421|NCT05001165|191580310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.68|
95962522|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.2||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||23.1|1.2|0.0251
95765490|NCT06192589|191501560|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.99||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.03|0.96|0.73
95765491|NCT06192589|191501561|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.03|0.03
95803422|NCT05001165|191580311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.51|0.88|
95803423|NCT05001165|191580312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.99|
95803424|NCT05001165|191580313|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.34|
95803425|NCT01487161|191580333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.2|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.2|-1.2|0.1249
95803426|NCT01487161|191580334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.3|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.3|-1.1|0.2002
95803427|NCT01487161|191580335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.8|||Longitudinal mixed effect model|||||0.8|-0.7|0.5541
95803428|NCT03907579|191580362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|z= -3.861||||||0.0001
95859873|NCT02983552|191678091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 4 week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 4 weeks. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 4 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||1.7|-2.2|0.71
95859874|NCT02983552|191678093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.4|2.1|||||A 2-sided 98.3% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 8-week visit.|||2.1|-2.4|
95859875|NCT02983552|191678099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-13.0|9.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 4-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.||9|-13|
95859876|NCT02983552|191678100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|-15.0|12.0||||||Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 8-week visit, adjusted for visual acuity at randomization.|For secondary visual acuity outcomes, which included the 8-week treatment group comparison, a Bonferroni adjustment was used to control for multiple testing (3 outcomes tested) to preserve the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided alpha=0.017 per test).|12|-15|
95859877|NCT02983552|191678102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95859878|NCT02983552|191678104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95859879|NCT02983552|191678106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95859880|NCT02983552|191678108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group for participants without strabismus.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95765492|NCT06192589|191501561|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.06|0.91|0.66
95803429|NCT03520387|191580399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-10.2|
95859881|NCT02983552|191678113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.5|0.4|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 4 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.4|-2.5|
95859882|NCT02983552|191678114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.3|0.3|||||Statistical significance of the treatment group comparison was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 8 weeks, adjusting for fellow-eye visual acuity at randomization. A 2-sided 99% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||0.3|-2.3|
95859883|NCT02983552|191678115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 4-week visit.||||0.37
95859884|NCT02983552|191678116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 8-week visit.||||0.99
95859885|NCT02983552|191678117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.20
95859886|NCT02983552|191678118|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
95859887|NCT02983552|191678119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.44
95859888|NCT02983552|191678120|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
95962523|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.6|0.2|0.5263
95803430|NCT03520387|191580399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||-1.6|-11.0|
95765493|NCT06192589|191501562|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect.||1.18|0.99|0.13
95765494|NCT06192589|191501562|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Area under the curve was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.36|1.17|<0.01
95765495|NCT06192589|191501563|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of a single dose of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.17|1.00|0.12
95765496|NCT06192589|191501563|OTHER|A difference in exposure was concluded if the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio excluded 1, which is standard in pharmacokinetic studies|Geometric mean ratio|1.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Comparison was the effect of multiple doses of cannabidiol on morphine compared to morphine alone.|Maximum concentration was log-transformed and the values between groups were compared using a linear mixed effects model with group as a categorical variable and subject as a random effect||1.21|1.01|0.07
95765497|NCT02717507|191501564|OTHER||Slope|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.383|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVWT/Dz was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVWT/Dz was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVWT/Dz across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 0.6-0.8 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVWT/Dz at 24m.||0.383|-0.057|0.15
95765498|NCT02717507|191501565|OTHER||Slope|-3.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.105|-0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.424|-7.105|0.03
95765499|NCT02717507|191501566|OTHER||Slope|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.001|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.001|-0.09|0.05
95765500|NCT02717507|191501567|OTHER||Slope|-2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.951|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVESV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVESV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||0.951|-5.34|0.17
95765501|NCT02717507|191501568|OTHER||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.0|-0.024|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||-0.024|-0141|0.01
95859889|NCT02983552|191678121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.12
95765502|NCT02717507|191501569|OTHER||Slope|-2.397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.603||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.499|2.704|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEDV was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEDV was lower for carvedilol than placebo over time.|||2.704|-7.499|0.36
95859890|NCT02983552|191678122|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
95765503|NCT02717507|191501570|OTHER||Slope|0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.134|1.999|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||1.999|-1.134|0.59
95765504|NCT02717507|191501571|OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|0.532|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is positive|||0.532|-0.652|0.84
95765505|NCT02717507|191501572|OTHER||Slope|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.472|0.991|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment was considered efficacious if the group by time interaction for LVEF was statistically significant at a two-sided p\<0.05 and the expected LVEF was higher for carvedilol than placebo over time.|The null hypothesis is that change in LVEF across time do not vary by arm. Assuming a type I error=0.05, 2-sided test, 15% attrition/year, and correlation range of 1.2-1.6 between measurements, we projected that a sample size of 125/arm would provide 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.23-0.32 for LVEF at 24m.||0.991|-0.472|0.49
95859891|NCT02983552|191678123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.12
95859892|NCT02983552|191678124|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in diplopia frequency levels from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
95765506|NCT02717507|191501573|OTHER||Slope|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.082|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.082|-0.065|0.82
95765507|NCT02717507|191501574|OTHER||Slope|2.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.387|5.63|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||5.63|-1.387|0.24
95765508|NCT02717507|191501575|OTHER||Slope|5.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.608|21.835|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative|||21.835|-11.608|0.55
95765509|NCT02717507|191501576|OTHER||Slope|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.002|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.002|-0.004|0.51
95765510|NCT02717507|191501577|OTHER||Slope|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.424|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||0.424|-0.468|0.92
95765511|NCT02717507|191501579|OTHER||Slope|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.229|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|||0.229|-0.18|0.82
95765512|NCT02717507|191501580|OTHER||Slope|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.877|4.685|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.||||4.685|-4.877|0.97
95765513|NCT02717507|191501581|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.491||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.595|8.091|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|The treatment effect was determined by testing the significance of the group by time interaction in GEE using a one degree-of-freedom (df) test.|The treatment can be considered beneficial if the mean difference (treatment - control) slope is negative.|The null hypothesis is that change in Average Alanine aminotransferase across time-points described above does not differ by treatment arm, tested using a longitudinal GEE analysis of Average Alanine aminotransferase with a treatment by time interaction.||8.091|-5.595|0.72
95803431|NCT03520387|191580400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6059.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2832.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12467.0|349.1|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts. Positive values show increased steps with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||349.1|-12467.0|
95803432|NCT03520387|191580400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2081.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2983.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4666.6|8830.4|||||This is an analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on CHANGE in step counts, after adjustment for age and baseline step counts.Positive values show increased steps with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||8830.4|-4666.6|
95803433|NCT03520387|191580401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.1|-5.2|
95803434|NCT03520387|191580401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||3.6|-4.2|
95859893|NCT02983552|191678127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 4-week visit by treatment group.||||0.07
95859894|NCT02983552|191678128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For each Symptom Survey item, the exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the change in symptom frequency level from baseline to the 8-week visit by treatment group. This was utilized for each item in the survey.||||0.06
95962524|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
95765514|NCT00970593|191501592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.29||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||0.29|-1.79|
95765515|NCT00970593|191501592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.83||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-0.83|-2.98|
95765516|NCT00970593|191501592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.24||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.24|-3.06|
95765517|NCT00970593|191501593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.22||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-1.22|-3.52|
95765518|NCT00970593|191501593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.2||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.20|-4.16|
95765519|NCT00970593|191501593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.28||||||The Mixed model used fixed effects of treatment, study day and treatment by study day interaction.||-2.28|-4.01|
95859895|NCT02983552|191678131|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||Statistical significance of the interaction term was based on a 2-sided alpha=0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to test the 2-way interaction between treatment group with each factor (baseline age and visual acuity were treated as continuous factors), adjusting for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and the nested terms from the interaction term. Formal subgroup analyses were only performed if there was a minimum of 20 participants in every subgroup category across both treatment groups for factors treated as categorical variables in the model.||||>0.01
95765520|NCT02203357|191501598|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95765521|NCT01866826|191501603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95765522|NCT01866826|191501604|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||We calculated the proportion of pts with elevated viral levels \>50 copies/ml at each phase of the study.|We estimated that four of the seven patients would have an elevation in viral Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) level \>50 copies/ml.|||
95765523|NCT01866826|191501606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the Wilcoxon test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control and Rifaximin groups.||||
95765524|NCT01866826|191501606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon|||We calculated the percentage of total lymphocytes that were expressing the activation markers at each time point, and compared the differences in the percentages in the Rifaximin and control groups. We used the T-test to detect differences between the differences in percentages in the control group and Rifaximin groups.||||0.54
95765525|NCT02493660|191501608|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints. The primary analysis method was a multilinear regression model for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), gender, and treatment as the model covariates for the PP population for noninferiority testing.||||||0.0049|||||||Regression, Logistic|Primary analysis method was for month 12 success with age (\<65 years, ≥65 years), sex, and treatment as the model covariates.||||||0.0049
95765526|NCT02493660|191501611|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 10% for all composite endpoints.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results from logistic regression model.||||<0.05
95765527|NCT00742209|191501627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||A combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure has been used to maintain the overall experiment-size alphas level of 0.05 for the comparison of GEn vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with baseline number of MHD and IHS Headache Classification for presence or absence of aura as covariates was used.|Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|||1.1|-0.6|0.579
95803435|NCT03520387|191580402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|10.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS physical health scores||10.1|-8.1|
95803436|NCT03520387|191580402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|12.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS physical health scores||12.9|-0.4|
95765528|NCT03500198|191501670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95765529|NCT03500198|191501672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95765530|NCT03500198|191501673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided logistic regression|||||||<0.0001
95765531|NCT01514461|191501674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-28.78||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.69|14.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||14.46|-55.69|0.0538
95765532|NCT01514461|191501674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% change from reference treatment|-40.88||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements||||-2.94|-63.99|0.0182
95765533|NCT03743051|191501699|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.971|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MW; H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.971|0.718|<0.0001
95803437|NCT03520387|191580402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|12.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with LRFA vs. simulated LRFA.|PROMIS mental health scores||12.7|-5.4|
95962398|NCT03607422|191896610|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.5|42.8|<0.001
95803438|NCT03520387|191580402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate better health with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|PROMIS mental health scores||10.6|-7.0|
95859896|NCT01243580|191678137|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing Ortho-Cyclen to Ag200-15|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95859897|NCT01243580|191678138|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95765534|NCT03743051|191501700|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|1.472|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||1.472|-0.228|0.1514
95765535|NCT03743051|191501701|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|3.453|||ANOVA|||||3.453|1.367|<0.0001
95765536|NCT03743051|191501702|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.284|||ANOVA|||||2.284|0.388|0.0057
95765537|NCT03743051|191501703|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|1.816|||ANOVA|||||1.816|0.238|0.0108
95765538|NCT03743051|191501704|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|1.466|||ANOVA|||||1.466|-0.397|0.2605
95765539|NCT02550561|191501707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||Subjects that reported either moderately or markedly improved on the GRA scale at 6 weeks compared to 12 weeks.|McNemar|||||||0.317
95765540|NCT02550561|191501708|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||paired t-tests|||The mean change in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for bladder pain||||0.47
95765541|NCT02550561|191501708|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in Pelvis Pain and Urgency/Frequency Patient Symptom (PUF) score||||0.17
95765542|NCT02550561|191501708|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change for O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI)||||.08
95765543|NCT02550561|191501708|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI)||||0.51
95765544|NCT02550561|191501708|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||paired t-test|||The mean change in 24-h urinary frequency||||0.22
95765545|NCT02756611|191501745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
95765546|NCT02756611|191501756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|||The null hypothesis stated that the CR rate for BCRi-naïve participants would be ≤ 6%, based on the CR rate reported for current therapies at the time the study was designed, with an alternative hypothesis that the CR rate would be \> 6%. If the p-value for this test was \< 0.025, the null hypothesis would be rejected.||||<0.001
95765547|NCT00262028|191501781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A||44|29|
95765548|NCT00262028|191501781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the lower LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C||26|12|
95765549|NCT00262028|191501781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||Noninferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W||29|17|
95765550|NCT00262028|191501781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY-CRM was considered to be noninferior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator)in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> -10% against each serogroup|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||No inferiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y||38|25|
95859898|NCT01243580|191678139|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of AG200-15 and Ortho-Cyclen||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95962399|NCT03607422|191896610|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.3|29.5|<0.001
95962525|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
95859899|NCT01243580|191678140|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cylen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
95859900|NCT01243580|191678141|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0009
95962400|NCT03607422|191896611|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.7|13.5|<0.0001
95765551|NCT00262028|191501781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|44.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup A~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||44|29|
95765552|NCT00262028|191501781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|26.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup C~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||26|12|
95765553|NCT00262028|191501781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup W~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||29|17|
95765554|NCT00262028|191501781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|38.0||||||"Superiority of immune responses of MenACWY-CRM to licensed comparator against serogroup Y~MenACWY-CRM was considered to be superior to the licensed comparator if the LL of the 95% CI of the difference (MenACWY minus licensed comparator) in the percentage of the subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:4 at one month post vaccination was \> 0% against each serogroup"||38|25|
95765555|NCT01015534|191501805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.9||The sample size was calculated with a two-sided test,a type-I error probability of 0.05 and a power of 0.80,Twenty- eight patients in each treatment arm were required to detect a difference in ORR of 0.29|Chi-squared|||||12.9|1.3|0.019
95765556|NCT01015534|191501806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|3.422|||Fisher Exact|||||3.422|.138|.704
95803439|NCT03520387|191580403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.9|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.9|-7.7|
95803440|NCT03520387|191580403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate lower doses with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.0|-7.5|
95803441|NCT03520387|191580404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||1.7|-1.4|
95803442|NCT03520387|191580404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate perceived benefit with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1.5|-1.3|
95803443|NCT03520387|191580405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.7|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.7|-5.5|
95803444|NCT03520387|191580405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months after adjustment for age and baseline value of the outcome. Negative scores indicate less pain with AcTIVE-CBT vs. TBSCE|||2.6|-5.4|
95765557|NCT01015534|191501807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
95765558|NCT01422213|191501809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.50|0.22|<0.0001
95803445|NCT03520387|191580406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||3.0|-0.5|
95803446|NCT03520387|191580406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.8|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months, after adjustment for age. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||2.8|-0.4|
95803447|NCT03520387|191580407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-637.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|433.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1636.2|362.1|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of LRFA (Group A + Group C) vs. simulated LRFA (Group B + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate greater activity with LRFA over simulated LRFA.|||362.1|-1636.2|
95765559|NCT01422213|191501809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.47||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the composite z-score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline composite z-score, baseline composite z-score-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.47|0.19|<0.0001
95993913|NCT03158220|191963636|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMT in 27-45 year-olds relative to 16-26 year-olds was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the fold difference was greater than 0.5.|Fold Difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||ANOVA model with response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for age groups.|ANOVA||Fold difference calculated as GMT 27-45 year-olds/GMT 16-26 year-olds|Anti HPV 58||0.76|0.63|< 0.001
95765560|NCT01422213|191501810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.90|2.50|<0.0001
95765561|NCT01422213|191501810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|5.94||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the DSST (number of correct symbols) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||5.94|2.57|<0.0001
95765562|NCT01422213|191501811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.93|0.11|0.0287
95765563|NCT01422213|191501811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.5||To adjust for multiplicity, the 10 and 20 mg doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (acquisition) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.50|-0.31|0.1988
95765564|NCT01422213|191501812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.19||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 10 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.19|0.24|0.0033
95765565|NCT01422213|191501812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.12||Since the p-value for RAVLT acquisition for 20 mg was \>0.025, the p-value for this test is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the RAVLT (delayed recall) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.12|0.17|0.0073
95765566|NCT01422213|191501813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-1.08||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.08|-6.45|0.0061
95765567|NCT01422213|191501813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.14||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT A (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.14|-6.46|0.0052
95765568|NCT01422213|191501814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.2||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.20|-12.93|0.0058
95803448|NCT03520387|191580407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|572.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|334.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-199.3|1343.6|||||Analysis of the MAIN EFFECT of AcTIVE-CBT (Group A + Group B) vs. TBSCE (Group C + Group D) on the outcome at 3 months adjusting for age and baseline value of the outcome. Positive scores indicate more satisfaction with AcTIVE-CBT over TBSCE.|||1343.6|-199.3|
95765569|NCT01422213|191501814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|-3.7||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the TMT B (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-3.70|-14.32|0.0009
95803449|NCT00541775|191580408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<=|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-0.32|-0.70|<=0.001
95765570|NCT01422213|191501815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.49||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.49|-6.50|0.0018
95765571|NCT01422213|191501815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.97||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Congruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-1.97|-6.93|0.0005
95765572|NCT01422213|191501816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-2.74||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.74|-10.76|0.0010
95765573|NCT01422213|191501816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-2.54||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the Incongruent STROOP Time to Complete (Executive Function) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.54|-10.49|0.0013
95765574|NCT01422213|191501817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.07|0.0002
95765575|NCT01422213|191501817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the SRT (Speed of Processing) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0157
95803450|NCT00541775|191580409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<=|0.001||95.0|-27.6|-8.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-8.1|-27.6|<=0.001
95803451|NCT00541775|191580410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-46.0|-15.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance with a term for treatment, and a covariate for baseline value.||||-15.0|-46.0|<=0.001
95803452|NCT00032487|191580417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis tested was for equivalence. We assumed 86% power with 21% of effect size and the sample size 1700 with 5% drop out rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||Log Rank|||It was hypothesized 21% reduction in intensive glycemic control group compared to standard control group on primary cardiovascular composite outcomes.||.99|.79|<0.05
95803453|NCT04739709|191580419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803454|NCT04739709|191580420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803455|NCT04739709|191580422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803456|NCT04739709|191580423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803457|NCT04739709|191580424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803458|NCT04739709|191580425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803459|NCT04739709|191580426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95859901|NCT01243580|191678142|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0167
95803460|NCT04739709|191580427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803461|NCT04739709|191580428|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803462|NCT04739709|191580429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803463|NCT04739709|191580430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-1.3|-1.8|<0.001
95803464|NCT04739709|191580431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.6|-0.9|<0.001
95803465|NCT04739709|191580432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.5|-0.8|<0.001
95803466|NCT04739709|191580433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.01|-0.06|0.017
95803467|NCT04739709|191580434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.04|-0.10|<0.001
95803468|NCT04739709|191580435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = APP13007-Placebo. Mean Difference Is the least-squares mean difference from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.|||-0.06|-0.11|<0.001
95803469|NCT04739709|191580436|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95803470|NCT01028391|191580440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-0.76|-0.26|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) HbA1c.|||-0.26|-0.76|
95859902|NCT01243580|191678143|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
95859903|NCT01243580|191678144|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0175|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0175
95859904|NCT01243580|191678145|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95859905|NCT01243580|191678146|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of Ortho-Cyclen and AG200-15||||||0.0532|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0532
95859906|NCT00078897|191678162|OTHER|Negative binomial regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.91|0.68
95962526|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
95765576|NCT01422213|191501818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.05|0.0005
95765577|NCT01422213|191501818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CRT (Attention) was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.01|-0.03|0.3549
95765578|NCT01422213|191501819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-2.96||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-2.96|-6.45|<0.0001
95765579|NCT01422213|191501819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-4.98||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the MADRS Total Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-4.98|-8.43|<0.0001
95765580|NCT01422213|191501820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.42||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.42|-0.88|<0.0001
95765581|NCT01422213|191501820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.62||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-S Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site, baseline value, baseline value-by-visit interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.62|-1.08|<0.0001
95765582|NCT01422213|191501821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.0001
95765583|NCT01422213|191501821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.65||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on the FAS, the CGI-I Score was analysed using the MMRM with an unstructured covariance structure. The model included terms for grouped site and treatment-by-visit interaction.||-0.65|-1.06|<0.0001
95765584|NCT01422213|191501822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.33||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.44|0.0002
95765585|NCT01422213|191501822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.21||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.21|2.26|<0.0001
95765586|NCT01422213|191501823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.41||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|1.29|0.0030
95765587|NCT01422213|191501823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.03||Wald's Test. No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|1.95|<0.0001
95765588|NCT01422213|191501824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|0.01|0.0393
95765589|NCT01422213|191501825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.36||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.10|0.0007
95765590|NCT01422213|191501825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|0.02|0.0246
95765591|NCT00951496|191501827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm II reduces the progression free survival event rate 20%. The critical p-value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance Threshold = 0.027|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival of arm II relative to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual size.|P value.(an P value is used to determine statistical significance in a hypothesis test). from a stratified log rank test to assess equality of progression free survival hazards of arm II and arm I||1.09|0.81|0.341
95859907|NCT00740857|191678187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
95859908|NCT00740857|191678187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||0.001
95859909|NCT00740857|191678187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
95859910|NCT00740857|191678188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.118
95765592|NCT00951496|191501827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study was designed to provide 80% power when arm III reduced the true progression free survival event rate. 20% compared to arm I. Critical p value accounts for correlation between 2 primary hypotheses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||P value not adjusted for multiplicity. Significance threshold = 0.027 accounting for 2 correlated primary hypotheses.|Log Rank|Stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease.|Progression free survival hazard of arm III to arm I. Adjusted for stage of disease and residual disease size.|P value from a log rank test comparing the progression free survival hazards of arm III to arm I.||1.15|0.86|0.587
95765593|NCT01875978|191501836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value \<0.05 is significance meaningful.|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols improve metabolic status||||<0.05
95765594|NCT01875978|191501837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Hypothesis: phytosterols increase the anti-oxidative capacity.||||<0.05
95765595|NCT01875978|191501838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t test, 1 sided||Phytosterols increase IGF-1||||<0.05
95765596|NCT01875978|191501839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value \<0.05 for statistical significance|t-test, 1 sided|Student's t-test, 1 sided||Hypothesis:phytosterols increase endothelial progenitor cells to provide endothelial repair and vessel protection||||<0.05
95765597|NCT04782076|191501840|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean (LS Mean)||||1.55|1.33|
95765598|NCT04782076|191501841|OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|1.30|
95765599|NCT02189837|191501854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|88.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.67||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.73|161.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||161.80|15.73|0.018
95765600|NCT02189837|191501854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|236.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.02|308.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||308.69|164.02|<0.001
95765601|NCT02189837|191501854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|147.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|250.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||250.38|44.80|0.005
95765602|NCT02189837|191501855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|-65.91|-48.38|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-48.38|-65.91|<0.001
95765603|NCT02189837|191501855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-29.34|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-29.34|-46.55|<0.001
95765604|NCT02189837|191501855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|31.47|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||31.47|6.93|0.003
95765605|NCT02189837|191501856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.37|4.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||4.08|-37.37|0.11
95765606|NCT02189837|191501856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-12.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-12.13|-53.19|0.002
95765607|NCT02189837|191501856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-16.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.65||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|13.16|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||13.16|-45.18|0.28
95765608|NCT02189837|191501857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|24.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The superiority of evolocumab monotherapy to placebo was tested using a 2-sided p-value at a significance level of 0.05.||24.70|-28.94|0.87
95765609|NCT02189837|191501857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|39.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.76||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.52|64.59|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||The treatment effect of evolocumab plus atorvastatin compared with placebo plus atorvastatin was estimated and a nominal p-value is provided.||64.59|13.52|0.003
95859911|NCT00740857|191678188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60....||||<0.001
95859912|NCT00740857|191678189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.041
95859913|NCT00740857|191678189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
95765610|NCT02189837|191501857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|41.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|78.2|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||To assess whether the treatment effect of evolocumab compared with placebo depended on being administered alone or combined with atorvastatin, the interaction was tested, i.e., the difference between the treatment difference versus the respective placebo group for the evolocumab+atorvastatin group and the evolocumab group was calculated.||78.20|4.15|0.030
95765611|NCT02189837|191501858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-16.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||-16.21|-62.66|0.001
95765612|NCT02189837|191501858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|45.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||45.40|1.16|0.039
95765613|NCT02189837|191501858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|62.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.65|94.79|||ANCOVA|Model includes terms for the 2 factors in the factorial design (placebo or evolocumab and oral placebo or statin), their interaction, and LDL-C level.||||94.79|30.65|<0.001
95765614|NCT01328184|191501878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.58|108.35|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||108.35|97.58|
95765615|NCT01328184|191501879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|105.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.47|98.54|
95765616|NCT01328184|191501880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|105.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||105.39|93.40|
95765617|NCT01328184|191501881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as Microgynon plus empa divided by Microgynon|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.47|112.55|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed term for treatment and random term for subject.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.||112.55|99.47|
95803471|NCT01028391|191580441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||||95.0|-16.3|-0.7|||||This is a difference in least squares means, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and baseline (i.e., Week 0 of the 24-week base study) FPG.|||-0.7|-16.3|
95803472|NCT03211858|191580451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR341402 over NovoLog/NovoRapid was demonstrated if upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \<0.3%. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, using a hierarchical step down testing procedure, the inverse non-inferiority of NovoLog/NovoRapid over SAR341402 was tested and was demonstrated if lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between SAR341402 and NovoLog/NovoRapid was \> -0.3%.|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.039|||||SAR341402 vs NovoLog/NovoRapid|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group (SAR341402, NovoLog/NovoRapid), the randomization strata of geographical region, type of diabetes and prior use of NovoLog/NovoRapid as fixed categorical effects, as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c value.||0.039|-0.192|
95803473|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 18 to 34||0.01|0.01|
95803474|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.01|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 35 to 44||0.01|0.01|
95803475|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 45 to 54||0.04|0.03|
95803476|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 55 to 64||0.09|0.07|
95803477|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age 65 to 74||0.14|0.11|
95859914|NCT00740857|191678190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|With treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
95859915|NCT00740857|191678191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||15 minutes||||0.056
95962527|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.7|0.6|0.5500
95962528|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
95962529|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 0||4.6|0.6|0.5263
95765618|NCT04199104|191501896|SUPERIORITY||point estimate|19.3||||1.9e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||27.3|11.2|0.0000019
95765619|NCT04199104|191501897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0001129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.55|0.0001129
95765620|NCT04199104|191501898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8819584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.91|0.8819584
95765621|NCT05120193|191501902|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.05. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the upper 95% confidence bound for the difference (QI - QC) between the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the investigational arm (QI) and the rate of the primary safety endpoint in the control arm (QC). If the upper confidence bound is less than 0.08, the study is considered to have demonstrated safety of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.037|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) for the primary safety analysis is that the true rate of primary safety events for the investigational device (QI) is equal to or greater than the true rate for the control device (QC) plus a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of 0.08. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the rate of primary safety events for the investigational arm (QI) is less than the rate of primary safety events for the control arm (QC) plus the NIM of 0.08.~H0: QI ≥ QC + 0.08 HA: QI \< QC + 0.08"||0.037|-0.028|<0.0001
95765622|NCT05120193|191501903|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary effectiveness analysis (PSE) is performed at a one-sided Type I error rate of α = 0.025. The Farrington-Manning method is used to calculate the lower 97.5% confidence bound for the difference (PI - PC) between the rate of the PSE in the investigational arm (PI) and the rate of the PSE in the control arm (PC). If the lower confidence bound is greater than -0.15, the study is considered to have demonstrated effectiveness of the investigational device.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.168|||Farrington-Manning|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the true rate of primary effectiveness endpoint success (no failures through Day 360) for the investigational device (PI) is less than or equal to the true rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15. The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the success rate for the investigational arm (PI) is greater than the success rate for the control device (PC) minus the NIM of 0.15.~H0: PI ≤ PC - 0.15 HA: PI \> PC - 0.15"||0.168|-0.009|0.025
95765623|NCT05120193|191501904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-26.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean total energy application time during the ablation procedure for the investigational device (ETI) is greater than or equal to the mean time for the control device (ETC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean total energy application time for the investigational device is less.~H0: ETI ≥ ETC versus HA: ETI \< ETC"||-26.8|-31.7|<0.0001
95765624|NCT05120193|191501905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device (TTI) is greater than or equal to the mean treatment time for the control device (TTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean treatment time for the investigational device is less.~H0: TTI ≥ TTC versus HA: TTI \< TTC"||-21.4|-32.2|<0.0001
95765625|NCT05120193|191501906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device (PTI) is greater than or equal to the mean procedure time for the control device (PTC). The alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the mean procedure time for the investigational device is less.~H0: PTI ≥ PTC versus HA: PTI \< PTC"||-17.3|-33.0|0.025
95765626|NCT00070564|191501914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|1.04|0.022
95765627|NCT00070564|191501914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.98|0.072
95765628|NCT00070564|191501914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.87|0.38
95765629|NCT00070564|191501914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95765630|NCT00070564|191501914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.61|0.733
95803478|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.21|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Age ≥75||0.21|0.15|
95803479|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 18 to 34||0.13|0.06|
95765631|NCT00070564|191501915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.93|||Log Rank|||||1.93|1.08|0.013
95859916|NCT00740857|191678191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||The 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300 and 360 minute individual time points all have the same P-value score.||||<0.001
95765632|NCT00070564|191501915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|1.09|0.011
95765633|NCT00070564|191501915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.91|0.17
95765634|NCT00070564|191501915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
95765635|NCT00070564|191501915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|0.54|0.724
95765636|NCT00070564|191501917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment differences.||||0.67
95765637|NCT00070564|191501917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.42
95765638|NCT00070564|191501918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.90
95765639|NCT00070564|191501918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.52
95803480|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 35 to 44||0.16|0.08|
95859917|NCT00740857|191678192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
95962401|NCT03607422|191896611|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|17.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.6|9.2|<0.001
95765640|NCT00070564|191501919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.076
95765641|NCT00070564|191501919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.018
95765642|NCT00070564|191501920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.062
95765643|NCT00070564|191501920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.010
95765644|NCT00070564|191501921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences.||||0.69
95765645|NCT00070564|191501921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.66
95765646|NCT00070564|191501922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||Test of overall treatment differences||||0.40
95765647|NCT00070564|191501922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Test of interaction of two treatments: AC and paclitaxel.||||0.28
95765648|NCT04796961|191501939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||||||||0.7|0.1|
95765649|NCT04796961|191501940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||||||smoking screening||1.1|-0.1|
95803481|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 45 to 54||0.45|0.30|
95803482|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|5.47|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age 65 to 74||5.47|2.68|
95803483|NCT01260324|191580469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Age ≥75||8.22|4.00|
95803484|NCT01260324|191580470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Female||0.05|0.04|
95803485|NCT01260324|191580470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Male||0.06|0.05|
95962530|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
95765650|NCT04796961|191501940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||readiness to quit assessments||1.2|-0.1|
95765651|NCT04796961|191501940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||||||smoking cessation counseling||2.0|0.8|
95765652|NCT04796961|191501940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||||||smoking cessation pharmacotherapy||1.7|-0.5|
95765653|NCT02513160|191501985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|150.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|213.2||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||213.2|86.8|<0.0001
95765654|NCT02513160|191501985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.7|206.6||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means, 95% CI, and p-value represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was implemented to interpret the results from the primary analysis while controlling the family-wise error rate at 5%. The 640-mcg/day BAI dose was tested first. If the comparison to placebo resulted in p≤0.05, the 320-mcg/day BAI dose was then tested.||206.6|80.7|<0.0001
95765655|NCT02513160|191501985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|148.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.7|211.4||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05. The p-value was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Difference of LS means and 95% CI represent ANCOVA results adjusted for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, and treatment.|Active - placebo|||211.4|84.7|<0.0001
95803486|NCT01260324|191580470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.22|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Male||2.22|1.50|
95803487|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2003||0.05|0.04|
95803488|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2004||0.05|0.04|
95803489|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2005||0.05|0.04|
95803490|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2006||0.05|0.04|
95859918|NCT00740857|191678193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
95765656|NCT02513160|191501986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|33.71||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Treatment comparisons began with am PEF for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo. If the p-value was ≤0.05, the next comparisons of interest were made 1) the next secondary outcome comparison for BAI 640 mcg/day vs placebo 2) the am PEF for BAI 320 mcg/day vs placebo. This procedure allowed for control of the Type I error for comparisons at a particular BAI treatment over the 5 secondary endpoints, as well as comparisons within an endpoint. It did not control the overall Type I error.||33.71|10.11|0.0003
95765657|NCT02513160|191501986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|41.9||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in previous analysis.||41.90|18.33|<0.0001
95765658|NCT02513160|191501986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|32.83||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||32.83|9.14|0.0006
95765659|NCT02513160|191501987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|143.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|214.1||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||214.1|71.7|<0.0001
95765660|NCT02513160|191501987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|170.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|240.5||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||240.5|98.5|<0.0001
95765661|NCT02513160|191501987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|133.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|204.3||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||204.3|61.3|0.0003
95803491|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Year 2007||0.05|0.04|
95765662|NCT02513160|191501988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.64||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.640|-1.408|<0.0001
95765663|NCT02513160|191501988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|-0.717||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.717|-1.482|<0.0001
95765664|NCT02513160|191501988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.415|-0.643||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.643|-1.415|<0.0001
95765665|NCT02513160|191501989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.203||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.203|-0.440|<0.0001
95803492|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2004||0.96|0.61|
95765666|NCT02513160|191501989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.365|-0.128||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Sequential order of analyses described in Outcome #2, analysis #1.||-0.128|-0.365|<0.0001
95962030|NCT00667459|191896052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.118||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the success rates of NDI in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null noninferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational group will be claimed for this endpoint."||0.118|-0.020|1.0
95803493|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2005||0.91|0.58|
95859919|NCT00740857|191678194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||proportional hazards model|Adjusted with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), and gender terms.||||||<0.001
95962531|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.8|0.4|1.0000
95993914|NCT03158220|191963639|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||1.4|-6.4|0.212
95803494|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2006||1.12|0.68|
95803495|NCT01260324|191580471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Year 2007||1.19|0.72|
95803496|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Northeast||0.06|0.04|
95803497|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Midwest||0.05|0.04|
95803498|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate South||0.06|0.05|
95803499|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.05|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate West||0.05|0.04|
95803500|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Northeast||0.56|0.31|
95803501|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Midwest||0.84|0.56|
95803502|NCT01260324|191580472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio West||0.93|0.57|
95803503|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diabetes||0.10|0.08|
95803504|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Smoking||0.14|0.08|
95803505|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Obesity||0.06|0.03|
95803506|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.09|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Nitrates||0.09|0.06|
95803507|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Anti-platelet agents||0.18|0.12|
95803508|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Diuretics||0.17|0.09|
95803509|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||0.04|0.01|
95803510|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.25|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diabetes||2.25|1.47|
95803511|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.85|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Smoking||2.85|0.63|
95803512|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Obesity||0.81|0.23|
95859920|NCT03532451|191678201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||Null hypothesis is the change in CD8+ cell density is not significantly different from zero.||||0.08
95803513|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Nitrates||0.94|0.42|
95803514|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.94|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Anti-platelet agents||2.94|1.53|
95803515|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.43|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Diuretics||3.43|1.46|
95803516|NCT01260324|191580473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.04|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Recent PDE-5 inhibitors use||1.04|0.31|
95859921|NCT03532451|191678201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.002
95859922|NCT03532451|191678202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.88
95993915|NCT03158220|191963640|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.4|||||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||3.4|-7.3|
95765667|NCT02513160|191501989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.185||a priori threshold for significance of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|MMRM analysis with covariates for baseline, sex, age, current asthma therapy, treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction.|Active - placebo|Comparisons for MDI dose versus placebo for the secondary efficacy endpoints were used for assay sensitivity.||-0.185|-0.423|<0.0001
95765668|NCT02513160|191501990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0058
95765669|NCT02513160|191501990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0014
95765670|NCT02513160|191501990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0062
95765671|NCT02059512|191501997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.24
95765672|NCT02059512|191501998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of hospital stay.||||0.1
95765673|NCT02059512|191501998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Length of stay in the intensive care unit.||||0.1
95765674|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4
95765675|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 0-6 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.8
95803517|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other retinal disorders||0.39|0.28|
95803518|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.16|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Glaucoma||0.16|0.11|
95803519|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.41|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Cataract||0.41|0.08|
95803520|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Visual disturbances||1.17|0.83|
95765676|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 12-18 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.9
95765677|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 18-24 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.2
95765678|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 48 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.5
95859923|NCT00912197|191678233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.135
95765679|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 72 hours of the postoperative period.||||0.4
95765680|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 96 hours of the postoperative period/||||0.6
95765681|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 7 days of the postoperative period.||||0.4
95765682|NCT02059512|191501999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis of leukocytes 14 days of the postoperative period.||||0.5
95765683|NCT02059512|191502000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP initially.||||0.1
95765684|NCT02059512|191502000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 4-6 days.||||0.4
95765685|NCT02059512|191502000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CRP postoperative 12-14 days.||||0.99
95765686|NCT02059512|191502001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the first day after surgery.||||0.2
95765687|NCT02059512|191502001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||The volume of discharge through the drains on the second day after the operation.||||0.3
95765688|NCT02059512|191502002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 1.||||0.6
95765689|NCT02059512|191502002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Troponin I postoperative day 3.||||0.4
95765690|NCT02059512|191502002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 1.||||0.8
95765691|NCT02059512|191502002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Myoglobin postoperative day 3.||||0.7
95765692|NCT02059512|191502003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 1.||||0.7
95765693|NCT02059512|191502003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||CPK-MB postoperative day 3.||||0.8
95765694|NCT02059512|191502004|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass(CPB).||||1.0
95765695|NCT02059512|191502004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Hb at the end of the operation.||||0.4
95765696|NCT02059512|191502005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.8
95765697|NCT02059512|191502005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||HCT at the end of the operation.||||0.3
95765698|NCT02059512|191502006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ intraoperatively before turning off the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).||||0.4
95765699|NCT02059512|191502006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||K+ at the end of the operation.||||0.1
95765700|NCT02059512|191502007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
95765701|NCT02059512|191502008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
95765702|NCT02059512|191502009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydrothorax / postoperative period.||||0.6
95765703|NCT02059512|191502009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydropericardium / postoperative period.||||0.2
95765704|NCT02059512|191502009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Resternotomy / postoperative period.||||0.6
95765705|NCT02059512|191502009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial fibrillation / postoperative period.||||0.06
95765706|NCT02059512|191502009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial flutter / postoperative period.||||0.06
95803521|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.46|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Blindness and low vision||2.46|1.60|
95859924|NCT00912197|191678234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.688
95765707|NCT02059512|191502010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.4
95765708|NCT02059512|191502011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic size index.||||0.5
95765709|NCT02059512|191502011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.5
95765710|NCT02059512|191502011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - Left Atrial Size Index Assessment.||||0.6
95765711|NCT02059512|191502012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - Evaluation of the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.4
95765712|NCT02059512|191502012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Evaluation of the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESV MOD BP ind.)||||0.3
95765713|NCT02059512|191502013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95765714|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Physical Functioning SF-36. Comparison of patients of group 1 and group 2 with the control group - group 0.||||0.7
95765715|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role-Physical Functioning SF-36||||0.8
95765716|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Bodily pain SF-36||||0.7
95803522|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.23|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of eye||0.23|0.16|
95962532|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||2.7|0.4|1.0000
95765717|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||General Health SF-36.||||0.6
95765718|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Vitality SF-36.||||0.8
95803523|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.27|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||0.27|0.18|
95803524|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Acute sinusitis||0.08|0.05|
95803525|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other dermatoses||0.08|0.05|
95859925|NCT00912197|191678235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||after treatment, 56 days||||0.715
95765719|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Social Functioning SF-36.||||0.7
95859926|NCT00912197|191678236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
95765720|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Role- Emotional SF-36.||||0.7
95765721|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Mental Health SF-36.||||0.96
95765722|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Minnesota Quality of Life (MHFLQ).||||0.7
95765723|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Seattle QuestionnairePhysical limitation.||||0.6
95765724|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina stability.||||0.4
95765725|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireAngina frequency.||||0.6
95765726|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaireTreatment satisfaction.||||0.7
95765727|NCT02059512|191502015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||SeattleQuestionnaire Disease perception.||||0.3
95765728|NCT02059512|191502016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95765729|NCT02059512|191502017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95765730|NCT02059512|191502018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||||||0.35
95765731|NCT02059512|191502019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvd ind. (Lvd mm./BSA) - left ventricular end-diastolic size index. All patients included in the study.||||0.2
95765732|NCT02059512|191502019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Lvs ind. (Lvs mm./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic size index.||||0.2
95765733|NCT02059512|191502019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LAind. (LA mm./BSA kg / cm) - left atrial index.||||0.5
95765734|NCT02059512|191502020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVEDV MOD BP ind. (LVEDV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-diastolic volume index.||||0.6
95765735|NCT02059512|191502020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||LVESV MOD BP ind. (LVESV MOD BP ml./BSA kg / cm) - left ventricular end-systolic volume index.||||0.2
95765736|NCT02059512|191502021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow||||0.35
95765737|NCT02059512|191502021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak A of transmitral flow.||||0.7
95765738|NCT02059512|191502022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||Peak E of transmitral flow/ Peak A of transmitral flow (E/A).||||0.5
95765739|NCT02059512|191502023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||DT (Half-time of wave E).||||0.9
95765740|NCT02059512|191502023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||RepeatedMeasures ANOVA|||time of isovolumic relaxation of the left ventricle||||0.9
95765741|NCT02059512|191502024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0367
95765742|NCT02059512|191502025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Assessment of the functioning of grafts. Patency of grafts within a specified time of treatment (angiography).||||0.04
95765743|NCT02059512|191502026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95765744|NCT02059512|191502027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||||||0.05
95765745|NCT02059512|191502028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||Mononuclear fraction %||||0.05
95803526|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other disorders of bone and cartilage||0.10|0.06|
95803527|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Symptoms involving head and neck||0.14|0.10|
95803528|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability of having NAION predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Other ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||0.18|0.10|
95803529|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|9.38|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other retinal disorders||9.38|4.72|
95803530|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Glaucoma||3.81|1.77|
95803531|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.68|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Cataract||1.68|1.02|
95803532|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.3|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Visual disturbances||19.30|10.40|
95859927|NCT00912197|191678236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.007
95803533|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|34.5|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Blindness and low vision||34.50|6.60|
95803534|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.82|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of eye||2.82|1.44|
95803535|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.31|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries||2.31|0.64|
95962031|NCT00667459|191896052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.912
95962533|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.7|0.2|0.5321
95803536|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Acute sinusitis||1.74|0.96|
95803537|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other dermatoses||1.77|1.02|
95803538|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Other disorders of bone and cartilage||1.77|0.98|
95803539|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.84|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Symptoms involving head and neck||1.84|1.02|
95803540|NCT01260324|191580474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.49|||||Odds ratio derived from covariate-adjusted logisitic regression model and adjusted for all other covariates in the table.|Odds ratio Ill defined and unknown causes of morbidity and mortality||2.49|1.08|
95803541|NCT01260324|191580475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Recent use||0.07|0.03|
95859928|NCT00912197|191678236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to after treatment, at 56 days||||0.05
95859929|NCT00912197|191678240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||Acetate||||0.024
95859930|NCT00756613|191678246|EQUIVALENCE|We considered a 20% reduction in primary events to be a reasonable goal of intensive glycemic control over the anticipated 15-year study time period. This effect size was chosen by taking into consideration both the probability of observing an effect of that size given the level of achieved A1c separation, and the perceived value to the patient of this level of benefit relative to the risk and burden of intensive glycemic control.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the long term effects of intensive glycemic control in type 2 diabetes on major cardiovascular events.||1.06|0.78|0.24
95859931|NCT00756613|191678247|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is expected 20% reduction for the intensive treatment group compared to the standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.88|0.81
95962534|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.9|0.3|0.9983
95803542|NCT01260324|191580475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Any use (includes chronic and non-chronic use)||0.08|0.04|
95765746|NCT02059512|191502028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Discriminant Analysis|Data were analyzed by 1, 2, and 3 sections according to the study design.||CD34+ %||||0.057
95765747|NCT02059512|191502028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Discriminant Analysis|||CD133+ %||||0.05
95765748|NCT02059512|191502029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Factor analysis|||Factor analysis - determining the influence of a factor, in this case, smoking, on the deficit in the number of meters passed according to the test with a 6-minute walk.||||0.046
95765749|NCT03349060|191502035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|24.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|6.8|0.0037
95765750|NCT03349060|191502035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|45.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.7|26.2|<0.0001
95765751|NCT03349060|191502036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|38.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.3|17.4|<0.0001
95765752|NCT03349060|191502036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|61.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.5|40.5|<0.0001
95765753|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.8|10.2|0.0004
95803543|NCT01260324|191580475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Chronic use||0.08|0.03|
95803544|NCT01260324|191580475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Non-chronic use||0.11|0.03|
95765754|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||51.4|33.6|<0.0001
95765755|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|1.9|0.0251
95765756|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||54.4|27.8|<0.0001
95765757|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||32.7|7.4|0.0019
95803545|NCT01260324|191580475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incidence rate per 1000 person-years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.1|||||Standardized to the quintiles of the probability predicted by all the other risk factors of NAION among the Controls.|Incidence rate Never use||0.10|0.08|
95803546|NCT01160744|191580491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.1318
95803547|NCT01160744|191580491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.64|0.5215
95803548|NCT01160744|191580492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.78|||Chi-squared|||||2.78|0.90|0.1797
95803549|NCT01160744|191580492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.45|4.86|||Chi-squared|||||4.86|1.45|0.0070
95803550|NCT01160744|191580493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.74|0.8916
95765758|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|57.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.8|32.7|<0.0001
95765759|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||34.8|10.3|0.0003
95803551|NCT01160744|191580493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6847
95803552|NCT01160744|191580496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|1.22|0.0316
95803553|NCT01160744|191580496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.74|0.3962
95765760|NCT03349060|191502037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.9|29.6|<0.0001
95765761|NCT03349060|191502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.3||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||25.2|7.4|0.0055
95803554|NCT01160744|191580497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1571
95803555|NCT01160744|191580497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1597
95803556|NCT02123511|191580518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1232|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1232
95803557|NCT02123511|191580519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0422
95803558|NCT02123511|191580520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5634
95803559|NCT02123511|191580521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95803560|NCT02123511|191580522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.22
95859932|NCT00756613|191678248|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 20% reduction of intensive treatment group versus standard treatment group.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.67|0.48
95803561|NCT02123511|191580523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95803562|NCT02123511|191580524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
95803563|NCT02123511|191580525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
95803564|NCT02123511|191580526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.48
95803565|NCT02123511|191580527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3824|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3824
95803566|NCT02462057|191580531|EQUIVALENCE|The anticipated sample size of 3500 provided 80% power to detect a 3% pairwise difference between the proportions of participants who enrolled in HF with significance testing conducted at the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.005 (0.05/10) to account for the 10 pairwise between-arm comparisons and pessimistically allowing for up to 10% further exclusions. The baseline monthly enrolment rate was estimated at ∼1%/month.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95803567|NCT01791205|191580552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.538||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|19.33||The relation between retention rate and duration of disease for phase II was estimated with the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The relation between retention rate and DAS28 (\<2.6 vs \<3.2) was assayed with the Cox regression.||19.33|0.65|0.1194
95803568|NCT01791205|191580553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.3895
95803569|NCT01791205|191580554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.211||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.086|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.086|0.703|0.4900
95803570|NCT01791205|191580555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Delta|-0.042||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.167|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.167|-0.251|0.6908
95803571|NCT01791205|191580556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||||0.0210
95803572|NCT01697501|191580589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||univariate logistic analysis|||||2.57|0.29|0.7831
95803573|NCT01697501|191580590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.67|||univariate logistic analysis|||||7.67|0.66|0.1951
95803574|NCT01697501|191580591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.2642
95803575|NCT01697501|191580592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi Square|||||||0.0672
95859933|NCT00756613|191678250|EQUIVALENCE|T-test comparing between the two groups of treatment using the average score of last two surveys.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
95803576|NCT00215553|191580668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.794
95803577|NCT00215553|191580668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.236
95803578|NCT00215553|191580668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.396
95803579|NCT00215553|191580669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.346
95803580|NCT00215553|191580669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.286
95803581|NCT00215553|191580669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.964
95803582|NCT00215553|191580670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.028
95803583|NCT00215553|191580670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.147
95803584|NCT00215553|191580670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on ranks||||||0.293
95803585|NCT04913675|191580776|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM dose versus 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A post-hoc weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|3.26|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.26|-1.15|
95803586|NCT04913675|191580776|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of 500 mg IM vs 500 mg IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5 percent (%) on the risk difference scale. A pre-specified daily imputation algorithm imputed the missing outcome iteratively for each study day starting with Day 2 and ending at Day 29.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|3.56|||||Analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identity link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old) and gender (male, female) as covariates.|||3.56|-1.23|
95859934|NCT04901715|191678251|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95859935|NCT04901715|191678251|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
95859936|NCT04901715|191678251|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
95859937|NCT04901715|191678252|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.014
95803587|NCT04913675|191580794|NON_INFERIORITY|This outcome measure was analyzed using a hypothetical estimand and assessing non-inferiority of IM dose versus IV using a non-inferiority margin of 3.5% on the risk difference scale. Weekly imputation algorithm imputes the missing outcome iteratively for each week, where missing outcomes at Day 8, 15, 22, 29 are imputed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.28|||||Post-hoc analysis was performed using a binomial regression model with identify link function and with treatment (Sotrovimab 500 mg IM, 500 mg IV), age (\<65, \>-65 years old), and sex (male, female) as covariates.|||3.28|-1.56|
95803588|NCT04913675|191580797|EQUIVALENCE|IM dose was assessed for equivalence to IV based on the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment ratio falling within equivalence bounds of 0.5 to 2.0.|Ratio of least square(LS) geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||||LS geometric mean was calculated for 500mg IV versus IM by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment group (sotrovimab 500mg IM, 500mg IV), age (\<65, =\>65 years old), gender (male, female) and Baseline viral load as covariates.|||1.07|1.00|
95803589|NCT06025695|191580865|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroconversion rate between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-0.55|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rate between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of seroconversion rates 1 month post-Dose 2.||-0.55|-6.93|
95803590|NCT06025695|191580866|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA Ab GMC between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||The comparison is done using the group GMC ratio (HRV PCV-free/HRV) (ANOVA model applied to the log10-transformed titers). The ANOVA model included the group as a fixed effect.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of serum anti-RV IgA Ab concentrations 1 month post-Dose 2.||0.84|0.60|
95803591|NCT06025695|191580867|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in the percentage between the HRV PCV-free group and HRV group is greater than or equal to -10%.|Difference in percentage|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|-1.92|||||The asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in in the percentage between HRV PCV-free Group minus HRV Group is computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of HRV PCV-free Group as compared to HRV Group in terms of percentage of participants with anti-RV IgA antibody concentrations \>=90 U/mL 1 month post-Dose 2.||-1.92|-10.81|
95803592|NCT03572218|191580885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95803593|NCT03572218|191580886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
95803594|NCT03572218|191580887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.03
95803595|NCT03572218|191580887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.02
95803596|NCT03572218|191580887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.19
95803597|NCT03572218|191580888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.11
95803598|NCT03572218|191580888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.03
95803599|NCT03572218|191580888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.53
95803600|NCT03572218|191580889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95803601|NCT03572218|191580890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95803602|NCT03572218|191580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.84
95803603|NCT03572218|191580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.82
95803604|NCT03572218|191580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.39
95803605|NCT03572218|191580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.42
95803606|NCT03572218|191580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.64
95803607|NCT03572218|191580891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.59
95803608|NCT03572218|191580892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite for Total score||||0.58
95803609|NCT03572218|191580892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Physical Function Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.89
95803610|NCT03572218|191580892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Self Esteem Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.90
95859938|NCT04901715|191678252|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.066
95859939|NCT04901715|191678252|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
95765762|NCT03349060|191502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||53.6|33.1|<0.0001
95765763|NCT03349060|191502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.5||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||28.0|-3.0|0.1138
95993916|NCT03158220|191963641|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as % Women 27-45 Years of Age minus % Women 16-26 Years of Age.|||0.9|-3.1|0.300
95765764|NCT03349060|191502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||57.4|26.2|<0.0001
95765765|NCT03349060|191502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||42.1|15.3|<0.0001
95765766|NCT03349060|191502038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.||61.1|34.6|<0.0001
95765767|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares (LS) mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
95765768|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
95765769|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
95765770|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.8|<0.0001
95765771|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.5|0.0035
95765772|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|<0.0001
95765773|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0010
95803611|NCT03572218|191580892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Sexual Life Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.16
95803612|NCT03572218|191580892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Work Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.68
95803613|NCT03572218|191580892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean change score on the Public Distress Subscale of the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite||||0.72
95803614|NCT03572218|191580893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95803615|NCT03572218|191580894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95803616|NCT03572218|191580895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95803617|NCT03572218|191580896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95803618|NCT03572218|191580897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
95803619|NCT03572218|191580898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95803620|NCT03572218|191580899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95993917|NCT01015833|191963684|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.4|0.8|0.24
95993918|NCT01015833|191963686|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.2|0.72|0.98
95962535|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.1|0.2|0.8234
95962536|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.7|0.2|0.9882
95765774|NCT03349060|191502039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.7|<0.0001
95765775|NCT03349060|191502040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0002
95765776|NCT03349060|191502040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-3.0|<0.0001
95765777|NCT03349060|191502041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||0.0071
95765778|NCT03349060|191502041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was controlled by randomization strata.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95765779|NCT03349060|191502042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.3|-0.3|0.0869
95765780|NCT03349060|191502042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.6|12.0|0.0001
95765781|NCT03349060|191502042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.6|2.6|0.0259
95765782|NCT03349060|191502042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|44.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.2|21.7|<0.0001
95765783|NCT03349060|191502042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|25.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|14.2|0.0001
95765784|NCT03349060|191502042|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|44.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|55.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|33.6|<0.0001
95765785|NCT03349060|191502043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-0.7|0.0802
95803621|NCT03572218|191580900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95803622|NCT03572218|191580901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
95803623|NCT03572218|191580902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95803624|NCT03572218|191580903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.94
95803625|NCT03572218|191580903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.64
95803626|NCT03572218|191580904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.58
95765786|NCT03349060|191502043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.8||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|15.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.7|4.0|0.0045
95803627|NCT03572218|191580904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.49
95803628|NCT03572218|191580904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.96
95803629|NCT03572218|191580904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.71
95803630|NCT03572218|191580904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.41
95803631|NCT03572218|191580905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.61
95803632|NCT03572218|191580905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.73
95803633|NCT03572218|191580905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.94
95803634|NCT03572218|191580905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.47
95803635|NCT03572218|191580905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.99
95803636|NCT03572218|191580906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95803637|NCT03572218|191580907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95803638|NCT03572218|191580908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95803639|NCT03572218|191580909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95803640|NCT03572218|191580910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.83
95803641|NCT03572218|191580910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
95803642|NCT03572218|191580910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.30
95803643|NCT03572218|191580910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.99
95803644|NCT03572218|191580910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.36
95803645|NCT03572218|191580911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.30
95803646|NCT03572218|191580911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.69
95803647|NCT03572218|191580911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.70
95803648|NCT03572218|191580911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.26
95803649|NCT03572218|191580911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.18
95803650|NCT03572218|191580912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.69
95803651|NCT03572218|191580912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.28
95803652|NCT03572218|191580912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.02
95803653|NCT03572218|191580913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.29
95803654|NCT03572218|191580913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.34
95803655|NCT03572218|191580913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.001
95803656|NCT03572218|191580914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95803657|NCT03572218|191580915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95803658|NCT03572218|191580916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95803659|NCT03572218|191580917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
95803660|NCT03572218|191580918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.46
95803661|NCT03572218|191580918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.12
95803662|NCT03572218|191580918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.42
95803663|NCT03572218|191580918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.03
95803664|NCT03572218|191580919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
95803665|NCT03572218|191580919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.90
95803666|NCT03572218|191580919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.36
95803667|NCT03572218|191580919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.29
95803668|NCT03572218|191580920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95803669|NCT03572218|191580921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-Total||||0.27
95803670|NCT03572218|191580921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-SD||||0.13
95803671|NCT03572218|191580921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||WSSQ-FNE||||0.65
95803672|NCT03572218|191580922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95803673|NCT03572218|191580923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
95803674|NCT03572218|191580924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
95803675|NCT03572218|191580925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95803676|NCT03572218|191580926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total||||0.81
95803677|NCT03572218|191580926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.86
95803678|NCT03572218|191580926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self Esteem||||0.87
95803679|NCT03572218|191580926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sexual Life||||0.73
95803680|NCT03572218|191580926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work||||0.95
95803681|NCT03572218|191580926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Public Distress||||0.19
95803682|NCT03572218|191580927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
95803683|NCT03572218|191580928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95803684|NCT03572218|191580929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95803685|NCT03572218|191580930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Systolic Blood Pressure||||0.71
95803686|NCT03572218|191580930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||||0.72
95803687|NCT03572218|191580931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95993919|NCT00996203|191963692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||EQ-5D scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803688|NCT03572218|191580932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Scale||||0.52
95803689|NCT03572218|191580932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Negative Affect||||0.02
95803690|NCT03572218|191580932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Maladaptive Eating||||0.63
95803691|NCT03572218|191580932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exercise Avoidance||||0.74
95803692|NCT03572218|191580932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Healthy Lifestyle||||0.49
95859940|NCT04301193|191678259|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Using standard techniques for estimating sample size, a Delong's test indicated that a total of 61 samples would be sufcient to detect a 0.2 increase in the AUROC from the null hypothesis 0.5, assuming an alpha level of 5% and 90% power \[12\]. The manuscript was referenced against the STROBE checklist for cohort studies. Descriptive statistics were used to present.||||<0.05
95993920|NCT00996203|191963695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||General health at baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803693|NCT03572218|191580933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95803694|NCT03572218|191580934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95803695|NCT03572218|191580935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global||||0.35
95803696|NCT03572218|191580935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Restraint||||0.46
95803697|NCT03572218|191580935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Eating Concern||||0.33
95803698|NCT03572218|191580935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight Concern||||0.18
95803699|NCT03572218|191580935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Shape Concern||||0.16
95803700|NCT03572218|191580936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Dietary Restraint||||0.82
95803701|NCT03572218|191580936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.45
95803702|NCT03572218|191580936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.007
95803703|NCT03572218|191580937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Self-Reported Weighing||||0.23
95803704|NCT03572218|191580937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Food/Drink||||0.48
95803705|NCT03572218|191580937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Calories||||0.89
95803706|NCT03572218|191580937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Track Activity||||0.30
95803707|NCT03572218|191580938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||BWL component||||0.32
95803708|NCT03572218|191580939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95803709|NCT02507284|191580941|NON_INFERIORITY|Results for the secondary safety endpoint, adverse events (AEs) in study subjects, was performed using a test for non-inferiority with a threshold of 0.50. The null hypothesis is that the treatment minus placebo proportion difference is greater than (or equal to) the margin of 0.50 and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference is less than 0.50.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.025||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
95803710|NCT01350973|191580942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2491|4.983||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||4.9830|-4.2491|0.8760
95803711|NCT01350973|191580942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9442|-6.7637||An ANCOVA model was employed, using the baseline triglyceride level as covariate and the treatment group as an independent variable.|ANCOVA|||||-6.7637|-15.9442|< 0.0001
95993921|NCT00996203|191963697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline Versus Week 24 DAS28 scores|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95993922|NCT00996203|191963699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Mean HAQ scores at Baseline Versus Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95803712|NCT06765889|191580973|OTHER||Bayes Factor (BF₁₀)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95803713|NCT06765889|191580976|OTHER||Mean (of both conditions)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95803714|NCT05033561|191580987|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
95803715|NCT05033561|191580987|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
95803716|NCT05033561|191580988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
95803717|NCT05033561|191580988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be verified if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI around each difference (shorter interval minus standard interval) is greater than -10%.||||||0.05||||||This is the nominal alpha level for the two-sided confidence interval comparison.|Miettinen-Nurminen|Pairwise comparisons with two-sided Miettinen-Nurminen confidence intervals.||This study was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Group A (1-week interval nOPV2 administration) and Group B (2-weeks interval nOPV2 administration) versus Group C (standard 4-week interval).||||0.05
95803718|NCT01557244|191581012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.0001
95803719|NCT01557244|191581012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
95803720|NCT01557244|191581012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline maximum cystometric bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||<.0001
95803721|NCT01557244|191581012|OTHER||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|-29.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.42|13.31||||||||13.31|-71.42|
95803722|NCT01557244|191581012|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|38.23||||||||38.23|-45.87|
95803723|NCT01557244|191581013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2334|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.2334
95859941|NCT04301193|191678259|OTHER||Correlation - R value|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95803724|NCT01557244|191581013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5087|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.5087
95962537|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||7.6|0.6|0.3778
95962538|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.1|0.4|0.9878
95803725|NCT01557244|191581013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3333|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline detrusor pressure at maximum bladder capacity and baseline weight.||||0.3333
95803726|NCT01557244|191581013|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|6.33||||||||6.33|-7.28|
95803727|NCT01557244|191581013|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|7.6||||||||7.60|-5.96|
95803728|NCT01557244|191581015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0336
95803729|NCT01557244|191581015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0327
95803730|NCT01557244|191581015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder volume at first IDC and baseline weight.||||0.0017
95803731|NCT01557244|191581015|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|27.19||||||||27.19|-48.75|
95803732|NCT01557244|191581015|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.15|19.64||||||||19.64|-50.15|
95803733|NCT01557244|191581016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0679
95803734|NCT01557244|191581016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.1233
95803735|NCT01557244|191581016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline bladder compliance and baseline weight.||||0.0019
95803736|NCT01557244|191581016|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|4.89||||||||4.89|-14.81|
95962539|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.3|0.5|0.8213
95803737|NCT01557244|191581016|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|3.95||||||||3.95|-15.85|
95803738|NCT01557244|191581017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0116
95803739|NCT01557244|191581017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0765
95803740|NCT01557244|191581017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0061
95859942|NCT00122980|191678269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Based on pilot data, the efficacy of hydroxyurea to reduce secondary stroke rate was not predicted to be equivalent to transfusions. Therefore, an increased stroke rate (non-inferiority margin = 0.20) was allowed by study design. This acceptable stroke margin was predicted to be offset by the likelihood of significantly greater improvement in the management of iron overload through elimination of transfusions along with serial phlebotomy in the Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy arm."||||||0.214||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20, the non-inferiority margin, AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation (see next primary endpoint analysis).||||0.214
95859943|NCT00122980|191678270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||The a priori defined LOCF approach was deemed to be biased due to the study's early termination, and was replaced by this mixed models analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Including main effects of age at consent, baseline iron, and treatment group, on observed change from baseline Log10 transformed values only.||Concluding that Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy group is better than the Transfusion/Chelation group required rejecting the STROKE null hypothesis (see previous primary endpoint analysis) in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy recurrent stroke rate is less than Transfusion/Chelation rate plus 0.20 AND rejecting the IRON null hypothesis in favor of the alternative: Hydroxyurea/Phlebotomy baseline-adjusted mean log10 transformed LIC is less than for Transfusion/Chelation.||||0.144
95962540|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||1.9|0.2|0.6716
95803741|NCT01557244|191581017|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.16|
95803742|NCT01557244|191581017|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.31||||||||1.31|-0.74|
95803743|NCT01557244|191581018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0787
95803744|NCT01557244|191581018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0727|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0727
95803745|NCT01557244|191581018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0666|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of catheterizations per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0666
95803746|NCT01557244|191581018|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||||||||0.54|-0.45|
95962541|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.5|0.2|0.9380
95993923|NCT02689492|191963758|OTHER||Intercept|68.5027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0355|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
95803747|NCT01557244|191581018|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.52||||||||0.52|-0.49|
95803748|NCT01557244|191581019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0111
95803749|NCT01557244|191581019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0171|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0171
95803750|NCT01557244|191581019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0028
95803751|NCT01557244|191581019|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.53|
95803752|NCT01557244|191581019|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.84||||||||0.84|-0.54|
95803753|NCT01557244|191581020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0496
95803754|NCT01557244|191581020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0002
95803755|NCT01557244|191581020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||<.0001
95803756|NCT01557244|191581020|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.09|
95803757|NCT01557244|191581020|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.77||||||||0.77|-0.52|
95803758|NCT01557244|191581021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.0298
95803759|NCT01557244|191581021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.1417
95765787|NCT03349060|191502043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.4|-1.9|0.1888
95765788|NCT03349060|191502043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|30.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|13.0|<0.0001
95765789|NCT03349060|191502043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.4|5.2|0.0071
95765790|NCT03349060|191502043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|38.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.7|19.8|<0.0001
95765791|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
95765792|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
95765793|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with event was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
95765794|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
95765795|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0592
95765796|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
95765797|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.3|1.7|0.0190
95803760|NCT01557244|191581021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6219|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline number of urgency episodes per 24 hours and baseline weight.||||0.6219
95962542|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.4|0.9777
95765798|NCT03349060|191502044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
95765799|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.1|13.9|<0.0001
95765800|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|34.7|<0.0001
95765801|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|45.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.4|21.6|<0.0001
95803761|NCT01557244|191581021|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.32||||||||0.32|-1.28|
95803762|NCT01557244|191581021|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.52||||||||0.52|-1.24|
95803763|NCT01557244|191581022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7986|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7986
95765802|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|64.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.2|41.2|<0.0001
95765803|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|46.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.3|21.9|<0.0001
95765804|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|64.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.6|41.3|<0.0001
95765805|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|47.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.4|23.3|<0.0001
95765806|NCT03349060|191502045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|65.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.0|42.0|<0.0001
95765807|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.2|-3.9|0.7285
95765808|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.2|-1.2|0.1448
95765809|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.9||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||10.5|-2.6|0.2576
95765810|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|28.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.9|12.0|0.0001
95765811|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.0||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|1.3|0.0423
95803764|NCT01557244|191581022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.2313
95803765|NCT01557244|191581022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7571|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition and baseline weight.||||0.7571
95803766|NCT01557244|191581022|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.11|42.0||||||||42.00|-42.11|
95803767|NCT01557244|191581022|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|56.63||||||||56.63|-26.50|
95765812|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|18.7|<0.0001
95765813|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|21.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|5.4|0.0066
95765814|NCT03349060|191502046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.5|24.3|<0.0001
95803768|NCT01557244|191581023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0610
95803769|NCT01557244|191581023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0048
95803770|NCT01557244|191581023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0100
95803771|NCT01557244|191581023|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-16.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.14|30.29||||||||30.29|-63.14|
95962543|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||4.7|0.3|0.9997
95803772|NCT01557244|191581023|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|48.57||||||||48.57|-46.00|
95803773|NCT01557244|191581024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.2246
95803774|NCT01557244|191581024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0003
95803775|NCT01557244|191581024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated for change from Baseline at Week 12, based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline mean volume voided per micturition or catheterization and baseline weight.||||0.0161
95962032|NCT00667459|191896053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.161||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.161|0.038|1.0
95803776|NCT01557244|191581024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|24.53||||||||24.53|-61.00|
95803777|NCT01557244|191581024|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|60.65||||||||60.65|-22.93|
95803778|NCT02935036|191581060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5947
95803779|NCT02935036|191581061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
95803780|NCT02935036|191581062|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|2.4||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6920
95803781|NCT03403517|191581063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.859||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.082|||Fisher Exact|||||1.082|0.682|0.213
95803782|NCT03403517|191581067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.977|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.715|||Fisher Exact|||||1.715|0.557|>0.999
95803783|NCT03403517|191581068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.160
95803784|NCT02933151|191581086|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Reference group is usual care|||1.14|0.92|
95803785|NCT01245751|191581092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 6 GMT value for Group 1 is statistically non-inferior to Group 2 for the prespecified clinically relevant 1.5-fold ratio if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||Week 6 analysis||1.15|0.97|<0.001
95803786|NCT01245751|191581093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.66||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided)|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMFR, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age||A booster dose induces a statistically acceptable VZV antibody response if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is \>1.0.||1.66|1.44|<0.001
95803787|NCT01654250|191581095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square(LS) Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point, and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.1|-10.9|<0.001
95803788|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.7|-12.7|<0.001
95803789|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
95803790|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-8.3|-17.3|<0.001
95803791|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
95803792|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-7.8|-16.8|<0.001
95803793|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
95803794|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effect and participant intercept as a random effect.||-3.3|-12.3|<0.001
95765815|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
95765816|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.8||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-3.8|
95765817|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.9|-3.9|
95765818|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.5||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|1.3|0.0234
95765819|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.5|-0.3|0.0604
95803795|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose: Adjusted p-values were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||<0.001
95803796|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Nominal p-value -treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.1|-7.9|0.133
95765820|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|5.5|0.0022
95765821|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.4||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.6|1.2|0.0255
95765822|NCT03349060|191502047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.4|6.7|0.0010
95803797|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
95803798|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.6|-7.4|0.206
95803799|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose: Adjusted p-values are generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values which were generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
95765823|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-8.2|<0.0001
95765824|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-13.0|<0.0001
95765825|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-10.7|<0.0001
95803800|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Nominal p value-treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||2.9|-6.0|0.496
95765826|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.9|-15.6|<0.0001
95803801|NCT01654250|191581096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose: Adjusted p-value were generated using a fixed sequence testing procedure from p-values generated from the mixed effects model.||||0.133
95962033|NCT00667459|191896053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.999
95765827|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-11.6|<0.0001
95765828|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.4|-16.5|<0.0001
95765829|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-11.6|<0.0001
95765830|NCT03349060|191502048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.8|-17.3|<0.0001
95765831|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.5|-12.1|0.0004
95765832|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-10.5|-19.0|<0.0001
95765833|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.9|-16.6|<0.0001
95765834|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-13.6|-23.4|<0.0001
95803802|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.4|-2.6|0.007
95803803|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.001
95803804|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-1.2|-3.4|<0.001
95765835|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.7|<0.0001
95765836|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-28.0|<0.0001
95765837|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.2|-19.3|<0.0001
95803805|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.6|-2.8|0.003
95962544|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.2|0.3|0.9287
95765838|NCT03349060|191502049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.5|-27.6|<0.0001
95765839|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.0|-3.4|0.5210
95765840|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.0||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.3|-1.3|0.1416
95765841|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.6||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.2|-2.1|0.2002
95765842|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.2|15.1|<0.0001
95765843|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.6||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|1.3|0.0434
95803806|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.2|-2.0|0.097
95803807|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.7|-1.5|0.490
95765844|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|36.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.2|17.1|<0.0001
95765845|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|24.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.0|7.5|0.0019
95765846|NCT03349060|191502050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.7|24.0|<0.0001
95765847|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|18.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.3|3.3|0.0151
95859944|NCT00122980|191678271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
95765848|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|39.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.0|21.0|<0.0001
95859945|NCT00122980|191678272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|The change-from-baseline scores for each scale were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||>0.05
95765849|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|21.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.3|10.2|0.0010
95765850|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|49.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.3|26.6|<0.0001
95765851|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|34.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|12.6|0.0003
95803808|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose attention subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.3|-1.9|0.164
95803809|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.9|-4.6|0.004
95803810|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
95803811|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-2.1|-5.8|<0.001
95803812|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose deportment subscale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||-0.1|-3.8|0.042
95803813|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||0.4|-3.3|0.118
95803814|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-2.7|0.342
95803815|NCT01654250|191581097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose deportment sub scale: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||1.9|-1.8|0.962
95803816|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|47.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||47.1|3.4|0.024
95803817|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|57.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||57.9|14.2|0.001
95859946|NCT00122980|191678273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline to endpoint scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum.||||0.841
95803818|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|56.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.6|12.8|0.002
95803819|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|51.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||51.1|7.4|0.009
95803820|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||34.4|-9.3|0.261
95803821|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|37.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||37.0|-6.7|0.175
95859947|NCT00122980|191678274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||>0.05
95962545|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.0|0.1|0.5598
95803822|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems attempted): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||40.5|-3.2|0.094
95803823|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 0.75 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||45.1|0.1|0.049
95803824|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||56.9|11.9|0.003
95803825|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||55.4|10.5|0.004
95803826|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||49.5|4.5|0.019
95803827|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 10 (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||31.1|-13.9|0.451
95803828|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 12 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||32.2|-12.7|0.394
95803829|NCT01654250|191581098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.44||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 13 post-dose (Problems correct): Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using a mixed model repeated measures analysis, with treatment (NWP09/Placebo), study center, time point and time point by treatment interaction as main effects and participant intercept as a random effect.||30.8|-14.1|0.466
95962034|NCT00667459|191896054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.085|0.992
95803830|NCT02596893|191581102|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.9||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||3.9|-9.7|0.2523
95803831|NCT02596893|191581102|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.8||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||11.8|-3.0|0.1626
95803832|NCT02596893|191581102|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.3|-9.1|0.4420
95803833|NCT02596893|191581103|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.6||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.0|-9.5|0.1799
95803834|NCT02596893|191581103|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.4||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.9|-9.4|0.2309
95803835|NCT02596893|191581103|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.1||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||4.6|-9.1|0.3264
95803836|NCT02596893|191581104|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-11.7||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.1|-22.0|0.0299
95803837|NCT02596893|191581104|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.9||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||0.7|-20.3|0.0582
95803838|NCT02596893|191581104|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-9.7||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||1.0|-20.1|0.0741
95803839|NCT02596893|191581105|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.0|-15.5|0.2493
95765852|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|52.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|30.7|<0.0001
95765853|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.6||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.1|8.1|0.0026
95765854|NCT03349060|191502051|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|51.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||51.7|28.3|<0.0001
95765855|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.6|-2.9|0.3151
95765856|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|0.7|0.0292
95765857|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.5|-5.9|0.9402
95803840|NCT02596893|191581105|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.8||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||8.2|-11.8|0.7160
95765858|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|7.3|0.0019
95765859|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|10.8||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.4|4.2|0.0078
95765860|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|30.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.1|14.2|<0.0001
95765861|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||15.3|1.0|0.0528
95765862|NCT03349060|191502052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|35.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.3|17.6|<0.0001
95765863|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.9|<0.0001
95803841|NCT02596893|191581105|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.8||||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.1|-15.5|0.2452
95803842|NCT02596893|191581106|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.3||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||7.1|-9.8|0.7541
95803843|NCT02596893|191581106|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.7||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||4.6|-12.0|0.3784
95803844|NCT02596893|191581106|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.4||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||3.8|-12.6|0.2865
95803845|NCT02596893|191581107|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified CMH|-2.2||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values were based on the unstratified CMH test when 1 and only 1 of the 2 treatment groups being compared had no subjects in a stratum.|The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|2-sided 95% CI were based on the unstratified Newcombe method.||7.0|-11.3|0.3572
95803846|NCT02596893|191581107|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|4.7||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||18.9|-8.8|0.2823
95803847|NCT02596893|191581107|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||13.7|-12.8|> 0.9999
95803848|NCT02596893|191581108|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-0.5||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.9|-6.7|0.8031
95803849|NCT02596893|191581108|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|1.4||||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||7.3|-5.1|0.5583
95803850|NCT02596893|191581108|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|6.8|-7.2|0.6123
95803851|NCT02596893|191581109|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-10.6||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||-1.4|-19.6|0.0239
95803852|NCT02596893|191581109|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.0||||0.8334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||8.7|-10.8|0.8334
95803853|NCT02596893|191581109|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-3.9||||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||5.8|-13.5|0.4383
95859948|NCT00122980|191678275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The change-from-baseline scores were analyzed with an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment as stratum, testing the hypothesis that the average change from baseline scores do not differ between the treatment groups.||||0.039
95962035|NCT00667459|191896054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.097||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.097
95962546|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.0||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|13.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||13.1|0.7|0.2117
95803854|NCT02596893|191581110|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-1.6||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with CMH weights.|||5.9|-8.3|0.3573
95803855|NCT02596893|191581110|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.1|-8.7|0.2221
95803856|NCT02596893|191581110|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-2.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-8.7|0.2578
95803857|NCT02596893|191581113|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|0.5||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights|||10.0|-8.9|0.9141
95803858|NCT02596893|191581113|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-3.6||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||5.6|-12.8|0.4286
95803859|NCT02596893|191581113|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|-2.7||||0.5591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||6.6|-12.0|0.5591
95803860|NCT03280615|191581114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was performed||||0.257
95803861|NCT03280615|191581115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.231
95803862|NCT03280615|191581116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed linear regression model for repeated measures was performed to test if the outcome behaved differently in both treatment groups||||0.043
95803863|NCT00004228|191581128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing regimens A1+A2 (A: CCG BFM) to regimens B1+B2 (B: NHL/BFM-95) while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.97
95803864|NCT00004228|191581128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"A Cox model was used to assess evidence of a difference in event-free survival comparing A1+B1 (1: no intensification) to A2 +B2 (2: intensification), while adjusting for the other intervention through stratification."||||.63
95803865|NCT01934231|191581131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Cure|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.85|97.55|||||"The estimated parameter represents the rate of cure, calculated as (number of participants with an outcome of Cure/number of participants analyzed) \* 100."|||97.55|69.85|
95803866|NCT02457546|191581137|NON_INFERIORITY|"The statistical hypothesis for testing the treatment difference was presented as follows:~H0: Δ ≤ -0.10 tested against the alternative hypothesis Ha: Δ \> -0.10. where:~* Δ is the difference between the success rates of Experimental (Evicel®) and Control (DuraSeal™) (Experimental minus Control)~* -0.10 is the non-inferiority difference PC is the proportion of success in DuraSeal™ Control subjects and PE is the proportion of success in EVICEL® subjects."|Difference in Success Rates|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.4||||||||14.4|-1.8|
95803867|NCT00090402|191581139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and body mass index||||||0.83
95859949|NCT00122980|191678276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis controlling for baseline value and time on study.||||||0.033
95962547|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||6.6|0.3|0.9699
95962548|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.4460
95859950|NCT00122980|191678277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline value and time on study||||||<0.01
95765864|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
95765865|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.2|<0.0001
95765866|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-3.4|<0.0001
95765867|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.3|<0.0001
95765868|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
95765869|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
95765870|NCT03349060|191502053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.9|<0.0001
95765871|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.0|-14.8|<0.0001
95765872|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.1|-22.7|<0.0001
95765873|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.8|-17.3|<.0001
95859951|NCT02840799|191678290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2619326||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6552259|0.3934043||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.|t-test, 2 sided|t = -0.49979, df = 58. N=59 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.|Only participants that successfully crossed over were included in the t-test (N=59).|We considered an increase in peak VO2 of \~0.6 ml/kg/min to be the minimum clinically significant change. Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints with a two-sided α=0.05. PASS11157 was used to perform power calculations.||0.3934043|-0.6552259|0.6191
95765874|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-17.3|-26.8|<.0001
95765875|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.0|-19.5|<.0001
95765876|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.7|-27.2|<.0001
95765877|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-7.7|-19.0|<0.0001
95962549|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.9|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.9|0.6|0.2920
95993924|NCT02689492|191963759|OTHER||Intercept|95.4051|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9951|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
95765878|NCT03349060|191502054|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-16.3|-27.5|<.0001
95993925|NCT02689492|191963760|OTHER||Intercept|74.8895|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0048|||||||||||Standard deviation is actually standard error.|||||
95993926|NCT00961532|191963775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the hypothesis that there would be a change from baseline to 60 minutes after the start of the desmopressin (DDAVP) infusion.||||0.014
95962402|NCT03607422|191896612|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.05|-42.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-42.84|-56.05|<0.001
95765879|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|35.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.9|8.7|0.0028
95765880|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|53.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.2|27.1|<0.0001
95765881|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.4|2.8|0.0217
95765882|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|45.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.9|18.5|<0.0001
95765883|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|30.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|1.4|0.0363
95765884|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.7||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|9.8|0.0011
95803868|NCT01423084|191581166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against H44/76 strain||1.23|0.82|
95765885|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|34.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.5|5.8|0.0080
95765886|NCT03349060|191502055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|43.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|15.0|<0.0001
95765887|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.2|-5.4|<0.0001
95803869|NCT01423084|191581166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against 5/99 strain||1.1|0.77|
95803870|NCT01423084|191581166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ 98/254 strain if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.09||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs against NZ98/254 strain||1.09|0.6|
95803871|NCT01423084|191581174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ are to be considered equivalent in terms of ELISA GMCs against vaccine antigen 287-953 if the two sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) between groups GMTs ratio at day 31 (ie, one month after the second vaccination ) does not exceed the range 0.5 (lower limit) - 2.0 (higher limit).|between groups ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Equivalence of 2 different lots of rMenB+OMV NZ in terms of hSBA GMTs||1.02|0.67|
95859952|NCT02840799|191678290|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.62||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.62|-.043|0.711
95765888|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-7.1|<0.0001
95765889|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-5.0|0.0001
95765890|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.5|-7.8|<.0001
95765891|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.8|0.0075
95765892|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.3|-7.4|<0.0001
95803872|NCT03615534|191581208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TG level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline HDL-C, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
95803873|NCT03615534|191581209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line TC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline TC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline Non HDL-C and d-LDL-C.||||0.060
95962550|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.4|0.1|0.1840
95765893|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-4.8|0.0072
95765894|NCT03349060|191502056|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.9|<0.0001
95765895|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.0|-3.5|0.2750
95765896|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-4.8|0.0280
95803874|NCT03615534|191581209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dL,TG= 240.4 mg/dL, ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dL.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTG, ApoA1levels.||||0.0001
95803875|NCT03615534|191581209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line d-LDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.TC=199.9 mg/dl, Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline d-LDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and Non HDL-C .||||0.334
95962551|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.2|0.4|0.7229
95765897|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-5.9|0.0051
95765898|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-8.8|<0.0001
95803876|NCT03615534|191581209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line Non HDL-C levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: Non HDL-C= 168.0 mg/dl,TC=199.9 mg/dl, d-LDL-C= 119.1 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline Non HDL-C level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TC and d-LDL-C.||||0.012
95803877|NCT03615534|191581209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line RC levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1, ApoB=133.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline RC level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, d-LDL-C, and ApoB.||||0.001
95803878|NCT03615534|191581210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoA1 levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ApoA1 = 144.6 mg/dl, TG= 240.4 mg/dl, HDL-C = 31.8 mg/dl.||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoA1 level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baseline TG and HDL-C levels.||||0.058
95803879|NCT03615534|191581210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ApoB levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|MANCOVA|Covariates appearing in MANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values:ApoB=133.1, RC=48.9,TC=199.9, Non HDL-C=168.0, d-LDL-C=119.1mg/dl||Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ApoB level as a covariate, with further adjustments for baselineTC, Non HDL-C, dLDL-C, and RC .||||0.067
95803880|NCT03615534|191581211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line FSG levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: FSG= 95.7 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline FSG level as a covariate.||||0.001
95803881|NCT03615534|191581212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line eGFR levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: eGFR= 88.0 ml/min per 1.73 m\^2.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline eGFR level as a covariate.||||0.786
95803882|NCT03615534|191581213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line serum uric acid levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: serum uric acid= 5.0 mg/dl.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline serum uric acid level as a covariate.||||0.0001
95859953|NCT02840799|191678291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.217657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065196||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.910612|6.3459261|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.0738, df = 62, p-value = 0.2871, N=63 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossovered.||A two-sided α=0.05 was determined by the power calculation.||6.3459261|-1.910612|0.2871
95803883|NCT03615534|191581214|OTHER|||||||0.201||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line AST levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|"Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: AST= 18.1 IU/L.~."||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline AST level as a covariate.||||0.201
95962036|NCT00667459|191896055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.023||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.023|-0.043|1.0
95803884|NCT03615534|191581214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line ALT levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: ALT= 16.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline ALT level as a covariate.||||0.033
95803885|NCT03615534|191581214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line CK levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: CK= 28.0 IU/L.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline CK level as a covariate.||||0.511
95962552|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|6.6||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|28.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||28.6|1.5|0.0052
95765899|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.1||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-5.1|0.1706
95765900|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.4||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-7.4|0.0048
95765901|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.5||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-5.2|0.0629
95765902|NCT03349060|191502057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-6.2|0.0100
95765903|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.6||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||13.9|-0.7|0.1238
95803886|NCT03615534|191581215|OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line diastolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: diastolic blood pressure= 80.0 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline diastolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.434
95803887|NCT03615534|191581215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Results were evaluated in terms of adjusted end line systolic blood pressure levels, embracing the least significant difference (LSD) for pair-wise comparison. Probability of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|Covariates appearing in ANCOVA model are evaluated at the following baseline values: systolic blood pressure= 121.5 mmHg.||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), was applied to assess treatment effects among different arms, comprising the influence of the baseline systolic blood pressure level as a covariate.||||0.966
95765904|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.2|11.0|0.0008
95765905|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.8||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.4|-2.8|0.2091
95765906|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.0|12.9|0.0005
95765907|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.1||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-0.9|0.1161
95765908|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|37.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.7|15.3|0.0002
95803888|NCT01750281|191581238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.61|0.80|0.584
95765909|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.1||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||19.1|-2.8|0.1837
95803889|NCT01750281|191581238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.31|0.65|0.690
95803890|NCT01750281|191581239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|2.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||2.13|0.97|0.126
95803891|NCT01750281|191581239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hazard ratio \<1 favours selumetinib in combination with docetaxel|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.78|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.78|0.80|0.485
95803892|NCT03757715|191581260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.16
95803893|NCT03757715|191581261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.42
95962553|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.2|0.9777
95803894|NCT01122680|191581273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.036|0.19||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.190|0.036|0.0043
95803895|NCT01122680|191581273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1484||95.0|-0.021|0.135||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statisical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.135|-0.021|0.1484
95803896|NCT01122680|191581273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0664||95.0|-0.005|0.138||This test is considered as descriptive.|Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.138|-0.005|0.0664
95803897|NCT01122680|191581273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||||95.0|-0.031|0.124|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.124|-0.031|
95803898|NCT01122680|191581273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||||95.0|-0.014|0.126|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.126|-0.014|
95803899|NCT01122680|191581273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.088|0.069|||Mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.069|-0.088|
95803900|NCT03760640|191581287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-2.35|0.339
95803901|NCT03760640|191581288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.90|1.10|0.011
95803902|NCT03760640|191581289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.14|-1.02|0.557
95803903|NCT03760640|191581290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.15|0.548
95803904|NCT03760640|191581292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.94|-0.97|0.577
95803905|NCT02571244|191581325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||||||||1.85|0.99|
95803906|NCT02571244|191581326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95803907|NCT02571244|191581327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
95803908|NCT02571244|191581328|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.95||||||||1.95|1.08|
95803909|NCT02571244|191581329|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.92||||||||1.92|1.07|
95803910|NCT00185900|191581330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95803911|NCT03518203|191581345|EQUIVALENCE|A binomial test was used to test 6 month survival in study cohort against an 18% historical rate.|Proportion|0.714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95803912|NCT00754559|191581352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching LDAS (≤ 3.2) at Week 24 equals (=) expected proportion of 42%.||||<0.001
95803913|NCT00137280|191581375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.58|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||3.58|1.47|<0.01
95803914|NCT00137280|191581376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
95803915|NCT00137280|191581377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.34|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group is the control (denominator)|||4.34|1.22|<0.01
95803916|NCT00137280|191581378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.11
95803917|NCT02362412|191581399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.3||p-value was not adjusted|||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||2.3|-3.4|
95803918|NCT02362412|191581400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||1.9|-1.7|
95803919|NCT02362412|191581401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
95803920|NCT02362412|191581402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.4|-0.3|
95803921|NCT02362412|191581404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
95803922|NCT02362412|191581405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Analysis of variance with treatment sequence, time point, and formulation as fixed effects and patient as a random effect using the data at Week 12 and Week 20 of the treatment period.|||0.5|-0.5|
95962554|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.3|0.3|0.9812
95765910|NCT03349060|191502058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.6|8.1|0.0046
95765911|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|16.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.6|-10.3|0.4795
95765912|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7||P-value could not be calculated since percentage of participants with events was 0.||||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||12.7|-12.7|
95765913|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|13.3||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|30.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|-3.6|0.1452
95765914|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
95765915|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-13.7|0.5707
95803923|NCT01227395|191581475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.696
95803924|NCT01227395|191581476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.334
95803925|NCT01227395|191581477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was concomitant drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without concomitant drugs  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95803926|NCT01227395|191581478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95803927|NCT01227395|191581479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.015
95803928|NCT01227395|191581480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95803929|NCT01227395|191581481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.290
95765916|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.8||||0.5777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-13.6|0.5777
95765917|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|37.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.5|1.0|0.0744
95803930|NCT01227395|191581482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction  in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.003
95803931|NCT01227395|191581483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Allergies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without allergies in the frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.707
95803932|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.71|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.71|-1.19|
95803933|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-1.34|
95803934|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-1.53|
95803935|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-1.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.16|-1.63|
95803936|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.32|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.32|-1.76|
95803937|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.31|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.31|-1.81|
95803938|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.67|-2.19|
95803939|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.23|-1.62|
95803940|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.68|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.68|-2.09|
95803941|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.7|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.70|-2.09|
95803942|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.88|-2.27|
95803943|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.10|-2.50|
95803944|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.85|-2.29|
95859954|NCT02840799|191678291|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.88||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect. Randomization sequence was not included in the final model due to lack of evidence for a carry over effect. Phase 1 data for participants that did not crossover due to IDS were considered for the model (N=74).||1.88|-6.12|0.2935
95803945|NCT01655069|191581571|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.17|-2.83|
95803946|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.73|0.97|
95962037|NCT00667459|191896055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.273
95962555|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.5|||ANOVA|||Day 182||4.5|0.3|0.9979
95803947|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||1.83|1.02|
95803948|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.16|1.27|
95803949|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.24|1.36|
95765918|NCT03349060|191502059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.7||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.4|-6.1|0.2232
95765919|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|46.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.0|17.2|<0.0001
95765920|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.9|21.5|<0.0001
95765921|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|35.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.6|5.2|0.0090
95803950|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.67|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.67|1.74|
95803951|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.77|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.77|1.79|
95803952|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.49|2.19|
95803953|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.89|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||2.89|0.17|
95803954|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.27|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.27|0.52|
95962556|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.9|0.5|0.5880
95803955|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.10|0.39|
95765922|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|47.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.7|19.0|<0.0001
95765923|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|32.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.4|0.6|0.0421
95765924|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|48.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.8|18.9|<0.0001
95765925|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|38.8||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.8|8.2|0.0035
95765926|NCT03349060|191502060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.9|13.8|0.0002
95765927|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|43.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.2|-9.1|0.2497
95765928|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||43.3|-9.0|0.2371
95803956|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.05|1.34|
95803957|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||4.43|1.70|
95765929|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|28.8||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|58.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.3|-0.8|0.0697
95765930|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|71.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|16.2|0.0030
95765931|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|59.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||59.9|2.0|0.0583
95765932|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|41.2||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|69.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.1|13.2|0.0085
95765933|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|19.3||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-9.8|0.1948
95803958|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.85|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||3.85|1.05|
95962557|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||7.0|0.4|0.7973
95962558|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.0|0.4|0.8992
95962559|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.7||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.4|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.4|0.7|0.2602
95765934|NCT03349060|191502061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|30.6||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.5|2.8|0.0296
95765935|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
95765936|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.7|0.0018
95765937|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0005
95803959|NCT01655069|191581572|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.53|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||5.53|2.34|
95803960|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.69|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.69|-1.27|
95803961|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.86|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.86|-1.44|
95803962|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.02|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-1.02|-1.60|
95803963|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.93|-1.51|
95803964|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.21|-1.80|
95803965|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.22|-1.83|
95803966|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.43|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.43|-2.22|
95765938|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.5|<0.0001
95803967|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.13|-1.73|
95803968|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.4|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.40|-1.48|
95962560|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.6|0.2|0.9991
95859955|NCT02840799|191678292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1859922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.578944||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9674467|5.3392901||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3844, df=65, p=0.171. N=66 due to analyzing participants with complete data for Phase 1 and Phase 2 that crossover correctly.||||5.3392901|-0.9674467|0.171
95765939|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.5|0.0476
95765940|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-2.4|<0.0001
95765941|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.1||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0028
95803969|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.17|-1.46|
95803970|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.28|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.28|-1.53|
95803971|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-1.80|
95803972|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.44|-1.92|
95803973|NCT01655069|191581573|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.59|
95803974|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 3 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||0.17|-1.65|
95803975|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.36|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 6 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.36|-2.23|
95803976|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 9 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.22|-2.06|
95803977|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.38|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 12 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.38|-2.18|
95962038|NCT00667459|191896056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.058|-0.018|1.0
95803978|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 24 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant"||-0.12|-1.95|
95803979|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 40 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-1.00|-2.93|
95803980|NCT01655069|191581574|OTHER||Adjusted change from baseline|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Duration of solifenacin treatment: 52 weeks||"Repeated measures ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) was used in this analysis, which included double-blind and/or open-label solifenacin treatment duration, gender, geographic region and randomized treatment group in Study 905-CL-076 as fixed effects, baseline as a covariate and duration repeated within participant."||-0.93|-3.48|
95803981|NCT02777190|191581660|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin of 4 hours|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.09|ONE_SIDED|97.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided two-sample t-test with alpha=0.025|Difference calculated as oral minus vaginal|||6.7||0.09
95765942|NCT03349060|191502062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
95765943|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.9|0.6134
95765944|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.7||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.0|-1.4|0.0422
95765945|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2050
95803982|NCT02777190|191581661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95803983|NCT02777190|191581662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95803984|NCT02777190|191581663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95765946|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.9|0.0012
95803985|NCT02777190|191581664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95803986|NCT02777190|191581665|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95803987|NCT02777190|191581666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
95803988|NCT02777190|191581668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
95765947|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.2|0.2657
95765948|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-2.0|0.0019
95803989|NCT02777190|191581669|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95803990|NCT02777190|191581670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95803991|NCT02777190|191581671|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95803992|NCT02777190|191581672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95803993|NCT01452789|191581684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
95803994|NCT01452789|191581685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||van Elteren|||||||<0.05
95803995|NCT01452789|191581686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
95803996|NCT03733483|191581740|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on P1NP levels. Change in P1NP in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95803997|NCT03733483|191581741|EQUIVALENCE|Maximum likelihood estimates in a repeated measures model were used to assess the effect of insufficient sleep on CTX levels. Change in CTX in response to insufficient sleep was assessed using values measured every two hours on two, 24-h profiles obtained at baseline and on night 6 of sleep restriction. Circadian rhythmicity was included in the repeated-measures model as diurnal variation has been documented in prior studies. Data are presented as estimate ± standard error of the estimate.||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95803998|NCT01370642|191581742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|40.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by Interleukin 28B (IL28B) and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.5|17.2|<0.001
95859956|NCT02840799|191678292|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.51||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|0.61||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.61|-5.62|0.113
95765949|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|0.1675
95765950|NCT03349060|191502063|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.8|0.0085
95765951|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.5539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|37.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|-19.6|0.5539
95803999|NCT01370642|191581742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||40.0|17.4|<0.001
95804000|NCT01370642|191581743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|41.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.5|18.1|<0.001
95804001|NCT01370642|191581743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|41.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||41.0|18.3|<0.001
95804002|NCT01370642|191581744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|78.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|85.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||85.3|68.2|<0.001
95804003|NCT01370642|191581744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.7|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving RVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||84.1|66.7|<0.001
95804004|NCT01370642|191581745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|58.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||58.9|37.2|<0.001
95804005|NCT01370642|191581745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving cEVR between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||60.0|38.5|<0.001
95804006|NCT01370642|191581746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.3|8.1|<0.001
95804007|NCT01370642|191581746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentages|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To compare the percentage of participants achieving undetectable HCV RNA at EOT between the vaniprevir and control arms, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values for the between-treatment difference (vaniprevir - control) were computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by IL28B and age utilizing Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||27.8|9.3|<0.001
95804008|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.1||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||13.7|-5.4|0.385
95804009|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.2||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||8.1|-12.6|0.670
95765952|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|27.9||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|0.8|0.0561
95765953|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-4.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-33.4|0.7460
95765954|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|28.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.3|-28.3|1.0000
95765955|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|20.8||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|46.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.2|-4.5|0.1474
95765956|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|37.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|62.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.5|12.1|0.0123
95765957|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|27.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|-28.5|0.9760
95765958|NCT03349060|191502064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.8||||0.5965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|36.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.1|-20.4|0.5965
95765959|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.0||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|58.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.0|-9.9|0.2278
95765960|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|35.2||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|72.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||72.4|-2.0|0.0996
95804010|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||9.5|-17.5|0.557
95804011|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-12.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with anemia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||1.2|-26.2|0.072
95804012|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|7.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||7.9|-7.9|>0.999
95765961|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.5||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|50.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.6|-21.6|0.4449
95765962|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.9||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|55.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.5|-21.6|0.4139
95765963|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.4||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|-40.7|0.7290
95804013|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with bilirubin increased Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.2|-3.3|0.220
95804014|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||28.7|1.3|0.032
95804015|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with GI Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||19.4|-8.4|0.432
95765964|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.7||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|44.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.6|-27.3|0.6585
95765965|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.2||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|55.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.1|-18.7|0.3638
95804016|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.2||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||21.8|-5.8|0.252
95804017|NCT01370642|191581747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Difference in percentage of participants with neutropenia Tier 1 AEs between vaniprevir and control.||14.4|-13.4|0.942
95804018|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.0|-3.5|
95804019|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 2|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-3.2|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 2 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-3.2|-3.7|
95804020|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.7|-3.3|
95804021|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 4|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.8|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 4 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-2.8|-3.4|
95804022|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.6|-2.2|
95804023|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 8|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.7|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 8 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.7|-2.3|
95804024|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
95962561|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.2|0.4|0.9028
95804025|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 12|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 12 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-1.1|-1.7|
95804026|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.5|-1.1|
95804027|NCT01370642|191581748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference at Week 24|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Constrained LDA Model|||Change from BL in HCV RNA at Week 24 was computed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups as well as adjusting for IL28B and age, and their interaction terms with time will be included in the model.||-0.6|-1.2|
95804028|NCT04000724|191581814|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.54||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.18|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.18|-1.26|0.141
95804029|NCT04000724|191581814|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.51||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.14|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||0.14|-1.16|0.123
95804030|NCT04000724|191581815|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.24||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.07|-.56|.127
95804031|NCT04000724|191581815|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment effect|-0.02||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.3|||Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood|||||.30|-.34|.899
95804032|NCT00472641|191581819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
95804033|NCT00472641|191581820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Random Regression Mixed Effects Modeling|||||||<0.00001
95854585|NCT05386329|191668813|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5043|-6.3776||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified secondary outcome that addresses complementary aspects of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) WSAS scores compared to the baseline (week 0) WSAS scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in WSAS total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-6.3776|-13.5043|<.0001
95859957|NCT02840799|191678293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.776572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99464||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264221|10.817366||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.69507, df=46, p=.4905. N=47 due to only analyzed participants that correctly crossovered.||||10.817366|-5.264221|0.4905
95962039|NCT00667459|191896056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.845||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.845
95962562|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||6.8|0.4|0.7761
95765966|NCT03349060|191502065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|40.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|78.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||78.5|2.4|0.0550
95765967|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
95765968|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-35.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|5.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.3|-75.9|0.1580
95765969|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|25.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|-53.5|0.5140
95765970|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-19.8||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|23.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|-63.3|0.4149
95765971|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-18.8||||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|20.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.9|-58.4|0.4036
95765972|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-30.7||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.9|9.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||9.6|-70.9|0.2092
95765973|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|11.9||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|53.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|-29.1|0.5982
95765974|NCT03349060|191502066|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|44.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.7|-36.3|0.8647
95765975|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-78.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|-39.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||-39.6|-117.5|0.0546
95765976|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-27.9||||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|6.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.7|-62.5|0.3573
95962563|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.1|0.2|0.7833
95765977|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|-55.6|0.9219
95962564|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.9|0.2|0.9915
95765978|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
95804034|NCT02006654|191581821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.36||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for idalopirdine at significance level 5%.||0.36|-1.45|0.2365
95804035|NCT02006654|191581822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.23||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favor of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||0.23|-0.09|0.4064
95804036|NCT02006654|191581823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects of country, MMSE stratum-by-week, treatment-by-week, base treatment stratum-by-week, and baseline score-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested at significance level 5%.||1.92|-0.57|0.4064
95859958|NCT02840799|191678293|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.088||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.48||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||9.48|-7.30|0.796
95859959|NCT02840799|191678294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.11189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.84245||0.4017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.63637|57.41259|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.86929,, df=12, p=0.4017||||57.41259|-133.63637|0.4017
95859960|NCT02840799|191678294|SUPERIORITY||Slope|61.77||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.15|157.69||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.69|-34.15|0.183
95859961|NCT02840799|191678295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202782||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4959279|0.9014918||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.58074, df=59, p=0.5636||||0.9014918|-0.4959279|0.5636
95859962|NCT02840799|191678295|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3118||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.37||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||0.37|-0.99|0.361
95962040|NCT00667459|191896057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.047||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.021||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.021|-0.113|0.936
95962565|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.9||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.0|0.3|0.9980
95765979|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
95765980|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
95765981|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-25.0||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|27.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.0|-77.0|0.5408
95804037|NCT00676689|191581834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|0.993||||||||0.993|0.889|
95804038|NCT00676689|191581835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|0.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.978||||||Freedom from Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE) at 6 months in the valve implant population.||0.978|0.851|
95804039|NCT00676689|191581836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Overall functional improvement at 6 months for patients in the valve implant population with baseline and 6 month data.||||
95804040|NCT04128228|191581837|OTHER|"Single group: All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.~Brain responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT)."|F value for the 2 X 2 Group Interaction|5.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2 × 2 × 3 Linear Mixed Model was conducted with Early Trauma Group (ET, NT) and Drinking Group (AUD, MD) as between-subjects factors, and Condition (stress, alcohol, neutral) as the within-subjects factor.|Linear Mixed Model|||A regions of interest (ROI) analysis was conducted to evaluate brain activity in the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VmPFC, BA10), a region identified a priori. The VmPFC ROI was defined using the Yale-Brodmann atlas in the BioImage Suite application, from which the beta value for the VmPFC ROI was obtained for a Linear Mixed Model analysis.||||<0.05
95804041|NCT04128228|191581838|OTHER|Single group (all individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment). Hormone responses were examined at baseline in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) with and without early trauma (AUD/ET, AUD/NT), as well as in moderate drinkers (MD) with and without early trauma (MD/ET, MD/NT).|F value|4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95804042|NCT04128228|191581839|OTHER|Single Group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||.95|.53|<0.05
95804043|NCT04128228|191581840|OTHER|Single Group. All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.|t value|-3.35|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95804044|NCT04128228|191581841|OTHER|Single Group (All individuals with alcohol use disorder received the same treatment.)|t value|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95804045|NCT03259308|191581847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.027
95804046|NCT03259308|191581847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.014
95804047|NCT03259308|191581848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.001
95804048|NCT03259308|191581848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.003
95962566|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.9|0.4|0.9090
95804049|NCT03259308|191581849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
95804050|NCT03259308|191581849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
95804051|NCT03259308|191581850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
95804052|NCT03259308|191581850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||<0.001
95804053|NCT03259308|191581851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
95804054|NCT03259308|191581851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.017
95804055|NCT00066937|191581875|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline to each timepoint||||||<.05
95804056|NCT00066937|191581876|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
95804057|NCT00066937|191581877|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
95804058|NCT00066937|191581878|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVAs compared baseline scores to each period of follow-up (post-treatment, 3-months, 6 months)||||||<.05
95804059|NCT04679818|191581904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.43|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-1.43|0.895
95804060|NCT04679818|191581905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.66|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-2.66|0.228
95804061|NCT04679818|191581906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.65|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||||1.65|0.40|0.565
95804062|NCT04679818|191581907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.54|||Generalized linear mixed effects model|||||3.54|0.62|0.379
95804063|NCT04679818|191581908|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.97|0.30|0.039
95804064|NCT04679818|191581909|NON_INFERIORITY|We tested noninferiority of NOL to routine care on the Ramsey score using an a priori-defined noninferiority delta of 1.2 for the proportional odds ratio; NOL would be deemed noninferior if the upper confidence limit for the odds ratio was \<1.2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82|||proportional odds model|||||1.82|0.35|0.169
95804065|NCT04679818|191581910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.63|||Cox proportional hazards regression|||||1.63|0.63|0.967
95804066|NCT03339453|191581911|NON_INFERIORITY|95% Confidence Interval of the treatment differences in treatment success rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.52||||||||1.52|-1.52|
95804067|NCT01348490|191581922|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.025||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0250
95859963|NCT02840799|191678296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1532142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.1532142||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1998786|0.8934502||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t= -0.29271, df=61, p=0.7707||||0.8934502|-1.1998786|0.7707
95804068|NCT01348490|191581922|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.0163||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0163
95804069|NCT01348490|191581922|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0|||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95804070|NCT01348490|191581922|OTHER|1-sample t-test with null hypothesis mean \>= 0||||||0.2019||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2019
95804071|NCT01348490|191581923|OTHER|||||||0.6887||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6887
95804072|NCT01348490|191581923|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95804073|NCT01348490|191581923|OTHER|||||||0.8701||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8701
95804074|NCT01348490|191581927|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95804075|NCT01348490|191581928|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||1-sample t-test was used.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0028
95804076|NCT03834883|191581938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95962403|NCT03607422|191896612|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.386|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-27.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.51|-40.81|<0.001
95804077|NCT03834883|191581939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95804078|NCT03834883|191581940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95804079|NCT03834883|191581941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95804080|NCT03834883|191581942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95804081|NCT03834883|191581943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95804082|NCT03834883|191581945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
95804083|NCT03834883|191581946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
95804084|NCT03834883|191581947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
95804085|NCT03834883|191581948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95804086|NCT03834883|191581949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95804087|NCT00286455|191581951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.31|-0.76|<0.001
95804088|NCT00286455|191581951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint (HbA1c) as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=325 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.5% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.35|-0.80|<0.001
95804089|NCT00286455|191581952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.14|-0.39|<0.001
95804090|NCT00286455|191581952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.46|<0.001
95765982|NCT03349060|191502067|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|24.6||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|63.6||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.6|-14.4|0.3173
95765983|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-4.4|0.0006
95765984|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-7.9|<0.0001
95765985|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-5.6|<0.0001
95765986|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-6.6|-10.2|<0.0001
95765987|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
95765988|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.2|-9.3|<0.0001
95765989|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-3.1||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-5.2|0.0049
95765990|NCT03349060|191502068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.7|-9.0|<0.0001
95804091|NCT00286455|191581953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
95962567|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9651
95765991|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0020
95804092|NCT00286455|191581953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
95804093|NCT00286455|191581954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
95962568|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.7|0.4|0.9112
95765992|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
95962569|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||7.8|0.7|0.2570
95765993|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.7|0.0011
95765994|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
95765995|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0020
95804094|NCT00286455|191581954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.35|-0.73|<0.001
95765996|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
95765997|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.8|0.0014
95765998|NCT03349060|191502069|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
95765999|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.0||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.7||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.7|0.3|0.0575
95766000|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|18.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|10.7|0.0002
95804095|NCT00286455|191581955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.68|<0.001
95804096|NCT00286455|191581955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.74|<0.001
95766001|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.2||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|17.1||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.1|1.3|0.0411
95766002|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|35.5||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.5|16.9|<0.0001
95766003|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|8.9||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.0||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|-0.1|0.0781
95804097|NCT00286455|191581956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
95804098|NCT00286455|191581956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
95804099|NCT00286455|191581957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-21.5|0.002
95804100|NCT00286455|191581957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-10.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.4|-27.0|<0.001
95804101|NCT00286455|191581958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.1|-26.7|<0.001
95962570|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.8|0.3|0.9999
95804102|NCT00286455|191581958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-13.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.0|-29.7|<0.001
95804103|NCT00286455|191581959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-27.1|<0.001
95804104|NCT00286455|191581959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.7|-33.2|<0.001
95804105|NCT00286455|191581960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-26.8|0.001
95804106|NCT00286455|191581960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-32.4|<0.001
95804107|NCT00286455|191581961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.2|-26.8|0.002
95804108|NCT00286455|191581961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-31.6|<0.001
95859964|NCT02840799|191678296|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18872||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.25||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed model analysis provided an assessment of the treatment effect on each continuous outcome of interest while controlling for effects of other covariates such as period, sequence, and a random subject effect.||1.25|-0.88|0.724
95859965|NCT02840799|191678297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3262821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2333465||0.1680825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1421806|0.7947447||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.3983, df=51, p=0.1681||||0.7947447|-0.1421806|0.1680825
95859966|NCT02840799|191678297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4082||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.88|0.0930
95859967|NCT02840799|191678298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176768||0.07984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4966754|0.2638017||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||t = -1.7985, df=39, p=0.07984|||0.2638017|-4.4966754|0.07984
95859968|NCT02840799|191678298|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.68||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.9||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.90|-0.54|0.135
95859969|NCT02840799|191678299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01295984||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0454871|0.0069404||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00694040|-0.0454871|0.1450
95962571|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.2|0.5|0.6953
95962572|NCT03635086|191896800|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||5.4|0.5|0.7523
95804109|NCT00286455|191581962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-30.9|<0.001
95804110|NCT00286455|191581962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-34.6|<0.001
95766004|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|36.3||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.3|16.2|<0.0001
95766005|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|14.2||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|23.2||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.2|5.3|0.0075
95766006|NCT03349060|191502070|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.9||P-value was adjusted by randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||38.9|19.6|<0.0001
95766007|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.034||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|0.001|0.0453
95766008|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.101|0.036|<0.0001
95766009|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.025||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.062|-0.012|0.1821
95766010|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.055||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.092|0.018|0.0038
95766011|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.048||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.090|0.006|0.0241
95766012|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.134|0.051|<0.0001
95766013|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.044||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.087|0.001|0.0461
95766014|NCT03349060|191502071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.064||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.107|0.021|0.0037
95804111|NCT00286455|191581963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-30.6|<0.001
95804112|NCT00286455|191581963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-12.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.9|-35.7|<0.001
95804113|NCT00286455|191581964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.0|-34.1|<0.001
95804114|NCT00286455|191581964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-15.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-15.1|-40.4|<0.001
95859970|NCT02840799|191678299|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01324||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.01|0.3047
95766015|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.548||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||8.700|0.397|0.0319
95766016|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.496|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||12.822|4.496|<0.0001
95766017|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.361||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|9.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.084|-0.362|0.0702
95766018|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|10.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.349|14.821|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.821|5.349|<0.0001
95766019|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.045||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|11.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.501|0.589|0.0300
95766020|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.803||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.368|15.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.237|4.368|0.0005
95766021|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|7.569||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.119|13.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||13.019|2.119|0.0067
95766022|NCT03349060|191502072|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.374||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.933|14.815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||14.815|3.933|0.0008
95766023|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.130|-0.137|0.9568
95766024|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.223|-0.042|0.1782
95766025|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.174||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.347|0.001|0.0491
95766026|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.284||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.456|0.112|0.0015
95766027|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.004||||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.194|-0.185|0.9638
95766028|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.08||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.270|-0.109|0.4016
95766029|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.007||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.198|-0.184|0.9429
95766030|NCT03349060|191502073|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.062||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.254|-0.130|0.5212
95766031|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.131||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.095|11.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||11.358|-7.095|0.6467
95804115|NCT00286455|191581965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|1.262|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.262|0.257|0.165
95962573|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||1.7|0.1|0.5263
95766032|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|11.549||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.338|20.761|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.761|2.338|0.0147
95766033|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.853||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.453|17.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||17.159|-3.453|0.1894
95766034|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|16.99||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.699|27.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||27.281|6.699|0.0015
95766035|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.672||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|19.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||19.862|-2.518|0.1267
95766036|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.354||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.866|20.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||20.573|-1.866|0.1009
95766037|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|6.071||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.107|15.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||15.249|-3.107|0.1915
95766038|NCT03349060|191502074|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|12.948||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.754|22.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.||22.143|3.754|0.0064
95766039|NCT03349060|191502075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.6||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.4|0.9|0.0102
95766040|NCT03349060|191502075|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.3|1.8|0.0013
95766041|NCT03349060|191502076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.2||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.2|-2.1|0.5241
95766042|NCT03349060|191502076|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.9||||0.5821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.1|-2.3|0.5821
95766043|NCT03349060|191502077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.1||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|1.5|0.0013
95766044|NCT03349060|191502077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
95766045|NCT03349060|191502078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.7||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.4||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.0|0.2256
95766046|NCT03349060|191502078|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|3.0||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8||ANCOVA model was used including treatment as main effect and randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.3|0.0275
95766047|NCT00803790|191502098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
95766048|NCT00803790|191502099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||Least squares mean ratio for AUC 0-80 hr for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone. No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis.||1.00|0.89|
95766049|NCT00803790|191502100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.0||||||"Least squares mean ratio for Cmax for vitamin D following administration of combination tablet and vitamin D alone.~No correction for endogenous Vitamin D concentration pre-treatment was made in the analysis."||1.00|0.88|
95766050|NCT04581824|191502121|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.46|17.18|||||Mantel and Haenszel method with Sato's variance estimator was used for between arms comparison and was stratified by PD-L1 status and smoking status based on the strata data collected in interactive response technology (IRT) at randomization|||17.18|1.46|
95766051|NCT05201794|191502172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.3|||=|0.1409|ONE_SIDED|80.0|15.2|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for proof-of-concept (PoC) when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||15.2|=0.1409
95766052|NCT05201794|191502172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.2|||=|0.1418|ONE_SIDED|80.0|14.9|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||14.9|=0.1418
95804116|NCT00286455|191581965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.739|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.739|0.138|0.008
95804117|NCT00286455|191581966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.194||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.516|0.073|0.001
95962574|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
95804118|NCT00286455|191581966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.405|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.405|0.052|<0.001
95804119|NCT00286455|191581967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.2|-15.3|0.056
95804120|NCT00286455|191581967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-21.1|<0.001
95804121|NCT00286455|191581968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.4|-7.8|0.850
95804122|NCT00286455|191581968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||11.2|-6.2|0.571
95804123|NCT00286455|191581969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-7.8|0.917
95804124|NCT00286455|191581969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.7|-13.2|0.133
95804125|NCT00286455|191581970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-12.1|0.348
95804126|NCT00286455|191581970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|2.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.2|-14.3|0.152
95804127|NCT00286455|191581971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-11.7|0.120
95804128|NCT00286455|191581971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.1|-12.1|0.104
95804129|NCT00286455|191581972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.8|-10.9|0.247
95804130|NCT00286455|191581972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-12.3|0.129
95804131|NCT00286455|191581973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|2.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.67|-4.14|0.671
95859971|NCT02840799|191678300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494971||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.598617|5.585256||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.585256|-12.598617|0.44
95766053|NCT05201794|191502173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|87.8|||=|0.0192|ONE_SIDED|80.0|58.1|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||58.1|=0.0192
95766054|NCT05201794|191502173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.9|||=|0.1131|ONE_SIDED|80.0|20.0|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||20|=0.1131
95766055|NCT05201794|191502174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|85.4|||=|0.0302|ONE_SIDED|80.0|62.6|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||62.6|=0.0302
95766056|NCT05201794|191502174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|60.5|||=|0.2239|ONE_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|||One-sided p-value|Exact logistic regression model|P-value was obtained from an exact logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factor region (America, Asia).|1-sided odds-ratio and 80% CI were obtained from exact logistic regression model adjusted for region (America, Asia).|The study was prematurely terminated before reaching the number of laboratory-confirmed DENV infections that were planned for the interim analysis. The 1-sided 20% significance level was described in the protocol as the significance level for PoC when the planned interim analysis would have been performed.|||-6.3|=0.2239
95766057|NCT03985800|191502192|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.26||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.26 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD complexity score does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
95804132|NCT00286455|191581973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.27|-5.57|0.218
95804133|NCT00286455|191581974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|5.14||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.14|-2.07|0.403
95804134|NCT00286455|191581974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|4.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.93|-2.35|0.487
95804135|NCT00286455|191581975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|6.08||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.08|-0.88|0.143
95804136|NCT00286455|191581975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.57|-3.46|0.974
95859972|NCT02840799|191678300|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.39106||||0.39911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.44||Assuming a 90% retention rate, enrolling 84 subjects in this cross-over trial will have 80% power to detect such an effect size in the intervention induced change of our study endpoints, with a two-sided α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.44|-4.66|0.39911
95859973|NCT02642315|191678308|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
95804137|NCT00286455|191581976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.71||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.71|-2.78|0.612
95804138|NCT00286455|191581976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|2.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.74|-4.82|0.587
95859974|NCT02642315|191678309|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|36.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0131
95962575|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
95766058|NCT03985800|191502192|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.14||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.14 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.57
95766059|NCT03985800|191502192|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.08||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 0.08 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.96
95766060|NCT03985800|191502192|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.41||||0.17||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 6.41 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.17
95804139|NCT00286455|191581977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.99|-2.00|0.514
95804140|NCT00286455|191581977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.22|-2.83|0.899
95804141|NCT00286455|191581978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.58|-3.09|0.885
95804142|NCT00286455|191581978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.46|-3.28|0.958
95804143|NCT00286455|191581979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.018||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.018|-0.084|0.003
95804144|NCT00286455|191581979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.105|<0.001
95804145|NCT00286455|191581980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.038||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.038|-0.099|<0.001
95859975|NCT00662675|191678310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-fat as a covariate.||The power calculation was based on the assumption that the true mean difference between the active and the placebo group was 31.2% with a common standard deviation of 22.6% using a 2-sided, 2-sample, t-test with a 5% significance level.||||<0.001
95804146|NCT00286455|191581980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.083|0.001
95804147|NCT00286455|191581981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.103|<0.001
95962576|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
95766061|NCT03985800|191502192|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|2.6||||0.27||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 2.6 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b., moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of complexity score by treatment group.||||0.27
95766062|NCT03985800|191502193|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.21||||0.9||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.21 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 1. The trajectory of PHQ-ADS does not differ by treatment group.||||0.90
95766063|NCT03985800|191502193|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.21||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 2a, moderation by disease activity. Null hypothesis: Disease activity does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.55
95766064|NCT03985800|191502193|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.37||||0.5||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*age interaction term is 1.37 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by age. Null hypothesis: Age does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.50
95766065|NCT03985800|191502193|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.16||||0.08||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*diagnosis interaction term is 5.16 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by diagnosis. Null hypothesis: Diagnosis does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.08
95766066|NCT03985800|191502193|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.11||||1||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*site interaction term is 0.11 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by site. Null hypothesis: Site does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||1.0
95766067|NCT03985800|191502193|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.23||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time\*eHealth literacy interaction term is 3.23 with two degrees of freedom.||Aim 2b, moderation by eHealth literacy. Null hypothesis: eHealth literacy does not moderate the trajectory of behavioral health score by treatment group.||||0.20
95804148|NCT00286455|191581981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|-0.037||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.037|-0.109|<0.001
95859976|NCT00662675|191678311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline percent COA-protein(nitrogen) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95859977|NCT01256294|191678321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.96|
95859978|NCT01256294|191678321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.02||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of AUC0-12h were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.08|0.97|0.486
95962577|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0|||ANOVA|||Day 0||7.0|0.6|0.5500
95962578|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
95962041|NCT00667459|191896058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.19||The posterior probably of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.|The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.190|0.020|1.0
95962579|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||6.7|0.6|0.5263
95766068|NCT03985800|191502194|SUPERIORITY|Considering a range of effect sizes for B1, B2, and B3, we estimated the outcome Y as Y=B1\*X+B2\*M+B3\*X\*M+ε, where ε\~N(0,1). Using Monte Carlo methods, we averaged across scenarios to determine the typical effect of B3 that can be detected with our current and projected sample sizes after 25% attrition. With our projected sample sizes we expect 0.80 power to detect a significant interaction when the magnitude of B3 is at least 0.50.|Type III Wald chi-squared|3.09||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 3.09 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of functional impairment does not differ by treatment group.||||0.53
95766069|NCT03985800|191502195|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|6.01||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 6.01 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of IBD-IBS symptom severity does not differ by treatment group.||||0.05
95766070|NCT03985800|191502196|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|4.14||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For hospitalizations, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 4.14 with two degrees of freedom||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of hospitalizations does not differ by treatment group.||||0.13
95766071|NCT03985800|191502196|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|0.82||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|For ED visits, the Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 0.82 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of ED visits does not differ by treatment group.||||0.67
95766072|NCT03985800|191502197|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|1.98||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 1.98 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of self-efficacy does not differ by treatment group.||||0.37
95766073|NCT03985800|191502198|SUPERIORITY|We calculated statistical power for the target sample size of 675 (\~337 in each of TEAM and TECH arms). After adjusting for the multiple testing in Aim 1 (2 tests) and considering 25% attrition, a sample size of 505 (\~252 per treatment group) will provide over 99.9% power for the hypothesis test for Aim 1.|Type III Wald chi-squared|5.57||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Chi-squared statistic for the group\*time interaction term is 5.57 with two degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: The trajectory of quality of life does not differ by treatment group.||||0.06
95766074|NCT06700512|191502211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired||"H0 (Objective 1) SRT (study HA) is either not significantly different from SRT without HAs or significantly worse than SRT without HAs.~H1(Objective 1) SRT(study HA) is significantly better than SRT without HAs. A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement."||||<0.001
95804149|NCT00286455|191581982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.007||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.007|-0.084|0.021
95804150|NCT00286455|191581982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.079|0.043
95804151|NCT00286455|191581983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.069||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.069|-0.255|<0.001
95859979|NCT01256294|191678326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||||Ratio of geometric means: Generic tacrolimus/Branded tacrolimus|||1.20|1.00|
95804152|NCT00286455|191581983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.065||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.065|-0.254|0.001
95804153|NCT00286455|191581984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|-0.034||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.034|-0.138|0.001
95804154|NCT00286455|191581984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.032||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.032|-0.137|0.002
95766075|NCT06700512|191502211|NON_INFERIORITY|A mean difference in SRT of 1 dB measured with the Oldenburg sentence test (Wagener et al, 1999a-c), can be assumed as a typical difference in speech intelligibility to show a clinically meaningful improvement (Kollmeier et al, 2011). Thus if SRT with study hearing aids is 1dB or more worse than with subjects' own hearing aids and the difference is significant (p\<0.05), inferiority of study hearing aid is assumed otherwise study hearing aids are considered non-inferior|||||<|0.001||||||paired|t-test, 1 sided|||H0 (Objective 2) SRT (study HA) is significantly worse than SRT(own HAs). H1(Objective 2) There is no difference between SRT(study HA) and SRT(own HAs) or SRT (study HA) is significantly better than SRT (own HAs) SRT= Speech Reception Threshold in dB||||<0.001
95766076|NCT01730053|191502318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|-19.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.3|-49.2|<0.0001
95766077|NCT01730053|191502318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-51.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||-20.7|-51.5|<0.0001
95766078|NCT01730053|191502318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||=|0.0453|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.8|5.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||5.1|-45.8|=0.0453
95766079|NCT01730053|191502318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-50.9|0.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As described in statistical analysis 1 of the endpoint.||0.3|-50.9|=0.0136
95766080|NCT01730053|191502319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-23.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1.25 % level.||-23.0|-47.4|<0.0001
95766081|NCT01730053|191502319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.9|-20.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-20.5|-45.9|<0.0001
95804155|NCT00286455|191581985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.137||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.137|-0.568|0.230
95804156|NCT00286455|191581985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.200|-0.508|0.393
95859980|NCT01256294|191678326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.09||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.18||ANOVA model for the dose-normalized log transformed values with treatment, period and sequence as fixed factors and subjects nested within sequences as a random factor.|ANOVA|||To compare the bioavailability of generic tacrolimus to branded tacrolimus, the 90% confidence intervals of the ratios of geometric means of Cmax were assessed relative to the interval \[80%, 125%\].||1.18|1.01|0.057
95962042|NCT00667459|191896058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||95.0||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|The propensity score method was used to adjust possible effects on outcomes caused by differences in baseline characteristic due to non-randomization.||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.992
95962580|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
95766082|NCT01730053|191502319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||=|0.0131|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-49.2|0.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||0.2|-49.2|=0.0131
95766083|NCT01730053|191502320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.4|-17.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-17.9|-47.4|<0.0001
95804157|NCT00286455|191581986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.515||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.515|-0.348|0.703
95804158|NCT00286455|191581986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.717|-0.153|0.203
95804159|NCT00286455|191581987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.569||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.569|-0.232|0.408
95804160|NCT00286455|191581987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.417||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.417|-0.391|0.949
95804161|NCT00286455|191581988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.440|0.886
95962043|NCT00667459|191896060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.013
95766084|NCT01730053|191502320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-47.0|-17.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.5|-47|<0.0001
95766085|NCT01730053|191502321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-48.2|-22.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.5|-48.2|<0.0001
95766086|NCT01730053|191502321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-45.6|-19.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-19.0|-45.6|<0.0001
95766087|NCT01730053|191502322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.3|-40.1|<0.0001
95766088|NCT01730053|191502322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.9|-15.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-15.7|-37.9|<0.0001
95766089|NCT01730053|191502323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-40.1|-21.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-21.3|-40.1|<0.0001
95766090|NCT01730053|191502323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.0|-18.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-18.7|-38.0|<0.0001
95766091|NCT01730053|191502324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-18.9|-43.9|<0.0001
95804162|NCT00286455|191581988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.317||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.317|-0.510|0.645
95804163|NCT00286455|191581989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.239||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.239|-0.378|0.656
95859981|NCT00439517|191678330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.889|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||0.889|0.515|0.0048
95766092|NCT01730053|191502324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-16.4|-42.1|<0.0001
95766093|NCT01730053|191502325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-43.2|-22.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-22.4|-43.2|<0.0001
95766094|NCT01730053|191502325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.1|-17.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-17.3|-39.1|<0.0001
95766095|NCT01730053|191502326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-11.8|-29.4|<0.0001
95766096|NCT01730053|191502326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.3|-11.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-11.2|-29.3|<0.0001
95804164|NCT00286455|191581989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.275||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.275|-0.347|0.819
95804165|NCT00286455|191581990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.253||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.253|-0.411|0.642
95804166|NCT00286455|191581990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.338||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.338|-0.332|0.986
95804167|NCT00286455|191581991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|4.571|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.571|0.622|0.305
95804168|NCT00286455|191581991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.349||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|6.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.321|0.873|0.091
95804169|NCT00286455|191581992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.704||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.694|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.100|1.694|0.001
95766097|NCT01730053|191502327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.7|-16.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.5|-39.7|<0.0001
95766098|NCT01730053|191502327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-35.7|-12.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.3|-35.7|<0.0001
95804170|NCT00286455|191581992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.305||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.505|7.255|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.255|1.505|0.003
95962044|NCT00667459|191896061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.769||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.769
95804171|NCT00286455|191581993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.905||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|6.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.210|1.359|0.006
95804172|NCT00286455|191581993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.552|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.068|10.017|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.017|2.068|<0.001
95962045|NCT00667459|191896062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian logistic model|||Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.||||0.273
95766099|NCT01730053|191502328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-42.1|-16.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-16.9|-42.1|<0.0001
95766100|NCT01730053|191502328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-37.7|-12.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-12.2|-37.7|<0.0001
95804173|NCT00286455|191581994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.367|5.188|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.188|1.367|0.004
95804174|NCT00286455|191581994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.429|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.429|1.671|<0.001
95859982|NCT00439517|191678331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.777|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified odds ratio and Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) statistics were calculated considering the randomization strata.||||2.777|1.110|0.016
95962046|NCT00078377|191896075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0024||95.0|1.02|4.61|||ANCOVA|The corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||Statistical data is for the Armodafinil Combined treatment (250 mg/day and 150 mg/day groups) compared to the placebo treatment group||4.61|1.02|0.0024
95962047|NCT00078377|191896076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95962048|NCT04836559|191896077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.38|0.41|0.3571
95804175|NCT00286455|191581995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.331||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|10.947|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||10.947|1.714|0.002
95766101|NCT01730053|191502329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-29.4|-10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification).||-10.7|-29.4|<0.0001
95766102|NCT01730053|191502329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-26.7|-7.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-7.7|-26.7|<0.0001
95766103|NCT01730053|191502330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.6|59.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||59.5|2.6|<0.0001
95766104|NCT01730053|191502330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.8|40.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||40.5|1.8|=0.0007
95766105|NCT01730053|191502331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.58|88.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||88.2|2.58|<0.0001
95766106|NCT01730053|191502331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.7|56.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||56.7|1.7|=0.001
95766107|NCT01730053|191502332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|3.6|96.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||96.2|3.6|<0.0001
95766108|NCT01730053|191502332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.5|53.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||53.1|2.5|<0.0001
95766109|NCT01730053|191502333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||67.7|2.4|<0.0001
95766110|NCT01730053|191502333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|98.75|2.4|67.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||67.7|2.4|=0.0002
95766111|NCT01730053|191502334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-38.6|-9.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-9.1|-38.6|<0.0001
95766112|NCT01730053|191502334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-39.0|-8.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Analysis description as per the statistical analysis 1 of this endpoint.||-8.2|-39.0|=0.0001
95804176|NCT00286455|191581995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.732||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.862|12.025|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||12.025|1.862|0.001
95766113|NCT01730053|191502335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.4|||=|0.0311|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-1.2|16.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.0125.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant for rosuvastatin 10 mg baseline stratification). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||16.1|-1.2|=0.0311
95766114|NCT03588910|191502353|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.87
95766115|NCT03588910|191502354|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.36
95766116|NCT03588910|191502355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.91
95804177|NCT00286455|191581996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.766||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|11.16|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.160|0.685|0.153
95766117|NCT03588910|191502356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
95766118|NCT03588910|191502357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.36
95766119|NCT03096314|191502358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Generalized linear model|||||||0.26
95766120|NCT03096314|191502359|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-0.1|
95766121|NCT03096314|191502360|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.0||||||||8.0|-0.5|
95766122|NCT03096314|191502361|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.0||||||||6.0|-5.4|
95766123|NCT03096314|191502362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||||||||0.0|-2.7|
95766124|NCT03096314|191502363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.8|
95766125|NCT03096314|191502364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-2.1|
95766126|NCT03096314|191502365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|0|
95766127|NCT03096314|191502366|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-2.1|
95766128|NCT03096314|191502367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|34.9||||||Mild ARDS||34.9|-22.0|
95766129|NCT03096314|191502367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|5.1||||||Moderate ARDS||5.1|-56.3|
95766130|NCT03096314|191502367|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|41.1||||||Severe ARDS||41.1|-2.9|
95766131|NCT03096314|191502368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.0||||||No AKI||5.0|-7.3|
95766132|NCT03096314|191502368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.4||||||Mild AKI||3.4|-5.6|
95766133|NCT03096314|191502368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Moderate AKI||3.2|-4.4|
95766134|NCT03096314|191502368|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.3||||||Severe AKI||7.3|-1.7|
95766135|NCT03096314|191502369|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9||||||||2.9|-1.9|
95766136|NCT03096314|191502370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
95766137|NCT03096314|191502371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1||||||||5.1|-4.4|
95804178|NCT00286455|191581996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.632||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|18.354|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||18.354|1.169|0.029
95766138|NCT03096314|191502372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
95962049|NCT04836559|191896077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.75|0.40|0.6306
95962050|NCT04832971|191896099|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
95766139|NCT03096314|191502373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|39.6||||||||39.6|31.5|
95766140|NCT03096314|191502374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95766141|NCT03096314|191502375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95766142|NCT03096314|191502376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95766143|NCT03096314|191502377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
95766144|NCT03096314|191502378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
95766145|NCT03096314|191502379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95766146|NCT01760304|191502393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||2-sided paired t-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||0.769
95766147|NCT01760304|191502393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired T-test|||a paired t-test was calculated comparing baseline measures and post intervention||||<0.0001
95766148|NCT01760304|191502395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.05
95766149|NCT05516108|191502401|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.004
95766150|NCT05516108|191502402|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.020
95766151|NCT05516108|191502403|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata melogit||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.74
95766152|NCT05516108|191502404|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.10
95766153|NCT05516108|191502405|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stata mixed||time (pre, post, follow-up) x condition (mindfulness, coping)||||.009
95766154|NCT03664232|191502445|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.284|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed effects model for repeatedmeasures|||||0.07|-0.17|=0.284
95766155|NCT03664232|191502446|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.18|=0.290
95766156|NCT03664232|191502447|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.231|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.06|||MMRM|||||0.06|-0.21|=0.231
95766157|NCT01332487|191502489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Acute Urinary Retention|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95766158|NCT01332487|191502489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.000
95766159|NCT01332487|191502489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Emergency Surgery|Chi-squared|||||||0.597
95766160|NCT01037218|191502583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.07|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||5.07|1.70|<0.0001
95804179|NCT00286455|191581997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.102
95804180|NCT00286455|191581997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|Mantel Haenszel|Odd's Ratio and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.063
95962051|NCT04832971|191896099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
95962052|NCT04832971|191896099|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)||ARO-ANG3 - Placebo|||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
95962053|NCT04832971|191896099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
95766161|NCT01037218|191502583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.43|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||7.43|4.05|<0.0001
95766162|NCT01037218|191502583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.2|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||9.20|5.86|<0.0001
95766163|NCT01037218|191502584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.44|26.93|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.93|13.44|<0.0001
95804181|NCT00286455|191581998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.18|0.186
95804182|NCT00286455|191581998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.89||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.89|-0.22|0.237
95804183|NCT00286455|191581999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.50|-0.74|0.702
95804184|NCT00286455|191581999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.93|-0.32|0.338
95804185|NCT00286455|191582000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.72|-0.74|0.978
95804186|NCT00286455|191582000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.74|-0.73|0.991
95804187|NCT00286455|191582001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.61|-1.16|0.539
95804188|NCT00286455|191582001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.49||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.49|-1.29|0.379
95962054|NCT04832971|191896099|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
95804189|NCT00286455|191582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-4.4|0.616
95859983|NCT00439517|191678332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.213|||Stratified log rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.||||1.213|0.603|0.3797
95962055|NCT04832971|191896099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value is calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<.0001
95962581|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.5|0.3|1.0000
95766164|NCT01037218|191502584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.32|31.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||31.81|18.32|<0.0001
95766165|NCT01037218|191502584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|32.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|39.5|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||39.50|26.18|<0.0001
95766166|NCT01037218|191502585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.19|29.24|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||29.24|14.19|<0.0001
95766167|NCT01037218|191502585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|26.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.27|34.37|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||34.37|19.27|<0.0001
95766168|NCT01037218|191502585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|35.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.98|42.83|||ANCOVA|"P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||42.83|27.98|<0.0001
95766169|NCT01037218|191502586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.23|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.23|0.81|<0.0001
95804190|NCT00286455|191582002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.4|0.930
95804191|NCT00286455|191582003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.0|-5.3|0.915
95804192|NCT00286455|191582003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-4.8|0.745
95804193|NCT00286455|191582004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.5|-3.4|0.466
95859984|NCT00439517|191678333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.263|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|||1.263|0.755|0.8575
95962056|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.53|-38.51||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-38.51|-58.53|<.0001
95962582|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||3.4|0.3|1.0000
95766170|NCT01037218|191502586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.00|1.58|<0.0001
95766171|NCT01037218|191502586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||3.60|2.20|<0.0001
95766172|NCT01037218|191502587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.59||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.22|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.22|-0.04|0.0673
95804194|NCT00286455|191582004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.6|-1.5|0.154
95804195|NCT00286455|191582005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.9|-5.1|0.774
95804196|NCT00286455|191582005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.1|-5.2|0.761
95804197|NCT00286455|191582006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.7|-4.2|0.559
95804198|NCT00286455|191582006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.0|-4.1|0.523
95804199|NCT00286455|191582007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.2|-7.4|0.739
95804200|NCT00286455|191582007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; diabetes duration and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.6|-9.3|0.388
95804201|NCT03738215|191582012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.89||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.89|-4.17|0.0050
95804202|NCT03738215|191582012|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.12||Adjusted P-Value (based on truncated Hochberg with parameter=0.9)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||0.12|-3.16|0.0727
95804203|NCT03738215|191582013|SUPERIORITY||Lease Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.07||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures||||-0.07|-0.49|0.0727
95859985|NCT02474069|191678345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.07|0.39|0.087
95859986|NCT02474069|191678346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Logistic regression model: Logit (proportion) = treatment + PASI Score at baseline + PASI score at randomization + error||1.28|0.43|0.281
95859987|NCT04173494|191678357|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|15.67||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.81|5.54|0.0095
95962583|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.4|0.1|0.7708
95804204|NCT03738215|191582013|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03||Adjusted P-Value (based on Hochberg procedure)|MMRM|MMRM = mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.03|-0.39|0.0944
95962057|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|-49.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-49.12|-69.30|<.0001
95766173|NCT01037218|191502587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.16|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.16|0.90|<0.0001
95766174|NCT01037218|191502587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.15|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.15|0.91|<0.0001
95766175|NCT01037218|191502588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.36||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.73|-0.01|0.0566
95766176|NCT01037218|191502588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.08|0.34|0.0002
95766177|NCT01037218|191502588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||ANCOVA|P-values obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.07|0.34|0.0001
95766178|NCT01037218|191502589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.4|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||1.40|0.32|0.0019
95766179|NCT01037218|191502589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.09|1.01|<0.0001
95804205|NCT04826731|191582014|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.374
95804206|NCT04826731|191582015|OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nonparametric testing was utilized due to non-standard distribution and reduced sample size. Comparison between groups was made by Mann-Whitney U testing. Spearman's rho was utilized for correlation analysis. No subgroup analyses were planned for the study.||||0.635
95804207|NCT01027754|191582022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95804208|NCT01027754|191582023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95804209|NCT01027754|191582032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95804210|NCT02802865|191582037|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.75|1.18|0.007
95804211|NCT02802865|191582038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804212|NCT02802865|191582039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95804213|NCT02802865|191582040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95804214|NCT02802865|191582041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for this conception.||||0.709
95804215|NCT02802865|191582042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for clinical pregnancy.||||0.356
95766180|NCT01037218|191502589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.62|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||2.62|1.55|<0.0001
95766181|NCT01037218|191502590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
95766182|NCT01037218|191502590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
95766183|NCT01037218|191502590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
95766184|NCT01037218|191502590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||||<0.0001
95766185|NCT01037218|191502591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.01|18.29|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||18.29|7.01|<0.0001
95804216|NCT02802865|191582044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Chi-squared|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for live birth.||||0.356
95804217|NCT02802865|191582045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study was not powered to detect significant between-group differences for pregnancy loss.||||0.486
95804218|NCT03931785|191582048|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.58|-0.42|0.7467
95766186|NCT01037218|191502591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|25.27|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.27|13.95|<0.0001
95804219|NCT03931785|191582048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.43||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.93|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.93|-0.07|0.0941
95804220|NCT03931785|191582048|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.56|||MMRM||MD-7246 minus placebo|||0.56|-0.44|0.8098
95804221|NCT03931785|191582049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|15.0|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||15.0|-12.9|
95804222|NCT03931785|191582049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|2.6|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.6|-25.3|
95804223|NCT03931785|191582049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.8|||||Difference in responder rate (MD-7246 - placebo). 95% CIs for differences in responder rates were obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.8|-21.2|
95804224|NCT03931785|191582049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.839|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.839|0.591|0.8852
95804225|NCT03931785|191582049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.634||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.117|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.117|0.360|0.1152
95804226|NCT03931785|191582049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.317|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for response (MD-7246 : placebo)|||1.317|0.425|0.3157
95804227|NCT03052257|191582055|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|0.15|<0.0001
95766187|NCT01037218|191502591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.59|||ANOVA|P-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||32.59|21.44|<0.0001
95766188|NCT01037218|191502592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.57|0.30|<0.0001
95766189|NCT01037218|191502592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
95766190|NCT01037218|191502592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||0.97|0.69|<0.0001
95766191|NCT01037218|191502593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|15.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|20.14|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||20.14|10.21|<0.0001
95804228|NCT01052428|191582069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4568||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.4568
95804229|NCT01052428|191582070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1967||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.1967
95804230|NCT01052428|191582071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.55
95804231|NCT01052428|191582072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.21
95804232|NCT01052428|191582073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.006
95859988|NCT04173494|191678358|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI) is greater than 0, MMB was to be declared non-inferior to DAN.|Non-inferiority difference|13.58||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Non-inferiority difference, defined as p(MMB) - (0.8) \*p(DAN) where p(MMB) is percentage of participants with TI status in MMB arm and p(DAN) is percentage of participants with TI status in DAN arm.|||25.30|1.86|0.0116
95766192|NCT01037218|191502593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|14.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.96|19.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||19.92|9.96|<0.0001
95766193|NCT01037218|191502593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|21.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|25.96|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||25.96|16.15|<0.0001
95766194|NCT01037218|191502594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|17.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.22|24.81|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||24.81|10.22|<0.0001
95766195|NCT01037218|191502594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.01|35.62|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||35.62|21.01|<0.0001
95766196|NCT01037218|191502594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|33.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.61|41.02|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||41.02|26.61|<0.0001
95766197|NCT01037218|191502595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|26.23|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||26.23|11.23|<0.0001
95804233|NCT01052428|191582074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.16
95804234|NCT01052428|191582075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The differences in the rate of progression of the outcome measures were the focus of the comparisons over time between the treatment groups. A significant interaction effect between time and treatment group in the mixed model is the measure of treatment effect. Since some visits did not occur at the scheduled 6 month intervals, the results have been divided into 3-month visit intervals for reporting purposes and the number of Participants for each interval is indicated as (n=x,y)||||0.001
95804235|NCT00382863|191582076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Null hypothesis = proportion of subjects in treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min at 6 months is less than or equal to the Control group. Subjects who withdrew for cardiac-related reasons were classified as non-responders.||||0.502
95804236|NCT00382863|191582077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of subjects in the treatment group who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 45 m at 6 months from baseline is less than or equal to that of the Control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.044
95804237|NCT00382863|191582078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||The null hypothesis = the proportion of treatment subjects who successfully achieved an improvement of at least 7 points at 6 months is equal to or less than that of the control group. Withdrawals due to cardiac reasons are counted as non-responders.||||0.184
95804238|NCT00382863|191582079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated survival for the treatment group was 93%. Estimated survival for the control group was 91.5%. A non-inferiority margin of 7.5%. Final test alpha level of 0.04825.||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|One-sided||The null hypothesis = survival in the treatment group at 12 months is not equivalent to that of the Control group.||||0.012
95859989|NCT04173494|191678359|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|33.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.59|43.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.51|22.59|< 0.0001
95766198|NCT01037218|191502595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.86|36.92|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001 (NCT00282607).||36.92|21.86|<0.0001
95766199|NCT01037218|191502595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|34.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.94|41.75|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to the 4 treatment groups (placebo and udenafil 50mg, 100mg or 150mg). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure. Considerations are based on results from Phase 2, Dong-A Study DA 2005-001(NCT00282607).||41.75|26.94|<0.0001
95766200|NCT02714218|191502614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.90|0.38|0.0144
95766201|NCT02714218|191502614|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-2.6|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-2.6|-22.7|
95766202|NCT02714218|191502615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value CMH Test for comparison of odds ratio of NIVO 3 + IPI 1 over NIVO 1 + IPI 3||||0.84|0.36|0.0059
95766203|NCT02714218|191502615|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference of rates|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-4.3|||||Estimate of NIVO 3 + IPI 1- NIVO 1 + IPI 3 is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting, adjusting for PD-L1 expression and M stage at screening as entered into the IVRS|||-4.3|-24.5|
95766204|NCT02714218|191502616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||p-value from CMH Test for the comparison of the odds ratio of N3I1 over N1I3|||1.21|0.53|0.2923
95804239|NCT00382863|191582080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Class change from baseline.||||0.052
95962058|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-53.18|-73.24|<.0001
95766205|NCT02714218|191502617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||||Hazard Ratio is N3I1 over N1I3. (NIVO 3 + IPI 1 (N3I1) over NIVO 1 + IPI 3 (N1I3))|||1.47|0.79|
95804240|NCT00382863|191582081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95766206|NCT02714218|191502618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.84|0.4512
95766207|NCT00191477|191502677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.777||95.0|0.643|1.392||Only 87 recurrences and 7 deaths were documented at planned end of follow-up. The study was stopped early for futility reasons based on an interim analysis using pre-defined stopping boundaries for the hazard ratio (HR) of RFS.|Log Rank|||Sample-size calculation based on estimated 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of 63% (gemcitabine) and 50% (placebo). 191 critical events were required to detect a difference in RFS (80% power, log-rank test, alpha=0.050). Sample size of 328 patients with clinical evidence of superficial bladder cancer needed to observe these 191 events within a 24-month follow-up period, assuming 246 of these patients would receive instillation and have histopathological diagnosis of pTa/pT1(G1-3/Gx).||1.392|0.643|0.777
95766208|NCT05921903|191502690|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.48|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 2.||5.48|2.26|
95766209|NCT05921903|191502690|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.04|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 3.||2.04|1.28|
95804241|NCT00382863|191582082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
95804242|NCT00382863|191582083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 1.0 ml/kg/min from baseline.||||0.540
95804243|NCT00382863|191582084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 45 m from baseline.||||0.067
95804244|NCT00382863|191582085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided||Improvement of at least 7 points from baseline.||||0.031
95804245|NCT00382863|191582086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier actuarial time-to-first-event analysis||||0.109
95804246|NCT00382863|191582087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.031
95962059|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.31|-42.89||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|m|||Week 8||-42.89|-66.31|<.0001
95766210|NCT05921903|191502691|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.69|0.94|
95766211|NCT05921903|191502692|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.68|1.01|
95766212|NCT05921903|191502693|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-A strain at Visit 4.||1.30|0.80|
95766213|NCT05921903|191502695|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.98|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 2.||4.98|2.28|
95766214|NCT05921903|191502695|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.13|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/Pooled RSV\_IC) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant (Pooled RSV\_IC group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 3.||2.13|1.32|
95766215|NCT05921903|191502696|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_IC\_2/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effect, and SOT type and baseline log10-transformed titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of vaccine (RSV\_IC\_2 group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.70|0.97|
95804247|NCT00382863|191582088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.179
95804248|NCT00382863|191582089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.070
95804249|NCT00382863|191582090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.015
95962060|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.07|-49.55||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-49.55|-73.07|<.0001
95804250|NCT00382863|191582091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.032
95804251|NCT00382863|191582093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.627
95804252|NCT00382863|191582094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.386
95804253|NCT00382863|191582095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.154
95804254|NCT00382863|191582096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||1.000
95804255|NCT00382863|191582097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.939
95804256|NCT00382863|191582098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.012
95804257|NCT00382863|191582099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
95804258|NCT00382863|191582100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided||||||0.772
95804259|NCT03400787|191582101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||p\<0.025 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the responder rate for the Latera implant treatment was not superior to the sham treatment. A maximum sample size of 124 evaluable subjects is required for 90% power and preserving a 2.5% (one-sided) type I error rate.||||0.0001
95962061|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.37||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-54.37|-77.90|<.0001
95962584|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.2||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9966
95804260|NCT03777176|191582122|SUPERIORITY|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate and number of hypoglycemic events during Weeks 2-4 as dependent variable.|Event rate ratio|0.85||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||The primary analysis was performed as a negative binominal regression analysis on the difference of the SMPG-detected hypoglycemia episode rate between treatment groups over the Weeks 2-4.||1.36|0.54|0.5028
95962062|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-44.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.91|-33.01||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-33.01|-56.91|<.0001
95766216|NCT05921903|191502697|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.65|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_1) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 1 dose of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_1 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.65|1.00|
95766217|NCT05921903|191502698|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses conducted in this study.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||ANCOVA||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (RSV\_HA/RSV\_IC\_2) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To evaluate the humoral immune response to the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in participants that received lung or kidney solid organ transplant and 2 doses of study intervention (RSV\_IC\_2 group) and healthy participants (RSV\_HA group) for the RSV-B strain at Visit 4.||1.26|0.80|
95766218|NCT00789854|191502714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.322||||||97.5|-4.6|-0.05||The CI is for comparing add-on quetiapine versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The -0.05 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between add-on quetiapine XR and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Add-on quetiapine XR was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||-0.05|-4.6|
95766219|NCT00789854|191502714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin for differences was set to 3 units in the MADRS total score.~A power set to 80% and using a Bonferroni-adjusted one-sided alpha\* = alpha/3 = 0.0083 yields a planned sample size of 192 patients per study group. With a drop out of 4% a total of 600 randomized patients were required to obtain 192 efficacy evaluable patients per treatment group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.639||||||97.5|-3.24|1.312||The CI is for comparing quetiapine XR mono versus add-on Lithium. The CI = confidence interval was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The 1.312 value should have been +3 or above to fail to reject the null hypothesis.|ANCOVA|Non-inferiority between quetiapine XR mono and add-on lithium was shown in the Per Protocol analysis set.||Quetiapine XR mono was tested versus add-on lithium for non-inferiority. The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was non-inferior to add-on lithium.||1.312|-3.24|
95766220|NCT00789854|191502715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0489||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the add-on quetiapine XR treatment was not different to the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.0489
95766221|NCT00789854|191502715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4368||95.0||||Adjustment for multiplicity was done, alpha = 0.025|ANCOVA|Superiority testing of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the Modified Intention To Treat (ITT) population||The null hypothesis was that the quetiapine XR mono treatment was not different from the add-on lithium treatment. The power calculation was done for the primary non-inferior analysis. This superiority analysis was only done if the non-inferior analysis was successful.||||0.4368
95804261|NCT03777176|191582123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.39||The P value should be interpreted with caution given the procedural issues (hypoglycemia at the beginning of the test, test meals not being the same, and some children only having 1 test) which affected the preplanned statistical evaluation.|ANCOVA|||||4.39|-2.71|0.6433
95804262|NCT03777176|191582124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|6.78||There was 1 missing value at Baseline for the dasiglucagon + standard of care group.|ANCOVA|||||6.78|-6.48|0.9653
95804263|NCT03777176|191582125|SUPERIORITY||Event rate ratio|0.93||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.74|||Negative binominal regression|The negative binomial regression used region and treatment group as fixed effects, and Baseline hypoglycemic rate as covariate.||||1.74|0.49|0.8114
95804264|NCT00378560|191582137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|87.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|97.6|||||Binomial probability conditional on the fixed number of events.|||97.6|59.2|
95804265|NCT00378560|191582138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804266|NCT00378560|191582139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804267|NCT00378560|191582140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95859990|NCT04173494|191678360|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.22||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.43|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-2.43|-10.0|0.0014
95962063|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-43.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.83|-31.92||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-31.92|-55.83|<.0001
95804268|NCT00378560|191582141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804269|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.139||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.357|0.956|0.145
95804270|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.912|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.35|0.912|0.298
95804271|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.178||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.452|0.955|0.127
95804272|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.37|0.911|0.286
95804273|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.504|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.504|0.925|0.183
95804274|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.595|0.903|0.209
95804275|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.144||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.638|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.638|0.799|0.463
95804276|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.331||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.822|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.822|0.972|0.074
95804277|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.169||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.577|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.577|0.867|0.306
95804278|NCT03850431|191582144|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.565|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.565|0.845|0.373
95804279|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.923||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.03|0.826|0.153
95962064|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-52.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.83|-40.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-40.18|-63.83|<.0001
95962065|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-65.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.04|-46.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-46.29|-85.04|<.0001
95804280|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.068|0.777|0.252
95804281|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.941||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.088|0.815|0.413
95962066|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.54|-49.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-49.80|-88.54|<.0001
95804282|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.079|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.079|0.83|0.41
95804283|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.887||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.766|0.11
95804284|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.062|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.062|0.654|0.14
95804285|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.882||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.184|0.657|0.404
95804286|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.027|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.027|0.538|0.072
95804287|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.008|0.6|0.057
95804288|NCT03850431|191582145|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.932||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.247|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with clustering for clinics and patients||||1.247|0.697|0.637
95804289|NCT00159874|191582168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.09|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -7.02 was calculated as ' Sildenafil Medium Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||5.09|-19.13|0.253
95804290|NCT00159874|191582168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|1.93|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -9.84 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Low Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||1.93|-21.60|0.100
95804291|NCT00159874|191582168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|9.11|||ANCOVA||Least square mean difference of -2.82 was calculated as ' Sildenafil High Dose - Medium Dose'|Analyses were performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight, day of assessment and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||9.11|-14.75|0.640
95804292|NCT01104870|191582185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.95
95859991|NCT04173494|191678361|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|18.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|26.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.59|9.77|0.0011
95766222|NCT02224157|191502744|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence limit \<1.2 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid|Rate ratio|0.97|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.16|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16||
95766223|NCT02224157|191502745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.174|0.777|0.664
95766224|NCT02224157|191502746|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Rand treatment,pre-study treatment,region,visit,rand treatment by visit; fixed effects. Patient; random effect, baseline FEV1; covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. Estimate corresponds to average treatment effect across all treatment visits.|||-11.4|-53.7|0.003
95766225|NCT02224157|191502748|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No p-value was calculated for this efficacy variable|ANCOVA|Model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors, and no. of 'as needed' inhalations at baseline as continuous covariate|A mean difference less than zero indicates a larger mean reduction in number of 'as needed' inhalations in the Symbicort 'as needed' group.|||0.07|0.00|
95766226|NCT02224157|191502749|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-5.34|||ANCOVA|adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and the percent 'as needed' free days during run-in as a cont covariate.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a larger increase in the % of 'as needed' free days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' arm.|||-5.34|-8.37|< 0.001
95766227|NCT02224157|191502750|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.18|-35.77|||ANOVA|model adjusted for: randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region.|An estimate of difference \>0 means that there was a higher % of controller use days in the Symbicort 'as-needed' group.|||-35.77|-39.18|<0.001
95766228|NCT02224157|191502751|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.109|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random, and baseline ACQ-5 as covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.150|0.068|<0.001
95766229|NCT02224157|191502752|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.096|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|rand treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit, rand treat by visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ as covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.054|-0.137|<0.001
95766230|NCT02224157|191502753|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.97||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2|||Negative binomial model|Adjusted for randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region. Logarithm of follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.20|0.78|0.754
95766231|NCT02857816|191502766|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a single arm study. The primary objective was to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction between baseline and following the 12th PTNM therapy sessions in the number of UUI episodes per day.||||<0.0001
95766232|NCT02546986|191502784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|2.038|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.038|0.926|0.1789
95766233|NCT02546986|191502785|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Difference|-13.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.0|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma||||3.5|-29.0|0.1572
95962067|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-75.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.11|-56.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-56.71|-95.11|<.0001
95766234|NCT02546986|191502786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.276|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma vs non-squamous cell carcinoma).|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.276|0.830|0.2968
95766235|NCT02546986|191502787|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate (ORR) Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.3|||||The 90% exact unconditional confidence interval was used for ORR difference.|||21.3|-11.5|
95766236|NCT02546986|191502789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.352||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.0|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by squamous cell carcinoma versus non-squamous cell carcinoma|Hazard ratio and associated 2-sided 90% CIs were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model|||2.000|0.914|0.1990
95766237|NCT01402570|191502830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.95||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline PROMIS physical functioning, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.95|-0.67|0.66
95766238|NCT01402570|191502831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline sleep efficiency, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.02|-0.01|0.44
95859992|NCT04173494|191678362|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|17.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.40|7.99|0.0012
95859993|NCT04173494|191678363|OTHER||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|10.62||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|23.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.64|-2.40|0.1133
95804293|NCT01104870|191582185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Primary comparisons are between Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 3 and Dose Group 1 \& Dose Group 2. The study is not powered to test for a difference between Dose Group 2 \& Dose Group 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peak total pulmonary resistance index (TPRI) is defined as the TPRI value observed during exercise at the highest matching wattage achieved at both Baseline and Week 12. Where peak wattage cannot be matched, the closest higher wattage will be chosen for comparison.||||0.27
95804294|NCT05463705|191582199|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||||||||1.96|0.88|
95804295|NCT05463705|191582199|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system),72,73 an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||||1.52|0.66|
95804296|NCT05463705|191582200|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.61||||||||1.61|0.83|
95804297|NCT05463705|191582200|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated that 178 providers caring for 1,249 eligible patients would provide 80% power to observe an 11 percentage-point difference in prescribing rates between each intervention arm and control, assuming a control arm prescribing rate of 30%, an ICC of 0.07 (estimated based on prior studies in this system), an average of 7 patients per provider, and a type I error rate of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3||||||||1.30|0.64|
95804298|NCT05463705|191582201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.07|
95766239|NCT01402570|191502832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|145.54||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.93|470.02||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline steps per day, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||470.02|-178.93|0.35
95766240|NCT01402570|191502833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.1||Time was predictor of interest, controlling for age, gender, baseline fatigue, and overall functional status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling (LMM) with random effects for intercept and repeated effects for assessment period was used to analyze change over time for study outcomes. The primary predictor of interest in this study was the relationship of time to each of the outcomes to evaluate the potential effect of the intervention. Independent LMMs were used to study outcomes.||0.10|-2.21|0.07
95766241|NCT01662635|191502846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables were summarized as arithmetic means, medians and standard deviations; and categorical variables were reported as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. Inferential comparisons were performed using Student's t test. The x2 or Fisher's exact tests were used to assess significance among categorical variables.||||< 0.05
95766242|NCT02019472|191502847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.07|< 0.001
95766243|NCT02019472|191502847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.39|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.69|=0.013
95804299|NCT05463705|191582201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in HbA1c %|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.22|
95804300|NCT02197065|191582259|OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||This was a pilot feasibility study and we were only powered to determine the frequency of troponin elevation in the entire study population, not to compare the frequency of a rise in troponin in the two study arms. Thus Aim 1 applies to the entire study cohort.||||
95766244|NCT02019472|191502848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.8||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-14.1|0.306
95804301|NCT02197065|191582260|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95766245|NCT02019472|191502848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-6|0.464
95766246|NCT02019472|191502849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|-0.7|0.086
95766247|NCT02019472|191502849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|5.9|< 0.001
95766248|NCT02019472|191502850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.4|-12.8|0.603
95766249|NCT02019472|191502850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.3|-7.6|0.644
95766250|NCT03861390|191502851|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95766251|NCT03861390|191502852|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95766252|NCT03861390|191502853|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.70
95766253|NCT03861390|191502853|OTHER|||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.37
95804302|NCT02197065|191582261|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95804303|NCT00276380|191582275|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.48|0.46|0.52
95766254|NCT03861390|191502854|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.77
95766255|NCT03861390|191502854|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.48
95766256|NCT03861390|191502855|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.96
95766257|NCT03861390|191502855|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.91
95766258|NCT03861390|191502856|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
95766259|NCT03861390|191502856|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.46
95766260|NCT03861390|191502857|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.82
95766261|NCT03861390|191502857|OTHER|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.99
95766262|NCT03861390|191502858|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
95804304|NCT00276380|191582276|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.57|0.47|0.623
95804305|NCT00276380|191582276|OTHER|Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The homogeneity of the Odds Ratio (OR) across centres was assessed by the Breslow Day test.|The association between treatment and response after adjustment for the pooled centres was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||1.3|0.42|0.3
95804306|NCT00276380|191582278|OTHER|||||||0.207||||||Treatment effect was derived using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.207
95804307|NCT00276380|191582278|OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.590
95804308|NCT00276380|191582278|OTHER|Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.||||||0.814|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.814
95804309|NCT00276380|191582279|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.240
95962585|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.0|0.2|0.9503
95766263|NCT03861390|191502858|OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.84
95766264|NCT03861390|191502859|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.49
95766265|NCT03861390|191502859|OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.52
95766266|NCT03192488|191502867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.11|||ANOVA|"The overall model was adjusted for the co-variate VO2max."||||2.11|0.01|0.047
95766267|NCT03192488|191502868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.327
95766268|NCT03192488|191502868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
95766269|NCT01479465|191502878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio (HR) equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||2.06|1.01|0.0395
95766270|NCT01479465|191502878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.89|||Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis was that the HR equals to 1 between SIM treatment arm and placebo, while the alternative hypothesis was that HR was less than 1.~The HR (95% CI) and p-value (for comparison between SIM treatment arm and placebo) were based on two-sided log-rank test, stratified based on the 2-level ECOG performance status (0 or \> 0) at randomization."||1.89|0.92|0.1042
95766271|NCT02502149|191502882|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.24|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.24|0.93|
95766272|NCT02502149|191502883|OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||||The adjusted geometric mean ratio is calculated as 15K (PK2)/2K (PK1).|||1.16|0.87|
95766273|NCT03290378|191502987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.005
95766274|NCT03207776|191502994|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.64|0.041
95766275|NCT03207776|191502995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.42|0.69|0.952
95766276|NCT03207776|191502996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.71|0.472
95766277|NCT03207776|191502997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.77|0.74|0.544
95804310|NCT00276380|191582279|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.441
95804311|NCT00276380|191582279|OTHER|||||||0.645||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.645
95804312|NCT00276380|191582280|OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 28||||0.623
95804313|NCT00276380|191582280|OTHER|||||||0.338||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 84||||0.338
95804314|NCT00276380|191582280|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||Treatment effect was derived using an ANCOVA analysis with baseline and pooled centres as covariates|ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment effect at Day 168||||0.828
95804315|NCT01651208|191582307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that in the MINT group, at least 70% of subjects will reach an MPR of 0.80 while in the DVD group, the proportion will remain at or below 55%. Our sample size estimates showed that, using a conservative 2-sided test at the 5% Alpha level and a 90% power, we will be able to detect a significant 15% difference (70% - 55%) with a sample of 217 in each study group.||||<0.01
95804316|NCT01651208|191582308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean MMAS-4 score is similar in both intervention arms||||<0.01
95804317|NCT05287685|191582309|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary pre-post outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.29
95804318|NCT05287685|191582309|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.34
95804319|NCT05287685|191582309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.02
95804320|NCT05287685|191582309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.04
95766278|NCT02002221|191503006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||H0: δ vildagliptin 50 mg bid = δ placebo versus H1: δ Vildagliptin 50 mg bid \< δ placebo,||-0.73|-1.08|< 0.001
95766279|NCT01062425|191503011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||One-sided test with significance level of 0.15.|Z-test|||The null hypothesis was that the 6m PFS rates for both arms are 50%, and the alternative hypothesis was that patients receiving the experimental regimen would have a 6-month PFS rate of 66%. With 150 eligible patients, there would be an 80% statistical power to detect the 16% absolute increase in 6m PFS at a significance level of 0.15, using a one-sided Z test for two proportions.||||0.005
95766280|NCT01062425|191503012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.24||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||1.24|0.6|0.44
95804321|NCT05287685|191582310|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.88
95804322|NCT05287685|191582310|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.87
95766281|NCT01062425|191503012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is reference level for the hazard ratio.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and RPA risk class.||1.34|0.62|0.648
95766282|NCT01062425|191503013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Log Rank||Placebo is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|||0.95|0.47|0.03
95766283|NCT01062425|191503013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference arm.|Multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model for progression-free survival was performed with the stratification variables as fixed variables to assess the treatment effect adjusting patient-specific risk factors. The covariates evaluated for the multivariate models were assigned protocol treatment, MGMT methylation status, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) risk class.||0.97|0.46|0.036
95766284|NCT01062425|191503014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95804323|NCT05287685|191582310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.10
95804324|NCT05287685|191582310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.90
95804325|NCT05287685|191582311|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis to test whether groups had equivalent levels of satisfaction with treatment (defined as the groups not being significantly different at the level of p\<.05).||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups.||||.80
95804326|NCT05287685|191582312|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.35
95804327|NCT05287685|191582312|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.049
95804328|NCT05287685|191582312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.45
95766285|NCT01234350|191503017|OTHER||IRR|0.829||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.283||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% confidence interval (CI), and incidence rate ratio (IRRs) with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|The IRs were estimated using a Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.283|0.536|0.4007
95804329|NCT05287685|191582312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.20
95766286|NCT01234350|191503018|OTHER||IRR|0.874||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.626||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For osteoporosis and osteopenia events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.626|0.470|0.6710
95766287|NCT01234350|191503018|OTHER||IRR|1.857||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|9.403||Poisson-mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For bone fracture events. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||9.403|0.367|0.4544
95766288|NCT01234350|191503019|OTHER||IRR|1.193||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.613||Poisson mixture regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and history of diabetes mellitus along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual study exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For glucose intolerance. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||1.613|0.882|0.2529
95766289|NCT01234350|191503019|OTHER||IRR|2.623||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|5.944||Poisson-mixture regression is used to model the influence of age, stage of disease, and relevant medical history along with the treatment group effect on the number of events adjusted for individual trial exposures measured in 100 PYE.|Wald test|The IRs for each treatment arm with 95% CI, and IRRs with 95% CI and p-values were based on Wald test.|IRR for treatment with the lower 95% confidence limit \>1 suggest increased risk of AESI; upper confidence limit \<1 suggest decreased risk of AESI with the use of FIRMAGON. The limit including 1 suggests no difference b/w treatment groups.|For T2DM. The IRs were estimated using Poisson-mixture regression model.||5.944|1.158|0.0208
95766290|NCT01234350|191503026|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.747||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.038||A logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group on the time to event for all-cause mortality.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was used to model the influence of age, stage of disease and relevant medical history along with the treatment group.||The analyses of all-cause mortality was based on logistic regressions.||1.038|0.537|0.0821
95804330|NCT05287685|191582313|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline (week 0) to posttest (week 8) scores.||||.006
95804331|NCT05287685|191582313|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preliminary outcome analysis for the open trial (n = 7). The analysis was a paired samples t-test comparing baseline(week 0) to follow-up (week 16) scores.||||.011
95962068|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-60.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.78|-43.71||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-43.71|-76.78|<.0001
95804332|NCT05287685|191582313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at posttest (Week 8) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.22
95804333|NCT05287685|191582313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis for the pilot RCT, comparing the outcome variable at follow-up (Week 16) between the two groups, with pretest (baseline) scores, annual household income and household size (to approximate income-to-needs ratio), caregiver education, and child externalizing behavior as covariates.||||.25
95804334|NCT05529173|191582314|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95804335|NCT00835042|191582316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5||||||90.0|85.8|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.8|85.8|
95859994|NCT04173494|191678366|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.778|||Anderson & Gill proportional means model|||||0.778|0.397|0.0006
95859995|NCT04173494|191678367|OTHER||Stratified CMH|-8.26||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.18|0.1602
95962586|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.7||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 28||3.2|0.2|0.9791
95962069|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.83|-47.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-47.72|-80.83|<.0001
95766291|NCT00289848|191503027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|<|0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline A1C as a covariate||||-0.83|-1.23|<0.001
95766292|NCT00289848|191503028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.8|<|0.001||95.0|-38.4|-23.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-23.7|-38.4|<0.001
95766293|NCT00289848|191503029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.2|<|0.001||95.0|-68.8|-44.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms of treatment, country, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on AHA or on AHA), and baseline 2-hr PMG as a covariate||||-44.3|-68.8|<0.001
95766294|NCT01839708|191503030|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95766295|NCT01839708|191503031|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95804336|NCT00835042|191582317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|92.2|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.2|
95804337|NCT00835042|191582318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106|92.3|
95804338|NCT00835042|191582319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|99.3|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|99.3|
95804339|NCT00835042|191582320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.4|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.4|
95804340|NCT00835042|191582321|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.3||||||90.0|96.7|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|96.7|
95804341|NCT00835042|191582322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.0||||||90.0|81.8|101.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101|81.8|
95766296|NCT01839708|191503032|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766297|NCT01839708|191503033|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95766298|NCT01839708|191503034|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95804342|NCT00835042|191582323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.9||||||90.0|94.6|103.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103|94.6|
95804343|NCT00835042|191582324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.6|108.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||108|97.6|
95804344|NCT02662582|191582352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|47.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means (LSMeans), LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||47.2|-71.2|0.734
95766299|NCT01839708|191503035|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95766300|NCT01839708|191503036|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766301|NCT01839708|191503037|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766302|NCT01839708|191503038|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766303|NCT01839708|191503039|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766304|NCT01839708|191503040|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766305|NCT01839708|191503041|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766306|NCT01839708|191503042|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766307|NCT01839708|191503043|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95766308|NCT01836471|191503075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.5|0.7269
95766309|NCT01836471|191503076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
95766310|NCT01836471|191503076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.04|
95804345|NCT02662582|191582353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0219||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0694|0.0256||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0256|-0.0694|0.438
95766311|NCT01836471|191503076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.13|
95766312|NCT01836471|191503077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9179
95766313|NCT01836471|191503078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.22|
95766314|NCT01836471|191503078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least sqares mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.32|
95766315|NCT01836471|191503078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
95766316|NCT01836471|191503078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.43|
95766317|NCT01836471|191503079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7930
95766318|NCT03281876|191503171|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group. The objective is to be considered a success if the lower limit of the 87% CI is above 0%.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|87.0|-18.27|11.58|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||11.58|-18.27|0.8157
95766319|NCT03281876|191503172|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the Control group.|Other: Vaccine Efficacy rate|-2.26||||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|15.29|||Negative Binomial regression|Negative Binomial model with arm, country, gold grade, history of exacerbation and age category as covariates and log time as offset variable||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of moderate and severe AECOPDs||15.29|-23.45|0.8157
95766320|NCT03281876|191503179|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy is defined as 1 minus the risk ratio (Rvacc / Rcon) based on the number of moderate and severe AECOPD observed in 1 year , with Rvacc = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the GSK3277511A Group and Rcon = average yearly incidence rate of AECOPD events per subject in the control group.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-2.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.19|||Negative Binomial regression|||To assess efficacy of the investigational vaccine as compared to the placebo control with respect to the rate of AECOPDs of any severity- upto 12 months follow up period||14.19|-22.95|0.7700
95766321|NCT03281876|191503181|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.166|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.166|0.758|0.5751
95766322|NCT03281876|191503182|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.934||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.15|0.758|0.5194
95766323|NCT03281876|191503183|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.791|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.791|0.616|0.8581
95804346|NCT02662582|191582353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.0325||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0663|0.0014||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0014|-0.0663|0.114
95962070|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.85|-53.18||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-53.18|-85.85|<.0001
95962071|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.73|-40.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-40.70|-61.73|<.0001
95962587|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||9.8|0.5|0.5739
95766324|NCT03281876|191503183|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.249|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.249|0.792|0.9634
95766325|NCT03281876|191503183|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.722||||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.157|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.157|0.45|0.1755
95766326|NCT03281876|191503190|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.477|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate or severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.477|0.73|0.9463
95766327|NCT03281876|191503191|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.528|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for any NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.528|0.782|0.6042
95766328|NCT03281876|191503192|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.243||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|5.504|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for mild NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||5.504|0.914|0.0777
95766329|NCT03281876|191503192|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.467|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for moderate NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||1.467|0.71|0.9121
95766330|NCT03281876|191503192|OTHER|The dependent variable is the time to first occurrence of the event. The reference is the Placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|4.502|||Regression, Cox|Analysis using Cox proportional hazard regression including history of exacerbation, study treatment, GOLD grade and age group as covariate.||Hazard rate for severe NTHi-associated and/or Mcat-associated AECOPDs, one year follow-up starting 1 month post dose 2||4.502|0.278|0.8737
95766331|NCT00683657|191503212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.5||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pre treatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin.|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-8.5|-25.1|0.0001
95766332|NCT00683657|191503213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-16.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-16.1|-44.4|<0.0001
95766333|NCT00683657|191503214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-14.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-14.7|-56.2|0.0010
95766334|NCT00683657|191503215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-10.3||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-10.3|-27.1|<0.0001
95766335|NCT00683657|191503216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.4||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post - pre = pretreatment|Mean difference = adjusted mean change for saxagliptin 5 mg + Metformin - adjusted mean change for Placebo + Metformin|With 39 subjects per treatment group, there was a 93% power for the primary endpoint to detect a difference in 24-hour mean weighted glucose of 16 mg/dL between saxagliptin and placebo, assuming a standard deviation of 20 mg/dL. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, a total of 92 subjects (46 subjects per treatment arm) needed to be randomized.||-7.4|-23.3|0.0002
95766336|NCT03741400|191503217|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.88
95804347|NCT02662582|191582354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.75||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|3.24||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.24|-1.75|0.612
95859996|NCT04173494|191678368|OTHER||Stratified CMH|19.0||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|33.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||33.32|4.68|0.0124
95766337|NCT03741400|191503217|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.99
95766338|NCT03741400|191503217|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.80
95766339|NCT03741400|191503218|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.61
95766340|NCT03741400|191503219|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in total seconds||||0.47
95766341|NCT03741400|191503219|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in fine motor skill assessment||||0.55
95766342|NCT03741400|191503219|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis of change in gross motor skills assessment||||0.38
95766343|NCT03741400|191503220|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||||||0.24
95766344|NCT03741400|191503221|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.18
95766345|NCT03741400|191503222|OTHER|||||||0.926||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 12||||0.926
95766346|NCT03741400|191503222|OTHER|||||||0.828||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance, 0.05|ANCOVA|Nonparametric ANCOVA using Quade's test with adjustments for age, sex, and NIHSS||Analysis at week 24||||0.828
95766347|NCT02899962|191503280|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was time to first relapse during the maintenance phase. This was calculated as the number of days from randomisation to the day where the subject had the first relapse confirmed. For subjects who either did not encounter a relapse or were withdrawn from the trial, the number of days was treated as a censored observation at the day of end of trial visit.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.69|||Regression, Cox||Estimates are obtained from a proportional hazards model with treatment group,pooled trial site,disease severity at maintenance baseline (Week 4; determined by PGA) as factors.|All randomized subjects were considered for statistical analysis.||0.69|0.47|<0.001
95962072|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-56.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.09|-46.04||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.04|-67.09|<.0001
95766348|NCT02899962|191503281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||ANOVA|Factors adjusted for in the ANOVA model were treatment group, pooled trial site, and disease severity at maintenance baseline (PGA).|Multiple imputation of data for withdrawn subjects was done using 100 imputations and depended on whether the subject's reason for withdrawal potentially was related to treatment. Length of the maintenance phase was assumed to be 52 weeks (364 days)|The number of days in remission was calculated as the sum of days where the subject was in remission periods. The proportion of days in remission was calculated as the number of days in remission divided by the length of the maintenance phase in days.||0.14|0.08|<0.001
95766349|NCT02899962|191503282|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.63|||Poisson regression||The number of relapses was analysed using a Poisson regression model with treatment group,pooled sites,disease severity at maintenance baseline as factors, subject as random effect, and time at risk as an offset.|||0.63|0.46|<0.001
95766350|NCT03918629|191503341|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR) was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.90|0.74|
95766351|NCT03918629|191503341|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.66|0.49|
95766352|NCT03918629|191503342|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.9|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||2.9|-6.4|
95766353|NCT03918629|191503342|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-12.2|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-12.2|-21.3|
95766354|NCT03918629|191503351|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin A||0.95|0.80|
95766355|NCT03918629|191503351|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for GMR was \>0.67 for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Adjusted GMR was estimated by the ratio of the adjusted GMCs (adjusted for baseline concentrations). CIs based on the student t distribution for the mean or the mean difference in logarithmic scale.|Toxin B||0.81|0.62|
95859997|NCT04173494|191678368|OTHER||Stratified CMH|15.68||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=1.5g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||28.90|2.47|0.0282
95766356|NCT03918629|191503352|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin A||1.7|-3.7|
95766357|NCT03918629|191503352|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority objective was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10% for both Toxin A and Toxin B.|Percentage difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-5.5|||||The difference (2-Dose - 3-Dose) and the associated 95% CIs for the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Toxin B||-5.5|-15.1|
95766358|NCT02623725|191503353|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) of the Geometric mean of titer ratios (GMTRs) (booster vs post-dose 3) was greater than (\>) 1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.06||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.06|1.33|
95766359|NCT02623725|191503353|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.31||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.31|1.43|
95766360|NCT02623725|191503353|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.27|0.841|
95766361|NCT02623725|191503353|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority of the booster dose was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMTRs (booster vs post-dose 3) was \>1/2 for each serotype.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.74||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.74|1.01|
95766362|NCT02623725|191503354|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.05||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||2.05|1.34|
95766363|NCT02623725|191503354|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.41||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||2.41|1.49|
95766364|NCT02623725|191503354|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.30|0.860|
95766365|NCT02623725|191503354|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio was \>1.|Geometric mean of titer ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.73||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.73|1.02|
95766366|NCT01243957|191503367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.0|||ANOVA|||||2.00|1.61|
95766367|NCT01243957|191503368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|1.79|||ANOVA|||||1.79|1.49|
95766368|NCT01243957|191503369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.5459
95766369|NCT01243957|191503370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.04|0.99|
95766370|NCT01243957|191503370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.06|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of AUCτ for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.06|1.01|
95766371|NCT01243957|191503371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.03|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684||1.03|0.97|
95766372|NCT01243957|191503371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Cmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.07|1.00|
95766373|NCT01243957|191503372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for fluoxetine alone and fluoxetine + LY2216684.||1.42|-3.00|0.4230
95766374|NCT01243957|191503372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ratio of Geometric LS Means of Tmax for norfluoxetine alone and norfluoxetine + LY2216684.||-1.00|-6.50|0.0293
95766375|NCT01891864|191503378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin for the comparison of GP2015 with Enbrel with respect to PASI 75 response at Week 12 was based on response rates reported in two pivotal placebo controlled trials (Leonardi et al 2003; Papp et al 2005). Based on the observed effect size of 45-46%, an equivalence margin of 18% was chosen so that at least 60% of the treatment effect seen for Enbrel was maintained. A response rate of 49% was assumed for the comparator treatment Enbrel.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|5.3||||||PASI 75 response rate (proportion of patients showing at least a 75% improvement in PASI) after the first 12 weeks of treatment (Treatment Period 1) was the primary endpoint to assess equivalence between GP2015 and Enbrel®. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of PASI75 could be concluded if the exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in the PASI75 rates is completely contained within the interval \[-18%; 18%\]. A logistic regression model was to be employed.||5.3|-9.85|
95766376|NCT01891864|191503379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A MMRM (Mixed Model Repeated Method) was performed on the percentage change from baseline in PASI score from baseline to Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.474|2.204||||||||2.204|-3.474|
95859998|NCT04173494|191678368|OTHER||Stratified CMH|6.97||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|19.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||\>=2g/dL Increase in Hemoglobin response|||19.35|-5.41|0.2844
95962073|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.56|-52.66||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-52.66|-73.56|<.0001
95962588|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.4|0.3|0.9918
95804348|NCT02662582|191582354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.29||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|2.14||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||2.14|-1.55|0.789
95804349|NCT02662582|191582355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.72||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|1.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.70|-0.26|0.225
95859999|NCT04173494|191678373|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.572|||Log Rank|||||1.572|0.504|0.6879
95860000|NCT04173494|191678374|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.804||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.386|||Log Rank|||||1.386|0.466|0.4320
95962074|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-37.59||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-37.59|-59.66|<.0001
95766377|NCT01891864|191503379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The mean averaged treatment effect (ATE) of percent change from baseline in PASI score up to week 12 was derived for each patient and analyzed using an ANCOVA approach. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2015 and Enbrel was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.845||||||||1.845|-3.61|
95766378|NCT02654054|191503428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.002|140.227||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||140.227|23.002|< 0.001
95766379|NCT02654054|191503428|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.466|50.451||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||50.451|10.466|< 0.001
95766380|NCT02654054|191503429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-222.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95766381|NCT02654054|191503429|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-177.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95766382|NCT02654054|191503430|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|79.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.13|88.16||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||88.16|71.13|< 0.001
95766383|NCT02654054|191503430|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.11|60.76||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||60.76|44.11|< 0.001
95766384|NCT02654054|191503431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95766385|NCT02654054|191503431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-192.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95766386|NCT02654054|191503432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-240.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95804350|NCT02662582|191582355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.92||||0.064||90.0|0.11|1.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.174|0.11|0.064
95860001|NCT04173494|191678375|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.0|||MMRM|||||0.00|-1.42|0.0513
95860002|NCT04173494|191678376|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.82||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-2.48|||MMRM|||||-2.48|-19.15|0.0113
95860003|NCT04173494|191678377|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.31||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.11|||MMRM|||||4.11|-1.49|0.3570
95860004|NCT03776812|191678385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.22|0.56|0.3293
95860005|NCT03776812|191678385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.98|0.44|0.0384
95766387|NCT02654054|191503432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-198.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95962075|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.32|-40.05||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-40.05|-62.32|<.0001
95804351|NCT02662582|191582356|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.052||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.167||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.167|-0.063|0.447
95804352|NCT02662582|191582357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0|-1.7|0.099
95804353|NCT02662582|191582357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Dyspnea) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.2|-1.3|0.255
95804354|NCT02662582|191582357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.6|-1.1|0.651
95804355|NCT02662582|191582357|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Borg (Leg Effort) at isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.5|-1.0|0.591
95962076|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-61.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-50.67||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-50.67|-72.60|<.0001
95766388|NCT02654054|191503433|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|49.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|69.18||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||69.18|30.27|< 0.001
95766389|NCT02654054|191503433|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|45.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|63.92||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||63.92|26.90|< 0.001
95766390|NCT02654054|191503434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-190.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95766391|NCT02654054|191503434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-116.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95766392|NCT05620082|191503435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95804356|NCT02662582|191582358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0286||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0061|0.0511||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0511|0.0061|0.040
95804357|NCT02662582|191582358|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0185||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0031|0.0401||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0401|-0.0031|0.155
95804358|NCT02662582|191582359|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0459|0.0479||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0479|-0.0459|0.972
95804359|NCT02662582|191582359|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.0118||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0471|0.0236||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0236|-0.0471|0.578
95962077|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.65|-23.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-23.46|-44.65|<.0001
95766393|NCT05620082|191503436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95766394|NCT05620082|191503437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95766395|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Appearance of supplements||||0.10
95766396|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Smell of supplements between groups||||0.10
95766397|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Taste of supplements||||0.08
95766398|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Sweetness of supplements||||0.70
95766399|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Texture of supplements||||0.02
95766400|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Thickness of supplements||||0.45
95766401|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing Aftertaste of supplements||||0.25
95766402|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Feeling in mouth' of supplements||||0.45
95766403|NCT05620082|191503438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing 'Future choice' of supplements||||0.06
95766404|NCT05620082|191503439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction revealed a significant increase in total daily energy intake from baseline to porridge timepoints (p\<0.001).|Related samples Friedman's Two-Way ANOVA|||||||0.004
95766405|NCT03296813|191503457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.18||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.180|0.885|0.765
95766406|NCT03296813|191503458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.02||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.020|0.826|0.113
95766407|NCT03296813|191503459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.068||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Linear|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to total all-cause hospitalizations through month 12 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a negative binomial regression of the frequency of re-hospitalizations with an offset term of the log of each subject's months to last re-hospitalization assessment through month 12. Re-hospitalizations greater than or equal to 5 were combined and analyzed with re-hospitalizations = 5 (i.e., one category \>=5) and for the subjects with \>=5 re-hospitalizations, the offset term was the log of the months to the 5th re-hospitalization.|1.068|0.836|0.366
95766408|NCT03296813|191503460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.181||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Regression, Cox|||To determine whether torsemide is superior to furosemide with respect to all-cause mortality or first all-cause hospitalization through day 30 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|P-value from a Cox proportional hazards regression model including the assigned treatment (torsemide vs. furosemide as the reference group) as well as age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.181|0.753|0.610
95766409|NCT03296813|191503461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.26||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|3.26|-0.66|0.194
95766410|NCT03296813|191503461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.74||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|1.74|-2.53|0.718
95804360|NCT02662582|191582360|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.65||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.26||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.26|-1.55|0.235
95962078|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.56|-27.25||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-27.25|-48.56|<.0001
95962079|NCT04832971|191896100|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-51.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-40.68||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-40.68|-61.71|<.0001
95962080|NCT04832971|191896101|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
95766411|NCT03296813|191503461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.3||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine whether torsemide improves the QOL at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the KCCQ among patients hospitalized for heart failure.|Least squares means results from mixed-model repeated measures analysis of the KCCQ score change from baseline with terms for treatment, time (visit) from randomization, treatment x time (visit) interaction as well as the baseline KCCQ score, age, sex, baseline ejection fraction (\<40%, 41-49%, \>50%, unknown), and loop diuretic treatment prior to index hospital admission as covariates.|2.30|-2.26|0.987
95766412|NCT03296813|191503462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 1 month compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.904
95766413|NCT03296813|191503462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 6 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.829
95766414|NCT03296813|191503462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||For secondary analyses, a statistically significant p-value \< 0.005 was pre-specified to address the multiple planned analyses and help control the overall type I error rate.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To determine whether torsemide reduces symptoms of depression at 12 months compared to Furosemide as assessed by the PHQ-2 among patients hospitalized for heart failure.||||0.342
95766415|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||7.7|2.0|<0.0001
95766416|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.6|0.1|<0.0001
95766417|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.0|0.8|0.6334
95766418|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.6||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.6|0.2|0.8065
95766419|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|26.6||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||26.6|3.8|<0.0001
95766420|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
95766421|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.3|0.0|<0.0001
95766422|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
95766423|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.8|0.2|0.0011
95804361|NCT02662582|191582360|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.57||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.19||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.19|-1.33|0.215
95804362|NCT02662582|191582361|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.77||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.77|-0.38|0.280
95766424|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
95766425|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.6||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||6.9|1.0|0.0718
95766426|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
95766427|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Gemetric mean ratio|0.4||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.0|0.1|0.0593
95766428|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||10.4|2.6|<0.0001
95766429|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|2.2||||0.2005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.7||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||5.7|0.8|0.2005
95766430|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|93.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||93.1|13.1|<0.0001
95766431|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
95766432|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|0.0|0.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.1|0.0|<0.0001
95766433|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.4||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||1.1|0.2|0.1138
95766434|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||18.1|2.5|<0.0001
95766435|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
95804363|NCT02662582|191582361|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.46||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.40|-0.49|0.424
95804364|NCT02662582|191582362|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.039||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0099|0.0879||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.0879|-0.0099|0.187
95962081|NCT04832971|191896101|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
95766436|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
95766437|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|52.4||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||52.4|4.9|<0.0001
95766438|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
95766439|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||0.2|0.0|<0.0001
95766440|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
95766441|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.3||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.3|0.3|1.0000
95766442|NCT02861586|191503463|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2||Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests according to Tukey-Kramer. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance was conducted with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.2|0.3|1.0000
95766443|NCT02861586|191503472|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.0|0.4|0.9775
95766444|NCT02861586|191503472|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.3||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.1|0.6|0.8366
95766445|NCT02861586|191503472|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.6|0.7|0.5625
95766446|NCT02861586|191503472|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||3.5|0.6|0.5924
95766447|NCT02861586|191503472|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.8||||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||4.1|0.8|0.3122
95766448|NCT02861586|191503472|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance was performed with baseline measles titer group as a fixed factor.||||2.8|0.5|0.9665
95766449|NCT04796909|191503473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95804365|NCT02662582|191582362|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0488||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0163|0.114||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.1140|-0.0163|0.213
95804366|NCT02662582|191582363|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4||||0.64||90.0|-2.1|1.2||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.2|-2.1|0.640
95804367|NCT02662582|191582363|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.1||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.1|-2.5|0.487
95804368|NCT02662582|191582364|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.095||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.189||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.189|0.000|0.100
95804369|NCT02662582|191582364|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.133||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.213||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.213|0.053|0.008
95804370|NCT02662582|191582365|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.154||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.154|-0.052|0.408
95804371|NCT02662582|191582365|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.013|0.174||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.174|0.013|0.058
95804372|NCT02662582|191582366|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.44||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|6.73||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||6.73|-3.85|0.648
95804373|NCT02662582|191582366|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.85||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|5.82||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.82|-4.12|0.775
95766450|NCT04796909|191503474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95804374|NCT02662582|191582367|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-1.9|0.544
95804375|NCT02662582|191582367|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||5.0|-0.7|0.216
95962589|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.9|0.3|0.9748
95766451|NCT04796909|191503475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95766452|NCT04796909|191503476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95766453|NCT04796909|191503477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95766454|NCT04796909|191503478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95766455|NCT04796909|191503479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated-Measures ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95766456|NCT04796909|191503480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95766457|NCT04796909|191503481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95766458|NCT04796909|191503482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95766459|NCT00437021|191503488|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.99|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||1.99|0.97|
95804376|NCT02662582|191582368|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.6||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||1.6|-16.5|0.171
95993927|NCT01252966|191963782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Longitudinal logistic regression with fitted generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate an overall treatment effect odds ratio including both the EOT and 6-month time points and relevant covariates (e.g., baseline smoking rate, age, Shipley IQ score). The study (n=213) had 80% power to detect small to medium effects on quit rates (corresponding to Cohen's one-sample d=0.38).||1.13|0.42|0.14
95766460|NCT00437021|191503489|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.69|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.69|2.22|
95766461|NCT00437021|191503497|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.76|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||2.76|1.65|
95766462|NCT00437021|191503498|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group A is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.59|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2 transformed titers between Group B and Group A \>= 1.||3.59|2.57|
95766463|NCT04162847|191503499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline||1.10|.88|.76
95766464|NCT04162847|191503499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||6 week follow-up||.93|.76|.001
95766465|NCT04162847|191503499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||6 month follow-up||.90|.74|.000
95766466|NCT04162847|191503499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||2 year||.95|.77|.002
95804377|NCT02662582|191582368|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.7||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||10.7|-10.3|0.976
95804378|NCT02662582|191582369|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|4.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.9|-6.1|0.844
95766467|NCT04162847|191503500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|7.5|||Chi-squared|||A comparison of service uptake between the intervention and control groups over the 6-month follow-up period.||7.50|5.98|.000
95766468|NCT04162847|191503500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.04|||Chi-squared|||A secondary analysis using the same criterion for the intervention group (access to the digital intervention during the 6-month follow-up) but expanding the control group definition to include individuals who reported having psychotherapy or starting a new medication at any point during the full 2-year follow-up period.||2.04|1.64|.000
95766469|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 week||||.000
95766470|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 6 months||||.000
95766471|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PHQ-9 2 year||||.02
95766472|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 week||||.002
95766473|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 6 month||||.80
95766474|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||GADQ-IV 2 year||||.51
95766475|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 week||||.004
95766476|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 6 month||||.02
95766477|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||SPDQ 2 year||||.09
95766478|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 week||||.66
95766479|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 6 month||||.85
95766480|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||PDSR 2 year||||.97
95766481|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 week||||.000
95804379|NCT02662582|191582369|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|4.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||4.0|-5.8|0.751
95804380|NCT02662582|191582370|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.5|0.590
95804381|NCT02662582|191582370|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.9||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.9|-0.3|0.399
95804382|NCT02662582|191582371|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.09||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.01||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.01|-0.20|0.151
95804383|NCT02662582|191582372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.007||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.056||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||0.056|-0.070|0.857
95860006|NCT00478023|191678421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|18.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.9|25.3||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||25.3|10.9|<0.0001
95766482|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 6 month||||.000
95766483|NCT04162847|191503501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||EDE-Q Global 2 year||||.54
95804384|NCT02662582|191582373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|3.17||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||3.17|-0.05|0.110
95804385|NCT02662582|191582374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.57|13.71||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Peak: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.71|-9.57|0.766
95804386|NCT02662582|191582374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|13.54||Statistical comparison was performed at a 2-sided 0.10 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Isotime: LSMeans, LSMean difference of CK-2127107 minus placebo, and 90% confidence intervals are based on a mixed effect model with treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as a random effect, and a compound symmetry covariance structure.||13.54|-7.66|0.642
95854586|NCT05386329|191668814|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.512|28.5806||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary outcome assessing a complementary aspect of the patient experience. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores compared to the baseline (week 0) Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LES-Q-SF total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||28.5806|14.5120|<.0001
95860007|NCT00478023|191678421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.7|28.0||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||28.0|13.7|<0.0001
95766484|NCT04162847|191503502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 6 months||||.48
95766485|NCT04162847|191503502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Mental component summary 2 years||||.04
95766486|NCT04162847|191503502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 6 months||||.97
95766487|NCT04162847|191503502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||multilevel modeling methods|Multilevel modeling was used to examine differences in changes in each outcome measure between the two conditions.||Physical component summary 2 years||||.80
95766488|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.37
95804387|NCT00407030|191582391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-5.9||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-5.9|-12.0|<0.001
95804388|NCT00407030|191582397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||-4.6|-10.4|<0.001
95804389|NCT00407030|191582398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6||Due to the hierarchical testing no adjustment of type I error was necessary.|ANCOVA|Independent variables in the model were treatment, baseline TWSTRS-Total score, gender, age, pre-treatment of cervical dystonia, and pooled center.||Hierarchical testing: Primary null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 1st hypothesis lead to test of 2nd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units) identical to placebo. Rejection of 2nd hypothesis lead to test of 3rd null hypothesis: incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (240 Units) identical to incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) (120 Units). 3 separate models were used to test these hypotheses which results in different LS means estimates.||4.6|-2.1|0.447
95804390|NCT00066170|191582405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
95804391|NCT00066170|191582405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's|||||||<0.001
95804392|NCT01927861|191582418|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline (week 0) in the height SDS after 104 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline height SDS as a covariate.||0.88|0.38|< 0.0001
95804393|NCT02222181|191582485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
95804394|NCT02222181|191582486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95804395|NCT02222181|191582487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
95804396|NCT02222181|191582488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95804397|NCT02222181|191582489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
95804398|NCT02222181|191582490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95804399|NCT02222181|191582491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95804400|NCT00728182|191582518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regression.||Comparison of the summed volume of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||||0.445
95804401|NCT00728182|191582519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.53||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative bnomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new ischemic lesions on DWI for NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.74|0.38|0.018
95766489|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.40
95766490|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.63
95766491|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.72
95766492|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.88
95766493|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.85
95766494|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.72
95804402|NCT00728182|191582520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Generalized linear model|With log link and negative binomial distribution.||Comparison of the total number of new FLAIR lesions in the NA-1 versus placebo treated groups.||0.83|0.42|0.048
95804403|NCT00728182|191582521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Data were cubic root transformed and modelled with multiple linear regresion.||Comparison of the summed volume of new ischemic lesions on DWI.||||0.306
95804404|NCT00728182|191582522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Number of patients obtaining a score on the NIHSS of 0-1 at Day 30.||1.1|0.9|0.43
95804405|NCT00728182|191582523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the number of patients with mRS scores of 0-2 at Day 30 for NA-1 and placebo treated groups.||1.1|0.9|1.00
95804406|NCT00728182|191582524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
95804407|NCT00728182|191582525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.73|||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|||||0.73|0.17|0.027
95804408|NCT00728182|191582526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Incidence Rate Ratio|0.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Generalized linear model|||||0.75|0.17|0.046
95804409|NCT00728182|191582527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95804410|NCT00728182|191582528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.0|1.1|0.02
95804411|NCT00728182|191582529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.95|0.18
95804412|NCT03856177|191582530|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.071
95766495|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean cortisol by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.57
95766496|NCT03593473|191503509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. Times are restricted to times 0, +10, +15, and +28, which reflect the measures taken during the Trier Social Stress Test. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.96
95766497|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -40 minutes.||||0.71
95766498|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at -20 minutes.||||0.92
95766499|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 0 minutes.||||0.92
95766500|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 10 minutes.||||0.40
95766501|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 15 minutes.||||0.97
95766502|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 28 minutes.||||0.71
95766503|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 38 minutes.||||0.78
95766504|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test comparing mean ACTH by study arm at 48 minutes.||||0.63
95854587|NCT01903460|191668822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-40.707||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.679|110.265|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day||110.265|-191.679|0.5740
95766505|NCT03593473|191503510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol as the outcome variable with time, study arm, and an interaction between time and study arm as the exposure variables. This is the p-value for the interaction term between time and study arm.||||0.11
95766506|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -40 minutes and Cortisol at -20 minutes.||||0.07
95766507|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at -20 minutes and Cortisol at 0 minutes.||||0.22
95766508|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at 0 minutes and Cortisol at +10 minutes.||||0.14
95766509|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +10 minutes and Cortisol at +15 minutes.||||0.14
95766510|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +15 minutes and Cortisol at +28 minutes.||||0.05
95766511|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +28 minutes and Cortisol at +38 minutes.||||0.10
95766512|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z test|||Fisher's Z test for correlation between ACTH at +38 minutes and Cortisol at +48 minutes.||||0.90
95766513|NCT03593473|191503511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model with random intercept and slope was used to model cortisol at time j+1 as the outcome with ACTH at time j, study arm, and an interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm as the exposure variables. The p-value presented below is for the interaction term between ACTH at time j and study arm.||||0.21
95766514|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -40 to -35||||0.8441
95766515|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -35 to -30||||0.7919
95766516|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -30 to -25||||0.5639
95766517|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -25 to -20||||0.3139
95766518|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -20 to -15||||0.4222
95766519|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -15 to -10||||0.834
95766520|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -10 to -5||||0.7562
95766521|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes -5 to 0||||0.4245
95766522|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 5 to 8||||0.1425
95766523|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 13||||0.7175
95766524|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 13 to 18||||0.1417
95766525|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 18 to 23||||0.0514
95766526|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 23 to 28||||0.1507
95766527|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 8 to 33||||0.4204
95766528|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 33 to 38||||0.4209
95766529|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 38 to 43||||0.2569
95804413|NCT01898091|191582531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||Simulations determined power to detect significant difference defined as a mean difference of 1 unit (MTS scale). Feasibility study provided proportion of patients in control and neem group with change scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 as (5%, 10%, 10%, 45% and 30%) and (15%, 20%, 30%, 25% and 10%), respectively. Simulated 10,000 trials using multinomial distributions by the percentages above, with 20 patients per group, provided 80% power to detect 0.9 unit difference using a one-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.84
95804414|NCT01933425|191582532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.07|<0.05
95804415|NCT01933425|191582533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|0.06|<0.05
95766530|NCT03593473|191503512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High frequency heart rate variability at minutes 43 to 48||||0.0828
95766531|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -40 to -35||||0.6452
95766532|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -35 to -30||||0.3228
95766533|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -30 to -25||||0.3541
95766534|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -25 to -20||||0.4311
95766535|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -20 to -15||||0.3349
95766536|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -15 to -10||||0.2646
95804416|NCT00309244|191582538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set to meet regulatory requirement of 250 subjects per arm with 52-week data, resulting in \> 90% power for a non-inferiority test of the difference in 12-month change of HbA1c scores between treatment groups with non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, standard deviation of 1.2 and 1-sided alpha of 0.025. Allowing for a 25% drop-out rate, 677 subjects were randomized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|
95962082|NCT04832971|191896101|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
95766537|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1095|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -10 to -5||||0.1095
95766538|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes -5 to 0||||0.0194
95766539|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 5 to 8||||0.473
95766540|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 8 to 13||||0.5768
95804417|NCT00309244|191582539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline weight as covariate||-0.7|-2.4|0.0002
95804418|NCT00309244|191582540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms of pooled site and treatment as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariate||-6.1|-29.3|0.0029
95804419|NCT00309244|191582541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression analysis with the terms of treatment and baseline HbA1c in the model||1.231|0.486|0.2793
95804420|NCT00309244|191582542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.581|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.581|0.307|<0.001
95804421|NCT00309244|191582543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.409||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.78|||Regression, Logistic||Model: Treatment + Site|||0.780|0.215|0.0066
95804422|NCT00309244|191582544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||Generalized Estimation Equation|Based on Poisson distribution||||||0.0027
95804423|NCT00309244|191582545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Based on Poission distribution||||||0.0591
95766541|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 13 to 18||||0.3477
95766542|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 18 to 23||||0.1413
95766543|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 23 to 28||||0.2128
95766544|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 28 to 33||||0.1415
95766545|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 33 to 38||||0.1126
95766546|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 38 to 43||||0.1647
95766547|NCT03593473|191503513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-ejection period at minutes 43 to 48||||0.088
95766548|NCT03657797|191503598|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.31||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 470 0.21% was compared to latanoprost.||0.31|-1.11|0.2666
95766549|NCT03657797|191503598|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.09||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.09|-1.52|0.0281
95766550|NCT03657797|191503598|NON_INFERIORITY|LS mean, the difference in LS mean (NCX 470 minus latanoprost), and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was obtained. Non-inferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI around the difference between the LS mean for NCX 470 and the LS mean for latanoprost was \< 1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was met, superiority was tested which could be claimed if the p-value for treatment difference was \<= 0.05 and the LS mean difference in change from baseline was \< 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.51||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||NCX 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||-0.51|-1.96|0.0009
95993928|NCT01252966|191963784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
95766551|NCT03657797|191503599|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.9788||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.51 (week 1), 0.68 (week 2), 0.75 (exit visit); p-values were 0.5560 (week 1), 0.9788 (week 2), 0.8796 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.021% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.9788
95766552|NCT03657797|191503599|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.3863||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were 0.20 (week 1), 0.38 (week 2), 0.11 (exit visit); p-values were 0.1556 (week 1), 0.3863 (week 2), 0.0912 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.042% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.3863
95766553|NCT03657797|191503599|NON_INFERIORITY|NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost 0.005% at each visit. The LS mean, LS mean difference and the 95% CIs for the difference was calculated. Non-inferiority at each visit could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5 mmHg. If non-inferiority was established, superiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0 and p\<0.05.|||||<|0.0174||||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Upper 95% CIs were -0.35 (week 1), -0.15 (week 2), -0.27 (exit visit); p-values were 0.0040 (week 1), 0.0174 (week 2), 0.0093 (exit visit)||NCX 470 0.065% was compared to latanoprost.||||<0.0174
95766554|NCT04231825|191503609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95766555|NCT04231825|191503610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
95766556|NCT04231825|191503611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
95766557|NCT04231825|191503612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95804424|NCT03888482|191582548|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Clariti|||0.01||
95804425|NCT03319654|191582615|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE)-model with an exchangeable correlation structure and a logit link function was used to analyze the probability of live birth and clinical pregnancy respectively. All IUI cycles are used in this model with correction for the fact that cycles of the same couple are not independent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.9985|||GEE-model|||The null hypothesis is: there is no association between % total Sperm DNA Fragmentation and live birth.||0.9985|0.90|0.04
95804426|NCT03319654|191582615|OTHER||Area under the ROC curve|0.576|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Receiver Operating Characteristics curve|||||||>0.05
95766558|NCT04231825|191503613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95766559|NCT03190993|191503614|OTHER|Linear mixed effect models were used to test if changes (Day 28 - Baseline) were equal between treatment groups (primary outcome).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.22
95766560|NCT03051100|191503733|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-60.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|||-53.0|-68.0|<0.001
95766561|NCT03051100|191503734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-58.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-52.6|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-52.6|-64.9|<0.001
95766562|NCT03051100|191503734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-40.4|||ANCOVA||Triplet therapy minus placebo|TC||-40.4|-51.6|<0.001
95766563|NCT03051100|191503734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-48.6|||ANCOVA|||apoB||-48.6|-59.7|<0.001
95804427|NCT02057666|191582624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.903|||Log Rank|Stratified as per randomisation.|Stratified as per randomisation.|||0.903|0.182|0.027
95804428|NCT02057666|191582625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|3.355|||Log Rank|||||3.355|0.065|0.448
95860008|NCT00478023|191678421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.3|30.4||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 24 hours (SPID24). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID24.||30.4|16.3|<0.0001
95766564|NCT03051100|191503734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-22.8|||ANCOVA|||TG||-22.8|-49.7|<0.001
95766565|NCT03051100|191503734|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|=|0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||HDL-C||4.0|-7.0|=0.588
95766566|NCT03051100|191503735|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-21.4|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-21.4|-60.0|<0.001
95804429|NCT02205359|191582631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.013|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.013|0.779|0.077
95766567|NCT03051100|191503736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95766568|NCT03051100|191503737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95766569|NCT03335475|191503760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95766570|NCT03335475|191503761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
95766571|NCT03335475|191503762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95766572|NCT05906628|191503802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|21.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||||21.49|4.48|<0.0001
95766573|NCT05906628|191503802|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|42.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.36||||||||54.36|30.70|
95766574|NCT05906628|191503803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 4||8.38|2.14|<0.0001
95804430|NCT02205359|191582632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.032|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.032|0.752|0.12
95804431|NCT02205359|191582633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.082|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect, Standard Error reported on log hazard scale|||1.082|0.759|0.28
95804432|NCT02205359|191582634|SUPERIORITY|Endpoint for statistical analysis is the proportion Improved.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.026|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect|Standard Error is on log-odds ratio scale|||1.026|0.768|0.11
95766575|NCT05906628|191503803|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.69|42.24||||||Week 4||42.24|16.69|
95766576|NCT05906628|191503803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||7.51|2.02|<0.0001
95766577|NCT05906628|191503803|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.34|42.57||||||Week 16||42.57|16.34|
95766578|NCT05906628|191503804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|5.923|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Day 3||5.923|0.718|0.1789
95766579|NCT05906628|191503804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.951|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 1 (Day 7)||8.951|1.603|0.0024
95766580|NCT05906628|191503805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by stratification factors IGA-CHE score (3 or 4) and region (North America or outside of North America).||Week 16||22.13|4.44|<0.0001
95766581|NCT05906628|191503805|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference|45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.83|58.27||||||Week 16||58.27|32.83|
95766582|NCT05906628|191503807|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.719||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.211|2.44|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.440|1.211|0.0025
95766583|NCT05906628|191503810|SUPERIORITY||Cox regression model|1.279||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.759|||Log Rank|stratified by randomization stratification factors|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA-CHE 3/4, Region : North America or outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||1.759|0.931|0.1319
95766584|NCT01108718|191503824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of Preference|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.47|||McNemar||Rate of preference refers specifically to Tempur-Pedic Mattress.|h0: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress h1: Rate Preference Tempur-pedic mattress = Rate Preference control mattress||.47|.43|>0.1
95804433|NCT02205359|191582635|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||1.16|0.85|0.89
95804434|NCT02205359|191582636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.89|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.89|-1.03|0.88
95804435|NCT02205359|191582637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.0013||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0068|0.0094|||ANCOVA|Stratified by NYHA class and with investigational site as a random effect||||0.0094|-0.0068|0.75
95962590|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.6|0.1|0.8270
95766585|NCT02301169|191503825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Average Pain Score (APS), T4P1001 compared with placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3748299||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5479411|1.297601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.2976010|-0.5479411|0.4162
95804436|NCT02205359|191582638|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||negative binomial regression|Stratified by NYHA class||||1.75|0.75|0.52
95804437|NCT00480025|191582648|SUPERIORITY|RMF included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \>100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|1.024||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.177||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|Overall population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo Group (PYAR2), and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account stratification by previous CT vs. No-CT treatment and weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.177|0.891|0.7379
95804438|NCT00480025|191582649|SUPERIORITY|RMF taken into account included: 1) Number of chemotherapy cycles received (1, 2 vs. 3, 4), if any; 2) Pathological stage of the disease (IB vs. II vs. IIIA); 3) Type of lymph-node sampling (minimal lymph-node sampling vs. systematic radical mediastinal lymphadenectomy); 4) ECOG performance status randomization (0, 1 vs. 2); 5) Smoking status ( 100 cigarettes a lifetime vs. \> 100 cigarettes and current smoker vs. \> 100 cigarettes and past smoker).|Treatment Efficacy|0.97||||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||2-sided p-value of Likelihood Ratio test from RMF-adjusted Cox regression, Efron method used to handle ties.|Regression, Cox|No-CT population objective reached if p-value \< 2.56%/4% in absence/presence of statistically significant effect in the No-CT population.||Analysis compared DFS PYAR between groups for the period from 1st treatment dose to DLP. A Cox model was used to evaluate treatment efficacy (TE). TE was calculated as PYAR in GSK1572932 No-CT Group (PYAR1) divided by PYAR in Placebo No-CT Group (PYAR2) and weighed for adjustment factors. This comparison in all patients (overall population) also included taking into account weighing using randomization-minimization factors (RMF) as regressors.||1.179|0.797|0.7572
95804439|NCT03389750|191582680|EQUIVALENCE|An F-test was used to assess for significant differences among the 13 dose conditions.||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F = 7.06 (DF=12)||||||.0001
95804440|NCT06868667|191582681|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||1.52|0.11|
95804441|NCT03681093|191582719|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.70|-0.59|0.979
95804442|NCT03681093|191582719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.39||Adjusted p-value is reported. The adjusted p-value was obtained from the Dunnet Multiplicity Correction applied to control the Type I error for the primary analysis.|MMRM|||||0.39|-0.88|0.656
95766586|NCT02301169|191503826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by weekly means of the daily Worst Pain Score (WPS), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1255102||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8152493|1.0662697||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.0662697|-0.8152493|0.7887
95766587|NCT02301169|191503827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by Investigator Global Assessment of Change, T4P1001 compared with Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.802381||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5457743|2.1505362||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||2.1505362|-0.5457743|0.2353
95766588|NCT02301169|191503828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain intensity measured after heat pain stimuli, T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7656429||||0.06204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0406744|1.5719601||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||1.5719601|-0.0406744|0.06204
95804443|NCT03681093|191582720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||1.14|0.15|0.012
95804444|NCT03681093|191582720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||0.94|-0.04|0.074
95804445|NCT03681093|191582721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|14.93||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||14.93|-4.49|0.288
95804446|NCT03681093|191582721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|7.65||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||7.65|-11.99|0.661
95804447|NCT03681093|191582722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|4.21||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||4.21|-2.98|0.735
95804448|NCT03681093|191582722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.821||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.13||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM|||||8.13|0.89|0.015
95804449|NCT01755156|191582774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
95804450|NCT01755156|191582775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||9.8|-8.8|
95804451|NCT01755156|191582776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in 1 or more treatment groups.|||1.1|-6.6|
95804452|NCT01755156|191582777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-3.3|
95804453|NCT01755156|191582778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in %|-14.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-3.4|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-3.4|-25.6|0.011
95766589|NCT02301169|191503829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to day 42 of pain severity as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), T4P1001 compared with placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.683333||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83119|5.197857||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Welch two sample t-test||||5.197857|-1.831190|0.3386
95766590|NCT03762265|191503830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.535||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.037|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed greater than \[\>\] 6 months prior to screening\]).||20.500|-9.037|0.4469
95766591|NCT03762265|191503831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.752|22.019|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test stratified by disease type (PV or PF) and disease history (newly diagnosed \[\<=6 months prior to screening\] or relapsing \[diagnosed \>6 months prior to screening\]).||22.019|-5.752|0.2510
95766592|NCT02289729|191503885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766593|NCT02289729|191503886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766594|NCT02289729|191503887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766595|NCT02289729|191503888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766596|NCT02289729|191503889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test|||||||0.0328
95766597|NCT02289729|191503890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||t-test|||||||0.4183
95804454|NCT01755156|191582779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-9.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-2.3|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-2.3|-16.7|0.010
95804455|NCT01755156|191582782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||28.0|10.1|<0.001
95804456|NCT01755156|191582783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference (%)|4.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||10.5|-1.8|0.164
95993929|NCT01252966|191963785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.30
95766598|NCT02289729|191503891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766599|NCT02289729|191503892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
95766600|NCT02289729|191503893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||t-test|||||||0.0109
95766601|NCT02289729|191503894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
95766602|NCT02289729|191503895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95804457|NCT01755156|191582786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-10.8|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||-10.8|-44.8|0.001
95804458|NCT01755156|191582787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|3.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.9|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA method with a restriction of the same baseline mean.||||6.9|0.5|0.025
95804459|NCT01755156|191582789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier difference %|-1.2||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.7|||Log Rank|||||4.7|-7.0|0.654
95804460|NCT03142451|191582793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.749||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||3.68|0.75|0.0031
95804461|NCT03142451|191582794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.434||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.434|1.022|0.0273
95766603|NCT02289729|191503896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
95766604|NCT02289729|191503897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766605|NCT02289729|191503898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||t-test|||||||0.0038
95766606|NCT02289729|191503899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
95766607|NCT02289729|191503900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0274
95766608|NCT02289729|191503901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
95766609|NCT02289729|191503902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test|||||||0.0006
95766610|NCT02289729|191503903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0010
95766611|NCT02289729|191503904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
95766612|NCT02289729|191503905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0297|||||||t-test|||||||0.0297
95766613|NCT02289729|191503906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||t-test|||||||0.0279
95766614|NCT02289729|191503907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777|||||||t-test|||||||0.2777
95766615|NCT02289729|191503908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||t-test|||||||0.0047
95766616|NCT02289729|191503909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
95766617|NCT02289729|191503910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.5877|||||||t-test|||||||<0.5877
95766618|NCT02289729|191503911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test|||||||0.0002
95766619|NCT02289729|191503912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
95766620|NCT02289729|191503913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766621|NCT02289729|191503914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
95766622|NCT02289729|191503915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95766623|NCT02289729|191503916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||0.0001
95766624|NCT02289729|191503917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
95766625|NCT02289729|191503918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2428|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.2428
95766626|NCT02289729|191503919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test|||||||0.0687
95766627|NCT02289729|191503920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3126|||||||t-test|||||||0.3126
95766628|NCT02289729|191503921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1533|||||||t-test|||||||0.1533
95766629|NCT02289729|191503922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8145|||||||t-test|||||||0.8145
95766630|NCT02289729|191503923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||t-test|||||||0.4048
95766631|NCT02289729|191503924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8321|||||||t-test|||||||0.8321
95766632|NCT02289729|191503925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1945|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.1945
95766633|NCT02289729|191503926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7937|||||||t-test|||||||0.7937
95766634|NCT02289729|191503927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||signed-rank test|||||||0.0234
95766635|NCT02289729|191503928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5922|||||||t-test|||||||0.5922
95766636|NCT02289729|191503929|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test|||||||1.000
95766637|NCT02289729|191503930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||t-test|||||||0.6481
95766638|NCT02289729|191503931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6741|||||||t-test|||||||0.6741
95766639|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.27846||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014175|0.495059|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.495059|0.014175|0.0389
95766640|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.07359||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188409|0.32558|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.325580|-0.188409|0.5852
95766641|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21311||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051127|0.444152|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.444152|-0.051127|0.1140
95766642|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.29062||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026334|0.504186|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.504186|0.026334|0.0311
95804462|NCT03142451|191582795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.425||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.425|1.028|0.0171
95766643|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.49952||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.230995|0.643312|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.643312|0.230995|0.0002
95766644|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.08869||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176169|0.341163|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.341163|-0.176169|0.5146
95766645|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.34688||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079996|0.546657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.546657|0.079996|0.0108
95766646|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.22455||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042139|0.455224|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.455224|-0.042139|0.0989
95766647|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.35742||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106797|0.565335|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.565335|0.106797|0.0060
95766648|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00011||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.260462|0.260673|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.260673|-0.260462|0.9993
95766649|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
95766650|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.21643||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057959|0.454911|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.454911|-0.057959|0.1222
95766651|NCT02289729|191503932|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.57423||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.180247|0.74704|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.747040|0.180247|0.0041
95766652|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.31946||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042257|0.534657|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-III||0.534657|0.042257|0.0239
95766653|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.36796||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.090528|0.568388|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with UPDRS-IV||0.568388|0.090528|0.0093
95766654|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.38627||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105875|0.582517|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NMSS||0.582517|0.105875|0.0069
95766655|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.70289|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.40173|0.753097|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BAI||0.753097|0.401730|< 0.0001
95766656|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.63758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345567|0.72341|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with BDI-II||0.723410|0.345567|<0.0001
95766657|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.24114||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036024|0.476404|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with AS||0.476404|-0.036024|0.0882
95766658|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.67113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374757|0.739016|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with PFS||0.739016|0.374757|< 0.0001
95766659|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317572|0.708072|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL A-S||0.708072|0.317572|< 0.0001
95766660|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.60613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31758|0.708076|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-D||0.708076|0.317580|< 0.0001
95766661|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.41143||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133445|0.597087|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with NBL C-R||0.597087|0.133445|0.0036
95766662|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with ZBI||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
95766663|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.64565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339454|0.734221|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Anxiety||0.734221|0.339454|< 0.0001
95766664|NCT02289729|191503933|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.10898||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427482|0.588111|||Fisher's z Transformation|||PDQ-39 with Goldberg-Depression||0.588111|-0.427482|0.7058
95766665|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.57271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689585|-0.289724|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.289724|-0.689585|< 0.0001
95766666|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.16332||||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504489|0.224771|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.224771|-0.504489|0.4142
95766667|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.48143||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.715956|-0.063481|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||-0.063481|-0.715956|0.0239
95766668|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.06326||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.210715|0.327872|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.327872|-0.210715|0.6546
95766669|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17674||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.100105|0.425116|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.425116|-0.100105|0.2114
95766670|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.2944||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017222|0.516523|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.516523|0.017222|0.0374
95766671|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.36687||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565795|-0.092154|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.092154|-0.565795|0.0088
95766672|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13433||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387439|0.139207|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.139207|-0.387439|0.3374
95766673|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17846||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095693|0.424291|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.424291|-0.095693|0.2025
95804463|NCT03142451|191582796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|12.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||12.77|2.46|0.0039
95804464|NCT03142451|191582797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||4.09|1.16|0.0004
95854588|NCT01903460|191668822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-7.231||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.726|134.264|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day||134.264|-148.726|0.9147
95854589|NCT01903460|191668822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-23.969||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.969|104.031|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001||104.031|-151.969|0.6954
95854590|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|56.7||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|120.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALT||120.6|-7.2|0.0783
95854591|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|7.8||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|67.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALT||67.0|-51.4|0.7827
95854592|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|32.2||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|86.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALT||86.3|-21.9|0.2235
95854593|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|24.0||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|65.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for AST||65.5|-17.5|0.2372
95854594|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-15.8||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|22.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for AST||22.4|-54.1|0.3914
95766674|NCT02289729|191503934|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.01625||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252613|0.282777|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.282777|-0.252613|0.9076
95766675|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.7468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777482|-0.425693|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with ZBI||-0.425693|-0.777482|< 0.0001
95766676|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.17924||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368382|0.632178|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Anxiety||0.632178|-0.368382|0.5347
95766677|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.06987||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597767|0.500464|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Goldberg Depression||0.500464|-0.597767|0.8251
95766678|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.1106||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382323|0.179601|||Fisher's z transformation|||SQLC with NBL A-S||0.179601|-0.382323|0.4581
95766679|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.00326||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281136|0.287128|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-D||0.287128|-0.281136|0.9826
95766680|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.10293||||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375749|0.187021|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with NBL C-R||0.187021|-0.375749|0.4899
95766681|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.33661||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557217|-0.044411|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global PDQ-39||-0.044411|-0.557217|0.0239
95766682|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.23658||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484427|0.055538|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-III||0.055538|-0.484427|0.1125
95766683|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|-0.13015||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398887|0.16062|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with UPDRS-IV||0.160620|-0.398887|0.3826
95766684|NCT02289729|191503935|OTHER||Fisher's z|0.11688||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176724|0.390468|||Fisher's z Transformation|||SQLC with Global NMSS||0.390468|-0.176724|0.4382
95766685|NCT03123068|191503938|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mann Whitney U test|||||||>0.05
95766686|NCT03787134|191503967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||cued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.335
95766687|NCT03787134|191503967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||uncued memory item reconstruction - test of reconstruction strength against 0||||.016
95766688|NCT02208089|191503983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = TransPRK produced no gains in vision over and above those produced by CXL only||||0.03
95766689|NCT02208089|191503984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = an equal proportion of patients in both study arms have clinically significant visual gains||||0.005
95766690|NCT02208089|191503985|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority = no significant difference between rates of clinically significant visual loss between groups at the p≤0.05 level||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis = rates of clinically significant visual loss are equal for TransPRKCXL and CXL only||||0.13
95766691|NCT02443740|191503997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|39.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.14|51.99|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||51.99|30.14|
95766692|NCT02443740|191503998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|108.75|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.75|59.74|
95766693|NCT02443740|191503999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|80.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.92|108.94|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||108.94|58.92|
95766694|NCT02443740|191504004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|65.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.18|69.16|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||69.16|62.18|
95766695|NCT02443740|191504005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.27|74.41|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||74.41|63.27|
95766696|NCT02443740|191504006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio.|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.17|36.64|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|||36.64|24.17|
95766697|NCT02443740|191504008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.35|18.18|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||18.18|15.35|
95766698|NCT02443740|191504010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.29|17.42|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||17.42|13.29|
95766699|NCT01074944|191504013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Eliglustat QD treatment was declared non-inferior to BID treatment if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of -0.15 (or -15%).|Difference in Percentage Stable|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|11.9||||||||11.9|-17.7|
95766700|NCT00856492|191504149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
95766701|NCT00856492|191504150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
95766702|NCT00856492|191504151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
95766703|NCT06389487|191504153|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.81|0.64|
95766704|NCT06389487|191504154|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|-4.1|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-A strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.10|-14.55|
95766705|NCT06389487|191504155|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group GMT ratio between Part A:RSV-OA Group over Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.82|||||The comparison is done using the group ratio of adjusted GMT (Part A:RSV-OA/ Part A:RSV-A-AIR) (ANCOVA model applied to the log10- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the group as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||0.82|0.65|
95766706|NCT06389487|191504156|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% CI of the group SRR difference between Part A:RSV-OA Group and Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group at 1 month post RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administration was ≤10%.|Difference in percentage|-10.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|-4.8|||||The comparison is done using the difference of SRR (Part A:RSV-OA - Part A:RSV-A-AIR).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the humoral immune response in participants aged 18-49 YOA at increased risk for RSV disease (Part A:RSV-A-AIR Group) compared to older adults aged ≥60 YOA (Part A:RSV-OA Group) for the RSV-B strain after RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine administration.||-4.80|-15.26|
95766707|NCT05258773|191504170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-11.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.9||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||3.9|-25.9|0.1406
95766708|NCT05258773|191504170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-14.4||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|0.45||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at the Day 49 visit comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||0.45|-29.24|0.0567
95766709|NCT05258773|191504170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-9.0||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.1||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at 500Hz at EOS on Day 105 comparing the treatment groups.The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||7.1|-25.0|0.2588
95804465|NCT03142451|191582797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||4.56|1.62|<0.0001
95804466|NCT03142451|191582798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.685||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|2.616||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 4||2.616|1.085|0.0201
95804467|NCT03142451|191582798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.191||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.492||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical analysis for Week 8||1.492|0.951|0.1278
95804468|NCT00871000|191582822|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 1 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against poliovirus type 1, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
95804469|NCT00871000|191582822|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 2 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 2, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
95854595|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|4.1||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|39.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for AST||39.1|-31.0|0.8081
95854596|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|51.7||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.3|243.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for ALP||243.7|-140.3|0.5748
95962083|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-21.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-21.7|-35.7|<.0001
95766710|NCT05258773|191504170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference Arm A - Arm B|-13.84||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|2.8||An ANCOVA model was used to assess changes from baseline at the average across three frequencies (250-750 Hz) at EOS on Day 105, comparing the treatment groups. The treatment group was included as a fixed factor, with baseline values as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The change in hearing threshold from baseline was expected to be smaller in the treated group (arm A) than in the control group (arm B).|||2.80|-30.49|0.0979
95766711|NCT03851406|191504192|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
95766712|NCT03851406|191504193|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.99
95766713|NCT03851406|191504194|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
95766714|NCT03851406|191504194|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||> 0.99
95766715|NCT03851406|191504195|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
95766716|NCT03851406|191504195|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
95766717|NCT03851406|191504196|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
95766718|NCT03851406|191504196|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.63
95766719|NCT03851406|191504197|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
95766720|NCT03851406|191504197|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
95804470|NCT00871000|191582822|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-polio type 3 antibody titers ≥ 8 was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.72||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against polio type 3, one month after vaccination.||2.72|-2.61|
95804471|NCT00871000|191582823|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: Upper limit (UL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was lower than or equal to (≤) 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against diphtheria, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
95766721|NCT03851406|191504198|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.88
95766722|NCT03851406|191504198|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.25
95766723|NCT03851406|191504199|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
95766724|NCT03851406|191504199|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||>0.99
95766725|NCT03851406|191504200|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hours post WSP exposure||||0.75
95766726|NCT03851406|191504200|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post WSP exposure||||0.38
95766727|NCT01120184|191504229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target hazard ratio (HR) equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was less than (\<) 1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3125
95766728|NCT01120184|191504229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm. Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.1765. Superiority was achieved if the upper bound of the 97.5% CI was \<1.00.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.08||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used to adjust for independent comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.08|0.69|0.1407
95804472|NCT00871000|191582823|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: UL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Tetravac Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] in the percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.7||||||To demonstrate that GSK Biologicals' Boostrix Polio™ vaccine is non-inferior to Sanofi-Pasteur-MSD's Tetravac™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates against tetanus, one month after vaccination.||2.7|-2.61|
95766729|NCT01120184|191504229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The study was powered for superiority with target HR equal to 0.75, as well as for non-inferiority with HR equal to 1.1765 for comparison between each of the trastuzumab emtansine-containing arms and the trastuzumab + taxane arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.13||Test and p-value apply for superiority test. Primary endpoint did not meet superiority of PFS for trastuzumab emtansine + pertuzumab versus trastuzumab + taxane (two-sided significance level 2.5%); thus, tests and p-value are considered descriptive.|Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs. Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.13|0.73|0.3075
95804473|NCT01292473|191582839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.16||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.16|-2.54|0.4637
95804474|NCT01292473|191582839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.04||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.24||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.24|-4.85|0.0011
95804475|NCT01292473|191582839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.13||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.13|-6.49|<0.0001
95804476|NCT01292473|191582840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.07||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||1.07|-6.53|0.1575
95804477|NCT01292473|191582840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.69||||0.0001||95.0|-11.49|-3.88||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-3.88|-11.49|0.0001
95804478|NCT01292473|191582840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-8.66||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-8.66|-16.13|<0.0001
95804479|NCT01292473|191582841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.09||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.09|-4.11|0.0603
95804480|NCT01292473|191582841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.36||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.36|-6.65|<0.0001
95804481|NCT01292473|191582841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-4.93||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.93|-9.26|<0.0001
95804482|NCT01292473|191582842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.05||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Placebo and Omalizumab 75 mg.||2.05|1.00|0.0478
95804483|NCT01292473|191582842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.26||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.26|1.12|0.0101
95804484|NCT01292473|191582842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.03||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.03|1.48|<0.0001
95804485|NCT01292473|191582843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.3419
95962084|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-23.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-23.4|-37.5|<.0001
95860009|NCT00478023|191678421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|20.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|13.4|27.8||No multiplicity adjustment used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||27.8|13.4|<0.0001
95962591|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||2.8|0.1|0.8930
95766730|NCT01120184|191504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.73|1.2|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.20|0.73|0.6568
95766731|NCT01120184|191504231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|1.11|||Log Rank||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.11|0.67|0.5691
95766732|NCT01120184|191504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|1.04|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtasine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||1.04|0.69|
95766733|NCT01120184|191504233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.63|
95766734|NCT01120184|191504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|0.97|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.97|0.66|
95766735|NCT01120184|191504235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|0.95|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.95|0.65|
95766736|NCT01120184|191504245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-0.5|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||-0.5|-15.9|
95766737|NCT01120184|191504245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|3.9|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||3.9|-11.4|
95766738|NCT01120184|191504245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.2|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||12.2|-3.3|
95766739|NCT01120184|191504246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.8|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||2.8|-12.1|
95766740|NCT01120184|191504246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.7|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||5.7|-9.2|
95804486|NCT01292473|191582843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0010
95804487|NCT01292473|191582843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
95766741|NCT01120184|191504246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.3|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|||10.3|-4.5|
95766742|NCT01120184|191504247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.43|
95766743|NCT01120184|191504247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.45|0.85|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.85|0.45|
95804488|NCT01292473|191582844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4366||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.4366
95766744|NCT01120184|191504249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-24.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-24|-40|
95766745|NCT01120184|191504249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-16.0|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||-16|-32|
95766746|NCT01120184|191504249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Symptom Rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.4|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||18.4|-2.3|
95766747|NCT01120184|191504253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.86|0.57|
95766748|NCT01120184|191504253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Pertuzumab vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|Stratified Analysis: Stratification factors included world region (United States, Western Europe/Canada/Australia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, Asia, others); prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy (no, yes \[trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\], yes \[no trastuzumab and/or lapatinib\]), and visceral disease (present, absent).||0.84|0.55|
95766749|NCT01120184|191504257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.15|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.15|0.40|
95766750|NCT01120184|191504258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.07|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.07|0.41|
95804489|NCT01292473|191582844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0045
95804490|NCT01292473|191582844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
95804491|NCT01292473|191582845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.65||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.65|-4.32|0.0082
95962085|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-31.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-31.2|-45.1|<.0001
95766751|NCT01120184|191504260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.65|1.25|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.25|0.65|
95766752|NCT01120184|191504262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|1.34|||||Direction of comparison: Trastuzumab Emtansine + Placebo vs Trastuzumab + Taxane|||1.34|0.74|
95766753|NCT00471081|191504280|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|93.2|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup A.||93.2|81.9|
95766754|NCT00471081|191504280|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.3|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 90%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup C.||100|97.3|
95766755|NCT00471081|191504280|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup W-135.||100|96.2|
95854597|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|11.9||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.4|182.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for ALP||182.2|-158.4|0.8835
95854598|NCT01903460|191668823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|31.8||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.8|199.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for ALP||199.4|-135.8|0.6917
95854599|NCT01903460|191668824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.348||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|1.772|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||1.772|-2.468|0.6907
95962086|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-19.7|-36.6|<.0001
95804492|NCT01292473|191582845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-1.9||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.90|-5.61|<0.0001
95804493|NCT01292473|191582845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-5.27||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-5.27|-9.03|<0.0001
95804494|NCT01292473|191582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.45||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||0.45|-3.82|0.1207
95804495|NCT01292473|191582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.38||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-0.38|-4.64|0.0215
95804496|NCT01292473|191582846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.79||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-1.73||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-1.73|-5.85|0.0004
95804497|NCT01292473|191582847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the Type I error control plan provided in the Detailed Description.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 75 mg groups.||||0.1361
95804498|NCT01292473|191582847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0905
95804499|NCT01292473|191582847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Refer to the Type-I error control plan.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the placebo and omalizumab 300 mg.||||<0.0001
95804500|NCT01644331|191582905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
95804501|NCT01644331|191582906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.34|0.03|0.021
95804502|NCT01644331|191582907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This a repeated measure analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||3.44|-1.47|0.430
95804503|NCT01644331|191582908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-493.21||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1176.96|190.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||190.55|-1176.96|0.157
95804504|NCT01644331|191582909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||||0.206
95804505|NCT01644331|191582910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.98||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.96|0.334
95962087|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-18.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.1|-35.0|<.0001
95804506|NCT01644331|191582911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
95804507|NCT01644331|191582912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.334
95804508|NCT01644331|191582913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.67||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.45|-1.79|0.241
95804509|NCT01644331|191582914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.28||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a repeated measures analysis so all rows (visits) are taken into account.||0.82|-0.26|0.303
95804510|NCT01644331|191582915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||24 hours|Chi-squared|||||||0.471
95962088|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-25.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-25.6|-42.4|<.0001
95804511|NCT01644331|191582915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||48 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
95804512|NCT01644331|191582915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||72 hrs|Chi-squared|||||||0.120
95804513|NCT01644331|191582916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.037
95804514|NCT01644331|191582917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
95804515|NCT01644331|191582918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.26||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.32|||Log Rank|||||0.32|0.21|0.709
95766756|NCT00471081|191504280|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of subjects with hSBA titers|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|100.0|||||Immunogenecity of GSK134612 was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was higher than the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|To demonstrate the immunogenicity of GSK134612 administered on a 2-dose schedule at 9 and 12 months of age with respect to serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA) titers ≥1:8 for each discrete N. meningitidis serogroup Y.||100|96.2|
95804516|NCT02327143|191582920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.395|0.508|||||Absolute bioavailability of LY2835219 following the administration of 200 mg LY2835219 (oral) with 0.4 mg \[13C8\]-LY2835219 (IV).|||0.508|0.395|
95804517|NCT02837952|191582934|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|72.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.075|95.707|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on LS Mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR) as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||95.707|50.075|<0.001
95804518|NCT02837952|191582935|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.895|33.005|||ANCOVA|||0 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on least square (LS) mean from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||33.005|19.895|< 0.001
95804519|NCT02837952|191582935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.196|10.632|||ANCOVA|||6 to 8 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||10.632|5.196|< 0.001
95804520|NCT02837952|191582935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|51.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.075|66.258|||ANCOVA|||0 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||66.258|37.075|< 0.001
95804521|NCT02837952|191582935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.139|36.508|||ANCOVA|||8 to 16 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||36.508|18.139|< 0.001
95804522|NCT02837952|191582935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|138.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.045|186.261|||ANCOVA|||0 to 48 hours: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean from ANCOVA with treatment, gender, baseline categorical PSR as classification variables and baseline numerical PSR used as a continuous covariate.||186.261|91.045|< 0.001
95804523|NCT02837952|191582936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95804524|NCT02837952|191582937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value Method was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test, stratified by sex and baseline categorical PSR.|Gehan-Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95804525|NCT02070380|191582938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|47.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|60.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||60.7|34.5|<0.0001
95804526|NCT02070380|191582938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|7.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|16.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||16.5|-2.0|0.1295
95804527|NCT02070380|191582938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|79.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|91.0||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment"||91.0|67.1|<0.0001
95804528|NCT02070380|191582938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.7||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||10.7|-15.0|0.7503
95766757|NCT02562066|191504308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.63||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.085
95766758|NCT02562066|191504308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with SGI raw scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||2.09|-0.97|
95766759|NCT02562066|191504309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.376|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.376
95766760|NCT02562066|191504309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-32 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||4.58|-2.31|
95766761|NCT02562066|191504310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Results show the difference in mean CFB at the end of Study Period 1.|A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test for equality of the change from baseline (CFB) in the two treatments in Period 1 will be presented.||||0.800
95766762|NCT02562066|191504310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects linear model will be fit to the data with Overall MFM-20 scores as the response and fixed effect terms for treatment, period, age group, mutation type and sequence\*period, and a random effect for patient. The LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments in Period 1 along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.||6.50|-5.25|
95766763|NCT04886596|191504336|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above 20%.|VE|82.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.95|57.89|94.08|||Poisson regression method||VE in terms of occurrence of RSV-confirmed LRTD was evaluated using the conditional exact binomial method based on the Poisson model|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy (VE) efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD during the first season in adults ≥ 60 YOA||94.08|57.89|
95766764|NCT04886596|191504337|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|62.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|46.74|74.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||74.79|46.74|
95766765|NCT04886596|191504337|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.19|80.04|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.04|48.19|
95766766|NCT04886596|191504338|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.82|79.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over three seasons.||79.11|51.82|
95766767|NCT04886596|191504338|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 20%.|VE|67.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|48.09|80.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine followed by 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over two seasons.||80.00|48.09|
95766768|NCT04886596|191504339|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|69.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|42.18|85.72|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.72|42.18|
95766769|NCT04886596|191504339|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|58.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|35.9|74.11|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||74.11|35.90|
95766770|NCT04886596|191504340|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|55.12|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.52|77.52|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype A in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||77.52|16.52|
95854600|NCT01903460|191668824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.202||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|2.052|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Patient ItchRO||2.052|-1.647|0.7897
95962089|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-17.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-17.6|-34.6|<.0001
95854601|NCT01903460|191668824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.073||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.705|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Patient ItchRO||1.705|-1.850|0.9203
95854602|NCT01903460|191668824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.21||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.618|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 140ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.618|-1.038|0.5966
95962592|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.7|0.3|0.9999
95950946|NCT02301299|191873962|OTHER|For power calculation, we assumed that the intervention would be almost fully implemented in May 2016 and the EMS use would be observed until Dec 2017. Therefore, a post-intervention period would be 20 months. To have one-third of the study period as an intervention period, we planned to analyze five-year (60-month) data from January 2013 to December 2017.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect size was defined as the sum of expected slope change in monthly EMS use rate over the standard deviation. Assuming an autocorrelation level of 0.3, both level and trend change effect size of 0.5 would be detectable at 90% power at a significance level of 0.05. The effect size is measured in slope of change over time (negative values indicate a decrease while positive values indicate an increase in % EMS use/month).|Using SAS PROC TIMESERIES, individual admission data were aggregated into monthly time series data to calculate a monthly EMS arrival rate. In this procedure, we also generated seasonally adjusted time series data to take into account a seasonal pattern. Using the seasonally adjusted time series data, we conducted linear regression analysis for time series data in PROC AUTOREG. The statistical hypothesis of the regression model was that there are a level change and a slope change after the intervention. In the regression model, we included a time variable to account for a natural trend prior to the intervention introduction (or in absence of the intervention). We assumed that the patient population was stable during the five-year period and no other factors than the intervention affected the outcome; no other potential confounding factors were not considered. A backward elimination was used to correct for autocorrelation. Maximum likelihood method was used to estimate parameters.|||<.0001
95950947|NCT00828139|191873964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.37|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier. The 3-month PFS estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.||0.37|0.14|
95766771|NCT04886596|191504340|OTHER|VE is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided CI for VE is above 0%.|VE|73.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|55.1|85.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To demonstrate the vaccine efficacy of a single dose and 1 annual revaccination before Season 2 of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD for RSV subtype B in adults ≥ 60 YOA over 3 seasons.||85.40|55.10|
95766772|NCT04886596|191504341|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|44.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season)|To evaluate vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hMPV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine up to the end of Season 1.||44.33|-19.10|
95766773|NCT04886596|191504342|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.73|71.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.96|40.73|
95766774|NCT04886596|191504342|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.32|80.16|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||80.16|44.32|
95766775|NCT04886596|191504342|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|36.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.99|82.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.47|-93.99|
95804529|NCT02070380|191582938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|66.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|79.5||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment"||79.5|52.8|<0.0001
95804530|NCT02070380|191582938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||∆Percentage MH better minus DM better|-2.1||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|9.6||Only 1 primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Difference in percentage MultiHance better minus percentage Dotarem better (%) , 2-sided 95% confidence interval was estimated using Altman's general approximate normal method.|"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of global diagnostic preference in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||9.6|-13.8|0.7297
95804531|NCT02070380|191582939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804532|NCT02070380|191582939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8238||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||0.8238
95766776|NCT04886596|191504342|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|78.64|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=65YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.64|49.33|
95766777|NCT04886596|191504342|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.49|79.55|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=70YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||79.55|40.49|
95766778|NCT04886596|191504342|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|32.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.42|81.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by \>=80YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine at end of season 3.||81.73|-108.42|
95766779|NCT04886596|191504343|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|80.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|92.73|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||92.73|55.90|
95766780|NCT04886596|191504343|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.44|77.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.70|36.44|
95766781|NCT04886596|191504343|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|71.59|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.59|7.06|
95766782|NCT04886596|191504343|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|54.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.85|72.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||72.98|27.85|
95766783|NCT04886596|191504343|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|88.79|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over season 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.79|22.35|
95804533|NCT02070380|191582939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804534|NCT02070380|191582939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.4597
95804535|NCT02070380|191582939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804536|NCT02070380|191582939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8145||||||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||"This is a secondary analysis.~Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Border Delineation in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.8145
95804537|NCT02070380|191582940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0020
95804538|NCT02070380|191582940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
95766784|NCT04886596|191504344|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.62|90.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 1 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.48|57.62|
95766785|NCT04886596|191504344|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|75.1|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||75.10|34.00|
95766786|NCT04886596|191504344|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|47.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|71.97|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||71.97|8.51|
95766787|NCT04886596|191504344|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.59|74.94|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 2 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.94|33.59|
95766788|NCT04886596|191504344|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|89.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, and region).|To evaluate the efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD over Year 3 in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||89.08|24.64|
95766789|NCT04886596|191504345|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.95|89.26|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 1.||89.26|57.95|
95766790|NCT04886596|191504345|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.47|77.95|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.95|52.47|
95766791|NCT04886596|191504345|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.76|74.11|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.11|46.76|
95804539|NCT02070380|191582940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0001
95804540|NCT02070380|191582940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
95804541|NCT02070380|191582940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804542|NCT02070380|191582940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Internal Morphology in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5811
95804543|NCT02070380|191582941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804544|NCT02070380|191582941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
95804545|NCT02070380|191582941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95766792|NCT04886596|191504345|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.27|77.86|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.86|52.27|
95766793|NCT04886596|191504345|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.71|78.34|||Regression, Cox||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (%) = Vaccine Efficacy (Piecewise Cox model with time-varying efficacy - adjusted by age and region).|To evaluate the evolution of efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA over Season 3, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.34|51.71|
95766794|NCT04886596|191504346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|66.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.54|79.4|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.40|47.54|
95766795|NCT04886596|191504346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.81|74.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.98|34.81|
95766796|NCT04886596|191504346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|72.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.34|84.37|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with low/medium risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.37|54.34|
95766797|NCT04886596|191504346|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.17|78.01|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA by baseline comorbidities with high risk (Charlson Comorbidity Index), following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.01|37.17|
95804546|NCT02070380|191582941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
95804547|NCT02070380|191582941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.0023
95804548|NCT02070380|191582941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Extent of Disease in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
95804549|NCT02070380|191582942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804550|NCT02070380|191582942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus post-dose paired global assessment."||||1.0000
95854603|NCT01903460|191668824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|0.173||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.926|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of LUM001 280ug/kg/day for Observer ItchRO||0.926|-0.580|0.6320
95766798|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|76.74|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||76.74|38.62|
95766799|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|78.14|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||78.14|45.10|
95766800|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|68.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.71|82.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.33|45.71|
95766801|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.35|82.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.48|31.35|
95766802|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.08|79.17|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with no pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||79.17|41.08|
95766803|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|71.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.92|83.65|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity of interest, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.65|51.92|
95766804|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.11|88.54|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing cardiorespiratory condition,following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.54|54.11|
95766805|NCT04886596|191504347|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|69.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.51|87.05|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA with at least 1 pre-existing endocrinometabolic condition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||87.05|37.51|
95766806|NCT04886596|191504348|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-153.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16322.97|88.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.00|-16322.97|
95804551|NCT02070380|191582942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804552|NCT02070380|191582942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.7503
95804553|NCT02070380|191582942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.1 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.1 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||<0.0001
95804554|NCT02070380|191582942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Null hypotheses:~A 0.05 mmol/kg dose of MULTIHANCE is equal to a 0.05 mmol/kg dose of DOTAREM, in terms of the assessment of Lesion Contrast Enhancement in an off-site pre-dose plus postdose paired global assessment."||||0.5983
95804555|NCT02070380|191582943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||<0.0001
95804556|NCT02070380|191582943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.6898
95804557|NCT02070380|191582943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95804558|NCT02070380|191582943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with period, sequence, and IP and fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as random effect||||||0.1156
95804559|NCT02070380|191582943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95804560|NCT02070380|191582943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7726
95766807|NCT04886596|191504348|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|70.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.89|85.33|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.33|43.89|
95766808|NCT04886596|191504348|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|61.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.89|74.08|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||74.08|42.89|
95766809|NCT04886596|191504348|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|13.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6751.38|98.91|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||98.91|-6751.38|
95766810|NCT04886596|191504348|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.33|88.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (pre-frail) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||88.31|49.33|
95766811|NCT04886596|191504348|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.1|77.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed LRTD by baseline frailty status (fit) in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||77.75|46.10|
95766812|NCT04886596|191504349|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
95766813|NCT04886596|191504349|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|67.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.43|82.68|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.68|42.43|
95766814|NCT04886596|191504349|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|59.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|95.93|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to the case definition 2, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.93|-119.60|
95766815|NCT04886596|191504349|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to any case definition, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
95804561|NCT02070380|191582944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0002
95804562|NCT02070380|191582944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95804563|NCT02070380|191582944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95804564|NCT02070380|191582944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95854604|NCT01903460|191668824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference from placebo|-0.019||||0.9547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of all doses of LUM001 for Observer ItchRO||0.673|-0.710|0.9547
95766816|NCT04886596|191504349|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|78.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.05|90.75|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 1, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||90.75|57.05|
95766817|NCT04886596|191504349|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of severe RSV-confirmed LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA according to case definition 2, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|20.27|
95766818|NCT04886596|191504350|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|51.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.31|60.21|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||60.21|40.31|
95766819|NCT04886596|191504350|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|58.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|66.96|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of RSV-confirmed ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||66.96|48.10|
95766820|NCT04886596|191504351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|5.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||5.99|-1.47|
95766821|NCT04886596|191504351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any ARI in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||6.98|-0.50|
95766822|NCT04886596|191504351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|8.63|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||8.63|-1.55|
95766823|NCT04886596|191504351|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.9|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of any LRTD in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||11.90|1.81|
95766824|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
95804565|NCT02070380|191582944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||<0.0001
95804566|NCT02070380|191582944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Investigation product (IP) effect from mixed model with period, sequence, and IP as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect.||||||0.0003
95804567|NCT03071965|191582974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0881||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.120|-0.226|0.5455
95950948|NCT00828139|191873964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.27|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.27|0.07|
95950949|NCT00828139|191873964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.39|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.39|0.18|
95950950|NCT00828139|191873964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||3-month PFS|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.2|||||The estimated value corresponds to the probability of PFS at month 3.|3-month PFS was estimated using the method of Kaplan-Meier.||0.2|0.04|
95766825|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|50.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.45|95.19|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||95.19|-184.45|
95766826|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
95766827|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.56|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|11.56|
95766828|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV seson in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
95766829|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|22.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.67|93.12|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||93.12|-457.67|
95766830|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
95766831|NCT04886596|191504352|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.53|100.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV respiratory disease or complication related to RT-PCR-confirmed RSV ARI during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||100.00|-54.53|
95804568|NCT03654326|191582993|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.03||Based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.01|0.066
95804569|NCT03654326|191582994|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced one or more adverse events|Difference in % vs Placebo|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|31.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||31.3|3.4|
95804570|NCT03654326|191582995|OTHER|Difference in percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to an adverse event|Difference in % vs Placebo|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.0|-0.9|
95804571|NCT03654326|191582996|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.18|
95804572|NCT03654326|191582997|OTHER|The difference in least squares mean was based on the longitudinal analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including factors for average pelvic pain scores at baseline cycle, stratum, treatment, cycle, interaction of stratum-by-cycle, and the interaction of treatment-by-cycle as covariates|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.04|
95804573|NCT06399471|191582998|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.126||||||One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.|ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.126
95804574|NCT06399471|191582998|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.015
95950951|NCT00828139|191873964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.92||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using a logrank test.||1.92|0.91|
95766832|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.43|17.49|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||17.49|-25.43|
95766833|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|14.61|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||14.61|-28.26|
95766834|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|16.38|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine||16.38|-28.20|
95766835|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.55|15.98|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||15.98|-27.55|
95766836|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|23.99|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV season in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||23.99|-23.52|
95766837|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.56|19.7|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory disease during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||19.70|-28.56|
95766838|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|26.0|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||26.00|-22.14|
95766839|NCT04886596|191504353|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.73|25.48|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of hospitalization due to any respiratory diseases or complication related to any respiratory diseases during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||25.48|-21.73|
95766840|NCT04886596|191504354|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|82.15|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||82.15|28.91|
95804575|NCT06399471|191582998|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Ten Meter Walking Test.||||0.852
95950952|NCT00828139|191873964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|2.1||||||Hazard Ratio was evaluated using log-rank test.||2.10|1.08|
95950953|NCT01322347|191874002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95860010|NCT00478023|191678422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|37.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.6|52.6||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||52.6|21.6|<0.0001
95860011|NCT00478023|191678422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|44.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|28.6|59.5||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as covariates.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||59.5|28.6|<0.0001
95860012|NCT00478023|191678422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|51.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|36.1|66.7||Adjusted. The Hochberg procedure used for multiplicity comparisons.|ANCOVA||Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|The null hypothesis is that all CG5503 IR dose groups are equal to the placebo group based on the mean sum of pain intensity difference at 48 hours (SPID48). The alternative hypothesis is that at least one CG5503 IR dose group is different from the placebo group based on the mean SPID48.||66.7|36.1|<0.0001
95860013|NCT00478023|191678422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|46.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|31.4|62.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and centre as fixed effects and baseline pain as a covariate.|Only pain intensity assessments collected prior to the first dose of any additional analgesic medication considered. Afterwards LOCF used.|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||62.4|31.4|<0.0001
95860014|NCT01931566|191678434|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.023
95766841|NCT04886596|191504354|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|83.2|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||83.20|28.50|
95766842|NCT04886596|191504354|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|65.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.56|85.47|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV- ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||85.47|28.56|
95766843|NCT04886596|191504354|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.45|84.29|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to RSV-ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||84.29|21.45|
95766844|NCT04886596|191504355|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|12.42|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||12.42|-8.29|
95804576|NCT06399471|191582999|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.003
95804577|NCT06399471|191582999|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee and the Rheo when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.027
95804578|NCT06399471|191582999|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.425|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0 when used during Two Meter Walking Test.||||0.425
95804579|NCT06399471|191583000|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.006|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.006
95804580|NCT06399471|191583000|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.236|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.236
95804581|NCT06399471|191583000|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedman's test with multiple comparison correction||||||0.118|||||||Non-parametric Friedman's test with mult|||The Non-parametric Friedman's test was used to compare the survey results between the participants using the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.118
95860015|NCT01931566|191678435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.307
95962593|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||3.2|0.1|0.9105
95766845|NCT04886596|191504355|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|16.39|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the study period in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||16.39|-4.05|
95766846|NCT04886596|191504355|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|21.31|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following a single dose of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||21.31|-0.68|
95766847|NCT04886596|191504355|OTHER|The statistical analyses performed for the study objectives were descriptive. No success criteria were defined for the statistical analyses.|VE|12.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|22.58|||Poisson regression method||VE is defined as 1 minus the relative risk (RR). RR=the ratio of the incidence rates of RSVPreF3 Group over Placebo Group. VE (% ) = Vaccine Efficacy (Poisson method - adjusted by age, region and season).|To evaluate the vaccine efficacy of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine in the prevention of complications related to any ARI during the RSV seasons in adults ≥ 60 YOA, following annual revaccination of the RSVPreF3 OA investigational vaccine.||22.58|0.32|
95766848|NCT02211209|191504381|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.7|-66.6|||ANCOVA|||||-66.6|-121.7|< 0.0001
95766849|NCT02211209|191504383|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1804.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|251.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2306.0|-1302.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1302|-2306|< 0.0001
95766850|NCT02211209|191504384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|186.16||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.86||NA indicates that the upper limit of 95% CI was not estimable. The upper limit of the odds ratio estimate from the logistic regression model was \>999.999, and it was reported as NA per statistical reporting convention.||Regression, Logistic||||||12.86|0.0001
95766851|NCT02211209|191504385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.75|631.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||631.06|15.75|<0.0001
95766852|NCT02211209|191504387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6131
95766853|NCT02211209|191504388|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|138.0||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|312.0|||ANCOVA|||||312|-36|0.1206
95766854|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||"Day 1, 30 min post dose.~SpO2/FiO2 and FiO2 (%) over the first 24 hours: analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, investigational site and gestational age (GA) group as fixed effects, and predose values as covariates. The adjusted mean difference between treatments, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at each timepoint and averaged over the first 24 hours were estimated by the model."||0.44|-0.40|0.930
95766855|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||0.21|-0.59|0.346
95804582|NCT06399471|191583001|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.687|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used during Stance Time Asymmetry Index test.||||0.687
95804583|NCT06399471|191583002|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.082|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and Rheo when used during the Narrowing beam walking test.||||0.082
95804584|NCT06399471|191583003|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.943|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the reported falls when for when the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.943
95962594|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.5|0.2|1.0000
95766856|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.549
95766857|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||0.23|-0.43|0.539
95766858|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.43|-0.21|0.491
95766859|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.37|-0.22|0.623
95766860|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||0.43|-0.25|0.608
95766861|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||0.30|-0.35|0.869
95766862|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||0.31|-0.38|0.833
95766863|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||0.29|-0.39|0.772
95766864|NCT02452476|191504478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||0.35|-0.33|0.963
95766865|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|3.99|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 30 min post dose||3.99|-7.87|0.519
95950954|NCT02137785|191874024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||A hierarchical procedure was used to control the level of significance. If the primary analysis was sig (p≤0.05), then AKCR at Week 12 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the AKCR at Week 8 were to be compared. If this analysis was significant, then the CCR at Week 8 was to be compared.||||0.0001
95766866|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|6.93|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 1 h post dose||6.93|-2.04|0.282
95766867|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.86|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 3 h post dose||4.86|-4.04|0.854
95766868|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.19|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 6 h post dose||4.19|-5.00|0.861
95766869|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 12 h post dose||0.70|-6.24|0.117
95766870|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.94|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 18 h post dose||0.94|-4.79|0.185
95766871|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|3.8|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Day 1, 24 h post dose||3.80|-5.82|0.678
95766872|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 2, post dose~SpO2/FiO2 was compared between treatments at the remaining post-treatment time points (i.e., Days 2, 3, 5, 7): analyzed using mixed model including treatment, investigational site and gestational age group as fixed effects and pre-dose ratio as covariate."||3.67|-3.49|0.961
95766873|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3, post dose||3.46|-6.53|0.544
95766874|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5, post dose||6.76|-3.28|0.492
95766875|NCT02452476|191504479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, post dose||6.36|-3.90|0.634
95766876|NCT02452476|191504480|SUPERIORITY|Mortality or BPD incidence at 36-week PMA was compared by treatment, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH), adjusting for stratification gestational age (GA) group. Relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval are also provided.|Relative risk|1.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of BPD||1.32|0.81|0.811
95804585|NCT06399471|191583004|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.535|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Physiological cost index for when the Power Knee, the C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo were used.||||0.535
95766877|NCT02452476|191504480|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Incidence of Mortality/BPD||1.25|0.81|0.972
95766878|NCT02452476|191504480|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.74||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 PMA Mortality||2.42|0.23|0.619
95766879|NCT02452476|191504480|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.46||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|6.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28 PNA Mortality||6.09|0.35|0.602
95766880|NCT02452476|191504480|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.56||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14 PNA RDS-associated mortality in 14 days of life||5.29|0.06|0.606
95804586|NCT06399471|191583005|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.229|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Ascent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.229
95766881|NCT02452476|191504481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57|||Fisher Exact|||||1.57|0.30|0.409
95766882|NCT02452476|191504482|SUPERIORITY|The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose were compared by treatment group using the Fisher's exact test at 5% significance interval. Odds ratio (OR) and related exact 95% CI are also provided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of patients requiring at least one rescue surfactant dose.||2.67|0.55|0.689
95766883|NCT02452476|191504483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.935
95766884|NCT02348112|191504486|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing a 50% or greater reduction in pad weight at 6 months were compared, and non-inferiority assessed using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) was less than 0.15.|Difference in Proportions|-0.054||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.031|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.031|-0.139|0.013
95766885|NCT02348112|191504487|NON_INFERIORITY|The number and proportion of subjects experiencing device- and/or procedure-related serious adverse events were tabulated for each study group. Non-inferiority through 36 months was calculated using a normal approximation test (Z-test) for a difference in binomial proportion. Non-inferiority was considered achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (Comparator - Altis) is greater than -0.10 in the mITT analysis population.|Difference in Proportions|0.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.048|||Normal approximation test (Z-test)|||||0.048|-0.023|<0.0001
95766886|NCT03714828|191504500|OTHER||Overall Response Rate|100.0||||0.0005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|76.2||||One-sample binomial test|One-sample binomial test versus null hypothesis value of 0.50.|||||76.2|0.0005
95766887|NCT03714828|191504502|OTHER|Descriptive statistics|Mean|48.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95766888|NCT03714828|191504504|OTHER|Binomial proportion of TILs|Percentage|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95766889|NCT03714828|191504507|OTHER|Counts of TILs|Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95766890|NCT03714828|191504508|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95804587|NCT06399471|191583006|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.528|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Stair Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.528
95766891|NCT00699998|191504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.055||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.055|0.793|0.210
95766892|NCT00699998|191504510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.225||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.225|0.865|0.731
95766893|NCT00699998|191504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.088|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.088|0.812|0.388
95766894|NCT00699998|191504511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.195||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.195|0.833|0.990
95766895|NCT00699998|191504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.073||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.073|0.826|0.353
95766896|NCT00699998|191504512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.218||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.218|0.869|0.719
95766897|NCT00699998|191504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.063||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.063|0.810|0.270
95766898|NCT00699998|191504513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.2||Two-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by clopidogrel status at randomization.|Log Rank||HR and two-sided 95% CI derived using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and clopidogrel status at randomization as fixed effects.|||1.200|0.862|0.831
95766899|NCT00699998|191504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.872|-92.545||p-value is for Day 30 comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for Day 30 comparison|||-92.545|-107.872|<0.001
95766900|NCT00699998|191504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.383|-93.566||p-value is for 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) for 12 month comparison.|||-93.566|-115.383|<0.001
95766901|NCT00699998|191504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.718|-33.108||p-value is for 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 30 day comparison.|||-33.108|-63.718|<0.001
95804588|NCT06399471|191583007|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.144
95804589|NCT06399471|191583007|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Power Knee and the Rheo.||||0.024
95804590|NCT06399471|191583007|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary.||||||0.949|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Ascent Speed between the Rheo and the C-Leg 4.0.||||0.949
95766902|NCT00699998|191504514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.061|-23.468||p-value is for the 12 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Estimated Mean Difference (Final Values) is for the 12 month comparison.|||-23.468|-69.061|<0.001
95766903|NCT00699998|191504515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|0.982||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.059||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.059|0.910|0.631
95766904|NCT00699998|191504515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.01||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.113||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.113|0.916|0.844
95766905|NCT00699998|191504515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.138||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.325||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.325|0.977|0.098
95766906|NCT00699998|191504515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.066||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.31||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.310|0.867|0.545
95766907|NCT00699998|191504516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.018||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.129||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.129|0.919|0.727
95804591|NCT06399471|191583008|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Ramp Descent Speed for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.051
95804592|NCT06399471|191583009|OTHER|One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA with sphericity correction (Huynh-Feldt) applied if necessary||||||0.367|||||||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was used to compare the Steps per Day for the Power Knee, C-Leg 4.0, and the Rheo when used.||||0.367
95766908|NCT00699998|191504516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.057||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.187||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.187|0.942|0.346
95766909|NCT00699998|191504516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.096||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.399||p-value is for the 30 day comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 30 day comparison.|||1.399|0.859|0.458
95766910|NCT00699998|191504516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Ratio Estimate|1.033||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.329||p-value is for the 6 month comparison. ANCOVA Model: Measurement = treatment + baseline value + clopidogrel status at randomization.|ANCOVA||Geometric Ratio Estimate is for the 6 month comparison.|||1.329|0.803|0.802
95766911|NCT00699998|191504518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5
95766912|NCT00699998|191504518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at baseline. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
95766913|NCT00699998|191504518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of physical limitations at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
95766914|NCT00699998|191504518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison of angina frequency at at 24 months. p-values are from a regression model with treatment group and the respective baseline quality-of-life measure as predictors.|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
95766915|NCT04616612|191504520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95766916|NCT04616612|191504521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
95804593|NCT04543786|191583042|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|One-way||||||0.0048
95766917|NCT04616612|191504522|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Qualitative data evaluated from interviews tailored after the acceptability scale questionnaire. These interview questions specifically asked participant to rate from strongly disagree to strongly agree on each question and then rationalize answers.~Mobile support: 77% of participants agreed that mobile messages supported their health behaviors.~Time required: 85% disagreed that the intervention took too much time to learn.~Program effectiveness: 92% enjoyed this learning approach, with 100% agreeing they could use the information to improve health behaviors.~Rationalization feedback found participants in rural areas reported difficulties accessing texts."|||
95804594|NCT04543786|191583043|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95804595|NCT04543786|191583044|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95804596|NCT04543786|191583045|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95804597|NCT04543786|191583047|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy. Comparing values at baseline and Day 5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||<0.001
95950955|NCT02137785|191874025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
95950956|NCT02137785|191874026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed model with fixed effects for treatment group, time point, and treatment group by time point interaction||||||<0.0001
95766918|NCT04616612|191504523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95766919|NCT04616612|191504524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95766920|NCT04616612|191504525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
95766921|NCT04616612|191504526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
95766922|NCT04616612|191504527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.84
95766923|NCT04616612|191504528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95766924|NCT01451463|191504530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
95766925|NCT01451463|191504531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.114
95766926|NCT01168427|191504532|OTHER|There was no formal statistical hypothesis tested. The goal was to estimate the procedure-related complications 90 days post implant using the Kaplan-Meier method.|Rate|0.034|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1292||||||||0.1292||
95766927|NCT02964247|191504609|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.48|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.48|-0.89|<.001
95804598|NCT04543786|191583048|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
95804599|NCT04543786|191583049|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
95804600|NCT04543786|191583050|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
95766928|NCT02964247|191504609|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand.The change in HbA1c from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.53|-0.94|<.001
95766929|NCT02964247|191504610|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.09|||pattern mixture model||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the primary estimand. Primary estimand: treatment effect (effectiveness) based on the FAS using week 26 measurements from the in-trial observation period. The change in body weight from baseline to week 26 were analysed using a pattern mixture model with multiple imputation to impute missing data, with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.09|-1.73|0.077
95766930|NCT02964247|191504610|SUPERIORITY|Test was not controlled for type I error. Secondary estimand: treatment effect (efficacy) based on the FAS using post baseline measurements up to and including week 26 from the on-treatment without rescue medication obs. period.|Treatment difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Liraglutide - Placebo|Statistical analysis for the secondary estimand. The change in body weight from baseline up to and including week 26 at scheduled time points were analysed using MMRM with treatment, country and the stratification factor (metformin use at baseline: yes vs. no) as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||0.04|-1.77|0.062
95766931|NCT02456740|191504635|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.92|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.92|-1.88|< 0.001
95766932|NCT02456740|191504635|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint was tested independently for each erenumab dose at an alpha level of 0.04 for 70 mg and of 0.01 for 140 mg to maintain the type 1 error rate at an alpha level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.37|-2.33|< 0.001
95766933|NCT02456740|191504636|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.98|1.52|< 0.001
95766934|NCT02456740|191504636|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||3.94|2.01|< 0.001
95766935|NCT02456740|191504637|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 70 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.04.|LS Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.64|-1.23|< 0.001
95766936|NCT02456740|191504637|SUPERIORITY|If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for the erenumab 140 mg group, using a gate-keeping strategy, the first two (first tier) secondary endpoints were tested using the Hochberg method at an alpha level of 0.01.|LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, (stratification factors region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.12|-1.71|< 0.001
95804601|NCT04543786|191583051|OTHER|No comparison was made to another intervention or therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 was considered significant|ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.56
95804602|NCT02046200|191583055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0563
95804603|NCT02046200|191583056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0342
95804604|NCT02046200|191583057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1597|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1597
95804605|NCT02046200|191583058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7617|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7617
95804606|NCT02046200|191583059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
95804607|NCT02046200|191583060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
95804608|NCT02046200|191583061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
95804609|NCT02046200|191583062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95804610|NCT02046200|191583063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
95804611|NCT02046200|191583064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
95804612|NCT02046200|191583065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
95950957|NCT02137785|191874027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis uses observed data only. Missing data was not imputed except for subjects with missing CCR are classified as not having a CCR (ie non-responder).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by analysis center||||||0.0001
95804613|NCT01691482|191583081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
95804614|NCT01691482|191583081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
95766937|NCT02456740|191504638|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.35|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.35|-3.51|< 0.001
95766938|NCT02456740|191504638|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.77|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-0.77|-2.95|< 0.001
95766939|NCT02456740|191504639|SUPERIORITY|If the first tier secondary endpoints were statistically significant for both erenumab doses the erenumab 140 mg group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested using the Hochberg method at a level of 0.05; If only the erenumab 70 mg group or 140 mg group showed statistical significance for the first tier secondary endpoints then the erenumab 140 group for the 2 remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance at a level of either 0.04 or 0.01 respectively.|LS Mean Difference|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.51|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.51|-3.62|< 0.001
95766940|NCT02456740|191504639|SUPERIORITY|If the erenumab 140 mg group for both remaining MPFID secondary endpoints were statistically significant, then the erenumab 70 mg group for the two remaining MPFID secondary endpoints was tested for significance using the Hochberg method with the same alpha level carried over from 140 mg group.|LS Mean Difference|-2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), and baseline value as covariates.||-1.16|-3.28|< 0.001
95766941|NCT01709500|191504653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-44.8|-58.1|<0.0001
95804615|NCT01691482|191583081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
95804616|NCT01691482|191583081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
95804617|NCT01691482|191583085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.049|0.067|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.067|0.049|
95962090|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-13.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-13.3|-30.3|<.0001
95766942|NCT01709500|191504654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-45.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-45.6|-58.7|<0.0001
95766943|NCT01709500|191504655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-42.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.2|-54.7|<0.0001
95766944|NCT01709500|191504656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-42.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-42.5|-55|<0.0001
95766945|NCT01709500|191504657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-34.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-34.5|-44.1|<0.0001
95766946|NCT01709500|191504658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-35.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-35.1|-44.5|<0.0001
95766947|NCT01709500|191504659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-39.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-39.7|-51.8|<0.0001
95766948|NCT01709500|191504660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-40.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.3|<0.0001
95766949|NCT01709500|191504661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-28.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.1|-37.4|<0.0001
95766950|NCT01709500|191504662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-29.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-29.8|-39.2|<0.0001
95766951|NCT01709500|191504663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-36.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-36.2|-47.8|<0.0001
95766952|NCT01709500|191504664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.4|-34.5|<0.0001
95766953|NCT01709500|191504665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-50.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-50.8|-66.8|<0.0001
95766954|NCT01709500|191504666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|130.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||130|20.9|<0.0001
95766955|NCT01709500|191504667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|132.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||132.6|21.4|<0.0001
95804618|NCT01691482|191583085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.062|0.08|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.080|0.062|
95962091|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-23.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-23.1|-39.9|<.0001
95766956|NCT01709500|191504668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|239.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|1820.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1820.3|31.6|<0.0001
95766957|NCT01709500|191504669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|1841.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||1841.7|31.4|<0.0001
95766958|NCT01709500|191504670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-14.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-14.2|-26.4|<0.0001
95766959|NCT01709500|191504671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||10.7|2.8|= 0.0009
95766960|NCT01709500|191504672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-4.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure. Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-4.3|-17.5|= 0.0012
95766961|NCT01709500|191504673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4|||=|0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.5|1.3|= 0.0062
95766962|NCT01709500|191504674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-13.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-13.1|-25|<0.0001
95766963|NCT01709500|191504675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|||=|0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||7.8|0.9|= 0.0147
95766964|NCT01709500|191504676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.6|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-1.1|-16.1|= 0.024
95804619|NCT01691482|191583085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046||||95.0|0.044|0.062|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.062|0.044|
95950958|NCT03875729|191874089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1253|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0852|0.1653||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = Teplizumab - Placebo|This study was designed to show a difference of at least a 40% in C-peptide response between teplizumab and placebo. In geometric means, this translates to a value of (1.4×0.28) = 0.392. Consequently, approximately 300 participants were planned for enrollment, assuming 2-sided α=0.05, 90% power, 2:1 randomization, and a 10% dropout rate.||0.1653|0.0852|<0.001
95950959|NCT03875729|191874089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0994|0.1776||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and baseline C-peptide ln(AUC+1) as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||Least squares mean (LSmean) difference = teplizumab - placebo|||0.1776|0.0994|<0.001
95766965|NCT01709500|191504677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||=|0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.5|-0.8|= 0.1475
95766966|NCT02892331|191504678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT group||||0.006
95766967|NCT02892331|191504678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT group||||0.045
95766968|NCT02892331|191504678|SUPERIORITY|VO2 testing was not performed for one participant in the HIGH-INT group.||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between MOD-INT and High-INT groups||||0.449
95766969|NCT02892331|191504679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.276
95766970|NCT02892331|191504679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.633
95766971|NCT02892331|191504679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.555
95766972|NCT02892331|191504680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON group and the HIGH-INT group||||0.370
95766973|NCT02892331|191504680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.383
95766974|NCT02892331|191504680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0972|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.0972
95766975|NCT02892331|191504681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.932
95766976|NCT02892331|191504681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.307
95962595|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.7|0.1|0.3047
95766977|NCT02892331|191504681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.376
95766978|NCT02892331|191504682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.136
95766979|NCT02892331|191504682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT group||||0.262
95766980|NCT02892331|191504682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT group and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.715
95766981|NCT02892331|191504683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and High-INT groups||||0.056
95766982|NCT02892331|191504683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.349
95766983|NCT02892331|191504683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.359
95766984|NCT02892331|191504684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.224
95766985|NCT02892331|191504684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.199
95766986|NCT02892331|191504684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.952
95766987|NCT02892331|191504685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.783
95766988|NCT02892331|191504685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.098
95766989|NCT02892331|191504685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD and HIGH-INT groups||||0.071
95766990|NCT02892331|191504686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
95766991|NCT02892331|191504686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.994
95766992|NCT02892331|191504686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.940
95766993|NCT02892331|191504687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.769
95766994|NCT02892331|191504687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the CON and MOD-INT groups||||0.800
95766995|NCT02892331|191504687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.769
95766996|NCT02892331|191504688|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD groups||||1.000
95766997|NCT02892331|191504688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of HIGH-INT and CON groups||||0.993
95766998|NCT02892331|191504688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and the HIGH-INT groups||||0.994
95766999|NCT02892331|191504689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.821
95767000|NCT02892331|191504689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.985
95767001|NCT02892331|191504689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.856
95767002|NCT02892331|191504690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and HIGH-INT groups||||0.093
95767003|NCT02892331|191504690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the CON and the MOD-INT groups||||0.033
95767004|NCT02892331|191504690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the MOD-INT and HIGH-INT groups||||0.602
95767005|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.424
95767006|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1A (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.308
95767007|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in PGC1a (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.844
95767008|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.135
95767009|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Citrate synthase (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.800
95767010|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in citrate synthase||||0.195
95767011|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex I||||0.459
95767012|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex 1 (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.213
95767013|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex II (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.971
95767014|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.634
95767015|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex III (CON vs. MOD-INT groups)||||0.919
95767016|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex III||||0.574
95767017|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex IV (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.295
95767018|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.097
95767019|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex IV||||0.468
95767020|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V||||0.589
95767021|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in complex V (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.196
95993930|NCT01252966|191963786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Results would not survive correction for multiple hypothesis testing.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression models were used to estimate effects of treatment on change in cognitive performance. Age, Shipley IQ score, number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline, and EOT smoking status were included as covariates.||||0.033
95767022|NCT02892331|191504691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Complex V (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.436
95767023|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of general health subscale (CON vs. HIGH INT)||||0.756
95767024|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.115
95767025|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||General Health Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.225
95767026|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health Sub-scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.758
95767027|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical health subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.759
95767028|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.465
95767029|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.549
95767030|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.679
95767031|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANCOVA|||Role Physical Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.334
95767032|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.273
95767033|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.642|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.642
95767034|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain Subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.520
95767035|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.460
95767036|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality sub-scale (CON vs. MOD-INT group)||||0.203
95767037|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||ANCOVA|||Vitality subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.058
95767038|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.739
95767039|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.059
95767040|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||Social Function sub-scale (HIGH-INT vs. MOD-INT)||||0.0380
95767041|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of mental health subscale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.950
95767042|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (CON Vs. MOD INT)||||0.096
95767043|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.127
95767044|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs HIGH-INT)||||0.373
95767045|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional sub-scale||||0.630
95767046|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (MOD vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
95767047|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in role emotional subscale (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.070
95767048|NCT02892331|191504692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health sub-scale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.945
95767049|NCT02892331|191504693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in the mental health sum scale (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.650
95767050|NCT02892331|191504693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mental health (sum) subscale (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.034
95767051|NCT02892331|191504693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum)||||0.330
95767052|NCT02892331|191504693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in physical health (sum) subscale||||0.297
95767053|NCT02892331|191504694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.109
95767054|NCT02892331|191504694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (CON vs. MOD-INT)||||0.099
95767055|NCT02892331|191504694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in steps (MOD-INT vs. HIGH-INT)||||0.947
95767056|NCT04871776|191504737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||||How vs Usual Care|We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.14|0.67|
95767057|NCT04871776|191504737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.28|0.81|
95767058|NCT04871776|191504737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.51||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.51|0.96|
95767059|NCT04871776|191504738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.01|0.67|
95767060|NCT04871776|191504738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.23|0.87|
95767061|NCT04871776|191504738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.49||||||We used generalized estimating equations with a logit link function and binary-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-day clustering and including clinic as an adjustment variable for all models. This analysis is otherwise unadjusted.||1.49|1.06|
95767062|NCT04846569|191504820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.38|
95804620|NCT01691482|191583085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.062||||||95.0|0.053|0.071|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), FEV1 Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.071|0.053|
95767063|NCT04846569|191504821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.78|
95767064|NCT04846569|191504822|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated.|All participants who we were able to obtain records for were virally suppressed thus an effect size was unable to be calculated as originally planned.|||
95767065|NCT04846569|191504823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.20|
95767066|NCT04846569|191504824|OTHER|Qualitative data analysis|||||||||||||||||Thematic qualitative data analysis was conducted to determine the count of participants reporting positively about the intervention|||
95804621|NCT01691482|191583086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.058|0.076|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.076|0.058|
95804622|NCT01691482|191583086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.061|0.079|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.079|0.061|
95804623|NCT01691482|191583086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.06|0.078|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.078|0.060|
95767067|NCT02954601|191504892|OTHER|Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, Period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for a subject.||||||0.1311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1311
95767068|NCT02954601|191504895|OTHER|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Values obtained using a Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment period and Baseline value (for change and percent change) are factors in the model with repeated values for subject.||||0.3061
95767069|NCT05251337|191504917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.462
95767070|NCT05251337|191504918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
95804624|NCT01691482|191583086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0045||||95.0|0.055|0.073|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.073|0.055|
95767071|NCT05251337|191504920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
95767072|NCT03808948|191505025|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression with mGFR/eGFR ratio as independent variate, AKI as binary outcome||1.97|0.08|0.4842
95767073|NCT03871543|191505028|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean difference|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.402||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||-0.402|
95767074|NCT03871543|191505028|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.328||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||-0.328|
95767075|NCT03871543|191505029|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|0.918|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.227|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|||1.227||
95804625|NCT01691482|191583087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.2|0.255|||||Treatment: A/S alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.255|0.200|
95804626|NCT01691482|191583087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.203|0.258|||||Treatment: ipratropium alone. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.258|0.203|
95767076|NCT03871543|191505030|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic|||0.022||
95767077|NCT03871543|191505031|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Difference|1.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.483|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.613||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Symptomatic minus Asymptomatic||||-4.613|
95767078|NCT03871543|191505032|OTHER|Statistical difference|Mean Ratio|1.984|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.198||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Upper Lid|||1.198|
95767079|NCT03871543|191505032|OTHER|Statistical Difference|Mean Ratio|1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.093||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Ratio was calculated as Symptomatic divided by Asymptomatic|Lower Lid|||1.093|
95767080|NCT03871543|191505033|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1416||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4148|0.1551|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1551|-0.4148|0.3446
95767081|NCT03871543|191505034|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0887||||0.5556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.3694|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3694|-0.2070|0.5556
95767082|NCT03871543|191505035|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2052||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4676|0.0905|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0905|-0.4676|0.1676
95767083|NCT03871543|191505036|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0903||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2054|0.3709|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3709|-0.2054|0.5483
95767084|NCT03871543|191505037|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2679||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5205|0.0278|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0278|-0.5205|0.0719
95767085|NCT03871543|191505038|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.3434||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5786|0.0554|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.0554|-0.5786|0.0190
95804627|NCT01691482|191583087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.204|0.259|||||Treatment: A+I. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.259|0.204|
95804628|NCT01691482|191583087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.19|0.245|||||Treatment: I+A. A mixed model analysis, with period, treatment (A+I, I+A, Albuterol alone, Ipratropium alone), IC Baseline, smoking status at Screening, and center fitted as fixed effects and participant as a random effect was used.|||0.245|0.190|
95804629|NCT01837550|191583089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To ensure a between-group effect of 80% at the 5% significance level it was estimated that 60 participants need to be included in the study. An effect size of Cohen's d=0.80 was expected. The expected standardized mean difference on the HHIE formed the basis for the obtained power.||||||0.685|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.685
95804630|NCT02965976|191583102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
95804631|NCT02965976|191583103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.773
95767086|NCT03871543|191505039|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.2975||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.0078|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||-0.0078|-0.5410|0.0420
95767087|NCT03871543|191505040|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.127||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1696|0.4024|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.4024|-0.1696|0.3973
95767088|NCT03871543|191505041|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.021||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3094|0.271|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.2710|-0.3094|0.8894
95767089|NCT03871543|191505042|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|0.0762||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.3585|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.3585|-0.2190|0.6129
95767090|NCT03871543|191505043|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1402||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4137|0.1565|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1565|-0.4137|0.3493
95804632|NCT02965976|191583104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
95804633|NCT02965976|191583105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
95804634|NCT02965976|191583106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.423
95804635|NCT02965976|191583107|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95854605|NCT04408989|191668837|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.899|
95950960|NCT03875729|191874090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.131||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.018||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.018|-0.280|0.085
95767091|NCT03871543|191505044|OTHER|Statistical significance correlation: Statistically Significant correlations were concluded if the upper CL is below 0 or the lower CL is above 0|Correlation Coefficient|-0.1192||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3958|0.1772|||Pearson correlation|Pearson correlation statistics using Fisher's z transformation||||0.1772|-0.3958|0.4270
95950961|NCT03875729|191874090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.078||PP: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data at Week 78 were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||-0.078|-0.256|<0.001
95767092|NCT00568451|191505088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.5||||Kaplan-Meier||||||4.5|
95767093|NCT03982511|191505094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
95767094|NCT03982511|191505094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-score from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
95767095|NCT03982511|191505094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.24|||0.63
95767096|NCT03982511|191505094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI percentile from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.03|||0.96
95767097|NCT03982511|191505095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for Emotion regulation subscale from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.79|||0.12
95767098|NCT03982511|191505095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotion regulation subscale from T3 to T1|Effect size: -0.02|||0.96
95767099|NCT03982511|191505096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.41|||0.28
95767100|NCT03982511|191505096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for child weekly screen time from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.42|||0.43
95767101|NCT03982511|191505097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.86||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: 0.85|||0.16
95804636|NCT00806026|191583110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-3.2||This analysis was step 1 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region \[United states (US) or European union (EU)\], treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-3.20|-5.90|<0.0001
95804637|NCT00806026|191583110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.7|-2.0|0.3603
95804638|NCT00806026|191583110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS symptom severity score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-1.9|-4.5|<0.0001
95950962|NCT03875729|191874091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||ITT: ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.42|0.606
95962596|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.5||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||29.2|1.0|0.0423
95767102|NCT03982511|191505097|SUPERIORITY|Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.32||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for MVPA minutes from T3 to T1|Effect size: 0.35|||0.61
95767103|NCT03982511|191505097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T2 to T1|Effect size: -0.68|||0.26
95767104|NCT03982511|191505097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|66.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|66.43||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference score for sedentary minutes from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.66|||0.34
95767105|NCT03982511|191505098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.41|||0.41
95767106|NCT03982511|191505098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for parent-reported sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.76|||0.16
95767107|NCT03982511|191505099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.84||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.54|||0.42
95767108|NCT03982511|191505099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for actigraphy-recorded sleep time from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.56|||0.04
95767109|NCT03982511|191505100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
95767110|NCT03982511|191505100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for problematic media use from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.38|||0.47
95767111|NCT03982511|191505101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.65|||0.005
95767112|NCT03982511|191505101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for child-centered skills from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.20|||0.05
95804639|NCT00806026|191583111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 2 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||<0.0001
95804640|NCT00806026|191583111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.4393
95804641|NCT00806026|191583111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: CMH test stratified by geographical region (US or EU) was used to analyze CGI-I responder status.||||0.0022
95804642|NCT00806026|191583112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 6 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0826
95804643|NCT00806026|191583112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was step 3 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Log Rank|||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus pregabalin 300 mg: Stratified log rank test by block (40 weeks versus 52 weeks of active treatment) was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0012
95950963|NCT03875729|191874091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2||PP: ANOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, screening peak C-peptide category, baseline HbA1c as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||0.20|-0.46|0.454
95962597|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.1|0.3|0.9213
95767113|NCT03982511|191505102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.21|||0.02
95767114|NCT03982511|191505102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PCDI scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.57|||0.008
95767115|NCT03982511|191505103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.34|||0.50
95767116|NCT03982511|191505103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for pressure to eat scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.01|||0.98
95767117|NCT03982511|191505104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.70|||0.17
95767118|NCT03982511|191505104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.51|||0.34
95767119|NCT03982511|191505105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.06|||0.91
95767120|NCT03982511|191505105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for emotional feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.40|||0.45
95767121|NCT03982511|191505106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T2 to T1.|effect size: -1.12|||0.03
95767122|NCT03982511|191505106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for instrumental feeding scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
95767123|NCT03982511|191505107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.02|||0.05
95767124|NCT03982511|191505107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for active mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.88|||0.11
95804644|NCT00806026|191583114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|-8.74||This analysis was step 7 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-8.74|-25.76|<0.0001
95950964|NCT03875729|191874092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|11.15||ITT: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||11.15|-1.72|0.151
95962598|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||2.8|0.1|0.8092
95767125|NCT03982511|191505108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.77|||0.002
95767126|NCT03982511|191505108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for restrictive mediation scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
95767127|NCT03982511|191505109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.31|||0.53
95950965|NCT03875729|191874092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|12.22||PP: The ANCOVA model included treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables. Missing data were multiply imputed using a pattern-mixture model under the missing not at random assumption.|ANCOVA||LSmean difference = teplizumab - placebo.|||12.22|0.13|0.045
95950966|NCT03875729|191874093|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64||ITT: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment, age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Negative binomial regression model||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.64|0.74|0.634
95767128|NCT03982511|191505109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for social coviewing from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.15|||0.77
95767129|NCT03982511|191505110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.04|||0.91
95767130|NCT03982511|191505110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in the home from T3 to T1|effect size: 0.17|||0.64
95767131|NCT03982511|191505110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.36|||0.31
95767132|NCT03982511|191505110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for number of screens in child bedroom from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.85|||0.04
95767133|NCT03982511|191505111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.25|||0.03
95767134|NCT03982511|191505111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for TV on during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.08|||0.10
95767135|NCT03982511|191505111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.44|||0.41
95767136|NCT03982511|191505111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mobile device present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.80|||0.21
95767137|NCT03982511|191505111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.29|||0.02
95767138|NCT03982511|191505111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for other media present during mealtime from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.82|||0.20
95767139|NCT03982511|191505112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 1.55|||0.009
95767140|NCT03982511|191505112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime task accomplishment scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
95767141|NCT03982511|191505112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T2 to T1|effect size: 0.63|||0.24
95767142|NCT03982511|191505112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for mealtime behavior control scores from T3 to T1.|effect size: -0.13|||0.84
95767143|NCT03982511|191505113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T2 to T1|effect size: -1.50|||0.00
95804645|NCT00806026|191583114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.58||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||7.58|-9.73|0.8075
95804646|NCT00806026|191583114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.318||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|3.91||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze SSQ-Subjective WASO score with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||3.91|-13.05|0.2906
95804647|NCT00806026|191583120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.3||This analysis was step 8 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||6.30|-9.30|0.7073
95804648|NCT00806026|191583120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.9||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||9.9|-5.1|0.5299
95767144|NCT03982511|191505113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for ECBI intensity t-scores from T3 to T1|effect size: -1.12|||0.01
95767145|NCT03982511|191505114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.93|||0.02
95767146|NCT03982511|191505114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for internalizing symptoms from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.68|||0.08
95804649|NCT00806026|191583120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.5||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze RLS-NDI with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.5|-15.2|0.0354
95804650|NCT00806026|191583122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.45||This analysis was step 9 in a step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) used to control the Type I error rate. This procedure was stopped at Step 6. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pregabalin 300 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||-0.45|-1.55|0.0004
95804651|NCT00806026|191583122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.12||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.25 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.99|0.1242
95804652|NCT00806026|191583122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.01||This analysis was not included in the step-down procedure (if p\<0.05, then continue to next step) to control Type I error. The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Spatial power covariance structure was used.||For pramipexole 0.5 mg versus placebo: Mixed model analysis was used to analyze limb pain-VAS with baseline value, region (US or EU), treatment, week and treatment by week interaction as fixed effects.||0.01|-1.12|0.0553
95804653|NCT04191733|191583136|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority analysis was demonstrated when the 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval (CI) limit was less than 1.25.|||||<|0.0001||||||one-sided p-value|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95804654|NCT04191733|191583137|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided test with 5% alpha was used to demonstrate non-inferiority with greater than 99% power. The non-inferiority margin was 3.75 minutes.||||||0.1004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A gatekeeping strategy was used to control family-wise type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant with a 1-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.1004
95804655|NCT00147537|191583180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A one-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.28 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.027
95804656|NCT00147537|191583181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||binomial test|||A One-sided p-value for H0: objective response rate \<=0.30 using exact binomial test at level 0.05.||||=0.121
95767147|NCT03982511|191505114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T2 to T1|effect size: -0.33|||0.36
95767148|NCT03982511|191505114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.83||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for adaptive skills from T3 to T1|effect size: -0.15|||0.69
95767149|NCT03982511|191505115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T2 to T1 (higher scores indicate better outcomes).|effect size: 1.70|||0.000
95767150|NCT03982511|191505115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Given that this is a pilot RCT (with a small n), primary aim is to estimate effect sizes for a more fully-powered RCT. Both p value and effect size will be provided.|ANOVA|repeated measures||Difference on difference for PSICA intensity scores from T3 to T1|effect size: 1.04|||0.01
95767151|NCT03982511|191505116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures|Effect size: 0.17|Difference on difference from T2 to T1 for BMI z-score||||.73
95767152|NCT03982511|191505116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Given this is a pilot RCT, primary aim is to estimate effect size for a more fully-powered RCT. P-values will be provided in addition to effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Difference on difference for BMI z-scores from T3 to T1.|Effect size: -0.01|||.98
95767153|NCT02069015|191505117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.781|6.906|||paired t-test|||||6.906|-4.781|<0.001
95767154|NCT01704495|191505129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.49||2-sided p-value|Poisson regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 45 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.49|0.98|0.119
95767155|NCT01704495|191505129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|2.46||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 15 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.46|0.95|0.141
95804657|NCT00987935|191583212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|2.296|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.296|0.802|
95804658|NCT00987935|191583213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.014|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||2.014|0.730|
95804659|NCT00987935|191583217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.932|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.932|0.728|
95804660|NCT00987935|191583218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.489|||||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by macroscopic vacular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both present vs both absent.~HR below 1 favors Nintedanib."|||1.489|0.593|
95950967|NCT03875729|191874093|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65||PP: Estimates and p-values were obtained from a negative binomial regression model using rate of hypoglycemic episodes as dependent variable and treatment age group at randomization, and screening peak C-peptide category as independent variables.|Rate ratio||Rate ratio = teplizumab / placebo.|||1.65|0.72|0.690
95804661|NCT02633527|191583228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-13.4|0.0899
95950968|NCT01842360|191874098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95950969|NCT01842360|191874099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
95767156|NCT01704495|191505129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.11||2-sided|Poisson Regression|Correction for overdispersion made by Pearson chi-square|AZD5069 5 mg BID vs Placebo|||2.11|0.79|0.397
95767157|NCT02025725|191505220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.881
95767158|NCT02025725|191505221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 1: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.036
95767159|NCT02025725|191505221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.336||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 2: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo||||0.025
95767160|NCT02025725|191505221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.347||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 3: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.039
95767161|NCT02025725|191505221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.364||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change in mean daily GSA total score from Baseline to Week 4: metoclopramide nasal spray minus placebo.||||0.085
95767162|NCT00235755|191505233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95767163|NCT00235755|191505233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95767164|NCT00235755|191505234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95767165|NCT00235755|191505234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95767166|NCT01416636|191505253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95767167|NCT01416636|191505253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
95767168|NCT01416636|191505254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.605
95767169|NCT01416636|191505255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.307
95767170|NCT01416636|191505256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0019
95767171|NCT01416636|191505257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
95767172|NCT01416636|191505258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95767173|NCT01416636|191505259|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
95767174|NCT01416636|191505260|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000003
95767175|NCT01416636|191505261|SUPERIORITY|||||||8e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00008
95804662|NCT02633527|191583228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-0.7|||ANOVA|||||-0.7|-15.1|0.0310
95804663|NCT02633527|191583228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-15.3|0.0268
95804664|NCT02633527|191583228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-15.8|0.0209
95767176|NCT01416636|191505262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95767177|NCT01416636|191505263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
95804665|NCT02633527|191583229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1305
95804666|NCT02633527|191583229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-1.0|0.1376
95767178|NCT02816736|191505265|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the AUCs|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||AUC was normalized for time; With the log-scale, the value of 0 indicates, on average, no change in NTproBNP from baseline.||1.08|0.84|0.45
95767179|NCT02816736|191505266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|3.97|||general linear model|||||3.97|-26.4|0.15
95767180|NCT02816736|191505267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.68|||ordinal logistic regression|||||1.68|0.78|0.51
95767181|NCT02816736|191505268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.87|0.84|0.16
95950970|NCT01842360|191874100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean of health care consumption was 17.5±34.7 points in the placebo group versus 9.2±27.9 points in the MV130 group.||||0.0094
95767182|NCT02816736|191505269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.91|0.34|0.99
95804667|NCT02633527|191583229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.3|0.0090
95950971|NCT01842360|191874101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.3917
95767183|NCT02816736|191505270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.035
95767184|NCT01532934|191505290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the Factor 1 by treatment interaction term and its effect on percent days abstinent/month.|Regression, Linear|||A priori hypothesis. Psychopathy Factor 1 (F1) X treatment interaction to predict higher substance use among people high in F1 + who get treatment relative to individuals with high F1 who get standard care.||||.02
95767185|NCT01532934|191505291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||As stated, the p-value reflects the F1 X treatment interaction term and its effect on substance use consequences. A priori threshold for significance was p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Experimental hypothesis: The F1 X treatment interaction will show that individuals low on F1 who get treatment will reduce substance use consequences at six months relative to those low on F1 who get standard care.||||.34
95767186|NCT01532934|191505292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||a priori threshold p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|||Experimental hypothesis: Treatment X F1 interaction will predict fewer charges at one-year follow-up for individuals low on F1 who got treatment relative to individuals low on F1 who did not.||||.69
95767187|NCT00793455|191505295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|3.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.2|||Chi-squared|||We compared the outcomes in the intervention and control groups using rate ratios and chi square test at 3 and 6 months, a 2 sided test with a p value \< .05 was used to determine significance. The study was powered to detect a 10-percentage point difference in screening completion between intervention and control groups if the control rate of completion as 20% or less with 80% power.||6.2|1.5|<0.05
95767188|NCT00793455|191505296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Same as primary outcome.||2.2|1.03|<0.05
95767189|NCT02329015|191505317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.58||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Model 1: An intent to treat analyses was performed determining effect of group assignment on academic performance while controlling for previous year GPA.||2.41|-1.25|0.54
95767190|NCT02329015|191505317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.67||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|3.55|||Regression, Linear|||Model 2: As active participation between groups was significantly different a second intent to treat analysis was performed which added to Model 1 (controlling for previous year GPA) by controlling for active participation.||3.55|-0.21|0.08
95804668|NCT02633527|191583229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|0.0546
95804669|NCT02633527|191583230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.0708
95804670|NCT02633527|191583230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.4|0.0309
95804671|NCT02633527|191583230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.5|0.0148
95804672|NCT02633527|191583230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.0136
95804673|NCT00452530|191583231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.0003||||||1-sided P-value|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||||0.0003
95950972|NCT01842360|191874102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As for the previous index the number of days with any of these drugs is used.||||0.0232
95950973|NCT01842360|191874103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0319
95767191|NCT02329015|191505317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.71|||Regression, Linear|||Model 3: Per Protocol Analysis: it was hypothesized that any benefit of yoga education would only accrue if the student was assigned to yoga classes and actively participated in the class. A third Model was fit with an interaction term for class assignment and class participation.||4.71|0.69|0.009
95767192|NCT02329015|191505318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis of the Voluntary subscale of the Response to Stress Questionnaire||||0.301
95767193|NCT02845700|191505391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|2 (time) x 2 (group) x 5 (dilution %) repeated measures ANOVA||||||.08
95767194|NCT02845700|191505392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = -1.19, p = .39||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .15.||||.39
95767195|NCT02845700|191505395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(4) = 0.66, p = .54||Post-hoc estimates of observed power for the difference between group means was calculated to be .08.||||.54
95804674|NCT00452530|191583231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.04||||||95.0|-2.03|-0.05|||Inverse variance method|||Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the secondary endpoint at a 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI of the secondary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority was then tested at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-0.05|-2.03|
95804675|NCT00452530|191583232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.33||||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major bleeding||0.29|-0.95|0.3014
95804676|NCT00452530|191583232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-0.91||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.38|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|CRNM||0.38|-2.20|0.1668
95804677|NCT00452530|191583232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.24||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Major or CRNM||0.18|-2.66|0.0881
95804678|NCT00452530|191583232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|-1.39||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.51|||Mantel Haenszel||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Any bleeding||0.51|-3.29|0.1412
95767196|NCT04740918|191505396|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (estrogen receptors (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR) positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (HR).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.44|0.2876
95767197|NCT04740918|191505397|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.43|||Log Rank|||||6.43|0.39|0.5151
95767198|NCT04740918|191505398|SUPERIORITY|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis), was used to test for difference in response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.70|0.50|0.7240
95767199|NCT04740918|191505399|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.26|0.3531
95804679|NCT00452530|191583233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||P-value was statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||0.74|0.51|<0.0001
95804680|NCT00452530|191583233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.74|-5.79||P-value is statistically significant at the 1-sided 0.025 level|Yanagawa, Tango, and Hiejima test||Apixaban-enoxaparin|Sequential testing was used to control for overall type-I error and to compare the effect of apixaban with that of enoxaparin. Noninferiority (NI) of apixaban compared with enoxaparin for primary endpoint was tested first at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If NI on primary endpoint was demonstrated, superiority for the endpoint was then tested at 1-sided α=0.025 level. If superiority was demonstrated on the primary endpoint, NI was then tested on the key secondary endpoint at 1-sided α=0.025 level.||-5.79|-12.74|<0.0001
95804681|NCT06091956|191583239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
95767200|NCT04740918|191505400|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.7175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.81|||Log Rank|||||6.81|0.27|0.7175
95767201|NCT04740918|191505401|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.||||||0.3173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3173
95804682|NCT06091956|191583240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.629
95804683|NCT06091956|191583243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
95804684|NCT06091956|191583244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95950974|NCT01842360|191874104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
95767202|NCT04740918|191505402|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.8658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|8.6|||Log Rank|||||8.60|0.16|0.8658
95767203|NCT04740918|191505403|SUPERIORITY|Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by local hormonal status (ER and/or PgR positive vs. ER and PgR negative/unknown) and Disease status (visceral metastasis without brain metastasis vs. non-visceral metastasis only without brain metastasis \[including locally advanced disease\] vs. Brain metastasis) were used to estimate the HR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.99|||Log Rank|||||4.99|0.27|0.8407
95767204|NCT01415518|191505418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.096|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.096|1.043|<.0001
95767205|NCT01415518|191505419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.067|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.09|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.090|1.044|<.0001
95767206|NCT01415518|191505420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.068|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.043|1.092|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.092|1.043|<.0001
95767207|NCT01415518|191505421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.064|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.064|1.017|0.0007
95804685|NCT02191397|191583249|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference (bupropion XL-escitalopram) was compared with the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 2.2. If the upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was below 2.2, then it indicated that bupropion was not inferior in efficacy to escitalopram.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.94||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Observed Cases (OC) dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.94|-0.27|0.139
95804686|NCT02191397|191583250|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables.|GEE model|||||1.33|0.55|0.479
95950975|NCT01842360|191874105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of emergency room visits was 0.37 (±1.15) for the MV130 group and 0.87 (±1.61) for the placebo group.||||0.0037
95950976|NCT01842360|191874106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean number of medical consultations was 0.08 (±0.31) for the MV130 group and 0.31 (±0.88) for the placebo group.||||0.1008
95767208|NCT01415518|191505422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.045|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.065|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.065|1.024|<.0001
95767209|NCT01415518|191505423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.06|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.060|1.017|0.0003
95767210|NCT01415518|191505424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.035||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.066|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.066|1.004|0.0248
95767211|NCT01415518|191505425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.038||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.067|1.010|0.0074
95767212|NCT01415518|191505426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.172||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.733|37.611|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||37.611|12.733|0.0001
95804687|NCT02191397|191583251|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1||P-value was estimated from a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.10|0.48|0.129
95804688|NCT02191397|191583252|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.24|0.55|0.354
95804689|NCT02191397|191583253|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.34||P-value was estimated from a GEE model with Response based on HADM-17 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model|||||1.34|0.54|0.489
95804690|NCT02191397|191583254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.16||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.16|-0.70|0.627
95950977|NCT01842360|191874107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0367
95950978|NCT01842360|191874109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3234
95767213|NCT01415518|191505427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.136|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.163|30.11|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.110|12.163|<.0001
95767214|NCT01415518|191505428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.927|31.161|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||31.161|14.927|<.0001
95767215|NCT01415518|191505429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.74|44.286|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||44.286|18.740|<.0001
95767216|NCT01415518|191505430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.322|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.425|34.22|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||34.220|14.425|<.0001
95767217|NCT01415518|191505431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.168|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.906|35.431|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||35.431|18.906|<.0001
95767218|NCT01415518|191505432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.297||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.071|-0.522|0.0102
95804691|NCT02191397|191583254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.66||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.66|0.08|0.037
95804692|NCT02191397|191583254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.78||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.78|-0.40|0.143
95804693|NCT02191397|191583254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.81|0.330
95804694|NCT02191397|191583254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.4||Analysis included Baseline MADRS total score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||2.40|-0.69|0.278
95804695|NCT02191397|191583255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.16|-0.09|0.579
95804696|NCT02191397|191583255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.04|0.163
95804697|NCT02191397|191583255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.34|0.00|0.050
95804698|NCT02191397|191583255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.26|-0.09|0.337
95804699|NCT02191397|191583255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 depressed mood subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.20|-0.14|0.714
95804700|NCT02191397|191583256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.18|-0.50|0.358
95804701|NCT02191397|191583256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.75||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.75|-0.04|0.081
95950979|NCT01842360|191874110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
95962599|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|9.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|48.5|||ANOVA|||Day 56||48.5|1.7|0.0040
95767219|NCT01415518|191505433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.343||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|-0.153|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.153|-0.533|0.0004
95767220|NCT01415518|191505434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.342||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|-0.162|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.162|-0.523|0.0002
95767221|NCT01415518|191505435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|-0.177|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.177|-0.381|<.0001
95767222|NCT01415518|191505436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.193||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.092|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.092|-0.294|0.0002
95767223|NCT01415518|191505437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|-0.108|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of score as a covariate||||-0.108|-0.308|0.0001
95860016|NCT00611026|191678438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||<0.0001
95860017|NCT00611026|191678438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0228
95860018|NCT00611026|191678438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0072
95860019|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0020
95860020|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0519
95860021|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1503
95860022|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95860023|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0002
95860024|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0130
95860025|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95860026|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0021
95860027|NCT00611026|191678439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of voided volume.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0525
95950980|NCT02470806|191874135|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise regression method - Primary efficacy analysis, difference between treatment groups in percentage change in wound area from baseline visit to end of 12-week treatment period for the PP population.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Stepwise regression|||Percentage change in wound area from Baseline to end of 12-week treatment period (PP population - all wounds)||||0.001
95767224|NCT01415518|191505438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.565||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.981|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable||||0.981|0.325|0.0425
95767225|NCT01415518|191505438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||1.078|0.339|0.0880
95767226|NCT01415518|191505438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0845|||||||Log Rank|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||||0.0845
95767227|NCT01415518|191505439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.055||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.035|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||0.035|-0.144|0.2281
95767228|NCT01415518|191505440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|-0.049|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.049|-0.194|0.0010
95767229|NCT01415518|191505441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of reliever medication as a covariate||||-0.029|-0.183|0.0073
95767230|NCT02999269|191505442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p-value for time by amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||For the primary outcomes (change in HDRS24), we performed a full longitudinal model with an unstructured repeated measures covariance matrix on subjects who completed the study in the assigned treatment arm. The dependent variable was HDRS at each visit and the independent variables included progress (time within the ECT series: pre-, mid-, and post-ECT), amplitude, age, sex, pulse width and the following interactions: progress/amplitude, progress/sex, and progress/pulse width.|Time-by-amplitude interaction (F4, 72 = 2.65, p = 0.04).|||0.04
95804702|NCT02191397|191583256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.99||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.99|-0.02|0.062
95804703|NCT02191397|191583256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.85||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.85|-0.10|0.118
95767231|NCT02999269|191505442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
95767232|NCT02999269|191505443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
95767233|NCT02999269|191505443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-value is time-by-amplitude interaction|Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
95767234|NCT02999269|191505443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Progress (F2,71 = 11.15, p \< 0.01)|Regression, Linear|||||||< 0.01
95767235|NCT01256164|191505455|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 90 subjects, randomized on a 2:1 ratio into the Fibrocaps plus gelatin sponge active arm or the gelatin sponge arm, and assuming a mean TTH of 3.5 minutes with a standard deviation of 2.5 minutes in the active arm and a mean TTH of 6 minutes in the control arm, this translates in a power of 99.4% at a two-sided significance level alpha of 5%, using a two-sample t-test.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95767236|NCT01256164|191505456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95767237|NCT01256164|191505457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Intent-to-treat analysis||||<0.001
95804704|NCT02191397|191583256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 anxiety/somatization subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.71|-0.19|0.252
95804705|NCT02191397|191583257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.20|0.573
95950981|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767238|NCT01256164|191505458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to- treat analysis||||0.001
95767239|NCT01256164|191505459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||0.003
95767240|NCT03752970|191505461|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.186||||||||-0.186|-0.880|
95767241|NCT03752970|191505462|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
95767242|NCT03752970|191505463|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|-0.087||||||||-0.087|-0.816|
95767243|NCT03976362|191505464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Cancer Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||0.93|0.63|0.0040
95767244|NCT03976362|191505465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.24|0.83|0.5481
95767245|NCT03976362|191505468|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.37||||0.8238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.66||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.66|-2.91|0.8238
95767246|NCT03976362|191505469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization Visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.14|0.66|0.3083
95767247|NCT03976362|191505470|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|1.68||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|6.23||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||6.23|-2.87|0.4686
95767248|NCT03976362|191505471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.35|0.76|0.9174
95767249|NCT03976362|191505472|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.83||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.16||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||7.16|0.50|0.0245
95767250|NCT03976362|191505473|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.75||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.75|0.88|0.2133
95860028|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.1|-0.5|0.0161
95950982|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767251|NCT03976362|191505474|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.62||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||4.62|-4.27|0.9381
95767252|NCT03976362|191505475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.72|0.8464
95767253|NCT03976362|191505476|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.41||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||0.41|-6.02|0.0870
95767254|NCT03976362|191505477|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||2.16|1.18|0.0020
95950983|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767255|NCT01467713|191505505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.39|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.39|0.42|0.286
95767256|NCT01467713|191505505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.43|1.43|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.43|0.43|0.332
95950984|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
95950985|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95950986|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95767257|NCT01467713|191505505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.86|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with only treatment in the model.|||1.86|0.60|0.808
95767258|NCT01467713|191505505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.48|1.61|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.61|0.48|0.286
95767259|NCT01467713|191505505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.42|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.49|0.42|0.332
95804706|NCT02191397|191583257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.13|0.209
95804707|NCT02191397|191583257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.58|-0.25|0.427
95804708|NCT02191397|191583257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.48|-0.40|0.851
95804709|NCT02191397|191583257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Retardation subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|-0.25|0.370
95804710|NCT02191397|191583258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.37|-0.16|0.438
95950987|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95950988|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767260|NCT01467713|191505505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.6|1.95|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center, age, gender, and baseline MADRS score in the model.|||1.95|0.60|0.808
95767261|NCT01100086|191505529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.35|105.42|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||105.42|99.35|
95767262|NCT01100086|191505530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.94|101.19|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.19|94.94|
95767263|NCT01100086|191505531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
95804711|NCT02191397|191583258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.66||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.66|0.07|0.014
95804712|NCT02191397|191583258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.50|-0.11|0.207
95804713|NCT02191397|191583258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.54||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.54|-0.07|0.137
95804714|NCT02191397|191583258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46||Analysis included Baseline HAMD-17 Sleep Disorder subscale score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.46|-0.14|0.299
95804715|NCT02191397|191583259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.13|-0.10|0.804
95804716|NCT02191397|191583259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.28||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.28|-0.02|0.079
95804717|NCT02191397|191583259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.38|0.01|0.036
95804718|NCT02191397|191583259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.31|-0.08|0.248
95804719|NCT02191397|191583259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35||Analysis included Baseline CGI-S score as covariate, treatment, gender, visit and treatment-visit interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.35|-0.04|0.110
95804720|NCT02191397|191583260|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.78||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.75||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 1. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.75|0.35|0.545
95950989|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.9||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-15.7|
95767264|NCT01100086|191505531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|101.48|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.48|95.20|
95767265|NCT03158038|191505560|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.9||||||||1.9|-6.7|
95767266|NCT03158038|191505561|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 8||13.2|-12.8|
95950990|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767267|NCT03158038|191505561|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|13.2||||||Statistical analysis up to Day 15||13.2|-14.1|
95767268|NCT04227197|191505567|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the trend in the number of indicated or completed evaluations in the Intervention arm versus Control arm.||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|Two tailed; no continuity correction||||||0.018
95767269|NCT04227197|191505569|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group.||||||0.468|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.468
95950991|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767270|NCT04227197|191505569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||ANOVA|||This p value is for the PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.802
95950992|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95950993|NCT00824850|191874153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95950994|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|25.5||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||25.5|-5.6|
95950995|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95950996|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
95950997|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||19.2|-4.2|
95950998|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
95950999|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951000|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951001|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.9||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||14.9|-6.9|
95951002|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.4||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||23.4|-7.4|
95951003|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767271|NCT04227197|191505569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.761
95767272|NCT04227197|191505569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.965
95951004|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951005|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951006|NCT00824850|191874154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951007|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
95951008|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95951009|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951010|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951011|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767273|NCT04227197|191505569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.619
95767274|NCT04227197|191505569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||ANOVA|||This is the p value for the PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.469
95767275|NCT04227197|191505570|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline on PedsQL Psychosocial Health Score||||0.068
95993931|NCT02660580|191963787|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% CI for the treatment difference was included in the equivalence interval \[-15%, 15%\]).|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.98||||||||2.98|-1.21|
95767276|NCT04227197|191505570|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.907|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Physical Functioning Score||||0.907
95767277|NCT04227197|191505570|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.196|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.196
95767278|NCT04227197|191505570|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.112|||||||ANOVA|||This is for the change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Parental HRQL Summary Score||||0.112
95767279|NCT04227197|191505570|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Family Functioning Summary Score||||0.245
95767280|NCT04227197|191505570|SUPERIORITY|The p value compares the change from baseline on quality of life measures between the Intervention group and Control group||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||This is for change from baseline for PedsQL FIM Total Scale Score||||0.219
95767281|NCT02342678|191505649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.13
95767282|NCT02342678|191505650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.18
95767283|NCT02342678|191505651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.2|0.89
95767284|NCT02342678|191505652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-0.3|0.13
95767285|NCT02342678|191505653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.73
95767286|NCT02342678|191505654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|24.3|||ANCOVA|||||24.3|-62.9|0.38
95767287|NCT02342678|191505655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|14.8|||ANCOVA|||||14.8|-3.7|0.24
95767288|NCT02342678|191505656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.46
95767289|NCT01651117|191505668|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed methods ANCOVA with patient random effects, to compare change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months between treatment and control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.0154||Subject random effect included because same model was used for analyses of 2 separate follow up periods (baseline to 6 month, and baseline to 12 month, reported separately).|Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple imputation used for intent-to-treat analysis.|Negative parameter estimate means decrease in HbA1c was greater for treatment group than for control group.|||0.0154|-0.6690|0.0611
95767290|NCT00663793|191505761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 8 per group was estimated to confer an 80% power to detect a 40% difference in testosterone AUC with a standard deviation of 20% at an alpha of 0.05|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
95767291|NCT00663793|191505762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank|||||||<0.05
95767292|NCT00663793|191505763|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was performed for this pilot study||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Area-under-the-curve for serum estradiol||||0.05
95767293|NCT05344560|191505770|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.07|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test \[senofilcon A (C3) HEV chromophore\] minus Control \[senofilcon A (C3)\]|||1.07|-6.92|
95767294|NCT04910100|191505774|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
95767295|NCT04910100|191505774|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
95993932|NCT02660580|191963803|EQUIVALENCE|MSB11022 was considered equivalent to EU-Humira if the 95% stratified Newcombe Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in percentage was included in the equivalence interval (-18, 18).|Percentage difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|4.07||||||||4.07|-7.82|
95804721|NCT02191397|191583260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.54||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 2. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.54|0.58|0.822
95804722|NCT02191397|191583260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.86||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 4. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||0.86|0.38|0.007
95804723|NCT02191397|191583260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 6. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.29|0.54|0.417
95804724|NCT02191397|191583260|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||P-value was estimated from a GEE model repeated measures with CGI-I score of 1 or 2 as response variable and treatment, gender as explanatory variables|GEE model repeated measures||Comparison for Week 8. OC dataset was used, where available data at a given time point was used with no missing values filled in with estimates.|||1.40|0.49|0.485
95804725|NCT04223687|191583293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95804726|NCT04223687|191583294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95804727|NCT04223687|191583295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95804728|NCT04223687|191583296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95804729|NCT04223687|191583297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804730|NCT04223687|191583298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804731|NCT04223687|191583299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804732|NCT04223687|191583300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95951012|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
95951013|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95804733|NCT04223687|191583301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95804734|NCT04223687|191583302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95804735|NCT04223687|191583303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95804736|NCT04223687|191583304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95804737|NCT04223687|191583305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95951014|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|15.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.3|-6.7|
95804738|NCT04223687|191583306|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance, p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95804739|NCT02945046|191583310|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.42|-2.72|0.9093
95804740|NCT02945046|191583310|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-4.49|0.1345
95804741|NCT05170061|191583339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||see above|t-test, 2 sided|paired analysis||Sequential analysis: if the first analysis (paired t-test to determine superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over valsartan ) reached p\< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol over valsartan was tested (paired-t test); if the second comparison reached p \< 0.05, the superiority of nebivolol/valsartan over nebivolol was tested (paired-t test)||||0.05
95804742|NCT05170061|191583340|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95804743|NCT05170061|191583341|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804744|NCT05170061|191583342|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804745|NCT05170061|191583343|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804746|NCT05170061|191583344|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804747|NCT05170061|191583345|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804748|NCT05170061|191583346|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804749|NCT05170061|191583347|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804750|NCT05170061|191583348|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804751|NCT05170061|191583349|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95951015|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95767296|NCT04910100|191505774|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
95767297|NCT04910100|191505774|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
95767298|NCT04910100|191505774|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.5 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
95767299|NCT04910100|191505774|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate noninferiority, the upper limits of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between each comparison must be lower than 1.5 mmHg at all timepoints and lower than 1.0 mmHg for the majority of the timepoints (i.e. at least 5 of 9). This was a Phase 2 study and so the sample size was not based on a formal sample size calculation. The study was planned to provide sufficient data to power a Phase 3 study.|Timepoints with Mean IOP < 1.0 mm Hg|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary efficacy analysis was the between group comparison of the mean IOP values in the study eye at each time point at each visit (a total of 9 between-group comparisons). A hierarchical analysis was conducted to compare each of the investigational products against the comparator, timolol 0.5% as follows: (1) Timolol Suspensions 0.5% (2) Nebivolol Suspension 1% (3) Nebivolol Suspension 0.5%.||||
95767300|NCT00946920|191505779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between treatments (degarelix versus goserelin acetate) was chosen to be -5 percentage points.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|83.7||||||The cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364 was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Only testosterone measurements taken at scheduled trial visits from Day 3 to Day 364 were included in the analysis. The hypothesis to test was the following: a non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to goserelin with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL from Day 3 to Day 364.||83.7|75.6|
95767301|NCT02723344|191505788|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum|||||||.056
95767302|NCT02723344|191505789|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.26
95767303|NCT02723344|191505791|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||.64
95804752|NCT05170061|191583350|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95951016|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.6|-15.0|
95951017|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951018|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95804753|NCT05170061|191583351|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804754|NCT05170061|191583352|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804755|NCT05170061|191583353|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804756|NCT05170061|191583354|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804757|NCT05170061|191583355|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95951019|NCT00824850|191874155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
95951020|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[7vPnC / 13vPnC) - (MnCC / 13vPnC), expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
95951021|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
95951022|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95767304|NCT01288079|191505796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.39|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||4.39|-7.35|0.617
95767305|NCT01288079|191505796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|2.91|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.91|-10.06|0.277
95767306|NCT01288079|191505796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|2.0|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, region, responsiveness, and region by responsiveness are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.00|-9.72|0.194
95767307|NCT00420420|191505818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.283
95767308|NCT00420420|191505819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at week 4||||0.180
95804758|NCT05170061|191583356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95767309|NCT00420420|191505820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||A longitudinal mixed model was used to compare groups, including factors for week, strata (MMSE score and concomitant AD therapy), treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||comparison at Week 4||||0.716
95804759|NCT05170061|191583357|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804760|NCT05170061|191583358|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804761|NCT05170061|191583359|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804762|NCT05170061|191583360|SUPERIORITY|see primary dependent variable||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||see primary dependent variable||||0.05
95804763|NCT03443401|191583368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance at \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.004
95804764|NCT03443401|191583369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance \<0.05|Spearman's rho|||||||0.027
95804765|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.042|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.042|0.739|0.137
95804766|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.1|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||26.1|-4.2|
95804767|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.081|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.081|0.767|0.284
95804768|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.1|
95804769|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.139|0.813|0.655
95804770|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|18.7|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||18.7|-13.9|
95804771|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.149|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.149|0.808|0.681
95804772|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|19.2|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.2|-14.9|
95804773|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.085|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.085|0.767|0.299
95804774|NCT01313676|191583379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|23.3|||||Confidence Interval (95%) and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.3|-8.5|
95804775|NCT01313676|191583380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15|1|0.019
95804776|NCT01313676|191583380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14|1|0.026
95804777|NCT01313676|191583380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5|-8|0.654
95804778|NCT01313676|191583380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7|-6|0.913
95804779|NCT01313676|191583380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16|3|0.004
95804780|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.143|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.143|0.750|0.475
95962600|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||1.8|0.1|0.3347
95860029|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.4|0.0944
95860030|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.3|0.3613
95860031|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
95860032|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0043
95860033|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.5|0.0186
95860034|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
95860035|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0407
95860036|NCT00611026|191678440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0016
95860037|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0217
95860038|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95860039|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0020
95860040|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0217
95951023|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
95951024|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95962601|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|5.6||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||30.7|1.0|0.0488
95767310|NCT02490631|191505824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.456
95767311|NCT02490631|191505825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.019
95767312|NCT03832686|191505841|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.86
95767313|NCT03832686|191505842|OTHER|||||||0.69||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.69
95767314|NCT03832686|191505843|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Eating in Public Score||||0.47
95767315|NCT03832686|191505843|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of Normalcy of Diet score||||0.73
95767316|NCT03832686|191505844|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Oral score||||0.65
95767317|NCT03832686|191505844|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||Comparison of MBSImP Pharyngeal score||||0.24
95767318|NCT03832686|191505845|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.53
95767319|NCT03832686|191505846|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Logistic Regression|||||||0.50
95767320|NCT05479435|191505851|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.830
95767321|NCT05479435|191505852|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.654
95951025|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-16.8|
95728657|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.41|0.16|0.86
95728658|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|6.2||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.2|-3.9|
95728659|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.31|0.04|0.64
95728660|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|6.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.4|-4.2|
95728661|NCT00729859|191426606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.035|||paired t-test|||p value for the difference = 0.28||0.035|0.005|0.28
95728662|NCT01992107|191426625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H1N1||1.14|0.93|
95767322|NCT05479435|191505853|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.803
95767323|NCT05479435|191505854|OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.398
95767324|NCT05479435|191505855|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
95767325|NCT05479435|191505856|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.991
95767326|NCT05479435|191505857|OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.278
95767327|NCT05479435|191505858|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.479
95767328|NCT05479435|191505859|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.849
95767329|NCT05479435|191505860|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.504
95767330|NCT05479435|191505861|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95767331|NCT05479435|191505862|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
95767332|NCT05479435|191505863|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.016
95767333|NCT05479435|191505864|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.041
95767334|NCT05479435|191505865|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.352
95767335|NCT05479435|191505866|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.390
95767336|NCT05479435|191505867|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.928
95767337|NCT05479435|191505868|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.558
95767338|NCT05479435|191505869|OTHER|||||||0.133|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.133
95767339|NCT05479435|191505870|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.367
95767340|NCT05479435|191505871|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
95767341|NCT05479435|191505872|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
95767342|NCT05479435|191505873|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
95767343|NCT05479435|191505874|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.377
95767344|NCT05479435|191505875|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.979
95767345|NCT05479435|191505876|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.055
95767346|NCT00925704|191505931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.171
95767347|NCT00925704|191505931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.024
95767348|NCT00925704|191505932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||0.313
95767349|NCT00925704|191505932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Exogenous calcitriol was analyzed using a mixed linear effects model. This model contained sequence group, period, and treatment as fixed effects. The subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||||< 0.001
95767350|NCT00925704|191505933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.039
95767351|NCT00925704|191505933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||Analysis for Tmax used the Hodges-Lehmann estimate for Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test.||||0.305
95767352|NCT04537078|191505944|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
95767353|NCT04537078|191505945|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.48||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.219
95767354|NCT04537078|191505946|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.269|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.269
95767355|NCT04537078|191505947|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.072
95767356|NCT04537078|191505948|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95804781|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|25.0|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||25.0|-14.3|
95804782|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.111|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.111|0.723|0.317
95804783|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of CV event|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|27.7|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||27.7|-11.1|
95804784|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.217|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.217|0.802|0.908
95804785|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.8|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||19.8|-21.7|
95804786|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.281|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.281|0.834|0.763
95804787|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|16.6|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||16.6|-28.1|
95804788|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.155|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.155|0.761|0.545
95804789|NCT01313676|191583381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction in risk of death|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.9|||||Confidence Interval and Estimated Value is presented for the percent reduction in risk of death at any time up to or on the CED, calculated as (1-hazard ratio)\*100|||23.9|-15.5|
95804790|NCT00368849|191583395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.63
95767357|NCT04537078|191505949|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.720
95767358|NCT04537078|191505950|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95767359|NCT04537078|191505951|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|600.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95767360|NCT04537078|191505952|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95804791|NCT00368849|191583396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.09
95804792|NCT00368849|191583397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.46
95804793|NCT00368849|191583398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.84
95804794|NCT00368849|191583399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||The secondary measures were analyzed as pretreatment and posttreatment difference scores using a series of analyses of covariance controlling for age. The results were screened for model violations (e.g., outliers). Preliminary analyses assured no treatment order effects by examining block by treatment interactions.||||0.76
95767361|NCT04537078|191505953|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95767362|NCT04537078|191505954|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95767363|NCT04537078|191505955|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.851
95767364|NCT04537078|191505956|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.304
95804795|NCT01902303|191583400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.5000
95804796|NCT01902303|191583401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3835|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3835
95860041|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95860042|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0421
95767365|NCT04537078|191505957|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
95767366|NCT02275819|191506017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
95767367|NCT02275819|191506018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
95767368|NCT02275819|191506019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.12
95767369|NCT02275819|191506020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
95767370|NCT02275819|191506021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95767371|NCT03889418|191506065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.292|-0.309|0.956
95767372|NCT03889418|191506066|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.005|-0.200|0.039
95767373|NCT03889418|191506067|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio, log|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.603|-0.506|0.864
95951026|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
95951027|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|15.0||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.0|-7.1|
95767374|NCT03889418|191506068|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio, log|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.308|-0.272|0.901
95767375|NCT03810092|191506101|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.04||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.42|||Regression, Linear|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the no transfusion group||0.42|-0.55|0.05
95767376|NCT03810092|191506101|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.39||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Relationship between ADL score evolution and hemoglobine rate, in the transfusion group||2.2|-1|0.05
95767377|NCT00806403|191506113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in ST resolution at 120 minutes after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 50% reduction of failure to achive at least a 50% ST resolution (40% failure in thrombolysis group and 20% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 166 patients would be required.||||0.56
95767378|NCT00806403|191506114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95767379|NCT00806403|191506115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis:there is no difference in number of patients with TIMI 3 flow at 5-7 days after inclusion between thrombolysis and primary PCI. The power calculation was based on the aim to prove a 65% reduction of failure to achive TIMI 3 flow (30% failure in thrombolysis group and 10% failure in Primary PCI group). With a power of 90% and a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided test), a total of 180 patients would be required.||||0.04
95951028|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
95951029|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|18.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||18.2|-14.8|
95767380|NCT00806403|191506116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95767381|NCT00806403|191506117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
95767382|NCT01320293|191506118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change in endothelial function from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
95767383|NCT01320293|191506119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in IL-6 levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||<0.05
95767384|NCT01320293|191506120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in adiponectin levels from baseline visit to end of treatment/month 6 will be zero change. (percent change=0)||||0.05
95767385|NCT01787292|191506121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|Least square means were adjusted for carryover from the crossover design and between subjects effects were analyzed using Kenward-Roger df estimation||||||.001
95767386|NCT01787292|191506122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.||||.8
95767387|NCT01787292|191506123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|||||||.05
95767388|NCT01787292|191506124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||To account for sequence carryover, we employed analysis of covariance inclusive of sequence by period covariates against treatment effects.|ANCOVA|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for degrees of freedom was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.05
95767389|NCT01787292|191506125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95767390|NCT01787292|191506126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95767391|NCT01787292|191506127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95767392|NCT01787292|191506128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
95767393|NCT01787292|191506129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Kenward-Rogers adjustment for df was made to account for carryover effects.||||||.6
95767394|NCT01787292|191506130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
95767395|NCT01787292|191506131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95860043|NCT00611026|191678441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0023
95767396|NCT01787292|191506132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
95767397|NCT01787292|191506133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95767398|NCT01597778|191506147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|6.1||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.4||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05. Final p-value is adjusted for the interim looks per study design.|Z-test to compare the Kaplan-Meier Est.|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||17.4|-5.2|0.4092
95767399|NCT01597778|191506147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference between the 2 year PFS probabilities for dUCB vs. haplo-BM after adjustment for age, performance score, and disease type.||1.70|0.99|0.060
95860044|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.3823
95767400|NCT01597778|191506149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before neutrophil recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the neutrophil engraftment post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.046
95767401|NCT01597778|191506150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 20k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.160
95767402|NCT01597778|191506150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before Platelet recovery is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the platelet engraftment to 50k post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.146
95767403|NCT01597778|191506152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before 2nd graft failure is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the secondary graft failure probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.693
95767404|NCT01597778|191506153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade II - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.142
95767405|NCT01597778|191506153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to aGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the aGVHD grade III - IV probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.604
95767406|NCT01597778|191506154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death before cGVHD is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the cGVHD probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.361
95767407|NCT01597778|191506155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0373
95767408|NCT01597778|191506155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the OS probabilities at year 2 post-transplant for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0235
95951030|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951031|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.8||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||15.8|-6.8|
95767409|NCT01597778|191506156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.039
95767410|NCT01597778|191506156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality across the two treatment groups.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the TRM probabilities post-transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM||||0.030
95767411|NCT01597778|191506157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.968
95804797|NCT05058456|191583423|OTHER|The primary safety hypothesis is: H0: ΠS \> PGS vs. HA: ΠS ≤ PGS where ΠS is the proportion of patients who experience a MAE within 30 days of procedure and PGS is the Safety Performance Goal. All subjects in whom a Mini S IVL catheter was introduced into the vasculature will be included in the analysis (i.e., it is an intent-to-treat analysis). The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test at α=0.025.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
95804798|NCT05058456|191583424|OTHER|The primary effectiveness hypothesis is: H0: ΠE ≤ PGE vs. HA: ΠE \> PGE, where ΠE is the proportion of target lesions with technical success and PG is the effectiveness Performance Goal. One-sided statistical significance level of 0.025 = α. The hypothesis will be tested using a one-sided Exact Binomial Test.|||||<|0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.025
95804799|NCT04359680|191583432|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.2546|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2546|0.4696|0.9434
95804800|NCT04359680|191583433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1162||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6623|1.8813|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8813|0.6623|0.6805
95804801|NCT04359680|191583435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3459
95804802|NCT03160573|191583449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Flavored Rinse, Placebo Flavored Rinse||||<0.00001
95804803|NCT03160573|191583449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test Unflavored Rinse, Placebo Unflavored Rinse||||<0.00001
95804804|NCT01537432|191583513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.565|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.768|||Fisher Exact|||||0.768|0.363|<0.001
95767412|NCT01597778|191506157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|Estimate cumulative incidence functions from competing risks data and test equality of 2 trt grps. Death prior to relapse is competing risk.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the relapse/progression probabilities post- transplantation for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.907
95767413|NCT01597778|191506160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the total duration of hospitalization within 6 months post-randomization for dUCB vs. haplo-BM.||||0.0003
95804805|NCT00337194|191583528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95804806|NCT00337194|191583529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95804807|NCT03704922|191583595|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
95767414|NCT05691712|191506165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.36|-19.9|<0.001
95804808|NCT04829214|191583627|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||The percentage of responders will be compared between the two groups using the Mantel Haenszel test controlling for category of duration of tinnitus and category of baseline TFI overall score. The primary efficacy analysis will be conducted for the comparison of OTO-313 and placebo, using a 2-sided test and an alpha level of 5%. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) around the common risk difference will also be provided.||5|-26|=0.385
95804809|NCT00425854|191583679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Likelihood|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.238|||||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort B. The CI is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.238|0.001|
95804810|NCT00425854|191583684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical benefit rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||Maxium Likelihood||Maximum Likelihood estimates. The clinical benefit rate for Cohort A was calculated by relating the number of patients with CB to all treated patients in Cohort A. The confidence interval (CI) is an exact Clopper Pearson CI.|||0.27|0.02|
95804811|NCT01378273|191583692|SUPERIORITY|We assumed no effect of treatment on death, but that Epo will lead to a decrease in the rate of NDI. If we assume a multiplicative reduction in the NDI rate of 0.45 then we expect a treated NDI rate of 12 percent and an overall rate of death+NDI of 30.4% as compared to the control rate of 40.4% corresponding to an overall treatment rate ratio of 0.75. This leads to a sample size of 376 evaluated subjects per arm or a total evaluated sample size of 752 subjects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.81|1.32||A two-sided type I error of 0.05 with no formal adjustment for multiple comparisons unless otherwise specified (such as with safety outcomes).|GEE Wald test based on logistic regressi|adjustments were made for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect.|The numerator is the Epo group, denominator is the control group|We evaluated the primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment using generalized estimating equations to account for potential correlation within siblings from the same pregnancy, with adjustment for gestational age at birth and recruitment site as a fixed effect. The primary analysis included infants with complete data and excluded data from infants known to be alive but in whom neurodevelopmental outcomes were not assessed.||1.32|0.81|0.05
95854606|NCT04408989|191668837|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.956|
95767415|NCT05691712|191506165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.10|-19.7|<0.001
95767416|NCT05691712|191506166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.34|-16.8|<0.001
95767417|NCT05691712|191506167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-5.8|<0.001
95767418|NCT05691712|191506167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.0|-8.0|<0.001
95767419|NCT05691712|191506167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-7.5|<0.001
95767420|NCT05691712|191506169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-32.4|<0.001
95767421|NCT05691712|191506169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-39.6|<0.001
95767422|NCT05691712|191506169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-38.2|<0.001
95767423|NCT03473184|191506223|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||Irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus non-irradiated diacerein site and untreated irradiated site versus irradiated vehicle site.||||1.0000
95767424|NCT03473184|191506223|OTHER|p-values are from an ANOVA of the average numerical score (sum of erythema and edema) at 24 and 48 hours post irradiation (Days 3 and 4) with effects of subject and treatment, using Fisher's least significant differences.||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||Non-irradiated diacerein and vehicle sites versus irradiated diacerein site, and irradiated vehicle and untreated irradiated sites versus non-irradiated diacerein site, and non-irradiated vehicle site versus irradiated vehicle site, and untreated irradiated site versus non-irradiated vehicle site.||||0.0008
95804812|NCT01378273|191583693|OTHER|SAEs were defined prospectively. The rate of total SAEs observed through hospital discharge were compared after accounting for potential within-sibship correlation (with multiple gestations) using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors. We used a GEE Wald test based on Poisson or logistic regression for total SAE count and individual events respectively. All other non-categorical data were assessed with GEE regression models appropriate for continuous outcomes.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22||Statistical significance was set at 0.05 for the efficacy analysis and for the final safety analysis comparing the rate of total SAEs between treatment groups, and 0.031 for death and 0.004 for the ten individual SAEs due to sequential monitoring.|Poisson regression|Adjusted for multiple gestation and gestational age|Epo is numerator and Control is denominator|We hypothesized that Epo would be safe, with no excess of SAEs compared to control infants. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, severe neurodevelopmental impairment or death.||1.22|0.83|0.05
95804813|NCT01378273|191583694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For all statistical comparisons between groups, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with robust standard errors and a working independence correlation structure for infants included from a multiple gestation were used. A GEE-based Wald test was used to examine differences in the global brain injury severity score between treatment groups, with adjustment for gestational age (GA) at birth used to stratify treatment randomization (24+0 to 25+6 vs. 26+0 to 27+6 in weeks+days of GA).||||0.36
95804814|NCT01378273|191583695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was evaluated using a Wald's test and declared significant if p \< 0.007.|Generalized estimating equation|Adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment.||For statistical inference, we utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors to appropriately account for potential correlation of biomarkers for same-birth siblings. Each respective GEE model adjusted for gestational age at birth and treatment assignment as fixed factors associated with the original study design. Biomarker levels at each follow-up time point were analysed using separate GEE models. Epo levels were log-transformed in all statistical analyses.||||<0.001
95767425|NCT01256879|191506229|OTHER|Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC.|||||||||||||||||Bioequivalence testing of AUC, per FDA guidance, is applied. Each CimTest-A, CimTest-B, and Commercial Cimetidine Solution are compared to Active Comparator (i.e. Sorbitol-free Cimetidine Solution), as a percentage of Active Comparator, per routine FDA bioequivalence testing of AUC. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-A is 104.4% to 120.6%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for CimTest-B is 97.9% to 113.0%. The upper and lower 90% Confidence Interval for Commercial Cimetidine Solution is 93.2% to 107.7%.|||
95767426|NCT00725920|191506230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
95767427|NCT03759392|191506232|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2931||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|0.131|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||0.131|-1.024|0.13
95767428|NCT03759392|191506233|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3937||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.108|-0.0668|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||-0.0668|-10.108|0.025
95767429|NCT03759392|191506234|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6215||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.639|||ANCOVA|Using multiple imputation||||1.639|-0.810|0.51
95767430|NCT03759392|191506235|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Repeated measures mixed model|||||1.1|-0.6|0.54
95767431|NCT01008605|191506236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit, 95% one-sided CI|95.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|87.46||||||||||87.46|
95767432|NCT02387840|191506245|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.0002
95767433|NCT02387840|191506245|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.0003
95767434|NCT02387840|191506246|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.081
95767435|NCT02387840|191506246|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.081
95767436|NCT02387840|191506247|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T1 values||||0.12
95767437|NCT02387840|191506247|OTHER|This test was a two-sample test using non-parametric data. A predefined margin was not used because no gold standard exists. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically different||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of T2 values||||0.14
95767438|NCT03170544|191506252|OTHER||Mean|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|2.04|0.63|
95767439|NCT03170544|191506252|OTHER||Mean|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.44|||||Mean (SE) and 95% CI were based on a linear fixed effects model containing a fixed effect for treatment (MK1092 Doses, Glargine).||The primary hypothesis would be supported if the Bayesian posterior probability of the true mean of GIRmax of MK-1092 lying within 1.5 and 4.5 mg/kg/min exceeded the prespecified threshold of 70% (in Part 3).|3.44|2.03|
95767440|NCT01213966|191506275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||PPR24 was summarized descriptively. No statistical test was performed. The PRR24 values were summarised when the corresponding regression fit had a p-value of p ≤0.01 and an adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) ≥0.85.|Regression, Linear|||PPR24 was summarised descriptively. No statistical test was performed.||||0.01
95767441|NCT03888469|191506284|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.05|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||Mixed effects repeated measures model|Mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Difference = DDT2 - Moist|||0.00||
95767442|NCT00273182|191506299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall survival rate at 36 month|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|73.2||No p values for the analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates.|The estimate is the overall survival rate at 36 month. left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For overall mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of subjects alive during three years post-implant. Survival curves of overall mortality and cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||73.2|68.6|
95804815|NCT01725308|191583704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-2.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total MADRS score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/ II) are fixed effects.||-0.2|-4.7|0.034
95804816|NCT01725308|191583711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||At End of Treatment Period I/Week 8: An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using a model where the total HAM-D17 score at baseline is a covariate and the treatment group and bipolar disorder diagnosis (Type I/II) are fixed effects.||-0.1|-3.3|0.033
95804817|NCT03163264|191583762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.45||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.050"|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.45|0|0.050
95804818|NCT03163264|191583762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance. Note: Estimated p-value was calculated at 0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||||0.05
95767443|NCT00273182|191506299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cause specific survival rate at 36 month|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.3|87.1||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates|Cause specific survival rate at 36 month.|left-truncation methods were used in the survival analysis for previously implanted subjects.|For cause-specific mortality, the endpoint is the proportion of patients who are alive or do not die due to the progressive heart failure or sudden cardiac death causes during 3 years post-implant. Survival curves of cause-specific mortality were created based on Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimates. Confidence intervals were calculated on a log-log scale.||87.1|83.3|
95767444|NCT00273182|191506303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||event free rate|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.3|91.2||No p value for this analysis.|Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate|||Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimate of the curve representing the time to first post-implant LV lead related complication were calculated to the first time point where fewer than 50 patients are still at risk. Confidence intervals will be calculated on a log-log scale.||91.2|88.3|
95804819|NCT03163264|191583763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.39||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was in our grant and protocol paper but was added late to clinicaltrials.gov.||||3.39|-0.13|0.069
95804820|NCT03163264|191583763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.76||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The investigators will also use repeated measures modeling based on mixed models using baseline and follow up data to adjust for characteristics||||3.76|0.21|0.028
95804821|NCT03163264|191583764|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.18||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|21.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.45|0.92|0.033
95804822|NCT03163264|191583765|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|11.08||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|23.2||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted|||23.2|-1.05|0.073
95804823|NCT03163264|191583767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.48||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-0.05|0.065
95804824|NCT03163264|191583768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-0.52|0.378
95993933|NCT00951821|191963835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-3.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5||Effect sizes were also calculated due to small sample size|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported statistic (-3.3) is the difference in the change from baseline to follow-up between the two treatment arms, estimated in a mixed effect regression model.|||5.5|-12.1|.46
95804825|NCT03163264|191583770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.25|154.95||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||154.95|-138.25|0.911
95804826|NCT03163264|191583771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.83||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.15|173.81||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.81|-108.15|0.648
95804827|NCT03163264|191583772|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.32||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|70.37||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|||||70.37|-49.73|0.736
95804828|NCT03163264|191583773|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.09|79.8||Statistical test was 2 sided with p\<0.05 indicating statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||79.8|-41.09|0.53
95804829|NCT04565756|191583792|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables. All statistical analyses were descriptive in nature and any statistical inferences were carried out according to the analysis plan and interpreted in view of the exploratory nature of the study.|Since the primary objective of the study was to evaluate ocular safety and tolerability, no formal hypothesis testing was performed for any continuous or categorical variables.|||
95804830|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.07|0.61|
95804831|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
95804832|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.96|1.03|
95804833|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.46|
95804834|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.2||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.66|
95804835|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.04||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.04|1.02|
95804836|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.32|0.82|
95804837|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.86|
95804838|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.39||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.79|
95804839|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.34|0.77|
95804840|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
95804841|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.74|
95804842|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.97|0.57|
95804843|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.11|0.65|
95804844|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMCratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.84|
95804845|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.94||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.97|
95993934|NCT00951821|191963836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The statistic provided (0.4) is the difference in the change in BDI score from baseline to follow-up by treatment group.|||3.06|-2.36|.75
95767445|NCT00359424|191506309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.05. For the interim analyses of the primary efficacy analysis, the alpha spending function method (Lan and DeMets, 1987) with O'Brien and Fleming (1979) stopping boundaries were adopted.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mRS of 0-2 at 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||9.1|-6.1|.7031
95767446|NCT00359424|191506310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.5241|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-10.3|6.2||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with mortality within 90 days post-randomization in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||6.2|-10.3|.5241
95767447|NCT00359424|191506311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.6|5.5||The CMH statistic is tested at the two-sided alpha level of 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the dichotomized baseline NIHSS score (\<20 or ≥20).|Positive adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the Endovascular group, while negative adjusted risk difference indicates greater risk in the IV Only group.|Test of null hypothesis (equal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms) versus alternative hypothesis (unequal proportions of subjects with sICH within 30 hours post IV tPA initiation in IV Only and Endovascular treatment arms).||5.5|-4.6|.8275
95767448|NCT02996227|191506348|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.2|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.12|<0.001
95767449|NCT02996227|191506349|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority was defined as no more than 25% greater opioid consumption and no worse than 1-point higher pain score at rest. Non-inferiority of TAP with liposomal bupivacaine to epidural could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95.2% CI for the mean difference of pain scores at rest was less than 1 point and the CI for the ratio of geometric means in opioid consumption was less than 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric means|1.37||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.2|1.05|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|1.05|0.754
95767450|NCT02996227|191506350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.53|2.76|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithm transformation||||2.76|0.53|0.560
95767451|NCT02996227|191506351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|1.37|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure|||1.37|-0.65|0.357
95767452|NCT02996227|191506352|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.42|0.98|||generalized linear regression|||||0.98|0.42|0.006
95767453|NCT02996227|191506353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.31|5.85|||Regression, Linear||Difference in means between two groups was assessed using mixed effects model with repeated measurements with unstructured correlation structure.|||5.85|-4.31|0.695
95860045|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.4802
95993935|NCT01993888|191963851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95767454|NCT02996227|191506354|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Linear|linear regression after logarithmic transformation||||1.12|0.86|0.738
95767455|NCT00868530|191506361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
95767456|NCT01609790|191506368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||Z-test|One-sided test, significance level 0.15||Assuming a 36% 6-month (6m) rate in the placebo arm \[from the March 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) briefing\], a 55% rate in the AMG 386 arm, and an exponential distribution corresponds to median PFS of 4.1 and 7 months, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (AMG 386 arm vs. placebo arm). A total of 114 patients (57 per arm) will yield 85% power to detect an absolute 19% difference of 6m PFS rate at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.15 based on a 2-sample proportion test.||||0.98
95767457|NCT01609790|191506369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
95767458|NCT01609790|191506370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.27|||Log Rank|||||2.27|0.95|0.09
95767459|NCT01609790|191506371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|1.02|0.04
95767460|NCT01609790|191506372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95767461|NCT03055338|191506411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||9.2|-4.0|0.440
95993936|NCT01903876|191963863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.044
95993937|NCT01903876|191963864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence||||||0.042|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.042
96001831|NCT01096667|191981232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.05||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.86|0.77||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.77|-2.86|0.229
95767462|NCT03055338|191506411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.7||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|0.5|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.5|-9.8|0.074
95767463|NCT03055338|191506411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|Includes terms for treatment, baseline PANSS total score, age, duration of illness, week, and the interaction of week by treatment.|Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||-0.6|-14.0|0.033
95767464|NCT03055338|191506412|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.8|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.8|3.0|
95767465|NCT03055338|191506413|OTHER||Difference in % versus Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||||Difference in % = MK-8918 - Placebo||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|7.0|-9.6|
95767466|NCT03055338|191506414|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Risperidone|||0.6|-0.2|
95767467|NCT03055338|191506414|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||||Difference in LSM = MK-8189 - Placebo|||0.2|-0.5|
95767468|NCT03055338|191506414|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||||Difference in LSM = Risperidone - Placebo|||0.1|-0.8|
95767469|NCT05161481|191506416|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|9.45||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||9.45|-26.25|
95767470|NCT05161481|191506416|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 24 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|-14.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.09|5.72||||||Model includes baseline HVPG as linear covariate and treatment and use of NSBBs or carvedilol as fixed effects, treatment by visit interaction and baseline HVPG by visit interaction. The following covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model: Unstructured.||5.72|-34.09|
95767471|NCT05161481|191506417|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|15.96||||||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||15.96|-8.94|
95767472|NCT05161481|191506417|OTHER|"The adjusted mean values for percentage change at Week 8 are derived for each group using the MMRM. The mean difference for the Comparison vs Placebo, is the adjusted mean of the treatment group subtracted from the adjusted mean of the placebo group."|Difference of adjusted means|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.33||||||ANCOVA) model includes baseline hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) as a linear covariate, with treatment and use of non-selective beta-blockers (NSBBs) or carvedilol as fixed effects. All intercurrent events (ICEs) will be handled using the treatment policy for the primary objective as a sensitivity analysis. That is, all data collected after the intercurrent events will be included in the analysis.||16.33|-10.94|
95767473|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8313|1.2025||||||||1.2025|0.8313|
95767474|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0355|1.4979||||||||1.4979|1.0355|
95767475|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0304|1.4904||||||||1.4904|1.0304|
95767476|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0305|1.4906||||||||1.4906|1.0305|
96001832|NCT01096667|191981232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.02||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.83|-1.2||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.20|-4.83|0.017
95767477|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8273|1.1967||||||||1.1967|0.8273|
95767478|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.5058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|1.811||||||||1.8110|1.2520|
95767479|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2522|1.8113||||||||1.8113|1.2522|
95767480|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0053|1.4541||||||||1.4541|1.0053|
95767481|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0103|1.4614||||||||1.4614|1.0103|
95767482|NCT05277922|191506426|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.2456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0357|1.4981||||||||1.4981|1.0357|
95767483|NCT02992236|191506490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95767484|NCT02549859|191506493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767485|NCT02549859|191506494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95767486|NCT02549859|191506495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95767487|NCT02549859|191506496|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767488|NCT02549859|191506497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767489|NCT02549859|191506498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767490|NCT02549859|191506499|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767491|NCT02549859|191506500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95767492|NCT02549859|191506501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767493|NCT02549859|191506502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767494|NCT02549859|191506503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95767495|NCT02549859|191506504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95804846|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.55||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.55|0.78|
95804847|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.19|0.54|
95804848|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.61|
95804849|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.73|
95804850|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.87|
95804851|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.74|2.76|
95804852|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
95804853|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.10|
95804854|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.80|
95804855|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.62|
95804856|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.52|
95804857|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|4.54||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.54|2.68|
95804858|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.68|0.40|
95804859|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.20|0.11|
95804860|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.23||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.23|1.15|
95804861|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.72||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.72|0.89|
95767496|NCT02549859|191506505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767497|NCT02549859|191506506|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767498|NCT02549859|191506507|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767499|NCT02549859|191506508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767500|NCT02549859|191506509|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767501|NCT02549859|191506510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95767502|NCT02549859|191506511|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767503|NCT02549859|191506512|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95767504|NCT03446027|191506513|OTHER|"Prespecified Tobit Regression mode: the model included the AWD baseline measurement, a treatment indicator and the type of centre (SET versus non-SET) as covariates. As the data collected for AWD showed a right-skewed distribution, a square root transformation was used to normalise the data and used for the regression Tobit model. This resulted in the unit of measure being units rather than meters."|square root transformation|0.835||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.343|||Tobit Regression|||"Right censored Tobit regression model for AWD at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference between arms (between baseline and 3 months) - the primary analysis estimates the difference in the AWD at 3 months between the two treatment groups control vs. device. Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data."||2.343|-0.674|0.28
95951032|NCT00824850|191874156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.6||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||7.6|-13.9|
95951033|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|29.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|49.33|||||Confidence intervals (CI) for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||49.33|17.61|
95951034|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|15.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.13|8.49|
95951035|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.67|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.67|4.06|
95951036|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|71.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.74|124.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||124.08|40.74|
95951037|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|12.73|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.73|4.92|
95804862|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.13||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.53|
95951038|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|2.87|
95951039|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|10.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.42|4.51|
95804863|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.08||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|1.28|
95804864|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.81|
95804865|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.83|0.47|
95804866|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.63||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.63|1.51|
95804867|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.79|
95804868|NCT01026038|191583804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.72|0.38|
95804869|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95951040|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|17.64|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||17.64|6.98|
95951041|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.07|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.07|1.37|
95962602|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|17.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|92.2|||ANOVA|||Day 56||92.2|3.3|0.0001
95951042|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.9|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.90|1.52|
95767505|NCT03446027|191506514|OTHER|"Right censored, Tobit Regression model to assess the effects of baseline characteristics for ICD at 3 months for the ITT Population. This resulted in the unit of measure being units and not meters.~Included participants with both baseline and 3 month treadmill data. Calculation between arms - estimates the difference in the ICD at 3 months between the two treatment groups.~Control group includes both BMT and BMT + SET and the treatment group includes NMES + BMT and NMES + BMT + SET"|square root transformation|0.972||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.546|||Right censored, Tobit Regression|||||2.546|-0.600|0.23
95804870|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.429
95767506|NCT03446027|191506518|OTHER|"Linear Regression Model for Duplex ultrasonography (Volume flow - measured in one leg) at 3 months for the ITT population.~Difference (calculation) between the two groups and not per arm (control vs treatment). Unit of measure is Units due to the use of a linear regression model rather than cc/min."|Linear regression|0.483||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.95|||Regression, Linear|||||1.950|-0.984|0.516
95767507|NCT00708552|191506564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.7|-0.4|0.159
95767508|NCT00708552|191506564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.3|-0.9|0.410
95767509|NCT00708552|191506564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.2|-1.6|0.821
95767510|NCT00708552|191506565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.1|0.254
95767511|NCT00708552|191506565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.4|0.394
95804871|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.314
95804872|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804873|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.552
95767512|NCT00708552|191506565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
95767513|NCT00708552|191506566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.3|-5.6|0.423
95767514|NCT00708552|191506566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.9|-6.1|0.305
95767515|NCT00708552|191506566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||5.7|-1.7|0.282
95767516|NCT00708552|191506567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.1|-0.3|0.096
95767517|NCT00708552|191506567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.8|-0.8|0.281
95804874|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.499
95804875|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.376
95767518|NCT00708552|191506567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.9|-1.1|0.630
95767519|NCT00708552|191506567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-5.7|0.655
95767520|NCT00708552|191506567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.3|-6.2|0.545
95767521|NCT00708552|191506567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||6.8|-1.9|0.270
95804876|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.633
95804877|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.658
95804878|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.544
95804879|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95951043|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|12.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.42|4.77|
95951044|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|10.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.48|4.95|
95767522|NCT00708552|191506568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||3.6|-0.5|0.138
95767523|NCT00708552|191506568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.2|-0.7|0.216
95767524|NCT00708552|191506568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.921
95767525|NCT00708552|191506568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||2.9|-7.0|0.410
95767526|NCT00708552|191506568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||3.8|-5.9|0.667
95767527|NCT00708552|191506568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||7.2|-1.9|0.246
95804880|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Pain (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804881|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
96001833|NCT01096667|191981232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.84||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.63|-1.06||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Measures Repeated Model|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.06|-4.63|0.021
95767528|NCT00708552|191506569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.1|0.146
95767529|NCT00708552|191506569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.733
95767530|NCT00708552|191506569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+ score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.5|0.145
95767531|NCT00708552|191506570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.6|-0.2|0.295
95767532|NCT00708552|191506570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.495
95767533|NCT00708552|191506570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CBIC+, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.1|-0.6|0.166
95804882|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.197
95804883|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.198
95804884|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.443
95804885|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.261
95804886|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.687
95767534|NCT00708552|191506571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.1|0.847
95767535|NCT00708552|191506571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.1|-1.4|0.833
95804887|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.671
95804888|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.253
95804889|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.074
95804890|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
95767536|NCT00708552|191506571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADAS-Cog Total Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.7|-1.6|0.443
95804891|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Swelling (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
95804892|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.607
95804893|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.549
95804894|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.864
95804895|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.859
95804896|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.836
95804897|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95767537|NCT00708552|191506572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.1|0.320
95767538|NCT00708552|191506572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.2|0.927
95767539|NCT00708552|191506572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||CIBIC+ Score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||0.0|-0.4|0.059
95767540|NCT00708552|191506573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.4|-5.2|0.257
95767541|NCT00708552|191506573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||4.0|-2.2|0.570
95767542|NCT00708552|191506573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||RBANS total score, Placebo Vs Donepzil at Week 12||6.4|0.3|0.031
95767543|NCT00708552|191506574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.5|-1.1|0.798
95767544|NCT00708552|191506574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.918
95767545|NCT00708552|191506574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.3|-1.2|0.924
95767546|NCT00708552|191506574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||3.0|-4.7|0.676
95767547|NCT00708552|191506574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||6.7|-0.4|0.086
95767548|NCT00708552|191506574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||7.7|0.6|0.021
95767549|NCT00708552|191506575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.7|-1.5|0.908
95767550|NCT00708552|191506575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.7|0.826
95767551|NCT00708552|191506575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on ADAS-Cog Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.2|-2.7|0.088
95767552|NCT00708552|191506575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.0|-7.3|0.053
95767553|NCT00708552|191506575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||3.3|-4.0|0.848
95767554|NCT00708552|191506575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on RBANS Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||8.2|1.1|0.011
95767555|NCT00708552|191506576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.671
95767556|NCT00708552|191506576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.2|-0.4|0.413
95767557|NCT00708552|191506576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 16-26 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.245
95767558|NCT00708552|191506577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.369
95804898|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.297
95767559|NCT00708552|191506577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.4|-0.2|0.550
95767560|NCT00708552|191506577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Baseline MMSE score of 10-20 on CIBIC+ Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.0|-0.5|0.082
95767561|NCT00708552|191506578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||1.0|-2.4|0.417
95767562|NCT00708552|191506578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||2.0|-1.4|0.725
95767563|NCT00708552|191506578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||2.2|-1.1|0.506
95804899|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.145
95804900|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.517
95804901|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.323
95804902|NCT01026038|191583805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Redness (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.489
95804903|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC||||0.075
95804904|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.345
95804905|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=38 degree C to \<=39 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC||||0.628
95767564|NCT00708552|191506578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.6|-2.3|0.723
95767565|NCT00708552|191506578|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||2.0|-2.2|0.919
95767566|NCT00708552|191506578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||ADCS-ADL Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||2.0|-2.3|0.896
95767567|NCT00708552|191506579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.594
95767568|NCT00708552|191506579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.5|0.523
95767569|NCT00708552|191506579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||CSDD Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.0|-0.4|0.429
95767570|NCT00708552|191506580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.8|-0.8|0.966
95804906|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.592
95804907|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.608
95804908|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>=39 degree C to \<=40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804909|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95767571|NCT00708552|191506580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.505
95767572|NCT00708552|191506580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||MMSE Total score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.6|0.0|0.044
95767573|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.5|-0.5|0.869
95767574|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.8|-0.4|0.500
95767575|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.8|-0.1|0.140
95804910|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fever (\>40 degree C): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.333
95804911|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
95804912|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
95804913|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
95767576|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.5|-0.6|0.910
95767577|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||0.7|-0.5|0.774
95767578|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Basic Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||0.5|-0.7|0.726
95728663|NCT01992107|191426625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.97|
95767579|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.7|-2.2|0.292
95767580|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||1.4|-1.3|0.946
95767581|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||1.6|-1.3|0.802
95728664|NCT01992107|191426625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1||1.1|0.89|
95728665|NCT01992107|191426625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c/GMT QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5|Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c, assessed in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2||1.14|0.87|
95728666|NCT01992107|191426626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H1N1||6.9|-2.5|
95767582|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||1.3|-2.1|0.636
95767583|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.5|-2.0|0.752
95767584|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Instrumental Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.7|-1.9|0.920
95767585|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 12||0.6|-0.7|0.972
95767586|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 12||0.9|-0.4|0.378
95767587|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 12||0.9|-0.3|0.346
95767588|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-15mg at Week 24||0.9|-0.6|0.720
95767589|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs SB-742457-35mg at Week 24||1.0|-0.6|0.598
95767590|NCT00708552|191506581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Total Independence Score, Placebo Vs Donepezil at Week 24||1.1|-0.5|0.480
95767591|NCT03971071|191506612|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.05|0.92|0.13
95767592|NCT03971071|191506612|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.05|1.33|<0.001
95767593|NCT03971071|191506613|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.23||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.1||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.10|-2.35|0.033
95767594|NCT03971071|191506613|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.62||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-1.62|-3.87|<0.001
95767595|NCT03971071|191506614|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|1.62||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||2.43|1.08|0.019
95767596|NCT03971071|191506614|SUPERIORITY||Common odds ratio|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Common odds ratio and p-value were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No).|||3.96|1.75|<0.001
95860046|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||0.1|-0.1|0.8355
95767597|NCT03971071|191506615|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.88|-5.62|0.007
95767598|NCT03971071|191506615|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.13||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||0.22|-4.48|0.075
95767599|NCT03971071|191506616|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.29||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 70 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.29|-4.92|0.028
95767600|NCT03971071|191506616|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.37||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.07||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Linear Mixed Model||Erenumab 140 mg versus Placebo. Covariates: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, concomitant oral migraine preventive treatment initiated before screening and taken during baseline (Yes or No), and baseline value.|||-0.07|-4.67|0.043
95767601|NCT00460603|191506618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.585||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|1.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes versus \[vs.\] no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.031|0.332|0.9726
95767602|NCT00460603|191506618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.735||||0.8391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.352|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.352|0.399|0.8391
95804914|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.215
95804915|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.714
95767603|NCT00460603|191506618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.797||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.299|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no) was used for the analysis.||1.299|0.489|0.8192
95767604|NCT00460603|191506650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.45|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.45|0.47|0.5699
95860047|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.12|0.0286
95767605|NCT00460603|191506650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.61|0.33|0.2167
95767606|NCT00460603|191506650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.98|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.98|0.75|0.8746
95804916|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.397
95804917|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
95804918|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
95804919|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804920|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.161
95804921|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.226
95767607|NCT00460603|191506651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.41|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.41|0.81|0.8884
95767608|NCT00460603|191506651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.89|0.66|0.6648
95767609|NCT00460603|191506651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.8065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.07|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.07|0.75|0.8065
95767610|NCT00460603|191506652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|2.033|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.033|0.656|0.6904
95767611|NCT00460603|191506652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|2.141|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||2.141|0.676|0.7364
95767612|NCT00460603|191506652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.653|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no). One-sided p-value was derived from the log-rank test stratified by prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no) and prior pelvic irradiation (yes vs. no).||1.653|0.535|0.4140
95804922|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95767613|NCT01051960|191506707|OTHER|comparison of means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Whether change from baseline to 24-weeks is significantly different from zero||||.0008
95804923|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804924|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95962603|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.0|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.0|0.1|0.8831
95767614|NCT01051960|191506708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline to 24 weeks||||0.00007
95767615|NCT00360282|191506712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.007
95767616|NCT00360282|191506713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||.549
95767617|NCT02996968|191506714|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was declared if the POUR rate at 1-week with self-discontinuation was no worse than the POUR rate at 1-week with office-discontinuation, by a pre-specified margin of 15%.~A sample size was calculated to be 74 patients in each arm based on the following:~* The estimated POUR requiring indwelling urinary catheter at 1-week postoperative is 16%~* The non-inferiority margin was set at 15%.~* The power was set at 80%"|Proportion Difference|0.002||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.095||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction|Two proportions Z-test|||||0.095||0.5
95767618|NCT03207815|191506715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Treatment Failure Rate|-30.1||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-4.1||P-value was estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Participants with missing values on treatment failure status were analyzed as treatment failures using a nonresponder imputation (NRI) method.||||-4.1|-56.2|0.0064
95767619|NCT03207815|191506716|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.309||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.663||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% confidence interval \[CI\]) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||0.663|0.144|0.0014
95804925|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.237
95804926|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.045
95804927|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Any): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.285
95804928|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804929|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.174
95804930|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Mild): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.125
95767620|NCT03207815|191506717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in Least Squares (LS)-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||0.2|-0.4|0.3550
95767621|NCT03207815|191506718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.1|-0.8|0.0145
95767622|NCT03207815|191506719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, stratification factors and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.10|0.0389
95767623|NCT03207815|191506720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||P-value was estimated using a repeated measure ANCOVA model which included treatment, eye, interaction of treatment and eye, OCT machine, and best state value.|Repeated Measure ANCOVA|The repeated measure ANCOVA model was used to control for the clustered observations from each eye of a participant.|Treatment difference in LS-means (95% CI) were obtained from the repeated measure ANCOVA model.|||-0.00|-0.05|0.0340
95767624|NCT03207815|191506721|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.193||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|2.277||P-value was derived from the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank Test||Stratified hazard ratio (95% CI) were derived from the Cox model stratified by the stratification factors.|||2.277|0.625|0.5893
95767625|NCT00791778|191506737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of PFS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 65% increase in median PFS. With one-sided alpha of 0.10, power of 90% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib and Placebo, a total of 105 PFS events were required.||1.63|0.72|0.655
95767626|NCT00791778|191506738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.2|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||2.20|0.93|0.951
95767627|NCT00791778|191506739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.23|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.10 stratified by the same factors as randomization.|Sorafenib compared to Placebo|||3.23|0.69|0.84
95767628|NCT00444535|191506785|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson exact test (binomial)|Exact binomial procedure|69.2||||||95.0|54.9|81.3||||||||81.3|54.9|
95767629|NCT01568892|191506792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted mean difference between the two treatment arms.|||-0.80|-1.52|<0.001
95767630|NCT01169064|191506862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.365
95767631|NCT01169064|191506863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.282
95767632|NCT01697748|191506907|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||Variables with at least a borderline association with a treatment arm (P≤ .10) were included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest||No P values were reported for the association between dressing type and infection, only relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were reported.||With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15 vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two sided alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Mann Whitney U test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|1.96|0.44|
95804931|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.058
95804932|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||0.092
95804933|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Moderate): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804934|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804935|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804936|NCT01026038|191583806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue (Severe): Fisher exact test, 2-sided was used. Pairwise comparison was made between 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC and 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC.||||>0.990
95804937|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.56|
95767633|NCT01697748|191506907|SUPERIORITY|With an SSI rate of 15% at Tampa General Hospital at the time of study design, a sample size of 600 patients was determined to provide a power of 80% to detect a 50% absolute reduction (15% vs. 7.5%) surgical site infection at a two side alpha = 0.05. Assuming an approximate 10% dropout loss to follow up rate, the total sample size was adjusted to 660.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Variables with at least a borderline association (P≤.10) were then included in a multiple logistic regression model to verify which is independently associated with the outcome of interest|Mixed Models Analysis|In addition to the Chi-Square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Mann Whitney U test and logistic regression were utilized when appropriate.||||||<0.05
95767634|NCT01697748|191506908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||see below|Chi square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test where appropriate|||In addition to Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
95767635|NCT01697748|191506909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher's Exact, Student's T test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression when appropriate,|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
95767636|NCT01697748|191506909|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Chi Square, Fisher Exact, Student t-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test|||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<.05
95767637|NCT01697748|191506911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Besides the Chi Square, Fisher's Exact test, Student T-test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression were utilized where appropriate|||<0.05
95767638|NCT01697748|191506912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In addition to the Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, Student T-Test, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and logistic regression were utilized where approprate|||<0.05
95767639|NCT01256450|191506918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.646|.5870
95767640|NCT02104219|191506928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median RGI-C score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Pairs of radiographs were centrally evaluated by 3 independent, blinded pediatric radiologists trained in the assessment of the skeletal manifestations of HPP. The mean RGI-C score across the 3 radiologists was calculated and served as the patient's RGI-C score for a specific time point||||0.0755
95767641|NCT02104219|191506929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in height Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented height measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline height. Height measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in height Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline height Z-score from post baseline height Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.6344
95804938|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.73|
95804939|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.79||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.92|
95767642|NCT02104219|191506930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether the median change in weight Z-score from baseline to last assessment differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The earliest documented weight measurement that was abstracted within the period from 5 to 15 years of age, inclusive, was defined as the baseline weight. Weight measurements were assigned to Z-scores calculated using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts and methodology. Changes in weight Z-score from Baseline were computed by subtracting baseline weight Z-score from post baseline weight Z-scores. The post baseline time points were grouped by time intervals.||||0.4520
95767643|NCT02104219|191506931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test used to determine whether change from baseline in the median RSS score differs from 0 for each time interval. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||The Baseline x-ray set defined for RGI-C, which was compared with its subsequent x-ray sets, was also used as the Baseline x-ray set for the RSS reading. Changes from Baseline were computed based on this baseline RSS score, and postbaseline time points were grouped by intervals of time from Baseline.||||0.4545
95804940|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.00|0.49|
95767644|NCT00832455|191506953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95767645|NCT00832455|191506953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95767646|NCT00832455|191506955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
95767647|NCT00832455|191506955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of physician satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 8.||||||<0.001
95767648|NCT00832455|191506956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar-Bowker|The McNemar-Bowker test is a statistical procedure used to compare the proportion of patient satisfaction at week 0 compared to week 12.||||||<0.001
95767649|NCT00832455|191506957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Change in PACQLQ score between Week 12 and baseline is statistically different than zero||||||<0.001
95767650|NCT00204490|191507132|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 1 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.071
95767651|NCT00204490|191507132|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||(FGBT% at 2 year of treatment minus FGBT% at baseline) divided by FGBT% at baseline.||||0.080
95993938|NCT02747927|191963872|OTHER||VE|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|85.3||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 25%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Assuming true VE of 60% and, virologically confirmed cases of dengue fever induced by any dengue serotype occurring from 30 days post 2nd vaccination (Day 120) until end of Part 1 would provide at least 90% power to rule out vaccine effect of ≤25%.||85.3|73.3|<0.001
95993939|NCT02747927|191963873|OTHER||VE|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.6|94.7||Statistical significance was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the VE was above 0%. Since the hypotheses was tested in a confirmatory manner at a 2-sided significance level of 5%, the calculated p-value was compared with 0.025.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||94.7|82.6|<0.001
95993940|NCT02747927|191963874|OTHER||VE|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|79.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.9|54.8|
95993941|NCT02747927|191963874|OTHER||VE|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.9|97.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.6|89.9|
95993942|NCT02747927|191963874|OTHER||VE|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|64.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||64.1|27.1|
95993943|NCT02747927|191963874|OTHER||VE|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||85.8|-69.7|
95993944|NCT02747927|191963875|OTHER||VE|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|49.1|
95993945|NCT02747927|191963876|OTHER||VE|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|81.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||81.9|68.5|
95993946|NCT02747927|191963877|OTHER||VE|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-978.5|91.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.1|-978.5|
95993947|NCT02747927|191963886|OTHER||VE|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region|||56.0|37.1|
95993948|NCT02747927|191963887|OTHER||VE|55.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|70.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||70.0|34.5|
95993949|NCT02747927|191963888|OTHER||VE|73.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|83.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||83.9|56.3|
95993950|NCT02747927|191963889|OTHER||VE|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|98.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.6|72.4|
95993951|NCT02747927|191963890|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|85.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||85.9|70.1|
95993952|NCT02747927|191963891|OTHER||VE|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|87.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||87.4|57.1|
95767652|NCT00204490|191507132|OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Mixed model|slope for interaction of treatment and time, placebo was the reference group; square root transformed outcome.|Intention to treat||||0.019
95993953|NCT02747927|191963891|OTHER||VE|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|69.9|
95993954|NCT02747927|191963891|OTHER||VE|62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.7|91.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||91.5|-69.7|
95767653|NCT03477006|191507139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
95767654|NCT03477006|191507140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
95767655|NCT03477006|191507141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
95767656|NCT02174627|191507154|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.43|1.27|<0.001
95993955|NCT02747927|191963891|OTHER||VE|77.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|88.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.5|54.8|
95993956|NCT02747927|191963892|OTHER||VE|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|89.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||89.7|57.8|
95767657|NCT02174627|191507155|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|10.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the percentage of responders for roxadustat versus placebo was analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline Hb, baseline eGFR, geographic region and CV history.||10.89|7.63|<0.001
95767658|NCT02174627|191507156|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MAR-based multiple imputation ANCOVA model.||1.35|0.91|<0.001
95767659|NCT02174627|191507157|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.52|0.47|<0.001
95767660|NCT02174627|191507158|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||0.45|0.40|<0.001
95804941|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.62|
95804942|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.94||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.84|
95804943|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.58|
95804944|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.33|0.76|
95804945|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.80|0.93|
95993957|NCT02747927|191963892|OTHER||VE|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|95.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||95.4|57.6|
95767661|NCT02174627|191507159|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; ANCOVA model.||-0.29|-0.42|<0.001
95804946|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.58||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.58|0.69|
95804947|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.97||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.86|
95804948|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.03||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.77|
95804949|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.42|
95804950|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
95804951|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.25||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.25|1.11|
95767662|NCT02174627|191507160|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.31|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.31|0.23|<0.001
95804952|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.66|
95804953|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.97|
95993958|NCT02747927|191963892|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|13.5|
95767663|NCT02174627|191507161|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the HR was ≤1.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.44|||Regression, Cox|||Treatments were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model, with baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables used as covariates, and treatment group, CV history and geographic region as fixed effects. The Efron method was used for ties and p-values were calculated using the Wald test.||0.44|0.30|<0.001
95767664|NCT02174627|191507162|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||0.99|-0.11|0.120
95767665|NCT02174627|191507163|OTHER||Rate of Change Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Random Effects Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in rate of change in eGFR; random effects analysis.||-0.01|-1.00|0.046
95767666|NCT02174627|191507164|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat compared with placebo would be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo exceeded 0.|LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.05||Nominal p-value (as prior sequential outcome measure p-value did not meet \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus placebo) in LS mean changes; MMRM analysis.||1.05|0.00|0.051
95767667|NCT02166333|191507165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15||The P value is nominal and two-sided.|Log Rank||The Experience on Best Dose versus 200 IU/day hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were derived from a Cox regression model with dose group as the single model variable.|The Experience on Best Dose group includes all participants assigned or switched to best dose (1000 IU/day) and excludes 41 participants randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day who were never issued a bottle of best dose. For those randomized to 2000 or 4000 IU/day, at-risk time and events are measured from the date of their switch to best dose. 150 Experience on Best Dose participants (median follow-up, 10.2 mos) and 125 200 IU/day participants (median follow-up, 20.3 mos) were censored.||1.15|0.76|0.54
95767668|NCT02166333|191507165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25|||||The comparison of the Pooled Higher Doses group versus the 200 IU/d group is a sensitivity analysis.|||1.25|0.86|
95767669|NCT02166333|191507166|SUPERIORITY|The overall P tests for difference between groups in differential change from baseline over time and is from a 3 degree of freedom test of the combined 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms from the longitudinal mixed effects model.||||||0.15||||||The P value is nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|3 degree of freedom interaction test||The two groups were assessed for differential change over time in change from baseline using a longitudinal mixed effects regression model with gait speed as the outcome and fixed effects including a single treatment term, 3 time point terms and 3 treatment-by-time interaction terms and a random intercept for participant.||||0.15
95767670|NCT05142722|191507222|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.602|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-29.5|||ANCOVA|||||-29.50|-35.79|<.0001
95767671|NCT05142722|191507223|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.678|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-30.49|||ANCOVA|||||-30.49|-37.07|<.0001
95767672|NCT05142722|191507224|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.87|-20.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.09|-27.87|<.0001
95767673|NCT05142722|191507225|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|-17.09||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-17.09|-20.76|<.0001
95804954|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.51||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.51|0.85|
95804955|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.56|
95767674|NCT05142722|191507226|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.38|-16.23||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.23|-20.38|<.0001
95767675|NCT05142722|191507227|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-11.41||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.41|-16.20|<.0001
95767676|NCT05142722|191507228|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-29.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|-26.99||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.99|-31.89|<.0001
95804956|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.74|
95767677|NCT05142722|191507229|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|-25.69||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-25.69|-30.94|<.0001
95767678|NCT05142722|191507230|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|-19.95||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-26.09|<.0001
95767679|NCT05142722|191507231|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|136.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|132.46|140.07||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||140.07|132.46|<.0001
95767680|NCT05142722|191507232|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|134.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.343|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.84|139.03||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||139.03|129.84|<.0001
95767681|NCT05142722|191507233|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|122.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.53|126.55||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||126.55|117.53|<.0001
95767682|NCT05142722|191507234|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-14.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.183||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.68|25.44||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||25.44|-53.68|0.4841
95767683|NCT04795466|191507251|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1442||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.178|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|||NTB Total z-score - day 171||0.316|-0.178|0.6386
95804957|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.01||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.01|0.87|
95767684|NCT04795466|191507252|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1739||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Memory function - day 171||0.296|-0.300|0.9917
95767685|NCT04795466|191507253|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1958||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.148|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Executive function- day 171||0.520|-0.148|0.3510
95767686|NCT04795466|191507254|SUPERIORITY||Repeated measures analysis|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DSST - day 171||2.58|-3.56|0.7870
95804958|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.73|1.80|
95804959|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.79||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.79|0.88|
95804960|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.32|
95804961|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.87|0.61|
95860048|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||0.0|-0.2|0.0794
95962604|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
95767687|NCT01624740|191507275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Period effect p=0.11||||||0.74
95767688|NCT01102257|191507283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95767689|NCT00838903|191507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.16|
95767690|NCT00838903|191507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.53|
95804962|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.09||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.09|0.68|
95804963|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.15||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.15|0.59|
95767691|NCT00838903|191507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.45|
95767692|NCT00838903|191507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide over placebo at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - placebo) is equal to zero||||||<0.0001
95804964|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.87|
95804965|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.69|
95804966|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.57|
95804967|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.02||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||3.02|1.52|
95804968|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.3||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|1.16|
95804969|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.14|0.51|
95804970|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.33||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.33|2.23|
95804971|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.61|
95804972|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.40|0.19|
95804973|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratrio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.66|1.25|
95767693|NCT00838903|191507290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95767694|NCT00838903|191507290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.0125 level.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95860049|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||0.1|-0.1|0.5906
95767695|NCT00838903|191507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus sitagliptin at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - sitagliptin) is equal to zero.||||||0.0001
95804974|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.94||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.94|0.91|
95767696|NCT00838903|191507290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||The p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus glimepiride at 0.025 level.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - glimepiride) is equal to zero.||||||0.0033
95767697|NCT04225715|191507302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|||16.4|-2.1|
95804975|NCT01026038|191583807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.47|
95804976|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.76|0.23|
95804977|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.99||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.30|
95804978|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.86|0.38|
95767698|NCT04225715|191507302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||10|-3.1|
95767699|NCT04225715|191507302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||39.5|9|
95767700|NCT04225715|191507302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|23.3|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||23.3|1.3|
95767701|NCT04225715|191507302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||0|0|
95767702|NCT04225715|191507302|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|||15.7|-2.2|
95767703|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||6.2|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 7: Week 24||14.5|-2|
95804979|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.99||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.99|0.43|
95804980|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.54|
95804981|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.79|0.50|
95767704|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 8: Week 36||25.6|1.2|
95767705|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|16.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: Week 48||16.4|-2.1|
95767706|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.0|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: Week 48||10|-3.1|
95767707|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|47.6|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: Week 48||47.6|14.7|
95767708|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|31.4|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: Week 48||31.4|5.4|
95767709|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.1|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 2: FUW 48||20.1|-3.9|
95767710|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.7|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 3: FUW 48||2.7|-8.1|
95804982|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.19||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.19|0.56|
95804983|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.06||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.06|0.58|
95767711|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|28.8|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 4: FUW 48||28.8|0.4|
95767712|NCT04225715|191507303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rate|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference of two proportions was calculated using CMH method.|Combo 6: FUW 48||21.5|-2.5|
95767713|NCT01894841|191507322|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.13
95767714|NCT01894841|191507323|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.79
95767715|NCT01894841|191507324|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.49
95767716|NCT01894841|191507325|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.003||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).|RMANOVA|||||||.96
95767717|NCT01894841|191507326|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta squared|0.01||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||RMANOVA|Adjusted for change in depression from baseline to 1yr (measured via QIDS).||||||.62
95804984|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.13||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.46|
95804985|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.55||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.55|0.38|
95962605|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.1|0.1|0.8916
95962606|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||9.9|0.4|0.7940
95962607|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.6||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||8.9|0.3|0.9169
95962608|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 182||5.2|0.2|1.0000
95951045|NCT00824850|191874157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.10|2.23|
95767718|NCT02612623|191507369|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.96|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|Least squares mean (LSM) difference: Mixed effect repeated measures model (MMRM) uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.96|-2.08|
95767719|NCT02612623|191507369|OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.92|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-2.34|
95767720|NCT02612623|191507369|OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.3|||||Gefapixant minus Placebo|LSM difference: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||0.30|-2.99|
95767721|NCT02612623|191507369|OTHER||Percentage Change|-42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|162.3|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||162.3|-87.5|
95767722|NCT02612623|191507369|OTHER||Percentage Change|-50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|151.1|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||151.1|-90.3|
95767723|NCT02612623|191507369|OTHER||Percentage Change|-74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|34.7|||||100 x \[(Exponent of LSM Difference) minus 1\]|Estimated Percentage Change: MMRM uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable, and includes the treatment group, visit day, and the interaction between treatment and visit as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.||34.7|-95.0|
95767724|NCT02375971|191507404|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy variable was treatment success, defined as the absence of active ROP and absence of unfavorable structural outcomes in both eyes 24 weeks after starting study treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9932|4.8235|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.8235|0.9932|0.0254
95804986|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.50|
95804987|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.72||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.42|
95767725|NCT02667704|191507416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|98.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.32|107.01|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||107.010|91.320|
95767726|NCT02667704|191507417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|103.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.134|124.025|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||124.025|86.134|
95804988|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.68|0.29|
95804989|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.10|0.40|
95804990|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.64||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.64|0.49|
95860050|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-0.3|0.0134
95804991|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.12|0.70|
95804992|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.14||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.14|0.60|
95804993|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.21|0.30|
95804994|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.89|0.43|
95767727|NCT02667704|191507418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means in percentage|101.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.909|109.57|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (T/R) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually Intra individual geometric coefficient of variation.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale including treatment as fixed effect and subject as a random effect||109.570|94.909|
95767728|NCT00997373|191507439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0373
95767729|NCT02230904|191507476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.115|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.635|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
95767730|NCT02230904|191507483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.895|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The change in average adhesiveness score was average score for Treatment B minus average score for Treatment A.||||
95767731|NCT00343044|191507508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Planned enrollment of 40 patients was determined assuming a median progression free survival (PFS) of 9 months (based on a median PFS of 7.2 months for low-dose, metronomic cyclophosphamide plus bevacizumab in a phase 2 study) and an analysis calculating the sample size at which the narrowing of its 95% confidence interval (CI) became greater than .2 for every 2 patients added. Progression free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.08
95767732|NCT00343044|191507509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard statistical methods (log-rank tests) were used in post hoc analyses that compared efficacy parameters in patients who received 1 vs 2 prior treatment regimens.|Log Rank|||Overall survival(OS)was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.||||.02
95767733|NCT01511978|191507515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95951046|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|38.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||38.77|9.99|
95767734|NCT01511978|191507516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95767735|NCT02632409|191507520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|98.22|0.55|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.90|0.55|0.0008
95767736|NCT02632409|191507521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|98.72|0.35|0.84|||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard model|||||0.84|0.35|0.0005
95767737|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2536||||||Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.2536
95767738|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5757||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.5757
95767739|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6065||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6065
95767740|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4301||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.4301
95767741|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3125||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.3125
95804995|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.67||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.67|0.42|
95767742|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8169||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.8169
95767743|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9359|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 7. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.9359
95767744|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8. Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.6233
95767745|NCT00380874|191507550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1569||||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.Sample size was based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent paresthesia symptoms (symptoms developing in 35% of subjects taking pregabalin and 60% taking placebo symptoms). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, the study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. The original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of symptom emergence.||||0.1569
95767746|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7207||95.0|-0.25|0.17||Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|ANCOVA|Cycle 1. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 1.||0.17|-0.25|0.7207
95767747|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3111||95.0|-0.36|1.1||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 2.||1.10|-0.36|0.3111
95767748|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5925||95.0|-0.7|1.22||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 3.||1.22|-0.70|0.5925
95767749|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5812||95.0|-0.8|1.41||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 4.||1.41|-0.80|0.5812
95767750|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2925||95.0|-0.67|2.16||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 5.||2.16|-0.67|0.2925
95767751|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9276||95.0|-1.15|1.05||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 6.||1.05|-1.15|0.9276
95767752|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9952||95.0|-1.06|1.07|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.||Cycle 7.||1.07|-1.06|0.9952
95767753|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6265||95.0|-0.85|1.38|||ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 8.||1.38|-0.85|0.6265
95767754|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4209||95.0|-1.77|0.76||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Cycle 9.||0.76|-1.77|0.4209
95767755|NCT00380874|191507551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9657||95.0|-1.06|1.11||No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|LS means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)endpoint.||1.11|-1.06|0.9657
95767756|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5392||95.0|-0.24|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 1.||0.12|-0.24|0.5392
95993959|NCT02747927|191963892|OTHER||VE|42.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|92.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||92.0|-307.5|
95993960|NCT02747927|191963892|OTHER||VE|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|89.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||89.5|-45.1|
95804996|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.16||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.16|0.40|
95804997|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|19.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||19.78|2.86|
95993961|NCT02747927|191963893|OTHER||VE|79.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|86.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||86.9|68.3|
95993962|NCT02747927|191963893|OTHER||VE|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|85.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.8|36.4|
95993963|NCT02747927|191963893|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|93.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||93.2|66.6|
95993964|NCT02747927|191963893|OTHER||VE|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.8|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||97.8|-168.8|
95993965|NCT02747927|191963893|OTHER||VE|81.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|91.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||91.6|57.2|
95993966|NCT02747927|191963894|OTHER||VE|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|98.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||98.1|79.3|
95993967|NCT02747927|191963895|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
95993968|NCT02747927|191963896|OTHER||VE|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|77.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||77.5|52.1|
95993969|NCT02747927|191963897|OTHER||VE|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|77.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||77.4|16.2|
95728667|NCT01992107|191426626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain A/H3N2||9.2|-1.4|
95728668|NCT01992107|191426626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1||4.5|-5.5|
95728669|NCT01992107|191426626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV2c - % seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody does not exceed the margin of 10%|Difference b/w SC rates (Day 22/Day 50)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of differences in seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2||3.2|-6.5|
95728670|NCT01992107|191426632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.29||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV1c/GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.29|0.22|
95728671|NCT01992107|191426633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-42.1||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV1c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B2.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-42.1|-51.1|
95728672|NCT01992107|191426634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratios of GMT (Day 22/Day 50)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.42||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of ratios of GMT against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIV2c /GMTQIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the superiority margin of 1 met.||0.42|0.35|
95728673|NCT01992107|191426635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference b/w SC rates(Day 22/Day 50)|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-29.3||||||Superiority of immune responses of QIVc to TIV2c in terms of seroconversion rates against influenza strain B1.The upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between seroconversion rates (% seroconversion TIV1c or TIV2c - %seroconversion QIVc) for HI antibody should not exceed the margin of 0 points met.||-29.3|-38.8|
95728674|NCT02022007|191426638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.007
95728675|NCT02022007|191426639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This was a Subjects (SS)/Groups repeated measures design||||.02
95728676|NCT02022007|191426640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|n||Pretreatment fasting glucose levels were compared with post-treatment levels||||<0.0001
95728677|NCT02022007|191426641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||.038
95728678|NCT02022007|191426642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95804998|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.31||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.22|
95804999|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.21|0.02|
95805000|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||2.30|0.53|
95805001|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.50|
95805002|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.07|0.39|
95805003|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|8.09||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||8.09|2.18|
95805004|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.13||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.13|0.33|
95805005|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.31|0.07|
95805006|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.40|1.51|
95805007|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.69||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.69|0.96|
95805008|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.27|
95805009|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.98||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.98|1.39|
95805010|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.28||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.28|0.58|
95805011|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.92|0.17|
95805012|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.39||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.39|1.50|
95805013|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.05||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.75|
95805014|NCT01026038|191583808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.89||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.89|0.26|
95805015|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.73||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.73|0.04|
95805016|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.64|0.04|
95728679|NCT02022007|191426643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|||||||.025
95728680|NCT02022007|191426644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
95728681|NCT02022007|191426645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
95728682|NCT02022007|191426646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||.026
95728683|NCT02022007|191426647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
95728684|NCT02022007|191426648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
95728685|NCT02022007|191426649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95728686|NCT02422290|191426650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|7.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CY-BOCS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||7.87|-2.27|.20
95767757|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5412||95.0|-0.3|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 2.||0.57|-0.30|0.5412
95767758|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5358||95.0|-0.48|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 3.||0.90|-0.48|0.5358
95767759|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4059||95.0|-0.48|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 4.||1.17|-0.48|0.4059
95767760|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2712||95.0|-0.44|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 5.||1.52|-0.44|0.2712
95767761|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9181||95.0|-0.81|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 6.||0.73|-0.81|0.9181
95767762|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.4357||95.0|-0.52|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 7.||1.17|-0.52|0.4357
95767763|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5103||95.0|-0.67|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.67|0.5103
95767764|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8499||95.0|-1.29|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Cycle 9.||1.07|-1.29|0.8499
95767765|NCT00380874|191507552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7359||95.0|-0.9|0.64|||ANCOVA|||LOCF endpoint.||0.64|-0.90|0.7359
95767766|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2034||95.0|-0.06|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.29|-0.06|0.2034
95767767|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3062||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.13|-0.40|0.3062
95767768|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2787||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.37|0.2787
95767769|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4124||95.0|-0.2|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.47|-0.20|0.4124
95767770|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9541||95.0|-0.68|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.73|-0.68|0.9541
95767771|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3383||95.0|-0.33|0.92|||ANOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.92|-0.33|0.3383
95767772|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8918||95.0|-0.84|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain||0.74|-0.84|0.8918
95767773|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9614||95.0|-0.54|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Burning Spontaneous Pain LOCF endpoint||0.51|-0.54|0.9614
95767774|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3022||95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 2||0.05|-0.17|0.3022
95767775|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3747||95.0|-0.04|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 3||0.12|-0.04|0.3747
95767776|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.163||95.0|-0.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 4||0.07|-0.40|0.1630
95767777|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9568||95.0|-0.12|0.11|||ANOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 5||0.11|-0.12|0.9568
95767778|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9793||95.0|-0.13|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 6||0.13|-0.13|0.9793
95767779|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.885||95.0|-0.54|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 7||0.47|-0.54|0.8850
95767780|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2199||95.0|-0.17|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 8||0.70|-0.17|0.2199
95767781|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4017||95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain Cycle 9||0.35|-0.14|0.4017
95767782|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4113||95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Spontaneous Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.24|-0.10|0.4113
95767783|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3011||95.0|-0.06|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 3||0.02|-0.06|0.3011
95767784|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4482||95.0|-0.26|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 4||0.12|-0.26|0.4482
95767785|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3058||95.0|-0.31|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 5||0.10|-0.31|0.3058
95767786|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3035||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 6||0.12|-0.38|0.3035
95767787|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9636||95.0|-0.46|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 7||0.48|-0.46|0.9636
95767788|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.366||95.0|-0.38|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 8||1.02|-0.38|0.3660
95767789|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4093||95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Cycle 9||0.29|-0.69|0.4093
95767790|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5208||95.0|-0.39|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.20|-0.39|0.5208
95767791|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9931||95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 2||0.17|-0.17|0.9931
95767792|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5867||95.0|-0.25|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 3||0.44|-0.25|0.5867
95767793|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2748||95.0|-0.37|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 4||0.11|-0.37|0.2748
95767794|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5521||95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 5||0.28|-0.51|0.5521
95767795|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.6734||95.0|-0.96|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 6||0.62|-0.96|0.6734
95767796|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1214||95.0|-0.16|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 7||1.33|-0.16|0.1214
95767797|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1845||95.0|-0.34|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 8||1.72|-0.34|0.1845
95767798|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6863||95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain Cycle 9||0.90|-0.60|0.6863
95767799|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9273||95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Evoke Pain LOCF Endpoint||0.56|-0.51|0.9273
95767800|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0416||95.0|0.01|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 2||0.50|0.01|0.0416
95767801|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1819||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 3||0.50|-0.10|0.1819
95767802|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0331||95.0|0.03|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 4||0.70|0.03|0.0331
95767803|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0608||95.0|-0.02|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 5||0.83|-0.02|0.0608
95767804|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2809||95.0|-0.31|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 6||1.03|-0.31|0.2809
95767805|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.3445||95.0|-0.34|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 7||0.95|-0.34|0.3445
95767806|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2806||95.0|-0.44|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 8||1.46|-0.44|0.2806
95767807|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217||95.0|-0.68|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain Cycle 9||1.33|-0.68|0.5217
95767808|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3628||95.0|-0.37|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Parethesia/Dysesthesia Pain LOCF Endpoint||1.00|-0.37|0.3628
95767809|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.3557||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 2||0.01|-0.00|0.3557
95767810|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.2824||95.0|0.0|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 3||0.01|-0.00|0.2824
95767811|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5931||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 4||0.01|-0.01|0.5931
95767812|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.9865||95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 5||0.01|-0.01|0.9865
95805017|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.46||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.46|0.19|
95805018|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|5.85||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||5.85|0.17|
95805019|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.72||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.72|0.15|
95805020|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.37||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.37|0.10|
95805021|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.25||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||6.25|0.23|
95805022|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.92|0.17|
95805023|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.43||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.43|0.11|
95767813|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9854||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 6||0.02|-0.02|0.9854
95767814|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3403||95.0|-0.01|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 7||0.04|-0.01|0.3403
95993970|NCT02747927|191963897|OTHER||VE|86.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|95.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.0|63.8|
95767815|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2226||95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 8||0.05|-0.01|0.2226
95767816|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9694||95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Total Score Cycle 9||0.03|-0.03|0.9694
95767817|NCT00380874|191507553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8957||95.0|-0.02|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Total Score LOCF Endpoint||0.02|-0.02|0.8957
95767818|NCT00380874|191507555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7489||95.0||||No multiple comparisons adjustment was necessary.|ANCOVA|Model terms include treatment, study center, and baseline score.|Least squares (LS) means and corresponding standard errors derived from ANCOVA model were used.|LOCF cycle endpoint. Sample size based on original primary efficacy parameter (PEP) of time to persistent symptoms (developing in 35% of pregabalin subjects \& 60% of placebo subjects). Assuming Type I error rate of 0.05 and a 2-sided log-rank test for equality of time to persistent symptoms survival curves, study would have had at least 90% power using 100 subjects per treatment group. Original PEP was modified to secondary due to lack of persistent paresthetic symptom emergence.||||0.7489
95805024|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.35||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||12.35|0.48|
95805025|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|9.05||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.05|0.45|
95805026|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.14||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||5.14|0.13|
95805027|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.80|0.04|
95805028|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.03||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.03|0.12|
95805029|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.92||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||14.92|0.48|
95993971|NCT02747927|191963897|OTHER||VE|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|9.9|
95993972|NCT02747927|191963897|OTHER||VE|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|96.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||96.0|47.4|
95993973|NCT02747927|191963898|OTHER||VE|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|85.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.5|39.1|
95805030|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.36||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.36|0.23|
95805031|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.84||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||4.84|0.31|
95805032|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.65||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||6.65|0.23|
95805033|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.17||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.17|0.17|
95805034|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.24|0.07|
95805035|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.08||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.08|0.06|
95805036|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.97|0.79|
95993974|NCT02747927|191963898|OTHER||VE|57.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|85.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||85.7|-27.2|
95993975|NCT02747927|191963898|OTHER||VE|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|98.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||98.8|14.0|
95728687|NCT02422290|191426651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between CGI-S scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.16|-.56|.18
95728688|NCT02422290|191426652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||2.78|-2.78|1.00
95728689|NCT02422290|191426653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|18.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test was calculated to test mean difference between OCD-VAS scores at the time points Baseline and Day 14.||18.96|-15.46|.77
95728690|NCT01842958|191426656|NON_INFERIORITY|The test arm will be considered non-inferior to the control arm if the 95% upper confidence interval of the estimated difference between the test and control arms is less than -0.5mm.||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint is change in crestal bone level from loading to 12 months post-loading. The primary analysis is a test for non-inferiority of the test implant to the control implant at the one-sided 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is that µ3.3 ≥ µ4.1 + δ, where µ3.3 is the mean change in crestal bone level for the test implants, µ4.1 is the mean change in crestal bone level for control implants, and δ is a pre-specified clinically significant difference.||||0.02
95805037|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.88|0.38|
95805038|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.77|0.27|
95805039|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.9||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.90|0.85|
95805040|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.48||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.48|0.49|
95805041|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.45||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.45|0.20|
95805042|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.87|
95805043|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.79|
95805044|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.76|
95805045|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|76.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||76.14|3.56|
95805046|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|9.06||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||9.06|0.56|
95805047|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.78||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.02|
95805048|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|7.07||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||7.07|0.22|
95805049|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.74|0.03|
95805050|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.84|0.02|
95805051|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|16.98||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||16.98|1.35|
95805052|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.23||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||3.23|0.28|
95805053|NCT01026038|191583809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.85||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.05|
95962609|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.1|||ANOVA|||Day 182||17.1|0.6|0.2563
95860051|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1759
95993976|NCT02747927|191963898|OTHER||VE|36.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.1|82.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||82.9|-138.1|
95767819|NCT03380429|191507556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||18.8|5.2|<0.001
95767820|NCT03380429|191507557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.9|1.6|0.016
95767821|NCT03380429|191507557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.0||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.0|2.7|0.006
95767822|NCT03380429|191507557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||14.8|1.4|0.018
95767823|NCT03380429|191507558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.3|3.2|0.003
95767824|NCT03380429|191507558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.7|1.8|0.011
95767825|NCT03380429|191507558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|11.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||11.4|-0.4|0.066
95767826|NCT03380429|191507558|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||8.7|-3.1|0.359
95767827|NCT03380429|191507559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.3||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||16.3|3.1|0.004
95767828|NCT03380429|191507559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|13.5||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.5|0.6|0.032
95767829|NCT03380429|191507559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.4||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||12.4|-0.5|0.070
95767830|NCT03380429|191507559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.9||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline adherence, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||9.9|-3.0|0.294
95767831|NCT03380429|191507560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.8||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.8|-1.2|0.118
95767832|NCT03380429|191507560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.7||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||10.7|-1.0|0.105
95767833|NCT03380429|191507560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.1||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||15.1|3.3|0.002
95767834|NCT03380429|191507560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.2||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline rescue use, duration of run-in (visits), country, gender and age.|||13.2|1.5|0.015
95767835|NCT03380429|191507562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||p-value was calculated using Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||0.6|-1.6|0.400
95767836|NCT03380429|191507562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.5|-0.7|0.441
95767837|NCT03380429|191507562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.9|-0.3|0.164
96001834|NCT01096667|191981234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.83|-0.61||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.61|-3.83|0.039
95951047|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||8.33|3.90|
95805054|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.80|
95805055|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.76|
95805056|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.30|0.69|
95805057|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.90|0.49|
95805058|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.01|0.55|
95805059|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.59||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.59|0.79|
95805060|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.98|
95805061|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.76|
95805062|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.58|
95805063|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.21|0.67|
95860052|NCT00611026|191678442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|"Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type:~standard error of the mean."|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||0.0|-0.2|0.1661
95805064|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.70|
95728691|NCT00283686|191426670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test for differences between treatment groups over time.||||5.0|-0.8|0.52
95728692|NCT00283686|191426670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing differences between blood pressure groups over time||||-0.2|-1.6|0.006
95728693|NCT00283686|191426671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences in treatment over time (differences in slopes over time).||||0.3|-0.6|0.52
95728694|NCT00283686|191426671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||adjusted for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing for differences between groups over time (differences in slopes over time)||||0.6|-0.3|0.55
95728695|NCT00283686|191426672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.9|-3.3|0.57
95728696|NCT00283686|191426672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-3.4|-8.5|<0.0001
95728697|NCT00283686|191426673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.18
95728698|NCT00283686|191426673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.6|-3.1|0.19
95728699|NCT00283686|191426674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing the annual change over time between ACE/ARB and ACE alone|||0.22|-0.40|0.58
95728700|NCT00283686|191426674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|comparing annual change in LVMI between Low Blood Pressure and Standard Blood Pressure groups|||-0.29|-0.91|0.0002
95767838|NCT03380429|191507562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment arm,Baseline ACT total score,randomized treatment arm-by-visit interaction,Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction,gender,age,country and participant fitted as a random factor.|||1.4|-0.9|0.661
95767839|NCT03380429|191507563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.44|0.39|0.385
95805065|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.46|0.73|
95860053|NCT00611026|191678443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0021
95860054|NCT00611026|191678443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0200
95860055|NCT00611026|191678444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0006
95860056|NCT00611026|191678444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0202
95860057|NCT00611026|191678444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.2126
95860058|NCT00611026|191678444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95860059|NCT00611026|191678444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0019
95860060|NCT00611026|191678444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0148
95767840|NCT03380429|191507563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.42||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.42|0.64|0.517
95860061|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0012
95962610|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 182||3.3|0.1|0.9237
95767841|NCT03380429|191507563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.85|0.51|0.921
95805066|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.83|
95805067|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.20|0.70|
95805068|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
95805069|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.51|
95860062|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0205
95860063|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95860064|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0038
95767842|NCT03380429|191507563|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.38|0.38|0.321
95767843|NCT03380429|191507564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.98||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.98|0.54|0.911
95805070|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.03||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.03|0.46|
95805071|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.56|
95805072|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.37|0.74|
95805073|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.23||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.23|0.67|
95805074|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.29|0.63|
95805075|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.06||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||4.06|2.40|
95805076|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.66|0.39|
95805077|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.22|0.12|
95805078|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.78|1.11|
95805079|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.06|0.66|
95805080|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.78|0.45|
95805081|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.84|
95805082|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.87||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.87|0.45|
95805083|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||0.79|0.36|
95805084|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.71|
95805085|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.31|0.66|
95860065|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0219
95860066|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
95860067|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0805
95860068|NCT00611026|191678445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0093
95860069|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.0|-0.7|0.0374
95860070|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.2|-0.5|0.3161
95860071|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.1|-0.5|0.1817
95860072|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
95860073|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
95860074|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.3|-0.9|0.0005
95860075|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
95860076|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.1|-0.7|0.1467
95860077|NCT00611026|191678446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.4|-1.1|<0.0001
95951048|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.16|
95860078|NCT00611026|191678447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0828
95860079|NCT00611026|191678447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95860080|NCT00611026|191678447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0008
95860081|NCT00611026|191678447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0022
95951049|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.17|41.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.79|13.17|
95951050|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.94|20.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||20.92|8.94|
95767844|NCT03380429|191507564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.54|0.70|0.383
95767845|NCT03380429|191507564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.04||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.04|0.57|0.814
95767846|NCT03380429|191507564|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.89|0.53|0.986
95767847|NCT03380429|191507565|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.81||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.81|0.48|0.833
95767848|NCT03380429|191507565|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.67||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||2.67|0.69|0.383
95767849|NCT03380429|191507565|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.63|0.44|0.628
95805086|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.63|
95767850|NCT03380429|191507565|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.8||p-value was calculated using logistic regression|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment arm, Baseline ACT total score, country, gender and age.|||1.80|0.49|0.844
95767851|NCT01139775|191507606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pemetrexed + cisplatin + LY2603618 was considered superior to pemetrexed + cisplatin if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.85.|The analysis for comparing progression-free survival time between the treatment arms used a Bayesian Augmented Control model with a hierarchical random-effects distribution on treatment effects. The final model incorporated historical data from a completed Phase 3 study (NCT00789373) to augment the prospective control arm data.||||
95767852|NCT01139775|191507608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Log Rank|||||||0.2294
95767853|NCT01139775|191507609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0824
95805087|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||0.70|0.41|
95805088|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.38||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.38|0.82|
95767854|NCT01139775|191507610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4924
95805089|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||2.69|1.46|
95805090|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC).||1.28|0.74|
95805091|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.02||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.02|0.59|
95805092|NCT01026038|191583810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC - 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC).||1.10|0.58|
95805093|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
95805094|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
95951051|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||12.97|6.21|
95951052|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|13.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.72|5.91|
95951053|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|10.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.72|5.36|
95962611|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.8|||ANOVA|||Day 182||10.8|0.4|0.7708
95728701|NCT00283686|191426675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change in mL/min/1.73 m\^2 for ACE+ARB compared to ACE alone|||8.50|-2.55|0.29
95728702|NCT00283686|191426675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline estimated GFR, and clinical site|difference in annual change mL/min/1.73 m\^2 between low and standard blood pressure groups|||6.50|-4.54|0.73
95728703|NCT00283686|191426676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.95|0.53|0.0228
95728704|NCT00283686|191426676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.22|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||1.22|0.70|0.59
95728705|NCT00283686|191426677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.17|-0.19|0.87
95728706|NCT00283686|191426677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.31|-0.046|0.14
95728707|NCT00283686|191426678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||0.46|0.036|0.0221
95728708|NCT00283686|191426678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site||||-0.018|-0.44|0.0339
95728709|NCT04969939|191426690|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-point)|-2.15||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 48 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate.||-0.06|-4.24|0.0437
95728710|NCT02667067|191426749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95728711|NCT02100956|191426831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in VAS pain scale scores after intrathecal study drug injection between oxytocin and placebo. To account for repeated measures across time and drug conditions, VAS apin scale scores were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with random intercepts at the level of participant. Each outcome was regressed on fixed-effects for order of study day, study drug, time after injection, and drug x time interaction.||||<0.05
95728712|NCT04526899|191426847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0148
95728713|NCT00620763|191427033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis of variance tested for treatment and feeding sequence effects.||16 subjects required to detect a difference in Calcium 47 absorption of 2 percentage points with 90% power, alpha = 0.05||||0.02
95728714|NCT03433274|191427034|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||one-sided 2.5% level of significance|||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: πD ≤ πPG H1: πD \> πPG where πD is the true event rate for freedom from all-cause mortality and HFH at 12 months and πPG is the performance goal (PG)."||||0.0002
95951054|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.86|1.30|
95951055|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.60|1.43|
95951056|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.45|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.45|3.09|
95951057|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.75|3.65|
95951058|NCT00824850|191874158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.28|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.28|2.49|
95951059|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|27.46|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.46|9.16|
95951060|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.16|3.50|
95951061|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.09|2.93|
95951062|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|27.79|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||27.79|11.11|
95951063|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.23|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.23|2.86|
95951064|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.62|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.62|1.78|
95767855|NCT01139775|191507621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|||||The test of treatment effect was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0946
95767856|NCT03197389|191507628|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95767857|NCT04129125|191507633|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|83.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|88.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||88|78|<0.0001
95767858|NCT04129125|191507634|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||4.4|0.6|
95767859|NCT04129125|191507635|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|89.0||The p-value a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025|Fisher Exact|||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary efficacy endpoint was for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI to be \>69%||89|78|0.0001
95767860|NCT04129125|191507636|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||||||The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤6.0%||3.4|0.1|
95767861|NCT04129125|191507645|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.7|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the all-cause mortality endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||16.7|8.5|
95951065|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.19|2.86|
95951066|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|6.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||6.42|2.79|
95951067|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.05|1.30|
95951068|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.14|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.14|1.30|
95951069|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|5.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.42|2.39|
95951070|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|4.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||4.82|2.42|
95951071|NCT00824850|191874159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.26|1.60|
95951072|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.56|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.56|4.50|
95962612|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|3.3||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9|||ANOVA|||Day 182||16.9|0.6|0.2661
95805095|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 4: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
95805096|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
95805097|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
95805098|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.5||||||Serotype 6B: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.4|
95805099|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
95805100|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
95805101|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
95805102|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.7|
95805103|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.7|
95767862|NCT04129125|191507656|OTHER|The study sample size of 260 subjects was selected to have at least 90 percent power for primary safety and efficacy endpoints and all-cause mortality|Event rate|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.2|||||Event and CI estimated using Kaplan-Meier method|The FDA agreed performance goal for the primary safety endpoint was for the observed rate to be ≤20.3%||17.2|8.1|
95767863|NCT02524847|191507716|OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|55.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|73.6|||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided p-value for testing the null hypothesis H0: Standard therapy has a CR+PR rate = 10% after 4 weeks, using the exact Binomial test.||||73.6|35.7|<.001
95805104|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 14: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
95805105|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
95805106|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.3||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.7|
95805107|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-6.6|
95805108|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-6.2|
95805109|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||7.5|-4.8|
95805110|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5||||||Serotype 19F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.5|-4.8|
95805111|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.5|
95805112|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
95805113|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.5||||||Serotype 23F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-6.7|
95805114|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.4||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.5|
95805115|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-3.6|
95951073|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.16|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.16|1.78|
95805116|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-6.5|
95805117|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.6||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||9.6|-1.7|
95951074|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.49|1.63|
95767864|NCT01268527|191507725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|711.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.5|1130.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, Least Squares Means (LSM), and Confidence Intervals (CI) were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1130.3|292.5|0.0038
95805118|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.2|-3.7|
95805119|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.5||||||Serotype 3: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||4.5|-9.6|
95805120|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.3||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||11.3|-2.0|
95805121|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||5.6|-4.9|
95805122|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||3.2|-12.5|
95805123|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
95805124|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.5||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.5|-3.6|
95805125|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.6|
95805126|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.4|-3.6|
95805127|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.5|
95805128|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.7||||||Serotype 7F:Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-6.5|
95805129|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.7||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.7|-3.6|
95805130|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 13vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-3.6|
95805131|NCT01026038|191583813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference in proportion, expressed as percentage, was calculated by percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/7vPnC/13vPnC minus the percentage of participants achieving at least LLOQ in 7vPnC/13vPnC/13vPnC along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.6|-6.8|
95962092|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-21.4|-37.3|<.0001
95805132|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.086|1.229||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.229|1.086|
95805133|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>1.|GMR|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.094|1.22||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.220|1.094|
95805134|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.999|1.13||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.130|0.999|
95805135|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.122||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.122|1.007|
95805136|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.322|1.513||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.513|1.322|
95805137|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.414|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|1.5||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.500|1.333|
95951075|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|10.15|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||10.15|4.31|
95951076|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.26|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||7.26|3.34|
95951077|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.57|2.08|
95951078|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.83|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.83|2.08|
95951079|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||5.13|2.80|
95951080|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.57|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.57|1.11|
95951081|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.61|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1.61|1.05|
95728715|NCT03433274|191427035|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial test|at a one-sided 2.5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as:~H0: PMR ≤ 1+ ≤ PPG H1: P MR ≤ 1+ \> PPG where PMR ≤ 1+ is the proportion of subjects who have MR ≤ 1+ at 30 days post index procedure."||||<0.0001
95951082|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.75|1.51|
95951083|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.77|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||3.77|2.19|
95951084|NCT00824850|191874160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||2.39|1.59|
95962613|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||2.6|0.1|0.7614
95728716|NCT03433274|191427036|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|at a one-sided 2.5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: D12M ≤ 0 H1: D12M \> 0 Where D12M is the average change in KCCQ score from baseline at 12 months."||||<0.0001
95728717|NCT03433274|191427037|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|at a two-sided 5% level of significance||"The null and alternative hypotheses are stated as:~H0: PM12 = PB H1: PM12 ≠ PB where PM12 and PB represent the proportion of NYHA Classification I or II at 12 months and baseline, respectively."||||<0.0001
95728718|NCT03433274|191427038|OTHER|||||||0.0338|||||||paired t-test|at a one-sided 2.5% significance level||"The null and alternative hypotheses are:~H0: D12M ≤ 0 H1: D12M \> 0 Where D12M is the average change in 6MWT distance from baseline at 12 months."||||0.0338
95728719|NCT01111110|191427064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided|two sample effect size must be halved to account for mean difference estimates twice the effect size|See 4 Puff result|(Comparison of period 2 minus period 1) results Point and interval estimates are halved because this estimates twice the effect size.||41.7|3.8|0.026
95728720|NCT01111110|191427065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||half the mean difference|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|41.0||The effect size is half the difference between the means as (A-B)-(B-A)=2A-2B|t-test, 2 sided|Must take half the mean difference to estimate effect size|No comments|Study intended to get more subjects, but PI's review committee had to deal with candidate deadlines and a high rate of screen failures and allowed her to test seven subjects. Primary concern was the research experience, not the study questions. There was no bias in failing to meet accrual objectives thanks to the blinding.||41.0|6.0|0.018
95805138|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.465||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.465|1.300|
95728721|NCT01111110|191427066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size=half the mean diff|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|41.7|||t-test, 2 sided||You kicked this out on another trial, but note that the period 2-Period 1 differences between the orderings estimate twice the effect size. The effect sizes herein take this into account.|Null hypothesis is that the Treatment order is independent of the dependent variable based on Period 2 minus Period 1||41.7|7.7|0.013
95805139|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.454||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.454|1.310|
95805140|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.063|1.175||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.175|1.063|
95805141|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.167||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.167|1.070|
95805142|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.969|1.047||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.047|0.969|
95805143|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.042||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.042|0.973|
95805144|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.156|1.278||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.278|1.156|
95805145|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.27||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Victoria-lineage Antibody||1.270|1.163|
95805146|NCT06097273|191583848|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.109|1.201||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.201|1.109|
95805147|NCT06097273|191583848|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|1.195||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage Antibody||1.195|1.115|
95805148|NCT06097273|191583849|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|1.765||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.765|1.526|
95805149|NCT06097273|191583849|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.641|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.51|1.783||||||GMR (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.783|1.510|
95805150|NCT06097273|191583849|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|1.404||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.404|1.219|
95805151|NCT06097273|191583849|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in GM level in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the GMR was \>0.667.|GMR|1.308|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.207|1.418||||||GMR (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||1.418|1.207|
95805152|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroconversion rate (SCR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.4|2.4|
95962093|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.9|-38.8|<.0001
95728722|NCT03588390|191427120|OTHER||Slope|0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5006|0.8914|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8914|0.5006|
95805153|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.9|8.8||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.8|1.9|
95805154|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.1||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.1|1.0|
95805155|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|7.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||7.6|0.5|
95805156|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.2|1.9|
95805157|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||7.5|1.5|
95805158|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.4|-3.3|
95805159|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|0.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||0.7|-3.6|
95805160|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|21.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.0|14.8|
95805161|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.3|21.4||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||21.4|14.3|
95805162|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|17.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||17.6|11.6|
95805163|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.1|18.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||18.0|11.1|
95805164|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.2|6.0|
95805165|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|11.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Victoria-lineage Antibody||11.6|5.6|
95805166|NCT06097273|191583850|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SCR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||4.7|0.6|
95805167|NCT06097273|191583850|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SCR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SCR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3|5.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for Yamagata-lineage Antibody||5.0|0.3|
95805168|NCT06097273|191583851|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in seroresponse rate (SRR) in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|15.5||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.5|10.0|
95805169|NCT06097273|191583851|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort A1 group compared with that of Cohort A2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|15.9||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort A1 vs Cohort A2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||15.9|9.6|
95951085|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|201.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.11|739.05|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||739.05|55.11|
95805170|NCT06097273|191583851|SUPERIORITY|The superiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>0%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|10.6||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||10.6|5.5|
95805171|NCT06097273|191583851|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority in SRR in the Cohort B1 group compared with that of Cohort B2 group was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 97.5% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|11.0||||||Percentage Difference (Cohort B1 vs Cohort B2) for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody||11.0|5.2|
95805172|NCT06844812|191583904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
95805173|NCT06844812|191583905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.021
95805174|NCT06844812|191583906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.003
95805175|NCT06844812|191583907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95805176|NCT06844812|191583908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95805177|NCT02255279|191583920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.51|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H1N1 strain of all the tree strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||5.51|3.00|
95767865|NCT01268527|191507725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1119.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|858.9|1380.6|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1380.6|858.9|<0.0001
95767866|NCT01268527|191507725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|780.0||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1568.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1568.5|-8.5|0.0523
95767867|NCT01268527|191507725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|1775.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1392.3|2158.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||2158.0|1392.3|<0.0001
95767868|NCT01268527|191507725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|921.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|515.7|1327.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1327.1|515.7|0.0002
95767869|NCT01268527|191507725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|937.8||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|267.6|1607.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||1607.9|267.6|0.0115
95767870|NCT01268527|191507726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|101.5||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|167.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||167.0|36.0|0.0042
95767871|NCT01268527|191507726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|182.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.3|224.4|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||224.4|140.3|<0.0001
95767872|NCT01268527|191507726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|169.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.4|211.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||211.5|127.4|<0.0001
95767873|NCT01268527|191507726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|246.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|185.0|308.1|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||308.1|185.0|<0.0001
95767874|NCT01268527|191507726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|132.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|210.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||210.7|53.9|0.0043
95805178|NCT02255279|191583920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.25|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in H3N2 strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||3.25|2.05|
95767875|NCT01268527|191507726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|145.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|225.8|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM) and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||225.8|64.2|0.0036
95767876|NCT01268527|191507727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|80.7||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|126.7|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||126.7|34.6|0.0013
95767877|NCT01268527|191507727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|127.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|163.5|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.5|92.4|<0.0001
95767878|NCT01268527|191507727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|110.2||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|218.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||218.0|2.4|0.0458
95951086|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|26.1|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||26.10|5.20|
95767879|NCT01268527|191507727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|207.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.2|259.9|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||259.9|155.2|<0.0001
95767880|NCT01268527|191507727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|125.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|179.0|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||179.0|71.5|0.0003
95767881|NCT01268527|191507727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM (vehicle - E6201 gel)|128.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.9|163.3|||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were based on the Full Analysis Population: null Hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. P values, LSM, and CI were obtained from ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and baseline psoriatic infiltrate thickness as a continuous covariate.||163.3|93.9|0.0029
95767882|NCT03817190|191507798|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.2277||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0415|0.586|||GLMM|||||0.5860|-1.0415|0.6880
95767883|NCT03817190|191507799|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of participants|-0.276||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9185|0.3665|||GLMM|||||0.3665|-0.9185|0.4321
95767884|NCT04955691|191507818|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95767885|NCT04955691|191507819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.57
95767886|NCT04955691|191507819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||54-69 mg/dL||||0.43
95767887|NCT04955691|191507820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||181-250 mg/dL||||0.006
95767888|NCT04955691|191507820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||\>250 mg/dL||||<0.001
95805179|NCT02255279|191583920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis: Demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of aTIV to TIV:~H0 : μAi - μBi ≤ -0.176 (Null) H1 : μAi - μBi \>-0.176 (alternative) (i= H1N1, H3N2, B) μA and μB are means of log10-transformed titers 21 days after last vaccination of the aTIV \& TIV vaccine groups respectively. NI is claimed if LL of 95% CI for GMT ratios is \>0.67.~Significance level is α = 2.5% (1-sided), which needs no further adjustment for multiplicity as to reach NI, above hypothesis needs to be rejected for all 3 strains."|Ratio of GMTs|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.2|||ANCOVA|||Geometric mean titers (GMTs), in B strain of all three homologous virus strains in Subjects 6 to \< 72 months of Age.||6.20|3.52|
95767889|NCT04042467|191507862|SUPERIORITY||Estimated intervention effect at 24 mo.|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test (4 DoF) of intervention main effect and 3 intervention by age interaction parameters equal 0 vs. alternative that at least one was not 0.|The p-value is for the Wald test (4 DoF) evaluating whether the Greenlight Plus and Greenlight group trajectories were significantly different. The estimation parameter is the model-estimated intervention effect at 24 months (kg/m).|"Linear mixed-effects model (random intercepts and slopes for clinics and participants within clinics). A priori adjustment for baseline variables: child birth weight and biological sex, race/ethnicity, health literacy, language, education, income, and food insecurity. Child age and birth weight were included using natural splines with 3 DoF.~Effect evaluated using Wald test with a 2-sided, 0.05 significance level. Null hypothesis: Equal weight-for-length growth trajectories in the two groups."||-0.09|-0.57|<0.001
95767890|NCT05151744|191507866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-0.2|0.0625
95767891|NCT05151744|191507868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.7||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.0|||MMRM|||||7.0|-1.5|0.2052
95767892|NCT05151744|191507869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|3.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|0.5|0.0192
95767893|NCT05151744|191507870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.5||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-0.1|0.0637
95767894|NCT05151744|191507871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.8||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||MMRM|||||4.9|-3.3|0.7091
95860082|NCT00611026|191678447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95951087|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|156.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|501.86|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||501.86|48.72|
95767895|NCT05151744|191507872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.1107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.1|||MMRM|||||4.1|-0.4|0.1107
95767896|NCT05151744|191507873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||MMRM|||||5.0|-0.8|0.1498
95767897|NCT05151744|191507874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.8||||0.3783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.0|-2.3|0.3783
95767898|NCT05151744|191507875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.9||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||MMRM|||||4.3|-0.4|0.1036
95767899|NCT05151744|191507882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-10.0||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|18.9|||MMRM|||||18.9|-38.9|0.4968
95767900|NCT05151744|191507883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-23.2||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|30.5|||MMRM|||||30.5|-76.8|0.3951
95767901|NCT05151744|191507884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.8||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.2|-45.8|0.0521
95767902|NCT05151744|191507885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-17.5||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|10.7|||MMRM|||||10.7|-45.7|0.2227
95767903|NCT05151744|191507886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-27.2||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|24.2|||MMRM|||||24.2|-78.6|0.2972
95767904|NCT05151744|191507887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-19.4||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|4.2|||MMRM|||||4.2|-42.9|0.1071
95767905|NCT05151744|191507888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-14.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|13.2|||MMRM|||||13.2|-42.4|0.3030
95767906|NCT05151744|191507889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-43.0||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.4|6.4|||MMRM|||||6.4|-92.4|0.0878
95767907|NCT05151744|191507890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-22.3||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|5.2|||MMRM|||||5.2|-49.8|0.1111
95767908|NCT02565628|191507917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.6382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.97||0.6382
95951088|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|102.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||102.31|13.71|
95951089|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|93.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.99|284.31|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||284.31|30.99|
95951090|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.27|101.97|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||101.97|23.27|
95951091|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|85.81|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||85.81|11.99|
95951092|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|120.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.94|50.42|
95951093|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||15.72|6.80|
95951094|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.75|116.34|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||116.34|32.75|
95951095|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|536.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.04|1357.19|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1357.19|212.04|
95767909|NCT03135548|191507936|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
95767910|NCT03135548|191507936|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.338|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.338|-0.190|
95767911|NCT03135548|191507938|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.086|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.086|-0.289|
95805180|NCT02255279|191583921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|26.3|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H1N1 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non-naive subjects.||26.3|8.1|
95951096|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.28|410.33|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||410.33|33.28|
95951097|NCT00824850|191874161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|53.42|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||53.42|11.30|
95951098|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|168.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|1409.76|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1409.76|20.22|
95860083|NCT00611026|191678447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0008
95951099|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.97|148.44|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||148.44|10.97|
95951100|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|203.72|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.72|18.83|
95951101|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|73.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.84|9.67|
95951102|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|226.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.81|645.29|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||645.29|79.81|
95951103|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|116.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.54|250.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||250.13|54.54|
95951104|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|481.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|207.01|1117.69|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1117.69|207.01|
95951105|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|66.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.8|105.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||105.75|41.80|
95951106|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|13.94|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||13.94|5.36|
95951107|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|78.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.38|147.8|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||147.80|41.38|
95951108|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|438.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|169.52|1132.43|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1132.43|169.52|
95951109|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.28|274.82|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||274.82|23.28|
95951110|NCT00824850|191874162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|131.76|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 5 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.76|28.73|
95951111|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|281.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.65|1035.49|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1035.49|76.65|
95951112|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|16.75|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||16.75|3.47|
95962094|NCT04832971|191896102|OTHER||Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-31.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-31.6|-47.4|<.0001
95951113|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|151.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.01|545.84|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||545.84|42.01|
95951114|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|64.54|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||64.54|8.67|
95951115|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|325.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||325.40|32.00|
95951116|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|76.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||76.13|12.71|
95951117|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|51.39|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||51.39|6.82|
95951118|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.33|111.18|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||111.18|37.33|
95951119|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|18.52|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||18.52|6.64|
95860084|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||"Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).~If normality assumptions were severely violated (proportion of non normal observations \> 5%) a non-parametric analysis was to be conducted using Van Elteren's test stratified by baseline quartile of the diary variable analyzed."||||0.0576
95951120|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|73.48|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||73.48|23.09|
95951121|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|479.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|171.63|1339.96|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1339.96|171.63|
95951122|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|76.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|270.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||270.02|21.63|
95951123|NCT00824850|191874163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|41.08|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||41.08|7.61|
95951124|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|170.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.24|1301.79|||||CI for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 4: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||1301.79|22.24|
95951125|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|59.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 6B: GMRFs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||59.91|5.27|
95951126|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|249.02|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 9V: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||249.02|18.45|
95962614|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.3|0.1|0.9905
95767912|NCT03135548|191507938|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.348|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.|Unadjusted absolute risk difference versus placebo was calculated as the difference in the observed proportion of patients with ppPASI50 at Week 16 for each treatment scenario, for the FAS.|||0.348|-0.116|
95951127|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|61.88|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 14: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||61.88|7.94|
95951128|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|205.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.04|602.78|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 18C: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||602.78|70.04|
95951129|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|90.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.28|203.27|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 19F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||203.27|40.28|
95951130|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.25|232.13|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|7vPnC serotype 23F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||232.13|36.25|
95951131|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|75.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.32|120.91|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 1: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||120.91|47.32|
95951132|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|14.4|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 3: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||14.40|5.21|
95951133|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.06|115.92|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 5: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||115.92|31.06|
95951134|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|269.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.09|692.6|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 6A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||692.60|105.09|
95951135|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|131.09|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 7F: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||131.09|10.85|
95951136|NCT00824850|191874164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|44.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.31|94.01|||||CIs for the GMRFs are back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Additional serotype 19A: GMFRs were calculated (postvaccination Visit 4 / prevaccination Visit 1) using all participants with available data from both the prevaccination and postvaccination blood draws.||94.01|21.31|
95951137|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.95|1.31|
95951138|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.90|1.78|
95951139|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.75|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.75|1.25|
95951140|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.53|1.11|
95962615|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||3.3|0.1|0.9330
95767913|NCT03135548|191507939|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|34.48|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||34.48|-20.01|
95767914|NCT03135548|191507939|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.35|16.7|||Student's t-distribution|CIs were based on Student's t-distribution.||||16.70|-28.35|
95854607|NCT04408989|191668837|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of AUC(0-∞) were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.12|1.01|
95951141|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.05|0.38|
95951142|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.50|
95951143|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.43|0.48|
95951144|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.00|0.96|
95951145|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.96|0.79|
95951146|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.52|0.54|
95951147|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.34|0.98|
95951148|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.83|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.83|1.05|
95951149|NCT00824850|191874165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.67|
95951150|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.79|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.79|1.26|
95951151|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|5.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||5.32|1.84|
95951152|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.51|1.13|
95951153|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||4.07|0.95|
95951154|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.56|0.51|
95951155|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.66|0.93|
95951156|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.73|0.97|
95951157|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.39|0.83|
95962616|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.7|0.2|0.9945
95767915|NCT03135548|191507940|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.049|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.049|-0.346|
95805181|NCT02255279|191583921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|21.0|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in H3N2 strain after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naive and non-naive subjects.||21|-1.8|
95805182|NCT02255279|191583921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The following hypotheses should be tested to demonstrate non-inferiority of aTIV to TIV:~H0i: πi1 \> πi2-0.1 vs. H1i: πi1 \> πi2- 0.1 where H0i and H1i represent the null and the alternative hypothesis (respectively) of the non- inferiority objective and πi1 and πi2 represent the seroresponse rates 21 days after last immunization of the aTIV and TIV vaccine groups respectively in the i-th strain (H1N1, H3N2, B). The non-inferiority criterion is -0.1 (i.e., -10%)."|Vaccine Group Differences|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|68.5|||Loglinear model|Binary data were analyzed using loglinear models with a qualitative factor for vaccine group (αik, i = A, B) and center (δlk, k=1).||Percentage of subjects achieving seroconversion in B strains after last vaccination with aTIV or TIV in naïve and non naive subjects.||68.5|47.5|
95951158|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.34|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.34|0.89|
95951159|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.64|0.68|
95951160|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||3.35|1.05|
95951161|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.90|
95951162|NCT00824850|191874166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean concentrations|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.66|0.75|
95951163|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.17|0.50|
95951164|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.73|0.70|
95951165|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.15|0.61|
95951166|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.25|0.56|
95951167|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.40|0.51|
95951168|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.12|0.32|
95951169|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.85|0.38|
95767916|NCT03135548|191507940|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing was performed in this trial.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.252|||Wilson/Newcombe|95% CIs are calculated using the method of Wilson/Newcombe.||||0.252|-0.213|
95767917|NCT05022667|191507994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
95767918|NCT05022667|191507995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
95767919|NCT05022667|191507996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.2
95767920|NCT05022667|191507997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
95767921|NCT05022667|191507998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.4
95767922|NCT05022667|191508000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.3
95767923|NCT03521154|191508003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.24|0.10|<0.001
95767924|NCT03521154|191508004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in Ex19Del positive patients||0.29|0.10|
95767925|NCT03521154|191508004|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.19|0.56|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|PFS in L858R positive patients||0.56|0.19|
95767926|NCT03521154|191508005|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.34|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|Negative at screening||0.34|0.15|
95767927|NCT03521154|191508006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.09|<0.001
95767928|NCT03521154|191508008|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.56|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.56|0.42|0.530
95767929|NCT03521154|191508009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.08|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib|||5.08|1.54|<0.001
95951170|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.22|0.75|
95767930|NCT03521154|191508011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.47|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours osimertinib.|||4.47|0.94|0.069
95767931|NCT03521154|191508014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.38|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.38|0.11|<0.001
95767932|NCT03521154|191508015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.32|0.14|<0.001
95951171|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.61|0.82|
95767933|NCT03521154|191508016|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.21|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.21|0.08|<0.001
95767934|NCT03521154|191508017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||0.91|0.28|0.022
95767935|NCT03521154|191508018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours osimertinib|||1.08|0.35|0.088
95767936|NCT04632927|191508019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.647||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.601|8.311|||Regression, Logistic|The OR was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline HAQ-DI and strata (body weight) as independent variables||||8.311|1.601|0.002
95767937|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER|||||||0.7271||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod quadratic model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7271
95767938|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER|||||||0.6415||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod sigmoidal Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6415
95767939|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER|||||||0.7367||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod Emax model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.7367
95767940|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER|||||||0.6624||||||An alpha of 0.20 was used for one-sided test. The MCPMod procedure adjusts for multiplicity.|MCPMod exponential model fit|||Multiple comparison procedures and modelling (MCPmod) techniques for logistic regression was used.||||0.6624
95767941|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.292|7.288|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||7.288|-27.292|0.4645
95767942|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.38||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.204|14.451|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||14.451|-21.204|0.8084
95767943|NCT02770170|191508138|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.77||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.364|10.832|||Regression, Logistic|include treatment and covariates, race (Asian or non-Asian), proteinuria at screening (\<3g/day or \>= 3g/day)|Confidence intervals calculated using delta method|||10.832|-18.364|0.7398
95767944|NCT02770170|191508139|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.93||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.66|7.64|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.64|-23.66|0.5773
95767945|NCT02770170|191508139|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.59|29.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||29.03|-4.59|0.4013
95767946|NCT02770170|191508139|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.8965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.98|11.1|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||11.10|-15.98|0.8965
95767947|NCT02770170|191508140|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.64||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.38|-2.48|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-2.48|-35.38|0.1476
95767948|NCT02770170|191508140|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.2|26.86|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||26.86|-4.20|0.4013
95767949|NCT02770170|191508140|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.63|13.63|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||13.63|-13.63|
95767950|NCT02770170|191508141|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.67||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.52|-9.42|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-9.42|-41.52|0.0512
95767951|NCT02770170|191508141|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|20.74|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||20.74|-12.10|0.7597
95767952|NCT02770170|191508141|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.7505|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.74|9.02|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||9.02|-18.74|0.7505
95854608|NCT04408989|191668838|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.887|0.989|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and MB02 DM represents the denominator.|||0.989|0.887|
95951172|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.13|0.36|
95951173|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.39|0.55|
95951174|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.70|0.73|
95951175|NCT00824850|191874167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.63|0.50|
95767953|NCT02770170|191508142|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.43||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|-4.41|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||-4.41|-36.03|0.1269
95767954|NCT02770170|191508142|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.24|21.62|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||21.62|-12.24|0.7889
95951176|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 4: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.27|0.35|
95951177|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 6B: ratio of GMTs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.05|0.77|
95951178|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 9V: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.44|0.54|
95951179|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 14: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||0.95|0.38|
95951180|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 18C: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.91|0.64|
95951181|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 19F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.62|0.28|
95951182|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|7vPnC serotype 23F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.81|0.68|
95962617|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||8.4|0.3|0.9599
95767955|NCT02770170|191508142|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.2906|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.99|1.68|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||1.68|-25.99|0.2906
95767956|NCT02770170|191508143|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.64||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.79|7.45|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||7.45|-25.79|0.5687
95767957|NCT02770170|191508143|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.67|19.17|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||19.17|-14.67|0.9217
95962618|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.3||||0.9942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.4|||ANOVA|||Day 365||6.4|0.2|0.9942
95962619|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.5||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.9|||ANOVA|||Day 365||12.9|0.5|0.4932
95767958|NCT02770170|191508143|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.03|14.03|||Barnard test of association||Unadjusted absolute risk difference; Confidence intervals calculated using Newcombe method|||14.03|-14.03|
95767959|NCT00162981|191508147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0182||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.||||||<0.0182
95951183|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.77|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 1: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.77|0.53|
95951184|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 3: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.81|0.69|
95951185|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 5: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.85|0.32|
95951186|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.36|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 6A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.36|0.80|
95951187|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 7F: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||2.44|0.65|
95951188|NCT00824850|191874168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\].|Additional serotype 19A: ratio of GMCs for (7vPnC/13vPnC) relative to (MnCC/13vPnC).||1.57|0.46|
95951189|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.9||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.9|-10.2|
95951190|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95951191|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951192|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951193|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951194|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951195|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95951196|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951197|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951198|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|17.0||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.0|-9.3|
95951199|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951200|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95951201|NCT00824850|191874171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95962620|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.8||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6|||ANOVA|||Day 365||4.6|0.2|0.9983
95767960|NCT00162981|191508147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the difference from baseline.|1-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95854609|NCT04408989|191668838|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 SP represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.925|
95767961|NCT00162981|191508150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 50%, one-tailed significance at 0.05 and a power of 80% to detect a reduction of at least 25% (baseline to final in a within-subjects design), then approximately 27 subjects would have been required in each treatment arm. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate, then approximately 30 subjects per treatment were to be enrolled in the study.|||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|1-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test was used to compare the high dose group to the low dose group.||||||<0.0001
95951202|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.0||||||7vPnC serotype 4: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||8.0|-13.9|
95951203|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.6||||||7vPnC serotype 6B: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-10.2|
95951204|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 9V: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951205|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.3||||||7vPnC serotype 14: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.5|
95951206|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||7vPnC serotype 18C: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95951207|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.5||||||7vPnC serotype 19F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.5|-10.1|
95951208|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.6||||||7vPnC serotype 23F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||16.6|-9.1|
95767962|NCT00391768|191508158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.07
95767963|NCT00391768|191508158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.60
95951209|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.1||||||Additional serotype 1: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.1|-10.0|
95951210|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.3||||||Additional serotype 3: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.3|-9.4|
95951211|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|17.2||||||Additional serotype 5: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-8.6|
95951212|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 6A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951213|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|10.6||||||Additional serotype 7F: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-9.7|
95951214|NCT00824850|191874172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0||||||Additional serotype 19A: difference in proportions, \[(7vPnC/13vPnC) - (MnCC/13vPnC)\], expressed as a percentage, along with exact 2-sided confidence interval.||10.0|-9.5|
95951215|NCT00882050|191874173|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||logistic regression|Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.|||0.05
95951216|NCT00882050|191874173|SUPERIORITY|Demographic data analyzed with nominal data tested by chi-square, ordinal data by Mann-Whitney, and normal data by t-test. Further, a linear regression analysis to determine the effect of intervention dose on glucose level and typical confounders such as age, weight, and type of surgery was completed. Adverse and SAEs were analyzed by chi-square for occurrence.||||||0.05||||||Due to have 3 trial groups our p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons as a a priori threshold (if a single comparison) was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The regression (see above) is a secondary analysis. Groups had been stratified on diabetic (y/n) to balance this potential confounder||Primary t tests of glucose between the 3 groups at 90 minutes post. Secondary MANOVA to determine the effect over time. Change in mean glucose of 20 mg/dl between all groups detectable by 18 subjects per group assuming a SD of 20mg/dl., an 82% power with an alpha of 0.05. Because we tested interventions against the placebo arm, we increased our subjects to overcome loss of power. 23 per group will provide 80% power assuming a reduced alpha of 0.01 to accommodate the multiple testing issues.||||0.05
95951217|NCT00946998|191874200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
95767964|NCT00391768|191508158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.27
95767965|NCT00391768|191508158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.77
95951218|NCT00946998|191874201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Represents the response outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
95951219|NCT00946998|191874201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Represents remission outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
95951220|NCT00946998|191874202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95951221|NCT00946998|191874203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95951222|NCT00946998|191874204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For death|Chi-squared|||||||>.99
95951223|NCT00946998|191874204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||For comparison of dialysis initiation between groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
95767966|NCT00391768|191508158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.47
95767967|NCT00391768|191508158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation|||||||0.96
95767968|NCT00607620|191508178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||||0.98|0.79|
95951224|NCT00946998|191874204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Hospitalization other than dialysis initiation|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95767969|NCT00607620|191508179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between baseline to 12-months.|||-0.3|-2.1|
95951225|NCT00946998|191874204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||For comparison of acute suicidal intent.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95767970|NCT00607620|191508180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.4|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||6.4|0.4|
95767971|NCT00607620|191508181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||1.9|-3.3|
95767972|NCT00607620|191508182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.99|||||The data represented refers to the group mean difference (intervention versus control) of the change score between 6-months and 12-months.|||0.99|-1.02|
95767973|NCT01620138|191508183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95767974|NCT00449865|191508201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Global Statistical Test|The global statistical test yielded t = -0.75 (2-sided p-value = .45, df=1865.8).||||||0.45
95767975|NCT00406367|191508202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||No type I-error adjustment was necessary in this study.|ANCOVA|Indepent variables in the model were treatment, baseline JRS-Severity score, gender, age, dose, and pooled center.||The null hypothesis in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was the absence of difference in the change from baseline in the JRS severity subscore between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo. The ANCOVA model was performed 2-sided (type-I error=5 percent) and change from baseline in the JRS Severity subscore assessed by a blinded Independent Rater as dependent variable. The independent variables were treatment, baseline JRS Severity subscore, gender, age, dose group, and pooled center.||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
95767976|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|7.4||||||15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.4|0.5|
95767977|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|6.5||||||30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||6.5|-0.5|
95767978|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|7.2||||||45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||7.2|0.2|
95767979|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|9.7||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||9.7|2.7|
95854610|NCT04408989|191668838|EQUIVALENCE|"PK similarity was achieved if the 90% CIs for the biosimilar-to-reference ratios of Cmax were within the predefined 0.80-1.25 acceptance similarity criteria.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.11|||||For the comparison, MB02 DM represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.11|0.991|
95951226|NCT00946998|191874204|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||For comparison of bleeding requiring blood transfusion or hospitalization.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95951227|NCT00674609|191874258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||-0.14|-1.21|0.014
95951228|NCT00674609|191874258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors. The null hypothesis was that of no treatment difference.||0.22|-0.86|0.244
95951229|NCT00674609|191874259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.31||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.34|-0.97|0.346
95854611|NCT04363320|191668847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.538|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.169||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||a prior threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.002
95854612|NCT04363320|191668847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.113||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.0008
95951230|NCT00674609|191874259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||0.68|-0.64|0.95
95951231|NCT00674609|191874260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.11
95962621|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.7||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.3|||ANOVA|||Day 365||9.3|0.3|0.9112
95728723|NCT03588390|191427120|OTHER||Slope|0.9244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6764|1.1724|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1724|0.6764|
95728724|NCT03588390|191427121|OTHER||Slope|0.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4556|0.851|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.8510|0.4556|
95728725|NCT03588390|191427121|OTHER||Slope|0.8586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5929|1.1242|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.1242|0.5929|
95728726|NCT01006707|191427136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.042
95728727|NCT01006707|191427137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.322
95728728|NCT01006707|191427138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||Results were considered significant at p\<0.05.||||0.261
95728729|NCT05034731|191427156|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95728730|NCT05034731|191427157|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analyses were based on paired t-tests looking at the differences in speech scores calculated using the investigational speech scores minus the control speech scores. The primary efficacy analyses tested the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quite (remote fitting - in-office fitting) are less than or equal to -10 percentile points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95728731|NCT00358826|191427197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95728732|NCT00358826|191427197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95728733|NCT00358826|191427197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95728734|NCT00358826|191427198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95728735|NCT00358826|191427198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95728736|NCT00358826|191427198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment effect, with baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95728737|NCT00358826|191427199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
95728738|NCT00358826|191427199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.863
95728739|NCT00358826|191427199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.996
95728740|NCT00358826|191427200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.331
95728741|NCT00358826|191427200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANCOVA|||||||0.606
95728742|NCT00358826|191427200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted using Dunnett's method.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95728743|NCT00358826|191427201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
95728744|NCT00358826|191427201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
95728745|NCT00358826|191427201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.60
95728746|NCT00358826|191427202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
95728747|NCT00358826|191427202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
95728748|NCT00358826|191427202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
95805183|NCT02202577|191583959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.35||This is the calculated p-value for the intention to treat analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||"We estimated a cesarean related surgical site infection rate of 7.5% with povidone-iodine and hypothesized chlorhexidine-alcohol treatment to be superior based on existing literature. We considered a 50% reduction to be significant. We performed our power analysis assuming~1-directional effects in favor of chlorhexidine, which best fit our hypothesis. Using a 1-tailed alpha of 0.05 and an 80% power to detect a difference, we estimated that 466 subjects would be required in each group."||1.35||0.38
95951232|NCT00674609|191874260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.46||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.05|-0.13|0.126
95951233|NCT00674609|191874261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.65||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.28|0.01|0.045
95951234|NCT00674609|191874261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.62||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|-0.01|0.053
95951235|NCT00674609|191874262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.51|0.16|0.016
95951236|NCT00674609|191874262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.66||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.33|-0.02|0.056
95951237|NCT00674609|191874263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.25|0.10|0.021
95951238|NCT00674609|191874263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|0.64||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Each secondary variable was tested using a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, unless otherwise specified. P-values of \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. If the overall treatment effect for the secondary variables was statistically significant then treatment comparisons was made between active treatments and placebo.||1.22|0.07|0.028
95951239|NCT00674609|191874264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|2.47||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|8.81|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||8.81|-3.87|0.443
95951240|NCT00674609|191874264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|0.84||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change from baseline was assessed using ANCOVA, adjusting for the effects of the baseline value. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for the baseline value, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If found significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with 95% CI were presented.||7.13|-5.46|0.793
95951241|NCT00674609|191874265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.04||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||3.15|-5.23|0.619
95951242|NCT00674609|191874265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in pain scores on-treatment were be compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The baseline pain score was fitted as a covariate in the model. The significance of the treatment effect after adjusting for baseline pain score was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. If this was significant at the 5% level, then the mean difference between treatments together with the 95% confidence interval was presented for Sativex versus placebo and THC versus placebo.||-0.05|-8.10|0.048
95951243|NCT00674609|191874266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.16|-0.25|0.688
95962622|NCT03635086|191896809|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for GMT of Chikungunya-ELISA antibodies between treatment groups.|Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.0||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.2|||ANOVA|||Day 365||10.2|0.4|0.7431
95951244|NCT00674609|191874266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22|||Regression, Logistic|||The on-treatment data was calculated from all available data during the last three days. The number of days the escape medication was used out of the last three days taken in the study was compared between treatments using logistic regression with a cumulative logit model. From this analysis the frequency distribution (%) of number days escape medication was used was presented together with the odds ratio, p-value and 95% CI for the treatment contrasts.||0.22|-0.19|0.899
95951245|NCT05361304|191874320|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under HLLC.||0.000|-0.040|
95951246|NCT05361304|191874320|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology for distance (4m) under LLHC.||0.020|-0.030|
95951247|NCT05361304|191874321|NON_INFERIORITY||Least square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 80% statistical power, that 100 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology compared to the Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology.||1.010|-0.460|
95951248|NCT05361304|191874322|NON_INFERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||12.0|-4.1|
95951249|NCT05361304|191874323|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the confidence interval of the mean difference between Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology and Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology is greater than -5.|LSM Differences|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Senofilcon A contact lenses made with a novel manufacturing technology minus Senofilcon A contact lenses made with the current manufacturing technology|||6.5|-7.1|
95728749|NCT00358826|191427203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
95805184|NCT02202577|191583959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.25||This is the calculated p-value for the per protocol analysis of primary outcome. A 1-tailed p value of \<0.05 was selected for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Per Protocol Analysis||1.25||0.26
95805185|NCT00318136|191583964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of patients|3.2||||||90.0|0.3|13.5|||Blyth-Still-Casella|||||13.5|0.3|
95951250|NCT00476151|191874344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
95951251|NCT02068352|191874355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|11.93||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|23.95||P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.95|-0.08|0.0690
95951252|NCT02068352|191874355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|18.23||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|31.46||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.46|4.99|0.0165
95951253|NCT02068352|191874355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|12.3||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|24.53||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.53|0.06|0.0617
95951254|NCT02068352|191874356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, and interaction of treatment by visit as terms, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.84|0.0128
95951255|NCT02068352|191874356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.10|-0.81|0.0134
95951256|NCT02068352|191874357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.85|0.0048
95951257|NCT02068352|191874357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.16|-0.84|0.0045
95728750|NCT00358826|191427203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.11
95728751|NCT00358826|191427203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Dunnett test compared with Placebo|ANCOVA|||||||0.99
95805186|NCT00563316|191583970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.074|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||1.074|0.894|
95951258|NCT02068352|191874359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26||||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|21.52||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.52|-8.99|0.4173
95951259|NCT02068352|191874359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47||||0.4895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|20.36||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.36|-9.43|0.4895
95951260|NCT02068352|191874359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.19||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|25.12||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.12|-6.74|0.2677
95951261|NCT02068352|191874359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|25.87||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by age group (\< 18 or ≥ 18) and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.87|-5.63|0.2319
95951262|NCT02068352|191874360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.11|-3.33|0.3213
95951263|NCT02068352|191874360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.08|-4.27|0.0594
95951264|NCT02068352|191874360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||1.37|-3.43|0.396
95951265|NCT02068352|191874360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.46|-4.26|0.1135
95951266|NCT02068352|191874361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.65|-3.63|0.1703
95951267|NCT02068352|191874361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.45|-4.67|0.0176
95951268|NCT02068352|191874361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||0.95|-3.78|0.2381
95951269|NCT02068352|191874361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.03|-4.68|0.047
95951270|NCT02068352|191874362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||10.7|-13.5|0.8196
95951271|NCT02068352|191874362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.83||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||0.02|-23.69|0.0503
95951272|NCT02068352|191874362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||9.85|-17.22|0.5902
95951273|NCT02068352|191874362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, region, visit, age group, interaction of treatment by visit, Baseline score as a covariate.||||-0.11|-26.73|0.0482
95951274|NCT02068352|191874363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|10.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.48|-12.48|0.8633
95951275|NCT02068352|191874363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.25|-22.83|0.0452
95951276|NCT02068352|191874363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|10.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||10.12|-15.58|0.6746
95951277|NCT02068352|191874363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, region, age group as terms, and Baseline score as a covariate for change from Baseline.||||-0.4|-25.69|0.0432
95951278|NCT01767376|191874366|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup A, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.48|0.97|
95962095|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-21.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-21.4|-36.4|<.0001
95962096|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-19.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-19.7|-34.8|<.0001
95993977|NCT02747927|191963898|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||100.0|43.1|
95993978|NCT02747927|191963899|OTHER||VE|65.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|78.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||78.1|46.4|
95993979|NCT02747927|191963899|OTHER||VE|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|80.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.7|0.8|
95993980|NCT02747927|191963899|OTHER||VE|85.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||95.2|54.4|
95993981|NCT02747927|191963899|OTHER||VE|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|77.6|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||77.6|8.3|
95993982|NCT02747927|191963899|OTHER||VE|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|93.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||93.9|2.2|
95993983|NCT02747927|191963900|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|95.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.1|53.7|
95993984|NCT02747927|191963902|OTHER||VE|74.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|80.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||80.3|66.6|
95993985|NCT02747927|191963903|OTHER||VE|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|80.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||80.0|51.7|
95805187|NCT00563316|191583971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.985|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.985|0.819|
95993986|NCT02747927|191963903|OTHER||VE|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|92.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.2|74.5|
95993987|NCT02747927|191963903|OTHER||VE|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||73.9|19.1|
95993988|NCT02747927|191963903|OTHER||VE|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|88.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||88.7|62.4|
95993989|NCT02747927|191963904|OTHER||VE|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||85.0|59.3|
95805188|NCT00563316|191583972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It would be concluded that panitumumab did not have a clinically important effect on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan if the 90% confidence intervals of the ratio of geometric means for the Cmax and AUC values for irinotecan with and without concomitant panitumumab administration fell within the interval of 70% to 143%.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.983|||||Ratio of Cycle 2 : Cycle 1|||0.983|0.818|
95993990|NCT02747927|191963904|OTHER||VE|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|88.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||88.9|50.0|
95805189|NCT01767857|191583981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.613
95805190|NCT01767857|191583982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95993991|NCT02747927|191963904|OTHER||VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|97.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||97.8|53.7|
95993992|NCT02747927|191963904|OTHER||VE|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|79.2|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||79.2|-84.9|
95993993|NCT02747927|191963904|OTHER||VE|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|93.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-4||93.3|29.7|
95993994|NCT02747927|191963905|OTHER||VE|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|Any Dengue Serotype||80.9|64.4|
95993995|NCT02747927|191963905|OTHER||VE|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|79.3|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-1||79.3|37.8|
95993996|NCT02747927|191963905|OTHER||VE|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|92.1|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-2||92.1|71.1|
95993997|NCT02747927|191963905|OTHER||VE|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|78.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|DENV-3||78.5|18.5|
95993998|NCT02747927|191963905|OTHER||VE|79.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.1|89.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and 95% CIs was estimated from Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||89.9|59.1|
95993999|NCT02747927|191963906|OTHER||VE|90.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|95.8|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||95.8|78.8|
95994000|NCT02747927|191963907|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-849.4|100.0|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||VE and two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with investigational product as a factor, adjusted for age, and stratified by region.|||100.0|-849.4|
95994001|NCT00450580|191963920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms is greater than -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||||95.0|-11.4|9.5||||||||9.5|-11.4|
95994002|NCT00988247|191963944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.5|<0.001
95994003|NCT00988247|191963945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
95994004|NCT00988247|191963946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
95994005|NCT00988247|191963947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo]|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, week and the treatment by week interaction.||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.001
95994006|NCT00988247|191963948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.3||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-0.7|0.143
95994007|NCT00988247|191963949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.49||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and pooled center in the model.||||0.1|-1.1|0.130
95994008|NCT01169779|191963952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|-0.162||Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), sulfonylurea use (Yes,No), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 24 between lixisenatide arm and placebo arm, 190 patients per group would provide a power of 96% assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.162|-0.551|0.0004
95994009|NCT00432237|191963962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994010|NCT00432237|191963962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994011|NCT00432237|191963963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994012|NCT00432237|191963963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994013|NCT00432237|191963964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994014|NCT00432237|191963964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994015|NCT00432237|191963965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994016|NCT00432237|191963965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95805191|NCT01767857|191583983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Global Health Status/Qol||||0.541
95994017|NCT00432237|191963966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994018|NCT00432237|191963966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994019|NCT00432237|191963967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994020|NCT00432237|191963967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994021|NCT00432237|191963968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994022|NCT00432237|191963968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994023|NCT00432237|191963969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95994024|NCT00432237|191963969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|P-value constructed using a logistic model adjusting for baseline severity (moderate, severe), region (US, ex-US), treatment and age (continuous).||||||<0.001
95767980|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|8.3||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||8.3|1.3|
95767981|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|5.3||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||5.3|-1.7|
95805192|NCT01767857|191583983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Pain||||0.560
95805193|NCT01767857|191583983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Fatigue||||0.603
95805194|NCT01767857|191583983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Appetite Loss||||0.485
95994025|NCT01354132|191963970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95994026|NCT01354132|191963971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95994027|NCT01354132|191963972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95805195|NCT01767857|191583984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.210
95994028|NCT01354132|191963973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95805196|NCT01767857|191583985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.768
95805197|NCT02844075|191584010|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||For sample size calculation, Minimax design to evaluate the null hypothesis that the true pCR rate will be 10% and the alternative hypothesis that the pCR rate≥ 30%, with type I error (α) level of 10% and type II error (β) of 0.10. If 1 or more successes are observed in the first 16 patients, accrual for that stratum will be continued until a total of 25 patients. If, of these 25 patients, 5 or more pCR, an additional investigation is warranted. Allowing for a follow-up loss rate of 10 %, the total sample size is expected as 28. For biomarker evaluation, the categorical groups were investigated to evaluated possible association with response and/or survival. Associations were analyzed by χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze survival outcomes (EFS, OS, and DFS). To compare PD-L1 expression between paired pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment with associated of pCR, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||
95805198|NCT02757963|191584024|OTHER||Proportion|0.883|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|0.912|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.912|0.849|
95805199|NCT02757963|191584025|OTHER||Proportion|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.904|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.904|0.846|
95805200|NCT02757963|191584025|OTHER||Proportion|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.917|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.917|0.854|
95805201|NCT02757963|191584025|OTHER||Proportion|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|0.9|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.900|0.843|
95994029|NCT01354132|191963974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speed of Processing||||0.022
95994030|NCT01354132|191963975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
95994031|NCT01354132|191963976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.153
95994032|NCT01354132|191963977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
95994033|NCT01354132|191963978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.464
95994034|NCT01354132|191963979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
95994035|NCT01354132|191963980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95994036|NCT01354132|191963981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95994037|NCT01354132|191963982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95994038|NCT01354132|191963983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.6732
95994039|NCT01354132|191963984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8786
95994040|NCT01354132|191963985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5622
95994041|NCT01354132|191963986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9574
95994042|NCT01354132|191963987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0043
95994043|NCT01354132|191963988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3804
95994044|NCT01354132|191963989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9403
95994045|NCT01354132|191963990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9215
95994046|NCT03293654|191963991|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.39|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.39|1.18|
95994047|NCT03293654|191963991|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.22|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.22|1.03|
95994048|NCT03293654|191963991|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.24|||||Ratio of GLSM, EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.24|1.05|
95994049|NCT03293654|191963992|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator|1.22|1.09|
95805202|NCT02757963|191584026|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.926|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.926|0.870|
95994050|NCT03293654|191963992|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||||MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.22|1.09|
95994051|NCT03293654|191963992|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||1.13|1|
95994052|NCT03293654|191963999|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.07|||||MB02 in numerator and EU Avastin in denominator|||1.07|0.962|
95994053|NCT03293654|191963999|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.996|1.13|||||MB02 is numerator and US Avastin is denominator|||1.13|0.996|
95994054|NCT03293654|191963999|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.11|||||EU Avastin in the numerator and US Avastin in the denominator|||1.11|0.983|
95994055|NCT03293654|191964000|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.07|0.969|
95994056|NCT03293654|191964000|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|1.12|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.12|0.998|
95994057|NCT03293654|191964000|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.1|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.1|0.981|
95994058|NCT03293654|191964001|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|0.986|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.08|||||MB02: EU Avastin|||1.08|0.903|
95994059|NCT03293654|191964001|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19|||||MB02: US Avastin|||1.19|1.01|
95805203|NCT02757963|191584026|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.934|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.934|0.873|
96001835|NCT01096667|191981234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.07||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.63|1.77||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.77|-1.63|0.521
95805204|NCT02757963|191584026|OTHER||Proportion|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|0.935|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.935|0.873|
95994060|NCT03293654|191964001|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25. The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate.|Ratio of GLSM|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.22|||||EU Avastin: US Avastin|||1.22|1.02|
95994061|NCT02348099|191964002|OTHER|"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of Glucose between injection sites. In the third phase, area under the curve will be measured to determine differences between insulin absorption levels. Statistical analysis will be performed using SPSS version 15.0.0 and SAS version 8.2 A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A student's paired t-test will be used to determine the difference if any in CV of glucose between injection sited.~If the null hypothesis is true, it suggests that any changes witnessed in an experiment are because of random chance and not because of changes made to variables in the experiment. A power calculation is a statistical method used to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a statistically significant effect of a certain size."|a P-Value is \<0.01|||<0.01
95994062|NCT02354833|191964003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95994063|NCT02354833|191964004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Nausea||||0.28
95994064|NCT02354833|191964004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is comparing the percentage of participants with Emesis||||< 0.001
95994065|NCT02354833|191964005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
95994066|NCT02354833|191964006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95994067|NCT00004054|191964035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.43|||Log Rank|||The original target sample size was 1440 patients with a requirement of 340 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the hormones and RT plus chemotherapy arm; the design is based on detecting a 6% absolute improvement in 5-year OS from 79% to 85%, or a 33% relative reduction in the yearly hazard rate, with 90% power and a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.43|0.76|0.81
95994068|NCT00004054|191964036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.27|0.74|0.82
95994069|NCT00004054|191964037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.1|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.10|0.28|0.09
95994070|NCT00004054|191964038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Fine-Gray regression model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.36|0.48|0.42
95994071|NCT00004054|191964039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.19|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Cox proportional hazards model was used to obtain the hazard ratio. Reference level = Hormones and RT.|||1.19|0.75|0.61
95994072|NCT01756456|191964046|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|15.88|54.71|||Chi-squared|||Phase II||54.71|15.88|<0.001
95994073|NCT01756456|191964046|SUPERIORITY|Each of the comparisons was conducted on the data for the Phase II segment of the study using a 2 × 2 chi-square test, based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment (rhNGF or Vehicle Control) and response (Complete Healing at Week 4 \[Yes/No\]).|Difference in percentage|38.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.06|18.96|57.83|||Chi-squared|||||57.83|18.96|=0.001
95994074|NCT01756456|191964047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.8|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.66|47.87|||Chi-squared|||||47.87|3.66|=0.016
95994075|NCT01756456|191964047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.06|11.91|57.41|||Chi-squared|||||57.41|11.91|=0.002
95994076|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|2.4|||=|0.818|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-20.3|25.08|||Chi-squared|||At week 6 - reading center||25.08|-20.30|=0.818
95805205|NCT02757963|191584026|OTHER||Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.925|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm PSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.925|0.870|
95994077|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-6.3|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-30.62|17.96|||Chi-squared|||at week 6 - central reading center||17.96|-30.62|=0.571
95994078|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-3.11|43.79|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||43.79|-3.11|=0.064
95994079|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.06|-0.89|47.04|||Chi-squared|||week 6 - investigator||47.04|-0.89|=0.041
95994080|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.9|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.06|0.07|43.64|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||43.64|0.07|=0.031
95994081|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|26.9|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.06|5.57|48.28|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - central reading center||48.28|5.57|=0.008
95994082|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.06|4.18|48.01|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.01|4.18|=0.011
95994083|NCT01756456|191964048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.9|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|97.06|3.55|48.33|||Chi-squared|||week 8 - investigator||48.33|3.55|=0.014
95994084|NCT01756456|191964049|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.7|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|27.57|||Chi-squared|||week 4||27.57|-0.19|=0.065
95994085|NCT01756456|191964049|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|26.78|||Chi-squared|||week 4||26.78|-2.05|=0.097
95994086|NCT01756456|191964049|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|31.92|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.92|1.97|=0.036
95994087|NCT01756456|191964049|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.6|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.12|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.12|0.04|=0.054
95994088|NCT01756456|191964049|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|17.1|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|32.72|||Chi-squared|||week 8||32.72|1.45|=0.043
95994089|NCT01756456|191964049|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.4|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|26.93|||Chi-squared|||week 8||26.93|-4.08|=0.157
95994090|NCT01756456|191964050|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|8.9|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.50|1.33|=0.022
95994091|NCT01756456|191964050|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|5.0|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.88|||ANCOVA|||||12.88|-2.90|=0.213
95994092|NCT01756456|191964051|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|5.5|||=|0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.48|||Chi-squared|||week 4||25.48|-14.53|=0.592
95994093|NCT01756456|191964051|SUPERIORITY|week 4|difference in percentage|-2.3|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.40|-24.01|=0.835
95994094|NCT01756456|191964051|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.7|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|47.22|||Chi-squared|||week 6||47.22|8.10|=0.008
95767982|NCT03187301|191508210|NON_INFERIORITY|For each post-dose time point, change from baseline (ΔQTcF) was compared between APL-130277 and placebo (ΔΔQTcF). The hypothesis of no clinical difference was accepted, if all upper limits of the two-sided 90% CIs for APL-130277 versus placebo fell below 10 msec.|Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||90.0|-4.2|2.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||2.8|-4.2|
95767983|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|15 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|8.6||||||||8.6|0.3|
95767984|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|30 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.7||||||||6.7|-1.6|
95805206|NCT02757963|191584027|OTHER||Proportion|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.386|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8||0.386|0.337|
95994095|NCT01756456|191964051|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|12.4|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|34.68|||Chi-squared|||week 6||34.68|-9.91|=0.282
95994096|NCT01756456|191964051|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|10.2|||=|0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|29.45|||Chi-squared|||||29.45|-9.15|=0.303
95994097|NCT01756456|191964051|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|7.9|||=|0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|27.92|||Chi-squared|||week 8||27.92|-12.13|=0.442
95994098|NCT01756456|191964052|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.6|||=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|17.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||17.71|-22.87|=0.597
95994099|NCT01756456|191964052|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-2.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|18.71|||Chi-squared|||week 4||18.71|-23.26|>0.999
95994100|NCT01756456|191964052|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.8|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|13.76|||Chi-squared|||week 6||13.76|-28.70|=0.183
95994101|NCT01756456|191964052|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.0|||=|0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.41|11.88|||Chi-squared|||week 6||11.88|-31.41|=0.116
95994102|NCT01756456|191964052|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-10.8|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|10.35|||Chi-squared|||week 8||10.35|-31.30|=0.134
95994103|NCT01756456|191964052|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|-7.9|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|13.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||13.52|-29.51|=0.307
95994104|NCT01756456|191964054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.62|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.62|1.03|=0.041
95994105|NCT01756456|191964054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.11|||Chi-squared|||week 4||4.11|0.92|=0.081
95994106|NCT01756456|191964054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.88|||Chi-squared|||week 8||5.88|1.04|=0.040
95994107|NCT01756456|191964054|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.52|||Chi-squared|||week 8||4.52|0.82|=0.132
95994108|NCT01756456|191964059|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|15.8|||=|0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|33.97|||Chi-squared|||week 4||33.97|-2.36|=0.097
95994109|NCT01756456|191964059|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|13.2|||=|0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|32.15|||Chi-squared|||week 4||32.15|-5.72|=0.175
95994110|NCT01756456|191964059|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|16.9|||=|0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|37.0|||Chi-squared|||week 6||37.00|-3.11|=0.105
95994111|NCT01756456|191964059|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|11.0|||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|31.57|||Chi-squared|||week 6||31.57|-9.64|=0.300
95994112|NCT01756456|191964059|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|27.5|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|46.67|||Chi-squared|||week 8||46.67|8.33|=0.008
95994113|NCT01756456|191964059|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage|19.0|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|38.83|||Chi-squared|||week 8||38.83|-0.91|=0.068
95994114|NCT00813995|191964060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparison|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95994115|NCT01439945|191964136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.13
95994116|NCT01439945|191964136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Weekly hot flash score was treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.67
95994117|NCT01439945|191964137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.||||||0.25
95994118|NCT01439945|191964137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Weekly number of hot flashes were treated as a repeated measure for each patient.|ANOVA|||||||0.55
95994119|NCT01439945|191964140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95994120|NCT01439945|191964141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.47
95767985|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|45 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.4||||||||7.4|-0.9|
95767986|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|7.5||||||||7.5|-0.9|
95767987|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|9.2||||||||9.2|0.8|
95767988|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|8.8||||||||8.8|0.4|
95805207|NCT02757963|191584027|OTHER||Proportion|0.368|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.395|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm BPE/BPO \>=3||0.395|0.341|
95805208|NCT02757963|191584027|OTHER||Proportion|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|0.406|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 and BPE/BPO \>=3||0.406|0.349|
95805209|NCT02757963|191584027|OTHER||Proportion|0.355|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.379|||||Proportion = Numerator / Denominator. 95% confidence interval on the proportion is calculated by using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|For Arm IPSS \>=8 or BPE/BPO \>=3||0.379|0.332|
95805210|NCT02757963|191584028|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.58||||||||0.58|0.51|
95805211|NCT00498485|191584072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis = drug-treated would have a higher global impression of change than placebo treated.||||<0.04
95951279|NCT01767376|191874366|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup C between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.47|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup C, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.47|0.85|
95951280|NCT01767376|191874366|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup W-135 between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup W-135, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.32|0.86|
95951281|NCT01767376|191874366|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for rSBA GMT ratios for serogroup Y between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Nimenrix Group) being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of 0.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.59|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix co-administered with Boostrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Nimenrix administered alone (Nimenrix Group) with respect to serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) for serogroup Y, one month after Nimenrix vaccination.||1.59|1.02|
95951282|NCT01767376|191874367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|3.53||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-diphtheria toxoid (anti-D) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||3.53|-7.88|
95951283|NCT01767376|191874367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group), in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, being greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined limit of -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) in terms of anti-tetanus toxoid (anti-T) antibody concentrations one month after Boostrix vaccination.||1.26|-2.48|
95962097|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-27.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-27.4|-42.3|<.0001
95994121|NCT01439945|191964141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
95854613|NCT04363320|191668847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.129||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.111
95860085|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.2230
95860086|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.3555
95860087|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95860088|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0009
95860089|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0071
95860090|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95860091|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.1764
95951284|NCT01767376|191874368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertussis (PT) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.89|0.66|
95951285|NCT01767376|191874368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.65|0.50|
95951286|NCT01767376|191874368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) between the two groups (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group minus Boostrix Group) for GMC ratios of antibodies against the pertactin (PRN) antigen, being greater than or equal to (≥) the predefined limit of 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Boostrix co-administered with Nimenrix (Nimenrix+Boostrix Group) compared to Boostrix administered alone (Boostrix Group) with respect to geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies against pertactin (PRN), one month after Boostrix vaccination.||0.88|0.59|
95951287|NCT03745651|191874382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.125|21.202||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||21.202|4.125|< 0.0001
95951288|NCT03745651|191874382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.354|38.061||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||38.061|7.354|< 0.0001
95951289|NCT03745651|191874383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|13.184||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.184|3.723|< 0.0001
95951290|NCT03745651|191874383|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|20.732||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||20.732|5.775|< 0.0001
95994122|NCT02730260|191964164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||Test of the null hypothesis that directive and nondirective coaching have equal smoking cessation rates.||||0.41
95994123|NCT02730260|191964164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio based on the parameter estimate for the variable, IncomeAboveMedian (0=false, 1=true), from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. An unbalanced variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model.||||<0.03
95994124|NCT02730260|191964164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio for PriorQuit, from the logistic regression model representing the a priori hypothesis, which specified income, race, and intervention as independent and interacting variables, and smoking cessation at last contact as the dependent variable. This variable, PriorQuit (0-=none in the past year, 1=at least one in the past year) was added to the a priori model because it was not balanced after randomization.||||<0.03
95994125|NCT02440581|191964165|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
95994126|NCT02440581|191964166|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.490
95994127|NCT02440581|191964167|OTHER|T-tests|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95994128|NCT02440581|191964168|OTHER|T-Tests||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
95994129|NCT02440581|191964169|OTHER|T-tests||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.283
95994130|NCT00654498|191964170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-2.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-2.46|-6.58|<0.0001
95994131|NCT00654498|191964171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
95767989|NCT03187301|191508215|NON_INFERIORITY|4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between APL-130277 and placebo using the ΔΔQTcB approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcB as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect|Least Square (LS) Mean Differeence|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|6.9||||||||6.9|-1.6|
95767990|NCT03187301|191508219|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|14.8||||||60 mins post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||14.8|5.3|
95854614|NCT04363320|191668847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.014||0.235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.235
95994132|NCT00654498|191964172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
95994133|NCT00654498|191964173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test stratified by centre||||||<0.0001
95994134|NCT00654498|191964174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1386
95994135|NCT00654498|191964175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.83|-2.14|<0.0001
95994136|NCT00654498|191964176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.73|-1.99|<0.0001
95994137|NCT00654498|191964177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.72|-2.00|<0.0001
95994138|NCT00654498|191964178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.02|-1.06|0.0402
95994139|NCT00654498|191964179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||0.04|-0.69|0.0771
95994140|NCT00654498|191964180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||-0.22|-1.20|0.0048
95994141|NCT00654498|191964181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95994142|NCT03430986|191964202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|2.349|||MMRM|MMRM included treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effect using an unstructured covariance matrix.||||2.349|1.726|<0.0001
95994143|NCT03430986|191964203|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|68.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|82.4|||Fisher Exact|2-sided test comparing responder rate between treatment group and control group.||||82.4|50.0|<0.0001
95994144|NCT01412957|191964220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.59||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|The primary hypothesis was that panitumumab plus BSC would improve overall survival compared to BSC alone. A comparison between treatments was performed using the log-rank test stratified by the randomization factors at a 5% significance level.||||0.0096
95994145|NCT01412957|191964221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-6.08|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the ITT Analysis Set was tested at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect on overall survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||<0.0001
95994146|NCT01412957|191964222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-2.47||||0.0135|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|Overall survival in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a significance level of 5% conditional on a significant treatment effect for progression-free survival in the ITT Analysis Set.||||0.0135
95767991|NCT03187301|191508219|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|17.1||||||2 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||17.1|7.5|
95805212|NCT03782103|191584074|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6033|0.0334||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.0334|-0.6033|
95805213|NCT03782103|191584074|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5415|3.1655||||||Groin 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||3.1655|2.5415|
95951291|NCT03745651|191874384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|9.036||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||9.036|2.045|< 0.0001
95951292|NCT03745651|191874384|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.833|12.657||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||12.657|2.833|< 0.0001
95951293|NCT03745651|191874385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.094||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.094|0.598|0.8553
95951294|NCT03745651|191874385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.741||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||2.741|0.805|0.2359
95951295|NCT03745651|191874386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|3.342||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.342|0.827|0.1784
95951296|NCT03745651|191874386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|4.0||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.000|1.007|0.0472
95951297|NCT03745651|191874396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.57|-22.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-22.25|-41.57|<0.0001
95951298|NCT03745651|191874396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.81|-25.44|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-25.44|-44.81|<0.0001
95951299|NCT03745651|191874396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.19|-35.92|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.92|-53.19|<0.0001
95951300|NCT03745651|191874396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.55|-37.26|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-37.26|-54.55|<0.0001
95951301|NCT03745651|191874396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-44.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-35.98|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-35.98|-53.08|<0.0001
95854615|NCT04363320|191668848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.153|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in new patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.485
95951302|NCT03745651|191874396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.51|-37.48|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-37.48|-54.51|<0.0001
95951303|NCT03745651|191874397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-32.38|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-32.38|-46.48|<0.0001
95951304|NCT03745651|191874397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.51|-36.53|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-36.53|-50.51|<0.0001
96001836|NCT01096667|191981234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.39||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.02|-0.75||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.75|-4.02|0.031
95767992|NCT03187301|191508219|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|15.7||||||3 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||15.7|6.1|
95994147|NCT01412957|191964223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal score|-5.98|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for the panitumumab plus BSC arm and therefore a longer time to event.|PFS in the Wild-type RAS Efficacy Analysis Set was to be compared at a significance level of 5% if overall survival in the wild-type RAS Efficacy Anaysis Set demonstrated a significant treatment effect.||||<0.0001
95994148|NCT01412957|191964224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.47|123.77|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||123.77|7.47|<0.0001
95994149|NCT01412957|191964225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|101.62|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by randomization factors: geographic region (Europe vs Asia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus BSC arm relative to the odds in BSC alone arm.|ORR was not formally tested and the p-values are descriptive only. An exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the common odds ratio for panitumumab plus BSC relative to BSC alone for the objective response is equal to 1.0 stratified by the randomization factors.||101.62|5.89|<0.0001
95994150|NCT00954109|191964271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95994151|NCT00954109|191964272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95994152|NCT00288574|191964291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||The proportion of patients successfully completing the trial in the fluoxetine and placebo groups was compared using the chi-squared statistic.||||0.57
95994153|NCT00288574|191964292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in body weight, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.75
95994154|NCT00288574|191964293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment of BDI in fluoxetine versus placebo groups||||0.007
95994155|NCT00288574|191964294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in BDI, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.79
95994156|NCT00288574|191964295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in RSES, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.69
95767993|NCT03187301|191508219|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis of assay sensitivity(difference in QTcF time between moxifloxacin and placebo)was evaluated by observing if any of the 4 post-dose evaluation time points had a one-sided(Bonferroni-corrected)95% lower confidence limit which was equal to, or exceeded, 5 msec.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2|13.8||||||4 hours post-dose: time-matched, baseline-corrected comparison between moxifloxacin and placebo using the ΔΔQTcF approach. The MMRM included region, gender, planned sequence, period, treatment, time, and interaction between treatment and time as fixed factors, and baseline QTcF as a covariate. The patient nested within sequence was included as a random effect.||13.8|4.2|
95767994|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.18|0.87|
95805214|NCT03782103|191584075|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1457|0.2611||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.2611|-0.1457|
95994157|NCT00288574|191964296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Q-LES-Q, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.78
95805215|NCT03782103|191584075|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6153|2.0264||||||Abdomen 30 seconds post product application, Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.0264|1.6153|
95994158|NCT00288574|191964297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Drive for Thinness subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.19
95767995|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.12|0.82|
95767996|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H1N1 (California)||1.10|0.81|
95767997|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.13|0.77|
95767998|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.32|0.91|
95767999|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|A/H3N2 (Hong Kong)||1.41|0.97|
95768000|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.15|0.87|
95768001|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
95768002|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Brisbane||1.26|0.95|
95768003|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.09|0.80|
95768004|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.07|0.78|
95805216|NCT01712074|191584109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8697||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.424|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.814|-0.424|0.4256
95951305|NCT03745651|191874398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.01|-2.02|<0.0001
95768005|NCT03321968|191508268|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||||Adjusted GMT/GMT Ratio based on ANCOVA model with vaccine lot as main effect and the baseline titer (log-transformed) as covariate.|B/Phuket||1.15|0.84|
95768006|NCT02282813|191508295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1041
95951306|NCT03745651|191874398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.24|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.24|-2.24|<0.0001
95951307|NCT03745651|191874398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.23|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.23|-2.36|<0.0001
95951308|NCT03745651|191874398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.40|-2.53|<0.0001
95768007|NCT02282813|191508296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0503
95768008|NCT02282813|191508297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4817|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4817
95768009|NCT02282813|191508298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8086
95768010|NCT02883062|191508319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||0.36
95805217|NCT01712074|191584110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7149||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.013|4.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.401|-0.013|0.2027
95805218|NCT03478787|191584133|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower bound of the 96.25% confidence interval (CI) of adjusted treatment difference is above -12%.|Adjusted percentage difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|-2.2|18.6|||||Across the strata, 96.25% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||18.6|-2.2|
95768011|NCT02883062|191508320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.018
95768012|NCT01420068|191508337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|3.37||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline weight as covariates.||||3.37|-2.74|0.840
95768013|NCT01420068|191508338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.02||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline height as covariates.||||2.02|-0.63|0.303
95805219|NCT03478787|191584134|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.8|< 0.001
95951309|NCT03745651|191874398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.29|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.29|-2.49|<0.0001
95994159|NCT00288574|191964298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment in Bulimia subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.46
95768014|NCT01420068|191508339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.12||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and hypertension etiology (primary, secondary) as factors, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||||1.12|-1.06|0.957
95768015|NCT01420068|191508341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|3.33||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||3.33|-3.29|0.992
95768016|NCT01420068|191508341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.1||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline weight as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||2.10|-8.22|0.215
95768017|NCT01420068|191508342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.09||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||2.09|-0.85|0.403
95768018|NCT01420068|191508342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.57||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline height as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||5.57|-3.74|0.670
95768019|NCT01420068|191508343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates||Primary Hypertension group (at LT Visit 18 \[Week 104\])||1.08|-1.29|0.860
95768020|NCT01420068|191508343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.32||p-value for statistical significance at 0.05 level for 2-sided superiority testing.|ANCOVA|Treatment regimen, region, age strata, and Baseline BMI as covariates.||Secondary hypertension group (at LT Visit 19 \[Week 156\])||1.32|-3.66|0.320
95805220|NCT03478787|191584135|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|26.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.5||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||36.5|15.9|< 0.001
95994160|NCT00288574|191964299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Body Dissatisfaction subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.86
95994161|NCT00288574|191964300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on Perfectionism subscale, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.25
95768021|NCT00365794|191508345|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total body mass||||0.77
95768022|NCT00365794|191508345|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total fat mass||||0.003
95768023|NCT00365794|191508345|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in trunk fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.0007
95768024|NCT00365794|191508345|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis is for change in extremity fat mass after 20 weeks of testosterone gel.||||0.01
95768025|NCT00365794|191508346|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||No adjustment in p for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95768026|NCT00365794|191508347|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95768027|NCT00365794|191508348|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95768028|NCT00365794|191508349|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in whole body insulin sensitivity after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks.||||0.04
95768029|NCT00365794|191508349|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in hepatic glucose output (measure of central insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.59
95768030|NCT00365794|191508349|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for change in rate of peripheral glucose disposal (test of peripheral insulin sensitivity) after treatment with testosterone gel for 20 weeks||||0.03
95768031|NCT00365794|191508350|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DEXA extremity (appendicular) lean tissue, a measure of extremity muscle mass after 20 weeks ot treatent with testosterone gel.||||0.0006
95860092|NCT00611026|191678448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline quartile of severe urgency episodes.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95 percentile, respectively).||||0.0001
95768032|NCT00365794|191508351|OTHER|Test for fasting triglycerides||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel.||||0.02
95768033|NCT00365794|191508351|OTHER|Test for total cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
95805221|NCT03478787|191584136|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.8||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||38.8|20.9|< 0.001
95994162|NCT00288574|191964301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Reported p values of secondary measures were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni corrected level of significance is \<0.005.||Random effects regression analysis of change during treatment on the YBC-EDS, in fluoxetine vs placebo groups.||||0.26
95768034|NCT00365794|191508351|OTHER|Test for LDL cholesterol||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||nts A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||.02
95768035|NCT00365794|191508351|OTHER|Test for HDL cholesterol||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A change in 20 plasma lipids (fasting triglycerides and lipid fractions) after 20 weeks of treatment with testosterone gel||||0.004
95768036|NCT00365794|191508352|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95768037|NCT00365794|191508353|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95768038|NCT00365794|191508354|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95768039|NCT00745901|191508355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9698||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9698
95768040|NCT00745901|191508356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0715
95768041|NCT00745901|191508357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0050
95805222|NCT03478787|191584137|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted percentage difference|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|28.3||Across the strata, p-value was calculated from the from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference was calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|||28.3|11.7|< 0.001
95805223|NCT03378635|191584138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test. Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% CI, p-value based on treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo using a two-sided log-rank test stratified by injection site. Treatment groups without censoring utilized a distribution free method to compute the confidence interval for median time.||||<0.001
95994163|NCT03797001|191964302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95951310|NCT03745651|191874398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.1|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.10|-2.30|<0.0001
95768042|NCT00745901|191508358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
95768043|NCT00745901|191508359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0031
95768044|NCT00745901|191508360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0013
95768045|NCT00745901|191508361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95951311|NCT03745651|191874400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.97|-1.94|<0.0001
95951312|NCT03745651|191874400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.76|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.76|-1.72|<0.0001
95768046|NCT00745901|191508362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95768047|NCT00745901|191508363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95768048|NCT00745901|191508364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95768049|NCT00745901|191508365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
95768050|NCT00745901|191508366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0060
95768051|NCT00745901|191508367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95768052|NCT00745901|191508368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95768053|NCT00745901|191508369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.912
95768054|NCT00745901|191508370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95768055|NCT00745901|191508371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95768056|NCT00745901|191508372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.816
95768057|NCT00745901|191508373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95768058|NCT00745901|191508374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95768059|NCT02554682|191508375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.906
95768060|NCT02554682|191508375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.796
95768061|NCT02554682|191508375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.886
95768062|NCT02554682|191508375|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.082
95768063|NCT02554682|191508376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.677
95768064|NCT02554682|191508376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.020
95768065|NCT02554682|191508376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.952
95768066|NCT02554682|191508376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.210
95768067|NCT02554682|191508377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.505
95768068|NCT02554682|191508377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||.176
95768069|NCT02554682|191508377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.134
95768070|NCT02554682|191508377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.029
95768071|NCT02554682|191508378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.037
95768072|NCT02554682|191508379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95768073|NCT02554682|191508380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95768074|NCT02554682|191508381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.571
95768075|NCT02554682|191508382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.394
95768076|NCT02554682|191508383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.008
95768077|NCT02554682|191508384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95768078|NCT02554682|191508385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95768079|NCT02554682|191508386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.159
95768080|NCT02554682|191508387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.112
95768081|NCT02554682|191508388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.165
95768082|NCT02554682|191508389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
95768083|NCT00884117|191508400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0001
95768084|NCT00884117|191508400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
95768085|NCT00884117|191508400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.01
95768086|NCT00884117|191508401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
95994164|NCT02511522|191964345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.004
95768087|NCT00884117|191508401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.009
95768088|NCT00884117|191508401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.03
95768089|NCT00884117|191508402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
95768090|NCT00884117|191508402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
95768091|NCT00884117|191508402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
95768092|NCT00884117|191508403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
95768093|NCT00884117|191508403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||0.008
95768094|NCT00884117|191508403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pairwise Wilcoxon|||||||<0.0001
95951313|NCT03745651|191874403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.51|-1.71|0.2903
95994165|NCT02511522|191964346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.068
95768095|NCT00884117|191508406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.4464
95768096|NCT00884117|191508407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||<0.0001
95768097|NCT00884117|191508408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2499|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Resistant versus Susceptible||||0.2499
95768098|NCT02946463|191508415|NON_INFERIORITY|LDH-N was analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach. The model included the following terms: treatment group, history of transfusion (as a categorical variable based on the stratification factor levels), and baseline LDH level (as a continuous variable). Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio (OR) of ravulizumab versus eculizumab for LDH normalization being greater than an OR of 0.39.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.769||||||A minimum of 142 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab.||1.769|0.796|
95768099|NCT02946463|191508416|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|18.14|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|A minimum of 193 participants were estimated to provide 80% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ravulizumab to eculizumab. The difference of percentages were calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. Stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of packed red blood cells (pRBC)/whole blood units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||18.14|-4.66|
95768100|NCT02946463|191508417|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.18|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||0.18|-14.21|
95768101|NCT02946463|191508418|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the upper bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was 20%.|Treatment difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.56|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||3.56|-5.21|
95768102|NCT02946463|191508419|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -5%.|Treatment difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.55|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|||2.55|-1.21|
95768103|NCT02946463|191508420|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin was based on the lower bound of the 95% CI. Noninferiority margin was -20%.|Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|14.64|||||Treatment difference was estimated for ravulizumab - eculizumab.|The difference of percentages was calculated using stratified Newcombe CI method. The stratification factors were: observed stratification groups of pRBC units transfused in the 1 year prior to first dose of study drug and screening LDH levels.||14.64|-8.80|
95768104|NCT00226499|191508425|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.446|96.615|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.615|92.446|<0.0001
95854616|NCT04363320|191668848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.642|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new Justice Involved Person counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.0008
95951314|NCT03745651|191874403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||0.13|-2.09|0.0837
95994166|NCT02511522|191964347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.45
95994167|NCT02511522|191964348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for the stratification factor (Hepatocellular carcinoma versus liver metastases)||||||0.07
95805224|NCT03378635|191584139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|Fisher Exact|||Pairwise test of independent binomial proportions with Fisher's Exact test comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.001
95805225|NCT03378635|191584140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was \<0.001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANCOVA|||Plasma glucose (PG) change from baseline at rescue was carried forward in patients who required rescue intravenous (IV) glucose before reaching PG recovery. Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline PG as covariate. Group difference was evaluated inferentially following an a priori defined hierarchical test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis.||||<0.001
95805226|NCT03378635|191584141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with 95% confidence interval, p-value based on a pairwise two-sided log-rank test versus placebo.||||<0.001
95805227|NCT03378635|191584142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171|||ANCOVA|||The log-transformed AUC endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline plasma glucose modeled as a covariate. The least squares means treatment group differences were back-transformed (anti-logged) for presentation as a ratio of the treatment group geometric means, with their corresponding 95% confidence interval.||0.171|0.1|<0.001
95994168|NCT04854499|191964358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|2.136|||||HR along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by the stratification factors at randomization.|||2.136|0.809|
95768105|NCT00226499|191508425|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|65.428||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|97.5|57.182|72.086|||Regression, Cox|||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||72.086|57.182|0.1265
95768106|NCT00226499|191508426|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.498||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.522|99.898|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.898|97.522|0.0001
95768107|NCT00226499|191508426|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|90.741||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.866|93.934|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||93.934|85.866|0.1265
95768108|NCT00226499|191508427|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|92.487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.927|94.396|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||94.396|89.927|<0.0001
95768109|NCT00226499|191508427|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|64.585||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.503|70.486|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||70.486|57.503|0.1265
95768110|NCT00226499|191508447|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|95.855|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.075|97.101|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||97.101|94.075|<0.0001
95805228|NCT03378635|191584143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.033|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||1.033|0.801|0.144
95805229|NCT03378635|191584144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.844||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|0.951|||ANCOVA|||Least square mean ratio for GlucaGen: dasiglucagon||0.951|0.749|0.006
95768111|NCT00226499|191508447|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|69.812||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.848|75.47|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a confirmed varicella case in the control group.||75.470|62.848|0.1265
95805230|NCT00655356|191584163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
95805231|NCT00655356|191584164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.0075
95994169|NCT04854499|191964362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.985||||||||1.985|0.603|
95994170|NCT04854499|191964363|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|2.147|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.147|0.449|
95994171|NCT04854499|191964363|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|2.321|||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.321|0.383|
95768112|NCT00226499|191508448|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|99.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.907|99.589|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||99.589|97.907|<0.0001
95768113|NCT00226499|191508448|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|89.532||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.126|92.102|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a moderate or severe confirmed varicella case in the control group.||92.102|86.126|0.1265
95768114|NCT00226499|191508449|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Priorix-Tetra as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|94.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.838|96.248|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||96.248|92.838|<0.0001
95768115|NCT00226499|191508449|OTHER|To demonstrate at least 60% VE, with respect to confirmed varicella disease over at least a two-year period of follow-up (beginning 42 days post dose 2) of Varilrix as compared to Priorix).|Vaccine Efficacy|68.932||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.893|74.671|||Regression, Cox|||VE was measured by calculating the relative risk of a probable or confirmed varicella case in a vaccine group compared to a probable or confirmed varicella case in the control group.||74.671|61.893|0.1265
95768116|NCT03123120|191508464|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.118|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.118|-0.568|
95768117|NCT03123120|191508465|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.21|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.210|-0.404|
95768118|NCT03123120|191508466|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.101|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.101|-0.602|
95768119|NCT03123120|191508467|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|0.399|||||Risk difference was calculated as the observed proportion of response from Spesolimab minus the one from Placebo. Newcombe method was used in the calculation of the 95% confidence interval around the risk difference.|||0.399|-0.197|
95768120|NCT01609010|191508476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3023|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3023
95768121|NCT01609010|191508477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3362|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.3362
95768122|NCT01609010|191508477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1157|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.1157
95768123|NCT01609010|191508478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 10, Cycle 1||||0.8540
95951315|NCT03745651|191874403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.91|-1.50|0.6272
95768124|NCT01609010|191508478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16, Cycle 2||||0.0051
95768125|NCT01609010|191508480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu+PR||||0.7840
95768126|NCT01609010|191508480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4419|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR+CRu||||0.4419
95768127|NCT01609010|191508480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5942|||||||Log Rank|Stratification by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||CR only||||0.5942
95768128|NCT01609010|191508482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8946|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.8946
95768129|NCT01609010|191508484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by previous treatment for lymphoma (yes or no).||||||0.4963
95768130|NCT01134107|191508485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.66|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.66|0.06|
95768131|NCT01134107|191508486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.47|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 1-6) minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day (Day 1-6); adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.47|-0.10|
95768132|NCT01134107|191508486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.58|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 6) minus Insulin Lispro 6 Day (Day 2); adjusted for DayGroup + Period + Baseline HbA1c|||0.58|0.25|
95951316|NCT03745651|191874403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.34|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.34|-2.07|0.1609
95951317|NCT03745651|191874403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.73|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.73|-2.13|0.3362
95951318|NCT03745651|191874403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.62|-2.23|0.2690
95768133|NCT01134107|191508487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.88|||||Daily Total Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.88|-0.13|
95768134|NCT01134107|191508487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.31|||||Daily Basal Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.31|-0.26|
95768135|NCT01134107|191508487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||||Daily Bolus Insulin: Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose|||0.60|-0.15|
95805232|NCT02792257|191584174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.328|-0.152|||Regression, Linear||standard error NOT standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||-0.152|-1.328|.015
95805233|NCT02792257|191584175|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.21|||Regression, Linear||standard error not standard error of the mean|Efficacy is assessed by fitting a longitudinal linear GEE model with the co primary outcomes and with time, treatment arm, and their interaction. Analyses are adjusted for site and for use of antidepressants and antipsychotics at baseline. The treatment by week interaction is the coefficient of interest and represents the difference in change in outcome per week between the two arms.||0.21|-2.73|.094
95805234|NCT02792257|191584176|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|The original analytic plan called for a logistic regression of ever/never SAE as a function of treatment assignment.|not standard error of the mean just standard error.|||1.79|0.73|.57
95805235|NCT01117350|191584187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|8.93||"If superiority not demonstrated, switching from superiority to non-inferiority considered.~Conclusion of non-inferiority reached if lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (insulin glargine - liraglutide) \> or = to - 3.5%"|Chi-squared|||"Superiority testing~H0: Rate measured with insulin glargine = rate measured with liraglutide~H1: Rate measured with insulin glargine ≠ rate measured with liraglutide~Sample size calculation (465 randomized patients per arm) was based on the assumption of an expected success rate of 46% with insulin glargine and 35% with liraglutide, an alpha risk of 5% (2-sided) and a power of 90%, taking into account an estimated non evaluability rate of 10%."||8.93|-3.88|0.439
95805236|NCT01064622|191584224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||Reported p-value is one-sided. p\<0.10 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.22|0.55|0.15
95805237|NCT01064622|191584225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Log Rank|Stratified by Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|Hazard ratio is for (gemcitabine hydrochloride plus vismodegib)/(gemcitabine hydrochloride plus placebo), adjusted for Karnofsky performance status (90-100 vs. 80) and disease status (newly diagnosed vs. recurrent after surgery)|||1.46|0.64|0.37
95994172|NCT03124459|191964372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|4.9|0.01
95768136|NCT01134107|191508488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c|||0.24|0.08|
95805238|NCT01064622|191584226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Karnofsky performance status and disease status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.42
95805239|NCT05330429|191584263|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.9323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|2.691|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|2-Sided P-value was based on unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||2.691|0.339|0.9323
95805240|NCT05330429|191584266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|1.6|||||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.600|0.056|
95805241|NCT01245049|191584288|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to diphtheria, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups'difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|3.14|||Standardized asymptotic|||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to D||3.14|-3.55|
95805242|NCT01245049|191584288|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the Non-inferiority of the Boostrix Polio Group compared to the Repevax Group in terms of booster response to tetanus, standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups' difference \[Repevax Group minus Boostrix Polio Group\] was computed. Non-inferiority criterion: Upper limit of the 95% CI of the groups' difference in booster response rate ≤10%.|Percentage difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.9||||||Non-inferiority in terms of booster response to T||4.9|-2.43|
95768137|NCT01134107|191508489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.63|0.39|
95854617|NCT04363320|191668848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.377|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.154||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.015
95994173|NCT03124459|191964373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-6.8|0.16
95768138|NCT01134107|191508489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||0.63|0.20|
95768139|NCT01134107|191508490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Total Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Total Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.595
95768140|NCT01134107|191508490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Basal Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.506
95768141|NCT01134107|191508490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value for Bolus Insulin Dose computed using Crossover model: Variable = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Bolus Dose.|Crossover Model|||||||0.790
95768142|NCT01134107|191508492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||negative binomial test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||0.059
95768143|NCT01134107|191508493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature reservoir change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
95768144|NCT01134107|191508493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value for overall pump complications associated with a premature infusion set change computed using Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used.|Gart's Test|||||||0.472
95768145|NCT01134107|191508494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.383
95768146|NCT01134107|191508494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|negative binomial test|||||||0.499
95768147|NCT01134107|191508495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The p-value is for the Documented Hypoglycemic Episodes category treatment arm comparison. The p-value for the All Reported Hypoglycemic Episodes category could not be generated using Gart's Test.|Gart's Test|Participants represented in both treatment groups, and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period, were used for p-value calculation.||||||1.00
95860093|NCT00611026|191678449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95768148|NCT01134107|191508496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative Binomial Test|P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.||||||<0.001
95768149|NCT01134107|191508497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Crossover Model|P-value computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline body weight||||||<0.001
95768150|NCT01134107|191508498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||P-value for the Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline systolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.147
95768151|NCT01134107|191508498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) computed using crossover model. Response = treatment + sequence + period + baseline diastolic blood pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.894
95768152|NCT02314260|191508503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|0.979||Under the nonparametric assumption. P-value \<0.05, means statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-Specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.979|0.854|0.000
95768153|NCT02314260|191508504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.919||Under the nonparametric assumption P value \<0.05 is statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||The positive actual state is failed induction and performing Caesarean Section, So as the numbers approaches 1, induction fails. the Y-axis of the curve is sensitivity and the x- axis is (1-specificity).|Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5 The positive actual state is failed induction, the true positive rate (Sensitivity) is plotted in function of the false positive rate (100-Specificity)||0.919|0.693|0.000
95768154|NCT02314260|191508505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0318||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 4.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.87(87%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
95768155|NCT02314260|191508506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||P\<0.05 is significant|t-test, 2 sided||at a cutoff value of 5.5, the sensitivity for failure to labour induction is 0.83 (83%), with a specificity of 0.73 (73%).|The smallest cutoff value is the minimum observed test value minus 1, and the largest cutoff value is the maximum observed test value plus 1. All the other cutoff values are the averages of two consecutive ordered observed test values.||10|0.00|0.000
95768156|NCT01543178|191508561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was adjusted for analysis center and time to recurrence during Maintenance Phase 1.||A worst case analysis was performed, in which patients with \< 4 days of IBS symptom data in a given week were considered as non-responders for that week.||||0.0232
95768157|NCT03581123|191508573|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups||||||0.16||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline pain intensity||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.16
95768158|NCT03581123|191508573|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.0|-0.5|
95768159|NCT03581123|191508573|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.3|-0.3|
95768160|NCT03581123|191508573|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline pain intensity.||0.1|-0.4|
95768161|NCT03581123|191508574|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance: 0.025 (0.05/2)|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline disability||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.001
95768162|NCT03581123|191508574|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.5|-1.9|
95768163|NCT03581123|191508574|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||0.4|-1.2|
95768164|NCT03581123|191508574|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline RMDQ.||-0.3|-1.9|
95768165|NCT03581123|191508575|OTHER|Omnibus test for equality of means across the 4 treatment groups.||||||0.006||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for site, time period (pre-COVID, COVID, post-COVID), risk for chronicity (medium vs. high), and baseline LBP impact score.||The null hypothesis here is that the means are equal across the 4 treatment groups. A significant p value indicates rejection of the null.||||0.006
95768166|NCT03581123|191508575|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.6|-2.7|
95768167|NCT03581123|191508575|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||1.0|-1.5|
95768168|NCT03581123|191508575|OTHER|Estimation|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, risk of chronicity, and baseline LBP impact score.||-0.0|-2.5|
95768169|NCT03581123|191508577|OTHER|Estimation (percent difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-11|
95805243|NCT01245049|191584290|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) was lower than or equal to (≤) 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 1 antigen||1.28|0.65|
95805244|NCT01245049|191584290|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 2 antigen||1.12|0.54|
95854618|NCT04363320|191668848|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in new patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.241
95994174|NCT03124459|191964374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|74.0|||ANCOVA|||||74|-3.2|0.13
95768170|NCT03581123|191508577|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||5|-7|
95768171|NCT03581123|191508577|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-13|
95768172|NCT03581123|191508578|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-23|
95768173|NCT03581123|191508578|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|2.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||2|-20|
95768174|NCT03581123|191508578|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-27|
95768175|NCT03581123|191508579|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-10.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-10|-23|
95768176|NCT03581123|191508579|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-22|
95768177|NCT03581123|191508579|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-9|-24|
95768178|NCT03581123|191508580|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-13|
95768179|NCT03581123|191508580|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-12|
95768180|NCT03581123|191508580|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
95768181|NCT03581123|191508587|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-4.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-4|-21|
95768182|NCT03581123|191508587|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
95768183|NCT03581123|191508587|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
95768184|NCT03581123|191508588|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-12|-28|
95768185|NCT03581123|191508588|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|6.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||6|-13|
95854619|NCT04363320|191668849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.912|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.438||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00002
95768186|NCT03581123|191508588|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-7.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-7|-26|
95768187|NCT03581123|191508589|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-15|
95768188|NCT03581123|191508589|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
95768189|NCT03581123|191508589|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-3.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-3|-22|
95768190|NCT03581123|191508590|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-5.0|||||SSM - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-5|-19|
95768191|NCT03581123|191508590|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.0|||||SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||-1|-16|
95768192|NCT03581123|191508590|OTHER|Estimation (percentage difference)|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.0|||||SSM/SMT - MC|Adjusted for site, time period, and risk of chronicity.||1|-16|
95768193|NCT04195685|191508610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|14.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.4|7.0|<.0001
95768194|NCT04195685|191508611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||14.0|4.9|<.0001
95768195|NCT04195685|191508612|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||13.2|7.4|<.0001
95805245|NCT01245049|191584290|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of the corresponding objective: UL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio for the groups' (Repevax Group divided by Boostrix-Polio Group) ≤ 2.|Difference in adjusted GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84|||ANCOVA|||Immune response difference to anti-Polio 3 antigen||1.84|0.93|
95805246|NCT02931539|191584316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|42.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.74|22.80|<0.001
95805247|NCT02931539|191584317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|9.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.88|2.02|0.013
95768196|NCT04195685|191508613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|10.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||10.6|4.2|<.0001
95768197|NCT04195685|191508614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-11.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-11.7|-53.3|0.0022
95805248|NCT02931539|191584332|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.357|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value comparing treatment groups was calculated from the log rank test by Kaplan-Meier Method.|Stratified Cox regression model was used as transplant type and baseline plasma CMV DNA level as stratification factors.|||2.357|0.549|0.647
95805249|NCT02059642|191584342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: Model of Repeated Measures||||0.66|-4.87|0.1358
95805250|NCT01197300|191584348|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|3.7||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.242|44.642||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 18||44.642|-37.242|0.8505
95768198|NCT04195685|191508615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-19.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-19.4|-45.0|<.0001
95768199|NCT04195685|191508616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-11.1|0.0002
95854620|NCT04363320|191668849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.855|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.00004
95854621|NCT04363320|191668849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.206||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.118
95854622|NCT04363320|191668849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.031||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Intervention Phase (from baseline to 12 months)||||0.020
95768200|NCT04195685|191508617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||-3.4|-9.0|<.0001
95768201|NCT04195685|191508618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.5|-7.4|0.0033
95768202|NCT04195685|191508619|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||15.6|4.4|0.0005
95768203|NCT04195685|191508620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||9.2|3.5|<.0001
95768204|NCT04195685|191508621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|21.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||21.4|7.1|0.0001
95768205|NCT04195685|191508622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|99.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was evaluated by assessing the change in severity scores from baseline to the end of treatment, comparing the NFB and control groups. A two-sample t-test was used to test the mean change in severity scores between treatment arms. Statistical tests were two-sided with a 5% significance level (Type I error rate).||99.2|36.9|<.0001
95768206|NCT00455403|191508627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|||||"Applies to row Title year 1"|Mixed Models Analysis||"applies to row title year 1"|||||0.7279
95768207|NCT02535026|191508633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with age groups||||0.280
95768208|NCT02535026|191508634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
95768209|NCT02535026|191508635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||ER status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.03
95805251|NCT01197300|191584348|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|21.752||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.126|57.63||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score Change at Month 24||57.630|-14.126|0.2180
95768210|NCT02535026|191508636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with age groups||||=0.004
95768211|NCT02535026|191508637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||PR status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
95768212|NCT02535026|191508638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||PR status association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.025
95768213|NCT02535026|191508639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.056|||||||ANOVA|||HER2 status association with age groups.||||=0.056
95768214|NCT02535026|191508640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||HER2 status association with nuclear grade.||||<0.001
95768215|NCT02535026|191508641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.129
95768216|NCT02535026|191508642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with age groups.||||=0.003
95768217|NCT02535026|191508643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Breast cancer phenotypes association with nuclear grades.||||<0.001
95768218|NCT02535026|191508644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with lymphovascular invasion.||||=0.001
95768219|NCT02535026|191508645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with ER status.||||<0.001
95768220|NCT02535026|191508646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Phenotypes of breast cancer association with PR status.||||<0.001
95768221|NCT02535026|191508647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||phenotypes of breast cancer association with HER2 status.||||<0.001
95768222|NCT00216125|191508659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.883
95768223|NCT00502242|191508666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.228||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.528||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.528|0.099|0.0002
95768224|NCT00502242|191508667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.763||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with region and race strata|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model with region and race strata|||0.763|0.237|0.0031
95768225|NCT00502242|191508668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
95768226|NCT00502242|191508668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.074
95768227|NCT00502242|191508669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.093
95768228|NCT00502242|191508669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.219
95768229|NCT00502242|191508670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||0.002
95768230|NCT00502242|191508670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.121
95768231|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
95768232|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
95768233|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 3, Ramipril versus (vs.) Placebo||0.96|0.76|0.0098
95768234|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
95768235|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
95768236|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.68|0.0003
95768237|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Ramipirl||||
95768238|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
95768239|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.91|0.68|0.0016
95768240|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
95768241|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
95768242|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.82||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.96|0.70|0.0165
95768243|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
95805252|NCT01197300|191584349|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.36||||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|7.606||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 18||7.606|-2.886|0.3544
95768244|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
95768245|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.83||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.98|0.70|0.0264
95768246|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
95768247|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
95768248|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.79||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.93|0.66|0.0062
95768249|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
95768250|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
95768251|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.99|0.72|0.0341
95768252|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
95768253|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
95768254|NCT00502242|191508671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic Up/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.70|0.0600
95854623|NCT04363320|191668850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.307||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Combined MOUD) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.045
95994175|NCT03124459|191964375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-7.1|0.73
95994176|NCT03124459|191964376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-4.6|0.51
95994177|NCT03124459|191964381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.4|0.63
95994178|NCT02300129|191964430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||P value associated to treatment effect in the model. Study design with a power of 80% and a type I error at 5% (two-sided).|ANOVA|Analysis of variance including sequence, subject (sequence), period and treatment as factors in the model||||||0.7420
95994179|NCT01499173|191964477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Actual p value shown here; not threshold.|multilevel linear regression|||||||<0.01
95728994|NCT02300025|191428015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|80.5|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||80.5|22.5|
95728995|NCT02300025|191428016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.3|160.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||160.6|59.3|
95728996|NCT02300025|191428016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.6|169.6|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||169.6|62.6|
95728997|NCT02300025|191428016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.4|116.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0 - ∞) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||116.2|40.4|
95728998|NCT00780026|191428025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||||||P value for Bacterial infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.841
95728999|NCT00780026|191428025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||||||P-value for fungal infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.298
95729000|NCT00780026|191428025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||||||P value for transplant incision wound|Chi-squared|||||||0.585
95729001|NCT00780026|191428025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||||||P value for viral infection|Chi-squared|||||||0.505
95994180|NCT01499173|191964478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||multilevel linear regression|||||||0.34
95729002|NCT00780026|191428026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
95729003|NCT00780026|191428027|EQUIVALENCE|If the p-value for the means is \> 0.05 between the groups then they will be deemed equivalent.||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
95729004|NCT00780026|191428029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.401
95729005|NCT00780026|191428030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P value for bile leak|Chi-squared|||||||0.826
95729006|NCT00780026|191428030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||This is the p value for Biliary Stricture|Chi-squared|||||||0.137
95729007|NCT00780026|191428031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
95994181|NCT01499173|191964479|OTHER|odds ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Odds ratio was calculated for each question comparing 1 week data with 1 month data||||
95994182|NCT03932812|191964483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.206
95729008|NCT00818623|191428075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5.86e-05||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000586
95729009|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
95729010|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|87.5||||||95.0|66.1|95.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||95.8|66.1|
95729011|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|66.7||||||95.0|33.7|86.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||86|33.7|
95729012|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|54.5||||||95.0|22.9|78.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78|22.9|
95729013|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|100.0||||||95.0|85.8|100.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||100|85.8|
95729014|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|75.0||||||95.0|52.6|87.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||87.9|52.6|
95805253|NCT01197300|191584349|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.281|7.639||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC Change at Month 24||7.639|-5.281|0.7050
95805254|NCT01197300|191584350|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|121.129||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.0|533.258||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 18||533.258|-291.000|0.5310
95805255|NCT01197300|191584350|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|65.674||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-344.067|475.415||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline lumbar spine BMD Z-score as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||Total body BMC Change at Month 24||475.415|-344.067|0.7347
95805256|NCT01197300|191584351|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-147.68||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-394.41|99.049||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 18||99.049|-394.410|0.4143
95805257|NCT01197300|191584351|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-132.437||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.452|21.579||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum P1NP Change at Month 24||21.579|-286.452|0.1266
95768255|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril||||
95805258|NCT01197300|191584352|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-17.691||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.925|6.543||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 18||6.543|-41.925|0.2123
95805259|NCT01197300|191584352|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-3.662||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.479|14.155||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||BSAP Change at Month 24||14.155|-21.479|0.4852
95994183|NCT03932812|191964484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.101
95768256|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Placebo||||
95768257|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.71||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.89||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 3, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.89|0.57|0.0034
95768258|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril||||
95994184|NCT03932812|191964485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.836
95768259|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Placebo||||
95768260|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 4, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.76|0.47|<0.0001
95768261|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril||||
95768262|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Placebo||||
95729015|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|95.7||||||95.0|72.9|99.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||99.4|72.9|
95729016|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|62.5||||||95.0|40.3|78.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||78.4|40.3|
95729017|NCT00818623|191428076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|88.9||||||95.0|69.4|96.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 28 days.||96.3|69.4|
95729018|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0031
95729019|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|45.8||||||95.0|25.6|64.0||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64|25.6|
95729020|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|38.1||||||95.0|12.1|64.3||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||64.3|12.1|
95729021|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|32.7||||||95.0|8.3|60.6||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||60.6|8.3|
95729022|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|83.3||||||95.0|61.5|93.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||93.4|61.5|
95729023|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|49.4||||||95.0|28.3|67.4||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.4|28.3|
95729024|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|82.0||||||95.0|58.8|92.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||92.8|58.8|
95729025|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|50.0||||||95.0|29.1|67.8||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||67.8|29.1|
95729026|NCT00818623|191428077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants castrated|70.4||||||95.0|49.4|83.9||||||Percentage of participants castrated (testosterone ≤0.5 ng/mL) for at least 84 days.||83.9|49.4|
95729027|NCT00818623|191428078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0866
95729028|NCT00818623|191428079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.033
95729029|NCT00818623|191428080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.131
95729030|NCT01709383|191428114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
95729031|NCT01709383|191428116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.64
95729032|NCT01484028|191428121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 LogMAR was used.|Least-square mean difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is the monocular distance Snellen VA (LogMAR scale) of etafilcon A with embedded print and PVP for dark/light eyes is non-inferior to that of etafilcon A control lenses.||0.017|0.004|
95729033|NCT02826603|191428138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|1.72|<0.0001
95729034|NCT02826603|191428139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|1.63|<0.0001
95729035|NCT02826603|191428140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.89|<0.0001
95729036|NCT02826603|191428141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|2.65|<0.0001
95729037|NCT02826603|191428142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.80|<0.0001
95729038|NCT02826603|191428143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.37|1.96|<0.0001
95729039|NCT02826603|191428144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.89|<0.0001
95729040|NCT02826603|191428145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|1.96|<0.0001
95729041|NCT02826603|191428146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|2.19|<0.0001
95729042|NCT02826603|191428147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|1.41|<0.0001
95729043|NCT03558997|191428150|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|4.73||||0.7185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.023|30.487|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.487|-21.023|0.7185
95729044|NCT03558997|191428151|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|1.254|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs SCIT) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.254|-0.661|0.5438
95729045|NCT03558997|191428152|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.928|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.928|-0.877|0.9559
95729046|NCT03558997|191428153|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.25||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.028|30.53|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab vs Placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||30.530|-16.028|0.5416
95768263|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 8, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.79|0.47|0.0002
95768264|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril||||
95768265|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Placebo||||
95768266|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.65||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.87||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 12, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.87|0.49|0.0032
95768267|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril||||
95768268|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Placebo||||
95768269|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 24, Ramipril vs. Placebo||0.92|0.51|0.0130
95768270|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril||||
95768271|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Placebo||||
95768272|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.74||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 30, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.01|0.54|0.0577
95768273|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril||||
95768274|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Placebo||||
95768275|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.77||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 36, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.07|0.56|0.1146
95768276|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril||||
95951319|NCT03745651|191874404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.13|0.0482
95768277|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Fold Change|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Placebo||||
95768278|NCT00502242|191508672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.85||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with change in the logarithmic U alb/c as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and logarithmic baseline as covariate|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean fold-change.|Change from Baseline at Week 52, Ramipril vs. Placebo||1.20|0.60|0.3496
95768279|NCT00502242|191508673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 24 weeks post-conversion||||1.0000
95768280|NCT00502242|191508673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1115|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Up to 52 weeks post-conversion||||0.1115
95768281|NCT00502242|191508674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|1.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 12||1.61|-3.33|0.4933
95768282|NCT00502242|191508674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|5.33||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate.|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 24||5.33|-0.38|0.0888
95768283|NCT00502242|191508674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS Mean Difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with MDRD change as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factors, and baseline as covariate|Adjusted for baseline|Change from Baseline at Week 52||4.99|-0.75|0.1475
95768284|NCT00502242|191508675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.84||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 24||1.04|0.68|0.1167
95951320|NCT03745651|191874404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.14|-2.26|0.0271
95994185|NCT03932812|191964486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|The outcome for this analyses is use of emergency care.||||0.567
95994186|NCT03932812|191964487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.014
95994187|NCT03932812|191964488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value: presented value is for month 6. Since the outcome measure is count data, a log link function is used. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and intervention.|||||0.010
95994188|NCT03932812|191964489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|We used generalized estimating equations to fit linear regression model for longitudinal data under the unstructured correlation matrix.|Estimated value: presented value is mean difference at month 6 from BL. Information from month 3 is included in the linear regression model. The reported p-value is the significance of the interaction effect between time and the intervention.|||||0.188
95994189|NCT00956930|191964514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.122||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.557|||Log Rank|||||0.557|0.027|0.007
95994190|NCT00849017|191964522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-1.11|<0.0001
95994191|NCT00849017|191964522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.77|||ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-1.31|<0.0001
95994192|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.77||||||Arterial outlet-nasopharyngeal temperatures||0.77|-1.10|
95768285|NCT00502242|191508675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|Log (Fraction of albumin to protein in urine) as dependent variable, treatment and region/race as factor, and Log(baseline) as covariate.|Treatment ratio (Ramipril/Placebo) in the geometric mean.|Week 52||1.31|0.82|0.7519
95768286|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.470
95805260|NCT01197300|191584353|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-4.661||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.647|7.325||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 18||7.325|-16.647|0.9009
95994193|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial-venous inflow temperatures||0.95|-0.63|
95994194|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.74|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet-bladder||0.74|-1.98|
95994195|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.54|||Bland-Altman|||Arterial outlet- Tcore||1.54|-1.38|
95768287|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.220
95768288|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.470
95768289|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||1.000
95768290|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.725
95768291|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||0.227
95768292|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
95854624|NCT04363320|191668850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.229||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Buprenorphine) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.000002
95854625|NCT04363320|191668850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.387|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.218||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month|Change in census patient counts (Methadone) for Sustainability Phase (13 to 24 months)||||0.076
95994196|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.38||||||Nasopharyngeal-venous inflow temperatures||1.38|-0.73|
95994197|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Agreement between different methods of temperature measurement (Bland-Altman plot with multiple measurements per individual).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.59||||||Nasopharyngeal-bladder temperatures||0.59|-1.50|
95994198|NCT04355013|191964536|OTHER|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|Bland-Altman for repeated measures|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.39||||||Nasopharyngeal-Tcore temperatures||1.39|-0.90|
95994199|NCT01933932|191964550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.12|0.77|0.4355
95994200|NCT01933932|191964551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.3|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.30|0.85|0.6431
95768293|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On Therapy, High SBP: ≥180 mmHg||||0.106
95768294|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, High DBP ≥110 mmHg||||1.000
95768295|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off Therapy, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||1.000
95768296|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low DBP ≤50 mmHg||||0.475
95768297|NCT00502242|191508676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline, Low SBP: ≤90 mmHg||||0.475
95768298|NCT00502242|191508678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
95768299|NCT00502242|191508678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.626
95768300|NCT00502242|191508678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.297
95768301|NCT00502242|191508678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.356
95768302|NCT00502242|191508679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.064
95768303|NCT00502242|191508679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.069
95805261|NCT01197300|191584353|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-2.558||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.864|3.747||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum NTX Change at Month 24||3.747|-8.864|0.9472
95805262|NCT01197300|191584354|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.482||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|0.841||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 18||0.841|-3.805|0.4600
95854626|NCT04363320|191668850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.086|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.036||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is per month.|Change in census patient counts (Naltrexone) for Sustainability Phase (from 13 to 24 months)||||0.019
95768304|NCT00502242|191508679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.752
95768305|NCT00502242|191508679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.261
95768306|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 4||||0.381
95768307|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 12||||0.956
95768308|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 24||||0.903
95768309|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||TC, Week 52||||0.503
95768310|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.451|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 4||||0.451
95768311|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 12||||0.919
95768312|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 24||||0.637
95768313|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||HDL-C, Week 52||||0.229
95768314|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 4||||0.766
95768315|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 12||||0.217
95994201|NCT01933932|191964552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||2.62|1.00|0.0515
95994202|NCT01933932|191964554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation||||1.86|0.74|0.5007
95768316|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.457|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 24||||0.457
95768317|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||LDL-C, Week 52||||0.041
95768318|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 4||||0.044
95768319|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 12||||0.180
95768320|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.264|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 24||||0.264
95768321|NCT00502242|191508680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.408|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate||Triglycerides, Week 52||||0.408
95768322|NCT00502242|191508681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.487||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|6.978||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||6.978|0.887|0.0732
95768323|NCT00502242|191508683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL, AM BCAR||||0.7165
95768324|NCT00502242|191508683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean test||Post-SRL (On-Therapy), AM BCAR||||0.4795
95768325|NCT00502242|191508684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.4773
95768326|NCT00502242|191508685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.124
95768327|NCT00502242|191508685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.410
95768328|NCT00502242|191508685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.423
95994203|NCT01933932|191964555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by WHO performance status at randomisation.||||1.11|0.74|0.3438
95768329|NCT00502242|191508685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.297
95768330|NCT00502242|191508686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.726
95768331|NCT00502242|191508687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95768332|NCT00502242|191508688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.753
95768333|NCT00502242|191508689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||0.224
95768334|NCT00502242|191508689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Pre-SRL||||0.179
95768335|NCT00502242|191508689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||On-Therapy||||0.604
95768336|NCT00502242|191508689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|||||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.05 (unadjusted for multiplicity)|Fisher Exact|||Off-Therapy||||0.486
95768337|NCT01671007|191508690|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.08|0.64|
95768338|NCT01671007|191508691|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.27|0.70|
95768339|NCT01671007|191508692|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.06|0.43|
95768340|NCT01671007|191508693|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.09|0.43|
95768341|NCT01671007|191508697|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.88|0.38|
95994204|NCT01111305|191964574|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is defined as p≥0.05||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
96001837|NCT01096667|191981234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.56||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|0.07||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.07|-3.19|0.110
95805263|NCT01197300|191584354|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.41||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|1.603||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed on the transformed data with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and loge as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|The transformed data was calculated by dividing the post-baseline value by the baseline value and then applying the loge transformation||Serum TRAP-5b Change at Month 24||1.603|-2.423|0.9236
95768342|NCT01671007|191508700|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.84|0.49|
95768343|NCT01671007|191508701|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.01|0.60|
95768344|NCT02158585|191508743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93||||0.5618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|21.35|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in average total number of vertigo attacks||21.35|-3.49|0.5618
95768345|NCT02158585|191508744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference between average total number of vertigo attacks in pre-treatment and treatment||||0.03429
95768346|NCT02158585|191508745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total average number of vertigo attacks during 3 week time periods||8.29|0.85|0.0092
95768347|NCT02158585|191508748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.14||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|37.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.92|-15.64|0.0385
95768348|NCT03809663|191508788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.809||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||9.809|0.290|0.56
95768349|NCT03809663|191508788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|7.551||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.551|0.135|0.99
95805264|NCT01197300|191584355|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures during the 12 month Extension period was presented by Core treatment group. Between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
95805265|NCT01197300|191584356|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new morphometric vertebral fractures during the 12 month extension period was presented by core treatment group. Between-treatment differences will be evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||New morphometric vertebral fractures at Month 12 Extension||||1.0000
95805266|NCT01197300|191584357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|173.07||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 15||173.07|0.13|0.3971
95951321|NCT03745651|191874404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.42|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||0.42|-1.94|0.2091
95768350|NCT03809663|191508788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.146||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|11.8||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||11.800|0.390|0.38
95768351|NCT03809663|191508789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.982||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|2.803||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.803|0.344|0.97
95768352|NCT03809663|191508789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.217||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|3.356||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||3.356|0.441|0.70
95951322|NCT03745651|191874404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.71|0.0111
96001838|NCT01096667|191981235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.38||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.13|-1.63||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.63|-5.13|0.007
95768353|NCT03809663|191508789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|2.197||Nominal p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.197|0.243|0.58
95768354|NCT01011816|191508817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null: No differenc between the percent success of Saline and BIOSTAT BIOLOGX||||0.52
95768355|NCT02792062|191508820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|113.06||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|181.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||181.67|70.37|0.659
95768356|NCT02792062|191508820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|45.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.86|74.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed Cmax of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||74.07|27.86|0.012
95951323|NCT03745651|191874404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.14|-2.51|0.0802
95805267|NCT01197300|191584357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 18||999.99|0.01|0.6046
95860094|NCT00611026|191678449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0003
95994205|NCT05617521|191964578|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients||||||0.008||||||The comparative analysis of the CIT was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
96001839|NCT01096667|191981235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.33|1.38||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||1.38|-2.33|0.370
95768357|NCT02792062|191508821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.28||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.09|107.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||107.47|66.09|0.238
95768358|NCT02792062|191508821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.39|68.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC∞ of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||68.37|41.39|<0.001
95768359|NCT02792062|191508822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
95768360|NCT02792062|191508822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUC(0-120) of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
95768361|NCT02792062|191508823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|84.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|108.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value before breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||108.27|66.23|0.256
95768362|NCT02792062|191508823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Ratio (%)|52.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.78|67.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with natural log-transformed AUClast of unchanged TAK-385 as dependent variables, arm, treatment period and dosing condition as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect was used to calculate the difference between the dosing conditions (value after breakfast - value in fasted condition without breakfast).||67.74|40.78|<0.001
95768363|NCT00720213|191508829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.03||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|6.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Each participant was treated with the BiPAP autoSV2 (ASV2) and autoSV Advanced (ASV3) on two separate nights; therefore, the data were analyzed as paired samples. Depending on normality, each endpoint was analyzed with either a paired t-test or the nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. All comparisons were 2-sided conducted at a 5% level of significance.||6.51|1.44|0.0054
95768364|NCT03296527|191508905|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected. In that case, it would be claimed that FE 999049 was non-inferior to GONAL-F with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.0|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing pregnancy rate||11.0|-0.2|
95768365|NCT03296527|191508906|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.3|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG||12.3|0.3|
95768366|NCT03296527|191508907|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer||10.7|-0.9|
95805268|NCT01197300|191584357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.6046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 21||999.99|0.01|0.6046
96001840|NCT01096667|191981235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.87||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.87|-4.43|0.029
95768367|NCT03296527|191508908|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.8|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one intrauterine gestational sac with fetal heart beat 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.8|-1.5|
95768368|NCT03296527|191508909|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.5|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer||9.5|-1.6|
95768369|NCT03296527|191508910|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.7|||||The difference (FE 999049 - GONAL-F) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age strata.|Percentage of participants with ongoing implantation rate||9.7|-0.9|
95768370|NCT03296527|191508911|SUPERIORITY|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||1.03|0.60|0.083
95768371|NCT03296527|191508911|OTHER|Logistic regression including AMH group as a factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||1.23|0.65|0.489
95768372|NCT03296527|191508912|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.06||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade)||1.06|0.34|0.075
95805269|NCT01197300|191584357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|38.04||Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and Core baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 24||38.04|0.05|0.8750
95768373|NCT03296527|191508912|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe)||1.40|0.40|0.365
95768374|NCT03296527|191508912|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with any preventive intervention||0.83|0.13|0.012
95768375|NCT03296527|191508912|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.81||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||0.81|0.30|0.004
95768376|NCT03296527|191508912|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||0.95|0.33|0.029
95768377|NCT03296527|191508913|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.74||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor response||13.74|1.52|0.002
95768378|NCT03296527|191508913|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with transfer cancellation due to excessive ovarian response/OHSS risk||0.62|0.24|<0.001
95768379|NCT03296527|191508913|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model including age stratum as factor.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93||The p-value is based on the likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Proportion of participants with cycle cancellation due to poor or excessive response, or transfer cancellation due to excessive response/OHSS risk||0.93|0.42|0.020
95768380|NCT03296527|191508914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
95768381|NCT03296527|191508914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
95768382|NCT03296527|191508914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||0.568
95768383|NCT03296527|191508914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.839
95768384|NCT03296527|191508915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 10 mm||||<.001
95768385|NCT03296527|191508915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 12 mm||||<.001
95768386|NCT03296527|191508915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 15 mm||||<.001
95805270|NCT01197300|191584358|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Core baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL1 at Month 24||0.17|-0.18|0.9231
96001841|NCT01096667|191981235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.64||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.42|0.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.13|-3.42|0.118
95768387|NCT03296527|191508915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of follicles \>= 17 mm||||0.011
95768388|NCT03296527|191508916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.140
95768389|NCT03296527|191508916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.155
95768390|NCT03296527|191508916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Treatment comparison: Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.159
95768391|NCT03296527|191508917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Largest follicle (mm)||||0.848
95768392|NCT03296527|191508917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average follicle size (mm)||||0.629
95768393|NCT03296527|191508917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Average size of 3 largest follicles (mm)||||0.768
95768394|NCT03296527|191508918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Mean number of oocytes retrieved||||<.001
95768395|NCT03296527|191508920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Percentage of MII oocytes / oocytes retrieved||||0.197
95768396|NCT03296527|191508921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Fertilization rate relative to oocytes retrieved||||0.790
95768397|NCT03296527|191508922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of embryos on day 3||||<.001
95768398|NCT03296527|191508922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value based on van Elteren test adjusted for age stratum.||Number of good-quality embryos on Day 3||||<.001
95768399|NCT03296527|191508923|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of LH on stimulation Day 6||0.88|0.74|<0.001
95768400|NCT03296527|191508924|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.9||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of LH at end-of-stimulation||0.98|0.82|0.018
95768401|NCT03296527|191508925|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.84||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol on stimulation Day 6||0.84|0.70|<0.001
95805271|NCT01197300|191584358|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean = LS mean for the Core treatment Zoledronic acid group - LS mean for the Core treatment Placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.11||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.1||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was performed with Core treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with GCs and Extension baseline bone age as explanatory variables and pooled centers as random effect.|ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width chge from BL2 at Month 24||0.10|-0.32|0.2694
95768402|NCT03296527|191508926|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.81||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Estradiol at end-of-stimulation||0.81|0.68|<0.001
95768403|NCT03296527|191508927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone on stimulation Day 6||0.96|0.82|0.003
95768404|NCT03296527|191508928|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Progesterone at end-of-stimulation||0.79|0.68|<0.001
95768405|NCT03296527|191508929|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.||Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6||0.83|0.70|<0.001
95768406|NCT03296527|191508930|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation||0.83|0.71|<0.001
95768407|NCT03296527|191508931|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.89||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6||0.89|0.77|<0.001
95768408|NCT03296527|191508932|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.80|0.001
95768409|NCT03296527|191508933|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.12||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH on stimulation Day 6||1.12|1.04|<0.001
95805272|NCT00530257|191584375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||We used a Bonferroni correct to adjust for up to 5 measures across domains and use a p-value of \<=0.01. With a sample of 30 subjects the analytic model was able to detect a difference of large effect size (Cohen's d= \>0.655)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.01
95994206|NCT05617521|191964579|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.|||||<|0.001||||||For the comparison of abdominal pressure, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994207|NCT05617521|191964580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The comparative analysis of the CIL was previously subjected to normality evaluation by the Shapiro-Wilk test. According to the rejection of normal distribution, comparative data analysis has been performed with a two-way Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95768410|NCT03296527|191508934|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.95||The p-value corresponds to F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at end-of-stimulation||0.95|0.89|<0.001
95768411|NCT03296527|191508935|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The p-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The multiplicative ANCOVA model included treatment and age stratum as fixed factors.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/GONAL-F.|Circulating concentrations of FSH at oocyte retrieval visit||1.07|0.99|0.184
95768412|NCT03296527|191508936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Total gonadotropin dose||||<.001
95768413|NCT03296527|191508938|SUPERIORITY|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test.||||||0.001|||||||van Elteren|p-value is based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH group.||Number of stimulation days||||0.001
95768414|NCT01597973|191508966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95768415|NCT01597973|191508967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5830
95768416|NCT01597973|191508968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95768417|NCT01597973|191508969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.255
95768418|NCT01597973|191508970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||nephrotoxicity analysis||||0.59
95768419|NCT01597973|191508970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypersensitivity analysis||||0.22
95768420|NCT01597973|191508970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Hepatoxicity analysis||||0.94
95994208|NCT05617521|191964581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.321
95994209|NCT05617521|191964582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
95768421|NCT01597973|191508970|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Seizures analysis||||1.00
95768422|NCT01597973|191508970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurotoxicity analysis||||0.20
95768423|NCT00122382|191508995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving an ACR 50 response.||24.2|6.0|<0.001
95768424|NCT00122382|191508996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|22.8||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving MCR.||22.8|8.2|<0.001
95768425|NCT00122382|191508997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.48||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||||-0.48|-0.98|<0.001
95768426|NCT00122382|191508998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|9.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.4||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving HAQ response.||18.4|1.3|0.024
95768427|NCT00122382|191508999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.23||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||PCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||4.23|0.77|0.005
95768428|NCT00122382|191508999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of/Adjusted Difference|1.81||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.6||p-value of \<0.05: probability for testing the difference between ABA and PLA.|ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||MCS Adjusted Mean Change from Baseline to Month 12||3.60|0.03|0.046
95768429|NCT00122382|191509000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in erosion scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.033
95768430|NCT00122382|191509000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||95.0||||P-value of \<0.05: probability for comparison of change in radiographic scores between abatacept and placebo.|Nonparametric ANCOVA|||comparison of change in JSN scores between abatacept and placebo||||0.353
95805273|NCT00530257|191584376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
95805274|NCT00530257|191584377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We evaluated the data for cross over effects. No statistical significant sequence effect were seen for our endpoints and hence we combined the data from both periods of the crossover design There was evidence against the assumption of normality for performance on some of the measures of attention. Thus we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test to compare performance on OROS-methylphenidate versus placebo.||||<0.05
95994210|NCT05617521|191964583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95994211|NCT05617521|191964584|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95994212|NCT05617521|191964586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95994213|NCT05617521|191964587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95994214|NCT05617521|191964588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95768431|NCT00122382|191509002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.6||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|Chi-squared, Continuity-Corrected|||Estimated Difference between ABA and PLA is the estimated difference between ABA and PLA in the proportion of subjects achieving DAS28-CRP remission.||26.6|9.6|<0.001
95768432|NCT00122382|191509003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||Total score was tested only if there was statistical significance in remission rate. For each test, the nominal type I error rate is set at 5%; this sequential testing procedure preserves the overall type I error rate at 5%.|non-parametric ANCOVA|||||||<0.040
95768433|NCT00122382|191509018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95860095|NCT00611026|191678449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0302
95860096|NCT00611026|191678449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95951324|NCT03745651|191874404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.09|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||0.09|-2.56|0.0666
95951325|NCT03745651|191874407|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.97|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.97|-4.84|<0.0001
95951326|NCT03745651|191874407|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-3.63|-5.47|<0.0001
95951327|NCT03745651|191874409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-4.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.86|-7.38|<0.0001
95951328|NCT03745651|191874409|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-4.67|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-4.67|-7.17|<0.0001
95951329|NCT03745651|191874411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.32|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.32|-4.19|<0.0001
95951330|NCT03745651|191874411|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.83|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-1.83|-3.67|<0.0001
95951331|NCT03745651|191874413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-1.03|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.03|-7.24|0.0099
95951332|NCT03745651|191874413|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||0.06|-6.30|0.0542
95951333|NCT03745651|191874417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.987|9.049||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||9.049|2.987|<0.0001
95951334|NCT03745651|191874417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|13.415||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||13.415|4.230|<0.0001
95951335|NCT03745651|191874418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.86|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||7.86|0.85|0.0150
95951336|NCT03745651|191874418|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.54|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.54|1.59|0.0044
95768434|NCT02040805|191509023|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 5 points.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.04
95951337|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|1.89|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.89|-13.12|0.1420
95768435|NCT02040805|191509024|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin based on clinically meaningful change of \>= 2.5 points.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test of non-inferiority.||||0.05
95768436|NCT02040805|191509025|OTHER|linear mixed models analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
95768437|NCT02040805|191509026|OTHER|linear mixed model|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|df=1||||||<0.0001
95768438|NCT00908544|191509028|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.98
95768439|NCT00908544|191509028|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.1|-1.7|<0.01
95768440|NCT00908544|191509028|OTHER|Changes (within CHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.1|0.93
95768441|NCT00908544|191509028|OTHER|Changes (within PHI group) in HIV DNA in PBMC from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at months 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.0|-1.6|<0.01
95768442|NCT00908544|191509029|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4|0.0|0.99
95805275|NCT00530257|191584379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||We did not correct for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|We used a paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to compare the medication versus placebo.||||<0.05
95805276|NCT00530257|191584381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
95805277|NCT00530257|191584382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The p value adjusts for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95805278|NCT00530257|191584383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
95805279|NCT00530257|191584384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
95805280|NCT00530257|191584385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
95805281|NCT00530257|191584386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Same as described for TEA-Ch: Walk, Don't Walk||||<0.01
95951338|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-0.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-0.47|-15.51|0.0375
95805282|NCT02254460|191584394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Treatment difference]|1.74||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.34|||ANOVA||Treatment difference from ANOVA of log transformed data. Back transformed data are presented. This therefore represents the iron absorption ratio of the Micronutrient Fortified Drink (Test) to the Non-Fortified Drink (Control).|||3.34|0.90|0.0944
95805283|NCT01879826|191584395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
95805284|NCT01879826|191584396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With a power of 0.8 and an acceptable type I error size of 0.05, 38 patients per group was estimated to achieve significance.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95805285|NCT02003898|191584443|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.098||||||||0.098|-0.03|
95805286|NCT00830336|191584546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.08||||||90.0|95.41|111.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111.37|95.41|
95951339|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-3.63|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-3.63|-14.48|0.0012
95951340|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-1.77|-12.58|0.0095
95951341|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.73|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.73|-22.69|<0.0001
95951342|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-5.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.18|-20.10|0.0010
95951343|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|-7.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.95|-16.18|<0.0001
95768443|NCT00908544|191509029|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 36.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.5|-2.0|<0.01
95768444|NCT00908544|191509029|OTHER|Changes (within CHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.3|-0.0|0.97
95768445|NCT00908544|191509029|OTHER|Changes (within PHI Group) in HIV DNA in CD4+T cells from Baseline (BL) will be tested for statistical significance using one-tailed paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate on distribution of data at month 84.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.4|-2.0|<0.01
95768446|NCT00071110|191509047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistic (t): -1.00|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95805287|NCT00830336|191584547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.84||||||90.0|99.33|112.77|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112.77|99.33|
95805288|NCT00830336|191584548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|107.04||||||90.0|99.96|114.62|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114.62|99.96|
95805289|NCT04250207|191584559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0065
95994215|NCT05617521|191964589|SUPERIORITY|Sample size was assessed over the primary outcome of the study based on pre-experimental data estimation. It was calculated that 142 participants were needed to detect a 60-second difference in CIT, with 90% power and two-side alpha 0.05. It was found that 186 participants were needed to detect a 20% reduction in the use of ancillary maneuvers. As a preventive measure in case of withdrawal or exclusion, the sample was expanded by 10%, a total of 206 patients.||||||0.01||||||For the comparison of position change, Pearson chi-square test was used. The statistical significance level was accepted as p \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95994216|NCT05617521|191964590|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95768447|NCT00071110|191509048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.56|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95768448|NCT00071110|191509049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||Statistic (t): 1.40|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95768449|NCT00503698|191509055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.57|0.60|0.91
95768450|NCT00503698|191509056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28|||Regression, Cox|Time to all-cause death analysed using stratified Cox regression model with treatment and sex as fixed factors, age and time in dialysis as covariates||||1.28|0.60|0.4977
95768451|NCT00503698|191509057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.53|0.83|0.4409
95805290|NCT04250207|191584559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Other (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)|||||||0.0344
95805291|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3587|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.3587
95805292|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5724|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Baseline||||0.5724
95805293|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3703
95805294|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||> 0.9999
95805295|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3703|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3703
95768452|NCT03859427|191509102|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.87 for the estimated ORR risk ratio.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.954||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.032||P-value (2.5% significance level) of the non-inferiority test via the synthesis approach (FDA, 2016) for non-inferiority comparison of ORR between treatment arms.|Synthesis approach||Risk ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.032|0.882|0.0666
95805296|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
95805297|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0257
95805298|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7263
95805299|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0607
95805300|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0460
95805301|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0111
95805302|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0011
95768453|NCT03859427|191509104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.683|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.683|0.653|
95768454|NCT03859427|191509110|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.97|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.970|0.775|
95768455|NCT03859427|191509111|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.711|||||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were estimated by a stratified analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.711|0.657|
95805303|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0200
95805304|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0476
95805305|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0065
95805306|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0344
95805307|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0250
95805308|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0733
95994217|NCT00891995|191964591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||One-sided p-value.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline C-peptide AUC, age, gender and diabetic ketoacidosis.||||||0.49
95768456|NCT03859427|191509112|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.69|||||Analysis was based on repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.69|0.38|
95768457|NCT03859427|191509113|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.72|||||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model, including arm, baseline scale score, randomization stratification factors and visit as repeated measure.|||4.72|-1.26|
95768458|NCT03859427|191509114|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.03|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 5|||2.03|-2.54|
95768459|NCT03859427|191509114|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|2.28|||||Treatment difference at Cycle 12|||2.28|-3.24|
95768460|NCT03859427|191509114|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.58|||||Treatment difference at safety follow-up|||4.58|-1.69|
95768461|NCT03655405|191509126|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.972||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.138|||Regression, Poisson|Number of PIMs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.138|0.830|0.723
95768462|NCT03655405|191509127|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.763||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.979|||Regression, Poisson|Number of potentially inappropriate DDD at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||0.979|0.594|0.033
95768463|NCT03655405|191509128|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.915||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.005|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.005|0.834|0.064
95768464|NCT03655405|191509129|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.019||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.246|||Regression, Poisson|Number of chronic drugs at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.246|0.833|0.857
95768465|NCT03655405|191509131|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.36||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|7.89|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the scale component||7.89|-10.60|0.769
95768466|NCT03655405|191509131|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.096||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Scale value at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||Analysis for the index component||0.01|-0.202|0.075
95805309|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0072
95768467|NCT03655405|191509132|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.237||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.727|||Mixed-effect regression, Poisson|Number at follow-up, adjusted for baseline value||||1.727|0.886|0.212
95768468|NCT03655405|191509133|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.675||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
95805310|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1124
95805311|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0199
95805312|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2331|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.2331
95860097|NCT00611026|191678449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0007
95951344|NCT03745651|191874419|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-6.37|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.37|-14.53|<0.0001
95768469|NCT03655405|191509134|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.615||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.615
95768470|NCT03655405|191509135|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.366||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.366
95768471|NCT03655405|191509136|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.738||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
95805313|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0024
95805314|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1672
95805315|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0047
95860098|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.0701
95805316|NCT04250207|191584560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.0625
95768472|NCT03655405|191509137|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.781||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.781
95768473|NCT03655405|191509138|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.958||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.958
95768474|NCT03655405|191509139|SUPERIORITY||p-value|0.911||||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.911
95768475|NCT01622673|191509149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.531|0.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.866|0.531|
95805317|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2434|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2434
95805318|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.2126
95805319|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.0790
95805320|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3043|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||0.3043
95805321|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0357
95805322|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0803|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0803
95805323|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0150
95805324|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0012
95805325|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0314
95768476|NCT01622673|191509149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.475|0.293|
95768477|NCT01622673|191509150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.344|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.554|0.344|
95768478|NCT01622673|191509150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.341|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean C12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean C12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.550|0.341|
95768479|NCT01622673|191509151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.565|0.350|
95768480|NCT01622673|191509151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.402|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.646|0.402|
95768481|NCT01622673|191509152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.351|0.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.669|0.351|
95768482|NCT01622673|191509152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.504|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean AUC0-12hrs for raltegravir alone|||0.960|0.504|
95805326|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0019
95805327|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0170
95805328|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0021
95805329|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0127
95951345|NCT01383616|191874427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of 3 month ODI Score between Unipedicular and Bipedicular kyphoplasty groups||||0.85
95951346|NCT01383616|191874428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95951347|NCT01383616|191874429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95951348|NCT01383616|191874430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95951349|NCT01383616|191874431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95805330|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0014
95805331|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0677
95805332|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.0243
95805333|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1867|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.1867
95805334|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.0250
95805335|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.3213
95805336|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.0298
95951350|NCT01383616|191874432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95951351|NCT01383616|191874433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95951352|NCT01383616|191874434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95951353|NCT01383616|191874435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95951354|NCT01383616|191874436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95951355|NCT03345407|191874475|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.103|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.103|-0.143|
95951356|NCT03345407|191874475|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.027|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.036|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.036|-0.098|
95768483|NCT01622673|191509153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for TUMS® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for TUMS® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.627|0.362|
95768484|NCT01622673|191509153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% CI falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® + raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and treatment period and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is the geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® + raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.729|0.423|
95768485|NCT01622673|191509154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® before raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.332|0.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® before raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||0.709|0.332|
95768486|NCT01622673|191509154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis will be supported if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) falls above 0.4 for the geometric least squares mean ratio for MINTOX® after raltegravir versus raltegravir alone|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis incorporated fixed effect for treatment and random effect for participant|The parameter estimated, geometric least squares mean ratio, is geometric least squares mean Cmax for MINTOX® after raltegravir / geometric least squares mean Cmax for raltegravir alone|||1.132|0.530|
95768487|NCT03782792|191509218|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.672||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the primary endpoint on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.672|0.215|0.0004
95768488|NCT03782792|191509219|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.317||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.527||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.527|0.022|0.0118
95768489|NCT03782792|191509220|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.346||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.554||One-sided P Value.|Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|The Suissa-Shuster Z-pooled test was implemented to test the treatment effect on the RS (estimand EN) at a 1-sided, alpha level of 0.025. Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.554|0.058|0.0081
95768490|NCT03782792|191509221|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
95768491|NCT03782792|191509222|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0044
95768492|NCT03782792|191509223|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||One-sided P Value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The effect of spesolimab was evaluated by a Wilcoxon rank test using the RS. Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 were assigned worst ranks for the testing. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.|The difference between treatments, based on the RS, using a modified Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate of the median difference and 95% Confidence Intervals could not be calculated due to lack of valid data.|||0.0012
95768493|NCT03782792|191509224|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.581|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.581|0.058|
95768494|NCT03782792|191509225|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.607|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.607|0.096|
95768495|NCT03782792|191509226|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.636|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.636|0.096|
95768496|NCT03782792|191509228|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.401|||||Risk difference=Response rate of spesolimab - response rate of placebo.|Confidence intervals (95%) around the risk difference were produced using the Chan and Zhang method.||0.401|-0.138|
95951357|NCT03345407|191874475|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.028|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.028|-0.102|
95805337|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1449|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.1449
95805338|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0947|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.0947
95805339|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5181|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5181
95805340|NCT04250207|191584561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1898|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.1898
95805341|NCT04250207|191584562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
95805342|NCT04250207|191584562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1696
95805343|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4872|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4872
95805344|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4634|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.4634
95805345|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.605|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.6050
95805346|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4762|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.4762
95805347|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
95805348|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||> 0.9999
95994218|NCT00891995|191964594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c, age, gender and Diabetic ketoacidosis||||||0.40
95805349|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4227|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.4227
95805350|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6796|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.6796
95805351|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4642|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4642
95805352|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4645|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.4645
95805353|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2744|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.2744
95805354|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7026|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.7026
95805355|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.7817|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.7817
95805356|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.9285|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.9285
95805357|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0135
95805358|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.6992|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.6992
95805359|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0135|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.0135
95994219|NCT02054702|191964601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
95805360|NCT04250207|191584563|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5154|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.5154
95805361|NCT04250207|191584564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1209|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1209
95994220|NCT02054702|191964601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
95994221|NCT02054702|191964602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.4244
95994222|NCT02054702|191964602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test composite battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.7623
95994223|NCT02054702|191964603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.8759
95994224|NCT02054702|191964603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery of early phase battery score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2176
95994225|NCT02054702|191964604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8420
95994226|NCT02054702|191964604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of GML from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.3781
95994227|NCT02054702|191964605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.1807
95994228|NCT02054702|191964605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of detection task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.2802
95994229|NCT02054702|191964606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8622
95994230|NCT02054702|191964606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of identification task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.4848
95805362|NCT04250207|191584564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7116|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7116
95805363|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0915|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0915
95805364|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3282|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.3282
95805365|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0648|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0648
95994231|NCT02054702|191964607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.8588
95994232|NCT02054702|191964607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9928|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in cognitive test battery score of one card learning task from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9928
95994233|NCT02054702|191964608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
95994234|NCT02054702|191964608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis is mean change in CGI-S from baseline to week 6 were observed for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
95994235|NCT02054702|191964611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and total score at baseline as covariate was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||<0.0001
95994236|NCT02054702|191964611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in SLOF total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||<0.0001
95768497|NCT03782792|191509229|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.32|12.76|||||Median difference was calculated by modified Hodges-Lehmann method.|Any assessments after death, the use of escape medication (before or after Day 8), open label spesolimab on Day 8, or rescue medication with spesolimab after Day 8 and assigned with the worst possible outcomes in rank analysis. Missing data at Week 4 were imputed and handled via assessment of ranks.||12.76|-67.32|
95768498|NCT00529087|191509251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|24.4|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|17.3|<0.001
95768499|NCT00529087|191509252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.1|24.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.0|15.1|<0.001
95768500|NCT00529087|191509252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.9|||<|0.001||95.0|16.1|25.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.7|16.1|<0.001
95768501|NCT00529087|191509253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test for comparisons of survival distributions||||||<0.001
95768502|NCT00529087|191509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||2.1|1.1|<0.001
95768503|NCT00529087|191509254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.7||||0.011||95.0|0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor and baseline weekly RFBM as covariate||||1.2|0.2|0.011
95768504|NCT00529087|191509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|20.4|||<|0.001||95.0|9.5|31.3|||Chi-squared|||||31.3|9.5|<0.001
95768505|NCT00529087|191509256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|7.0||||0.212||95.0|-4.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||||18.0|-4.0|0.212
95768506|NCT00529087|191509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
95768507|NCT00529087|191509257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis for all time points (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours) is only shown once as the p value is the same for all time points.||||<0.001
95768508|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.001||95.0|11.2|17.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||17.9|11.2|<0.001
95768509|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.001||95.0|4.6|11.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||1 hour||11.4|4.6|<0.001
95768510|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.5|||<|0.001||95.0|14.4|22.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||22.5|14.4|<0.001
95768511|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.3|14.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||2 hours||14.5|6.3|<0.001
95768512|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|15.0|23.5|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||23.5|15.0|<0.001
95768513|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|15.3|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||3 hours||15.3|6.7|<0.001
95768514|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|23.9|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||23.9|15.2|<0.001
95768515|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.001||95.0|6.6|15.4|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||4 hours||15.4|6.6|<0.001
95768516|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|15.2|24.1|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||24.1|15.2|<0.001
95768517|NCT00529087|191509258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001||95.0|6.2|15.2|||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||6 hours||15.2|6.2|<0.001
95768518|NCT00529087|191509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|21.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.2|31.9|||Chi-squared|||||31.9|10.2|<0.001
95768519|NCT00529087|191509259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.316||95.0|-5.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|-5.3|0.316
95768520|NCT00529087|191509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.7|||<|0.001||95.0|9.4|30.1|||Chi-squared|||||30.1|9.4|<0.001
95768521|NCT00529087|191509260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|13.3||||0.016||95.0|2.6|24.0|||Chi-squared|||||24.0|2.6|0.016
95768522|NCT00529087|191509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.9|1.0|<0.001
95768523|NCT00529087|191509261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.102||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.8|-0.1|0.102
95768524|NCT00529087|191509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|0.6|<0.001
95768525|NCT00529087|191509262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|0.0|<0.001
95768526|NCT00529087|191509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||1.6|0.8|<0.001
95768527|NCT00529087|191509263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.012||95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.9|0.1|0.012
95768528|NCT00529087|191509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.002||95.0|0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.7|0.2|0.002
95768529|NCT00529087|191509264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.119||95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.5|-0.1|0.119
95768530|NCT00529087|191509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.008||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||-0.1|-0.5|0.008
95768531|NCT00529087|191509265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.2||||0.015||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||0.0|-0.5|0.015
95768532|NCT00529087|191509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.731||95.0|-5.4|7.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.7|-5.4|0.731
95768533|NCT00529087|191509268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.779||95.0|-5.6|7.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, Baseline as covariate||||7.5|-5.6|0.779
95768534|NCT00529087|191509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|5.6||||0.023||95.0|0.8|10.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||10.4|0.8|0.023
95768535|NCT00529087|191509269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.8||||0.258||95.0|-2.0|7.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||7.6|-2.0|0.258
95768536|NCT00529087|191509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.071||95.0|-0.6|14.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.5|-0.6|0.071
95768537|NCT00529087|191509271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.087||95.0|-1.0|14.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.2|-1.0|0.087
95768538|NCT00529087|191509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.038||95.0|0.4|14.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||14.7|0.4|0.038
95768539|NCT00529087|191509272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.237||95.0|-2.8|11.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment as factor, baseline as covariate||||11.5|-2.8|0.237
95768540|NCT01598064|191509273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95768541|NCT00333983|191509290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||P value was set at .025 to adjust for 2 treatment comparisons and for interim monitoring for the treatment effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An analysis of all robot interventions compared with intensive conventional exercise for Fugl-Meyer change were completed using linear mixed models.||||.025
95768542|NCT00833105|191509291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||<0.025
95768543|NCT00833105|191509292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.299
95805366|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.031|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0310
95805367|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0187|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0187
95951358|NCT03345407|191874475|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.071|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.071|-0.064|
95768544|NCT00833105|191509293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.459
95768545|NCT00833105|191509294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.343
95768546|NCT00833105|191509295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effects||||||0.951
95951359|NCT03345407|191874475|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.061|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.061|-0.075|
95951360|NCT03345407|191874475|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.042|||||Treatment comparison (posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for Day 84 change from Baseline FEV1 measured post-bronchodilator has been presented.|||0.042|-0.051|
95994237|NCT02054702|191964612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for brexpiprazole.||||0.0392
95994238|NCT02054702|191964612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model, with treatment group as main effect and total score at baseline as covariate, was used for change from baseline comparisons.||Statistical analysis is mean change in BIS-11 item total score from baseline to week 6 for aripiprazole.||||0.9716
95768547|NCT00833105|191509296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.371
95768548|NCT00833105|191509297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Random subject effect||||||0.164
95768549|NCT00833105|191509298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|No multiple comparison procedure||Pre-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the first 3 days of training. Post-training score is average of a total of 9 efforts, including 3 efforts from the last 3 days of training.||||<0.01
95768550|NCT00833105|191509299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure performed|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
95768551|NCT00833105|191509300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison procedure|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95768552|NCT00833105|191509301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.005
95768553|NCT00833105|191509302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparison adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95768554|NCT00833105|191509303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons adjustment.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95768555|NCT02898597|191509304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|110.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||110.30|1.37|< 0.05
95768556|NCT02898597|191509304|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test was performed, comparing the proportion of participants whose abstinence was verified with salivary cotinine test between the two arms, which was significant (p = 0.02).||||<0.05
95768557|NCT03656068|191509316|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0039
95805368|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0036
95951361|NCT03345407|191874476|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
95994239|NCT03486392|191964613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square (LS) Means|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-4.19|||Dunnett's method|||||-4.19|-9.31|< 0.001
95994240|NCT03486392|191964613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|-5.84|||Dunnett's method|||||-5.84|-10.31|< 0.001
95768558|NCT03656068|191509317|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.0026
95768559|NCT03656068|191509318|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.5555
95768560|NCT03656068|191509319|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical inference.|Median Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for testing median = 0|Sign test|||||||0.3778
95768561|NCT03656068|191509320|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|14.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||14.8|-31.0|0.4638
95768562|NCT03656068|191509321|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|5.97||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.97|-9.26|0.6532
95768563|NCT03656068|191509322|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.61||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.61|-1.86|0.7254
95768564|NCT03656068|191509323|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.77||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|29.25||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29.25|-11.70|0.3772
95768565|NCT03656068|191509324|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.33||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.56|0.5799
95768566|NCT03656068|191509325|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.65|8.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.87|-12.65|0.7088
95768567|NCT03656068|191509326|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.72|0.0609
95994241|NCT03486392|191964613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-7.78|||Dunnett's method|||||-7.78|-12.31|< 0.001
95994242|NCT03486392|191964613|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.57|||Dunnett's method|||||-3.57|-7.99|< 0.001
95768568|NCT03656068|191509327|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.61||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.94||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.94|-16.16|0.1556
95768569|NCT03656068|191509328|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|1.4||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-30.6|0.0709
95768570|NCT03656068|191509329|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|1.81||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-9.02|0.1799
95768571|NCT03656068|191509330|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8||||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|7.6||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.6|-21.2|0.3306
95860099|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.4823
95768572|NCT03656068|191509331|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|3.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-7.25|0.4504
95768573|NCT03656068|191509332|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.8||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|79.0||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.0|-11.5|0.1349
95768574|NCT03656068|191509333|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|76.24||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.04|133.43||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.43|19.04|0.0117
95768575|NCT03656068|191509334|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|31.3||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|112.9||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||112.9|-50.3|0.4281
95768576|NCT03656068|191509335|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|117.37||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|229.14||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||229.14|5.60|0.0407
95768577|NCT03656068|191509336|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|47.28||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.9|305.46||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||305.46|-210.90|0.7065
95768578|NCT03656068|191509337|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|43.11||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|106.17||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||106.17|-19.95|0.1693
95994243|NCT02706938|191964650|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1604||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6263|2.027||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.0270|0.6263|0.0002
95768579|NCT03656068|191509338|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.14||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.64|221.36||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||221.36|-317.64|0.7099
95994244|NCT02706938|191964650|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.359||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6255|-0.0924||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||-0.0924|-0.6255|0.0082
95994245|NCT02706938|191964651|OTHER|One tail paired t test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9131|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.5093||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5987|3.7724||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||3.7724|-17.5987|0.099
95994246|NCT02706938|191964651|OTHER|McNemar's chi squared statistic|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0263||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2651|0.2125||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|||||0.2125|-0.2651|0.8084
95994247|NCT00473876|191964658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The differences between baseline and post-intervention (4 months) was analyzed using independent t-test, comparing metformin and placebo.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on peak VO2. We targetted 66 subjects and power calculation based on our previous observational study of CHF with insulin resistance with mean peak VO2 of 11.||||0.08
95768580|NCT03656068|191509339|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.03||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.48|97.55||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||97.55|-37.48|0.3597
95768581|NCT03656068|191509340|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|169.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25908.2|26246.2||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||26246.2|-25908.2|0.9893
95768582|NCT03656068|191509341|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.82||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|32.85||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.85|-5.21|0.1454
95768583|NCT03656068|191509342|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3016.8||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22996.2|29029.7||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||29029.7|-22996.2|0.8089
95768584|NCT03656068|191509343|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.78||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|30.06||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||30.06|-4.50|0.1365
95768585|NCT03656068|191509344|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.954||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.525|67.433||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||67.433|-9.525|0.1322
95768586|NCT03656068|191509345|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.99||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|53.57|||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for testing mean = 0||||53.57|-5.59|0.1062
95768587|NCT03656068|191509346|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|28.311||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.151|60.774||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||60.774|-4.151|0.0831
95768588|NCT03656068|191509347|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|32.72||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|66.13||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||66.13|-0.69|0.0543
95768589|NCT03656068|191509348|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.056||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.298||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.298|-0.185|0.6325
95768590|NCT03656068|191509349|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.6925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.87||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-1.94|0.6925
95768591|NCT03656068|191509350|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.462|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.462|-0.140|0.2733
95994248|NCT00473876|191964659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|Compare between metformin and placebo arm.||Null hypothesis: Metformin has no effect on the ratio between VCO2 (production of CO2) and VE (ventilation), it is also called the VE/VCO2 slope||||0.034
95994249|NCT01032629|191964660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.12|0.78|=0.4576
95768592|NCT03656068|191509351|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|4.56||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.56|-1.63|0.3288
95994250|NCT01032629|191964660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.68|=0.0467
95768593|NCT03656068|191509352|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.649||||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.923|133.22||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||133.220|-121.923|0.9271
95768594|NCT03656068|191509353|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.58|20.37||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.37|-18.58|0.9244
95768595|NCT03656068|191509354|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.244||||0.7288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.93|151.441||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||151.441|-211.930|0.7288
95768596|NCT03656068|191509355|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|28.52||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.52|-21.85|0.7824
95768597|NCT03656068|191509356|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.629||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.433|165.176||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||165.176|-260.433|0.6448
95768598|NCT03656068|191509357|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.04|32.8||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||32.80|-32.04|0.9806
95768599|NCT03656068|191509358|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-113.616||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.124|123.891||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||123.891|-351.124|0.3256
95768600|NCT03656068|191509359|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.78||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.52|50.09||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|-32.52|0.6582
95768601|NCT03656068|191509360|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2438||||0.5459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0847|0.5972||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5972|-1.0847|0.5459
95768602|NCT03656068|191509361|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|69.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||||69.97|-22.15|0.2860
95768603|NCT03656068|191509362|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2893||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.5794||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5794|-1.1580|0.4887
95768604|NCT03656068|191509363|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.27||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.21|98.75||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||98.75|-38.21|0.3610
95994251|NCT01032629|191964660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox proportional hazard method|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.03|0.75|0.1120
95994252|NCT01032629|191964661|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.571|7.154|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||7.154|-1.571|=0.210
95994253|NCT01032629|191964661|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Mean|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.261|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|8.504|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||8.504|-0.368|=0.072
95994254|NCT01032629|191964662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.97|0.67|
95768605|NCT03656068|191509364|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.26||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-2.51|0.4945
95768606|NCT03656068|191509365|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|7.95||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.95|-9.94|0.8191
95768607|NCT03656068|191509366|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-0.47||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.47|-5.96|0.0243
95768608|NCT03656068|191509367|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.94||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-0.04||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-19.84|0.0493
95768609|NCT03656068|191509368|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.79||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|-0.59|0.3066
95768610|NCT03656068|191509369|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|9.63||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.63|-2.82|0.2671
95768611|NCT03656068|191509370|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.16|-0.94|0.8241
95805369|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0687|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0687
95805370|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0016
95951362|NCT03345407|191874476|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.35|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.35|0.57|
95768612|NCT03656068|191509371|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.7587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|8.57||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.57|-6.37|0.7587
95951363|NCT03345407|191874476|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.50|0.65|
95951364|NCT03345407|191874476|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.02|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.02|0.37|
95951365|NCT03345407|191874476|OTHER||Posterior median exacerbation rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Treatment comparison (posterior median exacerbation rate ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.52|0.85|
95951366|NCT03345407|191874477|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|1.103|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.103|0.054|
95768613|NCT03656068|191509372|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.567||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.746||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.746|-1.880|0.3784
95768614|NCT03656068|191509373|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.64||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|5.53||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.53|-14.80|0.3526
95768615|NCT03656068|191509374|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.098||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|2.173||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.173|-1.978|0.9218
95768616|NCT03656068|191509375|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|15.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||15.01|-14.71|0.9833
95951367|NCT03345407|191874477|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 50 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.500|0.580|
95951368|NCT03345407|191874477|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|1.467|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 100 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.467|0.581|
95768617|NCT03656068|191509376|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.68||||0.3957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|43.16||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.16|-17.79|0.3957
95768618|NCT03656068|191509377|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.81||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|12.01||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.01|-4.39|0.3440
95768619|NCT03656068|191509378|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.22||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|31.21||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||31.21|-0.77|0.0607
95768620|NCT03656068|191509379|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|12.05||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.05|-0.39|0.0644
95805371|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0218
95951369|NCT03345407|191874477|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.709|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 250 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.709|0.682|
95951370|NCT03345407|191874477|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.902|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 500 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||0.902|0.268|
95994255|NCT01032629|191964662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.85|0.58|
95768621|NCT03656068|191509380|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3665||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7306|-0.0023||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0023|-0.7306|0.0487
95768622|NCT03656068|191509381|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.64||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.25|80.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||80.54|-47.25|0.5919
95768623|NCT03656068|191509382|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2679||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.0983||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0983|-0.6340|0.1272
95768624|NCT03656068|191509383|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.02||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55|77.59||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||77.59|-47.55|0.5881
95768625|NCT03656068|191509384|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.42|0.1458
95768626|NCT03656068|191509385|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.53||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|4.54||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.54|-27.61|0.1495
95768627|NCT03656068|191509386|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3174
95768628|NCT03656068|191509387|OTHER|Student's T-test was used for statistical inference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.02||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|6.82||p-value for testing mean = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.82|-22.86|0.2420
95768629|NCT04506463|191509404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
95768630|NCT04506463|191509404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
95768631|NCT04506463|191509404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.850
95768632|NCT04506463|191509405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
95805372|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0013
95805373|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0348|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0348
95768633|NCT04506463|191509405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95768634|NCT04506463|191509405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.936
95768635|NCT04506463|191509406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.042
95768636|NCT04506463|191509406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
95768637|NCT04506463|191509406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
95768638|NCT01436370|191509407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain.||||0.145
95768639|NCT01436370|191509407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain||||0.145
95768640|NCT01436370|191509407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.999
95768641|NCT01436370|191509415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain||||0.182
95768642|NCT01436370|191509415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain.||||0.500
95768643|NCT01436370|191509415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain.||||0.087
95768644|NCT01436370|191509416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 7.||||0.234
95768645|NCT01436370|191509416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 180.||||0.250
95768646|NCT01436370|191509416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.145
95768647|NCT01436370|191509416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
95768648|NCT01436370|191509416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.999
95768649|NCT01436370|191509416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.500
95768650|NCT01436370|191509417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 7.||||0.716
95768651|NCT01436370|191509417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 180.||||0.999
95768652|NCT01436370|191509417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 7.||||0.503
95768653|NCT01436370|191509417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 180.||||0.475
95768654|NCT01436370|191509417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 7.||||0.182
95768655|NCT01436370|191509417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 180.||||0.014
95805374|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.1028
95994256|NCT01032629|191964663|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.374|-0.429|
95951371|NCT03345407|191874477|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.539|||||Treatment comparison (Hazard Ratio and 95% HPD CrI) of Nemiralisib 750 mcg and placebo for time to next moderate/severe exacerbations has been presented.|||1.539|0.800|
95951372|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.30|0.21|
95951373|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.76|
95951374|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.61|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.61|0.54|
95951375|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.50|
95951376|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.25|0.38|
95951377|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 14 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.63|0.77|
95729047|NCT03558997|191428154|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|-0.037|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.037|-1.848|0.0414
95729048|NCT03558997|191428155|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.45||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.874|-7.034|||ANCOVA|A Multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values in AUC (percent change from baseline) - Seeds: 16115 and 51161 with imputation size 40.|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab + SCIT vs Dupilumab) of LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-7.034|-53.874|0.0108
95729049|NCT03558997|191428156|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.665||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.21|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||3.2100|-0.770|0.1449
95729050|NCT03558997|191428157|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|335.3||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.47|1746.55|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1746.55|-551.47|0.1231
95729051|NCT03558997|191428158|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-13.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.94|-8.36|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-8.3600|-23.9400|<0.0001
95729052|NCT03558997|191428159|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.51|-94.98|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-94.98|-205.51|<0.0001
95729053|NCT03558997|191428160|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||ANCOVA||P-value was based on treatment differences of median change using rank based ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate \& treatment as fixed factors. Median difference \& its 95% CI estimated with Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.2700|0.4500|<0.0001
95729054|NCT00526890|191428168|OTHER|||||||0.3149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test was used to test the correlation between selenium levels and serious adverse events.||||0.3149
95729055|NCT02473991|191428180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during second trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
95729056|NCT02473991|191428181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis In normal pregnant women, placental thickness during third trimesters may be correlated with birth weight at term.||||<0.01
95729057|NCT03118739|191428191|SUPERIORITY||Mean % Change from Baseline|-39.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.785|-3.814||||||||-3.814|-61.785|
95729058|NCT03123549|191428234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.017
95729059|NCT01073020|191428277|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the LAGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.60
95729060|NCT01073020|191428277|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||Estimation parameter is the difference between the proportion of patients in the RYGB group vs. proportion of patients in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp) who achieved the primary outcome.|||||0.005
95729061|NCT01073020|191428278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||0.33
95729062|NCT01073020|191428278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in HbA1c in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in HbA1c in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline HbA1c.|||||<0.001
95729063|NCT01073020|191428279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the LAGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
95860100|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.0|-0.1|0.1702
95860101|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
95860102|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0059
95860103|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.0|-0.2|0.0014
95768656|NCT01436370|191509419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.317
95860104|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
95994257|NCT01032629|191964663|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.731||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.731|-0.079|
95768657|NCT01436370|191509419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.564
95860105|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.0|-0.1|0.3110
95860106|NCT00611026|191678450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-0.1|-0.2|0.0004
95860107|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||-0.3|-2.7|0.0136
95860108|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||0.4|-2.0|0.1918
95860109|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||0.3|-1.7|0.1505
95994258|NCT01032629|191964664|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.940|0.800|
95994259|NCT01032629|191964664|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.910|0.770|
95729064|NCT01073020|191428279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between the change from baseline in BMI in the RYGB group vs. change from baseline in BMI in the Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline BMI.|||||<0.001
95729065|NCT01073020|191428280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in LAGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (LAGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.81
95729066|NCT01073020|191428280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter is the difference between change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in RYGB group vs. change from baseline in CHD risk over 10 yrs. in Intensive Medical Diabetes \& Weight Management (RYGB Grp), adjusted for baseline CHD risk.|||||0.009
95729067|NCT00094302|191428285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 320 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 351 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.77|0.14
95994260|NCT01032629|191964665|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.755||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.755|0.599|
95994261|NCT01032629|191964665|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.328||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||2.328|0.160|
95768658|NCT01436370|191509419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
95768659|NCT01436370|191509419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Brisbane/60/2008 strain at Day 21.||||0.564
95768660|NCT01436370|191509419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Perth/16/2009 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.999
95768661|NCT01436370|191509419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.655
95768662|NCT01436370|191509420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21.||||0.180
95768663|NCT01436370|191509420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.763
95768664|NCT01436370|191509420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.096
95768665|NCT01436370|191509420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the B/Wisconsin/1/2010 strain at Day 21||||0.157
95768666|NCT01436370|191509420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/Victoria/361/2011 (A/H3N2) strain at Day 21.||||0.705
95768667|NCT01436370|191509420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||McNemar|||This is the comparison for the A/California/7/2009 (A/H1N1) strain at Day 21.||||0.132
95768668|NCT04229095|191509426|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The effect of the drug on lowering VAS was limited to individuals with impaired sleep at baseline (PSQI \> or = to 5).|Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictors were drug condition, and baseline sleep disturbance (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index {PSQI} total score less than 5 or 5 and greater). Arms were combined for this analysis.||-1.01||.007
95768669|NCT04229095|191509428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces number of drinks per day. Principle predictors were drug condition and sex. Arms were combined for this analysis.||-0.46||.0025
95768670|NCT01780038|191509430|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequencies and percentages were used to determine this secondary outcome.|||
95768671|NCT01085630|191509433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2423|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2423
95768672|NCT01081769|191509435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0191|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0191
95768673|NCT01081769|191509449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0323
95805375|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.8677|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.8677
95768674|NCT03309943|191509450|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD. Carried out using SPSS Mixed Models with a repeated statement and compound symmetry covariance structure.||||||.019
95768675|NCT03309943|191509451|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.830
95768676|NCT03309943|191509452|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.006
95768677|NCT03309943|191509453|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.653
95805376|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.4401|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.4401
95768678|NCT03309943|191509454|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on response to smoking vs. non-smoking cues (collapsed across category - proximal, standard environment, personal environment). Data were analyzed using the underlying raw values versus collapsing them together.||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for FTCD||||||.012
95768679|NCT03309943|191509455|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model analysis examining the effects of drug condition on PPI indexes while viewing proximal smoking cues (which drove activation effects).||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
95768680|NCT03309943|191509456|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.024|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD.||||||.024
95768681|NCT03309943|191509457|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.086|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.086
95768682|NCT03309943|191509458|SUPERIORITY|Repeated Measures ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score)||||||0.14|||||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|Adjusted for FTCD score||||||.140
95805377|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.5926
95994262|NCT01032629|191964666|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|-0.177||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.177|-0.355|
95805378|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0732|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0732
95805379|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2497|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2497
95805380|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.2453|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.2453
95805381|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
95805382|NCT04250207|191584565|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
95768683|NCT03309943|191509459|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for baseline craving and FTCD score).||||||0.556|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline craving and FTCD score||||||.556
95768684|NCT03309943|191509460|SUPERIORITY|Standard ANCOVA analysis examining condition differences (adjusting for FTCD score).||||||0.463||||||Adjusted for FTCD score only.|ANCOVA|||||||.463
95768685|NCT00427648|191509467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||null hypothesis - no difference in average number of voids between the 2 groups, power calculation estimated 40 participants needed per arm to show a 2 void difference between lidocaine and saline placebo.||||0.588
95768686|NCT00427648|191509468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.617
95768687|NCT00427648|191509469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.441
95805383|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0093|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||0.0093
95805384|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 3||||> 0.9999
95951378|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.69|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.69|0.36|
95951379|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.33|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.33|0.82|
95951380|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.67|
95951381|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.74|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.74|0.63|
95768688|NCT00427648|191509470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.189
95768689|NCT00427648|191509471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.342
95768690|NCT00427648|191509472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.802
95768691|NCT00427648|191509473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.366
95768692|NCT06509438|191509475|OTHER|Compare 4 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95768693|NCT06509438|191509475|OTHER|Compare 12 weeks after the last injection to baseline|Difference of medians|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95768694|NCT03331796|191509479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||7.9|-4.8|0.63
95768695|NCT03331796|191509479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|13.7|||Regression, Linear|||||13.7|0.1|0.0476
95805385|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.0006
95805386|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 5||||0.3449
95805387|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
95951382|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.88|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.88|0.28|
95951383|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.49|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.49|0.72|
95768696|NCT03331796|191509480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.2|-11.4|0.45
95768697|NCT03331796|191509480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||14.8|-3.3|0.21
95768698|NCT03331796|191509481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.19|-0.36|0.29
95768699|NCT03331796|191509481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.08|-0.55|0.51
95994263|NCT01032629|191964666|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.227||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.227|-0.405|
95994264|NCT01032629|191964667|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|-0.374||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.374|-0.794|
95768700|NCT03331796|191509482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.0|-1.0|.33
95768701|NCT03331796|191509482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|1.1|0.0038
95768702|NCT03331796|191509483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.0|-1.1|0.58
95768703|NCT03331796|191509483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||1.3|-2.2|0.59
95768704|NCT03331796|191509484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||16.1|-5.2|0.30
95805388|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 7||||0.0028
95805389|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0001
95805390|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 9||||0.0028
95805391|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95805392|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 12||||0.0028
95768705|NCT03331796|191509484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||5.3|-14.9|0.34
95768706|NCT03331796|191509485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||22.1|-22.0|0.996
95768707|NCT03331796|191509485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|24.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||24.3|-20.6|0.87
95805393|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
95805394|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 16||||0.0011
95805395|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0094|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.0094
95994265|NCT01032629|191964667|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|-0.523||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.523|-0.945|
95994266|NCT01032629|191964668|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||95.0|-3.472|-2.454||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-2.454|-3.472|
95994267|NCT01032629|191964668|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.125|-3.103||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.103|-4.125|
95994268|NCT01032629|191964669|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.998|-1.914||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.914|-3.998|
95768708|NCT03331796|191509486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.22|-2.14|0.97
95860110|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||-2.6|-5.2|<0.0001
95860111|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||-0.7|-3.3|0.0034
95951384|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.30|
95951385|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.84|
95951386|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.78|0.65|
95951387|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.67|0.62|
95994269|NCT01032629|191964669|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.579|-3.484||||||Statistical analysis (Systolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-3.484|-5.579|
95994270|NCT01032629|191964669|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|-0.205||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-0.205|-1.437|
95768709|NCT03331796|191509486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.41|-2.15|0.91
95768710|NCT03331796|191509487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.9|-2.3|0.84
95768711|NCT03331796|191509487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.4|-1.9|0.80
95768712|NCT03331796|191509488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.6|-5.5|0.48
95768713|NCT03331796|191509488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.3|-6.8|0.18
95768714|NCT03331796|191509489|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.3|-5.7|0.075
95768715|NCT03331796|191509489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||1.1|-5.4|0.195
95768716|NCT03331796|191509490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.4|-1.0|0.28
95768717|NCT03331796|191509490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||3.6|-0.8|0.21
95768718|NCT03331796|191509491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||2.1|-3.2|0.66
95768719|NCT03331796|191509491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.5|-4.9|0.11
95768720|NCT03331796|191509492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.17|-0.29|0.59
95768721|NCT03331796|191509492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05||0.28|-0.17|0.64
95768722|NCT03331796|191509495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|ANOVA|||||||0.768
95951388|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.77|0.26|
95951389|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.42|0.71|
95994271|NCT01032629|191964669|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|-1.007||||||Statistical analysis (Diastolic blood pressure) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||-1.007|-2.245|
95994272|NCT01032629|191964670|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.070|-0.040|
95768723|NCT01262872|191509500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|14.6||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||14.6|-36.3|
95768724|NCT01262872|191509500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|25.7||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-17.8|
95768725|NCT01262872|191509500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|22.5||||||VE-10PP-LD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||22.5|-22.6|
95768726|NCT01262872|191509500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|25.0||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 1M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.0|-21.4|
95768727|NCT01262872|191509500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|24.8||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 5M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||24.8|-19.2|
95768728|NCT01262872|191509500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|20.9||||||VE-10PP-HD 3+0d vs Synflorix 3+0d - 8M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, eight months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||20.9|-24.9|
95805396|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1281|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 20||||0.1281
95805397|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0051|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.0051
95951390|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.38|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.38|0.32|
95805398|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1313|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 24||||0.1313
95951391|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.70|
95951392|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.71|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.71|0.63|
95951393|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.55|
95951394|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.87|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.87|0.31|
95994273|NCT01032629|191964670|OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.080|-0.030|
95994274|NCT01032629|191964671|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.259||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.259|0.105|
95994275|NCT01032629|191964671|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.307||||||Statistical analysis (Cholesterol) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.307|0.152|
95994276|NCT01032629|191964671|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.065||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C)||0.065|0.031|
95768729|NCT01262872|191509501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 1M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, one month (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||26.2|-18.2|
95768730|NCT01262872|191509501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|25.7||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 5M post-Dose 2. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, five months (M) post-dose 2 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||25.7|-18.0|
95768731|NCT01262872|191509501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vaccine efficacy (VE) estimated as \[(1-Relative Risk (i.e. investigational vaccine over control vaccine))\*100\] with 95% CI was calculated. Denominator considered for deriving VE at a considered time point was the number of subjects with swabs cultured at this time point. Power using 2 independent proportions, 1:1 randomization ratio, 1-sided test to detect group difference, 1-sided alpha=2.5%.|VE (see above)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|17.2||||||VE-10PP-HD 2+1d vs Synflorix 2+1d - 3M post-Dose 3. The analysis aimed to compare occurrences in terms of percentage of subjects with positive nasopharyngeal sample out of the number of subjects with swabs cultured, between 2 groups, three months (M) post-dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine administered (10PP vaccine or Synflorix™).||17.2|-29.3|
95768732|NCT01753310|191509598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-4.47|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-4.47|-12.17|<0.001
95768733|NCT01753310|191509599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2 sided t-test was on weighted overall treatment difference.|Based on the sample size weighted overall treatment difference.|The superiority of Dysport® to placebo was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a stratified ANCOVA with baseline TWSTRS total score as covariate and stratified by the randomisation stratification factor (BoNT-A naïve versus BoNT-A non-naïve).||-2.14|-8.67|=0.001
95768734|NCT01753310|191509600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
95768735|NCT01753310|191509601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||=0.033
95768736|NCT01753310|191509602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CGIC of CD was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||<0.001
95860112|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||-0.8|-3.0|0.0006
95768737|NCT01753310|191509603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test|||The superiorty of Dysport® to placebo on treatment response was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using a Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by the randomisation factor.||||<0.001
95994277|NCT01032629|191964671|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.075||||||Statistical analysis (HDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.075|0.040|
95994278|NCT01032629|191964671|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.17||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.170|0.046|
95994279|NCT01032629|191964671|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.226||||||Statistical analysis (LDL-C) Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.226|0.102|
95994280|NCT01032629|191964672|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.076||||||||0.076|-0.040|
95994281|NCT01032629|191964672|OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.023|
95994282|NCT01261559|191964677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear|A multivariate linear regression model was fitted for the main outcome of percent relative dose, with age, BMI, and bra cup size as covariates.||Powered to detect difference of 10% at 80% power if 66 or more subjects enrolled.||25|4|0.003
95860113|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-2.3|-5.0|<0.0001
95951395|NCT03345407|191874480|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.73|
95951396|NCT03345407|191874481|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.765|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.765|0.477|
95951397|NCT03345407|191874481|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.597|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.597|0.840|
95951398|NCT03345407|191874481|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.432|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.432|0.734|
95951399|NCT03345407|191874481|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.413|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.413|0.719|
95951400|NCT03345407|191874481|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.057|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.057|0.487|
95951401|NCT03345407|191874481|OTHER||Posterior median hazard ratio|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.426|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg was performed and posterior median hazard ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.426|0.899|
95951402|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.70|0.35|
95951403|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.77|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.77|0.63|
95951404|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.17|0.77|
95951405|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.00|0.71|
95951406|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.75|0.61|
95951407|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.99|0.46|
95768738|NCT01753310|191509604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.174|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.174
95951408|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.20|
95951409|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.46|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.46|0.84|
95951410|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.48|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.48|0.53|
95951411|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.16|0.74|
95768739|NCT01753310|191509605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.583|||||||ANOVA|||The superiority of Dysport® to placebo on CDIP-58 was tested at a two-tailed 5% level by using an ANOVA with treatment and randomisation stratification factor as main effects.||||=0.583
95768740|NCT04390763|191509621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.04|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.04||
95951412|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.43|
95951413|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.27|0.63|
95951414|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.20|0.16|
95951415|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.56|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.56|0.79|
95951416|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.30|0.46|
95951417|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.86|0.62|
95994283|NCT01360996|191964692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95994284|NCT01360996|191964693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95768741|NCT04390763|191509621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.96|||Bayesian two-piece hazard model||Estimated posterior median of the HR after the risk changing timepoint and one-sided 90% credible interval are reported.|||1.96||
95768742|NCT04390763|191509622|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37||0.46
95768743|NCT04390763|191509622|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44||0.38
95768744|NCT01786993|191509648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event-Free Probability|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|0.951||||||"The hypothesis is formally expressed as:~H0: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months ≤ 75% Ha: Freedom from system-related complications through 9 months \> 75%"||0.951|0.904|
95768745|NCT01786993|191509649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a binomial distribution with a 44% probability for non-responders between 3 months and 9 months in both study arms, the sample size required for 85% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level is 394. To adjust for a potential net crossover of 15% and an overall attrition rate of 20%, the total number of patients required to be enrolled in this study is 506.|Difference of proportions|-0.049||||0.0131|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.138||||normal approximation for binomial dist|||"H0: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) ≤ -0.15~Ha: (Non-responder rate in the BiV arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) - (Non-responder rate in the MPP arm between 3 M randomization and 9 M) \> -0.15~The null hypothesis will be rejected at the 2.5% significance level if the lower one-sided 97.5% confidence bound for the difference in the proportions is above -0.15."|||-0.138|0.0131
95768746|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.16|0.68|
95768747|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.23|0.73|
95805399|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.0268|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.0268
95805400|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.3652|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 38||||0.3652
95805401|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.||||||0.1854|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||0.1854
95805402|NCT04250207|191584566|SUPERIORITY|p-value is based on the Pearson Chi-square test. When the number of responders (Achieved or Not Achieved) is less than 5 in either group, Fisher's exact test is used instead. If Fisher's exact test is used, the unconditional CI for the difference in response rates is provided.|||||>|0.9999|||||||Chi-square or Fisher exact|||Week 52||||> 0.9999
95805403|NCT04250207|191584567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0259
95805404|NCT04250207|191584567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.0068
95805405|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.4435
95805406|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 1||||0.3402
95805407|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 2||||> 0.9999
95805408|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0655|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0655
95805409|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 3||||0.0903
95805410|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0216
95805411|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 5||||0.0020
95805412|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0676|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0676
95805413|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 7||||0.0029
95805414|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0335
95805415|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 9||||0.0053
95994285|NCT01360996|191964694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95994286|NCT01360996|191964695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994287|NCT01360996|191964696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.0001
95994288|NCT01360996|191964697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994289|NCT01360996|191964698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
95994290|NCT03377634|191964699|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS Pain intensity, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain intensity||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
95994291|NCT03377634|191964700|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in PROMIS pain interference, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline pain interference||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.99
95768748|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.38|0.81|
95994292|NCT03377634|191964701|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in SPPB, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline SPPB||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.14
95768749|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.6|0.9|
95768750|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.77|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.77|1|
95768751|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.2|0.68|
95768752|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.97|0.63|
95768753|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.13|0.86|
95805416|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0608|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0608
95805417|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 12||||0.0071
95805418|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4406|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.4406
95805419|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1716|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 16||||0.1716
95805420|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.9856
95951418|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.02|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.02|0.36|
95805421|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 20||||0.2229
95951419|NCT03345407|191874483|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.17|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.17|0.57|
95951420|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.2|-0.5|
95805422|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 24||||0.8817
95805423|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2081|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.2081
95805424|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.7335
95805425|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5367|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 38||||0.5367
95951421|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-0.8|
95994293|NCT03377634|191964702|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in weight, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline weight||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.11
95994294|NCT03377634|191964703|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in activity time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline stepping time||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.65
95768754|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.67|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.67|1.09|
95768755|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.02|0.61|
95768756|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.18|0.7|
95768757|NCT00450437|191509650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||ANOVA|||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was contained within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.5|0.89|
95768758|NCT00450437|191509651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||14|3|
95768759|NCT00450437|191509651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|-2|
95805426|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.5550
95805427|NCT04250207|191584568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8718|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Week 52||||0.8718
95805428|NCT04526158|191584571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|0.0|0.031
95860114|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||0.2|-2.5|0.0859
95951422|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.8|
95951423|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.2|-2.0|
95805429|NCT04526158|191584571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
95951424|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjacent median difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.3|0.0|
95951425|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-1.1|
95951426|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.4|-0.5|
95951427|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.4|-0.9|
95768760|NCT00450437|191509651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||18|6|
95951428|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.4|-1.9|
95768761|NCT00450437|191509651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|33.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||33|20|
95768762|NCT00450437|191509652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MenACWY was considered noninferior to Menactra if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction \[MenACWY minus Menactra\] was less than 6%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, safety.||2|-1|
95768763|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
95768764|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
95951429|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-2.3|
95951430|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.2|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.2|-1.2|
95768765|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
95768766|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|0|
95951431|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.0|-1.4|
95951432|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||5.1|-1.4|
95994295|NCT03377634|191964704|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sitting time, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline sitting time||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
95951433|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.7|
95951434|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjsted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-2.3|
95994296|NCT03377634|191964705|OTHER|Analysis of covariance on change in sit to stand transitions, with group as fixed effect and controlling for baseline transitions||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.28
96001842|NCT01096667|191981236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.96|2.0||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||2.00|-1.96|0.506
95768767|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||10|-1|
95951435|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-1.9|
95951436|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.8|-0.9|
95951437|NCT03345407|191874484|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.7|-0.8|
95951438|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.41|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.41|0.03|
95951439|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.47|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.47|0.42|
95951440|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.24|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.24|0.69|
95951441|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.91|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.91|0.95|
95951442|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.08|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.08|0.61|
95951443|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.40|0.60|
95951444|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.16|0.14|
95951445|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.98|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.98|0.74|
95994297|NCT00584870|191964748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.67|-0.67||p-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and statistical test was 1-sided with 0.1 significance level.|Repeated Measures Model|||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with baseline, center, treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed main effects and participant as random effect.||-0.67|-1.67|0.001
95768768|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-6|
95951446|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.97|0.73|
95951447|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.27|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.27|0.83|
95951448|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.62|0.57|
95951449|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.50|0.75|
95951450|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.39|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.39|0.17|
95951451|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.01|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.01|0.72|
95951452|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.79|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.79|0.64|
95951453|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.14|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.14|0.75|
95768769|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-13|
95768770|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||11|-3|
95768771|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||17|4|
95768772|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-13|
95805430|NCT04526158|191584571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||significance threshold = 0.0167 due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
95805431|NCT04526158|191584572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.2|0.736
95805432|NCT04526158|191584572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
95805433|NCT04526158|191584572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI intensity, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
95805434|NCT04526158|191584573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.4|0.829
95805435|NCT04526158|191584573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.9|0.2|0.005
95805436|NCT04526158|191584573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Physical function, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.0|0.2|0.004
95951454|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.45|0.53|
95951455|NCT03345407|191874485|OTHER||Posterior median odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior median odds ratio and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.43|0.71|
95951456|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||8.3|-4.8|
95805437|NCT04526158|191584574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.8|0.0|0.079
95951457|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.1|-4.0|
95951458|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.2|
95951459|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-6.7|
95768773|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||8|-6|
95768774|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with seroresponse comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||14|0|
95768775|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-10|
95768776|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-12|
95805438|NCT04526158|191584574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.2|-0.6|0.296
95805439|NCT04526158|191584574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS Anxiety, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
95805440|NCT04526158|191584575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.7|-0.3|0.464
95805441|NCT04526158|191584575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.1|-1.1|0.019
95951460|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.5|-4.0|
95951461|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 28 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-2.7|
95951462|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||11.0|-2.5|
95951463|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-4.8|
95951464|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.1|-6.3|
95951465|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||0.4|-7.3|
95951466|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.0|-4.6|
95951467|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 56 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.5|-2.9|
95951468|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.4|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 12.5 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||9.4|-4.8|
95951469|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.6|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 50 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.6|-4.1|
95768777|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
95768778|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
95768779|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||7|-2|
95805442|NCT04526158|191584575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS fatigue, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.3|0.002
95805443|NCT04526158|191584576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.4|-0.5|0.889
95805444|NCT04526158|191584576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
95805445|NCT04526158|191584576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS sleep disturbance, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.1|0.006
95805446|NCT04526158|191584577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.5|-0.4|0.76
95805447|NCT04526158|191584577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.4|0.6|<0.001
95951470|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 100 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||1.8|-6.1|
95951471|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.3|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 250 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||2.3|-5.7|
95951472|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 500 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||3.8|-4.5|
95951473|NCT03345407|191874486|OTHER||Posterior adjusted median difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.0|||||Treatment comparison between placebo and Nemiralisib 750 mcg at Day 84 was performed and posterior adjusted median difference and 95% HPD CrI has been presented.|||4.0|-1.7|
95951474|NCT01584648|191874501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.91|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.91|0.59|
95951475|NCT01584648|191874502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.02|0.64|
95951476|NCT02105688|191874534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided exact test|||A one-sided exact test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITA was less than 67% (historical reference rate derived from NCT01667731). The p-value was based on a one-sided exact test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.025 supports a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>67%.||||<0.001
95951477|NCT02105688|191874535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.0||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-8.3|
95951478|NCT02105688|191874536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.9||||||Categorical AE parameters were assessed via point estimates with 95% confidence intervals provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||1.9|-5.0|
95994298|NCT02116621|191964777|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.19|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.19|-2.91|
95768780|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||6|-3|
95768781|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
95768782|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
95768783|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-2|
95768784|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
95768785|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-8|
95805448|NCT04526158|191584577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PROMIS social roles and activities, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.3|0.5|<0.001
95805449|NCT04526158|191584578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.6|-0.7|0.89
95805450|NCT04526158|191584578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.3|-1.5|0.003
95951479|NCT01107912|191874538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference of median MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 5-mg in the elderly group to the 75th percentile of the MPA to 20 μM ADP of a prasugrel 10 mg MD in the non-elderly group at the end of Period 1 was estimated from the observed data. The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference was estimated from resampling data with replacement through bootstrap methodology and was used to compare with the non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points.|Estimate of the difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0||||||||9.00|1.00|
95951480|NCT02469155|191874553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|3.51|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measure|||||3.51|-3.39|0.972
95951481|NCT02469155|191874553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.84|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.84|-2.92|0.789
95994299|NCT02116621|191964778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: -0.79 (-2.37 to 0.80); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.36 (-2.91 to 0.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.16 (-1.47 to 1.79)|||0.21
95994300|NCT02116621|191964779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.31 (-1.18 to 1.81); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.41 (-2.87 to 0.06); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.24 (-2.77 to 0.30)|||0.06
95805451|NCT04526158|191584578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PHQ8, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.2|-1.5|0.007
95768786|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||5|-5|
95768787|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-9|
95768788|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-11|
95805452|NCT04526158|191584579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||1.9|-1.6|0.886
95805453|NCT04526158|191584579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.4|-3.7|0.017
95805454|NCT04526158|191584579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline values of PCL5, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-3.9|0.013
95805455|NCT04526158|191584580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||0.3|-0.1|0.437
95805456|NCT04526158|191584580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.5|-0.9|<0.001
95805457|NCT04526158|191584580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model adjusted for baseline Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-0.6|-1.0|<0.001
95805458|NCT04526158|191584581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-1.2||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||-1.2|-13.9|
95951482|NCT02991118|191874555|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.951|-13.896|||ANCOVA|||||-13.896|-20.951|<0.001
95805459|NCT04526158|191584581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.6||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||17.6|6.4|
95805460|NCT04526158|191584581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|25.4||Used confidence interval to determine significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Logistic mixed model adjusted for baseline values of BPI interference, Pain Self-Efficacy, and design factors|estimates were generated from multiple imputed data|||25.4|13.6|
95805461|NCT00677040|191584582|EQUIVALENCE|t-test to determine if tissue oxygen measurements are equivalent between treated and nontreated breast|t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95805462|NCT00677040|191584582|OTHER||t-test|0.35||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.5
95805463|NCT01725282|191584594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||3.6|-3.1|
95805464|NCT01725282|191584594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||2.8|-4.0|
95860115|NCT00611026|191678451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
95951483|NCT02991118|191874556|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-14.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.418|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.504|-10.027|||ANCOVA|||||-10.027|-19.504|<0.001
95951484|NCT02991118|191874557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-9.794|||ANCOVA|||||-9.794|-16.270|<0.001
95805465|NCT01725282|191584594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.6|||||An analysis of covariance model with the baseline as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.|||4.6|-2.1|
95805466|NCT04576481|191584608|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|1.18||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Variance statistical testing.||||0.32
95805467|NCT04576481|191584609|SUPERIORITY||F-Statistic|0.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.78
95994301|NCT02116621|191964780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks:-0.66 (-2.55 to 1.24); baseline to 26 weeks: 0.93 (-0.92 to 2.79); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.76 (-1.19 to 2.70)|||0.35
95768789|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-8|
95768790|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%)||5|-3|
95768791|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
95805468|NCT04576481|191584610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
95805469|NCT04576481|191584611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
95951485|NCT02991118|191874558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.599|-8.801|||ANCOVA|||||-8.801|-13.599|<0.001
95951486|NCT02991118|191874559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|-9.907|||ANCOVA|||||-9.907|-16.130|<0.001
95951487|NCT02991118|191874560|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-8.733|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.238|-0.434|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-0.434|-17.238|<0.039
95951488|NCT02991118|191874563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.258||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|11.292|||ANCOVA|||||11.292|-1.504|0.134
95805470|NCT04576481|191584612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95805471|NCT03464461|191584618|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.9844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9844
95805472|NCT03464461|191584619|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.158|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1580
95805473|NCT03464461|191584620|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.873|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8730
95805474|NCT03464461|191584621|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.074|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0740
95805475|NCT03464461|191584622|OTHER|non-parametric||||||0.0984|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0984
95805476|NCT02739828|191584644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0001
95805477|NCT02739828|191584645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||< 0.0001
95805478|NCT02739828|191584646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
95805479|NCT02739828|191584647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0005
95805480|NCT02739828|191584647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0006
95951489|NCT02991118|191874564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.369|-3.896|||ANCOVA|||||-3.896|-8.369|<0.001
95951490|NCT02991118|191874565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.314|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.813|-7.722|||ANCOVA|||||-7.722|-16.813|<0.001
95951491|NCT02991118|191874566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|-8.682|||ANCOVA|||||-8.682|-16.580|<0.001
95951492|NCT02991118|191874567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.803|-6.037|||ANCOVA|||||-6.037|-13.803|<0.001
95951493|NCT02991118|191874568|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.698|-7.848|||ANCOVA|||||-7.848|-13.698|<0.001
95951494|NCT02991118|191874569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.223|-5.493|||ANCOVA|||||-5.493|-11.223|<0.001
95951495|NCT02991118|191874570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.829|-8.175|||ANCOVA|||||-8.175|-17.829|<0.001
96001843|NCT01096667|191981236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.61||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||3.71|-0.49|0.838
95768792|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||4|-4|
95768793|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-5|
95768794|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||2|-4|
95768795|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-2|
95768796|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for all pairs of vaccine lots, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||1|-8|
95768797|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 1 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||0|-9|
95768798|NCT00450437|191509653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (-10%, 10%). If the two sided 95% CIs for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 at one month following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 and Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 would be equivalent for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Lot-to-lot consistency would be concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:4 comparing Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 2 to Investigational vaccine MenACWY Lot 3 for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y were contained within the equivalence interval (-10%, 10%).||3|-5|
95951496|NCT02991118|191874571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.107|-6.047|||ANCOVA|||||-6.047|-13.107|<0.001
95951497|NCT02991118|191874572|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.278|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|-10.034|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-10.034|-32.250|<0.001
95951498|NCT02991118|191874573|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-7.587||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.978|1.653|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||1.653|-16.978|0.102
95951499|NCT02991118|191874574|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-9.878|||ANCOVA|||||-9.878|-20.260|<0.001
95951500|NCT05265247|191874607|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the point estimate for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9531|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.0673||||||||1.0673|0.8510|
95951501|NCT05265247|191874608|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for the ratio lies completely within the range of 0.8-1.25.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.9538|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.0132||||||||1.0132|0.8980|
96001844|NCT01096667|191981236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.82||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.19|-3.82|0.123
95768799|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
95768800|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||9|1|
95768801|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs.Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||20|11|
95768802|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with seroresponse one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|28.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||28|19|
95768803|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||8|0|
95768804|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||7|0|
95768805|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||9|4|
95768806|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||20|12|
95768807|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||7|-1|
95768808|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenC.||4|-1|
95768809|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||8|3|
95768810|NCT00450437|191509654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|16.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||16|9|
95805481|NCT02739828|191584648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0004
95805482|NCT02739828|191584648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0016
95860116|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
95805483|NCT02739828|191584649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain at its worst. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0003
95805484|NCT02739828|191584649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||paired t-test|||Skin pain on average. Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0094
95805485|NCT02739828|191584653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0278
95805486|NCT02739828|191584654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0215
95805487|NCT02739828|191584655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1652|||||||paired t-test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1652
95768811|NCT00450437|191509655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenA.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain A at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.56|1.12|
95805488|NCT02739828|191584659|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
95994302|NCT02116621|191964781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 0.30 (-1.01 to 1.61); baseline to 26 weeks: -0.17 (-1.45 to 1.12); baseline to 52 weeks: -0.26 (-1.61 to 1.09)|||0.86
95994303|NCT02116621|191964782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.05 (-2.54 to 4.64); baseline to 26 weeks: 1.90 (-1.66 to 5.47); baseline to 52 weeks: 0.08 (-3.61 to 3.77).|||0.70
95951502|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|3.03|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as a multiplier in the Modified Diet in Renal Disease Study Group (MDRD) equation.|||3.03|1.18|
95951503|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.59|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.59|1.43|
95994304|NCT02116621|191964783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 4.24 (-2.73 to 11.20); baseline to 26 weeks: 4.64 (-2.25 to 11.54); baseline to 52 weeks: -1.91 (-9.07 to 5.26).|||0.20
95994305|NCT02116621|191964784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.76 (-2.37 to 5.89); baseline to 26 weeks: 2.55 (-1.50 to 6.60); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.53 (-2.70 to 5.77).|||0.66
95951504|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.06|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.06|1.71|
95951505|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|2.18|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.18|0.888|
95951506|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.31|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.31|1.14|
95951507|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.22|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.22|1.41|
95951508|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.7|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.7|1.74|
95951509|NCT00999336|191874615|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|2.3|||||Statistical comparison of AUC0-24 on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.3|0.944|
95951510|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|3.35|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.35|1.05|
95951511|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|4.07|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.07|1.32|
95951512|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|4.29|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.29|1.48|
95994306|NCT02116621|191964785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 7.77 (-2.87 to 18.42); baseline to 26 weeks: 7.29 (-3.16 to 17.75); baseline to 52 weeks: 4.13 (-6.81 to 15.07).|||0.44
95994307|NCT02116621|191964786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 2.15 (-2.84 to 7.13); baseline to 26 weeks: 3.31 (-1.57 to 8.19); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.00 (-4.11 to 6.11).|||0.58
95994308|NCT02116621|191964787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Longitudinal analysis adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control). Baseline to 13 weeks: 1.81 (-4.41 to 8.02); baseline to 26 weeks: -1.57 (-7.68 to 4.54); baseline to 52 weeks: 1.11 (-5.27 to 7.48).|||0.73
95994309|NCT02116621|191964788|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.06|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|||0.06|-2.87|
95768812|NCT00450437|191509655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.67|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigation MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenC.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain C at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||1.67|1.17|
95768813|NCT00450437|191509655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenW.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain W at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.05|1.51|
95768814|NCT00450437|191509655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence lower limit was 0.5. If the lower limit of two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the hSBA GMT (GMT for investigational vaccine / GMT for licensed vaccine) at one month following vaccination was above this limit, Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be non-inferior to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y with respect to the immune response.|hSBA GMT ratios|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.95|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of Investigational MenACWY Vaccine vs. Licensed MenACWY vaccine, MenY.~The study would be considered a success if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing Investigational MenACWY vaccine to Licensed MenACWY vaccine for Neisseria Meningitidis strain Y at 1 month after vaccination was to be above 0.5."||2.95|2.11|
95768815|NCT00450437|191509657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenA.||5|-7|
95768816|NCT00450437|191509657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine. MenC.||15|3|
95768817|NCT00450437|191509657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenW.||17|2|
95768818|NCT00450437|191509657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immunogenicity of the Investigational MenACWY vaccine would be considered non-inferior to that of the Licensed MenACWY vaccine if the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the between group difference (investigational vaccine minus licensed vaccine) in percentage of seroresponders one month after vaccination is \> -10%.|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|23.0|||ANOVA|||Vaccine group difference Investigational MenACWY vaccine vs. Licensed MenaCWY vaccine, MenY.||23|9|
95805489|NCT02739828|191584660|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||1.0000
95805490|NCT02739828|191584661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.5000
95951513|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|2.32|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 186 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.32|0.772|
95951514|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|3.78|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||3.78|1.01|
95951515|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.67|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.67|1.21|
95951516|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|4.96|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||4.96|1.46|
95805491|NCT02739828|191584662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1797
95951517|NCT00999336|191874616|OTHER|Geometric least squares means, ratios, and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA of natural log transformed values.|Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|2.38|||||Statistical comparison of Cmax on Day 8 for participants grouped using 175 as multiplier in the MDRD equation.|||2.38|0.793|
95951518|NCT02516202|191874624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.25
95994310|NCT02116621|191964789|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.79|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|2.79|-0.92|
95951519|NCT02516202|191874624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.31
95951520|NCT02516202|191874625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.99
95951521|NCT02516202|191874625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.05
95951522|NCT02516202|191874626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.64
95994311|NCT02116621|191964790|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.12|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|1.12|-1.45|
95994312|NCT02116621|191964791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.47|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|5.47|-1.66|
95768819|NCT04025879|191509658|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.78|||Log Rank||Stratified by randomization stratification factors: PD-L1 Status (\>=1% vs \<1%/not evaluable/indeterminate), disease stage (II vs III), histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||0.78|0.43|0.00025
95768820|NCT04025879|191509660|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF PCR|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||26.6|14.3|
95768821|NCT04025879|191509660|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.97|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||12.97|3.40|
95768822|NCT04025879|191509661|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE OF MPR|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.6|||||Strata adjusted difference based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting.|||30.6|15.8|
95805492|NCT02739828|191584663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
95860117|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0024
95994313|NCT02116621|191964792|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|11.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|11.54|-2.25|
95768823|NCT04025879|191509661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||||95.0|2.48|6.49|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||6.49|2.48|
95994314|NCT02116621|191964793|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|6.60|-1.50|
95768824|NCT03175536|191509687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|12.1|||GEE models|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||12.1|-5.2|0.05
95768825|NCT03175536|191509688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||7.0|-4.4|0.05
95768826|NCT03175536|191509689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.3|||GEE model|Binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||11.3|0.7|0.05
95805493|NCT02739828|191584664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0313
95805494|NCT02739828|191584665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
95805495|NCT02739828|191584666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4531|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.4531
95860118|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6514|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.6514
95768827|NCT03175536|191509690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.06|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes|||1.06|-0.74|0.05
95768828|NCT03175536|191509691|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-21.0|||GEE model|Negative binomial regression with GEE model; term of interest was interaction between study group and time period (baseline vs follow-up year).|Using terms from the regression model, we applied marginal effects methods to calculate mean adjusted baseline and follow-up PDC and absolute changes.|||-21|-47|0.05
95768829|NCT04031846|191509716|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||=|0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in % : Injection site erythema||6.3|-5.0|= 0.824
95768830|NCT04031846|191509716|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|2.8|||=|0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site induration||8.4|-2.8|= 0.324
95768831|NCT04031846|191509716|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|16.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site pain||16.6|5.8|< 0.001
95768832|NCT04031846|191509716|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.1|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Injection site swelling||9.4|-1.2|= 0.128
95768833|NCT04031846|191509717|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Decreased appetite||5.8|-5.0|= 0.885
95805496|NCT02739828|191584667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0156
95768834|NCT04031846|191509717|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|5.4|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Irritability||10.7|0.1|= 0.045
95768835|NCT04031846|191509717|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|4.4|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Somnolence||10.0|-1.3|= 0.131
95951523|NCT02516202|191874626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Regression, Linear|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||||||0.17
95951524|NCT02516202|191874628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value calculation includes 195 participants with known responses at week 12.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95951525|NCT02516202|191874629|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95951526|NCT02516202|191874629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95951527|NCT02516202|191874630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95951528|NCT02516202|191874630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95951529|NCT03060525|191874634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in weight change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.41|-6.32|0.026
95951530|NCT03060525|191874635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in Body Mass Index (BMI) change from Baseline to 6months, between Immediate Intervention participants (group and videophone combined) vs. Delayed Intervention participants (group and videophone combined). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||-0.12|-2.42|0.03
95768836|NCT04031846|191509717|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||=|0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %: Urticaria||2.1|-2.4|= 0.898
95768837|NCT04031846|191509718|OTHER|Difference in % and 95 % CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Difference in %||0.5|-1.0|
95768838|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.57|< 0.001
95805497|NCT02739828|191584668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0386|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0386
95805498|NCT02739828|191584669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3438|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.3438
95805499|NCT02739828|191584670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
95805500|NCT02739828|191584671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
95805501|NCT02739828|191584672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.0625
95805502|NCT02739828|191584673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Sign test|||Analysis is under the assumption of completely missing at random (deleted incomplete observations).||||0.1250
95994315|NCT02116621|191964794|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|17.75|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|17.75|-3.16|
95994316|NCT02116621|191964795|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.19|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|8.19|-1.57|
95994317|NCT02116621|191964796|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|4.54|||||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 26 weeks.|4.54|-7.68|
95768839|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.39||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.17|< 0.001
95768840|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
95768841|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.70|0.59|< 0.001
95768842|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
95768843|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.07|0.85|< 0.001
95768844|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.72|< 0.001
95768845|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.66|< 0.001
95768846|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.83||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.67|< 0.001
95860119|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95860120|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0063
95994318|NCT02116621|191964797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|21.24|||Regression, Linear|||||21.24|2.59|0.01
95994319|NCT02116621|191964798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.8|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||0.80|-2.37|
95994320|NCT02116621|191964799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.81|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.81|-1.18|
95951531|NCT03060525|191874636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|247.5||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in amount of physical activity = 6-month MET-minutes/week - baseline MET-minutes/week (change from pre to post intervention), using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. IPAQ score is a continuous measure and reports median MET-minutes per week (a combination of walking met-minutes/week + moderate activity MET-minutes/week + vigorous activity MET-minutes/week). \[analysis of 2 arms, immediate intervention vs. delayed intervention\]||||0.63
95951532|NCT04447287|191874653|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|89.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|99.11||||||||99.11|81.21|
95951533|NCT04447287|191874654|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|92.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.22|105.86||||||||105.86|80.22|
95768847|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.80|< 0.001
95768848|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.91||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.75|< 0.001
95768849|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.80|< 0.001
95768850|NCT04031846|191509719|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.97|0.79|< 0.001
95768851|NCT04031846|191509719|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|71.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.16|79.1||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||79.10|65.16|< 0.001
95768852|NCT04031846|191509719|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|46.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.19|51.42||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC Ratio: CI and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||51.42|42.19|< 0.001
95768853|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-1.3|-4.7|< 0.001
95768854|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|12.2|4.4|< 0.001
95768855|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-4.5|< 0.001
95768856|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
95768857|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
95805503|NCT01953354|191584675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95951534|NCT04447287|191874655|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|109.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.71||||||||117.71|101.10|
95951535|NCT04447287|191874656|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|117.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.41|130.34||||||||130.34|106.41|
95951536|NCT04447287|191874657|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|79.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|92.55||||||||92.55|68.10|
95951537|NCT04447287|191874658|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.28|93.5||||||||93.50|59.28|
95951538|NCT03246724|191874659|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. A 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||As a sensitivity analysis, an ANCOVA model will be fit to the data adjusting for factors that are out of balance following randomization. The mean difference between the adjusted means will be calculated.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Testable hypothesis: Patient satisfaction mean will be non-inferior when given oral triazolam in comparison to IV midazolam during all basic cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is that the oral sedation group will have a primary endpoint mean equal to or less than that of the IV sedation group by the non-inferiority margin or more."||||<0.05
95805504|NCT01953354|191584676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95805505|NCT01953354|191584677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.242
95962098|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.5|-20.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-20.0|-38.5|<.0001
95768858|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.1|-3.5|< 0.001
95768859|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
95768860|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.4|-2.4|< 0.001
95768861|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
95768862|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.8|< 0.001
95768863|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.2|-2.2|< 0.001
95768864|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
95994321|NCT02116621|191964800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.61|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.61|-1.01|
95768865|NCT04031846|191509720|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.5|-2.7|< 0.001
95805506|NCT01953354|191584678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
95805507|NCT01953354|191584681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.550
95805508|NCT01953354|191584682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||||||P-value is testing for a difference in proportions using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.633
95805509|NCT01714063|191584699|OTHER|We used a paired T-test for statistical analysis to compare the filter dose. Using the 1% significance level and assuming a between-subject standard deviation of 60 lg (27%) for the difference between coordinated and doses, 32 subjects are sufficient to detect a 45 lg (20%) difference with 95% confidence.uncoordinated filter|||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95805510|NCT03721107|191584727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.9||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||21.9|-6.0|0.152
95768866|NCT04031846|191509720|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|93.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.6||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|95.6|91.5|< 0.001
95768867|NCT04031846|191509720|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|94.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.7|96.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|96.5|92.7|< 0.001
95768868|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Diphtheria toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.4|-1.7|< 0.001
95768869|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Tetanus toxoid|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
95768870|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PT|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.9|-1.3|< 0.001
95768871|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis FHA|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-1.0|< 0.001
95768872|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Pertussis PRN|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-1.3|< 0.001
95768873|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Hib PRP|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.1|-1.3|< 0.001
95768874|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -10% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: HBsAg|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.0|-2.0|< 0.001
95768875|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 1|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
95768876|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 2|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-0.7|< 0.001
95805511|NCT03721107|191584727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.6||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.0||P-value is from a 1-sided Pearson chi-square test with Yates' correction with null hypothesis that the difference in proportions Blautix - placebo \<=0 versus the difference is \>0. The significance level for rejection of the null hypotheses is 0.10.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||18.0|-6.8|0.216
95805512|NCT03072875|191584766|OTHER|Descriptive statistic.|||||||||||||||||Quantitative data (descriptive statistic) from the USAQ were used to determine feasibility. Specifically, we established an a priori mean score of 3.5 or greater on the USAQ to determine feasibility.|||
95805513|NCT00907088|191584777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
95805514|NCT00452400|191584780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0233||95.0|0.008|0.113|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.113|0.008|0.0233
95994322|NCT02116621|191964801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.24|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||1.24|-2.55|
95994323|NCT02116621|191964802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.64|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||4.64|-2.54|
95994324|NCT02116621|191964803|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|11.2|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||11.20|-2.73|
95994325|NCT02116621|191964804|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|5.89|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||5.89|-2.37|
95994326|NCT02116621|191964805|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|18.42|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||18.42|-2.87|
95994327|NCT02116621|191964806|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|7.13|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||7.13|-2.84|
95994328|NCT02116621|191964807|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|8.02|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 13 weeks.|||8.02|-4.41|
95768877|NCT04031846|191509721|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with V114 to Infanrix™ hexa administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the -5% specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||1-sided p-value|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Poliovirus 3|95% CI is based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.1|-0.5|< 0.001
95768878|NCT04031846|191509722|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Rotarix™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||1-sided p-value|t-distribution||V114/Prevenar 13™|GMT Ratio: CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group||1.16|0.80|< 0.001
95768879|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 1: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.88|0.73|
95805515|NCT00452400|191584780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0003||95.0|0.044|0.149|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.149|0.044|0.0003
95768880|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.02|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 3: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.02|1.70|
95805516|NCT00452400|191584780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.072|<0.0001
95768881|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 4: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.98|
95805517|NCT00452400|191584780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.185|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.080|<0.0001
95805518|NCT00452400|191584781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004||95.0|0.039|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.039|0.0004
95994329|NCT02116621|191964808|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.79|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.79|-1.47|
95994330|NCT02116621|191964809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.3|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||0.30|-2.77|
95994331|NCT02116621|191964810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.09|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||1.09|-1.61|
95994332|NCT02116621|191964811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.7|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||2.70|-1.19|
95994333|NCT02116621|191964812|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||3.77|-3.61|
95994334|NCT02116621|191964813|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.26|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.26|-9.07|
95994335|NCT02116621|191964814|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.77|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||5.77|-2.70|
95768882|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 5: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.94|0.74|
95768883|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.52|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.52|0.40|
95768884|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.41|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 6B: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.41|1.00|
95805519|NCT00452400|191584781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.186|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.088|<0.0001
95805520|NCT00452400|191584781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
95805521|NCT00452400|191584781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.218|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.120|<0.0001
95805522|NCT00452400|191584782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0011||95.0|0.034|0.136|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|0.034|0.0011
95951539|NCT03246724|191874660|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Surgeon satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: Mean surgeon satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean surgeon satisfaction score for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
95951540|NCT03246724|191874661|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5, will assure that, if non-inferiority is proven, the mean patient satisfaction with oral sedation will correspond to scores corresponding to satisfied or higher. We determined a 0.5 margin to be considered clinically similar enough to declare non-inferiority because it allows for expected patient satisfaction variability, and demonstrates ample justification for providers to offer oral sedation as a safe alternative.|||||<|0.05||||||Anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score will be independently analyzed. Summary statistics including, means, standard deviations along with points estimates of the mean difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|ANCOVA|If lower bound of the 90% two-sided Confidence Interval of mean difference is higher than -0.5, the oral sedation will be deemed non-inferior to IV.||"Null hypothesis: Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:Mean anesthesiologist/CRNA satisfaction score for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to mean satisfaction score for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures."||||<0.05
95951541|NCT03246724|191874662|OTHER|Additional anesthesia intervention will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures.~Alternate hypothesis:The total additional anesthesia interventions for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to additional anesthesia interventions for IV midazolam during cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma procedures"||||<0.05
95994336|NCT02116621|191964815|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|15.07|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||15.07|-6.81|
95805523|NCT00452400|191584782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.07|0.173|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.070|<0.0001
95805524|NCT00452400|191584782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.175|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.075|<0.0001
95805525|NCT00452400|191584782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.179|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.077|<0.0001
95805526|NCT00452400|191584783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0127||95.0|0.024|0.197|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.024|0.0127
95768885|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 7F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.91|0.76|
95768886|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 9V: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.96|0.77|
95768887|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 14: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.66|
95805527|NCT00452400|191584783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.261|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.087|<0.0001
95805528|NCT00452400|191584783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.255|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.084|0.0001
95805529|NCT00452400|191584783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.084|0.0001
95951542|NCT03246724|191874663|OTHER|Surgical complications will be using summary statistics including, counts and proportions along with point's estimates of the proportion difference between the two groups and 90% Confidence Intervals.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures.~Alternate hypothesis: The total surgical complications for oral triazolam will not be statistically significant in comparison to total surgical complications for IV midazolam during all cataracts, retina, cornea, and glaucoma ocular procedures."||||<0.05
95994337|NCT02116621|191964816|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.11|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||6.11|-4.11|
95994338|NCT02116621|191964817|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in differences|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|7.48|||||Adjusted difference in differences using mixed effects Gaussian model (Trialist intervention - control) from baseline to 52 weeks.|||7.48|-5.27|
95994339|NCT02116621|191964818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|18.96|||Regression, Linear|||||18.96|-0.15|0.054
95951543|NCT02978716|191874664|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||A Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the global family-wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses in the strong sense at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.5|-0.8|0.7048
95768888|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 18C: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.95|0.77|
95951544|NCT02978716|191874664|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.3||2-sided p-value was calculated using a ANCOVA with study baseline ANC value as covariate, stratification factors of lines of systemic therapy, liver involvement and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Duration of SN in Cycle 1 in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.3|-0.6|0.3364
95994340|NCT01813890|191964827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|105.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|179.2||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||179.2|32.0|0.006
95994341|NCT01813890|191964827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|126.58||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.5|203.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|Based on participant availability in Taiwan it was expected that 60 subjects (20 per group) would be enrolled. In consultation with the Taiwan health authority, the overall two-sided significance level was set at 0.20 (0.10 for each tapentadol versus placebo comparison). Assuming a standard deviation of 134.4, this sample size would provide 71.5% power to detect a between-group difference in SPID48 of 94.1 and 81.2% power to detect a between-group difference of 107.52.||203.7|49.5|0.004
95994342|NCT02507349|191964861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||<0.0001
95768889|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19A: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.87|0.70|
95805530|NCT00452400|191584784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0836||95.0|-0.012|0.192|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|-0.012|0.0836
95805531|NCT00452400|191584784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0011||95.0|0.068|0.274|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.274|0.068|0.0011
95951545|NCT02978716|191874665|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2762||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.559||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|Modified Poisson method|||Number of participants with SN in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.559|0.386|0.7048
95768890|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 19F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.85|0.70|
95768891|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.4|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 23F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.40|1.07|
95768892|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|57.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|65.0|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 22F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||65.00|51.20|
95768893|NCT04031846|191509723|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|7.14|||||V114 / Prevenar 13™|GMC Ratio Serotype 33F: CI are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||7.14|5.46|
95768894|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 1|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-4.4|
95768895|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|30.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 3|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|30.3|21.1|
95768896|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 4|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-0.3|-5.7|
95768897|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 5|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.3|-8.1|
95805532|NCT00452400|191584784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0037||95.0|0.049|0.25|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.049|0.0037
95994343|NCT02507349|191964861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49.||||0.0033
95768898|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-15.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-15.0|-23.9|
95805533|NCT00452400|191584784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0047||95.0|0.046|0.251|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.046|0.0047
95951546|NCT02978716|191874665|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.019||The p-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Number of participants with SN in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.019|0.457|0.9154
95994344|NCT02507349|191964861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.3164
95768899|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 6B|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|10.7|-1.5|
95768900|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 7F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.5|-2.9|
95768901|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-3.5|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 9V|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|-3.5|-10.1|
95768902|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 14|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.7|-2.6|
95768903|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.6|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 18C|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|2.6|-3.9|
95768904|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19A|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|1.0|-3.5|
95768905|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 19F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|0.7|-2.0|
95768906|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.9|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 23F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|11.9|1.3|
95768907|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|90.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.4|92.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 22F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|92.7|87.4|
95768908|NCT04031846|191509724|OTHER||Percentage Difference|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|50.3|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: Serotype 33F|95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|50.3|41.3|
95768909|NCT04031846|191509727|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|19.2|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 22F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||19.2|12.9|
95768910|NCT04031846|191509727|OTHER|Percentage difference and CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Percentage Difference|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|18.7|||||V114 minus Prevenar 13™|Percentage Difference: V114 Serotype 33F minus Prevenar 13™ Serotype 3||18.7|12.2|
95768911|NCT05514873|191509732|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Week 12 MG-ADL over Baseline was shown if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is less than 2.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.001
95768912|NCT01237041|191509736|SUPERIORITY|Univariate ANOVA||||||0.016||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|Comparison of 3 dose-finding groups. Post-hoc comparisons between groups also done.||ANOVA to compare AUC of GH among groups||||.016
95805534|NCT00452400|191584785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0695||95.0|-0.008|0.195|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.008|0.0695
95805535|NCT00452400|191584785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0018||95.0|0.061|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.061|0.0018
95951547|NCT02978716|191874668|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 3 vs Group 1.||0.74|0.22|0.0004
95951548|NCT02978716|191874668|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63||P-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||Cox regression model.|Overall survival in Group 2 vs Group 1.||0.63|0.15|0.0016
95951549|NCT02978716|191874688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted HR|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.073||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.073|0.226|0.7048
95768913|NCT01237041|191509737|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA of the 3 dose-finding groups. Data transformed using log(10) for analysis||||||0.043||||||A priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of FFA Area Under Curve in dose-finding studies. Data were log-transformed before analysis.||||.043
95768914|NCT01237041|191509738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 3 dose-finding groups||||0.543
95768915|NCT01237041|191509739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA, 2 groups, essentially an unpaired t-test.||||.113
95768916|NCT02877004|191509766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate.||||||0.723
95962099|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-19.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-19.5|-37.9|<.0001
95768917|NCT02877004|191509767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with the baseline value included as the covariate||||||.368
95768918|NCT02727478|191509768|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95768919|NCT02727478|191509769|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
95768920|NCT02727478|191509770|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
95768921|NCT02727478|191509771|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.065
95768922|NCT02727478|191509772|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.301|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.301
95768923|NCT02727478|191509773|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.792|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.792
95768924|NCT02727478|191509774|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95768925|NCT01017874|191509800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.13|0.63|0.217
95768926|NCT01017874|191509801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.31|0.68|0.788
95768927|NCT01017874|191509804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.14|0.63|0.252
95768928|NCT01017874|191509805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.32|0.53|0.952
95768929|NCT00442897|191509842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.714||||||95.0|1.77|7.78|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||7.78|1.77|
95768930|NCT00442897|191509843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.579||||||95.0|1.32|5.06|||||Odds ratio was adjusted by baseline LDL strata.|||5.06|1.32|
95768931|NCT04548193|191509847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.14||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|17.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.99|-5.72|0.28
95768932|NCT04548193|191509848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|0.06|.0054
95768933|NCT04548193|191509850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.65|0.24|.0098
95768934|NCT00558467|191509851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|4.97|||ANCOVA|||||4.97|-4.95|0.996
95768935|NCT00558467|191509852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-2.08|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.08|-5.81|
95768936|NCT00558467|191509853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-3.39|||Repeated measures|||||-3.39|-7.21|
95768937|NCT00558467|191509855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.06|||Repeated measures|||||-4.06|-7.88|
95768938|NCT00558467|191509856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean differnce|-0.15||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|10.75|||ANCOVA|||||10.75|-11.05|0.9780
95768939|NCT00558467|191509861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1052
95768940|NCT00558467|191509862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2274
95768941|NCT00558467|191509863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7691|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7691
95768942|NCT00558467|191509864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0674
95768943|NCT00558467|191509865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4944|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4944
95951550|NCT02978716|191874688|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3089||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.754||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline hemoglobin as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||RBC Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.754|0.447|0.7272
95951551|NCT02978716|191874689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6105||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|3.317||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||3.317|0.294|0.7048
95951552|NCT02978716|191874689|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4077||0.4078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|2.399||P-value: calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for duration of treatment in days accounting for number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2); liver involvement as stratification factors and baseline platelet count as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||Platelet Transfusions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||2.399|0.116|0.4078
95994345|NCT02507349|191964861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.0482
95994346|NCT02507349|191964861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9928|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.9928
95994347|NCT02507349|191964862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6243|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.6243
95768944|NCT00558467|191509866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.162
95951553|NCT02978716|191874690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1902||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.15||A 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global familywise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|modified Poisson regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 3 vs Group 1.||1.150|0.362|0.7048
95768945|NCT00558467|191509867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6375
95768946|NCT00558467|191509868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6625
95768947|NCT00558467|191509869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2664
95994348|NCT02507349|191964862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1969|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.1969
95994349|NCT02507349|191964862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and age group 1) where age group 1 is defined by 0 (reference) if \<=35; 1 if (35\<age\<=49); 2 if age \>49||||0.0042
95994350|NCT02507349|191964862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect (treatment, polynomial time, and SMI group). Participants with a diagnosis of major depression, schizoaffective or schizophrenia were classified into the SMI group and the reference group (Non-SMI) included diagnosis of anxiety, PTSD, depression/dysthymia/depression nos.||||0.0002
95768948|NCT00558467|191509870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7302|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7302
95768949|NCT00558467|191509871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
95768950|NCT00558467|191509872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4852|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4852
95768951|NCT00558467|191509873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4607
95768952|NCT00558467|191509874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7723|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7723
95768953|NCT00558467|191509875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9389|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9389
95768954|NCT02019264|191509886|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. MACE met non-inferiority when the one-sided upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval of the HR was less than 1.4 (the non-inferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.842|1.198|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.198|0.842|0.0001
95768955|NCT02019264|191509887|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.5464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.074|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.074|0.873|0.5464
95768956|NCT02019264|191509888|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|0.988|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.988|0.659|0.0380
95768957|NCT02019264|191509889|NON_INFERIORITY|Myocardial Infarction: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.824|1.191|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.191|0.824|0.0001
95768958|NCT02019264|191509889|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to Stroke: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% CI refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% CI.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.639|1.145|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.145|0.639|0.0005
95768959|NCT02019264|191509889|NON_INFERIORITY|Cardiovascular Death: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates. 97.5% confidence interval refers to the upper limit of the displayed 2-sided 95% confidence interval.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.778|1.404|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.404|0.778|0.0262
95994351|NCT02507349|191964862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of time, treatment, and the basis subgroups (no symptoms =group 1; at least 1 severe symptom = group 2)||||0.7254
95768960|NCT02019264|191509889|SUPERIORITY|Hospitalization for Unstable Angina: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.571|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.571|0.861|0.3243
95768961|NCT02019264|191509889|SUPERIORITY|Heart Failure: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.197|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.197|0.757|0.6758
95768962|NCT02019264|191509889|SUPERIORITY|Coronary Revascularization: Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.856|0.7817
95768963|NCT02019264|191509890|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.082||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.31|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.310|0.893|0.4212
95768964|NCT02019264|191509891|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.333|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.333|0.947|0.1810
95768965|NCT02019264|191509892|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.773||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|0.944|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.944|0.633|0.0116
95768966|NCT02019264|191509893|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.35||P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification variable (presence of established CV disease or CV risk factors without established CV disease) as factors, and baseline HbA1c, as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.43|<0.0001
95768967|NCT02019264|191509894|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|0.959|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.959|0.787|0.0054
95994352|NCT02507349|191964862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction of Treatment, time, and subgroup of side effects. Subgroup of side effect= 0 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 1, 2, or 3 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are minimally bothered by medication side effects at baseline); Subgroup of side effect= 1 if the response to the medication side effects question at baseline is 4-10 (i.e. subgroup of participants who are moderately or very bothered by medication side effects at baseline)||||0.0580
95994353|NCT02507349|191964863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.4677
95994354|NCT02507349|191964863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0940
95768968|NCT02019264|191509895|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.125|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.125|0.727|0.3661
95994355|NCT02507349|191964864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.8733
95768969|NCT02019264|191509896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.855||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.96|||Primary Analytic Method|||||0.960|0.762|0.0082
95768970|NCT02019264|191509897|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio was based on Cox-regression model including treatment and CV strata as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.182||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.375|||Primary Analytic Method|||||1.375|1.017|0.0297
95768971|NCT02019264|191509898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline body mass index (BMI) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.69|0.5015
95768972|NCT02019264|191509899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.98||P-value was based on logistic regression including treatment as a factor and baseline BMI as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.98|0.29|0.7249
95768973|NCT02019264|191509900|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9036||||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2908|-0.5163||P value was based on a mixed-effects model (unstructured covariance matrix) with repeated measures with treatment, month and treatment by month interaction as factors and baseline pulmonary arterial systolic pressure and baseline BMI as covariates.|Mixed-effects model|||||-0.5163|-1.2908|0.2976
95768974|NCT02949973|191509976|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95768975|NCT02949973|191509977|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95768976|NCT02949973|191509978|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95768977|NCT02949973|191509979|OTHER||Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95768978|NCT02949973|191509980|OTHER||Percentage|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3||||||||93.3|34.8|
95768979|NCT02949973|191509981|OTHER||Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|84.3||||||||84.3|15.7|
95805536|NCT00452400|191584785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0008||95.0|0.072|0.272|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.072|0.0008
95994356|NCT02507349|191964864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0113
95994357|NCT02507349|191964865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.2328
95994358|NCT02507349|191964865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0005
95994359|NCT02507349|191964866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0033
95994360|NCT02507349|191964867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.1649
95994361|NCT02507349|191964867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (Marginal Effect of Time)||||0.0016
95994362|NCT02507349|191964868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time-by-treatment interaction||||0.0080
95994363|NCT02507349|191964869|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95994364|NCT02507349|191964870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95994365|NCT01147809|191964933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|52.5|||ANCOVA|||||52.5|-3.9|0.103
95994366|NCT01147809|191964955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.9||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|51.1|||ANCOVA|||||51.1|-15.6|0.407
95994367|NCT01147809|191964956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.4||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|||||37.4|-33.5|0.802
95994368|NCT00805207|191964977|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95994369|NCT00805207|191964977|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95994370|NCT00805207|191964977|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.88
95994371|NCT00805207|191964977|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.26
95994372|NCT00805207|191964977|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|VLDL-TG secretion rates were skewed and log transformed prior to performing ANOVA||||||0.98
95994373|NCT00805207|191964978|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95994374|NCT00805207|191964978|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95994375|NCT00805207|191964978|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95768980|NCT04760626|191509983|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec with doseguide minus once daily basal insulin analogue) was strictly below 0.3 percent point.|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with region and randomised treatment as fixed factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.66|<0.0001
95768981|NCT00758290|191509993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95768982|NCT01890122|191510001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.278||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.278|-0.700|< 0.0001
95768983|NCT01890122|191510001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.467||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and country as fixed effects, and Baseline HbA1c as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.467|-0.889|< 0.0001
95768984|NCT01766076|191510049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann Whitney test was used for nonparametric variables||||||<0.05
95805537|NCT00452400|191584785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0006||95.0|0.077|0.281|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.077|0.0006
95994376|NCT00805207|191964978|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
95994377|NCT00805207|191964978|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
95768985|NCT00722137|191510050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.79|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.79|0.50|<0.001
95994378|NCT00805207|191964979|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95994379|NCT00805207|191964979|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95994380|NCT00805207|191964979|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.53
95994381|NCT00805207|191964979|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
95994382|NCT00805207|191964980|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
95994383|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95994384|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P-value is the main effect of treatment (i.e., Before vs. After) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95994385|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||P-value is the main effect of group (i.e., Testosterone, Progesterone, Estrogen and Control) from ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||0.96
95994386|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P value is the group by treatment interaction from the ANOVA|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95994387|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
95994388|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Tukey test|||||||<0.01
95994389|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
95994390|NCT00805207|191964981|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Tukey test|||||||>0.10
95994391|NCT00064701|191964982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-8.9|5.2||||||||5.2|-8.9|
95994392|NCT00064701|191964982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-9.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-9.9|
95994393|NCT00064701|191964983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.6||||||||0.6|-7.2|
95994394|NCT00064701|191964983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.1|
95994395|NCT00064701|191964984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-8.5|
95994396|NCT00064701|191964984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.0|
95994397|NCT00064701|191964985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-3.0||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 6 months||-3.0|-13.1|
95994398|NCT00064701|191964985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 6 Months|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 6 months||1.8|-9.5|
95994399|NCT00064701|191964985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 Months|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-0.3||||||Comparison of tacrolimus with cyclosporine at 12 months||-0.3|-12.0|
95994400|NCT00064701|191964985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for this study was pre-specified as 10%.|Incidence Difference at 12 months|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|2.8||||||Comparison of Tacrolimus Modified Release with Cyclosporine at 12 months||2.8|-9.6|
95994401|NCT00064701|191964995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.5||||||||5.5|-6.5|
95994402|NCT00064701|191964995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-3.9|
95994403|NCT00064701|191964996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.6||||||||6.6|-9.1|
95994404|NCT00064701|191964996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.6||||||||8.6|-7.1|
95768986|NCT00722137|191510051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.74|0.45|<0.001
95768987|NCT00722137|191510053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||0.65|0.38|<0.001
95768988|NCT00722137|191510054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.65|0.38|=0.001
95768989|NCT00722137|191510055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.428||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.722|0.749|0.275
95768990|NCT00722137|191510056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.688|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.148|2.481|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio for stratified tables is used, with IPI risk and Stage of Disease as stratification factors. An odds ratio (OR) \> 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||2.481|1.148|<0.007
95994405|NCT03094195|191964998|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.9|-1.3|0.689
95768991|NCT00722137|191510057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|Based on Log rank test stratified with IPI risk and stage of disease.|Hazards ratio estimate is based on a Cox´s model stratified by IPI risk and stage of disease. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates an advantage for VcR-CAP.|||1.10|0.59|0.173
95768992|NCT01465412|191510061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the least squares mean (LSM) Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.662||||||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, Body Mass Index (BMI) and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||1.662|0.695|
95768993|NCT01465412|191510061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.334|5.06||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.060|1.334|
95768994|NCT01465412|191510062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.027||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.027|0.840|
95768995|NCT01465412|191510062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|3.198||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||3.198|0.643|
95805538|NCT00452400|191584786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.204|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.078|<0.0001
95994406|NCT03094195|191964998|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Multiplicity adjustment for the pairwise comparisons has been performed using the Hochberg procedure. Adjusted p-value 0.689||||0.6|-1.6|0.350
95994407|NCT03094195|191965002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.908
95994408|NCT03094195|191965002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.609
95994409|NCT03094195|191965003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.2|0.3|0.800
95994410|NCT03094195|191965003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.5|0.4|0.653
95994411|NCT03094195|191965005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-0.4|0.225
95994412|NCT03094195|191965005|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.0|0.914
95994413|NCT04373460|191965026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.8|||Fisher Exact|||||5.8|1.0|0.005
95994414|NCT04373460|191965027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.11|0.16
95994415|NCT04373460|191965028|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||Rate per person-years|||||0.32|0.03|0.02
95994416|NCT04373460|191965029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Rate per person-years|||||0.02|-0.01|0.32
95994417|NCT04373460|191965034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
95994418|NCT04373460|191965038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|1.425||||||||1.425|0.192|
95994419|NCT00151892|191965040|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects in remission at 6 months of the two treatment groups will be computed. Non-inferiority of SPD476 to Asacol will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI lies above the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Difference in proportions|0.02||||||95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||The null hypothesis to be tested is that the true difference in proportions is less than or equal to -10%.||0.08|-0.04|
95768996|NCT01465412|191510063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.234||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||4.234|0.810|
95768997|NCT01465412|191510063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.306|4.382||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||4.382|1.306|
95768998|NCT01465412|191510064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.61||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.610|0.918|
95768999|NCT01465412|191510064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.75||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.750|0.720|
95769000|NCT01465412|191510065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.617|3.917||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||3.917|0.617|
95769001|NCT01465412|191510065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.77|8.335||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||8.335|2.770|
95769002|NCT01465412|191510066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.269|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.703|2.288||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.288|0.703|
95994420|NCT02764541|191965058|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0045
95994421|NCT02764541|191965058|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference in anti-proliferative activity of Letrozole vs Tamoxifen by measuring the fold-change in percent Ki67 from baseline to day15 in log scale within hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients with invasive lobular carcinoma||||||0.0161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0161
95994422|NCT02764541|191965059|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.9288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9288
95994423|NCT02764541|191965061|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of pathologic response measured by RCB index between Arm C and Arm D|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||||0.32|-0.29|0.920
95769003|NCT01465412|191510066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|2.977||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||2.977|1.316|
95805539|NCT00452400|191584786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.099|<0.0001
95994424|NCT02764541|191965062|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that there is no difference of RCB response rate between Arm C and Arm D||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
95994425|NCT04743856|191965137|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Apriori p-value for significance was \<0.05. Models were not adjusted for additional covariates and multiple comparisons adjustment was not performed.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models for binomial outcomes were run to determine if there were significant differences in meeting goal over time.||||||0.63
95994426|NCT04743856|191965138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1106.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|592.76||0.0665||||||Apriori significance level was p\<0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were not adjusted for additional variables.||||||0.0665
95994427|NCT04696861|191965154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
95994428|NCT04696861|191965155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.961
95994429|NCT04696861|191965156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.368
95994430|NCT04696861|191965158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.634
95994431|NCT04696861|191965159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.832
95994432|NCT04696861|191965161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed models were conducted and odds ratios (ORs) were reported||||0.624
95994433|NCT04696861|191965162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.833
95994434|NCT04696861|191965163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.7
95994435|NCT04696861|191965164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.79
95994436|NCT04696861|191965165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.55
95805540|NCT00452400|191584786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.275|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.275|0.151|<0.0001
95805541|NCT00452400|191584786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.277|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.151|<0.0001
95805542|NCT00452400|191584787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.231|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.097|<0.0001
95805543|NCT00452400|191584787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.237|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.102|<0.0001
95994437|NCT04696861|191965166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.823
95994438|NCT04696861|191965167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.942
95994439|NCT04696861|191965168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.207
95805544|NCT00452400|191584787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.152|<0.0001
95805545|NCT00452400|191584787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.157|<0.0001
95994440|NCT04696861|191965169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.594
95994441|NCT04696861|191965170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.738
95994442|NCT04696861|191965171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Unitized unadjusted bivariate analyses instead of adjusted multivariable analysis. This was a pilot study to estimate the magnitude of effect sizes for informing further large interventions. The significance level was also not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models||||0.845
95994443|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|83.8|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|61.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||61.0|<0.001
95805546|NCT00452400|191584788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.373|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.373|0.150|<0.0001
95994444|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|88.2|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|67.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||67.4|<0.001
95994445|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the CCI vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.999
95994446|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.394|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-410.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-410|0.394
95805547|NCT00452400|191584788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.395|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.171|<0.0001
95805548|NCT00452400|191584788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.421|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.421|0.201|<0.0001
95994447|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|78.4||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|52.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||52.1|0.004
95994448|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|80.3||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|54.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||54.7|0.002
95994449|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992||97.5||||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|For strain A/H3N2, the vaccine efficacy of the IVV vaccine vs. placebo was not evaluable since no influenza case was observed in the placebo group.||Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain. Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks.||||0.992
95951554|NCT02978716|191874690|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.502||P-value was calculated using modified Poisson method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors and baseline ANC as a covariate.|Modified Poisson Regression|||G-CSF Administration in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.502|0.583|0.7835
95729068|NCT00094302|191428286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 336 subjects (160 in the Spironolactone group and 176 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||1.12|0.73|0.35
95729069|NCT00094302|191428287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 8 subjects (3 in the Spironolactone group and 5 in the Placebo group) with a confirmed event."||2.50|0.14|0.48
95860121|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0494
95951555|NCT02978716|191874693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.7048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|2.067||The 1-sided p-value was calculated using Hochberg-based gatekeeping procedure to control the global family wise error rate across the multiple null hypotheses.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 3 vs Group 1.||2.067|0.475|0.7048
95769004|NCT01465412|191510067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|2.348||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.348|0.749|
95769005|NCT01465412|191510067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|4.041|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|11.187||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||11.187|1.460|
95769006|NCT01465412|191510068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|1.609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|2.572||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was excluded from Part 1 analysis.||2.572|1.007|
95769007|NCT01465412|191510068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be considered equivalent the LSM Ratio (HI/Healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\].|LSM Ratio|2.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|5.896||||||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model. Parameters were log-transformed (using the natural logarithm) prior to analysis. Study population (i.e., HI or Healthy) was included as a fixed effect with continuous covariates age, BMI and a categorical covariate, gender. Gender was included from Part 2 analysis.||5.896|0.844|
95769008|NCT03711786|191510069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.65|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.65|0.22|0.836
95769009|NCT03711786|191510070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.14|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||6.14|0.12|0.877
95994450|NCT00630331|191965189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.4|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-429.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-429.4|0.400
95994451|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.7||||0.078|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.5|0.078
95994452|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|87.3||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.6|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||4.6|0.104
95994453|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.5|36.3|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||36.3|0.030
95994454|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.0||||0.376|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.5|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||17.5|0.376
95860122|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0003
95860123|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0991
96001845|NCT01096667|191981236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.07||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.06|0.93||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|-3.06|0.246
95769010|NCT03711786|191510071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|104.23|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||104.23|3.23|0.001
95860124|NCT00611026|191678452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment difference in continent rate for fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0169
95951556|NCT02978716|191874693|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2744||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.58||P-value was calculated using negative binomial method adjusting for number of cycles, accounting for the number of prior lines of therapy (0 versus 1 - 2) and liver involvement as the stratification factors.|negative binomial regression|||All-cause Dose Reductions in Group 2 vs Group 1.||1.580|0.426|0.5541
95769011|NCT03711786|191510072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.01|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||4.01|1.15|0.017
95769012|NCT03711786|191510073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8|||Regression - GEE, logistic|From Wald z-statistic from GEE model with bias-corrected standard error|Enhanced arm (index) compared to basic arm (referent). GEE model with bias-corrected standard errors.|||1.80|0.45|0.759
95769013|NCT00030901|191510074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for stratification factors age older than 60, African American, baseline PSA, and vitamin E supplementation.|Regression, Logistic|||With target sample size of 466 randomized patients (233 per arm), there is a 90% of power to detect a one-third reduction in the three-year incidence rate of prostate cancer. The alpha level is set at 0.025, one-sided.||||0.73
95769014|NCT01267019|191510079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a statistical analysis to determine the training effect of social cognitive skills training (in vivo and social cog versus control).||||< .05
95769015|NCT01267019|191510080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95769016|NCT01267019|191510081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95769017|NCT02729025|191510082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.39|||Multivariate regression model||Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|A multivariate regression was modelled on the primary endpoint as well as three other response variables (percent change in Lp\[a\] at Weeks 8 and 16, baseline MDS TBR, and baseline Lp\[a\]). The primary endpoint was regressed on the treatment group and statin stratification factor; baseline MDS TBR and Lp(a) were regressed on the statin stratification factor, and percent changes in Lp(a) were regressed on the treatment group, statin stratification factor, visit, and treatment group by visit.||1.39|-7.40|0.18
95805549|NCT00452400|191584788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.192|<0.0001
95805550|NCT00452400|191584789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.409|0.167|<0.0001
95805551|NCT00452400|191584789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.401|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.159|<0.0001
95805552|NCT00452400|191584789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.416|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.416|0.178|<0.0001
95805553|NCT00452400|191584789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|0.164|0.407|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.407|0.164|<0.0001
95805554|NCT00452400|191584790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.176|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.090|<0.0001
95805555|NCT00452400|191584790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.215|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.215|0.128|<0.0001
95951557|NCT01974102|191874704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.015
95951558|NCT01974102|191874705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
95769018|NCT02729025|191510083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-8.49|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-8.49|-19.29|<0.0001
95769019|NCT02729025|191510084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.81|-55.51|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-55.51|-65.81|<0.0001
95769020|NCT02729025|191510085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-47.33|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, statin stratification, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Treatment difference used placebo as the reference|||-47.33|-55.85|<0.0001
95805556|NCT00452400|191584790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.247|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.247|0.162|<0.0001
95805557|NCT00452400|191584790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.246|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.159|<0.0001
95805558|NCT00452400|191584791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.243|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.243|0.131|<0.0001
95994455|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|58.6||||0.085|ONE_SIDED|97.5|32.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||32.9|0.085
95994456|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||0.033|ONE_SIDED|97.5|33.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||33.9|0.033
95994457|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|73.6||||0.265|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-30.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-30.0|0.265
95805559|NCT00452400|191584791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.271|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.159|<0.0001
95805560|NCT00452400|191584791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.273|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.163|<0.0001
95994458|NCT00630331|191965190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|51.7||||0.319|ONE_SIDED|97.5|19.4|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||19.4|0.319
95994459|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|69.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||55.0|<0.001
95994460|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|73.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||73.0|<0.001
95994461|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|75.6||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5|35.1|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||35.1|0.040
95994462|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.9||||0.37|ONE_SIDED|97.5|18.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of CCI vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of CCI vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of CCI vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||18.2|0.37
95994463|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.0||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|46.7|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo (Overall)~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||46.7|0.003
95805561|NCT00452400|191584791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.304|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.304|0.191|<0.0001
95860125|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0009
95805562|NCT00452400|191584792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.219|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.100|<0.0001
95994464|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|81.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H1N1 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||60.9|<0.001
95994465|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|49.3||||0.53|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.0|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for A/H3N2 strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||-9.0|0.53
95994466|NCT00630331|191965191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2||||0.26|ONE_SIDED|97.5|22.2|||Adjusted p-values are from score statistic with Sidak correction testing the null hypothesis that the VE of IVV vs. placebo is \<= 40% (the relative risk, \>= 0.60). If adjusted p-value is \<0.025, then the comparison is statistically significant.|Sidak-corrected score CI|||"Vaccine efficacy (VE) of IVV vaccine vs. Placebo for B strain~Simultaneous one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the VE of IVV vaccine relative to Placebo was based on the Sidak-corrected score CIs for the two relative risks."|||22.2|0.26
95994467|NCT01817790|191965240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.13||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in Daily rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.13|-0.59|0.0024
95994468|NCT01817790|191965241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0057
95994469|NCT01817790|191965242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.0009||95.0|-0.65|-0.17||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM rTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.17|-0.65|0.0009
95994470|NCT01817790|191965243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.02|-0.19|0.0117
95994471|NCT01817790|191965244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0005||95.0|-0.23|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye itching/burning between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.23|0.0005
95994472|NCT01817790|191965245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.0023||95.0|-0.22|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/Watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.22|0.0023
95994473|NCT01817790|191965246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|-0.09||p-value was nor adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Tearing/watering between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.09|-0.26|<0.0001
95994474|NCT01817790|191965247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0304||95.0|-0.18|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.18|0.0304
95994475|NCT01817790|191965248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.0361||95.0|-0.19|-0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in PM reflective symptom scores for Eye Redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0361
95994476|NCT01817790|191965249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in AM iTOSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.06|-0.50|0.0129
95994477|NCT01817790|191965250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.07||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in rNCSS between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.07|-0.22|0.0002
95994478|NCT01817790|191965251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Using this test controlling for investigative site. The response variable lied on ordinal scale of measurement.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the end of treatment assessment of response between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||||0.0118
95994479|NCT01817790|191965252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in objective assessment of conjunctival redness between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||0.10|-0.12|0.8586
95994480|NCT01817790|191965253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.29||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in MiniRQLQ scores between the Fluticasone nasal spray and the placebo nasal spray.||-0.29|-0.65|<0.0001
95994481|NCT01817790|191965254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.3||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Activities' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray||-0.30|-0.68|<0.0001
95994482|NCT01817790|191965255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.24||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Practical Problems' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.24|-0.64|<0.0001
95994483|NCT01817790|191965256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Nose Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.0001
95994484|NCT01817790|191965257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Linear Fixed-effect Model; Treatment and site as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Eye Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.23|-0.65|<0.0001
95994485|NCT01817790|191965258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was that no difference exists in the mean change from baseline in 'Other Symptoms' domain of MiniRQLQ scores between the Flutical sone nasal spray and placebo nasal spray.||-0.21|-0.64|<0.0001
95994486|NCT02847598|191965308|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean Difference|-3.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.2|||MMRM|||A Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.2|-6.7|0.037
95994487|NCT02847598|191965309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.29||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-4.88|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-4.88|-43.70|0.015
95994488|NCT02847598|191965309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-33.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.71|-14.12|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-14.12|-52.71|<0.001
95994489|NCT02847598|191965309|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.55|-11.42|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.42|-44.55|0.001
95994490|NCT02847598|191965312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|6.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||6.08|-25.94|0.220
95994491|NCT02847598|191965312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.82|7.9|||MMRM|||Week 16: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||7.90|-25.82|0.293
95994492|NCT02847598|191965312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.74||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 24: A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.79|-32.28|0.062
95994493|NCT02847598|191965313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.75|-11.97|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-11.97|-48.75|0.001
95994494|NCT02847598|191965313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.46|-18.87|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-18.87|-55.46|<0.001
95994495|NCT02847598|191965313|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-10.4|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, DLE (Yes/No), CLASI-A score (\<=10 vs. \>10) as fixed effect covariates.||-10.40|-41.71|0.001
95805563|NCT00452400|191584792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.134|<0.0001
95994496|NCT02847598|191965319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group, study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the outcome measure, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||-0.5|-3.0|0.007
95994497|NCT02847598|191965321|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.58|||MMRM|||A MMRM model is performed, using treatment group (BIIB059 450 mg vs. placebo), study visit, baseline corticosteroid usage level (\<=10 mg, \>10 mg), region, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of the endpoint, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effect covariates. Statistical analysis for placebo and BIIB059 450 mg was planned and reported.||0.58|-0.90|0.667
95769021|NCT07091916|191510094|OTHER|This objective was for the purpose of gathering data pertaining to device safety over the first 2 weeks post-implant. There were no pre-specified performance criteria or hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive statistics|||The first primary objective is to characterize the freedom from major complications related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure at 2 weeks post-implant. The endpoint is defined as a subject's first occurrence of a major complication related to the EV ICD System and/or procedure, as determined by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC), that occurs on or prior to 2 weeks (14 days) post-implant.||||
95769022|NCT07091916|191510095|OTHER|There were no hypotheses for this objective.|Proportion|100.0|||||||||||descriptive statistics|||The primary efficacy objective was to characterize the defibrillation efficacy at implant of the EV ICD System.||||
95769023|NCT04850989|191510158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
95769024|NCT04850989|191510159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|-1.23|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
95769025|NCT04850989|191510160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
95769026|NCT04850989|191510161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.91|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.05
95769027|NCT04850989|191510162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> 0.05
95769028|NCT00734162|191510163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis is the difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants who met the outcome measure criterion, controlling for randomization age group.||||< 0.001
95769029|NCT05253573|191510200|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.83||||||The overall number of participants analyzed reflects the cancer survivors and/or independent caregivers. Participants are not represented separately (as cancer survivors or caregivers) for each Arm. This is because the originally proposed statistical data analysis plan did not aim to analyze the data by each group of caregivers versus cancer patients/survivors (because the statistical power would be very low for doing so||2.83|1.21|
95769030|NCT00300235|191510224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of subjects|35.2||||||95.0|32.5|37.9||||||This was a survey designed to estimate prevalence, no formal comparisons between age or genotype groups were performed.||37.9|32.5|
95994498|NCT02292771|191965345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.879|6.479|||Finite mixture model|||||6.479|-8.879|0.3797
95769031|NCT03351608|191510234|SUPERIORITY||GM Ratio (SUG 2 mg / NEO + [GLY or ATR])|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32|||ANOVA|||||0.32|0.16|< 0.0001
95860126|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0279
95769032|NCT04630002|191510290|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.999|1.293|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.293|0.9990|
95769033|NCT04630002|191510291|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9185|1.242|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.242|0.9185|
95769034|NCT04630002|191510292|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9313|1.051|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.051|0.9313|
95769035|NCT04630002|191510293|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9816|1.122|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.122|0.9816|
95769036|NCT04630002|191510294|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.185|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.185|1.025|
95769037|NCT04630002|191510295|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9947|1.26|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.260|0.9947|
95769038|NCT04630002|191510296|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.5299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4801|0.5848|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||0.5848|0.4801|
95769039|NCT04630002|191510297|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.6001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5271|0.6833|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||0.6833|0.5271|
95860127|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 1.||||0.2817
95994499|NCT02292771|191965346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.44|0.9520
95994500|NCT02292771|191965347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.46|0.9520
95769040|NCT04630002|191510298|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.144|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.082|1.21|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.210|1.082|
95769041|NCT04630002|191510299|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.187|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.187|1.026|
95769042|NCT04630002|191510300|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.9435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8147|1.093|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter AUC(0-tau).|||1.093|0.8147|
95769043|NCT04630002|191510301|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.8928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7467|1.068|||||A linear mixed-effects model with period as a fixed effect, participant as a random effect, and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the log-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.068|0.7467|
95769044|NCT04498182|191510339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
95769045|NCT04498182|191510339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
95769046|NCT04498182|191510340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
95769047|NCT04498182|191510340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
95769048|NCT04498182|191510341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.2|-8.9|0.2305
95769049|NCT04498182|191510341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-4.6|0.7436
95769050|NCT04498182|191510342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
95769051|NCT04498182|191510342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
95860128|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95994501|NCT02292771|191965348|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.73|0.5672
95769052|NCT04498182|191510343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.8|-13.2|0.0281
95769053|NCT04498182|191510343|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.6|-5.9|0.9186
95769054|NCT04498182|191510344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
95769055|NCT04498182|191510344|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
95769056|NCT04498182|191510345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.5|-1.5|0.9846
95769057|NCT04498182|191510345|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.8|-1.1|0.6508
95769058|NCT04498182|191510346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-1.9|0.4936
95769059|NCT04498182|191510346|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.6|-1.1|0.7131
95769060|NCT04498182|191510347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
95769061|NCT04498182|191510347|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
95860129|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0001
95994502|NCT02292771|191965349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.71|0.30|0.5066
95994503|NCT02292771|191965355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.84|0.12|0.7790
95994504|NCT02292771|191965356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.51|0.6646
95805564|NCT00452400|191584792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
95805565|NCT00452400|191584792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.145|<0.0001
95805566|NCT00452400|191584793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.209|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.101|<0.0001
95951559|NCT00866619|191874724|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.6|60.4|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||60.4|50.6|<0.0001
95951560|NCT00866619|191874725|SUPERIORITY|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for study site as stratification factor for the analysis. Criterion for success = lower limit (LL) of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of VE \> 0.|Vaccine efficacy|31.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.556|38.286|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare RfoCPFMI between groups over the Months 2.5-14 time period. Using RfoCFPMI, a Cox regression model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment by factors. VE was calculated as 1 minus \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group (HR1) divided by HR in control Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group (HR2)\]; i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||38.286|23.556|<0.0001
95951561|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.97|0.62|
95951562|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.57|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.57|0.87|
95951563|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.07|0.73|
95951564|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.70|
95951565|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.18|0.79|
95951566|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.71|
95951567|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.36|0.80|
95951568|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|329.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|242.98|446.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||446.67|242.98|
95951569|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|40.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|54.97|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||54.97|30.27|
95951570|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.92|17.34|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||17.34|9.92|
95994505|NCT02292771|191965357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.24|0.75|0.1432
95994506|NCT02292771|191965358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|0.43|0.5250
95994507|NCT02292771|191965359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|0.13|0.4682
95994508|NCT00960076|191965418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.31||||||||-0.31|-0.73|
95994509|NCT00960076|191965419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-9.28||||||||-9.28|-37.36|
95994510|NCT00960076|191965420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-4.5||||||||-4.50|-21.86|
95994511|NCT00960076|191965421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.2||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|0.2|0.0459
95994512|NCT00522392|191965427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two arms.||||0.092
95769062|NCT04498182|191510348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.7|-12.6|0.0786
95769063|NCT04498182|191510348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.5|-6.9|0.9477
95769064|NCT04498182|191510349|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
95769065|NCT04498182|191510349|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
95769066|NCT04498182|191510350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.2|-11.2|0.1153
95769067|NCT04498182|191510350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.2|-6.2|0.9975
95994513|NCT00522392|191965428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare the response rates between the two arms.||||0.029
95994514|NCT00522392|191965429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test was used to compare overall survival between the two arms.||||0.48
95994515|NCT04572633|191965431|OTHER||Wilson Score|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.72|100.0|||||Bootstrap sampling with replacement method to account for potential within-subject lesion correlations. Subject is the bootstrap sampling unit, 1,000,000 iterations for bootstrap resampling, and the bias-corrected and accelerated method was used.|||100|83.72|
95994516|NCT04572633|191965432|OTHER||Wilson Score|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.23||||||||18.23|2.35|
95769068|NCT04498182|191510351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
95769069|NCT04498182|191510351|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
95769070|NCT04498182|191510352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||2.0|-13.0|0.1518
95769071|NCT04498182|191510352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||10.8|-4.4|0.4070
95769072|NCT04498182|191510353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
95860130|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 4.||||0.0177
95769073|NCT04498182|191510353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
95994517|NCT02157883|191965482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|79.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.15|87.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||87.21|73.15|
95994518|NCT02157883|191965483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Upper bound of the 90% CIs below 200%.|Geometric mean ratio|124.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.61|134.53|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. Results based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||134.53|114.61|
95994519|NCT02157883|191965490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|75.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.18|89.69|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||89.69|64.18|
96001846|NCT01096667|191981238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.3|-2.1||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-2.10|-6.30|0.005
95994520|NCT02157883|191965491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|124.19|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||124.19|94.36|
95769074|NCT04498182|191510354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.9|-8.1|0.7560
95769075|NCT04498182|191510354|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||6.4|-7.9|0.8308
95769076|NCT04498182|191510355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
95769077|NCT04498182|191510355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
95769078|NCT04498182|191510356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.5|-12.4|0.0005
95769079|NCT04498182|191510356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.2|-8.7|0.0585
95769080|NCT04498182|191510357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
95769081|NCT04498182|191510357|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
95769082|NCT04498182|191510358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-3.4|-14.3|0.0015
95769083|NCT04498182|191510358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.3|-6.6|0.6812
95769084|NCT04498182|191510359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
95805567|NCT00452400|191584793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.239|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.239|0.131|<0.0001
95994521|NCT02157883|191965492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.94|49.21|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||49.21|39.94|
95769085|NCT04498182|191510359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
95769086|NCT04498182|191510360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||1.3|-8.5|0.1520
95769087|NCT04498182|191510360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.8515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.4|-5.4|0.8515
95769088|NCT04498182|191510361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
95769089|NCT04498182|191510361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
95769090|NCT04498182|191510362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-12.1|0.0302
95769091|NCT04498182|191510362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.0|-6.5|0.8013
95769092|NCT04498182|191510363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
95769093|NCT04498182|191510363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
95769094|NCT04498182|191510364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3365
95769095|NCT04498182|191510364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7323
95769096|NCT04498182|191510365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1557
95769097|NCT04498182|191510365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6845
95769098|NCT04498182|191510366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||5.5|-4.4|0.8166
95769099|NCT04498182|191510366|SUPERIORITY|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.4|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.4|-2.5|0.3371
95769100|NCT04498182|191510367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
95769101|NCT04498182|191510367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
95769102|NCT04498182|191510368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||7.3|-3.7|0.5215
95769103|NCT04498182|191510368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.8|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||9.8|-1.3|0.1312
95769104|NCT04498182|191510369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
95769105|NCT04498182|191510369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
95769106|NCT04498182|191510370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||-0.6|-8.4|0.0254
95769107|NCT04498182|191510370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.9|-6.9|0.1362
95769108|NCT04498182|191510371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
95951571|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|9.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|12.56|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||12.56|6.46|
95951572|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|165.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.95|223.85|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||223.85|122.95|
95951573|NCT00689351|191874793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.75|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||2.75|1.83|
95769109|NCT04498182|191510371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
95951574|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 4: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.60|
95769110|NCT04498182|191510372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||0.1|-8.0|0.0573
95769111|NCT04498182|191510372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.1|||ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||||4.1|-4.0|0.9930
95769112|NCT04498182|191510373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.15|0.70|0.3068
95769113|NCT04498182|191510373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.68|0.56|0.6167
95769114|NCT04498182|191510374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.46|0.28|0.2867
95769115|NCT04498182|191510374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.3803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.57|0.32|0.3803
95769116|NCT04498182|191510375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.58|0.58|0.4375
95769117|NCT04498182|191510375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||3.27|0.51|0.5840
95769118|NCT04498182|191510376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||1.84|0.29|0.5046
95769119|NCT04498182|191510376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted by analysis center||||2.88|0.56|0.5751
95805568|NCT00452400|191584793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.284|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.178|<0.0001
95805569|NCT00452400|191584793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.286|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.177|<0.0001
95805570|NCT00452400|191584794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.264|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.140|<0.0001
95860131|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95951575|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6B: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.83|
95951576|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 9V: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.76|
95951577|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 14: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||0.95|0.57|
95951578|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 18C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.19|0.72|
95951579|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.88|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.88|1.11|
95951580|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 23F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.40|0.78|
95951581|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|234.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.33|311.41|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 1: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||311.41|176.33|
95951582|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.19|22.69|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 3: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||22.69|12.19|
95951583|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|6.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|8.67|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 5: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||8.67|5.39|
95951584|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|5.43|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 6A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.43|3.07|
95951585|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|110.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.09|159.59|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 7F: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||159.59|77.09|
96001847|NCT01096667|191981238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.12||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.23|0.99||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||0.99|-3.23|0.248
95805571|NCT00452400|191584794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.294|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.169|<0.0001
95860132|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0107
95769120|NCT00375973|191510386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
95769121|NCT00375973|191510387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95769122|NCT00375973|191510388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
95769123|NCT00375973|191510389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95769124|NCT00375973|191510390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95769125|NCT00375973|191510391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95769126|NCT00375973|191510392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95951586|NCT00689351|191874794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|5.33|||Student t distribution|Geometric mean ratio computed using Student t distribution for the mean difference of the measures on the log scale.|CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Serotype 19A: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||5.33|3.39|
95951587|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.862
95951588|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.157
95951589|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.550
95951590|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.052
95994522|NCT02157883|191965493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|49.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.7|54.99|||||AZD9291+itraconazole / AZD9291 alone. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the upper bound of the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being below 200% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 50% increase in exposure was also assumed.||54.99|43.70|
95769127|NCT01339260|191510393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.87||If superiority of netupitant/palonosetron was established for the CR delayed, CR acute and then CR overall at cycle 1 were to be tested according to a hierarchical procedure;no adjustment for multiplicity was needed.The a priori threshold was 0.050|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.|The null hypothesis was rejected if the 2 sided p value from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction i.e., the Odds Ratio (OR) was in favor of netupitant/palonosetron. Power was 90%.||1.87|1.16|0.001
95769128|NCT01339260|191510394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87||If the null hypothesis for CR delayed was rejected, analysis of the first key secondary endpoint CR acute was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the acute phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the acute phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.87|1.0|0.047
95769129|NCT01339260|191510395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.85||If the null hypothesis for CR acute was rejected, analysis of the 2nd key secondary endpoint CR overall was to be performed. Since the analysis was performed according to a hierarchical procedure, no further adjustment for multiplicity was needed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test including treatment, age class and region as strata. All missing data were to be imputed as treatment failures.||CR in the overall phase was to be tested using the same 2 sided CMH test as for the primary endpoint. netupitant/palonosetron combination was to be considered superior to palonosetron in the overall phase if the 2 sided p value from the CMH was less than or equal to 0.050 and in the right direction.||1.85|1.17|0.001
95769130|NCT03448419|191510430|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-4.0||||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.0|-16.0|0.4236
95769131|NCT03448419|191510431|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|3.13||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.29|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||7.29|0.00|0.0893
95769132|NCT03448419|191510432|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|0.1||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.40|-0.20|0.4702
95769133|NCT03448419|191510433|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|0.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||9.0|-9.0|0.9830
95769134|NCT03448419|191510434|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.31||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.09|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||-0.09|-0.53|0.0053
95951591|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.366
95951592|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.301
95951593|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.362
95951594|NCT00689351|191874795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.718
95769135|NCT03448419|191510435|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6189
95951595|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||>0.99
95951596|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.245
95951597|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.447
95951598|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.684
95951599|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||>0.99
95769136|NCT03448419|191510436|OTHER|||||||0.6672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.6672
95769137|NCT03448419|191510437|OTHER|||||||0.5147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5147
95769138|NCT03448419|191510438|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.8630
95769139|NCT03448419|191510439|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Mixed Model repeated Measures (MMRM)|Covariates: NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|The endpoint 'relative change from baseline in NT-proBNP at Week 12' (after log-transformation) was evaluated using an MMRM analysis over time with baseline log-transformed NT-proBNP-by-visit interaction and visit-by-treatment interaction as covariates.Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||1.03|0.81|0.1410
95769140|NCT01575834|191510453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.47|0.15|< 0.001
95769141|NCT01575834|191510454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.39|0.15|< 0.001
95769142|NCT01575834|191510455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.89|0.46|0.008
95805572|NCT00452400|191584794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.295|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.295|0.172|<0.0001
95805573|NCT00452400|191584794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.197|0.322|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.197|<0.0001
95805574|NCT00452400|191584795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.101|<0.0001
95805575|NCT00452400|191584795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.125|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.125|<0.0001
95805576|NCT00452400|191584795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.266|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.266|0.140|<0.0001
95860133|NCT00611026|191678453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||||0.0005
95951600|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.578
95951601|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.451
95805577|NCT00452400|191584795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.137|<0.0001
95951602|NCT00689351|191874796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.712
95951603|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.681
95951604|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.482
95951605|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.683
95951606|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||>0.99
95951607|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.533
95951608|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.692
95951609|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||0.662
95994523|NCT03155997|191965521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.00957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.932|||Log Rank|Stratified by Interactive Web Response Systems (IWRS) Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.932|0.598|0.00957
95805578|NCT00452400|191584796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2392||95.0|-0.03|0.121|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|-0.030|0.2392
95805579|NCT00452400|191584796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.222|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.222|0.072|0.0001
95805580|NCT00452400|191584796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.253|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.099|<0.0001
95805581|NCT00452400|191584796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.076|0.0001
95805582|NCT00452400|191584797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0309||95.0|0.008|0.162|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.008|0.0309
95805583|NCT00452400|191584797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.25|||ANCOVA||Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.098|<0.0001
95994524|NCT03155997|191965523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.92|||||Stratified by IWRS Geographical Region, IWRS Prior Treatment, IWRS Menopausal Status|||0.920|0.559|
95994525|NCT02073487|191965530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95860134|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0011
95769143|NCT01575834|191510456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.05|0.53|0.096
95769144|NCT01575834|191510457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.97|0.57|0.057
95769145|NCT01575834|191510458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.87|0.52|0.096
95805584|NCT00452400|191584797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|0.072|0.228|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.228|0.072|0.0002
95805585|NCT00452400|191584797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0006||95.0|0.059|0.214|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.059|0.0006
95805586|NCT00452400|191584798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.215||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2150
95805587|NCT00452400|191584798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
95805588|NCT00452400|191584798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.023||95.0|0.014|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.014|0.0230
95805589|NCT00452400|191584798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0333||95.0|0.007|0.177|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.007|0.0333
95805590|NCT00452400|191584799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2158||95.0|-0.031|0.137|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.031|0.2158
95805591|NCT00452400|191584799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0024||95.0|0.046|0.212|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.046|0.0024
95860135|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
95860136|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3713|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3713
95769146|NCT01575834|191510459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.02||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.02|0.44|0.096
95769147|NCT01575834|191510460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab|||0.91|0.49|0.096
95769148|NCT01575834|191510461|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.49||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.49|0.17|0.096
95769149|NCT01575834|191510462|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.41|0.16|0.096
95769150|NCT01575834|191510463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.35||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.35|0.22|0.18
95805592|NCT00452400|191584799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0013||95.0|0.055|0.225|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.055|0.0013
95805593|NCT00452400|191584799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0376||95.0|0.005|0.174|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|0.005|0.0376
95805594|NCT00452400|191584800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.916||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|25.34|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||25.340|2.070|0.0211
95805595|NCT00452400|191584800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.951||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.581|32.99|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||32.990|9.581|0.0004
95805596|NCT00452400|191584800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.607|49.546|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||49.546|26.607|<.0001
95805597|NCT00452400|191584800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.282|34.845|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.845|11.282|0.0001
95805598|NCT00452400|191584801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.283||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|22.803|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||22.803|-1.911|0.0973
95951610|NCT00689351|191874797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.331
95951611|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any tenderness.||||0.409
95951612|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for significant tenderness.||||0.617
95951613|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any swelling.||||0.807
95769151|NCT01575834|191510464|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment of the coprimary and a subset of secondary efficacy endpoints to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05.|Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||1.04|0.24|0.12
95769152|NCT01575834|191510465|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.90|0.40|0.012
95769153|NCT01575834|191510466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables.|Hazard ratio \< 1 favors romosozumab.|||0.84|0.46|0.002
95769154|NCT01575834|191510467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.87|0.01|0.011
95769155|NCT01575834|191510468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression model adjusted for age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables; p-value based on score test.|Values \< 1 for odds ratio favor romosozumab.|||0.44|0.01|< 0.001
95769156|NCT01575834|191510469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|12.9|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||12.9|12.4|< 0.001
95769157|NCT01575834|191510470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|11.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the lumbar spine was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||11.4|10.8|< 0.001
95769158|NCT01575834|191510471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|6.0|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||6.0|5.6|< 0.001
95769159|NCT01575834|191510472|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the total hip was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.5|5.1|< 0.001
95805599|NCT00452400|191584801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.824|34.842|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||34.842|9.824|0.0005
95805600|NCT00452400|191584801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.054|50.409|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||50.409|26.054|<.0001
95805601|NCT00452400|191584801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.814|38.002|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.002|12.814|<.0001
95805602|NCT00452400|191584802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.196|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|-1.237|0.1541
95805603|NCT00452400|191584802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.859|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.859|-0.583|0.7065
95805604|NCT00452400|191584802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|-0.258|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.258|-1.671|0.0076
95805605|NCT00452400|191584802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|0.311|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|-1.138|0.2626
95951614|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild swelling.||||0.527
95951615|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate swelling.||||0.144
95951616|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for severe swelling.||||0.495
95951617|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for any redness.||||0.506
95951618|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for mild redness.||||>0.99
95951619|NCT00689351|191874798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for moderate redness.||||0.200
95951620|NCT00689351|191874799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but but less than or equal to (≤)39 degrees C.||||0.633
95951621|NCT00689351|191874799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.721
95951622|NCT00689351|191874799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.009
95951623|NCT00689351|191874799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.253
95951624|NCT00689351|191874799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.143
95951625|NCT00689351|191874800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.781
95951626|NCT00689351|191874800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.060
95951627|NCT00689351|191874800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.159
95951628|NCT00689351|191874800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.839
95951629|NCT00689351|191874800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.264
95951630|NCT00689351|191874801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.563
95951631|NCT00689351|191874801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||0.468
95951632|NCT00689351|191874801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.535
95951633|NCT00689351|191874801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.019
95951634|NCT00689351|191874801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.398
95951635|NCT00689351|191874801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.125
95951636|NCT00689351|191874802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever ≥38 degrees C but ≤39 degrees C.||||0.596
95951637|NCT00689351|191874802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for fever \>39 degrees C but ≤40 degrees C.||||>0.99
95805606|NCT02474901|191584836|EQUIVALENCE|Looked for statistically-significant difference in numbers of adverse events between the two groups, used a p-value of 0.05 as the cutoff value for significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Groups were compared with Yates-corrected chi-square test or Fisher exact test for binary or categorical variables.||||||<0.05
95951638|NCT00689351|191874802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased appetite.||||0.663
95951639|NCT00689351|191874802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for irritability.||||0.439
95951640|NCT00689351|191874802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for increased sleep.||||0.613
95951641|NCT00689351|191874802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatments for decreased sleep.||||0.138
95951642|NCT01159600|191874830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.17|-1.08||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.08|-2.17|<0.0001
95951643|NCT01159600|191874830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.56|-1.46||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.46|-2.56|<0.0001
95951644|NCT01159600|191874830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|-1.28||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.28|-2.25|<0.0001
95951645|NCT01159600|191874830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|-1.5||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline body weight as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in body weight between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) within each background therapy group (metformin and metformin + SU). If for a specific dose the null hypothesis was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for the change from baseline in body weight.||-1.50|-2.48|<0.0001
95951646|NCT01159600|191874831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.81|-1.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-1.48|-13.81|0.0055
95951647|NCT01159600|191874831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.55|-6.19||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.19|-18.55|<0.0001
95962100|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-27.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-27.2|-45.5|<.0001
95962101|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-15.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.9|-32.7|<.0001
95860137|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0002
95860138|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1485
95860139|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.0040
95860140|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95860141|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0060
95860142|NCT00611026|191678454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH) with modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Treatment difference fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0016
95860143|NCT00611026|191678455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||-4.7|-9.5|<0.0001
95994526|NCT00054847|191965535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84||Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for stratification factors and characteristics that were potentially predictive of graft patency. We also performed prespecified subgroup analyses and assessed treatment subgroup interaction.|Chi-squared|We performed as-treated and per-protocol analyses \& multiple imputations as sensitivity analyses to the intent-to-treat analysis on primary end point.||The study was designed to have 90% power to detect 1-year patency rates of 92% in radial artery vs 83% in saphenous vein grafts, with a 2-sided type I error of 5%and an expected 1-year catheterization completion rate of 65%.||1.84|.62|.82
95994527|NCT00054847|191965536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
95994528|NCT00054847|191965537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
95994529|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||16.3|9.5|<0.001
95769160|NCT01575834|191510473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|5.4|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.4|4.9|< 0.001
95860144|NCT00611026|191678455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||-0.0|-4.8|0.0458
95860145|NCT00611026|191678455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine at Week 12.||-2.7|-6.6|<0.0001
95860146|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||7.9|3.4|<0.0001
95994530|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.4|<0.001
95994531|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||14.2|7.4|<0.001
96001848|NCT01096667|191981238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.95|-1.73||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.73|-5.95|0.010
95994532|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||10.9|4.6|<0.001
95994533|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||11.0|4.2|<0.001
95994534|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||13.6|7.2|<0.001
95994535|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.6|1.9|0.002
95994536|NCT00792298|191965559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|4.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.8|1.6|0.003
95994537|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-24.3|-49.4|<0.001
95994538|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.7|-42.1|<0.001
95994539|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-33.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-21.5|-46.4|<0.001
95769161|NCT01575834|191510474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||The treatment comparison of BMD at the femoral neck was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included included treatment, age and prevalent vertebral fracture stratification variables, and baseline value of the endpoint, machine type and machine type-by-baseline value interaction.||5.2|4.7|< 0.001
95805607|NCT01044693|191584844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||0.036
95860147|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Placebo: HRQL scale score total.||4.6|0.1|0.0429
95769162|NCT01514292|191510520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Hence, the hypothesis is established as:~Ho: pi \< 71.5% Ha: pi \>71.5% Thus, the objective is to conclude that the proportion of G4 Sensor-YSI points in the present study meeting the 20 mg/dL/20% criterion is no worse than the existing FDA-approved SEVEN PLUS System. The null hypothesis will be rejected if pi observed in this study is greater than 71.5%, the G4 System performance is no worse than the historical performance of the existing FDA approved CGM system will be concluded."||||0.0001
95769163|NCT02220764|191510585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: The chipping rates between tooth- and implant- supoorted FDPs are equally distributed.||||0.03
95951648|NCT01159600|191874831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.72|-4.32||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 10mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-4.32|-15.72|<0.0001
95951649|NCT01159600|191874831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.15|-6.98||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c and baseline MDG as linear covariates and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis (H0): No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in MDG between Empa 25mg and placebo. A hierarchical testing approach was applied to each of the two dose comparisons within each background therapy group. If for a specific dose H0 was rejected for the primary endpoint, the same dose was tested against placebo for change from baseline in body weight. If superiority over placebo was shown at this gate level, then testing proceeded to change from baseline in MDG with that dose||-6.98|-19.15|<0.0001
95769164|NCT03020992|191510587|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.281|||Poisson regression|||"The Poisson regression allowed for a comparison of event rates adjusting for differences in time between prestudy/on-study periods.~Event rates were based on a Poisson model with generalized estimating equations and a log-link, including an offset term for time interval length, and with period and disease duration of axSpA (\<2 years/≥2 years) as covariates. A repeated statement was included for participants and assumed an exchangeable correlation structure between prestudy and on-study flares."||0.281|0.116|<0.001
95951650|NCT01159600|191874832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.42||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR (renal function), geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 10mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.42|-0.72|<0.0001
95951651|NCT01159600|191874832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.48||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met: empa 25mg minus Met: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
95951652|NCT01159600|191874832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 10mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 10mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.49|-0.79|<0.0001
95951653|NCT01159600|191874832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|-0.44||Each of the hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) were tested (two-sided test) at the significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region and treatment as fixed effects.|Difference calculated as Met+SU: empa 25mg minus Met+SU: placebo|Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c between Empagliflozin 25mg and placebo. The study consisted of two substudies as defined by the two background medications 'metformin' and 'metformin + SU'. Within each group of background medication, each of the two hypotheses (10mg vs placebo and 25mg vs. placebo) was tested in a two-sided test.||-0.44|-0.74|<0.0001
95951654|NCT01612221|191874846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.65
95951655|NCT01612221|191874847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||GCLM Biomarker analysis.||||0.76
95951656|NCT01612221|191874847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC1A4 Biomarker analysis.||||0.63
95769165|NCT01006122|191510619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||One sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects, baseline MWT as a covariate and participant as random effect.||1.12|-0.81|0.418
95951657|NCT01612221|191874847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||SLC7A11 Biomarker analysis.||||0.27
95951658|NCT01857362|191874850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|Ratio of geomectric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.045|||ANOVA|||||1.045|0.988|
95951659|NCT01857362|191874851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio is completely within the acceptance range (0.80-1.25)|ratio of geometric means|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.945|
95994540|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-20.2|-46.3|<0.001
95994541|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-37.1|<0.001
95994542|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.1|-41.0|<0.001
95805608|NCT01044693|191584844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||<0.001
95805609|NCT01044693|191584844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo. We hypothesized that if NO-mediated vasodilation contributes to the BP-lowering effect of nebivolol then BP will be lowered by nebivolol and sildenafil, but not by metoprolol in autonomic failure patients.||||>0.05
95951660|NCT05356130|191874864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We conducted the same two independent planned comparisons: Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to Minimal BLT Encouragement; Minimal BLT Encouragement and Enhanced BLT Encouragement + Adherence Promotion compared to TAU."||||0.014
95951661|NCT02680314|191874879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
95951662|NCT01020487|191874889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|52.8|||Fisher Exact|||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.050. The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison between the paricalcitol capsules and placebo groups in the percentage of participants achieving 2 consecutive ≥ 30% reductions in iPTH from baseline regardless of CKD stage conducted using Fisher's exact test.||52.8|7.5|0.045
95951663|NCT01020487|191874890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.128
95951664|NCT01020487|191874891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differenbce|-72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|-36.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-36.75|-108.05|< 0.001
95951665|NCT01020487|191874891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-62.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|-19.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-19.49|-105.60|0.006
95951666|NCT01020487|191874891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-68.43||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.39|-6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-6.47|-130.39|0.032
95994543|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.8|-33.5|<0.001
95994544|NCT00792298|191965560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-21.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.7|-34.2|0.001
95994545|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-13.1|-37.7|<0.001
95994546|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-9.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.7|-19.7|0.068
95994547|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-10.9|-35.3|<0.001
95994548|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-3.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||6.3|-13.8|0.459
95994549|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-9.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||2.8|-21.5|0.130
95994550|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-12.3|-32.3|<0.001
95994551|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-3.4||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||8.7|-15.6|0.577
95994552|NCT00792298|191965561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-2.3||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||7.5|-12.2|0.644
95994553|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-22.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-6.2|-38.3|0.007
95994554|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-19.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-2.6|-36.6|0.024
95994555|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-15.2|-46.9|<0.001
96001849|NCT01096667|191981238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|-1.25||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.25|-5.40|0.020
95769166|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.15|-1.32|0.054
95769167|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.89|0.247
95769168|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.457||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.01|-1.19|0.095
95769169|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.75|-0.50|0.604
95769170|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.232|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.26|-0.95|0.232
95951667|NCT01020487|191874891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-70.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.82|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-2.37|-137.82|0.043
95951668|NCT01020487|191874891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-88.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.04|-35.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: A mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||-35.01|-142.04|0.002
95951669|NCT01020487|191874892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.327
95951670|NCT01020487|191874893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CHM) test, adjusting for CKD Stage.||||||0.194
95951671|NCT01020487|191874894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.14||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Comparison (all time points): a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.53|-0.25|0.469
95951672|NCT01020487|191874894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement.||0.37|-0.39|0.975
95769171|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.093|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.02|-1.23|0.093
95769172|NCT01006122|191510620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.274|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline total score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.34|-0.94|0.274
95805610|NCT01044693|191584845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.607
95805611|NCT01044693|191584846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The main comparisons were between the active treatment groups versus placebo.||||0.597
95951673|NCT01020487|191874894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||0.56|-0.32|0.567
95951674|NCT01020487|191874894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.3||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Comparison: a mixed effects repeated measures analysis using all the longitudinal observations across the visits including the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariate of baseline measurement||1.12|-0.53|0.462
95951675|NCT02169089|191874904|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.78||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0293
95951676|NCT02169089|191874905|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -3.5 and 2.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||<0.0001
95951677|NCT02169089|191874906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-40.7||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -10.3 and 17.1 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.0189
95951678|NCT02169089|191874907|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean reported -5.95 and 2 represents the mean change between follow-up \& baseline visit. The statistical test (Mann-Whitney) reported Median difference of -2.6, which corresponds to the difference between the spironolactone and placebo group.|||||0.1276
95994556|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-15.7||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||0.8|-32.3|0.063
95994557|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-17.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-1.7|-33.1|0.030
95769173|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.121
95769174|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.394|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.25|-0.38|0.394
95951679|NCT01922102|191874909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|7.1||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure: H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively.||7.1|3.3|<0.001
95951680|NCT01922102|191874909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|7.6||Superiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025/2 = 0.0125, or if both one-sided p-values were ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|"The following 2 one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, using the Hochberg procedure:~H01: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA1: μRanibizumab-I - μvPDT \> 0 and H02: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT ≤ 0 vs. HA2: μRanibizumab-II - μvPDT \> 0, where μRanibizumab-I, μRanibizumab-II and μvPDT were the means of the primary efficacy variable for ranibizumab treatment Group I, ranibizumab treatment Group II, and vPDT treatment Group III, respectively."||7.6|3.5|<0.001
95951681|NCT01922102|191874910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"one-sided hypotheses were tested under the Type I error rate of 0.025, if H01 and H02 were rejected: H03: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I ≤ -5 vs. HA3: μRanibizumab-II - μRanibizumab-I \> -5.~Otherwise, H03 was not to be considered as rejected."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1||Non-inferiority could be claimed if the corresponding one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Differences in LS means and the two-sided 95% CIs are estimated from pairwise ANOVA (stratified) model.|||2.1|-1.3|<0.001
95951682|NCT01951105|191874925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95951683|NCT00237718|191874927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95951684|NCT00237718|191874928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95951685|NCT00848198|191874939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|90.9||||||||90.9|83.2|
95951686|NCT00848198|191874939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.9|77.1||||||||77.1|66.9|
95951687|NCT00848198|191874940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|45.3||||||||45.3|34.2|
95951688|NCT00848198|191874940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
95951689|NCT00848198|191874941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|77.0||||||||77.0|66.8|
95951690|NCT00848198|191874941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|87.0||||||||87.0|78.4|
95951691|NCT00848198|191874942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|27.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|32.3||||||||32.3|22.2|
95951692|NCT00848198|191874942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100.0|97.4|
95951693|NCT00848198|191874943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|57.0||||||||57.0|45.7|
95951694|NCT00848198|191874943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|97.2||||||||97.2|92.1|
95951695|NCT00848198|191874944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|66.7||||||||66.7|55.6|
95951696|NCT00848198|191874944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|83.3||||||||83.3|74.0|
95951697|NCT00848198|191874945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|58.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|64.1||||||||64.1|52.9|
95994558|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-24.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-8.3|-41.0|0.003
95994559|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Night 1|-19.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.0|-35.1|0.020
95994560|NCT00792298|191965562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference: Week 4|-20.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A fixed sequential testing procedure assessed statistical significance, beginning with the highest dose. The comparison of suvorexant vs placebo had to be significant at α=0.05 at both Night 1 and Week 4 in order to assess statistical significance of the comparison of suvorexant vs placebo for the next highest dose. If a non-significant result was observed at either time point, the differences between suvorexant and placebo for SE was considered nonsignificant for this and all lower doses.||-3.4|-37.0|0.019
95994561|NCT03304522|191965570|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.876|-0.293|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.293|-1.876|<0.0001
95994562|NCT03304522|191965573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.911|-0.312|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.312|-1.911|<0.0001
95860148|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL scale score total.||5.2|1.5|0.0003
95769175|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.073|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||-0.04|-0.67|0.073
95769176|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.33|-0.34|0.495
95769177|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.46|-0.18|0.711
95805612|NCT01044693|191584847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The main comparisons were between the negative chronotropic effect of nebivolol and metoprolol at the time when BP-lowering effects were maximal.||||0.996
95805613|NCT01316900|191584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.142|0.039|<0.001
95805614|NCT01316900|191584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.141||nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Tio 18 µg.|||0.141|0.039|<0.001
95805615|NCT01316900|191584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
95860149|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||9.2|4.0|<0.0001
95994563|NCT03304522|191965575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.3|-1.5|<0.0001
95994564|NCT00670709|191965579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
95994565|NCT00670709|191965580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||HD subjects vs control subjects||||<0.005
95994566|NCT02649634|191965598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
95994567|NCT02649634|191965599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
95994568|NCT02649634|191965600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment adherence was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean number of TrymGym sessions missed.||||.65
96001850|NCT01096667|191981240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|42.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|31.42|52.94||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||52.94|31.42|0.000
95994569|NCT02649634|191965601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
95994570|NCT02649634|191965602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used||||>.05
95951698|NCT00848198|191874945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|78.3||||||||78.3|68.3|
95860150|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Placebo vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||4.9|-0.3|0.0795
95769178|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.767|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.51|-0.14|0.767
95951699|NCT02841449|191874961|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.886
95951700|NCT02841449|191874961|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial, p = 0.627; time, p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.430
95951701|NCT02841449|191874962|OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.369
95951702|NCT02841449|191874962|OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.200; time p \< 0.001|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.859
95951703|NCT02841449|191874963|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||<0.001
95951704|NCT02841449|191874963|OTHER|||||||0.261||||||The above is the trial\*time interaction. trial p = 0.002; time p = 0.282|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.261
95951705|NCT02841449|191874964|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.736
95951706|NCT02841449|191874965|OTHER|||||||0.542|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.542
95951707|NCT02841449|191874966|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||0.400
95951708|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Visual analogue scale for thirst||||0.646
95951709|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for savoury||||0.403
95951710|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for desire for salt||||0.022
95951711|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for hunger||||0.849
95951712|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fullness||||0.062
95951713|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for how much participants felt they could eat||||0.549
95951714|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for sweet desire||||0.402
95951715|NCT02841449|191874967|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||visual analogue scale for fatty food desire||||0.138
95951716|NCT02841449|191874968|OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Above is trial\*time effect. trial p = 0.135; time p = 0.011|ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.055
95951717|NCT02841449|191874969|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||||||0.226
95951718|NCT02841449|191874970|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired samples||||||< 0.001
95951719|NCT01214109|191874977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|82.62||||||90.0|74.45|91.69|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||91.69|74.45|
95951720|NCT01214109|191874977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|96.17||||||90.0|69.33|133.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||133.42|69.33|
95951721|NCT01214109|191874978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.01||||||90.0|80.76|95.92|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||95.92|80.76|
95951722|NCT01214109|191874978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|89.37||||||90.0|81.16|98.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.42|81.16|
95951723|NCT01214109|191874979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|88.82||||||90.0|79.89|98.76|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 0.375 mg q.d. ER 0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||98.76|79.89|
95951724|NCT01214109|191874979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|91.97||||||90.0|60.07|140.25|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR vs. 1.5 mg q.d. ER 0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||140.25|60.07|
95951725|NCT01214109|191874980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.84||||||90.0|83.8|102.86|||ANOVA|||0.125 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 0.375 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||102.86|83.8|
95994571|NCT02649634|191965603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994572|NCT02649634|191965604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994573|NCT02649634|191965605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994574|NCT02649634|191965606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994575|NCT02649634|191965607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994576|NCT02649634|191965608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994577|NCT02649634|191965609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994578|NCT02649634|191965610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994579|NCT02649634|191965611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994580|NCT02649634|191965612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95805616|NCT01316900|191584848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.140|0.036|<0.001
95805617|NCT00562861|191584851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F value|1.88||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95994581|NCT02649634|191965613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size (most recent meta-analysis on efficacy of MI on dietary behaviours yielded a medium effect size of .53; Burke et al., 2003). Additionally, for MLM, estimates involving the Level 2 variable (i.e., participants) require samples larger than 50 (Maas \& Hox, 2005). Others have suggested 30-50 participants (Scherbaum \& Ferreter, 2009).|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Modelling (LMM) was used.||||>.05
95994582|NCT02649634|191965614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
95994583|NCT02649634|191965615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
95994584|NCT02649634|191965616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean global self efficacy rating on the WEL.||||>.05
95994585|NCT02649634|191965617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Self-efficacy was analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean self efficacy rating on the ESE.||||>.05
95994586|NCT02649634|191965618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
95994587|NCT02649634|191965619|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
95994588|NCT02649634|191965620|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
95994589|NCT02649634|191965621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Importance of Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Importance of Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
95994590|NCT02649634|191965622|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Readiness for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Readiness for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
95994591|NCT02649634|191965623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimated sample size needed was 90 (45/group). This was based on a sample size calculation for 2 groups with 0.05 alpha, 0.80 power, anticipating a medium effect size.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Confidence for Change ratings were analyzed via an independent sample t-test comparing the groups on mean Confidence for Change ratings on the 11-point visual analogue scales||||>.05
95994592|NCT00885365|191965645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority is shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is above the non-inferiority margin set at -4.5%.|difference of least square means|-0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Based on previous studies, the difference between reference and placebo after 4-week treatment is assumed to be about 12% and the non-inferiority margin safely placed at 4.5%. With a between-patient SD of 13.5% and estimated difference between treatments of zero, sample size of 143 per group allows a 80% power to show the non-inferiority of Bramitob® versus TOBI®. Accounting for an expected dropout rate of 11%, a minimum of 160 participants per group is required.||1.59|-2.58|0.640
95994593|NCT00885365|191965647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.01||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.05|-0.08|0.634
95994594|NCT00885365|191965648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.55||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||1.69|-2.78|0.630
95994595|NCT00885365|191965649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.06|-0.09|0.693
95994596|NCT00885365|191965650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.51||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||4.09|-3.06|0.777
95994597|NCT00885365|191965651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.08|0.505
95994598|NCT00885365|191965652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of least square means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.39||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|ANCOVA|treatment and country are fixed effects and baseline log10 bacterial load (CFU/g) value is a covariate||Analysis of Week 4 data||0.39|-0.31|0.820
95994599|NCT00885365|191965655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 4||||0.692
95994600|NCT00885365|191965655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is \<= 0.050.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Test controlling for country.||Week 8||||0.128
95994601|NCT00929240|191965781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by interactive voice/Web response system (IVRS), estrogen receptor (ER) status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.|Log Rank||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
95994602|NCT00929240|191965781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.597|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis||||0.597|0.309|<0.0001
95994603|NCT00929240|191965782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.3|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of bevacizumab + capecitabine arm to bevacizumab alone arm.|||20.3|-2.1|0.113
95805618|NCT03726879|191584852|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.37|0.1846
95951726|NCT01214109|191874980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|95.05||||||90.0|84.88|106.43|||ANOVA|||0.5 mg t.i.d. IR is the reference treatment, 1.5 mg q.d. ER is the test treatment||106.43|84.88|
95951727|NCT01989156|191875028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|17.05||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the biomarkers of exposure (BoExp) was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||17.05|9.27|<0.001
95951728|NCT01989156|191875029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|45.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.22|53.41||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||53.41|39.22|<0.001
95951729|NCT01989156|191875030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|12.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|16.58||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||16.58|9.54|<0.001
95951730|NCT01989156|191875031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|26.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.31|40.26||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on Total NNAL levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||40.26|17.31|<0.001
95951731|NCT01989156|191875032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|38.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.24|42.47||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|Geometric LS mean ratio mTHS 2.2:mCC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 90 of the biomarker of exposure for mTHS 2.2 is lower relative to mCC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 90 for mTHS 2.2 and mCC respectively."||42.47|34.24|<0.001
95951732|NCT00636168|191875047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.9|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio, and its 95 % confidence interval was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as indicated at randomization, with treatment as the single covariate.. The analysis was performed after 528 RFS events per IRC were reported. Two-sided, 95% confidence intervals for median RFS were computed by the Brookmeyer and Crowley method using log-log transformation.||0.90|0.64|0.0013
95951733|NCT00636168|191875050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.8% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.92|0.64|0.0024
95994604|NCT00929240|191965783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.6|||Chi-squared||CIs with Hauck-Anderson adjustment for difference in rates of Bevacizumab+Capecitabine group to Bevacizumab only group.|||4.6|-2.6|0.580
95994605|NCT00929240|191965785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.685||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank|||||0.685|0.263|<0.0003
95994606|NCT00929240|191965785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.798||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank|||||0.798|0.334|0.002
95805619|NCT03726879|191584853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.46||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value =0.002|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.46|0.67|0.9551
95805620|NCT03726879|191584856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.59|0.50|
95994607|NCT00929240|191965788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.383|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.551||Stratified by IVRS, ER status, visceral metastasis (yes/no), response to initial phase, and LDH level.|Log Rank||Stratification variables are randomisation stratification parameters as of IVRS: ER status, Visceral metastasis (yes/no), Response to initial phase, LDH concentration level.|||0.551|0.266|<0.0001
95951734|NCT00636168|191875053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank|stratified 2-sided log-rank test||Medians and associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are calculated using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Analysis was stratified for stage (IIIa vs. IIIb vs. IIIc with 1-3 positive lymph-nodes vs. IIIc with \>= 4 positive lymph-nodes) as recorded at randomization. P-value was based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test. Hazard of 10 mg/kg Ipilimumab over hazard of Placebo, with 2-sided 95.1% confidence interval are based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model||0.88|0.58|0.0013
95951735|NCT02971683|191875087|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.9|0.083
95951736|NCT00696241|191875121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-13.17|-8.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.34|-13.17|<0.001
95951737|NCT00696241|191875121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.48|-9.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.67|-14.48|<0.001
95951738|NCT00696241|191875121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-10.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.81|-15.62|<0.001
95951739|NCT00696241|191875121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||2.35|-1.55|0.687
95951740|NCT00696241|191875121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-2.87|0.352
95951741|NCT00696241|191875121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.00|0.038
95805621|NCT03726879|191584856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.32|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||4.32|0.65|
95805622|NCT03726879|191584856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.22|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0 Participants||1.22|0.27|
95951742|NCT00696241|191875122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.45|-9.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.00|-15.45|<0.001
95951743|NCT00696241|191875122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-9.2||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.20|-15.64|<0.001
95951744|NCT00696241|191875122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.74|-12.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.31|-18.74|<0.001
95951745|NCT00696241|191875122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.22|-2.05|0.662
95951746|NCT00696241|191875122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.03||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.24|0.768
95951747|NCT00696241|191875122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-5.34|0.043
95951748|NCT00696241|191875123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.34|<0.001
95951749|NCT00696241|191875123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-6.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-9.24|<0.001
95951750|NCT00696241|191875123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.36||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-9.47|<0.001
95994608|NCT00929240|191965788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.591||Unstratified analysis|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was determined using the cox regression model.|||0.591|0.305|<0.0001
95994609|NCT01834404|191965818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.057
95994610|NCT01834404|191965819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.052
95805623|NCT03726879|191584856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.82|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Negative Participants||2.82|0.58|
95951751|NCT00696241|191875123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.99|0.679
95951752|NCT00696241|191875123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.62||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-1.89|0.319
95951753|NCT00696241|191875123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.38||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.13|0.172
95951754|NCT00696241|191875124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|-5.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-8.83|<0.001
95951755|NCT00696241|191875124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-5.27||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.27|-8.87|<0.001
95951756|NCT00696241|191875124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.82||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.82|-10.42|<0.001
95951757|NCT00696241|191875124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.56||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.56|-1.39|0.908
95805624|NCT03726879|191584856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.36|||Log Rank|||ER/PgR Positive Participants||1.36|0.24|
95951758|NCT00696241|191875124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.52||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-1.43|0.956
95951759|NCT00696241|191875124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-2.98|0.044
95951760|NCT00696241|191875125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-8.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.48|-13.59|<0.001
95951761|NCT00696241|191875125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-9.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.65|-14.75|<0.001
95951762|NCT00696241|191875125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-10.86||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-15.97|<0.001
95951763|NCT00696241|191875125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.22||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.22|-1.90|0.879
95951764|NCT00696241|191875125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.04|-3.07|0.334
95951765|NCT00696241|191875125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.16||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-4.28|0.034
95951766|NCT00696241|191875126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.45|-8.79|<0.001
95951767|NCT00696241|191875126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.18|-9.51|<0.001
95951768|NCT00696241|191875126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-6.61||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-9.94|<0.001
95951769|NCT00696241|191875126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.45||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.24|0.877
95951770|NCT00696241|191875126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.96|0.369
95994611|NCT01834404|191965820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
95994612|NCT01834404|191965821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.99
95994613|NCT01834404|191965822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
95994614|NCT01834404|191965823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
95994615|NCT01834404|191965824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
95994616|NCT01834404|191965825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This p-value was based on a rank transformation.||||0.030
95994617|NCT01834404|191965826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95994618|NCT01834404|191965827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.72
95805625|NCT03726879|191584857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.32|||Log Rank|||All Participants||1.32|0.38|
95951771|NCT00696241|191875126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.3||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-2.39|0.126
95951772|NCT00696241|191875127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-7.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-12.79|<0.001
95951773|NCT00696241|191875127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-8.78||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.78|-14.07|<0.001
95951774|NCT00696241|191875127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-9.73||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.73|-15.03|<0.001
95951775|NCT00696241|191875127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.18||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.18|-1.12|0.346
95951776|NCT00696241|191875127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.88||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-2.40|0.811
95951777|NCT00696241|191875127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.93||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-3.35|0.267
95951778|NCT00696241|191875128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-4.21||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-7.84|<0.001
95951779|NCT00696241|191875128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-5.13||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.13|-8.75|<0.001
95951780|NCT00696241|191875128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-5.03||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-8.65|<0.001
95951781|NCT00696241|191875128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.1||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.83|0.394
95805626|NCT03726879|191584857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.69|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||3.69|0.51|
95805627|NCT03726879|191584857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.02|0.19|
95951782|NCT00696241|191875128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.19||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.19|-1.74|0.712
95951783|NCT00696241|191875128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-1.63|0.818
95951784|NCT00696241|191875129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.05|-8.64||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.64|-14.05|<0.001
95951785|NCT00696241|191875129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|-9.98||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.98|-15.38|<0.001
95951786|NCT00696241|191875129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-11.11||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.11|-16.51|<0.001
95951787|NCT00696241|191875129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|2.54||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.54|-1.83|0.750
95951788|NCT00696241|191875129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.2||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.16|0.378
95951789|NCT00696241|191875129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-4.28|0.059
95951790|NCT00696241|191875130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-5.48||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-9.02|<0.001
95951791|NCT00696241|191875130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-6.4||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.40|-9.92|<0.001
95994619|NCT01834404|191965828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.90
95994620|NCT01834404|191965829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95994621|NCT01834404|191965830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
96001851|NCT01096667|191981240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|60.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.47|71.31||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||71.31|49.47|0.000
95994622|NCT01478958|191965831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||Overall diet effect. No post-hoc analyses required. Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI, age, gender and intervention diet used as prognostic factors in model.||To detect a 2% inter-group difference in FMD (primary outcome) using a SD of 2.3, 90% power and 5% significance level, n=171 participants were required (n=57 per group), increasing to n=228 to include a 25% dropout rate.||||0.238
95994623|NCT01478958|191965831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Effect of the SFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||0.021
95994624|NCT01478958|191965831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of MUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
95994625|NCT01478958|191965831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Effect of n-6 PUFA-rich diet relative to baseline.|General Linear Model Univariate Analysis|Baseline values for %FMD, BMI and age, gender and intervention diet were used as prognostic factors in the model.||||||>0.05
95805628|NCT03726879|191584858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||All Participants||2.00|0.40|
95805629|NCT03726879|191584858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.33|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC1/2/3||7.33|0.42|
95805630|NCT03726879|191584858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.59|||Log Rank|||PD-L1 IC0||1.59|0.21|
95805631|NCT03726879|191584872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.42|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||26.42|0.22|
95805632|NCT03726879|191584872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.90|0.23|
95860151|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL concern domain.||6.3|2.1|<0.0001
95994626|NCT05003115|191965836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-6.36||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|1.44|||Regression, Linear|||||1.44|-14.17|0.101
95994627|NCT05003115|191965837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||||0.59|-0.79|0.78
95805633|NCT03726879|191584872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.87|0.45|
95805634|NCT03726879|191584873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.91|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Missing||18.91|0.07|
95805635|NCT03726879|191584873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.92||||||PIK3CA-Mutated||1.92|0.19|
95805636|NCT03726879|191584873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||1.55|0.33|
95805637|NCT03726879|191584874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Upper limit of the CI was not evaluable due to low number of events||Regression, Cox||The estimated value is \>999.99|PIK3CA-Missing|||0.00|
95805638|NCT03726879|191584874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Mutated||3.53|0.10|
95805639|NCT03726879|191584874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Regression, Cox|||PIK3CA-Wildtype||2.09|0.33|
95951792|NCT00696241|191875130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-6.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.65|-10.17|<0.001
95951793|NCT00696241|191875130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.57|-1.29|0.845
95951794|NCT00696241|191875130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.65||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-2.19|0.290
95951795|NCT00696241|191875130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.41||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-2.44|0.161
95951796|NCT00696241|191875131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|-8.0||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.00|-13.88|<0.001
95951797|NCT00696241|191875131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-8.24||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.24|-14.11|<0.001
95951798|NCT00696241|191875131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-9.28||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.28|-15.15|<0.001
95951799|NCT00696241|191875131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.33||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-3.43|0.385
95951800|NCT00696241|191875131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.08||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-3.66|0.285
95994628|NCT05003115|191965838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.95||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|-2.83|0.314
95994629|NCT05003115|191965839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.04||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.92|||Regression, Linear|||||3.92|-6.00|0.679
95994630|NCT05003115|191965840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.25|||Regression, Linear|||||2.25|-2.23|0.994
95994631|NCT05003115|191965841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-1.22||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.89|||Regression, Linear|||||0.89|-3.33|0.258
95994632|NCT05003115|191965842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Diff. Adjusting for Baseline Values|-0.4||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|3.96|||Regression, Linear|||||3.96|-4.75|0.857
95994633|NCT00432809|191965843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95994634|NCT00432809|191965843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95994635|NCT00432809|191965843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95994636|NCT00432809|191965847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994637|NCT00432809|191965847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994638|NCT00432809|191965847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
95994639|NCT00432809|191965848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95994640|NCT00432809|191965848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95994641|NCT00432809|191965848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95994642|NCT00432809|191965849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994643|NCT00432809|191965849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95860152|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||9.6|4.3|<0.0001
95769179|NCT01006122|191510621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.698|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), P-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, baseline global score as a covariate and participant as random effect.||0.48|-0.20|0.698
95994644|NCT00432809|191965849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
95994645|NCT00432809|191965850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Therapy vs. Gastric Bypass||||<0.001
95994646|NCT00432809|191965850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994647|NCT00432809|191965850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
95994648|NCT00432809|191965851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994649|NCT00432809|191965851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994650|NCT00432809|191965851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95994651|NCT00432809|191965852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994652|NCT00432809|191965852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994653|NCT00432809|191965852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95994654|NCT00432809|191965853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994655|NCT00432809|191965853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994656|NCT00432809|191965853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
95994657|NCT00432809|191965854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994658|NCT00432809|191965854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95994659|NCT00432809|191965854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95994660|NCT00432809|191965855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
95994661|NCT00432809|191965855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95994662|NCT00432809|191965855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
95994663|NCT00432809|191965856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95994664|NCT00432809|191965856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95994665|NCT00432809|191965856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
95994666|NCT00432809|191965857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95994667|NCT00432809|191965857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95994668|NCT00432809|191965857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95994669|NCT00432809|191965858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95994670|NCT00432809|191965858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95994671|NCT00432809|191965858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95994672|NCT00432809|191965859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994673|NCT00432809|191965859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1.001
95994674|NCT00432809|191965859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95994675|NCT00432809|191965860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994676|NCT00432809|191965860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994677|NCT00432809|191965860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95994678|NCT00432809|191965861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994679|NCT00432809|191965861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994680|NCT00432809|191965861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95994681|NCT00432809|191965862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994682|NCT00432809|191965862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95994683|NCT00432809|191965862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95994684|NCT00432809|191965863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994685|NCT00432809|191965863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95994686|NCT00432809|191965863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95994687|NCT00432809|191965864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994688|NCT00432809|191965864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994689|NCT00432809|191965864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95994690|NCT00432809|191965865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95994691|NCT00432809|191965865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95769180|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.02|-0.34|0.127
95769181|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.25|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.11|-0.25|0.303
95951801|NCT00696241|191875131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.04||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-4.70|0.054
95951802|NCT00696241|191875132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-4.75||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-8.93|<0.001
95951803|NCT00696241|191875132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|-4.72||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.72|-8.89|<0.001
95951804|NCT00696241|191875132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-5.47||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.47|-9.64|<0.001
95951805|NCT00696241|191875132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.29||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-2.09|0.642
95951806|NCT00696241|191875132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.32||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.05|0.672
95951807|NCT00696241|191875132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.57||P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-2.80|0.196
95951808|NCT00696241|191875133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|7.39||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.39|2.71|<0.001
95951809|NCT00696241|191875133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|8.2||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.20|3.01|<0.001
95951810|NCT00696241|191875133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.79||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.79|3.95|<0.001
95951811|NCT00696241|191875133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.57|0.173
95769182|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 15 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.27|-0.09|0.738
95951812|NCT00696241|191875133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.63|0.449
95951813|NCT00696241|191875133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.62||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.83|0.402
95951814|NCT00696241|191875134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|4.48||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.82|<0.001
95951815|NCT00696241|191875134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|2.15|<0.001
95951816|NCT00696241|191875134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.41|<0.001
95951817|NCT00696241|191875134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.13||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.52|0.177
95994692|NCT00432809|191965865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95994693|NCT00432809|191965866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994694|NCT00432809|191965866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994695|NCT00432809|191965866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95994696|NCT00432809|191965867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994697|NCT00432809|191965867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95994698|NCT00432809|191965867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95994699|NCT02630953|191965891|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|28.7||Significance level was set at .05 a priori.|quantile regression|Bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications)||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-ups, controlling for baseline. Quantile regression models the median outcome instead of the mean, and are appropriate when data is skewed (as was the case in both self-reported and objectively measured MVPA).||28.70|-41.15|0.24
95994700|NCT02630953|191965892|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.37|47.37||Significance was set at .05 a priori|quantile regression|||Using a series of quantile regression models with bootstrapped standard errors (10,000 replications) we examined the potential treatment effects on MVPA at follow-up, controlling for baseline||47.37|-32.37|0.73
95994701|NCT02630953|191965893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set at .05 a priori|Regression, Linear|||Using a series of generalized linear models with identity link, we examined treatment effects on biomarkers at 6 months controlling for baseline and potential confounders.||||>.06
95994702|NCT00749190|191965936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 1 mg minus placebo|||-0.03|-0.44|0.0226
95769183|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 20 (TP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.35|-0.04|0.850
95994703|NCT00749190|191965936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 5 mg minus placebo|||-0.18|-0.59|0.0002
95994704|NCT00749190|191965936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.51||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 10 mg minus placebo|||-0.51|-0.91|<0.0001
95994705|NCT00749190|191965936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.5||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 25 mg minus placebo|||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
95994706|NCT00749190|191965936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.43||P-values are regarded as descriptive, adjustment for multiple testing was not necessary.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, number of previously used anti-diabetic medications, country and baseline.|Difference calculated as empagliflozin 50 mg minus placebo|||-0.43|-0.84|<0.0001
95994707|NCT03952559|191965954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.21|0.58|0.7261
95994708|NCT03952559|191965954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.41|0.95|0.0718
95994709|NCT03952559|191965954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.02|<0.0001
95769184|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.24|-0.14|0.631
95994710|NCT03952559|191965957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.59|0.9615
95769185|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.16|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.04|-0.34|0.160
95994711|NCT03952559|191965957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.83|0.2010
95994712|NCT03952559|191965957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|1.38|0.0017
95994713|NCT03952559|191965958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.01|0.43|0.8544
95994714|NCT03952559|191965958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.91|0.98|0.0561
95994715|NCT03952559|191965958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.82|1.54|0.0012
95994716|NCT03952559|191965959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-4.16|0.2627
95769186|NCT01006122|191510624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21 (SP), One-sided p-value was based on linear mixed effects model with treatment, period, time and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect.||0.22|-0.18|0.541
95769187|NCT04205643|191510654|SUPERIORITY||Difference estimated using CMH weights|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|29.3||If the primary endpoint is significant, a fixed sequence procedure was employed to control the overall type I error rate of the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.|The 95% stratified Newcombe CI with CMH weights|||29.3|11.8|<0.0001
95994717|NCT03952559|191965959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-4.31|0.2135
95994718|NCT03952559|191965959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-5.36|0.0443
95994719|NCT03952559|191965960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.30|0.4943
95769188|NCT02748356|191510665|OTHER|1 sample t-test|||||=|0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a single group comparison||||||=0.351
95769189|NCT01153815|191510678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Exact Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
95769190|NCT02259010|191510696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.19|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.19|0.82|
95769191|NCT02259010|191510697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.79|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.79|1.02|
95769192|NCT02259010|191510698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.95|||||Estimates were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the itraconazole effect and random terms for participant within period.|||1.95|0.99|
95769193|NCT02640664|191510714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.5||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-1.1|
95769194|NCT02640664|191510714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.3||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||8.3|-3.4|
95769195|NCT02640664|191510714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.8||primary endpoint in the extension study does not have p-values. It's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||7.8|-3.3|
95769196|NCT02640664|191510717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.7||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||16.7|-0.8|
95769197|NCT02640664|191510717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P value not applicable because it's a descriptive analysis.|ANOVA|||||10.5|-7.3|
95769198|NCT02640664|191510717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.8|||ANOVA|||||14.8|-2.0|
95769199|NCT01367886|191510777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95769200|NCT01367886|191510778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
95769201|NCT01367886|191510779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95769202|NCT01367886|191510780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
95769203|NCT00985504|191510783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||1.10|-1.87|0.612
95769204|NCT00985504|191510784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||This is the p-value for Cognition Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.504
95769205|NCT00985504|191510784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Behavior Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.665
95769206|NCT00985504|191510784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This is the p-value for Emotional Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.489
95769207|NCT00985504|191510784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||This is the p-value for Other Items Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.945
95769208|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.157
95769209|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Level score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.119
95854627|NCT00311766|191668863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ANCOVA|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary population was the Full Analysis(FA)population. The FA population included all patients who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication and who had at least one baseline efficacy parameter recorded||||>0.05
95994720|NCT03952559|191965960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.80|0.1677
95994721|NCT03952559|191965960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.70|1.06|0.0336
95769210|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation and Interest score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.184
95769211|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Cognitive Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.226
95994722|NCT03952559|191965961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.42|0.8866
95994723|NCT03952559|191965961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|0.70|0.2316
95854628|NCT02260934|191668865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Two-sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 24||||0.58
95854629|NCT02260934|191668865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.25
95994724|NCT03952559|191965961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.59||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.08|0.0328
95994725|NCT03952559|191965962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|0.70|0.5361
95769212|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Weight Gain score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.059
95769213|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sleep score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.466
95769214|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sexual Functioning score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.822
95843707|NCT03043872|191654945|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.909||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. The global cohort interim analysis of OS was based on a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with O'Brien Fleming type boundary, using the actual number of events observed as a proportion of the planned total. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0178 for a 4% overall alpha. Hazard Ratio (HR) \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.909|0.591|0.0047
95854630|NCT02260934|191668865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 0 to Week 96.||||0.15
95769215|NCT00985504|191510785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Affect score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.599
95769216|NCT00985504|191510786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p-value for the PGI-I.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.723
95854631|NCT02260934|191668867|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|Two sided test. P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 24|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||
95951818|NCT00696241|191875134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.35||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.61|0.628
95951819|NCT00696241|191875134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.68|0.928
95951820|NCT00696241|191875135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|7.72||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.72|2.66|<0.001
95951821|NCT00696241|191875135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|8.58||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.58|2.96|<0.001
95951822|NCT00696241|191875135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|11.48||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.48|3.96|<0.001
95951823|NCT00696241|191875135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.58|0.217
95951824|NCT00696241|191875135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.64|0.537
95951825|NCT00696241|191875135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.68||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.86|0.276
95951826|NCT02066389|191875140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.153
95951827|NCT02066389|191875140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
95951828|NCT02066389|191875140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95951829|NCT02066389|191875140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95951830|NCT02066389|191875140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95769217|NCT00985504|191510787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.410
95951831|NCT02066389|191875141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.034
95951832|NCT02066389|191875141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95951833|NCT02066389|191875141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95951834|NCT02066389|191875141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95994726|NCT03952559|191965962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|0.73|0.4417
95769218|NCT00985504|191510788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.880
95769219|NCT00985504|191510788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 8 (Inability to Feel) score.|Mixed Models Analysis|"The Kenward-Roger approximation was used in the MMRM model."||||||0.224
95769220|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This is the p-value for the Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.910
95769221|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Motivation/Interest/Enthusiasm Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.882
95769222|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Wakefulness/Alertness Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.657
95769223|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Energy Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.457
95951835|NCT02066389|191875141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.012
95951836|NCT02066389|191875142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
95951837|NCT02066389|191875142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95951838|NCT02066389|191875142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.145
95951839|NCT02066389|191875142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95951840|NCT02066389|191875142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.014
95951841|NCT02066389|191875143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95951842|NCT02066389|191875143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95951843|NCT02066389|191875143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
95951844|NCT02066389|191875143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95951845|NCT02066389|191875143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95769224|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Focus/Sustain Attention Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.737
95769225|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Remember/Recall Information Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.404
95769226|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Ability to Find Words Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.808
95769227|NCT00985504|191510789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Sharpness/Mental Acuity Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.431
95769228|NCT00985504|191510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||This is the p-value for the SDS Total Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.821
95769229|NCT00985504|191510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 1 (Work) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.491
95951846|NCT02066389|191875144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
95951847|NCT02066389|191875144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95951848|NCT02066389|191875144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.029
95951849|NCT02066389|191875144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95951850|NCT02066389|191875144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.343
95951851|NCT02066389|191875145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
95951852|NCT02066389|191875145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
95951853|NCT02066389|191875145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.046
95951854|NCT02066389|191875145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95951855|NCT02066389|191875145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.096
95951856|NCT02066389|191875146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.269||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.269
95951857|NCT02066389|191875146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
95951858|NCT02066389|191875146|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95951859|NCT02066389|191875146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.160
95951860|NCT02066389|191875146|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical tests were 1-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95951861|NCT02429115|191875149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95951862|NCT02429115|191875150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95951863|NCT02429115|191875151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95994727|NCT03952559|191965962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|1.16|0.0121
95994728|NCT03952559|191965963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.37|0.7706
95994729|NCT03952559|191965963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.86|0.38|0.7409
95994730|NCT03952559|191965963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.63|1.15|0.0253
95994731|NCT03952559|191965964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-8.95|0.1317
95769230|NCT00985504|191510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 2 (Family) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.451
95769231|NCT00985504|191510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 3 (Social) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.443
95769232|NCT00985504|191510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 4 (Days Lost) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.719
95769233|NCT00985504|191510790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Item 5 (Days Underproductive) Score.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA main effect F test||||||0.517
95769234|NCT00985504|191510791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.776
95769235|NCT00985504|191510792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was conducted using Kaplan-Meier Product-Limit method.||||0.691
95769236|NCT00985504|191510793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
95769237|NCT03805412|191510800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.694
95769238|NCT01611883|191510817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe treatment group will be considered non-inferior to the placebo control group if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference (ezetimibe minus placebo) in means for change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of treatment does not exceed 0.5%.|Difference in Least-squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.23|-0.07|
95860153|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||5.7|0.4|0.0229
95860154|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER: HRQL coping domain.||6.0|1.7|0.0004
95994732|NCT03952559|191965964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-10.19|0.0451
95994733|NCT03952559|191965964|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.566||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.58|-12.66|0.0031
95769239|NCT01611883|191510818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.47|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||0.47|-0.47|
95769240|NCT01611883|191510819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance||ezetimibe minus placebo|||2.5|-12.1|
95769241|NCT01611883|191510820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.779
95769242|NCT01611883|191510821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage difference between ezetimibe and placebo||||0.365
95994734|NCT03952559|191965965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.11|0.4238
95994735|NCT03952559|191965965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.44|0.5118
95769243|NCT01611883|191510822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-21.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-17.03|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-17.03|-25.06|<0.001
95769244|NCT01611883|191510823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-10.42|||Longitudinal analysis of covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-10.42|-16.66|<0.001
95769245|NCT01611883|191510824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-11.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-1.44|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-1.44|-21.27|0.025
95769246|NCT01611883|191510825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|2.45||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|6.61|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||6.61|-1.71|0.246
95769247|NCT01611883|191510826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares Means|-19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-15.43|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|"Treatment group, HbA1c level, insulin use, time, and time × treatment group interaction as factors, and baseline as covariate"|ezetimibe minus placebo|||-15.43|-22.71|<0.001
95769248|NCT05682729|191510847|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.03||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05. Wilks' Lambda F(3, 109) = .96, p = .41, ηp2 = .03.|ANCOVA|||We specifically compared the pre-to-post test change in accuracy on the FAM task across the four groups using a within-subjects ANCOVA and specifically a group by time (pre-to-post test) interaction. We controlled for age, gender, and children's executive function skills.||||.41
95769249|NCT05682729|191510847|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.004
95994736|NCT03952559|191965965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.52|1.34|0.0129
95994737|NCT03952559|191965966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.75|-5.77|0.4852
95994738|NCT03952559|191965966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-5.98|0.4205
95994739|NCT03952559|191965966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-9.59|0.0138
95994740|NCT03952559|191965967|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95994741|NCT03952559|191965967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
95994742|NCT03952559|191965967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.302
95994743|NCT03952559|191965968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|14.35|||ANOVA|||||14.35|-5.41|0.375
95994744|NCT03952559|191965968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|13.0|||ANOVA|||||13.00|-6.76|0.536
95994745|NCT03952559|191965968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|22.05|||ANOVA|||||22.05|2.29|0.016
95994746|NCT03952559|191965969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-49.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.81|4.42|||ANOVA|||||4.42|-102.81|0.073
95994747|NCT03952559|191965969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-37.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.29||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.0|16.23|||ANOVA|||||16.23|-91.00|0.172
95994748|NCT03952559|191965969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.98|-26.75|||ANOVA|||||-26.75|-133.98|0.004
95994749|NCT03952559|191965970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.38|0.0829
95994750|NCT03952559|191965970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-1.22|0.1752
95994751|NCT03952559|191965970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.82|0.0029
95769250|NCT05682729|191510847|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.04||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.031
95994752|NCT03952559|191965971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2688
95994753|NCT03952559|191965971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.85|0.0166
95994754|NCT03952559|191965971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.75|0.0908
95769251|NCT05682729|191510847|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.01||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.463
95994755|NCT03952559|191965972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-2.79|0.3409
95769252|NCT05682729|191510847|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Following the omnibus test, we conducted planned comparisons to compare pre-to-post test change within our experimental and control groups to test for significant positive change from pre-to-post test.||||.186
95769253|NCT05682729|191510848|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.605
95994756|NCT03952559|191965972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1022
95994757|NCT03952559|191965972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-3.43|0.1024
95994758|NCT03952559|191965973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.54|0.1436
95994759|NCT03952559|191965973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.61|0.0483
95994760|NCT03952559|191965973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.80|0.0012
95994761|NCT03952559|191965974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.63|-3.27|0.9183
95994762|NCT03952559|191965974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.93|-4.09|0.4805
95994763|NCT03952559|191965974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.812||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.86|-5.26|0.3488
95994764|NCT03952559|191965974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|7.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.66|-4.85|0.2388
95994765|NCT03952559|191965974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.542||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||3.98|-10.23|0.0098
95994766|NCT03952559|191965974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.42|-5.18|0.1698
95994767|NCT03952559|191965975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||3.88|-3.24|0.8611
95994768|NCT03952559|191965975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.571||0.5098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||2.05|-4.12|0.5098
95994769|NCT03952559|191965975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 8 to \<18 years old||1.27|-6.08|0.1997
95994770|NCT03952559|191965975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|8.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.35|-5.11|0.1957
95994771|NCT03952559|191965975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.864||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||7.32|-8.19|0.0881
95994772|NCT03952559|191965975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||for 5 to \<8 years old||8.28|-5.27|0.1604
95994773|NCT03952559|191965976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.93|0.2987
95994774|NCT03952559|191965976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.88|0.3096
95994775|NCT03952559|191965976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-1.55|0.6341
95994776|NCT03952559|191965977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|17.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.09|-6.54|0.2871
95994777|NCT03952559|191965977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|17.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.29|-7.83|0.3093
95994778|NCT03952559|191965977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|8.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.21|-18.22|0.2912
95994779|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY|Absenteeism Change from Baseline|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.54|-7.74|0.6079
95769254|NCT05682729|191510849|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.02||||0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.618
95994780|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.092||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||4.24|-7.94|0.5492
95769255|NCT03100903|191510885|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|71.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.57|84.73|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.7"|||84.73|60.57|
95994781|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.281||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.53|-11.39|0.1338
95994782|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||6.08|-7.96|0.7928
95994783|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.553||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||1.69|-12.30|0.1366
95769256|NCT03100903|191510886|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.27|35.35|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 26.6"|||35.35|24.27|
95994784|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.792||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism Change from Baseline||0.71|-14.21|0.0760
95994785|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||4.80|-13.16|0.3602
95994786|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.516||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||2.65|-15.14|0.1678
95994787|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.808||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Work Impairment Change from Baseline||-2.08|-21.00|0.0170
95994788|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.82|-10.66|0.1645
95994789|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.158||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.34|-11.07|0.1240
95994790|NCT03952559|191965978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.163||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.80|-13.23|0.0270
95994791|NCT03952559|191965979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.778||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.43|-3.49|0.4778
95994792|NCT03952559|191965979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.743||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|7.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.39|-3.38|0.4649
95994793|NCT03952559|191965979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|-0.89|0.1013
95994794|NCT03952559|191965980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.27|0.6574
95994795|NCT03952559|191965980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.35|0.9488
95994796|NCT03952559|191965980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.47|0.4546
95994797|NCT03952559|191965981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.79|0.8133
95994798|NCT03952559|191965981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.11|0.2517
95769257|NCT03100903|191510887|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale, accounting for the treatment group as a source of variation. The effect 'treatment group' was considered as fixed.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio %|70.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.26|83.2|||||"gMean ratio = gMean of BI 655130 high dose SC/gMean of BI 655130 high dose IV.~Inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 23.9"|||83.20|59.26|
95769258|NCT04659993|191510888|SUPERIORITY|To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.0||All statistical tests were performed with a significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To test the change over the 8 weeks, a paired t-test (using the baseline and Visit 8 scores within the same patient) will be used; the expected difference in the CBI-B between the two scores would be no change. All statistical test used an alpha of 0.05.||9.0|-7.3|0.8036
95769259|NCT04659993|191510889|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test for Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Statistical significance using alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.6|0.3632
95769260|NCT04659993|191510890|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of Purpose in life test. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.1|-11.3|0.7918
95769261|NCT04659993|191510891|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Anxious preoccupation Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-6.2|0.7711
95951864|NCT01297595|191875152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|108.87||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||108.87|91.08|
95951865|NCT01297595|191875154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.51|109.07||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||109.07|90.51|
95951866|NCT01297595|191875155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|96.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.22|106.32||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. This was an estimation study and there was no formal statistical hypothesis.||106.32|88.22|
95769262|NCT04659993|191510891|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Cognitive avoidance Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-11.5|0.0772
95769263|NCT04659993|191510891|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fatalism Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-2.9|0.2452
95769264|NCT04659993|191510891|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Fighting spirit Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.8|-10.5|0.6099
95769265|NCT04659993|191510891|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of The Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Helplessness/hopelessness Subscale. Statistical significance determine with alpha of 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-6.7|0.0913
95769266|NCT01540487|191510901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|94.7|
95769267|NCT01540487|191510901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
95769268|NCT01540487|191510902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|95.4|
95769269|NCT01540487|191510902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|111.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.4|123.5|||ANOVA|||||123.5|100.4|
95769270|NCT01540487|191510903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|103.8|||ANOVA|||||103.8|90.6|
95769271|NCT01540487|191510903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusteg gMean ratio|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|110.1|||ANOVA|||||110.1|96.2|
95854632|NCT02260934|191668867|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.||Week 0 to Week 48|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms.|||
95769272|NCT01540487|191510904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|104.8|||ANOVA|||||104.8|85.4|
95769273|NCT01540487|191510904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|113.9|||ANOVA|||||113.9|92.2|
95769274|NCT01540487|191510905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.5|120.6|||ANOVA|||||120.6|100.5|
95769275|NCT01540487|191510905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|99.3|||ANOVA|||||99.3|80.2|
95769276|NCT01540487|191510906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|104.5|||ANOVA|||||104.5|92.0|
95769277|NCT01540487|191510906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.0|97.0|
95769278|NCT01540487|191510907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|104.6|||ANOVA|||||104.6|94.7|
95769279|NCT01540487|191510907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|106.8|||ANOVA|||||106.8|95.1|
95994799|NCT03952559|191965981|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-1.32|0.0803
95994800|NCT01302808|191965988|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95994801|NCT02848833|191966018|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95994802|NCT02848833|191966021|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95994803|NCT02848833|191966022|OTHER|Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95805640|NCT02496156|191584886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.39||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Missing data treatment was done using multiple imputation methods when data were determined to be Missing Completely at Random or Missing at Random. Assumptions underlying each statistical test were evaluated before proceeding with specific analyses.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||<0.39
95805641|NCT02496156|191584887|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value exceeded the .05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
95805642|NCT02496156|191584888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||This is a computed p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See description of analysis below.|For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
95805643|NCT02496156|191584889|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANCOVA|Difference in post-test scores with baseline Knowledge test score as the covariate.||||||>0.05
95805644|NCT02496156|191584891|SUPERIORITY|See analysis description below.|||||>|0.05||||||Computed p-value|ANOVA||||For each outcome, a linear mixed effects model was fit; with the exception of the Knowledge test where a linear model was fit. Separate models were fit for Parents and adolescents except for HbA1C. The predictor variable is treatment group (SMDM vs. UCP). Covariates are gender, age, social economic status, and family structure as determined by (number of siblings and of caregivers in the home). A random intercept was fit for each subject across the longitudinal data. To accommodate missing values multiple imputation methodology was applied to the data, resulting in five imputed datasets. For each imputed dataset, a linear mixed effects model (or linear model for Knowledge Test) was fit; the resulting five models were pooled into a final model and summary statistics are presented. A two-sided Wald's t test determined significance of covariates. The significance level was 0.05. Appropriate model diagnostics were performed to assess model fit.|||>0.05
95805645|NCT00507507|191584932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference. The sample size provided at least 85% power to detect a difference of 30% between the groups, assuming response rates of 30% and 60% in the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups, respectively.||||0.016
95994804|NCT02848833|191966023|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95994805|NCT02848833|191966024|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Difference before administration versus after administration was analyzed using a paired t-test.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95994806|NCT00775021|191966099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03501|0.2334|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilconA minus nelfilcon A. Analysis is adjusted for lens type, period, lens type by period interaction, gender, lens type by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal to ro higher ratings of overall comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2334|-0.03501|
95994807|NCT00775021|191966100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07768|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.108|0.06501|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A. Analysis adjusted for lens type, period, lens by period interaction, gender, lens by gender interaction as fixed effects, subject nested within site and eye within subject as random effect.|The alternative hypothesis is that eyes that wore etafilcon A contact lenses will have less inferior region corneal staining than eyes that wore nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.06501|-0.1080|
95951867|NCT01047709|191875201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of control night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
95951868|NCT01047709|191875201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative % difference|19.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0||0.011||95.0|4.9|31.9|||GEE||SD of intervention night|Relative treatment effect on AHI, using GEE modeling, accounting for crossover design.||31.9|4.9|0.011
95951869|NCT03444298|191875259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95951870|NCT03444298|191875260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
95951871|NCT03444298|191875261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95951872|NCT03444298|191875262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95951873|NCT03444298|191875263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95951874|NCT03444298|191875263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95951875|NCT03444298|191875264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95951876|NCT03444298|191875264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95951877|NCT03444298|191875265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95951878|NCT03444298|191875266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95951879|NCT03444298|191875267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95951880|NCT03444298|191875268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95951881|NCT03444298|191875269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95951882|NCT03444298|191875270|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95951883|NCT03444298|191875271|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95951884|NCT02591056|191875316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=+7.45; df=26||||||<0.0001
95951885|NCT02823574|191875354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|95.5|0.33|1.43|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.43|0.33|0.2897
95951886|NCT02823574|191875359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PD-L1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
95951887|NCT02823574|191875360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.41|0.78|
95951888|NCT02823574|191875361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.36|0.87|
95951889|NCT02823574|191875362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.45|0.81|
95951890|NCT02823574|191875363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.61|||||computed using a cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization PDL-1 and HPV status|||1.61|0.81|
95951891|NCT02823574|191875388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel|||Treatment A over Treatment B||1.29|0.32|
95951892|NCT01580306|191875391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|93.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.58|310.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||310.17|41.58|
95951893|NCT01580306|191875391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|178.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.23|373.03|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||373.03|85.23|
95951894|NCT01580306|191875391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|169.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.19|391.17|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||391.17|73.19|
95951895|NCT01580306|191875392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.16|327.01|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison mild : normal||327.01|35.16|
95951896|NCT01580306|191875392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|344.06|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison moderate : normal||344.06|89.55|
95951897|NCT01580306|191875392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|115.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.257|309.736|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison severe : normal||309.736|47.257|
95951898|NCT01601821|191875406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test superiority of arm CsA+Rapamune+CS versus arm CsA+MMF+CS.||1.5|-5.5|0.341
95951899|NCT01601821|191875407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the difference.||||0.870
95951900|NCT01601821|191875407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.381
95805646|NCT00507507|191584933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.050
95805647|NCT00507507|191584933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.009
95805648|NCT00507507|191584933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.030
95805649|NCT00507507|191584934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.703
95805650|NCT00507507|191584934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.034
95805651|NCT00507507|191584934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.011
95805652|NCT00507507|191584934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBV DNA \< 169 copies/mL at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.007
95805653|NCT00507507|191584935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.010
95805654|NCT00507507|191584936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.019
95805655|NCT00507507|191584937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.186
95805656|NCT00507507|191584938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||A Wilcoxon rank-sum (2-sided) test was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference of change in HBV DNA from baseline between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.070
95951901|NCT01601821|191875407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.096
95951902|NCT01601821|191875408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.979
95951903|NCT01601821|191875408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.660
95951904|NCT01601821|191875408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.518
95951905|NCT01601821|191875409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 3: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.786
95805657|NCT00507507|191584939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 48: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 48 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.467
95805658|NCT00507507|191584939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 96 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||1.000
95951906|NCT01601821|191875409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 6: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.738
95951907|NCT01601821|191875409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Month 12: One-way ANOVA was used to test the difference.||||0.977
95951908|NCT01601821|191875410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
95994808|NCT00775021|191966101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.0055|0.4001|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses have equal to or higher comfort ratings at the end of the day than nelfilcon A.||0.4001|-0.0055|
95994809|NCT00775021|191966102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.5016|-0.1088|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A contact lenses will have equal or higher ratings of initial comfort than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||-0.1088|-0.5016|
95994810|NCT00775021|191966103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Margin = -0.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|98.7|-0.1301|0.2489|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as etafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|The alternative hypothesis is that etaflicon A contact lenses have equal to or higher ratings of ease of handling than nelfilcon A contact lenses.||0.2489|-0.1301|
95994811|NCT00363415|191966104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||<|0.01||95.0|1.27|1.92|||Log Rank|||||1.92|1.27|<0.01
95994812|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Male|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95994813|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Sex: Female|Log Rank|||||||0.023
95994814|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Race: Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95994815|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for Race: Non-Caucasian.|Log Rank|||||||0.030
95994816|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 0 or 1.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95994817|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||P-value for ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) Performance Status: 2.|Log Rank|||||||0.519
95769280|NCT04003636|191510911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||0.95|0.72|0.0034
95769281|NCT04003636|191510912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, disease status, site of origin with small strata collapsed|HR=Arm A/Arm B|||1.00|0.75|0.0225
95769282|NCT04003636|191510913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|0.2||||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0|Miettinen & Nurminen||Difference=Arm A minus Arm B|||5.6|-5.2|0.4735
95769283|NCT01754129|191510961|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Missing values were replaced using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) technique for data of questionnaires. Missing data at Visit 3 was replaced with the (non-missing) data recorded at Visit 2.|Paired t-test|||Mean change from baseline to Visit 3||||<0.001
95769284|NCT01754129|191510961|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Visit 2||||<0.001
95769285|NCT00603902|191510988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for baseline body weight.||||3.13|2.31|<0.0001
95769286|NCT00603902|191510989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.56|||ANCOVA|||||-2.56|-3.44|<0.0001
95994818|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0||||P-value for Region: United States.|Log Rank|||||||0.084
95994819|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Region: European Union.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
95994820|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Region: Intercontinental Region.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
95994821|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for LDH (lactate dehydrogenase): \>Upper Limit of Normal.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
95994822|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Age: \<=65 years.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95994823|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Age: \>65 years.|Log Rank|||||||0.013
95994824|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \<=2.|Log Rank|||||||0.092
95994825|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Number Metastatic Sites: \>=3.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95994826|NCT00363415|191966105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for History of Brain Metastases: No.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95994827|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.9|-1.8|
95994828|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.5|-6.8|
95994829|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.3|-1.7|
96001852|NCT01096667|191981240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|70.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|59.58|81.1||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||81.10|59.58|0.000
95769287|NCT00651261|191510996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||1-sided stratified log-rank|||||0.96|0.63|0.009
95769288|NCT00651261|191510997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||1-sided stratified log rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0024
95769289|NCT00651261|191510999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95769290|NCT00651261|191511000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||1-sided stratified log rank|||||||0.0049
95769291|NCT02027545|191511002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.491
95769292|NCT02027545|191511003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
95769293|NCT05483686|191511005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in percentage of participants with HIV transmission risk between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.19
95769294|NCT05483686|191511006|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in ART adherence between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||=.24
95769295|NCT05483686|191511007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.79
95769296|NCT05483686|191511008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to ART use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
95769297|NCT05483686|191511009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to PrEP use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.14
95769298|NCT05483686|191511010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in barriers to condom use between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.81
95805659|NCT00507507|191584939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 144 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.529
95769299|NCT05483686|191511011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in social support between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.30
95769300|NCT05483686|191511012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis aims to detect a significant change (p = .05) in gender identity comfort between Shine Intervention participants and Control Videos participants from Baseline to Month 6.||||.94
95951909|NCT01601821|191875412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.276
95769301|NCT03126630|191511017|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that there are no differences between the classes in the population. The purpose of the test is to evaluate how likely the observed frequencies would be assuming the null hypothesis is true.||||||0.27541|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27541
95769302|NCT03126630|191511020|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||Not enough events||Log Rank||||||0.0|0.1936
95769303|NCT03126630|191511021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.51|||Log Rank|||||4.51|0.73|0.1952
95769304|NCT06028438|191511026|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-0.60|=0.822
95769305|NCT03137160|191511057|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the Investigator Global Assessment comparing the proportion of subjects who achieved a 2 pt reduction at study close (0).||||1
95769306|NCT00630825|191511077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769307|NCT00630825|191511077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769308|NCT00630825|191511077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769309|NCT00630825|191511078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769310|NCT00630825|191511078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769311|NCT00630825|191511078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769312|NCT00630825|191511079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769313|NCT00630825|191511079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
95769314|NCT00630825|191511079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95769315|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769316|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769317|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95951910|NCT01601821|191875413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
95951911|NCT01601821|191875414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.868
95994830|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.4|-4.3|
95769318|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95951912|NCT01601821|191875415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.999
95951913|NCT01601821|191875416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.985
95951914|NCT01601821|191875417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference.||||0.172
95951915|NCT01601821|191875418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing was based on 5% significance level.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to test the difference.||||0.978
95951916|NCT04791917|191875468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.32, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.26
95951917|NCT04791917|191875469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43) = 2.60, partial eta squared = .06||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for alcohol including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.11
95951918|NCT04791917|191875470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 1.95, partial eta squared = .04||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol Pmax including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.17
95951919|NCT04791917|191875471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,43)=.01, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on alcohol essential value including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.91
95951920|NCT04791917|191875472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.24, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.14
95951921|NCT04791917|191875473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .04, partial eta squared = .001||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on breakpoint of cannabis demand including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.83
95994831|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|-1.3|
96001853|NCT01096667|191981240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.63||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.22|5.96||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||5.96|-15.22|0.713
95951922|NCT04791917|191875474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 2.20, partial eta squared = .05||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.15
95951923|NCT04791917|191875475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 1.41, partial eta squared = .03||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Omax for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.24
95951924|NCT04791917|191875476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = .001, partial eta squared = .00||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.97
95951925|NCT04791917|191875476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,41) = 4.86, partial eta squared = .11||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Essential Value for cannabis including baseline urge to consume cannabis and CUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Time X Group interaction.||||.03
95769319|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769320|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769321|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95994832|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.7|
95769322|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769323|NCT00630825|191511080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 16. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769324|NCT00630825|191511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769325|NCT00630825|191511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769326|NCT00630825|191511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95769327|NCT00630825|191511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.904
95769328|NCT00630825|191511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.||||||0.138
95769329|NCT00630825|191511081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.729
95769330|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769331|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769332|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||Treatment comparison at 4 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
95805660|NCT00507507|191584939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used, with no adjustments for covariates.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with normal ALT at Week 192 between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.451
95994833|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.4|-2.0|
95769333|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769334|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769335|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 8 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769336|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95769337|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95769338|NCT00630825|191511083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95769339|NCT00630825|191511084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95769340|NCT00630825|191511084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95769341|NCT00630825|191511084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
95769342|NCT04994691|191511109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.6|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.60|1.38|0.000
95769343|NCT04994691|191511109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.13|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.13|1.06|0.023
95769344|NCT04994691|191511109|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.66|0.94|0.124
95769345|NCT04994691|191511110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.84|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. No Message|||2.84|1.32|0.001
95769346|NCT04994691|191511110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.34|||Regression, Logistic||Tailored Message vs. No Message|||2.34|1.02|0.040
95769347|NCT04994691|191511110|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Regression, Logistic||Standard Message vs. Tailored Message|||1.74|0.88|0.202
95769348|NCT01050582|191511115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.674|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: weight (wt) divided expected wt for age and height (ht), age, use of concomitant medication with growth effects, preexposure ht z-score.|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipychotics.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in current height z-score.||0.674|0.220|<0.001
95994834|NCT03193866|191966110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|7.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.1|-3.2|
95994835|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.8|-7.5|
95994836|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.8|-18.5|
95994837|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.6|-8.8|
95994838|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.2|-8.1|
95994839|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.9|-5.7|
95994840|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.0|-4.7|
95994841|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|7.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.9|-6.2|
95994842|NCT03193866|191966111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||7.5|-10.8|
95769349|NCT01050582|191511116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.269|||Regression, Linear|Covariates: Tanner stage and gender|Slope associated with treatment dummy variable with 1 indicating risperidone and 0 indicating other atypical antipsychotics.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in age (years) at current Tanner stage.||0.269|-0.711|0.378
95994843|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.3|-2.5|
95769350|NCT01050582|191511117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865|||>|0.999||95.0|0.189|3.963|||Fisher Exact||Estimated OR is from a logistic regression model including factors for treatment arm, age, indication, and use of concomitant medication with growth effects.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and other atypical antipsychotics groups in frequency of retrospectively reported potentially prolactin-related adverse events||3.963|0.189|>0.999
95769351|NCT01019694|191511118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.02|13.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||13.19|6.02|< 0.0001
95769352|NCT01019694|191511118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.0009||95.0|2.57|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||9.91|2.57|0.0009
95805661|NCT00507507|191584940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
95805662|NCT00507507|191584940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
95805663|NCT00507507|191584940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with HBeAg loss between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.365
95805664|NCT00507507|191584941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 96: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.496
95805665|NCT00507507|191584941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 144: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.119
95805666|NCT00507507|191584941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||||||A Fisher exact test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level was used.|Fisher Exact|||Analysis at Week 192: the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects with seroconversion to anti-HBe between the Tenofovir DF and FTC+Tenofovir DF groups; the alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||||0.244
95805667|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
95805668|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||Deming Regression|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.17|-0.25|
95805669|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|0.993|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.993|0.987|
95843708|NCT03043872|191654946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP.||0.910|0.625|0.0032
95994844|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-12.5|
95769353|NCT01019694|191511119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0006||95.0|2.29|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||8.28|2.29|0.0006
95769354|NCT01019694|191511119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.39|4.41|< 0.0001
95769355|NCT01019694|191511120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.71|11.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||11.09|4.71|< 0.0001
95769356|NCT01019694|191511120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.44|12.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||12.83|6.44|< 0.0001
95769357|NCT01019694|191511121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.94|12.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||12.37|5.94|< 0.0001
95769358|NCT01019694|191511121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.44|10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||10.96|4.44|< 0.0001
95769359|NCT01019694|191511122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.9|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||14.76|7.90|< 0.0001
95769360|NCT01019694|191511122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.23|11.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||11.23|4.23|< 0.0001
95769361|NCT01019694|191511124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1167||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.42|-0.05|0.1167
95769362|NCT01019694|191511124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0026||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|0.13|0.0026
95769363|NCT01019694|191511125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.2826||95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.38|-0.11|0.2826
95769364|NCT01019694|191511125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0013||95.0|0.16|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.66|0.16|0.0013
95769365|NCT01019694|191511126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0023||95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.59|0.13|0.0023
95769366|NCT01019694|191511126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.25|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.71|0.25|< 0.0001
95769367|NCT01019694|191511127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0006||95.0|0.18|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.65|0.18|0.0006
95805670|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Intercept|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||0.18|-0.24|
95769368|NCT01019694|191511127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0004||95.0|0.2|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.68|0.20|0.0004
95769369|NCT01019694|191511128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0673||95.0|-0.02|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.47|-0.02|0.0673
95769370|NCT01019694|191511128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0245||95.0|0.04|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.54|0.04|0.0245
95769371|NCT01019694|191511130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.5695||95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.24|0.5695
95769372|NCT01019694|191511130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3093||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3093
95769373|NCT01019694|191511131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3578||95.0|-0.31|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.11|-0.31|0.3578
95769374|NCT01019694|191511131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7433||95.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.25|-0.18|0.7433
95769375|NCT01019694|191511132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.524||95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.15|-0.29|0.524
95769376|NCT01019694|191511132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3171||95.0|-0.34|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.34|0.3171
95994845|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-2.5|
95994846|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.1|-4.9|
95994847|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.1|-2.6|
95994848|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.2|
95994849|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-4.0|
95769377|NCT01019694|191511133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2499||95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.10|-0.38|0.2499
95769378|NCT01019694|191511133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6144||95.0|-0.31|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.18|-0.31|0.6144
95769379|NCT01019694|191511134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5142||95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.33|-0.16|0.5142
95769380|NCT01019694|191511134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2691||95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.11|-0.39|0.2691
95994850|NCT03193866|191966112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.8|-0.6|
95805671|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.|Slope|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||Passing-Bablock|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||1.000|0.990|
95769381|NCT01019694|191511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6236||95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.14|-0.23|0.6236
95769382|NCT01019694|191511136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3342||95.0|-0.28|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.09|-0.28|0.3342
95769383|NCT01019694|191511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1884||95.0|-0.36|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.07|-0.36|0.1884
95769384|NCT01019694|191511137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6978||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.26|-0.17|0.6978
95769385|NCT01019694|191511138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4197||95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.13|-0.32|0.4197
95769386|NCT01019694|191511138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3949||95.0|-0.33|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.13|-0.33|0.3949
95769387|NCT01019694|191511139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.299||95.0|-0.38|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.12|-0.38|0.299
95769388|NCT01019694|191511139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1404||95.0|-0.44|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.06|-0.44|0.1404
95769389|NCT01019694|191511140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.463||95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.16|-0.36|0.463
95769390|NCT01019694|191511140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3824||95.0|-0.15|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.38|-0.15|0.3824
95769391|NCT01019694|191511141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8282||95.0|-0.036|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.045|-0.036|0.8282
95769392|NCT01019694|191511141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.6587||95.0|-0.032|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.032|0.6587
95769393|NCT01019694|191511142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1185||95.0|-0.009|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.081|-0.009|0.1185
95769394|NCT01019694|191511142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2651||95.0|-0.02|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.072|-0.020|0.2651
95769395|NCT01019694|191511143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5852||95.0|-0.058|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.033|-0.058|0.5852
95805672|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|Intercept|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||Passing-Bablok|Analyses to determine the comparability between UHR \& DOB values from the 2 instruments included Deming, Passing-Bablok and regular regressions.|95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|While 40 subjects is the min req by the NCCLS guideline on method comparison (EP9-A2), we proposed to enroll a min of 60 evaluable pediatric subjects (max of 80) with at least 20 of them having a UHR value of ≥ 10.0µg/min. The expected # of positive cases is 20-30% of the subjects enrolled, we anticipated that 80 eval subj would give approximately 20 subj with a pos UHR value. The anticipated % pos/neg agreement between the 2 instruments is 95% bases on data from the adult population.||0.01|-0.30|
95805673|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Described previously|Relative Sensitivity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.8|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|Comparison of UHR Values obtained by UBit-IR300 and POCone were used to identify participants' H.pylori infection status. Participants with UHR value ≥ 10.0μg/min were considered positive for H.Pylori.||100|85.8|
95805674|NCT01623154|191584945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously|Relative Specificity, %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.9|100.0|||||95% confidence interval is used instead of p-value.|||100|94.9|
95860155|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||6.9|2.0|0.0003
95951926|NCT04791917|191875477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(1,42) = 4.66, partial eta squared = .10||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the Sex X Time X Group interaction.||||.04
95951927|NCT04791917|191875477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the DOMS group.||||.26
95951928|NCT04791917|191875477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the DOMS group.||||.22
95951929|NCT04791917|191875477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for men in the sham DOMS group.||||.27
95951930|NCT04791917|191875477|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||2 (Sex: men vs. women) X 2 (Time: Pre- vs. post-exercise) x 2 (Group: DOMS vs. sham DOMS) mixed general linear model on Intensity of alcohol demand including baseline urge to consume alcohol and AUDIT score as covariates. Here we report the results of the analysis of the effect of Time on Intensity for women in the sham DOMS group.||||.49
95769396|NCT01019694|191511143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7242||95.0|-0.054|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.038|-0.054|0.7242
95769397|NCT01019694|191511144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0328||95.0|0.005|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||||0.110|0.005|0.0328
95769398|NCT01019694|191511144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8896||95.0|-0.058|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.050|-0.058|0.8896
95769399|NCT01019694|191511145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.402||95.0|-0.042|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.105|-0.042|0.402
95951931|NCT00850993|191875480|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for each Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo.|LS Mean Difference|-13.45|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Least-squares means are from an ANCOVA model for adjusted TSB with treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline adjusted TSB as a covariate. TSB is calculated as \[(TSB - Phototherapy(PT) threshold)/ PT threshold \] X 100%.||-0.62|-26.27|=0.040
95951932|NCT00850993|191875480|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.02|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|2.58|||ANCOVA|||||2.58|-22.61|=0.117
95951933|NCT00850993|191875480|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.93|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-30.31|=0.057
95951934|NCT00850993|191875481|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.09|-3.71|=0.061
95951935|NCT00850993|191875481|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||0.56|-3.24|=0.163
95951936|NCT00850993|191875481|OTHER|Pairwise comparison for Change from Baseline at 48 hours (Row 3) for Stannsoporfin treatment group versus placebo|LS Mean Difference|-2.63|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Last Observation Carry Forward (LOCF) is used to impute missing post-baseline TSB. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is conducted for TSB including treatment and gestational age as fixed effects and baseline TSB as a covariate. Least-squares means (LS means) and standard errors (SEM) are estimated for each treatment group and placebo. LS mean difference, 95% Confidence Interval, and p-value are estimated based on LS mean difference between each stannsoporfin group and placebo.||-0.3|-4.97|=0.028
95769400|NCT01019694|191511145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.659||95.0|-0.057|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.090|-0.057|0.659
95769401|NCT01019694|191511146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0893||95.0|-0.01|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.139|-0.010|0.0893
95951937|NCT03032965|191875487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan Meier log rank||||||.83
95951938|NCT03032965|191875488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
95951939|NCT03032965|191875490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95769402|NCT01019694|191511146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.5424||95.0|-0.052|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.099|-0.052|0.5424
95951940|NCT04206501|191875529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The rate of change in HF medications (beta-blocker, diuretic, and Sacubitril/Valsartan) was compared betweenICM Guidedand usual care control group using chi-square analysis.|Chi-squared|||Due to the unexpected low enrollment during COVID pandemic, we aimed to primarily focus the limited analysis/description on the primary endpoint and exploratory analysis related to QOL||||0.064
95951941|NCT02907489|191875550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||0.083 for 24 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
95994851|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.8|-2.2|
95769403|NCT01019694|191511147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6396||95.0|-0.104|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.064|-0.104|0.6396
95951942|NCT02907489|191875550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||0.041 for 48 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.041
95951943|NCT02907489|191875550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||0.063 for 72 hours, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
95951944|NCT02907489|191875551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||0.982 for S1, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
95769404|NCT01019694|191511147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6455||95.0|-0.106|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.066|-0.106|0.6455
95769405|NCT01019694|191511148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.2596||95.0|-0.038|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.141|-0.038|0.2596
95951945|NCT02907489|191875551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||0.467 for S2, Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.467
95951946|NCT02907489|191875551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||0.01 for S3 Significant at P ≤ 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95951947|NCT00762853|191875552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95951948|NCT05062343|191875619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95769406|NCT01019694|191511148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6659||95.0|-0.112|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.071|-0.112|0.6659
95769407|NCT01019694|191511150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.476||95.0|-0.4|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.19|-0.40|0.476
95769408|NCT01019694|191511150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6976||95.0|-0.35|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.23|-0.35|0.6976
95769409|NCT01019694|191511151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9506||95.0|-0.4|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.40|0.9506
95769410|NCT01019694|191511151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2362||95.0|-0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.62|-0.15|0.2362
95769411|NCT01019694|191511152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5645||95.0|-0.3|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.54|-0.30|0.5645
95769412|NCT01019694|191511152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0163||95.0|0.1|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.95|0.10|0.0163
95769413|NCT01019694|191511153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4339||95.0|-0.6|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.26|-0.60|0.4339
95769414|NCT01019694|191511153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4886||95.0|-0.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.59|-0.28|0.4886
95769415|NCT01019694|191511154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7637||95.0|-0.5|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Combivent Inhalation Aerosol||0.37|-0.50|0.7637
95769416|NCT01019694|191511154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3755||95.0|-0.24|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline and baseline-by-test-day interaction||Comparison of Combivent Respimat versus Atrovent + Albuterol Aerosols||0.65|-0.24|0.3755
95769417|NCT04244084|191511160|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Site used as covariate||Mean differences (MMH-407 vs. Placebo) were compared||-0.17|-1.61|0.0155
95769418|NCT04244084|191511161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1839
95769419|NCT04244084|191511162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0640
95951949|NCT05062343|191875620|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95769420|NCT04244084|191511163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1927
95951950|NCT05062343|191875621|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95951951|NCT05062343|191875622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95769421|NCT04244084|191511164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Day used as independent strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0014
95769422|NCT04244084|191511165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 1 row."||||0.2009
95769423|NCT04244084|191511165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4717|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 2 row."||||0.4717
95951952|NCT05062343|191875623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95769424|NCT04244084|191511165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to Day 3 row."||||0.5144
95769425|NCT04244084|191511166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95769426|NCT04244084|191511168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5981|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.5981
95769427|NCT04244084|191511168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.4913
95769428|NCT04244084|191511168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Systolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.6441
95769429|NCT04244084|191511168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8186|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 1 row."||||0.8186
95769430|NCT04244084|191511168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8931|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 2 row."||||0.8931
95769431|NCT04244084|191511168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Diastolic blood pressure/Visit 3 row."||||0.5887
95769432|NCT04244084|191511169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.4426
95769433|NCT04244084|191511169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5998|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.5998
95769434|NCT04244084|191511169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Heart rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.9710
95951953|NCT05062343|191875624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.045
95951954|NCT05062343|191875625|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95951955|NCT05062343|191875626|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95951956|NCT00623714|191875640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.7||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.70|0.16|0.011
95951957|NCT00623714|191875641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.63|0.26|0.002
95951958|NCT02367794|191875642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.64|0.0006
95769435|NCT04244084|191511170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6197|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 1 row."||||0.6197
95769436|NCT04244084|191511170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 2 row."||||0.7042
95769437|NCT04244084|191511170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"This analysis applies to Breathing rate/Visit 3 row."||||0.7693
95769438|NCT04244084|191511171|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95805675|NCT04349098|191584947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.79|0.39|0.6750
95805676|NCT00289900|191584970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.6|-16.8|<0.001
95805677|NCT00289900|191584970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-7.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-7.8|-13.8|<0.001
95805678|NCT00289900|191584970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.1|-8.1|<0.001
95805679|NCT00289900|191584970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-7.2|0.007
95805680|NCT00289900|191584971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|22.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||22.6|17.2|<0.001
95805681|NCT00289900|191584971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|23.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||23.6|19.0|<0.001
95805682|NCT00289900|191584971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|24.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||24.4|19.8|<0.001
95805683|NCT00289900|191584971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|25.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||25.3|20.7|<0.001
95805684|NCT00289900|191584972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-13.3|-21.2|<0.001
95951959|NCT02367794|191875643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.73|0.1581
95951960|NCT02367794|191875644|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.4451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.231|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.231|0.623|0.4451
95951961|NCT02367794|191875644|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.941||||0.7343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.335|||Log Rank|||Teff \>=-1.91 in ITT||1.335|0.664|0.7343
95769439|NCT00676364|191511224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We determined that we will need to enroll 43 children in each group, for a power of .80, alpha=0.05. We used a per protocol analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared||To assess the association between pain and anxiety with intervention group while controlling for other factors, linear regression was used.|P-value determined from linear regression models that include age, gender, number of needle sticks in previous 2 years and nurse reported difficulty in performing venipuncture.||||0.71
95769440|NCT03858998|191511225|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.004||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||Chi-squared||Direction = Linkage minus SOC|||0.07|-0.06|0.91
95769441|NCT05000164|191511241|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.0 logMAR for distance.|Distance (4m)||-0.07|-0.17|
95805685|NCT00289900|191584972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-11.9|-19.1|<0.001
95805686|NCT00289900|191584972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
95805687|NCT00289900|191584972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-3.4|-10.2|<0.001
95951962|NCT02367794|191875644|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.232|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.232|0.720|0.6610
95951963|NCT02367794|191875644|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.253||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|1.627|||Log Rank|||Teff \<-1.91 Negative in ITT||1.627|0.965|0.0893
95951964|NCT02367794|191875645|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||0.81|0.46|0.0006
95951965|NCT02367794|191875645|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\>=-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
95769442|NCT05000164|191511241|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Intermediate (64cm)||0.04|-0.06|
95769443|NCT05000164|191511241|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|The upper limit of each 95% confidence interval was compared to 0.17 logMAR for near.|Near (40cm)||0.15|0.04|
95769444|NCT03493854|191511242|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.31|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm A SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm B IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.31|1.14|
95769445|NCT03493854|191511243|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.43|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.43|1.24|
95769446|NCT03493854|191511244|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|8.97|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||8.97|-8.67|
95769447|NCT03493854|191511245|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.68|0.5216
95769448|NCT03493854|191511246|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.68|0.5992
95769449|NCT03493854|191511247|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.72|0.4844
95769450|NCT03493854|191511248|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.88|||Log Rank|||||1.88|0.71|0.5474
95769451|NCT03493854|191511249|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.24|||Log Rank|||||2.24|0.61|0.6291
95805688|NCT00289900|191584973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.0|-12.1|<0.001
95769452|NCT03493854|191511250|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.72|||Log Rank|||||2.72|0.58|0.5609
95769453|NCT04278417|191511281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to PRP with respect to change from baseline in BCVA at Week 54, considering a non-inferiority margin of 4 ETDRS letters. Assuming that the BCVA changes follow a normal distribution with equal means between treatments, and a common standard deviation of 10 letters, for a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with 300 subjects per arm there is \>99% power to reject the null hypothesis that brolucizumab 6 mg is inferior to PRP.|LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.4|||ANCOVA|||1||6.4|2.4|<0.001
95769454|NCT04278417|191511281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||2||||<0.001
95769455|NCT04278417|191511282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.8|32.0|< 0.001
95769456|NCT04278417|191511284|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|-41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-34.2|-48.0|< 0.001
95769457|NCT04278417|191511287|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of Participants|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 54||33.3|19.5|<0.001
95805689|NCT00289900|191584973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.9|-8.0|<0.001
95951966|NCT02367794|191875645|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.10|0.70|0.258
95951967|NCT02367794|191875645|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Teff\<-1.91||1.33|0.84|0.630
95951968|NCT02367794|191875646|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.40|<.0001
95951969|NCT02367794|191875646|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.45|0.0018
95951970|NCT02367794|191875647|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
95951971|NCT02367794|191875647|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.77|||Log Rank|||||0.77|0.48|<.0001
95951972|NCT02367794|191875648|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.004|||Log Rank|||||1.004|0.524|0.0518
95951973|NCT02367794|191875648|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.165|||Log Rank|||||1.165|0.594|0.2841
95951974|NCT02367794|191875649|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.129|||Log Rank|||||1.129|0.671|0.2956
95951975|NCT02367794|191875649|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.668|0.2473
95951976|NCT02367794|191875650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.91|1.04|0.0248
95951977|NCT02367794|191875650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.90|1.03|0.0308
95994852|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.7|-20.3|
95994853|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.5|-2.6|
95994854|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-5.8|
95994855|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.7|-2.9|
95994856|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.6|-4.5|
95994857|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-4.7|
95994858|NCT03193866|191966113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-1.7|
95994859|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.48|0.30|
95994860|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.42||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.42|0.11|
95994861|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.23||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.23|0.10|
95860156|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||4.5|-0.3|0.0923
95994862|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.13|-0.03|
95769458|NCT02268916|191511303|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered based on a two-sample t-test of the primary outcomes, changes in physical activity or social participant over 6 months. Based on previous literature, in order to detect an effect size of 0.28 with at least 70% power, we aimed to recruit at least 35 participants in each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome was adjusted for time of visit, visit x intervention group, age, gender, body mass index, insulin, depression, and time-up-and-go score.||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, the intervention group will have increased physical activity as measured by CHAMPS compared to the control group.||0.97|-0.18|=0.18
95769459|NCT02268916|191511304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in social roles.||1.06|-5.45|0.19
95769460|NCT02268916|191511304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by satisfaction with participation in discretionary social activities.||2.48|-4.53|0.57
95769461|NCT02268916|191511304|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at the end of 6 months, intervention group will have improved participation as measured by the survey on the ability to participate in social roles and activities.||0.63|-5.52|0.12
95769462|NCT02268916|191511305|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in timed up and go test.||-0.02|-3.97|<0.05
95769463|NCT02268916|191511306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in gait speed.||0.20|0.02|0.02
95769464|NCT02268916|191511307|SUPERIORITY||Slope|40.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|72.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that at 6-month follow-up, the intervention group will have better performance than the control group in six-minute walk test.||72.17|7.90|0.02
95805690|NCT00289900|191584973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.4||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.9|-2.2|0.771
95805691|NCT00289900|191584973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.0|-0.2|0.065
95805692|NCT00289900|191584974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least Squares Mean|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.5|-10.2|<0.001
95805693|NCT00289900|191584974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-0.2|-5.8|0.037
95805694|NCT00289900|191584974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|2.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||5.6|0.0|0.047
95805695|NCT00289900|191584974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Sqaures Mean|4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||7.5|2.0|<0.001
95805696|NCT00289900|191584975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.3|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-6.3|-12.1|<0.001
95805697|NCT00289900|191584975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-2.8|-7.7|<0.001
95805698|NCT00289900|191584975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.9||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-3.3|0.476
95769465|NCT04830969|191511334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.16
95769466|NCT04830969|191511335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.08
95769467|NCT04830969|191511336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.14
95769468|NCT04830969|191511336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.8
95769469|NCT04830969|191511337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
95769470|NCT04830969|191511337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.09
95769471|NCT04830969|191511338|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
95769472|NCT04830969|191511338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
95805699|NCT00289900|191584975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||2.7|-2.2|0.845
95805700|NCT00289900|191584976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|11.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||11.4|6.6|<0.001
95769473|NCT04830969|191511339|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||< 0.01
95769474|NCT04830969|191511339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.09
95769475|NCT04830969|191511340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
95769476|NCT04830969|191511340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.86
95769477|NCT04830969|191511340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.047
95769478|NCT04830969|191511340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.75
95769479|NCT04830969|191511341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.44
95769480|NCT04830969|191511341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.22
95769481|NCT04830969|191511341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.29
95769482|NCT04830969|191511341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.15
95769483|NCT04830969|191511342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||<0.01
95769484|NCT04830969|191511342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.31
95769485|NCT04830969|191511342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
95769486|NCT04830969|191511342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.54
95769487|NCT04830969|191511343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.01
95769488|NCT04830969|191511343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.04
95769489|NCT04830969|191511343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.03
95769490|NCT04830969|191511343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.38
95769491|NCT04830969|191511344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 3 months||||0.02
95769492|NCT04830969|191511344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 3 months||||0.18
95769493|NCT04830969|191511344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 6 months||||0.08
95769494|NCT04830969|191511344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||Baseline to 6 months||||0.41
95769495|NCT04830969|191511345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.27
95769496|NCT04830969|191511346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.54
95769497|NCT04830969|191511347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.12
95769498|NCT04830969|191511348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95769499|NCT04830969|191511348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.07
95769500|NCT04830969|191511349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95769501|NCT04830969|191511349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.64
95769502|NCT04830969|191511350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95769503|NCT04830969|191511350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|used generalized linear models adjusted for baseline CRP||||||0.11
95769504|NCT04830969|191511351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||at baseline||||0.7
95769505|NCT04830969|191511351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.29
95769506|NCT04830969|191511352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95769507|NCT01732458|191511419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|2.0||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||2.0|-34.0|
95951978|NCT02367794|191875651|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.689|||Log Rank|||||0.689|0.408|<.0001
95951979|NCT02367794|191875651|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|0.831|||Log Rank|||||0.831|0.493|0.0007
95951980|NCT02367794|191875652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.06||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|7.61|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||7.61|-7.48|0.9871
95951981|NCT02367794|191875652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.93||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|13.26|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||13.26|-1.41|0.1133
95951982|NCT02367794|191875652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.97||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.65|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1||3.65|-11.60|0.3072
95951983|NCT02367794|191875652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.21||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|8.42|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2||8.42|-6.01|0.7430
95951984|NCT02367794|191875653|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|0.996|||Log Rank|||||0.996|0.638|0.0461
95951985|NCT02367794|191875653|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.296|||Log Rank|||||1.296|0.834|0.7295
95951986|NCT02367794|191875654|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.033|||Log Rank|||||1.033|0.663|0.0942
95951987|NCT02367794|191875654|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.207|||Log Rank|||||1.207|0.776|0.7709
95951988|NCT02367794|191875656|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.102|||Log Rank|||||1.102|0.784|0.4007
95951989|NCT02168855|191875668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|This is a logistic regression model of the active versus placebo arm, while controlling for age and cigarettes smoked per day at enrollment.|The active arm is the numerator and the placebo arm is the denominator of the odds ratio|||3.29|0.58|0.46
95805701|NCT00289900|191584976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|9.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||9.7|5.8|<0.001
95769508|NCT01732458|191511419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|14.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||14.3|-22.9|
95769509|NCT01732458|191511419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Ondansetron|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|6.3||||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to provide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events.||6.3|-30.3|
95805702|NCT00289900|191584976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||10.9|7.0|<0.001
95805703|NCT00289900|191584976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||12.7|8.7|<0.001
95805704|NCT00289900|191584977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-1.2|-6.0|0.003
95805705|NCT00289900|191584977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||1.5|-2.5|0.595
95805706|NCT00289900|191584977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||6.2|2.2|<0.001
95805707|NCT00289900|191584977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.1|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||8.1|4.1|<0.001
95805708|NCT00289900|191584978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-14.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-14.2|-24.2|<0.001
95805709|NCT00289900|191584978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-16.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-16.6|-25.0|<0.001
95805710|NCT00289900|191584978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-19.4|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-19.4|-27.8|<0.001
95805711|NCT00289900|191584978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-20.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||-20.0|-28.6|<0.001
95805712|NCT00289900|191584979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.5|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||7.5|-9.6|0.500
95805713|NCT00289900|191584979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||13.8|0.0|0.083
95805714|NCT00289900|191584979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|18.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||18.8|5.2|0.005
95805715|NCT00289900|191584979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|22.8|||Non-parametric ANOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate|Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free CI based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test|||22.8|9.8|<0.001
95805716|NCT00289900|191584980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-9.9|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-9.9|-15.6|<0.001
95769510|NCT01383174|191511462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
95994863|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.19|0.08|
95994864|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.16||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.16|0.01|
95994865|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.21|0.06|
95994866|NCT03193866|191966114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.33||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.33|0.13|
95994867|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-66.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-66.6|-76.6|
95769511|NCT01383174|191511463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.465
95769512|NCT01383174|191511464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
95769513|NCT01383174|191511465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
95769514|NCT01383174|191511466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.013
95769515|NCT01383174|191511467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.267
95805717|NCT00289900|191584980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-8.4|-13.2|<0.001
95805718|NCT00289900|191584980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-4.0|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-4.0|-8.8|0.001
95805719|NCT00289900|191584980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Model with factors for baseline LDL-C and triglyceride stratum, gender, cohort of participants, treatment group and baseline parameter covariate||||-3.2|-8.0|<0.001
95805720|NCT00289900|191584981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.5|-2.3|0.008
95805721|NCT00289900|191584982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.042
95805722|NCT00289900|191584983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.4|-0.5|0.346
95805723|NCT00289900|191584984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.7|-0.2|0.556
95805724|NCT00289900|191584985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
95805725|NCT00289900|191584986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|0.1||||0.134||95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.8|-0.1|0.134
95805726|NCT00289900|191584987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.3|0.5625
95805727|NCT00289900|191584988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.7|0.1|0.0233
95805728|NCT00289900|191584989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.6|-0.4|0.7858
95805729|NCT00289900|191584990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.0|9.4|
95951990|NCT02168855|191875669|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in craving. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.98|1.83|<0.0001
95951991|NCT02168855|191875670|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes random subject intercept effect|Reflects an odds ratio relative to a 10-unit increase in negative affect T-score. Temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator.|||1.83|1.51|<0.0001
95951992|NCT02168855|191875671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes random subject intercept effect|Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no smoking cues were seen.|||0.21|0.14|<0.0001
95951993|NCT02168855|191875672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio where temptations are the numerator and background is the denominator, that no other people were seen smoking nearby.|||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
95951994|NCT02158806|191875673|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.13|||Log Rank||Placebo group = reference group|Placebo group = reference group||1.13|0.64|0.246
95951995|NCT02158806|191875674|SUPERIORITY|Participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised (intention to treat analysis).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.76|0.073
95951996|NCT02158806|191875675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Adjusted for baseline values.|ANCOVA|One participant in aspirin group had missing data for 24 week endpoint visit; we used the baseline value for imputation.|Placebo group = reference group.|||0.5|-1.9|0.25
95951997|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Physical Functioning||7.2|-5.0|0.714
95951998|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Physical||10.8|-8.0|0.768
95951999|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Bodily Pain||8.4|-3.7|0.449
95952000|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in General Health||3.6|-4.3|0.873
95952001|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Vitality||8.5|-0.1|0.057
95952002|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Social Functioning||7.0|-5.1|0.756
95952003|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|12.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Role Emotional||12.3|-4.9|0.400
95952004|NCT02158806|191875676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in Mental Health||1.5|-6.2|0.236
95952005|NCT02158806|191875677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.0||Adjusted for baseline values|Regression, Linear|||||8.0|-1.3|0.156
95769516|NCT01383174|191511468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.030
95952006|NCT02158806|191875678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in social function||2.2|-5.2|0.438
95952007|NCT02158806|191875678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in domestic activities||1.9|-4.5|0.408
95952008|NCT02158806|191875678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in cosmesis||3.1|-5.6|0.568
95952009|NCT02158806|191875678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Change in emotional status||2.2|-8.1|0.257
95769517|NCT01383174|191511469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.045
95952010|NCT02158806|191875678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||1.5|-5.2|0.273
95952011|NCT02158806|191875679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.87|0.917
95769518|NCT01383174|191511470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.005
95805730|NCT00289900|191584991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.4|-2.6|
95952012|NCT02158806|191875680|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||IRR test statistic|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) test statistic compared to probability of the same obtained from standard normal distribution tables.||||1.7|0.7|0.71
95952013|NCT01074229|191875744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Using Dunns test with Bonferroni conrrection for individual comparisons.||||||.05
95952014|NCT01074229|191875744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.0|||Dunns test|Bonferonni correction||||37|9|.05
95952015|NCT01074229|191875744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|42.0|||Dunns Test|Bonferroni correction||||42|14|.05
95952016|NCT01074229|191875745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|With Dunns test and Bonferonni correction.||||||.05
95952017|NCT01074229|191875745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|15.0|||Dunns test|||||15|3|0.003
95952018|NCT01074229|191875745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Dunns test|||||12|-1|0.14
95952019|NCT00168805|191875756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.3||||0.6648||95.0|-7.3|4.6||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.6|-7.3|0.6648
95952020|NCT00168805|191875756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2%. This results from the null-hypotheses of non-inferiority testing, where the absolute risk difference has to be below 9.2%. Non-inferiority can only be shown with CI.|Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.3553||95.0|-3.1|8.7||p-value is for superiority testing|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.7|-3.1|0.3553
95952021|NCT00168805|191875757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.0||||0.376||95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.2|-3.1|0.3760
95952022|NCT00168805|191875757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.8151||95.0|-2.0|2.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.6|-2.0|0.8151
95952023|NCT00168805|191875758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.8||||0.4715||95.0|-2.8|1.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.3|-2.8|0.4715
95952024|NCT00168805|191875758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.1||||0.9325||95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.3|-2.1|0.9325
95952025|NCT00168805|191875759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.4||||0.6463||95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||4.5|-7.3|0.6463
95952026|NCT00168805|191875759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|2.7||||0.374||95.0|-3.2|8.6|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||8.6|-3.2|0.3740
95952027|NCT00168805|191875760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0385||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0385
95952028|NCT00168805|191875760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1414||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1414
95952029|NCT00168805|191875761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95952030|NCT00168805|191875761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95952031|NCT00168805|191875762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95952032|NCT00168805|191875762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95952033|NCT00168805|191875764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8209||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.8209
95952034|NCT00168805|191875764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95769519|NCT01383174|191511471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the significance of the time by treatment group interaction from the repeated-measures linear regression model. For consistency with the manuscript, we report here the absolute means and standard deviations.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.226
95952035|NCT03184519|191875768|SUPERIORITY||Area Under Curve|0.79||||0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
95952036|NCT01183013|191875774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1571||95.0|-0.41|0.07||The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.|ANCOVA|||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.07|-0.41|0.1571
95952037|NCT01183013|191875774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0016
95952038|NCT01183013|191875774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.18|-0.64|0.0006
95952039|NCT01183013|191875774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.20|-0.67|0.0003
95952040|NCT01183013|191875774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.44|-0.91|<0.0001
95952041|NCT01183013|191875774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.66|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-0.66|-1.12|<0.0001
95769520|NCT01804946|191511497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||0.05
95769521|NCT01804946|191511498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-determined margin of 20% of the control group effect was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided, p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the adaptive Holm method|Wald method of Z statistics calculation|Wald method of Z statistics computed a confidence interval of proportion difference.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95805731|NCT00289900|191584992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||14.7|8.9|
95769522|NCT01804946|191511499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95769523|NCT01804946|191511500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant margin was assumed to be 0.2°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means.||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95769524|NCT01804946|191511501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.5 point or less to assess any symptom based on 4 point scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95805732|NCT00289900|191584993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-0.8|
95805733|NCT00289900|191584994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.1||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.5|-0.4|0.4997
95952042|NCT01183013|191875775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.246||||0.4639||95.0|0.692|2.242|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.242|0.692|0.4639
95952043|NCT01183013|191875775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.746||||0.0546||95.0|0.989|3.083|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.083|0.989|0.0546
95952044|NCT01183013|191875775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.0254||95.0|1.083|3.345|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.345|1.083|0.0254
95952045|NCT01183013|191875775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.804||||0.0009||95.0|1.524|5.159|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.159|1.524|0.0009
95952046|NCT01183013|191875775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.429|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.947|10.001|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.001|2.947|<0.0001
95952047|NCT01183013|191875775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.614|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.187|17.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||17.821|5.187|<0.0001
95952048|NCT01183013|191875776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.126||||0.7359||95.0|0.565|2.243|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.243|0.565|0.7359
95952049|NCT01183013|191875776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.905||||0.0363||95.0|1.042|3.484|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||3.484|1.042|0.0363
95952050|NCT01183013|191875776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.4039||95.0|0.726|2.217|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.217|0.726|0.4039
95952051|NCT01183013|191875776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0345||95.0|1.06|4.649|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.649|1.060|0.0345
95952052|NCT01183013|191875776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.263|9.266|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||9.266|2.263|<0.0001
95952053|NCT01183013|191875776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.066|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.53|10.145|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||10.145|2.530|<0.0001
95952054|NCT01183013|191875777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.754||95.0|0.637|1.863|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.863|0.637|0.7540
95952055|NCT01183013|191875777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.707||||0.0506||95.0|0.999|2.918|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.918|0.999|0.0506
95805734|NCT01703221|191584995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.63|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA), time, time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.63|-0.96|<0.001
95805735|NCT01703221|191584995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.61|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-0.61|-0.94|<0.001
95769525|NCT01804946|191511502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the number of antipyretic intake the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Means were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval for a difference between means||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
96001854|NCT01096667|191981242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.45|-8.75||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-8.75|-27.45|0.007
95769526|NCT01804946|191511503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the quality of life total score the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|The changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95769527|NCT01804946|191511504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To compare the patient subjective health status assessment the margin of no clinical importance was assumed to be 0.2 of Oseltamivir group value|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, the adaptive Holm method was used as a way to control type 1 error|t-test, 1 sided|Changes of means (Day 7 vs Day 1) were compared using the modified two-sample Student t-test including computation of a confidence interval||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95769528|NCT01804946|191511505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinically significant difference (margin) between two percentages was assumed to be 20% or more of the effect of Oseltamivir|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||The Wald method of Z statistics calcul|The Wald method of Z statistics calculation was performed including computation a confidence interval for a difference between proportions||PP set was analyzed||||<0.05
95769529|NCT03830333|191511506|NON_INFERIORITY|Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole is concluded to be non-inferior to meropenem + placebo if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference in percent response is above -12.5 percentage points.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||8.8|-4.7|
95769530|NCT03830333|191511507|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|3.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||3.7|-12.6|
95952056|NCT01183013|191875777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.966||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|5.485|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.485|1.604|0.0005
95952057|NCT01183013|191875777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0002||95.0|1.594|4.559|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||4.559|1.594|0.0002
95952058|NCT01183013|191875777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.017|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.348|6.873|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||6.873|2.348|<0.0001
95952059|NCT01183013|191875777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.521|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.63|15.681|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||15.681|4.630|<0.0001
95952060|NCT01183013|191875779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68||||0.4275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|5.42|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||5.42|-12.77|0.4275
95952061|NCT01183013|191875779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.6839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|7.02|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||7.02|-10.69|0.6839
95952062|NCT01183013|191875779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|2.28|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||2.28|-15.29|0.1466
95952063|NCT01183013|191875779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.35|-8.41|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-8.41|-26.35|0.0002
95952064|NCT01183013|191875779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-16.98|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-16.98|-34.77|<0.0001
95952065|NCT01183013|191875779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.57|-24.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-24.89|-42.57|<0.0001
95952066|NCT01183013|191875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.61||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.42|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-10.80|-62.42|0.0057
95769531|NCT03830333|191511508|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.7||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||6.7|-3.8|
95769532|NCT03830333|191511509|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||4.8|-8.0|
95769533|NCT03830333|191511510|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.4||||||Difference in percentage based on Miettinen and Nurminen method with the CMH weighting stratified by anatomic site of infection (bowel \[small or large\] versus other site of cIAI).||10.4|-9.2|
95769534|NCT03830333|191511511|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|8.7||||||Gram-negative aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.7|-11.9|
95769535|NCT03830333|191511511|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5||||||All enterobacteriaceae comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||8.5|-12.5|
95952067|NCT01183013|191875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.7021||95.0|-30.39|20.51|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||20.51|-30.39|0.7021
95952068|NCT01183013|191875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|24.38|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||24.38|-27.95|0.8932
95952069|NCT01183013|191875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|12.3|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||12.30|-43.60|0.2706
95952070|NCT01183013|191875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.33||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.78|-7.89|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-7.89|-64.78|0.0126
95952071|NCT01183013|191875781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.16||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.23|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The model includes fixed effects for treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and 2-hour PPG, prior anti-diabetic medication and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||-6.08|-60.23|0.0167
95952072|NCT01183013|191875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.649||||0.3052||95.0|0.284|1.482|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.482|0.284|0.3052
95952073|NCT01183013|191875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.456||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.112|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.112|0.187|0.0844
95952074|NCT01183013|191875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.443||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.365|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||1.365|0.143|0.1561
95952075|NCT01183013|191875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.368||||0.0146||95.0|0.165|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.821|0.165|0.0146
95952076|NCT01183013|191875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.238||||0.0009||95.0|0.102|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.557|0.102|0.0009
95952077|NCT01183013|191875783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.0002||95.0|0.05|0.397|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model with terms for treatment, continuous HbA1c baseline, prior use of antidiabetic agents and country.||Treatment comparisons are for fixed dose combination versus monotherapy.||0.397|0.050|0.0002
95952078|NCT01469819|191875784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95952079|NCT01469819|191875785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95952080|NCT01469819|191875786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95952081|NCT01469819|191875787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95952082|NCT03082196|191875797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||-0.1|-1.9|0.037
95952083|NCT03082196|191875798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a lower caries increment in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish.|||0.1|-1.5|0.062
95952084|NCT03082196|191875799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A negative value for the difference indicates a happier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.1|-0.5|0.11
95952085|NCT03082196|191875800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"The direction of the comparison (difference) is the test varnish to the standard varnish. A positive value for the difference indicates an unhappier response in the test varnish as compared to the standard varnish."|||0.3|-0.2|0.74
95769536|NCT03830333|191511511|OTHER|Difference in percentage was based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method. Confidence Interval is displayed only when there are at least 4 participants in at least one treatment group.|Difference in percentages|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|20.0||||||Gram-positive aerobes comparison: Based on unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.||20.0|-42.2|
95769537|NCT03830333|191511512|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|11.2||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||11.2|-12.6|
95769538|NCT03830333|191511513|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.4||||||Difference in percentage was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||4.4|-4.4|
95769539|NCT01445730|191511514|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95769540|NCT01445730|191511515|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95952086|NCT05072795|191875802|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95952087|NCT00901459|191875803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.43||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=14|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (Frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz sfg condition (active).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||2.43|0.51|0.014
95952088|NCT00901459|191875803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 1Hz sfg condition (active)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the active rTMS condition with the location control condition.||1.22|-0.64|0.49
95952089|NCT00901459|191875803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.39||A Holm correction to p values was made to control for type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|df=13|The parameter estimated is the difference in craving change between smoking cues and neutral cues in the 10Hz sfg condition (frequency control)and the corresponding craving change in the 1Hz moc condition (location control).|A pairwise t-test was performed to contrast the location control rTMS condition with the frequency control condition.||1.39|0.52|0.09
95952090|NCT02790788|191875824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Samples t-test||11.8|-5.2|0.44
95952091|NCT02790788|191875826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.2|-2.2|0.17
95952092|NCT02790788|191875827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|0.4|0.043
96001855|NCT01096667|191981242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-25.43||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-25.43|-44.19|0.000
95769541|NCT01445730|191511516|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95769542|NCT01445730|191511517|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95952093|NCT02790788|191875828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-9.3|0.59
95952094|NCT02790788|191875829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|-3.1|0.64
95769543|NCT01445730|191511518|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95769544|NCT01445730|191511519|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95769545|NCT01445730|191511520|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95952095|NCT02790788|191875830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-10.1|0.20
95952096|NCT02790788|191875831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.6|-0.9|0.14
95952097|NCT02790788|191875832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-6.4|0.90
95952098|NCT02790788|191875833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|-2.2|0.33
95952099|NCT02790788|191875834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.8|-5.3|0.92
95769546|NCT01938092|191511521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95769547|NCT01938092|191511522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95769548|NCT01938092|191511523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95769549|NCT04390113|191511527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Log Rank|||||1.55|0.55|0.6253
95769550|NCT00638404|191511534|OTHER|correlation of anxiety, anticipated pain medication use and anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|anxiety to evoked pain is 0.24 (P\<.001); anticipated pain to evoked pain is 0.33 (P\<.001); anticipated pain medication to evoked pain is 0.33(P\<.001).||||||<.001
95769551|NCT00638404|191511534|OTHER|correlation of anxiety to evoked pain at 24 hour|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
95769552|NCT00638404|191511534|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain medication 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
95769553|NCT00638404|191511534|OTHER|correlation of anticipated pain to 24 hour evoked pain measured|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
95769554|NCT00638404|191511535|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||preoperative questionnaire evaluating anticipated amount of pain medication potentially needed postoperatively; 0= none at all up to 100=as much as possible||||<.001
95769555|NCT00638404|191511536|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
95769556|NCT00638404|191511537|OTHER|Correlation of|||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman Correlation|||||||<.001
95994868|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-66.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-56.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-56.4|-76.3|
95994869|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-47.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-41.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.7|-53.0|
95994870|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-36.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.6|-49.6|
95994871|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-41.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-36.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-36.2|-46.4|
95994872|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.8|
95769557|NCT01068730|191511538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|102.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.07|106.23|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares (LS) means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.23|99.07|
95769558|NCT01068730|191511538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.16|103.31|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.31|96.16|
95952100|NCT02790788|191875834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||1.8|-3.4|0.54
95952101|NCT02790788|191875834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|9.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||9.15|0.04|0.048
95769559|NCT01068730|191511538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7062.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95769560|NCT01068730|191511538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7245.2||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95769561|NCT01068730|191511538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11680.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
95769562|NCT01068730|191511538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)]|11641.0||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
95952102|NCT02790788|191875834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEDA AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||4.7|-1.0|0.18
95952103|NCT02790788|191875835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-10.9|0.32
95952104|NCT02790788|191875835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.3|-7.2|0.76
95952105|NCT02790788|191875835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO LVEF AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||3.7|-13.5|0.25
95805736|NCT01703221|191584995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Omarigliptin will be considered non-inferior to sitagliptin if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in least squares means for change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 (omarigliptin minus sitagliptin) is not more than 0.3% (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in the least squares means|-0.02||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||0.12|-0.15|0.792
95805737|NCT01703221|191585000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-36.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-25.33|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-25.33|-48.46|<0.001
95805738|NCT01703221|191585000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-39.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.28|-28.23|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-28.23|-51.28|<0.001
95805739|NCT01703221|191585000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.86||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|12.39|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||12.39|-6.67|0.555
95805740|NCT01703221|191585001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-12.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|-6.78|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-6.78|-17.78|<0.001
95952106|NCT02790788|191875835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||REPORTED RESULTS CORRESPOND TO RVEF WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||5.5|-9.1|0.61
95952107|NCT02790788|191875836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS OF ROSC.||0.11|-0.25|0.41
95952108|NCT02790788|191875836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI WITHIN 12 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.10|-0.26|0.38
95952109|NCT02790788|191875836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-DIASTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.14|-0.29|0.46
95952110|NCT02790788|191875836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO END-SYSTOLIC ECCI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.12|-0.33|0.34
95952111|NCT02790788|191875837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.5|0.90
95952112|NCT02790788|191875838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|-0.54|0.59
95952113|NCT02790788|191875839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.93|-0.60|0.67
95952114|NCT02790788|191875840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.02|-0.64|0.65
95952115|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 0-6 HOURS AFTER ROSC.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|-1.2|0.41
95952116|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.19|-0.92|0.20
95952117|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 12-18 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.04|-1.00|0.07
95952118|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 18-24 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.31|-0.85|0.36
95952119|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 24-30 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.35|-0.66|0.54
95952120|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 30-36 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.42|-0.69|0.62
95952121|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 36-42 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.41|-0.71|0.60
95952122|NCT02790788|191875841|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CORE BODY TEMPERATURE AVERAGED OVER 42-48 HOURS AFTER ROSC.||0.36|-0.69|0.54
95952123|NCT02790788|191875842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||1.1|-2.5|0.42
95952124|NCT02790788|191875842|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 96.0 MMHG||2.30|-0.94|0.40
95952125|NCT02790788|191875842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 75.5 MMHG||3.28|-1.49|0.44
95952126|NCT02790788|191875842|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO CBFI AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC AND AT A MEAN MAP LEVEL OF 97.0 MMHG||3.70|-1.40|0.36
95952127|NCT02790788|191875843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mann Whitney|||||||0.84
95952128|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.262|-0.311|0.86
95994873|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-28.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-28.0|-39.7|
95994874|NCT03193866|191966115|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-41.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-41.6|-58.0|
95805741|NCT01703221|191585001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|-8.98|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||-8.98|-20.04|<0.001
95805742|NCT01703221|191585001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares means|2.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.73|||Constrained longitudinal analysis|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status (yes/no), time, and time by: treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and treatment by prior AHA status.||||6.73|-2.27|0.330
95994875|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
95994876|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.4|-0.3|
95994877|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
95769563|NCT01068730|191511539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.36|106.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||106.11|96.36|
95769564|NCT01068730|191511539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test-to-reference ratios (B/A) and (D/C) of geometric means were entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC0-inf.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.94|103.59|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the 500-mg or 1000-mg Glucophage tablets manufactured by BMS and 500-mg or 1000-mg Diabex tablets manufactured in Australia by Alphapharm, then 20 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 20 subjects would have provided 97% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||103.59|93.94|
95860157|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL sleep domain.||4.4|0.4|0.0180
95769565|NCT01068730|191511539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1013.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95769566|NCT01068730|191511539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1024.9||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95769567|NCT01068730|191511539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1643.8||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
95769568|NCT01068730|191511539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng/mL)|1621.6||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
95769569|NCT01068730|191511549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|103.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.75|106.75|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||106.75|99.75|
95769570|NCT01068730|191511549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Means|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.08|102.92|||||Ratio=Treatment D/Treatment C. Geometric LS means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||102.92|96.08|
95769571|NCT01068730|191511549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|6907.1||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95769572|NCT01068730|191511549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|7127.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95994878|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.3|
95769573|NCT01068730|191511549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11391.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment C||||
95769574|NCT01068730|191511549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|11327.0||||||||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment D||||
95860158|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||5.1|1.3|0.0011
95994879|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.1|
95860159|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.1|-0.7|0.2208
95860160|NCT00611026|191678456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with terms for country and treatment and with baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference LSMean difference (SE), SE is recorded as parameter dispersion type: standard error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs Fesoterodine: HRQL social interaction domain.||3.5|0.4|0.0117
95860161|NCT02817464|191678554|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.36||||||||2.36|1.44|
95860162|NCT02817464|191678555|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
95860163|NCT02817464|191678557|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
95860164|NCT02817464|191678558|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.01||||||||2.01|1.30|
95860165|NCT02817464|191678559|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4||||||||1.40|1.04|
95860166|NCT02817464|191678560|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.13||||||||1.13|0.23|
95860167|NCT02817464|191678562|OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0073
95860168|NCT05340478|191678586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95860169|NCT00525161|191678597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Response Rate at 3 months|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Defined as complete response/partial response after 3 months of adding sorafenib to endocrine therapy|Based on known historical response rate to sorafenib of no better than 5-10%, the study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the clinical response rate is no better than 10% versus the alternative hypothesis that it is at least 25% when sorafenib is added to endocrine therapy. In the first stage, 18 patients were planned for enrollment, and if two or fewer responses were observed, the trial would be terminated. The study stopped after 11 due to slow accrual and withdrawal of funding.||||
95860170|NCT00525161|191678598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Progression Free Survival|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|11.3||||||||11.3|2.6|
95769587|NCT02362672|191511559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||NKTR-181 (Double-blind Treatment Phase), Placebo (Double-blind Treatment Phase)||||0.0019
95769588|NCT00693498|191511566|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||the reported value is for POD#1 assessment|Wald Wolfowitz|||||||<0.03
95769589|NCT00693498|191511566|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||for POD#2 assessment|Wald-Wolf|||||||0.29
95769590|NCT03150719|191511568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.4||||||||4.4|1.0|
95769591|NCT03150719|191511569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.9||||||||10.9|2.5|
95769592|NCT03150719|191511570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-4.9|
95860171|NCT04421027|191678605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.67|0.1800
95860172|NCT04421027|191678606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.16|0.58|0.7280
95860173|NCT04421027|191678607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.86|0.5444
95860174|NCT04421027|191678608|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (net)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5|||ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.0|0.0586
95860175|NCT04421027|191678609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.99|0.1453
95860176|NCT04421027|191678610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47|||Proportional Odds Model|||Day 4||1.47|1.00|0.0464
95860177|NCT04421027|191678611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.49|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.49|1.04|0.0172
95860178|NCT04421027|191678612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.41|0.97|0.0921
95860179|NCT04421027|191678613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.56|||Proportional Odds Model|||||1.56|1.05|0.0168
95860180|NCT04421027|191678614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||ANOVA|||||0.0|-1.6|0.0626
95860181|NCT04421027|191678615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.81|0.4290
95860182|NCT04421027|191678616|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.41|0.0018
95769593|NCT00812981|191511586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio of HI antibodies against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain between the two groups (1562902A CP Group over 1562902A NP Group), being below (\<) 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Difference in adjusted GMT ratio for HI antibodies: To demonstrate that the NP 1562902A vaccine was non-inferior to the CP 1562902A vaccine, with respect to HI antibody GMT against the A/Indonesia/05/2005 strain, 42 days following vaccination.||0.99|0.71|
95769594|NCT00086138|191511609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.97|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses compared data collected from the CGIC of participants who received sertraline who had a score equal to or better than the CGIC of participants who received the placebo intervention.||1.97|0.52|0.98
96001856|NCT01096667|191981242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.78|-26.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-26.07|-44.78|0.000
95769595|NCT00086138|191511610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.04|||Chi-squared|||||5.04|0.84|0.11
95769596|NCT01757184|191511613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0271|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||A sample size of 50 randomized participants (approximately 25 participants per treatment group) provided 97% power to detect a statistically significant difference between sebelipase alfa and placebo, using Fisher's exact test at α=0.05.||||0.0271
95769597|NCT01757184|191511614|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95769598|NCT01757184|191511615|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95769599|NCT01757184|191511616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
95805743|NCT03449147|191585006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-1.14||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|14.02||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||14.02|-14.27|0.875
95860183|NCT04421027|191678617|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.65|||ANOVA|||||0.65|-0.62|0.9526
95769600|NCT01757184|191511617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0375
95769601|NCT01757184|191511618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95769602|NCT01757184|191511619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95769603|NCT01757184|191511620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4216|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4216
95769604|NCT01757184|191511621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
95769605|NCT04468347|191511622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||<0.0001
95769606|NCT04468347|191511622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.0005
95769607|NCT04468347|191511622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.2161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|The two-way ANOVA included cognitive and amyloid status, and their interaction as fixed effects.||||||0.2161
95769608|NCT04468347|191511623|OTHER|||||||0.1998|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1998
95769609|NCT04468347|191511624|OTHER|||||||0.0646|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0646
95769610|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
95769611|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.018
95769612|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 left (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.020
95860184|NCT04421027|191678618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.061|||Log Rank|||||1.061|0.741|0.1831
95860185|NCT04421027|191678619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.421|||Log Rank|||||1.421|1.017|0.0243
95860186|NCT04421027|191678620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4||0.08|-0.42|0.191
96001857|NCT01096667|191981242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.61||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|8.65||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||8.65|-9.86|0.467
96001858|NCT01096667|191981243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-5.54||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.89|3.82||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||3.82|-14.89|0.224
95769613|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Bladder 10 right (BL 10) algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.025
95769614|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769615|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769616|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.139
95769617|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.011
95769618|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.010
95769619|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.06
95805744|NCT03449147|191585006|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-14.64||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|-1.43||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-1.43|-26.07|0.031
95952129|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNF-α AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.158|-0.287|0.56
95952130|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.139|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.139|-0.071|0.52
95952131|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.172|-0.254|0.70
95952132|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 4 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.340|-0.326|0.97
95952133|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.326|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.326|-0.192|0.61
95769620|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.050
95952134|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.267|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO TNFα AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.267|-0.238|0.91
95952135|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.021|-0.100|0.19
95952136|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.201|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.201|-0.244|0.85
95769621|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.068
95769622|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.049
95769623|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain (main hypothesis).||||=0.004
95769624|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.297
95769625|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.855
95769626|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.594|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.594
95769627|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Bladder 10 (BL 10) right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.929
95769628|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
95805745|NCT03449147|191585009|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-3.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|12.12||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||12.12|-16.14|0.677
95994880|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.1|-0.2|
95952137|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.473|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 24 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.473|-0.179|0.37
95769629|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Zygapophyseal Joint right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.725
95769630|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.398|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.398
95769631|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Mastoid Process right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Upper Trapezius Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.186
95769632|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.833
95805746|NCT03449147|191585009|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|-15.79||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.27|-2.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||ERR relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.||-2.50|-27.27|0.022
95805747|NCT03449147|191585010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.85||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|0.97|0.077
95952138|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|0.212|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.212|-0.298|0.74
95952139|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.318|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.318|-0.246|0.80
95952140|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.142|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.142|-0.030|0.20
95952141|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.198|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.198|-0.246|0.83
95952142|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.276|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 48 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.276|-0.223|0.83
95994881|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.2|-0.1|
96001859|NCT01096667|191981243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-17.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.39|-7.61||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-7.61|-26.39|0.011
95952143|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.354|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-6 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.354|-0.294|0.85
95952144|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.339|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO ΤΝFα AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.339|-0.243|0.74
95952145|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.091|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-1β AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.091|-0.066|0.75
95952146|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.149|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-8 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.149|-0.238|0.64
95994882|NCT03193866|191966116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.3|-0.1|
95769633|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.469|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Levator Scapulae Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.469
95769634|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.399
95769635|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.752|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Deltoid Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.752
95769636|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle left algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.002
95769637|NCT05870371|191511629|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Tibialis Anterior Muscle right algometric site. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in reducing the pain sensitivity assessed by the Pain Pressure Threshold (PPT) measured with the pressure algometer (Commander Algometer) in patients with chronic neck pain from applying A-S (main hypothesis).||||=0.003
95805748|NCT03449147|191585010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|1.02|0.040
95805749|NCT03449147|191585011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.4||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.75|0.872
95805750|NCT03449147|191585011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.96|0.082
95805751|NCT03449147|191585012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.83|0.96|
95805752|NCT03449147|191585012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.09|1.08|
95805753|NCT03449147|191585013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.69||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||1.69|0.93|
95805754|NCT03449147|191585013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.39||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.39|1.31|
95805755|NCT03449147|191585014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.05|1.14|
95805756|NCT03449147|191585014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.23|2.22||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.||2.22|1.23|
95805757|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
95805758|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.02||||||||3.02|1.64|
95805759|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.84||||||||1.84|1.01|
95805760|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||||||||1.05|0.48|
95805761|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13||||||||1.13|0.32|
95805762|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.73||||||||0.73|0.16|
95805763|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.02||||||||1.02|0.51|
95805764|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||||1.08|0.51|
95805765|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||||0.90|0.39|
95860187|NCT04421027|191678620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.14|-0.49|0.278
95952147|NCT02790788|191875844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO IL-10 AT 72 HOURS AFTER ROSC||0.475|-0.116|0.23
95952148|NCT02790788|191875845|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|4.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.6|||Fisher Exact|||||14.6|-4.8|0.45
95805766|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31||||||||1.31|0.64|
95805767|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||||||||1.27|0.61|
95860188|NCT04421027|191678620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.24|-0.49|0.496
95860189|NCT04421027|191678620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.19|-0.70|0.263
95860190|NCT04421027|191678622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6436|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6436
95952149|NCT02790788|191875846|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|50903.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERGLYCEMIA||||0.68
95805768|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.78||||||||1.78|0.83|
95805769|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.45||||||||1.45|0.57|
95805770|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.58|99.97||||||||99.97|45.58|
95805771|NCT02037984|191585021|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.21|43.24||||||||43.24|13.21|
95805772|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.7||||||||0.70|0.39|
95805773|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.41||||||||2.41|1.33|
95805774|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||||||||1.16|0.65|
95805775|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74||||||||0.74|0.35|
95805776|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.58||||||||0.58|0.17|
95805777|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34||||||||0.34|0.08|
95805778|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|0.34|
95805779|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82||||||||0.82|0.39|
95805780|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.97||||||||0.97|0.42|
95805781|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
95805782|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
95805783|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||||||||1.60|0.77|
95805784|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07||||||||1.07|0.43|
95860191|NCT04421027|191678623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1270
95860192|NCT04421027|191678624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.21|||ANOVA|||||0.21|-0.68|0.3058
95952150|NCT02790788|191875846|SUPERIORITY||Mann Whitney U|52188.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF HYPERNATREMIA||||0.68
95952151|NCT02790788|191875846|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|1128.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||RESULTS CORRESPOND TO THE NUMBER OF EPISODES OF INFECTION||||0.37
95769638|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.41|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
95769639|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.92|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Rotation average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rotation average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.046
95769640|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769641|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.043
95769642|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.018
95769643|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.45|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Flexion average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.102
95769644|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.85|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension maximum.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.160
95769645|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.48|||<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Extension average.|Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the cervical range of motion (ROM) recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.039
95769646|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rotation maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
95805785|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|44.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.42|65.43||||||||65.43|30.42|
95805786|NCT02037984|191585022|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.58|27.26||||||||27.26|8.58|
95805787|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07||||||||1.07|0.57|
95769647|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rotation average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.002
95805788|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.68||||||||3.68|1.95|
95805789|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07||||||||2.07|1.11|
95805790|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||||||||1.02|0.46|
95805791|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.64||||||||0.64|0.17|
95805792|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.23||||||||0.23|0.05|
95805793|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04||||||||1.04|0.51|
95805794|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||||1.30|0.59|
95805795|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.6||||||||1.60|0.66|
95769648|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.048
95769649|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Lateral Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Lateral Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.059
95769650|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion maximum. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.57
95769651|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Flexion average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Flexion average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.931
95769652|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension maximum. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension maximum . The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.558
95769653|NCT05870371|191511630|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p value corresponds to the Extension average. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Extension average. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the cervical ROM recorded with the Moover three-dimensional (3D) Inertial Motion sensor in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.989
95769654|NCT05870371|191511631|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the strength of deep neck flexor muscles as measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95805796|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||||||||1.39|0.66|
95805797|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39||||||||1.39|0.64|
95805798|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.84||||||||1.84|0.84|
95805799|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23||||||||1.23|0.46|
95805800|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|77.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|116.6||||||||116.60|51.60|
95805801|NCT02037984|191585023|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|28.98||||||||28.98|8.46|
95805802|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||||||||0.93|0.50|
95805803|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.02||||||||3.02|1.62|
95805804|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||||1.31|0.71|
95805805|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79||||||||0.79|0.36|
95805806|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||||||||0.94|0.26|
95805807|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77||||||||0.77|0.17|
95805808|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.85||||||||0.85|0.42|
95805809|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||||||||1.16|0.54|
95805810|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14||||||||1.14|0.48|
95805811|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||||||||0.95|0.46|
95805812|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.02||||||||1.02|0.48|
95805813|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.29||||||||1.29|0.60|
95805814|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12||||||||1.12|0.43|
95805815|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|56.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.66|83.52||||||||83.52|37.66|
95805816|NCT02037984|191585024|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|25.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|46.78||||||||46.78|14.18|
95805817|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT1 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT1 GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09||||||||1.09|0.58|
95805818|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT3 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT3 GMC Ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|3.49||||||||3.49|1.86|
95805819|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT4 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT4 GMG Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
95805820|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT5 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT5 GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.76||||||||0.76|0.34|
95805821|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT6A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6A GMC Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.65||||||||0.65|0.17|
95805822|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT6B GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT6B GMG Ratio|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.38||||||||0.38|0.08|
95805823|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT7F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT7F GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.84||||||||0.84|0.41|
95805824|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT9V GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.01||||||||1.01|0.46|
95805825|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT14 GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar®)|PT9V GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22||||||||1.22|0.51|
95805826|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT18C GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT18C GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.05||||||||1.05|0.50|
95805827|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT19A GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19A GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.8||||||||0.80|0.37|
95805828|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT19F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT19F GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.44||||||||1.44|0.66|
95805829|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|PT23F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|PT23F GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.28||||||||1.28|0.49|
95805830|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|non-PT22F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F GMC Ratio|68.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.81|102.84||||||||102.84|45.81|
95805831|NCT02037984|191585025|OTHER|non-PT33F GMC Ratio (V114/Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F GMC Ratio|20.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.88|36.88||||||||36.88|10.88|
95805832|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|6.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.5|-16.3|
95805833|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|32.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.5|-4.1|
95805834|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.7|-22.8|
95805835|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805836|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805837|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805838|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805839|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805840|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805841|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805842|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805843|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805844|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.2|
95805845|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
95805846|NCT02037984|191585029|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.1|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.1|
95805847|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.6|-20.4|
95805848|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|30.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||30.6|-10.0|
95805849|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|10.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||10.3|-18.8|
95805850|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805851|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
95805852|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
95994883|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||11.9|-2.2|
95769655|NCT05870371|191511631|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of applying ATM does not differ in improving the strength of deep neck flexor muscles measured by the Chattanooga Stabilizer Pressure Biofeedback in patients with chronic neck pain than applying A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.437
95769656|NCT05870371|191511632|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||=|0.919|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.919
95769657|NCT05870371|191511632|OTHER||Dependence coefficients (β)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The above value corresponds to the comparison between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.010
95769658|NCT05870371|191511633|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||=|0.659|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.659
95769659|NCT05870371|191511633|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.05
95805853|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805854|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805855|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805856|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.5|
95769660|NCT05870371|191511634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.28|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the respiratory function assessed by the portable spirometer (MIR Spirodoc) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.09
95805857|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805858|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805859|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.6|-14.0|
95805860|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|93.6|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||93.6|65.8|
95769661|NCT05870371|191511634|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of the respiratory function in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.005
95769662|NCT05870371|191511635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total McGill Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95805861|NCT02037984|191585030|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.1|98.1|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.1|75.1|
95805862|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
95805863|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|40.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||40.2|12.6|
95805864|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.0|-8.0|
95805865|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95860193|NCT04421027|191678625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||||0.72|-0.49|0.7073
95994884|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.6||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||20.6|-2.6|
95769663|NCT05870371|191511635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Sensory Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769664|NCT05870371|191511635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Affective Score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the pain in the cervical spine in terms of its intensity and quality, i.e., its sensory, emotional and behavioral dimensions using the McGill Pain Questionnaire-short form (SFMPQ) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95805866|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95805867|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
95805868|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95805869|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95860194|NCT03843541|191678626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.763|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||<0.001
95860195|NCT03843541|191678627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.783||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.002
95860196|NCT03843541|191678628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.239
95805870|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95805871|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95860197|NCT03843541|191678629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||For the superiority comparisons of NAC vs. placebo, the Bonferroni correction was used.||||0.037
95860198|NCT03843541|191678630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.093
95860199|NCT03843541|191678630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.118
95860200|NCT03843541|191678631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
95769665|NCT05870371|191511635|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total McGill score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.996
95769666|NCT05870371|191511635|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Sensory Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.968
95769667|NCT05870371|191511635|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Affective Score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of pain in terms of its intensity and quality in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.854
95769668|NCT05870371|191511636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
95769669|NCT05870371|191511636|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.952|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.952
95805872|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95805873|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.6|
95805874|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.7|-15.5|
95805875|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
95805876|NCT02037984|191585031|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.7|
95805877|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95769670|NCT05870371|191511637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||||||<0.001
95769671|NCT05870371|191511637|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||||=0.989
95769672|NCT05870371|191511638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769673|NCT05870371|191511638|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of functionality recorded with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.973
95769674|NCT05870371|191511639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769675|NCT05870371|191511639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95805878|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|35.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||35.5|1.7|
95994885|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.2|-7.6|
95994886|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.1|-9.4|
95994887|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.4||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||3.4|-8.6|
95994888|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||12.2|-4.7|
95994889|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||8.1|-6.9|
95994890|NCT03193866|191966117|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||14.1|-6.3|
95994891|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-27.9||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.9|-40.3|
95994892|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-21.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-21.5|-43.0|
95994893|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-15.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-15.7|-27.9|
95994894|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.2|-14.5|
95805879|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||-1.2|-31.4|
95805880|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95805881|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95860201|NCT03843541|191678631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.110
95805882|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95994895|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-28.9|
96001860|NCT01096667|191981243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-26.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.84|-17.33||P-value is one-sided. P-value rounded to thousandths.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||-17.33|-35.84|0.000
95769676|NCT05870371|191511639|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Depression subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.305
95769677|NCT05870371|191511639|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Anxiety subscale of HADS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the reduction of anxiety and depression captured by the Hospital Anxiety \& Depression Scale (HADS) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.137
95769678|NCT05870371|191511640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.||Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the kinesiophobia as measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769679|NCT05870371|191511640|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing kinesiophobia measured by the Tampa Scale Kinesiophobia (TSK\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.151
95769680|NCT05870371|191511640|OTHER||||||=|0.021||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|McNemar|||||||=0.021
95769681|NCT05870371|191511641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.006
95769682|NCT05870371|191511641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the perception of the fear and the effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.001
95805883|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95805884|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95805885|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95769683|NCT05870371|191511641|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_work subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.197
95805886|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95860202|NCT03843541|191678632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.022
95769684|NCT05870371|191511641|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the FABQ\_physical subscale. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of perception of fear and effort to avoid pain in relation to physical and work activities assessed by the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire\_Greek version (FABQ\_GR) in patients with chronic neck pain from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.066
95769685|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Total PCS score.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95994896|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.5||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.5|-18.9|
95994897|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-20.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.2|-32.8|
95769686|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769687|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769688|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the degree of pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769689|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.871|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Total PCS score. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Total PCS score. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).|The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|||=0.871
95769690|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above value correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Rumination subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.887
95805887|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95805888|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-10.3|
95952152|NCT00348283|191875880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Because of the hierarchical testing scheme used for testing the ranked secondary endpoints, alpha level of 0.05 was used at each stage of testing.||ITT population: all subjects randomized at Week 4 who had at least 1 dose of blinded therapy. The sample-size (placebo = 65 subjects; adalimumab = 65 subjects) for the primary efficacy analysis was calculated using 88% power at 0.05 alpha level based on the assumption that 25% and 5% of subjects were without mucosal ulceration at Week 12 in adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. However, subjects without mucosal ulceration at Screening were excluded from the primary analysis.||||0.056
95952153|NCT00348283|191875881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||0.021
95805889|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|3.9|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.9|-19.2|
95805890|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
95805891|NCT02037984|191585032|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.9|99.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||99.5|85.9|
95952154|NCT00348283|191875882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95952155|NCT00348283|191875883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.001
95952156|NCT00348283|191875884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between proportions of subjects without mucosal ulceration at both Week 12 and Week 52 in the two treatment groups.||||0.150
95952157|NCT00348283|191875885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with clinical response (CR-70 responder status) at Week 4 as the stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in proportion of subjects with clinical remission at Week 12 in the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95952158|NCT02282761|191875886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|1.05|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.05|-6.17|0.182
95994898|NCT03193866|191966118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-23.2||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-23.2|-40.1|
95769691|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.879|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Magnification subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.879
95769692|NCT05870371|191511642|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Helplessness subscale of PCS. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ from the application of A-S in reducing pain catastrophizing recorded by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.961
95769693|NCT05870371|191511643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95769694|NCT05870371|191511643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above value corresponds to the Mental Component Summary/MCS subscale of SF-12.|Null Hypothesis: The application of ATM does not affect the quality of life as measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic neck pain (secondary hypothesis).||||<0.001
95805892|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT1 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT1 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
95805893|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT3 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT3 Percentage Point Difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|32.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||32.0|-5.5|
95805894|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT4 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT4 Percentage Point Difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|5.2|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||5.2|-24.2|
95952159|NCT02282761|191875886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.6|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.60|-7.75|0.045
95994899|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-27.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-27.0|-39.4|
95994900|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-19.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.8|-41.4|
95994901|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-14.7||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-14.7|-27.0|
95994902|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.3|-13.6|
95994903|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-18.3||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-18.3|-29.2|
95994904|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.1||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-6.1|-18.6|
95769695|NCT05870371|191511643|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.564|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to the Physical Component Summary/PCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Physical Component Summary/PCS subscale of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.564
95769696|NCT05870371|191511643|OTHER||Dependence coefficient (β)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||The above p-value corresponds to Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above p-value corresponds to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Log transformation was used for the mixed linear models.|The above values correspond to the Mental Component Summary/MCS of SF-12. The above values correspond to the comparison which is between groups at baseline.|Null Hypothesis: The effect of the application of ATM does not differ in the improvement of quality of life measured by the Short Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) in patients with chronic pain in the cervical spine from the application of A-S (secondary hypothesis).||||=0.023
95805895|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT5 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT5 Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
95805896|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT6A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6A Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
95805897|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT6B Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT6B Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
95805898|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT7F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT7F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
95805899|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT9V Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT9V Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
95805900|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT14 Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT14 Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
95805901|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT18C Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT18C Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
95860203|NCT03843541|191678632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Stratified Mann Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.402
95952160|NCT02282761|191875887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.12|-0.54|0.045
95952161|NCT06312566|191875891|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 92.016% CI limits for Cmax,ss was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9726|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9257|1.022|||Linear mixed model analysis|||||1.022|0.9257|
95952162|NCT06312566|191875892|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(tau) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED|92.016|0.9881|1.012||||||||1.012|0.9881|
95769697|NCT05870371|191511644|OTHER||||||=|0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.014
95769698|NCT05870371|191511644|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95769699|NCT05870371|191511644|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95769700|NCT02589639|191511706|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 10 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.73|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment||"The statistical model was:~Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error"|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|-0.73|-1.11|<0.0001
95769701|NCT02589639|191511706|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of empagliflozin 25 mg against placebo was tested for change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment at the level of α=0.05 (2-sided)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) comparing the change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment|Adjusted Mean Difference calculated as (Empagliflozin 10 mg - Placebo)|The statistical model was: Change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks = overall mean + baseline HbA1c + treatment + baseline renal function + type of insulin therapies + random error||-0.82|-1.18|<0.0001
95769702|NCT01014169|191511708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34||||||||1.34|0.95|
95805902|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT19A Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19A Percentage Point Difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|3.0|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||3.0|-22.1|
95952163|NCT00828178|191875899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis system (SAS) software was used (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina, SAS 9.2). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using appropriate descriptive statistics and compared across treatment groups using Chi-square. Two-sample t tests were used in the statistical analysis of the FMD outcomes. ANCOVA was used to compare the groups with respect to changes in clinical variables adjusting for baseline values.||||0.87
95952164|NCT00828178|191875900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1801||||||This Statistical Analysis applies category SELENA-SLEDAI|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1801
95952165|NCT02291549|191875902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.06||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparison.|ANCOVA|Where appropriate, confidence intervals of the difference were constructed using the estimate of the least-squares means||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.39|0.0074
96001861|NCT01096667|191981243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|8.65||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|17.87||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline FPG as the covariate.||||17.87|-0.56|0.886
95769703|NCT01014169|191511709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.25||||||||1.25|0.99|
95769704|NCT01014169|191511710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||||95.0|1.0|1.25||||||||1.25|1.00|
95769705|NCT04495751|191511769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1||||||||1.1|-3.5|
95769706|NCT04495751|191511770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
95769707|NCT04495751|191511771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.7|
95769708|NCT04495751|191511772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-973.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3500.0|1553.0||||||||1553|-3500|
95769709|NCT04495751|191511773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|73.8||||||||73.8|-32.4|
95769710|NCT04495751|191511774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-2.2|
95769711|NCT04495751|191511775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Quality of Life - Self-rate health||0.7|-0.2|
95769712|NCT04495751|191511775|SUPERIORITY|Quality of life - Ability to carry out social activities and roles|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||||||||0.6|-0.3|
95769713|NCT04495751|191511775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.5||||||Physical health (t score)||4.5|-2.7|
95769714|NCT04495751|191511775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||||||Global Mental health (t score||2.5|-5.4|
95769715|NCT04495751|191511776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.7|101.9||||||||101.9|-99.7|
95769716|NCT04495751|191511777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.5|
95769717|NCT04873934|191511778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-55.4|-38.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.5|-55.4|< 0.001
95769718|NCT04873934|191511779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.29|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|3.29|< 0.001
95805903|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT19F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT19F Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|6.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||6.3|-17.3|
96001862|NCT00510692|191981246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.78|0.005
96001863|NCT01845077|191981258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|95.3|
95769719|NCT04873934|191511780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|-36.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90||-36.7|-47.3|< 0.001
95769720|NCT04873934|191511780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 270||-24.3|-37.4|< 0.001
95769721|NCT04873934|191511780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 330||-31.0|-44.5|< 0.001
95769722|NCT04873934|191511781|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-40.8|||ANCOVA|||||-40.8|-52.7|< 0.001
95769723|NCT04873934|191511782|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||||-32.2|-42.4|< 0.001
95769724|NCT04873934|191511783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|22.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||22.25|6.33|< 0.001
95769725|NCT04873934|191511784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 100 mg/dL||9.99|1.92|< 0.001
95769726|NCT04873934|191511784|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|13.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Achieving LDL-C \< 55 mg/dL||13.65|4.97|< 0.001
95769727|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-30.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-30.3|-44.8|< 0.001
95769728|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||3.1|-16.0|0.188
95769729|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-31.4|-44.0|< 0.001
95769730|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-20.7|-30.2|< 0.001
95769731|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||5.7|-38.4|0.145
95805904|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|PT23F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|PT23F Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.5|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.5|-11.9|
95805905|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT22F Percentage Point Difference|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|95.7|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||95.7|75.2|
95805906|NCT02037984|191585033|OTHER|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference (V114 - Prevnar 13®)|non-PT33F Percentage Point Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.5|98.3|||||Estimated difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||98.3|78.5|
95769732|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.5||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-1.2|0.141
95769733|NCT04873934|191511785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-15.2|0.339
95769734|NCT04873934|191511786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-23.9|-33.0|< 0.001
95769735|NCT04873934|191511786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||0.2|-4.5|0.078
95769736|NCT04873934|191511786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-32.8|-47.5|< 0.001
95769737|NCT04873934|191511786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-30.2|-45.3|< 0.001
95769738|NCT04873934|191511786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||3.8|-0.1|0.065
95769739|NCT04873934|191511786|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||5.3|-22.8|0.222
95769740|NCT04873934|191511787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
95769741|NCT04873934|191511788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.93|||proportional odds model|||||0.93|0.20|0.031
95769742|NCT04873934|191511789|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.039||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.001|||ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.077|0.043
95769743|NCT04873934|191511790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.43|0.346
95769744|NCT00708461|191511796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1202||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46||Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates. 95% confidence intervals and p-values derived from t-statistics with 4 degrees of freedom, reflecting the group-randomized design.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and smoking status as individual, fixed-effect covariates.||"The null hypothesis was no effect of the environmental intervention. The following power assumptions were made:~* Intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.016, estimated from an earlier study~* Variance of 118 kg, estimated from an earlier study~* Cohort N=400~* 15% attrition (by turnover) Using the external control and a worksite correlation of 0.2 gives a detectable difference of about 1.5 kg or 3 lb, or an effect size of 0.14. The effect size using internal control is 0.20."||0.46|-0.21|0.36
95769745|NCT03482635|191511801|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.202|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.202|-0.105|
95805907|NCT02151604|191585038|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|-0.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|||Correlation with field of irradiation||||0.041
95805908|NCT02151604|191585040|OTHER||Pearson's coefficient|0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.60|Pearson's Correlation Analysis|0.60||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of alveolar volume (VA)||||0.037
95769746|NCT03482635|191511801|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
95769747|NCT03482635|191511801|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
95769748|NCT03482635|191511802|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.176|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.176|-0.276|
95769749|NCT03482635|191511802|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.28|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.280|-0.199|
95769750|NCT03482635|191511802|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.252|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.252|-0.204|
95769751|NCT03482635|191511803|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.258|-0.072|
95769752|NCT03482635|191511803|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.268|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.268|-0.069|
95769753|NCT03482635|191511803|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.226|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\]. 95% CI for risk difference were calculated using the method of Newcombe.|||0.226|-0.081|
95769754|NCT03482635|191511804|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.258|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.258|-0.072|
95805909|NCT02151604|191585040|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.70||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide(TLCO)||||0.012
95805910|NCT02151604|191585040|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.85||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of residual volume (RV)||||0.032
95805911|NCT02151604|191585040|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|R = -0.95||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of functional residual capacity (FRC)||||0.004
95805912|NCT02151604|191585040|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation analysis|Pearson's correlation coefficient = -0.88||Correlation of change in ventilation signal with that of inspiratory capacity(IC)||||0.012
95805913|NCT02722330|191585065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95769755|NCT03482635|191511804|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.21|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.210|-0.104|
95769756|NCT03482635|191511804|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.177|||||Unadjusted absolute risk difference to placebo, \[Treatment - Placebo\].|||0.177|-0.110|
95769757|NCT03482635|191511805|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||21.0|-21.6|0.9776
95769758|NCT03482635|191511805|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||22.4|-19.6|0.8940
95769759|NCT03482635|191511805|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|22.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach. The model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and stratification factors (prior biologic treatment failure and concomitant corticosteroid therapy at Visit 2/randomisation), as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements||22.1|-20.0|0.9241
95805914|NCT02722330|191585066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Ease of communication||||<0.0001
95805915|NCT02722330|191585066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Reverberation||||<0.0001
95805916|NCT02722330|191585066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Background noise||||<0.0001
95805917|NCT02722330|191585066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Aversiveness||||0.0004
95805918|NCT02722330|191585066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank Test|||Global score||||<0.0001
95805919|NCT02722330|191585067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech scale||||<0.0001
95805920|NCT02722330|191585067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Spatial scale||||<0.0001
95805921|NCT02722330|191585067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Qualities scale||||<0.0001
95805922|NCT02722330|191585068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95805923|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
95805924|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
95805925|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
95805926|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805927|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
95805928|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805929|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805930|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805931|NCT02722330|191585069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
95952166|NCT02291549|191875903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.09||The 2-sided alpha was 0.05. P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.||The between treatment group difference was estimated using the ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects. The primary efficacy hypothesis was that the use of the S8 Sinus Implant would reduce the bilateral polyp grade compared to the control group. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.09|-0.60|0.0073
95805932|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||<0.0001
95805933|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||<0.0001
95805934|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||<0.0001
95805935|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805936|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||<0.0001
95952167|NCT02291549|191875904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.44||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted p-value is presented.||Test: H0: OR = 1 vs. OR ≠ 1 by Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel test||4.44|1.63|0.0004
95952168|NCT02291549|191875905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-3.83||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups.The null hypothesis was H0: β1 = 0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Although the alternative hypothesis was specified as 2-sided, only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 constituted evidence of effectiveness. The 2-sided alpha for this test was 0.05.||-3.83|-12.10|0.0007
95805937|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805938|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805939|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805940|NCT02722330|191585070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||<0.0001
95805941|NCT02722330|191585071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.002
95805942|NCT02722330|191585072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0024
95805943|NCT02722330|191585073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
95805944|NCT02722330|191585073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
95805945|NCT02722330|191585073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
95805946|NCT02722330|191585074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||All variable had the same p value (\<0.0001).|Wolcoxon Signed rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 50 dB||||<0.0001
95805947|NCT02722330|191585074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 65 dB||||<0.0001
95805948|NCT02722330|191585074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Speech Presentation Level 80 dB||||<0.0001
95805949|NCT02722330|191585075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.036
95805950|NCT02722330|191585076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.065
95805951|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.47
95805952|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.16
95805953|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.59
95805954|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.034
95805955|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.25
95805956|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.023
95805957|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.028
95805958|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.0075
95805959|NCT02722330|191585077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.0035
95805960|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||250 Hz||||0.12
95805961|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||500 Hz||||0.072
95805962|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||750 Hz||||0.56
95805963|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1000 Hz||||0.16
95805964|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||1500 Hz||||0.39
95805965|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||2000 Hz||||0.11
95805966|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||3000 Hz||||0.38
95805967|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||4000 Hz||||0.014
95994905|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-19.0||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-19.0|-31.7|
95994906|NCT03193866|191966119|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-20.8||||||Data shown are adjusted difference in proportion, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-20.8|-38.2|
95994907|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.00|-0.07|
95994908|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.09|
95994909|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.03|
95994910|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.05|-0.03|
95994911|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.04|-0.02|
95994912|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|-0.01|
95769760|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2 and 3 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
95805968|NCT02722330|191585078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||6000 Hz||||0.71
95805969|NCT02722330|191585079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.48
95805970|NCT02722330|191585080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
95805971|NCT02722330|191585081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.017
95805972|NCT02722330|191585081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||0.095
95805973|NCT02722330|191585081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.57
95805974|NCT02722330|191585082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 50 dB||||0.096
95805975|NCT02722330|191585082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 65 dB||||1.00
95805976|NCT02722330|191585082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||SPL 80 dB||||0.41
95994913|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.06|0.00|
95994914|NCT03193866|191966120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.03|-0.06|
95769761|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 3 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
95769762|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1 and 2 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~Emax model analysis is shown here."||||0.3184
95805977|NCT04392362|191585088|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin or delta was calculated as -0.12(-12%)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.8982|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was the level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the AHA method is inferior to the SIM method but not lower than a pre calculated noninferiority delta of -0.12 (-12 %) and a 95% one sided confidence interval. Only 33 (instead of 151 for a power of 95%) patients could be enrolled with 25 in the SIM and 8 in the AHA arms, which resulted in an estimated power test of 59.08%.||||0.8982
95805978|NCT02410200|191585091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0090
95805979|NCT01362530|191585116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
95805980|NCT01362530|191585117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.05
95805981|NCT01362530|191585118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
95805982|NCT01362530|191585119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group, use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic, and receipt of very high risk emetogenic chemotherapy.||||||<0.01
95805983|NCT00839930|191585142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.39||||||90.0|87.33|99.86|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.86|87.33|
95860204|NCT03843541|191678633|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.43|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.|||1.00|0.43|0.002
95994915|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.2||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.2|-3.3|
95769763|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.0415||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 0.5mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5 and 6 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
95994916|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||6.4|-9.4|
95994917|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.4|-4.2|
95994918|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.8|-5.9|
95994919|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.5|-2.9|
95994920|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.8|-4.0|
95994921|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.9|-7.0|
95994922|NCT03193866|191966121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||5.4|-2.9|
95769764|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.1225||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 1.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 6 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
95805984|NCT00839930|191585143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.14||||||90.0|91.04|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.52|91.04|
95805985|NCT00839930|191585144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax parameters.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|96.64||||||90.0|92.13|101.37|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.37|92.13|
95805986|NCT03992872|191585147|SUPERIORITY|The significance of the difference between groups in seroconversion rates was assessed using a Fisher's exact test. The percentage who seroconverted in each group was presented along with its 95% CI calculated using the Wilson method. The Newcombe method was use to estimate the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups in the percentage of subjects who seroconverted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|||||11.4|-11.4|1
95994923|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-2.9||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-2.9|-8.1|
95994924|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-1.0|-10.9|
95994925|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||-0.8|-4.0|
95805987|NCT03992872|191585148|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P- value = NE (Not estimable due to lack of response; all baseline values in this group were \<LOD and imputed as LOD/2, or 7.5)||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
95805988|NCT03992872|191585148|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|3.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.23|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 8: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||6.23|1.55|0.0019
95805989|NCT03992872|191585148|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||ANOVA|P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.46|0.54|0.6223
95805990|NCT03992872|191585148|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.88||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.55||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.55|0.50|0.6444
95805991|NCT03992872|191585148|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 57: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.41|0.57|0.6198
95805992|NCT03992872|191585148|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|0.89||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 182: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||1.45|0.55|0.6451
95805993|NCT03992872|191585149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 8~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.0211
95805994|NCT03992872|191585149|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
95805995|NCT03992872|191585149|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 57.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
95805996|NCT03992872|191585149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1124|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 182.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||0.1124
95769765|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.208||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the sigEmax curve model based on data points for all 3 dosages, not just the 2.0mg/kg point presented here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 4 and 5 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||"The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists, with multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) being tested. gMCP-Mod analysis (Generalized Multiple Comparisons and Modeling) was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression w/ stratification by sex and hematocrit (high/low HCT). 2) Multiple contrast test. 3) Find best-fit dose-response model.~sigEmax model analysis is shown here."||||0.2265
95769766|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 8 and 9 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
95769767|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 9 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
95805997|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||>0.9999
95805998|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||>0.9999
95805999|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||1.0000
95806000|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0257|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8 : Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||0.0257
95806001|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||0.0370
95806002|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1806|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 8: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.1806
95806003|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
95860205|NCT03843541|191678634|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided confidence interval was within the interval.|Probability scale treatment difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.45|1.0|||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic||"The point estimates of treatment differences in probability scale together with associated one-side confidence interval (97.5% or 98.75%) were computed according to Hochberg if both superiority contrasts were found statistically significant.~."|||1.00|0.45|<0.001
95860206|NCT03843541|191678635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.356
95860207|NCT03843541|191678635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.007
95860208|NCT03843541|191678636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.380
95994926|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||1.5|-2.1|
95994927|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||0.6|-2.2|
95994928|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||2.8|-0.3|
95994929|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.6||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.6|0.9|
95769768|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to the fit of the Emax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 7 and 8 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for only the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0764
95806004|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
95806005|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0797|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point~Day 22: Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||0.0797
95806006|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=40"||||1.0000
95806007|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>=160"||||1.0000
95806008|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1284|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.1284
95806009|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||1.0000
95806010|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6411|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=160"||||0.6411
95806011|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5382|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 57: Subject with Titer\>=640"||||0.5382
95806012|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||0.4915
95806013|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||>0.9999
95806014|NCT03992872|191585150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-Chikungunya neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 182: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||0.5520
95860209|NCT03843541|191678636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.018
95860210|NCT03843541|191678637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.366
95994930|NCT03193866|191966122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0||||||Data shown are adjusted mean differences, stratified by DMT line with rituximab as reference, from multivariable linear regression adjusted for age, sex, year of treatment start, country of birth, geographical region, education level, duration since MS diagnosis, baseline EDSS and MSIS-29 scores, history of serious infection, malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular event, arrhythmia, use of antidepressants, diabetes. Confidence intervals are based on robust (Huber-White) standard errors.||4.0|0.2|
95769769|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.2671||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 11 and 12 for the other two data points (1.0mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
95769770|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.6561||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 12 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
95769771|NCT04681066|191511806|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the hazard ratio obtained at each individual dose.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.4668||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model for high HCT based on all 3 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 10 and 11 for the other two data points (0.5mg/kg and 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists for the subset of patients with high HCT. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested. gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis was performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Hazard ratio (each dose vs placebo) using stratified Cox regression, stratification by sex 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. sigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0574
95806015|NCT03992872|191585151|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.51||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.19|1.05|0.0277
95806016|NCT03992872|191585151|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.83||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.86||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.86|1.17|0.0088
95860211|NCT03843541|191678637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.027
95860212|NCT03843541|191678638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.052
95860213|NCT03843541|191678638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.058
95860214|NCT03843541|191678639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.309
95769772|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 2, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
95806017|NCT03992872|191585151|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|1.68||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.82||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||2.82|1.01|0.0475
95806018|NCT03992872|191585152|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
95806019|NCT03992872|191585152|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.00
95860215|NCT03843541|191678639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Modified Mann-Whitney U Statistic|||||||0.006
95860216|NCT02819011|191678717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||priori threshold for statistical significance= 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare changes in two groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.040
95952169|NCT02291549|191875906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and the alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.07|-0.48|0.0248
95952170|NCT02291549|191875907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.06||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The adjusted p-value is presentenced.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||-0.06|-0.85|0.0470
95952171|NCT02291549|191875908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Holm's step-down procedure at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-value is presented.||ANCOVA model with site and treatment group as fixed effects and contrasts constructed to estimate the difference between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was H0: β1=0 and alternative hypothesis was H1: β1 ≠ 0. Only a statistically significant, negative estimate of β1 was to constitute evidence of effectiveness.||||0.9130
95952172|NCT01307800|191875921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.8||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.8|-0.5|0.994
95952173|NCT01307800|191875921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.9||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, with adjustment for multiplicity by applying the Step-down Dunnett procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-1.9|0.973
95952174|NCT01307800|191875921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.2||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-1.6|0.896
95952175|NCT01307800|191875922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.3||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-0.7|0.955
95952176|NCT01307800|191875922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.4||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.4|-1.6|0.912
95952177|NCT01307800|191875922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|-1.8|0.223
95952178|NCT01307800|191875923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-3.5|0.610
95952179|NCT01307800|191875923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-2.0|0.223
95952180|NCT01307800|191875923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-4.2|0.414
95952181|NCT01307800|191875924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-3.7|0.603
95994931|NCT03878147|191966134|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||4.01|0.78|<.01
95994932|NCT03878147|191966134|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||2.44|-0.80|.32
95994933|NCT03878147|191966134|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.16|-3.74|.07
95994934|NCT03878147|191966134|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||1.68|-2.10|.83
95806020|NCT03992872|191585153|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|45.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\]~NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
95806021|NCT03992872|191585153|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|47.34|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
95806022|NCT03992872|191585153|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|55.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.~P-value = NE NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|||"Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.~95% CI \[NE,NE\] NE = Not estimable due to lack of response."|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||||
95806023|NCT03992872|191585155|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
95806024|NCT03992872|191585155|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||1.0000
95860217|NCT02819011|191678718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.005
95806025|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
95806026|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
95806027|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 1: Subject with Titer \>= 640"||||<0.0001
95806028|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
95806029|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
95952182|NCT01307800|191875924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||The p-value was 1-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-1.9|0.192
95769773|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 3, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
95769774|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 4 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
95769775|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the Emax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 1, 2, \& 3 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.2379
95806030|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 22: Subject with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
95806031|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subject with Titer \>= 40"||||<0.0001
95806032|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29: Subjects with Titer \>= 160"||||<0.0001
95806033|NCT03992872|191585156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis for analysis of percentage of subjects with Anti-VEEV PRNT neutralizing activity at or above selected thresholds by time point.~Day 29 : Subjects with Titer \>=640"||||<0.0001
95806034|NCT03992872|191585157|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|23.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|46.35||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 1: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||46.35|11.54|<0.0001
95860218|NCT02819011|191678719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes in both groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.019
95860219|NCT02819011|191678721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572||||||priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Repeated measures to compare the changes of both groups from pre-intervention to post-intervention year.||||0.572
95952183|NCT01307800|191875924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.619
95952184|NCT01307800|191875925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|17.6||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.6|1.4|0.022
95769776|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.3604||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the placebo data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 6, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (0.5mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, and 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
95769777|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-2.5078||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 0.5mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 7, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 1.0mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
95769778|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.834||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 1.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 8 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 2.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. SigEmax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
95769779|NCT04681066|191511807|OTHER|The null hypothesis of flat dose-response relationship as compared to placebo for the primary efficacy endpoint was tested against the alternative hypothesis of a non-constant dose-response curve using a multiple contrast test as described in the gMCP-Mod methodology. The contrast test statistic is a linear combination of the optimal contrast coefficients corresponding to the dose-response curve model (Emax or sigEmax) with the logit of rate of severe respiratory failure at each individual dose.|Odds Ratio, log|-4.7657||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test is based on significance level of one-sided 15%.The p-value shown here relates to fit of the sigEmax curve model based on all 4 dosage data points, not just the 2.0mg/kg data point shown here.|Mixed Models Analysis|See Statistical Analysis 5, 6, \& 7 for the other data points (placebo, 0.5mg/kg, \& 1.0mg/kg) that are part of this same curve and p-value analysis.||Analysis to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists. Multiple possible models (Emax and sigEmax) were tested using gMCP-Mod (Generalized Multiple Comparisons \& Modeling) analysis, performed in 3 steps as described in the SAP: 1) Odds ratio between each dose using logistic regression, with treatment, sex, and risk for organ failure (high/low HCT) as covariates 2) Multiple contrast test 3) Find best-fit dose-response model. Emax model analysis is shown here.||||0.0291
95769780|NCT04681066|191511818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.0372
95769781|NCT04681066|191511818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4918|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.4918
95769782|NCT04681066|191511818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6224|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld|||||||0.6224
95769783|NCT02712554|191511865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95769784|NCT02712554|191511865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95769785|NCT02712554|191511865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2344|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2344
95769786|NCT02712554|191511865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4737|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4737
95769787|NCT02712554|191511865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95769788|NCT02712554|191511865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95769789|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769790|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769791|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1267
95952185|NCT01307800|191875925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.8|-0.4|0.061
95952186|NCT01307800|191875925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.3|-3.9|0.304
95769792|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1767|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1767
95769793|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769794|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769795|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0119|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0119
95769796|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0025
95769797|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1679
95769798|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0318|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0318
95769799|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0002
95769800|NCT02712554|191511869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95769801|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769802|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95806035|NCT03992872|191585157|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|172.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.6|279.19||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 22: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naïve alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||279.19|106.60|<0.0001
95806036|NCT03992872|191585157|SUPERIORITY||GMR (Prior Alpha / Naïve Alpha)|118.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.76|227.16||P-values were based on an ANOVA model with log10-transformed titer as the dependent variable and study arm, age, and gender as predictors.|ANOVA||Differences in least squares means from the ANOVA model were back-transformed and reported as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Day 29: Geometric mean ratio (prior alpha group over naive alpha group) and 95% confidence interval||227.16|61.76|<0.0001
95860220|NCT02819011|191678722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.650
95769803|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0858|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0858
95769804|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2877|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2877
95769805|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769806|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769807|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0009
95806037|NCT03992872|191585158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 22.~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
95806038|NCT03992872|191585158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|"Day 29~Note: A subject has a 4-fold rise at a visit if they achieve a titer at that visit that is at least 4-fold higher than their Day 1 titer."||||||<0.0001
95952187|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|0.1|0.036
95769808|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
95769809|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1130
95769810|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0575|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0575
95769811|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769812|NCT02712554|191511870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769813|NCT02712554|191511871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769814|NCT02712554|191511871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769815|NCT02712554|191511871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4025
95769816|NCT02712554|191511871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3184|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.3184
95806039|NCT00062764|191585165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.004
95952188|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.0||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.2|0.616
95769817|NCT02712554|191511871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769818|NCT02712554|191511871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769819|NCT02712554|191511872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769820|NCT02712554|191511872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769821|NCT02712554|191511872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2628|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2628
95769822|NCT02712554|191511872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2262|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.2262
95806040|NCT00889005|191585192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
95806041|NCT03093246|191585204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
95806042|NCT03093246|191585205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
95952189|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for change from baseline in PANSS positive subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-0.7|0.307
95952190|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-0.8|0.382
95952191|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.3|0.107
95952192|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS negative subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.9|0.436
95952193|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.9||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-0.2|0.073
95769823|NCT02712554|191511872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769824|NCT02712554|191511872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769825|NCT02712554|191511873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769826|NCT02712554|191511873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769827|NCT02712554|191511873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1839|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1839
95769828|NCT02712554|191511873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1751|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1751
95769829|NCT02712554|191511873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769830|NCT02712554|191511873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769831|NCT02712554|191511874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769832|NCT02712554|191511874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769833|NCT02712554|191511874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.4013
95769834|NCT02712554|191511874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0736
95769835|NCT02712554|191511874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769836|NCT02712554|191511874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<.0001
95769837|NCT02712554|191511875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
95769838|NCT02712554|191511875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.001
95769839|NCT02712554|191511875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2223|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2223
95769840|NCT02712554|191511875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1638|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1638
95769841|NCT02712554|191511875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0041
95769842|NCT02712554|191511875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.001
95769843|NCT02712554|191511876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
95806043|NCT03093246|191585206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimated Equations|||||||<0.05
95806044|NCT03766906|191585225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||.003
95806045|NCT03766906|191585226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than zero at P\<0.05.|||||.022
95806046|NCT03766906|191585227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.016
95806047|NCT03766906|191585228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.002
95769844|NCT02712554|191511876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769845|NCT02712554|191511876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2706|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2706
95769846|NCT02712554|191511876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.5507
95806048|NCT03766906|191585229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.626
95806049|NCT03766906|191585229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.||The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.909
95806050|NCT03766906|191585229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|The statistical analyses for the Student Self-Efficacy, in terms of type of statistical test, method, and the comments which we state within-subjects paired t-tests, are the same for each of the three subscales that make up Student Self-Efficacy (i.e., Relevance to schoolwork, Future aspirations, and Family support).||||.905
95769847|NCT02712554|191511876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||0.0047
95769848|NCT02712554|191511876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769849|NCT02712554|191511877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0001
95769850|NCT02712554|191511877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769851|NCT02712554|191511877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0014
95769852|NCT02712554|191511877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0080
95769853|NCT02712554|191511877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769854|NCT02712554|191511877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emin: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769855|NCT02712554|191511878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0024
95769856|NCT02712554|191511878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||0.0012
95769857|NCT02712554|191511878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0037
95769858|NCT02712554|191511878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0011
95769859|NCT02712554|191511878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769860|NCT02712554|191511878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769861|NCT02712554|191511879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769862|NCT02712554|191511879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95952194|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-1.2|0.280
95952195|NCT01307800|191875926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in PANSS general psychopathology subscores was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0|-0.9|0.209
95952196|NCT01307800|191875927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.137||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
95952197|NCT01307800|191875927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.824||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
95952198|NCT01307800|191875927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95952199|NCT01307800|191875929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.38||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.13|0.340
95952200|NCT01307800|191875929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.659
95952201|NCT01307800|191875929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-0.14|0.413
95952202|NCT01307800|191875930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-3.1|0.910
95994935|NCT03878147|191966135|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.42|-0.71|.65
95952203|NCT01307800|191875930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-4.9|0.265
95952204|NCT01307800|191875930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-3.7|0.531
95769863|NCT02712554|191511879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0630
95769864|NCT02712554|191511879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4436|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.4436
95769865|NCT02712554|191511879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769866|NCT02712554|191511879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Emax: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769867|NCT02712554|191511880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769868|NCT02712554|191511880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769869|NCT02712554|191511880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2335|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.2335
95952205|NCT01307800|191875931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.1||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||5.10|-5.21|0.983
95952206|NCT01307800|191875931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|2.83||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||2.83|-7.94|0.351
95952207|NCT01307800|191875931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|7.11||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo for the change from baseline in EQ-5D Questionnaire (VAS) was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-2.86|0.403
95952208|NCT01307800|191875934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-0.8||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-10.4|0.021
95952209|NCT01307800|191875934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.9||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-3.3|0.487
95952210|NCT01307800|191875934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.7||The p-value was 2-sided without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-5.6|0.693
95952211|NCT01307800|191875935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.661
95769870|NCT02712554|191511880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.1808
95769871|NCT02712554|191511880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769872|NCT02712554|191511880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769873|NCT02712554|191511883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769874|NCT02712554|191511883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Treatment D: M366 37.5 mg/1625 mg, Treatment E: Placebo||||<0.0001
95769875|NCT02712554|191511883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1268|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.1268
95769876|NCT02712554|191511883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||0.0014
95769877|NCT02712554|191511883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769878|NCT02712554|191511883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||MPC: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769879|NCT02712554|191511884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment C (low-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95806051|NCT03766906|191585230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||.054
95952212|NCT01307800|191875935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.14|0.201
95952213|NCT01307800|191875935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.09|0.697
95860221|NCT02819011|191678723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.756
95769880|NCT02712554|191511884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment D (high-dose M366) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769881|NCT02712554|191511884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Treatment C (low-dose M366)||||0.0120
95769882|NCT02712554|191511884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Treatment D (high-dose M366)||||<0.0001
95769883|NCT02712554|191511884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment A (low-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95806052|NCT03766906|191585231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
95769884|NCT02712554|191511884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||TA\_AUE0-8hr: Treatment B (high-dose CL-108) - Placebo||||<0.0001
95769885|NCT01205776|191511949|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 2% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue|||||||<0.0001
95769886|NCT01205776|191511961|NON_INFERIORITY|p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value and 95% CI of the Difference derived from the Com-Nougue Approach of non-inferiority for two Kaplan-Meier Failure rates with a non-inferiority margin of 8.4% at the 0.05 level of significance.|Com-Nougue Approach|||||||0.011
95769887|NCT03868930|191512111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
95769888|NCT03868930|191512111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
95769889|NCT03868930|191512111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
95769890|NCT03868930|191512111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on reintegration (measured by the Military to Civilian Questionnaire).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
95806053|NCT03766906|191585232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.|Investigators tested whether pre-test to post-test change was significantly greater than 0 at P\<0.05.|||||<.001
95860222|NCT02819011|191678726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.769
95769891|NCT03868930|191512112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0044
95952214|NCT01307800|191875936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.20|0.694
95952215|NCT01307800|191875936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.34|0.596
95952216|NCT01307800|191875936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.00|0.055
95952217|NCT01307800|191875937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.27|0.929
95952218|NCT01307800|191875937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.519
95952219|NCT01307800|191875937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.4||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-0.13|0.323
95952220|NCT01307800|191875938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
95952221|NCT01307800|191875938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
95952222|NCT01307800|191875938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.425||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo in the percentage of participants with a change from baseline in C-SSRS suicidal ideation was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.425
95769892|NCT03868930|191512112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||<.0001
95860223|NCT02819011|191678727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.857
95860224|NCT02819011|191678728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures to compare the changes between groups from baseline to 6 months||||0.829
95952223|NCT01307800|191875941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.444||95.0||||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.444
95952224|NCT01307800|191875941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||95.0||||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.799
95952225|NCT01307800|191875941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073||95.0||||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA model on rank-transformed change.||||||0.073
95952226|NCT01307800|191875942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.04||The comparison between 80 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.76|0.761
95952227|NCT01307800|191875942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.06||The comparison between 40 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.78|0.761
95952228|NCT01307800|191875942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The comparison between 10 mg LY2140023, BID and placebo was conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-1.17|0.489
95952229|NCT01313663|191875969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.65|||||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator. The hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified log-rank test were adjusted for disease stage at Baseline only, due to sparse data.|||2.65|0.32|
95952230|NCT00780741|191875987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the proportion with success in immediate group minus proportion with success in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||0.21|-0.01|0.09
95806054|NCT00835549|191585245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6||||||90.0|94.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102|94.8|
95860225|NCT04193189|191678740|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin (2-CpG minus 3-alum): -10%.|Common proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.1|20.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||20.9|4.1|
95952231|NCT00780741|191875988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-139.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.0|94.0|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average cost in immediate group minus average cost in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||94|-377|0.24
95952232|NCT00780741|191875989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||Point estimate on mean difference|Bootstrap sampling with replacement (N=10,000) was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval.|Mean difference calculated as the average months of symptoms in immediate group minus average months of symptoms in deferred group. 95% confidence interval obtained using bootstrap sampling with replacement.|||-1.8|-4.0|<0.0001
95952233|NCT01294644|191875992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||4.43|1.52|<0.001
95952234|NCT01294644|191875992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.36|1.83|<0.001
95952235|NCT01294644|191875993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|92.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||92.67|1.48|0.020
95952236|NCT01294644|191875993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|91.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||91.24|1.46|0.021
95952237|NCT01294644|191875994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.44|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.44|3.06|<0.001
95952238|NCT01294644|191875994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.04|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.04|2.65|<0.001
95952239|NCT01294644|191875995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.001
95994936|NCT03878147|191966135|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.54|.95
95952240|NCT01294644|191875995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
95952241|NCT01294644|191875996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.75|0.97|<0.001
95952242|NCT01294644|191875996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.65|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.65|0.87|<0.001
95769893|NCT03868930|191512112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0162
95860226|NCT04193189|191678740|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.4|26.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe repeated confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Primary objective of Group A||26.2|10.4|
95860227|NCT04193189|191678740|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|11.8|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Secondary objective of Group A||11.8|-0.2|
95952243|NCT01294644|191875997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.13|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||0.13|-1.72|0.090
95952244|NCT01294644|191875997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.97||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.05|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.05|-1.89|0.040
95952245|NCT01294644|191875998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.009
95952246|NCT01294644|191875998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.001
95952247|NCT02033174|191876023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95952248|NCT01898299|191876024|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d effectsize|0.48||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Control for Chlopromazine equivalents||||||0.036
95769894|NCT03868930|191512112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on readjustment (measured by the Post Deployment Readjustment Inventory).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups~Statistical analysis reported on the total score only."||||0.0009
95769895|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0140
95769896|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1548||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.1548
95769897|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0302
95769898|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0158
95952249|NCT02340806|191876033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.67
95952250|NCT02340806|191876034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
95952251|NCT02340806|191876035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.21
95952252|NCT02340806|191876036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
95952253|NCT02340806|191876037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.66
95952254|NCT02340806|191876039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
95952255|NCT02340806|191876040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.58
95952256|NCT02340806|191876041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.67
95952257|NCT02340806|191876042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.99
95952258|NCT02340806|191876043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.37
95952259|NCT00424502|191876044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.017|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||2.64|1.39|<0.0001
95952260|NCT00424502|191876045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.401|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||0.401|0.151|<0.0001
95952261|NCT00424502|191876048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|25.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||25.28|3.52|0.012
95952262|NCT00424502|191876049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.21||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Week 24||5.65|-2.03|0.337
95952263|NCT00635609|191876056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.765
95952264|NCT00635609|191876057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site.||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.290
95806055|NCT00835549|191585246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.5|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.5|
95769899|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0034
95769900|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8776||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Post-Treatment (T2) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.8776
95769901|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0002
95769902|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0198
95769903|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the STEP-Home group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.0013
95769904|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy Group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Trait Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||<.0001
95769905|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) State Anger.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||.0345
95769906|NCT03868930|191512113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5918||||||P-value indicates significance of T-test (α=0.05) for the Present Centered Group Therapy group from Baseline (T1) to Follow-Up (T3) Anger Expression Index.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Hypothesis 1: Participants randomized into the STEP-Home Intervention will show improvement on anger as measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).~Hypothesis 2: Treatment effects will be maintained at follow-up for both groups"||||0.5918
95769907|NCT06047366|191512126|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95769908|NCT06047366|191512127|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||p \< 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance|Log Rank|||||||0.09
95860228|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|18.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 8 in 2-CpG, Week 28 in 3-alum)||18.1|0.1|
95952265|NCT00635609|191876058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on investigational site||Study not adequately powered to detect differences in efficacy outcomes. Results to provide estimates of safety and efficacy outcomes.||||0.033
95769909|NCT02151851|191512129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.899|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.382|6.382||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.382|2.382|<0.001
95769910|NCT02151851|191512130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|16.352||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.352|3.570|<0.001
95806056|NCT00835549|191585247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.0||||||90.0|98.7|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105|98.7|
95952266|NCT04919499|191876065|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1048|0.0545|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0545|-0.1048|
95769911|NCT02151851|191512131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|23.786||Difference of CZP + MTX versus Placebo + MTX (and corresponding p-value) was estimated from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and region.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.786|2.209|<0.001
95806057|NCT05263791|191585290|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -3, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.001
95952267|NCT04919499|191876066|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.0101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0422|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0422|-0.0625|
95952268|NCT04919499|191876067|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0536|||||Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]|||0.0536|-0.0504|
95952269|NCT04919499|191876068|OTHER|A mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used for the analysis with fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.|Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||||"Calculated as \[high-dose BI 765128\] - \[Sham\]~Results were rounded to one decimal place."|||5.0|-4.7|
95952270|NCT04520256|191876074|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95952271|NCT04520256|191876075|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.27||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-.54|0.693
95952272|NCT04520256|191876075|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.09||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.01|0.900
95952273|NCT04520256|191876075|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.06|0.960
95952274|NCT04520256|191876075|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.44||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|0.01|0.113
95952275|NCT04520256|191876075|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.92||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.01|0.187
95952276|NCT04520256|191876076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95952277|NCT04520256|191876077|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.12||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.56|0|.999
95952278|NCT04520256|191876077|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.15||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|0|.999
95952279|NCT04520256|191876077|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.52|0|.999
95952280|NCT04520256|191876077|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.11||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.50|0|.999
95952281|NCT04520256|191876077|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Proportion|0.1||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.47|0|.999
95952282|NCT00760877|191876078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|5.738|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.738|0.766|0.1083
95952283|NCT01044901|191876098|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
95952284|NCT01044901|191876099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney test).||||<0.0001
95769912|NCT03503370|191512143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.8|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.80|0.39|
95769913|NCT03503370|191512144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95769914|NCT03503370|191512145|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.77|||||Hazard ratio from Cox Proportional Hazard comparing the chlorhexidine group to the placebo group.|||1.77|0.34|
95769915|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 2 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0015
95769916|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 3 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1||||0.0761
95769917|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 4 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.9317
95769918|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 5 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||<.0001
95769919|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 6 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.0045
95769920|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 7 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.1437
95769921|NCT03483961|191512146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3216||||||All tests were carried out at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and no adjustment for multiplicity was applied, since the goal was to rank different formulations rather than to establish inferential values.|ANOVA|ANOVA model including site and treatment group as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers. P-value is for Group 8 vs. Group 1.||Groups 2-8 are compared to Group 1.||||0.3216
95769922|NCT02640950|191512151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t test for pre and post treatment scores for all subjects|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of pre and post treatment scores on MADRS||||<0.001
95769923|NCT02640950|191512152|OTHER|Descriptive Frequencies Analysis|||||||||||||||||A frequencies analysis was conducted to determine the number of participants that were diagnosed with BP I and BP II as well as the number of participants that developed an onset of maniac symptoms during the 7 week treatment period.|||
95769924|NCT00652626|191512166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.0|151.3|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||151.3|64.0|
95769925|NCT00652626|191512166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|67.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.7|101.8|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||101.8|44.7|
95769926|NCT00652626|191512166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.8|127.2|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-t, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||127.2|53.8|
95769927|NCT00652626|191512167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|148.8|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||148.8|63.8|
95769928|NCT00652626|191512167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|68.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.7|102.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||102.7|45.7|
95769929|NCT00652626|191512167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|127.1|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized AUC0-inf, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||127.1|54.5|
95860229|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|27.9|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 12 in 2-CpG, Week 32 in 3-alum)||27.9|10.0|
95952285|NCT01044901|191876100|OTHER|||||||0.0137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0137
95952286|NCT01044901|191876101|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
95769930|NCT00652626|191512168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|127.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|245.7|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||245.7|66.3|
95769931|NCT00652626|191512168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|84.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.3|158.5|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||158.5|45.3|
95952287|NCT01044901|191876102|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.16
95769932|NCT00652626|191512168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|107.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|207.0|||||Ratio of geometric means is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance models on the nature log-transformed dose-normalized Cmax, obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons||207.0|55.9|
95769933|NCT00652626|191512171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|143.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 50 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.6|71.2|
95769934|NCT00652626|191512171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|144.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.6|202.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 75 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||202.7|103.6|
95769935|NCT00652626|191512171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.4|143.9|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Azacitidine 100 mg/m\^2 / Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 and expressed as a percentage.|Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from one way analysis of variance model on the nature log-transformed CL/F obtained on Day 1. Azacitidine 25 mg/m\^2 is the reference group for comparisons.||143.9|71.4|
95769936|NCT00652626|191512174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|169.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.2|262.5|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters"||262.5|109.2|
95769937|NCT00652626|191512174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|140.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.6|217.7|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-t after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||217.7|90.6|
95769938|NCT00652626|191512175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|166.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.6|254.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||254.6|108.6|
95769939|NCT00652626|191512175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|216.2|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of AUC0-inf after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||216.2|92.2|
95952288|NCT01044901|191876103|OTHER|||||||0.0039||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.0039
95952289|NCT01044901|191876104|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0011
95952290|NCT01044901|191876105|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.10
95952291|NCT01044901|191876106|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.48
95952292|NCT01044901|191876107|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.08
95952293|NCT01044901|191876108|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.91
95952294|NCT01044901|191876109|OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0038
95994937|NCT03878147|191966135|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.13||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.13|-0.92|.34
95769940|NCT00652626|191512176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|141.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.2|274.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||274.6|73.2|
95769941|NCT00652626|191512176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|105.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|204.6|||||Ratio of geometric mean is calculated as Severe RI/Normal RF and expressed as a percentage.|"Comparison of Cmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.~Geometric means, ratio and 90% CI of ratio of geometric means are from an analysis of variance model with renal function group (normal and severe), visit (Day 1 and Day 5), renal function group by visit interaction as fixed effect, and patient nested within renal function group as a random effect on the nature log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters."||204.6|54.5|
95769942|NCT00652626|191512177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after a single dose (Day 1) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.52|0|0.1342
95769943|NCT00652626|191512177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median difference is Severe RI - Normal RF.|Comparison of Tmax after multiple doses (Day 5) in participants with normal renal function and participants with severe renal impairment.||0.50|0|0.1017
95769944|NCT00915018|191512186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.269|||Log Rank|||||1.269|0.813|0.8934
95769945|NCT00915018|191512187|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.028||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.048|0.5219
95769946|NCT00915018|191512188|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.974||||0.8431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.262|||Log Rank|||||1.262|0.752|0.8431
95769947|NCT00915018|191512189|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.032||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.029|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.029|-0.093|0.2360
96001864|NCT01845077|191981258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|101.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|104.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||One patient was excluded from this analysis due to the lack of the 72h sample for the L+M1000 fed treatment.||104.7|98.4|
95769948|NCT00915018|191512190|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.780|0.259|0.0036
95769949|NCT00457002|191512191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||To conclude superiority of apixaban versus enoxaparin on the primary efficacy endpoint, the upper bound of the two-sided 95.004% confidence interval (CI) for the relative risk (pa/ pe) must be less than 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4364
95769950|NCT00457002|191512191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.59||||||||0.59|-1.37|
95769951|NCT00457002|191512192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||||||Formal testing of noninferiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was not performed since the superiority of the primary efficacy endpoint was not demonstrated.||1.63|0.69|
95860230|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.7|37.2|||||Common SP proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 2-CpG, Week 48 in 3-alum)||37.2|17.7|
95769952|NCT00457002|191512192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81||||||||0.81|-0.61|
95769953|NCT00457002|191512193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.71||||||||1.71|0.70|
95769954|NCT00457002|191512193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.57|
95769955|NCT00457002|191512194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||||1.20|0.78|
95769956|NCT00457002|191512194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.17||||||||1.17|-1.65|
95769957|NCT00457002|191512195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||||||||1.22|0.79|
95769958|NCT00457002|191512195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.29||||||||1.29|-1.52|
95769959|NCT00457002|191512196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||||1.29|0.65|
95769960|NCT00457002|191512196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71||||||||0.71|-1.23|
95769961|NCT00457002|191512197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.05||||||||4.05|0.11|
95769962|NCT00457002|191512197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.16|
95769963|NCT00457002|191512198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||||||||1.16|0.68|
95769964|NCT00457002|191512198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.48||||||||0.48|-1.25|
95769965|NCT00457002|191512199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
95769966|NCT00457002|191512199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.78|
95994938|NCT03878147|191966135|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.58|-0.73|.81
95994939|NCT03878147|191966136|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.043||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.043|0.004|.01
95994940|NCT03878147|191966136|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 6.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.040|0.003|.02
95994941|NCT03878147|191966136|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.05|-0.01|.19
95994942|NCT03878147|191966136|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was difference between least square means of trial arms at month 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value of the outcome, child's age, sex, and HIV exposure status were included as covariates.|BPG minus waitlist control.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two arms were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that means of two arms were not equal. With this sample size, differences between arms corresponding to the unadjusted effect size Cohen's d=0.33 would be detectable as statistically significant with power of .80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance.||0.04|-0.01|.19
95994943|NCT05817045|191966143|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.31|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.310|0.777|0.948
95994944|NCT05817045|191966143|SUPERIORITY|Per-Protocol Population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.337||adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score.|NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) Per-Protocol Population||1.337|0.774|0.902
95994945|NCT05817045|191966143|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.342|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to sustained resolution of COVID-19 signs and symptoms without subsequent symptom recurrence or disease progression (until the end of the study) - Secondary Analysis (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.342|0.782|0.859
95994946|NCT05817045|191966145|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.596|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virologic rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.596|1.047|0.017
95806058|NCT05263791|191585291|NON_INFERIORITY|The hypothesis tested is demonstrated airRR non-inferior to acoRR when the capnostream is less sensitive.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||"In this study, a non-inferiority test was conducted during periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography to compare respiratory rate measurements using the Airmod device (airRR) versus manually scored auscultation sounds (referred to as acoRR, implying manARR in the statistical analysis plan). The research physician identified periods of reduced sensitivity in capnography."||||<0.001
95806059|NCT05263791|191585293|SUPERIORITY|This analysis were examined to assess the responsiveness of Airmod and Capnography.|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t Test|||The hypothesis tested whether the response times obtained with the Airmod device were equal to those recorded with Capnography.||||<0.001
95952295|NCT01044901|191876110|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.034
95952296|NCT01044901|191876111|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented was as frequencies and percentages, and then analyzed with a Fisher exact test.||||0.25
95952297|NCT01044901|191876112|OTHER|||||||0.0288||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.0288
95952298|NCT01044901|191876113|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) test.||||0.14
95952299|NCT01044901|191876114|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.13
95952300|NCT01044901|191876115|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.81
95952301|NCT01044901|191876116|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline as mean +/- standard deviation based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Student t-test.||||0.30
95952302|NCT02878590|191876123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
95952303|NCT03322514|191876124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95952304|NCT03322514|191876124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.04
95952305|NCT03322514|191876124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.1
96001865|NCT01845077|191981258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.7|98.2|
95952306|NCT03322514|191876125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95952307|NCT03322514|191876125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
95952308|NCT03322514|191876125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.3
95952309|NCT03322514|191876126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95952310|NCT03322514|191876126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.4
95952311|NCT03322514|191876126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 12 weeks||||0.7
95952312|NCT06091982|191876132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.2|||Chi-squared|||Bivariable analysis of both groups||16.2|7.0|<0.0001
95952313|NCT06091982|191876132|OTHER|Multiple logistic regression|Odds Ratio, log|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Multivariable analysis||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
95952314|NCT06091982|191876133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|17.1|||Chi-squared|||||17.1|9.1|<0.0001
95952315|NCT06091982|191876133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
95952316|NCT06091982|191876134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.6|||Chi-squared|||||21.6|11.3|<0.0001
95952317|NCT06091982|191876134|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|3.3|<0.0001
95952318|NCT02889809|191876150|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.462|0.142|||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1, gender and country.|||0.142|-0.462|
95952319|NCT02889809|191876153|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.572|||||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline growth velocity, age at Visit 1(wk -16), gender and country|||0.572|-0.455|
95952320|NCT03320941|191876169|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-2.92|
95952321|NCT03320941|191876169|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.7||||||||-1.70|-4.15|
95952322|NCT03320941|191876169|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-2.26||||||||-2.26|-4.54|
95952323|NCT03320941|191876169|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-2.77||||||||-2.77|-5.01|
95952324|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|15.35|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||15.350|0.344|0.390
95952325|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|15.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|87.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||87.552|2.844|0.002
95952326|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|64.32|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||64.320|2.511|0.002
95952327|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.813|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.362|84.085|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight||84.085|3.362|<0.001
95952328|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.697||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|33.006|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||33.006|0.087|0.727
95952329|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.26||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.066|386.473|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||386.473|2.066|0.012
95994947|NCT05817045|191966145|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.665|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19;|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (Per-Protocol population)||1.665|1.059|0.014
95952330|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.333||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|116.82|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||116.820|0.914|0.059
95952331|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.456||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|100.292|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (Dysglycemic)||100.292|0.891|0.062
95952332|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|48.552|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||48.552|0.265|0.336
95952333|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio, log|9.112||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|103.872|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||103.872|0.799|0.075
95952334|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|29.312||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.665|322.412|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||322.412|2.665|0.006
95952335|NCT03320941|191876170|OTHER|Dose Finding|Odds Ratio (OR)|37.949||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.477|414.232|||Regression, Logistic|||\>= 3% Percent decrease in body weight (T2DM)||414.232|3.477|0.003
95952336|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.19||||||Dysglycemic||-0.19|-3.56|
95952337|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.46||||||Dysglycemic||-1.46|-4.56|
95952338|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.82||||||Dysglycemic||-1.82|-4.71|
95952339|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.74||||||Dysglycemic||-1.74|-4.93|
95952340|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.15||||||T2DM||-0.15|-3.12|
95952341|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.61||||||T2DM||-0.61|-4.37|
95952342|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.52||||||T2DM||-1.52|-5.20|
95952343|NCT03320941|191876171|OTHER|Dose Finding|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-2.79||||||T2DM||-2.79|-5.93|
95952344|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.900|-3.104|0.278
95952345|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.265|0.747|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.747|-3.265|0.216
95952346|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.069|0.504|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.504|-3.069|0.158
95952347|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.401|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.022|-3.401|0.053
95952348|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.444|0.717|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.717|-5.444|0.130
95952349|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.156|-0.994|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.994|-7.156|0.011
95952350|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.322|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.996|-4.322|0.215
95952351|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.515|0.888|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.888|-4.515|0.184
95952352|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.292||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.611|2.552|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.552|-2.611|0.982
95952353|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.809|3.401|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.401|-1.809|0.544
95952354|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.084|1.663|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.663|-3.084|0.552
95952355|NCT03320941|191876172|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.964|0.588|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.588|-3.964|0.143
95952356|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.035|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.035|-0.376|0.018
95952357|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0863||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.105|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.105|-0.447|0.002
95952358|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.136|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.136|-0.437|<0.001
95952359|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.190|-0.486|<0.001
95952360|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0775||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.067|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.067|-0.245|0.258
95952361|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0774||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.021|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.021|-0.290|0.088
95952362|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|-0.011|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-0.011|-0.282|0.035
95769967|NCT00457002|191512200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||||1.28|0.84|
95769968|NCT00457002|191512200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.18|
95769969|NCT00457002|191512201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
95769970|NCT00457002|191512201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
95860231|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.3|42.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (2-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 2-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 52 in 2-CpG, Week 72 in 3-alum)||42.3|21.3|
95952363|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.022|-0.248|0.100
95952364|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.033|-0.592|0.029
95952365|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1411||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.117|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.117|-0.681|0.006
95952366|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1253||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.159|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.159|-0.660|0.002
95952367|NCT03320941|191876173|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|-0.282|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.282|-0.769|<0.001
95952368|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2094||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.589|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.241|-0.589|0.408
95952369|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.087|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.087|-0.924|0.018
95994948|NCT05817045|191966145|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for the following prognostic baseline covariates: baseline log10 nasopharyngeal viral load, ethnicity, hours since symptom onset, and baseline risk factor score|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.69|||NPANCOVA||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|NPANCOVA analysis for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) - Secondary analysis - (FAS excluding subjects that were qPCR negative at baseline)||1.690|1.086|0.007
95994949|NCT05817045|191966145|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: Flowflex|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.997|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.997|1.064|
95769971|NCT00457002|191512202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.43||||||||2.43|0.32|
95769972|NCT00457002|191512202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.26|
95952370|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1866||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|-0.217|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.217|-0.956|0.002
95769973|NCT00457002|191512203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83||||||||0.83|0.11|
95769974|NCT00457002|191512203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.07||||||||-0.07|-0.62|
95769975|NCT00457002|191512204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||||||||1.37|0.65|
95769976|NCT00457002|191512204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.76||||||||0.76|-1.04|
95769977|NCT00457002|191512205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02||||||Note: Relative risk was not estimable (0.0); only risk difference could be estimated.||-0.02|-0.29|
95952371|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1831|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|-0.463|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-0.463|-1.188|<0.001
95952372|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.631|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.631|-0.194|0.293
95952373|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2068||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.506|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.506|-0.325|0.665
95952374|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.315|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.315|-0.405|0.803
95952375|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1787||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.615|0.103|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||0.103|-0.615|0.159
95952376|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3249||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.122|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.122|-1.176|0.110
95952377|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3296||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.691|-0.373|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.373|-1.691|0.003
95952378|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.654|-0.476|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.476|-1.654|<0.001
95952379|NCT03320941|191876174|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869|-0.728|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-0.728|-1.869|<0.001
95952380|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.707||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.898|5.822|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.822|-4.898|0.865
95952381|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.765||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.235|5.716|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.716|-5.235|0.931
95769978|NCT00457002|191512206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.16||||||||1.16|0.14|
95769979|NCT00457002|191512206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.47|
95769980|NCT00457002|191512207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.29||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57||The Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors will be used at the one-sided alpha=0.025 level.|Mantel Haenszel|||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||0.57|0.01|0.0437
95769981|NCT00457002|191512208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of event rates|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.06||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.06|-0.33|
95860232|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.5|32.3|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32)||32.3|15.5|
95952382|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.433||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.817|3.82|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.820|-5.817|0.682
95952383|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.312|3.142|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.142|-6.312|0.508
95952384|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.206||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.138|9.749|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.749|-7.138|0.757
95952385|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.571|8.563|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||8.563|-8.571|0.999
95952386|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.668||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.848|10.88|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.880|-3.848|0.342
95952387|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|10.292|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.292|-4.454|0.430
95952388|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.461||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.312|6.52|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||6.520|-7.312|0.909
95952389|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.311|7.93|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.930|-6.311|0.821
95952390|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.508|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.508|-11.240|0.132
95952391|NCT03320941|191876175|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.367|0.905|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.905|-11.367|0.093
95952392|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.013||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.579|3.393|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.393|-4.579|0.769
95994950|NCT05817045|191966145|SUPERIORITY|SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test type: BinaxNOW|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.561|||||For the HR calculation Sham was taken to be the reference group, meaning a HR \> 1 is favorable for RD-X19|Subgroup Analysis - Cox proportional hazards model for time to first of two negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (with a minimum time between tests of six hours) without subsequent virological rebound (during the subject's remaining time on study) (FAS)||1.561|0.801|
95769982|NCT00457002|191512209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjustted difference of event rates|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|1.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates takes the stratification factor into consideration: previous VTE (yes, no) and active or previous cancer (yes, no).||1.33|-016|
95769983|NCT00457002|191512210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference of Event Rates|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.14||||||||2.14|-0.40|
95952393|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.462|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.630|-4.462|0.839
95952394|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.807||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.811|2.345|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.345|-4.811|0.496
95769984|NCT00457002|191512211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||||||||1.61|0.74|
95769985|NCT00457002|191512211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.66|
95769986|NCT00457002|191512220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Event rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference in event rates in MI or stroke.||0.29|-0.30|
95952395|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.774||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.622|1.402|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.402|-5.622|0.237
95952396|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.435|7.415|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.415|-5.435|0.758
95952397|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.574|6.397|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.397|-6.574|0.978
95952398|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.758|7.444|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.444|-3.758|0.512
95952399|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.792||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.552|5.657|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.657|-5.552|0.985
95952400|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.599||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.268|3.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.121|-7.268|0.428
95952401|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.669||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.853|4.812|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.812|-5.853|0.846
95952402|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.388||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.825|0.721|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.721|-8.825|0.095
95952403|NCT03320941|191876176|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|0.623|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||0.623|-8.610|0.089
95769987|NCT00457002|191512220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference of event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates for myocardial infarction.||0.30|-0.11|
95769988|NCT00457002|191512220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.12||||||Adjusted difference in event rates for stroke.||0.12|-0.32|
95769989|NCT00457002|191512220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in event rates|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28|||||stratification factor: previous VTE (yes, no), and active or previous cancer (yes, no).|Adjusted difference of event rates in thrombocytopenia.||0.28|-0.09|
95769990|NCT01234870|191512260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The MR images resulting from two different image acquisition techniques, including Non-Corrected Breath-Hold Shallow-Breathing and Motion-Corrected, were assessed independently by two radiologists (average of 7 years of experience in reading cardiac MRI) using the American Heart Association modified 16 segment model and were evaluated using a four point Likert scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = excellent) for image quality||||<0.001
95769991|NCT01262287|191512287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95769992|NCT01262287|191512288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95806060|NCT05263791|191585294|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective to prove the non-inferiority in between the Airmod and reference device is determined by the difference between AirRR and ManCRR by subjects.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t Test|||Hypothesis: airRR-mancRR ≦ -2, In the target of p\<0.05 indicates significance.||||<0.05
95860233|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.2|41.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48)||41.2|23.2|
95952404|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4808||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.106|26.985|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||26.985|-58.106|0.470
95952405|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.6316||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.187|36.501|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||36.501|-49.187|0.770
95952406|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1803||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.462|64.516|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||64.516|-11.462|0.169
95994951|NCT02207907|191966213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.317|-14.664|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-14.664|-20.317|<0.0001
95952407|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8076||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.345|25.157|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||25.157|-49.345|0.521
95952408|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.7858||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.058|55.828|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||55.828|-100.058|0.571
95994952|NCT02207907|191966214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|-0.165|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline MGI and BI as covariates|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.165|-0.237|<0.0001
95994953|NCT01025635|191966228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|study center adjusted||||||0.017
95769993|NCT01262287|191512288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95769994|NCT00300885|191512304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.915||95.0|0.94|1.41||According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 384 deaths at interim analysis (IA), one-sided alpha value for IA was 0.0046.|Log Rank||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with overall alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors as randomization|Sample size based on primary efficacy endpoint of OS. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% improvement in median OS (i.e. HR of 0.76923, Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P -Null: theta\>=1, Alternative: theta\<=0.76923). With overall one-sided alpha of 0.025, 90% power and randomization of 1:1, one formal interim analysis and one final analysis were planned using O'Brien-Fleming type error spending function, and a total of 614 events (deaths) were required.||1.41|0.94|0.915
95769995|NCT00300885|191512305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.433||95.0|0.84|1.16|||Log Rank|||Two treatment groups compared using one-sided log-rank test (Sorafenib+C/P over Placebo+C/P) with alpha of 0.025 stratified by same stratification factors at randomization||1.16|0.84|0.433
95806061|NCT05524948|191585320|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.90|-1.71|<0.0001
95952409|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.4994||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.325|56.429|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||56.429|-102.325|0.564
95952410|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.855||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.712|99.356|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||99.356|-36.712|0.359
95952411|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.4309||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.093|62.29|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||62.290|-76.093|0.842
95952412|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3259||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.417|35.836|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||35.836|-61.417|0.601
95952413|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.422||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.517|58.121|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||58.121|-39.517|0.705
95994954|NCT01025635|191966229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|with factors treatment group, study center, and baseline lesion count as covariate||||||<0.001
95806062|NCT05524948|191585321|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-569.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|97.479|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-763.11|-376.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-376.17|-763.11|<0.0001
95769996|NCT00300885|191512306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in response rate (CR+PR rate)|-3.65||||0.1015||95.0|-9.18|1.89||no adjustments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||difference in response rates (Complete Response (CR) + Partial Response (PR)) = Placebo+C/P - Sorafenib+C/P|Objective response rate (ie. CR+PR rate) was compared between treatment arms using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with one-side alpha 0.025 adjusting for same stratification factors as randomization||1.89|-9.18|0.1015
95769997|NCT02582242|191512310|OTHER||Treatment difference at week 24|-0.09||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.06|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Treatment difference at week 24: BIAsp 30 (TID) - BIAsp 30 (BID). Number of subjects contributed to the statistical analysis: N=217 for BIAsp 30 (TID) and N=213 for BIAsp 30 (BID).|The analysis was based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 6, 10, 14, 18, 22 and 26 (in week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24, respectively). The model included treatment, strata and region as fixed factors, subject as random effect, baseline HbA1c as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.06|-0.23|0.2601
95769998|NCT01637922|191512328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|118.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.06|130.32||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||130.32|107.06|0.1638
95769999|NCT01637922|191512329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|114.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.812|124.164||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.164|104.812|0.0391
95770000|NCT01637922|191512330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.243|125.922||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||125.922|99.243|0.0603
95770001|NCT01637922|191512331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.89|129.5||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||129.50|106.89|0.1424
95806063|NCT05524948|191585322|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-418.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-547.56|-290.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-290.15|-547.56|<0.0001
95806064|NCT05524948|191585322|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-108.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.626||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.66|-44.15|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-44.15|-173.66|0.0012
95806065|NCT05524948|191585322|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.909||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.64|19.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||19.29|-71.64|0.2561
95806066|NCT05524948|191585323|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-721.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|94.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-909.31|-533.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-533.86|-909.31|<0.0001
95952414|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0444||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.126|65.007|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||65.007|-23.126|0.346
95806067|NCT05524948|191585324|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-567.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-703.03|-432.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-432.75|-703.03|<0.0001
95952415|NCT03320941|191876177|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2205||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.283|28.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||28.556|-56.283|0.516
95806068|NCT05524948|191585324|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-105.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.15|-56.62|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-56.62|-154.15|<0.0001
95806069|NCT05524948|191585324|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.201||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.04|13.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||13.97|-90.04|0.1498
95806070|NCT05524948|191585325|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.77|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-1.77|-2.58|<0.0001
95952416|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.605||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.185|8.095|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.095|-6.185|0.792
95952417|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7167||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|6.623|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||6.623|-8.100|0.843
95952418|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2564||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.322|9.578|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.578|-3.322|0.339
95952419|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1859||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.764|8.856|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.856|-3.764|0.426
95994955|NCT01307423|191966232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.7|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.7|3.5|0.0062
95770002|NCT01637922|191512332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.3||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.42|123.715||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||123.715|100.420|0.0367
95770003|NCT01637922|191512333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|111.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.577|124.888||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|S-Methadone(MTD) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. S-Methadone(MTD) alone on Day 1||124.888|99.577|0.0488
95770004|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.01098|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189801|0.16864||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.168640|-0.189801|
95770005|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.10188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287471|0.092062||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and OOWS||0.092062|-0.287471|
95770006|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209893|0.148238||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.148238|-0.209893|
95770007|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189172|0.194156||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and OOWS||0.194156|-0.189172|
95770008|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.03364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214505|0.149733||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.149733|-0.214505|
95770009|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.14703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404929|0.135425||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and OOWS||0.135425|-0.404929|
95806071|NCT05524948|191585326|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-396.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-586.51|-207.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-207.41|-586.51|<0.0001
95952420|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8734||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.299|12.307|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.307|-11.299|0.932
95770010|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05431|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.240578|0.136305||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.136305|-0.240578|
95770011|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344024|0.163687||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and OOWS||0.163687|-0.344024|
95770012|NCT01637922|191512334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.36105|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and OOWS||||
95770013|NCT01637922|191512335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.1||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|138.8||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||138.80|85.14|0.1642
95770014|NCT01637922|191512336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.7||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.48|116.27||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||116.27|73.48|0.1420
95770015|NCT01637922|191512337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|108.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.1||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.611|143.883||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. BUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||143.883|81.611|0.1915
95806072|NCT05524948|191585327|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.446|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.1|-197.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-197.64|-485.10|<0.0001
95952421|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3493||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.217|10.302|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.302|-15.217|0.700
95952422|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0946||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.406|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-2.406|0.131
95952423|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.197||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.619|12.269|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||12.269|-8.619|0.727
95952424|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5876||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.342|9.999|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.999|-8.342|0.857
95770016|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13275|0.224946||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||0.224946|-0.132750|
95770017|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.39865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547072|-0.222288||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of R-methadone and SOWS||-0.222288|-0.547072|
95770018|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.11175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069336|0.284848||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.284848|-0.069336|
95770019|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.16815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34787|0.025107||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of S-methadone and SOWS||0.025107|-0.347870|
95770020|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17016|0.194417||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.194417|-0.170160|
95770021|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.02352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253932|0.29696||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of Buprenorphine and SOWS||0.296960|-0.253932|
95770022|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.05787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24392|0.132819||||||Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.132819|-0.243920|
95770023|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.04052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218159|0.293233||||||Pearson correlation of change from baseline for trough concentrations of norbuprenorphine and SOWS||0.293233|-0.218159|
95770024|NCT01637922|191512338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.92231|||||||||||||Confidence interval is not provided due to sparse data. There was only 1 patient for this analysis.|Pearson correlation of trough concentrations of naloxone and SOWS||||
95770025|NCT01637922|191512339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|138.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.7||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|195.92||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||195.92|97.20|0.6889
95770026|NCT01637922|191512340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.1||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.32|189.16||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||189.16|93.32|0.6188
95806073|NCT05524948|191585327|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-74.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.905||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.62|-32.68|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||-32.68|-115.62|0.0006
95806074|NCT05524948|191585327|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.942||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.49|79.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||79.45|-23.49|0.2834
95806075|NCT05524948|191585328|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-1.28|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as the experimental dentifrice minus the reference dentifrice.|||-1.28|-1.83|<0.0001
95806076|NCT05524948|191585329|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-322.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.778|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-457.27|-188.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.||||-188.23|-457.27|<0.0001
95952425|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7173||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.126|8.734|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.734|-10.126|0.883
95952426|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2883||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.547|7.597|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.597|-9.547|0.821
95952427|NCT03320941|191876178|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1111||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|10.706|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.706|-5.730|0.547
95806077|NCT05524948|191585330|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-250.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.838|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.35|-165.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Hydrogen Sulfide|||-165.30|-335.35|<0.0001
95806078|NCT05524948|191585330|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.439||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.05|0.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Methanethiol|||0.99|-92.05|0.0550
95860234|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|28.9|48.1|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 3-alum) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 3-alum at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72)||48.1|28.9|
95952428|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4006||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.781|11.689|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.689|-1.781|0.148
95952429|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4645||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.869|7.855|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.855|-5.869|0.775
95952430|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0432||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.826|4.229|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.229|-7.826|0.556
95952431|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0079||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.391|9.524|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.524|-2.391|0.238
95806079|NCT05524948|191585330|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.036||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.36|18.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and baseline concentration as a covariate.|For Dimethyl Sulfide|||18.99|-84.36|0.2124
95952432|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4552||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|14.774|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||14.774|-7.152|0.488
95952433|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4845||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|15.68|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||15.680|-6.363|0.400
95952434|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7651||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.525|10.626|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.626|-8.525|0.826
95952435|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7627||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.389|13.753|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||13.753|-5.389|0.384
95952436|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4636||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|14.486|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.486|-3.360|0.217
95952437|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5491||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.112|7.074|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.074|-11.112|0.659
95952438|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0556||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|3.791|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||3.791|-12.423|0.291
95952439|NCT03320941|191876179|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0035||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|10.916|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||10.916|-5.090|0.470
95952440|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2049||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.001|11.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||11.617|-9.001|0.802
95952441|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4301||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.567|8.943|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||8.943|-12.567|0.739
95952442|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7125||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.745|9.922|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.922|-8.745|0.901
95952443|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6095||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.852|14.407|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||14.407|-3.852|0.255
95952444|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5585||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.271|18.127|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.127|-16.271|0.914
95952445|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2308||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|18.07|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||18.070|-19.030|0.959
95952446|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.422||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.343|21.487|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.487|-8.343|0.380
95952447|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5174||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.986|21.228|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||21.228|-8.986|0.419
95952448|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6209||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|14.02|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||14.020|-12.450|0.906
95952449|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8489||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.195|9.187|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||9.187|-18.195|0.513
95952450|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.691|8.216|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||8.216|-16.691|0.499
95952451|NCT03320941|191876180|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9073||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.948|15.669|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.669|-7.948|0.516
95952452|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.82||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.644|226.284|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||226.284|-136.644|0.625
95952453|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.273||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.326|343.871|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||343.871|-19.326|0.079
95952454|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.062||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.493|225.617|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||225.617|-87.493|0.384
95952455|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.733||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|191.045|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||191.045|-115.580|0.627
95952456|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.879||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.244|201.003|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||201.003|-155.244|0.797
95952457|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.891||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.215|185.996|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||185.996|-160.215|0.882
95952458|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.447||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.796|114.902|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||114.902|-175.796|0.675
95952459|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.264||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.099|107.571|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||107.571|-182.099|0.607
95952460|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.822||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.131|398.775|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||398.775|-229.131|0.591
95952461|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|287.328||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.533|594.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||594.190|-19.533|0.066
95952462|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|156.017||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.963|425.997|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||425.997|-113.963|0.252
95952463|NCT03320941|191876181|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|103.135||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.287|363.556|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||363.556|-157.287|0.431
95952464|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.864|-39.251|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-39.251|-90.864|<0.001
95952465|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.848|-41.542|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-41.542|-93.848|<0.001
95952466|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.942|-47.735|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-47.735|-93.942|<0.001
95952467|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-74.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.117|-51.704|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||-51.704|-97.117|<0.001
95806080|NCT05524948|191585331|OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.87|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product and gender as a factor and Baseline overall breath organoleptic score as a covariate.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as experimental dentifrice minus reference dentifrice.|||-0.87|-1.52|<0.0001
95806081|NCT05155085|191585332|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|19.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.8|-9.8|0.4662
95806082|NCT05155085|191585333|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-32.2|0.3968
95806083|NCT05155085|191585334|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-15.2|0.7625
95806084|NCT02349477|191585367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for no heavy drinking days.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no heavy drinking days throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.028
95806085|NCT02349477|191585368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|This is the p-value output from the logistic regression model where medication group predicted the discrete variable for abstinence.||This analysis compares between Gabapentin and Placebo, the number of individuals who reported no drinking days (abstinence) throughout the entire trial, corrected for %dCDT.||||.053
95806086|NCT02349477|191585369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For the High AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.001
95806087|NCT02349477|191585369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||For the Low AWS group, a chi squared analysis compares the number of individuals with no heavy drinking days between medication groups.||||.67
95806088|NCT03253627|191585385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.460
95806089|NCT03253627|191585385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.896
95806090|NCT03253627|191585386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.374
95806091|NCT03253627|191585386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.236
95806092|NCT03253627|191585387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.180
95806093|NCT03253627|191585387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.822
95806094|NCT03253627|191585388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.715
95806095|NCT03253627|191585388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.861
95806096|NCT03253627|191585388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||.790
95806097|NCT03253627|191585389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.452
95806098|NCT03253627|191585389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.253
95952468|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|-38.013|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.013|-135.780|<0.001
95806099|NCT03253627|191585389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.469
95806100|NCT03253627|191585390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||0.628
95806101|NCT03253627|191585390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.345
95806102|NCT03253627|191585390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.384
95806103|NCT03253627|191585391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline||||.398
95806104|NCT03253627|191585391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months||||0.811
95806105|NCT03253627|191585391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.027
95806106|NCT02554474|191585396|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|19.3||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in MVPA at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline MVPA, diagnosis, and blocking.||19.3|-0.5|
95806107|NCT02554474|191585397|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|32.6||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing sedentary time at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline sedentary time, diagnosis, and blocking.||32.6|-53.4|
95952469|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-86.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.266|-37.874|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-37.874|-134.266|<0.001
95952470|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.369|-38.883|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-38.883|-123.369|<0.001
95952471|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.104|-42.669|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||-42.669|-127.104|<0.001
95952472|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.493|-20.461|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-20.461|-74.493|<0.001
95952473|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.914|-25.251|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-25.251|-80.914|<0.001
95952474|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.627|-36.937|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-36.937|-86.627|<0.001
95952475|NCT03320941|191876182|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.291|-40.713|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||-40.713|-89.291|<0.001
95952476|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.098|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.098|-4.210|0.764
95952477|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8741||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|5.001|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||5.001|-2.423|0.493
95952478|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6596||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.908|0.666|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.666|-5.908|0.117
95952479|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6349||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.056|1.421|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.421|-5.056|0.269
95860235|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.1|16.4|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 4 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 28 in 3-CpG, Week 8 in 2-CpG)||16.4|3.1|
95770027|NCT01637922|191512341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|112.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.5||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|167.67||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NORBUPRENORPHINE(BUP) alone on Day 1||167.67|74.85|0.3152
95770028|NCT01637922|191512342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|114.076||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.076|85.810|0.0107
95770029|NCT01637922|191512343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.017|114.054||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Log transformed endpoints were analyzed using an ANOVA model, including treatment as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|NALOXONE(BUP) + Faldaprevir(FDV) on Day 9 vs. NALOXONE(BUP) alone on Day 1||114.054|78.017|0.0738
95770030|NCT02282631|191512371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"U=390.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."||||||0.02
95770031|NCT02282631|191512372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=665.5 Z=-2.3 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95770032|NCT02282631|191512373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||"U=596.5 Z=-2.4 p=0.02~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95806108|NCT02554474|191585398|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing time in the Fatigue Severity Scale at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline fatigue score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.01|-0.63|
95770033|NCT02282631|191512374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"U=955.0 Z=-2.5 p=0.01~The mean and SD values are provided for descriptive purposes only."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95770034|NCT01515865|191512377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||||9.8|-37.6|0.3145
95770035|NCT00459290|191512383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7912
95770036|NCT00459290|191512384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1545|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1545
95770037|NCT00459290|191512385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0648|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0648
95770038|NCT00687271|191512386|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-5.5|-14.6|
95806109|NCT02554474|191585399|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.13||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing pain at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for pain score, diagnosis, and blocking.||-0.13|-4.78|
95952480|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1677||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.676|4.017|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.017|-0.676|0.159
95952481|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.294|7.988|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||7.988|3.294|<0.001
95952482|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0371||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.929|3.239|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.239|-0.929|0.271
95952483|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.842|2.253|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.253|-1.842|0.841
95952484|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.758|1.309|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.309|-8.758|0.144
95952485|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5906||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.055|4.302|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.302|-6.055|0.736
95952486|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3113||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|1.19|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.190|-8.051|0.143
95952487|NCT03320941|191876183|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2659||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.521|2.538|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.538|-6.521|0.383
95952488|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1543||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|2.941|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.941|-1.632|0.572
95952489|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1738||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.980|-1.670|0.578
95952490|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0479||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.124|1.028|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.028|-3.124|0.319
95952491|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0303||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|1.667|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||1.667|-2.416|0.717
95952492|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.562|1.701|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.701|-0.562|0.317
95952493|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5716||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.758|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||2.758|0.460|0.007
95770039|NCT00687271|191512386|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-12.5|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-12.5|-23.4|
95770040|NCT00687271|191512389|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.4|-12.7|
95770041|NCT00687271|191512389|OTHER||Diffence in Percentage Change|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-8.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-8.9|-18.9|
95770042|NCT00687271|191512390|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-3.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-3.9|-11.5|
95770043|NCT00687271|191512390|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-7.6|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.6|-16.8|
95770044|NCT00687271|191512391|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-4.1|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-4.1|-10.8|
95770045|NCT00687271|191512391|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.0|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||-7.0|-15.1|
95770046|NCT00687271|191512392|OTHER||Dfferecne in Percentage Change|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||1.8|-6.6|
95770047|NCT00687271|191512392|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.4|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||4.4|-5.8|
95770048|NCT00687271|191512393|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||5.9|-7.7|
95770049|NCT00687271|191512393|OTHER||Difference in Percentage Change|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||LDA model|LDA model includes factors for time, treatment, baseline triglyceride (TG) category, and time-by treatment interactions.||||16.9|-4.6|
95806110|NCT02554474|191585400|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.35||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the PHQ-9 scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||1.35|-1.78|
95806111|NCT02554474|191585401|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.18||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Partners In Health Scale scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||4.18|-1.02|
95770050|NCT02453334|191512394|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.87|0.30|0.0143
95770051|NCT02453334|191512394|OTHER||Percentage difference|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-28.01|
95770052|NCT02453334|191512396|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.50|1.19|0.0097
95770053|NCT02453334|191512396|OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|28.51||||||Percentage difference||28.51|4.19|
95770054|NCT02453334|191512397|OTHER||Percentage difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|7.45||||||||7.45|-12.85|
95770055|NCT02453334|191512397|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.60|0.43|0.5758
95770056|NCT02453334|191512398|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.56||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|0.76|0.2772
95770057|NCT02453334|191512398|OTHER||Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|16.43||||||||16.43|-5.01|
95770058|NCT02453334|191512399|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by country||||||0.0011
95770059|NCT02453334|191512400|OTHER||Percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.08||||||||9.08|-7.60|
95770060|NCT02453334|191512400|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.49|0.8924
95770061|NCT02453334|191512401|OTHER||Percentage difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.77||||||||0.77|-20.41|
95770062|NCT02453334|191512401|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country. Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||1.06|0.28|0.0740
95770063|NCT02453334|191512402|OTHER||Percentage difference|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.31|-0.91||||||||-0.91|-23.31|
95770064|NCT02453334|191512402|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation||||0.99|0.26|0.0446
95770065|NCT02453334|191512403|OTHER||Percentage difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-8.69||||||||-8.69|-30.90|
95806112|NCT02554474|191585402|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Work index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.16|-0.05|
95860236|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|10.5|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 8 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 32 in 3-CpG, Week 12 in 2-CpG)||10.5|-0.8|
95770066|NCT02453334|191512403|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.||||0.63|0.14|0.0010
95770067|NCT02453334|191512404|OTHER||Percentage difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.22|-9.51||||||||-9.51|-33.22|
95806113|NCT02554474|191585403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Sitting at Leisure index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.37|-0.37|
95806114|NCT02554474|191585404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in mean change|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.99||||||We performed an intent-to-treat analysis. For the main comparison, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate an adjusted mean difference comparing the Walking index scores at 9 weeks (primary end point) between groups, adjusting for baseline score, diagnosis, and blocking.||0.99|0.08|
95806115|NCT03511209|191585417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Compared CBTI plus Taper method A to CBTI plus Taper method B||4.64|0.98|0.056
95806116|NCT03511209|191585418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Interaction contrast of Treatment Group (CBTI plus Taper method A vs. CBTI plus Taper method B) by Time (6 Months vs. Baseline)||||1.44|-3.57|0.405
95806117|NCT02592655|191585419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.002
95806118|NCT02592655|191585419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that one windlass tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.008
95952494|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5029||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|1.362|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.362|-0.659|0.487
95952495|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4917||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|1.092|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||1.092|-0.884|0.833
95952496|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.073||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|4.752|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.752|-3.541|0.771
95952497|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.315|4.267|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||4.267|-4.315|0.991
95770068|NCT02453334|191512404|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.61||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.61|0.13|0.0009
95770069|NCT02453334|191512405|OTHER||Percentage difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.73|-4.26||||||||-4.26|-27.73|
95806119|NCT02592655|191585419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that the 10 cm wide tourniquet tape is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 18 to accommodate for missing windlass tourniquet ultrasound data."||||0.5
95806120|NCT02592655|191585419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Significance thresh hold: 0.05.|McNemar|||"Null hypothesis is that using the pneumatic tourniquet is just as likely to occlude arterial flow as using two windlass tourniquets.~Participant count of 17 to accommodate for missing ultrasound data."||||0.5
95806121|NCT02628145|191585421|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95806122|NCT02628145|191585422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
95806123|NCT02628145|191585423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.068
95770070|NCT02453334|191512405|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||0.79|0.14|0.0093
95806124|NCT02628145|191585424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
95806125|NCT02628145|191585425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
95806126|NCT02628145|191585426|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95806127|NCT02628145|191585427|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95806128|NCT02628145|191585428|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95806129|NCT02628145|191585429|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95806130|NCT02628145|191585431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95806131|NCT03000166|191585439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95806132|NCT03000166|191585440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95806133|NCT03000166|191585441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95806134|NCT03000166|191585442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95952498|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9486||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|1.732|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.732|-6.064|0.271
95952499|NCT03320941|191876184|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8889||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.986|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||2.986|-4.570|0.676
95952500|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7535||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.603|9.222|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||9.222|-9.603|0.968
95952501|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7545||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.297|7.531|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||7.531|-11.297|0.693
95952502|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2623||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.676|3.203|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||3.203|-13.676|0.222
95952503|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1637||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.648|0.841|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.841|-15.648|0.078
95952504|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0033||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.194|10.91|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||10.910|-13.194|0.850
95952505|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7919||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.676|5.58|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||5.580|-17.676|0.301
95952506|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2598||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.147|4.972|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.972|-16.147|0.293
95770071|NCT02453334|191512406|OTHER||Percentage difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|6.57||||||||6.57|-15.37|
95770072|NCT02453334|191512406|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.89|0.26|0.4786
95806135|NCT05259722|191585449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-8.86|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-8.86|-23.28|<0.001
95806136|NCT05259722|191585450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|20.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||20.78|4.34|=0.003
95952507|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2191||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.421|3.535|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||3.535|-17.421|0.189
95952508|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2441||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|15.152|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||15.152|-13.800|0.926
95952509|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5086||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.802|16.207|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||16.207|-13.802|0.873
95806137|NCT05259722|191585451|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|17.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The difference in response rates was analysed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||17.87|3.31|=0.004
95806138|NCT05259722|191585452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.20|-1.12|=0.005
95806139|NCT05259722|191585453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-0.10|-1.08|=0.018
95806140|NCT05259722|191585454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|22.86|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed as non-response. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||22.86|5.81|<0.001
95952510|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6977||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.164|7.605|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.605|-19.164|0.391
95952511|NCT03320941|191876185|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3822||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.345|5.163|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.163|-20.345|0.239
95952512|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8326||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.696|2.525|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.525|-8.696|0.278
95952513|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.859||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.639|4.686|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||4.686|-6.639|0.733
95952514|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5118||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.482|0.468|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||0.468|-9.482|0.075
96001866|NCT01845077|191981259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|103.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.6|86.8|
95770073|NCT02453334|191512407|OTHER||Percentage difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.25|4.55||||||||4.55|-19.25|
95770074|NCT02453334|191512407|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.43||The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||1.43|0.20|0.2084
95770075|NCT02453334|191512408|OTHER||Percentage difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|15.54||||||||15.54|-9.33|
95952515|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4659||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.152|2.616|||ANCOVA|||Overall Study||2.616|-7.152|0.360
95952516|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1699||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.792|4.959|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.959|-11.792|0.416
95952517|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1121||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.893|6.625|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||6.625|-9.893|0.693
95952518|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6351||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.207|4.396|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||4.396|-10.207|0.428
95770076|NCT02453334|191512408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio (95% \[CI) and P-value of treatment effect is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-squared test adjusting for country.|Placebo group was used as the denominator for odds ratio calculation.|||3.24|0.48|0.6508
95770077|NCT02453334|191512410|OTHER|||||||0.0063||||||P-value was estimated using logrank test stratified by pooled sites.|Log Rank|||||||0.0063
95770078|NCT01369030|191512471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.000
95770079|NCT06152224|191512474|EQUIVALENCE|"Power analysis was determined based on a 4.3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups.~With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, standard deviation = 3, margin = 4.3, power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05, attrition = 25 percent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.918|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.918
95770080|NCT06152224|191512479|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.801||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.801
95952519|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6414||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.113|9.515|||ANCOVA|||Dysglycemic||9.515|-5.113|0.548
95952520|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8828||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.128|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||5.128|-10.400|0.500
95952521|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9906||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.805|7.154|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||7.154|-8.805|0.837
95952522|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4818||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.556|1.368|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.368|-12.556|0.113
95952523|NCT03320941|191876186|OTHER|Dose Finding|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3512||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.361|1.041|||ANCOVA|||T2DM||1.041|-12.361|0.096
95952524|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952525|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
95952526|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS+E vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U)||||0.040
95952527|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Amygdala- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
96001867|NCT01845077|191981259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|103.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.8|90.2|
95770081|NCT06152224|191512479|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.317||||||a priori threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline||||0.317
95770082|NCT06152224|191512480|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
95770083|NCT06152224|191512480|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Pressure||||<0.001
95952528|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- Hippocampus- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.041
95952529|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus time factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning CS- vmPFC- Visit 3' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.040
95952530|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952531|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
95952532|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
95994956|NCT01307423|191966232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.5|||Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||23.5|6.1|0.0010
95994957|NCT01307423|191966233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.071|-0.265|0.0008
96001868|NCT01845077|191981259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|108.6||||||90.0|99.5|118.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||118.5|99.5|
95770084|NCT06152224|191512481|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
95770085|NCT06152224|191512481|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Vertical Displacement||||<0.001
95770086|NCT06152224|191512482|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
95770087|NCT06152224|191512482|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.|||||<|0.001||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||change from baseline in Brink Score: Duration Contraction||||<0.001
95770088|NCT06152224|191512492|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.035||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q1. The app was easy to use||||0.035
95770089|NCT06152224|191512492|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.063||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q2. It was easy for me to learn to use the app||||0.063
95806141|NCT05259722|191585455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|334.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|195.69|472.26|||ANCOVA|||The AUC was analysed using a robust ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||472.26|195.69|<0.001
95952533|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952534|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
95952535|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
95770090|NCT06152224|191512492|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.587||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q11. I would use this app again||||0.587
95806142|NCT05259722|191585456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.55|-16.36|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analysed using an ANCOVA model with effects of treatment group, hyperkeratotic/non-hyperkeratotic subtype and baseline value of the score. Missing data was imputed with WOCF. Data after initiation of rescue treatment or permanent discontinuation of IMP was treated as missing.||-16.36|-32.55|<0.001
95952536|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952537|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.027
95770091|NCT06152224|191512492|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.107||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q12. Overall, I am satisfied with this app||||0.107
95770092|NCT06152224|191512492|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was determined based on a 3 point improvement on the Vaizey score in both groups. With an allowable difference of 1 point between randomized groups, type I error level = 0.05, power = 0.8, and standard deviation of outcome of 4.||||||0.486||||||a prior threshold 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|continuous outcome||Q15. The app helped me manage my health effectively||||0.486
95770093|NCT01790984|191512493|OTHER||General linear mixed model|2.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing differences between 2 Groups on 2 Diets (NAFLD, Control,high \& low sugar diets).|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TAG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
95806143|NCT00561821|191585484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806144|NCT00561821|191585484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806145|NCT00561821|191585484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806146|NCT00561821|191585485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0146
95806147|NCT00561821|191585485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0234
95952538|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.019
95952539|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952540|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Hippocampus- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952541|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E vmPFC- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
95952542|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Amygdala- Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952543|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952544|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952545|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Amygdala-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95952546|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||RM-ANOVA. Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Hippocampus-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||>0.05
95806148|NCT00561821|191585485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0102
95952547|NCT02069366|191876196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA (SPM12, ROI small-volume corrected). Significance threshold p\<0.05, FWE-corrected.|ANOVA|RM-ANOVA with group and stimulus factors.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U vmPFC-Visit 4' in the Brain Measures outcome table. RM-ANOVA including stimulus (CS+E, CS-, CS+U).||||0.025
95952548|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95770094|NCT01790984|191512494|OTHER||General linear mixed model|11.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size for NAFLD \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B and triacylglycerol production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level) produced sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
95770095|NCT01790984|191512495|OTHER||General linear mixed model|110.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
95806149|NCT00561821|191585486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806150|NCT00561821|191585486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806151|NCT00561821|191585486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806152|NCT00561821|191585487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95806153|NCT00561821|191585487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0213
95806154|NCT00561821|191585487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0135
95806155|NCT00561821|191585488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95806156|NCT00561821|191585488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95806157|NCT00561821|191585488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806158|NCT00561821|191585489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806159|NCT00561821|191585489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806160|NCT00561821|191585489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806161|NCT00561821|191585490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806162|NCT00561821|191585490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806163|NCT00561821|191585490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806164|NCT00561821|191585491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806165|NCT00561821|191585491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806166|NCT00561821|191585491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806167|NCT00561821|191585492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806168|NCT00561821|191585492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95952549|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952550|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS-Early- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952551|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+E Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952552|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS+U Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952553|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Acquisition CS- Late- Visit 2' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952554|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952555|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Early- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952556|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS+E Late-Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952557|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction CS- Late- Visit 3' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.04
95952558|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952559|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952560|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952561|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952562|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952563|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||0.033
95952564|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952565|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952566|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Early-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95806169|NCT00561821|191585492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806170|NCT00561821|191585493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806171|NCT00561821|191585493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95952567|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+E Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95806172|NCT00561821|191585493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806173|NCT00561821|191585494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6317||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
95806174|NCT00561821|191585494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6355||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6355
95806175|NCT00561821|191585494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.7865
95806176|NCT00561821|191585495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4033||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4033
95806177|NCT00561821|191585495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4153||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.4153
95806178|NCT00561821|191585495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.6271
95952568|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS+U Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952569|NCT02069366|191876197|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Chi-square test of independence; significance threshold p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|3 (response categories) × 6 (groups) contingency table; df=10||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal CS- Late-Visit 4' in the Expectancy Ratings outcome table. Chi-square test comparing distribution of Yes/No/I don't know responses across 6 groups.||||>0.05
95952570|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Pre- Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952571|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Mid-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952572|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Extinction Learning Post-Visit 3' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952573|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952574|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95806179|NCT00561821|191585496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806180|NCT00561821|191585496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806181|NCT00561821|191585496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806182|NCT00561821|191585497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0243
95806183|NCT00561821|191585497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0242
95806184|NCT00561821|191585497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0007
95806185|NCT00561821|191585498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0199
95806186|NCT00561821|191585498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0316
95806187|NCT00561821|191585498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Pairwise comparisons on rank transformed data with effects for treatment and center, and baseline of variable as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
95806188|NCT00581100|191585507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
95806189|NCT00581100|191585507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806190|NCT00581100|191585508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].||||||<0.0001
95806191|NCT00581100|191585508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change = \[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95994958|NCT01307423|191966233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.120|-0.314|<.0001
95994959|NCT01307423|191966234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|7.7|0.0002
95994960|NCT01307423|191966234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.4|3.3|0.0063
95994961|NCT01307423|191966235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|-0.065||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.065|-0.271|0.0014
95994962|NCT01307423|191966235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.117||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||-0.117|-0.322|<.0001
95994963|NCT01307423|191966236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.38||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.01||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.01|0.75|0.0043
95806192|NCT00581100|191585509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95806193|NCT00581100|191585509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95806194|NCT00581100|191585509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806195|NCT00581100|191585509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion = \[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806196|NCT00581100|191585510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.007
95806197|NCT00581100|191585510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
95806198|NCT00581100|191585510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806199|NCT00581100|191585510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806200|NCT00581100|191585511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95806201|NCT00581100|191585511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95806202|NCT00581100|191585511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806203|NCT00581100|191585511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion =\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806204|NCT00581100|191585512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.069
95806205|NCT00581100|191585512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.006
95806206|NCT00581100|191585512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95952575|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Recall Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952576|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Pre-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952577|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Mid-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952578|NCT02069366|191876198|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Group factor at specified phase/timepoint.||This analysis corresponds to the row 'Renewal Post-Visit 4' in the SUDS outcome table. ANOVA comparing mean SUDS ratings across 6 groups at the specified phase/timepoint.||||>0.05
95952579|NCT00896389|191876199|OTHER|Association between genotypes and phenotypes were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95952580|NCT00896389|191876200|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||<|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95952581|NCT00896389|191876201|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95952582|NCT00896389|191876202|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95952583|NCT00896389|191876203|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35909607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95952584|NCT00896389|191876204|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95962102|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-15.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-15.1|-31.9|<.0001
95994964|NCT01307423|191966236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.82||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||4.82|1.55|0.0002
95994965|NCT01307423|191966237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|24.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.0|4.8|0.0037
95994966|NCT01307423|191966237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Chi-squared||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||30.7|11.3|<.0001
95770096|NCT01790984|191512496|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical approach are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
95770097|NCT01790984|191512497|OTHER||General linear mixed model|10.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables|Details of our statistical analyses are described below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||>0.05
95770098|NCT01790984|191512498|OTHER||General linear mixed model|0.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Outcome measures were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model. All outcome variables in the model analysed were part of an priori hypothesis, and for this reason were not subject to adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis was appropriate for testing the impact of 'Diet' (high and low sugar) and Group (NAFLD and Control) status on outcome variables.|Details of our statistical analyses are given below.|The sample size of the NAFDL \& Control groups was based on primary outcome measures for a trace-labelling study of VLDL kinetics (VLDL1 apo B \& TAG production rates). From the literature there was an 80% probability that our study will detect a difference in the production rates of VLDL1 apo B of 30% (α=39%), and 26% for VLDL1-TG (α=33%). A paired comparison of two diets (5% level), gave sample sizes of n=15 for each group. Note: All reported P-values were calculated.|For outcome measures for which there were four samples from each participant (pre- and post-diets, for each period), the post-diet measurements were analysed as dependent variables in a general linear mixed model, with the following fixed categorical, non-random, explanatory effects: period, treatment (low and high sugar diet), period by treatment interaction (to detect carry-over effects), liver fat level (NAFLD and Control) and treatment by liver fat level interaction. The pre-diet measurements for each period, and bodyweights (pre- and post-diets) were included as covariates in the model, with participant as a model random effect. For outcome measures for which there were two samples for each participant (post-diets; end of each dietary intervention period only), each measurement for the combined groups (NAFLD and controls), for the 2-period cross-over, were analysed in a general linear mixed model with the same fixed categorical effects and bodyweights as covariates.|||<0.05
95806207|NCT00581100|191585512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806208|NCT00581100|191585513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806209|NCT00581100|191585513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806210|NCT00581100|191585514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95994967|NCT01307423|191966238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-0.0|-10.0|0.0485
95806211|NCT00581100|191585514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95806212|NCT00581100|191585514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806213|NCT00581100|191585514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806214|NCT00581100|191585515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95952585|NCT00896389|191876205|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95806215|NCT00581100|191585515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 12||||<0.001
95806216|NCT00581100|191585515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806217|NCT00581100|191585515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||Week 24||||<0.001
95806218|NCT00581100|191585516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806219|NCT00581100|191585516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change-\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806220|NCT00581100|191585517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
95952586|NCT00896389|191876206|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95952587|NCT00896389|191876207|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05||||||Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95952588|NCT00896389|191876208|OTHER|Association between genotype and phenotype were tested using a linear mixed model, coding genotype as an independent variable with an additive genetic effect, and including age, age\^2, and sex as covariates in the model. All association analyses were run using the Mixed Models for Pedigree Analysis (MMAP) software program to account for the relatedness among study subjects. MMAP User Guide is available from http://edn.som.umaryland.edu/mmap/index.php.|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Because no P-values less than 0.05 was observed, we did not adjust them for multiple comparison to avoid false positives.||Null hypothesis: There is no association between STK39 SNP rs35929607 genotype group and phenotypes collected in this study.||||>0.05
95806221|NCT00581100|191585517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
95806222|NCT00581100|191585518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
95806223|NCT00581100|191585518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value from generalized linear models for correlated data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with treatment and visits as fixed factors. Model for proportion=\[Group visit Group\*visit\].|GEE model|||||||<0.001
95806224|NCT00581100|191585519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806225|NCT00581100|191585519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95994968|NCT01307423|191966238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and the baseline value as a covariate||||-2.8|-12.8|0.0022
95994969|NCT01307423|191966239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||0.6|-0.8|0.7696
95770099|NCT01691560|191512540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.14|0.4553
95770100|NCT01691560|191512540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.30|-0.16|0.5689
95770101|NCT01691560|191512540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.27|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.27|-0.20|0.7517
95770102|NCT01691560|191512540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.25|-0.21|0.8549
95806226|NCT00581100|191585520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806227|NCT00581100|191585520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806228|NCT00581100|191585521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806229|NCT00581100|191585521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<Table 8-14\> Change from baseline in Physician and Patient Assessment of Nail Psoriasis Activity Visual Analog Scale (VAS)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806230|NCT00581100|191585522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95994970|NCT01307423|191966239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above|ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0038
95770103|NCT01691560|191512540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-0.18|0.6685
95770104|NCT01691560|191512540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA||Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.26|0.8031
95770105|NCT01691560|191512541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0467
95770106|NCT01691560|191512541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1133
95770107|NCT01691560|191512541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2579||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.2579
95806231|NCT00581100|191585522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Adjusted change calculated from mixed-model. Model for change=\[Group visit Group\*visit baseline baseline\*visit\].|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95806232|NCT02006836|191585523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people = 0 H1: GI of pomelo for diabetic patients - GI of pomelo for healthy people \> 0 α=5%||||0.005
95806233|NCT02006836|191585524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast = 0 H1：∆g after breakfast- ∆g before breakfast \> 0 α=5%~* g of breasfast without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast.~* g of breasfast with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after breakfast - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this breakfast."||||>0.05
95770108|NCT01691560|191512541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.6149
95770109|NCT01691560|191512541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.3259
95770110|NCT01691560|191512541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|0|0.5721
95770111|NCT01691560|191512542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.69|0.04|0.0292
95770112|NCT01691560|191512542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.44|0.4484
95806234|NCT02006836|191585525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch = 0 H1：∆g after lunch - ∆g before lunch \> 0 α=5%~* g of lunch without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch.~* g of lunch with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after lunch - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this lunch."||||>0.05
95806235|NCT02006836|191585526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner = 0 H1：∆g after dinner- ∆g before dinner \> 0 α=5%~* g of dinner without pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner.~* g of dinner with pomelo=mean of 3 days of postprandial blood glucose after dinner - mean of 3 days of blood glucose before this dinner."||||>0.05
95806236|NCT02006836|191585527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: AUC||||>0.05
95806237|NCT01866150|191585533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.2||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||12.0|-9.5|0.8222
95806238|NCT01866150|191585534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.7||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.6|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.6|-6.2|0.4727
95860237|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|11.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 24 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 48 in 3-CpG, Week 28 in 2-CpG)||11.2|-0.8|
95770113|NCT01691560|191512542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.20|-0.45|0.4537
95770114|NCT01691560|191512542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0037
95770115|NCT01691560|191512542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.81|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.81|0.16|0.0040
95770116|NCT01691560|191512542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.32|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline included as covariate.|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment that negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.32|-0.32|0.9974
95770117|NCT01691560|191512543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|-5|0.8861
95770118|NCT01691560|191512543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.0641
95806239|NCT01866150|191585534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|13.1|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved DAS28 remission.||13.1|-8.0|0.6349
95806240|NCT01866150|191585535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|10.4|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 3. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||10.4|-12.1|0.8769
95806241|NCT01866150|191585535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.4||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|15.0|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at Month 6. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||15.0|-8.2|0.5649
95806242|NCT01866150|191585535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.9||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.2|||Pearson's chi-squared|||Comparison at the last visit. A two-sided Pearson's chi-squared test was used to assess the treatment difference in the participants who achieved LDA.||20.2|-0.3|0.0556
95806243|NCT01866150|191585536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 3. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.20|-0.40|0.5195
95806244|NCT01866150|191585536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at Month 6. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.12|-0.47|0.2420
95806245|NCT01866150|191585536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at the last visit. Analysis used a mixed model with month, cohort, baseline DAS28 score; cohort-by-month and cohort-by-baseline DAS28 score as fixed effects. Within-participant repeated measurements were incorporated with an unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.15|-0.45|0.3264
95806246|NCT01866150|191585538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.18|||General Linear Model|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with cohort as a factor.||-1.18|-16.44|0.0237
95994971|NCT01307423|191966240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.2|-1.6|
95806247|NCT00600704|191585543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.379|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.096|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.569|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on a two-sided alpha error of .05 and 80% power. After applying the protocol in two equal groups of 10 patients, the analysis showed that the study requires 60 patients per group. However, we decided to enroll up to 100 patients per group to allow for patient attrition or missing data, and also in order to look for differences with regards to transfusion between patient subgroups.||0.569|0.189|<0.05
95806248|NCT00600704|191585543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.129|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference between groups B and A is adjusted for age, gender, BMI and preoperative HCT, while BSA, weight, height, postoperative HCT were not included in the final model to avoid collinearity.|Null hypothesis :restrictive fluid protocol does not have any effect concerning the mean number of PRC units transfused.||1.129|0.465|<0.05
95806249|NCT02683954|191585544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality of numerical data distribution was examined by the Shapiro-Wilk. Normally distributed numerical variables were presented as mean±SD and inter-group differences were compared using unpaired t test. Skewed numerical variables were presented as median and interquartile range and between-group differences were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Ordinal data were compared using the chi-squared test for trend. Correlations among numerical variables were tested by Spearman rank correlation.||||0.05
95806250|NCT03829514|191585556|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Signal intensity data were loess normalized and normalized data were used to perform a limma t-test with empirical Bayes smoothing to standard errors|||Proteins were identified and quantified using EncyclopeDIA and visualized with Scaffold DIA using 1% false discovery thresholds at both the protein and peptide level. Protein exclusive intensity values were assessed for quality using an in-house ProteiNorm app, a tool for systematic evaluation of normalization methods, imputation of missing values and comparisons of multiple differential abundance methods . Cyclic loess normalization. The normalized data were used to perform statistical analysis using linear models for microarray data (limma) with empirical Bayes (eBayes) smoothing to the standard errors. Proteins with p-value \< 0.05 were considered significant.|||0.05
95806251|NCT01339091|191585557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.9|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||7.9|-4.6|
95806252|NCT01500135|191585561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.88||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|0.68|0.276
95806253|NCT01500135|191585562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.82||Logistic regression model with treatment, type of surgery (Peripheral Arterial Disease, Arterio Venous Graft) and current use of Clopidogrel or other similar anti-platelet drugs (yes/no) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.40|0.684
95806254|NCT01500135|191585563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value was adjusted using Hochberg's adjustment for multiplicity.|Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.8|0.7|0.684
95806255|NCT01557569|191585596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.413|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Due to skewed data, Kruskal Wallis Test was used.||||<0.05
95806256|NCT02336555|191585598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.452||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|0.172||Linear mixed model with a posterior probability evaluation for the treatment effect|Linear mixed model|One-sided p-value and a posterior probability greater than 90% that the treatment effect is less than 0.||||0.172|-1.076|0.075
95806257|NCT02336555|191585599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|2.58|||||Logistic regression model with factors for treatment \& baseline pain intensity|||2.580|0.446|
95806258|NCT00993473|191585600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Noninferiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the rate of all hypoglycemia in the Lantus group to the rate in the NPH group was \<1.15. Superiority would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was \<1. The margin for noninferiority corresponded to one-half of the 30% difference in hypoglycemia event rate considered as a clinically significant difference by American Diabetes Association 2005 Working Group on Hypoglycemia."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44|||Generalized Linear Model|"A stepwise closed testing approach was used for the primary all hypoglycemia outcome analysis to assess noninferiority and superiority sequentially."|Risk ratio between treatment groups (Lantus/NPH) estimated by Generalized Linear Model with fixed effect terms for randomization strata and treatment.|"The sample size was calculated to ensure sufficient power so that the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the Lantus /NPH ratio would not exceed 1.15 based on an expected overall rate of all hypoglycemia of 80 events per patient-year of exposure to NPH insulin and to Lantus. It was planned to randomize at least 45 and up to approximately 60 patients in each of the 2 treatment groups so that at least 70 patients would complete the 24 weeks of treatment."||1.44|0.97|
95806259|NCT01633112|191585617|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.0138|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.0138
95806260|NCT01633112|191585617|SUPERIORITY|For each of the 2 FTY720 doses, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ARRs between subjects treated with FTY720 and those treated with GA versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference between the 2 treatment arms. In order to preserve the Type I experiment-wise error rate, the null hypothesis was rejected if the observed p-value for the between-treatment comparison was less than the significance level as specified in the multiplicity adjustment procedure.||||||0.4153|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, geographical region, number of relapses in the previous year, baseline EDSS, and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count.||H01: µ FTY 0.5 mg = µ GA versus HA1: µ FTY 0.5 mg ≠µ GA H02: µ FTY 0.25 mg = µ GA versus HA2: µ FTY 0.25 mg ≠µ GA||||0.4153
95806261|NCT01633112|191585618|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
95860238|NCT04193189|191678742|SUPERIORITY||Common proportion difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|14.2|||||Common SPR proportion (expressed as percentage of participants) difference (3-CpG minus 2-CpG) with two-sided 97.5% Newcombe confidence interval stratified by sex at birth and diabetes status; Mantel-Haenszel weights were used.|Comparison of Group A 3-CpG and 2-CpG at 48 weeks post last scheduled vaccination (Week 72 in 3-CpG, Week 52 in 2-CpG)||14.2|0.7|
95860239|NCT04248491|191678800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
95994972|NCT01307423|191966240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.0|-1.4|
95770119|NCT01691560|191512543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1831||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||5|0|0.1831
95806262|NCT01633112|191585618|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for treatment, geog. region, age, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||<0.0001
95806263|NCT01633112|191585620|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||<0.0001
95806264|NCT01633112|191585620|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA with covariates: adjusted for treatment, age, region, number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline T2 lesion volume.||||||0.0060
95994973|NCT01307423|191966241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-2.78|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-2.78|-7.04|
95994974|NCT01307423|191966241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.51|||||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-3.51|-7.78|
95770120|NCT01691560|191512543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.0871
95860240|NCT04248491|191678801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95860241|NCT04248491|191678803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
95860242|NCT04248491|191678805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
95860243|NCT04248491|191678806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
95860244|NCT04248491|191678807|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95860245|NCT04248491|191678808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
95860246|NCT04248491|191678809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
95860247|NCT04248491|191678810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
95860248|NCT04248491|191678811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.472
95770121|NCT01691560|191512543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-10|0.1690
95770122|NCT01691560|191512543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric test|Difference is First named treatment minus Second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0|-5|0.3829
95806265|NCT01633112|191585621|OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses .||||||0.0167
95952589|NCT02995733|191876225|SUPERIORITY|Asthma exacerbation rates during follow-up between two randomized treatment arms are compared using the Andersen-Gill adaptation of time-to-event Cox proportional hazard model with robust standard errors to account for multiple occurrences of the outcome in each patient (Andersen Gill, 1982). This analysis is based on intention-to-treat (ITT) patient population.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Pre-specified baseline covariates are adjusted in the model. A time-dependent covariate for the COVID pandemic is also included in adjustments.||||0.999|0.720|0.048
95770123|NCT01691560|191512544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.80|-0.74|0.9421
95806266|NCT01633112|191585621|OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||negative binomial regression model|adjusted for treatment, age, geog. region, baseline T2 lesion count, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count, and the number of previous year relapses.||||||0.0011
95952590|NCT02995733|191876226|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ACT change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
95952591|NCT02995733|191876227|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model is used to compare the treatment effects. The response variable is ASUI change at each monthly assessment from baseline. The covariates (included as fixed effects) include randomized treatment arm, continuous time of assessment as a linear and quadratic term and the interactions of the treatment arm with the time variables. Independent random effects include intercept and time variables. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|0.02|
95952592|NCT02995733|191876228|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial regression model is used, with time as an offset to account for differential duration of follow-up. The model adjusts for all the baseline covariates included in the primary analysis.|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||||||||0.95|0.67|
95952593|NCT02720198|191876235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|4.836|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.836|-2.518|0.53
95952594|NCT02720198|191876236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|2.388|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.388|0.101|0.428
95770124|NCT01691560|191512544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.60|-0.90|0.6918
95770125|NCT01691560|191512544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.13||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.88|-0.63|0.7421
95952595|NCT02720198|191876237|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.724||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.866|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.866|0.109|0.272
95952596|NCT02720198|191876238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.484|2.236|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.236|-3.484|0.664
95806267|NCT01633112|191585622|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0052
95806268|NCT01633112|191585622|OTHER|||||||0.0636|||||||ANCOVA|ranked ANCOVA with covariates: treatment, region, age, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion volume, and number ofrelapses experienced in the previous year.||||||0.0636
95806269|NCT01633112|191585623|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0011
95952597|NCT02720198|191876239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.199||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|6.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.750|-2.070|0.292
95952598|NCT02720198|191876240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.971|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.971|0.380|0.884
95952599|NCT02720198|191876241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.129|0.245|0.905
95952600|NCT02720198|191876242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.211|4.492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.492|-1.211|0.254
95952601|NCT02720198|191876243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|0.134|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.134|-7.520|0.058
95770126|NCT01691560|191512544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.94|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.94|-0.58|0.6433
95770127|NCT01691560|191512544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.67|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.67|-0.86|0.8010
95770128|NCT01691560|191512544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.03|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.03|-0.48|0.4692
95770129|NCT01691560|191512545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.16|-0.55|0.4797
95770130|NCT01691560|191512545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.29|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.29|-1.37|0.2023
95770131|NCT01691560|191512545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.39|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.39|-1.29|0.2917
95770132|NCT01691560|191512545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.85||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.69|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.69|0.00|0.0503
95806270|NCT01633112|191585623|OTHER|||||||0.0146||||||adjusted for treatment, region, age, proper baseline T1 lesion variable, baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesion count and number of previous year relapses.|Regression, Logistic|pair-wise comparisons between treatment groups using a logistic regression model.||||||0.0146
95806271|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95770133|NCT01691560|191512545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.76||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.61|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||1.61|-0.09|0.0811
95770134|NCT01691560|191512545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.93|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and Schiff stratification as factors and baseline VRS as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for treatments in comparison.||0.93|-0.75|0.8322
95770135|NCT02074358|191512552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|425.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|219.8|630.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||630.7|219.8|<0.001
95806272|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806273|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806274|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806275|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806276|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Global Satisfaction (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806277|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806278|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806279|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806280|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806281|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95770136|NCT02074358|191512552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|90.6||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|212.4||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for any secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||212.4|-31.3|0.131
95770137|NCT02074358|191512553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.3||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for other secondary endpoints since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for this first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|TGA Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.30|-0.73|0.389
95770138|NCT02074358|191512553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.16||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Lag Time. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.06|-0.38|0.142
95770139|NCT02074358|191512553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.35||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.52||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.52|-0.81|0.200
95770140|NCT02074358|191512553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|4.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|6.44||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Time to Peak. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||6.44|2.80|<0.001
95770141|NCT02074358|191512554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|21.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|37.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||37.2|4.9|0.014
95806282|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Effectiveness (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806283|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806284|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95952602|NCT02720198|191876244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.158||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.559|4.088|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.088|-4.559|0.913
95994975|NCT01307423|191966242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.25|-0.67|<0.0001
95952603|NCT02720198|191876245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.623|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.623|-2.540|0.660
95952604|NCT03897075|191876251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00311
95952605|NCT03897075|191876252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00079|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.00079
95952606|NCT03897075|191876253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09892|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.09892
95952607|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.687
95994976|NCT01307423|191966242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
95994977|NCT01307423|191966243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.87|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||2.87|-0.63|
95806285|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0005
95806286|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0051
95806287|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806288|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Side Effects (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0051
95806289|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806290|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806291|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 6): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.0068
95806292|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806293|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||<0.0001
95806294|NCT01633112|191585624|OTHER|||||||0.4595|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Convenience (Month 12): p-values for within treatment comparison from baseline||||||0.4595
95806295|NCT01633112|191585625|OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1045
95806296|NCT01633112|191585625|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||ANCOVA|rank ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, region, age, the number of relapses experienced in the previous year, and baseline normalized brain volume||||||0.1358
95806297|NCT01959919|191585626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.907||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between ease of using clotting factor treatment score at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||||0.000
95952608|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.384
95952609|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 1||||0.597
95952610|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.860
95952611|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||0.032
95952612|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 3||||0.026
95806298|NCT01959919|191585627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.411|5.733|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between time for reconstructing the drug at Final visit (Month 8) and baseline visit||5.733|3.411|0.000
95806299|NCT01959919|191585628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.789||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between burden of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
95806300|NCT01959919|191585629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.98||||0|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between impact of clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.000
95806301|NCT01959919|191585630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.445||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||Comparison between risk associated with clotting factor treatment score at Final Visit Month 8 and baseline visit||||0.001
95806302|NCT01887600|191585679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.48|58.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Please note Odds Ratio and CI are shown in percentages.|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was adjusted by region, history of of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular or thromboembolic (CV) disease, baseline Hb and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was to be declared if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the CMH odds ratio was higher than 1.||58.93|20.48|<0.001
95806303|NCT01887600|191585680|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.692|||<|0.001||95.0|1.52|1.86|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with Multiple Imputations (MI) model, adjusting for covariates was used for the analysis. The model included treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) was higher than 0.||1.86|1.52|<0.001
95806304|NCT01887600|191585681|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline Hb by visit interaction as continuous covariates.||1.78|1.41|<0.001
95854633|NCT02260934|191668867|SUPERIORITY|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||||||||||||Regression, Logistic|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms||Week 0 to Week 96 The modified intent to treat population includes all randomized participants who received 1 dose of Solumedrol, 1 dose of rituximab, 1 dose of cyclophosphamide, and, if in the Rituximab/Cyclophosphamide/Belimumab (RCB) arm, 1 dose of belimumab.|P-value could not be produced because of zero count in at least one of the treatment arms|||
95952613|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Month 6||||0.172
95952614|NCT04468633|191876264|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1||||0.010
95952615|NCT04468633|191876268|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.759
95952616|NCT04468633|191876269|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.603
95952617|NCT04468633|191876278|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.833
95952618|NCT00422162|191876289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. A priori alpha threshold was 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple testing.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment for MDD) and MADRS baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as the main factor.||||||0.88
95952619|NCT00422162|191876299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95952620|NCT00422162|191876299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.001
95952621|NCT00422162|191876299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95952622|NCT00422162|191876299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline (within group)|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
95952623|NCT00872339|191876305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95770142|NCT02074358|191512554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|0.8||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.8|-13.5|0.076
95770143|NCT02074358|191512555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. A hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with the primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||5.6|-5.6|0.996
95770144|NCT02074358|191512555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.6||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
95806305|NCT01887600|191585682|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of roxadustat versus placebo was considered successful if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between treatment arms (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 0.|Least squares mean difference|-0.701|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.83|-0.57||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects during the period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR and baseline LDL as continuous variables.||-0.57|-0.83|<0.001
95806306|NCT01887600|191585683|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.33||Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates. Superiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.0.||0.33|0.17|<0.001
95806307|NCT01887600|191585684|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.127|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.44||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.44|-0.19|=0.093
95806308|NCT01887600|191585685|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.713|||=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.98||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences. Tested using a fixed sequence testing procedure to maintain the overall two-sided type I error rate at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures has been applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms and overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 12 to 28). The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.98|-0.56|=0.27
95854634|NCT02260934|191668868|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.66||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 24||||0.66
95854635|NCT02260934|191668868|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.65||||||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 48|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.|||0.65
95860249|NCT04248491|191678813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
95952624|NCT00872339|191876307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95962103|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-22.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-22.9|-39.5|<.0001
95962104|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-9.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-9.7|-27.6|<.0001
95770145|NCT02074358|191512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.12||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model that included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.12|-2.16|<0.001
95770146|NCT02074358|191512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
95770147|NCT02074358|191512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.89||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.89|-3.30|<0.001
95770148|NCT02074358|191512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.2||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|PT (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-1.20|-2.59|<0.001
95806309|NCT01887600|191585686|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and placebo (roxadustat minus placebo) is below 2 mmHg.|Least squares mean difference|0.842|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.08||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms with overall mean effects throughout the evaluation period (weeks 20 to 28). The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline MAP, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||2.08|-0.40|=0.182
95806310|NCT01887600|191585687|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3 (hazard ratio).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||2.16|0.77|=0.334
95806311|NCT01887600|191585688|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Annualized eGFR slope over time was estimated by a random slopes and intercepts model using all available eGFR values adjusted on baseline Hb, region, CV history at Baseline and the interaction terms.||1.75|-0.57|=0.316
95952625|NCT02006641|191876309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.92||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.92|-1.10|1.000
95952626|NCT02006641|191876309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.65||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.65|-0.38|0.2223
95994978|NCT01307423|191966243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||4.31|0.80|
95994979|NCT01307423|191966244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.65|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||3.65|0.28|
95952627|NCT02006641|191876310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.46||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.46|-1.11|1.000
95962105|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-6.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-6.8|-24.7|0.0006
95962106|NCT04832971|191896102|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-13.8|-31.4|<.0001
95770149|NCT02074358|191512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|8.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.29|10.66||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|aPTT. The ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using a mixed effect model and included treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||10.66|6.29|<0.001
95806312|NCT01887600|191585689|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.84||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 28 to 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 28 to 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.84|1.44|<0.001
95806313|NCT01887600|191585690|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.82||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 44 to 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 44 to 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.39|<0.001
95806314|NCT01887600|191585691|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Level of Hb Over Weeks 96 to 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits over weeks 96 to 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.85|1.14|<0.001
95806315|NCT01887600|191585692|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|19.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.98|30.15|||Regression, Cox|||Time to Achieve the First Hb Response. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||30.15|11.98|<0.001
95806316|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.396|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.5||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 1. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||0.50|0.29|<0.001
95806317|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.938|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 2. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.07|0.81|<0.001
95806318|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.471|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.64||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 4. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.64|1.30|<0.001
95806319|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.827|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.02||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 6. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.02|1.64|<0.001
95854636|NCT02260934|191668869|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.64||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 24 Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.64
95806320|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.25||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 8. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.25|1.87|<0.001
95806321|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.14||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 10. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.14|1.75|<0.001
95806322|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.28||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 12. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.28|1.90|<0.001
95806323|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.24||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 14. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to Week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.24|1.86|<0.001
95806324|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.19||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 16. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.19|1.79|<0.001
95806325|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.841|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.05||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 18. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.05|1.64|<0.001
95806326|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.824|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.04||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 20. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||2.04|1.61|<0.001
95806327|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.651|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.87||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 22. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.87|1.43|<0.001
95806328|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.67||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 24. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.67|1.23|<0.001
95806329|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 28. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.34|<0.001
95806330|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.587|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 32. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.37|<0.001
95806331|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.92||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb Change from BL to week 36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.92|1.46|<0.001
95806332|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.88||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 40. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.88|1.41|<0.001
95854637|NCT02260934|191668869|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.37||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 48||||0.37
95806333|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.699|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 44. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.45|<0.001
95770150|NCT02074358|191512556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.32||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|aPTT. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||3.32|1.28|<0.001
95806334|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.446|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.69||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 48. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.69|1.20|<0.001
95806335|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.89||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.89|1.39|<0.001
95806336|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.91||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 56. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit.The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.91|1.37|<0.001
95806337|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.634|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.94||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 60. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.94|1.33|<0.001
95952628|NCT02006641|191876310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.33||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||1.33|-1.27|1.000
95952629|NCT02006641|191876311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.10|-0.23|1.000
95994980|NCT01307423|191966244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.41|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||5.41|2.02|
95994981|NCT01307423|191966245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|28.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||28.6|10.5|
95806338|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 64. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.73|1.08|<0.001
95854638|NCT02260934|191668869|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||Week 96||||0.32
95994982|NCT01307423|191966245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|27.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||27.2|9.2|
95994983|NCT01307423|191966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.5|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.5|-10.6|
95994984|NCT01307423|191966246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||-0.7|-10.8|
95994985|NCT01307423|191966247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.0|
95994986|NCT01307423|191966247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.2|-1.6|
95770151|NCT02074358|191512557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.13||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.130|-0.266|<0.001
95770152|NCT02074358|191512557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.111||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Neoplastin CI+). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.111|-0.229|<0.001
95770153|NCT02074358|191512557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.173||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.173|-0.305|<0.001
95770154|NCT02074358|191512557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|-0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|-0.11||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|INR (Recombiplastin 2G). ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||-0.110|-0.242|<0.001
95806339|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.82||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change From BL to week 68. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.82|1.18|<0.001
95806340|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 72. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.10|<0.001
95994987|NCT01307423|191966248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.3|-1.7|
95994988|NCT01307423|191966248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.4|
95994989|NCT01307423|191966249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-2.84|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.84|-7.31|
95994990|NCT01307423|191966249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-2.89|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.89|-7.38|
95994991|NCT01307423|191966250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance (Ancova) model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.23|-0.70|<0.0001
95994992|NCT01307423|191966250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.69|0.0001
95994993|NCT01307423|191966251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.93|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.93|-0.68|
95770155|NCT02074358|191512558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.239||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.146||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the first secondary endpoint (TGA lag time).|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.146|-0.625|0.204
95806341|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.54||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 76. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.54|0.83|<0.001
95806342|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 80. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|1.11|<0.001
95806343|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.374|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 84. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.75|0.99|<0.001
95806344|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.55||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 88. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.55|0.79|<0.001
95770156|NCT02074358|191512558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect models|-0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.048||In the hierarchical analysis, no statistical inferences were drawn from the analysis results for this secondary endpoint since a non-significant treatment difference was observed for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Anti-Xa Activity. ETP change from pre-PCC baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model, including treatment, sequence, and period as main effects. Hierarchical analysis was conducted with comparisons beginning with primary endpoint and continuing through secondary endpoints (ETP; TGA lag time; TGA time to peak; TGA peak; TGA velocity index; PT; INR; aPTT; AXA). If resulting p-value was \< 0.05, then the next comparison of interest was made until p\>0.05 at which point, comparisons ended.||0.048|-0.389|0.114
95770157|NCT02074358|191512568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.111|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A, and Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.111|0.972|
95770158|NCT02074358|191512568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.112|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.112|0.938|
95806345|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 92. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.78|0.98|<0.001
95854639|NCT02260934|191668870|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.91||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 96||||0.91
95994994|NCT01307423|191966251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.15|||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.15|0.52|
95854640|NCT02260934|191668871|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.73||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||.73
95854641|NCT02260934|191668871|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.26||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.26
95854642|NCT02260934|191668871|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||||0.29||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 96||||0.29
95854643|NCT02260934|191668872|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 24||||>0.99
95854644|NCT02260934|191668873|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.49||||||2 sided test|Fisher Exact|2 sided test||Week 0 to Week 48||||0.49
95806346|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.563|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.97||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 96. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.97|1.15|<0.001
95770159|NCT02074358|191512570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.087|||||Treatment B versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment B versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.087|0.955|
95770160|NCT02074358|191512570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed effect model|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.102|||||Treatment C versus Treatment A|Analysis used a linear mixed effect model including treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and within-participant measurements as repeated measures. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for ratios of geometric means on the original scale between each PCC treatment and placebo (ie, Treatment C versus Treatment A). No adjustment was made for multiplicity.||1.102|0.940|
95770161|NCT00507455|191512604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|2.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.37|-14.67|
95806347|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.83||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 100. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.83|1.06|<0.001
95806348|NCT01887600|191585693|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.347|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.79||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hb change from BL to week 104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms by visit. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.79|0.90|<0.001
95806349|NCT01887600|191585694|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.614|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.81||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 28-36. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 36. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 28 to 36 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.42|<0.001
95952630|NCT02006641|191876311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.21||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) at Week 24 had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Overall, type 1 error was controlled at 5% by multiplicity adjustment. Testing of the doses was done in a gated manner, first testing 30 mg at a 5% significance level, and only if found efficacious, then moving on to 10 mg.||0.21|-0.12|1.000
95952631|NCT00321672|191876333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0967||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the average percent change in NPRS scores from baseline to weeks 2-12 between the total control and total NGX-4010 groups. The ratio of means between the 30- and 60-minute control group \[1.57 (90% CI: 1.12-2.35)\] was \> than the pre-specified equivalence margin ratio of 80-125%. Hence, the control groups could not be pooled and comparisons were performed between the 30- and 60-minute NGX-4010 groups and their respective control groups.||||0.0967
95952632|NCT00321672|191876333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4884
95952633|NCT00321672|191876333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1031||95.0||||All stastical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.1031
95854645|NCT02260934|191668875|SUPERIORITY|2 sided test||||||0.89||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.89
95952634|NCT00321672|191876334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0831||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 in the absolute change in NPRS scores from Baseline during Weeks 2-12."||||0.0831
95952635|NCT00321672|191876334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.4680
95770162|NCT00507455|191512604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in PdetQmax.|LS Mean Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|3.84|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.84|-13.85|
95770163|NCT00507455|191512606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.85|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||2.85|0.50|
95770164|NCT00507455|191512606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec for Qmax, then the treatment is non-inferior to the placebo in Qmax.|LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.37|||||Least squares (LS) means were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the site and treatment group as the factors and the baseline value as the covariate.|A hierarchical step-down procedure was used to control for multiplicity. The comparison between solifenacin 6 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated, solifenacin 9 mg + tamsulosin 0.4 mg was then compared to placebo. If the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further testing was performed. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of 1-sided 2.5%.||3.37|0.98|
95770165|NCT06110494|191512662|OTHER|Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log10 transformed CFU reduction data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||||0.05||||||Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test of log 10 transformed data to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness of Fer/H2O2 in comparison with the negative (saline) and positive (NaOCl) controls with P values set at \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size estimate was calculated in Pass Software 2021, using a test that compares the ratio of two means from independent samples using data that has been log-normalized. An alpha of 0.05 and power of 80% was assumed, with means and standard deviations pulled from previous studies that employed similar methodology. This produced a required sample size of 16 for each group. Pairwise comparisons were done using Mann-Whitney U test to compare the antimicrobial effectiveness.||||0.05
95770166|NCT02046005|191512741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.51||We compared the PRE-RA group (PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm combined) to the Comparison arm for the primary composite outcome at the 3 primary post-intervention time points using generalized estimating equations (GEE).|generalized estimating equations||PRE-RA group (combined PRE-RA arm and PRE-RA Plus arm) compared to Comparison arm (reference)|"In the primary analysis, we combined the PRE-RA and PRE-RA Plus arms into a single PRE-RA group and compared it to the Comparison arm (aka General Rheumatoid Arthritis Education)"||1.51|1.01|0.043
95770167|NCT00468481|191512761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|384.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|282.42|486.98|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (RBC folate) as covariate|Difference = DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the RBC folate levels at week 24 was 0.||486.98|282.42|<0.0001
95854646|NCT02260934|191668875|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.47||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.47
95854647|NCT02260934|191668875|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.94||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.94
95854648|NCT02260934|191668876|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.08||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.08
95952636|NCT00321672|191876334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0896||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Treatment differences were compared by a gender stratified analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with Baseline pain score as the only covariate.||||||0.0896
95962107|NCT04832971|191896103|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
95770168|NCT00468481|191512762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.04|23.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and Baseline (plasma folate) as covariate|Difference =DRSP/EE/MTHF - YAZ|The null hypothesis was that the difference between DRSP/EE/MTHF and Yaz treatment groups in the plasma folate levels at week 24 was 0.||23.70|14.04|<0.0001
95770169|NCT05656534|191512844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.20|.19
95770170|NCT05656534|191512845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.38|||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures analysis of variable with session (pre-treatment vs. post-treatment) as a within-subjects variable and treatment arm as a between-subjects variable. Standardized residual scores reflecting startle reactivity to unpredictable threat (\> no-threat) was the dependent variable.||1.38|0.07|0.03
95806350|NCT01887600|191585695|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.594|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.81||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to average Hb weeks 44-52. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 52. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 44 to 52 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.81|1.38|<0.001
95806351|NCT01887600|191585696|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.452|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from BL to average Hb weeks 96-104. A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 104. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 96 to 104 period based on this MMRM model. The model included treatment arm, region, CV history, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||1.80|1.10|<0.001
95770171|NCT05656534|191512846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
95770172|NCT05656534|191512847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA modeling session (pre. vs. post) by treatment arm||A session (pre vs. post) by treatment arm (suvorexant vs. placebo) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The effect of session was then probed within each treatment arm.||1.20|-0.01|<.05
95770173|NCT02110758|191512861|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Access composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.025
95770174|NCT02110758|191512861|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Affective Communication composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.69
95806352|NCT01887600|191585700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945|||=|0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.20|0.74|=0.643
95806353|NCT01887600|191585702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Regression, Cox|||Time to start rescue therapy within first 24 weeks. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.23|0.08|<0.001
95806354|NCT01887600|191585703|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.343|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.55|0.21|<0.001
95806355|NCT01887600|191585704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.045|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.01|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied including treatment as fixed factor, region and history of CV disease as class factors and baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||0.01|-0.10|=0.128
95806356|NCT01887600|191585705|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.429|||=|0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|4.95|||ANCOVA|||The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied included treatment arm, region, CV history as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline eGFR as continuous variables.||4.95|-25.81|=0.183
95806357|NCT01887600|191585706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.17|0.06|<0.001
95806358|NCT01887600|191585707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||0.99|0.29|=0.045
95952637|NCT00321672|191876335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||"The null hypothesis was: There is no difference between the total Control and total NGX-4010 group in the Proportion of Subjects Reaching 30% Decrease in Their Mean Average Pain for the Past 24 Hours NPRS Score From Baseline During Weeks 2 to 12."||||0.0662
95952638|NCT00321672|191876335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5582||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.5582
95952639|NCT00321672|191876335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0553||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. No multiplicity adjustments were made.|Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression analysis, with the Baseline NPRS score and gender as covariates, was performed.||||||0.0553
95770175|NCT02110758|191512861|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Shared Decision-Making composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
95952640|NCT03905512|191876416|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was tested at a level of 0.05.||||||0.181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.181
95860250|NCT04661579|191678839|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|35.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 1 and 4. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||54.2|10.3|0.009
95806359|NCT01887600|191585716|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.374|||=|0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.4||LSM Difference p-value is for test of differences.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The Mixed Model of Repeated Measures included treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||1.40|-0.65|=0.475
95860251|NCT04661579|191678840|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|-24.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|22.2|||Wald test||Vaccine efficacy (VE) is defined as the percent reduction in the hazard, i.e. one minus the hazard ratio (HR, RTS,S/AS01E Vaccine vs. Rabies vaccine).|Vaccine efficacy against the first PCR-positive P. falciparum infection among adults who were P. falciparum positive at baseline was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression model with a covariate for group assignment to compare Groups 2 and 5. HIV status, Age (tertiles), and sleep under a bednet were included as covariates.||22.2|-97|0.369
95860252|NCT01727024|191678883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||0.451
95860253|NCT03051178|191678899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.|ANOVA|||TRS scores measured across different stimulation conditions were assessed using a mixed model ANOVA with the participant as a random effect. All post-hoc comparisons were Bonferroni corrected.||||<0.01
95860254|NCT02395081|191678926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||SBP wk 16-20|ANOVA|||||||0.70
95860255|NCT02395081|191678928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95860256|NCT02395081|191678929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
95860257|NCT02395081|191678931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95806360|NCT01887600|191585717|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.704|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.38||LSM difference p-value is for test of differences|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The model includes treatment, visit (week 8, week 12 and week 28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates. Baseline FACT-An Ans is defined as the FACT-An Ans value on day 1.||3.38|0.02|=0.047
95860258|NCT02395081|191678932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95860259|NCT02395081|191678933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
95860260|NCT02395081|191678934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95952641|NCT00645411|191876428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay||1.01|0.72|
95860261|NCT02395081|191678935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95860262|NCT02395081|191678936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95860263|NCT04625101|191678938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4326
95860264|NCT02721966|191678943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
95860265|NCT02721966|191678943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||6.10|2.41|<.0001
95860266|NCT02721966|191678944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"||7.01|2.72|<.0001
95952642|NCT00645411|191876428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in postvaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs(cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.72|0.49|
95860267|NCT02721966|191678945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.67|<.0001
95860268|NCT02721966|191678945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.84|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|9.84|3.20|<.0001
95860269|NCT02721966|191678946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|8.33|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|8.33|2.43|<.0001
95994995|NCT01307423|191966252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|15.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||15.5|-10.2|
95860270|NCT02721966|191678946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|10.21|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables|10.21|3.04|<.0001
95952643|NCT00645411|191876428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV ) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.68|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against influenza B strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||0.68|0.46|
95770176|NCT02110758|191512861|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Patient Self-Management composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.85
95770177|NCT02110758|191512861|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Exchanging Information composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.013
95770178|NCT02110758|191512861|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Overall Rating of Treatment Team composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||.053
95770179|NCT02110758|191512863|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.2
95770180|NCT02110758|191512863|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Emergency Department (ED) Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month ED Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.62
95770181|NCT02110758|191512863|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.68
95770182|NCT02110758|191512863|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).||||0.03
95806361|NCT01887600|191585718|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.086|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model of Repeated Measures was applied using the visits up to week 28. The results were based on the estimated difference between the two treatment arms overall mean effect during week 12 to 28 period based on this MMRM model.The model includes treatment, visit (week8, week12 and week28), visit by treatment interaction, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Total Score, baseline Hb, baseline eGFR as continuous covariates.||5.46|-1.29|=0.225
95994996|NCT01307423|191966252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|29.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||29.8|4.2|
95994997|NCT01307423|191966253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|20.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.4|-7.8|
95770183|NCT01164579|191512874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) Mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.31||2-sided p-value; alpha equals (=) 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.31|-1.58|0.2696
95770184|NCT01164579|191512874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|0.41||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.41|-1.46|0.3561
95806362|NCT01887600|191585729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Time to doubling of serum Creatinine. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.32|0.75|=0.973
95770185|NCT01164579|191512875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.58|-2.52|0.0089
95770186|NCT01164579|191512875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha= 0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||-0.76|-2.72|0.0038
95770187|NCT01164579|191512876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.69|-1.19|0.6576
95770188|NCT01164579|191512876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.74||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.74|-1.09|0.7565
95854649|NCT02260934|191668876|SUPERIORITY|Week 48||||||0.11||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.11
95994998|NCT01307423|191966253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|16.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||16.4|-12.6|
95770189|NCT01164579|191512876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.01|-1.89|0.1038
95770190|NCT01164579|191512876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|-0.04||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.04|-1.98|0.0868
95770191|NCT01164579|191512876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-2.62|0.0103
95770192|NCT01164579|191512876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.55|-1.53|0.4350
95770193|NCT01164579|191512877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.56|-1.36|0.4890
95770194|NCT01164579|191512877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||1.02|-0.85|0.8817
95770195|NCT01164579|191512877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.27|-2.21|0.0351
95806363|NCT01887600|191585730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||Time to CKD progression. Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.30|0.76|=0.972
95806364|NCT01887600|191585731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression stratifying on CV history and region and adjusting on Hb and eGFR at baseline as continuous covariates.||1.16|0.70|=0.439
95806365|NCT03688139|191585733|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
95806366|NCT03688139|191585733|OTHER|This analysis tested whether the course of LPP was associated with the course of BADS over the 9-week treatment period in the Engage group.|Slope|0.03||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.14
95806367|NCT03688139|191585734|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
95806368|NCT03688139|191585735|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.03||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.69
95806369|NCT03688139|191585736|SUPERIORITY||difference in slopes|-0.45||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.39
95806370|NCT03688139|191585737|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in LPP for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|-0.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
95806371|NCT03688139|191585737|OTHER|This analysis tested the hypothesis that change in SHAPS for each assessment interval would predict severity of anhedonia at the next assessment in Engage but not in Supportive Therapy.|difference in slopes|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.96
95806372|NCT00420056|191585741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4854|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4854
95806373|NCT00420056|191585742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7090
95770196|NCT01164579|191512877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.37|-2.28|0.0231
95770197|NCT01164579|191512877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-1.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.08|-3.13|0.0008
95770198|NCT01164579|191512877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|-1.25||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-1.25|-3.32|0.0003
95770199|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.19|-0.96|0.2689
95770200|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||0.57|-0.58|0.9935
95770201|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.01||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.01|-1.15|0.1086
95770202|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.49||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.49|-0.66|0.8092
95770203|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.12|-1.29|0.0463
95806374|NCT00420056|191585745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.0638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0449|0.1726||||||FLT-PET response versus Objective response||0.1726|-0.0449|
95806375|NCT00420056|191585745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.1864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2316|0.6045||||||FDG-PET response versus Objective response||0.6045|-0.2316|
95806376|NCT00420056|191585759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Ki-67||||0.5954
95806377|NCT00420056|191585759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus Cyclin D1||||0.1286
95806378|NCT00420056|191585759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus phospho-Rb||||0.0956
95806379|NCT00420056|191585759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FLT-PET SUVmax||||0.2800
95806380|NCT00420056|191585759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentration versus FDG-PET SUVmax||||0.4921
95854650|NCT02260934|191668876|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.05||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.05
95770204|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.25|0.0624
95770205|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.69|-1.90|0.0005
95770206|NCT01164579|191512878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|-0.65||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.65|-1.87|0.0008
95770207|NCT01164579|191512879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
95770208|NCT01164579|191512879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
95770209|NCT01164579|191512879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
95770210|NCT01164579|191512879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
95770211|NCT01164579|191512880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.71|-1.68|0.5019
95770212|NCT01164579|191512880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|0.14||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.14|-2.28|0.1462
95806381|NCT02470377|191585768|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0439||||||Only p-values \<0.05 were considered significant|ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate DHI changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0439
95806382|NCT02470377|191585769|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.0316|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate MBRS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.0316
95806383|NCT02470377|191585770|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesis was that either Target 1 (Occipital) or Target 2 (Vermis) would be more effective than the control target (Cerebellar hemisphere) but that there may be baseline differences in participants who chose Target 1 vs Target 2.||||||0.1754|||||||ANOVA|One way ANOVA, immediate HADS changes used for calculation.||This was an N-of-1 pilot study in which all participants received one session of each of 3 targets and chose which of the 3 led to the most acute reduction in intensity of rocking. The participants were treated with the target that they chose and then completed post stimulation diaries.||||0.1754
95806384|NCT02539394|191585812|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.394
95806385|NCT02539394|191585812|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.017
95770213|NCT01164579|191512880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.72|-1.74|0.4900
95770214|NCT01164579|191512880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.76|-0.27||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.27|-2.76|0.0459
95770215|NCT01164579|191512881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
95770216|NCT01164579|191512881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
95770217|NCT01164579|191512881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
95770218|NCT01164579|191512881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
95770219|NCT01164579|191512882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.76|-0.89|0.8959
95770220|NCT01164579|191512882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.43|-1.25|0.4193
95770221|NCT01164579|191512882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.56|-1.13|0.5764
95770222|NCT01164579|191512882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.02|-1.69|0.1101
95770223|NCT01164579|191512883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
95770224|NCT01164579|191512883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
95770225|NCT01164579|191512883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
95770226|NCT01164579|191512883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
95770227|NCT01164579|191512884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||0.16|-1.00|0.2351
95806386|NCT02539394|191585812|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.015
95806387|NCT02539394|191585812|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Burden is the same across the 2 arms||||0.125
95806388|NCT02539394|191585813|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.043
95806389|NCT02539394|191585813|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.606|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.606
95806390|NCT02539394|191585813|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.155
95770228|NCT01164579|191512884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.08|-1.27|0.0631
95806391|NCT02539394|191585813|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating desire is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
95806392|NCT02539394|191585814|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.250
95952644|NCT00645411|191876428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV) in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.08|0.79|
95770229|NCT01164579|191512884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||0.38|-0.83|0.5369
95806393|NCT02539394|191585814|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.478
95806394|NCT02539394|191585814|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.019
95806395|NCT02539394|191585814|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Eating duration is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
95806396|NCT02539394|191585815|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.376
95806397|NCT02539394|191585815|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.013
95994999|NCT01307423|191966254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|25.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.8|6.4|
95995000|NCT01307423|191966254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.1|9.6|
95770230|NCT01164579|191512884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.08||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.08|-1.31|0.0620
95770231|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.36|31.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||31.62|-5.36|0.2430
95770232|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||45.90|8.91|0.0147
95770233|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.25||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.51|46.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.54|9.51|0.0127
95770234|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.73|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||39.41|1.73|0.0724
95995001|NCT01307423|191966255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|18.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||18.8|-6.8|
95770235|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.63|46.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.35|10.63|0.0086
95995002|NCT01307423|191966255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|30.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||30.6|5.3|
95770236|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.55||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.54|31.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.47|-6.54|0.2808
95770237|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.55|9.81|0.0115
95770238|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.56||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|34.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||34.12|-3.94|0.1921
95770239|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||46.55|9.81|0.0115
95770240|NCT01164579|191512885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|36.79|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||36.79|-1.05|0.1203
95770241|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
95770242|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.58||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.68|32.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||32.62|7.68|0.0078
95770243|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.43|46.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.56|12.43|0.0044
95806398|NCT02539394|191585815|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.049
95806399|NCT02539394|191585815|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Food selection is the same across the 2 arms||||0.300
95806400|NCT02539394|191585816|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.037
95806401|NCT02539394|191585816|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.858
95806402|NCT02539394|191585816|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
95770244|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||33.43|0.79|0.0845
95770245|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.14|42.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||42.35|6.14|0.0275
95806403|NCT02539394|191585816|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Communication is the same across the 2 arms||||0.031
95806404|NCT02539394|191585817|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.343
95806405|NCT02539394|191585817|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.022
95806406|NCT02539394|191585817|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.018
95806407|NCT02539394|191585817|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fear swallow is the same across the 2 arms||||0.008
95770246|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.91||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.71|43.63|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||43.63|7.71|0.0186
95770247|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.82|53.22|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||53.22|17.82|0.0009
95770248|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.95|43.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||43.24|7.95|0.0169
95770249|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||45.90|8.91|0.0147
95770250|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
95806408|NCT02539394|191585818|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.280
95995003|NCT01307423|191966256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|25.9|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||25.9|-2.1|
95770251|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.91|45.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||45.90|8.91|0.0147
95770252|NCT01164579|191512886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.68|33.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||33.11|-3.68|0.1882
95806409|NCT02539394|191585818|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.483
95806410|NCT02539394|191585818|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.070
95806411|NCT02539394|191585818|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Social is the same across the 2 arms||||0.200
95806412|NCT02539394|191585819|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.148
95806413|NCT02539394|191585819|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.040
95806414|NCT02539394|191585819|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
95806415|NCT02539394|191585819|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.319|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Mental is the same across the 2 arms||||0.319
95860271|NCT02721966|191678947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.7|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.0|<.0001
95860272|NCT02721966|191678947|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-7.8|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-7.8|-18.0|<.0001
95806416|NCT02539394|191585820|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.161
95806417|NCT02539394|191585820|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.763|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.763
95806418|NCT02539394|191585820|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.178
95860273|NCT02721966|191678948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.7|-20.4|<.0001
95806419|NCT02539394|191585820|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Sleep is the same across the 2 arms||||0.091
95806420|NCT02539394|191585821|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.602|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.602
95952645|NCT00645411|191876428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV) was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0.78|0.54|
95995004|NCT01307423|191966256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.8|-9.2|
95995005|NCT01307423|191966257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|26.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.8|8.8|
95806421|NCT02539394|191585821|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.302
95806422|NCT02539394|191585821|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.114
95806423|NCT02539394|191585821|EQUIVALENCE|43 patient in each group need to achieved \>80% power to detect a 15 point differences in SWAL-QOL survey||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks SWAL-QOL - Fatigue is the same across the 2 arms||||0.005
95806424|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.933
95995006|NCT01307423|191966257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.0|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||20.0|2.7|
95952646|NCT00645411|191876428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cell derived vaccine (cTIV) was considered non-inferior to egg-derived vaccine (eTIV)in post vaccination HI GMTs if, for all three influenza strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for day 50 ratio of GMTs (cTIV/eTIV)was \>0.667.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||1.06|0.71|
95952647|NCT00645411|191876429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference in % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||binomial or the method of Miettinen and|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||1|-4|
95952648|NCT00645411|191876429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV - eTIV)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0|||binomial or Miettinen & Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-4|-13|
95995007|NCT01307423|191966258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.5|1.3|
95995008|NCT01307423|191966258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.4|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.4|1.2|
95995009|NCT01307423|191966259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.2|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.2|-0.4|
95770253|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|16.35|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||16.35|0.78|0.0700
95770254|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
95770255|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.73|40.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||40.30|11.73|0.0027
95770256|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|29.75|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||29.75|3.88|0.0324
95770257|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|29.67|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||29.67|0.13|0.0969
95770258|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.09|31.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||31.84|2.09|0.0606
95770259|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|29.93|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||29.93|-4.60|0.2276
95770260|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|25.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.76|-7.90|0.3827
95770261|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.18|29.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||29.20|-4.18|0.2177
95770262|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
95770263|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.89|17.36|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||17.36|-14.89|0.8997
95770264|NCT01164579|191512887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.34|28.76|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||28.76|-5.34|0.2587
95770265|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.13||||||Baseline||0.13|-0.56|
95770266|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.43||||||Baseline||0.43|-0.19|
95770267|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.5||||||Month 1||-0.50|-1.38|
95770268|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.22||||||Month 1||-0.22|-1.01|
95770269|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.7||||||Month 2||-0.70|-1.73|
95770270|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.18||||||Month 2||-0.18|-1.20|
95770271|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.29||||||Month 3||-0.29|-1.33|
95770272|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.12||||||Month 3||0.12|-0.94|
95770273|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.61||||||Month 6||-0.61|-1.75|
95770274|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.63||||||Month 6||-0.63|-1.73|
95770275|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.61||||||Month 9||-0.61|-1.81|
95770276|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.13||||||Month 9||-0.13|-1.33|
95770277|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.51||||||Month 12||-0.51|-1.69|
95770278|NCT01164579|191512888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-0.29||||||Month 12||-0.29|-1.51|
95995010|NCT01307423|191966259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||6.1|-0.4|
95806425|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of Pre-operative modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.950
95806426|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.059
95995011|NCT01307423|191966260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||16.3|3.2|
95770279|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.45|-1.31|0.0010
95770280|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.24||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.24|-1.10|0.0102
95770281|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
95770282|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.08|0.0175
95770283|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.23||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.23|-1.13|0.0125
95770284|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||0.05|-0.84|0.1457
95770285|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.57||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.57|-1.48|0.0003
95770286|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.58|-1.49|0.0002
95770287|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|-0.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.69|-1.63|<0.0001
95770288|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.14|-0.2||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.20|-1.14|0.0196
95770289|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|-0.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.52|-1.50|0.0007
95770290|NCT01164579|191512889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.35|-1.32|0.0049
95770291|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.15||||||Baseline||0.15|-0.53|
95770292|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.36||||||Baseline||0.36|-0.24|
95770293|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.42||||||Month 1||-0.42|-1.40|
95770294|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|-0.14||||||Month 1||-0.14|-1.01|
95770295|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.73||||||Month 2||-0.73|-1.82|
95770296|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|-0.13||||||Month 2||-0.13|-1.25|
95770297|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.38||||||Month 3||-0.38|-1.55|
95770298|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.11||||||Month 3||0.11|-1.12|
95770299|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|-0.72||||||Month 6||-0.72|-2.13|
95770300|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|-0.57||||||Month 6||-0.57|-1.91|
95770301|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 9||-0.39|-1.84|
95770302|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.13||||||Month 9||0.13|-1.30|
95770303|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|-0.39||||||Month 12||-0.39|-1.84|
95770304|NCT01164579|191512890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|0.11||||||Month 12||0.11|-1.43|
95770305|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.35||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.35|-1.32|0.0046
95770306|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.15||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 1||-0.15|-1.11|0.0303
95806427|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD1 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.042
95806428|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.032
95995012|NCT01307423|191966260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||12.3|0.2|
95995013|NCT01307423|191966261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.1|-4.1|
95806429|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of POD2 modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.014
95806430|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.030
95806431|NCT02539394|191585822|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of 4-6 weeks modified Eat-10 is the same across the 2 arms||||0.039
95806432|NCT02539394|191585823|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.121
95806433|NCT02539394|191585823|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.006
95806434|NCT02539394|191585823|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.329
95806435|NCT02539394|191585823|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.687|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Liquid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.687
95952649|NCT00645411|191876429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI egg-derived antigen assay.||-9|-21|
95806436|NCT02539394|191585824|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.066|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of Pre-operative Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.066
95806437|NCT02539394|191585824|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD1 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.252
95806438|NCT02539394|191585824|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of POD2 Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.100
95806439|NCT02539394|191585824|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.279|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of 4-6 weeks Bazaz Solid is the same between the 2 arms||||0.279
95806440|NCT02539394|191585825|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means Pre-operative NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.145
95806441|NCT02539394|191585825|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The means 4-6 weeks NDI for the two populations is equal||||0.234
95806442|NCT02539394|191585830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95806443|NCT02301793|191585832|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
95806444|NCT02301793|191585836|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-values were calculated by reiterating the multiple outputation procedure 1000 times, we estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals conditional on the floor and nurse.|Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis comparing the different educational arms was evaluated using an intention-to-treat approach (i.e. all nurses were included regardless of training completion) accounting for clustering in the data and comparing rates of VTE prophylaxis dose non-administration at baseline and during the Post-Education period. Two per-protocol sensitivity analyses were performed. They compared the Baseline vs. Post-Education periods for nurses who received training and nurses who completed training.||||0.05
95952650|NCT00645411|191876429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||2|-3|
95952651|NCT00645411|191876429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||0|-9.5|
95952652|NCT00645411|191876429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|cTIV was considered non-inferior to eTIV in terms of the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion or significant increase in antibody titer at day 50 if for all three strains, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the differences in the percentages of subjects achieving seroconversion and significant increase (cTIV minus eTIV) was \>-10%.|Difference % (cTIV minus eTIV)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||binominal or Miettinen &Nurimen method|||Non-inferiority of cTIV to eTIV against B influenza strain as measured by HI cell-derived antigen assay.||6|-6|
95952653|NCT02138838|191876483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|8.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||29.9|-13.7|0.48
95962108|NCT04832971|191896103|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
95770307|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|-0.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.68|-1.69|0.0001
95806445|NCT02691494|191585857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.248|67.387||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||67.387|12.248|< 0.001
95770308|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|-0.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 2||-0.18|-1.17|0.0255
95952654|NCT02138838|191876484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-9.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by baseline age group (6-\<12 years, 12-\<18 years)|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to test the primary and biochemical secondary endpoints. The primary endpoint was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The secondary endpoints were tested using Holm's method at 0.05 (2-sided) should the primary endpoint achieve a significant result.||13.4|-33.3|0.42
95952655|NCT02138838|191876485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-10.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline age group|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||6.8|-27.7|0.25
95952656|NCT02138838|191876486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|19.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|50.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||50.5|-12.5|0.23
95770309|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.39|-1.39|0.0035
95770310|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 3||-0.05|-1.05|0.0683
95806446|NCT02691494|191585857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.042|61.431||The P value for test of difference is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each data set from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.431|13.042|< 0.001
95806447|NCT02691494|191585858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95952657|NCT02138838|191876487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.01|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.||||0.01|-0.70|0.059
95995014|NCT01307423|191966261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.8|-3.7|
95770311|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|-0.78||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.78|-1.81|<0.0001
95806448|NCT02691494|191585858|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-164.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value for test of difference between each elagolix treatment group and placebo is by pooling the results from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95806449|NCT02691494|191585859|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.99|92.37||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||92.37|75.99|< 0.001
95995015|NCT01307423|191966262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|12.6|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||12.6|-8.1|
95770312|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.56||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 6||-0.56|-1.59|0.0006
95770313|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.62||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.62|-1.67|0.0004
95770314|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 9||-0.05|-1.10|0.0706
95854651|NCT02260934|191668877|SUPERIORITY|Week 24||||||0.2||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||.20
95770315|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.58||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.58|-1.67|0.0008
95952658|NCT02138838|191876488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.76||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.48|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age group as the covariate.|SOC+Cinacalcet - SOC|||1.48|0.04|0.039
95952659|NCT01867307|191876507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-220.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.6|-202.7||P-value is from a paired t-test.|Paired t- test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-202.7|-440.6|<0.0001
95995016|NCT01307423|191966262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|29.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||29.3|6.3|
95995017|NCT01307423|191966263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|23.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||23.5|-4.8|
95995018|NCT01307423|191966263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|21.5|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||21.5|-7.2|
95806450|NCT02691494|191585859|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|56.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.77|64.91||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||64.91|47.77|< 0.001
95806451|NCT02691494|191585860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-252.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95806452|NCT02691494|191585860|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-226.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95806453|NCT02691494|191585861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-196.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95806454|NCT02691494|191585861|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-186.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95806455|NCT02691494|191585862|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|19.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|44.32||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||44.32|-5.99|0.146
95806456|NCT02691494|191585862|SUPERIORITY||Between-Group Difference (%)|29.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|50.71||The P value is calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|chi-square or Fisher's exact test|||||50.71|7.62|0.017
95952660|NCT01867307|191876507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-234.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-312.3|-201.5||P-value is from a paired t-test|Paired t-test||Difference calculated as (Day 14 - baseline) values|Point estimates of the changes from baseline and 95% Confidence interval around the estimates on treatment day 14 were computed.||-201.5|-312.3|<0.0001
95952661|NCT02009865|191876516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-26.2|0.017
95806457|NCT02691494|191585863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-194.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95806458|NCT02691494|191585863|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-125.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P value is from MMRM with treatment, month, and an interaction between treatment and month as fixed effect factors, and baseline MBL volume as a covariate comparing each elagolix treatment group with placebo.|mixed model repeated measures|||||||< 0.001
95806459|NCT03369704|191585895|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||"H0: Omalizumab is not different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period.~H1: Omalizumab is different to placebo with respect to mean nasal symptom score over the severe symptom period."|ANCOVA||nasal symptom score|||-0.62|-1.44|<0.001
95806460|NCT03369704|191585896|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.24|||||Nasal Ocular Symptom|||-1.24|-2.55|
95806461|NCT03369704|191585896|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.55|||||Ocular symptom|||-0.55|-1.18|
95806462|NCT03369704|191585897|OTHER||ANCOVA|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.64|||||nasal symptom medication score|||-0.64|-1.55|
95806463|NCT03369704|191585897|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.58|||||ocular symptom medication score|||-0.58|-1.32|
95806464|NCT03369704|191585897|OTHER||ANCOVA|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.31|||||nasal ocular symptom medication score|||-1.31|-2.78|
95806465|NCT03369704|191585898|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.26|||||sneezing score|||-0.26|-0.54|
95806466|NCT03369704|191585898|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16|||||rhinorrhea score|||-0.16|-0.51|
95806467|NCT03369704|191585898|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13|||||nasal congestion score|||-0.13|-0.45|
95806468|NCT03369704|191585899|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3|||||itchy eye score|||-0.30|-0.63|
95806469|NCT03369704|191585899|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||||watery eye score|||-0.23|-0.57|
95806470|NCT03369704|191585900|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||||score for impairment of daily activities|||-0.20|-0.48|
95806471|NCT03369704|191585901|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal symptom free days|||5.0|1.0|0.005
95806472|NCT03369704|191585901|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.5|||van Elteren test||Ocular symptom free days|||6.5|2.0|<0.001
95952662|NCT02009865|191876517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Main analysis with missing values imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-11.5|-40.5|0.0008
95770316|NCT01164579|191512891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|mixed model repeated measures analysis|||Month 12||-0.12|-1.21|0.0466
95770317|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.34|50.68||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||50.68|14.34|0.0032
95952663|NCT02009865|191876518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-2.8||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||-2.8|-14.8|0.0180
95770318|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.81|46.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||46.55|9.81|0.0115
95770319|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||50.02|18.81|0.0002
95770320|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.55|41.03||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||41.03|6.55|0.0231
95770321|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.48||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.81|50.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||50.02|18.81|0.0002
95770322|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.43|38.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||38.61|3.43|0.0493
95770323|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.88||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.92|50.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.43|17.92|0.0005
95770324|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|41.37||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||41.37|6.07|0.0270
95770325|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||51.12|15.80|0.0018
95806473|NCT03369704|191585902|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.75|||logistic regression||Completely nasal symptom free patients|||9.75|1.21|0.005
95952664|NCT02009865|191876519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.9||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||4.9|-3.5|0.7117
95770326|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||41.96|5.02|0.0363
95952665|NCT02009865|191876520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.5||Adjusted by using Hommel's procedure|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated median difference and its 95% CI were based on Hodges Lehmann procedure.|Missing values were imputed using probabilities of missing estimated from logistic regression||3.5|-23.9|0.3034
95770327|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||53.64|19.16|0.0005
95770328|NCT01164579|191512892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||44.50|8.04|0.0177
95770329|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.62|38.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||38.42|6.62|0.0197
95770330|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|19.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||19.76|-7.09|0.4379
95770331|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||46.34|10.40|0.0093
95770332|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||31.73|-2.75|0.1669
95770333|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.92||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|46.34||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||46.34|10.40|0.0093
95770334|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|37.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||37.55|2.53|0.0596
95770335|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||52.96|16.51|0.0017
95806474|NCT03369704|191585903|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||||Nasal rescue mediation score|||-0.01|-0.14|
95806475|NCT03369704|191585903|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||||Ocular rescue medication score|||0.00|-0.16|
95806476|NCT03369704|191585903|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||||Nasal ocular rescue medication score|||-0.04|-0.28|
95770336|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.04||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.36|46.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||46.69|10.36|0.0097
95770337|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.68|53.26||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.26|16.68|0.0016
95770338|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.28|46.91||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||46.91|10.28|0.0102
95770339|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|52.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||52.96|16.51|0.0017
95770340|NCT01164579|191512893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.74|41.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.19|4.74|0.0381
95770341|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|25.4||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||25.40|0.15|0.0959
95806477|NCT03369704|191585904|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation free days|||3.5|0.0|0.011
95806478|NCT03369704|191585904|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.8|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication free days|||4.8|0.0|0.074
95952666|NCT00267774|191876534|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A 2-sided value of P\<0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95952667|NCT03677986|191876548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|4.14|||GEE|||||4.14|.21|0.914
95860274|NCT02721966|191678948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-9.8|-20.3|<.0001
95770342|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.58|9.19||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||9.19|-8.58|0.9544
95770343|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
95770344|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.04|21.16||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||21.16|-4.04|0.2640
95770345|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
95770346|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|23.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||23.38|-5.96|0.3290
95770347|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|48.09||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||48.09|13.59|0.0032
95770348|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|33.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||33.43|0.79|0.0845
95770349|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.44|48.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||48.72|13.44|0.0037
95770350|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|37.02||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||37.02|2.91|0.0540
95806479|NCT03369704|191585904|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal ocular rescue medication free days|||4.0|0.0|0.098
95806480|NCT03369704|191585905|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.0|||van Elteren test||Nasal rescue mediation used|||0.0|-4.5|0.006
95806481|NCT03369704|191585905|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||van Elteren test||Ocular rescue medication used|||-1.0|-12.0|0.012
95952668|NCT01232569|191876627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis adjusted for the randomization stratification factors applied at Baseline (region and weight category).||||37.0|22.0|<0.001
95770351|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|50.39||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||50.39|16.70|0.0010
95770352|NCT01164579|191512894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.66||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|35.71||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||35.71|3.92|0.0401
95952669|NCT04044352|191876645|OTHER|Likelihood ratio test was the statistical test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06|||Wald Chi-Square||A two-fold increase in HAI pre-challenge titer (i.e. one unit increase in log-2 titer) corresponds to a 19% decrease in the odds of developing MMID during the study challenge period (Day 2 through Day 8).|Pre-challenge (baseline) HAI geometric mean titer was log-2 transformed and treated as a continuous variable in the model.||1.06|0.62|0.126
95952670|NCT00097708|191876686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6540
95952671|NCT00097708|191876686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-5.0|0.0005
95770353|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.83|55.99||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||55.99|19.83|0.0005
95952672|NCT00097708|191876686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|1.1|0.0015
95952673|NCT01375777|191876749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.52|-39.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-39.93|-54.52|<0.001
95952674|NCT01375777|191876749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001||95.0|-47.38|-32.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.95|-47.38|<0.001
95952675|NCT01375777|191876749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.53|-30.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-30.02|-44.53|<0.001
95952676|NCT01375777|191876749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.67|-45.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-45.38|-59.67|<0.001
95952677|NCT01375777|191876749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-40.60|-54.89|<0.001
95770354|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.87|51.38||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||51.38|14.87|0.0028
95770355|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.21|42.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.45|9.21|0.0105
95770356|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.33|28.3||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||28.30|-8.33|0.3700
95770357|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.11|55.53||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||55.53|24.11|<0.0001
95952678|NCT01375777|191876749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-50.71|<0.001
95995019|NCT01307423|191966264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||17.7|-4.8|
95995020|NCT01307423|191966264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|27.1|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.1|3.4|
95995021|NCT01307423|191966265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|24.8|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.8|-3.8|
95770358|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.24||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|36.59||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||36.59|-0.40|0.1076
95770359|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.13|50.75||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||50.75|17.13|0.0008
95770360|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.74|44.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||44.10|8.74|0.0139
95770361|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.16|53.64||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||53.64|19.16|0.0005
95770362|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.04|44.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||44.50|8.04|0.0177
95806482|NCT03369704|191585906|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.33|||||JRQLQ I|||-0.33|-0.66|
95806483|NCT03369704|191585906|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||||JRQLQ II|||-0.33|-0.69|
95806484|NCT03369704|191585906|OTHER||ANCOVA|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||||JRQLQ III|||-0.4|-0.8|
95995022|NCT01307423|191966265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|19.3|||||Two-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||19.3|-9.5|
95806485|NCT02656173|191585910|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis, including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.82|<0.001
95806486|NCT02656173|191585911|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.17|||mixed model repeated measure|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was used for analysis, which included the baseline as a covariate, treatment group, analysis visits and region as a fixed effect, subject as random effect and including interaction of \[treatment group x visit\] for FAS.||-0.17|-0.78|<0.001
95806487|NCT02656173|191585912|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.07|-0.63|0.112
95995023|NCT01656772|191966287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d = -0.05. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \> 1.645 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted to take into account the correlation between multiple PVs on the same subject. The sample estimate of the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated as the Pearson sample correlation coefficient for all pairs of observations.|Farrington and Manning|||The primary effectiveness endpoint is the successful navigation and EGM recording of each pre-specified pulmonary vein (PV). The RF ablation treatment was not part of the investigational procedure. The null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a test statistic Z based on the Farrington and Manning likelihood score statistic with adjustment to take into account the correlation between multiple observations (PVs) on the same subject.||||0.0405
95806488|NCT02656173|191585913|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|1.75||||0.186|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.186
95806489|NCT02656173|191585914|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics|0.09||||0.76|||||||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance|||Stratified Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA), including the rank score for change from Baseline to End of Treatment stratified by region as the dependent variable, treatment group and region as fixed factors and the rank score for baseline stratified by region as a covariate for FAS.||||0.760
95806490|NCT02656173|191585915|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.11|-0.18|0.646
95806491|NCT02656173|191585916|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|17.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||17.84|6.33|<0.001
95806492|NCT02656173|191585917|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
95806493|NCT02656173|191585918|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Daytime Frequency. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.19|0.006
95806494|NCT02656173|191585918|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Nighttime Frequency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.03|-0.19|0.174
95806495|NCT02656173|191585918|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.50|0.037
95806496|NCT02656173|191585918|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Urgency Incontinence. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.04|-0.32|0.014
95806497|NCT02656173|191585919|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.44|-1.94|0.002
95806498|NCT02656173|191585920|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Storage Subscale. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
95806499|NCT02656173|191585920|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-1. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.13|-0.72|0.167
95806500|NCT02656173|191585920|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.42||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Voiding Subscale-2. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.09|-0.93|0.103
95854652|NCT02260934|191668877|SUPERIORITY|Week 48|||||>|0.99||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||>0.99
95995024|NCT01656772|191966288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin d= 0.07. The one-sided null hypothesis was to be tested at the α = 0.05 significance level using a standard unpooled asymptotically normal test statistic. The null hypothesis was to be rejected if Z \< -1.7046 or, equivalently, if the corresponding p-value was less than 0.05.||||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-statistic|||||||.0441
95995025|NCT01651780|191966289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.77||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.48|0.2692
95770363|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|51.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.12|15.80|0.0018
95770364|NCT01164579|191512895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.02|41.96||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||41.96|5.02|0.0363
95770365|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.66|30.1||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||30.10|5.66|0.0160
95770366|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|14.8||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||14.80|-3.06|0.2798
95770367|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.81|42.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||42.55|11.81|0.0036
95770368|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|17.79||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||17.79|-6.23|0.4287
95770369|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||34.95|2.72|0.0544
95770370|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|32.69||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||32.69|1.39|0.0732
95770371|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.79|39.72||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||39.72|4.79|0.0360
95860275|NCT02721966|191678949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline SPARCC index as continuous covariate.|0.1|-1.1|0.0971
95770372|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.35|25.07||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||25.07|-7.35|0.3688
95770373|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.63|42.76||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||42.76|7.63|0.0182
95770374|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|31.12||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||31.12|-2.29|0.1558
95770375|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.51|51.05||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||51.05|16.51|0.0012
95770376|NCT01164579|191512896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|30.42||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||30.42|-1.74|0.1426
95770377|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|12.52||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||12.52|-0.75|0.1449
95770378|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|7.48||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 1||7.48|-1.77|0.3102
95770379|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.32|26.55||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||26.55|3.32|0.0342
95770380|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|10.51||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 2||10.51|-4.80|0.5400
95770381|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|25.13||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||25.13|-5.10|0.2759
95770382|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|-0.45||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 3||-0.45|-21.02|0.0859
95770383|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|31.73||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||31.73|0.06|0.0985
95770384|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.86|13.61||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 6||13.61|-12.86|0.9628
95770385|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|35.84||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||35.84|2.31|0.0612
95770386|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.08|11.43||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 9||11.43|-16.08|0.7807
95770387|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|34.95||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||34.95|2.72|0.0544
95806501|NCT02656173|191585920|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Subscale: Quality of Life (QoL) Item. ANCOVA was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
95806502|NCT02656173|191585921|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|-2.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||-2.13|-6.91|<0.001
95806503|NCT02656173|191585922|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis including treatment group and region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.44|1.13|<0.001
95806504|NCT00834587|191585969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|92.4|106.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.2|92.4|
95806505|NCT00834587|191585970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.7||||||90.0|98.8|102.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.6|98.8|
95806506|NCT00834587|191585971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|100.6||||||90.0|98.8|102.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.5|98.8|
95806507|NCT00834587|191585972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.7||||||90.0|97.3|106.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.3|97.3|
95806508|NCT00834587|191585973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.2||||||90.0|96.5|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102.0|96.5|
95806509|NCT00834587|191585974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|99.1||||||90.0|96.5|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||101.8|96.5|
95806510|NCT03061214|191585996|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
95806511|NCT03061214|191585996|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was less than 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
95806512|NCT03061214|191585996|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.70|-1.00|<.0001
95806513|NCT03061214|191585996|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c between semaglutide and sitagliptin was below 0%.|Treatment difference|-0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses are analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and region China/Other as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Mean estimates are adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.36|-0.66|<.0001
95806514|NCT03727022|191586070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.58||||||||1.58|-7.19|
95806515|NCT03727022|191586071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|3.24||||||||3.24|-3.24|
95806516|NCT03727022|191586072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.65||||||||1.65|-5.84|
95806517|NCT03727022|191586073|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.54||||||||3.54|-4.05|
95806518|NCT03727022|191586074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|6.23||||||||6.23|-4.64|
95806519|NCT03727022|191586075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.23||||||||2.23|-8.64|
95806520|NCT03727022|191586076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|4.03||||||||4.03|-8.75|
95806521|NCT03727022|191586077|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.11||||||||3.11|-11.21|
95806522|NCT03031912|191586095|SUPERIORITY||Fold difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.49|58.43|||ANOVA|||V920 vs. placebo in Cohorts 1 to 5 combined||58.43|31.49|<0.001
95806523|NCT03031912|191586096|SUPERIORITY||Fold difference|208.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.57|376.72|||ANOVA|||||376.72|115.57|<0.001
95806524|NCT04097743|191586133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95806525|NCT04097743|191586134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.81
95806526|NCT04097743|191586135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
95806527|NCT04097743|191586136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95806528|NCT04097743|191586137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
95806529|NCT04097743|191586138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
95806530|NCT04097743|191586139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95806531|NCT04097743|191586140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95995026|NCT01651780|191966290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Relative Risk|0.89||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.64|0.4967
95995027|NCT03359902|191966366|SUPERIORITY||beta|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed effects model was conducted to account for carryover and order effects in this crossover trial.~Assuming α = 0.05, two-sided test, and 60 participants in total. If the carryover effect is negligible, we will have 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.604 for memory improvement"||||0.11
96001869|NCT01845077|191981260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|110.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||110.8|97.1|
95770388|NCT01164579|191512897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.32|20.18||2-sided p-value; alpha=0.10|Normal approximation to the binomial|||Month 12||20.18|-8.32|0.4937
95770389|NCT00386360|191512904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.231||||0.7096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.995|1.458|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.458|-0.995|0.7096
95770390|NCT00386360|191512905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.543||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|1.571|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.571|-0.485|0.2973
95770391|NCT00386360|191512906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.485||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|1.11|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.110|-0.141|0.1275
95770392|NCT00386360|191512907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.664||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|2.025|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.025|-0.697|0.3360
95770393|NCT00386360|191512908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.334||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|1.219|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.219|-0.551|0.4565
95770394|NCT00386360|191512909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.611||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.252|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.252|-0.030|0.0614
95770395|NCT00386360|191512910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.258|1.138|||ANOVA|LS means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||1.138|-1.258|0.9212
95770396|NCT00386360|191512911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.231|4.31|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||4.310|2.231|<0.0001
95952679|NCT01375777|191876750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.3|-55.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.6|-76.3|<0.001
95806532|NCT04097743|191586141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95806533|NCT04975230|191586166|OTHER||Cohen's D|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.37|0.0227
95806534|NCT04019704|191586187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95806535|NCT05122143|191586188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085||||||Treatment D (A+B) versus Treatment C|ANCOVA|||"Treatment A + B were pooled to Treatment D for the Primary endpoint. The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the AM-301 nasal spray (treatment D= A+B) and no treatment (C) in reducing nasal symptoms induced from HDM allergen exposure.~The TNSS value from the baseline exposure (at screening exposure visit 2) was subtracted from the TNSS value of the treatment exposure to obtain change from baseline. A lower value resembles less symptoms."||||0.0085
95806536|NCT01550965|191586190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the first ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
95806537|NCT01550965|191586191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1383.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1586.36|-1181.26|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing for the second ranked primary outcome was performed in a hierarchical order using the two-sided paired t-test for mean change equal to zero.||-1181.26|-1586.36|<0.001
95806538|NCT01550965|191586192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1297.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1562.17|-1033.36|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-1033.36|-1562.17|<0.001
95806539|NCT01550965|191586193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4308.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4985.13|-3631.51|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-3631.51|-4985.13|<0.001
95806540|NCT01550965|191586194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-4.78|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.78|-9.83|<0.001
95806541|NCT01550965|191586195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|27.25|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Effectiveness.||27.25|21.50|<0.001
95806542|NCT01550965|191586195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.42|22.48|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Side Effects.||22.48|15.42|<0.001
95806543|NCT01550965|191586195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|8.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided)|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Convenience.||8.50|3.89|<0.001
95806544|NCT01550965|191586195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|25.64|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) Global Satisfaction.||25.64|19.55|<0.001
95806545|NCT01550965|191586196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-4.27|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization.||-4.27|-5.42|<0.001
95806546|NCT01550965|191586196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during emergency department visits.||0.09|-0.11|0.830
95806547|NCT01550965|191586196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for overall UC-related outpatient utilization during primary care doctor visits.||-0.66|-1.18|<0.001
95806548|NCT01550965|191586197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants with absence of blood in stool from week 0 to week 26.||||<0.001
95806549|NCT01550965|191586198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|12.02|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 2.||12.02|10.21|<0.001
95806550|NCT01550965|191586198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|16.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 8.||16.56|14.20|<0.001
95806551|NCT01550965|191586198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|15.96|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||15.96|13.57|<0.001
95806552|NCT01550965|191586198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.08|18.73|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in SIBDQ: Total Score from week 0 to week 26.||18.73|16.08|<0.001
95806553|NCT01550965|191586199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 2.||-0.57|-0.69|<0.001
95806554|NCT01550965|191586199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-1.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 8.||-1.00|-1.16|<0.001
95806555|NCT01550965|191586199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.77|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-0.77|-0.95|<0.001
95806556|NCT01550965|191586199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-1.06|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in PGA from week 0 to week 26.||-1.06|-1.23|<0.001
95806557|NCT01550965|191586200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-2.99|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 2.||-2.99|-3.46|<0.001
95806558|NCT01550965|191586200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-3.76|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 8.||-3.76|-4.37|<0.001
95806559|NCT01550965|191586200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-2.66|-3.36|<0.001
95806560|NCT01550965|191586200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-3.72|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total SCCAI from week 0 to week 26.||-3.72|-4.43|<0.001
95806561|NCT01550965|191586201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.11|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 2.||0.11|0.08|<0.001
95806562|NCT01550965|191586201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.15|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 8.||0.15|0.11|<0.001
95806563|NCT01550965|191586201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||0.14|0.10|<0.001
95806564|NCT01550965|191586201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.17|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in total EQ-5D-5L total score from week 0 to week 26.||0.17|0.12|<0.001
95806565|NCT01550965|191586202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-5.18|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 2.||-5.18|-12.07|<0.001
95806566|NCT01550965|191586202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-8.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 8.||-8.16|-16.27|<0.001
95806567|NCT01550965|191586202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.82|-7.4|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-7.40|-15.82|<0.001
95806568|NCT01550965|191586202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-7.35|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of work time missed from week 0 to week 26.||-7.35|-15.50|<0.001
95806569|NCT01550965|191586203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-13.12|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 2.||-13.12|-20.00|<0.001
95806570|NCT01550965|191586203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|-18.97|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 8.||-18.97|-26.93|<0.001
95806571|NCT01550965|191586203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|-17.67|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-17.67|-25.69|<0.001
95806572|NCT01550965|191586203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.33|-20.58|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of impairment while working from week 0 to week 26.||-20.58|-28.33|<0.001
95806573|NCT01550965|191586204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.57|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 2.||-14.57|-22.10|<0.001
95806574|NCT01550965|191586204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-22.0|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 8.||-22.00|-31.08|<0.001
95806575|NCT01550965|191586204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.97|-20.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using LOCF.||-20.70|-29.97|<0.001
95806576|NCT01550965|191586204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-24.93|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: overall work impairment percentage from week 0 to week 26.||-24.93|-33.50|<0.001
95806577|NCT01550965|191586205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.47|-15.85|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 2.||-15.85|-20.47|<0.001
95806578|NCT01550965|191586205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-22.56|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 8.||-22.56|-28.30|<0.001
95806579|NCT01550965|191586205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.33|-21.5|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 18. Efficacy assessments were not specified at week 18; missing data at week 18 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||-21.50|-27.33|<0.001
95952680|NCT01375777|191876750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001||95.0|-73.2|-52.2||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.2|-73.2|<0.001
95806580|NCT01550965|191586205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.28|-24.16|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for mean change in WPAI-SHP: percentage of activity impairment from week 0 to week 26.||-24.16|-30.28|<0.001
95806581|NCT00836901|191586215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.7||||||90.0|93.19|102.43|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.43|93.19|
95806582|NCT00836901|191586216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.28||||||90.0|97.09|101.53|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.53|97.09|
95806583|NCT00836901|191586217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.64||||||90.0|96.12|99.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.19|96.12|
95806584|NCT00836901|191586218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.59||||||90.0|85.64|104.47|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||104.47|85.64|
95806585|NCT00836901|191586219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.44||||||90.0|87.83|101.54|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.54|87.83|
95806586|NCT00836901|191586220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|94.08||||||90.0|87.19|101.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.52|87.19|
95806587|NCT05562934|191586222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5651||||||Single best candidate model is the one with the lowest adjusted p-value of the 5 candidate models|Multiple Comparisons Procedure-MOD|||||||0.5651
95806588|NCT05562934|191586223|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|-5.48|0.6955
95806589|NCT05562934|191586224|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.18|||ANCOVA|||||7.18|-4.90|0.7108
95860276|NCT02721966|191678949|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline measurement in VAS as continuous covariate|-0.1|-1.3|0.0207
95806590|NCT06433908|191586286|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.9649|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8695|1.0707||||||||1.0707|0.8695|
95806591|NCT06433908|191586287|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1795|1.4199||||||||1.4199|1.1795|
95806592|NCT06433908|191586288|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2329|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.3608||||||||1.3608|1.1171|
95952681|NCT01375777|191876750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-41.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.9|-62.7|<0.001
95806593|NCT06433908|191586289|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.9475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7746|1.159||||||||1.1590|0.7746|
95806594|NCT06433908|191586290|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.2032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.162|1.2459||||||||1.2459|1.1620|
95806595|NCT06433908|191586291|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.1273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0229|1.2423||||||||1.2423|1.0229|
95806596|NCT04135443|191586379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.063|0.511|0.94
95806597|NCT04135443|191586381|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.064||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.455
95806598|NCT04135443|191586382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.026||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.702
95806599|NCT04135443|191586383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.049||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.375
95806600|NCT04135443|191586384|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.076||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.313
95806601|NCT04135443|191586385|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold set to p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|See analysis plan for covariates screened into model.||||||0.890
95806602|NCT00855166|191586414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.31|-2.84|<0.0001
95806603|NCT00855166|191586415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6162||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.31||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.31|-2.74|0.0143
95952682|NCT01375777|191876750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|-62.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.4|-82.2|<0.001
95770397|NCT00386360|191512912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|2.14|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.140|0.748|<0.0001
95770398|NCT00386360|191512913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.408||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.348|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.348|0.469|0.0036
95770399|NCT00386360|191512914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.458||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.541|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||2.541|0.375|0.0087
95770400|NCT00386360|191512915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.957|-19.123|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-19.123|-59.957|0.0002
95770401|NCT00386360|191512916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.269|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-29.238|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||-29.238|-51.300|<0.0001
95770402|NCT00386360|191512917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.213|||ANOVA|LS Means are least squares (adjusted) means from ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||In Laib 1998, the mean and SD of the annual loss in distal radius BV/TV were reported to be 3.5% and 6.4%, respectively. Assuming the treatment difference and SD of the percent change in distal radius BV/TV for this study were the same, it required enrolling 52 patients for placebo and 104 for risedronate to ensure 80% power to achieve 0.05 level of significance. Sample size estimation based on 2-sided 2-sample t-test and assumed effective size of 0.54 and dropout rate of 20%.||0.213|-0.030|0.1385
95770403|NCT01605552|191512919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.61|||.21
95770404|NCT01605552|191512920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 1.33|||.019
95770405|NCT01605552|191512921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.78|||.09
95770406|NCT01605552|191512922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA||||Cohen's d = 0.43|||.43
95806604|NCT00855166|191586416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3731||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.74||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum (gender) as effects and baseline value as covariate||H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.74|-2.22|0.0001
95770407|NCT00789373|191512960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank|||900 patients were planned to be enrolled in order to randomize 558 pts to maintenance therapy. This trial was powered for the primary endpoint, PFS (90% power, assuming 238 events with 52% censoring and a PFS Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.65, alpha=0.05). This trial was also powered for a secondary endpoint, OS (93% power, assuming 390 events with 30% censoring and an OS HR=0.70). Alpha was controlled for both a preliminary analysis (alpha=0.0001) and final analysis of OS (alpha=0.0499).||0.79|0.49|0.00006
95770408|NCT00789373|191512961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.51|0.0002
95770409|NCT00789373|191512962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The predefined alpha for the final analysis of OS is 0.0498 for the unadjusted log-rank test.|Log Rank||Unadjusted HR from Cox model with treatment as the only cofactor.|Type 1 (alpha) error was controlled for the analyses of both PFS and OS in order to maintain an overall two-sided alpha level of 0.05 using a statistical gatekeeping and alpha spending scheme. The unconditional statistical power of the final OS analysis was 93%.||0.96|0.64|0.0195
95770410|NCT01737710|191512986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.55||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||3.55|0.92|0.082
95770411|NCT01737710|191512987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.56||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percent of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups|Fisher Exact|||||2.56|0.26|0.801
95854653|NCT02260934|191668877|SUPERIORITY|Week 96||||||0.63||||||2 sided test|Regression, Logistic|2 sided test||Treatment group was the independent variable in the logistic regression.||||0.63
95806605|NCT00855166|191586417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|36.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Results of key secondary endpoints are interpreted using Hochberg's method|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender).||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||36.7|15.9|<0.0001
95806606|NCT00855166|191586418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5652||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.34||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||1.34|-0.89|0.7013
95806607|NCT00855166|191586419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6473||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.35||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.35|-2.21|0.1521
95806608|NCT00855166|191586420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4428||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.43||Exploratory. Model including fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, gender and rescue medication as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline measurement-by-week interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Percent change in BMD from baseline to week 102 evaluated via longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood.|Natural logarithms of baseline and week 102 values were used.|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.43|-1.32|0.3105
95806609|NCT02770365|191586421|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|12.53|||Wald's method|||||12.53|-2.92|
95952683|NCT01375777|191876750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.9|-54.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.0|-73.9|<0.001
95995028|NCT01795547|191966367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint was considered confirmed if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI at Week 28 was \> -5 or equivalently if the p-value for the 1-sided test of H0: D ≤ -5 against H1: D \> -5 was ≤2.5%, where D was the mean treatment difference (aripiprazole minus paliperidone). Superiority was then tested as pre-specified with the FAS and demonstrated for aripiprazole over paliperidone, since the lower bound of the 95% CI was \>0.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.666||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|9.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||Comparison of aripiprazole versus paliperidone was made using estimates from a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.015|0.316|0.036
95806610|NCT02770365|191586422|EQUIVALENCE|the proportion of subjects with treatment success based on the improvement of the Most Bothersome Symptom (MBS) of vulvo-vaginal atrophy at Day 8.|equivalence ratio|0.94||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|4.31|||Wald's method|||||4.31|-12.35|0.05
95806611|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FF E0 (Response of Placebo participants)|||19.39|9.39|
95806612|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
95806613|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|48.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.21|129.32|||||ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||129.32|18.21|
95806614|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
95995029|NCT01795547|191966368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.492||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.935|-0.049||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.049|-2.935|0.043
95806615|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||FP Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
95952684|NCT01375777|191876750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-50.9||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.9|-70.7|<0.001
95806616|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1081.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|448.0|2609.66|||||FP ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2609.66|448.00|
95806617|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|19.39|||||BUD E0-Response of Placebo participants|||19.39|9.39|
95806618|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.21|25.4|||||BUD Emax-Maximum Dose response|||25.40|8.21|
95806619|NCT02991859|191586423|OTHER||3 parameter Emax model|1467.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.51|3939.84|||||BUD ED50-Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||3939.84|546.51|
95806620|NCT02991859|191586424|OTHER||Exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FF E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
95806621|NCT02991859|191586424|OTHER||exponential power-law model|899.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|698.36|1101.62|||||FF ED50 Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached|||1101.62|698.36|
95952685|NCT01375777|191876751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.72|-38.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.58|-51.72|<0.001
95806622|NCT02991859|191586424|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||FP E0-Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
95806623|NCT02991859|191586424|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1986.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1574.7|2397.39|||||FP ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2397.39|1574.70|
95860277|NCT02721966|191678950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.076|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.076|-0.273|0.0005
95860278|NCT02721966|191678950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.136|||ANCOVA||||Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline HAQ-DI index as continuous covariate|-0.136|-0.331|<.0001
95860279|NCT02721966|191678951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.7|1.8|0.0002
95860280|NCT02721966|191678951|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANCOVA|||week 12|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group, visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline FACIT Fatigue© score as continuous covariate|5.3|1.4|0.0007
95860281|NCT02721966|191678952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.5|<.0001
95860282|NCT02721966|191678952|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"Up to week 12, all participants in the group placebo AIN457 took placebo only"|Least squares (LS) mean, LS mean treatment difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference, and p-value are from MMRM (mixed model for repeated measures) with treatment group,visit, treatment\*visit, baseline\*visit and concomitant MTX intake status, as factors and baseline ASAS health index as continuous covariate.|-0.9|-2.4|<.0001
95860283|NCT02721966|191678953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|9.95|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|9.95|3.31|<.0001
95952686|NCT01375777|191876751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001||95.0|-43.29|-30.29||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.29|-43.29|<0.001
95806624|NCT02991859|191586424|OTHER||exponential power-law model|176.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|162.87|190.38|||||BUD E0 - Response of Placebo participants|||190.38|162.87|
95952687|NCT01375777|191876751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-28.52||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.52|-41.59|<0.001
95806625|NCT02991859|191586424|OTHER||exponential power-law model|1927.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1698.47|2156.37|||||BUD ED50 - Dose at which 50% of the maximum dose response reached (mcg)|||2156.37|1698.47|
95995030|NCT01795547|191966369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.09||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||-0.090|-0.477|0.004
95806626|NCT02991859|191586425|OTHER||Emax Model|289.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.82|354.64|||||ED20 Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||354.64|224.82|
95952688|NCT01375777|191876751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.33|-40.89||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.89|-53.33|<0.001
95995031|NCT01795547|191966370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.331||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.782||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.782|-0.120|0.149
95806627|NCT02991859|191586425|OTHER||Emax Model|194.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.82|517.28|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||517.28|72.82|
95806628|NCT02991859|191586426|OTHER||Emax Model|639.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|506.94|771.79|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||771.79|506.94|
95806629|NCT02991859|191586426|OTHER||Emax Model|4325.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1792.02|10438.64|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||10438.64|1792.02|
95806630|NCT02991859|191586427|OTHER||Emax Model|620.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|546.79|694.2|||||ED20 for Cortisol Suppression 0-24 Hours Weighted Mean|||694.20|546.79|
95806631|NCT02991859|191586427|OTHER||Emax Model|5869.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2186.03|15759.35|||||ED80 for AMP PC20|||15759.35|2186.03|
95806632|NCT00489476|191586490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0212
95806633|NCT00489476|191586490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
95806634|NCT00489476|191586491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0123
95806635|NCT00489476|191586491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0228
95806636|NCT00489476|191586492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0409
95860284|NCT02721966|191678953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|8.16|||Regression, Logistic|95% confidence interval for odds ratio|||"Odds ratio, 95% CI for odds ratio, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment (3 treatment groups), methotrexate usage status (yes, no) as explanatory variables.~Missing ACR20 response variables were imputed by multiple imputation approach"|8.16|2.83|<.0001
95860285|NCT00356304|191678954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95860286|NCT02504216|191678958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||IxRS: Interactive web/voice response system||0.96|0.76|=0.0043
95806637|NCT03460704|191586493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean rate ratio|1.004||||0.97889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.349|||negative binomial model|||The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, country, and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-exposure time on treatment as an offset.||1.349|0.747|0.97889
95806638|NCT01421459|191586494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary treatment comparison was to compare LY2963016 versus Lantus at the non-inferiority margin of +0.4%. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval on the change from baseline to 24-week endpoint HbA1c for LY2963016 versus Lantus was below +0.4%, then LY2963016 would be declared non-inferior to Lantus.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.070|0.403
95806639|NCT01421459|191586496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.382
95860287|NCT02504216|191678959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||=|0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Log Rank|P-value (2-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.||||2.10|0.97|=0.0695
95860288|NCT02504216|191678960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|=0.0004
95860289|NCT02504216|191678961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0140
95860290|NCT02504216|191678962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.62|<0.0001
95860291|NCT02504216|191678963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.99|0.79|=0.0145
95860292|NCT02504216|191678964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|=0.0051
95860293|NCT02504216|191678965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.27|0.92|=0.8322
95860294|NCT02504216|191678966|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0||P-value (1-sided) is based on the log rank test stratified by type of procedure and clopidogrel use per IxRS assignment with treatment as a factor.|Log Rank|||||1.00|0.37|=0.0235
95860295|NCT02504216|191678967|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||=|0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|1.10|=0.0068
95806640|NCT01421459|191586496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for 8 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.910
95806641|NCT01421459|191586496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.869
95806642|NCT01421459|191586496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for 16 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.345
95806643|NCT01421459|191586496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for 20 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
95806644|NCT01421459|191586496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
95806645|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is at Morning Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.837
95860296|NCT02504216|191678968|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||=|0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.76|||Log Rank|||||1.76|0.95|=0.0979
95860297|NCT04674761|191678994|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline score as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, baseline direct bilirubin, treatment group, time (in months), and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects. One-sided p-value was reported.||-0.33|-1.44|0.0012
95860298|NCT04674761|191678995|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-112.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.78|-46.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline serum bile acid (sBA) concentration data as a covariate, and baseline age stratification, treatment group, visits (Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. The comparison of treatment difference in change from baseline to the average of Week 20 and Week 24 is estimated and tested using contrast. One-sided p-value was reported.||-46.69|-178.78|0.0006
95860299|NCT01387542|191679012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.000
95860300|NCT01387542|191679013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
95860301|NCT01387542|191679014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.001
95860302|NCT01387542|191679015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.000
95860303|NCT03601117|191679020|OTHER|This is to test for the antidepressant effect of LDLPFC stimulation. Test is change in score from baseline to approximately 48 hours after the final session.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
95860304|NCT02954172|191679058|EQUIVALENCE|the equivalence margin of the ORR ratio was set at (0.75, 1.33).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.077||||||||1.077|0.756|
95860305|NCT02954172|191679059|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.7066|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7066
95952689|NCT01375777|191876751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.11|-35.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.67|-48.11|<0.001
95952690|NCT01375777|191876751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.92|-31.47||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.47|-43.92|<0.001
95952691|NCT01375777|191876752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.45|-37.94||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.94|-50.45|<0.001
95995032|NCT01795547|191966371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.753||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.412||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.412|0.093|0.039
95770412|NCT01737710|191512988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.71||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||5.71|0.75|0.177
95770413|NCT01737710|191512989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza B are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|0.96|0.092
95770414|NCT01737710|191512990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H1N1 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.32|0.103
95770415|NCT01737710|191512991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||Null hypothesis: the fold differences in geometric mean titers against influenza H3N2 are not different between the two groups.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|0.60|0.895
95770416|NCT01737710|191512992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.97||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.54|>0.999
95770417|NCT01737710|191512993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.63||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.63|0.09|0.253
95770418|NCT01737710|191512994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.58||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroprotected against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.58|0.06|0.218
95995033|NCT01795547|191966372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.764||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|3.672||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||3.672|-0.143|0.070
95770419|NCT01737710|191512995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.94|0.84|0.140
95770420|NCT01737710|191512996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.65||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.65|0.24|0.791
95770421|NCT01737710|191512997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.92||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.92|0.47|0.833
95770422|NCT01737710|191512998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza B at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||1.38|0.40|0.378
95770423|NCT01737710|191512999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H1N1 at Day 28 between the two groups.|Fisher Exact|||||2.62|0.21|0.783
95770424|NCT01737710|191513000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.39|||Fisher Exact|Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of participants that were seroconverted against influenza H3N2 at Day 28 between the two groups.||||1.39|0.13|0.143
95770425|NCT03935425|191513014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95770426|NCT00885664|191513016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95770427|NCT00885664|191513017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95770428|NCT00885664|191513018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95770429|NCT00885664|191513019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
95770430|NCT00885664|191513020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95770431|NCT00885664|191513021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95770432|NCT00885664|191513022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95770433|NCT00885664|191513023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95770434|NCT00885664|191513024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95770435|NCT00885664|191513025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95770436|NCT00885664|191513026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95770437|NCT01342770|191513027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.06
95806646|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
95806647|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.107
95806648|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.258
95806649|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.161
95770438|NCT00402688|191513042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063||||||95.0|-0.089|0.215|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 2 weeks ).|||0.215|-0.089|
95770439|NCT00402688|191513042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is a risk difference of 0.2.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045||||||95.0|-0.106|0.195|||||Difference in success rates (levofloxacin 500mg for 4 weeks minus levofloxacin 750mg for 3 weeks).|||0.195|-0.106|
95806650|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.725
95806651|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.543
95806652|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||P-value is for Morning Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 wk.|ANCOVA|||||||0.265
95806653|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for Morning 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.050
95806654|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
95806655|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2 hrs PP Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.366
95806656|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485||95.0||||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.485
95806657|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for Bed Time at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.537
95806658|NCT01421459|191586497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878||95.0||||P-value is for 0300 hrs at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.878
95860306|NCT02954172|191679060|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3497
95806659|NCT01421459|191586498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.779
95806660|NCT01421459|191586498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.788
95806661|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.687
95806662|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value is for change at 4 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
95860307|NCT00806819|191679061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||0.99|0.70|0.0435
95770440|NCT00921557|191513060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 24||||<0.001
95770441|NCT00921557|191513060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percent change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
95770442|NCT00921557|191513061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants experiencing primary safety outcome||||>0.99
95806663|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||P-value is for change at 8 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.323
95860308|NCT00806819|191679062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.21|0.85|0.8940
95806664|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value is for change at 12 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
95806665|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for change at 16 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.089
95806666|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value is for change at 20 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
95806667|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||P-value is for change at 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.330
95806668|NCT01421459|191586499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 wks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
95806669|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.726
95806670|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.502
95806671|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0||||P-value is for Behavior domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.437
95806672|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.237
95806673|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
95806674|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for Worry domain at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.966
95806675|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.313
95806676|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.683
95806677|NCT01421459|191586500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||P-value is for ALBSS Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.765
95806678|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.983
95806679|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.371
95806680|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||95.0||||P-value is for Inconvenience of Regimen at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.757
95806681|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.890
95806682|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.326
95806683|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value is for Lifestyle Flexibility at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
95806684|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
95806685|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.690
95806686|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
95806687|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.902
95806688|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.109
95860309|NCT00806819|191679063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.00|0.70|0.0506
95860310|NCT00806819|191679064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.02|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.02|0.73|0.0865
95770443|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.226|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770444|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightIFG (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770445|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770446|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightParietal (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770447|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95806689|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value is for Glycemic Control at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
95952692|NCT01375777|191876752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001||95.0|-42.06|-29.69||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.69|-42.06|<0.001
95770448|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightdACC (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770449|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||leftInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770450|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY|rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||rightInsula (Change in Brain activity \[post minus pre\])||||
95806690|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Deliver Device at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
95770451|NCT04157296|191513087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||TCN (Change in Connectivity \[post minus pre\])||||
95770452|NCT04157296|191513088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.241
95770453|NCT04157296|191513089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
95770454|NCT04157296|191513090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.042
95770455|NCT04157296|191513091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.349
95770456|NCT00463047|191513095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.29|||Mixed effects ANOVA|Crossover analysis||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was:HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID15 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and oxycodone (OXY), respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
95806691|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
95806692|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Delivery Device at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
95806693|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 4 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
95806694|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.296
95806695|NCT01421459|191586501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for ITSQ Total Score at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.662
95806696|NCT01421459|191586502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.393
95806697|NCT01421459|191586503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value is for Insulin Dose at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANOVA|||||||0.185
95806698|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.661
95806699|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.394
95806700|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.688
95806701|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95806702|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.409
95806703|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at 8 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.090
95806704|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.319
95806705|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.463
95860311|NCT00806819|191679065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|0.65|0.7279
95860312|NCT00806819|191679065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.76||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||1.76|0.75|0.5180
95770457|NCT00463047|191513096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID5 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.05|0.01|0.0081
95806706|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.128
95995034|NCT01795547|191966373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.922||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.119||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||2.119|-0.275|0.130
95806707|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 16 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.261
95806708|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.218
95952693|NCT01375777|191876752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.55|-26.11||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.11|-38.55|<0.001
95952694|NCT01375777|191876752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.63|-36.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.32|-48.63|<0.001
95770458|NCT00463047|191513097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
95770459|NCT00463047|191513098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|0.3|0.45||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID10 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
95770460|NCT00463047|191513099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.35||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID45 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.35|0.20|<0.0001
95770461|NCT00463047|191513100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.25||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||The statistical hypothesis to be tested was: HO: µFBT = µOXY versus Ha: µFBT ≠ µoxy where µFBT and µOXY denote the mean PID60 for double-blind episodes for which patients use FBT and OXY, respectively. The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed effects ANOVA crossover model, with treatment as randomized (FBT or OXY), period, and treatment sequence (as randomized) as fixed factors and patient as a random factor, using compound symmetry for the variance-covariance matrix.||0.25|0.08|<0.0001
95770462|NCT00463047|191513107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|0.39|0.58|||ANOVA|||||0.58|0.39|<0.0001
95770463|NCT00463047|191513108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|0.70|<0.0001
95770464|NCT00463047|191513109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1966||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.1966
95770465|NCT00463047|191513110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0275
95806709|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 20 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.092
95806710|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7%% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.186
95806711|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.174
95806712|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c \<7% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.340
95806713|NCT01421459|191586504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.293
95806714|NCT01421459|191586505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.594
95806715|NCT01421459|191586505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Chi-squared|||||||0.462
95770466|NCT00463047|191513111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0001
95806716|NCT01421459|191586506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995||95.0||||P-value is for Total Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
95806717|NCT01421459|191586506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal Hypoglycemia with BG ≤70 mg/dL events.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.686
95806718|NCT01421459|191586507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|Chi-squared|||||||0.285
95806719|NCT01421459|191586507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.047
95806720|NCT01421459|191586507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.882
95806721|NCT01421459|191586507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.179
95770467|NCT00463047|191513112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||<0.0001
95806722|NCT01421459|191586507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.314
95806723|NCT01421459|191586507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline to 24 weeks (Overall).|Chi-squared|||||||0.100
95806724|NCT01421459|191586508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value is for 4 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.176
95806725|NCT01421459|191586508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0||||P-value is for 12 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.999
95806726|NCT01421459|191586508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-value is for 24 weeks.|Chi-squared|||||||0.618
95806727|NCT01421459|191586508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint (LOCF).|Chi-squared|||||||0.874
95806728|NCT01421459|191586508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.233||95.0||||P-value is for Overall (Baseline to 24 weeks).|Chi-squared|||||||>0.233
95995035|NCT01795547|191966374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.007||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.402|4.417||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||4.417|-2.402|0.561
95806729|NCT00967499|191586513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4010
95806730|NCT00967499|191586514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5672
95806731|NCT00967499|191586515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0570
95806732|NCT00967499|191586516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5150
95806733|NCT00967499|191586517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||P-values are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test with gender adjustment for the ranks of the change from baseline values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3601
95806734|NCT00967499|191586518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3453|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||24 hours postdose||||0.3453
95806735|NCT00967499|191586518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7874|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||48 hours postdose||||0.7874
95806736|NCT00967499|191586518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8485|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||72 Hours Postdose||||0.8485
95806737|NCT04003389|191586523|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with change from baseline at Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment \& smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight \& baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||LSMeans (LSM), standard errors (SE), confidence intervals (CI)||0.21|-0.36|0.0604
95770468|NCT00463047|191513113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0004
95770469|NCT00463047|191513114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value for the treatment comparison is from a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.0074
95806738|NCT04003389|191586523|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.45|0.239
95806739|NCT04003389|191586525|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.014||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.014|0.001|0.029
95806740|NCT04003389|191586525|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.007||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.007|-0.006|0.867
95806741|NCT04003389|191586525|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.012||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.012|0.001|0.027
95806742|NCT04003389|191586525|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.008||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.008|-0.003|0.410
95806743|NCT04003389|191586525|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.087||95.0|-0.001|0.011||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.011|-0.001|0.087
95770470|NCT00463047|191513115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.83||LS mean, SE of LS mean and p-value for treatment comparison are from ANOVA based on individual episodes with treatment as randomized, phase, and sequence as fixed factors and patient as random factor, using compound symmetry.|ANOVA|||||0.83|0.55|<0.0001
95770471|NCT00463047|191513117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5054||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||3.3|0.7|0.3022
95770472|NCT00463047|191513118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4042||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|1.0|0.0268
95770473|NCT00463047|191513119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4631||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0008
95770474|NCT00463047|191513120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3184||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0084
95770475|NCT00463047|191513121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0788||||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalize estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.5283
95770476|NCT00463047|191513122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9491||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.3|0.7|0.7110
95770477|NCT00463047|191513123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5355||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.9|0.2|0.3288
95770478|NCT00463047|191513124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1485||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.7|0.8|0.5145
95770479|NCT00463047|191513125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4481||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||2.0|1.1|0.0191
95770480|NCT00463047|191513126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4396||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.8|1.2|0.0006
95806744|NCT04003389|191586525|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.259||95.0|-0.002|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.009|-0.002|0.259
95770481|NCT00463047|191513127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3426||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.6|1.1|0.0044
95770482|NCT00463047|191513128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1448||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.4|0.9|0.2184
95770483|NCT00463047|191513129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9249||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A logit link function and compound symmetry working correlation were applied in this model.||1.2|0.7|0.5808
95806745|NCT04003389|191586526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.102|-0.006|0.079
95854654|NCT03591406|191668916|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in proportions|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|4.71|||||2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was computed using the Wilson score method with continuity correction described by Newcombe.|||4.71|-2.15|
95770484|NCT00463047|191513130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8908|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.2|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||2.2|1.7|<0.0001
95770485|NCT00463047|191513131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation|||Analysis is based on a generalized estimating equation model with treatment as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect. A cumulative logit link function and independent working correlation were applied in this model. Treatment differences for each time point were measured across all categories of responses.||1.8|1.4|<0.0001
95770486|NCT02649439|191513146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4852
95806746|NCT04003389|191586526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.053||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femoral Neck)||0.053|-0.052|0.980
95806747|NCT04003389|191586526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.042||95.0|0.002|0.094||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.094|0.002|0.042
95806748|NCT04003389|191586526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.386||95.0|-0.025|0.065||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Femur)||0.065|-0.025|0.386
95806749|NCT04003389|191586526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.156||95.0|-0.016|0.099||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.099|-0.016|0.156
95806750|NCT04003389|191586526|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.084||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Hip (Trochanter)||0.084|-0.028|0.328
95806751|NCT04003389|191586527|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.497||95.0|-0.005|0.009||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.009|-0.005|0.497
95806752|NCT04003389|191586527|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.878||95.0|-0.007|0.006||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.007|0.878
95770487|NCT02649439|191513147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3269|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3269
95770488|NCT02649439|191513150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0255||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0255
95770489|NCT02649439|191513150|OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte nonclassical PD-L1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0021
95770490|NCT02649439|191513150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0486||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in monocyte PD-1+ between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.0486
95770491|NCT02649439|191513151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7317||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD4 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7317
95806753|NCT04003389|191586528|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.082||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.082|-0.042|0.527
95806754|NCT04003389|191586528|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.872||95.0|-0.066|0.056||The LSM, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline at the Week 52 timepoint as response, treatment and smoking status (current vs former/never) as fixed effects with baseline weight and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.066|0.872
95770492|NCT02649439|191513151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7545||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in CD8 between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.7545
95806755|NCT02899754|191586531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome assessed at 1 month post-intervention||||0.18
95806756|NCT02899754|191586533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95806757|NCT02899754|191586534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95806758|NCT02899754|191586535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95860313|NCT00806819|191679068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.85||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||1.85|1.02|0.0387
95770493|NCT02649439|191513151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in Treg between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.5310
95770494|NCT02649439|191513151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in NK between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.8451
95770495|NCT02649439|191513151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9377||||||The reported p-value is representative of the PBMCs in MDSC between responders and non-responders.|Mann Whitney Test|||||||0.9377
95770496|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2012
95770497|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4891||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4891
95770498|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4609||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4609
95770499|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
95770500|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0825||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0825
95770501|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5988||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5988
95806759|NCT02899754|191586536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95806760|NCT02899754|191586537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95770502|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5920
95770503|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6221
95770504|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
95806761|NCT02899754|191586538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square test||||0.01
95806762|NCT02899754|191586539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95860314|NCT00806819|191679068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.1071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.75||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||1.75|0.95|0.1071
95860315|NCT00806819|191679070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||0.1558
95770505|NCT02649439|191513152|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of Tregs in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7910
95770506|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of NK in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
95806763|NCT05032820|191586548|SUPERIORITY||Proportion of Patients Achieving CR/sCR|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.2|78.4||p-value is calculated using Fisher's exact test and is a one-sided test with a 5% significance level that tests whether the proportion of successes is greater than 10%.|Fisher Exact|One-sided test with a 5% significance level that tests whether the proportion of successes is greater than 10%.||||78.4|51.2|<0.0001
95806764|NCT04806373|191586585|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.863
95806765|NCT04806373|191586586|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in pleural drainage volume day 1 post-TSP||||0.005
95806766|NCT04806373|191586587|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Borg dyspnea scale day 3 post-TSP||||0.891
95952695|NCT01375777|191876752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.07|-31.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.76|-44.07|<0.001
95952696|NCT01375777|191876752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|-27.07||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.07|-39.38|<0.001
95995036|NCT01795547|191966375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.695||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|0.121||All secondary endpoints were tested without any hierarchical testing strategy and no adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|The model uses an unstructured variance/covariance matrix.||||0.121|-1.511|0.095
95806767|NCT04806373|191586588|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain score at day 3 post-TSP||||0.899
95952697|NCT01375777|191876753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.43|-31.54||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.54|-43.43|<0.001
96001870|NCT01845077|191981260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|105.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.9|111.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||111.0|99.9|
95770507|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the % of MDSC in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5186
95770508|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD4 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9097
95770509|NCT02649439|191513152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the % of naïve CD8 in PBMCs at Day 1 and Day 29.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7334
95770510|NCT02560922|191513164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.18|-1.45|0.128
95806768|NCT04806373|191586589|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.809
95806769|NCT04806373|191586590|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
95806770|NCT04806373|191586591|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.808
95806771|NCT04806373|191586592|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
95806772|NCT04806373|191586593|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
95806773|NCT04806373|191586594|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95806774|NCT05213624|191586617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|118.14|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||118.14|1.59|
95806775|NCT05213624|191586617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|19.48|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||19.48|0.16|
95806776|NCT05213624|191586617|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|73.57|||||BI 764198 (comparator) vs. Placebo (reference)|Logistic regression utilizing corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||73.57|0.86|
95806777|NCT05213624|191586618|OTHER||Relative difference|-39.82||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.17|-17.36||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||-17.36|-56.17|0.0024
95995037|NCT00642642|191966376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|McNemar|Paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||0.0109
95770511|NCT02560922|191513164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.06|-1.73|0.068
95770512|NCT02560922|191513165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.77|-6.01|0.129
95806778|NCT05213624|191586618|OTHER||Relative difference|-4.57||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|35.77||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||35.77|-32.92|0.7906
95806779|NCT05213624|191586618|OTHER||Relative difference|-23.27||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|8.7||Nominal and unadjusted|ANCOVA||"Comparison vs Placebo~Calculated as (exp(difference of least square means) - 1) \* 100."|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the change in UPCR from baseline to Week 12 with corticosteroid use at randomization and baseline 24-hr UPCR as covariates.||8.70|-45.83|0.1325
95806780|NCT03555994|191586624|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-105.7||||0.023||90.0|-178.8|-32.6|||ANCOVA|||||-32.6|-178.8|0.023
95806781|NCT03555994|191586625|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-25.87||||0.008||90.0|-40.88|-10.86|||ANCOVA|||||-10.86|-40.88|0.008
95770513|NCT02560922|191513165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.44|-7.07|0.084
95806782|NCT03555994|191586626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-21.99||||0.008||90.0|-34.55|-9.43|||ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-34.55|0.008
95806783|NCT03555994|191586627|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-35.06||||0.07||90.0|-66.54|-3.58|||ANCOVA|||||-3.58|-66.54|0.070
95806784|NCT03555994|191586627|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-11.72||||0.03||90.0|-20.13|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.30|-20.13|0.030
95806785|NCT03657407|191586634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||2.0|-0.71|0.17
95806786|NCT03657407|191586635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||9.5|-5.4|0.29
95806787|NCT03657407|191586636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|4.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||4.5|-43.1|0.05
95806788|NCT03657407|191586637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis that Belladonna \& Opium not superior to Placebo||1.7|0.42|0.42
95806789|NCT01602380|191586638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.999||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|If the true PFS HR for comparison of fulvestrant vs. anastrozole was 0.69 (likely to correspond to a 45% prolongation of PFS) the study had 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for PFS with a one-sided type 1 error of 2.5% (two-sided 5%).||0.999|0.637|0.0486
95806790|NCT01602380|191586639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.206||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease and measurable disease at baseline.|A HR of \<1 favours fulvestrant.|65% OS maturity||1.206|0.773|0.7579
95806791|NCT01602380|191586640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.614||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.614|0.716|0.7290
95806792|NCT01602380|191586642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rato of EDoR|1.52||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||2.26|1.03|0.0367
95806793|NCT01602380|191586643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.932||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.932|0.815|0.3045
95806794|NCT01602380|191586645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of EDoCB|1.26||||0.0561||95.0|0.99|1.59||2-sided p-value|Method of Ellis et al|||||1.59|0.99|0.0561
95806795|NCT01602380|191586646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of TOI score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.11|0.70|0.2846
95806796|NCT01602380|191586646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test with factors for prior chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease and measurable/non-measurable disease at baseline|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours fulvestrant.|Comparative statistical analysis for time to deterioration of FACT-B total score is presented (fulvestrant versus anastrozole).||1.03|0.66|0.0844
95806797|NCT00787800|191586662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
95770514|NCT02560922|191513166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.91|-4.14|0.209
95770515|NCT02560922|191513166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.63|-5.03|0.128
95770516|NCT02560922|191513167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.51|-2.18|0.222
95770517|NCT02560922|191513167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.33|-2.60|0.128
95770518|NCT02560922|191513168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||3.82|-0.40|0.111
95770519|NCT02560922|191513168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||2.88|-1.42|0.502
95770520|NCT02560922|191513169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||2.66|-1.15|0.433
95770521|NCT02560922|191513169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||3.86|-0.45|0.120
95770522|NCT02560922|191513170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.09|21.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||21.53|9.09|0.001
95770523|NCT02560922|191513170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|18.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||18.27|5.08|<0.001
95806798|NCT00787800|191586664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
95806799|NCT00787800|191586666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95806800|NCT00761137|191586668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Primary outcome was analyzed by a mixed-effects ANOVA model employing subject as a random factor as well as visit and treatment as fixed factors. Intention-to-treat (ITT) sample was analyzed. Unweighted means and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are reported, which represent treatment group means adjusted for the effect of visit and removing the intra-subject variability. For all analyses, significance level was set at 5%."||||0.6
95806801|NCT00954538|191586687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95806802|NCT00954538|191586688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.27|||Linear Fixed Effects Model||Difference = AD group value - HE group value|A 90% confidence interval was calculated for the group difference (AD - HE) using the model results. As prespecified by the analysis plan, if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval is above 0, then the hypothesis that \[18F\]MK-3328 can discriminate between AD patients and cognitively normal elderly controls as measured by regional tracer uptake following single IV doses of \[18F\]MK-3328 is supported.||0.27|-0.04|
95806803|NCT04153149|191586694|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718|||=|0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, age group, and log-transformed baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as covariates.||0.929|0.555|=0.0118
95806804|NCT04153149|191586695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|0.929|||Modified Andersen-Gill Model|||Analysis done using a modified Andersen-Gill model with a robust variance. The model included treatment group, ATTR amyloidosis disease type, NYHA class, age group, and log-transformed baseline NT-proBNP as covariates.||0.929|0.487|=0.0162
95770524|NCT02560922|191513171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.57|0.356
95770525|NCT02560922|191513171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||0.15|-2.19|0.087
95770526|NCT02560922|191513172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 3 months||1.41|0.61|<0.001
95770527|NCT02560922|191513172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between group difference in change from baseline to 9 months||1.09|0.24|0.002
95770528|NCT02560922|191513173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 3 months||-0.95|-1.60|<0.001
95770529|NCT02560922|191513173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of between-group difference in self-reported change in symptoms (from baseline) at 9 months||-0.51|-1.24|<0.001
95770530|NCT01422889|191513249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 12 month cardiac events. For the protocol specified primary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.2% (23/1028) of ION Registry subjects experienced CD/MI related to the ION stent at 12 months||||
95770531|NCT01422889|191513250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|2.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||A p-value was not calculated for the ION Registry 2 year cardiac events. For the protocol specified secondary endpoint analysis including data pooled from the PERSEUS SV, PERSEUS WH and TE Prove patient populations please see the citations.||||2.6% (27/1054) of ION Registry subjects experienced ARC ST Definite/Probable related to the ION stent at 2 years.||||
95770532|NCT00994461|191513253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by H. pylori status was employed for the comparison of celecoxib and loxoprofen with placebo. The multiplicity of test was not adjusted because these comparisons were for the secondary objective.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by H. pylori status was employed. Continuous correction was used.||Hypothesis testing was conducted with significant p-value level of under 0.05.||||<0.0001
95770533|NCT02907177|191513281|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|1.27||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|2.654|||Negative binomial regression||Rate ratio is ponesimod 20 mg / DMF versus placebo /DMF|||2.654|0.608|0.5252
95770534|NCT04586244|191513320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||paired t-test|The paired t-test used n-1 degrees of freedom, where n is the number of evaluable paired samples.||||||0.0925
95770535|NCT01022307|191513373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis showed that the effect size was small, with a 50% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 effect requiring 247 subjects.|||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|Greenhouse Geisser correction.||F-test evaluating effects of Group||||< 0.04
95952698|NCT01375777|191876753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001||95.0|-37.79|-26.04||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-26.04|-37.79|<0.001
95806805|NCT04153149|191586696|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|26.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|=|7.97e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|39.55|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||39.55|13.38|=0.0000797
95806806|NCT04153149|191586697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.03|50.15|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline 6-MWT as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to amyloidosis disease progression and death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||50.15|14.03|=0.0005
95806807|NCT04153149|191586698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.2|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline tafamidis use, treatment-by-baseline tafamidis use interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||9.20|2.40|=0.0008
95770536|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||6.3|-27.4|0.2179
95806808|NCT04153149|191586699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|13.4|||MMRM|||Analysis done using MMRM with baseline KCCQ-OS as a covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, type of ATTR amyloidosis, and age group. Missing change values due to death were imputed using sampling with replacement from the worst 10% of observed values, as specified in the SAP.||13.40|3.98|=0.0003
95806809|NCT04153149|191586701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.7|||=|0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||16.1|1.3|=0.0217
95806810|NCT04153149|191586702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.5|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing change value in NYHA Class due to death were imputed as worsened. All other missing were imputed using multiple imputation approach.|Adjusted difference in percentage of stable or improved (vutrisiran - placebo) participants was estimated. Adjusted difference, 95% CI, and p-value were derived from multiple imputation procedure by combining estimates per Rubin's rules.|||22.2|2.7|=0.0121
95806811|NCT02500836|191586720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
95806812|NCT02500836|191586721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||<0.0001
95806813|NCT00666263|191586734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|35.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|61.46|||ANOVA|Fixed effects ANOVA with factors for sequence (1 or 2), nested within sequence, period (Cross-Over Period 1 or 2), \& treatment (IGIV, 10% or placebo)||||61.46|8.81|0.005
95806814|NCT00666263|191586735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95806815|NCT00666263|191586737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squared means|32.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.01|51.06|||ANOVA|||||51.06|14.01|<0.001
95806816|NCT00666263|191586738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95806817|NCT00666263|191586742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|6.03||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.92|||ANOVA|||||9.92|2.14|0.002
95952699|NCT01375777|191876753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-22.95||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.95|-34.77|<0.001
95952700|NCT01375777|191876753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.29|-30.88||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-30.88|-42.29|<0.001
95952701|NCT01375777|191876753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-25.51||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-25.51|-36.92|<0.001
95806818|NCT00666263|191586744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-15.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-6.77|||ANOVA|||||-6.77|-24.37|<0.001
95806819|NCT00666263|191586746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-26.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.96|-13.26|||ANOVA|||||-13.26|-38.96|<0.001
95806820|NCT00666263|191586748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-216.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.41|57.22|||ANOVA|||||57.22|-490.41|0.059
95806821|NCT00666263|191586750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95806822|NCT00666263|191586751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.021
95770537|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||2.2|-31.5|0.0883
95770538|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||4.3|-29.4|0.1414
95770539|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.6|-19.1|0.4514
95770540|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.212||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2120
95770541|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1057||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1057
95770542|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5241||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5241
95806823|NCT00266032|191586763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.0|-20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean of Yaz flexible regimen minus mean of Yaz standard was tested|Primary variable was tested for the hypothesis, whether the means are equal against the alternative (means are different) at a level of significance of alpha = 0.05 (t-test). For power calculation, a normal distribution, a absolute difference of 10 days, a Standard Deviation of 28 days and a drop-out rate of 40% was assumed.||-20|-29|<0.0001
95806824|NCT00124657|191586790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=8)||1.00|0.48|
95806825|NCT00124657|191586790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||||||1-year progression-free survival (n=12)||0.57|0.09|
95806826|NCT00124657|191586790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.602||||||1-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.602|0.198|
95806827|NCT00124657|191586790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.285||||||2-year progression free survival (n=20)||0.285|0.015|
95806828|NCT00124657|191586790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||1-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
95806829|NCT00124657|191586790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.341||||||2-year progression free survival (n=21)||0.341|0.039|
95806830|NCT02853136|191586812|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3107.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2332.9|4140.1|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4140.10|2332.90|
95952702|NCT01375777|191876753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.98||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-22.98|-34.39|<0.001
95806831|NCT02853136|191586813|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|659.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|489.791|886.676|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\]=44.8.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||886.676|489.791|
95806832|NCT02853136|191586814|OTHER||Adjusted geometric Mean ratio [%]|3103.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2330.5|4132.65|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric Mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] = adjusted gMean T2/ adjusted gMean R2.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] =42.7."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||4132.65|2330.50|
95806833|NCT01220687|191586815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
95806834|NCT01220687|191586816|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.18|||Poisson|||||2.18|1.68|<0.0001
95806835|NCT03997383|191586826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|14.693||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|28.692||P-value was determined by the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test,stratified by baseline tafamidis use.Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann method, stratified by baseline tafamidis use. Analysis was performed on the 100 multiply-imputed datasets.|||28.692|0.693|0.0162
95806836|NCT03997383|191586827|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.796||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|7.242||P-value was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) as described in the Statistical analysis plan.|MMRM|||||7.242|0.176|0.0397
95806837|NCT03997383|191586828|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Win Ratio|1.27||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.61|||Z-test|P-value was analyzed by a z-test using the mean and variance of the log-transformed win ratio estimate.||||1.61|0.99|0.0574
95806838|NCT03997383|191586829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.602|||Andersen-Gill||HR was derived using an Andersen-Gill model, including the treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and age as covariates.|||1.602|0.620|0.9888
95806839|NCT03997383|191586830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.883||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.341|||Modified Andersen-Gill|P-value was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use.|HR was derived using the modified Andersen-Gill model stratified by baseline tafamidis use, including treatment arm, type of ATTR amyloidosis, baseline NYHA class, and age as covariates.|||1.341|0.582|0.5609
95806840|NCT01856478|191586832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.18||Null hypothesis: Afatinib and methotrexate have an equal response rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||"Linear regression stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate the OR of response and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||5.18|1.47|0.0016
95806841|NCT01856478|191586833|SUPERIORITY|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib on PFS compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.627||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.823||Null hypothesis: Afatinib and methotrexate are equally effective in terms of PFS.|Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|||0.823|0.478|0.0005
95806842|NCT01856478|191586834|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.129|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.129|0.687|0.3162
95806843|NCT01856478|191586835|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.15|0.54|0.2121
95806844|NCT01856478|191586836|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.49|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.49|0.67|0.9888
95806845|NCT01856478|191586837|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34|||Log Rank||"Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting was used to calculate HR and its confidence interval.~Data presented as Afatinib versus Methotrexate."|Stratified log-rank test was used to test the effect of afatinib compared with methotrexate. The stratification was done on the baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).||1.34|0.62|0.6260
95806846|NCT01856478|191586838|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||12.36|3.45|0.0005
95806847|NCT01856478|191586839|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||0.84|-8.39|0.1090
95860316|NCT00806819|191679070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||0.0565
95860317|NCT00806819|191679071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.16|0.74|0.5068
95952703|NCT01375777|191876754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.75|-43.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.58|-56.75|<0.001
95770543|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2773||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2773
95770544|NCT04015518|191513374|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.3867||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.3867
95806848|NCT01856478|191586840|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as \[Afatinib\]-\[Methotrexate\]|||1.85|-9.73|0.1819
95806849|NCT01856478|191586841|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic||Afatinib versus Methotrexate|Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.222
95952704|NCT01375777|191876754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001||95.0|-46.84|-33.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.82|-46.84|<0.001
95952705|NCT01375777|191876754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.38|-28.28||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-28.28|-41.38|<0.001
95952706|NCT01375777|191876754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.12|-38.82||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.82|-52.12|<0.001
95806850|NCT01856478|191586842|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic||Afatinib versus Methotrexate|Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.012
95806851|NCT01856478|191586843|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.008
95806852|NCT01856478|191586844|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Stratified logistic regression model stratified by baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and use of prior EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No) was used to compare the number of patients that of improved vs. not improved (i.e. stable and worsened) between the two treatment groups.||||0.091
95806853|NCT03769116|191586845|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann treatment diff|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.58|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis conducted on changes from baseline.||12.58|2.08|< 0.0001
95806854|NCT03769116|191586846|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.7|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||||2.7|-1.0|= 0.3730
95806855|NCT03769116|191586854|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|=|0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 4-5 years old||4.4|0.5|= 0.0172
95806856|NCT03769116|191586854|OTHER||LSM Change Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|=|0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.6|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures|||Change from baseline - Age Group: 6-7 years old||1.6|-3.0|= 0.5384
95806857|NCT02514746|191586856|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.5||||||Difference at Year 3||4.5|-7.5|
95806858|NCT02514746|191586856|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.5||||||Difference at Year 4||6.5|-7.4|
95806859|NCT02514746|191586857|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 3||1.1|0.9|
95806860|NCT02514746|191586857|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Geometric mean titer ratio at Year 4||1.1|0.9|
95806861|NCT02514746|191586858|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.8||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||2.8|-8.1|
95806862|NCT02514746|191586858|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-3.3|
95806863|NCT02514746|191586859|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 7 days after booster dose||1.0|0.5|
95806864|NCT02514746|191586859|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group A/B)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||||||Geometric mean titer ratio 28 days after booster dose||0.9|0.6|
95806865|NCT02514746|191586860|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.5||||||Difference at 7 days post booster vaccination||4.5|-8.0|
95806866|NCT02514746|191586860|OTHER||Difference (Group A - B)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0||||||Difference at 28 days post booster vaccination||3.0|-4.4|
95806867|NCT04003142|191586872|SUPERIORITY|Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)|Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.91|-2.73|<0.001
95806868|NCT04003142|191586872|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.45|-1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.64|-3.45|<0.001
95806869|NCT04003142|191586872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
95806870|NCT04003142|191586872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
95806871|NCT04003142|191586873|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001||95.0|-2.94|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.78|-2.94|<0.001
95806872|NCT04003142|191586873|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.46|-3.60|<0.001
95806873|NCT04003142|191586873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
95806874|NCT04003142|191586873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
95806875|NCT04003142|191586874|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.021||95.0|-0.27|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.02|-0.27|0.021
95860318|NCT00806819|191679072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||1.05|0.66|0.1181
95806876|NCT04003142|191586874|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001||95.0|-0.41|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.16|-0.41|<0.001
95952707|NCT01375777|191876754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.22|-33.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-33.92|-47.22|<0.001
95806877|NCT04003142|191586874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
95806878|NCT04003142|191586874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
95806879|NCT04003142|191586875|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.049||95.0|-0.33|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.00|-0.33|0.049
95806880|NCT04003142|191586875|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
95952708|NCT01375777|191876754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-29.6||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and the stratification factor.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.60|-42.90|<0.001
95952709|NCT01234675|191876760|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|4.6||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.6|||Paired T test|||||16.6|-7.3|0.424
95952710|NCT01234675|191876761|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.04|||Paired T test|||||-0.04|-12.2|0.049
95952711|NCT01234675|191876762|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Paired T test|||||45.8|-0.6|0.056
95806881|NCT04003142|191586875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.049
95806882|NCT04003142|191586875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Hochberg|||||||<0.001
95806883|NCT04003142|191586876|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.8|-2.1|0.381
95770545|NCT04015518|191513375|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.1|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||7.1|-19.3|
95770546|NCT04015518|191513375|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|8.0|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||8.0|-18.8|
95770547|NCT04015518|191513375|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|9.7|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.7|-16.6|
95770548|NCT04015518|191513375|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|1.4|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||1.4|-20.3|
95770549|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.6|-17.7|0.5595
95770550|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||14.5|-12.7|0.8968
95806884|NCT04003142|191586876|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.6|-3.5|0.007
95806885|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.51|-2.09|0.001
95806886|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001||95.0|-2.51|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.91|-2.51|<0.001
95770551|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||9.5|-17.9|0.5456
95806887|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.65|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.87|-2.65|<0.001
95806888|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|-2.86|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.08|-2.86|<0.001
95806889|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-2.63|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.84|-2.63|<0.001
95806890|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|-3.29|-1.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.50|-3.29|<0.001
95806891|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001||95.0|-2.79|-0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.90|-2.79|<0.001
95806892|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.72|-3.61|<0.001
95806893|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.85|-2.71|<0.001
95806894|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001||95.0|-3.59|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.73|-3.59|<0.001
95806895|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-2.77|-0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.83|-2.77|<0.001
95806896|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.37|-3.30|<0.001
95806897|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.74|-2.79|<0.001
95806898|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.35|-3.40|<0.001
95806899|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.002||95.0|-2.71|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.59|-2.71|0.002
95806900|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-3.57|-1.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.45|-3.57|<0.001
95806901|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001||95.0|-2.96|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-2.96|<0.001
95806902|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-3.69|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.60|-3.69|<0.001
95952712|NCT01234675|191876763|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-6.1||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.5|||Paired T test|||||18.5|-12.5|0.683
95952713|NCT01234675|191876764|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.502||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|10.4|||Paired T test|||||10.4|-59.1|0.155
95995038|NCT00642642|191966377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|McNemar|paired test of proportions||"Null hypothesis: no difference in the response rates between the two treatment arms.~Statistical test: McNemar's paired test of proportions Significance level: two sided alpha of 0.05 for each of the two co-primary endpoints.~Assumptions for power calculations:~Response rate for azficel-T treated cheek = 40% Response rate for placebo treated cheek = 20% 10% dropout rate; dropouts counted as failures. Low correlation between cheeks \& 50% correlation between endpoints"||||<0.0001
95806903|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001||95.0|-2.91|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-2.91|<0.001
95952714|NCT01234675|191876765|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.8|||Paired T test|||||7.8|-9.8|0.805
95952715|NCT01234675|191876766|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.0||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|9.6|||Paired T test|||||9.6|-11.6|0.844
95952716|NCT01234675|191876767|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|2.9||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|12.2|||Paired T test|||||12.2|-6.4|0.509
95952717|NCT01234675|191876768|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|0.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Paired T test|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3
95952718|NCT01234675|191876769|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-1.03||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-8.2|0.685
95995039|NCT03726268|191966415|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.970
95770552|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||3.5|-19.0|0.1762
95770553|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1726||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1726
95952719|NCT01234675|191876770|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-5.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.4|||Paired T test|||||6.4|-17.0|0.349
95952720|NCT01234675|191876771|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.6||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.6|||Paired T test|||||5.6|-1.8|0.305
95952721|NCT01234675|191876772|SUPERIORITY||Paired difference|-0.5||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Paired T test|||||0.8|-1.8|0.425
95952722|NCT00331799|191876785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test on the difference between the baseline and endpoint score on the CD-RISC.||||0.00365
95770554|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2353||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2353
95770555|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1346||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1346
95770556|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.195||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1950
95952723|NCT05065918|191876803|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.536||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|0.857|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.857|-1.929|0.448
95952724|NCT05065918|191876804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.99||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|1.108|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.108|-1.152|0.969
95952725|NCT05065918|191876805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.322|0.322|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.322|-1.322|0.231
95952726|NCT05065918|191876806|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.319||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|0.425|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.425|-1.064|0.398
95995040|NCT03726268|191966415|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.631
95995041|NCT03726268|191966416|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95995042|NCT03726268|191966416|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95770557|NCT04015518|191513376|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.1681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1681
95770558|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.5|-1.8|0.2812
95806904|NCT04003142|191586877|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.52|-3.61|<0.001
95806905|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001||95.0|-0.21|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.21|0.001
95952727|NCT05065918|191876807|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.284||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.924|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||.924|-.356|0.382
95770559|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.6|-1.7|0.3357
95770560|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.4|-2.0|0.1809
95770561|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.9|-1.1|0.8322
95806906|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.24|<0.001
95806907|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001||95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
95952728|NCT05065918|191876808|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.382||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|1.025|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.025|-.284|0.266
95952729|NCT05065918|191876809|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.97|||Regression, Linear|||||.970|0.089|0.019
95952730|NCT05065918|191876810|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.277||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.787|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||0.787|-.232|0.284
95770562|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4035||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4035
95770563|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.2563||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.2563
95770564|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.681||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.6810
95770565|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.4665||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.4665
95770566|NCT04015518|191513377|OTHER|Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.||||||0.5565||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.5565
95770567|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.281|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.281|-0.170|
95770568|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.432|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.432|-0.048|
95806908|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.28|0.001
95806909|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067||95.0|-0.23|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.01|-0.23|0.067
95806910|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.11|-0.35|<0.001
95806911|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.03|-0.30|0.020
95806912|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
95806913|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.04|-0.32|0.012
95770569|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.496|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.496|0.020|
95770570|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.314|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.314|-0.067|
95770571|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0613||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0613
95770572|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0628||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0628
95770573|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1449||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1449
95806914|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.42|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
95806915|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.02|-0.31|0.030
95806916|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.14|-0.43|<0.001
95806917|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.28|0.095
95806918|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
95770574|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.046||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0460
95770575|NCT04015518|191513378|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0677||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0677
95770576|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.256|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.256|-0.069|
95770577|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.405|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.405|0.018|
95770578|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.303|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.303|-0.042|
95770579|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.25|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.250|-0.018|
95806919|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-0.28|0.109
95806920|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
95806921|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02||95.0|-0.35|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
95806922|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
95806923|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean diferrence|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012||95.0|-0.37|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
95806924|NCT04003142|191586878|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
95995043|NCT03726268|191966417|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95995044|NCT03726268|191966417|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95995045|NCT03726268|191966418|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95770580|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0536||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0536
95770581|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0476||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0476
95806925|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001||95.0|-18.9|-5.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.43|-18.90|<0.001
95806926|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001||95.0|-22.44|-8.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-8.91|-22.44|<0.001
95806927|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-7.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-7.13|-22.09|<0.001
95806928|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.45|-8.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-8.45|-23.45|<0.001
95806929|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-23.16|-7.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-7.86|-23.16|<0.001
95806930|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001||95.0|-27.91|-12.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-12.59|-27.91|<0.001
95806931|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-24.04|-8.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-8.63|-24.04|<0.001
95806932|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001||95.0|-29.36|-13.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.94|-29.36|<0.001
95806933|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-15.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-7.98|-23.27|<0.001
95806934|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001||95.0|-30.52|-15.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-15.24|-30.52|<0.001
95806935|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-22.38|-7.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-7.19|-22.38|<0.001
95806936|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-22.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.25|-15.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-15.07|-30.25|<0.001
95995046|NCT03726268|191966418|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95995047|NCT03726268|191966419|OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.105
95995048|NCT03726268|191966419|OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.531
95770582|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.1076||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.1076
95806937|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-7.09|-22.86|<0.001
95770583|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0606||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0606
95770584|NCT04015518|191513379|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0824||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0824
95770585|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.211|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.422|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.422|0.040|
95806938|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-21.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001||95.0|-29.34|-13.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.60|-29.34|<0.001
95806939|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.33|-6.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-6.43|-22.33|<0.001
95806940|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001||95.0|-28.5|-12.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.65|-28.50|<0.001
95806941|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.003||95.0|-20.14|-4.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-4.14|-20.14|0.003
95806942|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-19.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-11.755||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-11.755|-27.71|<0.001
95806943|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-6.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-6.54|-22.25|<0.001
95952731|NCT05065918|191876811|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.709||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|1.494|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.494|-.076|0.076
95770586|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.339|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.339|-0.018|
95770587|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.328|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.328|-0.022|
95806944|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001||95.0|-27.93|-12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-12.27|-27.93|<0.001
95806945|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-22.96|-6.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-6.96|-22.96|<0.001
95952732|NCT05065918|191876812|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.625||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|1.449|||Regression, Linear|||Pilot sample size considerations: Assessing 70 students per arm (total n=140) that have completed the program and follow up would provide sufficient data on the full RCT protocol across multiple campuses as well as estimates of intervention effects. Assuming a retention rate of 70% for the three-month follow up, we would need to enroll 200 participants at baseline. We do not anticipate sufficient power to detect statistically and clinically significant results.||1.449|-.199|0.136
95952733|NCT04694300|191876813|SUPERIORITY|Lower the maximum pain intensity score the more effective the analgesic|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95952734|NCT04694300|191876814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95806946|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-20.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.18|-28.13|<0.001
95952735|NCT04694300|191876815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95952736|NCT04694300|191876816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95806947|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001||95.0|-21.62|-5.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.65|-21.62|<0.001
95806948|NCT04003142|191586879|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-18.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001||95.0|-26.89|-10.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-10.98|-26.89|<0.001
95952737|NCT04694300|191876819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95952738|NCT04694300|191876820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95952739|NCT04694300|191876821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Higher percentage inhibition relates to greater selectivity for COX-2||||||0.59
95952740|NCT04694300|191876822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95952741|NCT00113880|191876837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio (HR) is not estimable.||||0.01
95952742|NCT00113880|191876837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.01
95952743|NCT00113880|191876837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Breast lump/cyst event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
95952744|NCT00113880|191876837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.92|0.64|0.02
95952745|NCT00113880|191876837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.54|2.20|0.01
95952746|NCT00113880|191876837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|24.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Mastitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||24.13|2.13|0.01
95952747|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.00|0.03
95952748|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.0||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||1.00|0.02|0.05
95770588|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.282|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.282|0.009|
95770589|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0333||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0333
95806949|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.881||||0.02||95.0|1.11|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.233|1.110|0.020
95806950|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|4.498||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.498|1.585|<0.001
95806951|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001||95.0|1.535|4.001||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.001|1.535|<0.001
95806952|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.464|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.534|4.004||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.004|1.534|<0.001
95806953|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.367|||<|0.001||95.0|1.502|3.762||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.762|1.502|<0.001
95806954|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.894|||<|0.001||95.0|1.835|4.609||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.609|1.835|<0.001
95806955|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.829|4.657||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.657|1.829|<0.001
95952749|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.86||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Heart murmur event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.86|0.01|0.04
95806956|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.218|||<|0.001||95.0|2.025|5.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.172|2.025|<0.001
95806957|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.153|||<|0.001||95.0|1.375|3.394||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.394|1.375|<0.001
95806958|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.074|||<|0.001||95.0|1.957|4.878||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.878|1.957|<0.001
95806959|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.002||95.0|1.31|3.228||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.228|1.310|0.002
95806960|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908|||<|0.001||95.0|1.856|4.599||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.599|1.856|<0.001
95952750|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.70|0.20|0.01
95952751|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the all ages combined group.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.22|0.01
95770590|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0221||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regime"||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0221
95770591|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0707||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0707
95770592|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0578||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0578
95770593|NCT04015518|191513380|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0771||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0771
95770594|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.427|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.427|-0.005|
95770595|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.401|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.401|-0.032|
95770596|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.471|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.471|0.032|
95806961|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.113||||0.001||95.0|1.349|3.332||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.332|1.349|0.001
95770597|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression with fixed classification effects included treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.367|||||Confidence intervals were calculated using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve. Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||0.367|0.024|
95806962|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594|||<|0.001||95.0|1.653|4.104||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.104|1.653|<0.001
95770598|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0158||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod linear model fit|||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0158
95770599|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.012||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Emax model fit|"Assumed 70% of the maximum effect was achieved at the low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0120
95770600|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0429||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|"Assumed 25% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-low dose regimen."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0429
95806963|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.973||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.973|1.210|0.005
95770601|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.0229||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Logistic model fit|"Assumed 20% of maximum effect was achieved at the low dose, 95% of maximum effect was achieved at medium high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0229
95806964|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.314|||<|0.001||95.0|2.108|5.265||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.265|2.108|<0.001
95806965|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.027||95.0|1.06|2.566||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.566|1.060|0.027
95806966|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.347|||<|0.001||95.0|1.507|3.683||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.683|1.507|<0.001
95806967|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|2.799||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.799|1.153|0.010
95806968|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001||95.0|1.805|4.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.441|1.805|<0.001
95806969|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.357|||<|0.001||95.0|1.513|3.699||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.699|1.513|<0.001
95806970|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.131|||<|0.001||95.0|1.999|4.95||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.950|1.999|<0.001
95952752|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and the all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.08|0.03|0.01
95952753|NCT00113880|191876838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Regression, Cox||Population was the 18-49 year age and all ages combined groups.|Pregnancy exam/supervision event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.03|0.01|0.01
95952754|NCT00113880|191876839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.13||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox|||Urticaria event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||4.13|1.02|0.04
95952755|NCT00113880|191876841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.89|0.56|0.01
95952756|NCT00113880|191876841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.83|0.41|0.01
95952757|NCT00113880|191876841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.46|0.04
95770602|NCT04015518|191513381|OTHER|Logistic regression estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod, with fixed classification effects including treatment and region (Japan vs. Non-Japan). In case 0 event are observed a penalized regression based on the Firth's bias reduction method was used. The estimates from the logistic regression are on the logit scale, the difference in proportions were calculated as the difference between the predicted probabilities in the treatment groups on the original scale.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted for multiplicity.|MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|"Assumed 10% of the maximum effect was achieved at low dose, 80% of the maximum effect was achieved at the medium-high dose."||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of Spesolimab and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, Emax, exponential, logistic, Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.05).||||0.0300
95770603|NCT04015518|191513382|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-37.2|
95770604|NCT04015518|191513382|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|-0.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-0.2|-38.3|
95770605|NCT04015518|191513382|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-7.8|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||-7.8|-45.5|
95770606|NCT04015518|191513382|OTHER|MMRM included 'baseline' as a continuous covariate, and 'visit', 'treatment', 'region' (stratification according to Japan vs. non-Japan), 'visit\*treatment' and 'visit\*baseline' interaction as fixed effects as well as the random 'subject' effect. Covariance structure= Unstructured.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|10.2|||||Difference was calculated as Speso - placebo.|||10.2|-21.1|
95770607|NCT04818034|191513383|OTHER|paired t-test|paired t-test|0.965|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.965|ONE_SIDED|96.0|||||paired t-test|||||||0.965
95770608|NCT02186873|191513414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.18|58.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.99|35.18|<0.001
95770609|NCT04632069|191513458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|repeated measures linear regression: time periods: -14 to Day 0, Day 1-18(independent variable); daily po volumes (Dependent Variable)||Daily change in po feeding volumes expressed as po ml/kg/d \[reported as the mean daily change from Day 1 to 18 during NAC/NAC+taVNS minus baseline mean daily change Day -14 to day 0 (before treatment)\] Null hypothesis: there will be no significant difference in daily change in po feeding volume (ml/kg/d) from baseline to during treatment Power analysis: Estimated +0.2 ml/kg/d before taVNS, and +3ml/kg/d during the 18days of NAC+taVNS treatment, requiring 10 infants with power of 80%, a=0.05.||||0.009
95770610|NCT04632069|191513459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test|mean difference between \[GSH\] Day 4 of NAC and \[GSH\] at baseline|\[GSH\] at baseline compared with \[GSH\] at day 4 of NAC- by paired t-test in which each participant's \[GSH\] is compared at 2 time points Null hypothesis: the \[GSH\] in the basal ganglia will be no different after Day 4 of NAC than \[GSH\] at baseline Power calculation:With 80% power, alpha of 0.05, we would need 7 patients to show a significant change in basal ganglia \[GSH\] of 0.14 +/- 0.13mM from baseline to Day 4 of NAC (paired t-test).||||0.01
95806971|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373||||0.152||95.0|0.891|2.122||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.122|0.891|0.152
95806972|NCT04003142|191586880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||<|0.001||95.0|1.351|3.252||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.252|1.351|<0.001
95952758|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.27|0.01
95952759|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.42|0.22|0.01
95952760|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.24|0.01
95770611|NCT00232739|191513466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Primary analysis posterior probability|0.9926||||||||||The primary analysis of comparing Sirolimus stent with POBA using Bayesian regression model yields that Sirolimus is superior to POBA in reducing the BAR risk.|Bayesian regression model|Multi-level Bayesian regression model was used in the secondary analysis|Secondary analysis for comparing Sirolimus stent with BMS1 and BMS2 signified that Sirolimus stent is superior to POBA, BMS1 and BMS2 in reducing the BAR risk.|Historical control groups consist of propensity-scored matched cohorts (100 patients each, based on Reference Vessel Diameter, lesion length, diabetes, left anterior artery diseased vessel, and gender) of plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), first generation (Palmaz-Schatz) bare metal stent (BMS1), and BX VELOCITY bare metal stent (BMS2). Study showed the risk of 6-month in-lesion binary angiographic restenosis (BAR) was much lower for the 2.25 Sirolimus stent compared with POBA, BMS1 or BMS2.||||
95770612|NCT02088905|191513490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of ECBI Problem Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.080
95770613|NCT02088905|191513490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of ECBI Intensity Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.026
95770614|NCT02088905|191513490|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|||||<|0.001||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Timepoint within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||<.001
95770615|NCT02088905|191513490|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.182||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.182
95770616|NCT02088905|191513490|OTHER|Type III Tests of Fixed Effects||||||0.015||||||Mixed Model Analysis - Significance of Treatment Assignment and Timepoint Interaction Term within the model in determining the effectiveness of assigned treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Model Analysis of ECBI Intensity Scores, with variables of Timepoint, Treatment Assignment, and Timepoint\*Treatment Assignment interaction. Random intercept used.||||.015
95952761|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.75|0.23|0.01
95770617|NCT02088905|191513491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Parental Distress between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.203
95770618|NCT02088905|191513491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.17
95770619|NCT02088905|191513491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of PSI Difficult Child between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.308
95770620|NCT02088905|191513491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of PSI Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.413
95770621|NCT02088905|191513493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Total Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||0.271
95770622|NCT02088905|191513493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Awareness Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.434
95770623|NCT02088905|191513493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Cognition Scores between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.298
95770624|NCT02088905|191513493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Communication Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.294
95770625|NCT02088905|191513493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Motivation between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.441
95770626|NCT02088905|191513493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of SRS Restricted and Repetitive Behavior Score between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||.204
95770627|NCT02088905|191513495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of DPICS Negative Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority||||<.001
95770628|NCT02088905|191513495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of DPICS Positive Skills between Week 18 scores, 1 sided test for Treatment Group Superiority. Data transformed using a square root transformation.||||<.001
95770629|NCT02901067|191513498|SUPERIORITY|This is a secondary outcome thus no power analysis was done.|||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would present less fibrinolysis shutdown than the control group in all times measured.||||>0.05
95770630|NCT02901067|191513503|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95770631|NCT02901067|191513506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have less pulmonary embolism events than the control group.||||0.10
95770632|NCT02901067|191513507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that the experimental group would have a lower incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the control group.||||0.046
95770633|NCT01421225|191513517|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the number of hours would be the same (no effect of control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||We tested the number of nighttime (10 PM - 8 AM) hours glucose was in the target range (110-200 mg/dL) on each of the two nights for which the patient was followed (one night under Standard Insulin Pump Therapy; one night under Closed-loop Insulin Therapy)||||0.12
95770634|NCT00945035|191513521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.97|1.07||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.07|0.97|
95770635|NCT00945035|191513522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Study Primary Hypothesis: The plasma etoricoxib AUC(0-∞) and Cmax values following a single-dose administration of the 120 mg etoricoxib (30%) URC formulation will be bioequivalent to the plasma AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of 120 mg etoricoxib (20%) in the FMI formulation following single-dose administration (geometric mean ratio \[GMR\] no less than 0.8 and no greater than 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.95|1.11||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (B/A); A=FMI Formulation (20%), Final Market Image; B=URC Formulation (30%), Unmilled Roller Compaction||1.11|0.95|
95770636|NCT02064816|191513617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.277763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.56|||Mann-Whitney Non Parametric test|||||1.56|-0.46|0.277763
95770637|NCT02064816|191513618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.3492||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3495|2.3489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4||2.3489|0.3495|0.0083
95770638|NCT02064816|191513618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.3367||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3534|2.32|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 8||2.3200|0.3534|0.0079
95770639|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4003||||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5992|1.3998|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 4||1.3998|-0.5992|0.4311
95770640|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08479||||0.8635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|1.0546|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 8||1.0546|-0.8850|0.8635
95770641|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3245||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2927|0.6437|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||ISRs subscale Week 12||0.6437|-1.2927|0.5099
95806973|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.915||||0.951||95.0|0.036|23.464||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.464|0.036|0.951
95952762|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.44|0.33|0.01
95770642|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07079||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8452|0.7036|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 4||0.7036|-0.8452|0.8574
95770643|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1897||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5926|0.972|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 8||0.9720|-0.5926|0.6338
95770644|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4097||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3734|1.1929|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Global side-effect subscale: Week 12||1.1929|-0.3734|0.3042
95770645|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4083||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9008|0.08419|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 4||0.08419|-0.9008|0.1038
95770646|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1358||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.3653|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 8||0.3653|-0.6370|0.5940
95770647|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.05809||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5651|0.4489|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Benefits: Week 12||0.4489|-0.5651|0.8217
95770648|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5909||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0873|2.269|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 4||2.2690|-1.0873|0.4890
95770649|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.7689||||0.3719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4607|0.9229|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 8||0.9229|-2.4607|0.3719
95806974|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|58.864||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||58.864|0.364|0.362
95806975|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.775||||0.138||95.0|0.785|12.87||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.870|0.785|0.138
95806976|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.704||95.0|0.291|6.914||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.914|0.291|0.704
95806977|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.741||95.0|0.194|3.079||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.079|0.194|0.741
95806978|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.134||95.0|0.809|7.443||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.443|0.809|0.134
95806979|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.474||||0.062||95.0|1.039|15.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.712|1.039|0.062
95806980|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.184||||0.004||95.0|2.025|26.875||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||26.875|2.025|0.004
95806981|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|18.806||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.806|1.305|0.028
95806982|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.802||||0.044||95.0|1.157|17.075||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.075|1.157|0.044
95806983|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.342||||0.519||95.0|0.551|3.382||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.382|0.551|0.519
95806984|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.961||||0.117||95.0|0.863|4.741||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.741|0.863|0.117
95806985|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.471||||0.393||95.0|0.612|3.687||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.687|0.612|0.393
95952763|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.5||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.50|0.32|0.01
95770650|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1422||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5521|1.8364|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Description of pain: Week 12||1.8364|-1.5521|0.8690
95770651|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6544||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4393|6.7482|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 4||6.7482|-5.4393|0.8328
95770652|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2294||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.9212|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 8||3.9212|-8.3800|0.4764
95770653|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-5.4196||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5939|0.7547|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||VAS: Week 12||0.7547|-11.5939|0.0852
95770654|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006873||||0.9639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2918|0.3055|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 4||0.3055|-0.2918|0.9639
95770655|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08689||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|0.2148|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 8||0.2148|-0.3886|0.5715
95770656|NCT02064816|191513619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2224||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5256|0.0809|||linear mixed model for repeated measures|||Rating of pain: Week 12||0.08090|-0.5256|0.1502
95770657|NCT02505217|191513634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.007
95770658|NCT00953654|191513637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The degrees of freedom were adjusted when the sphericity assumption was violated based on Mauchly's test.||Effects of RET and AET were compared to WL using a 3 condition by 3 time ANCOVA. An a priori statistical power analysis showed that a sample of 30 patients would provide a statistical power of .80 to detect a condition-by-time interaction for PSWQ scores assuming a two-tailed alpha value of 0.05, a correlation across repeated measures of 0.75 and a desire to detect a standardized effect size of 0.65.||||<0.05
95770659|NCT03517540|191513648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.688
95770660|NCT03517540|191513648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.99|0.51|0.985
95770661|NCT03517540|191513648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.3|0.870
95770662|NCT03517540|191513648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.41|0.710
95770663|NCT03517540|191513649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.08|0.136
95770664|NCT03517540|191513649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.9|0.24|0.747
95770665|NCT03517540|191513649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.18|0.784
95770666|NCT03517540|191513649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.69|0.4|0.521
95770667|NCT00615550|191513660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.33|0.020
95770668|NCT00615550|191513661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for composite score data.||||0.048
95770669|NCT00615550|191513661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for RDS data.||0.92|0.17|0.026
95770670|NCT00615550|191513662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for births \<=27 6/7 weeks data.||0.97|0.25|0.036
95770671|NCT00615550|191513662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<= 34 6/7 weeks data.||0.92|0.42|0.016
95770672|NCT00615550|191513662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis presented for \<36 weeks data.||1.16|0.68|0.376
95770673|NCT00615550|191513663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.14|0.431
95806986|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.087||||0.086||95.0|0.923|5.043||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.043|0.923|0.086
95770674|NCT00615550|191513664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 1500 grams data.||0.85|0.26|0.01
95770675|NCT00615550|191513664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for birth weight \< 2500 grams data.||1.11|0.62|0.213
95770676|NCT01408303|191513665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-2.95|||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.05
95770677|NCT01408303|191513665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference relative to olive oil|-6.0|||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-value from ANCOVA with factors for treatment, statin use and potency, and baseline value as a covariate, and adjusted using Hommel's procedure.||||||<0.0001
95806987|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.774||||0.168||95.0|0.798|4.143||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.143|0.798|0.168
95806988|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.374||||0.03||95.0|1.112|5.41||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.410|1.112|0.030
95806989|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.605||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|3.971||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.971|0.681|0.287
95770678|NCT02644668|191513668|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.13|0.9086
95770679|NCT02644668|191513668|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.4361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.4361
95770680|NCT02644668|191513669|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.749||0.5382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-12.43|0.5382
95770681|NCT02644668|191513669|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.099||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|11.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-9.19|0.8464
95770682|NCT02644668|191513670|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.506||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.70|0.68|0.0378
95770683|NCT02644668|191513670|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|13.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.97|1.33|0.0298
95770684|NCT02644668|191513671|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|10.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.52|-19.69|0.5461
95770685|NCT02644668|191513671|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.175||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-31.56|0.0672
95770686|NCT02644668|191513672|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|-2.23|0.6849
95770687|NCT02644668|191513672|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-2.96|0.3091
95770688|NCT02644668|191513673|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|-0.53|0.2878
95770689|NCT02644668|191513673|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.8512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.34|0.8512
95770690|NCT02644668|191513674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.528||0.7612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-6.08|0.7612
95770691|NCT02644668|191513674|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-9.91|0.3502
95770692|NCT02644668|191513675|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.484||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.30|-13.86|0.4684
95770693|NCT02644668|191513675|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|50.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.74|-0.95|0.0584
95962109|NCT04832971|191896103|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
95770694|NCT02644668|191513676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||1.43|0.13|0.1686
95770695|NCT02644668|191513676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||2.30|0.20|0.5259
95770696|NCT02644668|191513677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||4.40|0.34|0.7655
95770697|NCT02644668|191513677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio of active vs placebo comparison of the patients' global assessment of better than pre-dose vs same or worse than pre-dose||6.25|0.41|0.4920
95770698|NCT02915705|191513680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean, standard error (SE), confidence interval (CI), and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.||1.45|0.83|< 0.0001
95770699|NCT02915705|191513681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|211.7||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per logistic regression model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||211.7|7.2|< 0.0001
95770700|NCT02915705|191513682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|206.3||Odds ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value were per generalized linear mixed model, which includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS total score as a continuous covariate.|generalized linear mixed model|||||206.3|5.6|0.0002
95770701|NCT02915705|191513683|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.33|||GEE model|||Per generalized estimating equation (GEE) model, which included RGI-C as the dependent variable, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate, with exchangeable covariate structure.||1.33|0.72|< 0.0001
95770702|NCT02915705|191513684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.94||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included treatment group and baseline age stratification factor as independent variables and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-1.74|< 0.0001
95770703|NCT02915705|191513685|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.83||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline age stratification factor as factors, baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||-0.83|-1.59|< 0.0001
95770704|NCT02915705|191513686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||0.72|0.07|0.0162
95770705|NCT02915705|191513687|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline age stratification factor as factors; and baseline RSS score as a continuous covariate.|GEE model|||||1.37|0.57|< 0.0001
95770706|NCT02915705|191513688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.24|0.01|0.0408
95770707|NCT02915705|191513689|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||GEE model|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for recumbent length/standing height Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, age and baseline recumbent length/standing height Z score as continuous covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.||0.29|0.00|0.0490
95770708|NCT02915705|191513690|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.02||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.99|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.99|0.06|0.0386
95770709|NCT02915705|191513691|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.12||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88|||ANCOVA|||LS mean, SE, CI, and 2-sided p value per ANCOVA model, which included change from baseline for growth velocity Z score as the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline RSS total score stratification as factors, baseline Z score and age as continuous covariates.||1.88|0.37|0.0047
95770710|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||1.27|0.81|< 0.0001
95770711|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||1.27|0.79|< 0.0001
95770712|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||0.97|0.58|< 0.0001
95770713|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||0.81|0.44|< 0.0001
95770714|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||0.72|0.30|< 0.0001
95770715|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.89|||GEE model|||Week 32||0.89|0.51|< 0.0001
95770716|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||GEE model||Difference (burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||0.91|0.51|< 0.0001
95770717|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||GEE model|||Week 52||0.82|0.39|< 0.0001
95770718|NCT02915705|191513692|SUPERIORITY||difference|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||GEE model|||Week 64||0.90|0.49|< 0.0001
95770719|NCT02915705|191513694|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||ANCOVA||Difference (KRN23 - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|||0.91|0.58|< 0.0001
95770720|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|48.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.53|60.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 1||60.02|36.53|< 0.0001
95770721|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|21.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.01|30.16|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||30.16|12.01|< 0.0001
95770722|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|15.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|25.15|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||25.15|6.35|0.0010
95806990|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.108||||0.08||95.0|0.936|5.076||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.076|0.936|0.080
95952764|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.28|0.01
95770723|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|12.97||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|22.53|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||22.53|3.41|0.0078
95770724|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|10.89||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|19.19|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||19.19|2.59|0.0101
95770725|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|6.23||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|14.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 32||14.02|-1.55|0.1165
95770726|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|11.21||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|21.44|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||21.44|0.98|0.0317
95770727|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.01||||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|14.56|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||14.56|-4.55|0.3044
95770728|NCT02915705|191513697|SUPERIORITY||difference|8.7||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|15.68|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D|Week 64||15.68|1.72|0.0145
95770729|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.02|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 4||2.02|1.28|< 0.0001
95770730|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.64|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 8||1.64|1.19|< 0.0001
95770731|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||GEE model|||Week 16||1.48|0.84|< 0.0001
95770732|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||1.41|0.80|< 0.0001
95770733|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51|||GEE model|||Week 32||1.51|0.98|< 0.0001
95770734|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||1.60|1.10|< 0.0001
95770735|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||1.54|0.97|< 0.0001
95770736|NCT02915705|191513699|SUPERIORITY||difference|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.54|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||1.54|0.96|< 0.0001
95770737|NCT02915705|191513701|SUPERIORITY||difference|-92.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.4|-53.66|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 16||-53.66|-131.40|< 0.0001
95770738|NCT02915705|191513701|SUPERIORITY||difference|-85.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.37|-44.76|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 24||-44.76|-126.37|< 0.0001
95770739|NCT02915705|191513701|SUPERIORITY||difference|-95.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.05|-55.84|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 40||-55.84|-136.05|< 0.0001
95770740|NCT02915705|191513701|SUPERIORITY||difference|-111.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.08|-70.49|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 52||-70.49|-152.08|< 0.0001
95770741|NCT02915705|191513701|SUPERIORITY||difference|-146.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.61|-101.52|||GEE model||Difference (Burosumab - Oral Phosphate/Active Vitamin D)|Week 64||-101.52|-191.61|< 0.0001
95770742|NCT02915705|191513704|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-5.02||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-0.75|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||-0.75|-9.29|0.0212
95806991|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.599||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.636||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.636|0.730|0.247
95806992|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481||||0.017||95.0|1.201|5.441||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.441|1.201|0.017
95806993|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.728||||0.212||95.0|0.744|4.236||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.236|0.744|0.212
95770743|NCT02915705|191513704|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.68||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.89|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.89|-0.52|0.1009
95770744|NCT02915705|191513704|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.1676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|1.37|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||1.37|-7.86|0.1676
95770745|NCT02915705|191513705|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.26||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|2.09|||GEE model|||Pain Interference Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||2.09|-6.61|0.3091
95806994|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.536||||0.002||95.0|1.666|8.207||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.207|1.666|0.002
95806995|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.701||||0.225||95.0|0.733|4.169||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.169|0.733|0.225
95806996|NCT04003142|191586881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.049||||0.006||95.0|1.42|7.125||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.125|1.420|0.006
95952765|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 years within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.60|0.27|0.01
95952766|NCT00113880|191876842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 years, PD2 within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.21|0.05
95952767|NCT00113880|191876843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.98||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.98|0.86|0.01
95952768|NCT00113880|191876843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs., within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.92|0.75|0.01
95952769|NCT00113880|191876843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: All ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.94|0.81|0.01
95770746|NCT02915705|191513705|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.9||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|5.59|||GEE model|||Physical Function Mobility Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||5.59|-1.80|0.3145
95770747|NCT02915705|191513705|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|4.06|||GEE model|||Fatigue Domain. 2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||4.06|-6.21|0.6810
95806997|NCT03382873|191586889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95806998|NCT03382873|191586890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex were used as independent predictors in the model.||Compares the change for the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.0001
95806999|NCT03382873|191586891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9476|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of the GLB/GLB intervention sequence to the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9476
95807000|NCT03382873|191586892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANOVA|Treatment group, time and their interaction were fixed effects and participants were random effects||||||0.0112
95807001|NCT03382873|191586893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison of GLB/GLB intervention sequence to GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest).||||0.9085
95770748|NCT02915705|191513706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.80|-0.79|0.9862
95770749|NCT02915705|191513707|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.05||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.68|||GEE model|||GEE model includes change from baseline for FPS-R as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline FPS-R as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure. The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.||0.68|-0.58|0.8786
95770750|NCT02915705|191513708|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|43.46||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|87.17|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||87.17|-0.26|0.0514
95770751|NCT02915705|191513709|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|45.55||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|89.02|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||89.02|2.09|0.0399
95770752|NCT02915705|191513710|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|6.72||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|13.82|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||13.82|-0.37|0.0633
95770753|NCT02915705|191513711|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|7.27||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|14.52|||GEE model|||2-sided p value per GEE model, which included change from baseline for the parameter as the dependent variable, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group by visit, baseline age and baseline RSS stratification as factors, baseline parameter measure as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.||14.52|0.01|0.0496
95770754|NCT05763875|191513725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.88|-29.86|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.86|-40.88|<0.0001
95770755|NCT05763875|191513725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.62|-42.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-42.20|-53.62|<0.0001
95770756|NCT05763875|191513725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-32.26|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-32.26|-42.63|<0.0001
95770757|NCT05763875|191513725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.51|-45.28|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-45.28|-56.51|<0.0001
95770758|NCT05763875|191513726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.91|-40.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-40.72|-53.91|<0.0001
95807002|NCT03382873|191586894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||ANOVA|Intervention sequence and sex used as independent predictors in the model.||Comparison between the GLB/GLB intervention sequence and the GLB+/GLB+ intervention sequence (the primary comparison of interest)||||0.2063
95807003|NCT02214212|191586895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects.|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in sleep efficiency improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||5.37|-5.69|.955
95807004|NCT02214212|191586896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-4.90|.807
95770759|NCT05763875|191513726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.28|-56.87|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-56.87|-70.28|<0.0001
95770760|NCT05763875|191513726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-43.94|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-43.94|-56.16|<0.0001
95770761|NCT05763875|191513726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.09|-60.92|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-60.92|-74.09|<0.0001
95770762|NCT05763875|191513727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-73.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.76|-64.56|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-64.56|-81.76|<0.0001
95770763|NCT05763875|191513727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.51|-65.37|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-65.37|-84.51|<0.0001
95807005|NCT02214212|191586897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.||||4.43|-5.38|.847
95807006|NCT02214212|191586898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance by mixed-effects regression adjusts for time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive, FIM admit motor as fixed effects.||||8.56|-2.29|.252
95770764|NCT05763875|191513727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-76.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.12|-68.62|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-68.62|-85.12|<0.0001
95770765|NCT05763875|191513727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.77|-70.17|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-70.17|-88.77|<0.0001
95770766|NCT05763875|191513728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.98|-25.98|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-25.98|-34.98|<0.0001
95770767|NCT05763875|191513728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-36.82|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-36.82|-47.83|<0.0001
95770768|NCT05763875|191513728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|-27.89|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-27.89|-36.07|<0.0001
95807007|NCT02214212|191586899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-3.08|.722
95807008|NCT02214212|191586900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-6.13|.253
95770769|NCT05763875|191513728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.28|-39.44|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-39.44|-50.28|<0.0001
95770770|NCT05763875|191513729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-19.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-19.36|-30.32|<0.0001
95770771|NCT05763875|191513729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-26.44|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-26.44|-41.27|<0.0001
95770772|NCT05763875|191513729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-21.09|-32.07|<0.0001
95770773|NCT05763875|191513729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.46|-28.67|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-28.67|-43.46|<0.0001
95770774|NCT05763875|191513730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-24.65|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-24.65|-33.30|<0.0001
95770775|NCT05763875|191513730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-32.22|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-32.22|-41.10|<0.0001
95770776|NCT05763875|191513730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.08|-26.23|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-26.23|-34.08|<0.0001
95770777|NCT05763875|191513730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-34.43|-43.12|<0.0001
95770778|NCT05763875|191513731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-23.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-23.57|-36.92|<0.0001
95770779|NCT05763875|191513731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.18|-29.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||-29.12|-41.18|<0.0001
95770780|NCT05763875|191513731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-25.59|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-25.59|-39.10|<0.0001
95770781|NCT05763875|191513731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-31.31|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||-31.31|-43.44|<0.0001
95770782|NCT05763875|191513732|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.757||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.882|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.882|0.650|0.0002
95770783|NCT05763875|191513732|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.898|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Policy Estimand||0.898|0.622|0.0010
95770784|NCT05763875|191513732|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.871|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.871|0.652|<0.0001
95770785|NCT05763875|191513732|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.746||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.893|||ANCOVA|||Monotherapy Estimand||0.893|0.622|0.0008
95770786|NCT00550745|191513741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.91|1.73|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 42 Days postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.73|0.91|
95770787|NCT00550745|191513742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Relative risk (ZOSTAVAX™/placebo) of proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 1 serious AE through 6 months postvaccination and 95% Confidence Interval were based on Miettinen and Nurminen \[Comparative analysis of two rates. Stat Med 1985;4:213-26\] method.|||1.32|0.98|
95770788|NCT00764660|191513743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||8.2|-3.4|0.41
95770789|NCT00764660|191513744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model||Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.|||1.7|-5.5|0.30
95770790|NCT00764660|191513745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.33|0.57|0.52
95770791|NCT00764660|191513746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31|||Chi-squared|ZINB Distribution with terms for treatment and region||||1.31|0.71|0.81
95770792|NCT00764660|191513747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.12||Model with factors treatment and pooled centers as stratum.|Kaplan-Meier|||||2.12|0.81|0.26
95770793|NCT00764660|191513748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.7|||Repeated Measures Model|Repeated Measures Model with factors for treatment, pooled centers, assessment and assessment by treatment interaction.||||5.7|-9.9|0.59
95770794|NCT00764660|191513749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|An Odds Ratio (SCH 900435/Placebo) \>1 means SCH 900435 has a higher probability of achieving complete abstinence.||||3.43|0.65|0.34
95770795|NCT00764660|191513752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.88||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|12.06|||Contrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||12.06|-6.30|0.54
95770796|NCT00764660|191513753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|6.15|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||6.15|-12.35|0.51
95770797|NCT00764660|191513754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.07|||cLDA Model||cLDA Model with terms for treatment, pooled centers, assessment by treatment interaction.|||-0.07|-18.27|0.05
95770798|NCT01399047|191513760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.243|||Prescott's test||Mycophenolate was tolerated in 17/19 subjects (89.5%, 95% CI: 66.9% - 98.7%), while placebo was tolerated in 19/19 subjects (100%, 95% CI: 82.4% - 100%). The difference in tolerability rates was 10.5% (95% CI: -3.3% - 24.3%, p=0.21).|The primary outcome variable was tolerability, defined as the proportion of subjects able to complete 8 weeks on the assigned treatment. Tolerability was compared among the treatment groups using Prescott's test. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the tolerability of mycophenolate, placebo, and their difference.||0.243|-0.033|0.21
95770799|NCT01399047|191513761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|3.28|||Prescott's test|||||3.28|-4.67|0.72
95770800|NCT01399047|191513762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.78
95770801|NCT01399047|191513763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Prescott's test|||||||0.98
95770802|NCT01399047|191513764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95995049|NCT01955707|191966420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use.||0.26|-0.09|
95770803|NCT04532619|191513849|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.89||Computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.89|0.10|0.014
95770804|NCT04532619|191513850|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.32||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.32|-0.41|0.80
95770805|NCT04532619|191513851|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.07||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||-0.07|-0.51|0.009
95770806|NCT04532619|191513852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38||calculated p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.38|-0.04|0.118
95770807|NCT04532619|191513853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology. A logistic link function was used for this binary outcome.||||.24
95770808|NCT04532619|191513854|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.98||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||1.98|-4.64|0.43
95770809|NCT04532619|191513855|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.15||computed p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a multilevel models to produce regression estimates. We used multiple imputation. Intervention enrollment was coded as 1 and enrollment in the control arm was coded as 0. We accounted for baseline values and psychopathology.||0.15|-4.27|0.07
95770810|NCT00769067|191513869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.914||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted for the stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|"Total 128 events (progression/death) provided 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.45 (Erlotinib versus Dacomitinib arm) with 1-sided alpha=0.10.This represented a 45% improvement in true median PFS.~HR and 95% confidence interval estimated from stratified Cox Regression;2-sided p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma status (KRAS), baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) as stratification factors"||0.914|0.472|0.012
95770811|NCT00769067|191513870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||2-Sided.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted.||||||0.011
95770812|NCT00769067|191513873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.151||2-Sided.|Log Rank|Adjusted by stratification factors: EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG performance status.|The estimated HR was for the Dacomitinib arm versus the Erlotinib arm.|HR and its 95% confidence interval were estimated from stratified Cox Regression and 2-sided p-value was based on the stratified log-rank test with EGFR status, KRAS status and baseline ECOG as stratification factors.||1.151|0.587|0.252
95770813|NCT00302848|191513920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations for VTE risk showed that 50,000 patients should be sufficient to exclude a twofold risk.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2 (VTE of DRSP vs. LNG)||1.8|0.6|<0.05
95770814|NCT01073605|191513921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02922|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02922
95807009|NCT02214212|191586901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), site, FIM admit cognitive/motor, and the treatment/time as fixed effects.|A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the bright white light (BWL) intervention arm.|||0.44|-1.21|.351
95807010|NCT02214212|191586902|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model used an unstructured correlation matrix, adjusting for treatment, time (linear) and the interaction as fixed effects|The reported effect size has been expressed as the modelled difference in the Makley scale score improvement from day 1 to day 10. A positive effect size indicates a higher score in the white-light arm.|||0.03|-0.03|.910
95807011|NCT02214212|191586903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.857||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment time (pre/post)||||2.32|-1.93|0.19
95807012|NCT02214212|191586904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model adjusts for treatment, time (pre/post), FIM admit cognitive, site, FIM admit motor as mixed effects.||||5.24|-14.83|.345
95770815|NCT01073605|191513921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74299
95807013|NCT04903093|191586916|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.43|110.03||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||110.03|85.43|
95807014|NCT04903093|191586916|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|62.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.85|72.07||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commecial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||72.07|54.85|
95807015|NCT04903093|191586917|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.28|124.74||||||Test: Abrocitinib 200 mg oral suspension formulation 1; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||124.74|80.28|
95807016|NCT04903093|191586917|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.46|19.36||||||Test: Famotidine 40 mg tablet + Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet; Reference: Abrocitinib 200 mg commercial tablet||19.36|12.46|
95807017|NCT03926247|191586948|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|LSM Final Difference|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' depression/anxiety symptoms would decrease overtime.||-0.008|-0.087|=0.019
95807018|NCT03926247|191586949|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.643|=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' PTSD symptoms would decrease overtime.||0.372|-2.161|=0.168
95807019|NCT03926247|191586950|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' stress would decrease overtime.||-0.000|-0.140|=0.051
95807020|NCT03926247|191586951|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|=|0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' social support would increase overtime.||0.023|-0.106|=0.211
95807021|NCT03926247|191586952|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' access to resources would increase overtime.||0.201|-0.008|=0.074
95807022|NCT03926247|191586953|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)=|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' difficulty accessing resources would decrease overtime.||0.017|-0.257|=0.089
95807023|NCT03926247|191586954|OTHER|Within-group longitudinal analysis (no comparison groups)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using a mixed effects linear model to calculate least square means across the 4 timepoints. This was a longitudinal within-group analysis with 4 timepoints of data nested within 56 individuals. Our hypothesis was that participants' quality of life would increase overtime.||0.030|-0.461|=0.086
95807024|NCT05226884|191586955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
95860319|NCT00806819|191679072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.12|0.77|0.4264
95952770|NCT00113880|191876843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.70|0.01
95807025|NCT05226884|191586956|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
95807026|NCT05226884|191586957|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
95807027|NCT05226884|191586958|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||||||||||||||The defocus curve is generated based on measurements over a dioptric range.|||
95807028|NCT05226884|191586959|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority defined as within 0.1 LogMAR (1 line on Snellen Chart).|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Normality was assumed if skewness was ±2 and kurtosis was ±7. Non-inferiority was confirmed before further statistical testing.||||||<0.05
95952771|NCT00113880|191876843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.29|0.01
95770816|NCT01073605|191513921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00467|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00467
95952772|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages combined, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.45|0.01
95952773|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months||0.56|0.47|0.01
95770817|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00125
95770818|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25995|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.25995
95770819|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1 year||||0.00008
95770820|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03273|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.03273
95770821|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68581|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.68581
95770822|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 years||||0.00530
95770823|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57556|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.57556
95770824|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63956|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.63956
95770825|NCT01073605|191513923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16421|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.16421
95770826|NCT01073605|191513927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.0001
95807029|NCT01539525|191586969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.038|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the linear effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.038|-0.118|<0.001
95807030|NCT01539525|191586969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0004|0.011|||Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Parameter estimated is the quadratic effect of time (in months)|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.011|-0.0004|0.066
95843709|NCT03043872|191654946|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.995||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|"D + T + EP vs EP. The alpha level applied at the global cohort final analysis was adjusted (using a generalized Haybittle-Peto method) to account for actual alpha spent at the interim analysis based on the actual final total number of events, and thus maintain control of overall Type I error. Boundary for declaring statistical significance was 0.0418 for a 5% overall alpha.~HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP."||0.995|0.682|0.0451
95770827|NCT01073605|191513927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||0.58324
95770828|NCT01073605|191513927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values for the 3 treatment comparisons should be interpreted in line with the Bonferroni stepwise (Holm) testing procedure, to maintain the Type 1 error at p=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 years||||<0.0001
95807031|NCT01539525|191586969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|-0.004||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.004|-0.151|0.038
95807032|NCT01539525|191586969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|-0.023||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x linear time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||-0.023|-0.157|0.008
95860320|NCT00806819|191679072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain. HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (adenocarcinoma vs. non-adenocarcinoma), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no).||1.23|0.84|0.8929
95860321|NCT00233064|191679080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|1.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.9|0.0|
95952774|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.46||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.46|0.38|0.01
95770829|NCT01073605|191513932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.39||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||1.39|-0.05|0.0681
95770830|NCT01073605|191513932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.74|-0.65|0.8971
95770831|NCT01073605|191513932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.02||There is no adjustment for multiplicity of treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|The Analysis of Covariance took into account the patient covariates age and gender.||||0.02|-1.27|0.0583
95770832|NCT03491462|191513934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6208|||||||Gehan's extended Wilcoxon's test|||||||0.6208
95770833|NCT03018080|191513938|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.238|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.472|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.472|0.082|
95770834|NCT03018080|191513938|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.566|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported grade 3/4 toxicity rate with weekly paclitaxel was 0.35. If it became evident that the grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity rate on either arm convincingly exceeded 0.35, the study arm would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.35 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.50 or higher.||0.566|0.126|
95770835|NCT03018080|191513939|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.419|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.419|0.055|
95770836|NCT03018080|191513939|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.665|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.665|0.203|
95770837|NCT03018080|191513940|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.9|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.9|1.4|
95770838|NCT03018080|191513940|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||6.8|1.4|
95770839|NCT03018080|191513941|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7||Upper limit of the confidence interval is not reached due to censoring rate||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.||||9.7|
95860322|NCT00233064|191679080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.5||||||95.0|0.0|2.9|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||2.9|0.0|
95770840|NCT03018080|191513941|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||14.0|6.8|
95770841|NCT03018080|191513942|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.854|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.854|0.430|
95770842|NCT03018080|191513942|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.837|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method|||0.837|0.384|
95770843|NCT03018080|191513943|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|5.6|
95770844|NCT03018080|191513943|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.3|||||"The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months).~The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response."|||8.3|2.6|
95770845|NCT03612596|191513948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95770846|NCT03612596|191513949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95807033|NCT01539525|191586969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.022||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.022|0.001|0.031
95807034|NCT01539525|191586969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.021||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm's step-down multiple testing procedure. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.025.|Generalized Estimating Equation|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated parameter is treatment x quadratic time interaction term coefficient- Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|Differences in days/month of primary substance use over time between treatment groups were examined using generalized estimating equations (GEE). We specified a negative binomial distribution to account for overdispersion in days/month of primary substance use, a log link function, and a first-order autoregressive working correlation structure. β coefficients were estimated using quasi-likelihood estimation methods and sandwich/empirical standard errors were calculated.||0.021|0.002|0.010
95807035|NCT01539525|191586970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.551|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.551|0.559|0.810
95952775|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.49|0.01
95770847|NCT03612596|191513950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95770848|NCT03612596|191513951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95770849|NCT03612596|191513952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95770850|NCT03612596|191513953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.26) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.53
95770851|NCT03612596|191513954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 1.16) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.44
95770852|NCT03612596|191513955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Please note that this analysis was not powered and was used to characterize effect size (d = 0.67) rather than test efficacy.||||||0.93
95770853|NCT03612596|191513956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95770854|NCT03612596|191513957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95770855|NCT03612596|191513958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95770856|NCT03612596|191513959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95770857|NCT03612596|191513960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95770858|NCT02573181|191513974|OTHER|Difference in percentage with AEs|Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||15.8|-7.4|
95770859|NCT02573181|191513976|OTHER|Difference in % with fatigue|Fatigue difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.8|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.8|-10.7|
95770860|NCT02573181|191513976|OTHER|Difference in % with arthralgia|Arthralgia difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.4|-10.2|
95770861|NCT02573181|191513976|OTHER|Difference in % with myalgia|Myalgia difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.3|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||13.3|-3.9|
95770862|NCT02573181|191513976|OTHER|Difference in % with headache|Headache difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.4|||||Difference and 95% CI calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.4|-11.4|
95770863|NCT03412734|191513983|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|37.34||p-value is adjusted for baseline BV (Bacterial Vaginosis)|Regression, Logistic|||We hypothesized that chlorhexidine would have a lower bacterial count compared to iodine. Our sample size was calculated to be 71 patients per arm to detect a 22% difference in cultures defined as contaminated at 90 minutes from surgical preparation.||37.34|3.02|<0.001
95807036|NCT01539525|191586970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.968||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.617|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary substance and pregnancy status|Estimated odds ratio is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||1.617|0.579|0.990
95770864|NCT01562782|191514036|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups in the primary outcome- the mean fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate, 0-4 hours. A power calculation was based on data obtained in 15 overweight subjects. Assuming a mean absolute difference of 2.7 in South Asians and 1.0 in Caucasians and a standard deviation of 2.0 for both, group sample sizes of 16 and 16 were expected to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 1.7 using a 2-sided Mann-Whitney test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The equivalence test was used to compare the fold change in plasma VLDL triglyceride palmitate in Caucasians and South Asians.||||0.05
95860323|NCT00233064|191679080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall percentage of immune reactivity|0.3||||||95.0|0.0|1.5|||||The number and percentage of subjects with immune reactivity at Study Day 240-300 were constructed using the Clopper-Pearson Method.|The subject number of 200 per treatment group was derived to demonstrate a percentage of immune reactivity in either the liquid or lyophilized formulations of palivizumab of \<2-3% based on 95% confidence intervals \[(0%; 0.00, 1.83), (0.5%; 0.01, 2.75), (1%; 0.12, 3.57)\].||1.5|0.0|
95770865|NCT01562782|191514037|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test was used to compare 1) the fold change in triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians and 2) the fold change in VLDL triglycerides in South Asians and Caucasians.||||<0.05
95770866|NCT01562782|191514038|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The equivalence test is used to compare levels after the sugar beverage of 1) glucose at 1 hour 2) lactate at 1 hour 3) NEFA at 2 hours in South Asians vs Caucasians.||||<0.05
95770867|NCT01562782|191514039|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95770868|NCT01562782|191514040|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95770869|NCT01562782|191514041|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson or Spearman's rank test|||The equivalence test was used to analyze the relationship between the primary outcome, fold change in VLDL TG palmitate, and the listed levels of biomarkers of carbohydrate and fat metabolism. The correlation analysis was performed on data from each study group separately.||||<0.05
95770870|NCT01562782|191514042|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95770871|NCT01562782|191514043|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95770872|NCT01562782|191514044|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95770873|NCT01562782|191514045|EQUIVALENCE|A P value \<0.05 was used to determine no equivalence between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95770874|NCT00942890|191514046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95770875|NCT00942890|191514052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95770876|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.31||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.17|0.0025
95770877|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.38|0.4540
95770878|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.46|8.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.94|2.46|0.0003
95770879|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|2.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|1.16|0.0460
95770880|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.22|0.47|0.3365
95770881|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.37|0.0313
95770882|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.79|0.65|0.8060
95770883|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|0.84|0.2044
95770884|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.67||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|3.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.02|0.93|0.1490
95770885|NCT02308540|191514069|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|0.59|0.7565
95770886|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.75||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.54|0.2653
95860324|NCT04845568|191679093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|5.43||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for physical activity does not differ between conditions.||5.43|-3.16|0.592
95770887|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.2|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.20|0.45|0.2059
95770888|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.54|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.54|0.55|0.5664
95770889|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.31|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.31|0.57|0.4456
95770890|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.14|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.14|0.52|0.2189
95770891|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.03|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.03|0.38|0.0970
95770892|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.76||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.79|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||2.79|1.02|0.0713
95952776|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.76||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.76|0.33|0.01
95770893|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.71||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.35|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.35|0.42|0.3443
95770894|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.76||||0.3278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.23|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.23|0.48|0.3278
95770895|NCT02308540|191514070|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates. Due to distributional characteristics, confidence intervals around GMCs and treatment-group ratio are estimated using bootstrap resampling (10,000 bootstrap samples).|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.65||||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.16|||Two-tailed from z-test|||||1.16|0.40|0.2039
95770896|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.74|0.2550
95770897|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|1.01|0.0865
95770898|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|0.43|0.0006
95770899|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|0.33|<0.0001
95770900|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.68|0.47|<0.0001
95770901|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
95770902|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.45|0.85|0.5234
95770903|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
95770904|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.87|0.60|0.0040
95770905|NCT02308540|191514071|OTHER|GMC will be summarized by treatment group with corresponding two-sided 90% CIs based on the t-distribution to provide population estimates.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.73|0.46|0.0001
95770906|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 1|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|2.66||||||||2.66|-5.13|
95770907|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 5|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.95||||||||7.95|-1.10|
95770908|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.94|-2.97||||||||-2.97|-20.94|
95770909|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-1.01||||||||-1.01|-15.0|
95770910|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|1.1||||||||1.10|-7.95|
95807037|NCT01539525|191586971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.258||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.871|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for stratifying variables- primary drug and pregnancy status|odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Nurse vs. Treatment as Usual|||3.871|0.409|0.465
95807038|NCT01539525|191586971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.749||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|2.732|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio estimate is for Motivational Interview- Computer vs. Treatment as Usual|||2.732|0.205|0.490
95807039|NCT02528305|191586978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.474
95807040|NCT02528305|191586979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.174
95807041|NCT02528305|191586980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
95770911|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.17|2.9||||||||2.90|-9.17|
95770912|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 14|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|6.27||||||||6.27|-4.00|
95770913|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|0.17||||||||0.17|-12.38|
95770914|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|4.33||||||||4.33|-4.22|
95770915|NCT02308540|191514073|OTHER|Treatment group differences were estimated by the difference in proportion of seroresponders, with 2-sided exact 90% CIs around the difference calculated using the unconditional exact method of Newcombe. Although inference regarding seroresponse was not of primary concern in this study, a 2-sided 90% CI that excluded 0 was indicative of statistically significant difference at p ≤ 0.10 not corrected for multiplicity analysis.|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.77|0.4||||||||0.40|-12.77|
95807042|NCT02528305|191586981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95807043|NCT02528305|191586982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Total body fat||||||0.092
95807044|NCT02528305|191586982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Trunk fat||||||0.101
95807045|NCT02528305|191586983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of systolic blood pressure||||||0.771
95807046|NCT02528305|191586983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of diastolic blood pressure||||||0.028
95807047|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Function||||||0.099
95807048|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Social Function||||||0.566
95807049|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Health||||||0.246
95807050|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Pain||||||0.145
95807051|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Change in Health||||||0.085
95770916|NCT02308540|191514075|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 1|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.55|36.11||||||||36.11|-15.55|
95860325|NCT04845568|191679093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.02||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Self-Efficacy for Healthy Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in self-efficacy for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||2.02|-4.39|0.453
95770917|NCT02308540|191514075|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 5|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.56|18.56||||||||18.56|-18.56|
95770918|NCT02308540|191514075|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 6B|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.35|22.97||||||||22.97|-12.35|
95770919|NCT02308540|191514075|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 14|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.15|24.01||||||||24.01|-12.15|
95807052|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Physical Role Limitation||||||0.114
95807053|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Mental Role Limitation||||||0.841
95807054|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Energy/Vitality||||||0.366
95860326|NCT04845568|191679094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.892||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness to Change Child's Eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in readiness for healthy eating does not differ between conditions.||.892|-.342|.368
95770920|NCT02308540|191514075|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19A|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.41|11.01||||||||11.01|-26.41|
95770921|NCT02308540|191514075|OTHER|Exact confidence intervals around treatment group differences are calculated based on Newcombe score. Calculation of difference and confidence interval around the difference is not possible when all subjects in both groups are responders|Absolute difference for MOPA type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.64|22.97||||||||22.97|-11.64|
95770922|NCT00911612|191514130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Not adjusted since only one comparison was made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for baseline geometric center at 24 hours , BMI, and 7 alpha CHO.||||0.22
95770923|NCT00911612|191514131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance was used to compare drug with placebo adjusting for BMI and 7 alpha HCO.||||0.02
95770924|NCT04081610|191514135|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through the incidence of AD.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
95770925|NCT04081610|191514136|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the tolerability of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit-dose manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. using the ICO score.||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
95770926|NCT04081610|191514136|EQUIVALENCE|F=2.606, 15.926||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.009
95770927|NCT04081610|191514136|EQUIVALENCE|F=3.051, 19.336||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Final vs initial Eye Comfort Index||||0.002
95770928|NCT04081610|191514137|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. through changes in BCVA.||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.904
95770929|NCT04081610|191514137|EQUIVALENCE|F=-1.414, 1.061||||||0.157|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||0.157
95770930|NCT04081610|191514137|EQUIVALENCE|||||||1|||||||Sign test|||Final vs initial VA||||1.000
95770931|NCT04081610|191514138|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in corneal and conjunctival staining with fluorescein.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95770932|NCT04081610|191514138|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)= 6.400||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial fluorescein staining||||0.041
95770933|NCT04081610|191514138|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.814||||||0.665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.665
95807055|NCT02528305|191586984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|For the analysis of Health Perception||||||0.745
95807056|NCT02528305|191586985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.310
95807057|NCT02528305|191586986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95807058|NCT02528305|191586987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95807059|NCT02528305|191586988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
95807060|NCT02528305|191586989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.513
95807061|NCT02528305|191586990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95807062|NCT01308788|191587002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4414||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4414
95807063|NCT01308788|191587003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7820
95962110|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|-10.74||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-10.74|-22.41|<.0001
95860327|NCT04845568|191679094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.827||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in Caregiver Readiness for Physical Activity. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions to help child improve physical activity from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.827|-.575|.714
95807064|NCT01308788|191587004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5496||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5496
95807065|NCT01308788|191587005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2930
95807066|NCT01308788|191587006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5058
95807067|NCT01308788|191587007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6156||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6156
95807068|NCT01308788|191587008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5443
95807069|NCT01308788|191587009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7847
95807070|NCT01308788|191587010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1331||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1331
95860328|NCT04845568|191679095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.34||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child attitudes toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child attitudes toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||3.34|-4.39|.783
95995050|NCT01955707|191966420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.3||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.30|0.91|0.779
95807071|NCT01308788|191587011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5431
95807072|NCT01308788|191587012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0684
95807073|NCT01308788|191587013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2500
95807074|NCT01308788|191587014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6896
95807075|NCT01308788|191587015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7965
95995051|NCT01955707|191966421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.27||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.27|-0.09|
95807076|NCT00322218|191587017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8578|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.8578
95807077|NCT00124306|191587021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5||||||IC Symptom Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.5|-2.5|
95807078|NCT00124306|191587021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2||||||IC Problem Index - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-0.2|-2.3|
95807079|NCT00124306|191587021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.3||||||Wisconsin Symptom Survey - change from baseline to 12 weeks||-1.3|-6.3|
95807080|NCT01694771|191587025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.144|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.144|0.090|<0.0001
95807081|NCT01694771|191587026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
95807082|NCT01694771|191587027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.147|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.147|0.090|<0.0001
95807083|NCT01694771|191587028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.192|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.192|0.100|<0.0001
95807084|NCT01694771|191587029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.106|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (551), Tio+Olo 5ug (548).||0.106|0.019|0.0047
95807085|NCT01694771|191587030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio + Placebo|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.201|||Mixed model repeated measure|||Results are from an MMRM model. Fixed effects include treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline and baseline by visit interaction. Patient is considered random and an unstructured covariance structure was used. Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (564), Tio+Olo 5ug (563).||0.201|0.106|<0.0001
95860329|NCT04845568|191679095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.07||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intentions toward healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child intentions toward healthy eating from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||2.07|-6.05|.323
95860330|NCT04845568|191679095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|6.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance is set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in caregiver intentions toward helping their child engage in healthy eating. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in caregiver intentions from baseline to post-intervention does not differ between conditions.||6.01|-1.79|.276
95860331|NCT04845568|191679096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fruits. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fruit servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.08|-.59|.547
95995052|NCT01955707|191966421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.09||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.31||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.31|0.92|0.797
95770934|NCT04081610|191514139|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes of corneal and conjunctival staining with lysamine green.||||||0.713|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.713
95807086|NCT01694771|191587031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|8.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.192||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|12.759|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||12.759|4.159|0.0001
95770935|NCT04081610|191514139|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (3)=14.345||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.002
95807087|NCT01694771|191587032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||"Week 12: Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.250|-0.706|<.0001
95807088|NCT01694771|191587033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.002|-0.164|0.0442
95807089|NCT01694771|191587034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference from Tio+Placebo Week 12|-0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Results are from non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week with LOCF up to each week. Fixed effects include treatment and baseline.~Number of patients contributing to models: Tio+Placebo (561), Tio+Olo 5ug (557)."||-0.200|-0.586|<.0001
95807090|NCT02943499|191587114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To examine between-group differences in pre- vs. post-treatment cue reactivity, the post-treatment PCC BOLD response for the smoking vs neutral contrast was subtracted from the baseline response. The groups were then compared directly on this measure using a t-test.||||0.92
95807091|NCT00841815|191587123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.43||||||90.0|91.4|101.74|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.74|91.40|
95807092|NCT00841815|191587124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.94||||||90.0|95.6|106.58|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.58|95.60|
95770936|NCT04081610|191514139|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared (2)=0.506||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||Final vs initial lissamine green staining||||0.777
95770937|NCT04081610|191514140|NON_INFERIORITY|Compare the safety of the Lagricel® Ofteno multi-dose formulation against Lagricel® Ofteno unit doses manufactured by Sophia Laboratories S.A. of C.V. by changes in conjunctival hyperemia.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95770938|NCT04081610|191514140|EQUIVALENCE|F=4.167, 1||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||0.031
95770939|NCT04081610|191514140|EQUIVALENCE|No significant change was observed.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Final vs initial conjunctival hyperemia||||1.000
95770940|NCT01322490|191514144|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.4742||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.4742
95807093|NCT00841815|191587125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.11||||||90.0|95.08|105.4|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.40|95.08|
95807094|NCT03533491|191587138|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants from pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change in the proportion of users is different from zero.|||||.044
95860332|NCT04845568|191679096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.86||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of vegetables. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child vegetable servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.86|-.87|.990
95995053|NCT01955707|191966422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.24||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to baseline using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.24|-0.13|
95995054|NCT01955707|191966422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.05||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.27||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.27|0.88|0.684
95770941|NCT01322490|191514144|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value is from a stratified log-rank test for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control with Treatment Arm included in model. Stratification is by randomization strata.||||||0.5885||||||The overall type-one error probability for the entire trial was designed as a one-sided P=0.025. There were two main overall comparisons, which necessitated a type-one error probability to 0.0125 for each comparison using a Bonferroni correction.|Log Rank|The primary analysis method was a stratified log-rank test, and was performed using the ITT Set analyzing data according to the randomized arm.||||||0.5885
95770942|NCT01322490|191514145|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF placebo vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7144|1.2867|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2867|0.7144|
95770943|NCT01322490|191514145|SUPERIORITY|Odds Ratio and Wald 95% CI estimates are for odds of alive without event for PROSTVAC-V/F-TRICOM + GM-CSF vs. Placebo Control and are from a logistic regression model with Treatment Arm included in model stratified by randomization strata.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6647|1.2026|||||The Alive Without Event endpoint was analyzed using stratified logistic regression. The 95% CI on the odds ratio estimate was computed as the measure of the magnitude of effect.|||1.2026|0.6647|
95770944|NCT00497289|191514146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3654
95770945|NCT00497289|191514147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0264
95807095|NCT03533491|191587139|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether the proportion who use from pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.532
95770946|NCT04606394|191514152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.33
95770947|NCT04606394|191514153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Data outcome reported was the number and percentage of subject test days with DPI Failure in subjects in suboptimal PIF (\<60 L/min) versus normal PIF subjects. Statistical analysis performed was a comparison between rates of DPI Failure in the 2 groups.||||0.04
95770948|NCT04922255|191514168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95770949|NCT04922255|191514169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
95770950|NCT04922255|191514170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95770951|NCT04922255|191514171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
95770952|NCT04922255|191514172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95770953|NCT00648115|191514180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson chi square|7.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95770954|NCT02105987|191514188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||2.4|-9.1|
95770955|NCT02105987|191514190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following Baseline stratification factor: Original ART third agent class (PI, NNRTI, or INI).|||1.4|-2.0|
95770956|NCT02105987|191514195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.23|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of cholesterol is presented|||0.23|-0.02|0.096
95770957|NCT02105987|191514195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of LDL cholesterol is presented|||0.18|-0.03|0.167
95770958|NCT02105987|191514195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of HDL cholesterol is presented|||0.06|-0.02|0.317
95770959|NCT02105987|191514195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of triglycerides is presented|||0.27|-0.05|0.187
95770960|NCT02105987|191514196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis of total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio is presented|||0.25|-0.04|0.175
95770961|NCT02105987|191514197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for total score is presented|||3.5|1.3|<0.001
95770962|NCT02105987|191514197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for general satisfaction/clinical subscale score is presented|||1.7|0.4|0.002
95770963|NCT02105987|191514197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis for lifestyle/ease subscale is presented|||1.8|0.8|<0.001
95770964|NCT02105987|191514198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|4.86|<0.001
95807096|NCT03533491|191587140|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants who use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.370
95770965|NCT02105987|191514199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-5.11|||ANCOVA|||||-5.11|-8.64|<0.001
95770966|NCT02105987|191514200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.17|<0.001
95770967|NCT02105987|191514201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.31|0.375
95770968|NCT02105987|191514202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.93|0.749
95770969|NCT02105987|191514203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.9||Bone specific alkaline phosphatase|ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.82|<0.001
95807097|NCT03533491|191587141|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the proportion of participants that use from pretest to posttest is equal to zero.|Proportion Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether proportion who use from pretest to posttest is different from zero.||||||.020
95807098|NCT03533491|191587142|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.773
95807099|NCT03533491|191587143|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.978
95770970|NCT02105987|191514203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.96||Osteocalcin|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.85|0.002
95770971|NCT02105987|191514203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.04||Procollagen 1 n-terminal propeptide|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.15|0.001
95770972|NCT02105987|191514203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96||Type I collagen c-telopeptides|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.86|0.001
95770973|NCT02105987|191514204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||Fatty acid binding protein 2|ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.57|<0.001
95770974|NCT02105987|191514204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.08||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||Interleukin 6|ANCOVA|||||1.24|0.93|0.311
95770975|NCT02105987|191514204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||Soluble CD14|ANCOVA|||||0.96|0.89|<0.001
95770976|NCT02105987|191514204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|1.01||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08||Soluble vasc cell adhesion molecule 1|ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.95|0.742
95770977|NCT02105987|191514205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.84|0.999
95770978|NCT02105987|191514206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.91|0.981
95770979|NCT02105987|191514207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|0.85|0.640
95770980|NCT02105987|191514208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.87|0.645
95770981|NCT02105987|191514209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.97|0.577
95770982|NCT02105987|191514210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|||||1.03|0.98|0.687
95770983|NCT01075256|191514220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.46||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no diference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.46|-6.70|0.3628
95770984|NCT01075256|191514220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|4.83||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.83|-4.45|0.9361
95770985|NCT01075256|191514220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|2.3||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|6.92||No adustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.92|-2.31|0.3257
95770986|NCT01075256|191514221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|3.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||3.68|-5.73|0.6674
95770987|NCT01075256|191514221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is the high concentration minus placebo such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||4.81|-4.74|0.9888
95770988|NCT01075256|191514221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|5.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.81|-3.69|0.6599
95770989|NCT01075256|191514222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.54||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.54|-6.34|0.9759
95807100|NCT03533491|191587144|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.745
95807101|NCT03533491|191587145|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.132
95807102|NCT03533491|191587146|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.551
95807103|NCT03533491|191587147|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.255
95807104|NCT03533491|191587148|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|||||||A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||
95807105|NCT03533491|191587149|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.198
95807106|NCT03533491|191587150|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.770
95807107|NCT03533491|191587151|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.834
95807108|NCT03533491|191587152|EQUIVALENCE|A test of the null hypothesis that the pretest to posttest change is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired t-test that evaluates whether significant pretest to posttest change is different from zero.||||||.175
95807109|NCT02732145|191587231|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
95807110|NCT02732145|191587231|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
95807111|NCT02732145|191587231|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy index as a measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)"|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
95807112|NCT02732145|191587231|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
95807113|NCT02732145|191587231|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy index for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the Vulvoscopy Index for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
95807114|NCT02732145|191587231|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the Vulvoscopy Index as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the Vulvoscopy Index and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
95952777|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.45||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.45|0.39|0.01
95770990|NCT01075256|191514222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.06|-6.97|0.8903
95770991|NCT01075256|191514222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|5.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.||5.93|-7.04|0.8662
95770992|NCT01075256|191514223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|5.66||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||5.66|-6.93|0.8419
95952778|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.47||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.47|0.38|0.01
95952779|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.41||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.41|0.34|0.01
95770993|NCT01075256|191514223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|6.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.72|-6.03|0.9147
95770994|NCT01075256|191514223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|7.33||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.33|-5.36|0.7600
95770995|NCT01075256|191514224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5||||0.9124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|9.24||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.24|-8.28|0.9124
95770996|NCT01075256|191514224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level||8.14|-9.13|0.9083
95770997|NCT01075256|191514224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|7.77||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||7.77|-9.73|0.8231
95952780|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.49|0.05
95770998|NCT01075256|191514225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.4||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|16.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||16.09|-9.32|0.5946
95807115|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95952781|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.52||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD2. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/Rad event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.52|0.15|0.01
95807116|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9628|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9628
95770999|NCT01075256|191514225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|12.6||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||12.60|-12.51|0.9944
95771000|NCT01075256|191514225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|9.38||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.38|-16.06|0.5998
95995055|NCT01955707|191966423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.11||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.11|-0.12|
95771001|NCT01075256|191514226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|8.09||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.09|-10.51|0.7952
95771002|NCT01075256|191514226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|6.76||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|The null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||6.76|-11.56|0.6010
95771003|NCT01075256|191514226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.7976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|8.1||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.10|-10.48|0.7976
95771004|NCT01075256|191514227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|11.68||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||11.68|-10.38|0.9060
95771005|NCT01075256|191514227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|9.25||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||9.25|-12.63|0.7575
95771006|NCT01075256|191514227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.42|8.73||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline, treatment and number of sensitive teeth and years of sensitivity|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments in comparison. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||8.73|-13.42|0.6727
95807117|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9152|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9152
95771007|NCT01197534|191514229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
95771008|NCT01197534|191514230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportion|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|0.04|<0.001
95771009|NCT01197534|191514231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.18|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.07|<0.001
95771010|NCT01197534|191514231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.15|0.05|<0.001
95771011|NCT01197534|191514232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
95771012|NCT01197534|191514232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07|||Mantel Haenszel|95% confidence intervals and p-values are calculated using a Mantel Haenszel approach stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|0.00|0.033
95771013|NCT01197534|191514233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
95771014|NCT01197534|191514233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure. As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-values are estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by background use of DMARD and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||||<0.001
95771015|NCT01197534|191514234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.80|3.42|<0.001
95771016|NCT01197534|191514234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|8.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.65|1.88|<0.001
95771017|NCT01197534|191514235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|16.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||16.65|3.23|<0.001
95807118|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95952782|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.66|0.01
95952783|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 5-8 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.70|0.02
95952784|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.88|0.58|0.01
95952785|NCT00113880|191876844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days, PD1. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Wheezing/SOB event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.27|0.01
95995056|NCT01955707|191966423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|1.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.12|0.89|0.487
95807119|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed with vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8862
95771018|NCT01197534|191514235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|14.71|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||14.71|2.81|<0.001
95771019|NCT01197534|191514236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.91||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.91|2.06|<0.001
95771020|NCT01197534|191514236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.37||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|Proportional odds model|No Response, moderate response and good response are included in the model, with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.37|1.77|<0.001
95771021|NCT01197534|191514237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.46|1.73|<0.001
95771022|NCT01197534|191514237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.94|1.46|<0.001
95771023|NCT01197534|191514238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.904
95771024|NCT01197534|191514238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Residuals from ANCOVA are analysed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach, adjusting for the effects of pooled country and background use of DMARD.||This analysis is performed using an ANCOVA model on the ranks of the change from baseline, by pooled country and background use of DMARD, including a term for the ranks of the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.342
95771025|NCT01197534|191514239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.48||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.48|1.47|<0.001
95771026|NCT01197534|191514239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.65|0.63|0.001
95807120|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95771027|NCT01197534|191514240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.2||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.20|0.97|<0.001
95771028|NCT01197534|191514240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.08||Nominal p-value presented for treatment comparison. Outcome was not formally tested within the predefined multiplicity procedure.|ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as continuous covariate and treatment, background use of DMARD and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of DMARD or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||3.08|0.83|<0.001
95771029|NCT02115581|191514242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
95771030|NCT02115581|191514243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95771031|NCT02593097|191514244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Hills-Armitage|||||||0.83
95771032|NCT02593097|191514245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||||||0.16
95771033|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p \< 0.05|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
95771034|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
95771035|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771036|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771037|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95952786|NCT00113880|191876845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Encephalitis/encephalopathy event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.04
95952787|NCT00113880|191876846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
95771038|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771039|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771040|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771041|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95771042|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95771043|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771044|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771045|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771046|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771047|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771048|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95771049|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95771050|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0093
95771051|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771052|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95771053|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771054|NCT02811965|191514253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771055|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||A priori threshold p\<0.05.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.00005
95771056|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771057|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771058|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771059|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771060|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771061|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771062|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771063|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
95771064|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
95771065|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771066|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771067|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771068|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771069|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771070|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95771071|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
95771072|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
95771073|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771074|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
95952788|NCT00113880|191876846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
95771075|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00005
95771076|NCT02811965|191514254|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-05||||||P-value adjusted with Holm-Bonferroni Correction for multiple comparison. A priori threshold p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00005
95771077|NCT03627546|191514255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.01
95952789|NCT00113880|191876846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
95771078|NCT03627546|191514256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
95771079|NCT01779440|191514260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-Value of 0.65 was calculated from the difference between groups for the above outcome variable.|Chi-squared|||||||0.65
95771080|NCT00961350|191514263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportions|3.8||||0.02||95.0|1.8|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||6.8|1.8|0.020
95771081|NCT00961350|191514264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
95771082|NCT00961350|191514265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
95771083|NCT00961350|191514266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||0.002
95771084|NCT00961350|191514267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
95771085|NCT02986282|191514275|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0600326|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799661|-0.0449876|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was calculated that the study sample size of 79 subjects would be needed to detect a difference of 0.1 in the ABI measured in sinus rhythm and during atrial fibrillation, with a two-tailed α of 0.05 and a (1-β) of 0.90. Our initial estimate of sample size of 115 patients incorporated an assumption of dropout. Intra-observer variability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficient.||-0.0449876|-0.0799661|<0.05
95771086|NCT02986282|191514276|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249837|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039992|-0.0100226|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.0100226|-0.039992|<0.05
95771087|NCT02498444|191514285|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)||||1.64|1.02|0.03
95771088|NCT02498444|191514286|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51||Poisson regression model demonstrating associations between treatment groups and outcomes (chest tube duration in days and length of stay in days)|Poisson regression|||||1.51|1.00|0.0498
95771089|NCT02498444|191514287|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.05
95771090|NCT02498444|191514287|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
95771091|NCT02498444|191514287|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.14
95771092|NCT02498444|191514288|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.23
95771093|NCT02498444|191514288|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||0.27
95771094|NCT02498444|191514288|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.65
95807121|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3319
95807122|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8662|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8662
95952790|NCT00113880|191876846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
95807123|NCT02732145|191587232|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95807124|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5399|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5399
95807125|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of positive Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
95771095|NCT02498444|191514289|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 0||||0.37
95771096|NCT02498444|191514289|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 12||||<0.01
95771097|NCT02498444|191514289|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Unadjusted repeated measure analysis|||Between-group comparison at postoperative hour 24||||0.30
95771098|NCT03233529|191514294|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
95771099|NCT03233529|191514295|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48404||0.042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0420
95771100|NCT03233529|191514296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37855||0.1519|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.1519
95962111|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.08|-8.48||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-8.48|-20.08|<.0001
95771101|NCT03233529|191514297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32552||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0007
95771102|NCT03233529|191514298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44266||0.0871|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0871
95771103|NCT03233529|191514299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48603||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0055
95771104|NCT03233529|191514300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49359||0.0238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0238
95771105|NCT03233529|191514301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68659||0.0042|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||||0.0042
95771106|NCT03233529|191514308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Crisaborole 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.4|-2.7|< 0.0001
95771107|NCT03233529|191514309|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-1.3|< 0.0001
95771108|NCT03233529|191514309|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
95771109|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 2|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.1|-1.6|0.0188
95771110|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 3|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0014
95771111|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 4|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
95771112|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 5|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.2|< 0.0001
95771113|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 6|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.6|-2.0|0.0003
95771114|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 7|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.8|-2.3|< 0.0001
95771115|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 8|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.1|-2.5|< 0.0001
95771116|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 9|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
95771117|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 10|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.3|-2.7|< 0.0001
95771118|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 11|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-0.9|-2.3|< 0.0001
95807126|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of the positive Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
95807127|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7537|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any lesion in any vulvar ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7537
95952791|NCT00113880|191876847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.47|0.01
95807128|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2054|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2054
95771119|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 12|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.5|-2.9|< 0.0001
95771120|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 13|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.6|< 0.0001
95771121|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 14|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.0|-2.4|< 0.0001
95771122|NCT03233529|191514310|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square Mean of Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison at Day 15|Crisaborole ointment 2% was superior to vehicle if p-value was \<0.05.||-1.2|-2.7|< 0.0001
95771123|NCT02801617|191514374|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the IOP goal with differences of no more than 2 mmHg analysis by protocol||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.861
95771124|NCT02801617|191514374|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the TIOP with differences of no more than 2 mmHg||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
95771125|NCT02801617|191514375|NON_INFERIORITY|intention-to-treat analysis (ITT)||||||0.329|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.329
95771126|NCT02801617|191514376|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.388|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.388
95771127|NCT02801617|191514377|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.125|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.125
95771128|NCT02801617|191514378|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.434|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.434
95771129|NCT02801617|191514379|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0
95771130|NCT02801617|191514380|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered not inferior if they keep the percentage of ocular burning with differences of no more than 20%||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.039
95771131|NCT03421210|191514385|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Differences in brain activation in response to personal smoking versus standard smoking cues were examined.||||0.001
95771132|NCT03777436|191514410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|20.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||30.9|9.2|0.0003
95771133|NCT03777436|191514411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|15.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||23.6|6.9|0.0004
95771134|NCT03777436|191514412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights. 2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Two-sided p-values were based on the CMH test.|||39.3|15.4|<0.0001
95771135|NCT03777436|191514413|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.47|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.47|-5.18|0.0005
95952792|NCT00113880|191876847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 21 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.21|0.01
95952793|NCT00113880|191876847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.77||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.77|0.47|0.01
95952794|NCT00113880|191876847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|SAE event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.48|0.23|0.01
95952795|NCT00113880|191876848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.73|0.57|0.01
95952796|NCT00113880|191876848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.36|0.01
95952797|NCT00113880|191876849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.33|0.26|0.01
95952798|NCT00113880|191876849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.18|0.13|0.01
95952799|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.03|0.04
95962112|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.85|-15.23||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-15.23|-26.85|<.0001
95771136|NCT03777436|191514414|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-1.1|-4.2|0.0008
95962113|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.42|-10.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-10.29|-24.42|<.0001
95962114|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.16||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.19|-5.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-5.13|-19.19|0.0008
95952800|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.40|0.02
95952801|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.84||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.84|0.28|0.01
95995057|NCT01955707|191966424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.1||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to 24 hours using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.10|-0.14|
95995058|NCT01955707|191966424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.11|0.87|0.402
95995059|NCT01955707|191966425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference (log-scale)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.13||||||Treatment contrasts derived from a repeated measures mixed effects model modeling log relative growth relative to Day 5 using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix structure. The model adjusts for for treatment, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, and tPA use.||0.13|-0.18|
95771137|NCT03777436|191514415|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.0|||MMRM||Based on MMRM model.|||-10.0|-20.3|<0.0001
95771138|NCT00927862|191514433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on power calculations and feasibility, the minimum recruitment target for the randomized, PG-guided comparison was set at 500 patients. All qualifying parallel control patients were included, anticipated to number ≥1000. For hypothesis 1, the power to exclude inferiority of the modified PG arm vs standard PG arm at a margin (delta) of 5% with 250 patients per group at a 2-sided alpha \<0.05 is 87%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.20.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons between groups for primary endpoints were made using the unpaired T-test. All consented, randomized patients who were successfully genotyped and received at least one dose of warfarin with at least one post-dose INR were included in efficacy analyses (modified intention to treat \[mITT\]).||||<0.05
95771139|NCT00820248|191514442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of panitumumab vs cisplatin|The log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization was used to compare the difference in PFS between two treatment arms.||1.50|0.60|0.83
95771140|NCT00820248|191514443|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||Log Rank||hazard ratio for panitumumab vs cisplatin|||1.48|0.54|0.66
95771141|NCT02237196|191514464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5038||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.49|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Model adjusts for Site, Baseline TNSS AUC, and Baseline Cat exposure (low vs high)||||0.49|-1.51|0.314
95771142|NCT03980145|191514473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Statistical significance set at .05|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.405
95807129|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6409|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6409
95807130|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
95952802|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.78||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|URI event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.78|0.10|0.02
95771143|NCT03980145|191514473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.133
95771144|NCT03980145|191514473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluated the difference between the pretest and posttest within the conventional physical therapy group||||.050
95995060|NCT01955707|191966425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of relative growth|0.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model||Adjusted mean (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale as the estimated ratio of natalizumab to placebo. 90% confidence interval (log-scale) back-transformed to the original scale and reflect the interval around the ratio.|||1.14|0.84|0.394
95771145|NCT03980145|191514473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.124||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether comfortable walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.124|.015|.017
95771146|NCT03980145|191514474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the impact between the two arms looking an improved walking endurance||||.369
95771147|NCT03980145|191514474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluation of impact of end-effector robotic training alone||||.710
95771148|NCT03980145|191514474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of conventional therapy on walking endurance Null hypothesis is no difference between pretest and posttest||||.682
95771149|NCT03980145|191514474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons - Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Evaluating the impact of whether both groups combined resulted in a significant change in walking distance||||.568
95771150|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Outcome specific to the physical domain|ANOVA|||Evaluation of the physical domain||||.594
95771151|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest- Posttest End Effector Robotic Training Comparison for the Physical Domain||||.061
95771152|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|||Pretest posttest comparison of conventional training group for physical domain||||.812
95771153|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||ANOVA|||Combined conventional and end-effector training for outcomes in the physical domain||||.235
95771154|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of changes in the MFIS Cognitive domain||||.465
95771155|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||ANOVA|||Within group differences for the End Effector Robotic Training Group for the Cognitive Domain||||.165
95771156|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional group within the cognitive domain of the MFIS||||.682
95771157|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.67||p value adjusted using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Combined group outcomes comparing pretest to posttest for the cognitive domain||9.67|1.12|.017
95771158|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the MFIS Psychological Subscale||||.052
95807131|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8986|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8986
95807132|NCT02732145|191587233|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of specific vulvar lesions among the patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0017|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0017
95807133|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95807134|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) among patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9899
95995061|NCT01955707|191966426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.25||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|1.98||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at 24 hours. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||1.98|-2.48|0.427
95771159|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the end-effector robotic training group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.483
95807135|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9686
95771160|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for the conventional physical therapy group for the MFIS Psychological subscale||||.056
95771161|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.313||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|2.619||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction|ANOVA|||Change in MFIS for all subjects from pre to posttest for the psychological subscale||2.619|.016|.048
95771162|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of differences in total score||||.010
95771163|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|||Within assessment of change in total fatigue score||||.089
95771164|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of change in total score||||.50
95771165|NCT03980145|191514475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.464||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.678|16.251|||ANOVA|||Combined assessment of all subject improvement in total MFIS score||16.251|2.678|0.10
95771166|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis set for no difference between groups Assessment of between group differences for the physical subscale||||.071
95771167|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.84||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|23.66|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||23.66|6.02|.005
95771168|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.85|||ANOVA|||With group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||18.85|8.30|.001
95771169|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.21||||2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.367|19.04||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of change on the physical subscale of the MSIS||19.04|9.367|.000026
95771170|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Pretest measures were statistically different between the two groups|ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.084
95771171|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||||.412
95771172|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22||||0.00018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.59|28.85|||ANOVA|||Within group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||28.85|15.59|.00018
95771173|NCT03980145|191514476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.19||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|19.38|||ANOVA|||Combined group comparison for the psychological subscale for the MSIS||19.38|7.013|.00049
95771174|NCT03980145|191514477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is no difference between the two groups||||.352
95807136|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.7055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.7055
95952803|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: all ages, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.96|0.63|0.02
95952804|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||Population: 9-17 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.50|0.03
95952805|NCT00113880|191876850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01||95.0|0.21|0.79||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 21 days. The rate of events during the risk period represents the numerator; the rate of events during the control period represents the denominator.|Any acute resp. tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.79|0.21|0.01
95952806|NCT00113880|191876851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.34||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Sinusitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||3.34|1.14|0.02
95952807|NCT00113880|191876851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Exact method or Cox model|||Irritable bowel syndrome event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months. If the control group has no event, the RR or HR is not estimable.||||0.02
95952808|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.57||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.57|0.15|0.01
95952809|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.12|0.03
95952810|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.74||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.74|0.13|0.01
95952811|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.99||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.99|0.55|0.04
95952812|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Pharyngitis event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.93|0.14|0.04
95952813|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.97|0.71|0.02
95771175|NCT03980145|191514477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.079
95771176|NCT03980145|191514477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment||||.393
95771177|NCT03980145|191514477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.116|||ANOVA|Adjusted for multiple mean comparisons||Evaluating the impact of whether fast walking speed for both groups combined resulted in a significant improvement in walking speed||.116|.001|.048
95771178|NCT03980145|191514478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment for the HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.117
95807137|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8852
95771179|NCT03980145|191514478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|3.407|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||3.407|.093|.041
95771180|NCT03980145|191514478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for HADS Anxiety Subscale||||.150
95807138|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95807139|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3351|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3351
95807140|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
95807141|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8673
95807142|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (mean) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95952814|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any acute respiratory tract event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.57|0.01
95952815|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.61|0.22|0.01
95952816|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.68|0.16|0.01
95952817|NCT00113880|191876852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||Fisher Exact||Population: 18-49, within 42 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.82|0.00|0.03
95952818|NCT00113880|191876853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.58|0.01
95952819|NCT00113880|191876853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.49|0.01
95952820|NCT00113880|191876853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.92|0.61|0.01
95771181|NCT03980145|191514478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.518||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.646||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of HADS Anxiety Subscale||2.646|.390|.012
95771182|NCT03980145|191514479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||ANOVA|||||||.239
95771183|NCT03980145|191514479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between groups for differences in sensory pain score||||.667
95771184|NCT03980145|191514479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Between group differences in affective pain||||.770
95771185|NCT03980145|191514480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Between group assessment of LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.136
95771186|NCT03980145|191514480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Frequency||||.833
95771187|NCT03980145|191514480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.996||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|13.781|||ANOVA|||Between Group Assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||13.781|.212|.044
95771188|NCT03980145|191514480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||Combined group assessment of improvement in LLFDI Disability Limitations||||.212
95771189|NCT03980145|191514481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison for the LLDFI Function||||.338
95771190|NCT03980145|191514481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.508||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|12.28|||ANOVA|||Within group assessment of LLFDI Function||12.28|2.73|.007
95771191|NCT03980145|191514481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Within group assessment for changes in LLFDI Function||||.067
95771192|NCT03980145|191514481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|9.08||p value adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||Combined group improvement in LLFDI Function||9.08|2.90|.001
95771193|NCT01057810|191514482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.88|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.39|0.88|0.3667
95771194|NCT01057810|191514483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.80|0.55|
95771195|NCT01057810|191514484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.52|0.83|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.83|0.52|
95771196|NCT01057810|191514485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.87|0.71|1.35|||||HR = Ipilimumab over placebo|||1.35|0.71|
95771197|NCT01309360|191514490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95771198|NCT01309360|191514490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95771199|NCT01309360|191514490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95771200|NCT01309360|191514491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0
95807143|NCT02732145|191587234|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (mean) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8472
95771201|NCT01309360|191514492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
95771202|NCT01309360|191514492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95771203|NCT01309360|191514492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95771204|NCT01309360|191514493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
95771205|NCT01309360|191514493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
95771206|NCT01309360|191514493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
95771207|NCT01309360|191514494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
95771208|NCT01309360|191514494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95771209|NCT01309360|191514494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95771210|NCT01309360|191514495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
95771211|NCT01309360|191514495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
95771212|NCT01309360|191514495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95771213|NCT00863343|191514508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.94|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.94|0.59|
95771214|NCT00863343|191514508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.99|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.99|0.97|
95771215|NCT00863343|191514509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.92|0.63|
95771216|NCT00863343|191514509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
95771217|NCT00863343|191514510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.96|0.70|
95771218|NCT00863343|191514510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997||||||95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
95771219|NCT00863343|191514511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||0.90|0.60|
95771220|NCT00863343|191514511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Wilson score method||Parameter dispersion type is not applicable. Sensitivity is the proportion of the actual positives that are correctly identified as such by the MSD test.|||1.0|0.98|
95771221|NCT02049814|191514512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of 95% CI of Least Square Mean (LS mean) of HbA1C Changes was less than 0.4%, it was considered that the non-inferiority was established.||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
95771222|NCT01814696|191514523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.605||||||a prior threshold p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
95771223|NCT01814696|191514524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart failure related ED visits||||0.604
95995062|NCT01955707|191966426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.71||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|3.94||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||3.94|-0.52|0.896
95995063|NCT01955707|191966426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|3.15||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.4||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||5.40|0.89|0.989
95771224|NCT01814696|191514524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-heart failure related ED visits||||1.000
95771225|NCT01814696|191514524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All cause ED visits||||0.677
95771226|NCT01814696|191514525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
95771227|NCT01814696|191514525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.042
95771228|NCT01814696|191514526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.497
95807144|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95807145|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9629|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9629
95807146|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9155|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9155
95807147|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.4913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.4913
95807148|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8866
95771229|NCT01814696|191514526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.413
95771230|NCT01814696|191514526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non-heart failure ED visits||||0.944
95771231|NCT01814696|191514527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.057
95771232|NCT01814696|191514527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.236
95771233|NCT01814696|191514527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.236
95771234|NCT01814696|191514528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||All cause||||0.034
95771235|NCT01814696|191514528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Heart failure related||||0.196
95771236|NCT01814696|191514528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Non heart failure related||||0.210
95771237|NCT01814696|191514529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95771238|NCT02977572|191514543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Based upon previous results, the investigators considered that the need for an intubation could be reduced by 15% \[19% in the CPAP group (control) vs. 4% in the NIV group (study)\]. The estimated sample size was 55 participants in each group (confidence interval \[1-α\] = 90% and power \[1-β\] = 85%).||||1.000
95771239|NCT03467217|191514580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|32.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of ALT.||||32.7|-30.6|.95
95771240|NCT03467217|191514581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value of GGT.||||6.0|-11.0|0.56
95771241|NCT03467217|191514582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|19.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline AST value.||||19.8|-10.3|0.53
95771242|NCT03467217|191514583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|37.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.||||37.5|-20.8|0.57
95771243|NCT03467217|191514584|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the baseline ALT value.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|36.7|||ANCOVA|||||36.7|9.7|0.25
95771244|NCT03467217|191514585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline HOMA-IR value.||||6.8|0.0|0.05
95771245|NCT03467217|191514586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline weight value.||||2.5|-1.5|0.64
95771246|NCT03467217|191514587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline BMI value.||||0.6|-0.6|0.98
95952821|NCT00113880|191876853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the unvaccinated controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.52|0.01
95771247|NCT03467217|191514588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist circumference value.||||5.3|-0.5|0.10
95771248|NCT03467217|191514589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline waist-to-hip ratio.||||0.05|0.00|0.08
95771249|NCT03467217|191514590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the baseline PedsQOL Physical Health score.||||9.0|-2.8|0.29
95771250|NCT03467217|191514591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Exact conditional binomial test|||||||0.17
95771251|NCT03467217|191514592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline total cholesterol value.||||8.7|-13.9|0.64
95771252|NCT03467217|191514593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|39.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline triglyceride value.||||39.7|-25.6|0.67
95771253|NCT03467217|191514594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HDL cholesterol value.||||1.5|-3.4|0.45
95771254|NCT03467217|191514595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|9.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline LDL cholesterol value.||||9.4|-10.3|0.93
95771255|NCT03467217|191514596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline PedsQOL Psychosocial Health score.||||20.1|-2.5|0.29
95771256|NCT01113385|191514597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p value reflects the difference in mean FSPF pre vs post galactose treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95771257|NCT00594100|191514601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.095|||One-Sample Binomial|Significance test was based on a one-sample binomial test|95% Confidence Interval is exact binomial using Clopper-Pearson method. Standard Error is from Normal approximation.|The EMPiRE Study tested the null hypothesis that the true MAE rate was greater than or equal to an Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) of 11.83% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MAE rate was less than the OPC. The sample size was calculated based on 80% power and a Type I error rate of 0.025. The OPC was calculated from results of published carotid artery stenting studies that utilized distal embolic protection systems.||0.095|0.027|0.002
95771258|NCT01270464|191514607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.259||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.259|0.060|0.0018
95807149|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95807150|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3335
95807151|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
95807152|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8666
95807153|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions (median) with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||1.0000
95807154|NCT02732145|191587236|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) among the patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8144
95807155|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for vulvar complaints in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar complaints (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5403
95807156|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for Marinoff Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for Marinoff Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9248
95771259|NCT01270464|191514607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0508||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.215||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary variable was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.215|0.016|0.0237
95771260|NCT01270464|191514608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.237||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.237|0.023|0.0174
95771261|NCT01270464|191514608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.155||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.155|-0.058|0.3731
95771262|NCT01270464|191514609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1212||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.472||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.472|-0.005|0.0552
95771263|NCT01270464|191514609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1215||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.27||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.270|-0.209|0.8020
95771264|NCT01270464|191514611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.14||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.140|-0.577|0.0014
95807157|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the Cotton-Swab test (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9839
95807158|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.5124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any lesion in any vulvar ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.5124
95952822|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.51|0.33|0.01
95952823|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.26|0.01
95952824|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.31|0.01
95952825|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.91||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Asthma/RAD event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.91|0.26|0.02
95995064|NCT01955707|191966426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|4.25||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of NIHSS score and change from Baseline at Day 90. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling absolute change in NIHSS score relative to baseline and using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, baseline NIHSS score and location of stroke.||4.25|-0.38|0.915
95807159|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.2058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Outer Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.2058
95952826|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.37|0.55||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.55|0.37|0.01
95771265|NCT01270464|191514611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|-0.019||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.019|-0.456|0.0329
95771266|NCT01270464|191514612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1582||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.67||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.670|0.047|0.0241
95807160|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.6412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Middle Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.6412
95807161|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.9753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for any vulvar lesion of the Inner Vulvar Ring (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.9753
95807162|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.3621|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for the specificity of vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.3621
95952827|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 5-8 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.67|0.35|0.01
95952828|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 9-17 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.56|0.33|0.01
95952829|NCT00113880|191876854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.85||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 years, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Any asthma or wheezing event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.85|0.25|0.01
95952830|NCT00113880|191876855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.69||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed without multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Cox||Population: all ages, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.69|0.32|0.01
95952831|NCT00113880|191876855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||Due to the exploratory nature of the study and the lack of formal hypothesis testing, multiple CIs were constructed without multiplicity adjustment|Regression, Cox||Population: 18-49 yrs, within 180 days. The rate of events in FluMist recipients represents the numerator; the rate of events in the TIV controls represents the denominator.|Hospitalization or death event rates were presented per 1,000 person-months.||0.54|0.17|0.01
95952832|NCT01636258|191876863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||P-value less than 0.05 considered statistically significant a priori. No multiple comparison adjustment made.|t-test, 2 sided|||No sample size calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||2.0|-1.4|0.72
95952833|NCT01636258|191876864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No sample study calculation performed since it was a pilot study. Null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||0.31
95952834|NCT01636258|191876865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95952835|NCT01636258|191876866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95995065|NCT01955707|191966427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.45||One sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 5. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.45|0.55|0.564
96001871|NCT01845077|191981260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|104.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||104.1|90.2|
95771267|NCT01270464|191514612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1591||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.591||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.591|-0.036|0.0822
95771268|NCT01270464|191514613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.085||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.085|0.009|0.0160
95771269|NCT01270464|191514613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0193||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.089||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||0.089|0.012|0.0094
95771270|NCT01270464|191514614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2551||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|-0.121||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.121|-1.126|0.0151
95771271|NCT01270464|191514614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2559||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.152|-0.144||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.144|-1.152|0.0119
95771272|NCT01270464|191514615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.542|-0.447||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.447|-0.542|0.0000
95771273|NCT01270464|191514615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.275||The overall treatment effect for each reslizumab dose was compared to placebo using a 2-sided t-test at the a priori significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||As with the primary outcome, this respiratory test outcome was analyzed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects (treatment, stratification factors, sex, visit, interaction of treatment and visit), covariates (height, baseline value), and patient as the random effect for the repeated measurements.||-0.275|-0.370|0.0000
95807163|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?||||||0.8987|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for non-specific vulvar lesions (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology.||||0.8987
95807164|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the score for specific vulvar lesions in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy)?||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the score for vulvar lesions specific for dermatosis (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology (first biopsy).||||0.0018
96001872|NCT01845077|191981261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.8|
95807165|NCT02732145|191587237|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.4409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Parameter: The difference in the overall sum of points for the Vulvoscopy Index (median) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.4409
95807166|NCT02732145|191587238|OTHER|"Question: Determination of sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Sensitivity (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"The Sensitivity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Sensitivity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
95807167|NCT02732145|191587238|OTHER|"Question: Determination of specificity of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in comparison to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Specificity (2x2 Table)|0.9609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5794|1.0|||||"The Specificity of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9609 (Range: 0.5794 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Specificity of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.5794|
95807168|NCT02732145|191587238|OTHER|"Question: Determination of diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as a measure of the diagnostic value of the Three Rings Vulvoscopy, in relation to the histopathological diagnosis of vulvar dermatosis."|Diagnostic Accuracy (2x2 Table)|0.9695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.0|||||"The Diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.9695 (Range: 0.6313 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Diagnostic accuracy of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.6313|
95952836|NCT01838499|191876868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.051|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.067|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||MEDI8968 - placebo|Analysis of proportion of Responders for Physician's Global Assessment (PGA score 0, 1 or 2) at Week 12 - LOCF. Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.169|-0.067|>0.05
95807169|NCT02732145|191587238|OTHER|"Question: Determination of positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|PPV (2x2 Table)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|1.0|||||"Positive predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 0.8780 (Range: 0.2270 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Positive predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|0.2270|
95807170|NCT02732145|191587238|OTHER|"Question: Determination of negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for detection of vulvar dermatosis in comparison to the histopathology results."|NPV (2x2 Table)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||"Negative predictive value of the N-S-P Scheme for Detection of Vulvar Dermatosis was 1.0000 (Range: 1.0000 - 1.0000)."|"Parameter: Negative predictive value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||1.0000|1.0000|
95807171|NCT02732145|191587238|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the N-S-P Scheme as an outcome measure of the diagnostic value of Three Rings Vulvoscopy, and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the diagnostic accuracy between TRIV using the N-S-P Scheme and histopathology for detection of vulvar dermatosis."||||0.6108
95807172|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9286|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9286
95807173|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8618|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8618
95952837|NCT01838499|191876869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.065|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.205|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in proportions MEDI8968 - placebo. Wald asymptotic confidence limits calculated.||0.076|-0.205|>0.05
95952838|NCT01838499|191876870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline (at week 12)|-0.03||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|0.57|||ANCOVA||MEDI8968 - Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline (Week 12) estimated from ANCOVA model with tmt group and PGA stratum at randomisation included in the model and average daily pain at baseline as a covariate||0.57|-0.63|0.945
95952839|NCT03614923|191876871|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints would be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.25||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.25|-1.01|0.2364
95771274|NCT01339923|191514684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after 2nd vaccination for serogroup C.||3.9|-6.4|
95771275|NCT01339923|191514684|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of MenC-CRM was determined following co-administration of MenC-CRM and rMenB+OMV NZ vs MenC-CRM control group at 1 month after booster vaccination for serogroup C.||7.6|-5.2|
95771276|NCT03521115|191514705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|b=-.91, controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
95771277|NCT03521115|191514705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
95771278|NCT03521115|191514705|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|5.129||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||.077
95771279|NCT03521115|191514706|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.001
95807174|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9786|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9786
95807175|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
95952840|NCT03614923|191876871|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.22||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in NPS as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline NPS as covariate; and subject as random effect.||0.22|-1.03|0.2024
95962115|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-9.50|-23.62|<.0001
95771280|NCT03521115|191514706|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
95807176|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8634|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8634
95771281|NCT03521115|191514706|SUPERIORITY||F|0.85|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95807177|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7992|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7992
95771282|NCT03521115|191514707|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.22|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.10
95771283|NCT03521115|191514707|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
95771284|NCT03521115|191514707|SUPERIORITY||F|0.43|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95771285|NCT03521115|191514708|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.16|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.10
95771286|NCT03521115|191514708|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Controlled for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.||12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
95771287|NCT03521115|191514708|SUPERIORITY||F|1.55|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||18 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95807178|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.3912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.3912
95952841|NCT03614923|191876872|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|2.06||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||2.06|-15.34|0.1330
95952842|NCT03614923|191876872|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance for the co-primary efficacy endpoints was to be declared if both p-values for the tests of the individual hypotheses were \< 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.375||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|6.67||Testing was conducted in a hierarchical manner such that the comparison of etokimab Q4W versus placebo was conducted first. If the results of this comparison were statistically significant, the etokimab Q8W treatment arm would be compared to placebo.|General linear MMRM|||A general linear mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM) was used including the change from Baseline in SNOT-22 as dependent variable; treatment group, stratification factor, time (Weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16), treatment by stratification factor, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors; Baseline SNOT-22 as covariate; and subject as random effect.||6.67|-10.70|0.6464
95952843|NCT00116584|191876894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95952844|NCT00116584|191876895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95952845|NCT00116584|191876896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95952846|NCT03034772|191876897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.04
95952847|NCT03034772|191876898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.11
95952848|NCT03034772|191876899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Mean difference between the 2 groups derived using analysis of covariance, with the baseline value and type of anti-VEGF drug used as covariates.||||||0.01
95995066|NCT01955707|191966427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.1||One-sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of distribution of mRS scores at Day 30. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||2.10|0.80|0.077
95771288|NCT03521115|191514709|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|6 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
95771289|NCT03521115|191514709|SUPERIORITY||b|-0.02|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|12 month follow-up. Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing only the communication, and 2 for completing the alcohol component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95771290|NCT03521115|191514710|SUPERIORITY||b|0.299|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.01
95771291|NCT03521115|191514711|SUPERIORITY||b|0.268|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<.03
95771292|NCT03521115|191514712|SUPERIORITY||b|0.075|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95771293|NCT03521115|191514713|SUPERIORITY||b|0.051|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations||controlling for condition (experimental vs. control) , IMR, baseline measure of outcome variable, teen gender, age, \& race.|Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95771294|NCT03521115|191514714|SUPERIORITY||b|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized estimating equations|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||<0.05
95771295|NCT03521115|191514715|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those assigned to intervention, dosage was assigned as 0 for no exposure, 1 for completing some of the program, and 2 for completing the relationship component. A probit analysis predicting completion was conducted from baseline measures and an instrumental variable, inverse Mills' ratio (IMR) representing the underlying selection processes was included as a covariate accounting for factors related to program completion. All controls were assigned 0 dosage.||||>0.10
95807179|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6152|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6152
95807180|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6108|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6108
95807181|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
95807182|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.7912|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.7912
95952849|NCT03034772|191876900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.78
95952850|NCT03034772|191876901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.24
95771296|NCT01430403|191514726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|Placebo serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the placebo arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||0.92|0.25|0.03
95771297|NCT01430403|191514727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64|||Odds Ratio|Adjusted for Site, dosing group and treatment step|ICS Boost serves as the reference group. Values \< 1 represent more exacerbations in the ICS arm.|Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the arms. Power calculation is described in detail in the study protocol.||1.64|0.33|0.45
95771298|NCT01430403|191514728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|5.22|||Chi-squared||Adjusted for site|||5.22|2.38|<0.01
95771299|NCT01430403|191514729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|0.004||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||F-Test|||||0.11|-0.10|0.94
95771300|NCT01430403|191514729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear Regression|-0.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13|||F-Test|||||0.13|-0.40|0.33
95771301|NCT01430403|191514730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.87|0.552
95771302|NCT01430403|191514730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.87|0.37
95771303|NCT01430403|191514731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.07|-1.11|0.09
95771304|NCT01430403|191514732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization CASI, site and dosing group||||0.34|-0.86|0.39
95771305|NCT01430403|191514733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.78|-3.42|0.84
95771306|NCT01430403|191514734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|5.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1 % predicted, site and dosing group.||||5.51|-0.76|0.14
95771307|NCT01430403|191514735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.99|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.99|-1.49|0.78
95771308|NCT01430403|191514736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.91|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization FEV1:FVCx100, site and dosing group.||||2.91|-0.61|0.20
95771309|NCT01430403|191514737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.90|0.32|0.006
95962116|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-9.81||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-9.81|-24.61|<.0001
95771310|NCT01430403|191514738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization ACT, site and dosing group.||||0.86|-0.76|0.89
95771311|NCT01430403|191514739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.41|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.41|0.00|0.05
95771312|NCT01430403|191514740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for randomization C-ACT, site and dosing group||||1.30|-0.15|0.12
95771313|NCT01430403|191514741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.72|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||0.72|0.19|0.63
95771314|NCT01430403|191514742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.46|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||3.46|0.29|0.99
95771315|NCT01430403|191514743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.35|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||1.35|0.39|0.31
95771316|NCT01430403|191514744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.02|||Negative Binomial Generalized Estimating|Adjustments for site and dosing group||||1.02|0.23|0.06
95771317|NCT01430403|191514745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.72|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site, dosing group and treatment group step (2-4 as one step and 5 separately)||||2.72|-3.08|0.90
95771318|NCT01430403|191514746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.71|||Regression, Linear|Adjustments for site and dosing group.||||2.71|-3.26|0.86
95771319|NCT02677922|191514750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|11.85|||Chi-squared|||||11.85|1.99|0.0003
95771320|NCT02677922|191514753|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.30|0.1083
95771321|NCT02677922|191514755|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|27.31|||Chi-squared|||||27.31|2.74|<0.001
95771322|NCT02677922|191514756|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.2|||Chi-squared|||||4.20|0.74|0.1943
95771323|NCT02677922|191514759|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Cox proportional hazards regression model|||1.87|0.52|0.9720
95771324|NCT02677922|191514760|OTHER|Confidence interval of difference|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|22.5|||||The CI for the difference was derived using Greenwood's variance estimate.|||22.5|-17.3|
95771325|NCT01303172|191514796|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Log Rank|||The difference between the two treatment groups was tested with a two-sided log-rank test and a Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI and associated p-value.||0.87|0.33|0.011
95771326|NCT00460811|191514797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0002
95771327|NCT00460811|191514797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0036
95771328|NCT00460811|191514797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||<0.0001
95771329|NCT00460811|191514797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||For each of the 4 active linaclotide groups, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between placebo and the dose group in the change from baseline in the weekly normalized CSBM Rate. An observed cases (OC) approach to missing post-baseline data was applied: any missing data were not imputed.||||0.0008
95771330|NCT02099110|191514829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
95771331|NCT02099110|191514829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
95771332|NCT02099110|191514829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.61|<0.001
95807183|NCT02732145|191587239|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||1.0000
95807184|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.253|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-#-# result (no lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.2530
95807185|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8338|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S-#-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8338
95771333|NCT02099110|191514829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
95771334|NCT02099110|191514830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs Ertugliflozin 5 mg|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.5|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||5.5|-11.7|
95771335|NCT02099110|191514830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.8|-10.6|
95771336|NCT02099110|191514830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||10.1|-7.4|
95771337|NCT02099110|191514830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||7.0|-10.5|
95771338|NCT02099110|191514831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 5 mg|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.6|-3.3|
95771339|NCT02099110|191514831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Ertugliflozin 15 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|-3.0|
95771340|NCT02099110|191514831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.9|-2.9|
95771341|NCT02099110|191514831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % vs. Sitagliptin 100 mg|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.4|-2.5|
95771342|NCT02099110|191514832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.22||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.22|-2.48|<0.001
95771343|NCT02099110|191514832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.64||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained logitudinal data analysis|||||-1.64|-2.90|<0.001
95771344|NCT02099110|191514833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-8.23||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-2.65||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-2.65|-13.82|0.004
95771345|NCT02099110|191514833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-6.23||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-6.23|-17.35|<0.001
95771346|NCT02099110|191514833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-12.77||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-12.77|-24.03|<0.001
95771347|NCT02099110|191514833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-23.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.76|-17.53||cLDA model including fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-17.53|-28.76|<0.001
95952851|NCT01136733|191876904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.68|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Null hypothesis of no difference in PFS was analyzed using the stratified log-rank test with hemoglobin (less than or equal to 13 g/dL vs greater than 13 g/dL for males; and less than or equal to 11.5 g/dL vs greater than 11.5 g/dL for females) and corrected serum calcium (greater than or equal to 10 mg/dL vs less than 10 mg/dL) as stratification factors. Each null hypothesis was tested at a nominal alpha=0.05.||0.68|0.24|=0.0005
95952852|NCT01136733|191876904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.38|0.0479
95952853|NCT01136733|191876904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.39|0.1209
95952854|NCT01136733|191876905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.514|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.884|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio between treatment groups and corresponding 95% CI was estimated using the stratified Cox regression model (stratified by hemoglobin and corrected serum calcium) with treatment as a factor.|Planned analyses were performed to test null hypothesis of treatment difference in OS at a nominal significance level of 0.05 (2-sided) using the stratified log-rank test using stratification factors.||0.884|0.299|=0.0242
95952855|NCT01136733|191876905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.684|||=|0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.138|||Log Rank|||||1.138|0.411|=0.1181
95952856|NCT01136733|191876905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||=|0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.433|=0.3157
95952857|NCT01136733|191876906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.5||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact||Rate ratio was based on the normal approximation.|||22.5|2.3|<0.0001
95807186|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0019|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P-#-# result (specific lesions) of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0019
95952858|NCT01136733|191876906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|4.5||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|1.4|0.0067
95952859|NCT01136733|191876906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.6|||=|0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8||Analysis performed after database lock. P-value was based on the 2-sided Fisher's exact P-value.|Fisher Exact|||||2.8|0.9|=0.1007
95952860|NCT01837719|191876918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (fixed-dose combination \[FDC\] tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to time of last quantifiable concentration (AUC\[0-T\]) and AUC from time 0 to infinity. (AUC\[0-T\])|Geometric mean ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax, with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.137|1.012|
95952861|NCT01837719|191876918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.590|1.273|
95952862|NCT01837719|191876918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir Cmax with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.292|1.000|
95771348|NCT02099110|191514834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|6.4||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|2.68|<0.001
95771349|NCT02099110|191514834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.83||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|1.68|<0.001
95771350|NCT02099110|191514834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.54||Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.92|<0.001
95771351|NCT02099110|191514834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds Ratio using a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||3.89|1.69|<0.001
95771352|NCT02099110|191514835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|7.61||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||18.13|-2.90|0.155
95771353|NCT02099110|191514835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-4.87||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|5.8||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.80|-15.54|0.369
95771354|NCT02099110|191514835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|1.81||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|12.27||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||12.27|-8.66|0.734
95771355|NCT02099110|191514835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-9.59||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|0.98||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the least squares means|||||0.98|-20.17|0.075
95771356|NCT02099110|191514836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-2.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-0.83||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.83|-4.69|0.005
95771357|NCT02099110|191514836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.09||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.09|-4.94|0.002
95771358|NCT03515811|191514851|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.2|||||95% CI: 5.0%-19.2%|||19.2|5.0|
95771359|NCT03515811|191514851|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||95% CI: 0.0%-7.0%|||7.0|0.0|
95771360|NCT03515811|191514852|OTHER||Percentage and confidence interval|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.2|||||95% CI: 3.1%-12.2%|||12.2|3.1|
95771361|NCT01537042|191514935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|0.44||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.88|||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed for the log-transformed PLMI ratio with treatment and region as factors and Baseline as a covariate.||||0.88|0.22|0.0232
95860333|NCT04845568|191679096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of fast food. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child fast food servings per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.45|-.86|.527
95771362|NCT02837731|191514950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-2.53|0.021
95771363|NCT02837731|191514951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||Fisher Exact||Converted Estimated Value of -12.4% to decimal value of -0.124.|||-0.01|-0.27|0.042
95807187|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6541|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-N-# result (no lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6541
95952863|NCT01837719|191876918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.059|0.701|
95771364|NCT02837731|191514952|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1642||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0|||Chi-squared||Converted Estimated Value of -16.42% to decimal value of -0.1642.|||0|-0.33|0.044
95771365|NCT02837731|191514953|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.85|||Fisher Exact|||||0.85|-6.67|0.113
95771366|NCT02837731|191514954|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.08|9.22|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.22|-154.08|
95771367|NCT02837731|191514955|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.91||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|22.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22.68|-52.50|0.426
95771368|NCT02837731|191514956|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.453
95771369|NCT01294241|191514988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis: Wounds that were either evaluated controversially (n=2) or as being equal (n=2) were excluded from the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.|Two-sided exact binomial test|||The intra-individual difference in reepithelialization of wound (halves) was tested using a two-sided exact binomial test. The test was performed at a significance level of 5% for the null-hypothesis of no difference δ = 0 against the hypotheses δ ≠ 0: H0: δ = 0 H1: δ ≠ 0||||=0.008
95771370|NCT01294241|191514989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||=0.21
95771371|NCT01294241|191514990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Post-hoc superiority analysis|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intra-individual difference in median percentage of wound epithelialization was tested using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.||||0.33
95771372|NCT02748213|191515001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|2.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|14.56|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference in response (CR or PR) rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson correction.|||14.56|-10.17|0.717
95771373|NCT02748213|191515003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||0.99|0.53|0.0449
95771374|NCT02748213|191515005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.32|||Log Rank||HR calculated using Herceptin + Taxotere arm as reference.|||1.32|0.56|0.4758
95771375|NCT06868654|191515027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.56|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.56|0.11|
95771376|NCT03867201|191515050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-2.83|0.015
95771377|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.43||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-1.71|0.1641
95771378|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.26||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.89|0.6100
95771379|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.45||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-1.70|0.1686
95771380|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|0.25||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-1.87|0.1051
95771381|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.88||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-1.37|0.3583
95807188|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8224|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-S-# result (non-specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8224
95995067|NCT01955707|191966427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.86||One -sided p-value based on Van Elteren's test, adjusting for baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).|Van Elteren's test|||Analysis of the distribution of mRS scores at Day 90. Odds ratio from a proportional-odds logistic regression model assuming a common odds ratio across all cut points of the mRS score. Covariates include baseline DWI volume (\< median vs \>= median), treatment time window, location of stroke abnormality (cortical/subcortical), and tPA use (yes/no).||1.86|0.71|0.243
95771382|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.29||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.88|0.1131
95771383|NCT03850483|191515067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.47||Multiplicity adjustment comparing 6 different treatment arms was performed only for the primary endpoint using Hochberg step-up procedure to maintain overall familywise error rate at 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.64|0.1812
95771384|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
95807189|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0064|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-P-# result (specific lesions) of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0064
95771385|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.9|-6.6|0.2430
95771386|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|17.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.9|-10.6|0.3747
95860334|NCT04845568|191679097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.01||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child weekly intake of breakfast. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child breakfast meals per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||1.01|-1.33|.777
95771387|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|0.0665|-1.3|31.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||31.5|-1.3|0.0665
95771388|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|25.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||25.5|-12.1|0.3423
95771389|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|30.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||||30.9|-4.7|0.1271
95771390|NCT03850483|191515068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||21.1|-13.2|0.4010
95771391|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||10.4|-11.2|0.4225
95771392|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
95771393|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
95771394|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
95771395|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|8.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.9|-6.4|0.5000
95771396|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|13.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||13.2|-3.4|0.2125
95771397|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.2267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||12.2|-3.5|0.2267
95771398|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.6|-14.0|0.7592
95771399|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.5|-14.0|0.7299
95771400|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.4|-11.3|0.4463
95807190|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9723|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-N result (no lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9723
95807191|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.8161|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-S result (non-specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.8161
95952864|NCT01837719|191876918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.643|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.545|0.759|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.759|0.545|
95952865|NCT01837719|191876919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.|Geometric mean ratio|1.065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).||1.120|1.012|
95952866|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.275|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|1.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.393|1.166|
95952867|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-T) is calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.248|0.993|
95771401|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|4.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.8|-14.0|0.7539
95771402|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.7009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-10.1|0.7009
95807192|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.1165|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of #-#-P result (specific lesions) of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.1165
95952868|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC.||1.122|0.804|
95771403|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||15.6|-4.5|0.2507
95771404|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.8|0.2993
95771405|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.5|-14.0|0.7363
95771406|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.3|-10.5|0.5369
95860335|NCT04845568|191679097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.79||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child intake of family dinners. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child family dinners per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.79|-2.26|.329
95771407|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
95952869|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.849|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.849|0.655|
95952870|NCT01837719|191876919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T) and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.064||||||90.0|1.011|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ration for AUC(INF) is calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||1.120|1.011|
95952871|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.171|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio for AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of a light meal and fthe fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||1.398|1.171|
95952872|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|To assess the relative bioavailability of atazanavir under fasted (Treatment D) versus fed (Treatment C) states, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect||1.244|0.991|
95952873|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|||1.128|0.810|
95952874|NCT01837719|191876919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to estimate the effect of high fat and light meals on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC.||0.852|0.658|
95952875|NCT01837719|191876924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.014|1.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.158|1.014|
95952876|NCT01837719|191876924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio of C24 was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.498|1.215|
95952877|NCT01837719|191876924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.144||||||90.0|1.006|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as an FDC||1.300|1.006|
95952878|NCT01837719|191876924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.023|1.483|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.483|1.023|
95952879|NCT01837719|191876924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.912||||||90.0|0.789|1.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.054|0.789|
95952880|NCT01837719|191876926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.057|0.991|
95952881|NCT01837719|191876926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.305|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.215|1.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.402|1.215|
95952882|NCT01837719|191876926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.273|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir cobicistat||1.273|0.925|
95860336|NCT04845568|191679098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.99||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child screentime. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child screentime per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.99|-0.07|.086
95771408|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||5.0|-14.0|0.7483
95952883|NCT01837719|191876926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.154|||||Geometric mean ratio was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||1.154|0.937|
95771409|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|11.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.6|-13.7|0.5990
95771410|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|4.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||4.9|-16.4|0.7926
95771411|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||17.6|-9.0|0.3402
95771412|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|5.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||5.7|-14.4|0.7364
95771413|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||17.7|-7.4|0.3009
95771414|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||15.9|-8.1|0.3400
95771415|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|21.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||21.1|-4.8|0.1631
95771416|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
95771417|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|13.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||13.0|-17.8|0.6214
95771418|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||11.7|-17.9|0.6413
95771419|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|13.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.1|-13.1|0.5000
95771420|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.2|-12.6|0.5134
95771421|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||12.5|-13.4|0.4468
95771422|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|23.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||23.9|-6.8|0.2778
95771423|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|21.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||21.0|-14.5|0.4571
95771424|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-15.3|0.4741
95771425|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.5153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|16.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||16.7|-14.8|0.5153
95771426|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|5.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.3|-21.1|0.8287
95771427|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|14.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||14.2|-17.8|0.5675
95771428|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-9.8|0.2648
95771429|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||20.8|-11.8|0.3792
95771430|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.3|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.1|-16.3|0.4438
95771431|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||9.4|-23.3|0.7014
95771432|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.7|15.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.0|-19.7|0.5841
95771433|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.3|-15.3|0.5000
95771434|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|12.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||12.3|-17.5|0.5834
95771435|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|27.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||27.2|-6.4|0.1534
95771436|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|24.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||24.9|-8.8|0.2720
95771437|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|10.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||10.4|-25.1|0.6815
95771438|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|22.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||22.0|-14.4|0.3900
95771439|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.0|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||15.9|-20.0|0.5865
95771440|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|18.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.9|-8.2|0.3087
95771441|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.9|-8.2|0.3137
95771442|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||34.8|2.7|0.0245
95771443|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.0|-3.0|0.1119
95771444|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.2|20.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||20.4|-13.2|0.4140
95771445|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||28.5|-7.2|0.2356
95771446|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.5|21.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||21.5|-11.5|0.3638
95771447|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|22.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.9|-5.2|0.1613
95771448|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||31.4|-0.5|0.0557
95771449|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|38.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||38.3|5.6|0.0114
95807193|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.6339|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of N-N-N result (no lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.6339
95860337|NCT04845568|191679098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 25||This analysis is for the outcome: Change in child active hours. It is an independent samples t test. It is testing the null hypothesis that the mean change in child active hours per week from baseline to two-week follow up does not differ between conditions.||.40|-.64|.64
95860338|NCT04236141|191679133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|40.43||||||||40.43|-19.00|
95771450|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|28.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||28.1|-1.8|0.0753
95807194|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.9724|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of S result (non-specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (S-#-#; S-S-#; S-S-S; S-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.9724
95807195|NCT02732145|191587240|SUPERIORITY|"Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology?"||||||0.0016|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the frequency of P result (specific lesions) in any of the Three Vulvar Rings (P-#-#; P-P-; P-P-P; P-N-S etc.) in patients with absent vulvar dermatosis diagnosed by vulvoscopy and histopathology."||||0.0016
95807196|NCT02732145|191587241|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the age of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the age of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807197|NCT02732145|191587242|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the weight of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the weight of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807198|NCT02732145|191587243|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||||0.0557|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the height of patients from different groups.||||0.0557
95807199|NCT02732145|191587244|EQUIVALENCE|Is there a difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||The difference in the body mass index of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807200|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years in different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients older than 65 years between different groups.||||0.0000
95807201|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of menopausal patients among different groups.||||0.0000
95807202|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||||0.3708|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of domicile country (Croatia) as a country of birth among patients from different groups.||||0.3708
95807203|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups?||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of patients educated equally or less than 12 years among different groups.||||0.0180
95807204|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in marital status among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of marital status among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95952884|NCT01837719|191876926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.784|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when administered as a fixed-dose combination.||0.858|0.717|
95860339|NCT04236141|191679134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.03|36.31||||||||36.31|-22.03|
95860340|NCT04236141|191679135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
95771451|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.1|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.2|-20.1|0.5635
95771452|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|14.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||14.5|-20.3|0.6201
95771453|NCT03850483|191515069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|17.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.0|-17.6|0.4792
95807205|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the nulliparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95860341|NCT04236141|191679136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|52.3||||||||52.30|-9.44|
95860342|NCT04236141|191679137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
95860343|NCT04236141|191679138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|37.4||||||||37.40|-1.69|
95860344|NCT04236141|191679139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|48.42||||||||48.42|-12.70|
95860345|NCT04236141|191679140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|44.46||||||||44.46|-15.89|
95860346|NCT04236141|191679141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|60.38||||||||60.38|-10.38|
95771454|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.79|||MMRM|||Week 1: Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.79|-0.25|0.8038
95952885|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.057|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.057|0.983|
95952886|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.232||||||90.0|1.141|1.331|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.331|1.141|
95952887|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.307|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(0-T) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.307|0.929|
95952888|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.127||||||90.0|1.017|1.248|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.248|1.017|
95952889|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|0.96|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-T) was calculated asTreatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and a light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||0.960|0.825|
95952890|NCT01837719|191876928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratios of geometric means of the test formulation (FDC tablet of 300/150 mg atazanavir/cobicistat) to the reference formulation (300-mg atazanavir capsule coadministered with 150-mg cobicistat) were contained within 0.80 to 1.25 for atazanavir Cmax, AUC(0-T), and AUC(INF).|Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.982|1.058|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment A|To demonstrate bioequivalence for atazanavir between the test (Treatment B) and reference (Treatment A) formulations, a linear mixed-effects model was applied to the natural logarithms of atazanavir AUC(0-INF), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.058|0.982|
95771455|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.8267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.81|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.81|-0.22|0.8267
95771456|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.60|-0.43|0.6039
95771457|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.41|0.6339
95771458|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.31|-0.68|0.2666
95807206|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the multiparity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807207|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the number of abortions among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95952891|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment B/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a light meal and the fasted state on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC||1.340|1.148|
95952892|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.075|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment D/Treatment C|A linear mixed-effect model was applied to the natural logarithms of cobicistat AUC(INF) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant (sequence) as a random effect.||1.075|0.886|
95952893|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.231|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment D|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and fasted on the natural logarithms of exposure of cobicistat when given as an FDC.||1.231|1.012|
95952894|NCT01837719|191876928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|0.978|||||Geometric mean ratio of AUC(INF) was calculated as Treatment E/Treatment B|A linear mixed-effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect will be used to estimate the effect of a high fat meal and light meal on the natural logarithms of exposure of atazanavir when given as an FDC||0.978|0.836|
95952895|NCT04739306|191876947|EQUIVALENCE|Predefined equivalence margin: -3 letters to +3 letters|Estimated difference in LS means|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|1.67|||ANCOVA|Analysis conducted for study eye. Primary endpoint as the dependent variable, treatment as a factor, baseline BCVA and country as covariates.||||1.67|-0.52|
95952896|NCT00472199|191876983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0077||95.0|-4.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance for changes from baseline with factors treatment and country and using baseline as covariate||-0.7|-4.6|0.0077
95860347|NCT04236141|191679142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.84|40.98||||||||40.98|-33.84|
95860348|NCT01474239|191679158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was assessed with a one-sided alpha error of 10 percent (%).|Exact Binomial Test|||The 6-month OS rate (OS-6) for bevacizumab was compared to the expected proportion of 0.60 under null hypothesis (ineffective treatment) with the application of the exact binomial test. The one-tailed statistical hypotheses was p0 less than or equal to (≤) 0.60 (null hypothesis) versus pA greater than or equal to (≥) 0.77 (alternative hypothesis), where p is the estimated probability of survival at 6 months.||||0.4291
95771459|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-0.70|0.2257
95771460|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-0.81|0.1306
95807208|NCT02732145|191587245|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups?||||||0.1323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the using of contraception among patients from different groups.||||0.1323
95807209|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.3158|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.3158
95807210|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain in the vulva (stabbing, sticking, knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain) among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0007
95771461|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.31|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.31|0.09|0.9704
95771462|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.09|-0.16|0.8890
95771463|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.66|0.4506
95771464|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.53|0.5840
95771465|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.17|0.0769
95771466|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-1.39|0.0242
95771467|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.23|-1.49|0.0127
95771468|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.54|0.6693
95771469|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.96|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.96|-0.55|0.6742
95860349|NCT00147069|191679174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
95860350|NCT00147069|191679175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The reported p value was calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95860351|NCT00147069|191679176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95860352|NCT00147069|191679177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95860353|NCT00552188|191679184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value||||0.34
95860354|NCT00552188|191679185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline||||0.15
95952897|NCT00472199|191876984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0010
95952898|NCT00472199|191876985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
95952899|NCT00472199|191876986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
95771470|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.79|0.4486
95771471|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.93|0.3219
95771472|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.39|-2.21|0.0096
95771473|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.64|0.0862
95771474|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.36|-2.15|0.0111
95995068|NCT01955707|191966428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.68||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.19|10.56||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 5. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||10.56|-9.19|0.455
95995069|NCT01955707|191966428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|1.21||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.76|11.19||one-sided p-value|repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 30. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||11.19|-8.76|0.420
95864323|NCT02412488|191686537|OTHER|"The goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision. The target sample size of approximately 200 subjects undergoing Reveal LINQ insertion was selected to ensure that the upper 95% confidence interval would be within 3 percentage points of the point estimate of the untoward event rate assuming the underlying rate was 2%"|Event Rate expressed as a percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||||The estimate is the observed rate of untoward events expressed as a percentage. The 95% confidence interval is also expressed as a percentage|"There was no formal statistical hypothesis test associated with the primary outcome measure. Rather the goal of the primary study objective was to estimate the rate of untoward events associated with Reveal LINQ insertions performed in the out-of-cathlab setting through 3-months within a desired level of precision."||2.1|0|
95771475|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.97|-0.68|0.6107
95771476|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.15|-0.54|0.7240
95771477|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.91|0.4300
95771478|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.66|0.0501
95995070|NCT01955707|191966428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.56||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.64|13.75|||repeated measures mixed effects model|||Analysis of Barthel Index at Day 90/Final Visit. The repeated measures mixed effects model is modeling Barthel Index using an autoregressive variance-covariance matrix. The model adjusts for treatment, time, treatment by time, log baseline DWI volume, treatment time window, tPA use, and location of stroke.||13.75|-6.64|0.283
95771479|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|-0.3|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.30|-2.23|0.0157
95771480|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.83|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.83|0.0645
95771481|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.06|-1.84|0.0621
95771482|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-1.21|0.2959
95807211|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95995071|NCT01707992|191966439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.937|||=|0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary analysis for the comparison between laquinimod 0.6 mg versus placebo was conducted using the baseline adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Categorical EDSS at baseline (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 4 or greater than \[\>\] 4), country/geographical region (CGR), categorical age at baseline (\<=38 or \>38), and T2 volume at baseline were included as covariates in the model.||1.313|0.668|= 0.7057
95771483|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.69|-0.19|0.9043
95771484|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.38|0.2014
95771485|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.19|-1.66|0.0948
95771486|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.06|-2.21|0.0416
95771487|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|-0.03|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.03|-2.14|0.0454
95771488|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|-0.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.20|-2.31|0.0256
95771489|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.36|0.2326
95771490|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.99|-0.95|0.5141
95771491|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.25|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.25|-1.64|0.1124
95807212|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain versus the sharp pain of the vulva in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
95807213|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0147|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar burning among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0147
95807214|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.8456|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.8456
95771492|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.70|0.0983
95771493|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.07|-2.46|0.0412
95771494|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.13|-2.47|0.0340
95807215|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0076|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0076
95864324|NCT00816023|191686544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||||||0.474
95995072|NCT03498521|191966463|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.75||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Stratified log-rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.0177
95771495|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.44|0.0379
95771496|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.91|0.1291
95771497|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.30|-1.03|0.5776
95771498|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.27|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.27|-2.00|0.1044
95771499|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-2.23|0.0608
95771500|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.84|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.18|-2.84|0.0309
95771501|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-2.85|0.0242
95771502|NCT03850483|191515070|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.09|-2.69|0.0394
95771503|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|10.97|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.97|-5.86|0.6917
95771504|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|15.69|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.69|-1.09|0.9241
95771505|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|13.42|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.42|-3.21|0.8443
95807216|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0423|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of irritation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0423
95807217|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the knife-like pain in the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0457
95952900|NCT00472199|191876987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0489||95.0|-1.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.9|-1.1|0.0489
95952901|NCT00472199|191876988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0315
95952902|NCT00472199|191876989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0735
95952903|NCT00472199|191876990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8410
95952904|NCT00472199|191876991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.9241
95952905|NCT00472199|191876992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.8093
95952906|NCT00472199|191876993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.0|0.0583
95952907|NCT00472199|191876994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-4.5|-5.5|0.0916
95952908|NCT00472199|191876995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.8|2.2|0.5905
95952909|NCT00472199|191876996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.4|1.6|0.0179
95952910|NCT00472199|191876997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.3|1.7|0.5450
95952911|NCT00472199|191876998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.3|-0.3|0.1456
95952912|NCT00472199|191876999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.2915
95952913|NCT00472199|191877000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.3131
95952914|NCT00472199|191877001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.5713
95952915|NCT00472199|191877002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.4|-0.4|0.8432
95995073|NCT04596891|191966468|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|F ratio|20.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio.|No control group, open trial for feasibility/safety||||<0.001
95864325|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in Least-square (LS) Means|-0.5||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|2.43|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.43|-3.42|0.732
95771506|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.82|10.86|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||10.86|-5.82|0.6911
95771507|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.56|6.31|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.31|-9.56|0.3676
95771508|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.13|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.50|-14.13|0.0915
95771509|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|1.65|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.65|-13.96|0.0970
95771510|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|18.97|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||18.97|-0.59|0.9389
95771511|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|19.02|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors||19.02|-1.06|0.9295
95771512|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.15|13.45|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||13.45|-6.15|0.7308
95771513|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|11.64|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||11.64|-8.01|0.6199
95771514|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.13|1.04|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.04|-19.13|0.0699
95771515|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.79|-1.48|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.48|-21.79|0.0300
95771516|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.15|-2.98|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.98|-23.15|0.0168
95771517|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.7083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|14.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.57|-7.30|0.7083
95771518|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|19.75|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.75|-2.66|0.8955
95771519|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|17.37|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.37|-4.35|0.8386
95771520|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.93|9.84|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.84|-11.93|0.4371
95771521|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.42|-5.92|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-5.92|-35.42|0.0108
95771522|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.43|3.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.55|-25.43|0.1066
95995074|NCT04596891|191966468|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test (baseline to post-treatment)|paired-samples t-test|5.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|12.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.93|-1.79|0.002
95995075|NCT04596891|191966473|OTHER|ANOVA|F ratio|8.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The F ratio is used to evaluate the main effect of time in the ANOVA in relation to the critical F ratio. If it exceeds the critical F ratio, the null hypothesis (no effect of time) is rejected.|||||<0.001
95995076|NCT04167345|191966476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|1.1|<.0001
95807218|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the paper-cuts pain of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0430
95807219|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the stabbing of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0134
95807220|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0581|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sticking of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0581
95807221|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of itching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0002
95807222|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?|t-test proportion|0.0||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the feeling of inflammation of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0852
95807223|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aching of the vulva among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0001
95952916|NCT00472199|191877003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|6.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.6|5.9|0.0206
95807224|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the association of different symptoms of the vulva among the patients with vulvar discomfort?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of association of different vulvar symptoms among patients with vulvar discomfort.||||0.0000
95807225|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807226|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus stinging in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0008
95807227|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807228|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95952917|NCT00472199|191877004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|0.4|0.5602
95952918|NCT00472199|191877005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.1|0.8|0.1360
95952919|NCT00472199|191877007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0022
95807229|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||There was a statistically significant difference at p\<0.001. Patients with vulvar dermatosis had significantly more often itching than the feeling of inflammation of the vulva.|t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807230|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807231|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807232|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807233|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807234|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95952920|NCT00147745|191877014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5499||95.0|-0.1|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.10|0.5499
95771523|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.76||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.54|-1.55|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.55|-30.54|0.0344
95771524|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|17.13|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||17.13|-10.30|0.6594
95771525|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.85|19.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.36|-8.85|0.7307
95771526|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.78|15.61|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||15.61|-11.78|0.5914
95771527|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.13|1.49|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.49|-26.13|0.0709
95771528|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.55|-3.01|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.01|-34.55|0.0253
95771529|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.89|2.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.15|-28.89|0.0780
95771530|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.17|5.83|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.83|-25.17|0.1516
95771531|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.45|14.81|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.81|-15.45|0.4861
95771532|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|26.55|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||26.55|-4.48|0.8795
95771533|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.22|9.94|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||9.94|-20.22|0.2867
95771534|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.86|4.69|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||4.69|-25.86|0.1267
95771535|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.48|0.26|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.26|-34.48|0.0526
95807235|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807236|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8591|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8591
95807237|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.009|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0090
95771536|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.26|2.68|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||2.68|-31.26|0.0827
95771537|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.12|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-33.12|0.0592
95771538|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|14.16|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||14.16|-15.72|0.4657
95807238|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0212|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0212
95807239|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0057|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0057
95807240|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0977|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0977
95864326|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.06|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.06|-3.94|0.531
95771539|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.6612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.52|19.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.26|-11.52|0.6612
95771540|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.03||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.42|6.48|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||6.48|-23.42|0.1749
95771541|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|5.8|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||5.80|-24.39|0.1548
95771542|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.28|-40.67|0.0400
95807241|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.0143|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0143
95952921|NCT00147745|191877014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5723||95.0|-0.23|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.23|0.5723
95952922|NCT00147745|191877014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3138||95.0|-0.09|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.09|0.3138
95952923|NCT00147745|191877015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.2042||95.0|-0.05|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.05|0.2042
95952924|NCT00147745|191877015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.6855||95.0|-0.2|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.20|0.6855
95952925|NCT00147745|191877015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.1727||95.0|-0.05|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.05|0.1727
95952926|NCT00147745|191877016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.17||0.4104||95.0|-152.8|64.1|||ANCOVA|||||64.1|-152.8|0.4104
95952927|NCT00147745|191877016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.98||0.8857||95.0|-132.6|152.9|||ANCOVA|||||152.9|-132.6|0.8857
95952928|NCT00147745|191877016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.08||0.4226||95.0|-191.3|82.3|||ANCOVA|||||82.3|-191.3|0.4226
95952929|NCT00147745|191877017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.2286||95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-1.20|0.2286
95952930|NCT00147745|191877017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.3184||95.0|-0.53|1.57|||ANCOVA|||||1.57|-0.53|0.3184
95952931|NCT00147745|191877017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0613||95.0|-1.99|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-1.99|0.0613
95952932|NCT00147745|191877018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0362||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0362
95952933|NCT00385697|191877038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.779|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.779|0.521|0.904
95952934|NCT00385697|191877038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.33|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.330|0.297|0.222
95952935|NCT00385697|191877038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.054||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.129|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.129|0.521|0.885
95952936|NCT00385697|191877040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.572|||ANCOVA|||||0.572|-0.450|0.814
95952937|NCT00385697|191877040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|0.755|||ANCOVA|||||0.755|-0.433|0.593
95952938|NCT00385697|191877040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.513|||ANCOVA|||||0.513|-0.594|0.886
95952939|NCT00385697|191877042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.000|0.049
95952940|NCT00385697|191877042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.056|||ANCOVA|||||0.056|-0.061|0.937
95952941|NCT00385697|191877042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-0.032|0.382
95952942|NCT00385697|191877044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|2.089|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.089|0.372|0.775
95952943|NCT00385697|191877044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.861|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.861|0.212|0.402
95952944|NCT00385697|191877044|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.912|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.912|0.410|0.859
95952945|NCT00385697|191877046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.265||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|0.727|0.404
95952946|NCT00385697|191877046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.576|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.576|0.412|0.528
95952947|NCT00385697|191877046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|2.164|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.164|0.594|0.706
95952948|NCT00385697|191877048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.455|0.872
95952949|NCT00385697|191877048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.556|||ANCOVA|||||0.556|-0.581|0.979
95952950|NCT00385697|191877048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.301|||ANCOVA|||||0.301|-0.750|0.400
95860355|NCT00724711|191679188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"This study was designed to show noninferiority (change of \< 12%) in regard of proportions of responders (TLOVR) at Week 48.~With 170 subjects in each group, the lower limit of observed one-sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 with 80% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups is 0.820 (82%) at Week 48.~312 subjects were enrolled, representing 8% less than planned (n = 340). As a result, power to claim non-inferiority decreased to 78%."|Difference in percentages between groups|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.2|||Inverted two one-sided tests|Inverted two one-sided tests with the standardized statistic||"Null hypothesis: The TVD group is at least 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)~Alternative hypothesis: The TVD group is less than 12% worse than the ABC/3TC group with respect to the percentage of subjects maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL through Week 48 (responder rate, as defined by the TLOVR algorithm)"||11.2|-5.1|
95771543|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.82|-3.39|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-3.39|-41.82|0.0267
95860356|NCT00745849|191679202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95860357|NCT05111301|191679207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
95860358|NCT05111301|191679208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.004
95771544|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.63||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.42|-2.89|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.89|-41.42|0.0295
95860359|NCT05111301|191679209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.54
95860360|NCT05111301|191679210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.03
95860361|NCT05111301|191679211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.001
95952951|NCT02342275|191877070|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the atenolol on the propranolol response rate does not fall by greater than 15%, the noninferiority margin was selected to be -15%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference=Propranolol vs Atenolol|The sample size required to compare propranolol and atenolol at month 6 was calculated before enrollment. Assuming the ulceration rate in both groups to be 10%, a sample size of180 patients was required for each group to show the noninferiority ofatenolol treatment with a 2-sidedα level of .05 and approximately 90% power||||<0.05
95952952|NCT02213458|191877080|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.539||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||Linear mixed effects model||1.337|.259|0.04
95771545|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.38||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.3|8.05|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||8.05|-26.30|0.1903
95860362|NCT05111301|191679212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.01
95860363|NCT05111301|191679213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Control-IQ Versus Baseline||||0.80
95860364|NCT00813943|191679222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.972||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||0.972|0.484|0.0328
95860365|NCT00813943|191679222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.204||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.204|0.612|0.3771
95860366|NCT02917642|191679243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of bacteria within the root canal system.||||0.04
95860367|NCT02917642|191679244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that the irrigation protocol used after the chemo-mechanical preparation does not influence the reduction of endotoxin within the root canal system.||||0.94
95860368|NCT03583385|191679250|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|103.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.18|112.37||||||||112.37|95.18|
95952953|NCT02213458|191877081|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.138||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-.020|-.295|.05
95952954|NCT02213458|191877082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.902||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.885|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||-0.080|-3.885|0.07
95952955|NCT02213458|191877084|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.143||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.132|-2.154|0.03
95952956|NCT02213458|191877085|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.635||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for dementia severity (QDRS)||||1.405|-0.135|0.11
95952957|NCT02267746|191877086|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.02|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.02|0.86|
95952958|NCT02267746|191877087|EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of mean percent change from baseline were calculated (separately for inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions) for the Test and Reference treatment, and then the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean ratio was constructed using Fieller's method.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.04|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of Test/Reference means, for both lesion types, were contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|||1.04|0.89|
95995077|NCT04167345|191966476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.9|1.1|<.0001
95995078|NCT04167345|191966478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|0.5|0.0114
95860369|NCT03583385|191679251|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|% Ratio of Geometric Means|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.99|115.19||||||||115.19|98.99|
95771546|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.21|19.06|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||19.06|-16.21|0.5530
95771547|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.37||0.0933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.92|3.4|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||3.40|-30.92|0.0933
95771548|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.37|-1.65|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-1.65|-36.37|0.0360
95771549|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.46||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.85|-2.23|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.23|-46.85|0.0354
95771550|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.07||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.77|-4.46|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-4.46|-47.77|0.0239
95771551|NCT03850483|191515072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.11||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.84|-2.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contains treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-2.38|-45.84|0.0342
95771552|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.52|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.91|0.3279
95771553|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.88|0.3566
95771554|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.21|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.29|0.1165
95771555|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.55|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.55|-0.85|0.3633
95771556|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.56|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.83|0.3766
95771557|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.20|-1.22|0.1179
95771558|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.2|||MMRM|||Baseline: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.24|0.8647
95771559|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-0.90|0.3294
95771560|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.23|0.1231
95995079|NCT04167345|191966478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|1.1|0.0009
95771561|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.13|-1.37|0.0878
95771562|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.20|0.1225
95860370|NCT04780919|191679256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at 3 weeks follow-up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The Group A will have significantly decreased Cross Section Area compared to Group B at 3 weeks follow up after last application.||||0.722
95995080|NCT05818124|191966504|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.48||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.00|-3.97|0.783
95995081|NCT05818124|191966505|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.21|||ANOVA|||||-0.21|-4.21|0.032
95995082|NCT05818124|191966506|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.2||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||ANOVA|||||1.47|-1.07|0.756
95995083|NCT05818124|191966507|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|23.21||||||||23.21|-23.21|
95771563|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.56|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.56|-0.85|0.3663
95771564|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.27|0.0929
95771565|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-0.95|0.3111
95771566|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.74|0.4745
95771567|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.03|0.2409
95771568|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.13|0.2018
95771569|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-0.83|0.3925
95771570|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.73|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.73|-0.66|0.5348
95771571|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.09|-1.33|0.0739
95771572|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.62|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.62|-0.84|0.4014
95771573|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-0.56|0.6588
95807242|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
95995084|NCT05818124|191966508|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|20.27||||||||20.27|-25.78|
95771574|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.52|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.52|-1.00|0.2997
95771575|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.46|||MMRM|||Week 4:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.46|-1.08|0.2518
95771576|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.00|0.2634
95771577|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.36|-1.11|0.1999
95771578|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.33|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.33|-1.13|0.1847
95771579|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-0.81|0.4569
95771580|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.22|-0.27|0.8536
95807243|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.682|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.6820
95995085|NCT05818124|191966509|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson exact binomial method|Difference in Percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.26|13.38||||||||13.38|-30.26|
95995086|NCT05818124|191966510|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
95860371|NCT04780919|191679257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in the timeframe of the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B in the timeframe of the last application compared to baseline.||||0.096
95771581|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 6:MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.79|0.4812
95771582|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.13|0.2276
95771583|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.14|-1.34|0.0895
95771584|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.04|-1.58|0.0411
95771585|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.40|0.0928
95771586|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.12|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.12|-1.48|0.0799
95771587|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.11|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.11|-0.39|0.7872
95771588|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.92|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.92|-0.61|0.6294
95771589|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.8|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.80|-0.76|0.5174
95771590|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.98|0.3136
95771591|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.42|0.1020
95771592|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.37|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.37|-1.20|0.1923
95771593|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.18|-1.44|0.0997
95771594|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.45|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.45|-1.08|0.2497
95771595|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.47|-1.08|0.2568
95771596|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.64|-0.95|0.3730
95771597|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|-0.26|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.26|-1.76|0.0137
95995087|NCT05818124|191966511|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|13.97||||||||13.97|-25.18|
95995088|NCT05818124|191966512|OTHER|Clopper and Pearson binomial method|Difference in percentage|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|10.5||||||||10.50|-27.63|
95995089|NCT05818124|191966515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.33|0.51|0.3102
95995090|NCT05818124|191966516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.14|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.14|0.27|0.0779
95952959|NCT02267746|191877088|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.004|||||Therapeutic equivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\] for the PP population.|Success was defined as an IGA score at Week 12 that was at least two grades less than the baseline assessment. Failure was defined as an IGA score that was the same, higher, or one grade lower than the baseline assessment.||0.004|-0.150|
95771598|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|-0.44|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.44|-2.06|0.0055
95771599|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.4|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.40|-1.99|0.0069
95771600|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|0.34|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.34|-1.34|0.1648
95771601|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.51|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.51|-1.02|0.2931
95807244|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp pain?||||||0.2059|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvar dermatosis who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2059
95807245|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
95807246|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0344|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0344
95807247|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0023|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0023
95807248|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5675|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus itching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5675
95807249|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0037
95807250|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0005
95807251|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
95807252|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1201|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1201
95807253|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0123|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0123
95807254|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0188|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0188
95807255|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar itching versus aching in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0030
95995091|NCT05818124|191966519|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-7.47|0.045
95807256|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2155|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus burning in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.2155
95995092|NCT05818124|191966520|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.56||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|1.69|||ANOVA|||||1.69|-6.81|0.226
95771602|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.01|0.3047
95771603|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-1.22|0.1924
95807257|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1508|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus soreness in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1508
95995093|NCT05818124|191966521|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
95995094|NCT05818124|191966522|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.74||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|3.66|||ANOVA|||||3.66|-2.19|0.609
95995095|NCT05818124|191966523|OTHER|Difference in Least Squares Mean|Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.34||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.72|||ANOVA|||||1.72|-1.04|0.614
95771604|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.52|0.0465
95771605|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.47|-2.08|0.0048
95771606|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.21|-1.78|0.0186
95807258|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6364|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus irritation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6364
95771607|NCT03850483|191515074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.61|0.0675
95771608|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.39|-0.69|0.3232
95771609|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.03|0.0736
95771610|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.07|0.0743
95771611|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.04|-1.03|0.0641
95771612|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.50|-0.71|0.3887
95771613|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.08|-1.15|0.0767
95771614|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.38|||MMRM|||Week 1: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.38|-0.89|0.2529
95771615|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-0.61|0.5304
95771616|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.43|-0.87|0.2920
95771617|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.2593
95771618|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-0.70|0.4310
95807259|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in the patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5277|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar aching versus the feeling of inflammation in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5277
95995096|NCT05818124|191966524|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.37||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.83|||ANOVA|||||1.83|-1.09|0.608
95995097|NCT05818124|191966525|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.43||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.25|||ANOVA|||||1.25|-0.39|0.288
95995098|NCT05818124|191966526|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.09||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.97|||ANOVA|||||0.97|-0.80|0.842
95995099|NCT05818124|191966529|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.71|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.71|0.14|0.0042
95995100|NCT05818124|191966530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.33|0.3290
95807260|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.2041|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.2041
95860372|NCT04780919|191679258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum pain will decrease significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.035
95771619|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.69|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.69|-0.59|0.5477
95771620|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.07|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.07|-1.24|0.0696
95771621|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 2: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-0.82|0.3583
95771622|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.01|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.01|-0.56|0.6826
95771623|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.74|-0.84|0.4570
95771624|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.59|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.59|-1.03|0.3265
95771625|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.53|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.53|-1.00|0.3039
95771626|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.42|-1.23|0.2086
95771627|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.44|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.44|-1.22|0.2172
95771628|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.57|||MMRM|||Week 4: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.57|-1.16|0.2855
95771629|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.36|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.36|-0.34|0.8372
95771630|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.84|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.84|-0.89|0.4792
95771631|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.65|-1.12|0.3331
95771632|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.21|-1.47|0.1080
95771633|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-1.61|0.0455
95771634|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|0.1|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.10|-1.49|0.0761
95771635|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Week 6: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.14|-1.80|0.0273
95771636|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.2|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.20|-0.57|0.7214
95771637|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.06|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.06|-0.75|0.6132
95995101|NCT05818124|191966531|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.34|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||1.34|0.27|0.1502
95995102|NCT05818124|191966532|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.92|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||2.92|0.59|0.4865
95995103|NCT05818124|191966535|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.79||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.36|4.78|||ANOVA|||||4.78|-14.36|0.313
95995104|NCT05818124|191966536|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.87||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|2.36|||ANOVA|||||2.36|-16.11|0.138
95995105|NCT05818124|191966537|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.74||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.74|||ANOVA|||||4.74|-3.26|0.706
95995106|NCT05818124|191966538|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.58||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.95|||ANOVA|||||1.95|-5.10|0.367
95771638|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||1.02|-0.83|0.5704
95771639|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.67|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.67|-1.10|0.3449
95771640|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.00|-1.94|0.0493
95995107|NCT05818124|191966544|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.14||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.92|||ANOVA|||||1.92|-10.20|0.177
95995108|NCT05818124|191966545|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.97||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.29|||ANOVA|||||1.29|-3.24|0.395
95995109|NCT05818124|191966557|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Difference in least squares means|-0.94||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-2.10|0.110
95771641|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.35|-1.55|0.1490
95771642|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 8: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.02|-1.96|0.0540
95771643|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|0.71|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.71|-1.32|0.3119
95771644|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.86|-1.20|0.3947
95771645|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.93|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.93|-1.18|0.4205
95771646|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.02|-2.02|0.0472
95771647|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.6|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.60|-2.55|0.0044
95995110|NCT05818124|191966558|OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.27|||ANOVA|||||0.27|-3.47|0.090
95995111|NCT05224258|191966571|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.38% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||t-test, 1 sided||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint|||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
95995112|NCT05224258|191966571|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall mean change in HbA1c from baseline to end of 3-month study period. The mean change will be estimated and compared to a threshold of -0.5% with a margin of 0.4%.|Mean difference from baseline to exit|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the differences of HbA1c from baseline to exit were summarized for this endpoint.|||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
95995113|NCT05224258|191966572|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|<0.001
95995114|NCT05224258|191966572|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% with a margin of 7.5% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
95995115|NCT05224258|191966573|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.71% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.3|<0.001
95995116|NCT05224258|191966573|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean % of time in hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 0.86% with a margin of 2% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Hypoglycemia (\< 54 mg/dL \[3.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||0.4|0.2|<0.001
95995117|NCT05224258|191966574|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 65.3% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|65.7||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|67.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||67.9|63.5|0.208
95995118|NCT05224258|191966574|SUPERIORITY|The mean % of time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) will be estimated and compared to a threshold of 73.7% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean of Final Value|77.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.4|78.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This is one arm study, the Percent of Time in Range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL \[3.9 -10.0 mmol/L\]) from the last 6-7 weeks of 3 month study period was summarized for this endpoint.|||78.9|75.4|<0.001
95995119|NCT00824564|191966621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|58.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.7|61.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated standard error (SE), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||61.7|-172.7|0.348
95771648|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|-0.41|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.41|-2.32|0.0098
95771649|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.32|||MMRM|||Week 10: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.32|-1.71|0.1285
95771650|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.27|0.3243
95771651|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.82|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.82|-1.20|0.3795
95771652|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|0.72|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.72|-1.35|0.3070
95771653|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.22|-1.74|0.1014
95807261|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.0412|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0412
95807262|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.7978|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar sticking versus stabbing in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.7978
95771654|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.69|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.69|-2.75|0.0033
95860373|NCT04780919|191679259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.|Two-way ANOVA|||The maximum of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.171
95995120|NCT00824564|191966622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.78||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|89.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||89.3|-41.3|0.466
95995121|NCT00824564|191966623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 1 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||2.2|-20.7|0.109
95995122|NCT00824564|191966623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 4 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||-0.1|-13.4|0.045
95995123|NCT00824564|191966623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 8 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||1.8|-15.4|0.119
95995124|NCT00824564|191966623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For 24 hour post-surgery, the mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||7.5|-52.9|0.139
95995125|NCT00824564|191966624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.1||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.2|288.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference with associated SE, and corresponding 95% CI for the comparisons of tranexamic acid plus standard of care against Standard of care was presented along with the p-value for the test. Two-sample t-test was performed at 5% level of significance.||288.6|-238.2|0.849
95995126|NCT00824564|191966625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.714
95995127|NCT00824564|191966626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at end of surgery, a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.96|-0.21|0.208
95995128|NCT00824564|191966626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at 1 hour post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.61|-0.40|0.682
95995129|NCT00824564|191966626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 1 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.63|-0.35|0.569
95995130|NCT00824564|191966626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 2 post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.70|-0.29|0.413
95995131|NCT00824564|191966626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For change at day 4/ET post-surgery, a MMRM approach was used to relate the dependent (outcome) variable and independent (treatment, time point, and treatment-by-time point interaction as factors and baseline value as co-variate) variables taking into account the within-participant correlation arising from the repeated measurements.||0.66|-0.44|0.686
95995132|NCT00824564|191966627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test at 5% level of significance was used as the event rate was low and the expected count for any cell in the (unstratified) 2\*2 contingency table was less than 5.||||0.241
95995133|NCT03804671|191966630|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability. The statistical model was an ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including the fixed effect for 'formulation' and 'subject' as a random effect.|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|70.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.69|87.23|||||The geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 18.7. Ratio was calculated as (AUC0-∞/dose) oral /(AUC0-∞/dose) intravenous multiplied by 100.|||87.23|56.69|
95995134|NCT01552057|191966638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||0.06|-0.70|0.0988
95771655|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-0.17|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||-0.17|-2.18|0.0280
95771656|NCT03850483|191515076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 12: MMRM analysis contained treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Unstructured covariance matrix was used for model errors.||0.15|-1.98|0.0781
95771657|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
95771658|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
95771659|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|5.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||5.0|-12.5|0.7362
95771660|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
95771661|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|8.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||8.0|-5.9|0.5000
95995135|NCT01552057|191966639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
95995136|NCT01552057|191966640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.18||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.18|-0.71|0.0012
95995137|NCT01552057|191966641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-1.45||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.45|-9.26|0.0073
95995138|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|7.35||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning||7.35|1.32|0.0049
95995139|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|11.94||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Physical||11.94|3.57|0.0003
95995140|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|8.59||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain||8.59|2.76|0.0002
95995141|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.96||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||General Health||5.96|0.53|0.0192
95807263|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.3094|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus knife-like pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.3094
95807264|NCT02732145|191587246|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in the patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain?||||||0.073|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar stabbing versus paper-cuts pain in patients with vulvodynia who had sharp vulvar pain.||||0.0730
95807265|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.4038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 24 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.4038
95995142|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.25||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||10.25|3.15|0.0002
95995143|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.04||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|11.34||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Social Functioning||11.34|2.74|0.0014
95995144|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.12||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|13.83||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional||13.83|4.41|0.0002
95995145|NCT01552057|191966642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|11.43||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mental Health||11.43|4.39|<0.0001
95771662|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||16.9|-0.8|0.0714
95771663|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||15.7|-1.1|0.0813
95771664|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
95771665|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|4.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||4.7|-12.5|0.7417
95771666|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|9.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.6|-9.6|0.5000
95771667|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|9.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||9.1|-9.4|0.4216
95771668|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||5.9|-9.4|0.6894
95995146|NCT01552057|191966643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.38||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-1.38|-4.32|0.0002
95995147|NCT01552057|191966644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.44||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||WPI||-0.44|-2.12|0.0029
95995148|NCT01552057|191966644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Symptom Severity||0.06|-0.79|0.0906
95995149|NCT01552057|191966645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.03||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Pain||0.03|-0.70|0.0755
95995150|NCT01552057|191966645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.06|-0.88|0.0232
95995151|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Worst Pain||-0.12|-0.99|0.0126
95995152|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Least Pain||-0.12|-0.87|0.0092
95995153|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Pain Right Now||-0.15|-1.00|0.0083
95995154|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With General Activity||0.06|-0.98|0.0807
95995155|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.22||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Mood||-0.22|-1.29|0.0057
95995156|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Walking Ability||0.09|-0.84|0.1114
95771669|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||14.3|-4.2|0.2518
95995157|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Normal Work||0.09|-0.94|0.1081
95995158|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Relationships With Other People||-0.07|-1.04|0.0264
95995159|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Sleep||0.32|-0.81|0.3959
95995160|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.15||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Interference With Enjoyment of Life||-0.15|-1.18|0.0119
95995161|NCT01552057|191966646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.07||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||Average Interference||-0.07|-0.96|0.0222
95995162|NCT01552057|191966647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.71|0.0113
95995163|NCT01552057|191966648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.27||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.27|-0.94|0.0005
95995164|NCT01552057|191966649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.37||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.37|-1.07|<0.0001
95995165|NCT01552057|191966650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.06||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.82|0.0226
95995166|NCT01552057|191966651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02||Statistical tests were conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.74|0.0408
95995167|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.885||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.885|0.357|
95995168|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|1.072||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.072|0.349|
95995169|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.981||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||0.981|0.274|
95995170|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|0.796||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.796|0.217|
95771670|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|20.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||20.3|-0.3|0.0565
95995171|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.021||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.021|0.262|
95995172|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.503||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.503|0.291|
95995173|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.254||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.254|0.366|
95995174|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.134||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.134|0.520|
95995175|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.15||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.150|0.427|
95771671|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
95771672|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|1.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||1.9|-16.5|0.9001
95771673|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.5000
95771674|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||11.0|-11.0|0.4446
95771675|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
95771676|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|16.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||16.9|-8.2|0.3401
95995176|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|1.015||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.015|0.329|
95995177|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.728||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.728|0.231|
95771677|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.5|0.1|0.0489
95771678|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
95771679|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|4.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||4.4|-17.2|0.8253
95995178|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.657||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.657|0.484|
95995179|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.563||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.563|0.350|
95995180|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|3.697||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||3.697|0.659|
95995181|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.853||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.853|0.433|
95995182|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.039||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.039|0.437|
95995183|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|1.004||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.004|0.374|
95995184|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.921||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.921|0.338|
95995185|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.23||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.230|0.427|
95995186|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.386||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.386|0.384|
95995187|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.353||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.353|0.559|
95995188|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.082||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.082|0.556|
95995189|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.919||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.919|0.394|
95995190|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.007||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.007|0.386|
95771680|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
95771681|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|19.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||19.1|-8.3|0.2709
95771682|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||12.5|-10.5|0.5054
95771683|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||9.3|-12.9|0.6319
95995191|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.7||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.700|0.263|
95995192|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.842||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.842|0.299|
95995193|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.903||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.903|0.255|
95995194|NCT00996840|191966675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|1.192||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.192|0.281|
95995195|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.75||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.750|0.312|
95995196|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.229||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.229|0.399|
95995197|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.254||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.254|0.370|
95995198|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|1.231||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.231|0.368|
95771684|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||18.1|-6.4|0.3199
95771685|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
95771686|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.1|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||6.1|-19.1|0.7306
95771687|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.6|2.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||2.7|-20.6|0.8808
95771688|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|13.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||13.7|-13.7|0.4644
95995199|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.857||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.857|0.456|
95995200|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|2.002||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.002|0.445|
95995201|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.723||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.723|0.476|
95995202|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.08||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.080|0.488|
95995203|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.317||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.317|0.476|
95995204|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.725|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.26||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.260|0.417|
95995205|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|1.13||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.130|0.379|
95995206|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.12||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.120|0.583|
95995207|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.146||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.146|0.539|
95995208|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|2.574||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.574|0.735|
95995209|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.783||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.783|0.400|
95995210|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.277||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.277|0.539|
95995211|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.589||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.589|0.613|
95995212|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.467||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.467|0.582|
95771689|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|20.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||20.9|-3.4|0.1534
95995213|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.11||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||2.110|0.716|
95995214|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|2.312||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||2.312|0.719|
95995215|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.916||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.916|1.053|
95995216|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.803||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.803|0.419|
95995217|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.996||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.996|0.433|
95995218|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.171||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.171|0.477|
95995219|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.024||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.024|0.421|
95995220|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.279||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.279|0.451|
95995221|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.701||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.701|0.550|
95995222|NCT00996840|191966676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.229||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.229|0.450|
95995223|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.985||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||0.985|0.607|
95995224|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.795|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.084||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.084|0.583|
95995225|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.135||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.135|0.533|
95995226|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.931||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.931|0.430|
95771690|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|11.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||11.4|-10.0|0.4867
95995227|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|1.103||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.103|0.397|
95995228|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.756||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.756|0.286|
95995229|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.935||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.935|0.295|
95995230|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.18||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.180|0.768|
95771691|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|25.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||25.9|0.4|0.0435
95771692|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|8.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||8.4|-14.8|0.6349
95995231|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.269||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.269|0.733|
95995232|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.387||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.387|0.710|
95995233|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.285||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.285|0.649|
95995234|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.051||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.051|0.415|
95995235|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.072||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.072|0.445|
95807266|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7299|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than 12 months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7299
95995236|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.239||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.239|0.423|
95995237|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.144||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.144|0.789|
95995238|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.249||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.249|0.777|
95995239|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.428||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.428|0.797|
95995240|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.239||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.239|0.686|
95995241|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.866|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.287||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.287|0.583|
95995242|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.95||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.950|0.444|
95995243|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.14||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.140|0.457|
95995244|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.897|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.075||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.075|0.748|
95995245|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.119||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.119|0.703|
95771693|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.6|0.4565
95771694|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|12.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||12.5|-12.5|0.5000
95807267|NCT02732145|191587246|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.7241|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the duration of vulvar complaints for more than six months among patients with vulvar dermatosis or vulvodynia.||||0.7241
95995246|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.123||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.123|0.638|
95995247|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.084||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.084|0.609|
95995248|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|0.855||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||0.855|0.394|
95995249|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.639||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.639|0.301|
95995250|NCT00996840|191966677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.714||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||0.714|0.285|
95995251|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.119||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.119|0.646|
95995252|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.411||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.411|0.814|
95995253|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.478||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.478|0.790|
95995254|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.266||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.266|0.715|
95995255|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.285||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.285|0.655|
95771695|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||21.8|-5.7|0.1765
95995256|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.395||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.395|0.735|
95995257|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.64||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.640|0.831|
95995258|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.167||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.167|0.713|
95995259|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.233||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.233|0.753|
95995260|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.214||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.214|0.693|
95995261|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.123||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.123|0.673|
95995262|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.550|0.840|
95771696|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|15.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||15.2|-14.0|0.5013
95771697|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|5.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||5.9|-20.7|0.7969
95995263|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.505||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.505|0.837|
95995264|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.063|2.045||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||2.045|1.063|
95995265|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.031||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.031|0.672|
95995266|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.092||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||1.092|0.707|
95995267|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.307||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.307|0.800|
95995268|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.187||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||1.187|0.761|
95995269|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.262||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.262|0.743|
95995270|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.193||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||1.193|0.718|
95995271|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.613||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.613|0.936|
95995272|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.131||||||Comparison at 6 h post first dose||1.131|0.753|
95995273|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.943||||||Comparison at 12 h post first dose||0.943|0.625|
95995274|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.042||||||Comparison at 18 h post first dose||1.042|0.655|
95995275|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.942||||||Comparison at 24 h post first dose||0.942|0.615|
95995276|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.003||||||Comparison at 48 h post first dose||1.003|0.608|
95771698|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.4|10.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||10.6|-16.4|0.6424
95995277|NCT00996840|191966678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.851||||||Comparison at 72 h post first dose||0.851|0.524|
95995278|NCT00996840|191966678|OTHER||Ratio (Treatment/Placebo)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.122||||||Comparison at 96 h post first dose||1.122|0.659|
95771699|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
95995279|NCT03464045|191966711|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.06|0.61|0.122
95807268|NCT02732145|191587247|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the sexual activity among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95995280|NCT03464045|191966711|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.18|0.67|0.417
95995281|NCT03464045|191966711|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.17|0.66|0.376
95995282|NCT03464045|191966712|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.15|0.55|0.220
95995283|NCT03464045|191966712|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.32|0.63|0.628
95771700|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|13.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.4|-7.0|0.3402
95771701|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|17.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||17.6|-4.5|0.1743
95771702|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|23.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||23.6|-0.7|0.0620
95771703|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||15.4|-7.8|0.3534
95771704|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.5||||0.2508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|18.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||18.8|-5.5|0.2508
95771705|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|13.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||13.6|-8.2|0.4238
95771706|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.2696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|19.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||19.3|-6.2|0.2696
95860374|NCT04780919|191679262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is adjusted to comparison between the Group A and Group B in 3 weeks follow up after the last application.|Two-way ANOVA|||The VISA-A score will increase significantly more in Group A compared to Group B at the 3 weeks follow up compared to baseline.||||0.104
95995284|NCT03464045|191966712|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.33|0.63|0.632
95995285|NCT03464045|191966713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Crude hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Crude HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model with as-treated exposure (continuous exposure to the study drugs, defined as having consecutive treatment episodes separated by a grace period of 30 days, starting from index date) as the only included variable. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.29|0.54|0.420
95995286|NCT03464045|191966713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Base hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|"Base HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level to avoid converge failure.~Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes."||1.38|0.57|0.606
95995287|NCT03464045|191966713|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Regression, Cox||Adjusted hazard ratio of empagliflozin/DPP-4i|Adjusted HRs were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model by adjusting for variables unbalanced after PS matching, and pre-specified time-varying covariates. To be included in the Cox model, each covariate is required to have a minimum of 5 events per category level. Country-level HRs were analyzed separately. Thereafter, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to pool the HRs from all countries, accounting for potential heterogeneity between the country-level effect sizes.||1.38|0.57|0.609
95995288|NCT02148029|191966777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||3.1|-1.1|0.34
95995289|NCT02148029|191966778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||8.0|-7.1|0.89
95995290|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Physical Functioning (PF) domain score.||8.4|-20.3|0.43
95995291|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to Physical health problems (RP) domain score.||11.6|-1.6|0.13
95995292|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Role limitations due to mental health or Emotional problems (RE) domain score.||8.2|-2.8|0.33
95995293|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the energy/fatigue/Vitality (VT) domain score.||20.0|-8.7|0.43
95771707|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|15.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||15.3|-8.6|0.3648
95771708|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|22.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||22.2|-3.8|0.1267
95771709|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|24.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||24.4|-2.5|0.0832
95771710|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.3|-5.7|0.2099
95771711|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||17.4|-8.0|0.3474
95771712|NCT03850483|191515080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||21.6|-4.0|0.2124
95771713|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|27.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||27.9|-0.3|0.0544
95771714|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|19.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||19.6|-6.3|0.2697
95771715|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||31.0|2.0|0.0286
95995294|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Mental Health/emotional well-being (MH) domain score.||8.6|-13.8|0.64
95995295|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Social Functioning (SF) domain score.||12.8|-20.5|0.64
95995296|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|29.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the Bodily Pain (BP) domain score.||29.7|-10.7|0.35
95995297|NCT02148029|191966779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|Note that this analysis uses only 1 of the 8 SF-36 domain scores, the General Health (GH) domain score.||7.0|-14.1|0.50
95995298|NCT02148029|191966780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.5|27.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Exercise - Control|||27.7|-95.5|0.27
95995299|NCT02148029|191966781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Reflux - No reflux|||0.1|-3.4|0.07
95995300|NCT02148029|191966782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = PTS - No PTS|||0.9|-0.8|0.91
95771716|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|20.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||20.8|-4.7|0.1512
95995301|NCT03905928|191966783|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise general linear model conducted in FSL software using a one-sample t-test on the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts conducted at the subject-level.|A whole-brain, one-sample t-test was used with a voxel threshold p \<.001 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
95995302|NCT03905928|191966784|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention that differ by the nicotine groups (18 mg/ml vs. 0 mg/ml) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
95995303|NCT03905928|191966785|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||This was a whole-brain, voxel-wise repeated measures ANOVA conducted using FSL software on activation from baseline to post-intervention between the flavor groups (tobacco vs. strawberry) for the tobacco\>strawberry condition contrasts calculated at the subject-level. The means and standard deviations presented are the average post-pre scan difference scores of the BOLD percentage signal change of tobacco \> strawberry contrasts for each group.|A whole-brain, repeated measures ANOVA was used with a voxel threshold p \<.025 and cluster threshold p\<.05. This method results in unique p-values for each cluster identified.|||
95995304|NCT03905928|191966786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare the change in e-cigarette dependence (week 4 - week 2 PSECDI difference score) between the four e-cigarette groups.||||0.573
95995305|NCT03905928|191966788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a one-way ANOVA to compare changes in self-reported craving across all groups.||||.022
95995306|NCT05424276|191966789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.895||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.522|2.985||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||2.985|-4.522|0.686
95995307|NCT05424276|191966789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|4.687||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||4.687|-2.745|0.606
95995308|NCT05424276|191966789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.925||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|5.086||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment||5.086|-2.539|0.509
95771717|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|7.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||7.4|-21.9|0.7900
95771718|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|24.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||24.0|-8.5|0.3137
95771719|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|22.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 1||22.6|-10.9|0.3789
95771720|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|28.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||28.5|-1.0|0.0636
95771721|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|24.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||24.5|-4.9|0.1435
95771722|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|42.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||42.4|8.9|0.0058
95995309|NCT05424276|191966790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.717|2.611||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.611|-1.717|0.683
95995310|NCT05424276|191966790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|3.495||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||3.495|-0.783|0.212
95995311|NCT05424276|191966790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.749|2.654||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment||2.654|-1.749|0.685
95995312|NCT05424276|191966791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.304||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of treatment||0.304|-0.139|0.463
95995313|NCT05424276|191966791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.383||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.383|-0.051|0.133
95995314|NCT05424276|191966791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.286||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.286|-0.159|0.575
95995315|NCT05424276|191966792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.092||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 week of dosing||0.092|-0.488|0.178
95995316|NCT05424276|191966792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.3||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.300|-0.274|0.931
95995317|NCT05424276|191966792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|0.163||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.163|-0.426|0.380
95995318|NCT05424276|191966793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|0.342||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.342|-2.308|0.144
95995319|NCT05424276|191966793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.096||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||-0.096|-2.720|0.036
95995320|NCT05424276|191966793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|0.18||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.180|-2.514|0.089
95995321|NCT05424276|191966794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|3.477||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||3.477|-3.127|0.916
95771723|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|38.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||38.9|6.5|0.0112
95771724|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.8|21.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||21.3|-10.8|0.3349
95771725|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|27.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||27.7|-6.1|0.2065
95771726|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 2||29.1|-5.6|0.1871
95771727|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|31.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||31.4|-4.9|0.1245
95771728|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||33.7|-4.7|0.1280
95771729|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|50.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||50.5|12.4|0.0030
95771730|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|40.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||40.6|3.1|0.0235
95771731|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|24.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||24.1|-13.6|0.3728
95771732|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||43.6|4.0|0.0153
95771733|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.2543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|27.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 4||27.8|-8.8|0.2543
95771734|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|26.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||26.4|-10.2|0.2785
95771735|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|33.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||33.7|-7.4|0.1434
95771736|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.1||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|12.8|0.0015
95771737|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|43.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||43.9|3.4|0.0242
95771738|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.1||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|54.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||54.1|10.0|0.0037
95771739|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6||||0.1037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|36.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||36.7|-4.9|0.1037
95771740|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|22.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 6||22.5|-17.7|0.4607
95771741|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|31.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||31.9|-8.0|0.1725
95771742|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|43.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||43.6|0.2|0.0451
95995322|NCT05424276|191966794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|5.621||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.621|-0.921|0.158
95995323|NCT05424276|191966794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|5.768||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||5.768|-0.941|0.157
95995324|NCT05424276|191966795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.952|0.602||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.602|-1.952|0.297
95995325|NCT05424276|191966795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.639||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.032|0.5||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.500|-2.032|0.233
95995326|NCT05424276|191966795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|1.783||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.783|-0.818|0.464
95995327|NCT05424276|191966796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.346|7.898||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||7.898|-7.346|0.943
95995328|NCT05424276|191966796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.547|8.402||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.402|-6.547|0.806
95771743|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.3|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||62.9|21.3|0.0003
95771744|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|47.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||47.6|3.8|0.0239
95771745|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||41.2|-2.1|0.0643
95771746|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.6676|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|15.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||15.9|-25.9|0.6676
95771747|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|37.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 8||37.8|-4.2|0.0898
95771748|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1|32.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||32.9|-10.1|0.2707
95807269|NCT02732145|191587247|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups?||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia as a cause of sexual inactivity among patients from different groups.||||0.0006
95807270|NCT02732145|191587247|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of sexual inactivity due to dyspareunia and lack of a sexual partner among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95995329|NCT05424276|191966796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.884||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.686|8.719||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||8.719|-6.686|0.794
95807271|NCT02732145|191587248|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of dyspareunia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807272|NCT02732145|191587248|EQUIVALENCE|Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||||0.2999|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the degree of dyspareunia (Marinoff Index) among sexually active patients with vulvodynia or vulvar dermatosis who had dyspareunia.||||0.2999
95807273|NCT02732145|191587249|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95995330|NCT05424276|191966797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.193|0.4||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.400|-2.193|0.173
95807274|NCT02732145|191587249|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort provoked through the penetration in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0347
95807275|NCT02732145|191587249|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7068|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated through sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7068
95807276|NCT02732145|191587249|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0025|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of vulvar discomfort aggravated after sexual intercourse in patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0025
95995331|NCT05424276|191966797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.828|0.725||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.725|-1.828|0.393
95995332|NCT05424276|191966797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.246|0.323||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.323|-2.246|0.141
95771749|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|31.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||31.0|-14.2|0.2981
95771750|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|51.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||51.4|8.0|0.0110
95771751|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.1|53.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||53.2|9.1|0.0083
95771752|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||27.5|-18.3|0.4217
95771753|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|23.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||23.2|-20.8|0.5152
95771754|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.7002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.1|11.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 10||11.7|-33.1|0.7002
95771755|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.6||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|47.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||47.9|5.2|0.0169
95771756|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.9||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|46.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||46.2|3.2|0.0283
95771757|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|57.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||57.1|14.3|0.0020
95771758|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.4|51.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||51.5|8.4|0.0095
95771759|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||42.6|-2.7|0.0798
95771760|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||31.8|-11.3|0.2848
95771761|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|23.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 12||23.1|-21.1|0.5062
95771762|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|55.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||55.3|16.7|0.0012
95771763|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.3|57.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||57.4|17.3|0.0007
95771764|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||65.1|24.6|0.0001
95771765|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.5|48.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||48.7|9.5|0.0039
95771766|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|26.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||26.5|-17.5|0.3895
95771767|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|31.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||31.8|-11.8|0.2793
95771768|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.4|12.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 14||12.2|-28.4|0.7027
95771769|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.4|55.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||55.2|15.4|0.0009
95771770|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|43.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||43.2|4.1|0.0205
95771771|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.6|65.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||65.7|24.6|0.0001
95771772|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.5|62.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||62.9|21.5|0.0002
95807277|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of use of vaginal tampon among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95771773|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.5||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.3|3.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||3.2|-38.3|0.9209
95860375|NCT01864603|191679303|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||||||Comparison of Phase 1 arms||1.17|0.77|
95860376|NCT01864603|191679304|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75||||||||0.75|0.09|
95771774|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.4|8.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||8.7|-34.4|0.7930
95771775|NCT03850483|191515081|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|20.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Week 16||20.1|-28.0|0.6156
95771776|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.659|6.009||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.009|2.659|
95771777|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.838||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.838|0.813|
95771778|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.994||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.994|0.440|
95771779|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|3.276||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.276|1.449|
95771780|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.676|
95771781|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.012||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.012|0.448|
95807278|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons?||||||0.6552|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the use of vaginal tampon in symptomatic patients, who use vaginal tampons.||||0.6552
95807279|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of cycling among patients with vulvodynia and vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
95807280|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle?||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to the cycling in symptomatic patients, who ride a bicycle.||||0.2877
95995333|NCT05424276|191966798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|1.366||Study not sized for efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.366|-0.925|0.704
95995334|NCT05424276|191966798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.494||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.494|-0.742|0.506
95771782|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.742|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|2.626||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.626|1.156|
95807281|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of wearing tight clothes among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0001
95807282|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes?||||||0.4754|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort due to wearing of tight clothes in symptomatic patients, who wear tight clothes.||||0.4754
95807283|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.1082|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort depending on the menstrual cycle in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.1082
95995335|NCT05424276|191966798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.227|1.063||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||1.063|-1.227|0.888
95995336|NCT05424276|191966799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.067||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|0.013|0.004
95995337|NCT05424276|191966799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.047||Study was not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.047|-0.006|0.125
95995338|NCT05424276|191966799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.046||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.046|-0.009|0.179
95995339|NCT05424276|191966800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.094||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.094|-0.283|0.321
95807284|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.0179|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort before starting menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.0179
95807285|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5722|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5722
95995340|NCT05424276|191966800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.114||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.259|0.444
95995341|NCT05424276|191966800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.053||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.053|-0.332|0.154
95995342|NCT05424276|191966801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.212||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.212|-0.199|0.950
95995343|NCT05424276|191966801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.067||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.067|-0.338|0.189
95995344|NCT05424276|191966801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.114|-0.301|0.374
95995345|NCT05424276|191966802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.131||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.131|-0.101|0.803
95995346|NCT05424276|191966802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.120|-0.110|0.935
95771783|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.458||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.458|0.204|
95771784|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.248||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.248|0.110|
95807286|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort after menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.6148
95807287|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age?||||||0.5307|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort between two menstrual bleeding in symptomatic patients of reproductive age.||||0.5307
95807288|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination?||||||0.1546|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar discomfort during urination.||||0.1546
95807289|NCT02732145|191587250|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active?||||||0.1019|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of worsening of vulvar complaints during urination after sexual intercourse in symptomatic patients, who are sexually active.||||0.1019
95807290|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of problems associated with urination and defecation between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807291|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95952960|NCT00912964|191877120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.06||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.74|0.005
95952961|NCT00912964|191877120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.001
95952962|NCT00912964|191877121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.8||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||10.8|-1.6|0.15
95952963|NCT00912964|191877121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|18.6||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||18.6|6.3|<0.001
95995347|NCT05424276|191966802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.121||Study not sized to evaluate efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change relative to placebo at 12 weeks of dosing||0.121|-0.116|0.968
95807292|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807293|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent dysuria between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
95807294|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0010
95807295|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.1859
95807296|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups?||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urinary incontinence between patients from different groups.||||0.0003
95952964|NCT00912964|191877122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.13||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.13|-0.82|0.007
95771785|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.818||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.818|0.363|
95771786|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.381||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.381|0.170|
95807297|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0015
95807298|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.0013|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.0013
95807299|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups?||||||0.5673|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent difficulties at starting urination between patients from different groups.||||0.5673
95807300|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0065
95952965|NCT00912964|191877122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
95995348|NCT03619213|191966848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.92|0.73|0.0008
95860377|NCT02914301|191679332|OTHER|We compared outcomes between study arms using t-tests for continuous outcomes.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95995349|NCT03619213|191966849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.95|0.73|0.0085
95995350|NCT03619213|191966850|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.89|0.67|0.0003
95995351|NCT03619213|191966851|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization||Comparison Group: Placebo||0.90|0.65|0.0017
95807301|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.083|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0830
95807302|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent urgency between patients from different groups.||||0.0001
95807303|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95771787|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.252||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.252|0.112|
95771788|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.655||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.655|0.290|
95771789|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.811||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.811|0.361|
95771790|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|2.676||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.676|1.188|
95771791|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.246||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.246|0.555|
95771792|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.826||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.826|0.367|
95807304|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.2315
95807305|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent nocturia between patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807306|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups?||||||0.0539|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent cystitis between patients from different groups.||||0.0539
95807307|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.0379|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.0379
95807308|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.1485|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.1485
95807309|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups?||||||0.4155|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent constipation between patients from different groups.||||0.4155
95807310|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0092|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0092
95807311|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.0192|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of intermittent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.0192
95807312|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups?||||||0.5253|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of frequent diarrhea between patients from different groups.||||0.5253
95807313|NCT02732145|191587251|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups?||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the irritable colon between patients from different groups.||||0.0060
95952966|NCT00912964|191877123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.01|-0.68|0.039
95952967|NCT00912964|191877123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|LS mean difference was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.17|-0.85|<0.001
95952968|NCT00912964|191877124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Difference|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.16|-0.53|0.30
95952969|NCT00912964|191877124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.37||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.03|-0.71|0.035
95952970|NCT00912964|191877125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.07||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.01||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.01|-0.15|0.083
95962117|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.95||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-2.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-2.60|-17.30|0.0082
95962118|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-10.03||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-10.03|-24.68|<.0001
95771793|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.140|0.950|
95771794|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|3.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.196|4.944||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.944|2.196|
95771795|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|2.303||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.303|1.026|
95771796|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.526||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.526|0.679|
95807314|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of any associated symptom or disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95952971|NCT00912964|191877125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.06|-0.22|<0.001
95771797|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.754|3.959||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.959|1.754|
95771798|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|0.7||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.7|0.311|
95771799|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.463||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.463|0.206|
95771800|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.203||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||1.203|0.532|
95807315|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups?||||||0.3957|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a frequent headache among patients from different groups.||||0.3957
95807316|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807317|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of lumbar pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0001
95807318|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of fibromyalgia among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807319|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of energy loss among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95952972|NCT00912964|191877126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.05||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.05|-0.67|0.004
95995352|NCT03619213|191966852|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score, stratified by T2DM status at randomisation.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in KCCQ Total Symptom Score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|Comparison Group: Placebo||1.21|1.03|0.0086
95995353|NCT03619213|191966853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.05|0.74|0.1678
95952973|NCT00912964|191877126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08||The response variable for the stratified rank ANCOVA was standardized ranks on change from Baseline to Final Visit value with baseline standardized ranks and gender as covariates and geographic region as a stratum.|Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. A stratified rank ANCOVA model was utilized for hypothesis testing.||-0.08|-0.69|0.002
95771801|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|0.992||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.992|0.442|
95771802|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|1.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|2.572||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.572|1.142|
95771803|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.|Geometric mean ratio at day 22|2.589|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.723|3.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.889|1.723|
95771804|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|4.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.757|6.589||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.589|3.757|
95771805|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.547||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.547|0.881|
95771806|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.166||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.166|0.665|
95771807|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|4.264||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.264|2.430|
95771808|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.417||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.417|0.808|
95807320|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sleep disorders among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807321|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of pelvic pain among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95962119|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-7.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-7.30|-21.42|<.0001
95807322|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups?||||||0.1764|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of unintended weight loss among patients from different groups.||||0.1764
95807323|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups?||||||0.3127|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of endometriosis among patients from different groups.||||0.3127
95952974|NCT00912964|191877127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.1||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||0.10|-0.76|0.13
95952975|NCT00912964|191877127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16||LS mean difference and p-value were derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, gender, and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Since there were 2 coprimary efficacy endpoints and 6 key secondary efficacy endpoints, the multiplicity among the endpoints was controlled at a type I error rate at the alpha = 0.05 level using a stepwise parallel gatekeeping procedure (8 stages). In addition, since two mirabegron treatment groups were compared with placebo per endpoint, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. An ANCOVA model was used for hypothesis testing.||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
95952976|NCT03293238|191877173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.527
95952977|NCT03293238|191877174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.749
95952978|NCT03000829|191877193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95952979|NCT03000829|191877194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95952980|NCT03000829|191877195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95952981|NCT03000829|191877196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95952982|NCT03000829|191877197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95952983|NCT03000829|191877198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95952984|NCT03000829|191877199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95952985|NCT03000829|191877200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95807324|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad among patients from different groups?"||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the difference in the incidence of D-D-D Triad (Dysmenorrhoea-Dyspareunia-Dysuria) among patients from different groups."||||0.0028
95807325|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of hypertension among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95952986|NCT03000829|191877203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
95952987|NCT00091572|191877205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2663||95.0|0.8|1.06|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (progressions/deaths) = 401. Dacarbazine events (progressions/deaths) = 398.|||1.06|0.80|0.2663
95952988|NCT00091572|191877206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9999||95.0|0.86|1.17|||Log Rank||Temozolomide events (deaths) = 320. Dacarbazine events (deaths) = 325.|||1.17|0.86|0.9999
95952989|NCT00091572|191877207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0718||95.0|0.97|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Temozolomide numerator (responders) = 55. Dacarbazine numerator (responders) = 37.|||2.12|0.97|0.0718
95952990|NCT01178281|191877223|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95952991|NCT01178281|191877225|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.929
95952992|NCT00088452|191877233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.28|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with ethosuximide vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||4.28|1.65|<0.001
95952993|NCT00088452|191877233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.42|||Chi-squared||odds ratio with valproic acid vs. lamotrigine|Calculations of sample size were based on the ability to detect a 20% difference in freedom-from failure rates (three pairwise comparisons) at 16 weeks with 80% power at a two-sided P value of 0.017 and one interim analysis. Sample size of 398 was increased to 446 subjects to account for two stratification factors and a 5% dropout rate; this sample size allowed the detection of a difference of 0.5 SD in the Confidence Index on the Conners' Continuous Performance Test with a power exceeding 80%.||5.42|2.06|<0.001
95952994|NCT00088452|191877234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.41|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the ethosuximide group|||3.41|1.12|0.03
95952995|NCT00088452|191877234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.49|||Chi-squared||Percentage of subjects with a Confidence Index score of 0.60 or higher in the valproic acid group than in the lamotrigine group|||5.49|1.69|<0.001
95952996|NCT00088452|191877235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.33|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for FFF for ethosuximide versus lamotrigine|||5.33|1.81|<0.001
95952997|NCT00088452|191877235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.02|||Fisher Exact||odds ratio for FFF for valproic acid versus lamotrigine|||5.02|1.68|<0.001
95952998|NCT01184859|191877236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.211
95952999|NCT01184859|191877236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95771809|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.954||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.954|0.544|
95771810|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.891|3.33||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.330|1.891|
95807326|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups?||||||0.9323|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital herpes among patients from different groups.||||0.9323
95807327|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups?||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of thyroid disease among patients from different groups.||||0.0011
95995354|NCT03619213|191966854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||Comparison Group: Placebo||1.07|0.83|0.3425
95995355|NCT02886702|191966863|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval on the difference between the proportions to be within \[-20%, +20%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||90.0|-12.6|3.6||p-value not calculated|Yates' corrected confidence interval|||||3.6|-12.6|
95995356|NCT02886702|191966863|SUPERIORITY|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) for missing efficacy values||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.3520
95995357|NCT02886702|191966864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8105|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.8105
95995358|NCT02886702|191966864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0613
95995359|NCT02886702|191966865|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||1.0000
95995360|NCT02886702|191966865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by clinical site||||||0.0712
95995361|NCT01147926|191966880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95995362|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-898.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2884.82|1088.82||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||1088.82|-2884.82|.37
95995363|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-2602.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4687.44|-516.69||A single model was run including variables indicating Proof Positive (yes/no), Coach Me (yes/no), and On Your Feet (yes/no) and their interaction terms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||-516.69|-4687.44|.02
95995364|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-1244.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3287.6|797.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||797.85|-3287.60|.23
95995365|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1468.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1368.93|4306.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4306.02|-1368.93|0.31
95995366|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|388.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2397.51|3173.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3173.62|-2397.51|0.78
95995367|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|1991.2||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.52|4847.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||4847.86|-865.52|0.17
95995368|NCT03417440|191966894|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-590.7||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4591.17|3409.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The original mixed effects regression model effects consisted of three treatment main effects, three two-way treatment interactions, and one three-way treatment interaction. Values are unadjusted.||3409.75|-4591.17|0.77
95995369|NCT03417440|191966895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.7||0.17|ONE_SIDED|90.0||8.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||8.3||0.17
95995370|NCT03417440|191966895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.8||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0||68.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||68.8||0.94
95995371|NCT03417440|191966895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|116.4||0.99|ONE_SIDED|90.0||82.7||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||82.7||0.99
95953000|NCT01184859|191877236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95953001|NCT01184859|191877236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95953002|NCT01184859|191877237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.272||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|-0.141||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.141|-0.685|0.194
95953003|NCT01184859|191877237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|-0.108||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.108|-0.985|0.015
95953004|NCT01184859|191877237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.317|-0.391||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.391|-1.317|<0.001
95771811|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.31||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.310|0.178|
95771812|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.234||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.234|0.134|
95771813|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.856||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.856|0.489|
95771814|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.284||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.284|0.163|
95807328|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups?||||||0.2756|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of drug allergy among patients from different groups.||||0.2756
95807329|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of recurrent attacks of sinusitis among patients from different groups.||||0.0105
95807330|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV?||||||0.2128|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of HPV infection among patients from different groups, who were tested for HPV.||||0.2128
95807331|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups?||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of abnormal PAP smear among patients from different groups.||||0.0018
95807332|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups?||||||0.2524|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of genital warts among patients from different groups.||||0.2524
95807333|NCT02732145|191587252|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups?||||||0.2452|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of conization or LETZ among patients from different groups.||||0.2452
95807334|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of any previous treatment between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.1583
95807335|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0380
95864327|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.88||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|0.08|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.08|-5.83|0.056
95771815|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.145||||||95.0|0.109|0.191||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.191|0.109|
95771816|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.668||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.668|0.381|
95771817|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.997||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.997|0.570|
95771818|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|3.647||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.647|2.083|
95771819|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.211||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.211|0.694|
95771820|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.815||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.815|0.466|
95807336|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antifungals among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.6468
95807337|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.4670
95953005|NCT01184859|191877237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.888||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.351||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, because this study was not a confirmatory trial. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Gender is a factor, and duration of action and baseline number of nocturnal voids are covariates.||||-0.351|-1.426|0.001
95953006|NCT00644332|191877310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in angina frequency from Baseline to Week 4||||
95953007|NCT00644332|191877311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||||||||||||Mean change in NTG use from Baseline to Week 4||||
95953008|NCT00644332|191877312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||||||||||||||||
95953009|NCT01809691|191877316|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.72|.080
95953010|NCT01809691|191877317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.51|<0.001
95953011|NCT00409006|191877327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0618||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0618
95953012|NCT00409006|191877328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Used the Wald Chi-squared statistic from a logistic regression analysis.||||||0.369
95953013|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Physical Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0011
95953014|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Physical Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.1152
95953015|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0552
95995372|NCT03417440|191966896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.47|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-12.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-12.5|0.47
95995373|NCT03417440|191966896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.315|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-8.3|0.315
95995374|NCT03417440|191966896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0||0.355|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-9.4|0.355
95995375|NCT03417440|191966897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.86|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.3|0.86
95995376|NCT03417440|191966897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.38|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.6|0.38
95995377|NCT03417440|191966897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.66|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.66
95995378|NCT03417440|191966898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.69|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.9|0.69
95995379|NCT03417440|191966898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.2||0.6|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.0|0.60
95995380|NCT03417440|191966898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0||0.11|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.2|0.11
95995381|NCT03417440|191966899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.94|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.94
95995382|NCT03417440|191966899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.73|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.4|0.73
95995383|NCT03417440|191966899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.22|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.22
95995384|NCT03417440|191966900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.46|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.46
95771821|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.843||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.843|1.624|
95864328|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.92||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-6.00|0.063
95995385|NCT03417440|191966900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.96|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.96
95771822|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|4.836||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.836|2.764|
95995386|NCT03417440|191966900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.3|0.495
95995387|NCT03417440|191966901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.445|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.1|0.445
95995388|NCT03417440|191966901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.5|0.92
95995389|NCT03417440|191966901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.23|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.23
95995390|NCT03417440|191966902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.78|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.5|0.78
95995391|NCT03417440|191966902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.98|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.7|0.98
95995392|NCT03417440|191966902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.13|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1|0.13
95995393|NCT03417440|191966903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.6||0.285
95995394|NCT03417440|191966903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.5|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.1||0.50
95995395|NCT03417440|191966903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.92|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3||0.92
95771823|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.606||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.606|0.920|
95771824|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.081||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.081|0.619|
95771825|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.152|3.773||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.773|2.152|
95771826|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.44||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.440|0.251|
95995396|NCT03417440|191966904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.42
95995397|NCT03417440|191966904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.82|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.9|0.82
95995398|NCT03417440|191966904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.58|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.58
95995399|NCT03417440|191966905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.45|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.9|0.45
95995400|NCT03417440|191966905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.49|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.0|0.49
95807338|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.2131|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antibiotics among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.2131
95953016|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Energy/Fatigue: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.039
95953017|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Emotional Well Being: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0223
95953018|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Social Functioning: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.4664
95995401|NCT03417440|191966905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.61|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.1 for 1-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; if the outcome is not in the hypothesized direction, values that meet or exceed the 0.1 threshold will not be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.2|0.61
95995402|NCT03417440|191966906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.84
95995403|NCT03417440|191966906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
95995404|NCT03417440|191966906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
95953019|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Pain: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0001
95953020|NCT03694210|191877338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values of \<0.05 are considered significant|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||General Health: 21 Day Post Necrosectomy SF-36v1 Score is compared to Baseline score for improvement.||||0.0639
95953021|NCT03050372|191877346|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%.||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal; Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.329
95953022|NCT03050372|191877346|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.321
95953023|NCT03050372|191877346|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.687|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SOL for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SOL for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.687
95953024|NCT03050372|191877347|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.925
95953025|NCT03050372|191877347|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.08
95995405|NCT03417440|191966907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
95995406|NCT03417440|191966907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95995407|NCT03417440|191966907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95995408|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.10435||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Self-efficacy for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3116
95995409|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.17742||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Correlation between Self-regulation of Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.0838
95771827|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.296||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.296|0.169|
95771828|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.003||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.003|0.588|
95771829|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.889||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.889|0.509|
95771830|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|2.345|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.772|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.772|
95807339|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticosteroids between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous local treatment with corticoids among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0000
95807340|NCT02732145|191587253|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant between the patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia?||||||0.0962|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the frequency of previous systemic treatment with antidepressant among patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia.||||0.0962
95807341|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807342|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807343|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95864329|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-1.99|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.99|-7.79|0.002
95807344|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807345|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807346|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95953026|NCT03050372|191877347|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of WASO for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline WASO for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.221
95953027|NCT03050372|191877348|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.197
95771831|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|3.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.633|4.614||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.614|2.633|
95995410|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.09834||||0.351|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Family Social Support for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3510
95995411|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04562||||0.6659|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Outcome Expectation for Physical Activity change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6659
95995412|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.04831||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Aging Self-perceptions (Attitude Toward Own Aging) change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.6402
95995413|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.13128||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychosocial Loss change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.2048
95995414|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.10022||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Physical Change change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.3445
95995415|NCT03417440|191966908|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.00866||||0.934|TWO_SIDED||||||t distribution with n-2 degrees of freed|||Correlation between Views of Aging--Psychological Growth change and Daily Steps change across 4 months.||||0.9340
95995416|NCT01499290|191966912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|1.58||||||The primary objective of this study (FDA agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the mMITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||1.58|-8.64|
95807347|NCT02732145|191587254|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h among patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95771832|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.817|3.789||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.789|1.817|
95807348|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test of the vulva in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0009
95995417|NCT01499290|191966913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the MITT in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.10|-6.90|
95995418|NCT01499290|191966914|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was determined by comparing the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for risk difference (corresponding to a 97.5% 1-sided lower bound) to the non-inferiority marging of -12.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|2.89||||||The co-primary objective of this study (ROW agreed) was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for CAZ-AVI compared to that for Meropenem at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with cIAI.||2.89|-4.61|
95995419|NCT01818297|191966925|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.14|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|||Due to early termination, the study was insufficiently powered to test the primary objective. This analysis is exploratory and descriptive in nature and cannot be considered conclusive.|Z-test|The Z-test (using an unpooled standard deviation, without continuity correction) was used to test the difference in responder rates between groups.|The Estimation Parameter is the difference between the responder rates in the Treatment and Control groups. The difference is calculated as Treatment - Control. A positive number represents a higher responder rate in the Treatment group.|The original sample size estimate for the primary objective was based on the following assumptions: 109 subjects in each arm with a responder rate of 22% in the Control group and 40% in the Treatment group, and a one-sided α= 0.05 using a Z test with unpooled variance, would result in 90% power. Because the study terminated early, the actual sample size (32 in Treatment, 30 in Control) resulted in 47% power under the same assumptions.|||-5.8|0.14
95995420|NCT01957137|191966954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling, period and the interaction between cycling and period.||||||0.3773
95995421|NCT01957137|191966955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.2396
95995422|NCT01957137|191966956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The final model included cycling and period.||||||0.8874
95771833|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.580|0.760|
95771834|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.282||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.282|0.615|
95771835|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|3.052||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.052|1.473|
95771836|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.260|0.610|
95807349|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0289|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 2h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva.||||0.0289
95807350|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0134|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 4h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0134
95807351|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0037|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 6h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0037
95807352|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva?||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 8h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0080
95807353|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.0579|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 10h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0579
95807354|NCT02732145|191587254|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis versus normal vulva?||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of a positive Cotton-Swab test at the point marked as 12h in patients with vulvar dermatosis and normal vulva.||||0.0720
95771837|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.298||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.298|0.622|
95807355|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807356|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95953028|NCT03050372|191877348|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.586
95771838|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.105||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.105|1.000|
95771839|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|0.603||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.603|0.289|
95771840|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.338|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|0.487||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.487|0.235|
95771841|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.165||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.165|0.561|
95771842|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.479||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.479|0.233|
95807357|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807358|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807359|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807360|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864330|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-2.31|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.31|-8.32|0.001
95807361|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807362|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864331|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-2.6|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.60|-8.62|0.001
95771843|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.494||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.494|0.237|
95771844|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.801||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.801|0.382|
95771845|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.169||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.169|0.562|
95771846|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.78||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.780|1.347|
95807363|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Outer Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807364|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864332|NCT01798849|191686573|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-7.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.63|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.63|-10.50|<0.0001
95953029|NCT03050372|191877348|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.298|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of TST for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline TST for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.298
95953030|NCT03050372|191877349|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.424
95953031|NCT03050372|191877349|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.210
95953032|NCT03050372|191877349|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SE for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SE for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.190
95953033|NCT03050372|191877350|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.535
95953034|NCT03050372|191877350|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.196
95953035|NCT03050372|191877350|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of EOS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline EOS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.092
95953036|NCT03050372|191877351|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||1.00
95771847|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.147||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.147|0.558|
95807365|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807366|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0.0632|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0632
95807367|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864333|NCT01798849|191686576|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.34||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.02|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.02|-5.70|0.165
95864334|NCT01798849|191686576|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|-0.21|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.21|-6.86|0.038
95953037|NCT03050372|191877351|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.004
95953038|NCT03050372|191877351|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of SQS for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline SQS for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.042
95953039|NCT03050372|191877352|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.05
95953040|NCT03050372|191877352|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.379
95953041|NCT03050372|191877352|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of #awake for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline #awake for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.284
95953042|NCT03050372|191877353|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.226
95953043|NCT03050372|191877353|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.156
95953044|NCT03050372|191877353|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Fatigue for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Fatigue for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.117
95953045|NCT03050372|191877354|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for active/sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ"||||0.130
95953046|NCT03050372|191877354|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Active LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Active LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.249
95771848|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.184||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.184|0.568|
95771849|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.917||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.917|0.915|
95771850|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|2.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|3.438||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.438|1.658|
95771851|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.416||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.416|0.688|
95771852|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.701|
95771853|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|2.366||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.366|1.128|
95807368|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring between patients within different groups?||||||0.0043|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0043
95807369|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Typ), evaluated with Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864335|NCT01798849|191686576|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-3.1|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.10|-9.55|0.000
95953047|NCT03050372|191877354|EQUIVALENCE|Significance level alpha=0.05; CI=95%||||||0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This is a crossover study; we use a paired t-test to test the hypothesis:~H0: Means of Concentration for Baseline and Sham LFMS are equal Ha: Means differ~Note this paired t-test is equivalent to a one-sample t-test:~H0: Mean changes from Baseline Concentration for Sham LFMS is equal 0 Ha: Mean is not equal zero"||||0.114
95953048|NCT02123797|191877358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.06||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients with and without invasive stage confirmation (denominator=168/180) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.06|1.35|0.0007
95864336|NCT01798849|191686576|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-3.92|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.92|-9.35|<0.0001
95953049|NCT02123797|191877359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients with and without mediastinal invasive staging (denominator=126/222) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.80|1.25|0.0022
95771854|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.592||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.592|0.288|
95771855|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.61||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.610|0.294|
95771856|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.99||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.990|0.473|
95771857|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.473||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.473|0.714|
95807370|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring between patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807371|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0697|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0697
95953050|NCT02123797|191877360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.85||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=267/81) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.85|1.67|0.0004
95953051|NCT02123797|191877361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.36||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=132/216) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.36|1.50|<0.0001
95953052|NCT02123797|191877362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.665|3.996||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without invasive staging (numerator=108/70) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||3.996|1.665|0.0366
95953053|NCT02123797|191877362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.621||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|4.665||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without invasive staging (numerator=46/30) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without invasive staging (denominator=122/150) after adjustment for matched study design.|||4.665|1.473|0.0779
95771858|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.385||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.385|1.150|
95807372|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0319|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0319
95807373|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7273|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7273
95771859|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 202|1.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|2.339||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.339|1.115|
95771860|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|3.087||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.087|1.177|
95771861|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.533||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.533|0.583|
95807374|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807375|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864337|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.67||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|0.8|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.80|-6.14|0.128
95953054|NCT02123797|191877363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.358||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.621||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=91/87) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.621|1.536|0.0703
95953055|NCT02123797|191877363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.535||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.446|4.444||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without mediastinal staging (numerator=40/36) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without mediastinal staging (denominator=86/186) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.444|1.446|0.0631
95953056|NCT02123797|191877364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.191||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.671|6.093||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=161/17) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||6.093|1.671|0.0010
95953057|NCT02123797|191877364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.314||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without bi-modal staging (numerator=62/14) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without bi-modal staging (denominator=205/67) after adjustment for matched study.|||2.314|0.526|0.1972
95953058|NCT02123797|191877365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|4.203|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Multidisciplinary Clinic patients with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=99/79) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||4.203|1.785|0.0055
95953059|NCT02123797|191877365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|3.905||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing Serial Care patients in conference with and without tri-modal staging (numerator=39/37) to Serial Care patients not in conference with and without tri-modal staging (denominator=93/179) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.905|1.287|0.2572
95953060|NCT02123797|191877366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.25||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=232/106) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.25|1.24|0.0045
95995423|NCT00700804|191967022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Effects of calcium (Ca), protein \& their interaction were tested using repeated measures analysis of variance (subjects nested under High or Low Ca)|Reported analysis is the main effect of Calcium (High vs Low) from the Mixed Model Analysis which averages across the two levels of dietary protein. The main effect of protein and the calcium x protein interaction were not statistically significant.|||||0.05
95807376|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.2203|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.2203
95807377|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95860378|NCT04881942|191679396|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|89.44||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.77|163.11|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham)|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||163.11|15.77|0.0184
95995424|NCT02901431|191967023|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LSMeans|-0.16||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.23|-2.56|0.911
95771862|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.763|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.245|0.468|
95771863|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|2.956||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.956|1.119|
95771864|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.568|
95771865|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.396||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.396|0.524|
95995425|NCT02901431|191967024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjused LSMean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|2.43||||||Week 12||2.43|-1.85|
95995426|NCT02901431|191967024|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.67|2.22||||||Week 24||2.22|-2.67|
95771866|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.943|0.745|
95771867|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.794||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.794|0.310|
95995427|NCT02901431|191967025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|1.92||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 12||1.92|-2.36|
95995428|NCT02901431|191967025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|3.02||||||Communication Domain Standard Score, Week 24||3.02|-1.60|
95995429|NCT02901431|191967025|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted LSMean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.12||||||Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 12||3.12|-2.10|
95995430|NCT02901431|191967025|SUPERIORITY|Socialization Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Difference in adjusted LSMean|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|2.51||||||||2.51|-3.74|
95995431|NCT02901431|191967025|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 12|Difference in adjusted LSMean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|4.9||||||||4.90|-0.63|
95771868|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.641||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.641|0.250|
95771869|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|1.528||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.528|0.596|
95771870|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.758||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.758|0.306|
95771871|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|0.722||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.722|0.279|
95771872|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.002||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.002|0.398|
95771873|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.304||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.304|0.500|
95807378|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Outer versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95995432|NCT02901431|191967025|SUPERIORITY|Daily Living Skills Domain Standard Score, Week 24|Differences in adjusted LSMean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|3.22||||||||3.22|-2.87|
95995433|NCT02901431|191967031|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS Means|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||6.70|0.78|
95864338|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.72|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.72|-2.24|0.305
95995434|NCT02901431|191967031|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Adjusted LS means|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|5.29||||||Week 24||5.29|-0.73|
95995435|NCT02901431|191967033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted LS Means|0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.99|0.992
95995436|NCT01272583|191967035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||1.0
95995437|NCT01272583|191967036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||GLP-1 intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||<0.001
95995438|NCT01272583|191967036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||GLP-1 Total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
95995439|NCT01272583|191967036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||GIP intact|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.049
95995440|NCT01272583|191967036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||GIP total|ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA||||||0.44
95995441|NCT01272583|191967037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.14
95771874|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.193|3.102||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.102|1.193|
95953061|NCT02123797|191877367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.249||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|3.699||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=140/33) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|We examined treatment selection practices with or without MD care in a single healthcare system.||3.699|1.368|0.0474
95995442|NCT01272583|191967038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.98
95771875|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|1.541||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.541|0.611|
95771876|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.46||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.460|0.561|
95771877|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|2.03||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.030|0.798|
95771878|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.474|3.851||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.851|1.474|
95771879|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.915||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.915|0.754|
95771880|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.821||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.821|0.689|
95771881|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.516||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.516|0.987|
95771882|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.805||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.805|0.316|
95995443|NCT01272583|191967039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.22
95995444|NCT01272583|191967040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.01
95995445|NCT01272583|191967040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Dunn's Multiple Comparison Test|Post Hoc testing||||||<0.05
95995446|NCT01272583|191967041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|The Friedman Test was used for ANOVA.||||||0.76
95771883|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.754||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.754|0.293|
95771884|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.056||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.056|0.414|
95771885|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.492||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.492|0.583|
95771886|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|2.071||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.071|0.831|
95771887|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 387|1.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||2.249|0.880|
95771888|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|5.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.365||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||7.365|4|
95807379|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1456|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Middle versus non-specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1456
95807380|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1133|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1133
95807381|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Outer versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807382|NCT02732145|191587255|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0058|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Middle versus specific lesions of the Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0058
95807383|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807384|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864339|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|0.17|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.17|-4.23|0.070
95995447|NCT04672083|191967060|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
95807385|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95771889|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.481||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.481|0.804|
95771890|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.031||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.031|0.559|
95771891|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.577|4.751||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.751|2.577|
95771892|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.334||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.334|0.722|
95807386|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807387|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95995448|NCT04672083|191967061|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"CPT31 dose proportionality will be examined across dose groups using a power model approach or ANOVA model, as appropriate.PK parameters will be analyzed using a power model that will have the following form: parameter = intercept × dose\^slope + random error.~Using the natural log (ln) transformation, a power model can be expressed as a linear regression equation: ln(parameter) = intercept + slope × ln(dose) + random error. For dose proportionality, the slope = 1; for dose independence, = 0."||||<0.05
95771893|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.95||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.95|0.513|
95771894|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|3.421||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.421|1.846|
95864340|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-0.19|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.19|-5.48|0.036
95771895|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.272||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.272|0.149|
95771896|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.189||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.189|0.103|
95771897|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.645|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.873||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.873|0.476|
95771898|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.245||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.245|0.134|
95771899|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.174||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.174|0.095|
95807388|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807389|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807390|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807391|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of excoriations of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of excoriations of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95953062|NCT02123797|191877367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.751||||0.6353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.37||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing SC patients in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (numerator=58/15) to SC patients not in conference with and without stage appropriate treatment (denominator=174/91) after adjustment for matched study.|||3.370|0.910|0.6353
95953063|NCT02123797|191877369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.955||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.747||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=140/37) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=45/30) after adjustment for matched study design.|||5.747|1.520|0.0014
95953064|NCT02123797|191877370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.519|6.299||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=145/32) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=49/26) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.299|1.519|0.0019
95995449|NCT04672083|191967062|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% confidence interval for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
95995450|NCT04672083|191967063|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
95995451|NCT04672083|191967064|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
95771900|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.628||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.628|0.341|
95771901|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.943||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||0.943|0.514|
95807392|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups?||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Mons Pubis in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0016
95807393|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of Labia Majora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864341|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.37|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.37|-6.40|<0.0001
95995452|NCT04672083|191967065|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
95771902|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.368|4.343||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||4.343|2.368|
95771903|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.218||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.218|0.665|
95771904|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|0.868||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.868|0.472|
95771905|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.303|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.121||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.121|1.7|
95807394|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of rhagades of the Perineum among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of rhagades of the Perineum in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807395|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0014|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0014
95864342|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-3.46|||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.46|-7.29|<0.0001
95995453|NCT04672083|191967066|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
95995454|NCT04672083|191967067|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantification.||||<0.05
95995455|NCT04672083|191967068|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
95995456|NCT04672083|191967069|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Concentrations for all subjects in Cohorts 1-3 were below the limit of quantitation||||<0.05
95995457|NCT04672083|191967070|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The lack of fit test will be conducted for the statistical assessment of linearity assumption (AOL), and thus appropriateness of a power model. PK parameter is dose proportional if AOL is ruled acceptable and the 95% CI for the slope spans 1. If the AOL is ruled unacceptable for any PK parameter, its corresponding PK parameter normalized by dose administered will be ln-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model will include dose as a factor.||||<0.05
95995458|NCT02761967|191967075|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical power of the study for the temporal variables was 82%. Multiple linear regression models were obtained for the first and second stages and for the total duration of delivery.||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.776
95995459|NCT03136107|191967078|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical criterion defined in ISO 24444:2010 is that the 95 %CI is within ±17 % of the mean SPF||||||||||||||||CI % values (which is the percentage that half the 95 % CI represents of the mean values).|Test product CI of ±16.4% and reference product CI of ±16.6% of the mean SPF.|||
95995460|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.157||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.157|0.108|<0.0001
95807396|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95864343|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-4.65|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.65|-6.70|<0.0001
95995461|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.078|<0.0001
95995462|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.145||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.145|0.096|< 0.0001
95995463|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.155||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.155|0.106|<0.0001
95995464|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.115||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.115|0.066|<0.0001
95771906|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.398|6.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||6.249|3.398|
95953065|NCT02123797|191877371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.892||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|999.999||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=174/3) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=71/4) after adjustment for matched study design.|||999.999|1.002|0.0499
95953066|NCT02123797|191877372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.663||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|6.319||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=158/19) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=60/15) after adjustment for matched study design.|||6.319|1.123|0.0263
95771907|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.753||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.753|0.954|
95771908|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.249||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||1.249|0.677|
95771909|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.436|4.496||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.496|2.436|
95771910|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|0.38||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.38|0.207|
95807397|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0414|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0414
95953067|NCT02123797|191877373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.566||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|9.269||Conditional logistic regression adjusted for the matched study design, sex, age, and histology.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio comparing MD patients with and without concordance to recommendations (numerator=87/14) to SC conference patients with and without concordance to recommendations (denominator=38/8) after adjustment for matched study design.|||9.269|0.711|0.1503
95953068|NCT02123797|191877386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0042
95953069|NCT02123797|191877386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.0805
95953070|NCT02123797|191877386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0073
95953071|NCT02123797|191877386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0579
95953072|NCT02123797|191877387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Diagnostic Biopsy||||0.0146
95953073|NCT02123797|191877387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Non-invasive Staging Test||||0.16
95953074|NCT02123797|191877387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Invasive Staging Test||||0.0014
95953075|NCT02123797|191877387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Time from Initial Detection of Lesion to Definitive Treatment||||0.0037
95953076|NCT02123797|191877394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7506
95953077|NCT02123797|191877394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care.|||1.36|0.85|0.54
95953078|NCT02123797|191877395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4847|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4847
95953079|NCT02123797|191877395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.43|0.87|0.51
95771911|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.271||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.271|0.147|
95771912|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.975||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.975|0.529|
95771913|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|0.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.966||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||0.966|0.524|
95807398|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0898|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0898
95807399|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0008
95807400|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0587|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0587
95807401|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||1.0000
95995465|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.036|-0.013|0.3394
95995466|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.167||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.167|0.118|<0.0001
95807402|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
95807403|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.1352|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesion of Labia Majora versus non-specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.1352
95864344|NCT01798849|191686577|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-4.5|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-4.50|-11.95|<0.0001
95995467|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.005|0.0173
96001873|NCT01845077|191981261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|103.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.5|96.1|
95995468|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.014||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.014|-0.035|0.4210
95771914|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|3.474||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other.||3.474|1.886|
95771915|NCT00972816|191515095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For pairwise vaccine group compared, least squares GMT and associated 2-sided 95% CI, median, minimum, and maximum HI titer values were determined. The two-sided 95% CIs was calculated and assessed against a non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Subsequently the same non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric Mean Ratio at day 29|3.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.646|4.89||||||A difference was assumed to be statistically significant if the 2-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMTs did not contain 1, in which case one group is either statistically significantly superior or statistically inferior to the other||4.89|2.646|
95771916|NCT03806933|191515103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||Hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.51|0.7|= 0.881
95771917|NCT03806933|191515103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.05||P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|Wald Chi-square test||HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||1.05|0.49|= 0.089
95771918|NCT03806933|191515103|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83|||Wald Chi-square test|P-values were based on Wald Chi-Square tests for hazard ratios.|HR was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. 95% CIs were calculated based on individual Wald tests.|||0.83|0.38|0.0035
95771919|NCT05088603|191515124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
95771920|NCT05088603|191515125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95771921|NCT05088603|191515126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95771922|NCT05088603|191515128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.529
95771923|NCT05088603|191515129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95771924|NCT05088603|191515130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.502
95771925|NCT05088603|191515131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.431
95771926|NCT05088603|191515132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
95771927|NCT05088603|191515133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
95771928|NCT05088603|191515134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
95771929|NCT01177293|191515136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUC\[0- ∞\] of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|89.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.74|97.43||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1155 on the natural log scale for AUCinf with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1234 for loge AUCinf.||97.43|82.74|
95771930|NCT01177293|191515137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed AUClast of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|116.87||||||||116.87|85.10|
95771931|NCT01177293|191515138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Natural log transformed Cmax of amlodipine was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|86.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|94.42||||||A sample size of 12 completers provided 90% confidence intervals for the difference between treatment of +/-0.1278 on the natural log scale for Cmax with 90% coverage probability. These calculations were based on estimates of within-participant standard deviations of 0.1366 for loge Cmax.||94.42|79.57|
95771932|NCT00614523|191515141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model|Anderson-Gill model using the model-based variance estimate and stratified by the randomization stratification factors|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.05|0.66|0.13
95771933|NCT00614523|191515142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.766|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.88|0.66|<0.001
95771934|NCT00614523|191515143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.922||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.99|0.86|0.026
95771935|NCT00614523|191515144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||Poisson Regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.8|0.68|<0.001
95995469|NCT01431287|191967126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|0.015|0.0014
95771936|NCT00614523|191515145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|51.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for stratification factors.|Romiplostim /Placebo|||51.8|4.7|<0.001
95771937|NCT00614523|191515146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.402||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||1.91|1.03|0.032
95771938|NCT00614523|191515150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.639|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.71|||Poisson regression model|Poisson regression model with treatment and stratification factors as covariates|Romiplostim /Placebo|||0.71|0.57|<0.001
95771939|NCT00394836|191515178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated \* 100.|||31|4|
95807404|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0002
95807405|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Mons Pubis versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807406|NCT02732145|191587256|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0854|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Majora versus specific lesions of the Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0854
95807407|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807408|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807409|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807410|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807411|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0199|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0199
95995470|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.063|<0.0001
95995471|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.075||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.075|0.024|0.0001
95771940|NCT00394836|191515178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|19.0||||||||19|5|
95864345|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.05|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||1.05|-4.59|0.212
95771941|NCT00267969|191515225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95771942|NCT00267969|191515225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the Holm's procedure was used at an overall significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 750 patients (250 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95771943|NCT00267969|191515226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95771944|NCT00267969|191515226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95771945|NCT00267969|191515227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||||||<0.001
95771946|NCT00267969|191515227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||To control the multiplicity for the primary and the secondary endpoint analyses, Holm's procedure was used but the two comparisons for the primary endpoint and the two comparisons for the 1st second endpoint analyses need to be significant first|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|Treatment and patient's baseline weight (≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg) as factors in the model||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and placebo at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95771947|NCT00267969|191515228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95771948|NCT00267969|191515228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95771949|NCT00267969|191515228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||To control the overall multiplicity, the combined groups was tested first and each dose will then be tested; but the primary and the 1st 2 secondary endpoint analyses need to be significant before this endpoint can be tested|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between combined maintenance group and the combined withdrawal group, ustekinumab 90 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group, ustekinumab 45 mg maintenance group and the withdrawal group at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||0.001
95771950|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.25||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.25|-0.73|0.60
95771951|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus their not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.66|-2.22|0.29
95771952|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.16|-1.67|0.73
95771953|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.74|-2.34|0.77
95864346|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.32||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.64|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||6.64|0.00|0.050
95995472|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.092|0.042|<0.0001
95771954|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.88||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.88|-1.43|0.51
95771955|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.01||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.01|0.02|0.05
95771956|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.02||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.02|-3.84|0.54
95771957|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|5.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.17|-1.13|0.21
95771958|NCT04075682|191515229|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.83|-3.97|0.47
95771959|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.24|-0.68|0.57
95864347|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.48||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Mixed effect model||Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.47|0.49|0.016
95995473|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.087||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.087|0.037|<0.0001
95807412|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807413|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807414|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807415|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807416|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of fissures of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807417|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Anterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807418|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Interlabial Sulci in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95995474|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|0.004|0.0231
95995475|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.046|-0.004|0.1073
95995476|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.058|<0.0001
95771960|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.14|-2.63|0.08
95864348|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.21||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|8.92|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||8.92|1.51|0.007
95995477|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.013|0.0029
96001874|NCT01845077|191981261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|106.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||106.0|86.7|
95771961|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.77||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment, comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.77|-1.97|0.39
95771962|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.47|-1.45|0.61
95771963|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.97|-2.23|0.90
95771964|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.97|0.13|0.04
95771965|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.48|-2.14|0.64
95771966|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.20|-2.91|0.92
95771967|NCT04075682|191515230|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.52|-5.02|0.11
95864349|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|7.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|11.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.10|3.03|0.001
95995478|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.030|-0.020|0.6939
95995479|NCT01431287|191967127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|0.008|0.0097
95995480|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|-0.608||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.608|-2.778|0.0022
95995481|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.313|-0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.153|-2.313|0.0252
95995482|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.113|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.052|-2.113|0.0620
95771968|NCT04075682|191515231|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.82|-1.48|0.57
95771969|NCT04075682|191515231|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial warnings (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.27|-3.22|0.39
95771970|NCT04075682|191515231|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.04|-3.35|0.92
95771971|NCT04075682|191515232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.53|-1.33|0.40
95995483|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|0.618||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.618|-1.531|0.4051
95995484|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.649|0.507||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.507|-1.649|0.2988
95995485|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.662|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.731|0.407||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.407|-1.731|0.2249
95771972|NCT04075682|191515232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial health warning labels (HWLs) (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.86|-1.83|0.99
95771973|NCT04075682|191515232|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.48||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.48|-0.78|0.17
95771974|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.57|-0.69|0.45
95771975|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-1.61|0.41
95771976|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.20|-3.08|0.08
95864350|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|6.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|10.71|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.71|2.54|0.002
95995486|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|-0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.042|-2.195|0.0418
95995487|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.552|0.633||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.633|-1.552|0.4097
95771977|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.09|-2.14|0.52
95995488|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|0.515||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.515|-1.664|0.3013
95995489|NCT01431287|191967128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||1.200|-0.970|0.8355
95771978|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.51|-1.82|0.75
95771979|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.33|-3.82|0.64
95771980|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.45||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.45|-2.17|0.91
95864351|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|10.76|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||10.76|5.45|<0.0001
95995490|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.684||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.684|0.155|0.0019
95995491|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.619||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.619|0.092|0.0082
95995492|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.681||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.681|0.152|0.0020
95995493|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.554||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.554|0.027|0.0307
95995494|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.616||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.616|0.089|0.0088
95995495|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.266||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.266|-0.259|0.9801
95771981|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.60|-3.29|0.50
95771982|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.41|0.86|0.007
95771983|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.4||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.40|-2.22|0.52
95771984|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.23|-3.89|0.86
95807419|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora among patients from different groups?||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The frequency of smoothness of Labia Minora in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0024
95864352|NCT01798849|191686578|OTHER||Difference in LS means|14.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|17.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||17.57|10.54|<0.0001
95995496|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.557||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.557|0.030|0.0289
95771985|NCT04075682|191515233|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.43|-4.15|0.61
95771986|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.96||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.96|0.82|0.29
95771987|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.85|0.77|0.43
95771988|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.20|0.63|0.60
95771989|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.33||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.33|0.67|0.48
95771990|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.91|0.34|0.62
95807420|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups?||||||0.0205|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Posterior Commissure in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q- Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0205
95807421|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0158|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0158
95807422|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0001
95864353|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.66||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.93|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.93|-4.24|0.202
95995497|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.33||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.330|-0.202|0.6382
95771991|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|10.52||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||10.52|0.88|0.079
95771992|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.12|0.87|0.10
95771993|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.61|0.52|0.52
95771994|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.17||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.17|0.55|0.54
95771995|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.53|0.33
95807423|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.028|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0280
95807424|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807425|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95771996|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.11|0.38|0.55
95771997|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.14|0.18|0.44
95771998|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.98||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation models for pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.98|0.84|0.2510
95771999|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.95|0.82|0.2822
95772000|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for multiple imputation models for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||2.47|0.72|0.3558
95772001|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.51||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||2.51|0.73|0.3291
95807426|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95953080|NCT02123797|191877395|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.67|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.67|0.84|0.51
95953081|NCT02123797|191877396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9874|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9874
95953082|NCT02123797|191877396|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care|||1.29|0.82|0.80
95953083|NCT02123797|191877397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5377|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5377
95953084|NCT02123797|191877397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.34|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Multidisciplinary/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.34|0.83|0.73
95772002|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.09||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.09|0.38|0.7818
95772003|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||9.73|0.84|0.0912
95772004|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.66|0.81|0.1361
95772005|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.07|0.46|0.7200
95772006|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.53|0.62|0.3737
95772007|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|8.9||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.90|0.75|0.1345
95953085|NCT02123797|191877397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Comparison is Serial Care Patients Presented in Conference/Serial Care Patients Not Presented in Conference|||1.57|0.82|0.73
95953086|NCT00443755|191877398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953087|NCT00443755|191877399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953088|NCT00443755|191877400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95953089|NCT00443755|191877401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953090|NCT00443755|191877402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in triglyceride levels.||||0.03
95953091|NCT00443755|191877402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of the mean change in HDL-C levels.||||0.06
95995498|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.391||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.391|-0.140|0.3525
95772008|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.67||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||7.67|0.50|0.3318
95772009|NCT04075682|191515234|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.70|0.23|0.7017
95807427|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95995499|NCT01431287|191967129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.6457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.203|-0.327|0.6457
95995500|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.008|0.0095
95807428|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807429|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95807430|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
95807431|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95807432|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0003|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0003
95995501|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
95953092|NCT00443755|191877402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-value is for comparison between groups of mean change in non-HDL-C levels.||||0.06
95995502|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0112
95995503|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.068|<0.0001
95772010|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.31||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.31|1.42|0.001
95772011|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.3||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.30|1.09|0.025
95772012|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.06|0.62|0.44
95807433|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Labia Minora versus non-specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95807434|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3053|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3053
95807435|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7758|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7758
95807436|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.6676|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Anterior Commissure versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.6676
95953093|NCT00443755|191877403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95953094|NCT00443755|191877404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95953095|NCT00443755|191877405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95953096|NCT00443755|191877406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95953097|NCT00443755|191877407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95953098|NCT00443755|191877408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953099|NCT00443755|191877409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95953100|NCT00443755|191877410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95953101|NCT00443755|191877411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95995504|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
95995505|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.024|0.9514
95772013|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||3.97|0.81|0.15
95772014|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.58||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.58|0.39|0.76
95772015|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.80|0.16|0.77
95772016|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.61|0.72|0.17
95772017|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.57|0.14|0.22
95772018|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||10.37|1.15|0.02
95995506|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.119|0.069|<0.0001
95772019|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|26.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||26.53|1.12|0.04
95772020|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.47||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.47|0.10|0.56
95772021|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.68||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.68|0.11|0.46
95772022|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.27||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||4.27|1.56|0.0002
95807437|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4577|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4577
95807438|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.1681|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Interlabial Sulci versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.1681
95807439|NCT02732145|191587257|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesion of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8848|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of Labia Minora versus specific lesions of the Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8848
95807440|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807441|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant for the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95995507|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.007||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.007|-0.057|0.0131
95995508|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.036||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.036|-0.086|<0.0001
95995509|NCT01431287|191967130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0243
95995510|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.17||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.170|0.119|<0.0001
95995511|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.136|0.085|<0.0001
95995512|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.094|<0.0001
95995513|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.132||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.132|0.081|<0.0001
95995514|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.110|0.059|<0.0001
95807442|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807443|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807444|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95995515|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.051||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.051|0.000|0.0470
95995516|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.107|<0.0001
95995517|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
95995518|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.038||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.038|-0.013|0.3329
95995519|NCT01431287|191967131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.047||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.047|-0.004|0.0958
95995520|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
95995521|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.139|0.086|<0.0001
95772023|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||3.12|1.14|0.0135
95772024|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||3.12|0.73|0.2619
95772025|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||4.24|1.01|0.0474
95772026|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.07|0.42|0.8094
95807445|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening among the patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95995522|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
96001875|NCT01845077|191981262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|108.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||108.2|86.6|
95995523|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.144|0.092|<0.0001
95995524|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.125|0.072|<0.0001
95772027|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.44|0.20|0.7978
95772028|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||6.15|0.85|0.1016
95772029|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.15|0.1570
95807446|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807447|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807448|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864354|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.57|-5.03|0.115
95864355|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.09|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.09|-5.40|0.043
95772030|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|8.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||8.18|1.11|0.0297
95772031|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.73||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||21.73|1.28|0.0213
95772032|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.74||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||4.74|0.20|0.9648
95807449|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807450|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807451|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups?||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Hymenal Remnants in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0001
95807452|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807453|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of erythema of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of erythema of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807454|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0023
95864356|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.19||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.84|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.84|-3.22|0.901
95995525|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.012|0.3008
95772033|NCT04075682|191515235|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6512
95864357|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Mixed effect model|-4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.57|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|||-1.57|-6.74|0.002
95953102|NCT02706834|191877416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.487|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means on the original scale.||0.487|0.380|
95953103|NCT02706834|191877423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 0.80 to 1.25|Point estimate|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.964|||||Exponentiated Least Square Means TAK-828 100 mg Fed/TAK-828 100 mg Fasted|Food Effect: A linear mixed effect model on the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with dosing condition as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect using the Kenward-Roger estimation for computing the denominator degrees of freedom. The least squares means and difference of least squared means for the ln-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the geometric means and ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.964|0.833|
95962120|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-5.95||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-5.95|-19.98|0.0003
95962121|NCT04832971|191896104|OTHER||Difference|-20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-13.29||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-13.29|-27.30|<.0001
95962122|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.29|-11.13||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.13|-24.29|<.0001
95962123|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|-7.72||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-7.72|-20.75|<.0001
95962124|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-11.79||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-11.79|-24.80|<.0001
95962125|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.53|-10.8||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-10.80|-26.53|<.0001
95962126|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.36||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.36|-23.00|0.0002
95962127|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.69|-14.12||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-14.12|-29.69|<.0001
95962128|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-8.35||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-8.35|-23.44|<.0001
95962129|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.98||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-5.46|-20.49|0.0008
95772034|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.85||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.85|-0.75|0.41
95807455|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807456|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of smoothness of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of smoothness of Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0235
95807457|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris among patients from different groups?||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Clitoris in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0021
95864358|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.06|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.06|-6.48|0.008
95953104|NCT00627523|191877433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the mean change from Baseline after 24 months in height SDS between the Genotropin® and the untreated control groups. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference between the treatment groups.||1.59|0.82|<0.001
95953105|NCT00627523|191877434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.42||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||2.42|-0.87|0.348
95953106|NCT00627523|191877435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||1.23|0.55|<0.001
95953107|NCT00627523|191877436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.85||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value as covariate was used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.85|1.63|<0.001
95953108|NCT00627523|191877437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|17.12||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||17.12|-12.27|0.738
95953109|NCT00627523|191877438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|4.26||ANCOVA model, fitting treatment as a factor, and the baseline parameter value, age, and gender as covariates were used. All hypotheses were tested at a 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the Genotropin® and the untreated control group in terms of the relevant secondary endpoints. The alternative hypothesis was that a difference existed.||4.26|-13.27|0.301
95953110|NCT05030467|191877483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31||||||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.31|-0.39|
95953111|NCT05030467|191877484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Outcomes were evaluated using generalized estimating equations with a log link and Poisson-distributed errors, adjusting for clinic-level clustering.||1.03|1.00|0.011
95772035|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.21|-3.55|0.08
95772036|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.29|-2.42|0.55
95864359|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.77||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.98|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.98|-4.51|0.201
95864360|NCT01798849|191686579|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|-2.11|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-2.11|-7.37|0.001
95953112|NCT05030467|191877487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to adjust for the cluster design with an identify link function and normally-distributed errors||0.15|-0.38|0.383
95953113|NCT00376935|191877502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-9.0||||0.1996|ONE_SIDED|98.4||14.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (20 mcg/kg) arm.||14||0.1996
95953114|NCT00376935|191877502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3135|ONE_SIDED|98.4||17.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (40 mcg/kg) arm.||17||0.3135
95953115|NCT00376935|191877502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Shift parameter|-4.0||||0.3662|ONE_SIDED|98.4||22.0||P-value reported here was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the shift parameter for each comparison adjusted the multiple comparison issues and restricted the familywise Type I error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the null hypothesis.A 98.4% confidence upper bound for the primary shift parameter was calculated.|The shift parameter (say, X), was calculated as the difference between the distribution of the primary endpoint in the placebo arm and that of in the palifermin arm. X\<0 indicates that palifermen is beneficial.|The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the change in absolute CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline to week 12 is the same in the placebo arm and palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm. The 1-sided alternative hypothesis is that the endpoint distribution is shifted higher in the palifermin (60 mcg/kg) arm.||22||0.3662
95953116|NCT03602053|191877517|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI of the ratio of GMCs between the ROTAVAC 5D® and ROTAVAC® groups was larger than 1/2 (i.e. \> 0.5), ROTAVAC 5D® would be considered non-inferior to ROTAVAC®.|GMC ratio|1.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.924|0.862|
95953117|NCT05129592|191877530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|33.3||Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective control and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|||33.30|-1.87|0.095
95953118|NCT05129592|191877530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|35.33||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective control to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||35.33|2.02|0.022
95772037|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.86||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.86|-1.47|0.38
95772038|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.28||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.28|-3.35|0.71
95772039|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||5.83|0.59|0.02
95772040|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.76||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.76|-3.85|0.98
95772041|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.95||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.95|-6.2|0.31
95807458|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Sulcus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95807459|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups?||||||0.0038|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Urethral Meatus in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0038
95864361|NCT01798849|191686580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.53||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.1|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.10|-4.97|0.042
95953119|NCT05129592|191877530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|20.15||Sidak's adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline nicotine misperception (df=4)|Comparing Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|Sidak's adjusted p-value contrasting marginal linear predictions for the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception and Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence||20.15|-12.76|0.931
96001876|NCT01845077|191981262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|103.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||103.4|95.6|
95772042|NCT04075682|191515236|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|2.97||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.97|-4.58|0.68
95772043|NCT04075682|191515237|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.81|0.45
95772044|NCT04075682|191515237|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.70|-0.64|0.5767
95772045|NCT04075682|191515238|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.36|-0.98|0.36
95772046|NCT04075682|191515238|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||0.99|-1.64|0.63
95772047|NCT04075682|191515238|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.12|-1.62|0.79
95807460|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of ischemia of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0019
95807461|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0000
95864362|NCT01798849|191686580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|-0.88|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-0.88|-5.71|0.010
95995526|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.158|0.105|<0.0001
95864363|NCT01798849|191686580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-6.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-3.89|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-3.89|-8.94|<0.0001
95995527|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1484
96001877|NCT01845077|191981262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|109.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.5|90.1|
95772048|NCT04075682|191515238|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.37|-0.84|0.4491
95772049|NCT04075682|191515238|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.06||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.06|-1.26|0.8713
95772050|NCT04075682|191515238|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.66|-1.66|0.99
95772051|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.37||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.37|0.02|0.04
95807462|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0198|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of punctuation of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy.. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0198
95807463|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of Hart's Line among patients from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of Hart's Line in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0004
95807464|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of papillae of the Vestibule among patients from different groups?||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The incidence of papillae of the Vestibule in patients classified into four groups based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection and Q-Tip), which were examined by the Three Rings Vulvoscopy. Vulvoscopic lesions in patients with vulvodynia were not relevant to the diagnosis of the vulvodynia."||||0.0053
95772052|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.11|-1.85|0.08
95772053|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.19||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.19|-0.74|0.65
95772054|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.11|-0.66|0.30
95772055|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.26|-1.68|0.78
95807465|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
95807466|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0010
95995528|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.026|0.9981
95995529|NCT01431287|191967132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.046||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.046|-0.007|0.1480
95807467|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807468|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
95807469|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
95995530|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.040|<0.0001
95772056|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.83||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.83|0.12|0.03
95807470|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0208|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0208
95995531|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.011|0.0050
95807471|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
95807472|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.004|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0040
95807473|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0012|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0012
95807474|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95995532|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.089|0.039|<0.0001
95807475|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
95807476|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
95807477|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0048|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0048
95995533|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.037|<0.0001
95995534|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.061||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.061|0.010|0.0057
95772057|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.04||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.04|-1.92|0.95
95772058|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|-2.91|0.48
95772059|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.07||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.07|-2.86|0.37
95807478|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0007
95995535|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.026||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.026|-0.025|0.9633
95772060|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.34||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.34|0.12|0.0192
95807479|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0131|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0131
95864364|NCT01798849|191686580|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|-5.25|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-5.25|-11.32|<0.0001
95864365|NCT01798849|191686581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.54||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.87|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.87|-1.80|0.638
95995536|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.088|0.038|<0.0001
95772061|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.29||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.29|-1.48|0.1860
95995537|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.054|0.004|0.0250
95772062|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.26||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.26|-0.49|0.3863
95995538|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.027||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.027|-0.023|0.8949
95995539|NCT01431287|191967133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.052||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.052|0.002|0.0351
95995540|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.105|0.055|<0.0001
95995541|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.073|0.022|0.0002
95807480|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0423|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0423
95864366|NCT01798849|191686581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.72||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.63|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||3.63|-2.20|0.616
95995542|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.101||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.101|0.051|<0.0001
95995543|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.086|0.036|<0.0001
96001878|NCT01845077|191981263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.8|109.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||109.8|84.8|
95772063|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.61||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.61|-0.89|0.5710
95772064|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.6||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.60|-2.06|0.2797
95772065|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.55||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.55|0.12|0.0312
95772066|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.39||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.39|-1.19|0.5086
95772067|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.99||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.99|-1.86|0.9474
95772068|NCT04075682|191515239|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.16||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.16|-2.36|0.5018
95772069|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.31|0.25
95864367|NCT01798849|191686581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|2.33||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.56|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||4.56|0.11|0.041
95772070|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.57|-1.63|0.34
95772071|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.92||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||0.92|-1.26|0.76
95772072|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.63|-0.42|0.15
95772073|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.66|-1.66|1.00
95772074|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.43||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.43|0.38|0.01
95995544|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.069|0.018|0.0007
95772075|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.8||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.80|-1.56|0.58
95807481|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0021|||||||t-test proportion|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia.~The diagnosis of vulvodynia was based on anamnestic data (ISSVD Questionnaire) and clinical examination (Inspection, Q-Tip) following Friedrich's criteria. Vulvoscopic lesions were not relevant to the diagnosis of vulvodynia."||||0.0021
95995545|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.029||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.029|-0.022|0.7755
95807482|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95995546|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.09||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.090|0.039|<0.0001
95995547|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.058|0.007|0.0118
95995548|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.040|-0.010|0.2416
95995549|NCT01431287|191967134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.043|-0.008|0.1792
95772076|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.47|0.39
95772077|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.35||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.35|-3.05|0.45
95807483|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95807484|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0091|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Clitoris versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0091
95807485|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0002|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0002
95807486|NCT02732145|191587258|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95807487|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0013|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hart's Line versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0013
95995550|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.074|<0.0001
95995551|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.084||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.084|0.033|<0.0001
95995552|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.107||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.107|0.057|<0.0001
95995553|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.073||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.073|0.023|0.0002
95772078|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.21||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.21|-0.13|0.1147
95772079|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.53||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||0.53|-1.41|0.3721
95772080|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.03|-0.89|0.8827
95807488|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0001|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0001
95807489|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0000
95807490|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus versus non-specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0008
95864368|NCT01798849|191686581|OTHER||Difference in LS means|9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.3|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||11.30|6.98|<0.0001
95995554|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.067||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.067|0.016|0.0014
95772081|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.87||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.87|-0.80|0.4335
95772082|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.84||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||0.84|-2.07|0.4063
95772083|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.03||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||3.03|0.35|0.0132
95772084|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.75||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||2.75|-1.08|0.3949
95772085|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.72||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.72|-2.50|0.7145
95772086|NCT04075682|191515240|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||||0.6081
95772087|NCT04075682|191515241|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.64||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.64|-1.15|0.58
95864369|NCT01798849|191686582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.65||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.52|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.52|-3.81|0.677
95995555|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.043|-0.008|0.1747
95995556|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.040|<0.0001
95772088|NCT04075682|191515241|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.57|-1.98|0.82
95772089|NCT04075682|191515241|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.24||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||4.24|-0.90|0.20
95807491|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0251|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0251
95807492|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin?||||||0.0006|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of non-specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants versus non-specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin.||||0.0006
95807493|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0211|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hart's Line in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0211
95807494|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3067|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3067
95807495|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
95807496|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0149|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0149
95807497|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0007|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0007
95807498|NCT02732145|191587258|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0295|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of specific lesions of the Clitoris versus specific lesions of the Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0295
95807499|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening between patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807500|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0071|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of coarse AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0071
95995557|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.066||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.066|0.016|0.0016
95772090|NCT04075682|191515241|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.66||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation analysis are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.66|-0.77|0.8800
95772091|NCT04075682|191515241|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.50|-1.30|0.8864
95772092|NCT04075682|191515241|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.12||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||3.12|-0.89|0.2748
95772093|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.7||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||2.70|0.45|0.83
95772094|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.18||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||7.18|1.14|0.03
95772095|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.44||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.44|0.15|0.18
95772096|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.57||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||12.57|0.08|0.99
95953120|NCT05129592|191877531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.24|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||4.24|0.56|0.402
95772097|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.||These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||2.82|0.29|0.86
95772098|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8045|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be lower in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||||0.8045
95772099|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||||0.0205
95807501|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of slow AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of slow AWR occurrence between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0010
95953121|NCT05129592|191877531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are somewhat or much less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||5.62|0.59|0.292
95953122|NCT05129592|191877531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs||1.93|0.30|0.571
95953123|NCT05129592|191877531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|8.26|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||8.26|0.47|0.349
95953124|NCT05129592|191877531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||5.81|0.53|0.355
95953125|NCT05129592|191877531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on e-cigarette relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and e-cigarette use||2.25|0.24|0.591
95953126|NCT05129592|191877532|SUPERIORITY|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.27|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|||7.27|0.13|0.980
95953127|NCT05129592|191877532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.56|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||2.56|0.09|0.382
95995558|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0081
95995559|NCT01431287|191967135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.032||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.032|-0.019|0.6110
95995560|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.111||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.111|0.059|<0.0001
95995561|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.076|0.025|0.0001
95995562|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.051|<0.0001
95995563|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.095|0.044|<0.0001
95995564|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|0.016|0.0013
95995565|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.034|-0.017|0.5274
95772100|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results from the multiple imputation model are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be lower in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||||0.1918
95860379|NCT04881942|191679396|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|195.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.01|269.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||269.38|122.01|<.0001
95995566|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.103||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.103|0.052|<0.0001
95995567|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.06||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.060|0.009|0.0083
95995568|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.018|0.5744
95772101|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be lower for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.99
95772102|NCT04075682|191515242|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083.|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for repeated measures at the individual level.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are from the multiple imputation model for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||||0.6873
95772103|NCT04075682|191515243|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Mixed Models Analysis|We estimated mixed-effects ordinal regression models that accounted for repeated measures at both the day- and individual-levels.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||0.41|-1.12|0.37
95772104|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H1 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received inserts (insert only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (pictorial warning only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the insert groups than in the no insert groups.||1.10|0.90|0.92
95807502|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of provoked erythema among patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0036
95807503|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of sharply bordered AWR between patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0032
95807504|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807505|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807506|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Inner Vulvar Ring between the patients from different groups and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807507|NCT02732145|191587259|EQUIVALENCE|"Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of Ring sign between the patients from different groups and positive AWR?"||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||"Parameter: The difference in the incidence of Ring sign, aceto-whitening of all structures of the Inner Vulvar Ring, between the patients from different groups and positive AWR."||||0.0000
95807508|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0856|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0856
95864370|NCT01798849|191686582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.92||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.24|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||2.24|-4.08|0.554
95864371|NCT01798849|191686582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.29||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|0.78|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||0.78|-5.35|0.137
95807509|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4290
95995569|NCT01431287|191967136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.053||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.053|0.001|0.0381
95995570|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.108||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.108|0.055|<0.0001
95995571|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|0.027|<0.0001
95995572|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.091||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.091|0.039|<0.0001
95995573|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.081||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.081|0.029|<0.0001
95772105|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H2 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing groups that received pictorial warnings (pictorial warning only AND insert + pictorial warnings) with the groups that did not (insert only AND control). We expected that the outcome would be higher in the pictorial warning groups than in the no pictorial warning groups.||1.11|0.90|0.95
95807510|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0124|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0124
95807511|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807512|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807513|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
95807514|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95864372|NCT01798849|191686582|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.19|||Mixed effect model|Mixed effects model for each cohort containing fixed effects for Day 1 predose and treatment and a random effect for participant.|Difference in LS means = LS mean MK-8892 minus LS mean placebo|||-1.19|-6.37|0.006
95995574|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|0.011|0.0052
95995575|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.010|0.2273
95864373|NCT00101452|191686636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95864374|NCT02975557|191686653|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The type I error was adjusted by using the alpha spending function approach with O'Brien-Fleming type boundaries.||We evaluated if the categorical type of tolerability measure is different between control (Artificial Tears) and intervention (Brimonidine, including both 0.15% high and 0.075% low doses groups).||||1
95953128|NCT05129592|191877532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.23|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs||5.23|0.13|0.846
95953129|NCT05129592|191877532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.74|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||7.74|0.13|0.990
95953130|NCT05129592|191877532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.01|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||3.01|0.09|0.458
95953131|NCT05129592|191877532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing NRT is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on NRT relative harm beliefs controlling for NRT use||4.76|0.12|0.754
95953132|NCT05129592|191877533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||4.15|0.68|0.256
95953133|NCT05129592|191877533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.32|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||2.32|0.45|0.961
95953134|NCT05129592|191877533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs||1.53|0.30|0.345
95953135|NCT05129592|191877533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.04|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||4.04|0.60|0.360
95953136|NCT05129592|191877533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||2.70|0.48|0.765
95953137|NCT05129592|191877533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing VLNC are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on VLNC relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and VLNC use||1.43|0.25|0.252
95953138|NCT05129592|191877534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||1.09|0.18|0.077
95995576|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|0.045|<0.0001
95995577|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.055||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.055|0.002|0.0330
95772106|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H3 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received inserts only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the insert only group.||1.14|0.85|0.85
95995578|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.037||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.037|-0.016|0.4327
95995579|NCT01431287|191967137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.044||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.044|-0.008|0.1764
95995580|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.007|0.0241
95772107|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the pre-specified H4 assessment (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 1), comparing the group that received inserts and pictorial warnings with the group that received pictorial warnings only. We expected that this outcome would be higher in the insert and pictorial warning group than in the pictorial warning only group.||1.13|0.84|0.75
95807515|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807516|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.5822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.5822
95807517|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Middle Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95995581|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.148||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.148|0.051|<0.0001
95995582|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.021|0.0049
95995583|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.196||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.196|0.098|<0.0001
95995584|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.162||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.162|0.064|<0.0001
95772108|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H2 assessment. We expected that the effect of pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) vs no pictorial HWLs (averaged over insert) on the outcome would be stronger for higher vs lower self-efficacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4)||1.20|0.78|0.78
95772109|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.82||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H5b assessment, which evaluates whether moderation of pictorial warnings effects would vary by whether the pictorial warnings included inserts or not. We expected that moderation effects of baseline self-efficacy would be larger for pictorial warnings only (vs control) than for pictorial warnings AND inserts (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 4).||1.82|0.94|0.11
95772110|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower education (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.80|0.93
95772111|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with higher than lower literacy (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.23|0.78|0.86
95772112|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.22||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6a assessment, which evaluates moderation of the pre-specified H1 assessment. We expected that the effect of inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) compared to no inserts (averaged over pictorial warnings) on the outcome would be stronger for those with lower than higher delayed discounting (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.22|0.81|0.94
95807518|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Outer versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807519|NCT02732145|191587259|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.4975|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Middle versus Inner Vulvar Ring in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.4975
95995585|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.063|0.5831
95995586|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.182||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.182|0.084|<0.0001
95995587|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.006||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.006|-0.092|0.0822
95995588|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|-0.028||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||-0.028|-0.126|0.0020
95995589|NCT01431287|191967138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.083||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.083|-0.015|0.1774
95995590|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|0.268||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.268|0.169|<0.0001
95995591|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.193||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.193|0.094|<0.0001
95995592|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.160|<0.0001
95995593|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.104|<0.0001
95995594|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.183||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.183|0.084|<0.0001
95995595|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.059||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.059|-0.040|0.6974
95995596|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.213||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.213|0.114|<0.0001
95995597|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.125||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.125|0.026|0.0027
95995598|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.105||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.105|0.006|0.0269
95772113|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline education would be stronger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.78|0.93|0.13
95772114|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline literacy would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.41|0.70|0.96
95772115|NCT04075682|191515244|OTHER|We conducted a two-sided test for mean (group 1) = mean (group 2) versus means not being equal.|Rate ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36||The reported p-value is not adjusted. The a priori threshold for statistical significance uses a Bonferroni-adjusted critical value of p\<0.05/6=0.0083|Negative binomial regression|We estimated negative binomial regression models, as there is a single measure for each person and so there are no repeated measures.|To evaluate the study hypothesis, a Wald test was used for the associated regression parameter.|These results are for the intended (but not correctly pre-specified) H6b assessment, which evaluated whether the moderation of insert effects would vary by whether the inserts included pictorial warnings or not. We expected that moderation by baseline delay discounting would be larger for insert only (vs control) than for inserts AND pictorial warnings (vs control) (see Statistical Analysis Plan, Model 5).||1.36|0.72|0.95
95772116|NCT00862823|191515258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was determined so there was an 80% chance that a 90% pairwise interval for 2 equivalent formulations would satifsy the FDA criteria for AUC and Cmax of log (0.8), log (1.2).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||<|0.05||90.0||||Bioequivalent measurew were log-transformed|log transformation|||||||<0.05
95772117|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.04|0.46|
95772118|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.38|0.60|
95807520|NCT02732145|191587260|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive?||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence (positive AWR) among patients from different groups, in which the AWR was positive.||||0.0003
95807521|NCT02732145|191587261|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups?||||||0.0004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence among patients with positive AWR from different groups.||||0.0004
95807522|NCT02732145|191587261|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with vulvar dermatosis and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0231
95807523|NCT02732145|191587261|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR?||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between the patients with normal vulva and impaired vulvar skin, with positive AWR.||||0.0006
95807524|NCT02732145|191587261|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Parameter: The difference in the velocity of the aceto-whitening occurrence between patients with normal vulva and vulvodynia, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807525|NCT02732145|191587262|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95995599|NCT01431287|191967139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.4343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.069||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.069|-0.030|0.4343
95772119|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.96|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||0.96|0.41|
95772120|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.71|0.98|
95772121|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.88|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.88|0.51|
95772122|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.15|0.65|
95772123|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.78|0.91|
95772124|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.33|0.68|
95772125|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.87|
95807526|NCT02732145|191587262|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807527|NCT02732145|191587262|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Perineum among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807528|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0128|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0128
95807529|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807530|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0635|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0635
95772126|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.82|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||0.82|0.46|
95772127|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.17|1.22|
95807531|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0429
95772128|NCT03423173|191515325|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between immune responses of 2 trial groups was established if the 95% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within pre-specified equivalence margins of 0.5 and 2.0.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.35|0.75|
95772129|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rates Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|6.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||6.06|-4.99|
95772130|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.19|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||3.19|-6.90|
95772131|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 120||2.69|-7.45|
95772132|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|15.3|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||15.30|0.64|
95772133|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.65|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||7.65|-4.67|
95772134|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|1.04|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-1 at Day 270||1.04|-14.00|
95772135|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.29|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||5.29|-3.87|
95772136|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||3.17|-5.24|
95772137|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|2.58|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 120||2.58|-6.05|
95772138|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|7.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||7.44|-2.12|
95807532|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0011|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0011
95807533|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0936|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0936
95807534|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Labia Majora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||1.0000
95864375|NCT02259088|191686687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value for treatment difference is derived from the two-sided stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the row means score statistics.|Estimated from ANOVA (stratified) model. Stratified analysis includes DME type (focal, diffuse, honeycomb and petaloid) and Baseline BCVA(≤ 60 letters and \> 60 letters) as factors.|||7.5|4.1|<0.001
95772139|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.24|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||5.24|-3.41|
95772140|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|3.17|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-2 at Day 270||3.17|-6.67|
95772141|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.06|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||9.06|-3.07|
95772142|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|4.44|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||4.44|-6.17|
95772143|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.03|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 120||2.03|-9.74|
95772144|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.56|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||14.56|-1.03|
95772145|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|10.23|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||10.23|-4.28|
95772146|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|4.39|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-3 at Day 270||4.39|-11.97|
95772147|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|1.55|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||1.55|-7.68|
95772148|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|5.62|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||5.62|-5.47|
95995600|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.248||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.248|0.148|<0.0001
95995601|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.197||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.197|0.096|<0.0001
95995602|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.258||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.258|0.158|<0.0001
95995603|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.242||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.242|0.143|<0.0001
95772149|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.81|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 120||7.81|-1.52|
95772150|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|5.69|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||5.69|-9.14|
95807535|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Mons Pubis versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
95807536|NCT02732145|191587262|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0429|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Majora versus Perineum in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0429
95807537|NCT02732145|191587263|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95772151|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.95|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||8.95|-6.90|
95807538|NCT02732145|191587263|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807539|NCT02732145|191587263|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807540|NCT02732145|191587263|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Posterior Commissure among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95772152|NCT03423173|191515326|OTHER||Seropositivity Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.18|||||95% CI for the differences in seropositivity rates between TDV lots were calculated using the Newcombe and Wilson method.|DENV-4 at Day 270||10.18|-4.68|
95995604|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.206||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.206|0.106|<0.0001
95995605|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.040|-0.060|0.6980
95772153|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.42|0.56|
95772154|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.28|0.51|
95995606|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.233||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.233|0.132|<0.0001
95995607|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.102||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.102|0.001|0.0442
95995608|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.065||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.065|-0.035|0.5514
95995609|NCT01431287|191967140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.086||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.086|-0.014|0.1569
95995610|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.253||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.253|0.150|<0.0001
95772155|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.16|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-1||1.16|0.46|
95772156|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.86|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.86|1.02|
95772157|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||0.87|0.48|
95772158|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-2||1.21|0.66|
95807541|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
95807542|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0318|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0318
95807543|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807544|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||1.0000
95995611|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
95772159|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.94|1.00|
95995612|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.269||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.269|0.167|<0.0001
95772160|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.21|0.64|
95772161|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.71|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-3||1.71|0.88|
95772162|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.18|0.58|
95995613|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.232||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day\^interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.232|0.130|<0.0001
95807545|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
95995614|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.25||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.250|0.148|<0.0001
95995615|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.035||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.035|-0.067|0.5373
95995616|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.216||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.216|0.114|<0.0001
95995617|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.070|-0.033|0.4763
95807546|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0389|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0389
95995618|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.088||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.088|-0.015|0.1613
95995619|NCT01431287|191967141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.4908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.033|-0.069|0.4908
95807547|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1e-05|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.00001
95807548|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95995620|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.173||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.173|0.072|<0.0001
95995621|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.012|0.0154
95995622|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.181||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.181|0.080|<0.0001
95772163|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.14|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||2.14|1.07|
95772164|NCT03423173|191515327|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.78|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including natural logarithms of titers as a response variable and trial group as a factor.|DENV-4||1.78|0.88|
95772165|NCT02411396|191515360|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.3|130.9||||||This analysis is to compare outcome measure between ED or IC visits by using time varying propensity score method developed by our group to adjust imbalance of covariates between the two arms. Each patient can have multiple visits to the facility of choice.||130.9|118.3|
95772166|NCT02411396|191515361|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.41|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||6.41|4.13|
95772167|NCT02411396|191515362|OTHER|In order to eliminate bias from the naïve estimation on the treatment effects due to the confounders, time varying propensity score model was developed. This balanced the covariates between the two arms at each single acute visit of each patient. A sub classification on the propensity scores was used to estimate the potential outcome for each arm and the average treatment effects (ATE). Bootstrapping was employed to estimate the standard error of ATE.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.72|||||VOC in patients with SCD whom went to ICs represents the numerator, VOC in patients with SCD whom went to EDs represents the denominator for Odds Ratio.|||2.72|1.84|
95772168|NCT02016105|191515369|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted response rates were estimated using a logistic regression model including treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy. The 95% CI for the rate difference was derived based on the normal approximation and standard error computed using the delta method.To conclude equivalent efficacy, the 95% CI had to be entirely within the interval \[-18%, 18%\].|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|11.15||||||||11.15|-7.46|
95807549|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807550|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0008|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0008
95807551|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95953139|NCT05129592|191877534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs|Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|2.15|0.40|0.853
95953140|NCT05129592|191877534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless tobacco relative harm beliefs||0.95|0.18|0.037
95953141|NCT05129592|191877534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.75|0.21|0.349
95953142|NCT05129592|191877534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||3.93|0.54|0.464
95962130|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-10.07||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-10.07|-25.01|<.0001
95953143|NCT05129592|191877534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on smokeless relative harm beliefs controlling for baseline beliefs and smokeless tobacco use||1.40|0.18|0.187
95953144|NCT05129592|191877535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||3.62|0.31|0.925
95953145|NCT05129592|191877535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.35|0.19|0.525
95953146|NCT05129592|191877535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.4|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Unadjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs||2.40|0.21|0.586
95953147|NCT05129592|191877535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.9|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the control condition/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective control compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||3.90|0.31|0.883
95953148|NCT05129592|191877535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with causal explanation/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with causal explanation compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.41|0.18|0.534
95953149|NCT05129592|191877535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception/odds of believing cigarillos are less harmful than cigarettes in the condition with both component of coherence|Adjusted logistic regression showing the effect of condition (Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception compared to the Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence (reference group)) on cigarillo relative harm beliefs controlling for smokeless tobacco use||2.62|0.22|0.661
95953150|NCT05129592|191877536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|13.19|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)|Nicotine corrective control - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching||13.19|-9.25|0.965
95953151|NCT05129592|191877536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|12.27|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with causal explanation - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|12.27|-9.13|0.979
95953152|NCT05129592|191877536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|14.59|||ANCOVA|Sidak's adjusted p-value (df=4)||ANCOVA adjusted for baseline consideration of switching|Nicotine corrective with reason for misperception - Nicotine corrective with both components of coherence|14.59|-6.46|0.73
95953153|NCT03512041|191877537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.172
95953154|NCT03512041|191877538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
95953155|NCT03512041|191877539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.501
95953156|NCT00125619|191877540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group comparison of Robot (Lokomat) vs. Manual (therapist-assisted) training.||||0.72
95953157|NCT00125619|191877540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
95953158|NCT00125619|191877540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group test for change pre- vs. post-training due to Manual (Therapist Assisted) training.||||>.05
95953159|NCT00125619|191877541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of Robot vs. Manual training.||||>0.05
95995623|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.134|0.033|0.0012
95953160|NCT00125619|191877541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison (pre- vs. post-treatment) due to Manual (therapist-assisted) treatment.||||>.05
95807552|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807553|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0005
95807554|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807555|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807556|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.4505|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.4505
95807557|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807558|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807559|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Interlabial Sulci in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
95807560|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
95807561|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Anterior Commissure versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807562|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0534|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Labia Minora in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0534
95807563|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Interlabial Sulci versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0000
95953161|NCT00125619|191877541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within-groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for Robot (Lokomat) training.||||<.05
95953162|NCT00125619|191877542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
95953163|NCT00125619|191877542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects for manual training.||||>.05
95953164|NCT00125619|191877542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||>.05
95953165|NCT00125619|191877543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of effects of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
95807564|NCT02732145|191587263|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0005|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Labia Minora versus Posterior Commissure in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0005
95953166|NCT00125619|191877543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within groups comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of manual training.||||>.05
95953167|NCT00125619|191877543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||<.05
95953168|NCT00125619|191877544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
95953169|NCT00125619|191877544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within groups comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
95953170|NCT00125619|191877544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison for pre- vs. post-training effects of robot training.||||>.05
95772169|NCT02016105|191515370|EQUIVALENCE|"LS means, SE and 95% CI were estimated by a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy, as fixed factors and baseline PASI score as covariate.~Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira treatment was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\]."|LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|4.84||||||||4.84|-3.15|
95772170|NCT02016105|191515371|EQUIVALENCE|LSM, SE and 95% CI were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, body weight strata, region and prior systemic therapy as fixed effects and baseline PASI score as covariate. Therapeutic equivalence in terms of the % change from baseline in PASI score was to be determined if the 95% CI for the difference between GP2017 and Humira was contained within the interval \[-15%; 15%\].|LS means difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.08||||||||5.08|-2.78|
95772171|NCT01908829|191515384|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P values for pairwise comparisons were from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.001
95772172|NCT01908829|191515385|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.52|<0.001
95772173|NCT01908829|191515385|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.18||P values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. P \< 0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.60|<0.001
95772174|NCT01908829|191515385|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group based on ANCOVA model. Means (LS means) and 95% CIs are from an ANCOVA model with sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region, and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as fixed factors and mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.46|=0.001
95772175|NCT01908829|191515386|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.06|-0.47|=0.010
95772176|NCT01908829|191515386|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.65|<0.001
95953171|NCT00125619|191877545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
95953172|NCT00125619|191877545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||>.05
95953173|NCT00125619|191877545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
95953174|NCT00125619|191877546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between groups comparison of robot vs. manual training.||||>.05
95953175|NCT00125619|191877546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-training effects of manual training.||||<.05
95953176|NCT00125619|191877546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks|||Within group comparison of pre- vs. post-treatment effects of robot training.||||<.05
95953177|NCT01533181|191877547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.1|||Kaplan-Meier|||||8.1|1.9|0.0001
95953178|NCT01533181|191877550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Kaplan-Meier|||||2.2|0.6|0.71
95953179|NCT01114217|191877552|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95962131|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.55||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|-2.77||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-2.77|-18.32|0.0081
95995624|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.020|0.0061
95995625|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.7518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.042||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.042|-0.059|0.7518
95995626|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0034
95772177|NCT01908829|191515386|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.23||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.23|-0.70|<0.001
95995627|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.11||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.110|0.009|0.0209
95772178|NCT01908829|191515386|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.67|<0.001
95772179|NCT01908829|191515387|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 4 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.79|=0.005
95807565|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807566|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807567|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807568|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Meatus among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95995628|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.004|0.0708
95995629|NCT01431287|191967142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.064||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.064|-0.038|0.6148
95772180|NCT01908829|191515387|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 8 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.86|0.66|<0.001
95772181|NCT01908829|191515387|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during Week 12 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.97|0.70|=0.021
95772182|NCT01908829|191515387|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of incontinence episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of incontinence episodes (IEs) during EoT 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week IE reduction group as factors, log of (number of IEs/valid diary days) at baseline as covariate \& log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.71|=0.014
95772183|NCT01908829|191515388|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|8.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||8.16|-0.43|<0.078
95772184|NCT01908829|191515388|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|16.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.40|5.98|<0.001
95772185|NCT01908829|191515388|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|18.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||18.12|6.65|<0.001
95807569|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807570|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95807571|NCT02732145|191587264|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Vestibule among patients from different groups, with positive AWR.||||0.0000
95953180|NCT01106586|191877559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2 groups would achieve at least 95% power to establish noninferiority in Week 48 response (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL per the FDA-defined snapshot analysis) rate difference between the 2 groups. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both treatment groups have a response rate of 0.795, a noninferiority margin of 0.12, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided, 0.025 level.|Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-1.9|7.8|||||To preserve the overall alpha level: 0.05, accounting for 2 interim analyses for Independent Data Monitoring Committee meetings, the 95.2% CI was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the Stribild group is at least 12% worse than the ATV/r + Truvada group with respect to percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group is less than 12% worse than that in the ATV/r + Truvada Group.||7.8|-1.9|
95953181|NCT01357564|191877591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.13|-1.23|.02
95953182|NCT01357564|191877592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was based on the main study hypothesis tested at 80% power for a 2-sided alternative hypothesis using a t-test comparing the treatment groups on 4-month values. Based on previous trials, we sought a medium effect size of 0.50 using a type I error rate of .05.||-0.01|-0.14|.03
95995630|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.215||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.215|0.114|<0.0001
95995631|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.020|0.0064
95995632|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.203||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.203|0.102|<0.0001
95995633|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.126||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.126|0.025|0.0035
95995634|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.109|0.008|0.0233
95995635|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.063||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.063|-0.039|0.6413
95772186|NCT01908829|191515388|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|16.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||16.99|6.06|<0.001
95772187|NCT01908829|191515389|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.16|-0.73|=0.003
95772188|NCT01908829|191515390|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
95807572|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8545|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's line in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8545
95807573|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.8569|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.8569
95995636|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.138||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.138|0.037|0.0007
95995637|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.144||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.144|0.043|0.0003
96001879|NCT01845077|191981263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|103.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|107.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||107.7|98.9|
95953183|NCT00515281|191877622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
95953184|NCT00515281|191877623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.288
95953185|NCT00515281|191877624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95772189|NCT01908829|191515390|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 8 djusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.65|<0.001
95772190|NCT01908829|191515390|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.05|-0.47|=0.004
95772191|NCT01908829|191515390|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from stratified rank ANCOVA model. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.47|=0.003
95772192|NCT01908829|191515391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 4 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.94|0.76|=0.003
95772193|NCT01908829|191515391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 8 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.86|0.63|<0.001
95807574|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
95807575|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.2478|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.2478
95807576|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
95807577|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.5943|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.5943
95807578|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.7161|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.7161
95953186|NCT00515281|191877625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
95953187|NCT00515281|191877626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95953188|NCT00515281|191877627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95953189|NCT00515281|191877628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95953190|NCT05878522|191877654|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.89|14.58||||||3- hours post-dose||14.58|8.89|
95953191|NCT05878522|191877654|OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|14.2||||||4-hours post-dose||14.20|8.50|
95953192|NCT05878522|191877654|OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.35||||||90.0|5.51|11.2||||||5-hours post-dose||11.20|5.51|
95772194|NCT01908829|191515391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during Week 12 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.99|0.69|=0.038
95772195|NCT01908829|191515391|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of UI episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of UI episodes during EoT 3-day diary between combination and solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of UI episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary as the offset variable.||0.97|0.69|=0.022
95772196|NCT01908829|191515392|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.19||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.19|-0.72|=0.001
95772197|NCT01908829|191515392|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.35|-0.93|<0.001
95772198|NCT01908829|191515392|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.22||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.22|-0.82|=0.001
95860380|NCT04881942|191679396|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|168.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.17|242.5|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||242.50|95.17|<.0001
95953193|NCT04551053|191877661|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.02||CMH test for un-equality stratified by Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/Liters \[L\] versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.02|0.65|0.2567
95953194|NCT04551053|191877662|SUPERIORITY|p-value for superiority is half of the CMH p-value.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.39||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test for un-equality stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 × 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/L inclusive)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.53|0.5349
95953195|NCT04551053|191877664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2224||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by DIPSS category (intermediate 1 versus intermediate 2 and high) and Baseline platelet count (≥100 x 10\^9/L versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/L inclusive)|Log Rank|||||||0.2224
95953196|NCT02924051|191877686|EQUIVALENCE|With an alpha level of .05 and effective (post-attrition) sample size of approximately 25 participants per county, and 3 counties per treatment group, the power of the group comparison was at least 80%, assuming an ICC of .01 or less, and an observed difference in proportions of .25. The anticipated power for the longitudinal comparison of continuous outcomes was expected to be even greater under these assumptions given the greater power for the parametric tests.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95953197|NCT02924051|191877688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of Cooking Skills/Nutrition Education/MI at baseline and 12 months.||||0.36
95953198|NCT04016415|191877689|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided tests with the null hypothesis of no difference in chg from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms. The power calculation assumed a clinically meaningful diff of 0.5% and standard deviation of 0.9%. Assuming an avg class cohort size of 18 pts and an intraclass correlation coefficient estimate of 0.08 for correlation within cohorts yielded a design effect that inflated the sample size by 1+((18-1) multiplied by 0.08)=2.36. A 15% dropout rate was assumed. 145 pts per arm yielded 80% power.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.34|-0.36|0.96
95772199|NCT01908829|191515392|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.25||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.25|-0.83|<0.001
95772200|NCT01908829|191515393|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.07|-0.46|=0.008
95772201|NCT01908829|191515393|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.13||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.13|-0.55|=0.002
95772202|NCT01908829|191515393|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.08|-0.47|=0.006
95772203|NCT01908829|191515393|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group \& geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.12|-0.51|=0.002
95772204|NCT01908829|191515394|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.87|=0.545
95772205|NCT01908829|191515394|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.95|0.70|=0.010
95772206|NCT01908829|191515394|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.94|0.67|=0.007
95807579|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
95807580|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.3301|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.3301
95995638|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.127||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.127|0.026|0.0030
95995639|NCT01431287|191967143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.068||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.068|-0.034|0.5159
95772207|NCT01908829|191515394|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of pads used.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value for number of pads used during the 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment was calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of pads used/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.92|0.66|=0.003
95772208|NCT01908829|191515395|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.08|-0.10|=0.836
95772209|NCT01908829|191515395|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.07||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.07|-0.12|=0.617
95772210|NCT01908829|191515395|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.02||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.02|-0.17|=0.134
95772211|NCT01908829|191515395|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EOT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.03|-0.16|=0.174
95772212|NCT01908829|191515396|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 4 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.08|0.93|=0.993
95772213|NCT01908829|191515396|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 8 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.07|0.90|=0.736
95953199|NCT04016415|191877690|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.25||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.25|-0.38|0.68
95953200|NCT04016415|191877691|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.21||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.21|-0.09|0.41
95995640|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.261||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.261|0.159|<0.0001
96001880|NCT01845077|191981263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance criterion for bioequivalence: 90% confidence interval is completely within the bounds of 80-125%. No formal hypothesis test was conducted as study is exploratory.|Ratio of geometric means|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.5|125.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale, adjusted for subjects within sequences as random effect and sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.||||125.4|92.5|
95995641|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.141||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.141|0.038|0.0006
95995642|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.234||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.234|0.132|<0.0001
95772214|NCT01908829|191515396|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||Week 12 rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.02|0.85|=0.121
95772215|NCT01908829|191515396|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with lowest rate of nocturia episodes.|Mixed Effects Poisson|||EoT rate ratio, 95% CIs, \& p-value for number of nocturia episodes during 3-day diary between combination \& solifenacin treatment calculated from a Mixed Effects Poisson (negative binomial) regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region \& 4-week incontinence episode reduction group as factors, log of (number of nocturia episodes/number of valid diary days) at baseline as covariate and log of number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||1.03|0.86|=0.172
95772216|NCT01908829|191515402|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-1.10|-4.68|=0.002
95995643|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.119||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.119|0.017|0.0094
95995644|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.011|0.0174
95995645|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.2888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.079||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.079|-0.023|0.2888
95995646|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.146||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.146|0.044|0.0003
95995647|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.172||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.172|0.070|<0.0001
95995648|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.166||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.166|0.064|<0.0001
95995649|NCT01431287|191967144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.057|-0.045|0.8241
95995650|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.208||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.208|0.108|<0.0001
96001881|NCT01004107|191981264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95807581|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1627|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1627
95807582|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.4742|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.4742
95807583|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
95807584|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.1822
95807585|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.0927|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0927
95807586|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR?||||||0.036|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvar dermatosis and positive AWR.||||0.0360
95807587|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
95807588|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||1.0000
95807589|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
95807590|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
95807591|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.5987|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.5987
95772217|NCT01908829|191515402|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-2.60|-6.40|<0.001
95807592|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4164|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4164
95772218|NCT01908829|191515402|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-3.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.62|-7.56|<0.001
95772219|NCT01908829|191515402|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-3.04||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-3.04|-6.88|<0.001
95807593|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.072|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0720
96001882|NCT01004107|191981265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
96001883|NCT01004107|191981266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95772220|NCT01908829|191515403|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.55||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.55|0.29|=0.021
95772221|NCT01908829|191515403|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.06|0.56|=0.010
95772222|NCT01908829|191515403|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.33||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.33|1.65|<0.001
95772223|NCT01908829|191515403|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.95||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.95|1.35|=0.001
95807594|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0148|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0148
95953201|NCT04016415|191877692|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.12||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||0.12|-0.22|0.59
95953202|NCT04016415|191877693|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 2MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.06||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 2MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||3.06|0.07|0.04
95953203|NCT04016415|191877694|SUPERIORITY|All hypothesis tests are two-sided (any difference), with the null hypothesis of no difference in change from Baseline to 6MO between the two arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.4||A priori significance level = 0.05; two-sided. Analyses were based upon pre-specified hypotheses, and therefore corrections for multiple testing were not made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear; Fixed: arm+visit\[base,2MO,6MO\]+insulin at base+(armXvisit interact); Random: subjects, cohort(arm); Residual: longitudinal repeated measures|Change = 6MO - Baseline; Difference = SME - MBSR; Contrasts were constructed from the linear mixed model to estimate the changes.|||2.40|-0.74|0.30
95953204|NCT00936065|191877695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0672
95953205|NCT00936065|191877696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 2||||1.0000
95953206|NCT00936065|191877696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 4||||0.0229
95953207|NCT00936065|191877696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 8||||0.0256
95953208|NCT00936065|191877696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 12||||0.0004
95953209|NCT00936065|191877696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 18||||0.0105
95953210|NCT00936065|191877696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference Week 24||||0.0366
95953211|NCT00936065|191877697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||1.0000
95953212|NCT00936065|191877697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3230
95953213|NCT00936065|191877697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||1.0000
96001884|NCT01004107|191981267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95953214|NCT00936065|191877697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||1.0000
95953215|NCT00936065|191877698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3103
96001885|NCT01004107|191981270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95772224|NCT01908829|191515404|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.78||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.78|1.02|=0.003
95864376|NCT03060551|191686712|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.256||||||p value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
95953216|NCT00936065|191877698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4763
95953217|NCT00936065|191877698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1961
95953218|NCT00936065|191877698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0272
95953219|NCT00936065|191877698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.5038
95953220|NCT00936065|191877698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0374
95953221|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.6061
95953222|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2971
95953223|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1119
95953224|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1081
95953225|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0063
95953226|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0055
96001886|NCT01004107|191981271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95953227|NCT00936065|191877699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0031
95953228|NCT00936065|191877700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0033
95953229|NCT00936065|191877701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0448
95953230|NCT00936065|191877702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.0041
95953231|NCT00936065|191877703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Overall treatment difference||||0.3536
95953232|NCT00936065|191877704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0203
95953233|NCT00936065|191877704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0102
95953234|NCT00936065|191877704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0056
95953235|NCT00936065|191877704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0006
95953236|NCT00936065|191877704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0066
95953237|NCT00936065|191877704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0058
95953238|NCT00936065|191877705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0329
95953239|NCT00936065|191877705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0003
95953240|NCT00936065|191877705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0598
95953241|NCT00936065|191877705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0241
95953242|NCT00936065|191877705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0543
95953243|NCT00936065|191877705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1205
95953244|NCT00936065|191877706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1385
95953245|NCT00936065|191877706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0019
95953246|NCT00936065|191877706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0442
95953247|NCT00936065|191877706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0034
95953248|NCT00936065|191877706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0454
95953249|NCT00936065|191877706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0539
95953250|NCT00936065|191877707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1723
95953251|NCT00936065|191877707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0292
95953252|NCT00936065|191877707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0908
95953253|NCT00936065|191877707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5678
95953254|NCT00936065|191877707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4820
95953255|NCT00936065|191877707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0394
95953256|NCT00936065|191877708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1079
96001887|NCT02613572|191981283|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001888|NCT02613572|191981284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95772225|NCT01908829|191515404|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.4||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.40|1.29|=0.001
95772226|NCT01908829|191515404|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.87|2.55|<0.001
95772227|NCT01908829|191515404|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.39||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||6.39|2.20|<0.001
95772228|NCT01908829|191515405|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.83||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.83|0.05|=0.044
95772229|NCT01908829|191515405|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.46||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.46|0.55|=0.012
95772230|NCT01908829|191515405|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|5.67||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.67|1.54|=0.001
95772231|NCT01908829|191515405|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.29||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||5.29|1.27|=0.001
95807595|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0085|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0085
95807596|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.1918|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.1918
95953257|NCT00936065|191877708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0004
95953258|NCT00936065|191877708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0146
95953259|NCT00936065|191877708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0019
95953260|NCT00936065|191877708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0062
95953261|NCT00936065|191877708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0197
95953262|NCT00936065|191877709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1229
95995651|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.122||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.122|0.022|0.0048
95995652|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.2||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.200|0.101|<0.0001
95995653|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.152||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.152|0.053|<0.0001
95995654|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.113||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.113|0.014|0.0116
95995655|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.7577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.058||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.058|-0.042|0.7577
95995656|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.16||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.160|0.061|<0.0001
95995657|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.136||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.136|0.037|0.0007
95772232|NCT01908829|191515406|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|=|0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.43||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.43|-1.35|=0.575
95772233|NCT01908829|191515406|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.58|-0.36|=0.109
95807597|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3037|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's line versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3037
95807598|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.4833|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.4833
95995658|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.097||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.097|-0.002|0.0621
95995659|NCT01431287|191967145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.089||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.089|-0.011|0.1266
95995660|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.209||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.209|0.104|<0.0001
96001889|NCT02613572|191981285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95772234|NCT01908829|191515406|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.32||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.32|0.20|=0.032
95772235|NCT01908829|191515406|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|=|0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.87||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.87|-0.15|=0.069
95772236|NCT01908829|191515407|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.36||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||3.36|0.10|=0.037
95772237|NCT01908829|191515407|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||2.76|-0.57|=0.199
95772238|NCT01908829|191515407|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.31||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.31|0.92|=0.003
95772239|NCT01908829|191515407|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.15||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as 95% CIs \& p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors \& baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||4.15|0.81|=0.004
95772240|NCT01908829|191515408|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|<0.001
95807599|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.3594|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.3594
95807600|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.0877|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.0877
95807601|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR?||||||0.7726|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with vulvodynia and positive AWR.||||0.7726
95953263|NCT00936065|191877709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0136
95953264|NCT00936065|191877709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1578
95953265|NCT00936065|191877709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0565
95953266|NCT00936065|191877709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0685
95953267|NCT00936065|191877709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0493
95995661|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.139||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.139|0.034|0.0013
95995662|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.223|0.118|<0.0001
95995663|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.154||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.154|0.049|0.0001
95772241|NCT01908829|191515408|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.5|0.0|=0.019
95772242|NCT01908829|191515408|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.7|0.3|<0.001
95772243|NCT01908829|191515408|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Differences of adjusted means were calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||0.6|0.2|=0.001
95772244|NCT01908829|191515409|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
95772245|NCT01908829|191515409|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
95772246|NCT01908829|191515409|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
95772247|NCT01908829|191515409|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||P-values for pairwise comparisons were from the ANCOVA model described above. p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with the largest improvement.|ANCOVA|||EoT adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs and p-value were generated from ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence reduction group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate. Difference of adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting adjusted mean of solifenacin monotherapy groups from adjusted mean of combination group.||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
95995664|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.153||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.153|0.048|0.0002
96001890|NCT02613572|191981286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
96001891|NCT02613572|191981287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
96001892|NCT02613572|191981288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
96001893|NCT00394914|191981289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.973
95772248|NCT01908829|191515411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.19|<0.001
95772249|NCT01908829|191515411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.25|<0.001
95772250|NCT01908829|191515411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.95||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|1.21|=0.001
95772251|NCT01908829|191515411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.90|1.20|<0.001
95772252|NCT01908829|191515412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.63|0.95|=0.119
95772253|NCT01908829|191515412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.98||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.98|1.23|<0.001
95807602|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0191|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0191
95807603|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
95807604|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.6374|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.6374
95953268|NCT00936065|191877710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3112
95953269|NCT00936065|191877710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0196
95953270|NCT00936065|191877710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0109
95953271|NCT00936065|191877710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0035
95953272|NCT00936065|191877710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0603
95953273|NCT00936065|191877710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2184
95953274|NCT00936065|191877711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1774
95953275|NCT00936065|191877711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1195
95953276|NCT00936065|191877711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0606
95953277|NCT00936065|191877711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0030
95953278|NCT00936065|191877711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1567
95953279|NCT00936065|191877711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.2094
95953280|NCT00936065|191877712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0302
95953281|NCT00936065|191877712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0980
95953282|NCT00936065|191877712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0711
95953283|NCT00936065|191877712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0077
95953284|NCT00936065|191877712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1553
95953285|NCT00936065|191877712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
95953286|NCT00936065|191877713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0060
95953287|NCT00936065|191877713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0058
95953288|NCT00936065|191877713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0127
95807605|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.7512|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.7512
95772254|NCT01908829|191515412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.002
95772255|NCT01908829|191515412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.17|=0.001
95772256|NCT01908829|191515413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.5||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.50|0.88|=0.305
95772257|NCT01908829|191515413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.06|=0.014
95807606|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2734|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2734
95807607|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0287|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0287
95807608|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
95807609|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0602|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0602
95807610|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0079|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0079
95807611|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2081|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2081
95807612|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.8732|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.8732
95953289|NCT00936065|191877713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0068
95953290|NCT00936065|191877713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0096
95953291|NCT00936065|191877713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0132
95953292|NCT00936065|191877714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.6904
95953293|NCT00936065|191877714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.7021
95953294|NCT00936065|191877714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2199
95953295|NCT00936065|191877714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5071
95953296|NCT00936065|191877714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4765
95953297|NCT00936065|191877714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.8662
95953298|NCT00936065|191877715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1144
95953299|NCT00936065|191877715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4509
95953300|NCT00936065|191877715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4350
95953301|NCT00936065|191877715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6085|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6085
95953302|NCT00936065|191877715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2582
95953303|NCT00936065|191877715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.5490
95772258|NCT01908829|191515413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.76||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.76|1.07|=0.012
95772259|NCT01908829|191515413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.64|1.02|=0.036
95772260|NCT01908829|191515414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.88||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.88|1.18|=0.001
95772261|NCT01908829|191515414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.18|1.31|<0.001
95772262|NCT01908829|191515414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.61||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.61|1.47|<0.001
95772263|NCT01908829|191515414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
95772264|NCT01908829|191515415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.82||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.82|1.14|=0.003
95772265|NCT01908829|191515415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.93||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.93|1.18|=0.001
95772266|NCT01908829|191515415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.13||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.13|1.27|<0.001
95807613|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0852|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0852
95807614|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
95807615|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.0125|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.0125
95807616|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR?||||||0.2714|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with impaired vulvar skin and positive AWR.||||0.2714
95807617|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hart's Line in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
96001894|NCT00394914|191981290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.425
95953304|NCT00936065|191877716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3287
95953305|NCT00936065|191877716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4149
95953306|NCT00936065|191877716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.3837
95953307|NCT00936065|191877716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6777|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.6777
95953308|NCT00936065|191877716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.4976
95953309|NCT00936065|191877716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.4189
95807618|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0772|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0772
95807619|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
95807620|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.5762|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.5762
95807621|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||1|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||1.0000
95807622|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of the Clitoris versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
95772267|NCT01908829|191515415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.91||p\<0.05 indicates superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.91|1.17|=0.001
95772268|NCT01908829|191515416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.79||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.13|=0.003
95807623|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.6862|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Sulcus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.6862
95772269|NCT01908829|191515416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.12|=0.004
95807624|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
95807625|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0563|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0563
95807626|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1692|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Bartholin's Gland Opening in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1692
95953310|NCT00936065|191877717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4760
95953311|NCT00936065|191877717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.4040
95953312|NCT00936065|191877717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4753
95953313|NCT00936065|191877717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.5084
95953314|NCT00936065|191877717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2293
95953315|NCT00936065|191877717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3822
95953316|NCT00936065|191877718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.2691
95953317|NCT00936065|191877718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0142
95953318|NCT00936065|191877718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0383
95953319|NCT00936065|191877718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0026
95953320|NCT00936065|191877718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0475
95953321|NCT00936065|191877718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0205
95953322|NCT00936065|191877719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0512
95953323|NCT00936065|191877719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0024
95953324|NCT00936065|191877719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0946
95772270|NCT01908829|191515416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.96||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.96|1.15|=0.003
95953325|NCT00936065|191877719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0935
95953326|NCT00936065|191877719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2073
95953327|NCT00936065|191877719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
95953328|NCT00936065|191877720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0202
95953329|NCT00936065|191877720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0090
95953330|NCT00936065|191877720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0742
95953331|NCT00936065|191877720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0445
95953332|NCT00936065|191877720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.2211
95953333|NCT00936065|191877720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1982
95953334|NCT00936065|191877721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0409
95953335|NCT00936065|191877721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1450
95953336|NCT00936065|191877721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2010
95953337|NCT00936065|191877721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0424
95953338|NCT00936065|191877721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0090
95953339|NCT00936065|191877721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0116
95953340|NCT00936065|191877722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3355
95953341|NCT00936065|191877722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0341
95953342|NCT00936065|191877722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0899
95953343|NCT00936065|191877722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0062
95953344|NCT00936065|191877722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1241
95953345|NCT00936065|191877722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0393
95953346|NCT00936065|191877723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.3402
95953347|NCT00936065|191877723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1184
95953348|NCT00936065|191877723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0104
95953349|NCT00936065|191877723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0010
95953350|NCT00936065|191877723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0250
95953351|NCT00936065|191877723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0410
95953352|NCT00936065|191877724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0894
95953353|NCT00936065|191877724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0084
95953354|NCT00936065|191877724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.0727
95953355|NCT00936065|191877724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0337
95953356|NCT00936065|191877724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1380
95953357|NCT00936065|191877724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.3415
95953358|NCT00936065|191877725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.4407
95953359|NCT00936065|191877725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.1768
95953360|NCT00936065|191877725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4636|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.4636
95953361|NCT00936065|191877725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.3340
95953362|NCT00936065|191877725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1785|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1785
95953363|NCT00936065|191877725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.7428
95953364|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.5377
95953365|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.1419
95953366|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.5391
95953367|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.2589
95953368|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0635
95772271|NCT01908829|191515416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84||p\<0.05 indicated superiority in favor of treatment group with highest response.|Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.84|1.11|=0.006
95772272|NCT01908829|191515417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|0.99|=0.065
95772273|NCT01908829|191515417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.79|1.11|=0.004
95772274|NCT01908829|191515417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||2.07|1.30|<0.001
95772275|NCT01908829|191515417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||EoT odds ratios, 95% Two sided CIs for Odds ratios and p-values were from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), 4-week incontinence episode reduction group, geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.||1.94|1.24|<0.001
95772276|NCT00943150|191515427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95772277|NCT00943150|191515428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 0 weeks||||0.33
95772278|NCT00943150|191515428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 3 weeks||||0.02
95807627|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.1822|||||||t|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hart's Line versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.1822
95807628|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Urethral Meatus in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
95807629|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Urethral Sulcus versus Hymenal Remnants in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
95807630|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.022|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Hymenal Remnants versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0220
95953369|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.1172
95772279|NCT00943150|191515428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD3+ at 6 weeks||||0.71
95772280|NCT00943150|191515428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 0 weeks||||0.67
95772281|NCT00943150|191515428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 3 weeks||||0.01
95772282|NCT00943150|191515428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CD68+ at 6 weeks||||0.48
95772283|NCT00943150|191515429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1128||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1128
95772284|NCT00943150|191515430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0898
95772285|NCT00943150|191515431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Intraoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.0760
95772286|NCT00943150|191515431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||Postoperative narcotic use comparison||||0.5900
95772287|NCT00943150|191515432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4589||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4589
95772288|NCT00943150|191515433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.999
95772289|NCT00943150|191515434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412||95.0|||||Exact Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0412
95807631|NCT02732145|191587264|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR?||||||0.0078|||||||t-test proportion|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of aceto-whitening of Bartholin's Gland Opening versus Vestibule in patients with normal vulva and positive AWR.||||0.0078
95807632|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperkeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807633|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of parakeratosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95953370|NCT00936065|191877726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.1247
95953371|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9429|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Baseline||||0.9429
95953372|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 2||||0.0927
95953373|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 4||||0.0151
95953374|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 8||||0.1124
95772290|NCT04791319|191515435|SUPERIORITY||MH weights|7.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|26.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||||26.2|-12.1|0.489
95772291|NCT04791319|191515435|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|7.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|23.7|||Chi-squared|||||23.7|-9.4|0.448
95772292|NCT04791319|191515435|SUPERIORITY||MH Weights|42.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|61.1|||Chi-squared|||||61.1|22.9|0.001
95772293|NCT01704651|191515500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95772294|NCT01704651|191515501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95772295|NCT03660189|191515508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95772296|NCT03660189|191515508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95772297|NCT03660189|191515510|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95772298|NCT03660189|191515513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
95772299|NCT03660189|191515514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95772300|NCT03660189|191515518|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95772301|NCT03660189|191515519|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95953375|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 12||||0.0242
95772302|NCT04513080|191515521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
95772303|NCT04513080|191515521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
95772304|NCT04513080|191515522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
95772305|NCT04513080|191515522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
95772306|NCT04513080|191515522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
95772307|NCT04513080|191515522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
95772308|NCT04513080|191515522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from baseline to week 6||||
95772309|NCT04513080|191515522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference comparing difference in average scores from week 6 to week 12||||
95772310|NCT00828568|191515544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence limit around the difference in proportion of patients considered a Treatment Success between test and reference products was calculated using Blackwelder's method with Yate's continuity correction. If the 90% confidence interval for the test to reference ratio for the primary endpoint was within -0.20 to +0.20, then the test product would have been declared therapeutically equivalent to the reference product.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.85||||||90.0|-5.37|15.08||||||||15.08|-5.37|
95772311|NCT00828568|191515546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95772312|NCT00828568|191515546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
95772313|NCT01554527|191515601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.07
95772314|NCT01554527|191515602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.34
95772315|NCT01554527|191515603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.93
95772316|NCT01554527|191515604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.5
95772317|NCT01554527|191515605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intent to treat for controls vs. treatment (adherent/non-adherent)||||0.25
95772318|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.0328|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Age||||0.0328
95772319|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.7128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sex||||0.7128
95772320|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Body mass index||||0.0465
95772321|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||Duration of illness||||0.8872
95772322|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.0388|||||||Fisher Exact|||Smoking history||||0.0388
95772323|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.4855|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications||||0.4855
95772324|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Liver disorder||||0.6630
95772325|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Renal disorder||||0.2067
95772326|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.8749|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Cardiovascular disorder||||0.8749
95772327|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Blood disorder||||0.4820
95772328|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.6355|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Respiratory disorder||||0.6355
95772329|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.8193|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Diabetes mellitus||||0.8193
95772330|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.5723|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Uveitis||||0.5723
95772331|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Inflammatory bowel disease||||1.0000
95772332|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complications - Psoriasis||||1.0000
95772333|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Fisher Exact|||Past Illnesses||||0.0144
95772334|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Allergy history||||1.0000
95772335|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.3928|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adalimumab self-injection status||||0.3928
95772336|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.2735|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - NSAIDs||||0.2735
95772337|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.8875|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Biological products||||0.8875
95772338|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Fisher Exact|||Prior medications - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.2540
95772339|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs||||0.0226
95772340|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drug: NSAIDs||||1.0000
95772341|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.2481|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - DMARDs||||0.2481
95772342|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.1558|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Methotrexate||||0.1558
95772343|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - salazosulfapyridine||||1.0000
95772344|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant drugs - Adrenal corticosteroids||||0.0094
95772345|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Concomitant therapy||||1.0000
95772346|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||0.8836|||||||Fisher Exact|||Human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) test result||||0.8836
95772347|NCT01329380|191515623|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||BASDAI at start of treatment||||1.0000
95772348|NCT02162719|191515649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.6||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.91||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.40|0.0372
95772349|NCT02162719|191515650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.59||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.16||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with or without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.30|0.1753
95772350|NCT02162719|191515651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|0.76||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.46|0.3636
95772351|NCT02162719|191515652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.8||||0.3607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.50|0.3607
95772352|NCT02162719|191515653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Stratified Analysis)|0.73||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.65||Stratification variables were adjuvant/neoadjuvant treatment including treatment with/without radiation, disease-free interval from last dose (\<=12 vs \>12 months vs. no prior chemotherapy), PTEN status of tumor (H-score 0, vs. 1 to 150, vs. \>150).|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.32|0.4422
95807634|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of acanthosis in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95953376|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 18||||0.0237
95953377|NCT00936065|191877727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall treatment difference at Week 24||||0.0176
95772353|NCT02162719|191515654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Unstratified Analysis)|1.13||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.52|0.7599
95772354|NCT03854370|191515712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub.||||0.23
95772355|NCT03854370|191515712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.31
95772356|NCT03854370|191515712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.35
95772357|NCT03854370|191515712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.61
95772358|NCT03854370|191515713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||.59
95772359|NCT03854370|191515713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.05
95953378|NCT01885559|191877762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, baseline estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) and clinical site|ACE+ARB (Lisinopril-telmisartan) compared to ACE+placebo (Lisinopril-placebo)|||1.42|0.82|0.58
95772360|NCT03854370|191515713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine post surgical scrub||||.13
95772361|NCT03854370|191515713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
95772362|NCT03854370|191515714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of all four groups prior to surgical scrub||||0.45
95772363|NCT03854370|191515714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||all groups were negative for cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine post surgical scrub||||0.99
95772364|NCT03854370|191515714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
95772365|NCT03854370|191515714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post surgical scrub||||0.99
95772366|NCT03854370|191515715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.61
95772367|NCT03854370|191515715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
95772368|NCT03854370|191515715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
95772369|NCT03854370|191515716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.32
95772370|NCT03854370|191515716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
95953379|NCT01885559|191877763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||shared parameter model|shared parameter models used due to informative censoring that occurred when patients did not have secondary outcomes measured after reaching endpoint||||2.8|-3.2|0.88
95772371|NCT03854370|191515716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.50
95772372|NCT03854370|191515717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of baby shampoo versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
95772373|NCT03854370|191515717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||comparison of chlorhexidine versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
95807635|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of epidermal atrophy in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95995665|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.039||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.039|-0.066|0.6093
96001895|NCT02342561|191981299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At end of surgery||||0.601
96001896|NCT02342561|191981299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After skin disinfection||||0.823
95772374|NCT03854370|191515717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||All groups had negative cultures|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of chloroxynel versus iodine at post procedure||||0.99
95772375|NCT03692325|191515725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95772376|NCT02347774|191515743|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.0736|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0346|0.1127|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1127|0.0346|0.0002
95772377|NCT02347774|191515743|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02006||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0416|0.1204|||Least Mean Squared (SE)||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1204|0.0416|0.0001
95772378|NCT02347774|191515744|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0417|0.1224||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|I||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1224|0.0417|<0.0001
95772379|NCT02347774|191515744|SUPERIORITY||Least Mean Squared (SE)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02069||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0433|0.1246||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least Mean Squared (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures model including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1246|0.0433|0.0001
95772380|NCT01222520|191515778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|9.14|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.09|11.18|||ANCOVA|||||11.18|7.09|<0.0001
95772381|NCT01222520|191515779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|14.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|11.82|17.94|||ANCOVA|||||17.94|11.82|<0.0001
95772382|NCT01222520|191515780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95772383|NCT01222520|191515781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95772384|NCT01222520|191515782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95772385|NCT01222520|191515783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95772386|NCT01222520|191515784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95772387|NCT06175026|191515789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.37||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health messages would not elicit different levels of perceived message effectiveness compared to the neutral messages.||1.37|1.13|<0.001
95772388|NCT06175026|191515789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.26||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.26|1.03|<.001
95772389|NCT06175026|191515789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.41||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the health and environment messages would not elicit different perceived message effectiveness than the control messages.||1.41|1.17|<0.001
95772390|NCT06175026|191515789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.223||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.223|-0.018|.1892
96001897|NCT02342561|191981300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in prevalence of CoNs between the 2 groups was analysed. The null-hypothesis was no difference.||||0.731
96001898|NCT02179398|191981334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
96001899|NCT02179398|191981335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||1
96001900|NCT02179398|191981336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Power calculation suggested 97 patients should be enrolled in each group to give 80% power at the 5% level of significance to detect a 20% difference in antibiotic prescription rate||||0.810
96001901|NCT02975349|191981383|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.45||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative Binomial model|||||2.91|0.72|0.2947
96001902|NCT02975349|191981383|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.3||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.63|0.14|0.0015
95772391|NCT06175026|191515789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.08|-.17|.47
95772392|NCT06175026|191515789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||This p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (considering 3 tests among intervention arms) using the Bonferroni Holm method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.03|-.27|.051
95772393|NCT02307279|191515795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight|Difference in adjusted mean taken for comparability between the two groups (treatment - placebo)|Simple Superiority, H0: μ (Placebo) -μ (Gelesis100) = 0||-0.90|-3.24|0.0007
95772394|NCT02307279|191515795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for stratification factors, and baseline weight||Super-Superiority (\>3% difference), H0: μ(Placebo)-μ(Gelesis100) \< 3%||||0.1193
95772395|NCT02307279|191515796|SUPERIORITY|The performance goal for body weight responders was set at 35%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion Test|||H0: π (Gelesis100)\< 0.35||||<0.0001
95772396|NCT02307279|191515796|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for stratification factors and baseline weight||"OR-trt refers to the odds ratio of being a body weight responder for Gelesis100 vs. Placebo.~H0: OR-trt= 1."||3.01|1.34|0.0008
95807636|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807637|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95953380|NCT01885559|191877764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7||controlling for age, sex, race, and clinical site|Mixed Models Analysis||ACE-I+ARB annual percent change minus ACE-I + placebo annual percent change|||0.7|-3.9|0.17
95772397|NCT01062113|191515834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|56.1||The difference in the efficacy rates was tested using normal distribution at a significance level of 2-sided 5%. 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the efficacy rates was calculated using normal approximation.|asymptotic z-test|||||56.1|20.3|<0.0001
95772398|NCT01062113|191515836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95772399|NCT01062113|191515837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95772400|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||||0.93|0.67|
95772401|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
95772402|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
95772403|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
95772404|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||||0.93|0.59|
95953381|NCT01885559|191877765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and recurrent events|Hazard ratio compares ACE-I + ARB compared to ACE-I + placebo|||1.32|0.80|0.85
95772405|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72||||||||0.72|0.52|
95772406|NCT02477826|191515843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89||||||||0.89|0.49|
95772407|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91||||||||0.91|0.67|
95953382|NCT01885559|191877766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Regression, Cox|adjusting for age, sex, race, and clinical site and accounting for recurrent events|Hazard ratio is comparing ACE-I + ARB to ACE-I + placebo|||1.6|0.42|0.57
95953383|NCT01885559|191877767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to informed censoring when patients who reached the primary endpoint were no longer assessed on the measure.||||0.16|-0.23|0.75
95953384|NCT01885559|191877768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||shared parameter model|Shared parameter models were used due to the informative censoring when patients who reached endpoint were not longer assessed on this measure.||||0.16|-0.26|0.66
95953385|NCT01885559|191877769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models are used with a logit link. Model controlled for baseline age, sex, race, and clinical site.|"Odds ratio represents the multiplicative effect of ACE-I + ARB group compared to the ACE-I + placebo group in change in pain over time.~ACE-I + ARB OR per month was 1.01 (1.00, 1.01) and ACE-I + placebo OR was 1.01 (1.01, 1.01)."|||1.01|0.99|0.64
95953386|NCT01755598|191877808|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|49.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.1|71.2|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 1, as compared to placebo.||71.2|12.1|0.0430
95807638|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0105|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes (infiltrates) in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0105
95772408|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05||||||||1.05|0.78|
95772409|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||||||||1.01|0.74|
95772410|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79||||||||0.79|0.51|
95772411|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||||0.96|0.63|
95772412|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87||||||||0.87|0.64|
95772413|NCT02477826|191515844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14||||||||1.14|0.64|
95807639|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0064|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mastocytes in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0064
95807640|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95995666|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.14||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.140|0.035|0.0011
95772414|NCT01342523|191515849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving CIS vs No CIS. We hypothesized that CIS would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No CIS.||1.17|0.88|.825
95772415|NCT01342523|191515849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving NRT vs No NRT. We hypothesized that NRT would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No NRT.||1.36|1.02|.028
95772416|NCT01342523|191515849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving Email Messaging vs No Email Messaging. We hypothesized that Email Messaging would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to No Email Messaging.||1.13|0.85|.755
95772417|NCT01342523|191515849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full SmokeFree.gov Website vs the Lite SmokeFree.gov Website . We hypothesized that the Full SmokeFree.gov Website would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the LiteSmokeFree.gov Website .||1.33|0.996|.057
95772418|NCT01342523|191515849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.555||95.0|0.83|1.11||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included all 5 treatment main effects and the 10 two-way interactions as well as gender, race, and age as covariates.||Null hypothesis: No difference in 3-month abstinence rates for participants receiving the Full Cessation Booklet vs the Brief Cessation Booklet We hypothesized that the Full Cessation Booklet would result in significantly higher abstinence rates compared to the Brief Cessation Booklet.||1.11|0.83|.555
95772419|NCT00403481|191515857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95772420|NCT00403481|191515858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 for both daytime and nighttime. No multiplicity adjustments.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95772421|NCT00403481|191515859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95772422|NCT00403481|191515860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||0.0001
95772423|NCT00403481|191515862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95772424|NCT00403481|191515863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both the daytime and nighttime analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95772425|NCT00403481|191515864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95772426|NCT00403481|191515865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||\<0.0001 applies to both 4 hour and 6 hour analyses|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95807641|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807642|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0342|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyperpigmentation in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0342
96001903|NCT02975349|191981383|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.44||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||Negative Binomial model|||||0.93|0.21|0.0313
96001904|NCT02975349|191981384|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|1.66||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||4.09|0.67|0.2692
95807643|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0.0148|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of elongated dermal papillae in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0148
95807644|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95807645|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95772427|NCT02477332|191515882|SUPERIORITY||Estimated target dose|32.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.5|42.5|||Regression, Logistic|Target dose was based on this estimated dose response. The 60% CI included the 20 - 80th percentile of target dose estimated in the bootstrap samples.|Min dose with effect size \>15%|||42.5|27.5|<.05
95772428|NCT03291431|191515934|OTHER|Chi-Square comparison of frequencies|Pearson Chi-Square|0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95772429|NCT03291431|191515935|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|Linear mixed modeling||||0.68
95772430|NCT03291431|191515936|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||p-value \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95772431|NCT03291431|191515937|OTHER|Linear mixed modeling|Slope|-1.99||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Rate of change compared between groups using linear mixed modeling.|||||0.70
95772432|NCT03291431|191515938|OTHER||Slope|0.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed modeling||||0.11
95772433|NCT03634033|191515973|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on adoption and sustainability using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|29.05||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|16 degrees of freedom for the t-test comparing two independent groups, n=9 each.||Given 18 sites (9 in each arm) available in Michigan, in the comparison of site-level outcome of adoption and sustainability, the detectable effect size with power of 0.80 in two-sided tests at .05 level of significance was d=1.41.||29.05|-7.27|0.22
95807646|NCT02732145|191587265|EQUIVALENCE|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens of patients from different groups.||||0.0000
95772434|NCT03634033|191515974|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ADLs at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering via a random effect of site.|IF minus IF+EF|Adjusted means at month 9 were calculated adjusting for baseline value of the outcome and nesting of participants within sites.||0.73|-0.16|0.73
95772435|NCT03634033|191515975|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries IADLs using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.72||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|Post-intervention means were compared adjusting for baseline values and nesting of participants within sites.||0.72|-0.11|0.15
95772436|NCT03634033|191515976|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries pain at exit using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance was.05; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|F-test was used built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.|IF minus IF+EF|||0.39|-0.23|0.61
95772437|NCT03634033|191515977|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries depression (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||0.24|0.01|0.04
95772438|NCT03634033|191515978|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries fall rates at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.93|0.18
95807647|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0000
95807648|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain of the vulva on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain of the vulva (burning, stinging, soreness, irritation, itching, inflammation, aching) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||1.0000
96001905|NCT02975349|191981384|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.31||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.20|0.08|0.0896
96001906|NCT02975349|191981384|SUPERIORITY||Qualified relapse rate ratio|0.23||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.09|||Negative Binomial model|||||1.09|0.05|0.0633
96001907|NCT02975349|191981385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.95|||Logistic model|||||1.95|0.29|0.5609
96001908|NCT02975349|191981385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.41|||Logistic model|||||8.41|0.92|0.0689
95962132|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.76||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.99||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.99|-14.52|0.0871
96001909|NCT02975349|191981385|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.99|||Logistic model|||||5.99|0.72|0.1767
96001910|NCT02975349|191981386|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.4070
96001911|NCT02975349|191981386|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.5829
96001912|NCT02975349|191981386|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|0.00|0.2732
96001913|NCT02975349|191981398|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|1.36||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.70|0.3676
96001914|NCT02975349|191981398|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.57|||Negative Binomial|||||0.57|0.13|0.0005
95772439|NCT03634033|191515978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||Threshold for statistical significance was .05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for IF versus IF+EF|Occurrence of falls was analyzed with adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||1.45|0.93|.18
95772440|NCT03634033|191515979|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) on beneficiaries ED Visits at exit after an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for baseline and nesting of participants within sites.||||1.22|0.79|0.86
95772441|NCT03634033|191515980|SUPERIORITY|Examination of intensity of facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) needed on beneficiaries hospitalizations (baseline to exit) using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||F-test|F-test was used (related to the t-test arithmetically), built into mixed models that adjusted for clustering.||||1.42|0.72|0.95
95962133|NCT04832971|191896104|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.91||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|-3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms, and treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-3.20|-18.61|0.0058
95962134|NCT04832971|191896105|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo at Week 24|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
95962135|NCT04832971|191896105|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repated Measures|||||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
95962136|NCT04832971|191896105|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mxed Models Repeated Measures|||||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
95962137|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.3||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-2.2|-24.5|0.0192
95962138|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|2.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||2.7|-19.6|0.1362
95962139|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-7.7||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-7.7|-29.8|0.0010
95962140|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.9||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-0.5|-27.3|0.0428
95962141|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.5||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||8.9|-17.9|0.5122
95962142|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-1.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-1.2|-27.9|0.0331
95962143|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||5.1|-35.8|0.1400
95962144|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.9854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|20.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||20.6|-20.2|0.9854
95962145|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||0.4|-40.1|0.0552
95962146|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-0.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-0.4|-25.7|0.0430
95995667|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.123||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.123|0.017|0.0095
95995668|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.121||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.121|0.016|0.0108
95772442|NCT03634033|191515981|SUPERIORITY|Examination of clinician attitude on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) at exit when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|10.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed modeling was used to account for nesting of clinicians within sites.||10.14|0.09|0.05
95772443|NCT03634033|191515982|OTHER|Examination of clinician self-efficacy on facilitation (IF vs IF+EF) (baseline to exit) when using an evidence-based intervention (CAPABLE).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.97||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Nesting of clinicians within site was adjusted for as a random effect.||||0.97|-0.51|0.54
95772444|NCT03634033|191515985|SUPERIORITY|Pre-/post-intervention comparison.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-1.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Pain||-1.42|-3.96|<.01
95772445|NCT03634033|191515985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADL||4.91|-2.80|.58
95772446|NCT03634033|191515985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.91||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||IADL||4.91|-2.80|.44
95772447|NCT03634033|191515985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|4.77||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Depression||4.77|-1.85|.38
95772448|NCT03634033|191515986|SUPERIORITY|Self-efficacy|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.6||Threshold for statistical significance was .05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||Pre minus post|Self-efficacy change baseline (month-0) to exit (month-4).||-0.60|-1.02|<0.01
95772449|NCT03634033|191515987|OTHER|Score on scale.|Mean|8.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
95772450|NCT03634033|191515987|OTHER||Mean|7.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.06|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction with format||||<.01
95772451|NCT03634033|191515987|OTHER||Mean|8.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for caregiver||||<.01
95772452|NCT03634033|191515987|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Satisfaction with newness of content for clinician||||<.01
95772453|NCT03634033|191515987|OTHER||Mean|7.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference from zero|||Intent to use new information||||<.01
95772454|NCT00251303|191516025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.959
95772455|NCT01106677|191516027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.758|-0.481|||ANCOVA|||||-0.481|-0.758|<0.001
95772456|NCT01106677|191516027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: assuming a difference between canagliflozin and placebo of 0.5% and a common standard deviation of 1.0%, and using a 2-sample, 1-sided t-test with a Type I error rate of 0.05, it was estimated that 86 subjects per group would provide 90% power to demonstrate superiority of canagliflozin over placebo.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.636|||ANCOVA|||||-0.636|-0.914|<0.001
95772457|NCT01106677|191516027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|-0.516||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-0.516|-0.795|
95772458|NCT01106677|191516028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.50|1.50|<0.001
95772459|NCT01106677|191516028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|2.85|<0.001
95772460|NCT01106677|191516029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-23.81|||ANCOVA|||||-23.81|-35.76|<0.001
95772461|NCT01106677|191516029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-34.26|||ANCOVA|||||-34.26|-46.25|<0.001
95772462|NCT01106677|191516029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-16.69||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-16.69|-28.70|
95772463|NCT01106677|191516030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.601|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.14|-27.16|||ANCOVA|||||-27.16|-49.14|<0.001
95772464|NCT01106677|191516030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-36.29|||ANCOVA|||||-36.29|-58.40|<0.001
95772465|NCT01106677|191516030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.608|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.56|-28.55||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-28.55|-50.56|
96001915|NCT02975349|191981398|SUPERIORITY||Lesion rate ratio|0.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85|||Negative Binomial|||||0.85|0.20|0.0157
96001916|NCT02975349|191981399|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.25|-0.25|0.9731
95772466|NCT01106677|191516031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|<0.001
95772467|NCT01106677|191516031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.5|<0.001
95772468|NCT01106677|191516031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|
95772469|NCT01106677|191516032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.439|||ANCOVA|||||-3.439|-7.280|<0.001
95772470|NCT01106677|191516032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.504|-4.653|||ANCOVA|||||-4.653|-8.504|<0.001
95772471|NCT01106677|191516032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.273|-1.413||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-5.273|
95772472|NCT01106677|191516033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.702||95.0|-9.9|6.7|||ANCOVA|||||6.7|-9.9|0.702
95772473|NCT01106677|191516033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-13.0|0.274
95772474|NCT01106677|191516033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.1||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-10.6|
95772475|NCT01106677|191516034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|3.6|<0.001
95772476|NCT01106677|191516034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|5.4|<0.001
95772477|NCT01106677|191516034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.4||No formal statistical comparison was conducted.|ANCOVA|||||4.4|-1.7|
95772478|NCT01106677|191516035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.122|||ANCOVA|||||0.122|-0.119|
95772479|NCT01106677|191516035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a discontinuation rate of 35% at Week 52, with a 2:2:2:1 treatment assignment ratio for canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo, it was estimated that 360 subjects would need to be randomly assigned to each of the 3 active treatment groups and approximately 180 subjects to the placebo group to demonstrate non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.031|||ANCOVA|||||-0.031|-0.273|
95772480|NCT01106677|191516036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.394|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-3.857|||ANCOVA|||||-3.857|-13.25|<0.001
95772481|NCT01106677|191516036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-12.81|||ANCOVA|||||-12.81|-22.24|<0.001
95772482|NCT01106677|191516037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-3.0|<0.001
95772483|NCT01106677|191516037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-3.4|<0.001
95772484|NCT01106677|191516038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.464|-1.276|||ANCOVA|||||-1.276|-4.464|<0.001
95772485|NCT01106677|191516038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.589|-2.389|||ANCOVA|||||-2.389|-5.589|<0.001
95772486|NCT01106677|191516039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-3.9|0.466
95772487|NCT01106677|191516039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||ANCOVA|||||9.4|-3.1|0.323
95772488|NCT01106677|191516040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|2.5|<0.001
95772489|NCT01106677|191516040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|4.5|<0.001
95772490|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.01
95772491|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.23
95772492|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.001||||||Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.001
95962147|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.0||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|1.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||1.6|-23.6|0.0871
95772493|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.05
95772494|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.07
95772495|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.09
95772496|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.003
95772497|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.10
95772498|NCT03937908|191516041|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.11
95772499|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.82
95772500|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.40
95772501|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.20
95772502|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.48
95772503|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.20
95772504|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.32
95772505|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.35
95772506|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.52
95772507|NCT03937908|191516042|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.13
95807649|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.3533|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.3533
96001917|NCT02975349|191981399|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.25||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.00|-0.50|0.0017
96001918|NCT02975349|191981399|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||-0.25|-0.75|< 0.0001
95772508|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.34
95772509|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.08
95772510|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.23
95772511|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.14
95772512|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.28
95772513|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.17
95772514|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.98
96001919|NCT02975349|191981400|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|1.29||||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.65|||Negative Binomial|||||2.65|0.63|0.4807
96001920|NCT02975349|191981400|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.5||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Negative Binomial|||||1.04|0.24|0.0620
95995669|NCT01431287|191967146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.9627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.054||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors|||0.054|-0.051|0.9627
95772515|NCT03937908|191516043|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
95772516|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.04
95772517|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.01
95772518|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.06
95772519|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.08
95772520|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.56
95772521|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.21
95772522|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.05
95772523|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.05
95807650|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.5641|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.5641
95807651|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9684|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9684
95772524|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.23
95772525|NCT03937908|191516044|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare pharmacokinetic and clearance parameters between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.16
95772526|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiatic acid||||0.7
95772527|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassic acid||||0.09
95772528|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asiaticoside||||0.4
95772529|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Madecassoside||||0.6
95772530|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Monocaffeoylquinic acids||||0.4
95772531|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dicaffeoylquinic acids||||0.1
95772532|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-(3-hydroxyphenyl)propionic acid||||0.9
95995670|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.0001
96001921|NCT02975349|191981400|SUPERIORITY||Lesion Rate ratio|0.42||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.87|||Negative Binomial|||||0.87|0.20|0.0189
96001922|NCT02975349|191981401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.02||||0.8776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.28|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||0.28|-0.24|0.8776
95772533|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Caffeic acid||||0.03
95995671|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.169||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.169|0.077|<0.0001
95995672|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.114||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.114|0.028|0.0012
95772534|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ferulic acid||||0.9
95772535|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Isoferulic acid||||0.6
95995673|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.137||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.137|0.050|<0.0001
95772536|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydroferulic acid||||0.4
95772537|NCT03937908|191516045|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare the ng/mL between the 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Dihydrocaffeic acid||||0.8
95807652|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8599|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8599
95807653|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
95772538|NCT03937908|191516046|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||1 hour||||0.1
95772539|NCT03937908|191516046|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||2 hours||||0.1
95772540|NCT03937908|191516046|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 hours||||0.3
95807654|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8389|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8389
95807655|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.7617|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.7617
95772541|NCT03937908|191516046|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4 hours||||0.5
95807656|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the sharp pain of the vulva depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.4613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the sharp (fast) pain of the vulva (knife-like pain, paper-cuts pain, stabbing, sticking) depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.4613
95807657|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.0331
95995674|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.121||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.031|0.0010
95995675|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|0.003|0.0384
95995676|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.185||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.097|<0.0001
95995677|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.04||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.040|-0.049|0.8428
95772542|NCT03937908|191516046|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided paired t-tests were used to compare fold induction between 2g and 4g doses. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 hours||||0.5
95772543|NCT04481191|191516073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.9||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||0.9|-4.0|< 0.001
95995678|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.02||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.020|-0.065|0.3048
95995679|NCT01431287|191967147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.063||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.027|0.4311
95995680|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.139||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.057|<0.0001
95995681|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.149||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.063|<0.0001
95995682|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.091||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.091|0.010|0.0136
95995683|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.116||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.116|0.035|0.0003
95772544|NCT04481191|191516073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use Group % - Staggered-use Group %||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
95772545|NCT04481191|191516073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percentages (Concomitant-use Group - Staggered-use Group) being \> -10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||One-sided p-value|Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Difference indicates Concomitant-use % - Staggered-use %||3.0|-1.6|< 0.001
95772546|NCT02579343|191516080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-value above was calculated. Does not reference threshold for clinical significance.|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
95772547|NCT02579343|191516081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.05
95772548|NCT00955955|191516098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Score Reduction|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.05||95.0|||||SPCD|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD)|These results reflect the mean score reduction for the pooled Deplin sample.|Hypothesis 1: There will be a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the degree of improvement, as measured by the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score from baseline to endpoint, using the sequential parallel comparison design \[51\]; with a greater degree of reduction in HAM-D-17 scores in the 6(S)-5-MTHF 15 mg qd group than in the placebo group, with the change on placebo being estimated from Trials 1 and 2.||||.05
95772549|NCT02484456|191516103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
95807658|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9402|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9402
95995684|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.101||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.101|0.016|0.0065
95772550|NCT02484456|191516104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95772551|NCT02484456|191516105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
95772552|NCT02484456|191516106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95772553|NCT02484456|191516107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95772554|NCT02484456|191516108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
95807659|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.9139|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.9139
95995685|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.089||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.089|0.005|0.0277
95995686|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.164||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.164|0.081|<0.0001
95995687|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.7116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.034||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.049|0.7116
95995688|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.016||Comments ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.016|-0.065|0.2332
95995689|NCT01431287|191967148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.059||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.059|-0.025|0.4374
95995690|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.244||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.244|0.077|0.0002
95772555|NCT02484456|191516109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
95772556|NCT02484456|191516110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95772557|NCT02484456|191516111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95772558|NCT02484456|191516112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95772559|NCT02484456|191516113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
95807660|NCT02732145|191587266|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis?||||||0.8925|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvar dermatosis.||||0.8925
95962148|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-10.6|-35.7|0.0004
95772560|NCT02484456|191516114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95772561|NCT02484456|191516115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
95962149|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-2.0||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-2.0|-25.9|0.0219
95962150|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.7||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||3.2|-20.6|0.1526
95962151|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.0||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-5.2||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-5.2|-28.9|0.0049
95962152|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-16.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.3|-28.7|0.0138
95962153|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|3.3||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||3.3|-22.0|0.1480
95962154|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-7.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-7.5|-32.8|0.0019
95962155|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|3.9||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||3.9|-22.4|0.1660
95962156|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-2.6||||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||10.5|-15.7|0.6964
95962157|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.5||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|1.5||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||1.5|-24.5|0.0831
95962158|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|4.1||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||4.1|-28.2|0.1425
95962159|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|16.6||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||16.6|-15.6|0.9494
95962160|NCT04832971|191896106|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|8.4||MMRM model includes treatment arm, study visit, and baseline value as model terms. The model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||8.4|-23.5|0.3535
95962161|NCT04832971|191896107|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
95962162|NCT04832971|191896107|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
95962163|NCT04832971|191896107|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
95995691|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.228||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.228|0.053|0.0017
95995692|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.210|0.046|0.0022
95995693|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.259||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.259|0.093|<0.0001
95995694|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.194||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.022|0.0141
95995695|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.4581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.118||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.118|-0.053|0.4581
95995696|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.293||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.293|0.124|<0.0001
95995697|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.105||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.105|-0.064|0.6335
95995698|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.034||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.129|0.2530
95772562|NCT02484456|191516116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95807661|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of vulvar complaints depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0000
95995699|NCT01431287|191967149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.153||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.153|-0.017|0.1188
95995700|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.217||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.057|0.0008
95995701|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.209||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.209|0.042|0.0032
95995702|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.183||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.183|0.027|0.0085
95995703|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.235||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.235|0.077|0.0001
95772563|NCT02484456|191516117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
95772564|NCT02484456|191516118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95807662|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the dull (slow) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6921
95995704|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.176||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.176|0.011|0.0255
95995705|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.113||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.049|0.4393
95995706|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.269||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.269|0.108|<0.0001
95995707|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.092||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.092|-0.069|0.7784
95995708|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.026||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.129|0.1965
95995709|NCT01431287|191967150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.144||ANCOVA model with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.144|-0.019|0.1315
95995710|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.239|-1.043||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-1.043|-3.239|0.0001
95772565|NCT02484456|191516119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
95772566|NCT02484456|191516120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95772567|NCT02484456|191516121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95772568|NCT02484456|191516122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95772569|NCT02484456|191516123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
95772570|NCT02484456|191516124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95772571|NCT02484456|191516125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
95772572|NCT02484456|191516126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95772573|NCT02920008|191516140|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||Stratified log-rank|||||||= 0.3287
95772574|NCT03852264|191516159|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|6.38|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||6.38|-1.29|
95772575|NCT03852264|191516159|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|5.45|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||5.45|-2.18|
95772576|NCT03852264|191516159|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.93|2.83|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||2.83|-4.93|
95772577|NCT03852264|191516160|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|1.211|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||1.211|-0.476|
95962164|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-67.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.26|-61.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-61.04|-74.26|<.0001
96001923|NCT02975349|191981401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.41||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.15|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.15|-0.66|0.0019
95772578|NCT03852264|191516160|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.931|0.803|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.803|-0.931|
95772579|NCT03852264|191516160|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.319|0.445|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||0.445|-1.319|
95772580|NCT03852264|191516161|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|99.5|||||Contrast reflecting Pet Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||99.5|-101|
95772581|NCT03852264|191516161|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-225.0|-15.5|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Toys Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-15.5|-225|
95772582|NCT03852264|191516161|OTHER|90% credible interval for contrast between conditions|Mean Difference (Net)|-115.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-223.0|-16.2|||||Contrast reflecting Unfamiliar Dog Interaction - Pet Dog Interaction|Bayesian multilevel model of area under the curve with respect to initial value (AUCi) as a function of experimental condition.||-16.2|-223|
95772583|NCT05338502|191516167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.02|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||1.02|0.797|
95772584|NCT05338502|191516167|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.12|||ANOVA|||Fed state||1.12|0.876|
95807663|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar burning on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.1848|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar burning depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.1848
95772585|NCT05338502|191516168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.05|||ANOVA|||Fasted state||1.05|0.829|
95772586|NCT05338502|191516168|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.13|||ANOVA|||Fed State||1.13|0.888|
95772587|NCT05338502|191516170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.985|||ANOVA|||Fasted State||0.985|0.680|
95772588|NCT05338502|191516170|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.645|0.949|||ANOVA|||Fed state||0.949|0.645|
95772589|NCT01631149|191516175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The individual scores obtained during surgery were averaged.~The average values were compared using a t-test between treatments."||||<0.001
95772590|NCT03063086|191516213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.137|<0.0001
95772591|NCT03063086|191516213|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.195|0.123|<0.0001
95772592|NCT03063086|191516218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.086|<0.0001
95772593|NCT05481125|191516240|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.024||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Mean difference (Clareon/Clareon Toric minus Eyhance/Eyhance Toric). Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||-0.024||
95772594|NCT03702010|191516241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline VAS||||0.112
95772595|NCT03702010|191516241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation VAS||||0.323
95772596|NCT03702010|191516241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.760
95772597|NCT03702010|191516241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.624
95772598|NCT03702010|191516242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.589
95772599|NCT03702010|191516242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.704
95772600|NCT03702010|191516242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.908
95772601|NCT03702010|191516243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.231
95772602|NCT03702010|191516243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After first stimulation||||0.663
95772603|NCT03702010|191516243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After second stimulation||||0.998
95772604|NCT03702010|191516243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Follow-up||||0.713
95772605|NCT00637000|191516251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|The statistical method used was a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||To test the primary study hypothesis that neither soluble film formulation would precipitate an opioid withdrawal syndrome, peak COWS score in the 23.5 hour period after the initial soluble film administration were compared to pre-administration baseline COWS scores (30 minutes prior to soluble film administration) using a group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||<0.0001
95807664|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.9048|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar stinging depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.9048
95807665|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3953|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar soreness depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3953
95772606|NCT00637000|191516252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.000
95772607|NCT00637000|191516253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.035
95772608|NCT00637000|191516254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772609|NCT00637000|191516255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772610|NCT00637000|191516256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.006
95772611|NCT00637000|191516257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772612|NCT00637000|191516258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772613|NCT00637000|191516259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.762
95772614|NCT00637000|191516260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772615|NCT00637000|191516261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.349
95772616|NCT00637000|191516262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.028
95772617|NCT00637000|191516263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772618|NCT00637000|191516264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772619|NCT00637000|191516265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.117
95772620|NCT00637000|191516266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||<0.0001
95772621|NCT00637000|191516267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Repeated measures model|Group by time repeated measures model with a first-order autoregressive covariance structure.||||||0.238
95772622|NCT00839527|191516278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.07|<0.0001
95772623|NCT00839527|191516278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a one-sided t-test testing at the 0.025 level of significance whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - pioglitazone) is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.40|0.10|0.2685
95772624|NCT02295020|191516287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
95772625|NCT02295020|191516288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
95772626|NCT02295020|191516289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
95772627|NCT02295020|191516291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
95772628|NCT02295020|191516292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.860
95772629|NCT02295020|191516293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
95772630|NCT02295020|191516294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.479
95772631|NCT02295020|191516295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
95772632|NCT02295020|191516296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
95807666|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0921|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar irritation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0921
95807667|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6734|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar itching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6734
95962165|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.42|-74.17||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-74.17|-87.42|<.0001
95772633|NCT02751450|191516300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.882|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.882|-1.150|<0.0001
95772634|NCT01290679|191516304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||41.2|23.3|<0.001
95807668|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.3458|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of the feeling of vulvar inflammation depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.3458
95807669|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.5304|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar aching depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.5304
95807670|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of symptoms of the sharp (fast) pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0012
95772635|NCT01290679|191516305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|38.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.5|20.2|<0.001
95772636|NCT01290679|191516306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||40.5|22.5|<0.001
95772637|NCT01290679|191516307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|32.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||41.0|23.5|<0.001
95772638|NCT01290679|191516334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-16.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1502|-4.4025|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-4.4025|-29.1502|0.008
95772639|NCT01290679|191516334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-18.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4715||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4933|-4.1801|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-4.1801|-33.4933|0.012
95772640|NCT01290679|191516335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-282.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.4927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.1252|-75.1949|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-75.1949|-489.1252|0.008
95772641|NCT01290679|191516335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-324.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.026||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-567.708|-81.0182|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-81.0182|-567.7080|0.009
95772642|NCT01290679|191516336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-282.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.9894||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-488.415|-76.4566|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-76.4566|-488.4150|0.007
95772643|NCT01290679|191516336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-329.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|123.408||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-571.3389|-87.0695|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-87.0695|-571.3389|0.008
95772644|NCT01290679|191516337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-186.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|121.4741||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.4109|51.7059|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||51.7059|-425.4109|0.125
95772645|NCT01290679|191516337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-188.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.1702||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.507|89.104|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||89.1040|-465.5070|0.183
95772646|NCT04431908|191516346|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|89.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95807671|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar knife-like pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0002
95807672|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0218|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar paper-cuts pain depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0218
95807673|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.0297|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like stabbing depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.0297
95807674|NCT02732145|191587267|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia?||||||0.6468|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The incidence of vulvar pain like sticking depending on the histopathology of the epidermis (normal versus abnormal) in patients with vulvodynia.||||0.6468
95807675|NCT02732145|191587268|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.2045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.2045
95995711|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.230|0.0435
95772647|NCT04431908|191516346|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|42.55|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95772648|NCT04431908|191516346|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|87.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95807676|NCT02732145|191587268|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.7469|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.7469
95807677|NCT02732145|191587268|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.4271|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of lymphocytes in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.4271
95807678|NCT02732145|191587268|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.3607|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.3607
95807679|NCT02732145|191587268|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvar dermatosis depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
95807680|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0045|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0045
95807681|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0032|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0032
95864377|NCT03060551|191686713|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.682||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
96001924|NCT02975349|191981401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeat Measures||Difference in least squares means of change from baseline in cube root of volume measured in centimeter.|||-0.10|-0.62|0.0063
95772649|NCT04431908|191516348|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Specificity|88.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95953387|NCT01755598|191877809|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy (VE) has been estimated from a Cox proportional hazard regression model (VE=1-hazard ratio) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald p-value has been derived. If the primary objective is met, this secondary objective is to be analysed using the following success criterion: The lower limit of the 90% two-sided CI for the VE against first occurrence of Definite pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV infection, meeting the case definition 2, is to be above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|61.67||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.084|80.647|||Regression, Cox|||To evaluate the protective efficacy of two doses of the M72/AS01E candidate vaccine against Definite Xpert MTB/Rif positive pulmonary TB disease not associated with HIV-infection, meeting the case definition 2, as compared to placebo.||80.647|24.084|0.0210
95953388|NCT02081196|191877848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.77|||||Treatment Effect =Control Flank Change-Treated Flank Change such (a positive results indicates treated area had a larger reduction in fat thickness than control area, and a negative result indicates that a greater reduction was seen in control area).|H0: μ(Control - Treated) \< +1 versus H1: μ(Control - Treated) \> +1||4.77|3.08|
95953389|NCT02081196|191877849|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.8476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|0.913|||||||Descriptive statistics (tabulation of Independent Panel Reviewer ratings) were used to analyze data.|.913|.784|
95953390|NCT04198428|191877868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
95953391|NCT04198428|191877869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
95953392|NCT04198428|191877870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
95953393|NCT04198428|191877871|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero-inflated negative binomial mixed-model regression adjusted for site and clinic factors balanced at randomization||||||<0.05
95953394|NCT04198428|191877872|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
95953395|NCT04198428|191877873|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors||||||<0.05
95953396|NCT04198428|191877874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1068.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index costs in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
95953397|NCT04198428|191877875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95953398|NCT04198428|191877876|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Generalized estimating equation comparing post- to pre-index rates in OUD-CDS vs. Usual Care, adjusted for site and balancing factors|||||<0.05
95953399|NCT01882088|191877943|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.000002
95953400|NCT01882088|191877944|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||0.2
95953401|NCT01882088|191877945|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.002415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002415
95953402|NCT01882088|191877946|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.000438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000438
96001925|NCT02975349|191981402|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.009|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.009|-0.004|0.9315
95772650|NCT04431908|191516348|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Sensitivity|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95772651|NCT04431908|191516348|OTHER|Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy was measured utilizing the true and false positives, as well as the true and false negatives. For a subject to have a true positive, the subject must have had a positive PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 0, 1 or 2 correct answers on the smell test. For a subject to have a true negative, the subject must have had a negative PCR test for COVID-19 as well as scored 3, 4 or 5 correct answers on the smell test.|Accuracy|88.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95772652|NCT00791661|191516352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.92||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
95772653|NCT00791661|191516354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted)|0.81||||||95.0|||||Mixed-effect model|Based on mixed effect model with panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.||||||
95772654|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-8.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.0|6.8||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 15 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||6.8|-23.0|0.368
95772655|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-16.6||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.2|-1.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 30 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-1.1|-32.2|0.079
95772656|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-25.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.9|-10.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 45 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-10.5|-40.9|0.007
95772657|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffrence in least squares mean|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|-20.5||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-20.5|-52.0|<.001
95772658|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.7||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed minus LS mean for placebo fed.|||2.7|-42.2|0.147
95772659|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|12.3||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|Difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was calculated as LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg minus LS mean for MK-1006 60 mg fed.|||25.2|-0.5|0.114
95807682|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.1067|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of collagen fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.1067
95953403|NCT01882088|191877947|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
95807683|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of inflammatory cells in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8672|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of hyalinization in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8672
95953404|NCT01882088|191877948|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95953405|NCT01882088|191877949|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95953406|NCT01882088|191877950|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95772660|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-28.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.9|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for placebo fed minus LS mean for placebo.|||-7.9|-49.9|0.026
95772661|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.3|-41.9||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 80 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-41.9|-73.3|<.001
95772662|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|-0.1||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 100 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-0.1|-30.5|0.099
95772663|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.8|-27.0||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 140 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-27.0|-60.8|<.001
95772664|NCT00791661|191516358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-59.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-75.1|-43.7||A step down procedure starting with the highest tolerated dose was implemented.|Mixed Models Analysis|Based on mixed effect model with glucose baseline, panel and treatment-within-panel as fixed effects and participant-within panel as a random effect.|The calculation used to determine the difference in least squares mean (LS mean) was LS mean for MK-1006 170 mg minus LS mean for placebo.|At one or more well tolerated single doses of MK-1006, the 24-hour weighted mean glucose concentration is expected to be at least 25 mg/dL lower than placebo.||-43.7|-75.1|<.001
95772665|NCT00937040|191516359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline AISRS total score. Change from baseline to endpoint uses the latest non-missing score after baseline for each subject.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint. Each outcome involved with gate-keeping will be numbered with a Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number from 01-16.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence#01. The primary efficacy was tested at the 0.05 level of significance. To control the overall Type I error at 0.05, the secondary efficacy endpoints were tested in a fixed sequence if the preceding null hypothesis was rejected. No further hypotheses could be tested when the preceding null hypothesis was not rejected. All nominal p-values were presented even though the formal testing procedure stopped at the primary endpoint. No unqualified statements can be made.||||<0.001
95772666|NCT00937040|191516360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#02.||||0.206
95772667|NCT00937040|191516361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#03.||||0.348
95772668|NCT00937040|191516362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#04.||||0.324
95953407|NCT01882088|191877951|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95953408|NCT01882088|191877952|EQUIVALENCE|Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 software. Wilcoxon matched pairs test of non-parametric module was used to assess changes of the studied parameters after the course of fiber supplementation in comparison to baseline. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Sample size calculation was performed using 1-Way ANOVA. Effect size calculation was performed for every comparison.||||||2e-05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
95953409|NCT02186015|191877953|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in serum 25(OH)D from week 0 to week 8.||||<0.01
95953410|NCT02186015|191877954|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed.||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in worst pain rating from week 0 to week 8.||||0.24
95953411|NCT02186015|191877955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in fatigue score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.09
95953412|NCT02186015|191877956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in mood score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.17
95953413|NCT02186015|191877957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in dominant handgrip strength from week 0 to week 8.||||0.50
95772669|NCT00937040|191516363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score. Endpoint for extended day sites is the 4 hour timepoint and for other sites is the last non-missing value after baseline.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#05.||||0.631
95772670|NCT00937040|191516364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#06.||||<0.001
95772671|NCT00937040|191516365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#07.||||<0.001
95772672|NCT00937040|191516366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#08.||||0.008
95772673|NCT00937040|191516367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#09.||||0.372
95772674|NCT00937040|191516368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#10.||||<0.001
95772675|NCT00937040|191516369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value was determined using CMH general association controlling for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#11.||||0.008
95772676|NCT00937040|191516370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#12.||||<0.001
95772677|NCT00937040|191516371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#13.||||0.003
95772678|NCT00937040|191516372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#14.||||0.016
95772679|NCT00937040|191516373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#15.||||0.092
95772680|NCT00937040|191516374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||P-value was determined by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores controlling for center. Missing/unknown responses are not included in the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint.||Gate-Keeper-Sequence-Number#16.||||0.284
95772681|NCT00937040|191516375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||<0.001
95772682|NCT00937040|191516376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.319
95772683|NCT00937040|191516377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value was determined by using an ANCOVA model with factors treatment and pooled study center, and covariate baseline score.|ANCOVA|||P-value for Change from baseline at endpoint||||0.007
95772684|NCT02549287|191516466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.55||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.20|-0.11|0.12
95953414|NCT02186015|191877958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in sleep quality assessment from week 0 to week 8.||||0.16
95953415|NCT02186015|191877959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-breast score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.75
95953416|NCT02186015|191877960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is 0 change in functional assessment of cancer therapy-endocrine score from week 0 to week 8.||||0.19
95953417|NCT01403805|191877976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Fisher's test 'Vaccine' versus 'Oral Care and Vaccines' and 'phumonia' and 'not pneumonia'|Fisher Exact|||The results were analyzed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||<0.001
95953418|NCT01403805|191877977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD) or numbers (%). Differences between the 2 nursing homes were compared using Fisher's test.||||0.05
95953419|NCT01695993|191877982|OTHER|Primary Analysis: The Primary Aim to determine whether acupressure bands provided with efficacy-enhancing supplementary material are more effective in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea than acupressure bands provided with neutral supplementary material was examined using ANCOVA with Peak Nausea after the first chemotherapy as the response, Arm (Arms 2 and 3) as the factor and expectancy of acupressure bands as the covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted|ANCOVA|||||||.05
95953420|NCT02137239|191877997|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|16.7||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 6 Months||16.7|-18.9|
95953421|NCT02137239|191877997|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|18.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 12 Months||18.9|-19.2|
95953422|NCT02137239|191877997|SUPERIORITY||Incidence of Change|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|23.9||||||Change in Incidence of Treatment A as compared to Treatment B at 24 Months||23.9|-16.1|
95772685|NCT02549287|191516467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.03||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.03|-0.20|0.14
95772686|NCT02549287|191516468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.07||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.07|-0.20|0.20
95772687|NCT02549287|191516469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.43|-0.58|0.77
95772688|NCT02549287|191516470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.97|||Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.97|-0.27|0.29
95772689|NCT02549287|191516471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.49||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.06||Other \[Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)\]|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||1.06|-0.08|0.15
95772690|NCT02549287|191516472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.52||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.52|-0.73|0.61
95772691|NCT02549287|191516473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.22||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.32||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.32|-0.76|0.47
95807684|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of blood vessels in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0219
95953423|NCT04057937|191878024|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference:Apremilast-Placebo|37.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|56.1||Two-sided 0.10 significant level|Chi-squared||Confidence Intervals calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation).|||56.1|18.6|0.0003
95953424|NCT01072396|191878075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0087||95.0|0.02|0.11||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - crossover design||0.11|0.02|0.0087
95772692|NCT02549287|191516474|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.2||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||2.20|-3.70|0.65
95772693|NCT02549287|191516475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.69|-0.59|0.64
95807685|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of sebaceous glands in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.8213
95772694|NCT02549287|191516476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.29||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.29|-0.79|0.44
95772695|NCT02549287|191516477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.25||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.89||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||0.89|-0.39|0.47
95772696|NCT02549287|191516478|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|3.22||Group by time interaction effect reported here.|Marginal Model (e.g., GEE)|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) framework (multiple imputation used), Multilevel model applied.||3.22|-3.57|0.63
95772697|NCT00520533|191516484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Biological T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.194
95772698|NCT00520533|191516485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Effective T1/2 at Week 1 and Week 5.||||0.172
95772699|NCT01218087|191516494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following the first interim analysis of the first 40 infants, the sample size calculation was revised. A revised sample size of 62 infants (31 per treatment arm) was based on an observed reduction of 41% to 11% in the experimental group with a goal p value of 0.01.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95772700|NCT03307252|191516505|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|100.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.84|114.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|114.15|88.84|
95772701|NCT03307252|191516505|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|93.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|102.06|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|102.06|86.12|
96001926|NCT02975349|191981402|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.014||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.050|0.0008
96001927|NCT02975349|191981402|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-0.018||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0.000|-0.042|0.0014
95772702|NCT03307252|191516505|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|82.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.96|89.46|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|89.46|76.96|
95772703|NCT03307252|191516505|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|113.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.62|131.72|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|131.72|97.62|
95772704|NCT03307252|191516506|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|131.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|148.97|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|148.97|115.93|
95807686|NCT02732145|191587269|SUPERIORITY|Question: Is there a difference in the incidence of the finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort for less or more than 24 months?||||||0.0613|||||||Chi-squared|||Parameter: The difference in the incidence of the histopathological finding of nerve fibers in vulvar specimens from patients with vulvodynia depending on the duration of vulvar discomfort.||||0.0613
95807687|NCT03768414|191587272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.72|0.41
95807688|NCT01302834|191587325|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was set at 1.45 (hazard ratio scale; IMRT + Cetuximab / IMRT + Cisplatin). If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was \<1.45, non-inferiority would be concluded. Design was based on a group sequential design with 3 interim analyses, one-sided 0.05, and 80% power.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.94|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.94||
95807689|NCT01302834|191587326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.29|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.29|1.29|0.0002
95807690|NCT01302834|191587327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.05||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.1|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||3.10|1.35|0.0005
95864378|NCT03060551|191686714|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.151||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
95953425|NCT01072396|191878076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.0685||||0.067||95.0|0.9953|1.147||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||1.1470|0.9953|0.0670
95807691|NCT01302834|191587328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.36||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||2.36|0.94|0.09
95807692|NCT01302834|191587329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.58||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|||1.58|0.61|0.95
95807693|NCT01302834|191587331|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95807694|NCT01302834|191587339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.79
95807695|NCT01302834|191587342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5438||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5438
95807696|NCT01302834|191587346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7108||||||One-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7108
95953426|NCT01072396|191878077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2059||||0.2417||95.0|-0.5527|0.1408||Based on mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects for treatment, period and random effect for patient. Period baseline and patient baseline (average of two period baselines) were covariates in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based MMRM||Placebo versus Tiotropium - corssover design||0.1408|-0.5527|0.2417
95807697|NCT01302834|191587361|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.34||One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by treatment arm.|Reference level = non-variant|||1.34|0.56|0.2571
95807698|NCT01302834|191587362|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.38||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by treatment arm.|Reference level = non-variant|||1.38|0.64|0.3704
95807699|NCT01302834|191587363|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.46|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Variant||2.46|0.49|
95807700|NCT01302834|191587363|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Non-variant||1.53|0.79|
95807701|NCT01302834|191587363|OTHER|||||||0.989||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Testing Cox proportional hazards model interaction term for KRAS variant status and treatment arm.||||0.9890
95953427|NCT02446912|191878078|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|5.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-14.2|0.412
95953428|NCT02446912|191878078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.6||||||||9.6|-14.7|
95807702|NCT01302834|191587364|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||||95.0|0.5|2.04|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Variant||2.04|0.50|
95995712|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|-0.432||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.432|-2.623|0.0063
95995713|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|0.577||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.577|-1.611|0.3545
95772705|NCT03307252|191516506|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|119.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.03|130.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.39|110.03|
95772706|NCT03307252|191516506|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.68|117.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.03|100.68|
95772707|NCT03307252|191516506|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|348.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|299.64|404.31|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|404.31|299.64|
95772708|NCT03307252|191516507|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|125.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.99|138.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|138.43|113.99|
95772709|NCT03307252|191516507|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|108.3|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.30|94.59|
95807703|NCT01302834|191587364|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.73|||||Reference level = IMRT + Cisplatin|Non-variant||1.73|0.94|
95807704|NCT01302834|191587364|OTHER|||||||0.5556||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Testing Cox proportional hazards model interaction term for KRAS variant status and treatment arm.||||0.5556
95864379|NCT03060551|191686715|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.516||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.516
95807705|NCT04770272|191587368|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis uses Bayesian statistics for proportions, and is based on non-informative uniform (beta) priors for the pCR rates pA and pB in arms A (experimental) and B (control) respectively. Similar to a proof-of-concept trial, a dual criterion to simultaneously test for significant and relevant superiority at different levels of certainty was used, by requiring posterior probabilities, conditional on observed response counts xA, xB respectively in the two arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1307|0.0663||||||This was a randomized, open-label, adaptive, two arm, multicenter phase II trial that enrolled female and male patients with primary TNBC (defined as ER/PR \< 10% and HER2-negative) with tumor stages cT1c - cT4d (cN0 and cN+). Patients were randomized to Arm A and B, stratified by PD-L1 expression on immune cells (IC-status) and anatomic tumor stage (Anatomic Stage Groups I, II and III). PD-L1 status was determined by central pathology using the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay.||0.0663|-0.1307|
95807706|NCT04770272|191587370|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1497|0.0689||||||||0.0689|-0.1497|
95995714|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.614|0.578||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.578|-1.614|0.3542
95807707|NCT04770272|191587371|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1957|0.2524||||||||0.2524|-0.1957|
95807708|NCT04770272|191587372|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.153|
95772710|NCT03307252|191516507|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|130.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.82|143.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.10|119.82|
95772711|NCT03307252|191516507|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|107.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.57|118.27|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.27|97.57|
95772712|NCT03307252|191516508|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|106.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.51|118.15|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|118.15|96.51|
95772713|NCT03307252|191516508|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|271.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|246.74|299.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|299.03|246.74|
95772714|NCT03307252|191516508|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|100.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.62|107.39|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.39|94.62|
95772715|NCT03307252|191516508|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|223.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|203.79|244.55|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|244.55|203.79|
95772716|NCT03307252|191516509|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|121.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.43|147.33|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|147.33|100.43|
95772717|NCT03307252|191516509|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|95.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|109.11|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.11|83.03|
95772718|NCT03307252|191516509|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|80.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|88.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|88.08|73.01|
95772719|NCT03307252|191516509|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|115.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.8|141.94|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|141.94|93.80|
95807709|NCT04770272|191587373|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.044||||||||0.044|-0.127|
95807710|NCT04770272|191587374|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.034||||||||0.034|-0.166|
95807711|NCT04770272|191587375|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.14|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||-0.14|-0.326|
95807712|NCT04770272|191587376|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.15|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.15|-0.078|
95807713|NCT04770272|191587377|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|-0.054|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||-0.054|-0.245|
95807714|NCT04770272|191587378|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.055|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.055|-0.157|
95807715|NCT04770272|191587379|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.018|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.018|-0.022|
95807716|NCT04770272|191587380|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.034|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.034|-0.017|
95995715|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.476||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.476|-1.702|0.2697
95995716|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.227|-0.033||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.033|-2.227|0.0434
95995717|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.095||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.095|-2.114|0.0732
95772720|NCT03307252|191516510|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
95772721|NCT03307252|191516510|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|135.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.83|154.84|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|154.84|117.83|
95772722|NCT03307252|191516510|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.26|123.35|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|123.35|102.26|
95807717|NCT04770272|191587381|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.148|||||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|-0.148|-0.31|
95807718|NCT04770272|191587382|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.163|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.163|-0.052|
95860381|NCT04881942|191679396|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|182.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.63|256.67|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||256.67|108.63|<.0001
95807719|NCT04770272|191587383|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|-0.238|||||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|-0.238|-0.447|
95807720|NCT04770272|191587384|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.146|||||CI given as High posterior density interval (Bayesian confidence interval based on posterior distribution of effect/parameter of interest).|||0.146|-0.076|
95807721|NCT04770272|191587385|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.43|||Regression, Cox|||||3.43|0.69|0.290
95807722|NCT04770272|191587386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.89|||Regression, Cox|||||6.89|0.39|0.495
95807723|NCT04770272|191587387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.38|||Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox Regression.||||2.38|0.64|0.529
95807724|NCT02363946|191587391|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370||||
95995718|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|0.092||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.092|-2.114|0.0724
95995719|NCT01431287|191967151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.104||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.104|-1.102|0.9983
95807725|NCT02363946|191587391|OTHER||beta estimate|1.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|1.218|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.218|1.128|
95772723|NCT03307252|191516510|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|1125.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|914.63|1384.0|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|1384.00|914.63|
95772724|NCT03307252|191516511|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|218.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|180.19|264.36|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|264.36|180.19|
95772725|NCT03307252|191516511|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|104.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|122.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|122.03|89.97|
95772726|NCT03307252|191516511|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|122.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.68|139.69|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|139.69|107.68|
95772727|NCT03307252|191516511|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|116.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.07|130.03|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|130.03|105.07|
95772728|NCT03307252|191516512|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|87.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.08|99.64|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Digoxin, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.64|76.08|
95772729|NCT03307252|191516512|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|122.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.09|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|137.09|110.25|
95807726|NCT02363946|191587391|OTHER||alpha estimate|9.824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
95807727|NCT02363946|191587391|OTHER||beta estimate|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.153|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter Cmax for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.98|1.153|1.054|
95807728|NCT02363946|191587393|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370||||
95807729|NCT02363946|191587393|OTHER||beta estimate|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.112|
95864380|NCT03060551|191686716|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.|||||>|0.999||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95807730|NCT02363946|191587393|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
95807731|NCT02363946|191587393|OTHER||beta estimate|1.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.215|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUC0-24 for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.215|1.080|
95807732|NCT02363946|191587394|OTHER||alpha estimate|11.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370||||
95772730|NCT03307252|191516512|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|109.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|109.70|93.65|
95772731|NCT03307252|191516512|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|428.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|359.78|509.7|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|509.70|359.78|
95772732|NCT03307252|191516513|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|92.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.28|99.76|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|99.76|85.28|
95772733|NCT03307252|191516513|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|83.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.32|90.08|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|90.08|78.32|
95772734|NCT03307252|191516513|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|124.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.11|146.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T1 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|146.43|105.11|
95807733|NCT02363946|191587394|OTHER||beta estimate|1.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.249|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte AD00370|R-square (r\^2)=0.96|1.249|1.110|
95807734|NCT02363946|191587394|OTHER||alpha estimate|12.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP||||
95807735|NCT02363946|191587394|OTHER||beta estimate|1.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|1.245|||||Estimation of model: Parameter = alpha \* Dose\^beta. Determined from linear regression model: Log(Parameter) = log(Dose)|Dose-Proportionality of Pharmacokinetic Parameter AUCinf for Analyte ARC-MLP|R-square (r\^2)=0.95|1.245|1.081|
95807736|NCT03996395|191587405|OTHER||Descriptive statistic|71.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95807737|NCT03109769|191587429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0444
95807738|NCT03109769|191587429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1373||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0002
95953429|NCT02446912|191878079|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|-6.3|0.455
95953430|NCT02446912|191878079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|17.8||||||||17.8|-6.7|
95953431|NCT02446912|191878080|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|-14.4|0.549
95953432|NCT02446912|191878081|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.7||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-4.8|0.261
95953433|NCT02446912|191878082|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|21.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.9|-4.1|0.180
95772735|NCT03307252|191516514|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|112.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.23|121.92|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|121.92|104.23|
95772736|NCT03307252|191516514|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|108.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.22|116.43|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|116.43|101.22|
95772737|NCT03307252|191516514|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|340.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|288.63|402.1|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T2 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|402.10|288.63|
95772738|NCT03307252|191516515|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|100.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|108.51|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|108.51|93.59|
95772739|NCT03307252|191516515|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|131.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|143.37|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|143.37|120.37|
95772740|NCT03307252|191516515|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|106.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.87|117.19|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T3 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|117.19|96.87|
95772741|NCT03307252|191516516|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio|260.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.96|284.32|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Furosemide, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|284.32|237.96|
95772742|NCT03307252|191516516|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|101.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|107.66|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Metformin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|107.66|95.15|
95772743|NCT03307252|191516516|OTHER||Adjusted gMean Ratio|215.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.53|234.63|||ANOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV). Adjusted gMean ratio is given for T4 vs. R1.||Rosuvastatin, ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale includes effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|234.63|197.53|
95772744|NCT01052480|191516517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
95772745|NCT01578239|191516550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.289||Derived from a two-sided test between the two groups|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate / Octreotide LAR and estimated from the corresponding Cox model.|||0.289|0.108|<0.0001
95772746|NCT01578239|191516551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0141
96001928|NCT01663740|191981421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-40.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1387||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.869|-11.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||-11.463|-68.869|0.0075
95772747|NCT01578239|191516552|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.60|0.3039
95772748|NCT01578239|191516553|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio of Lu-DOTA-Tyr-Octreotate vs. Octreotide LAR|||1.17|0.60|0.3039
95772749|NCT01578239|191516554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.242|||Log Rank|||||0.242|0.077|<0.0001
95772750|NCT03875092|191516609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.52|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.52|0.24|
95772751|NCT03875092|191516610|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7|||||Based on unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate, due to small sample size.|||0.70|0.28|
95772752|NCT03875092|191516611|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|51.6|||||Based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method, due to small sample size.|||51.6|19.9|
95772753|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
95772754|NCT02163226|191516625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
95807739|NCT03109769|191587429|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0932||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in plaque index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~plaque index at 4 weeks - plaque index at baseline"|||||0.0283
95807740|NCT03109769|191587430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The sample size was calculated as 44 participants. Sample size calculation was carried out through a pilot study on 30 participants with the group I mean=1.31, SD=0.39 and group II mean=1.62, SD=0.30, with ⍺=0.05 and 80% power.~The null hypothesis was: there is no difference in plaque index and gingival index between verbal oral hygiene instructions and oral hygiene instructions using mobile applications in patients with orthodontic fixed appliances."||||0.0283
95807741|NCT03109769|191587430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1177||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the first group (mobile phone application) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.0002
95807742|NCT03109769|191587430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1014||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Difference in gingival index within the second group (verbal oral hygiene instructions) at 4 weeks compared to baseline.~The mean difference was calculated as follows:~gingival index at 4 weeks - gingival index at baseline"|||||0.4809
95807743|NCT03759379|191587485|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|-12.22||P=3.542E-12|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-12.22|-21.78|<0.0000001
95807744|NCT03759379|191587486|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.8||P=5.426E-09|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||-10.8|-21.7|<0.0000001
95807745|NCT03759379|191587487|EQUIVALENCE|H0: No difference between vutrisiran and external placebo comparator (APOLLO): difference (vutrisiran - placebo) = 0|LS Mean Difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.193||P=3.103E-05|ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||Multiple imputation estimates and p-value derived per combining least squares (LS) estimates per Rubin's rules based on 100 datasets where missing Month 9 values were imputed using a regression procedure including select baseline variables. LS estimates derived from analysis of covariance model, controlling for categorical factors (treatment, genotype, age of disease onset, baseline NIS) and continuous covariate (baseline value).||0.193|0.070|<0.0000001
95953434|NCT02446912|191878083|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|3.5|0.013
95953435|NCT02446912|191878084|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-0.3|0.054
95953436|NCT02446912|191878085|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|36.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.0|1.4|0.034
95953437|NCT02446912|191878086|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.6||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|-9.4|0.905
95953438|NCT02446912|191878087|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-6.7|0.515
95807746|NCT04924608|191587494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Fisher Exact|The ORR will be compared at the end of Cycle 16 between selumetinib vs placebo with the 2-sided significance level 0.047.||||||0.0112
95807747|NCT04924608|191587495|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||0.1|-1.6|0.070
95807748|NCT04924608|191587496|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||nominal|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||supplementary analysis is not controlled for multiplicity.||-0.1|-1.3|0.024
95772755|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
95772756|NCT02163226|191516625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
95772757|NCT02163226|191516625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
95772758|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.03
95772759|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.19
95772760|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
95772761|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.89
95772762|NCT02163226|191516625|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain Response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.07
95772763|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
95772764|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
95807749|NCT04924608|191587497|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis is based on a MMRM model for repeated measures, Kenward-Roger method is used to estimate the degrees of freedom.||||1.1|-1.2|0.918
95807750|NCT03379870|191587498|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) Word scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis to control for potential floor or ceiling effects (e.g., scores \<20%).||||||0.768||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.768
95864381|NCT03060551|191686717|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.034||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
95772765|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
95772766|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
95772767|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
95772768|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p valued||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 2 weeks||||.01
95772769|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 1 month||||.15
95807751|NCT03379870|191587499|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed BKB-SIN scores obtained 12-months post-activation to evaluate differences between groups. Scores range from -6 to +21 and lower scores are better.||||||0.529||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.529
95772770|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 3 months||||.04
95772771|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 6 months||||.78
95772772|NCT02163226|191516626|OTHER|2 sided p value||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pain response Rates (CR+PR) at 9 months||||.04
95772773|NCT01585324|191516629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test for the efficacy of SVR achievement (Yes/No), treatment adjustment and baseline hemoglobin value was used.||||||0.8333
95772774|NCT01585324|191516631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
95772775|NCT01585324|191516633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6492
95772776|NCT01585324|191516635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0333
95772777|NCT00748189|191516695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.72|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator.|||0.72|0.45|<0.001
95772778|NCT00748189|191516698|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||hazard ratios are obtained using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with O+CHL treatment compared with chlorambucil|||1.17|0.65|0.363
95772779|NCT00748189|191516711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.94|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.94|0.53|
95772780|NCT00748189|191516711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of Cmax/Dose|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.99|||||Ratio of Cmax/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM Cmax values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||0.99|0.63|
95772781|NCT00748189|191516712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.4|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.40|0.77|
95772782|NCT00748189|191516712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.5|||||Ratio of AUC(0-inf)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized chlorambucil AUC(0-inf) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.50|0.82|
95807752|NCT03379870|191587500|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed SSQ scores obtained pre-operatively and at 12-months post-activation to evaluate benefit of cochlear implantation.||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.010
95772783|NCT00748189|191516712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparability of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values with ofatumumab in current study and without ofatumumab in prior study|Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.1|||||Ratio of AUC(0-6)/Dose is the ratio of dose-normalized PAAM AUC(0-6) values when given with ofatumumab in the current study and without ofatumumab in the prior study (LEUA1001).|||1.10|0.72|
95772784|NCT00722566|191516724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming ORRs are 35.5% for both SC and IV, one-sided alpha level of 0.025, and approximately 80% power, approximately 216 subjects (144 SC:72 IV) are needed to show non-inferiority of SC to IV VELCADE.|ORR_SQ - 0.6 ORR_IV|16.8||||0.00201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.1|||Farrrington and Manning|CONOR P. FARRINGTON AND GODFREY MANNING STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, VOL. 9, 1447-1454(1990).||In this trial, non-inferiority is defined as retaining 60% of the IV (active control) treatment effect as measured by ORR. The non-inferiority hypothesis can be stated as: H0: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV \<0 vs. H1: ORRSC - 0.60 ORRIV ≥0 (non-inferiority).||27.1|6.1|0.00201
95772785|NCT01080118|191516757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.05|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.05|.05|.001
95772786|NCT01080118|191516757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95772787|NCT01598090|191516760|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Lambda/RBV/TVR to Alfa/RBV/TVR was not established because the lower limit of the 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of -12%. As a result, key secondary endpoints were not tested hierarchically to compare treatment groups.||||||0.0855||||||Non-inferiority testing is based on lower limit of confidence interval.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0855
95772788|NCT01146379|191516770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. P value was not corrected for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis used hierarchical linear modeling to examine the rate of change in ARAT over time. The null hypothesis was that all groups would change at a similar rate.||||.01
95772789|NCT01146379|191516770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis then asked which groups were different from the Low Movement Dose group||||.036
95772790|NCT01146379|191516770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis asked if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the High Movement Dose group||||0.679
95772791|NCT01146379|191516770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis tested if the Low Movement Dose group was different from the Individual Maximum High Movement Dose group||||0.209
95772792|NCT00554515|191516793|SUPERIORITY|Comparison against historical control ORR of 14%.||||||0.042|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.042
95772793|NCT00554515|191516794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between ISM good and poor risk subgroups. ISM good risk ORR reported under primary endpoint.||||0.39
95807753|NCT03379870|191587501|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed receptive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.|||||>|0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.069
95807754|NCT03379870|191587502|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed articulation scores pre-operative and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post-activation)||||||.02
95772794|NCT00554515|191516795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||exact binomial test|||Test against the historical ORR was conducted in the overall study population as secondary analyses.||||0.0014
95772795|NCT00554515|191516798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between MSKCC subgroups.||||.89
95772796|NCT00554515|191516800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between tumor type subgroups||||.33
95772797|NCT00554515|191516801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between clear cell histology subgroups||||.89
95807755|NCT03379870|191587503|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed expressive language scores pre-operatively and 12-months post activation to test for change over time and differences between groups.||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect of test point (pre-operative vs post activation)||||||.007
95772798|NCT00554515|191516802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 score subgroups||||.19
95772799|NCT00554515|191516803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between PD-L1 tumor subgroups||||0.01
95772800|NCT00554515|191516804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between B7-H3 tumor subgroups||||.08
95772801|NCT00554515|191516805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Objective response rates were compared between CA-9 SNP subgroups||||.28
95772802|NCT03139578|191516807|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.06|0.46|
95772803|NCT03139578|191516807|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.625 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of 0.625, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Cumulative Odds Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.52|||Generalized linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was utilized to address the multiple comparisons of different base curves.|Cumulative odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||2.52|0.34|
95772804|NCT03139578|191516808|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.1|98.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||98.1|81.1|
95807756|NCT00107575|191587516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95807757|NCT00107575|191587517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected count ratio|0.81||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||a priori p-value was p \< .05|generalized estimating equations|Negative binomial model controlling for sex, motivation to change drinking, and baseline drinking||||0.98|0.67|.027
95807758|NCT00107575|191587518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
95807759|NCT00107575|191587519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.95
95807760|NCT00107575|191587520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.76
95860382|NCT04881942|191679399|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5972.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4191.1|7753.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7753.6|4191.1|<.0001
96001929|NCT01663740|191981422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|7.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to EOT|||7.135|-3.619|0.5109
95772805|NCT03139578|191516808|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 70% was used for no difference in lens power requirement.|Proportion (%)|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|68.3|92.1|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||92.1|68.3|
95772806|NCT03139578|191516808|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100|90.5|
95772807|NCT03139578|191516808|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin of 80% was used for the lens power requirement difference within ±0.25 D.|Proportion (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|90.5|100.0|||Wilson Method||Lens power requirement difference was calculated as Test minus Control. Then the proportion of eyes with similar lens power requirements (no difference or difference within ±0.25D) was calculated.|||100.0|90.5|
95772808|NCT03139578|191516809|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.7|-0.3|
95772809|NCT03139578|191516809|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
95772810|NCT03139578|191516810|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.4|
95772811|NCT03139578|191516810|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.2|
95772812|NCT03139578|191516811|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.1|
95772813|NCT03139578|191516811|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.3|-0.2|
95807761|NCT04101331|191587521|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
95772814|NCT03139578|191516812|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.5|-0.5|
95772815|NCT03139578|191516812|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -1 was used. If the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than a non-inferiority margin of -1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.4|-0.6|
95772816|NCT03139578|191516813|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.012|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.012|-0.009|
95807762|NCT04101331|191587522|OTHER|||||||0.051||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.051
95807763|NCT04101331|191587523|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.112
95807764|NCT04101331|191587525|OTHER|||||||0.537||||||One-sided p-value.|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test compares versus a proportion of 0.25.||||||0.537
95807765|NCT01373281|191587540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|66.4||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||66.4|43.8|
95772817|NCT03139578|191516813|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.1 was used. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was lower than a non-inferiority margin of 0.1, then non-inferiority of Test relative to Control was concluded.|Least square mean difference|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.009|||Linear mixed model|Simulation-based adjustment was used to address the multiple comparisons.||||0.009|-0.012|
95772818|NCT00305084|191516916|OTHER||MDT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All data regarding safety were registered and analyzed by descriptive analyses. Summary table were generated to document the safety|at least 3 patients per cohort had to be enrolled with expansion to 6 in presence of Dose Limiting Toxicity(DLT) (stop escalation if 2 or more DLTs at the same dose level). With a projection to achieve the highest level of NGR-hTNF, without significative toxicity (1.6 μg/m2) a planned sample of 20-25 patients was expected. DLTs were defined as: any severe toxicity clearly related to the administration of NGR-hTNF. The patient was defined assessable, according to the standard analysis, if he/she received at least one infusion of the investigational product. Maximal Tollerated Dose (MTD) was defined as the dose which produces DLTs in 2 or more patients out of 6 and will be recommended for phase II trials.|||
95772819|NCT01377922|191516926|OTHER|Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline QMG score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||||0.0452|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.||||||0.0452
95772820|NCT01377922|191516927|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Pairwise contrast at Day 14 from MMRM model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline SGI score as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0028
95772821|NCT01377922|191516928|OTHER|||||||0.6274|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction, and double-blind baseline T25FW walking speed as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients.||||0.6274
95772822|NCT01377922|191516929|OTHER|||||||0.0267|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated via a MMRM with change from baseline (Day 1, Part 2), Day 8, and Day 14 as the dependent variable and terms for treatment, time (Day 8, Day 14), treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect. The model assumed time effect to be random between patients||||0.0267
95772823|NCT00665431|191516941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority margin (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|3.34|||ANCOVA|||||3.34|-5.94|
95772824|NCT00665431|191516942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.60|-6.82|
95772825|NCT00665431|191516943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-1.41|
95807766|NCT01373281|191587543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|55.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|62.3||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||62.3|47.3|
95807767|NCT01373281|191587544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|65.2||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||65.2|49.0|
95807768|NCT01373281|191587545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|61.7||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||61.7|46.8|
95807769|NCT02947984|191587558|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the overall cohort.||||0.234
95962166|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.27|-78.12||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-78.12|-91.27|<.0001
95807770|NCT02947984|191587558|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the subgroup receiving treatment due to a sub-total resection||||.820
95772826|NCT00529373|191516985|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.53|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.53|0.40|<0.001
95772827|NCT00529373|191516986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.71|0.39|<0.001
95772828|NCT00529373|191516987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.87|0.68|<0.001
95772829|NCT00529373|191516988|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.55|||Generalized linear model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. Generalized linear model for binary data with cloglog link and terms for time interval, treatment, stratum, and geographic region. cloglog link = complementary log log transformation of probability of an event up to the time-point.||0.55|0.42|<0.001
95807771|NCT02947984|191587558|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Progression free survival is not significantly different by dose level in the sub-group receiving treatment due to recurrent disease||||.061
95807772|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.2|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.20|0.39|
95772830|NCT00529373|191516989|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.67|0.40|<0.001
95772831|NCT00529373|191516990|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.83|0.66|<0.001
95772832|NCT00529373|191516991|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.07||||||||4.07|-2.3|
95772833|NCT00529373|191516992|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.16|
95807773|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.34|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||5.34|0.38|
95807774|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.11|-0.20|
95953439|NCT02446912|191878088|SUPERIORITY|Analysed using a negative binomial regression model. The response variable in the model is the number of flares over the 52-week treatment period. The model includes covariates of treatment group, and the stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>=10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]). The logarithm of the follow-up time is used as an offset variable.|Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.14||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.14|0.60|0.258
95953440|NCT02446912|191878089|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.7|0.6|
95953441|NCT02446912|191878090|SUPERIORITY|The difference in estimates and associated 95% CI are weighted and are calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach, with stratification factors (SLEDAI-2K score at screening \[\<10 points vs \>= 10 points\], Week 0 OCS dose \[\<10 mg/day vs \>=10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent\] and type I IFN gene signature test result at screening \[high vs low\]).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.2|6.7|
95953442|NCT04864236|191878104|EQUIVALENCE|We compared particle number counts between intervention and control groups using the Wilcoxon test. Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS V28 and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953443|NCT04864236|191878105|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.073
95953444|NCT04864236|191878106|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics and study variables were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.670
95953445|NCT04864236|191878107|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.167
95953446|NCT04864236|191878108|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.198
95807775|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.9|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||4.90|0.54|
95772834|NCT00529373|191516996|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|13.93|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||13.93|3.9|<0.001
95772835|NCT00529373|191516997|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|36.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg vs Placebo||36.40|16.49|<0.001
95772836|NCT00529373|191516998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.14|
95772837|NCT00529373|191516998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.12|-0.12|
95807776|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.26|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||5.26|0.55|
95807777|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.39|-0.10|
95953447|NCT04864236|191878109|EQUIVALENCE|Patient characteristics were summarized between groups using mean (SD) and formally compared using the t-test.||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.442
95953448|NCT02100189|191878118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|30.72|||Sensitivity||Exact Binomial confidence interval.|||30.72|3.76|
95953449|NCT02100189|191878119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.97|99.87|||Specificity||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.87|73.97|
95953450|NCT00134056|191878193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 18.0 months to 22.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.19|0.90|0.64
95962167|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-59.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.57|-50.57||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-50.57|-67.57|<.0001
95995720|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.985|-0.718||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.718|-2.985|0.0014
95995721|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.573|0.686||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.686|-1.573|0.4413
95995722|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.569|-0.304||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.304|-2.569|0.0129
95995723|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|1.07||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.070|-1.182|0.9222
95995724|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.157|1.1||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.100|-1.157|0.9602
95995725|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.533|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|-1.533|0.4669
95995726|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.656||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.656|-1.598|0.4126
95772838|NCT00529373|191516998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.09|-0.17|
95772839|NCT00529373|191516998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.08|-0.50|
95995727|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.551|-0.265||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.265|-2.551|0.0158
95995728|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|-0.24||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||-0.240|-2.521|0.0177
95772840|NCT00529373|191516999|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.38|-0.16|
95772841|NCT00529373|191516999|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.44||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.44|-0.15|
95995729|NCT01431287|191967152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|1.109||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||1.109|-1.164|0.9624
95995730|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.862||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.862|0.329|<0.0001
96001930|NCT01663740|191981422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2058||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.566|5.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from Baseline to end of FU|||5.464|-7.566|0.7449
95995731|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.907||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.907|0.373|<0.0001
95772842|NCT00529373|191516999|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.54|-0.15|
95995732|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.69||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.690|0.156|0.0019
95995733|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.712||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.712|0.179|0.0011
95995734|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.735||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.735|0.201|0.0006
95995735|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.438||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.438|-0.094|0.2045
95995736|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|0.885||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.885|0.351|<0.0001
95995737|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.223||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.223|-0.313|0.7432
95772843|NCT00529373|191516999|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.62||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.62|-0.24|
95772844|NCT00529373|191517000|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.15|-0.08|
95807778|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.67|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.67|1.05|
95772845|NCT00529373|191517000|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.21|-0.06|
95772846|NCT00529373|191517000|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.17|-0.12|
95807779|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.99|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||5.99|1.02|
95807780|NCT05796245|191587591|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.32|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.32|-0.06|
95995738|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.245||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.245|-0.290|0.8687
95995739|NCT01431287|191967153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.246||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.246|-0.290|0.8709
95995740|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|0.898||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.898|0.362|<0.0001
95995741|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.703||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.703|0.166|0.0015
95995742|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.687||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.687|0.151|0.0022
95995743|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.495||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.495|-0.041|0.0966
95995744|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.492||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.492|-0.045|0.1029
95995745|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.478||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.478|-0.056|0.1220
95995746|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.707||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.707|0.170|0.0014
95995747|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.465||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.465|-0.074|0.1542
95995748|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.461||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.461|-0.077|0.1626
95995749|NCT01431287|191967154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||djusted mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.274||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.274|-0.265|0.9765
95995750|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.925||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.925|0.370|<0.0001
95995751|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.6||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.600|0.045|0.0226
95807781|NCT05796245|191587592|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the Comparative analysis set (IPTW weighted) and for the Comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated. Also, crude hazard ratio and crude risk ratio could not be calculated.||0.00|-0.01|
95995752|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.649||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.649|0.093|0.0089
95772847|NCT00529373|191517000|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum (sarcopenia, non-sarcopenia), time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for stratum size).||0.28|-0.09|
95772848|NCT00529373|191517001|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.84||||||||4.84|-1.8|
95772849|NCT00529373|191517002|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.04|
95772850|NCT00529373|191517003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.40|0.19|<0.001
95772851|NCT00529373|191517004|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. The mixed model contained fixed effects for treatment, region, stratum, treatment-year interaction and random effect intercept and slope (year) and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|0.00|0.041
95772852|NCT00529373|191517005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Logistic model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW versus Placebo. Treatment comparison for height loss at any time during the treatment period. The logistic model contained terms for treatment, geographic region and stratum.||0.98|0.81|0.014
95772853|NCT00529373|191517006|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.75|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.75|0.90|<0.001
95772854|NCT00529373|191517006|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.61|2.37|<0.001
95772855|NCT00529373|191517006|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
95807782|NCT05796245|191587593|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||12.49|0.12|
95807783|NCT05796245|191587593|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|17.14|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.14|0.12|
95953451|NCT00134056|191878194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis was by intention to treat and the Hochberg procedure was used for multiple testing of co-primary endpoints. Assuming a 4 year accrual, 2.5 years of follow-up, and 930 eligible patients, the study was designed to have 87% power to detect a 25% increase from 6.0 months to 7.5 months in median overall survival with a one-sided log rank with alpha of 0.0125.||1.16|0.89|0.81
96001931|NCT01663740|191981423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.869|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2934||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.001|9.739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline TUNEL score,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in TUNEL score from EOT to end of FU|||9.739|-4.001|0.3940
95807784|NCT05796245|191587593|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.01|-0.05|
95807785|NCT05796245|191587593|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|45.94|||||Crude Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set Note: Hazard ratio, risk ratio, and risk difference for the comparative matched analysis set could not be calculated.||45.94|0.81|
95772856|NCT00529373|191517006|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|6.64|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.64|6.25|<0.001
95772857|NCT00529373|191517006|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.11|9.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.12|8.11|<0.001
95772858|NCT00529373|191517006|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|10.29|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.29|8.70|<0.001
95772859|NCT00529373|191517007|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.46|2.47|<0.001
95772860|NCT00529373|191517007|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|4.22|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.22|3.93|<0.001
95772861|NCT00529373|191517007|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|6.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.23|5.87|<0.001
95807786|NCT05796245|191587593|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|53.51|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||53.51|0.93|
95807787|NCT05796245|191587593|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.04|
95807788|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|17.61|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||17.61|0.16|
95807789|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|19.79|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||19.79|0.17|
95807790|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.03|-0.12|
95807791|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|45.68|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||45.68|0.15|
95807792|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|34.94|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||34.94|0.12|
95807793|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.26|-0.10|
95807794|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.93|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.93|0.37|
95807795|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|19.31|||||Crude Risk Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||19.31|0.37|
95807796|NCT05796245|191587594|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.10|-0.05|
95807797|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.85|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.85|0.02|
95807798|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.99|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||1.99|0.02|
95807799|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set, IPTW weighted||0.00|-0.17|
95807800|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|6.0|||||Hazard Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.00|0.07|
95953452|NCT02849509|191878204|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
95953453|NCT02849509|191878204|OTHER|||||||0.0174||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the second assessment (Visit 2) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0174
95953454|NCT02849509|191878205|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||<0.0001
95953455|NCT02849509|191878205|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||p-value of paired t-test compared to baseline|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 at the last assessment (Visit 3) were compared with the baseline assessment (Visit 1). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0004
95807801|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|6.61|||||Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||6.61|0.08|
95807802|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative matched analysis set||0.21|-0.10|
95807803|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Cox Proportional Hazard|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.22|||||Crude Hazard Ratio Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.22|0.28|
95807804|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|15.08|||||Crude Risk Ratio of Exposed/Reference, where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||15.08|0.29|
95807805|NCT05796245|191587595|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||||Crude Risk Difference (Exposed-Reference), where Exposed is Infliximab-Pfizer Biosimilar and Reference is Remicade.|Comparative analysis set||0.09|-0.05|
95807806|NCT02579759|191587603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.06|-0.68|0.008
95995753|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.609||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.609|0.056|0.0186
95995754|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.324||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.324|-0.231|0.7441
95995755|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.551||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.551|0.001|0.0492
95995756|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.884||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.884|0.332|<0.0001
95995757|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.605||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.605|0.045|0.0230
95995758|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.317||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.317|-0.240|0.7855
95772862|NCT00529373|191517007|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.62|8.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.06|7.62|<0.001
95772863|NCT00529373|191517007|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|10.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.27|9.16|<0.001
95807807|NCT02579759|191587603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.287|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.14|-0.39|0.287
95807808|NCT02579759|191587603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||-0.03|-0.59|0.013
95995759|NCT01431287|191967155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.564||Mixed effect model repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed effects of treatment, planned test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, and baseline by test day interaction; patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Spatial power covariance structure for within-patient errors.|||0.564|0.007|0.0442
95995760|NCT03576144|191967171|OTHER||Slope|1.0474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0283|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9997|1.0951|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUC0-12 of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0951|0.9997|
95807809|NCT02579759|191587603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03|||Longitudinal mixed model|||"This analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: Longitudinal model where the effect of each treatment over time (baseline, 6, 12 and 15 months) was estimated through a mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) assuming time from baseline (Time) and Time-by-Treatment full interaction as fixed effects and patient as random effect and considering Time as continuous linear effect~3. Missing value imputation: No imputation"||0.03|-0.42|0.05
95772864|NCT00529373|191517007|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|12.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.23|10.23|<0.001
95772865|NCT00529373|191517008|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.03|0.95|<0.001
95772866|NCT00529373|191517008|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
95772867|NCT00529373|191517008|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.19|<0.001
95772868|NCT00529373|191517008|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|6.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.68|6.24|<0.001
95772869|NCT00529373|191517008|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.02|7.82|<0.001
95772870|NCT00529373|191517008|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|9.53|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.53|7.54|<0.001
95772871|NCT00529373|191517009|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.46|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.46|1.03|<0.001
95772872|NCT00529373|191517009|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
95772873|NCT00529373|191517009|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.17|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.17|<0.001
95807810|NCT02579759|191587603|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.31|0.013
95807811|NCT02579759|191587604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.91|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.03|-0.91|0.016
95953456|NCT02849509|191878206|OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0423
95953457|NCT02849509|191878206|OTHER|||||||0.2226||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.2226
96001932|NCT01663740|191981424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3687||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.903|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Basline to EOT|||0.903|-0.594|0.6773
95772874|NCT00529373|191517009|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|9.57|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36||9.57|8.98|<0.001
95772875|NCT00529373|191517009|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.66|13.22|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48||13.22|11.66|<0.001
95772876|NCT00529373|191517009|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|15.04|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60||15.04|12.58|<0.001
95772877|NCT00529373|191517010|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.55|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.55|0.67|<0.001
95995761|NCT03576144|191967172|OTHER||Slope|1.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.0732|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.0732|0.9451|
95995762|NCT03576144|191967173|OTHER||Slope|1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9972|1.1069|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1069|0.9972|
95995763|NCT03576144|191967174|OTHER||Slope|1.0361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0379|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9722|1.1001|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss of BI 1265162 in plasma was assessed using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data). The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate. No statistical hypotheses were tested in a confirmatory sense.||1.1001|0.9722|
95995764|NCT00265941|191967191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.32|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + cisplatin|A total of 945 patients were required (900 analyzable) to test for a 25% reduction in the hazard associated with progression-free survival with 84% statistical power using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level (0.0238 after 3 interim analyses).||1.32|0.88|0.76
95995765|NCT00265941|191967192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|Arms were compared using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level.||1.21|0.74|0.32
95995766|NCT00265941|191967193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.7|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level of 0.025|Reference level = RT + cisplatin|||1.70|0.99|0.97
95995767|NCT00265941|191967198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||3 months||||0.74
95995768|NCT00265941|191967198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov|2-sided significance level of 0.05||12 months||||0.99
95995769|NCT00265941|191967199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Diet 3-month||||0.13
95807812|NCT02579759|191587604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.08|-0.65|0.084
95995770|NCT00265941|191967199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level 0.05||Diet 12-month||||0.87
95995771|NCT00265941|191967199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 3-month||||0.39
95995772|NCT00265941|191967199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Eating 12-month||||0.16
95995773|NCT00265941|191967199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 3-month||||0.81
95995774|NCT00265941|191967199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Speech 12-month||||0.67
95995775|NCT00265941|191967200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||||||0.016
95995776|NCT00265941|191967201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Progression-free survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.51|0.79|0.60
95995777|NCT00265941|191967201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.76|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Overall survival is compared between favorable risk and unfavorable risk groups.||1.76|0.81|0.37
95995778|NCT00265941|191967201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low EGFR|Local-regional failure||1.46|0.60|0.76
95995779|NCT00265941|191967202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.75|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Progression-free survival is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.75|0.12|0.01
95995780|NCT00265941|191967202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Overall survival (OS) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||1.20|0.12|0.10
95995781|NCT00265941|191967202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.97|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = low|Loco-regional control (LRC) is compared between low and high SUVmax groups.||0.97|0.10|0.04
95995782|NCT01381094|191967204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|0.24|
95995783|NCT01381094|191967204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||||||||1.33|0.20|
95995784|NCT01381094|191967204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83||||||||1.83|0.73|
95995785|NCT01381094|191967204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.0||||||||2.00|0.91|
95995786|NCT01381094|191967204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95995787|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9355|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9355
95995788|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6594|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6594
95995789|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0203|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0203
95995790|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0369|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0369
95995791|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY|p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).|||||=|0.3713|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.3713
95995792|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.163|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1630
95995793|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7615|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7615
95995794|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0040
95953458|NCT02849509|191878207|OTHER|||||||0.0287||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0287
95953459|NCT02849509|191878207|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort B, were compared between matched Pradaxa® and VKA patients at the second assessment. There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.0300
95953460|NCT02849509|191878213|OTHER|||||||0.1234||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Convenience dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.1234
95953461|NCT02849509|191878213|OTHER|||||||0.974||||||p-value of paired t-test compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3)|Paired t-test|||Satisfaction dimension score of PACT-Q2 for patients in Cohort A, were compared between second assessment (Visit 2) and last assessment (Visit 3). There was no (confirmatory) hypothesis testing foreseen in a strict statistical sense. Analyses were descriptive in nature and p-values from statistical models were used for exploratory purposes.||||0.9740
95953462|NCT00914732|191878427|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.25||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.25|-1.23|
95995795|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0003
95995796|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3978|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3978
95995797|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0083|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0083
95995798|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0323|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0323
95995799|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0003
95995800|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0001
95995801|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.423|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4230
95995802|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0023
95995803|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0009
95995804|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995805|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995806|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5291|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5291
95995807|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
95995808|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0222|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0222
95995809|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
95995810|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
95995811|NCT01381094|191967205|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9314|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9314
95995812|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5219|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5219
95995813|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.6743
95995814|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0078|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0078
95995815|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0301|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0301
95995816|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4502|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.4502
95995817|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6967|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6967
95995818|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7385
95995819|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0176|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0176
95995820|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0057|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0057
95995821|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5551|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5551
95995822|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0086
95995823|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2385|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2385
95995824|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0007
95995825|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0002
95995826|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8895|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8895
95995827|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0127|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0127
95772878|NCT00529373|191517010|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.84|0.85|<0.001
95807813|NCT02579759|191587604|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose effect:~Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||-0.04|-0.41|0.015
95995828|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0076
95995829|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0007|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0007
95995830|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995831|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5522|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5522
95995832|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0031
95995833|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2188|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2188
95995834|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0054|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0054
95772879|NCT00529373|191517010|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.47|1.38|<0.001
95995835|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0037
95995836|NCT01381094|191967206|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9521|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9521
95995837|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3943|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.3943
95772880|NCT00529373|191517010|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.51|0.89|0.001
95953463|NCT00914732|191878428|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.32|-0.33||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable||-0.33|-1.32|
95953464|NCT00914732|191878429|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.52||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.52|-0.43|
95953465|NCT00914732|191878430|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|0.23||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.23|-0.77|
95953466|NCT00914732|191878433|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.71||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.71|-0.3|
95953467|NCT00914732|191878434|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation subcutaneously (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (2x10\^7 TCID50) formulation intradermally (Liquid ID) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Liquid ID was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.35||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.35|-0.31|
95953468|NCT00914732|191878435|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x10\^8 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Liquid SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.04||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||0.04|-0.74|
95953469|NCT00914732|191878436|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean difference in log2 transformed peak titers between IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) liquid formulation (Liquid SC Group) and IMVAMUNE® (1x108 TCID50) lyophilized formulation (Lyophilized SC) with its associated two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was computed. If the upper limit of the 97.5% CI was less than 1, then the Lyophilized SC was considered non-inferior to the Lyophilized SC group. The difference and the CI are reported on the log2 scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.12||||||The sample size calculations targeted at least 80% power to test non-inferiority for the primary and secondary immunogenicity end points for two investigational arms in reference to a control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.8 for log2 peak PRNT or ELISA titer in each group, a non-inferiority margin of 2.0-fold, a type I error rate of 1.25% (Bonferroni adjusted for 2 comparisons), and drop-out rate of 10%, 165 participants in each group were to be enrolled to achieve 148 evaluable.||-0.12|-0.81|
95995838|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2096|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.2096
95995839|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0637|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0637
95995840|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.5016
95995841|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7549|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.7549
95995842|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5991|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5991
95995843|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4258
95995844|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0336|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0336
95995845|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0258|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0258
95995846|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2412|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.2412
95995847|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0031|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0031
95995848|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7705|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7705
95995849|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0024
95995850|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0006
95995851|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6189|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6189
95995852|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0075|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0075
95864382|NCT03060551|191686718|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.656||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
95995853|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0259|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0259
95995854|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995855|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995856|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8898|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8898
95995857|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0010
95995858|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2864|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2864
95995859|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0002
95995860|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0016|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0016
95995861|NCT01381094|191967207|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9697|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9697
95995862|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=1.0000
95995863|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0055
95772881|NCT00529373|191517010|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||5.54|1.46|0.001
95772882|NCT00529373|191517011|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|6.2|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.2|5.37|<0.001
95772883|NCT00529373|191517011|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|4.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.37|3.67|<0.001
95995864|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0009
95995865|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.0002
95995866|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9722|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 1).||||=0.9722
95995867|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=1.0000
95772884|NCT00529373|191517011|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|8.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.13|7.11|<0.001
95864383|NCT03060551|191686719|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.096||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
95995868|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0008|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0008
95995869|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0002
95995870|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
95772885|NCT00529373|191517011|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.06|7.96|<0.001
95772886|NCT00529373|191517012|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.68|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.68|2.11|<0.001
95953470|NCT03005106|191878446|OTHER|Difference between treatment and control sites|Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference is (percent area of Autograft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3) - (percent area of StrataGraft treatment site requiring autografting by Month 3).|one-sided Wilcoxin Signed RankTtest|||||||<0.0001
95953471|NCT03005106|191878447|OTHER||Percentage of participants|83.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|91.8|||||95% confidence interval is derived using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||91.8|74.4|
95953472|NCT03005106|191878448|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the mean difference(Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
95953473|NCT03005106|191878449|OTHER|Difference is Autograft - StrataGraft|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing total score data were imputed using a multiple imputation analysis assuming a monotone missing data pattern. A linear regression model with ethnicity, race and age as predictive variables was used in the imputation.|1-sided, paired t-test|p-value from 1-sided, paired t-test on the difference (Autograft - StrataGraft)||||||<0.0001
95953474|NCT00145496|191878450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7177||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.7177
95953475|NCT00145496|191878451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0565||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||0.0565
95953476|NCT00145496|191878452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.025 nominal significance using the Bonferroni adjustment to account for multiplicity of the key secondary comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from baseline in body weight between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 182.||||<0.0001
95953477|NCT00738400|191878496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.03|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-4.49|-9.03|<0.0001
95953478|NCT00738400|191878497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.66|-10.76|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-10.76|-30.66|<0.0001
95953479|NCT00738400|191878498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.48|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-14.83|-37.48|<0.0001
95953480|NCT00738400|191878499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel Test||||0.0004
95953481|NCT00738400|191878500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57||||0.0003||95.0|-23.8|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-7.34|-23.80|0.0003
95772887|NCT00529373|191517012|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|3.84|<0.001
95772888|NCT00529373|191517012|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|6.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.30|5.41|<0.001
95772889|NCT00529373|191517012|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.09|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.09|7.00|<0.001
95772890|NCT00529373|191517013|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.59|1.83|<0.001
95772891|NCT00529373|191517013|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.78|3.87|<0.001
95772892|NCT00529373|191517013|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|6.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.62|5.56|<0.001
95772893|NCT00529373|191517013|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|6.97|<0.001
95772894|NCT00529373|191517014|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|3.9|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12||3.90|2.98|<0.001
95772895|NCT00529373|191517014|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|6.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.59|5.47|<0.001
95772896|NCT00529373|191517014|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|9.16|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.16|7.81|<0.001
95772897|NCT00529373|191517014|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.15|14.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||14.36|9.15|<0.001
95772898|NCT00529373|191517015|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.31|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.31|-0.14|0.083
95772899|NCT00529373|191517015|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.05||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.4|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.40|-0.31|0.129
95772900|NCT00529373|191517015|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.21||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.67|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.67|-0.25|0.104
95772901|NCT00529373|191517015|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.55||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|8.02|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.02|-4.92|0.617
95772902|NCT00529373|191517016|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-58.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.68|-53.3|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-53.30|-64.68|<0.001
95807814|NCT02579759|191587605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-1.01|0.162
95807815|NCT02579759|191587605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.39|-0.66|0.556
95807816|NCT02579759|191587605|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.43|0.204
95772903|NCT00529373|191517016|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-53.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-53.61|-66.40|<0.001
95772904|NCT00529373|191517016|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|-40.17|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-40.17|-53.23|<0.001
95953482|NCT00738400|191878501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|||<|0.0001||95.0|-37.24|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA, baseline covariate, endpoint week 8 or LOCF. Factors: treatment, pooled centers. Ls mean at endpoint||-17.43|-37.24|<0.0001
95953483|NCT02255474|191878509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons, treatment group p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in analysis adjusting for correlation.||||<0.01
95953484|NCT02255474|191878510|SUPERIORITY||quadratic coefficient|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Individual subject eye length profiles were fit using quadratic equations as a function of gaze angle. The analysis of quadratic coefficients included treatment group, study year (categorical variable), and their interaction adjusted for age, study site, and ethnicity.||||0.05
95772905|NCT00529373|191517016|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.62|-36.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-36.72|-52.62|0.050
95772906|NCT00529373|191517016|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|-0.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-0.01|-37.44|0.050
95772907|NCT00529373|191517017|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.11|-47.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6.||-47.28|-56.11|<0.001
95772908|NCT00529373|191517017|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.39|-48.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12.||-48.79|-58.39|<0.001
95772909|NCT00529373|191517017|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-56.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.52|-50.84|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24.||-50.84|-62.52|<0.001
95772910|NCT00529373|191517017|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.04|-52.23|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36.||-52.23|-66.04|<0.001
95772911|NCT00529373|191517017|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-44.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.72|-27.36|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48.||-27.36|-61.72|<0.001
95953485|NCT02255474|191878511|SUPERIORITY||regression coefficient|-0.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, axial length at baseline, race, treatment group, treatment group by race interaction.||This analysis looks at the three-year change in spherical equivalent refractive error for different eccentricities of peripheral defocus measured with contact lenses in place||||0.05
95772912|NCT00529373|191517018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-11.27|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.27|-17.00|<0.001
95772913|NCT00529373|191517018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-8.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-8.79|-15.22|<0.001
95772914|NCT00529373|191517018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-5.13|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-5.13|-13.45|<0.001
95772915|NCT00529373|191517018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-3.41|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-3.41|-11.87|<0.001
95953486|NCT02255474|191878512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Both eyes used in the analysis controlling for the correlation.||||0.05
95953487|NCT01542502|191878516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95953488|NCT01542502|191878517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
95953489|NCT03247985|191878539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for bilateral operative time.||||0.17
95953490|NCT03247985|191878539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for unilateral operative time.||||0.09
95953491|NCT03247985|191878542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
95953492|NCT02577315|191878544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.466|102.804|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.804|97.466|
95953493|NCT02577315|191878545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|95.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|102.16|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||102.16|89.29|
95953494|NCT02577315|191878546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.309|108.413|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||108.413|97.309|
95953495|NCT02577315|191878547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|101.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.565|106.902|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||106.902|95.565|
95953496|NCT02577315|191878548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|100.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.532|103.149|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Empagliflozin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||103.149|97.532|
95953497|NCT02577315|191878549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means (gMeans) with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%|Ratio of geometric means|93.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.86|105.61|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log scale was used with subjects within sequences as random, whereas sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of Metformin was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean).|Empagliflozin / Metformin (FDC) vs. Empagliflozin + Metformin free combination||105.61|82.86|
95953498|NCT02819141|191878564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for age, daily sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, sedation intensity, and time of day of assessment||We estimated the power for multilevel models approximating our study design. A sample size of 95 patients per arm, 190 total (at a minimum 7 data collection points for each, resulting in \~1,050 observations) will have greater than 80% power to detect small to moderate effects (i.e., 0.11 or greater) in between-group differences in anxiety, delirium, and duration of mechanical ventilation at alpha = .05 for all proposed models.||||0.30
95953499|NCT02819141|191878564|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for time of day, study day, age, sex, illness severity, and sedation frequency||||||0.9858|||||||Generalized Estimating equations|||||||0.9858
95772916|NCT00529373|191517018|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|10.79|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||10.79|-12.34|0.896
95995871|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6579|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6579
95995872|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4102|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.4102
95995873|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0023
95995874|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0052
95995875|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0017
95995876|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7378|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7378
95772917|NCT00529373|191517019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|-25.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-25.39|-33.47|<0.001
95807817|NCT02579759|191587606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.232|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.25|0.38|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.38|-1.25|0.232
95995877|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3371|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3371
95995878|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0916
95995879|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4656
95995880|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1629|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1629
95995881|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.7032
95995882|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5194|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5194
95995883|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8516|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8516
95995884|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0017
95995885|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0656|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0656
95772918|NCT00529373|191517019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-21.34|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-21.34|-30.54|<0.001
95772919|NCT00529373|191517019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|-11.12|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-11.12|-21.41|<0.001
95772920|NCT00529373|191517019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-6.19|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||-6.19|-18.03|<0.001
95772921|NCT00529373|191517019|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.45|||Longitudinal|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. Longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects (LS Means weighted for region and stratum size).||9.45|-16.12|0.610
95772922|NCT00529373|191517020|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.34|0.95|0.182
95772923|NCT00529373|191517021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.55|0.9|0.235
95772924|NCT00529373|191517022|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
95772925|NCT00529373|191517023|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.89|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.89|0.59|0.857
95772926|NCT00529373|191517024|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.59|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.59|0.76|0.606
95807818|NCT02579759|191587606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.74|0.64|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.64|-0.74|0.868
95807819|NCT02579759|191587606|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.17|-0.53|0.322
95807820|NCT02579759|191587607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.377|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.62|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.62|-1.43|0.377
95953500|NCT02819141|191878565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95953501|NCT02819141|191878566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation intensity, age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, study day, and time of day assessment||||||0.97
95953502|NCT02819141|191878566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||Generalized estimating equations|Controlling for sedation frequency, age, sex, illness severity, study day, and time of day assessment.||||||0.5647
95953503|NCT02819141|191878567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Generalized estimating equation|controlling for age, daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, time of day of assessment||||||0.39
95953504|NCT02819141|191878568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||GEE|||||||0.37
95772927|NCT00529373|191517025|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.6|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.6|0.98|0.074
95772928|NCT00529373|191517026|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.29|0.97|0.127
95772929|NCT00529373|191517027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.52|0.89|0.277
95772930|NCT00529373|191517028|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.15|0.58|0.256
95772931|NCT00529373|191517029|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.57|0.29|0.794
95953505|NCT02819141|191878569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
95953506|NCT02819141|191878569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.81
95953507|NCT02819141|191878570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.47
95953508|NCT02819141|191878570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
95953509|NCT02819141|191878571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 months after ICU discharge||||0.164
95953510|NCT02819141|191878571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 months after ICU discharge||||0.84
95953511|NCT02819141|191878572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.26
95953512|NCT02819141|191878573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.82
95953513|NCT02819141|191878574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.018
95953514|NCT02819141|191878575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.66
95953515|NCT02819141|191878576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.63
95953516|NCT02819141|191878577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.41
95772932|NCT00529373|191517030|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.7|1.02|0.034
95772933|NCT00529373|191517031|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.97|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.97|0.93|0.081
95772934|NCT00529373|191517032|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.01|0.92|<0.001
95772935|NCT00529373|191517032|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.37|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.37|2.05|<0.001
95772936|NCT00529373|191517032|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|4.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.57|4.20|<0.001
95807821|NCT02579759|191587607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.334|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.21|0.48|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.48|-1.21|0.334
95807822|NCT02579759|191587607|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||Regression, Linear|||"Dose is defined as a numerical variable proportional to quantity of PXT3003 administered (0 for Placebo, 1 for Dose 1, 2 for Dose 2).~The analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA assessing the dose-effect at the mean of 12 and 15 months, adjusting for baseline value and assuming centre as random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.23|-0.62|0.373
95807823|NCT02579759|191587611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0|-0.58|0.023
95807824|NCT02579759|191587611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.162|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"The main analysis was performed as follows:~1. Analysis population: modified Full Analysis Set (mFAS)~2. Statistical model: ANCOVA where the mean at 12 and 15 months of each treatment group was compared against the placebo group, adjusting for the baseline value and assuming centre as a random effect~3. Missing value imputation: multiple imputation taking into account the reason of missingness"||0.09|-0.4|0.162
95807825|NCT02579759|191587615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.77|5.68|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||5.68|0.77|0.097
95807826|NCT02579759|191587615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.42|2.7|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||2.7|0.42|0.865
95807827|NCT02579759|191587616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.99|11.62|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||11.62|0.99|0.026
95807828|NCT02579759|191587616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5|3.16|||General Linear Mixed Model|||The proportion of responders (on Completers selection only) at the end of treatment was assessed through a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) featuring logistic regression including treatment as a fixed effect, adjusting for the baseline value and center as a random effect.||3.16|0.5|0.569
95807829|NCT04378153|191587617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
95953517|NCT02819141|191878578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
95953518|NCT02819141|191878579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.93
95953519|NCT02819141|191878580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
95953520|NCT02819141|191878581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.69
95953521|NCT02819141|191878582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.94
95953522|NCT02819141|191878583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.50
95953523|NCT02819141|191878584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
95953524|NCT02819141|191878585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
95953525|NCT02819141|191878586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.85
95953526|NCT02819141|191878587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.95
95772937|NCT00529373|191517032|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|6.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.72|6.28|<0.001
95995886|NCT01381094|191967208|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6495|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6495
95772938|NCT00529373|191517032|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.02|8.57|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.57|8.02|<0.001
95772939|NCT00529373|191517032|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|10.38|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.38|9.72|<0.001
95772940|NCT00529373|191517033|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.54|0.66|<0.001
95772941|NCT00529373|191517033|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.85|0.87|<0.001
95772942|NCT00529373|191517033|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.50|1.42|<0.001
95772943|NCT00529373|191517033|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.96|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.96|1.40|<0.001
95772944|NCT00529373|191517033|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.11|1.54|0.001
95807830|NCT03345550|191587623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline||||.24
95807831|NCT03345550|191587623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||1 month analysis||||.43
95772945|NCT00529373|191517034|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. the Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.45|0.24|<0.001
95807832|NCT03345550|191587623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||3 month||||.54
95995887|NCT01381094|191967209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2065|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.2065
95995888|NCT01381094|191967209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1807|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.1807
95772946|NCT00529373|191517035|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||Regression, Cox|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW vs Placebo. The Cox proportional hazards model included terms for treatment, stratum and geographic region.||0.75|0.60|<0.001
95772947|NCT00529373|191517036|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||1.74|0.94|<0.001
95772948|NCT00529373|191517036|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|2.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.62|2.38|<0.001
95807833|NCT03345550|191587626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
95807834|NCT04350866|191587683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|21.11|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-training to implementation||21.11|8.99|<0.0001
95807835|NCT04350866|191587683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||3.00|0.81|0.18
95807836|NCT04350866|191587683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||2.22|1.17|0.003
95807837|NCT04350866|191587683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||pre-implementation to implementation||1.76|0.77|0.48
95807838|NCT04350866|191587686|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95807839|NCT04350866|191587686|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.83|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minneapolis VAMC||||<0.0001
95772949|NCT00529373|191517036|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|4.62|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.62|4.31|<0.001
95772950|NCT00529373|191517036|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|6.65|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.65|6.26|<0.001
95772951|NCT00529373|191517036|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|8.73|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||8.73|8.24|<0.001
95807840|NCT04350866|191587686|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.79|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Philadelphia VAMC||||<0.0001
95807841|NCT04350866|191587686|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.6|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Durham VAMC||||<0.0001
95772952|NCT00529373|191517036|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|10.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||10.59|9.99|<0.001
95807842|NCT04350866|191587686|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.01|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baltimore VAMC||||<0.0001
95807843|NCT04350866|191587687|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||All Sites||||<0.0001
95953527|NCT00925288|191878618|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Since the standard schedule is at (0, 2, 6 months), and the modified schedule at (0, 3, 6 months), we will consider this a non-inferiority study. With 80% power, type 1 error of 0.05, standard deviations of 0.6, and an equivalence margin of 0.3, 64 women are needed per group to detect non-inferiority. Having 100 women in each study arm will yield over 94% power to detect non-inferiority of the modified schedule.|||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that both schedules will provide an equivalent antibody response.||||>0.20
95953528|NCT00925288|191878619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Completion rates compared in the 2 study arms||||0.60
95953529|NCT00925288|191878620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparison of differences in HPV DNA prevalence by study arm.||||0.53
95953530|NCT00635570|191878648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's chi-squared test with 1 degree of freedom was used for analysis||The trial sample size of 300 participants total (150 participants each group) was based on two-sided 5% significance testing with 80% power to detect a difference of 10% in adherence between students in the contraceptive vaginal ring group and oral contraceptive pill group.||||0.05
95953531|NCT00635570|191878649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95772953|NCT00529373|191517037|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.42|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||2.42|1.06|<0.001
95772954|NCT00529373|191517037|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.7|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.70|3.31|<0.001
95772955|NCT00529373|191517037|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|6.65|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24||6.65|6.16|<0.001
95772956|NCT00529373|191517037|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|9.54|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.54|8.95|<0.001
95772957|NCT00529373|191517037|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.76|12.51|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||12.51|11.76|<0.001
95807844|NCT04350866|191587687|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Minneapolis VAMC||||<0.0001
95807845|NCT04350866|191587687|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Philadelphia VAMC||||<0.0001
95807846|NCT04350866|191587687|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Durham VAMC||||<0.0001
95807847|NCT04350866|191587687|SUPERIORITY||effect size for mixed effects model|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baltimore VAMC||||<0.0001
95953532|NCT00635570|191878650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95807848|NCT04204902|191587766|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.21|99.84||||||||99.84|83.21|
95807849|NCT04204902|191587767|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|90.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.99|99.61||||||||99.61|82.99|
95807850|NCT04204902|191587768|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90 percentage Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00 percentage - 125.00 percentage|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.17|115.0||||||||115.00|95.17|
95807851|NCT00456365|191587807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95807852|NCT00456365|191587808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95995889|NCT01381094|191967209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7869|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.7869
95772958|NCT00529373|191517037|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.11|15.01|||Longitudinal model|Includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size)||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 60. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||15.01|14.11|<0.001
95772959|NCT00529373|191517038|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.39|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 6. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||3.39|2.40|<0.001
95772960|NCT00529373|191517038|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|4.15|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 12. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||4.15|3.87|<0.001
95953533|NCT00635570|191878651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95953534|NCT01537120|191878681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.96||||||||0.96|0.85|
95953535|NCT01537120|191878682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.23||||||||-0.23|-0.36|
95953536|NCT01537120|191878683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.62|
95953537|NCT03722485|191878685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment effect using a generalized linear model with treatment arm, baseline values, and clinical site as factors.||||||0.2920
95772961|NCT00529373|191517038|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|6.11|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 24. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||6.11|5.75|<0.001
95772962|NCT00529373|191517038|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|7.91|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 36. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||7.91|7.48|<0.001
95772963|NCT00529373|191517038|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|9.61|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||9.61|9.08|<0.001
95953538|NCT03722485|191878686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0213||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0213
95953539|NCT03722485|191878687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7422||||||Confounding variables of image capture techniques, image quality and image analysis noted throughout study conduct prohibits any definitive conclusions to be drawn from this analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7422
95953540|NCT03722485|191878688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6322
95953541|NCT04307134|191878705|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||=|0.9509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||Statistical data presented based on Multiple logistic regression including Allergic history as factor and was performed to assess whether allergic history status influenced occurrence of AEs. This model produced one effect estimate for association.|Regression, Logistic|||||999.99|0.01|=0.9509
95995890|NCT01381094|191967209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.4743
95807853|NCT00456365|191587809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
95807854|NCT00456365|191587810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
95953542|NCT04307134|191878712|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||Multiple logistic regression including age as factor.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical data for this outcome measure is combined for all age groups in accordance with local regulations.||1.07|0.99|=0.1488
95953543|NCT03149887|191878747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95953544|NCT03149887|191878748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95953545|NCT03149887|191878749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95953546|NCT03149887|191878750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95953547|NCT03149887|191878751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95953548|NCT03149887|191878752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95953549|NCT03149887|191878753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95953550|NCT03149887|191878754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95953551|NCT03327051|191878760|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||0.04
95772964|NCT00529373|191517038|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.55|11.19|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo at Month 48. The longitudinal model includes terms for treatment, stratum, region \& interaction between treatment \& time as fixed effects (LS means weighted for region \& stratum size).||11.19|10.55|<0.001
95772965|NCT00529373|191517047|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.1|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.10|1.43|<0.001
95772966|NCT00529373|191517048|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|7.05|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.05|4.06|<0.001
95772967|NCT00529373|191517049|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.72|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.72|0.86|0.005
95772968|NCT00529373|191517050|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.9|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||4.90|2.35|<0.001
95807855|NCT00928720|191587811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
95772969|NCT00529373|191517051|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|7.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||7.50|3.79|<0.001
95772970|NCT00529373|191517052|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-62.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.99|-44.5|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-44.50|-79.99|<0.001
95772971|NCT00529373|191517053|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-10.83|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-10.83|-42.56|0.001
95772972|NCT00529373|191517054|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.67||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.01|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||3.01|0.32|0.016
95807856|NCT03715829|191587822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.96||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 200mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.96|-32.53|<0.0001
95772973|NCT00529373|191517055|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-25.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|-14.12|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-14.12|-35.92|<0.001
95772974|NCT00529373|191517056|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-64.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|-41.07|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||-41.07|-87.80|<0.001
95772975|NCT00529373|191517057|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|11.28|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||11.28|5.79|<0.001
95772976|NCT00529373|191517058|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|11.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|13.74|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.74|8.41|<0.001
95953552|NCT03327051|191878760|OTHER|An increase in relative abundance of VSL3 bacterial strains at week 4 compared to week 0 (baseline) is considered significant if p\<0.05.|||||>|0.99|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test was used for multi-variable analysis||Within group difference between week 0 and week 4 was analyzed.||||>0.99
95953553|NCT02592434|191878808|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-7.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||-7.97|-39.41|0.0031
95953554|NCT02592434|191878809|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.52||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|35.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||35.50|3.55|0.0166
95953555|NCT02592434|191878810|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||39.41|7.97|0.0031
95953556|NCT02592434|191878811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.02||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|33.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Normal approximation to the binomial|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance.||33.17|0.88|0.0387
95953557|NCT02592434|191878812|SUPERIORITY||Ls mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||In order to preserve type I error, each endpoint assessed sequentially using gate-keeping or step-down approach where statistical significance was claimed for the second endpoint only if the first endpoint in the sequence meets the requirements for significance. Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
95953558|NCT02592434|191878814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.71||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|8.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||8.41|-11.82|0.7410
95953559|NCT02592434|191878814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-18.93||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.22|-5.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||-5.64|-32.22|0.0052
95953560|NCT02592434|191878814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-19.09||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-4.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||-4.70|-33.48|0.0093
95953561|NCT02592434|191878814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-22.1||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-6.86|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||-6.86|-37.35|0.0045
95953562|NCT02592434|191878814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-23.57||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|-8.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||-8.17|-38.97|0.0027
95953563|NCT02592434|191878814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-25.08||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.69|-9.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||-9.47|-40.69|0.0016
95772977|NCT00529373|191517059|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|12.78|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||12.78|8.05|<0.001
95772978|NCT00529373|191517060|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|13.06|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||13.06|6.91|<0.001
95772979|NCT00529373|191517061|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|14.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|18.59|||Longitudinal model|||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||18.59|11.29|<0.001
95807857|NCT03715829|191587822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.53|-13.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare ritlecitinib 100mg - 50mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-13.93|-32.53|<0.0001
95772980|NCT00529373|191517062|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.33|0.47|0.366
95772981|NCT00529373|191517063|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.4|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.4|0.92|0.246
95772982|NCT00529373|191517064|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.03|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.03|0.32|0.638
95953564|NCT02592434|191878818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.03||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|17.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 20||17.46|-5.40|0.3010
95953565|NCT02592434|191878818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.54||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|31.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 24||31.03|4.05|0.0108
95953566|NCT02592434|191878818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|33.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 28||33.74|4.51|0.0103
95953567|NCT02592434|191878818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.27|38.8|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 32||38.80|8.27|0.0025
95953568|NCT02592434|191878818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.04||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|40.56|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 36||40.56|9.52|0.0016
95953569|NCT02592434|191878818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.69||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.97|39.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||at Week 40||39.41|7.97|0.0031
95953570|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.15||||0.8119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.33|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||8.33|-10.63|0.8119
95953571|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.66||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|21.21|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 20||21.21|-5.90|0.2682
95953572|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.98||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.26|36.71|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 24||36.71|7.26|0.0034
95953573|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|33.36|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 28||33.36|2.44|0.0233
95953574|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.16||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|40.93|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 32||40.93|9.39|0.0018
95953575|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.91||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|36.81|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 36||36.81|5.01|0.0099
95953576|NCT02592434|191878820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.34||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.46|38.22|||Normal approximation for binomial|||Week 40||38.22|6.46|0.0058
95953577|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.77||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.79|19.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||19.33|-11.79|0.6348
95953578|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.62||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|18.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||18.90|-13.66|0.7525
95953579|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.05||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|30.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||30.33|-2.23|0.0908
95953580|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.02||||0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|23.43|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||23.43|-9.38|0.4026
95953581|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.37||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|34.52|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||34.52|2.22|0.0258
95953582|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||35.88|3.88|0.0149
95953583|NCT02592434|191878822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.88||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|35.88|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||35.88|3.88|0.0149
95953584|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.24||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.53|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||10.53|-21.00|0.5150
95953585|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.01||||0.24||95.0|-6.02|24.03|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.03|-6.02|0.2400
95953586|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.93||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|24.33|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||24.33|-6.47|0.2557
95953587|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.97||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|24.19|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||24.19|-6.25|0.2481
95953588|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.03||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|30.98|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||30.98|1.08|0.0356
95953589|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.89||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|33.54|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||33.54|4.24|0.0115
95953590|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|26.62|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||26.62|-2.89|0.1150
95953591|NCT02592434|191878824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.29||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|27.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||27.90|-1.31|0.0744
95995891|NCT01381094|191967209|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6407|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.6407
95772983|NCT00529373|191517065|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.36|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.36|1.02|0.029
95772984|NCT00529373|191517066|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.17|0.95|0.341
95953592|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.15||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-2.46|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||-2.46|-29.84|0.0207
95953593|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.63||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|24.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||24.24|-2.97|0.1254
95953594|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.49||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|17.91|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||17.91|-10.93|0.6350
95953595|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1||||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.41|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||16.41|-12.20|0.7732
95953596|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.35||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|20.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||20.47|-7.77|0.3782
95953597|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.98||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|25.99|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||25.99|-2.02|0.0936
95953598|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.17||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|23.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||23.24|-4.91|0.2017
95953599|NCT02592434|191878826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.02||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|25.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||25.74|-1.69|0.0858
95772985|NCT00529373|191517067|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.68|0.9|0.198
95772986|NCT00529373|191517068|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.26|0.7|0.798
95772987|NCT00529373|191517069|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.71|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.71|1.1|0.005
95772988|NCT00529373|191517070|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.5|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.5|0.99|0.059
95772989|NCT00529373|191517071|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.9|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||2.9|0.89|0.114
95772990|NCT00529373|191517072|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.31|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; p-value is unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.31|0.99|0.159
95953600|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.53|||MMRM|||Week 20; Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.53|-3.60|0.0088
95995892|NCT01381094|191967210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95995893|NCT01381094|191967210|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
95953601|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-1.1|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.10|-6.17|0.0054
95953602|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.32|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.32|-6.38|0.0039
95953603|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.29|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.29|-5.30|0.0022
95953604|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-3.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-3.00|-9.42|0.0005
95953605|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.92|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-2.92|-9.60|0.0006
95953606|NCT02592434|191878828|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.71|-7.02|0.0027
95860383|NCT04881942|191679399|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6099.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4317.8|7881.2|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7881.2|4317.8|<.0001
95860384|NCT04881942|191679399|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|6484.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4701.7|8267.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||8267.6|4701.7|<.0001
95860385|NCT04881942|191679399|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|5366.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3575.9|7157.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||7157.7|3575.9|<.0001
95860386|NCT04881942|191679402|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|3.25|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.25|-2.92|0.9150
95860387|NCT04881942|191679402|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3.40|-2.70|0.8217
95860388|NCT04881942|191679402|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|21.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.06|24.16|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||24.16|18.06|<.0001
95995894|NCT01381094|191967210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95995895|NCT01381094|191967210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95772991|NCT00529373|191517073|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46|||Regression, Cox|No adjustments for multiplicity were applied; all p-values reported were unadjusted and therefore considered nominal.||Odanacatib 50 mg OW - Placebo||1.46|0.93|0.178
95995896|NCT01381094|191967210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95772992|NCT00529373|191517074|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.01|
95772993|NCT00529373|191517075|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||||||||0.05|0.01|
95772994|NCT00529373|191517076|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.11||||||||0.11|0.03|
95772995|NCT00529373|191517077|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in rates|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||||0.06|0.02|
95807858|NCT03715829|191587822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.23|-10.93||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 50 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. Hochberg adjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-10.93|-30.23|0.0003
95807859|NCT03715829|191587822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.77|-5.61||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 30 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||-5.61|-27.77|0.0068
95953607|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-0.33|-3.32|0.0172
95953608|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.01|-5.81|0.0057
95772996|NCT02347813|191517081|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.750
95772997|NCT01385137|191517083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||||0.44|-0.79|0.58
95772998|NCT01385137|191517085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.04|||Regression, Linear|||||3.04|-7.30|0.42
95772999|NCT01385137|191517086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.6|||Regression, Linear|||||5.60|-4.17|0.77
95807860|NCT03715829|191587822|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.02|4.91||Hochberg's step-up procedure was conducted to compare the ritlecitinib 10 mg QD dose group vs placebo using observed p-values. The familywise Type 1 error rate was controlled at one-sided 0.05. One-sided unadjusted p-value is presented here.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-15.02|0.2015
95807861|NCT05273437|191587855|OTHER|We conducted a Bayesian Regression for all available participants, then visualized the results. (N x 16 table, N: number of participants).|Credibility interval|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bayesian Regression|We explicitly sought 80% credibility of at least 100 steps more within the 3-hour increment in comparison to the intervention.|We decided that 100 steps/3 hours is the minimum value of the MAP intervention effect estimate and that an INUS condition is valid only if there is at least an 80% chance of achieving an effect beyond 100 steps/3 hours.|We hypothesized that some individuals have their own time and decision-policy-specific response pattern regardless of day elapsed since the beginning of the intervention. We did not hypothesize the direction of the effect variation.|The decision point was the unit of analysis. For the Bayesian Regression, we used Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Four sampling chains were used when performing Bayesian modeling. The number of estimation samples and target acceptance rate were gradually increased until numerical stability was achieved. The number of estimation samples was increased by multiplied by 2, as advised by previous literature, depending on the ratio of convergence diagnostics R̂ \> 1.1. We used 100 steps increase during 3 hours as the effect threshold value. We assumed that there is an effect only if the estimated effect is more than 80% probable (i.e., the credibility interval is over 100 steps/3 hours) and the Maximum A Posteriori Point (MAP) of the effect is more than 100 steps/3 hours. Otherwise, there is no effect. Among the models with effects, we clipped to 1000 steps/3hours as a maximum if the MAP was greater than 1000 steps/3 hours.|||
95995897|NCT01381094|191967211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
95995898|NCT01381094|191967211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0004
95773000|NCT01385137|191517087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|5.44|||Regression, Linear|||||5.44|-1.16|0.21
95807862|NCT03647137|191587856|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|-2.256||||0.00468|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is derived from model comparison between the FEOVB model and the FEOVB\*PIB interaction model.|ChiSq Goodness of Fit Test|||L-DOPA sensitivity outcome measure was modeled with 3-level hierarchical ordinal logistic regression. The null model contained only striatal DTBZ as predictor of group, the FEOVB model additionally had FEOVB tracer, and interaction model had in addition an interaction term between FEOVB and PIB tracer. Model comparisons were performed using Chi-Square goodness of fit test.||||0.00468
95995899|NCT01381094|191967211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
95773001|NCT02547220|191517124|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|34.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference in percentage was calculated by the difference in percentage of new or worsening TG at 6 months between CINRYZE and placebo|||34.5|-29.4|0.6857
95773002|NCT02887183|191517168|OTHER||Least Squared Geometric Mean Ratio|0.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5865|0.681|||ANCOVA|||||0.6810|0.5865|<.0001
95773003|NCT02887183|191517169|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-7.15|||ANCOVA|||LAVi||-7.15|-7.98|<.0001
95773004|NCT02887183|191517169|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-12.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|-11.58|||ANCOVA|||LVEDVi||-11.58|-12.92|<.0001
95773005|NCT02887183|191517169|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|-15.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|-14.55|||ANCOVA|||LVESVi||-14.55|-16.03|<.0001
95773006|NCT02887183|191517170|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|9.9|||ANCOVA|||||9.90|8.84|<.001
95773007|NCT02887183|191517171|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
95773008|NCT02887183|191517172|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LVESVi, LVEDVi, LAVi. LVEF||||<.0001
95807863|NCT03900650|191587867|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
95995900|NCT01381094|191967211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95773009|NCT02887183|191517173|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||<.0001
95773010|NCT02887183|191517173|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0003
95995901|NCT01381094|191967211|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0002
95995902|NCT01381094|191967212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95773011|NCT02887183|191517173|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0956
95807864|NCT03900650|191587868|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value tests the effect of the study arms on number of sex events.|ANOVA|||||||.770
95807865|NCT00829868|191587886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|109.0||||||90.0|99.3|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|99.3|
95807866|NCT00829868|191587887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|97.5|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|97.5|
95807867|NCT00829868|191587888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|100.0||||||90.0|96.2|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.2|
95807868|NCT03163667|191587891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.2||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CB-839+Everolimus (CBE), and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors Placebo+Everolimus (PboE).|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) Prognostic Risk (favorable versus intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI; 1 versus \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.20|0.34|0.07905
95995903|NCT01381094|191967212|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0043
95995904|NCT01381094|191967212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95995905|NCT01381094|191967212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95773012|NCT02887183|191517174|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0060
95773013|NCT02887183|191517174|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0012
95773014|NCT02887183|191517174|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0181
95807869|NCT03163667|191587891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.28||One-sided p-value comparing the treatment groups was based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.28|0.37|0.1184
95807870|NCT03163667|191587892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a stratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Stratified analysis: Stratification factors are MSKCC Prognostic Risk (favorable vs intermediate/poor risk) and number of prior therapies with a TKI (1 vs \> 1). Due to stratification cells having \< 10 events, TKI stratification factor was removed for analysis.||1.50|0.42|0.4801
95995906|NCT01381094|191967212|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
95995907|NCT01381094|191967213|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0027
95995908|NCT01381094|191967213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95773015|NCT02887183|191517175|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.2498
95773016|NCT02887183|191517175|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0495
95773017|NCT02887183|191517175|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.2685
95773018|NCT02887183|191517176|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects with new onset HF and/or RAAS naïve||||0.0029
95773019|NCT02887183|191517176|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Subjects with HFrEF and low NT-proBNP"||||0.0011
95807871|NCT03163667|191587892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.56||P-value comparing the treatment groups is based on an unstratified log-rank test with alternative hypothesis of survival functions being not equal.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio comparing treatment groups (experimental over control) is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors CBE, and a hazard ratio \> 1 favors PboE.|Unstratified analysis||1.56|0.44|0.5603
95807872|NCT00834574|191587982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.0||||||90.0|97.2|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|97.2|
95807873|NCT00834574|191587983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
95807874|NCT00834574|191587984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.0||||||90.0|101.0|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||114|101|
95953609|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.23|-5.94|0.0038
95953610|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.36|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.36|-5.47|0.0020
95953611|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.57|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.57|-8.74|0.0007
95773020|NCT02887183|191517176|OTHER|Pearson's Correlation||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects not receiving target dose||||0.0012
95773021|NCT02887183|191517177|OTHER||Least Squared Mean|9.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.94|10.69|||ANCOVA|||||10.69|7.94|<.0001
95773022|NCT02702388|191517213|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio of ORR as of Week 24 response (18 mg vs 24 mg) along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, stratified by the randomization stratification factors. The test was performed per the 95% CI using the noninferiority margin of 0.4. Noninferiority will be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the odds ratio is greater than 0.4.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.96||||||||0.96|0.26|
95773023|NCT01314872|191517267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares (LS) means|-0.46||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-0.92|0.056
95953612|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-2.58|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.58|-8.66|0.0007
95773024|NCT01314872|191517267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.45||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.03|-0.93|0.064
95773025|NCT01314872|191517267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
95773026|NCT01314872|191517267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.44|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-1.37|< 0.001
95773027|NCT01314872|191517267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.54||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.07|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, part and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.07|-1.02|0.026
95773028|NCT01314872|191517272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.28||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.12|-0.68|0.167
95773029|NCT01314872|191517272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.17|-0.97|0.005
95995909|NCT01381094|191967213|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0001
95995910|NCT01381094|191967213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||<0.0001
95995911|NCT01381094|191967213|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group.||||=0.0005
95995912|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6051|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6051
95995913|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5197|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5197
95995914|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1073|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1073
95807875|NCT02489279|191588026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a General Linear Model (GLM) with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.026
95807876|NCT02489279|191588026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0075
95995915|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1321|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1321
95995916|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4358|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.4358
95995917|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8109|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8109
95995918|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2575|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2575
95995919|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8361|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8361
95807877|NCT02489279|191588026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.25
95807878|NCT02489279|191588027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report the Group x Time interaction.||||0.014
95995920|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0294
95995921|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8809|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.8809
95995922|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4971|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4971
95995923|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3994|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3994
95995924|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5022|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.5022
95807879|NCT02489279|191588027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.0005
95807880|NCT02489279|191588027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We then examined the within-subjects factor of Time (Post-Treatment (10 week measure) - Baseline), for each Group, using a 1-tailed t test.||||0.21
95807881|NCT02489279|191588028|SUPERIORITY|||||||1e-06|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.000001
95953613|NCT02592434|191878830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 44:Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-1.82|-6.99|0.0018
95953614|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.47||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|17.9|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||17.90|-14.96|0.8610
95953615|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.12||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|26.2|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||26.20|-5.96|0.2173
95953616|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.94||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|28.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||28.96|-3.08|0.1135
95953617|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.51||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|27.6|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||27.60|-4.58|0.1610
95953618|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.42||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|23.21|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||23.21|-8.37|0.3571
95953619|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.44||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|30.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||30.16|-1.27|0.0716
95953620|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.4||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|30.24|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||30.24|-1.43|0.0746
95807882|NCT02489279|191588029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00018|||||||GLM with repeated measures ANOVA|||We used a GLM with time (Baseline and 10 Weeks) as the within subjects factor, experimental group (Active and Control) as the between subjects factor, and a group by time interaction to test for differential treatment effects. We report only a main effect of Time.||||0.00018
95953621|NCT02592434|191878832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.37||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|30.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||30.30|-1.57|0.0773
95953622|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.06||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|6.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind Baseline (Week 18)||6.10|-12.21|0.5131
95953623|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.87||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|14.74|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||14.74|-1.01|0.0876
95953624|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.79||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|16.16|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||16.16|-2.59|0.1561
95953625|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.58||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|11.7|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||11.70|-6.54|0.5795
95953626|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.4||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|14.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||14.47|-3.67|0.2435
95953627|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|20.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||20.04|-0.99|0.0758
95953628|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.91||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.65|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||21.65|0.17|0.0464
95953629|NCT02592434|191878834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.06||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|19.38|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||19.38|-3.27|0.1634
95953630|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-17.42||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-4.96|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Double Blind baseline (Week 18)||-4.96|-29.88|0.0062
95953631|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.44||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|11.47|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 20||11.47|-12.34|0.9427
95953632|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.6||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|12.84|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 24||12.84|-14.03|0.9308
95953633|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.87||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|13.78|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 28||13.78|-12.03|0.8945
95953634|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.64|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 32||15.64|-11.20|0.7455
95953635|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 36||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
95953636|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.1||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|25.17|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 40||25.17|-0.97|0.0695
95807883|NCT03707821|191588033|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at he 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||8.5|-2.0|
95995925|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9916|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.9916
95995926|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2292|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.2292
95995927|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1331|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1331
95864384|NCT03060551|191686720|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.019||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
95773030|NCT01314872|191517272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.33|-1.11|< 0.001
95773031|NCT01314872|191517272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.32|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.32|-1.10|< 0.001
95773032|NCT01314872|191517272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.87|0.030
95773033|NCT01314872|191517273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.25|-0.61|0.401
95773034|NCT01314872|191517273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.48||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.05|-0.91|0.029
95773035|NCT01314872|191517273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.18|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.18|-1.02|0.005
95773036|NCT01314872|191517273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.16|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.01|0.007
95773037|NCT01314872|191517273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.11|-0.78|0.140
95773038|NCT01314872|191517274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.49|-0.84|0.598
95953637|NCT02592434|191878835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.25||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|22.72|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||Week 44||22.72|-4.23|0.1787
95773039|NCT01314872|191517274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.67||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||0.01|-1.35|0.052
95773040|NCT01314872|191517274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.10|-1.43|0.024
95953638|NCT02592434|191878836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.12||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|6.5|||Normal approximation to the binomial|||||6.50|-6.74|0.9719
95953639|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.35|-2.08|0.1595
95953640|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.48|-3.32|0.1421
95953641|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-3.37|0.0552
95953642|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.17|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.17|-2.50|0.0822
95953643|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-1.43|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.43|-6.53|0.0041
95995928|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5518|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5518
95773041|NCT01314872|191517274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.58|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.58|-1.90|< 0.001
95773042|NCT01314872|191517274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.94||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis model includes terms for time, region, and interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.26|-1.62|0.007
95773043|NCT01314872|191517275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||||||||0.03|-1.00|
95953644|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.02|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-1.02|-6.12|0.0085
95953645|NCT02592434|191878838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-4.36|0.0384
95953646|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.19|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.19|-0.72|0.2595
95953647|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.42|0.0674
95953648|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.93|0.0580
95953649|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.08|-1.67|0.0751
95953650|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.13|-1.88|0.0251
95953651|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.09|-2.07|0.0331
95953652|NCT02592434|191878840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-1.66|0.0549
95773044|NCT01314872|191517275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.58||||||||-0.58|-1.62|
95953653|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.04|-1.04|0.0353
95953654|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.21|-1.47|0.0094
95953655|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.23|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.23|-1.36|0.0065
95953656|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.43|0.0018
95773045|NCT01314872|191517276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.71|
95773046|NCT01314872|191517276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.64|
95773047|NCT01314872|191517277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.56|
95773048|NCT01314872|191517277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.48|
95773049|NCT01314872|191517278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.08||||||||-0.08|-1.45|
95773050|NCT01314872|191517278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.56||||||||-0.56|-1.93|
95773051|NCT05129293|191517288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.229
95773052|NCT05129293|191517289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.040
95773053|NCT05129293|191517290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for disease duration, SymptoMScreen depression and anxiety scores, and Test of Everyday Cognition baseline performance||||||0.266
95773054|NCT00860249|191517291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We used the Bonferroni calculation to adjust for the planned multiple comparisons among the three groups.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
95773055|NCT00860249|191517292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.017||95.0||||We intended to use a Bonferroni calculation to adjust for multiple comparisons among study arms.|Chi-squared|||Please note that no analyses were performed as the trial was stopped due to low enrollment.||||<0.017
95860389|NCT04881942|191679402|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.91|34.12|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||34.12|27.91|<.0001
95995929|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9032|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9032
95995930|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2387|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2387
95773056|NCT00519428|191517298|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Each individual test will require the calculated p to be \< .0916 to declare that comparison to be significant. Since the hypothesis requires both comparisons to be significant, this produces an over-all alpha of .05."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis: Dual Treatment (escitalopram + bupropion) will result in greater improvement over 12 weeks than either monotherapy (i.e., two analyses: 1) dual treatment will outperform escitalopram monotherapy; 2) dual treatment will outperform bupropion monotherapy). Therefore each analysis will be done twice and it will be required that both analyses be significant to declare the over-all study significant.||||.05
95773057|NCT00519428|191517300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||escitalopram + bupropion vs. escitalopram: F(1,159) = 1.93, ns escitalopram + bupropion vs. bupropion: F (1,157) = 1.99, ns|ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline score and country||To test the hypothesis that escitalopram + bupropion would have superior efficacy relative to each monotherapy, the group receiving both medications was separately compared to each monotherapy group, covarying for baseline score and country||||.0916
95773058|NCT01729338|191517311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Compared baseline to 3 months|paired t-test|||||||0.45
95773059|NCT01729338|191517311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||paired t-test|compares baseline to month 5||||||0.19
95773060|NCT01729338|191517312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||baseline, 3 month|paired t-test|||||||0.1
95773061|NCT01729338|191517312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||paired t-test|baseline, month 5||||||0.09
95773062|NCT00688701|191517316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|-0.3||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.300|-0.785|<0.0001
95773063|NCT00688701|191517316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|-0.423||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||"To detect a difference of 0.5% in change in HbA1c at Week 12 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 120 patients per group would provide a power of 90% assuming common standard deviation of 1.2% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%), BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.423|-0.903|<0.0001
95773064|NCT01953874|191517345|OTHER|The primary analysis was based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and therefore the power calculation was approximated using the approach of Tang.||||||0.916|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was a composite measure of global rank order response based on survival time, freedom from CV hospitalization, and improvement in functional capacity measured by percent change in 6MWD from baseline to 6 months. The plan was to randomize up to 215 subjects. However, due to safety issues observed in SERVE-HF, randomization was stopped at 126 subjects.||||0.916
95773065|NCT00504725|191517365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||We will use two way ANOVA (looking for effects due to drug and time) with a p value of 0.05 indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||IL-6||||0.39
95773066|NCT00504725|191517365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-8||||0.18
95995931|NCT01381094|191967219|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4251|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.4251
95995932|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0448|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0448
95773067|NCT00504725|191517365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||IL-10||||0.14
95773068|NCT00504725|191517366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95773069|NCT00504725|191517367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||Baseline Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
95953657|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.61|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.61|-2.24|0.0010
95773070|NCT00504725|191517367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||4 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95773071|NCT00504725|191517367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||24 Hour Pain Level Score|Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
95773072|NCT00504725|191517367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||Pain Level Score at Discharge|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95773073|NCT01435018|191517375|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in ET+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically relevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-8.3|||||Confidence interval (CI) estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. CI stratified by country was not performed due to small number of observations.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-8.3|-52.3|
95773074|NCT01435018|191517376|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-7.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.4|-32.3|
95773075|NCT01435018|191517376|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority is defined as demonstrating that the 48-week PFS rate in BV+ART is within 15 percent of PTX+ART. The selection of the 15 percent non-inferiority margin was a combination of clinical judgment and statistical reasoning. A poll of the sites was conducted to derive the maximum treatment difference that is considered clinically irrelevant (i.e. largest acceptable difference in order to gain the advantages (e.g. cost) of the experimental chemotherapy)."|Cumulative rate difference|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-7.9|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by country using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative PFS rate with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||-7.9|-32.2|
95773076|NCT01435018|191517377|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
95773077|NCT01435018|191517378|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
95953658|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.81|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.81|-2.42|0.0002
95953659|NCT02592434|191878842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.71|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.71|-2.44|0.0007
95953660|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.02|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.02|-0.83|0.0398
95953661|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.39|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.39|-1.49|0.0011
95953662|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.47|0.0131
95953663|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.33|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.33|-1.62|0.0039
95953664|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.05|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.05|-1.10|0.0711
95953665|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.04|-1.30|0.0658
95953666|NCT02592434|191878844|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.15|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.15|-1.31|0.0154
95773078|NCT01435018|191517380|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|28.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of IERC-confirmed KS progression with 95% two-sided confidence interval.|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|28.8|3.7|
95773079|NCT01435018|191517381|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|4.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||4.3|-34.4|
95773080|NCT01435018|191517382|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|6.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of AIDS-defining events with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||6.6|-13.3|
95773081|NCT01435018|191517383|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|10.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||10.6|-1.9|
95773082|NCT01435018|191517384|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of HIV-1 RNA virologic failure with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||11.0|-0.1|
95773083|NCT01435018|191517387|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|43.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||43.0|-4.1|
95807884|NCT03707821|191588034|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 2 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference if the proportion of subjects that report a higher rating/experience.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15|||Bayesian random -effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior proportion mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 10% difference in proportion of subjects that reported at higher rating (Strongly Agree and Agree) with the Test compared to the Control lens at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulation-based methods (alpha=0.05).||0.15|0.02|
95854655|NCT01352715|191668969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by randomization stratification factors using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified upper confidence bound for non-inferiority was 10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.5||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 95% confidence interval.||1.5|-8.4|
95953667|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.06|-0.12|0.4777
95773084|NCT01435018|191517388|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|27.0|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, or AIDS defining event.||27.0|1.8|
95773085|NCT01435018|191517389|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||47.4|0.9|
95773086|NCT01435018|191517390|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|31.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, or virologic failure.||31.3|6.3|
95773087|NCT01435018|191517391|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|47.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||47.4|0.9|
95953668|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0779
95995933|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
95773088|NCT01435018|191517392|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of KS progression, death, AIDS defining event, virologic failure, or KS-IRIS.||29.3|6.2|
95773089|NCT01435018|191517393|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|61.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||61.4|13.6|
95773090|NCT01435018|191517394|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|22.7|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 48 cumulative rate of change in KS treatment.||22.7|-0.4|
95773091|NCT01435018|191517395|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|31.4|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (ET+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||31.4|-1.9|
95773092|NCT01435018|191517396|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|17.2|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by screening CD4 lymphocyte count using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (BV+ART - PTX+ART) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the cumulative rate of death with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||17.2|-0.4|
95773093|NCT01435018|191517397|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||||Hazard ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||3.4|1.1|
95773094|NCT01435018|191517398|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||||Hazard ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||2.2|1.1|
95773095|NCT01435018|191517399|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||||Odds ratio for ET+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count.|||0.7|0.1|
95854656|NCT00871975|191669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (percent)|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found an 80.6% sensitivity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
95995934|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0813|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0813
95773096|NCT01435018|191517400|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Odds ratio for BV+ART relative to PTX+ART adjusted for screening CD4 lymphocyte count and country.|||1.3|0.5|
95773097|NCT03625466|191517432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.5|
95773098|NCT01058993|191517437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student t-test-comparison means of normal subjects \& controls.||||||<0.05
95773099|NCT01058993|191517437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Ratio paired t-test|Ratio paired t-test for comparison of baselines and responses for each category of leukocytes||The patients' leukocyte counts before and after plerixafor were compared.||||<0.05
95773100|NCT03214380|191517464|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 0.4 for HbA1c|Least Square Mean Difference (LSMean)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
95773101|NCT03214380|191517465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.5|-18.1|<0.001
95773102|NCT03214380|191517466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-25.3|<0.001
95773103|NCT02230696|191517475|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.77|104.52|||Trial and Error approach|||||104.52|84.77|
95773104|NCT02230696|191517476|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|94.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|105.54|||Trial and Error approach|||||105.54|84.86|
95773105|NCT02223650|191517478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.07||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment|Difference in mean distance control (overminus - observation) and 95% CI from ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline control, pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study treatment for IXT. + difference suggests observation group worse than overminus group|||-0.07|-1.42|0.01
95773106|NCT02223650|191517479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19||P-value is calculated for one-sided hypothesis test.|ANCOVA|Comparison of mean 8-wk near control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|Comparison of mean 8-wk distance control using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control pre-study spectacle wear, and pre-study IXT treatment.|||0.19|-0.68|0.14
95773107|NCT02223650|191517482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|45.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||45|-6|0.07
95995935|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0038
95807885|NCT03707821|191588035|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 points was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||Bayesian Normal Random effects model|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||-0.01|-0.04|
95807886|NCT03707821|191588036|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Percentage of Acceptable Fitting|99.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0|||Bayesian Beta-Binomial Model|model for correlated data||It was calculated that 100 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100|98.5|
95807887|NCT03707821|191588037|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|model for correlated data|mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 224 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.008|-0.007|
95807888|NCT03707821|191588038|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||6.3|-1.3|
95807889|NCT03707821|191588039|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores. Non-inferiority was declared in the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 5.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.295|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|12.54|||Bayesian normal random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|Sample Size was based on primary endpoints only.||12.54|3.48|
95807890|NCT00586157|191588049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||<.001
95953669|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.19|0.0324
95807891|NCT00586157|191588050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.001
95807892|NCT00586157|191588051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Z-test|||||||.003
95807893|NCT02378480|191588052|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||4.9|-6.3|
95864385|NCT03060551|191686721|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.05||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95953670|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.02|-0.20|0.1061
95807894|NCT02378480|191588053|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.2|-3.2|
95807895|NCT02378480|191588054|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||6.9|-1.0|
95807896|NCT01217892|191588072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.05|-0.38|0.0106
95953671|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.0|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.00|-0.24|0.0572
95807897|NCT01217892|191588072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided) applying Hochberg's method across the two Dapagliflozin BID groups.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05 using Hochberg's method to control the overall Type I error across hypotheses in the two Dapagliflozin BID groups, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
95773108|NCT02223650|191517490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||24|-23|0.54
95773109|NCT01767506|191517497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|11.9|||Regression, Logistic||||The null hypothesis was that we could further decrease infection to 1% or less in more of the communities in the surveillance intervention arm, compared to control communities.|11.9|0.56|>0.05
95773110|NCT01767506|191517498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95773111|NCT01608087|191517500|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|96.58|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|88.54|105.35|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|105.35|88.54|
95773112|NCT01608087|191517500|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.68|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|83.5|100.65|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.65|83.50|
95773113|NCT01608087|191517500|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|94.92|||||TWO_SIDED|93.93|87.14|103.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|103.40|87.14|
95807898|NCT01217892|191588073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.10|-2.53|<0.0001
95807899|NCT01217892|191588073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.46||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-1.46|-2.89|<0.0001
95807900|NCT01217892|191588074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-9.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.7|-21.7|<0.0001
95953672|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0689
95953673|NCT02592434|191878846|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.01|-0.22|0.0292
95773114|NCT01608087|191517501|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|98.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|107.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|107.64|90.97|
95773115|NCT01608087|191517501|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.02|100.01|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.01|84.02|
95773116|NCT01608087|191517501|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.18|100.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.74|85.18|
95995936|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6861
95995937|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0553|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0553
95995938|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0004
95995939|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
95995940|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
95995941|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7379|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.7379
95773117|NCT01608087|191517502|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|101.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.74|111.14|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R1) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|111.14|92.74|
95773118|NCT01608087|191517502|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|93.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|99.81|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(T/R2) \* 100||Least squares estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R1 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|99.81|87.12|
95854657|NCT00871975|191669004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (percent)|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||We found a 28.1% specificity for detection of detrusor overactivity on Tetra-NIRS as compared to urodynamics.|A contingency table was used to compare presence or absence of an event (eg. detrusor overactivity) on the urodynamic tracing with interpretation of events on the Tetra-NIRS tracings.||||
95995942|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.072|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0720
95995943|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
95995944|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995945|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995946|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6781|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.6781
95995947|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0524|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0524
95995948|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0367|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0367
95995949|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6671|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6671
95995950|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6861|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.6861
95995951|NCT01381094|191967220|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9012
95995952|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3953|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.3953
95995953|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.085|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0850
95995954|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6045|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.6045
95995955|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7743|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.7743
95995956|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5326|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.5326
95995957|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3465|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.3465
95807901|NCT01217892|191588074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-10.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-10.7|-22.7|<0.0001
95854658|NCT05966142|191669005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.5913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.42|0.5913
95854659|NCT05966142|191669006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6803
95995958|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2756|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.2756
95995959|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1414|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1414
95995960|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6941|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.6941
95995961|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9403|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.9403
95995962|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.831|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.8310
95995963|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0654|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0654
95995964|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4169|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.4169
95995965|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0103|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0103
95995966|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3968|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.3968
95854660|NCT05966142|191669007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1228
95854661|NCT05966142|191669008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-1.7|0.5252
95854662|NCT05966142|191669009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9657
95854663|NCT04916587|191669030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|12.6||||||||12.6|10.6|
95854664|NCT04916587|191669031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|8.3||||||||8.3|6.6|
95773119|NCT01608087|191517502|EQUIVALENCE|Commonly applied acceptance range for bioequivalence/biosimilarity is 80% to 125%.|gMean ratio|91.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.91|100.54|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects'treatment' and 'weight'.|(R1/R2) \* 100||Least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for R1 and R2 were back transformed to original scale to get adjusted point estimator and interval estimates for the inter-subject ratio of the geometric means for treatments.|100.54|83.91|
95773120|NCT00908791|191517517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|exact McNemar test for paired binary data.||||||0.003
95773121|NCT00908791|191517518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||McNemar|||||||0.41
95773122|NCT00908791|191517519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bowker's test of symmetry|||||||0.48
95773123|NCT00908791|191517520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||The Sign-Rank test for paired data.||||0.029
95773124|NCT00908791|191517521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95773125|NCT00908791|191517522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
95773126|NCT00908791|191517523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Other|||||||>0.05
95773127|NCT00401544|191517609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|71.0||||||95.0|63.0|80.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||80|63|
95773128|NCT00401544|191517609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.0||||||95.0|54.0|72.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||72|54|
95953674|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|11.31|||MMRM|||Global Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.31|-3.72|0.3179
95773129|NCT00401544|191517610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.0||||||95.0|64.0|81.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||81|64|
95953675|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|11.78|||MMRM|||Physical Functioning: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.78|-5.23|0.4452
95953676|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|14.95|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Emotional: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||14.95|-4.01|0.2539
95953677|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|18.3|||MMRM|||Social Limitations: Physical Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||18.30|-3.86|0.1981
95953678|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|16.94|||MMRM|||Bodily Pain: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||16.94|-0.43|0.0620
95953679|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|2.2|||MMRM|||Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.20|-9.06|0.2291
95953680|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|4.13|||MMRM|||Global Behavior: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||4.13|-11.43|0.3530
95773130|NCT00401544|191517610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|62.0||||||95.0|54.0|71.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||71|54|
95773131|NCT00401544|191517615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
95773132|NCT00401544|191517615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0||||||95.0|29.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|29|
95773133|NCT00401544|191517616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|35.0||||||95.0|27.0|44.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||44|27|
95773134|NCT00401544|191517616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.0||||||95.0|30.0|47.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||47|30|
95773135|NCT00401544|191517617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|26.0||||||95.0|15.0|38.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||38|15|
95953681|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.3114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|3.32|||MMRM|||Mental Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||3.32|-10.26|0.3114
95953682|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.8736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.61|||MMRM|||Self Esteem: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||9.61|-8.18|0.8736
95773136|NCT00401544|191517617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0||||||95.0|19.0|42.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||42|19|
95773137|NCT00401544|191517617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0||||||95.0|17.0|40.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||40|17|
95773138|NCT00401544|191517617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|25.0||||||95.0|14.0|36.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||36|14|
95773139|NCT00401544|191517618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|68.0||||||95.0|59.0|76.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||76|59|
95773140|NCT00401544|191517618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|59.0||||||95.0|50.0|68.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||68|50|
95773141|NCT00401544|191517619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|44.0|62.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||62|44|
95773142|NCT00401544|191517619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0||||||95.0|66.0|82.0|||||Binomial proportion with confidence limit calculation using the normal approximation, and converted to percentages.|||82|66|
95773143|NCT04984278|191517625|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|=0.0048
95773144|NCT01560234|191517663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Linear||AUC (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.00|0.63|
95773145|NCT01560234|191517664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.04|||Regression, Linear||AUC(0-t) (nmol\*h/L) 5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.65|
95773146|NCT01560234|191517665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Cmax (nmol/L) 0.5 to 30 μg|||1.04|0.87|
95773147|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.76|151.32|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||151.32|65.76|
95773148|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|141.27|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/1.5ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||141.27|61.21|
95773149|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|145.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|221.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||221.28|96.11|
95773150|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.42|169.93|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Plasma||169.93|66.42|
95773151|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|223.76||||||95.0|144.98|345.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||345.35|144.98|
95773152|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|228.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.36|346.41|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||346.41|150.36|
95953683|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|6.72|||MMRM|||General Health Subscale: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||6.72|-3.18|0.4778
95773153|NCT01560234|191517666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|684.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|495.31|944.65|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour plasma||944.65|495.31|
95773154|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|95.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|126.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||126.28|72.70|
95953684|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||MMRM|||Change in Health: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||0.25|-0.28|0.8909
95953685|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|20.55|||MMRM|||Emotional Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||20.55|-2.61|0.1270
95953686|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|1.18|||MMRM|||Time Impact on Parent: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||1.18|-14.62|0.0944
95953687|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-2.17|||MMRM|||Family Activities: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||-2.17|-15.03|0.0095
95953688|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.14|||MMRM|||Family Cohesion: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||11.14|-5.96|0.5474
95953689|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|7.52|||MMRM|||Physical Health Summary: Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||7.52|-0.56|0.0902
95953690|NCT02592434|191878848|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.57|||MMRM|||Psychosocial Health Summary : Analysis based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the Double-Blind baseline value.||2.57|-4.07|0.6539
95953691|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||MMRM|||Week 20: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.16|-0.80|0.1894
95953692|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 24: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.34|-1.56|0.0026
95953693|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 28: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0067
95953694|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 32: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.25|-1.73|0.0091
95953695|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.03|||MMRM|||Week 36: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||0.03|-1.09|0.0632
95953696|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.07|||MMRM|||Week 40: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.07|-1.35|0.0306
95953697|NCT02592434|191878850|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.18|||MMRM|||Week 44: Analysis was based on MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, visit, JIA category, open-label baseline CRP, treatment-by-visit interaction, and the double-blind baseline value.||-0.18|-1.41|0.0118
95953698|NCT01014013|191878918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable microbiological response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||||95.0|-11.7|10.2||||||||10.2|-11.7|
95953699|NCT01014013|191878920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The secondary efficacy endpoint was based on the proportion of patients who had a favorable clinical response assessment at follow-up 5 to 9 days post-therapy visit. The definition of non-inferiority is that the 95%(two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in response rate between the 2 treatment groups(MK0826 minus control group) contains zero and the lower limit of the CI is not less than -20 percentage points.|the difference between two response rate|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||||95.0|-6.6|3.2||||||||3.2|-6.6|
95953700|NCT05319756|191878924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.1||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||26.1|<.0001
95953701|NCT05319756|191878924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.1041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||1.7||0.1041
95773155|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|91.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.53|121.0|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||121.00|69.53|
95773156|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|112.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|153.35|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour Plasma||153.35|82.30|
95773157|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.04|158.18|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||158.18|91.04|
95953702|NCT05319756|191878924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.3373|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||5.5||0.3373
95953703|NCT05319756|191878924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-6.3||<.0001
95953704|NCT05319756|191878924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μG ≤ 0.2(μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μG \>0.2(μC - 50)"||-0.6||<0.0001
95773158|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|102.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.02|136.87|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour placebo||136.87|77.02|
95773159|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|146.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.39|193.62|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 ug vs Placebo|48 hour plasma||193.62|111.39|
95773160|NCT01560234|191517667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Placebo|240.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.82|297.28|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 ug|48 hour plasma||297.28|193.82|
95773161|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|114.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.83|378.78|||ANCOVA||Cohort 1/0.15 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||378.78|34.83|
95773162|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.96|268.7|||ANCOVA||Cohort 2/0.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||268.70|24.96|
95995967|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0325|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0325
95995968|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2151|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2151
95995969|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8436|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.8436
95773163|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|81.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|322.42|||ANCOVA||Cohort 3/1.5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||322.42|20.63|
95773164|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|304.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.61|1209.33|||ANCOVA||Cohort 4/5 ug vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1209.33|76.61|
95773165|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|193.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.01|636.49|||ANCOVA||Cohort 5/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||636.49|59.01|
95773166|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|467.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.77|1533.92|||ANCOVA||Cohort 7/15 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||1533.92|142.77|
95773167|NCT01560234|191517669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of Placebo|1087.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|317.19|3727.57|||ANCOVA||Cohort 6 and 8/30 μg vs Placebo|24 hour Sputum||3727.57|317.19|
95807902|NCT01217892|191588075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-4.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-4.2|-16.5|0.0010
95807903|NCT01217892|191588075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c \<7.0% vs \>=7.0% at randomization) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.05, two-sided)||-9.1|-21.4|<0.0001
95995970|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5962|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5962
95995971|NCT01381094|191967221|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3957|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.3957
95995972|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0294
95773168|NCT05406479|191517670|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.146|4.76||||||Adults||4.76|-5.146|
95773169|NCT05406479|191517670|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|20.185||||||Adolescents (13-17)||20.185|0.926|
95773170|NCT05406479|191517670|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis testing of non-inferiority the confidence interval should be compared to the non-inferiority margin. More specifically, non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval around the difference in means QTc 24 hours after treatment administration (BE-PEP - SDR-PEP) is below the non-inferiority limit of +10 ms. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the two groups, but the p-value returned should not be used to conclude non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.374|7.525||||||Children (5-12)||7.525|-3.374|
95995973|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0021|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0021
95773171|NCT02028767|191517672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.662|102.639||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.639|94.662|0.0000
95773172|NCT02028767|191517672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.783|102.796||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.796|94.783|<0.0001
95773173|NCT02028767|191517673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.856|102.107||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.107|95.856|0.0000
95773174|NCT02028767|191517673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.877|102.15||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.150|95.877|<0.0001
95773175|NCT02028767|191517674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.549|102.156||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects; subjects within sequences as random effect"|||102.156|94.549|0.0000
95854665|NCT04916587|191669032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|0.14|0.03
95854666|NCT00449696|191669035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.91||||0.122||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.122
95953705|NCT05319756|191878924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0232|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11"||9.6||0.0232
95953706|NCT05319756|191878924|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2767|ONE_SIDED|95.0||15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (G) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μG - μP ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μG - μP \< δ2 where δ2 =11."||15.2||0.2767
95953707|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.8|405.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||405.4|128.8|0.0016
95953708|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-109.0|167.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||167.5|-109|0.7276
95953709|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-88.0|188.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.9|-88.0|0.5481
95953710|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|350.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|211.8|489.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||489.5|211.8|<0.0001
95953711|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|364.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|225.9|502.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||502.8|225.9|<0.0001
95953712|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-238.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-376.0|-99.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.4|-376|0.0050
95953713|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-217.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|84.023||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-356.0|-77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.8|-356|0.0106
95953714|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.785||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|222.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||222.1|-54.9|0.3196
95953715|NCT05319756|191878926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.688||0.2464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|235.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||235.6|-41.0|0.2464
95953716|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.15|77.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.20|52.15|<.0001
95953717|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.13|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.1|2.13|0.0546
95953718|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|24.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.12|-0.96|0.1286
95953719|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.42|81.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||81.57|56.42|<.0001
95953720|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|88.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.91|63.83|<.0001
95773176|NCT02028767|191517674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.603|102.252|||ANOVA|The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|"The geometric mean ratio is the exponential of the estimated mean difference on the log-scale between 'FDC' and 'Separate tablets'.~ANOVA on the log-scale: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment as fixed effects"|Analysis with fixed effects for all terms||102.252|94.603|<0.0001
95773177|NCT04932655|191517689|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|103.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.88|109.98||||||||109.98|96.88|
95773178|NCT04932655|191517689|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|109.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|116.82||||||||116.82|102.9|
95807904|NCT01217892|191588076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.097||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||24.1|0.2|0.0455
95807905|NCT01217892|191588076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.153||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|28.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group for treatment groups tested significantly different from placebo for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||28.9|4.8|0.0062
95807906|NCT03802916|191588080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0074
95953721|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.6|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-62.6|<.0001
95953722|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.7|-40.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.5|-65.7|<.0001
95953723|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.589||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.22|16.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.86|-8.22|0.5699
95953724|NCT05319756|191878932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.581||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|24.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.23|-0.83|0.1243
95953725|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.6|370.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||370.8|202.6|<.0001
95953726|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.2|137.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.9|-30.2|0.2912
95953727|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.62|182.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||182.0|13.62|0.0563
95773179|NCT04932655|191517689|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|102.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.57|109.64||||||||109.64|96.57|
95773180|NCT04932655|191517690|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.65||||||||100.65|96.33|
95773181|NCT04932655|191517690|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|101.07||||||||101.07|96.74|
95773182|NCT04932655|191517690|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|102.54||||||||102.54|98.15|
95953728|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|484.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|400.1|569.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||569.0|400.1|<.0001
95953729|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|396.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|312.4|480.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||480.8|312.4|<.0001
95953730|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-317.0|-149.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-149|-317|<.0001
95953731|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-189.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.083||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-273.0|-105.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-105|-273|0.0003
95953732|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|197.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.938||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|282.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||282.0|113.7|0.0001
95953733|NCT05319756|191878934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.879||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.8|194.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||194.0|25.80|0.0320
95953734|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.98|22.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.48|14.98|<0.0001
95953735|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-2.03|0.5056
95953736|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.307||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.42|0.82|0.0760
95953737|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.92|29.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.54|21.92|<0.0001
95953738|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.68|28.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.16|20.68|<0.0001
95953739|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.297|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.2|-20.8|<0.0001
95995974|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0004
95995975|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0001
95995976|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0925|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0925
95995977|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0433|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0433
95995978|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
95995979|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0005|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0005
95995980|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
95807907|NCT03802916|191588080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||A p-value was calculated for the one-sample proportion test.|One-sample proportion test|||One-sample proportion test to determine if the overall preference for deferiprone DR was greater than chance (i.e., a 50% preference for each formulation)||||0.0002
95807908|NCT00831389|191588081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median change in PG concentration due to exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.791
95995981|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1626|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.1626
95995982|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0366|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0366
95995983|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0004
95995984|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0012
95995985|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95995986|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1779|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.1779
95995987|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5867|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5867
95995988|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1306|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1306
95995989|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9889|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.9889
95995990|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2026|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.2026
95995991|NCT01381094|191967222|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5703|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.5703
95807909|NCT00831389|191588082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.5
95995992|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
95995993|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0092|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0092
95995994|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0012|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.0012
95995995|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||<0.0001
95995996|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1157|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 2).||||=0.1157
95995997|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0069|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0069
95995998|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0034|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0034
95807910|NCT00831389|191588083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of nocturnal hypoglycemic events following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.25
95807911|NCT00831389|191588084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median peak post-prandial PG for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.0669
95995999|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0067|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0067
95996000|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||<0.0001
95996001|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0401|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 4).||||=0.0401
95996002|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0042|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0042
95996003|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95996004|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0002
95996005|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||<0.0001
95996006|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0422|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Week 6).||||=0.0422
95996007|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0232|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0232
95996008|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0243|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0243
95996009|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0001
95996010|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1089|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.1089
95807912|NCT00831389|191588085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2256||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median nadir PG immediately following exercise for the OL and CL study phases do not differ.||||0.2256
95773183|NCT04932655|191517691|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.33|100.71||||||||100.71|96.33|
95773184|NCT04932655|191517691|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|99.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.85|101.26||||||||101.26|96.85|
95773185|NCT04932655|191517691|EQUIVALENCE|Two one-sided t test procedure used to compare test versus reference. Equivalence demonstrated if 90% CI within 80% to 125%.|Test/Reference Ratio of Geometric Means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.05|102.5||||||||102.50|98.05|
95807913|NCT00831389|191588086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median overnight nadir PG for the OL and CL arms do not differ.||||0.791
95807914|NCT00831389|191588087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2036||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is within euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.2036
95773186|NCT00083759|191517692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.089
95773187|NCT00083759|191517693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.171
95773188|NCT00083759|191517694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.526
95773189|NCT03567005|191517695|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 36 (18 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in distance visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.098 for paired difference (one-sided alpha=0.05).|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.02||||||||0.02||
95773190|NCT03567005|191517696|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 1.0. With a sample size of 48 (24 per sequence group), there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in subjective overall vision with assumed standard deviation of 2.29 for paired differences (one-sided alpha=0.05).|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||||||||-0.3|
95773191|NCT00425061|191517732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model was used with baseline as a covariate, long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) use (Inhaled Corticosteroid \[ICS\] only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||15.2|-25.6|0.612
95773192|NCT00425061|191517734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.482
95773193|NCT00425061|191517734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.492
95773194|NCT00425061|191517734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.323
95773195|NCT00425061|191517734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.226
95773196|NCT00425061|191517734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.2|0.256
95773197|NCT00425061|191517735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||3.9|-0.3|0.090
95773198|NCT00425061|191517735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was based on the log 2 transformed methacholine challenge test values with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||5.0|-0.8|0.144
95773199|NCT00425061|191517737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 8: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.1|-0.4|0.354
95773200|NCT00425061|191517737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.900
95773201|NCT00425061|191517737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.4|-0.4|0.921
95773202|NCT00425061|191517737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 84: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.6|-0.2|0.388
95773203|NCT00425061|191517737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 112: ANCOVA model was used with baseline as a covariate, LABA use (ICS only or ICS plus LABA) and treatment as two factors.||0.7|-0.2|0.249
95773204|NCT00425061|191517738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.267
95773205|NCT00425061|191517739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.029
95773206|NCT02111577|191517762|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.213|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.213|0.895|0.596
95773207|NCT02111577|191517762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.204|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.204|0.891|0.648
95773208|NCT02111577|191517763|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.105|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.105|0.746|0.335
95807915|NCT00831389|191588088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6221||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is above euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.6221
95996011|NCT01381094|191967223|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0833|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||p-value was based on the comparison within treatment group (Change from Baseline to Follow-up).||||=0.0833
95996012|NCT01381094|191967225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5456|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.5456
95996013|NCT01381094|191967225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0053|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0053
95996014|NCT01381094|191967225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||<0.0001
95996015|NCT01381094|191967225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.0040
95773209|NCT02111577|191517763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.067|0.725|0.192
95807916|NCT00831389|191588089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median percentage of time PG is below euglycemic range for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.021
95807917|NCT00831389|191588090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Median tally of hypoglycemic events over 48 hour in-patient period for the OL and CL phases do not differ.||||0.0176
95807918|NCT00721110|191588159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.0|54.0||Significant if P \< 0.003 for efficacy and P \> 0.5311 for futility; 97.5% confidence intervals adjusted for group sequential design to maintain the overall alpha of 0.025 for each primary intervention.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of lidocaine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||54|-52|0.96
95996016|NCT01381094|191967225|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2017|||||||2 sided t-test/Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test|The comparison was made by using a 2-tailed, paired t-test (if the distribution was normal) or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test otherwise with an α=0.05.||||||=0.2017
95996017|NCT02210780|191967278|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.29|43.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||43.75|24.29|<0.0001
95996018|NCT02210780|191967279|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.4|51.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||51.01|29.40|<0.0001
95996019|NCT02210780|191967280|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.38|44.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization strata (moderate \[IGA=3\] vs. severe \[IGA=4\] AD).||44.66|23.38|<0.0001
95996020|NCT02210780|191967281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|-1.55|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-1.55|-2.72|<0.0001
95996021|NCT02210780|191967282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.5|-13.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model that includes treatment, randomization strata and baseline value as covariates.||-13.1|-22.5|<0.0001
95996022|NCT02210780|191967284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|-1.7|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which includes treatment, randomization strata, and baseline values as covariates.||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
95996023|NCT02210780|191967285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|-6.6|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs. Placebo qw|Analysis was performed using the ANCOVA model which included treatment, randomization strata, and baseline value as covariates.||-6.6|-9.9|<0.0001
95773210|NCT02111577|191517764|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.312||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.762|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.762|0.976|0.071
95773211|NCT02111577|191517764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.712|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.712|0.961|0.09
95773212|NCT02111577|191517765|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.461||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.134|||Log Rank|||Stratified||2.134|1|0.049
95854667|NCT00449696|191669036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.42||||0.071||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.071
95996024|NCT02966314|191967306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|126.47|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||126.47|2.77|0.003
95996025|NCT02966314|191967308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|17.63|||Regression, Linear|||||17.63|1.24|0.03
95996026|NCT02966314|191967310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|720.54|||Regression, Logistic|Accounting for repeated measures||||720.54|1.49|0.03
95996027|NCT02966314|191967312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.3|||Regression, Linear|Accounting for multiple measures, using poisson distribution with natural log link||||25.3|1.9|0.005
95773213|NCT02111577|191517765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.436||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|2.077|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||2.077|0.993|0.053
95773214|NCT02111577|191517766|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.13|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.13|0.779|0.501
95807919|NCT00721110|191588159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-65.0|44.0||97.5% confidence interval adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain theoverall α of 0.025 for each primary intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline 6-minute walk distance||The effect of ketamine on 6-minute walk distance on the 2nd postoperative morning was assessed using analysis of covariance. We expected the control group's mean 6-minute walk distance to be 300 meters with a standard deviation (SD) of about 20% of the mean for each group. Assuming a correlation of 0.5 between baseline and 2nd postoperative day, a maximum 128 total patients (32 for each group) was needed to have 80% power at the 0.025 significance level to detect effects of 36 meters or more.||44|-65|0.54
95807920|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.3|1.3||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Groups compared on VRS scores at PACU admit using a t test.||1.3|-3.3|0.20
95807921|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|1.9||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine compared to placebo at PACU admit using a t test||1.9|-2.8|0.54
95807922|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on pain severity at postoperative care unit discharge was assessed using a t test.||0.8|-2.5|0.11
95807923|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|2.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit discharge pain severity was assessed using a t test.||2.0|-1.4|0.56
95807924|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 pain severity assessed using a t test.||2.2|-0.9|0.20
95807925|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.4|0.79
95807926|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.7||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.7|-1.1|0.55
95807927|NCT00721110|191588160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1|1.8||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 pain severity was assessed using a t test.||1.8|-1.1|0.47
95773215|NCT02111577|191517766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.131|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.131|0.781|0.512
95773216|NCT02111577|191517767|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.136|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.136|0.863|0.886
95773217|NCT02111577|191517767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.145|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.145|0.875|0.992
95773218|NCT02111577|191517768|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.184|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.184|0.847|0.994
95773219|NCT02111577|191517768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.18|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.18|0.851|0.982
95953740|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-17.9|<0.0001
95953741|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|10.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.79|3.22|0.0024
95953742|NCT05319756|191878935|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|9.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.41|1.98|0.0118
95953743|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|24.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.01|16.61|<0.0001
95953744|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|6.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.39|-1.09|0.2439
95953745|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.276||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.75|10.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.25|2.75|0.0044
95953746|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.39|27.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.91|20.39|<0.0001
95953747|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.5|31.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.88|24.50|<0.0001
95953748|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|-13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.9|-21.4|<0.0001
95807928|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|7.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||7|-7|0.63
95807929|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on intraoperative opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-10|0.27
95807930|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|5.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||5|-15|0.28
95807931|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.0|4.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative care unit opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||4|-15|0.22
95953749|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-17.5|<0.0001
95953750|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|0.11|0.0907
95773220|NCT02111577|191517769|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.277|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.277|0.909|0.392
95807932|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|21.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||21|-13|0.76
95807933|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|14.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||14|-19|0.66
95807934|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|10.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||10|-5|0.30
95807935|NCT00721110|191588161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.0|8.0||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 2 opioid consumption was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||8|-5|0.79
95807936|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||numerator: lidocaine; denominator: control|Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.28|0.58
95773221|NCT02111577|191517769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.262|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.262|0.905|0.439
95773222|NCT02111577|191517770|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.238|0.857|0.754
95807937|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared||Numinator: ketamine; denominator: nonketamine|Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.32|0.87
95807938|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.44||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on POD 1 (first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.44|-0.31|0.61
95854668|NCT00449696|191669037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.64||||0.058||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.058
95854669|NCT00449696|191669038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for strict OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.022
95854670|NCT00449696|191669038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.242||95.0||||P-value for OMERACT-OARSI response.|Generalized Estimating Equation Model|||||||0.242
95854671|NCT00449696|191669039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||P-value for physical component scores, physical function subscale, role physical subscale, and bodily pain subscale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95854672|NCT00449696|191669040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.39||||0.037||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.037
95773223|NCT02111577|191517770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.009||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.207|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.207|0.844|0.924
95773224|NCT02111577|191517771|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.497|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.497|0.563|0.732
95773225|NCT02111577|191517771|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.485|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.485|0.561|0.713
95773226|NCT02111577|191517772|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.587|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.587|0.5|0.694
95807939|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|0.41||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on POD 1(first postoperative day) nausea assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.41|-0.34|0.79
95807940|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.38|0.12||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.12|-0.38|0.26
95807941|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|0.19||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on PACU (postoperative care unit) vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.19|-0.31|0.71
95807942|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.06||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.36||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|Chi-squared|||Lidocaine versus nonlidocaine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using a Pearson chi square test.||0.36|-0.23|0.52
95807943|NCT00721110|191588162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.38|||Chi-squared|||Ketamine versus nonketamine on postoperative day 1 vomiting assessed using Pearson chi square test.||0.38|-0.22|0.44
95807944|NCT00721110|191588163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.14|2.2||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lidocaine was compared to nonlidocaine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.2|-2.14|0.96
95807945|NCT00721110|191588163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|2.57||97.5% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for group sequential design (using confidence coefficient of 2.97) to maintain the overall α of 0.025 for each intervention and 0.05 for the trial.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ketamine was compared to nonketamine on mean VRS fatigue score using a t test.||2.57|-1.80|0.59
95807946|NCT01603368|191588181|OTHER|Student's t-test|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.001
95807947|NCT01554904|191588188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.4||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.32|297.16|||paired t test|||The null hypothesis is that the snore index would not be different after 6 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. The comparison group is the subjects completing the 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study.||297.16|27.32|0.02
95773227|NCT02111577|191517772|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|1.562|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.562|0.496|0.661
95773228|NCT02111577|191517773|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.027|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.027|0.781|0.111
95773229|NCT02111577|191517773|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.044|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.044|0.798|0.184
95773230|NCT02111577|191517774|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.11|||Log Rank|||Stratified||1.11|0.795|0.46
95773231|NCT02111577|191517774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.118|||Log Rank|||Unstratified||1.118|0.807|0.534
95773232|NCT02111577|191517775|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.845||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.355|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.355|0.528|0.485
95773233|NCT02111577|191517776|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by region (US vs other), prior abiraterone (Yes vs No), prior enzalutamide (Yes vs No) and ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.601|||Log binomial model|||Stratified||1.601|0.529|0.768
95773234|NCT03793842|191517798|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 J/min||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
95773235|NCT03793842|191517799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95773236|NCT03793842|191517800|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 1 cm H20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95773237|NCT03793842|191517801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95807948|NCT01554904|191588189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.584||paired t test|t-test, 2 sided|||Participants completing 6 weeks of training and the second sleep study. The null hypothesis was that the AHI would not be different after 6 weeks of training compared to baseline.||0.584|-2.28|0.22
95807949|NCT02951481|191588193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95807950|NCT02951481|191588194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95807951|NCT02951481|191588195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
95807952|NCT02951481|191588196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95807953|NCT02951481|191588197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95807954|NCT02951481|191588198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95773238|NCT03793842|191517802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95773239|NCT02805179|191517814|SUPERIORITY|Compared to historical controls||||||0.03|||||||1-sided binomial test|||||||0.03
95773240|NCT01246349|191517849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.373||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.871|23.103|||Regression, Linear|||Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[WEL\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up).||23.103|-5.871|0.24
95773241|NCT01246349|191517850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up BMI z-score means and standard deviations for both the MI and control groups (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in BMI change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up)||||0.56
95773242|NCT01246349|191517851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||Results published comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in waist circumference change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6-month follow-up).||||0.09
95807955|NCT02951481|191588199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95807956|NCT02951481|191588200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95807957|NCT01051661|191588222|SUPERIORITY|The non-inferiority objective was met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI for the Vaccine Efficacy Improvement (VEI) was \> -33%. Furthermore, the superiority objective was met if the LL of the 95% CI for the VEI was \>0.|Vaccine efficacy increase|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.53|93.39||||||Evaluation of the relative protective efficacy of 2 doses of Arepanrix™ vaccine (Arepanrix 2D Group) compared to two doses of GSK2340273A vaccine (GSK2340273A Group) beginning 14 days after Dose 1 vaccination (for each subject enrolled) and continuing until study conclusion on Day 385.||93.39|18.53|
95807958|NCT01051661|191588250|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|5.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|6.41||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 2D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 2D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||6.41|4.92|
95807959|NCT01051661|191588250|OTHER||Adjusted GMT ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||||||Adjusted Geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios of Hemagglutination Inhibition (HI) antibody post vaccination between Arepanrix 1D Group and GSK2340273A Group for A/California influenza strain (Arepanrix 1D Group/GSK2340273A Group).||1.19|0.93|
95807960|NCT02412982|191588263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
95773243|NCT01246349|191517853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.301|2.668|||Regression, Linear|||"Based on previous research , baseline CDSS means were expected between 5 - 6.5 with a SD of 3 - 4. It was hypothesized that an attributable effect of 1.5 would be detected.~Published results comprise baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations for both the MI and control group (reported above), as well as the absolute attributable effect of intervention (i.e., the difference in self-efficacy \[CDSS\] change between the treatment and control groups from baseline to a 6 month follow-up)."||2.668|-2.301|0.88
95773244|NCT05225298|191517854|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.90
95773245|NCT05225298|191517855|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|log binomial model|||||||0.94
95773246|NCT05225298|191517856|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||log binomial model|||||||0.053
95773247|NCT00379080|191517886|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.04
95773248|NCT00379080|191517886|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Cox|||PIGF||||0.04
95773249|NCT00379080|191517886|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Cox|||CAIX||||0.02
95773250|NCT00379080|191517886|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.05
95773251|NCT00379080|191517886|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Cox|||sFLT\_1||||0.01
95773252|NCT00379080|191517886|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||VEGFR2||||0.05
95773253|NCT02780713|191517895|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.79|24.58||||||||24.58|11.79|
95773254|NCT02780713|191517895|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|36.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|55.2||||||||55.20|23.84|
95773255|NCT02780713|191517895|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.84|34.48||||||||34.48|16.84|
95773256|NCT02780713|191517896|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.77|39.12||||||||39.12|25.77|
95773257|NCT02780713|191517896|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.16|69.6||||||||69.60|42.16|
95773258|NCT02780713|191517896|SUPERIORITY||Pecentage|41.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.79|48.86||||||||48.86|34.79|
95773259|NCT01931475|191517908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-0.80|
95773260|NCT01931475|191517909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||||||||-0.19|-0.54|
95773261|NCT01931475|191517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.35|||||Total Score|||-1.35|-5.62|
95807961|NCT01149460|191588314|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|111.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.54|123.29|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.29|100.54|
95854673|NCT00449696|191669041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.746||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.746
95854674|NCT00449696|191669042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.166||95.0|||||Quadratic Spline Model||Tested superiority of Gel-200 using quadratic spline model for difference between Gel-200 and PBS placebo. Only difference between groups was presented by the pre-specified model as primary endpoint.|||||0.166
95854675|NCT00449696|191669043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.041
95773262|NCT01931475|191517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.21|||||Pain|||-0.21|-1.21|
95807962|NCT01149460|191588315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.34|103.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.82|96.34|
95854676|NCT00307801|191669050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
95854677|NCT03337308|191669104|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares (LS) means|-38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-29.6|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of Least Squares (LS) Means|||-29.6|-46.5|<0.001
95773263|NCT01931475|191517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.78|||||Physical Function|||-0.78|-3.95|
95773264|NCT01931475|191517910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||||Stiffness|||-0.16|-0.62|
95773265|NCT01931475|191517911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-0.41|
95773266|NCT01931475|191517912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.34|||||BPI Severity of Worst Pain|||-0.34|-1.07|
95773267|NCT01931475|191517912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||||BPI Severity of Least Pain|||0.03|-0.60|
95773268|NCT01931475|191517912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||BPI Severity of Right Now Pain|||-0.11|-0.82|
95773269|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.02|||||BPI Interference Average Score|||-0.02|-0.53|
95773270|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||||General activity|||-0.19|-0.94|
95773271|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||||Mood|||-0.05|-0.74|
95773272|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.11|||||Walking ability|||-0.11|-0.82|
95773273|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||||Normal work (includes both work outside the home and housework)|||0.06|-0.68|
95773274|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||||Relations with other people|||0.21|-0.34|
95773275|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||||Sleep|||0.14|-0.57|
95773276|NCT01931475|191517913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||||Enjoyment of life|||0.27|-0.40|
95773277|NCT01931475|191517915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Total Effect|97.49||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Path analysis for the direct analgesic effect was used to test the null hypothesis that the change in BPI average pain severity depends on the improvement of HADS-D or HADS-A, versus the alternative that the improvement in BPI average pain severity is due to a direct analgesic effect of the treatment and not dependent upon the improvement in depression and anxiety symptoms.||||0.002
95773278|NCT01089608|191517924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.01||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-16.30|0.072
95773279|NCT02821338|191517925|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference ratio|0.9863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9598|1.0134||||||90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio of test/reference||1.0134|0.9598|
95773280|NCT02821338|191517926|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|0.9785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9484|1.0095||||||||1.0095|0.9484|
95773281|NCT02821338|191517927|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval falls within 80.00-125.00%|Test/Reference Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0079|1.0877||||||||1.0877|1.0079|
95773282|NCT02225860|191517934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
95773283|NCT02225860|191517935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The analysis of the primary and secondary outcome was based on an intention to treat principle. Copeptin was measured in each subject at baseline and week 2 and the change from baseline to end point (delta) was calculated for all subjects. The delta copeptin between subjects in the intervention and control arms was compared with a two sample t test for independent groups. One sample t-tests of the delta were used to examine whether there was any change over time for each group separately."||||<0.01
95773284|NCT01028014|191517942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
95773285|NCT01028014|191517943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||P values comparing differences across groups, as well as within group changes, were all \>0.05.P-values were not adjusted for multiple testing; p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Using difference in EMG amplitude as primary outcome, assuming standard deviation of 6, we had greater than 80% power to detect a 10-microvolt change in urethral muscle activity with sample size of 9 participants per group. Due to non-normality and small sample sizes, non-parametric tests were used and data presented as median (IQR). Kruskal-Wallis p-values are reported to compare median scores across groups. Wilcoxon sign-test p-values are reported to evaluate 2-week change within groups.||||>0.05
95773286|NCT01250873|191517945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.30|1.06|
95773287|NCT01250873|191517946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|1.01|
95773288|NCT01250873|191517947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-0.50|0.8281
95773289|NCT01250873|191517948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.39|||ANOVA|||||1.39|1.17|
95773290|NCT01250873|191517949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.36|||ANOVA|||||1.36|1.10|
95807963|NCT01149460|191588316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.38|103.78|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.78|96.38|
95807964|NCT01149460|191588317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|103.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.87|109.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.41|97.87|
95854678|NCT03337308|191669104|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-11.9|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-11.9|-26.1|<0.001
95854679|NCT03337308|191669104|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-6.5|-19.7|<0.001
95773291|NCT01250873|191517950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|0.00|0.3125
95773292|NCT02278939|191517952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a significantly greater reduction in weight (kg) compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||0.003
95773293|NCT02278939|191517953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for unequal group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in percent weight compared to the control from baseline to 3-months||||.001
95773294|NCT02278939|191517954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This was an intention to treat analysis using the Tukey-Kramer adjustment to account for differences in group sample sizes|ANOVA|||Hypothesis: the intervention group will have a statistically greater reduction in BMI compared to the control from baseline to 3 months||||.002
95773295|NCT00930774|191517988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.748||||||0.527
95773296|NCT00930774|191517989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.286||||||0.835
95773297|NCT00930774|191517990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=0.054||||||0.983
95773298|NCT00930774|191517991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||||||df = 3,83; F=0.701|ANOVA|||||||0.554
95773299|NCT00930774|191517992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.757||||||df = 3,83; F=0.395|ANOVA|||||||0.757
95773300|NCT00930774|191517993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=1.236||||||0.302
95773301|NCT00930774|191517994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83. F=6.343||||||0.001
95773302|NCT00930774|191517994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95773303|NCT00930774|191517995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|df = 3,83; F=3.797||||||0.013
95773304|NCT00930774|191517995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95773305|NCT04501640|191518059|OTHER||Geomteric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|57.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.21|70.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.47|46.21|
95773306|NCT04501640|191518059|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|61.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.06|72.47|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.47|52.06|
95773307|NCT04501640|191518060|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|53.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.02|66.05|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||66.05|43.02|
95773308|NCT04501640|191518060|OTHER||Geomteric LSMean Ratio|59.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.48|70.7|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||70.70|49.48|
95773309|NCT04501640|191518061|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|38.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.78|56.59|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||56.59|26.78|
95773310|NCT04501640|191518061|OTHER||Geometric LSMean Ratio|47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.76|72.24|||||Ratios and confidence intervals are transformed back to raw scale \& values are expressed as percentages.|Assessment based on an ANOVA performed on natural log-transformed parameters with food condition and period as a fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||72.24|31.76|
95773311|NCT03655470|191518063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.30
95807965|NCT01149460|191588318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means (T/R)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|101.31|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.31|97.14|
95773312|NCT04590586|191518084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (Lanadelumab vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||2.35|0.59|0.6672
95773313|NCT04590586|191518085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by baseline score of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), and geographic region.|Hazard ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) from a Cox regression model including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.24|0.77|0.8779
95773314|NCT04590586|191518097|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.3773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.9|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||4.9|-12.9|0.3773
95773315|NCT04590586|191518097|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.28|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.28|0.52|
95773316|NCT04590586|191518098|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||5.3|-11.2|0.4846
95807966|NCT01149460|191588319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.04|101.19|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the test (T) and reference (R) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.19|97.04|
95807967|NCT02014467|191588331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.18|||ANCOVA|||||5.18|3.67|<0.0001
95807968|NCT02014467|191588331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7495||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.7495
95807969|NCT02014467|191588332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|2.45|<0.0001
95773317|NCT04590586|191518098|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.37|0.51|
95773318|NCT04590586|191518099|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.6|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||7.6|-7.3|0.9665
95773319|NCT04590586|191518099|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.74|0.59|
95773320|NCT04590586|191518100|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 8||1.46|0.71|0.9119
95773321|NCT04590586|191518100|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 15||1.58|0.75|0.6475
95773322|NCT04590586|191518100|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.48|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|Day 29||1.48|0.64|0.9071
95773323|NCT04590586|191518101|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.66|0.80|0.4507
95773324|NCT04590586|191518102|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.53|0.64|0.9741
95953751|NCT05319756|191878936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|11.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.55|4.22|0.0004
95773325|NCT04590586|191518103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.7|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio (Apremilast vs. Placebo) from a proportional odds model including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the 8-point ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.70|0.64|0.8754
95773326|NCT04590586|191518104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||9.1|-8.7|0.9695
95773327|NCT04590586|191518104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.59|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 8||1.59|0.64|
95773328|NCT04590586|191518104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.1|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||7.1|-11.9|0.6236
95773329|NCT04590586|191518104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 15||1.37|0.59|
95773330|NCT04590586|191518104|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.5|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||2.5|-14.9|0.1664
95773331|NCT04590586|191518104|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.15|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|Analysis of clinical recovery on Day 29||1.15|0.45|
95773332|NCT04590586|191518105|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.3|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||8.3|-9.3|0.9043
95773333|NCT04590586|191518105|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.54|||||Odds ratio (apremilast vs. placebo) is from a logistic regression including the baseline clinical severity of 2 on the ordinal scale for clinical severity (yes/no), remdesivir use at baseline (yes/no), geographic region, and treatment arm as factors.|||1.54|0.62|
95773334|NCT01893281|191518136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95773335|NCT00422695|191518144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95773336|NCT00422695|191518144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95773337|NCT03628339|191518145|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.35|115.06||||||||115.06|89.35|
95773338|NCT03628339|191518146|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.24|114.66||||||||114.66|89.24|
95773339|NCT03628339|191518147|OTHER||% Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|103.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|123.56||||||||123.56|86.91|
95773340|NCT00355147|191518158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, strata, baseline score, randomized group, month and the group by month interaction|This score represents change from baseline to six months across the groups.|This is an analysis of the outcome, Stroke Specific Quality of Life Overall Total Score.||||0.69
95773341|NCT00355147|191518158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for site, strata, baseline value, treatment group, month of assessment, treatment group x month, random subject effect|Mixed Models Analysis||This score represents change from baseline to three months across groups.|This is an analysis of the Perceived Energy Domain within the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Measure||||0.05
95773342|NCT00355147|191518159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted by site, strata, baseline score, treatment group, month and group by month interaction|The score is the change from baseline to six months between groups.|||||0.66
95773343|NCT00355147|191518160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.74||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|51.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.31|0.88|0.06
95773344|NCT00355147|191518160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Within group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Diabetes Medication||10.96|1.08|0.036
95773345|NCT00355147|191518160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group attention control group intervention pre post comparison compliance with Diabetes Medication||2.70|0.10|0.407
95773346|NCT00355147|191518161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||4.48|0.54|0.05
95773347|NCT00355147|191518161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|12.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication||12.76|2.81|0.0001
95773348|NCT00355147|191518161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Control Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Statin Medication.||8.01|1.83|0.0004
95773349|NCT00355147|191518162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Between Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||6.40|0.86|0.096
95773350|NCT00355147|191518162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Intervention Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication||7.48|1.81|0.0004
95773351|NCT00355147|191518162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Within Group Attention Group Pre Post Comparison Compliance with Hypertension Medication.||3.21|0.77|0.21
95807970|NCT02014467|191588332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9029||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.9029
95807971|NCT02014467|191588333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.80|1.72|<0.0001
95807972|NCT02014467|191588333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.1070
95807973|NCT02014467|191588334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.20|0.98|<0.0001
95807974|NCT02014467|191588334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.4369
95807975|NCT02014467|191588335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.39|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|2.39|<0.0001
95807976|NCT02014467|191588335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6082||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.6082
95807977|NCT02014467|191588336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|3.88|||ANCOVA|||||3.88|2.74|<0.0001
95807978|NCT02014467|191588336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3513
95807979|NCT02014467|191588337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|1.96|<0.0001
95773352|NCT00737204|191518163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95773353|NCT00737204|191518164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measure analysis||||.01
95773354|NCT00737204|191518165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.805||95.0|||||Paired t-tests|||Null hypothesis: CD4 levels for both the Armodafinil and Placebo groups will not change significantly between baseline and week 4.||||>=.805
95773355|NCT02989649|191518217|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||Regression, Linear||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|<0.001
95773356|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Prior therapy of diabetes mellitus, Ever used or Never used||||0.423
95773357|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Sex, Male or Female||||0.747
95773358|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Age, \<45 or \>=45 to \<65 years or \>=65 years||||<0.001
95773359|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Cardiovascular risk group, Yes or No||||0.990
95773360|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Therapy type, Monotherapy or Combined therapy||||0.841
95773361|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Baseline BMI, \<25 or 25 to \<30 or \>=30 kg/m\^2||||0.847
95773362|NCT02989649|191518218|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for subgroup: Initial glycemic control, \<7% or \>=7%||||<0.001
95773363|NCT02989649|191518221|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.62|-1.29|
95807980|NCT02014467|191588337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.541||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.5410
95807981|NCT02014467|191588338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|5.72|||ANCOVA|||||5.72|3.71|<0.0001
95807982|NCT02014467|191588338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3957||95.0||||Treatment By Region Interaction: Based on ANCOVA, Percent change from Baseline = Baseline + treatment + region + treatment by region|ANCOVA|||||||0.3957
95807983|NCT02014467|191588339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.38|-52.65||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 6|||-52.65|-61.38|<0.0001
95807984|NCT02014467|191588339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-52.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|-59.38|-46.17||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-CTX at Month 12|||-46.17|-59.38|<0.0001
95807985|NCT02014467|191588340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-56.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-52.7||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 6|||-52.70|-61.60|<0.0001
95807986|NCT02014467|191588340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges Lehmann Estimate of Difference|-51.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.26|-45.91||Two-Sided, Wilcoxon t Approximation|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||s-PINP at Month 12|||-45.91|-56.26|<0.0001
95807987|NCT02069847|191588388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
95807988|NCT02069847|191588389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total number of budesonide subjects with 50% or greater esophageal stricture (N=4) vs total number of control subjects with 50% or greater esophageal structure (N=15)||||0.531
95807989|NCT01358734|191588407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.789||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|3.718|||Log Rank|||||3.718|0.861|0.119
95807990|NCT01358734|191588407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.659||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|5.822|||Log Rank|||||5.822|1.214|0.014
95773364|NCT02989649|191518221|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.39|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-0.39|-1.36|
95807991|NCT01358734|191588407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.653|||Log Rank|||||2.653|0.704|0.356
95807992|NCT01592747|191588426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. memantine full dose.||1.8|0.7|0.6590
95807993|NCT01592747|191588426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed controlling for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) subtype. Odds ratio was calculated for placebo vs. Memantine reduced dose||1.7|0.7|0.7839
95807994|NCT01592747|191588428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.8136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.8136
95807995|NCT01592747|191588428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.9244
95807996|NCT01592747|191588429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.7611
95807997|NCT01592747|191588429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3176
95807998|NCT01592747|191588430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.9020
95807999|NCT01592747|191588430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.1|0.1279
95808000|NCT01592747|191588431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.4|0.4144
95808001|NCT01592747|191588431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4212
95808002|NCT01592747|191588432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.6238
95773365|NCT02989649|191518222|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.72|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 3||-0.72|-1.18|
95808003|NCT01592747|191588432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.5957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.5|0.5957
95808004|NCT01592747|191588433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.6|0.8640
95808005|NCT01592747|191588433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.4|0.4362
95808006|NCT01592747|191588434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7182
95808007|NCT01592747|191588434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|0.8390
95808008|NCT01592747|191588435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.1|0.0813
95808009|NCT01592747|191588435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4365
95808010|NCT01592747|191588436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4213
95808011|NCT01592747|191588436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.4267
95808012|NCT01592747|191588437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||0.3713||95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.4|0.3713
95808013|NCT01592747|191588437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.4||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.2855
95808014|NCT03322566|191588444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-18.5||||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|-4.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method||Stratified by PD-L1 TPS ( \<50% vs. \>=50% ) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous);because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50 percent Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one stratum.|||-4.3|-32.0|0.9948
95808015|NCT03322566|191588445|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.94305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata 'TPS \>= 50% Non-squamous' and 'TPS \>= 50% Squamous' were combined into one.|Regression, Cox|Efron's method of tie handling||||2.36|0.91|0.94305
95808016|NCT03322566|191588446|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.96272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 TPS (\<50% vs \>=50%) and predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous), because of small sample size, the strata (\<50% vs \>=50%) were combined into one stratum.|Regression, Cox|||||3.90|0.93|0.96272
95808017|NCT01916226|191588473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.3||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||Estimating the standard deviation of CFB in rTNSS over 2 weeks to be approximately 2.6, a two-sample t-test with α=0.05 suggests that a sample size of 144 participants per arm would provide 90% power to show a difference of 1.0 between treatments.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.278
95808018|NCT00086515|191588485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline A1C||||-0.53|-0.77|<0.001
95808019|NCT00086515|191588486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-19.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline FPG||||-19.8|-31.0|<0.001
95953752|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.528|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.86|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.88|22.86|<0.0001
95773366|NCT02989649|191518222|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-1.05|||||The LSM and CI are from Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) model, that used visit as a predictor and baseline value as a covariate. For change from baseline, covariance structure=Unstructured.|Statistical analysis for data at Baseline compared to the data at Month 6||-1.05|-1.44|
95773367|NCT00281632|191518235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Reponse rate|31.0||||||95.0|16.3|48.1|||||50% Response Rate (Normalized and Non-Normalized)|||48.1|16.3|
95773368|NCT00281632|191518239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|17.6||||||95.0|3.8|43.4|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||43.4|3.8|
95773369|NCT00281632|191518239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|21.1||||||95.0|6.1|45.6|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||45.6|6.1|
95773370|NCT00281632|191518239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|19.4||||||95.0|8.2|36.0|||||Response rate (CR+PR)|||36.0|8.2|
95808020|NCT00086515|191588487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|-40.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior AHA status (not on AHA, on monotherapy oral AHA, or on metformin-based oral combination AHA), and baseline 2-hour PMG||||-40.8|-60.5|<0.001
95808021|NCT00803049|191588529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.128|0.602|0.2079
95808022|NCT00803049|191588529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.152||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs.Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.152|0.591|0.3039
95808023|NCT00803049|191588529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.260|0.736|0.8271
95773371|NCT02157376|191518277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference is larger than -0.05, the non-inferiority claim will be met.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.5|||Pearson's Chi-square||The difference in treatment group percentages is given by Cimetidine minus Esomeprazole.|Assuming a bleeding percent of 6.3% for the active comparator, a risk reduction of 3.7% for esomeprazole, and a 5% non-inferiority margin, 150 patients per treatment arm will provide 94% power to demonstrate non-inferiority. The null hypothesis is that the bleeding rate for iv esomeprazole 40 mg bid exceeds the rate for iv cimetidine by an amount at least as large as 5%.||6.5|-2.8|0.393
95773372|NCT02877095|191518283|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All subjects on study received active drug.|Total count of events is provided.|||
95773373|NCT04304235|191518295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95773374|NCT00712881|191518307|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|2-sided, binomial proportions|||||||0.154
95773375|NCT03200704|191518316|NON_INFERIORITY|90% power, 2.5% one-sided significance level,5% non-inferiority margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"Hypothesis:~H0: QT ≤ QC - 0.05 H1: QT \> QC - 0.05"||||<0.0001
95773376|NCT04967885|191518321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95773377|NCT01279070|191518325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML.An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
95808024|NCT00803049|191588530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.362||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.362|0.678|0.8017
95808025|NCT00803049|191588530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.117||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Placebo/Teriflunomide 14 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.117|0.559|0.1866
95808026|NCT00803049|191588530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Teriflunomide 7 mg/7 mg vs. Teriflunomide 14 mg/14 mg|Analysis was performed using Log-rank test with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates. Estimation was performed using Cox proportional hazard model with treatment, EDSS strata at baseline and region as covariates.||1.357|0.767|0.8763
95808027|NCT03773562|191588546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.04
95808028|NCT03773562|191588548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-Responders||||0.002
95808029|NCT03773562|191588549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responders vs Non-responders||||0.01
96001933|NCT01663740|191981424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3343||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from Baseline to end of FU|||0.551|-0.806|0.7046
95773378|NCT01279070|191518326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.42|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the BADS(Total score and Key search subtest),linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood(REML).An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject.The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the BADS,intervention group(REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group),time and the interaction term (time×treatment)were included as covariates.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
95773379|NCT01279070|191518327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.06|<0.05
95773380|NCT01279070|191518328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the LSP, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the LSP, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.6|0.09|<0.05
95808030|NCT03773562|191588551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
95808031|NCT03773562|191588552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
95808032|NCT03773562|191588553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0003
95808033|NCT03773562|191588554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0033
95808034|NCT03773562|191588555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0041
96001934|NCT01663740|191981425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3684||0.7323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|0.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline semen volume,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in seminal volume from EOT to end of FU|||0.633|-0.888|0.7323
95773381|NCT01279070|191518329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups,standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR)assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 16 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
95808035|NCT03773562|191588556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Responder vs non-responder||||0.0046
95808036|NCT03131479|191588557|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-9.21||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.88|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used. Baseline is defined to be the measurement collected on Day -1.||||1.45|-19.88|0.154
95808037|NCT03131479|191588557|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-6.05||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.65|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-16.65|0.343
95808038|NCT03131479|191588557|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.79|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|-31.79|0.001
95808039|NCT03131479|191588557|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included diabetic status, renal function, day and renal function\*day and diabetic status\*day as fixed factors and age, baseline body weight and baseline fasting plasma glucose as covariates.|adjusted arithmetic mean difference|-35.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.0|-25.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||-25.11|-46.00|0.000
95854680|NCT03337308|191669105|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-78.75|-15.78||using alpha = 0.01|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-15.78|-78.75|<0.001
95854681|NCT03337308|191669105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-45.0|-7.15||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||-7.15|-45.00|0.002
95773382|NCT01279070|191518330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||In all the models,adjusted mean difference between the two groups, standardized treatment effect (ES) and confidence intervals were calculated.All the estimates obtained with these models remain unbiased under the missing at random (MAR) assumption.|To evaluate intervention efficacy on the PANSS, linear mixed-effects models were fitted using Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML). An unstructured correlation matrix was used to account for correlation among several observations for each subject. The dependent variable comprised the measures at 40 weeks while the baseline value of the PANSS, intervention group (REPYFLEC group vs Leisure group), time and the interaction term (time×treatment) were included as covariates.||0.7|0.01|<0.05
95773383|NCT02217410|191518349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.263|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 3|||0.263|-0.067|0.8976
95773384|NCT02217410|191518349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.271|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 6|||0.271|-0.084|0.8836
95808040|NCT01272219|191588567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-5.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.95|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, baseline BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss, if the estimated treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg - liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly smaller than zero.||-4.95|-5.82|<0.0001
95808041|NCT01272219|191588568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.6|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing ≥5% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.60|4.12|<0.0001
95808042|NCT01272219|191588569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.32|||Regression, Logistic||The model included treatment, country, sex, pre-diabetes status at screening, BMI stratum and an interaction between pre-diabetes status at screening and BMI stratum as fixed factors, and the baseline value as covariate.|Null-hypothesis: no treatment difference between treatment arms, i.e. liraglutide 3.0 mg and liraglutide placebo. Liraglutide 3.0 mg was considered superior to placebo in inducing and maintaining weight loss as assessed by the proportion of subjects losing \>10% of their fasting baseline weight, if the estimated odds ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/liraglutide placebo) was statistically significantly greater than one.||5.32|3.54|<0.0001
95808043|NCT01272219|191588570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment estimate|2.681|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.856|3.872|||Weibull analysis||The treatment estimate was the factor that the time to event is multiplied with for liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo.|If the estimated time-to-event ratio (liraglutide 3.0 mg/ placebo), as assessed by the survival endpoint describing the time until onset of T2DM ('diabetes-free time'), is statistically significantly \>1, then liraglutide 3.0 mg was to be considered superior to placebo in delaying the onset of T2DM in subjects with pre-diabetes at baseline. Weibull model was used; included treatment, sex and BMI stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline FPG as a covariate.||3.872|1.856|<.0001
95808044|NCT04439903|191588582|OTHER||Intercept|1.9726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8238||0.61532|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61532
95808045|NCT04439903|191588582|OTHER||Slope|-0.68016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0084||0.5128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.5128
95773385|NCT02217410|191518349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.272|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 9|||0.272|-0.085|0.8822
95773386|NCT02217410|191518349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.273|||Bayesian posterior probability|Posterior probability that the composite efficacy failure difference between CFZ533 and Tac is \< 20%.|Month 12|||0.273|-0.087|0.8821
95773387|NCT03557931|191518366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|1.88|||MMRM Method|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (least square (LS) Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 50 mg vs placebo is 0.035.|1.88|-1.51|0.858
95773388|NCT03557931|191518366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.36|||0.775|||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at week 12 as response; treatment, site (pooled where necessary), visit, treatment\*visit, and visit\*baseline as fixed effects, and baseline as a covariate.|Cohen's d Effect Size was defined as: (t-value for the least squares mean pairwise difference of ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo) \* sqrt(1/n\[PLACEBO\] + 1/n\[ASP4345\]). The Cohen's d Effect Size value for ASP4345 150 mg vs placebo is - 0.053.|1.36|-1.93|
95808046|NCT04439903|191588582|OTHER||Slope|0.15238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3629||0.68197|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.68197
95808047|NCT04439903|191588583|OTHER||Intercept|-0.49527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44535||0.28789|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28789
95808048|NCT04439903|191588583|OTHER||Slope|0.16785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11745||0.17848|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.17848
95808049|NCT04439903|191588583|OTHER||Slope|-0.06091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042266||0.17514|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.17514
95996028|NCT03093402|191967321|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.6|-2.5|0.4190
95773389|NCT03557931|191518372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||3.41|-1.90|0.639
95773390|NCT03557931|191518372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|2.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline (LS Mean estimate for observed value from separate model using observed values) at the Week 12 timepoint as response, treatment and site (pooled where necessary) and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-3.11|0.721
95773391|NCT03315286|191518374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95773392|NCT03315286|191518375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95808050|NCT04439903|191588584|OTHER||Intercept|-0.28825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59949||0.63929|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.63929
95808051|NCT04439903|191588584|OTHER||Slope|-0.14422|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1581||0.37964|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 1: Number of simulations per participant per week.|||||0.37964
96001935|NCT01663740|191981426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|51.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.6869||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.626|127.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||127.159|-24.626|0.1756
96001936|NCT01663740|191981427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-10.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.5745||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.934|29.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm density,age,\& duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||29.543|-49.934|0.6058
95773393|NCT03315286|191518376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline results are reported here.||||0.6
95773394|NCT03315286|191518376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.3
95773395|NCT03315286|191518377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline data is reported here.||||0.2
95773396|NCT03315286|191518377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.4
95773397|NCT03315286|191518378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline data is reported here||||0.07
95773398|NCT03315286|191518378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 month data is reported here||||0.0002
95773399|NCT03514485|191518387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.25||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.25|-0.34|
95773400|NCT03514485|191518387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.18|-0.34|
95773401|NCT03514485|191518387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.04|-0.48|
95773402|NCT03514485|191518387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.9||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.9|-0.44|
95808052|NCT04439903|191588584|OTHER||Slope|0.06718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056895||0.26057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Predictor variable 2: Minutes of interaction with the Web-Based Simulation Tool per participant per week.|||||0.26057
95808053|NCT02181413|191588585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.89|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, International Staging System (ISS) stage and response after transplantation.|HR was based on Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS stage and response after transplantation. \<1 HR indicates better prevention of progression in Ixazomib arm compared to Placebo.|||0.890|0.582|0.002
95808054|NCT02181413|191588586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.332||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.332|0.789|0.850
95808055|NCT02181413|191588587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.466||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by pre-induction regimen, pre-induction international staging system (ISS), and response after transplantation at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and CI are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group as a categorical predictor variable and pre-induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation at screening as covariates.|CR||1.466|0.365|0.370
95808056|NCT02181413|191588588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.886||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||0.886|0.579|0.002
95953753|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.11|1.08|0.0189
95953754|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.71|3.66|<0.0001
95953755|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.65|34.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.71|29.65|<0.0001
95953756|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|32.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.68|27.66|<0.0001
95953757|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.522|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<0.0001
95953758|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.7|-16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.7|-21.7|<0.0001
95953759|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.31|4.30|<0.0001
95953760|NCT05319756|191878937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.31|7.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.29|2.31|0.0015
95953761|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.01|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.01|<.0001
95854682|NCT03337308|191669105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.734|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-21.35|16.25||using alpha = 0.02|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Standard Error of the Hodges-Lehmann Median Difference|||16.25|-21.35|0.734
95953762|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|-0.59|0.3933
95953763|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747||0.2916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-0.44|0.2916
95953764|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.69|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|2.69|<.0001
95953765|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.44|2.00|<.0001
95953766|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-4.81|<.0001
95953767|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-4.66|<.0001
95953768|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.53|0.6765
95953769|NCT05319756|191878938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-2.22|0.1712
95953770|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.526|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.19|27.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.21|22.19|<.0001
95953771|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.527||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|0.35|0.0606
95953772|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.534||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.64|1.59|0.0074
95953773|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.05|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.10|28.05|<.0001
95953774|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.524|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.48|32.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.50|27.48|<.0001
95953775|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|-19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.3|-24.3|<.0001
95953776|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1|-23.1|<.0001
95953777|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.38|3.37|0.0001
95953778|NCT05319756|191878939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.78|2.80|0.0005
95953779|NCT02162771|191878986|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|102.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|111.17|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in AUCtau between CT-P10 and Rituxan||111.17|94.05|
95808057|NCT02181413|191588589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.298||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.298|0.795|0.902
95996029|NCT03093402|191967321|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.3|-2.7|0.4190
95996030|NCT03093402|191967321|SUPERIORITY|The fixed effects included treatment, time, time² , time- and time² by treatment interactions. The Screening FSS score and the Screening 7-day average maximum daily pain NRS were included as covariates. Within-subject random effects for intercept and slopes for time and time² were fit using an unstructured covariance matrix, assuming a different structure for placebo and pooled active treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active treatment arms versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from Day 1 to Day 84 for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated mean change (95% confidence interval) from Day 1 to Day 84 for Placebo was -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9).|The null hypothesis is that linear trends from Day 1 to Day 84 are equivalent for each active JBT-101 cohort and placebo. The overall test is a 3 degree of freedom F test that simultaneously compares the estimated mean change from Day 1 to Day 84 for each of the 3 active JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.||0.8|-2.2|0.4190
95996031|NCT03093402|191967331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.594
95996032|NCT03093402|191967331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.487
95996033|NCT03093402|191967331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.760
95996034|NCT03093402|191967331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each active treatment vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.676
95996035|NCT03093402|191967332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.796
95996036|NCT03093402|191967332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.955
95808058|NCT02181413|191588590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.005|||Log Rank|P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.005|0.690|0.056
95854683|NCT03337308|191669106|SUPERIORITY|using alpha = 0.01|Difference in LS mean|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-43.9|-23.4|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-23.4|-43.9|<0.001
95996037|NCT03093402|191967332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.211
95996038|NCT03093402|191967332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 50% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.481
95996039|NCT03093402|191967333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 29 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.790
95996040|NCT03093402|191967333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.843
95996041|NCT03093402|191967333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.637
95996042|NCT03093402|191967333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 113 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 75% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||||||0.243
95996043|NCT03093402|191967334|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 57 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>=100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||>0.999
95996044|NCT03093402|191967334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||This p-value is from an exact likelihood ratio test at Day 85 testing that the proportion of subjects with \>= 100% improvement is equal among the 4 treatment groups.|Exact Likelihood Ratio Test|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.861
95996045|NCT03093402|191967335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.7||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.7|-4.8|0.390
95996046|NCT03093402|191967335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.2||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||8.2|-4.9|0.390
95996047|NCT03093402|191967335|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline tender joint count for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated tender joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -6.3 (-12.0, -0.7).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.6|-8.6|0.390
95996048|NCT03093402|191967336|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.0|-1.6|0.556
95808059|NCT02181413|191588591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.129||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage, and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.129|0.753|0.431
95996049|NCT03093402|191967336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each JBT-101 cohort versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-2.5|0.556
95996050|NCT03093402|191967336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline swollen joint count for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated swollen joint count mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -4.0 (-5.7, -2.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.4|-3.1|0.556
95996051|NCT03093402|191967337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||0.669
95996052|NCT03093402|191967337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||0.432
95996053|NCT03093402|191967337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||0.780
95996054|NCT03093402|191967337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||0.285
96001937|NCT01663740|191981428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1214||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.346|-3.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to EOT|||-3.311|-40.346|0.0222
95996055|NCT03093402|191967339|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 29.||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.872
95996056|NCT03093402|191967339|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 57.||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.895
95996057|NCT03093402|191967339|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 85.||||||0.669|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.669
95996058|NCT03093402|191967339|SUPERIORITY|The dichotomous outcome is modeled using the generalized estimating equations approach under the binomial distribution with a logit link. The model includes fixed effects for visit, treatment and visit\*treatment interaction with an unstructured within-subject correlation structure across visits. The overall test p-value is a 3 degree-of-freedom test comparing each of the 3 active treatments vs. placebo at Day 113.||||||0.668|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||JBT-101 High, JBT-101 Medium, JBT-101 Low, Placebo||||0.668
95996059|NCT03093402|191967340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.5|-2.3|.820
95996060|NCT03093402|191967340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.8|-2.0|.820
95808060|NCT02181413|191588592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.45|||||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.450|0.959|
95808061|NCT02181413|191588594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-value was based on Fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.814
95860390|NCT04881942|191679405|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1678.4||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|592.14|2764.6|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2764.6|592.14|.0031
95953780|NCT02162771|191878987|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed transformed values were used to assess the bioequivalence between CT-P10 and Rituxan (bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%)|Ratio of geometric least square means|100.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.84|108.0|||ANCOVA|Country, gender, race, the value of ECOG status and the FLIPI score (0 to 2 versus 3 to 5) at baseline were fitted as covariates.||Equivalence in Cmax,ss between CT-P10 and Rituxan||108.00|93.84|
95953781|NCT02162771|191878988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -7% was predefined.|Point estimate difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95953782|NCT01721109|191879045|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 14 participants was estimated to provide over 95% power to show pharmacokinetic equivalence between adult and adolescent participants. EVG population PK from historical adult data was used for comparison. The inter-subject standard deviation (natural log scale) of EVG AUCtau observed in the population PK data was 0.31 (historical data).|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.62||||||||1.6200|1.0479|
95953783|NCT01426217|191879068|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98||||||||0.98|0.63|
95808062|NCT02181413|191588595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||P-value was based on fisher's exact test comparing conversion to MRD- at any time post study entry between treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
95808063|NCT02181413|191588596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.969||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||0.969|0.386|0.034
95953784|NCT01426217|191879069|OTHER|Efficacy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.35||||||||1.35|0.62|
95953785|NCT02991456|191879078|OTHER|||||||0.2734|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2734
95953786|NCT02991456|191879079|OTHER|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7091
95953787|NCT02991456|191879080|EQUIVALENCE|This was tested as patients who preferred rolapitant + ondansetron vs. patients who did not prefer rolapitant + ondansetron. Patients who reported no preference and preference to Ondansetron were combined.||||||0.0004|||||||Exact Binomial|||||||0.0004
95953788|NCT02991456|191879080|EQUIVALENCE|Three outcomes tested by sequence.||||||0.5207|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5207
95808064|NCT02181413|191588596|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.92||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||0.920|0.539|0.010
95808065|NCT02181413|191588597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.184||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD- at Study Entry||1.184|0.414|0.182
95953789|NCT02991456|191879081|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.0406
95953790|NCT02991456|191879082|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0541|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0541
95953791|NCT02991456|191879083|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 1-3 between sequences.||||||0.0781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.0781
95953792|NCT02991456|191879084|EQUIVALENCE|Effectiveness during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.4146|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.4146
95953793|NCT02991456|191879085|EQUIVALENCE|Convenience during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the pooled method for equal variances.||||||0.2214
95953794|NCT02991456|191879086|EQUIVALENCE|Overall satisfaction during weeks 4-6 between sequences.||||||0.2028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|T-test using the Satterthwaite method for unequal variances.||||||0.2028
95953795|NCT03163472|191879096|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953796|NCT03163472|191879097|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95953797|NCT03163472|191879098|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95953798|NCT03163472|191879099|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95953799|NCT02389894|191879131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|17.9|||Chi-squared|The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Embol-x minus control|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||17.9|-4.2|0.22
95953800|NCT02389894|191879131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.8||The primary end point analysis used an iterative hot-deck multiple imputation approach, assuming a nonignorable missing data mechanism.|Chi-squared||The absolute difference in the percentage of patients with freedom from clinical or radiographic central nervous system (CNS) infarction was computed as Cardiogard minus control.|A sample size of 165 patients in each group ensured that each comparison had a power of approximately 90% to detect a between-group difference of 17.5% from an assumed control rate of 50% in the incidence of postoperative CNS infarcts. A single interim analysis was prespecified and performed. Based on the recommendation of the DSMB, randomization but not follow-up was halted due to low conditional power of observing any between-group differences for the primary endpoint.||13.8|-11.2|0.84
95953801|NCT02389894|191879132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.5|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Embol-x minus control|||20.5|-1.2|0.08
95953802|NCT02389894|191879132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.9|||Chi-squared||The absolute difference was computed as Cardiogard minus control|||7.9|-13.5|0.61
95953803|NCT01082159|191879165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|3.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|4.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.42|2.76|<0.0001
95953804|NCT01082159|191879166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|12.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|17.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.71|6.64|<0.0001
95953805|NCT02924350|191879188|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0547|-0.7927|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors first named dentifrice.|||-0.7927|-1.0547|<.0001
95953806|NCT02097849|191879208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.04||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.19|-0.27|0.692
95953807|NCT02097849|191879209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||Responders at Day 28||0.05|-0.41|0.120
95953808|NCT02097849|191879210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.13||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.1|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.10|-0.35|0.225
95953809|NCT02097849|191879211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.22||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.01|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.01|-0.44|0.057
95953810|NCT02097849|191879212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.07||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.30|-0.16|0.300
95953811|NCT02097849|191879213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.20|-0.26|0.714
95953812|NCT02097849|191879214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.23|-0.24|0.967
95953813|NCT02097849|191879215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Clopper-Pearson Exact|||||0.22|-0.24|0.955
95996061|NCT03093402|191967340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline SELENA-SLEDAI Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline SLEDAI score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 SLEDAI mean change from baseline (95% confidence interval) for Placebo was -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||1.1|-2.6|.820
95996062|NCT03093402|191967341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.4|-3.0|.244
95996063|NCT03093402|191967341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.0||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Medium JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.0|-5.2|.244
95996064|NCT03093402|191967341|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG total score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline BILAG score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.3 (-7.0, -1.5).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.9|-6.2|.244
95996065|NCT03093402|191967342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.40|-0.27|0.408
95996066|NCT03093402|191967342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.26|-0.40|0.408
95996067|NCT03093402|191967342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline PGA score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -0.43 (-0.70, -0.15).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||0.16|-0.50|0.408
95808066|NCT02181413|191588597|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.368||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|MRD+ at Study Entry||1.368|0.682|0.847
95808067|NCT02181413|191588598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|1.613||P-value was based on log-rank test stratified by pre-induction regimen, ISS stage and response after transplantation.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by induction regimen, pre-induction ISS, and response after transplantation, comparing the hazard rate of Ixazomib arm over the hazard rate of Placebo arm.|||1.613|0.583|0.905
95996068|NCT03093402|191967343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.48||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.24|-5.72||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||-5.72|-37.24|0.070
96001938|NCT01663740|191981428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-9.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3702||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.795|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from Baseline to end of FU|||7.190|-26.795|0.2495
95808068|NCT02181413|191588603|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was from the significance test for the coefficient of the interaction between treatment and visit.||||0.2|-4.9|0.074
95808069|NCT00392288|191588647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2696||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. In this pairwise comparison Ciclesonide was compared with Placebo by testing the average effect of Ciclesonide 40 and Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of both treatment groups.||||0.2696
95996069|NCT03093402|191967343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|4.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for High JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.54|-25.33|0.070
95996070|NCT03093402|191967343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.78|4.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference in the change from baseline Patient Global Assessment score for Low JBT-101 - Placebo. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -5.27 (-16.11, 5.56).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.16|-25.78|0.070
95996071|NCT03093402|191967344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|3.99||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.99|-3.38|0.979
95996072|NCT03093402|191967344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.93||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline Physical Function T-score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||3.93|-3.13|0.979
95996073|NCT03093402|191967344|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|4.31||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Physical Function Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.8 (-0.8, 4.3).|||4.31|-2.77|0.979
95996074|NCT03093402|191967345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.26||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||3.26|-6.14|0.788
95996075|NCT03093402|191967345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|2.96||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||2.96|-6.07|0.788
95808070|NCT00392288|191588647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0703||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. A t-test was used to compare the least-square means of Ciclesonide 80 versus Placebo.||||0.0703
95808071|NCT00392288|191588647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9146||95.0||||Due to usage of a-priori ordered hypotheses, adjustment of p-values is not necessary. The pre-specified significance level was 0.05. The tests were carried out two-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change in FEV1 = baseline FEV1 + age \[yrs\] + treatment + pooled center + previous corticosteroid therapy + holding chamber||This is an analysis of the change from baseline to week 12 or last visit. As statistical test a t-test was used to compare the corresponding least-square means of Ciclesonide 40 versus Placebo.||||0.9146
95996076|NCT03093402|191967345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.94||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Anxiety T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.8 (-4.8, 1.2).|||4.94|-4.00|0.788
95996077|NCT03093402|191967346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|3.16||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.16|-6.14|0.766
96001939|NCT01663740|191981429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-11.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.2576||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|13.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm motility,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total motility of sperm from EOT to end of FU|||13.674|-37.039|0.3505
95808072|NCT02544763|191588650|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|55.8||||||||55.8|40.4|
95808073|NCT02544763|191588650|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.8||||||||54.8|39.0|
95808074|NCT02544763|191588650|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|36.5||||||||36.5|14.9|
95808075|NCT02544763|191588650|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.699|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.861|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.861|0.567|=0.0009
95808076|NCT02544763|191588650|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.715|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.881|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.881|0.580|=0.0018
95808077|NCT02544763|191588651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||=|0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.00|0.95|=0.0692
95808078|NCT02544763|191588651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (1-6, 7-11, 12-17 and 18-65 years).||||4.67|1.12|=0.0245
95808079|NCT02544763|191588652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|4.07|||nominal|The global impression of change was analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||4.07|1.24|=0.0074
95808080|NCT02544763|191588652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||=|0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||nominal|The global impression of change is analyzed using an ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.||||3.20|0.98|=0.0580
95808081|NCT02544763|191588653|SUPERIORITY|Model includes the total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (Baseline and treatment period), treatment and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The log transformed number of days seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.|Percentage reduction|0.519|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.602||||||||0.602|0.447|
95808082|NCT02544763|191588653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.607||||||||0.607|0.452|
95808083|NCT02544763|191588653|SUPERIORITY||Percentage reduction|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|0.846||||||||0.846|0.632|
95808084|NCT02544763|191588653|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.709|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.873|0.576|=0.0013
95808085|NCT02544763|191588653|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|0.716|||=|0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|0.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.882|0.582|=0.0018
95808086|NCT01111552|191588655|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.3|||=|0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-5.9|=0.595
95808087|NCT01111552|191588655|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.4|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-4.4|=0.869
95808088|NCT01111552|191588656|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.6|-0.7|=0.856
95808089|NCT01111552|191588656|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.7|-0.6|=0.838
95808090|NCT01111552|191588657|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.2|||=|0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|=0.765
95808091|NCT01111552|191588657|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-1.2|=0.760
95808092|NCT01852214|191588658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
95808093|NCT01852214|191588659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
95808094|NCT04105725|191588676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||negative binomial regression|||||||<0.05
95808095|NCT00373360|191588686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
95808096|NCT00373360|191588687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.008
95808097|NCT00373360|191588688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
95808098|NCT00373360|191588689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.531
95808099|NCT00373360|191588690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
95808100|NCT00373360|191588691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.500
95808101|NCT00373360|191588692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
95808102|NCT00373360|191588693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||1.000
95808103|NCT00373360|191588694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0
95808104|NCT00373360|191588695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||1.000
95808105|NCT00373360|191588696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
95808106|NCT00373360|191588697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.031
95808107|NCT00373360|191588698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
95808108|NCT00373360|191588699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.063
95808109|NCT00373360|191588700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change Between Baseline and Week 8||||0.203
95808110|NCT00373360|191588704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||0.250
95808111|NCT00373360|191588705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.207
95808112|NCT00373360|191588706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.297
95808113|NCT00373360|191588707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change between Baseline and Week 8||||0.004
95808114|NCT00553475|191588733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0075||95.0|-1.09|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.09|0.0075
95808115|NCT00553475|191588733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0254||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and the CLcr strata as factors and baseline values as covariates.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.09|-1.39|0.0254
95808116|NCT00553475|191588734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8731||95.0|-3.67|3.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.12|-3.67|0.8731
95996078|NCT03093402|191967346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.11||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||5.11|-3.60|0.766
95808117|NCT00553475|191588734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.6337||95.0|-3.62|5.94|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.94|-3.62|0.6337
95808118|NCT00553475|191588735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4398||95.0|-7.44|3.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.24|-7.44|0.4398
95808119|NCT00553475|191588735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.9153||95.0|-7.96|7.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.14|-7.96|0.9153
95808120|NCT00553475|191588736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.4873||95.0|-2.75|5.76|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.76|-2.75|0.4873
95808121|NCT00553475|191588736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.4008||95.0|-3.42|8.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.53|-3.42|0.4008
95808122|NCT00553475|191588737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.5372||95.0|-2.13|4.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.09|-2.13|0.5372
95808123|NCT00553475|191588737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.348||95.0|-2.29|6.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.47|-2.29|0.3480
95996079|NCT03093402|191967346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|3.07||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Depression T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.7(-4.6, 1.3).|||3.07|-5.55|0.766
95808124|NCT00553475|191588738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06||||0.0544||95.0|-0.1|10.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.21|-0.10|0.0544
95808125|NCT00553475|191588738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.15||||0.0278||95.0|0.89|15.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.42|0.89|0.0278
95808126|NCT00553475|191588739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.7394||95.0|-4.52|6.37|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.37|-4.52|0.7394
95808127|NCT00553475|191588739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.5712||95.0|-5.49|9.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.93|-5.49|0.5712
95808128|NCT00553475|191588740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0058||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.0058
95808129|NCT00553475|191588740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0333||95.0|-1.23|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups as factors and baseline values as covariates||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.23|0.0333
95808130|NCT00553475|191588741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.153
95808131|NCT00553475|191588741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Significance level of 0.05 was used.||||0.059
95808132|NCT00553475|191588742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0287||95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0287
95808133|NCT00553475|191588742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0073||95.0|-1.29|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.20|-1.29|0.0073
95808134|NCT00553475|191588743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0021||95.0|-1.0|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.00|0.0021
95808135|NCT00553475|191588743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.78|-0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.69|-1.78|<0.0001
95808136|NCT00553475|191588744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0026||95.0|-0.99|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.21|-0.99|0.0026
95953814|NCT00442559|191879243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.03|-0.29|0.015
95953815|NCT00442559|191879243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daytime asthma symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=29 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.02|-0.3|0.027
95953816|NCT00442559|191879244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - Montelukast. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the Montelukast treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=24 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.07|-0.36|0.006
95953817|NCT00442559|191879244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from BL to Week 12 - ICS. The difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in daily allergic rhinitis symptom score was tested by paired t-test (H0: difference =0) for the ICS treatment group. Subjects in this analysis: N=28 subjects for the within arm (single arm) comparison between BL and Week 12 scores.||-0.01|-0.24|0.032
95953818|NCT03906240|191879286|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 5.78||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||2.49|1.00|<.001
95953819|NCT03906240|191879286|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 3.48||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.38|0.35|.002
95953820|NCT03906240|191879287|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.06||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.91|-0.45|.957
95953821|NCT03906240|191879287|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.51||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.25|0.08|.033
95953822|NCT03906240|191879288|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.71||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.76||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.31|0.32|.015
95953823|NCT03906240|191879288|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.74||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 2.87||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||1.55|0.26|.012
95953824|NCT03906240|191879288|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.02||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.08||Physical Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.55|-0.43|.941
95953825|NCT03906240|191879288|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.14||Psychological Domain: Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.79|-0.17|.270
95953826|NCT03906240|191879289|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.08||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.30||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.71|-0.45|.768
95953827|NCT03906240|191879289|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|t = 0.05||Paired-samples t-test to conduct within-person comparison between baseline and follow-up.||0.42|-0.53|.975
95953828|NCT03575572|191879295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95953829|NCT03575572|191879295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95953830|NCT03575572|191879297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95953831|NCT03575572|191879297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95953832|NCT04908800|191879300|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|2.04|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 10.7."|||2.04|1.74|
95953833|NCT04908800|191879301|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|1.79|||||"Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.01."|||1.79|1.57|
95953834|NCT04908800|191879302|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||||Data were analyzed using a mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.18.|||1.21|1.09|
95953835|NCT04908800|191879307|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.882|
95953836|NCT04908800|191879307|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted) and 607 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 6.01. Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Food Effect Assessment||1.11|0.926|
95953837|NCT04908800|191879307|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.59|||||Geometric least squares mean was 600 (fasted male) and 634 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 32.7. Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor.|Sex Effect Assessment||1.59|0.701|
95953838|NCT04908800|191879308|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.06|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 25.4. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.06|0.891|
95953839|NCT04908800|191879308|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted) and 578 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 7.05.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.12|0.905|
95953840|NCT04908800|191879308|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.54|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 575 (fasted male) and 600 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 31.1.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.54|0.707|
95953841|NCT04908800|191879309|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.07|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 23.0. Data were analyzed using a power model.|Dose Proportionality Assessment||1.07|0.909|
95953842|NCT04908800|191879309|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.09|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted) and 30.0 (fed). Within-subject coefficient of variation was 9.44.~Data were analyzed using mixed model which included actual treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect."|Food Effect Assessment||1.09|0.824|
95953843|NCT04908800|191879309|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.62|||||"Geometric least squares mean was 31.6 (fasted male) and 38.8 (fasted female). Between subject coefficient of variation was 22.0.~Data were analyzed using an ANOVA model which included actual treatment as a factor."|Sex Effect Assessment||1.62|0.928|
95953844|NCT04908800|191879314|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.26|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 26.9. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.26|0.966|
95953845|NCT04908800|191879316|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.29|||||Between-subject geometric coefficient of variation was 32.1. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.29|0.945|
95953846|NCT04908800|191879317|EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered and confidence intervals were assessed for containing unity (1) within them.|Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.23|||||Between-subject geometric of coefficient variation was 23.2. Data were analyzed using a power model.|"Dose Proportionality Assessment. KRP-A218 assessed across the following dose levels: 2 mg, 4 mg, 8 mg, and 11 mg.~Dose proportionality results for Part B are only for the Day 14 profile (not Day 1)."||1.23|0.971|
95953847|NCT03751280|191879326|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||2.6|-1.4|
95953848|NCT03751280|191879326|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.279|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||2.9|-1.3|
95953849|NCT03751280|191879326|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|5.4|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||5.4|0.1|0.0931
95953850|NCT03751280|191879328|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1|-0.6|
95953851|NCT03751280|191879328|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.5|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.5|-0.3|
95953852|NCT03751280|191879328|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||1.9|-0.3|0.2069
95953853|NCT03751280|191879329|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.9|-0.9|
95953854|NCT03751280|191879329|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.6|-1.4|
95953855|NCT03751280|191879329|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 85||3.4|-0.2|0.1368
95808137|NCT00553475|191588744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.69|-0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.58|-1.69|<0.0001
95808138|NCT00553475|191588745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0012||95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
95808139|NCT00553475|191588745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.67|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.67|<0.0001
95808140|NCT00553475|191588746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0011||95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.04|0.0011
95808141|NCT00553475|191588746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.72|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.60|-1.72|<0.0001
95808142|NCT00553475|191588747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.40|-1.18|<0.0001
95953856|NCT03751280|191879330|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||0.6|-0.8|
95808143|NCT00553475|191588747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.68|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.68|<0.0001
95808144|NCT00553475|191588748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
95808145|NCT00553475|191588748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0002||95.0|-1.66|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.66|0.0002
95808146|NCT00553475|191588749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0008||95.0|-1.07|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.07|0.0008
95808147|NCT00553475|191588749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0014||95.0|-1.51|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.36|-1.51|0.0014
95953857|NCT03751280|191879330|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.9|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||0.9|-0.6|
95953858|NCT03751280|191879330|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|||1.5|-0.5|0.3798
95953859|NCT03751280|191879331|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29||1.6|-3.2|
95953860|NCT03751280|191879331|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.006|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|1.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 57||1.7|-4.9|
95953861|NCT03751280|191879331|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 85||-1.1|-7.0|0.0245
95953862|NCT03751280|191879332|OTHER||Comparison of adjusted least square mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||||mixed effects model with treatment, visit as fixed effects, baseline and disease duration at baseline as continuous covariates, treatment \* visit and baseline \* visit interaction effects.|Day 29-Domain 1||0.7|-1.0|
95953863|NCT05045638|191879350|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.6999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.186|2.4363||||||The ratios of geometric least squares means (GLSMs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the natural-log (ln) scale.||2.4363|1.1860|
95996080|NCT03093402|191967347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|5.17||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||5.17|-6.04|0.982
95996081|NCT03093402|191967347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.5||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.50|-6.22|0.982
95996082|NCT03093402|191967347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.36||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Fatigue T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 mean change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.7 (-8.3, -1.1).|||4.36|-6.32|0.982
95996083|NCT03093402|191967348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.91||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.91|-4.74|0.607
95996084|NCT03093402|191967348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.71||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||7.71|-1.85|0.607
95996085|NCT03093402|191967348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|6.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -3.5 (-6.8, -0.3).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||6.09|-3.22|0.607
95808148|NCT00553475|191588750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0003||95.0|-1.12|-0.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.12|0.0003
95808149|NCT00553475|191588750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0036||95.0|-1.44|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.44|0.0036
95996086|NCT03093402|191967349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|4.3||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.30|-4.66|0.981
95996087|NCT03093402|191967349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.86||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.86|-3.84|0.981
95996088|NCT03093402|191967349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.08||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Social Role Satisfaction T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 4.2 (0.8, 7.6).|||4.08|-4.62|0.981
95996089|NCT03093402|191967350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||2.29|-6.00|0.653
95808150|NCT00553475|191588751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0005||95.0|-1.1|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.31|-1.10|0.0005
95996090|NCT03093402|191967350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.88||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||4.88|-3.10|0.653
95996091|NCT03093402|191967350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.67||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Interference T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -4.9 (-7.6, -2.1).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.67|-4.31|0.653
95996092|NCT03093402|191967351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.29||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.29|-2.56|0.245
95996093|NCT03093402|191967351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.8||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.80|-1.93|0.245
95996094|NCT03093402|191967351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.09||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Pain Intensity at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1).|||0.09|-2.64|0.245
95996095|NCT03093402|191967352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|3.54||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of High JBT-101 - Placebo in the change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||3.54|-4.45|0.608
95996096|NCT03093402|191967352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|5.47||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Medium JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.47|-2.27|0.608
95808151|NCT00553475|191588751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0034||95.0|-1.46|-0.29|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.29|-1.46|0.0034
95808152|NCT00553475|191588752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0023||95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.22|-1.02|0.0023
95996097|NCT03093402|191967352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.45||This p-value is from the overall 3 degree of freedom test that simultaneously compares the mean difference in the change from baseline PROMIS Cognitive Function T-Score at Day 85 for each of the 3 JBT-101 cohorts versus placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated mean difference of Low JBT-101 - Placebo in the mean change from baseline at Day 85. The estimated Day 85 change from baseline and 95% confidence interval for the Placebo group was 1.4 (-1.5, 4.4).|Each active JBT-101 cohort is compared to placebo.||5.45|-2.25|0.608
95996098|NCT00331760|191967388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 64% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 25%.||||0.12
95996099|NCT00331760|191967388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||A sample size of 42 patients provides 88% power to detect a reduction in short-term grade 2 or higher bowel AEs from historical rate of 40% to 20%.||||0.043
95996100|NCT00461175|191967396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, breastfeeding at time of insertion and parity status.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.70|0.96|
95808153|NCT00553475|191588752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0105||95.0|-1.36|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.36|0.0105
95808154|NCT00553475|191588753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0016||95.0|-1.05|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-1.05|0.0016
95860391|NCT04881942|191679405|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|1199.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.74|2285.7|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||2285.7|113.74|.0310
95953864|NCT05045638|191879351|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0334|1.7347||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.7347|1.0334|
95808155|NCT00553475|191588753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.0111||95.0|-1.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.37|0.0111
95953865|NCT05045638|191879352|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs|1.3382|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9856|1.8169||||||The ratios of GLSMs and CIs were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and CIs on the ln scale.||1.8169|0.9856|
95953866|NCT04799587|191879442|SUPERIORITY|Sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of IONV and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD. A two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100. Statistical analyses were two-sided, and a P\<0.05 was required to reject the null hypothesis.||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the number of episodes between the P6 acupressure and sham acupressure groups were compared using a chi-square statistic (nominal data) or the Wilcoxon test (continuous data).||||.94
95953867|NCT04799587|191879443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size for the study was determined by assuming a baseline rate of 33% of intraoperative nausea and vomiting and that there will be a relative decrease of 50% in the group that receives P6 acupressure during CD.20 Using a two-sided Fisher's Exact Test, with a significance level of 0.05, group sizes of 98 are needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.18. Group sizes were rounded up to 100||||.95
95953868|NCT00581009|191879516|EQUIVALENCE|repeated measure ANOVA|t-value|3.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95953869|NCT01075815|191879547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0235||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1546|0.1568|||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||0.1568|-0.1546|0.8762
95953870|NCT01075815|191879548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.3589
95953871|NCT01075815|191879549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.0629
95953872|NCT01075815|191879550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4728||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4728
95953873|NCT01075815|191879551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0950
95808156|NCT00553475|191588754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.6118||95.0|-5.23|3.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.08|-5.23|0.6118
95953874|NCT01075815|191879553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9625||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4655|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.9900|0.4655|0.9179
95953875|NCT01075815|191879554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4133|1.8524|||Chi-squared|||||1.8524|0.4133|0.7271
95953876|NCT01075815|191879555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.3267
95953877|NCT01075815|191879556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.4164
95953878|NCT01075815|191879557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||||||0.5952
95953879|NCT01075815|191879559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9444||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4347|2.0518|||Chi-squared|||||2.0518|0.4347|0.8852
95953880|NCT01261793|191879566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||=|0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.477||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.477|0.710|=0.899
95953881|NCT01261793|191879566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.539||p-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio: Epratuzumab/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, pooled region, and baseline disease status.|||1.539|0.743|=0.716
95953882|NCT00763919|191879574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
95953883|NCT00763919|191879575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.01
95953884|NCT00763919|191879576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
95953885|NCT00763919|191879577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
95953886|NCT00763919|191879578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
95953887|NCT00763919|191879579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.042
95808157|NCT00553475|191588754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0109||95.0|1.76|13.42|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.42|1.76|0.0109
95808158|NCT00553475|191588755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.4602||95.0|-2.47|5.45|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.45|-2.47|0.4602
95808159|NCT00553475|191588755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.97||||0.1625||95.0|-1.61|9.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.54|-1.61|0.1625
95808160|NCT00553475|191588756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.0001
95808161|NCT00553475|191588756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0273||95.0|-1.19|-0.07|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.07|-1.19|0.0273
95808162|NCT00553475|191588757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0013||95.0|-2.87|-0.71|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.71|-2.87|0.0013
95808163|NCT00553475|191588757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0062||95.0|-3.65|-0.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.61|-3.65|0.0062
95808164|NCT00553475|191588758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0068||95.0|-1.03|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.03|0.0068
95953888|NCT00763919|191879580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.044
95808165|NCT00553475|191588758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0707||95.0|-1.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.05|-1.17|0.0707
95808166|NCT00553475|191588759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.0013||95.0|-3.76|-0.93|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.93|-3.76|0.0013
95808167|NCT00553475|191588759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.0087||95.0|-4.67|-0.68|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.68|-4.67|0.0087
95953889|NCT00763919|191879581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
95953890|NCT00763919|191879582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
95953891|NCT00763919|191879583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
95953892|NCT00763919|191879584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.001
95953893|NCT00763919|191879585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.827
95953894|NCT00763919|191879586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 6 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
95953895|NCT00763919|191879587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.246
95953896|NCT00763919|191879588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.101
95953897|NCT00763919|191879589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.003
95953898|NCT00763919|191879590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.096
95953899|NCT00763919|191879591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.072
95953900|NCT00763919|191879592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<.001
95953901|NCT00763919|191879593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.078
95953902|NCT00763919|191879594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.002
95953903|NCT00763919|191879595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.562
95953904|NCT00763919|191879596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||.12
95953905|NCT01292005|191879597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.62
95953906|NCT01292005|191879597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||1.0
95860392|NCT04881942|191679405|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|3354.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2266.6|4442.3|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||4442.3|2266.6|<.0001
95860393|NCT04881942|191679405|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|2511.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1416.1|3605.9|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||3605.9|1416.1|<.0001
95864386|NCT03060551|191686722|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
95953907|NCT01292005|191879598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.72
95953908|NCT01292005|191879598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.50
95953909|NCT01292005|191879599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.58
95953910|NCT01292005|191879599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.80
95953911|NCT01292005|191879600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 1. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.90
95953912|NCT01292005|191879600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 0 to Day 3. p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.56
95953913|NCT01292005|191879601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.09
95953914|NCT01292005|191879602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.22
95953915|NCT01292005|191879603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for length of hospitalization \> 4 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
95953916|NCT01292005|191879603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was for length of hospitalization \>10 days. P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
95953917|NCT01292005|191879604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
95953918|NCT01292005|191879605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.03
95953919|NCT01292005|191879606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
95953920|NCT05431543|191879615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
95953921|NCT05431543|191879615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.093|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
95953922|NCT03926117|191879619|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.15|-49.12|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (greater than or equal to (\>=) 11 or less than (\<) 11 grams per deciliter (g/dL)) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-49.12|-86.15|<0.0001
95953923|NCT03926117|191879619|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-77.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.98|-62.97|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-62.97|-94.98|<0.0001
95953924|NCT03926117|191879619|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-87.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.0|-70.54|||Hodges-Lehmann method|||Percent change from baseline is analyzed using nonparametric Hodges-Lehmann estimator. The nonparametric analysis accounts for covariates baseline hemoglobin (\>= 11 or \< 11 g/dL) and chronic kidney disease stage (3, 4 or 5) by aligning responses within each stratum defined by the covariates prior to analysis.||-70.54|-101.00|<0.0001
95953925|NCT01154699|191879674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the change in asthma control during the Usual care and the Bilevel PAP period were compared.||||0.8
95953926|NCT01154699|191879675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PC20 between the two arms||||0.20
95953927|NCT01154699|191879676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95953928|NCT01154699|191879677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95953929|NCT01154699|191879678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95953930|NCT01154699|191879679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95996101|NCT00461175|191967396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a two group test of equivalence in proportions. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2; and 4) an incidence of 0.5 and 1.0 per 1000 insertions.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, time since last delivery, experience of the inserting health care provider.|The null hypothesis to be tested was: The perforation incidence ratio for LNG IUS vs. copper IUD is higher than or equal to 2.||2.78|0.99|
95996102|NCT00461175|191967397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.09||||||||0.09|0.04|
95996103|NCT00461175|191967397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearl Index|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64||||||||0.64|0.42|
95996104|NCT00461175|191967397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for the following prognostic factors: age, BMI, and parity.|||0.25|0.10|
95996105|NCT01773473|191967398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
95996106|NCT00826514|191967405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.209||||||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value, age and treatment as covariates.||0.209|-1.150|
95996107|NCT00826514|191967408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.754|1.905||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI Total Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.905|-4.754|
95808168|NCT00553475|191588760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27||||0.0056||95.0|-12.4|-2.14|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.14|-12.40|0.0056
95808169|NCT00553475|191588760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0427||95.0|-14.74|-0.25|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.25|-14.74|0.0427
95808170|NCT00553475|191588761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0365||95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-0.40|0.0365
95996108|NCT00826514|191967408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.931|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.701|0.591||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI PD Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.591|-2.701|
95996109|NCT00826514|191967408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.789|1.541||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI US Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.541|-0.789|
95996110|NCT00826514|191967408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.785|0.631||||||Change at Week 6, CPSI QoL Score: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.631|-1.785|
95996111|NCT00826514|191967409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.649|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.348||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.348|-0.990|
95996112|NCT00826514|191967410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.829|1.452||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.452|-1.829|
95996113|NCT00826514|191967411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.026|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.144|-2.968||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||-2.968|-64.144|
95996114|NCT00826514|191967412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.364|0.415||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.415|-1.364|
95996115|NCT00826514|191967413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.146|0.401||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.401|-3.146|
95996116|NCT00826514|191967414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.417|0.334||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||0.334|-0.417|
95996117|NCT00826514|191967415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.791|1.822||||||Change at Week 6: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with baseline value, age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||1.822|-1.791|
95996118|NCT00826514|191967416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.763|4.407||||||Week 6: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||4.407|0.763|
95996119|NCT00826514|191967416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.388|2.575||||||Week 16: Logistic regression model with age, baseline pain stratification group and treatment as covariates.||2.575|0.388|
95808171|NCT00553475|191588761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0073||95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-0.65|0.0073
95808172|NCT00553475|191588762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.0019||95.0|-10.38|-2.36|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.36|-10.38|0.0019
95996120|NCT01276288|191967476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|118.07||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||118.07|97.11|0.0092
95996121|NCT01276288|191967476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.14|116.11||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.11|100.14|0.0030
95996122|NCT01276288|191967477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.55|119.29||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||119.29|88.55|0.0199
95996123|NCT01276288|191967477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|107.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.3||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|118.04||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by Empa"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects while subjects within sequences as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||118.04|97.90|0.0086
96001940|NCT01663740|191981430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-5.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7578||0.4021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.524|8.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to EOT|||8.042|-19.524|0.4021
95808173|NCT00553475|191588762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1907||95.0|-9.45|1.89|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.89|-9.45|0.1907
95808174|NCT00553475|191588763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9905||95.0|-5.37|5.43|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.43|-5.37|0.9905
95808175|NCT00553475|191588763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44||||0.2532||95.0|-3.19|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-3.19|0.2532
95953931|NCT02938520|191879680|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 c/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is less than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.1|||||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|2.1|-2.8|
95953932|NCT02938520|191879681|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - ABC/DTG/3TC) is more than -10%|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000 \>=100,000 c/mL)|||4.5|-3.7|
95953933|NCT02938520|191879734|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Week 41/48 was compared with the 1st visit (Week 5) based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. p-values are derived for 'Acceptance' only and not adjusted for multiple testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953934|NCT02938520|191879736|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.2||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.6|-1.1|0.307
95953935|NCT02938520|191879736|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.9||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.2|-1.5|0.472
95953936|NCT02938520|191879737|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.8||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.9|-0.4|0.116
95808176|NCT00553475|191588764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.4538||95.0|-5.05|2.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.26|-5.05|0.4538
95808177|NCT00553475|191588764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84||||0.2782||95.0|-7.97|2.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.30|-7.97|0.2782
95953937|NCT02938520|191879737|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.5|-2.3|0.944
95996124|NCT01276288|191967478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|96.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|104.05||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||104.05|89.08|0.0008
95996125|NCT01276288|191967479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|116.85||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ HCT divided by HCT"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+HCT were included||116.85|88.63|0.0114
95996126|NCT01276288|191967480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.06|103.88||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa plus TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||103.88|99.06|<0.0001
95996127|NCT01276288|191967480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.39|108.62||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||108.62|100.39|<0.0001
95808178|NCT00553475|191588765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.0177||95.0|0.06|0.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.59|0.06|0.0177
95808179|NCT00553475|191588765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.3661||95.0|-0.2|0.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.55|-0.20|0.3661
95808180|NCT00553475|191588766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62||||0.0511||95.0|-0.03|11.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.26|-0.03|0.0511
95996128|NCT01276288|191967480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|103.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|111.01||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.01|95.93|0.0005
95996129|NCT01276288|191967481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.81|116.25||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR divided by TOR"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||116.25|93.81|0.0066
95996130|NCT01276288|191967481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|111.97||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M1 divided by TOR-M1"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||111.97|94.13|0.0012
95996131|NCT01276288|191967481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing in a confirmatory sense|Geometric mean ratio|102.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|107.42||"p-value for ratio outside interval 80-125%~Ratio calculated as Empa+ TOR-M3 divided by TOR-M3"|ANOVA|Model was adjusted for treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) reflecting intra-subject variabilities|Only patients in sequences Empa/Empa+TOR were included||107.42|97.65|<0.0001
95808181|NCT00553475|191588766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.0173||95.0|1.72|17.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.59|1.72|0.0173
95808182|NCT00553475|191588767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.79||||0.1123||95.0|-0.89|8.47|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.47|-0.89|0.1123
95808183|NCT00553475|191588767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0206||95.0|1.2|14.38|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||14.38|1.20|0.0206
95808184|NCT00553475|191588768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.0269||95.0|-6.67|-0.41|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.41|-6.67|0.0269
95808185|NCT00553475|191588768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.4183||95.0|-6.24|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.60|-6.24|0.4183
95808186|NCT00553475|191588769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0148
95996132|NCT02537678|191967484|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.26|.006
95996133|NCT02537678|191967485|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.47||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 SD units.|Treatment difference = standard Trauma Focused -CBT - stepped care Trauma Focused-CBT||-3.47|.004
95996134|NCT02537678|191967486|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.5||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.50|.001
95996135|NCT02537678|191967487|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.94||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.94|<0.001
95996136|NCT02537678|191967488|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.044|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.33||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.33|.044
95996137|NCT02537678|191967489|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.07||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.07|0.002
95996138|NCT02537678|191967490|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation (SD) as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.016|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.06||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.06|0.016
95996139|NCT02537678|191967491|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.72||||t-test, 1 sided|||Based on the actual randomization of 183 participants (SC-TF-CBT=91; standard TF-CBT=92), we had more than 80% power to show that SC-TF-CBT is at least as effective as standard TF-CBT with alpha of .05 and a non-inferior margin of 0.41 standard deviation units.|Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.72|0.003
95996140|NCT02537678|191967492|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.89||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.89|0.007
95996141|NCT02537678|191967493|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.008|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.24||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.24|0.008
95996142|NCT02537678|191967494|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.015|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.88||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.88|0.015
96001941|NCT01663740|191981430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1817||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.423|8.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from Baseline to end of FU|||8.714|-12.423|0.7229
95854684|NCT03337308|191669106|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-25.1|-10.5||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-10.5|-25.1|<0.001
95854685|NCT03337308|191669106|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-19.1|-5.0||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.0|-19.1|<0.001
95996143|NCT02537678|191967495|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.024|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.68||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.68|0.024
95996144|NCT02537678|191967496|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.39||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.39|0.001
95996145|NCT02537678|191967497|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.47||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.47|0.003
95996146|NCT02537678|191967498|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.3||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.30|<0.001
95996147|NCT02537678|191967499|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.29||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.29|0.001
95996148|NCT02537678|191967500|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.38||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.38|0.004
95773403|NCT03514485|191518387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||||||Linear mixed effects models were then used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Asthma Control. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.||0.09|-0.36|
95773404|NCT03514485|191518388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.55|-0.39|
95773405|NCT03514485|191518388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.88|0.04|
95773406|NCT03514485|191518388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.23|-1.06|
95773407|NCT03514485|191518388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.67|-1.39|
95996149|NCT02537678|191967501|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.19||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-0.19|<0.001
95996150|NCT02537678|191967502|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.33||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.33|0.005
95996151|NCT02537678|191967503|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.028|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.99||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-4.99|0.028
95996152|NCT02537678|191967504|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-3.64||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-3.64|0.009
95996153|NCT02537678|191967505|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.006|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.82||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.82|0.006
95996154|NCT02537678|191967506|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-2.31|0.001
95996155|NCT02537678|191967507|NON_INFERIORITY|We planned 0.41 standard deviation as the non-inferiority margin (which is less than half of the effect size) for the one-side testing. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.43||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-1.43|<0.001
95996156|NCT02537678|191967508|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at post assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.04||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.04|<0.001
95996157|NCT02537678|191967509|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults. Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 6-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.003|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.87||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-6.87|0.003
95996158|NCT02537678|191967510|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority margin for the PCL-5, the clinically significant change threshold is 10 points although adult PTSD trials have used -5 to -10 points. We used -8.8 as the margin which was based on an expert panel and prior studies with adults.Non-inferiority analysis with alpha 2.5% was applied at 12-month assessment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.8||||t-test, 1 sided||||Treatment difference = standard TF-CBT - stepped care TF-CBT||-5.80|<0.001
95996159|NCT01128387|191967511|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Pantiumumab (in combination with Cisplatin \& Fluorouracil - see below)||||
95996160|NCT01128387|191967511|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Cisplatin||||
95996161|NCT01128387|191967511|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|750.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Dose of Fluorourcil||||
95996162|NCT05292755|191967513|OTHER|One-way ANOVA was used to compare mean Faith's phylogenetic diversity before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||||0.232|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.232
95996163|NCT05292755|191967514|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA was used to compare mean Shannon's diversity indices before and after treatment for each intervention group at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.224
95996164|NCT05292755|191967515|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney|||Repeated measures Mann-U-Whitney tests were used to compare changes in weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances between intervention groups before and after intervention at a two-tailed 95% confidence interval.||||0.227
95996165|NCT02249052|191967524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.394|-71.265|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-71.265|-95.394|<0.0001
95996166|NCT02249052|191967525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.8947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6686|0.987|||Sign test|||||.9870|.6686|<.0001
95996167|NCT00552110|191967542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA); classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||"Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.~Power calculation: The target randomization of 875 subjects (175 subjects per treatment arm) was needed to detect a treatment difference of 0.8 point or more in change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 90% power, assuming a pooled standard deviation of 2.3 points."||||0.002
95996168|NCT00552110|191967542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of OXY twice daily.||||<0.001
95996169|NCT00552110|191967542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of MFNS once daily has the same mean change from baseline in AM/PM NOW TNSS as that of placebo.||||<0.001
95996170|NCT00552110|191967543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021||95.0||||Multiplicity for multiple treatment comparisons was not adjusted.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA; classification variables: treatment, center, dosing sequence (stratification variable); covariate: baseline score||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily.||||0.021
95996171|NCT00552110|191967543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the concurrent administration of MFNS and OXY once daily has the same standardized AUC (0-4hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of MFNS once daily||||<0.001
95773408|NCT03514485|191518388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.18||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Daytime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.18|-0.95|
95996172|NCT00552110|191967543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: the administration of OXY twice daily has the same standardized AUC(0-4 hr) of the change from baseline in nasal congestion score as that of placebo||||<0.001
95996173|NCT00490542|191967575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.2||||||||10.2|0.6|
95996174|NCT01870739|191967594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0616||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4178|0.2947|||Linear Model|Treatment as fixed effect and corresponding baseline as covariate.||||0.2947|-0.4178|0.7324
95996175|NCT01870739|191967595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0371||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4582|0.3839|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.3839|-0.4582|0.8614
95996176|NCT01870739|191967596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0812||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6987|0.5362|||Linear Model|Treatment as a fixed effect and corresponding baseline as a covariate||||0.5362|-0.6987|0.7946
95996177|NCT01986062|191967604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95996178|NCT01986062|191967605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95996179|NCT01986062|191967606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95996180|NCT01986062|191967607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95996181|NCT01986062|191967608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95996182|NCT01986062|191967609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95808187|NCT00553475|191588769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0063
95808188|NCT00553475|191588770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0818
95808189|NCT00553475|191588770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared with a modified ridit transformation, stratified by stratum based on the CLcr||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0075
95996183|NCT02587338|191967621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.74
95996184|NCT02587338|191967622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
95996185|NCT00371267|191967672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.27
95996186|NCT00371267|191967673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.35
95996187|NCT00371267|191967674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.74
95996188|NCT00371267|191967675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
95808190|NCT00553475|191588771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0013||95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.07|0.0013
95808191|NCT00553475|191588771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.0152||95.0|-1.34|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Model included treatment, CLcr stratum, week and treatment-by-week interaction, and baseline scores as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.34|0.0152
95808192|NCT00913835|191588772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.478|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.478|0.751|0.8049
95808193|NCT00913835|191588773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.618|||Log Rank|Stratified by prior platinum treatment, platinum-refractory versus platinum-resistance reaction.||||1.618|0.768|0.6346
95808194|NCT00913835|191588774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6190
95808195|NCT00773461|191588785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95996189|NCT00371267|191967676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
95996190|NCT01575912|191967713|OTHER|||||||0.121||||||using Mann Whitney test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
95996191|NCT01056107|191967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.0075
95996192|NCT01056107|191967719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|||||||<0.001
95996193|NCT03783195|191967727|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||0.76|-1.77|0.40
95996194|NCT03783195|191967728|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.57||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in liver fat as compared to high GRS group.||2.57|-3.33|0.71
95996195|NCT03783195|191967729|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-10.72||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in VLDL-TG as compared to high GRS group.||-10.72|-31.33|0.0006
95996196|NCT03783195|191967730|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Median Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements at different time points between the two GRS groups.||0.46|-0.27|0.59
95996197|NCT03783195|191967731|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.75|-4.38||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum triglycerides as compared to high GRS group.||-4.38|-37.75|0.017
95996198|NCT03783195|191967732|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis focuses on the changes in the area under the curve (AUC) for measurements baseline and 3hr timepoints at week 0 and week 3 between the two GRS groups.||0.33|-0.37|0.89
95996199|NCT03783195|191967733|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|5.55||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have less increase in HDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||5.55|-14.28|0.36
95996200|NCT03783195|191967734|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.40|-0.27|0.67
95996201|NCT03783195|191967735|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.76|3.69||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in LDL cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.69|-45.76|0.09
95996202|NCT03783195|191967736|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|-0.24|0.69
95996203|NCT03783195|191967737|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-29.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.28||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.39|3.17||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in total cholesterol as compared to high GRS group.||3.17|-62.39|0.07
95996204|NCT03783195|191967738|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-0.26|0.80
95996205|NCT03783195|191967739|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.91||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum uric acid as compared to high GRS group.||0.91|-0.18|0.17
95996206|NCT03783195|191967740|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.58|0.22
95996207|NCT03783195|191967741|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.0009||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALT as compared to high GRS group.||-0.0009|-0.03|0.04
95808196|NCT00773461|191588785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population (Sensitivity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95996208|NCT03783195|191967742|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.52|0.53
95996209|NCT03783195|191967743|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|58.08||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum AST as compared to high GRS group.||58.08|-16.9|0.25
95996210|NCT03783195|191967744|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.59|0.20
95996211|NCT03783195|191967745|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.78||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|75.67||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum ALP as compared to high GRS group.||75.67|-17.76|0.21
95996212|NCT03783195|191967746|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.214|0.67
95996213|NCT03783195|191967747|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.28||All tests were individual tests.|Paired t-test|||The null hypothesis is that people with low GRS will have greater increase in serum GGT as compared to high GRS group.||0.28|-0.12|0.41
95996214|NCT03783195|191967748|OTHER|Both groups received the same intervention; however, their genetic make-up was different|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.44|0.49
95996215|NCT00215150|191967749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Results are from a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the difference from endpoint to baseline for the intent to treat sample from the open label phase of the project.||||< 0.001
95996216|NCT00215150|191967749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Results are from a Kruskal Wallis test on the ziprasidone/placebo groups from the randomization phase of the project.||||> .05
95808197|NCT00773461|191588786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Comparison of ACR 50 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95808198|NCT00773461|191588786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0345||||||Comparison of ACR 70 responders in placebo and Tocilizumab groups|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0345
95808199|NCT00773461|191588788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.8||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Swollen Joint Count||-2.8|-6.6|<0.0001
95808200|NCT00773461|191588788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.1||p value was calculated using the difference between core set values of the two arms.|ANCOVA|||Placebo + DMARDs Vs Tocilizumab + DMARDs analysis for Tender Joint Count||-6.1|-11.3|<0.0001
95808201|NCT00773461|191588789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-25.3|<0.0001
95808202|NCT00773461|191588790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14.0|-24.5|<0.0001
95808203|NCT00773461|191588791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA|||||-12.7|-25.2|<0.0001
95808204|NCT00773461|191588792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7384|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1464|-1.3303|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3303|-2.1464|<0.0001
95808205|NCT00773461|191588793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-33.7|||ANCOVA|||||-33.7|-44.7|<.0001
95808206|NCT00773461|191588795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|1.8|0.0003
95808207|NCT00773461|191588796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.3||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-139.5|0.0599
95808208|NCT00773461|191588797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.125|16.786|||ANCOVA|||||16.786|9.125|<0.0001
95953938|NCT02938520|191879738|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-1.3||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.0|-5.7|0.552
95808209|NCT00773461|191588798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
95808210|NCT00637156|191588802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.201||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the overall success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P(p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.201|0.022|1.000
95808211|NCT00637156|191588802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of overall success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated. If the posterior probability is at least 0.95, a claim of superiority can be made.||||0.993
95953939|NCT02938520|191879738|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-4.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||-0.4|-8.9|0.033
95953940|NCT02938520|191879739|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.021||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|2.318|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.318|-0.275|0.122
95953941|NCT02938520|191879739|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.103||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|2.453|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||2.453|-0.248|0.109
95953942|NCT02938520|191879739|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.182||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.958|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.958|-0.594|0.645
95953943|NCT02938520|191879739|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.169||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.657|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||0.657|-0.994|0.689
95953944|NCT02938520|191879740|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||3.4|1.0|<0.001
95953945|NCT02938520|191879740|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.7||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 44 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||1.9|-0.4|0.217
95953946|NCT02938520|191879741|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.5|||ANOVA||Treatment comparison of HIVTSQc-total treatment satisfaction score at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.5|2.8|<0.001
95953947|NCT02938520|191879743|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.7|-1.4|0.232
95953948|NCT02938520|191879743|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||6.4|-1.0|0.154
95953949|NCT02938520|191879743|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 is presented, adjusted for Maintenance Baseline (Day 1) Score, Induction Baseline (Week -20) HIV-1 RNA (\<100,000, \>=100,000 c/mL), gender at birth, age (\<50, \>= 50 Years) and race (white, non-white).|||5.8|-1.4|0.236
95953950|NCT04448561|191879758|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|100.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|102.96|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||102.96|98.37|
95953951|NCT04448561|191879759|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.29|99.54|||||Assessment based on analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Ratios and confidence limits: transformed back to raw scale and values expressed as percentages.|||99.54|89.29|
95996217|NCT02240134|191967762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for air filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||3.32|0.46|0.68
95996218|NCT02240134|191967762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds ratio for filter treatment relative to placebo|Mixed effects logistic regression model with presence of LRTI as outcome (yes or no); assigned treatment as primary exposure variable relative to placebo; adjusted for child age and person-time at-risk; nested random term: home:cohort:area. Results presented as odds ratios with 95% Confidence Intervals.||2.72|0.35|0.96
95996219|NCT02240134|191967763|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|-6.96||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|24.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||24.55|-30.50|0.250
95996220|NCT02240134|191967763|SUPERIORITY||percent differences in geometric mean PM|11.77||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|49.72||Statistical significance selected as 95% confidence interval of the estimation parameter that excludes the null value, 0.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in indoor PM2.5 for education treatment versus placebo.|Linear mixed model with natural-log transformed 6-day mean indoor PM2.5 as outcome; assigned treatment as primary exposure variable; adjusted for child age; nested random term: cohort:area. Results presented as effect estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals and reported as percent differences in geometric mean PM2.5.||49.72|-16.57|0.295
95996221|NCT01380899|191967764|SUPERIORITY|IHC analyses revealed intense α-synuclein positive immunostaining in PD patients, showing small nodular deposits from 1 to 2 μm in diameter in the SCL of the epidermis including the epidermal component adjacent to hair follicles, and in cells from PSUs, while control subjects presented null immunoreaction. The α-synuclein inclusions in the two groups of patients were morphologically similar but quantitatively different. These inclusions appeared to be juxtanuclear.|Median Difference (Net)|57.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|62.6||The presence of alpha-synuclein aggregates expressed as % of cells with inclusions was tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test). Then, with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests (software Statistica 7.0 at 95% confidence).|Kruskal-Wallis|The groups were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests.|The expression of the abnormal protein (alpha-synuclein) must be different between the three groups (PD, AP, and control)|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis made on the basis of the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal a-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test.|The patients were stratified according to the clinical diagnosis based on the clinical findings, the MRI, and the progression of the disease. Both the clinical diagnosis and the semiquantitative histological analysis were carried out independently and blind to each other. The presence of aggregates of abnormal α-synuclein, expressed as the percentage of cells with positive inclusions in each experimental group, was tested for normality with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Next, the groups were analyzed with the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by Mann-Whitney U tests. One independent analysis was performed for each structure, namely the epidermis, PSU, and EG. Assessments were performed using the software Statistica 7.0 (Tulsa, OK) at 95% confidence.|62.6|44.9|< 0.01
95996222|NCT02091440|191967783|OTHER|Single group|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95996223|NCT02091440|191967784|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier Survival|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95996224|NCT02091440|191967785|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95996225|NCT02091440|191967786|OTHER|Single group|Incidence|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95996226|NCT02091440|191967787|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|19.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|31.4|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||31.4|7.5|
95996227|NCT02091440|191967788|OTHER|Single group|Percentage change|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Percentage change from 24 months to screening in NYHA classes III and IV. Percentage change is 16.67% - 100% = -83.33%|||||
95996228|NCT02091440|191967789|OTHER|Single group|Change from baseline|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|275.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|418.9|||||Confidence interval based on t-distribution.|||418.9|-158.9|
95996229|NCT03263091|191967803|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.582||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusting for the stratification factors (EPO level, International Prognostic Scoring System - Revised \[IPSS-R\] risk category and RBC transfusion burden).||3.290|0.761|0.217
95996230|NCT00603239|191967894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustments for multiplicity were made.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HbA1c is equal between the two treatment groups. Greater than 99% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.88% in change in HbA1c from baseline using a 2-sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95996231|NCT00603239|191967895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects with HbA1c \<= 7% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.113
95996232|NCT00603239|191967896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|CMH test|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c \<= 6.5% is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.004
95773409|NCT03514485|191518389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.28|-0.53|
95773410|NCT03514485|191518389|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.45|
95854686|NCT03337308|191669107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-35.1|-19.1||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-19.1|-35.1|<0.001
95996233|NCT00603239|191967897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in FSG is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
95996234|NCT00603239|191967898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline to endpoint in body weight is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.176
95996235|NCT00603239|191967900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change form baseline in HOMA-B is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.009
95996236|NCT00603239|191967901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in HOMA-S is equal between the two treatment groups.||||0.794
95996237|NCT00603239|191967902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Incidence of minor hypoglycemia episodes is equal between the two treatment groups.||||1.00
95996238|NCT00603239|191967903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05).|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in IWQOL-Lite Total Score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the Total Score only.||||0.342
95996239|NCT00603239|191967904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||No adjustments (alpha = 0.05)|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity.||Null hypothesis = Change from baseline in EQ-5D score is equal between the two treatment groups. This statistical analysis is for the EQ-5D Health State Score only.||||0.186
95996240|NCT02514044|191967956|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.008
95996241|NCT02514044|191967957|OTHER|"We also performed normalization by calculating the dependent variable as the percentage of change (proportional change) as it follows; (1) (post-active values - pre-active values)/ (pre-active values) and (2) (post-placebo values - pre-placebo values)/ (pre-placebo series). We compared the percentage of change in Bedside WAB-R® aphasia and language quotients and blood pressures for the experiments with active- and placebo drugs combined active tDCS with MIT using a two-tailed paired t-test."||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for all reported measures. We compared scores of Bedside WAB-R® subtests Bedside WAB-R® AQ and LQ from before the study intervention and after the intervention in both experiments by using a two-tailed and paired t-test.||||0.02
95996242|NCT03093155|191967961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.49|||Regression, Cox|||||0.49|0.20|<0.001
95996243|NCT03093155|191967962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95854687|NCT03337308|191669107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.4|-8.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-8.1|-20.4|<0.001
95773411|NCT03514485|191518389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.10|-0.60|
95773412|NCT03514485|191518389|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.01|-0.57|
95773413|NCT03514485|191518389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=14) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to Nighttime Symptoms. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.04|-0.72|
95854688|NCT03337308|191669107|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.1|-4.6||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-4.6|-16.1|<0.001
95854689|NCT03337308|191669108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-30.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-39.9|-20.3||using alpha = 0.01|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-20.3|-39.9|<0.001
95854690|NCT03337308|191669108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-20.3|-5.3||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-5.3|-20.3|<0.001
95854691|NCT03337308|191669108|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-16.5|-2.1||using alpha = 0.02|ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Difference of LS Means|||-2.1|-16.5|0.003
95996244|NCT03093155|191967963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.38|0.018
95996245|NCT03093155|191967964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
95996246|NCT03093155|191967965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Fisher Exact|||The RECIST responses were categorized as SD/PD or NA compared to PR or Better as a binary outcome.||||0.068
95996247|NCT03431012|191967972|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|ANCOVA|ANCOVAs, setting baseline intentions as a covariate, were performed to determine whether post-exposure mean intentions differed between groups.||We predicted that Virus Agency (VA) and Positive Framing (PF) would lead to greater adherence intentions, compared to the human agency (HA) and negative framing (NF) versions respectively.||||>.05
95996248|NCT03431012|191967973|OTHER||||||=|0.113||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher worry than the human agency assignment.||||=.113
95996249|NCT03431012|191967974|OTHER||||||=|0.809||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of susceptibility than the human agency assignment.||||=.809
95996250|NCT03431012|191967975|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, it was predicted that the Virus Agency would lead to higher perceptions of severity of the pandemic than the human agency assignment.||||0.025
95996251|NCT03431012|191967976|OTHER||||||=|0.199||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that the Agency Assignment would not affect self-efficacy, i.e. people's perceived ability to use the antivirals as recommended.||||=0.199
95996252|NCT03431012|191967977|OTHER||||||=|0.484||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to higher response efficacy.||||=0.484
95996253|NCT03431012|191967978|OTHER||||||=|0.494||||||Sidak corrections were used to adjust for multiple analyses.|MANOVA|||Based on the literature, we predicted that Positive framing of the side effects would lead to lower response costs compared to Negative Framing.||||=0.494
95808212|NCT00637156|191588803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.088||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.167||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the NDI success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.167|0.012|1.000
95996254|NCT01748799|191967981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Scale (CWS) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||<0.01
95996255|NCT01748799|191967981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Omnibus analysis for Cannabis Withdrawal Checklist (CWC) data was a Repeated measures ANOVA (including all the experimental conditions) followed by pair-wise comparisons. The level for statistical significance was p\< 0.05.||||0.01
95996256|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
95808213|NCT00637156|191588803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of NDI success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.990
95996257|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean problems maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
95864387|NCT03060551|191686723|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.024||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95996258|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
95996259|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
96001942|NCT01663740|191981431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7598||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.192|13.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline sperm morphology,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in sperm morphology from EOT to end of FU|||13.291|-19.192|0.7080
95808214|NCT00637156|191588804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.119||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neurological success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.119|-0.014|1.000
95808215|NCT00637156|191588804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neurological success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.931
95808216|NCT00637156|191588805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.062||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the neck pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.062|-0.019|1.000
95808217|NCT00637156|191588805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of neck pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.852
95953952|NCT04448561|191879761|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.35|121.88|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||121.88|83.35|
95953953|NCT04448561|191879762|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.35|124.36|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||124.36|81.35|
95953954|NCT04448561|191879764|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.58|99.71|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||99.71|79.58|
95953955|NCT04448561|191879765|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|96.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.03|111.25|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||111.25|83.03|
95953956|NCT04448561|191879767|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|86.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.01|98.52|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits are transformed back to raw scale and values are expressed as percentages.|||98.52|76.01|
95953957|NCT04448561|191879768|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|109.6|||||Assessment based on an analysis of variance performed on natural log-transformed parameters with treatment as a fixed effect. Ratios and confidence limits were transformed back to raw scale and values were expressed as percentages.|||109.60|82.52|
95953958|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.87|||<|0.001||95.0|4.59|7.16|||ANCOVA|||||7.16|4.59|<0.001
95953959|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|5.01|7.65|||ANCOVA|||||7.65|5.01|<0.001
95854718|NCT03605667|191669237|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.9|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||3.9|-0.8|0.1950
95953960|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35|||<|0.001||95.0|4.07|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.64|4.07|<0.001
95953961|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001||95.0|2.6|5.07|||ANCOVA|||||5.07|2.60|<0.001
95953962|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||<|0.001||95.0|6.13|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|6.13|<0.001
95953963|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|6.85|||ANCOVA|||||6.85|4.19|<0.001
95953964|NCT00043186|191879797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||<|0.001||95.0|3.88|6.55|||ANCOVA|||||6.55|3.88|<0.001
95953965|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953966|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953967|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953968|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953969|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
95953970|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953971|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953972|NCT00043186|191879798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953973|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953974|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953975|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95996260|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
95808218|NCT00637156|191588806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.056||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the arm pain success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.056|-0.073|0.997
95808219|NCT00637156|191588806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of arm pain success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.395
95808220|NCT00637156|191588807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.088||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 PCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.088|-0.042|1.000
95808221|NCT00637156|191588807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.767||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of SF-36 PCS success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.767
95808222|NCT00637156|191588808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.067||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the SF-36 MCS success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.067|-0.120|0.945
95808223|NCT00637156|191588809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the FSU success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.072|0.997
95808224|NCT00637156|191588809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of FSU success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.271
95953976|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953977|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953978|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953979|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95953980|NCT00043186|191879799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95953981|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.34|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|9.12|||ANCOVA|||||9.12|5.56|<0.001
95953982|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|||<|0.001||95.0|7.31|10.91|||ANCOVA|||||10.91|7.31|<0.001
95953983|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56|||<|0.001||95.0|6.71|10.41|||ANCOVA|||||10.41|6.71|<0.001
95953984|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44|||<|0.001||95.0|6.69|10.19|||ANCOVA|||||10.19|6.69|<0.001
95953985|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|3.43|6.94|||ANCOVA|||||6.94|3.43|<0.001
95953986|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.08|||<|0.001||95.0|8.14|12.01|||ANCOVA|||||12.01|8.14|<0.001
95953987|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.46|||<|0.001||95.0|6.62|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.62|<0.001
95953988|NCT00043186|191879801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.66|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.53|||ANCOVA|||||10.53|6.80|<0.001
95953989|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.32|8.67|||ANCOVA|||||8.67|4.32|<0.001
95953990|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.013||95.0|0.55|4.75|||ANCOVA|||||4.75|0.55|0.013
95808225|NCT00637156|191588810|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.1.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.04||The posterior probability of non-inferiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean of P1-P0, along with the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, was presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis H0: p1 + d ≤ p0, and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: p1 + d \> p0 where P0 and P1 are the gait success rates in the control group and the investigational group respectively, and d is the non-inferiority margin. The analyses used Bayesian methodology. Should the posterior probability P (p1 - p0 \> -d \| data) be at least 0.95, then the null non-inferiority hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority of the investigational device to the control will be claimed."||0.040|-0.013|1.000
95808226|NCT00637156|191588810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||||||The posterior probability of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model|||Superiority comparison of gait success rates in two treatment groups was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.859
95808227|NCT00637156|191588811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.548||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the operative time in two treatment groups was assessed. The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.548|0.252|0.0
95808228|NCT00637156|191588812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|11.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.44|||Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the blood loss in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||22.440|0.560|0.02
95808229|NCT00637156|191588813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.058||The posterior probably of superiority was calculated and presented instead of the p-value.|Bayesian model||The posterior mean difference (µ1- µ0) and the corresponding 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval were presented instead of the usual 95% CI.|"Superiority comparison of the hospital stay in two treatment groups was assessed.The null hypothesis is H0: μ1 = μ0 and the alternative hypothesis is Ha: μ1 ≠ μ0, where μ0 and μ1 denote the mean in control group the investigational group, respectively. Should the posterior probability of superiority P(μ1- μ0 \< 0\|data) be at least 97.5%, the superiority would be claimed."||0.058|-0.258|0.892
95808230|NCT04548219|191588833|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|1.06||||||||1.06|0.775|
95808231|NCT04548219|191588834|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.1||||||||1.10|0.761|
95808232|NCT04548219|191588835|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.1||||||||1.10|0.760|
95860394|NCT04881942|191679408|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0.|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|.0002
95860395|NCT04881942|191679408|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.38|0.12|0.0003
95860396|NCT04881942|191679408|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.47|0.21|<.0001
95953991|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.43|||<|0.001||95.0|10.19|14.68|||ANCOVA|||||14.68|10.19|<0.001
95996261|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
95996262|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.19||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
95996263|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.16||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.21
95996264|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.14||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.33
95996265|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
95996266|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.46
95996267|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.58
95996268|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.92
96001943|NCT01663740|191981432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6512||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.213|1.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to EOT|||1.491|-5.213|0.2673
95996269|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.84
95996270|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.83
95996271|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.72
95996272|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.48
95996273|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.54
95996274|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.09||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.56
95996275|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.22
95996276|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.40
95996277|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.35
95953992|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|8.74|12.94|||ANCOVA|||||12.94|8.74|<0.001
95953993|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.79|||<|0.001||95.0|7.69|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|7.69|<0.001
95953994|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|6.12|||ANCOVA|||||6.12|1.37|<0.001
95953995|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.97|||<|0.001||95.0|8.63|13.32|||ANCOVA|||||13.32|8.63|<0.001
95953996|NCT00043186|191879802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.37|||<|0.001||95.0|8.16|12.59|||ANCOVA|||||12.59|8.16|<0.001
95953997|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.02||95.0|0.89|9.95|||ANCOVA|||||9.95|0.89|0.02
95953998|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.992||95.0|-5.07|5.02|||ANCOVA|||||5.02|-5.07|0.992
95953999|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.004||95.0|3.72|14.09|||ANCOVA|||||14.09|3.72|0.004
95954000|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.001||95.0|4.15|12.86|||ANCOVA|||||12.86|4.15|0.001
95954001|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.37||||0.001||95.0|4.11|12.63|||ANCOVA|||||12.63|4.11|0.001
95954002|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.292||95.0|-1.42|9.37|||ANCOVA|||||9.37|-1.42|0.292
95954003|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.95||||0.004||95.0|3.94|13.96|||ANCOVA|||||13.96|3.94|0.004
95954004|NCT00043186|191879803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12||||0.094||95.0|0.57|11.67|||ANCOVA|||||11.67|0.57|0.094
95954005|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|3.97|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|3.97|<0.001
95954006|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89|||<|0.001||95.0|1.92|7.85|||ANCOVA|||||7.85|1.92|<0.001
95954007|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15|||<|0.001||95.0|11.08|17.21|||ANCOVA|||||17.21|11.08|<0.001
95954008|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.001||95.0|9.94|15.52|||ANCOVA|||||15.52|9.94|<0.001
95954009|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.49|||<|0.001||95.0|9.66|15.32|||ANCOVA|||||15.32|9.66|<0.001
95954010|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|||<|0.001||95.0|8.12|14.73|||ANCOVA|||||14.73|8.12|<0.001
95954011|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.32|||<|0.001||95.0|9.15|15.49|||ANCOVA|||||15.49|9.15|<0.001
95954012|NCT00043186|191879804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|||<|0.001||95.0|8.72|14.76|||ANCOVA|||||14.76|8.72|<0.001
95954013|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954014|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954015|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954016|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954017|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
95954018|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954019|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954020|NCT00043186|191879805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954021|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95954022|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954023|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95954024|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95954025|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954026|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954027|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954028|NCT00043186|191879806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954029|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954030|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95954031|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95954032|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95954033|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95954034|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95954035|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95954036|NCT00043186|191879807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954037|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
95954038|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95954039|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95996278|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.17||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
95996279|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.11
95996280|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.15
95996281|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.22||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.08
95996282|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.02
95996283|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.36||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 2 between the two arms"||||0.01
96001944|NCT01663740|191981432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6147||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.392|2.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from Baseline to end of FU|||2.164|-4.392|0.4949
95864388|NCT03060551|191686724|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.188||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
95773414|NCT03514485|191518390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.19||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||4.19|0.58|
95773415|NCT03514485|191518390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|6.43||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||6.43|2.54|
95773416|NCT03514485|191518390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.84||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.84|-2.78|
95773417|NCT03514485|191518390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|-1.12||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-1.12|-5.03|
95773418|NCT03514485|191518390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.31||||||Mixed-effects generalized linear model with binomial family (n=number of school-days \[varies per child\]) was used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to school absences. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||3.31|-0.48|
95808255|NCT04175106|191589128|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Concentration data was assessed for normalization using the Shapiro-Wilk test and normalized using log(1+x) when deemed non-normalized.|ANOVA|Changes across groups via linear mixed-effects repeated measures ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis (Bonferroni test and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom).||This study was powered to detect a 25% change in total urinary (poly)phenolic metabolites at 80% power and α = 0.05 based on means and effect sizes published in previous (poly)phenol bioavailability studies that applied crossover or parallel design.||||<0.05
95808256|NCT04175106|191589129|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Concentration data was assessed for normalization using the Shapiro-Wilk test and normalized using log(1+x) when deemed non-normalized.|ANOVA|Changes across groups via linear mixed-effects repeated measures ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis (Bonferroni test and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom).||This study was powered to detect a 25% change in total urinary (poly)phenolic metabolites at 80% power and α = 0.05 based on means and effect sizes published in previous (poly)phenol bioavailability studies that applied crossover or parallel design.||||<0.05
95808257|NCT04175106|191589130|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Concentration data was assessed for normalization using the Shapiro-Wilk test and normalized using log(1+x) when deemed non-normalized.|ANOVA|Changes across groups via linear mixed-effects repeated measures ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis (Bonferroni test and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom).||This study was powered to detect a 25% change in total urinary (poly)phenolic metabolites at 80% power and α = 0.05 based on means and effect sizes published in previous (poly)phenol bioavailability studies that applied crossover or parallel design.||||<0.05
95808258|NCT04175106|191589131|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Concentration data was assessed for normalization using the Shapiro-Wilk test and normalized using log(1+x) when deemed non-normalized.|ANOVA|Changes across groups via linear mixed-effects repeated measures ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis (Bonferroni test and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom).||This study was powered to detect a 25% change in total urinary (poly)phenolic metabolites at 80% power and α = 0.05 based on means and effect sizes published in previous (poly)phenol bioavailability studies that applied crossover or parallel design.||||<0.05
95860397|NCT04881942|191679408|EQUIVALENCE|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||ANCOVA||Mean value is sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham).|"Null Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is equal to 0.~Alternate Hypothesis: Mean sham-corrected (amount of analyte in test-product exhale minus analyte concentration in exhaled sham) analyte amount is not equal to 0."||0.43|0.17|<.0001
95860398|NCT04881942|191679415|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.039|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.039|0.031|<.0001
95954040|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95954041|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95954042|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95954043|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95954044|NCT00043186|191879808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
95954045|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954046|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954047|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95954048|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954049|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
95954050|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954051|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95954052|NCT00043186|191879809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95954053|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95954054|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954055|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
95954056|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95954057|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954058|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95954059|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95954060|NCT00043186|191879810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95954061|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95954062|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95954063|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95954064|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95954065|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95954066|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95954067|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95954068|NCT00043186|191879811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95954069|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95954070|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
95954071|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95954072|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
95954073|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
95954074|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
95954075|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.168
95954076|NCT00043186|191879812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.172
95954077|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001||95.0|1.7|3.64|||ANCOVA|||||3.64|1.70|<0.001
95954078|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|1.90|<0.001
95954079|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.07|4.11|||ANCOVA|||||4.11|2.07|<0.001
95954080|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|5.11|||ANCOVA|||||5.11|3.13|<0.001
95954081|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001||95.0|1.55|3.46|||ANCOVA|||||3.46|1.55|<0.001
95954082|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.83|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|2.83|<0.001
95954083|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.001||95.0|1.99|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|1.99|<0.001
95954084|NCT00043186|191879813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.43|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|2.43|<0.001
95954085|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|||<|0.001||95.0|4.04|6.34|||ANCOVA|||||6.34|4.04|<0.001
95954086|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|||<|0.001||95.0|4.93|7.27|||ANCOVA|||||7.27|4.93|<0.001
95954087|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|6.78|||ANCOVA|||||6.78|4.40|<0.001
95954088|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.89|||<|0.001||95.0|5.76|8.01|||ANCOVA|||||8.01|5.76|<0.001
95954089|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|3.41|5.67|||ANCOVA|||||5.67|3.41|<0.001
95954090|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95|||<|0.001||95.0|5.69|8.21|||ANCOVA|||||8.21|5.69|<0.001
95954091|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|4.29|6.67|||ANCOVA|||||6.67|4.29|<0.001
95954092|NCT00043186|191879814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|4.76|7.17|||ANCOVA|||||7.17|4.76|<0.001
95954093|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|||<|0.001||95.0|2.19|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|2.19|<0.001
95954094|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|2.94|||ANCOVA|||||2.94|-0.12|0.07
95954095|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.001||95.0|5.54|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.80|5.54|<0.001
95954096|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.001||95.0|7.13|10.21|||ANCOVA|||||10.21|7.13|<0.001
95954097|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.001||95.0|5.62|8.69|||ANCOVA|||||8.69|5.62|<0.001
95954098|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.07||95.0|-0.12|3.35|||ANCOVA|||||3.35|-0.12|0.07
95954099|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|||<|0.001||95.0|5.56|8.95|||ANCOVA|||||8.95|5.56|<0.001
95954100|NCT00043186|191879815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63|||<|0.001||95.0|6.02|9.24|||ANCOVA|||||9.24|6.02|<0.001
95954101|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.94||||0.002||95.0|1.86|8.02|||ANCOVA|||||8.02|1.86|0.002
95954102|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.677||95.0|-4.1|2.68|||ANCOVA|||||2.68|-4.10|0.677
95954103|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66||||0.001||95.0|3.14|10.18|||ANCOVA|||||10.18|3.14|0.001
95954104|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.33|5.26|<0.001
95954105|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||<|0.001||95.0|3.59|9.41|||ANCOVA|||||9.41|3.59|<0.001
95954106|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.047||95.0|0.61|8.05|||ANCOVA|||||8.05|0.61|0.047
95954107|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.94||||0.003||95.0|2.53|9.36|||ANCOVA|||||9.36|2.53|0.003
95954108|NCT00043186|191879816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.97||||0.001||95.0|3.28|10.66|||ANCOVA|||||10.66|3.28|0.001
95954109|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|6.41|||ANCOVA|||||6.41|2.97|<0.001
95954110|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.015||95.0|0.43|3.89|||ANCOVA|||||3.89|0.43|0.015
95954111|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.52|||<|0.001||95.0|6.74|10.3|||ANCOVA|||||10.30|6.74|<0.001
95954112|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|||<|0.001||95.0|7.95|11.21|||ANCOVA|||||11.21|7.95|<0.001
95954113|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.34|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|9.99|||ANCOVA|||||9.99|6.70|<0.001
95954114|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38|||<|0.001||95.0|5.45|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|5.45|<0.001
95954115|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.55|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|9.38|||ANCOVA|||||9.38|5.72|<0.001
95954116|NCT00043186|191879817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.97|||<|0.001||95.0|7.23|10.72|||ANCOVA|||||10.72|7.23|<0.001
95954117|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.033||95.0|0.11|2.76|||ANCOVA|||||2.76|0.11|0.033
95954118|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|4.42|||ANCOVA|||||4.42|1.69|<0.001
95954119|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.68|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.40|1.68|<0.001
95954120|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.001||95.0|1.94|4.57|||ANCOVA|||||4.57|1.94|<0.001
95954121|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|4.21|||ANCOVA|||||4.21|1.60|<0.001
95954122|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.49|||ANCOVA|||||4.49|1.65|<0.001
95954123|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.99|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|0.99|<0.001
95954124|NCT00043186|191879818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.47|4.24|||ANCOVA|||||4.24|1.47|<0.001
95996284|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry mouth score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
95996285|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean ringing in ear score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
95996286|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.24||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dry eyes score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
95996287|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.13||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean maintaining an erection score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
95996288|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.11||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean vomit score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.41
95996289|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean neuropathy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
95996290|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean urination score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.71
95996291|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.05||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean appetite change score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.88
96001945|NCT01663740|191981433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.063|3.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline testosterone,age,duration of pre-transplant dialysis as explanatory variables.|Change in total testosterone level from EOT to end of FU|||3.157|-3.063|0.9753
95860399|NCT04881942|191679415|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.038|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.038|0.030|<.0001
95860400|NCT04881942|191679415|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.044|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.044|0.036|<.0001
95860401|NCT04881942|191679415|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.033|<.0001
95954125|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99||||0.009||95.0|0.49|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.49|0.009
95954126|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||<|0.001||95.0|2.06|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.10|2.06|<0.001
95954127|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.001||95.0|2.73|5.78|||ANCOVA|||||5.78|2.73|<0.001
95954128|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|||<|0.001||95.0|2.55|5.62|||ANCOVA|||||5.62|2.55|<0.001
95954129|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||<|0.001||95.0|3.23|6.11|||ANCOVA|||||6.11|3.23|<0.001
95954130|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.26|||<|0.001||95.0|3.78|6.73|||ANCOVA|||||6.73|3.78|<0.001
95954131|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||<|0.001||95.0|2.48|5.68|||ANCOVA|||||5.68|2.48|<0.001
95954132|NCT00043186|191879819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|4.93|||ANCOVA|||||4.93|1.86|<0.001
95954133|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69||||0.002||95.0|1.01|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|1.01|0.002
95954134|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|2.14|5.39|||ANCOVA|||||5.39|2.14|<0.001
95954135|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||<|0.001||95.0|3.87|7.26|||ANCOVA|||||7.26|3.87|<0.001
95954136|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.33|||<|0.001||95.0|4.75|7.92|||ANCOVA|||||7.92|4.75|<0.001
95954137|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.73|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|7.33|||ANCOVA|||||7.33|4.12|<0.001
95954138|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.5|||ANCOVA|||||6.50|2.89|<0.001
95954139|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.92|6.49|||ANCOVA|||||6.49|2.92|<0.001
95954140|NCT00043186|191879820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.63|||<|0.001||95.0|3.96|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|3.96|<0.001
95954141|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||0.496||95.0|-7.16|13.7|||ANCOVA|||||13.7|-7.16|0.496
95954142|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.527||95.0|-6.38|19.59|||ANCOVA|||||19.59|-6.38|0.527
95954143|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72||||0.503||95.0|-2.9|14.33|||ANCOVA|||||14.33|-2.90|0.503
95954144|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||0.527||95.0|-6.54|11.89|||ANCOVA|||||11.89|-6.54|0.527
95954145|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.503||95.0|-2.19|17.01|||ANCOVA|||||17.01|-2.19|0.503
95954146|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.503||95.0|-1.85|17.03|||ANCOVA|||||17.03|-1.85|0.503
95954147|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.18||||0.503||95.0|-2.45|16.81|||ANCOVA|||||16.81|-2.45|0.503
95954148|NCT00043186|191879821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.233||95.0|0.78|14.97|||ANCOVA|||||14.97|0.78|0.233
95954149|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.48|8.34|||ANCOVA|||||8.34|4.48|<0.001
95954150|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44|||<|0.001||95.0|4.19|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|4.19|<0.001
95954151|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|3.91|8.26|||ANCOVA|||||8.26|3.91|<0.001
95954152|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001||95.0|3.7|7.73|||ANCOVA|||||7.73|3.70|<0.001
95954153|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.054||95.0|-0.04|4.04|||ANCOVA|||||4.04|-0.04|0.054
95996292|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean shortness of breath score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
95996293|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty remembering score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
95996294|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms.~Negative estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean muscle aches score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.94
95996295|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.004||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean diarrhea score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.97
95996296|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fatigue score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
96001946|NCT01663740|191981434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6347||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|1.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to EOT|||1.366|-1.214|0.9053
95954154|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|5.77|||ANCOVA|||||5.77|1.71|<0.001
95954155|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|4.0|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.10|4.00|<0.001
95954156|NCT00043186|191879822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39|||<|0.001||95.0|4.49|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|4.49|<0.001
95954157|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.001||95.0|1.09|3.51|||ANCOVA|||||3.51|1.09|0.001
95954158|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73||||0.005||95.0|0.52|2.93|||ANCOVA|||||2.93|0.52|0.005
95954159|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.004||95.0|0.74|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.25|0.74|0.004
95954160|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72|||<|0.001||95.0|1.54|3.91|||ANCOVA|||||3.91|1.54|<0.001
95954161|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.202||95.0|-0.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||||1.95|-0.41|0.202
95954162|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95|||<|0.001||95.0|1.65|4.26|||ANCOVA|||||4.26|1.65|<0.001
95954163|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.004||95.0|0.78|3.26|||ANCOVA|||||3.26|0.78|0.004
95954164|NCT00043186|191879823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.004||95.0|0.8|3.27|||ANCOVA|||||3.27|0.80|0.004
95954165|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.14|||<|0.001||95.0|1.71|4.56|||ANCOVA|||||4.56|1.71|<0.001
95954166|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||<|0.001||95.0|2.95|5.84|||ANCOVA|||||5.84|2.95|<0.001
95954167|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.64|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.09|||ANCOVA|||||6.09|3.19|<0.001
95954168|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.85|5.58|||ANCOVA|||||5.58|2.85|<0.001
95954169|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|3.94|||ANCOVA|||||3.94|1.13|<0.001
95954170|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.09|||<|0.001||95.0|4.53|7.64|||ANCOVA|||||7.64|4.53|<0.001
95954171|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.55|||<|0.001||95.0|3.12|5.98|||ANCOVA|||||5.98|3.12|<0.001
95954172|NCT00043186|191879824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|||<|0.001||95.0|2.76|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|2.76|<0.001
95954173|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|||<|0.001||95.0|3.63|8.68|||ANCOVA|||||8.68|3.63|<0.001
95954174|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.275||95.0|-1.06|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.06|0.275
95954175|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.005||95.0|1.65|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|1.65|0.005
95954176|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.002||95.0|2.07|6.75|||ANCOVA|||||6.75|2.07|0.002
95954177|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.009||95.0|1.25|6.05|||ANCOVA|||||6.05|1.25|0.009
95954178|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95||||0.009||95.0|1.22|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|1.22|0.009
95954179|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.65||||0.003||95.0|2.05|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|2.05|0.003
95954180|NCT00043186|191879825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.001||95.0|2.28|7.22|||ANCOVA|||||7.22|2.28|0.001
95954181|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.949||95.0|-8.73|13.1|||ANCOVA|||||13.10|-8.73|0.949
95954182|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.949||95.0|-2.7|9.31|||ANCOVA|||||9.31|-2.70|0.949
95954183|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.709||95.0|-6.81|9.29|||ANCOVA|||||9.29|-6.81|0.709
95954184|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.949||95.0|-8.55|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-8.55|0.949
95954185|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.949||95.0|-4.51|8.72|||ANCOVA|||||8.72|-4.51|0.949
95954186|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23||||0.484||95.0|-0.83|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|-0.83|0.484
95954187|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.949||95.0|-3.77|8.66|||ANCOVA|||||8.66|-3.77|0.949
95954188|NCT00043186|191879826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.949||95.0|-10.82|11.4|||ANCOVA|||||11.40|-10.82|0.949
95954189|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.02|||<|0.001||95.0|4.35|9.69|||ANCOVA|||||9.69|4.35|<0.001
95954190|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.092||95.0|-0.37|4.87|||ANCOVA|||||4.87|-0.37|0.092
95954191|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.5|8.94|||ANCOVA|||||8.94|3.50|<0.001
95954192|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||<|0.001||95.0|3.51|8.43|||ANCOVA|||||8.43|3.51|<0.001
95860402|NCT04881942|191679416|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.04|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.040|0.031|<.0001
95954193|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|||<|0.001||95.0|3.44|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|3.44|<0.001
95954194|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.29|||<|0.001||95.0|3.25|9.34|||ANCOVA|||||9.34|3.25|<0.001
95954195|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.13|8.7|||ANCOVA|||||8.70|3.13|<0.001
95954196|NCT00043186|191879827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22|||<|0.001||95.0|3.58|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|3.58|<0.001
95954197|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954198|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954199|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954200|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954201|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954202|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954203|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954204|NCT00043186|191879828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954205|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954206|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954207|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954208|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954209|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95954210|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954211|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954212|NCT00043186|191879829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954213|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95954214|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95954215|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954216|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954217|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954218|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.146
95954219|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95954220|NCT00043186|191879830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954221|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
95954222|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
95954223|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95954224|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954225|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954226|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95954227|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95954228|NCT00043186|191879831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95954229|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
95954230|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.218
95954231|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95954232|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95954233|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95954234|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95954235|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95954236|NCT00043186|191879832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95954237|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).||||||0.784|||||||F-test|||"ITT population - statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level.~It was determined that 150 subjects randomised at a ratio of 8:8:8:13:13 (low dose to high dose, placebo) would have \>90% power to detect either a statistically significant slope for the dose-response relationship, or, if the relationship was not linear, a statistically significant difference between the highest-dose group and the placebo group, using a two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.784
95954238|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.905|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.905
95954239|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of ITT primary analysis using multiple imputation (MI) for any missing Day 29 (Visit 11) serum phosphate values.||||||0.976|||||||F-test|||"ITT population sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation (MI) to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.976
95954240|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|Sensitivity analysis of the primary ITT analysis using the Per Protocol (PP) population.||||||0.914|||||||F-test|||"Per protocol (PP) population sensitivity analysis to assess statistical analysis of linear model fit using an F-test at the 0.05 level."||||0.914
95954241|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|The primary analysis was a linear model which attempted to explain change from Baseline (Visit 7) to Day 29 (Visit 11) in serum phosphate concentration based on log-transformed dose level (assuming that placebo was equally spaced below the lowest dose level), and stratified by pre-randomisation serum phosphate level (\< 7.5 mg/dL or ≥ 7.5 mg/dL). Missing assessments were imputed using the subject's last observed phosphate concentration value (Last Observation Carried Forward \[LOCF\] imputation).|Slope|-0.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||linear model - log (dose) - response|||ITT population - statistical analysis of the linear model log(PT20 dose)-response relationship to examine whether the linear trend of the change in phosphate level as a function of the log-transformed dose was statistically significant.||||<0.001
95954242|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group||||<0.001
95954243|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - visit||||0.436
95954244|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - treatment group versus Visit interaction||||0.959
95954245|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration||||<0.001
95954246|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITT population supportive analysis - Type 3 tests of fixed effects - baseline serum phosphate concentration versus Visit interaction||||0.144
95954247|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2847|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.761||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.761||
95954248|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2881|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.659||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||0.659||
95954249|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.05||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.05||
95954250|NCT02151643|191879833|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.618||||||ITT population supportive analysis - mixed model repeated measures for change in serum phosphate concentration||-0.618||
95954251|NCT02151643|191879834|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.497
95954252|NCT02151643|191879834|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in haemoglobin concentration from Baseline by baseline hemoglobin.||||<0.001
95954253|NCT02151643|191879835|OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.243
95954254|NCT02151643|191879835|OTHER|||||||0.867|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by Visit.||||0.867
95954255|NCT02151643|191879835|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in serum ferritin concentration from Baseline by baseline serum ferritin concentration||||0.186
95954256|NCT02151643|191879836|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.068
95954257|NCT02151643|191879836|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Visit.||||0.013
95954258|NCT02151643|191879836|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Transferrin Saturation.||||<0.001
95954259|NCT02151643|191879837|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in Calcium x Phosphate Product from Baseline by PT20 dose group.||||0.004
95954260|NCT02151643|191879837|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA for change in transferrin saturation from Baseline by Baseline Calcium x Phosphate Product.||||<0.001
95954261|NCT02151643|191879838|OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.292
95954262|NCT02151643|191879838|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.047
95954263|NCT02151643|191879838|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.872
95954264|NCT02151643|191879838|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||paired z-test|||||||0.288
95954265|NCT00197106|191879846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is considered to be shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference uflixotide-useretide does not exceed +15% (uflixotide-useretide represent the mean percentages of asthma symptom-free days of the two respective treatment groups).|Adjusted difference|2.6||||0.63||95.0|-8.1|13.4|||Repeated Measurements Anal. of Variance|Anal. = Analysis||||13.4|-8.1|0.63
95954266|NCT00377312|191879875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
95996297|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean anxiety score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.95
95996298|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean constipation score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.93
95996299|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.06||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean fever score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
95996300|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean cough score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.84
95996301|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean heartburn score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.54
95996302|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean pain during sex score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.13
95996303|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean clumsy score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.18
95860403|NCT04881942|191679416|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.041|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.041|0.032|<.0001
95860404|NCT04881942|191679416|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.046|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.046|0.037|<.0001
95996304|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.19||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty falling asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.29
95996305|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty concentrating score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.12
96001947|NCT01663740|191981434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4477||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.125|-0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from Baseline to end of FU|||-0.305|-2.125|0.0104
95996306|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.24||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean decreased sex drive score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.10
95996307|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean speech difficulties score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.01
95996308|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.26||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean unplanned changes in weight score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
95996309|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean dizziness score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.08
95996310|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean difficulty staying asleep score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.09
95996311|NCT03182738|191967997|SUPERIORITY|"Linear mixed models to test difference in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|Difference in Change|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms."|"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in mean depression score from period 1 to period 3 between the two arms"||||0.05
95996312|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-2.09||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
95996313|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.94||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
95996314|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.79||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
95996315|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.78||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.83
95954267|NCT00377312|191879876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase over time for the PTH 2 pmol group.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
95954268|NCT00377312|191879877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
95954269|NCT00377312|191879878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.01
95996316|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm"|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms||||0.98
95996317|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
95996318|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.84||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 3 months between two arms.||||0.83
95996319|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|-0.43||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Physical Function PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
95996320|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Depression PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
96001948|NCT01663740|191981435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.899|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline LH concentration,age,\& pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in LH level from EOT to end of FU|||-0.231|-1.899|0.0143
95954270|NCT00377312|191879879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-values correspond to the decrease compared to baseline in all arms/groups at Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.05
95954271|NCT00377312|191879880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to the increase compared to baseline over time (days 2-8) in the PTH 2 pmol group|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.002
95954272|NCT00377312|191879882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change over time for the PTH 2 and PTH 4 pmol groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||.61
95954273|NCT00377312|191879883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the % increase compared to baseline in all Arms/groups on Days 2-8|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.008
95962168|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-71.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-63.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-63.50|-80.47|<.0001
95962169|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-76.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|-67.99||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-67.99|-84.90|<.0001
95962170|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-55.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-45.01||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-45.01|-65.18|<.0001
95996321|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.23||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Satisfaction with Social Role PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|||0.96
95996322|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|0.77||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Anxiety PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
95996323|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.05||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Pain Interference PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
96001949|NCT01663740|191981436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7274||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|6.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to EOT|||6.052|-0.969|0.1505
95860405|NCT04881942|191679416|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.042|||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.042|0.033|<.0001
95860406|NCT04881942|191679417|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|0.665|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.665|0.407|<.0001
95860407|NCT04881942|191679417|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.537|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.537|0.280|<.0001
95860408|NCT04881942|191679417|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.468|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.596|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.596|0.339|<.0001
95860409|NCT04881942|191679417|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.559|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is equal to 0. Alternate Hypothesis: Mean cartridge weight change is not equal to 0.||0.559|0.301|<.0001
95860410|NCT04881942|191679419|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|277.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.62|341.96|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||341.96|213.62|<.0001
95860411|NCT04881942|191679419|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|241.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|176.99|305.64|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||305.64|176.99|<.0001
95860412|NCT04881942|191679419|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|248.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|184.01|312.43|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||312.43|184.01|<.0001
95860413|NCT04881942|191679419|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|257.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|193.58|322.26|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Puff Count is not equal to 0||322.26|193.58|<.0001
95860414|NCT04881942|191679420|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.223|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.915|2.58|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.580|1.915|<.0001
95860415|NCT04881942|191679420|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.897|2.557|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.557|1.897|<.0001
95962171|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-70.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|-60.51||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-60.51|-80.60|<.0001
95962172|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.95|-64.04||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-64.04|-83.95|<.0001
95962173|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.88|-65.56||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-65.56|-78.88|<.0001
95962174|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-84.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.72|-77.46||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-77.46|-90.72|<.0001
95962175|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.59|-82.42||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-82.42|-95.59|<.0001
95996324|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|1.5||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Fatigue PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.96
95996325|NCT03182738|191967998|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models to test difference in mean score of Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.|Difference in Change|2.04||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated p-value given the null-hypothesis. P value was adjusted for multiple-test with a false discovery rate (FDR).|Linear mixed model||"The parameter was estimated using a difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.~Positive estimation parameter value indicates intervention arm better than control arm."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in Sleep Disturbance PROMIS T-score from baseline to 6 months between two arms.||||0.64
95996326|NCT02203149|191968011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||10.0|-14.5|
95996327|NCT02203149|191968012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||95% confidence intervals were provided for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events, comparing participants in the Part 2 Immediate Treatment (Grazoprevir + Elbasvir) Arm with the Part 2 Deferred Treatment (Placebo) Arm during the double blinded period through FUWK4. These analyses were performed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, an unconditional, asymptotic method.||2.8|-6.0|
95996328|NCT02886715|191968026|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|103.31||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.31|94.39|
95996329|NCT02886715|191968026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.87|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.87|-9.46|0.0185
95996330|NCT02886715|191968028|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval for the least-squares mean Test/Reference ratios to be within 80-125%|Test-to-Reference Ratio|98.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.42|103.61||p-value was no calculated|ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||103.61|93.42|
95996331|NCT02886715|191968028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.3|||ANOVA|with treatment and site as fixed effects in the model||||-0.30|-8.48|0.0354
95996332|NCT00707577|191968080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|random effects regression models for panel data adjusted for clustering within team||||||<0.05
95996333|NCT00190775|191968081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||<0.001
95996334|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.905
95996335|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.491
95996336|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.600
95996337|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.052
95996338|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.514
95996339|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.515
95996340|NCT00190775|191968082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.315
95996341|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
95996342|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.122
95996343|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.931
95773419|NCT03514485|191518391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.54||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.19|
95860416|NCT04881942|191679420|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.439|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.439|1.810|<.0001
95962176|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-64.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-58.31||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-58.31|-71.40|<.0001
95962177|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-77.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.98|-70.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-70.93|-83.98|<.0001
95962178|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-80.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.06|-74.14||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-74.14|-87.06|<.0001
95962179|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.11|-46.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-46.40|-62.11|<.0001
95773420|NCT03514485|191518391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.35|-0.28|
95962180|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-69.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.58|-61.95||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-61.95|-77.58|<.0001
95962181|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.44|-65.93||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-65.93|-81.44|<.0001
95962182|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-54.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.84|-46.67||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-46.67|-62.84|<.0001
95962183|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.69|-58.52||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-58.52|-74.69|<.0001
95962184|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-73.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.36|-65.38||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-65.38|-81.36|<.0001
95962185|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-45.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.17|-36.69||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-36.69|-54.17|<.0001
95962186|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-48.41||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-48.41|-65.88|<.0001
95962187|NCT04832971|191896108|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-63.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.19|-54.97||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-54.97|-72.19|<.0001
95996344|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
95996345|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.190
95996346|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
95996347|NCT00190775|191968083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
95996348|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
95996349|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.705
95996350|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.686
95996351|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.618
95996352|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.903
95996353|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
95773421|NCT03514485|191518391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||-0.01|-0.68|
95996354|NCT00190775|191968084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.403
95996355|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||P-Value for Task Accomplishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.941
95996356|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Role Performance.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
95996357|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-Value for Communication.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.391
95996358|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-Value for Affective Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.685
95996359|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-Value for Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.774
95996360|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||P-Value for Control.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.360
95996361|NCT00190775|191968085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Values and Norms.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
95996362|NCT00190775|191968086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.617
95996363|NCT00190775|191968086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.789
95996364|NCT00190775|191968086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.670
95996365|NCT00190775|191968086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.018
95996366|NCT00190775|191968086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.405
95996367|NCT00190775|191968087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.544
95996368|NCT00190775|191968087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.494
95996369|NCT00190775|191968087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.547
95996370|NCT00190775|191968087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.059
95996371|NCT00190775|191968087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
95996372|NCT00190775|191968088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.334
95996373|NCT00190775|191968088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.087
95996374|NCT00190775|191968088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.795
95954274|NCT00377312|191879883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
95996375|NCT00190775|191968088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.955
95996376|NCT00190775|191968088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.788
95996377|NCT00190775|191968089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-Value for Total Dyadic Adjustment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.248
95996378|NCT00190775|191968089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Consensus.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.163
95860417|NCT04881942|191679420|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|2.382|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Average Puff Duration is not equal to 0||2.382|1.767|<.0001
95954275|NCT00377312|191879884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to % change (increase) from baseline in all Arms/groups at Days 2-8.|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
95954276|NCT00377312|191879884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the the % change from baseline at follow-up in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>0.05
95954277|NCT00377312|191879885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % decrease compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||<.0001
95954278|NCT00377312|191879885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|the reported p-value corresponds to % change from baseline at the follow-up visit in all Arms/groups||||||.01
95954279|NCT00377312|191879886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed as a standard dose-escalation study, dose-finding pilot study. The primary outcome measures were safety (hypercalcemia, hypophosphatemia and symptoms/hemodynamic measurements). A modified Fibronacci dose-escalation scheme was employed.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to % change compared to baseline at Days 2-8 in all Arms/groups|Mixed Models Analysis|The level of statistical significance was set at .05 (two-tailed)||||||>.05
95954280|NCT03451292|191879901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cox Proportional- Hazards (PH) model|||Stratification factors included were the region (Europe or North America) and history of hospitalization for acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (yes or no).||1.10|0.58|0.17
95954281|NCT03341312|191879910|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.16||||||||1.16|0.42|
95996379|NCT00190775|191968089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Satisfaction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.947
95996380|NCT00190775|191968089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0||||P-Value for Affectional Expression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.214
95996381|NCT00190775|191968089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0||||P-Value for Dyadic Cohesion.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.543
95996382|NCT00190775|191968090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included visit, baseline, treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and treatment by visit.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Atomoxetine - Placebo.|Approximately 500 participants were randomized to atomoxetine or placebo (1:1) which provided at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.64 points on the CAARS-Inv:SV Total ADHD Symptoms Score assuming a SD of 9.85 based on 2-sided significance level of 0.05 using a 2-sample t-test. Mean and SD assumptions were associated with effect size of 0.37 and 30% missing data rate. These assumptions applied to Weeks 12 and 24 treatment effects. Marginal power at Weeks 12 and 24 was 86%.||||0.001
95996383|NCT00190775|191968091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.446
95996384|NCT00190775|191968091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.134
95860418|NCT04881942|191679421|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|709.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|549.19|870.54|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||870.54|549.19|<.0001
95860419|NCT04881942|191679421|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|568.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|407.18|729.51|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||729.51|407.18|<.0001
95860420|NCT04881942|191679421|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|562.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|401.34|722.67|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||722.67|401.34|<.0001
95954282|NCT03341312|191879910|SUPERIORITY||ratio of LS Means|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.01||||||||1.01|0.49|
95773422|NCT03514485|191518391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.08||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.08|-0.48|
95773423|NCT03514485|191518391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of ED visits. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.14|-0.48|
95773424|NCT03514485|191518392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.11|
95773425|NCT03514485|191518392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.34||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.34|-0.03|
95773426|NCT03514485|191518392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.18||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.19|
95773427|NCT03514485|191518392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.09|-0.23|
95773428|NCT03514485|191518392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26||||||Mixed-effects negative binomial models were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to number of hospitalizations. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.26|-0.09|
95773429|NCT03514485|191518393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.65||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.65|0.00|
95773430|NCT03514485|191518393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.45||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.45|-0.12|
95773431|NCT03514485|191518393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.18|-0.40|
95773432|NCT03514485|191518393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.29|-0.20|
95954283|NCT00609245|191879960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
95962188|NCT04832971|191896109|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
95996385|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.056
95996386|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.459
95996387|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.435
95996388|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.677
95996389|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.376
95860421|NCT04881942|191679421|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|517.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.11|678.34|||ANCOVA||LSM calculated from mixed models. Each model includes fixed effect terms for product, period and sequence.|Null Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is equal to 0 Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Total Puff Duration is not equal to 0||678.34|356.11|<.0001
95996390|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.176
95860422|NCT02105961|191679454|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.068
95996391|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.030
95996392|NCT00190775|191968092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.434
95996393|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.578
95996394|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.062
95996395|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.567
95996396|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.383
95996397|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.963
95996398|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.075
95996399|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.854||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.854
95996400|NCT00190775|191968093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.671
95996401|NCT00190775|191968094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-Value for Total Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.280
95996402|NCT00190775|191968094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-Value for Life Stress.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.34
95996403|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.103
95996404|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Competence.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.182
95996405|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Isolation.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.161
95996406|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Attachment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.472
95996407|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Health.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.949
95996408|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Role Restriction.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.848
95996409|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Depression.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.050
95996410|NCT00190775|191968095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Domain Spouse.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.840
95996411|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.785
95996412|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-Value for Defensive Responding.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.081
95996413|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Distractibility/Hyperactive.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.518
95860423|NCT02105961|191679454|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.8||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.65|0.034
95996414|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Adaptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.883
95996415|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Reinforces Parent.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.439
95996416|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Demandingness.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.167
95996417|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Mood.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.381
95996418|NCT00190775|191968096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0||||P-Value for Child Domain Acceptability.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.906
95996419|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.420
95996420|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.249
95996421|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.927
95996422|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.205
95996423|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.673
95996424|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.881
95996425|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.808
95996426|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.498
95996427|NCT00190775|191968097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.283
95996428|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Involvement.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.784
95996429|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.864
95996430|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.884||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.884
95996431|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.072
95996432|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-Value for Parent Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.120
95996433|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||95.0||||P-Value Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.925
95996434|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0||||P-Value for Dysfunctional Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.444
95996435|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-Value for Negative Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.166
95996436|NCT00190775|191968098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for Positive Parenting Composite.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
95996437|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.895
95996438|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.792
95996439|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.318
95996440|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.914
95996441|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.961
95996442|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.807
95996443|NCT00190775|191968099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.827
95996444|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Mother.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.828
95996445|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||P-Value for Child Involvement Father.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.401
95996446|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||P-Value for Child Positive Parenting.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.300
95996447|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-Value for Child Poor Supervision.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.575
95996448|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0||||P-Value for Child Inconsistent Discipline.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.772
95996449|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-Value for Child Corporal Punishment.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.918
95996450|NCT00190775|191968100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-Value for Child Other Discipline Practice.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.636
95996451|NCT00190775|191968101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.583
95808447|NCT00183625|191589512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
95808448|NCT00183625|191589513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-value listed is for the medication by time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression of body mass index on medication group (risp or olanz), time (in days over first 18 months of study) and a group by time interaction with site and baseline timepoint indicators as covariates. The model included a random slope and intercept for time.||||.0176
95773433|NCT03514485|191518393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.5||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL emotional functioning domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.50|-0.08|
95773434|NCT03514485|191518394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.69|-0.19|
95860424|NCT02105961|191679454|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period|||1.05|0.70|0.140
95996452|NCT00190775|191968101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactive-Impulsive Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.997
95996453|NCT00190775|191968101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Symptom ADHD Score.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.333
95996454|NCT00190775|191968102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-Value for Oppositional Defiant Disorder Flag|Fisher Exact|||||||.792
95773435|NCT03514485|191518394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.63||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.63|-0.14|
95996455|NCT00190775|191968102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-Value for Conduct Disorder Flag.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.675
95996456|NCT00190775|191968103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.875
95996457|NCT00190775|191968103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
95996458|NCT00190775|191968103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.399
95996459|NCT00190775|191968104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-Value for PSOC Total.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.365
95996460|NCT00190775|191968104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-Value for Satisfaction Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.620
95996461|NCT00190775|191968104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-Value for Efficacy Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.462
95808475|NCT05936099|191589717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
95808476|NCT05936099|191589717|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.19||||||Intent-to-treat sensitivity analysis to assess the odds of tobacco abstinence in the intervention arm when compared to the control arm.||2.19|0.27|
95860425|NCT02105961|191679454|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.05|0.70|0.140
95996462|NCT00190775|191968105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
95996463|NCT00190775|191968105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
95996464|NCT00190775|191968105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95854719|NCT03605667|191669238|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||4.1|-1.1|0.2583
95996465|NCT00190775|191968105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95773436|NCT03514485|191518394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.30|-0.49|
95773437|NCT03514485|191518394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.24|-0.43|
95996466|NCT00190775|191968105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Hyperactivity Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95996467|NCT00190775|191968105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95996468|NCT00190775|191968106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 8 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95996469|NCT00190775|191968106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95996470|NCT00190775|191968107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.553
95996471|NCT00190775|191968107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-Value for 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.797
95773438|NCT03514485|191518394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.54||||||Mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts for school and child were used to make the comparisons of all combinations of primary care and school-based interventions with respect to QOL activity limitations domain. Contrasts across time and levels of the intervention were obtained by subtraction. Models were not adjusted for timing of intervention delivery during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.||0.54|-0.24|
95773439|NCT01876784|191518401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank||Vandetanib 300 mg vs Placebo|A multiple testing procedure (MTP) with an alpha-exhaustive recycling strategy was employed to provide adequate control of type I error.||1.03|0.55|0.080
95773440|NCT03605862|191518408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.4009
95773441|NCT03605862|191518409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1923|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis was stratified by time from onset of symptoms, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung conditions||||||0.1923
95773442|NCT03605862|191518410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2057
95773443|NCT03605862|191518411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0712|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at Baseline, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0712
95773444|NCT03605862|191518412|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 2||||1.0000
95773445|NCT03605862|191518412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9142|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 3||||0.9142
95773446|NCT03605862|191518412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for study day 7||||0.0132
95773447|NCT03605862|191518413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 2||||0.1239
95773448|NCT03605862|191518413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 3||||0.1022
95773449|NCT03605862|191518413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison for day 7||||0.46213
95773450|NCT03605862|191518416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from symptom onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0140
95773451|NCT03605862|191518417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||0.0112
95773452|NCT03605862|191518418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis stratified by time from onset at first dose, pre-enrollment symptom relief medication use, and presence of underlying lung condition||||||<0.0001
95773453|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern. Statistically, the test of prolongation is equivalent to a non-inferiority test versus placebo by crossover design, with an non-inferiority margin of 10 ms.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.635||||||"Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).~Power Calculation:~Enrollment of 72 subjects would provide at least 84% power to conclude a negative effect, given that up to 16 subjects may withdraw early prior to beginning to replace subjects (at least 56 subjects evaluable), and assuming a standard deviation of ΔΔQTcF of 7 msec and an underlying effect of 5 msec."||0.635||
95773454|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.200||
95860426|NCT02105961|191679455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio(Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.82||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.140
95860427|NCT02105961|191679455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.82||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.04|0.64|0.103
95996472|NCT00190775|191968108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-Value for State Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.108
95996473|NCT00190775|191968108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-Value for Trait Anxiety Score at 12 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.026
95996474|NCT00190775|191968108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-Value is for State Anxiety Score at 24 Weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.897
95996475|NCT00190775|191968108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||P-Value is for Trait Anxiety Score at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.171
95996476|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.892
95996477|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.003
95773455|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.795||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.795||
95773456|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.42|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.044||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.044||
95773457|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.792||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.792||
95773458|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.45|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.074||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.074||
95773459|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.83|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.79||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||0.790||
95773460|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.65||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.650||
95773461|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.131||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 2 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.131||
95773462|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.17|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.815||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 0.5 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||2.815||
95773463|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.36|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.997||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 1 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.997||
95996478|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.007
95773464|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.18|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.812||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 2 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.812||
95773465|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|2.59|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.228||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 3 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.228||
95773466|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|3.04|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.674||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 4 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||4.674||
95996479|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.533
95996480|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.054
95996481|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.012
95773467|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.63|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.259||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 6 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.259||
95773468|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|-0.07|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.566||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 8 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||1.566||
95773469|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.82|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.459||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 12 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.459||
95773470|NCT03613649|191518438|NON_INFERIORITY|Per ICH E14, an increase in the QTcF interval of 5 ms, as evidenced by the upper bound of a 95% one-sided confidence interval above 0.10, is the threshold for regulatory concern.|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|1.72|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.415||||||Null Hypothesis: Zoliflodacin administered at a 4 g dose causes a prolongation of the QTcF interval 24 h post-dose that exceeds the criteria in the ICH Guidance E14 (5 ms).||3.415||
95773471|NCT03613649|191518443|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.19|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.257|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 1 h after dose.|||8.257|
95773472|NCT03613649|191518443|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.79|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.86|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 2 h after dose.|||8.860|
95773473|NCT03613649|191518443|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.62|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.683|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 3 h after dose.|||8.683|
95773474|NCT03613649|191518443|NON_INFERIORITY|"According to ICH E14, the positive control should have an effect on the mean QT/QTc interval of about 5 ms. Comparison of the lower bound of the confidence interval to 5 ms for a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin is standard practice for demonstrating assay sensitivity in thorough QT studies."|Least-Squares Mean Double Delta Value|10.63|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75|8.698|||||||Null Hypothesis: The trial does not have the sensitivity to detect an effect on QTcF of regulatory concern, as produced by 400 mg moxifloxacin 4 h after dose.|||8.698|
95996482|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.457
95773475|NCT01551264|191518481|OTHER|P-value by chi-square comparing the Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival probability at 1.2 years post treatment with robust estimate of standard error due to the a priori assumption that data from bilateral limbs are correlated.||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95996483|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.001
95773476|NCT03482453|191518486|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The least square means (LS means) for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90 percent (%) Confidence Intervals (CIs) of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7108|1.0921||||||||1.0921|0.7108|
95773477|NCT03482453|191518486|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8361|1.1107||||||||1.1107|0.8361|
95773478|NCT03482453|191518487|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0263||||||||1.0263|0.8458|
95773479|NCT03482453|191518492|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.0153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.1483||||||||1.1483|0.8977|
95773480|NCT03482453|191518492|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.0339||||||||1.0339|0.8740|
95773481|NCT03482453|191518493|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as a fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. The LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates and 90% CIs of the geometric LS mean ratio on the original scale.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8861|1.0408||||||||1.0408|0.8861|
95773482|NCT03771560|191518514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.4|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||6.4|-11.3|0.56
95773483|NCT03771560|191518515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The teacher-reported change in mean ABC total score from baseline to week 12.||7.6|-5.2|0.68
95773484|NCT03771560|191518516|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|1.6|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||1.6|-17.3|0.095
95773485|NCT03771560|191518517|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The teacher-reported change in mean SRS total score from baseline to week 12.||13.5|-7.0|0.95
95773486|NCT03771560|191518518|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.5|||Paired Sample t-test|||The parent-reported change in mean PedsQL total score from baseline to week 12.||3.5|-5.2|0.69
95773487|NCT02703467|191518524|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95773488|NCT00789698|191518554|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis. Lurasidone will be declared as effective as quetiapine XR in preventing relapse if the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence limit for the hazard ration of lurasidone vs. quetiapine is no greater than an equivalence hazard ratio margin of 1.93.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.295||There is no hypothesis tested. Since this was a non-inferiority study, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was compared to the pre-specified margin of 1.93 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of lurasidone compared to Quetiapine XR.|COX Proportional Hazards Model|||Comparison of time to relapse of psychotic symptoms between LUR-LUR and QXR-QXR as analyzed using the Cox proportional-hazards model.||1.295|0.410|
95996484|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.021
95773489|NCT01921101|191518558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95773490|NCT00150488|191518565|OTHER|Compared to baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95773491|NCT02729051|191518582|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI+UMEC) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter (mL) then FF/UMEC/VI was to be considered non-inferior to FF/VI+UMEC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.05|||||MMRM method included covariates of Baseline FEV1, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|||0.050|-0.013|
95773492|NCT02729051|191518583|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Analysis included covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline, Baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.|||1.20|0.71|
95773493|NCT02729051|191518584|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8327|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.728|||||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of Baseline SGRQ, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline.|||0.728|-2.540|
95996485|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.710
95996486|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||<0.001
95996487|NCT00190775|191968109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
95773494|NCT02729051|191518585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Include covariates of treatment group, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators/ day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), geographical region, visit, Baseline dyspnea index (BDI) focal score, BDI focal score/ visit and treatment/ visit interactions.|||1.25|0.72|
95773495|NCT02729051|191518586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1773|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.485|||||Analysis included covariates of BDI focal score, stratum (number of long-acting bronchodilators per day during the run-in: 0/1 or 2), visit, geographical region, treatment, visit by treatment and visit by BDI Focal score interactions.|||0.485|-0.211|
95773496|NCT02729051|191518587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.12|0.68|
95773497|NCT04740827|191518588|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.59|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.59|-3.27|<0.0001
95773498|NCT04740827|191518589|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.52|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.52|-3.19|<0.0001
95773499|NCT04740827|191518590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.79|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.79|3.02|<0.0001
95773500|NCT04740827|191518591|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|8.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio and p-value are based on logistic regression with treatment group, region, baseline monthly migraine days, and number of classes of failed prior prophylactic treatments (2 and \>2) as explanatory variables.|||8.14|2.85|<0.0001
95773501|NCT04740827|191518592|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.42|-3.15|<0.0001
95773502|NCT04740827|191518593|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.32|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.32|-3.05|<0.0001
95773503|NCT04740827|191518594|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.93|-3.43|<0.0001
95996488|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.722
95996489|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.011
95773504|NCT04740827|191518595|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.86|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.86|-3.36|<0.0001
95773505|NCT04740827|191518596|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.348|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.05|22.3|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.30|13.05|<0.0001
95773506|NCT04740827|191518597|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.34|22.42|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||22.42|13.34|<0.0001
95773507|NCT04740827|191518598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-3.05|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.05|-6.37|<0.0001
95773508|NCT04740827|191518599|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-2.85|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline as covariate, treatment group, visit, region, number of classes of failed prior treatments, number of migraine days during baseline period as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.85|-5.94|<0.0001
95996490|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
95996491|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Scale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.779
95996492|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
95773509|NCT04740827|191518600|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|-4.63|||MMRM||MMRM=baseline monthly migraine days as covariate, treatment group, visit, region and number of classes of failed prior treatments as fixed factors; treatment group and baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.63|-8.22|<0.0001
95773510|NCT00596817|191518628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.21|||Cox-model|Cox-model using an exact method to handle ties||||3.21|1.26|0.0035
95773511|NCT00596817|191518629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Cox-Model|||||3.23|1.35|0.0010
95773512|NCT00596817|191518630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-3.36|0.0020
95773513|NCT00596817|191518631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.39|0.0171
95773514|NCT00596817|191518632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.05||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-2.30|0.0612
95773515|NCT00596817|191518633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.57|0.0002
95773516|NCT00596817|191518634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.35||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|11.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||11.56|1.13|0.025
95773517|NCT00596817|191518635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.13||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|19.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||19.52|4.73|0.002
95773518|NCT00596817|191518636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.3642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.78||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|-2.12|0.3642
95773519|NCT00869622|191518638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
95773520|NCT02715700|191518641|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.01||||||||1.01|0.90|
95773521|NCT02715700|191518642|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
95860428|NCT02105961|191679455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.140
95773522|NCT02715700|191518643|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||||1.03|0.93|
95773523|NCT02715700|191518645|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
95773524|NCT02715700|191518646|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.1||||||||1.10|0.86|
95773525|NCT02715700|191518647|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
95773526|NCT02715700|191518649|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03||||||||1.03|0.90|
95773527|NCT02715700|191518650|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
95773528|NCT02715700|191518651|OTHER|GMR of Methadone + Doravirine/Methadone Alone|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03||||||||1.03|0.92|
95773529|NCT05537441|191518653|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.64||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.216
95773530|NCT05537441|191518654|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously vaccinated||||0.34
95773531|NCT05537441|191518654|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-0.45||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||2 proportion Z-test|||Previously unvaccinated||||0.247
95773532|NCT01680861|191518674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.32
95773533|NCT01680861|191518675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
95773534|NCT01680861|191518676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
95773535|NCT01680861|191518677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95773536|NCT01680861|191518678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95773537|NCT01680861|191518679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95773538|NCT01011465|191518683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.03
95773539|NCT01011465|191518683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.89
95996493|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.002
95996494|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.716
95773540|NCT01011465|191518683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that both groups will have similar rise in SBP in response to stress.||||0.52
95773541|NCT01011465|191518684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.43
95773542|NCT01011465|191518684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.08
95773543|NCT01011465|191518684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that both groups will have similar PANAS negative affect score change in response to stress.||||0.25
95773544|NCT01011465|191518685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.83
95773545|NCT01011465|191518685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.56
95773546|NCT01011465|191518685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that both groups had similar threat/challenge scores during the speech task.||||0.95
95860429|NCT02105961|191679455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, number of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.97|0.60|0.030
95996495|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.071
95996496|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.034
95773547|NCT05896527|191518695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 200 mg BID compared to Placebo|||2.37|0.07|0.4839
95773548|NCT05896527|191518695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.49|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 400 mg BID compared to Placebo|||6.49|0.51|0.4111
95773549|NCT05896527|191518695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.99|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 600 mg QD compared to Placebo|||4.99|0.36|0.7744
95773550|NCT05896527|191518695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|12.37|||Fisher Exact||DC-806 800 mg BID compared to Placebo|||12.37|1.15|0.0164
95773551|NCT00626821|191518704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.553|2.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.073|1.553|<0.0001
95996497|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.938
95996498|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.004
95996499|NCT00190775|191968110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-Value for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.005
95996500|NCT00190775|191968111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-Value for Total ADHD Symptoms Score.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.546
95996501|NCT00190775|191968111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-Value for Hyper/Impulsive Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.530
95773552|NCT00090220|191518706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|88.7||||||95.0|78.1|94.8|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||94.8|78.1|
95773553|NCT00090220|191518732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|94.8||||||95.0|79.9|99.4|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||99.4|79.9|
95773554|NCT00090220|191518740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Relative Risk Reduction|84.7||||||95.0|67.5|93.7|||||Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||93.7|67.5|
95773555|NCT01471340|191518756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The projected sample size provided 90% power at a 2.5% alpha level (one-sided) to determine non-inferiority of MF/F and MF. For analysis of the first SAO in participants, MF/F MDI BID was considered non-inferior to MF MDI BID if the upper bound for the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR) of MF/F MDI BID versus MF MDI BID was lower than 2.0 (noninferiority margin).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94|||Cox proportional-hazard model||The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAO; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||1.94|0.76|0.411
95773556|NCT01471340|191518757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98|||Cox proportional-hazard model|Superiority of MF/F MDI BID vs MF MDI BID was determined if the HR was less than 1 and achieved statistical significance (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|The HR and 95% CI were based on the Cox proportional-hazard model with covariates of treatment (MF/F or MF) and ICS dose level (200 or 400 mcg).|Pertains only to the First SAEX; pooled MF/F treatments and pooled MF treatments||0.98|0.80|0.021
95773557|NCT01098500|191518759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.5|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||3.5|0.9|
95773558|NCT01098500|191518760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|9.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with an ALT \>=3 times ULN after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT (\<1 times ULN) at baseline. IR expressed per 100 person years.|||9.0|3.3|
95773559|NCT01098500|191518761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||||Prevalence percentage is the number of patients with Hy's Law divided by all patients that were tested at baseline (30 days prior to initiation of TKI drug).|||1.4|0.1|
95773560|NCT01098500|191518762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate (IR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||||Incidence rate (IR) is the number of patients with Hy's Law after initiation of TKI divided by person time contributed by all patients with normal ALT, AST, ALP, and BIL (\< 1 times ULN) at baseline. IR is expressed per 100 person years.|||2.0|0.0|
95773561|NCT02218736|191518771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0095
95773562|NCT02218736|191518772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0345
95773563|NCT02218736|191518773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.430
95773564|NCT04016779|191518814|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.2|-6.2|0.0040
95773565|NCT04016779|191518815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0023
95773566|NCT04016779|191518816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|5.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||16.1|-5.0|0.3030
95773567|NCT04016779|191518817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0076
95773568|NCT04016779|191518818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|10.7||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.1|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||22.1|-1.0|0.0744
95773569|NCT04016779|191518819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.8|-0.9|0.9205
95773570|NCT04016779|191518820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.0|0.0015
95773571|NCT04016779|191518821|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.0380
95773572|NCT04016779|191518822|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|12.4||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.8|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||23.8|0.6|0.0395
95996502|NCT00190775|191968111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-Value for Inattention Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.569
95773573|NCT04016779|191518823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|6.4||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.5|||Pearson's chi-squared test|||||17.5|-5.0|0.2736
95773574|NCT04016779|191518824|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.8|0.0468
95773575|NCT04016779|191518825|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.8|0.4462
95773576|NCT04016779|191518826|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-5.9|0.0100
95773577|NCT04016779|191518827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.7|0.2186
95773578|NCT04016779|191518828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.5|0.0344
95773579|NCT04016779|191518829|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||||2.8|-1.1|0.3680
95773580|NCT04016779|191518830|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.7|0.6361
95773581|NCT04016779|191518831|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-4.0|0.1708
95773582|NCT04016779|191518832|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.0|0.0094
95773583|NCT04016779|191518833|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-6.1|0.0104
95773584|NCT04016779|191518834|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-4.9|0.0178
95773585|NCT04016779|191518835|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-5.8|0.0187
95996503|NCT00190775|191968111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||P-Vaue for ADHD Index Subscale.|ANCOVA|Model included visit by therapy, pooled investigator, child with ADHD, and baseline.||||||0.986
95773586|NCT00910208|191518836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
95773587|NCT00910208|191518837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95773588|NCT00910208|191518838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95773589|NCT00910208|191518839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
95773590|NCT00910208|191518840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95773591|NCT00910208|191518841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95773592|NCT00979875|191518898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||2.55|1.70|<0.0001
95773593|NCT00979875|191518898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|5.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.88|7.12||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||7.12|3.88|<0.0001
95773594|NCT00979875|191518898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|4.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|5.6||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||5.60|3.05|<0.0001
95996504|NCT02120417|191968131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.694|1.252|||Log Rank|The P-value was analyzed by Log-Rank Test stratified by Hormone Receptor Status.||||1.252|0.694|0.762
95962189|NCT04832971|191896109|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs Placebo at Week 24|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
95773595|NCT00979875|191518899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-38.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.31|-24.55||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-24.55|-53.31|<0.0001
95773596|NCT00979875|191518899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.43||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.81|-12.05||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-12.05|-40.81|0.0032
95773597|NCT00979875|191518899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-42.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.53|-27.76||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||-27.76|-56.53|<0.0001
95773598|NCT01945970|191518904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.40|-1.09|0.36
95773599|NCT01945970|191518905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.28|-0.24|0.18
95773600|NCT01945970|191518906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||-0.19|-1.59|0.014
95773601|NCT01945970|191518907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.31|-1.30|0.22
95773602|NCT01945970|191518908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.53|-0.11|0.09
95773603|NCT01945970|191518909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.37|-1.13|0.32
95773604|NCT01945970|191518910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||4.39|-0.61|0.14
95962190|NCT04832971|191896109|SUPERIORITY||Differeence vs Placebo at week 24|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Model includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL vs \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Model also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
95962191|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-13.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-6.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-6.4|-20.9|0.0003
95962192|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.9|-32.6|<.0001
95962193|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-17.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-17.3|-31.8|<.0001
95962194|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-7.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-7.5|-22.4|0.0001
95962195|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-17.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-17.9|-33.0|<.0001
95962196|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-18.7||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 8||-18.7|-33.7|<.0001
95996505|NCT00327444|191968140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.56|53.05||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||53.05|10.56|0.0019
95996506|NCT00327444|191968141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|375.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|205.99||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|797.42||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference was estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||797.42|-46.48|0.0160
95996507|NCT00327444|191968142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.54||Estimated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks) at randomization.|ANOVA|Estimated from ANOVA model with stratification of baseline paracentesis (=\<2 weeks versus \>2 weeks).|The LS mean difference is estimated for aflibercept versus placebo (aflibercept-placebo).|||-0.54|-4.33|0.0035
95996508|NCT04336397|191968159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|1.0|0.04
95773605|NCT01945970|191518911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.62|-2.41|0.69
95773606|NCT01945970|191518912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.95|-2.06|0.72
95773607|NCT01945970|191518913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor and treatment and period as fixed effects|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||2.88|-1.15|0.39
95773608|NCT01945970|191518914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||1.24|-1.75|0.74
95773609|NCT01945970|191518915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|||0.88|-2.12|0.41
95773610|NCT01945970|191518916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of black tea adjusted for placebo|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects||1.54|-1.11|0.74
95773611|NCT01945970|191518917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.17|-1.84|0.66
95773612|NCT01945970|191518918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject as random factor, baseline same period and mean baseline in both periods as covariates, and treatment, operator, and period as fixed effects.|Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||0.30|-2.70|0.11
95773613|NCT01945970|191518919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of positive control adjusted for placebo|||1.73|-0.93|0.55
95996509|NCT04336397|191968159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95996510|NCT00046228|191968168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.551||95.0|0.67|1.23||The null hypothesis was tested at the significance level of 0.049. If it is significant, the significance level of null hypotheses tested in the analyses 2 and 3 will be adjusted according to the modified Hochberg approach.|Log Rank|Independent Clinical Endpoints Committee confirmed components of primary endpoint except for death \& resuscitated v fib assessed by the investigator)||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI group versus the Primary PCI group is 15% in lower risk, 25% in medium risk, and 35% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 83.4 %.||1.23|0.67|0.551
95996511|NCT00046228|191968168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.858||95.0|0.72|1.31|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the Abciximab facilitated PCI versus the Primary PCI group is 12.7%, in lower risk, 17.9% in medium risk, and 25.0% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1000 subjects per group) is 54.1%||1.31|0.72|0.858
95773614|NCT02738879|191518920|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis A: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin is non-inferior relative to withdrawing sitagliptin on the change from baseline in A1C. Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference is less than 0.3%.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening. Least Squares Means = LSM||-0.34|-0.58|
95773615|NCT02738879|191518920|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis B: After 30 weeks, continuing sitagliptin results in a greater reduction of A1C relative to withdrawing sitagliptin.|Between Group Difference in the LSM|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||LDA|||A LDA model included terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-0.34|-0.58|< 0.001
95773616|NCT02738879|191518921|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.73|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Negative Binomial Model|||Calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.98|0.54|= 0.039
95773617|NCT02738879|191518922|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-2.3|
95773618|NCT02738879|191518923|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-4.1|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.9|-11.2|= 0.250
95773619|NCT02738879|191518924|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-8.0|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.5|||LDA model|||The analysis is based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.5|-14.6|= 0.016
95773620|NCT02738879|191518925|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.81|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.99|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||0.99|0.67|= 0.041
95773621|NCT02738879|191518926|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.83|||=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.37|0.51|= 0.473
95773622|NCT02738879|191518927|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. Includes imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.7|-6.2|= 0.624
95773623|NCT02738879|191518928|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||25.7|11.6|< 0.001
95773624|NCT02738879|191518929|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in the LSM|-6.5|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.0|||LDA|||Analysis was based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, AHA treatment at screening (Met + DPP-4i, Met + DPP-4i + SU, Met + SU), time, and the interactions of time by treatment and of time by AHA treatment at screening.||-1.0|-11.9|= 0.020
95773625|NCT02738879|191518930|OTHER|95% CI|Between Group Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.0|-9.1|
95773626|NCT02738879|191518931|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.44|||Negative Binomial Model|||The analysis was calculated via the Negative Binomial Model including terms for treatment, race (i.e., White and Other), region (i.e., Europe, North America, and Other), AHA treatment at screening, baseline A1C value and baseline body weight and an offset for follow-up time (on the natural log scale).||1.44|0.40|= 0.394
95773627|NCT02738879|191518932|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||The analysis included imputed events after participants discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. Proportions and difference in proportions were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||5.8|-8.2|= 0.740
95773628|NCT02738879|191518933|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|-0.7|||=|0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Percentages and difference in percentages were calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by AHA treatment at screening. The analysis included imputed events after subjects discontinued from the study medication, using a Gamma frailty model. The bootstrap method was used to obtain the CI and p-value.||3.2|-4.7|= 0.712
95773629|NCT02738879|191518934|SUPERIORITY||Between Group Difference in Percentages|5.3|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||10.1|0.5|= 0.030
95773630|NCT03075891|191518943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.032
95773631|NCT01023256|191518978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.095
95773632|NCT01023256|191518978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||<0.0001
95773633|NCT01023256|191518978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
95773634|NCT01023256|191518980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.421
95773635|NCT01023256|191518980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.003
95773636|NCT01023256|191518980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||P values were derived from pairwise comparisons between each MOR103 group and the pooled placebo group based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included fixed effect terms for dose and the covariate C-reactive protein level at baseline.||||||0.065
95996512|NCT00046228|191968168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.676||95.0|0.69|1.27|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in terms of the primary efficacy outcome. Assuming the relative risk reduction for the reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI versus the abciximab facilitated PCI group is 2.6% in lower risk, 8.7% in medium risk, and 13.3% in high risk, the power of this comparison (1,000 subjects per group) is 13.5%.||1.27|0.69|0.676
95996513|NCT00046228|191968169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.247||95.0|0.57|1.16|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.16|0.57|0.247
95773637|NCT01023256|191518981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||0.243
95773638|NCT01023256|191518981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included||||||<0.0001
95773639|NCT01023256|191518981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||P values \<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|Patients with missing values were not included.||||||0.135
95773640|NCT00732758|191519000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline 25(OH)D, race, BMI, diet vitamin D, gender, pubertal status, and sunlight exposure.||||||0.003
95773641|NCT00732758|191519001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted p-values||||||0.51
95773642|NCT00732758|191519002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95773643|NCT00732758|191519003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95773644|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-7.3|-0.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-7.3|
95996514|NCT00046228|191968169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.278||95.0|0.58|1.17|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.17|0.58|0.278
95996515|NCT00046228|191968169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.944||95.0|0.68|1.43|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in complications of MI within 90 days.||1.43|0.68|0.944
95773645|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-10.9|-0.1||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.1|-10.9|
95773646|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-7.9||||||95.0|-12.4|-4.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-4.0|-12.4|
95773647|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|3.5||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.5|-2.7|
95773648|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.7|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.7|
95773649|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.4|-2.4|
95773650|NCT00373958|191519004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-3.6||||||95.0|-8.5|1.2||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-8.5|
95773651|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
95773652|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.61|0.89||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.89|0.61|
95773653|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.62|0.85||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.85|0.62|
95773654|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
95773655|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68||||||95.0|0.57|0.81||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.81|0.57|
95773656|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.98|1.41||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.41|0.98|
95773657|NCT00373958|191519005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65||||||95.0|0.54|0.78||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.78|0.54|
95996516|NCT00046228|191968170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.494||95.0|0.74|1.84|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.84|0.74|0.494
95773658|NCT00373958|191519006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.1|-2.9|
95996517|NCT00046228|191968170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.338||95.0|0.79|1.95|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.95|0.79|0.338
95773659|NCT00373958|191519006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-8.3|7.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 μg/mL threshold was calculated.||7.0|-8.3|
95773660|NCT00373958|191519006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-4.3|3.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.5|-4.3|
95773661|NCT00373958|191519006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-2.1|5.6||||||For Pertussis FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 40.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||5.6|-2.1|
95773662|NCT00373958|191519006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-5.2|3.4||||||For Pertussis PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 16.5 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||3.4|-5.2|
95773663|NCT00373958|191519006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1||||||95.0|-6.4|2.0||||||For Pertussis PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 26 EU/mL threshold was calculated.||2.0|-6.4|
95773664|NCT00373958|191519007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.6|1.7||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15μg/mL threshold was calculated.||1.7|-1.6|
95773665|NCT00373958|191519007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-7.1|3.8||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0μg/mL threshold was calculated.||3.8|-7.1|
95773666|NCT00373958|191519007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-4.5|2.9||||||For Measles the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||2.9|-4.5|
95773667|NCT00373958|191519007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|3.6||||||95.0|-4.7|11.9||||||For Mumps the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.10 I.V. threshold was calculated.||11.9|-4.7|
95860430|NCT02105961|191679456|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.140
95996518|NCT00046228|191968170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.781||95.0|0.61|1.45|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in 90-day all cause mortality.||1.45|0.61|0.781
95773668|NCT00373958|191519007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -5%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-4.4|6.9||||||For Rubella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥15 IU/mL threshold was calculated.||6.9|-4.4|
95773669|NCT00373958|191519007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.8||||||95.0|-3.4|13.0||||||For Varicella the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥1.09 I.V. threshold was calculated.||13.0|-3.4|
95773670|NCT00373958|191519008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.75|1.17||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b (PRP) the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.17|0.75|
95773671|NCT00373958|191519009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08||||||For Measles the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.85|
95773672|NCT00373958|191519009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||For Mumps the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.87|
95773673|NCT00373958|191519009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1||||||For Varicella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.92|
95773674|NCT00373958|191519010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||||||For Rubella the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.00|0.62|
95773675|NCT01777568|191519025|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||GEE model||Relative Risk: 80% (numerator) vs. 30% (denominator)|||1.14|0.85|0.85
95773676|NCT01777568|191519026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.66|0.047
95773677|NCT03421145|191519066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95773678|NCT03421145|191519067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95773679|NCT03421145|191519068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95773680|NCT03421145|191519069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95996519|NCT00046228|191968171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.016||95.0|1.08|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||2.10|1.08|0.016
95996520|NCT00046228|191968171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.67||95.0|0.76|1.52|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.52|0.76|0.670
95773681|NCT03421145|191519070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95773682|NCT00926848|191519107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95773683|NCT00926848|191519108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95773684|NCT00926848|191519109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95773685|NCT00926848|191519110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95773686|NCT00926848|191519111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95773687|NCT00926848|191519112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95773688|NCT01582178|191519138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.89
95773689|NCT00570063|191519140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|13.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent confidence interval (CI) were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures spatial power covariance structure (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||13.27|-16.49|0.86
95773690|NCT00570063|191519141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.24|-5.71|0.65
95773691|NCT00570063|191519142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.10|-4.59|0.93
95773692|NCT00570063|191519143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.21|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||7.69|-6.21|0.86
95773693|NCT00570063|191519144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.43|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.92|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.79|-7.92|0.43
95996521|NCT00046228|191968171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.042||95.0|1.01|1.93|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is if retaplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in ST-segment resolution \>70% from baseline.||1.93|1.01|0.042
95773694|NCT00570063|191519145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.91|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.16|-4.76|0.91
95773695|NCT00570063|191519146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||4.43|-3.17|0.78
95773696|NCT00570063|191519147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||2.39|-2.11|0.92
95773697|NCT00570063|191519148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.54|-1.85|0.60
95773698|NCT00570063|191519149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||3.53|-2.65|0.81
95773699|NCT00570063|191519150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.||0.76|-0.84|0.93
95773700|NCT00570063|191519151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-value and 90 percent CI were obtained from mixed effects repeated measures analysis using covariance structures (SP\[POW\]) with participant as random effect, treatment, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.||1.14|-1.13|0.99
95773701|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.158|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.546|1.231||||||Change at Day 21: Cried||1.231|-1.546|
95773702|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.444|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.078|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.329|2.218||||||Change at Day 21: Felt blue or depressed||2.218|-1.329|
95773703|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.544|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.561|8.649||||||Change at Day 21: Irritability||8.649|-5.561|
95996522|NCT00046228|191968172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.603||95.0|0.62|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.62|0.603
95996523|NCT00046228|191968172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.765||95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.73|0.765
95773704|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.955|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.287|5.433||||||Change at Day 21: Manifest psychosis||5.433|-4.287|
95773705|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.096|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.892|4.003||||||Change at Day 21: Personal neatness||4.003|-2.892|
95773706|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.202|0.547||||||Change at Day 21: Refused to speak||0.547|-1.202|
95773707|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.632|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.152|3.889||||||Change at Day 21: Retardation||3.889|-5.152|
95773708|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.572|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.771||||||Change at Day 21: Said he/she was no good||0.771|-1.110|
95773709|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.561|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.887|3.764||||||Change at Day 21: Social competence||3.764|-4.887|
95773710|NCT00570063|191519152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.447|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.934|6.694||||||Change at Day 21: Social interest||6.694|-7.934|
95773711|NCT00570063|191519153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.712|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.42|25.845||||||||25.845|-14.42|
95773712|NCT00570063|191519163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.849|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.807|6.109||||||||6.109|-7.807|
95996524|NCT00046228|191968172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.415||95.0|0.59|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.59|0.415
95996525|NCT00046228|191968173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.218
95860431|NCT02105961|191679456|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 100/Placebo)|0.59||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||0.98|0.35|0.042
95954284|NCT02253147|191879979|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA UD and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 95.0% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||-0.11|-0.34|
95954285|NCT04474691|191880031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 7|Traditional treatment condition - visual-acoustic biofeedback treatment condition. Because more accurate productions have lower acoustic values, a positive difference would indicate an advantage for biofeedback.|||||.67
95954286|NCT03594266|191880072|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
95996526|NCT00046228|191968173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.497
95773713|NCT00570063|191519164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.307|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|11.114||||||||11.114|-19.50|
95773714|NCT00570063|191519165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.273|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.01|5.465||||||Change at Day 21: Parkinsonism||5.465|-6.010|
95773715|NCT00570063|191519165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.008|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.13|4.766||||||Change at Day 21: Dyskinesia||4.766|-5.130|
95773716|NCT00570063|191519165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.932|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.425|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.275|1.411||||||Change at Day 21: Dystonia||1.411|-3.275|
95773717|NCT00570063|191519165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.705|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.013|3.422||||||Change at Day 21: Akathisia||3.422|-2.013|
95773718|NCT00570063|191519166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.203|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|1.688||||||Change at Day 4||1.688|-2.270|
95773719|NCT00570063|191519166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.327|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.892|2.547||||||Change at Day 7||2.547|-1.892|
95773720|NCT00570063|191519166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.436|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.946|2.817||||||Change at Day 14||2.817|-1.946|
95860432|NCT02105961|191679456|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
95954287|NCT03594266|191880072|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test, two-sided|||||||<0.0001
95773721|NCT00570063|191519166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.763|1.963||||||Change at Day 21||1.963|-1.763|
95996527|NCT00046228|191968173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of ICH.||||0.062
95773722|NCT01031680|191519194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.37||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.37|-0.56|<0.0001
95773723|NCT01031680|191519195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|12.9||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.9|7.0|<0.0001
95773724|NCT01031680|191519196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7898||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.42||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.42|-3.52|0.0126
95773725|NCT01031680|191519197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.64|-1.89||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.89|-2.64|<0.0001
95954288|NCT03594266|191880073|OTHER|||||||0.5482|||||||two-sample t-test, 2-sided|||||||0.5482
95996528|NCT00046228|191968174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.63|3.19|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||3.19|1.63|<0.001
95996529|NCT00046228|191968174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.025||95.0|1.05|2.15|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the primary PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.15|1.05|0.025
95860433|NCT02105961|191679456|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (Mepolizumab 300/Placebo)|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off- treatment period)|||1.34|0.51|0.447
95860434|NCT02105961|191679457|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.447
95773726|NCT01031680|191519198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8203||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.34||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.34|-3.56|0.0174
95773727|NCT01031680|191519199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|16.6||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value and stratum (gender)||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||16.6|8.3|<0.0001
95773728|NCT01483027|191519206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test||0.88|0.54|0.0013
95773729|NCT01483027|191519207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis performed using a log-rank test.||0.77|0.46|<0.0001
95773730|NCT03010800|191519209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||One subject experienced incontinence with the Yoni.Fit in place (#8) (9.2 g Pad Wt. Without and 17.3 g Pad Wt. With). This was attributed to incorrect Yoni.Fit sizing. This subject was not included in the p-value calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null hypothesis is that the pad weights With Yoni.Fit and Without Yoni.Fit are equivalent.~A one-sided Wilcoxson paired T-test of the group means will be performed. If the p-value is significant, the null hypothesis will be rejected."||||0.0469
95773731|NCT00784550|191519257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95773732|NCT00784550|191519258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95773733|NCT00784550|191519259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95773734|NCT00784550|191519260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954289|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Represents patients pain score post operative day 1 best with rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||1.2|0.9|
95954290|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity.||2.6|2.2|
95954291|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.1|2.7|
95996530|NCT00046228|191968174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.05|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is if reteplase/abciximab facilitated PCI is the same as the abciximab facilitated PCI in the risk of non-ICH TIMI bleeding events.||2.05|1.12|0.008
95773735|NCT00784550|191519261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954292|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|4.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 1 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.8|4.4|
95773736|NCT00784550|191519262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Mastery domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.069
95773737|NCT00784550|191519262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||Fatigue domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.470
95773738|NCT00784550|191519262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||Emotional function domain|ANCOVA|||||||0.394
95773739|NCT00784550|191519262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Dyspnea domain||||||0.879
95773740|NCT04338269|191519264|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.28|0.83|0.7844
95773741|NCT04338269|191519264|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.29|0.84|0.7195
95773742|NCT04338269|191519265|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.70|0.6902
95773743|NCT04338269|191519265|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.7853||95.0|0.71|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.71|0.7853
95996531|NCT00046228|191968175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.439
95996532|NCT00046228|191968175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
95773744|NCT04338269|191519266|OTHER|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.27|0.83|0.8037
95773745|NCT04338269|191519266|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||1.27|0.83|0.7894
95773746|NCT04338269|191519267|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.68||||0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||5.10|-12.45|0.4306
95773747|NCT04338269|191519268|OTHER|Difference in Overall Response Rates|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio 95% CI was constructed using the Wald method. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor containing the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis|||1.43|0.70|0.9893
95773748|NCT04338269|191519269|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.05|0.47|0.0816
95773749|NCT04338269|191519269|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1099||95.0|0.49|1.08|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.08|0.49|0.1099
95773750|NCT04338269|191519270|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|Stratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.54|0.70|0.8354
95773751|NCT04338269|191519270|OTHER|Difference between Duration of Response (DOR) rates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.55|||Log Rank|Unstratified|Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression. If at least one stratum has \<10 events at the time of analysis, the stratification factor that contains the level with the smallest number of patients will be removed from the stratified analysis.|||1.55|0.71|0.8159
95773752|NCT04166591|191519305|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||binomial test|||||||<0.01
95860435|NCT02105961|191679457|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-4.5|0.180
95860436|NCT02105961|191679457|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
95954293|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.6|
95954294|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|3.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.6|3.2|
95954295|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|4.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.4|4.0|
95954296|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|6.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 2 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||6.1|5.7|
95996533|NCT00046228|191968175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95860437|NCT02105961|191679457|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline SGRQ total score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.6|-2.8|0.926
95954297|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.2|0.8|
95954298|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.6|2.2|
95954299|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.5|3.1|
95996534|NCT00046228|191968176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95954300|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|5.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative day 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||5.2|4.8|
95954301|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
95996535|NCT00046228|191968176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
95996536|NCT00046228|191968176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95773753|NCT04166591|191519305|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
95773754|NCT04166591|191519305|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
95773755|NCT04166591|191519305|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
95773756|NCT04166591|191519306|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
95773757|NCT04166591|191519306|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.||||||0.12|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.12
95773758|NCT04166591|191519306|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
95773759|NCT04166591|191519306|OTHER|The primary statistical analysis involves asking whether children look at the target significantly more than chance levels. Binomial tests are used to see if the number of children who do so is significantly greater than would be expected by chance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial test|||||||<0.01
95773760|NCT00601172|191519386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
95773761|NCT00601172|191519387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.8||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||3.8|-1.8|0.4771
95773762|NCT00601172|191519388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.7273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.6|||Pooled Z test|p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||6.6|-4.6|0.7273
95954302|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.3|1.9|
95954303|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.2|1.8|
95954304|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|4.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative days 10-14 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||4.2|3.8|
95773763|NCT00601172|191519389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|6.0||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.5||p-value based on normal approximation to the binomial using a pooled Z test.|Pooled Z test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg||11.5|0.5|0.0317
95773764|NCT00601172|191519390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||||0.0560
95773765|NCT00601172|191519390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||||0.0443
95954305|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.4|0.2|
95773766|NCT00601172|191519390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|||||||Wilcoxon-rank sum test|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||||0.1709
95773767|NCT00601172|191519391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
95773768|NCT00601172|191519391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-0.9||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.0|-2.7|0.3545
95773769|NCT00601172|191519391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (%)|-1.8||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||2.3|-5.9|0.3986
95773770|NCT00601172|191519392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
95954306|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.7|1.3|
95954307|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||1.5|1.2|
95996537|NCT00046228|191968177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.434||95.0|0.69|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.69|0.434
95996538|NCT00046228|191968177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.589||95.0|0.71|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.71|0.589
95996539|NCT00046228|191968177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.809||95.0|0.74|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.74|0.809
95996540|NCT01587989|191968178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.820|-0.165|0.188
95996541|NCT01587989|191968178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||At Week 12.||||0.015
95996542|NCT01587989|191968178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Adjusted change in DAS28 score from Weeks 12-24.||||0.304
95996543|NCT01587989|191968179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.732
95996544|NCT01587989|191968180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.207
95954308|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.3|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 3 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||3.3|2.9|
95954309|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.0|
95954310|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.8|0.5|
95954311|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.6|0.4|
95996545|NCT01587989|191968181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
95996546|NCT01587989|191968182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
95954312|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 6 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||2.0|1.7|
95954313|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.0|-0.0|
95954314|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst at rest|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.2|0.1|
95996547|NCT01587989|191968183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.842
95996548|NCT01587989|191968184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical standardized value||||0.417
95996549|NCT01587989|191968184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental standardized value||||0.112
95996550|NCT01587989|191968185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.655
95996551|NCT01587989|191968185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.839
95996552|NCT01587989|191968186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Effectiveness||||0.580
95996553|NCT01587989|191968186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side-effects||||0.975
95996554|NCT01587989|191968186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Convenience||||0.421
95773771|NCT00601172|191519392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||1.4|-3.1|0.4507
95773772|NCT00601172|191519392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treament Difference (%)|-0.9||||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.5|||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||3.5|-5.4|0.6795
95773773|NCT00601172|191519393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
95773774|NCT00601172|191519393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.9|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||3.9|-2.3|0.6101
95996555|NCT01587989|191968186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global satisfaction||||0.277
95996556|NCT01392183|191968187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.22|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio comparing Median PFS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||2.22|0.84|
95996557|NCT01392183|191968188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93|||||Adjusted HR comparing Median OS of pazopanib (treatment group) to Temsirolimus (control group) as first line of treatment. HR \>1 treatment group performed better, \< 1 the control group performed better =1 groups performed equally.|||1.93|0.7|
95996558|NCT00963807|191968193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.336
95996559|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.52|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||13.52|-15.50|0.8918
95996560|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.89||||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.14|-19.91|0.5183
95996561|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.89||||0.5718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|9.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|-17.59|0.5718
96001950|NCT01663740|191981436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6739||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.352|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from Baseline to end of FU|||0.387|-2.352|0.1539
95860438|NCT02105961|191679458|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.926
95773775|NCT00601172|191519393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|2.1||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.0|||Chi-squared||Difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||8.0|-3.8|0.4846
95773776|NCT00601172|191519394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.8||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.9|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||8.9|-1.2|0.1356
95954315|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 best with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.1|-0.0|
95954316|NCT03647709|191880081|OTHER||mean score|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||||Represents patients reported pain score post operative week 12 worst with activity|Comparison of change in patient's reported pain with rest or during activity at various time intervals. Patients reported best and worst pain scores at rest and during activity||0.7|0.4|
95954317|NCT03647709|191880084|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
95954318|NCT03647709|191880085|OTHER|||||||0.6398|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.6398
95954319|NCT03647709|191880086|OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0658
95954320|NCT03647709|191880087|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95962197|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.9||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-0.3|-17.6|0.0429
95773777|NCT00601172|191519394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
95773778|NCT00601172|191519394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|8.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.4|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||15.4|0.9|0.0280
95773779|NCT00601172|191519395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
95773780|NCT00601172|191519395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||4.2|-3.2|0.7883
95773781|NCT00601172|191519395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||5.5|-7.3|0.7799
95954321|NCT00449033|191880089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.401||95.0|0.83|1.16|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||Sample size based on the primary efficacy endpoint of OS in the ITT (non-squamous) population. Clinically meaningful improvement defined as 30% increase in median OS (that is, a hazard ratio of 0.76923, Sorafenib+GC over Placebo+GC). With one-sided alpha of 0.025, power of 86% and a randomization ratio of 1:1 between Sorafenib+GC and Placebo+GC, and one formal final analysis of OS performed, a total of 544 events (deaths) were required.||1.16|0.83|0.401
95773782|NCT00601172|191519396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
95773783|NCT00601172|191519396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.5|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (0-24 hours)||0.5|-9.9|0.0800
95773784|NCT00601172|191519396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.3||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|0.0|||Chi-squared||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Placebo vs Casopitant 90 mg (24-120 hours)||0.0|-15|0.0507
95773785|NCT00601172|191519397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.9|4.7|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Nausea Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||4.7|-9.9|
95954322|NCT00449033|191880090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.563||95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same factors as randomization plus histology.||||1.18|0.87|0.563
95954323|NCT00449033|191880092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.008||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.008
95954324|NCT00449033|191880093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0004||95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|Two treatment groups compared using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||0.88|0.60|0.0004
95954325|NCT00449033|191880094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Tumour Response (CR+PR)|-1.92||||0.2733||95.0|-8.19|4.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||4.34|-8.19|0.2733
95773786|NCT00601172|191519397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7||||||97.5|-5.2|6.6|||||The parameter estimated was difference in percentage of participants with response.|Vomiting Impact: Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg; Cycle 1 (0-120 hours)||6.6|-5.2|
95773787|NCT00601172|191519398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
95773788|NCT00601172|191519398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (0-24 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.2908
95773789|NCT00601172|191519398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1572|||||||Chi-squared|||Placebo vs. Casopitant 90 mg: (24-120 hours) in Cycle 1||||0.1572
95773790|NCT01953601|191519421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.1||||0.6734|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.6734
95860439|NCT02105961|191679458|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 100-Placebo)|-1.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.0|-2.3|0.055
96001951|NCT01663740|191981437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8084||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.136|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline FSH concentration,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in FSH level from EOT to end of FU|||0.188|-3.136|0.0798
95773791|NCT01953601|191519421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|0.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.0|0.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.8|0.0|0.0141
95773792|NCT01953601|191519423|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.31|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||8.31|0.40|
95773793|NCT01953601|191519423|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.09|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||9.09|1.33|
95773794|NCT01953601|191519424|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.1|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||5.10|-0.84|
95773795|NCT01953601|191519424|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|8.99|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||8.99|2.35|
95773796|NCT01953601|191519425|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|2.68|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||2.68|-16.16|
95773797|NCT01953601|191519425|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-10.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|-1.04|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||-1.04|-20.16|
95773798|NCT01953601|191519426|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|0.61|||||Difference in % = Arm A - Arm C|||0.61|-6.03|
95860440|NCT02105961|191679458|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Adjusted p-value; Family wise type I error controlled within each endpoint using a Hochberg testing procedure|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.926
95773799|NCT01953601|191519426|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.71|||||Difference in % = Arm B - Arm C|||0.71|-6.01|
95773800|NCT01953601|191519427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.005|1.684|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm A / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.684|1.005|0.0222
95773801|NCT01953601|191519427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.51|1.067|1.79|||Regression, Cox||HR = Arm B / Arm C||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment, background AD treatment (use, no use), sex, APOE4 status (carrier, non-carrier) and baseline use of Vitamin E as categorical covariates and age and baseline MMSE value as continuous covariates.|1.790|1.067|0.0050
95773802|NCT01953601|191519428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.3|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-0.3|0.9109
95773803|NCT01953601|191519428|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.3||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.1|0.7|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.7|-0.1|0.0824
95773804|NCT01953601|191519429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9510
95773805|NCT01953601|191519429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|0.0||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.2|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-0.2|0.9392
95773806|NCT01953601|191519430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.4||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.0|0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.2|-1.0|0.1133
95773807|NCT01953601|191519430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.6||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-1.2|0.0|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.0|-1.2|0.0310
95773808|NCT01953601|191519431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.06|-0.04|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.04|-0.06|<0.0001
95773809|NCT01953601|191519431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-0.07|-0.05|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.05|-0.07|<0.0001
95773810|NCT01953601|191519432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-2.4|0.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm A - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|0.4|-2.4|0.0960
95860441|NCT02105961|191679458|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference(Mepolizumab 300-Placebo)|-0.4||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of Baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.547
95860442|NCT03656380|191679461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
95860443|NCT03656380|191679462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95860444|NCT03656380|191679463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95860445|NCT03656380|191679464|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95773811|NCT01953601|191519432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.51|-3.2|-0.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA||Difference in LSM = Arm B - Arm C||Analysis model includes categorical factors of geographic region, time, treatment, gender, APOE genotype, baseline use of Vitamin E, baseline use of AChEI, and the interaction of time by treatment, with baseline value, the interaction of baseline value and time, the baseline value of MMSE and the baseline value of age included as continuous covariates.|-0.2|-3.2|0.0110
95773812|NCT01905553|191519436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.77||||||||0.770|0.670|
95773813|NCT01905553|191519437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.718|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.769||||||||0.769|0.670|
95773814|NCT01905553|191519438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The magnitude effect of food on the pharmacokinetic parameters was evaluated by calculating the point estimate and 90% CIs between Treatment A (test treatment, fed) and Treatment B (reference treatment, fasted).|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.53||||||||0.530|0.380|
95773815|NCT03962790|191519439|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the credible interval (CrI) of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.65|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||4.65|-4.37|
95773816|NCT03962790|191519440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is established if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval is above -5 points in CLUE Scale.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|2.06|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||2.06|-4.07|
95954326|NCT00449033|191880095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control|0.97||||0.3902||95.0|-5.87|7.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two treatment groups compared using a CMH test with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by the same stratification factors as randomization.||||7.81|-5.87|0.3902
95773817|NCT03962790|191519441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.01|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.010|-0.012|
95773818|NCT03962790|191519441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.009|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.009|-0.014|
95773819|NCT03962790|191519442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the CrI of the mean difference between Test and Control was greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Bayesian repeated measurement random-effects model was used to compare between Test and Control lenses.||0.34|-0.32|
95860446|NCT03656380|191679465|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||\<15 eos/hpf||||<0.001
95860447|NCT03656380|191679465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||≤6 eos/hpf||||0.02
95860448|NCT03656380|191679465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||≤1 eos/hpf||||0.27
95860449|NCT03656380|191679466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95954327|NCT06466655|191880136|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95954328|NCT06466655|191880137|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95773820|NCT02461524|191519446|OTHER||Percentage|2.9|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.7|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary safety endpoint was tested against a predetermined safety Performance Goal (PG) using the following statistical hypotheses:~H0: p ≥ 20% vs. H1: p \< 20% where p is the proportion of subjects experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) within 30 days of the index procedure in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Stent graft system and 20% is the safety PG."||8.7||<0.001
95773821|NCT02461524|191519447|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Percentage|100.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.8||||Based on exact binomial distribution|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint was tested against a predetermined effectiveness PG using following statistical hypotheses:~H0: q ≤ 80% vs. H1: q \> 80% where q is the proportion of subjects who have a successful aneurysm treatment in the target population of subjects treated with the Endurant Evo AAA Stent graft system and 80% is the effectiveness PG."|||95.8|0.001
95773822|NCT03535194|191519480|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|78.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||78.7|68.2|<0.001
95773823|NCT03535194|191519481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|73.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.3|62.7|<0.001
96001952|NCT01663740|191981438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.466||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.792|47.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to EOT|||47.585|-47.792|0.9965
95773824|NCT03535194|191519482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.1|87.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||87.0|76.1|<0.001
95773825|NCT03535194|191519483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.8|47.6|<0.001
95860450|NCT03656380|191679467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
95773826|NCT03535194|191519484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.1|19.3|<0.001
95773827|NCT03535194|191519485|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.3|47.7|<0.001
95773828|NCT03535194|191519486|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.88|-7.01|<0.001
95773829|NCT03535194|191519487|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.80|-16.51|<0.001
95860451|NCT03023813|191679476|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95860452|NCT03023813|191679477|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
95860453|NCT03023813|191679478|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
95860454|NCT03023813|191679479|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95860455|NCT03023813|191679480|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95860456|NCT03023813|191679481|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95773830|NCT03535194|191519488|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.55|-12.63|<0.001
95773831|NCT03535194|191519489|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.72|||ANCOVA|||||4.72|2.20|<0.001
95773832|NCT03535194|191519490|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.35|||ANCOVA|||||5.35|2.56|<0.001
95773833|NCT03535194|191519491|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||70.8|59.3|<0.001
95773834|NCT03535194|191519493|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.96|||ANCOVA|||||3.96|-4.96|0.826
95773835|NCT03535194|191519495|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.9|-1.4|<0.0001
95773836|NCT03535194|191519496|NON_INFERIORITY|10% non-inferiority margin was used.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.6|-3.4|<0.0001
95773837|NCT01665157|191519518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||||||Not significant|ANOVA|||||||0.435
95773838|NCT01665157|191519519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.046
95773839|NCT01665157|191519519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: Low-residue diet package and 2L PEG vs. Self-controlled diet and 2L PEG provides same preparation quality."||||0.024
95773840|NCT01665157|191519519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
95860457|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Percent change in weight (lbs.) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.96||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included weight loss||2.26|-8.18|0.27
95773841|NCT01665157|191519522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95773842|NCT01665157|191519523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95773843|NCT01665157|191519524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95773844|NCT02651155|191519583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Values of CI|1.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||Van Elteren Test|SBM was analyzed using Van Elteren Test stratified by center. Centers with less participants were pooled based on geographical proximity.|CI was estimated by inverting the hypothesis test.|||1.0|0.1|0.003
95773845|NCT05875025|191519669|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.99|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR2 at baseline as a covariate.||||4.99|-2.28|0.442
95773846|NCT05875025|191519670|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, included treatment, subject, and period as fixed effects; PPR4 at baseline as a covariate.||||3.12|-1.73|0.553
95773847|NCT01489254|191519672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude study sensitivity the combined active treatment groups Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg needed to be superior to placebo.|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|0.488|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.651|||||Ratio of combined Glatiramer 20 mg + Copaxone 20 mg to placebo and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function. To assess study sensitivity, data of the active treatment groups and placebo were included in the model, resulting in the ratios and 95% CIs for the combined Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment group and the individual treatments over placebo.||0.651|0.365|
95954329|NCT01245699|191880140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95954330|NCT01245699|191880141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95954331|NCT01245699|191880142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1
95954332|NCT01245699|191880143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
95954333|NCT03530345|191880151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.26||2-sided p-value for testing superiority of neridronic acid 400 mg compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The degrees of freedom of the denominator are estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.|The primary endpoint estimate was the least squares mean differences of change from baseline in pain NRS (electronic diary) at Week 12 between neridronate and Placebo.|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) defined with baseline pain intensity as covariate, the factors geographic region, week, treatment and treatment-by-week as fixed effects, and an unstructured covariance matrix to model the covariance structure of the repeated measurements.||-0.26|-1.89|0.0111
95954334|NCT04150250|191880158|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-7.1||||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|28.6||The threshold to define success on the primary efficacy endpoint at the final analysis is one-sided alpha = 0.0238.|Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group (O vs. Non-O)||||28.6|-30.9|0.2254
95954335|NCT04150250|191880159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|-3.8||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|27.4|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||27.4|-26.3|0.2751
95954336|NCT04150250|191880161|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.3||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||21.6|-44.1|0.5145
95954337|NCT04150250|191880162|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.3||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||5.6|-18.1|0.2636
95954338|NCT04150250|191880163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.1||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||7.8|-4.5|0.5992
95954339|NCT04150250|191880165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6527|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by blood type group||||||0.6527
95954340|NCT04150250|191880166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Median|1.5||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.5|||Van Elteren test|Stratified by blood type group||||5.5|-7.0|0.5377
95860458|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Change in systolic blood pressure since the baseline encounter (mmHg)|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included blood pressure control||3.27|-16.12|0.19
95954341|NCT04150250|191880167|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group.||||16.5|-14.0|0.8705
95954342|NCT04150250|191880168|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-18.8||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by blood type group||||3.6|-41.1|0.1404
95954343|NCT01436045|191880171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||RBANS Line Orientation|t-test, 2 sided||Response to intranasal Insulin Glulisine \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%|Response to intranasal Insulin Gluiline \[(result post-insulin - result post-placebo)/(result post-placebo)\] x 100%||||<0.05
95954344|NCT01436045|191880174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in errors \[result post-insulin - result post-placebo\]||||<0.05
95954345|NCT00748098|191880213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.64|-16.36|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-16.36|-35.64|<0.0001
95954346|NCT00748098|191880214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-3.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Estimates were obtained using an ANCOVA model with period, group center, and treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||-1.10|-5.04|0.002
95954347|NCT03602859|191880256|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and p-value from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model and log-rank test (2-sided) are adjusted for the randomization stratification factors: concurrent bevacizumab use and homologous recombinant repair (HRR) mutation status.|||0.99|0.73|0.0351
95954348|NCT05492786|191880269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts with information about their risk status (patients randomized to the High-risk Alert or High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the standard alert. Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert and High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arms will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the standard Alert arm.||||0.517
95996562|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.37||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|18.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||18.56|-11.82|0.6591
95996563|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|12.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.13|-18.17|0.6921
95996564|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.20|-19.98|0.3513
95996565|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|23.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||23.88|-5.96|0.2346
95996566|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.24||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|21.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.39|-8.92|0.4138
95996567|NCT01587950|191968196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero immediately post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.99|-16.44|0.6931
95996568|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.39||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|8.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.26|-21.04|0.3867
95996569|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.22||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.41|3.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.96|-26.41|0.1448
96001953|NCT01663740|191981438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|15.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.6031||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.599|57.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from Baseline to end of FU|||57.142|-26.599|0.4636
95996570|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.83||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|8.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.99|-18.66|0.4874
95996571|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.87||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.23|5.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||5.49|-25.23|0.2038
95996572|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.12||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.19|-26.43|0.1518
95996573|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|12.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.49|-14.98|0.8567
95996574|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.01||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|26.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, at 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.08|-4.06|0.1493
96001954|NCT01663740|191981439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.0805||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.438|43.917|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline prolactin level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in prolactin level from EOT to end of FU|||43.917|-26.438|0.6134
95773848|NCT01489254|191519672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude equivalence between Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg, efficacy in the combined active treatment groups needed to be superior to placebo (confirming study sensitivity) and the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg needed to be fully enclosed in the prespecified equivalence margin (0.727 - 1.375).|Ratio (or Ratio of estimated means)|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.36|||||Ratio of Glatiramer 20 mg to Copaxone 20 mg and 95% confidence interval.|Estimates represent the mean total lesions during months 7 through 9 and were estimated from the fitted random effect generalized linear model (longitudinal model) with a negative binomial distribution and logaritmic link function including Glatiramer 20 mg and Copaxone 20 mg treatment groups to assess study equivalence.||1.360|0.883|
95773849|NCT03452488|191519678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic.||||0.2437
95773850|NCT03452488|191519678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic||||0.2000
95773851|NCT03452488|191519678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.3240
95773852|NCT03452488|191519678|SUPERIORITY|Gait Speed Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||||0.5123|||||||Adjusted Bayesian Imputation|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5123
95773853|NCT03452488|191519678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.6920
95773854|NCT03452488|191519678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic based on MI and Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.0850
95773855|NCT03452488|191519679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9408
95773856|NCT03452488|191519679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-score based on Mixed Model Analysis||||0.9485
95773857|NCT03452488|191519679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9848|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.9848
95773858|NCT03452488|191519679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Physical Function Domain (PF-10) Sub-Score Based on Adjusted Bayesian Imputation||||0.5017
95996575|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.45||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|20.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||20.76|-9.86|0.4798
95996576|NCT01587950|191968197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.56||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.42|8.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 10 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.29|-19.42|0.4255
95996577|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.96||||0.7769||95.0|-15.71|11.8||ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.80|-15.71|0.7769
95996578|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|8.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-20.64|0.3811
95996579|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5044||95.0|-17.35|8.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within each of the treatment was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.63|-17.35|0.5044
96001955|NCT01663740|191981440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|8.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9301||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.223|32.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to EOT|||32.506|-16.223|0.5002
95773859|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.5200
95773860|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (dominant hand)||||0.3577
95773861|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9237|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.9237
95773862|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7629|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test at Month 6 Based on Multiple Imputation (dominant hand)||||0.7629
95773863|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Change from Baseline in Handgrip Strength Test (left hand)||||0.5695
95773864|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3523|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Left hand)||||0.3523
95773865|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5652|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.5652
95773866|NCT03452488|191519680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2472|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of data collected from baseline to 6 months, or baseline to 9 months due to pandemic in Handgrip Strength Test (Right hand)||||0.2472
95773867|NCT03452488|191519681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9859||||||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM|ANCOVA|||||||0.9859
95773868|NCT03452488|191519681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis of Change from Baseline in ALM||||0.4040
95773869|NCT03452488|191519682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1219|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1219
95773870|NCT03452488|191519682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0520
95773871|NCT03452488|191519683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8917|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8917
95773872|NCT03452488|191519683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2172||0.6317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.777|16.778|||ANCOVA|||||16.778|-26.777|0.6317
95773873|NCT03452488|191519684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
95773874|NCT03452488|191519684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0543
95773875|NCT03452488|191519685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8824|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8824
95773876|NCT03452488|191519685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1578
95773877|NCT03452488|191519686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0511|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0511
95773878|NCT03452488|191519686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2771|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2771
95773879|NCT03452488|191519687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8084
95773880|NCT03452488|191519687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7266
95996580|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||8.84|-20.20|0.4374
95996581|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.02||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|10.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.41|-18.46|0.5796
95996582|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|14.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05||14.64|-11.32|0.7994
95996583|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.75||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.93|-6.42|0.2784
95996584|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.68||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|21.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||21.12|-7.75|0.3581
95773881|NCT03452488|191519688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2312|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2312
95773882|NCT03452488|191519688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2701
95773883|NCT03452488|191519689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8934
95773884|NCT03452488|191519689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3526
95860459|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Percentage point change in HbA1c (%) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included glycemic control||0.45|-1.82|0.24
95860460|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Percentage point change in 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (%), as estimated by the American College of Cardiology Pooled Cohort Equations, since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.26|||Generalized linear mixed regression||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||1.26|-3.65|0.34
95773885|NCT04143594|191519703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.6||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|13.2||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing and the B/F/TAF groups, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||13.2|-18.4|0.7178
95773886|NCT04143594|191519703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.3|-23.4|0.3900
95773887|NCT04143594|191519703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|9.1||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.1|-23.5|0.3797
95773888|NCT04143594|191519704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.5||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.8|-15.9|0.2398
95773889|NCT04143594|191519704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.4||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.4||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||3.4|-18.3|0.1639
95773890|NCT04143594|191519704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.7||||0.2307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||4.9|-16.3|0.2307
95996585|NCT01587950|191968198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|11.97|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, application site, period and random effect for subject|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis suggested that mean change from baseline in the evaporative sensitivity within the treatments was zero, 20 minutes post treatment. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||11.97|-14.11|0.8703
95773891|NCT04143594|191519705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.3142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.3||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||7.3|-20.7|0.3142
95773892|NCT04143594|191519705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.2||||0.3009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.8||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.8|-21.3|0.3009
95773893|NCT04143594|191519705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.6||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|6.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||6.7|-21.8|0.2859
95773894|NCT04143594|191519706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-7.1||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|9.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||9.0|-23.2|0.3686
95773895|NCT04143594|191519706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-16.5||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|1.0||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||1.0|-34.0|0.0887
95773896|NCT04143594|191519706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.4||||0.4949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.7||P-value was from the CMH tests stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (\<= 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentage of participants between LEN-containing treatment groups and the B/F/TAF group, and its 95% CI were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||10.7|-21.5|0.4949
95808630|NCT05577702|191589989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.24|||||Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio was estimated along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) constructed by a normal approximation of log odds ratio and the Robins, Breslow, and Greenland variance estimate without stratification.|||4.24|0.35|
95773897|NCT04143594|191519707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37||P-value was from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.37|-0.20|0.5755
95773898|NCT04143594|191519707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.29|-0.25|0.8697
95773899|NCT04143594|191519707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.06||||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.23|0.7052
95773900|NCT04143594|191519708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.02||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.30|-0.26|0.8942
95773901|NCT04143594|191519708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.25|-0.28|0.9058
95773902|NCT04143594|191519708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.35|-0.27|0.8129
95773903|NCT04143594|191519709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.04||||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.33|-0.25|0.7864
95996586|NCT02432807|191968229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2219
95962198|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-12.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-12.0|-29.4|<.0001
95773904|NCT04143594|191519709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.05||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.21|-0.31|0.7013
95773905|NCT04143594|191519709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.22||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.62|-0.18|0.2753
95773906|NCT04143594|191519710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.34|-0.19|0.5640
95773907|NCT04143594|191519710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.01||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.26|-0.28|0.9555
95808631|NCT05577702|191589989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.86|||||Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio was estimated along with its 95% CI constructed by a normal approximation of log odds ratio and the Robins, Breslow, and Greenland variance estimate without stratification.|||2.86|0.23|
95808632|NCT05577702|191589989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.26|||||Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio was estimated along with its 95% CI constructed by a normal approximation of log odds ratio and the Robins, Breslow, and Greenland variance estimate without stratification.|||1.26|0.14|
95808633|NCT05577702|191589990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.87|||||Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio was estimated along with its 95% CI constructed by a normal approximation of log odds ratio and the Robins, Breslow, and Greenland variance estimate without stratification.|||3.87|0.26|
95808634|NCT05577702|191589990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.76|||||Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio was estimated along with its 95% CI constructed by a normal approximation of log odds ratio and the Robins, Breslow, and Greenland variance estimate without stratification.|||5.76|0.42|
95808635|NCT05577702|191589990|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.3|||||Mantel-Haenszel common odds ratio was estimated along with its 95% CI constructed by a normal approximation of log odds ratio and the Robins, Breslow, and Greenland variance estimate without stratification.|||1.30|0.11|
95773908|NCT04143594|191519710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.46||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||0.46|-0.19|0.4025
95773909|NCT04143594|191519711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.0||||0.7751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|97.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||97|-73|0.7751
95773910|NCT04143594|191519711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-2.0||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|75.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||75|-79|0.9549
95773911|NCT04143594|191519711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|44.0||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-33|0.2603
95773912|NCT04143594|191519712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-31.0||||0.4827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|57.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||57|-119|0.4827
95773913|NCT04143594|191519712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-12.0||||0.7963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|81.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||81|-106|0.7963
95808636|NCT05577702|191589991|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|13.94|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||13.94|0.46|
95808637|NCT05577702|191589991|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|13.75|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||13.75|0.37|
95808638|NCT05577702|191589991|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.52|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||3.52|0.28|
95808639|NCT05577702|191589993|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|25.3|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||25.30|0.21|
95808640|NCT05577702|191589993|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.89|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||15.89|0.06|
95808641|NCT05577702|191589993|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.71|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||1.71|0.05|
95808642|NCT05577702|191589995|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|32.37|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||32.37|0.26|
95808643|NCT05577702|191589995|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|27.89|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||27.89|0.11|
95808644|NCT05577702|191589995|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.27|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model.|||3.27|0.19|
95954349|NCT05492786|191880269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||The p-value reported is 2-tailed and based on heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in flu shots for patients whose clinicians were shown alerts the factors that contributed to a patient's high risk (High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm) compared with those whose clinicians were shown the alert with risk level only (High-risk Alert arm). Alternative hypothesis: patients in the High-risk Alert with Risk Factors arm will exhibit improved flu vaccination rates compared with those in the High-risk Alert arm.||||0.226
95954350|NCT01090076|191880340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95954351|NCT01090076|191880341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.877
95773914|NCT04143594|191519712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.0|67.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||67|-111|0.6169
95773915|NCT04143594|191519713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|21.0||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-73|0.6614
95954352|NCT01090076|191880342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95954353|NCT02469077|191880373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.12
95954354|NCT02469077|191880374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.04
95954355|NCT02469077|191880375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.03
95954356|NCT02469077|191880376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.17
95954357|NCT02469077|191880377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.13
95954358|NCT02469077|191880378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.98
95954359|NCT02469077|191880379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.52
95773916|NCT04143594|191519713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-75|0.6791
95773917|NCT04143594|191519713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|27.0||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|120.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||120|-65|0.5563
95773918|NCT04143594|191519714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|32.0||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|140.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||140|-75|0.5492
95773919|NCT04143594|191519714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|17.0||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|115.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|Difference in LSM||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||115|-80|0.7220
95773920|NCT04143594|191519714|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-4.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|110.0||P-value was from (ANOVA) model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model adjusting for the baseline HIV-1 RNA level (\<= 100,000 copies/mL or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|||110|-118|0.9486
95773921|NCT01044290|191519756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||.7|-1.1|<0.61
95954360|NCT02469077|191880380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.65
95954361|NCT02469077|191880381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.1
95773922|NCT01044290|191519756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.0|.2|<.02
95773923|NCT01044290|191519757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.1|-1.2|=.9
95773924|NCT01044290|191519757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.1|-1.2|<.97
95773925|NCT01044290|191519758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||1.5|-1.4|<.91
95773926|NCT01044290|191519758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||=|0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable||Comparison at 5 weeks||0.9|-2.1|=.42
95773927|NCT01044290|191519759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.8|-1.5|=.58
95773928|NCT01044290|191519759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.2|-2.1|<.97
95773929|NCT01044290|191519760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||2.4|-.6|.25
95773930|NCT01044290|191519760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable.||Comparison at 5 weeks||3.1|.05|<.05
95773931|NCT01044290|191519761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||1.8|-1.0|<.57
95773932|NCT01044290|191519761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Palliative Performance Scale (low versus high) stratification variable. Sex item omitted from scale.||Comparison at 5 weeks.||2.7|-0.03|=0.055
95773933|NCT01967706|191519767|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.64|114.03|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||114.03|68.64|
95773934|NCT01967706|191519768|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.61|119.46|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||119.46|80.61|
95773935|NCT01154088|191519769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups A as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||12.25|-1.41|
95773936|NCT01154088|191519769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.25||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups C as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||3.25|-4.11|
95773937|NCT01154088|191519769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|6.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|10.78||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups W-135 as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||10.78|3.28|
95773938|NCT01154088|191519769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: For each serogroup separately, the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix-A Group minus Mencevax Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response would be greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|11.58||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix conjugate vaccine (Nimenrix Lot A) when compared to the licensed Mencevax for Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) serogroups Y as measured by serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) at GSK.||11.58|2.63|
95773939|NCT01154088|191519770|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.17||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups A, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.17|0.92|
95773940|NCT01154088|191519770|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.37||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups C, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.37|0.96|
95860461|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mg/dL) since the baseline encounter|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.46||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.63|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Result for intervention arm minus control arm|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included lipids control||9.70|-26.63|0.36
95864389|NCT03060551|191686725|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.372||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.372
95954362|NCT02469077|191880382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||.046
95954363|NCT02469077|191880383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.61
95996587|NCT02432807|191968230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1817
95773941|NCT01154088|191519770|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups W-135, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||1.04|0.8|
95773942|NCT01154088|191519770|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: Non-inferiority of Nimenrix Lot B vs. Nimenrix Lot A in terms of non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CIs on the rSBA GMT ratios (GMTs of Nimenrix Lot B over the GMTs of the Nimenrix Lot A) would be below (\<) a limit of 2-fold for antibodies against all meningococcal serogroups.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||Demonstration of the comparability of the immunogenicity of Lot A to Lot B of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine with respect to rSBA geometric mean titres (GMTs) for N. meningitidis serogroups Y, 1 month after vaccination as measured at GSK.||0.99|0.78|
95773943|NCT01552915|191519787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.2|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.2|-4.3|0.0717
95773944|NCT01552915|191519787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-9.4|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-9.4|-15.1|<0.0001
95860462|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Change in smoking intensity (defined as a change in smoking status from Current Every Day to either Current Some Days or Quit; or from Current Some Days to Quit) since the baseline encounter.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|45.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. OR \<1 indicates reduction in smoking intensity; OR \>1 indicates increase in smoking intensity.|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included tobacco cessation||45.56|0.03|0.92
95954364|NCT02469077|191880384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.4
95954365|NCT02469077|191880385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to change after 6 week intervention period||||0.57
95954366|NCT02973477|191880386|OTHER|Mixed effects model|Coefficient|0.28||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.8||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted mixed models analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change.||0.8|-0.24|0.28
95954367|NCT02973477|191880387|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.003||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for SDNN.||0.15|-0.16|0.97
95773945|NCT01552915|191519787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-7.3|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-7.3|-13.0|<0.0001
95954368|NCT02973477|191880387|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis to compare the difference between the values from baseline to 12 weeks between each intervention for rmsSD.||0.16|-0.21|0.79
95773946|NCT01552915|191519788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6165
95773947|NCT01552915|191519788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95773948|NCT01552915|191519788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95773949|NCT00282113|191519792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0|||||Mixed-effects regression|||||||>0.5
95773950|NCT00282113|191519793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95773951|NCT00282113|191519794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95773952|NCT03382834|191519796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that tamoxifen would enhance the HIV transcription effect of vorinostat (i.e., log10 change would be greater in Arm A than Arm B)||||||0.68
95773953|NCT03382834|191519798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95773954|NCT02120833|191519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773955|NCT02120833|191519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.4360
95773956|NCT02120833|191519799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.01|-2.51|0.0510
95773957|NCT02120833|191519800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0004
95773958|NCT02120833|191519800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0213
95773959|NCT02120833|191519800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.37|||ANCOVA|The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.37|-0.50|0.7698
95773960|NCT02120833|191519801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0003
95996588|NCT05127486|191968258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.38|0.81|0.695
95773961|NCT02120833|191519801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6063
95773962|NCT02120833|191519801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-1.27|0.3686
95773963|NCT02120833|191519802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773964|NCT02120833|191519802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6118
95773965|NCT02120833|191519802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.98|0.1485
95773966|NCT02120833|191519803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773967|NCT02120833|191519803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2447
95773968|NCT02120833|191519803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.25|-2.95|0.0216
95773969|NCT02120833|191519804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773970|NCT02120833|191519804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0476
95773971|NCT02120833|191519804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.64|-2.52|0.2349
95996589|NCT05127486|191968259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.56|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.56|0.89|
95996590|NCT05127486|191968260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||1.79|0.89|
95996591|NCT05127486|191968261|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.82|
95773972|NCT02120833|191519805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.7842
95773973|NCT02120833|191519805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.6083
95773974|NCT02120833|191519805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.08|0.3599
95773975|NCT02120833|191519806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0001
95996592|NCT05127486|191968262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.11|
95773976|NCT02120833|191519806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0317
95773977|NCT02120833|191519806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.33|-0.42|0.8037
95773978|NCT02120833|191519807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773979|NCT02120833|191519807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0244
95773980|NCT02120833|191519807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.06|-0.80|0.0900
95773981|NCT02120833|191519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773982|NCT02120833|191519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0065
95773983|NCT02120833|191519808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.16|-0.97|0.1561
95996593|NCT05127486|191968263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.90|
95996594|NCT05127486|191968264|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.73|
95996595|NCT05127486|191968265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|
95996596|NCT05127486|191968266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Total score||7.37|1.42|
95996597|NCT05127486|191968266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.58|||ANCOVA|||RF-R||8.58|1.90|
95996598|NCT05127486|191968266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.71|||ANCOVA|||RF-P||6.71|1.06|
95996599|NCT05127486|191968266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|6.44|||ANCOVA|||EF||6.44|-0.08|
95773984|NCT02120833|191519809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773985|NCT02120833|191519809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0049
95773986|NCT02120833|191519809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|15.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.07|-3.88|0.2409
95996600|NCT05127486|191968267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|-6.94|
95996601|NCT00310310|191968269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
95773987|NCT02120833|191519810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773988|NCT02120833|191519810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.2386
95773989|NCT02120833|191519810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|17.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.32|1.28|0.0241
95773990|NCT02120833|191519811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95996602|NCT00310310|191968270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.023
95996603|NCT00310310|191968271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
95996604|NCT00310310|191968273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.96
95996605|NCT00310310|191968274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.59
95773991|NCT02120833|191519811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0696
95996606|NCT00310310|191968275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
95996607|NCT00310310|191968276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95996608|NCT00310310|191968277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
95996609|NCT00310310|191968278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.38
95996610|NCT02688647|191968295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5733|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 38.85 (95% CI: -126.99, 204.69) mL||||0.5733
95996611|NCT02688647|191968295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -39.96 (95% CI: -288.63, 208.71) mL||||0.6967
95996612|NCT02688647|191968295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 94.16 (95% CI: -1103.56, 1291.88) mL||||0.5003
95996613|NCT02688647|191968295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4866|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||No Prior Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -34.13 (95% CI: -137.08, 68.82)||||0.4866
95996614|NCT02688647|191968298|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage I-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 1.88 (95% CI: -2.69, 6.45)||||||0.3391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.3391
95773992|NCT02120833|191519811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|17.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||17.52|0.46|0.0394
95773993|NCT02120833|191519812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773994|NCT02120833|191519812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0772
95773995|NCT02120833|191519812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|15.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||15.63|1.33|0.0213
95996615|NCT02688647|191968298|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage II-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = -1.72 (95% CI: -8.13, 4.69)||||||0.5201|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.5201
95996616|NCT02688647|191968298|SUPERIORITY|GAP Stage III-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 2.48 (95% CI: -23.84, 28.81)||||||0.4426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4426
95996617|NCT02688647|191968298|SUPERIORITY|No Prior Use of Pirfenidone or Nintedanib-- Difference: Belumosudil-WC minus BSC-NC = 8.70 (95% CI: -78.76, -96.17)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results are not stable due to small sample size and signal/noise ratio||||||0.4260
95996618|NCT02688647|191968308|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.86 (0.16, 4.48)||||0.8561
95996619|NCT02688647|191968308|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.8608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.17, 4.33)||||0.8608
95996620|NCT02688647|191968309|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.79)||||0.0084
95996621|NCT02688647|191968309|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard Ratio: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.22, 1.03)||||0.0508
95996622|NCT02688647|191968311|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.34 (95% CI: 0.02, 5.54)||||0.4251
95996623|NCT02688647|191968311|SUPERIORITY|Cox Regression||||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio: 0.27 (95% CI: 0.02, 4.45)||||0.3294
95996624|NCT00619229|191968401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|2.55||The criterion for significance (α) was set at one-sided α = 0.025, which means that only an effect in the expected direction was interpreted.|ANCOVA||For exploratory testing an Analysis of Variance-Covariance (ANCOVA) F-test with dependent variable 'difference in visual acuity', fixed factors 'treatment' and 'centre' and Baseline value as a covariate was used.|"The primary goal of the study was to test the following null hypothesis:~H0: μAlprostadil ≤ μPlacebo, against the alternative hypothesis H1: μAlprostadil \> μPlacebo, where μ denotes the mean differences in visual acuity between measurements at 3 months after the end of study drug infusion minus measurements at baseline as assessed as line difference on the standard ETDRS charts."||2.55|-0.674|0.1220
95773996|NCT02120833|191519813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95773997|NCT02120833|191519813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0172
95996625|NCT01075178|191968415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.81|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.96|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.96||
96001956|NCT01663740|191981440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|40.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6084||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|76.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables.|Change in inhibin B level from Baseline to end of FU|||76.643|4.720|0.0279
95773998|NCT02120833|191519813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|11.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||11.58|-2.46|0.1968
95773999|NCT02120833|191519814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95774000|NCT02120833|191519814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|One-sample t-test|Adjusted by study site.||The null hypothesis was no difference versus baseline. The alternative hypothesis was a difference versus baseline.||||0.0712
95774001|NCT02120833|191519814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and study site as factors, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||14.15|0.70|0.0313
95774002|NCT02397122|191519874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.259
95774003|NCT02397122|191519874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.097
96001957|NCT01663740|191981441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|25.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1348||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.024|71.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for Cohort,visit,Cohort by visit interaction,baseline inhibin B level,age,pre-transplant dialysis duration as explanatory variables|Change in inhibin B level from EOT to end of FU|||71.786|-20.024|0.2548
95774004|NCT02397122|191519874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.070
95774005|NCT02397122|191519875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.067
95774006|NCT02397122|191519875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.130
95774007|NCT02397122|191519875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.128
95774008|NCT02397122|191519876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.298
95774009|NCT02397122|191519876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.152
95774010|NCT02397122|191519876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.317
95774011|NCT02397122|191519877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.136
95774012|NCT02397122|191519877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.041
95774013|NCT02397122|191519877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.064
95774014|NCT02397122|191519878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.245
95774015|NCT02397122|191519878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.099
95774016|NCT02397122|191519878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.077
95774017|NCT02397122|191519879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann-Whitney|||Baseline||||0.946
95774018|NCT02397122|191519879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mann-Whitney|||6 weeks||||0.001
95774019|NCT02397122|191519879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||\<0.05|Mann-Whitney U|||6 months||||0.001
95774020|NCT02438826|191519883|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.17||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|-2.77|0.334
95774021|NCT02438826|191519884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.297||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.028||Cui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.028|0.830|0.170
95774022|NCT02438826|191519885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||Chui, Hung, Wang (CHW) procedure applied)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.946
95774023|NCT02438826|191519886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|2.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.309|0.987|0.057
95774024|NCT02438826|191519887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.141||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|2.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.314|0.563|0.713
95774025|NCT02438826|191519888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.856|0.548|0.979
95774026|NCT02438826|191519889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.788||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.440|0.431|0.437
95774027|NCT00474201|191519912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Students paired, two-tailed T-test||"Null hypothesis: lopinavir-ritonavir does not alter gemfibrozil pharmacokinetics.~A sample size of 13 healthy subjects yielded 81% power to detect a clinically relevant change of 30% in gemfibrozil AUC with concomitant lopinavir-ritonavir (alpha = 0.05; beta = 0.2). Gemfibrozil pharmacokinetic parameters derived pre- and post lopinavir-ritonavir exposure (Days 1 and 14, respectively) were compared using a paired Students t test."||||<0.0001
95774028|NCT00750139|191519915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The first primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The first primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H01: p1 ≤ p01 vs. H1: p1 \> p01 where p01 and p1 denote the proportions of complete cure in the placebo 2wks and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.010
95774029|NCT00750139|191519915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The second primary efficacy analyses will use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after stratification by pooled clinical site. The test will be conducted with the FAS at a one-sided level of significance of α = 0.025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The second primary efficacy hypotheses tests are:~H02: p2 ≤ P02 vs. H2: P2 \> p02 where p02 and p2 are denote proportions of complete cure in the placebo 4wks and Naftin 1% groups, respectively"||||0.001
95774030|NCT03085238|191519917|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.1309|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||0.1309
95774031|NCT03085238|191519918|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint will be analyzed using a unilateral one sample test for binomial proportion at the 5% level.||||||0.0181|||||||unilateral one sample test for binomial|||H0: M-Trap freedom MAE incidence \<= 90% - Non-inferiority margin (25%)||||.0181
95774032|NCT02784613|191519927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Differences in pre- and post-treatment scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-parametric matched pairs. All tests of significance were 2-tailed. All analyses were performed in Stata®, version 13.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95774033|NCT00174967|191519992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774034|NCT00174967|191519992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774035|NCT00174967|191519992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774036|NCT00174967|191519993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774037|NCT00174967|191519993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774038|NCT00174967|191519993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774039|NCT00174967|191519994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774040|NCT00174967|191519994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95954369|NCT02973477|191880388|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of EI ratio.||0.04|-0.02|0.58
95774041|NCT00174967|191519994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774042|NCT00174967|191519995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774043|NCT00174967|191519995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774044|NCT00174967|191519995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774045|NCT00174967|191519996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774046|NCT00174967|191519996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774047|NCT00174967|191519996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774048|NCT00174967|191519997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774049|NCT00174967|191519997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774050|NCT00174967|191519997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95954370|NCT02973477|191880388|OTHER||Coefficient|0.02||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for Valsalva ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||The outcome was logged in the model. The outcome was the natural log of that variable and the coefficient and CI are for the relationship with the log of the outcome.|This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of Valsalva ratio.||0.09|-0.05|0.58
96001958|NCT01663740|191981442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|45.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||45.3|-19.3|
96001959|NCT01663740|191981442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|43.3|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to end of FU|||43.3|-34.3|
95774051|NCT00174967|191519998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774052|NCT00174967|191519998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774053|NCT00174967|191519998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774054|NCT00174967|191519999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774055|NCT00174967|191519999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774056|NCT00174967|191519999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774057|NCT00174967|191520000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774058|NCT00174967|191520000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95854720|NCT03605667|191669239|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APOE status (carrier/non-carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.3|-0.6|0.4191
95774059|NCT00174967|191520000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774060|NCT00174967|191520001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774061|NCT00174967|191520001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774062|NCT00174967|191520001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons between placebo and each of the febuxostat treatment groups were performed using a t-test. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was made using Hochberg's procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95774063|NCT00653133|191520020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in reported complications associated with the placement of continuous peripheral nerve block catheters between ultrasound imaging guided placement and nerve stimulator guided placement.||||<0.05
95774064|NCT02730377|191520033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Test for no treatment difference is based on using a generalised log-rank test for interval censored failure time data.||||<.0001
95774065|NCT01669174|191520086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|106.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.64|107.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||107.58|104.64|<0.001
95774066|NCT01669174|191520086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|107.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.18|109.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||109.35|106.18|<0.001
95774067|NCT01669174|191520086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.31|111.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 16||111.00|106.31|<0.001
95774068|NCT01669174|191520086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|106.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.39|108.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 24||108.93|104.39|<0.001
95774069|NCT02991729|191520091|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority limit was 1 point on the questionnaire scale.||||||0.929||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.929
95996626|NCT01075178|191968416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.95|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||0.95||
95774070|NCT02991729|191520092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion but prior to genetic counseling (first row, second column in above table).||||0.369
95774071|NCT02991729|191520092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict in the routine care group (after counseling only) to the experimental group following decision aid completion and genetic counseling (second row, second column in above table).||||0.003
95774072|NCT02991729|191520092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Decisional conflict was measured in 2 separate time points in the experimental group - both prior to and following genetic counseling. This analysis compares decisional conflict pre-genetic counseling/post-decision aid to post-genetic counseling.||||0.003
95774073|NCT00537316|191520127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.032
95774074|NCT00526669|191520133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: TS|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
95774075|NCT00526669|191520133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||Biomarker: DPD|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.097
96001960|NCT01663740|191981442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|48.8|||||Change in normal to abnormal sperm density from Baseline to EOT|||48.8|-15.3|
95774076|NCT00526669|191520133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Biomarker: EGFR/HER1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
95774077|NCT00526669|191520133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||Biomarker: HER2|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
95774078|NCT00526669|191520133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||Biomarker: HER3|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.38
95774079|NCT00526669|191520134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|29.2|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response or partial response.|||29.2|9.6|
95774080|NCT00526669|191520135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.3|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who achieved progression-free survival.|||40.3|17.9|
95774081|NCT04259424|191520171|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
95774082|NCT01647516|191520206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|10.984|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||10.984|0.969|0.0482
95774083|NCT01647516|191520206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|8.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.661|0.722|0.1422
95774084|NCT01647516|191520207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.158||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|4.263|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.263|1.093|0.0207
95774085|NCT01647516|191520207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.947||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|3.946|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosing factor (anti-TNF) therapy experience, (yes or no).||||3.946|0.961|0.0648
95774086|NCT01647516|191520208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.0042
95774087|NCT01647516|191520208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1415|||||||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model, adjusting for baseline Mayo score and prior anti-TNF (yes or no).||||||0.1415
95774088|NCT01647516|191520209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.861||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.572|9.484|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||9.484|1.572|0.0023
95774089|NCT01647516|191520209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.647||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|6.621|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||6.621|1.058|0.0348
95996627|NCT01075178|191968417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|1.05|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.64|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||1.64||
95774090|NCT01647516|191520210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.332||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|14.186|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||14.186|1.323|0.0108
95774091|NCT01647516|191520210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.443||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.706|17.365|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||17.365|1.706|0.0021
95774092|NCT01647516|191520211|SUPERIORITY|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.871|8.678|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.678|1.871|0.0002
95774093|NCT01647516|191520211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.154||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|4.763|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||4.763|0.974|0.0571
95954371|NCT02973477|191880388|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome. Coefficient provided for 30:15 ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of 30:15 ratio.||0.03|-0.05|0.56
95954372|NCT02973477|191880389|OTHER||Coefficient|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.25||Adjusted analysis used a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance matrix controlled for possible period and sequence (carryover) effects for the outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the adjusted analysis for both periods, both arms, comparing each treatment's change of BNP.||0.25|-0.23|0.92
95954373|NCT00694564|191880391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation was calculated as this was a pilot study to determine such parameters.||||||0.004||95.0|||||MANOVA|||||||0.004
95954374|NCT02402465|191880393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Mean difference is related to albumin levels in nasal lavages: Unit= ng/ml|||||>0.05
95954375|NCT02402465|191880394|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately yielding alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.001
95954376|NCT02402465|191880394|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|24.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
96001961|NCT01663740|191981443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|42.5|||||Change in abnormal to abnormal sperm density from EOT to end of FU|||42.5|-34.5|
95774094|NCT01647516|191520212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.557||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.444|8.762|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.762|1.444|0.0046
96001962|NCT01663740|191981444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|33.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||33.7|-31.3|
96001963|NCT01663740|191981444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|44.4|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||44.4|-31.1|
95774095|NCT01647516|191520212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.428||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|8.494|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by prior anti-TNF therapy experience, (yes or no).||||8.494|1.384|0.0064
95774096|NCT00308087|191520221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6182||95.0||||"Exact Conditional Test is stratified on the number~\> of prior therapies (1 or 2, 3 or more prior therapies)."|2-sided Exact Conditional Test|||||||0.6182
95774097|NCT00308087|191520224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5501||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.5501
95774098|NCT00308087|191520225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8217||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank analysis is a comparison between treatment groups of the distribution of time to first progressive disease or death.||||0.8217
95774099|NCT02017912|191520241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5567||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.920|-1.321|0.7208
95774100|NCT02017912|191520242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.187|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.360|-2.187|0.6410
95774101|NCT00778869|191520244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student t-test|||||||<0.05
95774102|NCT02949843|191520250|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis is that each arm has equal rates of smoking history.||||0.6
95954377|NCT02402465|191880394|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95954378|NCT02402465|191880394|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|48.5||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95954379|NCT02402465|191880395|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.22||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha=0.05/3 since 3 days are compared|Friedman's Test|||We used Friedman test to compare the distribution of total nasal symptom scores among three treatment groups (Placebo, Fluticasone propionate, Dymista) in each of the three days (day 1, day 2, and day 3).||||0.07
95954380|NCT02402465|191880396|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|5.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.08
95954381|NCT02402465|191880398|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|6.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.04
95954382|NCT02402465|191880399|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||>0.05
95954383|NCT02402465|191880400|SUPERIORITY||Friedman's Q|0.33||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the fact that each day was tested separately, giving alpha=0.05/3.|Friedman's Test|||||||0.85
95774103|NCT02783729|191520251|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.773|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.889||Based on mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.889|0.672|= 0.0003
95774104|NCT02783729|191520251|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.832||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||||0.832|0.628|< 0.0001
95774105|NCT02783729|191520252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.61|8.54||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||8.54|5.61|< 0.0001
95774106|NCT02783729|191520252|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|9.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||||9.49|6.57|< 0.0001
95774107|NCT02783729|191520253|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.98|-17.95||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||||-17.95|-29.98|< 0.0001
95774108|NCT02783729|191520253|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-25.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.36|-19.34|||MMRM|||||-19.34|-31.36|< 0.0001
95774109|NCT02783729|191520254|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-6.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.298|=|0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-2.15|||MMRM|||||-2.15|-11.15|= 0.0038
95774110|NCT02783729|191520254|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|LSM Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.309|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|-3.47|||MMRM|||||-3.47|-12.53|= 0.0005
95774111|NCT02783729|191520255|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029|=|0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-1.72||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.72|-17.53|= 0.0171
95774112|NCT02783729|191520255|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-2.81||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline posture stability of body sway as a covariate.|MMRM|||Zolpidem Tartrate Extended Release 6.25 mg v Lemborexant 10 mg||-2.81|-18.67|= 0.008
95774113|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.874|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.981||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.981|0.78|= 0.0218
95774114|NCT02783729|191520256|OTHER||LSGM Ratio|0.818|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.917||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.917|0.729|= 0.0006
95774115|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.724||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.724|0.556|< 0.0001
95774116|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.677||Based on MMRM model with log transformation of LPS and factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.677|0.521|< 0.0001
95774117|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.544|=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-1.17||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-1.17|-11.15|= 0.0154
95854721|NCT03605667|191669241|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics are from an ANCOVA with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.2240
95774118|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|-10.05||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-10.05|-20.01|< 0.0001
95774119|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876|=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.08||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-2.08|-13.36|= 0.0073
95774120|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-3.45|||MMRM|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-3.45|-14.75|= 0.0016
95774121|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18|16.32||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.32|4.18|= 0.001
95774122|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|29.15||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||29.15|17.04|< 0.0001
95774123|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.63|26.2||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||26.2|12.63|< 0.0001
95774124|NCT02783729|191520256|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.32|30.88||Based on MMRM model with factors for age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||30.88|17.32|< 0.0001
95774125|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.898|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.977||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.977|0.825|= 0.0122
95774126|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.902||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.902|0.763|< 0.0001
95774127|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.882|||=|0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.978||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.978|0.796|= 0.0176
95774128|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.811|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.899||Based on MMRM model model with log transformation of sSOL and with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.732|< 0.0001
95774129|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484|=|0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.91||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||16.91|-0.68|= 0.0706
95774130|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.481|=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|2.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.98|-14.61|= 0.1949
95774131|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|24.73||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||24.73|4.16|= 0.0059
95774132|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.241|=|0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|15.65||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||15.65|-4.92|= 0.3064
96001964|NCT01663740|191981445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|29.3|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||29.3|-50.0|
95774133|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.325|=|0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|3.88||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.88|-17.02|= 0.2174
95774134|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.313|=|0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|19.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.31|-1.55|= 0.0949
95774135|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.207|=|0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.01|5.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.36|-19.01|= 0.2718
95854722|NCT03605667|191669242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0161
95774136|NCT02783729|191520257|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.206|=|0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|19.61||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.61|-4.75|= 0.2317
95774137|NCT02783729|191520258|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.71|-3.46|= 0.1963
95996628|NCT01075178|191968418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed with a 95% 1-sided confidence interval for which the upper bound of the difference in the event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS) will correspond to an odds ratio less than 2 (that is, the odds ratio calculated at the upper confidence bound of the difference in event rates will be less than 2).|Observed odds ratio|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.19|||exact binomial||"Result provided for 95% Confidence Interval (1-Sided) is the odds ratio calculated at the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates (CASES minus CONTROLS)."|The null hypothesis was that the odds ratio was greater than or equal to 2. The planned sample size of 2000 participants (1000 participants in each group) provided greater than 90% power to determine non-inferiority based on the odds ratio less than 2.||2.19||
95996629|NCT01053312|191968488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.688||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Contralateral to the biopsy Site||||0.098
95996630|NCT01053312|191968488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.482||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||Ipsilateral to the biopsy Site||||0.268
95996631|NCT01053312|191968488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The level of association between SUVR and the amyloid levels was analyzed using a regression model.|R²|0.685||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|||Composite Region||||0.099
95996632|NCT02620020|191968489|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.34||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.88|0.3876
95854723|NCT03373240|191669248|OTHER|Examining stop signal reaction time changed across the 4-week training period|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.06|-14.17|.003
95996633|NCT02620020|191968489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.32|0.0180
95996634|NCT02620020|191968489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.26|0.0288
95996635|NCT02620020|191968491|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.77||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-3.65|0.0028
95996636|NCT02620020|191968491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.54||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-3.36|0.0068
95996637|NCT02620020|191968491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.06||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.06|-3.88|0.0006
95996638|NCT02620020|191968492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.46|0.1501
95996639|NCT02620020|191968492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.41|0.2603
95996640|NCT02620020|191968492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.07||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.59|0.0135
95996641|NCT01021111|191968538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The values from the three jumps were averaged in order to have one mean value per subject per session. Paired Student t-tests (baseline vs. follow-up) were used to evaluate the effects of the training.||||<0.01
95774138|NCT02783729|191520258|SUPERIORITY|Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate|LSM Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|=|0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.78|||MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.78|-0.38|= 0.1093
95774139|NCT02783729|191520258|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|=|0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.92||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.92|-3.98|= 0.2196
95854724|NCT03373240|191669249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.184|||ANOVA|||||.184|-.333|.049
95996642|NCT01021111|191968539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Pearson|||The association between the change in the thigh coronal angular velocity from baseline to follow-up and the change in the knee abduction moment from baseline to follow-up was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), alpha =0.05||||<0.05
95996643|NCT01535235|191968540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95996644|NCT01535235|191968541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95774140|NCT02783729|191520258|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|=|0.4013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.49||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||3.49|-1.4|= 0.4013
95774141|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.85|||=|0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|0.961||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.961|0.752|= 0.0092
95774142|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.795|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|0.899||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline LPS as a covariate.|MMRM|||LPS: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.899|0.704|= 0.0002
95774143|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.71|-28.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-28.09|-38.71|< 0.0001
95774144|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-42.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-36.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-36.97|-47.57|< 0.0001
95774145|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-17.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-17.3|-26.01|< 0.0001
95854725|NCT03373240|191669250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.965|0.136|||ANOVA|||||.136|-3.965|.236
95774146|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-28.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.68|-23.98||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-23.98|-32.68|< 0.0001
95774147|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|44.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.59|50.51||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||50.51|37.59|< 0.0001
95774148|NCT02783729|191520259|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.46|63.34||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||63.34|50.46|< 0.0001
95774149|NCT02783729|191520260|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|10.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||10.31|7.7|< 0.0001
95774150|NCT02783729|191520260|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|12.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 1/2), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline SE as a covariate.|MMRM|||SE: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.9|10.3|< 0.0001
95774151|NCT02783729|191520261|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-16.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|-11.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-11.6|-21.23|< 0.0001
95774152|NCT02783729|191520261|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline WASO2H as a covariate.|MMRM|||WASO2H: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-12.96|-22.57|< 0.0001
96001965|NCT01663740|191981446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|2.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to EOT|||2.7|-59.7|
95860463|NCT03023813|191679482|OTHER|Receipt of colorectal cancer screening since the baseline encounter|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1000.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed regression with logit link|Result for intervention arm relative to control arm. Lower limit estimate was \<0.001 and upper limit estimate was \>1000 (ClinicalTrials.gov does not allow \< or \> to be entered into the confidence interval lower limit or upper limit fields).|Among participants whose individualized preventive care recommendations included colorectal cancer screening||1000|0.001|0.99
95954384|NCT01284634|191880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.35|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||2.56|-16.35|0.222
95954385|NCT01284634|191880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.943||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.66|0.95|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||0.95|-19.66|0.133
95954386|NCT01284634|191880401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.158||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.22|4.14|||Regression, Linear|||The EOT liver triglyceride levels were analyzed using a linear regression model, with EOT liver triglyceride levels as the dependent variable, dose of GWP42003 as regressor, baseline liver triglyceride levels as a covariate, and gender as a factor.||4.14|-17.22|0.302
95954387|NCT03807700|191880407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a fixed effect and Baseline overall score as a covariate.|Difference is experimental adhesive minus no adhesive.|||0.74|-1.56|0.4769
95954388|NCT02720081|191880421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.775||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.92|5.37|||ANOVA|Terms for treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||5.370|-14.92|0.352
95996645|NCT03303989|191968557|SUPERIORITY|Efficacy of MMF was examined by the proportion of responders in MMF+Peg compared to PBO+Peg. Rates of the primary outcome were compared using proportions and 95% confidence intervals and tested for differences using Fisher's exact test.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare baseline and clinical characteristics between treatment groups as appropriate.||||<0.01
95996646|NCT01658514|191968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|51.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.77|70.23||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||70.23|37.77|0.0011
95996647|NCT01658514|191968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|73.8||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|97.43||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||97.43|55.97|0.0733
95774153|NCT02783729|191520261|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|41.36||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||41.36|26.95|< 0.0001
95774154|NCT02783729|191520261|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|38.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.64|46.05||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 29/30), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, and the baseline TST as a covariate.|MMRM|||TST: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||46.05|31.64|< 0.0001
95774155|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.815|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.891||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.891|0.745|< 0.0001
95774156|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.753|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|0.823||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.823|0.689|< 0.0001
95774157|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|0.837||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.837|0.671|< 0.0001
95996648|NCT01658514|191968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.25|76.1||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||76.10|42.25|0.0028
95774158|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.689|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.769||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSOL as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.769|0.618|< 0.0001
95774159|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.764|=|0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|-3.06||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-3.06|-21.76|= 0.0093
95774160|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-26.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.762|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.68|-16.99||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-16.99|-35.68|< 0.0001
95774161|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.573|=|0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|-0.55||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.55|-22.42|= 0.0396
95774162|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-20.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-9.63||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sWASO as a covariate.|MMRM|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-9.63|-31.51|= 0.0002
95774163|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.619|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.03|30.08||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.08|8.03|= 0.0007
95774164|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|34.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.52||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baselines sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||45.52|23.5|< 0.0001
95774165|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|23.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|36.45||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||36.45|10.68|= 0.0003
95774166|NCT02783729|191520262|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|37.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.565|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|50.71||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sTST as a covariate.|MMRM|||sTST, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||50.71|24.94|< 0.0001
95854726|NCT03373240|191669251|OTHER|Examining whether percentage of risky choices decreased across the 4-wwek training period.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.08|-3.15|.039
95774167|NCT02783729|191520263|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||5.97|1.56|= 0.0008
95774168|NCT02783729|191520263|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|9.04||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (First 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.04|4.64|< 0.0001
95774169|NCT02783729|191520263|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.19||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.19|2.02|= 0.0005
95774170|NCT02783729|191520263|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.77||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Last 7 Nights), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline sSE as a covariate.|MMRM|||sSE, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.77|4.6|< 0.0001
95774171|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.41|||=|0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|7.04||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.04|-6.22|= 0.9028
95774172|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.49|||=|0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||9.18|-4.2|= 0.4699
95774173|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.58|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|11.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.31|-0.14|= 0.0566
95774174|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.57|||=|0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|13.44||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.44|1.71|= 0.0122
95774175|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.42|||=|0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.34||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.34|-2.5|= 0.2176
95774176|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.47|||=|0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|13.49||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||13.49|-0.55|= 0.0773
95774177|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.85|||=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|15.02||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.02|2.68|= 0.0054
95774178|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.89|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|17.17||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||LPS, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.17|4.61|= 0.0008
95774179|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|6.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.14||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||11.14|2.66|= 0.003
95774180|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.5|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|11.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.81|3.19|= 0.0016
95774181|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.22|||=|0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.01||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.01|-2.56|= 0.3643
95774182|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|2.82|||=|0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|7.66||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, First 7 nights: Zolpidem, Lemborexant 10 mg||7.66|-2.02|= 0.2553
95774183|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.69|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|15.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||15.4|3.98|= 0.0016
95774184|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.29|||=|0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.79||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.79|1.8|= 0.0128
95774185|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|8.16|||=|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|13.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.81|2.51|= 0.0051
95774186|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|5.76|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|11.18||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sSOL, Last 7nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||11.18|0.34|= 0.0389
95774187|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|34.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.46|42.06||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||42.06|26.46|< 0.0001
95774188|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|47.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.02|55.13||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||55.13|40.02|< 0.0001
95774189|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|4.89|||=|0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|13.28||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||13.28|-3.49|= 0.2534
95774190|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|18.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.4||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO: Days 1/2: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||26.4|10.1|< 0.0001
95854727|NCT03373240|191669252|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.13|-3.40|.035
95854728|NCT03373240|191669253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|3.12|<.001
95774191|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.06|30.35||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||30.35|14.06|< 0.0001
95774192|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.16|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||32.1|16.16|< 0.0001
95774193|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|9.59|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|17.81||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||17.81|1.36|= 0.023
95774194|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|11.43|||=|0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|19.48||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||WASO, Days 29/30: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||19.48|3.38|= 0.0058
95774195|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.3|||=|0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.33||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5||13.33|1.27|= 0.0222
95774196|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|10.84|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|17.11||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||17.11|4.57|= 0.0013
95774197|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.21|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.58||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||6.58|-6.17|= 0.9495
95774198|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|3.72|||=|0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|10.32||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO: First 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||10.32|-2.88|= 0.2708
95774199|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.91|||=|0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.96||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||14.96|0.86|= 0.0322
95774200|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|7.69|||=|0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.71||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.71|0.68|= 0.0363
95774201|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|0.05|||=|0.9885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.24||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||7.24|-7.14|= 0.9885
95774202|NCT02783729|191520264|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentage|-0.16|||=|0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|6.99||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||sWASO, Last 7 nights: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||6.99|-7.31|= 0.9651
95774203|NCT02783729|191520265|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.47||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||-0.47|-1.73|= 0.0006
95774204|NCT02783729|191520265|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.46||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||-0.46|-1.71|= 0.0007
95774205|NCT02783729|191520265|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.91|-0.28|= 0.2951
95774206|NCT02783729|191520265|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303|=|0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.92||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.92|-0.26|= 0.2744
95774207|NCT02783729|191520266|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063|=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.82||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||0.82|-3.35|= 0.2348
95774208|NCT02783729|191520266|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.067|=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.93||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline FSS as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.93|-3.26|= 0.2745
95774209|NCT02783729|191520266|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005|=|0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.6||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.6|-2.35|= 0.711
95774210|NCT02783729|191520266|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009|=|0.7854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.71||Based on ANCOVA model with factors of age group, region, treatment and the baseline ISI as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.71|-2.26|= 0.7854
95774211|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|30.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.505|=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|55.31||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||55.31|6.23|= 0.0141
95774212|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|39.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|64.29||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||64.29|15.05|= 0.0016
95774213|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.779|=|0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|3.9||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||3.9|-42.34|= 0.1031
95774214|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.813|=|0.3825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|12.86||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline POA as a covariate.|MMRM|||POA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||12.86|-33.5|= 0.3825
95854729|NCT03373240|191669254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|1.755|||ANOVA|||||1.755|.111|.008
95774215|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|28.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.626|=|0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.18|147.8||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||147.8|-90.18|= 0.6348
95774216|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.702|=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|169.97||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||169.97|-68.3|= 0.4026
95774217|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-203.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.171|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-315.56|-91.15||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||-91.15|-315.56|= 0.0004
95774218|NCT02783729|191520267|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-181.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.255|=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.71|-68.96||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline SOMT as a covariate.|MMRM|||SOMT: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||-68.96|-293.71|= 0.0016
95774219|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|=|0.9936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|8.09||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||8.09|-8.16|= 0.9936
95774220|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.154|=|0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.3||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||2.3|-14|= 0.1595
95774221|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.894|=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.38||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||20.38|5.09|= 0.0011
95774222|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|=|0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|14.6||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline QOM as a covariate.|MMRM|||QOM: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||14.6|-0.76|= 0.0774
95774223|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|=|0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.12||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 5 mg||1.12|-0.42|= 0.3726
95774224|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|=|0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Placebo, Lemborexant 10 mg||0.33|-1.22|= 0.2579
95954389|NCT02720081|191880422|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||14.3|-15.0|
95954390|NCT02720081|191880423|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.0|-12.1|
95774225|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.11||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 5 mg||2.11|0.66|= 0.0002
95774226|NCT02783729|191520268|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.32||Based on MMRM model with factors of age group, region, treatment, visit (Days 2/3), and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline COA as a covariate.|MMRM|||COA: Zolpidem ER, Lemborexant 10 mg||1.32|-0.14|= 0.112
95774227|NCT05831644|191520269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.037|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint (RHI score) was compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment and period as fixed effects and subjects as random effect.||0.037|-0.285|0.1925
95774228|NCT05831644|191520270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.392|1.513|||ANOVA|||The secondary pharmacodynamic endpoint (AI) was analysed using a similar ANOVA model as for the primary endpoint.||1.513|-11.392|0.1941
95774229|NCT01500187|191520271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.636|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at baseline||||0.636
95774230|NCT01500187|191520271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at three months||||0.001
95774231|NCT01500187|191520271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.423|||||||ANOVA|||Null Hypothesis: there is no intergroup difference (α=0.05) in DIAGNOdent reading at six months||||0.423
95774232|NCT00977314|191520288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The endpoint was the calculated difference between the HINT result for the unaided condition prior to the 30-day trial period (Day 1) and the HINT result using the SoundBite (aided) at the end of the 30-day trial period (Day 30).||||<0.001
95774233|NCT00288600|191520302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Need of Exchange transfusion following the AAP criteria||||0.765
95774234|NCT03600194|191520332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Design\*Therapy interaction term||||||.019
95774235|NCT04257032|191520338|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|113.35|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 9.9|Relative bioavailability||113.35|97.94|
95774236|NCT04257032|191520339|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|114.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.22|125.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 14.0|Relative bioavailability||125.81|104.22|
95774237|NCT04257032|191520340|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.26|116.73|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.3|Relative bioavailability||116.73|100.26|
95774238|NCT04257032|191520341|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|118.76|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 12.9|Relative bioavailability||118.76|99.84|
95774239|NCT04257032|191520342|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|104.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.34|112.23|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 10.6|Relative bioavailability||112.23|97.34|
95774240|NCT04257032|191520343|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (T/R) %|108.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.37|117.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, considering the effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random.|Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV %) = 11.5|Relative bioavailability||117.12|100.37|
95774241|NCT00586820|191520362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95774242|NCT00586820|191520363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 8 hours post PCI.||||0.019
95774243|NCT00586820|191520363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change between the groups from immediate pre-PCI and 16 hours post-PCI.||||0.007
95774244|NCT00688662|191520375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.3||The primary analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the factor of interest and clinical center and PSH status as covariates. A Wald test using a two-tailed significance level of 0.0499 was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted and unadjusted risk differences with two-sided 95% confidence intervals are reported in the manuscript.|The unadjusted risk difference and confidence interval was -14.3% (-27.3%, -1.2%).|The trial was designed to test for an overall absolute difference of at least 30% in the primary outcome ('success') in patients treated with sphincterotomy compared to those treated with sham. Using a 2:1 allocation, an assumed 10% non-adherence rate, and one interim analysis for efficacy using O'Brien and Fleming boundaries and futility using conditional power, the study required 214 patients to be randomized to ensure greater than 90% likelihood of identifying this difference.||-3.3|-28.0|0.01
95774245|NCT00688662|191520376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|5.9||A confidence interval approach was used for examining this outcome.||||Only patients with abnormal manometry were included in this subgroup analysis.||5.9|-24.1|
95854730|NCT03373240|191669255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.077|TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.177|0.214|||ANOVA|||||.214|-.177|.077
95774246|NCT04463251|191520379|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
95774247|NCT04463251|191520379|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.37|
95774248|NCT04463251|191520380|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.87|0.34|
95774249|NCT04463251|191520380|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.95|0.37|
95774250|NCT04463251|191520381|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
95774251|NCT04463251|191520381|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
95954391|NCT02720081|191880445|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.107||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.199|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, number of C alleles at the pre-specified SNP, and prior inhaled corticosteroid use.||||0.199|0.015|0.023
95954392|NCT02236598|191880449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5582|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5582
95774252|NCT04463251|191520382|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.91|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation"|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.91|0.34|
95854731|NCT03373240|191669256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.822|2.895|||ANOVA|||||2.895|-4.822|.547
95854732|NCT03373240|191669257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|0.742|||ANOVA|||||.742|-1.805|.436
95854733|NCT02867436|191669258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|205.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.0|633.0|||Regression, Linear|||||633|-223|<0.05
95774253|NCT04463251|191520382|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.98|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~* Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~* Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-14) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.98|0.38|
95774254|NCT04463251|191520383|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.81||||||"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."|"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|0.81|0.34|
95774255|NCT04463251|191520383|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.74|0.31|
95774256|NCT04463251|191520384|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 80 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.29|
95954393|NCT02236598|191880450|SUPERIORITY|Change in Fasting Glucose||||||0.0963|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
95954394|NCT02236598|191880450|SUPERIORITY|Change in 1-hour Glucose||||||0.6671|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6671
95996649|NCT01658514|191968558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|52.4||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.61|73.02||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||73.02|37.61|0.0025
95774257|NCT04463251|191520384|OTHER||Least square means ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.75|||||"Least square means ratio with two-sided Dunnett's adjusted 95% CI for RPH-104 160 mg / Placebo.~Ratio was calculated instead of difference because log data transformation."|"The following (two-sided) hypotheses were tested:~Null hypothesis H0: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis H1: the ratio of the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in RPH-104 group to the geometric mean of hsCRP-AUC(days 1-28) in the placebo group is different from 1."||0.75|0.30|
95774258|NCT03425396|191520436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.6|-16.8|
95774259|NCT03425396|191520436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-27.4|
95774260|NCT03425396|191520436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|7.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.4|-19.6|
95774261|NCT03425396|191520436|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
95954395|NCT02236598|191880450|SUPERIORITY|Change in 2-hour Glucose||||||0.7913|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7913
95954396|NCT02236598|191880451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5294|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5294
95954397|NCT02236598|191880452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1604
95954398|NCT04879823|191880453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores before medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.03
95954399|NCT04879823|191880454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care (at least 1 time) post-operatively between dexamethasone and placebo groups.||||0.07
96001966|NCT01663740|191981446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|47.7|||||Improvement from Baseline to end of FU|||47.7|-29.7|
95860464|NCT04758637|191679511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.59||The calculated p-value is 7.62E-10.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated mean pill counts from the last week of baseline (week 26) to the last week of the intervention period (week 53) between control and non-fatal is 0.||13.59|2.4|0
95774262|NCT03425396|191520437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.2|-14.3|
95774263|NCT03425396|191520437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|9.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.0|-16.8|
95774264|NCT03425396|191520437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.3|-12.3|
95774265|NCT03425396|191520437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
95954400|NCT04879823|191880455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: Average pain scores after medication will not be lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group.||||0.98
95774266|NCT03425396|191520438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|16.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||16.8|-22.5|
95774267|NCT03425396|191520438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|14.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.2|-23.3|
95774268|NCT03425396|191520438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||22.6|-13.0|
95774269|NCT03425396|191520438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
95774270|NCT03425396|191520439|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|13.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.4|-10.0|
95774271|NCT03425396|191520439|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||9.7|-16.2|
95774272|NCT03425396|191520439|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|18.5|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||18.5|-0.3|
95774273|NCT03425396|191520439|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatm,ent difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.6|-34.9|
95774274|NCT03425396|191520440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|12.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.6|-12.6|
95774275|NCT03425396|191520440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|10.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||10.2|-16.3|
95774276|NCT03425396|191520440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|17.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||17.7|-4.5|
95954401|NCT03303521|191880497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|68.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|2810.85|||Fisher Exact|||||2810.85|10.85|<0.001
95774277|NCT03425396|191520440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
95774278|NCT03425396|191520441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.3|-27.3|
95774279|NCT03425396|191520441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||8.6|-29.2|
95774280|NCT03425396|191520441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.2|-19.0|
95774281|NCT03425396|191520441|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||28.9|-40.4|
95774282|NCT03425396|191520442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-18.6|
95774283|NCT03425396|191520442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-0.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-0.6|-29.6|
95774284|NCT03425396|191520442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|4.4|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.4|-23.2|
95774285|NCT03425396|191520442|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-44.1|
95774286|NCT03425396|191520443|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|12.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||12.7|-13.1|
95774287|NCT03425396|191520443|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.8|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||7.8|-20.7|
95774288|NCT03425396|191520443|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|11.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||11.6|-15.1|
95774289|NCT03425396|191520443|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|20.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||20.7|-35.3|
95774290|NCT03425396|191520444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|13.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||13.3|-27.3|
95774291|NCT03425396|191520444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||5.9|-32.4|
95774292|NCT03425396|191520444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|15.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||15.6|-25.7|
95774293|NCT03425396|191520444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|28.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated|||28.9|-40.4|
95774294|NCT03425396|191520445|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-1.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-1.0|-44.1|
95774295|NCT03425396|191520445|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|4.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||4.9|-32.2|
95774296|NCT03425396|191520445|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|1.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.1|-43.1|
95774297|NCT03425396|191520445|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||23.2|-43.8|
95774298|NCT03425396|191520446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|3.1|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||3.1|-37.2|
95774299|NCT03425396|191520446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|1.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||1.2|-34.3|
95854734|NCT02867436|191669259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.6|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.6|-14.1|<0.05
95854735|NCT02867436|191669260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||||0.01|-0.31|<0.05
95854736|NCT02867436|191669261|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95774300|NCT03425396|191520446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.3|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||-4.3|-46.9|
95774301|NCT03425396|191520446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|19.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||19.7|-48.5|
95774302|NCT03425396|191520447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|6.0|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||6.0|-45.1|
95774303|NCT03425396|191520447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||5.9|-40.2|
95774304|NCT03425396|191520447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|14.7|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.7|-36.8|
95774305|NCT03425396|191520447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|33.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||33.2|-47.0|
95774306|NCT03425396|191520448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|13.2|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||13.2|-40.4|
95774307|NCT03425396|191520448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|14.6|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.6|-32.7|
95774308|NCT03425396|191520448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||14.9|-38.2|
95854737|NCT02867436|191669262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||After Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95774309|NCT03425396|191520448|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin for comparison of the doses was set at 10%.|Treatment difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|30.9|||||Point estimate and exact 95% confidence intervals for difference from nitrofurantoin (omadacycline minus nitrofurantoin) in clinical success rate was estimated.|||30.9|-50.3|
95774310|NCT03689374|191520458|NON_INFERIORITY|The responses were analyzed using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline value as a covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomized treatment, using a regression model including randomized treatment group and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates. The prespecified non inferiority margin was 0.3%-point.|Treatment difference|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.2|||t-distributed test|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test.||||-0.20|-0.38|<0.0001
95774311|NCT00986921|191520494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||t-test, 1 sided|Data was not distributed normally. After log transformation, the log values were distributed normally.||||3|0|0.05
95774312|NCT00986921|191520495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A threshold value of p of 0.05 was considered significant.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would vary, with a p values of less than 0.05.||||0.49
95954402|NCT03303521|191880499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|309.48|||Fisher Exact|||||309.48|8.53|<0.001
95860465|NCT04758637|191679511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.14|-6.97||The calculated p-value is 2E-16.|Zero-inflated Poisson mixed regression|Model estimates were used to derive estimated difference in difference value. Confidence intervals were bootstrapped using 1000 repetitions.||Null hypothesis is the difference in difference in estimated means from the study start (week 0) to the study end (week 23) between control and fatal is 0.||-6.97|-25.14|0
95774313|NCT00986921|191520496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95774314|NCT01082211|191520504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Assuming a 3-year rate of 25% using a chi-squared test, a sample size of 55 patients will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a reduction in the 3-year ipsilateral in-breast recurrence rate from 25% to 9%, with a significance level of 0.05 (1-sided). In-breast recurrence will be estimated using the cumulative incidence method.||||0.0002
95774315|NCT01082211|191520512|OTHER||Effect size|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
95774316|NCT01082211|191520512|OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
95774317|NCT01082211|191520512|OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
95774318|NCT01082211|191520513|OTHER||Effect size|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Functional status||||
95774319|NCT01082211|191520513|OTHER||Effect size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Cosmetic||||
95774320|NCT01082211|191520513|OTHER||Effect size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect sizes are interpreted as negligible: \< 0.3; small: 0.3 to \< 0.5; moderate: 0.5 to \< 0.7; and large ≥ 0.7|Breast-specific pain||||
95774321|NCT01082211|191520515|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.054
95774322|NCT01082211|191520515|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.044
95774323|NCT01082211|191520515|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Spearman rank-order correlation test|||||||0.087
95774324|NCT03917472|191520522|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided)|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANOVA|||||2.9|-0.6|0.099
95774325|NCT03917472|191520522|NON_INFERIORITY|(4-letter margin) (1-sided)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95774326|NCT03917472|191520523|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided); Week 52|LS mean difference|-41.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-23.8|||ANOVA|||||-23.8|-58.9|<0.001
95774327|NCT03917472|191520524|SUPERIORITY|(1-sided) Week 52|Difference - %|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||||28.6|12.5|<0.001
95774328|NCT03917472|191520531|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 5 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|1.7|
95774329|NCT03917472|191520531|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.0|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 10 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||17.0|-1.5|
95774330|NCT03917472|191520531|OTHER|Descriptive|Difference - %|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.3|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||≥ 15 letters gain from baseline or BCVA ≥ 84 letters at Week 52||14.3|-2.7|
95774331|NCT03917472|191520532|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.5|0.2|
95774332|NCT03917472|191520532|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.9|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||14.9|-3.0|
95774333|NCT03917472|191520532|NON_INFERIORITY|(10% margin); week 52|Difference - %|6.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|16.1||(10% margin) (1-sided)|Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||16.1|-3.9|0.002
95774334|NCT03917472|191520533|OTHER|descriptive; week 12|Difference - %|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.6|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||6.6|-2.5|
95954403|NCT04086576|191880511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Yes, used Tukey Kramer pairwise comparisons to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA in repeated measures||Each breathalyzer is compared to the percentage of alcohol in the blood during the time of blood draw (90 minutes).||||<.0001
95954404|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.046|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Chills||0.083|0.046|<.0001
95996650|NCT01658514|191968559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|65.5||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.32|92.68||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Normal Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||92.68|46.32|0.0474
95774335|NCT03917472|191520533|OTHER|descriptive; week 24|Difference - %|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.7|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||7.7|-3.0|
95774336|NCT03917472|191520533|OTHER|descriptive; week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||||9.8|-2.0|
95774337|NCT01154296|191520537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted risk ratio (aRR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||A total of 2039/2505 participants randomized to the counseling group and 2032/2507 to the information-only group had complete follow-up STI data. Cumulative STI incidence was 250/2039 (12.3%) in the counseling group and 226/2032 (11.1%) in the information-only group (aRR, 1.12; 95%CI, 0.94-1.33).||1.33|0.94|
95954405|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.281|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough||0.341|0.221|<.0001
95954406|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.023|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||0.048|0.023|<.0001
95954407|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.069|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty breathing||0.156|0.069|<.0001
95954408|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.206|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.312|0.206|<.0001
95954409|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.029|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever||0.037|0.020|<.0001
95954410|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.194|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.148|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Headache||0.241|0.148|<.0001
95954411|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.103||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Loss of taste or smell||0.148|0.059|0.0002
95860466|NCT04758637|191679512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|-0.43|0.219
95860467|NCT04758637|191679512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.46|-1.9|0.229
95954412|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.137|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Muscle pain||0.226|0.137|<.0001
95954413|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.028|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea||0.060|0.028|<.0001
95954414|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rigors||0.044|0.016|0.0007
95954415|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.123|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Runny nose||0.195|0.123|<.0001
95954416|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.168|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sore throat||0.277|0.168|<.0001
95954417|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.264|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stuffy/blocked nose||0.411|0.264|<.0001
95954418|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.005||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vomiting||0.007|0.002|0.0053
95954419|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|0.049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Wheezing||0.078|0.020|0.0057
95954420|NCT04748445|191880513|OTHER||Slope|2.644|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.101|3.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean of daily total symptom score||3.188|2.101|<.0001
95954421|NCT04748445|191880514|OTHER||Slope|-1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.978|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AHH\_Max Phonation Time (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.060|-1.978|<.0001
95954422|NCT04748445|191880514|OTHER||Slope|6.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-8).||||<.0001
95954423|NCT04748445|191880514|OTHER||Slope|-1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local Absolute (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-7).||||<.0001
95954424|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.079|1.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||1.814|-2.079|0.9103
95996651|NCT01658514|191968559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|77.3||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.72|105.41||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Mild RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||105.41|56.72|0.1691
95774338|NCT01154296|191520538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.09|0.90|
95774339|NCT01154296|191520539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.13|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.13|0.86|
95774340|NCT01154296|191520540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||0.94|0.82|
95774341|NCT01154296|191520541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented IRR, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The adjusted IRRs reported are based on multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Analyses of sexual risk behaviors used zero-inflated negative binomial regressions (ZINB) including treatment group, baseline level of the risk behavior, site, and randomization stratum. (ZINB regression was used instead of ANCOVA because the outcome variable had an excessive number of zeroes and over dispersion.) Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) from the models are presented.||1.05|0.90|
95954425|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.007667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02119|0.03653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03653|-0.02119|0.6605
95954426|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8012|1.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.736|0.8012|<.0001
95954427|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.752|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.276|1.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.773|-5.276|0.4117
96001967|NCT01663740|191981447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|27.9|||||Improvement from EOT to end of FU|||27.9|-47.2|
95774342|NCT01154296|191520542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Risk Ratio (aRR)|1.14||||||95.0|0.89|1.46||In the statistical tests of all hypotheses and calculation of the presented risk ratios, we used multiple imputations of data sets with all 5012 cases. The aRRs reported are based on the multiply imputed data. Counts are based on the observed data.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.46|0.89|
95774343|NCT04934189|191520553|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.295|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.184||0.08|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.08
95774344|NCT04934189|191520554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.417|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up mean) was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.005
95954428|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.2728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.012|3.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.482|-7.012|0.2728
95954429|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.194||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||5.724|-3.385|0.2411
95774345|NCT04934189|191520556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||0.40
95774346|NCT04934189|191520557|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month follow-up) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.49
95954430|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.004466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.869||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1514|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1425|-0.1514|0.9599
95774347|NCT04934189|191520559|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.21
95774348|NCT04934189|191520560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.47
95954431|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.1572|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.127||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3084|-0.005942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.005942|-0.3084|0.0875
95954432|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.598||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.072|2.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2 and for lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.507|-1.072|0.1029
95774349|NCT04934189|191520562|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.16
95774350|NCT04934189|191520563|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0481|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.926||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
95774351|NCT04934189|191520565|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.73||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.35
95774352|NCT04934189|191520566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.335|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.17
95774353|NCT04934189|191520570|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.18||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
95774354|NCT04934189|191520570|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.29||||0.1|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p \<.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.10
95774355|NCT04934189|191520570|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.17||||0.43|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.43
95774356|NCT04934189|191520570|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.68||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.25
95774357|NCT04934189|191520570|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.36||||0.36|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.36
95774358|NCT04934189|191520570|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.09||||0.47|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.47
95774359|NCT04934189|191520571|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for gender nonaffirmation was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|3.76|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided||||"A series of one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean for each of the five gender minority stress subscales measured. See below for T-scores and associated p-values for each statistical test.~Nonaffirmation (t = 3.76; p = .001) Internalized Transphobia (t = 2.01; p = .02) Negative Expectations (t = 2.06; p =.02) Community Connection (t = -0.82; p =.21) Pride (t = .01; p = .50 )"|||<.001
95774360|NCT04934189|191520571|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for internalized transphobia was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.01||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
95954433|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.218||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|1.423|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.423|-2.250|0.1468
95774361|NCT04934189|191520571|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for identity nondisclosure was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|1.61||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.06
95774362|NCT04934189|191520571|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for negative expectations was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|2.06||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
95774363|NCT04934189|191520571|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for community connection was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|-0.818||||0.21|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.21
95954434|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.05944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04887|0.1678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1678|-0.04887|0.3649
95774364|NCT04934189|191520571|OTHER|A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month followup) mean for pride was statistically different from the baseline mean.|t-test|0.009||||0.5|ONE_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.50
95774365|NCT04934189|191520574|OTHER||Chi-squared|5.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05|Chi-squared|||For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting freedom from sexual victimization over a 6 month time period||||.04
95774366|NCT04934189|191520574|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting any exposure to nonpenetrative sexual assault over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.21||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.55
95774367|NCT04934189|191520574|OTHER|For this categorical data, chi-square tests of independence were performed to compare post-treatment (i.e., 3 month followup) vs 6 month followup numbers of participants reporting exposure to rape over a 6 month time period|Chi-squared|0.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|Chi-squared|||||||.59
95774368|NCT04934189|191520576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 3-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.38
95774369|NCT04934189|191520577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.25|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A one-tailed paired samples T-test was conducted to determine whether the post-treatment (i.e., 6-month) mean was statistically different from the baseline mean.||||.25
95774370|NCT03320850|191520590|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.35|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.35|-0.15|0.0845
95774371|NCT03320850|191520590|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.08|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||3.08|0.59|0.0041
95774372|NCT03320850|191520590|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.632||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.44|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.44|-0.05|0.0600
95774373|NCT03320850|191520590|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.11|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between each (BOTOX® and Hydrogel admixture group) and (placebo and Hydrogel admixture) in the mean change from Baseline in daily average number of UIEs at Week 12.||2.11|-0.37|0.1702
95774374|NCT03320850|191520592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.95|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.95|-0.48|0.2361
95774375|NCT03320850|191520592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.98|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.98|-0.41|0.1985
95774376|NCT03320850|191520592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.84|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.84|-0.56|0.2923
95996652|NCT01658514|191968559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|56.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.73|78.63||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Moderate RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||78.63|40.73|0.0064
95774377|NCT03320850|191520592|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.74|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||1.74|-0.66|0.3769
95774378|NCT03320850|191520593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.107||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.87|18.77|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||18.77|-32.87|0.5911
96001968|NCT03625986|191981472|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.68||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
95954435|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.03115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.007||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1307|0.06839|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06839|-0.1307|0.6050
95996653|NCT01658514|191968559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|54.6||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.68|79.11||p-values \<0.10 are considered statistically significant|ANOVA|Included treatment, renal group, sequence, period and treatment\*renal group as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||For the Severe RI Renal Function Cohort. Met XR is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||79.11|37.68|0.0097
95774379|NCT03320850|191520593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.956||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.52|17.52|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||17.52|-33.52|0.5375
95774380|NCT03320850|191520593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.764||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.47|23.81|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||23.81|-26.47|0.9173
95774381|NCT03320850|191520593|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.981||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|34.9|||ANCOVA||Least square estimates and contrast t-test were used to compare specified treatment groups and were based on ANCOVA model with Baseline value as covariate and treatment group, sex (male, female) as factors.|||34.90|-16.24|0.4730
95808779|NCT03089983|191590462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95954436|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.01908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1174|0.07922|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.07922|-0.1174|0.7483
95954437|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-6.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.105||0.9897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.526|8.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||8.394|-8.526|0.9897
95996654|NCT01658514|191968560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9444|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for Placebo-adjusted Change from Pre-dose Value in Lactate Versus Metformin Concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||0.9444
95774382|NCT02002533|191520609|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||exact binomial test|The percentage is greater than or equal to 40%.||||||>0.9999
95774383|NCT02002533|191520610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||exact binomial test|||||||0.7350
95774384|NCT02002533|191520611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0845|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95954438|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|5.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.176||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.074|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||9.080|-8.074|0.9228
95954439|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.08365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.873||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03604|0.1313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1313|0.03604|0.0043
95996655|NCT01658514|191968560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||R² for placebo-adjusted change from pre-dose value in lactate versus metformin concentration|Pearson Correlation|||||||<0.0001
95996656|NCT04996797|191968565|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.5|11.8|<.0001
95774385|NCT02002533|191520612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.1808
95774386|NCT02002533|191520613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is BBT minus HEAL.|||||0.14
95774387|NCT02002533|191520614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|For baseline of 0.7.||||||0.005
95774388|NCT02002533|191520614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline 1.3.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
95774389|NCT02002533|191520614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.556|TWO_SIDED|||||At baseline of 1.5.|ANCOVA|||||||0.556
95774390|NCT02002533|191520614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Grouped by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA||The estimated value is grouped by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.007
95774391|NCT02002533|191520615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.000
95774392|NCT02002533|191520616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.295
95774393|NCT02002533|191520617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.573
95954440|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.02906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009486|0.04863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.04863|0.009486|0.0153
95774394|NCT02002533|191520618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.015
95774395|NCT02002533|191520618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.094
95774396|NCT02002533|191520618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.326||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Group difference (BBT - HEAL) in mean post-pre change.|||||0.114
96001969|NCT03625986|191981473|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8103
95774397|NCT02002533|191520618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||This is an arm by baseline interaction parameter.|||||0.027
95774398|NCT03408444|191520652|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.020|-0.106|
95774399|NCT03408444|191520652|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.013|-0.100|
95774400|NCT03408444|191520652|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted upper confidence limit is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 0.08 mm difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||-0.062|-0.149|
95774401|NCT03408444|191520653|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.21|-0.04|
95774402|NCT03408444|191520653|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.25|-0.01|
95774403|NCT03408444|191520653|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is established if the adjusted lower confidence limit is above 0.|Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 160 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion among the four arms would have at least 79% power to detect a 0.20 D difference in mean axial elongation at the 6-month follow-up. The power analysis was conducted controlling 2-sided type I error of 0.05.||0.35|0.09|
95954441|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.563|6.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.357|1.563|0.0071
95954442|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|2.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|4.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.516|1.115|0.0070
95954443|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.007814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.4513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009323|0.02495|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02495|-0.009323|0.4513
95954444|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.443||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.483|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.550|-2.483|0.1753
95774404|NCT02031640|191520664|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||ANCOVA|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
95774405|NCT02031640|191520664|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.045||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.106|||ANCOVA|||||0.106|-0.015|0.1415
95774406|NCT02031640|191520664|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.015||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.075|0.6356
95954445|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|2.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.228||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion it was 10\^-3).||3.891|1.164|0.0026
95954446|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.01755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.204||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.005616|0.02949|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02949|0.005616|0.0162
95954447|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|2.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.697|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.650|1.697|<.0001
95774407|NCT02031640|191520664|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.04||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.02|0.1932
95774408|NCT02031640|191520665|OTHER|The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction.|LSM Difference|10.616||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.489|17.744|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.744|3.489|0.0036
95774409|NCT02031640|191520665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.419||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.309|15.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||15.53|1.309|0.0204
95774410|NCT02031640|191520665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.004||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.121|13.129|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||13.129|-1.121|0.0984
95774411|NCT02031640|191520665|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|12.512||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.435|19.589|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning (pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily trough morning PEF, sex, age, treatment, time, and time-by-treatment interaction||19.589|5.435|0.0006
95774412|NCT02031640|191520666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.147||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|16.429|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.429|1.866|0.0139
95774413|NCT02031640|191520666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|9.17||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.914|16.425|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||16.425|1.914|0.0133
95774414|NCT02031640|191520666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.088||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.191|11.367|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||11.367|-3.191|0.2704
95954448|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.01394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.642||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004595|0.02329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02329|0.004595|0.0148
95954449|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.01547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.666||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004425|0.02652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02652|0.004425|0.0219
95954450|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.122||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.032|2.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.132|1.032|0.0703
95954451|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.0116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.226||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00294|0.02026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02026|0.002940|0.0282
95954452|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.04771|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.351||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007823|0.1032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1032|-0.007823|0.1570
95954453|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.0008053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008199|0.002431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002431|-0.0008199|0.4131
95954454|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.03945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.892||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0708|-0.008096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008096|-0.07080|0.0391
95954455|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.07075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.409||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2101|0.0686|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06860|-0.2101|0.4018
95954456|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.319|7.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.635|-4.319|0.6466
95954457|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.423||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.186|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Cepstral Peak Prominence (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||3.530|-1.186|0.4118
95954458|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.965||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.385|3.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Harmonicity (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||3.129|-3.385|0.9481
95954459|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.9159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4783|1.354|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.354|0.4783|0.0007
95954460|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.894||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.319|9.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For upper limit it was 10\^-2).||9.585|-5.319|0.2519
95954461|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.166|3.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-2).||3.524|1.166|0.0791
95954462|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.2064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.474||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3468|-0.06599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.06599|-0.3468|0.0163
96001970|NCT03625986|191981474|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0105
95774415|NCT02031640|191520666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|10.301||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.073|17.53|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||17.53|3.073|0.0053
95774416|NCT02031640|191520667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|-0.363|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.363|-1.044|<0.0001
95774417|NCT02031640|191520667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.352|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.352|-1.029|<0.0001
95774418|NCT02031640|191520667|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.651||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|-0.309|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.309|-0.994|0.0002
95774419|NCT02031640|191520667|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.138|-0.464|||Mixed Model for repeated measures|||||-0.464|-1.138|<0.0001
95774420|NCT02031640|191520668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.033|-0.265|0.0119
95954463|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.867|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1).||3.375|-2.867|0.1932
95774421|NCT02031640|191520668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.217|0.0854
95774422|NCT02031640|191520668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|-0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.072|-0.306|0.0016
95774423|NCT02031640|191520668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.101|-0.332|0.0003
95954464|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.02851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1365|0.1936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1936|-0.1365|0.7752
95954465|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.569||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For lower limit it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||2.464|-4.480|0.1126
95954466|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.2215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.498||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3624|-0.08072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.08072|-0.3624|0.0102
96001971|NCT03625986|191981475|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2415.93||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0182
95774424|NCT02091375|191520671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.79||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.06|-5.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach.|||-5.43|-41.06|0.0123
95774425|NCT02091375|191520672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (2-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-18 years).||||4.30|0.93|0.0784
95774426|NCT03834974|191520765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in intent to tan outdoors 10 or more times in the next year.||||<0.0286
95774427|NCT03834974|191520765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in change in in intent to tan later in life.||||0.0937
95774428|NCT03834974|191520769|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in tanning outside at follow-up||||<0.0002
95774429|NCT01683266|191520778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.185||||||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; baseline HbA1c and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.185|-0.098|
95774430|NCT01683266|191520781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.287||||||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using MMRM model with treatment groups, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), geographical region (Non-Japan; Japan), visit and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects; pre-injection SMPG value and pre-injection SMPG value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.287|-0.982|
95774431|NCT00823043|191520795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95774432|NCT00823043|191520796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
95774433|NCT00823043|191520797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95774434|NCT00823043|191520798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95954467|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.0556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.072||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06159|0.1728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1728|-0.06159|0.4332
95954468|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.01214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09044|0.1147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1147|-0.09044|0.8448
95954469|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.1106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.852||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|-0.03016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03016|-0.1910|0.0244
95954470|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.04884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.827||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1288|0.03115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03115|-0.1288|0.3136
95774435|NCT01981954|191520819|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 MCC Analysis||||<0.001
95774436|NCT01981954|191520821|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline=0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.003
95774437|NCT01981954|191520822|OTHER|||||||0.744||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.744
95774438|NCT01981954|191520823|OTHER|||||||0.352||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.352
95774439|NCT01981954|191520824|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
95774440|NCT01981954|191520825|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.177
95774441|NCT01981954|191520826|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analyis||||0.025
95774442|NCT01981954|191520827|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.050
95774443|NCT01981954|191520828|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.567
95774444|NCT01981954|191520829|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
95774445|NCT01981954|191520830|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||<0.001
95774446|NCT01981954|191520831|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.004
95774447|NCT01981954|191520832|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
95774448|NCT01981954|191520833|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.001
95774449|NCT01981954|191520850|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.688
95774450|NCT01981954|191520851|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.610
95774451|NCT01981954|191520852|OTHER|||||||0.562||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.562
95774452|NCT01981954|191520853|OTHER|||||||0.657||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.657
95774453|NCT01981954|191520854|OTHER|||||||0.631||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.631
95774454|NCT01981954|191520855|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.410
95774455|NCT01981954|191520856|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.940
95774456|NCT01981954|191520857|OTHER|||||||1||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||1.000
95774457|NCT01981954|191520858|OTHER|||||||0.575||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.575
95774458|NCT01981954|191520859|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.031
95774459|NCT01981954|191520860|OTHER|||||||0.721||||||From a 2-sided one sample t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline = 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24 Analysis||||0.721
95774460|NCT03330262|191520875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95774461|NCT03330262|191520876|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95774462|NCT03330262|191520876|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.869
95774463|NCT03330262|191520877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.448
95774464|NCT03330262|191520878|OTHER|This test evaluated whether the change in ABC was significant for the BALCAP condition##. Ho: mean = 0||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
95774465|NCT03330262|191520878|OTHER|This test evaluated if the change in ABC score was significant for the control group.||||||0.796|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
95774466|NCT03330262|191520879|OTHER|Ho: Mean change in score = 0||||||0.189|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
95774467|NCT03330262|191520879|OTHER|Ho: mean change = 0||||||0.713|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.713
95996657|NCT04996797|191968568|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
95774468|NCT01730534|191520880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.172||95.0|0.84|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.84|0.172
95774469|NCT01730534|191520881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.005||95.0|0.73|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.73|0.005
95774470|NCT01730534|191520882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.67|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||||0.87|0.67|<0.001
95774471|NCT01730534|191520883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.198||95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.198
95774472|NCT04789291|191520904|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|102.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.34|106.29|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.8.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.29|99.34|
95774473|NCT04789291|191520905|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|77.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.77|86.76|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 15.5.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||86.76|69.77|
95774474|NCT04789291|191520906|OTHER||Ratios of adjusted geometric means [%]|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|106.89|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 4.9.|Relative bioavailability of BI 1595043 administered in fed state (Test) compared with BI 1595043 administered in fasted state (Reference) was estimated by the ratios of the gMeans (Test/Reference). Their corresponding 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. This method corresponds to 2 one-sided t-test procedures, each at the 5% significance level.||106.89|99.73|
95774475|NCT00459706|191520907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance||Non-inferiority of autoinjector (AI) over prefilled syringe (PFS) was assessed on the primary endpoint. Hypothesis tested was H0: AI minus PFS less than or equal to (≤) -1. The alternate hypothesis was H1: AI minus PFS greater than (\>) -1.||1.50|0.71|<0.001
95774476|NCT00459706|191520908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% two-sided CI of the difference (AI minus PFS) of mean subject satisfactions (α = 2.5%).~Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI \> -1."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||ANOVA|||"Non-inferiority of AI over PFS was assessed on the primary endpoint. The hypotheses tested was as follows:~H0: AI - PFS ≤ -1 H1: AI - PFS \> -1"||1.64|0.85|<0.001
95774477|NCT00459706|191520909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|GEE=Generalized estimating equation Distribn=distribution||||3.05|0.98|0.058
95774478|NCT00459706|191520910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.43|||GEE Model+Logit Link+Binomial Distributn|||||3.43|1.12|0.019
95774479|NCT00459706|191520911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.27|-0.04|0.160
95774480|NCT00459706|191520912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficients|-0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Female versus male (reference).||-0.29|-1.20|0.001
96001972|NCT03625986|191981476|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.8429|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8429
96001973|NCT03625986|191981477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4881
95774481|NCT00459706|191520913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.18||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at High School/Baccalaureate Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.26|-0.62|0.676
95774482|NCT00459706|191520913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Participants at University Level versus participants with only Reading/Writing Capacity (reference).||0.60|-0.59|0.676
95774483|NCT00459706|191520914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.05|-0.52|0.020
95774484|NCT00459706|191520915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||-0.09|-0.61|0.008
95774485|NCT00459706|191520916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.32|0.02|0.030
95774486|NCT00459706|191520917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Self-injection Experience versus No Self-injection Experience (reference).||-0.18|-1.03|0.006
95774487|NCT00459706|191520918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.18|-0.05|0.278
95774488|NCT00459706|191520919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.21|-0.15|0.749
95774489|NCT00459706|191520920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.08||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.02|-0.18|0.105
95774490|NCT00459706|191520921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.01||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||All categories||0.12|-0.10|0.819
95774491|NCT00459706|191520922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||All categories, by 1-unit increments.||-0.09|-0.69|0.012
95774492|NCT00459706|191520923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Regression, Linear|||2 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.32|-0.52|0.541
95774493|NCT00459706|191520923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.14||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||3 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||0.68|-0.97|0.541
95774494|NCT00459706|191520923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|1.72||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|4.25|||Regression, Linear|||At least 4 DMARDs versus 1 DMARD (reference).||4.25|-0.82|0.541
95774495|NCT00459706|191520924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||Prior Injection Experience versus No Prior Injection Experience (reference)||0.25|-0.55|0.465
95774496|NCT00459706|191520925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.15|||ANOVA|||||0.15|-0.97|0.154
95774497|NCT00459706|191520926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANOVA|||||0.56|-0.12|0.212
95954471|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634||0.524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05736|0.1294|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1294|-0.05736|0.5240
95954472|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|2.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.096||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.222|8.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||8.039|-2.222|0.3493
95774498|NCT00459706|191520927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||ANOVA|||||0.37|-0.39|0.965
95774499|NCT00459706|191520928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.50|-0.25|0.519
95954473|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.595||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||6.019|-2.580|0.5087
95954474|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.004403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.503||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02051|0.02931|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02931|-0.02051|0.7701
96001974|NCT03625986|191981478|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0835
96001975|NCT03625986|191981479|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
95774500|NCT00459706|191520929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.57|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||Day 84||2.57|1.33|<0.001
95774501|NCT00459706|191520930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.29|1.14|0.007
95774502|NCT00459706|191520931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.92|1.26|0.002
95774503|NCT00459706|191520932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.46|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||3.46|1.65|<0.001
95774504|NCT00459706|191520933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.83|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.83|1.50|<0.001
95774505|NCT00459706|191520934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.78|1.44|<0.001
95774506|NCT00459706|191520935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.72|0.90|0.184
95774507|NCT00459706|191520936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.85|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.85|0.94|0.106
95774508|NCT00459706|191520937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.96|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.96|0.93|0.112
95774509|NCT00459706|191520938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.24|1.21|0.002
95774510|NCT00459706|191520939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.78|0.41|<0.001
95774511|NCT00459706|191520940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.94|0.47|0.022
95774512|NCT00459706|191520941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.89|0.46|0.009
95774513|NCT00459706|191520942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.88|0.45|0.007
95774514|NCT00459706|191520943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.92|0.47|0.014
95774515|NCT00459706|191520944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.88|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.88|1.53|<0.001
95774516|NCT00459706|191520945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.91|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.91|1.57|<0.001
95774517|NCT00459706|191520946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.25|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||4.25|2.23|<0.001
95774518|NCT00459706|191520947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.62|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.62|1.35|<0.001
95774519|NCT00459706|191520948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.34|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.34|0.18|<0.001
95774520|NCT00459706|191520949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.19|<0.001
95774521|NCT00459706|191520950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.36|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.36|0.20|<0.001
95774522|NCT00459706|191520951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||1.11|0.61|0.196
95774523|NCT00459706|191520952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||2.42|1.25|0.001
95774524|NCT00459706|191520953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.42|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.42|0.21|<0.001
95774525|NCT00459706|191520954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||GEE model+logit link+multinomial distrib|||||0.56|0.29|<0.001
95774526|NCT00459706|191520955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.896
95954475|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.007542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639||0.6461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01961|0.0347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.03470|-0.01961|0.6461
95774527|NCT00459706|191520955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.166
95774528|NCT00459706|191520956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
95954476|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|2.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.233||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.022|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.750|1.022|0.0044
95774529|NCT00459706|191520956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
95774530|NCT00459706|191520957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.069
95774531|NCT00459706|191520957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.015
95774532|NCT00459706|191520958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
95774533|NCT00459706|191520958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
95774534|NCT00459706|191520959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
95774535|NCT00459706|191520959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
95774536|NCT00459706|191520960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.652
95774537|NCT00459706|191520960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.459
95774538|NCT00459706|191520961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.023
95774539|NCT00459706|191520961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
95774540|NCT00459706|191520962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.038
95774541|NCT00459706|191520962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
95774542|NCT00459706|191520963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.018
95774543|NCT00459706|191520963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.019
95774544|NCT00459706|191520964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.049
95774545|NCT00459706|191520964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.736
95774546|NCT00459706|191520965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.033
95774547|NCT00459706|191520965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.730
95774548|NCT00459706|191520966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.838
96001976|NCT03625986|191981480|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0052
95774549|NCT00459706|191520966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.483
95774550|NCT00459706|191520967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.466
95774551|NCT00459706|191520967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.035
95774552|NCT00459706|191520968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.784
95774553|NCT00459706|191520968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.006
95774554|NCT00459706|191520969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.843
95774555|NCT00459706|191520969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.461
95954477|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.663|3.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.652|-4.663|0.2022
95954478|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.002902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01503|0.02084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02084|-0.01503|0.7890
95774556|NCT00459706|191520970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.150
95774557|NCT00459706|191520970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.002
95774558|NCT00459706|191520971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
95774559|NCT00459706|191520971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
95774560|NCT00459706|191520972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
95808848|NCT03947684|191590718|OTHER|Generalized linear model (GLM) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
95808849|NCT03947684|191590719|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
95774561|NCT00459706|191520972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
95774562|NCT00459706|191520973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||0.934
95774563|NCT00459706|191520973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||0.656
95774564|NCT00459706|191520974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Autoinjector group||||<0.001
95774565|NCT00459706|191520974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between 3 clusters in the Prefilled Syringe group||||<0.001
95774566|NCT00535847|191520979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.259|37.884||||||Stratified Analysis (Mantel-Haenszel)- The Mantel-Haenszel estimator provides an estimate of the common odds ratio for the association between eRVR and SVR across the prior response strata.||37.884|4.259|
95774567|NCT00556933|191520997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
95774568|NCT00556933|191520998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.45
95774569|NCT00556933|191520999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
95774570|NCT00556933|191521000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
95774571|NCT00556933|191521001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.67
95774572|NCT00556933|191521002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.193
95774573|NCT00556933|191521003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.422
95774574|NCT00556933|191521004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.871
95774575|NCT00556933|191521005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.068
95774576|NCT00556933|191521006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95774577|NCT00556933|191521007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
95774578|NCT00556933|191521008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
95808850|NCT03947684|191590719|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
95808851|NCT03947684|191590720|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
96001977|NCT03625986|191981481|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0797
96001978|NCT03625986|191981482|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1084
95774579|NCT00877487|191521054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-19.1|<0.0001
95774580|NCT00877487|191521055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95774581|NCT00877487|191521056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95774582|NCT04445714|191521082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.03|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.03|-1.34|<.0001
95774583|NCT04445714|191521083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.51|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-1.51|-2.66|<.0001
95774584|NCT04445714|191521084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.91|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||1.91|-2.34|0.8416
95774585|NCT04445714|191521085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-15.4|||Paired t-test test|||Change from baseline||-15.4|-33.4|<.0001
95774586|NCT02396420|191521090|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774587|NCT02396420|191521091|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95808852|NCT03947684|191590720|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
95808853|NCT03947684|191590721|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
95954479|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.371|3.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.467|-2.371|0.1510
95954480|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.126|2.945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||2.945|-7.126|0.3138
95774588|NCT02396420|191521092|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774589|NCT02396420|191521093|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
95774590|NCT02396420|191521094|OTHER|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|Statistical analysis was not performed as this data was not available for any subjects in the analysis population.|||
95808854|NCT03947684|191590722|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
95808855|NCT03947684|191590722|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
95954481|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.002168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.632||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01813|0.01379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01379|-0.01813|0.8223
95954482|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.978|3.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For lower limit it was 10\^-3).||3.185|-3.978|0.1997
95954483|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.01375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00278|0.02473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.02473|0.002780|0.0398
95774591|NCT02396420|191521095|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774592|NCT02396420|191521096|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774593|NCT02396420|191521097|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774594|NCT02396420|191521098|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774595|NCT02396420|191521099|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774596|NCT02396420|191521100|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774597|NCT02396420|191521101|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774598|NCT02396420|191521102|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774599|NCT02396420|191521103|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774600|NCT02396420|191521104|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95808856|NCT03947684|191590723|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
95808857|NCT03947684|191590723|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
95808858|NCT03947684|191590724|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
95808859|NCT03947684|191590724|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
95808860|NCT03947684|191590725|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
95996658|NCT04996797|191968569|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|56.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||56.9|27.4|<.0001
95808861|NCT03947684|191590725|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
95954484|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.002892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.8107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02286|0.01707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01707|-0.02286|0.8107
95996659|NCT04996797|191968570|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.8||||0.0224||95.0|2.1|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factor of biologic status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||37.9|2.1|0.0224
95996660|NCT04996797|191968571|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1||||0.0223||95.0|1.8|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||24.6|1.8|0.0223
95996661|NCT04996797|191968572|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0009||95.0|12.1|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.9|12.1|0.0009
95808862|NCT03947684|191590726|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
95808863|NCT03947684|191590726|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||<0.05
95808864|NCT03947684|191590727|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
95954485|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-3.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.706|5.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.085|-5.706|0.9242
95996662|NCT04996797|191968573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
95774601|NCT02396420|191521105|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95808865|NCT03947684|191590727|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
95954486|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.0006145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.704||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009936|0.002223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local dB (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002223|-0.0009936|0.5277
95996663|NCT04996797|191968574|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||||95.0|-2.4|36.4|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||36.4|-2.4|
95774602|NCT02396420|191521106|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not performed as the sample size is insufficient to have confidence that the results would be meaningful for the overall target population.|||
95774603|NCT01273623|191521123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95774604|NCT01640379|191521126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.09||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||The odds ratio is for the difference in chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates between arms at ninety days after intervention.|A comparison of Chlamydia or Gonorrhea positivity at 90 days post intervention.||1.09|0.15|0.070
95774605|NCT01640379|191521126|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98||Judged by type one error limit alpha = 0.05.|generalized estimating equations||The odds ratio is for the difference in rate of change over time between arms, so is the difference in the odds increment for those receiving TECH N intervention versus the control group.|"We used generalized estimating equations to test for a difference in the trend of chlamydia or gonorrhea (CT/GC) rates over the study period.~The null hypothesis is that rates of CT/GC for women in the intervention arm were changing over the study period similarly to CT/GC rates in the control arm."||0.98|0.39|0.043
95996664|NCT04996797|191968575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||||95.0|0.4|42.2|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||42.2|0.4|
95996665|NCT04996797|191968576|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||||95.0|-6.9|26.9|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||26.9|-6.9|
95774606|NCT01640379|191521127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|230.1|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status (any vs none), insurance, and if woman had prior pregnancy.|Odds ratio is interpretable as the expected chance of having a 72 follow-up for intervention women compared to women in the control arm, given similar age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, baseline STI status, insurance, and pregnancy history.|H0: Women in TECHN arm had 72 hour visit with same frequency as women in control arm.||230.1|37.0|<0.001
95774607|NCT01640379|191521127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for intervention arm relative to control.|H0: Women in TECHN arm reported complete adherence to medication regimen (yes or no) with same frequency as women in control arm.||1.05|0.36|0.084
95774608|NCT01640379|191521127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for the chances of partner notification among TECH N recipients, relative to those in control arm.|H0: Women in TECHN arm notified their partners about their diagnoses more often than women in the control arm.||2.34|0.36|0.867
95774609|NCT01640379|191521127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for partners of TECH-N recipients versus partners of women in control arm.|H0: Partners of women receiving the TECH-N intervention were treated more often than the partners of women in the control arm.||1.19|0.33|0.153
95774610|NCT01640379|191521127|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, debut age, number of lifetime partners, pregnancy history, baseline STI status (any versus none), and insurance.|Odds ratio is for women in the TECH-N arm relative to women in the control arm.|H0: Women in the TECHN arm practiced temporary sexual abstinence for two weeks after their diagnosis more often than those in the control arm.||1.06|0.86|0.351
95774611|NCT03395184|191521128|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|14.3||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.0|24.5|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum (min) risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar 2000)|||24.5|4.0|0.0119
95774612|NCT03395184|191521128|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|21.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|32.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||32.9|10.0|0.0012
95808866|NCT03947684|191590728|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
95808867|NCT03947684|191590728|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
95808868|NCT03947684|191590729|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
95808869|NCT03947684|191590729|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||<0.05
95808870|NCT03947684|191590730|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
95774613|NCT03395184|191521142|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|25.7|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.7|1.0|0.0390
95808871|NCT03947684|191590730|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
95774614|NCT03395184|191521142|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|29.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|42.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||42.2|17.2|0.0001
95808872|NCT03947684|191590732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
95808873|NCT03947684|191590732|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||>0.05
95774615|NCT03395184|191521143|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|-1.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-1.48|-4.55|0.0007
95774616|NCT03395184|191521143|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-3.26|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and baseline disease activity/extent as factors, and baseline SES-CD score as a covariate.||||-3.26|-6.62|<.0001
95774617|NCT03395184|191521144|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|13.9||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|25.6|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||25.6|2.1|0.0279
95808874|NCT03947684|191590733|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from follicular phase.||||>0.05
95808875|NCT03947684|191590733|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained from luteal phase.||||<0.05
95808876|NCT03947684|191590734|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||>0.05
95808877|NCT03947684|191590734|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
95774618|NCT03395184|191521144|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.1|43.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||43.9|19.1|<.0001
95774619|NCT03395184|191521145|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|2.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||9.3|-4.3|0.2922
95774620|NCT03395184|191521145|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|7.4||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|15.2|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||15.2|-0.4|0.0449
95774621|NCT03395184|191521146|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|5.8||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|13.3|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||13.3|-1.6|0.0998
95774622|NCT03395184|191521146|OTHER||Percentage risk difference|11.8||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|20.9|||Min risk weight method(Mehrotra-Railkar)||90% CI was calculated using minimum risk weight method (Mehrotra-Railkar, 2000).|||20.9|2.8|0.0111
95774623|NCT04223635|191521149|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Interval (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.38|157.69|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||157.69|54.38|
95774624|NCT04223635|191521151|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|147.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|227.07|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||227.07|95.39|
95774625|NCT04223635|191521152|OTHER|Least squares means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% CIs for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Least Square Mean|142.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|223.79|||||For the comparison, moderate HI represents the numerator and normal HF represents the denominator.|||223.79|91.21|
95774626|NCT02060058|191521164|OTHER|The evaluation of SVR rate was based on full-analysis-set (FAS) and modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). FAS population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of any antiviral agents (boceprevir and/or PEG-IFN, and/or RBV). MITT population included subjects receiving ≥ 1 dose of boceprevir.||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95774627|NCT00197002|191521191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seropositivity rates \[Havrix+Prevnar Group minus Havrix Group\] was computed. The anti-HAV seropositivity rates in the Havrix+Prevnar Group were considered as non-inferior to the seropositivity rates in the Havrix Group, if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower (≥) than -5%.~The non-inferiority was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|2.45||||||"Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV:~To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10)."||2.45|-5.78|
95774628|NCT00197002|191521192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The standardized two-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (Havrix+Prevnar Group divided by Havrix Group) was computed. The anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix+Prevnar Group was considered as non-inferior to the anti-HAV GMC in the Havrix Group if the lower limit of the 95% CI was not lower than (≥) 0.5.~The non-inferiority of the anti-HAV immune response in Havrix+Prevnar Group compared to Havrix Group was concluded if both non-inferiority criteria (for seropositivity rates and GMCs) were met."|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Havrix® vaccine co-administered with Prevnar™ vaccine (Havrix+Prevnar Group), compared to Havrix® vaccine administered alone (Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates and geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-HAV antibody, one month after Dose 2 of Havrix® vaccine (Month 7-10).||1.31|0.63|
95808878|NCT03947684|191590735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
95808879|NCT03947684|191590735|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
95774629|NCT02017717|191521210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
95774630|NCT02017717|191521211|SUPERIORITY||Difference of OS rates at 12 months|-0.5||||0.9208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.7|||Z test with variance estimation based on|Greenwood formula using log(-log) transformation||||9.7|-10.8|0.9208
95808880|NCT03947684|191590736|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
95774631|NCT02017717|191521213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.35||||||||2.35|1.50|
95774632|NCT02017717|191521214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.59||||||||0.59|0.15|
95774633|NCT02017717|191521215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||log-rank test stratified|||||1.36|0.89|0.3791
95774634|NCT00765895|191521239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by clinic||||||0.86
95774635|NCT00970632|191521240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was for the primary comparison and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95808881|NCT03947684|191590736|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
95808882|NCT03947684|191590737|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during active pill phase.||||<0.05
95808883|NCT03947684|191590737|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during inactive pill phase.||||>0.05
95808884|NCT03947684|191590738|OTHER|Generalized linear model (GLM) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||F-test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05.||||>0.05
95808885|NCT03947684|191590739|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during follicular phase.||||>0.05
95808886|NCT03947684|191590739|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) with log link function and exchangeable correlation structure.|||||>|0.05|||||||Wald test|||Significance was accepted for p values \<0.05. Data is obtained during luteal phase.||||>0.05
95808887|NCT03820986|191590896|SUPERIORITY|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||0.98|0.67|0.0176
95808888|NCT03820986|191590897|SUPERIORITY|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by BRAF mutation positive (Yes vs. No).|HR=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|||1.48|0.97|0.9521
95954487|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-2.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.969||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.174|3.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Spectral Flatness (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||3.522|-6.174|0.1418
95808889|NCT03820986|191590902|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.69||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.27||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|cLDA model||Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-0.27|-7.10|0.0345
95808890|NCT03820986|191590903|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-2.45|||cLDA model|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|Difference in LS means=Pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib vs. Pembrolizumab + Placebo|Based on a cLDA model with PF as the response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factor BRAF mutation status as covariate. No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||-2.45|-8.53|0.0004
95808891|NCT03820986|191590904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.0|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown) No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.00|1.25|0.0001
95808892|NCT03820986|191590905|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.5|||Log Rank|No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.|HR=Lenvatinib + Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo + Pembrolizumab|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by BRAF mutation status (positive vs wild type or unknown). No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. P-value is nominal.||2.50|1.52|.0001
95808893|NCT05165888|191590915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.53||t-test of the mean pre/post difference between study arms.|t-test, 2 sided||||A 2-sided t-test of the mean pre/post difference between the two study arms was used.|0.53|-1.48|0.34
95808894|NCT05165888|191590916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.21||t-test of mean pre/post difference between the 2 study arms|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.21|-0.95|0.27
95954488|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.1487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.77||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.294|-0.003375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Third Octave Band (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.003375|-0.2940|0.0924
95954489|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|3.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.318|5.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_VLHR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For estimated value it was 10\^-3).||5.936|-5.318|0.9277
95954490|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.8362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.492|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||1.180|0.4920|<.0001
95808895|NCT05165888|191590917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.18||t-test of mean pre/post difference between study arms|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.18|-1.08|0.23
95808896|NCT05165888|191590919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||t-test of mean pre/post difference between study arms.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.09|0.60
95954491|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.03559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1545|0.2256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 02 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.2256|-0.1545|0.7568
95954492|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.2043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.752||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07585|0.3328|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.3328|0.07585|0.0095
95954493|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.0828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.413||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1891|0.02348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02348|-0.1891|0.1991
95808897|NCT05165888|191590920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.13||t-test of the mean pre/post difference between study arms.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.49|0.24
95774636|NCT00970632|191521240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.023||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was secondary in nature and assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
95808898|NCT05165888|191590921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.17||t-test of the mean pre/post difference between study arms.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-1.0|0.61
95808899|NCT05165888|191590922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of the mean pre/post difference between study arms.||0.15|-0.02|0.11
95808900|NCT05165888|191590923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of mean pre/post difference between study arms||0.15|-0.25|0.58
95808901|NCT05165888|191590924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of mean pre/post difference between study arms||0.05|-0.08|0.57
95808902|NCT05165888|191590925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of mean pre/post difference between study arms||1.38|-1.87|0.76
95774637|NCT00970632|191521241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95808903|NCT05165888|191590926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of mean pre/post difference between study arms||1.42|-0.44|0.29
95808904|NCT05165888|191590927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of mean pre/post difference between arms||0.02|-0.03|0.60
95808907|NCT03567174|191590950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|-0.697|0.125
95774638|NCT00970632|191521241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95855369|NCT00541658|191670497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.12||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.20|1.04|0.0014
95774639|NCT00970632|191521242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
95774640|NCT00970632|191521242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.055||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.055
95774641|NCT00970632|191521243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95774642|NCT00970632|191521243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.026||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
95774643|NCT00970632|191521244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.08||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.080
95774644|NCT00970632|191521244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.118||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
95774645|NCT00970632|191521245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.022||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
95774646|NCT00970632|191521245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.546||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.546
95774647|NCT00970632|191521246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95808926|NCT03275285|191591129|SUPERIORITY|A closed test procedure was used to control the Type I error rate from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints. No further testing would be performed unless the significance level had been reached on PFS and testing on subsequent endpoints were continued only if the null hypothesis for the previously tested endpoint was rejected.||||||0.193||||||One-sided p-value based on Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Threshold for statistical significance level at 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One sided p-value was stratified based on randomization factors according to IRT.||Statistical analysis for comparison of Overall Response between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||||0.1930
95808927|NCT03275285|191591136|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.425|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.672|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.672|0.269|
95954494|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.02415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1113|0.06301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06301|-0.1113|0.6469
95808928|NCT03275285|191591137|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.757|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.757|0.324|
95774648|NCT00970632|191521246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 1 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95774649|NCT00970632|191521247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95774650|NCT00970632|191521247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 4 between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95774651|NCT00970632|191521248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.003||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95774652|NCT00970632|191521248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.026||95.0||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
95774653|NCT00970632|191521249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.001
95774654|NCT00970632|191521249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.114
95954495|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.1209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2022|-0.03967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.03967|-0.2022|0.0150
96001979|NCT03625986|191981483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.3469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3469
95774655|NCT00970632|191521250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The p-value associated with difference between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and a stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.004
95774656|NCT00970632|191521250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||||||The p-value associated with difference between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups within the 7 response categories was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis used data only from these treatment arms and stratification of baseline LUTS severity (moderate \[total IPSS \<20\]; severe \[total IPSS ≥20\]).||||||0.452
95774657|NCT00970632|191521251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-4.4||||0.005||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.005
95774658|NCT00970632|191521251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Treatment Group Differences|-2.2||||0.457||||||The p-value associated with the testing for differences in medians between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity.|Van Elteren Tests|P-values testing for differences of medians between placebo and active treatment were based on the Van Elteren test, stratifying by region.||||||0.457
95774659|NCT00970632|191521252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.0|||<|0.001||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95808929|NCT03275285|191591138|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.471|||||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|1.471|0.888|
95808930|NCT03275285|191591139|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.233|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||1.233|0.740|
95808931|NCT03275285|191591140|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|[Stratified Hazard Ratio]|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.941|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.941|0.496|
95808932|NCT03275285|191591141|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.663|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|0.895|||||Stratification was done on the number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|\[Not specified\]||0.895|0.491|
95808933|NCT03275285|191591164|SUPERIORITY|For PFS, the nominal significance levels at primary analysis was determined using alpha-spending function in order to control overall 1-sided type 1 error at 2.5%. The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis (103 PFS events) was 0.005. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.318|0.889||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.005.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arms based on primary analysis.||0.889|0.318|0.0007
95954496|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.02617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.5736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0507|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.1030|-0.05070|0.5736
95954497|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.07305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1438|-0.002335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002335|-0.1438|0.0894
95996666|NCT04996797|191968577|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.9||||||95.0|5.0|48.3|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||48.3|5.0|
95864390|NCT03060551|191686726|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.633||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
95954498|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-2.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.428||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.706|4.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||4.968|-9.706|0.5936
95996667|NCT04996797|191968578|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
95996668|NCT04996797|191968579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||39.6|14.3|<0.0001
95774660|NCT00970632|191521252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.699||||||The p-value associated with LS Mean difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.699
95954499|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.07377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1291|-0.01844|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01844|-0.1291|0.0290
95954500|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.008703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05203|0.06944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.06944|-0.05203|0.8127
95808934|NCT03275285|191591165|SUPERIORITY|The 1-sided nominal significance level to declare overwhelming efficacy at primary analysis was 0.004. Because the median PFS was not reached at the primary analysis, it was described at the final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.317|0.948||One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test. Threshold for statistical significance at 0.004.|Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>1) \& revised international staging system stage (I/II vs III vs not classified) as per IRT.|Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|Statistical analysis for comparison of PFS between the Kd and IKd arm based on primary analysis.||0.948|0.317|0.0016
95954501|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.07414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.294||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1287|-0.01955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.01955|-0.1287|0.0262
95774661|NCT00970632|191521253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.009
95774662|NCT00970632|191521253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.014
95774663|NCT00970632|191521256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tadalafil versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using rank transformed data.||||||0.303
95774664|NCT00970632|191521256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||||||The p-value associated with median difference of changes from baseline to Week 12 endpoint between tamsulosin versus placebo treatment groups was assessed for significance at a level of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA using rank transformed data.||||||0.146
95774665|NCT03192995|191521257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.91
95774666|NCT03192995|191521258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
95774667|NCT03192995|191521259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.32
95774668|NCT03192995|191521260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.541
95774669|NCT03192995|191521261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.82||||||||3.82|0.24|
95774670|NCT01286168|191521264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.02
95774671|NCT01286168|191521265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.03
95954502|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|2.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.705||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.553|7.412|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC mean 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||7.412|-1.553|0.2809
95954503|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-2.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.812|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-1. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-1.621|-3.812|<.0001
95996669|NCT04996797|191968580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.2||||||95.0|0.2|41.0|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||41.0|0.2|
95774672|NCT01286168|191521266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.003
95774673|NCT01286168|191521267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.13
95774674|NCT01286168|191521268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared.||||0.45
95774675|NCT01286168|191521269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.02
95774676|NCT01286168|191521269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.02
95774677|NCT01286168|191521270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Likelihood-ratio test|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Due to zero events in the antisepsis side for this endpoint, p-value was derived from likelihood-ratio test comparing the intercept only model to the model with intercept and treatment side included.||||0.004
95774678|NCT01286168|191521271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. Unadjusted p-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient.||||0.003
95774679|NCT01286168|191521271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Antisepsis and Control sides were compared. P-value from generalized linear mixed effect model accounting for correlation among multiple drains from the same patient. P-value was adjusted for side- and drain-specific variables: indication (cancer or prophylaxis), operation (mastectomy only, mastectomy+SLNB, mastectomy +ALND), and drain duration.||||0.003
95774680|NCT03796442|191521355|NON_INFERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to detect 1-year AVMPG of 12.6±4.3mmHg for the study prosthesis and 11.9±4.3mmHg for the control prosthesis, with a 1-sided type I error of 2.5% and a noninferiority margin of 3mmHg. The noninferiority margin was determined by the values of 15mmHg for AVMPG of clinically significant aortic stenosis and 12mmHg for AVMPG of the control prosthesis.||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the AvalusTM was inferior to the CEPME based on the AVMPG at 1-year echocardiographic follow-up, with a non-inferiority margin of 3mmHg. The result for the primary endpoint was presented with 97.5% one-sided confidence interval for mean difference between groups. The non-inferiority test was performed using a t-test which compared mean difference between groups with the non-inferiority margin under the one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.0004
95954504|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.05798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|-0.008915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.008915|-0.1070|0.0524
95954505|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.955|1.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||1.938|-3.955|0.5716
95954506|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.0223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04208|-0.002526|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||-0.002526|-0.04208|0.0640
95954507|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.285|6.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-2. For upper limit it was 10\^-3).||6.138|-3.285|0.2584
95954508|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.006497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02992|0.01692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.01692|-0.02992|0.6465
95954509|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.489|6.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3 and for upper limit it was 10\^-4).||6.297|-2.489|0.1177
95954510|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.007959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.743||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02411|0.008187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.008187|-0.02411|0.4155
95954511|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.004137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.017||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01742|0.009148|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.009148|-0.01742|0.6067
95954512|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.000376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.531||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0121|0.01286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01286|-0.01210|0.9603
96001980|NCT03625986|191981484|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3632||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
95774681|NCT01871402|191521374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data from the ITT population.||||||<0.001
95774682|NCT01871402|191521375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
95774683|NCT01871402|191521376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95774684|NCT01871402|191521377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance (\<0.001) was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevations).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema, and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
95774685|NCT04594941|191521380|OTHER||Least Sqaure (LS) Mean Difference|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.754||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.431|1.133|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.133|-1.431|0.8452
95774686|NCT04594941|191521380|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.899|1.868|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"SPE VS HPLC: Reader 1~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.868|-1.899|0.9890
95808935|NCT03275285|191591166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.418|0.792|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.792|0.418|
95808936|NCT03275285|191591167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.4|0.424|0.832|||||Hazard Ratio was stratified on number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. \>1) and R-ISS stage (I or II vs. III vs. not classified) according to IRT.|||0.832|0.424|
95954513|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.002185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.703||0.7022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01164|0.007265|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.007265|-0.01164|0.7022
95954514|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.007716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.746||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001806|0.01724|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.01724|-0.001806|0.1818
96001981|NCT03625986|191981485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.589|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.589
95954515|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|-0.004019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.419||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01466|0.006618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC std 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.006618|-0.01466|0.5324
95954516|NCT04748445|191880515|OTHER||Slope|0.005103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.737||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04025|0.05046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_SNR (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.05046|-0.04025|0.8524
95996670|NCT04996797|191968581|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|17.2|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is computed using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with stratification factors of biologic status and CDx status.|95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||46.8|17.2|<0.0001
95954517|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.383||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.631|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||8.580|-2.631|0.3809
95954518|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.005601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01016|-0.001043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-0.001043|-0.01016|0.0438
95954519|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.464||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|6.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||6.546|1.694|0.0057
95954520|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-3.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.811|-1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3.||-1.323|-4.811|0.0042
95954521|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.751||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.164|4.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.396|1.164|0.0051
95954522|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.289||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit and estimated value it was 10\^-3. For upper limit it was 10\^-5 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.973|-2.698|0.1128
95954523|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0002606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.707||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001869|0.001348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001348|-0.001869|0.7888
95954524|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.593||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001765|0.0007512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007512|-0.001765|0.5055
95954525|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0003067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.273||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0007328|0.001346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001346|-0.0007328|0.6257
95954526|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.001649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.998||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002974|-0.0003238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0003238|-0.002974|0.0413
95996671|NCT04996797|191968582|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||||95.0|-1.7|38.7|||||95% CI is estimated using Newcombe method for risk difference.|||38.7|-1.7|
95954527|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0008236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.053||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003452|0.001992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001992|-0.0003452|0.2451
95954528|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.000292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.839||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001425|0.0008413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008413|-0.001425|0.6702
95954529|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.312||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001382|0.0007097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007097|-0.001382|0.5951
95954530|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0007281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.677||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002126|0.001669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001669|-0.0002126|0.2020
95954531|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0005153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.7356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002008|0.003038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003038|-0.002008|0.7356
95954532|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.00133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.782||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002453|-0.0002057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002057|-0.002453|0.0522
95954533|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.000156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.763||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001277|0.0009647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0009647|-0.001277|0.8180
95954534|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001121|0.000927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4.||0.0009270|-0.001121|0.8754
95996672|NCT00666562|191968606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95774687|NCT04594941|191521380|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.854||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.204|0.698|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Reader 2: Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||0.698|-2.204|0.3852
95774688|NCT04594941|191521380|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.735|1.554|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on MMRM model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.554|-1.735|0.9260
95774689|NCT04594941|191521381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.109||0.8452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.104|1.667|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Median of Readers: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.667|-2.104|0.8452
95774690|NCT04594941|191521381|OTHER||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.793|2.747|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 1: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.747|-2.793|0.9890
95954535|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.000452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.576||0.4192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004721|0.001376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001376|-0.0004721|0.4192
95774691|NCT04594941|191521381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.256||0.3852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.241|1.027|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 2: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||1.027|-3.241|0.3852
95774692|NCT04594941|191521381|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.552|2.285|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||"Reader 3: SPE VS HPLC~Analysis was based on Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model include the median SRS in each dosing period as the dependent variable, with manufacturing process, period, and dosing sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as the random effect."||2.285|-2.552|0.9260
95774693|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
95774694|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
95954536|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.586||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001079|0.0007729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007729|-0.001079|0.7849
95954537|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-5.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.217||0.901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.513|6.463|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For estimated value it was 10\^-5).||6.463|-7.513|0.9010
95774695|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
95996673|NCT00655928|191968619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95774696|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0072
95774697|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0051
95774698|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0023
95774699|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0002
95774700|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
95774701|NCT04594941|191521382|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
95774702|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0089
95774703|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0207
95774704|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||0.0089
95774705|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.732
95774706|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||0.0083
95774707|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.0412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Reader 3||||0.0412
95774708|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 1||||0.0001
95774709|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 2||||<0.0001
95774710|NCT04594941|191521383|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Reader 3||||<0.0001
95774711|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|1.0000|
95954538|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001094|0.0001755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001755|-0.001094|0.2329
95954539|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0007046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.687||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00009366|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|0.00009366|0.0583
95996674|NCT04551014|191968622|NON_INFERIORITY|For polypectomy without submucosal injection of EverLiftTM to be considered non-inferior, we calculated that 115 polyps were needed in each group to achieve an alpha value of 0.05, power of 90%, and non-inferiority margin of -10%.||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
95996675|NCT04551014|191968623|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95774712|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.6957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1696|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.1696|
95954540|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-1.564|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.606||0.6654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|4.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||4.413|-7.540|0.6654
95774713|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
95774714|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.4615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.993|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||0.9930|-0.0699|
95774715|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|1.0000|
95774716|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|1.0000|
95774717|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 1||1.0000|0.6567|
95774718|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6614|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 2||1.0000|0.6614|
95774719|NCT04594941|191521385|OTHER||Kappa Statistics|0.8811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6567|1.0|||||Kappa statistics was assessed using Cohen's kappa statistics.|Reader 3||1.0000|0.6567|
95774720|NCT01194999|191521444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No significant difference from baseline to final follow-up.||||0.001
95774721|NCT01895270|191521445|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.42
95774722|NCT00782184|191521520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUPS FOR NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS REACHING LDL-C GOAL OF \<70 MG/DL||21.0|3.4|<0.001
95774723|NCT00782184|191521521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.15|-8.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||||-8.84|-21.15|<0.001
95774724|NCT00782184|191521522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|13.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.9|3.3|<0.001
95774725|NCT00782184|191521523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|2.0|<0.001
95774726|NCT00782184|191521524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.97|||LDA Model|||||-3.97|-12.50|<0.001
95774727|NCT00782184|191521525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.93|||LDA Model|||||9.93|-5.67|0.593
95774728|NCT00782184|191521526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.48||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|6.37|||LDA Model|||||6.37|-1.41|0.211
95774729|NCT00782184|191521527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.32|-5.92|||LDA Model|||||-5.92|-17.32|<0.001
95774730|NCT00782184|191521528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|-9.44|||LDA Model|||||-9.44|-22.77|<0.001
95774731|NCT00782184|191521529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|-5.08|||LDA Model|||||-5.08|-14.96|<0.001
95774732|NCT00782184|191521530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|-6.59|||LDA Model|||||-6.59|-19.83|<0.001
95774733|NCT00782184|191521531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.88|||LDA Model|||||-2.88|-12.50|0.002
95774734|NCT00782184|191521532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|8.06|||LDA Model|||||8.06|2.44|<0.001
95774735|NCT00782184|191521533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-7.52|||LDA Model|||||-7.52|-18.31|<0.001
95774736|NCT00782184|191521534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.68||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|21.86|||LDA Model|||||21.86|-16.50|0.785
95774737|NCT03886519|191521544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for correlation between 2 eyes of a participant and baseline trichiasis severity.||||1.03|0.52|0.07
95774738|NCT04964544|191521552|OTHER||Percentage|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|92.3|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct initial TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Self-Selection Population)||92.3|88.9|
95954541|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00006573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.8154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003998|0.0005313|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005313|-0.0003998|0.8154
95954542|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.664||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001014|0.0002001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002001|-0.001014|0.2687
95996676|NCT04551014|191968624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||P-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||||0.697
95774739|NCT04964544|191521553|OTHER||Percentage|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|98.8|||||Proportion of participants|Proportion of participants with overall correct final TASS assessment, with mitigations, worst case imputation (Per Protocol Population)||98.8|97.1|
95774740|NCT04964544|191521554|OTHER||Mean percent change from paseline|-35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.63|-34.33||||||||-34.33|-36.63|
95774741|NCT00805870|191521590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.298|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.521|46.978|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that no difference is observed in quadriceps muscle strength between the fish oil and control groups.||46.978|-63.521|>0.05
95774742|NCT00805870|191521591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.417|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.823|1.132|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the amount of force applied to the quadriceps to elicit pain or discomfort between the fish oil and control groups.||1.132|-4.823|>0.05
95774743|NCT00805870|191521592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.093|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.373|42.344|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in creatine kinase activity between the fish oil and the control groups.||42.344|-156.373|>0.05
95774744|NCT00805870|191521593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.417|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in interleukin-6 concentration between the fish oil and control groups.||0.417|-0.374|>0.05
95774745|NCT02447497|191521595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.1|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment time point. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||4.10|0.51|<0.0001
95774746|NCT02447497|191521595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.75|||Paired t-test|||48 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.75|0.60|0.0001
95774747|NCT02447497|191521595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.75|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||3.75|0.17|0.0001
95774748|NCT02447497|191521595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.04|||Paired t-test|||72 hours post treatment. The primary analysis used a modified intent to treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirement of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFUcm2 on the groin. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU/cm\^2 recovery between arms.||5.04|0.13|0.0001
95774749|NCT00715728|191521603|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.||||||0.91||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|"Two 1-tailed tests were conducted to assess equivalence. See  Type of Statistical Test."||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||0.91
95774750|NCT00715728|191521603|EQUIVALENCE|Our primary outcome was the rate of core rewarming during the surgery. Groups were compared on mean rewarming rate in a linear mixed effects regression model with within-subject change of core temperature over time as random effect. Using those model results, equivalence on the mean rate of rewarming for the resistive and warm air systems was assessed with the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing approach and equivalence delta of 0.2 degrees C/hours.|||||<|0.001||||||Two 1-tailed tests were conducted. P-value for lower delta was 0.91. Equivalence will be claimed if p-values for upper and lower delta are both lower than 0.05 ⁄ 2 = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||A total of 46 patients (23 per group) were needed to have 90% power to demonstrate equivalence of the two warming methods on final intra-operative temperature at the 0.05 significance level using the 2 one-tailed tests equivalence testing technique and an equivalence region of 0.5 degrees C per hour, assuming a SD of 0.5 degrees C/hour for each group and zero true difference.||||<0.001
95954543|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.698|8.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.296|-2.698|0.4005
95774751|NCT00715728|191521604|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.5 °C. Non-inferiority at the 0.025 significance level will be claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is higher than the -0.5 °C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||P-value was adjusted for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.|t-test, 1 sided||Non-inferiority will be established, at the 0.025 significance level, if the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval for the difference is above -0.5 °C.|Null hypothesis is the Hot dog resistive heating system is inferior to the Bair Hugger forced air system. Mean difference (95% CI) of the intraoperative TWA temperature between the groups (resistive heating versus forced-air) will be adjusting for preoperative oral temperature and ASA physical status.||0.14|-0.37|0.018
95774752|NCT00985959|191521609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall response rate (%)|69.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|79.2||Significance level 5% one-tailed. Threshold response rate 35%|Binominal test|||||79.2|58.9|<0.0001
95774753|NCT02235077|191521643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.20|-0.11|0.5688
95774754|NCT02235077|191521644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.86|||Regression, Linear|||||0.86|-0.35|0.4155
95774755|NCT02235077|191521645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||Chi-squared|||||1.81|0.83|0.3039
95774756|NCT02235077|191521646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||||0.07|-0.09|0.7673
95774757|NCT02235077|191521647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|319.2||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-797.4|1435.8|||Regression, Linear|||||1435.8|-797.4|0.5734
95774758|NCT02235077|191521648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|-3.05|0.3528
95864391|NCT03060551|191686727|OTHER|Because most efficacy data consisted of non-parameteric variables, results were shown as median values and interquartile range. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to analyze differences between baseline and at 2W, 6W, 12W and 24W, respectively, using IBM-SPSS Statistics version 24.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was considered at p \< 0.05. Safety profiles were descriptively analyzed.||||||0.38||||||p-value (24 weeks-baseline)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
95774759|NCT02235077|191521649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-0.02|0.0846
95774760|NCT02235077|191521650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.17||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||||1.65|-25.98|0.0842
95864392|NCT01809639|191686734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||.42
95954544|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.654|3.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Coefficient of Variation F0 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.901|-1.654|0.5040
95954545|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00007586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.882||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004701|0.004852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.004852|-0.004701|0.9790
95954546|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0008249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002183|0.003833|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003833|-0.002183|0.6503
95774761|NCT02235077|191521651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.7628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.56|0.7628
95774762|NCT02235077|191521652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.95|||Regression, Linear|||||2.95|-5.02|0.6102
95774763|NCT02235077|191521653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.29|0.5818
95774764|NCT00792688|191521659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
95774765|NCT00792688|191521659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0331
95774766|NCT03386994|191521677|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.0002
95774767|NCT03386994|191521677|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.0007
95774768|NCT03386994|191521677|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||<0.0001
95774769|NCT03386994|191521677|OTHER|||||||0.6839|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6839
95774770|NCT03386994|191521678|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T0||||||0.0020
95774771|NCT03386994|191521678|OTHER|||||||0.1385|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T6||||||0.1385
95774772|NCT03386994|191521678|OTHER|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Timepoint: T12||||||0.0233
95774773|NCT03386994|191521679|OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1560
95774774|NCT03386994|191521679|OTHER|||||||0.3144||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3144
95774775|NCT03386994|191521679|OTHER|||||||0.2019||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2019
95774776|NCT03386994|191521680|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||Timepoint: T0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0075
95774777|NCT03386994|191521680|OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||Timepoint: T6|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0361
95774778|NCT03386994|191521680|OTHER|||||||0.4794||||||Timepoint: T12|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4794
95774779|NCT03386994|191521681|OTHER|||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
95774780|NCT03386994|191521683|OTHER|||||||0.4711|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.4711
95774781|NCT03386994|191521683|OTHER|||||||0.4095|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.4095
95996677|NCT00275561|191968639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
95996678|NCT00275561|191968640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95774782|NCT03386994|191521683|OTHER|||||||0.0435|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0435
95774783|NCT03386994|191521683|OTHER|||||||0.5479|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.5479
95774784|NCT03386994|191521685|OTHER|||||||0.7486|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.7486
95774785|NCT03386994|191521685|OTHER|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.7652
95954547|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.379|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||1.003|-3.379|0.3705
95774786|NCT03386994|191521685|OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.0037
95774787|NCT03386994|191521685|OTHER|||||||0.6119|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||0.6119
95774788|NCT03386994|191521686|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Total annual IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
95864393|NCT00978757|191686735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95954548|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002551|0.001099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.001099|-0.002551|0.5111
95774789|NCT03386994|191521686|OTHER|||||||0.1581|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct health IPF-related costs||||||0.1581
95774790|NCT03386994|191521686|OTHER|||||||0.7165|||||||ANOVA|Annual direct non-health IPF-related costs||||||0.7165
95774791|NCT03386994|191521686|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|Annual indirect IPF-related costs||||||1.0000
95774792|NCT03386994|191521687|OTHER|||||||0.0733|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0733
95774793|NCT03386994|191521689|OTHER|||||||0.0207|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0207
95774794|NCT03386994|191521690|OTHER|||||||0.0942|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0942
95774795|NCT03386994|191521691|OTHER|||||||0.0747|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0747
95774796|NCT03386994|191521693|OTHER|||||||0.1282|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1282
95774797|NCT03386994|191521694|OTHER|||||||0.7471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7471
95774798|NCT05139303|191521723|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95774799|NCT02045862|191521789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.69|<0.001
95774800|NCT02045862|191521789|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.37|0.002
95774801|NCT02045862|191521790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.2||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.77|<0.001
95774802|NCT02045862|191521790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||The 2-sided P value was for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the corresponding monotherapy group from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
95774803|NCT02045862|191521791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.69|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.69|8.99|<0.001
95774804|NCT02045862|191521791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.98|19.57|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||19.57|5.98|<0.001
95860468|NCT00048074|191679537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.814|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (2mg q 2 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (2mg q 2 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.814|0.701|<0.001
95954549|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.001326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.555||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002578|-0.0000744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0000744|-0.002578|0.0816
95954550|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0005502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0012|0.002301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.002301|-0.001200|0.6034
95954551|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0004691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.305||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00168|0.0007415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0007415|-0.001680|0.5220
95996679|NCT00275561|191968641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
96001982|NCT03625986|191981486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5448
95774805|NCT02045862|191521792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-5.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.05|-10.05|<0.001
95774806|NCT02045862|191521792|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.12|-7.09|<0.001
95774807|NCT02045862|191521793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.82|0.28|<0.001
95774808|NCT02045862|191521793|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg: Difference of the adjusted mean (i.e., least squares mean) was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.86|0.32|<0.001
95774809|NCT02045862|191521795|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.84|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.84|0.54|<0.001
95864394|NCT01185353|191686764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95774810|NCT02045862|191521795|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97|||Mixed Effects Poisson-Negative Binomial|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable.||0.97|0.61|0.029
95774811|NCT02045862|191521796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.49||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.49|-4.76|<0.001
95864395|NCT01185353|191686766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
95864396|NCT01185353|191686766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.088
95996680|NCT03128957|191968642|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample permutation are feasible.||||||0.036|||||||permutation test|Given the non-parametric nature of spearman's correlation coefficient and a small sample we used a permutation test to calculate p-values.||Non-parametric covariance adjusted Spearman's correlation ρ\_s. To test the Null that Ho: ρ\_s.=0 vs alternative that Ha: ρ\_s.≠0, we used a method that calculates the probability that it would be greater than or equal to the observed ρ ̂, given the null hypothesis, by using a permutation test. An advantage of this approach is that it automatically takes into account the number of tied data values in the sample and the way they are treated in computing the rank correlation.||||0.036
95996681|NCT03128957|191968643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.015
95996682|NCT03128957|191968644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Set point 1 (FiO2 0.3 and PaCO2 30 mmHg) compared to set point 2 (FiO2 1.0 and PaCO2 40 mmHg)||||0.047
95996683|NCT04211337|191968645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.475|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.475|0.165|<0.0001
95996684|NCT04211337|191968646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.423|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|||0.423|0.153|<0.0001
95996685|NCT04211337|191968647|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.3||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib)|Clopper-Pearson method|||||6.3|2.2|<0.0001
95996686|NCT04211337|191968648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.275||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.587|||Log Rank|Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).||||0.587|0.129|0.0004
95996687|NCT04211337|191968651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1||Stratified by RET mutation type (M918T vs. Others) and intended treatment if randomized to Arm B (Vandetanib vs. Cabozantinib).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.10|-0.23|<0.0001
95996688|NCT01167712|191968654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||||||Estimated hazard of first progression or death for weekly paclitaxel treatment relative to standard 3 week paclitaxel.||1.06|.74|
95774812|NCT02045862|191521796|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-2.57|<0.001
95774813|NCT02045862|191521797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.01|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate||2.01|1.26|<0.001
95774814|NCT02045862|191521797|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.75|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.08|0.009
95774815|NCT02045862|191521798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.05|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||2.05|1.26|<0.001
95774816|NCT02045862|191521798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.85|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and log transformed baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariates.||1.85|1.14|0.002
95774817|NCT02045862|191521799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.21||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.65|<0.001
95855370|NCT00541658|191670498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||ANOVA|||||1.16|1.00|0.0547
95864397|NCT01185353|191686766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95774818|NCT02045862|191521799|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.09|-0.36|0.009
95774819|NCT02045862|191521800|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable||0.79|0.48|<0.001
95774820|NCT02045862|191521800|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of urgency incontinence episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day at EoT as the offset variable||0.96|0.58|0.023
95774821|NCT02045862|191521801|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-1.46||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.46|-4.51|<0.001
95774822|NCT02045862|191521801|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.61||The two-sided p-value is for pairwise comparisons between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group from stratified rank ANCOVA.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.61|-2.47|0.006
95860469|NCT00048074|191679537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The IV dosing regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.578|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the IV regimen (3mg q 3 mo IV) and the active-control.|The primary hypothesis was that the difference in the effects of daily oral ibandronate and IV ibandronate (3mg q 3 mo IV) on the relative change in lumbar spine BMD (L2 - L4) was small, no more than 1%, the margin of clinical equivalence.||1.578|0.471|<0.001
95996689|NCT01167712|191968655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23||||||||1.23|.72|
95774823|NCT02045862|191521803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.8|1.14|0.002
95774824|NCT02045862|191521803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.73|||Overdispersed Binomial Regression|||Odds ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Odds ratio was from a overdispersed binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.73|1.09|0.007
95860470|NCT05019521|191679553|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0413||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.126|-0.010|0.9205
95996690|NCT04425850|191968665|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test on the percentage of subjects who contracted COVID-19 in each arm||||< 0.0001
95996691|NCT00318292|191968670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.003||95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-3.2|.003
95996692|NCT03617926|191968673|SUPERIORITY|In case superiority is not proven, non-inferiority is tested. As non-inferiority margin (δ), a 7.5% worse cure rate is regarded as clinically not relevant. The following null hypothesis will be used: H0, NI: pT-pR \< δ, whereby δ = -7.5%. The lower, 95% confidence interval of the difference pT-pR will be used for the test. If H0, NI will be rejected, non-inferiority cannot be shown.||||||0.023||||||A priori treshold p value of 0.05 for statistical significance was set prior to study start.|Chi-squared|||"Efficacy analyses is performed on the ITT population (all subjects who were included and randomized in the study, with available baseline value of the primary endpoint and at least one follow-up visit). All statistical tests are performed at a 5% level of significance. The aim of this analysis is to show superiority for the cure rate of the test product versus a predefined limit of 70%. The following null hypothesis will be tested: H0, prim: pT - pR = 0 and Ha: pT - pR \> 15%~I"||||0.023
95996693|NCT01486264|191968703|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the baseline TWSTRS Severity subscale score, was used to test the non-inferiority of Short Flex versus Long Flex treatment. Non-inferiority margin delta equal to (=) 2 points.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-2.9|
95996694|NCT03168867|191968756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95996695|NCT00509106|191968773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated based on the MITTE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% for the MITTE populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.7|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared with that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the MITTE Population in adult subjects with CABP.||12.7|-1.0|
95996696|NCT01051739|191968799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance is p\<0.05|Kaplan Meyer survival curves|||||||.21
95996697|NCT01440101|191968814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Mann-Whitney U test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95996698|NCT01440101|191968817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value obtained from the Van Elteren test stratified by the presence or absence of Gd+ lesions at baseline.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.001
95774825|NCT02045862|191521804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.41|-1.16|<0.001
95860471|NCT05019521|191679553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0425||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.086|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|-0.086|0.9205
95860472|NCT05019521|191679553|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422||0.9205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.033|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.106|-0.033|0.9205
95996699|NCT01440101|191968818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.006
95996700|NCT01440101|191968819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.586|||Fisher Exact|||Relapse-free proportions compared using a two-sided Fisher exact test. In the analysis, participants with unknown status are considered to have relapsed.||0.586|0.223|<0.001
95996701|NCT01440101|191968820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||||0.729
95996702|NCT01440101|191968820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||||||P-value for comparison between the treated and placebo groups was based on analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.942
95996703|NCT02469246|191968841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-8.9|1.1|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of the primary efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||1.1|-8.9|0.15
95996704|NCT02469246|191968842|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|-6.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||-0.3|-12.3|0.042
96001983|NCT03625986|191981487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
96001984|NCT03625986|191981488|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1567
96001985|NCT00128206|191981494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.51|||>|0.05||95.0|0.13|2.01|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in toxicity by study group, and a sample of 360 participants (180 in each group)was estimated to have sufficient power to detect a difference.||2.01|.13|>.05
95860473|NCT01640834|191679620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||0.14|-11.82|0.0542
95954552|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.00153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002826|-0.0002344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002344|-0.002826|0.0526
95774826|NCT02045862|191521804|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.77|0.037
95774827|NCT02045862|191521806|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-1.10|<0.001
95860474|NCT01640834|191679620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.89||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.95|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||The mean change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group.||1.16|-14.95|0.0826
95860475|NCT01640834|191679621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-0.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 100-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-0.4|-33.7|0.0460
95954553|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0004166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000792|0.001625|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001625|-0.0007920|0.5689
95954554|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.002112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.299||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003321|-0.000902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0009020|-0.003321|0.0045
95860476|NCT01640834|191679621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-4.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis was performed using the percent change in insulin dose, which takes into account absolute differences in individual insulin doses. The mean percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose for the placebo group was subtracted from each participant's percent change on Day 2 from Day 1 in the 24-hour insulin dose. This placebo adjusted 24-hour insulin dose was compared within the 300-mg LY2409021 dose group using a 1 sample t-test.||-4.3|-35.0|0.0192
95774828|NCT02045862|191521806|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.76|0.036
95864398|NCT01185353|191686766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95954555|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0007706|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.494||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002013|0.0004713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0004713|-0.002013|0.3058
95954556|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0002388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.494||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0008374|0.001315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001315|-0.0008374|0.7137
95774829|NCT02045862|191521807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.00|-0.19|0.059
95996705|NCT02469246|191968843|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|3.5|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||3.5|-1.0|0.45
95996706|NCT02469246|191968844|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in Percentages|1.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the non-inferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-1.0|0.34
95996707|NCT02469246|191968845|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-1.6||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.2|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||4.2|-7.4|0.62
95996708|NCT02469246|191968846|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 2-sided exact 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference in Percentages|-5.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|0.4|||Fisher Exact||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The analysis purpose of this efficacy endpoint was to assess the noninferiority of switching to F/TAF+3rd Agent relative to maintaining treatment with ABC/3TC+3rd Agent.||0.4|-12.2|0.069
95996709|NCT02469246|191968847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-32.0||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-4.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-4|-61|0.026
95996710|NCT02469246|191968848|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-39.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-8.0||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||-8|-70|0.013
95996711|NCT02469246|191968849|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.179||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.598||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.598|-0.240|0.40
95774830|NCT02045862|191521807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.068
95996712|NCT02469246|191968850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.165||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.678||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.678|-0.348|0.53
95860477|NCT01640834|191679626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-9|-82|0.0187
95996713|NCT02469246|191968851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.151||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.767||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.767|-0.465|0.63
95860478|NCT01640834|191679626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.0||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|-23.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on peak glucose concentration after an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-23|-96|0.0048
95996714|NCT02469246|191968852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.056||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.713||P-value was adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|ANOVA||Difference in LSM and its 95% CI were adjusted by the third agent stratum (boosted protease inhibitors vs. others).|||0.713|-0.825|0.89
95996715|NCT04325503|191968882|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0905||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.159||A priori threshold statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 9||||0.159|0.022|0.015
95774831|NCT02045862|191521808|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable||1.01|0.81|0.067
95774832|NCT02045862|191521808|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.131||95.0|0.82|1.03|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio of number of nocturia episodes during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of nocturia episodes divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary day as the offset variable.||1.03|0.82|0.131
95954557|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0002121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.877||0.7583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0009275|0.001352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001352|-0.0009275|0.7583
95954558|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-2.784|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.547|-2.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit it was 10\^-5. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||-2.155|-5.547|0.0974
95954559|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-1.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.117||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.648|1.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and lower limit it was 10\^-3. For estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.374|-1.648|0.8810
95996716|NCT04325503|191968883|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.216||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||2.216|-1.550|0.694
95996717|NCT04325503|191968884|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.444||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|3.252||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 8||||3.252|-0.363|0.103
95996718|NCT04325503|191968885|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.554|2.372||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 10||||2.372|-6.554|0.321
95954560|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.001551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.294||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002594|-0.0005077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0005077|-0.002594|0.0151
95996719|NCT04325503|191968886|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.185||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.544|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 7||||0.544|-0.175|0.265
95996720|NCT04325503|191968887|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.143||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.296|15.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test, df = 6||||15.0|1.296|0.0270
95996721|NCT04325503|191968888|OTHER|A comparison is not being made between two different treatment groups.||||||0.153||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.153
95860479|NCT01640834|191679627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4423.0||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8256.0|-590.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-590|-8256|0.0278
95996722|NCT01642212|191968889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95996723|NCT01642212|191968890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.75||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.808|-1.687||LS mean estimates were determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and the baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.687|-11.808|0.0096
95864399|NCT01185353|191686768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95954561|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.343||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0006233|0.003057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.003057|0.0006233|0.0135
95954562|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.029||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0004563|0.002123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002123|0.0004563|0.0115
95996724|NCT01642212|191968891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.49||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.895|1.92||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.920|-6.895|0.2649
95996725|NCT01642212|191968891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.91||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.322|2.501||LS mean estimates were determined using the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||2.501|-8.322|0.2878
95996726|NCT01642212|191968893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 15 Eosinophils/HPF||||0.0001
95774833|NCT02045862|191521809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-1.34|0.055
95954563|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0001473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.891||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001123|0.0008288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0008288|-0.001123|0.8029
95996727|NCT01642212|191968893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of \</= 1 Eosinophils/HPF||||<0.0001
95954564|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0005556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.647||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001326|0.0002146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002146|-0.001326|0.2342
95954565|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.001128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0002436|0.002013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.002013|0.0002436|0.0366
95954566|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0003297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.134||0.522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.00118|0.0005212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005212|-0.001180|0.5220
95954567|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-2.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528||0.552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.95|3.742|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||3.742|-7.950|0.5520
95954568|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0005126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.289||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0001981|0.001223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For ldispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001223|-0.0001981|0.2343
95954569|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.094||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.081|9.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||9.487|-4.081|0.5103
95954570|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.000202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.334||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001086|0.0006819|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006819|-0.001086|0.7056
95954571|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.22||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.188|-1.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||-1.132|-4.188|0.0046
95954572|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.000649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.448||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000881|0.001386|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.001386|-0.0000881|0.1471
95954573|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|1.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.323||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.152|6.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.862|-4.152|0.6842
95954574|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00007664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574||0.7664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003499|0.0005032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0005032|-0.0003499|0.7664
95954575|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-1.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.069|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||1.654|-5.069|0.4015
95996728|NCT01642212|191968894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0206
95774834|NCT02045862|191521809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean was calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-1.39|0.048
95774835|NCT02045862|191521810|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.69|0.002
95774836|NCT02045862|191521810|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.55|0.039
95864400|NCT01185353|191686768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.162
95774837|NCT02045862|191521811|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the mirabegron monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.76|0.45|<0.001
95996729|NCT01642212|191968894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0275
95996730|NCT01642212|191968895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 30% DSQ score reduction||||0.0026
95996731|NCT01642212|191968895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of response and \>/= 50% DSQ score reduction||||0.0199
95996732|NCT01642212|191968896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-22.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.345|-14.334|||ANCOVA|LS mean based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-14.334|-30.345|<0.0001
95996733|NCT01642212|191968897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-2.358||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.358|-5.172|<0.0001
95996734|NCT01642212|191968898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.438|-17.57||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of proximal eosinophil count||-17.570|-53.438|0.0002
95996735|NCT01642212|191968898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-59.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.173|-34.948||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of mid- eosinophil count||-34.948|-84.173|<0.0001
95996736|NCT01642212|191968898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-67.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.573|-41.18||LS mean estimates based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of distal eosinophil count||-41.180|-93.573|<0.0001
95996737|NCT01642212|191968899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-18.44||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.593|-7.293||LS mean estimates were based on the ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-7.293|-29.593|0.0015
95996738|NCT01642212|191968900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference was determined by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of distribution of scores across all responses||||0.1170
95996739|NCT01642212|191968901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of heartburn||||0.1947
95996740|NCT01642212|191968901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of chest pain||||0.8029
95996741|NCT01642212|191968901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of regurgitation||||0.4963
95996742|NCT01642212|191968901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of abdominal pain||||0.5257
95774838|NCT02045862|191521811|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Rate ratio vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Rate ratio of number of pads during the EoT 7-day diary between the combination therapy group and the solifenacin monotherapy group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous study history as factors, log(number of pads divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and post baseline number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.58|0.044
95774839|NCT02045862|191521812|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.18|-4.78|0.001
95774840|NCT02045862|191521812|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.15|-3.52|0.072
95774841|NCT02045862|191521814|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.96|2.56|<0.001
95774842|NCT02045862|191521814|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.04|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.04|0.68|0.010
95774843|NCT02045862|191521815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.20|2.99|<0.001
95774844|NCT02045862|191521815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.6|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.60|0.43|0.022
95954576|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.904||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.446|5.665|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.665|-6.446|0.1897
95954577|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.627||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.035|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||5.090|-3.035|0.1439
95774845|NCT02045862|191521816|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.38|2.65|<0.001
95774846|NCT02045862|191521816|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.13|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.13|1.43|0.002
95774847|NCT02045862|191521817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.83|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.83|2.47|<0.001
95864401|NCT01185353|191686768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95954578|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|4.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.537|6.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||6.685|1.537|0.0092
95860480|NCT01640834|191679627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5187.0||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8371.0|-2004.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis of the effect of LY2409021 treatment on area under the glucose concentration curve from time 0 to 2 hours postdose following an intramuscular injection of glucagon (1 milligram).||-2004|-8371|0.0046
95860481|NCT04073225|191679636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||33.2|-100.9|.323
95996743|NCT01642212|191968901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of nausea||||0.5219
95996744|NCT01642212|191968901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. All responses (improved, no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively for each symptom.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of vomiting||||0.2886
95774848|NCT02045862|191521817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.93|0.62|0.016
95774849|NCT02045862|191521818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.59|0.77|0.006
95774850|NCT02045862|191521818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.93|-0.87|0.287
95774851|NCT02045862|191521820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron 50 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.47|<0.001
95774852|NCT02045862|191521820|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Solifenacin 5 mg (EoT): Difference of the adjusted mean is calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination therapy group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.05|-0.36|0.011
95774853|NCT02045862|191521832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.15|1.26|<0.001
95774854|NCT02045862|191521832|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.67|0.97|0.080
95774855|NCT02045862|191521833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.78|1.49|<0.001
95774856|NCT02045862|191521833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.57|1.37|<0.001
95774857|NCT02045862|191521834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.43|1.36|<0.001
95774858|NCT02045862|191521834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.92|1.08|0.014
95774859|NCT02045862|191521835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.41|1.34|<0.001
95774860|NCT02045862|191521835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio wa from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.06|0.019
95774861|NCT02045862|191521836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.19|1.26|<0.001
95860482|NCT04073225|191679637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-81.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.5|-165.2|.057
95774862|NCT02045862|191521836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.62|0.94|0.133
95774863|NCT02045862|191521837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.03|1.18|0.002
95774864|NCT02045862|191521837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.12|0.006
95774865|NCT02045862|191521838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.29|1.24|<0.001
95774866|NCT02045862|191521838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.77|0.94|0.109
95774867|NCT02045862|191521839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.25|1.26|<0.001
95774868|NCT02045862|191521839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.16|1.22|<0.001
95774869|NCT02045862|191521840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.62|1.50|<0.001
95774870|NCT02045862|191521840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.36|1.35|<0.001
95996745|NCT01642212|191968904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for comparison of the treatment difference at baseline vs. final treatment evaluation was determined by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score test. Both responses (no change, worsened) were analyzed collectively.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of symptoms of participants with no symptoms at baseline||||0.1600
95996746|NCT01642212|191968906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 30% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0606
95996747|NCT01642212|191968906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square|||Analysis of \>/= 50% DSQ+pain score reduction||||0.0165
95996748|NCT01642212|191968907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7817
95774871|NCT02045862|191521841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.54|1.46|<0.001
95774872|NCT02045862|191521841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.09|1.20|0.001
95774873|NCT02045862|191521842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.26|1.28|<0.001
95774874|NCT02045862|191521842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.86|1.06|0.019
95774875|NCT02045862|191521843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.46|1.40|<0.001
95774876|NCT02045862|191521843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.09|1.19|0.001
95774877|NCT02045862|191521844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.34|1.33|<0.001
95860483|NCT04073225|191679638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||6.08|0.03|.047
95774878|NCT02045862|191521844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio was from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous study history and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.08|0.012
95774879|NCT02004886|191521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.3|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.3|-38.4|<0.001
95774880|NCT02004886|191521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-41.1|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-41.1|-66.1|<0.001
95996749|NCT01642212|191968908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.04||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||0.040|-0.222|0.1686
95996750|NCT01642212|191968908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.8046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.21||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.210|-0.269|0.8046
95996751|NCT01642212|191968908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.219||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.219|-0.199|0.9239
95996752|NCT01642212|191968909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.806|1.339||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 8||1.339|-2.806|0.4835
95774881|NCT02004886|191521876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-13.6|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, and baseline 24-hour WMG value as a covariate.||||-13.6|-38.4|<0.001
95774882|NCT02004886|191521879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-0.9|-35.7|0.04
95774883|NCT02004886|191521879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-26.3|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-26.3|-60.9|<0.001
95774884|NCT02004886|191521879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||8.5|-25.7|0.320
95774885|NCT02004886|191521881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.7|0.751
95774886|NCT02004886|191521881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.0|0.581
95774887|NCT02004886|191521881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.918
95774888|NCT02004886|191521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.6|-21.1|0.253
95774889|NCT02004886|191521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-26.0|0.070
95954579|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134||0.715|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0002294|0.0001464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0001464|-0.0002294|0.7150
95774890|NCT02004886|191521883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-12.8|||ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-39.5|<0.001
95774891|NCT02004886|191521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.6|-34.0|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-34.0|-145.6|0.002
95860484|NCT04073225|191679639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were fit including fixed effects for intervention arm, visit (baseline, 12 week) and intervention by visit interaction; and random intercepts and slopes for each participant.||2.6|-1.4|.565
95774892|NCT02004886|191521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.4|-135.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-135.9|-246.4|<0.001
95774893|NCT02004886|191521884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.4|-42.9|||ANCOVA|Relevant baseline efficacy measurements were the covariates.||||-42.9|-152.4|0.001
95774894|NCT02004886|191521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.5|0.408
95774895|NCT02004886|191521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-3.1|0.741
95774896|NCT02004886|191521885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.8|0.906
95774897|NCT02004886|191521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|25.3|||ANCOVA|||||25.3|-30.4|0.857
95774898|NCT02004886|191521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|||||26.9|-30.3|0.906
95774899|NCT02004886|191521886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|20.8|||ANCOVA|||||20.8|-34.0|0.630
95774900|NCT01369108|191521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in anatomic form||||0.8
95774901|NCT01369108|191521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin adaptation||||0.89
95774902|NCT01369108|191521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in margin discoloration||||0.79
95774903|NCT01369108|191521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in surface integrity||||0.18
95774904|NCT01369108|191521887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in secondary caries||||0.66
95774905|NCT01369108|191521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis no difference in sensitivity to cold||||0.522
95774906|NCT01369108|191521888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.449|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis no difference in biting pressure||||.449
95996753|NCT01642212|191968909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.974|0.132||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 12||0.132|-3.974|0.0662
95996754|NCT01642212|191968909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.006|0.41||Estimates are determined using an ANCOVA model including treatment group as a factor and baseline DSQ score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Week 16||0.410|-4.006|0.1091
95996755|NCT00144170|191968910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||24.0|12.9|0.0001
95996756|NCT00144170|191968911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95774907|NCT01895608|191521889|OTHER|non-parametric statistic: Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples||||||0.562|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.562
95996757|NCT00144170|191968912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||31.1|18.6|0.0001
95774908|NCT01895608|191521889|OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.414
95774909|NCT01895608|191521890|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.181
95774910|NCT01895608|191521890|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in walking under dual-task conditions following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||1.000
95774911|NCT01895608|191521891|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||1.000
95774912|NCT01895608|191521891|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.662|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in fall risk as measured by dynamic gait index following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.662
95774913|NCT01895608|191521892|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.05
95996758|NCT00144170|191968913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|22.5|0.0001
95996759|NCT00144170|191968914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||35.7|23.2|0.0001
95996760|NCT00144170|191968915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||32.6|20.5|0.0001
95996761|NCT00144170|191968916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||27.9|16.2|0.0001
95996762|NCT00144170|191968917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|13.3|0.0001
95996763|NCT00144170|191968918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|13.0|0.0001
95996764|NCT00144170|191968919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.7||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|11.7|0.0001
95954580|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|1.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.457|3.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.731|-5.457|0.2194
95954581|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0001893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.442||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00003283|0.0003458|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003458|0.00003283|0.0471
95954582|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.000138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.614||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0000284|0.0002476|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002476|0.00002840|0.0390
95954583|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|1.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.579|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 1st order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||2.890|-5.579|0.2645
95954584|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.00119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002149|-0.0002303|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 01 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||-0.0002303|-0.002149|0.0420
95954585|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-4.504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.542|5.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 02 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-5).||5.341|-9.542|0.1410
95954586|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|2.968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.334||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.557|8.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 03 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.492|-2.557|0.3751
95954587|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-0.0000796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.101||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0004277|0.0002685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 04 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0002685|-0.0004277|0.7053
95954588|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|5.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.878||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.964|8.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 05 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||8.187|1.964|0.0078
95954589|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.826|6.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 06 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For upper limit it was 10\^-6).||6.611|-3.826|0.1119
95954590|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.164||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.615|3.596|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 07 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-5).||3.596|-2.615|0.1545
95954591|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|1.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.552||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.164|3.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 08 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit and estimated value it was 10\^-4. For lower limit it was 10\^-6 and for dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||3.114|-5.164|0.1114
95996765|NCT00144170|191968920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|22.4||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|11.7|0.0001
95996766|NCT00144170|191968921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|22.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.5|12.0|0.0001
95954592|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0001989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00002067|0.0003772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 09 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0003772|0.00002067|0.0668
95954593|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00005573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.318||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000986|0.0002101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 10 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0002101|-0.0000986|0.5509
95954594|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00001774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.677||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.000126|0.0001615|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 11 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001615|-0.0001260|0.8383
95954595|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.00007327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0000366|0.0001831|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 12 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0001831|-0.0000366|0.2713
95954596|NCT04748445|191880516|OTHER||Slope|0.0001534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.067||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00000317|0.0003037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_MFCC 2nd order delta 13 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-5).||0.0003037|0.00000317|0.0931
95954597|NCT04748445|191880517|OTHER||Slope|-1.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||3.958|-7.820|0.5878
95954598|NCT04748445|191880517|OTHER||Slope|-1.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.866|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Entropy (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For estimated value it was 10\^-4. For dispersion value, lower limit and upper limit it was 10\^-3).||4.570|-4.866|0.9587
95774914|NCT01895608|191521892|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in static balance as measured by sensory organization test following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.171
95996767|NCT00144170|191968922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|21.5||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|11.2|0.0001
95996768|NCT00144170|191968923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|21.3||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|11.1|0.0001
95996769|NCT00144170|191968924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|20.6||Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.6|10.6|0.0001
95996770|NCT00144170|191968925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95996771|NCT00144170|191968926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95996772|NCT00144170|191968927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95996773|NCT00144170|191969001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.1026
95996774|NCT00332202|191969013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.216|||Log Rank|||||1.216|0.689|0.541
95774915|NCT01895608|191521893|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.313
95774916|NCT01895608|191521893|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.852|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in gait speed following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.852
95774917|NCT01895608|191521894|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following balance rehabilitation that incorporates dual-task practice compared to standard balance rehabilitation.||||0.263
95774918|NCT01895608|191521894|OTHER|non-parametric statistical analysis: Mann Whitney U Test for independent samples||||||0.181|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There will not be a difference in improvement in balance confidence following cognitive training that incorporates speed of processing tasks compared to general cognitive training.||||0.181
95860485|NCT04073225|191679640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.03|-0.50|0.147
95996775|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 2||||0.606
95996776|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 4||||0.971
95996777|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.580
95996778|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 12||||0.265
95996779|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 18||||0.460
95996780|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.441
95996781|NCT00332202|191969019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 36||||0.357
95996782|NCT00332202|191969020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 6||||0.267
95996783|NCT00332202|191969020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 24||||0.807
95996784|NCT00332202|191969020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Month 33||||0.864
95996785|NCT00332202|191969021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.420|0.415|0.400
95996786|NCT00332202|191969021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.309||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|3.08|||Regression, Cox|||||3.080|0.557|0.539
95996787|NCT00332202|191969022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.775||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|3.329|||Regression, Cox|||||3.329|0.947|0.084
95996788|NCT00332202|191969022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.286||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|3.137|||Regression, Cox|||||3.137|0.527|0.585
95996789|NCT00488631|191969027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.010
95774919|NCT02822573|191521899|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models with covariates of treatment, time, time by treatment interaction, baseline outcome level, age stratification and an unstructured covariance matrix. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 24 weeks.||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||With a sample size of 266, there was 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 2 words for HVLT-R total recall score (SD=4.26, effect size=0.47) with a two-sided 5% level of significance. This calculation assumed an ANCOVA model analysis with 25% dropout and 2% missing data at end of treatment. A single interim analysis for futility occurred after 138 participants, with stopping rule of two-sided p-value \< 0.0154. This design required 3.5% more than fixed design, increasing total to 276.||||0.32
95774920|NCT05239494|191521906|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Shapiro-Wilks|||This study used a ±50 VAS scale, with values in the positive and negative range indicating that the contact lenses were comfortable or uncomfortable, respectively. A score of zero on this scale indicated neutral CL comfort.||||<0.001
95774921|NCT02275780|191521908|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|3.913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|9.415|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.415|-1.590|
95774922|NCT02275780|191521909|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine is concluded to be non-inferior to darunavir + ritonavir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Treatment Difference|7.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|13.656|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||13.656|0.508|
95774923|NCT02275780|191521910|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|35.0|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||35.0|-20.8|
95774924|NCT02275780|191521911|OTHER||Mean treatment difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|49.3|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||49.3|-14.5|
95774925|NCT02275780|191521912|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-14.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|-11.06|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-11.06|-18.15|<0.0001
95774926|NCT02275780|191521913|OTHER||Treatment Difference (mg/dL)|-19.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-15.35|||ANCOVA|Terms for Baseline lipid level and treatment group||||-15.35|-23.33|<0.0001
95774927|NCT02275780|191521922|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.404|9.743|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||9.743|-1.404|
95774928|NCT02275780|191521923|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|14.232|||||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum.|||14.232|0.980|
95774929|NCT03960866|191521924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95774930|NCT03155178|191521937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.07|-0.53|0.13
95774931|NCT03155178|191521937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.30|-0.23|0.78
95774932|NCT03155178|191521937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.29|-0.38|0.77
95774933|NCT03155178|191521937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.17|-0.45|0.37
95774934|NCT03155178|191521937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.58|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.58|-0.20|0.33
95996790|NCT00488631|191969027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (i.e., testing golimumab 100 mg vs. placebo first, then, if positive, testing 50 mg vs. placebo).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants in clinical response through Week 54 were summarized using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||<0.001
95774935|NCT03155178|191521937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.39|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 recovery between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.39|-0.25|0.65
95774936|NCT03155178|191521938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.24|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.24|-0.63|0.38
95774937|NCT03155178|191521938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.30|0.68
95774938|NCT03155178|191521938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.45|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 3.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the abdomen.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.45|-0.47|0.97
95774939|NCT03155178|191521938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.65|||Paired t-test|||"48-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 48-hours post-treatment."||0.65|-0.27|0.40
95774940|NCT03155178|191521938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03||Using a Hochberg Step-up procedure the critical p value is 0.17|Paired t-test|||"72-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 72-hours post-treatment."||1.03|0.05|0.03
95774941|NCT03155178|191521938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.87|||Paired t-test|||"96-hours post-treatment time point. The primary analysis dataset used a modified Intent to Treat population. Subjects were excluded who did not meet the treatment day baseline requirements of greater than or equal to 5.0 log10 CFU/cm\^2 on the inguinal.~The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in log10 CFU /cm\^2 regrowth from the 10 minute time point between arms at 96-hours post-treatment."||0.87|-0.03|0.07
95774942|NCT02833844|191521940|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-52.28||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-52.28|-61.55|< 0.0001
95774943|NCT02833844|191521941|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.1|-68.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-68.4|-82.1|< 0.0001
95774944|NCT02833844|191521942|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|65.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|71.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||71.1|57.8|< 0.0001
95774945|NCT02833844|191521943|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|71.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by statin use stratification factor. For testing, nonachievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as a reference.|Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.||76.7|65.7|< 0.0001
95774946|NCT02833844|191521944|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-50.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.88|-46.99||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-46.99|-54.88|< 0.0001
95774947|NCT02833844|191521945|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-47.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.11|-44.35||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-44.35|-51.11|< 0.0001
95774948|NCT02833844|191521946|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-34.94||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-34.94|-41.30|< 0.0001
95774949|NCT02833844|191521947|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.17|-19.4||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-19.40|-34.17|< 0.0001
95774950|NCT02833844|191521948|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|-13.88||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-13.88|-31.03|< 0.0001
95774951|NCT02833844|191521949|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|8.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|11.89||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||11.89|4.83|< 0.0001
95774952|NCT02833844|191521950|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-22.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-14.26||Multiplicity adjustment was based on the combination of sequential testing, the fallback procedure, and the Hochberg procedure.|repeated measures linear effects model|Per protocol, the adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-14.26|-30.04|< 0.0001
95774953|NCT01646021|191521980|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.60|0.35|< 0.0001
95774954|NCT01646021|191521982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|= 0.0621
95774955|NCT02347891|191522027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at week 40||2.65|0.08|0.60
95774956|NCT02347891|191522027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 40||1.82|0.16|0.61
95954599|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|-3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.487||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.761|7.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^-1. For estimated value it was 10\^-2).||7.109|-7.761|0.9421
95860486|NCT04073225|191679641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.4||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.3|533.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||533.0|-334.3|.605
95774957|NCT02347891|191522027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 40||1.47|0|0.23
95774958|NCT02347891|191522028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) during Randomized Phase at Week 40||||0.92
95774959|NCT02347891|191522029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Definition of Improvement (DOI) at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
95809058|NCT04701203|191591322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary efficacy endpoint, the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by etiology of hypoparathyroidism (postsurgical or other) was used to compare the proportion of participants meeting the multi-component primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus placebo groups. Participants without week 26 albumin-adjusted serum calcium or with \>25% (ie, \>7 days) missing diary data of active vitamin D or elemental calcium during the 4 weeks before week 26 were considered non-responders.||||<0.0001
95809059|NCT04701203|191591323|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0038
95774960|NCT02347891|191522029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.51|||ANOVA|||Percent patients reaching Total improvement score of ≥40 at Week 64||2.51|0.19|0.99
95809060|NCT04701203|191591324|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0055
95809061|NCT04701203|191591325|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0046
95774961|NCT02347891|191522029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.47|||ANOVA|||Percent of patient with major improvement TIS ≥60 at Week 64||1.47|0|0.23
95809062|NCT04701203|191591326|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0061
95809063|NCT04701203|191591327|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ANCOVA model with unequal variance was used to analyze the key secondary Endpoints. The change from baseline is variable of interest at week 26 and was included in the model as response variables. Treatment assignment and etiology of hypoparathyroidism were entered as fixed effects and baseline value of the variable of interest was entered as a covariate.||||= 0.0347
95774962|NCT02347891|191522030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Mean Total Improvement Score (TIS) after Open Label Phase at 64 Week||||0.62
95774963|NCT02231879|191522034|SUPERIORITY|This is a two-sided test, with the null hypothesis that the distribution of the difference scores is the same in both arms.||||||0.65||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, since this is the only pre-specified primary analysis. P\<=0.05 is considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pre-specified primary analysis plan, and the two arms are compared with a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test on the primary outcome. This is non-standard (since both arms contain both treatment groups), however, it is a valid test by randomization since it is a permutation test. The statistic of TISS in Period 1 minus TISS in Period 2 was chosen so that even if there are carry-over effects this will give a valid test.||||0.65
95774964|NCT02231879|191522034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute lymphocyte count greater than 1000 cells/microliter measured 3 hours after a dose for plerixafor as compared to G-CSF||||<0.0001
95774965|NCT02231879|191522034|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.40 which was estimated to be about 50% of the effect size of G-CSF versus placebo.||||||0.023||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, one-sided test, a priori significance set at 0.025|McNemar|||Maintenance of absolute neutrophil counts \>500 cells/microliter for G-CSF versus plerixafor measured as the proportion of successes (75% of measured) while on G-CSF minus the proportion on plerixafor||||0.023
95774966|NCT01322035|191522035|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence limits from standard deviation of the mean were used as the equivalence.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|95% confidence limits from standard deviation||||||<0.05
95774967|NCT02612610|191522051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.05|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.05|-0.54|0.0971
95774968|NCT02612610|191522051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||0.04|-0.54|0.0928
95774969|NCT02612610|191522051|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||Estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.76|0.0027
95774970|NCT02612610|191522052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.09|-0.47|0.1914
95774971|NCT02612610|191522052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.23|-0.33|0.7099
95774972|NCT02612610|191522052|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
95954600|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|-0.06912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.997||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.063|0.9247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||0.9247|-1.063|0.9084
95954601|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.841|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For estimated value it was 10\^-1).||2.238|-1.841|0.8721
95954602|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|0.6573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.191||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.974|4.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.288|-2.974|0.7647
95954603|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|0.6504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.958||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8341|2.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.135|-0.8341|0.4692
95954604|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|-0.09459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.174|1.985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.985|-2.174|0.9400
95954605|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|0.6945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.3853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6265|2.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-1).||2.015|-0.6265|0.3853
95774973|NCT02612610|191522053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.10|-0.71|0.0099
95954606|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|0.02424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.667|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 1 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||1.716|-1.667|0.9811
95954607|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|-0.9256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|0.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||0.8690|-2.720|0.3944
95954608|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|0.935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.201|3.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 2 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||3.071|-1.201|0.4696
95954609|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.231||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06596|4.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^0).||4.145|0.06596|0.0896
95774974|NCT02612610|191522053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.02|-0.58|0.0695
95774975|NCT02612610|191522053|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.31|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.31|-0.93|0.0001
95774976|NCT02612610|191522054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.04|-0.52|0.0991
95774977|NCT02612610|191522054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.03|-0.53|0.0811
95774978|NCT02612610|191522054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.19|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.19|-0.76|0.0014
95774979|NCT02612610|191522055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate. ."||0.07|-0.50|0.1468
95774980|NCT02612610|191522055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.20|-0.36|0.5874
95954610|NCT04748445|191880518|OTHER||Slope|1.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.358||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.864|3.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Formant 3 Bandwidth (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, estimated value and dispersion value it was 10\^0. For lower limit it was 10\^-1).||3.915|-5.864|0.2227
95774981|NCT02612610|191522055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.21|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 24-hour Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.21|-0.78|0.0008
95774982|NCT02612610|191522056|OTHER||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|-0.39||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.07|-0.70|0.0177
95774983|NCT02612610|191522056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.00|-0.63|0.0498
95774984|NCT02612610|191522056|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Awake Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||-0.27|-0.92|0.0004
95860487|NCT04073225|191679642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|130.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.7|248.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted t-tests of differences in volumetric change comparing intervention to control arms.||248.6|-259.7|.590
95860488|NCT04073225|191679643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.85||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.11|133.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||133.68|-183.11|.743
95954611|NCT04748445|191880519|OTHER||Slope|-4.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.122||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.577|4.772|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||4.772|-5.577|0.8977
95954612|NCT04748445|191880519|OTHER||Slope|-0.0006624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.961||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001982|0.0006569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Voiced Frames (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-4).||0.0006569|-0.001982|0.4070
95954613|NCT04748445|191880520|OTHER||Slope|0.0008654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001522|0.003253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||0.003253|-0.001522|0.5491
95954614|NCT04748445|191880520|OTHER||Slope|-2.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.9447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.483|5.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Jitter Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and dispersion value it was 10\^-3. For estimated value it was 10\^-4).||5.042|-5.483|0.9447
95954615|NCT04748445|191880521|OTHER||Slope|0.007567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01099|0.02612|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EE\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02612|-0.01099|0.5004
95954616|NCT04748445|191880521|OTHER||Slope|0.00606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101||0.5831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01219|0.02431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MM\_Shimmer Local (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For dispersion value it was 10\^-2).||0.02431|-0.01219|0.5831
95954617|NCT04748445|191880522|OTHER||Slope|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.598|2.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||READ\_Speaking Rate (The statistical data given below have exponential factor in addition to the values mentioned. For upper limit, lower limit, and estimated value it was 10\^-2. For dispersion value it was 10\^-3).||2.662|1.598|<.0001
95954618|NCT00938041|191880530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
95954619|NCT00938041|191880530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response. Percentages are calculated using the number of participants in the ITT-Exposed Population as the denominator.|||40|10|
95954620|NCT03042559|191880536|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics Software version 24.0. We compared mean age (years), Body Mass Index (kg/m2) (BMI), pain duration, and the outcome measures at baseline in both groups at baseline using independent t-test when the distribution of the variable was approximately normal and Mann-Whitney test when the distribution was not normal. The distribution of qualitative variables (gender, affected leg) by group type was examined using Chi Square test.|a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||
95954621|NCT03042559|191880543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95996791|NCT00488631|191969028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.122
95996792|NCT00488631|191969028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.004
95954622|NCT00724750|191880570|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day. For 80% power and a significance (alpha) level of 0.05; and assuming a common standard deviation of 9%, 41 subjects per group were needed.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
95954623|NCT00724750|191880571|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5%/day.||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||The rate of change for the 2 groups was compared by testing the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95954624|NCT00724750|191880573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95954625|NCT00724750|191880574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95954626|NCT00724750|191880575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95954627|NCT01614899|191880634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-9.52|0.050
95954628|NCT01614899|191880634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.50|-8.91|0.080
95954629|NCT01614899|191880635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.203|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.203|-0.354|0.594
95954630|NCT01614899|191880635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.095|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.095|-0.453|0.199
95954631|NCT01614899|191880636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.1||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.38|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-2.60|0.143
95954632|NCT01614899|191880636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.46|-3.40|0.010
95954633|NCT01614899|191880637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.25|-2.27|0.116
95954634|NCT01614899|191880637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.70|-1.80|0.388
95996793|NCT00488631|191969029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.011
95954635|NCT01614899|191880638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.17|-4.87|0.036
95954636|NCT01614899|191880638|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|0.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.72|-3.93|0.174
95954637|NCT02032420|191880642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The reported p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||<0.001
95954638|NCT02032420|191880643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated-measures MANOVA|The p value is for the effect of group assignment across three iterations of the assigned task.||||||0.004
95954639|NCT02032420|191880644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
95954640|NCT02032420|191880645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95954641|NCT04736472|191880675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.224
95954642|NCT04736472|191880675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Fisher Exact|||Severe TRAEs||||.025
95954643|NCT02256488|191880676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22.||1.5|0.667|
95954644|NCT02256488|191880676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
95954645|NCT02256488|191880676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The lot-to-lot consistency was claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs of all the three pairwise comparisons was within the equivalence ranges, that is:~(μlot A - μlot B) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot B) \< 0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot A - μlot C) \< 0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \> -0.176 and (μlot B - μlot C) \< 0.176"|Ratio of GMTs|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.5|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate immunologic equivalence of three consecutive TIVc production lots as evaluated by HI antibody responses after vaccination for all 3 influenza strains at day 22||1.5|0.667|
95954646|NCT02268526|191880680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.606|1.305||||||||1.305|0.606|
95954647|NCT02268526|191880680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|1.377||||||||1.377|0.639|
95954648|NCT01636778|191880703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|96.0||||||||96|74|
95954649|NCT03443063|191880760|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|104.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|141.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||141.97|77.41|
95954650|NCT03443063|191880761|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|133.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.3|164.93|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||164.93|107.30|
95954651|NCT03443063|191880762|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|150.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.16|200.26|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||200.26|113.16|
95954652|NCT03443063|191880763|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|149.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.06|198.58|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|||198.58|113.06|
95954653|NCT03443063|191880764|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.07|114.4|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||114.40|56.07|
95954654|NCT03443063|191880764|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|79.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.48|116.03|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||116.03|54.48|
95774985|NCT02612610|191522058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-14.8|0.1318
95774986|NCT02612610|191522058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.4|-11.3|0.4917
95774987|NCT02612610|191522058|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.4|-18.2|0.0228
95774988|NCT02612610|191522059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||6.2|-11.5|0.5540
95774989|NCT02612610|191522059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||5.6|-12.0|0.4702
95774990|NCT02612610|191522059|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-1.7|-19.8|0.0197
95774991|NCT02612610|191522060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.0|-12.9|0.3020
95774992|NCT02612610|191522060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|2.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.0|-14.8|0.1365
95954655|NCT03443063|191880764|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|72.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.08|109.29|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||109.29|48.08|
95954656|NCT03443063|191880766|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric mean|111.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.69|134.99|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||134.99|91.69|
95954657|NCT03443063|191880766|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|80.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|113.46|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||113.46|56.81|
95954658|NCT03443063|191880766|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|86.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.92|115.81|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||115.81|64.92|
95954659|NCT03443063|191880766|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|65.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.08|104.04|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||104.04|41.08|
95774993|NCT02612610|191522060|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-2.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-2.6|-19.7|0.0108
95774994|NCT02612610|191522061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.0||||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||4.4|-12.3|0.3509
95996794|NCT00488631|191969029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with mucosal healing at both Week 30 and Week 54 were summarized using CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.002
95996795|NCT00488631|191969030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.365
95996796|NCT00488631|191969030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at both Week 30 and 54 among participants with clinical remission at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using CMH test stratified by the induction dose factor.||||0.098
95996797|NCT00488631|191969031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.279
95996798|NCT00488631|191969031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||||||Fixed sequence testing; 100 mg group was tested if it was positive for preceding endpoint, regardless whether 50 mg group was positive;50 mg group was tested if 100 mg group positive for same endpoint and 50 mg group positive for preceding endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with clinical remission at Week 54 and not receiving concomitant corticosteroids among participants on corticosteroids at Week 0 of maintenance study were summarized using the CMH test stratified by clinical remission status at Week 0 and the induction dose factor.||||0.423
95996799|NCT03871491|191969032|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of maternal death or sepsis within 6 weeks (42 days) post-delivery||0.79|0.56|<0.001
95774995|NCT02612610|191522061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-16.6|0.0519
95860489|NCT04073225|191679644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|5.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.71|-7.91|0.731
95860490|NCT03844945|191679753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95860491|NCT03983317|191679754|OTHER|We tested if the average drinks consumed was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.026
95996800|NCT03871491|191969033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||We calculated P values to test each of the primary hypotheses at an alpha level of 0.05 overall, with a nominal alpha level of 0.0001 at the interim analysis.|Regression, Logistic|Used multiple imputation for missing outcomes by means of logistic regression imputation.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Intrapartum/Neonatal Death or Sepsis Within 4 Weeks (28 Days) Post-delivery in Intervention vs. Placebo Group||1.09|0.95|0.56
95996801|NCT03871491|191969034|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.77||||||||0.77|0.55|
95774996|NCT02612610|191522061|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-7.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination Cough Severity VAS: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-7.5|-24.3|0.0003
95774997|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1387
95774998|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7238|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7238
95774999|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0144
95775000|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0922
95775001|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3812|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3812
95860492|NCT03983317|191679756|OTHER|We tested if the average craving intensity was statistically different in Week 2 of the Treatment Phase vs. the Baseline Phase. This was evaluated via a paired t-test.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.001
95860493|NCT02160899|191679763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95954660|NCT03443063|191880767|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.45|139.28|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||139.28|94.45|
95954661|NCT03443063|191880767|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.27|155.67|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||155.67|100.27|
95996802|NCT03871491|191969035|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|36.14||||||||36.14|0.45|
95996803|NCT03871491|191969037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79||||||||0.79|0.55|
95996804|NCT03871491|191969038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75||||||||0.75|0.43|
95996805|NCT03871491|191969039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||||0.99|0.65|
95860494|NCT02160899|191679763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95860495|NCT02160899|191679763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Exact Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.044
95860496|NCT04838977|191679847|SUPERIORITY||Between group difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.8||||||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in mean CPSS at 10 weeks in the intervention group versus the control group.||-0.8|-7.6|
95996806|NCT03871491|191969040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||||||||0.85|0.56|
95996807|NCT03871491|191969041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.01||||||||1.01|0.95|
95996808|NCT03871491|191969043|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||||0.82|0.52|
95996809|NCT03871491|191969044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||||||||1.15|0.70|
95996810|NCT03871491|191969045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.84||||||||0.84|0.73|
95996811|NCT03871491|191969046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41||||||||1.41|0.84|
95996812|NCT03871491|191969047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||||||||1.1|0.96|
95996813|NCT03871491|191969048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.47||||||||1.47|0.73|
95996814|NCT03871491|191969049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.07||||||||1.07|0.88|
95996815|NCT03871491|191969051|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||||1.21|0.96|
95775002|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0088
95775003|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0653
95775004|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6443|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6443
95860497|NCT05367492|191679857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||14.1|3.0|<0.001
95996816|NCT03871491|191969052|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.12||||||||1.12|0.94|
95996817|NCT03871491|191969053|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0||||||||1.0|0.93|
95996818|NCT03871491|191969054|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|10.1||||||||10.1|0.71|
95996819|NCT05202808|191969057|NON_INFERIORITY|"The endothelial cell loss (ECL) at 6 months was compared between the LAL and Control groups. The statistical hypothesis is:~* H0: Median(LAL) - Median(control) ≥ 5% vs~* Ha: Median(LAL) - Median(control) \< 5%~The median ECL for the LAL group is at most 5% higher than the median ECL for the Control group.~The first co-primary safety endpoint is met if the median ECL of the LAL group is non-inferior to the Control group using a right-tail Wilcoxon test using a significance level of 0.05."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.66|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, a power of 0.80, a randomization ratio of 2:1, and then the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon asymptotic relative efficiency (A.R.E.) efficiency adjustment, the sample size per two-sample t-test is 192 LAL eyes and 96 Control eyes (total of 288), with an assumed dropout rate of 10%.||1.66|-1.00|<0.0001
95996820|NCT05202808|191969059|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|7.15|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and Control group is the denominator. At Month 6, the odds of achieving UCDVA of 20/20 or better were 4.61 times greater for the LAL group than the Control group.|||7.15|2.97|
95996821|NCT05202808|191969060|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|36.14|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving Absolute MRCYL of 0.5D or less was 20.74 for the LAL group versus the Control group at month 6.|||36.14|12.05|
95996822|NCT05202808|191969061|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|23.57|||||Light adjustable lens (LAL) and Light Delivery Device (LDD) group is the numerator and the Control group is the denominator. The odds of achieving simultaneous Absolute MRSE and MRCL of 0.5 D or less was 14.46 in the LAL group vs. Control at month 6.|||23.57|8.89|
95996823|NCT05087030|191969132|NON_INFERIORITY|The analysis was performed with an ANCOVA model with %CfB in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 as the dependent variable, covariates were treatment arm (RGB-14-P and US-licensed Prolia).|Estimated Difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.826|||ANCOVA|||||0.826|-0.465|
95996824|NCT05087030|191969132|SUPERIORITY|Non-Superiority Test|Estimated Difference|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.099|1.191|||ANCOVA|||||1.191|-0.099|
95996825|NCT05087030|191969133|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.046|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Study Treatment Groups||1.046|0.978|0.494
95996826|NCT05087030|191969134|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.31||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|0.165|||Mixed model repeated measures|||at Week 26||0.165|-0.792|0.199
95996827|NCT05087030|191969134|OTHER||Estimated difference|-0.16||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.358|||mixed model repeated measures|||At Week 52||0.358|-0.680|0.543
95996828|NCT05087030|191969135|OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.03||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.769|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 26||0.769|-0.703|0.929
95996829|NCT01444300|191969145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.51
95996830|NCT01444300|191969146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo after 12 weeks.||||0.7
95996831|NCT01444300|191969147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparing change in outcome between active and placebo||||0.8
95775005|NCT02612610|191522062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1511
95775006|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0045
95775007|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0947|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0947
95775008|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0080
95775009|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
95775010|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1493
95775011|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0026
95996832|NCT02863198|191969178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95996833|NCT02863198|191969179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95996834|NCT02863198|191969180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95996835|NCT02863198|191969181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95996836|NCT02863198|191969182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95996837|NCT02863198|191969183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||All included p-values are calculated from collected data and not threshold values for statical significance|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95996838|NCT04108429|191969192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.830
95996839|NCT04108429|191969193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model - this analysis accounts for repeated measures from each participant over the course of Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8||||.759
95775012|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0652
95775013|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3601|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3601
95775014|NCT02612610|191522063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0086
95775015|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3893|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3893
95954662|NCT03443063|191880767|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.87|126.71|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||126.71|66.87|
95775016|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2803
95775017|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0427|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0427
95775018|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0209|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0209
95864402|NCT01185353|191686768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95954663|NCT03443063|191880768|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.62|175.85|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||175.85|105.62|
95954664|NCT03443063|191880768|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|154.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.53|202.57|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||202.57|117.53|
95954665|NCT03443063|191880768|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|118.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|159.97|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||159.97|87.84|
95954666|NCT03443063|191880769|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|138.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.1|176.14|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||176.14|109.10|
95954667|NCT03443063|191880769|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|147.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.06|198.22|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||198.22|109.06|
95954668|NCT03443063|191880769|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|136.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.19|189.54|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||189.54|98.19|
95954669|NCT03443063|191880770|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|141.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.79|191.73|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Lemborexant||191.73|103.79|
95954670|NCT03443063|191880770|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|124.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.58|154.06|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M4||154.06|100.58|
95775019|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3401
95775020|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0031
95775021|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0283|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0283
95775022|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6233
95775023|NCT02612610|191522064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
95775024|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4925
95775025|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9007
95775026|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
95775027|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3440
95775028|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9876
95954671|NCT03443063|191880770|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|143.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.72|190.65|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M9||190.65|107.72|
95864403|NCT01185353|191686770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
95954672|NCT03443063|191880770|OTHER||Percent (%) ratio of geometric means|140.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|200.35|||||"Percent ratio was calculated by dividing the geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Severe Renal Impairment by geometric mean of reporting arm Lemborexant: Normal Renal Function, then multiplying the value by 100."|Metabolite M10||200.35|98.11|
95954673|NCT01589523|191880794|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.342
95954674|NCT01589523|191880795|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
95954675|NCT01589523|191880796|EQUIVALENCE|paired t-test||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|vitamin D||||||0.065
95954676|NCT03721978|191880799|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|28.6||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||50.4|-24.6|0.115
95775029|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
95775030|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5968
95775031|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.8726
95775032|NCT02612610|191522065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4092|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4092
95775033|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0781
95775034|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.7098
95996840|NCT04108429|191969194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for T|||Counseling center utilization data were examined using Simulation Modeling Analysis (SMA) for Time-Series data to determine if there were changes in utilization between the pre-implementation and implementation phases. SMA evaluates the statistical significance of between-phase changes in data streams and also accounts for the presence of autocorrelation (the non-independence of data points in time-series data streams).||||.275
95775035|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0068|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0068
95860498|NCT05367492|191679857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the primary outcome measure. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
95775036|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1284|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1284
95775037|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.267|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2670
95775038|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0013
95775039|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4343|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4343
95775040|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5384|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5384
95775041|NCT02612610|191522066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0822
95954677|NCT03721978|191880804|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the one-sided p-value was \<0.025 and the corresponding lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded zero (0).|Difference in Percentage|18.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||28.6|7.8|0.001
95775042|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
95775043|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0223|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0223
95954678|NCT03721978|191880805|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
95954679|NCT03721978|191880806|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|24.5||||||||24.5|-0.8|
95954680|NCT03721978|191880807|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|59.5||||||||59.5|-15.7|
95954681|NCT03721978|191880808|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.2||||||||38.2|16.0|
95954682|NCT03721978|191880809|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|46.0||||||||46.0|-37.7|
95954683|NCT03721978|191880810|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|28.5||||||||28.5|5.2|
95954684|NCT03721978|191880811|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|50.4||||||||50.4|-24.6|
95954685|NCT03721978|191880812|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|29.5||||||||29.5|10.1|
95954686|NCT03721978|191880813|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|50.5||||||||50.5|-31.2|
95954687|NCT03721978|191880814|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.9||||||||17.9|-6.0|
95775044|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
95775045|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0165
95775046|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.6255
95775047|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0085
95775048|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0722|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0722
95775049|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3577|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3577
95775050|NCT02612610|191522067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0006
95775051|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3845|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3845
95775052|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1177
95775053|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0236|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0236
95775054|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0192|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0192
95864404|NCT01185353|191686770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
95775055|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3301
95775056|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0008
95775057|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0285|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0285
95775058|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3856|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3856
95954688|NCT03721978|191880815|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|25.8||||||||25.8|-54.7|
95775059|NCT02612610|191522068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 84: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0001
95864405|NCT01185353|191686770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95954689|NCT03721978|191880816|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|21.9||||||||21.9|1.1|
95996841|NCT04108429|191969196|SUPERIORITY|generalized linear mixed model||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
95860499|NCT05367492|191679858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.3||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||12.3|3.1|<0.001
95860500|NCT05367492|191679858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
95996842|NCT04108429|191969197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.489
95996843|NCT04108429|191969198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||generalized linear mixed model||||.001
95775060|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2441|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2441
95775061|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.5055
95775062|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥70% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.1602
95775063|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.2721
95775064|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9763|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9763
95775065|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0993|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥50% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.0993
95775066|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.4575
95954690|NCT03721978|191880817|OTHER||Location Shift|449.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||18224.0|0.0|
95954691|NCT03721978|191880817|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||674.0|-18224.0|
95954692|NCT03721978|191880817|OTHER||Location Shift|4049.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|18224.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||18224.0|224.0|
95954693|NCT03721978|191880817|OTHER||Location Shift|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18000.0|6074.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|-18000.0|
95954694|NCT03721978|191880818|OTHER||Location Shift|224.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 15: HPV-16 E7||674.0|224.0|
95954695|NCT03721978|191880818|OTHER||Location Shift|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0||||||Week 36: HPV-16 E7||24.0|0.0|
95954696|NCT03721978|191880818|OTHER||Location Shift|2024.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2024.0|6074.0||||||Week 15: HPV-18 E7||6074.0|2024.0|
95954697|NCT03721978|191880818|OTHER||Location Shift|674.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.0|674.0||||||Week 36: HPV-18 E7||674.0|224.0|
95954698|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|73.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||73.33|0.00|
95954699|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|38.33||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||38.33|0.00|
95954700|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|85.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||85.00|0.00|
95954701|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|36.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||36.67|0.00|
95954702|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|26.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|181.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||181.67|0.00|
95954703|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.67||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||31.67|0.00|
95954704|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||46.67|0.00|
95775067|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.9706
95775068|NCT02612610|191522069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 98: ≥30% Change: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Cough frequency responder endpoints were analyzed by a GLMM with treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and country as fixed effects. Comparison of response rates between each gefapixant treatment group and placebo was conducted using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country, unless stated otherwise). Missing data was categorized as discontinued or missing."||||0.3258
95954705|NCT03721978|191880819|OTHER||Location Shift|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||20.00|0.00|
95996844|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8974|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8974
95996845|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population- from baseline to day 21||||0.7612
95996846|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
95996847|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Intention-To-Treat population - day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
95775069|NCT02612610|191522070|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.54|-0.53|0.9858
95775070|NCT02612610|191522070|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.52|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.52|-0.53|0.9813
95864406|NCT01185353|191686770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95864407|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.480
95996848|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3351|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.3351
95996849|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set||||0.1233
95996850|NCT00914628|191969260|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.5995
95996851|NCT00914628|191969260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||DFS- Per-Protocol Set DFS-day 21 after transplant||||0.4078
95996852|NCT00914628|191969261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Log Rank|Statistical analysis was performed on Intention-To-Treat population.||||||0.7660
95996853|NCT00914628|191969261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Intention-To-Treat population.||||0.6706
95996854|NCT00914628|191969261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7332|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.7332
95996855|NCT00914628|191969261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis has been performed for Per-Protocol Set)||||0.6439
95996856|NCT00914628|191969262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.1735
95996857|NCT00914628|191969262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.5958
95996858|NCT00914628|191969262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2889|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2889
95775071|NCT02612610|191522070|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.42|-0.65|0.6746
95775072|NCT02612610|191522071|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.24|-0.88|0.2583
95864408|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
95954706|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 15||11.67|3.33|
95954707|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|11.67||||||HPV-16 E6: Week 36||11.67|3.33|
95864409|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954708|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.67||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 15||11.67|1.67|
95954709|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0||||||HPV-16 E7: Week 36||5.00|0.00|
95954710|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|40.0||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 15||40.00|15.00|
95954711|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.33||||||HPV-18 E6: Week 36||28.33|10.00|
95954712|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.67||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 15||6.67|1.67|
95954713|NCT03721978|191880820|OTHER||Location Shift|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33||||||HPV-18 E7: Week 36||3.33|0.00|
95954714|NCT03721978|191880821|OTHER||Location Shift|0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.325||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.325|-0.004|
95954715|NCT03721978|191880821|OTHER||Location Shift|0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.208||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.208|0.000|
95954716|NCT03721978|191880821|OTHER||Location Shift|0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.31||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.310|-0.055|
95954717|NCT03721978|191880822|OTHER||Location Shift|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.077||||||Parameter: CD8+CD137+Perforin+||0.077|0.004|
95775073|NCT02612610|191522071|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.56|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.56|-0.55|0.9826
95996859|NCT00914628|191969262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical analysis refers to Immune reconstitution and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for Per-Protocol Set.||||0.1642
95996860|NCT00914628|191969262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Log Rank|||This Statistical analysis refers to deaths without previous immune reconstitution, relapse or progression and was performed by Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions for intention-To-Treat population||||0.8739
95996861|NCT00914628|191969262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2304|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to patients with relapse or progression without previous immune reconstitution and was performed Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2304
95996862|NCT00914628|191969267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.3526
95775074|NCT02612610|191522071|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.17|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.17|-0.98|0.1672
95775075|NCT02612610|191522072|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.68|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.68|-0.4|0.6102
95996863|NCT00914628|191969267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
95996864|NCT00914628|191969267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS patients with relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.2607
95996865|NCT00914628|191969267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||this Gray's Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths patients without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Function||||0.5929
95996866|NCT00914628|191969271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4035|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to ITT Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.4035
95996867|NCT00914628|191969271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3526|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.3526
95996868|NCT00914628|191969271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5929|||||||Chi-squared|||This Statistical Analysis refers to PPS Deaths without previous relapse or progression and was performed with Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions||||0.5929
95996869|NCT00914628|191969271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2607|||||||Chi-squared|||This statistical test refers to Patients with relapse or progression and was performed to Gray's Test for Equality of Cumulative Incidence Functions.||||0.2607
95864410|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for TJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95775076|NCT02612610|191522072|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.61|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.61|-0.46|0.7782
95775077|NCT02612610|191522072|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.83|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 84 Sleep Cough Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 84 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value (on log scale) as a covariate."||0.83|-0.27|0.3167
95775078|NCT02612610|191522073|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.1545
95864411|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
95996870|NCT02811744|191969272|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as no significant difference between study groups on a T-test.||||||0.5||||||No adjustments on the comparison. There was no multiple comparison adjustment for the p value, as this was the primary outcome. This is the experimental p value; the threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||No power calculation. This is an exploratory study.||||0.5
95996871|NCT01896232|191969280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior to cinacalcet if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the treatment difference (cinacalcet - etelcalcetide) was \< 12%, the prespecified margin for non-inferiority.|Stratified Treatment Difference|-10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|-3.51||||||"The analysis was conducted on the Full Analysis Set (683 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment difference between the proportions (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) stratified by screening PTH level and region."||-3.51|-17.45|
95775079|NCT02612610|191522073|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.7|-0.1|0.2013
95775080|NCT02612610|191522073|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.4|0.9962
95775081|NCT02612610|191522074|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7328
95775082|NCT02612610|191522074|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.4|0.7635
95775083|NCT02612610|191522074|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-0.9|0.0951
95775084|NCT02612610|191522075|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5797
95775085|NCT02612610|191522075|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-0.9|0.2499
95996872|NCT01896232|191969281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 50% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.23|1.21|0.001
95775086|NCT02612610|191522075|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0612
95775087|NCT02612610|191522076|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5358
95775088|NCT02612610|191522076|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.8|0.3129
95775089|NCT02612610|191522076|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1046
95860501|NCT05367492|191679859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Model fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only, adjusted for sex and baseline E-cigarette Dependence Inventory score.|Adjusted odds ratio comparing varenicline (numerator) versus placebo (denominator).|||16.9|2.1|0.001
95775090|NCT02612610|191522077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.7|0.5796
95954718|NCT03721978|191880822|OTHER||Location Shift|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.028||||||Parameter: CD8+CD38+Perforin+||0.028|0.003|
95954719|NCT03721978|191880822|OTHER||Location Shift|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.053||||||Parameter: CD8+CD69+Perforin+||0.053|0.022|
95954720|NCT05244226|191880823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.045
95954721|NCT05244226|191880823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.023
95954722|NCT05244226|191880827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.144
95954723|NCT05244226|191880827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.322
95954724|NCT05244226|191880828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.061
95954725|NCT05244226|191880828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's Kruskal Wallis with Bonferroni correction||||||0.021
95954726|NCT02675998|191880829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95775091|NCT02612610|191522077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.0|0.1430
95954727|NCT02675998|191880830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954728|NCT02675998|191880830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954729|NCT02675998|191880830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954730|NCT02552810|191880831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation, 30 (effect size: 0.5, alpha error: 0.05, power: 0.80).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95954731|NCT04050722|191880854|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product group, gender, and baseline MGI stratification (low/high) as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.08|<0.0001
95954732|NCT00382408|191880865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|99.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.02|99.88||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.88|96.02|
95954733|NCT00382408|191880870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||vaccine efficacy (VE)|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.39|99.49||||||The vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as: VE = 1 - R, where R = P(vaccine)/P(placebo) was the relative risk of ARD attack in subjects who received vaccines compared to placebos (Blackwelder 1993). The 95% confidence interval of the VE was obtained by inverting the Chi Square method proposed by Koopman for the ratio of two binomial proportions (Koopman 1984). The goal of the analysis of efficacy was to demonstrate a VE of at least 80% with a lower 95% confidence bound at least 60%.||99.49|95.39|
95962199|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-11.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 12||-11.6|-28.7|<.0001
95962200|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-9.5|-26.2|<.0001
95962201|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|-22.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-22.2|-39.0|<.0001
95775092|NCT02612610|191522077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0221
95775093|NCT02612610|191522078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1562
95775094|NCT02612610|191522078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.1|0.0710
95775095|NCT02612610|191522078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.2|0.0274
95864412|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.201
95954734|NCT03924947|191880885|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.176|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.37|4.259|||||LS mean (standard error \[SE\]) and LS mean confidence interval (CI) are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon MP||4.259|-2.370|
95954735|NCT03924947|191880886|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.456|2.392|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||2.392|-2.456|
95954736|NCT03924947|191880886|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.005|1.345|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon AAPIS||1.345|-3.005|
95954737|NCT03924947|191880887|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.541|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.699|3.987|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||3.987|-10.699|
95954738|NCT03924947|191880887|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|11.702|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||11.702|-5.172|
95954739|NCT03924947|191880888|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|34.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.424|163.786|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Creon - Creon MP||163.786|-94.424|
95954740|NCT03924947|191880888|OTHER|Descriptive|LS Mean of Difference|-16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.418|111.298|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|DB Creon - DB Creon AAPIS||111.298|-144.418|
95996873|NCT01896232|191969282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The CMH stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Achievement of \> 30% reduction in mean predialysis serum PTH from baseline during the EAP was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH level and region.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||2.17|1.16|0.004
95996874|NCT01896232|191969283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|"Analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression, including screening value of the number of days of nausea and vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.~Superiority of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet was tested at the 5% significance level (2-sided)."||1.49|0.89|0.27
95996875|NCT01896232|191969284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-2.21|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using a repeated measures mixed effects model, including treatment group, randomization stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study week, and study week by treatment as fixed effects.||-2.21|-4.76|
95954741|NCT03924947|191880889|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin of upper bound of the two-sided 99% confidence interval for the treatment difference was 12%.|LS Mean of Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.302|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.892|2.602|||||LS mean (SE) and LS mean CI are based on a mixed effects model including sequence, period and regimen as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.|Double Blind Creon - Double Blind Creon AAPIS||2.602|-4.892|
95996876|NCT01896232|191969285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.59|||||The CMH-stratified odds ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by screening PTH level and region.||1.59|0.83|
95996877|NCT01896232|191969286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||Treatment difference is Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet.|Analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for screening PTH level and region.||0.12|-0.18|
95996878|NCT01896232|191969287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Rate Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.72|||||The treatment rate ratio is Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet.|This analysis was conducted using a generalized linear mixed model with Poisson regression including screening value of the number of episodes of vomiting, treatment, stratification factors (screening PTH level and region), study weeks, and treatment by study weeks as covariates.||1.72|0.86|
95775096|NCT02612610|191522079|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4464
95775097|NCT02612610|191522079|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.3320
95954742|NCT01812707|191880892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 50 mg Q2W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||<0.0001
95954743|NCT01812707|191880892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95954744|NCT01812707|191880892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95954745|NCT01066897|191880900|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.002
95954746|NCT01066897|191880901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.368|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test to determine if the % change in HAMD was different from 0||For the 2 dropouts, used LOCF.||||.067
95954747|NCT05372913|191880950|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) test for the secondary outcome (i.e., PHQ-8 Week 4 EOT score) was assessed using the pre-specified NI margin of 2.0. NI of W-GenZD to CBT-Lite was declared if the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.96||||||||0.96|-2.30|
95954748|NCT00024102|191880977|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary measure of efficacy was the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death in the capecitabine group as compared with the standard chemotherapy group. Capecitabine would be considered noninferior to standard chemotherapy if the hazard ratio was greater than 0.8046. (With the use of a 5-year landmark for descriptive purposes, this ratio corresponds to a 5-year rate of relapse-free survival of 60% for standard chemotherapy and 53% for capecitabine.)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.17||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. A priori formal monitoring for futility and noninferiority was planned at accrual milestones|Regression, Cox|||||3.17|1.38|<0.001
95954749|NCT00024102|191880978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||Multivariate proportional hazards regression used to test for an arm effect was adjusted for tumor size, number of lymph nodes and hormone-receptor status. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||3.08|1.11|0.02
95996879|NCT02396147|191969288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|87.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.56|129.52|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference)\*100|||129.52|58.56|
95996880|NCT02396147|191969288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|83.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.95|115.18|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||115.18|59.95|
95996881|NCT02396147|191969288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.88|116.79|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||116.79|52.88|
95809199|NCT02657356|191591416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.012||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: screening 6MWT, day 1 hemoglobin, treatment grp, # of PAH medications, time, interactions btwn treatment \& time, and screening 6MWT \& time|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||0.98|-26.69|0.0683
95809200|NCT02657356|191591417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.984||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.895|||Chi-squared||Estimated from Cox Regression adjusted by baseline PAH medication status (0-1 vs 2) as the covariate. Hazard ratio \>1 indicates a beneficial effect that favors bardoxolone methyl.|||2.895|1.360|0.0004
95809201|NCT03514134|191591418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||<0.001
95809202|NCT03514134|191591419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.358
95954750|NCT03305458|191880981|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if child and caregiver engagement is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child, level-2 provider) will be used. Engagement scores will be calculated per child and caregiver participant. An aggregate engagement score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF CBT vs standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting providers.|||
95954751|NCT03305458|191880982|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||To determine if provider fidelity is affected by overall SPARK use, a 2-level MLM (level-1 child; level-2 provider) will be used. Fidelity will be measured by the TF-CBT TPOCS-S. Providers' overall use of the toolkit will be calculated per child participant and averaged across toolkit content. Fidelity scores will be calculated per child participant such that each provider will have three ratings. An aggregate fidelity score will determine if there are differences across conditions (SPARK + TF-CBT vs. standard TF-CBT) while accounting for the nesting of providers.|||
95954752|NCT03305458|191880983|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-to provider.|||
95954753|NCT03305458|191880984|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954754|NCT03305458|191880985|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954755|NCT03305458|191880986|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954756|NCT03305458|191880987|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95996882|NCT02396147|191969288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.98|130.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||130.61|67.98|
95996883|NCT02396147|191969289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|119.4|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (Reference) \*100|||119.40|74.83|
95996884|NCT02396147|191969289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ration|77.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.29|94.61|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.61|64.29|
95775098|NCT02612610|191522079|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.0792
95775099|NCT02612610|191522080|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4716
95809203|NCT03514134|191591420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA||||||0.029
95809204|NCT03514134|191591421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95809205|NCT03514134|191591421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95809206|NCT03514134|191591422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Group by time interaction|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.70
95809207|NCT02471144|191591423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.08|114.66|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||114.66|7.08|<.0001
95809208|NCT02471144|191591423|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|98.93|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||98.93|6.31|<.0001
95809209|NCT02471144|191591424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|538.64|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||538.64|10.02|<.0001
95864413|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95809210|NCT02471144|191591424|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.48|329.52|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||329.52|6.48|<.0001
95809211|NCT02471144|191591425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.9|84.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||84.9|55.9|<.0001
95864414|NCT01185353|191686774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for SJC - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95954757|NCT03305458|191880988|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954758|NCT03305458|191880989|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
95954759|NCT03305458|191880990|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
95954760|NCT03305458|191880991|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
95954761|NCT03305458|191880992|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954762|NCT03305458|191880993|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954763|NCT03305458|191880994|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954764|NCT03305458|191880995|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954765|NCT03305458|191880996|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider.|||
95954766|NCT03305458|191880997|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954767|NCT03305458|191880998|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954768|NCT03305458|191880999|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954769|NCT03305458|191881000|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954770|NCT03305458|191881001|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Response to the intervention will be evaluated with a piecewise longitudinal MLM that contains an additional level corresponding to time. Level-1 will correspond to time, level-2 to child, and level-3 to provider|||
95954771|NCT00513292|191881052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages between arms|2.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.9|||Chi-squared|||The difference in pCR rates between treatment arms for pCR within the Breast, Defined as no Evidence of Invasive Tumor Remaining in the Breast at Surgery Following Completion of Chemotherapy||13.9|-9.3|.7
95954772|NCT01524887|191881082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.4||||0.243||95.0|-1.0|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-1.0|0.243
95954773|NCT01524887|191881082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.0||||0.37||95.0|-1.2|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-1.2|0.370
95954774|NCT01524887|191881083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-3.9||||0.033||95.0|-7.4|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-7.4|0.033
95954775|NCT01524887|191881083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.9||||0.586||95.0|-4.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.4|-4.2|0.586
95996885|NCT02396147|191969289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.21|102.37|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.37|64.21|
95996886|NCT02396147|191969289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.48|112.55|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.55|76.48|
95775100|NCT02612610|191522080|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.8|0.4371
95996887|NCT02396147|191969290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.85|119.12|||||T4 Formulation B Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||119.12|74.85|
95996888|NCT02396147|191969290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.53|94.51|||||T4 Formulation C Fasted (test)/T2 Formulation Fasted (reference) \* 100|||94.51|64.53|
95775101|NCT02612610|191522080|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1907
95775102|NCT02612610|191522081|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-0.9|0.2772
95809212|NCT02471144|191591425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|80.9|||Regression, Logistic|||vs Placebo||80.9|50.8|<.0001
95809213|NCT03977155|191591461|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.38|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.38|-1.00|0.3776
95809214|NCT03977155|191591461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.82||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.82|-0.73|
95809215|NCT03977155|191591461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.19|-1.41|
95996889|NCT02396147|191969290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|81.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.36|102.34|||||T4 Formulation B Fed (test)/T4 Formulation B Fasted (reference) \* 100|||102.34|64.36|
95996890|NCT02396147|191969290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|112.54|||||T4 Formulation C Fed (test)/T4 Formulation C Fasted (reference) \* 100|||112.54|76.84|
95996891|NCT03199911|191969303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
95996892|NCT03199911|191969305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03|||Fisher Exact|||||4.03|0.42|0.77
95996893|NCT03199911|191969306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|14.77|||Fisher Exact|||||14.77|0.06|1.00
95996894|NCT02559505|191969307|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95996895|NCT02559505|191969307|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
95996896|NCT02559505|191969308|OTHER|||||||0.408||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.408
95996897|NCT02559505|191969308|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95996898|NCT02559505|191969309|OTHER|||||||0.991||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.991
95996899|NCT02559505|191969309|OTHER|||||||0.334||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
95996900|NCT02559505|191969310|OTHER|||||||0.226||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
95996901|NCT02559505|191969310|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||p-value for NP reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
95996902|NCT02559505|191969311|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.680
95996903|NCT02559505|191969311|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value for H3 reactivity, difference of Acute Infected vs. Vaccinated.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95809216|NCT03977155|191591461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.44||||||Statistical Analysis 4||1.44|-0.13|
95809217|NCT03977155|191591463|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.39|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.39|-0.45|0.8840
95809218|NCT03977155|191591463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.39|-0.60|
95996904|NCT00686205|191969315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Specificity|99.94||||||95.0|99.88|99.97|||Binomial Exact|Sample size is based on power of 80%, alpha level of 0.05, using the binomial distribution when comparing to a lower bound of specificity at 99.84.||||99.97|99.88|
95996905|NCT00686205|191969316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Clinical Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|99.76|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.76|
95809219|NCT03977155|191591463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.49|-0.43|
95996906|NCT00486902|191969321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was determined assuming an incidence of breakthrough pain of 75% and an absolute difference between groups of -20 to +15%. This rate of request for analgesia in the first 24 h was based on data from a parallel study utilizing the same multimodal postoperative pain regimen for cesarean delivery. Group sample sizes of 90 achieve 80% power to detect this difference using the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.05.||||0.86
95996907|NCT00486902|191969322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95775103|NCT02612610|191522081|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.1|0.1132
95996908|NCT00486902|191969323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95809220|NCT03977155|191591463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.36||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.36|-0.63|
95954776|NCT01524887|191881084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.2||||0.501||95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.501
95954777|NCT01524887|191881084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.1||||0.783||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.783
95954778|NCT01524887|191881085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|1.1||||0.571||95.0|-2.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-2.6|0.571
95954779|NCT01524887|191881085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|3.7||||0.032||95.0|0.3|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.1|0.3|0.032
95954780|NCT01524887|191881086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.00026||||0.593||95.0|-0.00126|0.00073|||ANCOVA|||||0.00073|-0.00126|0.593
95954781|NCT01524887|191881086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.00003||||0.94||95.0|-0.0008|0.00086|||ANCOVA|||||0.00086|-0.00080|0.940
95954782|NCT01524887|191881087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-0.5||||0.633||95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.633
95954783|NCT01524887|191881087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|0.0||||0.981||95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.981
95775104|NCT02612610|191522081|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0737
95775105|NCT02612610|191522082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6266
95775106|NCT02612610|191522082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.1769
95954784|NCT05379023|191881095|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|IntraClassCorrelation|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Memory, CVLT delayed recall shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: CVLT shown below."||0.78|0.50|
95954785|NCT05379023|191881095|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass Correlation|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Memory, RBANS delayed recall shown|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: RBANS shown below."||0.84|0.71|
95954786|NCT05379023|191881095|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Language, BNT-15 shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Memory: BNT-15 shown below."||0.90|0.76|
95954787|NCT05379023|191881095|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|intraclass correlation|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Language, Category Fluency shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Lang8age: Category Fluency shown below."||0.85|0.63|
95954788|NCT05379023|191881095|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Spatial, JoLO-15 item shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Spatial: JoLO 15-item Total"||0.75|0.45|
95996909|NCT00486902|191969324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
95996910|NCT00486902|191969325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
95996911|NCT00486902|191969326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95996912|NCT00486902|191969327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95996913|NCT00486902|191969328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.09|-1.1|0.02
95996914|NCT01062399|191969332|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A dose level for RAD001 will be considered acceptable if no patient of the first 3patients or no more than 2 patients of the first 6 patients experience a DLT. If the current level is considered acceptable, then dose escalation will occur and the protocol will be reopened. Otherwise, the preceding acceptable dose level will be declared the MTD.|||
95775107|NCT02612610|191522082|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.3|0.0313
95775108|NCT02612610|191522083|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.0|0.2058
95775109|NCT02612610|191522083|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0665
95809221|NCT03977155|191591464|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.4725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.29|-0.62|0.4725
95809222|NCT03977155|191591464|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.31|-0.71|
95775110|NCT02612610|191522083|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0155
95775111|NCT02612610|191522084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2458
95809223|NCT03977155|191591464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.37|-0.62|
95809224|NCT03977155|191591464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.45|-0.60|
95996915|NCT01062399|191969333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.6|||Log Rank||Reference arm = RT + TMZ|Assuming exponential distribution with median PFS (mPFS) time for control of 6.7 mos. for the control arm, tt was hypothesized that there would be a 43% improvement in mPFS time, corresponding to a mPFS time of 9.6. This is equivalent to a hazard ratio of 0.7 for the experimental arm vs. control arm. With a 1-sided significance level = 0.15 and 85% power, a total of 134 PFS events out of 180 eligible patients were required to detect the projected effect size.||1.60|0.82|0.79
95996916|NCT01062399|191969334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.45|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = RT + TMZ|||2.45|1.14|0.008
95996917|NCT02015819|191969341|OTHER||||||||||||||||||MFD was determined to be 1.5x10\^8 in combination with oral 5-FC 37.5 mg/kg and leucovorin 25 mg every 6 hours for 7 days.|||
95996918|NCT01075087|191969378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-26|.05
95996919|NCT00087438|191969380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Test statistic = \[ln(estimated hazard rate) - ln(hypothesized hazard rates)\] / \[1/square root (number of patients with local progression by two years\]. Reject null hypothesis at an alpha level of 0.05 if test statistics is less than -1.645.|z-test, one-sided|||Null hypothesis = 60% two-year local control (0.02128/mo. hazard rate); alternative = 80% (0.0093/mo.) assuming at least approximately exponential distribution of time to local progression. Using the asymptotic properties of the ratio of the logarithms of hazard rates, less than 18 cases of local progression were required for a Type I error rate of 0.05 with 80% power to detect a difference in local control rates at least this large. Hazard rate estimated using life table two-year estimates.||||0.013
95996920|NCT00811252|191969387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.34||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.34|-5.31|0.0011
95996921|NCT00811252|191969387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-3.46||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-7.50|<0.0001
96001986|NCT01592851|191981508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.63||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.63|-1.03|<0.0001
95775112|NCT02612610|191522084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.2|0.0662
95775113|NCT02612610|191522084|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 CSD Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.1|-1.4|0.0197
95775114|NCT02612610|191522085|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.1921
95996922|NCT00811252|191969388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.28||Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued|ANCOVA||A statistical testing strategy was defined a priori for a single dose of vortioxetine that was tested versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.05 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-0.28|-3.98|0.0240
95996923|NCT00811252|191969388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-2.34||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.34|-6.10|<0.0001
95775115|NCT02612610|191522085|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.2|0.2428
95809225|NCT03977155|191591465|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.51|-0.28|0.5693
95809226|NCT03977155|191591465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.63|-0.35|
95809227|NCT03977155|191591465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 3||0.51|-0.33|
95809228|NCT03977155|191591465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.51||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.51|-0.41|
95809229|NCT03977155|191591466|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.208||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.76|42.33|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||42.33|-57.76|0.7603
95996924|NCT00811252|191969389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.61||Since p-value \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-2.72|0.2134
95775116|NCT02612610|191522085|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 1 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 1 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.6|0.7383
95775117|NCT02612610|191522086|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4033
95809230|NCT03977155|191591466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|82.22||||||Statistical Analysis 2||82.22|-34.22|
95809231|NCT03977155|191591466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.91|21.07||||||Statistical Analysis 3||21.07|-87.91|
95809232|NCT03977155|191591466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|113.69||||||Statistical Analysis 4||113.69|1.16|
95809233|NCT03977155|191591467|SUPERIORITY|Individual BOS-589 dose levels versus placebo were only to be tested if pooled BOS-589 doses versus placebo was significant at p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||t test|P-values were calculated from the independent two-sample t test with equal variance.||Statistical Analysis 1||0.10|-0.44|0.2149
95860502|NCT05367492|191679859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of five secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary abstinence outcomes, and omnibus tests of all three abstinence outcomes).|Regression, Logistic|Omnibus tests for any difference in abstinence rates across study groups, based on χ² Wald statistic and adjusted for sex and baseline ECDI score.||||||<0.001
95996925|NCT00811252|191969389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.6||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.99|0.0002
95996926|NCT00811252|191969390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.6879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.67|0.6879
95996927|NCT00811252|191969390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.16||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-2.65|0.0827
95996928|NCT00811252|191969391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.66||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.49|0.4482
95996929|NCT00811252|191969391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.24|-0.95|0.7971
95996930|NCT00811252|191969392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-2.26||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.32|<0.0001
95996931|NCT00811252|191969393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.91||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.80|0.0015
95996932|NCT00811252|191969394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
95775118|NCT02612610|191522086|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.9|-0.4|0.4599
95864415|NCT01185353|191686776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95996933|NCT00811252|191969395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
95775119|NCT02612610|191522086|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 2 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 2 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.2837
95775120|NCT02612610|191522087|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.8|-0.6|0.8084
95996934|NCT00811252|191969396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.01||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.88|0.0552
95996935|NCT00811252|191969397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.7||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.26|0.0008
95996936|NCT00811252|191969398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.83||A nominal p-value is provided. No correction for multiplicity was made.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.83|0.27|0.0090
95775121|NCT02612610|191522087|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6108
95775122|NCT02612610|191522087|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 3 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 3 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4220
95864416|NCT01185353|191686776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.167
95996937|NCT00283387|191969402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95996938|NCT01772134|191969438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|0.107|<0.001
95996939|NCT01772134|191969438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.178|0.097|<0.001
95996940|NCT01740362|191969442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|137.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.77|194.69||||||1 way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on natural log-transformed AUC(0-∞) analyzed using linear model with degrees of renal impairment(creatinine clearance\[CLcr, discrete\]) evaluated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effect. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) mixed procedure (PROC MIXED) was used. Anti-log of adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550\[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550\[normal renal function\]), 90% confidence interval (CI) were taken to estimate mean ratio and 90% CI.||194.69|96.77|
95996941|NCT01740362|191969442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|142.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.53|202.24||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||202.24|100.53|
95996942|NCT01740362|191969442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|222.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.02|315.89||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed AUC (0 - ∞) were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||315.89|157.02|
95996943|NCT01740362|191969443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.22|129.06||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[mild renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||129.06|67.22|
95996944|NCT01740362|191969443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.18|144.34||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[moderate renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||144.34|75.18|
95996945|NCT01740362|191969443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.91|163.02||||||One way ANOVA on natural log-transformed Cmax were analyzed using linear model containing degrees of renal impairment (CLcr, discrete) calculated using blood samples collected at screening as fixed effects. SAS procedure PROC MIXED was used for analysis. Anti-log of the adjusted mean difference (CP-690,550 \[severe renal insufficiency\] - CP-690,550 \[normal renal function\]) and its corresponding 90% CI were taken to estimate the mean ratio and corresponding 90% CI.||163.02|84.91|
95775123|NCT02612610|191522088|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.8457
95775124|NCT02612610|191522088|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-0.9|0.4044
95775125|NCT02612610|191522088|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 4 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 4 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.0|0.3031
95775126|NCT02612610|191522089|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.7|0.9126
95775127|NCT02612610|191522089|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.1136
95809234|NCT03977155|191591467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.29||||||Statistical Analysis 2||0.29|-0.27|
95809235|NCT03977155|191591467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.01||||||Statistical Analysis 3||-0.01|-0.64|
95775128|NCT02612610|191522089|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 5 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 5 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||-0.0|-1.4|0.0352
95775129|NCT02612610|191522090|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.1|0.1718
95775130|NCT02612610|191522090|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.3|0.0651
95809236|NCT03977155|191591467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.65||||||Statistical Analysis 4||0.65|0.02|
95809237|NCT00775658|191591483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Before the study, we determined that a sample size of 18 would be adequate to detect a 20% difference in wheal and flare areas with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.57
95996946|NCT00594399|191969449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of insulin|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
95996947|NCT00594399|191969452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with Bonferroni correction and adjustment for baseline value of glucose|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95954789|NCT05379023|191881095|OTHER|Intraclass correlation|Intraclass correlation|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.72||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Spatial, RBANS Figure Copy shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Spatial: RBANS Figure Copy shown below."||0.72|0.38|
95775131|NCT02612610|191522090|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 6 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 6 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.2|0.0848
95775132|NCT02612610|191522091|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.8|0.6715
95809238|NCT00775658|191591484|SUPERIORITY|Sample size determined that 18 participants would provide 80% power to detect a 20% difference with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95809239|NCT03396445|191591522|OTHER||Difference in Percent|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.8|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\])||32.8|-21.2|
95809240|NCT03396445|191591522|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|17.2|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 1a Boserolimab 30 mg \[Endometrial\])||17.2|-32.1|
95954790|NCT05379023|191881096|OTHER|Cohen's Kappa|Cohen's Kappa|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88||Not applicable, Cohen's Kappa with level of agreement between neuropsychologists used.||||"We constructed 3x3 tables for the diagnostic considerations by core battery and syndrome impression by condition. Agreement between each question and impression category was determined using Cohen's kappa (unweighted). Kappa values were interpreted using the agreement categories as follows: 0-.20 as None, .21-.39 as Minimal, .40-.59"||0.88|0.60|
95954791|NCT05379023|191881097|OTHER|Cohen's Kappa|Cohen's Kappa|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||Not applicable, Cohen's Kappa with level of agreement between neuropsychologists used.||||"We constructed 3x3 tables for the diagnostic considerations by core battery and severity impression by condition. Agreement between each question and impression category was determined using Cohen's kappa (unweighted). Kappa values were interpreted using the agreement categories as follows: 0-.20 as None, .21-.39 as Minimal, .40-.59"||0.99|0.79|
95775133|NCT02612610|191522091|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3514
95775134|NCT02612610|191522091|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 7 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 7 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2809
95775135|NCT02612610|191522092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.5|-0.9|0.6022
95809241|NCT03396445|191591522|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|38.4|||||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage of participants who experienced a CR or PR (Arm 2b Boserolimab 30 mg Q3W + Pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W \[Endometrial\] - Arm 2c Boserolimab 30 mg Q6W + Pembrolizumab 400 mg Q6W \[Endometrial\])||38.4|-11.7|
95860503|NCT05367492|191679860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.83||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.83|-2.93|0.001
95864417|NCT01185353|191686776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95954792|NCT05379023|191881100|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Executive Functions, DKEFS Color Word-Inhibition shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Executive Functions: DKEFS Color Word Inhibition shown below."||0.89|0.71|
95962202|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-24.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 16||-24.0|-40.5|<.0001
95954793|NCT05379023|191881100|OTHER|Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)|Intraclass correlation|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||"ICC estimates and 95% CIs were interpreted as agreement across condition type, where estimates of 0-\<0.50 are considered poor, 0.50≤-\<0.75 moderate, 0.75≤-\<0.90 good, and 0.90≤-1 excellent.~ICCs were adjusted for age and sex."||Not applicable, ICC level of agreements interpreted.|ICC with 95% CI for Executive Functions, Oral Trail Making Test B shown.|"Unadjusted intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome measure to assess the reliability of measures across condition type based on a single-rating, absolute-agreement, two-way random-effects model.~Results for Executive Functions:Oral Trail Making Test B shown below."||0.93|0.81|
95954794|NCT04572997|191881126|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-rank test||||||< 0.0001
95775136|NCT02612610|191522092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4456
95775137|NCT02612610|191522092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 8 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 8 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4629
95775138|NCT02612610|191522093|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.3749
95775139|NCT02612610|191522093|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0854
95775140|NCT02612610|191522093|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 9 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 9 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.3|-1.1|0.2672
95775141|NCT02612610|191522094|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.6|-0.8|0.7255
95775142|NCT02612610|191522094|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0918
95775143|NCT02612610|191522094|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 10 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 10 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.2|-1.2|0.1263
95775144|NCT02612610|191522095|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4058
95775145|NCT02612610|191522095|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0828
95775146|NCT02612610|191522095|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 11 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 11 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.0|-1.4|0.0575
95775147|NCT02612610|191522096|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.4|-1.0|0.4163
95809242|NCT03440385|191591527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.39|0.66|0.8125
95954795|NCT04572997|191881131|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank test|||||||< 0.001
95954796|NCT01967719|191881154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|56.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.21|72.39|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||72.39|44.21|
95775148|NCT02612610|191522096|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.3|0.0882
95996948|NCT00594399|191969455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus test of difference between groups over time with adjustment for baseline value of physical activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95996949|NCT00636818|191969462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95996950|NCT00636818|191969463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95996951|NCT00636818|191969464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95996952|NCT00636818|191969465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95996953|NCT00636818|191969466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95775149|NCT02612610|191522096|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Week 12 DCS Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Week 12 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||0.1|-1.4|0.0961
95775150|NCT02612610|191522097|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.9|-0.3|0.1630
95775151|NCT02612610|191522097|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||1.3|-1.0|0.7601
95775152|NCT02612610|191522097|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 28 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 28 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.2|0.9|0.0004
95775153|NCT02612610|191522098|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0941
95775154|NCT02612610|191522098|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.2|-0.3|0.1321
95996954|NCT00636818|191969467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95996955|NCT00636818|191969467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Color Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95996956|NCT00636818|191969467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Color-Word Test: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
95996957|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
95996958|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95996959|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95996960|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.446
95996961|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
95996962|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perception: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95996963|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Vitality: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
95996964|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
95996965|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95996966|NCT00636818|191969468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health: Change from Baseline. Change=Endpoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95996967|NCT02201940|191969473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Participants in the SOF/VEL group were compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
95775155|NCT02612610|191522098|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 56 LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 56 estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.7|0.2|0.0192
95775156|NCT02612610|191522099|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.4|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.4|-0.1|0.0626
95775157|NCT02612610|191522099|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.3|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||2.3|-0.2|0.0967
95775158|NCT02612610|191522099|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Mixed Effect Repeated Measures model|||"Day 85/Early Termination LCQ Total Score: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~Day 85/Early Termination estimated treatment differences (gefapixant vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using a MMRM model, which included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, country, treatment-by-visit interaction, and Baseline value as a covariate."||3.1|0.7|0.0028
95775159|NCT02612610|191522100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.3182
95775160|NCT02612610|191522100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.5021
95775161|NCT02612610|191522100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0665|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 28 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0665
95775162|NCT02612610|191522101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0872|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0872
95809243|NCT03440385|191591528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.66|0.77|0.5400
95775163|NCT02612610|191522101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0994|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0994
95775164|NCT02612610|191522101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 56 PGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0009
95775165|NCT02612610|191522102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0037
95775166|NCT02612610|191522102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination PGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0166
95775167|NCT02612610|191522102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||<0.0001
95775168|NCT02612610|191522103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0396
95775169|NCT02612610|191522103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0751
95775170|NCT02612610|191522103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Day 85/Early Termination CGIC: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated using CMH test."||||0.0010
95775171|NCT02612610|191522104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for the gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.8464
95809244|NCT03440385|191591529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.95|0.85|0.2411
95809245|NCT03440385|191591530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.34|0.67|0.7469
95775172|NCT02612610|191522104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7687
95775173|NCT02612610|191522104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"1 Year Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses was compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.4364
95775174|NCT02612610|191522105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9966|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.9966
95775175|NCT02612610|191522105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6372|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6372
95775176|NCT02612610|191522105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2155|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"6 Month Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2155
95775177|NCT02612610|191522106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.7559
95775178|NCT02612610|191522106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.5091
95775179|NCT02612610|191522106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"4 Week Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2790
95775180|NCT02612610|191522107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.3887
95775181|NCT02612610|191522107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.2333
95775182|NCT02612610|191522107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Twice Daily Acceptability: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of Extremely likely responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.0534
95775183|NCT02612610|191522108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0.6115
95775184|NCT02612610|191522108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
95775185|NCT02612610|191522108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Never responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
95775186|NCT02612610|191522109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0||||||"A p-value of zero was calculated if all participants (100%) had No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses in both comparison groups."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 7.5 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||0
95775187|NCT02612610|191522109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 20 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
95809246|NCT03440385|191591531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.97|0.75|0.4255
95809247|NCT03440385|191591532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.76|0.60|0.9313
95809248|NCT03440385|191591533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.31|0.70|0.4339
95775188|NCT02612610|191522109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Taste Effect Frequency: 50 mg gefapixant vs. placebo~The distribution of No Taste Effect Noted or Not at All responses were compared between each of the gefapixant treatment groups and placebo using the stratified CMH test (stratified by country). P-values calculated for gefapixant vs. placebo using CMH test."||||<0.0001
95996968|NCT00885079|191969479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for change from baseline in the FCS score was determined by comparing the non-inferiority margin (0.4) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.24||An analysis of change from baseline of FCS was performed using t-test. The level of singnificanse was 5 % (2-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-1.47|<0.05
95775189|NCT01260272|191522110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.033
95775190|NCT01260272|191522111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0468||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0468
95775191|NCT01260272|191522112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2114||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2114
95775192|NCT01260272|191522113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1727||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.1727
95775193|NCT01260272|191522114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7498||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7498
95775194|NCT01260272|191522115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2615||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.2615
95775195|NCT01260272|191522116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6915||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6915
95775196|NCT01260272|191522117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Apriori threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1060
95775197|NCT03403751|191522138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.649
95775198|NCT03403751|191522141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.871
95809249|NCT03440385|191591534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||2.20|0.77|0.3330
95809250|NCT03440385|191591535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.47|0.74|0.8200
95809251|NCT03440385|191591536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.59|0.71|0.7776
95809252|NCT03440385|191591537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.11|0.92|0.1187
95996969|NCT00885079|191969480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95775199|NCT03403751|191522142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
95775200|NCT03403751|191522143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.448
95775201|NCT03403751|191522144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
95775202|NCT03403751|191522145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
95775203|NCT03403751|191522148|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95775204|NCT03403751|191522149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95775205|NCT03403751|191522150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95775206|NCT03403751|191522151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95775207|NCT01820572|191522156|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.4||||||||10.4|-8.6|
95775208|NCT01820572|191522157|SUPERIORITY|difference between belatacept and CNI|Difference in Proportions|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-9.9|
95775209|NCT05356533|191522178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95775210|NCT05356533|191522178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95775211|NCT05356533|191522179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95775212|NCT05356533|191522180|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95775213|NCT05356533|191522181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95775214|NCT05356533|191522182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95775215|NCT05356533|191522183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>.05
95775216|NCT00746564|191522231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|100|
95775217|NCT00746564|191522232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of clinical recordings|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording during the treadmill test and for each subject as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.7|
95775218|NCT00746564|191522233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|100.0||||||"The sensitivity was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the hand to hand and hand to shoulder maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recordings/Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded on surface ECG"||100|95.5|
95775219|NCT00746564|191522234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recordings|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during the in-clinic recording at rest as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||100|96.7|
95775220|NCT00746564|191522235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of recording|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.9|88.4||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject for the in-clinic recording during the treadmill exercise as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||88.4|65.9|
95775221|NCT00746564|191522236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of recordings|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.3|91.7||||||"The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for each recording and for each subject during Hand to Hand and Hand to Shoulder Maneuvers as follows:~Amount of time (sec) R waves recorded on surface ECG were detected on in-clinic recording / Total amount of time (sec) R waves were recorded by device during in-clinic recording"||91.7|78.3|
95775222|NCT00746564|191522237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.5|100.0||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable was calculated for each weekly Patient Activator recording and for each subject as follows:~Duration (sec) of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time (sec)"||100|98.5|
95775223|NCT00746564|191522238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of interpretable recording|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.9|92.6||||||"The proportion of recording time during which the device recording was interpretable for each automatically triggered/symptom driven recording and for each subject was calculated as follows:~Duration of interpretable recording / Total duration of recording time"||92.6|91.9|
95775224|NCT00746564|191522239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|91.0||||||||91.0|79.4|
95775225|NCT00746564|191522240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of inappropriate recordings|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.1|76.2||||||||76.2|48.1|
95775226|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9788||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Computer Usage||||0.9788
95775227|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.6571||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Reading||||0.6571
95809253|NCT03440385|191591538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no)||||2.26|0.72|0.4030
95809254|NCT03440385|191591539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Mantel Haenszel|Odds ratio, and p-value are obtained using the CMH test stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (yes or no), and prior biologic use (yes or no).||||1.78|0.35|0.5630
95809255|NCT03257657|191591552|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95809256|NCT03257657|191591554|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95809257|NCT03257657|191591556|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95809258|NCT02272985|191591560|OTHER||||||=|0.03||||||the p value was calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.03
95809259|NCT02272985|191591561|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Left frontal gray matter:||||0.001
95809260|NCT02272985|191591561|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Right frontal gray matter:||||0.08
95809261|NCT01432444|191591567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was derived from Exact McNemar test.|McNemar|||Inpatient hospitalization for retrospective period (Months 4-6) and prospective period (Months 4-6) for closed or open unit.||||<.0001
95775228|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.471||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Leisure Activities||||0.4710
95775229|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.736||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Social Activities||||0.7360
95775230|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4999||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Driving||||0.4999
95775231|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1159||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Outdoor Activities||||0.1159
95775232|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4567||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Frequency of Outdoor Activities||||0.4567
95775233|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3439||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Time Spent to Take Care of Eyes||||0.3439
95775234|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3331||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered With Amount of Time Taking Care of Eyes||||0.3331
95809262|NCT01432444|191591568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
95809263|NCT01432444|191591569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analyses for Week 4, Week 12 and Week 24.||||<.0001
95809264|NCT01432444|191591570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from T-test of Mean=0.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean duration was derived as the cumulative duration divided by the number of inpatient non-psychiatric hospitalization.||Statistical analysis for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
95809265|NCT01432444|191591571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Derived from t-test of mean=0.|t-test|||Statistical analysEs for Week 4, 12 and 24.||||<.0001
95809266|NCT02301897|191591573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0008
95775235|NCT03226769|191522254|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4774||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Bothered by Appearance||||0.4774
95775236|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.5457||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyes||||0.5457
95775237|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.9786||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Blurred Vision||||0.9786
95775238|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3894||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Dry Eyes||||0.3894
95775239|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0591||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Itchy Eyes||||0.0591
95775240|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1818||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Burning Eyes||||0.1818
95775241|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.4284||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Gritty Eyes||||0.4284
95809267|NCT02301897|191591573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||<0.001
95860504|NCT05367492|191679860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study group.||||||<0.001
95775242|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1051||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Painful Eyes||||0.1051
95775243|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.7998||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Watery Eyes||||0.7998
95809268|NCT02301897|191591574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0719
95809269|NCT02301897|191591574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-Square Test|||||||0.0004
95809270|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0167
95809271|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1257|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1257
95809272|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9754|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.9754
95809273|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7672|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.7672
95775244|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.1229||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Swollen Eyelids||||0.1229
95809274|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2232|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2232
95809275|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4512|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4512
95809276|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3545|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3545
95809277|NCT02301897|191591575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2482|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.2482
95809278|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0016
95809279|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0003
95996970|NCT02930174|191969514|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95996971|NCT02930174|191969515|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.342
95775245|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.3907||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Red Eyelids||||0.3907
95775246|NCT03226769|191522255|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two devices, TrueTear™ and Thermalon.||||||0.0336||||||Statistically significant (p \< 0.05) and trending significant (p \< 0.10) for within-group or between-group changes from baseline at Day 30. Between-group P-value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Crusty Eyelids||||0.0336
95809280|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.6666
95809281|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3612|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to ODI Course 1||||0.3612
95809282|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0309
95996972|NCT02930174|191969516|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.184
95996973|NCT02930174|191969517|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
95809283|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0007
95809284|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.0641
95809285|NCT02301897|191591576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3743|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 28 FU||||0.3743
95809286|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0049
95775247|NCT01516008|191522256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|76.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|101.7||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||101.7|51.0|<0.001
95775248|NCT01516008|191522256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|90.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|116.1||P-value is adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID48 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID48 in placebo group.|||116.1|65.1|<0.001
95775249|NCT01516008|191522257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
95775250|NCT01516008|191522257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons using the Hochberg method.|Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||<0.001
95775251|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
95775252|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||12 hours||||<0.001
95809287|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0064
95809288|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5637
95809289|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0505
95996974|NCT02930174|191969518|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.204
95996975|NCT02930174|191969519|EQUIVALENCE|Two devices were tested while measuring the differences in lung impedance under multiple pressure settings to determine whether the devices perform in an equivalent fashion. We looked at the mean differences between the 2 devices across the 4 pressure settings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.136
95775253|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||0.001
95809290|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4262
95809291|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1419|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1419
95809292|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4497
95809293|NCT02301897|191591577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5371|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5371
95809294|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0069|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0069
95809295|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0059
95809296|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2117
95809297|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0006
95775254|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||24 hours||||<0.001
95775255|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
95775256|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||48 hours||||<0.001
95775257|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||0.001
95775258|NCT01516008|191522258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Between-group comparison of cumulative distributions of percent reduction||72 hours||||<0.001
95775259|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||0.001
95775260|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
95775261|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
95775262|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
95775263|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
95775264|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
95809298|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0788|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0788
95809299|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0080
95809300|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1516|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1516
95809301|NCT02301897|191591578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0565|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.0565
95996976|NCT05300087|191969526|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.085|||ANOVA|||||1.085|0.947|<0.0001
95775265|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
95775266|NCT01516008|191522259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
95775267|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
95775268|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||12 hours||||<0.001
95775269|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||0.021
95775270|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||24 hours||||<0.001
95775271|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
95775272|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||48 hours||||<0.001
95775273|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
95775274|NCT01516008|191522260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||72 hours||||<0.001
95775275|NCT01516008|191522261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||22.0|11.1|<0.001
95775276|NCT01516008|191522261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|24.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID12 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID12 in placebo group.|12 hours||24.6|13.6|<0.001
95775277|NCT01516008|191522261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|46.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||46.2|23.2|<0.001
95775278|NCT01516008|191522261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID24 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID24 in placebo group.|24 hours||54.6|31.5|<0.001
95775279|NCT01516008|191522261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|122.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|162.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||162.9|81.8|<0.001
95809302|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0110
95809303|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0601|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0601
95809304|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2168|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2168
95809305|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0101
95809306|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2430
95775280|NCT01516008|191522261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|138.57|||<|0.001||95.0|97.8|179.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate.|Difference is SPID72 in tapentadol IR group minus SPID72 in placebo group.|72 hours||179.4|97.8|<0.001
95809307|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0843|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0843
95809308|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
95809309|NCT02301897|191591579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5302
95775281|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|5.0|<0.001
95775282|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|9.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR12 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR12 in placebo group|12 hours||9.3|4.9|<0.001
95775283|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||19.8|10.6|<0.001
95775284|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|20.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR24 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR24 in placebo group|24 hours||20.2|10.9|<0.001
95775285|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|45.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||45.3|24.3|<0.001
95775286|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|44.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR48 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR48 in placebo group|48 hours||44.2|23.0|<0.001
95775287|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|73.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||73.8|39.4|<0.001
95775288|NCT01516008|191522262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|70.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intenstidy as covariate|Difference is TOTPAR72 in tapentadol IR group minus TOTPAR72 in placebo group|72 hours||70.8|36.2|<0.001
95775289|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|30.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||30.9|16.4|<0.001
95775290|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|33.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID12 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID12 in the placebo group|12 hours||33.6|18.9|<0.001
95775291|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|65.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||65.4|34.4|<0.001
95775292|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|74.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID24 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID24 in the placebo group|24 hours||74.2|43.0|<0.001
95775293|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|111.12|||<|0.001||95.0|76.3|145.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||145.9|76.3|<0.001
95809310|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0504
95809311|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0151|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0151
95775294|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|159.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID48 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID48 in the placebo group|48 hours||159.2|89.2|<0.001
95775295|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.4|235.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||235.4|122.4|<0.001
95775296|NCT01516008|191522263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|192.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.2|248.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group and center as factors and baseline pain intensity as covariate|Difference is SPRID72 in the tapentadol IR group minus SPRID72 in the placebo group|72 hours||248.9|135.2|<0.001
95775297|NCT01516008|191522264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
95775298|NCT01516008|191522264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for center||||||<0.001
95775299|NCT01217476|191522265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.66|0.4039
95775300|NCT01217476|191522266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.52|
95775301|NCT04064411|191522271|NON_INFERIORITY|"Noninferiority margin = 2.0% for abaloparatide-sMTS compared with abaloparatide-SC.~Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated treatment difference (abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC) in the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months was above -2.0% using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis."|Least Squares Means (LSM) Difference|-3.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0089|-2.4331|||||LSM Difference = abaloparatide-sMTS minus abaloparatide-SC|||-2.4331|-5.0089|
95775302|NCT01672710|191522296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|14.2|||ANCOVA|||||14.2|-0.3|<0.05
95809312|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5932|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5932
95809313|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0831|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0831
95809314|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1416|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1416
95809315|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0392
95996977|NCT05300087|191969527|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-t) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.051|||ANOVA|||||1.051|0.993|<0.0001
95996978|NCT05300087|191969528|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence would be demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of geometric means for AUC(0-inf) between the test and reference products were completely contained within the FDA defined acceptance range of 80.00%-125.00%.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.048|||ANOVA|||||1.048|0.994|<0.0001
95775303|NCT02122887|191522303|OTHER|χ² (1) =4.57, Cramer's V=.24|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesised that following intervention, those undergoing intervention will be more likely to see justice on both sides, compared to control group||||<0.05
95775304|NCT02122887|191522304|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of tension (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df=1||||||>0.05
95775305|NCT02122887|191522305|EQUIVALENCE|we compared participants levels of empathy (in their interaction with an outgroup member in trail 2) in an interaction test between perspective-taking levels and group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95775306|NCT03055494|191522312|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|88.8|||95% confidence interval|"Statistical analysis of no response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment at Week 12"|||"A patient with missing assessment was considered as having a yes response of skin histology/K16 expression to treatment regardless of the reason for missing data (eg, premature study discontinuation, missed visit, administrative issues). However, missing baseline value was not imputed."|88.8|63.3|
95775307|NCT03055494|191522313|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed in this study|difference in percentages|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.3|69.3|||95% confidence interval|||||69.3|42.3|
95775308|NCT05072106|191522331|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|96.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.09|115.62|||||The reported results are the same as the ones reported in the CSR of the trial.|||115.62|81.09|
95775309|NCT05072106|191522332|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.78|98.32||||||||98.32|64.78|
95775310|NCT05072106|191522333|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|79.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.12|97.82||||||||97.82|64.12|
95775311|NCT05072106|191522334|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|125.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.71|154.36||||||||154.36|101.71|
95775312|NCT05072106|191522335|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|106.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.63|152.8||||||||152.8|74.63|
95775313|NCT05072106|191522336|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.49|158.44||||||||158.44|69.49|
95775314|NCT05072106|191522337|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|88.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.62|119.19||||||||119.19|65.62|
95775315|NCT05072106|191522338|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.8|119.96||||||||119.96|54.8|
95775316|NCT05072106|191522339|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|80.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.26|118.72||||||||118.72|54.26|
95864418|NCT01185353|191686776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95775317|NCT05072106|191522340|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|123.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.36|182.49||||||||182.49|83.36|
95775318|NCT05072106|191522341|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
95775319|NCT05072106|191522342|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.79|224.13||||||||224.13|64.79|
95775320|NCT05072106|191522343|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|188.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.93|266.26||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized Cmax.||266.26|132.93|
95775321|NCT05072106|191522344|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|245.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.4|451.65||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M1 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||451.65|133.4|
95775322|NCT05072106|191522345|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|104.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.07|117.05||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized Cmax.||117.05|94.07|
95775323|NCT05072106|191522346|OTHER|bioequivalence|Least-squares geometric mean ratio|91.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|116.04||||||PK parameter used was the log-transformed metabolite/parent ratio (MPR) of M4 dose-normalized AUC0-t.||116.04|71.39|
95775324|NCT03036098|191522347|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.97|0.64|0.0032
95775325|NCT03036098|191522354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.88|0.59|0.0018
95775326|NCT03036098|191522355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96|||Log Rank|Stratified weighted log-rank test||||0.96|0.63|0.0171
95775327|NCT00771264|191522392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t-test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology.||Mean values were analyzed for significant change using a 2-sided paired t test and proportions were analyzed using chi-square methodology. Median values were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test with p\<0.05 considered statistically significant. A sample size estimate of 214 subjects, 107 per arm, was calculated using a 2-sided Fisher's exact binomial test based on an estimated 60% responder rate in the PTNS group and a 40% in the sham group with a 5% significance level and 80% power.||||0.05
95996979|NCT01697345|191969556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.092|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0378|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.928|-6.256|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-6.256|-13.928|<0.0005
95775328|NCT02928770|191522393|OTHER|||||||0.0559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison between baseline and experimental (Nastent) conditions||||||0.0559
95864419|NCT01185353|191686778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
95996980|NCT01697345|191969557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.859|-0.741|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.741|-1.859|<0.0005
95775329|NCT01424514|191522403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.36|-0.60|
95775330|NCT01424514|191522403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in WM 0-60 TSS||0.51|-0.45|
95809316|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8275|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8275
95809317|NCT02301897|191591580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8733
95809318|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0651
95809319|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0298
95809320|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4005
95809321|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.1114
95809322|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1318|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1318
95809323|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
95809324|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4506|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4506
95809325|NCT02301897|191591581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4614|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.4614
95809326|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0653|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0653
95860505|NCT05367492|191679861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-4.45||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-4.45|-9.08|<0.001
95775331|NCT01424514|191522403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.51||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 1 h in Maximum TSS||0.51|-0.58|
95809327|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0480
95809328|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.4010
95809329|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0772
95809330|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.3206
95775332|NCT01424514|191522403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for 24 h in Maximum TSS||0.72|-0.51|
95775333|NCT01424514|191522405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.54||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for WM 0-60 TSS||0.54|-0.30|
95775334|NCT01424514|191522405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.57||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Maximum TSS||0.57|-0.39|
95775335|NCT01424514|191522409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.08|-0.14|
95809331|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1605|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.1605
95809332|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.5570
95809333|NCT02301897|191591582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3437|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.3437
95809334|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2624|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2624
95809335|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0688
95809336|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2790
95809337|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6541
95809338|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8559|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.8559
95809339|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4326
95809340|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.1052
95809341|NCT02301897|191591583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.9206
95809342|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1439
95809343|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0670
95809344|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.6761
95809345|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0639|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0639
95809346|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2218|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2218
95809347|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4468|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.4468
95809348|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7678
95809349|NCT02301897|191591584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8922
95809350|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.1262
95809351|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2075|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.2075
95809352|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5904|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.5904
95775336|NCT01424514|191522409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.09|-0.13|
95809353|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.2430
95809354|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7067|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.7067
95996981|NCT01697345|191969558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.369||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.495|-0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.755|-2.495|0.002
95996982|NCT01697345|191969559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.876||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.692|-0.308|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.308|-2.692|0.018
95775337|NCT01424514|191522409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 sneezing||0.11|-0.20|
95775338|NCT01424514|191522409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.14|-0.28|
95775339|NCT01424514|191522409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum sneezing||0.13|-0.15|
95775340|NCT01424514|191522409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 24 h in Maximum sneezing||0.16|-0.20|
95775341|NCT01424514|191522410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 2 h in AR||0.07|-0.03|
95996983|NCT01697345|191969560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18168||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9508|-0.4492|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.44920|-1.95080|0.005
95775342|NCT01424514|191522410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 2 h in AR||-0.02|-0.13|
95775343|NCT01424514|191522410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 25 h in AR||0.08|-0.04|
95775344|NCT01424514|191522411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14 in AR||0.26|-0.36|
95775345|NCT01424514|191522412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.60|-0.06|
95809355|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.2725
95775346|NCT01424514|191522412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.53||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.53|-0.32|
95775347|NCT01424514|191522412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in WM 0-60 TOSS||0.63|-0.22|
95809356|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.7016
95775348|NCT01424514|191522412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 1, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.68|-0.30|
95996984|NCT01697345|191969561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.355||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.761|-1.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.039|-2.761|0.001
95996985|NCT01697345|191969562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.567|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.793|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.706|-1.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.428|-3.706|<0.0005
95809357|NCT02301897|191591585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8751|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Week 24 FU||||0.8751
95809358|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0338
95809359|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 1||||0.0004
95809360|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0807
95809361|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to On-Drug Course 2||||0.0142
95809362|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0807|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0807
95809363|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Week 18 Course 2||||0.0142
95809364|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.1859
95809365|NCT02301897|191591586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage CFB to Course 2 Off-drug||||0.0896
95996986|NCT02370121|191969576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95996987|NCT02370121|191969577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95996988|NCT02370121|191969578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95996989|NCT02370121|191969579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95996990|NCT02370121|191969580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95996991|NCT02370121|191969581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95996992|NCT02370121|191969582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95996993|NCT02370121|191969583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95996994|NCT02370121|191969584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95996995|NCT02370121|191969585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95996996|NCT02370121|191969586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95996997|NCT02370121|191969587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95996998|NCT02370121|191969588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95996999|NCT02370121|191969589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95997000|NCT02370121|191969590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95997001|NCT02370121|191969591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95997002|NCT02370121|191969592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95997003|NCT00684177|191969618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|18.4|||Chi-squared|||||18.4|-1.6|0.098
95997004|NCT00684177|191969619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
95860506|NCT05367492|191679861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus tests of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||<0.001
95997005|NCT00684177|191969620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|0.6|0.04
95997006|NCT02770807|191969624|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.37||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.932|0.19|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.190|-2.932|0.0847
95997007|NCT02770807|191969624|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.957|0.152|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||Least squares means, and p-values are derived from a mixed model repeated measures analysis with baseline modified ICARS value as covariate and the fixed effects of treatment, age, sex, region and visit and the interaction term treatment-by-visit.||0.152|-2.957|0.0765
95997008|NCT02770807|191969625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.8919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|2.099|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects.||2.099|0.426|0.8919
95997009|NCT02770807|191969625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.848||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.053|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression modeling (0/1), where 0 = No change or worsening and 1= improvement, with age (at 2 levels:~\<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region as fixed effects."||4.053|0.842|0.1255
95997010|NCT02770807|191969626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|3.144|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.144|0.597|0.4583
95775349|NCT01424514|191522412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 1 h in Maximum TOSS||0.86|-0.34|
95775350|NCT01424514|191522412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73||||||Placebo vs SB-705498 12 mg for Day 14, 24 h in Maximum TOSS||0.73|-0.15|
95775351|NCT05027048|191522422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|211.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|410.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|inverse Gaussian distribution and log li|Inverse Gaussian distribution and log link fit to estimate the effect size and 95% CIs|Inverse gaussian regression with a log link was used to calculate the mean reduction in blood loss in the calcium group relative to placebo group.|||410|-33|<0.05
95997011|NCT02770807|191969626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.371||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.16|||Ordinal Logistic Regression Analysis|||Odds ratio, confidence limits, and p-value derived using a proportional odds ordinal logistic regression analysis, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, ≥10 years), sex, treatment, region, visit, baseline CGI-S score, and treatment-by- visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.160|0.595|0.4585
95775352|NCT05027048|191522423|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||Regression (poisson with robust SE)|||||1.03|0.48|
95997012|NCT02770807|191969627|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-13.33||||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.261|55.601|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||55.601|-82.261|0.7029
95997013|NCT02770807|191969627|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-77.31||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.201|-6.421|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means difference, associated statistics, and p-values derived using ANCOVA, with age (at 2 levels: \<10 years, \>=10 years), sex, treatment, region, and baseline VABS score as fixed effects.||-6.421|-148.201|0.0328
95997014|NCT00749606|191969630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear models analyzed within-subject variation in repeated measures over time. Intention to treat analysis used 5 imputations for missing data.||||||<0.01
95997015|NCT01121406|191969637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier DC rates|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|6.0|||||"95% CI using Greenwood´s variance estimate.~Volasertib (BI 6727) minus Cytotoxic."|Kaplan Meier estimates and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Greenwood's variance estimate within each treatment arm and the asymptotic CI for the difference in the rates found. The time was censored in those cases where there was no death or progression until the last trial visit||6.0|-31.1|
95997016|NCT01121406|191969638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.53|0.66|
95997017|NCT01121406|191969639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727) /Cytotoxic"|||1.42|0.63|
95997018|NCT01121406|191969642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.70|0.73|
95997019|NCT01121406|191969643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.61|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.61|0.40|
95809366|NCT04330859|191591625|SUPERIORITY||Agresti-Caffo|95.0||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|||||58.8 ± 7.2 (intervention) and 57.2 ± 11.2 (control; p = 0.0543)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0543
95809367|NCT01946880|191591654|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.214||||||||0.214|-0.068|
95809368|NCT01946880|191591656|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||||||||0.279|-0.116|
95809369|NCT01946880|191591657|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.36||||||||0.360|-0.091|
95809370|NCT01946880|191591658|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.333||||||||0.333|-0.475|
95809371|NCT01946880|191591659|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.249||||||The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.||0.249|-0.286|
95860507|NCT05367492|191679862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.48||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Varenicline vs Placebo comparisons of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit to data from varenicline and placebo groups only using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic trend of time.|Adjusted mean difference comparing varenicline versus placebo. Negative indicates larger mean in placebo.|||-0.48|-3.08|0.008
95860508|NCT05367492|191679862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Benjamini-Hochberg multiplicity correction applied to p-values reported across family of three secondary analysis results (Omnibus Wald test of secondary inventory outcomes).|Regression, Linear|Models fit using GEE, adjusted for sex, baseline ECDI and outcome score, and quadratic time. Omnibus Wald test of any difference across study groups.||||||0.02
95997020|NCT01121406|191969644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.65|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.65|0.37|
95997021|NCT01121406|191969645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.93|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.93|0.39|
95809372|NCT01946880|191591660|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.497||||||||0.497|-0.090|
95809373|NCT01946880|191591661|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.211||||||||0.211|-0.056|
95809374|NCT01946880|191591662|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.284||||||||0.284|-0.041|
95809375|NCT01946880|191591663|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.206||||||||0.206|-0.285|
95809376|NCT01946880|191591664|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.289||||||||0.289|-0.118|
95809377|NCT01946880|191591665|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.212||||||||0.212|-0.103|
95809378|NCT01946880|191591668|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.149||||||||0.149|-0.028|
95860509|NCT05367492|191679863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
95860510|NCT05367492|191679863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
95997022|NCT01121406|191969646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.47|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||1.47|0.33|
95775353|NCT05027048|191522424|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.23|||Poisson regression with robust SE|||||1.23|0.46|
95775354|NCT05027048|191522425|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.56||||||||1.56|0.2|
95775355|NCT05027048|191522426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Data were log transformed to approximate a normal distribution prior to linear regression.||||0.2|-3.6|
95775356|NCT05027048|191522428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
95775357|NCT05027048|191522429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.566|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.566
95775358|NCT05027048|191522431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA used to analyze differences between groups.||||0.348
95775359|NCT05027048|191522432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA.||Repeated measures ANOVA used to assess for difference between groups in the % change from baseline heart rate.||||0.011
95997023|NCT01121406|191969647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.77|||||"Cox proportional-hazards regression model, stratified by disease status at baseline (measurable vs. non measurable disease) and platinum resistant vs platinum refractory disease at baseline.~HR calculated as Volasertib (BI 6727)/ Cytotoxic"|||0.77|0.09|
95775360|NCT05027048|191522434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95775361|NCT05027048|191522435|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Note: a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated in NONMEM using 6 venous blood ionized calcium measurements per participant at random times. The change in ionized calcium was defined as a measured value minus the measured baseline for the patient.~Once the two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was generated, NONMEM was used to generate a predicted ionized calcium concentration at 10 minutes (Tmax) for each participant to generate mean and 95% confidence interval."|||
95775362|NCT05027048|191522437|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|356.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.0|515.0|||Inverse Gaussian regression, log link||Reduction in blood loss was calculated by inverse Gaussian regression with a log link as detailed in the description of statistical methods for the primary outcome.|||515|159|<0.05
95775363|NCT01473394|191522449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.117|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.886|-3.347|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-3.347|-6.886|<0.00001
95775364|NCT01473394|191522450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.622|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.845|-0.399|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.399|-0.845|<0.00001
95775365|NCT01473394|191522451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as the 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.|||17.4|3.0|0.0047
95775366|NCT04777201|191522519|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.54|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.54|-1.14|0.7702
95809379|NCT01946880|191591669|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.134||||||||0.134|-0.020|
95997024|NCT00892437|191969664|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-weighted difference (COBI group - RTV group) in the response rate at Week 24 was greater than -12%.|Difference in percentages|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|9.9|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|A total planned sample size of 75 subjects had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.||9.9|-24.6|
95775367|NCT04777201|191522520|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.38|||Paired t-test||Difference is the result of study eye minus fellow eye.|No formal hypothesis testing was planned for this study. The paired t-tests were for reference purposes and thus not considered formal. The test was 2-sided, with the null hypothesis of no difference in percent change from baseline between the study eye and fellow eye in each patient.||1.38|-0.84|0.6305
95997025|NCT00892437|191969665|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|9.4|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||9.4|-25.9|
95775368|NCT02357706|191522537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"Comparison of AHI/ oxygen desaturation index (ODI) of Device A compared with Device B.~Efficacy is defined as a residual AHI and ODI on each night of the trial. PSG scored AHI and ODI will be collected on both trial nights (excluding the ramp period); and compared using the Paired T test"||||0.537
95775369|NCT02357706|191522537|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95809380|NCT01946880|191591670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||0.1|-0.1|
95860511|NCT00353470|191679864|SUPERIORITY||shared parameters model|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Power: to detect a between-group effect size of 0.45, for statistical power of 0.80, 56 patients for PFPP or CBT vs. 28 for ART were required. Response rates at termination were calculated by chi-square in the full ITT sample using LOCF.||||>0.16
95860512|NCT00353470|191679864|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95860513|NCT04857320|191679903|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.6e-05|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of Freedom = 5||Glucose was monitored by means of a wearable Continuous Glucose Monitor for several days prior to, during and post dosing. Measurements were gathered for each subject and averaged within-subject data. Our null hypothesis was that post prandial serum glucose would not vary significantly from their baseline values.||||0.000016
95864420|NCT01185353|191686778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
95997026|NCT00892437|191969666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in least squares mean (LSM) and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.22|-0.25|0.87
95997027|NCT00892437|191969667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||0.23|-0.30|0.82
95997028|NCT00892437|191969668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|10.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|84.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||84|-63|0.78
95997029|NCT00892437|191969669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|47.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|134.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||134|-41|0.29
95997030|NCT01882725|191969670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95997031|NCT01882725|191969671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95997032|NCT03068715|191969684|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||MADRS scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||<0.001
95997033|NCT03068715|191969685|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
95997034|NCT03068715|191969688|SUPERIORITY|We assessed the superiority of active over sham.|||||=|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDRS-17 scores were assessed with generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that used Satterthwaite approximation of degrees of freedom and robust estimation of coefficients to handle violations of model assumptions. Fixed effects of time, treatment group (sham vs. active) and their interaction were assessed.||||=0.001
95860514|NCT04857320|191679904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0
95775370|NCT02357706|191522538|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.205
95860515|NCT04857320|191679904|SUPERIORITY|||||||3e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subject received doses applied to the skin of 0.075, 0.10 and 0.15 IUs / Kilogram on successive days. The Subject's average Serum Glucose for these 3 days were compared against the Subject's baseline unmedicated Serum Glucose on non-dosed days.||||0.000003
95860516|NCT04857320|191679904|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000002
95997035|NCT03068715|191969689|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-t test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.308
95997036|NCT03068715|191969689|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.778
95997037|NCT03068715|191969689|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.468
95997038|NCT03068715|191969689|SUPERIORITY|FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis. sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas.|||||=|0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.486
95997039|NCT03068715|191969690|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.447
95775371|NCT02357706|191522538|NON_INFERIORITY|"We are testing the Hypothesis that there is a significant difference between CPAP A and CPAP B~The Null Hypothesis is H0 = One CPAP is inferior to the other CPAP The Alternate Hypothesis is H1 = There is no significant difference between the CPAPs~The expected difference mu is 0 events/hr The Non-Inferiority Margin delta is 0.75 events/hr (A difference of 1 event per hour is seen as clinically significant. 0.75 has been chosen to ensure any AHI change is seen)."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.134
95775372|NCT01899742|191522550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|0.045|<0.001
95775373|NCT01899742|191522551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.122|0.024|0.004
95775374|NCT02195310|191522606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7007|||||||Fisher Exact Test (2-sided)|||||||0.7007
95775375|NCT00834639|191522607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.36||||||90.0|93.68|101.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.18|93.68|
95775376|NCT00834639|191522608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|97.07|104.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.24|97.07|
95775377|NCT00834639|191522609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.36||||||90.0|97.35|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|97.35|
95775378|NCT05010512|191522631|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect. Difference = DT1 minus Infuse|||0.01||
95809381|NCT01946880|191591670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||0.1|-0.1|
95775379|NCT03197870|191522695|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses was tested in the modified intent-to-treat population using a Fisher's Exact Test with a 2-sided 5% significance level. razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily was tested first. If this was found to be statistically significant, then razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be tested for statistical significance, at the same significance level.||||||0.495||||||Missing data was imputed using last observation carried forward; baseline values were not carried forward.|Fisher Exact|||The primary hypotheses tested was that razuprotafib 15 mg twice daily and razuprotafib 15 mg once daily will be superior to placebo in the improvement of diabetic retinopathy as measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study severity scale change from baseline at 48 weeks.||||0.495
95954797|NCT01967719|191881155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|55.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.5|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (mTHS 2.2 - Group 1:mCC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of mTHS 2.2:mCC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||71.50|43.30|
95954798|NCT02329223|191881156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-2.098|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-2.098|-5.310|<0.001
95775380|NCT00478699|191522707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.298|||Log Rank|||Based on the relevant clinical evidence of the prognostic and predictive value of BRCA1, proposes the present study with which it is intended to demonstrate that adjuvant chemotherapy Individualized based on BRCA1 expression (Experimental arm), it is more effective than chemotherapy without individualize based (Control arm) in patients with completely resected stage II-IIIA NSCLC.||1.298|0.689|0.73
95775381|NCT00478699|191522708|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|79.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|95.1|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||95.1|63.5|0.753
95775382|NCT00478699|191522708|SUPERIORITY|The initial hyphotesis were the disease free survival were longest under 65 vs upper 65.|Median Difference (Final Values)|38.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|38.7|||Log Rank|||Control Arm v Experimental Arm||38.7|28|0.025
95775383|NCT01508130|191522709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.6451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.49|||Wald residual chi-square test||Due to the non-interventional study design, the Cox model included a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) to account for the potential imbalance between treatment groups.|||1.49|0.78|0.6451
95954799|NCT02329223|191881156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.921|-0.654|||Mixed Model with repeated measures(MMRM)|||||-0.654|-3.921|0.006
95954800|NCT00552513|191881203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.68|0.15
95775384|NCT01508130|191522709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald residual chi-square test||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate.|||1.34|0.78|0.8826
95775385|NCT01508130|191522710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Multiple Logistic Regression||A multiple logistic regression model including a propensity score as a covariate (incorporated important demographics and baseline characteristics) was used for the treatment comparison.|||1.49|0.58|0.7695
95775386|NCT01508130|191522710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.92|||Multiple Logistic Regression||Without Propensity Score as a Covariate|||1.92|0.84|0.2594
95809382|NCT01946880|191591670|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the SLICC/DI score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||0.1|-0.2|
95809383|NCT01946880|191591671|OTHER|The estimated risk difference (i.e. risk(MMF Withdrawal) - risk(MMF Maintenance)) and 95% confidence intervals around the risk difference at Week 60 were reported using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||||||||0.059|-0.019|
95809384|NCT01946880|191591673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.45|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||5.45|-2.24|
95809385|NCT01946880|191591673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|6.21|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||6.21|-1.13|
95809386|NCT01946880|191591673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|7.28|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the FACIT fatigue score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||7.28|-0.17|
95809387|NCT01946880|191591674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.92|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||2.92|-1.82|
95809388|NCT01946880|191591674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.03|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||4.03|-1.14|
95809389|NCT01946880|191591674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.67|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PF score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||4.67|-0.71|
95860517|NCT04857320|191679904|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000035
95809390|NCT01946880|191591675|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.32|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 24.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 24.||4.32|-1.03|
95809391|NCT01946880|191591675|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.02|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 48.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 48.||5.02|-0.69|
95809392|NCT01946880|191591675|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.82|||||Estimate is for the difference in the change from baseline for MMF Withdrawal - MMF Maintenance at Week 60.|Descriptive statistics (mean and 95% confidence interval) are reported for the difference in the change from baseline in the PCS score between the treatment groups at Week 60.||5.82|0.22|
95809393|NCT05430919|191591779|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.229|-1.385|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.385|-3.229|<0.0001
95809394|NCT05430919|191591780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-1.658|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-1.658|-3.634|<0.0001
95809395|NCT05430919|191591780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.478|-0.539|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-0.539|-2.478|0.0023
95809396|NCT05430919|191591796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-63.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.411|-52.95|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5714-5715 900 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-52.950|-73.411|<0.0001
95809397|NCT05430919|191591796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.806|-45.204|||ANCOVA||REGN5713-5715 600 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-45.204|-66.806|<0.0001
95809398|NCT05430919|191591796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.304|-24.343|||ANCOVA||REGN5715 300 mg vs. Placebo, Day 29|||-24.343|-45.304|<0.0001
95809399|NCT01618708|191591829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.07|||=|0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs Synvisc-One|Synvisc-One group was compared to placebo group using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) approach assuming missing data at random (MAR).||0.52|-0.38|= 0.7462
95809400|NCT05078112|191591871|OTHER|||||||0.000393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000393
95860518|NCT04857320|191679904|SUPERIORITY|||||||4e-06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 3||||||0.000004
95860519|NCT04857320|191679905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0
95860520|NCT00950859|191679906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|91.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||91|58|
95954801|NCT00552513|191881204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.58|0.003
95954802|NCT00552513|191881205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.71|0.04
95954803|NCT00332488|191881216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||0.27|-0.11|0.420
95954804|NCT00332488|191881217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||ANCOVA|Type III||ANCOVA fitting model change from baseline in A1c with fixed effects for treatment and pooled site and baseline A1c as a covariate||1.14|0.69|< 0.001
95809401|NCT00323622|191591878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|16.8||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|32.4||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - GSK RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.40|-2.50|0.08
95809402|NCT00323622|191591878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (HR1/HR2)|11.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|35.18||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||35.18|-20.11|0.43
95809403|NCT00323622|191591879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|14.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|30.28||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||30.28|-3.88|0.11
95809404|NCT00323622|191591879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|12.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|34.59||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||34.59|-16.27|0.35
95809405|NCT00323622|191591880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|19.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|31.93||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||31.93|4.62|0.01
95809406|NCT00323622|191591880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|7.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.44||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||26.44|-17.37|0.54
95809407|NCT00323622|191591881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|16.79||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|33.25||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 21-33 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||33.25|-3.75|0.10
95997040|NCT03068715|191969690|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lsgACC\_lDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.115
95997041|NCT03068715|191969690|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used for the statistics.||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving active iTBS.||||=0.546
95860521|NCT00950859|191679906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|96.0||||||95.0|79.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<400 c/mL or at least 0.7 log10 c/mL below their Baseline value at Day 11.|||100|79|
95855371|NCT00541658|191670498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.1||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.03|0.0066
95997042|NCT03068715|191969690|SUPERIORITY|"FC was calculated as the correlation (Pearson) of the activity pattern across time between ROIs. All Pearson correlation coefficients were then transformed into Fisher's Z score for further analysis.~sgACC (BA25) was defined by Brodmann areas (BA). The 4 nodes of DMN were extracted from the Multi-Subject Dictionary Learning (MSDL) atlas."|||||=|0.607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Functional connectivity between lDMN\_rDMN in participants receiving sham iTBS.||||=0.607
95997043|NCT03068715|191969691|SUPERIORITY||P value of the interaction|0.11|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons at this time.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the interaction between treatment condition and timepoint.||We conducted a linear mixed models analysis, with a focus on the interaction term. No power analysis for this measure because number of participants was determined by other primary study aims.||||<0.05
95997044|NCT03068715|191969692|SUPERIORITY|The SDNN (the standard deviation of the RR intervals) was recorded using ECG. It was not necessary to conduct a power analysis for this measure because the number of participants in the study was based on other considerations (primary treatment goals of the study).|P value of the interaction|0.245|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For reporting purposes here the p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|We were interested in the significance of the interaction between treatment group and timepoint.||We used a linear mixed models analysis, with the fixed factors being treatment group and timepoint.||||<0.05
95775387|NCT01508130|191522717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.64|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.64|0.64|0.9156
95775388|NCT01508130|191522718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.5649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.36|||Wald residual chi-square test||95% CI for median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|||1.36|0.57|0.5649
95997045|NCT00728416|191969693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR nasal congestion score over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM PRIOR Nasal Congestion Score as covariates.||-0.19|-0.43|<0.001
95997046|NCT00728416|191969694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline in average AM/PM PRIOR TNSS over 15 days: MFNS 200 mcg daily vs placebo. The difference in LS means (MFNS - Placebo) was calculated from an ANCOVA model with treatment, site and baseline AM/PM TNSS as covariates.||-0.83|-1.72|<0.001
95775389|NCT03852628|191522762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of having a reduction in AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||1.22|0.02|0.08
95775390|NCT03852628|191522763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of reduction in PTSD symptom.||The placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.97|0.20|0.690
95775391|NCT03852628|191522764|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modeled the probability of have both a reduction in PTSD and AUD||The Placebo arm served as the reference group.||2.66|0.15|0.52
95809408|NCT00323622|191591881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (R1/R2)|6.31||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|32.99||The p-value presented is the Wald Chi-square p-value from the Cox regression model.|Regression, Cox|Point estimate of efficacy was adjusted for age, geographical area of residence, bednet use and distance from health center.||The analysis aimed to compare rates of first PFMI (RPFMI) between groups over the Months 33-45 time period. Using RFPMI, a Cox model was used to evaluate vaccine efficacy (VE) allowing for adjustment factors. VE, point estimate of efficacy adjusted for covariates, was calculated as 1 - (minus) \[Hazard Ratio (HR) in Cohort 1 - RTS,S/AS02A Group \[HR1\]) divided by HR in Cohort 1 - Engerix-B/Prevnar-Hiberix Group \[HR2\])\], i. e. 1 - (HR1/HR2).||32.99|-31.00|0.70
95997047|NCT03584009|191969695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.7286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|12.94||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.94|-16.86|0.7286
95997048|NCT03584009|191969696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.61|0.7853
95775392|NCT02548351|191522854|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.043|||Log Rank|||||1.043|0.635|0.1028
95775393|NCT02548351|191522854|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.772||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.994|||Log Rank|||||0.994|0.600|0.0444
95809409|NCT00488293|191591934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95997049|NCT03584009|191969697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.96||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|8.37||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.37|-12.29|0.5978
95775394|NCT02548351|191522855|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.6|3.6|<0.0001
95775395|NCT02548351|191522855|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.0|5.8|<0.0001
95775396|NCT02548351|191522856|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|3.0|0.0004
95775397|NCT02548351|191522856|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|5.2|<0.0001
95775398|NCT02276053|191522922|OTHER||Retention rate|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|93.1|||||"Confidence intervals for the 6-month retention rate were calculated using Greenwood's formula.~Addition of a note: Not all patients had an Observation Period of 6 months."|The retention rate was derived using Kaplan-Meier methodology where patients who completed the study were censored at the date of last administration of LCM in the study.||93.1|79.0|
95775399|NCT02059434|191522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.149||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.149|0.060|<0.0001
95864421|NCT01185353|191686778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95775400|NCT02059434|191522934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.223||All statistical comparisons were two-sided hypothesis tests, and the significance level was set at 0.05 without multiplicity adjustment|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to trough FEV1 was analyzed by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for cross-over designs with sequence, treatment group and period as fixed effect factors, subject within sequence as random effect, and screening and baseline FEV1 value of each period as covariates||0.223|0.133|<0.0001
95775401|NCT04769466|191522951|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.020
95775402|NCT04769466|191522952|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.223
95775403|NCT04769466|191522953|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-Test||||0.036
95775404|NCT04769466|191522954|OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.131
95775405|NCT04769466|191522955|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.351
95775406|NCT04769466|191522956|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
95775407|NCT04769466|191522957|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||T-Test||||0.400
95775408|NCT04769466|191522959|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95809410|NCT00488293|191591935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.88
95809411|NCT00488293|191591936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95775409|NCT04769466|191522961|OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.459
95775410|NCT04769466|191522962|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.033
95775411|NCT04769466|191522963|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.103
95775412|NCT04769466|191522964|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
95775413|NCT04769466|191522965|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.214
95775414|NCT04769466|191522966|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
95775415|NCT04769466|191522969|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95954805|NCT02507687|191881226|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.08|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||-0.08|-1.03|0.0231
95954806|NCT02507687|191881227|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.18|-1.04|0.1615
95775416|NCT04769466|191522970|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95775417|NCT02759055|191522975|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.008|0.998|<0.05
95775418|NCT02653170|191523015|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = 0.970 (p=0.335), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 3.370 (p\<0.001), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 2.400 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.025
95775419|NCT02653170|191523016|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.562||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|PROC MIXED MODEL including main effects of intervention group (UC, SWSCM, SWSCM+VSSP website) and time (7-day and 90-day) plus the interaction term|The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.064 (p=0.422), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 0.258 (p=0.844), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 1.322 (p=0.309)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.562
95775420|NCT02653170|191523017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.789
95809412|NCT00488293|191591937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95809413|NCT00488293|191591938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95809414|NCT00488293|191591939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95809415|NCT00488293|191591940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95809416|NCT00488293|191591941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95809417|NCT00488293|191591942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95809418|NCT00488293|191591943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.65
95775421|NCT02653170|191523018|SUPERIORITY||difference-in-differences (DID) p-value|0.042||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis||The DID estimates contrasting the 90-day minus 7-day differences in each group are as follows: SWSCM vs Usual Care = -1.651 (p=0.558), SWSCM+VSSP vs Usual Care = 5.023 (p=0.073), SWSCM+VSSP vs SWSCM = 6.674 (p=0.016)|Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.042
95775422|NCT02653170|191523019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||P-value represents the test of the interaction term for a difference-in-differences (DID) model \[i.e., 2 degree freedom test of the interaction between intervention group\*time\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data were analyzed as the change over time between treatment groups (i.e., 90-day least square mean minus 7-day least square mean) using a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis that involves a group \* time interaction term.||||0.993
95775423|NCT03051516|191523060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV16 persistence by study arm.||||0.89
95775424|NCT03051516|191523060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV18/45 persistence by study arm.||||0.65
95775425|NCT03051516|191523060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV31/33/52/58 persistence by study arm.||||0.056
95775426|NCT03051516|191523060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||This p-value compares HPV35/39/51/56/59 persistence by study arm.||||0.38
95775427|NCT03051516|191523060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||This p-value compares overall HPV persistence and is not specific to HPV genotype.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95775428|NCT03051516|191523061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
95809419|NCT00500331|191591944|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response: Change= Baseline+Treatment|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change= Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg, GSK189075 1000 mg||||<0.001
95775429|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.135|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fever or chills.||||0.135
95775430|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of headache.||||0.640
95775431|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.838|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of fatigue.||||0.838
95809420|NCT00500331|191591944|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg, GSK189075 500 mg||||<0.001
95962203|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-14.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-6.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-6.5|-22.7|0.0005
95775432|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of muscle aches.||||0.917
95775433|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of pain at injection site.||||0.005
95775434|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of tenderness at injection site.||||0.001
95775435|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of swelling at injection site.||||0.004
95775436|NCT03051516|191523062|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is specific to the incidence of medical attention/medication required.||||0.133
95775437|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
95775438|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.77
95775439|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.57
95775440|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.73
95775441|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.998
95775442|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.93
95775443|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.95
95775444|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm I (Vaccine)||||0.91
95775445|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV16, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.22
95775446|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV18, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.27
95775447|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV31, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.72
95775448|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV33, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.71
95775449|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV45, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.11
95775450|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV52, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.58
95775451|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of HPV58, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.81
95809421|NCT00500331|191591944|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg, GSK189075 250 mg||||<0.001
95775452|NCT03051516|191523063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||This p-value compares HSIL recurrence and presence of any HPV type, in Arm II (Placebo)||||0.73
95775453|NCT03875482|191523083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.4|69.6|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||69.6|48.4|<0.001
95775454|NCT03875482|191523084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|68.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|79.7|||Chi-squared|||The variable was analyzed using the Chi-square test. Both null hypotheses corresponding to the co-primary endpoints must be rejected simultaneously under a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||79.7|57.2|<0.001
95775455|NCT03875482|191523085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints had been rejected.||46.2|26.2|<0.001
95775456|NCT03875482|191523086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|47.2|||Chi-squared|||The ranked secondary efficacy endpoints at Week 16 were to be tested between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups among the ITT Population in a hierarchical order only if the null hypotheses for both primary endpoints and for the first secondary endpoint had been rejected.||47.2|27.1|<0.001
95775457|NCT03875482|191523087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.936|-26.346|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 4~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-26.346|-45.936|<0.001
95775458|NCT03875482|191523087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.326|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.501|-49.439|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements||Risankizumab - placebo|"Risankizumab vs placebo at Week 16~Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurements (MMRM): The repeated measures analysis was conducted using a mixed model including the baseline value and observed measurements at all post-baseline visits. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as covariates."||-49.439|-70.501|<0.001
95775459|NCT00614120|191523103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.8mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.23|0.11||Non-inferiority; \<.0001. In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
95775460|NCT00614120|191523103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 1.2mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.03|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.14|0.2||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority. Statistical significance on a 2.5% level.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.20|-0.14|<.0001
95860522|NCT02249832|191679924|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95809422|NCT00500331|191591944|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg, GSK189075 100 mg||||<0.001
95809423|NCT00500331|191591944|OTHER|Tukey's trend test for dose response|||||<|0.001||||||Tukey's trend test adjusts for multiplicity with statistical significance based on p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo, GSK189075 50 mg||||<0.001
95809424|NCT00500331|191591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 50 mg||-0.44|-1.02|<0.001
95809425|NCT00500331|191591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 100 mg||-0.35|-0.94|<0.001
95860523|NCT02249832|191679925|EQUIVALENCE|A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean gait speed in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||<0.001
95775461|NCT00614120|191523103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is concluded if the two-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for treatment difference in mean change in HbA1c between lira 0.6mg + met and glim + met is below 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.25||||0.0421||95.0|0.08|0.42||In order to protect the overall Type I error rate when testing for non-inferiority of the three doses of lira + met to glim + met, the comparisons will be invoked sequentially for descending doses of liraglutide.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as a covariate.|The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either superiority or non-inferiority.|"Based on standard normal theory, the sample size needed in order to be able to show that lira + met is non-inferior to glim + met when using a 1:1 randomisation and a non-inferiority criteria of 0.4% with a power of at least 85%, is tabulated below using different SD of HbA1c.~Assuming a drop out rate of 25%, the total number of subjects to be randomised is 896 (224 for each dose of the liraglutide + metformin group and 224 subjects in metformin+glimepiride treatment group) with a SD of 1.2%."||0.42|0.08|0.0421
95775462|NCT01869699|191523137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||We estimated that 20 patients per group would provide 80% power for detecting a difference in means of 0.6 degrees Celsius, with a pooled SD of 0.67 degrees, using a two group t test and a two sided alpha level of 0.05. A previous RCT of IV acetaminophen in healthy male volunteers with induced fever found a core temperature difference of 0.60 degrees with a common SD of 0.67 degrees Celsius.||-0.18|-0.76|0.002
95775463|NCT01869699|191523138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-10|0.03
95775464|NCT01869699|191523139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8|-25|<0.001
95775465|NCT01869699|191523140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12|-4|0.42
95775466|NCT01869699|191523141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1|0.002
95775467|NCT01869699|191523142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10|-38|0.001
95775468|NCT01869699|191523143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1|-15|0.02
95775469|NCT01041976|191523156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95775470|NCT01041976|191523157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95775471|NCT00574249|191523183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Level of significance 5%; no adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided CMH test stratified by country at the alpha level 0.05. Centers were pooled by country (Sweden and Finland pooled due to few participants).||Comparison of the proportion of participants in the adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone group vs. the adalimumab + placebo group.||||0.086
95775472|NCT00574249|191523184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.565
95809426|NCT00500331|191591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.44||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 250 mg||-0.44|-1.03|<0.001
95809427|NCT00500331|191591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.61||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 500 mg||-0.61|-1.19|<0.001
95775473|NCT00574249|191523185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95775474|NCT00574249|191523186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95775475|NCT00574249|191523187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95809428|NCT00500331|191591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.77||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. GSK189075 1000 mg||-0.77|-1.36|<0.001
95809429|NCT00500331|191591944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.47||Pairwise comparison included for informational purposes and not controlled for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Change=Baseline+Treatment||Placebo vs. Pioglitazone 30 mg||-0.47|-1.05|<0.001
95775476|NCT00574249|191523188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95775477|NCT00574249|191523189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74||||0.204||95.0|-5.3|24.78|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. For confidence interval and difference estimate, adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo was used.||||24.78|-5.30|0.204
95775478|NCT00574249|191523190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.55||||0.272||95.0|-48.92|13.82|||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA. Confidence interval and difference estimated from adalimumab + calcipotriol/betamethasone minus adalimumab + placebo.||||13.82|-48.92|0.272
95775479|NCT00574249|191523191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.413
95775480|NCT00574249|191523192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95775481|NCT00574249|191523193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
95775482|NCT00574249|191523194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.228
95775483|NCT00574249|191523195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||< 0.001
95775484|NCT00574249|191523196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.001
95775485|NCT00574249|191523197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.764
95775486|NCT00574249|191523198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.437
95809430|NCT00137449|191591996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.0||||||95.0|31.3|68.7|||F distribution|||||68.7|31.3|
95809431|NCT00137449|191591996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|56.7||||||95.0|37.4|74.5|||F distribution|||||74.5|37.4|
95860524|NCT02249832|191679926|EQUIVALENCE|A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with group (mean distance walked in the low, moderate, and high groups) and time (admission, discharge (week 6), and follow-up (overall week 18) in each condition) as factors. Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean gait speed over time across the three groups. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.001||||||A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95775487|NCT00574249|191523199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.740
95775488|NCT00574249|191523200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA.||||||0.634
95775489|NCT01542034|191523201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.702|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.808|4.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by pooled study center.|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||4.880|2.808|<0.001
95775490|NCT01542034|191523202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center.||The primary analysis was satisfied if both null hypotheses (there is no treatment difference in 1-grade or 2-grade response rate) were rejected in favor of the two-tailed alternative at the 0.05 level of significance for both primary efficacy endpoints, and the response rates were higher for the deoxycholic acid injection treatment group than the placebo group. Because both hypotheses must be rejected, the type I error was preserved when testing the primary endpoints.||||<0.001
95775491|NCT01542034|191523203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|20.148|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH method stratified by pooled study center|A risk ratio greater than 1 favors deoxycholic acid injection treatment, and between 0 and 1 favors placebo.|If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||20.148|3.620|<0.001
95954807|NCT02507687|191881228|NON_INFERIORITY|"Statistical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) mean difference between the Bimatoprost SR 10 µg eyes and SLT eyes was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at Weeks 4, 12, and 24.~Clinical non-inferiority of Bimatoprost SR 10 µg to SLT was considered if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.0 mmHg at 2 out of the 3 visits of Weeks 4, 12, and 24."|LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.17|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|The model includes treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-baseline, and visit-by-eyes interactions as covariates.||||0.17|-0.97|0.1673
95775492|NCT01542034|191523204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and Baseline PR-SMFIS total scale score.||If both primary endpoints were statistically significant, testing continued to the 2 secondary endpoints using the Bonferroni-Holm method. The smaller of the 2 p-values for the treatment difference was tested at the 0.025 level. If significant, testing proceeded for the remaining secondary endpoint at the 0.05 level. If the smaller p-value was \> 0.025, the null hypothesis for the associated variable would not be rejected, and testing of the second endpoint would not proceed.||||<0.001
95775493|NCT01623037|191523205|OTHER||sucess proportion|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|83.6||||||||83.6|55.7|
95775494|NCT04442269|191523219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.201||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0768|0.3256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3256|0.0768|0.0022
95775495|NCT01167881|191523244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.87|-4.05||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.05|-4.87|<0.0001
95775496|NCT01167881|191523245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|<0.0001
95860525|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1334||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0583|0.3251|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Grey matter||0.3251|-0.0583|0.1695
95809432|NCT00137449|191591996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.3|||F distribution|||Null hypothesis that the true CBR \<=20% vs the alternative hypothesis that the true clinical benefit rate is at least 35%. The sample size is determined using a single-stage design with an alpha level of 10% \& 90% power. If \>=17 CR, PR or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can be rejected with a 20% target false positive error rate. If \<= 16 CR, PR,or SD for at least 24 weeks are observed, null hypothesis can not be rejected with a target false negative error rate of 10%.||66.3|40.0|
95809433|NCT00137449|191591998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|10.0||||||95.0|2.1|26.5|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||26.5|2.1|
95997050|NCT03584009|191969699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.43||P-value is based on Stratified Analysis (Stratified by BCL2 status (High vs Low) and Lines of Therapy (2 vs 1)).|Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|||3.43|1.02|0.0403
95775497|NCT01167881|191523245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.01||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-0.01|-0.20|0.0153
95775498|NCT01167881|191523246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.06|0.173||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||0.173|0.060|<0.0001
95775499|NCT01167881|191523247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-4.2|-7.0|<0.0001
95775500|NCT01167881|191523248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-1.8||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for main analysis (104 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 104 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 104 weeks,~4. Superiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 104 weeks,~5. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks,~6. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 104 weeks."||-1.8|-3.5|<0.0001
95775501|NCT01167881|191523249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested through a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the treatment effect of empagliflozin minus the effect of glimepiride in change from baseline in HbA1c. The null-hypothesis of material inferiority of empagliflozin was rejected if the confidence interval is entirely below the non-inferiority margin 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as linear covariate.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.02|-0.16|<0.0001
95809434|NCT00137449|191591998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|16.7||||||95.0|5.6|34.7|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||34.7|5.6|
95809435|NCT00137449|191591998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR rate (percentage)|13.3||||||95.0|5.9|24.6|||F distribution||PR or CR responding tumor measurements confirmed by repeat studies performed at \> 4 weeks after the criteria for response first met.|||24.6|5.9|
95809436|NCT00137449|191592000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|27.0||||||95.0|22.0|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley. Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||73.1|22.0|
95809437|NCT00137449|191592000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|35.1||||||95.0|24.4|51.6|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||51.6|24.4|
95809438|NCT00137449|191592000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|33.6||||||95.0|24.1|49.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Median reported is progression free survival weeks.||49.0|24.1|
95809439|NCT00137449|191592001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|57.0||||||95.0|24.1|73.1|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||73.1|24.1|
95809440|NCT00137449|191592001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
95809441|NCT00137449|191592001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median|42.1||||||95.0|26.1|65.9|||Kaplan-Meier method|||95% CI calculated based on the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.Time to progression in weeks reported as median.||65.9|26.1|
95809442|NCT00137449|191592003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|60.0||||||95.0|40.5|75.0|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||75.0|40.5|
95809443|NCT00137449|191592003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|79.7||||||95.0|60.3|90.3|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||90.3|60.3|
95860526|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175||||0.1057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.388|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For posterior cingulate Gyrus||0.3880|-0.0380|0.1057
95997051|NCT00768560|191969704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.69||||||90.0|-12.62|-6.77|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-6.77|-12.62|
95997052|NCT00768560|191969704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-2.87|2.98|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||2.98|-2.87|
95775502|NCT01167881|191523250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.16|-4.46||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.46|-5.16|<0.0001
95775503|NCT01167881|191523251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.148||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline HbA1c (\<8.5 / \>=8.5).||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||0.148|0.040|<0.0001
95775504|NCT01167881|191523252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.3|-4.4||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline SBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-4.4|-7.3|<0.0001
95775505|NCT01167881|191523253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|-2.0||The superiority tests performed at 104 weeks and the superiority tests performed at 52 weeks both used a nominal significance level of 2.5% to maintain the overall significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, geographical region, renal function at baseline as fixed effects and baseline DBP, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates.||"Testing Hierarchy for first interim analysis (52 weeks):~1. Non-inferiority in HbA1c change from baseline at 52 weeks,~2. Superiority in body weight change from baseline at 52 weeks,~3. Superiority in occurrence of confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events at 52 weeks,~4. Superiority in systolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks,~5. Superiority in diastolic blood pressure change from baseline at 52 weeks."||-2.0|-3.7|<0.0001
95775506|NCT05870956|191523255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|932.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1880.17|3745.94|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||3745.94|-1880.17|0.516
95775507|NCT05870956|191523255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4902.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|767.6|9036.43|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||9036.43|767.60|0.020
95775508|NCT05870956|191523255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2727.38||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|323.48|5131.27|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5131.27|323.48|0.026
95775509|NCT05870956|191523255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5462.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2520.93|8403.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8403.90|2520.93|0.000
95997053|NCT00768560|191969704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.75||||||90.0|6.83|12.67|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in SBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||12.67|6.83|
95997054|NCT00768560|191969704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||||90.0|-5.5|-2.44|||||40 mg BID minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||-2.44|-5.50|
95997055|NCT00768560|191969704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||90.0|-2.21|0.85|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg OD|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||0.85|-2.21|
95997056|NCT00768560|191969704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||||90.0|1.76|4.82|||||80 mg OD minus 40 mg BID|The point estimate and 90% confidence interval of the difference of changes in DBP from baseline was estimated by using the ANOVA model including the terms: group, subject within a group, dosage and administration and stage as fixed effects.||4.82|1.76|
95997057|NCT03830281|191969728|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.06|0.565
95997058|NCT03830281|191969729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|||||-12.2|-36.0|<0.001
95997059|NCT03830281|191969730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13.0|-42.6|< 0.001
95775510|NCT05870956|191523256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-303.94||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1074.77|466.9|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||466.90|-1074.77|0.439
95775511|NCT05870956|191523256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2772.06||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|422.1|5122.02|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5122.02|422.10|0.021
95775512|NCT05870956|191523256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|456.79||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-458.64|1372.21|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||1372.21|-458.64|0.328
95775513|NCT05870956|191523256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|620.87||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.77|2013.51|||ANOVA||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||2013.51|-771.77|0.382
95775514|NCT05870956|191523257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.9|-4.0|0.463
95775515|NCT05870956|191523257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||16.8|2.5|0.008
95775516|NCT05870956|191523257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.3|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||15.3|2.8|0.005
95775517|NCT05870956|191523257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.7|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||11.7|1.1|0.019
95775518|NCT05870956|191523258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.5|-4.3|0.801
95809444|NCT00137449|191592003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 year survival rate|69.7||||||95.0|56.3|79.7|||Kaplan-Meier method|||||79.7|56.3|
95775519|NCT05870956|191523258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.8|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||14.8|2.7|0.005
95775520|NCT05870956|191523258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.2|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||8.2|-1.4|0.170
95775521|NCT05870956|191523258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.4|||Chi-squared||"The net difference was calculated as:~Comparator - Reference~where High nintedanib adherence group was used as reference."|||5.4|-2.6|0.489
95775522|NCT02294175|191523265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.029
95775523|NCT02294175|191523266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied to the F test degrees of freedom due to violation of the sphericity assumption (p\<.05 for Mauchly's W).||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.037
95809445|NCT02296099|191592007|EQUIVALENCE|The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized.||||||0.014||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the two groups.||||0.014
95809446|NCT01356940|191592017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.586||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|||||0.586
95809447|NCT04033640|191592026|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
95809448|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20458||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6506|0.1809|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with sequence, period, regimen and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1809|-0.6506|0.259
95954808|NCT00733226|191881232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.1||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was computed to prove that a 30% decrease of the rate of virus provoked wheezing attacks in the OM-85 group compared with placebo is statistically significant. Approximately 29 analyzable participants in each group were required, with α=0.05 and β=0.10 (ie, with a power of 90%), respectively. The difference of 30% was taken from both pilot study and clinical experience. Sample size estimation was performed by using NCSS and PASS 2000 software.||-1.10|-3.20|0.05
95954809|NCT00733226|191881233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.01||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.01|-3.06|<0.001
95954810|NCT00733226|191881234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.27|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons||||-1.27|-2.94|<0.001
95954811|NCT00733226|191881235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.11||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.11|-0.77|0.110
95809449|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22075||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4853|0.4119|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4119|-0.4853|0.869
95997060|NCT03830281|191969731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during daytime is reported.||2.8|-1.4|0.532
95997061|NCT03830281|191969731|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis during 24-hour period is reported.||2.5|-1.8|0.738
95775524|NCT02294175|191523267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. This interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether the reduction of bacterial CFUs over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.012
95775525|NCT02294175|191523268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.397
95775526|NCT02294175|191523269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in MMP-9 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.661
95775527|NCT02294175|191523270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA. The interaction effect is controlling for any potential main effects of treatment arm (SDT vs LDT) and time (days 0, 4, 8).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RMANOVA) to test for effects of treatment arm, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The effect of interest is the treatment-by-time interaction, i.e, whether change in IL6 over time varies according to treatment arm.||||.979
95775528|NCT02294175|191523271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.999
95775529|NCT02294175|191523272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.415
95775530|NCT02294175|191523273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.993
95775531|NCT02294175|191523274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z|||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used as a non-parametric test to compare rank scores between treatment arms (similar to Mann-Whitney, but potentially more powerful).||||.990
95775532|NCT02805660|191523285|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.537|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.537
95775533|NCT02805660|191523285|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.|||||>|0.999|||||||Exact Test|||||||>0.999
95775534|NCT02805660|191523285|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.283|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.283
95997062|NCT02690701|191969743|SUPERIORITY|This superiority trial compares secukinumab with placebo with a view of demonstrating the superiority of secukinumab over placebo with regards to a specific outcome measure.|Least Square Mean|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis (Analysis of Covariance) of change from baseline in target to background ratio for regions of the aorta at Week 12 (Full Analysis Set)||0.064|-0.169|0.3712
95775535|NCT02805660|191523285|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion was performed to test null hypothesis (H0): ORR \<= 5% against alternative hypothesis (H1): ORR \> 5% for Cohorts 1, 3, and 4 and to test H0: ORR \<= 27% against H1: ORR \> 27% for Cohort 2.||||||0.025|||||||Exact Test|||||||0.025
95775536|NCT02572076|191523296|OTHER|Pilot study- no sample size was calculated|number of subjects with adequate cleansi|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|100.0||||||patients had partial bowel preparation to mimic poor bowel cleansing before the colonoscopy procedure at baseline, MCS was used during the procedure to clean the colon.||100|66|
95775537|NCT02778074|191523297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775538|NCT01817582|191523325|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.3||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.3|-0.7|0.6199
95775539|NCT01817582|191523325|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||1.2|-0.9|0.8070
95775540|NCT01817582|191523325|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||0.9|-1.1|0.8068
95775541|NCT01817582|191523326|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.2296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.8|-11.6|0.2296
95775542|NCT01817582|191523326|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||2.5|-12.3|0.1890
95809450|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20968||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6441|0.2081|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2081|-0.6441|0.306
95997063|NCT02700451|191969773|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total in the first 72H is the same across these arms||||<0.001
95997064|NCT02700451|191969773|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval|||||<|0.001||||||The thresholds for statistical significant was p = 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of OME total to discharge is the same across these arms||||<0.001
95997065|NCT02700451|191969774|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||Similar Distribution of opioid use between the 3 arms||||0.048
95997066|NCT02700451|191969775|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
95997067|NCT02700451|191969778|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.732|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.732
95997068|NCT02700451|191969778|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.896|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.896
95997069|NCT02700451|191969778|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.004
95997070|NCT02700451|191969778|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.325|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Current pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.325
95997071|NCT02700451|191969778|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.283|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Best pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.283
95775543|NCT01817582|191523326|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method.||6.7|-7.7|0.8836
95775544|NCT03053063|191523349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.9||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for baseline (BL) diabetes mellitus status and BL Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-4.4|0.5572
95775545|NCT03053063|191523349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.5||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.5|-6.0|0.9272
95775546|NCT03053063|191523352|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|10.6||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||10.6|-3.1|0.2850
95775547|NCT03053063|191523352|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.2||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||8.2|-5.3|0.6731
95775548|NCT03053063|191523354|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.0|-5.5|0.3650
95775549|NCT03053063|191523354|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.4||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.6||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratified Mantel-Haenszel method adjusting for BL diabetes mellitus status and BL ELF score (\<11.27 vs ≥11.27).|Mantel Haenszel|||||3.6|-4.3|0.8557
95775550|NCT03963232|191523368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-2.32|<.0001
95775551|NCT03963232|191523369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.557|||GLIMMIX|||30% responder||3.557|2.010|<.0001
95775552|NCT03963232|191523369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.869|3.293|||GLIMMIX|||50% responder||3.293|1.869|<.0001
95775553|NCT03963232|191523369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.007|3.972|||GLIMMIX|||75% responder||3.972|2.007|<.0001
95775554|NCT03963232|191523369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.989|5.504|||GLIMMIX|||100% responder||5.504|1.989|<.0001
95775555|NCT03963232|191523370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|8.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.95|5.20|<.0001
95775556|NCT03963232|191523371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.25|<.0001
95775557|NCT03963232|191523372|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-2.35|<.0001
95775558|NCT03963232|191523373|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|1.92|<.0001
95775559|NCT03963232|191523374|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.15|<.0001
95775560|NCT03963232|191523375|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-14.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.56|-23.21|<.0001
95775561|NCT03963232|191523376|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.73|-14.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.75|-23.73|<.0001
95775562|NCT03963232|191523377|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.22|<.0001
95775563|NCT03963232|191523378|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.43|0.0284
95775564|NCT03963232|191523379|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2484||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-6.05|||ANCOVA|||||-6.05|-18.81|0.0001
95997072|NCT02700451|191969778|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Worst pain level is the same across the 3 arms||||0.610
95997073|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
95997074|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.294|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.294
95954812|NCT00733226|191881236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.03|-0.55|0.195
95954813|NCT00733226|191881237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.42||P value was not need to adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.42|-2.87|0.452
95775565|NCT03569293|191523382|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|69.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.8|57.1|<0.001
95775566|NCT03569293|191523382|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|46.4|<0.001
95775567|NCT03569293|191523383|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|47.2|<0.001
95775568|NCT03569293|191523383|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.4|33.2|<0.001
95775569|NCT03569293|191523384|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|55.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||55.0|41.3|<0.001
95775570|NCT03569293|191523384|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.5|33.5|<0.001
95775571|NCT03569293|191523385|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|51.5|<0.001
95775572|NCT03569293|191523385|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|51.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.7|38.6|<0.001
95775573|NCT03569293|191523386|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.3|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|56.3|<0.001
95775574|NCT03569293|191523386|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|53.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.4|40.7|<0.001
95809451|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17956||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6174|0.1124|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1124|-0.6174|0.169
95809452|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19375||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|0.3521|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3521|-0.4354|0.831
95997075|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.016
95809453|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18403||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6161|0.1319|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1319|-0.6161|0.197
95809454|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4443|0.2133|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2133|-0.4443|0.480
95809455|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17458||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1875|0.5221|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5221|-0.1875|0.345
95809456|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1504|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16583||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4874|0.1866|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1866|-0.4874|0.371
95809457|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18808||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5553|0.2092|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2092|-0.5553|0.364
95809458|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20294||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2762|0.5486|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.5486|-0.2762|0.507
95809459|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19276||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6381|0.1453|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Posterior Cingulate Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1453|-0.6381|0.210
95809460|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14253||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5955|-0.0162|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0162|-0.5955|0.039
95954814|NCT02561078|191881239|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for the primary objective of noninferiority was performed at the 0.05 significance level using the LS Mean estimate of the difference in change in HbA1c between the 2 treatments at Week 26. Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (U 500R CSII minus U 500R MDI) was below the noninferiority margin (NIM) of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.001
95997076|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.082|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.082
95997077|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.117
95809461|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1538||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2991|0.326|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3260|-0.2991|0.931
95809462|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14608||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4133|0.1804|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1804|-0.4133|0.431
95860527|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1426||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.3543|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Frontal lobe||0.3543|-0.0691|0.1833
95954815|NCT02561078|191881240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.7|-49.4|<0.001
95954816|NCT02561078|191881241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|1.14|0.015
95997078|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.061
95954817|NCT02561078|191881242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.23|0.005
95997079|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.023|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD1 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.023
95775575|NCT03569293|191523387|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.0|37.7|<0.001
95809463|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13362||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5985|-0.0554|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0554|-0.5985|0.020
95809464|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14418||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3775|0.2085|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2085|-0.3775|0.562
95809465|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13695||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.1056|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Striatum: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1056|-0.4510|0.216
95809466|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17609||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3663|0.3495|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3495|-0.3663|0.962
95809467|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19001||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4218|0.3505|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3505|-0.4218|0.852
95775576|NCT03569293|191523387|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.5|28.6|<0.001
95775577|NCT03569293|191523388|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|14.6|<0.001
95809468|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18048||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5822|0.1514|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1514|-0.5822|0.241
95809469|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17766||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4991|0.223|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2230|-0.4991|0.443
95809470|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1917||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5933|0.1859|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1859|-0.5933|0.295
95997080|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.681|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with General Activity is the same across the 3 arms||||0.681
95997081|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.405|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Mood is the same across the 3 arms||||0.405
95860528|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1366||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0574|0.3307|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For parietal lobe||0.3307|-0.0574|0.1644
95997082|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.458|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Walking Ability is the same across the 3 arms||||0.458
95997083|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.482|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Normal work is the same across the 3 arms||||0.482
95997084|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.544|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Relation with other is the same across the 3 arms||||0.544
95997085|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Sleep is the same across the 3 arms||||0.202
95809471|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18209||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4303|0.3098|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Amygdala: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3098|-0.4303|0.743
95809472|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16068||0.277||95.0|-0.504|0.1491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1491|-0.5040|0.277
95809473|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17338||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4062|0.2985|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2985|-0.4062|0.758
95809474|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16468||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7724|-0.1031|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.1031|-0.7724|0.012
95997086|NCT02700451|191969779|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of POD3 - Pain has interfered with Enjoyment of life is the same across the 3 arms||||0.580
95775578|NCT03569293|191523388|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||18.8|10.3|<0.001
95809475|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14849||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4055|0.1981|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1981|-0.4055|0.490
95809476|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16023||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4263|0.2249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2249|-0.4263|0.534
95809477|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15219||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5233|0.0953|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Substantia Nigra: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0953|-0.5233|0.169
95997087|NCT02700451|191969781|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.928|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 24H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.928
95775579|NCT03569293|191523389|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.5|3.8|<0.001
95809478|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2641|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14118||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.0228|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0228|-0.5510|0.070
95809479|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15234||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.2242|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2242|-0.3950|0.579
95860529|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1259||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.2989|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Posterior temporal lobe||0.2989|-0.0471|0.1509
95860530|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1339||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0747|0.3424|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For cerebellum||0.3424|-0.0747|0.2041
95860531|NCT00265148|191679927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1094||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0385|0.2572|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For medial temporal lobe||0.2572|-0.0385|0.1445
95860532|NCT00265148|191679928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1211||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0763|0.3185|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||At Month 1||0.3185|-0.0763|0.2251
95860533|NCT00265148|191679928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0893||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0643|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||For Month 6||0.2430|-0.0643|0.2497
95860534|NCT00265148|191679929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.8|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test , Month 1||0.80|-0.59|0.7618
95860535|NCT00265148|191679929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 6||0.66|-0.53|0.8350
95775580|NCT03569293|191523390|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||17.8|8.1|<0.001
95809480|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1447||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5387|0.0494|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0494|-0.5387|0.100
95860536|NCT00265148|191679929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.51|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For BSR test, Month 12||0.51|-0.78|0.6735
95775581|NCT03569293|191523391|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-20.1|-30.3|<0.001
95775582|NCT03569293|191523391|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-18.9|-29.3|<0.001
95775583|NCT03569293|191523392|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|45.2|<0.001
95775584|NCT03569293|191523392|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|49.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||49.7|33.9|<0.001
95809481|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13533||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.055|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0550|-0.4950|0.113
95809482|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14603||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3495|0.244|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2440|-0.3495|0.720
95809483|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1387||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4649|0.0989|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Thalamus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0989|-0.4649|0.196
95809484|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20032||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6122|0.202|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2020|-0.6122|0.313
95809485|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21616||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.4646|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4646|-0.4140|0.908
95809486|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20531||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7214|0.1131|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1131|-0.7214|0.148
95860537|NCT00265148|191679930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.3|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.30|-0.44|0.7045
95860538|NCT00265148|191679930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||0.32|-0.40|0.8181
95860539|NCT00265148|191679930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53|||Repeated measure mixed model|||AT Month 12||0.53|-0.71|0.7688
95997088|NCT02700451|191969781|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.906|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 48H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.906
95775585|NCT03569293|191523393|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|56.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.1|41.0|<0.001
95809487|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17997||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7066|0.0249|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0249|-0.7066|0.067
95775586|NCT03569293|191523393|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|30.9|<0.001
95775587|NCT03569293|191523394|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|60.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.3|45.4|<0.001
95775588|NCT03569293|191523394|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|46.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|30.4|<0.001
95775589|NCT03569293|191523395|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.4|44.7|<0.001
95775590|NCT03569293|191523395|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.9|34.4|<0.001
95809488|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19419||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4599|0.3294|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3294|-0.4599|0.739
95809489|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18445||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7912|-0.0415|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||-0.0415|-0.7912|0.031
95997089|NCT02700451|191969781|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.926|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at 72H is the same across the 3 arms||||0.926
95997090|NCT02700451|191969781|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.934|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Total Drain output at Discharge is the same across the 3 arms||||0.934
95997091|NCT02700451|191969782|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Proportion of patient receiving at least 1 transfusion is the same across the 3 arms||||0.078
95997092|NCT02700451|191969783|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||792|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0792
95997093|NCT02700451|191969784|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.034|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in day is the same across these arms||||0.034
95775591|NCT03569293|191523396|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|61.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.3|44.9|<0.001
95775592|NCT03569293|191523396|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.2|36.2|<0.001
95775593|NCT03569293|191523397|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|20.0|<0.001
95775594|NCT03569293|191523397|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.6|10.4|<0.001
95775595|NCT03569293|191523398|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for European Union (EU)/European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulatory purposes only.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.82|-33.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.15|-58.82|<0.001
95775596|NCT03569293|191523398|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-36.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.66|-23.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.81|-49.66|<0.001
95775597|NCT03569293|191523399|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-47.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.716|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-41.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.70|-52.37|<0.001
95775598|NCT03569293|191523399|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.91|-34.15|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.15|-44.91|<0.001
95809490|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14369||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4952|0.0888|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0888|-0.4952|0.166
95809491|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15504||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2219|0.4083|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4083|-0.2219|0.552
95860540|NCT00265148|191679930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||Repeated measure mixed model|||Overall||0.26|-0.40|0.6810
95860541|NCT00265148|191679934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.99|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 1||1.99|-2.38|0.8593
95860542|NCT00265148|191679934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.32|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||4.32|-1.43|0.3201
95775599|NCT03569293|191523400|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|51.9|<0.001
95775600|NCT03569293|191523400|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|45.2|<0.001
95775601|NCT03569293|191523401|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.5|45.9|<0.001
95775602|NCT03569293|191523401|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|54.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.4|39.0|<0.001
95775603|NCT03569293|191523402|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.75|-35.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-35.03|-45.75|<0.001
95775604|NCT03569293|191523402|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-33.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-27.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.61|-38.44|<0.001
95775605|NCT03569293|191523403|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.1|24.8|<0.001
95775606|NCT03569293|191523403|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.6|21.4|<0.001
95809492|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14727||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4641|0.1345|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1345|-0.4641|0.271
95809493|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16169||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5802|0.077|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0770|-0.5802|0.129
95860543|NCT00265148|191679934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.04|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||6.04|-1.68|0.2627
95860544|NCT00265148|191679934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.64|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For overall period||3.64|-1.35|0.3633
95775607|NCT03569293|191523404|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.8|30.8|<0.001
95775608|NCT03569293|191523404|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.1|19.7|<0.001
95775609|NCT03569293|191523405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||79.4|53.8|<0.001
95775610|NCT03569293|191523405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.6|75.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.4|48.6|<0.001
95775611|NCT03569293|191523406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|44.6|<0.001
95775612|NCT03569293|191523406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|25.6|<0.001
95775613|NCT03569293|191523407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|32.6|<0.001
95775614|NCT03569293|191523407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|24.3|<0.001
95809494|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17447||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2266|0.4825|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4825|-0.2266|0.468
95775615|NCT03569293|191523408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|63.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||75.9|51.8|<0.001
95775616|NCT03569293|191523408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|56.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.7|30.9|<0.001
95775617|NCT03569293|191523409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.7|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.8|41.7|<0.001
95775618|NCT03569293|191523409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|58.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.3|32.0|<0.001
95775619|NCT03569293|191523410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|60.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.2|34.0|<0.001
95775620|NCT03569293|191523410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|48.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.6|23.2|<0.001
95775621|NCT03569293|191523411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|11.0|<0.001
95775622|NCT03569293|191523411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||16.4|2.5|0.008
95775623|NCT03569293|191523412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.9|2.1|0.015
95775624|NCT03569293|191523412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.5||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|13.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||13.9|-0.9|0.086
95775625|NCT03569293|191523413|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.4|0.2|0.045
95775626|NCT03569293|191523413|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|0.5|0.040
95954818|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Morning Meal||-12.8|-32.1|<0.001
95775627|NCT03569293|191523414|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.6|<0.001
95775628|NCT03569293|191523414|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-11.5|-32.7|<0.001
95775629|NCT03569293|191523415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|37.7|<0.001
95775630|NCT03569293|191523415|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|18.1|<0.001
95775631|NCT03569293|191523416|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.1|42.0|<0.001
95809495|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16572||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5401|0.1334|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1334|-0.5401|0.228
95809496|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13268||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4696|0.0696|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0696|-0.4696|0.141
95809497|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14317||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2975|0.2844|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2844|-0.2975|0.964
95809498|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1935|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13599||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4699|0.0828|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0828|-0.4699|0.164
95997094|NCT02700451|191969784|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The distribution of Length of stay in hour is the same across these arms||||0.030
95775632|NCT03569293|191523416|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.1|16.9|<0.001
95775633|NCT03569293|191523417|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|66.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.7|35.1|<0.001
95775634|NCT03569293|191523417|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.6|18.8|<0.001
95775635|NCT03569293|191523418|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.3|37.4|<0.001
95775636|NCT03569293|191523418|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|56.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.4|19.8|<0.001
95775637|NCT03569293|191523419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.3|69.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.1|33.3|<0.001
95775638|NCT03569293|191523419|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|8.0|0.006
95775639|NCT03569293|191523420|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||42.5|19.9|<0.001
95775640|NCT03569293|191523420|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.6|6.9|0.001
95775641|NCT03569293|191523421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.16|-28.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.68|-56.16|<0.001
95997095|NCT02700451|191969785|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.974|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.974
95997096|NCT02700451|191969785|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.444|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of the MCS between the 3 ams||||0.444
95997097|NCT02700451|191969786|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.215
95997098|NCT02700451|191969787|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison PCS score between the 3 arms||||0.044
95997099|NCT02700451|191969787|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.767|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison MCS score between the 3 arms||||0.767
95997100|NCT02700451|191969788|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided 95% confidence interval||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
95775642|NCT03569293|191523421|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-19.99|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-19.99|-47.76|<0.001
95775643|NCT03569293|191523422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.09|-31.58|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-31.58|-52.09|<0.001
95775644|NCT03569293|191523422|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.17|-27.52|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-27.52|-48.17|<0.001
95775645|NCT03569293|191523423|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|69.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.4|40.3|<0.001
95775646|NCT03569293|191523423|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|65.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.3|34.8|<0.001
95775647|NCT03569293|191523424|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|69.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||69.2|21.0|<0.001
95775648|NCT03569293|191523424|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|72.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.5|26.7|<0.001
95775649|NCT03569293|191523425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.54|-28.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-28.31|-49.54|<0.001
95775650|NCT03569293|191523425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.44|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-43.44|<0.001
95775651|NCT03569293|191523426|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.7|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||71.8|31.7|<0.001
95775652|NCT03569293|191523426|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.8|26.7|<0.001
95809499|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13315||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4152|0.126|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1260|-0.4152|0.285
95860545|NCT00265148|191679935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.26|||Repetaed measure mixed model|||For overall period||0.26|-0.48|0.5647
95775653|NCT03569293|191523427|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|25.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|43.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.0|7.3|0.006
95775654|NCT03569293|191523427|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|15.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|34.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||34.2|-2.6|0.093
95775655|NCT01702532|191523466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.99||The comparison between treatments was conducted in a hierarchical order; consequently no adjustment of the significance level (5%) for multiplicity was needed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model contains pre-provocation baseline, pre-dosing post-provocation craving score, and the terms treatment groups and center as fixed|Comment: The confidence interval is for the difference between treatments groups|Null hypotheses considered change in craving score means from pre-dose post-provocation at 50 seconds to be equal for the two treatment groups.||-0.99|-8.80|0.0141
95809500|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14368||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3096|0.2744|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.2744|-0.3096|0.903
95775656|NCT00308750|191523479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
95775657|NCT00308750|191523479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
95775658|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.96
95775659|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.15
95775660|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.92
95775661|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
95775662|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
95775663|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
95775664|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
95997101|NCT01309737|191969804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.33|17.68||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.68|5.33|<0.0001
95860546|NCT00265148|191679935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 1||0.46|-0.46|0.9935
95775665|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.33
95775666|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
95775667|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.40
95775668|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.63
95775669|NCT00308750|191523483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-L at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95775670|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.93
95775671|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 1 (Week 3).|ANCOVA|||||||0.86
95775672|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.69
95775673|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 2 (Week 6).|ANCOVA|||||||0.77
95775674|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
95775675|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 3 (Week 9).|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
95775676|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
95775677|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 4 (Week 12).|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
95775678|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.49
95860547|NCT00265148|191679935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 6||0.28|-0.72|0.3794
95775679|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 5 (Week 15).|ANCOVA|||||||0.53
95775680|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.80
95775681|NCT00308750|191523484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for the change in Total FACT-Taxane at Cycle 6 (Week 18).|ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95775682|NCT00308750|191523485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
95775683|NCT00308750|191523485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.05
95775684|NCT00308750|191523488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
95775685|NCT00308750|191523488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
95775686|NCT01643798|191523499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95775687|NCT01643798|191523499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95775688|NCT01643798|191523500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
95775689|NCT01643798|191523500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.794
95775690|NCT00507819|191523512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.73
95775691|NCT00507819|191523513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
95775692|NCT00507819|191523514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95775693|NCT00507819|191523515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
95775694|NCT04507256|191523521|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|68.69|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD8895.|Bioavailability of AZD8895 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
95775695|NCT04507256|191523521|OTHER|Bioavailability|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf|65.02|||||||||||||The bioavailability of AZD7442 Dose 1 administered by IM was, calculated as the ratio of geometric mean AUCinf after IM to IV, for mAb AZD1061.|Bioavailability of AZD1061 at the end of study (Day 361)||||
95775696|NCT03369067|191523558|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
95775697|NCT03369067|191523558|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.089
95775698|NCT03369067|191523558|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.024
95775699|NCT03369067|191523559|OTHER|||||||0.095||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.095
95860548|NCT00265148|191679935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||0.49|-0.70|0.7357
95860549|NCT00265148|191679938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4971.6||||0.6299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255515.6|15572.4|||Repeated measure mixed model|Arithmetic means have been presented; however, statistical analysis is based upon the least square (LS) means||At Month 6||15572.4|-255515.6|0.6299
95954819|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Morning Meal||-4.6|-29.9|0.008
95775700|NCT03369067|191523559|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
95775701|NCT03369067|191523559|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
95775702|NCT03369067|191523560|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95775703|NCT03369067|191523560|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775704|NCT03369067|191523560|OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
95775705|NCT03369067|191523561|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775706|NCT03369067|191523561|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775707|NCT03369067|191523561|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.063
95775708|NCT03369067|191523562|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775709|NCT03369067|191523562|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775710|NCT03369067|191523562|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775711|NCT03369067|191523563|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775712|NCT03369067|191523563|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775713|NCT03369067|191523563|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775714|NCT03369067|191523564|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95954820|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Mid-Day Meal||2.9|-20.6|0.138
95775715|NCT03369067|191523564|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775716|NCT03369067|191523564|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775717|NCT03369067|191523565|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775718|NCT03369067|191523565|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.062
95775719|NCT03369067|191523565|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775720|NCT03369067|191523566|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.015
95775721|NCT03369067|191523566|OTHER|||||||0.199||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.199
95775722|NCT03369067|191523566|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
95775723|NCT03369067|191523567|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
95954821|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Mid-Day Meal||19.8|-3.3|0.160
95954822|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre Evening Meal||20.4|-2.2|0.113
95954823|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours Post Evening Meal||28.2|5.3|0.004
95954824|NCT02561078|191881243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overnight (3:00 AM)||10.8|-9.5|0.905
95775724|NCT03369067|191523567|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
95775725|NCT03369067|191523567|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
95775726|NCT03369067|191523568|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
95775727|NCT03369067|191523568|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.074
95775728|NCT03369067|191523568|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.034
95775729|NCT03369067|191523569|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.023
95775730|NCT03369067|191523569|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775731|NCT03369067|191523569|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
95775732|NCT03369067|191523570|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775733|NCT03369067|191523570|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775734|NCT03369067|191523570|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775735|NCT03369067|191523571|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95860550|NCT00265148|191679938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|12223.0||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7450.6|31896.5|||Repeated measure mixed model|||At Month 12||31896.5|-7450.6|0.2184
95954825|NCT02561078|191881244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-74.1|<0.001
95954826|NCT02561078|191881245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.39|0.919
95954827|NCT02561078|191881246|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.42|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.42|1.02|0.025
95775736|NCT03369067|191523571|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.081
95775737|NCT03369067|191523571|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775738|NCT03369067|191523572|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775739|NCT03369067|191523572|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775740|NCT03369067|191523572|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775741|NCT03369067|191523573|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775742|NCT03369067|191523573|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775743|NCT03369067|191523573|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775744|NCT03369067|191523574|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775745|NCT03369067|191523574|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775746|NCT03369067|191523574|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95954828|NCT02561078|191881247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.2|0.100
95954829|NCT00871143|191881265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.001
95954830|NCT00871143|191881265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.001
95775747|NCT03369067|191523575|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775748|NCT03369067|191523575|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775749|NCT03369067|191523575|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775750|NCT03369067|191523576|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775751|NCT03369067|191523576|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775752|NCT03369067|191523576|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775753|NCT03369067|191523577|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.124
95954831|NCT00871143|191881265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of Type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< .001
95809501|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13647||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4388|0.1159|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Hippocampus: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1159|-0.4388|0.245
95809502|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45708||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|1.2948|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.2948|-0.5630|0.429
95809503|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49321||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9628|1.0419|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.0419|-0.9628|0.937
95860551|NCT00265148|191679939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 6||-0.1|-1.0|0.0129
95860552|NCT00265148|191679939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Month 12||0.6|-1.0|0.5607
95860553|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1154||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0967|0.3275|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3275|-0.0967|0.2800
95860554|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1337||||0.4159||95.0|-0.1931|0.4605|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Grey matter, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4605|-0.1931|0.4159
95954832|NCT00871143|191881265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and week 12||||<.01
95775754|NCT03369067|191523577|OTHER|||||||0.187||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.187
95775755|NCT03369067|191523577|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.040
95775756|NCT03369067|191523578|OTHER|||||||0.108||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.108
95775757|NCT03369067|191523578|OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.053
95775758|NCT03369067|191523578|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.010
95775759|NCT03369067|191523579|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.080
95775760|NCT03369067|191523579|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.038
95775761|NCT03369067|191523579|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.016
95775762|NCT03369067|191523580|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
95775763|NCT03369067|191523580|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.130
95954833|NCT00871143|191881265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in BDD YBOCS score between baseline and 1 month follow up||||< 0.05
95809504|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46847||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1618|1.7423|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.7423|-0.1618|0.101
95809505|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43756||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3296|0.4488|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4488|-1.3296|0.321
95809506|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47214||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|0.491|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.4910|-1.4280|0.328
95809507|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44846||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4914|1.3314|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Subgenual Cingulate/BA25: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||1.3314|-0.4914|0.356
95809508|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.1158|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32. Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1158|-0.5666|0.188
95809509|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18117||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3914|0.3449|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3449|-0.3914|0.899
95809510|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17208||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6032|0.0963|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Left Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0963|-0.6032|0.150
95809511|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19038||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|0.1048|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 3 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA3: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.1048|-0.6690|0.148
95809512|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.20543||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4655|0.3695|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 10 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.3695|-0.4655|0.817
95809513|NCT01892189|191592033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19513||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7361|0.057|||ANOVA||Difference between least square means of TAK-063 30 mg and Placebo.|Test the equality on the means between TAK-063 and Placebo for the region Right Paracingulte gyrus/BA32: Values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, regimen, and participant nested within sequence as factors by regions of interest.||0.0570|-0.7361|0.091
95809514|NCT00856557|191592044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is equal distribution of proportion of successful encounters among groups||||0.33
95809515|NCT00856557|191592044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Considering all encounters (n=179) of all physicians for who outcomes were measured (n=111) together, are encounters in which physicians contextualized the plan of care more likely to be associated with target health outcome achievement than encounters in which physicians did not, controlling for clustering of encounters within physicians. (Generalized logistic mixed model, with random intercept for physician)||||.036
95809516|NCT00856557|191592045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
95809517|NCT00856557|191592046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
95809518|NCT01052779|191592050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|With LOCF Imputation: The p-value and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.21|0.515
95809519|NCT01052779|191592050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-0.5 g/dL and superiority if the lower bound was ≥0 g/dL.|Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41||The p-value for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|ANOVA||The 95% CI for hemoglobin change from Baseline (Day 1) was from an ANOVA model and adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.|Without Imputation (Sensitivity Analysis): The p-value and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in mean change in hemoglobin from Baseline (Day 1) to Week 5 were generated based on an ANOVA model adjusted for baseline hemoglobin level and hemodialysis status.||0.41|-0.23|0.587
95809520|NCT00557440|191592068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0492||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.263||Statistical significance (two-sided) at 5% level. p-values were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Treatment, period, sequence and center as fixed effects, period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.263|0.066|0.001
95809521|NCT00895921|191592073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1139||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00943|0.47605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||.47605|.00943|0.042
95860555|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1491||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0897|0.3878|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3878|-0.0897|0.2158
95860556|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2346||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.6042|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior cingulate gyrus, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.6042|-0.1350|0.2087
95860557|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1233||||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1162|0.3628|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3628|-0.1162|0.3064
95860558|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1734||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1952|0.542|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Frontal lobe APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.5420|-0.1952|0.3500
95860559|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0937|0.3538|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3538|-0.0937|0.2487
95809522|NCT00895921|191592074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.714||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.714|-0.208|0.269
95860560|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1038||||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.4516|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For parietal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4516|-0.2440|0.5521
95860561|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1384||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.3409|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.3409|-0.0640|0.1760
95860562|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0837||||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2303|0.3978|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For posterior temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3978|-0.2303|0.5952
95860563|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0847||||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1169|0.2863|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2863|-0.1169|0.4025
95954834|NCT00871143|191881266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable scores.||||<.05
95860564|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.453|||Repeated measure mixed model95|||For Cerebellum, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.4530|-0.1458|0.3081
95860565|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0839||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0758|0.2436|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status positive||0.2436|-0.0758|0.2964
95954835|NCT00871143|191881266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week measures||||<0.01
95809523|NCT00895921|191592075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.705|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of akathisia rates between the two arms.||.705|.095|0.012
95809524|NCT02034565|191592135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.756|1.261||||||||1.261|0.756|
95809525|NCT02034565|191592136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.176||||||||1.176|0.938|
95809526|NCT02034565|191592137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.933|1.167||||||||1.167|0.933|
95809527|NCT00967486|191592155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95860566|NCT00265148|191679951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1536||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0892|0.3963|||Repeated measure mixed model|||For medial temporal lobe, APOE Epsilon-4 status negative||0.3963|-0.0892|0.2101
95954836|NCT00871143|191881266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to adjust for type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.001
95860567|NCT00243269|191679956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The primary analyses consisted of calculating means and standard deviations on nausea for the four study arms to generate an effect size estimate for a later R01. We also planned to use a 2 x 2 (i.e., two levels of expectancy CDs and two levels of expectancy handouts) full factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine the efficacy of these two methods of expectancy enhancement in reducing Average Nausea as well as any interaction effects.||||0.932
95860568|NCT00243269|191679957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA to compare means of the four groups was used.||||0.84
95860569|NCT00621348|191679971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.93||p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The risk ratio is for Group A compared with Group C.|The incidence of hospital-acquired hyponatremia with current standard intravenous fluid therapy was approximately 30%. Sample of 72 patients would be needed in each group to demonstrate the decrease in incidence of hyponatremia (defined as plasma sodium\< 130 mEq/L) to 10%, with a power of 80 percent and alpha error of 0.05. In view of short study period and feasibility it was planned a priori to enroll at least 50 patients in each treatment limb.||0.93|0.016|<0.05
95860570|NCT01147627|191680100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|108 patients in each group was needed to provide 90% power to detect non-inferiority of exenatide, shown by a mean difference of 0.4% in HbA1c change from baseline.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95954837|NCT00871143|191881266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 12 week assessment measures and baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
95775764|NCT03369067|191523580|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
95775765|NCT03369067|191523581|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775766|NCT03369067|191523581|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775767|NCT03369067|191523581|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775768|NCT03369067|191523582|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775769|NCT03369067|191523582|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
95775770|NCT03369067|191523582|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95954838|NCT00871143|191881266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were used to investigate significant differences between baseline and 1 month follow up measures.||||>0.05
95954839|NCT00871143|191881267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear mixed model was conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable MADRS scores.||||>0.05
95860571|NCT04643158|191680105|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0236||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1934|0.2406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2406|-0.1934|0.828
95775771|NCT03369067|191523583|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775772|NCT03369067|191523583|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95954840|NCT00871143|191881267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||<0.01
95775773|NCT03369067|191523583|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775774|NCT03369067|191523584|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95954841|NCT00871143|191881267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni corrections used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||>0.05
95775775|NCT03369067|191523584|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775776|NCT03369067|191523584|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775777|NCT03369067|191523585|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775778|NCT03369067|191523585|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775779|NCT03369067|191523585|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775780|NCT03369067|191523586|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775781|NCT03369067|191523586|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
95775782|NCT03369067|191523586|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
95775783|NCT03369067|191523587|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95860572|NCT04643158|191680105|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.196||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0143|0.3778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3778|0.0143|0.035
95864422|NCT01185353|191686778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.368
95954842|NCT00871143|191881267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and week 12.||||>0.05
95954843|NCT00871143|191881267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections used to decrease risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Investigating the difference in MADRS score between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
96001987|NCT01592851|191981509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.12|-0.41|0.0006
95775784|NCT03369067|191523587|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
95775785|NCT03369067|191523587|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775786|NCT03369067|191523588|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95775787|NCT03369067|191523588|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775788|NCT03369067|191523588|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
95775789|NCT03369067|191523589|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95775790|NCT03369067|191523589|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775791|NCT03369067|191523589|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.111
95775792|NCT03369067|191523590|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.118
95775793|NCT03369067|191523590|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775794|NCT03369067|191523590|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775795|NCT03369067|191523591|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.116
95775796|NCT03369067|191523591|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775797|NCT03369067|191523591|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775798|NCT03369067|191523592|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
95775799|NCT03369067|191523592|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775800|NCT03369067|191523592|OTHER|||||||0.193||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.193
95775801|NCT03369067|191523593|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775802|NCT03369067|191523593|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
95775803|NCT03369067|191523593|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775804|NCT03369067|191523594|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775805|NCT03369067|191523594|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775806|NCT03369067|191523594|OTHER|||||||0.157||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.157
95775807|NCT03369067|191523595|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775808|NCT03369067|191523595|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775809|NCT03369067|191523595|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95864423|NCT01185353|191686780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.039
95860573|NCT04643158|191680125|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-38.31||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.11|31.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||31.72|-71.11|0.202
95775810|NCT03369067|191523596|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775811|NCT03369067|191523596|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775812|NCT03369067|191523596|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775813|NCT03369067|191523597|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775814|NCT03369067|191523597|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775815|NCT03369067|191523597|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775816|NCT03369067|191523598|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775817|NCT03369067|191523598|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775818|NCT03369067|191523598|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775819|NCT03369067|191523599|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775820|NCT03369067|191523599|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95775821|NCT03369067|191523599|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95860574|NCT04643158|191680125|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|-15.43||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.57|60.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses were done on the natural log scale and the results were back-transformed to linear scale.|||60.96|-55.57|0.596
95860575|NCT00622440|191680130|OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Effect Size|0.275||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum||The wilcoxon rank sum effect size ranges in strength of effect from small (0.10 - \< 0.30), to medium (0.30 - \< 0.50), to large (\>=0.50) with a total range of 0 to 1|Estimated Effect Size for Phase 3 Trial||||.042
95775822|NCT03369067|191523600|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775823|NCT03369067|191523600|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775824|NCT03369067|191523600|OTHER|||||||0.073||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.073
95775825|NCT03369067|191523601|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775826|NCT03369067|191523601|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775827|NCT03369067|191523601|OTHER|||||||0.064||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.064
95775828|NCT03369067|191523602|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775829|NCT03369067|191523602|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775830|NCT03369067|191523602|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775831|NCT03369067|191523603|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775832|NCT03369067|191523603|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775833|NCT03369067|191523603|OTHER|||||||0.104||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
95860576|NCT03328208|191680137|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95860577|NCT03328208|191680138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95775834|NCT03369067|191523604|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775835|NCT03369067|191523604|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775836|NCT03369067|191523604|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.198
95775837|NCT03369067|191523605|OTHER|||||||0.105||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.105
95775838|NCT03369067|191523605|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95775839|NCT03369067|191523605|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775840|NCT03369067|191523606|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775841|NCT03369067|191523606|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with age group as a fixed factor. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95775842|NCT03369067|191523606|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||Primary statistical analysis between treatment groups was performed using univariate ANOVA with the treatment mode and age group as fixed factors. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95809528|NCT01469156|191592170|OTHER|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs were predominantly mild or moderate. No significant safety signals were observed in either group.High- and standard-dose ranibizumab were generally well tolerated without evidence of ocular or systemic severe adverse events, including arterial thromboembolic events.|data survey|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0||28 ocular and non-ocular adverse events collected, in mild to moderate nature|t-test, 2 sided|||Purpose was to determine safety and efficacy of intravitreal high-dose ranibizumab in the treatment of active PCV.|Visually significant ocular or systemic AEs that were either reported by subjects or identified by imaging and/or ocular exam|28|0|0.05
95775843|NCT00135798|191523620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0477||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/46 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0477
95775844|NCT00135798|191523620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 5/24 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/22 Genotypes 2,3||||0.6090
95775845|NCT00135798|191523621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2014||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||ITT analysis of CVR: 1/16 Standard care vs. 12/63 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.2014
95775846|NCT00135798|191523621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||ITT analysis of LADR-treated: 6/31 Genotypes 1,4,6 vs 6/32 Genotypes 2,3||||0.9513
95775847|NCT00135798|191523622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of pTVR: 0/13 Standard care vs. 11/44 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0274
95775848|NCT00135798|191523622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 5/23 G1,4,6 vs 6/21 G2,3||||0.6011
95775849|NCT00135798|191523623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||One-sided test|Fisher Exact|||PP analysis of CVR: 0/20 Standard care vs. 13/59 Combined LADR-treated groups||||0.0153
95775850|NCT00135798|191523623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8065||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||PP analysis of LADR-treated: 7/30 G1,4,6 vs 6/29 G2,3||||0.8065
95775851|NCT05845567|191523688|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|139.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.73|149.86||||||||149.86|129.73|
95775852|NCT05845567|191523689|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.24|124.0||||||||124.00|112.24|
95775853|NCT05845567|191523690|SUPERIORITY||ratio of the Geometric LSmeans|117.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|123.92||||||||123.92|112.13|
95775854|NCT00380081|191523758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775855|NCT00380081|191523759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95775856|NCT00380081|191523760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775857|NCT00380081|191523761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775858|NCT00380081|191523762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775859|NCT00380081|191523763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775860|NCT00380081|191523764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The outcome noted above reflects the all-night sleep quality rating of study subjects who had a scheduled awakening after approximately 4 hours of sleep, were kept awake for 30 minutes and then allowed to return to bed and to sleep. After 4 hours, they were awakened again and disconnected from the PSG apparatus. Morning testing was conducted that included the Sleep Quality questionnaire. Evaluation of the results should reflect the nature of the study and the scheduled sleep disturbance.||||<0.001
95809529|NCT01854762|191592213|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.4|||Fisher Exact||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for the proportion of patients without virological failure by weeks 2, 4 and 6, and at delivery, using treatment-related discontinuation equal failure analysis|7.4|1.3|<0.01
95775861|NCT00380081|191523765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.004
95775862|NCT00380081|191523766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Treatment effect|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
95775863|NCT00380081|191523767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775864|NCT00380081|191523768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775865|NCT00380081|191523769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.790
95775866|NCT00380081|191523770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
95775867|NCT00380081|191523771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
95775868|NCT00380081|191523771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Period effect|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95775869|NCT00380081|191523772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95809530|NCT01877278|191592236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95809531|NCT01877278|191592236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95775870|NCT00844480|191523790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
95775871|NCT01546571|191523803|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95809532|NCT01877278|191592237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.0001
95860578|NCT02867384|191680145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
95860579|NCT05300763|191680168|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.22|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.22|1.25|
95775872|NCT02951533|191523894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95775873|NCT00387010|191523944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.54|-4.64|0.3223
95775874|NCT03559868|191523967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Ordinary one-way ANOVA Bartlett's test||For IL10||||<0.01
95860580|NCT05300763|191680169|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (96.25%) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.25|1.18|3.41|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.41|1.18|
95860581|NCT05300763|191680170|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided adjusted (97.5 %) confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|3.64|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.64|1.30|
95860582|NCT05300763|191680171|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is above 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02|||Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control.|||3.02|1.04|
95775875|NCT01565369|191524002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0282|<|0.0001||95.0||||evaluated at the .05 significance level|Fleiss' kappa|||Fleiss' kappa||||<0.0001
95775876|NCT00606554|191524003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95775877|NCT00606554|191524007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95775878|NCT00606554|191524010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95775879|NCT00915876|191524079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95775880|NCT02417961|191524085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|98.2||||||95.0|93.81|99.79|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12)|||99.79|93.81|
95775881|NCT02417961|191524085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
95775882|NCT02417961|191524085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.64|96.92|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 and 16)|Percentage of patients who successfully administered benralizumab with an APFS at home (Week 12 and 16)|||96.92|86.64|
95775883|NCT02417961|191524086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.21|99.98|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 12)|||99.98|95.21|
95809533|NCT01877278|191592237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95809534|NCT05135754|191592238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.35|0.046
95809535|NCT05135754|191592239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.78|3.45|<0.001
95809536|NCT05135754|191592240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.02|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.00|15.02|<0.001
95809537|NCT05135754|191592241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.94|2.71|<0.001
95809538|NCT05135754|191592242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.35|8.26|<0.001
95809539|NCT05135754|191592243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
95809540|NCT05135754|191592244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.81|1.55|0.004
95809541|NCT04603560|191592271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.66|||||The odds ratio represents Social Norming vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||1.66|0.54|
95860583|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.05||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-3.41|0.864
95864424|NCT01185353|191686780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.458
95775884|NCT02417961|191524086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.99|99.98|||Clopper Pearson Exact CI|One sample confidence interval (Week 16)|Percentage of patients returned functional APFS administered at home (Week 16)|||99.98|94.99|
95775885|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0)|Percentage of mulfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0)|||3.13|0.00|
95775886|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.67|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 4)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 4)|||4.67|0.02|
95775887|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.16|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 8)|||3.16|0.00|
95809542|NCT04603560|191592271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.29|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist E-Detailing vs Control.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size||2.29|0.72|
95809543|NCT04603560|191592271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.56|||||The odds ratio represents Pharmacist e-detailing vs Social Norming.|Generalized estimating equation adjusting for clustering of patients within providers as well as provider panel size.||2.56|0.74|
95997102|NCT01309737|191969804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|30.59||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.59|8.99|<0.0001
95997103|NCT01309737|191969804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|20.17|||Normal approximation|||||20.17|5.99|0.0003
95997104|NCT01309737|191969805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-45.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-38.49||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-38.49|-52.98|<0.0001
95775888|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.13|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12)|||3.13|0.00|
95775889|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.33|||Clopper-Pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 16)|||3.33|0|
95860584|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.9||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|-3.61|0.539
95775890|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.59|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 8)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 8)|||1.59|0.01|
95775891|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 12 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 12 to 16)|||1.63|0.00|
95775892|NCT02417961|191524087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.97|||Clopper-pearson Exact CI|One sample Confidence Interval (Week 0 to 16)|Percentage of malfunctioning APFS used to administer benralizumab at home or clinic (Week 0 to 16)|||0.97|0.00|
95775893|NCT01390428|191524092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.01|||||Mild Hepatic Impairment (HI)/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.73|
95809544|NCT05293314|191592319|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.964|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.996|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.996|0.932|<0.05
95997105|NCT01309737|191969805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.33|-50.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-50.86|-65.33|<0.0001
95997106|NCT01309737|191969805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|-6.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-18.24|<0.0001
95860585|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.39||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-5.21|0.091
95864425|NCT01185353|191686780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95997107|NCT01309737|191969806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|17.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.31|3.48|<0.0001
95997108|NCT01309737|191969806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|46.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||46.22|8.08|<0.0001
95997109|NCT01309737|191969806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.72|20.88|||Normal Approximation|||||20.88|7.72|<0.0001
95997110|NCT01309737|191969808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.8|-2.14||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-2.14|-3.80|<0.0001
95997111|NCT01309737|191969808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-3.47||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.47|-5.13|<0.0001
95997112|NCT01309737|191969808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.65|-2.01|0.0001
95775894|NCT01390428|191524092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.61|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.61|1.05|
95775895|NCT01390428|191524092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|11.56|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||11.56|2.19|
95775896|NCT01390428|191524092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|8.93|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||8.93|2.60|
95775897|NCT01390428|191524092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|19.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.11|48.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||48.51|8.11|
95775898|NCT01390428|191524092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|11.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.1|22.35|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||22.35|6.10|
95775899|NCT01390428|191524093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.01|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 1||2.01|0.35|
95775900|NCT01390428|191524093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|2.27|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|Day 10||2.27|0.83|
95775901|NCT01390428|191524093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|7.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|21.27|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 1||21.27|2.74|
95775902|NCT01390428|191524093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.84|12.57|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|Day 10||12.57|2.84|
95775903|NCT01390428|191524093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.02|38.25|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 1||38.25|6.02|
95775904|NCT01390428|191524093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|13.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.0|28.21|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|Day 10||28.21|6.00|
95775905|NCT01390428|191524095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.24|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.24|1.54|
95775906|NCT01390428|191524095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|6.82|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||6.82|1.31|
95775907|NCT01390428|191524097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.63|||||Mild HI/Healthy Matched to Mild HI|||2.63|1.40|
95775908|NCT01390428|191524097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|7.11|||||Moderate HI/Healthy Matched to Moderate HI|||7.11|1.81|
95775909|NCT01390428|191524097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|9.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.98|17.51|||||Severe HI/Healthy Matched to Severe HI|||17.51|4.98|
95775910|NCT01632904|191524106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04|||Chi-squared|||||4.04|0.82|0.139
95775911|NCT04599933|191524156|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.916|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.663|5.113|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.113|1.663|<0.01
95809545|NCT05293314|191592319|OTHER|Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.|receiver operating characteristic|0.932|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|0.982|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Evaluate the ability of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy individuals by measuring the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The maximum value in the area below the receiver is 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the prediction accuracy of the model.||0.982|0.879|<0.05
95809546|NCT05293314|191592320|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
95809547|NCT05293314|191592320|OTHER|Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.|Sensitivity|86.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|95.2||||||Sensitivity=number of true positives/(number of true positives+number of false negatives) \* 100% Sensitivity is the rate of correctly judging patients.We calculated the sensitivity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the sensitivity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more sensitive of the model.||95.2|77.1|
95809548|NCT05293314|191592321|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|98.8||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||98.8|86.2|
95997113|NCT01309737|191969808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-3.42||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.42|-5.51|<0.0001
95775912|NCT04599933|191524157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.035|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|5.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.305|1.736|<0.01
95860586|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|0.6||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-4.93|0.124
95775913|NCT04599933|191524158|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.751|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|8.379|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.379|2.694|<0.01
95775914|NCT04599933|191524159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.422|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.923|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.090|1.923|<0.01
95860587|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|3.19||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.19|-5.04|0.658
95860588|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.439
95860589|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
95954844|NCT00871143|191881268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 (two-sided) was set.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the outcome variable of AAI scores.||||<0.05
95775915|NCT02729038|191524166|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|2.519|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.519|0.902|
95954845|NCT00871143|191881268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were applied to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.001
95775916|NCT02729038|191524166|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.924|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.151|3.215|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.215|1.151|
95775917|NCT02729038|191524167|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.421|3.969|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.969|1.421|
95775918|NCT02729038|191524167|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.438|6.81|||||AUC (0-inf) for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.810|2.438|
95775919|NCT02729038|191524168|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.467|2.977|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs participants with moderate renal function has been presented.|||2.977|0.467|
95775920|NCT02729038|191524168|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.575|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.624|3.975|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs .participants with Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.975|0.624|
95997114|NCT01309737|191969808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-5.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.05|-7.14|<0.0001
95775921|NCT02729038|191524169|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|5.681|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||5.681|0.891|
95775922|NCT02729038|191524169|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|5.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.363|15.062|||||Cmax for participants with normal renal function Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||15.062|2.363|
95775923|NCT02729038|191524191|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.501|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|2.52|||||Normal Vs Moderate|||2.520|0.894|
95775924|NCT02729038|191524191|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|3.212|||||Normal Vs Severe/ESRD not on hemodialysis|||3.212|1.139|
95775925|NCT02729038|191524192|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.414|3.989|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (before hemodialysis)|||3.989|1.414|
95809549|NCT05293314|191592321|OTHER|Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.|Specificity|73.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|91.9||||||Specificity=number of true negative cases/(number of true negative cases+number of false positive cases) \* 100% The specificity is the rate of correctly judging non patients.We calculated the specificity of the breath test model to distinguish bronchiectasis from healthy people.The maximum percentage of the specificity is 100%. The higher the percentage is , the more specificity of the model.||91.9|56|
95809550|NCT00934180|191592322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0||||||90.0|95.1|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||111|95.1|
95809551|NCT00934180|191592323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.3|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|95.3|
95809552|NCT00934180|191592324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|101.0||||||90.0|95.2|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108|95.2|
95809553|NCT00734032|191592380|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.514|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.59|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 40 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.590|0.449|<.001
95809554|NCT00734032|191592380|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.421|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.483|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 80 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.483|0.367|<.001
95997115|NCT01309737|191969808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.79|-2.48|0.0002
95809555|NCT00734032|191592380|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.375|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as adjusted geometric mean ratio of placebo and SB-480848 160 mg. Dunnett adjustment was used for comparison of each dose group to placebo.|||0.375|0.284|<.001
95775926|NCT02729038|191524192|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|4.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.422|6.831|||||Normal Vs ESRD on hemodialysis (after hemodialysis)|||6.831|2.422|
95809556|NCT03360344|191592392|OTHER|non-parametric tests were used as data was not normally distributed.||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxan signed Rank|||statistical analysis for wrist||||0.48
95775927|NCT05129475|191524216|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|133.74|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||133.74|109.30|
95775928|NCT05129475|191524217|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|119.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|131.68|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||131.68|108.75|
95775929|NCT05129475|191524218|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.05|186.44|||||Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|||186.44|139.05|
95775930|NCT01663779|191524268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7|3|<0.01
95809557|NCT03360344|191592392|OTHER|nonparametric test were used as the distribution was not normal.||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxan Signed Rank|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.99
95809558|NCT03360344|191592393|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for forearm||||.001
95809559|NCT03360344|191592393|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||statistical analysis for wrist||||.001
95809560|NCT03360344|191592394|OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
95809561|NCT03360344|191592395|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
95809562|NCT03360344|191592396|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.001
95860590|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
95860591|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.047
95997116|NCT01309737|191969809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.95|1.89|<.0001
95997117|NCT01309737|191969809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|19.95||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||19.95|4.08|<.0001
95997118|NCT01309737|191969809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|16.71|||Normal Approximation|||||16.71|4.87|0.0004
95775931|NCT03409107|191524269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.56|||ANCOVA|One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Treatment group comparisons were based on a ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline hemoglobin, and region.|||1.56|1.23|<0.0001
95775932|NCT03409107|191524270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \> 0|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.63|0.49|<0.0001
95775933|NCT03409107|191524271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|8.56||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis:(Daprodustat-Placebo) \<= 0 vs alternative: difference \> 0.|ANCOVA||Treatment group comparisons were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline score, and region.|||8.56|2.17|0.0005
95775934|NCT03409107|191524272|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.52||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment group comparisons are based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for treatment group, and region|||0.52|0.37|<0.0001
95775935|NCT03409107|191524273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.55|||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment difference has been reported.||||54.55|25.00|
95775936|NCT03409107|191524274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment effect|0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.806||One-sided superiority p-value from the van Elteren test|van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate of the treatment difference stratified by region has been presented.|||0.806|0.729|<0.0001
95775937|NCT03409107|191524275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.55||One-sided superiority p-value from the MMRM model|MMRM||Treatment group comparisons were based on MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline Hb and Baseline Hb by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.55|1.16|<0.0001
95954846|NCT00871143|191881268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||< 0.001
95775938|NCT03409107|191524276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3||One-sided p-value was based on Wald test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat/Placebo) \>=1 versus alternative: ratio\<1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||0.30|0.02|0.0002
95775939|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.0||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Tired/Low Energy/Weak domain.|||9.00|2.83|<0.0001
95860592|NCT01485172|191680172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-values are from nonparametric rank ANCOVA without stratifications.|ANCOVA|||||||0.407
95954847|NCT00871143|191881268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni Correction was used in an attempt to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 12 week .||||<0.05
95775940|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.57||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Chest Pain/Shortness of Breath Domain.|||5.57|0.28|0.0152
95775941|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.63||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Cognitive Domain.|||6.63|0.95|0.0045
95860593|NCT01485172|191680173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.003||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|9.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.98|0.40|0.397
95860594|NCT01485172|191680173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.242||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.40|0.79|0.131
95954848|NCT00871143|191881268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences in AAI scores occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||>0.05
95997119|NCT01309737|191969810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||4.62|0.74|0.1786
95775942|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|7.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Sleeping|||7.09|-1.87|0.1267
95775943|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.09||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Difficulty Standing for Long Periods of Time|||9.09|0.20|0.0203
95775944|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|5.39||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Severity of Shortness of Breath While Sitting or Resting|||5.39|-0.04|0.0266
95775945|NCT03409107|191524277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|4.96||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Analysis was performed by MMRM with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Time with Shortness of Breath While not Doing an Activity|||4.96|-0.94|0.0907
95775946|NCT03409107|191524278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-rhEPO) \>=0 versus alternative: difference \<0|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-0.28|0.0391
95775947|NCT03409107|191524279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.26||One sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||6.26|-1.12|0.0858
95775948|NCT03409107|191524280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.36||One sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel full of life?.|||0.36|-0.02|0.0357
95775949|NCT03409107|191524280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you have a lot of energy?.|||0.35|-0.01|0.0328
95809563|NCT01342666|191592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2925|6.9383||We did only one comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||We compare de mean difference of the delta (final-basal levels) between groups. The values posted are the difference found in the tomato group in comparison of the control group. The mean represent the increment of HDL-c in the tomato group.|We test the effect of two daily roma tomatoes during one month in HDL-c levels. We estimate the sample size to have a 80% study power.||6.9383|3.2925|<0.0001
95809564|NCT01342666|191592397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|7.232||A priori p value of \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for adherence, smoking, age, gender, waist to hip ratio, triglycerides, body mass index, exercise, omega 3, alcohol, fish, simple sugars.|Parameters of the model: F= 4.06; r = 0.798; r2 = 0.638; p=0.001|||7.232|4.027|<0.0001
95860595|NCT01485172|191680173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.515||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||9.92|1.25|0.018
95954849|NCT00871143|191881269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on the PHQ-9 score.||||>0.05
95954850|NCT00871143|191881269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Where more than 1 t test had been conducted on each variable, a Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
95954851|NCT00871143|191881269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
95775950|NCT03409107|191524280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.37||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel worn out?.|||0.37|0.00|0.0252
95954852|NCT00871143|191881269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
95809565|NCT02989857|191592398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.54||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.54|0.25|<0.0001
95775951|NCT03409107|191524280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.42||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions for Did you feel tired?.|||0.42|0.10|0.0010
95775952|NCT03409107|191524287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 versus. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||Based on MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.07|-0.02|0.1098
95775953|NCT03409107|191524288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.4||One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat-Placebo) \<=0 vs. alternative: difference \>0.|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||8.40|0.60|0.0120
95775954|NCT03409107|191524289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|3.22||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline SBP and Baseline SBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.22|-2.42|0.6106
95775955|NCT03409107|191524289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.49||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \< 0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline DBP and Baseline DBP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.49|0.12|0.9819
95775956|NCT03409107|191524289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.13||"One-sided p-value was based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \>= 0 versus alternative:~difference \<0"|MMRM||MMRM model fitted from Baseline up to Week 28, with factors for treatment, time, region, Baseline MAP and Baseline MAP by time and treatment by time interactions.|||3.13|-0.51|0.9215
95809566|NCT02989857|191592405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||P-value was calculated from the one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the comparator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||1.12|0.56|0.093
95809567|NCT02989857|191592406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.466
95860596|NCT01485172|191680173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.02||95.0|1.22|10.64|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.64|1.22|0.020
95954853|NCT00871143|191881269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up.||||> 0.05
95809568|NCT02989857|191592407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299||||||P-value was calculated from 1-sided Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.299
95809569|NCT02989857|191592412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.68||P-value was calculated from one-sided stratified log-rank test. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was calculated from the stratified Cox regression model with placebo as the denominator, with two-sided 95% CI. Stratification factor was the number of prior line of therapies at randomization.|||0.68|0.33|<0.0001
95809570|NCT02989857|191592413|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|17.73||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Physical Functioning||17.73|4.23|
95809571|NCT02989857|191592413|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-0.52||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||-0.52|-20.18|
95809572|NCT02989857|191592413|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|13.91||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||13.91|-6.65|
95809573|NCT02989857|191592413|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|20.78||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Physical Functioning||20.78|3.85|
95809574|NCT02989857|191592413|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|17.04||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||17.04|-8.74|
95809575|NCT02989857|191592413|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.46|10.11||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||10.11|-17.46|
95860597|NCT01485172|191680173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.679||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.16|0.59|0.202
95860598|NCT01485172|191680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.544||||0.662||95.0|0.22|10.84|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.84|0.22|0.662
95954854|NCT00871143|191881270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on GAD-7 scores.||||<0.05
95809576|NCT02989857|191592414|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.8||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Pain||2.80|-12.93|
95809577|NCT02989857|191592414|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.88||||||Cycle 2 Day 1: Appetite Loss||7.88|-6.56|
95809578|NCT02989857|191592414|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|14.55||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Pain||14.55|-5.82|
95809579|NCT02989857|191592414|OTHER||Least-squares mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.34|3.12||||||Cycle 3 Day 1: Appetite Loss||3.12|-15.34|
95860599|NCT01485172|191680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.485||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.55|0.40|0.557
95860600|NCT01485172|191680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.72|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.72|0.51|0.347
95954855|NCT00871143|191881270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||<0.01
95775957|NCT03409107|191524290|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response rate|0.06||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||One-sided p-value based on test of null hypothesis: (Daprodustat - Placebo) \<= 0 versus alternative: difference \> 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed for treatment group comparison.|||0.13|-0.02|0.0680
95775958|NCT01482962|191524302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.08||P-value was stratified using disease type, International Prognostic Index (IPI) Score and region as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.08|0.33|0.038
95775959|NCT01482962|191524303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|1.178|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.178|0.637|0.177
95775960|NCT01482962|191524304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.369|||Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio (HR) was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.369|0.707|0.338
95775961|NCT01482962|191524309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.329|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors: disease type, IPI Score and region with treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.329|0.679|0.362
95775962|NCT05007041|191524350|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-0.96||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|7.1|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||The null hypothesis is simultaneous vaccination with RZV and allV4 is inferior (i.e., RZV and allV4 will have a higher proportion) to RZV and HD-IIV4 with regard to the proportion of adults with at least one severe (Grade 3) solicited local or systemic reactogenicity event on days 1-8 after RZV dose||7.10|-8.94|0.0037
95775963|NCT05007041|191524351|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|4.69||||||||4.69|-20.22|
95775964|NCT05007041|191524352|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|12.47||||||||12.47|-7.29|
95775965|NCT05007041|191524353|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|1.74||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|7.77||The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.|Difference in proportions|||Number of Participants With at Least One Severe (Grade 3) Solicited Local Reactogenicity Event After SHINGRIX® Dose 1 in Each Study Group||7.77|-4.04|0.0031
95775966|NCT05007041|191524354|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-13.10|
95775967|NCT05007041|191524355|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|13.11|||Difference in proportions|||||13.11|-1.32|
95809580|NCT00123630|191592434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95809581|NCT01425814|191592466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.298|||ANCOVA|||||0.298|0.219|<0.0001
95775968|NCT05007041|191524356|NON_INFERIORITY|The one-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.47|||Difference in proportions|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting of the difference was used.||||2.47|-10.90|<0.0001
95775969|NCT05007041|191524357|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|6.28|||Difference in proportions|||||6.28|-17.64|
95775970|NCT05007041|191524358|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.89|||Difference in proportions|||||3.89|-10.50|
95775971|NCT05007041|191524359|OTHER|Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.7|||Difference in proportions|||||0.70|-2.16|
95775972|NCT05007041|191524360|OTHER|The proportion and 95% exact binomial confidence interval between vaccine groups.|Difference in proportions|-2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|0.6|||Difference in proportions|||||0.60|-6.36|
95775973|NCT01210495|191524369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.274||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib; hazard ratio greater than (\>) 1 indicated reduction to favor Placebo.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true median OS was 5 months vs. the alternative hypothesis that the true median OS was at least 8.3 months (i.e., 66 percent \[%\] improvement in median OS).||1.274|0.646|0.2872
95809582|NCT01425814|191592466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||ANCOVA|||||0.273|0.194|<0.0001
95809583|NCT01425814|191592466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.242|||ANCOVA|||||0.242|0.164|<0.0001
95809584|NCT01425814|191592466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.141|||ANCOVA|||||0.141|0.062|<0.0001
95775974|NCT01210495|191524370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.871||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.871|0.438|0.0039
95809585|NCT03309202|191592483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.57|167.6|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.60|101.57|
95809586|NCT03309202|191592483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|117.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|150.93|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||150.93|91.46|
95775975|NCT01210495|191524371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.172||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|13.265||ORR for the 2 treatment arms was compared with a significance level of 0.025 using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk ratio and confidence interval (CI) were based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||13.265|0.759|0.0914
95775976|NCT01210495|191524372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.889||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by tumor invasion and geographic region.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Axitinib; a hazard ratio \>1 indicated a reduction in favor of Placebo.|||0.889|0.434|0.006
95775977|NCT01210495|191524374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.65||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.319|5.326||For the overall stratified analysis the p-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Ratio and CI based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator; risk ratio was adjusted for geographical region and vascular invasion and extra hepatic spread.|||5.326|1.319|0.0025
95775978|NCT01210495|191524383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.89||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-5.08||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.08|-18.70|0.0006
95809587|NCT03309202|191592483|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|130.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.63|167.7|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||167.70|101.63|
95809588|NCT03309202|191592484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|196.53|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||196.53|94.63|
95809589|NCT03309202|191592484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.2|179.03|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||179.03|86.20|
95809590|NCT03309202|191592484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|170.99|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||170.99|82.33|
95809591|NCT03309202|191592485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|124.7309|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.5275|188.5165|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||188.5165|82.5275|
95809592|NCT03309202|191592485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.0778|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3132|222.2911|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||222.2911|97.3132|
95775979|NCT01210495|191524384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|-2.94||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.94|-12.27|0.0014
95809593|NCT03309202|191592485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.7373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.6962|339.6647|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||339.6647|148.6962|
95809594|NCT03309202|191592486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.12|256.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||256.32|103.12|
95809595|NCT03309202|191592486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.56|272.35|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||272.35|109.56|
95860601|NCT01485172|191680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.38|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||6.38|0.49|0.379
95954856|NCT00871143|191881270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were implemented to reduce the risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
95954857|NCT00871143|191881270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 12 week assessment.||||>0.05
95954858|NCT00871143|191881270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type I error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated- measures t tests were used to determine where significant differences occurred from baseline to 2 month follow up assessment.||||> 0.05
95954859|NCT00871143|191881271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||An alpha level of .05 was set (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were conducted to determine the predictive value of treatment group and/or time on BIQLI scores.||||<0.05
95954860|NCT00871143|191881271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||<0.05
95809596|NCT03309202|191592486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|293.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.04|462.44|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||462.44|186.04|
95775980|NCT01210495|191524385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.78||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.78|-4.76|<0.0001
95775981|NCT01210495|191524386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G PWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-2.21|-5.26|<0.0001
95775982|NCT01210495|191524386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.52||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G SWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.52|-3.07|0.1642
95775983|NCT01210495|191524386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.84||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G EWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||0.84|-1.80|0.4759
95775984|NCT01210495|191524386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.21||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis presented above is for FACT-G FWB. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.21|-3.92|0.0288
95775985|NCT01210495|191524387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.99||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.99|-7.93|0.0011
95775986|NCT01210495|191524388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.42||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-5.42|-15.49|<0.0001
95775987|NCT01210495|191524389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.252||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.698||The p-value is from a 1-sided log-rank test.|1-sided, unstratified log-rank test||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \<1 indicates reduction in hazard rate to favor Axitinib, hazard ratio \>1 indicates reduction to favor Placebo.|||1.698|0.923|0.9182
95809597|NCT03309202|191592487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|169.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.02|277.32|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 2 (Mild Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||277.32|104.02|
95809598|NCT03309202|191592487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.78|298.02|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 3 (Moderate Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||298.02|111.78|
95954861|NCT00871143|191881271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used to reduce risk of type 1 error|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||< 0.05
95954862|NCT00871143|191881271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A Bonferroni correction was used to decrease the risk of type I error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and end of treatment (12 weeks).||||>0.05
95775988|NCT01210495|191524390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.04|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.20|0.0024
95775989|NCT01210495|191524391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-1.15|||Longitudinal mixed effect analysis|||Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.||-1.15|-12.91|0.0193
95860602|NCT01485172|191680174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.194||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.63|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.63|0.19|0.851
95954863|NCT00871143|191881271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrections were used|t-test, 2 sided|||Repeated-measures t tests were then used to determine where significant differences in BIQLI occurred between baseline and 1 month follow up.||||> 0.05
95997120|NCT01309737|191969810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|10.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error.Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||10.25|1.77|0.0003
95954864|NCT03930238|191881276|SUPERIORITY||Group effect from Bayesian linear mixed|1646.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||We did perform a Bayesian analysis which provided a posterior probability of 99.76% that the daily mean steps in the intervention group exceeded the daily mean steps in the comparison group.|Bayesian linear mixed effects regression||Posterior standard deviation = 578. We have 95% credible intervals - the interval that contains 95% of the posterior probability distribution of the parameter of interest - which ranges from 511 to 2781.|||||
95954865|NCT03930238|191881277|OTHER||Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95809599|NCT03309202|191592487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|266.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.08|434.8|||ANOVA|The natural log transformed parameter was used.|Estimate mean difference was derived from ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means of Test and Reference.Cohort 4 (Severe Hepatic Impairment) was Test and Cohort 1 (Without Hepatic Impairment) was Reference.|||434.80|163.08|
95809600|NCT01905540|191592502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.244|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.081|1.43||||||||1.430|1.081|
95997121|NCT01309737|191969810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.14|||Normal Approximation|||||11.14|2.30|0.0029
95775990|NCT01258075|191524423|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.29|||ANCOVA|Based on a mixed effect ANCOVA model with treatment and previous type 2 diabetes treatment stratum as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||||0.29|-0.54|0.5494
95775991|NCT02858180|191524431|OTHER||Proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|98.3||||||||98.3|59.5|
95775992|NCT01252563|191524441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95775993|NCT01252563|191524441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95775994|NCT01252563|191524441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95775995|NCT01252563|191524441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95775996|NCT01252563|191524442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95775997|NCT01252563|191524442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95809601|NCT01905540|191592503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Geometric LS Means|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.422||||||||1.422|1.070|
95809602|NCT01905540|191592504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The statistical comparison of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters between the single-dose treatment groups (Treatments AQ and SS) was based on the 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means. If the 90% CI was entirely contained within the acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 then it was concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between treatments for the relevant parameter. Doses were normalized to the SSP-004184AQ (40mg/kg) dose prior to statistical analysis.|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.592||||||||1.592|1.135|
95809603|NCT02743962|191592522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The control group reported a mean reduction in O'Leary-Sant Insterstitial Cystitis Symptom Score from baseline to 6 weeks that met the MCID (4 points), whereas the TW group reported a reduction of 1.5 times the MCID (ISCI score change: control group 4.25, + 0.95, TW group 6.2, + 0.83). From 6 to 12 weeks the control group reported no change in ISCI score (0 + 0.95) whereas the Therapeutic Wand group ISCI socre reduced by 1.8 +1.73.||||
95775998|NCT01252563|191524442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95775999|NCT01252563|191524442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in ambulatory DBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776000|NCT01252563|191524445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with complication(s) and participants without complication in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
95776001|NCT01252563|191524446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between male and female in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
95860603|NCT01485172|191680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|7.03|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.03|0.36|0.540
95860604|NCT01485172|191680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.473||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.47|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.47|0.49|0.494
95776002|NCT01252563|191524447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was angina pectoris as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with angina pectoris and participants without angina pectoris in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.036
95776003|NCT01252563|191524448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was dyslipidaemia as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with dyslipidaemia and participants without dyslipidaemia in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.020
95776004|NCT01252563|191524449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was antihypertensive as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving antihypertensive and participants receiving no antihypertensive in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.049
95776005|NCT01252563|191524450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ARB as a concomitant drug. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants receiving ARB and participants receiving no ARB in the frequency of treatment-related adverse events."||||0.043
95776006|NCT01252563|191524451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was diabetes mellitus as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with diabetes mellitus and participants without diabetes mellitus in the efficacy."||||<0.001
95776007|NCT01252563|191524452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was chronic kidney disease as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with chronic kidney disease and participants without chronic kidney disease in the efficacy."||||<0.001
95776008|NCT01252563|191524453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was myocardial infarction as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with myocardial infarction and participants without myocardial infarction in the efficacy."||||0.039
95776009|NCT01252563|191524454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was metabolic syndrome as a complication. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between participants with metabolic syndrome and participants without metabolic syndrome in the efficacy."||||<0.001
95776010|NCT01252563|191524455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was ambulatory SBP at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between ambulatory SBP at baseline and the number of participants who achieved the target blood pressure specified in the guidelines."||||<0.001
95776011|NCT01252563|191524457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776012|NCT01252563|191524457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776013|NCT01252563|191524457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776014|NCT01252563|191524457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in home SBP from the baseline was equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776015|NCT01252563|191524458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 4|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776016|NCT01252563|191524458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 8|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776017|NCT01252563|191524458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Week 12|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776018|NCT01252563|191524458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Last Day|t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that the mean changes in home DBP from the baseline are equal to 0.||||<0.001
95776019|NCT05174949|191524471|SUPERIORITY|We performed a linear regression analysis (generalized estimating equations) in which we compared both intervention groups to the sham group and added a time interaction term|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.4||Anode compared to sham: p = 0.0516 Cathode compared to sham: p \<.0001 . Anode change over time compared to sham p=0.0255 Cathode change over time compared to sham p\<.0001|Generalized Estimating Equations||Anode mean change = 4.13 std = 4.29 CLM = 0.5-7.7 Cathode mean change = 5.38 std = 3.58 CLM=2.4-8.4|We will report first anode compared to sham and then cathode compared to sham||8.4|2.4|<0.0001
95954866|NCT01697592|191881313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.75|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.75|-1.10|<0.001
95860605|NCT01485172|191680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.06|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||7.06|0.81|0.115
95954867|NCT01697592|191881313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.60|-1.37|<0.001
95954868|NCT01697592|191881313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
95954869|NCT01697592|191881313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.88|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.88|-1.45|<0.001
95954870|NCT01697592|191881313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.54|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Constrained longitudinal data analysis with terms for treatment, basal AHA medication, prior AHA therapy status except for basal medication, and time.||||-0.54|-1.06|<0.001
95776020|NCT05174949|191524472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.2||anode compared to sham p= 0.0020 cathode compared to sham p = 0.0088 anode over time anode compared to sham p \<.0001 Cathode over time compared to sham p \<.0001|Regression, Cox||anode -24.2 (-32.2, -16.2) cathode -22.2 (-30.6, -13.8)|We compared anode to sham We compared cathode to sham We compared the change over time of anode to sham We compared the change over time of cathode to shal||-16.2|-32.2|0.0020
95776021|NCT05174949|191524473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Compare anode to sham p= 0.0001 Compare cathode to sham p=0.1073 Compare anode change in time to sham p=0.0938 Compare cathode change in time to sham 0.0068|Regression, Linear|Using generalized estimating equations with group and time component|Anode = 0.077 (0.00, 0.10) Cathode = -.0.125 (-0.32 0.07 )|e compare anode to sham We compare cathode to sham||0.10|0.00|0.0001
95776022|NCT02105246|191524498|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis compared the proportion of eligible patients who participated in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. referral to center-based programs.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis = no difference in proportion of patients who participate in cardiac rehab after referral to home-based vs. facility-based programs||||0.80
95776023|NCT02105246|191524499|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared Baseline to 3-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based cardiac rehab vs. subjects who participated in center-based cardiac rehab|Median Difference (Final Values)|196.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This comparison was unadjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 3-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||<0.001
95776024|NCT02105246|191524500|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis compared 6-month change in 6-minute walk test distance among subjects who participated in home-based vs. center-based cardiac rehab.|Median Difference (Final Values)|159.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: 6-month change in 6MWT distance is not inferior among participants enrolled in home-based vs. facility-based cardiac rehab.||||0.03
95776025|NCT01537068|191524515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of Within-subjects effects|2.95||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures of ANOVA||||||0.09
95809604|NCT02743962|191592522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||There was a small mean baseline ICPI score difference of 1.2 points between the groups (control group 10.5, +, TW group 11.2, + 2.68). Both groups reported a reduction in their ICPI scores from baseline to twelve weeks; the control group nearly met the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points and the TW group reported nearly twice the control group's score change (mean change control group 3.75, + 2.44, TW group 7, + 1.87).||||
95809605|NCT04805593|191592530|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 50%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
95809606|NCT04805593|191592531|SUPERIORITY|Superiority testing was conducted to confirm the proportion is higher than the targeted value of 75%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
95809607|NCT06045273|191592542|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0006
95776026|NCT01537068|191524517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-squared|6.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95776027|NCT01785849|191524520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.71|56.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of proportion of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||56.31|18.71|<0.001
95776028|NCT01785849|191524521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.47|42.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category, recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization, and region.||||42.48|11.47|<0.001
95776029|NCT01785849|191524522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.77|-64.46|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-64.46|-77.77|<0.001
95776030|NCT01785849|191524523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-7.23|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-7.23|-9.52|<0.001
95776031|NCT01785849|191524524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.73|-10.25|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.25|-19.73|<0.001
95776032|NCT01785849|191524525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-2.59|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-2.59|-12.31|0.003
95776033|NCT03724877|191524526|OTHER||Adjusted hazard ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted forced expiratory volume1 (FEV1).|||1.38|0.79|
95776034|NCT03724877|191524527|OTHER||Adjusted HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||1.09|0.87|
95809608|NCT06045273|191592543|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0504|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.0504
95809609|NCT06045273|191592544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.00134|TWO_SIDED||||||Satterthwaite approximations|Also used a mixed models analysis||||||0.00134
95809610|NCT03232567|191592549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2451|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2451
95809611|NCT03232567|191592549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
95809612|NCT03232567|191592549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
95776035|NCT03724877|191524528|OTHER||Adjusted HR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.07|||Regression, Cox||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|||2.07|1.03|
95809613|NCT03232567|191592550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4828
95809614|NCT03232567|191592550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
95809615|NCT03232567|191592550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
95860606|NCT01485172|191680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.55|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||8.55|1.02|0.045
95776036|NCT03724877|191524529|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Moderate/ sever exacerbation||1.04|0.83|
95776037|NCT03724877|191524529|OTHER||Adjusted rate ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.28|||Negative binomial regression model||After matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex prior severe exacerbation, prior maintenance treatment and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score and percent predicted FEV1.|Severe exacerbation||1.28|0.70|
95776038|NCT02091986|191524552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.006
95776039|NCT02091986|191524552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.063
95776040|NCT02091986|191524552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline FEV1, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.373
95776041|NCT02091986|191524553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.001
95776042|NCT02091986|191524553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.195
95776043|NCT02091986|191524553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.032
95776044|NCT02091986|191524554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||<0.001
95776045|NCT02091986|191524554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.005
95776046|NCT02091986|191524554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.326
95776047|NCT02091986|191524555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.276
95776048|NCT02091986|191524555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.759
95776049|NCT02091986|191524555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.165
95776050|NCT02091986|191524556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.724
95776051|NCT02091986|191524556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.909
95776052|NCT02091986|191524556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.811
95776053|NCT02091986|191524557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.134
95776054|NCT02091986|191524557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.985
95776055|NCT02091986|191524557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.128
95776056|NCT02091986|191524558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.684
95776057|NCT02091986|191524558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.621
95776058|NCT02091986|191524558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.929
95809616|NCT03232567|191592552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX low dose vs placebo||||0.0169
95809617|NCT03232567|191592552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX medium dose vs placebo||||0.0063
95809618|NCT03232567|191592552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||NasoVAX high dose vs placebo||||<0.0001
95860607|NCT01485172|191680176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|10.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||10.90|0.58|0.221
95860608|NCT01485172|191680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.93||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.93|-3.78|0.662
95776059|NCT02091986|191524559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.664
95776060|NCT02091986|191524559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.747
95776061|NCT02091986|191524559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.913
95776062|NCT02091986|191524560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.015
95776063|NCT02091986|191524560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.342
95776064|NCT02091986|191524560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline lung function assessment, Treatment group, Region, Age were all included as explanatory variables in the linear predictor.||||||0.138
95776065|NCT02091986|191524564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.098
95776066|NCT02091986|191524564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.367
95776067|NCT02091986|191524564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||ANCOVA|The explanatory variables included in the model are: treatment group, baseline overall PAQLQ(S) score, region and age group||||||0.449
95809619|NCT02655601|191592554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.791||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|95.0||95.0||Study was originally designed with 1 IA after approximately 42 deaths. An unplanned, 2nd IA was conducted to support a BTDR. The study was not terminated early as a result of either IAs. No further IA were conducted until the primary analysis.|Log Rank|89 study participants had passed away at the time of this analysis (41 in the RT/TMZ + BMX-001 arm and 48 in the Radiation Therapy/TMZ arm).||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level. This test had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.63 after 84 deaths were observed among the 160 randomized patients.||95||0.135
95809620|NCT02655601|191592566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.465|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 78 and 71 patients in Arms A and B, respectively, there was 80% power with a one-tailed chi-square test (α=0.05) to detect a reduction in grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia from 15% in Arm B (without BMX-001) to 3.7% in Arm A (with BMX-001). Given the small number of patients that experienced low platelet counts or thrombocytopenia, a one-tailed Fisher's exact test was performed instead.||||0.465
95776068|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|14.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline value as a covariate.~Least squares (LS) mean differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||14.9|-14.3|0.97
95776069|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.5|||ANCOVA|||||15.5|-8.6|0.58
95776070|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.0|||ANCOVA|||||18.0|-6.1|0.33
95809621|NCT02655601|191592567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.911|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A 1-tailed logrank test was conducted at the 0.2 level.||||0.911
95809622|NCT02655601|191592568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity adjusted Chi-Squared test was performed.||||||0.401
95776071|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.8|||ANCOVA|||||29.8|5.4|0.005
95809623|NCT00427700|191592569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|33.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference between two drugs for ovulation induction.A sample size of 40 women per arm was calculated for this superiority trial, considering an alpha and beta error of 0.05 and 0.2, respectively, to find an absolute difference of 30% in the ovulation rate between groups, based on a previous study published by Mitwally and Casper (18) where the ovulation rate with CC was approximately 45%.||33|-9|0.3
95776072|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|30.2|||ANCOVA|||||30.2|6.2|0.003
95776073|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|36.1|||ANCOVA|||||36.1|7.2|0.003
95776074|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|40.7|||ANCOVA|||||40.7|11.9|<0.001
95776075|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|27.6|||ANCOVA|||||27.6|-5.6|0.20
95776076|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.1|||ANCOVA|||||37.1|4.0|0.015
95776077|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|39.0|||ANCOVA|||||39.0|5.9|0.008
95776078|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.3|||ANCOVA|||||36.3|7.6|0.003
95776079|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|38.8|||ANCOVA|||||38.8|5.6|0.009
95809624|NCT00427700|191592570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|34.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the mean values of progesterone between both groups.||34|-6|0.2
95809625|NCT02014376|191592571|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.3699
95809626|NCT00635050|191592615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
96001988|NCT01592851|191981510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.28||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.28|-0.63|<0.0001
95776080|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.8|||ANCOVA|||||39.8|11.0|<0.001
95776081|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|42.3|||ANCOVA|||||42.3|13.5|<0.001
95776082|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|54.1|||ANCOVA|||||54.1|25.1|<0.001
95809627|NCT04011241|191592656|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|173.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.58|195.21|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 17.6.|||195.21|154.58|
95776083|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|25.8|<0.001
95809628|NCT04011241|191592657|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|137.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.84|156.24|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 19.4.|||156.24|120.84|
95860609|NCT01485172|191680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-4.63|0.621
95860610|NCT01485172|191680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.01||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-6.50|0.150
95860611|NCT01485172|191680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-7.43|0.048
95860612|NCT01485172|191680177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|4.35||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.35|-6.32|0.715
95776084|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|60.1|||ANCOVA|||||60.1|27.1|<0.001
95776085|NCT01340027|191524584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|48.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|||||64.7|31.9|<0.001
95809629|NCT04011241|191592658|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|168.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.59|195.34|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV%) = 18.1.|||195.34|145.59|
95809630|NCT03312543|191592687|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|0.09|<0.001
95809631|NCT03312543|191592687|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.39|0.21|<0.001
95860613|NCT01485172|191680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.81||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-0.46|0.158
95860614|NCT01485172|191680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.76||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-1.71|0.446
95860615|NCT01485172|191680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.36||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.10|0.163
95860616|NCT01485172|191680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.25||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-2.27|0.117
95776086|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.03|-1.40|0.062
95776087|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.63|0.91
95776088|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.98|0.20
95776089|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.62|0.96
95776090|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.39|0.007
95776091|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.59|0.016
95776092|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.68|0.007
95776093|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.87|0.91
95776094|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.94|0.76
95776095|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.82|0.99
95776096|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.82|0.77
95776097|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.61|0.058
95776098|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.57|||ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.85|0.69
95809632|NCT03312543|191592687|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.25|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.25|0.02|0.025
95809633|NCT03312543|191592688|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|0.11|<0.001
95809634|NCT03312543|191592688|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.328|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|0.13|<0.001
95809635|NCT03312543|191592688|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.09|0.540
95860617|NCT01485172|191680178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.2||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-2.67|0.456
95860618|NCT01485172|191680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|5.5||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.50|-4.38|0.823
95997122|NCT01309737|191969811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|16.45||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||16.45|5.02|<0.0001
95776099|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.21|0.17
95776100|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.84|0.73
95776101|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.62|0.012
95776102|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-1.80|0.018
95776103|NCT01340027|191524585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-1.89|0.009
95776104|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.82||Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.82|-1.00|0.51
95776105|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.83|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.83|-0.57|0.21
95809636|NCT03312543|191592689|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.532||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10|-0.17|0.627
95776106|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-0.68|0.89
95776107|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||P values were calculated from a pairwise comparison of the combination treatment groups vs solifenacin succinate 5 mg or placebo within the ANCOVA model.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.06|0.001
95776108|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.04|0.058
95776109|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.17|0.15
95776110|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.73|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.91|0.41
95997123|NCT01309737|191969811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.0|30.73||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||30.73|9.00|<0.0001
95997124|NCT01309737|191969811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|20.69|||Normal Approximation|||||20.69|6.54|0.0002
95997125|NCT01309737|191969812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.62||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.19|-10.68||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-10.68|-64.19|0.0062
95997126|NCT01309737|191969812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.75||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-14.78||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-14.78|-68.80|0.0025
95997127|NCT01309737|191969812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.91|17.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.21|-25.91|0.6920
95997128|NCT01309737|191969816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95776111|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.3|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.88|0.44
95776112|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.95|0.85
95809637|NCT03312543|191592689|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.34|0.08|0.002
95997129|NCT01309737|191969816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997130|NCT01309737|191969816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997131|NCT01309737|191969817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997132|NCT01309737|191969817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997133|NCT01309737|191969817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997134|NCT01309737|191969818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95776113|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.533||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.36|0.83
95809638|NCT03312543|191592689|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.42|0.06|0.009
95997135|NCT01309737|191969818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997136|NCT01309737|191969818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997137|NCT01511445|191969916|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was specified as 15 NDI points (0-100 scale).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5|||Fisher Exact||A negative value means that the PEEK change was slightly larger than the silicon nitride study arm.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in NDI scores from pre-op to 24 months was equal in the two study arms.||4.5|-7.3|0.641
95997138|NCT01511445|191969917|NON_INFERIORITY|The definition of fusion is rotation on flexion-extension films of less than or equal to four degrees and translation less than 1.25 mm.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that the fusion rates would be equal in the two study arms. The comparison includes patients with flexion-extension films at 24 months (as-treated population).||||0.710
95776114|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.80|0.56
95776115|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.03|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.03|-1.07|0.48
95809639|NCT03312543|191592690|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.465|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|0.23|<0.001
95997139|NCT02698189|191969945|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.000; upper = 0.415|||
95997140|NCT02698189|191969945|OTHER|80% Bayesian credible interval based on a prior distribution of Beta (1, 1).|||||||||||||||||80% 2-sided Bayesian credible interval: lower = 0.040; upper = 0.391|||
95997141|NCT03664726|191969980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||Comparison of differences by group|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
95997142|NCT03664726|191969981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.76
95860619|NCT01485172|191680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.68||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.68|-4.86|0.568
95997143|NCT03664726|191969982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
95997144|NCT00702143|191969994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0002
95997145|NCT00702143|191969994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||<0.0001
95997146|NCT00702143|191969994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups||||0.0014
95997147|NCT00702143|191969996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||<0.0001
95997148|NCT00702143|191969996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
95997149|NCT00702143|191969996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||<0.0001
95776116|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.67|0.13
95776117|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.62|TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.78|0.99|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.99|-0.78|0.62
95776118|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.63|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.16|0.34
95776119|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.74|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.12|0.24
95776120|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.61|-0.26|0.88
95776121|NCT01340027|191524586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.95|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.95|-0.99|0.83
95776122|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.39|0.69|0.42
95776123|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|0.72|0.48
95776124|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.83|0.67|0.69
95776125|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.61|0.95
95776126|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.21|1.14|0.015
95776127|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.11|0.023
95776128|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.84|0.16
95776129|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.45|0.73
95776130|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.72|0.45|0.70
95776131|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.99|0.74|0.26
95776132|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.63|0.69
95776133|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.89|0.73|0.29
95776134|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.75|0.31
95776135|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.70|0.45
95776136|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.64|0.64
95776137|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.94|1.18|0.013
95776138|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.16|0.017
95776139|NCT01340027|191524589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.88|0.11
95776140|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.56|0.16|0.52
95776141|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.23|0.48
95776142|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.32|0.93
95776143|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|1.47|0.013
95776144|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|25.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.77|1.17|0.031
95776145|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|15.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.58|0.95|0.059
95776146|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.58|0.48|0.36
95776147|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.05|0.26
95776148|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.08|0.33
95776149|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.68|0.17|0.94
95809640|NCT03312543|191592690|SUPERIORITY|Superiority to baseline concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference is above 0.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|0.32|<0.001
95997150|NCT00702143|191969996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0003
95997151|NCT03658954|191970042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.75
95997152|NCT03658954|191970043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.05
95997153|NCT03658954|191970044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing for group effect.||||0.02
95776150|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.09|0.29
95776151|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.05|0.15
95776152|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.34|0.06|0.11
95776153|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.09|0.26
95776154|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|16.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.17|0.44|0.28
95776155|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|15.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.46|0.37|0.36
95776156|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.72|0.29|0.56
95776157|NCT01340027|191524591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|0.15|0.84
95776158|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.38|0.16|0.48
95776159|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.25|0.58
95776160|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.34|0.93
95776161|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|105.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||105.30|1.40|0.023
95776162|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|83.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.24|1.08|0.042
95776163|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|79.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.19|1.03|0.047
95776164|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.90|0.52|0.23
95809641|NCT03312543|191592690|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to Week 12 was equal for the active cell and the sham cell. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline was not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|With treatment and skin type group as factors and the corresponding averaged baseline score as a covariate.||||0.30|-0.07|0.224
95809642|NCT05852340|191592737|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI) are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|109.35||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||109.35|95.81|
95997154|NCT04885257|191970047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
95997155|NCT03040154|191970068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.35|1.33|0.006
95997156|NCT02382133|191970070|SUPERIORITY|comparing nasal and forehead oximetry sensor pressure ulcer incidence|||||=|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.006
95776165|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.058
95776166|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.02|0.15
95776167|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.99|0.04|0.55
95776168|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.48|0.02|0.11
95776169|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.01|0.054
95776170|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.01|0.059
95776171|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.02|0.12
95776172|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|35.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.46|0.11|0.64
95776173|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.42|0.09|0.76
95809643|NCT05852340|191592737|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|97.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|103.79||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||103.79|90.94|
95809644|NCT05852340|191592737|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.28|106.46||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||106.46|93.28|
95809645|NCT05852340|191592737|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|112.96||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||112.96|97.30|
95809646|NCT05852340|191592738|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|111.62||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Strawberry Jam (Fasted)||111.62|83.66|
95776174|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|26.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.47|0.08|0.79
95776175|NCT01340027|191524592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|0.04|0.55
95954871|NCT00666835|191881327|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Point estimate of difference (ANCOVA)|0.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.338||||||||0.338|-0.170|
95954872|NCT00666835|191881328|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was defined as the two-sided 95 % confidence interval of the difference between the two treatment groups lying entirely in the interval -0.5 to 0.5 g/dL. The confidence interval of the difference was calculated based on the least square means (LSMEANS) from an analysis of co-variance model including factors treatment, center, mean baseline Hb level (\<11.5 and T11.5 g/dL) as factors and change of the mean weekly dose as a covariate.|Difference LSM of Epo Hexal & Erypo|0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.418||||||||0.418|-0.039|
95954873|NCT03861429|191881329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|14.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel logistic regression (generalized estimating equations \[GEE\] with an autoregressive (1) working correlation matrix, logit link function) were fitted to assess the primary hypotheses. The models account for the repeated measures (3 or 4 time points), correlated, data structure per person. An additive model was conducted with contrast coding for each time point, treatment, and follow-up effects.||14.15|.78|.105
95954874|NCT03861429|191881330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||1.178|.022|.04
95954875|NCT03861429|191881331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.46|.12|.001
95776176|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.71||All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.|Stratified Rank ANCOVA|P-values are from pairwise comparisons of the combination/active treatment groups vs. solifenacin 5 mg/placebo within a stratified rank ANCOVA model.||The ANCOVA model including the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and Baseline measurement as a covariate was used to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for change from Baseline within each treatment group and for differences between combination treatment groups and solifenacin 5 mg as well as for differences between active treatment groups and placebo.||0.71|-1.24|0.25
95954876|NCT03861429|191881332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.48|.21|.001
95776177|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.81|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.70|0.35
95809647|NCT05852340|191592738|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.23|97.7||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Yoghurt (Fasted)||97.70|73.23|
95809648|NCT05852340|191592738|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|108.48||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Mixed with Applesauce (Fasted)||108.48|81.30|
95954877|NCT03861429|191881333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.19|-.01|.081
95954878|NCT03861429|191881334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Calculation of mean differences were derived from mixed model analyses|||.3|.11|.033
95776178|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.72|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.72|-0.74|1.0
95997157|NCT01976806|191970072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Compound-symmetry covariance structure with age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline RBC DHA level, and intervention group variables|Mean change in pocket depth (3-month follow-up minus baseline) among dental sites with baseline pocket depths \>=5 mm in the DHA intervention group versus the placebo group.|Intent-to-treat basis with a type I error rate of 0.05. The follow-up pocket depth, was assessed in linear mixed effects models with a compound-symmetry covariance structure and age, sex, BMI, race, baseline pocket depth, baseline red blood cell (RBC) DHA level (dichotomized at median), and intervention group as fixed-effect variables.||||<0.05
95997158|NCT04321343|191970106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.587||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1036|-6.5227|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.5227|-44.1036|0.0083
95997159|NCT04321343|191970106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.287||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2074|-2.7991|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.7991|-39.2074|0.0237
95997160|NCT04321343|191970106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.053||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4923|-6.0035|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-6.0035|-41.4923|0.0087
95776179|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.41|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.41|-1.08|0.003
95776180|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.59|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.59|-1.04|0.12
95776181|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.38|-0.21|0.24
95776182|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.78|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.78|-0.94|0.54
95809649|NCT05852340|191592738|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|43.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.5|51.23||||||Reference: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule (Fasted) Test: Ritlecitinib 30 mg Capsule Given with High Fat Meal||51.23|37.50|
95997161|NCT04321343|191970107|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-26.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.252||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3208|-6.1313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-6.1313|-46.3208|0.0105
95776183|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.10|0.95
95776184|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.07|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.07|-1.11|0.74
95997162|NCT04321343|191970107|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-21.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.873||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8475|-2.1451|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-2.1451|-40.8475|0.0295
95997163|NCT04321343|191970107|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann midpoint estimate|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.746||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.392|-5.1884|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric pairwaise Wilcoxon tests using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.||||-5.1884|-43.3920|0.0127
95997164|NCT04321343|191970108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.824||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2463|-1.0957|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0957|-8.2463|0.0105
95776185|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.82|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.82|-1.43|0.89
95776186|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.96|0.82
95776187|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.9|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.90|-1.44|0.58
95776188|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.04|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.04|-0.93|0.46
95776189|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.96|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.96|-0.97|0.95
95776190|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.65|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.32|0.18
95809650|NCT00071032|191592745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.22|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.22|0.84|
95809651|NCT00071032|191592746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-3.3|1.6|||||Liberal Arm (numerator) compared to Restrictive Arm (denominator)|||1.6|-3.3|
95809652|NCT00375713|191592761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-set threshold for non inferiority is -10%.|Difference in proportion of responders|0.00069213||||||95.0|-0.0875|0.0888||||||The lower bound of the 95% two sided confidence interval for the difference (Levocetirizine - Cetirizine) in percentage of responders is compared to the pre-set threshold for non inferiority (-10% which is equal to -0.1 for the proportion of responders). Standard method for estimation of the difference in proportions incl. confidence interval using normal approximation is used.||0.0888|-0.0875|
95809653|NCT00375713|191592762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4369||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Pruritus score is adjusted on pruritus Baseline score.||The mean daily pruritus score at Day 14 visit or at study completion was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor||||0.4369
95954879|NCT01763346|191881339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||35 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.59, assuming a 2-sided p=0.05, adjustment for baseline measures using ANCOVA, and correlation of 0.5 between baseline and end-study measures.|General Linear Models|Differences in primary outcomes between groups at 24-months were compared using general linear models with baseline values included as covariates.||We selected a sample size that would allow detection of an effect size of \~0.6 or greater between gastric band and metformin groups for measures of β-cell function after two years, hypothesizing greater function in the gastric band group.||||0.05
95954880|NCT01797822|191881371|OTHER|Statistical comparison between groups was made with t-test. A sample size of 20 subjects was calculates to have 90% power of detecting a statistical difference (P\<0.05) in change in corneal staining pre and post low humidity challenge.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95954881|NCT01212952|191881419|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) (mg/m^2)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum Tolerated Dose Level is Dose Level 2 (1.3 mg/m\^2 Bortezomib).|||||
95954882|NCT05135156|191881444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.0|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||25|3|0.02
95954883|NCT05135156|191881445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.6|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||6.6|-1.0|0.15
95954884|NCT05135156|191881446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.5|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||8.5|-10.9|0.81
95954885|NCT05135156|191881447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||0.8|-0.1|0.15
95954886|NCT05135156|191881448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.7|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.7|-2.0|0.54
95954887|NCT05135156|191881450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control|||2.7|-2.1|0.82
95954888|NCT05135156|191881452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||7|-15|0.44
95954889|NCT05135156|191881453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|||3.9|-1.3|0.31
95954890|NCT05135156|191881454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|17.4|||Regression, Linear||Difference = intervention - control||Estimation parameter is regression parameter comparing intervention to control|17.4|-7.4|0.42
95954891|NCT05135156|191881455|OTHER|Pearson's chi-squared test of independence||||||0.39||||||p=0.39 at baseline, 0.39 at 2 weeks and 0.23 at 4 weeks|Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95954892|NCT05135156|191881456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.94|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in confidence-weighted true false knowledge about lung transplant (14-question investigator-designed survey) from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.94|-0.84|0.91
95954893|NCT05135156|191881456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Likert preparedness to discuss transplant from baseline to 2-week study visit||0.16|-0.08|0.53
95954894|NCT05135156|191881456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.3|||Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|Outcome = change in Decisional Conflict Scale from baseline to 2-week study visit||-0.3|-8.4|0.04
95954895|NCT05135156|191881456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.0||Outcome = mean PrepDM Scale at 2-weeks|Regression, Linear||Parameters are for a 60-minute greater amount of time spent on the website (range was 21-418 minutes in the first 2 weeks).|||5.0|-3.6|0.74
95809654|NCT00375713|191592763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|pruritus severity score at baseline has been used as a covariate.||The categorized duration of Pruritus at endpoint during the 14 day treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, including pruritus severity score of the day before the randomization as a covariate and treatment group as a factor.||||0.3549
95809655|NCT00375713|191592764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified on the prurity severity score at the previous day of randomization.||||||0.7518
95809656|NCT01107496|191592821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||12.00|1.00|0.0414
95954896|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000559
95954897|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2812338||||0.00000766
95954898|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10824875||||0.00000982
95954899|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000127
95954900|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10851257||||0.00000396
95954901|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6492344||||0.00000648
95954902|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12584550||||0.00000221
95954903|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9555773||||0.00000902
95954904|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000077
95954905|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000048
95954906|NCT01855997|191881478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000037
95776191|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.8|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.80|-1.24|0.21
95954907|NCT01855997|191881479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1876154||||0.00000987
95954908|NCT01855997|191881479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7753766||||0.00000605
95954909|NCT01855997|191881479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs604241||||0.00000946
95954910|NCT01855997|191881479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000077
95954911|NCT01855997|191881479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000197
95954912|NCT01855997|191881480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000677
95954913|NCT01855997|191881480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.98e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000798
95954914|NCT01855997|191881480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000512
95954915|NCT01855997|191881480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000345
95776192|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.6|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||1.60|-0.43|0.72
95954916|NCT01855997|191881480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs247878||||0.00000372
95954917|NCT01855997|191881481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.59e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12210761||||0.00000459
95954918|NCT01855997|191881481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1411283||||0.00000925
95954919|NCT01855997|191881481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.72e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12446868||||0.00000772
95954920|NCT01855997|191881482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.7e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11163805||||0.00000470
95776193|NCT01340027|191524593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.98|||Stratified Rank ANCOVA|||||0.98|-1.15|0.92
95776194|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||-0.45|-2.06|0.002
95776195|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.15|0.16
95776196|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.91|<0.001
95776197|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.80|0.001
95776198|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.70|-2.03|<0.001
95776199|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.78|0.017
95776200|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.98|0.004
95776201|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-0.63|0.53
95776202|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.83|0.85
95776203|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.83|-1.01|0.84
95776204|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.59|||ANCOVA|||||1.59|-0.00|0.050
95776205|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.38|0.33
95776206|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-0.48|0.44
95776207|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-1.24|0.28
95776208|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.14|0.42
95776209|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.37|0.16
95776210|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-1.10|0.70
95776211|NCT01340027|191524594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.30|0.40
95776212|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.01|-0.30|0.062
95776213|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.22|0.15
95776214|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.30|0.007
95954921|NCT01855997|191881482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.74e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000674
95954922|NCT01855997|191881482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000952
95776215|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
95809657|NCT01107496|191592822|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 1 data.||7.00|0.00|0.0803
95809658|NCT01107496|191592823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 data.||1.00|-1.00|0.5308
95776216|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
95776217|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
95776218|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.29|0.070
95776219|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.05|0.15
95809659|NCT01107496|191592823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.2032
95809660|NCT01107496|191592823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0677
95809661|NCT01107496|191592823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0743
95954923|NCT01855997|191881482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1831559||||0.00000608
95776220|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.12|0.57
95776221|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.16|0.89
95776222|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.02|0.086
95776223|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.19|0.88
95776224|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.11|0.61
95776225|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.20|0.58
95776226|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.18|0.76
95776227|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.077||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.25|0.23
95809662|NCT01107496|191592823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.0437
95809663|NCT01107496|191592823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||0.00|-2.00|0.1209
95809664|NCT01107496|191592824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 2 data.||6.00|-4.00|0.6022
95776228|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.30|0.15
95776229|NCT01340027|191524595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.18|0.94
95776230|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.30|-0.99|0.29
95776231|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.12|0.15
95776232|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.48|0.99
95776233|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-0.54|0.76
95776234|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.71|0.30
95776235|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.72|0.43
95776236|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.83|0.40
95809665|NCT01107496|191592824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 3 data.||1.00|-10.0|0.0794
95809666|NCT01107496|191592824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 4 data.||0.00|-10.0|0.0747
95809667|NCT01107496|191592824|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 5 data.||0.00|-12.0|0.0545
95809668|NCT01107496|191592825|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Week 6 data.||13.00|1.00|0.0349
95954924|NCT01855997|191881482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.04e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7983441||||0.00000404
95954925|NCT01855997|191881482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000407
95954926|NCT01855997|191881483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000666
95954927|NCT01855997|191881483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.44e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000844
95997165|NCT04321343|191970108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.514|-0.6799|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-0.6799|-7.5140|0.0188
95776237|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.08|0.24
95776238|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.98|0.36
95776239|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-1.49|0.020
95776240|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-1.33|0.011
95809669|NCT01107496|191592826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 1 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4038
95809670|NCT01107496|191592826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 2 data||0.00|-1.00|0.4460
95809671|NCT01107496|191592826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 3 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0549
95809672|NCT01107496|191592826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 4 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0759
95809673|NCT01107496|191592826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 5 data||0.00|-1.00|0.0342
95776241|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.84|0.004
95776242|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-1.00|0.18
95776243|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.015
95776244|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-1.41|0.006
95776245|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.59|<0.001
95776246|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.59|0.003
95776247|NCT01340027|191524596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.68|0.004
95776248|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.09|||ANCOVA|||"All statistical comparisons are for change from Baseline to End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.09|-0.60|0.15
95776249|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.78
95776250|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.58
95809674|NCT01107496|191592826|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Analysis pertains to Week 6 data||||0.0474
95809675|NCT04262479|191592854|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events.|||
95809676|NCT04262479|191592855|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counting number of events|||
95809677|NCT04262479|191592856|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95809678|NCT04262479|191592857|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
95776251|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.37|0.60
95776252|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.63|0.017
95776253|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.60|0.16
95776254|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|0.13
95776255|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.35|0.81
95776256|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.48|0.67
95776257|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.33|0.77
95809679|NCT04262479|191592858|OTHER||||||<|0.61||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.61
95809680|NCT04262479|191592859|OTHER||||||<|0.3||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.30
95809681|NCT04262479|191592860|OTHER||||||<|0.002||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.002
95809682|NCT04262479|191592861|OTHER||||||<|0.72||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.72
95809683|NCT04262479|191592862|OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.03
95809684|NCT04262479|191592863|OTHER||||||<|0.044||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.044
95809685|NCT03537508|191592865|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|8.64||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||8.64|-4.38|
95809686|NCT03537508|191592865|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||13.60|4.80|
95809687|NCT03537508|191592865|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|8.44||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||8.44|0.68|
95809688|NCT03537508|191592865|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|4.45||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||4.45|-1.18|
95809689|NCT03537508|191592866|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|15.59||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup A||15.59|4.98|
95809690|NCT03537508|191592866|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|10.96||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup C||10.96|5.31|
95809691|NCT03537508|191592866|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.62||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup Y||9.62|4.01|
95809692|NCT03537508|191592866|NON_INFERIORITY|The overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for all 4 serogroups. 95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|8.57||||||Statistical analysis for Serogroup W||8.57|3.44|
95809693|NCT02964377|191592882|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
95809694|NCT02964377|191592882|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0075
95809695|NCT02964377|191592882|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0083
95809696|NCT02964377|191592883|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0127
95809697|NCT02964377|191592883|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0202
95809698|NCT02964377|191592883|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in trough vs. peak values was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
95809699|NCT02964377|191592884|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
95997166|NCT04321343|191970108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.689||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6307|-1.0104|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-1.0104|-7.6307|0.0105
95997167|NCT04321343|191970109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|10.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||10.087|0.677|0.1634
95809700|NCT02964377|191592884|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
95809701|NCT02964377|191592884|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
95809702|NCT02964377|191592884|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 1)||||<0.0001
95809703|NCT02964377|191592884|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 2)||||<0.0001
95809704|NCT02964377|191592884|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8 (Cohort 3)||||<0.0001
95809705|NCT02964377|191592887|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.002
95809706|NCT02964377|191592887|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.001
95809707|NCT02964377|191592887|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809708|NCT02964377|191592887|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809709|NCT02964377|191592887|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809710|NCT02964377|191592887|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809711|NCT02964377|191592888|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809712|NCT02964377|191592888|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809713|NCT02964377|191592888|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809714|NCT02964377|191592888|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809715|NCT02964377|191592888|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809716|NCT02964377|191592888|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809717|NCT02964377|191592889|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809718|NCT02964377|191592889|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809719|NCT02964377|191592889|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809720|NCT02964377|191592889|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809721|NCT02964377|191592889|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809722|NCT02964377|191592889|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809723|NCT02964377|191592890|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.012
95954928|NCT01855997|191881483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000794
95954929|NCT01855997|191881483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11868362||||0.00000310
95954930|NCT01855997|191881484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.07e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11139349||||0.00000207
95954931|NCT01855997|191881484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.99e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000899
95954932|NCT01855997|191881485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.73e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1384010||||0.00000573
95954933|NCT01855997|191881485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1351518||||0.00000946
95954934|NCT01855997|191881485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1157322||||0.00000731
95954935|NCT01855997|191881485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.45e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs646097||||0.00000945
95954936|NCT01855997|191881486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.6e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000016
95954937|NCT01855997|191881487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000088
95954938|NCT01855997|191881488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2464266||||0.00000879
95809724|NCT02964377|191592890|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809725|NCT02964377|191592890|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||<0.0001
95809726|NCT02964377|191592890|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.01
95809727|NCT02964377|191592890|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809728|NCT02964377|191592890|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.0001
95809729|NCT02964377|191592892|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.01
95809730|NCT02964377|191592892|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.019|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.019
95809731|NCT02964377|191592892|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||<0.001
95809732|NCT02964377|191592892|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.05
95809733|NCT02964377|191592893|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.054||||||p-value for difference at Week 4|Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.054
95809734|NCT02964377|191592893|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.009
95809735|NCT02964377|191592894|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.025|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.025
95809736|NCT02964377|191592894|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.026
95809737|NCT02964377|191592895|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 4||||0.006
95809738|NCT02964377|191592895|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) regression||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline vs. Week 8||||0.002
95809739|NCT04734210|191592949|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.2933||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.2933
95809740|NCT04734210|191592950|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.1966||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.1966
95860620|NCT01485172|191680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|0.63||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.63|-7.01|0.101
95954939|NCT01855997|191881489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.52e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9496139||||0.00000452
95954940|NCT01855997|191881489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2014238||||0.00000497
95954941|NCT01855997|191881489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2980231||||0.00000497
95954942|NCT01855997|191881490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.48e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000748
95954943|NCT01855997|191881490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.3e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000073
95809741|NCT04734210|191592951|OTHER|Exploratory, descriptive analysis||||||0.0213||||||The difference in response rates between each of the SURF-200 formulations and vehicle was compared by Fisher's exact method.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||Exploratory Phase 2 Study; approximately 120 subjects (approximately 40 subjects per each of the 3 treatment groups) were planned to be enrolled in the study. The sample size was based on medical judgment. No formal sample size calculation was performed, and the sample size was empirical. However, the sample size selected was considered sufficient to adequately characterize the general safety and efficacy profile of the study treatments.||||0.0213
95809742|NCT03524157|191592972|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferior if there are no differences greater than 20%.||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.273
95809743|NCT03524157|191592973|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.788|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.788
95809744|NCT03524157|191592975|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95809745|NCT03524157|191592976|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
95809746|NCT03524157|191592977|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95809747|NCT03524157|191592979|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95860621|NCT01485172|191680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.18||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-7.70|0.040
95954944|NCT01855997|191881490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2899723||||0.00000289
95954945|NCT01855997|191881490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.12e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8027115||||0.00000912
95954946|NCT01855997|191881490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2267780||||0.00000494
95954947|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9973954||||0.00000627
95954948|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2237722||||0.00000696
95809748|NCT03524157|191592980|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.05
95809749|NCT03524157|191592981|NON_INFERIORITY|it will be considered non-inferiority if there are no differences greater than 20%|||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95809750|NCT04507763|191592982|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
95809751|NCT04507763|191592983|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Change from Baseline at Month 12: For Early Referral||||0.001
95809752|NCT00127439|191592989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power analysis indicated that when the mean difference equals to 1.2 times of standard deviation, a two-sided t-test at 0.05 level will have 80% power; and for a mean difference of 1.4 times of standard deviation the power increases to 91%. To test the null hypothesis that correlation will be 0 at 0.5 level, a two-sided test based on Fisher's Z transformation will yield a power of 89% in detecting correlations of 0.6 or above with n=24 or above.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809753|NCT00127439|191592989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Pearson correlation of gait speed changes with directional difference of standardized kinematic scores (i.e. foot trajectory toe-off - degrees, foot trajectory toe-off - % cycle, foot trajectory initial contact - degrees, foot trajectory range - degrees, propulsive impulse N-s, minimum thigh angle - flexion degrees, minimum hip angle - extension degrees, trunk angle mid-stance)||||0.05
95809754|NCT00127439|191592990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95954949|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.26e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1040084||||0.00000426
95954950|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.35e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1913484||||0.00000435
95954951|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||2.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16924016||||0.00000221
95809755|NCT00127439|191592991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809756|NCT00127439|191592992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Provided previously||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809757|NCT00127439|191592993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809758|NCT00127439|191592994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809759|NCT00127439|191592995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809760|NCT00127439|191592996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809761|NCT00127439|191592997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95809762|NCT00376558|191592998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95809763|NCT00376558|191592999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||delta bpnd|-12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The limbic striatum was our primary region of interest using an unpaired t test to compare BPND and deltaBPND between the treatment responders and non-responders.||||0.001
95809764|NCT02743221|191593035|OTHER|This was a non-comparative study.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model with adjustment for the stratification factors (RAS status, performance status ECOG)||||1.06|0.48|0.09
95809765|NCT02743221|191593036|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
95860622|NCT01485172|191680179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.77||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.77|-6.08|0.811
95954952|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.23e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm1010813||||0.00000523
95954953|NCT01855997|191881491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.57e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6576456||||0.00000757
95954954|NCT01855997|191881492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000153
95954955|NCT01855997|191881492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.08e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10475403||||0.00000708
95954956|NCT01855997|191881492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000727
95809766|NCT02743221|191593037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.74||||||||2.74|0.49|
95809767|NCT02743221|191593038|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95809768|NCT02743221|191593039|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.32|0.04
95809769|NCT04770285|191593049|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.78||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.05|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.05|-3.60|0.0568
95809770|NCT04770285|191593050|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.77||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.07|||MMRM|p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||||0.07|-1.61|0.0705
95809771|NCT04770285|191593051|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.62||||0.3687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.74||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.74|-1.99|0.3687
95809772|NCT04770285|191593051|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.45||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.19||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.19|-3.10|0.0828
95809773|NCT04770285|191593052|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.38||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-1.06|0.3549
95809774|NCT04770285|191593052|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.28||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.53||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.53|-1.09|0.4948
95809775|NCT04770285|191593053|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.34||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.34|0.84|0.1420
95954957|NCT01855997|191881493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000397
95954958|NCT01855997|191881494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.86e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000686
95997168|NCT04321343|191970109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|11.831|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.831|0.899|0.0722
95809776|NCT04770285|191593053|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.16|0.79|0.2939
95809777|NCT04770285|191593053|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.99||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.99|0.96|0.0884
95809778|NCT04770285|191593054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.19||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.32|0.0039
95809779|NCT04770285|191593054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.32||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.15||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.15|-0.50|0.0003
95809780|NCT04770285|191593054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.26||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0098
95809781|NCT04770285|191593055|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.02||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.61||p-value was calculated by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.61|-3.66|0.4463
95809782|NCT04770285|191593056|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.29||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.31||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.31|-2.28|0.0102
95809783|NCT04770285|191593056|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.58||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-0.54||p-value was calculated by MMRM method with model terms: Treatment, trial center, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline by visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.54|-2.62|0.0029
95809784|NCT04770285|191593057|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.18||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.16||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||2.16|0.65|0.5757
95809785|NCT04770285|191593057|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.78||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.78|0.75|0.5102
95809786|NCT04770285|191593057|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.5342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||p-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenzsel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.79|0.74|0.5342
95809787|NCT04770285|191593058|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Week 8||1.22|0.82|
95809788|NCT04770285|191593058|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||Week 10||1.25|0.88|
95809789|NCT02947048|191593067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.61
95809790|NCT02947048|191593067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Severity||||0.33
95809791|NCT02947048|191593067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.61
95954959|NCT01855997|191881494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.96e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000596
95954960|NCT01855997|191881494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.89e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000489
95954961|NCT01855997|191881495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.34e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2189452||||0.00000834
95954962|NCT01855997|191881495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.87e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000487
95954963|NCT01855997|191881495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000918
95809792|NCT02947048|191593067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Clinical Global Impression - Improvement||||0.91
95809793|NCT04620668|191593088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
95809794|NCT04620668|191593088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
95809795|NCT04620668|191593088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.044
95809796|NCT04620668|191593088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.001
95809797|NCT04620668|191593088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.731
95809798|NCT04620668|191593089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||<0.001
95809799|NCT04620668|191593089|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within treatment group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||<0.001
95809800|NCT04620668|191593089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from baseline to week 2 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.05
95809801|NCT04620668|191593089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Dependent t-test (2-sided)|"Assessing change within treatment group from week 2 to week 4 (follow-up to Repeated Measures ANOVA).~Bonferroni-adjusted p value."||||||0.024
95954964|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.37e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000137
95809802|NCT04620668|191593089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Assessing change within control group (follow-up to Mixed ANOVA).||||||0.674
95809803|NCT04620668|191593090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.159
95809804|NCT04620668|191593091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed ANOVA|Assessing interaction between experimental group and time point.||||||0.326
95954965|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.39e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2803073||||0.00000339
95809805|NCT03895372|191593107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.87||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|26.26||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||26.26|-4.50|0.2621
95809806|NCT03895372|191593107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|21.48||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||21.48|-7.07|0.2621
95809807|NCT03895372|191593107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.01|47.11||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.11|18.01|0.0004
95809808|NCT03895372|191593107|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|46.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|60.56||One-sided Hochberg p-value, significant level is 0.05.|Chan and Zhang method|||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||60.56|30.62|<0.0001
95809809|NCT03895372|191593115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|23.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||23.42|-11.82|
95809810|NCT03895372|191593115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.61|13.29||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||13.29|-18.61|
95809811|NCT03895372|191593115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.32|47.52||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||47.52|14.32|
95809812|NCT03895372|191593115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.01|72.41||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||72.41|41.01|
95809813|NCT03895372|191593116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
95809814|NCT03895372|191593116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
95809815|NCT03895372|191593116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
95809816|NCT03895372|191593116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
95809817|NCT03895372|191593117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|20.77||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||20.77|-14.52|
95809818|NCT03895372|191593117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|17.01||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||17.01|-17.67|
95809819|NCT03895372|191593117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.86|43.26||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||43.26|8.86|
95809820|NCT03895372|191593117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|54.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.46|68.27||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||68.27|36.46|
95809821|NCT03895372|191593120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.51||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||2.51|-5.42|
95809822|NCT03895372|191593120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|0.42||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.42|-7.50|
95809823|NCT03895372|191593120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.05|-6.56||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-6.56|-13.05|
95809824|NCT03895372|191593120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.61|-9.04||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-9.04|-15.61|
95809825|NCT03895372|191593121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.61|6.35||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||6.35|-23.61|
95809826|NCT03895372|191593121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.98|1.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||1.94|-27.98|
95954966|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.27e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1937590||||0.00000927
95954967|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.66e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000166
95954968|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.55e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1997894||||0.00000455
95954969|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1495471||||0.00000568
95776258|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.30|0.81
95776259|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
95776260|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.34|0.99
95776261|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.38|0.82
95776262|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.38|0.84
95809827|NCT03895372|191593121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.02|-28.46||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-28.46|-53.02|
95809828|NCT03895372|191593121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.44|-40.63||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-40.63|-65.44|
95809829|NCT03895372|191593122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.52|0.09||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.09|-2.52|
95809830|NCT03895372|191593122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|0.05||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||0.05|-2.46|
95809831|NCT03895372|191593122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|-2.43||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.43|-4.51|
95809832|NCT03895372|191593122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-2.61||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.61|-4.71|
95954970|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.25e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000125
95954971|NCT01855997|191881496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.82e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1152537||||0.00000982
95776263|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.64|0.080
95776264|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.60|0.30
95776265|NCT01340027|191524597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.62|0.26
95776266|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.2|-0.5|0.38
95776267|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.85
95776268|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
95776269|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.005
95776270|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.003
95776271|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.004
95809833|NCT03895372|191593123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.52|32.87||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||32.87|-4.52|
95809834|NCT03895372|191593123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|44.64||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||44.64|2.62|
95776272|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.15
95776273|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.4|0.99
95776274|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.67
95776275|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.44
95776276|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.88
95809835|NCT03895372|191593123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.47|56.18||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||56.18|23.47|
95809836|NCT03895372|191593123|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.62|63.69||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||63.69|30.62|
95809837|NCT03895372|191593124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.82|-0.59||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-0.59|-7.82|
95809838|NCT03895372|191593124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.89|-2.99||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-2.99|-9.89|
95809839|NCT03895372|191593124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|-7.62||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.62|-13.40|
95809840|NCT03895372|191593124|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.68|-7.94||||||The analysis was based on the data at Week 16.||-7.94|-13.68|
95809841|NCT03685149|191593132|SUPERIORITY||percent reduction|72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||82|56|<0.0001
95809842|NCT03685149|191593133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95954972|NCT01855997|191881497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10236906||||0.00000846
95954973|NCT01855997|191881497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.62e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2945861||||0.00000562
95954974|NCT01855997|191881497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7042473||||0.00000497
95954975|NCT01855997|191881497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2077415||||0.00000997
95776277|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.5|0.53
95776278|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|1.0
95776279|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.6|0.084
95776280|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.7|0.030
95809843|NCT03685149|191593134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95809844|NCT03685149|191593135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
95809845|NCT01287208|191593174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95809846|NCT01287208|191593177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95809847|NCT05081843|191593184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.522|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.522|-0.056|0.05
95809848|NCT05081843|191593185|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.534||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.990|0.078|0.05
95954976|NCT01855997|191881497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.64e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9324018||||0.00000864
95776281|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.020
95776282|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.8|0.017
95776283|NCT01340027|191524598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.6|0.26
95776284|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||4.95|1.04|0.040
95776285|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.63|0.73
95776286|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|1.00|0.050
95776287|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.81|0.21
95776288|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|1.11|0.021
95776289|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.79|0.19
95809849|NCT05081843|191593186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.829|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.829|-0.177|0.05
95809850|NCT05081843|191593187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.756||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.208|0.05
95809851|NCT04197583|191593192|OTHER||Proportion by group|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|0.995|||||For Tria subjects with stone management indication only|||0.995|0.948|
95776290|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.57|0.74
95776291|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.58|0.57
95776292|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|0.77|0.19
95776293|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.41|0.69
95776294|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.99|0.55|0.90
95776295|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.55|1.01|0.048
95776296|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.60|0.67
95776297|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.95|0.070
95776298|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.98|0.77|0.23
95776299|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.19|1.06|0.034
95809852|NCT02085720|191593204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data were given as means and standard deviations, unless otherwise stated. AHI was categorized as ≥ 5, ≥ 10, ≥ 15 and ≥ 20. The frequency distribution of responses on the SHQ and their relationship to AHI was assessed with the chi-squared analysis. The association of variables such as age, BMI, neck circumference, ESS and sleep health questionnaire responses versus AHI was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance and Pearson Correlation Analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95809853|NCT05472870|191593214|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS. A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses.|||||<|0.001||||||Bonferroni correction was used to adjust P values in post hoc analyses.|ANOVA|||All clinical behavioral data analysis was performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software (version 25.0). A P value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. One-way ANOVA with repeated measures was used to examine differences in the effects of cTMS on the SRS.||||<0.001
95809854|NCT02414841|191593224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.39|||Log Rank|Weighted|Performed as sensitivity analysis|||1.39|0.67|0.932
95809855|NCT02414841|191593225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
95954977|NCT01855997|191881498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||3.68e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs17037122||||0.00000368
95954978|NCT01855997|191881498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.77e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs715243||||0.00000577
95954979|NCT01855997|191881499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2302503||||0.00000950
95776300|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|0.76|0.20
95776301|NCT01340027|191524599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.55|0.68
95776302|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.64|0.62
95809856|NCT00391716|191593272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.|Mantel Haenszel|Extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear-by-linear association.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= non-abstinent, 1=abstinent), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.04
95809857|NCT00391716|191593272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||linear dose effects for rates of abstinence were assessed using the extended Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for linear association.|Mantel Haenszel|The numerator is the number of subjects completely abstinent and the denominator is the number of subjects randomized, within each treatment group.||The extended Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test for linear trend assesses the relationship between ROW and COLUMN of a single contingency table, where both row (dose: 0mg, 900mg, 1800mg) and column (response (0= heavy drinking, 1=no heavy drinking), and at least 1 variable has more than 2 levels. It specifically tests linear dose-response without need for multiple comparisons.||||<0.02
95809858|NCT00391716|191593273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95776303|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
95776304|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.91|0.11
95776305|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.10|0.020
95776306|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|1.15|0.012
95776307|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.10|0.95|0.072
95776308|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.77|0.29
95776309|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.49|0.94
95776310|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.81|0.46|0.80
95776311|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.59|0.67
95776312|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.55|1.0
95776313|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.59|0.66
95776314|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.73|0.35
95776315|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.82|0.19
95776316|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.99|0.054
95776317|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.38|1.04|0.038
95776318|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|0.87|0.12
95776319|NCT01340027|191524600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.70|0.36
95809859|NCT00391716|191593274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95809860|NCT00391716|191593275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003||||||Cumulative means over 12 weeks|ANOVA|||||||<0.003
95809861|NCT01765400|191593314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95954980|NCT01855997|191881499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.41e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6015181||||0.00000741
95954981|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.05e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550116||||0.00000805
95954982|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1550115||||0.00000702
95954983|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2082881||||0.00000702
95954984|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.43e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||exm2265462||||0.00000743
95954985|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000078
95954986|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.94e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1403069||||0.00000894
95954987|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.71e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000571
95954988|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs8012912||||0.00000729
95954989|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.28e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11158827||||0.00000828
95954990|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.85e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs11870323||||0.00000885
95954991|NCT01855997|191881500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.17e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs4821558||||0.00000717
95954992|NCT01855997|191881501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.29e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6443144||||0.00000629
95954993|NCT01855997|191881501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.79e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692421||||0.00000579
95954994|NCT01855997|191881501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.53e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs1692423||||0.00000553
95954995|NCT01855997|191881501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.46e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9691873||||0.00000946
95954996|NCT01855997|191881501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.5e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7968170||||0.00000450
95776320|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.43|0.06|0.32
95776321|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.21|0.65
95776322|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.13|0.39
95776323|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.10|0.22
95809862|NCT00836706|191593317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|85.2|120.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||120|85.2|
95809863|NCT00836706|191593318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.7|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.7|
95809864|NCT00836706|191593319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pharmacokinetic parameters will be evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|101.0||||||90.0|88.4|114.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||114|88.4|
95776324|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.04|0.082
95776325|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.20|0.04|0.36
95776326|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|0.42|0.51
95776327|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.19|0.99
95776328|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.59|0.24|0.96
95776329|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.30|0.12|0.57
95776330|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.95|0.28|0.93
95776331|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.79|0.06|0.37
95809865|NCT00688740|191593331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.795||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.932||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.932|0.679|0.0043
95809866|NCT00688740|191593332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.742||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.898||Pairwise stratified log-rank test on the number of positive axillary nodes as per randomization|Log Rank|||||0.898|0.613|0.0020
95809867|NCT01098747|191593348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-square (LS) mean difference|24.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.32|29.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR) and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI):based on LS means from analysis of variance(ANOVA). Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: Ibuprofen sodium (IBU Na) versus(vs.) Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then time to meaningful relief(TMR), IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||29.09|19.32|<0.001
95860623|NCT01485172|191680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.08||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.86|0.102
95776332|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.13|0.20|0.74
95776333|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.59|0.12|0.46
95776334|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.10|0.28
95776335|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.04|0.11
95776336|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.66|0.04|0.40
95776337|NCT01340027|191524601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.85|0.39|0.50
95776338|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||1.7|-8.0|0.21
95776339|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-5.2|0.54
95776340|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-8.9|0.016
95809868|NCT01098747|191593349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|24.15||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.15|6.78|<0.001
95776341|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-9.3|0.011
95776342|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-10.7|<0.001
95776343|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-11.6|0.005
95776344|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-9.4|0.056
95776345|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|-7.1|0.56
95809869|NCT01098747|191593349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level (2-sided) by testing primary endpoints sequentially: IBU Na vs. Placebo for SPRID 0-8 then TMR, IBU Na vs. IBU (Advil and Motrin IB) for TMR. If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||2.06|1.22|<0.001
95809870|NCT01098747|191593350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.46||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||23.46|6.51|<0.001
95809871|NCT01098747|191593350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.34||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.34|1.38|<0.001
95809872|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.10|0.007
95776346|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-7.5|0.48
95860624|NCT01485172|191680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.41|0.723
95776347|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.8|0.13
95776348|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-6.0|0.61
95776349|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-9.9|0.12
95776350|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-7.3|0.31
95776351|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-10.9|0.012
95776352|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-11.3|0.008
95776353|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-12.8|0.001
95997169|NCT04321343|191970109|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|11.052|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH with multiple imputation||||11.052|0.909|0.0703
95776354|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-13.5|0.004
95776355|NCT01340027|191524602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-11.4|0.035
95776356|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons are for End of Treatment using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||3.20|0.63|0.40
95776357|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.55|0.89
95776358|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.63|0.57
95776359|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.70|0.36
95776360|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.83|0.15
95776361|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.59|0.67|0.31
95776362|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.95|0.42|0.81
95864426|NCT01185353|191686780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
95954997|NCT01855997|191881502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.18e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs9287655||||0.00000118
95954998|NCT01855997|191881502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.31e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs216312||||0.00000531
95954999|NCT01855997|191881503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.93e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs993147||||0.00000593
95955000|NCT01855997|191881503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.97e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10978436||||0.00000997
95955001|NCT01855997|191881503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.81e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2370220||||0.00000581
95955002|NCT01855997|191881503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.02e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs2279519||||0.00000802
95955003|NCT01855997|191881504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.58e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000558
95955004|NCT01855997|191881505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.9e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs12992677||||0.00000990
95955005|NCT01855997|191881506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
95955006|NCT01855997|191881507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.8e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs7549785||||0.00000048
95955007|NCT01855997|191881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.38e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10814834||||0.00000738
95955008|NCT01855997|191881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||4.51e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs10491723||||0.00000451
95955009|NCT01855997|191881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||8.78e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000878
95955010|NCT01855997|191881508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||5.21e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs16943470||||0.00000521
95955011|NCT01855997|191881509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||7.2e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||rs6592052||||0.00000720
95955012|NCT02350127|191881533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusted for participant baseline MOCA, robust VCE||4.18|-0.59|0.14
95955013|NCT02350127|191881533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||restricted to completers||5.6|0.2|0.03
95955014|NCT02350127|191881534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusting for baseline participant MOCA scores, robust vce.|||0.80|-1.23|0.68
95955015|NCT02350127|191881535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||adjusting for baseline participant MOCA, robust VCE||2.08|-3.09|0.70
95955016|NCT02350127|191881536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.4|0.8|0.02
95955017|NCT02350127|191881537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.6|-5.4|0.47
95955018|NCT02350127|191881538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.1|0.99
95955019|NCT02350127|191881539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-7.4|0.98
95955020|NCT02350127|191881540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-2.5|0.80
95776363|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.08|0.75|0.19
95776364|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.56|0.59
95776365|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.83|0.13
95776366|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.78|0.20
95776367|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.34|0.94|0.070
95776368|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|0.81|0.17
95776369|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.92|0.92|0.084
95776370|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.02|0.043
95776371|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.58|1.22|0.013
95776372|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|0.99|0.053
95776373|NCT01340027|191524603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|0.63|0.39
95955021|NCT02350127|191881541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-3.1|0.38
95955022|NCT02350127|191881542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.075
95955023|NCT02350127|191881543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0|-1.7|0.35
95955024|NCT02350127|191881544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-6.1|0.35
95955025|NCT02350127|191881545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.4|0.54
95997170|NCT04321343|191970110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||9.72|-22.66|0.4318
95776374|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||7.9|-2.1|0.26
95776375|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-2.3|0.38
95776376|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differrence|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|0.7|0.022
95776377|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|1.3|0.010
95776378|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.5|||ANCOVA|||||10.5|2.3|0.002
95809873|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.06|0.010
95860625|NCT01485172|191680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.66|0.084
95776379|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|1.7|0.008
95776380|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|0.3|0.037
95776381|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-7.7|0.50
95776382|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-4.4|0.65
95776383|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.9|||ANCOVA|||||8.9|-2.4|0.25
95776384|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.1|-5.7|0.76
95776385|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|-3.6|0.47
95776386|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6.0|-3.9|0.67
95776387|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||||9.0|-0.9|0.11
95776388|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|-0.2|0.062
95776389|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|0.7|0.025
95776390|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|0.2|0.041
95955026|NCT02350127|191881546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.5|0.69
95955027|NCT02350127|191881547|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.3|-10.9|0.88
95955028|NCT02350127|191881548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.26
95955029|NCT02350127|191881549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.9|0.08
95776391|NCT01340027|191524604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.1|||ANCOVA|||||10.1|-1.2|0.12
95955030|NCT01207453|191881582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||0.42
95776392|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||"All statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The logistic regression model includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate."||2.08|0.52|0.92
95776393|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.77|0.58|0.98
95776394|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|0.70|0.45
95776395|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.53|0.79|0.24
95776396|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.09|1.19|0.012
95776397|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|0.70|0.32
95776398|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.72|0.27
95776399|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.24|0.064
95776400|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.61|0.59|0.57
95776401|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.68|0.59|0.55
95776402|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.58|0.75
95776403|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.53|0.72
95776404|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.58|0.74
95809874|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95 % CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|1.10|<0.001
95776405|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|0.71|0.34
95776406|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|0.80|0.19
95776407|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.94|1.22|0.012
95776408|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|0.72|0.25
95776409|NCT01340027|191524605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.74|0.21
95776410|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.92|||ANCOVA|||"Statistical comparisons were made using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was performed.~The ANCOVA model for all pairwise comparisons includes the 2 main factors mirabegron dose and solifenacin succinate dose and their interaction, sex, age group and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline measurement as a covariate.~LS Mean Differences were calculated by subtracting Solifenacin 5 mg/Placebo from the comparison treatment group."||0.92|-0.56|0.63
95776411|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.43|0.56
95776412|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.15|0.14
95776413|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.30|0.08|0.027
95776414|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-0.14|0.13
95776415|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.46|||ANCOVA|||||1.46|0.00|0.049
95776416|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.66|||ANCOVA|||||1.66|0.22|0.011
95776417|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.01|||ANCOVA|||||1.01|-0.67|0.70
95776418|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.56|||ANCOVA|||||1.56|-0.10|0.084
95776419|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49|||ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.18|0.12
95776420|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|-0.39|0.36
95776421|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|-0.32|0.23
95776422|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.21|0.16
95776423|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.032
95776424|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.76|||ANCOVA|||||1.76|0.30|0.006
95776425|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.52|||ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.07|0.031
95776426|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.90|0.24|0.012
95776427|NCT01340027|191524613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|0.45|0.002
95776428|NCT01662791|191524616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the groups for \>12 ppm.||||1.0
95776429|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for mobility sub-scale.||||0.235
95776430|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.206
95776431|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.641
95776432|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for stigma sub-scale.||||0.446
95776433|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for social support sub-scale.||||0.466
95776434|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for cognition sub-scale.||||0.205
95776435|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for communication sub-scale.||||0.153
95955031|NCT01207453|191881582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.37
95776436|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.730
95776437|NCT01662791|191524617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for summary index sub-scale.||||0.334
95776438|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for mobility sub-scale.||||0.167
95776439|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for activities of daily living sub-scale.||||0.159
95809875|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.80|0.27|<0.001
95809876|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.84|<0.001
95809877|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.66|0.12|0.006
95809878|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.77|2.00|<0.001
95776440|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for emotional well-being sub-scale.||||0.041
95776441|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for stigma sub-scale.||||0.190
95776442|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for social support sub-scale.||||1.0
95776443|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for cognition sub-scale.||||0.160
95776444|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for communication sub-scale.||||0.276
95776445|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for bodily discomfort sub-scale.||||0.351
95776446|NCT01662791|191524618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for summary index sub-scale.||||0.186
95864427|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.217
95776447|NCT01662791|191524619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for constipation sub-scale.||||0.303
95776448|NCT01662791|191524619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.518
95776449|NCT01662791|191524619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.800
95776450|NCT01662791|191524619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.736
95776451|NCT01662791|191524619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for GERD sub-scale.||||0.570
95776452|NCT01662791|191524619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between groups for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.394
95776453|NCT01662791|191524620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for constipation sub-scale.||||0.056
95776454|NCT01662791|191524620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for dyspepsia sub-scale.||||0.380
95776455|NCT01662791|191524620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for abdominal discomfort sub-scale.||||0.244
95776456|NCT01662791|191524620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for diarrhea sub-scale.||||0.279
95776457|NCT01662791|191524620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for GERD sub-scale.||||0.554
95776458|NCT01662791|191524620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||McNemar|||Comparison in case group between baseline and 3 months for nausea and vomiting sub-scale.||||0.351
95776459|NCT01662791|191524621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for depression||||0.872
95776460|NCT01662791|191524621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between the two groups at baseline for anxiety.||||0.835
95955032|NCT01207453|191881583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.39
95809879|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.60|0.05|0.022
95809880|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.79|2.00|<0.001
95809881|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.41|-0.15|0.369
95809882|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.78|<0.001
95809883|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.17|-0.42|0.420
95809884|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.45|1.58|<0.001
95809885|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.08|-0.54|0.151
95809886|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.33|1.43|<0.001
95809887|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.09|-0.56|0.160
95809888|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.10|1.16|<0.001
95809889|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.67|0.055
95955033|NCT01207453|191881583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.96
95955034|NCT01207453|191881584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
95809890|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.88|0.91|<0.001
95809891|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.71|0.040
95809892|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.69|0.71|<0.001
95860626|NCT01485172|191680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.42|0.697
95776461|NCT02272842|191524625|SUPERIORITY|The study had 80% power to detect a standardized effect size of 0.22 and had 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.28. In these calculations, we assumed a loss to follow-up of 10%. Details on the samples size calculations are also presented in the previously published protocol paper.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.87||The main analysis was the change in cognitive scores from baseline until the end of the intervention.|t-test, 2 sided||This is the P-value for the effect on the cognitive scores.|||.87|-.54|>.16
95776462|NCT02272842|191524635|SUPERIORITY|the means were compared using Students t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||>|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.94||"Mean difference -0.5 points in the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence - Fourth Edition.~95 % Confidence Interval of the mean difference: (-1.97, 0.94)"|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mean differences between the two study arms||0.94|-1.97|>.3
95776463|NCT03518619|191524637|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.05||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95776464|NCT03518619|191524638|OTHER|This is a single group design. Paired-samples t-tests were conducted.|||||<|0.01||||||This is a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
95776465|NCT02156895|191524660|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.24|0.97|0.1244
95776466|NCT02156895|191524666|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Inlyta as factor||||1.2|1.02|0.0109
95776467|NCT00356135|191524669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.1|-8.73|||ANOVA|Treatment and study sites are fixed effects and MPA right before the randomization treatment period is a covariate in the model.|Mean Difference is for Prasugrel 10/10 mg arm minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg arm.|||-8.73|-19.10|<0.0001
95997171|NCT04321343|191970110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.10|-17.37|0.8382
95776468|NCT00356135|191524669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|-19.26|-8.71|||ANCOVA|||||-8.71|-19.26|<0.0001
95776469|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|3.35||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.35|-8.22|0.4055
95776470|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-17.51||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-17.51|-29.30|<0.0001
95776471|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.32||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.32|-8.82|0.0680
95776472|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-23.94||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|Comparison of MPA to 20 uM ADP at 24 hours||-23.94|-33.20|<0.0001
95776473|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-9.65||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.65|-19.96|<0.0001
95776474|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-9.32||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.32|-19.87|<0.0001
95776475|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.30|<0.0001
95776476|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.59|-9.22||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-9.22|-20.59|<0.0001
95809893|NCT01098747|191593351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-0.79|0.015
95860627|NCT01485172|191680180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||P-values are from a Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|-0.06|0.086
95776477|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|3.14||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.14|-5.85|0.5501
95776478|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.55|-12.37||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.37|-21.55|<0.0001
95955035|NCT01207453|191881584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.83
95776479|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|0.42||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||0.42|-8.58|0.0752
95776480|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-15.64||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.64|-24.81|<0.0001
95776481|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.5||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.50|-17.21|<0.0001
95776482|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-5.79||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.79|-15.79|<0.0001
95809894|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.13|<0.001
95776483|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.41|-7.72||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.72|-17.41|<0.0001
95776484|NCT00356135|191524670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-6.82||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.82|-16.80|<0.0001
95776485|NCT00356135|191524671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the mean MPA of patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1824
95776486|NCT00356135|191524671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||F-test|||The variance of MPA 20 uM ADP at the end of Clopidogrel open label of patients on chronic clopidogrel at the time of qualifying events was compared to the variance of MPA for patients not using clopidogrel at this time.||||0.1101
95776487|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|3.37||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||3.37|-9.50|0.3466
95776488|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.33||P-value for 2 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-20.33|-33.40|<0.0001
95776489|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-1.6||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-1.60|-13.04|0.0127
95955036|NCT01207453|191881585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.04
95997172|NCT04321343|191970110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|20.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||20.33|-9.92|0.4982
95776490|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-28.42||P-value for 24 Hour (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-28.42|-39.99|<0.0001
95776491|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-11.09||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-11.09|-25.58|<0.0001
95776492|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-12.26||P-value for 1 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-12.26|-27.09|<0.0001
95776493|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.77||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-14.77|-28.42|<0.0001
95776494|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.61|-15.63||P-value for 2 Week (20 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-15.63|-29.61|<0.0001
95809895|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.34|0.11|<0.001
95997173|NCT04321343|191970111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|3.935|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.935|0.131|0.7137
95997174|NCT04321343|191970111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|14.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.580|0.937|0.0597
95776495|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.38||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||6.38|-3.11|0.4954
95776496|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-6.24||P-value for 2 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.24|-15.92|<0.0001
95776497|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|1.74||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||1.74|-8.31|0.1971
95776498|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-10.75||P-value for 24 Hour (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-10.75|-20.98|<0.0001
95776499|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|-7.32||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-7.32|-18.81|<0.0001
95776500|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|-6.09||P-value for 1 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.09|-17.91|0.0001
95997175|NCT04321343|191970111|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.430|0.655|0.1749
95997176|NCT04321343|191970112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|14.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||14.43|-20.15|0.7449
95997177|NCT04321343|191970112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.93|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||13.90|-19.93|0.7255
95997178|NCT04321343|191970112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|18.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||18.59|-13.89|0.7755
95776501|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-6.32||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 10/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-6.32|-15.64|<0.0001
95776502|NCT00356135|191524672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-5.09||P-value for 2 Week (5 uM ADP). Mixed model with actual value at each timepoint as dependent variable, baseline value as covariate, treatment, catagorical timepoint, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.|Repeated Measures Analysis||Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel 60/10 mg minus Clopidogrel 75/75 mg.|||-5.09|-14.67|<0.0001
95809896|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.70|<0.001
95809897|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.55|0.20|<0.001
95809898|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.75|1.18|<0.001
95809899|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.45|0.04|0.017
95809900|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.96|1.39|<0.001
95997179|NCT04321343|191970113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|13.806|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.806|0.703|0.1325
95997180|NCT04321343|191970113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|4.898|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.898|0.201|0.9918
95776503|NCT00356135|191524673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0005
95776504|NCT00356135|191524673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
95776505|NCT00356135|191524673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0150
95776506|NCT00356135|191524673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0152
95776507|NCT00356135|191524673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||P-value for MPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0153
95776508|NCT00356135|191524673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0||||P-value for RPA (20 uM ADP) at 1 week.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.0018
95776509|NCT05270395|191524695|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|46.69|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||46.69|1.38|0.02
95809901|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.05|0.015
95997181|NCT04321343|191970113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|21.714|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.714|1.053|0.0410
95997182|NCT04321343|191970114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||12.36|-28.25|0.4413
95997183|NCT04321343|191970114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.63|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.50|-37.63|0.0859
95997184|NCT04321343|191970114|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.31|16.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||16.97|-22.31|0.7887
95776510|NCT05270395|191524696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||4.56|0.40|0.63
95776511|NCT05270395|191524697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||1.46|0.06|0.13
95776512|NCT05270395|191524698|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||2.24|0.13|0.40
95776513|NCT05270395|191524699|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.62|0.51|0.29
95809902|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.98|1.41|<0.001
95809903|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.11|0.362
95809904|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.86|1.27|<0.001
95860628|NCT01485172|191680181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.49|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||3.49|0.17|0.733
95955037|NCT01207453|191881585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.04
95955038|NCT01207453|191881586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.89
95955039|NCT01207453|191881586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.44
95955040|NCT01207453|191881587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.35
95955041|NCT01207453|191881587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.34
95955042|NCT01207453|191881588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.||||0.72
95955043|NCT01207453|191881588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear mixed models including treatment, crossover period and treatment sequence. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between the change measured during placebo versus the change during milnacipran treatment. Calculated using linear mixed models.||||0.82
95955044|NCT00417989|191881603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority test with margin of 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Confidence Interval 95%|ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline glycated hemoglobin level (A1C)||Null - There is no treatment group difference in A1c change from baseline to Week 52. Calculated that the enrollment of 495 patients would provide a power of 90% to detect an absolute difference of 0.35 percentage points in the primary outcome, assuming a SD of 1.2%.||0.46|0.24|0.05
95955045|NCT00417989|191881605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.41|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.41|0.64|0.84
95955046|NCT00417989|191881606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
95776514|NCT05270395|191524700|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|14.32|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||14.32|0.88|0.07
95776515|NCT05270395|191524701|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|18.89|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||18.89|0.82|0.09
95776516|NCT05270395|191524702|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.43|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||6.43|0.46|0.42
95955047|NCT00417989|191881607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation based on this endpoint. Results will be calculated on testing for statistical difference between arms.||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANVOCA is adjusted by study group, gender, pooled site, continuous age, duration of diabetes, BMI, and Baseline AUC||||||0.05
95776517|NCT05270395|191524703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.42|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||9.42|0.87|0.08
95809905|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.29|0.472
95955048|NCT00417989|191881608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.001||95.0|-9.76|-3.273|||ANCOVA|||||-3.273|-9.760|< 0.001
95955049|NCT00417989|191881610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.75|||||||||Mean difference|||||||
95955050|NCT00417989|191881611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||Mean Difference|||||||
95776518|NCT05270395|191524704|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|34.49|||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted logistic regression to predict knowledge of palliative care (as measured by ten items in the Health Information National Trends Survey Palliative Care Knowledge and Perceptions Questionnaire) in the mPal intervention arm and in the standard of care arm at 1-month post-intervention, adjusting for baseline value of each item, age, and sex.||34.49|1.99|0.004
95776519|NCT01752634|191524705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.73|1.14|0.0200
95776520|NCT01752634|191524705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|13.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.08|3.25|<0001
95776521|NCT01752634|191524705|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.56|3.42|<.0001
95776522|NCT01752634|191524706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.81|0.74|0.1650
95776523|NCT01752634|191524706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|15.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.34|2.12|0.0006
95776524|NCT01752634|191524706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|27.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.00|3.33|<.0001
95955051|NCT01184755|191881612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216403||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987999|-0.134513||This is an intention-to-treat analysis|Mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the change in Systolic BP at 8 weeks||-.134513|-.987999|.01
95955052|NCT01184755|191881612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.391195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.140034||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667312|-0.115079|||mixed effects regression analysis|||This is the analysis of change in diastolic BP from Ambulatory BP monitoring.||-.115079|-.667312|.006
95955053|NCT00318591|191881613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The additional explanatory variables were removed using backwards-elimination removing the least significant additional variable for each iteration, until the effect of all included additional variables was significant on α=0.05 significant level. The null-hypothesis of no catheter difference was to be rejected on α=0.05 significant level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.502||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|2.207||p-value is adjusted for the following explanatory variables: catheterization frequency, technique (clean/sterile), procedure (participant/nurse), setting (hospital/community) and demographic measures.|Kaplan-Meier|||The analysis was done by comparing Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival function of the two groups. The analysis was refined by a Cox proportional hazards regression model for survival data.||2.207|1.022|0.0383
95955054|NCT00318591|191881615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA analysis. Limit of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.767||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.7670
95955055|NCT00318591|191881616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA. Level of significant difference \<0.05||||||0.0074||95.0||||baseline characteristics were used as covariates, catheterization procedure (participant or caregiver) as well as technique (sterile or clean). Backward elimination was used.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
95776525|NCT01752634|191524707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.36|0.36|0.6421
95776526|NCT01752634|191524707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|21.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.47|1.89|0.0029
95776527|NCT01752634|191524707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.74||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|36.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.84|3.13|0.0002
95776528|NCT01752634|191524708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.53|0.3763
95955056|NCT00993798|191881620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.28|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||-0.28|-2.25|0.012
95955057|NCT00993798|191881621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.0|-12.0|0.010
95955058|NCT00993798|191881622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||||0.014
95955059|NCT00993798|191881623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||ANOVA|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.14|-0.18|0.773
95955060|NCT02983877|191881630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
95955061|NCT02983877|191881631|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
95955062|NCT02983877|191881632|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|3 degrees of freedom||||||<0.001
95955063|NCT02983877|191881633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||||||0.89
95955064|NCT00275301|191881634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Examination of relationship between Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms and brain metabolism at baseline.||||<0.05
95955065|NCT04357964|191881635|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups at baseline in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95955066|NCT04357964|191881636|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05. There was no intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.|||||<|0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||||||<0.01
95776529|NCT01752634|191524708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
95955067|NCT04357964|191881637|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05 for determining difference between groups in this observational study. There was no treatment intervention in this study, so there is no true equivalence margin.||||||0.52||||||Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
95955068|NCT01540162|191881638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Chi-squared|||||0.73|0.05|0.05
95955069|NCT00821119|191881652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||"Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.~The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle."||1.14|0.48|<0.05
95955070|NCT00821119|191881653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||risk ratio (RR)|||Based on previous data from our NICU, 40 - 45% of our preterm infants administered early NCPAP for RDS needed intubation and mechanical ventilation within the first 72h of life. We estimated a 20% absolute reduction in the need of using ETT ventilation with the early use of NIPPV. A sample size of 100 infants per group was calculated with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 5%.||1.14|0.48|0.05
95955071|NCT00821119|191881654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.78|||risk ratio (RR)|||The study was not powered for this outcome. However this analysis was done with this limitation||1.78|0.62|< 0.05
95955072|NCT03511378|191881655|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a margin of -0.10|Difference in proportions|-0.0296||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.076||||Difference in proportion|Binomial proportion used to present difference in proportion in treatments||Analysis population : ITT|||-0.076|0.007
95955073|NCT03511378|191881656|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is assessed using a margin of 10 percentage points.|Difference in proportions|0.0145|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092||||Difference in proportion||Difference of proportion analysed with one sided 95% confidence interval|Analysis population: ITT|||-0.0092|<0.001
95955074|NCT05012280|191881659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564||only one primary endpoint, p value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori treshold or statistical significance: p=0.05|Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control||||1.564|0.953|0.1150
95955075|NCT05012280|191881659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.221||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.564|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression for matched case control study.||||1.564|0.953|0.12
95955076|NCT03209050|191881710|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Clopper-Pearson 95% CI|||||||0.5
95955077|NCT00404547|191881754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is an analysis of the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) after 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.0001
95955078|NCT03418701|191881853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.40|0.93|<0.05
95776530|NCT01752634|191524708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-1.02|0.0004
95776531|NCT01752634|191524709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.02|0.0482
95776532|NCT01752634|191524709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.83|2.05|0.0003
95776533|NCT01752634|191524709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|7.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.69|2.91|<0.0001
95776534|NCT01752634|191524710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.9195
95776535|NCT01752634|191524710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.32|0.0278
95776536|NCT01752634|191524710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.40|0.0013
95776537|NCT01752634|191524711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.36|1.15|0.0245
95776538|NCT01752634|191524711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|3.11|<.0001
95776539|NCT01752634|191524711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|17.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.22|2.97|<.0001
95776540|NCT01752634|191524712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.13|0.3149
95776541|NCT01752634|191524712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.58|0.04|0.0056
95955079|NCT03418701|191881854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|A multilevel logistic regression with participants nested within clinic.||||1.15|0.22|<0.05
95776542|NCT01752634|191524712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.04|0.0021
95860629|NCT01485172|191680181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.411||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.02|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||4.02|0.50|0.519
95776543|NCT01752634|191524713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|0.26|0.1678
95776544|NCT01752634|191524713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.17|0.0108
95776545|NCT01752634|191524713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.13|0.0025
95776546|NCT03339726|191524744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.662||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.662|-0.205|0.300
95776547|NCT03339726|191524744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.564||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.564|-0.311|0.569
95776548|NCT03339726|191524744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|0.333||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.333|-0.537|0.645
95776549|NCT03339726|191524745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|0.759||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.759|-0.267|0.346
95776550|NCT03339726|191524745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.498|0.938
95955080|NCT04754594|191881861|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||0.90|0.50|
95955081|NCT04754594|191881862|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.77||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.77|0.91|
95955082|NCT04754594|191881862|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs was calculated by exponentiating the mean difference of the logarithms of the assay and the corresponding CIs.||1.30|0.69|
95955083|NCT04754594|191881863|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - illness rate ratio \[IRR\]), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1227.8|93.0||||||||93.0|-1227.8|
95955084|NCT04754594|191881864|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-466.5|94.6||||||||94.6|-466.5|
95776551|NCT03339726|191524745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.289||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.289|-0.741|0.389
95776552|NCT03339726|191524746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.57|||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.33|0.607
95776553|NCT03339726|191524746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.86|-0.06|0.085
95776554|NCT03339726|191524746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.17|0.220
95776555|NCT03339726|191524747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.633
95860630|NCT01485172|191680181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.204||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|12.07|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||12.07|1.46|0.008
95860631|NCT01485172|191680181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|15.46|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||15.46|1.93|0.001
95776556|NCT03339726|191524747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.52|0.952
95776557|NCT03339726|191524747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.65|0.678
95776558|NCT03339726|191524748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.88|-0.11|0.126
95776559|NCT03339726|191524748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-0.22|0.270
95776560|NCT03339726|191524748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.39|-0.60|0.676
95776561|NCT03339726|191524749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.31|0.421
95809906|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.70|1.07|<0.001
95809907|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.134
95809908|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|1.00|<0.001
95776562|NCT03339726|191524749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.54|0.970
95776563|NCT03339726|191524749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.30|-0.74|0.401
95776564|NCT03339726|191524750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.85|-0.23|0.257
95776565|NCT03339726|191524750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.58|-0.50|0.877
95776566|NCT03339726|191524750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.80|0.329
95809909|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.05|-0.40|0.135
95776567|NCT03339726|191524751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.80|-0.37|0.469
95776568|NCT03339726|191524751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.62|-0.57|0.924
95776569|NCT03339726|191524751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.78|0.532
95997185|NCT04321343|191970115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.47|-13.19|0.1166
95997186|NCT04321343|191970115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.26|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-3.80|-18.26|0.0030
95997187|NCT04321343|191970115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|-1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.87|-15.79|0.0131
95997188|NCT04321343|191970116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9701|1.9436|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.9436|-3.9701|0.4963
95997189|NCT04321343|191970116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.402||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5109|2.0866|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||2.0866|-3.5109|0.6131
95776570|NCT03339726|191524752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.44||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.44|-0.78|0.579
95776571|NCT03339726|191524752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.35|-0.88|0.394
95776572|NCT03339726|191524752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline nasal congestion score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-0.71|0.760
95809910|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.50|0.84|<0.001
95997190|NCT04321343|191970116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1593|1.2779|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||1.2779|-4.1593|0.2939
95997191|NCT04321343|191970117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|0.3589|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3589|-0.4845|0.7672
95997192|NCT04321343|191970117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5216|0.2678|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2678|-0.5216|0.5233
95997193|NCT04321343|191970117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6376|0.0805|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0805|-0.6376|0.1263
95997194|NCT04321343|191970118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|0.3002|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.3002|-0.3559|0.8662
95997195|NCT04321343|191970118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4253|0.2369|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2369|-0.4253|0.5726
95809911|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-0.49|0.036
95997196|NCT04321343|191970118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4907|0.1192|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.1192|-0.4907|0.2289
95997197|NCT04321343|191970119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5509|0.4607|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4607|-0.5509|0.8595
95997198|NCT04321343|191970119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7194|0.2759|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.2759|-0.7194|0.3776
95997199|NCT04321343|191970119|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9426|0.017|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.0170|-0.9426|0.0424
95997200|NCT04321343|191970120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|14.152|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.152|0.775|0.1084
95997201|NCT04321343|191970120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
95997202|NCT04321343|191970120|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|6.948|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.948|0.501|0.3333
95997203|NCT04321343|191970121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.230|0.345|0.7677
95997204|NCT04321343|191970121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
95997205|NCT04321343|191970121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|6.486|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.486|0.598|0.2711
95809912|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.61|<0.001
95776573|NCT03339726|191524753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.539||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.539|-0.320|0.616
95955085|NCT04754594|191881865|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was estimated by 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR=calculated ratio of confirmed COVID-19 illness per 1000 person-years of blinded follow-up in the active vaccine group to the corresponding illness rate in the placebo group.|Vaccine efficacy|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.9|86.5||||||||86.5|-104.9|
95955086|NCT00980954|191881876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.68||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank||Reference level = Arm I|Sample size calculations are based on the primary hypothesis that 4 additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel following concurrent radiation and weekly cisplatin will increase 4-year DFS from 80% to 90% for patients with cervical carcinoma with positive nodes and/or positive margins after a radical hysterectomy. One-sided alpha=0.05, statistical power=80%, 5.5 years of accrual with 4 years of follow-up, 2 interim significance tests. 50 DFS events are required to trigger this analysis.||1.68|0.65|0.56
95955087|NCT00980954|191881877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.69||One-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||The 4-year overall survival rate for the control arm is expected to be approximately 85%. The overall survival will be compared between the two arms. The final targeted sample size of 235 patients with the longer accrual time, will provide 64% and 78% power to detect an increase in overall survival to 92% and 93% respectively, with a 1- sided alpha of 0.05.||1.69|0.49|0.40
95955088|NCT05615870|191881918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.77|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of SFDs in the HEPA filtration home intervention group will not differ from the mean of SFDs in the control group||22.60|-11.77|0.537
95955089|NCT05615870|191881919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of hospitalizations for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.30|-0.07|0.205
95955090|NCT05615870|191881919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of emergency department or urgent care visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.35|-0.35|0.992
95955091|NCT05615870|191881919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of other unscheduled healthcare visits for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.16|-0.90|0.172
95955092|NCT05615870|191881919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of counts (or total counts) of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of counts of visits of all metrics for respiratory symptoms in the control group||0.52|-1.02|0.530
95955093|NCT05615870|191881920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: mean of the Child QOL score in the HEPA intervention group will not differ from the mean of Child QOL score in the control group||2.16|-3.75|0.598
95776574|NCT03339726|191524753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.508||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.508|-0.359|0.734
95776575|NCT03339726|191524753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.395||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.395|-0.465|0.874
95776576|NCT03339726|191524754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.53|0.750
95776577|NCT03339726|191524754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.26|0.390
95776578|NCT03339726|191524754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.73|-0.18|0.236
95776579|NCT03339726|191524755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.63|0.707
95776580|NCT03339726|191524755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.48|-0.59|0.839
95809913|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.01|-0.46|0.064
95809914|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.18|0.52|<0.001
95809915|NCT01098747|191593352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.02|-0.46|0.074
95809916|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.04|0.26|0.001
95809917|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.75|0.18|0.001
95955094|NCT05615870|191881921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||The results were based on the average PM2.5 level of common room and sleep space.|Null hypothesis: the mean of the PM2.5 level of the common room and sleep space in the intervention group will not differ from the mean of the PM2.5 level in the control group||-3.42|-10.98|<0.001
95776581|NCT03339726|191524755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.48|0.864
95776582|NCT03339726|191524756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.44|0.794
95776583|NCT03339726|191524756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.63|-0.38|0.628
95776584|NCT03339726|191524756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.56|-0.45|0.820
95776585|NCT03339726|191524757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.79|-0.27|0.330
95809918|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.01||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.01|1.82|<0.001
95955095|NCT01052714|191881928|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95776586|NCT03339726|191524757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.66|-0.40|0.631
95776587|NCT03339726|191524757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.40|-0.66|0.625
95776588|NCT03339726|191524758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.87|-0.22|0.240
95776589|NCT03339726|191524758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.60|-0.50|0.865
95809919|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.34|0.48|<0.001
95860632|NCT01485172|191680181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.281||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.98|||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||5.98|0.27|0.752
95860633|NCT00035932|191680183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.37||||||||0.37|-0.09|
95860634|NCT00035932|191680183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The time-averaged difference (TAD) in the reduction of log10 HIV RNA levels from baseline through Week 24 was compared pairwise for each atazanavir regimen to the lopinavir/RTV regimen, and assessed using a two-sided 97.5% confidence interval. The primary efficacy analysis was to declare two treatment regimens similar if the upper limit of this 97.5% confidence interval for the difference (atazanavir-lopinavir/RTV) was less than 0.5 log10.|Time-Averaged Difference|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.55||||||||0.55|0.07|
95860635|NCT00035932|191680184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.04|
95860636|NCT00035932|191680184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.01|
95860637|NCT00035932|191680187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.12|
95860638|NCT00035932|191680187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Distance|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|0.6||||||||0.60|0.07|
95955096|NCT01052714|191881929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.718
95955097|NCT01052714|191881930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95955098|NCT01052714|191881931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
95955099|NCT01052714|191881932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
95955100|NCT01052714|191881933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
95955101|NCT01052714|191881934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
95776590|NCT03339726|191524758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.27|-0.82|0.316
95776591|NCT03339726|191524759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.74|-0.38|0.529
95955102|NCT01052714|191881935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.652
95776592|NCT03339726|191524759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.56|0.997
95776593|NCT03339726|191524759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.74|0.532
95776594|NCT03339726|191524760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.83|0.468
95776595|NCT03339726|191524760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.23|-1.00|0.218
95776596|NCT03339726|191524760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline sinus pressure/tenderness score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.45|-0.77|0.604
95776597|NCT04281784|191524763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0421||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0777||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Occurrence of discussion regressed on randomization condition, adjusted for ADRD status, hospital, and time between study start \& randomization date.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.0777|0.0047|0.027
95776598|NCT04281784|191524765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.404|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of ICU) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.404|-0.560|0.750
95776599|NCT04281784|191524766|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.338|||Regression, Linear|Outcome (days alive and out of hospital) regressed on Arm/Group (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust (HC3) standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.338|-1.060|0.312
95860639|NCT00035932|191680188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Randomized participants||12.3|-13.3|
95860640|NCT00035932|191680189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1||||||||14.1|-7.0|
95860641|NCT00035932|191680189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|0.4||||||||0.4|-22.9|
95860642|NCT00035932|191680191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|7.0||||||||7.0|-16.9|
95955103|NCT01052714|191881936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
95955104|NCT01052714|191881937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
95955105|NCT01052714|191881938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.415
95955106|NCT01052714|191881939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.687
95955107|NCT01052714|191881940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95776600|NCT04281784|191524767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.043||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Readmission (0, 1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.043|-0.020|0.475
95776601|NCT04281784|191524768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.009||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.025||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|ICU care (0,1) regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention), adjusted for ADRD status, and hospital site.|Robust standard error|Usual care = reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||0.025|-0.043|0.610
95776602|NCT04281784|191524769|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.135|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.135|-0.092|0.710
95776603|NCT04281784|191524770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.899||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|2.249||two-sided test, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|Died within 30 days after randomization regressed on randomization condition (0=usual care, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status|Robust standard error|Usual care=reference group; intervention arm = comparison group||2.249|-1.275|0.588
95776604|NCT04281784|191524771|SUPERIORITY|Higher cost indicates worse outcome. Missing if cost data unavailable from Finance Office.|Slope|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.107|||other type of regression|Generalized linear model (gamma family, log link); Outcome on study arm (0=control, 1=intervention) adjusted for hospital and ADRD status, robust SEs.|Robust standard error|Superior outcome for Group 2||0.107|-0.162|0.685
95776605|NCT04322539|191524783|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.662|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.8||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI), was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.800|0.549|< .001
95860643|NCT00035932|191680191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-28.5|
95860644|NCT00035932|191680193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||13.2|-12.5|
95955108|NCT01052714|191881941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
95955109|NCT01052714|191881942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95860645|NCT00035932|191680194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|15.4||||||||15.4|-9.1|
95860646|NCT00035932|191680194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-29.4|
95860647|NCT00035932|191680195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.4||||||||11.4|-13.7|
95860648|NCT00035932|191680195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-30.6|
95860649|NCT00035932|191680196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|||10.3|-15.0|
95860650|NCT00035932|191680197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.0||||||||10.0|-14.6|
95860651|NCT00035932|191680197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|-7.1||||||||-7.1|-30.7|
95860652|NCT00035932|191680198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|5.8||||||||5.8|-18.7|
95776606|NCT04322539|191524784|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.386||Raw unadjusted p-value was obtained by using a stratified log-rank test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|stratified log-rank test||The HR between the 2 treatment groups (fruquintinib vs placebo), together with its 95% CI, was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||0.386|0.267|< .001
95860653|NCT00035932|191680198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-5.9||||||||-5.9|-29.9|
95860654|NCT00035932|191680200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.3|7.5||||||||7.5|-44.3|
95776607|NCT04322539|191524785|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||2.7|0.4|.059
95776608|NCT04322539|191524786|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|46.0||p-value was calculated from a stratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test accounting for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference and its 95% CI were calculated using the Wald method from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test to account for the randomization schedule stratification factors.|||46.0|32.8|<.001
95776609|NCT04322539|191524792|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Starting Dose for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.0600
95776610|NCT04322539|191524792|OTHER|||||||0.8065|||||||Wald test|||CminSS Based on the Adjusted RDI for OS Exposure-Response Analyses||||0.8065
95776611|NCT04322539|191524793|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Dermatological toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.265
95776612|NCT04322539|191524793|OTHER|||||||0.0159|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Dermatological Toxicity for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.0159
95860655|NCT00035932|191680200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.5|-15.3||||||||-15.3|-74.5|
95860656|NCT00035932|191680201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-45.6|10.6||||||||10.6|-45.6|
95860657|NCT00035932|191680201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time-Averaged Difference|-47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-79.2|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-79.2|
95955110|NCT01052714|191881943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
95955111|NCT01052714|191881944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95955112|NCT01052714|191881945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.763
95955113|NCT04382053|191881946|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-2.0|0.467
95776613|NCT04322539|191524793|OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.484
95776614|NCT04322539|191524793|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr3+ Proteinuria for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.642
95776615|NCT04322539|191524793|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||Wald test|||CmaxSS for Gr Hemorrhage for Exposure-Response Analyses.||||0.166
95776616|NCT02111746|191524799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.934
95776617|NCT02111746|191524800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95809920|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.33|3.03|<0.001
95809921|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.17|0.008
95955114|NCT04382053|191881947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237||||||One-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reported is for the treatment factor across all time points||||||0.237
95962204|NCT04832971|191896110|OTHER||Difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-20.3||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-20.3|-36.6|<.0001
95776618|NCT02111746|191524801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95776619|NCT02111746|191524802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
95776620|NCT02111746|191524803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
95776621|NCT02111746|191524804|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95776622|NCT02111746|191524805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
95776623|NCT02111746|191524806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.188
95809922|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.72|3.40|<0.001
95776624|NCT02111746|191524807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
95776625|NCT03617861|191524825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.12
95776626|NCT03617861|191524825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.65
95776627|NCT03617861|191524825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0574
95776628|NCT03617861|191524826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
95776629|NCT03617861|191524826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.82
95776630|NCT03617861|191524826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1451|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.1451
95776631|NCT03617861|191524827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.85
95776632|NCT03617861|191524827|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
95776633|NCT03617861|191524827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4233|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.4233
95776634|NCT03617861|191524828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.92
95776635|NCT03617861|191524828|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||1.0
95776636|NCT03617861|191524828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3891|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.3891
95776637|NCT03617861|191524829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Healthy Secretin vs Healthy Placebo||||0.004
95776638|NCT03617861|191524829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.03
95776639|NCT03617861|191524829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Healthy vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0355
95776640|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.5
95776641|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Nausea: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.16
95776642|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|||Nausea: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0016
95776643|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.10
95776644|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fullness: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.30
95776645|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Fullness: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0002
95776646|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.41
95809923|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.06|0.10|0.017
95997206|NCT04321343|191970122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|5.547|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.547|0.376|0.5981
95776647|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bloating Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.67
95776648|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANCOVA|||Bloating: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.0330
95776649|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls Secretin vs Healthy Controls Placebo||||0.25
95776650|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Abdominal Pain: Functional Dyspepsia Secretin vs Functional Dyspepsia Placebo||||0.57
95776651|NCT03617861|191524830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||ANCOVA|||Abdominal Pain: Healthy Controls vs Functional Dyspepsia||||0.2375
95809924|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.75|3.42|<0.001
95809925|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.70|-0.26|0.359
95962205|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-22.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 20||-22.4|-38.4|<.0001
95776652|NCT02901275|191524880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori statistical threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95776653|NCT02901275|191524881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||No covariates or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold is p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95776654|NCT02901275|191524882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||No covariate or correction for multiple comparisons. a priori threshold for significance is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.51
95776655|NCT01323010|191524935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
95776656|NCT01323010|191524936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.591
95809926|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.45|3.06|<0.001
95776657|NCT01323010|191524937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non parametric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.150
95776658|NCT01323010|191524938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95776659|NCT01323010|191524939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
95776660|NCT01323010|191524941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.122
95776661|NCT01323010|191524943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Method: ANOVA with repetead measures for non paramteric data proposed by Brunner and Piri.||||||0.164
95776662|NCT01323010|191524944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.165
95776663|NCT01323010|191524945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
95809927|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.30|-0.70|0.436
95860658|NCT00035932|191680203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
95776664|NCT01323010|191524946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
95776665|NCT01323010|191524947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.723
95776666|NCT01323010|191524948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.235
95776667|NCT01323010|191524949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.284
95776668|NCT01323010|191524950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.905
95776669|NCT01323010|191524953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.892
95776670|NCT01323010|191524954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.195
95776671|NCT01323010|191524955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.203
95776672|NCT01323010|191524956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95776673|NCT01203826|191524993|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|P-value based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-006-09 (NCT00952484). The RGI-C score represents evaluations of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint in Study ENB-008-10 compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-006-09, using an ordinal scale. Therefore, no Baseline data for RGI-C are available.||||0.0005
95776674|NCT02880865|191525032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||2.2|-2.1|
95860659|NCT00035932|191680203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between number of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 400 mg / SQV and HIV RNA||||<0.05
95809928|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.66|<0.001
95809929|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.93|0.139
95809930|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.95|2.44|<0.001
95809931|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.14|-0.95|0.144
95809932|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.58|2.01|<0.001
95809933|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.15|0.043
95955115|NCT00924833|191881951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Within subjects effects. Time: P \< 0.01. Time \* treatment: P=0.25~Bonferroni correction. Within the placebo, carvedilol and nebivolol group, p \< 0.01 for Time 3 - Time 1, and Time 3 - Time 2."|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.01
95955116|NCT00924833|191881952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||P \< 0.05. Bonferroni correction: p \< 0.05 nebivolol versus carvedilol|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
95955117|NCT00924833|191881953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Within subjects effects. Time: p = 0.03. Time \* treatment: p = 0.12.|ANOVA|||"Differences among groups, changes over time and interactions: two-way repeated measures ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction.~No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects."||||0.93
95955118|NCT00924833|191881956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||ANOVA with unpaired Student's t-test, Bonferroni correction. Bonferroni correction. p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||No previous studies have compared carvedilol, nebivolol, and placebo with respecto to exercise performance in hypobaric hypoxia. The sample size set for each treatment arm was defined on the basis of the sample size of previous investigations showing significant changes in exercise performance in normal subjects.||||<0.05
95955119|NCT00714688|191881968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.136||95.0|-6.04|0.67||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||0.67|-6.04|0.136
95955120|NCT00714688|191881968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.002||95.0|-8.22|-1.55||The p value was adjusted for multiplicity via Dunnett's test procedure.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||-1.55|-8.22|0.002
95955121|NCT00714688|191881969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model was performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.216
95997207|NCT04321343|191970122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|5.572|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.572|0.363|0.6228
95809934|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|1.53|<0.001
95809935|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.02|-1.16|0.044
95860660|NCT00035932|191680205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between ATV Cmin of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
95955122|NCT00714688|191881969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender \& country were used as factors and baseline value \& age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||<0.001
95955123|NCT00714688|191881970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.052
95776675|NCT02880865|191525033|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of participants with seropositivity between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10% for both measles and rubella results.|Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||The primary hypotheses evaluated the non-inferiority of the concomitant administration of MMR and CD-JEV vaccines (Group 1) to MMR and CD-JEV vaccines given 2 months apart (Group 2) in children 9 months of age at 56 days in terms of percentage of participants achieving seropositivity to measles and rubella assuming a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||1.0|-0.3|
95776676|NCT02880865|191525034|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants with seropositivity for mumps at 56 days post-vaccination between Group 1 and Group 2 were compared using a non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of Group 1 to Group 2 in terms of seropositivity for mumps was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference of seropositivity rates between the two groups (concurrent administration minus separate administration) at 56 days post-vaccination was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||||||||2.1|-2.0|
95776677|NCT02880865|191525035|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with log10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as the explanatory variable adjusted for log10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.2|0.9|
95776678|NCT02880865|191525036|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Group 1/Group 2 ratio obtained using an ANCOVA method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody concentration.|||1.1|0.9|
95776679|NCT02880865|191525037|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||2.2|-2.1|
95776680|NCT02880865|191525038|OTHER||Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.9|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||4.9|-1.8|
95776681|NCT02880865|191525039|OTHER||Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||||Group 1 - Group 2|||1.0|-0.3|
95776682|NCT02880865|191525040|OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.1|
95776683|NCT02880865|191525041|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4|||||Group 1 / Group 2 ratio obtained using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with log 10-transformed antibody concentration as dependent variable and treatment group as explanatory variable adjusted for log 10-transformed baseline antibody titer.|||1.4|1.0|
95776684|NCT03379753|191525058|OTHER||U statistic|984.5||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95776685|NCT04017832|191525060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.1|-0.3|0.0078
95776686|NCT04017832|191525060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.6|-0.8|<0.0001
95776687|NCT04017832|191525060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.8|-1.1|< 0.0001
95955124|NCT00714688|191881970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has been performed on ranked data. Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and age was used as a covariate.||||||0.002
95997208|NCT04321343|191970122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.323|0.245|0.8799
95776688|NCT04450407|191525126|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% CI (Confidence Interval) is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.32||||||||0.32|0.01|
95776689|NCT00125242|191525138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|7.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||the reported effect size is a d-index value|Effect sizes were calculated - this is a comparison of perfomance in baseline (repeated measurements prior to treatment) relative to peformance following treatment||||
95776690|NCT02496091|191525164|OTHER||95% confidence interval (using the exact|92.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.8|95.5||||||Only descriptive statistics The implant success rate is analyzed on an implant level (i.e. percent of successful implants) as well as subject level (i.e. percentage of subjects with no unsuccessful implants). This proportion is presented together with a 95% confidence interval (using the exact Binomial approach) and an average follow-up time.||95.5|88.8|
95776691|NCT04464720|191525180|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre and post intervention PM2.5||||0.050
95776692|NCT04464720|191525183|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing pre v post intervention NO2||||0.043
95776693|NCT04464720|191525186|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FVC pre and post intervention||||0.056
95776694|NCT04464720|191525187|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparing FEV1 pre and post intervention||||0.058
95776695|NCT04464720|191525189|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon Ranked Sum|||comparing FeNO pre v post intervention||||0.058
95776696|NCT03728985|191525222|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 80%|Absolute Percentage with Success|77.5||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.6|84.1|||Fisher Exact||The lower estimated confidence interval above the Performance Goal of 80% would be considered success.|||84.1|69.6|0.5908
95776697|NCT03728985|191525223|NON_INFERIORITY|Performance Goal 68%|Percentage with Success|70.6||||0.7017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|78.7|||Fisher Exact|||||78.7|61.4|0.7017
95776698|NCT05897827|191525255|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|3.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|4.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.13|3.73|0.074
95776699|NCT05897827|191525256|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 75.|Mean|75.47||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.12|79.83||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||79.83|71.12|0.827
95776700|NCT05897827|191525257|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|4.17||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|3.84|0.003
95776701|NCT05897827|191525258|OTHER|We calculated the mean and 95% confidence interval using a one sample two-sided t-test against the a priori benchmark of success, which was \> 3.75.|Mean|4.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|4.18||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.18|3.85|0.002
95776702|NCT05897827|191525262|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|0.03|0.03
95955125|NCT00714688|191881971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.023||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.023
95776703|NCT05897827|191525262|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.36|0.95
95955126|NCT00714688|191881971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.016||||||Comparison with placebo was performed without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Treatment, gender and country were used as factors and baseline value and age were used as covariates.||Statistical analysis of change from baseline at endpoint.||||0.016
95776704|NCT05897827|191525263|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|0.46|<0.001
95776705|NCT05897827|191525263|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in LGBTQ+ Inclusivity, Awareness, and Advocacy, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|0.10|0.01
95809936|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.85|1.25|<0.001
95955127|NCT02951052|191882024|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with virologic failure at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm for assessing HIV-1 RNA \>=50 copies/mL) can be concluded if the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in failure rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is not more than 6%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||2.5|-1.2|
95776706|NCT05897827|191525263|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.41||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|0.11|0.001
95776707|NCT05897827|191525263|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Identity-Affirming Practices, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.24||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.03|0.01
95776708|NCT05897827|191525263|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.68||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|0.18|0.001
95776709|NCT05897827|191525263|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Self-Efficacy in Inclusivity in Restrooms and Changing Options, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.86||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.02|0.04
95776710|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.50|0.10
95776711|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.55|0.14
95860661|NCT00035932|191680205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between IQ (\<10; \>=10) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
95962206|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.0||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-3.9||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-3.9|-20.2|0.0039
95776712|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.39|0.07
95776713|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.18|0.85
95776714|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.01||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.30|0.06
95997209|NCT04321343|191970123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|17.208|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.208|0.625|0.1474
95776715|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.14|0.51
95776716|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.53||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|0.13|0.001
95776717|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.01|0.04
95776718|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.36
95776719|NCT05897827|191525264|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.16|0.62
95776720|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.32|0.08
95776721|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Notice the Event, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.55|0.20
95776722|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.14|0.74
95809937|NCT01098747|191593353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||-0.08|-1.23|0.027
95776723|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Interpret the Event as an Emergency, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.12|0.55
95776724|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.22|0.40
95776725|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Accept Responsibility for Intervening, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.37|0.36
95776726|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.6||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|0.18|<0.001
95860662|NCT00035932|191680205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||P-value was based on a t-distribution.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between # of PI Mutations at baseline (\<4; \>=4) of ATV 300 mg / RTV and CD4 Cell Count||||<0.05
95997210|NCT04321343|191970123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|14.631|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.631|0.481|0.2620
95955128|NCT02951052|191882025|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA\<50 c/mL at Week 48 (per FDA's snapshot algorithm) can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (CAB - current ART) is more than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.7|||||Adjusted difference in proportion was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for the following baseline stratification factors: sex at birth (Male, Female) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||0.7|-6.7|
95997211|NCT04321343|191970123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|4.133|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.133|0.117|0.6935
95776727|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Know How to Intervene, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.39||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-0.16|0.41
95776728|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.22|0.92
95776729|NCT05897827|191525265|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance of the change in Implement Intervention Decisions, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-0.16|0.37
95776730|NCT05897827|191525266|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.28|<0.001
95776731|NCT05897827|191525266|OTHER|To test for within-arm statistical significance, we used linear mixed models accounting for within-person clustering using random effects. We reported the beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69||Threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|0.29|<0.001
95776732|NCT00715104|191525268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|16.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|30.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||30.7|1.7|1.000
95776733|NCT00715104|191525268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|18.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|34.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||34.3|3.5|1.000
95809938|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.18|2.27|<0.001
95955129|NCT02951052|191882099|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||2.2|-2.4|0.944
95997212|NCT04321343|191970124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.215|-0.350|0.6384
95776734|NCT00715104|191525268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Subjects with 2-fold increase|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|88.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD3+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD3+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||88.3|52.3|<0.001
95809939|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.12|0.007
95955130|NCT02951052|191882099|OTHER||Adjusted difference|1.0||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||3.4|-1.3|0.385
95955131|NCT02951052|191882100|OTHER||Adjusted difference|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||7.1|2.8|<0.001
95776735|NCT00715104|191525269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|20.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|37.2||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||37.2|4.0|1.000
95776736|NCT00715104|191525269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|32.4||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|51.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||51.6|13.1|0.014
95809940|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|4.98||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.98|3.60|<0.001
95955132|NCT02951052|191882100|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|8.8|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||8.8|4.0|<0.001
95955133|NCT02951052|191882101|OTHER||Adjusted difference|5.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||9.1|1.4|0.008
95776737|NCT00715104|191525269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|79.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|96.0||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD4+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD4+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||96.0|62.8|<0.001
95955134|NCT02951052|191882101|OTHER||Adjusted difference|2.0||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||ANCOVA||||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|6.2|-2.2|0.347
95955135|NCT02951052|191882102|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.2||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.7|-0.2|0.344
95955136|NCT02951052|191882102|OTHER||Adjusted difference|-0.1||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 total scores at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||0.4|-0.6|0.785
95955137|NCT02951052|191882102|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.676||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.909|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.909|-0.557|0.282
95776738|NCT00715104|191525270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|35.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|53.9||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||53.9|16.3|0.002
95776739|NCT00715104|191525270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|29.7||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|47.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||47.7|11.7|0.036
95809941|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.13|0.144
95860663|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-6.0||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.0|-15.5|
95955138|NCT02951052|191882102|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.635||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|1.907|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 MCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.907|-0.637|0.327
95955139|NCT02951052|191882102|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.697||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.494|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.494|-0.100|0.086
95955140|NCT02951052|191882102|OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.696||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|1.505|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of SF-12 PCS at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||1.505|-0.113|0.092
95776740|NCT00715104|191525270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with 2-fold increase|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|98.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-values will be reported to alleviate the multiple testing problem; pbon = minimum of p\*3 and 1 (p = the nominal p-value from the test, pbon = the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value). Confidence intervals will be adjusted similarly.|Chi-squared|||A 2-fold increase in CD8+ T cell counts from biopsy to post-RP was considered a positive response. The number of infiltrating CD8+ T cells/μm2 was coded as binary with each subject categorized as having at least a 2-fold increase from baseline or not. One sample Chi-square test for a binary response, with a null hypothesis of 15% was implemented. The tests were done using post-treatment post-RP benign tissue, tumor tissue, and tumor interface compared to the biopsy benign tissue.||98.3|69.3|<0.001
95776741|NCT00715104|191525271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||<0.001
95776742|NCT00715104|191525272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is for the visit effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization groups, visits (up to 12-weeks Post-RP), and randomization groups × visits interaction were included in the mixed model.||Repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach was used. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.173
95776743|NCT00715104|191525273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.667
95776744|NCT00715104|191525273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.191
95809942|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|9.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.66|6.66|<0.001
95809943|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.85|-1.31|0.679
95809944|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|11.96||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.96|7.92|<0.001
95809945|NCT01098747|191593354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.79|-2.12|0.367
95809946|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|3.32|< 0.001
95809947|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.07|0.16|0.009
95955141|NCT02951052|191882105|OTHER||Adjusted difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 8 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||11.7|4.1|<0.001
95955142|NCT02951052|191882105|OTHER||Adjusted difference|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison Week 24 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||10.4|3.3|<0.001
95955143|NCT02951052|191882105|OTHER||Adjusted difference|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|14.4|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison at Week 48 for the groups CAB LA+ RPV LA and current ART is presented.|||14.4|7.1|<0.001
95955144|NCT01772147|191882109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.164|0.089|<0.001
95955145|NCT01772147|191882109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.148|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.111|<0.001
95955146|NCT00796614|191882146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.80|0.50|0.5388
95809948|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|7.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.12|5.18|<0.001
95860664|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.6|-16.9|
95955147|NCT00796614|191882146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||1.76|0.20|0.3430
95776745|NCT00715104|191525273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.699
95776746|NCT00715104|191525274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 24 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.086
95776747|NCT00715104|191525274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 48 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.432
95776748|NCT00715104|191525274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|||||P value compares 72 week post-RP to pre-booster (12 weeks post RP)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach to allow for a varying number of follow-up measurements. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.249
95776749|NCT00715104|191525275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect.||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.950
95776750|NCT00715104|191525276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is based on the treatment effect in the mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes randomization group, visit, and randomization group × visit interaction, with subject as a random effect||The change over time was evaluated by using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods with a mixed model approach. The ranked data were used in the statistical model.||||0.048
95776751|NCT03681990|191525292|OTHER|Mixed Model ANOVA with subject as a random effect.||||||0.34||||||F test|ANOVA|||||||0.34
95776752|NCT04542499|191525294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
95776753|NCT04542499|191525295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
95955148|NCT00796614|191882146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used with treatment variable and three covariates: age group, concomitant use of anti-cholinergic medication and geographic region. The first two covariates were used in the stratification of the randomisation. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||3.97|0.50|0.5209
95955149|NCT00796614|191882146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9436|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||A test of trend across the four treatment groups was performed as a secondary analysis in the proportion of responders across the dose levels using Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.9436
95776754|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.139||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.139|-0.600|0.2216
95776755|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.515||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.515|-0.316|0.6379
95776756|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.042||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||1.042|0.122|0.0132
95776757|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.821||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||0.821|-0.106|0.1299
95776758|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|1.202||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||1.202|0.194|0.0068
95776759|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.469||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||1.469|0.469|0.0002
95860665|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.7||||||HDL cholesterol||0.7|-13.6|
95776760|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|1.389||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||1.389|0.369|0.0008
95776761|NCT04542499|191525296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.653||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.653|0.553|<0.0001
95809949|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.20|-0.21|0.166
95809950|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|13.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.81|9.54|<0.001
95860666|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.1||||||HDL Cholesterol||8.1|-9.3|
95955150|NCT00796614|191882147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3097|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.3097
95955151|NCT00796614|191882147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2676|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.2676
95955152|NCT00796614|191882147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6265|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6265
95955153|NCT00796614|191882148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4359|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4359
95955154|NCT00796614|191882148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0658|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0658
95955155|NCT00796614|191882148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with covariates of age group, anti-cholinergic use at baseline and geographic region. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6709
95955156|NCT00796614|191882149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5672|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5672
95955157|NCT00796614|191882149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8724|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8724
95955158|NCT00796614|191882149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7674
95955159|NCT00796614|191882149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5545|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5545
95955160|NCT00796614|191882149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4774|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-Medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.4774
95955161|NCT00796614|191882149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-High dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use,and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8626
95955162|NCT00796614|191882150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9669
95955163|NCT00796614|191882150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9231|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.9231
95955164|NCT00796614|191882150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Left Kidney) was compared to placebo. Logistic regression model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.6360
95955165|NCT00796614|191882150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-low dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||1.0000
95860667|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-15.6|
95955166|NCT00796614|191882150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4925|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-medium dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4925
95955167|NCT00796614|191882150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patient responded to tamsulosin-high dose (Right Kidney) was compared to placebo. Fisher's exact test was used for this analysis.||||0.4977
95860668|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|1.8||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.8|-15.5|
95955168|NCT00796614|191882151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1373|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.1373
95776762|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.461||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 2||0.461|-0.245|0.5471
95776763|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.166||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 5||0.166|-0.640|0.2488
95776764|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.252|-0.384||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 8||-0.384|-1.252|0.0002
95776765|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|-0.307||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 11||-0.307|-1.199|0.0010
95776766|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.405||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 14||-0.405|-1.403|0.0004
95776767|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.528|-0.52||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 18||-0.520|-1.528|<0.0001
95776768|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.493|-0.465||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 22||-0.465|-1.493|0.0002
95776769|NCT04542499|191525297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.41||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.410|-1.475|0.0006
95776770|NCT04542499|191525298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I||1.2|-0.4|0.3265
95776771|NCT04542499|191525298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II||-0.2|-2.2|0.0203
95776772|NCT04542499|191525298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and confidence intervals are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III||-0.5|-4.3|0.0118
95776773|NCT04488497|191525299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95809951|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|-1.84|0.703
95809952|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|17.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||17.18|11.36|<0.001
95955169|NCT00796614|191882151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7440
95776774|NCT04488497|191525300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95776775|NCT04488497|191525301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95776776|NCT04488497|191525302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95776777|NCT04488497|191525303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95776778|NCT04488497|191525304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95776779|NCT04488497|191525305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95860669|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.2||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-13.2|-35.0|
95955170|NCT00796614|191882151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7703|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.7703
95997213|NCT04321343|191970124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.006|-0.547|0.0549
95997214|NCT04321343|191970124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.142|-0.683|0.0030
95997215|NCT04321343|191970125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8165|0.7149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7149|-0.8165|0.8961
95997216|NCT04321343|191970125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5935|0.9204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.9204|-0.5935|0.6710
95860670|NCT00035932|191680207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-23.4||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-23.4|-43.4|
95997217|NCT04321343|191970125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7092|0.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7233|-0.7092|0.9846
95997218|NCT04321343|191970126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.75||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.306|-12.558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-12.558|-157.306|0.0216
95997219|NCT04321343|191970126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.72||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.957|23.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||23.738|-116.957|0.1931
95776780|NCT01573767|191525319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|11.4||Inference for VI 12.5 µg versus (vs) placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for VI 25 µg vs placebo; inference for VI 6.25 µg vs placebo was dependent on SS having been achieved for VI 12.5 µg vs placebo.|ANCOVA|||||11.4|-2.7|0.227
95776781|NCT01573767|191525319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|-0.6|0.073
95776782|NCT01573767|191525319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|12.5|||ANCOVA|||||12.5|-1.6|0.127
95776783|NCT01573767|191525320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.024||||||||0.024|-0.138|
95776784|NCT01573767|191525320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.096||||||||0.096|-0.063|
95776785|NCT01573767|191525320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.051||||||||0.051|-0.110|
95997220|NCT04321343|191970126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.31||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.002|2.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.194|-129.002|0.0581
95776786|NCT01573767|191525321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.0||||||||6.0|-10.5|
95776787|NCT01573767|191525321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.6||||||||9.6|-6.9|
95776788|NCT01573767|191525321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0||||||||17.0|0.4|
95776789|NCT01573767|191525322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.3||||||||12.3|-1.2|
95776790|NCT01573767|191525322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||||||||14.2|0.7|
95776791|NCT01573767|191525322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||||95.0|0.4|14.0||||||||14.0|0.4|
95776792|NCT01573767|191525323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.1|
95776793|NCT01573767|191525323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.4||||||||17.4|-1.8|
95776794|NCT01573767|191525323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|14.9||||||||14.9|-4.4|
95776795|NCT01573767|191525324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.6||||||||15.6|-3.7|
95776796|NCT01573767|191525324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.3||||||||19.3|0.0|
95860671|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-7.2||||||Total Cholesterol||-7.2|-17.0|
95860672|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.5||||||Total Cholesterol||-6.5|-17.4|
95997221|NCT04321343|191970127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5577|0.0456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0456|-0.5577|0.0958
95997222|NCT04321343|191970127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5648|0.0181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0181|-0.5648|0.0659
95776797|NCT01573767|191525324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||||95.0|-2.7|16.7||||||||16.7|-2.7|
95776798|NCT01573767|191525325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.5||||||||7.5|-7.2|
95776799|NCT01573767|191525325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.7||||||||15.7|1.0|
95776800|NCT01573767|191525325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.2||||||||17.2|2.3|
95776801|NCT02339155|191525326|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) or the ratio of anti-PA Ab (attributable to AVA) GMCs between the AVA and the AVA + raxibacumab groups at Week 4 is less than 1.5, non-inferiority was to be established.|Ratio|1.18||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.35|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.35|1.03|0.0016
95860673|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|3.5||||||HDL Cholesterol||3.5|-12.4|
95776802|NCT02339155|191525327|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.22|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 8|||1.22|0.98|
95776803|NCT02339155|191525327|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Week 26|||1.07|0.89|<0.0001
95776804|NCT01911780|191525367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.3|||LOCF-ANCOVA|Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used as the imputation method|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-5.3|-9.7|<0.0001
95776805|NCT01911780|191525368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean, comparison|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.5||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|LOCF-ANCOVA||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.|||-4.5|-12.7|<0.0001
95776806|NCT01911780|191525369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.1||Additional information, the p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Non-completers considered failures (NCF) was used as the imputation method.|Exact 95 % confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson. Logistic regression includes treatment and center.|||7.1|1.4|0.0052
95776807|NCT01911780|191525371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.3|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||As a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3|-3.1|
95809953|NCT01098747|191593355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-8: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.00|-3.20|0.303
95955171|NCT00796614|191882152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.0808
95955172|NCT00796614|191882152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.8244
95776808|NCT01911780|191525372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.1|||mixed-effects model repeated measures||Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|||6.1|-1.5|
95776809|NCT03833804|191525383|NON_INFERIORITY|The investigators conducted a noninferiority analysis using a prespecified margin of 0.5%. The noninferiority margin was selected based on expert input from addiction medicine clinicians and implementation scientists, who agreed that a 0.5% absolute difference in the composite intervention rate would be clinically acceptable given the workflow and scalability benefits of automation. The margin was chosen to reflect a reasonable balance between clinical impact and operational gain.|z-test|0.86||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||One-sided independent samples z-test|||||||0.20
95776810|NCT02677896|191525419|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|rPFS Treatment Comparison||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
95776811|NCT02677896|191525420|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazards model|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Log Rank|||rPFS Treatment Comparision||0.50|0.30|<0.0001
95955173|NCT00796614|191882152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5045|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with age group, anti-cholinergic use, and geographic region as covariates. On treatment (OT) analyses approach was used.||||0.5045
95955174|NCT02288364|191882174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95776812|NCT02677896|191525421|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Log Rank|P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Significance level is 0.04. Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
95776813|NCT02677896|191525422|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.26||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to PSA Progression Treatment Comparison||0.26|0.13|<0.0001
95776814|NCT02677896|191525423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.48|||||Hazard ratio and 95 % CI are estimated by cox proportional hazards model.|||0.48|0.31|
95776815|NCT02677896|191525424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|55.7||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PSA Undetectable Rate Treatment Comparison||55.7|45.3|<0.0001
95776816|NCT02677896|191525425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|28.2||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR Treatment Comparison||28.2|10.4|<0.0001
95776817|NCT02677896|191525426|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.88||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|Time to Deterioration of Urinary Symptoms Treatment Comparison||1.08|0.72|0.2162
95860674|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference Estimate|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.3||||||HDL Cholesterol||9.3|-11.0|
95955175|NCT02288364|191882175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95955176|NCT02288364|191882176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95955177|NCT03619889|191882189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95955178|NCT03619889|191882189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95955179|NCT03619889|191882196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95955180|NCT03619889|191882196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95955181|NCT02679079|191882221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.8||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-4.4|0.89
95776818|NCT02677896|191525427|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.52||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.8|||Log Rank|||Time to SSE Treatment Comparison||0.80|0.33|0.0026
95776819|NCT02677896|191525428|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.36|||Log Rank|||Time to Castration Resistance Treatment Comparison||0.36|0.22|<0.0001
95776820|NCT02677896|191525429|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.96||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank|||Time to Deterioration of QoL in FACT-P Treatment Comparison||1.14|0.81|0.6548
95776821|NCT02677896|191525430|SUPERIORITY||Cox hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank|||Time to Pain Progression Based on BPI-SF Treatment Comparison||1.07|0.78|0.2715
95776822|NCT03687372|191525439|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.22||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||6.22|1.67|0.0003
95776823|NCT03687372|191525440|SUPERIORITY|P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52|1.30|0.0024
95809954|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.60|<0.001
95955182|NCT02679079|191882221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.6||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-2.6|0.47
95955183|NCT02679079|191882222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.21
95955184|NCT02679079|191882222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance since first comparison was not statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.5|0.67
95955185|NCT02679079|191882223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years)|Risk difference expressed as percentage.|||||0.24
95955186|NCT02679079|191882223|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.71
95955187|NCT02679079|191882224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|-7.7|0.52
95776824|NCT03687372|191525441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20.8|7.5|<0.0001
95776825|NCT03687372|191525442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.65|1.55|0.0009
95776826|NCT03687372|191525443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95776827|NCT02634268|191525457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.93|76.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average six minute walk test distance at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month six minute walk test distance between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||76.6|7.93|.02
95776828|NCT02634268|191525458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Modified Borg Scale score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Modified Borg Scale score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.09|-0.63|.0008
95776829|NCT02634268|191525459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average body weight at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month body weight between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.34|-2.33|0.0008
95776830|NCT02634268|191525460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 PCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 PCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||2.60|0.35|0.01
95860675|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|1.2||||||Fasting LDL CHolesterol||1.2|-19.0|
95860676|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|3.0||||||Fasting LDL Cholesterol||3.0|-17.7|
95860677|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-29.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-17.7||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-17.7|-41.6|
95776831|NCT02634268|191525461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SF-12 MCS at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SF-12 MCS between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.89|-0.84|0.45
95776832|NCT02634268|191525462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average Framingham Risk Score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month Framingham Risk Score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.10|-0.71|0.009
95776833|NCT02634268|191525463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average waist circumference at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month waist circumference between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.26|-2.12|0.13
95776834|NCT02634268|191525464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average 12 month systolic blood at 12 months between control and intervention groups|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month systolic blood pressure between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||1.84|-3.02|0.64
95776835|NCT02634268|191525465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average BMI at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month BMI between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.17|-0.85|0.004
95776836|NCT02634268|191525466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Symptom score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.||Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Symptom score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|0.36|-4.87|0.09
95809955|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.84|0.29|0.007
95809956|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||12.08|8.79|<0.001
95809957|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.05|-0.32|0.152
95997223|NCT04321343|191970127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5728|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0300|-0.5728|0.0297
95997224|NCT04321343|191970128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|0.1476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1476|-0.5423|0.2606
95809958|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|23.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||23.43|16.23|<0.001
95809959|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-6: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||2.07|-3.12|0.690
95809960|NCT01098747|191593356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.77||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-8 Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS mean from the ANOVA model.||1.75|-5.29|0.323
95776837|NCT02634268|191525467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Activity score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Activity score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||0.56|-5.19|0.12
95776838|NCT02634268|191525468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Impact score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12 month SGRQ-C Impact score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.25|-5.19|0.03
95776839|NCT02634268|191525469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in average SGRQ-C Total score at 12 months between control and intervention groups.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed model analysis, including participants with a measurement at baseline and/or 12 months, comparing the average 12-month SGRQ-C Total score between control and intervention groups. Our analysis controlled for smoking and before/during the COVID-19 pandemic with fixed effects, while random effects were used for multiple measurement on individuals and study sites.||-0.28|-4.55|0.03
95776840|NCT01152359|191525483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-0.8|<0.05
95776841|NCT01152359|191525484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-4.9|0.66
95776842|NCT01152359|191525485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.1|0.65
95809961|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|3.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours-Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.00|-0.97|0.490
95809962|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.54||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.95|-1.88|0.623
95955188|NCT02679079|191882224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.5|0.64
95955189|NCT02679079|191882225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.5||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5|-11.2|0.60
95776843|NCT01892085|191525588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.015
95776844|NCT01892085|191525588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.339
95776845|NCT01892085|191525589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.024
95776846|NCT01892085|191525589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.317
95776847|NCT01892085|191525590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.031
95776848|NCT01892085|191525590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.298
95776849|NCT01892085|191525591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.05
95776850|NCT01892085|191525591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.27
95776851|NCT01892085|191525592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.069
95776852|NCT01892085|191525592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.244
95776853|NCT01892085|191525593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.094
95776854|NCT01892085|191525593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Marginalized 2 part model|||||||0.235
95776855|NCT01892085|191525594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.123
95776856|NCT01892085|191525594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.210
95776857|NCT01892085|191525595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.143
95776858|NCT01892085|191525595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.196
95776859|NCT01892085|191525596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.185
95776860|NCT01892085|191525596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.183
95860678|NCT00035932|191680208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-38.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-27.1||||||Fasting Triglycerides||-27.1|-49.7|
95860679|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.3|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, Total Cholesterol||-8.3|-20.1|
95955190|NCT02679079|191882225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.7|-6.1|0.54
95955191|NCT02679079|191882226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.6|0.64
95955192|NCT02679079|191882226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.5|0.77
95776861|NCT01892085|191525597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.229
95776862|NCT01892085|191525597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.170
95776863|NCT01892085|191525598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.314
95776864|NCT01892085|191525598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.162
95776865|NCT01892085|191525599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.377
95776866|NCT01892085|191525599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Marginalized two part model|||||||0.149
95776867|NCT01892085|191525600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95809963|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|24.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.51|35.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||35.22|13.51|<0.001
95809964|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.82||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|22.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.48|1.15|0.023
95809965|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.99|73.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.70|48.99|<0.001
95809966|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|32.92||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.92|9.58|<0.001
95955193|NCT02679079|191882227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.2||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-1.4|0.45
95776868|NCT01892085|191525601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.82
95776869|NCT01892085|191525602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||00.22
95776870|NCT01892085|191525603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95776871|NCT01892085|191525604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95776872|NCT01892085|191525605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
95776873|NCT01892085|191525606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95776874|NCT01892085|191525607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95776875|NCT01892085|191525608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95776876|NCT00640653|191525621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.96||The significance criterion was set at alpha = .05.|generalized linear regression|Log link was specified|Treatment was coded as 1 vs health control coded as 0.|With alpha = .05, 2-tailed, and 37.4% of the control group initiating sexual intercourse by 24-month follow-up, a total sample size of 563 participants completing the trial was projected to provide power of 80% to detect a difference of 16.8% in self-reported sexual intercourse between an HIV intervention condition and the health promotion control condition.||0.96|0.48|.03
95776877|NCT02938949|191525642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95776878|NCT02938949|191525643|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.20
95776879|NCT02938949|191525644|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.20
95776880|NCT01500213|191525650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. For the CR delayed the threshold for statistical significance was 0.05; no further adjustment for multiplicity were required for the primary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.1|1.0|0.043
95776881|NCT01500213|191525651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR-acute was tested only if the result for the primary endpoint, CR delayed, was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||2.0|0.8|0.233
95776882|NCT01500213|191525652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9||To control for multiplicity, analyses were performed hierarchically. CR overall was tested only if both CR delayed and CR acute were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by sex. Missing data were imputed as treatment failures.||||1.9|1.0|0.084
95776883|NCT04027075|191525653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.02|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.02|0.51|.962
95776884|NCT04027075|191525654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.18|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||1.18|0.19|.109
95860680|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed values, total cholesterol||-1.3|-16.1|
95860681|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.2|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed values, HDL cholesterol||-1.2|-19.9|
95860682|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed values, HDL cholesterol||7.0|-14.0|
95955194|NCT02679079|191882227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.9||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-2.7|0.72
95776885|NCT04027075|191525655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.29|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.29|0.75|.227
95776886|NCT04027075|191525656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.87|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.87|0.50|.681
95776887|NCT04027075|191525657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.42|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.42|0.58|.650
95776888|NCT04027075|191525658|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||2.73|0.73|.304
95776889|NCT04027075|191525659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.0|||Chi-squared||The odds ratio applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) at 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||3.00|0.69|0.97
95776890|NCT04027075|191525660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.005
95809967|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.59|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|61.59|<0.001
95809968|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|17.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.83|27.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.06|7.83|0.001
95809969|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.14|84.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.11|61.14|<0.001
95955195|NCT02679079|191882228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.41
95955196|NCT02679079|191882228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|0.2|0.01
95955197|NCT02679079|191882229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.18
95776891|NCT04027075|191525661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.460
95776892|NCT04027075|191525662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.851
95776893|NCT04027075|191525663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.977
95776894|NCT04027075|191525664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.456
95776895|NCT04027075|191525665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.874|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.874
95776896|NCT04027075|191525666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.069
95860683|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.8|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting LDL||-1.8|-22.3|
95955198|NCT02679079|191882229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison was not included in multiplicity adjustment procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age group (6 to 11 years, 12 to 17 years).|Risk difference expressed as a percentage.|||||0.95
95955199|NCT03009019|191882247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.03|0.97|0.075
95955200|NCT03009019|191882247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||Observed cases (OC)||2.14|1.00|0.055
95955201|NCT03009019|191882248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.22|0.003
95955202|NCT03009019|191882248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|1.22|0.003
95776897|NCT04027075|191525667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.658
95776898|NCT04027075|191525668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.783|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The mean difference applies to the group comparison (Intervention vs. Services as Usual) in trajectory differences from baseline through 3-months. Group was coded 1 = Intervention and 0 = Services as Usual.|||||.783
95776899|NCT00455520|191525670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-1.7|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance Model with factors of treatment, country, prior opioid use, and baseline dose level and start of DB pain score as factors.||-0.92|-1.7|<0.001
95776900|NCT00033657|191525679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.48
95776901|NCT01683422|191525681|SUPERIORITY|The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||In the RTOG 9812 (NCT00003591) for unresectable pancreatic cancer, a one-year survival rate of 43% was observed. There were 109 analyzable patients on NCT00003591 with 61 still at risk for death at one year. Using the method of Dixon and Simon, a sample size of 39 analyzable patients followed over 12 months will ensure at least 90% probability of detecting a minimum of 17% improvement in the one-year survival rate compared to NCT00003591 at the 0.10 significance level (with a one-sided test).||||0.1
95776902|NCT02635542|191525694|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95776903|NCT02635542|191525695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95809970|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|11.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|19.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.93|3.47|0.013
95809971|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
95955203|NCT00265096|191882292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise conparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. Sample size (n=396; 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>98% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in ACR 20 response between treatment groups, assuming equal proportions of subjects receiving methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and the difference in ACR 20 response of 27% in subjects without MTX and 17-27% in subjects with MTX, between placebo and combined golimumab groups.||||<0.001
95955204|NCT00265096|191882292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
95776904|NCT00195494|191525723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (49.8%) - M (27.8%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
95776905|NCT00195494|191525724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact||E+M (79.7%) - M (58.7%) creates the risk difference estimated value.|||||<0.001
95776906|NCT01556997|191525736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95776907|NCT01556997|191525737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline DBP (\<100 mmHg versus ≥100 mmHg), current type 2 diabetes status (yes versus no), and race (black versus non-black) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95776908|NCT03246347|191525748|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.6111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4346|0.7686|||One-sided test for binomial proportions|||The 12-month PSA CR rate with ADT + docetaxel is 27.7% (Sweeney 2015); we estimated that the lower limit of the 95% CI was 23.4%. We sought to test the null hypothesis that the 52-week PSA CR rate for subjects treated with study therapy was \<=25%. We anticipated enrolling 39 subjects and this design would provide 90% power with a 1-sided alpha =0.10 significance level, assuming the true 52-week PSA CR rate was 45%. An improvement from 25% to 45% in 52-week PSA CR rate was considered important.||.7686|.4346|<0.001
95776909|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.1||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.23|-0.04|0.1524
95776910|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.16|-0.11|0.7086
95776911|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.01|-0.26|0.0651
95776912|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.02||||0.7937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.12|0.7937
95860684|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|4.8|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|Observed Cases, Fasting LDL cholesterol||4.8|-19.0|
95860685|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-8.0|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||-8.0|-38.6|
95776913|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.10|-0.18|0.5587
95776914|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.09|-0.13|0.7285
95955205|NCT00265096|191882292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage).||||||<0.001
95955206|NCT00265096|191882293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95997225|NCT04321343|191970128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.1016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.1016|-0.5690|0.1709
95776915|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.03||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|||0.15|-0.09|0.5802
95776916|NCT02255435|191525761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.08|-0.08|0.9698
95776917|NCT02255435|191525762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.956||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment group, time, interaction between treatment and time, interaction between baseline and time; covariates: site, baseline mFARS|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||-0.50|-4.31|0.0141
95776918|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.18|-4.80|0.2310
95776919|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.47|-3.51|0.7298
95776920|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.00|-3.99|0.5102
95776921|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||2.04|-3.94|0.5281
95776922|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||1.57|-4.42|0.3458
95776923|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||0.09|-4.68|0.0587
95776924|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|0.58||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|||3.10|-1.94|0.6480
95776925|NCT02255435|191525763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Difference is omaveloxolone - placebo.|Comparison of Omaveloxolone capsules pooled with Placebo capsules||0.66|-2.87|0.2174
95776926|NCT05459558|191525783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
95776927|NCT05459558|191525783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
95776928|NCT05459558|191525784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
95776929|NCT05459558|191525784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Test for non-zero within group change from Baseline.||||<0.0001
95776930|NCT05459558|191525785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.62|-1.88|<0.0001
95776931|NCT05459558|191525785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.61|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-1.61|-1.87|<0.0001
95776932|NCT05459558|191525785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.81||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.81|-2.08|<0.0001
95860686|NCT00035932|191680209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|1.3|||||ATV 400/SQV - LPV/RTV|observed cases, fasting triglycerides||1.3|-36.5|
95860687|NCT00035932|191680220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.41|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|overall||0.41|-0.13|
95955207|NCT00265096|191882293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95955208|NCT00265096|191882293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95955209|NCT00265096|191882294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
95776933|NCT05459558|191525785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.9||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.90|-2.18|<0.0001
95776934|NCT05459558|191525786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.62|-1.00|<0.0001
95776935|NCT05459558|191525786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
95809972|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.75|1.27|0.041
95809973|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
95809974|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
95809975|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
95809976|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
95809977|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.83|85.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.33|61.83|<0.001
95860688|NCT00035932|191680220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||time-averaged difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.38|||||ATV 300/RTV - LPV/RTV|last observation carried forward||0.38|-0.16|
95860689|NCT02268175|191680228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was that treatment with ARM 1 will have a pCR/MRD rate of 35% compared with Arm 2 rate of 10%. Given 75 men randomized in 2:1 ratio to Arm 1 (N=50) or Arm 2 (N=25), there was 84% power to detect this difference, using Fisher's exact test with one-sided type I error of 0.1.||||0.151
95955210|NCT00265096|191882294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95776936|NCT05459558|191525786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.31||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.31|-2.06|<0.0001
95776937|NCT05459558|191525786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.44||p-value adjusted for multiplicity using Graphical Approach.|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-1.44|-2.19|<0.0001
95776938|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
95776939|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-2.05|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 4||-2.05|-2.41|<0.0001
95809978|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|13.36||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.36|0.23|0.073
95860690|NCT02100696|191680233|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|12.2||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|3.95|0.0033
95860691|NCT02100696|191680234|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.8||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|14.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.56|-7.13|0.4956
95860692|NCT02100696|191680235|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|12.5||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|17.94||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.94|4.19|0.0028
95776940|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-2.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.31|-2.69|<0.0001
95776941|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-2.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Gingival Sites, Week 8||-2.44|-2.81|<0.0001
95776942|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.91|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.91|-2.22|<0.0001
95955211|NCT00265096|191882294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment group and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95955212|NCT00265096|191882295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
95955213|NCT00265096|191882295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (with treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95955214|NCT00265096|191882295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|With 2 factors (treatment and subject's baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95997226|NCT04321343|191970128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6274|-0.0148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.0148|-0.6274|0.0400
95776943|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.89|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 4||-1.89|-2.20|<0.0001
95776944|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-2.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.13|-2.45|<0.0001
95776945|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-2.25|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Interproximal Sites, Week 8||-2.25|-2.57|<0.0001
95776946|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.5|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.50|-0.76|<0.0001
95776947|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 4||-0.51|-0.77|<0.0001
95776948|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
95776949|NCT05459558|191525787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Body Sites, Week 8||-0.57|-0.81|<0.0001
95776950|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.82|-0.97|<0.0001
95809979|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|74.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.14|86.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.27|63.14|<0.001
95776951|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.79|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 4||-0.79|-0.95|<0.0001
95776952|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-1.01|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.01|-1.15|<0.0001
95776953|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-1.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Area, Week 8||-1.07|-1.22|<0.0001
95776954|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
95809980|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.84||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|14.1||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.10|1.57|0.035
95955215|NCT00265096|191882296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline methotrexate (MTX) usage||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in change from baseline among 3 treatment groups. Sample size (n=396, 110 placebo, 286 combined golimumab) provided \>93% power to detect a significant difference (alpha=0.05) in change from baseline between treatment groups, assuming 50% of subjects received MTX at baseline, and mean change from baseline for combined golimumab of 0, and a mean increase for placebo of 0.1 in subjects who received MTX at baseline and 0.6 in subjects who did not receive MTX||||0.015
95955216|NCT00265096|191882296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.011
95955217|NCT00265096|191882296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||The test was not to be performed if the test of ACR 20 at Week 24 was not significant|ANOVA|ANOVA on van der Waerden scores with 2 factors: treatment group and participant's baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage||||||0.086
95955218|NCT00265096|191882297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX) usage)||||||<0.001
95955219|NCT00265096|191882297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95776955|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 4||-0.80|-0.93|<0.0001
95776956|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.9|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.90|-1.04|<0.0001
95776957|NCT05459558|191525788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.95|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Intensity, Week 8||-0.95|-1.08|<0.0001
95776958|NCT06507566|191525839|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology.|Correlation contingency coefficient|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776959|NCT06507566|191525840|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776960|NCT06507566|191525841|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776961|NCT06507566|191525841|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776962|NCT06507566|191525845|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776963|NCT06507566|191525845|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776964|NCT06507566|191525846|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776965|NCT06507566|191525846|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776966|NCT06507566|191525847|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776967|NCT06507566|191525847|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776968|NCT06507566|191525848|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776969|NCT06507566|191525848|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776970|NCT06507566|191525849|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776971|NCT06507566|191525849|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95955220|NCT00265096|191882297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with stratification (stratified by baseline MTX usage)||||||<0.001
95776972|NCT06507566|191525850|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776973|NCT06507566|191525850|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776974|NCT06507566|191525851|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776975|NCT06507566|191525851|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient were computed to quantify the strength of the direction of the linear relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Contingency correlation coefficient was computed to estimate the extent of the relationship between the venipuncture collection and the Tasso+™ collection at Day 1 for each cohort for each chemistry analytes.|Correlation Contingency Coefficient|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95776976|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.101
95776977|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.139
95776978|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.116
95776979|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.167
95776980|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.210
95776981|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.343
95776982|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.533
95776983|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.593
95776984|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.044
95776985|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.243
95776986|NCT01668966|191525876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.009
95776987|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.1853
95776988|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2992|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.2992
95776989|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2249
95776990|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3102|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.3102
95776991|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.2164
95776992|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8822|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8822
95776993|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.7649
95776994|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.6050
95776995|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4478|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4478
95776996|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4821
95776997|NCT01668966|191525877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0522|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0522
95776998|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.0624
95776999|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0616|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.0616
95777000|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.2480
95777001|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.5393
95777002|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.1401
95955221|NCT00396097|191882332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.5762|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.071||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the individualized treatment arm was not superior to the standard treatment arm; alternative hypothesis that the individualized treatment arm was superior to the standard treatment arm with respect to the mean 24-month AOTD. Using a 2:1 randomization, a two sided sample t-test comparing the root AOTD between the 2 treatment arms with 80% power at a 5% level required 260 subjects. Assuming a 20% attrition rate, approximately 312 subjects were needed for this study.|||-0.071|0.5762
95955222|NCT00396097|191882333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA (Levene's Test)|||||||0.627
95777003|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.0679
95777004|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.6017
95777005|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4772|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.4772
95777006|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4877|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.4877
95777007|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.0624
95860693|NCT02100696|191680236|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.3||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.14||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.14|3.21|0.0241
95955223|NCT00396097|191882334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.033||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.330|0.802|0.8016
95777008|NCT01668966|191525878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||<0.0001
95777009|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2388|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.2388
95777010|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1084|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.1084
95777011|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.0321
95777012|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.0203
95777013|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.0193
95777014|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6235|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.6235
95777015|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2814|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2814
95777016|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3391
95777017|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.1605
95777018|NCT01668966|191525879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.4312
95777019|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.934
95777020|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.624
95777021|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.642
95777022|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.952
95777023|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.928
95777024|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.832
95777025|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.315
95860694|NCT02100696|191680237|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|17.22||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.22|-2.54|0.1605
95955224|NCT00396097|191882335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|10.249|||ANCOVA|||||10.249|1.395|0.0101
95777026|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.485
95777027|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.246
95777028|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.375
95777029|NCT01668966|191525882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.185
95777030|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.445
95777031|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.414
95777032|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.401
95809981|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95809982|NCT01098747|191593357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95955225|NCT00396097|191882335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.471||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.417|14.145|||ANCOVA|||||14.145|4.417|0.0002
95955226|NCT00396097|191882335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.707|8.114|||ANCOVA|||||8.114|-1.707|0.2001
95777033|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.920
95777034|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.834
95777035|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.539
95777036|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.246
95777037|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.602
95777038|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.218
95777039|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.208
95777040|NCT01668966|191525883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.101
95777041|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.565
95777042|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.637
95777043|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.594
95777044|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.788
95777045|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.329
95777046|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.716
95777047|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.119
95777048|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.201
95777049|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.087
95777050|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.116
95809983|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|31.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.24|8.79|0.004
95809984|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|14.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|24.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.43|4.26|0.003
95809985|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|69.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.67|81.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.40|57.67|<0.001
95955227|NCT00396097|191882336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.181|43.618|||ANCOVA|||||43.618|30.181|<0.0001
95955228|NCT00396097|191882336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.054|54.98|||ANCOVA|||||54.980|42.054|<.0001
95955229|NCT00396097|191882336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.936|40.951|||ANCOVA|||||40.951|27.936|<.0001
95777051|NCT01668966|191525884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.070
95955230|NCT00396097|191882337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.2618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|||||0.249|-0.068|0.2618
95955231|NCT00396097|191882337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.198|||ANCOVA|||||0.198|-0.172|0.8926
95955232|NCT00396097|191882337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.192|0.9566
95955233|NCT02005029|191882359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
95955234|NCT02005029|191882360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo AUC ratio|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95777052|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3299|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3299
95777053|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9247|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 24||||0.9247
95777054|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9602|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 36||||0.9602
95777055|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2773|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 48||||0.2773
95777056|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5031|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 56||||0.5031
95860695|NCT02100696|191680238|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.6||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|13.66||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.66|-1.22|0.3881
95955235|NCT02005029|191882361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95955236|NCT02005029|191882362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95955237|NCT02005029|191882363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4405
95955238|NCT02005029|191882364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6011
95955239|NCT02005029|191882365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8923|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8923
95777057|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8109|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 68||||0.8109
95777058|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 80||||0.2540
95777059|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 92||||0.3794
95777060|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8687|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.8687
95777061|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4685|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 1||||0.4685
95777062|NCT01668966|191525885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis at Follow-up visit 2||||0.0511
95777063|NCT01472757|191525915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
95777064|NCT01472757|191525915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95777065|NCT01472757|191525915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Calculated p-value was less than 0.001.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95777066|NCT01472757|191525916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95777067|NCT01472757|191525916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95777068|NCT01472757|191525916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95777069|NCT01472757|191525917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95777070|NCT01472757|191525917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95777071|NCT01472757|191525917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95777072|NCT02961062|191525921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.54|-4.71|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-4.71|-17.54|0.005
95955240|NCT02005029|191882366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
95955241|NCT02005029|191882367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1546|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1546
95809986|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|33.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.75|13.16|<0.001
95809987|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|73.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.77|84.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.67|62.77|<0.001
95809988|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.14||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|17.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.08|3.21|0.014
95809989|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95809990|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.35||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|14.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.68|2.02|0.028
95809991|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95809992|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.81||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.08|1.54|0.036
95809993|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95809994|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95809995|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95809996|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95955242|NCT02005029|191882368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0314|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||"Mean difference in on score versus off score from the MDS UPDRS Part 3 on day of erythromycin minus the mean difference in 'on score versus off score on day of placebo."|||||0.0314
95809997|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95809998|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95860696|NCT02100696|191680239|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|4.9||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|14.69||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.69|-6.78|0.5879
95860697|NCT02100696|191680240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.5|0.0351
95955243|NCT02005029|191882369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Erythromycin:Placebo Cmax ratio|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95860698|NCT02100696|191680241|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Unadjusted Means|-0.2||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.2698
95955244|NCT01947153|191882392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
95955245|NCT01947153|191882393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.645|110.941||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.941|99.645|<0.0001
95955246|NCT01947153|191882394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|109.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.299|120.968||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||120.968|98.299|0.0014
95777073|NCT02961062|191525922|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.29|-2.83|||Kenward-Roger method|||||-2.83|-14.29|0.017
95777074|NCT01629823|191525939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.5||Comparison of 5cm group to control. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Both the 5 and 10cm groups were compared to the control group, \<1cm H₂O||1.50|0.44|0.51
95777075|NCT01629823|191525939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||Regression, Linear|||||1.52|0.47|0.57
95777076|NCT00480493|191525945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|9.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Confidence scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if the change in Confidence score was significantly different between the groups.||9.24|-4.32|0.468
95777077|NCT00480493|191525946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|25.11|||t-test, 2 sided||Concern scores were also compared using random-effect, mixed regression models to determine whether changes over time differed significantly between groups.|A 2 sided t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences in Concern between the two groups at 12 months.||25.11|-15.47|0.634
95777078|NCT00480493|191525947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.8|||t-test, 2 sided||We also used a random-effect, mixed regression models to look for between group changes over time.|The difference in the Worry score at 12 months was compared between the groups using a 2 sided t-test.||3.80|-8.76|0.430
95809999|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95955247|NCT01947153|191882395|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.471|113.692||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||113.692|98.471|<0.0001
95777079|NCT01005888|191525965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Observed number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95777080|NCT01005888|191525965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Normalized number of attacks.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95777081|NCT01005888|191525966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 1.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95777082|NCT01005888|191525966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0||||Period 2.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95777083|NCT01005888|191525967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
95777084|NCT01005888|191525968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95777085|NCT01005888|191525969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777086|NCT01005888|191525970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777087|NCT01005888|191525971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777088|NCT01005888|191525971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777089|NCT01005888|191525971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95777090|NCT01005888|191525971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0028||95.0||||Week 12 change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0028
95777091|NCT01005888|191525972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Visit 1 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95810000|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95860699|NCT02100696|191680242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.6||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-2.9|0.2698
95860700|NCT02100696|191680243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Multiplicity P-value reported (adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|0.3881
95955248|NCT01947153|191882396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|98.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.177|105.208||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||105.208|92.177|<0.0001
95955249|NCT01947153|191882397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|104.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.274|110.254||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||110.254|99.274|<0.0001
95777092|NCT01005888|191525972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 4 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777093|NCT01005888|191525972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Week 8 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777094|NCT01005888|191525972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Week 12 percent change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95777095|NCT01043705|191525973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sided Fisher's exact test.|0.0044||||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009|||Fisher Exact|||||0.009||0.0023
95777096|NCT01043705|191525973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Text|0.002||||0.0052|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||Fisher Exact|||||0.01||0.0052
95777097|NCT01043705|191525973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-sided Fisher's Exact Test|0.006||||0.0176|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.014|||Fisher Exact|||||0.014||0.0176
95777098|NCT01043705|191525973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's Exact Test|0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3764
95777099|NCT01043705|191525974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to performance goal|4.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.8|||1-sided Chi-square|||||5.8|3.3|0.0005
95860701|NCT02100696|191680244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|9.1||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.9||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||17.9|0.2|0.0445
95777100|NCT01043705|191525974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate compared to a performance goal|3.1||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.1|||1-sided Chi-square test|||||5.1|1.7|0.0444
95860702|NCT02100696|191680245|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.1||||0.9959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|19.88||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.88|-19.67|0.9959
95860703|NCT02100696|191680246|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|3.8||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|14.7||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.70|-7.26|0.5014
95955250|NCT01947153|191882398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence test|Geometric mean ratio|102.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.37|107.688||The p-value relates to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence.|ANOVA||The geometric mean ratio is calculated as the geometric mean of 'Fixed dose combination' divided by the geometric mean of 'Free combination '.|||107.688|98.370|<0.0001
95955251|NCT02381652|191882399|OTHER|Statistical test to see if there is a difference||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
95777101|NCT01043705|191525974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate compared to performance goal|5.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.4|||1-sided Chi-squared test|||All types of mechanical complications combined.||5.4|3.8|0.0006
95777102|NCT01043705|191525974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Descriptive|5.4||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.5|||Chi-squared|||All mechanical complications, retrospective, non-TYRX cohort||7.5|3.7|0.0745
95777103|NCT02945254|191525975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95777104|NCT02945254|191525976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95777105|NCT02003963|191525978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95777106|NCT02719938|191526046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
95777107|NCT02719938|191526047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
95777108|NCT02719938|191526048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
95777109|NCT02719938|191526049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
95777110|NCT02719938|191526050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95777111|NCT02719938|191526051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95777112|NCT02719938|191526052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
95777113|NCT00955968|191526053|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.4||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.40|0.19|0.54
95777114|NCT00955968|191526054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.01||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||4.01|0.11|0.66
95777115|NCT00955968|191526056|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.81||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||2.81|0.09|0.44
95777116|NCT00955968|191526057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.6||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.60|0.54|0.79
95777117|NCT00955968|191526058|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.52||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||1.52|0.54|0.71
95777118|NCT00955968|191526059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.8||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank||HR reflects Continue HAART : Stop HAART|||0.80|0.42|<0.001
95777119|NCT00955968|191526060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03||5% alpha level and 2-sided test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.72|0.10
95777120|NCT00347919|191526080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|2.7||||0.3724||90.0|-11.0|16.3|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of independently-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||16.3|-11.0|0.3724
95777121|NCT00347919|191526080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.4||||0.2578||90.0|-8.4|19.2|||Chi-squared||Difference in the percentage of investigator-evaluated PD between lapatinib and combination therapy (lapatinib plus pazopanib)|||19.2|-8.4|0.2578
95777122|NCT00347919|191526081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7488
95810001|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95777123|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.449|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|24.51|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||24.51|-5.75|
95777124|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|23.79|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||23.79|-8.68|
95777125|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|8.2|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||8.20|-12.04|
95777126|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|31.87|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||31.87|-3.45|
95777127|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|10.92|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||10.92|-10.12|
95777128|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|36.93|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||36.93|13.16|
95777129|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.62||||95.0|-29.94|29.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||29.03|-29.94|
95777130|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.194|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|28.28|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||28.28|-11.67|
95777131|NCT00742508|191526101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.15|-0.63|
95777132|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|15.63|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||15.63|-11.20|
95777133|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|16.84|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||16.84|-17.95|
95860704|NCT02100696|191680247|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|0.6||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|20.35||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.35|-19.08|0.9538
95860705|NCT02100696|191680248|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|14.5||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|25.78||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.78|2.66|0.0153
95860706|NCT02100696|191680249|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|16.8||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|28.41||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.41|4.44|0.0073
95777134|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||5.86|-15.71|
95777135|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|26.59|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||26.59|-7.11|
95777136|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|7.88|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||7.88|-14.78|
95777137|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|22.76|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||22.76|13.36|
95777138|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.17|17.26|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||17.26|-32.17|
95777139|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||15.80|-13.61|
95777140|NCT00742508|191526121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.30|-0.54|
95777141|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.86|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the 24 h assessment.|||4.86|-12.84|
95777142|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|2.95|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Morning assessment.|||2.95|-13.50|
95777143|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|6.94|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Afternoon assessment.|||6.94|-10.89|
95777144|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|6.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Night assessment.|||6.03|-14.32|
95777145|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|5.47|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Waking assessment.|||5.47|-11.45|
95777146|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|9.89|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the Sleeping assessment.|||9.89|-16.12|
95777147|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.749|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|0.41|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax assessment.|||0.41|-20.41|
95777148|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|13.15|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmin assessment.|||13.15|-16.00|
95777149|NCT00742508|191526122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.03|||||The mean treatment difference is calculated as SK\&F-105517-D minus CRV-IR for the PDmax/PDmin assessment.|||0.03|-0.71|
95777150|NCT02426749|191526129|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95777151|NCT04972968|191526160|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.878||P-value \<= 0.05|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\].||||0.878|0.273|0.012
95810002|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95810003|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|72.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|84.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.17|61.05|<0.001
95860707|NCT02100696|191680250|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|11.9||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|21.71||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.71|1.87|0.0174
95860708|NCT02100696|191680251|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.3||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|21.6||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.83|0.3015
95955252|NCT00187135|191882416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
95955253|NCT00187135|191882416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. The sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was obtained.||||0.5
95955254|NCT00187135|191882417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||To adjust for multiple comparisons, p-values less than 0.0167 are considered statistically significant.|McNemar|||The study was designed to achieve statistical power of 80% for this comparison. Due to the early termination of the study, the sample size needed to ensure adequate statistical power for this comparison was not obtained.||||0.5
95955255|NCT00187135|191882418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in heart rate (HR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.87
95955256|NCT00187135|191882419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in respiratory rate (RR) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.67
95860709|NCT02100696|191680252|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Remission Rates|7.4||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|21.17||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.17|-6.23|0.2787
95860710|NCT02100696|191680253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-3.1|0.0763
95860711|NCT02100696|191680254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.2||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.0|0.5329
95777152|NCT04972968|191526160|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.794||P-value \<= 0.01|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.794|0.248|0.004
95777153|NCT04972968|191526160|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.419||P-value \<= 0.001|Log Rank|Stratified by baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at Baseline (\>= 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)\]||||0.419|0.094|<0.001
95777154|NCT04972968|191526161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|41.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid (GC) use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.4|-4.0|0.107
95777155|NCT04972968|191526161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|41.0||P-value ≤ 0.1|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||41.0|-3.1|0.092
95777156|NCT04972968|191526161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|62.3||P-value ≤ 0.001|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent); Length of prior GC treatment for PMR (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year)\].|||62.3|21.4|< 0.001
95777157|NCT04972968|191526162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-88.67||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.04|30.71|||ANCOVA|P-value based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors.|95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[GC use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent);|||30.71|-208.04|0.144
95777158|NCT04972968|191526162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-164.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.62|-45.89||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI are based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone\] equivalent);|||-45.89|-283.62|0.007
95777159|NCT04972968|191526162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-182.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-300.52|-64.58||P-value ≤ 0.01|ANCOVA||P-value and 95% CI based on an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors \[Glucocorticoid use at baseline (≥ 10 mg/day; \< 10 mg/day prednisone equivalent)|||-64.58|-300.52|0.003
95777160|NCT04972968|191526163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.08||P-value \<= 0.05|ANCOVA|P-value based on ANCOVA adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)||||-0.08|-3.08|0.039
95777161|NCT04972968|191526163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.16||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.16|-4.15|<0.001
95810004|NCT01098747|191593358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.48|1.07|0.047
95810005|NCT01098747|191593359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
95810006|NCT01098747|191593359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||2.22|0.79|0.281
95810007|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.67|-11.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.20|-36.67|<0.001
95810008|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.70|-4.12|0.483
95955257|NCT00187135|191882420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of 20% change in blood presure (BP) on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.52
95810009|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-51.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-38.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.22|-65.63|<0.001
95810010|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.61||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.75|-7.97|0.174
95810011|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-53.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.35|-79.80|<0.001
95955258|NCT00187135|191882421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||GEE Model|||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach by Liang and Zeger was used to model the effects of motion (Y/N)on pain (Y/N) while controlling for treatment.||||0.99
95955259|NCT01954771|191882427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
95777162|NCT04972968|191526163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.52||P-value \<= 0.001|ANCOVA|P-value based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|95% CI based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline randomization stratification factors (GC use at baseline)|||-1.52|-4.49|<0.001
95777163|NCT03979807|191526190|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.17|||||Cox proportional hazard model. 'Treatment' is the only Independent variable used to estimate the hazard ratios. Umeclidinium/Vilanterol is Reference Group.|||1.17|1.06|
95860712|NCT02100696|191680255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-4.9||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.0||Nominal P-value reported (not adjusted for multiplicity)|ANCOVA|||||3.0|-12.7|0.2228
95955260|NCT01954771|191882427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.522||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||0.004
95955261|NCT01954771|191882427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from SMBG measurements.||||<0.001
95777164|NCT03626363|191526197|SUPERIORITY|We sought to have up to 20 participants complete each group so that we could have a statistical power of 0.89 to detect about a 4 burst per minute difference with an alpha of 0.05. We would have had sympathetic nerve data on up to 18 more of the 21 participants that we were not allowed to post-test in the spring of 2020 due to COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in the mean number of bursts per minute of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) from pre to post.||||0.51
95777165|NCT03626363|191526198|SUPERIORITY|To detect a 0.5 meter per second change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity with at least 80% power with an alpha of 0.05 we should have had at least 12 participants complete measurements in each group (MBSR and SME). We fell a little short of that in the MBSR group and met the 12 participants in the SME group. The number of participants we were able to study from pre to post was limited by COVID-19 restrictions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance with 2 groups (MBSR and SME) and 2 time points (Pre vs. Post). Outcome data reported is the change in carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity in meters per second from pre to post. We had 21 participants in the spring of 2020 that were were not allowed to bring into the laboratory for post testing during COVID-19 restrictions which led to our limited sample size.||||0.25
95777166|NCT01187498|191526200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis indicated that a sample size of 70 per group would provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 to declare two means equivalent, assuming a mean voiding frequency of 8.2 for behavioral treatment, a mean voiding frequency of 8.0 for drug therapy, and a standard deviation of 2.3 for both groups. Equivalence was defined as ±15% of the drug therapy posttreatment mean.|Difference of the Means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion is the standard error of the regression coefficient which measured the adjusted difference of the group means.|The primary analysis was an equivalence analysis to compare the two treatment groups on posttreatment 24- hour voiding frequency using a margin of ±15% of the drug group mean. Schuirmann's two one-sided tests (TOST) approach was used first to examine completers and then repeated using last observation carried forward to include participants who did not complete therapy. Adjusting the test to regression, the analyses were repeated using baseline voiding frequency as a covariate.||||.001
95777167|NCT01187498|191526201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
95777168|NCT01187498|191526202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Group Means|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.05
95777169|NCT01187498|191526203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Means|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.33
95777170|NCT01187498|191526204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group means.|Standard regression methods adjusting for baseline values||||.84
95777171|NCT01187498|191526205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|-0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249||0.69||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.69
95777172|NCT01187498|191526206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Group Weighted Means|-0.1563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009||0.16||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.16
95777173|NCT01187498|191526207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.1079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1625||0.56||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.56
95777174|NCT01187498|191526208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Weighted Group Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265||0.65||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the weighted group means.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.65
95777175|NCT01187498|191526209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure used to account for the ordinal nature of responses.||||.01
95777176|NCT01187498|191526210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Group Proportions|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared||The estimated parameter of dispersion represents the standard error for the difference of the group proportions.|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel procedure.||||.02
95777177|NCT01970475|191526213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was tested by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the RR of ACR20 at week 24 between ABP 501 and adalimumab with an equivalence margin of (0.738, 1/0.738).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.133|||||Based on a generalized linear model adjusted for geographic region and prior biological use for RA as covariates in the model.|The study hypothesis was that there were no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 501 and adalimumab in risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 at week 24.||1.133|0.954|
95955262|NCT01954771|191882427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.533||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.011
95955263|NCT01954771|191882427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.479||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||0.009
95955264|NCT01954771|191882427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.801|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation analysis|||The correlation study between HbA1c and MBG (mean blood glucose) from CGMS measurements.||||<0.001
95955265|NCT02389725|191882443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95955266|NCT02389725|191882444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95955267|NCT02389725|191882445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95955268|NCT02389725|191882446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95777178|NCT03361306|191526273|SUPERIORITY|Assuming the true VGPR+ rate is 40% under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. For the originally planned enrollment of 40 subjects, if at least 21 subjects achieved VGPR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Response Rate|0.467||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.734||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment on the study. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.734|0.213|0.390
95777179|NCT05175131|191526320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA||Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Mebeverine. Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||1.8|0.3|0.0042
95777180|NCT05175131|191526320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.4|||ANCOVA||Adjusted least squares mean (difference between Mebeverine+Simethicone combination and Mebeverine) from ANCOVA is presented here|Mean difference of Mebeverine+Simethicone combination to Simethicone. ANCOVA was used for primary end point analysis. The model included the change from baseline of the NRS\_11 score as dependent variable and treatment and site as independent factors, and baseline NRS-11 as covariate.||2.4|0.9|<0.0001
95777181|NCT05711381|191526328|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.41||||||||1.41|0.59|
95777182|NCT05711381|191526329|OTHER|PK parameters of HM15912 from the severe renal impairment group (Cohort 2) were to be estimated and compared to the control group (Cohort 1, normal renal function). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to be used to compare log transformed PK parameters. The estimates of mean difference and corresponding 90% CIs, as well as each exponentiation of estimates, were to be presented to provide the estimates of GMR.|Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.68||||||||1.68|0.93|
95777183|NCT02102100|191526347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square means and standard errors were calculated to describe the patterns of means for each outcome. Effect slices were tested to explain significant interactions in the models. Pairwise comparisons of least square means were used to describe significant main effects.||||<.0001
95777184|NCT05014815|191526349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.33|0.74|0.4698
95777185|NCT05014815|191526350|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||||The Mantel-Haenszel common OR and its 95% CI were estimated using a normal approximation of the log odds ratio and the Robins-Breslow-Greenland variance, stratified by PD-L1 expression and histology.|||1.26|0.47|
95777186|NCT05014815|191526352|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||||The HR and its 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 expression (\<1% of tumor cells (TC) vs 1-49% TC vs \>= 50% TC) and histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||1.34|0.67|
95810012|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-3.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|1.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.89|-9.38|0.240
95810013|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-47.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.50|-75.21|<0.001
95810014|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.52||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|8.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.52|-5.47|0.668
95810015|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-60.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-74.28|<0.001
95810016|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|7.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.63|-7.44|0.980
95860713|NCT03237286|191680267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0004
95955269|NCT00475735|191882450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.341
95860714|NCT00104520|191680290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||0.0||||Analysis based on 2-sided test with 0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||H0: no difference between AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in time to need for inhaled or IV antibiotics. Assuming 2-sided significance level of 0.05, \~210 subjects (70 in each AZLI group, 35 in each placebo group) provided \>90% power to reject null hypothesis based on Lakatos normal approximation method with weights being one. Therefore, 250 subjects were to be randomized at Visit 2 (Day -28) to ensure at least 210 participants entered double-blind treatment period at Day 0.||||0.0070
95955270|NCT00475735|191882450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Since this is a proof of concept study with one primary hypothesis (AISRS total score for MK-0249 vs. placebo), there is no multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|The terms were tobacco use, prior stimulant use, time, site, period, sequence, treatment, period-by-time, sequence-by-time, and treatment-by-time.||||||0.001
95777187|NCT03747302|191526404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95955271|NCT01187407|191882459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||||||Primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
95955272|NCT01187407|191882459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||||||Secondary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.769
95955273|NCT04281875|191882490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6905
95955274|NCT01770509|191882508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.652
95777188|NCT03747302|191526405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean scores for behavioral intent to vaccine: negative values: smaller values indicate more likely to vaccinate.||||>.05
95777189|NCT00738062|191526421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.438
95777190|NCT00738062|191526422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHDAS Composite value at randomization.||||||0.554
95777191|NCT00738062|191526423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Composite value at baseline.||||||0.198
95777192|NCT00738062|191526424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.286
95777193|NCT00738062|191526425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at randomization.||||||0.251
95777194|NCT00738062|191526426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.708
95777195|NCT00738062|191526427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.873
95777196|NCT00738062|191526428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.252
95777197|NCT00738062|191526429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.330
95777198|NCT00628095|191526437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0221||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.13|||Normal Approximation method|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed.|Power of 80% and a Type I error at 0.10 in a 1-sided test was calculated. Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the CE-224,535 and placebo arm groups, on the percentage of ACR 20 responders at Week 12.|Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.13|-0.17|0.591
95777199|NCT00628095|191526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.1232||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|-0.02|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||-0.02|-0.22|0.941
95777200|NCT00628095|191526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0622||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.05|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.05|-0.18|0.742
95777201|NCT00628095|191526438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.004||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.12|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.12|-0.11|0.482
95777202|NCT00628095|191526439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0072||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.06|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.06|-0.08|0.989
95777203|NCT00628095|191526439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.0096||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.08|0.957
95777204|NCT00628095|191526439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0044||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.09|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.09|-0.08|0.473
95777205|NCT00628095|191526439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|-0.057||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.03|||Normal Approximation method|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the normal approximation method.||0.03|-0.15|0.793
95777206|NCT00628095|191526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
95777207|NCT00628095|191526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0141||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.07|||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.07|-0.05|0.421
95777208|NCT00628095|191526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0566||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.12|||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.12|0.01|0.058
95955275|NCT01770509|191882509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|General Linear Model ANOVA with repeated measures||||||0.645
95777209|NCT00628095|191526440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|0.0377||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.09|||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: Treatment effect was estimated by the difference of percentages between the treatment groups, and tested using the Barnard exact test.||0.09|-0.00|0.121
95777210|NCT00628095|191526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 2: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
95955276|NCT01370564|191882535|OTHER|There was no specific hypothesis tested. The method of Rao and Scott for clustered binary data was used to construct a point estimate and 95% confidence interval for the number of days during the follow-up period across all subjects in which the patient instruction set was based on the subject's pressure state as measured by the Chronicle IHM/ICD system.|Rao-Scott estimator for clustered data|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|78.0||||||||78|65|
95777211|NCT00628095|191526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 4: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
95777212|NCT00628095|191526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 8: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||1.0000
95777213|NCT00628095|191526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 12: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
95777214|NCT00628095|191526448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED||||||Barnard exact test|||Week 14: p-value was analyzed using Barnard Exact Test.||||0.0637
95777215|NCT00783224|191526459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95777216|NCT00783224|191526459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95777217|NCT03422159|191526460|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the results of the preliminary study of Marik et al, 5 we projected that the combination of ascorbic acid, thiamine, and hydrocortisone could reduce time to vasopressor discontinuation from 54 (+/-30 hours) vs 30 hours. For the additional primary outcome, we projected a greater change of SOFA score of 4 (+/-3) vs 2. Assuming a type 1 error of 5% (alpha of 0.05) and a power of 80%, this study would require a sample size of 94 patients.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95777218|NCT01032239|191526484|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.667||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-1.0|-0.1667|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To test the null hypothesis the sample size needed was 44 evaluable patient (22 per arm) with a power of 80 %.||-0.1667|-1.000|0.0140
95777219|NCT01032239|191526485|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann|-0.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.2000|-1.0000|0.0042
95777220|NCT01032239|191526486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0540
95777221|NCT01032239|191526487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6256
95777222|NCT01032239|191526488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3676|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3676
95777223|NCT01032239|191526489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Actual Pain||||0.0380
95777224|NCT01032239|191526489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Least Pain||||0.0136
95777225|NCT01032239|191526489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Worst Pain||||0.2427
95777226|NCT01032239|191526490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7661
95777227|NCT01032239|191526491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Utility Score||||0.0197
95777228|NCT01032239|191526491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS||||0.3807
95777229|NCT01032239|191526492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PCS||||0.1068
95777230|NCT01032239|191526492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCS||||0.6824
95777231|NCT01032239|191526493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2105
95777232|NCT02484651|191526527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05, considering the primary hypothesis of a reduction in the BIS variability (measured as the standard deviation). A 25% reduction on the BIS variability (standard deviation) was considered clinically relevant, and gave a minimum sample size of 26 per group.||||0.651
95777233|NCT02484651|191526528|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to the propofol effect-site concentration. Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the propofol drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on propofol mean effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 34 patients per group||||<0.001
95777234|NCT02484651|191526528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"This statistical analysis applies to the remifentanil effect-site concentration.~Sample size calculation was performed with a power of 0.80 and an α of 0.05 also a reduction in the remifentanil drug consumption (measured as the average effect-site concentration) during maintenance of anesthesia. A reduction on on remifentanil average effect-site concentration of 20% was considered clinically relevant, giving a minimum of 24 patients per group"||||0.245
95777235|NCT02484651|191526529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 15 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.419
95777236|NCT02484651|191526529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS overall recovery at 40 minutes was independent from the study group.||||0.107
95777237|NCT02484651|191526530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that PQRS satisfaction with anesthetic care was independent of the study group.||||0.669
95777238|NCT03660475|191526536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967
95777239|NCT03660475|191526537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
95777240|NCT03660475|191526538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.166
95777241|NCT03660475|191526539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
95777242|NCT03660475|191526540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
95777243|NCT03660475|191526541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
95777244|NCT03660475|191526542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
95777245|NCT03660475|191526544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.903
95777246|NCT03660475|191526545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898
95777247|NCT03660475|191526546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
95777248|NCT03660475|191526547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
95777249|NCT00794040|191526553|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|68.16||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||68.16|2.00|0.006
95777250|NCT00794040|191526554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.09||priori threshold \<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||0.09|-1.32|0.085
95777251|NCT00794040|191526555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.74||priori threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.74|-1.30|0.124
95777252|NCT00794040|191526556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.8||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||4.80|-4.76|0.993
95810017|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-59.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.05|-45.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.50|-73.05|<0.001
95777253|NCT00794040|191526557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|2.19||priori threshold p\<0.05|Multilevel growth curve model|||||2.19|-4.23|0.598
95777254|NCT02832375|191526620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|-0.319|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|H0= no difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice H1= a difference between experimental dentifrice and control dentifrice||-0.319|-0.577|<0.0001
95777255|NCT05537792|191526659|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.579
95777256|NCT05537792|191526659|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
95777257|NCT05537792|191526659|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.5513|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5513
95777258|NCT05537792|191526659|OTHER|Paired t-tests were used to compare the offline forward estimation error of each adapted forward estimator with the baseline during overground walking.||||||0.00034|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00034
95810018|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.56||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.81|-6.68|0.711
95810019|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-42.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.85|-70.84|<0.001
95777259|NCT03495154|191526672|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|Percentage and confidence interval|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.5||||||Number of participants with hernia recurrence within 12 months following Parietene™ DS Composite Mesh use in ventral hernia repair||8.5|1.0|
95777260|NCT03495154|191526673|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of with ADEs at discharge. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95777261|NCT03495154|191526673|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 1 month. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95777262|NCT03495154|191526673|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 3 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95997227|NCT04321343|191970129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|0.0351|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0351|-0.0139|0.3955
95777263|NCT03495154|191526673|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 12 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADE) is inclusive of both procedure and/or device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95777264|NCT03495154|191526673|OTHER|Statistical Analysis is based on number of participants with incidence of ADEs within 24 months. Adverse Device Effects (ADEs) are inclusive of both procedure and device related AEs.|Number of Subjects with ADEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95810020|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.72||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|13.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.38|-5.94|0.445
95777265|NCT03495154|191526674|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 1M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.9||||||||2.9|0|
95777266|NCT03495154|191526674|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 3M|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0||||||||3.0|0|
95777267|NCT03495154|191526674|OTHER|This was not a comparative endpoint.|% of Subjects with Recurrence within 24M|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.6||||||||9.6|1.2|
95777268|NCT02100670|191526675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-9.23||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|12.98||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||12.98|-31.45|0.4144
95777269|NCT02100670|191526676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|21.5||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||21.50|-18.34|0.8761
95777270|NCT02100670|191526676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.61||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.46|24.67||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||24.67|-19.46|0.8164
95777271|NCT02100670|191526676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|23.33||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||23.33|-21.27|0.9279
95777272|NCT02100670|191526676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.81||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|11.64||P-value from multiple comparisons using t-test in Proc Mixed.|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, site as fixed effects, pain intensity at baseline as a covariates.|Difference of LS mean of first named treatment minus second named treatment. Lower values of LS mean favours a better response because of lower pain intensity over time. 95% Confidence intervals of difference between LS means.|||11.64|-33.26|0.3442
95777273|NCT02100670|191526681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.1||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.48||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.48|0.81|0.5404
95777274|NCT02100670|191526681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.9||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.20|0.67|0.4639
95777275|NCT02100670|191526681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.09||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.84|0.5118
95810021|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.77|-38.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-38.81|-66.77|<0.001
95810022|NCT01098747|191593360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.05||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|16.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.84|-4.75|0.256
95810023|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.34||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.34|1.34|0.078
95810024|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.74||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|8.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.49|-3.01|0.303
95955277|NCT02332824|191882542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4845|-0.1649||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 5 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.1649|-0.4845|<0.0001
95997228|NCT04321343|191970129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0115|0.0362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0362|-0.0115|0.3081
95777276|NCT02100670|191526682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.93||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.31|0.67|0.6918
95777277|NCT02100670|191526682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.23||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.73|0.87|0.2389
95777278|NCT02100670|191526682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.0||||0.9817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.37||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to reach perceptible pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.37|0.74|0.9817
95810025|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.14|36.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.34|18.14|<0.001
95810026|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.66||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|17.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.63|-4.31|0.217
95955278|NCT02332824|191882542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6251|-0.3132||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 20 mg-placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3132|-0.6251|<0.0001
95777279|NCT02100670|191526683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.06||||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.43|0.79|0.7003
95777280|NCT02100670|191526683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.01||||0.9565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.35|0.75|0.9565
95777281|NCT02100670|191526683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.07||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to cooling sensation. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||1.40|0.82|0.6216
95777282|NCT02100670|191526687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|2.43||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.7||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||5.70|1.04|0.0408
95777283|NCT02100670|191526687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.31||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.65|0.65|0.4507
95777284|NCT02100670|191526687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox proportional hazard ratio|1.38||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.61||P-value from chi-square test of survival analysis.|chi-square test of survival analysis||Cox proportional hazard ratio of survival time, i.e. time to complete pain relief. The 95% confidence intervals of cox proportional hazard ratio.|||2.61|0.73|0.3150
95777285|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 3||1.17|0.75|<0.001
95777286|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 7F||1.33|0.88|<0.001
95777287|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 8||1.36|0.93|<0.001
95777288|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 9N||1.29|0.86|<0.001
95860715|NCT00104520|191680291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.21||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores.||9.21|0.81|0.0196
95955279|NCT02332824|191882542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7897|-0.4711||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 40 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4711|-0.7897|<0.0001
95777289|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 10A||2.14|1.28|<0.001
95777290|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.92|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 11A||1.92|1.20|<0.001
95955280|NCT02332824|191882542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8083|-0.4908||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (TAK-272 80 mg -placebo) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.4908|-0.8083|<0.0001
95955281|NCT02332824|191882542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6874|-0.3719||In the primary analysis, each TAK-272 group will be compared with placebo group based on a step-down testing procedure, which will be employed for multiple comparison adjustment.|ANCOVA||Estimated Value was for LS mean differences (Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg -placebo group) in log-transformed UACR changes from baseline to the end of treatment period.|||-0.3719|-0.6874|<0.0001
95777291|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.72|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 12F||2.72|1.43|<0.001
95810027|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|41.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|51.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.12|31.20|<0.001
95810028|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.33|0.149
95810029|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.49|58.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||58.73|38.49|<0.001
95810030|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.55||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|17.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.13|-8.03|0.477
95955282|NCT03740919|191882552|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin \[NIM\]=0.4% for HbA1c|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.17|0.783
95955283|NCT03740919|191882553|NON_INFERIORITY|NIM of 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.20|0.867
95955284|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.30|1.13|0.008
95955285|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.83|0.75|0.487
95955286|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.13|0.47|0.153
95955287|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.08|1.06|0.020
95810031|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|52.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.63|62.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||62.99|42.63|<0.001
95777292|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.0|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 17F||2.00|1.28|<0.001
95777293|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 19A||1.45|0.93|<0.001
95777294|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.77|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 20A||1.77|1.18|<0.001
95777295|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.76|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 22F||1.76|1.10|<0.001
95777296|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 12 serotypes common to both V116 and PPSV23, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 33F||1.12|0.68|<0.001
95777297|NCT05633992|191526702|NON_INFERIORITY|For serotype 15B, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15B||1.89|1.07|<0.001
95777298|NCT05633992|191526702|SUPERIORITY|For serotype 15C, a conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the OPA GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) to be \>1.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Day 30 GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|cLDA model with terms for vaccination group, time, interaction of time-by-vaccination, age stratum at baseline, and interaction of time-by-age stratum|Ratio is V116/PPSV23. GMT ratio and confidence interval estimated from the cLDA model. The cLDA model-based ratio includes estimated data for participants who had baseline data available but no day 30 measurement.|Serotype 15C||2.70|1.56|<0.001
95777299|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|36.9|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 6A||36.9|17.8|<0.001
95864428|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
95955288|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.76|0.78|0.455
95955289|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.19|0.52|0.259
95955290|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||2.51|1.29|<0.001
95955291|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||1.43|0.64|0.822
95955292|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||0.80|0.35|0.003
95955293|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||2.14|0.94|0.092
95955294|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||1.11|0.45|0.133
95955295|NCT03740919|191882554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||≤ 70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||0.80|0.31|0.004
95777300|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|43.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 15A||43.0|23.6|<0.001
95777301|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|46.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 16F||46.4|29.8|<0.001
95777302|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|40.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23A||40.6|17.4|<0.001
95777303|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|46.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 23B||46.7|29.3|<0.001
95777304|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|35.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 24F||35.6|18.3|<0.001
95777305|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|57.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|64.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 31||64.4|49.3|<0.001
95777306|NCT05633992|191526703|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority of V116 to PPSV23 requires the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference (V116-PPSV23) between the percentage of participants to be \>0 percentage points (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||Estimated difference and confidence interval are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Serotype 35B||54.1|39.5|<0.001
95777307|NCT03841357|191526773|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.429|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with composite of primary endpoints were the same between two groups.||1.429|0.603|0.7357
95777308|NCT03841357|191526773|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.48||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with composite of primary endpoints were the same between two groups.||1.48|0.90|
95777309|NCT03841357|191526773|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.51||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with composite of primary endpoints were the same between two groups.||1.51|0.93|
95777310|NCT03841357|191526774|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|3.145|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||3.145|0.565|0.507
95777311|NCT03841357|191526774|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.59||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||2.59|0.38|
95777312|NCT03841357|191526774|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.37||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||2.37|0.77|
95777313|NCT03841357|191526775|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.92||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||2.92|0.32|
95777314|NCT03841357|191526775|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.38||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||3.38|0.29|
95777315|NCT03841357|191526776|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.282|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||1.282|0.482|0.327
95864429|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955296|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.220
95955297|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.599
95955298|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.112
95955299|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.034
95955300|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.055
95955301|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||\< 54 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.814
95955302|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.194
95777316|NCT03841357|191526776|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.09||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||2.09|0.53|
95777317|NCT03841357|191526776|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.59||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||1.59|0.90|
95777318|NCT03841357|191526777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.13||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||2.13|1.05|
95777319|NCT03841357|191526777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.04||||||The null hypothesis was the proportions of the patients with this primary endpoint were the same between two groups.||2.04|1.08|
95777320|NCT03841357|191526778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.35||||||||2.35|0.53|
95777321|NCT03841357|191526778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.24||||||||2.24|0.76|
95777322|NCT03841357|191526779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.19||||||||2.19|0.48|
95777323|NCT03841357|191526779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.24||||||||2.24|0.74|
95777324|NCT03841357|191526780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17||||||||2.17|0.49|
95810032|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.14||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|10.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.50|-14.77|0.739
95777325|NCT03841357|191526780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.89||||||||1.89|0.64|
95777326|NCT03841357|191526781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-2.09|0.005
95777327|NCT03841357|191526782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.16|-11.86|0.174
95777328|NCT03841357|191526783|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.80|0.35|0.012
95777329|NCT03841357|191526784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|0.69|<0.001
95777330|NCT03841357|191526787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.28|0.002
95777331|NCT03841357|191526788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.84|<0.001
95810033|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
95777332|NCT01458951|191526819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|13.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.9|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation (NRI).||17.9|8.1|0.0005
95777333|NCT01458951|191526820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|24.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|9.5|0.0002
95777334|NCT01458951|191526821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
95777335|NCT01458951|191526822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|5.2||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.6|1.8|0.0425
95777336|NCT01458951|191526823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|18.1|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference in its percentage and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.1|8.3|0.0004
95777337|NCT01458951|191526824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|8.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.2|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||12.2|3.9|0.0090
95810034|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-6.8||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|5.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.65|-19.24|0.280
95864430|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Physician's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95810035|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
95810036|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.01||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|4.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.41|-20.44|0.202
95810037|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
95810038|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.02|3.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.80|-21.02|0.170
95810039|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
95810040|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
95810041|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|48.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.29|60.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||60.77|36.29|<0.001
95810042|NCT01098747|191593361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.23||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|3.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference \[Ibuprofen sodium - Ibuprofen (Advil + Motrin IB)\] and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.16|-21.62|0.140
95810043|NCT01098747|191593362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.98|0.83|<0.001
95810044|NCT01098747|191593362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.24||p-value was calculated using the PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.24|-0.15|0.667
95810045|NCT03801525|191593375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.755|||Log Rank|||||2.755|0.219|0.6960
95810046|NCT03801525|191593382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.201||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.721|||Log Rank|||||1.721|0.023|0.1038
95810047|NCT00600340|191593387|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042||||0.1983|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.689||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.689||0.1983
95864431|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955303|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.428
95955304|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 1 hour post-dose||||0.057
95955305|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.056
95955306|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.435
95955307|NCT03740919|191882555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Negative binomial regression|Treatment and age group as covariates, log (exposure/365.25 days) as the offset in the model.||≤70 mg/dL 2 hour post-dose||||0.404
95955308|NCT03740919|191882556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.57|0.68|0.864
95997229|NCT04321343|191970129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0053|0.0383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.0383|-0.0053|0.1374
95777338|NCT01458951|191526825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|3.3||||0.1408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.6|||CMH Chi-square Test|||P-value was based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Percentage difference and its 95% CI was based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||6.6|0.1|0.1408
95777339|NCT01458951|191526827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
95777340|NCT01458951|191526827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.0001
95777341|NCT01458951|191526827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
95777342|NCT01458951|191526828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
95777343|NCT03309696|191526838|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS - sham tDCS.|Examines the effect of tDCS preconditioning on P100 amplitudes. The effect size for this comparison was .33 (Cohen's).||||.055
95777344|NCT03309696|191526838|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \<.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons because it was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sham tDCS - Sham tDCS and Active rTMS|Examines the effect of rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The calculated effect size is .35 (Cohen's).||||0.0418
95777345|NCT03309696|191526838|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value is not adjusted as this was a planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Effect of tDCS preconditioning on active rTMS: active tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS - sham tDCS preconditioning of active rTMS.|Examines the additive effect of tDCS preconditioning on the P100 amplitude after rTMS. The effect size for this comparison was 0.14.||||0.40
95777346|NCT03309696|191526838|EQUIVALENCE|A p value less than 0.05 is taken as evidence of nonequivalence.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was not adjusted for this planned contrast.|Mixed Models Analysis||Active tDCS and Active rTMS - Sham tDCS and Sham rTMS.|Examines the combined effect of tDCS and rTMS on the P100 amplitude. The effect size for this comparison was .29 (Cohen's).||||.086
95810048|NCT00600340|191593387|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.018||||0.007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.261||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.261||0.0070
95777347|NCT04803214|191526839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95777348|NCT04803214|191526840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95810049|NCT00600340|191593387|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.2024|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.674||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.674||0.2024
95864432|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.072
95777349|NCT04803214|191526841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95777350|NCT04657523|191526842|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on all measurements assuming independency.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.5749|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI) derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record. A higher HRI value indicates greater liver fat accumulation, which reflects a worse outcome, while a lower HRI suggests less hepatic fat and a better outcome."||||
95777351|NCT04657523|191526842|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on the subject level averages of multiple measurements.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.6143|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI) derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record. A higher HRI value indicates greater liver fat accumulation, which reflects a worse outcome, while a lower HRI suggests less hepatic fat and a better outcome."||||
95810050|NCT00600340|191593387|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.0612|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.386||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals. Non-inferiority margin was a HR of 1.33.|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.386||0.0612
95777352|NCT04657523|191526842|OTHER|To account for within subject variance in repeated measures by two different operators, a method with MIXED model for repeated measurements was used to estimate the correlation between two techniques with repeated measures. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Model|0.5944|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI) derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record. A higher HRI value indicates greater liver fat accumulation, which reflects a worse outcome, while a lower HRI suggests less hepatic fat and a better outcome."||||
95777353|NCT04657523|191526843|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on all measurements assuming independency.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.6824|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation  derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95777354|NCT04657523|191526843|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on the subject averages of multiple measurements.|Pearson correlation coefficient|0.7331|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation  derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95810051|NCT00600340|191593388|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.1534|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.606||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, stratified).||1.606||0.1534
95810052|NCT00600340|191593388|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: Hazard ratio (HR) \>= 1.33~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.0085|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.273||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, stratified).||1.273||0.0085
95810053|NCT00600340|191593388|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.1778|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.623||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (interim, unstratified).||1.623||0.1778
95810054|NCT00600340|191593388|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Hazard Ratio (HR) \>= 1.33 Based on Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.049|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.37||Based on approach using repeated confidence intervals, with one-sided 97.5% repeated confidence intervals|Regression, Cox||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for OS (final, unstratified).||1.37||0.049
95810055|NCT00600340|191593394|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR) of objective response and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (stratified)||0.67|0.33|< 0.0001
95810056|NCT00600340|191593394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-9|-24|
95777355|NCT04657523|191526843|OTHER|To account for within subject variance in repeated measures by two different operators, a method with MIXED model for repeated measurements was used to estimate the correlation between two techniques with repeated measures. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Correlation estimated from a mixed model|0.7066|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation  derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95810057|NCT00600340|191593394|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
95955309|NCT03740919|191882556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||\<54 mg/dL||1.12|0.43|0.132
95955310|NCT03740919|191882556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.41|0.104
95955311|NCT03740919|191882556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.52|0.42|0.489
95810058|NCT00600340|191593394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
95810059|NCT00600340|191593395|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.31|< 0.0001
95810060|NCT00600340|191593395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-10.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-10|-26|
95810061|NCT00600340|191593395|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
95955312|NCT03740919|191882556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||0.90|0.23|0.025
95777356|NCT04657523|191526844|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on all observations assuming independency.|Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.0539|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Tissue stiffness derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95777357|NCT04657523|191526844|OTHER|Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated based on the subject averages of multiple measurements.|Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.0622|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Tissue stiffness derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95777358|NCT04657523|191526844|OTHER|To account for within subject variance in repeated measures by two different operators, a method with MIXED model for repeated measurements was used to estimate the correlation between two techniques with repeated measures. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Correlation estimated from a mixed model|-0.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"To assess the correlation between quantitative ultrasound biomarker Tissue stiffness derived from the investigational LFQ feature and the clinical MRI-PDFF fat fraction obtained from the subject's medical record."||||
95955313|NCT03740919|191882556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||≤70 mg/dL||1.11|0.29|0.099
95955314|NCT03740919|191882557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.732
95955315|NCT03740919|191882557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\< 54 mg/dL||||0.638
95955316|NCT03740919|191882557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||Negative binomial regression|||\<54 mg/dL||||0.462
95777359|NCT04657523|191526845|OTHER|The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to test the same day inter-operator reliability. The estimated inter-operator correlation coefficient and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86||||||To assess the difference in quantitative ultrasound biomarker measurements which acquired from the same subject on the same day by two different operators who have undergone standardized training for LFQ data acquisition.||0.86|0.64|
95810062|NCT00600340|191593395|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as the DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
95810063|NCT00600340|191593396|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
95810064|NCT00600340|191593396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-11.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-11|-28|
95864433|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955317|NCT03740919|191882557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.632
95955318|NCT03740919|191882557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.800
95955319|NCT03740919|191882557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||Negative binomial regression|||≤ 70 mg/dL||||0.889
95955320|NCT03740919|191882559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.2|0.130
95955321|NCT03740919|191882559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||1.4|-0.5|0.404
95955322|NCT03740919|191882559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Basal Insulin||0.8|-1.2|0.693
95955323|NCT03740919|191882559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||2.3|-1.4|0.625
95955324|NCT03740919|191882559|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.9|-2.6|0.758
95777360|NCT04657523|191526846|OTHER|The proportion of subjects who have at least one unacceptable image quality due to inadequate acoustic scanning windows, motion artifacts, or other technical limitations and the associated 2-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals were calculated and summarized by each operator and overall.|Proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.9||||||"To evaluate the LFQ data acquisition failure rate for the biomarker Hepatorenal Index (HRI)"||4.9|0|
95777361|NCT04657523|191526847|OTHER|The proportion of subjects who have at least one unacceptable image quality due to inadequate acoustic scanning windows, motion artifacts, or other technical limitations and the associated 2-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals were calculated and summarized by each operator and overall.|Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||"To evaluate the LFQ data acquisition failure rate for the biomarker Acoustic attenuation (dB/cm/MHZ)"||0|0|
95777362|NCT04657523|191526848|OTHER|The proportion of subjects who have at least one unacceptable image quality due to inadequate acoustic scanning windows, motion artifacts, or other technical limitations and the associated 2-sided 95% binomial confidence intervals were calculated and summarized by each operator and overall.|Proportion|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.9||||||"To evaluate the LFQ data acquisition failure rate for the biomarker Tissue stiffness (kPa)"||4.9|0.0|
95777363|NCT04657523|191526849|OTHER|The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the same day inter-operator reliability. The estimated inter-operator correlation coefficient and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||||||To assess the difference in quantitative ultrasound biomarker Acoustic attenuation measurements which acquired from the same subject on the same day by two different operators who have undergone standardized training for LFQ data acquisition.||0.84|0.60|
95777364|NCT04657523|191526850|OTHER|The Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated to test the inter-operator reliability. The estimated inter-operator correlation coefficient and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported|Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.67||||||To assess the difference in quantitative ultrasound biomarker measurements which acquired from the same subject on the same day by two different operators who have undergone standardized training for LFQ data acquisition.||0.67|0.30|
95777365|NCT04216329|191526898|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
95777366|NCT04216329|191526898|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
95777367|NCT04216329|191526898|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
95777368|NCT04216329|191526898|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
95777369|NCT04216329|191526898|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.02
95777370|NCT04216329|191526898|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value 0.07 represents the difference between baseline depression scores and completion of treatment scores.|Students t-test|||||||0.07
95777371|NCT04216329|191526900|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
95777372|NCT04216329|191526900|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
95777373|NCT04216329|191526900|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Students t-test|||||||0.09
95777374|NCT01928797|191526937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95810065|NCT00600340|191593396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.7||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.70|0.27|0.0006
95955325|NCT03740919|191882559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Daily Insulin Dose||1.5|-3.1|0.485
95955326|NCT03740919|191882560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||2.00|0.76|0.396
95777375|NCT01928797|191526938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95777376|NCT01711619|191526940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 4% was predefined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation of the proportion for ITT.||||<0.0001
95777377|NCT01711619|191526941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
95777378|NCT01711619|191526942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||0.0002
95777379|NCT01711619|191526943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal alpha of 5% was pre-defined for the final analysis.|Fisher Exact|||Subjects with missing information were considered in the test and computation for ITT.||||<0.0001
95777380|NCT04601103|191527027|OTHER|Generalized Fisher's Exact Test was used to detect an association between the 3 treatment groups and the incidence of sloughing||||||0.916|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.916
95955327|NCT03740919|191882560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.75|0.49|0.814
95777381|NCT04713592|191527063|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|17.2|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||29.3|5.0|=0.006
95777382|NCT04713592|191527065|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|39.7||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||39.7|15.4|<0.001
95955328|NCT03740919|191882560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7%||1.43|0.39|0.384
95955329|NCT03740919|191882560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.27|0.55|0.400
95955330|NCT03740919|191882560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.08|0.36|0.094
95777383|NCT04713592|191527066|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.1||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.1|11.5|<0.001
95777384|NCT04713592|191527067|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|32.2||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||32.2|9.1|<0.001
95777385|NCT04713592|191527068|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|24.3||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for Baseline ppIGA and Baseline BSA categories for comparison of treatment groups based on non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: Risankizumab - Placebo|Risankizumab vs Placebo at Week 16||24.3|8.2|<0.001
95777386|NCT01056198|191527069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The BWAT-m scores were compared at each of the 4 treatment weeks and at the end of the follow-up using a mixed-effects ANCOVA for the intent-to-treat population. Treatment and treatment week, as well as their interaction, were defined as fixed effects with subject as a random effect. The BWAT-m score at baseline was used as a covariate.||||=0.208
95777387|NCT01056198|191527070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2737
95777388|NCT01056198|191527071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2741||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no differences between the 2 treatments with the alternative of non-zero differences. 48 evaluable subjects is sufficient to detect an effect size of 0.80.||||=0.2741
95777389|NCT01056198|191527072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0164||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.0164
95777390|NCT01056198|191527073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9392||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test, 2-sided, alpha = 0.05||||=0.9392
95810066|NCT00600340|191593396|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, units in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-18|
95810067|NCT00600340|191593397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.6||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for objective response of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of objective response and CMH test (stratified)||0.60|0.29|< 0.0001
95810068|NCT00600340|191593397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-13.0|||||Difference calculated as ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus ORR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in ORR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-13|-30|
95860716|NCT00104520|191680292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.28||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.06||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in percent change from baseline in FEV1 (L).||10.060|2.500|0.0012
95955331|NCT03740919|191882560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||HbA1c \< 7.5%||1.31|0.43|0.306
95955332|NCT02418819|191882572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032||0.8243|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-4.78||||ANCOVA|One(1)-sided P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-4.78|0.8243
95955333|NCT02418819|191882572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252||0.8277|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-5.33||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-5.33|0.8277
95955334|NCT02418819|191882572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902||0.981|ONE_SIDED|92.0|-6.7||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day -2 assessment.|||-6.70|0.9810
95997230|NCT04321343|191970130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.86||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.073|-7.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-7.817|-90.073|0.0199
95777391|NCT02431806|191527074|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.64|-3.41|0.8035
95777392|NCT02431806|191527074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.31|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.31|-2.80|0.8681
95777393|NCT02431806|191527074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.47||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.58|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.58|-4.52|0.3439
95955335|NCT02418819|191882573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.4821|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.6682||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.6682|0.4821
95777394|NCT02431806|191527075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.25|0.8788
95777395|NCT02431806|191527075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.29|-0.26|0.9230
95777396|NCT02431806|191527075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline and baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.13|-0.42|0.2895
95777397|NCT03649178|191527076|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
95777398|NCT03649178|191527077|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
95777399|NCT03649178|191527078|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95777400|NCT04120584|191527079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95777401|NCT04120584|191527080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95777402|NCT04687072|191527100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.5||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|7.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% confidence interval (CI) (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||7.0|-14.7|0.5081
95777403|NCT04687072|191527101|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.4925
95810069|NCT00600340|191593397|SUPERIORITY|OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.65||"Test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR is the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by the odds for disease control of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel|OR of disease control and CMH test (stratified)||0.65|0.24|0.0003
95777404|NCT04687072|191527102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.5||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|10.0||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentages and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) were presented.|||10.0|-11.7|0.9314
95777405|NCT04687072|191527103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test p-value was used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The adjusted difference in percentage and 95% CI (Klingenberg approach) are presented.|||8.2|-12.4|0.7379
95777406|NCT04687072|191527104|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|16.8|||||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|16.8|-9.3|
95777407|NCT04687072|191527105|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||0.000|0.000|0.7260
95777408|NCT04687072|191527106|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.0|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||13.0|-9.6|
95810070|NCT00600340|191593397|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-6.0|||||Difference calculated as DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine minus DCR in Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel, unit in percent.|Difference in DCR in Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel||-6|-19|
95997231|NCT04321343|191970130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.66||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.558|7.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.009|-66.558|0.1120
95777409|NCT04687072|191527109|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.2929
95777410|NCT04687072|191527110|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|||1.000|0.000|0.1475
95777411|NCT04687072|191527111|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|0.0||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||The p-value was calculated using the stratified Mann-Whitney test used in the hierarchical testing procedure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the treatment difference and 95% CI are presented.|WHO Classified Bleeding Event Grade ≥1||2.000|-2.000|0.7677
95777412|NCT04687072|191527112|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|7.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Complete Response||7.3|-11.8|
95777413|NCT04687072|191527112|OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|20.2|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|IWG Response||20.2|-4.6|
95777414|NCT04687072|191527112|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|13.3|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|Initial Response||13.3|-9.7|
95777415|NCT04687072|191527114|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.7|||||The 95% Agresti-Min CIs are presented.|||5.7|-15.6|
95777416|NCT02754674|191527124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95860717|NCT00104520|191680294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.193|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and baseline highest MIC of aztreonam for PA (\<=2, 4-8, 16-128 or \>=256 μg/mL) value.||Null hypothesis was there is no difference between 75 mg AZLI and placebo (pooled treatment groups) in mean change from baseline in log10 PA CFUs in sputum.||-0.193|-1.125|0.0059
95777417|NCT02754674|191527125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95777418|NCT02754674|191527126|SUPERIORITY|Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. The statistical significance level was set at .05.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess the normality of the data distribution. Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze intergroup differences. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze differences between pre- and postoperative values. Pearson's Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables between groups. The statistical significance level was set at .05.||||>0.05
95777419|NCT02754674|191527127|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95777420|NCT02754674|191527128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
95777421|NCT00474045|191527129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.4||95.0|-0.21|0.08||P-value for superiority was calculated.|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, pregnancy (preg.) status at randomisation (random.)-fixed. HbA1c at rand.(covariate) \& at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.08|-0.21|0.400
95777422|NCT00474045|191527130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority can only be declared if the non-inferiority criterion was fulfilled for both (FAS and Per-protocol) analysis sets. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the estimated treatment difference was below 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.122||95.0|-0.34|0.04||P-value for superiority was calculated|Regression, Linear|Treatment, country, preg. status at rand.(fixed factors),HbA1c at rand.(covariate),HbA1c at rand. by preg. status (interaction)|Estimated treatment differences for IDet versus NPH at Visit P4 with the corresponding 95% CI was calculated. Non-inferiority was established but superiority was not established.|Non-inferiority analysis with a null hypothesis stated that the difference between treatments, IDet-NPH, was equal to or larger than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. In case non-inferiority was established it was also investigated if IDet was superior to NPH with a null hypothesis stating that the difference between IDet and NPH treatment groups is equal to or greater than 0.||0.04|-0.34|0.122
95777423|NCT04706624|191527193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison||||0.447
95777424|NCT04706624|191527193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 24 comparison||||0.491
95955336|NCT02418819|191882573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|-0.2974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.8576|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.9547||||ANCOVA|One (1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.9547|0.8576
95955337|NCT02418819|191882573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean difference from placebo|0.0498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.4182|ONE_SIDED|99.0|-0.5226||||ANCOVA|One(1)-side P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model on change from baseline with baseline, treatment, site, gender and age as fixed effects.||Baseline is defined as the Day 0 assessment.|||-0.5226|0.4182
95777425|NCT04706624|191527194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison||||0.600
95777426|NCT04706624|191527194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 24 comparison||||0.495
95777427|NCT04706624|191527195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Baseline comparison regarding sexual risk behaviors||||0.096
95955338|NCT02680145|191882583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
95955339|NCT02680145|191882584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.001
95955340|NCT02680145|191882585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline score vs Follow-up score||||0.005
95955341|NCT02762500|191882618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
95955342|NCT02762500|191882619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.6|2.5||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||2.5|-18.6|0.106
95955343|NCT02762500|191882620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|8.2||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||8.2|-21.1|0.235
95997232|NCT04321343|191970130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.935|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-19.340|-89.935|0.0026
95777428|NCT04706624|191527195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison regarding HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors||||0.098
95810071|NCT00600340|191593398|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.08|0.0066
95810072|NCT00600340|191593399|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for PFS (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.61|1.07|0.0094
95810073|NCT00600340|191593400|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.35|0.94|0.1957
95810074|NCT00600340|191593401|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TTF (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||1.34|0.92|0.2583
95810075|NCT00600340|191593402|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.77|0.43|0.0001
95810076|NCT00600340|191593403|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.75||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for TR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||0.75|0.41|0.0001
95955344|NCT02762500|191882621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.3|5.0||one-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Statistical test was a one-sided performed at the 5% level of significance. Pearson chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis.|90% CI obtained based on normal approximation.|The response rate difference is the mean difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo responders. The p-value is based on one-sided Pearson chi-square test.||5.0|-24.3|0.140
95777429|NCT04706624|191527195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Week 24 comparison regarding sexual risk behaviors||||0.974
95777430|NCT04706624|191527195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 24 comparison regarding HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors||||0.464
95810077|NCT00600340|191593404|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.02||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine divided by hazard rate of Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel.|"HR of Bevacizumab Plus Capecitabine vs. Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.02|0.99|0.0582
95997233|NCT04321343|191970131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|3.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.4470|-0.0980|0.0639
95777431|NCT04706624|191527196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Baseline comparison regarding sexual risk behaviors||||0.835
95777432|NCT04706624|191527196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 24 comparison regarding sexual risk behaviors||||0.610
95777433|NCT04706624|191527196|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison regarding HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors||||1.000
95777434|NCT04706624|191527196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 24 comparison regarding HIV needle/syringe risk behaviors||||0.071
95777435|NCT04706624|191527197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||2.61|1.08|0.021
95777436|NCT04706624|191527197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 25 comparison||2.01|0.76|0.404
95777437|NCT04706624|191527198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|0.53|0.737
95777438|NCT04706624|191527199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361||||||The threshold for statistical significance for all analyses was set to p = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Week 25 comparison; No test for baseline due to all adhering to ART||||0.361
95777439|NCT04706624|191527200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline comparison||||0.371
95777440|NCT04706624|191527201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison of groups on HIV testing||||0.451
95777441|NCT04706624|191527201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24 comparison of groups on HIV testing||||0.503
95777442|NCT04706624|191527202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison of groups on HIV testing||||0.320
95777443|NCT04706624|191527202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|All HIV-negative participants received HIV testing; therefore, no variability exists between groups for statistical comparison.||Week 24 comparison of groups on HIV testing.||||1.000
95777444|NCT04706624|191527203|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison of groups on opioid overdose.||||>0.99
95777445|NCT04706624|191527203|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No test due to zero cell counts||Week 24 comparison of groups on opioid overdose.||||1.000
95777446|NCT04706624|191527204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 comparison of groups on opioid overdose.||||0.166
95777447|NCT04706624|191527204|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No test due to zero cell counts.||Week 24 comparison of groups on opioid overdose.||||1.000
95777448|NCT04706624|191527205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline comparison of groups on quality of life value.||||0.280
95777449|NCT04706624|191527205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline comparison of groups on VAS score||||0.812
95777450|NCT04706624|191527205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24 comparison of groups on quality of life value.||||0.021
95864434|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of DA - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95777451|NCT04706624|191527205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24 comparison of groups on VAS score.||||0.184
95777452|NCT04706624|191527206|SUPERIORITY|"Predicted probabilities were estimated using the Stata command margins following melogit, and these probabilities were then expressed as expected percentages."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||2.64|1.28|0.001
95777453|NCT04706624|191527206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 25 comparison||1.71|0.84|0.001
95777454|NCT04706624|191527207|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|6.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.47|1.37|0.006
95777455|NCT04706624|191527208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline comparison of groups on quality of life value.||||0.284
95777456|NCT04706624|191527208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Baseline comparison of groups on VAS score||||0.957
95777457|NCT04706624|191527208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 24 comparison of groups on quality of life value||||0.842
95777458|NCT04706624|191527208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 24 comparison of groups on VAS score||||0.611
95777459|NCT00475878|191527217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|.33|.19
95864435|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95777460|NCT00475878|191527218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.84|-2.79|.18
95777461|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24||||||||1.24|1|
95777462|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.17||||||||1.17|0.95|
95777463|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||||||||1.05|0.85|
95777464|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
95777465|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08||||||||1.08|0.9|
95777466|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|0.89|
95777467|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.1|0.91|
95777468|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
95777469|NCT01162122|191527225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CIs of GMT ratios for the pairwise lot-to-lot group comparisons should fall within the equivalence range of 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||||||||1.05|0.87|
95777470|NCT01162122|191527226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.49||||||||1.49|1.32|
95777471|NCT01162122|191527226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|1.7||||||||1.7|1.52|
95777472|NCT01162122|191527226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21||||||||1.21|1.08|
95955345|NCT02762500|191882622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.59||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-78.66|-10.53|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||Subjects included in this analysis were those with a baseline fecal calprotectin value ≥ 250 µg/g.||-10.53|-78.66|0.032
95777473|NCT01162122|191527227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|11.3||||||||11.3|7.1|
95777474|NCT01162122|191527227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|14.9||||||||14.9|10.5|
95777475|NCT01162122|191527227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||||||||7.4|3.0|
95777476|NCT01162122|191527228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.46||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.46|1.29|
95777477|NCT01162122|191527228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.51|
95777478|NCT01162122|191527228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.2|1.08|
95777479|NCT01162122|191527229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||10.9|6.9|
95777480|NCT01162122|191527229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|14.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||14.8|10.6|
95777481|NCT01162122|191527229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||7.2|2.9|
95777482|NCT01162122|191527233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||||1.52|1.25|
95864436|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.082
95864437|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955346|NCT02762500|191882623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.95|||ANCOVA|The mean change from baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline scores.||||0.95|-0.60|0.708
95997234|NCT04321343|191970131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.867||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1149|4.5464|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.5464|1.1149|0.0014
95777483|NCT01162122|191527233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.72||||||||1.72|1.44|
95777484|NCT01162122|191527233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 homologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||||1.21|1.03|
95777485|NCT01162122|191527234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.6||||||||14.6|7.5|
95777486|NCT01162122|191527234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|17.2||||||||17.2|9.8|
95777487|NCT01162122|191527234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%|Group difference (B strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.5||||||||8.5|1.4|
95777488|NCT01162122|191527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.45||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.45|1.2|
95777489|NCT01162122|191527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.68||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.68|1.42|
95777490|NCT01162122|191527235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|1.03|
95777491|NCT01162122|191527239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|13.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||13.3|6.4|
95777492|NCT01162122|191527239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|16.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||16.6|9.5|
95777493|NCT01162122|191527239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 homologous strains was \>10%.||8.3|1.5|
95955347|NCT02229396|191882625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.13|-0.63|0.003
95955348|NCT02229396|191882625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.34|-0.84|<0.001
95955349|NCT02229396|191882626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-1.20|-2.79|<0.001
95955350|NCT02229396|191882626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.55|-2.12|<0.001
95955351|NCT02229396|191882627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.95|-12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-12.20|-27.95|<0.001
95955352|NCT02229396|191882627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.89|-24.39|<0.001
95955353|NCT02229396|191882628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.89|-17.59|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-17.59|-37.89|<0.001
95955354|NCT02229396|191882628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-16.78|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.78|-36.78|<0.001
95955355|NCT02229396|191882629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
95955356|NCT02229396|191882629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.3||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||0.001
95955357|NCT02229396|191882630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.12|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-13.40|-27.12|<0.001
95955358|NCT02229396|191882630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.477|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-8.2||This is a nominal p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-8.20|-21.85|<0.001
95777494|NCT01162122|191527240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.63||||||||1.63|1.29|
95777495|NCT01162122|191527240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5||||||||1.5|1.23|
95777496|NCT01162122|191527240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||||||||1.21|0.98|
95955359|NCT02229396|191882631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.9|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
95955360|NCT02229396|191882631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%).||||||<0.001
95955361|NCT02229396|191882632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.9|-5.2|0.005
95955362|NCT02229396|191882632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%), week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.4|-4.5|0.022
95955363|NCT03245762|191882645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Ordinal Categorical Analysis|||||||0.930
95955364|NCT00632931|191882656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||||90.0|-0.28|6.28||||||||6.28|-0.28|
95955365|NCT00632931|191882657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||||90.0|-1.38|4.72||||||||4.72|-1.38|
95955366|NCT00632931|191882658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||||90.0|-0.17|6.31||||||||6.31|-0.17|
95955367|NCT00632931|191882659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84||||||90.0|-0.4|6.08||||||||6.08|-0.40|
95777497|NCT01162122|191527240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk group)|1.35||||||95.0|1.13|1.61||||||||1.61|1.13|
95777498|NCT01162122|191527240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk group|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||||||||1.5|1.1|
95777499|NCT01162122|191527240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for all 3 heterologous strains was \>0.67.|GMT Ratio (B strain-high risk group)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.3||||||||1.3|0.95|
95777500|NCT01162122|191527241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.67||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.67|1.33|
95777501|NCT01162122|191527241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.52||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.52|1.25|
95777502|NCT01162122|191527241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-overall)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.21|0.99|
95777503|NCT01162122|191527241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2/Brisbane-high risk)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.61||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.61|1.15|
95777504|NCT01162122|191527241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio(H3N2/Wisconsin-high risk)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.48||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.48|1.1|
95777505|NCT01162122|191527241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain-high risk)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>1.5.||1.31|0.97|
95777506|NCT01162122|191527242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|15.9||||||||15.9|6.7|
95777507|NCT01162122|191527242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|16.6||||||||16.6|7.3|
95777508|NCT01162122|191527242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Slope|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.4||||||||8.4|-0.4|
95777509|NCT01162122|191527242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|19.9||||||||19.9|4.8|
95777510|NCT01162122|191527242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 homologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference(H3N2Wisconsin-high risk|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.2||||||||20.2|5.0|
95777511|NCT01162122|191527242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for all 3 heterologous strains was ≥-10%.|Group difference (B strain-high risk)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8||||||||11.8|-2.1|
95777512|NCT01162122|191527243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2/Brisbane-overall)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|16.9||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||16.9|8.1|
95777513|NCT01162122|191527243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-overall)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.1||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||17.1|8.1|
95777514|NCT01162122|191527243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-overall)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||8.8|0.4|
95777515|NCT01162122|191527243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Brisbane-high risk|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.6||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||19.6|5.2|
95777516|NCT01162122|191527243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference(H3N2/Wisconsin-highrisk|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|20.3||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||20.3|5.8|
95955368|NCT00632931|191882660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.44||||||90.0|3.21|9.68||||||||9.68|3.21|
95955369|NCT00632931|191882661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||||90.0|1.05|7.6||||||||7.60|1.05|
95955370|NCT00632931|191882662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||||90.0|-0.7|6.02||||||||6.02|-0.70|
95955371|NCT00632931|191882663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.51||||||90.0|3.19|9.82||||||||9.82|3.19|
95955372|NCT00307164|191882664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test (stratified by ARV used)||||||0.64
95955373|NCT00307164|191882665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
95955374|NCT00307164|191882667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.25
95955375|NCT00307164|191882669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.88
95955376|NCT00307164|191882670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.60
95955377|NCT00307164|191882671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
95955378|NCT00307164|191882672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
95955379|NCT00307164|191882673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.034
95997235|NCT04321343|191970131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1982|6.5543|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.5543|3.1982|<0.0001
95777517|NCT01162122|191527243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain-high risk)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||||||Superiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the day 22 differences in seroconversion rates for at least 2 heterologous strains was \>10%.||11.8|-1.6|
95777518|NCT03091192|191527268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.37|0.313
95777519|NCT03091192|191527269|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Savolitinib|||1.17|0.21|0.110
95777520|NCT03818035|191527274|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided two-group normal approximation Wald Z-test with Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights for 'disease duration' to test for non-inferiority of 100 mg q16w to 100 mg q8w with non-inferiority margin of 10%. Stratified analysis results were reported.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|4.5|||Wald Z-test|||||4.5|-5.7|0.0013
95777521|NCT02135107|191527299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||||||<0.001
95777522|NCT02135107|191527300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at a two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 12||||<0.001
95777523|NCT02135107|191527300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.||Comparison at Week 24||||<0.001
95777524|NCT02135107|191527301|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.49|||Log Rank|||||0.49|0.23|<0.001
95777525|NCT02135107|191527302|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
95777526|NCT02135107|191527305|SUPERIORITY||Group difference|0.0|||=|0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.5||P-value was calculated using chi-square test at two-sided significance level of alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||Group difference (percentage of participants) = Arm D (percentage of participants) - Arm C (percentage of participants) 95% CI was calculated based on normal approximation.|||3.5|-3.5|=0.992
95777527|NCT02278120|191527308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.694|||Log Rank|||||0.694|0.441|<0.0000001
95777528|NCT02278120|191527309|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.712||||0.00973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.948||One-sided stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.948|0.535|0.00973
95777529|NCT02278120|191527310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.000980
95777530|NCT02278120|191527311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95777531|NCT00808639|191527321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pathologic response rate|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|38.0|61.0||||||This study used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. Of 39 eligible patients, if 18 achieved PaR, the treatment would be declared effective. A two-sided 80% CI was estimated considering the two-stage design based on Atkinson and Brown methods.||61|38|
95864438|NCT01185353|191686782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Patient's Assessment of Pain - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95777532|NCT02266472|191527324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|101.89|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.89|96.40|<0.0001
95777533|NCT02266472|191527325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted geometric means (gMeans) of the primary endpoints,using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00 %.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.54|106.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed 10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed 10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.19|96.54|<0.0001
95955380|NCT00307164|191882674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.76
95955381|NCT00307164|191882675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.10
95955382|NCT00307164|191882676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.43
95955383|NCT00307164|191882677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.17
95955384|NCT00307164|191882678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.80
95955385|NCT00307164|191882679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.42
95955386|NCT03712449|191882680|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0009|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0009
95955387|NCT03712449|191882680|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95777534|NCT02266472|191527326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|99.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|104.87|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||104.87|93.69|<0.0001
95955388|NCT03712449|191882681|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.7878|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7878
95955389|NCT03712449|191882681|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0349|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0349
95955390|NCT03712449|191882682|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0043|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0043
95955391|NCT03712449|191882682|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95955392|NCT03712449|191882683|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0017|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0017
95955393|NCT03712449|191882683|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95955394|NCT03712449|191882684|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0105|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0105
95955395|NCT03712449|191882684|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95955396|NCT03712449|191882685|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0004
95777535|NCT02266472|191527327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|108.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|113.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||113.17|104.17|<0.0001
95777536|NCT02266472|191527328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|98.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.18|101.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||101.67|96.18|
95955397|NCT03712449|191882685|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<.0001
95955398|NCT03712449|191882690|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0005
95955399|NCT03712449|191882690|OTHER|The data was analyzed using Paired t-test. If normality was not met, then the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test/Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95955400|NCT00922441|191882698|OTHER|Efficacy, Safety|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|comparison between the groups||||||<0.05
95955401|NCT00991029|191882720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.59|0.02
95955402|NCT00991029|191882721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.87|||Log Rank|||||4.87|1.10|0.02
95955403|NCT00991029|191882722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.56|0.01
95955404|NCT00991029|191882723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.78|||Log Rank|||||3.78|0.55|0.46
95955405|NCT00991029|191882724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.35|||Log Rank|||||5.35|0.43|0.52
95955406|NCT00991029|191882725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.58|0.01
95955407|NCT00991029|191882726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.67|0.13
95955408|NCT00991029|191882727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.03|||Log Rank|||||7.03|0.4|0.47
95955409|NCT00991029|191882728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.14|||Log Rank|||||7.14|0.14|0.99
95955410|NCT00991029|191882729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
95955411|NCT00991029|191882730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.9|||Log Rank|||||5.9|1.01|0.04
95955412|NCT00991029|191882731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.83|||Log Rank|||||5.83|1.67|<0.001
95955413|NCT00991029|191882732|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.13|||Log Rank|||||3.13|0.73|0.27
95962207|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-13.4||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-13.4|-29.8|<.0001
95955414|NCT00843115|191882733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
95777537|NCT02266472|191527329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based on 2-sided 90% CIs for the ratios (test to reference treatment) of the adjusted gMeans of the primary endpoints, with acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|ratio of the adjusted means|101.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.53|106.45|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including random effects for 'subjects within sequences' \& fixed effect for 'sequence', 'period' \& 'treatment'.|Relative bioavailability of metformin was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of Fed10mg+1000mg FDC divided by Fed10mg+1000mg Single. Standard deviation is actually intraindividual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|||106.45|96.53|
95777538|NCT03197324|191527330|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|100.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|116.56|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||116.56|86.49|
95860718|NCT01120964|191680303|OTHER|Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Total duration of postoperative invasive mechanical ventilation was analyzed by treatment group using summary statistics, and was compared between citrulline and placebo groups using an ANOVA.~Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for: 1) zero durations censored, 2) zero durations uncensored, 3) patients with zero duration excluded. The same analyses were performed with re-intubation time removed."||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
95777539|NCT03197324|191527333|SUPERIORITY|Compare if co-administration of digoxin with bexagliflozin had significant impact on the PK of digoxin|Ratio of Geometric LSM|106.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|117.53|||||Digoxin group is the denominator and Digoxin with Bexagliflozin is the numerator. Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subjects as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||117.53|95.82|
95955415|NCT00843115|191882734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5.||||<0.0001
95997236|NCT04321343|191970132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.9748|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.9748|-0.6080|0.1944
95997237|NCT04321343|191970132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7268|4.1907|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||4.1907|0.7268|0.0056
95997238|NCT04321343|191970132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0111|2.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.3720|-1.0111|0.4288
95997239|NCT04321343|191970133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.093||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4307|0.9295|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.9295|-3.4307|0.2564
95997240|NCT04321343|191970133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6348|0.4392|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||0.4392|-3.6348|0.1222
95997241|NCT04321343|191970133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|-0.351|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the linear regression.|||-0.3510|-4.0880|0.0206
95997242|NCT04321343|191970134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.201|0.436|0.5221
95997243|NCT04321343|191970134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|6.012|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.012|0.434|0.4828
95997244|NCT04321343|191970134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|9.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.636|0.853|0.0914
95997245|NCT04321343|191970135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|11.679|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.679|0.628|0.1854
95997246|NCT04321343|191970135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|17.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.594|0.959|0.0562
95997247|NCT04321343|191970135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|5.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.880|0.398|0.5223
95777540|NCT00191282|191527352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.866||95.0|||||Log Rank|||To achieve 80% power, 490 pts need to experience primary combined CV outcome to detect diff. between treatments, assuming: \>=18.5% reduction in incidence of outcomes, 18 mo. pt recruitment, 18 mo. pt follow-up, 10% annual drop-out rate, 2-yr outcome incidence rate of \>=40% (pts in least efficacious treatment), and nominal 2-sided signif. of 0.045.||||0.866
95777541|NCT00191282|191527353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.715||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.715
95777542|NCT00191282|191527354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.914||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.914
95777543|NCT00191282|191527355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.706||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.706
95777544|NCT00191282|191527356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.982||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.982
95777545|NCT00191282|191527357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.816||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.816
95997248|NCT04321343|191970136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4749|2.0356|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||2.0356|-1.4749|0.7532
95777546|NCT00191282|191527358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.948||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.948
95777547|NCT00191282|191527359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.581||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.581
95777548|NCT00191282|191527360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.647||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.647
95955416|NCT00843115|191882735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955417|NCT00843115|191882736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955418|NCT00843115|191882737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95962208|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.5||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 24||-16.5|-32.6|<.0001
95777549|NCT00191282|191527361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.525||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.525
95777550|NCT00191282|191527362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.800
95777551|NCT00191282|191527363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.662||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.662
95777552|NCT00191282|191527364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.863||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.863
95777553|NCT00191282|191527365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.471||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.471
95777554|NCT00191282|191527366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7168||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7168
95777555|NCT00191282|191527368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0860
95777556|NCT00191282|191527370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1424||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1424
95777557|NCT00191282|191527373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1957
95777558|NCT00191282|191527375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2434
95777559|NCT00191282|191527377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2617
95777560|NCT00336024|191527399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||The CR rates between these two groups will be compared at a significance level of 0.1 using one-sided Chi-square test.||||0.35
95777561|NCT00336024|191527401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||The difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using a one-sided log-rank test with a significance level 0.1.||||0.28
95777562|NCT00336024|191527402|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The two groups will be compared for patterns of failure to detect a statistically significant difference using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
95777563|NCT00336024|191527403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||Difference in incidence for the two treatment regimens will be compared using log-rank test.||||0.74
95777564|NCT00336024|191527404|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of acute hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||1.00
95777565|NCT00336024|191527410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||The rate of chronic hearing loss between two treatment regimens will be be compared using Fisher exact test.||||0.8
95777566|NCT00336024|191527411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.27
95777567|NCT00336024|191527411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.07
95777568|NCT00336024|191527411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.2
95777569|NCT00336024|191527411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 1. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.4
95777570|NCT00336024|191527411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase 2. The difference in the number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.38
95810078|NCT00600340|191593405|SUPERIORITY|HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.1||Two-sided log-rank test adjusted by stratification factors at randomization|Log Rank||HR is the hazard rate of Arm B divided by hazard rate of Arm A.|"HR of Arm B vs. Arm A for DR (stratified)~Based on Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by stratification factors at randomization:~1. estrogen and/or progesterone status (positive vs. other)~2. country~3. menopausal status (premenopausal or male \<=50 years of age vs. postmenopausal or male \>50 years of age)"||2.10|1.01|0.0429
95810079|NCT00725985|191593406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|0.584||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.584|0.248|<0.0001
95810080|NCT00725985|191593406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.509||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.509|0.210|< 0.0001
95810081|NCT00725985|191593407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.547||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.547|0.331|< 0.0001
95810082|NCT00725985|191593407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.633||The treatment effect was also assessed by hazard ratios using the Cox's proportional hazards model.|two-sided Wald test|||||0.633|0.390|< 0.0001
95810083|NCT00725985|191593408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.500|-0.971|<0.0001
95810084|NCT00725985|191593408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.429|||ANCOVA|||CUA lesions||-0.429|-0.857|<0.0001
95810085|NCT00725985|191593408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.333|<0.0001
95860719|NCT01120964|191680304|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|73.4||Re-intubation time included. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses presented herein are for re-intubation time included.||73.4|-9.5|0.0222
95810086|NCT00725985|191593408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T1 Gd-Enhancing Lesions||-0.167|-0.375|<0.0001
95810087|NCT00725985|191593408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.167|-0.500|<0.0001
95810088|NCT00725985|191593408|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||T2 Lesions||-0.143|-0.429|<0.0001
95810089|NCT00725985|191593427|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-37.200|<0.0001
95810090|NCT00725985|191593427|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.000|-117.300|<0.0001
95810091|NCT02546323|191593455|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00445||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0191|-0.0016||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0016|-0.0191|0.020
95810092|NCT02546323|191593456|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00442||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0197|-0.0024||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||-0.0024|-0.0197|0.013
95860720|NCT01120964|191680305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|96.0||The threshold for significance was P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||96.0|5.4|0.0418
95810093|NCT02546323|191593457|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00903||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0339|0.0015||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0015|-0.0339|0.073
95810094|NCT02546323|191593458|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00716||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0183|0.0097||Statistical significance of the MeanMax CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients.|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMax CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo.||0.0097|-0.0183|0.547
95860721|NCT01120964|191680306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|28.1||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.1|-2.6|0.0727
95860722|NCT01120964|191680307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.8||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.5|1313.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1313.2|-193.5|0.1271
95860723|NCT01120964|191680308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.1|-7.0|0.9720
95860724|NCT01120964|191680309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|18.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.0|-7.7|0.8884
95962209|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.4||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.6||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-0.6|-16.2|0.0343
95810095|NCT02546323|191593459|OTHER||Estimated mean difference|-0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00272||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0139|-0.0032||Statistical significance of the MeanMean CIMT annualized rate of change between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo was evaluated using time-by-treatment interaction term in the model.|Multi-level mixed effects model||Randomized treatment group, time, time-by-treatment interaction, ICVD risk stratification, carotid artery site, center, age, sex, and scan reader were fixed effects. Random effects were the intercept and slope for individual patients|Comparison of annualized rate of change in MeanMean CIMT measurement difference between rosuvastatin 20 mg and placebo||-0.0032|-0.0139|0.002
95810096|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-30.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-30.70|-40.23|<0.001
95810097|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.68|-19.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-19.02|-24.68|<0.001
95810098|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|7.64|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||7.64|2.35|<0.001
95810099|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-19.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.671|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|-12.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.44|-26.86|<0.001
95810100|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.25|-25.72|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-25.72|-33.25|<0.001
95955419|NCT00843115|191882738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95810101|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-27.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-27.16|-36.33|<0.001
95955420|NCT00843115|191882739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95997249|NCT04321343|191970136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2946|3.6763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||3.6763|0.2946|0.0216
95810102|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.73|-22.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB||-22.50|-29.73|<0.001
95810103|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.104||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.36|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoA-I||4.36|0.02|0.047
95810104|NCT02546323|191593460|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.041|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|-22.76|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): ApoB/ApoA-I ratio||-22.76|-30.78|<0.001
95810105|NCT02546323|191593461|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.08|-35.94|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): LDL-C||-35.94|-43.08|<0.001
95810106|NCT02546323|191593461|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-23.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): total cholesterol||-23.23|-27.70|<0.001
95810107|NCT02546323|191593461|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): HDL-C||5.73|1.60|<0.001
95810108|NCT02546323|191593461|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|-12.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Triglycerides||-12.55|-24.26|<0.001
95810109|NCT02546323|191593461|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.529|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.78|-30.78|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C||-30.78|-36.78|<0.001
95810110|NCT02546323|191593461|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-33.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.836|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-30.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment difference (rosuvastatin 20 mg - placebo): Non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio||-30.32|-37.54|<0.001
95810111|NCT02008617|191593463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95810112|NCT02008617|191593464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Rest||||0.86
95860725|NCT01120964|191680310|OTHER|Total number of postoperative hours spent in PICU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.14||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|187.67||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||187.67|-49.39|0.1891
95860726|NCT01120964|191680311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|71.1||Duration including re-intubation time. Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.1|-10.8|0.0479
95810113|NCT02008617|191593464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Plantar Flexion||||0.89
95997250|NCT04321343|191970136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4283|1.8771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.8771|-1.4283|0.7893
95777571|NCT00336024|191527411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of gastrointestinal toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without gastrointestinal toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.7
95777572|NCT00336024|191527412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.08
95777573|NCT00336024|191527412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.9
95777574|NCT00336024|191527412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Induction Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
95777575|NCT00336024|191527412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase I. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.3
95777576|NCT00336024|191527412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase II. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.26
95997251|NCT00045032|191970149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95777577|NCT00336024|191527412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Rates of nutritional toxicities in Consolidation Phase III. The difference in number of patients with/without nutritional toxicities between the two treatment regimens will be compared using a Chi-square test.||||0.17
95777578|NCT00084318|191527414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.06|0.54|0.05
95777579|NCT00084318|191527414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year disease-free survival rate of 54.8% (47.9% to 61.7%).||Using the method of Dixon and Simon, 104 analyzable patients per arm were needed to detect a ≥ 33 reduction in the hazard rate for disease-free survival compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) with 80% power and one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 level. Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.96|0.50|0.01
95777580|NCT00084318|191527415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.03|0.5|0.04
95777581|NCT00084318|191527415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Log Rank|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year survival rate of 64.7% (58.1% to 71.3%).|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided log-rank test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||0.82|0.39|0.001
95777582|NCT00084318|191527419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.76|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model. \[RTOG = Radiation Therapy Oncology Group\]||1.76|0.63|0.66
95810114|NCT02008617|191593465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95810115|NCT02008617|191593466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95810116|NCT00976456|191593470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.682|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.682|0.989|0.0583
95997252|NCT00045032|191970149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.67|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.67|0.44|
95997253|NCT00045032|191970150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.000
95997254|NCT00045032|191970150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.53|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.53|0.34|
95997255|NCT00045032|191970153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997256|NCT00045032|191970153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.67|
95997257|NCT00045032|191970153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997258|NCT00045032|191970153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.67|
95997259|NCT00045032|191970158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.68|
95810117|NCT00976456|191593471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimation was that in the pemetrexed-carboplatin plus bevacizumab Arm the median PFS will be 5.5 months. A median PFS of 4 months (5.5 - 27%) had been regarded non-inferior. Assuming the accrual period of 24 months and the whole study duration of 42 months, 246 patients had to be recruited. According to the fact, that the required statistical power of 80% will be reached by occurrence of altogether 227 events, the final analysis was done at this time Point.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.499|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.499|0.794|0.3869
95997260|NCT00045032|191970158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.69|
95777583|NCT00084318|191527419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.87|||Gray's test|Historical control data (RTOG-9501/NCT00002670): n=202, two-year failure rate of 19.9% (12.2% to 27.5%)|Reference arm = historical control|Two-year failure rates were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. RTOG 0234 results were compared to historical control data (the chemoradiation arm of study RTOG-9501/NCT00002670) by 1-sided Gray's test. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox model.||1.87|0.72|0.86
95777584|NCT00778102|191527421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rate|12.3||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|35.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with R0, R1, or R2.||35.5|-11.0|0.2707
95777585|NCT00778102|191527424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|-4.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|33.5|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with complete or major histopathological response.||33.5|-43.0|0.7817
95777586|NCT00778102|191527431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate (CR or PR)|18.9||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|40.0|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval calculated for difference based on Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference between groups in the collective percentage of participants with confirmed best overall response of CR or PR.||40.0|-2.1|0.0612
95777587|NCT05008484|191527442|SUPERIORITY||||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95777588|NCT05008484|191527452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|24.6||||||||24.6|-36.6|
95777589|NCT05008484|191527453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|24.6||||||||24.6|-52.1|
95777590|NCT05008484|191527454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|22.8||||||||22.8|-31.8|
95777591|NCT00224406|191527495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.022||||0.8541|ONE_SIDED|95.0||50.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0).||50.26||0.8541
95777592|NCT00224406|191527495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.426||||0.6996|ONE_SIDED|95.0||55.17|||t-test, 1 sided|||Repeated Measurements Analysis of PaO2/FiO2 ratio corrected for the altitude at 0 and 24hours after ICU admission using a one-sided test excluding missing data. Herein analysis at 24 Hours Post ICU Admission.||55.17||0.6996
95777593|NCT00224406|191527496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.377||||0.8654|ONE_SIDED|95.0||47.15|||t-test, 1 sided|||ICU Admission (Time 0)||47.15||0.8654
95810118|NCT00863304|191593478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.62||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.65|<0.001
95810119|NCT00863304|191593478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.32|0.002
95777594|NCT00224406|191527496|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.386||||0.6789|ONE_SIDED|95.0||66.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||24 Hours Post ICU Admission||66.91||0.6789
95777595|NCT00224406|191527496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.968||||0.6345|ONE_SIDED|95.0||49.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||48 Hours Post ICU Admission||49.56||0.6345
95777596|NCT00224406|191527496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.908||||0.9858|ONE_SIDED|95.0||85.49|||t-test, 1 sided|||72 Hours Post ICU Admission||85.49||0.9858
95777597|NCT00224406|191527497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.867||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|11.302|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at ICU Admission (Time 0). One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||11.302|0.727|0.7985
95810120|NCT00863304|191593478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.96|0.090
95810121|NCT00863304|191593478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-1.21|0.009
95777598|NCT00224406|191527497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.092|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 24h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||3.092|0.226|0.5606
95777599|NCT00224406|191527497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.716||||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|5.552|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 48h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.552|0.531|0.8786
95777600|NCT00224406|191527497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.337||||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|5.072|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio is Repertaxin:Placebo ratio of PGD scores 0-2:PGD score 3 odds|Analysis of PGD score was performed separately at time 0, and at 24, 48, 72 hours after ICU admission. Herein analysis at 72h post-ICU admission. One patient of placebo group is excluded from analysis of PGD score because the cause of graft dysfunction is Cardiogenic pulmonary edema.||5.072|0.352|0.8499
95777601|NCT00224406|191527498|SUPERIORITY|at 24 hrs from mechanical ventilation|difference in event probability|0.0091||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1867|0.2049|||Log Rank|||||0.2049|-0.1867|0.7076
95777602|NCT00224406|191527498|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0316||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2092|0.146|||Log Rank|||at 48 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.1460|-0.2092|0.7076
95777603|NCT00224406|191527498|SUPERIORITY||difference in event probability|-0.0661||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2314|0.0993|||Log Rank|||at 72 hrs from mechanical ventilation||0.0993|-0.2314|0.7076
95777604|NCT00224406|191527499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0364||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0858|0.0131|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 24 hours||0.0131|-0.0858|0.9632
95777605|NCT00224406|191527499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|0.0352||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1458|0.2162|||Log Rank|||Analysis at 48 h||0.2162|-0.1458|0.9632
95777606|NCT00224406|191527499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0179||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2143|0.1785|||Log Rank|||analysis at 72 h||0.1785|-0.2143|0.9632
95777607|NCT00224406|191527504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0566||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1188|0.0056|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 3 was reported.||0.0056|-0.1188|0.0111
95777608|NCT00224406|191527504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.0943||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.0156|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 6 was reported.||-0.0156|-0.1730|0.0111
95777609|NCT00224406|191527504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event probability|-0.1132||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1985|-0.0279|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 9 was reported.||-0.0279|-0.1985|0.0111
95777610|NCT00224406|191527504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1334||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0413|||Log Rank|||Herein analysis up to month 12 was reported.||-0.0413|-0.2254|0.0111
95777611|NCT01010009|191527507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||>0.05
95777612|NCT01010009|191527507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Data was analysed by omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons utilizing the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
95955421|NCT00843115|191882740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95777613|NCT01010009|191527508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
95777614|NCT01010009|191527508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Performance on each cognitive task was assessed via omnibus ANOVA with a priori planned comparisons.||||>0.05
95955422|NCT00843115|191882741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95997261|NCT00045032|191970165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.89|0.7962
95777615|NCT01010009|191527509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
95777616|NCT01010009|191527509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||An omnibus ANOVA was carried out with a priori planned comparisons using the mean squares error term from this ANOVA.||||<0.05
95777617|NCT02921750|191527510|NON_INFERIORITY|In this non-inferiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 95% confidence interval, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test, for between-treatment differences (Exufiber - Aquacel Extra) in the mean percentage area change from baseline to 6 weeks. This means that if the lower limit of this confidence interval was found to be greater than 12%, non-inferiority will be established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-63.5|0.093
95997262|NCT00045032|191970167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2379|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2379
95997263|NCT00045032|191970167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||1.21|0.47|
95997264|NCT00045032|191970168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
95997265|NCT00045032|191970168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.28|
95997266|NCT00045032|191970171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
95777618|NCT04676412|191527546|OTHER|Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Difference in percentage|-8.4||||0.79262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.9|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage =0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0||||11.9|-27.4|0.79262
95777619|NCT04676412|191527549|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.25||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|8.09|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||8.09|-8.59|0.9519
95810122|NCT00863304|191593478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.87|0.175
95997267|NCT00045032|191970171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.88|0.65|
95997268|NCT00045032|191970171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95777620|NCT04676412|191527550|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|8.81||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|18.11|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||18.11|-0.49|0.0628
95777621|NCT04676412|191527551|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|3.59||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.87|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.87|-3.70|0.3298
95810123|NCT00863304|191593479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.71|<0.001
95810124|NCT00863304|191593479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.51||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.48|<0.001
95860727|NCT01120964|191680312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|9.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.7|-2.2|0.2637
95860728|NCT01120964|191680314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|41.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||41.0|-25.9|0.6431
95955423|NCT00843115|191882742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955424|NCT00843115|191882743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955425|NCT00843115|191882744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955426|NCT00843115|191882745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955427|NCT00843115|191882746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955428|NCT00843115|191882747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955429|NCT00843115|191882748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955430|NCT00843115|191882749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95997269|NCT00045032|191970171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.63|
95997270|NCT00045032|191970173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.86|0.64|
95997271|NCT00045032|191970173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
95997272|NCT00045032|191970175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.21|0.84|0.9156
95997273|NCT00045032|191970177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997274|NCT00045032|191970177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
95777622|NCT04676412|191527552|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-0.28||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.32|10.75|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||10.75|-11.32|0.9594
95777623|NCT04676412|191527553|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS Means|-5.53||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|2.31|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG and baseline PDL-1.||||2.31|-13.37|0.1620
95777624|NCT04676412|191527554|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.26|0.47|0.9419
95777625|NCT04676412|191527555|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.38|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.38|0.43|0.9789
95777626|NCT04676412|191527556|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.28|0.36|0.8856
95777627|NCT04676412|191527557|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.3264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.75|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||3.75|0.64|0.3264
95777628|NCT04676412|191527558|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
95777629|NCT04676412|191527559|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|35.62|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status and baseline PD-L1 status.||||35.62|1.71|0.0020
95810125|NCT00863304|191593479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.067
95810126|NCT00863304|191593479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.26|0.002
95777630|NCT04676412|191527560|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.71084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.25|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.25|0.61|0.71084
95777631|NCT04676412|191527561|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.87|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of enrolling site and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CIs were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 status (1-49% versus ≥50%).||3.87|0.61|0.81970
95810127|NCT00863304|191593479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-1.03|0.031
95810128|NCT00863304|191593480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.50|<0.001
95810129|NCT00863304|191593480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
95810130|NCT00863304|191593480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.30|0.078
95810131|NCT00863304|191593480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.019
95997275|NCT00045032|191970177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95810132|NCT00863304|191593480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.029
95810133|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
95810134|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
95810135|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
95810136|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
95810137|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
95810138|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
95955431|NCT00843115|191882750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95955432|NCT00843115|191882751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate @ 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95810139|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
95810140|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
95810141|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.99|0.029
95810142|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.78|0.193
95810143|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.73|-1.68|<0.001
95810144|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.28|0.001
95955433|NCT00843115|191882752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95810145|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.10|0.011
95810146|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.06|0.017
95810147|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.66|0.464
95955434|NCT00843115|191882753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test of proportions|Holms multiplicity adjustment (Stepdown Bonferroni) for statistical significance of each p-value, while controlling experiment wise error rate at 0.05||null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects who improved or stabilized, among those who had the symptom at baseline, is less than or equal to 0.5; the alternative hypothesis: this proportion is greater than 0.5||||<0.0001
95777632|NCT03315455|191527588|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.016|<0.0001
95777633|NCT03315455|191527588|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.082||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.082|0.015|<0.0001
95777634|NCT03315455|191527591|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.026|<0.0001
95777635|NCT03315455|191527591|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.092||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.092|0.028|<0.0001
95777636|NCT03315455|191527594|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.053||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.053|0.006|<0.0001
95777637|NCT03315455|191527594|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.059||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.059|0.007|<0.0001
95777638|NCT03315455|191527597|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.102||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.102|0.017|<0.0001
95777639|NCT03315455|191527597|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.084||Statistical significance was controlled at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. Hierarchical testing was used to account for multiple comparisons.|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1; versus, H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1||0.084|0.013|<0.0001
95777640|NCT03315455|191527600|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.163||Not controlled for Type I error|Stratified Wald test||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm A vs. Arm C.|||0.163|0.016|<0.0001
95777641|NCT03315455|191527600|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.122||Not controlled for Type I error|ABR Ratio||The ABR ratio was calculated as Arm B vs. Arm C.|||0.122|0.011|<0.0001
95777642|NCT03315455|191527605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.68||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.46||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||29.46|-0.10|0.0515
95777643|NCT03315455|191527605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|18.33||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|33.68||Type I error controlled|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||33.68|2.97|0.0204
95777644|NCT03315455|191527607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|6.06||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|18.4||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||18.40|-6.27|0.3281
95777645|NCT03315455|191527607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|14.01||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|26.59||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||26.59|1.44|0.0297
95777646|NCT03315455|191527610|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-3.46||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|10.31||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||10.31|-17.23|0.6165
95777647|NCT03315455|191527610|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-7.58||||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.33||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||6.33|-21.48|0.2797
95777648|NCT03315455|191527612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.05||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|||0.09|-0.18|0.4890
95777649|NCT03315455|191527612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06||Not controlled for Type I error|ANCOVA|Means were adjusted for baseline score, treatment group, and treatment by baseline interaction term.|The difference in adjusted means was calculated as Arm C minus Arm B.|||0.06|-0.22|0.2454
95860729|NCT01120964|191680315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.5||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.2|213.1|||ANOVA|||||213.1|-134.2|0.6408
95777650|NCT04765722|191527638|SUPERIORITY||% change relative to placebo|18.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|160.1||The model included treatment group, week, the interaction between treatment group and week, and baseline log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency as fixed effects.|Generalized estimating equations|Hypothesis tests were two-sided, a p\<0.05 indicated statistical significance. We made no adjustments for multiple comparisons across outcomes.||The primary outcome was the change from baseline in log-transformed 24-hour cough frequency (coughs/hour) at week 14.||160.1|-46.4|0.99
95777651|NCT01349322|191527674|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is defined as a hazard ratio upper limit of 2.12.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.05|||Regression, Cox||Cause-specific hazard ratio; reference level = Arm 1.|"Assuming Arm 1 5-year IBR of 1.59%, for hypothesized upper bound hazard ratio (HR) of 2.12 (Arm 2 5-year IBR of 3.33%), 46 IBR events provide \>80% power to conclude non-inferiority with one-sided significance level = 0.05. Null hypothesis: HR ≥ 2.12 (inferior). Alternative hypothesis: HR \< 2.12 (non-inferior). See Limitations and Caveats section."||2.05|0.84|0.039
95777652|NCT01349322|191527675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.96
95777653|NCT01349322|191527676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.14
95777654|NCT01349322|191527677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.34
95777655|NCT01349322|191527679|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis (H0) of inferiority: the mean change in cosmetic subscale score in Arm 2 will be at least 0.4 standard deviations worse than in Arm 1. If H0 is rejected, then non-inferiority can be concluded.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||One-side significance level = 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||0.13|-0.08|<0.0001
95777656|NCT04679051|191527709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed paired t-tests were used to compare variables between time in bed conditions.||||0.36
95810148|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.72|<0.001
95810149|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.55|<0.001
95955435|NCT00843115|191882754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12||||<0.0001
95955436|NCT00843115|191882755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||Change from baseline in total score at Week 12 Last Observation Carried Forward||||<0.0001
95955437|NCT00843115|191882756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|P value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
95955438|NCT00843115|191882757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||correlation coefficient|p-value tests whether Pearson Product Correlation Coefficient is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
95777657|NCT04679051|191527710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing the two time in bed protocols.||||0.51
95777658|NCT04679051|191527711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing peak forearm blood flow between sleep protocols.||||0.03
95777659|NCT04679051|191527712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test used to compare carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (index of arterial stiffness) between sleep protocols.||||0.29
95777660|NCT04679051|191527713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on Manikin throughput scores.||||<0.001
95777661|NCT04679051|191527714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change of executive function following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on the number of correct answers during a Stroop color-word test.||||0.04
95777662|NCT04679051|191527715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of spatial ability following one day of aerobic exercise. The ANOVA test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|||A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to evaluate the main effect of exercise (before vs. after exercise) on throughput scores from a Switching task.||||0.02
95777663|NCT03436199|191527740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.136|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.136|-0.008|0.0811
95777664|NCT03436199|191527740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.174|||Farrington-Manning score test|The Miettinen-Nurminen method was used to obtain the 95% confidence intervals.||||0.174|0.023|0.0104
95777665|NCT03436199|191527741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.21|0.02|0.0162
95860730|NCT00826202|191680327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d= 0.67||||||0.07
95860731|NCT00826202|191680328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|cohen's d=0.84||||||.056
95955439|NCT00843115|191882758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
95955440|NCT00843115|191882759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||<0.0001
95955441|NCT00843115|191882760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|||||||correlation coefficient|||||||0.0713
95860732|NCT00826202|191680329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d=0.68||||||0.03
95777666|NCT03436199|191527741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.22|0.02|0.0142
95777667|NCT03436199|191527742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||0.27|-1.85|0.1424
95777668|NCT03436199|191527742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||1.06|-1.14|0.9467
95777669|NCT03436199|191527743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7389||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|7.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.560|0.726|0.0176
95777670|NCT03436199|191527743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8196||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|7.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures||||7.104|-0.046|0.0530
95777671|NCT01432275|191527766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Binomial test|Comparison to 27 participants that preferred their usual method to FreeStyle InsuLinx. Twelve(12) participants did not have a preference.||||||<0.0001
95777672|NCT01225289|191527768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95777673|NCT03887429|191527782|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that treatment with SXC-2023 would reduce impulsivity as measured by SSRT in chronic cigarette smokers abstaining from nicotine for 5 days.||||=.009
95777674|NCT03887429|191527783|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects receiving placebo as treatment.||||=.015
95955442|NCT00843115|191882761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Correlation coefficient|||||||0.0225
95777675|NCT03887429|191527783|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||It was hypothesized that 5 days of nicotine abstinence in chronic cigarette smokers would not result in increased risk taking behavior as measured using DAVT in subjects treated with SXC-2023.||||>.1
95777676|NCT05127304|191527789|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.639
95777677|NCT05127304|191527789|OTHER|||||||0.535|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.535
95777678|NCT05127304|191527789|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.337
95777679|NCT05127304|191527789|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.058
95777680|NCT05127304|191527789|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.192
95777681|NCT05127304|191527789|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.176
95777682|NCT05127304|191527790|OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.313
95777683|NCT05127304|191527791|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.021
95860733|NCT00826202|191680330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|cohen's d=0.93||||||0.12
95777684|NCT05127304|191527792|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.022
95777685|NCT05127304|191527792|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.124
95777686|NCT05127304|191527792|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.043
95777687|NCT05127304|191527792|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.990
95955443|NCT00843115|191882762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||0.0152
95777688|NCT05127304|191527792|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.039
95777689|NCT05127304|191527792|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||<0.001
95777690|NCT05127304|191527793|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.163
95777691|NCT05127304|191527794|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
95777692|NCT05127304|191527795|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.017
95777693|NCT05127304|191527795|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.098
95777694|NCT05127304|191527795|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.036
95777695|NCT05127304|191527795|OTHER|||||||0.894|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.894
95777696|NCT05127304|191527795|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.036
95777697|NCT05127304|191527795|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.001
95777698|NCT05127304|191527796|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.162
95777699|NCT05127304|191527797|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
95777700|NCT05127304|191527798|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.065
95777701|NCT05127304|191527798|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.102
95777702|NCT05127304|191527798|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.100
95777703|NCT05127304|191527798|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.189
95777704|NCT05127304|191527798|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.024
95777705|NCT05127304|191527798|OTHER|||||||0.767|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.767
95777706|NCT05127304|191527799|OTHER|||||||0.357|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.357
95777707|NCT05127304|191527800|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory visits||||0.002
95777708|NCT05127304|191527800|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits||||0.420
95860734|NCT03036215|191680366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study, no power analysis applicable; no statistical test||||
95955444|NCT00843115|191882763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero||||||0.0229
95810150|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.14|0.014
95810151|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.09|0.023
95810152|NCT00863304|191593481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.92|0.114
95810153|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.94|0.029
95810154|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.73|0.214
95810155|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
95810156|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.72|-0.18|0.234
95860735|NCT03036215|191680367|OTHER|pilot study; no statistical test performed|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test run||||
95810157|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.93||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|0.04|0.034
95810158|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.59|<0.001
95810159|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.45||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.37|<0.001
95810160|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-1.05|0.012
95860736|NCT03036215|191680368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Pilot study; no statistical test for significance run||||
95955445|NCT00843115|191882764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
95810161|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.00|0.023
95810162|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.175
95810163|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.55|<0.001
95810164|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.41||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.34|<0.001
95860737|NCT02082119|191680390|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95860738|NCT00535288|191680413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.2|-2.2|<0.01
95860739|NCT00535288|191680413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.7|-2.7|<0.01
95864439|NCT01185353|191686784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
95955446|NCT00843115|191882765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test, testing whether mean change from baseline is significantly different from zero.||||||<0.0001
95955447|NCT00843115|191882766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7963|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12."||||||0.7963
95810165|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.03|0.017
95810166|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.99|0.027
95810167|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.78|0.190
95810168|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.68||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.63|<0.001
95810169|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.6||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.60|-1.55|<0.001
95810170|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.99|0.034
95810171|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|9.0|-1.12|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.12|0.009
95810172|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.04|0.023
95810173|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.64||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.60|<0.001
95810174|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
95810175|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.07||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.90|0.092
95860740|NCT00535288|191680413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.4|<0.01
95955448|NCT00843115|191882767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||1.0000
95955449|NCT00843115|191882768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0719
95810176|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.19|0.004
95810177|NCT00863304|191593482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.94|0.064
95810178|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
95810179|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
95810180|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
95955450|NCT00843115|191882769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1779|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF."||||||0.1779
95955451|NCT00843115|191882770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
95955452|NCT00843115|191882771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8575|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.8575
95777709|NCT05127304|191527800|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits||||0.002
95777710|NCT05127304|191527800|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits||||0.304
95777711|NCT05127304|191527800|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient visits||||0.326
95810181|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
95810182|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
95810183|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.74|<0.001
95810184|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.66||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-1.58|<0.001
95810185|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.19|0.002
95810186|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-1.01|0.019
95955453|NCT00843115|191882772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||1.0000
95777712|NCT05127304|191527800|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical visits||||0.007
95777713|NCT05127304|191527801|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.520
95777714|NCT05127304|191527802|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||||||0.037
95777715|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.060
95810187|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
95810188|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.78||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.70|<0.001
95860741|NCT00535288|191680413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
95864440|NCT01185353|191686784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95955454|NCT00843115|191882773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||1.0000
95955455|NCT00843115|191882774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12"||||||0.0131
95955456|NCT00843115|191882775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||McNemar|"McNemar's Test for paired proportions tested the difference between the proportion of subjects with Any problem at baseline versus Week 12 LOCF"||||||0.0078
95955457|NCT02621047|191882776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Percentage (%)|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|188.0||||||||188|86.5|
95777716|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.177
95777717|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.834
95777718|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.121
95777719|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.159
95777720|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.289
95777721|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.055
95777722|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
95777723|NCT05127304|191527803|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
95777724|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.066
95777725|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.193
95777726|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.117
95777727|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.250
95955458|NCT02621047|191882776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.1|183.0||||||||183|55.1|
95810189|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.54||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.47|<0.001
95810190|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.009
95810191|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.08|0.008
95777728|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.431|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.431
95777729|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.129
95777730|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.236
95777731|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
95777732|NCT05127304|191527804|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
95777733|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.057
95810192|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.85|0.101
95810193|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.83||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-1.79|<0.001
95955459|NCT02621047|191882777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|208.0||||||||208|106|
95777734|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.182
95777735|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.083
95777736|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.245
95777737|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.386|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.386
95777738|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.115
95777739|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.237
95810194|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.67||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.63|<0.001
95955460|NCT02621047|191882777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|130.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.4|225.0||||||||225|75.4|
95955461|NCT02621047|191882778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|160.0||||||90.0|105.0|243.0||||||||243|105|
95955462|NCT02621047|191882778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|220.0||||||90.0|131.0|369.0||||||||369|131|
95777740|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
95777741|NCT05127304|191527805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
95777742|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.189
95777743|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.314
95777744|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.203
95955463|NCT02621047|191882779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|186.0||||||90.0|122.0|281.0||||||||281|122|
95955464|NCT02621047|191882779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|285.0||||||90.0|175.0|466.0||||||||466|175|
95955465|NCT02621047|191882780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|162.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.0|254.0||||||||254|104|
95777745|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.379|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.379
95777746|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.815
95777747|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.205
95777748|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.556
95777749|NCT05127304|191527806|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||0.189
95777750|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Medical costs||||0.483
95777751|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Ambulatory costs||||0.002
95777752|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Office visits costs||||0.123
95777753|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Outpatient visits costs||||0.003
95777754|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Emergency room visits costs||||0.170
95777755|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Inpatient stay costs||||0.582
95777756|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Other medical costs||||0.887
95777757|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Pharmacy costs||||<0.001
95777758|NCT05127304|191527807|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Total (medical + pharmacy) costs||||<0.001
95955466|NCT02621047|191882780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|228.0||||||90.0|129.0|403.0||||||||403|129|
95955467|NCT02621047|191882781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|189.0||||||90.0|121.0|293.0||||||||293|121|
95810195|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.21|0.003
95810196|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.08|0.016
95810197|NCT00863304|191593483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.06||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.91|0.082
95810198|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-1.12|0.001
95810199|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.23||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.09|0.003
95810200|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.39||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.25|<0.001
95777759|NCT05127304|191527808|OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Any COPD exacerbation||||0.205
95777760|NCT05127304|191527808|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Weighted clustered linear regression|||Severe COPD exacerbation||||0.454
95777761|NCT05127304|191527809|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Rao-Scott test|||||||0.060
95777762|NCT05238025|191527844|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|71.9||||||||71.9|-16.1|
95810201|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.55||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-0.31|0.572
95955468|NCT02621047|191882781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|296.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.0|506.0||||||||506|174|
95955469|NCT02621047|191882782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|64.6||||||90.0|36.2|115.0||||||||115|36.2|
95810202|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.59||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.59|-0.27|0.467
95810203|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.82||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.82|-1.73|<0.001
95810204|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.7||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.61|<0.001
95864441|NCT01185353|191686784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955470|NCT02621047|191882782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.6|139.0||||||||139|26.6|
95955471|NCT02621047|191882783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|85.1||||||90.0|55.5|130.0||||||||130|55.5|
95955472|NCT02621047|191882783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|59.0||||||90.0|34.2|102.0||||||||102|34.2|
95955473|NCT02621047|191882784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|116.0||||||90.0|78.6|172.0||||||||172|78.6|
95955474|NCT02621047|191882784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|98.1||||||90.0|51.7|186.0||||||||186|51.7|
95777763|NCT05238025|191527845|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if the first primary outcome is met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|74.3|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||74.3|34.7|
95777764|NCT05238025|191527846|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio resulting from a Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age group. It is demonstrated if both primary outcomes are met and the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for VE is above 20%|Vaccine Efficacy|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|64.7|||||Not formally tested, since the first primary outcome was not met|||64.7|25.8|
95777765|NCT04545567|191527859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95777766|NCT04545567|191527860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95777767|NCT04545567|191527861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95777768|NCT04545567|191527862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95777769|NCT04545567|191527863|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95955475|NCT02621047|191882785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.2|154.0||||||||154|85.2|
95955476|NCT02621047|191882785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.6|168.0||||||||168|55.6|
95955477|NCT02621047|191882786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|80.6||||||90.0|50.2|130.0||||||||130|50.2|
95955478|NCT02621047|191882786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.9|160.0||||||||160|26.9|
95955479|NCT02621047|191882787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|104.0||||||90.0|76.8|141.0||||||||141|76.8|
95777770|NCT04545567|191527864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95777771|NCT04545567|191527865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95777772|NCT04545567|191527866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95777773|NCT04545567|191527867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95777774|NCT04545567|191527868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95777775|NCT04545567|191527869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95777776|NCT04545567|191527870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95777777|NCT04545567|191527871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95777778|NCT04545567|191527872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95777779|NCT04545567|191527873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95777780|NCT04545567|191527874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95777781|NCT04545567|191527875|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95810205|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.16|0.003
95864442|NCT01185353|191686784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95777782|NCT04545567|191527876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95777783|NCT04545567|191527877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95777784|NCT04545567|191527878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95777785|NCT00710684|191527938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.5|-1.9|0.279
95777786|NCT00710684|191527938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35mg versus placebo at Week 24||-0.3|-2.7|0.012
95777787|NCT00710684|191527939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.3|-0.4|0.711
95777788|NCT00710684|191527939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.2|-0.5|0.462
95777789|NCT00710684|191527940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.1|-5.8|0.174
95777790|NCT00710684|191527940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||2.7|-3.6|0.776
95777791|NCT00710684|191527941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.7|-1.2|0.631
95777792|NCT00710684|191527941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.4|-2.2|0.006
95777793|NCT00710684|191527941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||1.2|-1.3|0.947
95777794|NCT00710684|191527941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.0|-2.5|0.057
95777795|NCT00710684|191527941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.5|-1.6|0.925
95777796|NCT00710684|191527941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||-0.2|-3.1|0.024
95777797|NCT00710684|191527942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.387
95777798|NCT00710684|191527942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM|||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||-0.1|-0.5|0.018
95777799|NCT00710684|191527942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.6|-0.3|0.439
95777800|NCT00710684|191527942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||0.2|-0.6|0.336
95777801|NCT00710684|191527942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.8|-0.2|0.190
95777802|NCT00710684|191527942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.4|-0.5|0.787
95810206|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.03|0.015
95810207|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.91|0.053
95810208|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.75||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.66|<0.001
95955480|NCT02621047|191882787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|119.0||||||||119|34.0|
95955481|NCT02621047|191882788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|136.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.7|196.0||||||||196|94.7|
95955482|NCT02621047|191882788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|176.0||||||90.0|98.4|315.0||||||||315|98.4|
95955483|NCT02621047|191882789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|134.0||||||90.0|99.6|181.0||||||||181|99.6|
95955484|NCT02621047|191882789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|268.0||||||||268|91.8|
95955485|NCT02621047|191882790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.2|116.0||||||||116|46.2|
95777803|NCT00710684|191527943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||1.4|-4.0|0.337
95955486|NCT02621047|191882790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|165.0||||||||165|20.0|
95777804|NCT00710684|191527943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.0|-1.7|0.596
95777805|NCT00710684|191527943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 36||2.7|-4.4|0.634
95777806|NCT00710684|191527943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||5.6|-1.4|0.238
95777807|NCT00710684|191527943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.8|-6.0|0.292
95955487|NCT02621047|191882791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|96.6||||||90.0|69.9|134.0||||||||134|69.9|
95777808|NCT00710684|191527943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||6.2|-1.0|0.161
95777809|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 12||2.1|-0.8|0.396
95777810|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 12||3.2|0.3|0.019
95777811|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.2|-0.3|0.110
95777812|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||3.7|0.3|0.024
95777813|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo ate Week 36||2.0|-2.1|0.944
95777814|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 36||3.8|0.1|0.037
95777815|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.9|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||2.9|-1.9|0.705
95777816|NCT00710684|191527944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||4.2|-0.3|0.088
95955488|NCT02621047|191882791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|55.8||||||90.0|26.0|120.0||||||||120|26.0|
95955489|NCT02621047|191882792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|203.0||||||||203|94.8|
95955490|NCT02621047|191882792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|180.0||||||90.0|97.2|334.0||||||||334|97.2|
95955491|NCT02621047|191882793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|137.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|186.0||||||||186|100|
95955492|NCT02621047|191882793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio %|158.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|274.0||||||||274|91.2|
95962210|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-9.8|-25.6|<.0001
95777817|NCT00710684|191527945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 24||0.6|-0.6|0.962
95860742|NCT00535288|191680414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.12|<0.01
95955493|NCT02853305|191882833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||0.93|0.65|0.0033
95955494|NCT02853305|191882834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Stratified Log-Rank|The treatment difference in OS was assessed by the stratified log-rank test.||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to chemo). The HR and its 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.02|0.72|0.0407
95955495|NCT02853305|191882835|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.32||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in CPS≥10 participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in CPS≥10 participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) at baseline.||1.32|0.77|
95955496|NCT02853305|191882836|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.11||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||OS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to OS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.11|0.77|
95955497|NCT02853305|191882837|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||PFS in all participants of the pembro arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.58|1.09|
95955498|NCT02853305|191882840|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|17.1||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||17.1|2.4|
95955499|NCT02853305|191882842|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||10.6|-1.6|
95955500|NCT02853305|191882843|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-7.4||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||ORR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to ORR in participants of the chemo arm. The comparison was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-7.4|-22.0|
95955501|NCT02853305|191882845|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-21.6||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||DCR in participants of the pembro arm was compared to DCR in participants of the chemo arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||-21.6|-35.9|
95997276|NCT00045032|191970177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
95997277|NCT00045032|191970179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.11|0.80|0.4755
95997278|NCT00045032|191970181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95777818|NCT00710684|191527945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 24||1.0|-0.1|0.134
95777819|NCT00710684|191527945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 15 mg versus placebo at Week 48||0.7|-1.0|0.782
95997279|NCT00045032|191970181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.87|0.67|
95777820|NCT00710684|191527945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included fixed categorical terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and country.||SB-742457 35 mg versus placebo at Week 48||1.2|-0.3|0.268
95777821|NCT00514904|191527955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.26|20.23||||||||20.23|10.26|
95997280|NCT00045032|191970181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997281|NCT00045032|191970181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.85|0.65|
95997282|NCT00045032|191970183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.17|0.85|0.9626
95810209|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.65||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.65|-1.56|<0.001
95810210|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.07|0.009
95810211|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.05|0.011
95777822|NCT00514904|191527955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|24.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.52|31.87||||||||31.87|17.52|
95997283|NCT00045032|191970185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95777823|NCT00514904|191527955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|11.08|||Difference in percentage|||||11.08|2.68|
95777824|NCT00514904|191527955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criterion: Lower limit \[LL\] of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval \[CI\] ≥-10%.|Difference in percentage|23.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.02|30.3||||||||30.3|18.02|
95777825|NCT00514904|191527956|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for assessment: upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio between Nimenrix Group and Mencevax ACWY Group being lower than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit ratio of 3.0 in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptoms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.34||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|20.25|||Chi-squared|||||20.25|0.56|0.2202
95777826|NCT04216589|191527970|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-3.06|||Regression, Linear|||The study was powered to detect an absolute IHTG change of -5% assuming a null change of 0%, a standard deviation of absolute IHTG change of 9%, and 37 evaluable participants.||-3.06|-5.41|<0.001
95777827|NCT04216589|191527971|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-31.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.04|-23.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-23.62|-39.04|<0.001
95777828|NCT04216589|191527975|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-2.17|-3.36|<0.001
95810212|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.95|0.035
95810213|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.85||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.79|<0.001
95810214|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.76||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.71|<0.001
95777829|NCT04216589|191527976|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.75||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-1.75|-2.55|<0.001
95777830|NCT04216589|191527977|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-6.13||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-6.13|-9.48|<0.001
95777831|NCT04216589|191527978|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.03|-7.30|<0.001
95777832|NCT04216589|191527979|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-4.78||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.78|-8.54|<0.001
95777833|NCT04216589|191527980|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|-3.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-3.99|-7.07|<0.001
95777834|NCT04216589|191527981|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.82||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.25||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.25|-3.17|0.092
95777835|NCT04216589|191527983|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.17||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.32|< 0.001
95777836|NCT04216589|191527984|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.09||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.09|-14.70|<0.001
95810215|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
95997284|NCT00045032|191970185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.64|
95997285|NCT00045032|191970185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997286|NCT00045032|191970185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.61|
95777837|NCT04216589|191527985|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-5.48||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-5.48|-12.26|<0.001
95955502|NCT02853305|191882849|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.12||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||6.12|-0.76|
95860743|NCT00535288|191680414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.11|0.02
95777838|NCT04216589|191527986|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|2.89||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||2.89|-10.84|0.25
95777839|NCT04216589|191527987|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-4.08||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.08|-19.79|0.004
95777840|NCT04216589|191527988|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.5||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|5.05||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||5.05|-7.14|0.73
95777841|NCT04216589|191527989|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|0.03||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-13.85|0.051
95777842|NCT04216589|191527990|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|4.11||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||4.11|-0.02|0.053
95777843|NCT04216589|191527991|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||1.20|-2.76|0.43
95777844|NCT04216589|191527992|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.04|-7.53||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-7.53|-46.04|0.007
95777845|NCT04216589|191527993|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.29|-4.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||-4.01|-33.29|0.014
95777846|NCT04216589|191527994|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 12 (0.55; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.72) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 12.||0.94|0.55|0.016
95860744|NCT00535288|191680414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.02|-0.13|<0.01
95777847|NCT04216589|191527994|OTHER|This was a single arm trial.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|The GEE model used a log link and an unstructured correlation.|The risk ratio is comparing the estimated risk at Week 24 (0.58; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.74) to estimated risk at Baseline (0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.90).|Comparison between Baseline and Week 24.||0.98|0.58|0.033
95777848|NCT01254851|191527995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|0.39||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.70
95777849|NCT02326298|191527996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.962|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.968|120.371||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||120.371|6.968|<0.0001
95777850|NCT02326298|191527996|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.657|195.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||195.634|10.657|<0.0001
95777851|NCT02326298|191527996|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.92|72.17|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||72.17|47.92|
95777852|NCT02326298|191527996|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.65|80.99|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||80.99|57.65|
95777853|NCT02326298|191527997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.699|109.399||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||109.399|3.699|<0.0001
95997287|NCT00045032|191970187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.10|0.80|0.4500
95777854|NCT02326298|191527997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.687|170.548||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.548|5.687|<0.0001
95777855|NCT02326298|191527997|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.7|54.86|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.86|30.70|
95777856|NCT02326298|191527997|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.33|65.94|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||65.94|41.33|
95777857|NCT02326298|191527998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.717|235.193||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment,region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||235.193|5.717|<0.0001
95777858|NCT02326298|191527998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.88|324.988||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.988|7.880|<0.0001
95777859|NCT02326298|191527998|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.85|49.87|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||49.87|20.85|
95777860|NCT02326298|191527998|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|58.71|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95% CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||58.71|27.56|
95777861|NCT02326298|191527999|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.18|-3.81||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.81|-8.18|<0.0001
95955503|NCT02853305|191882850|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.00|0.62|
95997288|NCT00045032|191970189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95997289|NCT00045032|191970189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83|||||HR for Herceptin 1-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.83|0.62|
95777862|NCT02326298|191527999|SUPERIORITY||Ajusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.05|-4.62||P-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.62|-9.05|<0.0001
95777863|NCT03521817|191528002|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.231
95777864|NCT02304380|191528069|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0469|0.034|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0340|-0.0469|
95777865|NCT02304380|191528070|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.0722|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0722|0.0290|
95777866|NCT02304380|191528071|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0099|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0099|-0.0109|
95777867|NCT02304380|191528072|OTHER||Difference in differences|-0.0207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0096||||||||0.0096|-0.0318|
95777868|NCT02304380|191528073|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0036|0.0289|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0289|0.0036|
95777869|NCT02304380|191528074|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0111|||||||Linear model difference in incidences.|0.0111|-0.0020|
95777870|NCT02304380|191528075|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0129|0.0431|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0431|-0.0129|
95777871|NCT02304380|191528076|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0328|0.0197|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0197|-0.0328|
95810216|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.16|0.005
95777872|NCT02304380|191528077|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0105|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0163|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0163|-0.0374|
95777873|NCT02304380|191528078|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.0044|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0044|-0.0031|
95777874|NCT02304380|191528079|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1025|0.044||||Linear model difference in incidences.||||0.0440|-0.1025|
95777875|NCT02304380|191528080|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1492|0.0116|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0116|-0.1492|
95777876|NCT02304380|191528081|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.0134|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0134|0.0010|
95810217|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.12||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-1.07|0.013
95810218|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.81||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.81|-1.76|<0.001
95810219|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.63||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.58|<0.001
95810220|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.00|-0.95|0.050
95810221|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.34||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.29|<0.001
95810222|NCT00863304|191593484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-1.11|0.009
95810223|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
95810224|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
95955504|NCT02853305|191882851|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.18||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable, and with treatment by study visit interactions and stratification factors (investigator's choice of chemotherapy \[cisplatin or carboplatin\] and PD-L1 status \[CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10\]) at baseline as covariates.||3.18|-5.06|
95777877|NCT02304380|191528082|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0107||||||||0.0107|0.0009|
95777878|NCT02304380|191528083|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0106|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0106|0.0001|
95777879|NCT02304380|191528084|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0096|0.0017|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0017|-0.0096|
95777880|NCT02304380|191528085|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0178|-0.0043|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||-0.0043|-0.0178|
95810225|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
95810226|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
95955505|NCT02853305|191882852|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.49||No formal hypothesis testing was performed.||||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro arm and the chemo arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by investigator's choice of chemotherapy (cisplatin or carboplatin) and PD-L1 status (CPS\<10 vs. CPS≥10) at baseline.||1.49|0.93|
95777881|NCT02304380|191528086|OTHER||Difference in Differences|0.0026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0086|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0086|-0.0036|
95777882|NCT02304380|191528087|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.0284|||||Linear model difference in incidences.|||0.0284|0.0110|
95777883|NCT02607280|191528091|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.14||||||||-1.14|-2.45|
95777884|NCT02607280|191528091|OTHER||LS mean change from baseline at Week 14|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.36||||||||-0.36|-3.77|
95777885|NCT00328094|191528092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.97|||Chi-squared|||||1.97|0.85|0.23
95777886|NCT02368210|191528094|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
95955506|NCT01163955|191882879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in the floor.||9|0|<.0005
95777887|NCT02368210|191528095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Scaling.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
95777888|NCT02368210|191528095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: erythema.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
95810227|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
95810228|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.56|<0.001
95810229|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.58|<0.001
95810230|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|<0.001
95955507|NCT01163955|191882879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=50||Start total score at 0 minutes is being compared to the end total score at 5 minutes while sitting in a chair.||9|0|<.0005
95955508|NCT02460562|191882880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Mean salivary fluoride concentrations (part per million) between groups were assessed at different time points using repeated measures analysis of variance. Saliva fluoride concentration from each groups were compared with baseline using a t-test.|ANOVA|||Mean saliva fluoride concentration (part per million) collected at different time points was compared in order to assess the change in capacity for fluoride release and recharge from the resin denture base and to assess differences between the control and the intervention group.||||<0.05
95955509|NCT02460562|191882881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Caries assessments were performed to examine the difference in mean number of surface caries (DMFS) ± standard deviation between the control and the intervention groups at baseline and at 1.5 years.The transition (∆Q) of developed new caries surfaces (ICDAS score 1-3) from baseline to 1.5 years of follow-up for the two groups was analyzed with respect to arrest or progress rates. Numbers of new caries surfaces were compared by independent t-test, Pearson chi-square and correlation coefficient.||||<0.05
95955510|NCT01061775|191882882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95955511|NCT01061775|191882883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95955512|NCT01061775|191882884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95955513|NCT01061775|191882885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95955514|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||0.391|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||0.391
95955515|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955516|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955517|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955518|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955519|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955520|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955521|NCT03334747|191882886|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided p-value results from Fisher exact test for each KAE609 treatment group compared to Pooled Coartem||||||1
95955522|NCT03866434|191882936|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LSmeans|64.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.212|77.516|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares (LS) mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.||77.516|53.212|
95962211|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-13.8||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 28||-13.8|-29.3|<.0001
95997290|NCT00045032|191970189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95860745|NCT00535288|191680414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.08|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.03|-0.14|<0.01
95777889|NCT02368210|191528095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05. The reported P-Value applies to the clinical sign of psoriasis: Plaque Elevation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (scaling, erythema and plaque elevation).||||<0.001
95777890|NCT00078949|191528100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The literature has suggested that the ORR is approximately 50% for this patient population treated with DHAP. The treatment difference is defined as the response rate for the DHAP arm minus that of GDP arm. We would consider GDP to be non-inferior to DHAP if we are 95% sure that the true difference is less than 10%. In order to rule out that the 10% difference with 80% power, we need to accrue a total of 630 eligible patients. The actual sample size for this final analysis is 619 patients.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|6.7||p-value for non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-9.0|0.005
95777891|NCT00078949|191528101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.55||95.0|-10.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-10.0|0.55
95777892|NCT00078949|191528102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Log Rank|||It was estimated that 240 patients will be eligible for the maintenance question, and randomized with a 1:1 ratio to either rituximab or observation. It is expected that the 2-year event-free survival will be 50% on the observation arm. In order to detect a 15% difference in the 2-year event-free survival with an 80% power using a two-sided 5% level test, 142 events are required to detect an HR of 0.622.||1.12|0.52|0.17
95777893|NCT00577005|191528104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.05425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03211||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly cocaine urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z=-1.68950 p = 0.09112|||||0.09
95777894|NCT00577005|191528105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04369||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|We modeled the the change in thrice weekly opioid urines using a mixed-effect ordinal regression approach with MIXOR.|Group x time interaction: Z= 0.58823 p = 0.55638|||||0.55
95777895|NCT00577005|191528106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||p-value \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Log Rank|Chi-Square 0.175. df = 1, p=0.676||||||0.67
95777896|NCT00577005|191528107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1557||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Interaction of time x group: Z = -1.5671, p = 0.11708|||||0.11
95777897|NCT02539134|191528125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.06||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|1.374|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.374|0.741|0.757
95810231|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.102
95777898|NCT02539134|191528125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.078|1.664|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.664|1.078|0.042
95777899|NCT02539134|191528126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.45|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.450|0.946|0.191
95777900|NCT02539134|191528126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.37||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.657|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.657|1.089|0.036
95777901|NCT02539134|191528127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.19||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.489|||Power model|||Day 1: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 1 was assessed using the power model. For Day 1, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.875, 1.125) for the dose range of 100 mg to 600 mg.||1.489|0.890|0.288
95777902|NCT02539134|191528128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.36||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.642|||Power model|||Day 14: For groups with QD dosing, dose proportionality for TAK-935 plasma exposure on Day 14 was assessed using the power model. For Day 14, the criteria for dose proportionality was the 90% CI for the slope within (0.839, 1.161) for the dose range of 100 mg to 400 mg.||1.642|1.080|0.039
95777903|NCT02453282|191528136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|97.54|0.564|1.019||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.019|0.564|0.036
95810232|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.31|0.066
95810233|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.28||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.60|<0.001
95997291|NCT00045032|191970189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.79|||||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Observation Arm.|||0.79|0.59|
95777904|NCT02453282|191528136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|98.77|0.611|1.173||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.173|0.611|0.202
95777905|NCT02453282|191528137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.722|1.534||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.534|0.722|0.705
95777906|NCT02453282|191528138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.421||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.421|0.836|0.523
95777907|NCT02453282|191528139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.067||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.067|0.725|0.194
95777908|NCT02453282|191528139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.213||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.213|0.834|0.952
95777909|NCT02453282|191528139|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.371||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.371|0.931|0.218
95810234|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.21||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.53|<0.001
95810235|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.34|0.027
95997292|NCT00045032|191970191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.15|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.15|0.80|0.6823
95810236|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.1||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.42|0.001
95810237|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.020
95860746|NCT00535288|191680415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||0.1|-2.1|0.08
95777910|NCT02453282|191528140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.128||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.128|0.812|0.602
95997293|NCT00045032|191970193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Log Rank||HR for Herceptin 2-Year Arm versus Herceptin 1-Year Arm.|||1.13|0.84|0.7251
95810238|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.17||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.49|<0.001
95997294|NCT01614457|191970255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.1114||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1305|5.3532|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||5.3532|-1.1305|0.1979
95997295|NCT01614457|191970256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.2626||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5698|2.095||p-value for the treatment effect is from the slope of BMI (kg/m2) versus time (days).|Linear Mixed model|||Analysis was based on linear mixed model with dependent variable BMI and treatment as a fixed effect, adjustment for baseline percent predicted FEV1, age and visit by treatment interaction was included as covariates and intercept, visit were included as random effects.||2.0950|-1.5698|0.7780
95777911|NCT02453282|191528140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.103||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.103|0.794|0.430
95777912|NCT02453282|191528140|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.157||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.157|0.828|0.802
95777913|NCT02453282|191528141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.143||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.143|0.667|0.324
95777914|NCT02453282|191528141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.541||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.541|0.911|0.207
95777915|NCT02453282|191528142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.339||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.339|0.894|0.383
95777916|NCT02453282|191528142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.678||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.678|1.136|0.001
95777917|NCT02453282|191528142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.403||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.403|0.954|0.138
95955523|NCT03866434|191882937|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|%ratio of Geometric LeastSquare(LS)means|82.203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.501|94.507|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||94.507|71.501|
95955524|NCT03866434|191882938|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.555|84.152|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||84.152|64.555|
95777918|NCT02453282|191528143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.475||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.475|1.043|0.015
95810239|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.43|0.001
95810240|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.24|0.328
95962212|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.8||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|0.0||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||0.0|-15.6|0.0501
95810241|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
95777919|NCT02453282|191528143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.485||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.485|1.054|0.010
95777920|NCT02453282|191528143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.179||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.179|0.845|0.984
95777921|NCT02453282|191528144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.437||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.437|0.582|0.698
95777922|NCT02453282|191528144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.363||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.363|0.549|0.534
95777923|NCT02453282|191528144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|1.496||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.496|0.601|0.820
95777924|NCT02453282|191528145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.0||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.000|0.480|0.050
95777925|NCT02453282|191528145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|0.959||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.959|0.464|0.029
95810242|NCT00863304|191593485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
95810243|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.35|0.012
95810244|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.28|0.113
95810245|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.18||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.49|<0.001
95777926|NCT02453282|191528145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.43||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.430|0.661|0.887
95777927|NCT02453282|191528146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.908||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.908|0.462|0.012
95777928|NCT02453282|191528146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|1.048||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.048|0.543|0.093
95810246|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.29||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.01|0.076
95810247|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.37||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.37|0.06|0.007
95777929|NCT02453282|191528146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.647||P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous) and PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Durvalumab Monotherapy||1.647|0.818|0.406
95777930|NCT02453282|191528153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.975||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.975|0.597|0.030
95777931|NCT02453282|191528153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.994||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||0.994|0.606|0.045
95777932|NCT02453282|191528154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.08||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.080|0.746|0.255
95777933|NCT02453282|191528154|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.132||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.132|0.787|0.534
95777934|NCT02453282|191528155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.131||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab Monotherapy Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.131|0.824|0.663
95777935|NCT02453282|191528155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.027||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>=25% Vs \<25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs SoC Chemotherapy||1.027|0.746|0.103
95777936|NCT00985426|191528165|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3|||||SPR difference = SPR for HEPLISAV-B minus SPR for Engerix-B.|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the difference in seroprotection rates (SPR) between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
95777937|NCT00985426|191528165|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.3||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPR between the HEPLISAV-B group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||14.3|1.7|
95810248|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.26||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.57|<0.001
95777938|NCT00985426|191528170|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 0%.|SPR Difference (%)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|21.2||||||Two-sided 95% CIs of the difference in SPRs between the HEPLISAV group and the Engerix-B group at 28 weeks was computed using the Newcombe score method with continuity correction.||21.2|4.4|
95777939|NCT02380859|191528172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Group (real, sham) x Time (pre, 1d post) x Stepping Direction (forward, backward) ANOVA||||0.005
95777940|NCT01661933|191528207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
95777941|NCT01661933|191528208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.837
95810249|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
95777942|NCT01661933|191528209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.99|ONE_SIDED||||||Binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that irrespective of hookworm infection, GC-1g would result in a 2-point or more deterioration in the Marsh score. A binomial (yes=deterioration or no=no deterioration) distribution was applied to pre- and post-GC-1g paired biopsies.||||=0.99
95777943|NCT01661933|191528210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects model.|||||||=0.005
95777944|NCT02720744|191528233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|8.75||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline (or its log transformation).|Difference from placebo was defined by the FT218 mean value minus placebo value.|||8.75|3.52|<0.001
95777945|NCT02720744|191528234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|11.23||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|GLIMMIX model|P-values estimated with categorized CGI-Improvement response (very much or much improved versus other category) at the specific visit.||||11.23|2.76|<0.001
95777946|NCT02720744|191528235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-3.98||Each outcome measure for the 9.0 g, 7.5 g, and 6.0 g doses were tested at the 2-sided α level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were estimated using an MMRM with change from baseline to the end of the respective treatment period.||||-3.98|-9.32|<0.001
95777947|NCT02122770|191528236|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.6|118.05||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric least square (LS) means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.05|82.60|
95777948|NCT02122770|191528237|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.34|118.69||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||118.69|102.34|
95777949|NCT02122770|191528238|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|110.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|119.43||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||119.43|102.53|
95777950|NCT02122770|191528239|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|113.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.35|149.74||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||149.74|85.35|
95777951|NCT02122770|191528239|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|159.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.97|282.96||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||282.96|89.97|
95777952|NCT02122770|191528239|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.19|108.17||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||108.17|55.19|
95777953|NCT02122770|191528240|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|121.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.92|133.24||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||133.24|110.92|
95810250|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.13||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.45|<0.001
95810251|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.29|0.120
95810252|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.29|0.126
95810253|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.3||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.62|<0.001
95810254|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
95777954|NCT02122770|191528240|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
95777955|NCT02122770|191528240|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|113.23||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||113.23|90.72|
95777956|NCT02122770|191528241|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|122.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.13|134.82||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||134.82|112.13|
95777957|NCT02122770|191528241|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|130.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.99|158.35||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference||158.35|106.99|
95777958|NCT02122770|191528241|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.14|111.68||||||Natural-log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were fit using a mixed effects model with study day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Geometric LS means and geometric LS mean ratio were back-transformed least squares mean and treatment mean difference.||111.68|91.14|
95777959|NCT02063178|191528256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This randomized clinical trial was designed to have 90% power to detect a 4% weight loss percent difference at 12 months between the two study arms.||||<0.001
95777960|NCT02063178|191528257|OTHER|Correlation|||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||The association between weight change percent and attendance was described using Spearman rank correlation.||||<0.0001
95777961|NCT02063178|191528258|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
95777962|NCT02063178|191528259|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Correlation|||||||<0.0001
95777963|NCT00767039|191528292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).|t-test, 2 sided|||Respiratory support were compared using a t-test for individual time points and Generalized Linear Model to account for correlations among repeated measures. Patient who survive \>/= 3 days were included in the analysis.||||< 0.05
95777964|NCT00767039|191528293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.95|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.95|0.19|<0.05
95777965|NCT00767039|191528294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
95777966|NCT00767039|191528295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.96|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.96|0.25|<0.05
95777967|NCT00767039|191528296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.38|1.29|<0.01
95777968|NCT00767039|191528297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95777969|NCT00767039|191528298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
95777970|NCT00767039|191528299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested null hypothesis. T-test and Generalized Linear Model was used to assess respiratory support parameters (mean airway pressure and percent fraction of inspiratory oxygen x mean airway pressure).||||<0.05
95777971|NCT00767039|191528300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95777972|NCT00767039|191528301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.89|0.71|>0.05
95777973|NCT00767039|191528302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.63|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.63|0.84|>0.05
95810255|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
95777974|NCT02505334|191528303|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg/day vs. liraglutide 0.9 mg/day was to be considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day minus liraglutide 0.9 mg/day) for change from baseline in HbA1c (% of HbA1c) was entirely below 0%, equivalent to a one-sided test with significance level of 2.5%.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Missing data was imputed using the LOCF method. The change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline response as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
95777975|NCT01313494|191528372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.095|||Repeated measures ANCOVA|Independent variables: treatment, baseline value of pre-bronchodilator FEV1, time and a treatment-by-time interaction.||The primary endpoint was tested in a confirmatory manner with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||0.095|0.046|<0.0001
95777976|NCT00550862|191528418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95777977|NCT00550862|191528418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95777978|NCT00550862|191528418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Initial Phase 2 study: no a priori estimate of treatment effect available. Effect size estimated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hierarchical model applied and pairwise comparisons of the 10mg treatment group versus the placebo group, then 25 mg and 50 mg were performed.||All tests: Descriptive methods were used with nominal p values provided and 95% confidence intervals||||<0.0001
95777979|NCT00550862|191528419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95777980|NCT00550862|191528420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0005
95777981|NCT01273155|191528515|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.096||||0.327|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.327
95777982|NCT01273155|191528515|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.178||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.063
95777983|NCT01273155|191528515|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
95777984|NCT01273155|191528515|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.253||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.009
95777985|NCT01273155|191528515|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.278||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
95810256|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.38|0.009
95777986|NCT01273155|191528515|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.098||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.312
95777987|NCT01273155|191528516|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.215||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.025
95777988|NCT01273155|191528516|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
95777989|NCT01273155|191528516|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
95777990|NCT01273155|191528516|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.061||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.524
95777991|NCT01273155|191528516|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.246||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.010
95777992|NCT01273155|191528517|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.057||||0.548|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.548
95777993|NCT01273155|191528518|OTHER|Belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.091||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.340
95777994|NCT01273155|191528518|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide|Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
95777995|NCT01273155|191528518|OTHER|Methyl belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.268||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.005
95810257|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.32|0.052
95777996|NCT01273155|191528518|OTHER|M21|Kendall's Tau|0.242||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
95777997|NCT01273155|191528518|OTHER|M24|Kendall's Tau|-0.114||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.231
95777998|NCT01273155|191528518|OTHER|M26|Kendall's Tau|0.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.021
95777999|NCT01273155|191528519|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|-0.216||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
95778000|NCT01273155|191528520|OTHER||Kendall's Tau|0.06||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.531
95778001|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.224||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.023
95810258|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
95778002|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.295||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.011
95778003|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.335||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.004
95778004|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
95778005|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.127||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.275
95778006|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.002
95778007|NCT01273155|191528521|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.159||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.095
95778008|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|Belinostat glucuronide/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.055||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.568
95778009|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|Methyl belinostat/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||<0.001
95778010|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|M21/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.315||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
95778011|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|M24/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.037
95778012|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|M26/belinostat|Kendall's Tau|0.218||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.033
95778013|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|M24/M26|Kendall's Tau|-0.309||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.001
95778014|NCT01273155|191528522|OTHER|M26/M21|Kendall's Tau|-0.205||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra|||Effects of liver dysfunction on PK parameter values were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), using the Jonckheere-Terpstra and Kendall's Tau test. Data were considered significantly different when p\<0.05.||||0.032
95778015|NCT04250298|191528525|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95778016|NCT04250298|191528526|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
95810259|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.48|<0.001
95778017|NCT04250298|191528527|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
95778018|NCT04250298|191528528|OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.267
95778019|NCT04250298|191528529|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95778020|NCT04250298|191528530|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.318
95778021|NCT04250298|191528531|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
95778022|NCT04250298|191528532|OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.548
95778023|NCT04250298|191528533|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.401
95778024|NCT04250298|191528534|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
95778025|NCT04250298|191528535|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.506
95778026|NCT04250298|191528541|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher Exact, Chi-Squared, Kolmogorv-Smirnow||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"sub-population 1 vs. sub-population 2: Parametric and nonparametric univariate tests: t-test for independent samples, Mann-Whitney-U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square homogeneity test; normal distribution check by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors -significance correction, type I error = 10%).~Estimate the true effect size:~Two-sided 95% confidence intervals (depending on the nature of the data sets: parametric, non-parametric or Clopper-Pearson) are calculated for all parameters."||||0.919
95778027|NCT04250298|191528543|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95778028|NCT04250298|191528544|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
95778029|NCT04250298|191528545|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
95778030|NCT04250298|191528546|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
95778031|NCT04250298|191528551|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95778032|NCT04250298|191528552|OTHER|||||||0.862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862
95778033|NCT04250298|191528553|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.250
95778034|NCT04250298|191528554|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95778035|NCT04250298|191528555|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95778036|NCT04250298|191528556|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
95778037|NCT04250298|191528557|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
95778038|NCT04250298|191528558|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
95778039|NCT04250298|191528561|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.111
95778040|NCT04250298|191528562|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.213
95778041|NCT00962091|191528618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.37|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||2.37|1.52|
95778042|NCT00962091|191528619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.78|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=OS-PIC). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.78|1.08|
95778043|NCT00962091|191528625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.06|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 Cmax values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.06|0.66|
95778044|NCT00962091|191528626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.34|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUClast values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.34|0.80|
95778045|NCT00962091|191528627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.32|||||The CIs are calculated for the difference in the LS means of the ln-transformed Day 1 AUC values (difference=Fed-Fasted). Antilogs of the confidence limits for the difference are taken to construct the CIs for the ratio of the geometric means.|||1.32|0.68|
95778046|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.0|-3.3|< 0.001
95778047|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|30.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar|Type 3||30.0|18.7|< 0.001
95778048|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||6.4|0.0|< 0.001
95778049|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.8|-3.9|< 0.001
95778050|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||-1.6|-10.0|< 0.001
95778051|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||4.0|-5.7|< 0.001
95778052|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.7|-1.1|< 0.001
95810260|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.0||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.33|0.051
95810261|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.41|0.003
95962213|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-12.2||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-12.2|-27.9|<.0001
95778053|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||4.6|-1.9|< 0.001
95778054|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||4.7|-0.2|< 0.001
95778055|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||4.7|-2.1|< 0.001
95778056|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.6|-1.9|< 0.001
95810262|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.069
95810263|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.57|<0.001
95810264|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
95810265|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.37|0.012
95810266|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.36|0.020
95810267|NCT00863304|191593486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||P-value was based on pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, index joint as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.32|0.064
95810268|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.8|-3.1|0.253
95810269|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.9|-2.1|0.919
95810270|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.2||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.8|-2.2|0.829
95810271|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.2|-4.5|0.074
95955525|NCT03866434|191882939|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|85.527|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.163|93.584|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||93.584|78.163|
95810272|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||3.3|-1.3|0.393
95810273|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.4|-0.3|0.088
95810274|NCT00806585|191593524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||4.3|-0.4|0.108
95810275|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.1|-4.0|0.543
95810276|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||1.3|-4.9|0.246
95962214|NCT04832971|191896110|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.1||Includes treatment arm, study visit, randomization stratification factor (level of LDL-C at Screening \[≥100 mg/dL versus \<100 mg/dL\]),and baseline value as model terms. Also includes treatment by visit and treatment by baseline as interaction terms.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 36||-8.1|-23.5|<.0001
95778057|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||1.9|-1.0|< 0.001
95778058|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 1 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||6.5|-2.9|< 0.001
95778059|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 1||3.9|-2.0|< 0.001
95778060|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 3||28.3|16.5|< 0.001
95778061|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 4||5.4|-1.4|< 0.001
95778062|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 5||2.7|-4.1|< 0.001
95778063|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6A||2.8|-4.2|< 0.001
95778064|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 6B||5.6|-3.7|< 0.001
95778065|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 7F||2.4|-1.7|< 0.001
95778066|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 9V||5.2|-1.1|< 0.001
95778067|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 14||3.1|-2.8|< 0.001
95778068|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 18C||5.9|-0.3|< 0.001
95778069|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19A||2.2|-2.5|< 0.001
95778070|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 19F||0.9|-2.9|< 0.001
95778071|NCT02987972|191528683|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical criterion for non-inferiority corresponds to the lower bound of the adjusted 95% CI of the proportion difference (V114 minus Prevnar 13™) being greater than -0.15 for each of the 13 shared serotypes.|Difference in Percentages|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in Response Rate calculated as Percentage V114 Lot 2 minus Percentage Prevnar 13™|Type 23F||8.7|-0.1|< 0.001
95778072|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.64|
95778073|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.23|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.23|1.75|
95778074|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.16|0.92|
95778075|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.89|0.68|
95810277|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.4||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||2.7|-3.5|0.821
95955526|NCT03866434|191882940|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|73.007|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.528|85.243|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||85.243|62.528|
95810278|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-3.3|-10.7|<0.001
95810279|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|9.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||9.8|2.4|0.001
95955527|NCT03866434|191882941|EQUIVALENCE|90% CIs of geometric mean ratios being within 80% to 125%.|% ratio of Geometric LS means|86.504|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.462|95.371|||ANOVA|A 2-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed factors for treatment and participant was fitted to the natural logtransformed PK parameters.|This analysis was performed based on the ratio of geometric LS means and 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric means expressed as percent.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between the two treatments (anagrelide with omeprazole \[Day 8\] versus anagrelide alone \[Day 1\]). In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the LS mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CI were calculated.||95.371|78.462|
95955528|NCT01485991|191882943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.5||based on the asymptotic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for stratification factors, using a non-inferiority margin of 12 percent|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.8|0.001
95955529|NCT00125853|191882948|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) = 0.05 (0.09)"||||||0.6|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on ISI||||0.60
95955530|NCT00125853|191882949|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -2.59 (1.34)"||||||0.06|||||||Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for|||Comparing treatment effects on ABPM||||0.06
95955531|NCT00125853|191882950|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0/09 (0.14)"||||||0.51|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on total cholesterol||||0.51
95955532|NCT00125853|191882951|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE) =0.02 (0.03)"||||||0.48|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on HbA1c||||0.48
95955533|NCT00125853|191882952|OTHER|"Linear Mixed effect Model, adjusted for baseline values and period effect~Difference of LSMeans treatment effect (SE)~= -0.21(0.13)"||||||0.09|||||||Linear Mixed effect Modelling, adjusted|||Comparing treatment effects on BMI||||0.09
95955534|NCT00157209|191882954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.042|||Log Rank|||||1.042|0.533|0.045
95778076|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.63|0.47|
95778077|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.26|0.84|
95778078|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.92|0.73|
95955535|NCT01747629|191882973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.24||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.24|0.59|<0.0001
95955536|NCT01747629|191882974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.55|0.56|<0.0001
95778079|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.00|0.77|
95778080|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.03|0.75|
95778081|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||0.84|0.66|
95778082|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
95778083|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.98|0.79|
95778084|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.13|0.84|
95778085|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|92.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.84|104.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||104.81|80.84|
95778086|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|34.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|41.54|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||41.54|28.50|
95778087|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.94|0.74|
95778088|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.18|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.18|1.71|
95778089|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.14|0.90|
95810280|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||8.9|1.5|0.006
95810281|NCT00806585|191593525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||10.4|3.0|<0.001
95810282|NCT00806585|191593526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.5|-8.3|0.684
95997296|NCT01614457|191970257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-23.9693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0094|-19.9293|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and sweat chloride, using a compound symmetry covariance matrix.||-19.9293|-28.0094|<0.0001
95778090|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.94|0.72|
95778091|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.66|0.49|
95778092|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.10|0.74|
95778093|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.91|0.72|
95778094|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||1.22|0.94|
95778095|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.97|0.71|
95778096|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.12|0.88|
95778097|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.92|0.73|
95778098|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.01|0.81|
95778099|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.37|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.37|1.01|
95778100|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|80.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|91.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||91.24|70.30|
95778101|NCT02987972|191528684|OTHER||GMC Ratio|32.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.25|39.78|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||39.78|27.25|
95778102|NCT02987972|191528685|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.2||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||3.2|-3.1|
95778103|NCT02987972|191528685|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||5.0|-0.7|
95778104|NCT02987972|191528686|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
95778105|NCT02987972|191528686|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™. Confidence intervals based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||1.6|-0.8|
95778106|NCT02987972|191528687|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.8|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.8|-0.3|
95778107|NCT02987972|191528687|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|12.9|||||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||12.9|-0.2|
95778108|NCT02987972|191528688|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.7||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 1 minus Prevnar 13™.|||5.2|-3.9|0.772
95810283|NCT00806585|191593526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.8||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||8.7|-5.0|0.597
95955537|NCT01747629|191882975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.19|0.35|0.0004
95778109|NCT02987972|191528688|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.6||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Difference in percentages calculated as V114 Lot 2 minus Prevnar 13™.|||7.0|-1.7|0.235
95778110|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.76|0.62|
95810284|NCT00806585|191593526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.8|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||5.8|-7.6|0.793
95962215|NCT04082429|191896121|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.29|0.07|<0.001
95778111|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.28|1.75|
95778112|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.07|0.86|
95778113|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.96|0.78|
95778114|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.65|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.65|0.50|
95778115|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.39|1.06|
95778116|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.82|0.67|
95778117|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.95|0.74|
95778118|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.76|0.58|
95778119|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Type 18C|IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|0.90|0.72|
95778120|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.91|0.69|
95778121|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.85|0.65|
95778122|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.07|0.79|
95955538|NCT01747629|191882976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.28|0.57|<0.0001
95778123|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|27.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.64|31.4|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|type 22F||31.40|24.64|
95778124|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|25.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.61|28.92|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||28.92|22.61|
95778125|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.85|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.85|0.69|
95778126|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.39|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||2.39|1.84|
95778127|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.05|0.85|
95778128|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.95|0.77|
95778129|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.74|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.74|0.57|
95778130|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.28|0.97|
95778131|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.86|0.70|
95778132|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.97|0.76|
95778133|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.7|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.70|0.53|
95810285|NCT00806585|191593526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.8||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.2|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment baseline, stratification, time, interaction of time by stratification and treatments factors and a random subject effect||||9.2|-7.6|0.854
95955539|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.117|||0.162
95778134|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.34|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.34|1.07|
95778135|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.94|0.71|
95778136|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||0.94|0.73|
95778137|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.35|0.99|
95778138|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|29.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||29.68|23.31|
95778139|NCT02987972|191528689|OTHER||GMC Ratio|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|27.25|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||27.25|21.32|
95778140|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.81|0.62|
95778141|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.63|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.63|1.27|
95778142|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||1.02|0.76|
95778143|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.84|0.63|
95778144|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.82|0.62|
95778145|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||1.22|0.93|
95955540|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.221|||0.082
95778146|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.77|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.77|0.59|
95778147|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.79|0.60|
95778148|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||1.02|0.76|
95778149|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.08|0.81|
95778150|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||1.01|0.78|
95778151|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.10|0.85|
95778152|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.87|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||0.87|0.64|
95778153|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|149.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.23|172.06|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||172.06|130.23|
95810286|NCT00806585|191593527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.5|-3.2|0.006
95778154|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.93|102.12|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 1/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||102.12|79.93|
95778155|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 1||0.93|0.71|
95810287|NCT00806585|191593527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.3|0.004
95997297|NCT01614457|191970258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|8.3874||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1658|14.609|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Analysis was based on MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, with treatment group, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of age and percent predicted FEV1, and CFQ-R respiratory domain score, using compound symmetry covariance matrix.||14.6090|2.1658|0.0091
95997298|NCT01614457|191970259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||||||0.8556
95810288|NCT00806585|191593527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diffference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.1|-2.6|0.066
95997299|NCT03518840|191970276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3329|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6299|-1.2932|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline ASLR score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2932|-2.6299|<.001
95778156|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.68|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 3||1.68|1.31|
95778157|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.94|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 4||0.94|0.70|
95778158|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.79|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 5||0.79|0.60|
95778159|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6A||0.76|0.58|
95778160|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 6B||0.95|0.72|
95778161|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 7F||0.81|0.62|
95778162|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.88|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 9V||0.88|0.67|
95778163|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 14||0.98|0.73|
95778164|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 18C||1.24|0.93|
95778165|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19A||0.93|0.72|
95810289|NCT00806585|191593527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.6|-3.7|0.008
95810290|NCT00806585|191593528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.18||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.07|-0.44|0.152
95810291|NCT00806585|191593528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least sqaures means|-0.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.02|-0.54|0.035
95810292|NCT00806585|191593528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.04|-0.48|0.095
95810293|NCT00806585|191593528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Model included terms for treatment, stratification factor, time, interaction of time by stratification factor and the interaction of time by treatment||||-0.01|-0.63|0.045
95955541|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0503|||0.286
95778166|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 19F||1.03|0.79|
95778167|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 23F||1.08|0.79|
95778168|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|131.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.05|151.0|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 22F||151.00|114.05|
95778169|NCT02987972|191528690|OTHER||GMC Ratio|78.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.82|89.36|||||IgG GMC Ratio (V114 Lot 2/Prevnar 13™) based on ANOVA model with log-transformed IgG antibody responses as response variable and vaccination group as covariate.|Type 33F||89.36|69.82|
95778170|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.527||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-Glutamyl Transferase (Gamma-GT) in log10 international units per liter (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\]12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.306|0.0211
95778171|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.092|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.092|1.065|<0.0001
95810294|NCT04047355|191593537|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.12
95997300|NCT03518840|191970277|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3353|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|-1.2757|||paired t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the baseline NRS score following four weeks of SIJ belt therapy.||-1.2757|-2.6190|<.001
95997301|NCT00469079|191970288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95810295|NCT04047355|191593537|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95810296|NCT04047355|191593537|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
95955542|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.635
95955543|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.381|||0.061
95955544|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.479|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.479
95955545|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.965|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.965
95997302|NCT00469079|191970289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Product use is by self-report and daily diaries.||||0.05
95778172|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.403|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.403|1.061|0.0053
95778173|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.464||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.818|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.818|0.264|0.0079
95955546|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.324|||0.039
95778174|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.153|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.153|0.471|0.1808
95778175|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.082|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.095|1.069|<0.0001
95778176|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.676||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|0.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kilogram (kg). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.844|0.542|0.0005
95778177|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.573||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.838|0.392|0.0041
95778178|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.142|1.048|<0.0001
95778179|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.945||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.013|31.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||31.359|2.013|0.0031
95778180|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|0.959|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for body mass index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.959|0.844|0.0012
95778181|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.619||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.885|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.885|0.433|0.0085
95810297|NCT04047355|191593538|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The placebo phase serves as the control condition and the propranolol phase serves as the treatment condition.|A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G\*Power, v. 3.1, to determine the achieved power for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for matched pairs.||||0.07
95810298|NCT04047355|191593538|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (r)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95810299|NCT04047355|191593538|SUPERIORITY||Post-hoc power analysis|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The alpha error probability was set at α = 0.05 (two-tailed).|||||
95955547|NCT04089332|191883026|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0423|||0.018
95810300|NCT01472185|191593539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.36||P-value is from a mixed effects model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.36|-0.76|< 0.0001
95864443|NCT01185353|191686786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.120
95955548|NCT04089332|191883027|OTHER||Slope|-1.1138||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Gray Matter Perfusion vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-square = 0|||0.558
95955549|NCT04089332|191883027|OTHER||Slope|-5.8089||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Baseline Gray Matter vs. HOMA-IR|Adjusted R-squared = 0.18|||0.057
95955550|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|-0.4465||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Verbal IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.377
95955551|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|0.6704||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WASI II (Performance IQ) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.402
95955552|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|-0.8486||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.207|||0.203
95955553|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|-0.0266||||0.967|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Pattern Comparison) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.967
95810301|NCT01251757|191593566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.034|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.034|0.011|<.001
95810302|NCT01251757|191593566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.042|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.042|0.019|<.001
95810303|NCT01251757|191593567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.029|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.029|0.002|0.022
95778182|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.174|1.087|<0.0001
95778183|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.784||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|0.982|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.982|0.626|0.0341
95778184|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.575||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.986|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.986|0.335|0.0443
95778185|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.144|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.144|1.057|<0.0001
95810304|NCT01251757|191593567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.05|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence.|Adjusted difference in adherence for IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||0.050|0.023|<.001
95810305|NCT01251757|191593568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.24||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.24|1.05|0.002
95810306|NCT01251757|191593568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.26||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR+ group versus UC group, calculated as IVR+ - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.26|1.06|<0.001
95778186|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.867||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|191.56|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||191.56|2.730|0.0039
95860747|NCT00535288|191680415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.5|-2.7|<0.01
95810307|NCT01251757|191593569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.23||adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant was taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, baseline ACEI/ARB adherence|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.23|1.02|0.014
95810308|NCT01251757|191593569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.32||Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline statin adherence.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio for good adherence in IVR group versus UC group, calculated as IVR - UC.|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline adherence level groups.||1.32|1.10|<0.001
95810309|NCT01251757|191593570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications patient is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||0.0|-1.0|.041
95810310|NCT01251757|191593570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||.5|-.5|.93
95955554|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|-0.1588||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||NIH Toolbox (Picture Sequence) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.616
95955555|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|0.099||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||WRAML (Picture Memory) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.0497|||0.287
95997303|NCT00469079|191970290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Other|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period.||This study was not powered to detect differences in smoking cessation rates between groups; however, smoking status was collected to obtain preliminary data. Point prevalence (no smoking during the previous 7 days) cigarette abstinence rates were calculated at the week-4 visit and at each of the 2 follow-up visits. Continuous abstinence rates were calculated for the 4 week period between the week 1 and week 4 visits. Abstinence at all visits was assessed by self-report and confirmed by CO.||||<0.05
95997304|NCT00469079|191970291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference between 3 groups|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized linear mixed model was used for outcomes that had been repeatedly measured from baseline through the end of the treatment period. Each repeated-measures model included the treatment effect, a visit effect, the interaction between treatment and visit, the interaction between subject error and within-subject error terms.||||> 0.10
95810311|NCT01251757|191593571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.19|0.93|.404
95854738|NCT03137992|191669321|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was declared if the 90% CI was entirely contained within the bioequivalence interval, 0.80 to 1.25.|Least Squared Mean Ratio|0.9369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|1.047|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the Lupin Tiotropium and Spiriva Handihaler LS mean ratio.|A blinded interim analysis was performed after 241 subjects had been randomized with measurable AUC data, which estimated 238 patients would be needed to demonstrate BE with 90% power. Therefore, it was planned that approximately 378 patients would be randomized to allow for a potential 30% loss/withdrawal from the PP population.||1.047|0.834|
95955556|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|0.0676||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Color-Word Interference) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0.106|||0.225
95955557|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|-0.0091||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||D-KEFS (Trail Making Test) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.872
95955558|NCT04089332|191883028|OTHER||Slope|-4.2085||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PedsQL (Child 8-12 / Teen 13-18) vs. Cerebral Blood Flow|Adjusted R-squared = 0|||0.66
95955559|NCT05401149|191883052|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.59|1.35|<0.001
95955560|NCT05401149|191883053|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.06|0.99|0.054
95997305|NCT01756157|191970321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.61||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-1.23|0.0523
95810312|NCT01251757|191593571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline SBP group||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline SBP level groups.||1.09|.85|.54
95810313|NCT01251757|191593572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL subgroups.||0.7|-1.8|.38
95955561|NCT05401149|191883054|OTHER|OR (95% CI) and P values were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.86|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||4.86|0.88|0.097
95955562|NCT05401149|191883055|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.75|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||2.75|1.48|<0.001
95955563|NCT05401149|191883056|OTHER|Odds Ratio (OR) (95% CI) and P values for this outcome were derived from the ordinal logistic regression models with adjustment for prior modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (≤ 1 or not), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||0.93|0.64|0.007
95955564|NCT05401149|191883057|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) (95% Confidence Interval) and P values were derived from the cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs and adjustment for prior mRS score (≤ 1 or not), baseline NIHSS score, and time from symptom onset to hospital admission.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IV rt-PA cohort/Non-reperfusion cohort|||1.64|0.98|0.077
95955565|NCT02864147|191883068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
95955566|NCT02864147|191883068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.384
95955567|NCT02864147|191883069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
95955568|NCT02864147|191883069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||Control is used as the referent using one-sided Fisher's exact tests with a multiple comparison-adjusted p\<0.025 significance level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
95955569|NCT02269917|191883070|NON_INFERIORITY|4|Difference in percentage|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.2|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH)|||||2.2|-1.5|<0.001
95955570|NCT02269917|191883075|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623|=|0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.57|-0.88|=0.580
95955571|NCT02269917|191883075|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||1.88|-0.65|=0.340
95955572|NCT02269917|191883076|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||1.13|-2.30|=0.506
95955573|NCT02269917|191883076|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.862|=|0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change Week 48||0.95|-2.43|=0.392
95955574|NCT02269917|191883077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.624|=|0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||0.31|-2.14|=0.143
95955575|NCT02269917|191883077|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.646|=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||0.18|-2.36|=0.092
95955576|NCT02269917|191883078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24||2.29|-0.02|=0.054
95955577|NCT02269917|191883078|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48||2.57|0.10|=0.034
95955578|NCT02269917|191883079|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
95955579|NCT02269917|191883079|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UACR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
95955580|NCT02269917|191883079|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 24||||<0.001
95955581|NCT02269917|191883079|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UPCR - Change at Week 48||||<0.001
95955582|NCT02269917|191883080|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
95955583|NCT02269917|191883080|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||URBPCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
95955584|NCT02269917|191883080|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 24||||<0.001
95955585|NCT02269917|191883080|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Elteren Test|||UB2MGCR: Change at Week 48||||<0.001
95955586|NCT02269917|191883081|OTHER||||||=|0.288|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 24||||=0.288
95955587|NCT02269917|191883081|OTHER||||||=|0.148|||||||Van Elteren Test|||FEPO4 - Change at Week 48||||=0.148
95955588|NCT02269917|191883092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|2.037|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 24||2.037|0.697|<0.001
95955589|NCT02269917|191883092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|2.814|||ANCOVA|||Spine BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.814|1.277|<0.001
95955590|NCT02269917|191883092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.436|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 24||1.436|0.366|=0.001
95955591|NCT02269917|191883092|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.248|||ANCOVA|||Hip BMD: Percent change at Week 48||2.248|1.144|<0.001
95778187|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.968|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||0.968|0.628|0.0244
95778188|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|1.172|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.172|1.086|<0.0001
95778189|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.547||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.987|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.987|0.303|0.0453
95778190|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.133||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.712|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.712|0.025|0.0184
95778191|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in Weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.134|1.072|<0.0001
95778192|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.543||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.798|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.798|0.370|0.0019
95778193|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.359||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.679|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.679|0.189|0.0017
95778194|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.114|1.047|<0.0001
95778195|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.162|1.029|0.0042
95843710|NCT03043872|191654947|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.029||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.029|0.414|0.0664
95955592|NCT00577096|191883131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
95955593|NCT00577096|191883132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the number of RBC tranfusions in the exercise versus usual care groups. Data was combined from the short and long term RBC transfusions.||||<0.025
95955594|NCT00577096|191883133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared test to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis included short and long term participants.||||||<0.025
95955595|NCT00577096|191883134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
95997306|NCT02698410|191970329|OTHER|||||||0.2968||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.2968
95997307|NCT02698410|191970329|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
95997308|NCT02698410|191970329|OTHER|||||||0.0534||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.0534
95997309|NCT02698410|191970329|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-1: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
95997310|NCT02698410|191970329|OTHER|||||||0.032||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 30%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 30% clinically relevant threshold.||||0.032
95778196|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.893|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.893|0.320|0.0168
95843711|NCT03043872|191654948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.106||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.106|0.504|0.1455
95997311|NCT02698410|191970329|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value estimated using an exact binomial proportion test for one-way tables comparing DCR to 10%.|Binomial proportion test|||Sensitivity Analyisis-2: Comparison of DCR to 10% clinically relevant threshold.||||<0.0001
95997312|NCT04331899|191970345|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.19|0.56|0.29
95997313|NCT04331899|191970346|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.11||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Log change at Day 14. Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.11|-1.23|0.91
95997314|NCT04331899|191970347|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.16|0.85|0.95
95997315|NCT04331899|191970348|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.41||Tests were conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional hazards model covariate-adjusted for age 50+ and sex.|||1.41|0.60|0.76
95997316|NCT00101361|191970350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the required sample size of 400 participants provided 85% power to detect an increase in healing from 25% in the placebo group to 40% in the oxandrolone group, as assuming a 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, 13% rate of loss to follow up, and a test of proportions by using an arcsine transformation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For spinal cord injury patients with a Stage III or IV pressure ulcer of the pelvic region who receive 24 weeks or less of optimized clinical care (i.e., guideline-driven care with nutritional support) compared with optimized clinical care and an oral anabolic steroid agent (oxandrolone) there will be no difference in the percent of healed pressure ulcers.||6.8|-17.5|<0.05
95997317|NCT02424539|191970351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.78|||ANCOVA||Least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.78|-1.68|<0.001
95997318|NCT02424539|191970351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.87|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.87|-1.77|<0.001
95778197|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.501||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.864|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.864|0.291|0.0128
95778198|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.305|0.558|0.4634
95778199|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.725|39.722|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (Rapid Virological Response \[RVR\] vs No RVR/EVR \[Early Virological Response\]). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||39.722|9.725|<0.0001
95778200|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.569|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.408|16.658|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR \[Complete Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||16.658|4.408|<0.0001
95778201|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.519||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|5.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR \[Partial Early Virological Response\] vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.034|1.260|0.0089
95778202|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.908||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.969|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.969|0.851|0.0037
95810314|NCT01251757|191593572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|MeanLDL levels were sig lower for IVR+ participants than for UC participants. In subgroup analyses this difference was most pronounced in those individuals with baseline LDL levels above 100 mg/dL (adj diff=-3.6 mg/dL, 95%CI= (-5.9, -1.3), p=.002).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||-0.2|-2.7|.019
95854739|NCT03137992|191669322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9386|3.646||Efficacy of the Test (T) product was demonstrated if the T was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (p\<0.05 \[two-tailed\]).Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.646|2.9386|<0.001
95955596|NCT00577096|191883135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||||||<0.025
95955597|NCT00577096|191883136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of stem cell collection attempts.||||<0.025
95778203|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.805|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.805|0.379|0.0020
95778204|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.537||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|74.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||74.849|3.654|0.0003
95778205|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.386||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|22.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||22.114|0.870|0.0733
95778206|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.352||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|14.031|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.031|0.394|0.3478
95778207|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.552|0.0264
95778208|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.658||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|27.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||27.946|1.586|0.0096
95778209|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.734||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|21.203|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.203|1.057|0.0421
95778210|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.602||||0.6004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.014|0.090|0.6004
95962216|NCT04082429|191896122|SUPERIORITY|Bleeding endpoints were analysed using a negative binomial regression model with the logarithm of the length of the observation period included (in years) as offset with treatment and bleeding frequency prior to screening as factors.|ABR ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.45|0.10|<0.001
95962217|NCT01107899|191896148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the overall effect of initial inhibition on the day to return to baseline platelet function.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95810315|NCT01251757|191593573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.||We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.13|0.93|.59
95854740|NCT03137992|191669322|SUPERIORITY||Least Squared Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0718|3.7797||Study sensitivity was demonstrated if the Reference (R) product was shown to be statistically superior to Placebo (P) (p \<0.05 \[two-tailed\]). Outcome variable was Difference in Baseline adjusted FEV1 AUC0-24h.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis consisted of effects of treatment, period, and sequence.||||3.7797|3.0718|<0.001
95955598|NCT00577096|191883137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
95955599|NCT00577096|191883138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|This is minus 9 (4 exercise, 5 usual care) participants who were unresponsive to Epoetin Alfa and included participants in short and long study.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of days of stem cell collections.||||<0.025
95955600|NCT00577096|191883139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|T-test and chi-squared to check for equivalence of groups for age, race and gender.|||||<|0.025||95.0||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between groups for the number of platelet transfusions.||||<0.025
95955601|NCT00832650|191883141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.051|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.334|0.436|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean was calculated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline values, age and Body Mass Index (BMI) as covariates.|Null H10: μF8mg=μS10mg where μF8mg and μS10mg are means of GC24 for fesoterodine 8mg and solifenacin 10mg, respectively.||0.436|-0.334|
95955602|NCT00985621|191883168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.49|<0.001
95955603|NCT00985621|191883168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
95955604|NCT00985621|191883169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.49|<0.001
95955605|NCT00985621|191883169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
95955606|NCT00985621|191883169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.65|-0.43|0.700
95955607|NCT00985621|191883170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.78|0.177
95955608|NCT00985621|191883170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.66|0.416
95955609|NCT00985621|191883170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.50|<0.001
95955610|NCT00985621|191883170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.48|<0.001
95955611|NCT00985621|191883171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.69|0.319
95955612|NCT00985621|191883171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.43|0.916
95962218|NCT01107899|191896150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95962219|NCT01107899|191896150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95997319|NCT02424539|191970352|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.39|0.14|<0.001
95997320|NCT02424539|191970352|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
95810316|NCT01251757|191593573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.22||As noted above, the a priori threshold for statistical significance for this test was .025.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for site, gender, age, total number of prescription medications participant is taking, comorbid diabetes/CVD, and baseline LDL group.|Though higher for the IVR+ group, LDL control did not differ significantly between the IVR+ and UC arms. Among those with poor initial control, however, control was sig better for the IVR+ arm (OR = 1.21, 95%CI = (1.04, 1.42), p=.015).|We conducted separate primary analyses of each of IVR and IVR+ versus usual care at the .025 level of significance to assure a trial-wide error rate of .05. This analysis summary is for the IVR+ versus UC comparison only. Also, we only report results here for the full sample, and not also separately for the 3 baseline LDL level subgroups.||1.22|1.00|.058
95778211|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.715||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.988|0.517|0.0418
95778212|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.198||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.839|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Gamma-GT in log10 (IU/L) at BL. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||0.839|0.047|0.0279
95778213|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.474|223.61|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||223.61|7.474|<0.0001
95778214|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.724|206.02|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||206.02|8.724|<0.0001
95810317|NCT02284893|191593574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
95955613|NCT00985621|191883171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-0.63|0.526
95810318|NCT02284893|191593575|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.175||0.0034|||||||Regression, Logistic|the analysis was by Zhang et.al. method with adjustment for baseline A1c.The measure of interest is NOT odds ratio but Risk Difference.||||||0.0034
95860748|NCT00535288|191680415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.4|-2.7|<0.01
95955614|NCT00985621|191883171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.26|0.004
95955615|NCT00985621|191883171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.90|0.134
95955616|NCT00985621|191883171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value, index joint, previous opioid use as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.35|-0.71|0.497
95955617|NCT03873038|191883225|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) was derived using the geometric mean (GM) for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||1.18|0.54|
95955618|NCT03873038|191883225|OTHER|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).|GMR|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.76|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|||0.76|0.37|
95997321|NCT02424539|191970353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.46|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.46|-2.84|<0.001
95810319|NCT02284893|191593576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2891||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95810320|NCT02284893|191593577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95810321|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 1: the ratio of GMT (GMR) (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.92|0.66|
95955619|NCT03873038|191883225|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.21|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.21|0.55|
95778215|NCT01066793|191528702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.247||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|39.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||39.908|1.704|0.0087
95778216|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.770|1.383|0.0002
95778217|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.337||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.661|6.705|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.705|1.661|0.0007
95778218|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.312|0.737|0.3611
95778219|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.958|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.958|0.929|<0.0001
95778220|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.897|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, during the first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.897|0.615|0.0020
95778221|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.864||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.628|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.628|1.322|0.0004
95778222|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.124||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.338|1.040|0.0386
95778223|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.398||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.722|6.706|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.706|1.722|0.0004
95778224|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|2.428|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.428|0.776|0.2769
95778225|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.960|0.931|<0.0001
95810322|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||||||Serotype 3: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.79|
95778226|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.163||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.078|1.256|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.256|1.078|0.0001
95810323|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||Serotype 4: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.67|
95778227|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.091|2.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.932|1.091|0.0213
95778228|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.856|0.0002
95778229|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.538|0.0306
95778230|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.061|0.0005
95778231|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.151|0.0122
95778232|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|5.424|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.424|0.872|0.0956
95778233|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.267||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.197|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.197|0.060|0.0846
95810324|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||Serotype 5: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.65|
95955620|NCT03873038|191883226|OTHER||GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.85|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.85|1.07|
95955621|NCT03873038|191883226|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.11|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001)||1.11|0.67|
95955622|NCT03873038|191883226|OTHER||GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.08|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.08|0.62|
95955623|NCT03873038|191883227|OTHER||GMR|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.46|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.46|0.84|
95955624|NCT03873038|191883227|OTHER||GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||0.87|0.52|
95778234|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|0.945|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.945|0.852|<0.0001
95810325|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.73|
95955625|NCT03873038|191883227|OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.03|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.03|0.60|
95955626|NCT03873038|191883228|OTHER||GMR|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.14|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||2.14|1.05|
95955627|NCT03873038|191883228|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.25|0.67|
95955628|NCT03873038|191883228|OTHER||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.2|||||GMR=GM ESRD/GM Healthy|GMR was derived using GM for participants with ESRD and the GM from historical data obtained from a study of MK-2060 in healthy participants (PN001).||1.20|0.62|
95778235|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
95778236|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
95778237|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
95778238|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
95778239|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
95778240|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.996||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|3.165|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.165|1.259|0.0033
95778241|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.277|1.035|0.0095
95955629|NCT00603278|191883239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.318|||ANCOVA|||||0.318|0.096|<0.001
95955630|NCT00603278|191883239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.127|<0.001
95955631|NCT00603278|191883239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.404|||ANCOVA|||||0.404|0.182|<0.001
95778242|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.533|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.533|0.045|0.0031
95778243|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|0.125|0.0645
95778244|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.895||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.948|0.846|0.0001
95778245|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.266||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.541|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.541|1.041|0.0182
95854741|NCT05178173|191669455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.59
95854742|NCT05178173|191669455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N1||||0.18
95854743|NCT05178173|191669455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.78
95854744|NCT05178173|191669455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SARS CoV-2 N2||||0.08
95955632|NCT00603278|191883239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.392|||ANCOVA|||||0.392|0.167|<0.001
95955633|NCT00603278|191883239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.337|||ANCOVA|||||0.337|0.114|<0.001
95962220|NCT01107899|191896150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value was obtained from an analysis of covariance model with treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.025
95778246|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|2.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.254|1.122|0.0092
95778247|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|5.942|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.942|1.488|0.0020
95778248|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.035|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\*\*9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.035|0.641|0.6524
95778249|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.311|0.037|<0.0001
95778250|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.389||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.156|0.0429
95810326|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.08|0.77|
95778251|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.380|0.523|0.5490
95778252|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.224|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.224|1.054|0.0008
95810327|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.75|
95810328|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.02|0.76|
95810329|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29||||||Serotype 14: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.29|0.92|
95810330|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.85|0.62|
95955634|NCT01332318|191883263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.08|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 2 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.08|
95955635|NCT01332318|191883263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.41|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 3 minus Arm 1.|||0.41|0.09|
95955636|NCT01332318|191883263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||||95.0|0.09|0.42|||||An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model, including terms for treatment, pooled study site, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, was used to calculate the adjusted mean difference and confidence interval. Arm 4 minus Arm 1.|||0.42|0.09|
95955637|NCT02273180|191883318|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure:if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested, demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95%CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.197|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.197|-0.084|
95955638|NCT00092521|191883327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|95.1|100.0|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|95.1|
95778253|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.855||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|3.037|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.037|1.133|0.0140
95778254|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.126||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.068|0.015|0.0575
95778255|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|6.025|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.025|0.072|0.7128
95778256|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.040|0.5960
95778257|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.311|1.270|0.0033
95778258|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.113||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|1.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.236|1.002|0.0452
95778259|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.551|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.551|0.043|0.0040
95778260|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.393||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|1.131|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a||1.131|0.137|0.0833
95778261|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.141||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.951|0.010|0.1439
95778262|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.4457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|5.194|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.194|0.024|0.4457
95778263|NCT01066793|191528716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.142||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|45.801|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs No RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||45.801|0.100|0.6258
95955639|NCT00092521|191883328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent relative risk reduction|100.0||||||95.0|94.9|100.0|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter|||100|94.9|
95778264|NCT01313221|191528727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|35.82|||||Adjusted for treatment in a mixed model|||35.82|-3.50|
95778265|NCT01313221|191528728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|27.6||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 16||27.60|-5.13|
95778266|NCT01313221|191528728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|35.32||||||Difference in change from Week 12 to Week 20||35.32|-2.21|
95778267|NCT00585013|191528759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value applies to all time points for all variables.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95778268|NCT00585013|191528760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies for measurements at preoperative and 0 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95778269|NCT00585013|191528760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at time points 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95778270|NCT00585013|191528761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to measurements at preoperative, 0 h, and 48 h time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95778271|NCT00585013|191528761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This applies to time points at 12 h and 24 h.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95955640|NCT01878383|191883329|OTHER|Sensitivity is the percent of non-pregnant women positive for shedding HSV by culture method in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equals percent non-pregnant women positive.|Sensitivity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.8|100.0|||||95% Clopper-Pearson Exact Confidence Interval|||100|90.8|
95778272|NCT00585013|191528762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Applies to all time points.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95778273|NCT01846221|191528764|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
95778274|NCT04643964|191528769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. No covariates were included.||||.54
95778275|NCT04643964|191528770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.92
95778276|NCT04643964|191528771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There were three covariates in this model: QIDS at Time 1, gender, and COVID interference.||||.37
95778277|NCT04643964|191528772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||In this model, the condition included the following levels: entrée, sampler, and control. There was one covariate in this model: QIDS at Time 1.||||.87
95810331|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.86|0.63|
95997322|NCT02424539|191970353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.29|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.29|-2.66|<0.001
95997323|NCT02424539|191970354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.18|-0.38|0.503
95778278|NCT05070468|191528790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
95778279|NCT05070468|191528791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.483
95778280|NCT05070468|191528792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
95778281|NCT02327013|191528799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.5|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.||3.5|-3.6|0.9723
95778282|NCT02327013|191528799|SUPERIORITY|The mean difference between treatment groups was estimated based on LS means for the treatment-by-visit interaction in stagewise MMRM analyses. In each stage, the REML-based MMRM model included site ID (stage 1 only), visit, treatment (placebo, vortioxetine 10mg, vortioxetine 20mg), baseline (for the stage) AISRS total score, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline (stage) AISRS total score-by-visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient errors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||weighed z-score|Equally weighed LS z-score, combining results from stagewise MMRM, was compared to standard normal distribution.||||4.8|-2.8|0.6010
95778283|NCT04186806|191528841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 1.5 cm|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2601|0.5749||The conclusion of the non-inferiority test is based on the 95% confidence interval and not on a p value. A p value was not computed.|Mixed Models Analysis||Non-inferiority testing was carried out using 95% confidence intervals.|||0.5749|-1.2601|
95778284|NCT02052596|191528903|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the last vaccine dose (Month 3 or Month 5), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies GMC ratio between the Control Group and the GSK1437173A Group had to be below (\<) 1.5,|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.21||||Adjustment for baseline concentration and age - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to two doses of the GSK1437173A vaccine when Boostrix vaccine was co-administered with the first GSK1437173A vaccine dose compared to two doses of GSK1437173A vaccine (administered separately from Boostrix vaccine), one month after the last vaccine dose.||1.21|1.02|
95778285|NCT02052596|191528904|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PT antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.36||||Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the vaccine dose.||1.36|1.00|
95778286|NCT02052596|191528904|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-FHA antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.44|1.07|
95810332|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.76|0.53|
95997324|NCT02424539|191970354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.03|-0.53|0.078
95778287|NCT02052596|191528904|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval for the GMC ratio for anti-PRN antibodies of the Control Group over the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58||||Adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance.||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for pertactin (PRN) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.58|1.02|
95997325|NCT02424539|191970355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.02|0.01|0.048
95997326|NCT02424539|191970355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||1.17|0.16|0.011
95778288|NCT02052596|191528905|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-diphtheria (anti-D) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.85||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for diphteria (D) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||2.85|-3.03|
95778289|NCT02052596|191528905|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: At one month after the first vaccine dose (Month 1), the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-tetanus (anti-T) concentrations ≥ 1.0 IU/mL of the Control Group minus the GSK1437173A Group had to be \< 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.27||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the humoral immune response to Boostrix vaccine when co-administered with GSK1437173A vaccine at first vaccination dose compared to Boostrix vaccine (administered separately from GSK1437173A) for tetanus (T) antigen, one month after the vaccine dose.||1.27|-1.18|
95778290|NCT00001656|191528958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||.04
95778291|NCT00001656|191528959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.21
95778292|NCT00001656|191528960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.35
95778293|NCT00001656|191528961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.19
95778294|NCT00001656|191528962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.59
95778295|NCT00001656|191528963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.72
95778296|NCT00001656|191528964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||Analysis of covariance with baseline score as covariate||||0.27
95778297|NCT00001656|191528965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate is baseline score||||||0.11
95778298|NCT00001656|191528966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95778299|NCT00001656|191528967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95778300|NCT00001656|191528969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95778301|NCT04068688|191529048|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95778302|NCT04068688|191529048|OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
95778303|NCT04068688|191529049|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.655
95778304|NCT04068688|191529049|OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
95778305|NCT04068688|191529050|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95778306|NCT04068688|191529050|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
95778307|NCT04068688|191529051|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.096
95778308|NCT04068688|191529051|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.732
95778309|NCT04068688|191529052|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95778310|NCT04068688|191529052|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
95778311|NCT04068688|191529053|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
95778312|NCT04068688|191529053|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
95778313|NCT04068688|191529054|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95778314|NCT04068688|191529054|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95778315|NCT04068688|191529058|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95778316|NCT04068688|191529059|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
95778317|NCT04068688|191529060|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95778318|NCT04068688|191529060|OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
95778319|NCT04068688|191529061|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95778320|NCT04068688|191529061|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95778321|NCT04068688|191529065|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95778322|NCT04068688|191529065|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
95778323|NCT02248974|191529071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline Knowledge Scale score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.01
95997327|NCT02424539|191970356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.9|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.90|-1.83|<0.001
95778324|NCT02248974|191529072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model uses a general linear mixed model with fixed effects for baseline KS score, time (discrete), arm, and a time-arm interaction term. The matrix of correlated residual terms assumes an unstructured format.||||0.47
95778325|NCT02248974|191529073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.12
95810333|NCT04875533|191593592|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/13vPnC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.99|0.65|
95810334|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.67||||||Serotype 8: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.67|0.50|
95997328|NCT02424539|191970356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.99|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.99|-1.92|<0.001
95997329|NCT02424539|191970357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.34|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 55 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.34|0.12|<0.001
95997330|NCT02424539|191970357|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for FF 110 µg QD versus placebo has been presented using a logistic regression model with Wald's test with treatment, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis as factors.|||0.29|0.10|<0.001
95778326|NCT02248974|191529074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Used Wilcoxon 2-sample test to see if DA group had significantly better (i.e. lower) Decisional Conflict Scores than no-DA (Control) group.||||0.79
95778327|NCT02248974|191529075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95778328|NCT02248974|191529076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95778329|NCT02248974|191529077|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95778330|NCT02248974|191529078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95778331|NCT02248974|191529079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95778332|NCT02248974|191529080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95778333|NCT02248974|191529081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95778334|NCT02248974|191529083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95778335|NCT02248974|191529084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95778336|NCT02248974|191529088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95778337|NCT02248974|191529089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95778338|NCT02248974|191529090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95778339|NCT02248974|191529091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95778340|NCT02248974|191529092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95778341|NCT02248974|191529093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95778342|NCT02248974|191529095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95778343|NCT02248974|191529096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95778344|NCT02248974|191529097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95778345|NCT02248974|191529104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.98
95778346|NCT02248974|191529105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95778347|NCT00662558|191529106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Differences in treatment proportions and the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the difference were estimated by calculating the risk difference between the treatment arms using a generalized linear model with treatment and center as factors. A lower 95% CI for the risk difference greater than -0.10 would demonstrate that celecoxib 200 mg BID is not inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.091||||||95.0|0.0255|0.1565||||||||0.1565|0.0255|
95778348|NCT00662558|191529106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If celecoxib 200 mg BID was found to be non-inferior to tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID then the second step was to test the superiority of celecoxib 200 mg BID over tramadol hydrochloride 50 mg QID using a two-sided test of proportions. Differences in proportions were tested using the General Association Test of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) procedure stratified by center.||||0.008
95778349|NCT00662558|191529107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234||95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the least squares (LS) mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.13|-0.53|0.234
95810335|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.53||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.53|1.80|
95997331|NCT02424539|191970358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.73|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.73|-3.23|<0.001
95997332|NCT02424539|191970358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.52|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-1.52|-3.03|<0.001
95997333|NCT02424539|191970359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||0.17|-0.38|0.442
95778350|NCT00662558|191529108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.595||95.0|-4.39|2.52|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.52|-4.39|0.595
95778351|NCT00662558|191529109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.829
95778352|NCT00662558|191529110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.470
95778353|NCT00662558|191529111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.339||95.0|-0.95|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.95|0.339
95778354|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.741||95.0|-0.36|0.25|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|How Much Pain Now. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.36|0.741
95778355|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.796||95.0|-0.38|0.29|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Worst Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.29|-0.38|0.796
95778356|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.492||95.0|-0.41|0.2|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Average Pain in Past 24 Hours. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.41|0.492
95778357|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.893||95.0|-0.28|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With General Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.28|0.893
95810336|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.06|1.44|
95810337|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.04||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.04|1.39|
95810338|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.64||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.64|1.72|
95810339|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.98||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.98|1.33|
95810340|NCT04875533|191593593|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMT20vPnC/saline to GMT13vPnC/PPSV23 for that serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs (20vPnC/PPSV23)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.34||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (the 20vPnC/saline group to the 13vPnC/PPSV23 group) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.34|0.97|
95810341|NCT04918771|191593602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean time to resolution of ARVI symptoms||1.67|0.51|0.0003
95810342|NCT04918771|191593603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35||||0.3274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|7.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (Clinically Diagnosed and/or PCR-confirmed).||7.06|-2.36|0.3274
95810343|NCT04918771|191593603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|11.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean AUC score for severity of ARVI (PCR-confirmed).||11.93|-1.34|0.1171
95810344|NCT04918771|191593604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95778358|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.618||95.0|-0.4|0.24|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Mood. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.40|0.618
95778359|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.44||95.0|-0.19|0.43|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Walking Activity. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.43|-0.19|0.440
95778360|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.806||95.0|-0.25|0.32|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Relations With Others. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.32|-0.25|0.806
95778361|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.739||95.0|-0.38|0.27|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.27|-0.38|0.739
95778362|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.992||95.0|-0.32|0.33|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Normal Work. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.33|-0.32|0.992
95778363|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.793||95.0|-0.28|0.36|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interfered With Enjoyment of Life. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.36|-0.28|0.793
95778364|NCT00662558|191529112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.973||95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Pain Interference Subscale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.27|0.973
95810345|NCT04918771|191593605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean time to Resolution of ARVI Symptoms was analysed.||1.00|0.16|0.0073
95810346|NCT04918771|191593606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95810347|NCT04918771|191593607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3627|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 1.||||0.3627
95810348|NCT04918771|191593607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 2.||||0.5578
95810349|NCT04918771|191593607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dosing Frequency of Antipyretics. Comparison for Day 3.||||0.7688
95810350|NCT04918771|191593608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4926|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4926
95810351|NCT04918771|191593609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of severity distributions.||||0.021
95810352|NCT04918771|191593609|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for outcome distribution.||||1.00
95810353|NCT04918771|191593610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7848|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.7848
95810354|NCT04918771|191593610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.9596
95810355|NCT04918771|191593610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6902|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.6902
95810356|NCT04918771|191593611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3266|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1.||||0.3266
95810357|NCT04918771|191593611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2.||||0.0930
95955641|NCT01878383|191883330|OTHER|Positive percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with positive routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is positive. Units equal percent of pregnant women positive.|Positive percent agreement|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|86.3|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||86.3|73.7|
95778365|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.392||95.0|-4.26|1.67|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Disturbance. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.67|-4.26|0.392
95810358|NCT04918771|191593611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2308|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3.||||0.2308
95810359|NCT04918771|191593612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.6610
95810360|NCT04918771|191593612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4884|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.4884
95810361|NCT04918771|191593612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3494|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Systolic blood pressure.||||0.3494
95810362|NCT04918771|191593612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9531|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 1/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.9531
95810363|NCT04918771|191593612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5506|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 2/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.5506
95810364|NCT04918771|191593612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8259|||||||Median test|||Comparison for Visit 3/Diastolic blood pressure.||||0.8259
95810365|NCT04918771|191593613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95810366|NCT04910165|191593640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95810367|NCT04910165|191593641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95810368|NCT04910165|191593642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95810369|NCT04910165|191593643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95810370|NCT04910165|191593644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95810371|NCT04910165|191593645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95810372|NCT04910165|191593646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||p-values reported are calculated by the listed statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95810373|NCT02904096|191593647|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates for PA, PB, and PA-PB were reported together with one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for PA-PB constructed via the Farrington-Manning likelihood method. Here PA and PB are the percentage of subjects in Group A and B (Non-inferiority margin = 12%).|Difference in percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
95810374|NCT02904096|191593648|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.35||||||||3.35||
95810375|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810376|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810377|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.054
95955642|NCT01878383|191883331|OTHER|Negative percent agreement is the percent of pregnant women with negative routine PCR results in which GeneXpert test results is negative. Units equal percent of pregnant women negative.|Negative percent agreement|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|99.5|||||95% large sample confidence interval|||99.5|99|
95778366|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.691||95.0|-3.94|2.61|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Snoring. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||2.61|-3.94|0.691
95997334|NCT02424539|191970359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.02|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||-0.02|-0.57|0.035
95810378|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Flexion (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95955643|NCT03544229|191883426|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.49||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.49|-0.34|=0.618
95962221|NCT03584152|191896158|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis stated that the combination of treatment arm B is worse than the combination of treatment arm A by more than -Δ, where -Δ is the 'non-inferiority margin.'||||||0.156||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.156
95962222|NCT03584152|191896159|OTHER|||||||0.112||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112
95962223|NCT03584152|191896160|OTHER|||||||0.803||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
95778367|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.549||95.0|-3.7|1.97|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Awaken Shortness of Breath or Headache. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.97|-3.70|0.549
95810379|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.049
95810380|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.003
95810381|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.781
95962224|NCT03584152|191896161|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
95962225|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.405||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in nausea||||0.405
95962226|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Difference between-groups in itchiness||||0.001
95962227|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in constipation||||0.571
95962228|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in dizziness||||0.078
95962229|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in bleeding||||0.724
95962230|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Difference between-groups in headache||||0.795
95962231|NCT03584152|191896162|OTHER|||||||0.188||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||"Difference between-groups in other side effects"||||0.188
95962232|NCT03584152|191896163|OTHER|||||||0.7318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-O||||0.7318
95962233|NCT03584152|191896163|OTHER|||||||0.5267||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in SCHNOS-C||||0.5267
95962234|NCT03584152|191896164|OTHER|||||||0.9158||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-F||||0.9158
95962235|NCT03584152|191896165|OTHER|||||||0.5351||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in change in VAS-A||||0.5351
95962236|NCT03584152|191896166|OTHER|||||||0.378||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.378
95962237|NCT03584152|191896167|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.195
95962238|NCT03584152|191896168|OTHER|||||||0.682|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.682
95962239|NCT04292470|191896185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95962240|NCT04292470|191896186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||For statistical testing, we used a general linear model of change in GERD symptoms from baseline to 8 weeks adjusted for the natural log of the index value (of the ratio of the change in skin conductance between patient and physician at baseline) and randomization assignment.||||0.09
95962241|NCT02906020|191896217|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|=|0.1679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||Least-squares (LS) mean, standard errors (SE) and p-value were estimated from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||6.27|-1.10|=0.1679
95962242|NCT02906020|191896218|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|=|0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|2.68||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time point interaction.||2.68|-4.63|=0.5996
95778368|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.336||95.0|-0.67|0.23|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Quantity of Sleep. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.67|0.336
95997335|NCT02424539|191970360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 55 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.16|0.60|0.004
95997336|NCT02424539|191970360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.95|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference between placebo and FF 110 µg QD has been presented using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, Baseline value, gender, age and type of Allergic Rhinitis.|||3.95|1.38|<0.001
95997337|NCT01485614|191970372|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.19|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin is compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||0.30|-0.68|= 0.448
95997338|NCT01485614|191970374|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.9||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||14.9|-10.0|
95997339|NCT01485614|191970376|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.8||"Percentage of participants with ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo/Metformin with Miettinen \& Nurminen."||||||10.8|-1.3|
95997340|NCT01485614|191970379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.7|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|21.2||"Percentage of participants with an A1C goal (7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|Miettinen and Nurminen||||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|21.2|-8.1|= 0.374
95997341|NCT01485614|191970381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.6|||=|0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|"The percentage of participants with an A1C at the A1C goal (6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin was compared against the arm Placebo (pooled)."|||For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method based on the LDA model was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal.|18.3|-11.6|= 0.639
95997342|NCT01485614|191970386|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|1.5|||=|0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin was compared against that of Placebo (pooled)."||||17.5|-14.4|= 0.849
95997343|NCT02586805|191970482|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.609|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.65|-61.243||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.243|-84.650|<0.001
95997344|NCT02586805|191970482|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.379|-59.456||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-59.456|-82.379|<0.001
95997345|NCT02586805|191970482|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-86.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.828|-76.15||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-76.150|-92.828|<0.001
95997346|NCT02586805|191970483|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-80.842|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.169|-66.114||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-66.114|-89.169|<0.001
95997347|NCT02586805|191970483|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-74.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.733|-58.983||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-58.983|-83.733|<0.001
95778369|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.37||95.0|-4.83|1.8|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Adequacy. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.80|-4.83|0.370
95778370|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.341||95.0|-3.9|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Somnolence. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.35|-3.90|0.341
95810382|NCT02904096|191593649|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Extension (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.573
95778371|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.604||95.0|-2.85|1.66|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index I. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.66|-2.85|0.604
95778372|NCT00662558|191529113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.547||95.0|-2.92|1.55|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Sleep Problem Index II. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.55|-2.92|0.547
95778373|NCT00662558|191529114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Optimal sleep was analyzed using CMH general association test.||||0.196
95778374|NCT00662558|191529115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.252||95.0|-1.56|5.94|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Time Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|-1.56|0.252
95778375|NCT00662558|191529115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.798||95.0|-3.21|4.17|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Physical Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.17|-3.21|0.798
95778376|NCT00662558|191529115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.7||95.0|-3.03|4.51|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Output Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||4.51|-3.03|0.700
95778377|NCT00662558|191529115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.902||95.0|-3.16|3.59|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Mental-Interpersonal Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||3.59|-3.16|0.902
95778378|NCT00662558|191529115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.581||95.0|-0.65|1.16|||ANCOVA||The mean difference reported is the LS mean difference.|Index Scale. The change from Baseline was compared between the two treatment groups using ANCOVA, with treatment and center as factors, and Baseline value as a covariate.||1.16|-0.65|0.581
95778379|NCT00662558|191529116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 1.||||0.614
95778380|NCT00662558|191529116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 3.||||0.786
95810383|NCT02904096|191593650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95955644|NCT03544229|191883426|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.27|=0.533
95955645|NCT03544229|191883426|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD composite score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.30|=0.447
95778381|NCT00662558|191529116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value reported is the overall p-value for Week 6/ET.||||0.044
95778382|NCT00662558|191529117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.870
95778383|NCT00662558|191529118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.545||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH tests using row mean score and adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.545
95778384|NCT00662558|191529119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test adjusted for center was used to compare the two treatment groups.||||0.218
95778385|NCT01075399|191529124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.883|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|0.929||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV max:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV max of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.929|0.802|<0.001
95810384|NCT02904096|191593650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810385|NCT02904096|191593650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810386|NCT02904096|191593650|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810387|NCT02904096|191593651|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810388|NCT02904096|191593651|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95778386|NCT01075399|191529124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.792|0.925||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor SUV mean:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing SUV mean of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in SUV values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.925|0.792|<0.001
95810389|NCT02904096|191593651|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810390|NCT02904096|191593651|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95955646|NCT03544229|191883427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.96|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.96|0.39|=0.607
95955647|NCT03544229|191883427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.1|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||2.10|0.70|=0.283
95955648|NCT03544229|191883427|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.69|||Logistic Regression||Comparisons of TAK-906 to Placebo was based on logistic regression with at least 50% reduction of participants from baseline in weekly composite score with baseline composite score, disease population at randomization, and treatment as covariates.|||1.69|0.56|=0.527
95955649|NCT03544229|191883428|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|=|0.584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.52||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.52|-0.40|=0.584
95955650|NCT03544229|191883428|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.25|=0.625
95955651|NCT03544229|191883428|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.33||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD nausea symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.33|-0.29|=0.540
95955652|NCT03544229|191883429|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|=|0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.46|=0.510
95955653|NCT03544229|191883429|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|=|0.674|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.4||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.40|-0.23|=0.674
95955654|NCT03544229|191883429|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.25||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD early satiety symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.25|-0.38|=0.367
95860749|NCT00535288|191680415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline frequency||||-0.9|-3.1|<0.01
95810391|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810392|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
95810393|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95864444|NCT01185353|191686786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
95778387|NCT01075399|191529124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|0.967||Significance of probability for no association between the first and second pre-treatment uptake.|Pearson's correlation|||"Primary Tumor to background SUV ratio:~The reproducibility of \[F-18\]HX4 uptake in primary tumors was assessed by comparing tumor to background SUV ratio (T/B) of the 1st and 2nd \[F18\]HX4 PET/CT scan.~Estimated power for a range of coefficients of variation (CVs) postulated for the paired differences in T/B values, and for establishing reproducibility within ±20% or ±25%."||0.967|0.904|<0.001
95778388|NCT00551161|191529130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no adjustment for multiple testing was made. Although it would have been preferable to carry out an omnibus analysis, due to the small sample size, the descriptive approach described above was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to examine whether the change between t0 and t1 differed from the change between t1 and t2 \[(t2 - t1) - (t1 - t0)\] for each of the metabolites and ratios, in order to examine whether the rate of change differed while on monotherapy as compared with combination therapy.||||<0.05
95778389|NCT01935700|191529131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in median survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.4593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.4593
95778390|NCT01935700|191529131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as no statistically significant difference (P value \> 0.05) in survival between the colchicine group and the sorafenib treated group.||||||0.329|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3290
95778391|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0552||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pneumonia between two groups||||0.0552
95778392|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0184||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of biliary tract obstruction between two groups||||0.0184
95778393|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0931||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of cholangitis between two groups||||0.0931
95778394|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.0506||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of peritonitis between two groups||||0.0506
95778395|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of sepsis between two groups||||1
95778396|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5374||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of diarrhea between two groups||||0.5374
95810394|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand grip strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.002
95810395|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95860750|NCT00535288|191680418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.06||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.00|-0.12|0.07
95778397|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of anorexia between two groups||||0.14
95778398|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.4584||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of abdominal pain between two groups||||0.4584
95778399|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of skin rash between two groups||||1
95778400|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome between two groups||||1
95778401|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypertension between two groups||||1
95778402|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.5958||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hemorrhage between two groups||||0.5958
95810396|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810397|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810398|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand tip pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95997348|NCT02586805|191970483|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-87.299|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.494|-75.204||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-75.204|-93.494|<0.001
95997349|NCT02586805|191970484|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-70.497|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.696|-49.699||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-49.699|-82.696|<0.001
95997350|NCT02586805|191970484|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-73.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.316|-54.496||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-54.496|-84.316|<0.001
95997351|NCT02586805|191970484|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-83.394|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.618|-67.099||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1)||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-67.099|-91.618|<0.001
95778403|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypoglycemia between two groups||||0.14
95778404|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hyperglycemia between two groups||||1
95778405|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of hypocalcemia between two groups||||1
95778406|NCT01935700|191529132|EQUIVALENCE|The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistically significant difference in incidence was P = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison the incidence of grade III adverse event of pleural effusion between two groups||||1
95778407|NCT03379792|191529133|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95778408|NCT03379792|191529133|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95997352|NCT02586805|191970485|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-77.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.253|-63.572||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-63.572|-86.253|<0.001
95778409|NCT03379792|191529133|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95778410|NCT00231283|191529134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||||95.0|91.5|99.4|||Qualitative Comparison|Reported in qualitative/semi-quantitative comparitive fashion due to study design.||||99.4|91.5|
95778411|NCT00231283|191529135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.6|||No formal statistical testing|||||8.6|0.6|
95778412|NCT00231283|191529136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0||||||95.0|0.6|8.5|||Descriptive statistics|||||8.5|0.6|
95778413|NCT00231283|191529137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|10.4||||||95.0|5.1|18.3|||Descriptive statistics|||||18.3|5.1|
95778414|NCT00772005|191529138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8514||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8514
95778415|NCT00772005|191529138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6995||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6995
95778416|NCT00772005|191529138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9766
95778417|NCT00772005|191529139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7596||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7596
95810399|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.001
95778418|NCT00772005|191529139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5620
95778419|NCT00772005|191529139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6688
95778420|NCT00772005|191529140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1894
95810400|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95955655|NCT03544229|191883430|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.587
95955656|NCT03544229|191883430|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.37||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.37|-0.27|=0.600
95955657|NCT03544229|191883430|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.29||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD postprandial fullness symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.29|-0.34|=0.446
95955658|NCT03544229|191883431|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.44||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.44|-0.37|=0.562
95955659|NCT03544229|191883431|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.46|=0.138
95955660|NCT03544229|191883431|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD upper abdominal pain symptom score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.23|-0.32|=0.394
95955661|NCT03544229|191883432|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484|=|0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|1.07||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||1.07|-0.53|=0.709
95955662|NCT03544229|191883432|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.78||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.78|-0.31|=0.760
95778421|NCT00772005|191529140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4582
95778422|NCT00772005|191529140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
95810401|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95810402|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand key pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||<.001
95778423|NCT00772005|191529141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3275||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3275
95778424|NCT00772005|191529141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2597
95778425|NCT00772005|191529141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0039
95810403|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.010
95810404|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group A: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.060
95810405|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Left Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
95955663|NCT03544229|191883432|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD recorded vomiting frequency was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.47|=0.591
95955664|NCT03544229|191883433|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|=|0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.62||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.62|-0.27|=0.742
95955665|NCT03544229|191883433|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.28||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.28|-0.32|=0.461
95955666|NCT03544229|191883433|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD overall severity of gastroparesis symptoms score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.36|=0.376
95955667|NCT03544229|191883434|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|=|0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.54||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.54|-0.41|=0.591
95778426|NCT00772005|191529142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0713
95778427|NCT00772005|191529142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0431
95810406|NCT02904096|191593652|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-baseline and Group B: Hand palmar pinch strength (Right Hand)-change from baseline at Month 24.||||.177
95810407|NCT01813357|191593657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.684|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.684
95810408|NCT01441492|191593659|OTHER|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||the study is powered to be able to detect a 15% difference in the ≥ Grade II complication rate between the drain and no drain groups. A total of 342 evaluable patients will be needed for the two study groups (n=171 per group) in order to achieve 80% power to detect a 15% increase or decrease in the complication rate with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.804
95810409|NCT03863574|191593676|OTHER|Proof of Concept||||||0.7689|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7689
95810410|NCT03863574|191593676|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6007
95810411|NCT03863574|191593677|OTHER|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5238
95810412|NCT03863574|191593677|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
95810413|NCT03863574|191593678|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0476|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0476
95810414|NCT03863574|191593678|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0333
95810415|NCT03863574|191593679|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.6845
95997353|NCT02586805|191970485|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-75.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.115|-61.833||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-61.833|-84.115|<0.001
95997354|NCT02586805|191970485|OTHER||% change in mean rate (vs placebo)|-89.008|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.325|-78.707||p-values are adjusted for multiple testing.|Chi-squared||% change in mean rate corresponds to 100% \* (estimated mean rate ratio - 1).||Results from Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical) and normalized baseline attack rate (continuous), and logarithm of time in days each participant was observed during treatment period as offset variable in model. Pearson chi-square scaling of standards errors was employed to account for potential overdispersion. Mean estimates are Least Squares (LS) means.|-78.707|-94.325|<0.001
95778428|NCT00772005|191529142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0063
95778429|NCT00772005|191529143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0619
95778430|NCT00772005|191529143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1137||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1137
95778431|NCT00772005|191529143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0598
95778432|NCT00772005|191529144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7093
95778433|NCT00772005|191529144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5129
95778434|NCT00772005|191529144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1097
95778435|NCT00772005|191529145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4291||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4291
95778436|NCT00772005|191529145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3195
95810416|NCT03863574|191593679|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4625|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Steatosis||||0.4625
95810417|NCT03863574|191593679|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.1705
95778437|NCT00772005|191529145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1591
95778438|NCT00772005|191529146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7768
95778439|NCT00772005|191529146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4014
95778440|NCT00772005|191529146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4016
95778441|NCT00772005|191529147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5612
95778442|NCT00772005|191529147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9704||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9704
95810418|NCT03863574|191593679|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Lobular Inflammation||||0.3122
95810419|NCT03863574|191593679|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.1705
95810420|NCT03863574|191593679|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Hepatocyte Ballooning||||0.3877
95778443|NCT00772005|191529147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2424
95778444|NCT00772005|191529148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8847||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8847
95778445|NCT00772005|191529148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2958||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2958
95778446|NCT00772005|191529148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2660
95810421|NCT03863574|191593680|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1705|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1705
95955668|NCT03544229|191883434|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193|=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.21||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.21|-0.43|=0.291
95955669|NCT03544229|191883434|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|=|0.476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.3||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD bloating severity scale score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.30|-0.33|=0.476
95955670|NCT03544229|191883435|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.47||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.47|-0.27|=0.675
95955671|NCT03544229|191883435|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|=|0.531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.26||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.26|-0.24|=0.531
95955672|NCT03544229|191883435|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.24||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in ANMS GCSI-DD total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.24|-0.26|=0.473
95955673|NCT03544229|191883436|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71|=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.57||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 -Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.57|-24.50|=0.192
95955674|NCT03544229|191883436|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.736|=|0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|6.27||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||6.27|-15.98|=0.236
95955675|NCT03544229|191883436|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.689|=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.62|7.47||The 1-sided p-value was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in symptomatic weeks was \<0.|ANOVA|||||7.47|-14.62|=0.297
95955676|NCT03544229|191883437|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|=|0.601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.57||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model included week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.57|-0.42|=0.601
95778447|NCT00772005|191529149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0524||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0524
95778448|NCT00772005|191529149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
95778449|NCT00772005|191529149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0084||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0084
95810422|NCT03863574|191593680|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1740
95810423|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.8019
95778450|NCT00772005|191529150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3651
95778451|NCT00772005|191529150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
95778452|NCT00772005|191529150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0327||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0327
95778453|NCT00772005|191529151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2091
95778454|NCT00772005|191529151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0706||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0706
95778455|NCT00772005|191529151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3052||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3052
95778456|NCT00772005|191529152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9960
95810424|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alanine Aminotransferase||||0.5396
95810425|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.7740
95810426|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Aspartate Aminotransferase||||0.9221
95810427|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0030
95810428|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.0177
95810429|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.1399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.1399
95810430|NCT03863574|191593681|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Gamma Glutamyl Transferase||||0.2384
95810431|NCT03863574|191593682|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.2218
95810432|NCT03863574|191593682|OTHER|Proof-of-Concept||||||0.1483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Albumin||||0.1483
95810433|NCT03863574|191593682|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.0839
95810434|NCT03863574|191593682|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Protein||||0.2895
95810435|NCT03863574|191593683|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.6808
95810436|NCT03863574|191593683|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Direct Bilirubin||||0.5351
95955677|NCT03544229|191883437|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.15||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.15|-0.51|=0.181
95810437|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.2329
95810438|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.7211
95955678|NCT03544229|191883437|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Diferrence|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.09||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM of PAGI-SYM total score. It was based on the one-sided alternative hypothesis testing that the treatment difference (TAK-906 - Placebo) in PAGI-SYM total score was \<0.|MMRM||MMRM model includes week, treatment, participant disease population (DG/IG), treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects, baseline and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates, with an unstructured working covariance matrix as default.|||0.09|-0.56|=0.114
95955679|NCT00784277|191883440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|55.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.37||0.007||95.0|15.11|95.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||95.13|15.11|0.007
95955680|NCT00784277|191883440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.23||0.004||95.0|23.67|103.13||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against placebo using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||103.13|23.67|0.004
95955681|NCT00784277|191883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001||95.0|2.22|4.01||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||4.01|2.22|<0.001
95778457|NCT00772005|191529152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3604
95778458|NCT00772005|191529152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9528
95778459|NCT00772005|191529153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9797||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9797
95810439|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variables: Total Cholesterol||||0.6520
95955682|NCT00784277|191883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|1.34|3.12||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||3.12|1.34|<0.001
95955683|NCT00784277|191883441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least-Squares Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001||95.0|0.72|2.5||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity for comparison against Oxycodone using Hochberg's test.|ANCOVA|The model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|The 95% confidence interval is unadjusted for multiplicity.|||2.50|0.72|<0.001
95955684|NCT02642159|191883446|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.1|-27.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.0|-38.1|<0.0001
95955685|NCT02642159|191883447|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.6|-19.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Alirocumab group was compared to usual care group for the intent to prescribe fenofibrate using an appropriate contrast statement.||-19.9|-46.6|<0.0001
95955686|NCT02642159|191883448|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-49.7|-36.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for overall ITT analysis. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-36.3|-49.7|<0.0001
95955687|NCT02642159|191883449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-71.8|-39.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|A separate hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses for ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||-39.6|-71.8|<0.0001
95955688|NCT02642159|191883450|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.5|-20.7||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.7|-31.5|<0.0001
95955689|NCT02642159|191883451|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.0|-14.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-14.8|-40.0|<0.0001
95955690|NCT02642159|191883452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.8|-28.6||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-28.6|-40.8|<0.0001
95955691|NCT02642159|191883453|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.7|-35.8||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT-intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-35.8|-63.7|<0.0001
95778460|NCT00772005|191529153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6173||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6173
95778461|NCT00772005|191529153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5415||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5415
95778462|NCT00772005|191529154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
95810440|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.4302
95810441|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.9432
95955692|NCT02642159|191883454|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.3|-27.2||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-27.2|-37.3|<0.0001
95997355|NCT01157117|191970488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Fisher Exact|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of milk protein followed by an open feeding of milk was compared using Fisher's Exact test with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||37.3|-13.4|0.42
95810442|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: High-density Lipoprotein||||0.2133
95997356|NCT02039947|191970557|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|59.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|70.4|||percent||Percent|||70.4|47.3|<.0001
95997357|NCT04898166|191970613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 18.90 and its asymptotic significance .000||||||0.000
95997358|NCT04898166|191970614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value 7.544 and its asymptotic significance .273||||||0.081
95997359|NCT03192904|191970624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95997360|NCT03352245|191970641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
95997361|NCT03352245|191970642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95810443|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.2446
95810444|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Low-density lipoprotein||||0.7075
95860751|NCT00535288|191680418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.05||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.24
95810445|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.2195
95810446|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Very low-density lipoprotein||||0.7435
95810447|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.5702
95810448|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: non-HDL Cholesterol||||0.6441
95810449|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.8415
95810450|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein A1||||0.0786
95810451|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.8878
95810452|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome variable: Apo lipoprotein B||||0.3219
95810453|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.6557
95810454|NCT03863574|191593684|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.0763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome Variable: Small dense LDL||||0.0763
95810455|NCT03863574|191593686|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.6988|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6988
95810456|NCT03863574|191593686|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7413
95810457|NCT03863574|191593687|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2200
95810458|NCT03863574|191593687|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.5798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5798
95997362|NCT03352245|191970643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
95997363|NCT03352245|191970644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
95997364|NCT03352245|191970645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
95997365|NCT03352245|191970646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.911|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.911
95997366|NCT03352245|191970647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
95997367|NCT03352245|191970648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.515
95997368|NCT03352245|191970649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.144
95997369|NCT03352245|191970650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
95997370|NCT03352245|191970651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
95997371|NCT03352245|191970652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
95997372|NCT03352245|191970653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
95997373|NCT03352245|191970654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
95997374|NCT03352245|191970655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
95997375|NCT03352245|191970656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.237
95997376|NCT03352245|191970657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.861
95997377|NCT03133767|191970676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
95997378|NCT03133767|191970677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
95997379|NCT03133767|191970678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
95997380|NCT03133767|191970679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.361
95997381|NCT03133767|191970680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.509
95997382|NCT02333227|191970699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
95997383|NCT02333227|191970700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Co-primary outcomes|We employed generalized linear mixed methods (GLMM) with binomial distribution to examine the association between study primary outcomes of baby's birth weight (\<2500) and gestational age at delivery (\<37 weeks including up to 36 and 6/7 weeks) and assignment to the study intervention group. To account for clustering of outcomes by cluster (sites), we used random slope/random intercept GLMM models with a cluster as a random effect (level 2) and treatment as a fixed effect (level 1), since random effect modeling is an individual-level analyses that accounts for within-cluster dependence by maximum likelihood estimation. A separate model was fit to each study outcome and corresponding relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated. Full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIML) allows for analyses to be performed with the full sample, under conditions of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and Missing at Random (MAR), and with missing data rates up to 50%.|||<0.05
95997384|NCT02333227|191970701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95997385|NCT02333227|191970702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Specifically, the composite of periodontal disease was also created; this composite was positive if any of the following were detected: gingival bleeding, pockets of 4 mm or greater, or loss of attachment of 4 mm or greater. A scaled periodontal disease score was also created which was the sum of scores for gingival bleeding (+1 if bleeding was present, per tooth), gingival pockets (+1 for pockets of 4-5 mm and +2 for 6 mm or deeper, per tooth), and loss of attachment (+1 for 4-5 mm loss, +2 for 6-8 mm, +3 for 9-11 mm, and +4 for 12 mm or more, per tooth with values recorded for index teeth) divided by the number of teeth present.|||<0.05
95997386|NCT02333227|191970703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95997387|NCT00397150|191970704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.92||||||||3.92|1.33|
95778463|NCT00772005|191529154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6642
95778464|NCT00772005|191529154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7395||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7395
95810459|NCT03863574|191593688|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.4981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4981
95997388|NCT00397150|191970709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.11||||||||2.11|1.70|
95778465|NCT00772005|191529155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8124
95778466|NCT00772005|191529155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8961
95778467|NCT00772005|191529155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4999
95778468|NCT00772005|191529165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4540
95810460|NCT03863574|191593688|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8939
95810461|NCT03863574|191593689|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.3605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3605
95810462|NCT03863574|191593689|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8394
95810463|NCT03863574|191593690|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.2665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2665
95810464|NCT03863574|191593690|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9133
95810465|NCT03863574|191593691|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7267
95810466|NCT03863574|191593691|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.9211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9211
95810467|NCT03863574|191593692|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.8683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8683
95997389|NCT00397150|191970710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.63||||||||2.63|1.12|
95997390|NCT00741819|191970738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test]||Change in 6MWD from Baseline was calculated for patients still remaining on study at Week 12.|Analysis of endpoints was descriptive in nature. Numeric endpoints for post-baseline assessments were compared to Baseline using Wilcoxon signed rank test, and p-values were calculated for descriptive purposes; no formal hypothesis testing was planned.||||<0.001
95997391|NCT00741819|191970739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Analysis based on Total CAMPHOR Score.|||||<0.001
95997392|NCT00741819|191970740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3||0.895||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Side-Effects Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||0.895
95997393|NCT00741819|191970740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Convenience Score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
95778469|NCT00772005|191529165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3580
95778470|NCT00772005|191529165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6271
95778471|NCT00772005|191529166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1459
95778472|NCT00772005|191529166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6004
95778473|NCT00772005|191529166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0192
95778474|NCT00772005|191529167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8455
95778475|NCT00772005|191529167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8715
95778476|NCT00772005|191529167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0309
95778477|NCT00772005|191529168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2664
95778478|NCT00772005|191529168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3528
95778479|NCT00772005|191529168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0380
95778480|NCT00772005|191529169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3316||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3316
95778481|NCT00772005|191529169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3490
95778482|NCT00772005|191529169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0926||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0926
95778483|NCT00772005|191529170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8835||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8835
95778484|NCT00772005|191529170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
95778485|NCT00772005|191529170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0883||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0883
95778486|NCT00772005|191529171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6948||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6948
95778487|NCT00772005|191529171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3345||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3345
95778488|NCT00772005|191529171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2447||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2447
95778489|NCT00772005|191529172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6115
95778490|NCT00772005|191529172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2233
95810468|NCT03863574|191593692|OTHER|Proof-of-concept||||||0.7436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7436
95997394|NCT00741819|191970740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.7|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Global Satisfaction, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
95997395|NCT00741819|191970740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Effectiveness score, change from Baseline to Week 12|||||<0.001
95997396|NCT00741819|191970742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95997397|NCT01126580|191970745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 vs Metformin on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 223 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.08|-0.36|<0.001
95997398|NCT01126580|191970745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.29|<0.001
95997399|NCT01126580|191970745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.08||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.08|-0.36|0.002
95997400|NCT01126580|191970745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.01|-0.29|0.020
95997401|NCT01126580|191970746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.35|<0.001
95997402|NCT01126580|191970746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||The p-value is adjusted for multiplicity using a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, the p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.20|<0.001
95778491|NCT00772005|191529172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2343
95997403|NCT01126580|191970746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.35|0.024
95997404|NCT01126580|191970746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12||Tree gatekeeping strategy to control the family-wise Type I error rate was applied.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||0.12|-0.20|0.299
95997405|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
95810469|NCT04938427|191593722|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-1.17|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|9.99||The p-value was calculated using Rank Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model using treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||9.99|-13.02|=0.785
95997406|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
95997407|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95997408|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.011
95778492|NCT00772005|191529173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8228||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8228
95778493|NCT00772005|191529173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9373
95997409|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
95997410|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.269
95997411|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95997412|NCT01126580|191970747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.134
95997413|NCT01126580|191970748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
95997414|NCT01126580|191970748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.451
95997415|NCT01126580|191970748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.025
95997416|NCT01126580|191970748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.402
95997417|NCT01126580|191970749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
95997418|NCT01126580|191970749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
95997419|NCT01126580|191970749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
95778494|NCT00772005|191529173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3190
95778495|NCT00772005|191529174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9769||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9769
95778496|NCT00772005|191529174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8374||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8374
95778497|NCT00772005|191529174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7061
95778498|NCT00772005|191529175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9577||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9577
95997420|NCT01126580|191970749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.469
95810470|NCT04938427|191593723|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|2.43|||=|0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|15.14||The p-value was calculated using the Rank ANCOVA model using the treatment group, age stratum (≤6 years, \>6 years), and rank of Baseline seizure frequency per 28 days as predictors.|ANCOVA||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||15.14|-10.86|=0.778
95810471|NCT04938427|191593724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.87||||||||3.87|0.94|
95810472|NCT04938427|191593725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.05||||||||4.05|0.92|
95997421|NCT01126580|191970750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.811
95778499|NCT00772005|191529175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5106
95778500|NCT00772005|191529175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2655
95778501|NCT00772005|191529176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3825||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3825
95810473|NCT04938427|191593727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13||||||||2.13|0.86|
95778502|NCT00772005|191529176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2003
95778503|NCT00772005|191529176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0625
95778504|NCT00772005|191529177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2981||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2981
95778505|NCT00772005|191529177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0104
95778506|NCT00772005|191529177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0150
95810474|NCT04938427|191593728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.21||||||||2.21|0.89|
95810475|NCT04938427|191593729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.3||||||Alertness Domain||2.30|0.85|
95810476|NCT04938427|191593729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||||||Communication Domain||2.48|0.91|
95810477|NCT04938427|191593729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.43||||||Disruptive Behaviors Domain||3.43|1.06|
95810478|NCT04938427|191593730|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.24||||||||3.24|-2.20|
95810479|NCT04938427|191593731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.65||||||||2.65|1.06|
95810480|NCT04938427|191593732|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|4.16|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||4.16|-16.83|
95810481|NCT04938427|191593733|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift Estimate|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|3.12|||||The location shift between soticlestat and placebo (soticlestat - placebo) and its asymptotic 95% CI are based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|||3.12|-16.67|
95997422|NCT01126580|191970750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95997423|NCT01126580|191970750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.440
95997424|NCT01126580|191970750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95997425|NCT01126580|191970751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.750
95997426|NCT01126580|191970751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95778507|NCT00772005|191529178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4608||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4608
95778508|NCT00772005|191529178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0807
95778509|NCT00772005|191529178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2959||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2959
95778510|NCT00772005|191529179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6759
95810482|NCT04938427|191593734|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.67|||||A linear model with treatment group and age stratum as factors and baseline percentage as a covariate was used for analysis.|||6.67|-1.74|
95955693|NCT02642159|191883455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-22.9||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-22.9|-47.4|<0.0001
95955694|NCT02642159|191883456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-28.8|-20.3||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.3|-28.8|<0.0001
95955695|NCT02642159|191883457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.4|-15.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-15.1|-35.4|<0.0001
95955696|NCT02642159|191883458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.6|-20.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||-20.1|-34.6|<0.0001
95955697|NCT02642159|191883459|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-40.6|-5.0||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).||-5.0|-40.6|0.0040
95955698|NCT02642159|191883460|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.8|3.4||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. usual care|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of overall ITT analysis was statistically significant).||3.4|-11.8|0.2191
95955699|NCT02642159|191883461|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.0||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|27.1||Threshold for significance \<=0.025.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint of ITT- intent to prescribe fenofibrate stratum was statistically significant).|Alirocumab (intent to prescribe fenofibrate) vs. usual care (intent to prescribe fenofibrate)|27.1|-9.1|0.2651
95778511|NCT00772005|191529179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2418||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2418
95778512|NCT00772005|191529179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9808
95778513|NCT00772005|191529180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7599
95778514|NCT00772005|191529180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4543
95955700|NCT02567227|191883469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.54|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||1.54|-3.60|
95955701|NCT02567227|191883469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.76||P-values from linear mixed effects models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status|||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in speed during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.76|-2.59|
95778515|NCT00772005|191529180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6040
95778516|NCT00772005|191529181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2476
95997427|NCT01126580|191970751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.412
95997428|NCT01126580|191970751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95810483|NCT04938427|191593735|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.9||||||||8.9|1.9|
95860752|NCT00535288|191680418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.04||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.02||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||0.02|-0.11|0.29
95997429|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95997430|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95778517|NCT00772005|191529181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9490
95778518|NCT00772005|191529181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9035
95778519|NCT00772005|191529182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9472
95810484|NCT04938427|191593736|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||||||||2.0|-3.7|
95810485|NCT02496000|191593737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0117|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|ANOVA model on the ranks||This outcome measure requires that the the mean differences of ORMD-0801 in each of the two arms be pooled.||||0.0117
95810486|NCT01969058|191593742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 14/16.||||0.030
95997431|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95997432|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%B at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95997433|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95997434|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95997435|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
95997436|NCT01126580|191970752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-%S at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95778520|NCT00772005|191529182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8335||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8335
95778521|NCT00772005|191529182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5674
95778522|NCT00772005|191529183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3536||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3536
95778523|NCT00772005|191529183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1940
95778524|NCT00772005|191529183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2129||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2129
95778525|NCT00772005|191529184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5840
95778526|NCT00772005|191529184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6028
95778527|NCT00772005|191529184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1426
95778528|NCT00772005|191529185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5989||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5989
95778529|NCT00772005|191529185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7411||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7411
95810487|NCT05318287|191593783|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.083
95955702|NCT02567227|191883470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in SPPB scores pre and post intervention.||0.20|-0.49|
95778530|NCT00772005|191529185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1566
95778531|NCT00772005|191529186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2610
95778532|NCT00772005|191529186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4457
95778533|NCT00772005|191529186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1342
95778534|NCT00772005|191529187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0974||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0974
95778535|NCT00772005|191529187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.664||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6640
95778536|NCT00772005|191529187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1507||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1507
95962243|NCT02906020|191896219|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|=|0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.32||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value were estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction||8.32|-0.06|=0.0535
95962244|NCT02906020|191896220|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|=|0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|MMRM|||LS mean, SE and P-value: estimated from MMRM analysis which included fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata, time point, treatment-by-time point and strata-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates Baseline value and Baseline value-by-time-interaction.||0.17|-0.12|=0.7400
95778537|NCT00772005|191529188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7649||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7649
95778538|NCT00772005|191529188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4866||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4866
95778539|NCT00772005|191529188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5002
95778540|NCT00772005|191529189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2076
95778541|NCT00772005|191529189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9355
95778542|NCT00772005|191529189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1890
95778543|NCT00772005|191529190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6320
95962245|NCT02701062|191896223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2593
95962246|NCT02701062|191896224|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95962247|NCT02701062|191896225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1238
95962248|NCT02701062|191896226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Total)||||0.6603
95962249|NCT02701062|191896226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
95962250|NCT02701062|191896226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
95962251|NCT02701062|191896227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6603
95962252|NCT02701062|191896227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOS (Post-Procedure)||||0.0783
95962253|NCT02701062|191896227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Readmission LOS (per subject)||||0.4282
95962254|NCT02701062|191896228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reoperation||||0.5442
95962255|NCT02701062|191896228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2598|||||||Fisher Exact|||ED Visit||||0.2598
95962256|NCT02701062|191896228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5442|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neurologic Consult||||0.5442
95962257|NCT02701062|191896228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2921|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hospital Readmission (per subject)||||0.2921
95962258|NCT04328623|191896229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95962259|NCT01375751|191896270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-36.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-36.09|-51.56|<0.001
95962260|NCT01375751|191896270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-48.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo.||-48.67|-64.06|<0.001
95962261|NCT01375751|191896271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.4|-79.6|<0.001
95962262|NCT01375751|191896271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.8|-70.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-70.7|-98.8|<0.001
95962263|NCT01375751|191896272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.32|-34.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.26|-49.32|<0.001
95962264|NCT01375751|191896272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.95|-45.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.97|-60.95|<0.001
95962265|NCT01375751|191896273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.77|-27.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.74|-41.77|<0.001
95962266|NCT01375751|191896273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-39.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.23|-53.18|<0.001
95778544|NCT00772005|191529190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8777
95997437|NCT00609622|191970783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.705||||0.9963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.272|5.751|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH): greater than (\>) 1.5 vs. less than or equal to (\<=) 1.5 \* upper limit of normal range (ULN), and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||5.751|1.272|0.9963
95997438|NCT00609622|191970784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.618||||0.9289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|3.096|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated from a 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG Performance Status (0 vs. 1), Baseline LDH: \>1.5 vs. \<=1.5 \* ULN, and Prior Adjuvant Treatment (yes vs. no).||3.096|0.845|0.9289
95997439|NCT00609622|191970787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-Distribution|3.956||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.412|18.324|||Chi-squared|||||18.324|-10.412|0.5898
95997440|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.82|0.0515
95997441|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.22|-3.11|0.0876
95997442|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.02|-3.64|0.0522
95778545|NCT00772005|191529190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4378
95778546|NCT00772005|191529191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5544
95778547|NCT00772005|191529191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4446||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4446
95778548|NCT00772005|191529191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4483
95810488|NCT05318287|191593784|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
95997443|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.52|-3.81|0.1339
95997444|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.57|-3.68|0.4233
95778549|NCT00772005|191529192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1914||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1914
95778550|NCT00772005|191529192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2543||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2543
95778551|NCT00772005|191529192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9748
95810489|NCT05318287|191593785|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
95997445|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-5.18|0.2211
95997446|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.04|-3.22|0.8184
95997447|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.9||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|17.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.23|0.57|0.0380
95997448|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|17.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||17.81|-6.61|0.3266
95997449|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.75||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|27.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||27.76|-16.26|0.4667
95997450|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95997451|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in PWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.52|-2.80|0.5587
95778552|NCT00772005|191529193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5312||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5312
95778553|NCT00772005|191529193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7522
95778554|NCT00772005|191529193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3183||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3183
95778555|NCT00772005|191529194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
95778556|NCT00772005|191529194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8910
95778557|NCT00772005|191529194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1795
95955703|NCT02567227|191883471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.79|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||3.79|-2.13|
95955704|NCT02567227|191883471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects models were used to compare changes in stride length during normal walking pre and post intervention.||||
95955705|NCT02567227|191883472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.43|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during normal walking pre and post intervention.||0.43|-0.91|
95955706|NCT02567227|191883472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.27|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in stride length variability during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.27|-1.16|
95955707|NCT02567227|191883473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.19|-0.51|
95955708|NCT02567227|191883473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.41|-0.20|
95955709|NCT02567227|191883473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.32|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during normal pace walking pre and post intervention.||0.32|-0.53|
95955710|NCT02567227|191883473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the pace domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.56|-0.27|
95955711|NCT02567227|191883473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the rhythm domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.45|-0.48|
95962267|NCT01375751|191896274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-29.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placbo is the reference|||-29.32|-44.01|<0.001
95778558|NCT00772005|191529195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6378
95778559|NCT00772005|191529195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8679
95778560|NCT00772005|191529195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5489||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5489
95778561|NCT00772005|191529196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9337
95778562|NCT00772005|191529196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9428
95810490|NCT05318287|191593786|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.167
95810491|NCT05318287|191593787|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
95955712|NCT02567227|191883473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the variation domain during walking while talking pre and post intervention.||0.35|-0.40|
95860753|NCT00535288|191680418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least squares means|-0.07||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01||Confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted by (2-sided) Dunnett many-to-one comparison at 0.05 overall Type 1 error rate.|ANCOVA|Factors for treatment group and (pooled) center and a covariate for the baseline severity||||-0.01|-0.14|0.02
95778563|NCT00772005|191529196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5895||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5895
95778564|NCT00772005|191529197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8695||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8695
95778565|NCT00772005|191529197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6637||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6637
95778566|NCT00772005|191529197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3152||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3152
95810492|NCT05318287|191593788|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.347
95810493|NCT05318287|191593789|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
95864445|NCT01185353|191686786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95955713|NCT02567227|191883474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|2.319||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in normal velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||2.319|0.369|
95955714|NCT02567227|191883474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.789||||||Logistic model for treatment effect on substantial improvement in walking while talking velocity adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal).||1.789|0.516|
95955715|NCT02567227|191883475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|20.41|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in Flanker performance (milliseconds) pre and post intervention.||20.41|-35.45|
95955716|NCT02567227|191883476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.31|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test pre and post intervention.||2.31|-0.30|
95810494|NCT05318287|191593790|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95810495|NCT05318287|191593791|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.403|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.403
95810496|NCT05318287|191593792|EQUIVALENCE|Whether change in linear slope from pretest through the 8-week follow-up is equivalent to zero (null hypothesis).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.194|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.194
95810497|NCT02613507|191593808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||The boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0231|Stratified weighted Log-Rank|Stratified weighted using G \[rho=0, gamma=1\] Fleming and Harrington.||||||0.0006
95810498|NCT02613507|191593808|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.7|0.52|0.9|||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||0.90|0.52|
95997452|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.6122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.81|-1.37|0.6122
95778567|NCT00772005|191529198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7472
95778568|NCT00772005|191529198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4503
95778569|NCT00772005|191529198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3127||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3127
95778570|NCT00772005|191529199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9193||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9193
95778571|NCT00772005|191529199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4814
95778572|NCT00772005|191529199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6097||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6097
95778573|NCT00772005|191529200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8594||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8594
95810499|NCT02613507|191593808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|regular stratified log-rank test p-value||||||0.0017
95810500|NCT00791648|191593833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Pearson x2|||||||.75
95810501|NCT00791648|191593834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.56
95810502|NCT00791648|191593835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
95810503|NCT00791648|191593836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
95810504|NCT00791648|191593837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
95810505|NCT00791648|191593838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
95810506|NCT02541591|191593857|SUPERIORITY||Median ratio of final values|1.37||||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|due to non normality of the residuals the data were log-transformed prior to the anova|the estimated mean difference obtained using the anova on the log-transformed data was back transformed thus yielding a ratio of median values|missing data were accounted for by multiple imputation||1.98|0.95|0.0881
95810507|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|14.72||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Left eye||14.72|2.41|0.0129
95810508|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.58||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.45||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Foreign body sensation - Right eye||13.45|1.70|0.0077
95810509|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|9.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Left eye||9.62|-1.64|0.1589
95864446|NCT01185353|191686786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for comparison of the superiority of the LY3009104 dose level vs. placebo for the ordinal levels of response - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 1-sided ≤0.10.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95997453|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-1.87|0.4642
95997454|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.54|-2.41|0.2105
95997455|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.76|-0.57|0.1950
95778574|NCT00772005|191529200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6157
95778575|NCT00772005|191529200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4846||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4846
95778576|NCT00772005|191529201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6076
95778577|NCT00772005|191529201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5827
95778578|NCT00772005|191529201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7865||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7865
95778579|NCT00772005|191529202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3045
95810510|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|8.35||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Burning/ Stinging - Right eye||8.35|-2.78|0.3167
95810511|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.96||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Left eye||3.96|-7.64|0.5243
95810512|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|6.82||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Itching - Right eye||6.82|-4.45|0.6714
95778580|NCT00772005|191529202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0617||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0617
95810513|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|0.53||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Left eye||0.53|-8.31|0.0828
95810514|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|3.62||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Pain - Right eye||3.62|-4.77|0.7823
95778581|NCT00772005|191529202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0580
95778582|NCT00772005|191529203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0194||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0194
95778583|NCT00772005|191529203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2270
95778584|NCT00772005|191529203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1181
95778585|NCT00772005|191529204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
95778586|NCT00772005|191529204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0419
95810515|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.7||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Left eye||9.70|0.16|0.0432
95854745|NCT05720897|191669487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||The calculations are based on a Mann Whitney calculation.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study has an 80% power to detect changes in patient's self-reported anxiety as measured by their responses to the psychometrically validated STAI-S \& T instrument of 3.6 within each group (with an effect size of 0.55) and differences of a 5.0 between groups (with an effect size of 0.77).||||.399
95997456|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.5779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.75|-1.55|0.5779
95997457|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.50|-2.15|0.6314
95997458|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.87|-2.85|0.7554
95997459|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.94||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.22|5.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||5.34|-13.22|0.3781
95997460|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.85||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|8.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||8.13|-13.83|0.5715
95997461|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58||||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.08|3.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.93|-19.08|0.1271
95997462|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95810516|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.0||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Sticky feeling - Right eye||11.00|1.70|0.0088
95810517|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|14.66||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Left eye||14.66|3.90|0.0013
95997463|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.6785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in SWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-1.03|0.6785
95997464|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.74|-1.63|0.4623
95997465|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.9302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.20|-1.31|0.9302
95997466|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.33|-1.84|0.7502
95997467|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.95|-2.12|0.9335
95810518|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31||||0.00629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|10.92||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Blurred vision - Right eye||10.92|-0.30|0.00629
95810519|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|15.95||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Left eye||15.95|3.89|0.0020
95997468|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.17|-2.40|0.9191
95997469|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.27|-3.46|0.6750
95997470|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.43|-4.20|0.5874
95997471|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|16.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.06|-7.53|0.4507
95997472|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.08|-4.28|0.3087
95997473|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|15.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||15.76|-16.26|0.9635
95997474|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95997475|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.6699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in EWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.53|-2.37|0.6699
95997476|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.34||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||-0.70|-3.98|0.0055
95997477|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.2793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.85|-2.92|0.2793
95778587|NCT00772005|191529204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0146
95778588|NCT00772005|191529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1292||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1292
95778589|NCT00772005|191529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3773||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3773
95778590|NCT00772005|191529205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1348
95778591|NCT00772005|191529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9642
95778592|NCT00772005|191529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7814
95778593|NCT00772005|191529206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1455
95778594|NCT00772005|191529207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5722
95810520|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|13.97||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Photophobia - Right eye||13.97|1.93|0.0111
95997478|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.99|-3.17|0.2999
95778595|NCT00772005|191529207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1352
95778596|NCT00772005|191529207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0630
95810521|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.67||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|62.56||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Left eye||62.56|0.78|0.0448
95997479|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.29|-3.82|0.3270
95778597|NCT00772005|191529208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4607||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4607
95778598|NCT00772005|191529208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2538||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2538
95778599|NCT00772005|191529208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3406||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3406
95778600|NCT00772005|191529209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8116
95778601|NCT00772005|191529209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6870
95778602|NCT00772005|191529209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8112
95778603|NCT00772005|191529210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9786||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9786
95864447|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.409
95955717|NCT02567227|191883477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare performance on Trail Making Test form A pre and post intervention.||||
95778604|NCT00772005|191529210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5879
95778605|NCT00772005|191529210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3973
95778606|NCT00772005|191529211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4030
95778607|NCT00772005|191529211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3777||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3777
95778608|NCT00772005|191529211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6493||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6493
95778609|NCT00772005|191529212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9871||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9871
95778610|NCT00772005|191529212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5859
95778611|NCT00772005|191529212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0328
95955718|NCT02567227|191883478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in performance on Trail Making Test form B pre and post intervention.||0.06|-0.07|
95955719|NCT02567227|191883479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.2|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes performance on the Controlled Oral Word Association Test pre and post intervention.||2.20|-0.86|
95955720|NCT02567227|191883482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|3.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during normal walking pre and 6 months post intervention.||3.91|-1.65|
95778612|NCT00772005|191529213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2318||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2318
95778613|NCT00772005|191529213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6211
95778614|NCT00772005|191529213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3125
95778615|NCT00772005|191529214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2425||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2425
95778616|NCT00772005|191529214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
95864448|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.371
95864449|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95955721|NCT02567227|191883482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.91|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in gait speed during walking while talking pre and 6 months post intervention.||4.91|-2.12|
95997480|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.45|-2.39|0.9779
95997481|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.8344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.45|-4.25|0.8344
95997482|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||6.41|-3.50|0.5494
95997483|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.85|3.15|0.0136
95997484|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.78||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|25.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||25.29|2.26|0.0247
95997485|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|22.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||22.91|-12.91|0.3527
95778617|NCT00772005|191529214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4753
95778618|NCT00772005|191529215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1715||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1715
95778619|NCT00772005|191529215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3056
95778620|NCT00772005|191529215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0083||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0083
95997486|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95997487|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in FWB between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.53|-4.05|0.1309
95997488|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.01|-2.72|0.0510
95997489|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.95|-2.44|0.3858
95997490|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.15|-2.90|0.3943
95997491|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.27|-3.53|0.3499
95997492|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.9567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.50|-2.64|0.9567
95997493|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.58|-5.12|0.2901
95778621|NCT00772005|191529216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2681||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2681
95778622|NCT00772005|191529216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1475
95778623|NCT00772005|191529216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0647||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0647
95864450|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Low Disease Activity - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95997494|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|2.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.92|-5.05|0.5857
95997495|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.9635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|12.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||12.02|-12.56|0.9635
95997496|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|10.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.56|-15.36|0.6850
95997497|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75||||0.4968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||11.73|-19.23|0.4968
95997498|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95997499|NCT00609622|191970789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.5891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in CCS between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.55|-2.71|0.5891
95997500|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.24|-2.50|0.5081
95997501|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.79|-2.67|0.6977
95997502|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.33|-5.85|0.0797
95997503|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|3.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||3.17|-5.62|0.5808
95997504|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|4.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.38|-6.44|0.7046
95778624|NCT00772005|191529217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1670
95778625|NCT00772005|191529217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1737
95778626|NCT00772005|191529217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3720
95778627|NCT00772005|191529218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3547||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3547
95778628|NCT00772005|191529218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6043
95997505|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.18||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|10.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||10.76|-2.40|0.2052
95997506|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.27||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.46|0.07|0.0483
95997507|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.6832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|24.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||24.26|-16.41|0.6832
95778629|NCT00772005|191529218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0463
95997508|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|20.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||20.05|-18.05|0.9081
95997509|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.7289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|16.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||16.38|-12.88|0.7289
95997510|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95778630|NCT00772005|191529219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9258
95778631|NCT00772005|191529219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9116||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9116
95778632|NCT00772005|191529219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4848||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4848
95997511|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in neurotoxicity between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.95|-4.43|0.6921
95997512|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C4 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.19|-0.19|0.9788
95997513|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C7 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.33|0.2747
95997514|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C10 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.14|-0.50|0.2776
95997515|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C13 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.09|-0.62|0.1403
95997516|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C16 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.50|-0.55|0.9151
95778633|NCT00772005|191529220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7612
95778634|NCT00772005|191529220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5761
95778635|NCT00772005|191529220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1576||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1576
95778636|NCT00772005|191529221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9565
95778637|NCT00772005|191529221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9178||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9178
95778638|NCT00772005|191529221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1491||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1491
95778639|NCT00772005|191529222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7056
95778640|NCT00772005|191529222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5179||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5179
95778641|NCT00772005|191529222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4585
95778642|NCT00772005|191529223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0690
95778643|NCT00772005|191529223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5324||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5324
95778644|NCT00772005|191529223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0946
95778645|NCT00772005|191529224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1878||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1878
95778646|NCT00772005|191529224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4294||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4294
95778647|NCT00772005|191529224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6504
95778648|NCT00772005|191529225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4022
95997517|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C19 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||1.05|-0.36|0.3277
95778649|NCT00772005|191529225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6246||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6246
95778650|NCT00772005|191529225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8655||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8655
95778651|NCT00772005|191529226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5676||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5676
95778652|NCT00772005|191529226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5239
95864451|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95778653|NCT00772005|191529226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4092||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4092
95778654|NCT00772005|191529227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5195
95778655|NCT00772005|191529227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1732||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1732
95778656|NCT00772005|191529227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7455
95778657|NCT00772005|191529228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6885||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6885
95778658|NCT00772005|191529228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5443
95778659|NCT00772005|191529228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9343
95778660|NCT00772005|191529229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9093||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9093
95778661|NCT00772005|191529229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4701||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4701
95778662|NCT00772005|191529229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9764||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9764
95778663|NCT00772005|191529230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8115||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8115
95810522|NCT02507934|191593892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.36||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|56.37||For each parameter, for each eye, an ANOVA model for repeated measures has been used by including each available timepoint. The estimated mean difference between treatments (Vismed-Lubricin) over time has been reported and tested.|repeated measures ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for repeated measures on Total score ocular tolerability - Right eye||56.37|-3.66|0.0834
95997518|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C22 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.86|-0.86|1.0000
95810523|NCT02507934|191593894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.57|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 7 ±1||0.57|-0.14|0.2317
95778664|NCT00772005|191529230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5378||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5378
95778665|NCT00772005|191529230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9144
95778666|NCT00772005|191529231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9812
95778667|NCT00772005|191529231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5464
95778668|NCT00772005|191529231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8811||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8811
95778669|NCT00772005|191529232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6487
95778670|NCT00772005|191529232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4204
95778671|NCT00772005|191529232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6955||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6955
95997519|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C25 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.67|-1.53|0.5661
95997520|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C28 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||2.15|-2.95|0.7309
95997521|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C31 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||4.66|-2.16|0.3273
95997522|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (C34 of D1) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0|0|<0.0001
95997523|NCT00609622|191970790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in item 13 between treatment arms (EOT) was analyzed from a two-sample t-test.||0.27|-0.39|0.7108
95778672|NCT00772005|191529233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6042||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6042
95778673|NCT00772005|191529233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9783
95810524|NCT02507934|191593894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.41|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 7 ±1||0.41|-0.70|0.6017
95810525|NCT02507934|191593894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.36|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 14 ±1||1.36|0.11|0.0232
95997524|NCT03430310|191970874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95997525|NCT01446809|191970882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95997526|NCT01446809|191970883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95997527|NCT05198713|191970908|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95997528|NCT04364854|191970984|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.87|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.87|-2.31|
95997529|NCT04364854|191970984|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.15|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||3.15|-2.94|
95778674|NCT00772005|191529233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9739
95778675|NCT00772005|191529234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3466||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3466
95778676|NCT00772005|191529234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8469||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8469
95778677|NCT00772005|191529234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5439||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5439
95778678|NCT00772005|191529235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6059
95778679|NCT00772005|191529235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7474
95778680|NCT00772005|191529235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4424||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4424
95997530|NCT04364854|191970984|OTHER|This study was not designed to perform a hypothesis test. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.33|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM, and age.|||1.33|-2.9|
95997531|NCT04364854|191970985|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.13|-0.26|
95997532|NCT04364854|191970985|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||0.28|-0.21|
95997533|NCT04364854|191970985|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.04|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline SAQOL-39, and age.|||-0.04|-0.42|
95997534|NCT04364854|191970986|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|2.9|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.9|-2.59|
95778681|NCT00772005|191529236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4874||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4874
95778682|NCT00772005|191529236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8243
95778683|NCT00772005|191529236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9562||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9562
95778684|NCT00772005|191529237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3686||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3686
95778685|NCT00772005|191529237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0270
95778686|NCT00772005|191529237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7322||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7322
95778687|NCT00772005|191529238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4646||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4646
95778688|NCT00772005|191529238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8783
95778689|NCT00772005|191529238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4213||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4213
95778690|NCT00772005|191529239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6597
95778691|NCT00772005|191529239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0262
95997535|NCT04364854|191970986|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM-Narrative, and age.|||3.8|-2.23|
95778692|NCT00772005|191529239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6652||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6652
95778693|NCT00772005|191529240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3355||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3355
95778694|NCT00772005|191529240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0953||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0953
95778695|NCT00772005|191529240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9235||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9235
95778696|NCT00772005|191529241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4164||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4164
95778697|NCT00772005|191529241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3003
95778698|NCT00772005|191529241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6907
95778699|NCT00772005|191529242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2518||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2518
95864452|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
95778700|NCT00772005|191529242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0739
95778701|NCT00772005|191529242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5644||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5644
95778702|NCT00772005|191529243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4305||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4305
95778703|NCT00772005|191529243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8299||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8299
95778704|NCT00772005|191529243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7283
95778705|NCT00772005|191529244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7610
95778706|NCT00772005|191529244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6091
95778707|NCT00772005|191529244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3368||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3368
95778708|NCT00772005|191529245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8457
95778709|NCT00772005|191529245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4531
95810526|NCT02507934|191593894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Right eye - Day 14 ±1||1.17|0.03|0.0398
95810527|NCT02507934|191593894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - Left eye - Day 21 ±1||1.74|0.36|0.0038
95778710|NCT00772005|191529245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6867
95810528|NCT02507934|191593894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.33|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on corneal fluorescein surface staining - right eye||1.33|0.17|0.0135
95810529|NCT02507934|191593895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 7±1||1.83|-0.66|0.3442
95778711|NCT00772005|191529246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9705
95778712|NCT00772005|191529246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0021
95778713|NCT00772005|191529246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5013||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5013
95778714|NCT00772005|191529247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.7330
95778715|NCT00772005|191529247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0068
95778716|NCT00772005|191529247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1040
95810530|NCT02507934|191593895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.49|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.49|-1.99|0.7720
95810531|NCT02507934|191593895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.44|-1.49|0.9725
95778717|NCT00772005|191529248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8220
95778718|NCT00772005|191529248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0144
95778719|NCT00772005|191529248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value and 95% CI for the treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9464
95778720|NCT03280225|191529308|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.82|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a coordinator in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||2.82|0.73|.302
95810532|NCT02507934|191593895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.2111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.81|-3.54|0.2111
95810533|NCT02507934|191593895|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.86|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.86|-3.06|0.2629
95810534|NCT02507934|191593895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline on Schirmer's test type I strip wetting distance - Right eye - 21±1||1.10|-3.60|0.2862
95810535|NCT02507934|191593896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|29.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 7±1||29.14|-6.66|0.2075
95810536|NCT02507934|191593896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.16||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|35.76|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 14±1||35.76|0.57|0.0435
95810537|NCT02507934|191593896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|41.93|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Frequency - Day 21±1||41.93|5.24|0.0133
95810538|NCT02507934|191593897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|21.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 7±1||21.69|-12.98|0.6130
95810539|NCT02507934|191593897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|28.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 14±1||28.18|-2.78|0.1047
95778721|NCT03280225|191529309|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans being assigned a provider during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans being assigned a provider in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.93|0.86|0.226
95810540|NCT02507934|191593897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|30.04|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in symptom assessment in dry eye - Severity - Day 21±1||30.04|-3.24|0.1108
95810541|NCT02507934|191593898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.81|-0.40|0.4980
95810542|NCT02507934|191593898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.83|-0.18|0.1986
95810543|NCT02507934|191593898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 14±1||0.37|-0.90|0.4067
95810544|NCT02507934|191593898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.42|-0.81|0.5256
95810545|NCT02507934|191593898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.17|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Left eye - Day 21±1||0.17|-1.12|0.1471
95810546|NCT02507934|191593898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.25|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Ocular Protection Index - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.25|-0.96|0.2455
95810547|NCT02507934|191593899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.85|-1.98|0.4233
95810548|NCT02507934|191593899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.69|-1.04|0.6335
95810549|NCT02507934|191593899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.51|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 14±1||-0.51|-3.56|0.0103
95810550|NCT02507934|191593899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.27|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.27|-2.95|0.1006
95810551|NCT02507934|191593899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.85|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.85|-4.15|0.0041
95810552|NCT02507934|191593899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.06|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T test p-value - Right eye - Day 21±1||-0.06|-3.67|0.0429
95778722|NCT03280225|191529310|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans receiving a care evaluation in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.70|0.90|0.199
95778723|NCT03280225|191529311|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.76|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios were estimated using GEE to control for clustering within VAMCs. Fixed effects included a time-dependent variable (pre-post) as well an independent variable of time to account for improvement due to secular trends.|Odds Ratio of eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted during the 6 month period following implementation compared to eligible Veterans where outreach was attempted in the 6 month period prior to implementation.||1.76|1.08|0.011
95778724|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.08||Program Needs||||.018
95778725|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.78||Training Needs||||.136
95778726|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|Pressure for Change||||||0.812|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.39||||||.812
95778727|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|Staffing||||||0.358|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.10||||||.358
95778728|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|Mission||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||||||.748
95810553|NCT02507934|191593900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.75|0.2338
95810554|NCT02507934|191593900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 7±1||0.19|-0.58|0.3081
95955722|NCT02567227|191883483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in stair climbing time pre and post intervention.||||
95955723|NCT02567227|191883484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimates with standard errors are from unadjusted linear mixed effect models.|Unadjusted linear mixed effects model was used to compare changes in activities of daily living pre and post intervention.||||
95955724|NCT02567227|191883485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.93|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in depressive symptoms measured using the GDS pre and post intervention.||0.93|-0.40|
95778729|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 0.48||Cohesion||||.748
95778730|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 3.88||Autonomy||||.005
95778731|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 1.44||Communication||||.224
95778732|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.52||Stress||||.043
95778733|NCT03280225|191529312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||ANOVA|F (4, 158) = 2.01||Change||||.096
95778734|NCT00306787|191529322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated power for non-inferiority test (90%) was based on the non-inferiority margin of 1.0 day.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.6|||Hodges-Lehman|||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for famciclovir- time to healing for valacyclovir.||0.60|-0.15|
95778735|NCT01438814|191529328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to 0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|<0.0001
95778736|NCT01438814|191529328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8924||95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.13|0.8924
95778737|NCT01438814|191529329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8201||95.0|0.672|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c||||1.370|0.672|0.8201
95778738|NCT01438814|191529330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.022||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.796|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes treatment and baseline HbA1c.||||1.796|0.582|0.9397
95778739|NCT01438814|191529331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3352||95.0|-2.1|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-2.1|0.3352
95778740|NCT01438814|191529332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact p-value presented due to small cell counts||||||0.0308
95778741|NCT01438814|191529333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0545||95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.0|0.0545
95778742|NCT01438814|191529334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.997||||0.9886||95.0|0.689|1.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.445|0.689|0.9886
95778743|NCT01438814|191529335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.2108||95.0|0.558|1.137|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.137|0.558|0.2108
95810555|NCT02507934|191593900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59||||0.4287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|5.74|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 14±1||5.74|-2.57|0.4287
95810556|NCT02507934|191593900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.44|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 14±1||5.44|-3.14|0.5765
95810557|NCT02507934|191593900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Left eye - Day 21±1||-0.15|-2.18|0.0259
95955725|NCT02567227|191883487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.16|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in reported fear of falling measured on the Falls Efficacy Scale pre and post intervention.||2.16|-1.38|
95778744|NCT01438814|191529336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.9972||95.0|0.712|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.402|0.712|0.9972
95778745|NCT01438814|191529337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.2816||95.0|0.594|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.163|0.594|0.2816
95778746|NCT01438814|191529338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0011||95.0|0.25|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.25|0.0011
95778747|NCT01438814|191529339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.7682||95.0|0.681|1.328|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.328|0.681|0.7682
95778748|NCT02273908|191529346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.949|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.459|-0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.439|-1.459|<0.001
95810558|NCT02507934|191593900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.37|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Visual acuity score - Right eye - Day 21±1||0.37|-2.23|0.1496
95810559|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 7±1||||0.2342
95810560|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 7±1||||0.8874
95810561|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.0504
95955726|NCT02567227|191883488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.04|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the physical health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.04|-1.46|
95778749|NCT02273908|191529347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.131|-1.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-1.387|-3.131|<0.001
95778750|NCT02273908|191529347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-1.071|-2.704|<0.001
95778751|NCT02273908|191529348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4903|5.1133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||5.1133|1.4903|<0.001
95778752|NCT02273908|191529348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least square mean difference|2.729||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9047|4.5533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.5533|0.9047|0.004
95778753|NCT02273908|191529349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.301|-0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||-0.359|-1.301|<0.001
95810562|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.0814
95810563|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810564|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.3855
95810565|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810566|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810567|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4754|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 7±1||||0.4754
95810568|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 7±1||||0.2914
95810569|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810570|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810571|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810572|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810573|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810574|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810575|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95955727|NCT02567227|191883488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.85|||||Estimates with standard errors are from linear mixed effect models adjusted for age, sex, education years, comorbidities, pain, cardiac fitness, and cognitive status.|Linear mixed effects model adjusted for age, sex, education (school years), comorbidities score (0-10), pain, Duke score (cardiac fitness), and cognitive status (MCI or cognitively normal) were used to compare changes in the mental health score of the SF-12 pre and post intervention.||1.85|-1.04|
95955728|NCT00999141|191883564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||<0.0001
95778754|NCT02273908|191529349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.674||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|-0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||-0.223|-1.125|0.004
95778755|NCT02273908|191529350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0204||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0091|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||0.0499|-0.0091|0.175
95778756|NCT02273908|191529350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0329||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0058|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||0.0600|0.0058|0.017
95778757|NCT02273908|191529351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.697||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|8.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 8.||8.842|0.552|0.026
95778758|NCT02273908|191529351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.292||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.282|4.866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis on the mean difference between two groups with the change from baseline at Week 4.||4.866|-2.282|0.477
95778759|NCT02273908|191529352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95778760|NCT02273908|191529353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Modified Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95778761|NCT00435487|191529398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-2.6||||||95.0|-8.59|3.4|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% confidence interval (CI) is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.40|-8.59|
95778762|NCT00435487|191529398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|1.25||||||95.0|-3.02|5.52|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.52|-3.02|
95778763|NCT00435487|191529398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority was based on whether the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference was less than or equal to 10%, the non-inferiority margin specified in the protocol.|Difference in proportion|-1.35||||||95.0|-8.62|5.93|||upper limit of 95% CI <= 10%||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper boundary of the 95% CI for the Dalteparin - Unfractioned Heparin difference was less than or equal to 10%.|Death or Non-fatal Myocardial Infarction after receiving 48 hours of study medication (Event date - First dose date) and on or before day 30 from baseline. Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.93|-8.62|
95778764|NCT00435487|191529399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.27||||1||95.0|-1.2|3.73|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||3.73|-1.20|1.0000
95997536|NCT04364854|191970986|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.82|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Narrative, and age.|||2.82|-2.32|
95778765|NCT00435487|191529400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
95778766|NCT00435487|191529401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.05||||1||95.0|-6.05|5.95|||Chi-squared||95% CI is for difference in proportion using normal approximation to binomial.|Difference in proportion (Dalteparin-UFH)(%).||5.95|-6.05|1.0000
95778767|NCT03301844|191529409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared||||"Patient preference for one of the two treatments at Visit 3 was presented overall in terms of number and percentage of patients preferring the standard or the study treatment.~Patient preference was compared between the standard and the study treatment with a Chi-Square test for equal proportion."|||0.071
95778768|NCT03301844|191529410|OTHER|||||||0.7353|||||||Chi-squared||||"The incidence of all the treatment-emergent systemic Adverse Events recorded in the eCRF was presented overall at patient level; the incidence of all the treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events recorded in eCRF was presented by treatment group at eye level.~Incidence of treatment-emergent ocular Adverse Events was compared between treatment groups by means of a Chi-square test."|||0.7353
95778769|NCT01267201|191529418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.23|96.15||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||96.15|88.23|
95778770|NCT01267201|191529418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|90.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.49|94.11||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||94.11|86.49|
95810576|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95997537|NCT04364854|191970987|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|3.45|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||3.45|-3.59|
95997538|NCT04364854|191970987|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|4.8|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||4.8|-4.27|
95778771|NCT01267201|191529419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|101.98||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.98|88.06|
95778772|NCT01267201|191529419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|90.17||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of methylprednisolone was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||90.17|78.06|
95778773|NCT00483704|191529422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.58|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.58|1.80|<0.001
95778774|NCT00483704|191529422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.27|2.15|<0.001
95778775|NCT00483704|191529423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.90|2.35|<0.001
95778776|NCT00483704|191529423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.61|2.17|<0.001
95778777|NCT00483704|191529424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|7.23|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||7.23|2.05|<0.001
95997539|NCT04364854|191970987|OTHER|This trial was not designed for hypothesis testing. No p-values will be reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.56|||||Analyzed using a repeated measures model that included the following fixed affects: categorical visit by treatment group interaction, site, baseline aphasia severity score, baseline VPM - Procedural, and age.|||1.56|-5.77|
95778778|NCT00483704|191529424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||11.39|3.36|<0.001
95778779|NCT00483704|191529425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.51|1.96|<0.001
95778780|NCT00483704|191529425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|4.34|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.34|2.41|<0.001
95778781|NCT00483704|191529426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.11|1.30|<0.001
95778782|NCT00483704|191529426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.14|1.31|<0.001
95810577|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95810578|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95778783|NCT00483704|191529427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.22|1.36|<0.001
95778784|NCT00483704|191529427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.06|1.26|<0.001
95997540|NCT01672892|191971003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0476|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Since there is no prior data using this tool in this patient population, an effect size of 0.4 was chosen to calculate sample size. Based on a two-sample t-test with one interim look and a two-sided alpha=0.05, a sample size of 225 is needed to achieve 85% statistical power. Assuming an attrition rate of 10% and noncompliance of 10%, 281 patients were required in order to ensure 225 evaluable patients for the primary endpoint analysis.||||0.0476
95997541|NCT01672892|191971004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4338|||||||Binomial test of proportions|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4338
95997542|NCT01672892|191971005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 3 of RT||||0.04
95997543|NCT01672892|191971005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||Week 5 of RT||||0.03
95997544|NCT01672892|191971005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level of 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.41
95778785|NCT00483704|191529428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.17|1.28|<0.001
95778786|NCT00483704|191529428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||2.04|1.21|<0.001
95778787|NCT00483704|191529431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.07|1.78|<0.001
95810579|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95997545|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-G total score - 5 weeks||||0.54
95997546|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||FACT-G total score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.72
95778788|NCT00483704|191529431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.19|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.19|2.30|<0.001
95778789|NCT00483704|191529432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.69|1.56|<0.001
95778790|NCT00483704|191529432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.12|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||5.12|2.22|<0.001
95997547|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.01
95997548|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||FACT-Cx subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.45
95997549|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.03
95778791|NCT00483704|191529433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.38|1.65|<0.001
95810580|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 7±1||||1.0000
95778792|NCT00483704|191529433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.01|1.97|<0.001
95778793|NCT00483704|191529434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||3.54|1.52|<0.001
95810581|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2429
95810582|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 14±1||||0.5707
95810583|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0092
95997550|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Physical subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.9
95997551|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.55
95997552|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Functional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
95997553|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
95997554|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Emotional subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.09
95997555|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 5 weeks||||0.66
95997556|NCT01672892|191971006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.0125||Social subscale score - 4-6 weeks post RT||||0.35
95778794|NCT00483704|191529434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.|An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the first treatment group of the corresponding pairwise comparison.|||4.56|2.00|<0.001
95778795|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||P-value for age over 65.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0074
95778796|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||P-value for female physicians.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0028
95778797|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Rheumatology versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95778798|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for other specialty versus PCP.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95778799|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0||||P-value for use of opioids.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0064
95778800|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for use of NSAIDs.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95778801|NCT00725101|191529464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for number of medications participants were taking.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95810584|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0039
95810585|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.2882
95997557|NCT01672892|191971007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||5 weeks||||0.61
95997558|NCT01672892|191971007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||4-6 weeks post-RT||||0.67
95997559|NCT01672892|191971008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.81
95778802|NCT00725101|191529465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for GAD-7 score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
95778803|NCT00725101|191529465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pregabalin use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.021
95778804|NCT00725101|191529465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for NSAID use.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.050
95778805|NCT02537431|191529494|OTHER||Mean|-54.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.64|-39.72||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-39.72|-68.64|< 0.0001
95778806|NCT02537431|191529495|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is for testing the proportion of participants achieving the mean serum phosphorus levels above the LLN (2.5 mg/dL \[0.81 mmol/L\]) against 0% from the binomial test.|binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95778807|NCT02537431|191529496|OTHER||Mean|-32.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.25|-24.17||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-24.17|-40.25|<0.0001
95778808|NCT02537431|191529497|OTHER||Mean|-26.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.08|-15.91||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-15.91|-36.08|0.0002
95778809|NCT02537431|191529498|OTHER||Mean|-52.24||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.08|-10.41||The null hypothesis of no mean percent change from baseline is tested using t-test.|t-test|||||-10.41|-94.08|0.0199
95778810|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (GEE)|107.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.46|139.03|||||From the generalized estimation equation (GEE) model which includes change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 1||139.03|76.46|
95778811|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.91|62.91|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||62.91|33.91|
95778812|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|13.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|20.31|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||20.31|6.85|
95778813|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|5.75|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 20||5.75|-8.43|
95778814|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.49|42.0|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 21||42.00|21.49|
95778815|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|19.46|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||19.46|3.54|
95810586|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.4017
95810587|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810588|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810589|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 14±1||||0.0731
95997560|NCT01672892|191971009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.35|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||2.35|0.82|0.21
95997561|NCT01672892|191971010|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy|||1.79|0.32|0.53
95997562|NCT01672892|191971013|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95997563|NCT01672892|191971013|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||nonparametric one-sample t-test|||Week 5||||<0.0001
95997564|NCT01672892|191971014|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at baseline||||<0.0001
95778816|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|-3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.55|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||6.55|-12.62|
95778817|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS Mean|-1.72||||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|6.5|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||6.50|-9.93|0.6821
95778818|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|-5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|0.92|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.92|-12.38|
95778819|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.18|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 70||11.18|-4.45|
95778820|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|0.13|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.13|-11.22|
95778821|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|-5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|0.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.26|-11.35|
95778822|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|9.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|17.94|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 94||17.94|1.33|
95778823|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-1.38||||||Week 96||-1.38|-10.80|
95778824|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|9.26|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 108||9.26|-9.22|
95810590|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 14±1||||0.0020
95997565|NCT01672892|191971014|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Bowel domain at week 5||||<0.0001
95997566|NCT01672892|191971014|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at baseline||||<0.0001
95997567|NCT01672892|191971014|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test|||Urinary domain at week 5||||<0.0001
95997568|NCT01672892|191971015|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Bowel domain||||<0.0001
95997569|NCT01672892|191971015|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Urinary domain||||<0.0001
95778825|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.68|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 120||9.68|-6.77|
95778826|NCT02537431|191529510|OTHER||LS mean|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.21|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for 1, 25 (OH)2 D as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 1, 25 (OH)2 D as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 132||2.21|-5.60|
95778827|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.35|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.35|-0.15|
95778828|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.11|-0.19|
95778829|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 36||0.11|-0.12|
95778830|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04||||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||GEE model||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.11|-0.19|0.6021
95778831|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.19|-0.19|
95810591|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95997570|NCT03528681|191971030|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.959|0.902|<0.001
95997571|NCT03528681|191971030|OTHER||Back-transformed mean difference|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results are derived from a longitudinal model applied to log-transformed S-K measurements adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement||0.876|0.825|<0.001
95778832|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.03|-0.29|
95810592|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810593|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810594|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810595|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810596|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95997572|NCT03528681|191971035|OTHER|The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|6.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.67|2.17|<0.001
95778833|NCT02537431|191529511|OTHER||LS mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.26|||||From the GEE model; includes change from baseline from baseline for 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of 24-Hour urinary phosphorus as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOS II||0.26|-0.41|
95778834|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS Mean|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||2.03|1.49|
95810597|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810598|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810599|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810600|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810601|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810602|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 14±1||||1.0000
95810603|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1376
95810604|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3252
95810605|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0111
95997573|NCT03528681|191971035|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.45|21.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis uses a generalized mixed model which includes a random intercept and logit link. The model includes all S-K data values collected at the scheduled visits between Days 8-29, dichotomized as normal and abnormal, as response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||21.00|6.45|<0.001
95810606|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0049
95810607|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.1178
95810608|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.9042
95810609|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95810610|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lashes - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95810611|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Right - Day 21±1||||0.0253
95810612|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Left - Day 21±1||||0.0016
95810613|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95810614|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95778835|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS Mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.97|0.59|
95778836|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.82|0.34|
95778837|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS Mean|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.99|0.74|
95778838|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||0.64|0.24|
95778839|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS Mean|0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.38|0.01|0.0430
95778840|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.64|-0.04|
95778841|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.52|0.03|
95778842|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.66|0.13|
95778843|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.48|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.48|0.10|
95778844|NCT02537431|191529512|OTHER||LS mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for TmP/GFR as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TmP/GFR as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.34|0.08|
95778845|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 2||0.08|0.06|
95778846|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 4||0.06|0.01|
95810615|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Right - Day 21±1||||0.3165
95810616|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Lens - Left - Day 21±1||||0.3165
95997574|NCT03528681|191971036|OTHER|The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.05|1.07|0.035
95778847|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||0.04|-0.01|
95778848|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 22||0.05|0.02|
95778849|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||Week 24||0.04|-0.02|
95778850|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS Mean|0.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||0.04|-0.05|0.8377
95778851|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 60||0.06|-0.00|
95778852|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||0.05|-0.09|
95778853|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 84||0.06|-0.01|
95778854|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||0.05|-0.01|
95778855|NCT02537431|191529513|OTHER||LS mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline or percent change from baseline for TRP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of TRP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.03|-0.01|
95778856|NCT02537431|191529514|OTHER||LS Mean|99.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.83|121.53|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||121.53|76.83|
95810617|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95778857|NCT02537431|191529514|OTHER||LS Mean|104.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.47|126.19|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||126.19|82.47|
95778858|NCT02537431|191529514|OTHER||LS Mean|52.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.84|75.13|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||75.13|29.84|< 0.0001
95778859|NCT02537431|191529514|OTHER||LS mean|37.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.19|61.38|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.38|13.19|
95778860|NCT02537431|191529514|OTHER||LS mean|29.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|55.4|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||55.40|3.18|
95997575|NCT03528681|191971036|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|15.27|||Regression, Logistic|||The model included normokalaemia status (yes, no) on Day 29 as binary response variables, and baseline covariates. Placebo is the reference group.||15.27|2.56|<0.001
95997576|NCT03528681|191971037|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.31|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||8.31|3.13|<0.001
95997577|NCT03528681|191971037|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|13.71|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||13.71|8.57|<0.001
95810618|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Iris - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95778861|NCT02537431|191529514|OTHER||LS mean|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|21.94|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||21.94|-17.67|
95778862|NCT02537431|191529515|OTHER||LS Mean|133.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.26|159.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||159.89|106.26|
95778863|NCT02537431|191529515|OTHER||LS Mean|137.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.95|168.65|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||168.65|106.95|
95810619|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95810620|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95997578|NCT03528681|191971040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.293|-49.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-49.203|-161.293|<0.001
95997579|NCT03528681|191971040|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-137.267|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.596|-81.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||S-Aldo Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||-81.937|-192.596|<0.001
95997580|NCT03528681|191971040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.147|-0.120|0.839
95997581|NCT03528681|191971040|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Renin Results derived from a longitudinal mixed model adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline covariates||0.070|-0.195|0.355
95778864|NCT02537431|191529515|OTHER||LS Mean|76.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|104.53|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||104.53|49.20|< 0.0001
95778865|NCT02537431|191529515|OTHER||LS mean|50.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|77.23|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||77.23|23.69|
95778866|NCT02537431|191529515|OTHER||LS mean|41.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.69|64.03|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||64.03|18.69|
95778867|NCT02537431|191529515|OTHER||LS mean|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|45.64|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for P1NP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of P1NP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||45.64|6.76|
95778868|NCT02537431|191529516|OTHER||LS Mean|464.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|343.92|585.77|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||585.77|343.92|
95810621|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95997582|NCT03528681|191971042|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.57|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.57|0.27|<0.001
95997583|NCT03528681|191971042|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||The model included time to reoccurrence of hyperkalaemia as response variable (event: hyperkalaemia or discontinue treatment in RTP due to high S-K levels), baseline eGFR, OLP and RTP baseline S-K values as well as age (\< 55, 55-64, \> 64 years) and baseline binary indicators for RAASi, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus as covariates. Placebo is the reference group||0.25|0.10|<0.001
95997584|NCT01232946|191971045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
95997585|NCT01232946|191971046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.065
95997586|NCT01232946|191971047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.80
95997587|NCT00473694|191971079|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.95|21.42||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.42|13.95|<0.0001
95997588|NCT00473694|191971080|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|14.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|21.67||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.67|10.18|<0.0001
95997589|NCT00473694|191971081|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|15.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.58|19.95||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||19.95|12.58|<0.0001
95997590|NCT00473694|191971082|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|18.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|24.35||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.35|13.98|<0.0001
96001989|NCT01592851|191981511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|25.15||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||25.15|13.70|<0.0001
95778869|NCT02537431|191529516|OTHER||LS Mean|404.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|294.47|513.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||513.78|294.47|
95778870|NCT02537431|191529516|OTHER||LS Mean|175.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.85|261.41|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||261.41|88.85|< 0.0001
95778871|NCT02537431|191529516|OTHER||LS mean|143.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|324.41|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||324.41|-38.20|
95778872|NCT02537431|191529516|OTHER||LS mean|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.62|189.22|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||189.22|-35.62|
95778873|NCT02537431|191529516|OTHER||LS mean|-41.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.28|121.64|||||From the GEE model which includes the change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||121.64|-204.28|
95778874|NCT02537431|191529517|OTHER||LS Mean|89.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.58|115.78|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||115.78|63.58|
95778875|NCT02537431|191529517|OTHER||LS Mean|70.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|90.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||90.44|49.90|
95778876|NCT02537431|191529517|OTHER||LS Mean|35.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.37|50.36|||GEE model||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||50.36|21.37|< 0.0001
95778877|NCT02537431|191529517|OTHER||LS mean|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|61.47|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||61.47|6.53|
95810622|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea transparency - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95810623|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Right - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95864453|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95778878|NCT02537431|191529517|OTHER||LS mean|25.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|42.44|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||42.44|9.27|
95778879|NCT02537431|191529517|OTHER||LS mean|17.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|36.07|||||From the GEE model which includes the percent change from baseline for CTx as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of CTx as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||36.07|-0.32|
95778880|NCT02537431|191529518|OTHER||LS Mean|10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|17.89|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||17.89|3.98|
95778881|NCT02537431|191529518|OTHER||LS Mean|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|11.66|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||11.66|-0.02|
95778882|NCT02537431|191529518|OTHER||LS Mean|4.5||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|12.32|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||12.32|-3.32|0.2592
95778883|NCT02537431|191529518|OTHER||LS mean|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|7.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||7.90|-1.64|
95778884|NCT02537431|191529518|OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|5.11|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||5.11|-2.84|
95778885|NCT02537431|191529518|OTHER||LS mean|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|0.85|||||From the GEE model, which includes the change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||0.85|-12.46|
95778886|NCT02537431|191529519|OTHER||LS Mean|52.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.18|83.9|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 12||83.90|21.18|
95778887|NCT02537431|191529519|OTHER||LS Mean|31.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|54.51|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 24||54.51|8.23|
95955729|NCT00999141|191883567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.04||||0.257||95.0|-0.039|0.125|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||0.125|-0.039|0.257
95955730|NCT00999141|191883568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.373|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.524|-0.193|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.193|-0.524|<0.001
95997591|NCT00473694|191971083|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.62|21.31||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||21.31|13.62|<0.0001
95955731|NCT00999141|191883569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.387|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.538|-0.205|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.205|-0.538|<0.001
95778888|NCT02537431|191529519|OTHER||l|24.35||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|58.9|||GEE model||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 48||58.90|-10.20|0.1672
95778889|NCT02537431|191529519|OTHER||LS mean|15.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|41.46|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 72||41.46|-11.19|
95778890|NCT02537431|191529519|OTHER||LS mean|6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|27.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|Week 96||27.28|-13.44|
95778891|NCT02537431|191529519|OTHER||LS mean|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-2.28|||||From the GEE model, which includes the percent change from baseline for Bone ALP as the dependent variable, visit as fixed factors, and baseline of Bone ALP as a covariate, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|EOSII||-2.28|-52.33|
95778892|NCT06350461|191529526|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||One-sided test for non-inferiority|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
95778893|NCT06350461|191529527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.4|-0.4|0.733
95778894|NCT06350461|191529528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.9|-4.1|0.226
95778895|NCT06350461|191529529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata|Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||2.1|-1.8|0.857
95778896|NCT06350461|191529530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||1.54|-0.25|0.16
95778897|NCT06350461|191529531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of the difference is Discontinue - Continue|||0.57|-1.04|0.56
95864454|NCT01185353|191686788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Remission - Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95810624|NCT02507934|191593901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in slit lamp examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Left - Day 21±1||||1.0000
95810625|NCT02507934|191593902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 7±1||2.29|-0.05|0.0599
95997592|NCT00473694|191971084|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Effect|17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|24.38||A two-way ANOVA model was used with the logarithm of the recovery time taken as the response variable, and trial site and treatment group were the factors of the model.|ANOVA||The value for estimated treatment effect represents how many times faster the mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was for participants receiving sugammadex after NMB compared to participants receiving neostigmine after NMB.|||24.38|12.85|<0.0001
95778898|NCT06350461|191529532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|1.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants initiating acute antibiotics is the same in the Discontinue and Continue arms||6.1|-3.7|0.653
95778899|NCT06350461|191529533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.5||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one hospitalization is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||3.4|-2.0|0.622
95778900|NCT06350461|191529534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|-1.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||1.6|-4.1|0.623
95778901|NCT06350461|191529535|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|11.7||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||20.7|2.4|0.0165
95778902|NCT06350461|191529536|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.74|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the HS-discontinue and HS-continue arms are 1135.7 and 1163.9 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||1.74|0.96|0.0958
95810626|NCT02507934|191593902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.66|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 7±1||1.66|-0.68|0.3969
95810627|NCT02507934|191593902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.84|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 14±1||1.84|-1.29|0.7225
95810628|NCT02507934|191593902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.62|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye - Day 14±1||0.62|-2.14|0.2690
95810629|NCT02507934|191593902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.1|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Left eye - Day 21±1||2.10|-0.53|0.2344
95810630|NCT02507934|191593902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.24|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on changes from baseline in Intraocular pressure - Right eye||2.24|-1.30|0.5953
95810631|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 7||2.11|-0.54|0.2193
95810632|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.18|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 8||2.18|0.51|0.0024
95778903|NCT06350461|191529537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.17||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.7|-0.7|0.1215
95810633|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.14|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 9||1.14|-0.49|0.4250
95810634|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.29|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 10||1.29|-0.17|0.1275
95810635|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 11||1.42|-0.09|0.0844
95810636|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.6|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 12||1.60|0.12|0.0238
95810637|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.61|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 13||1.61|0.05|0.0369
95810638|NCT02507934|191593903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.64|||Student t-test for unpaired data|||T-test on number of daily administrations of IMD during the second week of the clinical investigation - Day 14||1.64|-0.61|0.3496
95810639|NCT03766399|191593937|OTHER||LS means difference|-0.44||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|12.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||12.0|-12.9|0.9511
95778904|NCT02584998|191529556|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In our power and sample size analysis, we assumed 15% screening rate in usual care, 25% with invitation, and 40% with mailed-FIT. A sample size of 500 (250/arm) will give 80% power for UC vs. screening invitation-reminder, and 152/arm will give a power of 80% for the screening invitation-reminder vs. mailed-FIT. Accounting for the possibility that up to 20% of participants could be ineligible post-randomization, we concluded that we should enroll 783 patients, 261 per arm, for this trial.||||<0.001
95997593|NCT01416181|191971139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 2 years||1.13|0.66|0.2866
95778905|NCT02847182|191529557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The mean of the 6-month change in VABS-II Socialization Subscale Standard Score is the same for the Cord Blood and Placebo groups.||3.86|-1.58|0.83
95778906|NCT01716520|191529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.157||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.157|0.085|<0.001
95778907|NCT01716520|191529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.100|<0.001
95778908|NCT01716520|191529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.174||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.174|0.110|<0.001
95778909|NCT01716520|191529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.13||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.130|0.067|<0.001
95778910|NCT01716520|191529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.104||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.104|0.001|0.047
95778911|NCT01716520|191529595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.124||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.124|0.021|0.006
95778912|NCT01430624|191529602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df 2, 109||||||.24
95778913|NCT01430624|191529603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month follow-up comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 111||||||.89
95997594|NCT01416181|191971139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS||1.53|0.74|0.7530
95997595|NCT01416181|191971139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW||1.30|0.74|0.9137
95778914|NCT01430624|191529604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.01
95778915|NCT01430624|191529604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.48
95778916|NCT01430624|191529604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|||||||.17
95778917|NCT01430624|191529605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 154||||||.37
95778918|NCT01430624|191529605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 135||||||.15
95778919|NCT01430624|191529605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|Chi-squared|df = 2, 121||||||.87
95778920|NCT01430624|191529606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 150||||||.63
95778921|NCT01430624|191529606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.25
95778922|NCT01430624|191529606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.59
95778923|NCT01430624|191529607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.83
95778924|NCT01430624|191529607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.29
95778925|NCT01430624|191529607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 118||||||.13
95778926|NCT01430624|191529608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 151||||||.012
95778927|NCT01430624|191529608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 132||||||.31
95778928|NCT01430624|191529608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2,116||||||.35
95778929|NCT01430624|191529609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||6 week comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 141||||||.15
95778930|NCT01430624|191529609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||3 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 127||||||.67
95778931|NCT01430624|191529609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||6 month comparison|ANOVA|df = 2, 110||||||.40
95778932|NCT01672294|191529655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5376|||<|0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0776|2.1528||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.1528|-1.0776|<0.511
95778933|NCT01672294|191529655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4275||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3505|2.2055||Between Outlook Intervention and Attention Control caregivers at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.2055|-1.3505|0.6348
95778934|NCT01672294|191529656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6836||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4278|2.795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.7950|-1.4278|0.5225
95778935|NCT01672294|191529656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2764||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6728|3.2257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 weeks. Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||3.2257|-0.6728|0.1972
95810640|NCT03766399|191593937|OTHER||LS means difference|-7.87||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|4.59|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.59|-20.3|0.2849
95810641|NCT03766399|191593937|OTHER||LS means difference|-8.31||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|4.14|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||4.14|-20.8|0.2595
95778936|NCT01672294|191529657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9358|||<|0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9726|2.8443|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||2.8443|-0.9726|<0.3332
95778937|NCT01672294|191529657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6929||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8783|2.2642||Note-missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note - Missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks||2.2642|-0.8783|0.3842
95778938|NCT01672294|191529658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||expected change in difference in logs|0.0593||||0.8748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6784|0.797|||Standard negative binomial with offset||The expected change in the difference of the logs of expected Days in VA inpatient care or ED.|||0.797|-0.6784|0.8748
95810642|NCT03766399|191593937|OTHER||LS means difference|-3.04||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|2.51|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||2.51|-8.60|0.3604
95810643|NCT03766399|191593938|OTHER||LS means difference|-25.4||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.0|115.0|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2||115|-166|0.7544
95778939|NCT01672294|191529659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01777||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1372|0.1017||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 5 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 5 weeks.~Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks."||0.1017|-0.1372|0.7687
95778940|NCT01672294|191529659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00087||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.09861||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between Outlook Intervention caregivers and active control caregivers at 8 weeks Note- missing the first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 weeks.||0.09861|-0.1003|0.9863
95778941|NCT01672294|191529660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01166||||0.9221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2475|0.2241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 5 weeks - Completion subscale||0.2241|-0.2475|0.9221
95778942|NCT01672294|191529660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1154||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.1158||Between Caregiver Outlook - Caregiver and Relaxation Meditation - Caregiver at 8 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 8 week time point Note- Missing first follow up at 5 weeks did not prohibit an individual from participating at the second follow up at 8 week.||0.1158|-0.3466|0.3249
95778943|NCT01256385|191529663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.73
95778944|NCT01256385|191529664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
95778945|NCT01256385|191529665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95778946|NCT01256385|191529666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm A was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.006
95778947|NCT01256385|191529666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||1-sided.|Chi-squared|||PFS at 4 months in Arm B was compared with a 4-month historical control rate of 21.4%, using a one-sided test at the 0.05 significant level. The historical data appear in two publications, an ASCO abstract: Abidoye, ASCO Annual Meeting 2006: 5568, and de Souza, Davis, et al, Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(8):2336-2343 (see Figure 1).||||0.037
95778948|NCT01256385|191529667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95778949|NCT00336323|191529671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 1.25 mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.009
95810644|NCT03766399|191593938|OTHER||LS means difference|-73.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-214.0|67.6|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 2 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||67.6|-214|0.3750
95810645|NCT03766399|191593938|OTHER||LS means difference|-98.7||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-240.0|42.3|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 2a (MAD) Cohort 1 Vs Part 2a (MAD) Placebo||42.3|-240|0.2377
95778950|NCT00336323|191529671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness at the 3 week visit between the laser only treatment group to the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group||||<0.001
95778951|NCT00336323|191529671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.66
95778952|NCT00336323|191529671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.49
95778953|NCT00336323|191529671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Adjusted for baseline values|Least squares regression|||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.45
95778954|NCT00336323|191529671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of the reduction in central subfield thickening in the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group with the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.90
95778955|NCT00336323|191529672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 3 week visit||||0.42
95810646|NCT03766399|191593938|OTHER||LS means difference|-50.4||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.0|1.61|||Linear Mixed Model|||Comparison of Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Vs Part 3a (DPI/PoM) Placebo||1.61|-102|0.1105
95810647|NCT02958865|191593972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|-0.89|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-0.89|-3.17|0.0017
95810648|NCT02958865|191593972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|-2.74|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.74|-5.01|< 0.0001
95810649|NCT02958865|191593972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|-3.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-3.46|-5.76|< 0.0001
95810650|NCT02958865|191593972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.92|-0.67|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there is no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm is declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect is below zero.||-0.67|-2.92|0.0045
95810651|NCT02958865|191593972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|-1.14|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-1.14|-3.41|0.0005
95810652|NCT02958865|191593972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-2.08|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference between the distributions of the total Mayo score at Week 8 between the pooled placebo group and active arm. The treatment arm was declared efficacious if an upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the treatment effect was below zero.||-2.08|-4.34|< 0.0001
95810653|NCT02958865|191593989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|19.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||19.5|-1.0|0.0626
95997596|NCT01416181|191971139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand)||0.80|0.40|0.0012
95778956|NCT00336323|191529672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 6 week visit||||0.67
95778957|NCT00336323|191529672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 9 week visit||||0.48
95778958|NCT00336323|191529672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity between the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and 6 weeks treatment group at the 12 week visit||||0.82
95778959|NCT00336323|191529672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 1.25mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.01
95778960|NCT00336323|191529672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of improvement in visual acuity through the 12 week visit between the laser only treatment group and the 2.5mg injection at baseline and at 6 weeks treatment group||||0.003
95778961|NCT00336323|191529675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to those that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||<0.0001
95778962|NCT00336323|191529676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline score||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was \<65 letters compared to those that had baseline visual acuity letter score that was ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.31
95778963|NCT00336323|191529677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between those that were ≤66 years old compared to those that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.44
95778964|NCT00336323|191529678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.55
95778965|NCT00336323|191529679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had no history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to those that had history or treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.16
95778966|NCT00336323|191529680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity that was \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to those that had baseline retinopathy severity that was proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.53
95810654|NCT02958865|191593989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.6||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|41.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||41.0|13.9|0.0027
95810655|NCT02958865|191593989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|46.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||46.5|20.2|0.0010
95778967|NCT00336323|191529681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline clinical diabetic macular edema characterized as typical/predominantly focal, neither predominantly focal or diffuse, or typical/predominantly diffuse. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.93
95778968|NCT00336323|191529682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of central subfield thickness (microns) change from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline subretinal fluid that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that had no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.52
95778969|NCT00336323|191529683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of \<400 microns compared to eyes that had baseline central subfield thickness of ≥400 microns. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.22
95810656|NCT02958865|191593989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.1|-4.0|0.0774
95997597|NCT01416181|191971139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (dominant hand)||1.09|0.48|0.1251
95778970|NCT00336323|191529684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Least squares regression|Adjusted for baseline values||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline visual acuity letter score of \<65 letters compared to eyes that had baseline visual acuity letter score of ≥65 letters. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.006
95810657|NCT02958865|191593989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
95810658|NCT02958865|191593989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.2|35.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.8|8.2|0.0055
95778971|NCT00336323|191529685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that were ≤66 years old at baseline compared to eyes that were \>66 years old at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.23
95778972|NCT00336323|191529686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between females and males. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.37
95810659|NCT02958865|191593990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.2|5.6|0.0111
95810660|NCT02958865|191593990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.2|47.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.4|20.2|0.0006
95810661|NCT02958865|191593990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.5|54.6|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||54.6|29.5|0.0001
95810662|NCT02958865|191593990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|33.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||33.0|5.6|0.0101
95810663|NCT02958865|191593990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||44.8|17.0|0.0014
95810664|NCT02958865|191593990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.0|42.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||42.6|17.0|0.0015
95810665|NCT02958865|191593991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|34.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||34.4|-3.4|0.0788
95810666|NCT02958865|191593991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|62.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||62.1|23.6|0.0002
95997598|NCT01416181|191971139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).||Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand)||0.87|0.39|0.0091
95997599|NCT01416181|191971141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and T25FW.|active/placebo|||1.70|0.80|0.4369
95997600|NCT01416181|191971142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5409|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL MSWS-12.||||||0.5409
95997601|NCT01416181|191971143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2586|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL ABILHAND.||||||0.2586
95778973|NCT00336323|191529687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that did not have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema compared to eyes that did have a prior history of treatment for diabetic macular edema. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.04
95778974|NCT00336323|191529688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline retinopathy severity of \<severe nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared to eyes that had baseline retinopathy severity of proliferative diabetic retinopathy or severe NPDR. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.38
95778975|NCT00336323|191529689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline clinical diabetic macular edema (DME) characterization of typical/predominantly focal compared to neither predominantly focal or diffuse characterization at baseline and compared to typical/predominantly diffuse characterization at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.45
95778976|NCT00336323|191529690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Least squares regression|||Comparison of change in visual acuity letter score from baseline to the 3 week visit between eyes that had a baseline subretinal fluid presence that was definite/questionable compared to eyes that there was no evidence of subretinal fluid at baseline. Eyes included all of those from the pooled Bevacizumab group.||||0.06
95778977|NCT04908475|191529703|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|60.1||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.1|41.3|< 0.001
95778978|NCT04908475|191529704|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|66.0||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\]) for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||66.0|47.7|< 0.001
95778979|NCT04908475|191529705|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.5|80.0|||Chi-squared|||||80.0|59.5|< 0.001
95864455|NCT01185353|191686790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95778980|NCT04908475|191529706|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|65.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|73.9||Adjusted for strata (baseline body weight \[≤ 100 kg, \> 100 kg\] and prior exposure to any systemic and/or biologic treatment for psoriasis \[0, ≥ 1\] for the comparison of 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||73.9|57.6|< 0.001
95778981|NCT04908475|191529707|SUPERIORITY||Difference|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|82.3|||Chi-squared|||||82.3|60.9|< 0.001
95778982|NCT04908475|191529708|SUPERIORITY||Difference|69.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|80.2|||Chi-squared|||||80.2|58.6|< 0.001
95778983|NCT02584959|191529709|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.744|-2.895|<0.0001
95778984|NCT02584959|191529711|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|-1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-1.677|-2.969|<0.0001
95778985|NCT02584959|191529714|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.113|-3.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS means, 95% CIs, and p-values were based on a mixed effect linear model with period, sequence ,use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-3.649|-6.113|<0.0001
95778986|NCT02584959|191529715|OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.981|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.889|3.981|<0.0001
95778987|NCT02584959|191529716|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.599|-2.750|<0.0001
95778988|NCT02584959|191529731|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-31.735||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.696|-20.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The Least Square means, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are based on mixed effect linear model with period, sequence, use of prophylactic therapy with C1 INH at randomization and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||-20.773|-42.696|0.0001
95778989|NCT00926536|191529754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in DAP in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95864456|NCT01185353|191686790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
95997602|NCT01416181|191971144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Wk 96 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.1529
95778990|NCT00926536|191529755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|158.3||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Decrease in CD in C-arm CT +DSA group when compared to DSA only|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
95778991|NCT00501059|191529756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Log Rank|||Primary efficacy analysis of time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant and the primary objective of the study will have been met if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.597
95778992|NCT00501059|191529757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to the composite endpoint was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.6125
95778993|NCT00501059|191529758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4505|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4505
95778994|NCT00501059|191529758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.229
95778995|NCT00501059|191529758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total non-fatal stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.3947
95778996|NCT00501059|191529758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5125|||||||Log Rank|||Statistics for time to total stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.5125
95778997|NCT00501059|191529759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9544|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.9544
95778998|NCT00501059|191529759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurrence of all cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.4422
95810667|NCT02958865|191593991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.5|60.5|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||60.5|23.5|0.0003
95810668|NCT02958865|191593991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|35.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||35.1|-4.0|0.0773
95778999|NCT00501059|191529759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis of time to the first occurence colon cancer was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test stratified for treatment, country, and sex. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||||0.611
95779000|NCT00501059|191529760|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.24|0.80|0.9459
95779001|NCT00501059|191529761|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.11|0.64|0.2325
95810669|NCT02958865|191593991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.6|47.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||||47.0|5.6|0.0136
95810670|NCT02958865|191593991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.9|54.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||54.7|13.9|0.0015
95810671|NCT02958865|191593992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
95810672|NCT02958865|191593992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
95779002|NCT00501059|191529761|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.5072||95.0|0.8|1.55|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.55|0.80|0.5072
95779003|NCT00501059|191529761|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.901||95.0|0.62|1.52|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of cardiovascular death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.52|0.62|0.9010
95779004|NCT00501059|191529761|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.86|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.86|0.54|0.9979
95779005|NCT00501059|191529761|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.42|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.42|0.61|0.7455
95779006|NCT00501059|191529763|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.13|0.81|0.6038
95779007|NCT00501059|191529763|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.15|0.79|0.6190
95779008|NCT00501059|191529763|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.4562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.20|0.67|0.4562
95779009|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke, CV death, UA or TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.64|0.0756
95810673|NCT02958865|191593992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
95779010|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of composite outcome of MI, stroke or CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.02|0.61|0.0661
95779011|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.79|0.36|0.0014
95779012|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.84|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of non-fatal MI was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||0.84|0.36|0.0056
95779013|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6291||95.0|0.71|1.75|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of stroke was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.75|0.71|0.6291
95779014|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.77|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of CV death was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.77|0.60|0.9161
95779015|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.538||95.0|0.3|1.87|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of UA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.87|0.30|0.5380
95779016|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.95|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of TIA was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.95|0.55|0.9181
95779017|NCT00501059|191529764|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Log Rank|||Analysis of incidence of all-cause mortality was conducted via a 2-sided log-rank test. Results would be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided P value is ≤0.05.||1.45|0.84|0.4796
95779018|NCT02124759|191529767|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Null hypothesis is that high fat diet will have no effect on M value, the measure of insulin sensitivity for each intervention as assessed by clamp.||||>0.05
95779019|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3375
95779020|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.516||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.516
95779021|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.786||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.786
95779022|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1496||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1496
95779023|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8428||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8428
95779024|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7345||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7345
95779025|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8928
95779026|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7343||||||P-value is for Physical Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7343
95779027|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8798||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8798
95779028|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6837||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6837
95779029|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7226||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7226
95779030|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.641
95779031|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.478||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.478
95779032|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.9367
95779033|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5108||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5108
95779034|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8976||||||P-value is for Social/Family Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8976
95810674|NCT02958865|191593992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|9.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||9.7|-8.6|0.3777
95779035|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8193||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8193
95779036|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1695||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1695
95779037|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4021||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.4021
95779038|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3603||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3603
95779039|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5169||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.5169
95779040|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1642||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1642
95810675|NCT02958865|191593992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.9|28.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||28.6|2.9|0.0212
95810676|NCT02958865|191593992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|18.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||18.4|-4.2|0.0742
95955732|NCT00999141|191883570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.356||||0.001||95.0|-0.521|-0.161|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.161|-0.521|0.001
95955733|NCT00999141|191883571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.189||||0.027||95.0|-0.342|-0.023|||McNemar|alpha = 5%|Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4 s-apr|||-0.023|-0.342|0.027
95955734|NCT00999141|191883574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.413||||||95.0|-0.577|-0.213|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.213|-0.577|
95955735|NCT00999141|191883575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.227||||||95.0|-0.413|-0.02|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.020|-0.413|
95955736|NCT00999141|191883576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.347||||||95.0|-0.518|-0.145|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.145|-0.518|
95955737|NCT00999141|191883577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.365||||||95.0|-0.528|-0.171|||||Difference in Proportions = (SoC) - (FS VH S/D 4 s-apr)|||-0.171|-0.528|
95955738|NCT04098497|191883593|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.74, df = 28||baseline to day 42 comparison||||0.09
95955739|NCT04098497|191883594|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t = 1.75, df = 28||baseline to day 42||||0.09
95779041|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6354||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.6354
95779042|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3517||||||P-value is for Emotional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3517
95779043|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7605||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 1.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7605
95779044|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 2.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3747
95779045|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 3.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.8379
95779046|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1179||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 4.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.1179
95779047|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7412||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 5.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7412
95779048|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3773||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 6.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.3773
95779049|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7402||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 7.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.7402
95779050|NCT00586508|191529791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2671||||||P-value is for Functional Well-Being Cycle 8.|ANCOVA|P-value of treatment effect from an ANCOVA for change from baseline. Covariates include: treatment and baseline value.||||||0.2671
95779051|NCT05727306|191529836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||||Calculated as the odds of having a depressive episode in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.25|
95779052|NCT05727306|191529837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.58|||||Calculated as the odds of having recurrent depressive disorder in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.58|1.32|
95779053|NCT05727306|191529838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.51|||||Calculated as the odds of having anxiety in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Odds Ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.51|1.30|
95779054|NCT05727306|191529839|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.46|||||Calculated as the incidence rate of attending primary care in participants diagnosed of Alopecia Areata vs. participants without Alopecia Areata. Incidence rate ratio adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.46|1.37|
95810677|NCT02958865|191593993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|17.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.1|-3.4|0.0872
95779055|NCT05727306|191529840|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|9.04|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||9.04|7.55|
95779056|NCT05727306|191529841|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.57|1.17|
95779057|NCT05727306|191529842|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.87|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.87|1.14|
95779058|NCT05727306|191529843|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.61|||||Calculated using Cox Proportional Hazard model.Reflects a comparison of incidence rates between participants diagnosed with Alopecia Areata (AA) and those without AA. Adjusted for sociodemographic,clinical characteristics and major comorbidities.|||1.61|1.38|
95779059|NCT00819780|191529860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.871||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.166|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.166|0.651|0.3531
95779060|NCT00819780|191529861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.723||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.111|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.111|0.470|0.1386
95779061|NCT00819780|191529862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||1.95|0.72|0.5497
95810678|NCT02958865|191593993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|27.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||||27.5|3.0|0.0254
95810679|NCT02958865|191593993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|38.1|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||38.1|11.0|0.0034
95810680|NCT02958865|191593993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|15.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.4|-4.5|0.1565
95810681|NCT02958865|191593993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
95810682|NCT02958865|191593993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
95810683|NCT02958865|191593994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|11.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||||11.8|-6.5|0.2259
95810684|NCT02958865|191593994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|17.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||17.7|-3.8|0.0820
95779062|NCT00819780|191529864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.874||||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.185|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.185|0.645|0.3861
95779063|NCT00819780|191529867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.651||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.956|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.956|0.444|0.0286
95779064|NCT00819780|191529868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.579||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.869|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.869|0.386|0.0083
95779065|NCT00819780|191529869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.606||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.088|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant Oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||1.088|0.337|0.0934
95779066|NCT00819780|191529870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|0.902|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by prior adjuvant oxaliplatin therapy|A hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors panitumumab|||0.902|0.239|0.0235
95779067|NCT00819780|191529871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.12|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.12|0.55|0.9426
95779068|NCT00819780|191529872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.15|||Stratified exact test|Stratified by prior exposure to oxaliplatin|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm relative to the odds in the bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 arm.|||2.15|0.52|1.0000
95779069|NCT02419612|191529947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline HbA1c, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit interaction.||||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
95810685|NCT02958865|191593994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|22.3|||Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.3|-0.7|0.0649
95810686|NCT02958865|191593994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|6.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||||6.1|-11.3|1.0000
95810687|NCT02958865|191593994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|26.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||||26.2|1.7|0.0288
95810688|NCT02958865|191593994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||15.7|-4.4|0.1593
95810689|NCT05468918|191594008|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95810690|NCT05468918|191594009|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95810691|NCT04380142|191594036|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.05||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||3.05|0.46|0.0083
95779070|NCT02419612|191529948|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for for treatment, baseline body weight, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline body weight-by-visit interaction.||||-3.28|-4.84|<0.001
95779071|NCT02419612|191529949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.044||95.0|1.01|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value||||2.29|1.01|0.044
95779072|NCT02419612|191529950|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline SBP, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline SBP-by-visit interaction||||-1.0|-6.3|0.007
95779073|NCT02419612|191529951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.5||This endpoint did not meet the required number of events (n=10) in each treatment arm, hence was excluded from sequential testing.|Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.50|0.04|0.002
95779074|NCT02419612|191529952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||Time to treatment intensification was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model.||0.68|0.39|<0.001
95779075|NCT02419612|191529953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c value.||||3.42|1.23|0.006
95779076|NCT02419612|191529954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68|||Regression, Cox Proportional Hazards|||||0.68|0.39|<0.001
95779077|NCT03301740|191529973|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in intradialytic hypotension between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.7|0.8|0.5
95779078|NCT03301740|191529974|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-2.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.4|-6.9|0.2
95955740|NCT04098497|191883595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.14, z = 1.51||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.13
95955741|NCT04098497|191883596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.38, z = 2.71||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.007
95955742|NCT04098497|191883597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.03, z = 0.58||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.57
95779079|NCT03301740|191529975|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in troponin T rise between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.2|0.1
95779080|NCT03301740|191529976|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in left ventricular GLS change between UF profiling and conventional HD. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the difference of the endpoint between the 2 treatment groups.||0.5|-2.0|0.2
95779081|NCT03301740|191529977|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Beta coefficient|-0.2||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.7||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in nadir systolic BP between UF profiling and conventional HD. Repeated measure linear regression was performed, giving each subject a random intercept term. The coefficient is the difference in the outcome between UF profiling and conventional HD.||1.7|-2.0|0.9
95779082|NCT03301740|191529978|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in failed target weight achievement between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.3|0.7|0.8
95810692|NCT04380142|191594037|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.54||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.54|-3.03|0.0054
95864457|NCT01185353|191686790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955743|NCT04098497|191883598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Linear|β = 0.06, z = 1.15||Mean difference between receiving the intervention and not receiving the intervention at each time point.||||0.25
95955744|NCT03455218|191883599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95955745|NCT03455218|191883601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95779083|NCT03301740|191529979|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important cramping between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.1|0.4|0.9
95955746|NCT03455218|191883602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95955747|NCT03455218|191883603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95779084|NCT03301740|191529980|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important nausea/upset stomach between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.2|0.2|0.5
95779085|NCT03301740|191529981|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important Vomiting/throwing up score between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||16.0|0.1|1.0
95779086|NCT03301740|191529982|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important dizziness/lightheadedness between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||0.9|0.1|0.04
95779087|NCT03301740|191529983|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important racing heart/heart palpitations between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||32.4|0.3|0.3
95779088|NCT03301740|191529984|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.0||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important chest pain between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.0|0.2|1.0
95779089|NCT03301740|191529985|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.5||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important shortness of breath between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.5|0.3|0.7
95779090|NCT03301740|191529986|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important thirst/dry mouth between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||1.2|0.3|0.2
95810693|NCT04380142|191594038|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.48||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-3.65|0.1318
95955748|NCT03455218|191883604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95955749|NCT03455218|191883605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95955750|NCT03455218|191883606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95955751|NCT03455218|191883608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95955752|NCT03455218|191883609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95955753|NCT03455218|191883610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95955754|NCT03455218|191883611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95955755|NCT03455218|191883612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95955756|NCT03455218|191883613|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95955757|NCT03455218|191883614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95955758|NCT03280108|191883694|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority based on the observed 95% Upper Confidence Limit of the difference in Least Squares Means (LSM) between the 2 groups (TFNT00 - SN60AT). Non-inferiority margin = 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0103|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.041||||||||0.041||
95779091|NCT03301740|191529987|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important headache between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.3|0.4|0.8
95779092|NCT03301740|191529988|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important itching between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||6.6|1.2|0.02
95779093|NCT03301740|191529989|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important restless legs/difficulty keeping legs still between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.6|0.5|0.7
95779094|NCT03301740|191529990|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated differences between UF and standard treatment from the repeated measure mixed model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis = no difference in clinically important tingling/feeling of pins and needles between UF profiling and conventional HD. Likelihood ratio tests were performed using repeated measure logistic regression with the binary treatment indicator as a fixed effect predictor and assigning each subject a random intercept term. A likelihood ratio test assessed the significance of whether the coefficient corresponding to the binary treatment indicator equals to zero.||2.4|0.2|0.5
95779095|NCT01037127|191529992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|37.8|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||37.8|14.1|
95779096|NCT01037127|191529993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|48.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||48.4|2.1|
95779097|NCT01037127|191529993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|41.9|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.9|14.6|
95779098|NCT01037127|191529993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|41.4|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||41.4|14.3|
95779099|NCT01037127|191529993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|45.2|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||45.2|14.2|
95779100|NCT01037127|191529994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0||||||95.0|7.7|38.6|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of particpants with CR and PR.|||38.6|7.7|
95779101|NCT02889835|191530028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess survival over 36 months. Test of survival distributions for the three arms were calculated using Log Rank (Mantel-Cox). Sample size is based on guidelines of the American Dental Association for obtaining approval as an amalgam replacement for posterior restorations - minimum of 40 restorations in a minimum of 20 subjects at 18 months. Sample size is based by taking subject attrition into account over the 36 month clinical evaluation.||||0.686
95779102|NCT02889835|191530029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.701
95779103|NCT02889835|191530030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.812
95779104|NCT02889835|191530031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.104
95779105|NCT02889835|191530032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.440
95779106|NCT02889835|191530033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.676
95779107|NCT02889835|191530034|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
95779108|NCT02889835|191530035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.764
95779109|NCT02889835|191530036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.323
95779110|NCT02889835|191530037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.714
95779111|NCT02889835|191530038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.846
95779112|NCT02889835|191530039|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||1.000
95779113|NCT02889835|191530040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.424
95779114|NCT01726036|191530058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
95864458|NCT01185353|191686790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955759|NCT03280108|191883695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95955760|NCT03280108|191883701|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.227|-0.287|<0.001
95955761|NCT03280108|191883702|SUPERIORITY||Mantel-Haenszel common difference|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.87|80.46||||||||80.46|61.87|
95810694|NCT04380142|191594039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||The generalized linear mixed model: status = treatment country visit baseline treatment\*visit. The unstructured variance-covariance structure is used.|generalized linear mixed model|||||0.31|0.04|<=0.001
95810695|NCT04380142|191594040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.16|||generalized linear mixed model|||||3.16|0.46|0.0091
95810696|NCT04380142|191594041|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-2.78||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.03|<=0.001
95997603|NCT01416181|191971145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo groups at Week 96 is based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and BL brain volume.||Only participants with BL brain volume are included in the p-value calculation.||||0.2424
95997604|NCT01416181|191971146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6).||||1.05|0.58|0.1052
95779115|NCT04231396|191530059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1456||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.279|||t-test, 1 sided|||The SNR Loss scores computed the means per client and week (1-12), with a smoothing method: isotonic regression (isoreg, via R). The slopes (lsfit, via R) calculated of the smoothed means separately per client, per 7-9 weeks (early training weeks), and per 10-12 weeks (final training weeks). This created slope differences, per client.||.279|.012|.037
95779116|NCT02172040|191530064|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin definition: lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for amlodipine + celecoxib arm did not cross the 50% value for the amlodipine arm.|||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The primary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with amlodipine + celecoxib was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with amlodipine.||||= 0.001
95779117|NCT02172040|191530064|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.491|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for the primary efficacy endpoint analysis. The secondary comparison was a two-sample t-test to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with placebo was superior to treatment with celecoxib. This was only to be performed if statistical significance was achieved for the primary comparison.||||= 0.491
95779118|NCT02172040|191530065|OTHER||||||=|0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.166
95779119|NCT02172040|191530066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.177
95779120|NCT02172040|191530066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779121|NCT02172040|191530066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779122|NCT02172040|191530066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779123|NCT02172040|191530066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779124|NCT02172040|191530066|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.719|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.719
95779125|NCT02172040|191530067|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.069|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.069
95779126|NCT02172040|191530067|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
95779127|NCT02172040|191530067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779128|NCT02172040|191530067|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.097|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.097
95779129|NCT02172040|191530067|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.064
95779130|NCT02172040|191530067|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.924|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.924
95779131|NCT02172040|191530068|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.038
95779132|NCT02172040|191530068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779133|NCT02172040|191530068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779134|NCT02172040|191530068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779135|NCT02172040|191530068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779136|NCT02172040|191530068|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.562|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.562
95779137|NCT02172040|191530069|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.104|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.104
95779138|NCT02172040|191530069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779139|NCT02172040|191530069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779140|NCT02172040|191530069|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.002
95779141|NCT02172040|191530069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779142|NCT02172040|191530069|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.419
95779143|NCT02172040|191530070|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.028
95779144|NCT02172040|191530070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779145|NCT02172040|191530070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779146|NCT02172040|191530070|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.051
95779147|NCT02172040|191530070|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.074
95779148|NCT02172040|191530070|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.878
95779149|NCT02172040|191530071|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779150|NCT02172040|191530072|OTHER||||||=|0.977|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.977
95779151|NCT02172040|191530073|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95810697|NCT04380142|191594042|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.05||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-8.14|0.0470
95810698|NCT04380142|191594043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.1||ANCOVA model including effects for treatment, country, and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.100|-0.001|0.0566
95810699|NCT04380142|191594044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||3.15|0.30|0.0184
95864459|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.021
95779152|NCT02172040|191530074|OTHER||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.527
95779153|NCT02172040|191530075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779154|NCT02172040|191530075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779155|NCT02172040|191530075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95779156|NCT02172040|191530075|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.001
95779157|NCT02913105|191530098|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (Body Mass Index (BMI) group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||1.13|0.83|0.7489
95779158|NCT02913105|191530098|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.84|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.84|0.62|0.0005
95779159|NCT02913105|191530098|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.74||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.85|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||||0.85|0.65|0.0005
95779160|NCT02913105|191530103|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.83|0.5354
95810700|NCT04380142|191594045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.55||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.55|-1.20|0.7989
95955762|NCT03569475|191883722|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.04|-4.49|0.2215
95779161|NCT02913105|191530103|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.78|||ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
95779162|NCT02913105|191530103|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.80|0.63|<.0001
95955763|NCT03569475|191883722|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|0.95|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.95|-4.59|0.1964
95955764|NCT03569475|191883723|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Estimates and p-values are based on MMRM with treatment group, pooled study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and Baseline and Baseline-by-visit as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.21|-0.32|0.6789
95779163|NCT02913105|191530104|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.724|0.567|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.567|-0.724|0.8402
95779164|NCT02913105|191530104|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.927|0.639|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.639|-0.927|0.7607
95779165|NCT02913105|191530104|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.037|0.581|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.581|-1.037|0.6406
95810701|NCT04380142|191594046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|1.15||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.15|-6.61|0.1656
95864460|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
95997605|NCT01416181|191971147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on ≥ 1 of EDSS, T25FW, or 9HPT at 156 weeks||0.94|0.47|0.0205
95779166|NCT02913105|191530104|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.294|0.979|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.979|-1.294|0.8185
95779167|NCT02913105|191530104|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.485|1.057|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||1.057|-1.485|0.7804
95779168|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.265|0.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.070|-1.265|0.1403
95779169|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.743|-0.117|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.117|-1.743|0.0603
95779170|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.182|-0.506|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.506|-2.182|0.0090
95810702|NCT04380142|191594047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|1.73||The model included fixed categorical effects of treatment, country and visit, baseline-by-visit and treatment-by-visit interactions, and baseline as a covariate. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used.|Repeated measures model|||||1.73|-12.71|0.1347
95810703|NCT02908178|191594054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.18|1.63||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any complication in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.63|1.18|<.001
95810704|NCT02908178|191594054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|2.27|8.75||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||8.75|2.27|<.001
95997606|NCT01416181|191971147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on EDSS at 156 weeks||1.10|0.48|0.1305
95997607|NCT01416181|191971147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on T25FW at 156 weeks||1.12|0.57|0.1988
95997608|NCT01416181|191971147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.88|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (either hand) at 156 weeks||0.88|0.39|0.0093
95779171|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.965|-0.609|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.609|-2.965|0.0134
95810705|NCT02908178|191594054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.54||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and wound infection in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.54|1.00|<.001
95810706|NCT02908178|191594054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.03|1.91||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.91|1.03|<.001
95864461|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95779172|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.439|-0.807|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.807|-3.439|0.0087
95997609|NCT01416181|191971147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors onm 9HPT (dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.01|0.39|0.0540
95997610|NCT01416181|191971147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression, adjusted for Baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and/or T25FW and/or 9HPT (either hand).|active/placebo|Confirmed progressors on 9HPT (non-dominant hand) at 156 weeks||1.12|0.44|0.1410
95997611|NCT01416181|191971148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Week 156||||0.0273
95779173|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.091|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.091|-1.130|0.1609
95779174|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.524|-0.049|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.049|-1.524|0.0797
95997612|NCT01416181|191971148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1974|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1974
95997613|NCT01416181|191971148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2506|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2506
95997614|NCT01416181|191971149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||Overall: Week 156||||0.0960
95779175|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.872|-0.36|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.360|-1.872|0.0159
95779176|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.684|-0.575|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.575|-2.684|0.0118
95779177|NCT02913105|191530104|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.072|-0.746|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.746|-3.072|0.0076
95864462|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95864463|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.449
95997615|NCT01416181|191971149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||CP Group: Week 156||||0.4957
95997616|NCT01416181|191971149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL T25FW.||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2916
95997617|NCT01416181|191971150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1119|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall, Week 156||||0.1119
95779178|NCT02913105|191530105|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.195|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.195|-0.260|0.8127
95779179|NCT02913105|191530105|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.8901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.298|0.252|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.252|-0.298|0.8901
95779180|NCT02913105|191530105|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.381|0.205|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.205|-0.381|0.6209
95779181|NCT02913105|191530105|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.444|0.347|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.347|-0.444|0.8398
95779182|NCT02913105|191530105|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.515|0.369|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.369|-0.515|0.7839
95779183|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.476|-0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||-0.006|-0.476|0.0911
95779184|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.623|-0.053|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.053|-0.623|0.0520
95779185|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.793|-0.187|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.187|-0.793|0.0085
95779186|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.067|-0.247|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.247|-1.067|0.0091
95779187|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.216|-0.302|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.302|-1.216|0.0070
95810707|NCT02908178|191594054|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.04|1.65||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Odds ratio accounts for matching and adjusted for subsequent mastectomy within 180 days after initial BCS, prior MRI, and radiation therapy status|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 1 matched cohort.||1.65|1.04|.003
95810708|NCT02908178|191594055|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of mastectomy within 6 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||<.001
95779188|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.423|0.006|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.006|-0.423|0.1092
95810709|NCT02908178|191594056|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared|||Testing the association between receipt of SLNB and receipt of radiation therapy within 9 months of DCIS diagnosis.||||.48
95864464|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.578
95779189|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.574|-0.056|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||-0.056|-0.574|0.0457
95779190|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.676|-0.129|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||-0.129|-0.676|0.0162
95779191|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.975|-0.242|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||-0.242|-0.975|0.0070
95779192|NCT02913105|191530105|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.091|-0.281|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||-0.281|-1.091|0.0060
95779193|NCT02913105|191530106|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.014|-0.015|0.9927
95779194|NCT02913105|191530106|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.007|0.035|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.035|-0.007|0.2794
95779195|NCT02913105|191530106|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.013|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.013|-0.012|0.9032
95779196|NCT02913105|191530106|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.027|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.027|-0.009|0.4163
95810710|NCT02908178|191594057|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.05||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and overall mortality in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.05|0.73|<.001
95810711|NCT02908178|191594058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.0|1.2||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any side effects in the matched Aim 2 cohort.||1.20|1.00|0.207
95779197|NCT02913105|191530106|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.022|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.014|-0.022|0.7001
95810712|NCT02908178|191594058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.12|2.11||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and lymphedema related complications in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||2.11|1.12|<.001
95955765|NCT03569475|191883723|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.05|-0.48|0.1126
95955766|NCT03638258|191883724|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward (LOCF) where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||<0.001
95779198|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.021|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.021|-0.009|0.5367
95779199|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.014|0.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.030|-0.014|0.5496
95779200|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.6844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.016|-0.010|0.6844
95779201|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.012|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.012|-0.025|0.5695
95779202|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.016|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.016|-0.021|0.8015
95779203|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 28||0.020|-0.008|0.4923
95779204|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.62|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||0.014|-0.025|0.6200
95779205|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.014|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 56||0.014|-0.009|0.7423
95779206|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.032|0.001|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||0.001|-0.032|0.1272
95779207|NCT02913105|191530106|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), baseline and baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 112 (EOS)||0.017|-0.015|0.8883
95779208|NCT02913105|191530107|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|0.84|0.9514
95779209|NCT02913105|191530107|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.5168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.78|0.5168
95864465|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.140
95955767|NCT03638258|191883724|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||||||0.004
95955768|NCT03638258|191883725|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.015
95997618|NCT01416181|191971150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1129|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.1129
95779210|NCT02913105|191530107|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, log-transformed baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian =30 and Non-Asian=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.80|0.3740
95779211|NCT02913105|191530108|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.9453
95779212|NCT02913105|191530108|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.01|0.96|0.4344
95779213|NCT02913105|191530108|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6390
95779214|NCT02913105|191530108|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.02|0.97|0.6329
95810713|NCT02908178|191594058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.1||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and any infection in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.10|0.87|0.113
95810714|NCT02908178|191594058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.93|1.58||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and seroma in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.58|0.93|0.010
95810715|NCT02908178|191594058|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.98|1.25||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and pain in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.25|0.98|0.029
95810716|NCT02908178|191594059|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.54|2.35||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and breast cancer specific mortality.||2.35|0.54|0.861
95810717|NCT02908178|191594060|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.51||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and ipsilateral invasive breast cancer occurrence for the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.51|0.71|0.603
95997619|NCT01416181|191971150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2351
95997620|NCT01416181|191971151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.0261
95779215|NCT02913105|191530108|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 42||1.02|0.97|0.6640
95997621|NCT01416181|191971151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0585|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.0585
95810718|NCT02908178|191594061|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.81|1.69||P-value is unadjusted. Threshold for statistical significance is 0.01.|Chi-squared||Reference is no SLNB. Estimates are from matched cohort and adjusted for physician visits, any hospitalization in the 3-24 months prior to DCIS diagnosis, use of preoperative breast MRI, surgeon's operation volume, and receipt of radiation therapy.|Testing the association between use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and treated recurrence in the Aim 2 matched cohort.||1.69|0.81|0.620
95779216|NCT02913105|191530108|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.7517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Day 84||1.03|0.98|0.7517
95810719|NCT00209131|191594062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Other|||No analysis was conducted.||||<0.05
95810720|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.055|<0.001
95810721|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.117|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|0.064|<0.001
95779217|NCT02913105|191530109|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.19|0.77|0.7390
95779218|NCT02913105|191530109|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.08|0.72|0.3086
95779219|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.08|0.69|0.2880
95779220|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.12|0.73|0.4446
95779221|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 42||1.11|0.73|0.4127
95810722|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.216|0.107|<0.001
95955769|NCT03638258|191883725|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.174|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.174
95955770|NCT03638258|191883725|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95955771|NCT03638258|191883725|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.001
95810723|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|0.069|<0.001
95810724|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.039|-0.021|0.556
95810725|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.053||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.085|0.021|0.001
95810726|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.014||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.016|0.365
95810727|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.044||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.013|0.006
95810728|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.005||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.036|-0.026|0.756
95810729|NCT02796651|191594071|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.008|-0.071|0.014
95810730|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.169|0.091|<0.001
95810731|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.206|0.128|<0.001
95810732|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.224|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.263|0.184|<0.001
95810733|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.176|<0.001
95779222|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.25|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HA: Day 84||1.25|0.85|0.8074
95779223|NCT02913105|191530109|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.08|0.88|0.6935
95955772|NCT03638258|191883725|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95955773|NCT03638258|191883725|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.008
95955774|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
95779224|NCT02913105|191530109|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.09|0.90|0.9145
95779225|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.9131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.12|0.91|0.9131
95779226|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.91|0.9988
95810734|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.304|0.226|<0.001
95810735|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.062|0.012|0.004
95810736|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.094|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|0.068|<0.001
95810737|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.084|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.110|0.059|<0.001
95810738|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.135|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|0.109|<0.001
95810739|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.082|0.031|<0.001
95810740|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|0.023|<0.001
95810741|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|0.073|<0.001
95955775|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
95955776|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
95955777|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
95810742|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.009||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.016|-0.035|0.469
95955778|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.x|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95810743|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.041||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.068|0.015|0.002
95810744|NCT02796651|191594072|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.051|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.076|0.025|<0.001
95810745|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.159|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.213|0.105|<0.001
95810746|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.224|0.116|<0.001
95997622|NCT01416181|191971151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6095|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.6095
95810747|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.274|0.163|<0.001
95810748|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.233|0.125|<0.001
95810749|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.011||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.042|-0.020|0.488
95810750|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.092|0.027|<0.001
95810751|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.02||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.051|-0.011|0.206
95810752|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.049||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.081|0.016|0.004
95810753|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.009||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.041|-0.022|0.567
95810754|NCT02796651|191594073|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.039||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.007|-0.072|0.017
95810755|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.075||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.008|0.027
95810756|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.065||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.131|-0.001|0.054
95955779|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95810757|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.032|0.004
95955780|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95810758|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.059||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.123|-0.006|0.075
95810759|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.01||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.048|0.615
95810760|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.025||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.065|-0.014|0.209
95810761|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.016||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.022|-0.053|0.403
95810762|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.035||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.003|0.074
95810763|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.006||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.032|-0.045|0.750
95810764|NCT02796651|191594074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.041||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.003|-0.080|0.035
95810765|NCT00437073|191594075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|68.4|||||The estimated value indicates the percentage of participants with CNS OR in the Lapatinib plus Capecitabine treatment arm.|||68.4|13.9|
95810766|NCT04992065|191594098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-31.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.02|-20.87|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-20.87|-43.02|<.0001
95810767|NCT04992065|191594098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-44.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.04|-33.79|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-33.79|-56.04|<.0001
95810768|NCT04992065|191594098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.94|-50.72|||ANCOVA|||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-50.72|-72.94|<.0001
95810769|NCT04992065|191594098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.16|44.47||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||44.47|22.16|
95810770|NCT04992065|191594098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|31.48||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||31.48|9.21|
95810771|NCT04992065|191594098|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|14.68||||||LDL-C percentage change at week 12 from baseline responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment and strata as factors and baseline LDL-C as covariate.||14.68|-7.81|
95810772|NCT02702999|191594130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
95810773|NCT02702999|191594131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|18.0|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||18.0|0.9|
95810774|NCT02702999|191594132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.5|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||10.5|0.4|
95810775|NCT02702999|191594133|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.7|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||23.7|1.2|
95810776|NCT02702999|191594134|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.1|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.1|0.03|
95779227|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 42||1.13|0.94|0.5873
95779228|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||PIIINP: Day 84||1.10|0.92|0.9050
95779229|NCT02913105|191530109|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1458
95779230|NCT02913105|191530109|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.12|0.98|0.2048
95779231|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.12|1.00|0.1051
95779232|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.15|1.01|0.0717
95779233|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 42||1.06|0.96|0.8083
95779234|NCT02913105|191530109|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||TIMP-1: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.5361
95779235|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0858
95779236|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||0.97|0.88|0.0096
95779237|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||0.98|0.88|0.0284
95779238|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.01|0.89|0.1330
95864466|NCT01185353|191686791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for MCS. A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
95955781|NCT03638258|191883726|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline mPASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95779239|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.01|0.89|0.2032
95779240|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.00|0.87|0.1141
95779241|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1342
95779242|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.00|0.92|0.0771
95779243|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.01|0.91|0.1510
95779244|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.00|0.89|0.0744
95779245|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.06|0.93|0.8365
95779246|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.05|0.92|0.6091
95779247|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.3621|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.03|0.90|0.3621
95779248|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.91|0.5031
95779249|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 7||1.04|0.96|0.9244
95810777|NCT02702999|191594135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||||The intervention arm and control arm were compared using a log binomial (or Poisson in case of nonconvergence) model with the intervention arm as a covariate to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI).|||2.3|0.4|
95810778|NCT01299961|191594142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most involved side: Synovitis (S), tenosynovitis (T), and power Doppler (PD) of wrist (dorsal (D), palmar (P), and ulnar (U)); S and T of MCP 2,3 (P, plus D for T); PD of the MCP joints (P and D); S and PD of PIP 2, 3 (P, plus D for PD); S and PD for MTP 2, 4 (D). S and PD graded from 0 to 3, and max individual scores are 27 and 39, respectively. T graded on 0-1 scale; max T score is 5. High score is worse. The 7-joint US score is sum of T, S, and PD scores. Change calculated baseline- month 12.||||<0.01
95864467|NCT01185353|191686792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.||||||0.005
95779250|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 14||1.08|0.99|0.2360
95779251|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 28||1.07|0.96|0.6990
95779252|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.11|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 42||1.11|0.99|0.1590
95779253|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 56||1.09|0.97|0.4256
95779254|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 84||1.09|0.96|0.4901
95779255|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.97|0.3648
95810779|NCT01299961|191594143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by power doppler ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. PDUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total PDUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline PDUS minus 12 month PDUS.||||<0.01
95810780|NCT01299961|191594144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||7 joints were scanned by grey-scale ultra sound of the most affected side: wrist, MCP 2/3, PIP 2/3, and MTP 2/5. GSUS was scored semi-quantitatively on a scale of 0-3 (higher score is worse). The mean score of the 2-3 views obtained for each joint was added across all 7 joints, and the total GSUS (range 0-21) scores were calculated. The change from baseline to 12 months is calculated as the baseline GSUS minus 12 month GSUS.||||0.19
95810781|NCT00663260|191594147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.37|0.561
95810782|NCT00663260|191594147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1457||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.40|0.435
95810783|NCT00663260|191594148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|2.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-29.7|
95810784|NCT00663260|191594148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||7.0|-25.0|
95810785|NCT00663260|191594149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.94||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.68|
95810786|NCT00663260|191594149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.29||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05; secondary efficacy analyses were not tested since the primary endpoint was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.03|
95810787|NCT01506726|191594167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two sample test||||0.20|-2.08|0.230
95810788|NCT01506726|191594168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.347
95810789|NCT01506726|191594169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857
95810790|NCT01506726|191594169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in IL-6 and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.706
95864468|NCT01185353|191686792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.135
95779256|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||1.12|0.91|0.8891
95779257|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.07|0.85|0.4817
95779258|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.6022
95810791|NCT01506726|191594169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95955782|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||<0.001
95955783|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
95955784|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
95955785|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
95955786|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 8||||<0.001
95955787|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95864469|NCT01185353|191686792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95955788|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||<0.001
95955789|NCT03638258|191883727|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline BSA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95955790|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.116|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.116
95955791|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.423|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.423
95955792|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.002
95955793|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.038
95955794|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95955795|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.005
95955796|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
95955797|NCT03638258|191883728|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and last observation carried forward where linear interpolation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.013
95779259|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.07|0.83|0.4470
95779260|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.07|0.83|0.4342
95779261|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||0.99|0.73|0.0891
95779262|NCT02913105|191530110|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.04|0.77|0.2260
95779263|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.87||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.97|0.78|0.0324
95779264|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||0.96|0.76|0.0291
95779265|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.09|0.84|0.5755
95779266|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.05|0.80|0.3070
95810792|NCT01506726|191594169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in TNF and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
95779267|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.12|0.86|0.7752
95779268|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.03|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.03|0.75|0.1803
95810793|NCT01506726|191594169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the salsalate group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
95810794|NCT01506726|191594169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|||||Correlation between change in CRP and change in hemoglobin in the placebo group. Testing the correlation equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
95810795|NCT01506726|191594170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing change in IL6 between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
95955798|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.086|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference form vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.086
95955799|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.123|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.123
95779269|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.05|0.76|0.2414
95779270|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 7||0.95|0.77|0.0179
95779271|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 14||1.00|0.80|0.1125
95779272|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 28||1.12|0.88|0.9572
95779273|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 42||1.10|0.87|0.7372
95779274|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 56||1.17|0.92|0.6015
95779275|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.03||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 84||1.19|0.89|0.7261
95779276|NCT02913105|191530110|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||Triglycerides: Day 112 (EOS)||1.15|0.87|0.9892
95779277|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.95|0.87|0.0005
95779278|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.89||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.94|0.84|0.0005
95810796|NCT01506726|191594170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|||||P value comparing the change in TNF between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257
95810797|NCT01506726|191594171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value comparing the change in EPO between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
95955800|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.017
95810798|NCT01506726|191594172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.232
95810799|NCT01506726|191594173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.076
95810800|NCT01506726|191594174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95810801|NCT01506726|191594175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
95810802|NCT01506726|191594176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
95810803|NCT01506726|191594177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.619
95810804|NCT01506726|191594178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.642
95810805|NCT01506726|191594179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95779279|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.96|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.96|0.86|0.0062
95779280|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||1.00|0.89|0.1214
95779281|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.9||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.95|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.95|0.84|0.0043
95779282|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||1.02|0.89|0.2615
95779283|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.01|0.88|0.1331
95779284|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.89|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.89|0.81|<.0001
95779285|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.93|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||0.93|0.83|0.0001
95779286|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.88|0.79|<.0001
95779287|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|0.92|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.92|0.81|0.0002
95810806|NCT01506726|191594180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95955801|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.415|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.415
95955802|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.007
95997623|NCT01416181|191971152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7230
95779288|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.88|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.88|0.77|<.0001
95810807|NCT01506726|191594181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.375
95810808|NCT01506726|191594183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
95810809|NCT01506726|191594184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
95997624|NCT01416181|191971152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8781|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.8781
95779289|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.9|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.90|0.78|0.0002
95779290|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.02|0.89|0.2280
95779291|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 7||0.97|0.89|0.0090
95779292|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.04|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 14||1.04|0.93|0.6237
95779293|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 28||0.97|0.87|0.0080
95860754|NCT00220779|191680428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||||||0.2g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.221
95779294|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 42||0.97|0.86|0.0105
95779295|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 56||0.98|0.86|0.0217
95779296|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.88||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.94|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 84||0.94|0.82|0.0031
95779297|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.07|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||HDL Cholesterol: Day 112 (EOS)||1.07|0.95|0.7740
95779298|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.95||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.01|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.01|0.89|0.1783
95779299|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.91||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||0.97|0.84|0.0219
95779300|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.99|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||0.99|0.85|0.0719
95997625|NCT01416181|191971152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2751|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2751
95779301|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.93||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.02|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.02|0.85|0.2199
95997626|NCT01416181|191971153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5051|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||Overall: Week 156||||0.5051
95779302|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.96||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.06|0.87|0.4928
95779303|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.94||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.05|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.05|0.85|0.3419
95779304|NCT02913105|191530111|OTHER|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.98||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.09|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.09|0.88|0.7281
95779305|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.12|0.97|0.3180
95779306|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.1|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.10|0.95|0.6576
95779307|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.97||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.06|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.06|0.90|0.6035
95779308|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.17|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.17|0.96|0.3261
95779309|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.04||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.15|0.94|0.5246
95779310|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.14|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.14|0.92|0.7519
95997627|NCT01416181|191971153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7283|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7283
95864470|NCT01185353|191686792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95864471|NCT01185353|191686793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
95997628|NCT01416181|191971153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1666|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 9HPT (non-dominant hand).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.1666
95997629|NCT01416181|191971154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.4330
95779311|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.0||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.12|0.89|0.9577
95860755|NCT00220779|191680428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||||||0.4 g/kg IGIV Group versus Placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The primary efficacy comparison was the comparison of the proportions of relapse free subjects (relapse defined as reported, not necessarily confirmed relapse). The multiple test procedure (hierarchical procedure) was to be stopped as soon as one of the statistical tests resulted in a non-significant P value \> 0.05.||||0.471
95955803|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.175|||||||Regression, Linear|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.175
95955804|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle at Week 12||||0.001
95779312|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 7||1.18|1.03|0.0160
95779313|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.13||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.21|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 14||1.21|1.05|0.0052
95779314|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.06||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 28||1.15|0.99|0.1822
95779315|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.24|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 42||1.24|1.04|0.0159
95779316|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.19|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 56||1.19|0.99|0.1524
95779317|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.2|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 84||1.20|0.98|0.1749
95779318|NCT02913105|191530111|SUPERIORITY|Log transformed ratio to baseline was analyzed using a repeated measures model which included effects for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (BMI group), log-transformed baseline and log-transformed baseline by visit interaction. BMI was separated into two groups low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.02||||0.7503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.13|||ANCOVA|An unstructured variance-covariance structure was used.||LDL Cholesterol Friedwald: Day 112 (EOS)||1.13|0.92|0.7503
95779319|NCT02913105|191530112|OTHER|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.161|16.178|||ANCOVA|||||16.178|-2.161|0.2073
95955805|NCT03638258|191883729|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.619|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline I-IGA score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.619
95779320|NCT02913105|191530112|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.106|16.563|||ANCOVA|||||16.563|-2.106|0.2014
95860756|NCT04518995|191680429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
95779321|NCT02913105|191530112|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model which included effects for treatment, baseline and stratification factor (BMI group). BMI was separated into two groups, low BMI (Asian\<30 and Non-Asian\<35) and high BMI (Asian \>=30 and Non-Asian\>=35).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.974|8.414|||ANCOVA|||||8.414|-7.974|0.9645
95779322|NCT02635009|191530173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|one-sided significance level = 0.05||Proportion of participants with deterioration in HVLT-R delayed recall score at six months: Null hypothesis = No difference between the arms; Alternative hypothesis = Arm 2 will have less deterioration than Arm 1. Ninety-eight evaluable participants per arm at six months provides 80% statistical power to detect a 14.5% absolute difference between the arms in proportion of participants with deterioration at six months using a one-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.28
95779323|NCT02635009|191530174|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 \> 20%; Alternative hypothesis: Proportion of participants with relapse on Arm 2 - Arm 1 = 4.5%. Using a non-inferiority margin of 20% and an assumed difference in proportions of 4.5% under the alternative, a 2-sample test of difference in proportions with a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 requires 164 patients to achieve 85% statistical power. (Statistically significant p-value indicates non-inferiority.)||||||0.003|||||||Test of binomial proportions|||||||0.0030
95779324|NCT02635009|191530175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.0598
95779325|NCT02635009|191530176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.78
95779326|NCT02635009|191530176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.63
95779327|NCT02635009|191530176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.84
95779328|NCT02635009|191530178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.56
95779329|NCT02635009|191530178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.75
95779330|NCT02635009|191530180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.81
95779331|NCT02635009|191530180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.93
95779332|NCT02635009|191530180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
95779333|NCT02635009|191530182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.54
95779334|NCT02635009|191530182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.43
95779335|NCT02635009|191530182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.25
95810810|NCT02303821|191594202|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the rate of CRi or better status against an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The rate of CRi or better status in the external control arm was 26.3% (95% CI: 15.1, 37.5) for B-Cell participants with treatment difference odds ratio of 2.082 (95% CI: 0.968, 4.477). For T-Cell participants the rate of CRi or better status was 18.6% (95% CI: 7.1, 30.0) with treatment difference odds ratio of 1.646 (95% CI: 0.639. 4.245).|||
95810811|NCT02303821|191594203|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare EFS in study 20140106 with EFS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median duration in months in the external control arm was 3.62 (95% CI: 1.55, 5.36) for B-cell participants, with a treatment difference hazard ration of 1.435 (95% CI: 0.976, 2.111). For T-Cell participants the median in months was 2.93 (95% CI: 0.95, 5.10) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.404 (95% CI: 0.869, 2.270).|||
95864472|NCT01185353|191686793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.164
95779336|NCT02635009|191530184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.71
95779337|NCT02635009|191530184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.079
95779338|NCT02635009|191530184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.85
95779339|NCT02635009|191530186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.043
95779340|NCT02635009|191530186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Fisher Exact|||6 months||||0.017
95779341|NCT02635009|191530186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.057
95779342|NCT02635009|191530189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.10
95779343|NCT02635009|191530189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.33
95779344|NCT02635009|191530189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.29
95779345|NCT02635009|191530191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.0021
95779346|NCT02635009|191530191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.0070
95779347|NCT02635009|191530191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.35
95779348|NCT02635009|191530193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.55
95779349|NCT02635009|191530193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.062
95779350|NCT02635009|191530193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.32
95779351|NCT02635009|191530195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.70
95779352|NCT02635009|191530195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.52
95779353|NCT02635009|191530195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.73
95779354|NCT02635009|191530197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.28
95779355|NCT02635009|191530197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.094
95779356|NCT02635009|191530197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.61
95779357|NCT02635009|191530199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months.||||0.16
95779358|NCT02635009|191530199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months. Assuming 50% of patients experience deterioration at 6 months, based on a prior study (RTOG-0212), a sample size of 198 participants per arm provides 94% power to detect a 50% relative reduction (50% on Arm 1 vs. 25% on Arm 2) in decline at 6 months using Fisher's exact test with a two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.017
95779359|NCT02635009|191530199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||12-month||||0.56
95779360|NCT02635009|191530201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
95779361|NCT02635009|191530201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95779362|NCT02635009|191530201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95779363|NCT02635009|191530203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||3 months||||0.35
95779364|NCT02635009|191530203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||6 months||||0.99
95779365|NCT02635009|191530203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.94
95955806|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||<0.001
95779366|NCT02635009|191530207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.79
95779367|NCT02635009|191530208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Gray's test|||||||0.93
95779368|NCT02407132|191530221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.139; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.013. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.038
95779369|NCT02407132|191530222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value = 0.552; 12 months between-arms p-value = 0.447. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean BMI from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.234
95779370|NCT02407132|191530223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean total chol from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.598; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.073. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean Total Cholesterol (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.019
95779371|NCT02407132|191530224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HDL from baseline to immediate post-intervention. 6 months between-arms p-value=0.009; 12 months between-arms p-value=0.201. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Linear mixed effects regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||The outcome variable for these analyses is Change in mean HDL (mg/dL) from baseline to immediate post-intervention, 6 months post-intervention, and 12 months post-intervention.||||0.186
95779372|NCT02407132|191530225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.040
95779373|NCT02407132|191530226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed Effects Logistic Regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.312
95810812|NCT02303821|191594204|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The objective of this endpoint was to compare the OS in study 20140106 with OS in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median OS in months for the B-Cell participants in the external control arm was 8.59 (95% CI: 5.26, 10.59) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.245 (95% CI: 0.805, 1.927). For the T-Cell participants the median OS in months was 7.04 (95% CI: 7.04, NE) with a treatment difference hazard ratio of 1.040 (95% CI: 0.641, 1.688).|||
95810813|NCT02303821|191594205|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The DOR in study 20140106 was estimated relative to the DOR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). The median DOR in months in the external control arm was 8.72 (95% CI: 5.07, 32.24) in B-Cell participants. For T-Cell participants the median DOR in months was 5.82 (95% CI: 1.22, 19.80).|||
95810814|NCT02303821|191594217|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary objective of this endpoint was to compare the percentage of participants achieving CR after the end of induction therapy in study 20140106 with the percentage of participants achieving CR in an external control arm selected from an observational study (Amgen 20180065). In the external control arm, 7.8% of B-Cell participants (95% confidence interval \[CI\]: 1.0%, 14.7%) achieved CR, with a treatment difference odds ratio of 2.04 (95% CI: 0.54, 7.66). For T-Cell participants, 9.1% (95% CI: 0.7%, 17.5%) achieved CR, with an odds ratio of 1.58 (95% CI: 0.47, 5.31).|||
95810815|NCT01903863|191594226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95955807|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
95955808|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
95955809|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
95955810|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95955811|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95955812|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95779374|NCT02407132|191530227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.622
95779375|NCT02407132|191530228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.957
95779376|NCT02407132|191530229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.147
95779377|NCT02407132|191530230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326||||||The p-value above represents results of analysis of the between-arm changes in probability of performing the self-care behavior from baseline to 12 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mixed effects logistic regression|Adjusted for baseline sex, age, education, marital status, employment, use of diabetes medication, and households containing multiple participants.||To facilitate interpretation of regression coefficients, estimates obtained in the logit scale (log odds) were transformed into probability scale.||||0.326
95779378|NCT00869557|191530236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A total sample size of 75 participants randomized in a 2:1 ratio had 26% power to evaluate noninferiority with respect to the response rate of HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 if a response rate of 84% for both treatment groups and a noninferiority margin of 0.12 were assumed.~A total of 71 participants were enrolled in the study (4 fewer than planned)."|Difference in the response rates (%)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|20.1|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed using normal approximation stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL).|The null hypothesis was that the response rate (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24) in the Stribild group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in Atripla group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the Stribild group was less than 12% worse than that in the Atripla group.||20.1|-14.5|
95779379|NCT04105010|191530242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial test against a null|||||||<0.0001
95779380|NCT01211483|191530257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.42||||||||1.420|0.674|
95955813|NCT03638258|191883730|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95955814|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
95779381|NCT01211483|191530257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.131||||||||1.131|0.523|
95779382|NCT01211483|191530258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.369||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.846|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.846|0.161|0.0185
95779383|NCT01211483|191530258|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.288||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.663|||Cox proportional hazard|||||0.663|0.125|0.0034
95779384|NCT01211483|191530259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|2.212|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.212|0.458|0.9879
95779385|NCT01211483|191530259|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.222||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|2.746|||Cox proportional hazard|||||2.746|0.544|0.6276
95779386|NCT00454818|191530307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
95779387|NCT00454818|191530307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
95779388|NCT00454818|191530307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \< 0.2. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
95810816|NCT01903863|191594227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Intracranial hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
95779389|NCT00766467|191530340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95779390|NCT00676572|191530344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated p values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95779391|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority (NI) for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 1: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of least square (LS) means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.65|
95810817|NCT01903863|191594227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Surgical bleed|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
95810818|NCT01903863|191594227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Gastrointestinal hemorrhage|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95810819|NCT01903863|191594228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95779392|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9||||||Serotype 3: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.75|
95779393|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||Serotype 4: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.02|0.77|
95779394|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||Serotype 5: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.79|
95779395|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.88|0.65|
95779396|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.94|0.71|
95779397|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.99|0.83|
95779398|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93||||||Serotype 8: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.93|0.70|
95779399|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.07|0.82|
95810820|NCT01903863|191594229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95810821|NCT01903863|191594230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95810822|NCT01903863|191594231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95810823|NCT01903863|191594232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95810824|NCT01903863|191594233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95810825|NCT03909971|191594235|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95810826|NCT06028464|191594296|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.96|41.64|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 21.9|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.64|31.96|
95997630|NCT01416181|191971154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7122|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.7122
95810827|NCT06028464|191594297|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|56.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.11|70.6|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 37.9.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||70.60|45.11|
95864473|NCT01185353|191686793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95997631|NCT01416181|191971154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.3861
95860757|NCT04518995|191680429|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
95860758|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.32||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.32|0.17|<0.0001
95860759|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.43||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.26|<0.0001
95860760|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.38||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.38|0.24|<0.0001
95860761|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|<0.0001
95860762|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.39|0.26|<0.0001
95860763|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
95860764|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.31|<0.0001
95860765|NCT04518995|191680430|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.55||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.55|0.39|<0.0001
95955815|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.203|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.203
95955816|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.034|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.034
95955817|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.012
95955818|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.010
95955819|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.075
95860766|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.02|-0.00|0.0816
95860767|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|0.01|0.0005
95860768|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.09|0.03|0.0002
95860769|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
95860770|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
95860771|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.19||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.19|0.10|<0.0001
95955820|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95997632|NCT01416181|191971155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7225|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||Overall: Week 156||||0.7225
95810828|NCT06028464|191594298|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|36.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.91|41.74|||||Ratio calculated as test/reference\*100. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 22.3.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The pharmacokinetic endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||41.74|31.91|
95810829|NCT01385995|191594299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.24|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Controlled for period and baseline 2 hour OGTT glucose level.||Based on an intent to treat approach a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to estimate the effect of therapy (CPAP or Sham) on the odds of normalization of Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT). This model provides an estimate of the odds ratio of normalizing the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with CPAP compared with Sham-CPAP.||3.24|0.52|0.57
95810830|NCT01385995|191594300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.0|-1.2|0.38
95810831|NCT01385995|191594300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between measures of glucose indices, in this case, 2 hour OGTT, and therapeutic CPAP vs. Sham.||1.7|-16.3|0.11
95810832|NCT01385995|191594300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.7|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case fasting glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=25.||2.7|-3.3|0.86
95810833|NCT01385995|191594300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of glucose indices, in this case 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) glucose, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N= 25.||1.3|-24.6|0.08
95955821|NCT03638258|191883731|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline WI-NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95955822|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.527
95955823|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.444|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.444
95810834|NCT01385995|191594301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||0.5|-3.4|0.14
95810835|NCT01385995|191594301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||2.8|-23.3|0.12
95997633|NCT01416181|191971155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9121|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||CP Group: Week 156||||0.9121
95810836|NCT01385995|191594301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case fasting insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||0.5|-5.2|0.10
95810837|NCT01385995|191594301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-10.9|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin indices, in this case oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) insulin, between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||-10.9|-46.5|0.002
95955824|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.006
95997634|NCT01416181|191971155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2594|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6).||NP Group: Week 156||||0.2594
95779400|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.71|
95779401|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.84|0.60|
95779402|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.97|0.69|
95779403|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.96|0.76|
95779404|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.86|0.57|
95779405|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.04|0.77|
95779406|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.98|0.78|
95779407|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.01||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.01|0.78|
95779408|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.90|0.62|
95810838|NCT01385995|191594302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||3.8|-17.6|0.18
95955825|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.013
95955826|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.002
95955827|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.064
95779409|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.92|0.66|
95810839|NCT01385995|191594302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|1.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and measures of insulin resistance, in this case Homeostasis Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||1.8|-27.5|0.08
95810840|NCT01385995|191594303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensivity Index, between CPAP and sham-CPAP.||9.8|-2.0|0.20
95997635|NCT01416181|191971156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8066|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo groups at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL 6MWT.||Week 156||||0.8066
95779410|NCT04526574|191530379|NON_INFERIORITY|NI for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion) for that serotype.|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for OPA titers and corresponding CIs based on regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed OPA titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||0.83|0.62|
95779411|NCT04526574|191530380|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||||||A/H1N1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.17|0.97|
95779412|NCT04526574|191530380|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||||||A/H3N2: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.89|
95810841|NCT01385995|191594303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for period, baseline level of the outcome variable, BMI, AHI, gender and race.||Based on an intent-to-treat approach, a linear mixed effect model was used to estimate the association between therapy and the Insulin Sensitivity Index (ISI(0,120)), between CPAP and sham-CPAP, stratified for the most severe sleep apnea group (Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI) \>=30) in order to assess whether the differences in the effect of CPAP on outcomes were observed according to sleep apnea severity. N=23.||22.1|5.2|0.002
95810842|NCT03941093|191594350|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Stratified Log Rank Test|||||1.41|0.83|0.5487
95810843|NCT04795531|191594407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of insulin icodec was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (insulin icodec minus insulin degludec) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment difference|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, region and sulfonylureas (SU)/glinides use as fixed factors, and baseline response as covariate.||-0.08|-0.34|<0.0001
95810844|NCT04887831|191594418|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1052||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.105||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.105|-0.308|0.340
95997636|NCT01416181|191971158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7084|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL MSIS-29 physical score.||||||0.7084
95997637|NCT01416181|191971160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|||||||ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active and placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (\<=5.5 or\>=6) and BL SDMT.||Week 156||||0.3465
95997638|NCT01416181|191971164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL normalized brain volume.||Percentage change from Week 24 to Week 156||||0.0070
95810845|NCT04887831|191594419|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1078||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.203||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using stratified CMH method to account for the presence of visceral metastasis (yes/no) and initial chemotherapy type (cisplatin/carboplatin) as the stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.203|-0.220|0.938
95810846|NCT01168596|191594433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|11.73|||Regression, Linear|||||11.73|-9.13|0.81
95810847|NCT01168596|191594434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|11.51|||Regression, Linear|||||11.51|-2.75|0.23
95997639|NCT01416181|191971165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5034||||||natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment|ANCOVA|p-value for comparison between active \& placebo at Week 156 based on ANCOVA model, adjusted for BL EDSS (≤5.5 or ≥6) \& BL WGM brain volume||Percentage hange from Baseline to Week 156||||0.5034
95779413|NCT04526574|191530380|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||||||B/Victoria: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.08|0.93|
95779414|NCT04526574|191530380|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of the (SIIV+20vPnC)/saline group to the (SIIV+saline)/20vPnC group was greater than 0.67 (1.5-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||||||B/Phuket: GMRs (ratio of GMTs \[SIIV+20vPnC\]/saline to \[SIIV+saline\]/20vPnC) and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference of LS means for the HAI titers and the corresponding CIs based on the regression model adjusted with vaccine group, sex, smoking status, age at Vaccination 1 in years, baseline log-transformed HAI titers, and prior pneumococcal vaccination status.||1.03|0.87|
95779415|NCT01032070|191530384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||The study was not powered for this comparison due to small sample size.||||0.2200
95779416|NCT01541839|191530406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|327.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||The mean time for closure with septal stapler was 35 +/-22 seconds versus 7 minutes +/- 1 minute 10 seconds for suture closure. The mean net difference between groups was 327 seconds, or 6 minutes 27 seconds.|The operative time required for closure and NOSE questionnaire scores were analyzed with unpaired and paired t-tests respectively. Chi-squared testing was used for post-operative complication rates. The mean closure time for septoplasty was estimated to be 10 minutes +/- 4 minutes. It was assumed that the septal stapler would take 5 minutes +/- 4 minutes. Assuming a one-sided test, an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, a total of 16 patients were needed.||||<0.0001
95779417|NCT00396877|191530422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|11.1||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|33.6||The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.035 reflecting the adjustment for interim analyses. No other adjustment for multiplicity was made.|Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used.|The Relative Risk Reduction (Clopidogrel versus placebo) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval were estimated using Cox's proportional hazards model.|"Due to the limited knowledge in this population, 3 interim analyses were performed at approximatively 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of of the maximum number of 172 required primary efficacy events to evaluate the effect of Clopidogrel on the primary endpoint with the potential to end the trial in case of a clear efficacy advantage for Clopidogrel.~The study was designed with 80% power and an overall type I error rate of 5%."||33.6|-19.2|0.4340
95779418|NCT00334802|191530433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 1 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.169
95779419|NCT00334802|191530433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Dose Level 2 Responders (Complete Response + Partial Response)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95779420|NCT01886781|191530477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine an effect size of 0.64 with 80% power, a sample size of 27 for each group (D-IBS, C-IBS and controls), with a type 1 error of 5% using a two sided test was sufficient. Sample size based on expected behaviour of primary outcome measure. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with the instrument used was 50 points.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intention-to -treat (ITT) analysis was performed on all patients who underwent randomization (n = 81). The results of the ITT analysis are presented. Changes in Severity Score was examined using the mixed model for analysis of variance to account for missing data. This model used group (treatment vs control) \& time as factors.||||<0.05
95779421|NCT00987402|191530479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||generalized estimating equation|||Power calculations assumed a 2-sided alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%. We performed power calculations using a statistical model for a cluster-randomized trial with 8, 10 or 12 clusters including 6 operating rooms each, with different levels of reduction (10%, 30%, 50%) in surgical site infection rates in the active intervention period. By reaching a sample size of 3133 patients, the study was powered to detect a 30% reduction effect in SSI rates, from 10% to 7%.||||<0.05
95779422|NCT03000530|191530531|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
95779423|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 2||-0.3|-4.3|0.0223
95779424|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 3||-1.7|-6.4|0.0010
95779425|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 4||-0.4|-5.5|0.0233
95779426|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 5||-1.1|-6.6|0.0066
95810848|NCT01168596|191594435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|11.59|||Regression, Linear|||||11.59|-8.37|0.75
95810849|NCT01168596|191594436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|7.94|||Regression, Linear|||||7.94|-4.18|0.54
95810850|NCT01168596|191594437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|7.43|||Regression, Linear|||||7.43|-17.76|0.42
95779427|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-1.7|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 6||-1.7|-7.3|0.0019
95779428|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 7||-1.5|-7.6|0.0043
95779429|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 8||-0.3|-6.4|0.0318
95779430|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-3.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 15||-3.9|-10.2|< 0.0001
95810851|NCT01168596|191594438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||Regression, Linear|||||1.29|-0.56|0.44
95810852|NCT01168596|191594439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|22.13|||Regression, Linear|||||22.13|-17.59|0.82
95810853|NCT01168596|191594440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|9.85|||Regression, Linear|||||9.85|-19.31|0.52
95810854|NCT01168596|191594441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.36|||Regression, Linear|||||2.36|-2.15|0.93
95810855|NCT01168596|191594442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.83|||Regression, Linear|||||0.83|-1.05|0.82
95810856|NCT01168596|191594443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.69|||Regression, Linear|||||10.69|-19.74|0.56
95955828|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.002
95779431|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 21||-1.4|-8.4|0.0064
95779432|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-0.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 28||-0.5|-7.6|0.0243
95810857|NCT01168596|191594444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|3.59|||Regression, Linear|||||3.59|-8.02|0.45
95810858|NCT01168596|191594445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|12.55|||Regression, Linear|||||12.55|-7.02|0.58
95810859|NCT01168596|191594446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-1.04|0.95
95810860|NCT01168596|191594447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.45|0.48
95810861|NCT01168596|191594448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||||0.58|-0.71|0.84
95810862|NCT01168596|191594449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.76|||Regression, Linear|||||1.76|-0.77|0.44
95810863|NCT01168596|191594450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|-2.06|0.71
95810864|NCT01168596|191594451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||||1.90|-0.62|0.31
95810865|NCT01168596|191594452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.56|||Regression, Linear|||||1.56|-1.68|0.94
95810866|NCT01276704|191594453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||83% power to detect an absolute 2.5% reduction in Ki-67 for the treatment group compared with no reduction in the control group.||||0.72
95810867|NCT01276704|191594454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95810868|NCT01276704|191594455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Standard threshold of P \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95810869|NCT03243084|191594461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|ANOVA|||A 2x2 ANOVA was used to measure change in HF-HRV by condition (10 Hz vs sham) and session (first vs second) as within subjects variables||||.319
95810870|NCT03243084|191594463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488||||||Threshold for significance is \<.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Investigators hypothesized that active stimulation would have a greater normalized pain change using a modulation index \[(Pre-Post)/(Pre+Post)\]||||.0488
95810871|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.951|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.951
95810872|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
95810873|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.071
95810874|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810875|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.029
95810876|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.325
95810877|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95810878|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810879|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.427
95779433|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 35||1.4|-6.0|0.2285
95779434|NCT03000530|191530598|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit as the dependent variables.||Day 42||1.4|-6.0|0.2120
95779435|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a generalized estimating equation (GEE) method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 2||24.1|0.8|0.0884
95779436|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||6.4|0.9|0.0732
95779437|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||31.6|2.9|0.0002
95779438|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||19.7|2.3|0.0006
95779439|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||8.9|1.1|0.0379
95810880|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.065
95810881|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810882|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
95810883|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
95779440|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||9.0|1.0|0.0468
95779441|NCT03000530|191530599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D response at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||5.6|0.7|0.2208
95779442|NCT03000530|191530600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.7|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||3.7|0.6|0.4300
95779443|NCT03000530|191530600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||13.3|2.1|0.0005
95779444|NCT03000530|191530600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.0|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||8.0|1.2|0.0172
95779445|NCT03000530|191530600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||7.3|1.2|0.0221
95779446|NCT03000530|191530600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||3.5|0.6|0.4139
95810884|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95810885|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810886|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.286
95810887|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810888|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.094
95810889|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.757
95810890|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.022
95810891|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95810892|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810893|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.348
95810894|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.508
95810895|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.191
95810896|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
95810897|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.169
95810898|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.961
95810899|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.454
95810900|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810901|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.068
95810902|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95810903|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810904|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.370
95810905|NCT02314923|191594490|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95810906|NCT02090764|191594501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) was provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.||||0.001
95779447|NCT03000530|191530600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the HAM-D remission at each visit as the dependent variables.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||4.3|0.7|0.2332
95779448|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||0.3|-5.1|0.0836
95997640|NCT01416181|191971166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the active and placebo groups at Week 156 compared to Week 108 is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline EDSS (\<=5.5 or \>=6) and baseline volume of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression model|natalizumab participants had a baseline after 6 months of treatment and the placebo-to-natalizumab group had a baseline of initiation of treatment||Week 156||||< 0.0001
95779449|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.6|-8.6|0.0864
95779450|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.8|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.8|-12.3|0.0021
95779451|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.3|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-1.3|-12.0|0.0157
95779452|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.1|-10.6|0.0533
95779453|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 35||2.6|-8.8|0.2878
95779454|NCT03000530|191530601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||3.4|-7.4|0.4664
95779455|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 2||-0.1|-3.6|0.0391
95810907|NCT02300233|191594503|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean (LSM)|-70.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-55.3|||ANCOVA|||||-55.3|-85.4|<0.0001
95810908|NCT02300233|191594504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-943.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.0|-689.0|||ANCOVA|||||-689|-1197|<0.0001
95810909|NCT02300233|191594505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|467.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||467.79|19.71|<0.0001
95779456|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 8||0.0|-5.1|0.0516
95779457|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.0|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 15||-2.0|-7.3|0.0008
95779458|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 21||-0.4|-6.5|0.0282
95779459|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 28||0.9|-5.3|0.1686
95779460|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.5|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|||Day 35||1.5|-5.5|0.2488
95779461|NCT03000530|191530604|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.2|||Mixed Effect Model for Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the change from baseline in HAM-A total score at each visit as the dependent variable.||Day 42||1.2|-5.7|0.2037
95810910|NCT02300233|191594506|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|45.1|<0.0001
95810911|NCT02300233|191594507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.93||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|215.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||215.88|1.03|0.0474
95810912|NCT03331354|191594586|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.87|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.016
95810913|NCT03331354|191594587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|Initial interview scores were used as control in the ANCOVA||||||.008
95810914|NCT03331354|191594588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Change in confidence was evaluated using time one as a covariate.||||||.99
95810915|NCT03331354|191594588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANCOVA|Interview scores at enrollment were used as a covariate||||||.99
95810916|NCT03331354|191594589|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Pearson Correlation|||This post-hoc analysis was performed on only the COMPASS group to determine the association between percent of the online system completed and change in interview scores||||<.001
95810917|NCT05889468|191594590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test, a non-parametric test, was used since the empirical distribution of data did not follow the normality assumption.||This was an intention-to-treat analysis.||||0.49
95810918|NCT05889468|191594591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.32
95810919|NCT05889468|191594593|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
95997641|NCT02799381|191971190|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-15.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|-8.63||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|||-8.63|-21.47|<0.0001
95779462|NCT03000530|191530605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 8||17.9|1.7|0.0048
95779463|NCT03000530|191530605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 15||29.5|2.5|0.0007
95779464|NCT03000530|191530605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 21||13.6|1.4|0.0113
95779465|NCT03000530|191530605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.8|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 28||12.8|1.2|0.0227
95779466|NCT03000530|191530605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.2|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 35||7.2|0.7|0.1516
95810920|NCT05889468|191594594|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||>0.99
95810921|NCT01983111|191594635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the PP set, for a non-inferiority test of the reduction in the pain intensity score from Visit 1 (Baseline) to Week 6 of treatment, the lower limit of the 97.5% onesided confidence interval was compared to a clinical non-inferiority margin, -1.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.79||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||In the Per protocol set||3|-6|0.2658
96001990|NCT01592851|191981512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.84||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|11.13||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||11.13|2.54|0.0021
95779467|NCT03000530|191530605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Statistics are from a GEE method including the CGI-I response at each visit as the dependent variable.|For the model parameters estimation, the exchangeable working correlation structure was used.|Day 42||8.3|0.9|0.0793
95779468|NCT02044874|191530664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.22|1.47|0.0027
95779469|NCT02044874|191530664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.51|0.73|0.2427
95779470|NCT02044874|191530664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.01|0.0477
95779471|NCT02044874|191530665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|9.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.08|0.89|0.0784
95810922|NCT01979185|191594661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.744|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.744|0.538|
95779472|NCT02044874|191530665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.17|0.51|0.3650
95779473|NCT02044874|191530665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.61|0.3438
95779474|NCT02044874|191530666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|1.04|0.0379
95779475|NCT02044874|191530666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.09|0.54|0.8628
95779476|NCT02044874|191530666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.99|0.0556
95779477|NCT02044874|191530667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.10|0.0219
95779478|NCT02044874|191530667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.66|0.5450
95779479|NCT02044874|191530667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.93|0.0868
95854746|NCT02086175|191669495|SUPERIORITY||percent|48.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.0|66.0|||Fisher Exact|||"Patients will be accrued in a single stage design, with a goal accrual of 25 patients.~Assuming a 30% response rate with rituximab alone, if the true but unknown rate of CR or PR is 50% with the addition of Imprime PGG, the probability of observing 11 or more patients with a response is 0.79 with 0.098 one-sided type-I error.~Therefore a study with 25 patients, in which an observed response rate of 11/25 (44%) would be considered worthy of further consideration."||66|31|0.044
95779480|NCT02044874|191530668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.43|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|||||-0.43|-1.51|0.0004
95779481|NCT02044874|191530668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||0.21|-0.89|0.2268
95810923|NCT01979185|191594662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.543|0.73|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.730|0.543|
95810924|NCT01979185|191594663|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.526|0.672|||Mixed-effects Model|||The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||0.672|0.526|
95810925|NCT00980798|191594664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2365||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5357|0.0627||No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary, as only 1 primary hypothesis was tested. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed-model regression analysis|The difference above is presented as the difference OROS hydromorphone HCl minus placebo, so negative scores favour OROS hydromorphone HCl.|The analysis was adjusted for baseline BPI item 5 score, time on study, and whether the primary affected joint was the hip or knee.|The F test for treatment tested the null hypothesis of no treatment difference. Assuming that 3 baseline measures and 7 post baseline measures were collected 81 patients were required per group to detect a difference of 1 point in the BPI measure with 90% power at a significance level of 5%. To allow for a drop-out rate of approximately 40%, the study planned to recruit 135 patients per group (i.e. 270 in total).||0.0627|-0.5357|0.1212
95810926|NCT04562090|191594690|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-3.16||Repeated Measures Analysis (RMA): CFB as response, treatment group (TG), visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-4.30|<0.001
95810927|NCT04562090|191594693|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.99||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.99|-3.25|<0.001
96001991|NCT01592851|191981513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.65||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||6.65|1.08|0.0070
95779482|NCT02044874|191530668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.63||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.09|||mixed effects repeated measures|||||-0.09|-1.17|0.0217
95779483|NCT01047332|191530669|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
95810928|NCT04562090|191594693|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-2.02||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.02|-2.93|<0.001
95810929|NCT04562090|191594693|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.3||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.30|-3.96|<0.001
95860772|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.33|0.20|<0.0001
96001992|NCT00521339|191981536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95779484|NCT01047332|191530670|OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.997
95779485|NCT04908202|191530679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.13|1.67|<0.0001
95779486|NCT04908202|191530680|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.5051|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6709|-0.3392|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3392|-0.6709|<0.0001
95779487|NCT04908202|191530681|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|-0.1688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2442|-0.0933|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0933|-0.2442|<0.0001
95779488|NCT04908202|191530682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|27.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.59|7.19|<0.0001
95779489|NCT04908202|191530683|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|6.631|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.481|9.781|||ANCOVA|||||9.781|3.481|<0.0001
95779490|NCT04908202|191530684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.75|0.74|0.5699
95779491|NCT04908202|191530685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.26|1.33|0.0012
95779492|NCT04908202|191530686|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|1.4|<0.0001
95810930|NCT04562090|191594693|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-2.47||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.47|-3.39|<0.001
95810931|NCT04562090|191594693|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-2.56||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-4.37|<0.001
95810932|NCT04562090|191594693|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.12||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean (SD) number of grade 3 or 4 (PPIUS) urgency episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.12|-4.06|<0.001
95860773|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.28||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.28|0.19|<0.0001
95779493|NCT04908202|191530687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.03|1.07|0.0270
95779494|NCT04908202|191530688|SUPERIORITY||ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE|0.1596||||0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7114|1.0306|||ANCOVA|||||1.0306|-0.7114|0.7194
95779495|NCT02227368|191530764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.1|-0.4|0.3441
95779496|NCT02227368|191530765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference is Ticagrelor - Aspirin. LOCF was used for missing data imputation.|||0.6|-0.4|0.6186
95779497|NCT03046056|191530766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|32.1||||||||32.1|-16.5|
95779498|NCT03046056|191530766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|32.0||||||||32.0|-15.9|
95779499|NCT03046056|191530767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|0.7||||||Difference in least squared means (Diff in LSM), and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-5.3|
95779500|NCT03046056|191530767|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|3.1||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||3.1|-2.7|
95779501|NCT03046056|191530768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|0.7||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||0.7|-3.9|
95779502|NCT03046056|191530768|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.2||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||1.2|-3.2|
95779503|NCT03046056|191530769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-2.2|
95779504|NCT03046056|191530769|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||2.0|-1.9|
95779505|NCT03046056|191530770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|25.5||||||||25.5|-28.6|
95779506|NCT03046056|191530770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|26.2||||||||26.2|-24.5|
95779507|NCT03046056|191530771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.3|37.0||||||||37.0|-47.3|
95779508|NCT03046056|191530771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.2|30.0||||||||30.0|-58.2|
95779509|NCT03046056|191530772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.4|86.5||||||||86.5|-32.4|
95779510|NCT03046056|191530773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.6|24.3||||||||24.3|-28.6|
95779511|NCT03046056|191530773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|11.3||||||||11.3|-39.4|
95779512|NCT03046056|191530774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.9|45.7||||||||45.7|-38.9|
95779513|NCT03046056|191530774|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.5|40.8||||||||40.8|-47.5|
95779514|NCT03046056|191530775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|89.5||||||||89.5|-16.8|
95779515|NCT03046056|191530775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.1|63.3||||||||63.3|-46.1|
95779516|NCT03046056|191530776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|32.6||||||||32.6|-17.2|
95779517|NCT03046056|191530776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1|30.2||||||||30.2|-18.1|
95779518|NCT03046056|191530777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|28.1||||||||28.1|-22.1|
95779519|NCT03046056|191530777|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.1|20.3||||||||20.3|-28.1|
95779520|NCT03046056|191530778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|40.4||||||||40.4|-7.6|
95810933|NCT04562090|191594694|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.44||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.44|-0.88|<0.001
95810934|NCT04562090|191594694|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.65|-0.97|<0.001
95810935|NCT04562090|191594694|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.58||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.58|-1.17|<0.001
95810936|NCT04562090|191594694|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.78||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.78|-1.10|<0.001
95864474|NCT01185353|191686793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori p-value significance threshold: 2-sided ≤0.10.|ANCOVA|||||||0.097
95779521|NCT03046056|191530778|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference in Proportions|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.2|26.5||||||||26.5|-21.2|
95779522|NCT03046056|191530779|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-95.0|-1.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||-1|-95|
95779523|NCT03046056|191530779|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.0|15.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||15|-76|
95779524|NCT03046056|191530780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.0|28.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||28|-68|
95779525|NCT03046056|191530780|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.0|42.0||||||Diff in LSM, and its 90% CI were from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline segmental MaRIA score, concomitant use of oral, systemically absorbed corticosteroids at baseline, concomitant use of immunomodulators at baseline, prior exposure to biologics, and treatment group.||42|-52|
95779526|NCT02470403|191530805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|-4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of the 80% CI for treatment difference (LIK066 - placebo) was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-4.87|-6.52|<0.001
95779527|NCT02470403|191530805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.96|-5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included dysglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-5.73|-7.96|<0.001
95779528|NCT02470403|191530805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.76|-3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis included normoglycemic subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-3.34|-5.76|<0.001
96001993|NCT00521339|191981537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
95779529|NCT02470403|191530807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.51|-2.16|<0.001
96001994|NCT00521339|191981538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
96001995|NCT00521339|191981539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
96001996|NCT00521339|191981540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.632|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.632
96001997|NCT00521339|191981541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.242
96001998|NCT00521339|191981542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.329
95779530|NCT02470403|191530807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.94|-1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%."||-1.84|-2.94|<0.001
95779531|NCT02470403|191530807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.93|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This analysis on all subjects. The following criteria were assessed:~1. upper confidence limit of 80% CI for treatment difference was less than 0, and~2. estimated mean treatment difference was less than or equal to -5%. The first criterion addressed whether, with high certainty, there was superior weight loss in LIK066 treated group compared to placebo. The second criterion addressed whether observed mean reduction in body weight over placebo was at least 5%"||-1.83|-2.93|<0.001
95779532|NCT01153620|191530822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.006
95810937|NCT04562090|191594694|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.71||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.71|-1.35|<0.001
95810938|NCT04562090|191594694|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of daytime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.81|-1.14|<0.001
95810939|NCT04562090|191594695|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.37|-0.58|<0.001
95810940|NCT04562090|191594695|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-0.53|<0.001
95810941|NCT04562090|191594695|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-0.67|<0.001
95860774|NCT04518995|191680431|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.41|0.28|<0.0001
95779533|NCT00236899|191530831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.345||95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.87|0.345
95779534|NCT00236899|191530832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.69|0.885
95779535|NCT00236899|191530833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.71|0.976
95779536|NCT00236899|191530834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.442||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.754|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.754|0.259|0.0028
95779537|NCT00236899|191530835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.93|0.150
95779538|NCT00236899|191530836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.389|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.389|0.482|0.4567
95810942|NCT04562090|191594695|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.37|-0.52|<0.001
95860775|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.1|-4.4|0.0564
95779539|NCT00236899|191530838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.142
95779540|NCT00236899|191530838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
95779541|NCT00236899|191530839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Schedule (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly) and Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.293
95779542|NCT00236899|191530839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0||||This is the p-value for Treatment Drug (Docetaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Docetaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly vs Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine 3 Weekly + Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine Weekly).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.476
95779543|NCT03313310|191530862|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.98
95779544|NCT03313310|191530862|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.05
95779545|NCT03313310|191530863|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.39||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.39
95779546|NCT03313310|191530863|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.76||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.76
95779547|NCT03313310|191530864|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||<0.001
95779548|NCT03313310|191530864|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.02||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
95779549|NCT03313310|191530865|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.51||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.51
95810943|NCT04562090|191594695|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.38||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.38|-0.68|<0.001
95779550|NCT03313310|191530865|OTHER|A one-sample non-parametric test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.17||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.17
95779551|NCT03313310|191530866|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
95779552|NCT03313310|191530866|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
95779553|NCT03313310|191530867|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779554|NCT03313310|191530867|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.50
95779555|NCT03313310|191530868|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.63||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.63
95779556|NCT03313310|191530868|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779557|NCT03313310|191530869|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779558|NCT03313310|191530869|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.25
95779559|NCT03313310|191530870|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95864475|NCT00329524|191686798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on paired t-test.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95779560|NCT03313310|191530870|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779561|NCT03313310|191530871|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
95779562|NCT03313310|191530871|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A one-sample McNemar's test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was planned. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. However, McNemar's test statistic could not be calculated due to small cell counts.|||
95779563|NCT03313310|191530873|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779564|NCT03313310|191530873|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779565|NCT03313310|191530874|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779566|NCT03313310|191530874|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.75
95779567|NCT03313310|191530875|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.55
95860776|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.0|-5.9|0.0054
95779568|NCT03313310|191530875|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||1.00
95779569|NCT03313310|191530876|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 8-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.45||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.45
95779570|NCT03313310|191530876|OTHER|A one-sample test for change between baseline and 3-month follow-up was conducted.||||||0.07||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.10. This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|McNemar|||||||0.07
95779571|NCT01593254|191530879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
95779572|NCT00561470|191530952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.817||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.34|0.713|0.937||Stratified Log-Rank test p-value. Stratified on ECOG Performance Status and prior Bevacizumab according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. Significance threshold was set to 0.0466 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function.|||0.937|0.713|0.0032
95779573|NCT00561470|191530953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.758||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.99|0.578|0.995||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS|Stratified Log-Rank test||Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS using the Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||0.995|0.578|0.00007
95779574|NCT00561470|191530954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||||0.0001
95779575|NCT01592292|191530957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3037||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor (RF) status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3037
95779576|NCT01592292|191530958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0951
95779577|NCT01592292|191530959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Change in DAS28 at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline DAS28 score and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2390
95779578|NCT01592292|191530960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3212||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3212
95779579|NCT01592292|191530960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7097||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7097
95779580|NCT01592292|191530961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2444||||||Change in TJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2444
95779581|NCT01592292|191530961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3903||||||Change in TJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline TJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3903
95779582|NCT01592292|191530962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5306||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5306
95779583|NCT01592292|191530962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2542||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2542
95779584|NCT01592292|191530963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549||||||Change in SJC at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2549
95779585|NCT01592292|191530963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7644||||||Change in SJC at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline SJC and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7644
95779586|NCT01592292|191530964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8987||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
95779587|NCT01592292|191530964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5808||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5808
95779588|NCT01592292|191530965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2282||||||Change in ESR at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2282
95779589|NCT01592292|191530965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Change in ESR at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline ESR and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5849
95779590|NCT01592292|191530966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4900
95779591|NCT01592292|191530966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1826
95779592|NCT01592292|191530967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894||||||Change in CRP at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1894
95779593|NCT01592292|191530967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805||||||Change in CRP at Month 12 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline CRP and baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate values.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1805
95779594|NCT01592292|191530968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0568||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0568
95779595|NCT01592292|191530969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1167||||||Change in HAQ-DI at Month 6 was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline rheumatoid factor status as covariate value.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1167
95864476|NCT00329524|191686799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||test for order effect|||||||.05
96001999|NCT00521339|191981543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.130
95860777|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0001
95779596|NCT02240069|191531009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.24|0.10
95779597|NCT02240069|191531009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1 for Filtration group relative to Placebo group||0.13|-0.11|0.90
95779598|NCT02240069|191531010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.07|-0.24|0.28
95779599|NCT02240069|191531010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.16|-0.14|0.89
95779600|NCT02240069|191531011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Education group relative to Placebo group||0.00|-0.05|0.06
95810944|NCT04562090|191594695|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.45||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of nighttime incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.45|-0.60|<0.001
95810945|NCT04562090|191594696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.9||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.90|-1.31|<0.001
95810946|NCT04562090|191594696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.96|-1.25|<0.001
95779601|NCT02240069|191531011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in FEV1/FVC for Filter group relative to Placebo group||0.02|-0.03|0.71
95779602|NCT02240069|191531012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.46||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||4.54|-11.45|0.39
95779603|NCT02240069|191531012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in systolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||8.24|-7.73|0.95
95779604|NCT02240069|191531013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Education group relative to Placebo group||3.42|-5.42|0.65
95779605|NCT02240069|191531013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with a fixed term for mean pre-intervention response measure, and a nested random effect to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in diastolic blood pressure for Filter group relative to Placebo group||3.81|-4.97|0.79
95810947|NCT04562090|191594696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.99||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.99|-1.53|<0.001
95860778|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-10.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-10.3|-19.5|<0.0001
95779606|NCT02240069|191531014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|42.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Education group relative to Placebo group||42.0|-33.6|0.88
95779607|NCT02240069|191531014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.1|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models adjusted for pre-intervention PM2.5. The model includes a nested random term to account for repeated measures.||Pre- to post-intervention change in indoor PM2.5 concentration for Filter group relative to Placebo group||-27.8|-66.1|<0.001
95810948|NCT04562090|191594696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-1.05||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.05|-1.34|<0.001
95810949|NCT04562090|191594696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.96||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.96|-1.54|<0.001
95810950|NCT04562090|191594696|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.12||RMA: CFB as response, treatment group, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed effects and mean number of urge incontinence episodes per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.12|-1.42|<0.001
95810951|NCT04562090|191594697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.43||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.43|-3.50|<0.001
95997642|NCT02799381|191971191|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.83||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||4.83|1.71|<0.0001
95779608|NCT02923245|191531017|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|77.2|||||These confidence intervals correspond to the bootstrap analysis|||77.2|23.4|
95779609|NCT02923245|191531018|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.0|||Test of proportions|||||25.0|5.3|0.006
95779610|NCT00232596|191531046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-parametric rank analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline 28-seizure frequency and stratified by baseline seizure frequency category and region|Non-parametric rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95810952|NCT04562090|191594697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-2.65||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.65|-3.44|<0.001
95860779|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-16.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.0|-27.5|<0.0001
95860780|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-23.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-23.8|-36.3|<0.0001
95779611|NCT00232596|191531047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95779612|NCT01712334|191531066|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the eRapid treatment to the mean percent predicted FEV1 at the end of the LC Plus jet nebulizer treatment. The two nebulizers were considered equivalent if the 90% CI was within 80%-125%.|Ratio (Fieller's theorem)|100.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|102.3||||||||102.3|99.5|
95779613|NCT03191864|191531088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95779614|NCT03191864|191531088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002000|NCT00521339|191981545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95779615|NCT03191864|191531088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95779616|NCT03191864|191531088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002001|NCT00521339|191981546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95779617|NCT03191864|191531090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.29|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.26|-2.29|0.020
95779618|NCT03191864|191531090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.10|-3.07|<0.001
95779619|NCT03191864|191531090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-1.26|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-1.26|-3.23|<0.001
95779620|NCT03191864|191531090|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparisons of each APT-1011 dose group to Placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model||-0.59|-2.59|0.005
95779621|NCT03191864|191531092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||0.12|-2.49|0.067
95779622|NCT03191864|191531092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.91|0.672
95779623|NCT03191864|191531092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
95779624|NCT03191864|191531092|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Least-squares Mean differences, 90% confidence intervals and 1-sided p-values for comparison of each APT-1011 dose group to placebo at Week 12 are from an ANCOVA model.||1.59|-0.98|0.653
95779625|NCT03191864|191531094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.06|1.45|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.45|-19.06|0.079
95779626|NCT03191864|191531094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.14|4.78|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||4.78|-15.14|0.195
95779627|NCT03191864|191531094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.55|-2.58|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-2.58|-22.55|0.020
95779628|NCT03191864|191531094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.74|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||EEsAI Total Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-0.48|-20.74|0.043
95810953|NCT04562090|191594697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.39||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-4.39|-5.80|<0.001
95810954|NCT04562090|191594697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.9||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.90|-4.70|<0.001
95779629|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|3.08|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.08|-3.49|0.459
95779630|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|3.8|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||3.80|-2.65|0.617
95779631|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|1.33|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.33|-5.07|0.167
95779632|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|2.61|||ANCOVA|||VDQ Score Change from Baseline Week 12||2.61|-3.88|0.373
95810955|NCT04562090|191594697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-5.24||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-5.24|-6.78|<0.001
95955829|NCT03638258|191883732|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
95955830|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.188|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.188
95955831|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.577|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.577
95955832|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.008
95779633|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|1.64|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||1.64|-4.96|0.203
95955833|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.664|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.664
95779634|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.54|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||-1.13|-7.54|0.014
95779635|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|0.2|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.20|-6.23|0.061
95779636|NCT03191864|191531095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||AMS Score Change from Baseline Week 12||0.69|-5.83|0.097
95779637|NCT02086682|191531109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95779638|NCT00415597|191531111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
95779639|NCT00415597|191531112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Percent change from baseline = 0||||<0.0001
95779640|NCT01650545|191531139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
95779641|NCT03976323|191531168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.36|0.92|0.8721
96002002|NCT00521339|191981547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
96002003|NCT00521339|191981549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
96002004|NCT00521339|191981550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
95997643|NCT02799381|191971192|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-16.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.48|-8.85||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-8.85|-24.48|<0.0001
95779642|NCT03976323|191531169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling and with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 status.|||1.25|0.87|0.6649
95779643|NCT03976323|191531172|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-1.9||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|1.36||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on constrained longitudinal data analysis model (cLDA) model with PRO scores as response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||1.36|-5.16|0.2533
95779644|NCT03976323|191531173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.24|0.76|0.8125
95779645|NCT03976323|191531174|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.9364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|3.71||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||3.71|-4.02|0.9364
95810956|NCT04562090|191594697|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-4.98||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8 and 12), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of OABSS at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.98|-5.82|<0.001
95810957|NCT04562090|191594698|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.21||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.21|-2.73|<0.001
95810958|NCT04562090|191594698|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.81||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.81|-2.90|<0.001
95779646|NCT03976323|191531175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.17|0.66|0.3782
95779647|NCT03976323|191531176|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.83||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.83|-3.54|0.8285
95779648|NCT03976323|191531177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.51||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.51|0.78|0.6272
95779649|NCT03976323|191531178|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.51||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.35|-5.38|0.4422
95779650|NCT03976323|191531179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.31|0.74|0.9156
95779651|NCT03976323|191531180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.9962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.93||Two-sided p-value based on t test.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression as covariates.|||2.93|-2.94|0.9962
95810959|NCT04562090|191594698|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.2||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.20|-4.20|<0.001
95779652|NCT03976323|191531181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG at pre-randomization visit, response at randomization, and baseline PD-L1 expression.|||1.40|0.83|0.5517
95779653|NCT01663857|191531233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
95779654|NCT01663857|191531235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4686
95810960|NCT04562090|191594698|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing was conducted using 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.37||RMA: CFB as response, TG, visit (week 4, 8), pooled site, sex and the interaction between TG and visit as fixed effects and mean number of micturitions per 24 hours at baseline as covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.37|-3.47|<0.001
95810961|NCT00432965|191594709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||Time Frame: Days 0-114||3.02|1.19|0.007
95810962|NCT00835354|191594717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|89.2||||||90.0|86.2|92.2|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.2|86.2|
95955834|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.015
95955835|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.666|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.666
95779655|NCT01172808|191531248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.291|0.181|<0.0001
95779656|NCT01172808|191531248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre , week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.253|0.142|<0.0001
95779657|NCT01172808|191531249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.244|0.126|<0.0001
95810963|NCT00835354|191594718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.5||||||90.0|88.9|92.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.1|88.9|
95810964|NCT00835354|191594719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model containing factors for sequence of products, subjects within sequence, periods, and products was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|90.7||||||90.0|89.1|92.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||92.3|89.1|
95810965|NCT00057577|191594753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||=.038
95779658|NCT01172808|191531249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction.||0.211|0.092|<0.0001
95779659|NCT01172808|191531250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.233|0.114|<0.0001
95810966|NCT00057577|191594754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Subdistribution hazard model|||||||<0.01
95810967|NCT04983979|191594757|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|0.552||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.552|-0.752|
95955836|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.009|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.009
96002005|NCT00521339|191981551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95779660|NCT01172808|191531250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model. Spatial power used as covariance structure. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||0.162|0.042|0.0008
95810968|NCT04983979|191594758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.65|||||Only the mean difference for the study end (week 12) is presented here|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.65|-1.97|
95810969|NCT04983979|191594759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.83|99.13|||||Difference in change in systolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||99.13|-48.83|
95779661|NCT01172808|191531251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.189|0.062|0.0001
95779662|NCT01172808|191531251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.140|0.012|0.0200
95810970|NCT04983979|191594759|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|40.47|||||Difference in change in diastolic blood pressure between study arms.|Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||40.47|-22.92|
95810971|NCT04983979|191594760|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
95810972|NCT04983979|191594761|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.00|0.00|
95955837|NCT03638258|191883733|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression (Firth's penalized likelihood) with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PASI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.163
95810973|NCT04983979|191594762|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.674||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||0.674|-0.174|
95810974|NCT04983979|191594763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.4||||||Due to the small sample size only an estimate of the difference between study arms was generated. No hypothesis tests were completed.||11.4|-19.5|
95810975|NCT04846868|191594765|SUPERIORITY|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on on-treatment periods.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4355||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.918||"Null hypothesis: The adjusted mean change from baseline to Week 26 in MCCB overall composite T-score in iclepertin 10mg is worse than or equal to that in placebo.~one-sided p\< 0.025 required for testing subsequent key secondary endpoint hypotheses"|Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM, including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-patient measurements.||0.918|-0.793|0.8854
95810976|NCT04846868|191594766|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies and partner change in SCoR assessment for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5867||0.6902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.918|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg versus Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.386|-0.918|0.6902
95810977|NCT04846868|191594767|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1388||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.694|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.694|-2.780|0.6334
95810978|NCT04846868|191594768|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0448||0.2902||95.0|-0.041|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Iclepertin 10 mg vs Placebo|MMRM including the fixed effects: treatment at each visit, stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline MCCB overall composite T-score at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.135|-0.041|0.2902
95810979|NCT04846868|191594769|OTHER|The estimated treatment effect included the effect of any concomitant therapies for all randomized patients on-treatment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|2.437|||ANCOVA||Iclepertin 10 mg vs. Placebo|ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and baseline number of correct responses on Tower of London T-score.||2.437|-1.181|0.4956
96002006|NCT00521339|191981552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95955838|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.002
95810980|NCT05339659|191594774|OTHER|The point null hypothesis of the significance test was a difference in expected number of log ins of 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|9.44|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|A priori power calculations estimated detectable differences with 80% power with type 1 error rate=0.05, assuming a two-sided unequal variance t-test (standard deviations of 2.0 and 7.0 in the control and experimental arms, respectively) and a total sample of n=50 equally split between arms. Given a final sample size of 19 (7 control, 12 experimental), we re-calculated the detectable mean difference with these sample sizes (maintaining all other original assumptions), which is 6.51 sessions.||9.44|-2.33|0.219
95810981|NCT05339659|191594776|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average number of days of use between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.12||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.19|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||9.19|-53.44|0.153
95810982|NCT05339659|191594777|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a relative difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.558|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.558|-0.352|0.727
95810983|NCT05339659|191594778|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.61|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.61|-0.60|0.325
95779663|NCT01172808|191531252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.278|0.171|<0.0001
95779664|NCT01172808|191531252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.249|0.141|<0.0001
95779665|NCT01172808|191531253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.215|0.100|<0.0001
95779666|NCT01172808|191531253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.164|0.049|0.0003
95779667|NCT01172808|191531254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.113|47.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||47.700|28.113|<0.0001
95779668|NCT01172808|191531254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.825|43.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||43.529|23.825|<0.0001
95779669|NCT01172808|191531255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.203|-0.057|0.2717
95779670|NCT01172808|191531255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.201|-0.061|0.2956
95779671|NCT01172808|191531256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.085|-0.318|0.0007
95810984|NCT05339659|191594779|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.72|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.72|-1.28|0.745
96002007|NCT00521339|191981553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95955839|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.002
95955840|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||<0.001
96002008|NCT00521339|191981554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95779672|NCT01172808|191531256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||-0.016|-0.250|0.0262
95779673|NCT01172808|191531257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.11||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||2.11|1.02|0.0377
95779674|NCT01172808|191531257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.54||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||2.54|1.22|0.0022
95779675|NCT01172808|191531258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.726|39.455|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||39.455|21.726|<0.0001
95779676|NCT01172808|191531258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.533|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.772|32.549|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||32.549|14.772|<0.0001
95779677|NCT01172808|191531259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|36.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||36.880|19.440|<0.0001
95810985|NCT05339659|191594780|OTHER|The null hypothesis of the significance test is a risk difference=0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.85|0.16|0.009
95779678|NCT01172808|191531259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.462|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.619|33.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||33.120|15.619|<0.0001
95779679|NCT01172808|191531260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.624|-1.740|0.3550
95779680|NCT01172808|191531260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|2.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||2.771|0.388|0.0094
95810986|NCT05339659|191594783|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|5.44|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||5.44|-2.66|0.469
95810987|NCT05339659|191594784|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is a mean difference of 0 cigarettes/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|2.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline cigarettes/day.|mean difference=experimental-control|||2.16|-3.48|0.614
95955841|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 6||||<0.001
95955842|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from placebo at Week 8||||<0.001
96002009|NCT00521339|191981555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
96002010|NCT00521339|191981556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.539
96002011|NCT00521339|191981557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
96002012|NCT00521339|191981558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
96002013|NCT00521339|191981559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.898
96002014|NCT00521339|191981560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.622
95779681|NCT01172808|191531261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.139|0.022|0.0069
95779682|NCT01172808|191531261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.006|0.0810
95779683|NCT01172808|191531262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.126|0.004|0.0363
95779684|NCT01172808|191531262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.100|-0.022|0.2077
95779685|NCT01172808|191531263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.111|-0.436|0.2447
95779686|NCT01172808|191531263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.419|-0.131|0.3046
95779687|NCT01172808|191531264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.102|-0.011|0.1178
95779688|NCT01172808|191531264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo|Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, as well as the covariates of baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction. Patient was included as a random effect in the model.||0.053|-0.061|0.8880
95779689|NCT01172808|191531265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R2.5 / Placebo|||1.72|1.03|0.0308
95779690|NCT01172808|191531265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|||1.71|1.02|0.0348
95779691|NCT03334422|191531283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|1.12|0.026
95955843|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95955844|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
95779692|NCT03334422|191531283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|8.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.05|1.64|0.001
95779693|NCT03334422|191531284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.02|0.90|0.085
95779694|NCT03334422|191531285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|1.12|0.024
95779695|NCT03334422|191531285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|7.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.04|1.73|<0.001
95779696|NCT03334422|191531285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|2.22|<0.001
95779697|NCT03334422|191531286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.97|0.99|0.053
95779698|NCT03334422|191531286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|1.44|0.007
95779699|NCT03334422|191531286|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|15.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.91|2.42|<0.001
95955845|NCT03638258|191883734|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline PSD score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||<0.001
96002015|NCT03046472|191981590|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95779700|NCT03334422|191531287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-26.19|0.062
95779701|NCT03334422|191531287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.78|-12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.99|-38.78|<0.001
95779702|NCT03334422|191531287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.29|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-38.29|<0.001
95779703|NCT03334422|191531288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.76|0.86|0.086
95779704|NCT03334422|191531288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.49|1.58|0.006
95955846|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.184|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.184
95955847|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from placebo at Week 4||||0.207
95955848|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.004
95955849|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.022
95779705|NCT03334422|191531288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|21.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.83|2.51|<0.001
95779706|NCT03334422|191531289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.87|0.51|0.505
95779707|NCT03334422|191531289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.27|1.60|0.002
95779708|NCT03334422|191531289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|10.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.86|2.22|<0.001
95955850|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.003
95779709|NCT03334422|191531290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.57|0.074
95779710|NCT03334422|191531290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
95779711|NCT03334422|191531290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.84|<0.001
95779712|NCT03334422|191531291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|-1.05|0.580
95779713|NCT03334422|191531291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-2.54|<0.001
95779714|NCT03334422|191531291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-2.37|<0.001
95779715|NCT03334422|191531292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.92|0.094
95779716|NCT03334422|191531292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.11|1.65|<0.001
95779717|NCT03334422|191531292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.51|1.80|<0.001
95779718|NCT03334422|191531293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.31|0.39|0.528
95779719|NCT03334422|191531293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.95|0.73|0.142
95779720|NCT03334422|191531293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.37|0.77|0.123
95779721|NCT03334422|191531294|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-14.03|0.059
95779722|NCT03334422|191531294|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.32|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.63|-21.32|<0.001
95779723|NCT03334422|191531294|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-20.69|<0.001
95779724|NCT03334422|191531295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.45|0.62|0.193
95779725|NCT03334422|191531295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|16.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.03|1.05|0.042
95779726|NCT03334422|191531295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.57|1.04|0.044
95779727|NCT03334422|191531296|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-12.53|0.058
95955851|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||<0.001
95955852|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible. ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.003
96002016|NCT03046472|191981591|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
96002017|NCT03046472|191981592|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95779728|NCT03334422|191531296|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-15.42|0.003
95779729|NCT03334422|191531296|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.30|-17.03|<0.001
95779730|NCT03334422|191531297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.189
95779731|NCT03334422|191531297|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95810988|NCT05339659|191594785|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.38|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||2.38|-2.67|0.90
95810989|NCT05339659|191594786|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.93|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.93|-3.03|0.632
95810990|NCT05339659|191594787|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.94|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||-0.94|-3.55|0.227
95810991|NCT05339659|191594788|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in average score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.15|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.15|-3.58|0.274
95810992|NCT05339659|191594792|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
95810993|NCT05339659|191594793|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.43|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.43|-0.49|0.845
95810994|NCT05339659|191594794|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||Barnard's exact test||||risk difference=experimental-control|0.28|-0.47|0.560
95779732|NCT03334422|191531297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.383
95779733|NCT03334422|191531298|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.46||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.45|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-31.45|0.081
95779734|NCT03334422|191531298|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.62|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.70|-46.62|<0.001
95779735|NCT03334422|191531298|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-30.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.29|-15.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.27|-45.29|<0.001
95779736|NCT03334422|191531299|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-4.97|0.075
95779737|NCT03334422|191531299|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.08|-8.07|<0.001
95779738|NCT03334422|191531299|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.68|-8.47|<0.001
95779739|NCT03334422|191531300|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.61|0.130
95779740|NCT03334422|191531300|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.94|<0.001
95779741|NCT03334422|191531300|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.00|<0.001
95779742|NCT03334422|191531301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.07|-1.95|0.067
95779743|NCT03334422|191531301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||0.04|-1.89|0.060
95779744|NCT03334422|191531301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety.||-0.38|-2.23|0.006
95779745|NCT03334422|191531301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.49|-1.50|0.321
95779746|NCT03334422|191531301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||0.24|-1.67|0.143
95779747|NCT03334422|191531301|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression.||-0.26|-2.11|0.012
95779748|NCT03334422|191531302|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-3.67|0.071
95779749|NCT03334422|191531302|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.26|-5.92|<0.001
95779750|NCT03334422|191531302|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-5.98|<0.001
95779751|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|9.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||9.34|-11.16|0.861
95810995|NCT05339659|191594795|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.39|-0.39|0.981
95810996|NCT05339659|191594796|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.34|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.34|-0.49|0.632
95810997|NCT05339659|191594797|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the significance test is 0 difference in probability of engaging with the app component.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.45|||Barnard's exact test||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.45|-0.48|>0.999
95810998|NCT01323192|191594801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||-2.4|-6.7|<0.0001
95779752|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|10.97||Absenteeism|Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||10.97|-8.94|0.841
95779753|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||14.26|-3.95|0.264
95779754|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||8.02|-14.26|0.580
95779755|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-2.86|-24.45|0.015
95779756|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-3.06|-23.20|0.011
95779757|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||11.49|-15.12|0.788
95779758|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||3.55|-22.51|0.152
95779759|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY|Overall Work Impairment|LSMean Difference|-9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.90|-21.17|0.135
95779760|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||6.12|-10.65|0.595
95779761|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|-6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.17|-22.43|<0.001
95779762|NCT03334422|191531303|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-6.83|-22.11|<0.001
95779763|NCT03334422|191531304|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.07|-0.02|0.295
95779764|NCT03334422|191531304|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|0.001
95779765|NCT03334422|191531304|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US Algorithm)||0.12|0.03|<0.001
95779766|NCT03334422|191531304|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.10|-0.03|0.334
95779767|NCT03334422|191531304|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.04|0.001
95779768|NCT03334422|191531304|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.17|0.05|<0.001
95779769|NCT03334422|191531305|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.25|-6.44|0.907
95779770|NCT03334422|191531305|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||14.76|1.63|0.015
95779771|NCT03334422|191531305|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||15.01|2.62|0.006
95779772|NCT03334422|191531306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.93|0.30|0.905
95779773|NCT03334422|191531306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.92|0.95|0.064
95779774|NCT03334422|191531306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.74|2.25|<0.001
95779775|NCT03246061|191531317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Interim Analysis p-value for significance of \<0.025 for an overall alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value from an ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline ODI score. Values have been adjusted for multiple imputation. Note: 3 month visit is computed as post-treatment for the RF Ablation Arm, and post-randomization for the Control Arm.||||<0.001
95779776|NCT03246061|191531318|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Estimates and p-value from ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline VAS score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95779777|NCT03282591|191531335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4||||0.9942|ONE_SIDED|95.0||56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||56.9||0.9942
95779778|NCT03539484|191531381|OTHER|A Bayesian approach is used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).|Posterior probability at dose 1.8 mg|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|26.5||There is no p-value derived; logistic regression is used to estimate the probability of DLT.|Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|2.10|
95779779|NCT03030118|191531400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For the primary outcome (SLICC classification criteria count \[SLICC score\]), measured every 12 weeks over a 96-week period, we used an ordinal logistic regression model to compare the estimated slopes over time for the intervention (HCQ) and placebo groups. The model accounted for the ordinal and non-decreasing properties of the SLICC score. Our null hypothesis was that the intervention slope equaled the placebo slope, with a corresponding hypothesis that the slopes were not equal.||||0.72
95779780|NCT03030118|191531401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||Progression to SLE was defined as the number of subjects in whom a SLICC score of 4 was recorded, up to 96 weeks.||||0.81
95779781|NCT03030118|191531402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Logistic|||"For the SLEDAI score, we combined responses to model the following groups:~* Score of 0 or 1~* Score of 2 or 3~* Score of 4, 6, or 8"||||0.74
95997644|NCT02799381|191971193|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.44|-2.78|<0.0001
95997645|NCT02799381|191971194|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-5.54|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-2.49||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-2.49|-8.59|=0.0006
95779782|NCT03030118|191531403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||"For analysis, we combined responses ≥3 to model the following groups:~* Score of 0~* Score of 1~* Score of 2~* Score of 3 or higher"||||0.77
95779783|NCT03030118|191531404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.386
95810999|NCT01323192|191594802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0002
95811000|NCT01323192|191594803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95779784|NCT03030118|191531405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.497
95779785|NCT03030118|191531406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression||||||0.99
95779786|NCT03030118|191531407|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95779787|NCT03030118|191531408|NON_INFERIORITY|Outcome with hydroxychloroquine is hypothesized to be not inferior to outcome with placebo.|||||>|0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.5
95779788|NCT03030118|191531409|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95779789|NCT03030118|191531410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95779790|NCT00310466|191531413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
95779791|NCT00310466|191531414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95779792|NCT00310466|191531416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
95779793|NCT01472939|191531519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.743|13.862|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.862|-1.743|0.128
95811001|NCT01323192|191594804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95811002|NCT01323192|191594805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA||LS mean of JNS001 minus LS mean of Placebo|||||0.0003
95811003|NCT01323192|191594806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4041|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4041
95779794|NCT01472939|191531519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|15.212|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||15.212|-0.378|0.062
95779795|NCT01472939|191531519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.765|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||9.765|-6.100|0.650
95779796|NCT01472939|191531520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.344|14.85|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||14.850|-1.344|0.102
95779797|NCT01472939|191531520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.92||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|17.021|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||17.021|0.814|0.031
95779798|NCT01472939|191531520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.71||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|13.957|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||13.957|-2.540|0.175
95779799|NCT01472939|191531521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.141|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.141|-5.087|0.064
95779800|NCT01472939|191531521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.818|-0.573|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.573|-5.818|0.017
95779801|NCT01472939|191531521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.813|0.519|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.519|-4.813|0.114
95779802|NCT01004432|191531536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage achive ACR 20 response|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|39.4||One sided test adjusting for conducting one interim analysis|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: proportion \<=0.2||39.4|30.4|<0.0001
95779803|NCT01149421|191531591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.58|-1.0||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-4.58|<0.001
95779804|NCT01149421|191531591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.83|0.68||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-2.83|<0.001
95811004|NCT00189423|191594807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.36|||Fisher Exact|||||2.36|1.07|0.019
95811005|NCT00189423|191594808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 5%||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value is for non-inferiority with a margin of 5% (exact binomial test)|Fisher Exact test, for non-inferiority|||||||0.0001
95811006|NCT00189423|191594808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
95811007|NCT00189423|191594814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95779805|NCT01149421|191531591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95779806|NCT01149421|191531591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
95779807|NCT01149421|191531592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.53|-0.79||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.79|-4.53|<0.001
95779808|NCT01149421|191531592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-3.54|0.12||P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.54|<0.001
95779809|NCT01149421|191531592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95779810|NCT01149421|191531592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
95779811|NCT01149421|191531593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.8|1.43||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.80|<0.001
95779812|NCT01149421|191531593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.67|1.52||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.52|-0.67|<0.001
95779813|NCT01149421|191531593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.870
95955853|NCT03638258|191883735|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.01||||||ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline Itch-Related Sleep Loss NRS score.|ANCOVA|||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.01
95779814|NCT01149421|191531593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.915
95779815|NCT01149421|191531593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.68|1.68||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|-0.68|<0.001
95779816|NCT01149421|191531593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.0|1.31||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-1.00|<0.001
95779817|NCT01149421|191531593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
95779818|NCT01149421|191531593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.776
95779819|NCT01149421|191531594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.52|4.16||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.16|1.52|0.556
95811008|NCT05870345|191594904|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
95811009|NCT05870345|191594905|OTHER|Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||||||||||||||||Sample size too small to perform additional statistical tests.|||
95955854|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.255|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 4||||0.255
95955855|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.687|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream on Week 4||||0.687
95955856|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.045
95955857|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 6||||0.059
95997646|NCT02799381|191971195|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-2.35|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.19||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||-1.19|-3.51|=0.0002
96002018|NCT04985799|191981615|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|28.5|||Chi-squared|||||28.5|1.1|0.04
95779820|NCT01149421|191531594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.32|2.92||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|0.32|0.018
95779821|NCT01149421|191531594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
95779822|NCT01149421|191531594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|97.3|2.1|4.91||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.10|0.904
95779823|NCT01149421|191531594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If non-inferiority was confirmed, then superiority analysis was pursued.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-0.13|2.64||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. P-value reported for non-inferior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.13|0.005
95779824|NCT01149421|191531594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks. Since non-inferiority was confirmed, superiority analysis was pursued. P-value reported for superior to Placebo. The adjustment for multiplicity was based on a tree-gatekeeping testing strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
95779825|NCT01149421|191531595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.00|<0.001
95779826|NCT01149421|191531595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.64||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.64|-2.51|0.001
95779827|NCT01149421|191531595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.09||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-4.10|<0.001
95779828|NCT01149421|191531595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
95779829|NCT01149421|191531596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.42||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-1.84|0.218
95779830|NCT01149421|191531596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.06||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-1.16|0.931
95779831|NCT01149421|191531596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-1.72|0.315
95779832|NCT01149421|191531596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-1.54|0.465
95779833|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-1.61||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.61|-5.04|<0.001
95779834|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.46||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-2.91|0.153
95779835|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.09||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-4.66|0.002
95779836|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.07||Treatment comparison of mean daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-3.57|0.042
95779837|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.75||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-3.23|0.221
95779838|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.81||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-2.10|0.884
95779839|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.39||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-4.31|0.19
95779840|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.54||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-3.31|0.159
95779841|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.122
95779842|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
95997647|NCT02799381|191971196|SUPERIORITY|The likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of the change from baseline to Week 12 used all observed data. The model included fixed, categorical effects for treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, with continuous fixed covariates for baseline score and the baseline score-by-visit interaction.|LS Mean Difference|-4.05|||=|0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.44||Two-sided p-value|Mixed-effects model repeated measures||Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) - Optimized Medical Treatment (OMT) at Week 12|If the primary efficacy variable was statistically significant, each of the secondary variables were to be tested using a fixed sequence as a gatekeeping procedure and at α level of 0.050. Testing was to cease at the point that a secondary variable failed to demonstrate statistical significance.||0.44|-8.55|=0.0762
95779843|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95779844|NCT01149421|191531597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.274
95779845|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-0.91|0.717
95779846|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.54||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.65|0.427
95779847|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.73||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.73|-0.53|0.300
95779848|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.26||Treatment comparison of mean daytime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.96|0.788
95779849|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.37||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.37|-0.20|0.098
95779850|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.08||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|-0.44|0.203
95997648|NCT03952130|191971197|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
95779851|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.82||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.82|-0.88|0.493
95779852|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.6||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-1.06|0.692
95779853|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.990
95779854|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.173
95779855|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.972
95779856|NCT01149421|191531598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
95779857|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.8||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.80|1.17|<0.001
95779858|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.45||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.45|-0.14|0.080
95779859|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.91||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.91|2.23|<0.001
95997649|NCT03952130|191971198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-29.4|0.003
95779860|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.24||Treatment comparison of mean daytime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.39|0.168
95779861|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.28||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|2.62|<0.001
95779862|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.09||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|1.47|<0.001
95779863|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|5.47||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.47|2.49|<0.001
95779864|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.7||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|0.78|0.003
95779865|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95779866|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95779867|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95779868|NCT01149421|191531599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison of mean clinic heart rate (HR) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95779869|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.43||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.43|-4.50|<0.001
95997650|NCT03952130|191971199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-10.0|||ANCOVA|||||-10.0|-41.1|0.001
95779870|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.75||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.75|-2.79|<0.001
95997651|NCT03952130|191971200|OTHER||Relative rate|0.85||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.77|||Empirical method|||||3.77|0.19|0.834
95997652|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=30 minutes post meal||1.38|0.72|0.983
95997653|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|1.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.74|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=1 hour post meal||2.74|0.95|0.076
95997654|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|1.19||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.79|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=2 hours post meal||1.79|0.79|0.409
95997655|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|1.22||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.68|||Negative binomial regression|||\<=4 hours post meal||1.68|0.89|0.217
95997656|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|1.09||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.65|||Negative binomial regression|||\>1 to \<=2 hours post meal||1.65|0.71|0.703
95997657|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|1.24||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.73|||Negative binomial regression|||\>2 to \<=4 hours post meal||1.73|0.89|0.206
95997658|NCT03952130|191971201|OTHER||Relative rate|0.75||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||\>4 hours post meal||1.04|0.55|0.082
95997659|NCT03952130|191971202|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.86|0.309
95997660|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning premeal-fasting||-7.7|-23.8|<.001
95997661|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 1-hour post meal||-4.2|-23.8|0.005
95997662|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-4.8|-25.0|0.004
95779871|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-2.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.28|-4.52|<0.001
95779872|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.03||Treatment comparison of mean daytime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-3.23|<0.001
95779873|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-1.07||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-3.43|<0.001
95779874|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.22||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.09|0.113
95997663|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday premeal||6.8|-11.4|0.616
95997664|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 1-hour post meal||0.1|-18.4|0.054
95997665|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday 2-hour post meal||6.0|-12.6|0.483
95997666|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.5||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening premeal||21.7|-0.6|0.064
95997667|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 1-hour post meal||4.2|-15.5|0.262
95997668|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening 2-hour post meal||2.0|-17.5|0.117
95997669|NCT03952130|191971203|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime||6.2|-15.1|0.414
95997670|NCT03952130|191971204|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Basal insulin dose||0.6|-0.7|0.947
95997671|NCT03952130|191971204|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bolus insulin dose||2.6|-1.3|0.500
95997672|NCT03952130|191971204|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total insulin dose||2.7|-1.4|0.543
95997673|NCT03952130|191971205|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c \< 7%||1.42|0.47|0.462
95997674|NCT03952130|191971205|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.10|0.26|0.089
95997675|NCT01713348|191971206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.19|-1.29|0.9345
95997676|NCT01713348|191971206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in time in range (70-180 mg/dL, 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L) intervention arm compared to control arm.||2.73|0.05|0.0427
95997677|NCT01713348|191971207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.16|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.16|-2.65|0.8367
95997678|NCT01713348|191971207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.4|||ANCOVA|Performed for each type of Diabetes and adjusted for baseline Time in Range.||||2.40|-1.86|0.7969
95997679|NCT01713348|191971208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.02|-0.51|0.0352
95997680|NCT01713348|191971208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-0.54|0.0506
95997681|NCT01713348|191971209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-6.4|0.0580
95997682|NCT01713348|191971209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.9|-13.6|0.0002
95997683|NCT01713348|191971210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.59|0.0580
95997684|NCT01713348|191971210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.45|-1.24|0.0002
95997685|NCT02907944|191971218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.82|0.55
95997686|NCT02907944|191971218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.37|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.37|0.92|0.09
95997687|NCT02907944|191971218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.71|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.71|1.14|0.001
95997688|NCT02907944|191971219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.45|0.81|0.59
95997689|NCT02907944|191971219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.55|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.55|0.88|0.11
95997690|NCT02907944|191971219|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.66|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.66|1.09|0.005
95997691|NCT04178590|191971239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.429
95997692|NCT04178590|191971240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997693|NCT04178590|191971241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95779875|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.62||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.62|-3.86|<0.001
95955858|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.051
95955859|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 8||||0.013
95955860|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.036
95997694|NCT04178590|191971242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997695|NCT04178590|191971243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
95997696|NCT04178590|191971244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
95997697|NCT04178590|191971245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.249
95997698|NCT04178590|191971246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
95997699|NCT04178590|191971247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
95997700|NCT04178590|191971248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997701|NCT04178590|191971249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p\<0.05||||||0.000
95997702|NCT04178590|191971250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997703|NCT04178590|191971251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.063
95997704|NCT04178590|191971252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997705|NCT04178590|191971253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997706|NCT04178590|191971254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997707|NCT04178590|191971255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
95997708|NCT04178590|191971256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997709|NCT04178590|191971257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997710|NCT04178590|191971258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.895
95997711|NCT04178590|191971259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
95997712|NCT04178590|191971260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
95997713|NCT04178590|191971261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.008
95997714|NCT04178590|191971262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.500
95997715|NCT04178590|191971263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
95997716|NCT04178590|191971264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
95997717|NCT04178590|191971265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.40
95997718|NCT04178590|191971266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
95997719|NCT04178590|191971267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.999
95997720|NCT04178590|191971268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
95997721|NCT04178590|191971269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.453
95997722|NCT04178590|191971270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.625
95997723|NCT04178590|191971271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||McNemar|||||||0.999
95997724|NCT04178590|191971272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.000
95997725|NCT04178590|191971273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.001
95997726|NCT04178590|191971274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||p\<0.05|McNemar|||||||0.065
95997727|NCT04178590|191971275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.821
95997728|NCT04178590|191971276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997729|NCT04178590|191971277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95997730|NCT04178590|191971278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997731|NCT04178590|191971279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997732|NCT04178590|191971280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997733|NCT04178590|191971281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997734|NCT04178590|191971282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997735|NCT04178590|191971283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.671
95997736|NCT04178590|191971284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997737|NCT04178590|191971285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95955861|NCT03638258|191883736|SUPERIORITY|Missing data imputed using linear interpolation and LOCF where linear interpretation was not computationally possible.||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor of treatment group and a covariate of baseline DLQI score.||Difference from vehicle cream at Week 12||||0.001
95955862|NCT04405089|191883774|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus Binge Eating Scale score at baseline).||||
95955863|NCT04405089|191883775|OTHER||Linear regression|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Flanker score at baseline).||||
95955864|NCT04405089|191883776|OTHER||Linear regression|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Linear regression (number of traumatic brain injuries versus NIH Set Shifting score at baseline).||||
95955865|NCT00139659|191883777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.08|0.011|||longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||0.011|-0.080|
95955866|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.065|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.015|-0.065|
95955867|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.073|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.006|-0.073|
95955868|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.016|-0.063|
95955869|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.075|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.075|
95955870|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.067|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.012|-0.067|
95955871|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.073|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.008|-0.073|
95955872|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.059|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.059|
95955873|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.052|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.031|-0.052|
95955874|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.068|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.068|
95779876|NCT01149421|191531600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.51||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime pulse pressure (PP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-2.72|0.004
95955875|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.117|-0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.029|-0.117|
95955876|NCT00139659|191883778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.108|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.015|-0.108|
95955877|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||||90.0|-0.679|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.679|
95997738|NCT04178590|191971286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997739|NCT04178590|191971287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
95997740|NCT04178590|191971288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997741|NCT04178590|191971289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997742|NCT04178590|191971290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95997743|NCT04419506|191971301|OTHER||Posterior difference|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|154.2|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||154.2|29.5|
95997744|NCT04419506|191971301|OTHER||Posterior difference|62.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|125.5|||||Difference calculated as BI 1015550 - Placebo|Adjusted means in the placebo group were combined with the meta-analytic predictive priors derived based on the clinical trials in the nintedanib clinical development program in IPF. In order to evaluate the treatment effects, the posterior distribution for the treatment difference of BI 1015550 versus placebo with respect to the primary endpoint was used. The median of the posterior distribution for the treatment difference (and 95% credible intervals) was calculated.||125.5|6.3|
95997745|NCT01521845|191971319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95997746|NCT01521845|191971320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95997747|NCT01521845|191971321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||not comparable|||||||1
95997748|NCT03047005|191971333|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.07
95997749|NCT03047005|191971334|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session. Model adjusted for stage 1 treatment condition.||||||.01
95997750|NCT01929083|191971361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.04
95997751|NCT01929083|191971362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.003
95811010|NCT01668004|191594918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Treatment comparison of uveitis occurrence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=93.||||1.0000
95997752|NCT01929083|191971363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for incidence of fatigue/malaise|Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95997753|NCT01929083|191971363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||p values for incidence of headache|Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
95997754|NCT01929083|191971363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of mood changes|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95997755|NCT01929083|191971363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of breast tenderness|Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95811011|NCT01668004|191594919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||Treatment difference (expressed as ratio) in uveitis incidence rate assessed 1 year before initial anti-TNF/GLM treatment and 1 year after start of GLM treatment. Number of subjects included in analysis: N=92.||5.25|3.86|<0.0001
95811012|NCT04023045|191594923|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95811013|NCT04023045|191594924|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95811014|NCT04023045|191594925|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95997756|NCT01929083|191971363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of hypotension|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95997757|NCT01929083|191971363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for incidence of vertigo requiring discontinuation of therapy|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95997758|NCT01929083|191971364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
95997759|NCT01929083|191971365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.002
95997760|NCT01929083|191971366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for bradycardia|Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
95997761|NCT01929083|191971366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for burning at infusion site|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95997762|NCT01929083|191971366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||p value for transient QTc interval \> 500 ms|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.99
95997763|NCT01929083|191971367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.43
95997764|NCT01929083|191971368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.36
95997765|NCT01929083|191971369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.0001
95997766|NCT01929083|191971370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.0001
95997767|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non-adjusted||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.001
95997768|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.017
95997769|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||non-adjusted|paired, t-test|||REST-TO-REGADENOSON STRESS||||0.495
95997770|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST||||0.365
95997771|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.602
95997772|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.915
95997773|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.033
95997774|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
95997775|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.087
95997776|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS CHANGE||||0.399
95997777|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.030
95997778|NCT02115308|191971523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.048
95997779|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Non-adjusted.|paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.011
95997780|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||non-adjusted|paired t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.003
95997781|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.39|||||||paired, t-test|||Rest VS Regadenoson Stress||||0.390
95997782|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
95997783|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted|||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||<0.000
95997784|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|non-adjusted||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||REST||||0.022
95997785|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.001
95997786|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
95997787|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||non-adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.006
95779877|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.28||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-2.22|0.128
95779878|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.13||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|-1.32|0.883
95779879|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.72||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-1.84|0.390
95779880|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.79||Treatment comparison of mean daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-1.72|0.463
95779881|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.76||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-1.13|0.671
95811015|NCT04023045|191594926|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95811016|NCT04023045|191594927|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95997788|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||<0.000
95997789|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Changes||||0.058
95997790|NCT02115308|191971524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non-adjusted||REST-TO-STRESS Change||||0.310
95997791|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.001
95997792|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.002
95997793|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.721
95997794|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.797
95997795|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.474
95997796|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.537|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.537
95997797|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.717
95997798|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.041
95997799|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.050
95997800|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908||||||non adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.908
95997801|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||||||0.233
95997802|NCT02115308|191971525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.187
95997803|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.008
95997804|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.006
95997805|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||paired, t-test|non adjusted||REST vs STRESS||||0.428
95997806|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
95997807|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||<0.000
95997808|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST||||0.006
95997809|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.002
95997810|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||<0.000
95997811|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||Regadenoson STRESS||||0.004
95997812|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||<0.000
95997813|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.172
95997814|NCT02115308|191971527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|non adjusted||REST-to-STRESS Change||||0.957
95997815|NCT03119649|191971531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.0||P-value obtained from the Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.0|-11.6|0.4291
95997816|NCT03119649|191971531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.6||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.6|-12.8|0.3477
95997817|NCT03119649|191971531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-8.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||-8.3|-23.2|<0.0001
95811017|NCT04023045|191594928|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95811018|NCT04023045|191594929|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95811019|NCT04023045|191594930|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were used to compare the Habitual condition to the Assist-Knee conditions.|||
95811020|NCT02448381|191594949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
95811021|NCT02448381|191594950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95811022|NCT02448381|191594951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||McNemar|||||||0.046
95811023|NCT02448381|191594952|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0009
95997818|NCT03119649|191971531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||1.2|-13.9|0.0995
95997819|NCT03119649|191971532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||5.4|-3.1|0.5940
95811024|NCT02448381|191594953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95811025|NCT00744861|191594973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|site stratified||||||0.9905
95811026|NCT04752566|191594984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.97||Log Rank Test stratified by randomization strata.|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model stratified by randomization strata, with treatment group as the fixed effect. Firth's adjustment was applied if no event was observed in a treatment group.|||1.97|0.45|0.8938
95811027|NCT04752566|191594985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.17|0.27|0.8987
95811028|NCT04752566|191594985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.02|0.18|0.4083
95811029|NCT04752566|191594986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.24|0.6739
95811030|NCT02038647|191594994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.067||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.067|0.557|0.113
95811031|NCT02038647|191594996|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.341||P-value tests the hypothesis of equal event times in both treatment arms obtained using the Log-rank test stratified by disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases.|Log Rank||The stratification factors were: disease subtype as sensitive versus resistant/refractory and the presence of brain metastases (yes or no) with treatment (Alisertib + Paclitaxel vs Placebo + Paclitaxel) as a factor in the model.|||1.341|0.652|0.714
95811032|NCT02038647|191594997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.55||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using ORR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.55|0.35|0.406
95811033|NCT02038647|191594998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|9999.99||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using CRR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||9999.99|0.01|0.283
95811034|NCT02038647|191594999|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08||Stratification factors were disease subtypes (sensitive versus resistant/refractory), the presence of brain metastases and region.|Weighted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||Logistic regression using DCR as dependent variable, treatment arm as independent variable and disease subtype (sensitive vs resistant/refractory) and presence of brain metastases as stratification factors.|||1.08|0.32|0.077
95811035|NCT03097289|191595063|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the recovery (%) of platelets is the demonstration of non-inferiority by the rejection of the Null Hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses: Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd=μT-0.66\*μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \>~Let Xi = (XTi-0.66\*XCi) be a difference if recovery for patient i. The sample mean and standard deviations of these observed differences will be used to construct the lower limit of a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.18|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.03||||||||||4.03|
95811036|NCT03097289|191595064|NON_INFERIORITY|"The acceptance criterion for the survival (days) of platelets is the demonstration of non inferiority by the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0) defined by the following hypotheses:~Null Hypothesis H0: μd ≤ 0 where μd = μT-0.58 × μC Alternate Hypothesis H1: μd \> 0"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.39||||||||||0.39|
95811037|NCT00049543|191595121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.64|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival distribution for overall survival by treatment arm are reported, and the log rank test stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (exclude center) was used to compare the difference in the overall survival between two treatment arms. Hazard ratio of comparison of study treatment arm to placebo and it 95% C.I. were reported.||1.64|0.94|0.14
95811038|NCT00049543|191595122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.61||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization (except center)||||1.61|0.93|0.15
95997820|NCT03119649|191971532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.7553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.8||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.8|-3.5|0.7553
95997821|NCT03119649|191971532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.9||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||4.9|-2.9|0.5958
95997822|NCT03119649|191971532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.2||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||6.2|-1.6|0.2403
95997823|NCT03119649|191971533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.4||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 50 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||12.4|-6.9|0.5749
95997824|NCT03119649|191971533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|11.3||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 100 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||11.3|-8.1|0.7381
95997825|NCT03119649|191971533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|15.7||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 200 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||15.7|-2.0|0.1282
95997826|NCT03119649|191971533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.5||P-value obtained from the MMRM analysis with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Day 29: GLPG2222 400 mg QD vs. Pooled Placebo||10.5|-7.3|0.7212
95997827|NCT01982630|191971574|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|4.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.13|-4.59|
95997828|NCT01982630|191971574|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.48|-2.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.01|-10.48|
95997829|NCT01982630|191971574|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|1.81|
95955878|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.729|-0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.027|-0.729|
95955879|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.696|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.004|-0.696|
95997830|NCT01982630|191971574|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|5.64|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.64|-2.65|
95997831|NCT01982630|191971574|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.52|-0.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-0.52|-8.52|
95997832|NCT01982630|191971574|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|5.83|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.83|-2.38|
95997833|NCT01982630|191971575|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.55|0.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||0.32|-4.55|
95997834|NCT01982630|191971575|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|5.66|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.66|-0.61|
95997835|NCT01982630|191971575|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|7.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||7.93|1.35|
95779882|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.95||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.95|-0.90|0.471
95997836|NCT01982630|191971576|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|3.71|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||3.71|-5.01|
95997837|NCT01982630|191971576|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.66|-2.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-2.19|-10.66|
95997838|NCT01982630|191971576|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|9.97|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.97|1.57|
95997839|NCT01982630|191971576|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|4.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.00|-4.29|
95955880|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.847|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.145|-0.847|
95955881|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.260|-0.960|
95955882|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-0.721|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.001|-0.721|
95955883|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||||90.0|-0.655|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.073|-0.655|
95955884|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||||90.0|-0.788|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.052|-0.788|
95955885|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||||90.0|-0.717|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.042|-0.717|
95955886|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.181|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.397|-1.181|
95955887|NCT00139659|191883779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||||90.0|-1.178|-0.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.393|-1.178|
95955888|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.066|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.023|-0.066|
95955889|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.044|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.044|-0.044|
95955890|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.056|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.032|-0.056|
95955891|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.048|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.048|
95955892|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.089|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.001|-0.089|
95779883|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|-1.95|0.543
95779884|NCT01149421|191531601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.2||Treatment comparison of mean nighttime mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|-1.72|0.728
95779885|NCT01149421|191531614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95779886|NCT01149421|191531614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Treatment comparison at 16 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95779887|NCT01149421|191531614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95779888|NCT01149421|191531614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95779889|NCT04108988|191531620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.248
95779890|NCT04108988|191531620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.022
95779891|NCT04108988|191531620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.193
95779892|NCT04108988|191531621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 4 months||||0.246
95779893|NCT04108988|191531621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.467
95779894|NCT04108988|191531621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.550
95997840|NCT01982630|191971576|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.91|-1.92|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||-1.92|-9.91|
95997841|NCT01982630|191971576|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.62|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||4.62|-3.60|
95997842|NCT01982630|191971577|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.02|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.02|-3.80|
95997843|NCT01982630|191971577|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|9.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||9.15|1.34|
95997844|NCT01982630|191971577|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|10.22|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||10.22|2.05|
95997845|NCT01982630|191971578|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|2.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||2.57|-3.71|
95997846|NCT01982630|191971578|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|12.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.03|3.50|
95997847|NCT01982630|191971578|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.89|12.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.79|3.89|
95997848|NCT01982630|191971579|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|5.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||5.09|-2.40|
95997849|NCT01982630|191971579|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|13.3|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||13.30|3.29|
95779895|NCT04108988|191531622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.596
95779896|NCT04108988|191531622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at 1 month||||0.974
95779897|NCT04108988|191531622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.651
95779898|NCT04108988|191531623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.089
95997850|NCT01982630|191971579|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|12.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.20|1.69|
95997851|NCT01982630|191971580|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|6.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||6.34|-1.42|
95997852|NCT01982630|191971580|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|14.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||14.81|4.42|
95997853|NCT01982630|191971580|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|12.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline TWA0-24hr of heart rate as a covariate||||12.60|1.70|
95997854|NCT01982630|191971581|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-1.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||-1.14|-6.80|
95997855|NCT01982630|191971581|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.33|2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.93|-4.33|
95997856|NCT01982630|191971581|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|7.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.06|-0.54|
95997857|NCT01982630|191971582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|2.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||2.15|-5.31|
95997858|NCT01982630|191971582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|7.35|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.35|-2.32|
95997859|NCT01982630|191971582|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|9.16|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.16|-0.96|
95997860|NCT01982630|191971583|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.31|0.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||0.34|-7.31|
95997861|NCT01982630|191971583|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|9.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||9.03|-1.11|
95997862|NCT01982630|191971583|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|12.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||12.73|2.16|
95860781|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-21.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-21.8|-35.1|<0.0001
95860782|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-31.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-31.3|-45.7|<0.0001
95955893|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.035|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.056|-0.035|
95955894|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.028|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.064|-0.028|
95955895|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.051|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.041|-0.051|
95955896|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||||90.0|-0.07|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.026|-0.070|
95997863|NCT01982630|191971584|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|4.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||4.57|-4.51|
95997864|NCT01982630|191971584|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|10.73|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||10.73|-1.33|
95779899|NCT04108988|191531624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.095
95779900|NCT04108988|191531625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.136
95779901|NCT04108988|191531626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.133
95779902|NCT04108988|191531627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.210
95779903|NCT04108988|191531628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.392
95779904|NCT04108988|191531629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.411
95779905|NCT04108988|191531630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.294
95779906|NCT04108988|191531631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.031
95779907|NCT04108988|191531632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time||Test of interaction with treatment and time.||||0.262
95779908|NCT04108988|191531633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.116
95779909|NCT04108988|191531634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.016
95779910|NCT04108988|191531635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||ANOVA|Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||Test for the interaction between treatment and time.||||0.667
95779911|NCT04108988|191531636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.09
95779912|NCT04108988|191531636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||P value 1 month||||0.72
95779913|NCT04108988|191531636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline||||0.97
95779914|NCT04108988|191531637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4||||0.53
95779915|NCT04108988|191531637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1||||0.303
95779916|NCT04108988|191531637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.042
95860783|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
95955897|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||||90.0|-0.064|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.034|-0.064|
95997865|NCT01982630|191971584|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|11.0|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.00|-1.67|
95997866|NCT01982630|191971585|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.39|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||7.39|-0.70|
95997867|NCT01982630|191971585|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|14.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||14.23|3.53|
95997868|NCT01982630|191971585|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|11.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline peak heart rate as a covariate||||11.15|-0.08|
95997869|NCT01982630|191971586|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.98|-0.12|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.12|-6.98|
95997870|NCT01982630|191971586|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|5.49|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.49|-3.38|
95997871|NCT01982630|191971586|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|9.23|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||9.23|-0.02|
95997872|NCT01982630|191971587|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.59|2.28|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||2.28|-4.59|
95997873|NCT01982630|191971587|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.99|13.31|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.31|3.99|
95997874|NCT01982630|191971587|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.96|14.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.65|4.96|
95997875|NCT01982630|191971588|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|-0.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||-0.56|-7.52|
95997876|NCT01982630|191971588|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.57|14.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||14.89|5.57|
95997877|NCT01982630|191971588|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.38|19.15|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||19.15|9.38|
95997878|NCT01982630|191971589|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.47|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||1.47|-5.70|
95779917|NCT04108988|191531638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.246
95779918|NCT04108988|191531638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.467
95779919|NCT04108988|191531638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.55
95779920|NCT04108988|191531639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.987
95779921|NCT04108988|191531639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.898
95779922|NCT04108988|191531639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at baseline.||||0.238
95779923|NCT04108988|191531640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 4.||||0.148
95779924|NCT04108988|191531640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||P value at month 1.||||0.557
95779925|NCT04108988|191531641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.653
95779926|NCT04108988|191531642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
95997879|NCT01982630|191971589|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|13.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.64|18.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||18.03|8.64|
95997880|NCT01982630|191971589|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|15.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.53|20.38|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||20.38|10.53|
95779927|NCT04108988|191531643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.735
95779928|NCT04108988|191531643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.159
95779929|NCT04108988|191531644|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||3.19
95779930|NCT04108988|191531644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.487
95779931|NCT04108988|191531644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.165
95779932|NCT04108988|191531645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.473
95779933|NCT04108988|191531645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.316
95779934|NCT04108988|191531645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.345
95779935|NCT04108988|191531646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 4.||||0.141
95779936|NCT04108988|191531646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at month 1.||||0.314
95779937|NCT04108988|191531646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P value at baseline.||||0.444
95779938|NCT00355706|191531653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.964
95779939|NCT00355706|191531654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.892
95779940|NCT00355706|191531655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.560
95779941|NCT04007107|191531821|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|30.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|34.8|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||34.8|26.6|<0.0001
95779942|NCT00980174|191531826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||5.6|4.0|<0.0001
95779943|NCT00980174|191531827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||2.6|1.5|<0.0001
95811039|NCT02106832|191595124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7062||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.3928|1.2698|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 99.9% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2698|0.3928|0.0511
95811040|NCT02106832|191595132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8662||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.6206|1.209|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.2090|0.6206|0.3965
95811041|NCT02421094|191595135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1621|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1621
95811042|NCT02421094|191595136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9835|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9835
95811043|NCT02421094|191595137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2660
95811044|NCT04716894|191595147|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|197.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|187.9|208.15|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 7.0.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||208.15|187.90|
95811045|NCT04716894|191595148|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|143.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.92|168.6|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 22.1.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||168.60|121.92|
95811046|NCT04716894|191595149|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|201.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.23|211.52|||||Ratio (%) = T/R\*100. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 6.5.|Relative bioavailability. Model used was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. Data were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random effect, whereas 'treatment' was considered as fixed effect.||211.52|192.23|
95860784|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|-36.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-36.8|-52.3|<0.0001
95811047|NCT04724837|191595152|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo (PBO)||-23.5|-42.5|<0.001
95811048|NCT04724837|191595153|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided p-value is presented. A p-value \<0.10 indicates statistical significance, which is consistent with a one-sided test at the 5% level.|Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|0.002
95811049|NCT04724837|191595154|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean CFB|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline (CFB) \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.5|-6.8|
95811050|NCT04724837|191595154|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|-4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office systolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-4.9|-10.3|
95955898|NCT00139659|191883782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||||90.0|-0.067|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.037|-0.067|
95955899|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||||90.0|-1.778|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.514|-1.778|
95955900|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-1.079|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.120|-1.079|
95860785|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-31.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-31.8|-46.7|<0.0001
95811051|NCT04724837|191595155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-1.0|-5.0|
95860786|NCT04518995|191680432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-39.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-39.0|-55.1|<0.0001
95860787|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95955901|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||||90.0|-0.535|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.700|-0.535|
95811052|NCT04724837|191595155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean CFB|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for office diastolic blood pressure.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-3.7|-7.1|
95811053|NCT04724837|191595156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-13.6|-38.4|
95811054|NCT04724837|191595156|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted % mean change from baseline|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.5|-23.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If adjusted percentage mean change from baseline \>0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for UACR.|Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-23.5|-42.5|
95955902|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||||90.0|-1.184|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.077|-1.184|
95955903|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.677|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.608|-1.677|
95955904|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.905|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||||90.0|-2.014|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.203|-2.014|
95779944|NCT00980174|191531828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.0|1.3|<0.0001
95779945|NCT00980174|191531829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.2||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||3.2|1.4|<0.0001
95779946|NCT00980174|191531830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|ANCOVA|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score|Denosumab - Placebo|||1.6|0.2|0.0144
95779947|NCT00980174|191531831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons by Hochberg method|Van Elteren Rank Test|Adjusted by level of baseline bone mineral density T-score||||||<0.0001
95779948|NCT02332239|191531832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed effects longitudinal regression||d=0.37|BDI Score where baseline \>=20: 8 week||||0.07
95779949|NCT02332239|191531833|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||quantile regression models|Controlled for baseline and gender|d=0.46|CTS Score where baseline \>=4: 8 week||||0.01
95779950|NCT02332239|191531836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95779951|NCT00006305|191531837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.005||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.02||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Revascularization compared with Medical therapy|||0.020|-0.031|0.97
95779952|NCT00006305|191531837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.003||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of all-cause mortality for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.022|-0.029|0.89
95779953|NCT00006305|191531838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.013||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.022||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Revascularization compared with Medical Therapy|||0.022|-0.049|0.70
95779954|NCT00006305|191531838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.024||||0.13||95.0|-0.06|0.012||A separate test with alpha=0.05 was conducted for each treatment comparison of the main effects in the 2x2 factorial design.|Log Rank||Risk difference of Death/MI/Stroke for Insulin Sensitizing glycemic control strategy compared with Insulin Providing glycemic control strategy|||0.012|-0.060|0.13
95779955|NCT01393132|191531840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0108
95779956|NCT01393132|191531841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Ocular Discomfort Index score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0141
95779957|NCT01393132|191531842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Tear Film Break up Time between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups.||||0.0162
95779958|NCT04245202|191531843|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95779959|NCT04245202|191531844|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95779960|NCT04245202|191531845|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95779961|NCT04245202|191531846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.53|-1.05||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||-1.05|-23.53|<0.001
95811055|NCT04724837|191595157|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||2.6|-0.5|
95997881|NCT01982630|191971590|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|5.7|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||5.70|-1.47|
95811056|NCT04724837|191595157|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.1|
95955905|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||||90.0|-0.899|1.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.323|-0.899|
95955906|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||||90.0|-1.08|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||1.169|-1.080|
95955907|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||||90.0|-1.382|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.902|-1.382|
95955908|NCT00139659|191883783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||||90.0|-1.673|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.668|-1.673|
95955909|NCT00139659|191883797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||||90.0|-0.858|-0.148|||Longitudinal data analysis model|Confidence interval of least squares (LS) mean difference (INH - SC) between annual rates of change for the two treatment groups.|Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Time, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on day of randomization.|Treatment group difference (Exubera minus subcutaneous insulin): annualized rate of change over time. Longitudinal data analysis methods with random effects were used to model the pulmonary function test (PFT) measurements. Random effects included the intercept and slope with respect to time (visit); all remaining effects were fixed. The estimated rate of change over time for each treatment group was derived from this model.||-0.148|-0.858|
95955910|NCT00139659|191883801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|-0.06|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.28|-0.06|
95955911|NCT00139659|191883801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||90.0|0.04|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.38|0.04|
95955912|NCT00139659|191883801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.01|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.34|-0.01|
95955913|NCT00139659|191883801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.03|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.32|-0.03|
95955914|NCT00139659|191883801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||90.0|-0.12|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.24|-0.12|
95955915|NCT00139659|191883801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||90.0|-0.19|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of treatment, Week, Baseline HbA1c, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.22|-0.19|
95955916|NCT00139659|191883802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.874||||90.0|-2.351|23.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|Confidence interval for the LS mean of that particular treatment.||Week 6; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||23.581|-2.351|
95955917|NCT00139659|191883802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.804||||90.0|-19.79|5.909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||5.909|-19.79|
95955918|NCT00139659|191883802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||||90.0|-17.63|8.382|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||8.382|-17.63|
95955919|NCT00139659|191883802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.828|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.888||||90.0|-11.16|14.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.817|-11.16|
95955920|NCT00139659|191883802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.991||||90.0|-12.01|14.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||14.307|-12.01|
95955921|NCT00139659|191883802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.816||||90.0|-8.664|17.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); Analysis of change from Baseline in fasting plasma glucose: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneouas Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model): includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline, Fasting Plasma Glucose, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||17.157|-8.664|
95811057|NCT04724837|191595157|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.5|-2.8|
95811058|NCT04724837|191595157|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||0.3|-2.5|
95811059|NCT04724837|191595157|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.8|-1.6|
95811060|NCT04724837|191595157|SUPERIORITY||LS mean CFB|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change from baseline \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 14 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.7|-3.5|
95811061|NCT04724837|191595159|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and Week 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 0.25 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||-0.4|-4.0|
95997882|NCT01982630|191971590|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.73|15.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||15.13|5.73|
95997883|NCT01982630|191971590|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|13.24|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline RMHR as a covariate||||13.24|3.40|
95997884|NCT01982630|191971606|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|29.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.34|54.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||54.77|4.34|
95811062|NCT04724837|191595159|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||If mean change \<0 then the result favours Dapa 10 mg + PBO for eGFR.|Week 1 and 12 - Comparison between Zibotentan 1.5 mg + Dapagliflozin and Dapagliflozin 10 mg + PBO||1.3|-1.8|
95811063|NCT04222673|191595179|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
95811064|NCT04222673|191595180|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
95811065|NCT04222673|191595181|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
95811066|NCT04222673|191595182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
95811067|NCT04222673|191595183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
95811068|NCT04222673|191595184|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||||||.05
95997885|NCT01982630|191971606|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|26.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|50.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||50.19|2.02|
95997886|NCT01982630|191971606|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.23|27.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||27.14|-20.23|
95997887|NCT01982630|191971606|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-26.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.96|-2.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-2.93|-49.96|
95997888|NCT01982630|191971606|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.04|-7.77|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.77|-52.04|
95997889|NCT01982630|191971606|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-79.53|-32.48|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-32.48|-79.53|
95860788|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95860789|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95860790|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95955922|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||||90.0|-1.829|-0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.331|-1.829|
95997890|NCT01982630|191971607|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|14.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|40.18|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||40.18|-10.25|
95997891|NCT01982630|191971607|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.52|30.65|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||30.65|-17.52|
95997892|NCT01982630|191971607|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.29|32.08|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||32.08|-15.29|
95997893|NCT01982630|191971607|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-35.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.75|-11.72|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.72|-58.75|
95955923|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.475|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||||90.0|-1.233|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.284|-1.233|
95997894|NCT01982630|191971607|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.77|-21.5|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.50|-65.77|
95997895|NCT01982630|191971607|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-50.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-73.72|-26.68|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-26.68|-73.72|
95997896|NCT01982630|191971608|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.59|-5.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.81|-56.59|
95997897|NCT01982630|191971608|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-25.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.25|0.01|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||0.01|-50.25|
95860791|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95860792|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95860793|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95860794|NCT04518995|191680433|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95955924|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||||90.0|-0.931|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.562|-0.931|
95997898|NCT01982630|191971608|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.31|5.14|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||5.14|-17.31|
95997899|NCT01982630|191971609|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-27.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.87|-2.09|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-2.09|-52.87|
95997900|NCT01982630|191971609|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-30.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.72|-5.46|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||-5.46|-55.72|
95997901|NCT01982630|191971609|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.11|14.34|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||14.34|-8.11|
95997902|NCT01982630|191971610|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.88|30.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||30.06|-20.88|
95997903|NCT01982630|191971610|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.68|19.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||19.85|-30.68|
95997904|NCT01982630|191971610|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|21.78|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||21.78|-1.77|
95811069|NCT04222673|191595185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
95860795|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95811070|NCT04222673|191595186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||the Reliable Change Index|||Given the small sample size and recommendations for pilot studies, quantitative analyses were descriptive (frequencies, means) and based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each participant for each outcome measure. The RCI is used to determine whether pre- to post- score differences are statistically reliable and to categorize changes as either improved, deteriorated, or indeterminate. A statistical threshold of RCI score z = + 1.96 and p \< .05 was used to establish clinical significance.||||.05
95811071|NCT03620981|191595205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-4.3|-10.0|< 0.0001
95811072|NCT03620981|191595205|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.7|-6.8|0.0175
95811073|NCT03620981|191595206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
95811074|NCT03620981|191595206|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.6|0.0083
95811075|NCT03620981|191595207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH), Last observation carried forward (LOCF)||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.6|-1.2|< 0.0001
95811076|NCT03620981|191595207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH, LOCF||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1 mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 10.||-0.1|-0.8|0.0052
95811077|NCT01380080|191595230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative probability difference|-0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.94|||z-test|||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B- arm A) in the Kaplan-Meier estimate for 24 week cumulative probability of death or unknown vital status with 95% confidence interval||2.94|-3.05|0.97
95811078|NCT00210132|191595246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportions.||||0.99
95811079|NCT00210132|191595247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95811080|NCT00937105|191595298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Probability of no-CIE|92.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.6|96.9|||Kaplan-Meier|Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of remaining CIE-free presented for entire cohort (both solution groups) to remain consistent with the primary aim||Cumulative Unadjusted Probability of Remaining Infiltrate Free in entire Cohort||96.9|88.6|
95811081|NCT00937105|191595299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.737||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.156|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial lens bioburden|To determine if microbial contamination of lenses is a risk factor for CIE||6.156|0.49|0.3923
95811082|NCT00937105|191595300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|10.393|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no corneal staining|||10.393|0.167|0.7943
95955925|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||||90.0|-0.929|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.550|-0.929|
95955926|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||||90.0|-1.294|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.178|-1.294|
95955927|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||||90.0|-1.517|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.022|-1.517|
95955928|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||||90.0|-2.51|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 11; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.405|-2.510|
95955929|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.891|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.634|-0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.149|-1.634|
95860796|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95955930|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||||90.0|-1.725|-0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||-0.234|-1.725|
95997905|NCT01982630|191971611|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.53|10.57|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.57|-40.53|
95997906|NCT01982630|191971611|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.77|10.76|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||10.76|-39.77|
95997907|NCT01982630|191971611|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.47|11.52|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline FPG as a covariate||||11.52|-12.47|
95997908|NCT01982630|191971612|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-43.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.81|-21.55|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-21.55|-65.81|
95997909|NCT01982630|191971612|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.35|-25.45|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-25.45|-69.35|
95997910|NCT01982630|191971612|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.76|13.19|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||13.19|-5.76|
95997911|NCT01982630|191971613|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-34.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.14|-11.88|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.88|-56.14|
95997912|NCT01982630|191971613|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.15|-17.26|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-17.26|-61.15|
95997913|NCT01982630|191971613|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|14.67|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||14.67|-4.28|
95997914|NCT01982630|191971614|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.89|-1.56|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.56|-45.89|
95997915|NCT01982630|191971614|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-33.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.93|-11.98|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-11.98|-55.93|
95997916|NCT01982630|191971614|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|10.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|19.89|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||19.89|0.56|
95997917|NCT01982630|191971615|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-23.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.65|-1.32|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-1.32|-45.65|
95779962|NCT04245202|191531847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analyses, p values \<0·05 were considered being statistically significant.||-3.28|-22.05|<0.001
95997918|NCT01982630|191971615|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|-29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.74|-7.79|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||-7.79|-51.74|
95997919|NCT01982630|191971615|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|15.93|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|Fixed effects for treatment, day and treatment by day interaction, a random effect for participant and baseline 24-hour WMG as a covariate||||15.93|-3.39|
95997920|NCT03248128|191971621|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.129|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.129|0.037|<0.001
95997921|NCT03248128|191971622|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||8.4|-2.0|0.228
95997922|NCT03248128|191971623|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||10.9|1.4|0.011
95997923|NCT03248128|191971624|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.073||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.118|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||0.118|0.028|0.002
95997924|NCT03248128|191971625|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||3.8|-4.5|0.870
95997925|NCT03248128|191971626|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||4.1|-4.2|0.988
95997926|NCT03248128|191971627|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.035||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.01|0.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.080|-0.010|0.124
95997927|NCT03248128|191971628|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.10|0.910
95997928|NCT03248128|191971629|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.2|-3.6|0.614
95997929|NCT03248128|191971630|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, region, sex, age and treatment.||||6.3|-3.6|0.594
95811083|NCT00937105|191595301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.822|||Regression, Cox|Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|referent is no substantial case bioburden|||2.822|0.161|0.5894
95811084|NCT00937105|191595302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.406||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|8.537||Univariate hazard ratio provided because non-significant finding did not enter into multivariate analyses|Regression, Cox||referent is no substantial overall lid bioburden|||8.537|0.678|0.1742
95811085|NCT00937105|191595303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.22||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|24.7|||Regression, Cox|Multivariate model adjusted for solution, gender and age|referent is no substantial CNS lid bioburden|||24.70|1.10|0.04
95955931|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||||90.0|-1.4|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.075|-1.400|
95955932|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||||90.0|-1.279|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.205|-1.279|
95955933|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||||90.0|-3.012|0.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 50; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.369|-3.012|
95955934|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552||||90.0|-0.847|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 51; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.972|-0.847|
95955935|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||||90.0|-0.964|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.579|-0.964|
95955936|NCT00139659|191883803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||||90.0|-1.298|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (LOCF); adjusted mean difference between inhaled insulin and subcutaneous insulin groups. Primary analysis model includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline Body Weight, Center, and Type of Diabetes.||0.438|-1.298|
95955937|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.079|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.000|-0.079|
95955938|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.068|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.010|-0.068|
95955939|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.084|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.006|-0.084|
95955940|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
95779963|NCT04245202|191531848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.86||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||0.86|-8.68|<0.001
95779964|NCT04245202|191531849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.||1.78|-6.62|0.003
95779965|NCT04245202|191531850|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.002
95779966|NCT04245202|191531851|OTHER||Relative treatment effect difference|-0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-Value of the interaction between time and groups was given. In all analysis, p values \<0.05 were considered being statistically significant.|Brunner-Langer Method||Relative Treatment Effect Difference= High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) - Standard Face Mask Oxygen Therapy (96-0 h) (based on least-square means)|||||0.001
95779967|NCT04245202|191531853|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95779968|NCT04245202|191531854|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95779969|NCT04245202|191531855|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95779970|NCT04245202|191531856|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95779971|NCT04245202|191531857|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95779972|NCT04245202|191531858|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95997930|NCT03248128|191971631|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.028||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.073|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.073|-0.017|0.226
95997931|NCT03248128|191971632|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|||Analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis adjusted for baseline, region, sex, age, treatment, visit, visit by baseline interaction and visit by treatment group interaction.||0.09|-0.13|0.663
95997932|NCT01245647|191971648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95997933|NCT01245647|191971649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95997934|NCT01245647|191971650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
95997935|NCT01245647|191971651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||no significant difference by Fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95997936|NCT01245647|191971652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95860797|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95779973|NCT03878875|191531908|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|116.044|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = -2.153.||||||< 0.0005
95779974|NCT03878875|191531909|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|12.839|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient = 1.602.||||||< 0.0005
95997937|NCT00955110|191971686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-16.0||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-16.0|-41.6|<0.001
95997938|NCT00955110|191971686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-37.5||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-37.5|-63.4|<0.001
95997939|NCT00955110|191971686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.5||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||18.3|-7.3|0.395
95997940|NCT00955110|191971686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|38.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.8||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||50.8|25.2|<0.001
95997941|NCT00955110|191971686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.1|68.9||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||68.9|43.1|<0.001
95997942|NCT00955110|191971686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|66.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.9|79.7||A mixed-effect model for a crossover study was used, including treatment, period, treatment sequence and first-order carryover effect as fixed effects, pre-dose measurement as covariate, and subjects nested within treatment sequence as random effect.|ANCOVA|||||79.7|53.9|<0.001
95997943|NCT02128490|191971687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|51.0|||Fisher Exact|||||51.0|20.8|<0.001
95997944|NCT02128490|191971687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|60.5|||Fisher Exact|||||60.5|28.9|<0.001
95997945|NCT02128490|191971687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|22.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|41.0|||Fisher Exact|||||41.0|3.7|0.034
95997946|NCT02128490|191971687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|26.6|||Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-18.2|0.817
95997947|NCT02128490|191971688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|12.6||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|29.0|||Fisher Exact|||||29.0|-3.9|0.224
95997948|NCT02128490|191971688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|31.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|50.1|||Fisher Exact|||||50.1|13.1|0.004
95997949|NCT02128490|191971688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-17.5||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|3.2|||Fisher Exact|||||3.2|-38.1|0.139
95997950|NCT02128490|191971688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|4.3||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|26.4|||Fisher Exact|||||26.4|-17.9|0.815
95997951|NCT02128490|191971689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|69.5|||Fisher Exact|||||69.5|38.2|<0.001
95997952|NCT02128490|191971689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|55.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||Fisher Exact|||||71.1|39.5|<0.001
95997953|NCT02128490|191971689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|21.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|43.1|||Fisher Exact|||||43.1|-0.3|0.069
95997954|NCT02128490|191971689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-4.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|18.2|||Fisher Exact|||||18.2|-26.6|0.817
96002019|NCT04985799|191981616|NON_INFERIORITY|For the sample size, a total of 143 participants, or 72 participants per group was needed, based on a 90% effectiveness for both slings 14% non-inferiority margin, 80% power, alpha of 0.05 and a 20% dropout rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|21.1|||Chi-squared|||||21.1|-6.2|0.29
95997955|NCT02243176|191971690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.13|-0.22|0.6236
95997956|NCT02243176|191971691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a total sample size of 480 patients randomized and an expected drop-out rate of 20%, the trial will be powered at 90% to establish non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025, with the non-inferiority margin of 0.4%, assuming the true effects are the same between treatments. The calculation is also based on the assumption that the standard deviation for the change in HbA1c is 1.2%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.15||This p value is for the hypothesis of superiority|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|"H01: μS-μA≥ 0.4% vs Ha1: μS-μA\< 0.4%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0.4%.If the null hypothesis above (H01) is rejected, the following hypothesis will be tested to further establish superiority:~H02: μS-μA≥ 0 vs Ha2: μS-μA\< 0. This null hypothesis (H02) will be rejected if the upper limit of 2-sided 95% CI is below 0."||0.15|-0.21|0.7809
95997957|NCT02243176|191971692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||0.39|0.12|<0.0001
95997958|NCT02243176|191971693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratefied by baseline disease severity (HbA1c\<8%, \>=8%)||||1.15|0.74|0.5044
95997959|NCT02243176|191971694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratefied by the baseline disease severity (HbA1c \< 8.0% and ≥ 8.0%)|RR = Saxagliptin/Acarbose|||1.67|0.98|0.0518
95997960|NCT02243176|191971695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.38|-0.33|0.8915
95997961|NCT02243176|191971696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.791|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||0.791|-0.186|0.2248
95997962|NCT02243176|191971697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.407||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.039|24.005|||ANCOVA||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||24.005|-9.039|0.3739
95997963|NCT02243176|191971698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Mean difference=Saxagliptin - Acarbose|||1.19|0.18|0.0078
95997964|NCT03063385|191971701|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0022|0.0285||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value \& estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for self-efficacy. Used modified Baron \& Kenny method|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for self-efficacy as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0285|0.0022|.0229
95997965|NCT03063385|191971701|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0067||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0019|0.0282||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|P-value and estimate rely on group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for sexual communication attitudes. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for sexual communication attitudes as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0282|0.0019|0.0249
95997966|NCT03063385|191971701|OTHER|\[Not specified\]|Slope|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0068||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0025|0.0292||Statistical significance taken at the 0.05 level|GEE modeling|Reported P-value and estimate rely on the group x time interaction effect on primary outcome when controlling for subjective norms. Same method B\&K|\[Not specified\]|The intervention effect of sexual risk communication (primary outcome in parents) controlling for subjective norms as a mediator from baseline through 12 months was examined using longitudinal general estimating equations (GEE) modeling, with the Health promotion control condition as the reference category and adjusting for baseline sexual risk communication and average monthly income.||0.0292|0.0025|0.0204
95997967|NCT03523585|191971725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3589|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.4535||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.4535|0.2840|<0.000001
95997968|NCT03523585|191971726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6575||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5023|0.8605||Stratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.8605|0.5023|0.0021
96002020|NCT04985799|191981618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95860798|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95997969|NCT03523585|191971727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for BICR Assessment||||<0.0001
95997970|NCT03523585|191971727|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical Analysis for Investigator Assessment||||<0.0001
95997971|NCT03523585|191971729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2828|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.3524||Stratified Log-rank p-value.|Log Rank|p value based on log-rank stratified by hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by IXRS|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors: hormone receptor status, prior treatment with pertuzumab, and history of visceral disease, as defined by the IXRS.|||0.3524|0.2270|<0.000001
95997972|NCT00698516|191971735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Greenwood variance|65.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|76.9||Historical data in target population showed 3-month PFS rates of \<=50%. Oral topotecan with IV bevacizumab would provide clinically meaningful improvement in 3-month PFS if it could demonstrate a 40% improvement relative to the historical data.|Z statistic|Z statistic was used to reject the null hypothesis provided Z\>=1.65, where Z = (KM estimate at 3 months - null hypothesis value \[50%\])/Greenwood SE.||||76.9|49.3|0.017
95997973|NCT03815292|191971755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95997974|NCT03815292|191971756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0445
95997975|NCT03815292|191971757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0345
95997976|NCT03815292|191971758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.04
95997977|NCT03815292|191971759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 24 weeks total scores row.||||0.0016
95997978|NCT03815292|191971760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0054
95997979|NCT03815292|191971760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.78
95997980|NCT03815292|191971760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0042
95997981|NCT03815292|191971761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.77
95997982|NCT03815292|191971762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.0118
95997983|NCT03815292|191971763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between 24 and 28 weeks total scores row.||||0.058
95997984|NCT03818815|191971770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.62
95997985|NCT03818815|191971771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The p-value was calculated using multiple imputation with number of imputations equal to percentage of missing data.|Regression, Logistic|||The summary statistics are based on subjects with non-missing data only.||||0.07
95997986|NCT02513940|191971784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95997987|NCT02513940|191971785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p=0.008 Progesterone vs placebo: p=0.73 Testosterone vs progesterone: p=0.0008"|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95955941|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.007|-0.085|
95955942|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.063|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.017|-0.063|
95997988|NCT02513940|191971786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.60
95997989|NCT02513940|191971787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||"Pairwise comparisons:~Testosterone vs placebo: p = 0.0001 Progesterone vs placebo: p = 0.25 Testosterone vs progesterone: p = 0.002"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.0003
95997990|NCT02513940|191971788|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||>0.99
95997991|NCT02513940|191971788|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Rash at gel application site||||>0.99
95997992|NCT00345605|191971812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.|For sample size calculation, we used the means and standard deviation for PT, PTT. Assuming r=0.5 between two measurements from the same subject, 12 subjects would provide a power of 0.8 to detect a 10% reduction in primary endpoints at an alpha value of 0.05.||||
95997993|NCT00644592|191971822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of mean effects|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean log difference (SE) between the period 2 and period 1 effects and SE was estimated. This estimates twice the effect size\[since (B-A)-(A-B)=2B-2A\] so the actual estimate was based upon the antilog of half of this difference.|This is a crossover analysis. To convert to a ratio effect, the mean difference must be divided by two and antilogs take. The outcome represents a relative effect.||1.52|1.06|0.015
95997994|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 1||||< 0.0001
95997995|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2||||< 0.0001
95997996|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 3||||< 0.0001
95997997|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||< 0.0001
95779975|NCT03878875|191531910|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|8.391|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 1.059.||||||< 0.0005
95779976|NCT03878875|191531911|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|6.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was 0.635.||||||< 0.001
95779977|NCT03878875|191531912|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regressions analysed the effect of conditioning (group) on each outcome at the second time point - session 2 (after noise exposure), controlling for session 1 outcome (before noise exposure), event exposure, age, and gender. It was hypothesised those with high recent noise exposure, Group 1 (noise unit \> 0.323), would experience less temporary hearing damage than irregular attendees, Group 0.|F(5, 26)|5.805|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Group coefficient was -0.383.||||||< 0.001
95779978|NCT03878875|191531913|SUPERIORITY|A binary logistic regression was employed to assess the effect of conditioning on tinnitus change (i.e. increasing or not) at session 2, adjusting for tinnitus reported at session 1, age, gender, and event exposure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.85|1.071|< 0.005
95779979|NCT01832818|191531921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95955943|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.062|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.020|-0.062|
95955944|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.055|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.027|-0.055|
95955945|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||90.0|-0.085|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.000|-0.085|
95955946|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||||90.0|-0.109|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.022|-0.109|
95955947|NCT00139659|191883811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||90.0|-0.097|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.003|-0.097|
95955948|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||||90.0|-0.606|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||0.048|-0.606|
95955949|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.661|-0.011|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.011|-0.661|
95955950|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.707|-0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.061|-0.707|
95955951|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.842|-0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.191|-0.842|
95955952|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.797|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.152|-0.797|
95779980|NCT01832818|191531922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
95955953|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.866|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.200|-0.866|
95955954|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.845|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.174|-0.845|
95779981|NCT00625404|191531938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.52||||||Hazard ratio (HR) for HIV infection based on proportional hazards model, stratified on site. Study was designed to have 90% power to reject the null hypothesis that the HR for infection is \> 0.3||1.52|0.59|
95779982|NCT00625404|191531939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rate of grade 2 or higher creatinine, based on time to first event.||||0.45
95779983|NCT00625404|191531941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.59
95779984|NCT00625404|191531942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.79
95779985|NCT00625404|191531943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test for difference in rates between groups||||0.62
95779986|NCT00625404|191531944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference on viral loads||||0.89
95779987|NCT00625404|191531945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in mean CD-4 counts||||0.82
95779988|NCT00625404|191531949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test for difference in change in number of sexual partners over time||||0.73
95779989|NCT02028169|191531987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95779990|NCT02028169|191531988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95779991|NCT02028169|191531989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline Vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95779992|NCT02028169|191531990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95811086|NCT02757768|191595314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.039
95779993|NCT02028169|191531991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95779994|NCT02028169|191531991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95779995|NCT02028169|191531991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95779996|NCT02028169|191531994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95811087|NCT02757768|191595315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.46|0.558
95779997|NCT02028169|191531994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95779998|NCT02028169|191531994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95779999|NCT02028169|191531995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780000|NCT02028169|191531995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780001|NCT02028169|191531995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780002|NCT02028169|191531996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780003|NCT02028169|191531997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780004|NCT02028169|191531997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780005|NCT02028169|191531997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780006|NCT02028169|191531999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780007|NCT02028169|191532001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780008|NCT02028169|191532001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780009|NCT02028169|191532001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780010|NCT02028169|191532002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780011|NCT02028169|191532002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780012|NCT02028169|191532002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780013|NCT02028169|191532003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780014|NCT02028169|191532003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780015|NCT02028169|191532003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780016|NCT02028169|191532004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780017|NCT02028169|191532004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780018|NCT02028169|191532004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780019|NCT02028169|191532005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 3||||< 0.001
95780020|NCT02028169|191532005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 6||||< 0.001
95780021|NCT02028169|191532005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman test|||Baseline vs. Month 9||||< 0.001
95780022|NCT00793624|191532036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.110|<0.0001
95780023|NCT00793624|191532036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
95860799|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95780024|NCT00793624|191532036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.136|<0.0001
95780025|NCT00793624|191532037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.037|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.037|0.0002
95780026|NCT00793624|191532037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.044|<0.0001
95780027|NCT00793624|191532037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0088||95.0|0.014|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.095|0.014|0.0088
95780028|NCT00793624|191532038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.5843||95.0|-0.485|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.860|-0.485|0.5843
95780029|NCT00793624|191532038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9494||95.0|-0.656|0.699|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.699|-0.656|0.9494
95780030|NCT00793624|191532038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.5099||95.0|-0.908|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.451|-0.908|0.5099
95780031|NCT00793624|191532039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.0816||95.0|-5.19|0.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.307|-5.190|0.0816
95780032|NCT00793624|191532039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0155||95.0|-6.141|-0.648|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.648|-6.141|0.0155
95780033|NCT00793624|191532039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.4954||95.0|-3.691|1.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.787|-3.691|0.4954
95780034|NCT00793624|191532040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.387||0.045||95.0|-5.507|-0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.063|-5.507|0.0450
95780035|NCT00793624|191532040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.0002||95.0|-7.864|-2.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-2.425|-7.864|0.0002
95955955|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||||90.0|-0.749|-0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.076|-0.749|
95780036|NCT00793624|191532040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.2061||95.0|-4.474|0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.966|-4.474|0.2061
95780037|NCT00793624|191532041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.1878||95.0|-4.655|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.914|-4.655|0.1878
95955956|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.056|-0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 39; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.358|-1.056|
95955957|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||||90.0|-1.04|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52; Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.320|-1.040|
95780038|NCT00793624|191532041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.0126||95.0|-6.364|-0.767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.767|-6.364|0.0126
95780039|NCT00793624|191532041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.426||0.9913||95.0|-2.782|2.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||2.814|-2.782|0.9913
95997998|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||< 0.0001
95997999|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 6||||< 0.0001
95780040|NCT00793624|191532042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.0034||95.0|-4.751|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo||-0.940|-4.751|0.0034
95998000|NCT00500071|191971838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 7||||< 0.0001
95780041|NCT00793624|191532042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.973||0.0004||95.0|-5.343|-1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||-1.525|-5.343|0.0004
95780042|NCT00793624|191532042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.2009||95.0|-3.161|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 10 mcg qd minus Placebo||0.665|-3.161|0.2009
95780043|NCT00793624|191532043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.146|<0.0001
95780044|NCT00793624|191532043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.126|<0.0001
95780045|NCT00793624|191532043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.246|0.166|<0.0001
95780046|NCT00793624|191532044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.136|<0.0001
95780047|NCT00793624|191532044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.119|<0.0001
95780048|NCT00793624|191532044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.152|<0.0001
95780049|NCT00793624|191532045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.219|0.137|<0.0001
95780050|NCT00793624|191532045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.129|<0.0001
95780051|NCT00793624|191532045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.144|<0.0001
95780052|NCT00793624|191532046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.103|<0.0001
95780053|NCT00793624|191532046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.105|<0.0001
95780054|NCT00793624|191532046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.214|0.130|<0.0001
95780055|NCT00793624|191532047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.048|<0.0001
95780056|NCT00793624|191532047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|0.040|<0.0001
95780057|NCT00793624|191532047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
95998001|NCT00500071|191971839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95998002|NCT00500071|191971842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95998003|NCT00500071|191971843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Global Executive Composite||||< 0.0001
95998004|NCT00500071|191971843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Behavioral Recognition Index||||< 0.0001
95998005|NCT00500071|191971843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Metacognition Index||||< 0.0001
95998006|NCT04112914|191971859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.021
95998007|NCT04112914|191971860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.638
95780058|NCT00793624|191532048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.125|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.125|0.047|<0.0001
95780059|NCT00793624|191532048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.117|0.038|0.0001
95811088|NCT02757768|191595315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.89|0.007
95811089|NCT02757768|191595315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.76|0.041
95811090|NCT02757768|191595316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|9.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||9.37|-1.63|0.167
95811091|NCT02757768|191595316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|12.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||12.73|-0.15|0.056
95860800|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95860801|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95998008|NCT04112914|191971861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.72|0.55|0.338
95998009|NCT04112914|191971862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.606
95780060|NCT00793624|191532048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.039|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.039|<0.0001
95780061|NCT00793624|191532049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.043|<0.0001
95780062|NCT00793624|191532049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0002||95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.114|0.035|0.0002
95811092|NCT02757768|191595316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|16.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||16.01|1.97|0.012
95860802|NCT04518995|191680434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95998010|NCT04112914|191971863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.508
95998011|NCT04112914|191971864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.042
95998012|NCT04112914|191971865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
95998013|NCT01244737|191971876|OTHER||Pearson correlation co-efficient|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||This is a diagnostic test of FLT uptake (SUV max) as a predictor of cellular proliferation (MIB) and is performed as an analysis of correlation using each evaluable participant enrolled in either Arm 1 (New Diagnosis) or Arm 2 (Possible recurrent tumor). The groups (Arm 1 and Arm 2) provide pathways for enrollment. Correlation between the two measures of outcome (SUV max and MIB) is evaluated.||||< 0.001
95998014|NCT01244737|191971879|OTHER|Paired T-test to assess change in FLT uptake (SUV max) with chemotherapy.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95998015|NCT00389207|191971880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.016||||0.684||95.0|-0.062|0.095||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening VL and CD4+ categories (only 373 NVP patients due to empty cells)||||0.095|-0.062|0.684
95998016|NCT00389207|191971880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.584||95.0|-0.065|0.115||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.115|-0.065|0.584
95780063|NCT00793624|191532049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0037||95.0|0.019|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.100|0.019|0.0037
95780064|NCT00793624|191532050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0016||95.0|0.025|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|0.025|0.0016
95780065|NCT00793624|191532050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0276||95.0|0.005|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.005|0.0276
95780066|NCT00793624|191532050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0426||95.0|0.001|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.082|0.001|0.0426
95780067|NCT00793624|191532051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0237||95.0|0.006|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.087|0.006|0.0237
95780068|NCT00793624|191532051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0175||95.0|0.009|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.090|0.009|0.0175
95780069|NCT00793624|191532051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0339||95.0|0.003|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.085|0.003|0.0339
95780070|NCT00793624|191532052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0537||95.0|-0.001|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.001|0.0537
95780071|NCT00793624|191532052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0808||95.0|-0.004|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.078|-0.004|0.0808
95955958|NCT00139659|191883812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-1.116|-0.415|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF); Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (primary analysis model) includes terms of Treatment, Week, Baseline pulmonary function test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, Baseline Height, Type of Diabetes, and Controller Medications Use on Day of Randomization.||-0.415|-1.116|
95780072|NCT00793624|191532052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.2579||95.0|-0.017|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.065|-0.017|0.2579
95811093|NCT02757768|191595316|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|15.98|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||15.98|2.53|0.007
95780073|NCT00793624|191532053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0011||95.0|0.027|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.027|0.0011
95955959|NCT01209936|191883841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95780074|NCT00793624|191532053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0069||95.0|0.018|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.018|0.0069
95780075|NCT00793624|191532053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.119|0.040|<0.0001
95780076|NCT00793624|191532054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.220|0.135|<0.0001
95780077|NCT00793624|191532054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.108|<0.0001
95811094|NCT02757768|191595317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.63|0.747
95955960|NCT01209936|191883842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95955961|NCT01209936|191883843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95955962|NCT02109107|191883848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=21.33; df=53||||||<.0001
95955963|NCT02109107|191883849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.95; df=53||||||<0.05
95811095|NCT02757768|191595317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.54|-0.72|0.393
95811096|NCT02757768|191595317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.38|-0.87|0.672
95811097|NCT02757768|191595317|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-0.90|0.640
95811098|NCT02757768|191595318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.16|-0.68|0.222
95811099|NCT02757768|191595318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-1.18|0.003
95811100|NCT02757768|191595318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.17|-1.13|0.008
95811101|NCT02757768|191595318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-1.13|0.004
95811102|NCT02757768|191595319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.6|0.723
95811103|NCT02757768|191595319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.700
95811104|NCT02757768|191595319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-1.3|0.400
95811105|NCT02757768|191595319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.812
95811106|NCT02757768|191595320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.121
95811107|NCT02757768|191595320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-0.2|0.241
95811108|NCT02757768|191595320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.843
95811109|NCT02757768|191595320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.679
95860803|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
95955964|NCT02109107|191883850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|t+3.34; df=53||||||<0.005
95955965|NCT02963922|191883916|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised participants regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-3.16|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, body mass index (BMI) groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-3.16|-5.48|< .0001
95780078|NCT00793624|191532054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.233|0.148|<0.0001
95780079|NCT00793624|191532055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.124|<0.0001
95780080|NCT00793624|191532055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.109|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.109|<0.0001
95780081|NCT00793624|191532055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.226|0.139|<0.0001
95780082|NCT00793624|191532056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.122|<0.0001
95780083|NCT00793624|191532056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.116|<0.0001
95811110|NCT02757768|191595321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.7|0.175
95811111|NCT02757768|191595321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.6|0.430
95811112|NCT02757768|191595321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.8|0.141
95811113|NCT02757768|191595321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-0.7|0.288
95780084|NCT00793624|191532056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.218|0.130|<0.0001
95811114|NCT02757768|191595322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.3|0.128
95811115|NCT02757768|191595322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.054
95811116|NCT02757768|191595322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-0.4|0.079
95780085|NCT00793624|191532057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.104|<0.0001
95780086|NCT00793624|191532057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.112|<0.0001
95780087|NCT00793624|191532057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.211|0.123|<0.0001
95780088|NCT00793624|191532058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.095|<0.0001
95780089|NCT00793624|191532058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.095|<0.0001
95780090|NCT00793624|191532058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.206|0.117|<0.0001
95780091|NCT00793624|191532059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.149|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.297|0.149|<0.0001
95780092|NCT00793624|191532059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
95780093|NCT00793624|191532059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.381|0.233|<0.0001
95780094|NCT00793624|191532060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.161|<0.0001
95811117|NCT02757768|191595322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.4|0.148
95811118|NCT02757768|191595323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.61|0.660
95811119|NCT02757768|191595323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.53|-0.72|0.767
95811120|NCT02757768|191595323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.89|0.372
95780095|NCT00793624|191532060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.175|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.324|0.175|<0.0001
95780096|NCT00793624|191532060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.235|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.384|0.235|<0.0001
95811121|NCT02757768|191595323|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.92|0.272
95780097|NCT00793624|191532061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.135|<0.0001
95780098|NCT00793624|191532061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.179|<0.0001
95780099|NCT00793624|191532061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.352|0.201|<0.0001
95780100|NCT00793624|191532062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.258|0.107|<0.0001
95811122|NCT02757768|191595324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-4.29|0.179
95811123|NCT02757768|191595324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.08|-6.60|0.006
95811124|NCT02757768|191595324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-5.86|0.055
95955966|NCT02963922|191883916|SUPERIORITY|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised participants assuming that all participants remained on trial product (on-treatment principle).|Treatment difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.91|||MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-3.91|-6.30|< .0001
95780101|NCT00793624|191532062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.291|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.291|0.139|<0.0001
95780102|NCT00793624|191532062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.318|0.166|<0.0001
95780103|NCT00793624|191532063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.256|0.103|<0.0001
95780104|NCT00793624|191532063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.126|<0.0001
95780105|NCT00793624|191532063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.166|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.320|0.166|<0.0001
95780106|NCT00793624|191532064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0781||95.0|-0.008|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.008|0.0781
95780107|NCT00793624|191532064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0455||95.0|0.002|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.153|0.002|0.0455
95780108|NCT00793624|191532064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.029||95.0|0.009|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.160|0.009|0.0290
95780109|NCT00793624|191532065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043||95.0|0.035|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.035|0.0043
95780110|NCT00793624|191532065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0007||95.0|0.055|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.055|0.0007
95780111|NCT00793624|191532065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0005||95.0|0.06|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.212|0.060|0.0005
95780112|NCT00793624|191532066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0136||95.0|0.02|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.020|0.0136
95780113|NCT00793624|191532066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0076||95.0|0.028|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.028|0.0076
95780114|NCT00793624|191532066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0294||95.0|0.009|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.163|0.009|0.0294
95780115|NCT00793624|191532067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.8674||95.0|-0.071|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|-0.071|0.8674
95780116|NCT00793624|191532067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6487||95.0|-0.06|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.096|-0.060|0.6487
95780117|NCT00793624|191532067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9267||95.0|-0.074|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.081|-0.074|0.9267
95811125|NCT02757768|191595324|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.8|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-5.02|0.154
96002021|NCT01819935|191981619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.20|0.72|
95780118|NCT00793624|191532068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1603||95.0|-0.022|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.134|-0.022|0.1603
95780119|NCT00793624|191532068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0399||95.0|0.004|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|0.004|0.0399
95780120|NCT00793624|191532068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6328||95.0|-0.059|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.098|-0.059|0.6328
95780121|NCT00793624|191532069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.127||95.0|-0.017|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.139|-0.017|0.1270
95780122|NCT00793624|191532069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1076||95.0|-0.014|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.014|0.1076
95955967|NCT02963922|191883917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.31|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||5.31|2.19|<.0001
95955968|NCT02963922|191883917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|7.36|||Mixed model for repeated measurements||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||7.36|3.04|<.0001
95955969|NCT02181400|191883962|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95780123|NCT00793624|191532069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1492||95.0|-0.021|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.021|0.1492
95780124|NCT00793624|191532070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0385||95.0|0.004|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.004|0.0385
95780125|NCT00793624|191532070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.142||95.0|-0.02|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.020|0.1420
95780126|NCT00793624|191532070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0965||95.0|-0.012|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.147|-0.012|0.0965
95780127|NCT00793624|191532071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1394||95.0|-0.019|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|-0.019|0.1394
95780128|NCT00793624|191532071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1532||95.0|-0.022|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.022|0.1532
95780129|NCT00793624|191532071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5511||95.0|-0.055|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.104|-0.055|0.5511
95780130|NCT00793624|191532072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.264|0.108|<0.0001
95780131|NCT00793624|191532072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.128|<0.0001
95811126|NCT02757768|191595325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.87|-3.57|0.233
95780132|NCT00793624|191532072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.361|0.205|<0.0001
95811127|NCT02757768|191595325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.82|-1.89|0.698
95955970|NCT02181400|191883963|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95955971|NCT02181400|191883964|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
95780133|NCT00793624|191532073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.131|<0.0001
95780134|NCT00793624|191532073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
95780135|NCT00793624|191532073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.344|0.187|<0.0001
95780136|NCT00793624|191532074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.267|0.108|<0.0001
95780137|NCT00793624|191532074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.318|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.318|0.159|<0.0001
95811128|NCT02757768|191595325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.40|-1.62|0.486
95811129|NCT02757768|191595325|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.42|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.42|-2.52|0.968
95860804|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
95955972|NCT02181400|191883965|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
95955973|NCT02181400|191883966|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95780138|NCT00793624|191532074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.177|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.336|0.177|<0.0001
95860805|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
95955974|NCT02181400|191883967|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
95955975|NCT00595764|191884003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||With an effect size of 0.46, a sample size of 140 will provide a power of \>.84 with p\<.05 to detect overall differences between the two treatments on the primary outcome measures.||||.91
95955976|NCT00595764|191884005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
95780139|NCT00793624|191532075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.253|0.092|<0.0001
95780140|NCT00793624|191532075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.127|<0.0001
95780141|NCT00793624|191532075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.298|0.137|<0.0001
95955977|NCT00595764|191884006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.58
95955978|NCT00595764|191884007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis to evaluate interaction of group by time.||||||.24
95955979|NCT00676663|191884025|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Log Rank|P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided, with a 0.10 threshold for significance.||||1.09|0.49|0.06
95955980|NCT00676663|191884029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97||P-value is stratified by the randomization stratification factors and is 1-sided.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model. Placebo serves as the reference treatment group for the interpretation of the hazard ratio.|||0.97|0.36|0.018
95955981|NCT02168153|191884052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.75|18.77|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||18.77|-25.75|0.76
95955982|NCT02168153|191884053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|19.98|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||19.98|-18.04|0.92
95955983|NCT02168153|191884054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.49||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.39|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||21.39|-14.4|0.70
95780142|NCT00793624|191532076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003||95.0|0.07|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.070|0.0003
95780143|NCT00793624|191532076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.259|0.096|<0.0001
95780144|NCT00793624|191532076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.304|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.304|0.141|<0.0001
95780145|NCT00793624|191532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.639||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.962|24.173|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.173|5.962|0.0012
95780146|NCT00793624|191532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611||0.0012||95.0|5.949|24.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||24.049|5.949|0.0012
95780147|NCT00793624|191532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|26.673|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean morning PEFR||26.673|8.610|0.0001
95780148|NCT00793624|191532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.606||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.68|26.762|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.762|8.680|0.0001
95780149|NCT00793624|191532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.484|27.458|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||27.458|9.484|<0.0001
95780150|NCT00793624|191532077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.548|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.947|26.799|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for Weekly mean evening PEFR||26.799|8.947|<0.0001
95955984|NCT02168153|191884055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.988||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|2.349|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||2.349|-0.373|0.15
95780151|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.141|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.141|-0.665|0.0026
95780152|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.066|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||-0.066|-0.587|0.0141
95955985|NCT02168153|191884056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41|||ANCOVA|adjusted for age||Between group differences||0.41|-1.24|0.32
95955986|NCT01936324|191884076|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center.||||||0.0003
95955987|NCT01936324|191884077|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, baseline lesion count, and center||||||0.0032
95780153|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.113|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daytime rescue use||0.113|-0.406|0.2677
95780154|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|-0.266|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.266|-0.939|0.0005
95780155|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.247|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.247|-0.914|0.0007
95780156|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.018|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean nighttime rescue use||-0.018|-0.683|0.0391
95780157|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|-0.464|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.464|-1.518|0.0002
95955988|NCT01936324|191884078|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study center||||||0.0070
95955989|NCT03713281|191884079|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean|-0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|-0.054|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger modethod for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.10 logMAR.||-0.054|-0.208|
95955990|NCT03713281|191884080|SUPERIORITY||Least-square means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.137|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||Statistically superiority will be concluded if the upper confidence limit will be less than 0.17 logMAR for near distance logMAR visual acuity.||0.137|-0.017|
95955991|NCT02412111|191884081|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.3|||=|0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.4|-0.8|= 0.5846
95955992|NCT02412111|191884082|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.8|||=|0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.6|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.6|-1.0|= 0.3860
95955993|NCT02412111|191884083|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8|||=|0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.4|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||6.4|-0.8|= 0.1236
95998017|NCT00389207|191971880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.855||95.0|-0.084|0.101||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.101|-0.084|0.855
95998018|NCT00389207|191971881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.038||||0.321||95.0|-0.112|0.037||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.037|-0.112|0.321
95998019|NCT00389207|191971892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461||||0.0403||95.0|0.22|0.966|||Regression, Cox|||||0.966|0.220|0.0403
95998020|NCT00389207|191971896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.097||||0.0109||95.0|-0.171|-0.022||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients||||-0.022|-0.171|0.0109
95780158|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.426|-0.378|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||-0.378|-1.426|0.0008
95780159|NCT00793624|191532078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.473|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.049|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||Comparison for weekly mean daily (24h) rescue use||0.049|-0.994|0.0758
95780160|NCT00793624|191532079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|0.0003
95780161|NCT00793624|191532079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0073||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0073
95780162|NCT00793624|191532079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0017||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0017
95780163|NCT00793624|191532080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0021||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0021
95780164|NCT00793624|191532080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
95780165|NCT00793624|191532080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0121||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0121
95780166|NCT00793624|191532081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.032||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0320
95780167|NCT00793624|191532081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0447||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.4|0.0447
95780168|NCT00793624|191532081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1332||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1332
95780169|NCT00793624|191532082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4105||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.1|-0.3|0.4105
95811130|NCT02757768|191595326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-4.56|0.165
95780170|NCT00793624|191532082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0584||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.0584
95780171|NCT00793624|191532082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1006||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1006
95811131|NCT02757768|191595326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.54|-2.02|0.592
95998021|NCT00389207|191971896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.072||||0.1033||95.0|-0.158|0.015||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||0.015|-0.158|0.1033
95998022|NCT00389207|191971896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.122||||0.0073||95.0|-0.212|-0.033||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.033|-0.212|0.0073
95811132|NCT02757768|191595326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.92|-2.12|0.559
95811133|NCT02757768|191595326|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|3.0|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.00|-2.94|0.985
95811134|NCT02757768|191595327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|-4.35|0.161
95811135|NCT02757768|191595327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.07|-2.36|0.798
95811136|NCT02757768|191595327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.95|-1.61|0.408
95811137|NCT02757768|191595327|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.88|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.88|-2.60|0.919
95811138|NCT02757768|191595328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.91|-2.94|0.990
95811139|NCT02757768|191595328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.96|-2.12|0.554
95860806|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|<0.0001
95955994|NCT02412111|191884084|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.8|||=|0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.9|||Mixed models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.9|-10.7|= 0.0216
95811140|NCT02757768|191595328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-1.67|0.348
95811141|NCT02757768|191595328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|3.38|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||3.38|-2.89|0.876
95811142|NCT02757768|191595329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.95|-3.16|0.293
95811143|NCT02757768|191595329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.87|-2.52|0.773
95860807|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.8|<0.0001
95860808|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.6|-2.3|<0.0001
95860809|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
95955995|NCT00510198|191884095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The log-rank test was conducted at an alpha level of 0.05. The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Log Rank|||This is a log-rank test, which uses the time from randomization to first composite endpoint event to compare the risk of event between Access and Control arms.||||0.23
96002022|NCT01819935|191981620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.05|0.53|
96002023|NCT01819935|191981621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.15|0.90|
95780172|NCT00793624|191532083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.0882||95.0|-0.085|1.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.227|-0.085|0.0882
95780173|NCT00793624|191532083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.336||0.0484||95.0|0.005|1.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.324|0.005|0.0484
95780174|NCT00793624|191532083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.0252||95.0|0.094|1.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.421|0.094|0.0252
95780175|NCT00793624|191532084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2625||95.0|-0.285|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.047|-0.285|0.2625
95780176|NCT00793624|191532084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.1109||95.0|-0.125|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.211|-0.125|0.1109
95780177|NCT00793624|191532084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2507||95.0|-0.278|1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.066|-0.278|0.2507
95780178|NCT00793624|191532085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.4895||95.0|-0.439|0.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.902|-0.439|0.4895
95780179|NCT00793624|191532085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.2073||95.0|-0.24|1.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.107|-0.240|0.2073
95780180|NCT00793624|191532085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.9462||95.0|-0.653|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.700|-0.653|0.9462
95811144|NCT02757768|191595329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.11|-2.28|0.940
95780181|NCT00793624|191532086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.6309||95.0|-0.511|0.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.842|-0.511|0.6309
95780182|NCT00793624|191532086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.9227||95.0|-0.717|0.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.649|-0.717|0.9227
95780183|NCT00793624|191532086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.503||95.0|-0.451|0.919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.919|-0.451|0.5030
95780184|NCT00793624|191532087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347||0.7459||95.0|-0.793|0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.568|-0.793|0.7459
95780185|NCT00793624|191532087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.8534||95.0|-0.753|0.623|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.623|-0.753|0.8534
95780186|NCT00793624|191532087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.5099||95.0|-1.068|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.314|-1.068|0.5099
95780187|NCT00793624|191532088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.785||95.0|-0.587|0.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.777|-0.587|0.7850
95811145|NCT02757768|191595329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.44|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.44|-2.86|0.516
95811146|NCT02757768|191595330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4591
95811147|NCT02757768|191595330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.4073
95811148|NCT02757768|191595330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.7740
95780188|NCT00793624|191532088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.2755||95.0|-0.306|1.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.073|-0.306|0.2755
95780189|NCT00793624|191532088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.7618||95.0|-0.584|0.798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||0.798|-0.584|0.7618
95780190|NCT00793624|191532089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3424||95.0|0.843|1.603|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.603|0.843|0.3424
95780191|NCT00793624|191532089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.3023||95.0|0.859|1.636|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.636|0.859|0.3023
95780192|NCT00793624|191532089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3589||95.0|0.605|1.205|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.205|0.605|0.3589
95780193|NCT00793624|191532090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.191||95.0|0.734|4.503|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.503|0.734|0.1910
95780194|NCT00793624|191532090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.817||0.2274||95.0|0.695|4.369|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||4.369|0.695|0.2274
95780195|NCT00793624|191532090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.5538||95.0|0.512|3.538|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||3.538|0.512|0.5538
95780196|NCT00793624|191532091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.5577||95.0|0.778|1.557|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.557|0.778|0.5577
95780197|NCT00793624|191532091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.9423||95.0|0.714|1.448|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.448|0.714|0.9423
95780198|NCT00793624|191532091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.1097||95.0|0.502|1.076|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Form 12 mcg to placebo across stratum|||1.076|0.502|0.1097
95780199|NCT00793624|191532092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2064||0.1729||95.0|0.906|1.7304|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7304|0.9060|0.1729
95780200|NCT00793624|191532092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.2297||95.0|0.8808|1.6954|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6954|0.8808|0.2297
95780201|NCT00793624|191532092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1575||0.5354||95.0|0.6353|1.2659|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.2659|0.6353|0.5354
95780202|NCT00793624|191532093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.8821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0358||0.2508||95.0|0.6391|5.543|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||5.5430|0.6391|0.2508
95780203|NCT00793624|191532093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|2.3877|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3119||0.1135||95.0|0.8122|7.0194|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||7.0194|0.8122|0.1135
95780204|NCT00793624|191532093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6013||0.9611||95.0|0.3268|3.2395|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||3.2395|0.3268|0.9611
95780205|NCT00793624|191532094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2075||0.4002||95.0|0.8187|1.6497|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.6497|0.8187|0.4002
95780206|NCT00793624|191532094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957||0.6983||95.0|0.7503|1.5352|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.5352|0.7503|0.6983
95780207|NCT00793624|191532094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1516||0.2033||95.0|0.5336|1.1433|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Form 12 mcg minus Placebo|||1.1433|0.5336|0.2033
95780208|NCT00793624|191532097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|0.058|0.96|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 5mcg minus placebo||0.960|0.058|0.0270
95811149|NCT02757768|191595330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical comparisons were be made using 2-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron.||||0.5121
95780209|NCT00793624|191532097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0203||95.0|0.082|0.967||See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|pattern mixture model||"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Olo 10 mcg minus placebo||0.967|0.082|0.0203
95780210|NCT00793624|191532097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.1166||95.0|-0.088|0.799|||pattern mixture model|See Hogan, et. al. Hogan JW, Roy J, Korkontzelou C Tutorial in biostatistics:handling drop-out in longitudinal studies. Stat Med 23,1455-1497(2004)|"Based on a pattern mixture model with four patterns based on time of dropout (i.e., day of last observed data)~1\) day 43 or day 85, 2) day 127 or day 169, 3) day 225 or day 281, 4) day 337"|Form 12mcg minus placebo||0.799|-0.088|0.1166
95780211|NCT02267135|191532115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between percentages|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|65.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for body weight (\< 90 kg, ≥ 90 kg)||||65|37|<0.001
95780212|NCT02407054|191532143|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3967|0.869||||||||0.8690|0.3967|
95780213|NCT02407054|191532144|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4123|1.0294||||||||1.0294|0.4123|
95780214|NCT00703326|191532172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.01|0.75|0.077
95780215|NCT00703326|191532173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||The gate-keeping strategy used to control overall type 1 error 0.05 (2-sided) or 0.025 (1-sided) to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. At final PFS analysis only if primary PFS test was significant would analysis of OS be inferential.|Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.10|0.81|0.487
95780216|NCT00703326|191532174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||0.99|0.73|0.033
95998023|NCT00389207|191971897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.117||||0.0031||95.0|-0.194|-0.04||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=373 NVP QD+BID patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.040|-0.194|0.0031
95780217|NCT00703326|191532175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(SCMH)|SCMH used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|Stratified odds ratio was calculated considering the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.71|1.03|0.027
95780218|NCT00703326|191532176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Stratified Log Rank (SLR)|SLR used Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) factors: prior taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status and geographical regions.|HR with 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model using the IWRS stratification factors.|||1.06|0.67|0.150
95780219|NCT00703326|191532177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||P-value is for end of therapy. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline score was used to compare the 2 treatment arms.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
95780220|NCT03052920|191532190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 11.29||Mean difference in percent correct for CNC words at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780221|NCT03052920|191532191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 16.947||Mean difference in Soundfield thresholds (averaged across the frequency range in dB HL) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780222|NCT03052920|191532192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.14||Mean difference in degrees RMS error at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
95780223|NCT03052920|191532193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 4.02||Mean difference in percentage of understanding (words correct) at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780224|NCT03052920|191532194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.58||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores in noise at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
95780225|NCT03052920|191532195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 3.16||Mean difference in dB SNR for BKB-SIN sentences with noise to the better ear at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.01
95780226|NCT03052920|191532196|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 10.42||Mean difference in AzBio sentence scores at 60 dB SPL for the poor ear alone at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780227|NCT03052920|191532197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.15||Mean difference in HHIE reported scores at 6-months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780228|NCT03052920|191532198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 4.34||Mean difference in HUI3 ratings at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95998024|NCT00389207|191971897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.096||||0.0365||95.0|-0.186|-0.006||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=186 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.006|-0.186|0.0365
95811150|NCT02757768|191595331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.223
95811151|NCT02757768|191595331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.598
95811152|NCT02757768|191595331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.3|0.312
95780229|NCT03052920|191532199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.71||Mean difference in ratings for the SSQ total score at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780230|NCT03052920|191532200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 7.90||Mean difference in SSQ ratings at 12 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95780231|NCT03052920|191532201|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(38) = 2.31||Mean difference in SADL scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.05
95780232|NCT03052920|191532202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.27||Mean difference in the CPHI scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant are reported.||||<0.001
95780233|NCT03052920|191532203|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(25) = 7.65||Mean difference in HII-SOP scores at 6 months post-implant and pre-implant is reported.||||<0.001
95811153|NCT02757768|191595331|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.1|-0.2|0.525
95811154|NCT02757768|191595333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.34|-0.08|0.226
95860810|NCT04518995|191680435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|<0.0001
95811155|NCT02757768|191595333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.28|-0.14|0.501
96002024|NCT01819935|191981622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.09|0.39|
95780234|NCT03052920|191532204|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<= 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t(35) = 2.34||Mean difference in the dB SNR scores for BKB-SIN sentences at 6 months post-implant minus pre-implant is reported.||||<0.05
95780235|NCT04591015|191532317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0626|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0626
95780236|NCT04591015|191532318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 90-day lab||||0.0496
95780237|NCT04591015|191532319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Only includes participants who completed a 180-day lab||||0.0651
95780238|NCT04591015|191532320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8739|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8739
95780239|NCT04591015|191532321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4702
95780240|NCT04591015|191532322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1258
95780241|NCT04591015|191532323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8635
95780242|NCT04591015|191532324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0471
95780243|NCT04591015|191532325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0218
95780244|NCT04591015|191532326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5090
95780245|NCT04591015|191532327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4034
95780246|NCT04591015|191532328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0175
95780247|NCT04591015|191532329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4435
95780248|NCT04591015|191532330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7417
95780249|NCT04591015|191532331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5779
95780250|NCT04591015|191532332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0493
95780251|NCT04591015|191532333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0773
95780252|NCT04591015|191532334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0921
95780253|NCT04591015|191532335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2404|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2404
95780254|NCT04591015|191532336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
95780255|NCT02509078|191532337|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.9|||Wald test for the difference of two prop||Estimated value is a percentage|||5.9|-6.4|0.93
95780256|NCT02173379|191532404|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 2.9%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0244|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||Farrington-Manning|||"The hypothesis test is designed to show non-inferiority of Absorb BVS to XIENCE for the primary endpoint with a one-sided alpha of 0.025. The null (H0) and alternative (HA) hypotheses are:~H0: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE ≥ ∆TLF HA: TLFAbsorb - TLFXIENCE \< ∆TLF."||||0.0244
95780257|NCT02173379|191532405|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value by using Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test statistic with non-inferiority margin of 4.8%, to be compared with a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||||||0.0006|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.0006
95780258|NCT04997265|191532586|OTHER|Given the small sample size, simple descriptive were used. Between-group differences were performed using a Fisher exact test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95780259|NCT02290925|191532614|OTHER|general linear model (GLM) with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Box's M tests was used. Mauchly's test was used to verify that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized-transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.||"We used intention to treat analysis. Since the missing data were more than 5%, we examined the dataset to determine whether it shows missing completely at random (MCAR) not missing at random (NMAR) or data missing at random (MAR). A sensitivity analysis was done to determine whether multiple imputations are required. It included complete case analysis, best-worst case and worst best case scenario with group mean±1SD."|||
95780260|NCT00981058|191532634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.962|||Log Rank|||||0.962|0.736|0.0120
95780261|NCT00981058|191532635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.975|||Log Rank|||||0.975|0.743|0.0201
95780262|NCT00981058|191532636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.45|0.86|0.3997
95780263|NCT00981058|191532637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.953|||Log Rank|||||0.953|0.747|0.0061
95780264|NCT02667587|191532643|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25||||||||1.25|0.90|
95780265|NCT02667587|191532644|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|96.39|0.87|1.43|||Log Rank|||All Randomized No Baseline Corticosteroids Participants||1.43|0.87|0.3402
95780266|NCT02667587|191532644|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.33||||||All Randomized Participants||1.33|0.91|
95780267|NCT02667587|191532648|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4||||||||1.40|0.99|
95780268|NCT02667587|191532649|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.89|
95811156|NCT02757768|191595333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.22|0.984
95811157|NCT02757768|191595333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|||EoT Placebo vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.18|0.780
96002025|NCT01819935|191981623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.37|0.68|
95780269|NCT01973335|191532650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|123.0||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||2x2 factorial design: both acetazolamide groups together are compared with both high-dose loop diuretic groups together||123|-63|0.515
95780270|NCT01973335|191532651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||2x2 factorial design: analysis according to spironolactone use||||0.270
95780271|NCT01636947|191532676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.191
95780272|NCT01636947|191532677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||Overall Stage p-value||||0.458
95780273|NCT01492101|191532684|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test, stratified by geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.872|||=|0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.019|||Log Rank|||||1.019|0.747|= 0.0835
95780274|NCT01492101|191532685|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926|||=|0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.075|||Log Rank|||||1.075|0.798|= 0.3017
95780275|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[2\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.33|||F-test|||Global health status/QoL: change from baseline to last assessment (Week 56)||4.33|-2.65|0.635
95780276|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[3\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|5.14|||F-test|||||5.14|-0.88|0.1656
95780277|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[4\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.82|||F-test|||||4.82|-3.9|0.8356
95780278|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[5\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|3.88|||F-test|||||3.88|-2.88|0.7727
95780279|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[6\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.59|||F-test|||||3.59|-2.56|0.7446
95780280|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[7\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.45|||F-test|||||4.45|-4.0|0.9169
95780281|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[8\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|3.79|||F-test|||||3.79|-3.66|0.9731
95780282|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[9\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|10.67|||F-test|||||10.67|3.88|<0.0001
95780283|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[10\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|0.93|||F-test|||||0.93|-7.59|0.1252
95780284|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[11\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.22|||F-test|||||1.22|-6.83|0.1717
95780285|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[12\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|3.18|||F-test|||||3.18|-5.95|0.5513
95860811|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
95860812|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.6|-1.3|<0.0001
95780286|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[13\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|13.72|||F-test|||||13.72|3.57|0.0009
95780287|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[14\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|1.8|||F-test|||||1.8|-7.35|0.2337
95780288|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[15\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|13.98|||F-test|||||13.98|6.6|<0.0001
95780289|NCT01492101|191532690|EQUIVALENCE|\[16\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.69|||F-test|||||3.69|-3.74|0.99
95780290|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[17\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.29|||F-test|||||4.29|-2.42|0.5833
95780291|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[18\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|3.9|||F-test|||||3.9|-1.24|0.3098
95780292|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[19\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.63|||F-test|||||5.63|-3.39|0.6264
95780293|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[20\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.1|||F-test|||||-2.1|-7.11|0.0003
95780294|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[21\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.99|||F-test|||||0.99|-3.84|0.2473
95780295|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[22\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-0.23|||F-test|||||-0.23|-5.54|0.0333
95780296|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[23\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|3.28|||F-test|||||3.28|-12.2|0.2575
95780297|NCT01492101|191532692|EQUIVALENCE|\[24\] - Analysis of variance with change from baseline in linear transformed score at the last visit as the dependent variable and treatment arm, geographic region, prior use of eribulin, and receptor status as fixed effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|12.34|||F-test|||||12.34|-1.22|0.1072
95780298|NCT00316914|191532700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||A priori threshold for the p-value is 0.05 and there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Comparison in Percentage of Patients With Oxaliplatin-induced Grade 2+ Chronic Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.038
95780299|NCT00316914|191532701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to Onset of Grade 2+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.0503
95860813|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
95955996|NCT00510198|191884096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 7.5%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|20.3||The study was terminated early due to enrollment significantly below protocol expectation. Due to the low sample size and consequently low statistical power, no conclusion can be drawn.|Two-sample test of proportions||The risk difference estimate is the difference between the Access Arm and Control arm.|||20.3|-10.9|0.36
95780300|NCT00316914|191532702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Time to Onset of Grade 3+ Chronic Neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.4048
95811158|NCT02757768|191595334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.8|-0.7|0.107
95811159|NCT02757768|191595334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.3|0.190
95811160|NCT02757768|191595334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 12 Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.3|-1.9|0.297
95811161|NCT02757768|191595334|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.5|||ANCOVA|||EoT Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, age group (\<65, \>=65 years) and geographical region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.5|-2.7|0.493
95811162|NCT00835367|191595339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.84||||||90.0|98.22|105.59|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.59|98.22|
95811163|NCT00835367|191595340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|102.53||||||90.0|99.71|105.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.44|99.71|
95811164|NCT00835367|191595341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.49||||||90.0|99.75|105.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.30|99.75|
95811165|NCT00835367|191595342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|91.79||||||90.0|84.83|99.32|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||99.32|84.83|
95811166|NCT00835367|191595343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.85||||||90.0|92.54|99.27|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||99.27|92.54|
95811167|NCT00835367|191595344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.3|102.3|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only|||102.30|98.30|
95811168|NCT00835367|191595345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.74||||||90.0|100.35|105.19|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.19|100.35|
95811169|NCT00835367|191595346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|102.72||||||90.0|100.3|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.20|100.30|
95811170|NCT00835367|191595347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|100.28||||||90.0|98.25|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|98.25|
95955997|NCT00637247|191884199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||The hypothesis that survival curves were equal in the two treatment groups was tested with a one-sided logrank test at the alpha-0.2 level, one sided. The power of this test is 80% for detecting the hypothesized increase in median survival of 2.4 months for subjects in the experimental arm.||||0.2
95955998|NCT03935932|191884204|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.11
95955999|NCT03935932|191884205|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95956000|NCT03935932|191884206|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.35
95956001|NCT00352053|191884235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.55
95780301|NCT00316914|191532703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6556||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Average Duration of Chronic Neuropathic Toxicity between Arms||||0.6556
95780302|NCT00316914|191532704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3238||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of patients discontinuing therapy for chronic neurotoxicity between Arms||||0.3238
95780303|NCT00316914|191532707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7498||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of Percentage of Patients With Acute Neuropathic Adverse Event between Arms||||0.7498
95780304|NCT00316914|191532710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue NOW between two arms||||0.2340
95998025|NCT00389207|191971897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 12% (or 0.12 as proportion)|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.139||||0.0033||95.0|-0.231|-0.046||Test for superiority following confirmation of non-inferiority|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ count categories. N=187 NVP QD patients and N=193 ATZ/r patients.||||-0.046|-0.231|0.0033
95998026|NCT00389207|191971900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.001||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.066|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.066|-0.065|0.9784
95780305|NCT00316914|191532710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue USUAL between two arms||||0.2010
95780306|NCT00316914|191532710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Fatigue WORST between two arms||||0.9364
95780307|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9364||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Fatigue WORST||||0.9364
95780308|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6275||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walking||||0.6275
95780309|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6988||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Buttoning Shirt or Tying Laces||||0.6988
95780310|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5124||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Diarrhea||||0.5124
95780311|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3103||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Constipation||||0.3103
95780312|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8601||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Abdominal Cramping||||0.8601
95780313|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Bowel Problems with Normal Activity||||0.2439
95780314|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9283||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Shortness of Breath (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.9283
95780315|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4715||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swallowing (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.4715
95780316|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5105||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Numbness in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.5105
95780317|NCT00316914|191532711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2181||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tingling in Fingers, Toes (Week 2 - Baseline)||||0.2181
95780318|NCT00424021|191532715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|17.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||17.3|-8.3|
95780319|NCT00424021|191532716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|9.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||9.7|-30.3|
95780320|NCT00424021|191532717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|83.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|18.0||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||18.0|-27.4|
95780321|NCT00424021|191532718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|7.1||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||7.1|-34.9|
95780322|NCT00424021|191532720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.323|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.57||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.57|-0.15|
95780323|NCT00424021|191532721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.92||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.92|0.01|
95780324|NCT00424021|191532722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.02|-0.02|
95780325|NCT00424021|191532723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.721|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.93||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||0.93|-0.01|
95780326|NCT00424021|191532730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.7||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.7|-5.9|
95780327|NCT00424021|191532731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.3||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||-0.3|-14.4|
95780328|NCT00424021|191532732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.8||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||1.8|-12.0|
95811171|NCT00835172|191595356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0||||||90.0|92.1|112.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||112|92.1|
95811172|NCT00835172|191595357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|101.0||||||90.0|96.8|105.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105|96.8|
95998027|NCT00389207|191971900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.064||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.123|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.123|0.005|0.0331
95780329|NCT00424021|191532733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.6||||||The small sample size, nonrandomized dose group assignments, and the potential for dose adjustments precluded meaningful comparisons between the dose groups. Therefore, efficacy results are only presented for the combined ambrisentan group.||4.6|-8.4|
95780330|NCT00568334|191532765|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (derived from IFA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.46|0.86|
95780331|NCT00568334|191532766|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMC ratio (derived from ELISA) between Group Varilrix HSA-Free and (divided by) Group Varilrix is equal to or above (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of 0.67.|GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Varilrix™ HSA-Free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of varicella zoster virus (VZV) antibodies 43-57 days after the first vaccine dose.||1.33|0.93|
95780332|NCT01606202|191532775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain Numerical Rating Scale score from baseline to End of Treatment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Numerical Rating Scale pain mean score as a covariate.||0.35|-0.51|0.708
95780333|NCT01606202|191532776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.57||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.48|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which escape medication was used was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and percentage of days on which escape medication was used as a covariate.||5.48|-6.62|0.852
95811173|NCT00835172|191595358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0||||||90.0|99.3|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|99.3|
95860814|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.1|<0.0001
95780334|NCT01606202|191532777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.65|-0.54|0.860
95780335|NCT01606202|191532778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.64||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|7.27|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasm was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spasm percentage of days on which spasm was experienced as a covariate.||7.27|-8.56|0.873
95780336|NCT01606202|191532779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline spasticity severity Numerical Rating Scale score as a covariate.||0.75|-0.61|0.830
95780337|NCT01606202|191532780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.4||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|4.88|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the percentage of days on which spasticity was experienced as a covariate.||4.88|-4.08|0.860
95811174|NCT04632030|191595413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.6|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.6|.69|
95811175|NCT04632030|191595413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.55|1.28|
95811176|NCT04632030|191595414|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.47|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.47|1.28|
95811177|NCT04632030|191595414|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|6.5|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.50|1.26|
95811178|NCT04632030|191595415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.86|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.86|.59|
95811179|NCT04632030|191595415|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.67|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.67|.73|
95811180|NCT04632030|191595416|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.99|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||2.99|.53|
95811181|NCT04632030|191595416|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.13|.94|
95780338|NCT01606202|191532781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.14||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Modified Ashworth scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Modified Ashworth scale score as a covariate.||0.05|-0.33|0.142
95780339|NCT01606202|191532782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.9|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Short Orientation Memory Concentration score, was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Short Orientation Memory Concentration test score as a covariate.||0.90|-1.13|0.824
95780340|NCT01606202|191532783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the Spitzer Quality of Life Index score as a covariate.||0.40|-0.49|0.847
95811182|NCT05847686|191595425|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.0001
95811183|NCT05395936|191595452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95780341|NCT01606202|191532784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.29||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Caregiver Strain Index score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and the baseline Caregiver Strain Index score as a covariate.||1.16|-3.74|0.287
95998028|NCT00389207|191971900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.058||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.121|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.121|-0.005|0.0691
95780342|NCT01606202|191532785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|33.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|50.64|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects who considered their condition 'Very Much Improved', 'Much Improved' or 'Minimally Improved' was compared between treatment groups using Fisher's Exact Test.||50.64|17.07|<0.001
95780343|NCT01606202|191532786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.93||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to End of Treatment in the Brief Pain Inventory score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre as factors and baseline Brief Pain Inventory score as a covariate.||-0.16|-3.69|0.032
95780344|NCT00337779|191532789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1013||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8799|1.309|||Regression, Poisson||980 subjects randomized into two arms provide approximately 90% power to detect significant difference between groups of 30% or more in rate of confirmed relapses.|||1.3090|0.8799|0.4859
95780345|NCT03019003|191532801|OTHER||||||<|0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.036
95780346|NCT02696434|191532836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.28|0.407
95780347|NCT00460265|191532861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.873||||0.1403||95.0|0.729|1.046|||Log Rank|Stratified by IVRS randomization factors (ECOG(0:1),previously treated w/ CT/RT(yes:no),primary tumor site(oropharynx/larynx:oral cavity/hypopharynx))|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors; hazard ratio presented as panitumumab plus chemotherapy:chemotherapy alone.|||1.046|0.729|0.1403
95780348|NCT00460265|191532862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.98||||||95.0|3.13|18.68||||||||18.68|3.13|
95780349|NCT00460265|191532862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||||95.0|1.15|2.44||||||||2.44|1.15|
95780350|NCT00460265|191532866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||||95.0|0.659|0.922|||||Cox proportional hazards model stratified by IVRS randomization factors|||0.922|0.659|
95780351|NCT01642485|191532882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The effect of insulin, C-peptide and glucose on QTcF was investigated using linear mixed effect concentration-response models with the double difference of QTcF (difference to time matched placebo of the change from average baseline) as dependent variable and up to two of the variables change from time matched placebo in insulin, C-peptide and glucose as covariates.||||0.05
95780352|NCT01642485|191532883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The relevant confirmatory null hypotheses could all be rejected on the 5% level (one sided), i.e. a difference in QTcF between continental breakfast and placebo; between FDA breakfast and placebo could be ascertained.||||0.05
95780353|NCT01642485|191532883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-10.4|
95780354|NCT01642485|191532883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|-4.3||||||||-4.3|-9.3|
95780355|NCT00956631|191532910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|4.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used throughout. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||4.13|2.29|<0.0001
95780356|NCT00956631|191532911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.33|22.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used. A hypothetical average improvement of zero was used.||22.83|12.33|<0.0001
95780357|NCT03114657|191532938|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6||||||||2.60|0.00|
95780358|NCT03114657|191532939|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.89||||||||5.89|-2.40|
95780359|NCT03114657|191532940|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.124|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|4.68||||||||4.68|-4.03|
95780360|NCT03114657|191532941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.39||||||||0.39|-0.20|
95780361|NCT03114657|191532942|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.6||||||||1.60|-2.42|
95780362|NCT03114657|191532943|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.7||||||||3.70|-8.74|
95780363|NCT03114657|191532944|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.501|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.92||||||||3.92|-6.29|
95780364|NCT03114657|191532945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.51||||||||3.51|-2.25|
95780365|NCT03114657|191532947|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.23||||||||0.23|-1.75|
95780366|NCT03114657|191532948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.39||||||||2.39|-3.30|
95780367|NCT03114657|191532949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|17.44||||||||17.44|-4.35|
95780368|NCT03114657|191532950|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.831|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|11.71||||||||11.71|-12.31|
95780369|NCT03114657|191532951|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|4.73||||||||4.73|-11.50|
95998029|NCT00389207|191971900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|-0.023||||0.4585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.038|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 48||0.038|-0.084|0.4585
95998030|NCT00389207|191971900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.015||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.064|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 96||0.064|-0.034|0.5438
95780370|NCT03114657|191532957|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.01|
95780371|NCT03114657|191532958|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.9||||||||4.90|-1.70|
95811184|NCT04043286|191595453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.85|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed data normality, and paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests were applied based on normality results.||The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.||0.85|0.10|0.009
95811185|NCT04043286|191595454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000168|1.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||1.25|-0.0000168|0.049
95811186|NCT04043286|191595455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000522|0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in peri-implant bone levels between implants with definitive abutments delivered at the time of surgery, and those subjected to multiple abutment disconnections and reconnections. Power analysis was performed and showed that a sample size of 38 implants was needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the null proportion of 0.500 at a significance level of 0.05.~Type of Statistical Test"||0.75|-0.0000522|0.053
95811187|NCT01732536|191595457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||ANCOVA|Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.1365
95956002|NCT00352053|191884236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Time-weighted average changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.40
95956003|NCT00352053|191884237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.58
95811188|NCT01732536|191595457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0505||||||Based on between group comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Day 90 in Nasal Obstruction/Congestion score in the subset of participants with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher polyps on each side; N=67).||||0.0505
95811189|NCT01732536|191595458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0985|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||||||0.0985
95811190|NCT01732536|191595458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||ANOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate, site and treatment as fixed effect||Bilateral polyp grade change in a subset of 67 patients with higher polyp burden at baseline (grade 2 or higher on each side confirmed by the independent panel)||||0.0490
95811191|NCT01732536|191595459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
95811192|NCT01732536|191595460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||P-value for change from baseline to 90 days not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0162
95811193|NCT01732536|191595460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0175||||||P-value for change from baseline to 6 months not adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0175
95811194|NCT01732536|191595461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Based on between arm comparison using ANCOVA model with baseline as a covariate and site and treatment as fixed effects||||||0.0209
95811195|NCT02180828|191595470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.925|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.925
95811196|NCT02180828|191595471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.298|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
95811197|NCT02180828|191595472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
95811198|NCT02180828|191595473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Yes||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.147
95811199|NCT02180828|191595474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95811200|NCT02180828|191595475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95860815|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.0|-1.7|<0.0001
95780372|NCT03114657|191532959|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.13|
95780373|NCT02631070|191532960|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|24.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.48|34.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.64|14.48|<0.0001
95780374|NCT02631070|191532960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.278|11.259|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.259|2.278|<0.0001
95780375|NCT02631070|191532961|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|20.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|29.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.08|10.92|0.0002
95780376|NCT02631070|191532961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.071||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.002|12.844|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.844|2.002|0.0002
95780377|NCT02631070|191532962|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|21.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|31.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.51|11.23|0.0003
95780378|NCT02631070|191532962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.045||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.827|8.956|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.956|1.827|0.0003
95780379|NCT02631070|191532963|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference on Response Rate|29.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.73|40.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.36|18.73|<0.0001
95780380|NCT02631070|191532963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.526|11.146|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.146|2.526|<0.0001
95780381|NCT02631070|191532965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||<0.0001
95780382|NCT02631070|191532965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||<0.0001
95811201|NCT02180828|191595476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.658
95811202|NCT02180828|191595477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
95811203|NCT02180828|191595478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.274
95780383|NCT02631070|191532966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 24||||<0.0001
95780384|NCT02631070|191532966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 Through Week 48||||<0.0001
95811204|NCT03376516|191595494|OTHER|||||||0.9593||||||P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9593
95811205|NCT03376516|191595494|OTHER|||||||0.3752||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.3752
95811206|NCT03376516|191595494|OTHER|||||||0.8273||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.8273
95811207|NCT03376516|191595495|OTHER|P-Value for patients aged 1-\<6 years (N=5)||||||0.8536|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8536
95811208|NCT03376516|191595495|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for patients aged 6-\<12 years (N=5)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
95811209|NCT03376516|191595495|OTHER|||||||0.9791||||||P-Value for total PK population (N=10)|ANOVA|||||||0.9791
95780385|NCT02631070|191532967|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|1.013|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.013|0.196|0.0445
95780386|NCT02631070|191532968|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.699|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.699|0.362|0.5121
95811210|NCT03376516|191595497|OTHER||Pearson-Copper|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.85||||||||30.85|0|
95811211|NCT03674281|191595559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95811212|NCT03674281|191595559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95780387|NCT02631070|191532970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2382|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.2382
95780388|NCT02631070|191532970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.5127
95780389|NCT02631070|191532971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 -24||||0.5479
95780390|NCT02631070|191532971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1 - 48||||0.2980
95780391|NCT02631070|191532972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-229.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.43||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-375.8|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 9 Through 24||-82.4|-375.8|0.0024
95780392|NCT02631070|191532972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-319.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.57||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-606.3|-32.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 33 Through 48||-32.7|-606.3|0.0294
95780393|NCT02631070|191532973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.18||0.3087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|38.2|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 9 Through 24||38.2|-120.3|0.3087
95780394|NCT02631070|191532973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.42||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.7|160.8|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 33 Through 48||160.8|-210.7|0.7903
95780395|NCT02631070|191532978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.636|||Log Rank||HR is from the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.636|0.595|0.9580
95780396|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.4|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.2|-3.4|
95780397|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|1.6||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-3.7|
95811213|NCT00710593|191595563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|97.5||||0.1613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|86.8|0.1613
95811214|NCT00710593|191595564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.8||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.9|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.9|89.0|0.0534
95811215|NCT00710593|191595565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|96.1||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|99.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||99.5|86.5|0.0427
95811216|NCT00710593|191595566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants who were responders|92.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.4|97.5|||Fisher Exact|||Historical comparison group can be referenced in: Villa et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18; Vaccine 24 (2006):5571-5583. PMID 16753240.||97.5|83.4|0.0006
95811217|NCT00710593|191595567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|49.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group A during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
95811218|NCT00710593|191595567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with at least 1 event|46.7||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is to test the proportions of subjects with at least one event among Group B during the study at Entry, Week 8 and Week 24 after vaccine was administered.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8305
95956004|NCT00352053|191884238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.37
95780398|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-2.3|
95780399|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|2.8||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-5.4|
95780400|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.3|2.6||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.6|-5.3|
95780401|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|4.7||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.7|-4.7|
95780402|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.7|1.6||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.6|-2.7|
95811219|NCT00710593|191595575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|7.9||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.||||||1.000
95956005|NCT00352053|191884245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.71
95780403|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|2.8||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-3.8|
95780404|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|2.5||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.5|-4.3|
95811220|NCT00710593|191595576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95811221|NCT00710593|191595577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|2.0||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95811222|NCT00710593|191595578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|4.5||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95780405|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|4.5||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.5|-1.6|
95811223|NCT00710593|191595579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95811224|NCT00710593|191595580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquistion rate|3.6||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95811225|NCT00710593|191595581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|6.3||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95811226|NCT00710593|191595582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall aquisition rate|8.1||||1||95.0||||P-value is from the Fisher's Exact test to compare the proportion of HPV positive between two study groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95811227|NCT00710593|191595583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.02|0.0004
95811228|NCT00710593|191595584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|1.0|0.0012
95811229|NCT00710593|191595585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95811230|NCT00582907|191595602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Signed rank|||Based upon FMF colchicine controlled studies showing an \~80% decrease in attacks, we estimated, based on baseline attacks every 4 weeks, there would be a difference of 0.5 attacks per month between rilonacept and placebo. With a two-sided 5% significance level and power of 80% we aimed for 14 evaluable participants who completed at least 2 treatment courses. The null hypothesis is that there would be no significant differences in the number of attacks between use of rilonacept and placebo.||-0.1|-3.4|0.027
95811231|NCT00582907|191595602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Bayesian modeling||Attacks while receiving rilonacept is the numerator and attacks while receiving placebo is the denominator. In Bayesian statistics credible interval equals confidence interval.|This analysis was done by Bayesian Statistics using a non-informative (neutral) prior (log normal distribution mean 9 \[SD 10\]). The null hypothesis was that the rilonacept/placebo FMF odds ratio of attacks was 1.||0.85|0.39|
95811232|NCT00582907|191595603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of injection site reactions. No power calculations for this outcome.||0|-4|0.047
95860816|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.3|<0.0001
95860817|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-2.0|<0.0001
95998031|NCT00389207|191971900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: Difference in proportions = 0|Difference in proportions|0.016||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.071|||Cochran Chi-Squared|||week 144||0.071|-0.039|0.5659
95998032|NCT00389207|191971901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0002||95.0|0.57|0.839|||Regression, Cox|||||0.839|0.570|0.0002
95860818|NCT04518995|191680436|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.6|<0.0001
95811233|NCT00582907|191595603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the occurence of infections. No power calculations for this outcome.||0.17|-0.56|0.13
95811234|NCT00582907|191595604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.32||95.0|-2.4|0.5|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences in the length of attacks during rilonacept vs. placebo treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome there were no power calculations performed.||0.5|-2.4|0.32
95811235|NCT00582907|191595605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in percent of courses|29.0||||0.004||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses without attacks between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.004
95811236|NCT00582907|191595606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent of courses|40.0||||0.006||95.0|||||McNemar|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the number of treatment courses attaining at least a 50% decrease in attacks when compared to baseline between rilonacept and placebo courses.Since this was a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||||0.006
95811237|NCT00582907|191595607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.009||||0.009||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||Null hypothesis: There were no significant differences between rilonacept and placebo in the number of days from the start of the treatment course until the development of the a second attack.||||0.009
95811238|NCT00582907|191595608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||12.5|-0.5|0.156
95811239|NCT00582907|191595609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.29|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences in the C-reactive protein levels between the treatment courses. Since this was a secondary outcome measure no power calculations were performed.||0.29|-0.03|0.22
95811240|NCT00582907|191595610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|78.1|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There were no differences between the platelet count between the rilonacept and placebo courses. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||78.1|0.4|0.078
95860819|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.06|<0.0001
95998033|NCT00389207|191971901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.764|||Regression, Cox|||Cox regression on responders only (N=289 in Nevirapine QD+BID and N=175 in Atazanvir/ritonavir)||0.764|0.519|<0.0001
95998034|NCT00389207|191971902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.1329||95.0|0.535|1.086|||Regression, Cox|||||1.086|0.535|0.1329
95998035|NCT00389207|191971903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731||||0.0444||95.0|0.539|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.539|0.0444
95998036|NCT02580058|191971917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.497|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.497|0.867|0.8253
95998037|NCT02580058|191971917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.179|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.179|0.672|0.2082
95998038|NCT02580058|191971918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.16|||Log Rank|1-sided||||2.160|1.310|>0.9999
95998039|NCT02580058|191971918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.011|||Log Rank|1-sided||||1.011|0.607|0.0301
95780406|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.6|-1.6|
95780407|NCT01964716|191533008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|3.5||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan \& Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC multidose vial (MDV) - 13vPnC single-dose syringe (SDS), expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.5|-4.4|
95780408|NCT01964716|191533008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS) was greater than -0.10.|percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.3|4.4||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.4|-4.3|
95780409|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.22||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.87|
95780410|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.90|0.71|
95780411|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.18||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.86|
95780412|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.19||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.19|0.85|
95780413|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.86|
95780414|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.36||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.36|0.82|
95780415|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.08||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.82|
95780416|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.87|1.21||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.21|0.87|
95811241|NCT00582907|191595611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|108.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|139.5|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the fibrinogen level. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||139.5|6.5|0.063
95811242|NCT00582907|191595612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Signed Rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no differences between the treatment arms in the serum amyloid A levels. Since this was a secondary outcome no power calculations were performed.||0|-4|0.50
95998040|NCT02580058|191971937|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|126.7||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||126.7|95.4|
95998041|NCT02580058|191971938|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.5|101.5||||||Avelumab was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment||101.5|79.5|
95998042|NCT02580058|191971939|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|106.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||106|87|
95780417|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.75|1.24||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.75|
95780418|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.09|1.49||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.49|1.09|
95780419|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.82|1.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.24|0.82|
95780420|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.26||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.26|0.85|
95811243|NCT00582907|191595613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.3|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the physical health-related quality of life between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-2.3|-11.1|0.021
95811244|NCT00582907|191595613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.9|||Signed Rank|||||3.9|-6.8|0.42
95811245|NCT00582907|191595614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.8|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the FMF Armenian Evaluation (severity) Score between rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||9.8|-2.3|0.136
95860820|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.22||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.22|0.12|<0.0001
95811246|NCT00582907|191595615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Signed rank|||Null hypothesis: There are no significant differences in the proportion of time participants were treated with rilonacept and placebo. As a secondary measure there were no power calculations.||-1|-15|0.089
95811247|NCT01263119|191595667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|1.00|
95811248|NCT01263119|191595668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|1.07|
95811249|NCT01263119|191595669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.50|-0.50|0.9551
95811250|NCT01263119|191595670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.10|
95811251|NCT01263119|191595671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|1.09|
95811252|NCT01263119|191595672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.02|-0.50|0.6094
95811253|NCT01263119|191595673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic AUCINR of warfarin.||1.05|1.02|
95811254|NCT01263119|191595674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Squares (LS) geometric mean was based on pharmacodynamic INRmax of warfarin.||1.08|1.01|
95811255|NCT02138825|191595675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|21.48||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|51.71|||ANCOVA|||The evaluation of primary efficacy endpoint will be based on change from baseline in 6MWD using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline 6MWD, treatment arm and region as factors.||51.71|-8.75|0.2074
95998043|NCT02580058|191971940|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|104.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||104|88|
95998044|NCT02580058|191971941|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|107.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||107|76|
95998045|NCT02580058|191971942|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Test/Reference, %)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.0|168.0||||||PLD was the Reference treatment and Avelumab + PLD was the Test treatment.||168|60|
95998046|NCT01364467|191971955|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95998047|NCT01364467|191971956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95998048|NCT01364467|191971956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95780421|NCT01964716|191533009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given antibody serotype was declared if lower bound of the 2-sided, 97.5% confidence interval for the geometric mean concentration ratio (GMC MDV /GMC SDS) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.48||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMCs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale; CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.48|0.98|
95780422|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.9||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.9|-17.2|
95811256|NCT02138825|191595676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||The difference in incidences in clinical worsening and mortality will be analyzed using Mantel-Haenszel weights, stratified by region.||||0.3437
95811257|NCT01690273|191595683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95811258|NCT01690273|191595683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95811259|NCT01690273|191595683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95811260|NCT01690273|191595683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9913|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9913
95811261|NCT01690273|191595683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0427
95860821|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.33||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
95956006|NCT00352053|191884246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 count for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.47
95811262|NCT01690273|191595683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1856
95811263|NCT01690273|191595684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95811264|NCT01690273|191595684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
96002026|NCT01819935|191981624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.13|0.68|
95780423|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||1.1|-4.4|
95811265|NCT01690273|191595684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95811266|NCT01690273|191595684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811267|NCT01690273|191595684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
95811268|NCT01690273|191595684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.876
95811269|NCT01690273|191595685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95811270|NCT01690273|191595685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95811271|NCT01690273|191595685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95811272|NCT01690273|191595685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.989
95811273|NCT01690273|191595685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
95811274|NCT01690273|191595685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.119
95811275|NCT01690273|191595686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95811276|NCT01690273|191595686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95811277|NCT01690273|191595686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
95811278|NCT01690273|191595686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
95811279|NCT01690273|191595686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95811280|NCT01690273|191595686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
95811281|NCT01690273|191595687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95811282|NCT01690273|191595687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95811283|NCT01690273|191595687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95811284|NCT01690273|191595687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
95811285|NCT01690273|191595687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
95811286|NCT01690273|191595687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.526
95811287|NCT01690273|191595688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
95811288|NCT01690273|191595688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95811289|NCT01690273|191595688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
95811290|NCT01690273|191595688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
95811291|NCT01690273|191595688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.098
95811292|NCT01690273|191595688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.645
95811293|NCT01690273|191595689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95811294|NCT01690273|191595689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95811295|NCT01690273|191595689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95811296|NCT01690273|191595689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811297|NCT01690273|191595689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
95811298|NCT01690273|191595689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.476
95780424|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
95780425|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.7||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||5.7|-10.6|
95780426|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.8|-2.9|
95780427|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.6||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.6|-4.5|
95780428|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.3|-2.3|
95780429|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.1||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||14.1|-4.5|
95956007|NCT00352053|191884253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 24 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.26
96002027|NCT01819935|191981625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.48|0.54|
95780430|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.0||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||-0.0|-15.8|
95780431|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.9|-2.9|
95780432|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.4||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||2.4|-6.6|
95780433|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.9||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||4.9|-6.3|
95780434|NCT01964716|191533018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS, expressed as a percentage was analyzed.||3.0|-5.8|
95780435|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.20|0.70|
95780436|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||0.93|0.69|
95780437|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.39|0.89|
95780438|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.22|0.80|
95780439|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.06||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.06|0.70|
95780440|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.33|0.74|
95811299|NCT01690273|191595690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
95811300|NCT01690273|191595690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95811301|NCT01690273|191595690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811302|NCT01690273|191595690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811303|NCT01690273|191595690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.995
95811304|NCT01690273|191595690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.985
95811305|NCT01690273|191595691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9
95998049|NCT05490771|191971973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||one-sided exact binomial test|||The ORR was compared against a null benchmark value of 5%. If the observed ORR were ≥5 of 31 (16%), it would then be concluded that the agent is promising and worthy of further investigation. When the number of analyzable cases (who were eligible and treated, and with outside assay results confirmed by the central MATCH assay) was \<31, the one-sided exact binomial test would be used for significance test with one-side type I error rate of 5%.||||0.0341
95998050|NCT01442181|191972016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month in minimally invasive group||||0.03
95998051|NCT01442181|191972016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the fatigue and energy was done in baseline-3 month, and 6 month in each group. Minimally Invasive: baseline vs 3 month||||0.01
95780441|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.00|0.70|
95780442|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.27|0.79|
95780443|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.08|0.48|
95811306|NCT01690273|191595691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7
95860822|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.32|<0.0001
95998052|NCT01442181|191972016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue in medical therapy group; baseline vs 3 month||||0.49
95780444|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.19||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||2.19|1.38|
95780445|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.16|0.74|
95811307|NCT01690273|191595691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95780446|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.18|0.71|
95780447|NCT01964716|191533019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs, MDV to SDS, was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC MDV - 13vPnC SDS).||1.25|0.67|
95811308|NCT01690273|191595691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95811309|NCT01690273|191595691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.900
95811310|NCT01690273|191595691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
95811311|NCT01690273|191595692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811312|NCT01690273|191595692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811313|NCT01690273|191595692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
95811314|NCT01690273|191595692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.618
95811315|NCT01690273|191595692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811316|NCT01690273|191595692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.689
95811317|NCT01690273|191595693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
95998053|NCT01442181|191972016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy and fatigue 3 month vs 6 month||||0.06
95998054|NCT01564784|191972046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|38.4|64.3|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||64.3|38.4|<0.0001
95998055|NCT01564784|191972047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.568|0.993|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.993|0.568|0.0105
95998056|NCT01564784|191972048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.809|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.809|0.297|0.0021
95998057|NCT01564784|191972049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.336|0.602|||1-sided stratified log-rank p-value||Stratified HR, i.e., based on analysis stratified by randomization stratification factors.|||0.602|0.336|<0.0001
95998058|NCT01564784|191972050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|31.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|40.6|||1-sided p-value based on Chi-square test|If any cell count was \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||40.6|22.6|<0.0001
95998059|NCT01564784|191972051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||||||<0.0001
95780448|NCT02638259|191533063|EQUIVALENCE|A margin of 0.6 can be statistically and clinically justified based on the results Keystone et al, Arthritis and Rheumatism, p353-363, (2004) and on the EULAR response criteria. The sample size of 155 per group with 90% power is based on the common SD of 1.46 and was calculated using nQuery 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.12||||||Therapeutic equivalence in terms of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 will be concluded if the 95% confidence interval for the LS mean difference between GP2015 and Enbrel is contained within the interval \[-0.6; 0.6\]. A mixed-model repeated measures analysis was performed for DAS28-CRP change from baseline including treatment, stratification factors, time, the interaction between time (visits) and treatment all as categorical variables, and baseline DAS28-CRP as a continuous variable.||0.12|-0.26|
95780449|NCT03578146|191533096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-73.14||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
95780450|NCT03578146|191533096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-153.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780451|NCT03578146|191533096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-189.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780452|NCT03578146|191533096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-239.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95811318|NCT01690273|191595693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95998060|NCT01564784|191972052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3168|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal at Screening||||0.3168
95780453|NCT03578146|191533096|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-231.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780454|NCT03578146|191533097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|52837.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780455|NCT03578146|191533097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|110388.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780456|NCT03578146|191533097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|163880.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780457|NCT03578146|191533097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|263236.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780458|NCT03578146|191533097|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|270297.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95811319|NCT01690273|191595693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95811320|NCT01690273|191595693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95780459|NCT03578146|191533098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-9.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95780460|NCT03578146|191533098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-15.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780461|NCT03578146|191533098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780462|NCT03578146|191533098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-17.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780463|NCT03578146|191533098|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-19.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95780464|NCT01260584|191533134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For the sample size calculations for the co-primary endpoints, no Type 1 error rate was adjusted and both co-primary endpoints will be tested at the 0.05 level.||15.8|-0.4|0.0624
95780465|NCT01260584|191533134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|38.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.4|25.1|<0.0001
95780466|NCT01260584|191533134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.8|-3.3|0.2440
95780467|NCT01260584|191533134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|41.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.0|28.4|<0.0001
95780468|NCT01260584|191533134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||35.2|18.8|<0.0001
95780469|NCT01260584|191533135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.65||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.2|-61.1|0.0048
95780470|NCT01260584|191533135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.7|-71.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.0|-116.7|<0.0001
95780471|NCT01260584|191533135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-45.9|0.0924
95780472|NCT01260584|191533135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.3|-87.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-87.3|-130.3|<0.0001
95811321|NCT01690273|191595693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.929
95811322|NCT01690273|191595693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.980
95811323|NCT01690273|191595694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1
95811324|NCT01690273|191595694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
95811325|NCT01690273|191595694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
95811326|NCT01690273|191595694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
95811327|NCT01690273|191595694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.970
95811328|NCT01690273|191595694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95811329|NCT01690273|191595695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.997
95998061|NCT01564784|191972052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||1-sided p-value based on Chi-Square test|If any cell count is \<5, p-value was based on Fisher's exact test||Abnormal after remission||||0.2160
95998062|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Physical Functioning||12.3|1.4|0.0139
95956008|NCT00352053|191884254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Van Elteren test|P-value is from a Van Elteren test stratified by baseline GSS (without tenofovir DF) \<= or \> median (median GSS is 2).||Null hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4% for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups are different (two-sided).||||0.63
95956009|NCT00352053|191884261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 24 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
95956010|NCT00352053|191884262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants who had at least a 1.0 log10 copies/mL decrease from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.67
95780473|NCT01260584|191533135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.8|-47.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-47.5|-97.8|<0.0001
95780474|NCT01260584|191533136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-15.0|0.0423
95780475|NCT01260584|191533136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.4|-29.0|<0.0001
95780476|NCT01260584|191533136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-13.1|0.1184
95780477|NCT01260584|191533136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.5|-30.5|<0.0001
95780478|NCT01260584|191533136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.5|-24.3|<0.0001
95780479|NCT01260584|191533137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.32|0.80|0.1331
95780480|NCT01260584|191533137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.65|0.17|0.5813
95780481|NCT01260584|191533137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|148.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||148.23|1.85|0.0127
95780482|NCT01260584|191533137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.11||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|93.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.65|3.13|0.0013
95780483|NCT01260584|191533138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|0.49|0.5684
95780484|NCT01260584|191533138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|42.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.92|1.05|0.0447
95780485|NCT01260584|191533138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|505.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||505.58|6.80|0.0003
95780486|NCT01260584|191533138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.71||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|46.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.52|2.95|0.0006
95780487|NCT01260584|191533139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|110.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.7|130.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||130.8|93.7|
95780488|NCT01260584|191533139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|140.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||active metabolite R-130964||140.4|99.8|
95780489|NCT01260584|191533140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|117.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Prasugrel active metabolite R-138727||147.3|94.4|
95780490|NCT01260584|191533140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|123.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|155.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation was based on the ratio of Geom. means between groups. Non-smoker is the denominator.|Clopidogrel active metabolite R-130964||155.4|98.6|
95780491|NCT03434249|191533147|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||"According to the results of a previous trial that looked at a probiotic's effect on infants with CI, it was estimated that when the sample size in each group is 33, the study has 80% power to detect an absolute difference of 35% in the treatment success rate (15% in the Placebo group and 50% in the treatment group) with a 0,05 alpha level.~The number of infants that was included in the study was 80, with an expected maximum dropout rate of 20%."||||0.0001
95780492|NCT03434249|191533148|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95780493|NCT03434249|191533150|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95780494|NCT04877535|191533203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-0.24|0.524
95780495|NCT04877535|191533203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.4|0.403
95780496|NCT04877535|191533204|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.47|1.00
95811330|NCT01690273|191595695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000
95811331|NCT01690273|191595695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.503
95811332|NCT01690273|191595695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.814
95811333|NCT01690273|191595695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.643
95811334|NCT01690273|191595695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.999
95811335|NCT01690273|191595696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
95811336|NCT01690273|191595696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
95811337|NCT01690273|191595696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.157
95811338|NCT01690273|191595696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
95811339|NCT01690273|191595696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
95780497|NCT04877535|191533205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|11.13|||Fisher Exact|||||11.13|1.81|<0.001
95811340|NCT01690273|191595696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
95811341|NCT01690273|191595697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
95956011|NCT00352053|191884269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||1.00
95956012|NCT00352053|191884270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.38
95780498|NCT04877535|191533205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.19|||Fisher Exact|||||4.19|0.23|1.00
95780499|NCT04877535|191533206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|39.25|||Fisher Exact|||||39.25|1.94|<0.001
95780500|NCT04877535|191533206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|14.86|||Fisher Exact|||||14.86|0.13|0.630
95780501|NCT01969084|191533208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were expressed as the median (25th:75th percentiles) for non-normally distributed data. The mean±sd for the groups was not analyzed as per the statistical plan.||||>0.05
95780502|NCT04907227|191533222|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.46|0.32|
95780503|NCT04907227|191533223|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.67|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.67|0.68|
95780504|NCT04907227|191533224|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.5|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.45|
95780505|NCT04907227|191533226|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|31.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||31.2|-24.1|
95780506|NCT04907227|191533228|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.99|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.99|0.17|
95780507|NCT04907227|191533229|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|18.24|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||18.24|0.15|
95780508|NCT04907227|191533230|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.46|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.46|0.41|
95780509|NCT04907227|191533231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.17|||||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.17|0.43|
95780510|NCT01362244|191533242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for NR||||0.003
95780511|NCT01362244|191533242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical data is presented for LOCF||||0.016
95780512|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.64|||Regression, Logistic||Week 1|||3.64|0.15|0.710
95780513|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.87|||Regression, Logistic||Week 2|||6.87|0.29|0.674
95780514|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.49|||Regression, Logistic||Week 5|||4.49|0.20|0.942
95780515|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|18.96|||Regression, Logistic||Week 9|||18.96|0.80|0.091
95780516|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|62.33|||Regression, Logistic||Week 13|||62.33|2.18|0.004
95780517|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||Week 17|||13.90|0.54|0.224
95780518|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.69|||Regression, Logistic||Week 21|||30.69|1.11|0.037
95780519|NCT01362244|191533243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|27.44|||Regression, Logistic||Week 25|||27.44|0.99|0.051
95780520|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.19|-0.10|0.567
95780521|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.21|-0.10|0.495
95780522|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.28|-0.10|0.365
95780523|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.34|-0.01|0.058
95780524|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.43|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.43|-0.01|0.056
95780525|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.42|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.42|0.03|0.028
95780526|NCT01362244|191533260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.34|-0.02|0.077
95811342|NCT01690273|191595697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.169
95811343|NCT01690273|191595697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95811344|NCT01690273|191595697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
95811345|NCT01690273|191595697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.105
95811346|NCT01690273|191595697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.335
95956013|NCT00352053|191884277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.22
95956014|NCT00352053|191884278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is equal. Alternative hypothesis: Percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups is different (two-sided).||||0.48
95780527|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||0.22|-0.10|0.486
95780528|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.22|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||0.22|-0.08|0.384
95780529|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||0.26|-0.14|0.546
95780530|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.39|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||0.39|0.00|0.050
95780531|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||0.45|-0.01|0.061
95780532|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||0.51|0.05|0.016
95780533|NCT01362244|191533261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||0.40|-0.03|0.094
95780534|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.91|30.12|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||30.12|-19.91|0.686
95780535|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.55||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|43.5|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||43.50|-14.40|0.321
95780536|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.79|44.6|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||44.60|-26.79|0.622
95780537|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|57.22|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||57.22|-10.75|0.178
95780538|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|76.66|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||76.66|-0.33|0.052
95780539|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.72||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|76.02|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||76.02|1.41|0.042
95998063|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Role Functioning||19.5|3.2|0.0065
95780540|NCT01362244|191533262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|54.02|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||54.02|-25.76|0.484
95780541|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|35.83|||repeated measures model||Week 2|||35.83|6.49|0.005
95780542|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|32.01|||repeated measures model||Week 5|||32.01|1.77|0.029
95780543|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|27.03|||repeated measures model||Week 9|||27.03|-12.64|0.472
95780544|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|48.23|||repeated measures model||Week 13|||48.23|7.19|0.009
95780545|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|34.59|||repeated measures model||Week 17|||34.59|-3.80|0.114
95780546|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.51||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|52.96|||repeated measures model||Week 21|||52.96|6.06|0.014
95780547|NCT01362244|191533264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.65||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|50.21|||repeated measures model||Week 25|||50.21|3.10|0.027
95780548|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.79|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 2|||0.79|-0.61|0.790
95780549|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.97|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 5|||1.97|0.30|0.008
95780550|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.64|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 9|||1.64|-0.05|0.066
95780551|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.67|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 13|||1.67|-0.21|0.127
95780552|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.46|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 17|||1.46|-0.69|0.481
95780553|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 21|||1.90|-0.61|0.308
95780554|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.88|||repeated measures model||MNS, Week 25|||1.88|-0.46|0.233
95780555|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.02|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 2|||1.02|-0.45|0.444
95780556|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.12|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 5|||2.12|0.50|0.002
95780557|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.6|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 9|||1.60|-0.24|0.143
95780558|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.65|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 13|||1.65|-0.42|0.240
95811347|NCT01383005|191595802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.494|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from detectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'detectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||0.494|0.052|0.001
95811348|NCT01383005|191595802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.279||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.118|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'viral load change from undetectable to undetectable.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 2 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with a viral load change from 'undetectable to undetectable' in the last model of the Wald test.||1.118|0.070|0.072
95811349|NCT01383005|191595803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.996||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.992|0.999|||Regression, Logistic|Degree of freedom is 1 for the independent variable 'time on LPV/r.'|Stepwise procedures forward and backward were used to select variables in the model using entry and exit probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1 respectively. Identical models were obtained by forward and backward selection procedures.|Statistical Analysis 1 presents the risk of a 'mean score \<5' on the HIVTSQ overall satisfaction dimension (see Outcome Measure 8) when correlated with time on treatment with LPV/r QD in the last model of the Wald test.||0.999|0.992|0.025
95811350|NCT04562116|191595820|OTHER||Ratio|94.59||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.57|112.45||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||112.45|79.57|0.5789
95811351|NCT04562116|191595820|OTHER||Ratio|99.34||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.66|117.96||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.96|83.66|0.9468
95811352|NCT04562116|191595820|OTHER||Ratio|107.81||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.14|117.24||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.24|99.14|0.1364
95811353|NCT04562116|191595820|OTHER||Ratio|92.13||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|102.44||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||102.44|82.85|0.1915
95811354|NCT04562116|191595820|OTHER||Ratio|101.67||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|106.12||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||106.12|97.41|0.5059
95956015|NCT00352053|191884285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Log Rank|No adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are equal. Alternative hypothesis: The survival functions for the tenofovir DF and placebo groups up to Week 48 are different (two-sided).||||0.29
95811355|NCT04562116|191595821|OTHER||Ratio|95.82||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.72|113.75||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||113.75|80.72|0.6665
95811356|NCT04562116|191595821|OTHER||Ratio|99.15||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.43|117.83||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||117.83|83.43|0.9316
95956016|NCT01907113|191884292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|145.38|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||145.38|96.17|
95956017|NCT01907113|191884292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|119.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|149.47|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||149.47|96.25|
95956018|NCT01907113|191884292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|166.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.44|205.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||205.68|134.44|
95956019|NCT01907113|191884292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|148.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.89|183.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||183.42|119.89|
95956020|NCT01907113|191884293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as mild renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|118.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.62|150.84|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||150.84|93.62|
95811357|NCT04562116|191595821|OTHER||Ratio|107.75||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.12|117.13||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||117.13|99.12|0.1371
95860823|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.06|0.02|0.0006
95780559|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.35|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 17|||1.35|-0.98|0.750
95780560|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.91|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 21|||1.91|-0.64|0.324
95780561|NCT01362244|191533265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||repeated measures model||WNS, Week 25|||1.66|-0.77|0.468
95780562|NCT01362244|191533266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed effects model|-13.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-4.22|||ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-22.2|0.005
95780563|NCT01362244|191533267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.06|
95780564|NCT01362244|191533268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|12.68||||||||12.68|-1.33|
95780565|NCT01253174|191533281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|102.26||||||90.0|96.65|108.2||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||108.20|96.65|
95780566|NCT01253174|191533282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|101.13||||||90.0|97.65|104.75||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 42 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.75|97.65|
95780567|NCT01253174|191533283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.66||||||90.0|93.37|104.24||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.24|93.37|
95780568|NCT01253174|191533284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.45||||||90.0|96.7|102.28||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.28|96.70|
95780569|NCT01253174|191533285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.19||||||90.0|99.18|113.68||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.68|99.18|
95780570|NCT01253174|191533286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|97.98||||||90.0|94.19|101.93||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.93|94.19|
95811358|NCT04562116|191595821|OTHER||Ratio|88.66||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.72|99.85||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||99.85|78.72|0.0962
95811359|NCT04562116|191595821|OTHER||Ratio|100.81||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.45|104.29||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.29|97.45|0.6807
95860824|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
95998064|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.3307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Emotional Functioning||2.3|-6.9|0.3307
95998065|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Cognitive Functioning||7.0|-1.4|0.1904
95780571|NCT01253174|191533287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|104.9||||||90.0|98.83|111.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||111.34|98.83|
95780572|NCT01253174|191533288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.63||||||90.0|95.73|103.69||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|41 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 41 (EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 43 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.69|95.73|
95780573|NCT01253174|191533290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.57||||||90.0|97.32|101.87||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE30/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Yasmin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||101.87|97.32|
95780574|NCT01447927|191533329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7981|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Rum Test (1-sided)|||The null hypothesis was that the percent change in mean pS6K1 values (from pre to post) was the same or increased for the metformin arm as compared to placebo. Assuming equal standard deviations (i.e. 50%) across the metformin and placebo groups, 30 participants per arm yielded 84% power to detect at least a 35% decrease in the metformin arm as compared to placebo, using a 1-sided t-test with a significant level of 0.05.||||0.7981
95780575|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental,control) × 2(Activity: singing,verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, believability of thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
95780576|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in believability of thought from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
95780577|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in believability of thought from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
95811360|NCT04562116|191595822|OTHER||Ratio|91.22||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.3|107.63||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caffeine||107.63|77.30|0.3431
95811361|NCT04562116|191595822|OTHER||Ratio|91.05||||0.4277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.33|111.53||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Metoprolol Tartrate||111.53|74.33|0.4277
95811362|NCT04562116|191595822|OTHER||Ratio|94.79||||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.8|108.52||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Midazolam||108.52|82.80|0.4963
95811363|NCT04562116|191595822|OTHER||Ratio|88.24||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.08|103.7||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Omeprazole||103.70|75.08|0.1931
95998066|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Social Functioning||16.1|0.7|0.0336
95998067|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Global Health Status||10.3|-1.7|0.1572
95780578|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
95780579|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal believability scores||||>0.05
95780580|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in believability scores||||>0.05
95780581|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent believability scores across time.||||>0.05
95780582|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on believability scores||||>0.05
95780583|NCT03646305|191533334|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on believability||||>0.05
95780584|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appraisal of target thought were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
95811364|NCT04562116|191595822|OTHER||Ratio|92.94||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|104.69||A linear mixed-effect model was used to compare the natural log-transformed of the value, with substrate with or without Nemolizumab as the fixed effect and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Warfarin Sodium||104.69|82.51|0.2960
95811365|NCT01838226|191595825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-1.3|0.50
95811366|NCT01838226|191595826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-1.3|
95811367|NCT01838226|191595827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||||||||-0.2|-4.9|
95998068|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Dyspnoea||1.4|-10.8|0.1281
95780585|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent across time.||||=0.005
95780586|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from baseline to post-intervention||||=0.002
95780587|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
95780588|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in negativity from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in negativity scores from baseline to post-intervention in the experimental conditions||||>0.025
95780589|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in negativity from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the experimental conditions would have no significant difference in negativity scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.025
95780590|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
95780591|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal negativity scores||||>0.05
95811368|NCT06203717|191595834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.06||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|15.23||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Paired-sample t-test|||||15.23|3.08|0.007
95811369|NCT06203717|191595835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|11.61|||Paired-sample t-test|||||11.61|3.93|0.0009
95811370|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Adequacy of baseline image"||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
95811371|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Squamous columnar junction visibility"||||||0.351|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
95811372|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Visible abnormal areas"||||||0.774|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.774
95998069|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Insomnia||5.2|-8.7|0.6207
95998070|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Appetite Loss||-1.4|-16.0|0.0193
95811373|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Location of the lesion"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95811374|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of statistical test: Independence~Description: Mosaic of the worst lesion"||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
95811375|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Acetowhite changes"||||||0.881|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.881
95811376|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Border of the worst lesion"||||||0.829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.829
95811377|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Possible diagnosis"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95811378|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Baseline histology"||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95811379|NCT03510273|191595841|OTHER|"Type of Statistical Test: Independence~Description: Size of the worst lesion (% coverage)"||||||0.493|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.493
95811380|NCT01474109|191595842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.103||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.834|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 3 mg and in Placebo|||1.834|0.663|0.706
95811381|NCT01474109|191595842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NB-2 estimate of new DUs per patient|1.268||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.106|||negative binomial-2 regression (NB-2)||The estimated value corresponds to the treatment effect i.e. the ratio between the estimated number of new DUs in Macitentan 10 mg and in Placebo|||2.106|0.763|0.360
95956021|NCT01907113|191884293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as moderate renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|102.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.33|131.85|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||131.85|79.33|
95811382|NCT01474109|191595843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|1.606|||Chi-squared|||||1.606|0.477|0.6670
95811383|NCT01474109|191595843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.832||||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.524|||Chi-squared|||||1.524|0.454|0.5518
95811384|NCT01474109|191595844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.696||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.518|||Chi-squared|||||1.518|0.319|0.3625
95811385|NCT01474109|191595844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|2.133|||Chi-squared|||||2.133|0.498|0.9362
95811386|NCT01474109|191595845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.1|0.863
95811387|NCT01474109|191595845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.649
95956022|NCT01907113|191884293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as severe renal function divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|120.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|154.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||154.25|94.42|
95811388|NCT01474109|191595846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.456
95811389|NCT01474109|191595846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.440
95811390|NCT01474109|191595847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.464
95811391|NCT01474109|191595847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.342
95811392|NCT00265122|191595848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||The P-Value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab and placebo at a significant level of 0.05.||||0.337
95811393|NCT00265122|191595850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0||||The P-Value is from a CMH test stratified by the route of administration.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.292
95811394|NCT02589938|191595851|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures analysis of covariance (RMANCOVA) models were constructed to assess differences in each outcome adjusting for baseline outcome value, group, time, and group by time interaction assuming an unstructured covariance. The primary objective was assessed using a linear contrast of group effect at 4 weeks||||||0.0167|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was to determine whether true acupuncture (TA) was more effective than sham acupuncture (SA) or standard oral hygiene (SOH) at treating xerostomia as assessed by the xerostomia questionnaire (XQ) at Week 4. The study was powered to detect a difference of 10 points with an assumed standard deviation (SD)=16 between each pair of groups on XQ.This assumed a t-test with a two-sided significance level of 0·0133 and 84% power with 20% dropout.||||0.0167
95811395|NCT01467466|191595854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.24|0.73|0.70
95811396|NCT01467466|191595855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||1.34|0.78|0.86
95811397|NCT00330733|191595857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (follow-up vs baseline) and unpaired group comparisons were performed by Student's t tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests.||||<0.05
95811398|NCT02231580|191595870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.104|||=|0.5743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.482|||MMRM|||Left hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement (MMRM) analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.482|0.823|=0.5743
95811399|NCT02231580|191595870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.141|||=|0.4349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.862|1.51|||MMRM|||Right hand position-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.510|0.862|=0.4349
95998071|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Constipation||7.3|-4.4|0.6249
95956023|NCT01907113|191884293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as kidney failure divided by normal renal function|Geometric mean ratio|103.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.18|132.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with fixed effect for treatment (corresponding to renal impairment status).|Standard deviation is actually the geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||132.61|81.18|
95780592|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in negativity scores||||>0.05
95780593|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on negativity scores||||>0.05
95956024|NCT01057888|191884313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Cox|It is a robust, clustered stratified Cox regression model|The control group serves as the denominator. The telephone reminder group serves as the numerator.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in total immunization status between the control group and the group receiving telephone (autodialer) reminders. This was analyzed using a clustered, stratified Cox model.||1.7|1.0|<0.05
95811400|NCT02231580|191595871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.035|||=|0.8937|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.675|1.587|||MMRM|||Left hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.587|0.675|=0.8937
95956025|NCT01057888|191884313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Cox|We used a robust, clustered, stratified Cox regression model.|The control group represents the denominator. The letter reminder group represents the numerator.|||2.1|1.3|<0.01
95956026|NCT01057888|191884313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in the percentage of fully vaccinated adolescents between the mailed reminder versus the telephone reminder arms||1.6|1.0|0.075
95956027|NCT01057888|191884314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the mailed reminder group represents the numerator.|The null hypothesis was that a difference in well child care rates among adolescents whose families received a mailed reminder compared to the control group||1.3|1.1|<0.01
95956028|NCT01057888|191884314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Cox||The control group represents the denominator and the telephone reminder group represents the numerator|The null hypothesis is the the well child care rates of adolescents in the telephone reminder group would not differ from those of the control group||1.3|1.0|<0.05
95956029|NCT01057888|191884314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Regression, Cox||The mail reminder arm represents the numerator and the telephone reminder arm represents the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the well child care rate among adolescents in the mailed reminder arm versus adolescents in the telephone reminder arm of the intervention||1.2|1.0|0.234
95956030|NCT05109117|191884315|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 2 hours post-treatment||3.9|1.7|<0.0001
95956031|NCT05109117|191884315|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 4 hours post-treatment||2.7|0.4|0.0077
95956032|NCT05109117|191884315|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 6 hours post-treatment||2.9|0.7|0.0019
95811401|NCT02231580|191595871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.093|||=|0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.493|||MMRM|||Right hand orientation-index statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.493|0.800|=0.6360
95811402|NCT02231580|191595872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.247|||=|0.2865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.756|||MMRM|||Left hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.756|0.886|=0.2865
95811403|NCT02231580|191595872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.16|||=|0.5338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.724|||MMRM|||Right hand grip force variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.724|0.781|=0.5338
95811404|NCT02231580|191595873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.693|||=|0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|0.985|||MMRM|||Left hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.985|0.487|=0.0864
95811405|NCT02231580|191595873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.686|||=|0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.508|0.925|||MMRM|||Right hand isometric grip forces statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.925|0.508|=0.0399
95811406|NCT02231580|191595874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.509|||=|0.0574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.15|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.150|1.060|=0.0574
95811407|NCT02231580|191595874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.953|||=|0.8277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.372|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.372|0.662|=0.8277
95860825|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.23|0.15|<0.0001
95860826|NCT04518995|191680437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.37||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.37|0.24|<0.0001
95956033|NCT05109117|191884315|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, timepoint, treatment\*timepoint (interaction) and subject as terms; Baseline value as covariate.||Pairwise comparison between Treated and Untreated sites 8 hours post-treatment||2.2|-0.1|0.0707
95956034|NCT03319719|191884317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.33||p-value from paired two-sided t-tests of no difference between test and control groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.33|-3.42|<0.0001
95956035|NCT02959177|191884344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.22|-3.80|<0.001
95956036|NCT02959177|191884344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-3.53|<0.001
95811408|NCT02231580|191595874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.238|||=|0.0162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.074|1.426|||MMRM|||Left finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.426|1.074|=0.0162
95811409|NCT02231580|191595874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.038|||=|0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|1.182|||MMRM|||Right finger IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.182|0.912|=0.6320
95811410|NCT02231580|191595875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.308|||=|0.3005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.014|||MMRM|||Left finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.014|0.85|=0.3005
95860827|NCT04518995|191680438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.2|0.3|0.0010
95956037|NCT02959177|191884345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|5.57||||||||5.57|2.71|
95956038|NCT02959177|191884345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.23||||||||5.23|2.54|
95956039|NCT02959177|191884346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.89||||||||4.89|2.14|
95956040|NCT02959177|191884346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|4.8||||||||4.80|2.08|
95956041|NCT02959177|191884347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|5.93||||||||5.93|2.03|
95956042|NCT02959177|191884347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.44||||||||5.44|1.79|
95956043|NCT02959177|191884348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|4.54|<0.001
95956044|NCT02959177|191884348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|8.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.24|3.33|<0.01
95780594|NCT03646305|191533335|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on negativity scores||||>0.05
95780595|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at p\< .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of discomfort were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
95811411|NCT02231580|191595875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.177|||=|0.4793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.804|1.722|||MMRM|||Right finger variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.722|0.804|=0.4793
95811412|NCT02231580|191595875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.15|||=|0.2653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.416|||MMRM|||Left finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.416|0.934|=0.2653
95956045|NCT02959177|191884349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.19|-3.61|<0.001
95780596|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would have no significant differences in discomfort levels from baseline to post-intervention across samples||||<0.001
95780597|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in levels of discomfort from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in discomfort levels from post-intervention to follow-up across samples||||<0.001
95780598|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
95811413|NCT02231580|191595875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.045|||=|0.6777|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.248|||MMRM|||Right finger duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.248|0.875|=0.6777
95956046|NCT02959177|191884349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.99|-3.41|<0.001
95956047|NCT02959177|191884351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|-7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.51|-16.14|<0.001
95956048|NCT02959177|191884351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-13.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.40|-18.05|<0.001
95956049|NCT02959177|191884352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.73|-8.06|<0.001
95956050|NCT02959177|191884352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-6.08|<.001
95962268|NCT01375751|191896274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-37.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.70|-52.32|<0.001
95780599|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of discomfort||||>0.05
95780600|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of discomfort||||>0.05
95780601|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of discomfort across time||||>0.05
95780602|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of discomfort||||>0.05
95780603|NCT03646305|191533336|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no significant difference between 4 conditions on discomfort levels||||>0.05
95998072|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Diarrhoea||1.1|-7.2|0.1534
95780604|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, willingness to engage with target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.001
95811414|NCT02231580|191595876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.618|||=|0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.124|2.331|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.331|1.124|=0.0326
95998073|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Financial Difficulties||4.7|-9.7|0.4915
95998074|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Fatigue||2.0|-10.8|0.1789
95998075|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Nausea and Vomiting||2.7|-6.0|0.4578
95780605|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in willingness scores from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
95780606|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||=|0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in willingness to engage with target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in willingness scores from post-intervention to follow-up.||||=0.053
95780607|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal willingness scores||||>0.05
95780608|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal willingness to engage with the target thought||||>0.05
95780609|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in willingness to engage||||>0.05
95780610|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in willingness to engage with the target thought across time.||||>0.05
95811415|NCT02231580|191595876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.886|||=|0.6016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|1.299|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.299|0.605|=0.6016
95811416|NCT02231580|191595876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.242|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.077|1.433|||MMRM|||Left finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.433|1.077|=0.0152
95998076|NCT01564784|191972054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||Pain||6.0|-7.3|0.8428
95998077|NCT01564784|191972055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||0.07|-0.01|0.1710
95998078|NCT01564784|191972056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline included as covariate.||||10.4|-1.2|0.1172
96002028|NCT01819935|191981626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.45||||||Propensity Cox proportional hazards regression model was used.||1.45|1.06|
95780611|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on willingness to engage||||>0.05
95780612|NCT03646305|191533337|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on willingness to engage||||>0.05
95780613|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, avoidance of target thought were equivalent across time||||<0.01
95780614|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
95811417|NCT02231580|191595876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.042|||=|0.6033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.186|||MMRM|||Right finger IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.186|0.915|=0.6033
95811418|NCT02231580|191595877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.657|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.086|2.529|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.529|1.086|=0.0520
95811419|NCT02231580|191595877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.916|||=|0.6978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.333|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.333|0.630|=0.6978
95811420|NCT02231580|191595877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.298|||=|0.0522|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.614|||MMRM|||Left finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.614|1.043|=0.0522
95860828|NCT04518995|191680438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.6|<0.0001
95860829|NCT04518995|191680438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.2|<0.0001
95956051|NCT01951261|191884374|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was made, considering it appropriate to set a limit of non-inferiority with respect to the main variable of 1.2 months (36 days), the study being lower if it will have exacerbation before this period of time, with a follow-up of 6 months, It was required to include a sample of 58 patients per group for a potency of 80% and a significance level of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated.Statistical analysis of the main variable was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test|Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95956052|NCT02498418|191884389|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was demonstrated if 90% confidence interval (CI) of percentage difference between generic rifaximin 200 mg tablets and xifaxan 200 mg tablets was within the equivalence range (-20%, +20%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.07||||||Bioequivalence was evaluated based on the PP analysis set using Z-test with Yates correction.||0.07|-0.11|
95956053|NCT02498418|191884392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.0195||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||Threshold of significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.13|-0.09|0.7899
95780615|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in avoidance of target thought from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in avoidance from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.05
95780616|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would show equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
95780617|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
95780618|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
95780619|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in avoidance of target thought across time.||||>0.05
95811421|NCT02231580|191595877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.014|||=|0.9012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.837|1.229|||MMRM|||Right finger ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.837|=0.9012
95811422|NCT02231580|191595878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.198|||=|0.1779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.494|||MMRM|||Left finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.494|0.96|=0.1779
95811423|NCT02231580|191595878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.966|||=|0.8036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.22|||MMRM|||Right finger TF statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.220|0.765|=0.8036
95811424|NCT02231580|191595879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.812|||=|0.0177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.706|0.935|||MMRM|||Left finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.935|0.706|=0.0177
95811425|NCT02231580|191595879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.967|||=|0.6491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.093|||MMRM|||Right finger freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.093|0.856|=0.6491
95811426|NCT02231580|191595880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.168|||=|0.6176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.955|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.955|0.697|=0.6176
95811427|NCT02231580|191595880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.759|||=|0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|1.399|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.399|0.411|=0.4541
95811428|NCT02231580|191595880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.119|||=|0.2018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.294|||MMRM|||Left hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.294|0.967|=0.2018
95811429|NCT02231580|191595880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.046|||=|0.6527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.234|||MMRM|||Right hand IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.234|0.886|=0.6527
95811430|NCT02231580|191595881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.929|||=|0.8279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.529|1.63|||MMRM|||Left hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.630|0.529|=0.8279
95811431|NCT02231580|191595881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.612|||=|0.2738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|1.283|||MMRM|||Right hand variability of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.283|0.292|=0.2738
95811432|NCT02231580|191595881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.018|||=|0.9218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|1.378|||MMRM|||Left hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.378|0.752|=0.9218
95956054|NCT02498418|191884392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.033||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Z-test|||95% CIs was calculated using Z-test with Yates' correction.||0.14|-0.07|0.5987
95811433|NCT02231580|191595881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.847|||=|0.5032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.561|1.277|||MMRM|||Right hand duration of TD statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.277|0.561|=0.5032
95860830|NCT04518995|191680438|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
95956055|NCT00179478|191884415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Based on adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR)|Regression, Cox|HR adjusted for age, onset event type, baseline brain MRI T2 lesion and number and baseline number of gad enhancing lesions||||||0.001
95956056|NCT00179478|191884416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value less than 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95811434|NCT02231580|191595882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.14|||=|0.6759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.917|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.917|0.677|=0.6759
95811435|NCT02231580|191595882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.815|||=|0.5764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.444|1.496|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.496|0.444|=0.5764
95811436|NCT02231580|191595882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.115|||=|0.2127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.289|||MMRM|||Left hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.289|0.965|=0.2127
95860831|NCT04518995|191680439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
95956057|NCT00179478|191884417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was a p value \< 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95956058|NCT00179478|191884418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||a priori threshold for statistical significant was a p value less than 0.01|Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95956059|NCT00702273|191884438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.4||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model including covariates treatment group, age class and region.||7.4|-2.6|
95956060|NCT04853394|191884466|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.51|.21|<.01
95780620|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
95780621|NCT03646305|191533338|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on avoidance of target thought||||>0.05
95780622|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, cognitive delusion were equivalent across time||||>0.05
95780623|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
95780624|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
95780625|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
95780626|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of cognitive defusion across time.||||>0.05
95811437|NCT02231580|191595882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.059|||=|0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.25|||MMRM|||Right hand IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.25|0.897|=0.5661
95956061|NCT04853394|191884467|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects modified Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.97|.46|.01
95956062|NCT04853394|191884468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 6-month follow-up|||.95|.77|.01
95780627|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
95780628|NCT03646305|191533339|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on levels of cognitive defusion||||>0.05
95780629|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, weight dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
95780630|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in weight dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
95780631|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null: there would be no differences in weight dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up||||<0.05
95780632|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780633|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal weight dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
95811438|NCT02231580|191595883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.571|||=|0.0874|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.018|2.424|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.424|1.018|=0.0874
95811439|NCT02231580|191595883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.18|||=|0.6431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.644|2.162|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.162|0.644|=0.6431
95780634|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all 4 conditions were equivalent in weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780635|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in weight dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
95780636|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780637|NCT03646305|191533340|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on weight dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780638|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, appearance dissatisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
95780639|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from baseline to post-intervention||||>0.05
95811440|NCT02231580|191595883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.193|||=|0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.371|||MMRM|||Left hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.371|1.038|=0.0389
95811441|NCT02231580|191595883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.138|||=|0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.327|||MMRM|||Right hand ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.327|0.976|=0.1641
95811442|NCT02231580|191595884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.93|||=|0.5668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.755|1.147|||MMRM|||Left hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.147|0.755|=0.5668
95811443|NCT02231580|191595884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.978|||=|0.8686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.229|||MMRM|||Right hand TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.229|0.778|=0.8686
95998079|NCT01273818|191972079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fscher exact test|||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||we did not need an estimation parameter such as odds or relative risk because of our experimental design and hypothesis of this study.|"Comparison Group Selection: our primary outcome is infection positive or negativeso, we compared the frequencies of being positive infections for these three groups. Our null hypothesis is  positive infection frequencies are same for three groups. We calculated post-hoc power for this design and found 0.99 for the percentages which shows positive infections respectively for Topical Gentamicin, cefazoline iv and topical gentamicin and iv cefazolin; 2.3%, 3.1% and 0%."||||0.198
95998080|NCT01073943|191972110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-2.9||||||||||-2.9|
95780640|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: the control conditions would have no significant difference in appearance dissatisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
95780641|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780642|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal appearance dissatisfaction scores||||>0.05
95780643|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780644|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in appearance dissatisfaction across time.||||>0.05
95811444|NCT02231580|191595885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.879|||=|0.1244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.765|1.009|||MMRM|||Left hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.009|0.765|=0.1244
95811445|NCT02231580|191595885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.919|||=|0.3535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|1.069|||MMRM|||Right hand freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.069|0.789|=0.3535
95860832|NCT04518995|191680439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.8|1.0|<0.0001
95998081|NCT01073943|191972111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.8||||||||||-8.8|
95998082|NCT01073943|191972112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95780645|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780646|NCT03646305|191533341|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on appearance dissatisfaction||||>0.05
95780647|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, body state image satisfaction were equivalent across time||||<0.001
95780648|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from baseline to post intervention.||||<0.05
95780649|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure the difference in state body image satisfaction from post intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in state body image satisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
95780650|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal body state image satisfaction||||>0.05
95811446|NCT02231580|191595886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.163|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.295|3.614|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.614|1.295|=0.015
95811447|NCT02231580|191595886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.274|||=|0.5136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.688|2.361|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.361|0.688|=0.5136
95860833|NCT04518995|191680439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.0|1.0|<0.0001
95860834|NCT04518995|191680439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.4|1.4|<0.0001
95860835|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
95998083|NCT01073943|191972113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95998084|NCT01073943|191972114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95998085|NCT01073943|191972115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95998086|NCT01073943|191972116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95780651|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal state body satisfaction scores||||>0.05
95780652|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
95780653|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in state body image satisfaction across time.||||>0.05
95780654|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
95780655|NCT03646305|191533342|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance alpha level.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between four conditions on state body image satisfaction||||>0.05
95780656|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, state body image satisfaction were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
95811448|NCT02231580|191595886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.56|||=|0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.139|2.137|||MMRM|||Left foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.137|1.139|=0.0218
95998087|NCT01073943|191972117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95998088|NCT01073943|191972119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|||||||Mid colon comparison|||-0.1|
95780657|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired sample t-test was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from baseline to post-intervention.||||<0.001
95780658|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant difference in anxious mood from post-intervention to follow-up||||>0.05
95780659|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
95780660|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of anxiety||||>0.05
95780661|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of anxiety||||>0.05
95780662|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of anxiety across time||||>0.05
95811449|NCT02231580|191595886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.251|||=|0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.899|||MMRM|||Right foot IOI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.899|0.825|=0.3720
95811450|NCT02231580|191595887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.911|||=|0.915|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.017|3.592|||MMRM|||Left foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.592|1.017|=0.915
95811451|NCT02231580|191595887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.687|||=|0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|3.737|||MMRM|||Right foot TD variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|0.762|=0.2745
95811452|NCT02231580|191595887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.598|||=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.608|||MMRM|||Left foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.608|0.980|=0.1148
95811453|NCT02231580|191595887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.454|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|2.679|||MMRM|||Right foot TD duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.679|0.789|=0.3080
95811454|NCT02231580|191595888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|2.272|||=|0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.381|3.737|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.737|1.381|=0.0079
95811455|NCT02231580|191595888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.21|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.133|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.133|0.686|=0.0204
95811456|NCT02231580|191595888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.564|||=|0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.144|2.138|||MMRM|||Left foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.138|1.144|=0.0204
95811457|NCT02231580|191595888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.269|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.884|||MMRM|||Right foot IPI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.884|0.856|=0.3144
95811458|NCT02231580|191595889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.914|||=|0.0324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.167|3.141|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||3.141|1.167|=0.0324
95811459|NCT02231580|191595889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.462|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.515|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||2.515|0.85|=0.246
95811460|NCT02231580|191595889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.387|||=|0.1057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.935|||MMRM|||Left foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.935|0.994|=0.1057
95811461|NCT02231580|191595889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.074|||=|0.7342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.523|||MMRM|||Right foot ITI duration statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.523|0.758|=0.7342
95811462|NCT02231580|191595890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.392|||=|0.1027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.943|||MMRM|||Left foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.943|0.997|=0.1027
95811463|NCT02231580|191595890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|1.158|||=|0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.595|||MMRM|||Right foot TF variability statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.595|0.840|=0.4494
95811464|NCT02231580|191595891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.699|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.922|||MMRM|||Left foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||0.922|0.530|=0.0350
95956063|NCT04853394|191884468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||1.45|.98|.01
95956064|NCT04853394|191884471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects Poisson regression model with random intercepts for participant and network cluster|Effect of MASLIHAT vs. comparison TANSIHAT condition at 12-month follow-up|||.19|.07|.01
95811465|NCT02231580|191595891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLS mean ratio|0.853|||=|0.3556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.136|||MMRM|||Right foot freq statistical analysis is presented (BN82451B versus Placebo). The MMRM analysis was performed on log-transformed data using the REML model including fixed categorical effects of treatment/cohort group, visit and treatment/cohort by visit interaction as well as the continuous fixed covariate of baseline value. Cohort was fitted as random effect.||1.136|0.640|=0.3556
95811466|NCT00964678|191595938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
95811467|NCT00964678|191595939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
95811468|NCT00964678|191595940|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95811469|NCT00964678|191595941|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|20.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95811470|NCT02445911|191595959|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|10.18|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||10.18|-23.75|
95811471|NCT02445911|191595959|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|13.72|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||13.72|-19.65|
95811472|NCT02445911|191595959|OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|11.88|||||Least-squares means have baseline and site as covariates. Placebo was the reference group.|||11.88|-21.97|
95811473|NCT02581930|191595985|OTHER|Exact binomial test|Probability of response|0.0||||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Significant if p-value is less than 0.1|Exact binomial test, 1-sided||Estimated as proportion of subjects with response|The primary comparison was between the response rate of an ineffective drug, such as investigators' choice chemotherapy (5%), and the response rate of ibrutinib.||||1.00
95811474|NCT01334918|191596007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Predefined noninferiority criterion: If the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within 0.15 of 0.78, MDCT would be determined to be noninferior to SPECT.|Agreement rate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||Analysis of agreement rate based on participants with 0 -1 and ≥ 2 reversible defects according to SPECT. Agreement is defined as the proportion of participants who had the same status from SPECT and MDCT, averaged across those with 2 or more reversible defects and those without, where SPECT is the reference standard.||0.97|0.77|
95956065|NCT01231464|191884510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.498|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.897|-1.009|||ANCOVA||Besides treatment, the ANCOVA analysis also adjusted for baseline, center, gender, age, and classification of AR (Intermittent Allergic Rhinitis \[IAR\] or Persistent Allergic Rhinitis \[PER\]).|||-1.009|-1.897|<0.0001
95956066|NCT03449134|191884513|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-18.45||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.92|-0.86||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||-0.86|-32.92|0.041
95956067|NCT03449134|191884513|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|1.56||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|22.99||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||22.99|-16.13|0.874
95811475|NCT01334918|191596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Specificity|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||||||Analysis of specificity based on participants with no fixed defects according to SPECT. Specificity is defined as a proportion of true negatives that are correctly identified, using SPECT as the reference standard.||0.99|0.90|
95811476|NCT01334918|191596012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sensitivity|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||||||Analysis of sensitivity based on participants with ≥ 1 fixed defect according to SPECT. Sensitivity is the proportion of true positives that are correctly identified using SPECT as the reference standard.||1.00|0.54|
95811477|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Linoleic acid (18:2n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.9|-3.4|<0.001
95811478|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Arachidonic acid (20:4n-6) mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||2.8|1.7|<0.001
95811479|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-6 mol% between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.7|-1.0|0.61
95962269|NCT01375751|191896275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-27.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-27.11|-40.72|<0.001
95811480|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in α-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|-0.1|0.40
95811481|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.1|0.0|0.12
95780663|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
95780664|NCT03646305|191533343|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between the four conditions on levels of anxiety||||>0.05
95780665|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of depressive mood were equivalent across time.||||<0.001
95780666|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from depressive mood from baseline to post-intervention||||<0.001
95780667|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in depressive mood from post-intervention to follow-up.||||>0.05
95780668|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
95780669|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
95811482|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosapentaenoic acid (22:5n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||0.0|-0.1|<0.001
95811483|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3) between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.5|1.0|<0.001
95860836|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95811484|NCT01576783|191596015|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total n-3 between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||1.4|0.9|<0.001
95811485|NCT01576783|191596016|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in n-6:n-3 ratio between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.7||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The change in erythrocyte fatty acids and the change in dietary DHA and EPA (aside from the supplement) were examined by treatment group using mixed effects regression, again with a random-effect for within-family dependence.||-3.7|-5.5|<0.001
95811486|NCT01576783|191596019|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Effortful Control Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.13
95811487|NCT01576783|191596019|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Activity Level Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.76||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.76
95811488|NCT01576783|191596020|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Cognitive Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.66
95860837|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
95780670|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
95811489|NCT01576783|191596020|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Language Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.55||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.55
95811490|NCT01576783|191596020|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Motor Composite scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.88||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||A sample of 448 was planned to achieve \>80% power to detect a 4.2-point difference (0.27-standard deviation (SD)) in Bayley-III cognitive composite scores with 10% loss to follow-up.The investigational product manufacturer discontinued production once 377 were enrolled, thereby capping enrollment. That sample provided 80% power to detect a 0.29-SD difference in Bayley-III scores.||||.88
95811491|NCT01576783|191596021|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||.11
95811492|NCT01576783|191596021|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in daytime sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.47||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.47
95811493|NCT01576783|191596021|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in total sleep duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to include missing data.||||||0.32
95860838|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95860839|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95860840|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.2|-1.7|< 0.0001
95780671|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of depressive mood across time||||>0.05
95780672|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
95780673|NCT03646305|191533344|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between 4 conditions on levels of depressive mood||||>0.05
95780674|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of happiness were equivalent across time||||>0.05
95780675|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
95811494|NCT01576783|191596022|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in weight-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.99
95811495|NCT01576783|191596022|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in length-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.27||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.27
95811496|NCT01576783|191596022|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in head circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.39
95811497|NCT01576783|191596022|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in mid upper arm circumference-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.25||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.25
95811498|NCT01576783|191596022|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in triceps skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.85
95962270|NCT01375751|191896275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.41|-37.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment group and LDL-C level and baseline ezetimibe use as covariates.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.86|-51.41|<0.001
95962271|NCT00882115|191896285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison was made to the 24 h minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.001
95811499|NCT01576783|191596022|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in subscapular skinfold-for-age z scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.82||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses compared the change in scores between groups, using mixed-effects regression that leveraged maximum likelihood to account for missing data.||||||0.82
95811500|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.42||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.42
95811501|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.68||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.68
95811502|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.78||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.78
95811503|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.32
95811504|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.97||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.97
95811505|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.62||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.62
95998089|NCT01073943|191972119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||-1.5|
95780676|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would have equal levels of happiness||||>0.05
95780677|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of happiness||||>0.05
95811506|NCT01576783|191596023|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.69||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.69
95811507|NCT01576783|191596024|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at the end of the trial.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.22
95811508|NCT01576783|191596025|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Nocturnal Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
95811509|NCT01576783|191596025|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Daytime Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95811510|NCT01576783|191596025|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Total Sleep Duration between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95811511|NCT01576783|191596026|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.51||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Continuous scores at the end of the trial were compared using a linear mixed model.||||||0.51
95811512|NCT01576783|191596027|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.09||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.09
95780678|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of happiness across time.||||>0.05
95811513|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.29
95811514|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.11||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.11
95811515|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.23||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.23
95811516|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.29
95956068|NCT03449134|191884516|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|-17.68||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.57|0.5||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||0.50|-32.57|0.056
95956069|NCT03449134|191884516|OTHER||Estimated Percent Change Difference|2.95||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|25.19||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to Placebo (i.e. estimated percent change difference) was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e = exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 12 based on log transformed data.||25.19|-15.33|0.770
95956070|NCT03449134|191884517|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.86|0.77|0.416
95956071|NCT03449134|191884517|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.55|0.66|0.948
95956072|NCT03449134|191884518|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.05||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.05|0.94|
95956073|NCT03449134|191884518|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.18||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.18|1.01|
95956074|NCT03449134|191884519|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.54||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.54|1.11|
95956075|NCT03449134|191884519|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline CSD score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.01|
95956076|NCT03449134|191884520|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.3||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.30|1.03|
95956077|NCT03449134|191884520|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline VAS score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.89|0.86|
95956078|NCT03449134|191884521|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||1.98|0.85|
95860841|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
95811517|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.06||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.06
95811518|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.14
95811519|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.13
95811520|NCT01576783|191596028|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.16
95811521|NCT01576783|191596029|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.98
95811522|NCT01576783|191596029|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.67
95811523|NCT01576783|191596030|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.047||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups.||||||0.047
95811524|NCT01576783|191596031|OTHER|The reported p-value is for the comparison of the scores between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).||||||0.2||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models compared continuous scores at follow-up between treatment groups. Model controlled for baseline scores.||||||0.20
95811525|NCT01576783|191596032|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a developmental condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32||||||||3.32|0.80|
95811526|NCT01576783|191596033|OTHER|Results are the comparison of proportion of those with a behavioral condition between groups (DHA+AA vs. Placebo) at post-intervention follow-up (median of 8.3 months (IQR = 4.8) after trial completion and supplementation stopped).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|39.15||||||||39.15|0.52|
95811527|NCT01819272|191596095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-9.0||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.0|-21.0|0.0670
95956079|NCT03449134|191884521|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, region, baseline LCQ score, and the interaction of baseline (underlying continuous response) by visit as covariates.||2.12|0.92|
95956080|NCT00113269|191884536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-3.3||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-12.7|6.1|||Normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||6.1|-12.7|0.4889
95956081|NCT00113269|191884536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.305|-21.9|-9.4|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|95.305% Confidence Interval is reported, as adjusted for interim analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.|||-9.4|-21.9|<0.0001
95956082|NCT00113269|191884537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.7||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.3|||normal approximation|||||14.3|-9.0|0.6533
95811528|NCT01819272|191596095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-14.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.0|-22.0|0.0057
95811529|NCT01819272|191596095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||3.0|-25.0|0.1095
95811530|NCT01819272|191596095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-12.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-3.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-3.0|-23.0|0.0097
95811531|NCT01819272|191596095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-17.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-17.0|-42.0|<0.0001
95811532|NCT01819272|191596096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-16.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-16.00|-208.0|0.0226
95811533|NCT01819272|191596096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-106.0||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.0|-32.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-32.00|-180.0|0.0068
95811534|NCT01819272|191596096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-152.0||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.0|-42.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-42.00|-252.0|0.0071
95811535|NCT01819272|191596096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-101.0||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.0|-4.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-4.00|-208.0|0.0405
95780679|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
95780680|NCT03646305|191533345|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
95780681|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, levels of confidence were equivalent across time.||||>0.05
95780682|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
95780683|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of confidence||||>0.05
95780684|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions were equivalent in levels of confidence||||>0.05
95811536|NCT01819272|191596096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-224.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-334.0|-118.0||p-value for pair-wise comparison without adjustment|Kruskal-Wallis|||||-118.0|-334.0|<.0001
95811537|NCT01819272|191596097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.12|-0.85|0.0100
95811538|NCT01819272|191596097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.09|-0.81|0.0153
95811539|NCT01819272|191596097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.35||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.02|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||0.02|-0.71|0.0611
95811540|NCT01819272|191596097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.45||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as acovariate||||-0.08|-0.83|0.0188
95811541|NCT01819272|191596097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Factor for treatment and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.29|-1.04|0.0006
95811542|NCT01409096|191596153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as covariate.||||0.9084
95811543|NCT01409096|191596154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.5187
95811544|NCT01409096|191596155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.6060
95956083|NCT00113269|191884537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-11.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-4.2|||normal approximation|||||-4.2|-19.5|0.0024
95780685|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions are equivalent in levels of confidence across time.||||>0.05
95780686|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of happiness||||>0.05
95780687|NCT03646305|191533346|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of happiness||||>0.05
95780688|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure main effect of time. Null: Across the sample, level of self-esteem were equivalent across time.||||<0.05
95780689|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests was conducted to measure differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up. Null hypothesis: there would be no significant differences in self-esteem from post-intervention to follow-up.||||<0.001
95780690|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Intervention. Null: On average, the experimental conditions and control conditions would have equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
95780691|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze main effect of Activity. Null: On average, singing and verbal repetition would result in equal levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
95811545|NCT01409096|191596156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSA used as a covariate.||||0.5110
95811546|NCT01444911|191596233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95956084|NCT00113269|191884538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-6.1||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|8.4|||normal approximation|||||8.4|-20.7|0.4087
95956085|NCT00113269|191884538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-8.7||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.2|||normal approximation|||||-0.2|-17.2|0.0456
95956086|NCT00113269|191884539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.1||||0.8742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.0|||normal approximation|||||15.0|-12.7|0.8742
95956087|NCT00113269|191884539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-14.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-5.7|||normal approximation|||||-5.7|-22.5|0.0010
95780692|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Twenty-eight participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA used to analyze Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: On average, all four conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
95811547|NCT02415556|191596243|OTHER|"A spatial power variance-covariance structure was used to model within-subject correlated measurements where the number of days from the baseline visit was used as the power of the autoregressive correlation coefficient. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.~The independent variables included: 4 treatment groups, TIMEG (baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period), TIMEG \* treatment group.; an average number of treatment days; subjects as random effects."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|12.23||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||12.23|0.81|0.025
95811548|NCT02415556|191596243|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|10.6||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||10.60|-0.03|0.051
95811549|NCT02415556|191596244|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|14.29||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||14.29|2.33|0.007
95811550|NCT02415556|191596244|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.32||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||8.32|-2.90|0.342
95811551|NCT02415556|191596245|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.13||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.13|-0.87|0.144
95811552|NCT02415556|191596245|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.16||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||-0.16|-1.11|0.008
95860842|NCT04518995|191680440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
95780693|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect a moderate effect size (.25) at a significance level of alpha .05 in a mixed ANOVA according to a power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2 (Intervention: experimental, control) × 3 (Time: baseline, post-intervention, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to measure Time x Intervention interactions. Null: experimental and control conditions have equivalent levels of self-esteem across time.||||>0.05
95780694|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no difference between singing and verbal repetition on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
95780695|NCT03646305|191533347|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a single-center, parallel-group study with balanced randomization of participants into one of four conditions. Condition (experimental: body-related thoughts vs control: neutral thoughts) was fully crossed with technique (singing vs verbal repetition) . This was a non-inferiority study to primarily examine whether singing is as effective as verbal repetition as a cognitive defusion strategy for body image distress.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||28 participants per condition (N=112) would provide sufficient power (0.8) to detect moderate effect size (.25) at significance level of alpha.05 in mixed ANOVA according to power analysis using GPower 3.1. A 2(Intervention: experimental, control) × 2(Activity: singing, verbal repetition) × 3(Time: baseline, post, follow-up) mixed ANOVA was used to analyze Time x Intervention x Activity interaction. Null: Across time, there would be no differences between four conditions on levels of self-esteem||||>0.05
95780696|NCT03646305|191533348|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between intervention and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between intervention condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
95811553|NCT02415556|191596246|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.83||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Insulin vs. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.83|-0.13|0.149
95780697|NCT03646305|191533348|OTHER|Mediation Analysis that examined whether greater homework adherence strengthened the relationship between condition and outcome|||||>|0.05|||||||Mediation Analyses|||All mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 4, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, one mediator, and room for covariates. We examined the meditational effect of homework adherence on the relationship between activity and each outcome measure. Null: homework adherence does not mediate any relationships between activity condition and outcome measures.||||>0.05
95811554|NCT02415556|191596246|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.8||Mixed model p-value represents on-treatment difference between between Control - Insulin vs. Control - Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We set type-I error rate at 0.05, power of 0.80 or above, effect size of 15% improvement due to INI, and obtained n=120 for the DM group (60 DM-INI; 60 DM-Placebo) and n=90 for the Control group (45 Control-INI; 45 Control-Placebo) yielding 210 patients with data at the end of the treatment period.||0.80|-0.11|0.134
95860843|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.34|0.17|< 0.0001
95956088|NCT00113269|191884541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|3.5||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||11.7|-4.8|0.4134
95956089|NCT00113269|191884541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|2.4||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.5|-1.7|0.2459
95956090|NCT00113269|191884542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|6.0||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|17.6|||normal approximation|||||17.6|-5.7|0.3155
95956091|NCT00113269|191884542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.4||||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.7|||normal approximation|||||5.7|-6.5|0.9045
95780698|NCT03646305|191533349|OTHER|Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures.|||||<|0.001||||||No other outcome measure was moderated by thought-shape fusion scores.|Moderation Analyses|||All moderation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS SPSS macro version 3.2 (Hayes, 2018). We tested model 1, which includes one outcome variable, one predictor, and one moderator. Thought-shape fusion was examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between intervention condition and outcome measures. Null: thought-shape fusion does not significantly moderate the relationship between intervention condition and state self-esteem||||<0.001
95780699|NCT01153009|191533379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|0.91||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 15 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in a sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.91|-3.86|0.224
95780700|NCT01153009|191533379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues for this dose.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.38|-5.12|0.023
95780701|NCT01153009|191533379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-1.69|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.69|-6.46|<0.001
95780702|NCT01153009|191533380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.984|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.984|0.786|0.348
95811555|NCT02415556|191596247|OTHER|The independent variables in the model included a four-level indicator variable for the four treatment groups, a three-level time indicator variable (TIMEG) representing baseline, on-treatment and post-treatment period and an interaction term between TIMEG and treatment group. An average number of treatment days at each assessment visit was used as a continuous repeated variable and subjects were included as random effects. Each efficacy and safety outcome variable was modeled separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.58|1.00|0.030
95811556|NCT02415556|191596247|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.63||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||10.63|-6.22|0.607
95811557|NCT02415556|191596248|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.29||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.29|-9.50|0.576
95956092|NCT00113269|191884543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|1.6||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||6.7|-3.4|0.5265
95956093|NCT00113269|191884543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.2|||normal approximation|Analysis based on normal approximation using Greenwood's formula for standard error.||||2.2|-3.4|0.6820
95811558|NCT02415556|191596248|OTHER|See primary aims.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.87||See primary aims.|Mixed Models Analysis|||See primary aims.||5.87|-7.58|0.802
95811559|NCT02415556|191596249|EQUIVALENCE|CBF and vasoreactivity maps were analyzed on a voxel-by-voxel basis using Statistical non-Parametric Mapping (SnPM, http://www.sph.umich.edu/ni-stat/SnPM/), voxel-level threshold p \< 0.005.||||||0.03|||||||Voxel-Based Morphometry|||||||0.03
95956094|NCT00113269|191884544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|5.9||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.4|||normal approximation|||||14.4|-2.7|0.1797
95956095|NCT00113269|191884544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||differences in event rates|-1.4||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.4|||normal approximation|||||3.4|-6.3|0.5655
95811560|NCT04358406|191596261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.05
95811561|NCT04358406|191596261|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.1
95956096|NCT00113269|191884545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4735||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.4735
95956097|NCT00113269|191884545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1186||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1186
95956098|NCT00113269|191884546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5231||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.5231
95956099|NCT00113269|191884546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis tests the difference between treatment groups for the mean change from month 1 with the month 1 value as covariate.||P-Value applies to 'Change from Month 1'||||0.1220
95962272|NCT00882115|191896285|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Data followed the normal distribution, therefore, a parametric repeated measure (mixed model) ANOVA model was used to compare means.||Comparison waws made to the 6 hour minus baseline change in both control phase and intervention phase.||||<0.01
95962273|NCT01607879|191896321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1497
95811562|NCT00023595|191596280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.04|0.72|0.12
95811563|NCT00023595|191596281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.02
95962274|NCT01607879|191896322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95962275|NCT01607879|191896323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95780703|NCT01153009|191533380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.994||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops for this dose and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.792|0.332
95780704|NCT01153009|191533380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.991||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.171|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.171|1.250|0.004
95780705|NCT01153009|191533381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.16|-0.39|0.400
95780706|NCT01153009|191533381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.08|-0.46|0.177
95780707|NCT01153009|191533381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.07|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.07|-0.61|0.014
95780708|NCT01153009|191533382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|5.45|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||5.45|-3.58|0.684
95780709|NCT01153009|191533382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.419||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.15|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||4.15|-5.40|0.797
95780710|NCT01153009|191533382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.278||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|0.45|||Mixed model for repeated mesurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.45|-8.54|0.078
95780711|NCT01153009|191533383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.775|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.775|0.625|0.845
95780712|NCT01153009|191533383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.994|0.713|0.503
95780713|NCT01153009|191533383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.098||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||1.860|0.648|0.728
95811564|NCT00023595|191596282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.17|0.84|0.90
95780714|NCT01153009|191533384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.13|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||2.13|-2.24|0.962
95811565|NCT00023595|191596283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.66|0.006
95956100|NCT01268098|191884605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|5.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|30.7||All hypothesis testings in this study were based on type I error of 0.05. Adjustment for multiplicity was not applied.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between the two dose arms.|The 2-sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis corresponding to the primary efficacy endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms. This sample size for this study was not based on the statistical considerations.||30.7|-20.6|>0.999
95780715|NCT01153009|191533384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.29|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||1.29|-3.05|0.427
95780716|NCT01153009|191533384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.22|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.22|-4.19|0.078
95780717|NCT04114656|191533401|OTHER||Posterior Ratio to placebo|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.02|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.020|0.968|
95780718|NCT04114656|191533402|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.12|0.89|
95780719|NCT04114656|191533403|OTHER||Posterior ratio to placebo|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.05|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK3858279 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 95% credible interval is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian Mixed Repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||1.05|0.91|
95780720|NCT02242019|191533406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95780721|NCT02242019|191533407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95780722|NCT03041467|191533443|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.001
95780723|NCT03041467|191533444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-values for the primary safety endpoint was based on the Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test with a margin of 7.5%.||||||0.002|||||||Farrington-Manning Test|||||||0.002
95811566|NCT00023595|191596284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.00|0.66|0.05
95780724|NCT03041467|191533445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate access circuit primary patency.||||<0.001
95780725|NCT03041467|191533446|OTHER|There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate target lesion primary patency.|Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method.|||<0.001
95780726|NCT03041467|191533447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||There is no planned hypothesis test other than at 6 months time point. P-value listed is at 6 months.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95780727|NCT03041467|191533451|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95780728|NCT03041467|191533452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.482
95780729|NCT03041467|191533453|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95780730|NCT01937884|191533462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95780731|NCT01937884|191533463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95780732|NCT01937884|191533464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed change in IFABP.||||||0.27
95780733|NCT01937884|191533465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed citrulline concentration on study day 5, by treatment group||||||0.04
95811567|NCT00023595|191596285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.85|0.64|<0.001
95811568|NCT00023595|191596286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.82|0.64|<0.001
95780734|NCT01937884|191533466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Student's t-test on log-transformed percent change of claudin 3||||||0.43
95780735|NCT01937884|191533467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95780736|NCT01937884|191533468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
95780737|NCT01937884|191533469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95780738|NCT03706469|191533470|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|93.8||||||||93.80|74.50|
95780739|NCT03706469|191533470|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|102.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|114.7||||||||114.70|91.10|
95780740|NCT03706469|191533470|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUClast will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.55|195.58||||||||195.58|152.55|
95780741|NCT03706469|191533471|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|84.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|96.11||||||||96.11|73.92|
95780742|NCT03706469|191533471|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.88|111.63||||||||111.63|88.88|
95780743|NCT03706469|191533471|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC∞ will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|172.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|149.07|200.09||||||||200.09|149.07|
95780744|NCT03706469|191533472|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|79.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.36|92.99||||||||92.99|67.36|
95780745|NCT03706469|191533472|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|117.27||||||||117.27|84.94|
95780746|NCT03706469|191533472|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of GMR|173.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.05|200.16||||||||200.16|150.05|
95780747|NCT00388297|191533474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-3|0.71
95780748|NCT00388297|191533474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-1.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-4|0.30
95780749|NCT00388297|191533475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95780750|NCT00388297|191533475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95780751|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 34 weeks||||0.81
95780752|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<34 weeks||||0.47
95780753|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \<37 weeks||||0.44
95780754|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for \< 37 weeks||||0.11
95780755|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||3|0|0.31
95811569|NCT00023595|191596287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.26|0.79|0.98
95811570|NCT00023595|191596288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.52|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||7.52|1.35|0.008
95811571|NCT00023595|191596289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.41|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||2.41|0.78|0.275
95780756|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||3|0|0.30
95780757|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.89
95780758|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (12 months)||3|0|0.54
95780759|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|-3|0.92
95780760|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.70
95780761|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Motor (24 months)||0|-3|0.20
95780762|NCT00388297|191533476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-II Language (24 months)||2|-3|0.71
95780763|NCT00388297|191533477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.89
95811572|NCT00023595|191596290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.98|0.71|0.030
95811573|NCT00023595|191596291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.31|0.89|0.401
95780764|NCT00388297|191533477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.48
95780765|NCT00388297|191533478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||||3|-2|0.90
95780766|NCT00388297|191533478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-3|0.64
95780767|NCT00388297|191533479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||7|-5|0.60
95780768|NCT00388297|191533479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for recall of digits forward||0|-8|0.22
95780769|NCT00388297|191533479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-6|0.52
95780770|NCT00388297|191533479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Recognition of Pictures||0|-4|0.91
95811574|NCT00023595|191596292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.93|0.71|0.002
95860844|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.42|0.23|< 0.0001
95780771|NCT00388297|191533480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Cognitive (12 months)||0|0|0.63
95780772|NCT00388297|191533480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley II Motor (12 mo)||3|0|0.83
95780773|NCT00388297|191533480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Language (12 months)||3|0|0.48
95780774|NCT00388297|191533480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Chi-squared|||Bayley-III Cognitive (24 months)||0|0|0.59
95780775|NCT00388297|191533481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.99
95780776|NCT00388297|191533481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||2|-2|0.96
95780777|NCT00388297|191533481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 36 months||2|-2|0.65
95780778|NCT00388297|191533481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-1.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||Chi-squared|||CBCL at 60 months||1|-3|0.44
95780779|NCT00388297|191533482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-1|0.37
95780780|NCT00388297|191533482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2|-2|0.98
95780781|NCT00388297|191533483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
95780782|NCT00388297|191533483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95780783|NCT00388297|191533484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
95780784|NCT00388297|191533484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95780785|NCT00388297|191533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
95780786|NCT00388297|191533485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95780787|NCT00388297|191533486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
95780788|NCT00388297|191533486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95780789|NCT00388297|191533487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95780790|NCT00388297|191533487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
95780791|NCT00388297|191533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95811575|NCT00023595|191596308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.71|0.51|<0.001
95811576|NCT00023595|191596309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.13|0.73|0.414
95811577|NCT00023595|191596310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.73|0.55|<0.001
95811578|NCT00023595|191596311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||1.03|0.72|0.108
95962276|NCT01607879|191896324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
95962277|NCT01607879|191896325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95780792|NCT00388297|191533488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95780793|NCT00388297|191533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.50
95780794|NCT00388297|191533489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95780795|NCT00388297|191533490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar at 1 min \< 4||||0.76
95780796|NCT00388297|191533490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \> 4 at 1 minute||||0.76
95780797|NCT00388297|191533490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.69
95780798|NCT00388297|191533490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||Apgar \< 7 at 5 minutes||||0.45
95811579|NCT00023595|191596312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H02: Medication + CABG + SVR) versus (H02: Medication + CABG)|||1.32|0.83|0.717
95811580|NCT00023595|191596313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is for (H01: Medication +CABG) versus (H01: Medication)|||0.97|0.73|0.018
95860845|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.27|< 0.0001
95956101|NCT01268098|191884606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference betweenthe two dose arms.||The null hypothesis corresponding to this endpoint is that the percentages of subjects who meet the endpoint criteria are the same for both dose arms.||||0.258
95780799|NCT00388297|191533491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95780800|NCT00388297|191533491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
95780801|NCT00388297|191533492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95780802|NCT00388297|191533492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95780803|NCT00388297|191533493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95780804|NCT00388297|191533493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95780805|NCT00388297|191533494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95780806|NCT00388297|191533494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.75
95780807|NCT00388297|191533495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95780808|NCT00388297|191533496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95780809|NCT00388297|191533496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95780810|NCT00388297|191533497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95780811|NCT00388297|191533497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95780812|NCT00388297|191533498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95956102|NCT01699698|191884651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956103|NCT00004146|191884662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||the study design is to detect 30% reduction in hazard of deaths with 78% power at one side alpha level of 0.10. Overall survial time was calculated from time of histological diagnosis until time of death from any event.||1.12|0.65|0.10
95780813|NCT00388297|191533498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
95780814|NCT00388297|191533499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95780815|NCT00388297|191533499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95780816|NCT02284568|191533500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1293||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.2705||significance at 0.05.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||The statistical model was a repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group, week, treatment group by week interaction, normalized brain volume at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||0.2705|-0.2390|0.903
95780817|NCT02284568|191533502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||significance at 0.05. p-value was from a log-rank test, and estimate and confidence limits were from a Cox model with treatment group as fixed effect, due to the violation of the proportionality assumption.|Log Rank||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.37|0.48|0.426
95780818|NCT02284568|191533503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||significance at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs placebo|The statistical model was a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment group, categorical EDSS at baseline (≤4.5 or \>4.5), age at baseline, natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, and country as fixed effects.||1.59|0.68|0.867
95780819|NCT02284568|191533504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2679||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.2||significance at 0.05. The p-value for ranked change from baseline values was from a repeated measures analysis of covariance with trt group, week, treatment group by week interaction, rank of T25FW score at baseline, and country as fixed effects.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo treatment effect|placebo n=121 Laquinimod 0.6 mg n=108 The estimate of parameter, standard error, and 95% confidence intervals for change from baseline was from a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test using Hodges-Lehmann estimates.||0.2000|-0.8500|0.248
95811581|NCT00023595|191596329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.015
95811582|NCT00023595|191596329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95811583|NCT00023595|191596329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95811584|NCT00023595|191596329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.44
95811585|NCT00023595|191596330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95811586|NCT00023595|191596330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95811587|NCT00023595|191596330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95811588|NCT00023595|191596330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95780820|NCT02284568|191533505|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.69||significance at 0.05|negative binomial regression model||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo risk ratio|This analysis was performed using baseline adjusted negative binomial regression model (SAS® PROC GENMOD) in which 1 contrast for comparing laquinimod 0.6 mg to placebo was constructed. In addition to the treatment group, the natural logarithm of T2 lesion volume at baseline, age at baseline and country/geographical region (CGR) were used as covariates.||0.69|0.26|0.001
95780821|NCT00426660|191533529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||75th percentile (median)|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.0|178.0||||||||178.0|135.0|
95780822|NCT00426660|191533529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||50th percentile (median)|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|92.0||||||||92.0|82.0|
95780823|NCT00426660|191533529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||25th percentile (median)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|62.0||||||||62.0|57.0|
95780824|NCT01546038|191533540|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.441|0.734||1-sided p-value from the log-rank test stratified by prognosis stratum according to Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||0.734|0.441|0.0020
95780825|NCT01546038|191533544|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2755||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.3057|13.9994|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by prognosis stratum according to IVRS.|||13.9994|1.3057|0.0112
95780826|NCT00904839|191533616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|11.5|||Kaplan-Meier||Difference in Kaplan-Meier Progression-free Survival Rates at 9 Months using Peto´s variance estimate.|||11.5|-27.8|
95811589|NCT00023595|191596330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95811590|NCT00023595|191596331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.31
95860846|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.48|0.30|< 0.0001
95780827|NCT00904839|191533621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.2|||Kaplan-Meier||confidence interval includes 0, meaning that the null hypothesis (no difference between the 2 groups) cannot be rejected (i.e. pvalue \> 0.05). The pvalue was not computed. Difference in Kaplan-Meier Resection Rates using Peto´s variance estimate.|||5.2|-15.3|
95780828|NCT03743402|191533636|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|5.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect an average 24 MME/day difference between arms.||5.88|-10.55|0.58
95780829|NCT03743402|191533637|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.52|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management)-(usual care)|A priori power calculations indicated 90% power to detect a 1.2-point average difference in PEG score between arms.||0.52|-0.51|0.98
95780830|NCT03743402|191533638|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in average MME/day between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|8.29|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=(pain self-management)-(usual care)|||8.29|-5.69|0.72
95780831|NCT03743402|191533639|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected PEG score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.05|-1.11|0.07
95780832|NCT03743402|191533640|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|18.04|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||18.04|-13.83|0.80
95780833|NCT03743402|191533641|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|8.09|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||8.09|0.56|0.02
95780834|NCT03743402|191533642|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.82|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.82|-2.53|0.75
95780835|NCT03743402|191533643|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PHQ-8 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.87|-1.87|0.48
95780836|NCT03743402|191533644|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.81|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.81|-1.31|0.64
95780837|NCT03743402|191533645|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in GAD-7 score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.51|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.51|-0.94|0.65
95780838|NCT03743402|191533646|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.1|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.10|0.12|0.02
95811591|NCT00023595|191596331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95811592|NCT00023595|191596331|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
95811593|NCT00023595|191596331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.079
95811594|NCT00023595|191596332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95811595|NCT00023595|191596332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95811596|NCT00023595|191596332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95811597|NCT00023595|191596332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95811598|NCT00023595|191596332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95998090|NCT01073943|191972119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.7|||||||Overall comparison: ascending colon, mid colon and recto-sigmoid colon|||-5.7|
95780839|NCT03743402|191533647|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PGIC score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.88|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||1.88|0.77|<0.01
95780840|NCT03743402|191533648|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.31|-0.13|0.42
95780841|NCT03743402|191533649|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in POMI score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.36|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.36|-0.10|0.26
95780842|NCT03743402|191533650|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||6.66|-3.47|0.54
95780843|NCT03743402|191533651|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PODS score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.21|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||2.21|-1.26|0.59
95780844|NCT03743402|191533652|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in opioid craving score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.57|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.57|-0.66|0.90
95811599|NCT00023595|191596333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.063
95811600|NCT00023595|191596333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.187
95811601|NCT00023595|191596333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.168
95811602|NCT00023595|191596333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.050
95811603|NCT00023595|191596334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95811604|NCT00023595|191596334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95811605|NCT00023595|191596334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95811606|NCT00023595|191596334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95780845|NCT03743402|191533653|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of exactly 0 expected difference in PSEQ score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||Regression, Linear||mean difference = (pain self-management) - (usual care)|||0.32|-1.03|0.30
95780846|NCT03743402|191533654|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.53|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||6.53|0.68|0.20
95780847|NCT03743402|191533655|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is a point null of the relative risk of 30% reduction from baseline equal exactly to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.32|||Regression, Poison||relative risk = (pain self-management)/(usual care)|||3.32|0.54|0.53
95780848|NCT00076999|191533656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
95780849|NCT00076999|191533656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.78
95811607|NCT00023595|191596334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95811608|NCT00023595|191596335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.039
95811609|NCT00023595|191596335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95811610|NCT00023595|191596335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95811611|NCT00023595|191596335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95811612|NCT00023595|191596336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95811613|NCT00023595|191596336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95811614|NCT00023595|191596336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95811615|NCT00023595|191596336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95811616|NCT00023595|191596336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95811617|NCT00023595|191596337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811618|NCT00023595|191596337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811619|NCT00023595|191596337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811620|NCT00023595|191596337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.024
95811621|NCT00023595|191596338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95811622|NCT00023595|191596338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95811623|NCT00023595|191596338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95811624|NCT00023595|191596338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95811625|NCT00023595|191596338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95811626|NCT00023595|191596339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.051
95811627|NCT00023595|191596339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95811628|NCT00023595|191596339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.065
95811629|NCT00023595|191596339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95811630|NCT00023595|191596340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95811631|NCT00023595|191596340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95998091|NCT01696461|191972128|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Percentage of donors mobilized with plerixafor. No comparison group was analyzed.|||
95998092|NCT01696461|191972129|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. Percentage of donor experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3. Grade of maximum toxicity across all time points is reported.|||
95998093|NCT01696461|191972130|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. The number of donors experiencing toxicities was assessed at 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes after administration of plerixafor on each day of collection and one, six, and 12 months post-donation. Toxicities were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.3.|||
95998094|NCT01696461|191972131|OTHER||||||||||||||||||At 100 days after HCT, all patients in both the MAC and the RIC cohorts had achieved neutrophil engraftment. All patients in the MAC arm and 97% of patients in the RIC arm had achieved platelet engraftment. The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 13 and 15 days for MAC and RIC, respectively. The median time to platelet engraftment was 19 and 18 days for MAC and RIC, respectively.|||
95998095|NCT01696461|191972132|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Full donor myeloid chimerism was achieved relatively quickly in both RIC and MAC groups (median 100% at day +28 in both RIC and MAC), but conversion to full donor T-cell chimerism appeared to be slower in the RIC patients.~T-cell chimerism for MAC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 92(59-100)%, Day +100: 97(76-100)%, Day +180: 100(91-100)%, Day +365: 100(100-100)%~T-cell chimerism for RIC patients: median donor cell % (range):~Day +28: 80(50-100)%, Day +100: 84(64-100)%, Day +180: 95(74-100)%, Day +365: 100(87-100)%"|||
95780850|NCT00076999|191533657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
95780851|NCT00076999|191533657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780852|NCT00076999|191533658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
95780853|NCT00076999|191533658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780854|NCT00076999|191533659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.12
95780855|NCT00076999|191533659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95811632|NCT00023595|191596340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95811633|NCT00023595|191596340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95998096|NCT01696461|191972133|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive outcome.There were no cases of primary graft failure.|||
95780856|NCT00076999|191533660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.01
95780857|NCT00076999|191533660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780858|NCT00076999|191533661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.06
95998097|NCT01696461|191972134|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of acute graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of acute GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing risk.|||
95998098|NCT01696461|191972135|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Immune reconstitution was measured by CD3+CD4+ and CD3+CD8+ T cells in the peripheral blood of patients at days 28, 100, 180, and 365 after HCT. Notably, median CD3+CD4+ cell counts were \>200/µL at all times analyzed, including day 28 in both MAC and RIC groups.|||
95998099|NCT01696461|191972136|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Groups were not directly compared using a statistical test.|Percentage of recipients at-risk for CMV reactivation who experienced a reactivation.|||
95780859|NCT00076999|191533661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780860|NCT00076999|191533662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.60
95780861|NCT00076999|191533662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780862|NCT00076999|191533663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.20
95780863|NCT00076999|191533663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780864|NCT00076999|191533664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.18
95780865|NCT00076999|191533664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||1.00
95780866|NCT00076999|191533666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.02
95811634|NCT00023595|191596340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95811635|NCT00023595|191596341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.004
95811636|NCT00023595|191596341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95811637|NCT00023595|191596341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95811638|NCT00023595|191596341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.044
95811639|NCT00023595|191596342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95811640|NCT00023595|191596342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95811641|NCT00023595|191596342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95811642|NCT00023595|191596342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95998100|NCT01696461|191972137|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of treatment-related mortality and disease relapse/progression were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|The incidence of treatment-related mortality and relapse was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. When computing the cumulative incidence probability of treatment-related mortality and relapse, relapse and treatment-related mortality, respectively, were considered as a competing risk.|||
95998101|NCT01696461|191972138|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The probability of progression free survival and overall survival were examined in the RIC and MAC cohorts but were not directly compared between the two groups using a statistical test.|Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the probability of progression-free survival and overall survival. Progression-free survival at 1 year was 53% (95% CI, 36% to 71%) after MAC and 64% (95% CI, 47% to 79%) after RIC. Overall survival at 1 year was 63% (95% CI, 46% to 79%) after MAC and 70% (95% CI, 53% to 84%) after RIC.|||
95998102|NCT01696461|191972139|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive.|This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
95998103|NCT01696461|191972140|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The cumulative incidence of chronic graft-vs-host disease was examined in the RIC and MAC groups but was not directly compared with a statistical test.|The incidence of chronic GVHD was quantified by computing the cumulative incidence probability and an appropriate 95% confidence interval. Death was treated as a competing event.|||
95998104|NCT01696461|191972141|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This is a descriptive analysis. There were no cases of secondary graft failure.|||
95998105|NCT01696461|191972142|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This outcome measure is descriptive. The median cell dose and range are reported.|||
95998106|NCT00803114|191972143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.05||95.0|0.12|0.41|||Fisher Exact||Relative risk describes the risk of requiring additional analgesics in the first 24 hours postpartum with the denominator being the arm which received placebo.|Relative risk ratio estimation with 95% CI using exact methods||0.41|0.12|0.05
95998107|NCT00803114|191972144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.05||95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 226|The epidural morphine group represents the baseline of comparison for difference in means, with the placebo group requiring additional analgesics earlier.|||-2.3|-5.7|0.05
95780867|NCT00076999|191533666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.47
95780868|NCT00076999|191533667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
95780869|NCT00076999|191533667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.81
95998108|NCT00803114|191972145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.05||95.0|0.7|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom 212|Difference in VAS score when compared to the baseline group, subjects receiving epidural morphine|||1.8|0.7|0.05
95998109|NCT00803114|191972146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Fisher's exact test result did not reveal statistically significant differences between expected and real frequencies in any of the categories.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80
95998110|NCT01200433|191972148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.94||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.05|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.05|0.84|0.011
95998111|NCT01200433|191972149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"We tested a joint hypothesis that dexmedetomidine was noninferior to propofol both in terms of cerebral blood flow velocity and brain oxygenation during DBS surgery.~A total of 44 patients provided a 90% power at the 0.05 significance level to detect noninferiority of dexmedetomidine to propofol using a noninferiority ratio of geometric means of 0.80, assuming a coefficient of variation of 25% for each of the 2 primary outcomes. Both outcomes were expected to follow a log-normal distribution."|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Dexmedetomidine vs. propofol|||1.02|0.96|< 0.001
95780870|NCT00076999|191533668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.00
95998112|NCT01200433|191972151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
95998113|NCT01200433|191972152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.86|1.18|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.18|0.86|0.91
95998114|NCT01200433|191972154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-4.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.2|-4.1|0.02
95998115|NCT01200433|191972155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|>0.99
95998116|NCT03414359|191972167|NON_INFERIORITY|As there is no existing data in the literature that clearly defines a clinically significant reduction in the onset time of anesthesia, the non-inferiority margin was defined a priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is, \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To exclude a clinically important difference between the LEBF group and the chloroprocaine group, given a standard deviation of 4 minutes, and a non-inferiority margin of 3 minutes difference between groups, 62 mother-infant dyads (31 mother-infant dyads in each arm) are required to have a significance level of 5% and a power of 90%. In total, 70 female patients were recruited to account for any withdrawals.||||0.10
95998117|NCT02874794|191972227|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.7827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|13.2|||ANCOVA|||||13.2|-17.6|0.7827
95780871|NCT00076999|191533668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.69
95780872|NCT00076999|191533670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.64
95780873|NCT00076999|191533670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.26
95780874|NCT00076999|191533671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.25
95956104|NCT03972137|191884677|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline (BL) to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|17.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and Quit Date (Mean CPD at Baseline - Mean CPD at Quit Date).|||17.05|5.79|.003
95956105|NCT03972137|191884677|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow-up session (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.45||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|25.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean cigarettes smoked per day at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||25.35|-1.55|.067
95956106|NCT03972137|191884678|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total score from baseline (BL) to 2-weeks post-quit (2W).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.91||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|32.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 2-weeks post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=6 participants that attended the 2-weeks post quit session.|||32.17|7.17|.010
95956107|NCT03972137|191884678|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in DASS-21 Total scores from baseline (BL) to 1-month post-quit (1M).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.4||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|56.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 1-month post-quit. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=5 participants that attended the 1-month post-quit session.|||56.52|5.88|.027
95956108|NCT03972137|191884678|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference in DASS-21 total scores from baseline (BL) to 3-month follow up (3MFU).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|50.41||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and 3-month follow-up. Estimated value reported is reflective of the n=4 participants that attended the 3-month follow-up session.|||50.41|1.09|.045
95956109|NCT02747121|191884679|OTHER|The intervention was external inspections. This is an organizational level intervention and it does not replace any existing intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.8||We used calculated P-values, however only confidence intervals were reported in the published article.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.80|0.86|0.24
95956110|NCT03029234|191884681|OTHER|The prespecified threshold that the primary endpoint would be met was if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than 18%.|Overall response rate|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|44.9||||||||44.9|27.3|
95956111|NCT03214250|191884736|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.577||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.417|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.417|0.006
95956112|NCT03214250|191884736|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.481||||0.062|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.337|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.337|0.062
95956113|NCT03214250|191884736|SUPERIORITY|One-sided|probability|0.413||||0.233|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.27|||one-sided p-value|z-test|One-sided, one-sample z-test of the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 1-year OS rate (and its standard error) against the historical rate of 35%||Each treatment arm was analyzed independently and compared to a historical 1-year OS reference rate of 35%.|||0.270|0.233
95956114|NCT01376050|191884743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95956115|NCT01376050|191884744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95956116|NCT02845375|191884748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.299
95956117|NCT01037413|191884754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-8.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.1|-21.3|<0.001
95956118|NCT01037413|191884755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-8.3|-21.2|<0.001
95956119|NCT01037413|191884755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-17.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-17.7|-34.3|<0.001
95780875|NCT00076999|191533671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.70
95956120|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.033
95956121|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
95956122|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
95956123|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.0|-2.7|<0.001
95780876|NCT00076999|191533672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.73
95780877|NCT00076999|191533672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.79
95780878|NCT00076999|191533674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.38
95780879|NCT00076999|191533674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.20
95811643|NCT00023595|191596342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95780880|NCT00076999|191533675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.08
95780881|NCT00076999|191533675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.36
95780882|NCT00076999|191533676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 2-\<6 yrs versus TPV OS 6-\<12 yrs||||0.23
95780883|NCT00076999|191533676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Comparison of TPV OS 12-18 yrs versus TPV SEDDS 12-18 yrs||||0.23
95780884|NCT05821296|191533683|OTHER|Change of sum of total lesions at the end of the study from baseline/Day 0 to evaluate the efficacy and clinical performance of Crystal Peel for the treatment of acne.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-11.84|||ANCOVA|||||-11.84|-17.31|<0.0001
95780885|NCT05821296|191533684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||||2.16|1.54|
95780886|NCT05821296|191533685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.2||||||||2.20|1.44|
95956124|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.3|-1.9|0.012
95780887|NCT05821296|191533686|OTHER||Mean value in local tolerance score|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.44||||||||2.44|1.98|
95780888|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER|Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.|% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||||89|61|
95780889|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|98.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||98|80|
95780890|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|95.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||95|73|
95780891|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|68|
95998118|NCT02874794|191972230|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.6667|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5858|0.7589|||ANCOVA|||||0.7589|0.5858|<.0001
95780892|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|97.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||97|77|
95956125|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-2.4|0.003
95780893|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|85.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|93.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||93|69|
95780894|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|61|
95780895|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||89|62|
95780896|NCT05821296|191533687|OTHER||% of patients with positive answers|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|87.0||||||Descriptive analysis of subjects' satisfaction questionnaire assessing the Crystal Peel in the treatment of acne.||87|59|
95780897|NCT05821296|191533689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
95780898|NCT05821296|191533689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.010
95780899|NCT05821296|191533689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.69|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.004
95780900|NCT05821296|191533689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.45||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous number of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.013
95780901|NCT05821296|191533690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2832.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3217.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||< 0.0001
95956126|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.1|-2.6|<0.001
95956127|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-4.0|-12.7|<0.001
95956128|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Vascularity: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.4|-3.2|<0.001
95956129|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pigmentation: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
95956130|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-2.8|0.001
95998119|NCT02874794|191972231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-0.58|0.5792
95998120|NCT02874794|191972232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.59|||ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-4.02|<.0001
95998121|NCT02874794|191972233|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8617
95998122|NCT02874794|191972234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||vs Enalapril||-0.75|-2.76|0.0007
95998123|NCT02874794|191972235|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||||1.68|-0.41|0.2354
95998124|NCT02874794|191972236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.05|0.8215
95998125|NCT02874794|191972237|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-3.13|0.0452
95998126|NCT02874794|191972238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-3.68|0.0242
95998127|NCT01584024|191972239|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.003
95780902|NCT05821296|191533690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1754.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4220.25||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.025
95998128|NCT01584024|191972240|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||McNemar|||||||=0.17
95998129|NCT00917384|191972275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.0473||95.0|0.603|0.998|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.998|0.603|0.0473
95998130|NCT00917384|191972276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.62|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified Log-Rank Test and HR stratified by randomization strata (weight loss over the prior 3 months, primary tumor site and geographical region).||||0.620|0.376|<0.0001
95998131|NCT00917384|191972277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference Between Arms|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.6|||Normal Approximation|||||33.6|14.9|<0.0001
95780903|NCT05821296|191533690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2763.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4965.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.004
95780904|NCT05821296|191533690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1742.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3974.21||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of detected pores at day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.021
95998132|NCT01575548|191972295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used to compare DFS between the two arms.||||1.29|0.54|0.21
95998133|NCT00356915|191972333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||P-Value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, . The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
95998134|NCT00356915|191972334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. No p-value was calculated for this endpoint.|Wald's CI|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||Comparison between the 2 itraconazole groups was based on lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-4.3|
95998135|NCT00356915|191972335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumption was that the Complete Cure rate at week 52 was 35% for the active dosing groups, a sample size of 552 ITT subjects per active group would have had a 93% power for testing the proportion of subjects with Complete Cure. These computations assumed a non inferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided significance level of 0.025. Power computations were performed using nQuery Advisor, Version 5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.1||||Wald's CI|The statistical analysis used Wald's CI with Yates' continuity correction.||The test for demonstrating non-inferiority was based on a margin of 10%. Thus, non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the one-sided, 97.5% CI in the observed difference between the proportions of subjects by study drug with Complete Cure at week 52 (itraconazole 200-mg tablets minus itraconazole 100-mg capsules) was greater than -10%. The non-inferiority analysis was restricted to the active dosing groups.|||-1.1|< 0.001
95998136|NCT00356915|191972336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was stratified by analysis center.||The superiority analysis was restricted to the itraconazole 200-mg tablets and placebo tablets dosing groups.||||<0.001
95998137|NCT02371629|191972337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|||||0.066|0.000|0.051
95998138|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|2.88||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.88|-7.65|
95998139|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-3.21||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.21|-26.40|
95998140|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|6.05||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.05|-5.84|
95998141|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.25||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.25|-1.71|
95998142|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|8.89||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.89|-4.09|
95998143|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
95998144|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.19|1.89||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.89|-16.19|
95998145|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|4.86||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.86|-9.07|
95998146|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.39||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.39|-14.40|
95998147|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-7.16||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-7.16|-30.10|
95998148|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-3.26||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.26|-21.66|
95998149|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
95998150|NCT01193335|191972352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.68||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.68|-4.54|
95780905|NCT05821296|191533691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
95998151|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.62|
95998152|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.38|
95998153|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.59|
95998154|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.65||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.65|0.92|
95998155|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.25|0.80|
95998156|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.58|
95998157|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.47|
95998158|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.89|0.55|
95998159|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.19|0.77|
95998160|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
95998161|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.45|
95780906|NCT05821296|191533691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.029
95780907|NCT05821296|191533691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.006
95780908|NCT05821296|191533691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous relative area (density) of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.037
95780909|NCT05821296|191533692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.001
95780910|NCT05821296|191533692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71||0.348|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.348
95780911|NCT05821296|191533692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.091
95780912|NCT05821296|191533692|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.190
95780913|NCT05821296|191533693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
95780914|NCT05821296|191533693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.281
95780915|NCT05821296|191533693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.46||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.060
95956131|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Relief: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.3|-3.6|<0.001
95956132|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pliability: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.7|-3.2|0.005
95956133|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Surface Area: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.2|-3.1|<0.001
95956134|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-1.5|-3.3|<0.001
95956135|NCT01037413|191884756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-7.4|-17.7|<0.001
95998162|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.88||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.57|
95956136|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-1.3|0.067
95956137|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.5|-1.2|0.413
95956138|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.7|-1.6|0.401
95956139|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.2|-2.4|0.083
95956140|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.0|-2.3|0.052
95998163|NCT01193335|191972353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 19: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.68|
95998164|NCT01193335|191972362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.668
95780916|NCT05821296|191533693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of average area of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.209
95998165|NCT01193335|191972362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.051
95998166|NCT01193335|191972363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.704
95998167|NCT01193335|191972363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
95998168|NCT01193335|191972364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.531
95998169|NCT01193335|191972364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||>0.99
95998170|NCT01193335|191972365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.183
95998171|NCT01193335|191972365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.357
95998172|NCT01193335|191972366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||AEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.794
95998173|NCT01193335|191972366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SAEs: Two sided Fisher exact test, was used to calculate difference between vaccine groups.||||0.782
95811644|NCT00023595|191596343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
95998174|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||Serotype 4: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.14|0.63|
95998175|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.62||||||Serotype 6B: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.62|0.95|
95998176|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47||||||Serotype 9V: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.47|0.96|
95998177|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26||||||Serotype 14: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.26|0.74|
95998178|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02||||||Serotype 18C: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.02|0.63|
95998179|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19||||||Serotype 19F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.19|0.65|
95998180|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.33||||||Serotype 23F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.74|
95998181|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||||||Serotype 1: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.11|0.64|
95998182|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||||||Serotype 3: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||2.05|1.03|
95998183|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.24||||||Serotype 5: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.24|0.81|
95998184|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82||||||Serotype 6A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.82|1.02|
95998185|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 7F: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.18|0.78|
95811645|NCT00023595|191596343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95811646|NCT00023595|191596343|SUPERIORITY|24 months||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
95811647|NCT00023595|191596343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.097
95811648|NCT00023595|191596344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95956141|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.1|-2.3|0.036
95956142|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.0|-2.1|0.045
95956143|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-9.9|0.054
95956144|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-8.2|0.065
95956145|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Pain: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.1|-2.0|0.079
95956146|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Itching: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||0.3|-1.5|0.158
95956147|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Color: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.5|-3.0|0.010
95956148|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Stiffness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-3.5|0.003
95956149|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Thickness: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.8|-4.0|0.005
95956150|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Irregular: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.2|-3.5|0.032
95956151|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Overall Opinion: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-0.9|-3.8|0.003
95956152|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.1|-16.4|0.006
95956153|NCT01037413|191884757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24, Scar Appearance Composite Score: Comparison within the participant between EXC 001 and placebo.||-3.0|-13.4|0.004
95956154|NCT00619983|191884764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Due to failure of daily electronic diaries and exhaustion of funds, we were only able to recruit \< 30% of the number of subjects required in our power analysis.||||0.69
95956155|NCT02630706|191884786|SUPERIORITY|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)|Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.52||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|Least squares means = LSM||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 15 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
95956156|NCT02630706|191884786|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.63|||cLDA|||The primary hypothesis of the study was the mean change from baseline in HbA1c for 5 mg ertugliflozin is greater than that for placebo.||-0.63|-0.97|<0.001
95956157|NCT02630706|191884787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the LSM vs. placebo|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.5||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA|||||-0.50|-0.86|<0.001
95956158|NCT02630706|191884787|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-AHA status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.58|||cLDA|||||-0.58|-0.95|<0.001
95956159|NCT02630706|191884788|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|4.6|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|4.6|-16.5|
95956160|NCT02630706|191884788|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.7|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|7.7|-13.3|
95956161|NCT02630706|191884789|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|3.0|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|3.0|-20.5|
95956162|NCT02630706|191884789|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|6.9|||||||Miettinen-Nurminen method|6.9|-16.5|
95956163|NCT02630706|191884792|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-27.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-21.7|||cLDA|||||-21.70|-33.85|<0.001
95956164|NCT02630706|191884792|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.45|-24.35|||cLDA|||||-24.35|-36.45|<0.001
95956165|NCT02630706|191884793|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-26.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|-20.01|||cLDA|||||-20.01|-32.41|<0.001
95956166|NCT02630706|191884793|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-28.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.67|-22.43|||cLDA|||||-22.43|-34.67|<0.001
95780917|NCT05821296|191533694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26495.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33223.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||<0.0001
95780918|NCT05821296|191533694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14447.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44054.48||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.073
95780919|NCT05821296|191533694|OTHER|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25315.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49884.67||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
95998186|NCT01193335|191972367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52||||||Serotype 19A: GMFR ratio was calculated by back transforming the GMFR difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on Student t distribution for the ratio difference of logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2).||1.52|0.88|
95998187|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998188|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.96||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||1.96|-8.15|
95998189|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998190|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998191|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.24||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.24|-3.13|
95998192|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998193|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|3.1||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.10|-6.32|
95998194|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998195|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-8.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.93|4.42||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.42|-21.93|
95998196|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998197|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95780920|NCT05821296|191533694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13287.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39615.92||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, there is a significant variation over time for the analyzed parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of detected pores at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of pores assessed by Colorface device.||||0.071
95998198|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95998199|NCT01193335|191972369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.31||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.31|-4.25|
95811649|NCT00023595|191596344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95811650|NCT00023595|191596344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95811651|NCT00023595|191596344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95998200|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.60|
95998201|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.66||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.66|0.39|
95998202|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.80|0.51|
95998203|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.66|
95780921|NCT05821296|191533695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7518.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13340.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
95780922|NCT05821296|191533695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7230.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17547.6||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.041
95780923|NCT05821296|191533695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9086.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18306.64||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
95780924|NCT05821296|191533695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14542.17||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||If the Wilcoxon test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous area of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.931
95780925|NCT05821296|191533696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.005
95780926|NCT05821296|191533696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.035
95956167|NCT02630706|191884794|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.5|||cLDA|||||-1.50|-2.51|<0.001
95780927|NCT05821296|191533696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.036
95780928|NCT05821296|191533696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous depth of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.784
95956168|NCT02630706|191884794|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.28|||cLDA|||||-1.28|-2.28|<0.001
95956169|NCT02630706|191884795|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.63|<0.001
95956170|NCT02630706|191884795|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.21|||cLDA|||||-1.21|-2.36|<0.001
95956171|NCT02630706|191884796|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|8.35|||Logistic regression model|||||8.35|2.49|<0.001
95956172|NCT02630706|191884796|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|8.36|||Logistic regression model|||||8.36|2.52|<0.001
95962278|NCT04560374|191896326|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was performed after the completion of the study. 98% power was obtained.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95962279|NCT03721172|191896365|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||22.8|12.2|<0.0001
95962280|NCT03721172|191896366|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.1|19.1|<0.0001
95811652|NCT00023595|191596344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95811653|NCT00023595|191596345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95811654|NCT00023595|191596345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
95998204|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.85|
95998205|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.58|
95998206|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.43|
95998207|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.2||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.20|0.77|
95998208|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.87||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.41|
95998209|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.88||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.56|
95998210|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.70|0.41|
95998211|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.71|
95998212|NCT01193335|191972371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.42|
95811655|NCT00023595|191596345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95998213|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.82|0.51|
95998214|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.47|
95998215|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.93|0.61|
95998216|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.66|
95998217|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.08||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.08|0.66|
95998218|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
95998219|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.79||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.79|0.46|
95998220|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.03||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.64|
95998221|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.73|
95811656|NCT00023595|191596345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95811657|NCT00023595|191596346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95998222|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.58|
95998223|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.57|
95998224|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.00|0.69|
95998225|NCT01193335|191972372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.81||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.49|
95998226|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.63|
95998227|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.48|
95998228|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.84|0.46|
95998229|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.12|0.61|
95998230|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.67|0.37|
95998231|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.40|
95998232|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.64|0.35|
95998233|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.61|
95998234|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.9||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.90|0.39|
95998235|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.52|
95998236|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
95998237|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.02|0.67|
95998238|NCT01193335|191972373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.72||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.72|0.36|
95811658|NCT00023595|191596346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95811659|NCT00023595|191596346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95998239|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||||||Serotype 4: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.61|
95998240|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76||||||Serotype 6B: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.38|
95998241|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||||||Serotype 9V: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.54|
95998242|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.51|
95780929|NCT05821296|191533697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4466.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.011
95998243|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78||||||Serotype 18C: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.40|
95998244|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.71||||||Serotype 19F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.71|0.29|
95998245|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.83||||||Serotype 23F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.83|0.38|
95998246|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.07||||||Serotype 1: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.07|0.63|
95998247|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11||||||Serotype 3: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.11|0.39|
95780930|NCT05821296|191533697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2315.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6197.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.074
95998248|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.50|
95998249|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95||||||Serotype 6A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.95|0.47|
95998250|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13||||||Serotype 7F: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.13|0.70|
95998251|NCT01193335|191972374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78||||||Serotype 19A: Ratios of GMCs were calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.78|0.37|
95998252|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.81||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.81|0.99|
95998253|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.2||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.20|0.59|
95998254|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.93||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.93|0.26|
95811660|NCT00023595|191596346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95811661|NCT00023595|191596346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95811662|NCT00023595|191596347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.205
95811663|NCT00023595|191596347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.017
95780931|NCT05821296|191533697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2700.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5962.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.007
95780932|NCT05821296|191533697|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|430.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5021.2||0.779|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous length of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
95780933|NCT05821296|191533698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-75800.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|142643.92||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 15 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.003
95780934|NCT05821296|191533698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73517.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|197224.85||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 36 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.054
95780935|NCT05821296|191533698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-90424.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|198264.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||If the test provides a p-value less than 0.05, the variation is significant over time for the studied parameter.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 57 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.008
95780936|NCT05821296|191533698|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1314.03||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from baseline of conspicuous volume of line marks at Day 78 to evaluate the improvement of line marks assessed by Colorface device.||||0.779
95780937|NCT01217385|191533699|EQUIVALENCE|under the NULL, it is assume that there is no difference between a 40% decrease in TOI, and a less than 40% decrease or an increase in TOI in their ability to predict pCR+|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.667||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|23.04||5% alpha threshold for significance.|Regression, Logistic|||"This analysis will look at the ability of the % change in DOSI measured tumor Optical Index (TOI) from baseline to mid-therapy to predict pathologic response using logistic regression.~Pathologic response (dichotomized into responders and non-responders) will be used as the reference standard and %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at -40%) will be used to estimate pCR (+/-)= alpha + beta1(%change TOI)"||23.04|0.95|0.059
95780938|NCT01217385|191533700|EQUIVALENCE|test for the equivalence of %change in TOI ratio (dichotomized at \<=-40%), between PR+ and PR- groups, with interaction|Slope|0.4463|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.953||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|||||significance at alpha=0.05|Regression, Logistic|p-value represents the interaction between %TOI (dichotomized at \<=-40%), and PR status|Multivariate logistic regression model using % change in TOI ratio (T/N) (baseline to mid-therapy) dichotomized at -40%, PR status, and the corresponding interaction.|The Null is that the odd ratio is the same in both the PR+ and PR- subjects fro the model including %change in TOI form baseline to mid-therapy (dichotomized at \<=-40%), PR status (+/-) and the interaction between them.||||0.8193
95860847|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.42||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.42|0.26|< 0.0001
95956173|NCT02630706|191884797|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.68|||Logistic regression model|||||8.68|2.32|<0.001
95956174|NCT02630706|191884797|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.8|||Logistic regression model|||||6.80|1.77|<0.001
95956175|NCT02630706|191884798|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-1.69|||cLDA|||||-1.69|-6.48|<0.001
95956176|NCT02630706|191884798|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.92|||cLDA|||||-2.92|-7.68|<0.001
95956177|NCT02630706|191884799|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-2.64||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.09|||cLDA|||||0.09|-5.36|0.058
95956178|NCT02630706|191884799|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-4.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.39|||cLDA|||||-1.39|-6.78|0.003
95998255|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.98|0.80|
95998256|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.00|1.01|
95998257|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.89||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.89|0.82|
95998258|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.99||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.99|0.80|
95998259|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.56|
95998260|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.41|0.83|
95998261|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.94|0.36|
95780939|NCT01217385|191533701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|250.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||250.15|1.09|0.043
95998262|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.68|0.88|
95998263|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.39|0.78|
95780940|NCT01217385|191533701|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|33.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.90|0.24|0.406
95998264|NCT01193335|191972380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.51|0.89|
95998265|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.44||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.37|
95998266|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.71|0.37|
95998267|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.12||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.12|0.76|
95998268|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.17||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.33|
95998269|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.55||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.55|0.24|
95998270|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.77|0.97|
95998271|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.46||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.46|0.35|
95780941|NCT02117713|191533733|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.456||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.72|7.54|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 48 values for n= 26|||7.54|-64.72|0.1157
95780942|NCT02117713|191533734|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant; null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.934||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.48|19.19|||Student's t-test||||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=10|19.19|-109.48|0.1469
95780943|NCT02117713|191533735|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.353|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7124||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-1.606|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 218 values for n=6|||-1.606|-3.101|0.005
95780944|NCT02117713|191533736|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.32||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|166.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||166.4|-54.4|0.2607
95780945|NCT02117713|191533737|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|216.25||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-341.6|58.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||58.4|-341.6|0.1340
95780946|NCT02117713|191533738|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|47.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.68||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|117.6|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||117.6|-22.4|0.1474
95780947|NCT02117713|191533739|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
95811664|NCT00023595|191596347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.028
95811665|NCT00023595|191596347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.123
95998272|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.60|1.00|
95998273|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.33|0.68|
95780948|NCT02117713|191533740|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test used to test if mean change is statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||-0.4|-3|0.0167
95811666|NCT00023595|191596348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95811667|NCT00023595|191596348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95860848|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.51|0.34|< 0.0001
95998274|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.82|
95998275|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.04||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.04|0.24|
95780949|NCT02117713|191533741|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|10.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|245.92||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|238.3|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||238.3|-216.6|0.9108
95780950|NCT02117713|191533742|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant(null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1207|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.882||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.45|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.45|-3.03|0.1207
95811668|NCT00023595|191596348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95811669|NCT00023595|191596348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95811670|NCT00023595|191596348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95811671|NCT00023595|191596349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||4 months|Chi-squared|P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.050
95811672|NCT00023595|191596349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95811673|NCT00023595|191596349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.039
95811674|NCT00023595|191596349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.074
95811675|NCT00023595|191596350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95811676|NCT00023595|191596350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95811677|NCT00023595|191596350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95811678|NCT00023595|191596350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95956179|NCT02630706|191884800|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.20|-3.00|0.086
95956180|NCT02630706|191884800|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.42||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|0.17|||cLDA|||||0.17|-3.01|0.081
95956181|NCT02630706|191884801|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-0.95||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||cLDA|||||0.90|-2.80|0.315
95956182|NCT02630706|191884801|SUPERIORITY|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at Screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Difference in the LS Means vs. Placebo|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.83|||cLDA|||||0.83|-2.83|0.282
95956183|NCT02630706|191884802|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|32.22||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||32.22|2.46|0.001
95956184|NCT02630706|191884802|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|10.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|38.71||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||38.71|2.95|<0.001
95956185|NCT02630706|191884803|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), Country (China, other), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|27.6||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||27.60|2.52|<0.001
95956186|NCT02630706|191884803|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, anti-hyperglycemic medication status at screening (metformin alone, metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous) and baseline A1C (continuous). Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.|Adjusted Odds Ratio relative to placebo|8.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|28.11||Nominal p-values were provided.|Logistic regression model|||||28.11|2.44|<0.001
95956187|NCT02630706|191884804|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-9.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-14.5|-5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-5.0|-14.5|<0.001
95956188|NCT02630706|191884804|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by country ('China' or 'other') for the overall population.||||-4.4|-14.0|<0.001
95956189|NCT02630706|191884805|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 15 mg. - placebo)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-15.1|-4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-4.2|-15.1|0.001
95956190|NCT02630706|191884805|OTHER||Difference in % (Ert. 5 mg. - placebo)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-5.7|-15.8|<0.001
95956191|NCT01287416|191884826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of SIRI scores across the three time points. We used linear mixed models to determine whether scores were different between the two groups over time.||||0.61
95956192|NCT01287416|191884827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.95
95956193|NCT01287416|191884828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in terms of self-reported skill level across the three time points.||||0.33
95956194|NCT01287416|191884829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of level of knowledge across the three time points.||||0.03
95998276|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.53||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.53|0.58|
95811679|NCT00023595|191596350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95811680|NCT00023595|191596351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.085
95780951|NCT02117713|191533743|EQUIVALENCE|Student's t-test was used to test if mean change was statistically significant (null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is equal to zero).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2488||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|0.212|||Student's t-test||Difference is only calculated in participants who had baseline and week 216 values for n=7|||0.212|-2.098|0.0927
95780952|NCT00672841|191533750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity %||Sensitivity \[1\] = (True positives \[n=6\]/ True positives + False negatives \[n=6\])|Clinical sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
95780953|NCT00672841|191533750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|50.0||||||95.0|||||% Specificity||Specificity \[0.50\]= True negatives \[n=28\]/ True negatives + False positives \[56\])|Clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for the study groups combined||||
95780954|NCT00672841|191533752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|100.0||||||95.0|||||Sensitivity||Sensitivity = (true positives \[n=6\]/true positives + false negative \[n=6\])|The clinic sensitivity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
95780955|NCT00672841|191533752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|52.0||||||95.0|||||Specificity||Specificity \[0.52\]= (True negatives \[n=30\]/True negatives + false positives \[n=58\])|The clinical specificity of the BDG test was calculated for both study groups combined||||
95998277|NCT01193335|191972381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.37||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.52|
95998278|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.97||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.45|
95998279|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.4||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.40|0.54|
95998280|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.41|
95811681|NCT00023595|191596351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95998281|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.54|
95998282|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.87||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.87|0.34|
95998283|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.10|0.31|
95998284|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.01|0.40|
95998285|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.81||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.81|0.38|
95998286|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.17|0.76|
95780956|NCT02503254|191533777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|82.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.79|86.09||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||86.09|78.79|<.001
95811682|NCT00023595|191596351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.026
95811683|NCT00023595|191596351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.085
95811684|NCT00023595|191596352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95811685|NCT00023595|191596352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95811686|NCT00023595|191596352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95811687|NCT00023595|191596352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95811688|NCT00023595|191596352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95956195|NCT01287416|191884830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05. Effect size determined by partial eta-squared to be 0.01.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ on level of self-reported preparedness to help a suicidal person.||||0.63
95956196|NCT01287416|191884831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on their level of distress across the two time points.||||0.21
95998287|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.45|
95998288|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.85|0.47|
95998289|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.15||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.74|
95998290|NCT01193335|191972382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.88|0.52|
95998291|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.05|0.35|
95998292|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.63||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.63|0.41|
95998293|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.53||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.22|
95998294|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.44|0.38|
95811689|NCT00023595|191596353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
95811690|NCT00023595|191596353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 month|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811691|NCT00023595|191596353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95956197|NCT01287416|191884832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model was adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of alcohol use across the two time points.||||0.46
95956198|NCT01287416|191884833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Model is adjusted for differences in educational attainment at baseline.||The null hypothesis was that the two groups would not differ in resiliency scores across the follow-up period.||||0.28
95998295|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.76||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.76|0.10|
95998296|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.3||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.30|0.25|
95998297|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.65||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.65|0.11|
95998298|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.32|0.81|
95998299|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.37||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.37|0.56|
95998300|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.23||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.23|0.51|
95811692|NCT00023595|191596353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
95956199|NCT01287416|191884834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95956200|NCT01287416|191884835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95956201|NCT01287416|191884836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95956202|NCT01287416|191884837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95956203|NCT01287416|191884838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set to p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.064
95956204|NCT01287416|191884840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||a priori threshold for significance set a p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ in terms of their gatekeeper behaviours||||0.14
95956205|NCT01287416|191884841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||A priori threshold for significance set at p\<.05.|Chi-squared|Unadjusted model||Null hypothesis was that the groups would not differ on gatekeeper behaviours.||||0.41
95956206|NCT02391116|191884857|OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.7|32.9|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=54): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||32.9|-28.7|
95956207|NCT02391116|191884857|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|33.5|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in CD79b mutant subgroup minus ORR in CD79b wild-type subgroup|||33.5|-33.5|
95956208|NCT02391116|191884858|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|39.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||39.1|-7.2|
95956209|NCT02391116|191884858|OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|46.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in ABC subgroup minus ORR in non-ABC group (i.e. combined GCB subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||46.2|-6.8|
95956210|NCT02391116|191884858|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.1|4.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||4.6|-40.1|
95956211|NCT02391116|191884858|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|1.1|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in GCB subgroup minus ORR in non-GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and Unclassifiable subgroup)|||1.1|-49.1|
95956212|NCT02391116|191884858|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.4|63.2|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in FAS (N=52): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||63.2|-42.4|
95956213|NCT02391116|191884858|OTHER||Percentage Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.3|77.6|||Exact confidence intervals (CI)||ORR difference in PPS (N=40): ORR in Unclassifiable subgroup minus ORR in ABC / GCB subgroup (i.e. combined ABC subgroup and GCB subgroup)|||77.6|-44.3|
95956214|NCT00607789|191884877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy analysis was a longitudinal analysis comparing the rate of change of binge day frequency during the treatment period between groups. The same analysis was applied to binge episode frequency, weight, BMI, and scores on the CGI-Severity, YBOCS-BE, and IDS scales. The difference in rate of change was estimated by random regression methods||||<0.05
95956215|NCT03859622|191884909|OTHER|Frequencies and percentages for categorical data.||||||||||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)||||Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|Standard methods are used for the description of data (frequencies and percentages for categorical data)|||
95956216|NCT04341584|191884943|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.52|||Bayesian Cox model|adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||1.52|0.62|
95956217|NCT04341584|191884944|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|12.0|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence Interval is % Credible Interval here|||12|-17.1|
95956218|NCT04341584|191884945|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.81||adjusted for age and centre|Bayesian Fine and Gray analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible Interval here|||2.81|0.59|
95956219|NCT04341584|191884946|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior absolute risk differenc|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|43.5|||Bayesian analysis||% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||43.5|3.9|
95956220|NCT04341584|191884947|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||1.68|0.38|
95956221|NCT04341584|191884947|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.43|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 14||1.43|0.33|
95956222|NCT04341584|191884947|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|Day 28||1.38|0.35|
95956223|NCT04341584|191884947|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior OR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.39|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 4||2.39|0.22|
95956224|NCT04341584|191884947|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.8|||Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for age and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|Day 7||2.80|0.28|
95811693|NCT00023595|191596354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
95811694|NCT00023595|191596354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95811695|NCT00023595|191596354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95811696|NCT00023595|191596354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95811697|NCT00023595|191596354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95780957|NCT02503254|191533778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|63.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.55|67.12||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively"||67.12|59.55|<0.001
95811698|NCT00023595|191596355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.023
95811699|NCT00023595|191596355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95956225|NCT04341584|191884947|SUPERIORITY||Median posterior HR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.75||Day 14|Bayesian Proportionnal odds model|Adjusted for afe and centre|% Confidence Interval is % Credible interval here|||1.75|0.18|
95956226|NCT04341584|191884948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.29|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and centre||14 days||1.29|0.23|
95956227|NCT04341584|191884948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and centre||28 days||1.77|0.33|
95956228|NCT04341584|191884948|SUPERIORITY|90 days|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.04|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre|% Confidence interval is % Credible interval here|||2.04|0.46|
95956229|NCT04341584|191884948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.86|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||3.86|0.11|
95956230|NCT04341584|191884948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.68|0.19|
95956231|NCT04341584|191884948|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted on age and centre||||4.87|0.31|
95956232|NCT04341584|191884949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||||adjusted on age and centre||||6.4|-8.3|
95956233|NCT04341584|191884951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.61|||Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||1.61|0.64|
95956234|NCT04341584|191884951|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.07||Adjusted for age and centre|Fine-Gray model|Adjusted for age and centre||||3.07|0.58|
95956235|NCT04341584|191884952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.48|||Fine-Gray model|adjusted on age and centre||||1.48|0.56|
95956236|NCT04341584|191884952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||||2.34|0.35|
95956237|NCT04341584|191884953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.32||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 28||2.32|0.43|
95956238|NCT04341584|191884953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.29||adjusted on age and centre|Fine-Gray model|||Day 90||2.29|0.52|
95956239|NCT02416713|191884975|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-0.18|0.12
95956240|NCT02416713|191884975|SUPERIORITY||relative change from baseline|-0.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-1.17|0.49
95956241|NCT02416713|191884975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.69|-1.00|0.70
95811700|NCT00023595|191596355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.077
95811701|NCT00023595|191596355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
95811702|NCT00023595|191596356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95811703|NCT00023595|191596356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95811704|NCT00023595|191596356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95956242|NCT01644188|191885002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-25.3|-34.4|<0.0001
95956243|NCT01644188|191885003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-26.2||Threshold for significance ≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.2|-34.9|<0.0001
95956244|NCT01644188|191885004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.1||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.1|-33.7|<0.0001
95956245|NCT01644188|191885005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-25.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.6|-33.8|<0.0001
95956246|NCT01644188|191885006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-18.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.8|-26|<0.0001
95956247|NCT01644188|191885007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-26.5|<0.0001
95956248|NCT01644188|191885008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-18.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.9|-26.9|<0.0001
95956249|NCT01644188|191885009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-19.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.7|-27.2|<0.0001
95956250|NCT01644188|191885010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-11.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.7|-17.7|<0.0001
95956251|NCT01644188|191885011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-19.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.2|-25.7|<0.0001
95811705|NCT00023595|191596356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95811706|NCT00023595|191596356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95811707|NCT00023595|191596357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.033
95811708|NCT00023595|191596357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95811709|NCT00023595|191596357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
95811710|NCT00023595|191596357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.051
95811711|NCT00023595|191596358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95811712|NCT00023595|191596358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95860849|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.44||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.44|0.29|< 0.0001
95956252|NCT01644188|191885012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-18.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-18.3|-25.6|<0.0001
95956253|NCT01644188|191885013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-11.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-11.6|-17.1|<0.0001
95998301|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.86|0.17|
95811713|NCT00023595|191596358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95811714|NCT00023595|191596358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95811715|NCT00023595|191596358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95811716|NCT00023595|191596359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
95811717|NCT00023595|191596359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811718|NCT00023595|191596359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95811719|NCT00023595|191596359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
95811720|NCT00023595|191596360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95811721|NCT00023595|191596360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95811722|NCT00023595|191596360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95811723|NCT00023595|191596360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95811724|NCT00023595|191596360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95811725|NCT00023595|191596361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
95811726|NCT00023595|191596361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811727|NCT00023595|191596361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811728|NCT00023595|191596361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95811729|NCT00023595|191596362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95811730|NCT00023595|191596362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95811731|NCT00023595|191596362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95811732|NCT00023595|191596362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95956254|NCT01644188|191885014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.3|<0.0001
95956255|NCT01644188|191885015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by Logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.9|3.7|<0.0001
95956256|NCT01644188|191885016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|8.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||8.8|3.9|<0.0001
95811733|NCT00023595|191596362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95956257|NCT01644188|191885017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17|-26.4|<0.0001
95956258|NCT01644188|191885018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|10.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.7|5.4|<0.0001
95956259|NCT01644188|191885019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression.|Alirocumab vs. ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.6|-5.1|0.9117
95956260|NCT04333732|191885030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.1|-0.5|0.52
95956261|NCT04333732|191885031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|difference, 0·04%, 95% CI, -1·4% to 1·3%, p=0·95).||The endpoint was analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression, including as covariates the treatment arm, age (\<50 vs. ≥50), and a random effect for site||1.3|-1.4|0.95
95956262|NCT01222533|191885035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for Cmax,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|80.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.4||0.4423||90.0|73.49|88.52||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||88.52|73.49|0.4423
95956263|NCT01222533|191885036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The standard bioequivalence range of 80 to 125% was pre-specified for AUC0-6,ss in order to assess the relative systemic exposure following inhalation of Tio R5 compared to Tio HH18. Bioequivalence was not used as a surrogate for efficacy.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|75.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.1||0.8683||90.0|70.44|81.98||Maximum of two one-sided p-values for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80 percent to 125 percent.|ANOVA||Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||81.98|70.44|0.8683
95956264|NCT01222533|191885037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||95.0|0.06|0.114|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.114|0.060|
95956265|NCT01222533|191885037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.128|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.128|0.074|<0.0001
95956266|NCT01222533|191885037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.148|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.148|0.094|<0.0001
95956267|NCT01222533|191885038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||95.0|0.141|0.189|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo.|||0.189|0.141|
95956268|NCT01222533|191885038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.209|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.209|0.161|<0.0001
95956269|NCT01222533|191885038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.216|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.216|0.167|<0.0001
95811734|NCT00023595|191596363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.029
95811735|NCT00023595|191596363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.042
95811736|NCT00023595|191596363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95811737|NCT00023595|191596363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95956270|NCT01222533|191885039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||||95.0|0.13|0.18|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.180|0.130|
95956271|NCT01222533|191885039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.205|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.205|0.155|<0.0001
95956272|NCT01222533|191885039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.162|0.211|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.211|0.162|<0.0001
95956273|NCT01222533|191885040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||||95.0|0.083|0.194|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.194|0.083|
95956274|NCT01222533|191885040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.244|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.244|0.133|<0.0001
95956275|NCT01222533|191885040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.292|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.292|0.180|<0.0001
95956276|NCT01222533|191885041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||95.0|0.241|0.326|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.326|0.241|
95956277|NCT01222533|191885041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.362|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.362|0.276|<0.0001
95956278|NCT01222533|191885041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.292|0.378|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.378|0.292|<0.0001
95998302|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.97||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.97|0.64|
95998303|NCT01193335|191972383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.97|0.27|
95998304|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.37|0.33|
95811738|NCT00023595|191596364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95811739|NCT00023595|191596364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95956279|NCT01222533|191885042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|0.236|0.325|||||Tio R1.25-Placebo|||0.325|0.236|
95956280|NCT01222533|191885042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.279|0.369|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R2.5-Placebo|||0.369|0.279|<0.0001
95956281|NCT01222533|191885042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.294|0.384|||ANOVA|Adjusted for sequence, patients within sequences, period and treatment.|Tio R5-Placebo|||0.384|0.294|<0.0001
95956282|NCT00460564|191885080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.83|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.567|-3.093|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.093|-10.567|<0.001
95956283|NCT03226106|191885146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|930.51||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.65|1819.36||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1819.36|41.65|0.024
95956284|NCT03226106|191885147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.07||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.07|-0.67|0.584
95956285|NCT03226106|191885148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.32||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1.32|-1.40|0.724
95956286|NCT03226106|191885149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|33.89||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||33.89|-18.90|0.547
95956287|NCT03226106|191885150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.93||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|31.54||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||31.54|-21.67|0.716
95956288|NCT03226106|191885151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.82||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.82|-0.88|0.946
95956289|NCT03226106|191885152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||0.52|-1.08|0.906
95956290|NCT03226106|191885153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.49||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.49|-7.59|0.873
95956291|NCT03226106|191885154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-0.04||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||-0.04|-12.48|0.241
95998305|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.07||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||3.07|0.37|
95811740|NCT00023595|191596364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95811741|NCT00023595|191596364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95811742|NCT00023595|191596364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95811743|NCT00023595|191596365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
95998306|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.36||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||5.36|0.57|
95998307|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.07||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||2.07|0.38|
95998308|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.21||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.21|0.18|
95998309|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.53||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.53|0.27|
95998310|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.15||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.15|0.17|
95998311|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.31|0.96|
95998312|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.14||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.14|0.41|
95998313|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.92|0.49|
95998314|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.03||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.03|0.16|
95998315|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.48||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||1.48|0.27|
95811744|NCT00023595|191596365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811745|NCT00023595|191596365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95811746|NCT00023595|191596365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95811747|NCT00023595|191596366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95811748|NCT00023595|191596366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95811749|NCT00023595|191596366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95811750|NCT00023595|191596366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95998316|NCT01193335|191972384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.91||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the groups on the logarithmic scale. CIs for the ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures.||0.91|0.22|
95998317|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|5.99||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.99|-6.33|
95998318|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|5.39||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.39|-16.87|
95998319|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|10.67||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.67|-24.28|
95998320|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|10.57||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.57|-3.68|
95998321|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|5.88||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.88|-6.57|
95998322|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.91||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.91|-3.32|
95998323|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.94||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.94|-6.73|
95998324|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Perecent Difference|-10.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|4.34||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.34|-25.51|
95811751|NCT00023595|191596366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95998325|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|4.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.48||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.48|0.04|
95998326|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-16.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.15|-2.6||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.60|-29.15|
95998327|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.97||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.97|-1.96|
95998328|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|2.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.10|-7.55|
95998329|NCT01193335|191972385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|3.18||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.18|-5.96|
95998330|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|7.49||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.49|-25.11|
95998331|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|10.4||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.40|-21.03|
95998332|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|21.16||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||21.16|-7.16|
95998333|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.35||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.35|-20.28|
95998334|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.01|8.11||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.11|-29.01|
95998335|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|17.65||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.65|-1.52|
95998336|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-13.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|3.31||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.31|-29.57|
95998337|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|17.81||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||17.81|-0.52|
95998338|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|8.29||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.29|-22.86|
95998339|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|10.08||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.08|-8.82|
95998340|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-3.95||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.95|-35.45|
95811752|NCT00023595|191596367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||<0.001
95811753|NCT00023595|191596367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95998341|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|19.06||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.06|-8.50|
95998342|NCT01193335|191972386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|11.13||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.13|-17.51|
95998343|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|5.89||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.89|-5.59|
95998344|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|7.37||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.37|-6.81|
95998345|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|7.44||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.44|-10.87|
95998346|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.94||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.94|-5.94|
95998347|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|4.25||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.25|-8.66|
95998348|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|3.56||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.56|-17.93|
95998349|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|7.04||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||7.04|-6.74|
95956292|NCT03226106|191885155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|6.12||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||6.12|-0.39|0.223
95956293|NCT03226106|191885156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.53||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.53|-2.19|0.388
95956294|NCT03226106|191885157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.68||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||2.68|-4.08|0.88
95956295|NCT03226106|191885158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|4.17||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||4.17|-2.63|0.85
95956296|NCT03226106|191885159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|559.81||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-405.01|1524.62||The value corresponds to the interaction between time and group assignment.|Mixed Models Analysis|We used a linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject and fixed effects for age, time, and interaction between intervention arm and time.|The difference is the estimated mean between the intervention and control arms.|||1524.62|-405.01|0.101
95956297|NCT01960114|191885189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|25.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.669|30.813||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||30.813|19.669|<0.001
95956298|NCT01960114|191885190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95956299|NCT01960114|191885191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95956300|NCT01960114|191885192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 12 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of withdrawal. Subjects not rescuing during the 12-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 12 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
95956301|NCT01960114|191885193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Used row-mean scores based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline categorical pain score.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
95956302|NCT02487251|191885196|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in BMIz is p = .34.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is the effect size (cohen's d) for the change in BMIz (particularly in the Phase 2 sample)|We tested change in BMIz for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.34
95956303|NCT02487251|191885197|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed fruit intake is p = .62.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in observed fruit intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups.||||.62
95956304|NCT02487251|191885198|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in observed vegetable intake is p = .009.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested pre to post change in observed vegetable intake for each of the two study arms/groups in Phase 2 and compared change between the usual care and intervention groups. Positive Observed dietary quality data was not collected in Phase 1.||||.009
95962281|NCT03721172|191896367|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.73|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.73|-4.04|<0.0001
95962282|NCT03721172|191896368|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|-2.39|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.39|-3.47|<0.0001
95998350|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|2.75||||||Serotype 1: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||2.75|-16.37|
95956305|NCT02487251|191885199|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported fruit is p = .21.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested pre to post change in parent reported child fruit intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.21
95956306|NCT02487251|191885200|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, enabled detection of small-medium effect sizes, d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes, power of 80%, α = .05. Phase 1 analyses included paired t-tests \& examination of pre-post effect size change. Phase 2 analyses included mixed modeling. Negative mean change values reflect a decrease in intake; positive values reflect an increase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in parent reported vegetables is p = .55.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported estimation parameter is a standardized mean difference between the groups, specifically cohen's d.|We tested change in vegetable intake for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.55
95956307|NCT02487251|191885201|EQUIVALENCE|Phase 1 sought to determine effect sizes. For Phase 2, sample size was set at 125 per arm which, with 20% attrition, would enable detection of small to medium effect sizes of d = 0.40SD for continuous outcomes and 38% relative risk reduction for binary outcomes with a power of 80% and α = .05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< .05 reflects the threshold for statistical significance. The calculated p value for change in mealtime frequency is p = .84.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested change in frequency of family mealtimes for each of the four study arms/groups.||||.84
95998351|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|6.85||||||Serotype 3: CI Parameter was percent difference between the groups. Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.85|-3.37|
95998352|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|5.14||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.14|-8.36|
95998353|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|5.04||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||5.04|-4.73|
95998354|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
95998355|NCT01193335|191972387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.55||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.55|-4.48|
95998356|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-24.5|
95998357|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|11.8||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||11.8|-23.6|
95998358|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|6.0||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||6.0|-27.6|
95998359|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.4||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||8.4|-17.0|
95956308|NCT00225277|191885212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.886||||0.002||95.0|-1.448|-0.325|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.3250|-1.4480|0.002
95956309|NCT00225277|191885213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.048||||0.064||95.0|-8.3336|0.2374|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - Glimepiride|2 Way ANCOVA, treatment and center effects with baseline value as covariate. LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.2374|-8.3336|0.064
95956310|NCT00225277|191885214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.744
95956311|NCT00225277|191885215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.883
95956312|NCT00225277|191885216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate the time to event for each composite endpoint. The p-value was based on a log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.663
95998360|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.9|-40.0|
95998361|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|3.4||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||3.4|-27.4|
95998362|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-28.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-11.0||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-11.0|-43.9|
95998363|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.3||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||10.3|-10.9|
95811754|NCT00023595|191596367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95998364|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|15.1||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.1|-17.5|
95956313|NCT01177137|191885233|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|4.07||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.07|-8.77|0.47
95956314|NCT01177137|191885233|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.65||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.65|-8.27|0.31
95956315|NCT01177137|191885234|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.02|-5.30|0.96
95956316|NCT01177137|191885234|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to adjust for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.70|-2.21|0.28
95956317|NCT01177137|191885235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.77||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.77|-0.55|0.30
95956318|NCT01177137|191885235|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons: (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Ca|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
95956319|NCT01177137|191885237|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.29||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.29|-3.08|0.77
95956320|NCT01177137|191885237|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.96||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.96|-3.16|0.65
95956321|NCT01177137|191885238|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.67|-1.38|0.50
95956322|NCT01177137|191885238|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.90|-1.14|0.82
95956323|NCT01177137|191885239|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.62||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation.|||0.62|-1.37|0.46
95956324|NCT01177137|191885239|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.64|||repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.64|-1.35|0.48
95998365|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|4.5||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.5|-25.3|
95998366|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-33.3|
95811755|NCT00023595|191596367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95811756|NCT00023595|191596368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95811757|NCT00023595|191596368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95811758|NCT00023595|191596368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95998367|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.1|-7.1|
95998368|NCT01193335|191972388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-2.8||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.8|-33.7|
95998369|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|9.9||||||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||9.9|-25.2|
95998370|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|19.0||||||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||19.0|-18.5|
95998371|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|26.2||||||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||26.2|-12.0|
95998372|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|13.3||||||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||13.3|-19.1|
95998373|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-0.3||||||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-0.3|-34.6|
95998374|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.1||||||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.1|-20.6|
95998375|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-3.2||||||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.2|-37.8|
95998376|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.2||||||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||15.2|-2.7|
95998377|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|12.0||||||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||12.0|-22.0|
95998378|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.4||||||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-2.4|-26.7|
95998379|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-3.0||||||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-3.0|-36.8|
95998380|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|4.1||||||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||4.1|-26.4|
95998381|NCT01193335|191972389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-4.6||||||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided, 95% CI was computed based on the procedure of Chan and Zhang using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.||-4.6|-37.7|
95998382|NCT06129487|191972407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.256
95998383|NCT00258154|191972410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 10 mIU/mL greater than -10%|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.7|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||3.6|-3.7|<0.001
95811759|NCT00023595|191596368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95998384|NCT00258154|191972412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority criterion is that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the proportion difference (Rotateq+INFANRIX hexa group minus Placebo+INFANRIX hexa group) for subjects who achieve serum antibody levels of ≥ 0.15 μg/mL greater than -10%.|Percentage point difference|-3.7||||0.015||95.0|-9.3|1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen's|Comparing percentage difference with the non-inferiority margin of 10 percentage point with Miettinen and Nurminen's method|Percentage point difference (RotaTeq - Placebo)|||1.3|-9.3|0.015
95998385|NCT00004980|191972455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514||0.005||95.0|-4.65|-0.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degree of freedom = 48||||-.86|-4.65|.005
95998386|NCT00004980|191972456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.002||95.0|0.507|2.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 48||null hypothesis is that the groups are the same||2.03|.507|.002
95998387|NCT00004980|191972457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.001||95.0|-1.45|-0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 46||||-.44|-1.45|.001
95998388|NCT00004980|191972458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .05|Chi-squared|||||||.01
95998389|NCT01624194|191972459|OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.0275
95811760|NCT00023595|191596368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95811761|NCT00023595|191596369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.007
95811762|NCT00023595|191596369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95811763|NCT00023595|191596369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
95811764|NCT00023595|191596369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.060
95998390|NCT01624194|191972460|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Fisher's Exact Test was used to test for differences in adverse events between oxytocin-treated and placebo-treated individuals. A p-value of ≤0.05 would have been statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95998391|NCT01624194|191972461|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
95811765|NCT00023595|191596370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95811766|NCT00023595|191596370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95998392|NCT01624194|191972464|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.3395
95998393|NCT01624194|191972472|OTHER|||||||0.9757|||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||0.9757
95998394|NCT01624194|191972473|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed-models analysis was used to compare between groups, and between baseline and Week 4.||||||>0.05
95998395|NCT01624194|191972474|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95998396|NCT01624194|191972475|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||For all blood pressure analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95998397|NCT04322708|191972476|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|89.0|||Fisher Exact|||||89.0|71.5|<0.0001
95998398|NCT04322708|191972476|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|85.4|||Fisher Exact|||||85.4|66.1|<0.0001
95998399|NCT04322708|191972477|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.7||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.3|-1.9|0.2470
95998400|NCT04322708|191972477|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.8||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-7.3|0.2372
95998401|NCT04322708|191972478|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-82.4|||ANCOVA|||||-82.4|-109|<0.0001
95998402|NCT04322708|191972478|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|-82.5|||ANCOVA|||||-82.5|-110|<0.0001
95811767|NCT00023595|191596370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95998403|NCT04322708|191972479|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|83.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.4|90.8|||Fisher Exact|||||90.8|74.4|<0.0001
95998404|NCT04322708|191972479|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.8|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|69.8|<0.0001
95998405|NCT04322708|191972480|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|77.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.4|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|66.4|<0.0001
95998406|NCT04322708|191972480|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|72.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|81.9|||Fisher Exact|||||81.9|61.3|<0.0001
95998407|NCT04322708|191972481|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|49.5|||Fisher Exact|||||49.5|22.9|<0.0001
95998408|NCT04322708|191972481|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.9|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61.0|35.9|<0.0001
95998409|NCT04322708|191972482|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-4.8||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-19.2|0.5561
95998410|NCT04322708|191972482|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|4.9||||0.5554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact|||||19.6|-9.9|0.5554
95998411|NCT04322708|191972483|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.6||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||ANCOVA|||||17.0|-18.1|0.9506
95811768|NCT00023595|191596370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95811769|NCT00023595|191596370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95811770|NCT00023595|191596371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.86
95811771|NCT00023595|191596371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.78
95811772|NCT00023595|191596371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.55
95811773|NCT00023595|191596371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.027
95811774|NCT00023595|191596371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.031
95998412|NCT04322708|191972483|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-17.6||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-35.4|0.0511
95998413|NCT04322708|191972484|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|2.6||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||6.7|-1.4|0.2007
95998414|NCT04322708|191972484|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-2.7||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 23-24 Change from Baseline||1.3|-6.8|0.1889
95998415|NCT04322708|191972485|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-0.3||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.4980
95998416|NCT04322708|191972485|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.7|0.6390
95998417|NCT03577990|191972544|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
95998418|NCT03577990|191972545|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1250.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
95998419|NCT03577990|191972546|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|300.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
95998420|NCT03577990|191972548|SUPERIORITY|Our sample (N = 90) had approximately 80% power (assuming 5 dropouts per arm) to detect an effect size of ∼.205 or greater at the α = .05 level of statistical significance, given a realistic range of simulated unstructured covariance matrices. An 11% rate of attrition was anticipated to yield a final sample of 80 participants, an average of 40 per arm. Participants who dropped out of the study prior to receiving the allotted intervention were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|500.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were computed according to a mixed-effects repeated measures model, appropriately constrained to baseline if indicated.|mixed-effects repeated measures||||For both referent (compared by month and treatment group) and constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) models, p-values were computed for the main group (G), time (T), and interaction (G x T) effects. For the first 3 months of the referent arm (IT), data were compared with usual care. Consequently, months 1 - 6 in the statistical analysis corresponds to calendar months 4 - 9 of the data collection. Months 1 - 9 of the intervention arm (ITEC) reflects months 1 - 9 of the collection. Additionally, for the cLDA model, data in the referent arm (IT) were accordingly shifted such that the starting point on the y-axis for both arms were the same (i.e. y = 0).|||.05
95998421|NCT03959189|191972563|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.0796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following ERX-963 versus placebo. In the primary analysis of SSS, the cohort 1 and cohort 2 data were combined for ERX-963 and placebo treatments.||0.5|-0.6|0.7746
95998422|NCT03959189|191972563|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|-0.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3589||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 1 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 1 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||0.5|-1.0|0.4700
95998423|NCT03959189|191972563|SUPERIORITY||mixed effects model|0.1016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4272||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model will be used to compare SSS effects following 2 mg ERX-963 versus placebo. In this analysis of SSS, the effect of 2 mg ERX-963 treatment was compared to the effect of placebo treatment.||1.0|-0.8|0.8127
95998424|NCT05662332|191972604|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Change difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|
95998425|NCT05662332|191972605|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-0.03||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.18|0.684
95998426|NCT05662332|191972606|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|4.16||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.90|-1.58|0.155
95998427|NCT05662332|191972607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-43.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-25.0|-62.4|<0.001
95998428|NCT05662332|191972608|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Negative binomial model|||||0.84|0.39|0.005
95998429|NCT05662332|191972610|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.58||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.23|||Negative binomial model|||||1.23|0.28|0.155
95811775|NCT00023595|191596372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.40
95998430|NCT05662332|191972612|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.047|0.033
95998431|NCT05662332|191972613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.25|-0.13|0.071
95998432|NCT05662332|191972616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||3.8|-0.2|0.072
95811776|NCT00023595|191596372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||4 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.42
95811777|NCT00023595|191596372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||12 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.41
95811778|NCT00023595|191596372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||24 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
95811779|NCT00023595|191596372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||36 months|Chi-squared|All P-values were based on the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test.||||||0.25
95956325|NCT01177137|191885240|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.53||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.53|-0.74|0.75
95956326|NCT01177137|191885240|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.17||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.17|-1.56|0.015
95956327|NCT01177137|191885241|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.69|-0.83|0.85
95956328|NCT01177137|191885241|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TQ value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.46|-0.86|0.55
95956329|NCT01177137|191885242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.88|-9.27|0.30
95956330|NCT01177137|191885242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.93||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||4.93|-6.75|0.76
95956331|NCT01177137|191885243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|9.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.68|-3.44|0.35
95956332|NCT01177137|191885243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|9.54||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||9.54|-2.96|0.30
95956333|NCT01177137|191885244|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.02||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||8.02|-5.20|0.68
95956334|NCT01177137|191885244|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|7.33||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.33|-5.44|0.77
95956335|NCT01177137|191885245|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|5.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.23|-12.30|0.43
95956336|NCT01177137|191885245|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.02|-5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-5.38|-22.02|0.001
95998433|NCT00457639|191972664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|61.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.1|-19.7|0.42
95998434|NCT00457639|191972665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|50.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||50.8|-17.7|0.45
95811780|NCT00023595|191596373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.002
95811781|NCT00023595|191596373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95811782|NCT00023595|191596373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.049
95811783|NCT00023595|191596373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.038
95811784|NCT00023595|191596374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95956337|NCT01177137|191885246|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||11.38|-3.96|0.34
95956338|NCT01177137|191885246|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|7.26||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.26|-7.72|0.95
95956339|NCT01177137|191885247|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|5.38||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||5.38|-9.07|0.62
95956340|NCT01177137|191885247|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|2.55||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.55|-11.48|0.21
95956341|NCT01177137|191885248|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|6.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||6.52|-6.78|0.97
95956342|NCT01177137|191885248|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|3.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||3.40|-9.43|0.36
95956343|NCT01177137|191885249|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|7.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||7.14|-4.67|0.68
95998435|NCT00002850|191972671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|||||||Fisher Exact|Target accrual=70 patients per arm to provide 92% power to detect a difference of 0.31 vs. 0.08 in the proportion of patients with serious infection.||"H0: There is no significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.~Ha: There is a significant difference in the incidence of severe bacterial infections among all three arms during the first 2 months of treatment at the two-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.218
95998436|NCT03542682|191972682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.63|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||13.30|-124.63|
95998437|NCT03542682|191972684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||3.02|-1.10|
95998438|NCT03542682|191972685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-246.7|510.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model adjusted for order of the clamps and accounting for within subject correlation.||||510.41|-246.70|
95998439|NCT01212445|191972769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.192||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.325|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was defined as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.325|0.096|0.1790
95998440|NCT01212445|191972769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.314||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.459|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.459|0.191|1.0000
95956344|NCT01177137|191885249|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline TFI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-9.26|0.23
95811785|NCT00023595|191596374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95811786|NCT00023595|191596374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95811787|NCT00023595|191596374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95811788|NCT00023595|191596374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95956345|NCT01177137|191885250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.66||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care.|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.66|-3.30|0.52
95956346|NCT01177137|191885250|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.41||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||-0.41|-5.21|0.022
95956347|NCT01177137|191885251|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.23||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||2.23|-1.54|0.72
95956348|NCT01177137|191885251|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.75||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.75|-2.83|0.26
95956349|NCT01177137|191885252|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.78||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||1.78|0.55|0.30
95956350|NCT01177137|191885252|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.52||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.025 to account for two comparisons (1) TRT versus the Standard of Care and (2) Partial TRT versus the Standard of Care|repeated measures GEE model||Adjusted for baseline THI value, clinic, visit, age, gender, baseline Positive and Negative Affect Schedule and State Trait Anxiety Inventory scores, with multiple imputation|||0.52|-1.75|0.29
95956351|NCT02367105|191885272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariate||||||0.58
95956352|NCT02367105|191885273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
95956353|NCT02367105|191885274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||.97
95956354|NCT02367105|191885275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.56
95956355|NCT02367105|191885276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95956356|NCT02367105|191885277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95956357|NCT02367105|191885278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
95956358|NCT02367105|191885279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.67
95956359|NCT02367105|191885280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline valued adjusted||||||0.003
95956360|NCT02367105|191885281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
95956361|NCT02367105|191885282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.94
95956362|NCT02367105|191885283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.41
95956363|NCT02367105|191885284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.46
95956364|NCT02367105|191885285|SUPERIORITY|Baseline value adjusted|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95956365|NCT02367105|191885286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.284||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
95956366|NCT02367105|191885287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years of education as covariates||||||.16
95956367|NCT02367105|191885288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.21
95956368|NCT02367105|191885289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.41
95956369|NCT02367105|191885290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value and years if education as covariates||||||.03
95956370|NCT02367105|191885291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.03
95956371|NCT02367105|191885292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||.18
95956372|NCT02367105|191885293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values and years of education as covariates||||||0.10
95956373|NCT02367105|191885294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||.65
95956374|NCT02367105|191885295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.553||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.03
95956375|NCT02367105|191885296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.04
95956376|NCT02367105|191885297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
95956377|NCT02367105|191885298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.65
95956378|NCT02367105|191885299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95956379|NCT02367105|191885300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline value adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
95956380|NCT02367105|191885301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
95956381|NCT02367105|191885302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.90
95956382|NCT02367105|191885303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-252.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||<0.001
95956383|NCT02367105|191885304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value as covariates||||||<0.001
95956384|NCT02367105|191885305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||<0.001
95956385|NCT02367105|191885306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.31
95956386|NCT02367105|191885307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Baseline values as covariates|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
95956387|NCT02367105|191885308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.69
95998441|NCT01212445|191972769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.196||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.331|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.331|0.098|0.2558
95811789|NCT00023595|191596375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.036
95956388|NCT02367105|191885309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline value adjusted||||||0.23
95956389|NCT02367105|191885310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95956390|NCT02367105|191885311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.36
95956391|NCT02367105|191885312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values as covariates||||||0.23
95956392|NCT02367105|191885313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline values adjusted||||||0.69
95956393|NCT02367105|191885314|SUPERIORITY||Number of participants|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, false discovery rate (FDR) whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95956394|NCT02367105|191885315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||0.37
95956395|NCT02367105|191885315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using DESeq2 R package. P values were adjusted using the Benjamini and Hochberg's approach for controlling the false discovery rate|t-test, 2 sided|||6 months vs Baseline||||.02
95956396|NCT02367105|191885316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||.05
95956397|NCT02367105|191885316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Final vs baseline||||||0.3
95956398|NCT01182103|191885324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95811790|NCT00023595|191596375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.043
95956399|NCT01182103|191885325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95956400|NCT01182103|191885326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95956401|NCT00812838|191885327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5154||||||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5154
95956402|NCT00812838|191885328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||"This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.~This analysis pertains to both categories"||||0.3009
95956403|NCT00812838|191885329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166||||||This applies to 100 units of Botulinum Toxin Type A arm vs the Normal saline arm|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0166
95956404|NCT00812838|191885330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||.8566
95956405|NCT00812838|191885331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0286||||||Threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This will be a pilot study; it was assessed that 10 subjects in each arm, for a total of 20 subjects, will allow us to determine if the therapy is effective. To allow for screen failures, 45 subjects are planned for screening.||||0.0286
95956406|NCT02101268|191885342|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.09|0.90
95956407|NCT02101268|191885343|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.32|0.09|< 0.001
95956408|NCT02101268|191885344|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.31|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||1.31|0.49|0.38
95956409|NCT02101268|191885345|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.37|0.09|0.001
95956410|NCT02101268|191885346|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.13||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.03|-0.29|0.10
95956411|NCT01180790|191885380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg, 400 mg, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving RVR4 at Week 4 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving RVR4 at Week 4 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.003
95956412|NCT01180790|191885380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
95956413|NCT01180790|191885380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
95956414|NCT01180790|191885380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||To control for multiplicity, the proportion in each treatment group achieving RVR4 is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered groups: placebo (considered zero dose), 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625. Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||||0.004
95956415|NCT01180790|191885382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||||||To control for multiplicity, the proportion of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR is analyzed using a Cochran-Armitage test for trend among the ordered treatment groups: 200 mg ACH-0141625, 400 mg ACH-0141625, and 800 mg ACH-0141625.|Exact Cochran-Armitage test|Only if overall test for trend is significant are pairwise comparisons evaluated using p-values for the difference in proportions (placebo - active).||The null hypothesis is no difference between proportions of participants in each treatment group achieving cEVR at Week 12 of the study, while the alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of participants achieving cEVR at Week 12 increases with increasing doses of ACH-0141625.||||0.34
95956416|NCT04167085|191885397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95956417|NCT04167085|191885398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95956418|NCT04167085|191885399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||Threshold p\<0.0167 - Because 3 primary outcomes were prespecified, the familywise error rate was adjusted for 3 endpoints: 0.05/3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95811791|NCT00023595|191596375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.018
95956419|NCT04167085|191885400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Physical||||0.24
95956420|NCT04167085|191885400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-12 Mental||||0.35
95956421|NCT04167085|191885401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95956422|NCT04167085|191885402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95956423|NCT04167085|191885403|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Threshold p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95956424|NCT03840148|191885405|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of -15%, non-inferiority will be concluded. Further, if non-inferiority is concluded, superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response is greater than or equal to zero.|Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|22.2||P-value for superiority since the lower confidence interval is greater than 0 for the primary endpoint analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|3.1|0.0088
95956425|NCT03840148|191885406|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|21.0||||||||21.0|2.9|
95956426|NCT03840148|191885407|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|12.6||||||||12.6|-2.6|
95956427|NCT03840148|191885408|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.8||||||||21.8|3.0|
95956428|NCT03840148|191885409|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.4||||||||10.4|-3.2|
95811792|NCT00023595|191596375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.037
95811793|NCT00023595|191596376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95956429|NCT03840148|191885410|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1||||||||4.1|-3.5|
95956430|NCT03840148|191885411|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|8.5||||||||8.5|-4.1|
95956431|NCT03840148|191885412|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|21.9||||||||21.9|2.2|
95956432|NCT03840148|191885413|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|17.3||||||||17.3|-1.6|
95956433|NCT03840148|191885414|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|18.8||||||||18.8|1.5|
95956434|NCT03840148|191885415|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|9.6||||||||9.6|-2.4|
95811794|NCT00023595|191596376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95956435|NCT03840148|191885425|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.5||||||||10.5|-2.3|
95956436|NCT03840148|191885426|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.1|
95956437|NCT03840148|191885427|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|24.9||||||||24.9|5.0|
95956438|NCT03840148|191885428|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.3||||||||22.3|3.7|
95956439|NCT03840148|191885429|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
95956440|NCT03840148|191885430|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|17.7||||||||17.7|-1.9|
95956441|NCT03840148|191885435|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.3||||||||24.3|3.8|
95956442|NCT03840148|191885437|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.3||||||||7.3|-3.1|
95956443|NCT03840148|191885438|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.5||||||||11.5|-1.1|
95956444|NCT03840148|191885439|OTHER||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.7||||||||15.7|1.2|
95956445|NCT00257556|191885460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045||||||95.0|-0.17|0.26|||||A two-sided 95% continuity-corrected confidence interval for the difference in percentages, based on the normal approximation|||0.260|-0.170|
95811795|NCT00023595|191596376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95811796|NCT00023595|191596376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95956446|NCT04839289|191885474|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||>0.05
95956447|NCT04839289|191885474|OTHER||||||<|0.0167||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Subjective ratings of sound quality would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with a validated sound quality questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.0167
95956448|NCT04839289|191885477|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
95956449|NCT04839289|191885477|OTHER||||||<|0.01666667||||||When adjusted for multiple comparisons, the p-value must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3).|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Satisfaction with hearing aid performance and features would not be different between any of the three study hearing aids when measured with subjective hearing aid satisfaction questionnaire.~Analysis was done after all three home trials completed so all three sets of study devices could be compared."||||<.01666667
95956450|NCT01350388|191885492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
95956451|NCT01350388|191885493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
95956452|NCT01350388|191885494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
95956453|NCT01350388|191885495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.88
95956454|NCT01350388|191885496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95956455|NCT01350388|191885497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95956456|NCT00580047|191885501|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The intervention groups were compared for compliance to either having annual IV zoledronic acid, taking weekly oral alendronate, and taking calcium/vitamin D supplementation.|||
95811797|NCT00023595|191596376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95811798|NCT00023595|191596377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||4 months|Chi-squared|H01 P-values were based on the Chi-Square test applied to maximum likelihood estimates derived from an adjusted mixed model.||||||0.0002
95811799|NCT00023595|191596377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||12 months|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95811800|NCT00023595|191596377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||24 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95956457|NCT02820298|191885506|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|131.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.03|147.56|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||147.56|117.03|
95956458|NCT02820298|191885508|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|110.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.91|117.06|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||117.06|103.91|
95956459|NCT02820298|191885509|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.48|114.54|||||Ratio of Geometric LSM is the ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter. Confidence interval from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||114.54|102.48|
95956460|NCT01894256|191885511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.27|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.27|1.04|
95780958|NCT02503254|191533779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Reduction|88.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.46|89.62||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at a two-sided alpha level of 5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC, respectively."||89.62|86.46|<.001
95780959|NCT02503254|191533780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|58.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.56||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|"Geometric LS Mean Reduction = 100 - (CHTP 1.0 : CC ratio)~Expressed as %"|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for CHTP 1.0 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for CHTP 1.0 and CC respectively."||66.56|49.30|<.001
95780960|NCT02952872|191533781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Mixed Design ANOVA||||||<.05
95780961|NCT02952872|191533782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95780962|NCT02952872|191533783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95811801|NCT00023595|191596377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||36 months|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95956461|NCT01894256|191885511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.48|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.48|1.06|
95956462|NCT01894256|191885512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.47|||||GLS mean for Mild Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.47|1.06|
95780963|NCT02952872|191533784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95956463|NCT01894256|191885512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares means ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.89|||||GLS mean for Moderate Renal Impairment group vs GLS mean for Normal Renal Function|Null hypothesis: There are no clinically significant differences in the PK of olaparib when administered to patients with moderate or mild renal impairment compared to patients with normal renal function.||1.89|1.10|
95780964|NCT02294461|191533812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.52|||Hazard Ratio|||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.52|0.27|<0.0001
95811802|NCT00023595|191596378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95956464|NCT01780584|191885523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||Repeated Anova was used to determine whether there was difference of FT3 levels between groups|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference of free T3 (FT3) levels will be found between placebo, low dose and high dose group. We anticipated a difference of 2 pg/ml in FT3 with a standard deviation of 0.8 pg/ml between groups. For a statistical power of 80% to identify a treatment effect and at a level significance of 0.05 (2-sided).||3|1|<0.05
95956465|NCT01780584|191885525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.31||95.0|3.0|10.0||Kruskal Wallis test was used to determine any difference of time of extubation between groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: no difference of time to extubation between group. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05||10|3|0.31
95780965|NCT02294461|191533813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.95||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had died at the analysis date were censored at date last known alive. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.95|0.51|0.0208
95780966|NCT02294461|191533814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.46||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who were not known to have had an rPFS event were censored at the date of the last assessment showing no objective evidence of rPFS prior to scan modality change, new antineoplastic treatment, initiation of radiation therapy for prostate cancer, skeletal-related event (SRE) and 2 or more consecutive missed tumor assessments. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide.||0.46|0.20|<0.0001
95780967|NCT02294461|191533815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.52||P-value was based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not have an SRE were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of SRE. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||1.52|0.21|0.2501
95811803|NCT00023595|191596378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||4 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95811804|NCT00023595|191596378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||12 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95811805|NCT00023595|191596378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||24 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95811806|NCT00023595|191596378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||36 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95811807|NCT00023595|191596379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95811808|NCT00023595|191596379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95811809|NCT00023595|191596379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95811810|NCT00023595|191596380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Hospital costs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95998442|NCT01212445|191972769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|4.763|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence interval. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||4.763|0.774|
95998443|NCT01212445|191972769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||2.720|0.386|
95998444|NCT01212445|191972771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.077||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.185|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.185|0.021|0.2350
95998445|NCT01212445|191972771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.157||||0.5256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.286|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.286|0.070|0.5256
95998446|NCT01212445|191972771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Success Rate|0.118||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.239|||Fisher Exact|||The treatment success rate was calculated as the number of participants in a treatment group with treatment successes (BM with no straining or hard/lumpy stools) divided by the total number of participants in the treatment group. Treatment success rate was calculated for each dose group along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on exact binomial statistics. Treatment success rates were compared between each pair of treatments using an exact 2-sided test (Fisher's).||0.239|0.044|0.7746
95998447|NCT01212445|191972771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 26.25 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||7.940|0.628|
95998448|NCT01212445|191972771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|6.043|||Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression analysis was performed with treatment success as the dichotomous dependent variable and dose (13.125g, 26.25g, or 39.375 g) as the independent variable. The main effects for the model were tested for significance at the 5% level.~The odds of response for the 39.375 g dose level versus the 13.125 g dose level were presented together with the associated 95% confidence intervals. There were no multiplicity adjustments."||6.043|0.424|
95998449|NCT01212445|191972772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.752||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|19.338|||ANCOVA|||||19.338|-3.834|0.1876
95811811|NCT00023595|191596380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Physician fees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95811812|NCT00023595|191596380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Total index cost|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95811813|NCT00879398|191596383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95811814|NCT00879398|191596384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95998450|NCT01212445|191972772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.706||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|13.141|||ANCOVA|||||13.141|-9.729|0.7680
95998451|NCT01212445|191972772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.046||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.412|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.320|-17.412|0.2941
95998452|NCT01212445|191972773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.059|9.454|||ANCOVA|||||9.454|-12.059|0.8109
95998453|NCT01212445|191972773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.075||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.693|8.544|||ANCOVA|||||8.544|-12.693|0.6995
95998454|NCT01212445|191972773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.772||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.329|9.784|||ANCOVA|||||9.784|-11.329|0.8850
95998455|NCT01212445|191972774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.886||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|25.695|||ANCOVA|||||25.695|0.078|0.0486
95998456|NCT01212445|191972774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.471|13.962|||ANCOVA|||||13.962|-11.471|0.8465
95998457|NCT01212445|191972774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.641||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.449|1.167|||ANCOVA|||||1.167|-24.449|0.0744
95998458|NCT01212445|191972775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.4591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.153|13.534|||ANCOVA|||||13.534|-6.153|0.4591
95998459|NCT01212445|191972775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.887||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.765|12.539|||ANCOVA|||||12.539|-6.765|0.5546
95998460|NCT01212445|191972775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.803||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.397|8.79|||ANCOVA|||||8.790|-10.397|0.8685
95780968|NCT02294461|191533816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.66||P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Unstratified log-rank test|||Participants who did not start cytotoxic chemotherapy were censored at the date of the last assessment indicating no evidence of cytotoxic chemotherapy usage. Hazard ratio calculated using unstratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as the only covariate for enzalutamide group versus placebo group.||0.66|0.12|0.0020
95780969|NCT02294461|191533817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of response rate|55.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|64.2||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel %|||||64.2|47.4|<0.0001
95780970|NCT02294461|191533818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in objective response rate|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|37.4||P-value is based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.|Unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||When deriving the response category, it was based on the target, non-target and new lesions without confirming CR, PR, and Progressive disease (PD). Participants with no post baseline assessment were included in the category of Nonevaluable (NE). The best overall soft tissue objective response was defined as PR or CR based on the investigator assessments of target, non-target and new lesions while on the study treatment.||37.4|14.7|<0.0001
95998461|NCT01212445|191972776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.774|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|-0.774|0.1865
95998462|NCT01212445|191972776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.323|||ANCOVA|||||0.323|-0.602|0.5530
95998463|NCT01212445|191972776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.637|||ANCOVA|||||0.637|-0.293|0.4670
95998464|NCT05175170|191972777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.902|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
95998465|NCT05175170|191972777|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related knowledge. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test knowledge scores.||||<.001
95998466|NCT05175170|191972778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.202||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.002
95998467|NCT05175170|191972778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.081||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis of this analysis was that using the AFFRMED would increase fertility-related decision self-efficacy. This paired-samples t-test compares participants' pre- and post-test decision self-efficacy scores.||||0.051
95998468|NCT04090164|191972782|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.406||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.341|4.316|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used for testing of association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test status.||4.316|1.341|0.0027
95998469|NCT04090164|191972782|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.032||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|31.25|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test was used to test the association of Breast Cancer diagnosis with anti-HCV test result in women younger than 45 years.||31.25|1.582|0.0034
95998470|NCT00770861|191972794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Between-treatment comparison of efficacy was performed by ANCOVA, with treatment, baseline BMI, center as factors \& baseline value as a covariate.||H0 - There was no difference in BP reduction between Neb and Placebo. The efficacy analyses were based on the ITT population for the double-blind treatment phase. The LOCF was used to impute missing postbaseline values. Sensitivity analyses were based on observed cases for all efficacy parameters. All statistical tests were two-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance for main effects. All confidence intervals were two-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||<0.0001
95998471|NCT00770861|191972795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95998472|NCT04902885|191972805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||non-parametric ANCOVA|||70 subjects (35 per group) provided approximately 95% power at the test level of α = 0.05 (2-sided) .Assuming a dropout rate of approximately 12%, the sample size for Part II was 80 subjects (40 per group)||||0.0003
95780971|NCT05206734|191533845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.46|||||HR was calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazard model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status, ethnicity and common childhood conditions. Reflects a comparison of the incidence rates between participants diagnosed with IBD and those without IBD.|||1.46|1.12|
95780972|NCT05206734|191533846|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.52|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.52|1.33|
95780973|NCT05206734|191533847|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.62|||||HR calculated using Cox regression models adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.62|1.02|
95811815|NCT00879398|191596385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95811816|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatric Status: \<65 years versus (vs) Geriatric Status: ≥65 years||||0.1319
95998473|NCT04893265|191972864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1352|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3060|-0.1352|0.4471
95998474|NCT04893265|191972865|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8378|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4284|1.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||1.6385|0.4284|<0.05
95998475|NCT04893265|191972866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4306|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6166|3.3192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for Demographics, COVID-19 Cases Per 100K , Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, Test Value with random intercepts for participation mode|Adjusted odds ratio|||3.3192|0.6166|<0.05
95998476|NCT04893265|191972867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07311|0.2463|||||Adjusted for Demographics, COVID Cases Per 100,000 Population, Test Access, Social Network, Knowledge, and Test Value with random intercepts for Dyad and Individual|||0.2463|-0.07311|
95998477|NCT01142323|191972870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Matched pairs|||||||0.008
95998478|NCT01142323|191972871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95998479|NCT03090191|191972873|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-38.7|66.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||66.6|-38.7|
95998480|NCT03090191|191972874|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of confidence interval greater than 20% demonstrate vaccine efficacy.|Vaccine efficacy|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|96.4|-28.4|61.0|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 96.4% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||61.0|-28.4|
95998481|NCT03090191|191972883|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-110.7|62.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model.|||62.5|-110.7|
95998482|NCT03090191|191972884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (2-sided)|||||||0.0172
95998483|NCT03090191|191972885|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|0.0|0.81||||||||0.81|0.00|
95998484|NCT03090191|191972886|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-69.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1533.1|75.6|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||75.6|-1533.1|
95998485|NCT03090191|191972887|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-74.6|58.5|||||VE = 100\*(1 - Hazard Ratio). 98.2% CI was estimated using Proportional Means Model|||58.5|-74.6|
95998486|NCT03090191|191972888|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-102.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-1770.1|67.2|||||VE = 100\*(1 - IRR), where IRR= the calculated ratio of recurrent CDI incidence between the Clostridium difficile vaccine group and the placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||67.2|-1770.1|
95998487|NCT03090191|191972889|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.2|-246.7|78.5|||||Vaccine efficacy(VE)=100\*(1-infection rate ratio\[IRR\]),IRR=calculated ratio of first primary CDI incidence between Clostridium difficile vaccine group and placebo group. 98.2% CI was estimated using Clopper-Pearson-Method.|||78.5|-246.7|
95998488|NCT00733902|191972910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-1.32|0.015
95998489|NCT00733902|191972910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.43|0.005
95780974|NCT05206734|191533848|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|4.43|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||4.43|1.76|
95998490|NCT00733902|191972910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.78|<0.001
95998491|NCT00733902|191972911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-1.32|0.009
95998492|NCT00733902|191972911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.54|<0.001
95998493|NCT00733902|191972911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.68|-1.80|<0.001
95998494|NCT00733902|191972912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.52|0.001
95998495|NCT00733902|191972912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
95998496|NCT00733902|191972912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.70|<0.001
95998497|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
95998498|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
95998499|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
95998500|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.47|<0.001
95998501|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-1.22|0.013
95780975|NCT05206734|191533850|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||1.58|1.12|
95780976|NCT05206734|191533851|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.75|||||RR calculated using negative binomial model adjusted for age,sex,socioeconomic status,ethnicity,IBD type and comorbidities.Reflects a comparison of the incidence rate ratio between IBD participants diagnosed with and without mental health conditions.|||2.75|1.29|
95811817|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age Categories: \<50 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years.||||0.6010
95998502|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.57|<0.001
95998503|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.36|0.003
95998504|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.29|0.006
95998505|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.87|<0.001
95998506|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.68|<0.001
95998507|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-1.48|0.002
95998508|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.87|<0.001
95998509|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.28|0.027
95998510|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-1.15|0.071
95998511|NCT00733902|191972913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.78|<0.001
95998512|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.27|-0.80|0.326
95998513|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.83|-0.24|0.275
95998514|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.56|-0.51|0.918
95998515|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
95998516|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.06|0.052
95998517|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.50|<0.001
95998518|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-1.26|0.006
95998519|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
95780977|NCT00734656|191533852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - dutasteride does not affect blood alcohol following standardized dose of alcohol (0.8 gr/kg)||||0.28
95780978|NCT00734656|191533853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the sedative effect of alcohol||||0.010
95811818|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Male vs Female||||0.0289
95780979|NCT00734656|191533854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||null hypothesis: dutasteride pre-treatment does not reduce the stimulating effect of alcohol||||0.17
95780980|NCT00734656|191533855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis - A single 4 mg dose of dutasteride does not reduce serum 3a-androstanediol glucuronide levels||||<0.001
95780981|NCT01306214|191533864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.61|-0.27||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
95780982|NCT01306214|191533864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.35||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 18 was the first step in each hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate and baseline eGFR, geographic region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"For the primary endpoint, the testing of the superiority hypothesis versus placebo was:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.35|-0.69|<0.0001
95780983|NCT01306214|191533865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.69|-1.97||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.97|-15.69|0.004
95780984|NCT01306214|191533865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.09|-4.36||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in insulin dose at week 52 was the second step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model - Covariates: baseline insulin daily dose,baseline HbA1c Fixed effects: baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of Empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo.|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in insulin dose (IU/day) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-4.36|-18.09|0.0003
95780985|NCT01306214|191533866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.54|-1.24||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.24|-3.54|<0.0001
95780986|NCT01306214|191533866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.63|-1.33||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose level, alpha split equally between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in body weight at week 52 was the third step in hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates and baseline eGFR, region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|hypothesis test: H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha: A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in body weight (kg) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo||-1.33|-3.63|<0.0001
95811819|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3078||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Weight Categories: \<50 kg, 50 to 60 kg, 60 to 70 kg, and ≥70 kg.||||0.3078
95811820|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9614||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Height Categories: \<160 cm, 160 to 170 cm, and ≥170 cm.||||0.9614
95811821|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0788||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Allergic History: Yes vs Allergic History: No||||0.0788
95956466|NCT01780584|191885526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|50.0||||0.4||95.0|40.0|60.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of length of stay in Intensive Care Unit. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||60|40|0.4
95956467|NCT01780584|191885527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.06||95.0|5.0|15.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference of postoperative hospital length of stay between groups. Statistical power 80% and level of significance 0.05.||15|5|0.06
95956468|NCT02825849|191885529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.824
95780987|NCT01306214|191533867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H0: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.13|-0.62|<0.0001
95780988|NCT01306214|191533867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|-0.13||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 10 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.13|-0.62|0.0005
95811822|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Duration of Disease: \<1 week, 1 to 8 weeks, 8 to 16 weeks, and ≥16 weeks.||||<0.0001
95998520|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.86|-1.91|<0.001
95998521|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.50|<0.001
95998522|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.30|0.005
95998523|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.75|<0.001
95998524|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-1.07|0.061
95998525|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.20|0.021
95998526|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.85|<0.001
95998527|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.166
95998528|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.16|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.95|0.167
95998529|NCT00733902|191972914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.75|<0.001
95998530|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
95811823|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past OAB Treatment History: Yes vs Past OAB Treatment History: No||||<0.0001
95998531|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
95998532|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
95998533|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.51|<0.001
95998534|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.38|0.002
95998535|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.70|-1.76|<0.001
95780989|NCT01306214|191533867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non- inferiority margin was 0.3%, one-sided.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|H013: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \>0.3 Ha13: Difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≤0.3||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
95780990|NCT01306214|191533867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|-0.22||Hierarchical testing adjusted for multiple comparisons within each dose, alpha split between the doses (2.5%). Empagliflozin versus placebo change from baseline in HbA1c at week 52 was the 4th step (non-inferiority) and 5th step (superiority).|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as covariate and baseline eGFR, geographical region, baseline background medication, treatment as fixed effects.|Estimated value = Adjusted mean of empagliflozin 25 mg - Adjusted mean of placebo|"Hypothesis test:~H0: No difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo Ha : A difference in change from baseline to Week 52 in HbA1c (%) between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.22|-0.70|<0.0001
95780991|NCT02686814|191533883|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.7646
95998536|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.35|0.002
95998537|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.39|0.001
95780992|NCT02686814|191533883|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.8984|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8984
95780993|NCT02686814|191533883|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.8457
95860850|NCT04518995|191680441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.53||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.53|0.35|< 0.0001
95998538|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.94|<0.001
95780994|NCT02686814|191533883|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.1309
95780995|NCT02686814|191533883|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||0.5000
95998539|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-1.70|<0.001
95998540|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-1.57|<0.001
95998541|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-1.91|<0.001
95780996|NCT02686814|191533884|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3-6 Month compared to Baseline||||0.2783
95780997|NCT02686814|191533884|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||1 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0674
95780998|NCT02686814|191533884|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||2 Year compared to Baseline||||0.0371
95780999|NCT02686814|191533884|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||3 Year compared to Baseline||||0.6953
95781000|NCT02686814|191533884|EQUIVALENCE|Each of the scales, for each follow-up time compared to baseline, the null hypothesis that the median paired difference is zero will be tested against the two-sided alternative that the median is not zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||4 Year compared to Baseline||||>0.9999
95781001|NCT01760447|191533885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-0.09|-0.90|= 0.018
95956469|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6409||||||Hochberg's adjustment was used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6409
95956470|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0140
95956471|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4840
95956472|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4444||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4444
95956473|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8129||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8129
95956474|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.1105
95956475|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9582||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9582
95956476|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1893||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1893
95956477|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2924||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment||Week 5||||0.2924
95956478|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1897||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.1897
95781002|NCT01760447|191533886|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.3|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||11.3|-13.9|
95781003|NCT01760447|191533887|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.0|-6.2|
95781004|NCT01760447|191533888|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|14.4|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who experienced ≥1 adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||14.4|-8.9|
95781005|NCT01760447|191533889|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen methodology was used to calculate the difference and 95% confidence interval.|"The percentage of participants who discontinued study drug due to experiencing an adverse event for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||5.8|-10.1|
95781006|NCT01760447|191533891|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.8|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The Least Squares (LS) Mean for the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||4.3|-25.9|= 0.159
95781007|NCT01760447|191533893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|16.0||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<7.0%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||28.9|2.9|0.017
95781008|NCT01760447|191533894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|12.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||"The percentage of participants with A1C at the A1C goal (\<6.5%) in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled. For estimating the treatment difference, when the A1C result for a participant at Week 20 was not available, a multiple imputation method was used to impute whether the participant had met the goal."||24.8|0.0|0.049
95781009|NCT01760447|191533897|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Difference in Percentage|-13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-5.3|||Log-Rank Test|||"The percentage of participants initiating glycemic rescue therapy in the arm Sitagliptin/Metformin and Sitagliptin/Metformin XR Pooled is compared against that of Metformin and Metformin XR Pooled."||-5.3|-21.1|0.002
95781010|NCT00564278|191533975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GEE model Beta|17.46||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.61|51.53||All analyses presented are at 9 months.|t-test, 2 sided|t(193) = -1.14, p=.26||"We also conducted an analysis using a Generalized Estimating Equations model adjusting for a number of covariates.~We will conduct a three-part regression analysis assessing early/middle/late effects of MPT on retention. We will also conduct moderator analyses, as described in the original study grant, to determine whether there are specific patient groups for whom a significant difference in days in treatment is found."||51.53|-16.61|0.26
95781011|NCT00564278|191533976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.01||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline depressive symptoms and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean depressive symptoms over follow-up.|||1.01|-1.57|
95956479|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6608||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.6608
95956480|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2148||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||"Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0.~The null hypotheses for the primary parameter is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups."||||0.2148
95956481|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.5290
95956482|NCT00141271|191885530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0811||||||Hochberg's adjustment used for multiple comparisons adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.0811
95956483|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2287
95956484|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4734||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week1||||0.4734
95781012|NCT00564278|191533977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Work - Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.95||See under Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline work-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the work domain over follow-up.|||0.95|-0.50|
95781013|NCT00564278|191533977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Social-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.92||See under Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline social-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the social domain over follow-up.|||0.92|-0.49|
95781014|NCT00564278|191533977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Family-Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.18||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline family-related disability score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean disability score in the family domain over follow-up.|||1.18|-0.08|
95781015|NCT00564278|191533978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.64||See Method of Estimation, below|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline QOL score and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean percent of quality of life over follow-up.|||3.64|-3.61|
95781016|NCT00564278|191533979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician adjusted for baseline patient satisfaction and time to assess the effect of MADT vs. SADT on mean patient satisfaction over follow-up.|||0.66|-0.74|
95729070|NCT00094302|191428288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 451 subjects (206 in the Spironolactone group and 245 in the Placebo group) who have been confirmed to have experienced the event"||0.99|0.69|0.04
95781017|NCT00564278|191533980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mixed Model Beta for MADT vs SADT|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.57||See Method of Estimation below.|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model was used with random intercept for clinician to model the effect of MPT vs. SADT on the mean proportion of fully adherent days over the study period. We used an exchangeable covariance structure.|||15.57|2.71|
95781018|NCT02368886|191533989|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||1-sided|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|0.00|0.0434
95781019|NCT02368886|191533990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.47|0.1241
95956485|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7401||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7401
95956486|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7904||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7904
95729071|NCT00094302|191428289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to event from randomization. Subjects who did not experience endpoint were censored at time of last contact. Attempts were made to determine vital status as of each subject's last potential visit, based on randomization, even if the subject ended study participation before then. This outcome was adjudicated. There were 252 events over 6,022 patient-years in Spironolactone arm and 274 events over 5,981 patient-years in Placebo arm.||1.08|0.77|0.29
95729072|NCT00094302|191428290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 382 subjects in Spironolactone group and 404 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.06|0.80|0.28
95729073|NCT00094302|191428291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 291 subjects in Spironolactone group and 320 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.04|0.76|0.15
95729074|NCT00094302|191428292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|0.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||No covariate adjustment|Negative binomial regression||Spironolactone compared to Placebo|There were a total of 869 confirmed heart failure hospitalizations (394 in the Spironolactone group and 475 in the Placebo group) during the 11,471 person-years collected over the course of the TOPCAT trial (5,755 person-years in the Spironolactone group and 5,716 person-years in the Placebo group). The incidence rate of heart failure hospitalizations for each treatment group was compared using a negative binomial regression with a p-value threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.||0.97|0.58|0.03
95729075|NCT00094302|191428293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|Composite endpoint was compared by trial arm using logrank test of time to first event from time of randomization. Time to event was the time at which the first observed event component of the composite endpoint was observed. Component endpoints were adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 58 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 60 subjects in Placebo group with a confirmed event. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at time of last contact.||1.38|0.67|0.82
95781020|NCT02368886|191533991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3797
95781021|NCT02368886|191533992|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.55|0.4614
95811824|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Past Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Past Disease: No||||0.1147
95998542|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-1.26|0.021
95998543|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-1.22|0.029
95811825|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Medical History of Present Disease: Yes vs Medical History of Present Disease: No||||<0.0001
95811826|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Kidney Disorder: Yes vs Kidney Disorder: No||||1.0000
95998544|NCT00733902|191972915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.78|<0.001
95998545|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.07|0.044
95998546|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.48|-0.57|0.875
95998547|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.93|0.129
95781022|NCT02368886|191533997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7319
95781023|NCT06010732|191534040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.4||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||5.4|-5.5|0.986
95811827|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Liver Disorder: Yes vs Liver Disorder: No||||1.0000
95811828|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Total Administration Period of Toviaz Subgroups: \<2 months, 2 to 4 months, and ≥4 months.||||<0.0001
95811829|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0239||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among Daily Dose of Toviaz: 3 mg, 4 mg, \>4 mg to \<8 mg, and 8 mg.||||0.0239
95811830|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Completion vs Discontinuation||||<0.0001
95811831|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5889||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Total Administration Period \<274 days vs Total Administration Period ≥ 274 days||||0.5889
95811832|NCT00879398|191596387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concurrent Medication: Yes vs Concurrent Medication: No||||0.0010
95811833|NCT05852470|191596407|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0.1 logMAR|Difference in Means|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.067||Since a non-inferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the non-inferiority margin.|||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||0.067|0.001|
95956487|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5274||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.5274
95956488|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1059||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.1059
95956489|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8871||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8871
95956490|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6939|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.6939
95956491|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1044||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.1044
95956492|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3132||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.3132
95956493|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6978
95956494|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3228
95956495|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6432
95956496|NCT00141271|191885531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5989||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.5989
95956497|NCT00141271|191885532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8921||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.8921
95956498|NCT00141271|191885532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4350
95956499|NCT00141271|191885532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.562||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5620
95956500|NCT00141271|191885532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6959||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6959
95956501|NCT00141271|191885532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7865||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7865
95956502|NCT00141271|191885532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7564
95956503|NCT00141271|191885533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4327||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4327
95956504|NCT00141271|191885533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7041||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7041
95956505|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2076||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.2076
95956506|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7449||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.7449
95781024|NCT06010732|191534040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.6|21.7|<0.001
95781025|NCT06010732|191534040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|32.7||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|Based on previous studies we estimate the standard deviation of the differences between treatments in the crossover model to be 20 for % SMH recovery. With a sample size of 58 subjects completing the study, the study had 80% power to detect a difference between any two treatments of 7.5 for % SMH recovery, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||32.7|21.7|<0.001
95781026|NCT06010732|191534041|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(EFU)||1.32|0.93|0.230
95781027|NCT06010732|191534041|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|6.85||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.85|4.86|<0.001
95781028|NCT06010732|191534041|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|6.18||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(EFU)||6.18|4.37|<0.001
95781029|NCT06010732|191534042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||8.6|-2.5|0.272
95781030|NCT06010732|191534042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|40.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||40.3|29.3|<0.001
95781031|NCT06010732|191534042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|37.3||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||37.3|26.2|<0.001
95781032|NCT06010732|191534043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.11||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.32|0.93|0.191
95781033|NCT06010732|191534043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||0.98|0.91|0.003
95811834|NCT05852470|191596408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.061|||t-test, 1 sided||||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|-0.061|-0.120|<.001
95781034|NCT06010732|191534043|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.97||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.01||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(%CAR+100)||1.01|0.93|0.092
95781035|NCT06010732|191534044|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|1.01||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(∆Z)||1.13|0.90|0.905
95781036|NCT06010732|191534044|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.8||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.80|0.63|<0.001
95781037|NCT06010732|191534044|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(∆Z)||0.79|0.63|<0.001
95811835|NCT05852470|191596409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|-0.089|||t-test, 1 sided||Parameter Dispersion Type is Standard Error of the Difference in Means. Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL|||-0.089|-0.169|<.001
95781038|NCT06010732|191534045|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.98||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Positive Control|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||1.09|0.88|0.721
95781039|NCT06010732|191534045|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Test/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.84|0.68|<0.001
95860851|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
95998548|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.46|<0.001
95998549|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
95998550|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.67|-1.71|<0.001
95998551|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.33|0.002
95998552|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-1.46|<0.001
95998553|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.04|<0.001
95998554|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.51|-1.56|<0.001
95998555|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.52|<0.001
95998556|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
95998557|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-1.12|0.030
95998558|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
95998559|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.90|-1.96|<0.001
95998560|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-1.03|0.085
95998561|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-1.18|0.026
95998562|NCT00733902|191972916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.84|-1.94|<0.001
95998563|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
95998564|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
95998565|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
95781040|NCT06010732|191534045|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Means|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Ratio calculated as Positive Control/Placebo|analyzed as log(lesion depth)||0.86|0.69|<0.001
95781041|NCT06010732|191534046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.84||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Positive Control|||1.84|-2.95|0.647
95781042|NCT06010732|191534046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|8.75||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Test-Placebo|||8.75|3.95|<0.001
95781043|NCT06010732|191534046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|9.31||No alpha-level adjustments for multiple comparisons adjustments were applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis of variance models (ANOVA) suitable for a crossover study, with random effect for subject and fixed effects for study period and product.|Difference calculated as Positive Control-Placebo|||9.31|4.49|<0.001
95781044|NCT00253370|191534058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.409||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.284|0.544|||one-sample binomial test|||The study was designed to distinguish a response rate of 40% from 20%, the null hypothesis. With the planned sample size of 36 eligible patients, the study has 91% power based on a 0.09 level one-sided test.||0.544|0.284|0.0012
95781045|NCT02636699|191534116|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.8|||Wald|||Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% confidence interval (CI). P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates ≥15%.||29.8|12.4|<0.001
95781046|NCT02636699|191534117|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|19.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|38.4|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 1:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||38.4|-6.4|0.105
95781047|NCT02636699|191534117|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates (%)|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.8|||Wald|||"Screening ED subgroup 2:~Analysis of the difference in response rates between DBV712 250 μg group and Placebo group and 2-sided Newcombe 95% CI. P-value was obtained from a 2-sided 5% test to evaluate the null hypothesis of no difference in response rates between treatment groups using the Wald method. Clinical relevance was evaluated based on the lower bound of the Newcombe 95% CI of the difference in response rates \>0."||30.8|12.1|<0.001
95998566|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
95998567|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
95781048|NCT02636699|191534118|OTHER||Difference in Median CRD|297.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.0|317.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The treatment effect was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the difference in median CRDs at Month 12.||317.0|130.0|<0.001
95781049|NCT03004924|191534201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|7.7||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-1.6|0.127
95998568|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
95998569|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
95781050|NCT03004924|191534202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-3.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|-12.8|0.500
95781051|NCT00553358|191534216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|-4.85||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.6|8.16|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1500 mg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm1 (Lapatinib 1500 mg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg).|||8.16|-17.6|0.3416
95781052|NCT00553358|191534216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants with pCR|21.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.08|34.23|||Binomial|Binomial p-value for Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg versus Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg|Estimation Comments: Estimated value is the difference in the percentage of participants with pCR: Arm3 (Lapatinib 1000/750 mg + Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg) minus Arm2 (Trastuzumab 2 mg/kg)|||34.23|9.08|0.0001
95781053|NCT00553358|191534224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.57|0.548
95781054|NCT00553358|191534224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.52|0.66|0.981
95781055|NCT00553358|191534226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.34||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.34|0.46|0.379
95956507|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4399||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.4399
95781056|NCT00553358|191534226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.6||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was implemented as the score test from the Cox model.|Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals for the pairwise comparisons of individual treatment arms with the trastuzumab alone arm.|||1.60|0.58|0.880
95781057|NCT00553358|191534227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.00079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the EFS landmark analysis||0.73|0.31|0.00079
95781058|NCT00553358|191534227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.71|0.16|0.004
95811836|NCT05852470|191596410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66||Upper limit is not applicable for testing.|The lower boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|Miettinen-Nurminen||Difference = Vivity/Vivity Toric Extended Vision IOL minus Clareon/Clareon Toric Monofocal IOL||||8.66|
95956508|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7107||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.7107
95956509|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4765||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.4765
95956510|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2564||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2564
95956511|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8063||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.8063
95956512|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9855||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.9855
95956513|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0599||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0599
95956514|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7364||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.7364
95956515|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.3048
95956516|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5139||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 6||||0.5139
95956517|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9356||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9356
95956518|NCT00141271|191885534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9428
95956519|NCT00141271|191885535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3888||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3888
95781059|NCT00553358|191534227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.532||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.16|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.16|0.21|0.134
95781060|NCT00553358|191534227|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the EFS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.20|0.28|0.163
95811837|NCT02302222|191596434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.113||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.243|||Fisher Exact|||||0.243|-0.016|0.1981
95811838|NCT04116489|191596458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5272|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.5272
95811839|NCT04116489|191596459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1657|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.1657
95811840|NCT04116489|191596460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2437|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2437
95998570|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
95998571|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-0.85|<0.001
95998572|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.63|<0.001
95998573|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.57|<0.001
95998574|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.42|-0.80|<0.001
95998575|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.035
95998576|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.36|0.125
95998577|NCT00733902|191972919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.58|<0.001
95998578|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.49|<0.001
95781061|NCT00553358|191534229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.366||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.63|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Overall - All subjects in the OS landmark analysis||0.63|0.20|0.00041
95781062|NCT00553358|191534229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib + trastuzumab arm||0.58|0.07|0.002
95998579|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.24|0.486
95998580|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.42|0.008
95998581|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.64|<0.001
95998582|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.62|<0.001
95998583|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.75|<0.001
95998584|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.53|<0.001
95998585|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.58|<0.001
95998586|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.52|-0.89|<0.001
95998587|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.59|<0.001
95998588|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
95998589|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.83|<0.001
95998590|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.47|0.004
95998591|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.55|<0.001
95998592|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.77|<0.001
95998593|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.37|0.090
95956520|NCT00141271|191885535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3122||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.3122
95956521|NCT00141271|191885535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.3323
95956522|NCT00141271|191885535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8781||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.8781
95811841|NCT04116489|191596461|OTHER|||||||0.0373|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0373
95956523|NCT00141271|191885535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9485||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.9485
95956524|NCT00141271|191885535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7331||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7331
95956525|NCT00141271|191885536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.4869
95956526|NCT00141271|191885536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5813||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.5813
95956527|NCT00141271|191885536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.3303
95811842|NCT03781570|191596467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00517|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|-0.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's method was used to estimate degrees of freedom for the mixed effects model.||Comparing placebo vs. control for thermal pain ratings with mixed effects models controlling for the stimulus intensity and the familial structure of the data.||-0.0441|-0.0648|<0.001
95956528|NCT00141271|191885536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1546||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.1546
95956529|NCT00141271|191885536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8982||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.8982
95956530|NCT00141271|191885536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3586
95956531|NCT00141271|191885537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0896||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.0896
95998594|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.053
95998595|NCT00733902|191972920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-0.70|<0.001
95998596|NCT01458340|191972959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.6026|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||α=0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.2||0.6026
95998597|NCT01458340|191972959|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.4844|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||2.7||0.4844
95998598|NCT01458340|191972960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.5269|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.7||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||3.7||0.5269
95998599|NCT01458340|191972960|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2092|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.8||α=0.05 significance level.|MMRM|One-sided p-values were obtained from the pairwise comparisons between TD-9855 group and placebo group based on the final model.||||1.8||0.2092
95998600|NCT04899271|191973001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.807
95781063|NCT00553358|191534229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the lapatinib arm||1.17|0.12|0.125
95956532|NCT00141271|191885537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6534||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6534
95781064|NCT00553358|191534229|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.0|||Regression, Cox||Cox models (Cox, 1972), with the stratification factors entered as strata variables, were used to calculate a hazard ratio and corresponding confidence interval comparing pCR and no pCR.|Subjects in the OS landmark analysis in the trastuzumab arm||1.00|0.15|0.058
95781065|NCT02867202|191534238|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed with SPSS version 22.0, using two-sided test, and a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
95781066|NCT03924505|191534247|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|2.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.35||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression|We adjusted for baseline rate due to baseline differences.|The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||2.35|1.42|<0.01
95781067|NCT03924505|191534248|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.97||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.3||A priori threshold for statistical signicance is p\<0.05|Negative Binomial Regression||The incidence rate ratio estimates the effect of facilitation for implementation effectiveness and dissemination of best practice recommendations, as compared to dissemination of best practice recommendations.|||3.30|1.18|0.01
95781068|NCT03924505|191534249|OTHER|Testing for differences in means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.7|0.68
95781069|NCT03003000|191534261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.48||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeated Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline placebo. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with placebo.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.|0.480|-0.168|0.3446
95811843|NCT02769481|191596507|NON_INFERIORITY|A 95% CI was to be calculated to estimate the range of values in which the treatment difference was likely to lie. If the 95% CI fell below the specified non inferiority margin of 0.35%, the non inferiority of bexagliflozin treatment to glimepiride treatment would be demonstrated and the null hypothesis would be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11|||||A lower value represents a better treatment effect.|The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 60 in the bexagliflozin arm would be greater than change in the glimepiride arm by greater than 0.35%.||0.11|-0.21|
95811844|NCT02769481|191596508|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.52||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-3.52|-5.10|< 0.0001
95811845|NCT02769481|191596509|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-6.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-2.51||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, background treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline weight as a fixed effect covariate.||||-2.51|-10.56|0.0008
95956533|NCT00141271|191885537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.3270
95956534|NCT00141271|191885537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4099
95956535|NCT00141271|191885537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6104||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6104
95998601|NCT04899271|191973002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.746
95998602|NCT04899271|191973002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.201
95998603|NCT04899271|191973003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
95781070|NCT03003000|191534261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.129||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.134||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change from baseline ibuprofen. A positive result favors the treatment with ibuprofen and caffeine|Superiority of ibuprofen and caffeine versus ibuprofen as well as ibuprofen and caffeine versus placebo had to be shown to reject the overall null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in POMWP between baseline and Day 2 (morning, 2 h after drug intake) between patients treated with ibuprofen/caffeine and patients treated with ibuprofen.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures analysis (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time, treatment-by-stratum-by-time, treatment-by-stratum and stratum-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix|0.134|-0.392|0.3358
95781071|NCT03003000|191534262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.288||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.003||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.003|-0.572|0.0474
95781072|NCT03003000|191534262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.282||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|||0.282|-0.180|0.6658
95781073|NCT03003000|191534263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.399||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|-0.1||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||-0.100|-0.698|0.0091
95781074|NCT03003000|191534263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.6387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.302||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included treatment, country, and worst procedure site as fixed effects and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|Adjusted mean ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine|||0.302|-0.185|0.6387
95781075|NCT03003000|191534264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.559||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|1.979||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change placebo. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.979|-0.861|0.4398
95781076|NCT03003000|191534264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.002|1.314||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Adjusted mean change ibuprofen and caffeine - Adjusted mean change ibuprofen. A negative result favors ibuprofen and caffeine.|MMRM includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, country, worst procedure site, time and interaction terms for treatment-by-time as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline pressure algometry and baseline-by-time interaction, using unstructured covariance matrix.||1.314|-1.002|0.7911
95998604|NCT04899271|191973003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
95781077|NCT03003000|191534265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.777||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.642||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||2.642|1.195|0.0045
95781078|NCT03003000|191534265|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.9603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.389||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model adjusting for country and worst procedure site.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator|||1.389|0.732|0.9603
95781079|NCT03003000|191534266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.592||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.592|0.663|0.9022
95781080|NCT03003000|191534266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.834||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.187||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥30%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator.||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.187|0.586|0.3129
95781081|NCT03003000|191534266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.354||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|2.494||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|2.494|0.736|0.3301
95811846|NCT02769481|191596510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.28||P-value is based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|Region, baseline HbA1c, background treatment, eGFR at baseline, treatment as a fixed effect covariate.|Odds ratio is calculated as the odds ratio of bexagliflozin over glimepiride.|||0.28|0.05|< 0.0001
95998605|NCT04899271|191973003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 18||||0.776
95998606|NCT04899271|191973004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.521
95998607|NCT04899271|191973004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.959
95811847|NCT02769481|191596511|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of bexagliflozin over glimepiride in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 60 will be declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval is less than 0|Difference of LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.21|
95781082|NCT03003000|191534266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|1.057||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|likelihood-ratio test|The likelihood-ratio test was used to test treatment differences for patients with a decrease of ≥50%.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates better efficacy for ibuprofen and caffeine than for the comparator||Results are based on the Logistic regression. Logistic regression model was adjusted for the categorical covariates country and worst procedure site.|1.057|0.437|0.0864
95781083|NCT03003000|191534267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9384||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.9384
95956536|NCT00141271|191885537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9359||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9359
95956537|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6924||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6924
95781084|NCT03003000|191534267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3534||||||No adjustment for multiplicity issues was made for this comparison. The level of significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|p-value based on a stratified log-rank test||||||0.3534
95781085|NCT02191046|191534277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|5.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between before and after treatment in syringe group||5.37|3.41|<0.05
95781086|NCT02191046|191534277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5S-score between 2 groups at 2 weeks after treatment||1.76|0.094|<0.05
95781087|NCT02191046|191534277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power of study = 90%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||satisfaction score between two groups at 2 weeks after treatment||-0.12|-0.82|<0.05
95781088|NCT02191046|191534277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power fo study = 90%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|6.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the mean 5s-score between before and after treatment in squeezable bottle group||6.69|4.62|<0.05
95781089|NCT01370616|191534340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference between the two groups has a lower bound greater than -15%, then ertapenem sodium will be considered at least as effective as piperacillin/tazobactam sodium.|Estimated Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.0|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||0.0|-8.3|
95781090|NCT01370616|191534341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||1.8|-5.5|
95781091|NCT01370616|191534342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||2.8|-7.7|
95781092|NCT01370616|191534343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.4|-11.9|
95998608|NCT04899271|191973004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773||||||Assumption of normality was confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; the comparison between treatment arms was performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.773
95956538|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0800
95956539|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4238||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4238
95956540|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7714||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.7714
95956541|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8731||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8731
95998609|NCT04899271|191973005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.691
95998610|NCT04899271|191973005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.685
95998611|NCT04899271|191973005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.640
95781093|NCT01370616|191534344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.3|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by the severity of diabetes foot infection.|||3.3|-12.1|
95781094|NCT01370616|191534345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|15.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||15.4|-0.9|
95781095|NCT01370616|191534346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||3.4|-8.5|
95811848|NCT03176173|191596526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0007
95998612|NCT04899271|191973006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||Comparison at month 6||||0.867
95998613|NCT04899271|191973006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared and Fisher's Exact test separated with a /.||Comparison at month 12||||0.769
95998614|NCT04899271|191973006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||Comparison at month 18||||0.577
95998615|NCT04899271|191973007|SUPERIORITY|The effect of treatment on the cumulative number of severe hypoglycemic events was evaluated by means of a Cox proportional hazards model. The Andersen-Gill intensity model with model-based variance was utilized.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.271||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.819|||Cox proportional hazards model|Analysis is based on Cox proportional hazards model.||||2.819|0.573|0.554
95998616|NCT04899271|191973009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.320
95998617|NCT04899271|191973009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.398
95998618|NCT04899271|191973009|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||1.000
95998619|NCT04899271|191973010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 6 for change from baseline||||0.892
95998620|NCT04899271|191973010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412||||||Assumption of normality is confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at month 12 for change from baseline||||0.412
95998621|NCT04899271|191973010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||Assumption of normality is not confirmed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison at month 18 for change from baseline||||0.371
95998622|NCT00736229|191973029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison for the difference in Median glucose values during steady state across all three groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated across the three groups (Exenatide,Moderate and Intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
95998623|NCT00736229|191973029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Intensive Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
95998624|NCT00736229|191973029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Comparison of Median Glucose Values between Exenatide and Moderate Groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median Glucose Values (mg/dl) after steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.15
95998625|NCT00736229|191973030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Median Time (Hrs) to steady state was evaluated across the three groups (exenatide, moderate and intensive) with a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||<0.001
95998626|NCT00736229|191973030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Intensive study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||0.80
95781096|NCT01370616|191534347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.8|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||5.8|-2.0|
95860852|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
95998627|NCT00736229|191973030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median time (hours) to steady state were evaluated between the Exenatide and Moderate study groups using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||||<0.001
95998628|NCT01733329|191973050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95998629|NCT01733329|191973051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
95998630|NCT01733329|191973052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
95998631|NCT01733329|191973053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.007
95998632|NCT01508676|191973059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
95998633|NCT00609128|191973062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with preplanned comparisons was used to generate two tailed P values. Paired t tests were used to make appropriate post-ANOVA comparisons.||"tears were collected in season from eyes of allergic patients with or without olopatadine treatment, that is one eye was treated and the patients other eye was not.~Tears from each patient's eyes were pooled to provide enough volume."||||<0.05
95998634|NCT00843180|191973104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.2||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||this was a feasibility pilot study CI is descriptor of dispersion|comparison between groups by t-test||4.2|-5.4|0.80
95998635|NCT00843180|191973105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.1||unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided||CI serves as dispersion measure|||2.1|-6.9|0.29
95998636|NCT00843180|191973106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided||95% CI is dispersion parameter|||24.3|-31.9|0.78
95998637|NCT00843180|191973107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|unadjusted|95%CI is dispersion measure|||13.2|-9.5|0.70
95998638|NCT03429075|191973119|EQUIVALENCE|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95998639|NCT01650805|191973167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.074
95781097|NCT01370616|191534348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|1.9|||||Ertapenem minus Piperacillin/tazobactam group. Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method without adjusting strata.|||1.9|-5.7|
95781098|NCT00824382|191534367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.131|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.131|0.051|<0.0001
95781099|NCT00824382|191534367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.091|<0.0001
95781100|NCT00824382|191534367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.172|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.172|0.092|<0.0001
95781101|NCT00824382|191534368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.0002||95.0|0.039|0.124|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.039|0.0002
95781102|NCT00824382|191534368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.184|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|0.098|<0.0001
95781103|NCT00824382|191534368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.199|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.115|<0.0001
95781104|NCT00824382|191534369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.095|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.182|0.095|<0.0001
95781105|NCT00824382|191534369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.241|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.241|0.154|<0.0001
95956542|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.8926
95956543|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2072||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.2072
95998640|NCT01650805|191973169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||<0.001
95998641|NCT01650805|191973170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis by Sokal score||||||0.317
95781106|NCT00824382|191534369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.236|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.236|0.150|<0.0001
95781107|NCT00824382|191534370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.191|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.191|0.101|<0.0001
95781108|NCT00824382|191534370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.247|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.247|0.157|<0.0001
95781109|NCT00824382|191534370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.240|0.151|<0.0001
95781110|NCT00824382|191534371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.275|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.275|0.107|<0.0001
95956544|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.1042
95956545|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2695||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.2695
95956546|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3245
95998642|NCT02625402|191973173|EQUIVALENCE|Knowledge scores within 10% points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|21.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||21.5|-8.8|<0.05
95998643|NCT04068103|191973275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P value \<= 0.35 moves trial to phase III, \>0.35 stops trial for futility. Decision rule calls for early stopping due to futility.|Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test of ctDNA clearance by treatment arm.||||0.98
95998644|NCT03439345|191973284|SUPERIORITY|For the time-to-event analyses, survival analytic methods will be used to evaluate the time to the first event during the entire study period. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses, adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation, will be used to estimate the hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals and corresponding p-values, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.||||0.91|0.58|0.006
95781111|NCT00824382|191534371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.276|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.276|0.106|<0.0001
95781112|NCT00824382|191534371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.270|0.103|<0.0001
95781113|NCT00824382|191534372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.345|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.345|0.160|<0.0001
95781114|NCT00824382|191534372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.343|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.343|0.156|<0.0001
95781115|NCT00824382|191534372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.325|0.141|<0.0001
95956547|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7791||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.7791
95781116|NCT00824382|191534373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.155|0.351|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 2mcg - Placebo||0.351|0.155|<0.0001
95781117|NCT00824382|191534373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.341|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 5mcg - Placebo||0.341|0.142|<0.0001
95781118|NCT00824382|191534373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean for the difference|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.324|||ANCOVA|||Olodaterol 10mcg - Placebo||0.324|0.129|<0.0001
95781119|NCT00824382|191534374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0045||95.0|0.035|0.188|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.035|0.0045
95781120|NCT00824382|191534374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.293|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.293|0.140|<0.0001
95781121|NCT00824382|191534374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.292|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.292|0.142|<0.0001
95781122|NCT00824382|191534375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0348||95.0|0.006|0.159|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.159|0.006|0.0348
95781123|NCT00824382|191534375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.1|0.252|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.100|<0.0001
95781124|NCT00824382|191534375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.265|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.265|0.115|<0.0001
95781125|NCT00824382|191534376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.476|<|0.0001||95.0|16.477|38.036|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.036|16.477|<0.0001
95781126|NCT00824382|191534376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.574|<|0.0001||95.0|18.41|40.357|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||40.357|18.410|<0.0001
95781127|NCT00824382|191534376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.0001||95.0|25.987|47.369|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.369|25.987|<0.0001
95781128|NCT00824382|191534377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.534|<|0.0001||95.0|18.159|39.946|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.946|18.159|<0.0001
95781129|NCT00824382|191534377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.635|<|0.0001||95.0|19.861|42.049|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||42.049|19.861|<0.0001
95781130|NCT00824382|191534377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.489|<|0.0001||95.0|26.386|47.996|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||47.996|26.386|<0.0001
95781131|NCT00824382|191534378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.2016||95.0|-0.485|0.103|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.103|-0.485|0.2016
95781132|NCT00824382|191534378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0029||95.0|-0.752|-0.156|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.156|-0.752|0.0029
95781133|NCT00824382|191534378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0095||95.0|-0.678|-0.095|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with terms for baseline, treatment and center (center random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.095|-0.678|0.0095
95781134|NCT02892513|191534386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95956548|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0999||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.0999
95956549|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9543||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.9543
95956550|NCT00141271|191885538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3153
95781135|NCT01554176|191534431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Number of participants included for calculation of mean ± SD baseline and mean ± SD change from baseline MADRS Total Score is 119. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model uses efficacy Full Analysis Set (FAS) population (number of participants: filorexant 10 mg - 64, placebo - 64; total number of participants in cLDA analysis - 128).||2.5|-3.8|0.679
95781136|NCT01554176|191534432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||2.5|-3.2|0.820
95781137|NCT01554176|191534433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.3||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, the interaction of time by treatment, severity of disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 17-items \[HAM-D17\] ≤20, \>20) and insomnia severity index (ISI ≤14, \>14).|cLDA|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||1.3|-1.9|0.701
95781138|NCT01554176|191534434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Odds Ratio|2.5||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3||Generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction.|Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Pairwise Comparison: Filorexant 10 mg vs. Placebo||7.3|0.8|0.0965
95781139|NCT01554176|191534435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|31.4||||Between-group comparison of AE incident rate||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo) for participants with one or more AE.||31.4|-0.9|
95781140|NCT01554176|191534436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||||Between-group comparison of incidence rate of drug discontinuation due to AE||Estimated parameter is between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued from study drug due to an AE = percentage (filorexant 10 mg) - percentage (placebo).||7|-7|
95781141|NCT02436031|191534439|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||0.049
95781142|NCT02436031|191534439|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.135
95781143|NCT03053427|191534442|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measurements|||MMRM with compound symmetry as the covariance structure was used. The explanatory variables of the model included treatment group, IRLS score at baseline, age category, estimated creatinine clearance category, time point, and interaction of treatment group and time point.||0.2|-2.6|0.088
95998645|NCT03439345|191973285|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.91|0.57|0.005
95781144|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 1||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.0|-2.2|0.051
95781145|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 2||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.8|0.020
95781146|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 4||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-2.9|0.028
95781147|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 6||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
95781148|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 8||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-2.4|0.184
95781149|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 10||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.2|-3.1|0.027
95781150|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Time frame: week 12||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.2|-3.0|0.087
95843712|NCT03043872|191654948|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|0.964||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||0.964|0.439|0.0314
95998646|NCT03439345|191973286|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.31|0.08
95998647|NCT03439345|191973287|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.90|0.61|0.003
95781151|NCT03053427|191534443|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Time frame: EoT||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in IRLS score from baseline was calculated by visit, using ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-2.4|0.312
95781152|NCT03053427|191534444|SUPERIORITY||difference|4.2||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-6.4|0.467
95781153|NCT03053427|191534445|SUPERIORITY||difference|5.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-4.8|0.300
95781154|NCT03053427|191534446|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LMS difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in PSQI component and global scores from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.877
95781155|NCT03053427|191534447|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in total score of Athens insomnia scale from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.975
95781156|NCT03053427|191534448|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LSM difference (gabapentin enacarbil group minus placebo group) of the changes in RLS pain score from baseline was calculated by visit, using the ANCOVA model with the baseline value as a covariate.||0.3|-0.4|0.838
95998648|NCT03439345|191973288|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.85|0.52|0.001
95781157|NCT03816644|191534451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.07||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in dementia care outcomes between the intervention and control groups at 90 days post screening visit. Models are adjusted for age, sex, and years of education.||5.07|2.32|
95781158|NCT03816644|191534452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.534||||||The estimate of odds ratio, its 95% confidence interval and p-value are obtained from logistic regression models which were used to examine the difference in participants who were hospitalized or visited an ER 6 months post screening visit.||1.534|0.837|
95781159|NCT02607306|191534456|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference lies entirely below 0.3%.|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for non-inferiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
95781160|NCT02607306|191534456|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira was confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.0%.|Treatment contrast|-0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.37||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs Lira is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.37|-0.60|<0.0001
95781161|NCT02607306|191534457|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.59|-1.80|0.0001
95781162|NCT02607306|191534458|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.68||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|Negative binomial regression|||The number of events is analysed using a negative binomial regression model (log link) with the logarithm of the treatment emergent exposure time (100 years) as offset. The model includes treatment and pre-trial OAD treatment as fixed factors.||0.68|0.35|<0.0001
95860853|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
95998649|NCT03439345|191973289|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.84|0.30|0.008
95998650|NCT03439345|191973290|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline visual acuity.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.01|-0.01|0.36
95998651|NCT03439345|191973291|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline VFQ-25 composite score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||1|-1|0.58
95998652|NCT03439345|191973292|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Index Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from linear mixed model repeated measures.||0.02|-0.02|0.93
95998653|NCT03439345|191973293|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for baseline EQ-5D Visual Analogue Score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||The estimates were derived from a linear mixed model repeated measures||1|-2|0.43
95998654|NCT03439345|191973294|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1062.0|624.0||||||||624|-1062|
95998655|NCT03439345|191973295|OTHER||Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio|614.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||£614 cost per QALY gained based on probabilistic analysis|||||
95998656|NCT03439345|191973296|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.58|
95998657|NCT03439345|191973297|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.00|0.40|
95998658|NCT03439345|191973298|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.97|0.52|
95998659|NCT03439345|191973299|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.07|0.55|
95956551|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2878||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.2878
95956552|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4481||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.4481
95956553|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.4099
95998660|NCT03439345|191973300|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.21||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.21|0.51|
95998661|NCT03439345|191973301|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.54|
95998662|NCT03439345|191973302|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.93||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.93|0.28|
95998663|NCT03439345|191973303|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.60|
95956554|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5093||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 2||||0.5093
95956555|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8048||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value.||Week 3||||0.8048
95998664|NCT03439345|191973304|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.95||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.95|0.49|
95998665|NCT03439345|191973305|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.06||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.06|0.53|
95998666|NCT03439345|191973306|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.57||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||3.57|0.55|
95998667|NCT03439345|191973307|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.03|0.48|
95998668|NCT03439345|191973308|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.99||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||0.99|0.56|
95781163|NCT02607306|191534459|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error on a two sided 5% level. If and only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg and superiority of IDegLira vs. Lira are confirmed in the primary analysis (change in HbA1c), the three secondary confirmatory tests are performed for superiority of IDegLira versus IDeg with a fixed sequence (1. change in body weight, 2. number of treatment emergent severe or BG confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes and 3. change in HbA1c).|Treatment contrast|-0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.52||p-value for superiority of IDegLira vs IDeg is presented|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in response after 52 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.52|-0.75|<0.0001
95781164|NCT01160380|191534566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.289
95781165|NCT01160380|191534566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and Day 28||||<0.001
95781166|NCT01160380|191534566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between Day 1 and day 28||||<0.002
95781167|NCT01160380|191534566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the armodafinil arm||||0.449
95781168|NCT01160380|191534567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment||||0.954
95781169|NCT01160380|191534567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.007
95956556|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0552
95781170|NCT01160380|191534567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.369
95781171|NCT01160380|191534567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Day 28 and Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.973
95781172|NCT01160380|191534568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms at day 28||||0.699
95781173|NCT01160380|191534568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm||||0.984
95781174|NCT01160380|191534568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.239
95781175|NCT01160380|191534568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.089
95781176|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.636
95781177|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment for the Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.531
95781178|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Forward test||||0.037
95781179|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-Digit Span Test score Backward test||||0.656
95781180|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.028
95956557|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9795||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.9795
95956558|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5073||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.5073
95956559|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4882
95998669|NCT03439345|191973309|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation and for the baseline UACR.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|3.5|||||Estimates are in %.|Linear mixed model repeated measures analyses were conducted to estimate the trial-averaged percentage difference in geometric mean UACR between the randomised treatment groups. UACR data at baseline was available for 312 participants allocated fenofibrate and 310 participants allocated placebo.||3.5|-25.8|
95998670|NCT03439345|191973310|SUPERIORITY|"Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.~."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.60|0.69|
95781181|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.805
95781182|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Forward test||||0.692
95781183|NCT01160380|191534569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-Digit Span Test score-Backward test||||0.863
95781184|NCT01160380|191534570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment- FACIT-F total||||0.559
95781185|NCT01160380|191534570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm- FACIT-F total||||<0.001
95781186|NCT01160380|191534570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.192
95781187|NCT01160380|191534570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- FACIT-F total||||0.495
95781188|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS anxiety||||0.945
95781189|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms at Day 28 of treatment- HADS depression||||0.316
95781190|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS anxiety||||0.005
95781191|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.005
95998671|NCT03439345|191973311|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for baseline covariates used in minimised randomisation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.12||||||Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals, comparing all participants allocated active fenofibrate with all those allocated placebo.||1.12|0.11|
95998672|NCT05110300|191973312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0283||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0283
95998673|NCT05110300|191973313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3118||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3118
95998674|NCT05110300|191973314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.213
95811849|NCT05715827|191596534|OTHER|The study used descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals to summarize data. The sample size of 40 patients (20 per surgery type) was based on prior studies with 3% device malfunction and 0.9% failure-related conversion rates. The primary endpoint was the completion rate, defined as ≥95% without conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours. The Full Analysis Set included all subjects who started the procedure. No interim analyses were planned.|Completion rate|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.9||The study used descriptive statistics and confidence intervals, not hypothesis testing with p-values. The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% and present a 95% confidence interval||The main goal was to confirm the completion rate met or exceeded 95% with a 95% confidence interval.|Estimated Value of 97.5% is an overall completion rate|The study aimed to confirm the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System's performance for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy, targeting a 95% completion rate (no conversion due to system issues or major complications within 24 hours). The Full Analysis Set (FAS) included all subjects starting the procedure. Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess primary and secondary endpoints, confirming safety and effectiveness.|Descriptive Analysis was used|99.9|86.8|
95998675|NCT05110300|191973314|EQUIVALENCE|MDC of the inpatient stroke population for the BBS was used as the equivalence bounds. Equivalence bounds were set at +/- 6.9|||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95998676|NCT05110300|191973314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.320
95998677|NCT05110300|191973315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2612||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.2612
95781192|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.001
95781193|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-HADS depression||||0.315
95781194|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS anxiety||||0.933
95781195|NCT01160380|191534571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm-HADS depression||||0.378
95781196|NCT01160380|191534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for Day 28 of treatment -ESS||||0.840
95781197|NCT01160380|191534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 vs. Day 28 of treatment for the Placebo-First arm-ESS||||0.050
95781198|NCT01160380|191534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 and Day 28 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm- ESS||||0.051
95781199|NCT01160380|191534572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28 vs. Day 56 of treatment for the Armodafinil arm||||0.635
95781200|NCT02330172|191534601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95781201|NCT02330172|191534602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95781202|NCT00135356|191534611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.03||||0.48||95.0|-0.06|0.12||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.12|-0.06|0.48
95781203|NCT00135356|191534611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.07||||0.57||95.0|-0.07|12.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing. 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||12.0|-0.07|0.57
95781204|NCT00135356|191534612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|0.02||||0.73||95.0|-0.1|0.14||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF||0.14|-0.10|0.73
95956560|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3967||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3967
95781205|NCT00135356|191534612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|-0.01||||0.91||95.0|-0.14|0.13||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||OC||0.13|-0.14|0.91
95781206|NCT00135356|191534613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|5.2||||0.27||95.0|-3.9|15.1||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 VAT LOCF||15.1|-3.9|0.27
95781207|NCT00135356|191534613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|1.8||||0.68||95.0|-6.7|11.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||VAT, Week 96 LOCF||11.2|-6.7|0.68
95781208|NCT00135356|191534613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.4||||0.14||95.0|-1.4|10.6||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Trunk Fat LOCF||10.6|-1.4|0.14
95781209|NCT00135356|191534613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.3||||0.14||95.0|-1.7|12.9||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Trunk Fat LOCF||12.9|-1.7|0.14
95956561|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8276||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8276
95956562|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8502||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8502
95956563|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6343||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6343
95956564|NCT00141271|191885539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.3082
95956565|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.6932
95956566|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.0287
95956567|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2128||95.0||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.2128
95781210|NCT00135356|191534614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.0||||0.16||95.0|-1.6|10.0||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||SAT, Week 48, LOCF||10.0|-1.6|0.16
95781211|NCT00135356|191534614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean|6.8||||0.06||95.0|-0.2|14.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 SAT||14.2|-0.2|0.06
95781212|NCT00135356|191534614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|4.6||||0.15||95.0|-1.7|11.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48, Limb Fat||11.4|-1.7|0.15
95781213|NCT00135356|191534614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.7||||0.17||95.0|-2.3|14.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96, Limb Fat||14.4|-2.3|0.17
95781214|NCT00135356|191534615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|3.6||||0.19||95.0|-1.8|9.4||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 TAT||9.4|-1.8|0.19
95781215|NCT00135356|191534615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference in Means|4.3||||0.16||95.0|-1.7|10.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 96 TAT||10.7|-1.7|0.16
95781216|NCT00135356|191534615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.0||||0.0385||95.0|0.3|9.7||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 48 Total Body Fat||9.7|0.3|0.0385
95781217|NCT00135356|191534615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Means|5.9||||0.1||95.0|-1.0|13.2||P-value not adjusted for multiple testing, 2-sided 95% CI.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 96 Total Body Fat||13.2|-1.0|0.10
95781218|NCT00135356|191534627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.72||||||||3.72|0.3|
95781219|NCT00571103|191534644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Slope|-0.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Linear mixed effects|||||1|-1|0.05
95781220|NCT00560703|191534704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation for this endpoint was driven by the assumptions made for the OSDI analysis||||||0.578||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.578
95781221|NCT00560703|191534705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that the difference between the treatment groups in mean reduction from baseline in OSDI scores will be approximately 7 points. A pooled standard deviation of 9.0 for the mean change from baseline OSDI score is expected. Under those assumptions a total of approximately 63 evaluable patients (42 COL-101 patients and 21 placebo patients) is sufficient to provide 80% power. The planned enrolment should provide enough evaluable patients to meet these assumptions.||||0.293
95781222|NCT02095197|191534706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95781223|NCT02095197|191534707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95781224|NCT02095197|191534708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95781225|NCT02095197|191534709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
95781226|NCT05600036|191534710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
95781227|NCT05600036|191534710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95781228|NCT05600036|191534710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95781229|NCT05600036|191534710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95998678|NCT05110300|191973316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5410
95998679|NCT05110300|191973317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.6282
95781230|NCT05600036|191534710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95781231|NCT02722746|191534714|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|47.3|||Z-test for proportions|||||47.3|-8.9|0.165
95843713|NCT03043872|191654949|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.309||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP.||1.309|0.890|0.4352
95998680|NCT05110300|191973317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5056||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.5056
95781232|NCT02722746|191534714|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|14.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|42.2|||Z-test for proportions|||||42.2|-15.9|0.353
95781233|NCT02722746|191534715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For PACU spread||||0.06
95781234|NCT02722746|191534715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Pre-op spread||||0.22
95781235|NCT02722746|191534715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For POD 1||||0.74
95781236|NCT02722746|191534716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.551
95781237|NCT02722746|191534717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.349
95781238|NCT02722746|191534718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Pruritis||||0.18
95781239|NCT02722746|191534718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Nausea/Vomiting||||0.44
95781240|NCT02722746|191534718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||For Respirartory Depression||||0.74
95781241|NCT02722746|191534722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||ANOVA|||For SBP||||0.524
95781242|NCT02722746|191534722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||ANOVA|||For DBP||||0.585
95781243|NCT02722746|191534722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||ANOVA|||For MAP||||0.199
95781244|NCT02722746|191534723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
95781245|NCT02722746|191534724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
95781246|NCT02722746|191534725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.055
95781247|NCT02722746|191534726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.567
95781248|NCT02943785|191534770|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.85|0.0141
95781249|NCT02943785|191534771|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided p-value (Noninferiority) was based on the noninferiority margin of 1.38.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||||1.91|1.03|0.9267
95781250|NCT02603107|191534782|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 520 participants (260 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 90% power to establish a non-inferiority margin of 4% in the Week 48 response rate (HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL) between the 2 treatment groups. Sample size was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|2.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.5|-2.5|
95781251|NCT02603107|191534782|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95781252|NCT02603107|191534783|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.002% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.6|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.2|-1.6|
95781253|NCT02603107|191534783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95781254|NCT02603107|191534784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|25.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||||52|-2|0.068
95781255|NCT01887678|191534796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-0.35|||ANCOVA||A negative value of the Least Square mean difference indicates a result in favor of Traumeel-Zeel.|||-0.35|-12.40|0.0383
95781256|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-2.15||||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||2.58|-6.89|0.3715
95811850|NCT05715827|191596535|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Overall Complication Rate|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|35.6||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||35.6|9.1|
95781257|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square|-5.87||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-0.60|-11.15|0.0293
95811851|NCT05715827|191596536|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Major complication rate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.9||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||16.9|0.6|
95811852|NCT05715827|191596537|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Readmission rate|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.7||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||23.7|2.8|
95811853|NCT05715827|191596538|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Reoperation rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||||
95860854|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.0|-1.4|<0.0001
95860855|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95956568|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1118||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.1118
95956569|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.6144
95956570|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.0899
95956571|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8819||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8819
95956572|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.8374
95956573|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3925||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.3925
95781258|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.24||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.40|-10.88|0.0686
95781259|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-1.42|-13.08|0.0150
95781260|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.56||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.54|-1.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.58|-13.54|0.0134
95781261|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-7.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-1.68|||Least Squares|||Day 71±3||-1.68|-13.52|0.0121
95811854|NCT05715827|191596539|OTHER|Descriptive statistics will be used, presenting frequency, percentage, and 95% confidence intervals for each secondary endpoint: overall complication rate, major complication rate, readmission rate, reoperation rate, and Device Deficiencies (DD) rate through 30 days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints will be assessed overall and by surgery type (prostatectomy and cholecystectomy).|Device deficiency rate|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|49.1||Descriptive statistics and estimated rates were used. P-values were not calculated for secondary endpoints.||||The secondary objective is to assess the short-term safety outcome of the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS System when used for prostatectomy or cholecystectomy. Overall complication rate through 30-day post-surgery: A proportion of subjects with any postoperative complication within 30-days post-surgery using the investigational device||49.1|18.6|
95781262|NCT01887678|191534797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.32||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||-0.37|-12.28|0.0376
95781263|NCT01887678|191534798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.76||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-11.05|0.1373
95781264|NCT01887678|191534799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.24||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|1.85|||ANCOVA|||||1.85|-10.33|0.1715
95860856|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|<0.0001
95843714|NCT03043872|191654950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|0.959||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||0.959|0.665|0.0157
95956574|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4182||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.4182
95956575|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8586||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.8586
95956576|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.5490
95956577|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6292||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.6292
95956578|NCT00141271|191885540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1473||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.1473
95781265|NCT01887678|191534800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.77||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.27|-10.82|0.1211
95781266|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.97||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||1.18|-11.12|0.1128
95781267|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-10.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||-4.13|-16.85|0.0013
95781268|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.89||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||-0.09|-13.69|0.0472
95781269|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.82||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-2.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||-2.05|-15.60|0.0109
95781270|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-8.88||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||-1.95|-15.80|0.0123
95781271|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-6.88||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.52|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||-0.23|-13.52|0.0425
95781272|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-5.51||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|1.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.45|-12.47|0.1199
95781273|NCT01887678|191534805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-4.96||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||1.93|-11.86|0.1575
95781274|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Day 8±1||0.89|-1.45|0.6346
95781275|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.28||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Day 15±1||0.92|-1.49|0.6458
95843715|NCT03043872|191654950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.005||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP.||1.005|0.696|0.0568
95781276|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.18||||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Day 29±3||0.99|-1.35|0.7581
95781277|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.49||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 43±3||0.51|-1.48|0.3350
95781278|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.4||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Day 57±3||0.63|-1.44|0.4419
95781279|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.37||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 71±3||0.58|-1.32|0.4460
95956579|NCT00141271|191885541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.2058
95956580|NCT00141271|191885541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9254||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.9254
95811855|NCT03021486|191596632|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.71
95956581|NCT00141271|191885541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5071||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.5071
95956582|NCT00141271|191885541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2858||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2858
95956583|NCT00141271|191885541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6298||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6298
95956584|NCT00141271|191885541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6034
95956585|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1454||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.1454
95956586|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2672||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 1||||0.2672
95956587|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2614||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||Week 2||||0.2614
95956588|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.2143
95956589|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.6997
95956590|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0128
95956591|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1144||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1144
95956592|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.1483
95956593|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0674||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0674
95956594|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.2900
95781280|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|0.25||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 85±3||1.33|-0.84|0.6552
95781281|NCT01887678|191534806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares|-0.19||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Day 119±3||0.95|-1.33|0.7443
95781282|NCT01887678|191534811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.2164
95781283|NCT01887678|191534811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions|Log Rank|||After second injection of study drug||||0.1651
95811856|NCT03021486|191596634|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.86
95811857|NCT03021486|191596635|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.12
95811858|NCT03021486|191596636|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||||||0.007
95811859|NCT03021486|191596637|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by caregiver||||0.83
95811860|NCT03021486|191596637|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by caregiver||||0.82
95811861|NCT03021486|191596638|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived Comfort level as assessed by nurse||||0.82
95781284|NCT01887678|191534811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Results of Kaplan-Meier Analysis with p-value from 2-sided log-rank test for equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.2220
95781285|NCT01887678|191534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After first injection of study drug||||0.0264
95781286|NCT01887678|191534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After second injection of study drug||||0.0346
95781287|NCT01887678|191534812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|For equality of survival functions||After third injection of study drug||||0.0172
95781288|NCT03411902|191534816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
95781289|NCT03411902|191534817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.745
95781290|NCT03411902|191534818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.163
95956595|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5482||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.5482
95811862|NCT03021486|191596638|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Two-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Perceived agitation level as assessed by nurse||||0.91
95811863|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - frequency||||0.12
95956596|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.0303
95781291|NCT03411902|191534819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95781292|NCT03411902|191534820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius 33 BMD||||0.337
95781293|NCT03411902|191534820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pertaining to Radius UD BMD||||0.238
95781294|NCT03411902|191534821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.860
95781295|NCT00048165|191534824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-12.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-3.3|-20.9|0.007
95781296|NCT00048165|191534825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent mean difference|-8.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5|-17.7|0.063
95781297|NCT00048165|191534828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 6 months were presented||||0.0005
95781298|NCT00048165|191534828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Daclizumab and Placebo for 12 months were presented||||0.0008
95781299|NCT00419159|191534843|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|4.929|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||4.929|0.657|0.253
95781300|NCT00419159|191534844|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|1.083|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.083|0.135|0.070
95781301|NCT00419159|191534845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.814||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.312|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.312|0.505|0.399
95781302|NCT00419159|191534845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.617|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.617|0.620|0.995
95781303|NCT00419159|191534846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.203||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.923|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.923|0.752|0.441
95811864|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - frequency||||0.07
95781304|NCT00419159|191534846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.547||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|2.708|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||2.708|0.884|0.126
95781305|NCT00419159|191534847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.529||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.523|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||1.523|0.184|0.238
95781306|NCT00419159|191534848|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.099|||Unadjusted Logistic Regression|||||3.099|0.352|0.938
95781307|NCT00419159|191534849|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.474||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|2.484|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||2.484|0.875|0.145
95781308|NCT00419159|191534849|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.151||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.903|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.903|0.696|0.583
95781309|NCT00419159|191534850|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.447|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.447|0.521|0.588
95781310|NCT00419159|191534850|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.191|||Unadjusted Cox Model|||||1.191|0.314|0.148
95781311|NCT01693185|191534860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||We wished to be able to distinguish a difference of 7.5 min,|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Recovery time in patients administered remifentanil alone will be significantly shorter than that in patients administered midazolam-meperidine combination for colonoscopy.||||< 0.001
95781312|NCT01017601|191534871|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.50
95781313|NCT01017601|191534872|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.96
95781314|NCT01017601|191534873|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
95781315|NCT01017601|191534874|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95781316|NCT04964986|191534876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.041
95781317|NCT04964986|191534878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.001
95781318|NCT04964986|191534878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
95781319|NCT04964986|191534882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.002
95781320|NCT04964986|191534882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||<0.001
95781321|NCT04964986|191534884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 4||||0.294
95811865|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - frequency||||0.051
95811866|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - frequency||||0.048
95998681|NCT05110300|191973318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.5580
95998682|NCT05110300|191973319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0897||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Because some values are missing, these data were analyzed by fitting a mixed model, rather than by repeated measures ANOVA.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0897
95998683|NCT05110300|191973320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0549||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.0549
95781322|NCT04964986|191534884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||paired t-test|||Fat absorption increase at Week 48||||0.155
95781323|NCT04964986|191534884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 4||||0.260
95781324|NCT04964986|191534884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||paired t-test|||Carbohydrate absorption at Week 48||||0.024
95781325|NCT04964986|191534884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 4||||0.096
95998684|NCT05110300|191973320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05626||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.05626
95781326|NCT04964986|191534884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||paired t-test|||Protein absorption at Week 48||||0.075
95811867|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - frequency||||0.15
95811868|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - frequency||||0.10
95781327|NCT04964986|191534885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4||||0.063
95781328|NCT04964986|191534885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||paired t-test|||Week 48||||0.112
95781329|NCT04964986|191534886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.306
95781330|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3346||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7887|0.8748|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 4||0.8748|-0.7887|0.704
95781331|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7442|0.8896|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Calcium, Week 48||0.8896|-2.7442|0.488
95781332|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.896|0.313|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 4||0.313|-0.896|0.382
95781333|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.566||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.279|-0.165|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Magnesium, Week 48||-0.165|-5.279|0.059
95781334|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.116||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|51.861|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 4||51.861|5.510|0.004
95781335|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|20.727||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.758|55.828|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Sodium, Week 48||55.828|-27.758|0.337
95781336|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.618||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|14.931|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 4||14.931|-11.870|0.724
95781337|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|3.737|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Potassium, Week 48||3.737|-18.880|0.115
95781338|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.297||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.551|52.617|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 4||52.617|-39.551|0.707
95781339|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.487||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.956|-20.068|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Urea, Week 48||-20.068|-159.956|0.009
95781340|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.281||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|0.96|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 4||0.960|-0.649|0.572
95781341|NCT04964986|191534887|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.073|||paired t-test||Based on one-sample (paired) Hodges-Lehmann median estimator for non-parametric estimate of change from baseline.|Creatinine, Week 48||1.073|-1.060|0.981
95781342|NCT04964986|191534888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24||||0.066
95811869|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation- frequency||||0.15
95811870|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to time - distress||||0.98
95956597|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6143
95956598|NCT00141271|191885542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3385||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.3385
95956599|NCT00141271|191885543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3299||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3299
95956600|NCT00141271|191885543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1915||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1915
95956601|NCT00141271|191885544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5407||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5407
95998685|NCT05110300|191973321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.0706
95998686|NCT05110300|191973322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1629||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.1629
95781343|NCT04964986|191534888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||Week 52||||0.015
95781344|NCT00803205|191534895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3264|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3264
95781345|NCT00803205|191534896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78124||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|6.264||The p-value is the LS-mean for the comparison between active treatment and placebo. The level of significance was 0.04998.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean estimates based on mixed model for repeated measures (Weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48) of relative change in percent-predicted FEV1 as the dependent variable; independent variables including Baseline percent-predicted FEV1, treatment, visit, interactions between treatment and visit and between Baseline percent-predicted FEV1 and visit; and stratification factors of Baseline age, Baseline inhaled antibiotics, and Baseline percent-predicted FEV1.||6.2640|-0.7560|0.1235
95811871|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, disorientation to place - distress||||0.93
95811872|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, visual hallucination - distress||||0.08
95781346|NCT01432561|191534930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.04
95781347|NCT01432561|191534930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.005
95781348|NCT01432561|191534931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition||||.16
95781349|NCT01432561|191534931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.036
95781350|NCT01432561|191534932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||Fed high-fat/calorie compared to fasted condition.||||.30
95811873|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, tactile hallucination - distress||||0.28
95811874|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, auditory hallucination - distress||||0.83
95781351|NCT01432561|191534932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||High-protein compared to fasted condition||||.05
95811875|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, delusional thoughts - distress||||0.22
95811876|NCT03021486|191596639|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nursing assessment, psychomotor agitation - distress||||0.75
95811877|NCT03021486|191596640|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.09
95811878|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in pain.||||0.02
95811879|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Fatigue.||||0.10
95811880|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Nausea.||||0.02
95811881|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Depression.||||0.97
95811882|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Anxiety.||||0.03
95811883|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Drowsiness.||||0.68
95811884|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Appetite.||||0.80
95811885|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Feeling of well being.||||0.45
95811886|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Shortness of breath.||||0.16
95811887|NCT03021486|191596641|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Mean change in Sleep.||||0.12
95811888|NCT01246960|191596643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.37|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.37|0.69|0.886
95811889|NCT01246960|191596644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.58|0.73|0.712
95811890|NCT01246960|191596647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank|||||1.30|0.59|0.516
95781352|NCT00497770|191534933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A pre-specified logistic regression was used to assess non-inferiority of DCR in African American participants compared with Caucasian participants. The DCR for African Americans was to be considered non-inferior to the DCR for Caucasians if the upper bound of the confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio (OR) for African American versus Caucasian was \<1.78 which corresponds to a difference in proportions of approximately 14% assuming the DCR in the reference group to be 50%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.58||Adjusted:baseline characteristics, income, marital/insurance status, comorbid, time between end of 1st line therapy and start of pemetrexed, prior platinum- or Paclitaxel-containing regimen, number of cycles and best response during 1st line therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.580|0.427|
95781353|NCT02638051|191534967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Objective Response Rate (ORR)"||||0.0140
95781354|NCT02638051|191534968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to All Adverse Events rate"||||0.0016
95781355|NCT02638051|191534968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Abdominal pain rate"||||>0.05
95781356|NCT02638051|191534968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Gastrointestinal reactions"||||>0.05
95781357|NCT02638051|191534968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Damage of hepatic or renal function"||||>0.05
95956602|NCT00141271|191885544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6079||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6079
95956603|NCT00141271|191885545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8464||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8464
95811891|NCT03235050|191596673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.06|<0.001
95811892|NCT03235050|191596673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||||-0.85|-1.23|<0.001
95811893|NCT03235050|191596673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.11|<0.001
95956604|NCT00141271|191885545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4023||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.4023
95956605|NCT00141271|191885545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2870
95781358|NCT02638051|191534968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0215|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Bone marrow depression"||||0.0215
95781359|NCT02638051|191534969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Better QoL"||||0.0053
95781360|NCT02638051|191534969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to No Change"||||0.0527
95781361|NCT02638051|191534969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Applies to Worse QoL"||||>0.05
95781362|NCT02069093|191534982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Incidence rate R|||A test of the incidence rate R was performed with null hypothesis H0: R\>= 0.33 and alternative hypothesis Ha: R\<0.33 with a one-sided significance level of 0.05. If the test statistic was negative (actual incidence rate was \<0.33), the one-sided p-value for the null hypothesis R\>=0.33 was presented. The null hypothesis was rejected if the statistic was negative and the corresponding p-value for the one-sided test was \<0.5.||||<0.001
95781363|NCT01524783|191535004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.35|<0.001
95956606|NCT00141271|191885545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.2537
95956607|NCT00141271|191885545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7909||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7909
95956608|NCT00141271|191885545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3308||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3308
95956609|NCT00141271|191885546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3355||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.3355
95781364|NCT01524783|191535005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.66|0.259
95781365|NCT01524783|191535008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.50|0.073
95781366|NCT01524783|191535011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.539
95781367|NCT01625689|191535017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||No comparison between the LAIV and placebo groups by type of solicited reaction had a p-value below 0.498.|Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.498
95811894|NCT03235050|191596674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-3.08|<0.001
95811895|NCT03235050|191596674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.87|||ANCOVA|||||-1.87|-3.65|<0.001
95811896|NCT03235050|191596674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-2.73|||ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-4.51|<0.001
95811897|NCT03235050|191596675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.40|-0.92|<0.001
95811898|NCT03235050|191596675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
95811899|NCT03235050|191596675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.51|-0.94|<0.001
95811900|NCT03235050|191596675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
95781368|NCT03240406|191535032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||Test of the between arm difference in the global composite at Burst 2, adjusted for the study arm, baseline (Burst 1) global composite, and the randomization stratification factors (baseline sex, age, and years of education)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of Burst 2 composite adjusted for arm, Burst 1 composite, sex, age, and education. Missing/invalid data were multiply imputed using MICE|Mean Difference of MHD Arm compared to control|||0.04|-0.15|0.259
95781369|NCT03240406|191535033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.27|-1.02|0.001
95781370|NCT03240406|191535034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54||Estimated from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, and years of education at baseline.|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education.|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
95781371|NCT03240406|191535035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|4.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.11|-3.63|0.904
95811901|NCT03235050|191596675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.39|-0.86|<0.001
95811902|NCT03235050|191596675|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.34|-0.80|<0.001
95956610|NCT00141271|191885546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8447||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8447
95956611|NCT00141271|191885546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8959||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.8959
95956612|NCT00141271|191885546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4826||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.4826
95956613|NCT00141271|191885546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4178||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4178
95956614|NCT00141271|191885546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8277||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8277
95956615|NCT00141271|191885547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7758||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.7758
95956616|NCT00141271|191885547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8737||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8737
95956617|NCT00141271|191885547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1151
95956618|NCT00141271|191885547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.1290
95998687|NCT05110300|191973323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4271||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.4271
95781372|NCT03240406|191535036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; tocopherol biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.52|-0.76|0.721
95781373|NCT03240406|191535037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, and education; carotenoid biomarker values additionally adjusted for Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides|ANCOVA|Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education; Burst 1 and Burst 2 levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|-0.01|0.769
95781374|NCT03240406|191535038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.13|97.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||97.4|-100.13|0.978
95811903|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|92.0|3.34|13.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|3.34|<0.001
95956619|NCT00141271|191885547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4432||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4432
95811904|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.36|5.39|<0.001
95998688|NCT05110300|191973323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.4190
95998689|NCT05110300|191973324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3444||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3444
95998690|NCT05110300|191973325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANOVA|2-Way ANOVA with Fisher's LSD correction for multiple comparisons.||To evaluate if there were differences between pre- and post-intervention data, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized, with mixed-effects analysis being utilized when data was missing.||||0.3581
95998691|NCT05110300|191973326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||To evaluate differences in average outcome measure score change from baseline to last study session, a 2-sided t-test was used, with non-parametric analysis used as necessary.||||0.9060
95998692|NCT05110300|191973326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The p-value reported above was the calculated and resultant P-value for this analysis.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with the number of sessions completed as the covariate.||Because each participant may have had a different number of BWSS sessions completed, an ANCOVA was used to assess for mean differences in outcome score change while controlling for the number of BWSS sessions completed||||0.0848
95998693|NCT01843374|191973332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12||P-value was estimated using the method of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and Line of therapy.|Log Rank|The stratification factors included EORTC status and line of therapy as recorded in IVRS/IWRS.|Tremelimumab represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator|H0: No difference between tremelimumab and placebo H1: Difference between tremelimumab and placebo||1.12|0.76|0.4081
95998694|NCT01843374|191973333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.289||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank||Tremelimumab is the numerator and Placebo the denominator|||1.289|0.793|0.926
95998695|NCT01843374|191973334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Estimated using the methods of Klein et al. 2007 and Whitehead and Whitehead 1991, stratified by EORTC status and line of therapy.|Log Rank|Stratification factors were EORTC status and Line of therapy|Tremelimumab is the numerator and placebo, the denominator|||0.98|0.68|0.0325
95998696|NCT01332435|191973342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95998697|NCT01332435|191973342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95781375|NCT03240406|191535039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Monounsaturated Fat||0.51|-0.2|0.395
95781376|NCT03240406|191535039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for Long Chain Saturated Fat||-0.02|-0.21|0.019
95811905|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|15.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.61|4.65|<0.001
95998698|NCT01332435|191973343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95998699|NCT01332435|191973343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
95998700|NCT01332435|191973344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95998701|NCT01332435|191973344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0699||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0699
95998702|NCT01332435|191973345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95998703|NCT01332435|191973345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8645||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8645
95998704|NCT01332435|191973346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95811906|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||7.03|1.98|<0.001
95998705|NCT01332435|191973346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95998706|NCT03704051|191973348|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.634
95998707|NCT03704051|191973349|EQUIVALENCE|A priori power analysis based on pilot testing with 12 dyads indicated that a sample size of at least 40 dyads would provide 80% power to detect significant within-subjects (condition, i.e., breastfeeding directly from the breast vs. bottle-feeding expressed breast milk) effects at an α = 0.05 Type I error level.||||||0.115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|All models adjusted for order of conditions, time since last feeding and infant age.||||||0.115
95998708|NCT01709799|191973358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,90.577)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||< .001
95998709|NCT01709799|191973358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom are (4,90.564)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.995
95998710|NCT01709799|191973359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,97.137)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<.001
95998711|NCT01709799|191973359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,97.108)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.254
95998712|NCT01709799|191973360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,99.647)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
95998713|NCT01709799|191973360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,99.601)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.781
95811907|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||9.34|3.13|<0.001
95956620|NCT00141271|191885547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2988||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2988
95956621|NCT00141271|191885548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8598||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.8598
95956622|NCT00141271|191885548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6513||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.6513
95956623|NCT00141271|191885548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6272||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6272
95956624|NCT00141271|191885548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6467||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.6467
95956625|NCT00141271|191885548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8049||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.8049
95956626|NCT00141271|191885548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9411||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.9411
95956627|NCT00141271|191885549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9260
95956628|NCT00141271|191885549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7100
95956629|NCT00141271|191885550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1836||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1836
95998714|NCT01709799|191973361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,102.315)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
95998715|NCT01709799|191973361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,102.216)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.026
95956630|NCT00141271|191885550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1374||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1374
95998716|NCT01709799|191973362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,93.240)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||<0.001
95998717|NCT01709799|191973362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,93.167)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.313
95998718|NCT01709799|191973363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (2,115.573)||Occasion main effect. Null hypothesis is no improvement (Occasion main effect has p-value \> .05)||||0.630
95956631|NCT00141271|191885551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9237||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.9237
95781377|NCT03240406|191535039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for EPA||0.31|-0.07|0.201
95811908|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|8.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 26||8.97|3.02|<0.001
95811909|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||9.36|2.61|<0.001
95956632|NCT00141271|191885551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3786||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3786
95998719|NCT01709799|191973363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and p \< .05 is the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom are (4,115.593)||Occasion by arm interaction. Null hypothesis of no group differences in improvement (Interaction has p-value \> .05)||||0.498
95998720|NCT02517515|191973380|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-naïve group, the sample size 180 treatment-naïve participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
95998721|NCT02517515|191973380|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the treatment-experienced participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
95998722|NCT02517515|191973381|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-naïve participants in the Double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-naïve patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|99.9||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||99.9|97.0|
95998723|NCT02517515|191973381|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 24 weeks after treatment (SVR24) for the treatment-experienced participants in the double-blind 3-DAA group as compared with the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with SVR24 must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 96% for the Double-blind 3-DAA treatment-experienced group, the sample size 180 treatment-experienced participants provided \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of the regimen to the historical rate for treatment-experienced patients treated with TVR + pegIFN + RBV (80%) (based on one-sample chi-square test of a single binomial proportion for superiority).||100.0|97.4|
95998724|NCT01009463|191973385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.06|0.72|0.181
95998725|NCT01009463|191973385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||0.81|0.54|<0.001
95781378|NCT03240406|191535039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for DHA||0.53|0.01|0.039
95781379|NCT03240406|191535039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|Statistical Analysis results for n3 DPA||0.03|-0.06|0.619
95811910|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.89|2.62|<0.001
95956633|NCT00141271|191885552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4624||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4624
95956634|NCT00141271|191885552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5971|||||||ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5971
95781380|NCT03240406|191535040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.73||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.73|-0.37|0.521
95781381|NCT03240406|191535041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|317.6||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||317.6|-27.7|0.101
95781382|NCT03240406|191535042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.63||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.16|79.89||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||79.89|-129.16|0.645
95781383|NCT03240406|191535043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.26||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|8.75||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||8.75|-2.23|0.245
95811911|NCT03235050|191596676|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|7.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 54||7.51|2.51|<0.001
95956635|NCT00141271|191885553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1378
95781384|NCT03240406|191535044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.4||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.4|0.02|0.032
95781385|NCT03240406|191535045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.26|0.08|<0.001
95811912|NCT03235050|191596677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.85|-3.32|<0.001
95860857|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
95956636|NCT00141271|191885553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7665
95781386|NCT03240406|191535046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.24||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||4.24|-6.95|0.635
95781387|NCT03240406|191535047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.52||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|0.59||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.59|-6.44|0.019
95811913|NCT03235050|191596677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-1.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.79|-3.82|<0.001
95811914|NCT03235050|191596677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.44|-4.48|<0.001
95811915|NCT03235050|191596677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.00|-3.86|<0.001
95811916|NCT03235050|191596677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-1.06|-3.41|<0.001
95811917|NCT03235050|191596677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.14|-4.49|<0.001
95811918|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.87|-3.03|<0.001
95811919|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.86|-3.63|<0.001
95811920|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.82|-4.60|<0.001
95956637|NCT00141271|191885554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4767||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.4767
95956638|NCT00141271|191885554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2066||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2066
95811921|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-0.74|-3.27|0.002
95811922|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-1.71|-3.78|<0.001
95811923|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||-2.52|-4.59|<0.001
95811924|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.79|-3.74|0.003
95956639|NCT00141271|191885555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1667||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1667
95956640|NCT00141271|191885555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6727||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6727
95781388|NCT03240406|191535048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.18|9.92||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||9.92|-16.18|0.639
95781389|NCT03240406|191535049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|41.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.47|61.96||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||61.96|21.47|<0.001
95781390|NCT03240406|191535050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.37||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.44|3.69||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||3.69|-34.44|0.115
95781391|NCT03240406|191535051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.64||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.64|-0.53|0.847
95781392|NCT03240406|191535052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|118.57||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.62|295.76||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||295.76|-58.62|0.191
95781393|NCT03240406|191535053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|955.19||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.63|1745.74||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1745.74|164.63|0.019
95781394|NCT03240406|191535054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.74||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|29.19||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||29.19|-60.66|0.493
95781395|NCT03240406|191535055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.83||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|36.45||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||36.45|-6.78|0.18
95781396|NCT03240406|191535056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|436.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-534.05|1406.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1406.33|-534.05|0.379
95956641|NCT00141271|191885556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7019||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7019
95781397|NCT03240406|191535057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|784.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.73|1667.85||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||1667.85|-99.73|0.083
95860858|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
95956642|NCT00141271|191885556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.102||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1020
95956643|NCT00141271|191885557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4749||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4749
95781398|NCT03240406|191535058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.35||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||2.35|0.32|0.011
95781399|NCT03240406|191535059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.31||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.31|-0.16|0.541
95781400|NCT03240406|191535060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.03|-0.01|0.273
95956644|NCT00141271|191885557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4491||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4491
95781401|NCT03240406|191535061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.06|-0.01|0.116
95781402|NCT03240406|191535062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.01|0|0.213
95781403|NCT03240406|191535063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.09|0|0.036
95781404|NCT03240406|191535064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.43|-0.1|0.223
95781405|NCT03240406|191535065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.04|-0.38|0.119
95781406|NCT03240406|191535066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.33||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.33|-0.41|0.841
95860859|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|<0.0001
95781407|NCT03240406|191535067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.53||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.53|-0.04|0.088
95781408|NCT03240406|191535068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.11|-0.13|0.893
95860860|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95956645|NCT00141271|191885558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4398||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4398
95956646|NCT00141271|191885558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3331
95956647|NCT00141271|191885559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2763||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2763
95998726|NCT01009463|191973385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.04|0.70|0.109
95998727|NCT01009463|191973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.76|0.430
95998728|NCT01009463|191973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.59|0.002
95998729|NCT01009463|191973386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.69|0.114
95998730|NCT01009463|191973387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.||||1.05|0.67|0.125
95998731|NCT01009463|191973387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||Nominal p-value|Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||0.78|0.49|<0.001
95781409|NCT03240406|191535069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.06||MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|ANCOVA|MHD-Comparison difference in Burst 2 value estimated by ANCOVA, adjusted for Burst 1 value, age, sex, years of education|Mean Difference of MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||-0.06|-2.81|0.042
95781410|NCT03240406|191535070|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-16.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.5||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of processing speed over years between MHD Arm and Comparison Arm.|||-1.5|-31|0.031
95956648|NCT00141271|191885559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2048||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2048
95781411|NCT03240406|191535071|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.51||Linear mixed-effects model adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for arm, year, weekday, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), and time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of error distance over years between MHD Arm vs Comparison Arm|||0.51|-0.27|0.55
95781412|NCT03240406|191535072|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.018||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.054||Generalized Estimating equation Poisson model adjusted for arm, year, weekday vs weekend, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Generalized Estimating Equation|Adjusted for arm, year, wkday/wknd, season, EMA cognition, baseline age, sex, education yrs, # of sessions (cubic spline), time of day (cubic spline)|Difference in the slopes of log-transformed error rates over years between the MHD Arm and the Comparison Arm.|||0.054|-0.090|0.846
95811925|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-0.95|-3.37|<0.001
95811926|NCT03235050|191596678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 54||-2.20|-4.63|<0.001
95956649|NCT00141271|191885560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.4340
95998732|NCT01009463|191973387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||Generalized Linear Model|Assuming Negative Binomial distribution with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable||||1.01|0.64|0.064
95998733|NCT01009463|191973388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.072||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.072|0.009|0.011
95998734|NCT01009463|191973388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.058|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.09||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.090|0.027|<0.001
95811927|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||1.79|-0.39|0.211
95860861|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
95860862|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
95956650|NCT00141271|191885560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.7774
95998735|NCT01009463|191973388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.096||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.096|0.033|<0.001
95998736|NCT02413398|191973403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline (MMRM model)||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
95811928|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||0.83|-0.96|0.881
95811929|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 14||-0.04|-1.82|0.042
95811930|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||2.14|-0.35|0.158
95811931|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||1.20|-0.85|0.734
95811932|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 26||0.54|-1.51|0.357
95811933|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.37|-1.51|0.921
95811934|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||1.30|-1.07|0.847
95811935|NCT03235050|191596679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Percent change at Week 54||0.22|-2.15|0.112
95956651|NCT00141271|191885561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.5195
95998737|NCT02413398|191973404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean percent change from baseline (MMRM)||-0.69|-2.15|<0.001
95998738|NCT02413398|191973405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo (MMRM)||-6.45|-26.73|0.001
95998739|NCT02413398|191973406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in adjusted mean change from baseline vs. placebo (MMRM)||0.0|-6.3|<0.050
95811936|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||1.68|-0.49|0.284
95998740|NCT03715465|191973418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.510
95998741|NCT03715465|191973419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.411
95781413|NCT01687283|191535073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|8.59||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline, center, sex, age and treatment|ANCOVA||The analysis only included participants who had at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data in the baseline week prior to randomization and at least 4 days of non-missing AM PEF data after randomization.|||8.59|-12.19|0.733
95781414|NCT01687283|191535074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (FP minus BUD) in the mean change from baseline in daily AM PEF averaged over the 12 week treatment period was greater than -12 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|8.38|||ANCOVA|||||8.38|-12.95|0.674
95781415|NCT01687283|191535075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|7.04|||ANCOVA|||||7.04|-12.57|0.579
95781416|NCT01687283|191535076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.24|||ANCOVA|||||7.24|-6.00|0.854
95781417|NCT01687283|191535077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median day-time symptom score||||0.123
95781418|NCT01687283|191535077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test.|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in median night-time symptom score||||0.949
95781419|NCT01687283|191535078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||||2.59|-12.07|0.204
95811937|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||0.69|-1.09|0.658
95860863|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95781420|NCT01687283|191535079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank sum|||||||0.170
95811938|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 14||-0.27|-2.06|0.010
95811939|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.97|-0.57|0.279
95811940|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||1.00|-1.08|0.940
95860864|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
95811941|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 26||0.19|-1.89|0.110
95956652|NCT00141271|191885561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.0153
95956653|NCT00141271|191885562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2847||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.2847
95956654|NCT00141271|191885562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1958||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1958
95956655|NCT00141271|191885563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1652||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.1652
95956656|NCT00141271|191885563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5997
95956657|NCT00141271|191885564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.0082
95956658|NCT00141271|191885564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7037||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7037
95956659|NCT00141271|191885565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2718||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.2718
95956660|NCT00141271|191885565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7077||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7077
95956661|NCT00141271|191885566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5057||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.5057
95956662|NCT00141271|191885566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.3654
95811942|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.22|-1.74|0.730
95781421|NCT01687283|191535080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.041||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, centre, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 2||0.041|-0.118|0.337
95781422|NCT01687283|191535080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.085||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 4||0.085|-0.101|0.866
95781423|NCT01687283|191535080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.062||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 8||0.062|-0.113|0.566
95781424|NCT01687283|191535080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.112||Repeated Measures analysis adjusted for baseline, center, sex, age, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction and visit by baseline interaction.|ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis is for comparison of FP 1 mg BID and BUD 2 mg BID in Change of clinical lung function measurement FEV1 at Week 12||0.112|-0.078|0.727
95956663|NCT00141271|191885567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6227||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.6227
95998742|NCT03715465|191973419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.920
95998743|NCT03715465|191973420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.787
95781425|NCT00410072|191535095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 96||14.9|-1.0|0.0882
95956664|NCT00141271|191885567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7737||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|Model included model terms of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Endpoint||||0.7737
95956665|NCT00390806|191885571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||p-value from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA) class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated using a Pike estimator. The hazard ratio from a stratified log-rank test is adjusted for RPA class and the number of brain lesions at Screening.|||1.07|0.73|0.1862
95998744|NCT03715465|191973420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.916
95998745|NCT03715465|191973421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.270
95998746|NCT03715465|191973421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.406
95998747|NCT03715465|191973422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per diary||||0.635
95998748|NCT03715465|191973422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Per wrist actigraphy||||0.383
95998749|NCT03715465|191973423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456
95998750|NCT03715465|191973424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
95998751|NCT03715465|191973425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95781426|NCT00410072|191535096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|24.8|||NC=F|||||24.8|2.3|
95781427|NCT00410072|191535096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0|||NC=F|||||12.0|-7.7|
95781428|NCT00410072|191535096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|0.2|0.0460
95998752|NCT03715465|191973426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.525
95998753|NCT03715465|191973427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
95998754|NCT03715465|191973428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
95998755|NCT03715465|191973429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95998756|NCT03715465|191973430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246
95998757|NCT03715465|191973431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.333
95998758|NCT00893789|191973483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8336||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.8336
95998759|NCT00893789|191973483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0514||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0514
95998760|NCT00893789|191973483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||The analyses performed were not done in accordance to the study protocol as the study was terminated early and therefore the analyses done were underpowered, no adjustments for multiple comparisons (or step-down analysis rules) were applied.|ANCOVA|||"P-value for Change from Baseline at Endpoint."||||0.0010
95998761|NCT00893789|191973484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7884||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.7884
95998762|NCT00893789|191973484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2359||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.2359
95998763|NCT00893789|191973484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||Pearson's chi-squared|||||||0.4401
96002029|NCT04003155|191981627|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.69|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Least squares Mean (LSM), Standard error (SE), Confidence interval (CI), Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM), Change from Baseline (CFB), Dependent variable (dv), Treatment (tr), Week (wk), Baseline (bl), Weight (wt)||-1.05|-2.69|<0.001
95998764|NCT03293030|191973527|SUPERIORITY|Note: Our statistical test was run to identify the number of significant genes. The result is a number and there is no calculation of any comparative statistic such as an odds ratio.|||||<|0.05||||||P-value was adjusted for false discovery rate|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Single cell RNA-sequencing was used to calculate the number of differentially expressed genes in cutaneous CD4+ T cells between week 0 and week 12 in dupilumab-treated subjects. The calculation was performed in the software package Seurat (RRID:SCR\_016341) using the FindMarkers function, which utilizes a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Genes were considered significantly differentially expressed if the adjusted p-value \< 0.05 and the absolute value of log2(Fold Change) \> 1.0.||||<0.05
95998765|NCT00091793|191973529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|6.2|<0.0001
95781429|NCT00410072|191535096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.5|||NC=F|||||9.5|-12.0|
95781430|NCT00410072|191535097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|16.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||16.0|-1.8|
95781431|NCT00410072|191535097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|15.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||15.2|-1.1|
95781432|NCT00410072|191535098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.1|-1.5|
95781433|NCT00410072|191535098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|17.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis was based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||17.3|-0.2|
95781434|NCT00410072|191535100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-2.0|||NC+F|||Analysis at Week 48. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-2.0|-18.8|
95781435|NCT00410072|191535100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96. The stratified analysis is based on HBeAg strata at randomization.||-4.1|-21.5|
95781436|NCT00410072|191535101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.2|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||4.2|-15.9|
95781437|NCT00410072|191535101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|2.3|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||2.3|-20.6|
95781438|NCT00410072|191535102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|5.6|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||5.6|-13.8|
95781439|NCT00410072|191535102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-0.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||-0.1|-21.5|
95781440|NCT00410072|191535103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||1.9|-5.3|
95781441|NCT00410072|191535103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.1|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||6.1|-3.9|
95781442|NCT00410072|191535104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.0|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 48||2.0|-2.2|
95781443|NCT00410072|191535104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.9|||NC=F|||Analysis at Week 96||4.9|-2.3|
95781444|NCT04494425|191535111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for prior cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor use (yes versus no) and HER2 IHC expression (IHC 1+ versus IHC 2+/ISH-) and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
95781445|NCT01421147|191535129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.108||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|-0.002|0.055
95781446|NCT01421147|191535130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.05|-0.23|0.205
95781447|NCT01421147|191535130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.21||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.40|0.320
95781448|NCT01421147|191535130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.21||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.46|0.373
95781449|NCT01421147|191535130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.86||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.86|-0.25|0.131
95781450|NCT01421147|191535131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.072||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.072|-0.087|0.860
95998766|NCT02424149|191973538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95998767|NCT02424149|191973539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95781451|NCT01421147|191535131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.113||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.215||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.011|0.030
95781452|NCT01421147|191535131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.208||P-value is for change at 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.012|0.080
95781453|NCT01421147|191535131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.177||P-value is for change at 36 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.177|-0.057|0.314
95781454|NCT01421147|191535131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.127||P-value is for change at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.119|0.948
95781455|NCT01421147|191535131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.14||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.140|-0.099|0.737
95781456|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69||P-value is for Baseline-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.69|-0.33|0.489
95781457|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.03||P-value is for Baseline-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-1.00|0.066
95781458|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16||P-value is for Baseline-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.71|0.209
95781459|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.82||P-value is for Baseline-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.20|0.232
95781460|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58||P-value is for Baseline-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.49|0.856
95998768|NCT02424149|191973540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95998769|NCT02424149|191973541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95998770|NCT02424149|191973542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95998771|NCT01015443|191973561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.032||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.931|||Adjusted log rank|||||1.931|0.552|0.921
95998772|NCT00095303|191973579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||slope of linear trajectory of drug use|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of the BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in reducing adolescent drug abuse, defined as the percentage of drug use days in 28-day periods. The outcome variable is the percentage of days of drug use within a 28-day period. This variable constructed from the Timeline-Follow-back instrument and measured as the sum of the number of days with positive use in 28-day increments. Hypothesis tested using hierarchical linear models.||.14|-.04|.27
95781461|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.44||P-value is for Baseline-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.66|0.693
95781462|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.41||P-value is for Baseline-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.61|0.700
95781463|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.23|0.399
95781464|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.18|0.248
95781465|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.44|0.883
95781466|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.34|0.687
95781467|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-0.24|0.364
95781468|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.05||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk- Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.95|0.030
95781469|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.86|0.033
95781470|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.16||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.68|0.230
95781471|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-AM 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.76|0.148
95781472|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.43|0.866
95781473|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-MD 2 hrs PP.|ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.56|0.545
95781474|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-EV Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.44|0.955
95781475|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bed Time.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.92|0.031
95781476|NCT01421147|191535132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23||P-vale is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-0300 hrs.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.65|0.355
95781477|NCT01421147|191535133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17||P-value is for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.52|0.320
95781478|NCT01421147|191535133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.25||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.33|0.781
95781479|NCT01421147|191535133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
95781480|NCT01421147|191535134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||P-value is for change at 6 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.23|0.823
95781481|NCT01421147|191535134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.47||P-value is for change at 12 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.47|-0.25|0.541
95781482|NCT01421147|191535134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.59||P-value is for change at 18 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.25|0.435
95781483|NCT01421147|191535134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.71||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.71|-0.23|0.320
95781484|NCT01421147|191535134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.93||P-value is for change at Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-0.25|0.253
95781485|NCT01421147|191535135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.15||P-value is for Baseline-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-0.86|0.401
95781486|NCT01421147|191535135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.55||P-value is for 24 weeks-Behavior TS|ANCOVA|||||1.55|-1.16|0.778
95781487|NCT01421147|191535135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.45||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Behavior TS.|ANCOVA|||||1.45|-1.12|0.804
95781488|NCT01421147|191535135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||0.304||95.0|-1.1|3.51||P-value is for Baseline-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.51|-1.10|0.304
95781489|NCT01421147|191535135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.34||P-value is for 24 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||3.34|-1.10|0.323
95781490|NCT01421147|191535135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.824||95.0|-1.92|2.41||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 weeks-Worry TS.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-1.92|0.824
95998773|NCT00095303|191973581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing adolescent externalizing problem behaviors||0.08|-0.28|.26
95998774|NCT00095303|191973597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||GEE|||Null Hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the rates of drug use, defined as the percentage of drug use days in last 90 days. The primary hypothesis will be evaluated in terms of % of days of drug use in the last 90 days, assessed by the timeline follow-back. The general analytic approach will use generalized estimating equation (GEE) with negative binomial distribution comparing the BSFT and TAU participants||1.09|.82|.21
95781491|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.89||P-value is for IR-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.89|-4.42|0.681
95781492|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.9||P-value is for IR-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.90|-2.79|0.744
95781493|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.41||P-value is for IR-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.41|-4.29|0.582
95781494|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.89||P-value is for LF-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.89|-3.26|0.694
95781495|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.77||P-value is for LF-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.77|-3.08|0.673
95998775|NCT00095303|191973599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||GEE|||Null hypothesis: It is hypothesized that BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in the level of externalizing problem behaviors||-.12|-.71|<.006
95781496|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|2.97||P-value is for LF-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.97|-4.79|0.645
95781497|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.81||P-value is for GC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.81|-3.62|0.961
95781498|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.61||P-value is for GC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-2.10|0.463
95781499|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.41||P-value is for GC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||4.41|-2.59|0.609
95781500|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||P-value is for HC-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.708
95781501|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.03||P-value is for HC-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.03|-4.09|0.510
95781502|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.82||P-value is for HC-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.34|0.422
95781503|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.53||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.8||P-value is for IDD-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-4.85|0.367
95781504|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.35||P-value is for IDD-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||3.35|-2.54|0.786
95781505|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.59||P-value is for IDD-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.16|0.845
95781506|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.18||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.18|-3.36|0.676
95781507|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.78||P-value is for ITSQ Total-24 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.78|-2.33|0.862
95781508|NCT01421147|191535136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.07||P-value is for ITSQ Total-Endpoint, up to 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||2.07|-3.15|0.685
95781509|NCT01421147|191535137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.014||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.036|-0.009|0.235
95781510|NCT01421147|191535137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.038||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.026|0.726
95781511|NCT01421147|191535137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.019||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.023|0.377
95781512|NCT01421147|191535137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.018||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.042||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.007|0.159
95781513|NCT01421147|191535137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.001||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.032||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.034|0.957
95781514|NCT01421147|191535137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.062||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.028|0.450
95781515|NCT01421147|191535138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.724||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|3.755||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.755|-0.308|0.096
95781516|NCT01421147|191535138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.267||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|4.065||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.065|-1.531|0.374
95781517|NCT01421147|191535138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.964||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|7.01||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 24 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||7.010|-1.081|0.151
95781518|NCT01421147|191535138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.059||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|4.305||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Basal Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||4.305|-0.187|0.072
95781519|NCT01421147|191535138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.702||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.058|3.462||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Bolus Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||3.462|-2.058|0.617
95781520|NCT01421147|191535138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|6.971||P-value is for Endpoint, up to 52 wk-Total Insulin.|ANCOVA|||||6.971|-1.370|0.188
95781521|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline \<7.0 %.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
95781522|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at Baseline ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
95781523|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95781524|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 6 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
95781525|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.398
95781526|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 12 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.170
95811943|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||1.07|-1.38|0.804
95998776|NCT00095303|191973600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in improving family functioning.The four components of the 'Parenting Practices Inventory' will be used to create a composite for use in this analysis. The four component scales from the Parenting Practices Inventory are 'Positive Parenting', 'Discipline Effectiveness,' 'Avoidance of Discipline' and 'Monitoring' scales from the Pittsburgh Youth Survey. Hypothesis will be analyzed as using hierarchical linear models.||.22|.03|.015
95781527|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.926
95781528|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.824||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.824
95781529|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.385
95781530|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 36 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.408
95781531|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.551
95781532|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for HbA1c- at 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.900
95781533|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
95781534|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 24 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
95781535|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
95781536|NCT01421147|191535139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||P-value is for HbA1c- Endpoint, up to 52 weeks ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.540
95781537|NCT01421147|191535140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
95781538|NCT01421147|191535140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL,if available-52-wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
95998777|NCT00095303|191973604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.54|||GEE|||||1.54|-.18|.12
95781539|NCT01421147|191535140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
95781540|NCT01421147|191535140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.828
95781541|NCT01421147|191535140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
95781542|NCT01421147|191535140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.606
95781543|NCT01421147|191535141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.717
95781544|NCT01421147|191535141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||||||P-value is for Severe Events-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.163
95781545|NCT01421147|191535141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-24 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.669
95781546|NCT01421147|191535141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||||||P-value is for Total Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL, if available-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.738
95781547|NCT01421147|191535141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||||||P-value is for Severe Events-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
95781548|NCT01421147|191535141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||P-value is for Nocturnal Events with BG ≤70 mg/dL-52 wk.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
95781549|NCT00762034|191535150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.94896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.86|0.94896
95781550|NCT00762034|191535151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72997||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72997
95781551|NCT00762034|191535152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.20892|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20892
95781552|NCT00762034|191535153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.71|0.01206
95781553|NCT00762034|191535154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.67|0.006
95781554|NCT00762034|191535159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0||||Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.667
95781555|NCT00762034|191535160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
95781556|NCT00762034|191535160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||p-value for FACT-L TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.978
95781557|NCT00762034|191535161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx Total; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95781558|NCT00762034|191535161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for FACT/GOG-Ntx TOI; Mixed Model Analysis has treatment, baseline, time point, and treatment by timepoint interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95781559|NCT00762034|191535175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.681||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||0.681|0.338|<0.001
95811944|NCT03235050|191596680|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Absolute change at Week 54||-0.19|-2.63|0.023
95781560|NCT00762034|191535176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.316||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.316|0.654|0.673
95781561|NCT00762034|191535176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.521||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.729||p-value is for TS Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.729|0.157|0.287
95781562|NCT00762034|191535176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.157||p-value is for TS Nucleus Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.157|0.498|0.2
95781563|NCT00762034|191535176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.738||p-value is for TS Nucleus Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.738|0.540|0.915
95811945|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|29.43|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||29.43|2.38|<0.001
95811946|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|12.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|40.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||40.64|3.82|<0.001
95811947|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|21.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|68.97|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 14||68.97|6.55|<0.001
95811948|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.89|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.89|1.72|<0.001
95811949|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.78|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||7.78|2.00|<0.001
95998778|NCT00095303|191973605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76|||GEE||The parameter estimated is the regression coefficient on the interaction of BSFT treatment assignment and the linear time trend.|Null hypothesis: BSFT will be significantly more effective than TAU in decreasing sexually risky behaviors. The total score of the 'HIV/Sex Risk Behaviors' measure will be used as the outcome.Hypothesis analyzed using the hierarchical linear model.||.76|-.09|.12
95811950|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|14.24|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 26||14.24|3.72|<0.001
95860865|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
95998779|NCT00095303|191973609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.37|||GEE|||||.37|-.09|.23
95781564|NCT00762034|191535177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.511||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.511|0.622|0.891
95781565|NCT00762034|191535177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.023||p-value for FR-α Cytoplasm Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.023|0.342|0.060
95781566|NCT00762034|191535177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||p-value for FR-α Membrane Positive (H score \> 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.880|0.490|0.905
95781567|NCT00762034|191535177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.281||p-value for FR-α Membrane Negative (H score = 0) comparing treatment arms and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||||1.281|0.575|0.455
95781568|NCT02442206|191535180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.209|14.331|||ANOVA|||||14.331|6.209|<0.0001
95781569|NCT02442206|191535181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.49|||ANOVA|||||0.49|0.36|<0.0001
95781570|NCT02442206|191535182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.80|0.55|<0.0001
95811951|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||7.45|1.84|<0.001
95811952|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||5.09|1.46|0.002
95811953|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|8.3|||ANCOVA|||weight loss \>=5% at Week 54||8.30|2.42|<0.001
95811954|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|70.17|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||70.17|1.02|0.048
95811955|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.81||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|102.91|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||102.91|1.85|0.010
95998780|NCT03842137|191973618|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|Utilizing a regression model, baseline craving scores, group condition, and their interaction are regressed on 2-week craving scores.||||-.15|-.91|.008
95781571|NCT02442206|191535183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.541|||ANOVA|||||0.541|0.352|<0.0001
95781572|NCT02442206|191535184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|-0.07|||ANOVA|||||-0.070|-0.285|0.0017
95781573|NCT02442206|191535185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.577|||ANOVA|||||-0.577|-0.925|<0.0001
95811956|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|13.09||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|97.68|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 26||97.68|1.75|0.012
95811957|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.07|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||32.07|1.49|0.013
95811958|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|4.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||21.60|1.15|0.032
95811959|NCT03235050|191596681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|33.64|||Regression, Logistic|||weight loss \>=10% at Week 54||33.64|1.86|0.005
95811960|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.73|0.01|0.024
95811961|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.40|0.03|<0.001
95811962|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 14 wks||0.33|0.02|<0.001
95811963|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.48|0.04|0.002
95811964|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.34|0.06|<0.001
95811965|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 26 wks||0.28|0.04|<0.001
95811966|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.53|0.11|<0.001
95811967|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.44|0.13|<0.001
95811968|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||received rescue medication at 54 wks||0.41|0.12|<0.001
95811969|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.22||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 14 wks||2.43|0.02|0.216
95811970|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.28||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||2.52|0.03|0.253
95811971|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 26 wks||1.19|0.04|0.079
95811972|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.27||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||2.50|0.03|0.252
95811973|NCT03235050|191596682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.32||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||discontinued IP at 54 wks||1.47|0.07|0.143
95811974|NCT00370292|191596686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95811975|NCT00370292|191596686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95956666|NCT04783519|191885602|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.39||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.127|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.127|-0.650|.004
95956667|NCT04783519|191885602|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.21||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.482|0.054|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||.054|-.482|.118
95956668|NCT04783519|191885602|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|-0.142|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-0.142|-0.674|.003
95956669|NCT04783519|191885602|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.16||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.107|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.107|-0.428|.240
95956670|NCT04783519|191885603|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-1.65|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||-1.65|-8.10|.003
95956671|NCT04783519|191885603|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-1.71||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|1.57|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||1.57|-4.98|.308
95956672|NCT04783519|191885603|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-4.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.25|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||"Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.~Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/)"||-1.25|-7.8|.007
95956673|NCT04783519|191885603|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|beta coefficient|-0.83||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.46|||Regression, Linear|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section. Score on measure (T-score method https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261577/ )||2.46|-4.12|.621
95956674|NCT04783519|191885604|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.802||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.003|0.641|.054
95956675|NCT04783519|191885604|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.75||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.946|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.946|0.600|.015
95956676|NCT04783519|191885604|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.736||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|0.937|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.937|0.578|.013
95781574|NCT02442206|191535186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.945|-1.332|||ANOVA|||||-1.332|-1.945|<0.0001
95781575|NCT02442206|191535187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|-0.489|||ANOVA|||||-0.489|-0.761|<0.0001
95781576|NCT02442206|191535188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.209||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|2.836|||ANOVA|||LV EF||2.836|-0.419|0.1420
95781577|NCT02442206|191535188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.131||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|2.774|||ANOVA|||RV EF||2.774|-0.512|0.1732
95781578|NCT02442206|191535189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.241||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|4.417|||ANOVA|||LV ESV||4.417|0.066|0.0437
95781579|NCT02442206|191535189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.095||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|4.782|||ANOVA|||RV ESV||4.782|-0.591|0.1236
95781580|NCT02442206|191535190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.357||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.649|14.065|||ANOVA|||||14.065|4.649|0.0002
95781581|NCT02442206|191535191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.337||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.555|||ANOVA|||LVCO||0.555|0.118|0.0032
95956677|NCT04783519|191885604|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.658||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|0.844|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.844|0.513|.001
95781582|NCT02442206|191535191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.281||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.512|||ANOVA|||RVCO||0.512|0.050|0.0182
95781583|NCT00497146|191535192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model includes treatment, visit, gender, baseline RAAS inhibitor use, country, baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction.||||||0.145
95781584|NCT03214679|191535213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95781585|NCT01031004|191535239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.0466
95781586|NCT01031004|191535240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.1069
95781587|NCT01031004|191535241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4605||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.4605
95781588|NCT01031004|191535242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.5774
95781589|NCT01031004|191535243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6403||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B will not be statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.6403
95781590|NCT01031004|191535244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The hypothesis is that narafilcon B is not statistically different from etafilcon A.||||0.7217
95956678|NCT04783519|191885605|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.992||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.374|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.374|0.716|.960
95998781|NCT03842137|191973619|SUPERIORITY|An ancova model was conducted comparing differences between tDCS and sham on post-stimulation theta burst rate, while controlling for pre-stimulation theta burst rate||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
95998782|NCT05139030|191973620|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.97||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.7|-12.9|||ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||-12.9|-118.7|0.0074
95781591|NCT04575584|191535245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.45|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.45|0.68|0.5620
95781592|NCT04575584|191535245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.65|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.65|0.78|0.3145
95781593|NCT04575584|191535245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.47|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||1.47|0.69|0.4894
95781594|NCT04575584|191535248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.1|-2.3|0.1642
95781595|NCT04575584|191535248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||13.9|-1.1|0.0900
95781596|NCT04575584|191535248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Miettinen and Nurminen method. Unknown Day 29 survival status treated as failure.|||12.3|-2.3|0.1594
95781597|NCT04575584|191535249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.35|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.35|0.73|0.3623
95781598|NCT04575584|191535249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
95781599|NCT04575584|191535249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
95781600|NCT04575584|191535250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.30|0.70|0.4398
95998783|NCT05139030|191973621|SUPERIORITY|A one-sided hypothesis test was performed at alpha=0.025 level of significance comparing EXPAREL admix and bupivacaine HCI|Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||ANCOVA|Total opioid consumption was transformed to log scale. Main effect of treatment, covariates: pooled Investigator site (categorical); age (continuous)||The superiority of EXPAREL admixed to bupivacaine HCI was evaluated using the Efficacy Analysis Set.||0.92|0.64|0.0018
95781601|NCT04575584|191535250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
95781602|NCT04575584|191535250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
95781603|NCT04575584|191535251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.85|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.85|0.77|0.2422
95781604|NCT04575584|191535251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
95781605|NCT04575584|191535251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.59|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.59|0.45|0.6052
95811976|NCT00370292|191596686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.030
95811977|NCT00370292|191596686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.166
95956679|NCT04783519|191885605|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.782||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.094|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.094|0.506|.152
95956680|NCT04783519|191885605|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.887||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.482
95956681|NCT04783519|191885605|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.67||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|1.24|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.240|0.634|.020
95956682|NCT04783519|191885606|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.724||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.973|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.973|0.540|.032
95956683|NCT04783519|191885606|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.588|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.8|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.800|0.432|<.001
95956684|NCT04783519|191885607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.914|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.914|0.535|.009
95956685|NCT04783519|191885607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.675||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.888|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.888|0.512|.005
95998784|NCT05139030|191973622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.96|||Cox proportional hazards model|Cox proportional hazard model: treatment as main effect, pooled Investigator site as categorical, and age and height as continuous covariates||||0.96|0.51|0.0127
95956686|NCT04783519|191885607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.698||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.928|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.928|0.526|.013
95956687|NCT04783519|191885607|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|0.715|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.715|0.385|<.001
95998785|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Worst pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.4|-0.6|0.3674
95860866|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM mixed model repeated measures analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Evenness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
95781606|NCT04575584|191535252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
95781607|NCT04575584|191535252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
95781608|NCT04575584|191535252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
95781609|NCT04575584|191535253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9945
95781610|NCT04575584|191535253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
95781611|NCT04575584|191535253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
95811978|NCT00370292|191596686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95811979|NCT00370292|191596686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95781612|NCT04575584|191535254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.25|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.25|0.70|0.4472
95781613|NCT04575584|191535254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.12|0.66|0.5714
95781614|NCT04575584|191535254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.54|0.9313
95781615|NCT04575584|191535255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.21|0.67|0.5222
95781616|NCT04575584|191535255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.57|0.47|0.6277
95781617|NCT04575584|191535255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.62|0.49|0.7069
95781618|NCT04575584|191535256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.8|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.80|0.75|0.2627
95811980|NCT00370292|191596688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 1 Hour Post-Dose (1 hour across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95811981|NCT00370292|191596688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours Post-Dose (2 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95811982|NCT00370292|191596688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333||95.0||||P-value for 4 Hours Post-Dose (4 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.333
95956688|NCT04783519|191885608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.598||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.885|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.885|0.404|.010
95956689|NCT04783519|191885608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.502||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.760|0.331|.001
95998786|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||Worst pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-0.9|0.1016
95811983|NCT00370292|191596688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value for 6 Hours Post-Dose (6 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||0.849
95956690|NCT04783519|191885608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.516||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.790|0.337|.002
95781619|NCT04575584|191535256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.44|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.44|0.66|0.4789
95781620|NCT04575584|191535256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.58|0.45|0.5938
95781621|NCT04575584|191535257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.75|0.2644
95781622|NCT04575584|191535257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.14|0.77|0.2184
95781623|NCT04575584|191535257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.94|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.94|0.53|0.9771
95781624|NCT04575584|191535258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.06|0.46|0.9445
95781625|NCT04575584|191535258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.37|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.37|0.67|0.3227
95860867|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
95956691|NCT04783519|191885608|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.506||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.774|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Poisson model to address overdispersion (Negative binomial would not converge).||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.774|0.330|.002
95956692|NCT04783519|191885609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.628||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.853|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.853|0.462|.003
95956693|NCT04783519|191885609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.744||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.028|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.028|0.538|.073
95956694|NCT04783519|191885609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.764||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|1.043|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.043|0.559|.090
95956695|NCT04783519|191885609|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category.|count/rate ratio|0.656||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.916|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.916|0.469|.013
95956696|NCT04783519|191885610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.753||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.041|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.041|0.546|.087
95956697|NCT04783519|191885610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.739||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.034|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to Post Assessment for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.034|0.528|.078
95956698|NCT04783519|191885610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.773||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.05|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models control for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS+SLEEP vs. AOC reported in this section.||1.050|0.569|.099
95956699|NCT04783519|191885610|SUPERIORITY|Regression model with TIME × CONDITION Interactions, with AOC as reference category was run using sample of N=150.|count/rate ratio|0.704||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.969|||Generalized linear mixed model|Model controls for age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Negative binomial model to address overdispersion.||Changes from Baseline to 3 Month Follow-up for BASICS vs. AOC reported in this section.||0.969|0.512|.031
95956700|NCT00835510|191885637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||0.0127
95956701|NCT00835510|191885637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.0001
95781626|NCT04575584|191535258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with Pulmonary+ score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.39|0.5200
95781627|NCT04575584|191535259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.47|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.47|0.46|0.8732
95781628|NCT04575584|191535259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Wald Chi-square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.19|0.25|0.1277
95781629|NCT04575584|191535259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.61|||Wald Chi-Square||Proportional odds model with NEWS categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.61|0.33|0.4326
95781630|NCT04575584|191535260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.88|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.88|0.50|0.6830
95781631|NCT04575584|191535260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.39|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.39|0.42|1.000
95781632|NCT04575584|191535260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.2|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.20|0.37|0.8244
95781633|NCT04575584|191535261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.36|0.5022
95781634|NCT04575584|191535261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.5204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.64|0.37|0.5204
95781635|NCT04575584|191535261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.13|0.24|0.0991
95781636|NCT04575584|191535262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.29|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.29|0.60|0.6346
95781637|NCT04575584|191535262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.75|0.46|0.7596
95781638|NCT04575584|191535262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.84|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.84|0.49|0.8879
95781639|NCT04575584|191535263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.82|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.82|0.55|0.6002
95781640|NCT04575584|191535263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.21|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.21|0.58|0.4733
95781641|NCT04575584|191535263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||1.78|0.38|0.6220
95781642|NCT04575584|191535264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.6|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.60|0.28|0.7871
95781643|NCT04575584|191535264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.06|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||3.06|0.31|0.9598
95781644|NCT04575584|191535264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||Wald Chi-Square||Based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|||2.31|0.27|0.6670
95781645|NCT02178358|191535265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.226|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.226|0.434|0.837
95956702|NCT00835510|191885642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criteria for equivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the difference in cure rate had to be between -20% to +20%.|Cure rate difference|-19.78||||||90.0|-30.27|-9.29||||||||-9.29|-30.27|
95781646|NCT02178358|191535265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.266|||Bayesian exponential-likelihood model|||||1.266|0.633|0.704
95781647|NCT03763058|191535283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.012
95781648|NCT03763058|191535284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.52||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.002
95998787|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||Worst pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.4|0.0215
95998788|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2||Worst pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.2|-1.2|0.0794
95998789|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Average pain 0-24 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.5|-0.7|0.3606
95956703|NCT01960348|191885651|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.974|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.86|-28.13||P=9.262E-24|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mNIS+7. The model includes baseline mNIS+7 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-28.13|-39.86|<0.0000001
95956704|NCT01960348|191885652|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-15.0||P=1.103E-10|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in Norfolk QOL-DN total score. The model includes baseline Norfolk QOL-DN score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-15.0|-27.2|<0.0000001
95998790|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Average pain 24-48 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0184
95781649|NCT03763058|191535285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||0.045
95781650|NCT03763058|191535286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
95781651|NCT03763058|191535287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||Total HAD score||||<0.001
95781652|NCT00055497|191535290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.142
95998791|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 48-72 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0476
95781653|NCT00055497|191535291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
95781654|NCT00055497|191535292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.330
95781655|NCT00055497|191535292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.001
95781656|NCT00055497|191535292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
95811984|NCT00370292|191596688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 Hours Post-Dose (24 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95811985|NCT00370292|191596688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 48 Hours Post-Dose (48 hours across cycles compared with pre-dose across cycles).|Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.001
95811986|NCT03186638|191596689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7917|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline values||||||0.7917
95998792|NCT05139030|191973623|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Average pain 72-96 hours|ANCOVA|Main effect of treatment, categorical covariate of pooled Investigator site, and continuous covariates of age||||0.1|-1.1|0.0529
95998793|NCT00613626|191973644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.718||0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Log Rank|||A one-sided log rank test with an overall sample size of 68 subjects (of which 34 are in arm A and 34 are in arm B) achieves 80% power at a 0.10 significance level to detect a difference of 3 months in PFS between 4 month median PFS and 7 month median PFS.||||0.10
95998794|NCT00613626|191973644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9518|TWO_SIDED|||||P-Value (2-tailed) is calculated based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Degrees of freedom=1||||||0.9518
95998795|NCT00613626|191973646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|P-value (two-tailed) is calculated based on an unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.2533
95781657|NCT00055497|191535292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.044
95998796|NCT00613626|191973647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in Rates|||||||0.8720
95781658|NCT00055497|191535293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.191
95781659|NCT00055497|191535293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.003
95781660|NCT00055497|191535293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.508
95781661|NCT00055497|191535293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 56||||0.004
95781662|NCT00055497|191535294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95781663|NCT00212264|191535304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95781664|NCT00212264|191535305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Note that the no-treatment control group completed the study after 2 months and was not included in this analysis of treatment effect durability.||||||.32
95781665|NCT00187278|191535310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.926||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.0088||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.0088|0.789|0.3492
95781666|NCT00187278|191535311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.02||adjusted p|Regression, Cox|||||1.020|0.756|0.0882
95781667|NCT00187278|191535312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.74|0.8215
95811987|NCT01766102|191596691|OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Procedure time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.716
95811988|NCT01766102|191596691|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Operating room time is not significantly different based on mammography type used||||0.676
95781668|NCT01080391|191535327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.834||Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes)|Log Rank|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0127 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).||||0.834|0.570|< 0.0001
95781669|NCT01080391|191535328|SUPERIORITY|The stopping boundary for this analysis was 0.0231 based on 1-sided significance level (O'Brien-Fleming with Lan-DeMets spending function).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.945|||Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by β2 microglobulin levels (\< 2.5 mg/L vs. ≥ 2.5 mg/L), prior bortezomib (no vs. yes), and prior lenalidomide (no vs. yes).||The final analysis of OS was to be performed after 510 deaths occur. A total of 510 deaths would provide 85% power to detect, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, a hazard ratio of 0.765 corresponding to a 23.5% reduction in risk for death for CRd versus Rd (39.2 vs. 30.0 months, respectively).||0.945|0.667|0.0045
95781670|NCT01080391|191535329|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.411|5.001|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||5.001|2.411|< 0.0001
95781671|NCT01080391|191535330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.08|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test with β2 macroglobulin level, prior bortezomib, and prior lenalidomide as stratification factors.|The odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.08|1.17|0.0044
95781672|NCT03725033|191535355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.0028
95781673|NCT03725033|191535356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0805
95781674|NCT03725033|191535357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.99
95781675|NCT03725033|191535358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.79
95781676|NCT05079230|191535452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.178||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.637|||stratified log-rank test|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.637|0.848|0.3276
95781677|NCT05079230|191535453|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.826||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.251|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.251|0.545|0.3616
95956705|NCT01960348|191885653|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-13.43||P=1.404E-13|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in NIS-W. The model includes baseline NIS-W score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-13.43|-22.32|<0.0000001
95956706|NCT01960348|191885654|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.9||P=4.066E-16|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in R-ODS value. The model includes baseline R-ODS score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||10.9|7.0|<0.0000001
95956707|NCT01960348|191885655|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.393||P=1.875E-12|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in 10-meter walk test result. The model includes baseline 10-meter walk test result as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||0.393|0.230|<0.0000001
95962283|NCT03721172|191896369|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||46.3|29.7|<0.0001
95962284|NCT03721172|191896370|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|32.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||32.8|16.5|<0.0001
95998797|NCT00613626|191973648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4577
95781678|NCT05079230|191535454|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.856||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.307|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.307|0.560|0.4679
95781679|NCT05079230|191535455|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.946||||0.7903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Stratified Log Rank||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|||1.225|0.730|0.7903
95781680|NCT05079230|191535458|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.189||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.945|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.945|0.727|0.4873
95781681|NCT05079230|191535459|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.154||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.932|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel Haenszel||Stratified odds ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated from stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel estimates adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.932|0.690|0.5842
95781682|NCT05079230|191535460|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|0.783||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.245|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|||1.245|0.492|0.3003
95811989|NCT00508521|191596695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47871||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.27348|-19.22652|||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a feasibility study. Pre and post treatment analysis was performed for the study participants.||-19.22652|-22.27348|.0001
95811990|NCT01622296|191596696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior Alveolar nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.23
95811991|NCT01622296|191596696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Long buccal nerve injection - H(0): Lidocaine VAS score = Buffered Lidocaine VAS score. Based on data from medial trials of buffered anesthetic, a power calculation for sample size indicated that 20 subjects would provide a 90% change of detecting an effect size of 0.83 (a change of 0.83 standard deviations)||||0.57
95811992|NCT01621178|191596700|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.15|-0.26|<0.001
95811993|NCT01621178|191596700|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority to Glargine with a 0.4% margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.22|-0.18|<0.001
95956708|NCT01960348|191885656|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|115.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.91|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|149.0||P=8.832E-11|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in mBMI. The model includes baseline mBMI as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||149.0|82.4|<0.0000001
95811994|NCT02465931|191596741|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.89
95956709|NCT01960348|191885657|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|-3.16|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||In the mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model, the outcome variable is change from baseline in COMPASS-31 total score. The model includes baseline COMPASS-31 score as covariate and fixed effect terms including treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NIS, genotype, age at hATTR symptom onset, previous tetramer stabilizer use and region.||-3.16|-11.89|0.0008
95956710|NCT01580995|191885673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95956711|NCT00526097|191885682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|2.6|4.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.0|2.6|<0.0001
95956712|NCT00526097|191885683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|5.2||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.2|3.5|<0.0001
95956713|NCT00526097|191885684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.7|4.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.3|2.7|<0.0001
95956714|NCT00526097|191885685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|3.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.6|2.0|<0.0001
95956715|NCT00526097|191885686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|1.8|3.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
95956716|NCT00526097|191885687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|5.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.8|4.1|<0.0001
95860868|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 12||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
95956717|NCT00526097|191885688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001||95.0|5.8|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|5.8|<0.0001
95956718|NCT00526097|191885689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001||95.0|3.8|5.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.6|3.8|<0.0001
95998798|NCT00613626|191973649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Survival analysis of VEGF variants using cox proportional hazard analysis in arm A and arm B.|Data was not collected for safety lead-in participants and these participants were not included in the analysis.||||
95781683|NCT05079230|191535461|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36||The 2-sided P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by the stratification factors at randomization (age, genetic risk group, and geographic region).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.360|0.620|0.5790
95781684|NCT05079230|191535462|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.09||||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.487|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI are calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.487|0.799|0.5796
95781685|NCT05079230|191535463|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.271||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.704|||Stratified Log Rank|The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors at randomization.|Stratified hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% CI were calculated using the stratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.704|0.948|0.1026
95781686|NCT01782352|191535486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.82|<0.05
95781687|NCT01782352|191535486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.76|<0.05
95781688|NCT01782352|191535487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||||1.70|0.86|<0.05
95811995|NCT00492557|191596742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval (CI), computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.5||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H1N1. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||6.5|-3.1|
95860869|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95860870|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
95956719|NCT00526097|191885690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.7|2.9|<0.0001
95781689|NCT01782352|191535487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.59|<0.05
95811996|NCT00492557|191596742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3||||||Influenza virus subtype: A/H3N2. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||1.3|-10.4|
95956720|NCT00526097|191885691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001||95.0|2.9|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|2.9|<0.0001
95956721|NCT00526097|191885692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The log-rank test was used to calculate the p-value and to test for differences between the treatment groups.||||<0.0001
95956722|NCT00526097|191885693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.57|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.57|1.62|<0.0001
95956723|NCT00526097|191885694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.13|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.13|1.44|<0.0001
95956724|NCT00526097|191885695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.62|2.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.66|1.62|<0.0001
95956725|NCT00526097|191885696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
95956726|NCT00526097|191885697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.24|1.88|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||1.88|1.24|<0.0001
95956727|NCT00526097|191885698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.28|68.66|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||68.66|4.28|<0.0001
95956728|NCT00526097|191885699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|3.35|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.35|1.81|<0.0001
95956729|NCT00526097|191885700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0025||95.0|1.32|4.74|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||4.74|1.32|0.0025
95781690|NCT01782352|191535488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Regression, Cox|||||1.84|0.81|<0.05
95781691|NCT01782352|191535488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.48|<0.05
95860871|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95998799|NCT00613626|191973649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Logistic Regression Analysis|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Objective Response Analysis of VEGF variants using Logistic Regression Analysis in arm A and arm B|||||
95781692|NCT01782352|191535489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||||1.37|0.86|<0.05
95781693|NCT01782352|191535489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.73|<0.05
95781694|NCT01782352|191535490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.33|<0.05
95781695|NCT01782352|191535490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.56|<0.05
95781696|NCT01782352|191535491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.69|<0.05
95781697|NCT01782352|191535491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.67|<0.05
95781698|NCT00824434|191535502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean In-stent Late Loss in WH Lesions|0.17|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.22|||t-test, 1 sided|||The Student t-test was used to compare the outcome to a prespecified performance goal of 0.44 mm based on an historical TAXUS Express workhorse 9-month in-stent late loss (0.41 mm) value plus delta (0.03 mm)||0.22||<0.0001
95781699|NCT00824434|191535503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Post-procedure Incomplete Apposi|5.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.6|||One-sided exact binomial test|||A one-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson upper confidence bound was derived and tested to determine if the outcome was less than a prespecified performance goal based on historical XIENCE V/PROMUS post-procedure incomplete apposition data from the SPIRIT III study (34.4%).||11.6||<0.0001
95781700|NCT05153148|191535522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and region.|21.1|-9.3|=0.446
95781701|NCT05153148|191535522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.6|8.6|=0.002
95860872|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
95860873|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
95781702|NCT05153148|191535522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR20 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|39.9|9.0|=0.002
95781703|NCT05153148|191535523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|16.6|-5.3|=0.312
95781704|NCT05153148|191535523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.0|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.1|5.0|=0.005
95781705|NCT05153148|191535523|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of ACR50 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.6|4.2|=0.009
95781706|NCT05153148|191535524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.7|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||12.7|-6.6|=0.532
95781707|NCT05153148|191535524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.1|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||20.1|-1.0|=0.101
95781708|NCT05153148|191535524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Comparisons of ACR70 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using Fischer's exact Method.|||19.4|-1.7|=0.158
95998800|NCT01299025|191973658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95811997|NCT00492557|191596742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for a given virus subtype was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI, computed using the Chan and Zhang procedure, for the difference in proportions (13vPnC+TIV - TIV alone) was greater than -0.10.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.1||||||Influenza virus subtype: B. Primary null hypothesis for each of the influenza virus subtypes is: proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when 13vPnC+TIV were administered concomitantly, minus the proportion of participants achieving a 4-fold increase in titer when TIV was administered alone (with placebo) \<= -0.10.||4.1|-7.8|
95811998|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.04|0.60|
95811999|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.13|0.78|
95812000|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.51|
95812001|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.86|0.55|
95812002|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.94|0.61|
95998801|NCT05480514|191973665|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.90 was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% central posterior credible interval was above 0.90.|Mean Posterior Proportion|0.9741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9445|0.9926|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|||||0.9926|0.9445|
95998802|NCT00195351|191973668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.009||95.0|-13.1|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-13.1|0.009
95956730|NCT00526097|191885701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0105||95.0|1.26|13.24|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||13.24|1.26|0.0105
95956731|NCT00526097|191885702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.4002||95.0|0.52|6.47|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||6.47|0.52|0.4002
95998803|NCT00195351|191973669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.02||95.0|-14.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.8|-14.5|0.020
95860874|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyebrows: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
95956732|NCT00526097|191885703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||1||95.0|0.37|3.77|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||3.77|0.37|1.0000
95812003|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.25|0.75|
95860875|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
95956733|NCT00526097|191885704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0951
95956734|NCT00526097|191885705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.41|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.41|0.09|<0.0001
95998804|NCT00195351|191973670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.015||95.0|-13.9|8.1|||Method of Mehrotra and Railkar|||||8.1|-13.9|0.015
95998805|NCT03815175|191973671|NON_INFERIORITY|"H0: Death/(MI\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA\]) ≥ δ HA: Death/MI(\[1m-DAPT\]) - Death/(MI \[XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520\]) \< δ~Where δ is the non-inferiority margin. The test will be carried out with a one-sided significance level of 0.025 and a non-inferiority margin (δ) of 2.5%."||||||0.0005|||||||Farrington-Manning method|||||||0.0005
95956735|NCT00526097|191885706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.2524||95.0|0.02|2.67|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||2.67|0.02|0.2524
95956736|NCT00526097|191885707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.0035||95.0|0.06|0.63|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.63|0.06|0.0035
95956737|NCT00526097|191885708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.0004||95.0|0.01|0.46|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.46|0.01|0.0004
95956738|NCT00526097|191885709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0086||95.0|0.1|0.69|||Fisher Exact||OR: Bisacodyl / Placebo; The exact 95% confidence interval (CI) by Clopper and Pearson is presented|||0.69|0.10|0.0086
95956739|NCT00526097|191885710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.9|-1.2|<0.0001
95956740|NCT00526097|191885711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95781709|NCT05153148|191535525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.7|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-4.8|=0.268
95956741|NCT00526097|191885712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.8||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.8|-1.1|<0.0001
95956742|NCT00526097|191885713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
95956743|NCT00526097|191885714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.4|2.9||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.9|2.4|<0.0001
95781710|NCT05153148|191535525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.0|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-6.1|=0.051
95781711|NCT05153148|191535525|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.5|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.6|-5.6|=0.112
95781712|NCT05153148|191535526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.7|-2.4|=0.280
95781713|NCT05153148|191535526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.1|||=|0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.177
95812004|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.07|0.67|
95956744|NCT00526097|191885715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|2.1|2.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.7|2.1|<0.0001
95956745|NCT00526097|191885716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|2.0|2.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.5|2.0|<0.0001
95781714|NCT05153148|191535526|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-2.6|=0.196
95781715|NCT05153148|191535527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.9|||=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|5.9|-9.6|=0.637
95781716|NCT05153148|191535527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-9.2|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.4|-17.0|=0.021
95781717|NCT05153148|191535527|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.7|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.9|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-0.9|-16.5|=0.030
95781718|NCT05153148|191535528|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|6.6|-8.4|=0.812
95781719|NCT05153148|191535528|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.7|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.8|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.8|-14.2|=0.079
95781720|NCT05153148|191535528|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.3|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-13.9|=0.102
95781721|NCT05153148|191535529|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-8.9|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-1.7|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.7|-16.2|=0.016
95781722|NCT05153148|191535529|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.6|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-3.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.4|-17.8|=0.004
95781723|NCT05153148|191535529|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-10.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.6|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-3.6|-18.2|=0.003
95956746|NCT00526097|191885717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|1.7|2.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.3|1.7|<0.0001
95956747|NCT00526097|191885718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0002
95956748|NCT00526097|191885719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0003||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0003
95956749|NCT00526097|191885720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0127||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0127
95956750|NCT00526097|191885721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0064||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.3|0.0064
95781724|NCT05153148|191535530|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.07|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.08|-0.21|=0.357
95781725|NCT05153148|191535530|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.05|-0.24|=0.195
95781726|NCT05153148|191535530|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.05|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.09|-0.20|=0.467
95998806|NCT03815175|191973674|SUPERIORITY|"H0: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA) ≥ 0 HA: B (1m-DAPT) - B (XIENCE V USA: NCT00676520) \< 0~B 1m-DAPT and B XIENCE V USA are bleeding rates (BARC type 2-5) between 1-month and 6-month follow-up for the pooled 1-month DAPT arm and XIENCE V USA historical control, respectively."||||||0.1888|||||||Farrington and Manning method|||||||0.1888
95998807|NCT01480180|191973713|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.66||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.66|2.94|<0.001
95998808|NCT01480180|191973715|OTHER||Poisson estimate|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.11||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||4.11|2.59|<0.001
95998809|NCT01480180|191973717|OTHER||Poisson estimate|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.95||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||2.95|1.87|<0.001
95998810|NCT01480180|191973717|OTHER||Poisson estimate|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.24||P-values are from the 1-sided test of the null hypothesis that the ABR is at least 8.5 evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Poisson regression|||The analysis is based on a Poisson regression model allowing for over-dispersion. For participants withdrawing prematurely, the log planned treatment duration is used as offset; for completers, the log actual treatment duration is used.||6.24|3.09|<0.001
95998811|NCT02513446|191973804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|176.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|193.2|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||193.2|160.5|
95812005|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.02|0.63|
95781727|NCT05153148|191535531|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|2.4|0.1|=0.031
95781728|NCT05153148|191535531|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-1.1|=0.860
95781729|NCT05153148|191535531|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2|||=|0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.3|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.3|-0.9|=0.758
95812006|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.97|0.53|
95998812|NCT02513446|191973805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|136.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.9|169.4|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||169.4|109.9|
95812007|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.01|0.64|
95812008|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.87|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.87|0.56|
95812009|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.85|0.49|
95812010|NCT00492557|191596743|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27|||||CIs for the ratio were back transformations of the CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC and TIV concomitantly, minus the log of the GMC in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.71|
95781730|NCT05153148|191535532|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.2|-1.2|=0.131
95812011|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 1. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.68|
95860876|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 12||-0.4|-0.8|< 0.0001
95860877|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
95860878|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95781731|NCT05153148|191535532|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.7|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.0|-1.3|=0.043
95781732|NCT05153148|191535532|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.5|-0.8|=0.687
95812012|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 3. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.20|0.69|
95860879|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-0.9|< 0.0001
95860880|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 20||-0.5|-1.0|< 0.0001
95781733|NCT05153148|191535533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|||=|0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|17.4|-6.1|=0.349
95781734|NCT05153148|191535533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|28.3|2.8|=0.017
95781735|NCT05153148|191535533|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of MDA responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.3|3.3|=0.014
95781736|NCT05153148|191535534|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.73|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.57|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|1.57|-9.04|=0.167
95781737|NCT05153148|191535534|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-6.43|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-1.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|-1.13|-11.73|=0.018
95781738|NCT05153148|191535534|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.23|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|0.13|||MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI were obtained from a MMRM model.||MMRM model included fixed effects for treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction, with baseline value and the randomization stratification factors (prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region) as covariates, and the change from baseline as the dependent variable.|0.13|-10.59|=0.056
95860881|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
95781739|NCT05153148|191535535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|29.4|-5.7|=0.186
95781740|NCT05153148|191535535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.6|||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|32.1|-2.8|=0.101
95781741|NCT05153148|191535535|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|47.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PASI-75 responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|47.6|10.5|=0.002
95860882|NCT04518995|191680442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How Satisfied With Your Eyelashes: Week 24||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
95860883|NCT04518995|191680443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.2|0.2489
95956751|NCT00526097|191885722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-0.9|<0.0001
95956752|NCT00526097|191885723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.6|-1.0|<0.0001
95956753|NCT00526097|191885724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.9|<0.0001
95998813|NCT02513446|191973806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted gMean T/R ratio|174.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.1|192.0|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale; Fixed effects: sequence, period and treatment; Random effects: subjects within sequences|Ratio of the treatment adjusted geometric means (gMean) of (T) versus (R).|||192.0|159.1|
95812013|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 4. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||0.95|0.47|
95812014|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 5. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.60|0.77|
95812015|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.08|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.08|0.54|
95812016|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 6B. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.09|0.55|
95812017|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 7F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.47|
95860884|NCT04518995|191680443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.1|-0.1|0.1235
95998814|NCT02332915|191973814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for treated items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.0128
95998815|NCT02332915|191973815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|dependent t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in mean effect size values for 2-week follow-up values for untreated (generalization) items for SPT-Intense and SPT-Traditional. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||.942
95998816|NCT02332915|191973816|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment intelligibility scores||||<.001
95998817|NCT03191786|191973817|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||0.97|0.63|0.025
95998818|NCT03191786|191973818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.3||||||OS Rate at 6 Months||16.3|-3.3|
95812018|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.03|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 9V. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.03|0.42|
95843716|NCT03043872|191654950|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.235||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP.||1.235|0.857|0.7540
95998819|NCT03191786|191973818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|15.0||||||OS Rate at 12 Months||15.0|-4.9|
95998820|NCT03191786|191973818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.5||||||OS Rate at 18 Months||16.5|-1.6|
95998821|NCT03191786|191973818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Rates|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.5||||||OS Rate at 24 Months||19.5|4.4|
95998822|NCT03191786|191973820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.||1.07|0.70|0.182
95998823|NCT03191786|191973825|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.975||95.0|0.57|1.78|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (single item QLQ-C30)||1.78|0.57|0.975
95781742|NCT05153148|191535536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||=|0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|19.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.0|-10.0|=0.540
95781743|NCT05153148|191535536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|||=|0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|19.3|-8.8|=0.466
95781744|NCT05153148|191535536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MH risk difference was summarized along with the 2-sided 95% CI using MH stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||Comparisons of PhGA-PSO responder rates at Week 12 were made independently between each dose group and the placebo group using two-sided MH tests stratified on randomization stratification factors: prior treatment with biologics or non-traditional DMARDs and region.|31.3|1.2|=0.034
95781745|NCT00474786|191535539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.71|0.1933
95781746|NCT00474786|191535540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.07|0.70|0.1888
95781747|NCT00474786|191535542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.63||Stratified for nephrectomy status, duration of response to sunitinib therapy, tumor histology, and MSKCC prognostic group.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \<1 means temsirolimus (TEMSR) is at lower risk.|||1.63|1.05|0.0144
95781748|NCT01801241|191535549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95781749|NCT01093651|191535571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for CD4+ T-cell count over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|Study subject was included in these models as a random variable to account for within-participant correlation.||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in CD4+ T-cell count between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
95812019|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 14. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.24|0.65|
95956754|NCT00526097|191885725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
95843717|NCT03043872|191654951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.401||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP.||2.401|1.086|0.0177
95956755|NCT00526097|191885726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
95956756|NCT00526097|191885727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
95956757|NCT00526097|191885728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.2|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.2|<0.0001
95956758|NCT00526097|191885729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0018||95.0|-0.2|0.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.0|-0.2|0.0018
95956759|NCT00526097|191885730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95812020|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 18C. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.14|0.59|
95812021|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19A. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.12|0.61|
95812022|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 19F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.16|0.57|
95812023|NCT00492557|191596746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion upon which to declare non-inferiority was if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the GMT ratios, (13vPnC+TIV relative to 13vPnC administered 1 month after TIV+placebo) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||||2-sided 95% CIs for the GMT ratio were calculated by back transformations of the 95% CIs based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithmically transformed assay results.|Serotype 23F. The primary null hypothesis was: the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC + TIV minus the log of the GMT in the group receiving 13vPnC alone (1 month after TIV) \<= -0.693.||1.27|0.54|
95812024|NCT05093621|191596747|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mortality at 1 year||||1.000
95956760|NCT00526097|191885731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956761|NCT00526097|191885732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956762|NCT00526097|191885733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956763|NCT00526097|191885734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95812025|NCT05093621|191596748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
95812026|NCT05093621|191596749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
95812027|NCT05093621|191596750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.873
95812028|NCT02164864|191596763|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the first step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 110mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority.||0.63|0.42|<0.0001
95843718|NCT03043872|191654951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.746||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP.||1.746|0.817|0.3611
95843719|NCT03043872|191654963|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.277||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer OS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.277|0.574|0.4470
95956764|NCT00526097|191885735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956765|NCT00526097|191885736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956766|NCT00526097|191885737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95781750|NCT01093651|191535572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in plasma HIV RNA copy number/mL between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
95781751|NCT01093651|191535573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum TNFR2 levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum TNFR2 levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
95781752|NCT01093651|191535574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0002||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for SDF1-alpha levels over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.0002.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum SDF1α levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.0002
95781753|NCT01093651|191535575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for serum RANTES levels over time and between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in serum RANTES levels between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||>0.05
95781754|NCT01093651|191535576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The main effect analysis for area under the glucose tolerance curve over time and between the 2 groups achieved p\<0.04.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The main effect analysis was applied to both rows (timepoint) and categories (groups). It used linear mixed models to simultaneously assess differences in area under the glucose tolerance curves between the DPP4 inhibitor and placebo groups (categories) over time (rows). Pairwise post-hoc contrasts were performed to assess the between and within group differences in outcome measures at each time point.||||<0.04
95812029|NCT02164864|191596763|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||P-values for non-inferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the second step in hierarchy. The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of Dabigatran Etexilate 150mg vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority||0.88|0.58|<.0001
95860885|NCT04518995|191680443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.5|-0.5|0.9765
95781755|NCT01093651|191535577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. The non-paramteric test for adverse event cummulative frequency between the 2 groups did not achieve p\<0.05 (not statistically significant)|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test of cell frequencies||||>0.05
95781756|NCT03611582|191535585|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-10.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-8.57|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-8.57|-11.97|<.0001
95781757|NCT03611582|191535585|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-11.0|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-11.00|-14.34|<0.0001
95781758|NCT03611582|191535586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|9.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment policy estimand||9.26|4.04|<0.0001
95781759|NCT03611582|191535586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.64|17.81|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||17.81|7.64|<0.0001
95781760|NCT01601067|191535634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.002
95781761|NCT01601067|191535635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||heavy drinking days|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.91
95781762|NCT02412878|191535763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.716|3.598||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|One-sided p-value from CMH test stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||3.598|1.716|< 0.0001
95781763|NCT02412878|191535763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.466|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.563|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.|||3.563|1.707|<0.0001
95956767|NCT00526097|191885738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956768|NCT00526097|191885739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95956769|NCT00526097|191885740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95998824|NCT03191786|191973825|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Fatigue (multi items QLQ-C30)||1.42|0.55|0.620
95781764|NCT02412878|191535764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.883||Progression-free survival, overall response rate, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|To ensure proper control of type I error, analysis of PFS was performed under a group sequential design framework with the stopping boundaries constructed using the Lan-DeMets spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming approach. The inferential comparison between the 2 treatment groups for PFS used the 1-sided log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors. A 1-sided p-value was compared against the prespecified adjusted alpha value of 0.011 to determine significance.||0.883|0.544|0.0014
95781765|NCT02412878|191535764|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.913|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.913|0.567|0.0033
95781766|NCT02412878|191535765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|1.138||Progression-free survival, overall response, and overall survival were tested using a fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate below one-sided 0.025 level.|Log Rank|One-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by the randomization factors (ISS stage at study entry, refractory to bortezomib treatment, and age).|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||1.138|0.563|0.1070
95781767|NCT02412878|191535765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.164|||Log Rank|One-sided unstratified log-rank test|Hazard ratio (once weekly carfilzomib 20/70 mg/m²/ twice weekly carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m²) was estimated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.164|0.578|0.1326
95781768|NCT02081014|191535785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95956770|NCT00526097|191885741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||<0.0001
95781769|NCT02081014|191535785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95956771|NCT00526097|191885742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.6773
95781770|NCT02081014|191535785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95998825|NCT03191786|191973826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.26|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Cough (single item QLQ-LC13)||2.26|0.60|0.653
95998826|NCT03191786|191973826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.97|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Chest pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||0.97|0.27|0.036
95998827|NCT03191786|191973826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Dyspnoea (multiple items QLQ-LC13)||1.11|0.45|0.125
95781771|NCT02081014|191535786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781772|NCT02081014|191535786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781773|NCT02081014|191535786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781774|NCT02081014|191535787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point point ratio|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781775|NCT02081014|191535787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781776|NCT02081014|191535787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781777|NCT02081014|191535788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781778|NCT02081014|191535788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781779|NCT02081014|191535788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781780|NCT02081014|191535789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point esimate ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781781|NCT02081014|191535789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95956772|NCT00526097|191885743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0002
95956773|NCT00526097|191885744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0001
95998828|NCT03191786|191973826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||Log Rank|||Time to deterioration for Arm and/or shoulder pain (single item QLQ-LC13)||1.39|0.41|0.362
95781782|NCT02081014|191535789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781783|NCT02081014|191535790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781784|NCT02081014|191535790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781785|NCT02081014|191535790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781786|NCT02081014|191535791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781787|NCT02081014|191535791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781788|NCT02081014|191535791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781789|NCT02081014|191535792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781790|NCT02081014|191535792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||<0.05
95781791|NCT02081014|191535792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781792|NCT02081014|191535793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3693.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1520.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95781793|NCT02081014|191535793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7548.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1542.93||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95781794|NCT02081014|191535793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3854.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1533.95|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95781795|NCT02081014|191535794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-144.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|741.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95781796|NCT02081014|191535794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1665.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|696.97|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95781797|NCT02081014|191535794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1520.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|700.92|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95781798|NCT02081014|191535795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781799|NCT02081014|191535795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781800|NCT02081014|191535795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781801|NCT02081014|191535796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781802|NCT02081014|191535796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781803|NCT02081014|191535796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geometric means|||||>0.05
95781804|NCT01026818|191535799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.06||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||2.06|0.63|0.675
95781805|NCT01026818|191535799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.65||The Type I error was controlled for multiplicity using a Bonferroni-Hommel procedure. First the largest p-value for the odds ratio to placebo was tested at the 5% level and in case of no rejection the second p-value was tested at the 2.5% level.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||A sample size of 412 randomized participants provided 84% power to detect a 20% difference in the proportions for the 3 treatment groups. The sample size allowed for a 20% withdrawal during the study.||1.65|0.48|0.704
95781806|NCT01026818|191535800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.99||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||3.99|1.16|0.016
95781807|NCT01026818|191535800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.85||P-value is for Month 9.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.85|0.79|0.210
95781808|NCT01026818|191535800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.28||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.28|0.79|0.273
95781809|NCT01026818|191535800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.29||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment group, country, and age group.||||2.29|0.80|0.259
95781810|NCT01026818|191535801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.83||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.83|0.76|0.007
95781811|NCT01026818|191535801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean differences|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|3.6||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.60|-0.41|0.118
95956774|NCT00526097|191885745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline||||||0.0005
95781812|NCT01026818|191535801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.31||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.31|-1.79|0.802
95781813|NCT01026818|191535801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.79||P-value is for Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.79|-2.23|0.830
95781814|NCT01026818|191535801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|4.03||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.03|-0.78|0.184
95781815|NCT01026818|191535801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.16||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.16|-1.54|0.500
95781816|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.34||95.0|-0.39|1.14||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.14|-0.39|0.340
95812030|NCT02164864|191596763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.63||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fourth step in hierarchy.||0.63|0.42|<0.001
95812031|NCT02164864|191596763|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88||unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Regression, Cox|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model||A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the sixth step in hierarchy.|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|0.88|0.58|0.0020
95781817|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.84|-0.67|0.821
95812032|NCT02164864|191596764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.95||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||3.95|0.25|0.9862
95781818|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.28|-0.36|0.268
95781819|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.80|-0.80|0.998
95781820|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.97||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.97|-0.68|0.728
95781821|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.28||P-value is for orgasmic function - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.28|-1.33|0.203
95812033|NCT02164864|191596764|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.64|||Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||6.64|0.38|0.5277
95812034|NCT02164864|191596765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.25|0.50|0.8853
95781822|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.49|-0.46|0.950
95781823|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.48||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.48|-0.45|0.950
95781824|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.51||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.39|0.792
95781825|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.55|-0.34|0.631
95781826|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.58||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.58|-0.38|0.691
95781827|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.41||P-value is for sexual desire - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.41|-0.53|0.801
95781828|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.92||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.92|-0.06|0.065
95781829|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.51||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.51|-0.43|0.274
95781830|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.52||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.52|-0.55|0.359
95781831|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.11||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.11|-0.93|0.863
95781832|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.66||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.66|-0.53|0.314
95781833|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||P-value is for intercourse satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.01|-1.13|0.910
95781834|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.78||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.78|-0.40|0.532
95781835|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.73|-0.43|0.620
95781836|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.51||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.51|-0.67|0.792
95956775|NCT00526097|191885746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
95956776|NCT00526097|191885747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
95956777|NCT00526097|191885748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
95956778|NCT00526097|191885749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Exact p-value|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0058
95956779|NCT00526097|191885750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.798||95.0|-3.4|4.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.5|-3.4|0.7980
95998829|NCT03191786|191973826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Log Rank|||Time to Confirmed Deterioration for the Composite of the 3 following symptoms: cough, dyspnoea (multi-items QLQ-LC13) and chest pain||0.99|0.46|0.041
95998830|NCT03191786|191973827|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.15|0.61|0.272
95812035|NCT02164864|191596765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.61|0.15|0.2380
95812036|NCT02164864|191596766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.88||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.88|0.72|0.5252
95812037|NCT02164864|191596766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.47|0.5670
95812038|NCT02164864|191596767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.65||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.65|0.76|0.5579
95812039|NCT02164864|191596767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.34||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.34|0.51|0.4414
95812040|NCT02164864|191596768|OTHER|Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.41|||Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.41|0.94|0.0861
95998831|NCT03191786|191973828|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Histologic subtype, PD-L1 IHC status and brain metastases (Yes/No) were added as stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Log Rank|||SP263 TC\>=1%||1.18|0.64|0.366
95998832|NCT05405166|191973829|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater or equal to 0.839.|Relative risk|1.008||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.126|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|||1.126|0.903|0.0006
95728989|NCT02300025|191428013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.2|143.4|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between test and reference treatments obtained from mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The least squares (LS) means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||143.4|59.2|
95812041|NCT02164864|191596768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.04||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.04|0.66|0.6144
95812042|NCT02164864|191596769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.67||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.67|0.63|0.4803
95812043|NCT02164864|191596769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.83||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.83|0.42|0.8537
95812044|NCT02164864|191596770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.66||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.66|0.19|0.9388
95812045|NCT02164864|191596770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.93||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.93|0.03|0.3030
95998833|NCT05405166|191973830|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.316|1.784||||||||1.784|1.316|
96002030|NCT04003155|191981627|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001||95.0|-2.89|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.25|-2.89|<0.001
96002031|NCT04003155|191981627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
95781837|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.34|-0.82|0.410
95781838|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.955||95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.65|-0.68|0.955
95781839|NCT01026818|191535802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7||P-value is for overall satisfaction - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.70|-0.59|0.868
95781840|NCT01026818|191535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.56||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.56|0.10|0.005
95781841|NCT01026818|191535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-value is for Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.45|0.01|0.041
95781842|NCT01026818|191535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035||95.0|0.02|0.54||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.54|0.02|0.035
95781843|NCT01026818|191535803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38||P-value is for Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.38|-0.12|0.316
95781844|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.76||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.76|-0.25|0.086
95781845|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.45||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.45|-1.50|0.637
95781846|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.53||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.53|-2.18|0.885
95781847|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.25||P-value is for sexual relationship - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.25|-2.34|0.972
95781848|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.36||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.36|-0.81|0.621
95781849|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.35||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.35|-0.78|0.598
95781850|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.21||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.21|-1.10|0.923
95781851|NCT01026818|191535804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.24||P-value is for self-esteem - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.24|-1.03|0.857
95781852|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|14.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|25.83||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.83|3.92|0.008
95781853|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|22.04||P-value is for Q1 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.04|0.63|0.038
95812046|NCT02164864|191596771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.4||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||4.40|0.79|0.1546
95962285|NCT03721172|191896371|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|2-sided 95% CIs based on the stratified Newcombe method. Stratification were based on baseline sPGA (2 \[mild\] vs 3 \[moderate\]).|||36.3|18.6|<0.0001
95812047|NCT02164864|191596771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.81||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||2.81|0.35|0.9789
95781854|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|21.0||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||21.00|-3.18|0.148
95781855|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|17.23||P-value is for Q1 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.23|-6.48|0.373
95781856|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|20.66||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.66|1.14|0.029
95781857|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|14.17||P-value is for Q1 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||14.17|-5.12|0.357
95781858|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|16.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|26.98||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||26.98|5.68|0.003
95781859|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.04||P-value is for Q2 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.04|-3.80|0.212
95998834|NCT05405166|191973831|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of relative risk 95% CI was greater or equal to 0.6312.|Relative risk|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.215|||Farrington-Manning||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Farrington-Manning method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.215|0.841|<0.0001
96002032|NCT04003155|191981627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
95781860|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|16.68||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.68|-7.58|0.461
95781861|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|10.63||P-value is for Q2 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.63|-13.16|0.835
95781862|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|25.46||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||25.46|1.27|0.030
95781863|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|17.89||P-value is for Q2 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.89|-5.97|0.326
95781864|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.019||95.0|1.98|22.15||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||22.15|1.98|0.019
95781865|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|12.35||P-value is for Q3 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.35|-7.38|0.621
95812048|NCT02164864|191596772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.79||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.79|1.00|0.0484
96002033|NCT04003155|191981628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001||95.0|-3.25|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.52|-3.25|<0.001
95781866|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.968||95.0|-11.03|11.49||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||11.49|-11.03|0.968
95781867|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|5.54||P-value is for Q3 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.54|-16.55|0.327
95781868|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|24.09||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||24.09|-0.76|0.066
95781869|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|17.34||P-value is for Q3 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.34|-7.17|0.415
95998835|NCT05405166|191973832|NON_INFERIORITY|Applied anti-log procedure to convert original scale. Non-inferiority was concluded if lower limit of ratio of geometric mean 90% CI was greater or equal to 0.80.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.302|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.158|1.465||||||A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.465|1.158|
95998836|NCT05405166|191973833|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.164|||Fisher Exact||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||0.164|0.022|<0.0001
95781870|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|20.94||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.94|2.79|0.011
95781871|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|12.72||P-value is for Q4 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.72|-5.03|0.394
95860886|NCT04518995|191680443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||0.8|-0.3|0.3559
95860887|NCT04518995|191680444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
95781872|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|7.41||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.41|-11.28|0.684
95860888|NCT04518995|191680444|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.39|0.27|<0.0001
95860889|NCT00856518|191680465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline MEP value comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.899
95781873|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.66||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.02||P-value is for Q4 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.02|-16.30|0.126
95781874|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|23.57||P-value is for Q4 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.57|-0.53|0.061
95781875|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|16.95||P-value is for Q4 - Month13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||16.95|-6.83|0.403
95781876|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.013||95.0|2.38|20.38||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||20.38|2.38|0.013
95781877|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|12.49||P-value is for Q5 - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||12.49|-5.11|0.410
95781878|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|6.22||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.22|-11.92|0.537
95956780|NCT00526097|191885751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.6129||95.0|-3.0|5.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.1|-3.0|0.6129
95956781|NCT00526097|191885752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3567||95.0|-2.4|6.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.7|-2.4|0.3567
95781879|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.3||P-value is for Q5 - Month 10.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||0.30|-17.48|0.058
95781880|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|11.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|23.41||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||23.41|-0.54|0.061
95781881|NCT01026818|191535815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.4||P-value is for Q5 - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||17.40|-6.23|0.353
95781882|NCT01026818|191535816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|2.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||2.08|-12.32|0.162
95781883|NCT01026818|191535816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.603||95.0|-8.99|5.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, baseline, age group, and country.||||5.24|-8.99|0.603
95781884|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|8.8||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||8.80|-1.82|0.196
95781885|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.75||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.75|-4.69|0.841
95781886|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.4||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||7.40|-3.45|0.474
95781887|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|5.41||P-value is for Urinary Incontinence - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.41|-5.21|0.971
95781888|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.17||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.17|-1.03|0.236
95781889|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|3.56||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||3.56|-1.52|0.429
95860890|NCT00856518|191680465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response||||||0.946
95860891|NCT00856518|191680465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|EMST arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison||||||0.00042
95781890|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.24||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.24|-1.12|0.252
95781891|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.11||P-value is for Urinary Irritative/Obstructive - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.11|-1.08|0.251
95781892|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.95||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||1.95|-3.03|0.671
95781893|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|2.23||P-value is for Bowel - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.23|-2.64|0.868
95781894|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.57||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.57|-2.37|0.938
95781895|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.12||P-value is for Bowel - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.12|-2.69|0.813
95781896|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|15.99||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||15.99|3.10|0.004
95781897|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.0||P-value is for Sexual - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||9.00|-3.63|0.403
95781898|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|10.69||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||10.69|-4.34|0.406
95781899|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|6.53||P-value is for Sexual - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||6.53|-8.11|0.832
95781900|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.79||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||4.79|-0.99|0.197
95781901|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.72||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 9.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||5.72|0.06|0.045
95781902|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.1||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.10|-3.16|0.692
95781903|NCT01026818|191535820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.46||P-value is for Hormonal - Month 13.5.|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model included baseline, treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment, age group, and age group-by-treatment (if significant at p\<0.10).||||2.46|-2.65|0.943
95781904|NCT01026818|191535821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|7.93||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||7.93|0.47|0.028
95781905|NCT01026818|191535821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.14||P-value is for length.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||2.14|-5.20|0.413
95781906|NCT01026818|191535821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|5.3||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||5.30|-0.55|0.112
95860892|NCT00856518|191680465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-MEP comparison|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
95781907|NCT01026818|191535821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.03||P-value is for girth.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline, age group and country.||||6.03|0.29|0.031
95781908|NCT02634801|191535826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|6.77|||Fisher Exact|||||6.77|2.46|<.0001
95781909|NCT02634801|191535826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Fisher Exact|||||1.56|1.06|0.0137
95781910|NCT00424593|191535907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Model included treatment, non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use (Yes/No), investigator, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pain severity, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Repeated Measures Analysis|||||||0.004
95781911|NCT00424593|191535908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
95781912|NCT00424593|191535909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for 13 Week Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95781913|NCT00424593|191535910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95781914|NCT00424593|191535910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.014
95781915|NCT00424593|191535910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Night Pain Score Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95781916|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95781917|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95781918|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Average Pain Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95781919|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95781920|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for General Activity Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.068
95781921|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Mood Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95781922|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Walking Ability Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95781923|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for Normal Work Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.024
95781924|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Relations With People Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95781925|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
95781926|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.013
95781927|NCT00424593|191535911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95781928|NCT00424593|191535912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.092
95781929|NCT00424593|191535913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
95781930|NCT00424593|191535914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.087
95781931|NCT00424593|191535915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.329
95781932|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
95781933|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.220
95781934|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
95781935|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for General Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.041
95781936|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.093
95781937|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
95781938|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Role-Emotional Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.170
95781939|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for Role-Physical Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
95781940|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for Social Functioning Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
95781941|NCT00424593|191535916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.040
95781942|NCT00424593|191535917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.117
95781943|NCT00424593|191535918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value for Absenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95781944|NCT00424593|191535918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||P-value for Presenteeism Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.452
95781945|NCT00424593|191535918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Work Productivity Loss Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.736
95781946|NCT00424593|191535918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Work Activity Impairment Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95781947|NCT00424593|191535919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
95781948|NCT00424593|191535920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
95998837|NCT05405166|191973834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.036||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|2.908||Stratified on multiple myeloma (MM) isotype (immunoglobulin G \[IgG\] versus non-IgG), body weight (\<=65 kg, \>65 to \<=85 kg, and \>85 kg), and number of prior lines (1 to 2 versus \>=3) according to IRT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Two-sided 95% CI estimated using the Wald method.|A hierarchical test procedure was used to control the Type I error. Testing was performed sequentially for first 4 secondary endpoints in the order they are presented only if both co-primary endpoints achieved non-inferiority and continued when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.908|1.425|0.0001
95781949|NCT00424593|191535920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0||||P-value for Depression Subscale Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.262
95781950|NCT00424593|191535921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.046
95781951|NCT00424593|191535922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on rank transformation.||||||0.008
95781952|NCT00424593|191535923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
95781953|NCT00424593|191535924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764||95.0||||P-value for SBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.764
95781954|NCT00424593|191535924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for DBP Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.093
95781955|NCT00424593|191535925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for Week 13 Change from Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.008
95781956|NCT03077607|191535956|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant % coefficient of variation (CV) of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.26|172.87||||||Confidence interval (CI): 90 percent (%) CI on geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA)||172.87|113.26|
95781957|NCT03077607|191535957|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|150.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.47|166.43||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||166.43|136.47|
95812049|NCT02164864|191596772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.47|0.71|0.8903
95781958|NCT03077607|191535958|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|156.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.58|177.42||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with itraconazole and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||177.42|137.58|
95781959|NCT03077607|191535959|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|136.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.2|180.87||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||180.87|103.20|
95781960|NCT03077607|191535960|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|105.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.04|113.24||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||113.24|98.04|
95781961|NCT03077607|191535961|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of 15 participants was selected based on the estimated within participant %CV of 42% and precision/half width of 90% CI for Test Reference comparison on log scale of 0.259.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|102.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.02|110.74||||||CI: 90% CI on geometric LS mean ratio (Test/Reference), test is talazoparib in Combination with rifampin and reference is talazoparib alone. Statistical data was calculated by using ANOVA.||110.74|94.02|
95781962|NCT04278924|191535984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.59|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|73.35|||Barnard's test||95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.35|0.81|=0.056
95781963|NCT04278924|191535984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.42|||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|71.38|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.38|-4.24|=0.088
95781964|NCT04278924|191535984|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.83|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.21|87.29|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||87.29|29.21|=0.001
95781965|NCT04278924|191535985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.56|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.11|81.51|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||81.51|25.11|=0.001
95781966|NCT04278924|191535985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|78.95|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.95|19.63|=0.004
95781967|NCT04278924|191535985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.24|94.99|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||94.99|51.24|<0.001
95860893|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||EMST arm vs. Sham arm baseline total score and subscale score comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||> 0.05
95860894|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response for total score and all subscale scores except for Burden and Pharyngeal domains||||||> 0.05
95781968|NCT04278924|191535986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.9|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|67.75|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||67.75|-7.22|=0.120
95781969|NCT04278924|191535986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.23|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|73.77|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||73.77|-0.83|=0.060
95781970|NCT04278924|191535986|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.14|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|82.42|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||82.42|21.33|=0.003
95781971|NCT04278924|191535987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0|||=|0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|78.17|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||78.17|-16.28|=0.187
95781972|NCT04278924|191535987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||=|0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|71.78|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||71.78|-28.85|=0.315
95781973|NCT04278924|191535987|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|100.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.12|100.0|||Barnard's test||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen method.|||100.00|35.12|=0.004
95781974|NCT04767529|191535988|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|41.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 28 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 28 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||41.4|3.8|0.025
95781975|NCT04767529|191535988|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|22.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|43.3||Threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors is used for comparison between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|% difference from placebo (efruxifermin 50 mg - placebo)|Comparison between proportion of participants in efruxifermin 50 mg group who met the primary endpoint vs the placebo group||43.3|1.6|0.036
95781976|NCT04767529|191535989|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|21.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|45.0||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||||45.0|-1.3|0.070
95781977|NCT04767529|191535989|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|51.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|72.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||72.7|31.2|<0.001
95781978|NCT04767529|191535990|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|31.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|50.9||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparison between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||50.9|12.9|0.002
95781979|NCT04767529|191535990|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|61.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|79.4||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||79.4|44.1|<0.001
95781980|NCT04767529|191535990|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|38.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|60.7||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||60.7|17.2|0.002
95781981|NCT04767529|191535990|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|33.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|55.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo group||Week 96||55.8|10.5|0.006
95860895|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression Test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Burden domain||||||0.014
95781982|NCT04767529|191535991|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|20.0||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|39.5||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo group||Week 24||39.5|0.4|0.053
95781983|NCT04767529|191535991|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|41.2||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 24||41.2|-1.5|0.069
95781984|NCT04767529|191535991|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|19.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|42.8||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 28 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||42.8|-4.8|0.123
95781985|NCT04767529|191535991|SUPERIORITY||percent difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|70.2||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for stratification factors was used for comparisons between the efruxifermin 50 mg and placebo groups||Week 96||70.2|27.7|<0.001
95781986|NCT04767529|191535992|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-4.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM: fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariate for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-4.71|-9.09|<0.001
95781987|NCT04767529|191535992|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|-7.02||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-7.02|-11.47|<0.001
95860896|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Plum Ordinal Regression test|EMST arm vs. Sham arm group comparison of treatment response in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.022
95781988|NCT04767529|191535992|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.18||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 28 mg and placebo groups||-1.18|-6.39|0.005
95781989|NCT04767529|191535992|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-3.25||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM:fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline as covariates for comparison||Percent change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction between the EFX 50 mg and placebo groups||-3.25|-8.38|<0.001
95781990|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.17|-32.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-32.11|-71.17|<0.001
95812050|NCT02164864|191596773|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.53||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the fifth step in hierarchy.||1.53|0.90|0.1128
95812051|NCT02164864|191596773|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.73||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.73|0.98|0.0720
95812052|NCT02164864|191596773|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.39||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.39|0.68|0.8750
95812053|NCT02164864|191596774|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.51||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.51|0.79|0.6080
95860897|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison for the total SWAL-QOL score and subscale scores except for the Burden and Mental Health domains.|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||>0.05
95998838|NCT03167619|191973903|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.18||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.27|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.27|0.11|0.0023
95781991|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.63|-35.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-35.71|-74.63|<0.001
95781992|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.73|-20.27||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-20.27|-65.73|<0.001
95781993|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.39|-25.24||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in triglycerides (mg/dL)||-25.24|-70.39|<0.001
95812054|NCT02164864|191596774|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded from|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.41|0.65|0.8348
95812055|NCT02164864|191596775|NON_INFERIORITY|All non-inferiority tests were based on a margin of 1.38.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||P values for noninferiority were calculated at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|The upper bound of the Wald confidence interval (CI) of the HR of All Dabigatran Etexilate (110mg and 150 mg) vs Warfarin (one-sided 97.5%) was compared with this noninferiority margin for the testing of non-inferiority|A pre-defined hierarchical testing approach was used. This was the third step in hierarchy.||1.29|0.84|0.0047
95812056|NCT02164864|191596775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43||Wald 2-sided p-value from (stratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional hazard model is stratified by age, non-elderly vs elderly \[\<70 or \>=70 in Japan and \<80 or \>=80 years old elsewhere\].|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.43|0.90|0.3002
95812057|NCT02164864|191596775|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||Wald 2-sided p-value from (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model|Regression, Cox|unstratified Cox proportional hazards model was used and elderly patients outside the USA were excluded|Hazard Ratio (HR) and Wald confidence intervals are derived from a Cox proportional-hazard model|||1.19|0.67|0.4432
95812058|NCT00261833|191596787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.618||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.261||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval \[CI\] being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) was a linear mixed model with country, inspiration state, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.261|-0.024|0.029
95812059|NCT00261833|191596787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.74||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.42||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (TLC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.420|0.059|0.017
95812060|NCT00261833|191596787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.478||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|1.18||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in annual lung density decline.|Analysis of the annual rate of change in lung density (FRC) was a linear mixed model with country, time since baseline treatment, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and participant and participant-by-time interaction as random coefficients at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.180|-0.223|0.090
95860898|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.038
95998839|NCT03167619|191973904|SUPERIORITY||MLE assuming exponential distribution|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.19|||Chi-squared|Comparison to mean of historical control|Presence of patients with long PFS may have violated exponential assumption.|Assumed median PFS = 2.0 months as historical control, transformed to rate of 0.35/month||0.19|0.07|<0.0001
95781994|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|14.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.17|7.92|<0.001
95781995|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|15.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||15.57|9.35|<0.001
95781996|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|10.23||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||10.23|1.84|0.005
95781997|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.65||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.65|5.30|<0.001
95781998|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.28|-4.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-4.53|-24.28|0.005
95781999|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Median Difference (Net)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-3.76|-23.50|0.007
95782000|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|14.04||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||14.04|-13.86|0.990
95782001|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|13.71||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in LDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||13.71|-14.07|0.980
95782002|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|-11.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.71|-33.58|<0.001
95860899|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|Sham arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.031
95998840|NCT01021007|191973922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.005
95998841|NCT01021007|191973923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95956782|NCT00526097|191885753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.1407||95.0|-0.7|4.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.6|-0.7|0.1407
95956783|NCT00526097|191885754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.013||95.0|0.9|7.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||7.7|0.9|0.0130
95782003|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||-11.74|-33.56|<0.001
95782004|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|9.56||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||9.56|-21.72|0.443
95782005|NCT04767529|191535993|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|7.36||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means and differences, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX and placebo group|Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in non-HDL cholesterol (mg/dL)||7.36|-23.77|0.299
95782006|NCT04767529|191536002|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|2.72||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.72|-1.96|0.750
95782007|NCT04767529|191536002|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-0.09||Threshold for significance set at p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||-0.09|-4.75|0.042
95812061|NCT00261833|191596791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC+FRC combined) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects and inspiration state as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.26|0.058
95812062|NCT00261833|191596791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|1.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.67||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (i.e., the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (TLC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.67|-0.03|0.028
95956784|NCT00526097|191885755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.5849||95.0|-3.0|5.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||5.3|-3.0|0.5849
95962286|NCT03721172|191896372|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.1|||Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||-2.1|-3.7|<0.0001
95782008|NCT04767529|191536002|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (28 mg EFX - placebo) in body weight (kg)||5.29|-2.90|0.564
95782009|NCT04767529|191536002|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of LS mean change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in body weight (kg)||2.14|-6.02|0.348
95782010|NCT04767529|191536003|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||0.4|-4.5|0.102
95782011|NCT04767529|191536003|SUPERIORITY|Week 24|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.8|-5.8|0.009
95782012|NCT04767529|191536003|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Threshold for significance set at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 28 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 28 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-0.5|-6.2|0.021
95860900|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Burden domain||||||0.027
95860901|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Mental Health domain||||||0.016
95962287|NCT05238103|191896387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95956785|NCT00526097|191885756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7543||95.0|-3.2|4.4||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||4.4|-3.2|0.7543
95782013|NCT04767529|191536003|SUPERIORITY|Week 96|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Means, SEs, and p-values are from a MMRM with fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, post-baseline visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline as a covariate for comparisons between the EFX 50 mg and placebo group|Treatment comparison of change from baseline (EFX 50 mg - placebo) in Liver Stiffness Measurement (kPa)||-3.7|-9.4|<0.001
95782014|NCT04847232|191536004|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.26|0.76|0.867
95812063|NCT00261833|191596791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in lung density(adjusted P15)|0.89||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.34||A 1-sided P-value less than 0.025 and a positive estimate of the treatment difference Zemaira® minus placebo (ie, the lower bound of the 95% CI being greater than zero) will indicate superiority of Zemaira® compared with Placebo.|95% confidence interval||A mixed model ANCOVA was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Zemaira® - placebo) in the change in lung density.|Analysis of the change in lung density (FRC) from baseline to Month 24 was a mixed effects ANCOVA model with country, treatment, and baseline lung density as fixed effects as a repeated random effect at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||2.34|-0.57|0.115
95812064|NCT00402987|191596806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0003||95.0|5.5|17.9|||generalized linear model|p-value was calculated using Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||Null hypothesis: No difference in SPID2 (PI-VAS) at two hours between celecoxib 100 mg and placebo. Sample size was based on an expected effect size of 0.42 (from earlier studies), 80% power and an alpha of 0.05.||17.9|5.5|0.0003
95860902|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Pharyngeal domain||||||0.007
95956786|NCT00526097|191885757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.0273||95.0|0.4|6.6||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||6.6|0.4|0.0273
95956787|NCT00526097|191885758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.129||95.0|-0.4|3.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||3.0|-0.4|0.1290
95956788|NCT00526097|191885759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.378||95.0|-0.8|2.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||2.0|-0.8|0.3780
95956789|NCT00526097|191885760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
95956790|NCT00526097|191885761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.7||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
95956791|NCT00526097|191885762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007||95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.1|-0.3|0.0070
95956792|NCT00526097|191885763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-1.0||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
95782015|NCT04847232|191536005|OTHER|Test of OR = 1|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.26|||Regression, Logistic||SZC relative to Placebo|||4.26|2.64|<.0001
95782016|NCT04847232|191536006|OTHER|Test of HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||1.56|0.80|0.510
95782017|NCT04401202|191536007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95782018|NCT04348500|191536031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the use of clazakizumab as a treatment compared to placebo in reducing or eliminating the incidence of severe adverse events among patients with COVID-19.||||0.10
95812065|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.212
95860903|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Saliva domain||||||0.036
95860904|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Fear domain||||||0.004
95782019|NCT04348500|191536037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that there is no change in the need for mechanical ventilation and/or ECMO at 14 days after the first administered dose in comparison to placebo.||||0.10
95782020|NCT00703118|191536052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|56.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||56.7|36.8|<0.001
95782021|NCT00703118|191536052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of response|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|59.7||Overall significance level was set at 5% (two-sided). Adjustment of significance level for multiple comparisons was carried out using the Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|Included: treatment, type of prior response (relapser, partial responder, null-responder) and their interaction, and baseline HCV RNA as a covariate|Difference in percentage of response was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Null hypothesis: Assuming a 55% response rate in the groups receiving Treatment T12/PR48 or T12(DS)/PR48, a 29% response rate in the group receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48, a 2-sided continuity corrected Chi-squared test, with an overall significance level of 5% and a 2:2:1 randomization, a sample size of 140 patients receiving Treatment T12(DS)/PR48 and 70 patients in receiving Treatment Pbo/PR48 provided a power of approximately 90% to demonstrate a statistically significant difference.||59.7|39.9|<0.001
95782022|NCT00002525|191536082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178||||||one-sided log-rank test p value|Log Rank|||||||0.178
95782023|NCT00002525|191536083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.847||||||two-sided log rank test|Log Rank|||||||0.847
95812066|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.056
95812067|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
95860905|NCT00856518|191680467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|EMST arm post vs. pre-treatment comparison in Total SWAL-QOL score||||||0.016
95782024|NCT03304184|191536086|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0001
95782025|NCT03304184|191536086|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in global base changes scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over timepoints|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0005
95782026|NCT03304184|191536087|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between two groups for treatment|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0910
95812068|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
95812069|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812070|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812071|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95962288|NCT05238103|191896388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For systolic blood pressure||||0.40
95962289|NCT05238103|191896388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For diastolic blood pressure||||0.25
95962290|NCT05238103|191896389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.27
95962291|NCT05238103|191896390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95962292|NCT05238103|191896391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95962293|NCT05238103|191896392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global physical health score||||0.16
95962294|NCT05238103|191896392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For: Global mental health score||||0.71
95962295|NCT05238103|191896393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95962296|NCT05238103|191896394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
95962297|NCT05238103|191896395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95962298|NCT05238103|191896396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
95962299|NCT05238103|191896397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95962300|NCT05238103|191896398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95782027|NCT03304184|191536087|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in 49 questions on oral health related quality of life scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over time points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison between the two arms for treatment time points with analysis|ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0262
95782028|NCT03304184|191536088|EQUIVALENCE|In this analysis, the null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in brief pain inventory scores between the two treatment groups (Photac and Biodentine) over different time points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA||The estimation values were from an average of all values in each arm.|Power was limited sample size between the groups a superiority analysis was not able to be completed, so an equivalence test was used.||||.0289
95782029|NCT00090584|191536101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cumulative success rates|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Lifetable analysis was used to compute the 8 month cumulative success rates.||0.12|-0.12|0.74
95782030|NCT00090584|191536102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.9||Mixed effect repeated measures analysis of variance controlling for study site.|ANOVA|||Test of hypothesis of no difference in change in episodes between the two groups.||5.9|-2.0|0.34
95782031|NCT00090584|191536103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||Repeated measures ANOVA controlling for clinical site.|ANOVA||Difference (group 1 - group 2) in change from baseline to follow-up in voids per day.|Null hypothesis of no difference between arms in change in number of voids per day from baseline to 10 weeks.||0.1|-1.7|0.08
95782032|NCT00090584|191536104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0006||95.0||||Repeated measures ANOVA|Mixed Models Analysis|Main hypothesis tested by F-test for treatment by time interaction (2 and 509 degrees of freedom). No parameters estimated.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between treatment groups in improvement in UDI over time||||0.0006
95782033|NCT00090584|191536105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value for test of time by treatment group interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for study site||Repeated measures analysis of difference in symptom bother over time by treatment group.||||0.0005
95782034|NCT00090584|191536106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in Combination therapy arm to Drug only arm.|Null hypothesis: no difference in satisfaction at 10 weeks||2.92|1.09|0.02
95782035|NCT00090584|191536107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum|Ratio of odds of complete satisfaction in combination therapy group compared to drug only group.|Null hypothesis: No difference in satisfaction at 8 months post intervention||3.70|1.11|0.02
95782036|NCT00090584|191536108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.13||P-value from logistic regression analysis|Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group||5.13|1.27|0.008
95782037|NCT00090584|191536109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|Controlling for clinical site and randomization stratum||Null hypothesis: No difference in perceived improvement at 8 months between women in combination therapy group compared to those in drug only group.||5.52|1.83|<0.0001
95782038|NCT01578499|191536113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|56.8||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Based on a two-sided Χ² test with a significance level of 0.05, and a 10% dropout rate, a sample size of approximately 124 participants was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in ORR4 in the brentuximab vedotin group.||56.8|27.5|<0.001
95782039|NCT01578499|191536114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|33.0||P-value was stratified by baseline disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.0|-2.5|0.0002
95782040|NCT01578499|191536115|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.577|||Log Rank||||Hazard ratio brentuximab vedotin/ comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) with the 95% CI from a stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the explanatory variable and baseline disease diagnosis (MF or pcALCL) as stratification factor.|0.577|0.247|<0.001
95782041|NCT01578499|191536116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate of difference|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||P-value is calculated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model controlling for baseline symptom domain score, eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status score (=0 and ≥1), and disease diagnosis (pcALCL and MF) between the brentuximab vedotin and comparator (methotrexate or bexarotene) arms.||-11.4|-26.7|<0.001
95782042|NCT00678470|191536128|OTHER||Correlation|1.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||||Using Fisher's non-parametric test of associations, correlations were determined between the patients who were intralesional responders with their response at ‡70% change in PASI score.|||0.0003
95782043|NCT00508157|191536129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.14|-2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: log of on-treatment to baseline ratio = log of baseline value, treatment, previous antipsychotic.|Relative difference of Aripiprazole vs. Control Group in terms of (mean % change from baseline/100)+1.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean percent change from baseline in fasting non-HDLC between aripiprazole and the control group at Week 16||-2.66|-19.14|
95782044|NCT00508157|191536130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A relative risk \< 1 favors Aripiprazole over Control Group.||null hypothesis: no difference between Aripiprazole and Control Group||1.06|0.54|
95782045|NCT00477607|191536189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.4|||Fisher Exact|No adjustments. Right one-sided p-value.||H0: pr(Hearing loss arm 1) = pr(Hearing loss arm 2)||11.4|0.4|0.89
95962301|NCT05238103|191896399|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95962302|NCT05238103|191896400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95998842|NCT01021007|191973924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA method using treatment as the factor and the baseline score as a covariate||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95998843|NCT03230097|191973925|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.795|||Regression, Cox|Stratified (by baseline use of antipsychotic medication) Cox proportional hazards model was used. Treatment effect and NAPLS risk score as covariates.|Ratio = BI 409306/placebo.|||2.795|0.258|0.7873
95998844|NCT03230097|191973927|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.77||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.773|7.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 24. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||7.315|-3.773|0.5212
95782046|NCT00477607|191536190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3999||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean (MDA arm 1) = mean (MDA Arm 2)||0.64|-1.03|0.63
95782047|NCT00477607|191536191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|114.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(max dose arm 1) = mean(max dose arm 2)||114.6|-18.1|0.15
95782048|NCT00432276|191536192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.47|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.35|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.||-0.35||
95782049|NCT00432276|191536192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 significance level. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit for the LS mean difference was less than +0.3%.|LS mean difference|-0.42|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.28|||ANCOVA||Least squares means are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Comparison of Change from Baseline at Week 52. The null hypothesis was that the average change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group is inferior to the average change for the pioglitazone titration group. The alternative hypothesis was that the change from Baseline in HbA1c for the alogliptin 25 mg addition group was non-inferior to the change for the pioglitazone titration group for at Week 52.||-0.28||
95812072|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95998845|NCT03230097|191973927|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.18||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.071|9.425|||Mixed Models Analysis||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM), see endpoint description for details.|BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||9.425|-3.071|0.3127
95998846|NCT03230097|191973928|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.99||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.033|2.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.057|-12.033|0.1602
95782050|NCT00432276|191536193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31||Statistical tests and resulting P-values are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule, and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline in HbA1c at Week 42.||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
95864477|NCT03456882|191686802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6346||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.6346
95998847|NCT03230097|191973929|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.749|2.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, positive items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.153|-3.749|0.5858
95998848|NCT03230097|191973929|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.43||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|4.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, negative items score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.462|-1.604|0.3445
95812073|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812074|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95782051|NCT00432276|191536201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-5.7||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and FPG as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-5.7|-16.2|<0.001
95782052|NCT00432276|191536202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of marked hyperglycemia through Week 52.||||<0.001
95782053|NCT00432276|191536203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|Extended Mantel Haenszel Test|Treatment comparison was performed using nonparametric, covariance-adjusted, extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||Comparison of incidence of hyperglycemic rescue through Week 52.||||<0.001
95782054|NCT00432276|191536204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and proinsulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-3.7|0.116
95782055|NCT00432276|191536205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and fasting insulin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.04|-0.58|0.276
95782056|NCT00432276|191536206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.041|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|-0.018||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.018|-0.063|<0.001
95782057|NCT00432276|191536207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.073||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.193||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline fasting C-peptide as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.193|-0.047|0.230
95782058|NCT00432276|191536208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.455||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA insulin resistance as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.455|-0.830|0.567
95782059|NCT00432276|191536209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.963|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.333|20.592||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HOMA beta cell function as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||20.592|5.333|<0.001
95782060|NCT00432276|191536210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline body weight as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.04|-1.03|0.071
95782061|NCT00432276|191536211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-8.6|0.058
95782062|NCT00432276|191536212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.4|-1.7|0.228
95782063|NCT00432276|191536213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.9||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.9|-6.5|0.132
95782064|NCT00432276|191536214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|1.0||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline triglycerides as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.0|-18.3|0.080
95782065|NCT00432276|191536215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0314||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.0012||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline free fatty acid as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.0012|-0.0640|0.059
95782066|NCT00432276|191536216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||2.6|-2.9|0.934
95782067|NCT00432276|191536217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein A2 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.1|-1.3|0.070
95782068|NCT00432276|191536218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein B as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.2|-5.9|0.064
95956793|NCT00526097|191885764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.5||Treatment differences (Bisacodyl - Placebo) were estimated by reference to the adjusted least squares mean differences and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|ANCOVA||Means are adjusted for center effects and baseline value|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including centre as fixed effect and baseline as covariate||-0.5|-0.8|<0.0001
95956794|NCT01990313|191885769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
95956795|NCT00702650|191885833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||One-Sample Binomial (Wald) test, 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95782069|NCT00432276|191536219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline apolipoprotein C-III as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-0.1|-1.0|0.022
95782070|NCT00432276|191536220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.78||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.22||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline PAI-1 as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||5.22|-1.65|0.308
95782071|NCT00432276|191536221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8209||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3209|0.679||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline hsCRP as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.6790|-2.3209|0.283
95956796|NCT00702650|191885838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Sexual Desire based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95956797|NCT00702650|191885838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Overall Sexual Activity Score based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95956798|NCT00702650|191885838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Erection Maintained for Satisfactory Duration based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95956799|NCT00702650|191885838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Positive Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95956800|NCT00702650|191885838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Negative Mood based on a two-sided, paired t-test comparing the Baseline and the Day 120 scores.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95956801|NCT00702650|191885839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||p-value for Physical Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0254
95956802|NCT00702650|191885839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for Mental Component Score based on a one-sample t-test comparing Day 120 and Baseline values.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95956803|NCT00405912|191885912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.51
95956804|NCT00405912|191885912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.25
95782072|NCT00432276|191536222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.27||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|Treatment, study schedule and geographic region as class variables, and baseline metformin dose and baseline adiponectin as covariates.||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||-1.27|-4.57|<0.001
95782073|NCT00432276|191536223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.2||Statistical test and resulting P-value are 2-sided and was evaluated at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of change from Baseline at Week 52.||3.2|-15.4|0.197
95782074|NCT01783821|191536267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Type 3 Wald Test|||Overall p-value of the day by treatment interaction from the random effects model using a type 3 Wald test.||||0.02
95782075|NCT01783821|191536268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between the two arms for the 3 categories.||||0.01
95782076|NCT01783821|191536269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95782077|NCT01783821|191536270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95782078|NCT01783821|191536271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cox Proportional Hazard, Fine/Gray adj.|||||||0.02
95782079|NCT01783821|191536272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95782080|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.002
95782081|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.014
95782082|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.246
95782083|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.103
95782084|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.004
95782085|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782086|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.012
95782087|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.024
95782088|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.009
95782089|NCT02440854|191536283|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.008
95782090|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.027
95782091|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.030
95782092|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.351
95782093|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.143
95782094|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.163
95782095|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
95782096|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
95782097|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.036
95812075|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812076|NCT00402987|191596807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956805|NCT00405912|191885913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.52
95782098|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.043
95956806|NCT00405912|191885913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-sided test||Data were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test for binary outcomes.||||0.73
95782099|NCT02440854|191536284|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.040
95782100|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782101|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.003
96002034|NCT04003155|191981628|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-1.70|-3.40|<0.001
95782102|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782103|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782104|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782105|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782106|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782107|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782108|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782109|NCT02440854|191536285|OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.163
95782110|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.003
95782111|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.009
95782112|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.012
95782113|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.332
95782114|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.029
95782115|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.001
95782116|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.177
95782117|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.436
95782118|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.302
95782119|NCT02440854|191536286|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.291
95782120|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782121|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782122|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782123|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782124|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782125|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782126|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782127|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782128|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.002
95782129|NCT02440854|191536287|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
95782130|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
96002035|NCT04003155|191981628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
96002036|NCT04003155|191981628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
95782131|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782132|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782133|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782134|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782135|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782136|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782137|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782138|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.003
95956807|NCT03730662|191885914|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.13|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.13|<0.001
95956808|NCT03730662|191885914|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.28|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-1.28|<0.001
95956809|NCT03730662|191885915|NON_INFERIORITY|"Although the primary objective is to establish noninferiority, sample size selection is guided by the objective of establishing superiority. The chosen sample size and randomization ratio also provides \>90% power to establish superiority of 10 mg LY3298176 and 15 mg LY3298176 doses to insulin glargine in absence of confounding effects of rescue therapy for persistent severe hyperglycemia (efficacy estimand)."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-0.93|<0.001
95782139|NCT02440854|191536288|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.025
95782140|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782141|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782142|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782143|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782144|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782145|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782146|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782147|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782148|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782149|NCT02440854|191536289|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782150|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782151|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782152|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782153|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782154|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782155|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782156|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782157|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782158|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782159|NCT02440854|191536290|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.002
95782160|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.022
95782161|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782162|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.004
95782163|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.032
95782164|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.066
95782165|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.042
95782166|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.045
95782167|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.014
95782168|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.015
95782169|NCT02440854|191536291|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.462
95782170|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782171|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.004
95782172|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.008
95782173|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.315
95812077|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812078|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812079|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
95956810|NCT03730662|191885916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.8|<0.001
95812080|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
95956811|NCT03730662|191885916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.6|-12.1|<0.001
95956812|NCT03730662|191885916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.8|-14.3|<0.001
95812081|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.014
95812082|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
95812083|NCT00402987|191596808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.365
95812084|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized Linear Model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
95812085|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
95812086|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
95812087|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
95956813|NCT03730662|191885917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.58|3.47|<0.001
95956814|NCT03730662|191885917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|13.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.49|6.31|<0.001
95956815|NCT03730662|191885917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|17.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.89|7.88|<0.001
95956816|NCT03730662|191885918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-3.7|0.672
95782174|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.237
95782175|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||<0.001
95782176|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.002
95782177|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.004
95782178|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.010
95782179|NCT02440854|191536292|OTHER|||||||0.683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.683
95782180|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.062
95782181|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.062
95782182|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.027
95782183|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.170
95782184|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.271
95782185|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.002
95782186|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.003
95782187|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.157
95782188|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.064
95782189|NCT02440854|191536293|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.439
95782190|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.388
95956817|NCT03730662|191885918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-8.2|0.134
95782191|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
95782192|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
95782193|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782194|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.508
95956818|NCT03730662|191885918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.4|-12.6|<0.001
95962303|NCT05238103|191896406|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 12.5 meters was chosen to represent about 40% of the minimum important difference of 30 meters in the 6 minute walk test as identified in previous studies. For sample size calculation, to allow for an attrition rate of 20% during follow up after randomization, a total of 200 (100 per group) participants were needed to be recruited and then randomized in a 1:1 ration to Intervention vs. Control groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-9.1||||t-test, 1 sided|||Significance testing: Generalized regression model|||-9.1|0.04
95782195|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782196|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782197|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782198|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782199|NCT02440854|191536294|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782200|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782201|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782202|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782203|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782204|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782205|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782206|NCT02440854|191536295|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782207|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
95782208|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782209|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.607
95782210|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.774
95782211|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782212|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.453
95962304|NCT03735121|191896409|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval \[CI\] of the geometric mean ratio is greater than or equal to (≥) the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.24||||||||1.24|0.88|
95782213|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.688
95782214|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782215|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.250
95782216|NCT02440854|191536296|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782217|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.077
95782218|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||<0.001
95782219|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.006
95782220|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.344|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.344
95782221|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.146
95998849|NCT03230097|191973929|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.71||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.772|11.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BI 409306 vs. placebo of change from baseline at week 52, total score. Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS) risk score, baseline use of antipsychotic medication and continuous fixed covariates of baseline score and baseline-by-visit interaction.||11.196|-7.772|0.7154
96002037|NCT04003155|191981629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.012||95.0|-0.27|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.012
95812088|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812089|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956819|NCT01309243|191885922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL (response rate, as defined by the snapshot analysis algorithm) at Week 48.~Alternative hypothesis: The FTC/RPV/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the EFV/FTC/TDF group with respect to the percentage of subjects achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48."|Difference in the response rates|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|9.2|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|"The analysis was to assess the noninferiority of FTC/RPV/TDF versus EFV/FTC/TDF using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12% (lower bound of CI \> -12%).~700 subjects allocated 1:1 to either treatment arm was predicted to give \> 95% power when the proportion of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is 80% at Week 48."||9.2|-1.1|
95956820|NCT01309243|191885923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|11.5|||||The baseline stratum-weighted (HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100,000 and \> 100,000 copies/mL) difference in virologic success rates and its 95% CI were from baseline HIV-1 RNA adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||11.5|-0.6|
95956821|NCT01309243|191885924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|11.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|32.0||The p-value, and difference in least square means (LSM) and its 95% CI are from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||32|-11|0.34
95956822|NCT01309243|191885925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|20.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|49.0||The p-value, and difference in LSM and its 95% CI are from ANOVA with treatment and baseline HIV-1 RNA levels (≤ 100,000, \> 100,000 copies/mL) as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||49|-9|0.17
95956823|NCT01309243|191885926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95956824|NCT01309243|191885927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95956825|NCT01309243|191885928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95956826|NCT01309243|191885929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the difference in change from baseline at Week 48 is from ANOVA with treatment as fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95956827|NCT01850823|191885932|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence based on Test/Reference Ratio and 90% confidence interval (as per OGD guidance)|Ratio Test/Reference LS Mean|114.723|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.077|134.286||||||Conducted on Per Protocol Population||134.286|99.077|
95956828|NCT01850823|191885933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
95956829|NCT01850823|191885933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||The superiority of treatment over the placebo will be concluded if the treatment's mean change from baseline is statistically significantly greater (p\<0.05, 2-sided) than that of the placebo in the ANCOVA based on the treatment and placebo results. The superiority of Test and Reference treatments over the placebo will be evaluated identically in a separate ANCOVA.||||0.0002
95956830|NCT03897049|191885956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|1.994|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.994|0.463|0.914
95956831|NCT03897049|191885957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.074|0.473|0.990
95956832|NCT03897049|191885958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.390|0.861|0.167
95956833|NCT03897049|191885959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|2.466|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.466|0.903|0.118
95956834|NCT03897049|191885960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.335||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.221|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.221|0.803|0.265
95956835|NCT03897049|191885961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.654|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.654|0.593|0.971
95956836|NCT03897049|191885962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.942|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.942
95956837|NCT03897049|191885963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.741|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.741
95956838|NCT03897049|191885964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.494
95956839|NCT03897049|191885965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.651
95956840|NCT03897049|191885966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
95782222|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.180
95782223|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.289
95782224|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.125
95782225|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782226|NCT02440854|191536297|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.500
95782227|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 2 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.210
95782228|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 4 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.263
95812090|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956841|NCT03897049|191885967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.189
95956842|NCT03897049|191885968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.218
95782229|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 6 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782230|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 8 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782231|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 10 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||0.629
95782232|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 12 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782233|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 18 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782234|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 24 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782235|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 30 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782236|NCT02440854|191536298|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||McNemar|||Shift in patient distribution between baseline and Month 36 post-baseline, according to problems/no problems.||||>0.999
95782237|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 2-month post-baseline.||||0.098
95782238|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 4-month post-baseline.||||0.359
95782239|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.393|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 6-month post-baseline.||||0.393
95812091|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812092|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956843|NCT03897049|191885969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.479||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|1.305|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.305|0.173|0.149
95782240|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 8-month post-baseline.||||0.055
95782241|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 10-month post-baseline.||||0.124
95782242|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 12-month post-baseline.||||0.376
95782243|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 18-month post-baseline.||||0.033
95782244|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 24-month post-baseline.||||0.048
95782245|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 30-month post-baseline.||||0.071
95782246|NCT02440854|191536299|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs 36-month post-baseline.||||0.848
95782247|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.08
95782248|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Mi/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
95782249|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in basal ganglia Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.9
95956844|NCT03897049|191885970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.111||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.063|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.063|0.403|0.839
95956845|NCT03897049|191885971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.302||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|11.641|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.641|0.937|0.063
95956846|NCT03897049|191885972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.650
95782250|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.7
95782251|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.4
95782252|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.6
95782253|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
95812093|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812094|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812095|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95782254|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy ofMI/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
95782255|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of IFN group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1,2 and 3||||0.3
95782256|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
95812096|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.096
95812097|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.034
95812098|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
95812099|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.010
95812100|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
95956847|NCT03897049|191885973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.531
95782257|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.9
95782258|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in Basal ganglia. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
95782259|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.7
95782260|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.1
95782261|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in frontal cortex. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.6
95782262|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of Cho/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.5
95812101|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
95956848|NCT03897049|191885974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.761
95956849|NCT03897049|191885975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.503
95956850|NCT03897049|191885976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.541
95956851|NCT03897049|191885977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.537
95956852|NCT03897049|191885978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.057
95956853|NCT03897049|191885979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.402
95956854|NCT03897049|191885980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.308
95956855|NCT03897049|191885981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95956856|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.023||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.108||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.108|-0.061|0.590
95956857|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.154||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.154|-0.018|0.120
95956858|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.102||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.102|-0.069|0.701
95782263|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of MI/Cr at time points 1 and 2||||0.4
95782264|NCT00136214|191536318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within group comparison of control group for metabolites in DLPFC. Comparison on MR spectroscopy of NAA/Crat time points 1 and 2||||0.9
95782265|NCT00136214|191536319|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
95782266|NCT00136214|191536319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 1 on change between scores for ROCF||||< 0.05
95782267|NCT00136214|191536319|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for HVLT||||>0.05
95782268|NCT00136214|191536319|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between controls and IFN treated at time point 2 on change between scores for ROCF||||>0.05
95782269|NCT04727528|191536344|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|563.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test||Logistic regression model included response status (response / non-response) as the dependent variable and randomized treatment as an independent factor.|||563.6|5.6|0.001
95782270|NCT04727528|191536345|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares mean|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups||3.29|-0.00|0.050
95782271|NCT04727528|191536346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|15.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||15.8|0.6|0.153
95812102|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812103|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956859|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.210
95782272|NCT04727528|191536347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
95782273|NCT04727528|191536348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.6|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||8.6|0.5|0.271
95782274|NCT04727528|191536349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|102.8|||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups||102.8|1.1|0.039
95782275|NCT04727528|191536350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|57008.6||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval = 13124060000000000000000000000||Wald Chi-Squared test|||Comparison between groups|||0.0|0.940
95782276|NCT04656301|191536352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 1.92||||||<0.001
95782277|NCT03300050|191536381|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.29|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||4.29|1.73|<0.0001
95782278|NCT03300050|191536381|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06||||0.9411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.66|0.68|0.9411
95782279|NCT03300050|191536381|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.62|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||0.62|0.24|<0.0001
95782280|NCT03300050|191536382|OTHER||Difference|59.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.59|81.02|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||81.02|23.59|0.0025
95782281|NCT03300050|191536382|OTHER||Difference|17.9||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|49.0|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||49.00|-16.24|0.4421
95782282|NCT03300050|191536382|OTHER||Difference|-41.8||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.75|-4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||-4.80|-68.75|0.0461
95782283|NCT03300050|191536386|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.48|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.48|0.84|0.1665
95812104|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956860|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.046|0.207
95956861|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.081||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.21||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.210|-0.048|0.216
96002038|NCT04003155|191981629|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002||95.0|-0.3|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.30|0.002
95782284|NCT03300050|191536386|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgA (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.20|0.55|0.9377
95782285|NCT03300050|191536386|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.64||||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.31|0.3088
95782286|NCT03300050|191536387|OTHER||Difference|16.3||||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|48.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||48.88|-19.85|0.4667
95782287|NCT03300050|191536387|OTHER||Difference|-1.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.76|32.17|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||32.17|-34.76|>0.9999
95782288|NCT03300050|191536387|OTHER||Difference|-18.1||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.15|19.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Serum) Humoral Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||19.37|-51.15|0.4495
95782289|NCT03300050|191536391|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.61||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.77|0.94|0.0928
95782290|NCT03300050|191536391|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.77|0.4198
95812105|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812106|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812107|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
96002039|NCT04003155|191981629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
96002040|NCT04003155|191981629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
96002041|NCT04003155|191981630|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002||95.0|-0.39|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.39|0.002
95782291|NCT03300050|191536391|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.45|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.45|0.47|0.6754
95782292|NCT03300050|191536392|OTHER||Difference|19.2||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.19|50.49|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.49|-17.19|0.4515
95782293|NCT03300050|191536392|OTHER||Difference|14.3||||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|46.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||46.19|-21.22|0.4837
95782294|NCT03300050|191536392|OTHER||Difference|-4.9|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|30.46|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk MN (Serum) Assay: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||30.46|-38.80|>0.9999
95782295|NCT03300050|191536395|OTHER||Difference|2.93||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||7.49|1.56|0.0031
95782296|NCT03300050|191536395|OTHER||Difference|1.25||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on log10 AUC, using the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||2.23|0.73|0.2048
95782297|NCT03300050|191536395|OTHER||Difference|0.43||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||1.00|0.18|0.0392
95782298|NCT03300050|191536396|OTHER||Difference|1.16||||0.8243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||4.95|0.14|0.8243
95812108|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
95812109|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.759||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.759
95998850|NCT05740813|191973938|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.324||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.3117 for Dose 1. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter mode|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.324|0.850|
95998851|NCT05740813|191973938|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.22||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. ABBV-CLS-7262 slowed progression) was 0.6426. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by ABBV-CLS-7262 relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model incorporates participant-level random effects in the baseline value of the ALSFRS-R (intercept) and in the rate of progression (slope); covariate effects to account for covariate-explainable differences in rates of progression based on participant-specific baseline covariates; regimen-specific differences in baseline values, rates of progression and measurement error. Covariates include time since onset of symptoms, pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, riluzole, edaravone, and Relyvrio use at the time of baseline as indicated in concomitant medication logs, and log-transformed baseline serum NfL.|1.220|0.753|
95998852|NCT05740813|191973939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5639||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|0.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|0.562|-1.657|0.3325
95998853|NCT05740813|191973939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6732||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.420|-1.230|0.8878
95998854|NCT05740813|191973940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1066||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.563|2.723|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|2.723|-5.563|0.5008
95782299|NCT03300050|191536396|OTHER||Difference|1.74||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|6.06|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||6.06|0.67|0.2530
95782300|NCT03300050|191536396|OTHER||Difference|1.83||||0.5654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|39.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on the Hodges-Lehmann location parameter difference on the log scale then back-transformed to the original scale.|Comparison of Serum cH6/1 - ADCC Activity: Fold Increase in AUC at 28 Days Post-Boost||39.92|0.47|0.5654
95782301|NCT03300050|191536400|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.21||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.27|0.45|0.8830
95812110|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
96002042|NCT04003155|191981630|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.007||95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||-0.06|-0.35|0.007
96002043|NCT04003155|191981630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.012
95782302|NCT03300050|191536400|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.86||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.26|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.26|0.33|0.9238
95782303|NCT03300050|191536400|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.71||||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.97|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||1.97|0.26|0.6926
95998855|NCT05740813|191973940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5292||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.714|7.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|7.236|-2.714|0.3721
95998856|NCT05740813|191973942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.222||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.506|10.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|10.099|-6.506|0.6707
95998857|NCT05740813|191973942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.011||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.463|22.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|22.172|2.463|0.0144
95998858|NCT05740813|191973943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.092||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|1.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.179|1.011|0.0253
95998859|NCT05740813|191973943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.073||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|Least squares mean difference between ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline and placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|1.175|0.978|0.1364
95998860|NCT05740813|191973944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1327||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.254|4.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 1 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|4.137|-4.254|0.9782
95812111|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
95998861|NCT05740813|191973944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5101||0.5108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: baseline (BL) use edaravone, riluzole, Relyvrio, BL log-trans. NfL, SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope, interactions with visit|ABBV-CLS-7262 Dose 2 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.||Model adjusted for covariates including baseline (BL) use of edaravone, riluzole and Relyvrio, BL log-transformed NfL, and SVC, time since onset, pre-BL ALSFRS-R slope and interaction with visit.|3.286|-6.590|0.5108
95998862|NCT05740813|191973945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6481|||||||Log Rank|Dose 1. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6481
95998863|NCT05740813|191973945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||Log Rank|Dose 2. See Other Statistical Analysis for model adjustment details.|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age at baseline, time since ALS symptom onset, delta FRS, baseline log-transformed serum NfL level, use of riluzole at baseline, use of riluzole at baseline, and use of Relyvrio at baseline.|||0.6344
95998864|NCT00315302|191973978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.21||95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as atropine plus plano group minus atropine group|"The primary analysis was a treatment group comparison of logMAR visual acuity scores in the amblyopic eye obtained 18 weeks after randomization, adjusted for baseline acuity scores in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The primary analysis included only patients with visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/100; sample size was based upon a two-sided alpha of 0.05, with 90% power to detect a difference if the true difference in change from baseline between groups was 0.075 logMAR at 18 weeks."||0.8|-0.2|0.21
95998865|NCT00315302|191973979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 20/25 or better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||.03
95998866|NCT00315302|191973980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||5.8|3.2|
95998867|NCT00315302|191973980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.4||||||95% confidence interval calculated within treatment group on the amount of change from baseline||6.4|3.7|
96002044|NCT04003155|191981630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Hochberg|||||||0.007
95782304|NCT03300050|191536401|OTHER||Difference|11.7||||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|45.82|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||45.82|-25.72|0.7036
95812112|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.419||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.419
95956862|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.051||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.051|-0.081|0.652
95782305|NCT03300050|191536401|OTHER||Difference|-3.8|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|31.31|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||31.31|-37.90|>0.9999
95782306|NCT03300050|191536401|OTHER||Difference|-15.5||||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.56|22.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk IgG (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||22.79|-49.56|0.6951
95956863|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.065||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.065|-0.066|0.994
95956864|NCT02166047|191885989|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.069||P-value between vesatolimod and placebo was not adjusted for multiplicity due to exploratory nature of the study.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.069|0.996
95956865|NCT01340300|191886053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
95956866|NCT01340300|191886053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.003
95956867|NCT01340300|191886053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of insulin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
95956868|NCT01340300|191886053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Insulin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.03
95956869|NCT01340300|191886054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of leptin in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0002
95956870|NCT01340300|191886054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.002
95956871|NCT01340300|191886054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of IGFBP\_1 in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
95956872|NCT01340300|191886054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.0002
95956873|NCT01340300|191886054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Leptin in combined arm is greater than the exercise-only or metformin-only arm.||||0.02
95956874|NCT01340300|191886055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.0004
95962305|NCT03735121|191896410|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis that atezolizumab SC is inferior to atezolizumab IV is rejected if the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio is ≥ the non-inferiority margin 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92||||||||0.92|0.83|
95782307|NCT03300050|191536405|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.65||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.33|0.32|0.3203
95782308|NCT03300050|191536405|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.72||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||1.47|0.35|0.5009
95782309|NCT03300050|191536405|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.37|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days post-Boost Dose||2.37|0.51|0.9542
95782310|NCT03300050|191536406|OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|23.79|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||23.79|-30.62|>0.9999
95782311|NCT03300050|191536406|OTHER||Difference|6.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|30.34|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||30.34|-16.24|>0.9999
95812113|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.237
95812114|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.146
95812115|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.113
95812116|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analyaia at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
95812117|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
95782312|NCT03300050|191536406|OTHER||Difference|8.3||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|36.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Secretory IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days post-Boost Dose||36.04|-19.94|0.4615
95782313|NCT03300050|191536410|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.9164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.8|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||3.80|0.38|0.9164
95782314|NCT03300050|191536410|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.76||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.79|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.79|0.21|0.8642
95782315|NCT03300050|191536410|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.63||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.27|||ANCOVA||GMT ratio computed after fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformed titers, including vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.|Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Adjusted GMT Ratio 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||2.27|0.18|0.6545
95962306|NCT03735121|191896420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.54||||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.63|-6.56|0.8757
95962307|NCT03735121|191896421|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.6906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.6906
95962308|NCT03735121|191896422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.78|0.9766
95962309|NCT03735121|191896423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.42|||Log Rank|||||2.42|0.34|0.8375
95962310|NCT02176863|191896442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0469||||||The overall adjusted p-value for the selected dose of Flebogamma® 5% DIF vs placebo was calculated from the p-values of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 by Posch \& Bauer for testing the equality of means between the selected dose and placebo.|Posch and Bauer Method|||||||0.0469
95962311|NCT02176863|191896443|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.8897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.7||MMRM include change from baseline in VAS as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||6.7|-7.7|0.8897
95962312|NCT02176863|191896444|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.1615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.8||MMRM include change from baseline in SF-36PCS as dependent variable;treatment protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline measure as covariate \& within-participant at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-0.8|0.1615
95962313|NCT02176863|191896445|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.112||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|35.79||MMRM include change from baseline in 6MWD as dependent variable;treatment,protocol-specified visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,main part affected(fixed effect);baseline as covariate \& measures within-participants at each visit(repeated measure).|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||35.79|-4.19|0.1205
95962314|NCT04599907|191896447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.05
95998868|NCT00315302|191973981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|proportion 20/25 as a function of treatment group controlling for baseline acuity||"Null hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group = proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group~Alternative hypothesis: proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine group NOT equal to proportion 3 or more lines better at 18wks in atropine plus plano group"||||0.39
95782316|NCT03300050|191536411|OTHER||Difference|7.7|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|40.96|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (\>4-Fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||40.96|-27.10|>0.9999
95782317|NCT03300050|191536411|OTHER||Difference|30.8||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|58.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||58.19|-1.76|0.1045
95782318|NCT03300050|191536411|OTHER||Difference|23.1||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|50.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Anti-H1 HA-stalk Total IgA (Saliva), Mucosal Response: Seroresponse (≥4-fold) Rate 28 Days Post-Boost Dose||50.86|-8.62|0.2292
95782319|NCT02085070|191536447|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% response|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|47.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from NSCLC. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||47.0|15.9|
95782320|NCT02085070|191536447|SUPERIORITY|A response of \> 10% of patients was defined as superior.|% of patients|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|48.0||||||Each group was assessed individually. The primary goal of this study is to determine the efficacy of MK-3475 in patients with untreated brain metastases from melanoma. The primary endpoint is the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR). A drug with minimal activity would be expected to have a BMRR of 10%.||48.0|10.0|
95782321|NCT01964989|191536456|SUPERIORITY|Relative vaccine efficacy (rVE; ≥6 to \<72 months) rVE = (1-HR) is the relative vaccine efficacy of aQIV and HR is defined as hazard ratio between aQIV and non adjuvanted comparator.|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.81|15.41||||||||15.41|-19.81|
95998869|NCT00315302|191973982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||All patients without respect to cause of amblyopia.||||0.39
95782322|NCT01964989|191536463|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.8|
95782323|NCT01964989|191536463|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
95782324|NCT01964989|191536463|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.8||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.8|1.6|
95782325|NCT01964989|191536463|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.7||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||1.7|1.4|
95782326|NCT01964989|191536463|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.4||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.4|2.0|
95782327|NCT01964989|191536463|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.0||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.0|1.7|
95782328|NCT01964989|191536463|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the adjusted ratio of GMTs for HI antibody titer exceeds 1.|GMT ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|2.6||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.6|2.0|
95782329|NCT01964989|191536463|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.1||||||GMT ratio (aQIV/Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC, D181/209 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve). An adjusted analysis GMT model (log-transformed postvaccination HI titer = log-transformed prevaccination HI titer+treatment group+ age group, health status+ season + country) was used for analysis.||2.1|1.6|
95782330|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.0|0.8|
95782331|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.9|
95782332|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
95782333|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||aQIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
95782334|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H1N1 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
95782335|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for A/H3N2 at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
95998870|NCT00315302|191973983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test to evaluate difference in change from baseline in stereoacuity by treatment group||Among anisometropic patients only||||0.90
95998871|NCT00315302|191973985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups;~Alternate: proportion 1 or more lines worse and worse than 20/20 at 18wks same in both groups"||||0.003
95998872|NCT00440401|191974047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0001
95998873|NCT00440401|191974048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Normal approximation to the binominal distribution is used to construct the asymptotic confidence intervals||||||<0.0006
95998874|NCT02750410|191974072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean percent difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-1.73|<0.001
95998875|NCT02750410|191974073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.117||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.479|||Regression, Logistic|||analysis was based on repeated measures logistic regression||0.479|0.028|0.003
95782336|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/YAM at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.1|0.8|
95782337|NCT01964989|191536465|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||||||TIV/QIV GMT ratio (High risk/Healthy) for B/VIC at D22/50 (Pooled Naïve \& Non-naïve).||1.2|0.7|
95812118|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.183
95998876|NCT02750410|191974074|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-18.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.91|-41.37|<0.001
95812119|NCT00402987|191596809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
95998877|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.39|-16.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebreakfast BG||-16.78|-36.39|<0.001
95998878|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.77|-29.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Breakfast 2-hour PPBG||-29.00|-61.77|<0.001
95998879|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-24.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Prelunch BG||-24.45|-49.20|<0.001
95998880|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-32.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lunch 2-hour PPBG||-32.46|-67.85|<0.001
95998881|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-31.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|-18.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Predinner BG||-18.48|-44.05|<0.001
95998882|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.55|-17.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Dinner 2-hour PPBG||-17.38|-52.55|<0.001
95998883|NCT02750410|191974075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.81|-24.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Bedtime BG||-24.09|-58.81|<0.001
95998884|NCT02750410|191974076|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-0.59|0.776
95998885|NCT03215277|191974095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Posterior Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. The mean posterior difference and 95% credible interval were presented for the BKZ vs CZP comparison.||0.60|-0.14|
95998886|NCT03215277|191974095|SUPERIORITY||PR[Diff > 0%](%)|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Results were based on a complete case (ie, data as observed) Bayesian linear model with the change from Baseline in ASDAS as the independent variable. Treatment was included as a predictor in the model and Baseline ASDAS as a covariate. Pr\[Diff\>0%\](%) refers to the probability that the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the BKZ group was greater than the mean change from Baseline in ASDAS in the CZP group.||||
95998887|NCT02498652|191974125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||117|90.7|
95998888|NCT02498652|191974125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|110.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects.||||110|78.1|
95998889|NCT02498652|191974125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||120|85.7|
95998890|NCT02498652|191974125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|101.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|78.4|
95782338|NCT01964989|191536467|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||11.3|5.0|
95782339|NCT01964989|191536467|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.4||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||8.4|1.9|
95782340|NCT01964989|191536467|SUPERIORITY||Seroconversion difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|24.5||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||24.5|18.1|
95812120|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95782341|NCT01964989|191536467|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion: The lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the unadjusted difference of percentages of subjects seroconverted for HI antibody exceeds 0%.|Seroconversion difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|17.3||||||Seroconversion difference (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||17.3|10.0|
95782342|NCT01964989|191536468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|13.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H1N1.||13.7|9.4|
95812121|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812122|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812123|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812124|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812125|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812126|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812127|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812128|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812129|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95962315|NCT04599907|191896448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Botherstatistical analysis"||-0.040|-1.42|<0.05
95962316|NCT04599907|191896448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is the data for the Level of Impact on Daily Activities Statistical Analysis"||-0.40|-1.35|<0.05
95962317|NCT03670277|191896471|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.056|-0.081|
95962318|NCT03670277|191896472|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference will be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|This was a pilot study for assessing the investigational test articles. As such, the sample size was not determined based on any power analysis with regard to the primary endpoint.||0.100|-0.037|
95962319|NCT03670277|191896473|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|4.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.248|2.557|
95782343|NCT01964989|191536468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for A/H3N2.||9.7|6.1|
95782344|NCT01964989|191536468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|25.6||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/YAM.||25.6|18.1|
95782345|NCT01964989|191536468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|25.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:40 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) for B/VIC.||25.7|15.9|
95782346|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|9.7||||||Difference in HI titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.7|5.9|
95962320|NCT03670277|191896473|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.585|3.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||3.277|1.585|
95962321|NCT03670277|191896474|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|3.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.854|4.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At -30°||4.225|1.854|
95782347|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|11.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||11.9|7.8|
95782348|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.7||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||18.7|13.5|
95782349|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|26.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||26.4|19.8|
95782350|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|27.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H1N1 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||27.6|20.6|
95782351|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|7.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||7.5|4.5|
95782352|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|9.6||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.6|6.1|
95812130|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812131|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812132|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.017
95812133|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.011
95860906|NCT03364270|191680468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.84||Threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean 18F-RGD uptake (expressed as a target to background ratio) in the culprit artery (carotid artery implicated in stroke or transient ischemic attack \[TIA\]) when compared to mean 18F-RGD uptake in the contralateral carotid artery. A paired t-test was used to compare 18F-RGD uptake in culprit plaque to plaque in the contralateral artery.||0.84|0.33|.001
95782353|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||13.9|9.6|
95812134|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
95956875|NCT01340300|191886055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Glucose in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.007
95956876|NCT01340300|191886056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
95956877|NCT01340300|191886056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
95998891|NCT02498652|191974125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale||||114|87.7|
95782354|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|22.0||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||22.0|16.1|
95782355|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|24.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for A/H3N2 (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||24.3|17.8|
95782356|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|32.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:110 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||32.3|25.1|
95782357|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|29.9||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:151 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||29.9|22.6|
95782358|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|25.3||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:215 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||25.3|18.3|
95782359|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.5||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:330 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||14.5|8.6|
95782360|NCT01964989|191536469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.4||||||Difference in HI Titers ≥ 1:629 for B/YAM (aQIV - Comparator \[TIV/QIV\]) at Day 22/50.||9.4|4.3|
95782361|NCT02769312|191536480|OTHER||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.16||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.46
95782362|NCT02769312|191536481|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.12||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
95782363|NCT02769312|191536482|SUPERIORITY||Effect size (cohen's d)|0.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
95782364|NCT02815267|191536483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||4.88|0.72|0.0083
95782365|NCT02815267|191536484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|8.19||P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.19|-1.54|0.1805
95782366|NCT02815267|191536485|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|21.39|||ANCOVA|||||21.39|4.07|0.0040
95782367|NCT02815267|191536486|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|1.85|0.0002
95782368|NCT02815267|191536486|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.40|2.38|<.0001
95782369|NCT02815267|191536487|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6|Risk Difference (RD)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|5.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.3|0.13|0.0395
95782370|NCT02815267|191536487|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for null hypothesis that the combined risk difference equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 9.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.80|-0.28|0.0748
95812135|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
95812136|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
95812137|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
95956878|NCT01340300|191886056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Weight in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
95812138|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
95782371|NCT01579669|191536492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post comparison||||0.0269
95956879|NCT01340300|191886057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
95956880|NCT01340300|191886057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||<0.0001
95956881|NCT01340300|191886057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of BMI in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.02
95998892|NCT02498652|191974125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|119.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||119|85.5|
95782372|NCT01579669|191536493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||<0.0001
95782373|NCT01579669|191536494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-post intervention comparison||||0.016
95782374|NCT00527124|191536520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2973||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.624|||Regression, Cox|||||1.624|0.506|0.7428
95812139|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.012
95812140|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.904||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.904
95956882|NCT01340300|191886058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||One-sided un-adjusted p-values to test if the decrease in treatment arm is greater than the control arm. Holm's method was performed for multiple comparisons to provide an overall significance level of 5%. Only significant p-values were reported.|Mixed Models Analysis|An intention-to-treat analysis, with a mixed model that was adjusted for baseline outcome value, BMI (\< 30 or \> 30), gender, cancer, and study site.||Null hypothesis: decrease of Waist to Hip Ratio in treatment arm is greater than the control arm.||||0.01
95998893|NCT02498652|191974128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.3|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|94.3|
95956883|NCT00297778|191886059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0103||95.0|-3.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0103
95956884|NCT00297778|191886060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.758||||0.0535||95.0|0.992|3.115|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.115|0.992|0.0535
95956885|NCT00297778|191886061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0346||95.0|-1.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.5|0.0346
95956886|NCT00297778|191886062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.5244||95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|-1|0.5244
95956887|NCT00297778|191886063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141||95.0|0.0|0.0|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0|0|0.141
95956888|NCT00297778|191886064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.003||95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
95956889|NCT00297778|191886065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0034||95.0|-3.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0034
95956890|NCT00297778|191886066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.0007||95.0|-5.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.4|0.0007
95956891|NCT00297778|191886067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.821||||0.006||95.0|1.187|2.794|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.794|1.187|0.006
95956892|NCT00297778|191886068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.1925||95.0|-3.3|0.8|||van Elteren (country stratification)|||||0.8|-3.3|0.1925
95956893|NCT00297778|191886069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.04||||0.0337||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)|||||0.09|0|0.0337
95998894|NCT02498652|191974128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.4|106.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||106|90.4|
95782375|NCT00527124|191536520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7425
95782376|NCT04942210|191536555|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was \>-5%|Difference in percentage of participants|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.2|||||95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|||3.2|-1.2|
95782377|NCT04165135|191536579|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Heart zone minutes: Comparison among the age groups was performed by means of a Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7630
95782378|NCT04165135|191536579|OTHER|||||||0.0913|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Active zone minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0913
95782379|NCT04165135|191536579|OTHER|||||||0.0956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MVPA minutes: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0956
95782380|NCT04165135|191536580|OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0649
95782381|NCT04165135|191536581|OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0026
95782382|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.9493|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9493
95782383|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.8305|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8305
95956894|NCT00297778|191886070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8471||95.0|-5.6|4.6|||ANCOVA|||||4.6|-5.6|0.8471
95956895|NCT00297778|191886071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann est of diff in medians|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren's test)||95% Confidence interval is Distribution-free Confidence Interval (Moses).|N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.0|0.0|0.1410
95956896|NCT00297778|191886072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||N's exclude patients from the analysis set with incomplete data||0.2|-0.5|0.5231
95956897|NCT00802438|191886074|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value\<0.05 was considered significant. Analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC.).|t-test, 2 sided|||Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||<0.0001
95956898|NCT00802438|191886075|OTHER|Summaries of log-transformed data were back-transformed to the original scale and reported as geometric mean with 95% confidence interval or median within 1st and 3rd quartiles. Outcomes are summarized using least squares means with 95% confidence intervals or median with 1st and 3rd quartiles.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95956899|NCT00510146|191886076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.36||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in MADRS total score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-3.93|0.018
95956900|NCT00510146|191886077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic response at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.050
95956901|NCT00510146|191886078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with symptomatic remission at any time from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
95782384|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.8725|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.8725
95782385|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3380
95782386|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.9706|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9706
95782387|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.1727|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1727
95782388|NCT04165135|191536582|OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0099
95782389|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.6151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.6151
95782390|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.9332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.9332
95782391|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.4726|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4726
95812141|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.891||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.891
95812142|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.929
95812143|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.994||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.994
95812144|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.933
95782392|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.4111|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4111
95782393|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.0892|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0892
95782394|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.1642|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1642
95782395|NCT04165135|191536583|OTHER|||||||0.7256|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.7256
95782396|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.0745|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0745
95782397|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2177
95782398|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.2121|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2121
95782399|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.2336|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2336
95782400|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.4190
95782401|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0252
95782402|NCT04165135|191536584|OTHER|||||||0.2143|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2143
95782403|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Running: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0085
95782404|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.1098|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Swimming: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1098
95782405|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.2703|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Tapis Roulant: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.2703
95782406|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.3366|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Gym Weights: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.3366
95782407|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.0992|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Exercises at Intervals: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0992
95782408|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.1194|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||General: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.1194
95782409|NCT04165135|191536585|OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Walk: Comparison among age groups was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test.||||0.0549
95782410|NCT04165135|191536586|OTHER|||||||0.0088|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison among age groups was performed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0088
95782411|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.92|||<|0.001||90.0|-63.84|-35.99|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-35.99|-63.84|<0.001
95782412|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.85|||<|0.001||90.0|-48.78|-20.93|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-20.93|-48.78|<0.001
95782413|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.72|||<|0.001||90.0|-62.1|-33.34|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-33.34|-62.10|<0.001
95782414|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.26|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.69|-17.82|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.82|-46.69|<0.001
95782415|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.36|||<|0.001||90.0|-60.07|-30.64|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-30.64|-60.07|<0.001
95782416|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.04|||<|0.001||90.0|-46.76|-17.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-17.32|-46.76|<0.001
95782417|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.8|||<|0.001||90.0|-61.12|-32.49|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 43.||||-32.49|-61.12|<0.001
95782418|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.64|||<|0.001||90.0|-58.95|-30.32|||Mixed Effects Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 57.||||-30.32|-58.95|<0.001
95782419|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.53||||0.44||90.0|-20.51|7.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127||||7.44|-20.51|0.440
95782420|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.108||90.0|-28.53|0.33|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||0.33|-28.53|0.108
95782421|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.41||||0.013||90.0|-37.13|-7.69|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-7.69|-37.13|0.013
95782422|NCT01618916|191536653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.93||||0.042||90.0|-32.42|-3.44|||Mixed Effect Model Analysis|P-value is for Day 127.||||-3.44|-32.42|0.042
95812145|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.876
95812146|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.622
95812147|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
95812148|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.117
95812149|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.152||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.152
95812150|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
95812151|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
95956902|NCT00510146|191886079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Mania score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.20|0.008
95956903|NCT00510146|191886079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Depression score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.47|0.037
95956904|NCT00510146|191886079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.08||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-BP Overall score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.53|0.008
95956905|NCT00510146|191886080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with recovery from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.156
95956906|NCT00510146|191886081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.56|<0.001
95782423|NCT04000360|191536667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.85||This was the sole primary outcome. The test was conducted with a priori p-value threshold of α=0.05, with no multiple comparison adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Test of equality of slopes with time (change in points/year) between aerobic exercise (AE) and usual and customary care (UCC) treatment arms.|Higher MDS-UPDRS III score reflects worse Parkinson's symptoms; increases reflect PD progression. The reported effect is the estimated difference between annual rates of change in scores of AE and UCC patients.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and AR(1) covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||-1.85|-5.40|<0.0001
95812152|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
95782424|NCT04000360|191536668|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in squared 10 Meter Walk Test Comfortable Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in squared velocity slopes|12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|21.32||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 Meter Walk Test fast pace velocity, TUG duration \& turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slope of meters\^2/second, in 100ths of meters\^2/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Parkinson's progression limits mobility; higher slope reflects less progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test velocity was squared ((meters/second)\^2) for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||21.32|3.10|0.043
95956907|NCT00510146|191886082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.81||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-3.61|0.002
95782425|NCT04000360|191536669|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes in 10 Meter Walk Test Fast Pace Velocity for the AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.42||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration and turning velocity, Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of the AE and UCC treatment arms, in 100ths of meters/second/year. The confidence interval is not multiple comparison adjusted. Higher slope reflects less Parkinson's disease progression.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX.||8.42|-2.10|0.48
95782426|NCT04000360|191536670|SUPERIORITY|Equality of annual slopes of inverse Timed Up and Go Test duration, i.e., of TUG completions/second, the speed of completing the test.|Difference in slopes|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.89||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test turning velocity, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis|Difference between estimated annual slopes in TUG completions/second/year for the AE and UCC groups.|Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a TUG completion/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was inverted to TUG completions/second. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||7.89|0.20|0.16
95782427|NCT04000360|191536671|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of average turning velocities.|Difference in slopes.|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.88||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace, Timed Up and Go Test duration, and Manual Dexterity Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Timed Up and Go test speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes of average turning velocity for the AE and UCC groups in degrees/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||4.88|-1.17|0.69
95782428|NCT04000360|191536672|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of test performance speed (peg transfers/second/year) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|16.45||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other motor domain secondary outcomes: Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) duration \& turning velocity and 10 meter walk test comfortable \& fast pace.|Mixed Models Analysis||Manual dexterity expressed as peg transfers/second is expected to decline with Parkinson's progression. The reported effect is the difference between estimated annual slopes for the AE and UCC groups in 1000ths of a peg transfer/second/year.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was transformed for modeling to peg transfers/second (18/seconds). Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||16.45|-23.68|0.72
95812153|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.708
95812154|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.106
95812155|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.14||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.140
95956908|NCT00510146|191886083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.297
95956909|NCT00510146|191886083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with major depressive episode with melancholic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.264
95956910|NCT00510146|191886084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current hypomanic episode from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.195
95956911|NCT00510146|191886085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current psychotic disorders from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.163
95998895|NCT02498652|191974128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||114|94.5|
95956912|NCT00510146|191886085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current mood disorders with psychotic features from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.442
95782429|NCT04000360|191536673|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of slopes of squared match scores (matches\^2/year) between AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes.|-96.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.12||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.41|38.6||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Visual Memory Test and Trail Making Test B to A duration ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Processing speed is expected to decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of the test to increase. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes (matches\^2/year) between the AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, test duration was squared (matches\^2) for analysis. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||38.60|-232.41|0.48
95782430|NCT04000360|191536674|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of log(TMT B to TMT A duration ratio) for AE and UCC groups.|Difference in slopes|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.31|8.46||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Visual Memory Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual attention and set switching speed decline with Parkinson's, hence duration of Trail Making Test B increases. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes of (log TMT B/TMT A), i.e., change/year, between AE and UCC treatment arms.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the ratios were transformed to their natural logarithms for modeling. Study sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||8.46|-15.31|1.00
95782431|NCT04000360|191536675|SUPERIORITY|Test of equality of annual slopes of squared test score.|Difference in slopes|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.91||Family-wise error controlled at α=0.05 by Holm-Bonferroni adjustment for other non-motor domain secondary outcomes: Processing Speed Test and Trail Making Test Ratio.|Mixed Models Analysis||Visual memory declines with Parkinson's, hence the score declines. The reported effect is the difference in annual slopes, i.e., changes in mean score\^2/year, for AE and UCC treatment arms, shown in hundreds. Higher slope indicates slower decline.|Linear mixed model for baseline, 6 month, and 12 month data, with fixed effects of clinical site, treatment, and linear time nested in treatment arm, and compound symmetry covariance structure, fit by residual pseudolikelihood maximization (RSPL) in SAS PROC GLIMMIX. To reduce skew and better meet modeling assumptions, the score was squared for statistical modeling. Sample size was based on the primary outcome, and power was not calculated for this and other outcomes.||2.91|-2.58|0.91
95782432|NCT03292471|191536676|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.92|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.92|-2.07|
95782433|NCT03292471|191536676|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: PNT T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Pre-treatment, Follow-up) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions (PNT raw score converted to T-score scale with m = 50, sd = 10 based on sample estimates from Fergadiotis, Hula, \& Kellough, 2015)|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|2.46|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.46|-2.38|
95812156|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.188
95812157|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.239
95812158|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.297
95998896|NCT02498652|191974128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.7|97.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||97.7|86.7|
95998897|NCT02498652|191974128|NON_INFERIORITY|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|107.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||107|91.0|
95812159|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.383
95998898|NCT02498652|191974128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.8|102.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||102|92.8|
95998899|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Aches||||0.200
95812160|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.919
95998900|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Headaches||||0.0326
95998901|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Coughing/Sneezing||||0.0043
95998902|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Trouble Breathing||||0.0003
95998903|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Congestion||||0.3714
95782434|NCT03292471|191536677|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time point (Entry, Exit) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0719|2.25|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and post-treatment timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||2.25|-0.0719|
95782435|NCT03292471|191536677|SUPERIORITY|Dependent variable: CAT Mean-modality T-score Fixed Effects: Group Assignment (A = Standard, B= Priming), Time-point (Pre-treatment, Post-treatment) Random Effects: Participant (intercept and slope) Priors for slope and intercept were set as t-distributions|Highest Density Interval of Posterior Di|0.443|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|1.58|||||Direction of comparison: Group A (Standard Protocol) and follow-up (2 months post-treatment) timepoint were set as reference values|Baysian Multivariate Analysis of Variance||1.58|-0.596|
95812161|NCT00402987|191596810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812162|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
95812163|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.697||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.697
95812164|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.203||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.203
95998904|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue||||0.300
95998905|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Loss of Smell/Taste||||0.2286
95998906|NCT04871815|191974134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Anxiety||||0.999
95998907|NCT04871815|191974135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95998908|NCT04871815|191974136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1963
95998909|NCT04871815|191974137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95998910|NCT04871815|191974137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0008
95998911|NCT04871815|191974137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 1 baseline (day 1 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study).||||<0.0001
95998912|NCT04871815|191974137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day 7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 1 treatment (day 7 of study).||||0.0114
95998913|NCT04871815|191974137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Tukey's Multiple comparison test (p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Tukey's HSD|||Day7 baseline (day 7 of study) vs Day 7 treatment (day 14 of study)||||<0.0001
95998914|NCT01078753|191974150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.813||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.163||Desmopressin was considered to be superior to Placebo if the p-value for the comparison was \< 0.05 and the reduction from Baseline in number of wet nights was larger in the FE992026 group than in the Placebo group.|ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||3.163|0.462|0.009
95998915|NCT01078753|191974151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|1.629||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|2.972|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis were Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||2.972|0.287|0.018
95998916|NCT01078753|191974152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.183||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.968|1.335|||ANCOVA|Factors in the analysis included Gender (male, female), age (6≤x≤9, 10≤x≤15), number of wet nights at Baseline (10≤x≤13, x=14), and treatment group.||||1.335|-0.968|0.752
95782436|NCT00911586|191536684|OTHER|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|-4.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.02||0.806|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 1 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8060
95782437|NCT00911586|191536685|OTHER|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Slope|4.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.456||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|Part 2 of piecewise linear regression model.|||||0.8286
95998917|NCT03826914|191974174|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|-0.015||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance||Placebo - Cardioflex|The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-0.015|-0.846|0.042
95998918|NCT03826914|191974175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.772||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-2.24||The threshold of significance was P=0.05|Anaylsis of Covariance|||The primary analysis was conducted using the post-treatment biomarker value, comparing the two groups, and controlling for their baseline values by using analysis of covariance. In this study, the dependent variable was the biomarkers being tested, the controlled independent variable was the treatment given and the uncontrolled variables were the baseline differences between participants.||-2.24|-11.2|0.04
95998919|NCT04334148|191974178|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
95998920|NCT04334148|191974179|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
95998921|NCT04334148|191974180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
95998922|NCT05370157|191974184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.74|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in knowledge from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||7.74|0.76|.03
95998923|NCT05370157|191974185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Satterthwaite Approximation||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in skill use from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.20|-0.40|.30
95998924|NCT05370157|191974189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.79|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in psychological safety from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.79|-1.25|.45
95782438|NCT00938587|191536686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.24|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on least squares (LS) mean difference using mixed-model repeated measure (MMRM) where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and compound symmetry (CS) as covariance structure.||-0.24|-1.21|0.0141
95782439|NCT00938587|191536686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.79|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90 % CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.79|-1.73|<0.0001
95812165|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
95812166|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95998925|NCT05370157|191974190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in learning behavior from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||0.40|-0.44|.89
95782440|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.865||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.54|1.63|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.63|-4.54|0.4370
95812167|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812168|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812169|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812170|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95860907|NCT03869216|191680473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Intervention - Control|H0:muI = muC||4.19|-3.40|0.8388
95998926|NCT05370157|191974191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.36|||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat analyses tested changes in team performance from baseline to follow-up using linear mixed models. Mixed models analyses were conducted in R using the lme4 package and restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). Models included fixed effects of time (baseline vs. follow-up), intervention condition, and their interaction as well as random effects for person and team. We used the clubSandwich package to calculate cluster robust standard errors.||1.36|-1.51|.85
95782441|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.858||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.58|0.57|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.57|-5.58|0.1802
95782442|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.07|-3.99|0.6012
95860908|NCT03869216|191680474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.588||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0:muI = muC||6.91|-3.35|0.4929
95998927|NCT02912364|191974254|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22||||.34|.13|< .001
95782443|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.04|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-5.04|0.2753
95782444|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|3.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.55|-2.56|0.7892
95782445|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|1.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.49|-4.92|0.3765
95812171|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95956913|NCT00510146|191886086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol dependence from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
95956914|NCT00510146|191886086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with current alcohol abuse from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.324
95956915|NCT00510146|191886088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with emergence of mania at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.031
95956916|NCT00510146|191886089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (akathisia) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
95956917|NCT00510146|191886089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in percentage of participants with EPS symptoms (parkinsonism) at endpoint from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using geographic region as strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
95956918|NCT00510146|191886090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
95956919|NCT00510146|191886090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.249
95956920|NCT00510146|191886090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
95956921|NCT00510146|191886090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
95956922|NCT00510146|191886090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.284
95998928|NCT02912364|191974255|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 22.||||.79|.30|< .001
95782446|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|-0.49|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.49|-6.69|0.0571
95782447|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.896||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|2.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.29|-3.99|0.6553
95956923|NCT00510146|191886090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
95956924|NCT00510146|191886091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in weight from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95956925|NCT00510146|191886092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in fasting glucose from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.179
95998929|NCT02234622|191974269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-8.2|0.002
95998930|NCT02234622|191974270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.3|0.005
95998931|NCT02234622|191974271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-11.9|0.042
95998932|NCT02234622|191974272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-4.2|0.482
95998933|NCT02234622|191974273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.7|0.635
95998934|NCT02234622|191974274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-6.0|0.367
95782448|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.33|-5.78|0.1427
95782449|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|3.97|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.97|-2.23|0.6430
95812172|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95998935|NCT02234622|191974275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-0.5|0.668
95998936|NCT00144300|191974285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.71|1.6||||||||1.60|0.71|
95998937|NCT01145391|191974306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence||||||0.5||95.0||||For systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95812173|NCT00402987|191596811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812174|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812175|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
95860909|NCT03869216|191680475|SUPERIORITY|Intervention - Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.932||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0:muI = muC||1.11|-2.58|0.4312
95998938|NCT00630032|191974325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.59|0.175
95998939|NCT00630032|191974326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.53|0.1687
95998940|NCT00630032|191974327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.45|0.6502
95998941|NCT00630032|191974328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.49|0.0665
95998942|NCT00630032|191974329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.59|0.148
95998943|NCT00630032|191974330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8968
95860910|NCT03869216|191680476|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-0.1548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.342|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|Chi Square Test gives same results|Intervention - Control|H0: piI = piC||0.033|-0.342|0.1216
95998944|NCT03232073|191974340|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect (Rate Ratio)|0.779||||||95.0|0.629|0.965||||||||0.965|0.629|
95998945|NCT02495077|191974421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated month 24 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence intervals result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||0.93|-10.73|0.099
95998946|NCT02495077|191974422|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95782450|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.13|4.22|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.22|-2.13|0.5868
95998947|NCT02495077|191974423|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95998948|NCT02495077|191974425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
95998949|NCT02495077|191974426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.242
95998950|NCT02495077|191974428|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95998951|NCT02495077|191974429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.497
95998952|NCT02495077|191974430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
95998953|NCT02495077|191974432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95998954|NCT02495077|191974433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.135
95998955|NCT02495077|191974434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.157
95998956|NCT02495077|191974435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.071
95998957|NCT02495077|191974436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.543
95998958|NCT02495077|191974437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.617
95998959|NCT02495077|191974438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275
95998960|NCT02495077|191974439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
95998961|NCT02495077|191974440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.152
95998962|NCT02495077|191974441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
95998963|NCT02495077|191974442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.30|-5.37|0.639
95998964|NCT02495077|191974443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.10|-6.22|0.510
95998965|NCT02495077|191974443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.76|-6.45|0.430
95998966|NCT02495077|191974443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.31|-6.86|0.328
95998967|NCT02495077|191974444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|3.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 7 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from day 7 and months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 7. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.89|-5.58|0.725
95998968|NCT02495077|191974445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 30. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 30 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 30. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.72|-6.41|0.601
95782451|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.12|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-4.12|0.5860
95782452|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|4.95|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.95|-1.27|0.3288
95812176|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
95998969|NCT02495077|191974445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 90. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 90 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 90. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||3.37|-6.66|0.519
95998970|NCT02495077|191974445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 180. Mean eGFR of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated day 180 eGFR within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from months 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 to compare the experimental group to the control group at day 180. Random effects for the intercept and eGFR collection day were utilized in the model.||2.91|-7.08|0.411
95998971|NCT02495077|191974446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.569
95998972|NCT02495077|191974447|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95998973|NCT02495077|191974448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.451
95998974|NCT02495077|191974449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
95998975|NCT02495077|191974450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.710
95998976|NCT02495077|191974451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
95782453|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846||0.9027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|2.83|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.83|-3.28|0.9027
95812177|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.046
95782454|NCT00938587|191536687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.89|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.89|-2.30|0.6710
95782455|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|2.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.09|-1.63|0.8370
95782456|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.81|-0.11|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.11|-3.81|0.0819
95812178|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.111
95812179|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.226
95812180|NCT00402987|191596812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.537||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.537
95998977|NCT02495077|191974452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Hours/Day 1. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 24 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 24 hours/day 1. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.35|-0.36|0.256
95998978|NCT02495077|191974452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Hours/Day 2. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 48 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 48 hours/day 2. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.23|-0.48|0.391
95998979|NCT02495077|191974452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||72 Hours/Day 3. Mean serum creatinine of the two treatment groups was compared. The p-value, estimated 72 hour creatinine level within each treatment group, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available serum creatinine data from 24, 48, and 72 hours to compare the experimental group to the control group at 72 hours/day 3. A random effect for the intercept was utilized in the model.||1.42|-0.30|0.199
95998980|NCT02495077|191974453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
95812181|NCT00402987|191596813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.01||95.0|1.3|5.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.5|1.3|0.010
95812182|NCT00402987|191596813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.003||95.0|1.5|6.4||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||6.4|1.5|0.003
95812183|NCT00402987|191596813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.634||95.0|0.6|2.2||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.6|0.634
95998981|NCT02495077|191974454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
95998982|NCT02495077|191974455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
95998983|NCT02495077|191974456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
95812184|NCT00402987|191596814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.202||95.0|0.8|3.5||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|0.8|0.202
95812185|NCT00402987|191596814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.077||95.0|0.9|5.1||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|0.9|0.077
95812186|NCT00402987|191596814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.134||95.0|0.8|4.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||4.7|0.8|0.134
95998984|NCT02495077|191974457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
95998985|NCT02495077|191974458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
95782457|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.67|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.67|-1.98|0.8892
95782458|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|-0.52|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.52|-4.17|0.0353
95812187|NCT00402987|191596814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.671||95.0|0.4|1.9||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.4|0.671
95812188|NCT00402987|191596814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.484||95.0|0.3|1.7||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7|0.3|0.484
95812189|NCT00402987|191596814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||Treatment as a factor|Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|0.4|0.814
95812190|NCT00402987|191596815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
95998986|NCT02495077|191974459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.171
95998987|NCT02495077|191974460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
95782459|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.45|-2.22|0.7283
95782460|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.174||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.08|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.08|-1.81|0.9083
95998988|NCT02495077|191974461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.572
95998989|NCT02495077|191974462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.973
95998990|NCT02495077|191974463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
95998991|NCT02495077|191974464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95998992|NCT02495077|191974465|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95998993|NCT02495077|191974466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.347
95998994|NCT02839746|191974483|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
95782461|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.29|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.29|-3.45|0.1641
95812191|NCT00402987|191596815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
95998995|NCT02839746|191974483|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||<0.0001
95998996|NCT02839746|191974484|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95998997|NCT02839746|191974484|OTHER|Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.|||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank]|||||||<0.0001
95998998|NCT02839746|191974485|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 convenience with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95998999|NCT02839746|191974485|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Within group comparison of visit 2 satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||<0.0001
95999000|NCT03440112|191974516|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|3.0039||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.391
95999001|NCT03440112|191974517|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Squared|9.4836||||0.02351|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of random-intercept mixed linear models was fitted, a visit model and an interaction model. Visit model included fixed effect of visit and a random intercept by participant. Interaction model adds an interaction by treatment term on top of the visit model. Null hypothesis is that visit by treatment interaction does not explain significant additional variance in clinical outcome scores. Likelihood ratio test comparing the interaction model to the visit model was used to derive a p-value.||||0.02351
95999002|NCT00443560|191974518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.01||95.0|2.3|4.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.5|2.3|<0.01
95782462|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|2.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.18|-1.64|0.8170
95782463|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|0.4|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.40|-3.29|0.1958
95812192|NCT00402987|191596815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to perceptible pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience perceptible pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to perceptible pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
95999003|NCT00443560|191974519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.2|||<|0.01||95.0|9.9|15.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||15.0|9.9|<0.01
95999004|NCT00443560|191974520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95999005|NCT02082184|191974521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8222
95999006|NCT02082184|191974522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7925
95999007|NCT02082184|191974523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<70 mg/dL||||<0.001
95999008|NCT02082184|191974523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \<55 mg/dL||||0.0014
95999009|NCT02082184|191974524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<70 mg/dL||||0.0164
95999010|NCT02082184|191974524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of frequency of episodes \<55 mg/dL||||0.0017
95782464|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.74|2.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.00|-1.74|0.9070
95999011|NCT02082184|191974525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>180 mg/dL||||0.5970
95782465|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.5|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.50|1.67|0.0023
95782466|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.132||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|3.49|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.49|-0.25|0.1531
95782467|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.53|-0.24|0.1506
95782468|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.116||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|1.53|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.53|-2.16|0.7800
95782469|NCT00938587|191536688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-3.80|0.0883
95782470|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.87|-1.07|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-1.07|-15.87|0.0599
95782471|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.436||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.61|-5.96|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.96|-20.61|0.0030
95812193|NCT00402987|191596816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours.||||<0.05
95999012|NCT02082184|191974525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of time spent \>240 mg/dL||||0.8729
95999013|NCT02082184|191974528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hyperglycaemia||||0.6075
95999014|NCT02082184|191974528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2295|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Perceived frequency of hypoglycaemia||||0.2295
95782472|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.483||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.03|-5.22|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.22|-20.03|0.0053
95782473|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.445||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.78|-10.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-10.10|-24.78|0.0001
95782474|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.427||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.46|3.16|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.16|-11.46|0.3492
95782475|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.38|-1.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure||-1.98|-17.38|0.0389
95782476|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.51|-3.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-3.68|-18.51|0.0142
95812194|NCT00402987|191596816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to meaningful pain relief|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience meaningful pain relief within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to meaningful pain relief was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
95812195|NCT00402987|191596817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
95782477|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.13|-5.89|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.89|-21.13|0.0037
95782478|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.27|-7.58|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-7.58|-22.27|0.0009
95782479|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.23|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-11.23|0.3939
95812196|NCT00402987|191596817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value for distribution of time to onset of analgesia|Log Rank|||For subjects who did not experience onset of analgesia within 2 hours post-first dose, the time to onset of analgesia was censored at 2 hours||||<0.05
95812197|NCT00402987|191596818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
95956926|NCT00510146|191886092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95956927|NCT00510146|191886092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in triglycerides from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95956928|NCT00510146|191886092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in LDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95956929|NCT00510146|191886092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint-in HDL cholesterol from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
95956930|NCT00510146|191886093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in albumin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95956931|NCT00510146|191886094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in ALT/SGPT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956932|NCT00510146|191886094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in AST/SGOT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95956933|NCT00510146|191886094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in GGT from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956934|NCT00510146|191886095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in direct bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95999015|NCT02082184|191974528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Total treatment satisfaction score||||<0.001
96002045|NCT04003155|191981631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.489||95.0|-2.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||1.0|-2.0|0.489
95782480|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|19.13|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||19.13|3.95|0.0127
95782481|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.09|7.74|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.74|-7.09|0.9425
95812198|NCT00402987|191596818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
95956935|NCT00510146|191886095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in total bilirubin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956936|NCT00510146|191886095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in uric acid from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956937|NCT00510146|191886096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95956938|NCT00510146|191886097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hematocrit from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95999016|NCT01362322|191974539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-diphtheria (anti-D) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted radio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to diphteria vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.09|0.85|
95999017|NCT01362322|191974539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-tetanus (anti-T) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to tetanus vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.1|0.86|
95782482|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.544||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|18.59|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||18.59|3.58|0.0155
95782483|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.447||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.48|7.21|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.21|-7.48|0.9757
95782484|NCT00938587|191536689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.484||0.9184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.86|6.94|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||6.94|-7.86|0.9184
95782485|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.38|0.2403
95782486|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|-0.08|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.08|-0.52|0.0270
95782487|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.09|-0.36|0.3139
95782488|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.05|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.05|-0.50|0.0415
95860911|NCT03737981|191680495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.64|0.2414
96002046|NCT04003155|191981631|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.155||95.0|-2.5|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||||0.4|-2.5|0.155
95782489|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.25|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.25|-0.20|0.8585
95782490|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.18|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.18|-0.28|0.7284
95782491|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.10|-0.55|0.0171
95782492|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.06|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.06|-0.39|0.2277
95782493|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.22|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.22|-0.67|0.0013
95782494|NCT00938587|191536690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.11|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.11|-0.34|0.3908
95999018|NCT01362322|191974540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertussis toxoid (anti-PT) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.04|0.82|
95999019|NCT01362322|191974540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-filamentous haemagglutinin (anti-FHA) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to filamentous haemagglutinin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.03|0.83|
95999020|NCT01362322|191974540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios \[Boostrix-Prev Group over Boostrix-New Group\] for anti-pertactin (anti-PRN) antibodies was ≤ 1.5 (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Adjusted ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Analysis was performed to demonstrate that Boostrix administered using the new syringe presentation was non-inferior to Boostrix administered using the previous syringe presentation, in terms of immune response to pertactin vaccine antigens, one month after booster vaccination.||1.13|0.85|
95999021|NCT01943539|191974552|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95812199|NCT00402987|191596818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.889||95.0||||Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg (pooled) that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.889
95999022|NCT02333331|191974556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.64|0.274
95999023|NCT02333331|191974556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.83|0.320
95999024|NCT02333331|191974556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-0.24|0.134
95999025|NCT02333331|191974557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|30.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.95|-37.6|0.576
95999026|NCT02333331|191974557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|61.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||61.41|-22.2|0.178
95999027|NCT02333331|191974557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.98|-10.4|0.163
95999028|NCT02333331|191974558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.10|0.488
95999029|NCT02333331|191974558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.02|0.055
95999030|NCT02333331|191974558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.03|0.161
95999031|NCT02333331|191974559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.99|0.213
95999032|NCT02333331|191974559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|1.03|<0.001
95999033|NCT02333331|191974559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.05|<0.001
95999034|NCT02333331|191974560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.458
95999035|NCT02333331|191974560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|1.03|<0.001
95999036|NCT02333331|191974560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|1.04|<0.001
95812200|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||<0.001
95999037|NCT00537940|191974561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.0|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between Baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||7.0|-6.0|0.8708
95999038|NCT00537940|191974562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.335|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio and its 95% CI are calculated by exponentiating the log odds ratio and 95% CI that correspond to the treatment contrast in the logistic regression model with treatment as fixed effect and Baseline term and country as covariate. All statistical tests for secondary efficacy parameters were two sided and performed at significance level of α = 0.05. The above statistical analysis applies to All Partial Seizures - FAS Population.||1.335|0.635|0.662
95999039|NCT00537940|191974563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9232
95999040|NCT00537940|191974563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6361|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple Partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6361
95999041|NCT00537940|191974563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9075|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9075
95999042|NCT00537940|191974563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4203
95999043|NCT00537940|191974564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|||||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5069
95782495|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.093||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.43|8.1|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.10|-15.43|0.6067
95782496|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.101||0.1816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.32|2.23|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.23|-21.32|0.1816
95782497|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.029||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|8.82|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.82|-14.50|0.6873
95782498|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.42|2.98|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.98|-20.42|0.2188
95782499|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.024||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.82|12.47|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||12.47|-10.82|0.9067
95812201|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
95812202|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor).|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
95812203|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.411
95956939|NCT00510146|191886098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin A1c from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95956940|NCT00510146|191886099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95812204|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.930
95812205|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.438
95860912|NCT03860259|191680499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1771
95956941|NCT00510146|191886100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in prolactin from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956942|NCT00510146|191886101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in urinalysis-specific gravity from Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956943|NCT00510146|191886102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcF interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
95956944|NCT00510146|191886102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in QTcB interval from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95999044|NCT00537940|191974564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|||||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4721
95782500|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.254||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.05|8.0|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.00|-16.05|0.5803
95782501|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.156||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.16|3.57|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.57|-20.16|0.2490
95782502|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.178||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.52|0.28|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.28|-23.52|0.1081
95999045|NCT00537940|191974564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|||||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6054
95782503|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-15.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.098||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.66|-4.12|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-4.12|-27.66|0.0271
95999046|NCT00537940|191974564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6603
95999047|NCT00537940|191974566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is calculated using Fisher Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1881
95999048|NCT00537940|191974567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and and country as covariates.||0.97|-0.53|0.5643
95999049|NCT00537940|191974567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21 / ET , HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country as covariates.||0.54|-0.73|0.7712
95999050|NCT00537940|191974567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.4236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.97|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.97|-0.41|0.4236
95999051|NCT00537940|191974567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.4|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Change at Week 21/ET, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment1difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.40|-0.75|0.5492
95782504|NCT00938587|191536691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.121||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.41|4.21|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||4.21|-19.41|0.2881
95999052|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate least square (LS) mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||7.31|-0.81|0.1160
95812206|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.002
95999053|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.98|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.98|-3.62|0.8490
95860913|NCT03860259|191680499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2833
95999054|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|6.73|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.73|-4.34|0.6728
95999055|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.47|-2.56|0.3954
95999056|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||8.98|-0.92|0.1106
95999057|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Awaken Short of Breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.22|-6.09|0.3603
95999058|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.30|0.8312
95999059|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Quantity of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||0.42|-0.38|0.9101
95782505|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.059||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.23|5.19|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.19|-18.23|0.3579
95860914|NCT03860259|191680499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.0909
95999060|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|2.45|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.45|-7.19|0.3346
95782506|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.046||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.24|3.14|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.14|-20.24|0.2274
95782507|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.973||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.72|1.41|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.41|-21.72|0.1482
95782508|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.962||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.74|-0.64|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.64|-23.74|0.0828
95782509|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953||0.6021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.17|7.9|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||7.90|-15.17|0.6021
95812207|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.013
95812208|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/50mg versus Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.015
95956945|NCT00510146|191886103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint in heart rate from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
95956946|NCT00510146|191886104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.64||p-value represents a comparison of the olanzapine and placebo groups in change from baseline to endpoint for MINI Suicidality Total Score from the following ANCOVA model: Change=Treatment+Baseline+Geographic Region.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-0.59|0.943
95782510|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.213||0.7528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.24|9.68|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.68|-14.24|0.7528
95782511|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.94|3.6|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||3.60|-19.94|0.2523
95812209|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.748
95860915|NCT03860259|191680499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.2310
95782512|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.118||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.43|0.17|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.17|-23.43|0.1049
95782513|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.006||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.14|-5.91|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-5.91|-29.14|0.0138
95782514|NCT00938587|191536692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.05|2.34|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.34|-21.05|0.1873
95782515|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.339||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|5.32|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||5.32|-12.40|0.5090
95860916|NCT03860259|191680499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.0801
95860917|NCT03860259|191680499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Total||||0.0307
95860918|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.1956
95956947|NCT00510146|191886112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.736
95860919|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2274||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.2274
95782516|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.354||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.78|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-17.78|0.0998
95782517|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.282||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.52|8.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||8.01|-9.52|0.8866
95782518|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.88|2.66|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.66|-14.88|0.2499
95782519|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.283||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.99|11.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||11.55|-5.99|0.5995
95782520|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.429||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|9.61|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||9.61|-8.40|0.9117
95782521|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.381||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.84|-0.98|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.98|-18.84|0.0684
95782522|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.366||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.39|2.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||2.42|-15.39|0.2292
95782523|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|-8.19|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-8.19|-25.81|0.0018
95782524|NCT00938587|191536693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.95|1.76|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.76|-15.95|0.1867
95782525|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|4.38|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.38|-4.64|0.9624
95782526|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.58|-4.24|0.9493
95782527|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.738||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|8.02|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.02|-1.10|0.2100
95782528|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|8.18|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.18|-0.66|0.1602
95782529|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|8.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.10|-0.92|0.1892
95782530|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.38|-3.89|0.7899
95782531|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.49|-0.56|0.1490
95782532|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.24|-5.97|0.6238
95860920|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1090
95860921|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1618||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.1618
95860922|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1264||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.1264
95860923|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.0394
95860924|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3968||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.3968
95999061|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Adequacy of Sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||3.37|-4.69|0.7491
95782533|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|6.35|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.35|-2.64|0.4933
95782534|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.739||0.4445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Role physical at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.46|-6.67|0.4445
95782535|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.897||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|8.34|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.34|-1.31|0.2288
95782536|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.844||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||9.50|0.03|0.0980
95782537|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|10.43|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate||10.43|0.64|0.0637
95782538|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.07|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.50|2.07|0.0190
95782539|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.81|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Bodily pain at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.86|-2.81|0.4886
95860925|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3407||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.3407
95860926|NCT03860259|191680500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4033||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4033
95782540|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|3.14|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.14|-3.12|0.9951
95782541|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.4721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|4.34|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.34|-1.71|0.4721
95782542|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.879||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|2.36|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.36|-3.90|0.6835
95782543|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|3.56|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-2.49|0.7701
95782544|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.831||0.671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.83|2.27|||ANCOVA|||General health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||2.27|-3.83|0.6710
95782545|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|7.73|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.73|-1.69|0.2886
95782546|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.86|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.86|-0.42|0.1340
95782547|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.95|-1.48|0.2563
95860927|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1707||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.1707
95860928|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3446
95860929|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.4310
95860930|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3143||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.3143
95860931|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4749
95860932|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.3728
95782548|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.771||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|9.05|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.05|-0.18|0.1138
95782549|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.793||0.9386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Vitality at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.87|-4.44|0.9386
95782550|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.701||0.8814|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.90|-4.09|0.8814
95782551|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|8.37|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.37|-0.42|0.1363
95782552|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.20|-3.74|0.7864
95782553|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.619||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|8.66|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.66|-0.06|0.1048
95782554|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.08|4.73|||ANCOVA|||Social functioning at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.73|-4.08|0.9024
95782555|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|8.98|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.98|-3.74|0.4954
95782556|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.735||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|11.36|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||11.36|-1.08|0.1729
95860933|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.1628
95782557|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.57|-4.15|0.5650
95782558|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|10.94|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.94|-1.48|0.2087
95782559|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.771||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.69|5.87|||ANCOVA|||Role emotional at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.87|-6.69|0.9139
95782560|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.371||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.11|7.12|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.12|-4.11|0.6559
95782561|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.315||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|6.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.67|-4.37|0.7304
95782562|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.369||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||10.25|-0.98|0.1729
95782563|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.335||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|9.83|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.83|-1.28|0.2038
95782564|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.328||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.41|8.67|||ANCOVA|||Mental health at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.67|-2.41|0.3503
95782565|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||3.63|-3.06|0.8875
95782566|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||5.25|-1.31|0.3203
95860934|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.0731
95860935|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4909||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4909
95860936|NCT03860259|191680501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4411||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.4411
95999062|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|6.71|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.71|-0.74|0.1162
95782567|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|4.72|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.72|-2.09|0.5232
95782568|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.971||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.28|-0.28|0.1324
95782569|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|4.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||4.40|-2.34|0.6134
95782570|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.387||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||7.91|-3.38|0.5059
95999063|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||5.32|-1.21|0.2163
95782571|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.329||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.99|-2.10|0.3042
95860937|NCT03860259|191680502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1786||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Acetaminophen||||0.1786
95860938|NCT03860259|191680502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1876||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Ibuprofen||||0.1876
95999064|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||6.61|0.30|0.0321
95860939|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3638||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline PCS||||0.3638
95860940|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 PCS||||0.0856
95999065|NCT00537940|191974568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 21 Sleep Problem Index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and country; for post-baseline, baseline was included as a covariate.||2.85|-2.17|0.7889
95999066|NCT00537940|191974569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.948|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.948|0.449|0.0252
95782572|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||8.82|-2.47|0.3519
95782573|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|9.92|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||9.92|-1.21|0.1966
95782574|NCT00938587|191536694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.345||0.786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|6.48|||ANCOVA|||Mental component at D14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using ANCOVA where treatment as fixed effect, baseline as the covariate.||6.48|-4.66|0.7860
95782575|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.01|-0.93|0.1090
95782576|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.38|0.0014
95860941|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4428||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 PCS||||0.4428
95860942|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3378||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 PCS||||0.3378
95860943|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3942||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 PCS||||0.3942
95860944|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline MCS||||0.2190
95860945|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14 MCS||||0.1112
95860946|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1737||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30 MCS||||0.1737
95782577|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.09|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.09|-1.03|0.0506
95782578|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|-0.55|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.55|-1.48|0.0004
95999067|NCT00537940|191974569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.811||||0.3459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 21: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.254|0.524|0.3459
95782579|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.56|0.7272
95999068|NCT00685178|191974580|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Condition|2.21||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|||||Using the proportion of negative urine samples obtained, the four groups were compared to determine whether there are any group differences in cocaine abstinence (as measured by negative urine samples).|Chi-squared||F-value for main effect of Drug Condition|||||0.531
95999069|NCT00685178|191974581|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.969|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||CR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between CR groups (topiramate + CR and Placebo + CR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
95999070|NCT00685178|191974581|SUPERIORITY||Spearmann's rank correlation|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)||NonCR subjects only|Analyses were performed to measure the correlation between Non-CR groups (topiramate + NonCR and Placebo + NonCR) and abstinence.||||<0.001
95812210|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 50mg/50mg versus Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.958
95999071|NCT01389128|191974604|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95999072|NCT01389128|191974607|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95999073|NCT01702805|191974626|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||Robust Poisson Regression|The relative risk was adjusted for birth-weight and center stratum.||Null hypothesis: A higher hemoglobin threshold for red-cell transfusions, as compared with a lower threshold, will not reduce nor increase the incidence of death or neurodevelopmental impairment in infants at 22 to 26 months of age corrected for prematurity.||1.10|0.92|0.93
95999074|NCT02439775|191974671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1194||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||0.1194
95999075|NCT01238120|191974681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9168
95999076|NCT01238120|191974682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6536|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6536
95999077|NCT01184989|191974696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8||||90.0|97.64|106.893|||Geometric Mean||Dispersion value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated local measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 136 quantifiable measurements.||106.893|97.640|
95999078|NCT01184989|191974697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability analysis|Ratio|92.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.5||||90.0|90.079|94.719|||Geometric Mean||The Dispersion Value is actually the intraindividual gCV.|Estimated central measurements are compared to HPLC-MS/MS measurements. The comparison was done for the 468 quantifiable measurements.||94.719|90.079|
95999079|NCT01515072|191974699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.21||This is an unadjusted comparison. P value \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses for the RIPC effect are provided below.|0.08 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size and Power estimation: A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.21|-0.37|0.38
96002047|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.09|-2.53|<0.001
95782580|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.07|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.07|-1.05|0.0604
95782581|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.59|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.59|-1.53|0.0003
95812211|NCT00402987|191596819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall test of Celecoxib 100mg/Placebo versus Celecoxib 100mg/50mg that takes into account the ordered data (categories: excellent, good, fair, poor)."|Mantel Haenszel|Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||||||0.747
95812212|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.999||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.999
95999080|NCT01515072|191974700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||This is an unadjusted analysis. P \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted analyses are provided below.|0.03 less organs per donor in the RIPC group.|Sample Size A sample size of at least 150 donors in each arm was estimated to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.44 of an organ recovered and 0.48 of an organ transplanted per donor. The difference criterion was chosen based on published results achieved with hormonal resuscitation in organ donors. 6 Pooled standard deviations (organs recovered: 1.35; organs transplanted: 1.5) from data of two OPOs were used.||0.26|-0.33|0.70
95999081|NCT01515072|191974701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.63
95999082|NCT01515072|191974702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95999083|NCT01515072|191974703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
95999084|NCT01515072|191974704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.55
95999085|NCT01515072|191974705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.48
95999086|NCT01515072|191974706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.04
95999087|NCT01515072|191974707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|19.5||P\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Final flow was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion|Data shown above is the the adjusted mean difference in final flow in RIPC group|||19.5|-10.1|0.53
95999088|NCT01515072|191974708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95999089|NCT01515072|191974709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.76||Adjusted analysis with recipient age as a continuous variable, sex, race as black versus not black, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension,antigen mismatches, donor age as a continuous variable and trial site.|Chi-squared|||||2.76|0.95|0.07
95782582|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|-0.13|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.13|-1.09|0.0377
95782583|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|-0.65|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.65|-1.57|0.0001
95999090|NCT01515072|191974709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Unadjusted analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95999091|NCT01515072|191974710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.17|||Regression, Linear|Final resistance was modeled on RIPC and adjusted for donor stratum and duration of perfusion.|Data shown above is the adjusted mean difference in final resistance in the RIPC group.|||0.17|0.03|0.006
95999092|NCT01515072|191974711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.50
95999093|NCT01515072|191974712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.03
95999094|NCT01515072|191974713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.9|||Log Rank|Results of adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses for six month death-censored kidney graft survival are shown below|The proportional hazard ratio favors RIPC group|||0.90|0.04|0.01
95999095|NCT01515072|191974714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Log Rank|This is an unadjusted comparison||||||0.37
95999096|NCT03472534|191974717|OTHER|The p-value for the overall F-test was used to determine if the mean irritation scores were equal for all four products.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95999097|NCT00923091|191974726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
95999098|NCT00923091|191974726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0323||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0323
95999099|NCT00923091|191974726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0080
95999100|NCT00923091|191974726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0071
95999101|NCT00923091|191974726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0107
95999102|NCT00923091|191974727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95999103|NCT00923091|191974727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
95999104|NCT00923091|191974727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95999105|NCT00923091|191974727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0034
95999106|NCT00923091|191974727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95999107|NCT00923091|191974728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0295
95999108|NCT00923091|191974728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
95999109|NCT00923091|191974728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
95999110|NCT00923091|191974728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2033
95999111|NCT00923091|191974728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2529||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2529
95999112|NCT00923091|191974729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1135||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1135
95999113|NCT00923091|191974730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2765
95999114|NCT00923091|191974731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4964
95999115|NCT00923091|191974732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1301
95999116|NCT00923091|191974732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01301
95999117|NCT00923091|191974733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0503
95999118|NCT03291197|191974743|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Our study was not powered to perform statistical analysis though was still conduct to look for a trend in reduction of VAS.||||0.043
95999119|NCT04246047|191974785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.31|0.53|||one-sided stratified log-rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the number of lines of prior therapy, prior bortezomib and revised international staging system (R-ISS) at screening, with a covariate of treatment.|||0.53|0.31|<0.00001
95999120|NCT03772327|191974814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.333||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.694|||t-test, 2 sided|A ratio of Week 12 to baseline TFV-DP levels was used rather than a raw difference as a ratio was normally distributed.|The mean difference is mean ratio (Week 12 TFV-DP level over the Week 0 TFV-DP level) in the Routine counseling + AdhereTech bottle arm less the mean ratio in the Routine counseling arm.|The power calculation was based on a null hypothesis of no difference in mean tenofovir-diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations between baseline versus week 12. Expected baseline mean (SD): 900 (404) fmol/punch. 12 week mean (SD): 1332 (597) fmol/punch in the AdhereTech bottle arm vs. 900 (404) fmol/punch in control arm. Type 1 error = 0.05, power = 80%, a sample size of 32 per arm (64 total) based on a two-sided t-test with equal variance.||0.694|-0.028|0.070
95999121|NCT03772327|191974815|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined if a two-sided 2 sample proportion test accepts the null hypothesis with p \> 0.05.|Difference in proportions|0.045||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|degrees of freedom = 1|This is the proportion of those completing a week 12 visit less those completing a week 0 visit.|The null hypothesis is that the proportion of randomized participants that complete a week 12 visit is not lower in the AdhereTech bottle arm.||0.270|-0.179|0.89
95999122|NCT03772327|191974816|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Log transformation of viral load|Difference of log viral load at Week 12 less the log viral load at baseline|Null hypothesis: Mean HIV viral load is not significantly different in the AdhereTech bottle group compared to the routine counseling only group.||||0.328
95999123|NCT03772327|191974817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.395||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|2.044|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio for change from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL at baseline to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL at week 12 due to the intervention (AdhereTech bottle).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportion of participants that go from HIV RNA ≥ 20 copies/mL to HIV RNA \< 20 copies/mL between baseline to Week 12 in the AdhereTech bottle group compared the routine counseling group.||2.044|0.058|0.294
95782584|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8612
95999124|NCT03772327|191974819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.276|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Adherence in the AdhereTech bottle arm is not better than the control arm at Week 12.||0.276|-0.237|1
95999125|NCT04323488|191974825|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.925
95999126|NCT04323488|191974825|OTHER|||||||0.834||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.834
95999127|NCT04323488|191974825|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.180
95999128|NCT04323488|191974825|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.091
95999129|NCT04323488|191974826|OTHER|||||||0.524||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.524
95999130|NCT04323488|191974826|OTHER|||||||0.379||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.379
95999131|NCT04323488|191974826|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.010
95999132|NCT04323488|191974826|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.017
95999133|NCT04323488|191974827|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.60
95999134|NCT04323488|191974827|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.03
95999135|NCT04323488|191974827|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.60
95999136|NCT04323488|191974827|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.03
95999137|NCT04323488|191974828|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||< 0.001
95999138|NCT04323488|191974828|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and post-intervention (within 2 weeks post-intervention)||||0.29
95999139|NCT04323488|191974828|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||< 0.001
95999140|NCT04323488|191974828|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline and 1 year follow up||||0.26
95782585|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.93|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.93|-0.04|0.1330
95999141|NCT05755438|191974839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.659|5.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||5.744|1.659|0.0003
95999142|NCT05755438|191974839|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|36.39||||||||36.39|11.42|
95999143|NCT05755438|191974840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||6.033|1.400|0.0034
95999144|NCT05755438|191974840|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|27.72||||||||27.72|5.82|
95999145|NCT05755438|191974841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|16.485|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||16.485|1.206|0.0164
95782586|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.42|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.42|-0.52|0.8542
95782587|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.82|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.82|-0.13|0.2339
95782588|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.61|0.5927
95999146|NCT05755438|191974841|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.591|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|15.79||||||||15.79|1.71|
95999147|NCT05755438|191974842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|14.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||14.647|1.486|0.0048
95999148|NCT05755438|191974842|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|11.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|19.62||||||||19.62|3.71|
95999149|NCT05755438|191974843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.422|8.608|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by IGA-CPG-S score (2 or ≥3) and geographic region (North America or outside of North America).||||8.608|1.422|0.0064
95999150|NCT05755438|191974843|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|24.17||||||||24.17|4.54|
95999151|NCT05755438|191974844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||-0.44|-1.54|0.0005
95999152|NCT05755438|191974844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||-0.73|-2.11|<0.0001
95999153|NCT05755438|191974844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||-0.94|-2.43|<0.0001
95999154|NCT05755438|191974844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||-0.91|-2.43|<0.0001
95999155|NCT05755438|191974847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.925|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.406|2.636|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||2.636|1.406|<0.0001
95999156|NCT05755438|191974848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.111||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.419|3.139|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors between treatment and vehicle.|Cox regression model stratified by stratification factors (Baseline IGA 2/3, Region North America/ Outside of North America) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between treatment and vehicle.|||3.139|1.419|0.0002
95999157|NCT05755438|191974851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 2||-0.16|-1.20|0.0111
95999158|NCT05755438|191974851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 4||-0.47|-1.82|0.0010
95999159|NCT05755438|191974851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 8||-0.37|-1.84|0.0034
95999160|NCT05755438|191974851|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Week 12||-0.37|-1.90|0.0038
95999161|NCT05755438|191974857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.826||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.42|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||1.42|-1.84|0.8028
95999162|NCT05755438|191974857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.928||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||1.49|-2.17|0.7151
95782589|NCT00938587|191536695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Day 42: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.37|-0.57|0.7304
95999163|NCT05755438|191974857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.947||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.79|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||0.79|-2.95|0.2569
95999164|NCT05755438|191974857|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.971||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.53|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||0.53|-3.30|0.1555
95782590|NCT00938587|191536696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|-0.01|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.01|-0.97|0.0956
95782591|NCT00938587|191536696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.45|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.45|-1.40|0.0016
95782592|NCT00938587|191536696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|-0.17|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.17|-1.13|0.0258
95782593|NCT00938587|191536696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.56|-0.62|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||-0.62|-1.56|0.0002
95782594|NCT00938587|191536696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.5692||90.0|-0.63|0.31|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.31|-0.63|0.5692
95782595|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|35.98|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||35.98|-8.65|0.1460
95782596|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|38.1||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.25|59.46|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||59.46|12.25|0.0052
95999165|NCT05755438|191974859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 2||10.27|-0.47|0.0736
95999166|NCT05755438|191974859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|8.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 4||8.69|-2.07|0.2265
95999167|NCT05755438|191974859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.061||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|13.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 8||13.35|1.27|0.0180
95782597|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.3||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.0|24.66|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||24.66|-22.00|0.5094
95782598|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.11||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|48.34|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||48.34|-0.69|0.0551
95782599|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.99||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.09|8.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||8.78|-34.09|0.9999
95782600|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.56||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|37.67|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||37.67|-17.18|0.3027
95782601|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.67||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.24|46.16|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||46.16|-6.24|0.1074
95782602|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.46||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.08|43.7|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||43.70|-10.08|0.2340
95782603|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|28.57||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|53.07|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||53.07|0.91|0.0442
95782604|NCT00938587|191536697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.9||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.82|32.92|||Barnard-Exact test|||Day 14||32.92|-19.82|0.3813
95782605|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|27.09|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.09|-3.90|0.1017
95782606|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.49|0.0218
95782607|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|9.52||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|27.06|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||27.06|-3.71|0.1082
95782608|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.05||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.81|38.44|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||38.44|4.81|0.0166
95782609|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22||||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.61|25.87|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||25.87|-21.61|0.4776
95782610|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|27.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|50.78|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||50.78|2.53|0.0347
95782611|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|7.94||||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.71|31.59|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||31.59|-13.71|0.3343
95860947|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2408||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60 MCS||||0.2408
95782612|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|33.33||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.35|55.0|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||55.00|8.35|0.0117
95782613|NCT00938587|191536698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.71||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.86|27.04|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||27.04|-15.86|0.3720
95782614|NCT00938587|191536699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
95782615|NCT00938587|191536699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.61|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-8.61|0.2630
95782616|NCT00938587|191536699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
95782617|NCT00938587|191536699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.76||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.51|20.67|||Barnard exact test|||Day 7||20.67|-7.51|0.2539
95782618|NCT00938587|191536699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.23|0.0477
95782619|NCT00938587|191536699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.29||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|32.92|||Barnard exact test|||Day 14||32.92|0.65|0.0442
95782620|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5403
95782621|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.48|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.48|-0.61|0.8374
95782622|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.28|0.4305
95782623|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.53|-0.55|0.9733
95782624|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.8613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.6|||MMRM|||Day 7: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.60|-0.48|0.8613
95782625|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.78|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.78|-0.35|0.5245
95782626|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.8917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.51|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.51|-0.60|0.8917
95782627|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.03|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||1.03|-0.09|0.1695
95782628|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.75|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.75|-0.34|0.5339
95782629|NCT00938587|191536702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||MMRM|||Day 14: Treatment difference and its corresponding 90% CI was based on LS mean difference using MMRM where treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction were fixed effects, participant as random effect, baseline as the covariate and CS as covariance structure.||0.80|-0.30|0.4520
95782630|NCT04006509|191536725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
95782631|NCT04006509|191536726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.539
95782632|NCT04006509|191536727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
95782633|NCT04006509|191536728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Marginal Two-Part Model|||||||0.743
95782634|NCT04006509|191536729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.886
95782635|NCT04006509|191536730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.107
95860948|NCT03860259|191680503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90 MCS||||0.0380
95999168|NCT05755438|191974859|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|12.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model: (Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors \[IGA-CPG-S/Region\] + Visit + Treatment\*Visit)||Week 12||12.06|-0.25|0.0600
95999169|NCT01477450|191974918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
95999170|NCT01477450|191974918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95999171|NCT01477450|191974918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95999172|NCT01093612|191974941|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
95782636|NCT04006509|191536731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.687
95812213|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
95860949|NCT03860259|191680504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2220
95999173|NCT01093612|191974942|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||<0.001
95999174|NCT05165394|191974944|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.8663|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|||Significance level = 0.1|ANCOVA||Confidence interval and p-value are one-sided for test of null hypothesis that the LS mean difference between NBI-1065846 and placebo in DARS total score at Day 57 is greater than or equal to zero.||||-8.4|0.8663
95999175|NCT05165394|191974945|SUPERIORITY||Least-Squares Mean Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||NBI-1065846 - Placebo|||4.8|-7.1|0.7008
95999176|NCT05165394|191974946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9051|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test|||CGI-S scores at Day 57 for NBI-1065846 compared to placebo.||||0.9051
95999177|NCT01582282|191974955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.64||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95999178|NCT01582282|191974955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.72||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95999179|NCT01582282|191974956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.013
95999180|NCT01582282|191974956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95999181|NCT01582282|191974957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.808|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.808
95999182|NCT01582282|191974957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.328|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.328
95999183|NCT01582282|191974958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.508|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.508
95999184|NCT01582282|191974958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.962|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.962
95999185|NCT01582282|191974959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.84||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
95999186|NCT01582282|191974959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.978
95782637|NCT04006509|191536732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.871
95782638|NCT04006509|191536733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.376
95782639|NCT04006509|191536734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.770
95782640|NCT04006509|191536735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Marginalized Two-Part Model|||||||0.237
95812214|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.076
95812215|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.008
95812216|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95860950|NCT03860259|191680505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2856||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2856
95860951|NCT03860259|191680508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2241
95999187|NCT01582282|191974960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.14||||0.785|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.785
95999188|NCT01582282|191974960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45||||0.811|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.811
95999189|NCT05098015|191974961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
95999190|NCT05098015|191974962|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
95999191|NCT05098015|191974963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95999192|NCT05098015|191974964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95999193|NCT02158533|191974965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.4||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg compared to placebo.||0.4|-4.1|0.109
96002048|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.53|-1.97|<0.001
95999194|NCT02158533|191974965|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 0.5mg/0.5mg S2 vs Placebo S2). The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 0.5/0.5 compared to placebo.||2.3|-2.3|0.975
95999195|NCT01475955|191974974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pearson chi-square||||0.0041
95999196|NCT00756002|191975044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least Squares (LS) means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||<0.001
95782641|NCT00048997|191536742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.38||One-sided significance level of 0.025.|Log Rank||Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is the reference arm for the hazard ratio.|This study was designed to detect a 20% relative improvement in hazard rate: null hypothesis (observation): MST (median survival time) = 23.5 mo.; alternative hypothesis (PCI): MST= 29.4 mo. A one-sided log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 would have 80% power to detect this difference with a sample size of 1007 patients (527 deaths were required for the final analysis).||1.38|0.84|0.2853
95782642|NCT00048997|191536743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.01
95782643|NCT00048997|191536744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.008
95782644|NCT00048997|191536745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.20
95782645|NCT00048997|191536746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.14
95812217|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999197|NCT00756002|191975045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999198|NCT00756002|191975046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95782646|NCT00048997|191536747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.52
95782647|NCT00048997|191536748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Z-test, 2-sided|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.51
95782648|NCT00048997|191536749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Other [Z-test, 2-sided]|Significance level = 0.05||||||0.11
95782649|NCT00048997|191536750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = PCI arm|The development of CNS metastases was assessed using logistic regression modeling comparing presence vs. absence of brain metastases at 1 year.||4.80|1.32|0.005
95782650|NCT00207727|191536788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The p-value was non estimable because the observed trend was in the opposite direction of that stated in the one sided alternative hypothesis|Jonckheere Terpstra|Jonckheere Terpstra nonparametric trend test procedure with 5% level of significance was be used to test for the monotonic trend.||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis of no effect among the treatment groups was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the cumulative number of newly Gd-enhancing T1-weighted lesions on cranial MRIs through Week 23 would decrease monotonically with dose at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.00
95782651|NCT00207727|191536789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.892
95782652|NCT00207727|191536789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.599
95782653|NCT00207727|191536789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||||||0.517
95782654|NCT00207727|191536789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney|||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group.||||0.967
95782655|NCT00207727|191536790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.720
95782656|NCT00207727|191536790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.152
95782657|NCT00207727|191536790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||||||0.431
95782658|NCT00207727|191536790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test (α = 0.05) used for each comparison with placebo||Hypothesis: The null hypothesis is no difference between any ustekinumab treatment groups and placebo at a significant level of 0.05 for comparison for each treatment group with placebo..||||0.292
95812218|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95860952|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2714||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Time of discharge||||0.2714
95999199|NCT00756002|191975047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||One subject did not have postsleep questionnaire data on day 2; however, had polysomnography data recorded. Analysis was based on LOCF data.||||0.003
95999200|NCT00756002|191975048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95782659|NCT03759366|191536791|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.13|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 26 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-3.13|-8.40|0.0004
95782660|NCT03759366|191536805|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-4.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.65|||Repeated Measures Model||The least square mean change from baseline in QMG total score at Week 52 was calculated.|The observed change in QMG was analyzed with baseline QMG score and visits as covariates.||-1.65|-6.93|0.0033
95782661|NCT02993354|191536812|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|0.95||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.31|0.69|0.75
95812219|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812220|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95860953|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3749||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||24 hrs||||0.3749
95860954|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3862||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||48 hrs||||0.3862
95860955|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||72 hrs||||0.1735
95999201|NCT00756002|191975049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95860956|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4304||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||96 hrs||||0.4304
95999202|NCT00756002|191975050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999203|NCT00756002|191975051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95782662|NCT04459598|191536821|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|55.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.24|67.46|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||67.46|45.24|
95782663|NCT04459598|191536821|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|32.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.79|44.05|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||44.05|23.79|
95812221|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812222|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812223|NCT00402987|191596820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812224|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.003
95812225|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
95860957|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||120 hrs||||0.4902
95860958|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 14||||0.4371
95860959|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 30||||0.1950
95860960|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4124|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Day 60||||0.4124
95860961|NCT03860259|191680509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||P value less than 0.1 will be considered significant|t-test, 1 sided|||Day 90||||0.0268
95860962|NCT06026124|191680530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95999204|NCT00756002|191975052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999205|NCT00756002|191975053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999206|NCT00756002|191975054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999207|NCT00756002|191975055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999208|NCT00756002|191975056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95999209|NCT00756002|191975057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||LS means from ANCOVA model with effects for treatment \& pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate. P-values from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
95999210|NCT00756002|191975058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
95860963|NCT06026124|191680530|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95999211|NCT00756002|191975059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.010
95999212|NCT00756002|191975060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.002
95999213|NCT00756002|191975061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.006
95999214|NCT00756002|191975062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999215|NCT00756002|191975063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999216|NCT00756002|191975064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with the Baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999217|NCT00756002|191975065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999218|NCT00756002|191975066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999219|NCT00756002|191975067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999220|NCT00756002|191975068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999221|NCT00756002|191975069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95999222|NCT00756002|191975070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95860964|NCT06026124|191680531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95860965|NCT06026124|191680531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95860966|NCT06026124|191680532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95860967|NCT06026124|191680532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95999223|NCT00756002|191975071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.785
95999224|NCT00756002|191975072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.422
95782664|NCT04459598|191536823|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.47|14.56|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||14.56|8.47|
95782665|NCT04459598|191536823|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.47|5.45|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.45|2.47|
95782666|NCT04459598|191536824|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.73|13.7|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||13.70|7.73|
95782667|NCT04459598|191536824|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.62|5.76|||||For the comparison, the Efavirenz + Quizartinib treatment group represents the numerator and Quizartinib only treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||5.76|2.62|
95782668|NCT01653327|191536850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3198
95782669|NCT01653327|191536851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3522
95812226|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.043
95860968|NCT06026124|191680533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
95999225|NCT00756002|191975073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.665
95999226|NCT00756002|191975074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.228
95782670|NCT04985942|191536866|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-3.44|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-3.44|-6.38|<0.0001
95782671|NCT04985942|191536867|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.48|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|MMRM Analysis Based on Hypothetical Estimand Strategy||||-0.48|-0.85|<0.0001
95782672|NCT03372382|191536868|EQUIVALENCE|We prespecified an equivalence margin of -10 to 10mm. We would consider non-opioid analgesia to be equivalent to opioid analgesia if the pain score mean difference between the groups and it's 95% confidence interval (CI) were within the prespecified margin. Pain score mean difference or 95% CI boundaries outside this range would be considered a clinically important difference between treatments|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.9|||||The upper boundary of the CI is out of pre-specified limits.|Sample size calculations were based on VAS pain score at 2-4 weeks, assuming a mean of 10mm and standard deviation (SD) of 20 mm in the opioid group Assuming a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power to detect equivalence, a total of 138 participants would be needed. To account for a 25% expected attrition rate and crossover, a total of 170 participants would be needed.||11.9|-2.1|
95782673|NCT02757352|191536870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.51|1.23|0.009
95782674|NCT02757352|191536870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.25|1.48|0.002
95782675|NCT02757352|191536871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.38|0.004
95782676|NCT02757352|191536871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.77|1.40|0.004
95812227|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.032
95812228|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
95860969|NCT06026124|191680533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.00001
95860970|NCT06026124|191680534|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.17|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.17
95860971|NCT06026124|191680534|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||LSD test|||||||=1.00
95782677|NCT02757352|191536872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.81|<0.001
95999227|NCT00756002|191975075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.099
95782678|NCT02757352|191536872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.94|<0.001
95782679|NCT02757352|191536873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.96|<0.001
95782680|NCT02757352|191536873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-1.05|<0.001
95782681|NCT02757352|191536875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.139||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6092|5.0926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.0926|0.6092|0.013
95782682|NCT02757352|191536875|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1278||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|4.9694|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9694|0.5299|0.015
95782683|NCT02757352|191536876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.2001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6467||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9525|7.4477|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.4477|0.9525|0.012
95860972|NCT06026124|191680535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||LSD test|||||||<0.0001
95860973|NCT06026124|191680536|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.51|||||||LSD test|||||||=0.51
95999228|NCT00756002|191975076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.005
95999229|NCT00756002|191975077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
95782684|NCT02757352|191536876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6455||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3629|7.8533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.8533|1.3629|0.006
95782685|NCT02757352|191536877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.76|1.30|0.008
95782686|NCT02757352|191536877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.66|<0.001
95782687|NCT02757352|191536878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|2.02|<0.001
95782688|NCT02757352|191536878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|9.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.05|1.76|<0.001
95782689|NCT02757352|191536879|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Square Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.28|0.031
95782690|NCT02757352|191536879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.61|0.001
95782691|NCT02757352|191536880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.92|0.006
95782692|NCT02757352|191536880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.49|-2.08|0.002
95782693|NCT02757352|191536881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.57|||ANCOVA|||||-1.57|-4.58|<0.001
95782694|NCT02757352|191536881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.751|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.72|||ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-5.68|<0.001
95782695|NCT02757352|191536882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.35|0.849
95782696|NCT02757352|191536882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.93|-1.48|0.648
95782697|NCT02757352|191536883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.93|0.018
95782698|NCT02757352|191536883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
95782699|NCT02757352|191536884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.47|19.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.40|1.47|0.0011
95782700|NCT02757352|191536884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|15.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.66|1.14|0.031
95782701|NCT02757352|191536885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8507||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.418|1.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.804|-9.418|0.183
95782702|NCT02757352|191536885|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8202||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.294|2.807|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.807|-8.294|0.331
95782703|NCT02757352|191536886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.69|0.008
95782704|NCT02757352|191536886|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.60|0.038
95782705|NCT02757352|191536887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.70|-0.59|0.871
95782706|NCT02757352|191536887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-0.30|0.295
95860974|NCT00332722|191680537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
95860975|NCT00332722|191680538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired t test|||||||<0.05
95860976|NCT02283762|191680543|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS means|-2.34||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.3|||MMRM (Method 1)|||||0.30|-4.99|0.0815
95860977|NCT02283762|191680544|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|%|0.2||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|14.09|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.09|-13.68|0.9770
95782707|NCT02757352|191536888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.26|0.257
95782708|NCT02757352|191536888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-1.56|0.057
95782709|NCT02757352|191536889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.85|0.082
95782710|NCT02757352|191536889|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-1.82|0.088
95782711|NCT02757352|191536890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.442||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||1.09|-4.66|0.219
95782712|NCT02757352|191536890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.388||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TJC||-0.76|-6.30|0.013
95782713|NCT02757352|191536890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.26|-1.68|0.009
95812229|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.066
95812230|NCT00402987|191596821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.482
95812231|NCT00402987|191596822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001||95.0|0.8|1.9||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.8|<0.001
95812232|NCT00402987|191596822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.002||95.0|0.4|1.5||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.4|0.002
95782714|NCT02757352|191536890|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SJC||-0.06|-1.46|0.034
95782715|NCT02757352|191536892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.5|0.325
95782716|NCT02757352|191536892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.6|0.206
95782717|NCT02757352|191536893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-1.77|0.330
95782718|NCT02757352|191536893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-2.15|0.110
95782719|NCT02757352|191536894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.348
95782720|NCT02757352|191536894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.3|0.386
95782721|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.835||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.32|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||-4.20|-23.32|0.005
95782722|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.697||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|3.0|||ANCOVA|||Overall Impairment Score||3.00|-15.58|0.183
95782723|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||0.26|-12.05|0.060
95782724|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|1.97|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of absenteeism||1.97|-10.27|0.182
95782725|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.62|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||-4.60|-22.62|0.003
95782726|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.446||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.58|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of presentism||2.58|-15.00|0.164
95782727|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|-3.41|||LS Mean Difference|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-3.41|-17.85|0.004
95782728|NCT02757352|191536895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.12|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Impairment in Activities Performed Outside of Work||-2.86|-17.12|0.006
95782729|NCT00904917|191536904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.015
95782730|NCT00904917|191536906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.037
95812233|NCT00402987|191596822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.186||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.186
95812234|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.961
95812235|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.985||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.985
95812236|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.975||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.975
95956948|NCT00510146|191886112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944
95956949|NCT00510146|191886112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-standing systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
95782731|NCT01796301|191536911|SUPERIORITY|A two-step, step-down, fixed-sequential testing procedure was used to test the primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints for the comparison of romosozumab to teriparatide in the order presented for multiplicity adjustment to maintain the overall significance level at 0.05. The Key Secondary Efficacy Endpoints are the first 8 secondary endpoints reported below.|Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||The primary analysis to assess the treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) employed a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures. The model included main effects for treatment group, visit (categorical), baseline sCTX, baseline hip DXA BMD value, machine type (categorical), and machine type-by-baseline value interaction (to adjust for the effect of machine type on baseline DXA BMD value) as fixed main effects using an unstructured within-subject variance-covariance structure.||3.8|2.7|< 0.0001
95782732|NCT01796301|191536912|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.7|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.7|2.5|< 0.0001
95782733|NCT01796301|191536913|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
95782734|NCT01796301|191536914|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.0|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.0|2.8|< 0.0001
95782735|NCT01796301|191536915|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.3|3.9|< 0.0001
95782736|NCT01796301|191536916|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.5|< 0.0001
95782737|NCT01796301|191536917|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
95782738|NCT01796301|191536918|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.8|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.8|2.4|< 0.0001
95782739|NCT01796301|191536919|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.3|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.3|2.1|< 0.0001
95812237|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.532||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.532
95812238|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.690
95782740|NCT01796301|191536920|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.6|2.6|< 0.0001
95782741|NCT01796301|191536921|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, parameter baseline value, treatment-by visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.9|< 0.0001
95782742|NCT01796301|191536922|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.9|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||3.9|2.5|< 0.0001
95956950|NCT00510146|191886112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-sitting systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.612
95812239|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.820
95812240|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.180
95812241|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
95956951|NCT00510146|191886112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in diastolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
95956952|NCT00510146|191886112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint-orthostatic change in systolic blood pressure from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.122
95956953|NCT00510146|191886113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for weight from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95956954|NCT00510146|191886114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for albumin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956955|NCT00510146|191886114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for total protein from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95956956|NCT00510146|191886115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for alkaline phosphatase from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95956957|NCT00510146|191886115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for CPK from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95956958|NCT00510146|191886115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for GGT from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.354
95956959|NCT00510146|191886116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for chlorine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95956960|NCT00510146|191886117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for creatinine from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956961|NCT00510146|191886118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for erythrocyte count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95956962|NCT00510146|191886119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for hemoglobin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
95956963|NCT00510146|191886120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for platelet count from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95956964|NCT00510146|191886121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for prolactin from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956965|NCT00510146|191886122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for uric acid from Wilcoxon's signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95956966|NCT00510146|191886123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for fasting glucose from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95956967|NCT00510146|191886123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
95956968|NCT00510146|191886123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for triglycerides from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
95956969|NCT00510146|191886123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for LDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95956970|NCT00510146|191886123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for HDL cholesterol from t-tests on change.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95956971|NCT00510146|191886124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcF from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95956972|NCT00510146|191886124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for QTcB from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
95956973|NCT00510146|191886125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to endpoint for heart rate from t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919
95956974|NCT02264353|191886134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576
95956975|NCT02264353|191886135|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.394
95956976|NCT02264353|191886136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
95956977|NCT01196741|191886139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.65|0.57
95956978|NCT01196741|191886140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.81
95956979|NCT01196741|191886143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
95956980|NCT01196741|191886145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.99
95956981|NCT03640754|191886188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95956982|NCT03640754|191886188|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95956983|NCT03640754|191886189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95956984|NCT03640754|191886189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95956985|NCT03640754|191886190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95956986|NCT03640754|191886190|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95956987|NCT03640754|191886191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.199
95956988|NCT03640754|191886191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.189
95812242|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.693
95812243|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.039
95812244|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.154
95956989|NCT03640754|191886192|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
95956990|NCT03640754|191886192|SUPERIORITY|Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||||0.391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.391
95956991|NCT03640754|191886193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.232
95956992|NCT03640754|191886193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares means (LS Means) from a mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline M+S score, current smoking status, bmi, and parity as covariates||||0.085
95956993|NCT03640754|191886194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.501
95956994|NCT03640754|191886194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
95956995|NCT03640754|191886195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
95956996|NCT03640754|191886195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95956997|NCT03640754|191886196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.124
95956998|NCT03640754|191886196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
95956999|NCT03640754|191886197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
95957000|NCT03640754|191886197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.077
95957001|NCT03640754|191886201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.047
95957002|NCT03640754|191886201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.139
95957003|NCT03640754|191886201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.395
95957004|NCT03640754|191886202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.147
95957005|NCT03640754|191886202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.160
95957006|NCT03640754|191886202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.152
95957007|NCT03640754|191886203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.286
95957008|NCT03640754|191886203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.107
95957009|NCT03640754|191886204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.289
95957010|NCT03640754|191886204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.338
95957011|NCT03640754|191886205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.393
95957012|NCT03640754|191886205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.365
95957013|NCT03640754|191886206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.406
95957014|NCT03640754|191886206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.494
95957015|NCT00546884|191886207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95957016|NCT05329402|191886212|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority hypothesis is tenable if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval of the difference in the primary effectiveness evaluation indicator device cutting and anastomosis success rate between the test group and the control group is greater than the non-inferiority critical value (-10%)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0285|0.0273|||Wald|||||0.0273|-0.0285|0.9727
95957017|NCT01679613|191886221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|160.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.245|173.736||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %).~The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)."|||173.736|148.245|1.0000
95957018|NCT01679613|191886222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|179.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.557|204.779||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 - 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV (in %).~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib"|||204.779|157.557|1.0000
95957019|NCT01679613|191886223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio in percentage|168.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.252|181.981||p-value for ratio outside interval 0.8 to 1.25|ANOVA|The model includes fixed effects for sequence, period, and treatment. Subjects within sequences is included as random effect.|"The standard deviation is actually the gCV.~Ratio calculated as nintedanib+ketoconazole divided by nintedanib (in %)."|||181.981|155.252|1.000
95957020|NCT00645099|191886243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Based on available data it was estimated that in the paliperidone ER group the TG:HDL ratio would decrease with 0.15 and that the TG:HDL ratio would increase with 0.25 in the olanzapine group. The common SD of the change was estimated to be 1.4. A sample size of 205 patients in each treatment arm had 80% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in change of TG:HDL ratio after 6 months of treatment in favor of paliperidone ER treatment (Wilcoxon two-sample test with 0.05 two-sided significance level).||||< 0.0001
95957021|NCT00645099|191886243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline at end point.||||0.4718
95957022|NCT00645099|191886243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline at end point.||||< 0.0001
95812245|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.521||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.521
95812246|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
95957023|NCT00645099|191886244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
95957024|NCT00645099|191886244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.9143
95957025|NCT00645099|191886244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
95957026|NCT00645099|191886245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0050
95957027|NCT00645099|191886245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4454||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.4454
95957028|NCT00645099|191886245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0018
95957029|NCT00645099|191886246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
95957030|NCT00645099|191886247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0004
95957031|NCT00645099|191886248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0272
95957032|NCT00645099|191886249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1892
95957033|NCT00645099|191886250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0325
95957034|NCT00645099|191886251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1117
95957035|NCT00645099|191886252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6346||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6346
95957036|NCT00645099|191886253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||1.0000
95957037|NCT00645099|191886254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.6770
95957038|NCT00645099|191886255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.1308
95957039|NCT00645099|191886256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.3358
95957040|NCT00645099|191886257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
95957041|NCT00645099|191886257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||0.0001
95957042|NCT00645099|191886257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||< 0.0001
95957043|NCT00645099|191886258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
95957044|NCT00645099|191886259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||<0.0001
95957045|NCT00645099|191886260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||||||0.0230
95957046|NCT00645099|191886261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing non-inferiority of the paliperidone ER treatment group compared to the olanzapine treatment group, with regard to change versus baseline at end point of the total PANSS was done by means of Schuirmann's test. A difference of 6 points in change versus baseline on the total PANSS was considered to be a minimum clinically relevant difference.The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between paliperidone and olanzapine in change in TG:HDL ratio from baseline to endpoint.||||||0.0242||95.0|||||Schuirmann|The null hypothesis of non-equivalence was rejected and equivalence to within the specified equivalence bounds could be claimed.||||||0.0242
95957047|NCT00645099|191886261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
95957048|NCT00645099|191886261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This test was interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).||Within-group change from baseline to end point.||||<0.0001
95957049|NCT01201915|191886262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8463|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.8463
95957050|NCT01201915|191886262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9668|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 30% or less.||||0.9668
95957051|NCT01201915|191886262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||1-sided exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that percentage of participants with complete histologic clearance was 50% or less.||||0.7878
95957052|NCT00663923|191886264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.001||two - tailed p value \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|in this study degrees of freedom is sample size - 1||||-.001|-.62|<0.05
95812247|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
95812248|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.344
95812249|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812250|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
95957053|NCT00230971|191886276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||||95.0|-6.4|9.6|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||9.6|-6.4|
95957054|NCT00230971|191886277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.001||95.0|-8.8|12.5|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|||12.5|-8.8|0.001
95957055|NCT00230971|191886278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||||95.0|-7.9|13.3|||t-test, 1 sided||Estimates of the difference, CI and hypothesis tests are weighted by using minimum risk weights.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||13.3|-7.9|
95957056|NCT00230971|191886279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Overall inpatient hospitalization||||0.750
95957057|NCT00230971|191886279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Primary inpatient hospitalization||||0.655
95957058|NCT00230971|191886279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||ICU treatment||||0.191
95957059|NCT00230971|191886279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|Treatment as a factor||Inpatient hospitalization, non-ICU||||0.717
95957060|NCT00863798|191886293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.1||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.10|-0.38|0.175
95957061|NCT00863798|191886293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.75||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR 10 mg to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.75|-0.73|0.421
95957062|NCT00863798|191886294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.076
95957063|NCT00863798|191886294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.204
95957064|NCT00863798|191886295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.35|-0.04|0.130
95999230|NCT00756002|191975078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.001
95999231|NCT00756002|191975079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
95999232|NCT00756002|191975080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.040
95999233|NCT00756002|191975081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.814
95812251|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.249
95957065|NCT00863798|191886295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-0.16|0.757
95957066|NCT00863798|191886296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|3.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.16|-0.34|0.114
95957067|NCT00863798|191886296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.64|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.64|-0.85|0.316
95999234|NCT00756002|191975082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.929
95782743|NCT01796301|191536923|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|4.2|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.2|2.6|< 0.0001
95782744|NCT01796301|191536924|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.6|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||4.6|2.9|< 0.0001
95782745|NCT01796301|191536925|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.4|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|||Treatment difference (Romosozumab - Teriparatide) was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures adjusting for treatment, visit, baseline serum type 1 collagen C-telopeptide value, baseline BMD value, machine type, baseline BMD value-by machine type interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction, and using an unstructured variance covariance structure.||5.4|3.4|< 0.0001
95782746|NCT02131233|191536961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.204|5.223|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||5.223|-4.204|
95782747|NCT02131233|191536962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Reformulated Raltegravir is concluded non-inferior to Raltegravir if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in percent response is above -10 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|1.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|7.308|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL or HIV-1 RNA \>100,000 copies/mL)||7.308|-4.410|
95812252|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812253|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.006
95999235|NCT00756002|191975083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.591
95999236|NCT00756002|191975084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.015
95999237|NCT00756002|191975085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.097
95999238|NCT00756002|191975086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
95782748|NCT02131233|191536963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|26.7|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||26.7|-30.9|
95782749|NCT02131233|191536964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|31.6|||||Reformulated Raltegravir minus Raltegravir|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.||31.6|-32.8|
95812254|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.205||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.205
95812255|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812256|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
95812257|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.186||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.186
95812258|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999239|NCT00756002|191975087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.003
95999240|NCT00756002|191975088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-values for differences are obtained using t-tests from the ANCOVA model of the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with effects for treatment and pooled center, with Baseline as a covariate.||||||0.111
95999241|NCT01532453|191975089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank ANCOVA With treatment, center, gender, transplanted organ as factors and age of organ transplant as a covariable.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0278
95782750|NCT01006590|191537003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||ANCOVA|With baseline value as covariate and treatment group as factor; comparison of LSmeans for treatment||The null hypothesis H0: µt-µC=0, where μT denotes the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients treated with saxagliptin (test medication, T) and μC the mean absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 in the group of patients with uptitration of metformin (comparator, C) A sample size of 120 randomized and treated patients per treatment group yielded 80% power under the assumption of a true treatment difference of 0.4% and a standard deviation of 1.1%||0.07|-0.26|0.26
95782751|NCT01006590|191537004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.1|-5.6|0.3202
95782752|NCT01006590|191537005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.3|-6.7|0.6203
95812259|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812260|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.179||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.179
95999242|NCT01532453|191975090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2703|1.2405|||ANCOVA|||||1.2405|0.2703|<0.05
95999243|NCT03334214|191975091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95999244|NCT03334214|191975092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95999245|NCT03334214|191975095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
95999246|NCT03334214|191975096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the baseline liver fat stratum (\<20%, ≥20%) stratification factor.||||||0.0774
95999247|NCT03334214|191975097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
95999248|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol||||0.682
95999249|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||ANOVA|||ApoB||||0.716
95999250|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||ANOVA|||HDL||||0.717
95999251|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||ANOVA|||LDL-C||||0.463
95999252|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||ANOVA|||Non-HDL||||0.555
95999253|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANOVA|||Triglycerides||||0.619
95999254|NCT03334214|191975098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||ANOVA|||VLDL-C||||0.698
95999255|NCT03334214|191975099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||ANOVA|||FPG||||0.902
95999256|NCT03334214|191975099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Van Elteren test|||HOMA-IR||||0.267
95999257|NCT03334214|191975099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Van Elteren test|||Insulin||||0.200
95782753|NCT01006590|191537006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||ANCOVA|||||0.52|-0.38|0.7627
95782754|NCT01006590|191537007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-2.0|0.7701
95782755|NCT01006590|191537008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|10.93|||ANCOVA|||||10.93|-6.22|0.5882
95782756|NCT03224624|191537056|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in SBP|t- tests were done to compare group mean differences between self-management and usual care and within groups Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.72
95999258|NCT03334214|191975100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.933
95999259|NCT04063215|191975124|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.048
95999260|NCT04063215|191975125|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.2
95999261|NCT04063215|191975126|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
95782757|NCT03224624|191537056|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change (mean difference) between the two groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||direction of comparison: (self-management change over 12 months) - (usual care change over 12 months) in DBP|Mean differences were calculated by subtracting 12-month blood pressure from baseline blood pressure for each participant. t-tests were done to compare mean differences between the two groups.||||0.15
95782758|NCT03224624|191537056|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in SBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||0.01
95957068|NCT00863798|191886297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.50|-0.01|0.054
95957069|NCT00863798|191886297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.20|-0.32|0.253
95957070|NCT00863798|191886298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.83|0.86|0.2415
95957071|NCT00863798|191886298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.61|0.75|0.6169
95812261|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95957072|NCT00863798|191886299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.236||||0.3667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.96|0.78|0.3667
95957073|NCT00863798|191886299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.6509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.45|0.55|0.6509
95957074|NCT00863798|191886300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.3893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.73|0.81|0.3893
95957075|NCT00863798|191886300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.65|0.77|0.5510
95957076|NCT00863798|191886301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.442||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||2.09|0.99|0.0536
95957077|NCT00863798|191886301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.085||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis would be conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.57|0.75|0.6679
95957078|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.79|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.79|0.12|0.033
95999262|NCT04063215|191975127|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.10
95782759|NCT03224624|191537056|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month SBP)-(baseline SBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|Comparing baseline-\>12month SBP change within usual care group.||||<0.05
95782760|NCT03224624|191537056|EQUIVALENCE|Comparing baseline-\>12month DBP change within self-management group (null hypothesis no change).|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for self-management group (as given in table)|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within self-management group.||||<0.01
95812262|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812263|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.259||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.259
95957079|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.49|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score."||2.49|-0.20|0.096
95957080|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||0.95|0.02|0.043
95957081|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score."||1.00|0.06|0.027
95957082|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.98|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.98|0.01|0.045
95812264|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999263|NCT04063215|191975128|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.4
95782761|NCT03224624|191537056|EQUIVALENCE|change in DBP from baseline to 12-months within usual care group.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||(12-month DBP)-(baseline DBP) for usual care group (as given in table)|||||0.34
95782762|NCT01119846|191537125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5782|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.523|0.6335|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model.|||0.6335|0.5230|
95782763|NCT01119846|191537127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5282|0.6375|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-24.|||0.6375|0.5282|
95782764|NCT01119846|191537127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.5808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5325|0.6291|||||Dose Proportionality for GSK1292263 Using the Power Model for AUC0-last.|||0.6291|0.5325|
95782765|NCT01119846|191537142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.1||||||||1.10|-1.17|
95782766|NCT01119846|191537142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.90|
95812265|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812266|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.393||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.393
95812267|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999264|NCT04063215|191975129|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
96002049|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.19|-2.75|<0.001
95782767|NCT01119846|191537142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.10|
95782768|NCT01119846|191537142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||||||||0.45|-1.80|
95782769|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.80|
95782770|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.76|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.76|-1.53|
95782771|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.54|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.54|-1.64|
95782772|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.33|||||Comparison of AUC(0-24)|||2.33|-1.39|
95782773|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.95|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||1.95|-2.53|
95782774|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.3|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.30|-2.35|
95782775|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.15|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.15|-2.48|
95782776|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.21|||||Comparison of AUC(0-13)|||2.21|-1.88|
95782777|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.87|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.87|-1.58|
95782778|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.13|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.13|-1.41|
95782779|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|1.18|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||1.18|-1.36|
95782780|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.91|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-13)|||0.91|-1.33|
95782781|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.68|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.68|-1.68|
95782782|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.21|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||1.21|-1.24|
95782783|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.95|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.95|-1.44|
95782784|NCT01119846|191537143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.4|||||Comparison of iAUC(0-24)|||0.40|-1.72|
95782785|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-479.74|379.94|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||379.94|-479.74|
95782786|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-507.32|384.04|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||384.04|-507.32|
95782787|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.07|358.37|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||358.37|-530.07|
95812268|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999265|NCT04063215|191975130|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.5
95782788|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.09|291.25|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-12|||291.25|-494.09|
95782789|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.32|261.85|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||261.85|-340.32|
95782790|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-429.61|194.74|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.74|-429.61|
95782791|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-121.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.14|189.18|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||189.18|-433.14|
95782792|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-81.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.07|194.03|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-12|||194.03|-356.07|
95860978|NCT02283762|191680545|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.07||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||0.08|-0.23|0.3529
95999266|NCT04063215|191975131|OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||>0.9
95999267|NCT04063215|191975132|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.8
95999268|NCT04063215|191975133|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.002
95999269|NCT04063215|191975134|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.8
95999270|NCT04063215|191975135|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.069
95782793|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.812|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|13.7|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||13.70|-8.08|
95782794|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|14.32|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||14.32|-8.27|
95782795|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|22.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||22.74|0.23|
95782796|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|2.86|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-12|||2.86|-17.04|
95782797|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|12.28|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||12.28|-7.28|
95782798|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.526|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|13.67|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||13.67|-6.61|
95782799|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|18.04|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||18.04|-2.17|
95782800|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|1.88|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-12|||1.88|-15.99|
95782801|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.76|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.76|-0.79|
95782802|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.82|-0.78|
95782803|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.85|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||0.85|-0.78|
95782804|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|4.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-12|||4.17|2.74|
95782805|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.75|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.75|-0.78|
95782806|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.80|-0.79|
95782807|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||0.83|-0.79|
95782808|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-12|||4.11|2.69|
95782809|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.17|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.17|-2.06|
95957083|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.76|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life and leisure activities component score."||0.76|-0.22|0.277
95957084|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.91|-0.01|0.056
95782810|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.42|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||2.42|-1.97|
95782811|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.02|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||4.02|-0.35|
95782812|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.3|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-12|||0.30|-3.56|
95957085|NCT00863798|191886303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|||"Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score."||0.68|-0.24|0.355
95957086|NCT00863798|191886304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||-0.56|-2.53|0.002
95957087|NCT00863798|191886304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.22|-1.75|0.129
95957088|NCT00863798|191886305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.23|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.23|0.52|0.3097
95957089|NCT00863798|191886305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.272||||0.2794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.97|0.82|0.2794
95957090|NCT00863798|191886307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
95957091|NCT00863798|191886307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.805
95957092|NCT00863798|191886307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.978
95957093|NCT00863798|191886307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 8.||||0.805
95999271|NCT04063215|191975136|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For inflammatory cytokines, time course data will be analyzed using a GLMM to test differences across time between pre- and post- treatment. The dependent variables will be the neuroinflammatory biomarkers with time (to model the trajectory) and GOSE (3-4 or 5-8) as covariates and a random subject effect (to account for within subject correlation). Point estimates of pre- and posttreatment differences will be reported along with 95% confidence interval.||||0.6
95782813|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.86|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||1.86|-1.70|
95782814|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.13|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.13|-1.56|
95782815|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.6|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||2.60|-1.08|
95782816|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.29|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-12|||0.29|-2.96|
95782817|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|6.18|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||6.18|-4.26|
95782818|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.69|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.69|-2.56|
95782819|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|8.01|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||8.01|-2.98|
95957094|NCT00863798|191886307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 9.||||0.154
95957095|NCT00863798|191886307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate was used at Week 10.||||0.805
95957096|NCT01917006|191886340|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.11||||0.393||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
95957097|NCT01917006|191886340|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.25||||0.263||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.263
95957098|NCT01917006|191886340|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.861||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.861
95999272|NCT04063215|191975137|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.19||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Logistic|||A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to analyze the data over time. This model is used to predict an ordered categorical outcome over time by assuming the odds ratio between any two outcome categories is constant throughout all time points. Null hypothesis is that time has no effect on the cumulative odds for a patient to be in a higher category after being evaluated on the GOS-E. Odds ratio \>1 indicates higher likelihood of being in higher categories compared to at baseline.|This statistical analysis applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|4.19|0.43|0.63
95999273|NCT04063215|191975137|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.45||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Logistic|||A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to analyze the data over time. This model is used to predict an ordered categorical outcome over time by assuming the odds ratio between any two outcome categories is constant throughout all time points. Null hypothesis is that time has no effect on the cumulative odds for a patient to be in a higher category after being evaluated on the GOS-E. Odds ratio \>1 indicates higher likelihood of being in higher categories compared to at baseline.|This statistical analysis applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|5.45|0.55|0.36
95782820|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|4.13|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-12|||4.13|-5.56|
95782821|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.67|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||0.67|-6.40|
95782822|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.95|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||2.95|-4.68|
95782823|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.436|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.29|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||3.29|-4.16|
95782824|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.573|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|1.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-12|||1.71|-4.86|
95782825|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.38|118.9|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||118.90|-168.38|
95782826|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.16|136.7|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||136.70|-161.16|
95999274|NCT04063215|191975138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.19|Effect size: 0.19|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.01|-0.75|0.047
95782827|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.628|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.07|138.81|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||138.81|-158.07|
95782828|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.15|64.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-13|||64.28|-198.15|
95782829|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.57|78.48|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||78.48|-150.57|
95782830|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.27|96.22|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.22|-141.27|
95782831|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.36|96.36|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||96.36|-140.36|
95782832|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.95|38.3|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-13|||38.30|-170.95|
95782833|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|14.62|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||14.62|-2.66|
95782834|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|17.86|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||17.86|-0.05|
95782835|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.24|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||23.24|5.39|
95782836|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|2.45|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-12|||2.45|-13.33|
95782837|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|11.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||11.87|-1.87|
95782838|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|14.03|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||14.03|-0.22|
95782839|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||16.14|1.93|
95782840|NCT01119846|191537144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.11|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-12|||-0.11|-12.67|
95782841|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.56|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.56|-2.69|
95782842|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.36|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.36|-3.05|
95782843|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.02|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.02|-3.37|
95782844|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.33|||||Comparison of AUC 0-3|||1.33|-2.56|
95782845|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.39|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.39|-1.64|
95782846|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.09|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||0.09|-2.01|
95999275|NCT04063215|191975138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.379||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.19|Effect size: 0.19|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.379|-1.12|0.00023
95999276|NCT04063215|191975139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.86||||0.00027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.29||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.63|Effect size: 0.63|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.29|2.42|0.00027
95782847|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.06|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.06|-2.15|
95782848|NCT01119846|191537145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.07|||||Comparison of iAUC 0-3|||-0.07|-1.91|
95782849|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|152.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.57|506.49|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||506.49|-200.57|
95782850|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.69|480.42|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||480.42|-252.69|
95782851|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.89|479.83|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||479.83|-250.89|
96002050|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.05|-2.60|<0.001
96002051|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.19|-2.79|<0.001
96002052|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.31|-2.90|<0.001
96002053|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.27|-2.87|<0.001
96002054|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.39|-2.98|<0.001
96002055|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.30|-2.92|<0.001
96002056|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.59|-3.19|<0.001
96002057|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.25|-2.95|<0.001
96002058|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.42|-3.11|<0.001
96002059|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.54|-3.25|<0.001
96002060|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.55|-3.23|<0.001
96002061|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.22|-2.93|<0.001
95782852|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|136.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.32|459.6|||||Comparison of C-peptide, AUC 0-2|||459.60|-186.32|
95782853|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|163.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.31|454.55|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||454.55|-127.31|
95782854|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-243.57|359.72|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||359.72|-243.57|
95782855|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.32|379.0|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||379.00|-222.32|
95782856|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|157.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.73|422.82|||||Comparison of C-peptide, iAUC 0-2|||422.82|-108.73|
95782857|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|17.87|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||17.87|-4.79|
95782858|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|15.84|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||15.84|-7.65|
95782859|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|24.74|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||24.74|1.33|
95782860|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|7.52|||||Comparison of GIP total, AUC 0-2|||7.52|-13.17|
95782861|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|15.93|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||15.93|-3.47|
95782862|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|14.65|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||14.65|-5.46|
95782863|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|19.51|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||19.51|-0.54|
95782864|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|6.08|||||Comparison of GIP total, iAUC 0-2|||6.08|-11.65|
95782865|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.52|-0.38|
95782866|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.72|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.72|-0.21|
95782867|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||0.51|-0.42|
95782868|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.11|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, AUC 0-2|||3.11|2.28|
95782869|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.5|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.50|-0.36|
95782870|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.69|-0.20|
95782871|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||0.47|-0.41|
95782872|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.643|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 active, iAUC 0-2|||3.04|2.25|
95782873|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.55|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.55|-1.44|
95782874|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.82|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||1.82|-1.28|
95782875|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.44|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||2.44|-0.65|
95782876|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, AUC 0-2|||-0.12|-2.85|
95782877|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.34|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.34|-1.18|
95782878|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.63|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-0.97|
95782879|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.12|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||1.12|-1.48|
95782880|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.04|||||Comparison of GLP-1 total, iAUC 0-2|||-0.04|-2.34|
95782881|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|3.98|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||3.98|-1.51|
95782882|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.71|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||5.71|0.04|
95782883|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.16|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||4.16|-1.21|
95782884|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.74|||||Comparison of Glucagon, AUC 0-2|||2.74|-2.20|
95782885|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.56|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.56|-4.92|
95782886|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|0.93|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||0.93|-4.74|
95782887|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.63|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.63|-3.74|
95782888|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.22|||||Comparison of Glucagon, iAUC 0-2|||1.22|-3.72|
95782889|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.389|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.82|122.59|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.59|-95.82|
95782890|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.25|123.21|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||123.21|-103.25|
95782891|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.426|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.43|145.28|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||145.28|-80.43|
95782892|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.77|122.76|||||Comparison of Insulin, AUC 0-3|||122.76|-76.77|
95782893|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.79|90.97|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||90.97|-86.79|
95782894|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.47|91.84|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||91.84|-92.47|
95782895|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|111.91|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||111.91|-71.80|
95782896|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|104.8|||||Comparison of Insulin, iAUC 0-3|||104.80|-57.59|
95782897|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|10.14|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||10.14|-3.13|
95782898|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.18|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||14.18|0.41|
95782899|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.87|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||13.87|0.15|
95782900|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.51|||||Comparison of PYY total, AUC 0-2|||3.51|-8.62|
95957099|NCT01917006|191886340|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.647||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
95957100|NCT01917006|191886340|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13||||0.645||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
95999277|NCT04063215|191975139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.506|7.294||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.63|Effect size: 0.63|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.294|2.506|0.00019
95782901|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|7.17|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||7.17|-2.13|
95782902|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.12|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||10.12|0.47|
95782903|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|6.53|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||6.53|-3.08|
95782904|NCT01119846|191537146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.74|||||Comparison of PYY total, iAUC 0-2|||0.74|-7.75|
95782905|NCT01119846|191537147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.32||||||||1.32|-0.84|
95782906|NCT01119846|191537147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|-0.60|
95782907|NCT01119846|191537147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.17|
95782908|NCT01119846|191537147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.16||||||||1.16|-0.81|
95782909|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.06|-0.08|
95782910|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
95782911|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.07|-0.07|
95782912|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08|||||Comparison of G/I ratio|||0.08|-0.04|
95782913|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|12.85|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||12.85|-8.31|
95782914|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|13.93|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.93|-8.01|
95782915|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.99|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||16.99|-4.88|
95782916|NCT01119846|191537148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|13.68|||||Comparison of I/G ratio|||13.68|-5.65|
95782917|NCT01119846|191537149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.22|-0.28|
95782918|NCT01119846|191537149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.31|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.31|-0.20|
95782919|NCT01119846|191537149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.23|-0.29|
95782920|NCT01119846|191537149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.19|||||Comparison of insulin glucose index|||0.19|-0.27|
95782921|NCT01119846|191537150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.06|
95782922|NCT01119846|191537150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.82|
95782923|NCT01119846|191537150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.388|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.38||||||||1.38|-2.16|
95782924|NCT01119846|191537150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.7||||||||1.70|-1.43|
95957101|NCT01917006|191886340|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.15||||0.343||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.343
95999278|NCT04063215|191975140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.43||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.18||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.38|Effect size: 0.38|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-1.18|-6.07|0.19
95812269|NCT00402987|191596823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.512
95782925|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.0|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.00|-3.04|
95782926|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.94|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.94|-3.07|
95782927|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|4.57|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||4.57|-0.45|
95782928|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|2.82|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||2.82|-2.19|
95782929|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 1 Hour|||1.02|-3.99|
95782930|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.68|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.68|-3.27|
95782931|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.15|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||2.15|-2.78|
95782932|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||4.91|-0.03|
95782933|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|3.34|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||3.34|-1.58|
95782934|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.24|||||Comparison of Day 7, 2 Hours|||1.24|-3.69|
95782935|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.03|-2.06|
95782936|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.51|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||2.51|-1.56|
95782937|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.55|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.55|-0.53|
95782938|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.26|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||3.26|-0.80|
95782939|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.02|||||Comparison of Day 7, 4 Hours|||1.02|-3.05|
95782940|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|2.67|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||2.67|-3.05|
95999279|NCT04063215|191975140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.14||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.38|Effect size: 0.38|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.14|-7.26|0.043
95999280|NCT04063215|191975141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.63||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|0.26||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.26|-7.55|0.069
95999281|NCT04063215|191975141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.15||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.983|-2.317||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.317|-9.983|0.026
95782941|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.3|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.30|-2.39|
96002062|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.31|-3.00|<0.001
96002063|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-3.05|<0.001
95782942|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||5.56|-0.14|
95782943|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.91|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||3.91|-1.78|
95782944|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.14|||||Comparison of Day 7, 6 Hours|||0.14|-5.55|
95782945|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.7|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.70|-2.41|
95782946|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.99|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||2.99|-2.09|
95782947|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.96|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||4.96|-0.13|
95782948|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||3.60|-1.47|
95782949|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.03|||||Comparison of Day 7, 10 Hours|||1.03|-4.05|
95782950|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.6|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.60|-4.20|
95782951|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.56|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||1.56|-4.21|
95782952|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.89|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||3.89|-1.89|
95782953|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.62|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.62|-3.14|
95782954|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.37|||||Comparison of Day 7, 12 Hours|||2.37|-3.40|
95782955|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.26|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.26|-2.29|
95782956|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.55|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.55|-1.99|
95782957|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.501|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.28|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.28|-1.28|
95782958|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.65|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||1.65|-1.98|
95782959|NCT01119846|191537151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.73|||||Comparison of Day 14, 24 Hours|||0.73|-2.81|
95782960|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.72|73.8|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||73.80|-214.72|
95782961|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-151.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.98|-7.46|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||-7.46|-295.98|
95782962|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-69.113|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.48|75.25|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||75.25|-213.48|
95782963|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-248.72|39.78|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||39.78|-248.72|
95782964|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-118.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.93|27.01|||||Day 7, 1 Hour|||27.01|-263.93|
95782965|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-114.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.78|36.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||36.10|-264.78|
95782966|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-116.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-266.9|33.98|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||33.98|-266.90|
95812270|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812271|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812272|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.026
95782967|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.201|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.75|146.35|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||146.35|-154.75|
95782968|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|102.16|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||102.16|-198.70|
95782969|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.31|101.1|||||Day 7, 2 Hours|||101.10|-202.31|
95782970|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|26.38|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||26.38|-40.84|
95782971|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|28.58|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||28.58|-38.63|
95782972|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.523|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|43.16|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||43.16|-24.11|
95782973|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.22|30.99|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||30.99|-36.22|
95782974|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|54.69|||||Day 7, 4 Hours|||54.69|-13.09|
95782975|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.11|38.38|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.38|-156.11|
95812273|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.463
95812274|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.131
95812275|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.053
95812276|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999282|NCT04063215|191975142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.43||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-0.79||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-0.79|-8.12|0.020
95999283|NCT04063215|191975142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.297|-2.103||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.103|-9.297|0.0029
95812277|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95860979|NCT02283762|191680546|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.79||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.69|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.69|-0.12|0.0887
95860980|NCT02283762|191680547|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.54|||MMRM (Method 1)|||Change from baseline||1.54|0.11|0.0241
95860981|NCT02283762|191680548|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified test was for superiority but ONLY if the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints were meeting statistical significance (hierarchical testing).|Difference in LS means|-0.2||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.0|||MMRM (Method 1)|||change from baseline||3.00|-3.40|0.9010
95999284|NCT04063215|191975143|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|0.02||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.02|-7.33|0.054
95782976|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.15|19.35|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||19.35|-175.15|
95782977|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|125.65|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||125.65|-69.00|
95782978|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.74|72.74|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||72.74|-121.74|
95782979|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-59.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.82|38.31|||||Day 7, 6 Hours|||38.31|-157.82|
95782980|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.85|69.4|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||69.40|-69.85|
95782981|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.28|61.98|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.98|-77.28|
95782982|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.55|76.85|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||76.85|-62.55|
95782983|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.734|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|102.36|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||102.36|-36.89|
95782984|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|61.49|||||Day 7, 10 Hours|||61.49|-81.01|
95782985|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.36|84.18|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||84.18|-123.36|
95782986|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.69|56.85|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||56.85|-150.69|
95812278|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
95812279|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.484
95812280|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.197
95999285|NCT04063215|191975143|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.85||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.456|-2.244||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.53|Effect size: 0.53|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||-2.244|-9.456|0.0023
95999286|NCT04063215|191975144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.22||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.51|Effect size: 0.51|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.22|0.79|0.0097
95782987|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.16|128.59|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||128.59|-79.16|
95782988|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.73|95.8|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||95.80|-111.73|
95812281|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.086
95812282|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812283|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812284|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
95812285|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.561
95812286|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.252||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.252
95812287|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.136||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.136
95812288|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812289|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95782989|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|109.29|||||Day 7, 12 Hours|||109.29|-103.08|
95812290|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
95782990|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.114|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|4.89|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||4.89|-25.12|
95782991|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.718|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.71|6.28|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.28|-23.71|
95782992|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|14.38|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||14.38|-15.63|
95782993|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|2.88|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||2.88|-27.78|
95782994|NCT01119846|191537152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|6.66|||||Day 14, 24 Hours|||6.66|-24.02|
95782995|NCT02759835|191537166|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.56
95782996|NCT02759835|191537168|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.40
95782997|NCT01505179|191537180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95782998|NCT01505179|191537181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95812291|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.653
95812292|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.287||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.287
95812293|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.191||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.191
95782999|NCT01505179|191537182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95999287|NCT04063215|191975144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51||||0.00017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.335|6.685||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.51|Effect size: 0.51|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.685|2.335|0.00017
95783000|NCT01505179|191537183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95812294|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812295|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812296|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.018
95812297|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.741
95812298|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.326
95812299|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.256
95783001|NCT02651688|191537201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7103|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7103
95812300|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812301|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95783002|NCT02651688|191537201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4529|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4529
95783003|NCT02651688|191537202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9302
95812302|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.016
95812303|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.808||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.808
95812304|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.394||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.394
95812305|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.343
95812306|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
95812307|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.029
95812308|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.023
95812309|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.892||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.892
95783004|NCT02651688|191537202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7509
95783005|NCT02651688|191537203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5095|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5095
95783006|NCT02651688|191537203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6230
95783007|NCT02651688|191537204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2960
95783008|NCT02651688|191537204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2723|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2723
95783009|NCT02651688|191537205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0034
95783010|NCT02651688|191537205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0027
95783011|NCT02651688|191537206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0146
95783012|NCT02651688|191537206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0018
95783013|NCT02651688|191537207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1524
95783014|NCT02651688|191537207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0227
95999288|NCT04063215|191975145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.14||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.40|Effect size: 0.40|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.14|0.04|0.049
95999289|NCT04063215|191975145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.555||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|6.056||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.40|Effect size: 0.40|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.056|1.054|0.0069
95999290|NCT04063215|191975146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.03||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|6.82||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.57|Effect size: 0.57|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.82|1.21|0.0064
96002064|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.33|-2.98|<0.001
95783015|NCT02651688|191537208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5873|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5873
95783016|NCT02651688|191537208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9509|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9509
95783017|NCT02651688|191537209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4341|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4341
95783018|NCT02651688|191537209|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.0000
95783019|NCT02651688|191537210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0220
95812310|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.952
95812311|NCT00402987|191596824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.948||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.948
95783020|NCT02651688|191537210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3677
95783021|NCT02651688|191537211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9074
95783022|NCT02651688|191537211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4517
95783023|NCT02651688|191537212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2962
95783024|NCT02651688|191537212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3261
95783025|NCT02651688|191537213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0450
95783026|NCT02651688|191537213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2235
95783027|NCT02651688|191537214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8260
95783028|NCT02651688|191537214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4183
95783029|NCT02651688|191537215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1144
95783030|NCT02651688|191537215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3263|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3263
95783031|NCT02651688|191537216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1546|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1546
95783032|NCT02651688|191537216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5732
95783033|NCT02651688|191537217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5581
95783034|NCT02651688|191537217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5833|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5833
95783035|NCT02651688|191537218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0168
95783036|NCT02651688|191537218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0364
95783037|NCT02651688|191537219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0992
95783038|NCT02651688|191537219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1333|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.1333
95783039|NCT02651688|191537220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0139|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0139
95783040|NCT02651688|191537220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0225
95783041|NCT02051335|191537231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.4|0.573
95783042|NCT02051335|191537231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||0.4|-1.8|0.210
95783043|NCT02051335|191537231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.2|-1.0|0.821
95783044|NCT02051335|191537231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.426
95783045|NCT02051335|191537231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.9|-0.2|0.126
95783046|NCT02051335|191537232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.992||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||3.9|-0.1|0.057
95783047|NCT02051335|191537232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||1.1|-2.8|0.394
95783048|NCT02051335|191537232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.0|0.1|0.042
95860982|NCT00202878|191680549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|0.988|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.988|0.887|0.016
95783049|NCT02051335|191537232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||2.0|-1.9|0.928
95783050|NCT02051335|191537232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7||P-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||||4.7|1.0|0.004
95783051|NCT01490697|191537253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|16.0|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||16|-18|
95783052|NCT01490697|191537254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|14.7|||||Placebo plus Placebo - Mifepristone plus d-Cycloserine (DCS)|||14.7|-6.9|
95783053|NCT00379808|191537255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical power was calculated using G\*Power (Dusseldorf, Germany). Based on previously observed effects of statin drugs on hsCRP levels, 22 subjects provided 80% power to detect a moderate effect on hsCRP levels.||||0.22
95783054|NCT00379808|191537256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|3.8||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon sign rank|||Null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect HDL. Not powered for this endpoint||||0.57
95783055|NCT00379808|191537257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|7.4||||0.33|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||The null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect triglycerides. The study was not powered to this outcome measure.||||0.33
95783056|NCT00379808|191537258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|11.9||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect MCP-1. Study not powered to the biomarker.||||0.12
95783057|NCT00379808|191537259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|13.3||||0.03|||||||wilcoxon sign rank test|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect IL1ra.||||0.03
95783058|NCT00379808|191537260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.5||||0.09|||||||wilcoxon sign rank|||null hypothesis is that montelukast does not affect ENA-78. The study is not powered to this biomarker||||0.09
95783059|NCT02134353|191537303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|100.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF (baseline observation carried forward). Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||100|8|0.020
95783060|NCT02134353|191537304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|92.0||Missing data for withdrawals due to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6,14 and 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data for withdrawals related to safety or efficacy imputed using BOCF. Data collected at 6, 14 and 26 weeks.|||92|-12|0.128
95783061|NCT02134353|191537305|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.936|||Regression, Cox|||||1.936|0.671|0.629
95783062|NCT02134353|191537306|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.846|||Negative binomial model|||||2.846|0.198|0.673
95783063|NCT02134353|191537307|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.273||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|5.154|||Negative binomial model|||||5.154|0.315|0.735
95783064|NCT02134353|191537308|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.545||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.411|||Negative binomial model|||Patients withdrawing early without an exacerbation had rate imputed based on number of exacerbations in 12 months prior to screening.||2.411|0.990|0.055
95783065|NCT02134353|191537308|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.357||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.275|||Negative binomial model|||Sensitivity analysis with no imputation of missing data.||2.275|0.810|0.246
95783066|NCT02134353|191537309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.836|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.836|0.555|0.976
95783067|NCT02134353|191537310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.259||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF||||0.551|-0.034|0.083
95783068|NCT02134353|191537311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.406|3.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing values due to withdrawal related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||3.145|-1.406|0.453
95783069|NCT02134353|191537312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|87.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|155.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Missing data due to withdrawals for reasons related to safety/efficacy imputed using BOCF|||155|20|0.012
95783070|NCT01953432|191537313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.75 that the OR exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.98-1.05)|||||
95783071|NCT01953432|191537313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Probability of 0.96 that the odds ratio exceeded 1.00 (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.00-1.07)|||||
95783072|NCT03704948|191537316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95999291|NCT04063215|191975146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.005||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.251|7.759||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.57|Effect size: 0.57|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.759|2.251|0.00076
95783073|NCT02243046|191537319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.091
95783074|NCT02243046|191537320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95783075|NCT02243046|191537321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
95783076|NCT02243046|191537322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.571
95783077|NCT02243046|191537323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
95999292|NCT04063215|191975147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.38||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.23|Effect size: 0.23|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.38|0.86|0.0084
95783078|NCT02243046|191537324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||< 0.001
95783079|NCT04607980|191537325|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference of PASI percent improvement from Baseline to Week 12 between ABP 654 versus (vs) ustekinumab with an equivalence margin of (-15, +15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.43||||||Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the 2 groups.||3.43|-3.16|
95783080|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.94||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||5.94|-2.05|
95783081|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.31||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.31|-2.97|
95783082|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the initial randomized groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.07||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||4.07|-1.39|
95783083|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|7.98||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.98|-5.46|
95783084|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|3.28||||||"Week 44: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.28|-10.71|
95783085|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The mean differences and 95% CIs of PASI percent improvement between the dose intensification groups (ABP 654 vs ustekinumab) at other scheduled visits was estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|7.13||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||7.13|-8.45|
95783086|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.59||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.59|-3.42|
95812312|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.775
95812313|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.094
95812314|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.114||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.114
95999293|NCT04063215|191975147|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.94||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.23|Effect size: 0.23|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.94|0.5|0.018
95783087|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.48||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.48|-3.17|
95783088|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ABP 654/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|2.17||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.17|-3.29|
95783089|NCT04607980|191537326|EQUIVALENCE|The differences for the mean percent change from baseline and the corresponding CIs were for ustekinumab/ABP 654 minus ustekinumab/ustekinumab. Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PASI value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|3.86||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||3.86|-2.46|
96002065|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-3.34|<0.001
95783090|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.42||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||6.42|-4.02|
95783091|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|7.23||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.23|-7.87|
95783092|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|7.37||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||7.37|-5.75|
95783093|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.84||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||9.84|-2.37|
95783094|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference in dose intensification participants (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the generalized linear model adjusted for the baseline PASI and the stratification factors with an identity link was used to obtain the point estimate and 95% CI for the risk difference of PASI 75 response rate at each scheduled timepoint.|Response difference|-3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|21.76||||||"Week 36: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||21.76|-28.15|
95783095|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|7.54||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.54|-3.74|
95783096|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|8.39||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.39|-4.89|
95812315|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
95812316|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812317|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812318|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812319|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999294|NCT04063215|191975148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.13||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.36|Effect size: 0.36|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.13|0.33|0.024
95812320|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812321|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812322|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812323|NCT00402987|191596825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812324|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812325|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.002
95812326|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.007
95812327|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
95812328|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.033
95812329|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.036
95812330|NCT00402987|191596826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Overall P-value"|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.500
95812331|NCT00402987|191596827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|23.8||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.8|8.5|<0.001
95812332|NCT00402987|191596827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.009||95.0|2.6|17.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||17.9|2.6|0.009
95812333|NCT00402987|191596827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.127||95.0|-13.5|1.7||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.7|-13.5|0.127
95812334|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.480
95812335|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.780
95812336|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.667||95.0||||"Analysis at 15 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.667
95812337|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.153||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.153
95812338|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.479||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.479
95812339|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||95.0||||"Analysis at 30 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.469
95812340|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.062
95812341|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.284
95999295|NCT04063215|191975148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|4.175||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.36|Effect size: 0.36|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.175|0.445|0.017
95999296|NCT04063215|191975149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.31||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.24|Effect size: 0.24|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||3.31|-0.35|0.11
95999297|NCT04063215|191975149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.69||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.487||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size: 0.24|Effect size: 0.24|Neuropsychological and Functional outcome measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.487|0.893|0.0046
95999298|NCT04063215|191975150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.77||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.60|Effect size: 0.60|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||9.77|1.58|0.0081
95999299|NCT04063215|191975150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.505||||0.00017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|12.606||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.60|Effect size: 0.60|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||12.606|4.42|0.00017
95999300|NCT04063215|191975151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.846||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.767|4.515||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.10|Effect size: 0.10|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.515|-2.767|0.64
95999301|NCT04063215|191975152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.65||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.65|-1.52|0.21
95812342|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421||95.0||||"Analysis at 45 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.421
95999302|NCT04063215|191975152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.318||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|8.399||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.48|Effect size: 0.48|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.399|0.241|0.040
95999303|NCT04063215|191975153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.78||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.07|Effect size: 0.07|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.78|-2.52|0.30
95999304|NCT04063215|191975153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.789||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|2.409||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.07|Effect size: 0.07|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||2.409|-0.83|0.33
95999305|NCT04063215|191975154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.66||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.31|Effect size: 0.31|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||3.66|-3.49|0.96
95999306|NCT04063215|191975154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.985||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|6.562||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.31|Effect size: 0.31|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.562|-0.588|0.10
95999307|NCT04063215|191975155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.53||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.21|Effect size: 0.21|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.53|0.13|0.043
95783097|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|4.41||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||4.41|-8.61|
95783098|NCT04607980|191537327|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.43||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.43|-7.32|
95812343|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.022
95999308|NCT04063215|191975155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.718||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.484|5.917||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.21|Effect size: 0.21|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||5.917|-0.484|0.10
95999309|NCT04063215|191975156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.44||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.44|-1.73|0.24
95999310|NCT04063215|191975156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.79||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|7.72||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||7.72|-0.152|0.061
95999311|NCT04063215|191975157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|4.71||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.43|Effect size: 0.43|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||4.71|-2.28|0.49
95999312|NCT04063215|191975157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.001||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.506|10.494||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.43|Effect size: 0.43|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||10.494|3.506|0.00026
95999313|NCT04063215|191975158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.98||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.46||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.61|Effect size: 0.61|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.46|-0.51|0.083
95783099|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.21||||||"Week 4: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||3.21|-3.16|
95783100|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|8.18||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||8.18|-5.03|
95783101|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|11.17||||||"Week 16: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||11.17|-3.62|
95783102|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|10.78||||||"Week 28: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.78|-4.68|
95812344|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.171
95812345|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0||||"Analysis at 60 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.354
95812346|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.005
96002066|NCT04003155|191981632|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.60|-3.30|<0.001
95783103|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|8.89||||||"Week 40: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||8.89|-12.85|
95783104|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|7.73||||||"Week 40: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||7.73|-17.39|
95783105|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|13.3||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||13.30|-8.42|
95783106|NCT04607980|191537328|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|10.19||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||10.19|-14.91|
95783107|NCT04607980|191537329|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654 - ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|10.71||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~NRI was used."||10.71|-5.65|
95783108|NCT04607980|191537329|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ABP 654/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|3.29||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.29|-15.41|
95783109|NCT04607980|191537329|EQUIVALENCE|Response difference (ustekinumab/ABP 654 - ustekinumab/ustekinumab) was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 95% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Response difference|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654/Ustekinumab vs Ustekinumab.~NRI was used."||3.74|-18.41|
95783110|NCT04607980|191537330|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for treatment group A and treatment group B using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.1||||||"Week 12: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~LOCF imputation was used."||2.10|-1.15|
95783111|NCT04607980|191537330|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated in dose intensification participants (treatment group A and treatment group B) using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.67||||||"Week 52: Treatment Group A vs Treatment Group B.~Observed data was used."||3.67|-0.90|
95783112|NCT04607980|191537330|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ABP 654/ ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.74||||||"Week 52: ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||0.74|-0.99|
95783113|NCT04607980|191537330|EQUIVALENCE|Mean difference estimated for ustekinumab/ABP 654 and ustekinumab/ ustekinumab using ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline BSA value, and the stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline BW group, and geographic region.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1||||||"Week 52: Ustekinumab/ABP 654 vs Ustekinumab.~LOCF imputation was used."||1.10|-0.90|
95783114|NCT02669082|191537334|OTHER|||||||0.2955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.2955
95783115|NCT02669082|191537335|OTHER|||||||0.1358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1358
95783116|NCT02669082|191537336|OTHER||Median|||||0.1706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1706
95783117|NCT02669082|191537337|OTHER|||||||0.1969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.1969
95783118|NCT02669082|191537338|OTHER|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0534
95783119|NCT02669082|191537339|OTHER|||||||0.4125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.4125
95812347|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
95783120|NCT02669082|191537340|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0220
95783121|NCT02669082|191537341|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.0420
95783122|NCT02669082|191537342|OTHER|||||||0.8166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data at Baseline compared to the data at the end of the Treatment Period.||||0.8166
95783123|NCT02301039|191537346|SUPERIORITY|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.|Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|32.8|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval. Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||32.8|7.3|
95783124|NCT02301039|191537346|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval; Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||16.9|1.0|
95783125|NCT02301039|191537346|SUPERIORITY||Binomial estimate of response rate of PR|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|25.3|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) Confidence Interval Excluded from rate due to no response evaluation: Soft Tissue: 2; Bone: 2; Expansion: 7 patients|An objective response rate of 25% will be considered clinically meaningful and a response rate less than 10% will be considered lack of efficacy. The treatment will be considered a success if 8 or more of 40 enrolled patients have a PR or better by RECIST 1.1.||25.3|5.5|
95783126|NCT01128400|191537353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95783127|NCT01128400|191537354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95783128|NCT01212159|191537376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of mean reduction in LDL cholesterol between no monitor (control) and monitor (intervention) groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test analysis of 6 month change in LDL cholesterol for no monitor and self monitor groups Independent sample t-test to compare ldl change between groups||||0.391
95783129|NCT05025332|191537382|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots and histograms/bar charts were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||.0039
95783130|NCT05025332|191537383|OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|null median = 4, not 0||Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0234
95783131|NCT05025332|191537384|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0313
95812348|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0||||"Analysis at 75 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.262
95999314|NCT04063215|191975158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.033||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|13.52||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.61|Effect size: 0.61|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||13.52|4.55|0.00025
95812349|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812350|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.044
95812351|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0||||"Analysis at 90 min~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.194
95860983|NCT00202878|191680550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.903|0.035
95999315|NCT04063215|191975159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.05|-0.55|0.53
95999316|NCT04063215|191975159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.043||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.805||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.20|Effect size: 0.20|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.805|0.284|0.10
95999317|NCT04063215|191975160|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.28|Effect size: 0.28|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.59|0.07|0.034
95999318|NCT04063215|191975160|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.043||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.805||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.28|Effect size: 0.28|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||1.805|0.284|0.0090
95999319|NCT04063215|191975161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|6.41||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.25|Effect size: 0.25|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||6.41|-0.84|0.13
95999320|NCT04063215|191975161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.486||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|8.026||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.25|Effect size: 0.25|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||8.026|0.938|0.016
95999321|NCT04063215|191975162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.97||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.33|Effect size: 0.33|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||0.97|-1.23|0.84
95812352|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812353|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.020
95860984|NCT00202878|191680551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|0.983|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment.|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.983|0.847|0.016
95812354|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148||95.0||||"Analysis at 1.75 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.148
95783132|NCT05025332|191537385|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.0039
95783133|NCT05025332|191537386|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.1934
95783134|NCT05025332|191537387|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7480
95783135|NCT05025332|191537388|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.3203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3203
95783136|NCT05025332|191537389|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.3574|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3574
95783137|NCT05025332|191537390|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.4131|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.4131
95783138|NCT05025332|191537391|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.9063|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.9063
95812355|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812356|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.009
95812357|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.127||95.0||||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.127
95999322|NCT04063215|191975162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.083||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|2.162||This p-value applies to data regarding 1 year Post-Infusion (Visit 7 - Week 56) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Regression, Linear|Effect size: 0.33|Effect size: 0.33|Neurocognitive outcome measures will be analyzed using linear regression models to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for all outcomes at 6 and 12 months after treatment.||2.162|-0.028|0.053
95783139|NCT05025332|191537392|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||1.00
95783140|NCT05025332|191537393|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.7002|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7002
95783141|NCT05025332|191537394|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.3750
95783142|NCT05025332|191537395|OTHER|||||||0.7695|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.7695
95783143|NCT05025332|191537396|OTHER|||||||0.2402|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period.||||0.2402
95783144|NCT05725824|191537402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
95783145|NCT05725824|191537403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
95783146|NCT05725824|191537404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Arms/Groups were collapsed for RM-ANOVA to compare between various earmold types. A post-hoc paired t-test w/ Bonferroni correction was utilized to compare ear mold material types.|Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
95783147|NCT05725824|191537405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measure Analysis of Variance|||||||<0.05
95812358|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
96002067|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
95783148|NCT01240902|191537406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|30.1|||z-test, 1 sided||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System meets the Performance Goal in the 12 month rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke H0: = πMCS TAVI ≥ 43.0% HA: = πMCS TAVI \< 43.0% In the above expressions πMCS TAVI denotes the rate of all-cause mortality or major stroke during a fixed follow-up of 1 year.||30.1|22.3|<0.0001
95783149|NCT01240902|191537406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan-Meier Event Rate Greenwood Standard Error|No performance goal created, only descriptive statistics are provided.||||
95783150|NCT01240902|191537406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The 12 month all-cause mortality estimated rate was 20% for each group with a noninferiority margin of 7.5 percentage points. Assuming a 1:1 ratio in the treatment assignments, we estimated that a total of 355 patients were required in each group for the study to have power of 80% at a one-sided alpha level of 0.05. Accounting for a 10% loss to follow-up, we calculated that we would need to enroll 790 patients.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95783151|NCT01240902|191537407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #5, MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge; whichever was longer. K-M rates TAVR 8.21%, SAVR 10.93%, Difference -2.73%, Standard Error 2.16%, and Upper 95% CI 1.5%.|Kaplan-Meier Point Estimate|Using Greenwood formula||"Powered Secondary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic CoreValve System was superior to SAVR in binary rate of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer:~H0: πMCS TAVR = πSAVR HA: πMCS TAVR \< πSAVR In the above expression πMCS TAVR and πSAVR denoted rates of MACCE at 30 days or hospital discharge, whichever was longer.~Assumptions:~1:1 treatment allocation ratio One-sided alpha=0.025 SAVR = 20.0% MCS TAVI = 12.1% Power = \>80%"||||0.1033
95783152|NCT01240902|191537411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #5. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
95783153|NCT01240902|191537411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.375. For subjects with NYHA categories at both baseline and 1 year visit, the NYHA classification improvements were calculated as NYHAbaseline - NYHA1year.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #3, change from baseline to 1 year.|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in NYHA classification from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #5. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean number of classification improvements in NYHA from baseline to 1 year."||||<0.0001
95783154|NCT01240902|191537414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #8. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero.||||<0.0001
95783155|NCT01240902|191537414|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 5||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #4|t-test, 1 sided|||"Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -5 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -5 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the KCCQ score from baseline to 1 year."||||0.0063
95812359|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812360|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0||||"Analysis at 3 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.122
95783156|NCT01240902|191537414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #6. Item #5 failed, therefore, item #6 also fails. Nominal p- value provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days: TAVR vs. SAVR from secondary objective #8. The two-sided two-sample t-test was used to test at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR = µ SAVR HA: µ MCS TAVR ≠ µ SAVR In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in the SF-12 Physical Summary Scale from baseline to 30 days."||||<0.0001
95783157|NCT01240902|191537415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 2 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
95783158|NCT01240902|191537415|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 0.375|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #2|t-test, 1 sided|||"EOA:~Change in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level 0.05 the hypotheses:~H0: µ MCS TAVR ≤ µ SAVR -0.375 HA: µ MCS TAVR \> µ SAVR -0.375 In the above expression µ MCS TAVR and µ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in effective orifice area from Baseline to 1 year measured in cm2."||||<0.0001
95783159|NCT01240902|191537416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 2 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year from secondary objective #9. The paired t-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the mean paired difference is zero versus the two-sided alternative that the mean is not zero."||||<0.0001
95812361|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812362|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812363|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164||95.0||||"Analysis at 4 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.164
95783160|NCT01240902|191537416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin 15|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Hierarchical test item #1|t-test, 1 sided|||"Transvalvular Mean Gradient:~Change in transvalvular mean gradient from baseline to 1 year: TAVR vs.SAVR from secondary objective #9. The one-sided two-sample t-test was used to test non-inferiority at a level of 0.05 the hypotheses: H0: μ MCS TAVR ≤ μ SAVR -15 HA: μ MCS TAVR \> μ SAVR -15 In the above expression μ MCS TAVR and μ SAVR denoted the mean improvements in mean gradient from Baseline to 1 year measured in mmHg."||||<0.0001
95812364|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 5 hours Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity.|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95783161|NCT03543176|191537430|OTHER|||||||0.448||||||P-value for low impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
95783162|NCT03543176|191537430|OTHER|||||||0.033||||||P-value for medium impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95783163|NCT03543176|191537430|OTHER|||||||0.172||||||P-value for high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.172
95783164|NCT03543176|191537430|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for very high impact of COPD is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
95783165|NCT03543176|191537431|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||P-value for breathlessness reported in COPD assessed using mMRC is presented|Fisher Exact|||||||0.176
95783166|NCT03543176|191537432|OTHER|||||||0.732||||||P-value for Baseline comorbidity burden score was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
95783167|NCT03543176|191537433|OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value for count of unique medications was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95783168|NCT03543176|191537434|OTHER|||||||0.178||||||P-value for total number of medications dispensing was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.178
95783169|NCT03543176|191537440|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||P-value for count of unique COPD medications was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692
95783170|NCT03543176|191537441|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for total number of COPD medications dispensing was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95783171|NCT01267929|191537449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.5||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the second month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the second month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||6.5|-2.3|0.34
95783172|NCT01267929|191537449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.7||Statistical analysis was conducted using STATA. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare mean score of GMFM at the sixth month between two groups.|ANCOVA|||A sample size of 30 children, 15 for each group, was needed to obtain 80% power at 0.05 level of significance (two-sided) to test that the successful event rate (increasing GMFM scores at least 30% from baseline at the end of 2 months) in experimental group and control group of 0.3 and 0.8 respectively. The mean changes of GMFM total scores in the experimental group at the sixth month compared to those in the control group after adjusted for the baseline level.||4.7|-6.3|0.78
95783173|NCT03441685|191537462|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.73||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.73
95783174|NCT03441685|191537462|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.69||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.69
95783175|NCT03441685|191537462|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
95783176|NCT03441685|191537462|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.002||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
95783177|NCT03441685|191537462|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.049||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.049
95783178|NCT03441685|191537462|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.016||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.016
95783179|NCT03441685|191537463|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.76||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.76
95783180|NCT03441685|191537463|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.79||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.79
95783181|NCT03441685|191537463|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||1.00
95783182|NCT03441685|191537463|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.003||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.003
95783183|NCT03441685|191537463|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.029||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.029
95783184|NCT03441685|191537463|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
95783185|NCT03441685|191537464|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.72||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.72
95812365|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95783186|NCT03441685|191537464|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.46||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.46
95783187|NCT03441685|191537464|OTHER|Accuracy identifying taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (receptive)||||||0.89||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.89
95783188|NCT03441685|191537464|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
95783189|NCT03441685|191537464|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.018||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.018
95783190|NCT03441685|191537464|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 6.||||||0.027||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.027
95783191|NCT03441685|191537465|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.64||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.64
95783192|NCT03441685|191537465|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.16||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.16
95783193|NCT03441685|191537465|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs semantic condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
95783194|NCT03441685|191537465|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
95812366|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0||||"Analysis at 5 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.244
95783195|NCT03441685|191537465|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.034||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.034
95783196|NCT03441685|191537465|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.063||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.063
95783197|NCT03441685|191537466|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.35||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.35
95783198|NCT03441685|191537466|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.18
95783199|NCT03441685|191537466|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in semantic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.58
95783200|NCT03441685|191537466|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.006||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.006
95783201|NCT03441685|191537466|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.02||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
95783202|NCT03441685|191537466|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.18||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.18
95783203|NCT03441685|191537467|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.56||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.56
95783204|NCT03441685|191537467|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.10
95783205|NCT03441685|191537467|OTHER|Accuracy labeling taught verbs in syntactic vs combined condition (expressive)||||||0.71||||||Asymptotic p-value|Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.71
95783206|NCT03441685|191537467|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0|||||<|0.001||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<.001
95783207|NCT03441685|191537467|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.024||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.024
95783208|NCT03441685|191537467|OTHER|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with comparison value of 0||||||0.1||||||Asymptotic p-value|One-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.10
95783209|NCT01884545|191537500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1073|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1073
95783210|NCT01884545|191537500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0615
95783211|NCT01884545|191537501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6732|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6732
95783212|NCT01884545|191537501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3754|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3754
95783213|NCT01884545|191537502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.853||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|6.139|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.139|1.326|0.0073
95783214|NCT01884545|191537502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.045||||0.9068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.183|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.183|0.5|0.9068
95783215|NCT01884545|191537503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
95783216|NCT01884545|191537503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.333||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|10.254|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.254|0.173|0.7822
95783217|NCT01884545|191537504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7985|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7985
95783218|NCT01884545|191537504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1642
95783219|NCT01884545|191537505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8027
95783220|NCT01884545|191537505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7751|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7751
95783221|NCT01884545|191537506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5557|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5557
95783222|NCT01884545|191537506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7834|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7834
95783223|NCT01884545|191537507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1439|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1439
95783224|NCT01884545|191537507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2275|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2275
95783225|NCT01884545|191537508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7639|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7639
95783226|NCT01884545|191537508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9999
95783227|NCT01884545|191537509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4673
95783228|NCT01884545|191537509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2297
95783229|NCT01884545|191537510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2192
95783230|NCT01884545|191537510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9062|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9062
95783231|NCT01884545|191537511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1466|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1466
95999323|NCT04063215|191975163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1050.25||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2958.69|858.19||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||858.19|-2958.69|0.27
95783232|NCT01884545|191537511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2070
95783233|NCT01884545|191537512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6289|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6289
95783234|NCT01884545|191537512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9631|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9631
95783235|NCT01884545|191537513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2313|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2313
95783236|NCT01884545|191537513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8029
95812367|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999324|NCT04063215|191975164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-365.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1835.1|1103.97||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||1103.97|-1835.10|0.61
95812368|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
96002068|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.03|-0.17|0.006
96002069|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.05|-0.24|0.003
96002070|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.06|-0.25|0.002
95783237|NCT01884545|191537514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0710
95783238|NCT01884545|191537514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8069|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8069
95783239|NCT01884545|191537515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0512|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0512
95783240|NCT01884545|191537515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4478
95783241|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Consequences subscale||||0.7923
95783242|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Personal control||||0.0636
95783243|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2063|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Treatment control||||0.2063
95783244|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2529|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for CHD, Emotional representations||||0.2529
95783245|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), Consequences subscale||||0.1085
95783246|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), personal control subscale||||0.3370
95783247|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3483|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), treatment control subscale||||0.3483
95783248|NCT01884545|191537518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5384|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), emotional representations||||0.5384
95783249|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7447|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Consequences subscale||||0.7447
95783250|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6378|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Personal control||||0.6378
95783251|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3209|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Treatment control||||0.3209
95783252|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for T2D, Emotional representations||||0.0058
95783253|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3769|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), Consequences subscale||||0.3769
95783254|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), personal control||||0.0872
95783255|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment control||||0.4302
95783256|NCT01884545|191537519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||Regression, Linear|||Perceived Risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D), emotional representations||||0.4133
95783257|NCT01884545|191537520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3106|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3106
95783258|NCT01884545|191537520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7087|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7087
95783259|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.034||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|2.094|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Weight reduction||2.094|0.511|0.9259
95783260|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.252||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.234|4.111|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Exercise behavior||4.111|1.234|0.0082
95783261|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.423||||0.2954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Smoking behavior||2.120|0.084|0.2954
95783262|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.376|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Healthier eating behavior||2.376|0.622|0.5669
95783263|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.622||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.134|||Regression, Logistic|||Stages of Change, Stress behavior||1.134|0.341|0.1210
95783264|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.872|||Regression, Logistic|||Weight reduction||1.872|0.461|0.8355
95783265|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.311|||Regression, Logistic|||Exercise behavior||3.311|1.011|0.0459
95783266|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.563||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|2.629|||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking behavior||2.629|0.121|0.4650
95783267|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.808|||Regression, Logistic|||Healthier eating behavior||1.808|0.478|0.8303
95783268|NCT01884545|191537521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.347||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|2.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Stress behavior||2.439|0.744|0.3254
95783269|NCT01884545|191537522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0174
95783270|NCT01884545|191537522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8694
95783271|NCT01884545|191537523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4768
95783272|NCT01884545|191537523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8452|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8452
95783273|NCT01884545|191537524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|7.544|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.544|0.335|0.5589
95783274|NCT01410240|191537525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.453
95783275|NCT01410240|191537526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.708
95783276|NCT01410240|191537527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||one-sided, two-sample t-test|||||||0.527
95783277|NCT01410240|191537528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.561
95783278|NCT01410240|191537529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.356
95783279|NCT01410240|191537530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|||||||one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.533
95783280|NCT01410240|191537531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.734
95783281|NCT01410240|191537534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.314
95783282|NCT01410240|191537535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
95783283|NCT01410240|191537538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.058
95783284|NCT01410240|191537539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.421
95783285|NCT01410240|191537540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.161
95783286|NCT01410240|191537541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.016
95783287|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Pain||||0.534
95783288|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Stiffness||||0.269
95783289|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Physical Functioning||||0.693
95783290|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Average Score||||0.343
95783291|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Day 3: Total Score||||0.343
95783292|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Pain||||0.978
95783293|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Stiffness||||0.709
95783294|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.594
95783295|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Average Score||||0.501
95783296|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Total Score||||0.501
95783297|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Pain||||0.171
95783298|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Stiffness||||0.077
95783299|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.026
95783300|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Average Score||||0.012
95783301|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Total Score||||0.012
95783302|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Pain||||0.126
95783303|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Stiffness||||0.044
95783304|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||||||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning|two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.153
95783305|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Average Score||||0.134
95783306|NCT01410240|191537543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Total Score||||0.134
95783307|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Functioning||||0.962
95783308|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Physical||||0.714
95783309|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Bodily Pain||||0.668
95783310|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: General Health||||0.556
95783311|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Vitality||||0.705
95999325|NCT04063215|191975165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.17||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.32|6.98||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||6.98|-33.32|0.19
95999326|NCT04063215|191975166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.35||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61|-10.09||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-10.09|-54.61|0.0072
95783312|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Social Functioning||||0.122
95783313|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Role-Emotional||||0.254
95783314|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Mental Health||||0.500
95783315|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 1: Physical Component Summary||||0.849
95783316|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change Week 1: Mental Component Summary||||0.959
95783317|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Functioning||||0.574
95812369|NCT00402987|191596828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336||95.0||||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.336
95812370|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95783318|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Physical||||0.524
95783319|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Bodily Pain||||0.049
95783320|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: General Health||||0.447
95783321|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Vitality||||0.823
95783322|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Social Functioning||||0.661
95783323|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Role-Emotional||||0.086
95783324|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Health||||0.635
95783325|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Physical Component Summary||||0.481
95783326|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 2: Mental Component Summary||||0.140
95783327|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Functioning||||0.107
95783328|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Physical||||0.298
95783329|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Bodily Pain||||0.071
95783330|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: General Health||||0.940
95783331|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Vitality||||0.293
95783332|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Social Functioning||||0.265
95783333|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Role-Emotional||||0.036
95783334|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Health||||0.307
95783335|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Physical Component Summary||||0.448
95783336|NCT01410240|191537545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Change Week 6: Mental Component Summary||||0.255
95783337|NCT01410240|191537547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.052
95783338|NCT02776670|191537559|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was deemed established if the lower limit of the 95% CI (equivalent to the 1-sided 97.5% CI) for the adjusted estimate of the difference (Systane Balance-Refresh Optive Advanced/Optive Plus) was above the noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.601||p-value for testing noninferiority of Systane Balance with respect to Refresh Optive Advanced/Refresh Optive Plus is calculated for predefined noninferiority margin of -1.0 second.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.601|-0.341|<0.0001
95783339|NCT02776670|191537560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|0.585|||MMRM|||||0.585|-0.349|0.310
95999327|NCT04063215|191975167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.11|-2.65||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-2.65|-41.11|0.03
95783340|NCT02776670|191537562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.7|||MMRM|||||4.7|-6.4|0.618
95783341|NCT01424241|191537563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|300.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||None available.||||<0.05
95783342|NCT01424241|191537563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95783343|NCT05460078|191537569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|1.16|<0.001
95783344|NCT05460078|191537570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.18|<0.001
95783345|NCT05460078|191537571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|1.54|<0.001
95783346|NCT05460078|191537572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|1.17|<0.001
96002071|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
96002072|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.06|-0.28|0.003
95783347|NCT02488018|191537578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||ANOVA|Degree of freedom for the model (treatment) was 8.||Hypothesis Ho: Honey plant origin does not affects the glycemic index of human subjects. Ha: Honey plant origin affects the glycemic index of human subjects.||||<0.01
95783348|NCT00482170|191537579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.77||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.77|0.87|<0.001
95783349|NCT00482170|191537580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority test was performed using the 95% CI of the difference of mean participant satisfaction (alpha = 2.5%). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87||Statistical testing, one-sided, was done at 2.5% significance level.|ANOVA|||ANOVA using a mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||1.87|0.95|<0.001
95783350|NCT00482170|191537581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.12||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|126.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||126.9|2.05|0.008
95783351|NCT00482170|191537581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|51.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||51.83|2.44|0.002
95783352|NCT00482170|191537581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|27.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: GEE model, using a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure, with treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||27.44|2.26|0.001
95783353|NCT00482170|191537581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|29.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used for the analysis.||29.47|2.59|<0.001
95783354|NCT00482170|191537582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.17||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.34||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.34|0.00|0.045
95783355|NCT00482170|191537583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, female and male (reference).||0.39|-0.58|0.707
95812371|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95999328|NCT04063215|191975168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.03||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.66|1.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||1.61|-85.66|0.061
95783356|NCT00482170|191537584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, high school or baccalaureate level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.14|-0.89|0.195
95783357|NCT00482170|191537584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.55||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, university level and reading or writing capacity (reference).||0.11|-1.21|0.195
95783358|NCT00482170|191537585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.09||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-A: =\< 4, HAD-A: \> 4 to 7, HAD-A: \> 7 to 10 and HAD-A: \> 10; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.36|0.493
95783359|NCT00482170|191537585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, HAD-D: =\< 3, HAD-D: \> 3 to 5, HAD-D: \> 5 to 8 and HAD-A: \> 8; by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.14|-0.46|0.287
95783360|NCT00482170|191537586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.30|-0.04|0.123
95783361|NCT00482170|191537587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.28|-0.76|0.359
95783362|NCT00482170|191537588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.12|-0.08|0.693
95812372|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.090
95999329|NCT04063215|191975169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.56||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.67|19.56||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||19.56|-98.67|0.18
95783363|NCT00482170|191537589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.22||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.53||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.53|-0.09|0.170
95783364|NCT00482170|191537590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.02||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 1 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.04|-0.01|0.211
95783365|NCT00482170|191537591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.18|0.00|0.045
95783366|NCT00482170|191537592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 10 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.11|-0.12|0.913
95783367|NCT00482170|191537593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between all categories, by 5 unit increment. Univariate model in which all continuous variables were considered continuous and mean centered was used.||0.17|-0.17|0.968
95783368|NCT00482170|191537594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current tobacco usage: yes and current tobacco usage: no (reference).||0.32|-0.61|0.531
95783369|NCT00482170|191537594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.44||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.9||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, current alcohol usage: yes and current alcohol usage: no (reference).||0.90|-0.02|0.061
95783370|NCT00482170|191537595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|-0.73||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|3.92||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||3.92|-5.37|0.759
95999330|NCT04063215|191975170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.25||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|42.51||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||42.51|-26.01|0.63
95999331|NCT04063215|191975171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|17.79||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||17.79|-14.84|0.85
95999332|NCT04063215|191975172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.21|24.36||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||24.36|-95.21|0.24
95999333|NCT04063215|191975173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.58||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|6.34||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||6.34|-19.50|0.31
95812373|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.518||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.518
95999334|NCT04063215|191975174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.77||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.25|-5.29||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-5.29|-46.25|0.018
95999335|NCT04063215|191975175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|0.59||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||0.59|-19.79|0.067
95999336|NCT04063215|191975176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.28||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|0.88||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||0.88|-25.45|0.069
95783371|NCT00482170|191537596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis was carried out between categories, yes and no (reference).||0.55|-0.37|0.713
95783372|NCT00482170|191537597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.49|1.63|<0.001
95783373|NCT00482170|191537597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4:A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.67|1.61|<0.001
95999337|NCT04063215|191975177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|-3.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||-3.61|-49.12|0.027
95999338|NCT04063215|191975178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|10.77||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||10.77|-42.09|0.24
95783374|NCT00482170|191537597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.21|1.78|<0.001
95783375|NCT00482170|191537597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.8||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.80|1.66|<0.001
95783376|NCT00482170|191537598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.89||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.89|1.22|0.004
95783377|NCT00482170|191537598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.72||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.72|1.10|0.017
95812374|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.038
95999339|NCT04063215|191975179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.91||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.83|2.01||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.01|-37.83|0.079
95999340|NCT04063215|191975180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.91|19.61||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||19.61|-62.91|0.29
96002073|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
95783378|NCT00482170|191537598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.73||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.73|1.47|<0.001
95783379|NCT00482170|191537598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.32|0.001
95783380|NCT00482170|191537599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.64|1.07|0.025
95999341|NCT04063215|191975181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|2.84||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.84|-11.01|0.24
95783381|NCT00482170|191537599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.64|0.63|0.936
95783382|NCT00482170|191537599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.99||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.99|0.75|0.420
95783383|NCT00482170|191537599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.79|0.71|0.625
95783384|NCT00482170|191537600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.94||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.94|0.86|0.210
95812375|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019||95.0||||"Analysis at 7 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.019
95812376|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812377|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812378|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.081||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.081
95812379|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.552
95812380|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.050
95812381|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0||||"Analysis at 8 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.027
96002074|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.06|-0.29|0.004
95783385|NCT00482170|191537600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.85|0.227
95783386|NCT00482170|191537600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.84|0.220
95783387|NCT00482170|191537600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.0||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.00|0.84|0.249
95812382|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812383|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812384|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.071
95783388|NCT00482170|191537601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.21|1.48|<0.001
95783389|NCT00482170|191537601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.62|1.62|<0.001
95783390|NCT00482170|191537601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|3.51||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.51|1.58|<0.001
95783391|NCT00482170|191537601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.59||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.59|1.64|<0.001
95783392|NCT00482170|191537602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.65||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.65|1.50|<0.001
95783393|NCT00482170|191537602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.77||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.77|1.83|<0.001
95783394|NCT00482170|191537602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.12||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||4.12|1.62|<0.001
95783395|NCT00482170|191537602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.86|1.55|<0.001
95783396|NCT00482170|191537603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.62|0.73|0.681
95812385|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.609||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.609
95783397|NCT00482170|191537603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.54|0.67|0.947
95783398|NCT00482170|191537603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.36|0.59|0.604
95783399|NCT00482170|191537603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.27||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.27|0.57|0.430
95783400|NCT00482170|191537604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.03|0.48|0.072
95783401|NCT00482170|191537604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.86|0.205
95812386|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.065||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.065
95783402|NCT00482170|191537604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.78||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.78|0.78|0.434
95783403|NCT00482170|191537604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.55|0.69|0.857
95783404|NCT00482170|191537605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.70|0.837
95812387|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||95.0||||"Analysis at 9 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.042
95812388|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812389|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812390|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.070
95812391|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.689
95812392|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Continuous data were analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.075
95812393|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0||||"Analysis at 10 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.059
95812394|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812395|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812396|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.069
95812397|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.762||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.762
95812398|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.089||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.089
95783405|NCT00482170|191537605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.15|0.87|0.172
95783406|NCT00482170|191537605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|0.94|0.096
95812399|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083||95.0||||"Analysis at 11 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.083
95812400|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812401|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.001
95812402|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.064
95999342|NCT04063215|191975182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.33||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|44.36||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||44.36|-19.69|0.44
95999343|NCT04063215|191975183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.25||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.17||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||2.17|-8.67|0.23
95783407|NCT00482170|191537605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.08|0.88|0.164
95783408|NCT00482170|191537606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.69|0.83|0.356
95783409|NCT00482170|191537606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.56|0.73|0.737
95783410|NCT00482170|191537606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.156
95783411|NCT00482170|191537606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.76||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.76|0.85|0.290
95783412|NCT00482170|191537607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.50|0.065
95783413|NCT00482170|191537607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.06|0.50|0.100
95783414|NCT00482170|191537607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.21|0.54|0.298
95783415|NCT00482170|191537607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.11|0.51|0.148
95783416|NCT00482170|191537608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.94|0.098
95783417|NCT00482170|191537608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.87|0.82|0.311
95783418|NCT00482170|191537608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.85||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.85|0.79|0.376
95783419|NCT00482170|191537608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.86||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.86|0.83|0.299
95783420|NCT00482170|191537609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.28||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.28|0.60|0.494
95783421|NCT00482170|191537609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.97|0.44|0.036
95783422|NCT00482170|191537609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.04|0.45|0.079
95812403|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.841
95812404|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.110
95812405|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.119
95812406|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.001
95812407|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.015
95812408|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.087
95783423|NCT00482170|191537609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.02||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.02|0.46|0.063
95783424|NCT00482170|191537610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.33|0.62|0.628
95783425|NCT00482170|191537610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.15|0.51|0.203
95783426|NCT00482170|191537610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.17|0.51|0.222
95812409|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.826||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.826
95812410|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.345||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.345
95957102|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|55.33||||0.184||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 versus (vs) Placebo at Week 2||||0.184
95783427|NCT00482170|191537610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.19|0.53|0.263
95783428|NCT00482170|191537611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.50|0.70|0.914
95783429|NCT00482170|191537611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.57||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.57|0.70|0.827
95783430|NCT00482170|191537611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.40|0.61|0.712
95783431|NCT00482170|191537611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.39|0.62|0.733
95812411|NCT00402987|191596829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53||95.0||||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||||0.530
95812412|NCT00402987|191596830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.149||95.0|0.8|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.7|0.8|0.149
95812413|NCT00402987|191596830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.076||95.0|0.9|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.1|0.9|0.076
95812414|NCT00402987|191596830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.733||95.0|0.6|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.6|0.733
95812415|NCT00402987|191596831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.03||95.0|1.1|5.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.0|1.1|0.030
95957103|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|170.21||||0.002||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.002
95957104|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.73||||0.404||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.404
95783432|NCT00482170|191537612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.95||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.95|0.95|0.090
95783433|NCT00482170|191537612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.91||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.91|0.90|0.154
95783434|NCT00482170|191537612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.22||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.22|1.02|0.037
95812416|NCT00402987|191596831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.064||95.0|1.0|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.064
95812417|NCT00402987|191596831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201||95.0|0.7|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.7|0.201
95812418|NCT00402987|191596831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.575||95.0|0.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.5|0.575
95812419|NCT00402987|191596831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1||95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.4|1.000
95812420|NCT00402987|191596831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
95957105|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.23||||0.328||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.328
95999344|NCT04063215|191975184|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|18.88||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||18.88|-9.43|0.5
95783435|NCT00482170|191537612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.24||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.24|1.05|0.028
95783436|NCT00482170|191537613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.21||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.21|1.06|0.022
95783437|NCT00482170|191537613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.41||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.41|1.17|0.005
95783438|NCT00482170|191537613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.03||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.03|0.97|0.076
95783439|NCT00482170|191537613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|1.00|0.049
95783440|NCT00482170|191537614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.83||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.83|1.32|<0.001
95783441|NCT00482170|191537614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.87||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.87|1.78|<0.001
95812421|NCT00402987|191596832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.9||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.9|0.7|<0.001
95812422|NCT00402987|191596832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.003||95.0|0.3|1.5||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|0.3|0.003
95783442|NCT00482170|191537614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.19||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.19|1.42|<0.001
95783443|NCT00482170|191537614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||3.39|1.52|<0.001
95783444|NCT00482170|191537615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.11||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.11|0.99|0.057
95783445|NCT00482170|191537615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.96||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.96|0.90|0.151
95783446|NCT00482170|191537615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.44|1.06|0.024
95999345|NCT04063215|191975185|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.23||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|33.16||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||33.16|-51.62|0.66
95999346|NCT04063215|191975186|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.19||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|17.84||This p-value applies to data regarding 6 months Post-Infusion (Visit 6 - Week 28) compared to Infusion 1/Baseline (Visit 3 - Week 0).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Volumetric MRI measures were analyzed using general linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate differences across time points (pre- and post-treatment). Models will include time of assessment (baseline and 6 months after treatment) and baseline age as covariates with random intercepts for participants to account for within-participant correlation. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were determined for outcomes at 6 months after treatment.||17.84|-70.22|0.24
95999347|NCT04516967|191975224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0077
95999348|NCT04516967|191975225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95999349|NCT04516967|191975226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95999350|NCT04516967|191975227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95999351|NCT04516967|191975228|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95999352|NCT04516967|191975229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0008
95999353|NCT04516967|191975230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7175
95999354|NCT04576949|191975231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|16.25||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6||16.25|3.94|< 0.0001
95999355|NCT04576949|191975231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|14.38||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||14.38|3.92|<0.0001
95999356|NCT04576949|191975231|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.25||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.25|0.16|<0.0001
95999357|NCT04576949|191975232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|11.57||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||11.57|3.69|< 0.0001
95999358|NCT04576949|191975232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|11.12||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||11.12|3.81|<0.0001
95999359|NCT04576949|191975232|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.30|0.20|<0.0001
95999360|NCT04576949|191975233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.24||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24|Stratified by site|10.24|1.50|0.0016
95999361|NCT04576949|191975233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|9.36||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||9.36|1.61|0.0015
95999362|NCT04576949|191975233|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.06||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|0.03|0.0015
95999363|NCT04576949|191975234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|11.09||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Abstinence from Week 12 to Week 24||11.09|2.81|< 0.0001
95999364|NCT04576949|191975234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|10.29||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||10.29|2.88|<0.0001
95999365|NCT04576949|191975234|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Difference in Proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.2||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|0.11|<.0001
95999366|NCT04576949|191975235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.33||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|exact computations||Stratified by site|Relapse free from Week 6 to Week 24||2.33|0.75|0.3484
95999367|NCT04576949|191975235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||2.26|0.78|0.3514
95999368|NCT04576949|191975235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0317||||||p-value for homogeneity across sites|Zelen's exact test (Pr ≤ P)|||||||0.0317
95999369|NCT05642442|191975253|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895|=|0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.7|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.70|-2.83|=0.2363
95999370|NCT05642442|191975254|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference (%)|14.6|||=|0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||30.5|-1.3|=0.0715
95999371|NCT05642442|191975255|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084|=|0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.46|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS-ADL score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.46|-3.82|=0.1232
95999372|NCT05642442|191975256|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference (%)|10.5|||=|0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||26.2|-5.2|=0.1906
95999373|NCT05642442|191975257|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference (%)|15.6|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||26.6|4.7|=0.0052
95783447|NCT00482170|191537615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.39||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||2.39|1.06|0.025
95783448|NCT00482170|191537616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.49|0.24|<0.001
95783449|NCT00482170|191537616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.37|0.18|<0.001
95783450|NCT00482170|191537616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.45||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.45|0.21|<0.001
95812423|NCT00402987|191596832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.177||95.0|-1.0|0.2||"Analysis at 2 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||0.2|-1.0|0.177
95812424|NCT00402987|191596832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.001||95.0|3.0|7.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||7.5|3.0|<0.001
95812425|NCT00402987|191596832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.001||95.0|2.3|6.8||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||6.8|2.3|<0.001
95812426|NCT00402987|191596832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.531||95.0|-3.0|1.5||"Analysis at 6 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||1.5|-3.0|0.531
95812427|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||<|0.001||95.0|4.4|13.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||13.7|4.4|<0.001
95812428|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.46|||<|0.001||95.0|4.7|16.2||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.2|4.7|<0.001
95812429|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.041||95.0|0.2|11.7||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.7|0.2|0.041
95812430|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.633||95.0|-7.1|4.3||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||4.3|-7.1|0.633
95860985|NCT00202878|191680552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.996|||Cox proportional hazard model|Covariates of the stratification factors (EARLY ACS trial, chronic prescription lipid-lowering experience, and high-risk ACS diagnosis) and treatment|Model includes events from randomization to last study visit.|||0.996|0.897|0.035
95999374|NCT05642442|191975258|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference (%)|7.6|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference of proportions is the weighted average of differences across strata with the CMH weights. Stratification is based on baseline TETRAS Composite Outcome Score.|||17.7|-2.6|=0.1450
95783451|NCT00482170|191537616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.47||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.47|0.23|<0.001
95783452|NCT00482170|191537617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.54||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.54|0.27|<0.001
95783453|NCT00482170|191537617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.21|<0.001
95812431|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.284||95.0|-2.6|8.8||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||8.8|-2.6|0.284
95999375|NCT05642442|191975259|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||=|0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.2|||Mixed-effect Model With Repeat Measure|Includes baseline TETRAS-PS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||3.20|-0.47|=0.1429
95812432|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.18||95.0|-2.1|11.1||"Analysis at 12 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.1|-2.1|0.180
95812433|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.57||||0.009||95.0|3.4|23.7||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||23.7|3.4|0.009
95812434|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.15||||0.026||95.0|1.7|26.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||26.6|1.7|0.026
95812435|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.39||||0.138||95.0|-3.0|21.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||21.8|-3.0|0.138
95957106|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.48||||0.362||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.362
95999376|NCT05642442|191975260|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.666|=|0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|3.24|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline TETRAS score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||3.24|-3.35|=0.9739
95783454|NCT00482170|191537617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
95783455|NCT00482170|191537617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.50|0.24|<0.001
95812436|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.926||95.0|-13.0|11.8||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||11.8|-13.0|0.926
95812437|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18||||0.507||95.0|-8.2|16.6||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||16.6|-8.2|0.507
95812438|NCT00402987|191596833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.513||95.0|-9.6|19.1||"Analysis at 24 hours~Pairwise comparison. No adjustment made for multiplicity."|Generalized linear model|Analyzed using a Generalized Linear Model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as a covariate||||19.1|-9.6|0.513
95812439|NCT00402987|191596834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.023||95.0|1.2|7.4|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.4|1.2|0.023
95864478|NCT03456882|191686802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3585
95957107|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.42||||0.203||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.203
95999377|NCT05642442|191975261|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|=|0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.65|||Mixed-effect model with repeat measures|Includes baseline MDS-UPDR score, treatment grp, week, treatment grp and baseline by week, randomization strata, and week repeated for each patient.||||0.65|-2.09|=0.3029
96002075|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
95783456|NCT00482170|191537618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the training: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.24|<0.001
95812440|NCT00402987|191596834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.015||95.0|1.2|7.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.9|1.2|0.015
95812441|NCT00402987|191596834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.854||95.0|0.5|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.2|0.5|0.854
95812442|NCT00402987|191596835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.013||95.0|1.3|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.3|0.013
95812443|NCT00402987|191596835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.003||95.0|1.7|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||14.5|1.7|0.003
95812444|NCT00402987|191596835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.057||95.0|1.0|9.2|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||9.2|1.0|0.057
95783457|NCT00482170|191537618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.46|0.22|<0.001
95783458|NCT00482170|191537618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.56|0.26|<0.001
95783459|NCT00482170|191537618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.58||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||0.58|0.28|<0.001
95783460|NCT00482170|191537619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized estimating equations|||Baseline- after the first injection: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.26|0.60|0.470
95783461|NCT00482170|191537619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.2||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 4: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.20|0.57|0.325
95783462|NCT00482170|191537619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||Week 12: A GEE model, using a cumulative logit link, a multinomial distribution and an independent correlation structure, with device group, visit and the interaction between device group and visit as fixed factors, was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.13|0.55|0.197
95783463|NCT00482170|191537619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Last observation: Logistic regression was used to analyze individual concepts and questions measuring participant perception.||1.14|0.56|0.212
95812445|NCT00402987|191596835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.758||95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.9|0.5|0.758
95812446|NCT00402987|191596835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.381||95.0|0.3|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.6|0.3|0.381
95957108|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.05||||0.322||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.322
95957109|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|148.86||||0.015||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.015
95783464|NCT00482170|191537620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.46||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Baseline- after the training: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an auto-regressive correlation structure was used to calculate 95% CI.||0.46|-0.91|0.515
95783465|NCT00482170|191537620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.6||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 4: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.60|-0.74|0.842
95783466|NCT00482170|191537620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.61||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Week 12: Mixed linear model with participant as random effect, treatment group, visit and the interaction between treatment group and visit as fixed factors and with an unstructured correlation was used for the analysis.||0.61|-0.67|0.928
95783467|NCT00482170|191537620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||Statistical testing, 2-sided, was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||Last observation: ANOVA method was used for the analysis.||0.64|-0.62|0.974
95783468|NCT00482170|191537621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.030
95783469|NCT00482170|191537621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated using ANOVA.||||0.010
95783470|NCT00482170|191537622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.984||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.984
95812447|NCT00402987|191596835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.313||95.0|0.6|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||4.6|0.6|0.313
95812448|NCT00402987|191596836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|8.2||||||95.0|4.5|46.4||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||46.4|4.5|
95812449|NCT00402987|191596836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 6 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|32.0||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 6 hours||32.0|4.3|
95812450|NCT00402987|191596837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|7.5||||||95.0|4.3|28.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||28.7|4.3|
95783471|NCT00482170|191537622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.549
95783472|NCT00482170|191537623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.158
95783473|NCT00482170|191537623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.808
95783474|NCT00482170|191537624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.029
95783475|NCT00482170|191537624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-A, satisfied: HAD-A and less satisfied: HAD-A, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
95783476|NCT00482170|191537624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.411
95783477|NCT00482170|191537624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: HAD-D, satisfied: HAD-D and less satisfied: HAD-D, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.005
95783478|NCT00482170|191537625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.039
95783479|NCT00482170|191537625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.006
95783480|NCT00482170|191537626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.752
95783481|NCT00482170|191537626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.700
95783482|NCT00482170|191537627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.697
95783483|NCT00482170|191537627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.159
95783484|NCT00482170|191537628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.004
95783485|NCT00482170|191537628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
95783486|NCT00482170|191537629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.652
95783487|NCT00482170|191537629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.024
95783488|NCT00482170|191537630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.560
95783489|NCT00482170|191537630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.474
95783490|NCT00482170|191537631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.023
95783491|NCT00482170|191537631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.089
95783492|NCT00482170|191537632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.494
95783493|NCT00482170|191537632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.782
95783494|NCT00482170|191537633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.444
95783495|NCT00482170|191537633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0|||||ANOVA|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.947
95783496|NCT00482170|191537634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.787
95783497|NCT00482170|191537634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, very satisfied: tobacco usage- no, satisfied: tobacco usage- yes, satisfied: tobacco usage- no, less satisfied: tobacco usage- yes and less satisfied: tobacco usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.379
95783498|NCT00482170|191537634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg auto-injector group was calculated.||||0.098
95812451|NCT00402987|191596837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||NNT at 12 hours|5.0||||||95.0|3.0|16.7||||||NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction at 12 hours||16.7|3.0|
95812452|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|7.6||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.6|1.9|<0.001
95812453|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.005||95.0|1.3|5.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.5|1.3|0.005
95812454|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.286||95.0|0.4|1.3||Analysis for 2 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.3|0.4|0.286
95812455|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001||95.0|1.6|7.1||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.1|1.6|0.001
95812456|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.5||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.5|1.4|0.004
95812457|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.752||95.0|0.5|1.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.7|0.5|0.752
95812458|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57|||<|0.001||95.0|1.9|10.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||10.7|1.9|<0.001
95812459|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.003||95.0|1.6|8.7||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.7|1.6|0.003
95812460|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.511||95.0|0.4|1.5||Analysis for 2 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.5|0.4|0.511
95812461|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.009||95.0|1.3|7.0||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||7.0|1.3|0.009
95860986|NCT00918736|191680556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previous report using 5 weekly injections, mean AOS score reduction is 2.6 with the SD of 1.8 in 75 patients. To test whether AOS reduction would be \> 1 using pair t-test after 3 weekly injections, investigators need \> 42 patients to give \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis-mean AOS score reduction \<1 at 6 months, given that both the mean and standard deviation of AOS score reduction equal to 2. Considering possible dropout of participants, investigators decide to include 50 patients||||<0.05
95957110|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.2||||0.541||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.541
95957111|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.47||||0.459||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.459
95957112|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.32||||0.491||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.491
95812462|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
95957113|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|36.8||||0.281||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.281
95957114|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.12||||0.424||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.424
95812463|NCT00402987|191596838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.863||95.0|0.5|1.9||Analysis for 6 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||1.9|0.5|0.863
95812464|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004||95.0|1.4|6.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.1|1.4|0.004
95812465|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.052||95.0|1.0|5.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.7|1.0|0.052
95812466|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.095||95.0|0.9|5.1||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||5.1|0.9|0.095
95812467|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.431||95.0|0.6|3.0||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.0|0.6|0.431
95812468|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.602||95.0|0.6|2.7||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.6|0.602
95812469|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.814||95.0|0.4|2.8||12 hours \>=35% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.8|0.4|0.814
95812470|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.014||95.0|1.2|6.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.7|1.2|0.014
95812471|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.016||95.0|1.2|8.4||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||8.4|1.2|0.016
95812472|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.063||95.0|0.9|6.8||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||6.8|0.9|0.063
95812473|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.775||95.0|0.5|2.7||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.7|0.5|0.775
95860987|NCT01474018|191680563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95860988|NCT01474018|191680564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95957115|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|136.96||||0.026||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.026
95999378|NCT05483127|191975282|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference=P1fA - MDT. Sign (negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||-0.00||
95783499|NCT00482170|191537634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||p-value for statistical difference between categories, very satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, very satisfied: alcohol usage- no, satisfied: alcohol usage- yes, satisfied: alcohol usage- no, less satisfied: alcohol usage- yes and less satisfied: alcohol usage- no, in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.166
95783500|NCT00482170|191537635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||p-value for statistical difference between all categories in the etanercept 50 mg prefilled syringe group was calculated.||||0.535
95812474|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.779||95.0|0.4|2.0||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||2.0|0.4|0.779
95999379|NCT02951273|191975283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0276
95999380|NCT02951273|191975284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95999381|NCT02951273|191975285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6025|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6025
95999382|NCT02951273|191975286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3213|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.3213
95999383|NCT02951273|191975287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||The reported p-value was calculated|repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.0005
95999384|NCT02951273|191975288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5404|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.5404
95999385|NCT02951273|191975289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8947|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||0.8947
95999386|NCT02951273|191975290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068|||||||Linear mixed models|||||||0.0068
95999387|NCT02951273|191975291|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95999388|NCT02951273|191975292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95999389|NCT02951273|191975293|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95999390|NCT02951273|191975294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||repeated measure mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95999391|NCT00121225|191975299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
95999392|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
95999393|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
95783501|NCT00592592|191537649|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|18.0||||||||18.0|5.7|
95783502|NCT00592592|191537651|OTHER||% hypothalamus normal tissue spared|88.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
95783503|NCT00592592|191537651|OTHER||% pituitary normal tissue spared|73.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
95783504|NCT00592592|191537651|OTHER||% lens (contra) normal tissue spared|100.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.01
95783505|NCT00592592|191537651|OTHER||% maxilla normal tissue spared|42.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.02
95783506|NCT00592592|191537652|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|87.7||||||||87.7|73.0|
95812475|NCT00402987|191596839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.624||95.0|0.5|3.3||12 hours \>=50% gone|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||3.3|0.5|0.624
95812476|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95860989|NCT01474018|191680564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95999394|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.61|0.44|
95999395|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
95999396|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.18|
95999397|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.31|
95957116|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.62||||0.67||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.670
95783507|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.055|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.178||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.178|-0.067|
95783508|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.151||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.151|-0.102|
95783509|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.045|-0.204|
95783510|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.34||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.340|0.009|
95812477|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.012
95812478|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.453
95812479|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
95812480|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95812481|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||95.0||||Analysis for meaningful Relief at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.814
95812482|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.024
95957117|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.06||||0.561||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.561
95957118|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.58||||0.604||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.604
95999398|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.19|
95783511|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.056||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.056|-0.297|
95783512|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.117||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.117|-0.225|
95783513|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.184||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.184|-0.068|
95783514|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.082||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.082|-0.167|
95783515|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.113||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.113|-0.144|
95812483|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.022
95812484|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.966||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 2 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.966
95812485|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95812486|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95812487|NCT00402987|191596840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.798||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement at 6 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.798
95812488|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
95812489|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
95812490|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
95812491|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.709||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.709
95999399|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
95999400|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.17|
95783516|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.295||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 1 vs Lot 2||0.295|-0.006|
95783517|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.088||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 2 vs Lot 3||0.088|-0.207|
95783518|NCT01134263|191537653|EQUIVALENCE|Lot consistency for each pair of lots was demonstrated if, for each pair of lots and each serotype the lower limit of the 95% CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.073||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Phase III Lot 3 vs Lot 1||0.073|-0.242|
95783519|NCT01134263|191537654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.192||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||0.192|-0.009|
95783520|NCT01134263|191537654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.466||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||0.466|0.202|
95812492|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.331||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.331
95812493|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246||95.0||||Analysis for Meaningful Relief|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.246
95812494|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95999401|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.25|
95999402|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.27|
95999403|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
95783521|NCT01134263|191537654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.021||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||0.021|-0.173|
95783522|NCT01134263|191537654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the pooled Phase III and Phase II was demonstrated if, for each serotype the lower limit of the 95%CI was \> -0.301 and the upper limit was \< 0.301.|Difference of Log10 GMT|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.103||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||0.103|-0.137|
95783523|NCT03714776|191537667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95783524|NCT03714776|191537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.454
95783525|NCT03714776|191537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.909
95783526|NCT03714776|191537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.132
95783527|NCT03714776|191537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.659
95783528|NCT03714776|191537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.474
95783529|NCT03714776|191537668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.483
95783530|NCT03714776|191537669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.064
95783531|NCT03714776|191537669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
95783532|NCT03714776|191537669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
95812495|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
95812496|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.219
95812497|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.095
95812498|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.463||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.463
95957119|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.76||||0.394||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.394
95957120|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.94||||0.532||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.532
95957121|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|111.27||||0.058||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.058
95957122|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-48.65||||0.778||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.778
95957123|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.74||||0.662||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.662
95957124|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-35.72||||0.712||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.712
95957125|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.18||||0.501||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.501
95957126|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.14||||0.565||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.565
95957127|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|102.44||||0.071||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.071
95957128|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-52.81||||0.799||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.799
95957129|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-30.81||||0.681||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.681
95957130|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.68||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.741
95957131|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.33||||0.526||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.526
95957132|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.76||||0.584||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.584
95957133|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|84.09||||0.101||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.101
95783533|NCT03714776|191537669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
95783534|NCT03714776|191537669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
95783535|NCT03714776|191537669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value of ANOVA with treatment and screening AGT concentration stratification factor was used for analysis.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
95957134|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.14||||0.823||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.823
95957135|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.18||||0.741||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.741
95957136|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-41.31||||0.756||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.756
95783536|NCT04677387|191537675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00325||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression using a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model clustering on pharmacy.||||||0.473
95783537|NCT04677387|191537676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.007
95783538|NCT04677387|191537677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with a Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||.002
95783539|NCT04677387|191537678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model.||||||0.169
95783540|NCT02005627|191537679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95783541|NCT02005627|191537682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95783542|NCT02005627|191537683|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Null Hypothesis was no difference between Grazax and Placebo treatment at 12 months. 80% power to detect 30% difference in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) after nasal challenge|Comparison of nasal symptom score at 0-60 mins after nasal challenge after 12 months treatment with Grazax compared to Placebo treatment. Mixed model analysis. 80% power to detect a 30% difference at p\<0.05.|||
95783543|NCT03230838|191537698|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.9|||||Ceftolozane/Tazobactam (C/T) minus Meropenem (Mero)|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.9|-19.7|
95783544|NCT03230838|191537699|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.5|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||5.5|-9.5|
95783545|NCT03230838|191537700|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.99|10.05|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||10.05|-17.99|
95783546|NCT03230838|191537701|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|8.88|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||8.88|-14.09|
95783547|NCT03230838|191537702|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|17.4|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||17.40|-17.13|
95783548|NCT03230838|191537703|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with CMH weights was used. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Percentage Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|13.41|||||C/T minus Mero|Difference in Percentage (C/T minus Mero)||13.41|-12.67|
95783549|NCT04475718|191537704|OTHER|Preliminary Efficacy|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95783550|NCT03409120|191537716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear mixed effects model|||We tested the equivalence of Burke-Fahn-Marsden scores over time (at baseline and at two time periods following DBS surgery) using a repeated measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
95783551|NCT03244618|191537729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|-0.377|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours first named toothpaste.|||-0.377|-0.712|<0.001
95783552|NCT03244618|191537730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first names toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||14.0|7.5|<0.001
95783553|NCT03244618|191537731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-5.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.5|-16.4|<0.001
95783554|NCT03244618|191537732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.489|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative value favours the first named toothpaste.|||-0.489|-0.850|<0.001
95783555|NCT03244618|191537733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|15.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a positive difference favours first named toothpaste|||15.1|8.6|<0.001
95783556|NCT03244618|191537734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model had treatment and gender as factors.|Difference is first named toothpaste minus second named toothpaste such that a negative difference favours the first named toothpaste.|||-5.2|-16.6|<0.001
95783557|NCT04424914|191537757|OTHER|||||||0.3006|||||||Chi-squared|p-values for comparison of proportions of CLASS I+II vs CLASS III+IV were based on a Chi-square test.||||||0.3006
95783558|NCT04424914|191537758|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
95783559|NCT03168919|191537814|OTHER|Comparison||||||||||||||||The baseline and the end of therapy MRI parameters are compared.|Due to very small accrual, the statistical analysis couln't be performed.|||
95783560|NCT01085136|191537819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.85||P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test|stratified log-rank test|||Hazard ratio is calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||0.85|0.44|0.0030
95783561|NCT01085136|191537821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||Stratified log-rank test.|P-value is calculated from two-sided stratified log-rank test.||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only factor, stratified by gender and maximum duration of erlotinib or gefitinib (\<6 months vs \>=6 months).||1.44|0.76|0.7905
95783562|NCT01085136|191537823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|6.543|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified for maximum treatment duration of prior erlotinib or gefitinib (\>=6 months vs \<6 months) and gender.||6.543|1.357|0.0065
95957137|NCT01917006|191886341|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.57||||0.517||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline average IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 12||||0.517
95957138|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.59||||0.079||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.079
95957139|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.025||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.025
95812499|NCT00402987|191596841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Analysis for Much Improvement|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.038
95812500|NCT00402987|191596842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95812501|NCT00402987|191596842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.008
95957140|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.07||||0.417||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.417
95957141|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.33||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.330
95957142|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.3||||0.199||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.199
95999404|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.10|
95812502|NCT00402987|191596842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.557
95812503|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
95957143|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45||||0.113||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 2||||0.113
95957144|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.127||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.127
95957145|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.56||||0.087||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.087
95999405|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
95812504|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
95812505|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.036
95812506|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.339
95812507|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||1.000
95812508|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.401||95.0||||Analysis at 12 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.401
95812509|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.003
95812510|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.002
95812511|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.223
95957146|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.543||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.543
95957147|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.377||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.377
95999406|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.16|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.16|0.09|
95812512|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.198
95812513|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.604||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.604
95812514|NCT00402987|191596843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||95.0||||Analysis at 24 hours|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.117
95999407|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.41|
95812515|NCT00402987|191596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.001
95812516|NCT00402987|191596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||<0.001
95812517|NCT00402987|191596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.025
95812518|NCT00402987|191596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.539
95812519|NCT00402987|191596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.329
95812520|NCT00402987|191596846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.171
95783563|NCT02195427|191537825|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.11|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Global Action versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Ultra Deep compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline."||0.11|-0.17|
95783564|NCT02195427|191537825|NON_INFERIORITY|"A WSRS change of 1 grade is considered to be clinically significant. A difference of ≤0.5 grade between the two treatment groups (i.e., half of the clinically significant difference) = non-inferiority margin.~The primary efficacy endpoint uses a paired-design and is analyzed by calculating two-sided confidence intervals of the mean difference between TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines and the control device, between the V1 enrollment visit (baseline) and V7 (24 weeks after baseline)."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06|||||The decision is based on the upper limit of the 2-sided confidence interval for the difference for the change from baseline, between test and comparator treatment. For achieving non-inferiority, the upper confidence limit of a 97.5% CI must be ≤0.5|"Efficacy of TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines versus control is analyzed in a non-inferiority statistical model using the 5-grade Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) as rated by the Blinded Live Evaluator at 24 weeks after baseline.~The primary endpoint is the aesthetic improvement from pre-injection of the NLF at the side of the face treated with TEOSYAL® RHA Deep Lines compared to the one at the side of the face treated with the control device, as assessed by the BLE at 24 weeks after baseline"||0.06|-0.25|
95783565|NCT00386425|191537839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||p-value is for change to Day 7|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95783566|NCT00386425|191537840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||p-value is for the moderate Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95783567|NCT00386425|191537840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||p-value is for the severe Protein C Deficiency (difference in change of pc between alt and standard groups)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
95783568|NCT00386425|191537841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for Day 28 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
95783569|NCT00386425|191537842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||p-value is for Day 90 mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.090
95783570|NCT00386425|191537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||p-value is for total SOFA difference between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
95783571|NCT00386425|191537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||p-value is for difference in cardiovascular SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
95783572|NCT00386425|191537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is for difference in respiratory SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
95783573|NCT00386425|191537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||p-value is for difference in renal SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
95783574|NCT00386425|191537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||p-value is for difference in hematology SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
95783575|NCT00386425|191537843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||p-value is for difference in liver SOFA between alternative and standard therapy|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
95783576|NCT00386425|191537845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for difference between participants normalizing protein C and not normalizing protein C.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95783577|NCT00386425|191537846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||p-value is for 28-Day Mortality, Dead at Day 28 vs. Alive at Day 28|Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.622
95783578|NCT00386425|191537846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||p-value is for Hospital Mortality|Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
95783579|NCT02526160|191537917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) testing for association between achieving mean serum phosphorus levels above lower limit of normal (LLN) and treatment group, adjusting for stratification of Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Average Pain and region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
95783580|NCT02526160|191537918|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.05|GEE model|||||0.08|-1.00|0.0919
95783581|NCT02526160|191537919|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.251||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.68|-1.94||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.0167|GEE model|||||-1.94|-14.68|0.0106
95783582|NCT02526160|191537920|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.479||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-0.05||Prespecified significance level for test after Hochberg adjustment: 0.025|GEE model|||||-0.05|-9.76|0.0478
95783583|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||>.05
95812521|NCT00402987|191596847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.007
95957148|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.321||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.321
95957149|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.4||||0.149||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 4||||0.149
95999408|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
95999409|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.38|
95783584|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change between pre-test and post-test for the Positive Conflict Management subscale using multilevel modeling||||<.001
95783585|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.001
95783586|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Negative Conflict Management for the Control Group||||>.05
95783587|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
95783588|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
95783589|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes in the Relationship Quality subscale from Pre-test to post-test in the control group||||<.05
95812522|NCT00402987|191596847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.244
95999410|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.60|
95783590|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes in the Relationship Quality Subscale from pretest to posttest in the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
95783591|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Qualitty subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
95812523|NCT00402987|191596847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.096
95812524|NCT00402987|191596847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.579
95812525|NCT00402987|191596847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.277
95812526|NCT00402987|191596847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.649||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as a factor||||||0.649
95957150|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.215||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.215
95783592|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.05
95957151|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.47||||0.126||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.126
95957152|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.28||||0.774||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.774
95783593|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
95783594|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Emotional Abuse subscale|The expected decrease from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.05
95812527|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001||95.0|7.5|23.2||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||23.2|7.5|<0.001
95812528|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4||||0.003||95.0|4.9|24.0||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||24.0|4.9|0.003
95957153|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.01||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
95957154|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.495||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.495
95957155|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.23||||0.274||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 6||||0.274
95957156|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.308||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.308
95957157|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.34||||0.205||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.205
95783595|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
95812529|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2||||0.096||95.0|-1.5|17.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.8|-1.5|0.096
95812530|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.141||95.0|-2.4|16.8||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-2.4|0.141
95812531|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.849||95.0|-8.6|10.5||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.5|-8.6|0.849
95957158|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.849||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.849
95957159|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.571||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.571
95783596|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783597|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Satisfactionn subscale||||<.001
95783598|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783599|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783600|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
95783601|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
95812532|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.266||95.0|-4.8|17.4||Analysis of Effectiveness|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-4.8|0.266
95812533|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.141||95.0|-5.4|0.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||0.8|-5.4|0.141
95812534|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.312||95.0|-5.7|1.8||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||1.8|-5.7|0.312
95957160|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.592||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.592
95957161|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.34||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 8||||0.340
95999411|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.51|
95783602|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Depression subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
95783603|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Depression subscale||||>.05
95783604|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
95812535|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.724||95.0|-4.5|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-4.5|0.724
95812536|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.398||95.0|-5.4|2.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||2.1|-5.4|0.398
95812537|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.846||95.0|-4.1|3.4||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.4|-4.1|0.846
95812538|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.572||95.0|-5.6|3.1||Analysis of Side Effects|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.1|-5.6|0.572
95957162|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.16||||0.36||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 1 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.360
95783605|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783606|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test and post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test and post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
95783607|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.05
95812539|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.014||95.0|1.2|10.4||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.4|1.2|0.014
95812540|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.573||95.0|-4.0|7.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||7.2|-4.0|0.573
95812541|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.482||95.0|-7.7|3.6||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||3.6|-7.7|0.482
95812542|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007||95.0|2.2|13.5||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||13.5|2.2|0.007
95812543|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.143||95.0|-1.4|9.8||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||9.8|-1.4|0.143
95860990|NCT02433080|191680566|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.5|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies for the outcomes 2-8.||16.5|-3.6|0.05
95957163|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.35||||0.192||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 2 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.192
95957164|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37||||0.843||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 3 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.843
95957165|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.572||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 4 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.572
95783608|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783609|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Budgeting subscale||||<.10
95812544|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.273||95.0|-2.9|10.2||Analysis of Convenience|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||10.2|-2.9|0.273
95812545|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0||||0.003||95.0|4.4|21.6||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||21.6|4.4|0.003
95812546|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.029||95.0|1.2|22.2||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||22.2|1.2|0.029
95812547|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.251||95.0|-4.4|16.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||16.8|-4.4|0.251
95812548|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.204||95.0|-3.7|17.4||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.4|-3.7|0.204
95812549|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.808||95.0|-9.2|11.8||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||11.8|-9.2|0.808
95864479|NCT03456882|191686803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4388||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.4388
95957166|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.628||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 5 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.628
95783610|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||<.10
95957167|NCT01917006|191886342|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.38||||||Least square mean and one-sided p-value of mean difference vs placebo for each active OnabotulinumtoxinA dose level is calculated from the ANCOVA Model with treatment as the fixed effect and baseline geometric mean IELT as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||OnabotulinumtoxinA Dose 6 vs Placebo at Week 10||||0.380
95783611|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783612|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
95783613|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783614|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783615|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to pos-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
95783616|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Positive values indicate an increase whereas a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for control group||||>.05
95812550|NCT00402987|191596848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.371||95.0|-6.6|17.7||Analysis of Global Satisfaction|Generalized linear model|Treatment as a fixed effect||||17.7|-6.6|0.371
95957168|NCT03677245|191886363|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed ranks test used to compared pre-intervention to post-intervention means of the Pediatric Balance Scale. No power calculation performed or utilized.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95783617|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783618|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Banking subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|||>.05
95783619|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783620|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783621|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Parenting stresss subscale||||>.05
95783622|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783623|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95812551|NCT00402987|191596849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95812552|NCT00402987|191596849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
95812553|NCT00402987|191596849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.235
95962322|NCT03670277|191896474|OTHER|Statistically significance of difference. Statistical difference would be concluded if the lower limit was greater than 0 or the upper limit was less than 0.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.599|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test - Control|At +30°||2.599|0.228|
95962323|NCT02911805|191896481|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95962324|NCT01443403|191896529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.41|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.41|1.02|0.0003
95962325|NCT01443403|191896529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.14|0.76|0.0014
95783624|NCT04227405|191537951|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||The increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
95783625|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783626|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783627|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
95783628|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783629|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Manageement subscale for the intervention group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.001
95783630|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-i\[in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||<.01
95812554|NCT00402987|191596849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.012
95812555|NCT00402987|191596849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.438||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.438
95783631|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783632|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95812556|NCT00402987|191596849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.067||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.067
95812557|NCT00402987|191596850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.128
95812558|NCT00402987|191596850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
95812559|NCT00402987|191596850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.266||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.266
95812560|NCT00402987|191596850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.849||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.849
95812561|NCT00402987|191596850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.828||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.828
95962326|NCT01443403|191896529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-0.62|0.3504
95962327|NCT01443403|191896531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.568||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.05|0.81|0.0008
95783633|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables. Pvalue set at \<.05|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up n the Relationship Quality subscale||||<.10
95783634|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.10
95783635|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783636|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected decrease from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is not significantly (p \> .05) different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||<.10
95783637|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783638|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783639|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale||||<.001
95783640|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783641|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783642|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||<.001
95783643|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783644|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale for th eintervention group||||>.05
95812562|NCT00402987|191596850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0||||"Based on life-table extension of Mantel-Haenszel method.~p-value for general association"|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.741
95812563|NCT00256126|191596851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95812564|NCT05528770|191596863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.3|-3.8|0.4291
95783645|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
95812565|NCT01137890|191596868|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|24.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on VAQ score|||||<0.01
95812566|NCT01137890|191596868|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on VAQ score|||||0.72
95812567|NCT01137890|191596868|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.66||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine x Zonisamide interaction on VAQ scores|||||0.63
95812568|NCT01137890|191596869|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|9.91|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||<0.01
95783646|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783647|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783648|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Negative Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
95812569|NCT01137890|191596869|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.93
95812570|NCT01137890|191596869|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc x Zon|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose x Zonisamide dose interaction on Behavioral Choice measure|||||0.92
95812571|NCT01137890|191596870|SUPERIORITY||t-value for main effect of Group|1.51||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||Group (Zonisamide vs Placebo)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95962328|NCT01443403|191896531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.04|0.79|0.0009
95783649|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the control group||||>.05
95812572|NCT01137890|191596870|SUPERIORITY|Day (Day 1-39)|t-value for main effect of Day|-3.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0015
95812573|NCT01137890|191596870|SUPERIORITY|Group\*Day interaction|t value for Group x Day interaction|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95812574|NCT01137890|191596871|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Coc dose|21.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value was calculated as less than 0.01. Note: this is not an attempt to indicate a threshold|ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Cocaine dose|||||<0.01
95812575|NCT01137890|191596871|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Zon dose|0.77||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide dose|||||0.48
95812576|NCT01137890|191596871|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Zon x Coc|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||F-value for main effect of Zonisamide x Cocaine interaction on drug value (i.e., street value) measurement|||||0.46
95812577|NCT00583219|191596872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline at one month||||0.004
95812578|NCT00583219|191596872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.81
95812579|NCT00583219|191596873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.21
95812580|NCT00583219|191596873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.43
95812581|NCT00583219|191596875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.005
95812582|NCT00583219|191596876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.22
95812583|NCT00583219|191596877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
95812584|NCT00583219|191596877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.14
95812585|NCT00583219|191596878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.24
95812586|NCT00583219|191596878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.033
95962329|NCT01443403|191896531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.73|-0.47|0.2572
95812587|NCT00583219|191596879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||>0.99
95812588|NCT00583219|191596879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||exact binomial sign test|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.25
95812589|NCT00583219|191596881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||<0.001
95812590|NCT00583219|191596882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline||||0.004
95812591|NCT00583219|191596883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month||||0.003
95812592|NCT00583219|191596883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months.||||0.001
95812593|NCT00583219|191596884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to one month||||0.001
95812594|NCT00583219|191596884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||<0.001
95812595|NCT00583219|191596885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 1 month.||||0.007
95812596|NCT00583219|191596885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value change from baseline to 3 months||||0.002
95812597|NCT00619866|191596929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.2|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.20|-0.81|0.2311
95812598|NCT00619866|191596929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.14|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.14|-0.86|0.1521
95812599|NCT00619866|191596930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-0.77|0.2041
95812600|NCT00619866|191596930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-0.69|0.3375
95812601|NCT00619866|191596930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.04|-1.01|0.0354
95812602|NCT00619866|191596930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly mean values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.26|-0.71|0.3618
95812603|NCT00619866|191596931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.78|-1.01|0.7990
95812604|NCT00619866|191596931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.59|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.59|-1.21|0.5042
95962330|NCT01443403|191896533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.484||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.28|0.38|0.0065
95962331|NCT01443403|191896533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.58|0.69|0.0008
95962332|NCT01443403|191896533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.44|-0.43|0.2921
95962333|NCT01443403|191896535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.42|0.47|0.0039
95962334|NCT01443403|191896535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.67|0.73|0.0007
95783650|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783651|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Quality subscale||||>.05
95783652|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783653|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783654|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale||||>.05
95783655|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783656|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Satisfaction subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
95783657|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship satisfaction subscale||||>.05
95783658|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783659|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783660|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Relationship Commitment subscale||||>.05
95783661|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783662|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783663|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Banking subscale||||>.05
95783664|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783665|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783666|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Banking subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.10
95783667|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills for the control group||||>.05
95783668|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783669|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Difficulties to pay bills subscale||||>.05
95783670|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783671|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulties to Pay Bills subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783672|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Difficulty to Pay Bills subscale||||>.05
95783673|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p vallue|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783674|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783675|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Depression subscale||||>.05
95783676|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783677|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783678|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in depression subscale||||>.05
95783679|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
95783680|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783681|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Anxiety subscale||||>.05
95783682|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783683|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in anxiety subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783684|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the Anxiety subscale||||>.05
95783685|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783686|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783687|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
95783688|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in banking subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783689|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in parenting stress subscale for the control group||||>.05
95957169|NCT01490359|191886367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71||The GEE model included baseline measure of consistent condom use, intervention condition, time (6- vs. 12-mo follow-up), and type of partner (steady vs casual partners) with robust standard errors and an independent working correlation matrix.|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Estimate is odds ratio (intervention vs. health control).|Assuming alpha = 0.05, a 2-tailed test, ICC = 0.01, 15% attrition at 12-month follow-up, and N = 1,152 men in the trial from 44 neighborhoods with an average of 26 men in each neighborhood, the trial was estimated to have 81% power to detect a 10% increase in consistent condom use from 32% to 42% in the HIV/STI intervention group.||1.71|1.03|.008
95957170|NCT04150341|191886375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.881
95957171|NCT04150341|191886375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.17|0.575
95783690|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Parenting Stress subscale||||>.05
95783691|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.10
95783692|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Time with Parter subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783693|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn Time with Partner subscale||||>.05
95783694|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783695|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783696|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Time with Partner subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
95957172|NCT00833898|191886383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
95957173|NCT00833898|191886384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95957174|NCT00833898|191886385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
95783697|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783698|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783699|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale||||<.05
95783700|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783701|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in conflict management satisfaction subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783702|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in Conflict Management Satisfaction subscale|Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|||>.05
95812605|NCT00619866|191596931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.24|-1.63|0.1459
95860991|NCT03563183|191680580|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine Group compared to Placebo Group.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|95.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.58|98.22|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Non-Frail-HZ/su vs Non-Frail-Placebo groups.||98.22|91.58|<0.0001
95783703|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.10
95783704|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783705|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
95783706|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the control group||||<.001
95957175|NCT00833898|191886386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95957176|NCT00833898|191886387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95957177|NCT00833898|191886388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95957178|NCT00833898|191886389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
95957179|NCT00833898|191886390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
95957180|NCT00833898|191886391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95957181|NCT00833898|191886392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95957182|NCT00833898|191886393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
95957183|NCT00833898|191886394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95957184|NCT00833898|191886395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
95957185|NCT00833898|191886396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95957186|NCT00833898|191886397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95957187|NCT00833898|191886398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
95957188|NCT00833898|191886399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.58
95957189|NCT00833898|191886399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.33
95812606|NCT00619866|191596931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.21|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-2.10|0.0163
95957190|NCT00833898|191886400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95783707|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up in budgeting subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95812607|NCT00619866|191596931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.18|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.18|-2.13|0.0207
95812608|NCT00619866|191596931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.47|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in in monthly peak values of the NRS for overall endometriosis-associated pelvic pain was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.42|0.0038
95812609|NCT00619866|191596932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.18|0.5744
95812610|NCT00619866|191596932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||Repeated measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.17|0.7280
95812611|NCT00619866|191596932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.32|0.0195
95812612|NCT00619866|191596932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.10|-0.19|0.5589
95812613|NCT00619866|191596932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.11|-0.20|0.5558
95812614|NCT00619866|191596932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in non-menstrual pelvic pain score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.12|-0.18|0.7121
95812615|NCT00619866|191596933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.03|-0.54|0.0286
95957191|NCT00833898|191886401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.18
95957192|NCT00833898|191886401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95957193|NCT00833898|191886402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
95957194|NCT00833898|191886402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
95957195|NCT00833898|191886403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
95957196|NCT00833898|191886403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values represent separate wilcoxon paired sample signed rank test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.72
95783708|NCT04227405|191537952|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up in Budgeting subscale|Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.001
95783709|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783710|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783711|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
95783712|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783713|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783714|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||<.001
95783715|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783716|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
95783717|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
95783718|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783719|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783720|NCT04227405|191537954|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
95783721|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.10
95783722|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783723|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Aceptance subscale||||<.001
95783724|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||<.10
95783725|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783726|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.01
95783727|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
95812616|NCT00619866|191596933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-0.45|0.1210
95812617|NCT00619866|191596933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.15|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.68|0.0024
95812618|NCT00619866|191596933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.22|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.22|-0.76|0.0003
95812619|NCT00619866|191596933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.16|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.72|0.0021
95812620|NCT00619866|191596933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in dysmenorrhea score was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.24|-0.80|0.0003
95783728|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95783729|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.001
95783730|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783731|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the Intervention group||||>.05
95783732|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
95812621|NCT00619866|191596934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.34|0.0603
95999412|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.86|
95783733|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783734|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783735|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Positive Conflict Management subscale||||>.05
95783736|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group|Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||||>.05
95783737|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783738|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Copinng subscale||||>.05
95783739|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Plannning subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783740|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
95783741|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||>.05
95783742|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783743|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783744|NCT04227405|191537955|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||>.05
95783745|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783746|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Emotional Abuse subscale for the control group||||<.01
95812622|NCT00619866|191596934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 4. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-0.29|0.1855
95812623|NCT00619866|191596934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.12|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||-0.12|-0.48|0.0012
95783747|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Acceptance subscale||||<.001
95783748|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783749|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
95783750|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Active Coping subscale||||<.05
95783751|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.05
95783752|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Planning subscale for the Intervention group||||<.05
95783753|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Planning subscale||||<.001
95783754|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783755|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
95783756|NCT04227405|191537957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
95957197|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.14||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.14|1.70|< 0.001
95783757|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783758|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
95783759|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale|The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|||<.01
95783760|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783761|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
95783762|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||<.10
95783763|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||<.10
95783764|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||<.05
95812624|NCT00619866|191596934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 8. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.33|0.1002
95783765|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale||||<.01
95783766|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783767|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.01
95783768|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||The expected increase from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group is significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale||||<.01
95783769|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783770|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale for the interventionn group||||>.05
95783771|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Acceptance subscale||||>.05
95783772|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783773|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping in the intervention group||||>.05
95783774|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Active Coping subscale||||>.05
95783775|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783776|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Planning subscale for the intervention group||||>.05
95783777|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in Planning subscale||||>.05
95783778|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the control group||||>.05
95783779|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Support subscale for the intervention group||||<.10
95783780|NCT04227405|191537958|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up in the Instrumental Supportt subscale||||>.05
95783781|NCT04227405|191537960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling|||Changes from pre-test to posttest for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||<.05
95783782|NCT04227405|191537960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to posttest for the intervention group||||<.01
95783783|NCT04227405|191537960|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test t in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
95783784|NCT04227405|191537961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783785|NCT04227405|191537961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from pre-test to Follow-up for the intervention group||||<.10
95783786|NCT04227405|191537961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Follow-up||||>.05
95783787|NCT04227405|191537961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783788|NCT04227405|191537961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Changes from post-test to Follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783789|NCT04227405|191537961|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Post-test to Follow-up||||>.05
95783790|NCT04227405|191537963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in Difficulties in Emotion Regulation for the control group||||>.05
95783791|NCT04227405|191537963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
95783792|NCT04227405|191537963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||>.05
95783793|NCT04227405|191537964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
95962335|NCT01443403|191896535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.46|-0.46|0.3077
95962336|NCT01443403|191896537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|27.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|44.6|||Chi-squared|||||44.6|10.0|0.0030
95962337|NCT01443403|191896537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|31.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|48.7|||Chi-squared|||||48.7|15.0|0.0005
95962338|NCT01443403|191896537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|30.6|||Chi-squared|||||30.6|-4.4|0.1461
95962339|NCT01443403|191896539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|7.8|0.0050
95962340|NCT01443403|191896539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|24.5||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|40.8|||Chi-squared|||||40.8|8.1|0.0045
95962341|NCT01443403|191896539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.2||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|23.6|||Chi-squared|||||23.6|-7.2|0.2984
95999413|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.41|
95783794|NCT04227405|191537964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783795|NCT04227405|191537964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||>.05
95783796|NCT04227405|191537964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783797|NCT04227405|191537964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783798|NCT04227405|191537964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
95783799|NCT04227405|191537966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological agggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783800|NCT04227405|191537966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in psychological aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783801|NCT04227405|191537966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Psychological Aggression subscale||||<.10
95999414|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.73|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.39|
95783802|NCT04227405|191537966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling|||Change from pre-test to post-test in physical assault subscale for the control group|A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|||>.05
95783803|NCT04227405|191537966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test in the physical assault subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783804|NCT04227405|191537966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
95783805|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale for the control group||||<.001
95783806|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up in the Psychological Aggression subscale for the intervention group||||<.001
95783807|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up inn the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
95783808|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group in the psychological aggression subscale||||<.10
95783809|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the psychological aggresssion subscale||||>.05
95783810|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up in the psychological aggression subscale||||>.05
95783811|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the physical assault subscale||||>.05
95957198|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.06||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.06|1.63|< 0.001
95783812|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault Subscale||||<.05
95783813|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Physical Assault subscale||||<.05
95783814|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
95783815|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Physical Assault subscale||||>.05
95783816|NCT04227405|191537967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
95783817|NCT04227405|191537969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group||||<.001
95783818|NCT04227405|191537969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.001
95783819|NCT04227405|191537969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to pos-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in Time||||<.05
95783820|NCT04227405|191537970|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group||||<.05
95783821|NCT04227405|191537970|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group||||<.001
95783822|NCT04227405|191537970|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up||||<.05
95783823|NCT04227405|191537970|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783824|NCT04227405|191537970|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from post-test to follow-up for the control group||||>.05
95783825|NCT04227405|191537970|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment to p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from post-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from post-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from post-test to follow-up||||>.05
95783826|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale||||>.05
95783827|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group||||<.05
95783828|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling|||Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test in the Supportive Dyadic Coping subscale|Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|||>.05
95962342|NCT01443403|191896541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.17|0.90|<0.0001
95957199|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.22||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.22|1.77|< 0.001
95957200|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|2.8||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||2.80|2.13|< 0.001
95962343|NCT01443403|191896541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.85|0.59|0.0002
95783829|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the common dyadic coping subscale||||>.05
95783830|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
95783831|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
95783832|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.10
95783833|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.05
95783834|NCT04227405|191537972|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
95783835|NCT04227405|191537973|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the control group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
95783836|NCT04227405|191537973|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to follow-up for the intervention group for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.05
95783837|NCT04227405|191537973|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to follow-up in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to follow-up in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from pre-test to follow-up for the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
95962344|NCT01443403|191896541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.20|-0.05|0.0698
95962345|NCT01443403|191896543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.79|0.58|0.0001
95962346|NCT01443403|191896543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.70|0.49|0.0004
95962347|NCT01443403|191896543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.02|-0.17|0.1648
95962348|NCT01443403|191896545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95962349|NCT01443403|191896545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95962350|NCT01443403|191896545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0118
95962351|NCT01443403|191896546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95783838|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Subcale||||>.05
95783839|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Supportive Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.001
95812625|NCT00619866|191596934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.36|0.0568
95812626|NCT00619866|191596934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.04|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA||Difference = Elagolix - Placebo|Analysis at week 12. Change from baseline in total of non-menstrual pelvic pain and dysmenorrhea scores was analyzed by a repeated measures analysis of covariance model. The model included fixed effects for treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, a random effect for subject, and the baseline-by-time interaction, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.33|0.1190
95812627|NCT00608062|191596974|OTHER|Repeated measurements of FMD were modeled using a general linear mixed model with maximum likelihood estimation. An unstructured covariance structure allowing for heterogeneity in the parameter estimate for each level of menopause stage was chosen for the model based on using AIC to compare various covariance structures.||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95812628|NCT00608062|191596976|OTHER|Similar analyses as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95812629|NCT00608062|191596977|OTHER|same analysis as primary outcome||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95812630|NCT03773484|191597013|OTHER||Slope|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre post comparison for Opioid Naïve patients||0.01|-0.03|0.43
95957201|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|2.85||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||2.85|2.21|< 0.001
95957202|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.36|1.87|< 0.001
95957203|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|3.03||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.03|2.27|< 0.001
95962352|NCT01443403|191896546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0011
95783840|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test||||<.01
95812631|NCT03773484|191597013|OTHER||Slope|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-post comparison for at-risk for long term use patients||0.013|-0.051|0.24
95812632|NCT05177354|191597014|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|89.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.8|||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of low-back and leg pain subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during Closed Loop On compared to Closed Loop Off period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test||||||71.8|<0.001
95812633|NCT03330847|191597041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.66|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.66|0.63|0.9403
95812634|NCT03330847|191597041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.88|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib monotherapy.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.88|0.52|0.9282
95962353|NCT01443403|191896546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
95962354|NCT01443403|191896549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.03|0.62|0.0003
95783841|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
95783842|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group in the Common Dyadic Coping Subscale||||<.001
95783843|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The Benjamini-Hochberg method (1995) was used for adjusting p values for multiple comparisons as recommended by What Works Clearinghouse for controlling the false discovery rate for studies that have multiple outcome variables.|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test inn the Common Dyadic Coping subscale||||<.01
95783844|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the control group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||>.05
95783845|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||A positive value indicates an increase while a negative value indicates a decrease|Change from pre-test to post-test for the intervention group for the Negative Dyadic Coping Scale||||<.10
95783846|NCT04227405|191537975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment in p value|Multilevel modeling||Changes from pre-test to post-test in the intervention group were not significantly different from the change from pre-test to post-test in the control group|Difference between the control and the intervention group in the change from Pre-test to Post-test for the Negative Dyadic Coping Subscale||||>.05
95812635|NCT03330847|191597041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.03|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.03|0.28|0.1274
95812636|NCT03330847|191597041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.26|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.26|0.23|0.2956
95999415|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|0.78|
95999416|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.71|
95999417|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.54|
95783847|NCT03782571|191538116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||7.4|-4.0|
95783848|NCT03782571|191538116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||13.4|-4.0|
95783849|NCT03782571|191538116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.7|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||19.1|-2.7|
95783850|NCT03782571|191538116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.6|15.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||15.5|-2.6|
95812637|NCT03330847|191597041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.14|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.14|0.50|0.2959
95783851|NCT03782571|191538116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-2.0|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||8.9|-2.0|
95783852|NCT03782571|191538116|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-4.3|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere clearance rate.||10.3|-4.3|
95783853|NCT03782571|191538117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-1.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 1 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||17.8|-1.0|
95783854|NCT03782571|191538117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-7.8|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-7.8|
95783855|NCT03782571|191538117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-15.1|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Control|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||20.9|-15.1|
95783856|NCT03782571|191538117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-20.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||9.4|-20.4|
95812638|NCT03330847|191597041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.8|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||0.80|0.28|0.0193
95812639|NCT03330847|191597042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.39|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.39|0.53|0.6147
95812640|NCT03330847|191597042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.68|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population BRCAm||1.68|0.48|0.7879
95812641|NCT03330847|191597042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.31|0.38|0.3695
95999418|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.06|0.78|
95783857|NCT03782571|191538117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-12.6|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 3 - Test 2|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||5.3|-12.6|
95783858|NCT03782571|191538117|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is concluded if the upper limit is less than 10% and the lower limit is greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18|||TWO_SIDED|99.1|-13.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom. Adjustment was made using a simulation-based approach.|Test 2 - Test 1|Testing equivalence with respect to microsphere uptake rate.||10.3|-13.9|
95783859|NCT01088711|191538140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.7|99.37|||Difference in geometric means (GMs)|||||99.37|82.70|
95783860|NCT01088711|191538142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.38|||||GMR is ratio of active GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||2.38|1.55|
95783861|NCT01088711|191538143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.17|||||GMR is ratio of total GLP-1 levels in omarigliptin:placebo groups.|||1.17|0.72|
95783862|NCT01537835|191538163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95783863|NCT01535443|191538192|OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Traza Pillai|The test was performed with degrees of freedom: 2||||||.374
95783864|NCT00548249|191538255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.32||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals comparing each SFP treatment group to placebo, and p-value from cox proportional hazards model||3.32|0.30|0.999
95957204|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.51||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.51|1.97|< 0.001
95957205|NCT00943722|191886404|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.45||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.45|1.93|< 0.001
95957206|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.59||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||2.59|2.07|< 0.001
95783865|NCT00548249|191538255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.09|||Log Rank|||||4.09|0.33|0.807
95783866|NCT00548249|191538255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.21|0.748
95783867|NCT00548249|191538255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.77||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.19|||Log Rank|||||5.19|0.60|0.299
95783868|NCT00548249|191538256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.234||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect.||||0.234
95783869|NCT00548249|191538256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.049
95812642|NCT03330847|191597042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|1.58|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non BRCAm HRRm||1.58|0.29|0.4586
95957207|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.36||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||2.36|1.88|< 0.001
95957208|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.74||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||2.74|2.19|< 0.001
95962355|NCT01443403|191896549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||2.22|0.80|<0.0001
95783870|NCT00548249|191538256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.375||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.375
95783871|NCT00548249|191538256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||Each dose was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model with treatment as the effect||||0.625
95783872|NCT02259699|191538274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T1||||0.582
95783873|NCT02259699|191538274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.053
95783874|NCT02259699|191538274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.288
95783875|NCT02259699|191538275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.087
95783876|NCT02259699|191538275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.910
95783877|NCT02259699|191538276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
95783878|NCT02259699|191538277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.071
95783879|NCT02259699|191538277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.332
95783880|NCT02259699|191538278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T3||||0.177
95783881|NCT02259699|191538278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms at T4||||0.745
95783882|NCT02007278|191538317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power=95%; significance level=5%, characteristic operation curves were used with a non-central F distribution for the calculation of the sample size||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
95783883|NCT02670382|191538339|SUPERIORITY||mean values, log transformed|||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95783884|NCT02670382|191538339|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
95783885|NCT02670382|191538339|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.44
95783886|NCT02670382|191538340|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95783887|NCT02670382|191538340|SUPERIORITY||mean difference, log transformed values|||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95783888|NCT02670382|191538340|SUPERIORITY||mean differences, log transformed values|||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95783889|NCT02670382|191538341|EQUIVALENCE|primary hypothesis is that EPA will not differ from placebo|mean differences|||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95783890|NCT02670382|191538341|SUPERIORITY||mean difference|||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95783891|NCT02670382|191538341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95783892|NCT02620384|191538395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2439.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|646.2707|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1160.8485|3718.1734|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3718.1734|1160.8485|<0.0001
95783893|NCT02620384|191538396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2249.3294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|608.2782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3454.4999|-1044.1589|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1044.1589|-3454.4999|<0.0001
95783894|NCT02620384|191538397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.717121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586647|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8637732|-1.54651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.546510|-3.8637732|<0.0001
95783895|NCT02620384|191538398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2806||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2506|-0.1403||Represents BORG\_48\_hours|t-test, 2 sided||Method of estimation is for 48 hour measure.|||-.1403|-1.2506|.014
95957209|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|3.65||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||3.65|2.80|< 0.001
95957210|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.34||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||3.34|2.60|< 0.001
95962356|NCT01443403|191896549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.24|-0.15|0.1211
95783896|NCT02620384|191538399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6903|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.4074||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1395694.0|147.1545|||t-test, 2 sided|||||147.1545|-1395694|.959
95783897|NCT02620384|191538400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.144
95783898|NCT02620384|191538401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.171
95783899|NCT02620384|191538402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.558|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.558|-1.346|.885
95783900|NCT02620384|191538403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.804
95783901|NCT02620384|191538404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
95783902|NCT02620384|191538405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
95783903|NCT02620384|191538406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.559
95783904|NCT00094536|191538407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||1-sided z-test|1-sided z-test with continuity correction (pooled)||||||.271
95783905|NCT03252145|191538416|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
95783906|NCT03252145|191538417|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
95783907|NCT03252145|191538418|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
95783908|NCT03252145|191538419|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
95783909|NCT03252145|191538420|OTHER|||||||0.552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
95783910|NCT03252145|191538421|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
95783911|NCT03252145|191538422|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm Only||||0.264
95783912|NCT03252145|191538422|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.224
95783913|NCT03252145|191538423|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.125
95783914|NCT03252145|191538423|OTHER|||||||0.241|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.241
95783915|NCT03252145|191538424|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected Arm||||0.261
95783916|NCT03252145|191538424|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected Arm||||0.597
95783917|NCT03252145|191538425|OTHER|||||||0.596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Affected arm||||0.596
95783918|NCT03252145|191538425|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unaffected arm||||0.219
95783919|NCT03252145|191538426|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842
95783920|NCT03252145|191538427|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772
95783921|NCT03252145|191538428|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
95783922|NCT03252145|191538429|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300
95783923|NCT03252145|191538430|OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.679
95783924|NCT03252145|191538431|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.120
95783925|NCT03252145|191538432|OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
95783926|NCT03252145|191538433|OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.096
95783927|NCT03252145|191538434|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
95783928|NCT03252145|191538436|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
95783929|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.068
95783930|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.808
95783931|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.557
95783932|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.049
95783933|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.279
95783934|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.020
95783935|NCT03252145|191538437|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.009
95783936|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function Domain||||0.038
95962357|NCT01443403|191896551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.45|1.28|<0.0001
95999419|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.29|
95812643|NCT03330847|191597042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.31|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + ceralasertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.31|0.61|0.7452
95999420|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.39|
95783937|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety Domain||||0.108
95783938|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression Domain||||0.467
95783939|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fatigue Domain||||0.078
95783940|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sleep Disturbance Domain||||0.147
95783941|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Roles/Activity Domain||||0.004
95999421|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.53|
95999422|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.49|
95999423|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.63|0.52|
95999424|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.53|
95999425|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.64|0.42|
95783942|NCT03252145|191538438|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain Interference Domain||||0.032
95783943|NCT03252145|191538439|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
95783944|NCT03252145|191538440|OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
95783945|NCT03252145|191538441|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
95783946|NCT03252145|191538442|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
95783947|NCT03252145|191538443|OTHER|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
95783948|NCT01763827|191538454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.14|-53.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.14|-61.14|<0.001
95783949|NCT01763827|191538454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.46|-51.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.10|-58.46|<0.001
95783950|NCT01763827|191538454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.28|-35.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.31|-43.28|<0.001
95783951|NCT01763827|191538454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.24|-33.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.86|-41.24|<0.001
95783952|NCT01763827|191538455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.95|-53.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-53.04|-59.95|<0.001
95957211|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.88||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||2.88|2.29|< 0.001
95957212|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|3.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|3.84||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||3.84|2.89|< 0.001
95783953|NCT01763827|191538455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-54.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.14|-60.66|<0.001
95783954|NCT01763827|191538455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.87|-35.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.94|-42.87|<0.001
95783955|NCT01763827|191538455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.42|-42.97|<0.001
95783956|NCT01763827|191538456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-74.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.2|-85.0|<0.001
95957213|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.79||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||2.79|2.19|< 0.001
95957214|NCT00943722|191886405|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio be greater than 0.67|GMT ratio|2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|2.98||one-sided tests of non-inferiority conducted at the alpha=0.025 level; model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|ANOVA|model with a response of log individual titers and a fixed effect for comparison group|GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||2.98|2.37|< 0.001
95957215|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|
95957216|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.16|0.93|
95957217|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.19|0.95|
95783957|NCT01763827|191538456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-81.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-76.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-76.9|-87.0|<0.001
95957218|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||1.11|0.90|
95783958|NCT01763827|191538456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-49.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-49.9|-60.7|<0.001
95812644|NCT03330847|191597042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.0|||Two-sided log-rank tests|Stratified for prior platinum-based therapy (no,yes) using Breslow's approach for handling of ties.|Proportional hazards models based on prior platinum-based therapy (no, yes). Hazard ratio \< 1 favours respective combination treatment related with a longer PFS than olaparib monotherapy. Here, favours olaparib + adavosertib.|Patient Population Non HRRm||1.00|0.37|0.1185
95957219|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
95957220|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.20|0.95|
95957221|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0).|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||1.06|0.86|
95957222|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.12|0.90|
95957223|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.17|0.94|
95957224|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||1.14|0.89|
95957225|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.98|
95957226|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.26|0.97|
95957227|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||1.13|0.89|
95957228|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.16|0.91|
95957229|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.15|0.90|
95957230|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||1.16|0.94|
95783959|NCT01763827|191538456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-51.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-51.0|-61.1|<0.001
95957231|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.17|0.94|
95957232|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.12|0.90|
95957233|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.95|0.73|
95957234|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.18|0.91|
95957235|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.42|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.42|1.08|
95962358|NCT01443403|191896551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.15|0.99|0.0002
95957236|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||1.03|0.83|
95957237|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.07|0.85|
95957238|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.16|0.92|
95957239|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||1.06|0.86|
95957240|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.20|0.96|
95957241|NCT00943722|191886406|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMTs be entirely contained within the interval (0.5, 2.0)|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.26|||||GMT ratio = GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) divided by GMT for 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.26|1.00|
95957242|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
95812645|NCT01346592|191597068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.06|2.9||||||||2.9|2.06|
95957243|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
95957244|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
95957245|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.5|-0.8|< 0.001
95957246|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
95957247|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
95812646|NCT01346592|191597068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.69|2.1||||||||2.1|1.69|
95957248|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||1.8|-0.6|< 0.001
95957249|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
95957250|NCT00943722|191886410|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
95957251|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 6||1.5|-0.7|< 0.001
95962359|NCT01443403|191896551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a term and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.76|-0.37|0.2022
95962360|NCT01443403|191896554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0272
95962361|NCT01443403|191896554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1355
95962362|NCT01443403|191896554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3689||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3689
95962363|NCT01443403|191896556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2126||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2126
95962364|NCT01443403|191896556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2799||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.2799
95962365|NCT01443403|191896556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6466||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.6466
95962366|NCT01443403|191896558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9826||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.9826
95957252|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 11||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
95957253|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 16||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
95783960|NCT01763827|191538457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.4|-74.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.3|-86.4|<0.001
95957254|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 18||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
95783961|NCT01763827|191538457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|-72.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-72.2|-83.4|<0.001
95783962|NCT01763827|191538457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-49.0|-61.1|<0.001
95783963|NCT01763827|191538457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-47.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe was the reference|||-47.3|-58.5|<0.001
95783964|NCT01763827|191538458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.4|80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||80.2|64.4|<0.001
95783965|NCT01763827|191538458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.0|62.2|<0.001
95957255|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 31||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
95783966|NCT01763827|191538458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|72.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|78.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.9|62.4|<0.001
95783967|NCT01763827|191538458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||75.5|58.3|<0.001
95783968|NCT01763827|191538459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.2|<0.001
95783969|NCT01763827|191538459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||72.9|55.6|<0.001
95783970|NCT01763827|191538459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|71.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|78.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||78.4|61.3|<0.001
95783971|NCT01763827|191538459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|71.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on CMH test stratified by Baseline LDL-C level. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value.||||71.6|53.5|<0.001
95812647|NCT01346592|191597068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.66|3.54||||||||3.54|2.66|
95957256|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 33||1.6|-0.4|< 0.001
95962367|NCT01443403|191896558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5188||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5188
95962368|NCT01443403|191896558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||95.0|||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.5029
95783972|NCT01763827|191538460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-45.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.61|-52.01|<0.001
95783973|NCT01763827|191538460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.23|-50.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.33|-56.23|<0.001
95783974|NCT01763827|191538460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.79|-32.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.38|-38.79|<0.001
95812648|NCT01346592|191597068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.7|3.8||||||||3.8|2.7|
95812649|NCT01346592|191597068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.14|2.65||||||||2.65|2.14|
95812650|NCT01346592|191597068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was established if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 ratio of GMTs was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|2.72|3.62||||||||3.62|2.72|
95812651|NCT01346592|191597069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|5.48|12.69||||||||12.69|5.48|
95957257|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 45||2.0|-0.1|< 0.001
95957258|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 52||1.7|-0.4|< 0.001
95957259|NCT00943722|191886411|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the percentage point difference is greater than -5.|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Males (Lot 1) minus 16- to 26-Year-Old Females (Lot 1)|Anti-HPV 58||1.2|-0.7|< 0.001
95957260|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 6||0.9|-0.9|
95957261|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
95783975|NCT01763827|191538460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.44|-32.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.53|-38.44|<0.001
95812652|NCT01346592|191597069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \>-10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|1.58|6.55||||||||6.55|1.58|
95812653|NCT01346592|191597069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.72|14.92||||||||14.92|8.72|
95812654|NCT01346592|191597069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|10.3|18.13||||||||18.13|10.3|
95812655|NCT01346592|191597069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|4.47|10.14||||||||10.14|4.47|
95812656|NCT01346592|191597069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.6|8.11|14.1||||||||14.1|8.11|
95812657|NCT01346592|191597070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|Group ratio (H1N1 strain)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.62|0.93||||||||0.93|0.62|
95812658|NCT01346592|191597070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.68|0.86||||||||0.86|0.68|
95957262|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 6||1.7|-0.4|
95957263|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 11||0.7|-0.7|
95783976|NCT01763827|191538461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|-46.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.27|-53.34|<0.001
95783977|NCT01763827|191538461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.49|-47.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.90|-54.49|<0.001
95783978|NCT01763827|191538461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|-31.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.71|-38.74|<0.001
95783979|NCT01763827|191538461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.51|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.90|-36.51|<0.001
95783980|NCT01763827|191538462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-43.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-43.51|-50.67|<0.001
95783981|NCT01763827|191538462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-47.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.59|-54.27|<0.001
95783982|NCT01763827|191538462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|-29.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.99|-37.15|<0.001
95783983|NCT01763827|191538462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.99|-31.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.28|-37.99|<0.001
95783984|NCT01763827|191538463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.56|-44.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.05|-51.56|<0.001
95783985|NCT01763827|191538463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.07|-44.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.79|-52.07|<0.001
95783986|NCT01763827|191538463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.78|-30.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.30|-37.78|<0.001
95783987|NCT01763827|191538463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-28.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-28.92|-36.21|<0.001
95812659|NCT01346592|191597070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 GMT group ratios was \>0.667|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.8|1.11||||||||1.11|0.8|
95957264|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
95957265|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 11||1.3|-0.4|
95957266|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 16||0.7|-0.7|
95999426|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.44|
95812660|NCT01346592|191597071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-10.13|-0.47||||||||-0.47|-10.13|
95812661|NCT01346592|191597071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-6.16|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.16|
95812662|NCT01346592|191597071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group differences was \> -10%|Group difference (B strain)|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-7.01|2.0||||||||2|-7.01|
95812663|NCT01346592|191597072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|4.6||||||Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5.||4.6|2.86|
95812664|NCT01346592|191597072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|2.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.59|1.96|
95812665|NCT01346592|191597072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
95812666|NCT01346592|191597072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||6.7|4.16|
95812667|NCT01346592|191597072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|3.56||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.56|2.69|
95812668|NCT01346592|191597072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|5.59||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||5.59|3.86|
95957267|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
95812669|NCT01346592|191597073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|14.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||14.7|6.1|
95812670|NCT01346592|191597073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.1|-0.12|
95812671|NCT01346592|191597073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|16.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||16.7|8.9|
95812672|NCT01346592|191597073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|22.6||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||22.6|12.9|
95812673|NCT01346592|191597073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|8.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||8.7|2.5|
95812674|NCT01346592|191597073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|23.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||23.1|14.4|
95812675|NCT01346592|191597074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|2.75||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.75|2.07|
95812676|NCT01346592|191597074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.06||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.06|1.72|
95812677|NCT01346592|191597074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|3.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.3|2.6|
95812678|NCT01346592|191597074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|3.71||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.71|2.79|
95812679|NCT01346592|191597074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.62||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||2.62|2.19|
95812680|NCT01346592|191597074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.47||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of the day 50 vaccine group GMT ratios for at least 2 homologous strains was \>1.5||3.47|2.73|
95812681|NCT01346592|191597075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|12.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||12.4|6.3|
95812682|NCT01346592|191597075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.9||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||5.9|1.8|
95812683|NCT01346592|191597075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|13.3||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.3|8.1|
95783988|NCT01763827|191538464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-35.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-35.86|-42.00|<0.001
95783989|NCT01763827|191538464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-42.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-42.27|-49.39|<0.001
95783990|NCT01763827|191538464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.43|-26.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-26.28|-32.43|<0.001
95783991|NCT01763827|191538464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.08|-23.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-23.94|-31.08|<0.001
95783992|NCT01763827|191538465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-36.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.30|-42.97|<0.001
95783993|NCT01763827|191538465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.66|-40.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.68|-48.66|<0.001
95783994|NCT01763827|191538465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.73|-25.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-25.10|-31.73|<0.001
95783995|NCT01763827|191538465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-21.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-21.31|-29.31|<0.001
95783996|NCT01763827|191538466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.12|-45.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.12|-53.12|<0.001
95783997|NCT01763827|191538466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.12|-50.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.78|-59.12|<0.001
95783998|NCT01763827|191538466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.73|-30.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-30.73|-38.73|<0.001
95783999|NCT01763827|191538466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-32.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-32.42|-40.81|<0.001
95957268|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 16||1.3|-0.4|
95957269|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 18||0.5|-1.1|
95784000|NCT01763827|191538467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.78|-45.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.36|-53.78|<0.001
95812684|NCT01346592|191597075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|17.7||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||17.7|11.1|
95957270|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.1|-0.7|
95784001|NCT01763827|191538467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.28|-48.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.26|-57.28|<0.001
95784002|NCT01763827|191538467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.95|-31.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-31.57|-39.95|<0.001
95784003|NCT01763827|191538467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.48|-29.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Ezetimibe is the reference|||-29.45|-38.48|<0.001
95784004|NCT01763827|191538468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.28|-11.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.68|-25.28|<0.001
95784005|NCT01763827|191538468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-15.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-15.28|-23.20|<0.001
95784006|NCT01763827|191538468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-18.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-12.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.35|-24.39|<0.001
95784007|NCT01763827|191538468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-11.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.08|-23.23|<0.001
95784008|NCT01763827|191538469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.76|-13.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-13.06|-27.76|<0.001
95784009|NCT01763827|191538469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|-11.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-11.12|-24.51|<0.001
95784010|NCT01763827|191538469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.13|-12.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-12.69|-28.13|<0.001
95784011|NCT01763827|191538469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-15.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.39|-7.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.14|-24.39|<0.001
95784012|NCT01763827|191538470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.27||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|2.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.73|-13.27|0.72
95784013|NCT01763827|191538470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.98|-10.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.20|-30.98|<0.001
95999427|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.88|0.63|
95784014|NCT01763827|191538470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.71||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.86|1.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.45|-16.86|0.027
95784015|NCT01763827|191538470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-11.73||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-2.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-2.27|-21.19|0.044
95784016|NCT01763827|191538471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-6.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|3.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||3.95|-16.41|0.72
95784017|NCT01763827|191538471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-17.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm|||-8.63|-26.67|<0.001
95999428|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.15|
95784018|NCT01763827|191538471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.14||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|1.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||1.26|-17.54|0.027
95784019|NCT01763827|191538471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-13.23||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.69|-4.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.77|-21.69|0.044
95784020|NCT01763827|191538472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-4.59||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.12|-11.30|0.072
95784021|NCT01763827|191538472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-10.68|-30.11|<0.001
95784022|NCT01763827|191538472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-5.71||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.13|2.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.71|-14.13|0.082
95784023|NCT01763827|191538472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.84||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.14|-3.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baselie value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-3.54|-22.14|0.044
95784024|NCT01763827|191538473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-7.94||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.81|2.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||2.92|-18.81|0.72
95784025|NCT01763827|191538473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-16.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.64|-7.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-7.02|-25.64|<0.001
95784026|NCT01763827|191538473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-8.58||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|0.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||0.94|-18.10|0.082
95784027|NCT01763827|191538473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|-12.72||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-4.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|The model includes treatment group, Baseline LDL-C level, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||-4.54|-20.89|0.044
95784028|NCT01763827|191538474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.23|0.007
95784029|NCT01763827|191538474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|8.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.53|11.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||11.43|5.53|<0.001
95784030|NCT01763827|191538474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|4.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.78|0.85|0.013
95812685|NCT01346592|191597075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||superiority was concluded if the lower bound of 95% CI of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||9.1|4.5|
95784031|NCT01763827|191538474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|3.81||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|8.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline visit|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.39|-0.77|0.044
95784032|NCT01763827|191538475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.91||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||10.16|1.67|0.007
95784033|NCT01763827|191538475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|9.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|13.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||13.34|5.32|<0.001
95784034|NCT01763827|191538475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|7.56||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||12.00|3.11|0.013
95784035|NCT01763827|191538475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Treatment Difference|5.53||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|8.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Quade test|Adjusted for Baseline value|Median difference and 95% CI were obtained from McKean-Schrader algorithm.|||8.84|2.22|0.044
95784036|NCT01393522|191538482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1
95784037|NCT01393522|191538482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95784038|NCT01393522|191538483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95784039|NCT01393522|191538484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
95784040|NCT01393522|191538484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95784041|NCT01393522|191538485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95784042|NCT01393522|191538486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95784043|NCT01393522|191538487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95784044|NCT01393522|191538488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95784045|NCT03746405|191538489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Give the limited sample size, this p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The threshold for statistical significant was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis: Active rTMS applied over the node in the medial prefrontal cortex the most strongly negatively connected to the right amygdala will decrease amygdala BOLD activation compared to sham rTMS||||= 0.03
95784046|NCT02384538|191538525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.52||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.944|4.99||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||4.990|-1.944|0.386
95784047|NCT02384538|191538527|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.55||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.214|8.308||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||8.308|-3.214|0.383
95784048|NCT02384538|191538528|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.979||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.979|-0.677|0.719
95784049|NCT02384538|191538529|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.448|13.945||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.945|-5.448|0.387
95784050|NCT02384538|191538530|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|1.272||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.272|-0.373|0.281
95784051|NCT02384538|191538531|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.336||P-value for test of difference in change from baseline between ABT-981 dose group and placebo is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group and country as the main factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||1.336|-0.300|0.212
95784052|NCT02872909|191538532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.54||calculated as \<0.05 for 85% power|t-test, 2 sided|Analysed on log transformed data||Sample size requirement estimation - Preliminary data showed pain scores of 1.25 with ambulatory PDT (n=12) and 5.26 (SD 2.38) for conventional PDT (n=50). Estimated that for 85% power to detect as significant at 5% level a difference in mean pain score in one group of 2cm compared with 4 cm in the other group, assuming two-sided testing, a minimum of 45 subjects needed. We aimed for 50 subjects, with an allocation ratio of 2 (twice as many randomised to ambulatory PDT as conventional PDT)||2.54|0.71|<0.05
95784053|NCT02872909|191538535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95784054|NCT02187029|191538538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.32|-48.78|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-48.780|-56.320|
95784055|NCT02187029|191538538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.31|-61.54|||Bayesian ANCOVA|||||-61.540|-71.310|
95784056|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||||90.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.06|-0.55|
95784057|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.28|-0.95|
95784058|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-1.16|-1.52|
95784059|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-1.33|-2.38|
95784060|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-1.48|-2.18|
95784061|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-1.37|-2.11|
95784062|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|-2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-2.06|-2.89|
95784063|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-2.20|-3.29|
95784064|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-2.21|-3.39|
95784065|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-2.41|-3.72|
95784066|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.03|-2.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day7, Hour 4||-2.77|-4.03|
95784067|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.82|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-2.79|-3.82|
95784068|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-2.68|-3.72|
95784069|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-2.32|-3.30|
95812686|NCT01346592|191597075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Group difference (B strain)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|13.4||||||superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence interval of day 50 vaccine group difference,for at least 2 homologous strains, was \>10%||13.4|8.3|
95812687|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.12||||||No risk subjects.||3.12|2.3|
95812688|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.05||||||No risk subjects.||2.05|1.7|
95812689|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|3.44||||||No risk subjects.||3.44|2.68|
95812690|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.42||||||At risk subjects.||4.42|1.11|
95812691|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.72||||||At risk subjects.||3.72|1.61|
95812692|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|6.34||||||At risk subjects||6.34|1.88|
95784070|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.19|-3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-3.92|-5.19|
95784071|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.75|-3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-3.88|-4.75|
95784072|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-4.08|-5.02|
95784073|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.47|-4.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-4.47|-5.47|
95784074|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.83|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.02|-5.83|
95784075|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.08|-5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.05|-6.08|
95784076|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-4.82|-5.86|
95784077|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.12|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-4.18|-5.12|
95784078|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.97|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.79|-2.97|
95812693|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratios (H1N1 strain)|3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|4.1||||||No risk subjects.||4.1|3.03|
95812694|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.59||||||No risk subjects.||2.59|2.15|
95812695|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|3.56||||||No risk subjects.||3.56|2.78|
95812696|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.68||||||At risk subjects.||5.68|1.28|
95784079|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||-0.32|-0.92|
95784080|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||-0.75|-1.61|
95784081|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||-2.69|-3.14|
95812697|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.06||||||At risk subjects.||5.06|2.09|
95812698|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.3||||||At risk subjects.||5.3|1.44|
95812699|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.34|
95812700|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.28||||||No risk subjects.||2.28|1.83|
95812701|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.34||||||No risk subjects||4.34|3.22|
95812702|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.0||||||At risk subjects.||6|0.92|
95784082|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.36|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||-3.03|-4.36|
95784083|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||-3.40|-4.28|
95784084|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-3.94|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||-3.00|-3.94|
95784085|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-4.23|-5.29|
95784086|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.62|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||-5.00|-6.62|
95784087|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.72|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||-4.95|-6.72|
95784088|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.17|-5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||-5.19|-7.17|
95784089|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.46|-5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||-5.55|-7.46|
95784090|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||-5.51|-7.07|
95784091|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-5.44|-7.03|
95784092|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||-4.99|-6.50|
95784093|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.59|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11||-4.65|-6.59|
95957271|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 18||1.3|-0.4|
95784094|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.42|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||-5.10|-6.42|
95784095|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.67|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||-5.24|-6.67|
95784096|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||-5.38|-6.90|
95784097|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-5.81|-7.03|
95784098|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.41|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||-5.87|-7.41|
95784099|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|-5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||-5.63|-7.18|
95784100|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-5.07|-6.47|
95784101|NCT02187029|191538543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.96|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||-0.35|-4.96|
95784102|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0423|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1103|0.0394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.0394|-0.1103|
95784103|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.0966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.0966|-0.1269|
95784104|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0422|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1078|0.0417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.0417|-0.1078|
95784105|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.0820|-0.0750|
95784106|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1153|0.0149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.0149|-0.1153|
95784107|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0553|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1058|0.0899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.0899|-0.1058|
95784108|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1538|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.0460|-0.1538|
95784109|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0793|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.1010|-0.0793|
95784110|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0554|0.1213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.1213|-0.0554|
95784111|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0733|0.0905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.0905|-0.0733|
95784112|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0349|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0865|0.0378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.0378|-0.0865|
95957272|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 31||0.7|-0.7|
95957273|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.6|
95957274|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 31||1.0|-0.5|
95999429|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.35|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.35|0.23|
95784113|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0251|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0973|-0.0079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||-0.0079|-0.0973|
95784114|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0331|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0889|0.0292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.0292|-0.0889|
95784115|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0268|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0649|0.0315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.0315|-0.0649|
95784116|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0337|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.1222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.1222|0.0010|
95784117|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0104|0.1945|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.1945|0.0104|
95784118|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0827|0.0952|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.0952|-0.0827|
95784119|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0672|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.0919|-0.0672|
95784120|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0408|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.0547|-0.0918|
95784121|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1192|0.0365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.0365|-0.1192|
95784122|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3916|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2968|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.0990|-0.2968|
95784123|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0537|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0223|0.2127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.2127|0.0223|
95784124|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0802|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2424|0.5266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.5266|0.2424|
95784125|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0536|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2862|0.4762|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.4762|0.2862|
95784126|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0563|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1843|0.3838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.3838|0.1843|
95784127|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0635|0.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.2289|0.0635|
95784128|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0702|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0436|0.2924|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.2924|0.0436|
95784129|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0172|0.2778|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.2778|-0.0172|
95784130|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||||90.0|0.0625|0.3281|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.3281|0.0625|
95784131|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0729|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.411|0.6707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.6707|0.4110|
95784132|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4032|0.6438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.6438|0.4032|
95784133|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0512|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2944|0.4769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.4769|0.2944|
95784134|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0368|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0439|0.0872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.0872|-0.0439|
95784135|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0486|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0841|0.2574|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.2574|0.0841|
95784136|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0982|0.2338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.2338|0.0982|
95784137|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2667|0.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.4380|0.2667|
95784138|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0724|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.6932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.6932|0.4330|
95784139|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4549|0.7065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.7065|0.4549|
95784140|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0627|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1688|0.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.3940|0.1688|
95812703|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.45||||||At risk subjects.||5.45|1.57|
95784141|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0945|0.3019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.3019|0.0945|
95784142|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1465|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0615|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0361|0.2569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.2569|0.0361|
95784143|NCT02187029|191538549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4796|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0017|1.7112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||1.7112|0.0017|
95957275|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 33||0.7|-0.7|
95784144|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.707|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.010|-0.707|
95957276|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
95957277|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 33||1.3|-0.4|
95784145|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.533|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.175|-0.533|
95784146|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.568|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.052|-0.568|
95784147|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||||90.0|-0.39|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.298|-0.390|
95784148|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||||90.0|-0.575|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.006|-0.575|
95784149|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.569|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||0.237|-0.569|
95812704|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|12.0||||||At risk subjects||12|2.52|
95957278|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 45||0.5|-1.1|
95784150|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.657|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.132|-0.657|
95812705|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.39||||||No risk subjects.||4.39|3.05|
95957279|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.1|-0.7|
95784151|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.299|-0.460|
95784152|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.392|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.228|-0.392|
95784153|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.408|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.242|-0.408|
95784154|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.508|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.095|-0.508|
95784155|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.451|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.191|-0.451|
95784156|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.445|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.196|-0.445|
95784157|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.097|-0.472|
95784158|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.434|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.130|-0.434|
95784159|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.504|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.043|-0.504|
95784160|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.722|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||-0.088|-0.722|
95784161|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.062|-0.560|
95784162|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.467|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.141|-0.467|
95784163|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.633|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||-0.002|-0.633|
95784164|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.683|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.496|-0.683|
95784165|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.406|0.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 1||0.505|-0.406|
95957280|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 45||1.3|-0.4|
95957281|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 52||0.7|-0.7|
95784166|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.193|0.707|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 2||0.707|-0.193|
95784167|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.302|0.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 4||0.485|-0.302|
95784168|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.107|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 8||0.768|-0.107|
95784169|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 12||0.653|-0.087|
95784170|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1, Hour 24||1.000|-0.024|
95784171|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.356|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, pre-dose||0.768|-0.356|
95784172|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 1||0.656|-0.410|
95784173|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.025|0.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 2||0.818|-0.025|
95784174|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.523|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 4||0.368|-0.523|
95784175|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.154|0.661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 8||0.661|-0.154|
95784176|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.564|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 12||0.315|-0.564|
95784177|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7, Hour 24||0.897|0.019|
95812706|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.99||||||No risk subjects||2.99|2.4|
95784178|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.043|0.792|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, pre-dose||0.792|0.043|
95784179|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 1||0.893|0.150|
95784180|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.172|0.888|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 2||0.888|0.172|
95784181|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.069|0.782|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 4||0.782|-0.069|
95784182|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.503|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 8||0.503|-0.328|
95784183|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.812|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 12||0.812|0.000|
95784184|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.047|0.802|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14, Hour 24||0.802|-0.047|
95784185|NCT02187029|191538550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.949|0.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Follow-up, Day 25-29||0.502|-0.949|
95784186|NCT02187029|191538551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|316.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.91|611.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||611.88|21.91|
95784187|NCT02187029|191538551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|88.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-94.87|218.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||218.82|-94.87|
95784188|NCT02187029|191538551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|100.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.2|287.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||287.11|-71.20|
95784189|NCT02187029|191538551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|433.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.3|808.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||808.13|58.30|
95784190|NCT02187029|191538551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|125.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-208.07|234.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||234.47|-208.07|
95784191|NCT02187029|191538551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|142.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.26|225.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||225.60|-285.26|
95784192|NCT02187029|191538552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|6.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||6.17|0.71|
95784193|NCT02187029|191538552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|5.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.37|1.97|
95784194|NCT02187029|191538552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||9.96|6.24|
95784195|NCT02187029|191538552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.65|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||16.59|9.65|
95784196|NCT02187029|191538552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.49|30.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||30.49|25.49|
95784197|NCT02187029|191538552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.14|31.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||31.41|26.14|
95957282|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
95957283|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 52||1.3|-0.4|
95957284|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2)|Anti-HPV 58||0.7|-0.7|
95957285|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 1) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
95784198|NCT02187029|191538553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||3.10|-1.31|
95784199|NCT02187029|191538553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|5.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.11|0.71|
95784200|NCT02187029|191538553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||5.85|1.33|
95812707|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|4.61||||||No risk subjects.||4.61|3.42|
95812708|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.31||||||At risk subjects.||7.31|1.02|
95812709|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.62||||||At risk subjects.||6.62|1.85|
95812710|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|12.0||||||At risk subjects.||12|2.32|
95812711|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.97||||||No risk subjects.||1.97|1.21|
95812712|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.82||||||No risk subjects||1.82|1.26|
95812713|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.38||||||No risk subjects||2.38|1.52|
95957286|NCT00943722|191886412|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence requires that the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages between lots be entirely contained within the interval (-5, 5).|Percentage Point Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Percentage Point Difference = 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 2) minus 9- to 15-Year-Old Females (Lot 3)|Anti-HPV 58||1.3|-0.4|
95784201|NCT02187029|191538553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||4.31|-1.29|
95812714|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.4||||||At risk subjects||5.4|0.57|
95812715|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.89||||||At risk subjects||2.89|1.09|
95812716|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.54||||||At risk subjects||4.54|0.73|
95784202|NCT02187029|191538553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.57|10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.89|4.57|
95784203|NCT02187029|191538553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||12.23|5.91|
95812717|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.05||||||No risk subjects||3.05|1.89|
95784204|NCT02187861|191538575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|21.23||||||||21.23|-13.38|
95784205|NCT02187861|191538576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|19.81||||||||19.81|-15.89|
95784206|NCT02187861|191538577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|20.99||||||||20.99|-17.07|
95784207|NCT02187861|191538578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.01|11.32||||||||11.32|-27.01|
95812718|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.85||||||No risk subjects.||1.85|1.29|
95812719|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.11||||||No risk subjects||2.11|1.36|
95812720|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.71||||||At risk subjects.||7.71|0.58|
95957287|NCT01772823|191886432|OTHER|||||||0.7513||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Size of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.7513
95957288|NCT01772823|191886433|OTHER|||||||0.8281||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Taste of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-Square||||||0.8281
95784208|NCT02187861|191538579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|31.69||||||At 6-8 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||31.69|-4.24|
95784209|NCT02187861|191538579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|20.82||||||At Year 1||20.82|-12.98|
95784210|NCT02187861|191538580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-15.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|0.49||||||At 4-10 weeks after Cycle 6 Day 1||0.49|-31.87|
95784211|NCT02187861|191538580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.56|6.87||||||At Year 1||6.87|-22.56|
95784212|NCT02187861|191538586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.27|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and DOR of prior cancer therapy.||1.27|0.38|
95784213|NCT02187861|191538586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.40|0.43|
95784214|NCT02187861|191538588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and PFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
95784215|NCT02187861|191538588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
95784216|NCT02187861|191538590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.24|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and EFS of prior cancer therapy.||1.24|0.38|
95784217|NCT02187861|191538590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.36|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||1.36|0.43|
95784218|NCT02187861|191538592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.37|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Stratified Analysis: Strata were disease burden and OS of prior cancer therapy.||5.37|0.04|
95784219|NCT02187861|191538592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.63|||||HR was calculated using Cox regression.|Unstratified Analysis||5.63|0.05|
95784220|NCT01882803|191538702|OTHER||||||<=|0.0001||||||'\<=' represents '≤'|Exact Binomial Test|The p-value was calculated by 1-sided exact binomial test with the null hypothesis that ORR ≤30%.||ORR was tested against the null (≤30%) by 1-sided exact binomial test at 0.025 level.||||<=0.0001
95784221|NCT03066778|191538709|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.88|0.60|0.00069
95784222|NCT03066778|191538710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.01643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH|||0.98|0.64|0.01643
95784223|NCT03066778|191538711|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|8.9||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|17.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by platinum chemotherapy, ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||17.4|0.2|0.02270
95784224|NCT03066778|191538716|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|4.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.66|||Log Rank|||||8.66|0.21|0.040
95784225|NCT03066778|191538719|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by platinum chemotherapy ECOG, and LDH. Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH ≤ULN and Cisplatin, ECOG 0, LDH \>ULN were combined into one stratum because of small sample size|||1.14|0.56|0.208
95784226|NCT03585712|191538720|OTHER|Is the overall mean change from baseline different from zero? Or did the infringement of schedule regardless the type of infringement lead to a change in mucus score?||||||0.26||||||P value from model testing intercept (does infringement change mucus score?) P-value from a repeated measures mixed model with the period, intervention, sequence and time (visit) as covariates. P-values ≤0.050 are considered significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed model for repeated measures using as response delta to Day41, delta to Day42, delta to Day70 and delta to Day71.~Covariates: period, intervention (missed pill or delayed pill), sequence of intervention (missed pill then delayed pill and vice versa), time and subject.~Subject as random effect + time repeated effect within each combination subject\* period"||||0.26
95784227|NCT03585712|191538721|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Absence of risk increase||||>0.999
95784228|NCT03585712|191538721|OTHER|||||||0.655||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Transient risk increase||||0.655
95784229|NCT03585712|191538721|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||p values \> 0.050 (Not Statistically significant)|McNemar|McNemar test comparing agreement in the missed and delayed periods||Prolonged risk increase||||0.317
95784230|NCT03585712|191538722|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
95812721|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.89||||||At risk subjects||4.89|1.61|
95957289|NCT01772823|191886434|OTHER|||||||0.3761||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Color of the Pill) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3761
95957290|NCT01772823|191886435|OTHER|||||||0.4359||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking the pill every day) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.4359
95957291|NCT01772823|191886436|OTHER|||||||0.3801||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Taking part in the study) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.3801
95784231|NCT03585712|191538722|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05)|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of ovarian status vs the reported perfect use period.||A stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) was used to compare the distribution of ovarian activity classification in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use). The worst (meaning most risk of ovulation) ovarian activity category in the period was used for the analyses.||||<0.001
95784232|NCT03585712|191538723|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.127
95784233|NCT03585712|191538723|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||\* Indicates significance at the 0.05 level (p-value ≤ 0.05).|McNemar|P-value from an exact kappa test comparing agreement of cervical mucus score classification vs the reported perfect use period.||Stratified McNemar test (stratification on the site, AGREE option in SAS) to compare the distribution of cervical mucus scores in the perfect use period to the delayed and missed pill periods (pairwise vs perfect use).||||0.018
95784234|NCT00795769|191538737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||18% n=9 of the patients vomited compared to the FHCRC historic rate of 28%. p=0.03. PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC.||||0.03
95784235|NCT00795769|191538737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Twelve patients (24%) had a greater than two-point increase in MAT score for nausea from baseline by the end of their infusion. That rate compares to the FHCRC historic rate of 58% (p \<0.0001). PMID: 21372706 reference for historical data at FHCRC||||<0.0001
95784236|NCT00497055|191538745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.41||95.0|0.66|1.16|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.16|.66|.41
95784237|NCT00497055|191538746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95784238|NCT00497055|191538747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>=|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>=0.99
95784239|NCT02697734|191538748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|343.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||343.19|7.06|<.0001
95784240|NCT02033200|191538808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.744|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.744|-0.592|0.8216
95784241|NCT02033200|191538808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.771|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had adequate power to detect a meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.771|-0.258|0.324
95784242|NCT02033200|191538809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.031|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.031|-0.024|0.7864
95784243|NCT02033200|191538809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.012|-0.056|0.1953
95812722|NCT01346592|191597080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.67||||||At risk subjects||3.67|0.37|
95812723|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||No risk subjects.||12|5.4|
95784244|NCT02033200|191538810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.039|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||-0.039|-0.280|0.0101
95784245|NCT02033200|191538810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.035|||ANCOVA|||The sample size provided enough power to detect any meaningful difference between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.035|-0.209|0.1583
95784246|NCT02033200|191538811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.685|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in Intraocular Pressure between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.685|-0.746|0.9324
95812724|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.6||||||No risk subjects.||6.6|1.8|
95957292|NCT01772823|191886437|OTHER|||||||0.1968||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on HIV test at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1968
95812725|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|14.8||||||No risk subjects.||14.8|9.2|
95957293|NCT01772823|191886438|OTHER|||||||0.1226||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Risk Reduction counseling at every visit) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.1226
95957294|NCT01772823|191886439|OTHER|||||||0.0994||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on Questions about sexual behavior) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.0994
95957295|NCT01772823|191886440|OTHER|||||||0.5285||||||"The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant feelings on the Physician exam) differ between intervention arms."|Chi-squared|||||||0.5285
95957296|NCT01772823|191886444|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95957297|NCT01772823|191886445|OTHER|||||||0.0098||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0098
95957298|NCT01772823|191886446|OTHER|||||||0.0766||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0766
95999430|NCT01025336|191975301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
95999431|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.56|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.42|
95784247|NCT02033200|191538811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.44|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in intraocular pressure between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||1.44|0.057|0.0343
95784248|NCT02033200|191538812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.051|-0.017|0.3139
95784249|NCT02033200|191538812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.042|-0.045|0.9334
95812726|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|18.7||||||At risk subjects.||18.7|-24|
95812727|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.9||||||At risk subjects.||18.9|-21.2|
95812728|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|29.5||||||At risk subjects.||29.5|-1.6|
95812729|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|17.7||||||No risk subjects.||17.7|10.7|
95957299|NCT01772823|191886447|OTHER|||||||0.1581||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1581
95957300|NCT01772823|191886448|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4300
95999432|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.56|
95784250|NCT02033200|191538813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.125|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.125|-0.093|0.7723
95784251|NCT02033200|191538813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.9107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.122|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.122|-0.109|0.9107
95784252|NCT02033200|191538814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.475|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the right eye.||0.475|-0.632|0.7787
95812730|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects.||9.8|4.6|
95957301|NCT01772823|191886449|OTHER|||||||0.1201||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1201
95957302|NCT01772823|191886450|OTHER|||||||0.1682||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1682
95957303|NCT01772823|191886451|OTHER|||||||0.2747||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2747
95957304|NCT01772823|191886452|OTHER|||||||0.0046||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
95999433|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
95784253|NCT02033200|191538814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.865|0.504|||ANCOVA|||The sample size had enough power to detect any meaningful difference between treatment groups in the left eye.||0.504|-0.865|0.6013
95784254|NCT02033200|191538815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|0.887|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the right eye.||0.887|-0.705|0.8209
95784255|NCT02033200|191538815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.884|||ANCOVA|||The sample size should provide approximately 90% power to detect a 1.6 mmHg difference in the mean change in IOP between the two treatment groups in the left eye.||0.884|-0.430|0.4931
95784256|NCT01124370|191538827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The test was conducted using a 0.05 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no change in AHI from baseline.||||<.001
95784257|NCT01215435|191538836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean HbA1c treatment difference was below or equal to 0.4%. This is equivalent to using a one-sided test of size 2.5%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.4|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||H0: D \> 0.4% against H1: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (pre-breakfast OD minus pre-dinner OD)||0.13|-0.40|<0.001
95784258|NCT01215435|191538837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-3.14||||0.6215||95.0|-15.65|9.37|||Regression, Linear|||||9.37|-15.65|0.6215
95784259|NCT05811026|191538839|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.075
95784260|NCT05811026|191538840|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4727
95784261|NCT05811026|191538841|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.7326|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.7326
95784262|NCT05811026|191538842|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0757
95784263|NCT05811026|191538843|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|37.75||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0376
95957305|NCT01772823|191886453|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to the session evaluation question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0290
95784264|NCT05811026|191538844|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3123
95784265|NCT05811026|191538845|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.1009
95784266|NCT05811026|191538846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0088
95784267|NCT05811026|191538847|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.4274
95784268|NCT05811026|191538848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6497
95784269|NCT05811026|191538849|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0006
95784270|NCT05811026|191538850|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|34.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0002
95784271|NCT05811026|191538851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6231|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6231
95784272|NCT05811026|191538852|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.3327
95784273|NCT05811026|191538853|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.25||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0752
95784274|NCT05811026|191538854|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0982
95784275|NCT05811026|191538855|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.8541
95784276|NCT05811026|191538856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0758
95784277|NCT05811026|191538857|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|41.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.066
95957306|NCT01772823|191886454|OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1070
95957307|NCT01772823|191886456|OTHER|||||||0.2991||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2991
95784278|NCT05811026|191538858|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6961|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.6961
95957308|NCT01772823|191886457|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified race) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0298
95957309|NCT01772823|191886458|OTHER|||||||0.8643||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant self-identified ethnicity) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8643
95957310|NCT01772823|191886459|OTHER|||||||0.9037||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant BMI) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9037
95784279|NCT05811026|191538859|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a p-value \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Differece = (2-week interval group) - (4-week interval group)|||||0.0067
95784280|NCT01156051|191538861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.005
95784281|NCT01156051|191538862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in ADHD Rating Scales - IV total scores from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||<0.001
95784282|NCT01156051|191538863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in latency to persistent sleep (LPS) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.392
95784283|NCT01156051|191538864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference in total sleep time (TST) from baseline to termination. ANOVA single measure, two-tailed, Type II analysis was completed using SPSS.||||0.059
95784284|NCT02179749|191538886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
95784285|NCT02179749|191538886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth model includes one week on study drug and two weeks after the last dose of study drug. Principal predictors were drug plasma concentration and baseline treatment goal of abstinence or non abstinence. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||0.038
95812731|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|16.4||||||No risk subjects||16.4|10.7|
95812732|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|19.2||||||At risk subjects.||19.2|-26.1|
95957311|NCT01772823|191886460|OTHER|||||||0.5279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5279
95784286|NCT02179749|191538887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.7||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|411 and 102 degrees of freedom||||||0.50
95784287|NCT00435019|191538895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the mean HbA1c with insulin detemir was greater than or equal to the mean HbA1c with NPH insulin plus 0.4%. A sample size of 344 subjects, in total, with a drop-out rate of 20 percent would yield 274 subjects for evaluation of HbA1c. This would give 85 percent power to detect a difference in means of HbA1c of 0.4 percentage points assuming that the standard deviation was 1.1 using a two-sided t-test with a 0.05 significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||||95.0|-0.12|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.12|
95784288|NCT00603382|191538913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.221|||ANCOVA|||||0.221|-0.018|0.095
95784289|NCT00603382|191538913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.247|||ANCOVA|||||0.247|0.011|0.033
95784290|NCT00603382|191538913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.319|||ANCOVA|||||0.319|0.089|<0.001
95784291|NCT00603382|191538913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.349|||ANCOVA|||||0.349|0.111|<0.001
95784292|NCT00603382|191538913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.010|0.074
95784293|NCT03782974|191538936|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.0001
95784294|NCT03782974|191538937|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.59||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||0.59|0.10|<0.0001
95812733|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|27.3||||||At risk subjects.||27.3|-17.5|
95957312|NCT01772823|191886461|OTHER|||||||0.5369||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participation in high-risk sex acts) differ between groups (On PrEP vs. Off PrEP).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5369
95957313|NCT01772823|191886464|OTHER|||||||0.2193||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2193
95957314|NCT01772823|191886465|OTHER|||||||0.1255||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1255
95957315|NCT01772823|191886466|OTHER|||||||0.0706||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0706
95957316|NCT01772823|191886467|OTHER|||||||0.0088||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0088
95784295|NCT03782974|191538938|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||8.77|3.93|<0.001
95784296|NCT03782974|191538939|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||7.01|1.08|<0.05
95784297|NCT03782974|191538940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.6
95784298|NCT03782974|191538941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.054
95812734|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.2||||||At risk subjects.||29.2|-4.4|
95812735|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|14.5||||||No risk subjects.||14.5|7.2|
95812736|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.5||||||No risk subjects.||7.5|2.6|
95812737|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|15.8||||||No risk subjects.||15.8|9.5|
95812738|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|26.3||||||At risk subjects.||26.3|-24.7|
95812739|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|30.3||||||At risk subjects.||30.3|-26.9|
95957317|NCT01772823|191886468|OTHER|||||||0.2482||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2482
95999434|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.57|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.57|0.44|
95784299|NCT03782974|191538942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||||0.13
95784300|NCT03782974|191538943|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 138 participants randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 2 arms would have a least 90% power to detect a difference of a big effect size between Proglucamune Treatment and Placebo from baseline to week 12.||-0.56|-0.96|<0.0001
95812740|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|27.1||||||At risk subjects.||27.1|-16.9|
95812741|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|20.2||||||No risk subjects.||20.2|12.4|
95812742|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.5||||||No risk subjects||10.5|5.1|
95812743|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|18.6||||||No risk subjects||18.6|12|
95812744|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|25.5||||||At risk subjects||25.5|-27.1|
95812745|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|37.2||||||At risk subjects||37.2|-23.5|
95812746|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|38.0||||||At risk subjects.||38|-10.7|
95957318|NCT01772823|191886469|OTHER|||||||0.1647||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
95957319|NCT01772823|191886470|OTHER|||||||0.688||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6880
95957320|NCT01772823|191886471|OTHER|||||||0.2881||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2881
95957321|NCT01772823|191886472|OTHER|||||||0.2223||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2223
95812747|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.4||||||No risk subjects.||10.4|-4.2|
95812748|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 subjects)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.9||||||No risk subjects.||11.9|-1.2|
95860992|NCT03563183|191680580|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.41|94.43|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Pre-Frail-HZ/su vs Pre-Frail-Placebo groups.||94.43|84.41|<0.0001
95784301|NCT01907217|191538949|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4 point difference at the end of treatment between the bilateral and unilateral groups.~The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\] = -1.67 to 3.84."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.84||Primary statistical analysis was assessment of difference in HAM-D scores between arms at end-of-treatment, supplemented by 95% CIs and this interval compared with the pre-specified noninferiority threshold (-4 points). The p-value was calculated.|Regression, Linear|A regression model was fitted to end-of-treatment HAM-D measures, with baseline HAM-D scores, trial arm, randomization stratifiers as covariates.|The prespecified noninferiority margin was no more than a -4-point difference at the end of treatment between bitemporal and unilateral groups. The predicted difference at the end of treatment was 1.08 (95% confidence interval \[CI\]=-1.67 to 3.84).|Based on a large bitemporal ECT series, we estimated that 69 patients were required per group to have 80% power to demonstrate, using a one-sided equivalence t test at 5% level, that the mean reduction in the 24-item HAM-D score following high-dose unilateral ECT was no more than 4 points (i.e., equivalent to 3 points on the 17-item HAM-D, deemed to be clinically relevant \[30\]) less than that achieved using bitemporal ECT.||3.84|-1.67|<0.05
95784302|NCT01907217|191538950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||As above|generalized linear models with a binomia|||"The AMI-SF at end of treatment was analyzed using generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link. Post treatment AMI-SF measures provide the number of baseline items recalled after ECT; such number of items recalled variables were therefore modeled as arising from binomial distributions, with maximum number of possible recalls set to the number of items obtained at baseline."||0.85|0.51|0.001
95784303|NCT01907217|191538951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Regression, Linear|Analyzed using a generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link.||||0.78|0.45|0.001
95784304|NCT01907217|191538952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Regression, Linear|generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and logit-link||||0.79|0.45|0.001
95957322|NCT01772823|191886473|OTHER|||||||0.0617||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0617
95784305|NCT02798354|191538997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||5.3|2.4|<0.0001
95784306|NCT02798354|191538998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||20|12.3|<0.0001
95784307|NCT02798354|191538999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||3.1|-1.0|0.302
95784308|NCT02798354|191539000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||30.7|22.4|<0.0001
95784309|NCT02798354|191539001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||24.1|16.2|<0.0001
95812749|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1||||||No risk subjects.||15.1|2.9|
95812750|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.0||||||At risk subjects.||32|-42.4|
95957323|NCT01772823|191886474|OTHER|||||||0.0868||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0868
95957324|NCT01772823|191886475|OTHER|||||||0.1847||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1847
95957325|NCT01772823|191886476|OTHER|||||||0.0226||||||The chi-squared test of homogeneity is used to assess whether the proportions of the independent variable (participant responses to this question) differ between intervention arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0226
95957326|NCT00451555|191886488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6238|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6238
95957327|NCT00451555|191886488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6282
95784310|NCT02798354|191539002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, and wave|||17.7|10.3|<0.0001
95784311|NCT02798354|191539003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Fitted by generalized mixed-effects model with potential clustering effects of practices and months taken into account; adjusted for age, sex, insurance, lab test sent, and wave|||1.9|-1.8|0.922
95784312|NCT00350779|191539014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|<|0.001||95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.49|-0.95|<0.001
95784313|NCT00350779|191539015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.3|<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-10.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-10.9|-27.2|<0.001
95784314|NCT00350779|191539016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.7|<|0.001||95.0|-50.2|-25.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-25.5|-50.2|<0.001
95784315|NCT00350779|191539017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-0.50|-1.04|<0.001
95784316|NCT00350779|191539018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.6|<|0.001||95.0|-26.4|-8.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-8.4|-26.4|<0.001
95784317|NCT00350779|191539019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.0|<|0.001||95.0|-48.4|-19.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy||||-19.9|-48.4|<0.001
95784318|NCT00398216|191539023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95784319|NCT00398216|191539023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95784320|NCT00398216|191539023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95784321|NCT00398216|191539023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95784322|NCT00398216|191539026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.250
95784323|NCT00398216|191539026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.122
95784324|NCT00398216|191539026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.124
95784325|NCT00398216|191539026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.123
95812751|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|16.6||||||At risk subjects.||16.6|-41.2|
95784326|NCT01048944|191539027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values are adjusted for multiple comparisons except for specific a priori directional predictions.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance assessed Treatment x Day of abstinence (days 3, 24, 45, and 66) based on changes from pre-quit baseline to values of the four post-quit time points (days 3, 24, 45, and 66).||||<0.05
95784327|NCT02207400|191539035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.612|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.191|-10.033|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-10.033|-13.191|<0.0001
95784328|NCT02207400|191539036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|-0.566|||ANCOVA||Difference is Sodium Bicarbonate and Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice minus Sodium Fluoride Dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.566|-0.738|<0.0001
95784329|NCT00885378|191539046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.162||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: post - pre = pretreatment.|Estimate = adjusted mean change for Saxagliptin - adjusted mean change for Placebo.|||2.66|-21.68|0.1248
95784330|NCT00885378|191539047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.4|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||25.4|1.1|
95784331|NCT00885378|191539048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|24.7|||||Adjusted for baseline.|||24.7|3.0|
95784332|NCT00885378|191539055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo at Week 12(LOCF) was adjusted for baseline.|difference between week t value - baseline value = baseline value + treatment.|||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
95784333|NCT02501161|191539058|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
95784334|NCT02501161|191539059|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Test for no treatment difference was based on using a stratified log-rank test where treatment, baseline HbA1c group and pre-trial OAD treatment group were included as strata in the model.||||<.0001
95784335|NCT04336475|191539115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. p value stands for the comparison of final oral aperture measurements between two groups. (after 2 months' period)|ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||||||0.564
95784336|NCT01441245|191539116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.04
95812752|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|53.9||||||At risk subjects.||53.9|-7.1|
95812753|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.4||||||No risk subjects.||16.4|1|
95812754|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|2|
95957328|NCT00451555|191886488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6242|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6242
95784337|NCT01441245|191539117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage and compared with chi-square test. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.01
95784338|NCT01441245|191539118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95784339|NCT01441245|191539119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95784340|NCT01441245|191539120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95784341|NCT01441245|191539120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.57|||Regression, Linear||BNP levels at discharge \>500 pg/ml (RR: 2.06 \[1.65-2.57\];).|||2.57|1.65|0.01
95784342|NCT01441245|191539121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.03
95784343|NCT01441245|191539122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant.||||0.01
95784344|NCT01441245|191539123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and compared with t test for independent groups. p values \<0.05 were considered significant||||0.05
95784345|NCT01441245|191539124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size used was preliminarily calculated from each co-primary endpoint. We included the following assumptions: (1) a 30 % or more effect size in the difference between mean paired changes in continuous co-primary endpoints (eGFR, creatinine, BNP and diuresis); standard variation of each group data not exceeding 20 %; (2) alpha = 0.05 two-tailed and (3) power (1-beta) = 80 %.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Qualitative variables are expressed as percentage of partecipants and compared with chi-square test. p-value equal or lower than 0.05 are considered statistically significant.||||<0.01
95957329|NCT00451555|191886489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6390
95784346|NCT03258645|191539126|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at index date was applied.||||< 0.001
95784347|NCT03258645|191539127|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at index date was applied.||||0.01
95812755|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|0|
95957330|NCT00451555|191886489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6721
95957331|NCT00451555|191886489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6349
95957332|NCT00451555|191886490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8582|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8582
95957333|NCT00451555|191886490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7307|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7307
95957334|NCT00451555|191886490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9798
95957335|NCT00451555|191886491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5887|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5887
95957336|NCT00451555|191886491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4516|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4516
95957337|NCT00451555|191886491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7965
95784348|NCT03258645|191539128|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Relation between age and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.25|1.02|0.016
95784349|NCT03258645|191539129|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.04|0.002
95812756|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|43.0||||||At risk subjects.||43|-42.1|
95812757|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|28.7||||||At risk subjects||28.7|-41.5|
95812758|NCT01346592|191597081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|36.8||||||At risk subjects.||36.8|-29|
95812759|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|12.8||||||No risk subjects.||12.8|6.4|
95812760|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.4||||||No risk subjects.||6.4|1.8|
95812761|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|13.9||||||No risk subjects.||13.9|8.6|
95812762|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|14.9||||||At risk subjects.||14.9|-24.7|
95957338|NCT03036150|191886494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|0.72|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.72|0.51|< 0.0001
95812763|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.7||||||At risk subjects.||20.7|-14.4|
95812764|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-6.8|
95812765|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.1||||||No risk subjects.||18.1|11.3|
95812766|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|9.1||||||No risk subjects.||9.1|4.2|
95812767|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|16.1||||||No risk subjects.||16.1|10.5|
95812768|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|15.4||||||At risk subjects||15.4|-25.3|
95812769|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.2||||||At risk subjects.||24.2|-12.7|
95812770|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group differences (B strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|23.2||||||At risk subjects.||23.2|-7.8|
95812771|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|8.2|
95812772|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.4||||||No risk subjects.||7.4|2.5|
95957339|NCT03036150|191886495|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.68|0.45|< 0.0001
95957340|NCT03036150|191886496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0089||95.0|0.55|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.92|0.55|0.0089
95812773|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.3||||||No risk subjects.||15.3|9.2|
95784350|NCT03258645|191539130|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.21|||Regression, Linear|Relation between CHA2DS2-VASc and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.21|1.00|0.04
95784351|NCT03258645|191539131|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Relation between HAS-BLED and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||1.00|0.45|0.051
95784352|NCT03258645|191539132|OTHER|CHA2DS2-VASc is the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age (\> 75), Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category score. HAS-BLED is the Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke (1 point), Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly (\>65 years), Drugs and Alcohol Score.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Relation between History/Predisposition To Bleeding and dabigatran initiation time was reported.||Multivariate linear regression with the continuous dependent variable of time-to-initiation for dabigatran in days and independent variable of age, Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, and History/Predisposition To Bleeding at index date was applied.||0.93|0.9|0.026
95784353|NCT00264290|191539143|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95784354|NCT04472494|191539148|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test|||||4.49|0.26|0.9297
95784355|NCT04472494|191539149|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference from Placebo|0.64||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.82|-0.55|0.7400
95784356|NCT04472494|191539150|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.1||||0.9684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test||Estimate of Difference is based on minimum risk weights|||20.34|-20.55|0.9684
95784357|NCT04472494|191539151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.97|0.18|0.8504
95784358|NCT04472494|191539152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.82|0.53|0.2724
95784359|NCT04472494|191539152|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|36.17|||||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|36.17|-10.61|
95784360|NCT04472494|191539153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.64|0.33|0.4734
95812774|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
95957341|NCT03036150|191886497|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0035||95.0|0.53|0.88|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization stratification of Type 2 Diabetes and urine albumin creatinine ratio and adjusting for baseline eGFR.||||0.88|0.53|0.0035
95784361|NCT04472494|191539153|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|27.57|||||Estimate of difference is based on minimum risk weights|||27.57|-16.71|
95784362|NCT02620683|191539158|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-5.86|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||for a cross over design difference in blood level was calculate buffered lidocaine minus non-buffered lidocaine|The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||-5.86|-34.6|0.006
95784363|NCT02620683|191539159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using ProcTTEST (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||0.13|-1.46|0.096
95784364|NCT02620683|191539160|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between injection type- 95% confidence intervals for the difference between injection types was calculated. For the outcome variable, an assessment of treatment difference by subject, calculated as 1% Buffered minus 2% Non-Buffered, was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests (SAS v 9.3). Statistical significance was set as P \< 0.05 for all outcomes.||1|-4|0.23
95784365|NCT03299101|191539182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in grip strength across all 4 time points.||||0.872
95784366|NCT03299101|191539182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.423
95812775|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
95999435|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.60|
95957342|NCT03247738|191886587|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of our study was the comparison of platelet reactivity measured by VerifyNow PRU between cangrelor and placebo at 30 minutes after drugs were administered at the start of PCI. Assuming a common standard deviation of 70 PRU, a sample size of 20 patients per group would allow detection of a 70 PRU difference between groups with 85% power and a two-sided α = 0.05. Considering the 2 arms and a possible 25% rate of invalid PD results we planned to randomize up to 50 patients.|Mean Difference (Net)|152.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.0|195.0|||ANCOVA|the baseline value of platelet reactivity used as a covariate||||195|108|<0.001
95784367|NCT03299101|191539182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.853
95784368|NCT03299101|191539182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in grip strength between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
95784369|NCT03299101|191539183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.256
95784370|NCT03299101|191539183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.091
95784371|NCT03299101|191539183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.066
95784372|NCT03299101|191539183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.552|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.552
95784373|NCT03299101|191539184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean MIP across all 4 time points.||||0.003
95784374|NCT03299101|191539184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.003
95784375|NCT03299101|191539184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.005
95784376|NCT03299101|191539184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.290
95784377|NCT03299101|191539185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in maximal inspiratory pressure across all 4 time points.||||0.009
95784378|NCT03299101|191539185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.006
95784379|NCT03299101|191539185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.015
95784380|NCT03299101|191539185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.802
95784381|NCT03299101|191539186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in Mean MEP across all 4 time points.||||0.010
95784382|NCT03299101|191539186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.004
95812776|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|19.7||||||At risk subjects.||19.7|-20.7|
95812777|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|20.1||||||No risk subjects.||20.1|12.6|
95957343|NCT00527514|191886590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
95784383|NCT03299101|191539186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.042
95784384|NCT03299101|191539186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
95784385|NCT03299101|191539187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in max SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.814
95784386|NCT03299101|191539187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.91||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.734
95784387|NCT03299101|191539187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.12||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.341
95784388|NCT03299101|191539187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.61||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in maximum SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.448
95784389|NCT03299101|191539188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in mean SMIP across all 4 time points.||||0.419
95784390|NCT03299101|191539188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.03||0.439|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.439
95784391|NCT03299101|191539188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|47.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.069
95784392|NCT03299101|191539188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.96||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean SMIP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.328
95784393|NCT03299101|191539189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in serum prealbumin across all 4 time points.||||0.196
95784394|NCT03299101|191539189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.562
95784395|NCT03299101|191539189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.087|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.087
95784396|NCT03299101|191539189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.226|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in serum prealbumin between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.226
95784397|NCT03299101|191539190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in gait speed across all 4 time points.||||0.001
95784398|NCT03299101|191539190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.001
95784399|NCT03299101|191539190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.001
95784400|NCT03299101|191539190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in gait speed between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.874
95784401|NCT03299101|191539191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SPPB across all 4 time points.||||0.854
95957344|NCT00527514|191886591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||Statistical analysis parameters apply to both the daytime and nighttime rows.||||<0.0001
95784402|NCT03299101|191539191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.298|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.298
95784403|NCT03299101|191539191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.684|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.684
95784404|NCT03299101|191539191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.485|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SPPB between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.485
95784405|NCT03299101|191539192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in RAI across all 4 time points.||||0.067
95784406|NCT03299101|191539192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.089|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.089
95784407|NCT03299101|191539192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.006
95784408|NCT03299101|191539192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in RAI between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.221
95784409|NCT03299101|191539193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in SGA across all 4 time points.||||0.860
95784410|NCT03299101|191539193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.410
95784411|NCT03299101|191539193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.622|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.622
95957345|NCT00527514|191886592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95957346|NCT00527514|191886593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95957347|NCT00527514|191886594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95784412|NCT03299101|191539193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.757|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in SGA between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.757
95784413|NCT03299101|191539194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test across all 4 time points.||||0.362
95784414|NCT03299101|191539194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.06||0.203|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and day of surgery.||||.203
95784415|NCT03299101|191539194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.357
95812778|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8||||||No risk subjects||9.8|4.6|
95957348|NCT00527514|191886595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95957349|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.54|-65.73|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-65.73|-87.54|< 0.001
95957350|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.67|-52.0|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.00|-82.67|< 0.001
95784416|NCT03299101|191539194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|21.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.163|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in 6 Minute Walk Test between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.163
95784417|NCT03299101|191539195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across all 4 time points.||||0.068
95784418|NCT03299101|191539195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and day of surgery.||||0.043
95784419|NCT03299101|191539195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change between baseline and 90 days postop.||||0.092
95784420|NCT03299101|191539195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The null hypothesis was rejected a priori if p\<.05.|The mean within-person difference was assessed with linear mixed models with standard error and p-value similar to paired t-tests.|Linear mixed models estimated within-person change in mean MEP between day of surgery and 90 days postop.||||0.292
95784421|NCT03299101|191539196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models estimated overall, within-person change across both time points.||||0.625
95784422|NCT01690299|191539203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|40.1||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||40.1|14.9|< 0.0001
95860993|NCT03563183|191680580|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|90.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.36|96.65|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Frail-HZ/su vs Frail-Placebo groups.||96.65|75.36|<0.0001
95957351|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.29|-64.17|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.17|-88.29|< 0.001
95957352|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-72.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|-54.13|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-54.13|-83.32|< 0.001
95957353|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-73.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.79|-55.11|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-55.11|-83.79|< 0.001
95784423|NCT01690299|191539204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|35.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|48.5||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||48.5|23.3|<0.0001
95784424|NCT01690299|191539205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|27.7||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||27.7|8.4|0.0005
95784425|NCT01690299|191539205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|35.5||The p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI (Body Mass Index) at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Confidence Interval (CI) was weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.||||35.5|14.8|<0.0001
95784426|NCT01690299|191539206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.33|-19.46|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-19.46|-43.33|<0.0001
95784427|NCT01690299|191539206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.78|-27.92|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-27.92|-51.78|<0.0001
95784428|NCT01690299|191539207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|29.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|43.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||43.9|14.9|0.0002
95784429|NCT01690299|191539207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|49.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|62.7||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||62.7|36.9|<0.0001
95784430|NCT01690299|191539208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.14|-6.82|<0.0001
95784431|NCT01690299|191539208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.94||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.6|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.60|-6.27|0.0004
95784432|NCT01690299|191539209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.93||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.90|-2.05|0.7112
95784433|NCT01690299|191539209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|2.22||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|5.19|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA model with treatment and screening BMI category as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||5.19|-0.75|0.1719
95784434|NCT01690299|191539210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.1||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.6||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||28.6|7.6|0.0011
95784435|NCT01690299|191539210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.9||The two-sided p-value is from a CMH test stratified by the BMI at screening.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The confidence interval (CI) is weighted using CMH weights according to the number of participants in the two strata.|||26.9|6.5|0.0021
95784436|NCT00551525|191539231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level 0.05, two-sided test|binomial proportion|||||||<0.001
95784437|NCT00551525|191539234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.063||||||Modeling the association of age with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]).||1.063|0.910|
95784438|NCT00551525|191539234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.169||||||Modeling the association of baseline PSA with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||1.169|0.890|
95784439|NCT00551525|191539234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|4.697||||||Modeling the association of clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for baseline PSA, Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]), and age.||4.697|0.364|
95784440|NCT00551525|191539234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.659|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|2.006||||||Modeling the association of Gleason score (\<8 vs. 8-10\[reference level\]) with the occurrence of any acute radiotherapy-related adverse event, adjusting for clinical T-stage (pT2 vs. pT3 \[reference level\]), baseline PSA, and age.||2.006|0.217|
95784441|NCT00519584|191539236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39|||Log Rank||Ropivacaine/dex vs. Ropivacaine/saline|||0.39|0.08|<0.001
95784442|NCT00519584|191539236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83|||Log Rank||bupivacaine/dex vs. bupivacaine/Saline|||0.83|0.23|<0.001
95784443|NCT00519584|191539237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95784444|NCT00519584|191539237|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95784445|NCT00519584|191539238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||adjusted significance level is 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95784446|NCT00519584|191539238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95784447|NCT00519584|191539239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95784448|NCT00519584|191539239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||adjusted significance level = 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95784449|NCT04333225|191539290|OTHER|Other: estimating risk reduction|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0718||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.72|||Chi-squared|||||3.72|1.15|0.0112
95784450|NCT04333225|191539291|OTHER|Other: Estimating hazard ratio|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.75|||Log Rank|||||0.75|0.17|0.0105
95784451|NCT00822328|191539295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
95784452|NCT00822328|191539297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Bacterial colonies were counted for study group and placebo group on week 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Significant differences between both experimental groups at the same time were determined with one-way ANOVA (significance level p = 0.05).||||<0.05
95784453|NCT01778751|191539298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months||-0.2|-1.7|0.012
95784454|NCT01778751|191539298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months||-0.0|-2.0|0.050
95784455|NCT01778751|191539299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||8.4|-2.7|0.303
95784456|NCT01778751|191539299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months, Scale is 0-100 where a higher score is a better outcome.||14.4|0.9|0.027
95784457|NCT01778751|191539300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.34|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||2.34|0.35|0.830
95784458|NCT01778751|191539300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.19|||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||Comparison at 6 months||3.19|0.33|0.970
95784459|NCT01778751|191539301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 3 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||1.4|-3.3|0.428
95784460|NCT01778751|191539301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison at 6 months. Scale is 0-27 where a lower score is a better outcome, values were dichotomized to indicate whether or not the patient was depressed.||3.6|-1.4|0.397
95784461|NCT02870205|191539341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95784462|NCT02870205|191539341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95784463|NCT02870205|191539341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95784464|NCT02870205|191539341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95784465|NCT02870205|191539341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95784466|NCT01945294|191539349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SVR12 percentage|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|0.4||||||||0.4|-23.2|
95784467|NCT00862459|191539420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 sample t-test between the dose groups||||0.003
95784468|NCT00862459|191539420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.59||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
95784469|NCT00862459|191539421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92||||95.0|-0.825|0.69|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.69|-0.825|
95957354|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-71.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.93|-50.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-50.82|-83.93|< 0.001
95957355|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.01|-47.78|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-47.78|-81.01|< 0.001
95957356|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.62|-68.49|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-68.49|-88.62|< 0.001
95957357|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-79.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-63.34|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-63.34|-88.02|< 0.001
95957358|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-32.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.71|32.1|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||32.10|-65.71|0.25
95999436|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.97|0.63|
95784470|NCT00862459|191539421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.18||||95.0|-0.9|0.79|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.79|-0.90|
95784471|NCT00862459|191539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||||95.0|-1.17|-0.42|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.42|-1.17|
95784472|NCT00862459|191539422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||||95.0|-0.44|0.41|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.41|-0.44|
95784473|NCT00862459|191539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||||95.0|-0.619|-0.17|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.17|-0.619|
95784474|NCT00862459|191539423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||||95.0|-0.25|0.22|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.22|-0.25|
95784475|NCT00862459|191539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.58|-0.18|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||-0.18|-0.58|
95784476|NCT00862459|191539424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76||||95.0|-0.1|0.31|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||0.31|-0.10|
95784477|NCT00862459|191539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.45||||95.0|-37.11|2.02|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||difference in CNR between doses and confidence interval||2.02|-37.11|
95784478|NCT00862459|191539425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|77.11||||95.0|-15.86|25.35|||confidence interval using t-distribution|||||25.35|-15.86|
95784479|NCT00862459|191539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||accuracy difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.8||95.0|-10.93|14.24|||Chi-squared|Adjusted for clustering||||14.24|-10.93|0.80
95784480|NCT00862459|191539426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
95784481|NCT00862459|191539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|13.43||||0.03||95.0|1.53|25.33|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||25.33|1.53|0.03
95784482|NCT00862459|191539427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|-13.58||||0.02||95.0|-25.07|-2.09|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-2.09|-25.07|0.02
95784483|NCT00862459|191539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-6.13||||0.11||95.0|-13.73|1.48|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||1.48|-13.73|0.11
95784484|NCT00862459|191539428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracies|2.87||||0.55||95.0|-6.59|12.32|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||12.32|-6.59|0.55
95784485|NCT00862459|191539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|24.63||||0.02||95.0|5.39|43.86|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||43.86|5.39|0.02
95784486|NCT00862459|191539429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-10.75||||0.13||95.0|-24.41|2.9|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||2.90|-24.41|0.13
95784487|NCT00862459|191539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|12.91||||0.07||95.0|-1.44|27.26|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||27.26|-1.44|0.07
95784488|NCT00862459|191539430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-18.37||||0.02||95.0|-33.6|-1.35|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||-1.35|-33.60|0.02
95784489|NCT00862459|191539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|18.46||||0.02||95.0|3.15|33.77|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||33.77|3.15|0.02
95784490|NCT00862459|191539431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in accuracy|-5.29||||0.45||95.0|-18.83|8.24|||Chi-squared|adjusted for clustering||||8.24|-18.83|0.45
95784491|NCT00856843|191539470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in success rates|8.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|0.9|0.038
95784492|NCT00856843|191539471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95784493|NCT00856843|191539472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
95784494|NCT00856843|191539473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.644
95784495|NCT00856843|191539474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
96002076|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
95784496|NCT00856843|191539475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.173
95784497|NCT00856843|191539476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95784498|NCT00856843|191539477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95784499|NCT00856843|191539478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95784500|NCT00856843|191539479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.013
95784501|NCT00856843|191539480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.283
95784502|NCT01900431|191539503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by combining the log-transformation of odds ratio from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analyses of the different imputed datasets, using Rubin's formulae, and then by back-transforming the combined estimate. The CMH analyses were adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>= 4 versus VH \<4).||5.6|0.8|0.2354
95784503|NCT01900431|191539504|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.223|-0.262||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline adjudicated VH.||-0.262|-1.223|0.0127
95784504|NCT01900431|191539505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|6.093||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||6.093|0.11|1
95784505|NCT01900431|191539506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|9.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline BCVA.||9.67|1.99|0.0153
95784506|NCT01900431|191539507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.41|-2.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-2.68|-50.41|0.0683
95784507|NCT01900431|191539508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.374|-0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with treatment groups, randomization strata of VH level (\<4, \>=4), visits and visit-by-treatment groups interaction as fixed categorical effects, as well as, fixed continuous covariate of baseline CRT (Automatic measurement from SD-OCT).||-0.35|-12.374|0.0825
95784508|NCT01900431|191539511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.306|3.845||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using common odds ratio which came from CMH analysis adjusted for randomization stratification factor VH level (VH \>=4 versus VH \<4).||3.845|0.306|1
95784509|NCT01180049|191539565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.027||||||||1.027|0.520|
95784510|NCT01180049|191539566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.568|1.064||||||||1.064|0.568|
95784511|NCT01180049|191539567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in arms|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|20.3||||||Independent assessment- Difference (%) TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||20.3|-6.9|
95784512|NCT01180049|191539568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between arms|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|26.7||||||Investigator's assessment- Difference (%)TEMSR 175/75 mg - TEMSR 75 mg (80% CI)||26.7|-0.4|
95784513|NCT01180049|191539569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.453|0.922||||||||0.922|0.453|
95784514|NCT00528372|191539596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1522||0.0207||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0207
95784515|NCT00528372|191539596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1541||0.0005||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
95784516|NCT00528372|191539596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1518|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95784517|NCT00528372|191539596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.3||||||||-0.30|-0.91|
95784518|NCT00528372|191539596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1527|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26||||||||-0.26|-0.86|
95784519|NCT00528372|191539596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27||||||||-0.27|-0.85|
95784520|NCT00528372|191539597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.734||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|||Week 24|||||
95812779|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|18.3||||||No risk subjects.||18.3|11.9|
95812780|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|20.2||||||At risk subjects.||20.2|-28.5|
95812781|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|33.5||||||At risk subjects.||33.5|-14.9|
95812782|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|29.3||||||At risk subjects.||29.3|-14|
95812783|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.5||||||No risk subjects.||9.5|-3.8|
95957359|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|3.44||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.78|80.66|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||80.66|-40.78|0.90
95957360|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-40.53||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|8.82|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||8.82|-67.50|0.091
95957361|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|13.33||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.39|130.94|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||130.94|-44.39|0.73
95784521|NCT00528372|191539597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.806||0.0007||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||0.0007
95784522|NCT00528372|191539597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05)|ANCOVA||Week 24|||||<0.0001
95784523|NCT00528372|191539597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.686|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-10.3||||||||-10.3|-32.6|
95812784|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.0||||||No risk subjects.||10|-1.8|
95812785|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.5||||||No risk subjects.||12.5|1.5|
95812786|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|27.9||||||At risk subjects.||27.9|-40.7|
95812787|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|14.3||||||At risk subjects.||14.3|-38.4|
95812788|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|48.1||||||At risk subjects.||48.1|-7.9|
95812789|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|18.5||||||No risk subjects.||18.5|3|
95812790|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.6||||||No risk subjects.||15.6|2.2|
95784524|NCT00528372|191539597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.711|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-12.0||||||||-12.0|-34.4|
95784525|NCT00528372|191539597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-14.5||||||||-14.5|-36.4|
95784526|NCT00528372|191539599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6307||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.||||||||
95784527|NCT00528372|191539599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6388||0.3101||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3101
95812791|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.6||||||No risk subjects.||9.6|0|
95812792|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H1N1 strain)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|35.0||||||At risk subjects.||35|-41.7|
95784528|NCT00528372|191539599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6223||0.1189||||||Tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
95784529|NCT00528372|191539599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-2.86|
95784530|NCT00528372|191539599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.13||||||||-0.13|-2.60|
95784531|NCT00528372|191539599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
95784532|NCT00528372|191539601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.324||||||||||||||||
95784533|NCT00528372|191539601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.342||||||||||||||||
95784534|NCT00528372|191539601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.176||||||||||||||||
95784535|NCT00528372|191539601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-3.7||||||||-3.7|-20.3|
95784536|NCT00528372|191539601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-24.7|
95784537|NCT00528372|191539601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-9.5||||||||-9.5|-26.2|
95784538|NCT00528372|191539603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|9.7||||||||||||||||||
95784539|NCT00528372|191539603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|12.6||||||||||||||||||
95784540|NCT00528372|191539603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.2||||||||||||||||||
95957362|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-80.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|-52.87|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.87|-91.53|0.001
95957363|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-87.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|-71.88|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 8: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-71.88|-94.53|< 0.001
95784541|NCT00528372|191539603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.7||||||||34.7|4.9|
95784542|NCT00528372|191539603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|27.3||||||||27.3|-2.5|
95784543|NCT00528372|191539603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|34.5||||||||34.5|5.3|
95784544|NCT00528372|191539604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||||||||||||||||
95784545|NCT00528372|191539604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6828||||||||||||||||
95784546|NCT00528372|191539604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6404||||||||||||||||
95784547|NCT00528372|191539604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
95784548|NCT00528372|191539604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
95784549|NCT00528372|191539604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||||||||0.33|-2.06|
95784550|NCT00528372|191539605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
95784551|NCT00528372|191539605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||||||||||||||||
95784552|NCT00528372|191539605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1708||||||||||||||||
95784553|NCT00528372|191539605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.95|
95784554|NCT00528372|191539605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1741|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21||||||||-0.21|-0.89|
95784555|NCT00528372|191539605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1704|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.92|
95784556|NCT00528372|191539606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.526||||||||||||||||
95784557|NCT00528372|191539606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.761||||||||||||||||
95784558|NCT00528372|191539606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.334||||||||||||||||
95784559|NCT00528372|191539606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.1||||||||32.1|5.5|
95784560|NCT00528372|191539606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|24.4||||||||24.4|-1.8|
95784561|NCT00528372|191539606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from placebo|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.9||||||||23.9|-1.0|
95784562|NCT00528372|191539607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||||||||||||||||
95784563|NCT00528372|191539607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7371||||||||||||||||
95784564|NCT00528372|191539607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7078||||||||||||||||
95784565|NCT00528372|191539607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.42||||||||-0.42|-3.33|
95784566|NCT00528372|191539607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16||||||||0.16|-2.69|
95784567|NCT00528372|191539607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7135||||95.0|-2.37|0.44||||||||0.44|-2.37|
95784568|NCT01289574|191539618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score statistics, adjusting for investigational site||||||0.1919
95784569|NCT01289574|191539619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
95784570|NCT01289574|191539620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0857|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0857
95784571|NCT02432144|191539622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-62.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.946|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.98|-52.59||P-values are from generalized estimating equation (GEE) model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 0||-52.59|-71.98|< 0.0001
95784572|NCT02432144|191539622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-67.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.49|-60.86||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 12||-60.86|-73.49|< 0.0001
95784573|NCT02432144|191539622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.99|-56.24||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 24||-56.24|-71.99|< 0.0001
95784574|NCT02432144|191539622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-60.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.992|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.54|-49.06||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 36||-49.06|-72.54|< 0.0001
95784575|NCT02432144|191539622|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-57.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|-43.82||P-values are from a GEE model including baseline value and visit (in this study) as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within subjects is assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE model|||Week 48||-43.82|-71.87|< 0.0001
95784576|NCT02849704|191539645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for significance: \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95784577|NCT02849704|191539646|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95784578|NCT02849704|191539647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95812793|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (H3N2 strain)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.4||||||At risk subjects.||23.4|-38.6|
95957364|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Rratio|-79.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|-52.37|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-52.37|-91.44|0.001
95784579|NCT02849704|191539648|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95784580|NCT02849704|191539649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95784581|NCT02849704|191539650|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95860994|NCT03563183|191680580|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy rate was calculated as 100\*(1-RR) with RR=relative risk of developing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster subunit vaccine group compared to placebo people.|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.61|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Efficacy analysis aimed at comparing the confimed herpes zoster for Herpes Zoster incidence rate between Unknown-HZ/su vs Unknown-Placebo groups.||100|14.61|0.069
95784582|NCT02771860|191539673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.9|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||16.9|1.0|0.024
95784583|NCT02771860|191539674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.50|0.11|<0.001
95784584|NCT02771860|191539675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|24.0|||GEE|||Comparison between groups was done by Generalized Estimation Equations at joint level, accounting for within-patient clustering and adjusted for baseline unbalances. Missing values were imputed according to a predefined imputation model, including randomization group, baseline value and values at other time points available, presence of baseline inflammation, baseline number of affected joints.||24.0|4.6|0.003
95784585|NCT04304508|191539677|OTHER|Dose-response test by using multiple comparison procedures (MCP) Mod.||||||0.7976|||||||MCP Mod|||Dose-response test||||0.7976
95784586|NCT04304508|191539677|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8105|1.3478||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3478|0.8105|
95784587|NCT04304508|191539677|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.1963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9281|1.5428||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.5428|0.9281|
95784588|NCT04304508|191539677|OTHER||Crude incidence ratio|1.0485|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8082|1.3619||||||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group.||1.3619|0.8082|
95784589|NCT04304508|191539685|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.724|||=|0.1507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|3.215|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 10 mg group versus Placebo group||3.215|0.924|= 0.1507
95784590|NCT04304508|191539685|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.285|||=|0.5339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|2.494|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 20 mg group versus Placebo group||2.494|0.662|= 0.5339
95812794|NCT01346592|191597082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|Group difference (B strain)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|31.0||||||At risk subjects.||31|-26.9|
95812795|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.76||||||No risk subjects.||2.76|1.91|
95784591|NCT04304508|191539685|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.749|||=|0.1401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|3.262|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Asundexian 50 mg group versus Placebo group||3.262|0.938|= 0.1401
95784592|NCT04304508|191539685|OTHER|Cause specific HRs were only calculated if at least 3 events occurred in 1 of the compared groups and at least 1 event in each of the compared treatment groups.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.585|||=|0.1653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.736|||Log Rank|||Comparison of the Total Asundexian group versus Placebo group||2.736|0.918|= 0.1653
95784593|NCT03479008|191539720|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the thigh comparison baseline to during stimulation||||<0.0001
95784594|NCT03479008|191539720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This presents the p value for the calf comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.0001
95812796|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT Ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.89||||||No risk subjects.||1.89|1.35|
95812797|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|3.31||||||No risk subjects.||3.31|2.57|
95812798|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.93||||||At risk subjects.||3.93|0.6|
95784595|NCT03479008|191539720|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||This statistical analysis presents the data for the biceps comparisons between baseline and during stimulation.||||<0.001
95784596|NCT03479008|191539721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||The P value below applies to the VO2||||<0.0001
95784597|NCT03479008|191539721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||This p value applies to the VCO2||||<0.001
95812799|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.61||||||At risk subjects.||4.61|0.89|
95860995|NCT03563183|191680581|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|97.1|
95784598|NCT03479008|191539722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
95784599|NCT03479008|191539723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||<0.0001
95812800|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.67||||||At risk subjects.||4.67|1.34|
95812801|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.01||||||No risk subjects.||4.01|2.77|
95812802|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.45||||||No risk subjects||2.45|1.75|
95812803|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|3.49||||||No risk subjects||3.49|2.72|
95812804|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.5||||||At risk subjects.||4.5|0.65|
95812805|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|7.51||||||At risk subjects.||7.51|1.38|
95812806|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.98||||||At risk subjects.||3.98|1.1|
95784600|NCT03479008|191539724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||post-hoc analysis|with Bonferroni correction||||||0.094
95784601|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for Muscle bellies of Soleus (SO)||||0.011
95784602|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for tibialis anterior (TA)||||0.012
95784603|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for gastrocnemius lateralis (GL)||||0.003
95784604|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus medialis (VM)||||<0.001
95784605|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for vastus lateralis (VL)||||<0.0001
95784606|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \<0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for rectus femoris (RF)||||0.59
95784607|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for semitendinosus (ST)||||0.86
95812807|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.21||||||No risk subjects.||3.21|2.1|
95812808|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.52||||||No risk subjects.||2.52|1.71|
95812809|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.33||||||No risk subjects.||4.33|3.22|
95812810|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
95812811|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.66||||||At risk subjects.||8.66|0.94|
95812812|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
95812813|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.54||||||No risk subjects.||4.54|2.97|
95812814|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.37||||||No risk subjects.||3.37|2.29|
95812815|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (B strain)|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|4.65||||||No risk subjects.||4.65|3.46|
95812816|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of confidence interval for day 50 vaccine group difference was \> -10%.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.4||||||At risk subjects.||4.4|0.45|
95812817|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|13.0||||||At risk subjects.||13|1.43|
95812818|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|8.15||||||At risk subjects.||8.15|1.67|
95999437|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.81|
95812819|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.04||||||No risk subjects.||2.04|0.89|
95812820|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.22||||||No risk subjects.||2.22|1.14|
95812821|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||No risk subjects.||2.15|1.3|
95812822|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|10.0||||||At risk subjects.||10|0.29|
95812823|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.01||||||At risk subjects.||4.01|0.33|
95812824|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.94||||||At risk subjects.||3.94|0.53|
95812825|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.39||||||No risk subjects||3.39|1.48|
95812826|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.46||||||No risk subjects.||2.46|1.26|
95812827|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.04||||||No risk subjects||2.04|1.24|
95812828|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|18.0||||||At risk subjects.||18|0.34|
95812829|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.92||||||At risk subjects.||7.92|0.49|
95812830|NCT01346592|191597083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.6% confidence interval of the postvaccination (day 50) ratio of GMTs was above 0.667.|GMT ratio (B strain)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.16||||||At risk subjects.||2.16|0.23|
95784608|NCT03479008|191539725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance level was set at p \< 0.05 for all tests.|ANOVA|||Comparison of Vibration to Baseline for deltoideus medius||||0.006
95784609|NCT00412932|191539726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|one-sample t-test|||The sample size of this study was not based on the statistical power consideration and was considered as sufficient for the evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the proposed olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen.||||<0.0001
95784610|NCT00412932|191539727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95784611|NCT00412932|191539728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. This P-Value applies to both the daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95784612|NCT00412932|191539729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments. The P-Value of \<0.0001 applies to both daytime and nighttime periods.|one-sample t-test|||||||<0.0001
95784613|NCT00929994|191539733|OTHER||||||=|0.06||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts. Assumption of sphericity was met for all analyses determined by the Mauchley test of sphericity (all \>.05).|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance of 6MWD, was utilized between the 3 test times 0, 3, and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post hoc contrasts.||||=0.06
95784614|NCT00929994|191539733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95784615|NCT00929994|191539734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95784616|NCT00929994|191539735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of CES-D was utilized between the 3 test times baseline, 3 and 6 months.||||0.04
95812831|NCT01346592|191597086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|4.95||||||GMTs were considered to be statistically significantly higher if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.95|3.34|
95812832|NCT01346592|191597086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|2.18||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval around the vaccine group ratio is \>1.0||2.18|1.74|
95812833|NCT01346592|191597086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.39||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.39|1.73|
95812834|NCT01346592|191597086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H1N1 strain)|3.82||||||95.0|3.14|4.64||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||4.64|3.14|
95812835|NCT01346592|191597086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (H3N2 strain)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.68||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.68|2.15|
95812836|NCT01346592|191597086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B strain)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.29||||||statistically significantly greater response was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI around the vaccine group ratio was \>1.0||2.29|1.65|
95812837|NCT04604431|191597113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for low-risk infants.||29.1|6.9|<0.001
95812838|NCT04604431|191597113|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Odds ratios will be computed to describe the odds of adherence for the iREACH intervention compared to the control intervention for high-risk infants.||8.8|1.1|0.034
95812839|NCT00643279|191597118|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|91.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|88.7||||||||||88.7|
95784617|NCT00929994|191539736|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts|ANOVA|||With 1 group and 3 test times, a repeated measures analysis of variance with pairwise comparisons of MoCA was utilized between the 3 test times (-3, 0 and 6 months). A Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was used for post-hoc contrasts.||||>0.05
95784618|NCT01704755|191539770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The study planned to enroll 380 subjects to a 12- or 24-week treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint (SVR12) was assessed for each arm. With a total sample size of 380 and assuming that 68% of the subjects in each arm would achieve SVR12, the study had greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority and superiority with a 2-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound greater than 43% and 54%, respectively, based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion.||96.1|87.6|
95784619|NCT01704755|191539770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|87.6|96.1||||||The primary efficacy endpoints were the SVR12 rates in each arm. The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between the arms using a Bonferroni correction of 0.025. A 2-sided 97.5% CI of the SVR12 rate per arm was computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. A gatekeeping testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, and the primary endpoints for Arm A were tested separately from Arm B in a pre-specified order.||96.1|87.6|
95784620|NCT01704755|191539770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 43% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
95812840|NCT00643279|191597119|SUPERIORITY|Survival estimate at 6-months|6-month survival rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.9||||||||||98.9|
95784621|NCT01704755|191539770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The superiority of the rate of sustained virologic response for the ABT-450/r/ABT-333 plus ribavirin 24-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must have exceeded 54% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|93.4|99.7||||||||99.7|93.4|
95784622|NCT01704755|191539771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||To test the hypothesis that the percentages of participants who achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment was different between the two treatment groups, the percentages were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a), IL28B genotype (CC, non CC), and peginterferon-ribavirin treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced) as predictors.||||0.051
95812841|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|1.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||1.1|-41.9|
95812842|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|3.9|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||3.9|-39.5|
95812843|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|17.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitor (TNFi) status at baseline, and categorical baseline dT count at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-trial participant measurements.||17.5|-26.0|
95812844|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER|||||||0.697||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.697
95812845|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.844
95957365|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-83.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.79|-62.95|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 57: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-62.95|-92.79|< 0.001
95957366|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-81.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.35|-57.46|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-57.46|-92.35|< 0.001
95957367|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-84.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.12|-64.6|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 85: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-64.60|-93.12|< 0.001
95957368|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|43.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.06|286.83|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 113: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||286.83|-47.06|0.47
95957369|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-68.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.02|-17.63|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 169: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||-17.63|-88.02|0.020
95957370|NCT01723514|191886617|SUPERIORITY||LS Geometric Mean Ratio|-54.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.58|19.75|||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Day 197: A repeated measures ANCOVA was performed for the ratio of blood flow measures at 30 minutes post capsaicin challenge to pre capsaicin challenge. The model included treatment, day, and the treatment by day interaction as independent variables, and both the 0 minute pre-capsaicin blood flow measure as well as the day 0, 30-minute post-capsaicin blood flow measures on day -1 .||19.75|-82.58|0.11
95812846|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER|||||||0.256||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.256
95957371|NCT02287883|191886618|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95957372|NCT02287883|191886619|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95957373|NCT02287883|191886620|OTHER|Clustered two-sample t-test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95784623|NCT02821416|191539774|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, time post-allergen challenge , treatment\*time post-allergen challenge, allergen induced at screening||||-0.94|-10.69|0.0208
95784624|NCT02821416|191539775|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.535||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.045|8.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, maximum percent decrease in FEV1 late asthma response||||8.116|-3.045|0.3630
95784625|NCT01763203|191539777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
95784626|NCT01763203|191539778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95784627|NCT01763203|191539780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95784628|NCT01763203|191539781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
95784629|NCT01763203|191539782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95812847|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER|||||||0.571||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.571
95812848|NCT05819398|191597150|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.232
95860996|NCT03563183|191680581|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|98.7||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||98.7|86.6|
95784630|NCT01763203|191539783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95812849|NCT05819398|191597151|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|20.1|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||20.1|-39.2|
95957374|NCT02831998|191886635|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product upper bounds must be less than 0.5.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.083||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and the predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.083|-0.188|
95957375|NCT02831998|191886635|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.396|2.858||||||Groin 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.858|2.396|
95784631|NCT01763203|191539784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95784632|NCT01763203|191539785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95784633|NCT01763203|191539786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
95784634|NCT01763203|191539787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.74
95784635|NCT01763203|191539788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
95784636|NCT01763203|191539789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95784637|NCT01763203|191539790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95784638|NCT01763203|191539791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.77
95784639|NCT01763203|191539792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95784640|NCT01763203|191539793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95784641|NCT01763203|191539794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95784642|NCT01763203|191539795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95784643|NCT01763203|191539796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95784644|NCT02256917|191539797|OTHER|Confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test.|ABR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|5.79||A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|one-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.96-5.93|||5.79|4.06|
95784645|NCT02256917|191539797|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Negative Binomial regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|11.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.86|||Negative binomial regression model|||||18.86|7.50|<0.0001
95784646|NCT02256917|191539797|OTHER|Reduction of the annualized total bleeding rate (ABR) observed in the GENA-01 study vs. GENA-21B analyzed with a Poisson regression model including a correction for overdispersion.|Rate ratio|10.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|16.8|||Poisson regression model|||||16.80|6.12|<0.0001
95784647|NCT02256917|191539798|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean spontaneous ABR in patients with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|3.87|||One-sided one-sample Poisso|||||3.87|2.48|
95999438|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.99|0.74|
95784648|NCT02256917|191539799|OTHER|A respective confirmative one-sided one-sample Poisson-test was used to demonstrate if the mean ABR in patients with 2x/week prophylaxis or less with individually tailored prophylaxis is at least 50% below the mean ABR rate in the GENA-01 trial.|ABR|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.39|||One-sided one-sample Poisson-test||A confidence interval of 97.5% for confirmative analysis was also used - the respective upper and lower limit CIs were 3.76-6.60|||6.39|3.90|
95957376|NCT02831998|191886636|NON_INFERIORITY|Investigational product average treatment effect upper bounds cannot be more than 0.5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.065||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||0.065|-0.102|
95784649|NCT02756819|191539810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784650|NCT02756819|191539811|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change at Month 6 relative to Baseline.|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784651|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784652|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784653|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784654|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784655|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon test|P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)||||||<0.001
95784656|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784657|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784658|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784659|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784660|NCT02756819|191539814|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95957377|NCT02831998|191886636|SUPERIORITY|Investigational product lower bounds must be greater than 1.2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.766|2.053||||||Abdomen 10 minutes Average Treatment Effect, calculated using a linear regression model for each body site, was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 CFU/cm\^2 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.053|1.766|
95999439|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
95784661|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Overweight)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784662|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class I)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784663|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class II)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784664|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Obesity class III)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784665|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Normal glucose metabolism)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784666|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Impaired glucose tolerance)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784667|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - No)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784668|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Diabetes Mellitus - Yes)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784669|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Neither diabetes mellitus nor metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784670|NCT02756819|191539815|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was reported for Change from baseline at Month 6 (Metabolic syndrome)|Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95784671|NCT01301079|191539817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann-Whitney|||||||0.113
95784672|NCT01301079|191539818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946
95784673|NCT01301079|191539819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
95784674|NCT01301079|191539820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
95784675|NCT01301079|191539821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
95784676|NCT01301079|191539822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.221
95784677|NCT01301079|191539823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
95784678|NCT01301079|191539824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.386
95784679|NCT01301079|191539825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.499
95784680|NCT01301079|191539826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.909
95784681|NCT01301079|191539827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737
95957378|NCT00002597|191886637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Null hypothesis: 8-year OS rate of 60% radiation therapy (RT) alone vs. 67% with hormone therapy. The study was designed with 90% power to detect a 7-percentage- point absolute difference in the 8-year survival rate, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 significance level, requiring 1980 patients and 716 deaths for definitive analysis.||1.35|1.01|0.0309
95957379|NCT00002597|191886638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.74|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.74|1.27|0.001
95784682|NCT01301079|191539828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.872
95784683|NCT01301079|191539829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598
95784684|NCT01301079|191539830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.485
95784685|NCT01301079|191539831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.744
95784686|NCT01301079|191539832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.540
95784687|NCT01301079|191539833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
95784688|NCT01301079|191539834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.586
95784689|NCT01301079|191539835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
95784690|NCT01301079|191539836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
95784691|NCT01301079|191539837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545
95784692|NCT01301079|191539838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
95784693|NCT01301079|191539839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
95784694|NCT01301079|191539840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
95784695|NCT01301079|191539841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
95784696|NCT01301079|191539842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.313
95812850|NCT05819398|191597151|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|7.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||7.6|-52.0|
95812851|NCT05819398|191597151|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|21.6|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||21.6|-39.1|
95812852|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER||Difference of least square means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.4|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||9.4|-4.5|
95784697|NCT01301079|191539843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.611
95784698|NCT01301079|191539844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.312
95784699|NCT01301079|191539845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
95784700|NCT01301079|191539846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
95784701|NCT01301079|191539847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
95784702|NCT01301079|191539848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.422
95784703|NCT01301079|191539849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.500
95784704|NCT01301079|191539850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.435
95784705|NCT01301079|191539851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
95784706|NCT01301079|191539852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557
95784707|NCT02700425|191539853|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
95784708|NCT02700425|191539853|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Test was two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) and STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed rank test||The sample size was estimated based on the primary endpoint of echocardiographic response to test the hypothesis that an absolute 10% greater improvement in LVEF would be observed with His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing, with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 6-months as median (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.001
95784709|NCT02700425|191539854|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
95784710|NCT02700425|191539854|OTHER|paired t-test||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome of His Bundle Pacing was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.002
95784711|NCT02700425|191539855|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.62||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular hospitalization or death by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.62
95784712|NCT02700425|191539856|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of Coronary Sinus Pacing arm was presented at baseline as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.09
95784713|NCT02700425|191539856|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|Wilcoxon sign rank test||NYHA functional class of the His Bundle Pacing arm was presented at baseline and 12 months as medians (interquartile ranges) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon sign rank test.||||0.32
95812853|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||6.3|-7.5|
95812854|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.0|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||10.0|-3.9|
95812855|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER|||||||0.887||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Linear model|No assumptions.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.887
95812856|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER|||||||0.902||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Exponential: model|Assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.902
95812857|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER|||||||0.866||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod Emax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.866
95957380|NCT00002597|191886639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.93|1.17|0.0013
95812858|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER|||||||0.825||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod SigEmax model|Assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and 25% of the maximum effect is achieved at the low dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.825
95812859|NCT05819398|191597152|OTHER|||||||0.634||||||Adjusted p-value from multiple contrast test.|MCPMod BetaMod model|Assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at the medium dose and the maximum effect is achieved at the 70% of the high dose.||Multiple comparison and modelling techniques (MCPMod) was used to evaluate several possible dose response models (patterns: Linear, Exponential, Emax, SigEmax, BetaMod), and to identify the best-fitting model or subset of models.||||0.634
95812860|NCT05819398|191597153|OTHER||Difference of least square means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|15.3|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab low dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||15.3|-6.1|
95860997|NCT03563183|191680581|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|100.0||||||VE against confirmed HZ BOI and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are presented by frailty status in the mTVC.||100|62.6|
95784714|NCT02700425|191539857|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with His Bundle Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.35
95784715|NCT02700425|191539857|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Quality of Life was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) for patients with Coronary Sinus Pacing based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.07
95784716|NCT02700425|191539858|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first cardiovascular rehospitalization by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
95784717|NCT02700425|191539859|OTHER|Log rank test of a survival analysis||||||0.14||||||P-value did not need to be adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Log Rank|||Primary outcome of time to first treated VT/VF by His Bundle Pacing compared to Coronary Sinus Pacing presented median and interquartile range in years based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with a log rank test.||||0.14
95784718|NCT00368459|191539883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||For this pilot trial, we did not anticipate power to detect significant, clinically-meaningful between-group differences of the magnitude provided by FDA-approved AD therapies over a 12 month treatment period, but we specified that we would report trends (alpha \<0.1) as a guide to future effectiveness studies.||||>0.1
95784719|NCT00368459|191539884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784720|NCT00368459|191539885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784721|NCT00368459|191539886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784722|NCT00368459|191539887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784723|NCT00368459|191539888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784724|NCT00368459|191539889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784725|NCT00368459|191539890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Favoring placebo, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95784726|NCT00368459|191539891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784727|NCT00368459|191539892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.1
95784728|NCT04957212|191539896|EQUIVALENCE|We used an equivalence margin of 0.2 for the primary endpoint.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.16|0.54
95784729|NCT04957212|191539897|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||Chi-squared|||||0.06|-0.21|0.26
95784730|NCT04957212|191539898|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95784731|NCT04957212|191539899|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95784732|NCT05259917|191539905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
95784733|NCT05259917|191539905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0013
95784734|NCT05259917|191539906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0036
95784735|NCT05259917|191539906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0032
95784736|NCT05259917|191539907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 300 mg vs Placebo"||||0.0022
95999440|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
95784737|NCT05259917|191539907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Gehan score transformation test|||"Gehan score transformation test:~KVD900 600 mg vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
95784738|NCT03517449|191539929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.66|0.47|<0.0001
95784739|NCT03517449|191539930|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Log Rank||Regression, Cox method|||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
95784740|NCT03517449|191539931|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|22.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||22.9|11.5|<0.0001
95784741|NCT03403621|191540000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.42
95784742|NCT03403621|191540000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.72
95784743|NCT03403621|191540000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.51
95784744|NCT03403621|191540000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.58
95784745|NCT03403621|191540001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.03
95784746|NCT03403621|191540001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.08
95784747|NCT03403621|191540001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.02
95784748|NCT03403621|191540001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.007
95784749|NCT03403621|191540002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.21
95784750|NCT03403621|191540002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.18
95784751|NCT03403621|191540002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 2 weeks||||0.33
95784752|NCT03403621|191540002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus 4 weeks||||0.5
95957381|NCT00002597|191886640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.06|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.06|1.03|0.035
95957382|NCT00002597|191886641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.04|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||2.04|1.48|<0.001
95957383|NCT00002597|191886642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.85|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||1.85|1.21|<0.001
95999441|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.45|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.31|
95784753|NCT01078298|191540015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.21|2.16|<0.0001
95784754|NCT01078298|191540016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 24, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||4.10|1.56|0.0001
95784755|NCT01078298|191540016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 9 through 52, odds ratio and p-value were calculated from logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.98|1.40|0.0011
95784756|NCT01078298|191540017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 12, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||5.78|2.53|<0.0001
95784757|NCT01078298|191540017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 24, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.33|1.40|0.0004
95784758|NCT01078298|191540017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||For Week 52, odds ratio and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.28|0.0020
95957384|NCT00002597|191886643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.16|||Gray's test||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Gray's test was used to compare cumulative incidence between treatment arms (1-sided significance level of 0.025) and the Fine-Gray model was used to calculate hazard ratios.||3.16|1.34|<0.001
95957385|NCT00002597|191886644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||Log Rank||Reference level = Hormone Therapy + Radiation Therapy|Treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test (one-sided significance level of 0.025).||1.56|1.22|<0.001
95784759|NCT01078298|191540018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center and cohort.||3.08|1.26|0.0027
95784760|NCT01738191|191540031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||two sided|Global Statistical Test|df=28||The primary comparison between ATM and placebo used O'Brien's Global Statistical Test (GST) to analyze change from baseline to 10 weeks for the set of neuropsychological measures included in the primary efficacy outcome.||||0.25
95784761|NCT04811664|191540039|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|80.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||80.3|-14.1|
95784762|NCT04811664|191540042|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.3|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||92.3|-9.5|
95784763|NCT04811664|191540043|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy, (1-HR) *100%|41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|74.9|||||"Immediate Vaccination compared to Standard of care (reference). Wald 95% CI."|Cox model on the calendar time scale, stratified by site and adjusted for sex, residence, team sport participation, mask wearing and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk score. Outside vaccination censoring.||74.9|-37.7|
95860998|NCT03563183|191680581|OTHER|VE against the BOI due to HZ (VE BOI ) was defined as the relative reduction in the BOI score in the vaccine group as compared with that in the placebo group and calculated as 1 - relative risk (i.e., 1- the HZ BOI score in the vaccine group divided by the HZ BOI score in the placebo group).|Vaccine Efficacy rate|100.0||||||||||||||VE against the BOI due to confirmed HZ. The 95% Confidence Interval was not calculated as there were no subjects reported with a confirmed Zoster episode in the Unknown-HZ/su Group.||||
95957386|NCT00002597|191886645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95957387|NCT00839332|191886647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Posterior Probability|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Inference about survival was made using a Bayesian posterior probability. The combination treatment would have been considered superior to gemcitabine alone if the posterior probability of superiority exceeded 0.8.|||||
95999442|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.59|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.40|
95784764|NCT02717442|191540057|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.957||Study week was based on each 4-week interval and was modeled as a categorical variable, and an offset for the log of the number of diary entries recorded for each 4-week interval post-baseline was included for each subject.|Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.957|0.453|=0.029
95784765|NCT02717442|191540058|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.896|||Regression, Linear|||The primary efficacy endpoint was compared between OTO-104 and placebo at the 2-tailed 0.05 alpha level using a generalized Poisson linear mixed model. The model included fixed effects for randomized treatment group, sex, study week, a treatment group by study week interaction, and the count of lead-in period DVD standardized to 28 days as a covariate.||0.896|0.388|=0.014
95784766|NCT02774005|191540065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.352|3.884|||Wald Chi-square|||||3.884|1.352|0.0021
95784767|NCT02774005|191540066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|2.918|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||2.918|0.929|0.0873
95784768|NCT02774005|191540067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.323||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|25.912|||Waldi-Chi-Square|||||25.912|2.339|0.0005
95784769|NCT02379273|191540071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.||||<0.001
95784770|NCT02379273|191540071|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral CNC data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95784771|NCT02379273|191540072|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the unilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95812861|NCT05819398|191597153|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|5.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab medium dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||5.5|-15.9|
95860999|NCT00838513|191680617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
95957388|NCT01064856|191886757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson's chi-square|||||||0.006
95784772|NCT02379273|191540072|SUPERIORITY|A Friedman repeated-measures ANOVA on ranks was applied to the bilateral AzBio data with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95784773|NCT02379273|191540073|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95784774|NCT02379273|191540074|SUPERIORITY|A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was applied to the data, with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Holm-Sidak method.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.||||||<0.001
95784775|NCT02379273|191540075|SUPERIORITY|Pre- and postoperative mean scores were compared based on Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance with follow-up pairwise comparisons based on the Tukey Test.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95784776|NCT01402986|191540077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.31|||Poisson regression|||The 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 but less than or equal to \[=\<\] 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.31|0.67|0.709
95784777|NCT01402986|191540077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.46|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \> 2 but =\< 6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.46|0.71|0.904
95784778|NCT01402986|191540094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.51|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.51|0.26|0.293
95784779|NCT01402986|191540094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.44|||Poisson regression|||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status (atopic/non-atopic), chronic OCS use (presence vs absence) and geographical region as the covariates.||1.44|0.27|0.270
95784780|NCT01402986|191540095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.57|0.257
95957389|NCT01064856|191886759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||<0.001
95957390|NCT01064856|191886760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
95957391|NCT01064856|191886761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|The P-value was based on an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline with treatment as a factor.||||||0.051
95812862|NCT05819398|191597153|OTHER||Difference of least square means|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|18.5|||||Difference = (least square mean Spesolimab high dose) - (least square mean Placebo)|The MMRM included fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, TNFi status at baseline, categorical baseline dT count and fixed continuous effect of baseline of outcome measures at each visit. Visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix for the within trial participant variability and all visits with planned measurements of the outcome variable as well as all dose groups were included in the model.||18.5|-3.3|
95812863|NCT00285779|191597155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0978
95957392|NCT03469492|191886901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
95957393|NCT03469492|191886905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.266
95957394|NCT03469492|191886908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95957395|NCT03469492|191886909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95957396|NCT01726049|191886911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-4.5|
95784781|NCT01402986|191540095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.56|0.225
95784782|NCT01402986|191540096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.37|0.538
95784783|NCT01402986|191540096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.37|0.561
95784784|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.17|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.17|0.46|0.190
95784785|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.61|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= median||1.61|0.56|0.856
95784786|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.81|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.81|0.71|0.602
95784787|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.5|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< median||1.50|0.55|0.703
95784788|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.28|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.28|0.58|0.455
95784789|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th Percentile||1.57|0.66|0.929
95784790|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.51|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||2.51|0.63|0.507
95784791|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.89|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 25th Percentile||1.89|0.44|0.805
95784792|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||1.75|0.44|0.716
95784793|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.51||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.43|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th Percentile||3.43|0.66|0.328
95784794|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Poission regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.41|0.64|0.804
95812864|NCT00285779|191597156|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
95812865|NCT00285779|191597157|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
95957397|NCT01726049|191886911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.3||||||||-2.3|-7.1|
95957398|NCT01726049|191886912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.9|
95957399|NCT01726049|191886912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.3|
95957400|NCT01726049|191886913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.9|
95957401|NCT01726049|191886913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.5|
95784795|NCT01402986|191540097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline serum periostin \< 75th Percentile||1.05|0.47|0.088
95784796|NCT01402986|191540098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.29|0.50|0.365
95784797|NCT01402986|191540098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.68|0.56|0.922
95784798|NCT01402986|191540098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.84|0.67|0.685
95784799|NCT01402986|191540098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.70|0.66|0.813
95784800|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.56|0.335
95784801|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=150 cells/mcgL||1.41|0.54|0.586
95784802|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.36||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.52|0.73|0.331
95784803|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.41||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.71|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<150 cells/mcgL||2.71|0.73|0.311
95784804|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.35|0.48|0.414
95784805|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||2.36|0.68|0.463
95784806|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.68|0.67|0.793
95784807|NCT01402986|191540099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||1.22|0.49|0.264
95784808|NCT01402986|191540100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.32|0.33|0.245
95957402|NCT01726049|191886914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.9|
95784809|NCT01402986|191540100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.54|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||1.54|0.37|0.438
95812866|NCT00285779|191597157|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.34
95812867|NCT00285779|191597157|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
95812868|NCT00285779|191597157|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.22
95812869|NCT00285779|191597158|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
95812870|NCT00285779|191597158|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
95812871|NCT00285779|191597159|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
95957403|NCT01726049|191886914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||||||||-1.8|-5.2|
95957404|NCT02161406|191886941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
95957405|NCT02161406|191886942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
95784810|NCT01402986|191540100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.57|0.66|0.947
95784811|NCT01402986|191540100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.59|0.59|0.916
95784812|NCT01402986|191540101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.56|0.52|0.723
95784813|NCT01402986|191540101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.86|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=60%||1.86|0.60|0.852
95784814|NCT01402986|191540101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.23|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.23|0.60|0.409
95784815|NCT01402986|191540101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1% predicted \<=80%||1.58|0.72|0.744
95784816|NCT01402986|191540102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.52|0.58|0.802
95784817|NCT01402986|191540102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.00|0.36|0.050
95784818|NCT01402986|191540102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||1.56|0.56|0.792
95784819|NCT01402986|191540102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.39||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.38|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||2.38|0.81|0.231
95784820|NCT01402986|191540103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.98|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||0.98|0.06|0.046
95784821|NCT01402986|191540103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \>=Median||1.48|0.15|0.197
95784822|NCT01402986|191540103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.18||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||2.79|0.50|0.708
95784823|NCT01402986|191540103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.57|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline Serum Periostin \< Median||3.57|0.48|0.594
95784824|NCT01402986|191540104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||7.67|0.14|0.975
95784825|NCT01402986|191540104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>=12%||6.67|0.41|0.473
95812872|NCT00285779|191597159|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||>0.9999
95812873|NCT00285779|191597159|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.063
95812874|NCT00285779|191597159|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||>0.9999
95812875|NCT00285779|191597160|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.063
95812876|NCT00285779|191597160|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
95812877|NCT00285779|191597160|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.031
95784826|NCT01402986|191540104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.14|0.21|0.099
95784827|NCT01402986|191540104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.36|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline FEV1 reversibility \<12%||1.36|0.13|0.148
95784828|NCT01402986|191540105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.19|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||2.19|0.31|0.698
95784829|NCT01402986|191540105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.7|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 high||1.70|0.18|0.299
95784830|NCT01402986|191540105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||1.34|0.05|0.105
95784831|NCT01402986|191540105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Th2 Low||2.47|0.20|0.576
95784832|NCT01402986|191540106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.25|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.25|0.19|0.133
95784833|NCT01402986|191540106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.46||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \>=300 cells/mcgL||1.67|0.13|0.241
95957406|NCT02161406|191886943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95784834|NCT01402986|191540106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.84|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.84|0.12|0.510
95784835|NCT01402986|191540106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.85|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Baseline eosinophil count \<300 cells/mcgL||2.85|0.19|0.661
95784836|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.79||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|13.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||13.79|-0.21|0.057
95784837|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.57||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|7.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||7.68|-6.54|0.874
95784838|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.37||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.95|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||13.95|0.80|0.028
95784839|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.09||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|7.66|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||7.66|-5.48|0.745
95812878|NCT00285779|191597160|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.32
95957407|NCT02161406|191886944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95957408|NCT02161406|191886945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95784840|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.12||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|12.58|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||12.58|1.66|0.011
95784841|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.48||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.97|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||4.97|-5.93|0.863
95784842|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.24||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|16.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||16.27|-3.80|0.221
95812879|NCT00285779|191597161|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
95812880|NCT00285779|191597161|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.25
95812881|NCT00285779|191597161|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
95812882|NCT00285779|191597161|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
95957409|NCT02161406|191886946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95957410|NCT02161406|191886947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95957411|NCT02161406|191886948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95957412|NCT02161406|191886949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95957413|NCT02161406|191886950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95957414|NCT02161406|191886951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
95957415|NCT02161406|191886952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
95957416|NCT02161406|191886953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
95957417|NCT02161406|191886954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95784843|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|19.07|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||19.07|-1.91|0.108
95784844|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|9.89||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|21.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||21.35|-1.57|0.090
95784845|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.7||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||12.59|-11.19|0.908
95784846|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.52||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.64|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||11.64|1.41|0.013
95784847|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.23||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||6.29|-3.84|0.635
95784848|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|15.94|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||15.94|1.84|0.014
95784849|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|11.02|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||11.02|-3.19|0.280
95784850|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|3.22||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.22|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||9.22|-2.78|0.292
95784851|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.18||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.64|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||4.64|-6.99|0.691
95861000|NCT00838513|191680618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
95784852|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|8.83||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|14.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||14.81|2.85|0.004
95784853|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.25||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|10.43|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||10.43|-1.92|0.177
95784854|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.05||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|14.5|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||14.50|-2.39|0.159
95784855|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.72||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|7.18|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||7.18|-8.63|0.857
95784856|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|13.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|22.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||22.22|5.28|0.002
95861001|NCT00838513|191680619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
95957418|NCT02161406|191886955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95957419|NCT02161406|191886956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
95957420|NCT02161406|191886957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
95784857|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|5.23||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|14.02|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||14.02|-3.56|0.243
95784858|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|4.37||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.24|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||10.24|-1.50|0.144
95784859|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.46|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil cou|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μ||6.46|-5.01|0.804
95784860|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|11.19||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|21.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||21.23|1.15|0.029
95957421|NCT02161406|191886958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95957422|NCT02161406|191886959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95957423|NCT02161406|191886960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
95957424|NCT02161406|191886961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95957425|NCT02161406|191886962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95957426|NCT02161406|191886963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test adjusted for duration of dcSSc. Multiple imputation was used to address missing follow-up data in 5 components of CRISS.||||||0.03
95784861|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.72||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|10.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||10.62|-9.19|0.887
95784862|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.59|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||12.59|2.76|0.002
95784863|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.79||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.74|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||7.74|-2.15|0.268
95784864|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.82||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|13.01|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||13.01|2.64|0.003
95784865|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|2.42||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.62|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||7.62|-2.78|0.361
95784866|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|6.34||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|15.75|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||15.75|-3.06|0.185
95784867|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.34|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||9.34|-9.50|0.986
95957427|NCT02161406|191886964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1769
95957428|NCT02161406|191886965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9075
95957429|NCT02161406|191886966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5831
95957430|NCT02161406|191886967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0193
95999443|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.96|0.58|
95999444|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.67|
95784868|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.87||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|16.44|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||16.44|-14.70|0.912
95784869|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-1.46||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.76|14.84|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||14.84|-17.76|0.860
95784870|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|7.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|12.36|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||12.36|2.76|0.002
95784871|NCT01402986|191540107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|1.28||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|6.06|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||6.06|-3.51|0.601
95784872|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.08|-0.57|0.145
95784873|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.05||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.38|-0.28|0.759
95784874|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.35|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.35|-0.38|0.936
95957431|NCT02161406|191886968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0097
95957432|NCT02161406|191886969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0751
95999445|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.37|
95784875|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.28||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.08|-0.64|0.127
95784876|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.13||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.14|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.14|-0.41|0.343
95784877|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin\>= 25th percentile||0.27|-0.29|0.928
95784878|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.23||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.28|-0.74|0.374
95784879|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.29||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.22|-0.81|0.259
95784880|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
95784881|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
95784882|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
95784883|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
95784884|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.24||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.11|-0.59|0.181
95784885|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.25||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.10|-0.60|0.161
95784886|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
95784887|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
95784888|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.22||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μL||0.08|-0.52|0.154
95957433|NCT02161406|191886970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4927|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4927
95784889|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 150 cells/μ||0.13|-0.48|0.271
95784890|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.36|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.36|-0.51|0.725
95784891|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.28|-0.53|0.559
95812883|NCT00285779|191597162|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.63
95812884|NCT00285779|191597162|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.38
95957434|NCT02161406|191886971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1604
95957435|NCT02161406|191886972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
95957436|NCT02161406|191886973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1679
95957437|NCT02161406|191886974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2906|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2906
95784892|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||-0.08|-0.87|0.019
95784893|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.21|-0.61|0.348
95784894|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.03||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.29|-0.35|0.855
95784895|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.2||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.11|-0.50|0.203
95784896|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.44||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.01|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.01|-0.89|0.055
95784897|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.08|-0.82|0.104
95784898|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.23|-0.37|0.652
95784899|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.32|-0.28|0.905
95784900|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.10|-0.49|0.198
95784901|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.18||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.11|-0.47|0.226
95784902|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.14||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.28|-0.56|0.513
95957438|NCT01929876|191886986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least squares means|316.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|268.1|374.0|||||LS means from analysis of variance (ANOVA), calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale (that is, geometric LS mean).|Ratio of Least squares (LS) means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent).||374.0|268.1|
95784903|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.42|-0.43|0.974
95784904|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.23|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.23|-0.97|0.226
95784905|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.15||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.75|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.75|-0.44|0.613
95784906|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.17||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.09|-0.43|0.198
95784907|NCT01402986|191540108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.19||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.08|-0.45|0.165
95784908|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.60|-0.13|0.211
95784909|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= median||0.53|-0.21|0.397
95784910|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.56|||Repeated Measure Model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.56|-0.18|0.315
95784911|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.63|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< median||0.63|-0.11|0.166
95784912|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.262||95.0|-0.13|0.47|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.47|-0.13|0.262
95784913|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.14||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>= 25th percentile||0.44|-0.17|0.379
95784914|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.25||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.81|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.81|-0.32|0.387
95784915|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.84|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 25th percentile||0.84|-0.26|0.303
95784916|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.37||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.11|-0.84|0.127
95784917|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \>=75th percentile||0.42|-0.56|0.775
95784918|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.1||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.19|-0.38|0.512
95784919|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.12||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline serum periostin \< 75th percentile||0.16|-0.40|0.404
95784920|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.69|-0.06|0.102
95784921|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.3||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 high||0.68|-0.08|0.116
95784922|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.25|-0.47|0.540
95784923|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.07||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Repeated measure model|||Th2 low||0.27|-0.42|0.674
95784924|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.15|0.295
95784925|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.16||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.49|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>=150 cells/μL||0.49|-0.17|0.342
95784926|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.18||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.60|-0.24|0.406
95957439|NCT01929876|191886987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|672.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|563.7|801.9|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|Only participants with PK parameter data from both Period 1 Day 1 and Period 2 Day 4 (n=11) were included for statistical analyses.||801.9|563.7|
95784927|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.38||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 150 cells/μL||0.79|-0.03|0.069
95784928|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.19||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.62|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.62|-0.23|0.371
95784929|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.07||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.51|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \>= 300 cells/μL||0.51|-0.37|0.766
95784930|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.57|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.57|-0.09|0.147
95784931|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.35||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline peripheral blood eosinophil count \< 300 cells/μL||0.68|0.03|0.031
95784932|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.09|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||1.09|0.10|0.020
95784933|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.29||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \>= 12%||0.77|-0.18|0.226
95784934|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.33|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.33|-0.31|0.964
95784935|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.42|||Repeated measure model|||Baseline FEV1 reversibility \< 12%||0.42|-0.22|0.533
95957440|NCT01929876|191886989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|583.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.2|698.2|||||Ratio of LS means (Cobimetinib with Itraconazole/Cobimetinib alone) of natural log-transformed parameter (expressed as a percent). LS means from ANOVA, calculated by transforming the natural log means back to the linear scale.|||698.2|488.2|
95784936|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.17||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.5|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.50|-0.15|0.292
95784937|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.59|||Repeated measure model|||2 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.59|-0.05|0.097
95784938|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.67|-0.18|0.260
95812885|NCT00285779|191597162|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.38
95784939|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||Repeated measure model|||\> 2 but \< 6 asthma exacerbations in the past year||0.53|-0.33|0.648
95784940|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.28||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.93|-0.37|0.398
95784941|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|-0.32||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.32|||Repeated measure model|||Chronic OCS use||0.32|-0.95|0.327
95784942|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.52|-0.05|0.105
95784943|NCT01402986|191540109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS-mean|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.6|||Repeated measure model|||Without chronic OCS use||0.60|0.03|0.030
95784944|NCT01402986|191540110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.44|0.62|0.803
95784945|NCT01402986|191540110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.35|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Atopic asthma||1.35|0.52|0.457
95784946|NCT01402986|191540110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.71||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.27|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.27|0.40|0.250
95784947|NCT01402986|191540110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Non-atopic asthma||1.74|0.66|0.794
95784948|NCT01402986|191540111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.46|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.46|0.59|0.614
95784949|NCT01402986|191540111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.74|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|With chronic OCS use||2.74|0.61|0.506
95812886|NCT00285779|191597162|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.50
95812887|NCT00285779|191597163|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.031
95812888|NCT00285779|191597163|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.094
95784950|NCT01402986|191540111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.243||95.0|0.53|1.18|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.18|0.53|0.243
95784951|NCT01402986|191540111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.34|||Poisson regression||The 95% CI for rate ratio were estimated from the Poisson regression with treatment group, age, gender, number of exacerbations in past year (2 vs \>2 but =\<6), atopic asthma status, chronic OCS use and geographical region as the covariates.|Without chronic OCS use||1.34|0.57|0.531
95784952|NCT03749109|191540138|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.74||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|13.94|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.94|-10.45|0.78
95784953|NCT03749109|191540138|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|3.35||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|9.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||9.59|-2.89|0.29
95784954|NCT03749109|191540138|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.33||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|10.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||10.99|-10.33|0.95
95784955|NCT03749109|191540139|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.99||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|22.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||22.82|-36.80|0.65
95784956|NCT03749109|191540139|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.13||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|20.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||20.51|-22.77|0.92
95784957|NCT03749109|191540139|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.92||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|29.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||29.10|-40.94|0.74
95861002|NCT00838513|191680620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95957441|NCT01343251|191887015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95957442|NCT01343251|191887016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95957443|NCT01343251|191887017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 1 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95957444|NCT01343251|191887017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 2 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95957445|NCT01343251|191887017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 3 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95957446|NCT01343251|191887017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SF-36 Test 4 Total Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95957447|NCT01343251|191887018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95957448|NCT01343251|191887019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95957449|NCT03119688|191887080|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-Inferiority margin is set at 0.25. The upper limit of the 90% CI is less than this and hence NI is met.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.077||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1707|0.0169||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis (non-inferiority setting) is that the population mean dryness for Test minus Baxter Sterile Water (negative control) is at least 0.25.||0.0169|-0.1707|0.1769
95957450|NCT03119688|191887080|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2565|0.4441||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.4441|0.2565|<.0001
95784958|NCT03749109|191540140|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.82|0.38|0.95
95784959|NCT03749109|191540140|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||2.17|0.14|0.39
95784960|NCT03749109|191540141|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Endometrioma||2.65|0.19|0.60
95784961|NCT03749109|191540141|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Adenomyosis||1.79|0.07|0.21
95784962|NCT03749109|191540142|OTHER||Rate Ratio|2.53||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|8.39|||Negative-binomial regression|||Endometrioma - Disappearing Lesions||8.39|0.76|0.13
95784963|NCT03749109|191540142|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.41|||Negative-binomial regression|||Adenomyosis - Disappearing Lesions||5.41|0.04|0.56
95784964|NCT03749109|191540143|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.23||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|13.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||13.23|-12.78|0.97
95784965|NCT03749109|191540143|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.72||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||5.07|-3.63|0.74
95784966|NCT03749109|191540144|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|10.13||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|35.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||||35.00|-14.74|0.42
95784967|NCT03749109|191540145|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma||2.38|-0.20|0.10
95784968|NCT03749109|191540145|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.28||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE||1.58|-1.02|0.67
95784969|NCT03749109|191540145|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.32||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis||1.71|-1.06|0.64
95784970|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.21||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 1||1.44|-1.02|0.73
95784971|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.42||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||1.82|-0.97|0.54
95784972|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 3||0.85|-1.86|0.46
95812889|NCT00285779|191597163|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.039
95812890|NCT00285779|191597163|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon Paired|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.19
95812891|NCT00285779|191597164|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.26
95812892|NCT00285779|191597164|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.55
95812893|NCT00285779|191597164|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.18
95812894|NCT00285779|191597164|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.13
95812895|NCT00285779|191597165|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.51
95812896|NCT00285779|191597165|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.47
95957451|NCT03119688|191887080|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3333|0.5211||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects; participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.5211|0.3333|<.0001
95957452|NCT03119688|191887080|SUPERIORITY|This is a superiority test setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.065||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0287|0.1592||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with change from baseline in examiner assessment on dryness as response and treatment, site as fixed effects;participant as random effect|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors first named treatment.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in population mean dryness is zero.||0.1592|-0.0287|0.2518
95957453|NCT00570921|191887125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Time to Progression|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.1||||||We hypothesized that median time to progression (TTP) in our trial will increase from 3.7 months for the historical fulvestrant-only control to 7.0 months on the combination of fulvestrant and everolimus in the current trial. A sample of 40 evaluable patients was calculated to show the increase in TTP with 80% power and 5% significance level based on a two sided test of differences in survival times between historical controls and treated group.||12.1|1.9|
95957454|NCT00570921|191887126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate Percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|29.83|||||Percentage of Patients with a complete or partial response with 95% exact binomial proportion confidence interval|||29.83|3.63|
95812897|NCT00285779|191597165|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.087
95812898|NCT00285779|191597165|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.86
95812899|NCT00285779|191597166|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.033
95812900|NCT00285779|191597166|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t test|||Week 12 versus baseline||||0.069
95812901|NCT00285779|191597166|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.015
95812902|NCT00285779|191597166|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t test|||Week 24 versus baseline||||0.026
95812903|NCT02777086|191597184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||3-month outcome measures were compared between the StaySafe and Comparison groups controlling for the baseline measure using generalized linear models.||||<.001
95812904|NCT05067335|191597230|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|10.39|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||10.39|8.34|<0.001
95812905|NCT05067335|191597233|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|3.54|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||3.54|2.18|<0.001
95812906|NCT05067335|191597234|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM(Romosozumab - Placebo)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.38|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model was used and included treatment group, Baseline DXA BMD value, machine type (hologic or lunar) at Baseline, age strata group (stratification factor), region, and interaction of Baseline DXA BMD value and machine type at Baseline as independent variables.||4.38|2.58|<0.001
95812907|NCT00474903|191597279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0955|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0955
95812908|NCT00474903|191597279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
95812909|NCT02621892|191597281|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.31|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.02
95812910|NCT02621892|191597283|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.86|||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.008
95812911|NCT02621892|191597284|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95812912|NCT02621892|191597285|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95812913|NCT02621892|191597286|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.003
95812914|NCT02735200|191597287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||the p value correspond to the pretreatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95812915|NCT02735200|191597287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value corresponds to the post treatment time frame.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95812916|NCT00859833|191597298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for equivalence: SD for adenosine = 0.59, SD for regadenoson = 0.92, true difference between groups = 0.19. With n=28, DOF = 46. Power for equivalence (with alpha = 0.05) = 0.98585.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6041|0.2241|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) is not different when measured with adenosine or regadenoson in patients across a broad range of body sizes.||0.2241|-0.6041|0.3617
95812917|NCT02493764|191597299|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \< 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|1.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.2|-11.9|<0.001
95957455|NCT00570921|191887127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with clinical benefit|48.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|66.94|||||Percentage of patients that had a complete response, partial response, or stable disease for 24 weeks or more as defined by RECIST v1.0.|||66.94|30.15|
95957456|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.791||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.203|-0.378|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.378|-1.203|0.0002
95957457|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.263|-0.439|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.439|-1.263|<.0001
95957458|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.954|-1.135|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-1.135|-1.954|<.0001
95957459|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.208|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.639|-0.778|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.778|-1.639|<.0001
95999446|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.57|
95784973|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.53||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||2.05|-0.99|0.49
95784974|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 1||1.30|-1.32|0.99
95784975|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.17||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||1.71|-1.38|0.83
95999447|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.85|
95812918|NCT02493764|191597300|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in FCR (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was \> 12.5 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in FCR|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.2|||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided alpha level of 0.025 was used to declare significance.|Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in FCR||13.2|-3.2|<0.001
95812919|NCT02493764|191597301|OTHER|Difference in % with AE vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % with AE|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3||||||||4.3|-7.7|
95784976|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.74||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 3||0.63|-2.11|0.28
95784977|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.75||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||2.07|-0.57|0.26
95784978|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 1||2.31|-0.49|0.19
95812920|NCT02493764|191597302|OTHER|Difference in % discontinuing vs PIP/TAZ|Difference in % discontinuing|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-7.1|
95812921|NCT02493764|191597303|OTHER||Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.6|-10.9|
95812922|NCT02493764|191597304|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mortality (IMI/REL minus PIP/TAZ) was ≥ 10 percentage points.|Adjusted difference in ACM|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.7|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||1.7|-11.0|
95812923|NCT02493764|191597305|OTHER|Adjusted difference in ACM|Adjusted difference in ACM|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in all-cause mortality||3.8|-10.2|
95812924|NCT02493764|191597306|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|7.8|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.8|-11.3|
95812925|NCT02493764|191597307|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||5.5|-9.8|
95812926|NCT02493764|191597308|OTHER|Difference in favorable clinical response|Adjusted difference in FCR|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||18.4|-4.6|
95812927|NCT02493764|191597309|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-8.1|
95812928|NCT02493764|191597310|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|7.5|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.5|-14.3|
95957460|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.679|-0.811|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-0.811|-1.679|<.0001
95957461|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.846|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.273|-1.418|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 5b (including all time points).||-1.418|-2.273|<.0001
95957462|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.312|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.2% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.312|-2.080|<.0001
95957463|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.232|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.4% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.232|-2.001|<.0001
95957464|NCT03231969|191887133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.387|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference (95%CI): Bilastine 0.6% arm minus Bilastine 0% (Vehicle) arm at Visit 6 (including all time points).||-1.630|-2.387|<.0001
95784979|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.07||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||1.58|-1.45|0.93
95784980|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.13||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 3||1.32|-1.58|0.85
95784981|NCT03749109|191540146|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||1.69|-1.68|0.99
95784982|NCT03749109|191540147|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.97|39.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 2||39.27|-53.97|0.75
95784983|NCT03749109|191540147|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|17.31||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.41|60.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Endometrioma at cycle 4||60.04|-25.41|0.42
95784984|NCT03749109|191540147|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-17.66||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|30.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 2||30.98|-66.30|0.47
95784985|NCT03749109|191540147|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|25.61||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|72.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||DIE at cycle 4||72.27|-21.05|0.27
95784986|NCT03749109|191540147|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-20.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.83|29.92|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 2||29.92|-71.83|0.41
95784987|NCT03749109|191540147|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.25||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.57|54.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for baseline lesion size.||Adenomyosis at cycle 4||54.06|-49.57|0.93
95784988|NCT03951753|191540184|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.29|0.87|<0.001
95784989|NCT03951753|191540184|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.24|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||2.24|1.59|<0.001
95784990|NCT03951753|191540184|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.21|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||1.21|0.46|<0.001
95784991|NCT03951753|191540185|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-30.7|||ANCOVA|||||-30.7|-45.4|<0.001
95784992|NCT03951753|191540185|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-39.5|||ANCOVA|||||-39.5|-54.6|<0.001
95784993|NCT03951753|191540185|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-15.4|0.006
95784994|NCT03951753|191540186|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14696.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17045.0|-12347.3|||ANCOVA|||||-12347.3|-17045.0|<0.001
95784995|NCT03951753|191540186|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17873.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20239.0|-15507.4|||ANCOVA|||||-15507.4|-20239.0|<0.001
95784996|NCT03951753|191540186|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3177.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5194.3|-1159.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1159.8|-5194.3|0.002
95784997|NCT03951753|191540187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.67|-2.18|<0.001
95784998|NCT03951753|191540187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.08|-2.58|<0.001
95784999|NCT03951753|191540187|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.63|<0.001
95785000|NCT03951753|191540188|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|279.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.366|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|245.1|313.18|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||313.18|245.10|<0.001
95785001|NCT03951753|191540188|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|381.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|339.29|423.17|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||423.17|339.29|<0.001
95785002|NCT03951753|191540188|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|102.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.84|152.33|||ANCOVA|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data.|Data were analysed with ANCOVA in log transformed data. Results were converted back to original scale.|||152.33|51.84|<0.001
95785003|NCT03951753|191540189|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|17.7|||ANCOVA|||||17.7|4.9|<0.001
95957465|NCT02561806|191887211|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -12.6% for 97.5% confidence interval|Risk Difference (RD)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.198|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.445|0.198|<0.001
95785004|NCT03951753|191540189|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|26.1|||ANCOVA|||||26.1|13.4|<0.001
95785005|NCT03951753|191540189|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|14.0|||ANCOVA|||||14.0|3.0|0.003
95785006|NCT03951753|191540190|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-5.5|<0.001
95785007|NCT03951753|191540190|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-6.3|<0.001
95785008|NCT03951753|191540190|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-2.4|0.277
95785009|NCT03951753|191540191|OTHER||Slope|-296.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-584.8|-7.5|||ANCOVA|||||-7.5|-584.8|0.044
95785010|NCT03951753|191540191|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-637.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-925.2|-350.2|||ANCOVA|||||-350.2|-925.2|<0.001
95785011|NCT03951753|191540191|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-341.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-585.2|-97.9|||ANCOVA|||||-97.9|-585.2|0.006
95999448|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.04|
95785012|NCT03951753|191540192|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-245.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-357.7|-133.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-133.3|-357.7|<0.001
95999449|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.62|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.48|
95785013|NCT03951753|191540192|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-309.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-423.0|-196.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-196.6|-423.0|<0.001
95785014|NCT03951753|191540192|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-64.3||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|31.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.7|-160.3|0.187
95785015|NCT04633291|191540206|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard Male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.58||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.58|-0.50|0.88
95785016|NCT04633291|191540207|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.44||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.44|-0.72|0.62
95785017|NCT04633291|191540208|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.57||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.57|-0.36|0.63
95785018|NCT04633291|191540209|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous studies, the weighted average VAS discomfort level in healthy subjects using SpeediCath®Standard male was estimated at 2.3 cm, with 50% increase in VAS was considered clinically relevant. The mean difference non-inferiority margin between catheter coatings was therefore set to 1.2 cm, and non-inferiority was demonstrated if the mean difference was not above 1.2 cm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.08||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.||At a 85% power level, the sample size needed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the novel coating to the original the coating was 18 subjects (participants). This was based on a standard deviation of 1.6 cm, a within subject correlation of 0.5 cm, and an assumption of same VAS distribution for the investigational device as for the comparator. With an expected drop-out rate of 20%, 22 subjects were included.||0.08|-0.38|0.19
95785019|NCT04633291|191540210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.6||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||6.60|0.47|0.381
95812929|NCT02493764|191597311|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||6.4|-13.6|
95999450|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.83|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.59|
95785020|NCT04633291|191540211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|34.0||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Proportional odds model|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|"OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is evaluated easier than the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is evaluated easier than the investigational device.~Of note: Log transformed estimates."|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||34.00|-18.40|0.541
95785021|NCT04633291|191540212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|265.95||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||265.95|0.19|0.269
95785022|NCT04633291|191540213|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|64.83||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||64.83|0.02|1.0
95785023|NCT04633291|191540214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|12.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Random effect: 'Subject'. Fixed effect: 'Visit' (Visit 1 and 2) and 'Treatment' (original coating and novel coating). Age was included as covariate.|OR=1 corresponds to exact equality. OR \>1 means that the investigational device is in favor compared to the comparator. OR \<1 means that the comparator device is in favor compared to the investigational device.|Null hypothesis: No difference between the devices.||12.87|0.08|1.0
95785024|NCT00076258|191540233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission rate|29.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Both unadjusted and adjusted rates (for significant covariates) were reported||||||<0.05
95785025|NCT00076258|191540233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Remission Rate|28.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||For the covariate adjusted GLMM the remission rates were 15.5 for the LD and 28.3 for the PHD with a p \< 0.06 and the NNT of 7.8 for the PHD versus the LD.||||<0.05
95785026|NCT01483599|191540235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (less than or equal to (\<=) 90 kilogram (kg), greater than (\>) 90 kg).||||0.002
95785027|NCT01483599|191540235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785028|NCT01483599|191540235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95957466|NCT02561806|191887212|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.285|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.439|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.439|1.130|<0.001
95785029|NCT01483599|191540235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785030|NCT01483599|191540235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785031|NCT01483599|191540235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785032|NCT01483599|191540236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785033|NCT01483599|191540236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785034|NCT01483599|191540236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785035|NCT01483599|191540236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785036|NCT01483599|191540236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785037|NCT01483599|191540236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg).||||< 0.001
95785038|NCT01483599|191540237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-4.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||-4.0|-44.0|
95785039|NCT01483599|191540237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|23.5||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||23.5|-17.9|
95812930|NCT02493764|191597312|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.6|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||11.6|-4.6|
95957467|NCT02561806|191887213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.699||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.423|3.975|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.975|1.423|0.009
95957468|NCT02561806|191887214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.469|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.244|1.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.695|1.244|<0.001
95957469|NCT02561806|191887215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.421||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|5.488|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.488|1.353|0.021
95785040|NCT01483599|191540237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.3||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||39.3|1.5|
95785041|NCT01483599|191540237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|27.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|45.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||45.6|9.8|
95785042|NCT01483599|191540237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6||||||||43.6|7.2|
95785043|NCT01483599|191540238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|6.9||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||6.9|-37.7|
95785044|NCT01483599|191540238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|32.4||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||32.4|-10.7|
95785045|NCT01483599|191540238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|43.6||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||43.6|1.8|
95785046|NCT01483599|191540238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|49.0||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||49.0|8.5|
95785047|NCT01483599|191540238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|52.8||||||The difference in percentage was calculated as the percentage of CNTO 1959 participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1) minus percentage of adalimumab participants achieving a PGA score of cleared (0) or minimal (1).||52.8|13.0|
95785048|NCT01483599|191540239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||0.008
95785049|NCT01483599|191540239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
95957470|NCT02561806|191887222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.391||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.698|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.698|1.085|0.012
95957471|NCT01670188|191887286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95957472|NCT00776984|191887356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.217||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.091|<0.0001
95957473|NCT00776984|191887357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0002||95.0|0.053|0.169||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.169|0.053|0.0002
95785050|NCT01483599|191540239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
95785051|NCT01483599|191540239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
95785052|NCT01483599|191540239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
95785053|NCT01483599|191540239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on the van Der Waerden score|||||||< 0.001
95785054|NCT02371668|191540271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
96002077|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
95785055|NCT02371668|191540272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.114
95785056|NCT02371668|191540273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4989
95785057|NCT02371668|191540274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1412
95785058|NCT02371668|191540275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
95785059|NCT02371668|191540276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2445
95785060|NCT02371668|191540277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
95785061|NCT02371668|191540278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.230
95785062|NCT02371668|191540279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.646
95785063|NCT01133704|191540287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable, stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T)|||1.70|0.69|0.719
95785064|NCT01133704|191540288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.07|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable, and stratified by bisphosphonate use (placebo/sipuleucel-T).|||2.07|0.78|0.331
95785065|NCT02576977|191540296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.99324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.08|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|||2.08|1.08|0.99324
95785066|NCT02576977|191540297|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.99989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.55|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|||The Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals were based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more).|2.55|1.32|0.99989
95785067|NCT02576977|191540298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. SOC|-5.2||||0.79921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by disease status (refractory vs. sensitive to Lenalidomide) and Lines of previous treatments (two vs. three or more); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|6.9|-17.1|0.79921
95785068|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-4.4|
95785069|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-6.2|
95785070|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
95785071|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.9||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.9|-9.6|
95812931|NCT02493764|191597313|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|7.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||7.4|-6.3|
95812932|NCT02493764|191597314|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|14.2|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||14.2|-7.1|
95812933|NCT02493764|191597315|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||12.0|-3.1|
95812934|NCT02493764|191597316|OTHER|Difference in FCR|Adjusted difference in FCR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.4|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable clinical response||9.4|-7.2|
95957474|NCT00776984|191887358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
95812935|NCT02493764|191597317|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.9|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||17.9|1.6|
95812936|NCT02493764|191597318|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||15.0|-2.7|
95812937|NCT02493764|191597319|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.0|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||11.0|-5.5|
95812938|NCT02493764|191597320|OTHER|Difference in FMR|Adjusted difference in FMR|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.1|||||Adjusted difference and 95% CI are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Adjusted difference in favorable microbiological response||14.1|-4.0|
95812939|NCT01561976|191597337|OTHER||Ratio|108.94||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.01|117.5|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.50|101.01|0.1413
95812940|NCT01561976|191597337|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.37|115.73|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||115.73|99.37|0.1413
95812941|NCT01561976|191597338|OTHER||Ratio|116.5||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.91|126.95|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||126.95|106.91|0.0171
95812942|NCT01561976|191597338|OTHER||Ratio|107.24||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.35|116.94|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||116.94|98.35|0.0171
95812943|NCT01561976|191597339|OTHER||Ratio|116.87||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.07|127.57|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD ForteSR-Fed/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||127.57|107.07|0.0169
95812944|NCT01561976|191597339|OTHER||Ratio|107.38||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|117.29|||ANOVA||Ratio= METLEAD G2 Forte/METLEAD ForteSR-Fasting|||117.29|98.30|0.0169
95812945|NCT01977222|191597364|OTHER|||||||0.1673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1673
95812946|NCT01977222|191597365|OTHER|||||||0.5745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5745
95812947|NCT01977222|191597366|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.511
95812948|NCT01977222|191597367|OTHER|||||||0.776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.776
95812949|NCT01977222|191597368|OTHER|||||||0.5374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5374
95812950|NCT01977222|191597369|OTHER|||||||0.3385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3385
95812951|NCT01977222|191597370|OTHER|||||||0.0189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0189
95812952|NCT01977222|191597371|OTHER|||||||0.1183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1183
95812953|NCT01605669|191597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Sensitivity|85.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
95812954|NCT01605669|191597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|72.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
95812955|NCT01605669|191597381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Error Rate|25.0||||||95.0|||||||Error rate of 9/36 is equal to total of false positives plus false negatives over the total of participants analyzed.|||||
95957475|NCT00776984|191887359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0275||95.0|0.01|0.177||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.177|0.010|0.0275
95785072|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-4.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-4.0|-13.0|
95785073|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-3.7||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-3.7|-14.0|
95785074|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-6.8|
95785075|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.4|-6.4|
95785076|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-4.4|
95785077|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||0.5|-5.6|
95785078|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.1|
95785079|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.7|
95785080|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.2||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.2|-9.5|
95785081|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|3.0|
95785082|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-26.2|-40.7|
95957476|NCT00776984|191887360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099||95.0|0.025|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|0.025|0.0099
95785083|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
95957477|NCT00776984|191887361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.202||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.202|0.084|<0.0001
95785084|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-12.5||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-12.5|-25.7|
95785085|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|9.6||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||9.6|2.2|
95785086|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.4||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.4|3.8|
95785087|NCT04530838|191540315|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC SC - lowest 13vPnC SC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||6.0|-3.2|
95785088|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-1.7||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||-1.7|-10.4|
95785089|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.9||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-5.2|
95785090|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
95785091|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-4.5|
95785092|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.0||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||10.0|-0.2|
95812956|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|35.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.13|41.32|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05. This belongs to the primary endpoint.||41.32|29.13|<0.001
95812957|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.28|40.58|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||40.58|28.28|<0.001
95812958|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.2|44.34|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||44.34|32.20|<0.001
95785093|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-12.5|
95785094|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|3.1||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-5.4|
95785095|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.4||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-7.7|
95785096|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-4.4|
95812959|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|42.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.02|48.95|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||48.95|37.02|<0.001
95812960|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.61|42.54|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||42.54|30.61|<0.001
95812961|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|39.55|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||39.55|27.42|<0.001
95812962|NCT04846231|191597382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.16|37.47|||ANCOVA|||To control the overall alpha of the study, the primary endpoint will be evaluated hierarchically. Each comparison to rosuvastatin will use an alpha of 0.05.||37.47|25.16|<0.001
95812963|NCT04846231|191597384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95812964|NCT03648385|191597386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.83
95785097|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-6.2|
95957478|NCT00776984|191887362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.187||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.187|0.031|0.0063
95785098|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-3.0|
95785099|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
95785100|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.1||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||5.1|-6.9|
95785101|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.1|-2.2|
95785102|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|8.6||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.6|-9.8|
95957479|NCT00776984|191887363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.217||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.217|0.087|<0.0001
95785103|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
95785104|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||8.2|-8.2|
95785105|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.0|-3.3|
95785106|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
95785107|NCT04530838|191540315|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.2||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-7.5|
95812965|NCT03648385|191597386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.56
95812966|NCT03648385|191597387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
95785108|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.72||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.72|0.54|
95785109|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.81||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.81|0.63|
95812967|NCT03648385|191597387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|with sandwich estimation to correct for model misspecification.||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.03
95785110|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.51|
95785111|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.71|0.49|
95785112|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.70|0.50|
95785113|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.64||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.64|0.40|
95785114|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.84||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.84|0.62|
95785115|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.80|0.60|
95785116|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.01|0.70|
95785117|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.77||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.77|0.57|
95785118|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.87|0.65|
95785119|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.85|0.67|
95785120|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC (SC) is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.78|0.53|
95785121|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.79||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||4.79|3.36|
95785122|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.76|0.48|
95785123|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|8.13||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||8.13|5.69|
95785124|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.76|
95785125|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|9.92||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||9.92|6.75|
95785126|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|7.12||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||7.12|5.00|
95785127|NCT04530838|191540316|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC \[SC\] serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC (SC) group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC \[SC\]/lowest 13vPnC \[SC\]) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMR|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.51||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||2.51|1.69|
95785128|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.99|0.73|
95785129|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||0.98|0.74|
95785130|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.83|
95785131|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
95785132|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.44|0.98|
95785133|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.21|0.72|
95785134|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Serotype 7F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.12|0.82|
95785135|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.16|0.85|
95785136|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.04|0.72|
95785137|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.07|0.79|
95785138|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.84|
95785139|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.10|0.87|
95785140|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.19|0.81|
95785141|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.13|0.87|
95785142|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.20|0.73|
95785143|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.06|0.81|
95785144|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.71|
95785145|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.18|0.85|
95785146|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.02|0.78|
95785147|NCT04530838|191540316|OTHER||GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CIs based on the geometric mean ratio.||1.15|0.79|
95785148|NCT00803712|191540323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hypothesis to be tested: the proportion of participants achieving the specified PTH target of ≥ 30% reduction in PTH from baseline will be greater in the cinacalcet plus low dose active vitamin D group than in the control group during the efficacy assessment phase at month 6 (weeks 22 to 26).||||<0.0001
95785149|NCT00803712|191540324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
95785150|NCT00803712|191540325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Adjusted p-value is presented. P-value is adjusted using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method of adjusting for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0139
95785151|NCT00803712|191540326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386||||||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is presented, adjusted using the Dubey and Armitage-Parmer method|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2386
95812968|NCT03648385|191597388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.047
95812969|NCT03648385|191597388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.052
95957480|NCT00776984|191887364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0026||95.0|0.032|0.151||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.151|0.032|0.0026
95785152|NCT00803712|191540327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0875
95785153|NCT00803712|191540328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4304
95785154|NCT00803712|191540329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0910
95785155|NCT00803712|191540330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9520
95785156|NCT00803712|191540331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
95785157|NCT00803712|191540332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0611
95812970|NCT03648385|191597389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.044
95812971|NCT03648385|191597389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.96
95812972|NCT03648385|191597390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.91
95812973|NCT03648385|191597390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.61
95785158|NCT00803712|191540333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3298|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3298
95785159|NCT00803712|191540334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4436|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4436
95812974|NCT03648385|191597391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.14
95812975|NCT03648385|191597391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.84
95957481|NCT00776984|191887365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.199||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.078|<0.0001
95785160|NCT00803712|191540335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||<0.0001
95785161|NCT00803712|191540336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
95785162|NCT00803712|191540337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata. Due to distributional properties of the data, analysis was performed on log-transformed data||||||0.0040
95785163|NCT00803712|191540338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata.||||||<0.0001
95785164|NCT00803712|191540339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium||||||<0.0001
95785165|NCT00803712|191540340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
95785166|NCT00803712|191540341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
95785167|NCT00803712|191540342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline corrected serum calcium.||||||<0.0001
95785168|NCT00803712|191540343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0085
95785169|NCT00803712|191540344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.0710
95785170|NCT00803712|191540345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3546|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.3546
95785171|NCT00803712|191540346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7518|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis was adjusted for randomization strata and baseline serum phosphorus.||||||0.7518
95785172|NCT02362425|191540357|SUPERIORITY|An a priori power calculation, with power at 80% and a two-sided α of 0·05, determined that n=76 participants (n=38 per group) would be required to detect a statistically significant post-intervention difference in plasma glutathione (GSH) concentration between NAC and placebo groups. After the primary endpoint was changed, re-evaluation of the sample size determined that a larger sample (total n=182) would be required. As per protocol, the study was completed at this time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear|Model comparing 12 m corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane conc. controlling for pre-intervention value. Investigated covariates: smoking and drinking status.||Null Hypothesis: In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in corrected 15-F2t-isoprostane concentration and/or corrected 15=f2t-Isop:PGR2alpha ratio between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||1.6|-1.4|0.88
95785173|NCT02362425|191540358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.9||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|53.4||Model controlled for six-month(pre-intervention) distance and treatment group. Investigated covariates: height|Regression, Linear|||In RYR1-RM myopathy patients, there will be no statistically significant difference in 6MWT (six minute walk test) total distance between NAC and placebo groups at month 12, after controlling for established a priori confounders.||53.4|-5.5|.11
95812976|NCT03648385|191597392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.36
95812977|NCT03648385|191597392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.71
95812978|NCT03648385|191597393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
95999451|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.72|0.57|
95999452|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.65|
95785174|NCT02362425|191540359|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||||0.7|-3.6|0.14
95785175|NCT02362425|191540360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.62
95785176|NCT02362425|191540361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-1.1|0.05
95785177|NCT02362425|191540362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-2.1|0.25
95785178|NCT02362425|191540363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-2.1|0.05
95812979|NCT03648385|191597393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.44
95812980|NCT03648385|191597394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.79
95999453|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.93|0.66|
95785179|NCT02362425|191540364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.3|-0.6|0.09
95785180|NCT02362425|191540365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-1.3|0.69
95785181|NCT02362425|191540366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.5|0.31
95785182|NCT02362425|191540367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|-0.8|0.22
95785183|NCT02362425|191540368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2.6|0.93
95785184|NCT02362425|191540369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.3|0.66
95785185|NCT02362425|191540370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-0.4|0.09
95785186|NCT02362425|191540371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.0|-0.7|0.09
95785187|NCT02362425|191540372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-13.4|0.15
95785188|NCT02362425|191540373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-13.7|0.08
95785189|NCT02362425|191540374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|47.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.5|-80.1|0.39
95785190|NCT02362425|191540375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|39.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.5|-59.5|0.57
95785191|NCT02362425|191540376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-5.0|0.12
95785192|NCT02362425|191540377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-3.6|0.76
95812981|NCT03648385|191597394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.34
95812982|NCT03648385|191597395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
95812983|NCT03648385|191597395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE) w|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.99
95812984|NCT03648385|191597396|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.13|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.13
95812985|NCT03648385|191597396|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.044|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 PCS||||0.044
95812986|NCT03648385|191597396|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||||0.77|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-36 MCS||||0.77
95785193|NCT02362425|191540378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.5|-2.5|0.72
95785194|NCT02362425|191540379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.7|-1.8|0.70
95785195|NCT02362425|191540380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-2.8|0.88
95785196|NCT02362425|191540381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|15.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.2|-10.3|0.61
95785197|NCT02362425|191540382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.5|-7.4|0.87
95812987|NCT03648385|191597396|SUPERIORITY|Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||||0.98|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||SF-MCS||||0.98
95812988|NCT03648385|191597397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.70
95812989|NCT03648385|191597397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.037
95812990|NCT03648385|191597398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||0.005
95785198|NCT02362425|191540383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.9|-38.9|0.28
95785199|NCT03188523|191540429|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.03|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>98%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
95957482|NCT00776984|191887366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0088||95.0|0.029|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.029|0.0088
95957483|NCT00776984|191887367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0933||95.0|-0.012|0.153||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.153|-0.012|0.0933
95957484|NCT00776984|191887368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0074||95.0|0.029|0.189||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.189|0.029|0.0074
95785200|NCT03188523|191540429|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.92|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8504 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was \>95%|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. LS mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).||||
95785201|NCT03188523|191540445|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
95785202|NCT03188523|191540445|OTHER||Posterior Probability (percentage)|99.0|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (percentage) of true geometric mean (GM) C168hr TFV-DP level in PBMCs ≥0.1 μM|PBMC TFV-DP C168hr values pooled, natural log transformed and analyzed based on a linear model containing a fixed effect for dose level. The posterior probability that the true GM of PBMC TFV-DP C168hr level was ≥0.1 μM was calculated for the dose level using flat priors under a normal likelihood assumption. An 80% posterior probability for a dose level that also exhibits acceptable safety and tolerability would satisfy the secondary PK hypothesis.||||
95785203|NCT04560868|191540452|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was a difference in expected number of log ins of exactly 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|19.05|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|Based on a priori power calculations we had 80% power to detect an average increase of 3.8 log ins in the experimental relative to the control arm.||19.05|6.41|<0.01
95812991|NCT03648385|191597398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.9
95812992|NCT03648385|191597399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of % change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, % change at 18 Weeks||||<0.0001
95812993|NCT03648385|191597399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, % change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.034
95812994|NCT03648385|191597400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, at 18 Weeks||||0.36
95812995|NCT03648385|191597400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
95957485|NCT00776984|191887369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807|<|0.0001||95.0|11.199|30.108||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||30.108|11.199|<0.0001
95785204|NCT04560868|191540453|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of relative risk equal to exactly 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Regression, Poisson||relative risk=experimental/control|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 33% - 35% increase in the proportion of experimental participants who successfully quit smoking for at least 24 hours relative to controls.||1.85|0.55|0.98
95785205|NCT04560868|191540454|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 risk difference between arms.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Risk difference = experimental - control.|Based on a priori power calculations, we had 80% power to detect a 28% - 33% increase in 7-day smoking abstinence in the experimental arm relative to the control arm at 3 months.||0.24|-0.08|0.35
95785206|NCT04560868|191540455|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.87|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.87|-0.35|0.40
95785207|NCT04560868|191540456|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.60|-0.68|0.90
95785208|NCT04560868|191540457|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.4|-0.5|0.39
95785209|NCT04560868|191540458|EQUIVALENCE|The tested hypothesis was for a point null of 0 difference in expected average helpfulness score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.3|-0.1|0.11
95785210|NCT04560868|191540460|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected number of badges earned in each arm by 3 months post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|6.65|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||6.65|1.72|<0.01
95785211|NCT04560868|191540461|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected score between arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.18|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||1.18|-1.02|0.96
95785212|NCT04560868|191540462|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null hypothesis of exactly 0 difference in expected score between the arms.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.66|||Regression, Linear||mean difference=experimental-control|||0.66|-1.55|0.31
95785213|NCT04560868|191540466|EQUIVALENCE|The point null hypothesis was of the exact same proportion of control and experimental subjects requesting NRT.|Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|16.9|||Regression, Poisson||RR=experimental/control|||16.9|0.9|0.06
95785214|NCT04560868|191540467|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in probability of the outcome between arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.65|||Regression, Poisson||risk ratio=experimental/control|||2.65|0.38|0.99
95785215|NCT04560868|191540468|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change from baseline in number of cigarettes smoked per day between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.99|||Regression, Linear||treatment difference=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (one month)-baseline.|||3.99|-1.21|0.30
95785216|NCT04560868|191540469|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was a point null of exactly 0 difference in expected change in daily cigarette usage between arms.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.5|||Regression, Linear||treatment effect=experimental-control, where the outcome for each individual is (three month)-baseline.|||5.5|-2.51|0.47
95785217|NCT04560868|191540470|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was risk difference of exactly 0.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.11|||Regression, Linear||risk difference=experimental-control|||0.11|-0.03|0.30
95785218|NCT01649362|191540471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95785219|NCT01649362|191540472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95785220|NCT01649362|191540473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95785221|NCT03498313|191540529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo represents the reference treatment.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=E2) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||-.08|-.41|.002
95785222|NCT03498313|191540529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the p-value for the Treatment X Cycle Phase Interaction. Kenward-Roger Method was utilized for degrees of freedom.|Placebo Represents the Reference Condition.|Fixed interaction effect of treatment (0=Placebo, 1=P4) by cycle phase (0=Lower-Risk Early Luteal Baseline, 1=Higher-Risk Perimenstrual Phase) predicting SI severity in a multilevel model (with daily observations nested within conditions nested within participants over time).||.10|-.22|.46
95812996|NCT03648385|191597401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.002
95812997|NCT03648385|191597401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.0001
95957486|NCT00776984|191887370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.044|<|0.0001||95.0|22.532|42.374||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||42.374|22.532|<0.0001
95785223|NCT00112918|191540532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024||95.0|||||Closed test procedure|||Adjustments for multiplicity was done using a closed test procedure which tests for differences between all three treatment groups at the 5% alpha level first. Only in case of a significant result, the pair-wise comparison between the control arm and each of the bevacizumab arm will be tested, again at the 5% alpha level.||||0.2024
95785224|NCT02144077|191540594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin of -15%|Difference in Percentage|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.5||||Farrington and Manning Test|Difference of proportions|||||-6.5|<0.0001
95785225|NCT01461473|191540696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2067|||||||Analysis of covariance (GLM)|||These data were analyzed using an analysis of covariance via general linear model (GLM). The GLM has an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA plus covariates for baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline NMAP. The primary hypothesis tested is that the 2-month means differ between study arms, after adjustment for the above covariates. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.2067
95785226|NCT01461473|191540697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3902|||||||GLMM|||Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3902
95785227|NCT01461473|191540698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9319|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.9319
95785228|NCT01461473|191540699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3895|||||||GLMM|||A GLMM was fit in which the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site and baseline value of the outcome. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3895
95785229|NCT01461473|191540700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.3449
95785230|NCT01461473|191540701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1531|||||||see Comments|Analysis of covariance with robust MM regression due to extreme residuals from initial fit showing strong departure from normal distribution.||Using analysis of covariance (robust MM regression), the outcome was regressed on an indicator variable for PAP vs. OA, baseline outcome, baseline apnea-hypopnea index, gender, site, baseline brachial-artery diameter, body mass index, age, and the interaction of gender and study arm. The latter allows for the possibility that treatment effect may differ between males and females. A Wald statistic was constructed for hypothesis testing.||||0.1531
95785231|NCT01188668|191540753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|105.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.39|110.76|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||110.76|101.39|
95785232|NCT01188668|191540754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.94|109.87|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||109.87|92.94|
95785233|NCT01188668|191540759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|102.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|112.46|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||112.46|94.21|
95785234|NCT01188668|191540760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.97|111.85|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR 100 mg + Aripiprazole 5 mg (test) versus Aripiprazole 5 mg (reference)||111.85|100.97|
95785235|NCT03658642|191540778|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.43|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site and multiple covariates.||||2.43|0.61|0.58
95785236|NCT03658642|191540779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.47|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.47|0.43|0.95
95785237|NCT03658642|191540781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.16|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.16|1.11|0.01
95785238|NCT03658642|191540782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||1.57|0.91|0.48
95785239|NCT03658642|191540783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.14|||GEE|Obtained from a GEE model accounting for clustering by site.||||2.14|0.81|0.27
95785240|NCT00073008|191540843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|34.5||||||95.0|13.7|55.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||55.4|13.7|
95785241|NCT00073008|191540843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|19.7||||||95.0|2.9|36.4|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||36.4|2.9|
95785242|NCT00073008|191540844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|27.1||||||95.0|11.9|42.3|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||42.3|11.9|
95785243|NCT00073008|191540844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate|18.3||||||95.0|3.9|32.6|||||Percentage of surviving participants who were progression free 4 months after the date of randomization|||32.6|3.9|
95785244|NCT00808470|191540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||15 minutes after exposure||||0.58
95785245|NCT00808470|191540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour and 15 minutes after exposure||||0.39
95785246|NCT00808470|191540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Hours 15 minutes after exposure||||.51
95785247|NCT00808470|191540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 hours, 15 minutes after exposure||||.36
95785248|NCT00808470|191540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 day after exposure||||.86
95785249|NCT00808470|191540857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 week after exposure||||.24
95812998|NCT03648385|191597402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.42
95785250|NCT01420016|191540899|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis used a time-by-condition mixed model to estimate the annual rate of change in post-index CV risk values by treatment group. The models included fixed effects for study arm (CDS vs. UC), time (years since index), and study-arm-by-time comparing the rate of change in CDS versus UC and a random clinic intercept. The intervention effect was the difference in rate of change in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Slope Difference (Net)|-2.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.04||A priori power analysis (power=.80, α2=.05) estimated detectable group difference in CVR at 1 year of \~2-3%, assuming 18 clinics, 1000 patients per clinic (actual 400), 3 CVR per patient (actual 2.3), and ICC=.01-03 (actual .019). p-value calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention effect was the difference in annualized rates of change (slope) in CV risk in CDS versus UC clinics, with the study-arm-by-time interaction assessing statistical significance (P\<0.05).|||-1.04|-3.45|<0.05
95785251|NCT01454414|191540903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Protective effectiveness= 1 - rate ratio|0.646||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.824|||Poisson regression|||Protective effectiveness (1 - the incidence rate ratio) and 95% CIs for comparing reported tick bites between the treatment and control groups were calculated using a GEE model with a Poisson distribution and log link, and included terms for treatment, year of follow-up, and the interaction of treatment and year of follow-up, with an offset variable for log outdoor work hours.||0.824|0.288|0.004
95785252|NCT00492232|191540905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.71||||0.484||95.0|0.27|1.85||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using the logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of treatment and pooled center.||||1.85|0.27|0.484
95785253|NCT00492232|191540906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.946||95.0|-6.23|5.81||P-values are from t-tests of the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the difference in least squares (LS) means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||5.81|-6.23|0.946
95785254|NCT00492232|191540907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.901||95.0|-5.31|6.03||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.03|-5.31|0.901
95785255|NCT00492232|191540908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.538||95.0|-4.32|8.23||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||8.23|-4.32|0.538
95785256|NCT00492232|191540909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.517||95.0|-9.09|4.6||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||4.60|-9.09|0.517
95785257|NCT00492232|191540910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.965||95.0|-6.28|6.56||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg) and pooled center as covariates.||||6.56|-6.28|0.965
95785258|NCT00492232|191540911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.617||95.0|-0.27|0.45||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.45|-0.27|0.617
95785259|NCT00492232|191540912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.541||95.0|-0.39|0.74||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||0.74|-0.39|0.541
95785260|NCT00492232|191540913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.163||95.0|-0.23|1.33||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.33|-0.23|0.163
95812999|NCT03648385|191597402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.28
95957487|NCT00776984|191887371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0027||95.0|0.031|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.031|0.0027
95785261|NCT00492232|191540914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.757||95.0|-0.79|1.08||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.08|-0.79|0.757
95813000|NCT03648385|191597403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.08
95813001|NCT03648385|191597403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.65
95861003|NCT00838513|191680621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
95785262|NCT00492232|191540915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.82||95.0|-0.93|1.17||P-values are from t-tests of the ANCOVA model for the difference in LS means between treatments. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|LS means are from an ANCOVA model with baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg), baseline zolpidem frequency, and pooled center as covariates.||||1.17|-0.93|0.820
95785263|NCT00492232|191540917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.01||||0.284||95.0|0.55|7.34||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||7.34|0.55|0.284
95785264|NCT00492232|191540918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.389||95.0|0.64|3.13||P-values are from Chi-square tests of the log-regression model for the overall treatment comparison. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Log odds of achieving response were estimated using logistic regression analysis adjusted for effects of baseline zolpidem dosage (≤10 mg vs \>10 mg).||||3.13|0.64|0.389
95785265|NCT03275389|191540962|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS03) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|2.06|2.95|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS03 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 3) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.95|2.06|
95785266|NCT03275389|191540962|EQUIVALENCE|The use of the adjuvant (AS01) is to be considered justified if the lower limit of the 94.46% CI of the GMC ratio (adjuvanted vs non-adjuvanted) is \> 1.50|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|94.46|1.46|2.1|||Dunnett's t test|Comparison performed using a 2-sided alpha=0.1 and Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons,||To evaluate the adjuvant effect of AS01 (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 4, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 5 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Adjuvant Group 6) on the humoral immune response for anti-H1 stalk antibody by ELISA at Day 29 and Day 85 (i.e. 28 days post-vaccination) when compared to the non-adjuvanted formulations (Pooling of results at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 1, at Day 29 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 2 and Day 85 of D-SUIV Unadjuvanted Group 3).||2.1|1.46|
95785267|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.6797||95.0|-0.83|1.22|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.22|-0.83|0.6797
95785268|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.4811||95.0|-1.54|0.77|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.77|-1.54|0.4811
95785269|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.1693||95.0|-1.67|0.33|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.33|-1.67|0.1693
95813002|NCT03648385|191597404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.07
95813003|NCT03648385|191597404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||<0.01
95813004|NCT03648385|191597405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, measurement of change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.27
95957488|NCT00776984|191887372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.2||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.200|0.074|<0.0001
95785270|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.4034||95.0|-1.78|0.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline) , Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.87|-1.78|0.4034
95785271|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.1935||95.0|-2.36|0.5|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.50|-2.36|0.1935
95813005|NCT03648385|191597405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.26
95957489|NCT00776984|191887373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.741||0.1073||95.0|-0.261|2.655||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||2.655|-0.261|0.1073
95785272|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0694||95.0|-2.83|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.12|-2.83|0.0694
95813006|NCT03648385|191597406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.81
95813007|NCT03648385|191597406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
95813008|NCT03648385|191597407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.93
95813009|NCT03648385|191597407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.83
95785273|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713||0.0396||95.0|-3.02|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-3.02|0.0396
95785274|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.1531||95.0|-1.25|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 8 hours post-dose.||0.24|-1.25|0.1531
95785275|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637||0.0951||95.0|-2.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 10 hours post-dose.||0.29|-2.79|0.0951
95785276|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.0614||95.0|-2.84|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 1: 12 hours post-dose.||0.09|-2.84|0.0614
95785277|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.1946||95.0|-2.29|0.54|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: pre-dose.||0.54|-2.29|0.1946
95785278|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.553||0.2843||95.0|-2.2|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||0.84|-2.20|0.2843
95785279|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.215||95.0|-2.75|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.65|-2.75|0.2150
95785280|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9601||95.0|-0.44|0.42|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.42|-0.44|0.9601
95813010|NCT03648385|191597408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.85
95957490|NCT00776984|191887374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4788||95.0|0.65|1.23||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.23|0.65|0.4788
95957491|NCT00776984|191887375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1007||95.0|0.61|1.04||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.04|0.61|0.1007
95785281|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.867||95.0|-0.64|0.74|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.74|-0.64|0.8670
95785282|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.9024||95.0|-0.94|0.84|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline), Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.84|-0.94|0.9024
95785283|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.9708||95.0|-0.67|0.65|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||0.65|-0.67|0.9708
95785284|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1078||95.0|-1.62|0.19|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.19|-1.62|0.1078
95785285|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.446||95.0|-1.28|0.61|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 8 hours post-dose.||0.61|-1.28|0.4460
95785286|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394||0.5266||95.0|-1.13|0.62|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 10 hours post-dose.||0.62|-1.13|0.5266
95785287|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.029||95.0|-1.29|-0.08|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 12 hours post-dose.||-0.08|-1.29|0.0290
95785288|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.531||0.183||95.0|-2.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 24 hours post-dose.||0.45|-2.01|0.1830
95785289|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.9884||95.0|-0.9|0.91|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 36 hours post-dose.||0.91|-0.90|0.9884
95785290|NCT00978341|191540995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.8082||95.0|-0.87|0.69|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline), Day 8: 48 hours post-dose.||0.69|-0.87|0.8082
95785291|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.714||0.2101||95.0|-2.39|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 2. Combined analysis: values for the two patient groups were analyzed together using ANOVA and/or mixed models.||0.55|-2.39|0.2101
95785292|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.1065||95.0|-2.33|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 3.||0.24|-2.33|0.1065
95813011|NCT03648385|191597408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.74
95957492|NCT00776984|191887376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7906||95.0|0.71|1.3||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.30|0.71|0.7906
95957493|NCT00776984|191887377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.004||95.0|0.38|0.84||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.84|0.38|0.0040
95957494|NCT00776984|191887378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5481||95.0|0.58|1.32||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.32|0.58|0.5481
95813012|NCT03648385|191597409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.004
95813013|NCT03648385|191597409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.05
95813014|NCT03648385|191597410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
95999454|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.75|
95813015|NCT03648385|191597410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.23
95813016|NCT03648385|191597411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.19
95813017|NCT03648385|191597411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.94
95813018|NCT03648385|191597412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.62
95813019|NCT03648385|191597412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.39
95813020|NCT03648385|191597413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.33
95813021|NCT03648385|191597413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||0.88
95813022|NCT03648385|191597414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||generalized estimating equations|||Treatment period 1: DHEA to Placebo group, change at 18 Weeks Treatment period 1: Placebo to DHEA group, change at 18 Weeks||||0.55
95813023|NCT03648385|191597414|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Treatment period 2: DHEA to Placebo group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks Treatment period 2: Placebo to DHEA group, change between 18 and 40 Weeks||||1.00
95813024|NCT00934921|191597434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.1||||||90.0|91.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.2|
95813025|NCT00934921|191597435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.2||||||90.0|88.8|102.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||102|88.8|
95861004|NCT00838513|191680622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
95813026|NCT00934921|191597436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|95.9||||||90.0|89.5|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|89.5|
95813027|NCT02329587|191597441|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95813028|NCT02329587|191597442|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.214|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95813029|NCT02329587|191597443|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95813030|NCT02329587|191597444|OTHER||Between-group effect size (Hedge's g)|-0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95813031|NCT02329587|191597445|OTHER||Between-groups effect size (Hedge's g)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95813032|NCT02329587|191597446|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95813033|NCT00485173|191597492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95813034|NCT00485173|191597492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority comparison of success rates in two treatment groups was a secondary objective of this trial. Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
95813035|NCT00485173|191597493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95813036|NCT00485173|191597493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.002
95813037|NCT00485173|191597494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95813038|NCT00485173|191597495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random sampling, based on covariance matrix produced by logistic regression using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95813039|NCT00485173|191597495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.011
95813040|NCT00485173|191597496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95813041|NCT00485173|191597497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95813042|NCT00485173|191597497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||<0.001
95813043|NCT00485173|191597498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.031
95999455|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.27|
95999456|NCT01025336|191975302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) were calculated using all subjects with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.34|
95999457|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
95999458|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.79|
95813044|NCT00485173|191597499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
95813045|NCT00485173|191597499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.414
95999459|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.90|0.69|
95813046|NCT00485173|191597500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95999460|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
95999461|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.32|0.98|
95999462|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.81|0.62|
95999463|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
95999464|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
95813047|NCT00485173|191597501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95813048|NCT00485173|191597501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.017
95813049|NCT00485173|191597502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.189
95813050|NCT00485173|191597503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95813051|NCT00485173|191597503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.466
95813052|NCT00485173|191597504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.10.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was one-sided from random samplings, based on logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95785293|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0697||95.0|-1.11|0.05|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 4.||0.05|-1.11|0.0697
95785294|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4589||95.0|-1.83|0.85|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 5.||0.85|-1.83|0.4589
95785295|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742||0.1326||95.0|-2.69|0.38|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 6.||0.38|-2.69|0.1326
95785296|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.282||95.0|-2.45|0.9|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 7.||0.90|-2.45|0.2820
95785297|NCT00978341|191540996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.0108||95.0|-2.21|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including baseline); Day 8.||-0.44|-2.21|0.0108
95813053|NCT00485173|191597504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||P-value was one-sided, obtained from logistic regression model by using propensity score as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Superiority analysis was performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated.||||0.133
95813054|NCT00485173|191597505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95813055|NCT00485173|191597506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95813056|NCT00485173|191597507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, adjusted from ANCOVA with the propensity score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.341
95813057|NCT00485173|191597508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||P-value was two-sided, obtained from Cox regression and adjusted with propensity scores.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.479
95957495|NCT00776984|191887379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7188||95.0|0.33|2.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||2.14|0.33|0.7188
95957496|NCT00776984|191887380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8503||95.0|0.59|1.54||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo.|||1.54|0.59|0.8503
95957497|NCT00776984|191887381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.8129||95.0|0.29|2.46||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95 percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.46|0.29|0.8129
95957498|NCT00776984|191887382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0225||95.0|0.025|0.331||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.331|0.025|0.0225
95999465|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.76|0.47|
95785298|NCT00978341|191540997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.06||0.9068||95.0|-41.78|37.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 1: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||37.27|-41.78|0.9068
95785299|NCT00978341|191540997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.813||0.7807||95.0|-30.53|39.57|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: pre-dose (including Baseline).||39.57|-30.53|0.7807
95785300|NCT00978341|191540997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.526||0.2293||95.0|-61.79|16.78|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo; Day 8: 4 hours post-dose (including Baseline).||16.78|-61.79|0.2293
95785301|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.3774||95.0|-0.54|1.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.27|-0.54|0.3774
95785302|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.4153||95.0|-0.33|0.7|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 1 hour post-dose.||0.70|-0.33|0.4153
95785303|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.147||95.0|-0.23|1.2|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||1.20|-0.23|0.1470
95785304|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1862||95.0|-1.18|0.29|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 3 hours post-dose.||0.29|-1.18|0.1862
95813058|NCT00485173|191597509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was from logistic regression model by using propensity score and any ossification 'Yes/No' at preop as the covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis at 24 months postoperation.||||<0.001
95813059|NCT06378008|191597510|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.62|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.62|-1.98|<0.0001
95813060|NCT06378008|191597511|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|52.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.08|57.65|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||57.65|48.08|<0.0001
95957499|NCT00776984|191887383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0803||95.0|-0.017|0.296||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.296|-0.017|0.0803
95813061|NCT06378008|191597512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.08|-0.29|0.0005
95785305|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8321||95.0|-0.45|0.55|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.55|-0.45|0.8321
95785306|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.4251||95.0|-0.42|0.88|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 5 hours post-dose.||0.88|-0.42|0.4251
95785307|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.6394||95.0|-0.53|0.8|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.80|-0.53|0.6394
95785308|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.9964||95.0|-0.68|0.68|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.68|-0.68|0.9964
95785309|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.3638||95.0|-0.47|1.11|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 0.5 hours post-dose.||1.11|-0.47|0.3638
95785310|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1202||95.0|-0.15|0.99|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 1 hour post-dose.||0.99|-0.15|0.1202
95813062|NCT06378008|191597512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.49|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.49|-0.73|<0.0001
95785311|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.1204||95.0|-0.19|1.39|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||1.39|-0.19|0.1204
95813063|NCT06378008|191597512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-1.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.04|-1.41|<0.0001
95785312|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.4213||95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 3 hours post-dose.||0.93|-0.44|0.4213
95785313|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.6028||95.0|-0.34|0.56|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.56|-0.34|0.6028
95785314|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.3624||95.0|-0.68|1.64|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 5 hours post-dose.||1.64|-0.68|0.3624
95813064|NCT06378008|191597512|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.74|<0.0001
95785315|NCT00978341|191540998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.3163||95.0|-0.52|1.49|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||1.49|-0.52|0.3163
95813065|NCT06378008|191597513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|8.53|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||8.53|5.75|<0.0001
95785316|NCT00978341|191540999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.738||0.5919||95.0|-16.26|27.04|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1.||27.04|-16.26|0.5919
95785317|NCT00978341|191540999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.603||0.3981||95.0|-17.7|42.87|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||42.87|-17.70|0.3981
95785318|NCT00978341|191540999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.123||0.8314||95.0|-24.0|29.28|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||29.28|-24.00|0.8314
95813066|NCT06378008|191597513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|16.59|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 7||16.59|12.20|<0.0001
95813067|NCT06378008|191597513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.67|28.93|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||28.93|22.67|<0.0001
95861005|NCT00838513|191680623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
95785319|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7569||95.0|-0.14|0.1|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 2 hours post-dose.||0.10|-0.14|0.7569
95785320|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4814||95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 4 hours post-dose.||0.13|-0.26|0.4814
95785321|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.6222||95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 1: 6 hours post-dose.||0.23|-0.37|0.6222
95785322|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.3035||95.0|-0.35|0.12|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: pre-dose.||0.12|-0.35|0.3035
95785323|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.1881||95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 2 hours post-dose.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
95785324|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.3159||95.0|-0.09|0.24|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 4 hours post-dose.||0.24|-0.09|0.3159
95957500|NCT00776984|191887384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003||95.0|-0.33|-0.068||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||-0.068|-0.330|0.0030
95785325|NCT00978341|191541000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8203||95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANOVA|||Difference from placebo (including Baseline); Day 8: 6 hours post-dose.||0.27|-0.22|0.8203
95785326|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.454
95813068|NCT06378008|191597513|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.55|45.43|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as test toothpaste minus reference toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||45.43|36.55|<0.0001
95813069|NCT06378008|191597514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.3489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.23|-0.64|0.3489
95813070|NCT06378008|191597514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q7 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.07|-0.98|0.0876
95785327|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.402
95813071|NCT06378008|191597514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.9108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.52|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.52|-0.47|0.9108
95813072|NCT06378008|191597514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.4854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q8 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.36|-0.75|0.4854
95813073|NCT06378008|191597514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.8309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.57|-0.46|0.8309
95813074|NCT06378008|191597514|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Q9 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.00|-1.17|0.0500
95813075|NCT06378008|191597515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.859||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|5.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||5.33|-9.88|0.5565
95813076|NCT06378008|191597515|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.715||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|3.34|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||3.34|-15.25|0.2078
95957501|NCT00776984|191887385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0533||95.0|-0.267|0.002||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.002|-0.267|0.0533
95999466|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
95999467|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.30|0.96|
95785328|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.901
95785329|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.540
95785330|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.523
95813077|NCT06378008|191597516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.82|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.82|-1.50|0.5597
95813078|NCT06378008|191597516|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.87|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.87|-1.91|0.4627
95813079|NCT06378008|191597517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.583||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|1.48|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.48|-4.77|0.3000
95999468|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.75|
95999469|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
95785331|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.260
95785332|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.139
95785333|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785334|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785335|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.464
95785336|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.007
95813080|NCT06378008|191597517|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.33|-6.39|0.1974
95999470|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.32|
95785337|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785338|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.411
95785339|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785340|NCT03035916|191541003|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of norepinephrine(NE) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785341|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.412
95785342|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.592
95785343|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.796
95785344|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.576
95785345|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.427
95999471|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.75|0.94|
95785346|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.201
95813081|NCT06378008|191597518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.27|0.9203
95785347|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.872
95785348|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95813082|NCT06378008|191597518|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.717||0.2489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.58|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.58|-2.24|0.2489
95813083|NCT06378008|191597519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.94|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.94|-2.36|0.8496
95813084|NCT06378008|191597519|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.226||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.69|-4.15|0.1596
95813085|NCT06378008|191597520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||1.41|-1.34|0.9577
95957502|NCT00776984|191887386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.6632||95.0|-0.043|0.067||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.067|-0.043|0.6632
95813086|NCT06378008|191597520|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.8261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||1.31|-1.64|0.8261
95813087|NCT06378008|191597521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.16|-0.19|0.8895
95813088|NCT06378008|191597521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.22|-0.17|0.8083
95813089|NCT06378008|191597522|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.7362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.81|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||0.81|-0.57|0.7362
95957503|NCT00776984|191887387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1664||95.0|-0.635|0.11||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.110|-0.635|0.1664
95813090|NCT06378008|191597522|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Toothpaste minus Reference Toothpaste.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||0.54|-1.00|0.5568
95813091|NCT03110562|191597558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.702||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5279|0.9335||One Sided P-value|Stratified Log-rank Test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior of anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||0.9335|0.5279|0.0075
95813092|NCT03110562|191597559|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9626||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2641|3.0471||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||3.0471|1.2641|0.0012
95813093|NCT03110562|191597560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6594||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0993|2.5049||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens, and R-ISS stage at screening.||||2.5049|1.0993|0.0082
95813094|NCT03110562|191597561|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5042||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3216|0.7906||One Sided P-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by Prior PI therapies (Yes or No), Number of prior anti-MM regimens (1 or \>1), and R-ISS stage at study entry (R-ISS Stage III versus R-ISS Stage I or II).|||0.7906|0.3216|0.0013
95813095|NCT03110562|191597562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8764||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6313|1.2168||One Sided P-value|Stratified log-rank test|Stratified for prior PI therapies, number of prior anti-MM regimens and R-ISS Stage at screening.|Based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with Efron's Method of handling ties.|||1.2168|0.6313|0.2152
95957504|NCT00776984|191887388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
95785349|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95813096|NCT01561469|191597570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
95813097|NCT01561469|191597571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for superinfections category reported.||||1.00
95813098|NCT01561469|191597571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis for colonization category reported.||||0.759
95813099|NCT01561469|191597572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.773
95813100|NCT01561469|191597573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.823
95785350|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.165
95785351|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785352|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785353|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.305
95813101|NCT01561469|191597574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.276
95999472|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
95785354|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785355|NCT03035916|191541004|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of epinephrine (E) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95813102|NCT01561469|191597575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.512
95813103|NCT03189719|191597587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.75|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.75|0.43|<0.0001
95785356|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.673
95785357|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.824
95785358|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.547
95785359|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.303
95813104|NCT03189719|191597588|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.88|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.88|0.60|0.0006
95813105|NCT03189719|191597589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.78|0.49|<0.0001
95785360|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.026
95785361|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.002
95785362|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
95785363|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785364|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785365|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.069
95861006|NCT00838513|191680624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
95813106|NCT03189719|191597590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Stratified Log-Rank|||OS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to OS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.86|0.62|<0.0001
95813107|NCT03189719|191597591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.78|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.78|0.54|<0.0001
95785366|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785367|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785368|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.561
95785369|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785370|NCT03035916|191541005|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of cortisol (Cor) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95813108|NCT03189719|191597592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.65|0.41|<0.0001
95813109|NCT03189719|191597593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.76|||Stratified Log-Rank|||PFS in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.76|0.55|<0.0001
95813110|NCT03189719|191597594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|22.5|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in all participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World), tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma), and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||22.5|9.0|<0.0001
95813111|NCT03189719|191597595|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.4|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||33.4|11.6|<0.0001
95999473|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.60|1.14|
95785371|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.249
95785372|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.091
95785373|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.493
95813112|NCT03189719|191597596|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in ESCC participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in ESCC participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||20.7|4.7|0.0009
95861007|NCT00838513|191680625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
95785374|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.067
95785375|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
95785376|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 0 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
95813113|NCT03189719|191597597|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|33.2|||One-sided p-value|||ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the pembrolizumab + SOC arm was compared to ORR in PD-L1 CPS ≥10 participants of the placebo + SOC arm based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||33.2|14.3|<0.0001
95813114|NCT03189719|191597604|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.2|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.20|-3.40|0.9530
95813115|NCT03189719|191597605|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.95||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|3.82|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.82|-7.72|0.5053
95861008|NCT00838513|191680626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95785377|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
95999474|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.20|
95785378|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785379|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785380|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."|t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.314
95785381|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785382|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785383|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.087
95861009|NCT00838513|191680627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
95861010|NCT00838513|191680628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
95861011|NCT01594528|191680630|OTHER|||||||0.992||||||comparison between groups for body indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.992
95861012|NCT01594528|191680630|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||comparison between groups facial indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95861013|NCT01594528|191680630|OTHER|||||||0.586||||||comparison between groups for vocal indicators|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.586
95861014|NCT01009619|191680716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
95861015|NCT01009619|191680717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The frequency or rate of specific events (i.e. acute rejection, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and non-CMV infections) was calculated by determining the number of events per year of study time for each subject, correcting for CMV-mismatch status.||||<0.05
95861016|NCT05487196|191680737|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin δ was set as the median of fentanyl group + 30 representing a 1-point pain numeric rating scale difference per unit time across the 30-minute initiation period. A conventional 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed using normal distribution assumptions. Analysis was by intent to treat. Comparisons of PI-AUC30 between the three agents were made by one-way ANOVA.||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.226
95861017|NCT05487196|191680738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95861018|NCT05487196|191680739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95861019|NCT05487196|191680740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
95861020|NCT05487196|191680741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95861021|NCT05487196|191680742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
95861022|NCT05487196|191680743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
95861023|NCT05487196|191680744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95861024|NCT05487196|191680745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
95999475|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
95785384|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
95785385|NCT03035916|191541006|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The plasma level of glucose (Glu) were detected from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785386|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.384
95785387|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.530
95785388|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.819
95785389|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.108
95785390|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.667
95861025|NCT05487196|191680746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
95861026|NCT05487196|191680747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
95785391|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.046
95785392|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.006
95785393|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.406
95785394|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.042
95785395|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.655
95785396|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.262
95785397|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.143
95861027|NCT05487196|191680748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
95861028|NCT05487196|191680749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.98
95861029|NCT01354314|191680753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.893
95861030|NCT01354314|191680753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.594
95861031|NCT01354314|191680753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.712
95861032|NCT01354314|191680754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.673
95861033|NCT01354314|191680754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.153
95861034|NCT01354314|191680754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.282
95861035|NCT01354314|191680755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.327
95861036|NCT01354314|191680755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.178
95861037|NCT01354314|191680755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.480
95861038|NCT01354314|191680756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.267
95861039|NCT01354314|191680756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.368
95861040|NCT01354314|191680756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.672
95861041|NCT05188053|191680833|OTHER|"Sample size calculations were performed to estimate the number of subjects needed to detect a 30% difference in NRS pain AUC scores between the study groups.~30% reduction in pain was considered the minimal clinically important difference in pain control based off previous pain research.~A 30% reduction in pain would correspond with a difference of approximately 136 in area under the curve of mean pain over time."||||||0.17||||||a priori threshold p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|assuming unequal variance||Two-sample t-test with unequal variance. The null hypothesis is that there was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups based on a standard alpha value of 0.05.||||0.170
95861042|NCT04473235|191680888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.531
95785398|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.494
95785399|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
95813116|NCT03189719|191597606|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.06||||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|3.81|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||3.81|-3.93|0.9742
95813117|NCT03189719|191597607|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.77||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|3.17|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||3.17|-6.71|0.4810
95813118|NCT03189719|191597608|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.54||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-0.16|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.16|-10.93|0.0436
95813119|NCT03189719|191597608|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.94||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-0.02|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||-0.02|-5.86|0.0487
95813120|NCT03189719|191597608|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.49|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.49|-4.36|0.5932
95813121|NCT03189719|191597609|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.68||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|0.24|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.24|-17.59|0.0564
95813122|NCT03189719|191597609|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.13||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|2.66|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.66|-6.93|0.3813
95813123|NCT03189719|191597609|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.11||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.65|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||0.65|-10.86|0.0816
95999476|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.30|2.26|
95785400|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
95813124|NCT03189719|191597610|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.49||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|1.83|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.83|-10.81|0.1632
95785401|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
95861043|NCT04473235|191680889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the left hippocampus and left prefrontal cortex.||||0.627
95999477|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.75|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.75|1.53|
95785402|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.411
95785403|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.167
95785404|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.445
95785405|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.489
95785406|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.159
95785407|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.720
95785408|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.026
95785409|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.011
95785410|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.763
95785411|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.187
95785412|NCT03035916|191541007|OTHER|||||||0.112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Heart rate was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.112
95813125|NCT03189719|191597610|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.71||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|1.71|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||1.71|-5.12|0.3259
95813126|NCT03189719|191597610|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|2.48|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and ECOG performance status (0 versus 1).||2.48|-5.47|0.4598
95785413|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
95785414|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.645
95785415|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Baseline row."||||0.314
95785416|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.003
95785417|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.367
95785418|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Before induction row."||||0.031
95785419|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.009
95785420|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.873
95785421|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Induction row."||||0.026
95785422|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.411|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.411
95785423|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.787
95861044|NCT04473235|191680889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the connectivity between the right hippocampus and right prefrontal cortex.||||0.120
95785424|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Intubation row."||||0.306
95785425|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.921
95785426|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
95785427|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Incision row."||||0.001
95785428|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.555
95785429|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.058
95999478|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
95785430|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to Extubation row."||||0.166
95785431|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.288
95785432|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.299
95785433|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.051
95785434|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.186|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.186
95785435|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.555
95785436|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.065
95785437|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.168
95785438|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.739
95785439|NCT03035916|191541008|OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The mean arterial pressure(MAP) was measured from baseline to 48hours after surgery. The row Baseline is the preoperative level as the blank control.This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.079
95785440|NCT03035916|191541009|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
95785441|NCT03035916|191541009|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95785442|NCT03035916|191541009|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95785443|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.056
95785444|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.009
95785445|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
95785446|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.198
95785447|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.047
95785448|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
95785449|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.102
95785450|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
95785451|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785452|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785453|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.023
95785454|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785455|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.425
95785456|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.124
95785457|NCT03035916|191541010|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.052
95785458|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.176||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.176
95785459|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 indicates that the data difference is statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 1 hour after surgery row."||||0.001
95785460|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.228
95785461|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95813127|NCT03189719|191597611|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.2||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|-0.73|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||DYSPHAGIA: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||-0.73|-15.67|0.0317
95785462|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 6 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785463|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.057
95813128|NCT03189719|191597611|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|0.62|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||PAIN: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.62|-7.77|0.0945
95957505|NCT00776984|191887388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
95785464|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785465|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 12 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785466|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.004
95785467|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.005
95785468|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 24 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785469|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
95785470|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.002
95785471|NCT03035916|191541011|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The pain score were measured from 1 hour to 48hours after surgery. This Statistical Analysis applied to 48 hours after surgery row."||||0.001
95785472|NCT03035916|191541012|OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
95785473|NCT03035916|191541012|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
95785474|NCT03035916|191541012|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95785475|NCT03035916|191541013|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.644
95785476|NCT03035916|191541013|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
95785477|NCT03035916|191541013|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95785478|NCT03035916|191541014|OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
95785479|NCT03035916|191541014|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95785480|NCT03035916|191541014|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95785481|NCT03035916|191541015|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910
95785482|NCT03035916|191541015|OTHER|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.864
95785483|NCT03035916|191541015|OTHER|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
95785484|NCT03035916|191541016|OTHER|||||||0.972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972
95785485|NCT03035916|191541016|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987
95785486|NCT03035916|191541016|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
95785487|NCT01451554|191541018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||2 tailed t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using the 2 sample T-test.||||0.06
95785488|NCT01451554|191541019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were compared between groups using a 2 sample T-test.||||0.31
95785489|NCT04378569|191541037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.53|0.49|0.5788
95785490|NCT04378569|191541037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.17|0.33|0.6488
95861045|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|3.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.07|-1.15|0.4540
95999479|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|3.7|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.70|1.97|
95999480|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.29|1.99|
95999481|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
95785491|NCT04378569|191541037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation used to handle missing data|||2.25|0.32|0.5653
95785492|NCT04378569|191541038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.78|0.25|0.5033
95999482|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.78|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.78|1.18|
95999483|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.04|
95999484|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
95785493|NCT04378569|191541038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.79|0.25|0.4975
95785494|NCT04378569|191541038|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||P value was not evaluable|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score with multiple imputation to handle missing data|||2.55|0.04|
95999485|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.29|0.96|
95999486|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.20|0.89|
95999487|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
95999488|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.61|1.24|
95785495|NCT04378569|191541039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.44|0.23|0.7237
95785496|NCT04378569|191541039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.10|0.17|0.8380
95785497|NCT04378569|191541039|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.55||p-value was unevaluable||Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|||2.55|0.04|
95785498|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.07|0.31|0.9604
95785499|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.25|0.32|0.9752
95785500|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||3.03|0.11|0.5077
95785501|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||2.15|0.26|0.5916
95785502|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.27|0.3320
95785503|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||1.57|0.14|0.1922
95813129|NCT03189719|191597611|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.76||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|0.11|||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||REFLUX: Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux subscale was compared between treatment arms based on a cLDA model with EORTC QLQ-OES18 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors including geographic region (Asia versus Rest of the World) and tumor histology (Adenocarcinoma versus Squamous Cell Carcinoma).||0.11|-9.64|0.0555
95813130|NCT05211596|191597615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95999489|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.27|0.96|
95999490|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rises|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
95999491|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.88|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.88|1.82|
95785504|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.81|0.23|0.4188
95785505|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||1.92|0.29|0.5520
95785506|NCT04378569|191541040|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA score, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||2.20|0.21|0.69
95785507|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY|Week 2|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.21|-0.33|0.6464
95813131|NCT05211596|191597616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
95813132|NCT05211596|191597617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|849.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95813133|NCT05211596|191597618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|777.42||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
95813134|NCT05211596|191597619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95813135|NCT05211596|191597620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95813136|NCT02293551|191597621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Squares Mean|1.04||||0.2071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.988|1.1|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.10|0.988|0.2071
95813137|NCT02293551|191597621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.11||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.17|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.17|1.06|0.0005
95785508|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.25|-0.29|0.8881
95785509|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.46|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 2||0.46|-0.20|0.4360
95785510|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.36|-0.29|0.8196
95785511|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 4||0.34|-0.31|0.9217
95785512|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.4783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.53|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|||0.53|-0.25|0.4783
95785513|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.43|-0.32|0.7725
95785514|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.33|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.33|-0.43|0.7861
95785515|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.68|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 8||0.68|-0.24|0.3521
95785516|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.14|-0.62|0.2166
95813138|NCT02293551|191597621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric of Ratio Least Square Means|1.08||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.03|0.0123
95813139|NCT02293551|191597621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Ratio of Least Square Means|1.07||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.13|||Log Rank|Log (PK) model included treatment, period, and sequence group as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.||||1.13|1.02|0.0331
95785517|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.27|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.27|-0.52|0.5262
95785518|NCT04378569|191541041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.54|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables, with multiple imputation of missing data|Week 12||0.54|-0.39|0.7575
95813140|NCT02293551|191597621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||Dose proportionality and the degree of dose proportionality was assessed by fitting the power model versus dose. Estimated ratio of dose-normalized geometric means of PK parameters between the highest and lowest doses assessed dose proportionality.|||1.16|1.06|
95813141|NCT04532749|191597622|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|=|0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.64|-4.00|=0.411
95813142|NCT04532749|191597623|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|=|0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|1.59|||MMRM model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint (MADRS-WOSI) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||1.59|-3.41|=0.473
95813143|NCT04532749|191597624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.85|||MMRM Model|||In accordance with protocol predefined testing sequence, statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the second secondary endpoint (PROMIS-SD; Short Form 8a) and thus, a formal statistical testing was not performed.||0.85|-4.87|=0.167
95813144|NCT00069641|191597672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.99|31.93|||ANCOVA|||p-value for treatment difference based on Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model containing treatment, region, baseline participant age, and baseline disease score.||31.93|5.99|0.0049
95813145|NCT01664624|191597675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|6.7||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and alogliptin alone.||6.7|-16.9|0.388
95813146|NCT01664624|191597675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.3||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||34.3|11.1|<0.001
95813147|NCT01664624|191597675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|40.5||The comparison was evaluated at the 5% level of significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline Postprandial AUC (0-8) of active GLP-1 as a continuous covariate.||ANCOVA was used to test the null hypothesis that the change from Baseline in the postprandial AUC(0-8) of active GLP-1 is no difference between the roflumilast + alogliptin and roflumilast alone.||40.5|17.1|<0.001
95785519|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified|Stratified|Week 2||4.70|0.64|0.2662
95785520|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||4.00|0.59|0.3798
95785521|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||11.17|0.90|0.0611
95785522|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.93|0.64|0.3129
95785523|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||2.74|0.35|0.9586
95785524|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|15.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||15.29|0.87|0.0643
95785525|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||6.88|0.84|0.0932
95785526|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.59|0.44|0.5730
95785527|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|25.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.66|0.96|0.0389
95813148|NCT04778592|191597681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|-0.36|0.4549
95813149|NCT03289143|191597728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6147||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6147
95785528|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.53|0.60|0.2813
95785529|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.03|0.17|0.6841
95785530|NCT04378569|191541043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|9.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.21|0.49|0.3113
95785531|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||10.67|0.46|0.2674
95785532|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|17.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||17.54|0.44|0.2850
95813150|NCT03289143|191597728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5778||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5778
95813151|NCT03289143|191597728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5136||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5136
95813152|NCT03289143|191597730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8198||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.8198
95785533|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|16.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 2||16.52|0.42|0.3086
95785534|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||40.83|0.46|0.1655
95785535|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|7.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||7.67|0.26|0.7154
95813153|NCT03289143|191597730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
95813154|NCT03289143|191597730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6043
95813155|NCT03289143|191597731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0783||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0783
95813156|NCT03289143|191597731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.6010
95813157|NCT03289143|191597731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3961||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.3961
95813158|NCT03289143|191597732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9749||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.9749
95813159|NCT03289143|191597732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7718||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7718
95813160|NCT03289143|191597732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5789||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5789
95813161|NCT03289143|191597733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5235||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5235
95785536|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|14.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 4||14.64|0.27|0.5371
95785537|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|57.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||57.83|0.43|0.2170
95785538|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|18.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||18.22|0.41|0.3408
95785539|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade|Week 8||14.20|0.41|0.3270
95785540|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0719|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||||0.0719
95785541|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||8.43|0.07|0.8527
95785542|NCT04378569|191541046|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|13.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site group and baseline IGA grade||Week 12||13.11|0.37|0.3545
95785543|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.4|-9.2|0.0725
95785544|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||-1.0|-10.7|0.0183
95785545|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables||Week 2||4.3|-7.7|0.5701
95785546|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||2.3|-10.4|0.2116
95785547|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||1.4|-11.5|0.1235
95813162|NCT03289143|191597733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5612||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.5612
95861046|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.77|9.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||9.99|5.77|< 0.0001
95785548|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 4||5.9|-9.7|0.6334
95785549|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||2.1|-11.4|0.1788
95785550|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.8|-14.4|0.0292
95785551|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 8||-0.5|-17.1|0.0371
95785552|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||3.5|-11.3|0.2971
95785553|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||-1.9|-17.2|0.0150
95785554|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 12||1.9|-15.8|0.1245
95785555|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|2.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||2.1|-12.7|0.1591
95785556|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||0.3|-14.8|0.0600
95785557|NCT04378569|191541047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 13||5.5|-12.0|0.4640
95813163|NCT03289143|191597733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Unadjusted|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.7130
95813164|NCT00730756|191597738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.845||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Center, baseline eosinophils, baseline symptom score, age, and gender were included as covariates in all efficacy analyses.||||||0.845
95785558|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066||||0.3184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.064|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, and baseline IGA were independent variables|Week 2||0.064|-0.196|0.3184
95785559|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.8514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.123|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.123|-0.149|0.8514
95785560|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.249|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 2||0.249|-0.068|0.2603
95785561|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|-0.019|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.019|-0.323|0.0273
95785562|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.021|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||-0.021|-0.339|0.0266
95813165|NCT01152307|191597747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||6.09|0.76|0.01
95813166|NCT01126190|191597749|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper endpoint of the CI for the difference in mean DSN was less than or equal to 0.62 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.37||||||For the primary non-inferiority endpoint of cycle 1 DSN, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in DSN was calculated by stratified bootstrap resampling.||0.37|-0.13|
95813167|NCT00524121|191597756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.011
95957506|NCT04414397|191887413|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|66.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|78.8||Analysis was performed using the SAS procedure MIANALYZE with normal approximation to generate an associated p-value for the comparison of responder rates between groups.|Multiple imputation regression|||JUVÉDERM® VOLUMA® XC Treatment vs No-treatment control||78.8|54.9|<0.0001
95785563|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.9023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.173|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 4||0.173|-0.196|0.9023
95861047|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.22|13.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||13.44|9.22|< 0.0001
95785564|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096||||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.098|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.098|-0.291|0.3298
95785565|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.15|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.150|-0.251|0.6205
95813168|NCT00524121|191597757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.115
95813169|NCT00524121|191597758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95813170|NCT00524121|191597759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95861048|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.48|10.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.70|6.48|< 0.0001
95957507|NCT04414397|191887417|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 visit is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95813171|NCT00524121|191597760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5467|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5467
95813172|NCT01977898|191597913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||Fisher Exact|||A sample size of 65 patients in each group would be required to achieve 80% power to detect this difference between intrathecal morphine and saline administration . Sample size of 64 per group achieve 80% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 0.25. The proportion in the treatment group is assumed to be 0.5 under the null hypothesis and 0.25 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in the control group is .05.The significance level of the test was targeted at .05.||||.877
95813173|NCT01977898|191597914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
95813174|NCT01977898|191597915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.463
95813175|NCT01977898|191597916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0463
95813176|NCT01977898|191597917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.525
95813177|NCT01977898|191597918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.691
95813178|NCT01977898|191597919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.610
95813179|NCT01977898|191597920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.499
95813180|NCT01977898|191597921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
95813181|NCT01977898|191597922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.31
95785566|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.217|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 8||0.217|-0.253|0.8817
95785567|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.058|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.058|-0.302|0.1837
95813182|NCT01453166|191597950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.05||95.0|100.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||140|100|<0.05
95813183|NCT01453166|191597951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.05||95.0|66.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95|66|0.05
95813184|NCT01453166|191597952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|170.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.0||0.05||95.0|140.0|220.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||220|140|0.05
95813185|NCT01453166|191597953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.05||95.0|88.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||112|88|0.05
95813186|NCT01453166|191597954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.05||95.0|77.0|137.0|||ANOVA|||"The absolute changes has been assessed by ANOVA, in which the homogeneity of variance was assessed and the Brown-Forsythe correction was used when necessary. In cases of statistically significant differences between groups, we used multiple comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment to locate the differences. Was considered statistically significant p values \<0.05. All analyzes were performed following the principle of intention to treat."||137|77|0.05
95957508|NCT04414397|191887418|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean satisfaction score at Month 3 is statistically greater than at Baseline for the treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95785568|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.088|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|||0.088|-0.293|0.2896
95813187|NCT02727322|191597959|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.04|||Chi-squared|||||2.04|0.50|0.97
95813188|NCT02727322|191597960|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.43|||Chi-squared|||||1.43|0.885|0.665
95813189|NCT02727322|191597961|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.68|||Fisher Exact|||||5.68|0.31|1.0
95813190|NCT02369536|191597964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
95813191|NCT02369536|191597967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Intention-to-treat-analysis. Differences between basal values in active and control groups and between T1 vsT0 changes in the two groups assessed by ANOVA and Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
95813192|NCT02410772|191597972|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||4.5|-2.6|0.05
95861049|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.85|11.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||11.07|6.85|< 0.0001
95957509|NCT02551692|191887441|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|855.65||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.534
95957510|NCT02551692|191887442|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|29602.69||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95957511|NCT02551692|191887443|OTHER||Partial sum of squares|101.69||||0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.318
95957512|NCT02799745|191887444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.892||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR, 95% CI for HR:based on a Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk,type of biopsy,baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.892|0.330|0.016
95999492|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.9|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.90|1.18|
95785569|NCT04378569|191541048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.227|||ANCOVA|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Treatment group, pooled site group, baseline IGA grade, and baseline % BSA were independent variables|Week 12||0.227|-0.205|0.9190
95785570|NCT02672176|191541066|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785571|NCT02672176|191541067|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785572|NCT02672176|191541068|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785573|NCT02672176|191541069|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785574|NCT02672176|191541070|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785575|NCT02672176|191541071|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785576|NCT02672176|191541072|EQUIVALENCE|See Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95813193|NCT02410772|191597972|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||6.6|-0.6|0.05
95813194|NCT02410772|191597973|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||5.1|-1.1|0.05
95861050|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.96|10.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||10.18|5.96|< 0.0001
95999493|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
95785577|NCT02672176|191541073|EQUIVALENCE|Information in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785578|NCT02672176|191541074|EQUIVALENCE|Information included in Statistical Analysis||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785579|NCT02688764|191541085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.1465
95785580|NCT02688764|191541088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects||||0.0872
95785581|NCT02688764|191541089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6207||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.6207
95785582|NCT02688764|191541089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3226||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 2 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects.||||0.3226
95785583|NCT02688764|191541107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5682||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=2 years to \<6 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5682
95785584|NCT02688764|191541107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2271||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=6 years to \<12 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.2271
95785585|NCT02688764|191541107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Age group of \>=12 years to \<=18 years~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0220
95861051|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|7.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.64|3.42|< 0.0001
95785586|NCT02688764|191541108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline above Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.0058
95785587|NCT02688764|191541108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5801||||||0.05 level of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Group of SP at baseline below or within Age Related Normal Range~Results are obtained from a linear mixed model which includes change in serum phosphorus levels from baseline to the end of Stage 1 as dependent variable and treatment, baseline serum phosphorus, age (in categories) at randomisation, region (Non-US/US) and gender as fixed effects."||||0.5801
95785588|NCT02579382|191541109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.107||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.282||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.282|-0.067|0.227
95785589|NCT02579382|191541109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.018||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.191||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.191|-0.156|0.840
95785590|NCT02579382|191541109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.127||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.301||MMRM model included treatment, baseline ALT level, HBeAg baseline status, baseline HBsAg, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and visit as repeated measurement.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.047|0.151
95785591|NCT03026283|191541132|OTHER|||||||1||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement McNemar's test comparing sensitivity and specificity for CCTA alone and FFR-CT, assuming conditional dependence.|Chi-squared|||Reference test is positive (test of sensitivity).||||1.00
95785592|NCT03026283|191541132|OTHER||||||<|0.0047||||||In order to evaluate the significance of sensitivity and specificity findings, we implement Mcnemar's test comparing sensitive and pscificity for CCTA and FFR-CT assuming dependence.|Chi-squared|McNemar's chi-squared = 8.00||Reference test is Negative||||<0.0047
95813195|NCT02410772|191597973|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than , then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.7||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary efficacy endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||7.7|1.2|0.05
95813196|NCT02410772|191597974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.2||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||3.2|-4.3|0.05
95843720|NCT03043872|191654964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.437||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.437|0.661|0.8934
95861052|NCT02785770|191680915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.74||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||Moxifloxacin 400 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.85|1.64|0.0036
95785593|NCT02179047|191541165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95813197|NCT02410772|191597974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavorable status on the control regimen (2HRZE/ 4 HR) and the investigational regimens, Regimen 2 (2HPZ/2HP) and Regimen 3 (2HPZM/2HPM). If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than, then the non-inferiority of Arm 2 or Arm 3 to Arm 1 with a significance level of 0.05 is established (equivalent to one-sided α=0.025).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.5||For a significance level of 0.05, the statistical test is equivalent to obtaining the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference of r\_b-r\_a.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary Safety endpoint, unfavorable outcomes for Arm1(control) vs Arm3(2PHZM/2PHM) will be considered first, if non-inferiority criteria are met, then Arm 1 vs Arm 2(2PHZE/2PH) will be compared. The proportion of participants with unfavorable outcome can be estimated as: if r\_a and r\_b are the proportions of unfavorable outcome for the two study arms (a=Arm1 and b = Arm2 or Arm3) and if δ is the non-inferiority margin (=6.6%), statistical hypothesis is H\_0:r\_b-r\_a≥δ vs.H\_1:r\_b-r\_a\<δ||-1.5|-8.7|0.05
95813198|NCT02410772|191597979|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|4.63||||||||4.63|-2.45|
95813199|NCT02410772|191597979|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|7.79||||||||7.79|0.45|
95813200|NCT02410772|191597980|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.11||||||||4.11|-2.01|
95813201|NCT02410772|191597980|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066)|Risk Difference (RD)|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|6.9||||||||6.90|0.42|
95813202|NCT02410772|191597982|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.6||||||||6.6|-0.6|
95813203|NCT02410772|191597982|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|5.7||||||||5.70|-1.12|
95813204|NCT02410772|191597983|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.9||||||||8.9|2.8|
95813205|NCT02410772|191597983|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin to define inferiority: 6.6% (δ = 0.066).|Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.3||||||||6.3|0.5|
95813206|NCT02384421|191598004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95957513|NCT02799745|191887446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.92||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||6.92|1.76|0.00
95813207|NCT02384421|191598005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
95813208|NCT02384421|191598006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95813209|NCT02384421|191598007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.25
95813210|NCT02384421|191598008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95813211|NCT02384421|191598009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95813212|NCT01164007|191598012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||One-sample exact binomial test|||The observed percentage of participants with CR or PR was compared with the expected proportion under the null hypothesis (0.10) and analyzed for statistical significance using a one-sample exact binomial test.||||0.071
95999494|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.63|
95813213|NCT03218917|191598051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.014
95813214|NCT03218917|191598051|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||P-value is one-sided for superiority.|Stratified Log-rank test|Stratified by colonization status and maintenance antibiotic use at Baseline.||||||= 0.022
95813215|NCT02581891|191598076|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is set to 5 letters.|LS mean difference|-2.0199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3833||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.747|0.7073|||ANCOVA|||||0.7073|-4.7470|0.0162
95813216|NCT04067011|191598093|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8895|1.0718||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0718|0.8895|
95813217|NCT04067011|191598093|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.9706|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8693|1.0838||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for ciprofloxacin on Days 8 and 35||1.0838|0.8693|
95813218|NCT04067011|191598094|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of AUC0-12h.|Ratio of AUC|0.9173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8187|1.0278||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ratio of Area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12h) for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0278|0.8187|
95813219|NCT04067011|191598094|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence testing was constructed using paired two one-sided t-tests (TOST) with natural log transformation of PK parameters. Results obtained from transformed analyses were back-transformed by exponentiation for presentation of the point estimates and 90% CIs for geometric mean ratio of Cmax.|Ratio of Cmax|0.8974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7841|1.0271||||||Analysis of Geometric mean ration of Cmax for doxycycline on Days 8 and 38||1.0271|0.7841|
95813220|NCT04067011|191598095|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 1/Group 3)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
95813221|NCT04067011|191598095|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.5.|Ratio of GMT (Group 2/Group 3)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||||||||1.6|0.81|
95813222|NCT01276106|191598109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
95813223|NCT01276106|191598109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.05|-0.64|0.0979
95813224|NCT01276106|191598109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made and a value of p\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with change in HbA1c as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.15|-0.54|0.2643
95813225|NCT00862940|191598118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model relating direct change in brain volume (BBSI) to time and its interaction with treatment group. This model additionally includes a time-by-AChEI group interaction as a fixed effect.||2.52|-2.60|0.9754
95813226|NCT00862940|191598119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.52||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|31.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) with unstructured covariance including time, time-by-treatment, visit, pre-treatment HCV, and AChEI group.||31.04|-38.04|0.842
95999495|NCT01025336|191975303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.51|0.99|
95813227|NCT00862940|191598120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.23||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for COWAT at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||3.23|0.13|0.034
95813228|NCT00862940|191598121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.15||The p-value represents the difference from placebo for MMSE at Week 52 (MMRM).|MMRM|||||1.15|-0.67|0.602
95813229|NCT04537650|191598122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|243.24|||Chi-squared|||||243.24|1.8|<0.001
95813230|NCT04537650|191598123|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|487.5|||Chi-squared|||||487.5|4.15|<0.001
95785594|NCT02179047|191541166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95813231|NCT00829244|191598140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the difference between the mean number of oocytes \[CONSORT calculator dosing - Standard dosing\] was less than or equal to \[=\<\] (-3). The alternate hypothesis was that the difference was greater than \[\>\] (-3).||-0.1|-3.3|0.037
95813232|NCT00829244|191598141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-511.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-638.78|-383.96|||ANOVA|||||-383.96|-638.78|<0.001
95813233|NCT00829244|191598142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-37.46|||ANOVA|||||-37.46|-53.75|<0.001
95785595|NCT02179047|191541167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95813234|NCT00829244|191598143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.933
95785596|NCT01563198|191541191|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Change in Non-completion Rate of MRI Scans From Baseline at Average of One Year (All Schedule Patients)||||<0.0001
95999496|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
95785597|NCT01563198|191541192|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95785598|NCT01563198|191541193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95813235|NCT00829244|191598145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|18.2||||||||18.2|-11.0|
95813236|NCT00829244|191598147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||ANOVA|||||13.6|-12.3|0.926
95813237|NCT00829244|191598149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.47|||ANOVA|||||2.47|-0.61|0.235
95813238|NCT00829244|191598150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.6||||||||14.6|-13.5|
95813239|NCT01542788|191598155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence or absence of cirrhosis for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|A sample size of 180 subjects in the active group and 60 in the placebo group would provide 99% power to detect a difference between group SVR12 rates of 40% using a 2-sided continuity-corrected chi-square test at significance level of 0.05.||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
95813240|NCT01542788|191598157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|88.5|||||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||88.5|76.8|
95861053|NCT02785770|191680916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|1.8|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.80|-2.38|0.8195
95861054|NCT02785770|191680916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.44|6.64|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.64|2.44|0.0004
95861055|NCT02785770|191680917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|2.22|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.22|-1.95|0.9146
95957514|NCT02799745|191887446|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.0||P-value: Based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where fixed covariates=treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis; random effects: site and subject. 95% CI: based on exact binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||4.00|0.66|0.289
95999497|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.16|0.91|
95785599|NCT01490840|191541200|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 90 in each group would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 3.8, assuming that the common standard deviation is 9.05, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 2-sided significance level.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.44|||ANCOVA|||||2.44|-5.39|0.4579
95785600|NCT00905567|191541224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|93.01||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
95785601|NCT00905567|191541225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.62||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
95785602|NCT00905567|191541226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-72h, and Cmax. All analyses were performed according to FDA's guidleines.|Ratio of the Least Squares Mean|96.43||||||90.0|||||||Bioequivalence is established when the Ratio of the Least Squares Mean (test/reference x 100) falls within 80-125.|||||
95785603|NCT01473940|191541236|OTHER|||||||||||||P-Value not used||||A 3 + 3 enrollment design was adopted to monitor safety and determine the MTD based on DLTs obsesved. The MTD is the highest dose at which 0 of 3 or 1 of 6 DLTs are detected. The MTD is exceeded if 2 of 3 or 2 of 6 DLTs are detected. There will be no dose escalation within a cohort.|The number of DLTs seen at each cohort were used to determine the MTD for the expansion cohort. The MTD was determined to be Gemcitabine - 1,000 mg/m2, Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg|||
95785604|NCT00828061|191541259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.25||||0.002||95.0|0.12|0.54||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.54|0.12|0.002
95785605|NCT00828061|191541259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Difference|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.15||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Analysis performed on log-transformed fold change from baseline and results were back-transformed for reporting.||||0.15|0.03|<0.001
95785606|NCT00828061|191541260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.537||95.0|-15.48|17.26||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||17.26|-15.48|0.537
95785607|NCT01400906|191541261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.38|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.380|-0.037|
95785608|NCT01400906|191541261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.37|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.370|-0.047|
95861056|NCT02785770|191680917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.14|2.95|<0.0001
95861057|NCT02785770|191680918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|3.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.33|-0.84|0.3272
95785609|NCT01400906|191541266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.836|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.836|0.440|
95785610|NCT01400906|191541266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.859|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.859|0.463|
95785611|NCT01400906|191541267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.333|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.333|0.018|
95785612|NCT01400906|191541267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.323|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.323|0.008|
95785613|NCT01400906|191541268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.627|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.627|0.326|
95785614|NCT01400906|191541268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||||The estimated value is an adjusted mean difference. Data were adjusted for the following covariates: period, smoking status, treatment, participant-level Baseline, period-level Baseline, and treatment by smoking status interaction.|||0.680|0.380|
95785615|NCT00614874|191541316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Comparison is between baseline and week 12|ANOVA|||||||0.048
95999498|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
95785616|NCT00614874|191541317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0||0.183||95.0||||comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.183
95785617|NCT00614874|191541318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95||0.398||95.0||||Comparison was at baseline and week 12|Friedman|||||||0.398
95785618|NCT02087943|191541320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.01||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.52|4.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-34.52|0.1308
95785619|NCT02087943|191541320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-1.5||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from Baseline as the response variable and the treatment group and Baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-39.70|0.0347
95785620|NCT02087943|191541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-2.7||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.8||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-10.2|0.4938
95785621|NCT02087943|191541321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|8.0||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.2||Adjusted treatment differences in proportions using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with, CMH weights.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.2|-2.3|0.1368
95785622|NCT02087943|191541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|-1.5||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||14.9|-18.0|0.8589
95785623|NCT02087943|191541322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference in Proportion|9.9||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted differences in proportions was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the stratum of baseline EASI score stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) with the CMH weights.|||26.6|-6.7|0.2476
95813241|NCT01542788|191598158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|83.6||P-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by randomization stratification factor for the superiority of SOF+RBV over placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% CI are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||83.6|71.0|< 0.001
95861058|NCT02785770|191680918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|6.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||6.36|2.16|0.0009
95785624|NCT02087943|191541323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.17||||0.5286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|10.99|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||10.99|-21.34|0.5286
95785625|NCT02087943|191541323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.6092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|11.88|||ANCOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model with the percentage change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group and baseline EASI stratification (≤ 20, \> 20) as factors, and the baseline average weekly pruritus NRS score as a covariate.|||11.88|-20.22|0.6092
95861059|NCT02785770|191680919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.60|-2.57|0.7024
95785626|NCT04607135|191541329|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||F-statistic = 11.71|Welch's ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95785627|NCT04607135|191541329|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||q-statistic = 6.74|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.002
95785628|NCT04607135|191541329|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||q-statistic = 2.34|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.24
95785629|NCT04607135|191541329|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||q-statistic = 2.04|Games-Howell post-hoc test|||||||0.35
95785630|NCT04607135|191541330|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
95785631|NCT04607135|191541331|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
95957515|NCT02799745|191887447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|-5.34||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|Mixed model repeated measure(MMRM) with treatment group, prostate cancer risk(low/intermediate), type of biopsy(mpMRI-targeted/non-mpMRI-targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment, baseline scores as fixed factors, site and participants as random factors.|Change at month 12||-5.34|-14.79|<0.001
95999499|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.13|0.91|
95957516|NCT02799745|191887447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.11||P-values: from differences of least squares means.Bonferroni-Holm was used in the primary hypothesis testing to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry was used as the covariance structure. Covariance parameters:estimated using Restricted Maximum likelihood.|MMRM with treatment group, prostate cancer risk (low vs. intermediate), type of biopsy (mpMRI targeted vs. non mpMRI targeted), visit, visit-by-treatment and baseline scores were the fixed factors, and site and participants were the random factors.|Change at month 24||1.11|-11.40|0.1063
95957517|NCT02799745|191887448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.714||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.972||P-value: from a 2-sided, stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI for HR:based on Cox regression model assuming proportional hazards with treatment, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, baseline variables(as age, race), time since prostate cancer diagnosis as fixed effects and random effect of site.|||0.972|0.525|0.032
95957518|NCT02799745|191887449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR:from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 12||0.26|0.08|0.000
95785632|NCT01753115|191541359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of AUC|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|0.948||||||Analysis of Ciprofloxacin Area Under the Curve at Day 5 and Day 44.||0.948|0.831|
95785633|NCT01753115|191541359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margin is 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Cmax|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.046||||||Analysis of Cmax at Day 5 and Day 44||1.046|0.852|
95957519|NCT02799745|191887449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.53||P-value: based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of month 24||3.53|0.37|0.807
95785634|NCT01753115|191541360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.67.|Ratio of GMT|1.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.787||||||||1.787|0.898|
95785635|NCT01515696|191541385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95785636|NCT01515696|191541386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95785637|NCT01515696|191541387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95957520|NCT02799745|191887449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.15||P-value:based on the exact binomial distribution from the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic||OR: from logistic regression model where treatment group, prostate cancer risk, type of biopsy, age, race and time since prostate cancer diagnosis were fixed covariates, site and participant were random effects. 95% CI:based on binomial distribution.|At the end of study||2.15|0.50|0.931
95957521|NCT02056873|191887457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"At 6 months post-surgery the YGTSS scores of each subjects is statistically tested against their baseline scores.~A decrease in this tic severity scale means that the severity of the tics have reduced.~Hence, we performed a superiority test, which statistically verifies if the reduction in the tic severity scale was meaningful."||||0.05
95957522|NCT00497874|191887458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(145) = 2.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.003
95785638|NCT00685360|191541388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.534|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.124|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.124|1.107|=0.0083
95785639|NCT00685360|191541388|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.416|||=|0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.98||P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.980|1.012|=0.0393
95861060|NCT02785770|191680919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|4.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.36|0.16|0.0768
95957523|NCT00497874|191887459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(181) = 2.9||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.002
95785640|NCT00685360|191541400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.599|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.177|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||2.177|1.175|=0.0021
95785641|NCT00685360|191541400|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.939|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.449|2.595|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.595|1.449|<.0001
95785642|NCT00685360|191541401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from analysis of covariance(ANCOVA)model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2419
95785643|NCT00685360|191541401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2239|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.2239
95785644|NCT00685360|191541401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9544|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison is derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.9544
95785645|NCT00685360|191541402|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0246
95785646|NCT00685360|191541402|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.0529
95785647|NCT00685360|191541402|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Pairwise comparison was derived from ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, baseline cavitation status and covariate baseline.||||||=0.7508
95785648|NCT00685360|191541403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.272|||=|0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.627|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.627|0.995|=0.0518
95785649|NCT00685360|191541403|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.203|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.550|0.934|=0.1506
95785650|NCT00685360|191541404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.234|||=|0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.612|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.612|0.945|=0.1201
95785651|NCT00685360|191541404|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.099|||=|0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.456|0.829|=0.5112
95785652|NCT00685360|191541405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.323|||=|0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|1.661|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.661|1.053|=0.0141
95813242|NCT01139515|191598186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.17|105.7||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.70|92.17|
95813243|NCT01139515|191598186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.23|117.24||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.24|102.23|
95785653|NCT00685360|191541405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.438|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.155|1.791|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.791|1.155|=0.0008
95785654|NCT00685360|191541406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.341|||=|0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.044|1.722|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.722|1.044|=0.0196
95785655|NCT00685360|191541406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio Mean|1.503|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.909|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived using CMH test stratified by randomization strata (cavitation).||||1.909|1.183|=0.0006
95785656|NCT00685360|191541407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||Cochran-Armitage Linear Trend Test|Cochran-Armitage test was performed for dose response with the treatment group ordered as placebo, delamanid 100 mg BID, and delamanid 200 mg BID.||||||=0.0468
95785657|NCT00685360|191541408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.856|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.255|2.745|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.745|1.255|=0.0011
95785658|NCT00685360|191541408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.849|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|2.743|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|p-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS Proc lifetest for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.743|1.246|=0.0013
95785659|NCT00685360|191541409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.926|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|2.82|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.820|1.315|=0.0004
95785660|NCT00685360|191541409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.189|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||3.189|1.504|<.0001
95785661|NCT00685360|191541410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.727|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.591|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.591|1.152|=0.0056
95785662|NCT00685360|191541410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.585|||=|0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.048|2.399|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.399|1.048|=0.0232
95785663|NCT00685360|191541411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.846|||=|0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.235|2.759|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||2.759|1.235|=0.0016
95785664|NCT00685360|191541411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.301|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.555|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|P-value was derived from Log-rank test with SAS PROC LIFETEST for comparisons with placebo.|Hazard ratio computed with SAS PROC PHREG for comparisons with placebo.|||3.405|1.555|<.0001
95785665|NCT02937636|191541453|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment, gender, smoking status and baseline MGI stratification as factors and baseline as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.07|-0.12|<.0001
95785666|NCT04208412|191541457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||0.0010
95785667|NCT04208412|191541458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||Prescott's Test|||||||0.0045
95785668|NCT04208412|191541459|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||"Gehan's Generalized Wilcoxon Test:~600 mg KVD900 vs Placebo"||||<0.0001
95785669|NCT04208412|191541460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
95785670|NCT04208412|191541461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Test (Gehan's Generalized)|||||||<0.0001
95785671|NCT01129804|191541509|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal Linear mixed modeling|Slope|0.1|||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Tested the null hypothesis that slopes of PDA over time would not differ between treatment conditions, as indicated by the significance of the Treatment main effect and Treatment X Time interaction effect, at the level of p \< .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Multilevel longitudinal modeling (MLM) with random effects and maximum likelihood estimation (Proc MIXED; SAS Institute, 1999) was used to evaluate the effects of treatment over time for each of the continuously scaled outcome variables described above. The MLM approach was used because it employs maximum likelihood estimation of covariance matrices rather than raw data, allowing us to take advantage of all data collected for anyone randomized to treatment. Each repeated dependent variable was analyzed as a unction of treatment condition, time since intake (in months), and the interaction of treatment condition by time.|||<.04
95785672|NCT00435188|191541536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Omnibus p value for group difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95785673|NCT00435188|191541539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value reporting overall differences between groups for group and group by time interaction with two degrees of freedom||||0.47
95785674|NCT00435188|191541542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value for overall difference between groups at the end of the study and group by time interaction on two degrees of freedom||||0.04
95785675|NCT00435188|191541543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||<0.001
95785676|NCT00435188|191541546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus P value provides the overall difference between groups at the end of the study||||0.29
95785677|NCT00435188|191541549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.35
95785678|NCT00435188|191541552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P value provides the overall differences between groups at the end of the study||||0.08
95785679|NCT04399538|191541563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-52.36|||<|0.0001||80.0|-60.07|-43.17|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-43.17|-60.07|<0.0001
95785680|NCT04399538|191541563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-56.58|||<|0.0001||80.0|-63.88|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-47.80|-63.88|<0.0001
95785681|NCT04399538|191541563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-58.8|||<|0.0001||80.0|-65.66|-50.57|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale. Relative change was converted to percent change as follows: Percent change = 100\*(RC-1). 80% CI was calculated based on difference in LS mean between groups.||-50.57|-65.66|<0.0001
95785682|NCT04399538|191541563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-45.8||||0.0003||80.0|-55.86|-33.46|||ANCOVA|||Natural log-transformed individual relative change (RC) from baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect, natural log-transformed baseline % liver fat by MRI-PDFF as covariate. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.||-33.46|-55.86|0.0003
95785683|NCT01037816|191541601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|||The treatment effect of the FS-67 patch was estimated by computing the difference in LS means of the FS-67 and placebo patches from the ANCOVA model||||0.137
95785684|NCT01037816|191541602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
95785685|NCT00727090|191541603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Change in serum sodium from baseline is not different between groups||||<0.05
95785686|NCT01703169|191541627|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of platelet response in a previous study (PMID:22762314) was 0.36 (9/25). The null hypothesis of no difference between the platelet response rate in this study and that of the previous study was tested using a two-sided exact test of binomial proportions. A p-value of 0.40 was obtained. The threshold for significance was 0.05.|||
95785687|NCT00547248|191541632|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the difference in terms of incidence of post-immunization febrile reactions (rectal temperature \> 39.0°C) in Synflorix™ vaccine minus Prevenar™ did not exceed the pre-defined clinically acceptable threshold of 5% + half the incidence in Prevenar.|Difference in percentage|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.59|||Philips' statistical test|||||5.59|-4.82|
95785688|NCT05133323|191541661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0106|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6||0.0106
95785689|NCT00909220|191541665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-C score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-C score at week 16).||0.49|0.27|0.05
95785690|NCT00909220|191541666|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.59|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA comparing groups (HEA v MDD), controlling for baseline depression (IDS-SR score at week 0) to estimate depression at the end of treatment (IDS-SR score at week 16).||0.59|0.31|<0.05
95785691|NCT00909220|191541667|OTHER|Multiple regression analyses|beta|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \<0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||||||.02
95785692|NCT00909220|191541668|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) , an ordinary least square (OLS) regression-based analysis.|Slope|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.77||The variation of slopes among participants for each variable were calculated. If significant, a second level of analysis focused on predictors of the variation was conducted.|Regression, Logistic|df = 31||A two-level hierarchical linear model assessing the effects of negativity bias and positivity offset at pre-treatment on the rate of depression severity (IDS-SR) over 16 weeks of treatment (time). First level units were 'weeks in BA treatment', with participants limited to those who attended five or more therapy sessions, resulting in a total of 421 treatment weeks for analysis. Second-level units were the 'subjects entering BA treatment'.||2.77|1.22|<0.05
95785693|NCT04152083|191541687|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||1.98|1.20|0.0006
95813244|NCT01139515|191598186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|109.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.65|117.72||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUC\[0- ∞\] of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.72|102.65|
95813245|NCT01139515|191598187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|99.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.97|106.31||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||106.31|92.97|
95813246|NCT01139515|191598187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.36|118.18||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.18|103.36|
95957524|NCT00497874|191887460|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.04||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(153) = 1.8||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.04
95785694|NCT04152083|191541688|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Likelihood ratio test|||The median estimate for each treatment group, hazard ratio, and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling. The analysis was censored at the time point of first rescue medication. The stratification factors were concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||2.19|1.41|<0.0001
95785695|NCT04152083|191541689|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.72|1.39|0.0009
95785696|NCT04152083|191541690|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio and 95% CI were based on CMH test adjusted for the study's stratification factors of concomitant migraine preventive treatment use and region.||3.25|1.55|<0.0001
95785697|NCT01639703|191541703|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.21|0.47|0.2476
95813247|NCT01139515|191598187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|110.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.28|118.09||||||Natural log transformed, dose-normalized AUClast of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.09|103.28|
95813248|NCT01139515|191598188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric means ratio|101.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.97|120.58||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||120.58|85.97|
95813249|NCT01139515|191598188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|98.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.23|116.73||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||116.73|83.23|
95813250|NCT01139515|191598188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|107.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|127.25||||||"Natural log transformed, dose-normalized Cmax of eletriptan was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios."||127.25|90.72|
95813251|NCT00372957|191598216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.93|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.93|-2.28|
95785698|NCT01639703|191541704|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 5 units for Blood Volume|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.66|0.77|0.5354
95785699|NCT01639703|191541705|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.13|0.71|0.3487
95785700|NCT01639703|191541706|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Blood Flow|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.29|0.90|0.4195
95785701|NCT01639703|191541707|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.54|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||1.54|0.53|0.7127
95785702|NCT01639703|191541708|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||Odds-ratio is the risk to move from one immunochemistry category to the below one (among 0%, 1-10%, 10-50% and \>50%) considering an increase of 10 units for Permeability Surface|Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed with each off-site CT perfusion parameters as explicative variables taken alone and each off-site immunohistochemistry categorized parameters as dependent variables.||2.31|0.86|0.1753
95785703|NCT03318003|191541709|SUPERIORITY||Pearson Chi Square|0.76||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments made|Chi-squared|||||||0.92
95813252|NCT00372957|191598216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.98|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-1.98|-2.33|
95813253|NCT00372957|191598216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.82|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.82|-2.15|
95785704|NCT01462305|191541713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||interaction effect and week of treatment condition|ANOVA|||To test the hypothesis that depressed SAD patients would demonstrate greater antidepressant therapeutic benefit from the \~465nm (shorter wavelength) source compared with the \~595nm (longer wavelength) source, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.3 with treatment (\~465nm vs. \~595nm) as a between-subject factor and time (treatment visit 1, treatment visit 2, treatment visit 3, phone assessment 1, phone assessment 2, and treatment visit 4) as a within-subject factor.||||0.74
95785705|NCT01462305|191541713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed no significant effect or interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.9
95813254|NCT00372957|191598216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.95|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-1.95|-2.28|
95813255|NCT00372957|191598217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|5.41|||Double-delta analysis||he point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.41|2.33|
95813256|NCT00372957|191598217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.73|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||6.73|3.70|
95813257|NCT00372957|191598217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.54|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||4.54|1.90|
95785706|NCT01462305|191541713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A repeated-measures ANOVA on the 29 subjects revealed significant effect of treatment week|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95813258|NCT00372957|191598217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|5.68|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.68|3.10|
95813259|NCT00372957|191598218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.89|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||2.89|-6.00|
95813260|NCT00372957|191598218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.72|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||5.72|-3.30|
95861061|NCT02785770|191680920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.97||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.06|0.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.12|-4.06|0.1201
95785707|NCT01462305|191541715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
95785708|NCT02020889|191541725|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|13.03|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||13.03|2.68|<0.001
95785709|NCT02020889|191541726|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|77.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||77.56|3.61|<0.001
95785710|NCT02020889|191541727|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.322|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.502|||Cox Proportional Hazard regression|Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.502|0.206|<0.001
95785711|NCT02020889|191541728|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.41|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||0.41|0.09|<0.001
95785712|NCT02020889|191541729|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|167.93|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||167.93|2.30|0.007
95785713|NCT02020889|191541730|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|10.74|||Proportional odds regression model|Proportional odds regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score, region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||10.74|2.63|<0.001
95813261|NCT00372957|191598218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.5|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||2.50|-5.20|
95813262|NCT00372957|191598218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.43|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||5.43|-2.47|
95813263|NCT00372957|191598219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|4.2|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||4.2|-20.4|
95785714|NCT02020889|191541731|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||19.87|2.60|<0.001
95785715|NCT02020889|191541732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|55.24|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with covariates including treatment group, Baseline prednisolone/prednisone daily dose, Baseline BVAS score and region.|Mepolizumab 300mg/Placebo|||55.24|2.35|0.003
95785716|NCT00809094|191541750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change in human neutrophil activity measured from baseline to end of the study (24 weeks)||0.48|-0.07|0.14
95785717|NCT00411450|191541757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|21.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||21|-11|
95785718|NCT00411450|191541757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|23.0||||||Difference at Week 25||23|-9|
95785719|NCT00411450|191541759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|||23|-11|
95785720|NCT00411450|191541760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|31.4|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||31.4|-6.3|
95785721|NCT00411450|191541760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|30.2||||||Difference at Week 25||30.2|-8.4|
95785722|NCT00411450|191541761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
95785723|NCT00411450|191541762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0|||||Difference = Wild type - Mutant|Difference at Week 17||25|-14|
95785724|NCT00411450|191541762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|25.0||||||Difference at Week 25||25|-14|
95785725|NCT00411450|191541763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||2.0|0.2|
95785726|NCT00411450|191541764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||0.9|0.4|
95785727|NCT00411450|191541765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.1|0.5|
95785728|NCT00411450|191541766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with only KRAS effect (Wild type vs. Mutant).|||1.2|0.5|
95785729|NCT04819438|191541795|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of Cmax geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|117.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.43|124.06|||ANOVA|||||124.06|110.43|<0.0001
95813264|NCT00372957|191598219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-3.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||-3.9|-28.4|
95813265|NCT00372957|191598219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-23.1|
95813266|NCT00372957|191598219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|-3.3|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||-3.3|-27.9|
95785730|NCT04819438|191541796|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-t geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.25|115.5|||ANOVA|||||115.50|108.25|<0.0001
95785731|NCT04819438|191541798|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence analysis was that the 90% confidence interval for the Test/Reference ratio of AUC0-∞ geometric means was within the 80.00-125.00 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.19|115.29|||ANOVA|||||115.29|108.19|<0.0001
95785732|NCT03836209|191541804|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.071||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.205|0.062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.062|-0.205|0.366
95785733|NCT03836209|191541805|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|-0.059||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.191|0.073||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.073|-0.191|0.446
95785734|NCT03836209|191541806|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.047||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.084|0.178||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.178|-0.084|0.539
95785735|NCT03836209|191541807|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.131||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.242||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.10.|Fisher Exact||Treatment Difference = Arm A - Arm B|||0.242|0.020|0.042
95785736|NCT00705341|191541822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Log-linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess the dose effect on PC20.||||0.65
95785737|NCT00435461|191541824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
95813267|NCT00372957|191598220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.16|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.16|-0.64|
95999500|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
95785738|NCT00435461|191541824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.2|<0.001
95785739|NCT00435461|191541824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.3|0.816
95785740|NCT00435461|191541825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-1.6|<0.001
95785741|NCT00435461|191541825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
95785742|NCT00435461|191541825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
95785743|NCT00435461|191541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
95785744|NCT00435461|191541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
95785745|NCT00435461|191541826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.136
95785746|NCT00435461|191541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-1.6|<0.001
95785747|NCT00435461|191541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.3|<0.001
95785748|NCT00435461|191541827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.6|0.136
95785749|NCT00435461|191541828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001
95785750|NCT00435461|191541828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
95785751|NCT00435461|191541828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
95785752|NCT00435461|191541829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.007
95785753|NCT00435461|191541829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
95785754|NCT00435461|191541829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.106
95785755|NCT00435461|191541830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.003
95785756|NCT00435461|191541830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.286
95785757|NCT00435461|191541830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.6|0.106
95785758|NCT00435461|191541831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-1|-1.7|<0.001
95785759|NCT00435461|191541831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||-0.7|-1.4|<0.001
95785760|NCT00435461|191541831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTNSS||0.1|-0.6|0.193
95813268|NCT00372957|191598220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.32|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||1.32|-0.47|
95785761|NCT00435461|191541831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
95785762|NCT00435461|191541831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.6|0.058
95785763|NCT00435461|191541831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pre-dose iTOSS||0|-0.5|0.16
95785764|NCT00435461|191541832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.9|5.7|<0.001
95785765|NCT00435461|191541832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||11.5|5.3|<0.001
95785766|NCT00435461|191541832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning assessment||2.7|-3.6|0.779
95813269|NCT00372957|191598220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.07|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.07|-0.37|
95813270|NCT00372957|191598220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.21|-0.24|
95999501|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.24|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.24|1.82|
95785767|NCT00435461|191541832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||9.6|3.1|<0.001
95785768|NCT00435461|191541832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.3|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||10.3|3.8|<0.001
95785769|NCT00435461|191541832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Evening assessment||4|-2.5|0.662
95785770|NCT00435461|191541833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
95785771|NCT00435461|191541833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.203
95785772|NCT00435461|191541833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.8|<0.001
95813271|NCT00372957|191598221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|0.9|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||0.9|-40.7|
95813272|NCT00372957|191598221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|11.7|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-12 hr), Day 7||11.7|-29.8|
95785773|NCT00205660|191541834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.03
95785774|NCT00205660|191541835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time x treatment condition).||||0.01
95785775|NCT01768559|191541836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.064|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine QD|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI).||0.064|-0.17|
95785776|NCT01768559|191541836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.328|||ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at significance level = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between Lixisenatide vs Insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||0.328|0.095|
95813273|NCT00372957|191598221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|1.4|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 15 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||1.4|-33.2|
95813274|NCT00372957|191598221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|11.1|||Double-delta analysis||The point estimate is the least square mean difference between placebo and GW 823093C 30 mg.|AUC(0-24 hr), Day 7||11.1|-23.4|
95843721|NCT03043872|191654964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.068||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.068|0.487|0.1035
95785777|NCT01768559|191541837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.593|-1.396||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|The superiority was assessed by comparing the P-value at significance level = 0.025 or 0.0125.|Lixisenatide vs Insulin Glulisine TID|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model as described above. Hochberg procedure was used to control type 1 error at α = 0.025 (1-sided) for comparison between lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine TID in HbA1c and body weight. If both comparisons were met, then both would be declared significant. Otherwise, if only one was met, then the one met should be tested at α=0.0125 (1-sided).||-1.396|-2.593|< 0.0001
95785778|NCT00237692|191541868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.7|
95785779|NCT00237692|191541868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patients with controled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.7|64.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||64.0|55.7|
95785780|NCT00237692|191541868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of patinets with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
95813275|NCT04790786|191598228|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||||||||||||Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound based on Bayesian probability.|Bayesian cumulative logistic model|Bayesian cumulative logistic model, Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.||The primary analysis model was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model that adjusted for treatment location (infusion center or ED), age (\<30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years), sex, and time (2-week epochs). Comparisons between individual mAb were based on the relative odds ratio between a given two arms for the primary outcome. An odds ratio for an arm to a comparator \>1 implies improved outcomes. A sliding scale with different levels of equivalence bounds was pre-defined|Equivalence between two arms was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.|||
95813276|NCT04102007|191598241|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 16|57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|63.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||63.4|51.1|
95813277|NCT04102007|191598242|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 16|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|26.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.0|15.4|
95785781|NCT00237692|191541868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|63.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at Baseline||63.9|55.6|
95785782|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.3|66.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 6 months.||66.7|49.3|
95785783|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|60.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|69.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||69.3|52.5|
95785784|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.9|73.1|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||73.1|56.9|
95785785|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 6 months.||72.0|55.6|
95813278|NCT04102007|191598243|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 16|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||46.4|34.2|
95813279|NCT04102007|191598244|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 16|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|26.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||26.4|16.3|
95813280|NCT04102007|191598245|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0/1 @ WK 52|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|68.1|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||68.1|56.0|
95813281|NCT04102007|191598246|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of sPGA 0 @ WK 52|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.0|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.0|21.9|
95785786|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||14.9|-9.0|
95785787|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||18.7|-4.7|
95785788|NCT00237692|191541869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 6months.||17.6|-6.0|
95785789|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|68.3|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||68.3|51.4|
95785790|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months||80.7|65.6|
95785791|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|73.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|80.7|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 12 months.||80.7|66.1|
95785792|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|76.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 12 months.||76.6|60.5|
95785793|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|24.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.4|2.0|
95785794|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.6||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||24.6|2.4|
95785795|NCT00237692|191541870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% diff|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.2||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 12 months.||20.2|-2.9|
95785796|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|70.6|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled Systolic BP at 18 months||70.6|53.0|
95785797|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|67.9|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled BP at 18 months||67.9|50.8|
95785798|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.1|72.0|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months.||72.0|55.1|
95785799|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % of Patients with controlled SBP|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|79.5|||||Joint National Committee 7 blood pressure control: \< 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics; \<130/80 mmHg for diabetics|Estimated % of participants with controlled systolic BP at 18 months||79.5|63.7|
95785800|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|9.7||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||9.7|-14.6|
95785801|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|13.8||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||13.8|-10.3|
95785802|NCT00237692|191541871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Diff|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|21.4||||||Estimated Difference in Percentage of Patients with Controlled Systolic Blood pressure between Intervention Arm 4 - Combined Behavioral \& Med Mgmt and Arm 1 - Control at 18 months.||21.4|-1.9|
95785803|NCT00237692|191541873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||7.1|-3.1|
95785804|NCT00237692|191541873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. Dif in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 2 - Nurse Behavioral||3.8|-2.7|
95785805|NCT00237692|191541873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.5|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nurse Med Management.||5.5|-4.8|
95785806|NCT00237692|191541873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.0|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 3 - Nuse Med Management||4.0|-2.6|
95785807|NCT00237692|191541873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled SBP|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.6|||||Systolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in systolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|-3.3|
95785808|NCT00237692|191541873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Est. % Diff in Patient w/Controlled DBP|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.6|||||Diastolic blood pressure estimates are based on the longitudinal data model with an unstructured covariance matrix. Negative differences reflect improvement compared to usual care, and positive differences reflect worsening compared to usual care.|Estimated differences in diastolic blood pressure at 12months between Arm 1 - Control and Arm 4 - Combined Behaviorial and Med Management||6.6|0.3|
95785809|NCT00351936|191541874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95785810|NCT00351936|191541875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95785811|NCT00351936|191541876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.747
95785812|NCT00351936|191541877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.208
95785813|NCT00351936|191541878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.665
95785814|NCT00351936|191541879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.999
95785815|NCT00351936|191541880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95785816|NCT01408901|191541881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|52.3||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.3|5.1|0.052
95785817|NCT01408901|191541881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|17.6||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||17.6|-30.2|0.91
95813282|NCT04102007|191598247|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of DLQI 0 or 1 @ WK 52|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study.|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||53.4|41.0|
95785818|NCT01408901|191541881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|22.4||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||22.4|-25.2|0.91
95785819|NCT01408901|191541881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|57.7||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||57.7|9.4|0.02
95785820|NCT01408901|191541882|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.61||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.44||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.44|-1.67|0.49
95785821|NCT01408901|191541882|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.67||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.51||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.51|-1.84|0.49
95813283|NCT04102007|191598248|OTHER|There is no statistical test for this study|Proportion of PSS 0 @ WK 52|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|33.4|||Other|There is no test of hypothesis for this study|Non-Responder Imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing due to COVID-19 for proportion calculation and Wilson score method for confidence interval construction|||33.4|22.3|
95785822|NCT01408901|191541882|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.38||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.38|-0.66|0.49
95785823|NCT01408901|191541882|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.59||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.59|-0.64|0.49
95813284|NCT05173974|191598251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|||0.29|0.01|0.037
95785824|NCT01408901|191541883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.0||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.0|2.1|<0.01
95785825|NCT01408901|191541883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.1|0.44
95785826|NCT01408901|191541883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.1|0.44
95861062|NCT02785770|191680920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.3424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|3.31|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.31|-0.89|0.3424
95785827|NCT01408901|191541883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.2||The P value is a Hochberg-adjusted P value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.2|2.2|<0.01
95785828|NCT01408901|191541884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
95785829|NCT01408901|191541885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.001|-0.010|0.03
95785830|NCT01408901|191541886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.001|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.001|-0.012|0.09
95785831|NCT01408901|191541887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.002|-0.009|0.17
95785832|NCT02081001|191541888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|0.74|0.23
95785833|NCT02081001|191541888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|0.69|0.52
95785834|NCT02081001|191541888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.25|0.59|0.49
95785835|NCT02081001|191541889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|0.88|0.23
95785836|NCT02081001|191541889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|1.01|0.09
95785837|NCT02081001|191541889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|1.11|0.02
95785838|NCT02081001|191541890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.97|0.15
95785839|NCT02081001|191541890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.90|0.24
95785840|NCT02081001|191541890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.60|0.31
95785841|NCT02081001|191541891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|1.01|0.09
95785842|NCT02081001|191541891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.93|0.29
95785843|NCT02081001|191541891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.96|0.24
95785844|NCT02081001|191541892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.60|0.70
95785845|NCT02081001|191541892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.68|0.94|0.19
95785846|NCT02081001|191541892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estmate ratio|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|1.07|0.052
95813285|NCT05173974|191598251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.28||P-value included Bonferroni adjustment.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participant included as a random effect.|||0.28|0.00|0.044
95813286|NCT05173974|191598251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3||unadjusted P-value was presented.|ANCOVA||||ANCOVA with treatment and period as fixed effects; covariates for participant level baseline (natural logged) and period level baseline (natural logged) minus participant level baseline (natural logged). Participants included as a random effect.|0.30|0.06|0.005
95785847|NCT02081001|191541893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.66|0.87|0.16
95785848|NCT02081001|191541893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.48|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.54|0.68|0.48
95785849|NCT02081001|191541893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.57|0.28
95785850|NCT02081001|191541894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|0.87|0.61
95785851|NCT02081001|191541894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|0.94|0.22
95813287|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.17|-0.04|0.218
95785852|NCT02081001|191541894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.66|0.26
95813288|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.21|0.01|0.034
95861063|NCT02785770|191680921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.35||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.44|0.2870
95785853|NCT02081001|191541895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.96|0.19
95785854|NCT02081001|191541895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.95|0.21
95785855|NCT02081001|191541895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate ratio|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|0.97|0.19
95785856|NCT02081001|191541896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-17.1|0.24
95785857|NCT02081001|191541896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.7|-30.1|0.0005
95785858|NCT02081001|191541896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-34.0|<0.0001
95785859|NCT02081001|191541897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.1|0.22
95785860|NCT02081001|191541897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-4.0|0.58
95785861|NCT02081001|191541897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-6.7|0.03
95785862|NCT04274075|191541906|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|1.12|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.12|0.945|
95813289|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-0.5|||0.25|0.05|0.004
95813290|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.24|-0.00|0.058
95813291|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.27|0.03|0.017
95813292|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-1|||0.33|0.09|0.001
95813293|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-3|||0.30|0.06|0.004
95813294|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.27|0.04|0.010
95813295|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.31|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB0-3|||0.31|0.07|0.002
95813296|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.29|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.29|0.02|0.022
95813297|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.30|0.04|0.011
95813298|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-6|||0.33|0.06|0.005
95813299|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.27|0.01|0.037
95813300|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.30|0.04|0.013
95813301|NCT05173974|191598252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32|||ANCOVA||Statistical comparison for AOB 0-9|||0.32|0.06|0.005
95813302|NCT02136914|191598272|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||46 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-3.3|-12.5|0.0009
95813303|NCT02136914|191598273|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-4.0|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-4.0|-14.7|0.0008
95813304|NCT02136914|191598274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.96||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.96|1.53|<0.0001
95813305|NCT02136914|191598274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.47||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.47|0.96|0.0007
95813306|NCT02136914|191598274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.16||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.16|-1.64|0.0171
95813307|NCT02136914|191598274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.04||Change from Baseline in OFF time at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.04|-1.58|0.0406
95813308|NCT02136914|191598274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.53||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.53|-2.55|0.0031
95813309|NCT02136914|191598274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.4||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.40|-2.49|0.0072
95813310|NCT02136914|191598275|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 12.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||4.3|-6.6|0.6833
95813311|NCT02136914|191598275|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.2||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS at Week 24.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||9.2|-5.0|0.5557
95813312|NCT02136914|191598276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Baseline to Week 12|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95813313|NCT02136914|191598276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1071||||||Baseline to Week 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1071
95813314|NCT00949533|191598286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||||||0.825
95813315|NCT00949533|191598287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
95813316|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cough: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||1.000
95813317|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Chi-squared|||Rhinorrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on chi-squared test.||||0.284
95813318|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sore throat: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
95813319|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Shortness of breath: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
95813320|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diarrhea: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.487
95813321|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.593
95813322|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Conjunctivitis: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
95813323|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vomiting: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||1.000
95813324|NCT00949533|191598288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other: statistical difference between 2 groups was based on fisher-exact test.||||0.106
95813325|NCT01493089|191598290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.563||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.563
95813326|NCT01493089|191598291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.903||||0.712||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.712
95813327|NCT01493089|191598292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.457
95813328|NCT01493089|191598293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.625||95.0|-9.7|15.3|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||15.3|-9.7|0.625
95785863|NCT04274075|191541906|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|0.859|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.859|0.726|
95785864|NCT04274075|191541907|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|1.5|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.50|-0.225|
95813329|NCT01493089|191598293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|10.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||10.6|-15.0|0.755
95813330|NCT01493089|191598293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|17.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||17.2|-3.6|0.194
95813331|NCT01493089|191598294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||7.0|-15.0|0.501
95813332|NCT01493089|191598294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|8.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||8.2|-17.6|0.518
95813333|NCT01493089|191598294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||13.1|-11.2|0.794
95813334|NCT01493089|191598295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.2|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained partial response||11.2|-6.3|0.494
95813335|NCT01493089|191598295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|9.1|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained response||9.1|-14.7|0.751
95813336|NCT01493089|191598295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|9.6|||Regression, Cox|||Sustained total relief||9.6|-16.4|0.690
95999502|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
95813337|NCT00560417|191598310|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was prespecified at 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38|||ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group.||||0.38|0.06|
95813338|NCT00560417|191598311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 weeks.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
95785865|NCT04274075|191541907|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.45|||||The Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||2.45|1.26|
95785866|NCT04274075|191541910|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.04|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.04|0.903|
95785867|NCT04274075|191541910|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|0.988|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.988|0.855|
95785868|NCT04274075|191541911|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.05|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment B versus Treatment A.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||1.05|0.908|
95785869|NCT04274075|191541911|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.985|||||The geometric mean ratio was calculated as Treatment C versus Treatment B.|The sample size chosen for this study was based upon precedent set by other PK studies of similar nature and was not based on power calculations.||0.985|0.856|
95813339|NCT00560417|191598311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF)|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.38|0.06|0.008
95813340|NCT00560417|191598312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.39||p-value is for 24 Weeks change.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||0.39|0.08|0.003
95813341|NCT00560417|191598312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.38||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF) Change.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|0.06|0.008
95813342|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.561
95813343|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.511
95813344|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95813345|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0||||p-value is for Week 18: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.269
95813346|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.161
95813347|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24: HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
95813348|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.177
95813349|NCT00560417|191598313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||p-value is for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.060
95813350|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|10.53||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||10.53|-1.97|0.179
95813351|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|22.19||p-value is for Endpoint Morning Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.19|5.72|<0.001
95785870|NCT00583011|191541940|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95785871|NCT01386944|191541953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-1.0|
95785872|NCT01386944|191541954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-1.5|
95785873|NCT01386944|191541955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
95785874|NCT01386944|191541956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
95813352|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|11.39||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||11.39|-3.79|0.325
95813353|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.73||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.5||p-value is for Endpoint Midday Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||17.50|-0.04|0.051
95813354|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.19||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.19|3.66|0.003
95785875|NCT01386944|191541957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
95785876|NCT01386944|191541958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||||95.0|-2.0|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.0|
95785877|NCT03790865|191541963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
95813355|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|22.94||p-value is for Endpoint Evening Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||22.94|5.44|0.002
95813356|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|4.28||p-value is for Endpoint 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||4.28|-10.35|0.415
95813357|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|13.32||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean 7-Point Blood Glucose.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.32|1.46|0.015
95785878|NCT03078127|191541995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||No comparable preliminary data exists on mucociliary clearance (MCC) in response to airway clearance therapy methods (ACTs) for a power calculation. However, prior studies of medication effect on MCC gave a baseline mean change of Ave270 clr of 27.7% (std dev of 15.1%). Thus, the investigators estimated a mean change of 20% for effective ACT with the same estimate for variability (Std Dev of 15.1%). Using a paired 2-tailed test to compare means, 7 subjects were estimated to be needed.||||0.615
95785879|NCT03078127|191541996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||ANOVA was performed (with multiple comparisons to compare each intervention to baseline) to assess for difference in MCC with each ACT. The a priori threshold for significance was \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.696
95785880|NCT03078127|191541998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The investigators compared FENO before and after ACT in a pooled manner (i.e., grouping each of the comparisons together), as the study was not powered for FENO comparisons within each ACT type.||||0.001
95785881|NCT03078127|191541998|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in FENO and Ave90Clr||||||0.692||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance (i.e., slope different than zero) between MCC and FENO was 0.05|Regression, Linear|||if the difference between pre and post-ACT FENO was significant (defined as p\<0.05), it was investigated whether change in FENO correlated with MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr)||||0.692
95785882|NCT03078127|191541999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.146
95785883|NCT03078127|191542000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.041
95785884|NCT03078127|191542000|OTHER|A linear regression was performed between change in pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC and Ave90Clr||||||0.047||||||The a priori threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||If the difference between pre and post-ACT adenosine (purine) in EBC was significant (defined as p\<0.05), the correlation between change in adenosine concentration and MCC (as represented by Ave90Clr) was investigated.||||0.047
95813358|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.14||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||13.14|1.10|0.021
95813359|NCT00560417|191598314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|18.93||p-value is for Endpoint Daily Mean Postprandial.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||18.93|5.01|<0.001
95813360|NCT00560417|191598315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|5.22||p-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||5.22|-0.68|0.131
95813361|NCT00560417|191598315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|9.16||p-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group||||9.16|2.82|<0.001
95813362|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.826
95813363|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||p-value is for all reported hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.394
95813364|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
95785885|NCT03078127|191542001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Non-parametric test used due to lack of data normality. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The study was not designed or powered to assess for inter-group differences between the types of ACT, and for analytical purposes, these were pooled, with the analysis being a paired comparison within subjects to pre- to post-ACT.||||0.070
95785886|NCT02542397|191542013|SUPERIORITY|"It has been reported that, based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) pain scale, about 30% of cancer patients receiving standard of care pain management experienced \>= 2-point improvement in pain score between visits \[Ref\].~Ref: Scharpf, J., et al., The role of pain in head and neck cancer recurrence and survivorship. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2009. 135(8): p. 789-94."|Exact binomial proportion|0.5556|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|0.6908||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.10.|Exact binomial test of proportions|||A single-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the pain improvement rate, assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, is \<= 0.30. Our study targeted enrollment of 71 evaluable subjects for the final analysis; 54 subjects met the criteria at study closure. Assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level, 71 evaluable subjects would provide approximately 90% power to reject the null hypothesis (based on an exact binomial test) assuming the true pain improvement rate is 0.45.||.6908|.4140|<0.0001
95785887|NCT02362191|191542053|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.758
95785888|NCT02362191|191542054|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95785889|NCT00534248|191542055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate|0.698|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.806|||Conditional Exact Method||The point estimate was for vaccine efficacy with respect to incidence of HZ.|Vaccine efficacy with respect to HZ was defined as the relative reduction in incidence rate of HZ point estimate (95% CI) calculated as 1 minus the ratio of the estimated incidence rates of HZ in the zoster vaccine group and the placebo group.||.806|.541|<.001
95785890|NCT00534248|191542056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean titre ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|2.4|||linear mixed longitudinal analysis model|||||2.4|2.2|<.001
95813365|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for non-nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
95813366|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events at endpoint.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95785891|NCT00534248|191542057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.595||||||Analysis of proportion of participants reporting one or more serious adverse experiences reported within 42 days postvaccination.||1.595|.805|
95785892|NCT02259400|191542070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of sample size we used the duration of ventilation as the main primary outcome. As no basic data are available for this population, we were able to retrieve from the database of our two NICUs the duration of ventilation on NIV. We assumed a difference of 24-h between the two groups in the duration of NIV as clinically relevant. We used a confidence level α=0.05; the power level desired was 0.80 and consequently we needed 62 patients for each group.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95785893|NCT00169104|191542123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.29|t-test, 2 sided|df=15||T test||||>0.05
95785894|NCT04676724|191542178|OTHER||Difference in SVR Rate|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|11.0|||||The point estimate of SVR and its 95% highest posterior density Credible Interval (CI) are estimated from a Bayesian model that incorporates the analysis stratification factors and treatment arm.|||11|-29|
95785895|NCT03173456|191542187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only do individual comparisons between means if the overall test of the analysis of variance (AVOVA) was statistically significant|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that all means are equal. The alternate hypothesis is that one or more mean is less than or more than another.||||0.69
95785896|NCT03173456|191542188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The plan was to only compare means if the overall test of AVOVA was statistically significant.|ANOVA|||||||0.85
95957525|NCT00497874|191887461|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.07||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(57) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.07
95785897|NCT03173456|191542189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95785898|NCT03173456|191542191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95785899|NCT03173456|191542192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501||||||0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||||||0.0501
95813367|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||p-value is for nocturnal hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.061
95785900|NCT01733121|191542193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<.0001
95785901|NCT01733121|191542194|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.0001
95785902|NCT01733121|191542195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-3.7|0.0005
95785903|NCT01733121|191542196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
95813368|NCT00560417|191598316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||p-value is for severe hypoglycemic events overall.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
95813369|NCT00560417|191598317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.628
95813370|NCT00560417|191598317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||p-value is for All reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.570
95813371|NCT00560417|191598317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.116
95813372|NCT00560417|191598317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for Non-Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.044
95813373|NCT00560417|191598317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Endpoint.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.006
95957526|NCT00497874|191887462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|t(94) = 1.5||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, logistic regression-and the results pooled.||||.05
95999503|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.09|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.09|1.54|
95785904|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785905|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95813374|NCT00560417|191598317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for Nocturnal reported episodes rate - Overall.|Negative Binomial regression model|Total hypoglycemia count=Treatment+Baseline HbA1c Group+Baseline SU Group with log of patient's total number of days of exposure as an offset variable||||||0.004
95813375|NCT00560417|191598318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||p-value is for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c Group + Baseline SU Group (Type III sums of squares)||||||0.343
95813376|NCT00560417|191598319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the ILPS treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417
95813377|NCT00560417|191598319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||p-value is for the change in body weight at endpoint in the glargine treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
95813378|NCT00560417|191598319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.4||p-value is for change in body weight at endpoint between ILPS and glargine treatment groups.|ANOVA|||||0.40|-1.15|0.343
95813379|NCT00560417|191598320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Variable = Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Group+ Baseline SU Group||||||<0.001
95813380|NCT00652834|191598326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is only for GSRS score comparison only.|t-test, 2 sided||The GSRS range is 1-7|"The results of the initial SBCE exams were evaluated by a visually challenged GI specialist who gave us a descriptive report. By the end of the study, we submitted the final reports to the same specialist and asked his impression on the significant changes observed in patients' exams for each GI segment (stomach and small bowel).~There were no comparison groups. Each patient is their own control. Given that this is a pilot study there is no power calculation."||||0.05
95813381|NCT00320606|191598329|OTHER||95% confidence interval using an exact b|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||||Proportion Success|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method||0.8|0.4|
95813382|NCT00320606|191598330|OTHER||Binomial Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1684|||||95% Confidence Interval Exact Binomial|The proportion of participants in whom immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal was attempted who are successfully withdrawn from immunosuppression and experience death or graft loss are descriptively summarized with 95% confidence intervals using an exact binomial method.||0.1684|0.0|
95813383|NCT00854360|191598465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.80|0.255
95813384|NCT00854360|191598465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.21||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.21|-0.78|0.257
95813385|NCT00854360|191598465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.13|-1.13|0.013
95785906|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785907|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785908|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785909|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785910|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785911|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95813386|NCT00854360|191598466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.22|-0.77|0.278
95813387|NCT00854360|191598466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.385
95813388|NCT00854360|191598466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.11||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.11|-1.09|0.016
95813389|NCT00854360|191598467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.06||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.06|-0.95|0.082
95813390|NCT00854360|191598467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.10|-0.90|0.114
95957527|NCT00497874|191887463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power analysis shows that sample size provided power of at least .80 to detect estimated differences.||||||0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance of the pooled results was evaluated using a t-test and degrees of freedom that take into account the uncertainty in the data and the uncertainty due to missing values.|t-test, 1 sided|t(123) = 1.2||Multiple imputation was used to estimate missing data for the 9-month assessment. Ten datasets were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations. Using SAS v9.1 PROC MI, the complete datasets were analyzed using complete data methodology-in this case, the t-test-and the results pooled.||||.13
95785912|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785913|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 1-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95957528|NCT01468077|191887553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2685|0.2988|||||The CI (confidence interval) is calculated by Exact method based on binomial distribution.|||0.2988|-0.2685|
95785914|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 3-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95785915|NCT00524680|191542233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in Serum 25(OH) D3 Levels at 6-Month for dose level 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<.0001
95813391|NCT00854360|191598467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
95957529|NCT03024996|191887598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.75|0.4950
95957530|NCT03024996|191887599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8868||95.0|0.67|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.67|0.8868
95957531|NCT03024996|191887600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.63|0.2010
95957532|NCT03024996|191887601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.69|0.2811
95785916|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8244
95785917|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 4000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1025
95785918|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-Month for dose level 4000 IU.||||0.1744
95785919|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1281
95813392|NCT00854360|191598468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.37||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.37|-0.52|0.747
95813393|NCT00854360|191598468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.31|-0.53|0.605
95813394|NCT00854360|191598468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.05||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.05|-0.84|0.083
95813395|NCT00854360|191598469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.46||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.46|-0.45|0.989
95813396|NCT00854360|191598469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.50|-0.39|0.808
95813397|NCT00854360|191598469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.15||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.15|-0.74|0.195
95813398|NCT00854360|191598470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.57|-0.64|0.903
95785920|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.9688
95785921|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 6000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
95957533|NCT03024996|191887602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.55|0.0735
95957534|NCT03024996|191887603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.67|0.1396
95957535|NCT03024996|191887604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.55|0.4762
95861064|NCT02785770|191680921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-2.21|0.9334
95957536|NCT03024996|191887605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.74|0.5111
95957537|NCT01084239|191887616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Result for index hospitalization||||||<0.001
95957538|NCT02705625|191887623|SUPERIORITY|"For the primary endpoint, the Type I error for the tests of the two doses was protected by performing a fixed-sequence multiple-testing procedure in the following order:~Step 1: 200 mg versus placebo Step 2: 100 mg versus placebo The second step was only considered as confirmatory provided the previous step was significant at a one-sided 5%-level (p\<0.05).~If the previous step was not significant, the analysis of the following step was considered descriptive."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0761||||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|0.55||The p-values reported is from Step 1 (comparing 200 mg versus placebo). The corresponding p-value from Step 2 (comparing 100 mg versus placebo) was 0.1458.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment by time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline NRS was included as a covariate for adjustment. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model.||0.55|-0.703|0.4055
95785922|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.8241
95785923|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1828|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1828
95785924|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 8000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.1348
95785925|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 1-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.2214
95785926|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 3-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0079
95785927|NCT00524680|191542234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline in PTH Levels at 6-month for 10000 IU. Statistical analysis was done using one sample t-test.||||0.0631
95785928|NCT00502853|191542237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1776|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.1776
95813399|NCT00854360|191598470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.62||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.62|-0.58|0.952
95813400|NCT00854360|191598470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.19||A multiplicity adjustment procedure was implemented which allowed for control of the Type I error within a particular treatment comparison, as well as within a particular endpoint, however it did not control the overall Type I error.|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.||0.19|-0.99|0.187
95813401|NCT02037529|191598473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5623|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5623
95813402|NCT02037529|191598478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9840
95813403|NCT02037529|191598479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5968
95813404|NCT00718315|191598483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.481
95999504|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
95785929|NCT00502853|191542237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1215|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1215
95785930|NCT00502853|191542237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1231||0.2246|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.2246
95813405|NCT00718315|191598483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.933
95813406|NCT00718315|191598483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||||||Test for Binomial Ratio, where H0: P \>=61%; Ha: P \< 61% (One-tailed Test)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.986
95785931|NCT00502853|191542238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8989|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.8989
95785932|NCT00502853|191542238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8834|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.8834
95785933|NCT00502853|191542238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9051||0.8841|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8841
95813407|NCT00718315|191598485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.095
95813408|NCT00718315|191598486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.199
95813409|NCT00718315|191598487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.108
95813410|NCT00718315|191598488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
95813411|NCT00718315|191598489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
95813412|NCT00718315|191598490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.087
95785934|NCT00502853|191542239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||||0.5911
95785935|NCT00502853|191542239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1475|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||0.1475
95785936|NCT00502853|191542239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1123||0.1463|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1463
95785937|NCT00502853|191542240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1101
95785938|NCT00502853|191542240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0003
95785939|NCT00502853|191542240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
95785940|NCT00502853|191542240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.0857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4965||0.0023|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0023
95785941|NCT00502853|191542241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3358|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.3358
95813413|NCT00718315|191598491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
95813414|NCT02519842|191598530|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|27.9|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who experienced at least 1 tier 2 AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||27.9|-7.6|
95813415|NCT02519842|191598531|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|17.8|||||Mean difference in percentage of participants who discontinued due to an AE and received fosaprepitant regimen compared with participants who received control regimen.|||17.8|-5.1|
95813416|NCT02319486|191598535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Probability of Event-Free Survival ，pEFS|0.32||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||stage 2 vs stage 3|pEFS||over all pEFS|||||0.034
95813417|NCT01463527|191598536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57||||||Odds of intervention in capnography open group as compared to capnography blind group after adjusting of age and length of sedation.||0.57|0.17|
95785942|NCT00502853|191542241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9158|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.9158
95785943|NCT00502853|191542241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.003418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02345||0.8877|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8877
95785944|NCT00502853|191542242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7624|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7624
95785945|NCT00502853|191542242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0212|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0212
95785946|NCT00502853|191542242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.2681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0529||0.0712|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0712
95785947|NCT00502853|191542243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0240
95785948|NCT00502853|191542243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0045
95785949|NCT00502853|191542243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0018
95785950|NCT00502853|191542243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04524||0.0019|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0019
95813418|NCT01463527|191598537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation)|||||||0.30
95813419|NCT01076010|191598548|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.9||||||||12.9|4.4|
95813420|NCT01076010|191598548|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||11.1|
95813421|NCT01076010|191598548|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6||DR was only summarized for subjects who had an objective tumor response. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||5.6|
95813422|NCT01076010|191598549|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.2||||||||5.2|1.9|
95813423|NCT01076010|191598549|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.7||||||||12.7|7.3|
95813424|NCT01076010|191598549|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5||For the subjects in each treatment arm, PFS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||16.5|
95813425|NCT01076010|191598549|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|9.2||||||||9.2|3.5|
95785951|NCT00502853|191542244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.6294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8623||0.0074|||||||Random Coefficient Model|||Trend over time||||0.0074
95785952|NCT00502853|191542244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1273
95785953|NCT00502853|191542244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0132
95785954|NCT00502853|191542244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1542
95813426|NCT01076010|191598550|OTHER||25% Quartile (months)|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.1||||||||12.1|6.0|
95813427|NCT01076010|191598550|OTHER||50% Quartile (months)|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|27.6||||||||27.6|17.0|
95813428|NCT01076010|191598550|OTHER||75% Quartile (months)|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.8||For the subjects in each treatment arm, OS is calculated from the first dose date of the respective study drugs. Upper limit of confidence interval could not be determined.||||||||28.8|
95813429|NCT05525910|191598578|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|116.68||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||116.68|94.54|
95813430|NCT05525910|191598578|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|121.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||121.47|98.08|
95813431|NCT05525910|191598578|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|111.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.74|90.79|
95813432|NCT05525910|191598578|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|122.52||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.52|99.58|
95785955|NCT00502853|191542245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1396|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1396
95785956|NCT00502853|191542245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0050
95785957|NCT00502853|191542245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0050
95785958|NCT00502853|191542245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07966||0.0054|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0054
95785959|NCT00502853|191542246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0254
95785960|NCT00502853|191542246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0384|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0384
95785961|NCT00502853|191542246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0271
95785962|NCT00502853|191542246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-4.7586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5278||0.0124|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.0124
95785963|NCT00502853|191542247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.7376
95785964|NCT00502853|191542247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.1631
95785965|NCT00502853|191542247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8816|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8816
95785966|NCT00502853|191542247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9408||0.8835|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.8835
95785967|NCT00502853|191542248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1312|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1312
95785968|NCT00502853|191542248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0662
95785969|NCT00502853|191542248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.4133
95999505|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.55|1.48|
95999506|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
95999507|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.51|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.51|1.50|
95999508|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
95785970|NCT00502853|191542248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|8.8196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4534||0.6049|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.6049
95785971|NCT00502853|191542249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1725|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.1725
95785972|NCT00502853|191542249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0832
95785973|NCT00502853|191542249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1685|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.1685
95785974|NCT00502853|191542249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-55.4458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5821||0.1331|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1331
95785975|NCT00502853|191542250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.2938
95785976|NCT00502853|191542250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2216|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2216
95785977|NCT00502853|191542250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|TWO_SIDED||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5670
95785978|NCT00502853|191542251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0934|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0934
95785979|NCT00502853|191542251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.4047
95785980|NCT00502853|191542251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.2101
95785981|NCT00502853|191542251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3997|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.1451|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.1451
95785982|NCT00502853|191542252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4963|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.4963
95785983|NCT00502853|191542252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2198|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.2198
95785984|NCT00502853|191542252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6773|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.6773
95785985|NCT00502853|191542252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5987||0.5531|||||||Random coefficient model|||Trend over time||||0.5531
95785986|NCT00502853|191542253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.5002
95785987|NCT00502853|191542254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||1.0000
95785988|NCT00502853|191542255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.7002
95785989|NCT00502853|191542256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3132|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3132
95785990|NCT00502853|191542257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.8597
95785991|NCT00502853|191542258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3617|||||||Student's t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.3617
95785992|NCT03124537|191542277|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health||Tested whether weekly steps increased from the baseline week in both conditions (main effect of time).||||< .001
95785993|NCT03124537|191542277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether weekly step increases from the baseline week differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.846
95785994|NCT03124537|191542278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571||||||Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested whether exercise self-efficacy increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.571
95785995|NCT03124537|191542278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise self efficacy increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.361
95785996|NCT03124537|191542279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.564
95785997|NCT03124537|191542279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether exercise control belief increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.641
95785998|NCT03124537|191542281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to mood within-persons.||||< .001
95785999|NCT03124537|191542281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether daily walking was related to energy within-persons.||||.003
95786000|NCT03124537|191542281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and mood differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
95813433|NCT05525910|191598579|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|104.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.78|117.24||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||117.24|93.78|
95813434|NCT05525910|191598579|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|122.89||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||122.89|97.93|
95813435|NCT05525910|191598579|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|111.8||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||111.80|89.69|
95813436|NCT05525910|191598579|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|122.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||122.57|98.36|
95813437|NCT05525910|191598580|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.97|127.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||127.06|94.97|
95786001|NCT03124537|191542281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, condition, education, health, and average steps.||Tested whether the relationship between daily walking and energy differed between males and females (steps by sex interaction).||||< .001
95786002|NCT03124537|191542282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.011
95786003|NCT03124537|191542282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported vigorous physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.232
95813438|NCT05525910|191598580|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.92|132.98||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||132.98|98.92|
95813439|NCT05525910|191598580|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.64|126.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||126.14|94.64|
95786004|NCT03124537|191542283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.530
95786005|NCT03124537|191542283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported moderate physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.831
95962404|NCT03607422|191896613|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-50.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.28|-44.0|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-44.00|-56.28|<0.001
95813440|NCT05525910|191598580|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|115.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.48|133.87||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||133.87|100.48|
95813441|NCT05525910|191598581|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.24|103.53||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.53|76.24|
95813442|NCT05525910|191598581|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.41|111.11||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||111.11|81.41|
95813443|NCT05525910|191598581|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.73|99.7||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.70|73.73|
95861065|NCT02785770|191680922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.16||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|-0.07|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.07|-4.24|0.0893
95786006|NCT03124537|191542284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, condition, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increased from the baseline week to the end of the intervention in both conditions (main effect of time).||||.199
95999509|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.18|1.31|
95999510|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
95999511|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.38|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.38|1.76|
95999512|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
95999513|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.01|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.38|
95786007|NCT03124537|191542284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlling for age, sex, education, and health.||Tested whether self-reported light physical activity increases from the baseline to the end of the intervention differed between the two conditions (time by condition interaction).||||.203
95786008|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9|5.0|<0.0001
95786009|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.0|10.2|<0.0001
95786010|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.2|11.7|<0.0001
95786011|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|9.9|<0.0001
95786012|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-6.9|0.0014
95786013|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.5|0.7601
95786014|NCT01096680|191542285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.1|0.0351
95786015|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.1123
95786016|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.8|0.0002
95786017|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.2|<0.0001
95786018|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.0947
95786019|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9393
95786020|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.0297
95786021|NCT01096680|191542286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0004
95786022|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.7758
95786023|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.9|-0.2|0.1798
95786024|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.7|-0.4|0.6090
95786025|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||1.0|-0.1|0.1169
95786026|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3028
95786027|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.5|-0.5|0.9831
95786028|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50pm||0.2|-0.8|0.2887
95786029|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.4395
95786030|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.6|-0.5|0.9019
95957539|NCT02705625|191887624|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-4.02||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.02|-25.3|0.0036
95786031|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3419
95786032|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.9581
95786033|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.2|-0.9|0.2572
95786034|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.5|-0.6|0.8085
95786035|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50pm||0.3|-0.8|0.3678
95786036|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.3732
95786037|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.4|-0.9|0.4924
95786038|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.9798
95813444|NCT05525910|191598581|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.09|108.26||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||108.26|80.09|
95813445|NCT05525910|191598582|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.64|104.78||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||104.78|74.64|
95813446|NCT05525910|191598582|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|114.06||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||114.06|80.80|
95813447|NCT05525910|191598582|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.15|99.43||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||99.43|71.15|
95813448|NCT05525910|191598582|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.99|107.54||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||107.54|76.99|
95861066|NCT02785770|191680922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.51|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.51|-4.71|0.0412
95999514|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
95786039|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.7|-0.6|0.8557
95786040|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.1|-1.2|0.0998
95786041|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.2|-1.1|0.1479
95786042|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50pm||0.6|-0.7|0.8358
95786043|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.1|-1.6|0.0199
95786044|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.6|-0.9|0.7625
95786045|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.1936
95786046|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||1.0|-0.5|0.4534
95786047|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||-0.5|-2.0|0.0012
95786048|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.3|-1.2|0.2072
95786049|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50pm||0.0|-1.5|0.0413
95813449|NCT05525910|191598583|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.85|103.74||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) Low Disintegrant||103.74|65.85|
95813450|NCT05525910|191598583|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.28|119.49||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) High Disintegrant||119.49|75.28|
95813451|NCT05525910|191598583|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.18|102.07||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 2\*(150/50 mg) HDL||102.07|65.18|
95813452|NCT05525910|191598583|OTHER|Analysis done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|110.57||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300(2\*150)/100 mg Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 3\*(100/33.3 mg)||110.57|70.65|
95813453|NCT05209386|191598627|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 17 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
95813454|NCT05209386|191598628|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(20.45) = -5.8||||||<0.0001
95861067|NCT02785770|191680923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34||||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|0.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.74|-3.43|0.2892
95813455|NCT05209386|191598629|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(1016) = -2.7|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||<0.0001
95813456|NCT05209386|191598630|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|t(48) = -4.50||The null hypothesis is that there is no effect of change in listening context on behavioral responses of participants.||||<0.0001
95813457|NCT05209386|191598631|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Permutation-based clustering analysis was used to identify channels in non-regions of interest that significantly encode change in acoustic dimensions. For each channel, a sliding-window encoding model was built comparing evoked responses (z-scored voltages) to Canonical Block stimuli across varying F0 with fixed VOT. This analysis identified the n = 4 channels and time windows where neural responses differed according to change in F0.|||
95813458|NCT05209386|191598632|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|For interaction term (effect of interest): t(216) = -0.707|||Time-averaged neural responses across respective windows of significance were averaged for all stimuli with ambiguous VOT (Canonical and Reverse blocks) to provide trial-averaged responses. A single linear mixed-effects model was built with fixed effects of F0, condition/listening context (block), and their interaction, as well as a random effect (intercept only) of patient+channel. The effect of interest was the interaction term, indicating that neural responses to F0 varied according to listening context (block).|||0.480
95861068|NCT02785770|191680923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.78||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|-0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.68|-4.88|0.0294
95861069|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.28||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.78|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.78|-0.22|0.1600
95861070|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.87|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||3.87|0.88|0.0092
95962405|NCT03607422|191896613|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-39.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.139|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.79|-33.46|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-33.46|-45.79|<0.001
95813459|NCT03767881|191598641|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 97.8% confidence limit of the mean days to resolution of acute cholecystitis is compared to a Performance Goal of 3.5 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.8||10.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.78||
95813460|NCT03767881|191598642|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of a 99.7% confidence limit of the proportion of patients with reintervention, including migration and occlusion, is compared to a Performance Goal of 46.2%.|Performance Goal|16.7|||||ONE_SIDED|99.7||42.0|||1-sided Clopper-Pearson 99.7% CI|||||42.0||
95861071|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.91||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-0.59|0.3174
95999515|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.55|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.55|1.14|
95999516|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
95786050|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.1|-1.5|0.1086
95786051|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.6|-1.0|0.5843
95786052|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.0|-1.6|0.0571
95786053|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.5|-1.2|0.3965
95786054|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
95786055|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||-0.1|-1.8|0.0211
95786056|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:50pm||0.4|-1.2|0.2863
95786057|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0428
95786058|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||1.2|-0.5|0.3757
95786059|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.8|-2.4|0.0002
95786060|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.4|-1.2|0.3535
95813461|NCT00928668|191598661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.657|0.657|<0.0001
95813462|NCT00928668|191598661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.217|1.205|<0.0001
95861072|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.81|0.7344
95786061|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-1.1|-2.7|<0.0001
95786062|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1131
95786063|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12:50am||-0.4|-2.0|0.0039
95786064|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.2|-1.5|0.1302
95786065|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||1.1|-0.6|0.6138
95786066|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.6|-2.3|0.0008
95786067|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.3|-1.5|0.1643
95786068|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||-0.8|-2.5|0.0002
95786069|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.1|-1.6|0.0782
95786070|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:50am||0.0|-1.7|0.0441
95786071|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0193
95786072|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.8|-1.2|0.7071
95813463|NCT00928668|191598661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.952|2.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.935|1.952|<0.0001
95999517|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.67|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.67|1.28|
95786073|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.9|-2.9|0.0002
95957540|NCT02705625|191887624|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in knee joint MRI bone area at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.83||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: bone area increase is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline knee joint MRI bone area was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-4.83|-26|0.0023
95786074|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-1.9|0.0611
95786075|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
95786076|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0160
95786077|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2:50am||0.0|-2.0|0.0480
95786078|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.2|-2.2|0.0234
95786079|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.7|-1.3|0.5624
95786080|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
95786081|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
95786082|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-1.6|-3.7|<0.0001
95786083|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0008
95786084|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:50am||0.1|-1.9|0.0883
95786085|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.5|-1.5|0.3093
95999518|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
95999519|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.31|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.31|1.53|
95786086|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||1.1|-0.9|0.8871
95786087|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.2|-3.2|<0.0001
95786088|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.6|-2.6|0.0022
95786089|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-1.4|-3.4|<0.0001
95786090|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||-0.8|-2.8|0.0006
95786091|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||4:50am||0.4|-1.6|0.2462
95786092|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.4427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.6|-1.4|0.4427
95786093|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||1.4|-0.6|0.4405
95786094|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.9|-3.0|0.0003
95786095|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0279
95786096|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-1.5|-3.5|<0.0001
95786097|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||-0.7|-2.7|0.0015
95786098|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:50am||0.2|-1.8|0.1246
95786099|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3067
95786100|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||1.1|-1.0|0.8940
95786101|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0034
95786102|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.1|-2.0|0.0708
95786103|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
95786104|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||-0.8|-2.9|0.0006
95786105|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6:50am||0.4|-1.7|0.2476
95786106|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.4|-1.8|0.2310
95786107|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||1.0|-1.2|0.8369
95786108|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.5|-2.7|0.0035
95786109|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.0|-2.2|0.0498
95786110|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-1.4|-3.6|<0.0001
95786111|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||-0.8|-3.0|0.0007
95786112|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:50am||0.5|-1.6|0.3198
95786113|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.7|-0.6|0.3750
95786114|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.0|-1.3|0.7978
95999520|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
95786115|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.8|-1.5|0.5197
95786116|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.1|-2.2|0.0751
95786117|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||0.2|-2.1|0.1079
95786118|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||-0.5|-2.8|0.0065
95786119|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||8:50am||1.8|-0.5|0.2529
95786120|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6364
95786121|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||1.0|-1.1|0.9417
95786122|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.2|-2.3|0.0200
95786123|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.0|-2.1|0.0527
95786124|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.3|-2.5|0.0107
95786125|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||-0.1|-2.2|0.0303
95786126|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:50am||0.8|-1.3|0.6889
95786127|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.1|-1.2|0.9552
95786128|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||1.3|-1.0|0.7558
95786129|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.4|-1.9|0.1824
95786130|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.3323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.6|-1.7|0.3323
95786131|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.0|-2.4|0.0413
95786132|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.2|-2.2|0.0925
95786133|NCT01096680|191542287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10:50am||0.9|-1.4|0.7133
95786134|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
95786135|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-45.5|<0.0001
95786136|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-16.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.6|-36.7|<0.0001
95786137|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.5|-36.6|<0.0001
95786138|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-10.1|0.9945
95786139|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-18.9|0.0814
95786140|NCT01096680|191542288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.9|-10.2|0.9743
95786141|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||0.2|-19.4|0.0544
95786142|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||6.0|-13.6|0.4410
95786143|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||1.7|-17.9|0.1046
95786144|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||7.5|-12.0|0.6467
95786145|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||3.4|-16.2|0.1971
95786146|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||9.2|-10.4|0.9052
95786147|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15pm||4.0|-15.6|0.2420
95786148|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-8.3|-25.1|0.0001
95786149|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||11.6|-5.0|0.4321
95786150|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-10.1|-26.7|<0.0001
95813464|NCT00928668|191598661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.483|2.486|<0.0001
95786151|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||9.9|-6.7|0.6999
95786152|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-9.8|-26.4|<0.0001
95786153|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||10.2|-6.4|0.6566
95786154|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||11:15pm||-11.7|-28.3|<0.0001
95786155|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.1|<0.0001
95786156|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7824
95786157|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-14.3|-36.0|<0.0001
95786158|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||9.4|-12.4|0.7867
95786159|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-15.6|-37.4|<0.0001
95786160|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||8.0|-13.7|0.6029
95786161|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||1:15am||-12.8|-34.5|<0.0001
95786162|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-24.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-24.1|-50.1|<0.0001
95786163|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.8684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||14.1|-11.9|0.8684
95786164|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.3|-40.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-40.3|-66.3|<0.0001
95786165|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-2.1|-28.1|0.0228
95786166|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-27.0|-53.0|<0.0001
95786167|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||11.2|-14.8|0.7852
95786168|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-25.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:15am||-25.2|-51.2|<0.0001
95786169|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-25.1|-51.3|<0.0001
95786170|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||17.0|-9.1|0.5528
95786171|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|-40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-40.9|-67.0|<0.0001
95813465|NCT00928668|191598662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.645|2.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.633|1.645|<0.0001
95813466|NCT00928668|191598662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|3.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.136|2.135|<0.0001
95813467|NCT00928668|191598662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.074|4.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.046|3.074|<0.0001
95999521|NCT01025336|191975304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.84|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.84|1.24|
95786172|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||1.2|-24.9|0.0747
95786173|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-36.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-36.1|-62.2|<0.0001
95786174|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||6.0|-20.1|0.2868
95786175|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5:15am||-29.1|-55.2|<0.0001
95786176|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.1|-16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-16.2|-59.1|0.0007
95786177|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.9089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||20.2|-22.7|0.9089
95786178|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-31.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-31.4|-74.3|<0.0001
95786179|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||5.0|-37.9|0.1307
95786180|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.8|-57.7|0.0011
95786181|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||21.6|-21.3|0.9903
95786182|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7:15am||-14.9|-57.8|0.0010
95786183|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||9.0|-51.7|0.1655
95786184|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|28.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||28.5|-32.4|0.8975
95786185|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||-5.8|-66.5|0.0199
95786186|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||13.7|-47.2|0.2785
95786187|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||20.1|-40.6|0.5048
95786188|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||39.6|-21.3|0.5533
95786189|NCT01096680|191542289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9:15am||11.1|-49.9|0.2098
95786190|NCT03162328|191542314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.363
95786191|NCT03162328|191542315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test|||||||0.291
95786192|NCT04485637|191542366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||2.79|1.00|=0.05
95786193|NCT04485637|191542366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||2.76|1.00|=0.05
95786194|NCT04485637|191542367|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||3.26|0.71|=0.29
95786195|NCT04485637|191542367|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced graph \> Basic table|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||1.93|0.48|=0.90
95786196|NCT04485637|191542368|SUPERIORITY||Unst|-0.14|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced table \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.13
95813468|NCT00928668|191598662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|4.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.717|3.731|<0.0001
95813469|NCT00928668|191598663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|2.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.613|1.437|<0.0001
95813470|NCT00928668|191598663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.785|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.975|1.785|<0.0001
95813471|NCT00928668|191598663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.971|4.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||4.127|2.971|<0.0001
95813472|NCT00928668|191598663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|4.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.794|3.622|<0.0001
95813473|NCT00928668|191598664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.907|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.322|2.492|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||2.492|1.322|<0.0001
95813474|NCT00928668|191598664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|3.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||3.066|1.822|<0.0001
95813475|NCT00928668|191598664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.752|3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||3.902|2.752|<0.0001
95813476|NCT00928668|191598664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|4.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||4.803|3.637|<0.0001
95786197|NCT04485637|191542368|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.14|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||Enhanced graph \> Basic table||0.04|-0.32|=0.12
95786198|NCT04485637|191542369|SUPERIORITY|Enhanced table \> Basic table|Unstandardized B|-0.08|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||||0.08|-0.25|=0.33
95786199|NCT04485637|191542369|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized B|-0.09|||=|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for respondent characteristics as described in statistical analysis plan.||||0.08|-0.26|=0.29
95786200|NCT02182830|191542370|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the primary endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"MMRM model : HbA1c baseline, treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and HbA1c baseline by treatment interaction. Treatment, renal function, pre-treatment with metformin, visit, and visit by treatment interaction were fixed classification effects, and HbA1c baseline was a linear covariate. The interaction visit by HbA1c baseline interaction was based on the linear covariate HbA1c baseline."||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
95813477|NCT00928668|191598665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 2 mcg minus Placebo|||1.766|0.692|<0.0001
95813478|NCT00928668|191598665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.281|2.369|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||2.369|1.281|<0.0001
95813479|NCT00928668|191598665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.578|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||2.650|1.578|<0.0001
95813480|NCT00928668|191598665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using an analysis of variance with terms for centre, patients within centre, treatment and period (all as fixed effects)|Form 20 mcg minus Placebo|||3.181|2.110|<0.0001
95813481|NCT03781479|191598673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.792||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Results show the LSMeans for the estimated difference between treatments along with a 95% confidence interval for this difference.|A mixed effects liner model was fit with the HFMSE change from baseline (CFB) scores at Day 28 as a response and treatment, sequence, and treatment by sequence as fixed effect terms and patient as a random effect.||1.37|0.22|0.0083
95813482|NCT01728246|191598685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95813483|NCT01728246|191598686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95813484|NCT01728246|191598688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95813485|NCT00758563|191598765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95813486|NCT00060944|191598766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.974|||Log Rank|||||0.974|0.554|0.0302
95813487|NCT00060944|191598769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.992|||Log Rank|||||0.992|0.574|0.0418
95813488|NCT00060944|191598770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.090|0.653|0.1920
95813489|NCT01968980|191598771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-49.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference,associated 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-49.5|-59.5|<0.001
95999522|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.19|
95813490|NCT01968980|191598772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-34.1|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-34.1|-41.1|<0.001
95813491|NCT01968980|191598773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-46.4|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.4|-55.7|<0.001
95813492|NCT01968980|191598774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-43.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-43.2|-52.8|<0.001
95813493|NCT01968980|191598775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-23.2|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-23.2|-33.9|<0.001
95813494|NCT01968980|191598776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.9|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||9.9|4.1|<0.001
95999523|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.25|0.17|
95786201|NCT02182830|191542371|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|-1.18|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 12 weeks of treatment was evaluated by using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-1.18|-9.24|0.0117
95786202|NCT02182830|191542372|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-0.81|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|"ANCOVA mode:~The respective model included treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the endpoint."||-0.81|-11.16|0.0237
95786203|NCT02182830|191542373|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||-0.07|-2.39|0.0382
95786204|NCT02182830|191542374|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical multiple testing procedure was used to evaluate superiority of the endpoint|Adjusted mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the key secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline key secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline key secondary endpoint.||1.09|-9.16|0.1215
95813495|NCT01968980|191598777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-46.0||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-46.0|-58.2|
95999524|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.29|0.20|
95813496|NCT01968980|191598777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-42.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.3|-53.6|
95813497|NCT01968980|191598778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-31.6|-40.0|
95813498|NCT01968980|191598778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-27.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-27.8|-35.8|
95786205|NCT02182830|191542375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-3.04|-13.74|0.0025
95786206|NCT02182830|191542376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.96|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|The respective ANCOVA model includes treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, continuous baseline HbA1c, and continuous baseline of the respective secondary endpoint.||-0.96|-5.90|0.0069
95786207|NCT02182830|191542377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.46|-8.35|0.0058
95786208|NCT02182830|191542378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-2.48|-12.37|0.0036
95786209|NCT02182830|191542379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||1.25|-4.93|0.2402
95786210|NCT02182830|191542380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Empagliflozin minus Placebo|MMRM models modelling the secondary endpoint with continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline secondary endpoint, treatment, renal function, pretreatment with metformin, visit, visit by treatment interaction, visit by continuous baseline HbA1c interaction, visit by continuous baseline secondary endpoint.||-1.29|-7.21|0.0053
95786211|NCT03268005|191542418|NON_INFERIORITY|The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between faster aspart and NovoRapid was compared to a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. If it was below or equal to 0.4% non-inferiority was considered established and effect demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANOVA||Faster aspart-NovoRapid|Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, region and metformin use at baseline (Yes/No) as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.03|-0.11|0.310
95786212|NCT03479944|191542495|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.289|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-1.289|-1.720|<0.0001
95813499|NCT01968980|191598779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-42.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-42.8|-54.1|
95813500|NCT01968980|191598779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-36.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-36.9|-47.5|
95813501|NCT01968980|191598780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-41.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-41.6|-52.1|
95861073|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.99|-1.00|0.5881
95999525|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.30|0.20|
95786213|NCT03479944|191542496|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||t-test based on MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3.3|-0.9|0.2602
95786214|NCT03479944|191542497|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|-7.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference from a Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||-7.18|-15.87|
95786215|NCT02029274|191542528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5519||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.447|23.549|||Repeated measures analysis|||||23.549|-22.447|0.9621
95813502|NCT01968980|191598780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-35.5||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-35.5|-45.5|
95813503|NCT01968980|191598781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|-10.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-10.3|-59.8|
95957541|NCT02705625|191887625|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0436||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.118||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.118|-0.031|0.1253
95786216|NCT02029274|191542528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9297||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.128|6.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||||6.391|-37.128|0.1637
95786217|NCT02029274|191542528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.709|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6016||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.806|9.388|||Repeated measures|||||9.388|-36.806|0.2409
95786218|NCT02756364|191542537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.26|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.26|0.47|0.537
95786219|NCT02756364|191542537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.45|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.45|0.53|0.849
95786220|NCT02756364|191542538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.40|0.36|0.276
95786221|NCT02756364|191542538|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.68|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.68|0.47|0.470
95786222|NCT02756364|191542539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.25|0.46|0.495
95786223|NCT02756364|191542539|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Log Rank||HR obtained by stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, original IRT stratification factors as covariates. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.38|0.49|0.646
95786224|NCT02756364|191542540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.29|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||7.29|0.68|
95786225|NCT02756364|191542540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.39|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.39|0.34|
95786226|NCT02756364|191542541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.94|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||6.94|0.94|
95786227|NCT02756364|191542541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.44|||||The odds ratio and 95% CIs were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model with the original IRT stratification factors (visceral metastases, previous sensitivity to hormonal therapy, and previous exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitors).|||4.44|0.69|
95786228|NCT02223364|191542543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.144
95861074|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-2.32|0.3680
95786229|NCT02223364|191542543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95786230|NCT02223364|191542543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.196
95786231|NCT02223364|191542544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95786232|NCT02223364|191542544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95786233|NCT02223364|191542544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95786234|NCT02223364|191542545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95786235|NCT02223364|191542545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95786236|NCT02223364|191542545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.257
95786237|NCT02223364|191542546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
95786238|NCT02223364|191542546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95786239|NCT02223364|191542546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
95786240|NCT02223364|191542547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
95786241|NCT02223364|191542547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.043
95786242|NCT02223364|191542547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
95786243|NCT02223364|191542548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.958
95786244|NCT02223364|191542548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
95786245|NCT02223364|191542548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
95957542|NCT02705625|191887625|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in MRI of cartilage thickness (Femur Region) at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0761||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00173|0.15||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: MRI of cartilage thinning (Femur Region) is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline MRI of cartilage thickness was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||0.15|0.00173|0.0225
95999526|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.31|
95999527|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.26|0.18|
95999528|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
95999529|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.20|0.12|
95999530|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.18|0.10|
95999531|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.22|0.13|
95786246|NCT02223364|191542549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
95786247|NCT02223364|191542549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.299
95786248|NCT02223364|191542549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.797
95786249|NCT02223364|191542550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.571
95962406|NCT03607422|191896614|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|61.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||61.7|47.7|<0.001
95999532|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
95999533|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.25|
95786250|NCT02223364|191542550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.991
95786251|NCT02223364|191542550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
95786252|NCT02223364|191542551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
95786253|NCT02223364|191542551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
95786254|NCT02223364|191542551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
95786255|NCT02223364|191542553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95786256|NCT02223364|191542553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95786257|NCT02223364|191542553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.293
95786258|NCT02223364|191542554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.202
95786259|NCT02223364|191542554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95786260|NCT02223364|191542554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.148
95786261|NCT02223364|191542555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
95786262|NCT02223364|191542555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
95786263|NCT02223364|191542555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
95786264|NCT02223364|191542556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.768
95786265|NCT02223364|191542557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.623|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.623
95786266|NCT02223364|191542557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and 3 months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.001
95786267|NCT02223364|191542557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Cox|||Within group comparison of baseline and three months (approximately 12 weeks)||||0.048
95786268|NCT03597139|191542571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9|||ANCOVA|||||10.9|-1.7|0.1491
95786269|NCT03597139|191542572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-1.6|0.1187
95786270|NCT03597139|191542573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|16.5|||ANCOVA|||||16.5|-3.7|0.2128
95786271|NCT03597139|191542574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|9.6|||ANCOVA|||||9.6|-11.8|0.8408
95786272|NCT03597139|191542575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-6.1|0.5356
95786273|NCT03597139|191542576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.1|||ANCOVA|||||14.1|-2.7|0.1787
95786274|NCT03597139|191542577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||||9.3|-12.6|0.7666
95786275|NCT03597139|191542578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.4|-10.7|0.8082
95786276|NCT03597139|191542579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|60.3|||ANCOVA|||||60.3|-37|0.6362
95786277|NCT03597139|191542580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.9||Frequency|ANCOVA|||Frequency||20.9|-1.7|0.0961
95786278|NCT03597139|191542580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.7|||ANCOVA|||Severity||18.7|-3.4|0.1722
95861075|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.76|-2.23|0.4200
95786279|NCT03597139|191542581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.9||Left Eye|ANCOVA|||Left Eye||8.9|1.6|0.0051
95786280|NCT03597139|191542581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||8.4|1.1|0.0104
95786281|NCT03597139|191542582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Left Eye|ANCOVA||Add in RE LE info|Left Eye||-1.0|-3.2|0.0003
95786282|NCT03597139|191542582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Right Eye|ANCOVA|||Right Eye||-0.5|-2.6|0.0038
95786283|NCT01249833|191542590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-30.4||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||-0.1|-60.7|.0492
95786284|NCT01249833|191542591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.8||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.42|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||6.42|1.14|0.0054
95786285|NCT01249833|191542592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.9||||0.9685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-190.1|197.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|||197.9|-190.1|.9685
95786286|NCT01249833|191542593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.9||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.7|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Alertness: the higher the value, the greater the alertness.||5.7|-1.9|.3195
95786287|NCT01249833|191542593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||ANCOVA||The LS means for Standard of Care AL one was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Calmness: the higher the value, the greater the calmness.||2.9|-4.1|.7219
95786288|NCT01249833|191542593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.3||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.4|||ANCOVA||The LS means of Standard of Care Alone was subtracted from that of Oseltamivir.|Contentedness: the higher the value, the greater the contentedness.||7.4|-.8|.1162
95786289|NCT02724410|191542594|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.7188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7188
95786290|NCT02724410|191542595|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.5933
95786291|NCT02724410|191542596|OTHER|Chi Square test of independence|||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.99
95786292|NCT02724410|191542597|OTHER|T-test for difference between groups|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
95786293|NCT04679948|191542614|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|112.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.02|124.3|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =16.2."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||124.30|101.02|
95786294|NCT04679948|191542615|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|102.23|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + caffeine/GLSM of caffeine). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 8.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||102.23|91.55|
95786295|NCT04679948|191542616|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|110.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.15|113.71|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =4.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.71|107.15|
95999534|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.14|0.08|
95786296|NCT04679948|191542617|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.11|113.01|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + warfarin/GLSM of Warfarin). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 6.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.01|104.11|
95786297|NCT04679948|191542618|OTHER||Ratio of GLSM [%]|99.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.66|110.95|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =12.3."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||110.95|89.66|
95813504|NCT01968980|191598781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-4.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-4.4|-26.3|
95813505|NCT01968980|191598782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||8.7|3.1|
95813506|NCT01968980|191598782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.9||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.9|-0.1|
95813507|NCT01968980|191598783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
95813508|NCT01968980|191598783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
95813509|NCT01968980|191598783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
95813510|NCT01968980|191598784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||7.8|2.9|
95861076|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|-1.53|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-1.53|-4.53|0.0009
95999535|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.10|0.06|
95999536|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.46|0.22|
95813511|NCT01968980|191598784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||6.8|2.5|
95813512|NCT01968980|191598784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||5.4|0.5|
95813513|NCT01968980|191598785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-2.3|
95861077|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.96|5.97|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.97|2.96|< 0.0001
95861078|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.32|7.33|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||7.33|4.32|< 0.0001
95999537|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.40|
95786298|NCT04679948|191542619|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|71.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.64|113.96|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + omeprazole/GLSM of Omeprazole). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =87.8."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||113.96|44.64|
95786299|NCT04679948|191542620|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|126.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.15|135.05|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =10.1."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||135.05|119.15|
95786300|NCT04679948|191542621|OTHER||Ratio of GLSMs [%]|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.25|139.92|||||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSMs) was calculated as (GLSM of BI 730357 + midazolam/GLSM of Midazolam). Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) =11.6."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were logtransformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs for each endpoint. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subjects (random effect) and treatment (fixed effect).||139.92|121.25|
95786301|NCT02636439|191542622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|112.0|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||112|-25|0.21
95786302|NCT02636439|191542623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.8|-1.0|0.86
95786303|NCT02636439|191542624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.8|-2.8|0.77
95786304|NCT02636439|191542625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.2|-0.3|0.85
95786305|NCT02636439|191542626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|12.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||12.9|-0.1|0.053
95786306|NCT02636439|191542627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0.13|0.00|0.043
95786307|NCT02636439|191542628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||0|-10|0.07
95786308|NCT02636439|191542629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, age, and sex.||||3.3|-4.4|0.79
95786309|NCT02494401|191542632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95786310|NCT02494401|191542632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95786311|NCT02494401|191542632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95786312|NCT02494401|191542633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95786313|NCT02494401|191542633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95786314|NCT02494401|191542633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p value 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95786315|NCT02494401|191542634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95786316|NCT02494401|191542634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95786317|NCT02494401|191542634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95786318|NCT02494401|191542635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95786319|NCT02494401|191542635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95786320|NCT02494401|191542635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
95786321|NCT02494401|191542636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95786322|NCT02494401|191542636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95786323|NCT02494401|191542636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95786324|NCT02494401|191542637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95786325|NCT02494401|191542637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95786326|NCT02494401|191542637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95786327|NCT02494401|191542638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p value for baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95786328|NCT02494401|191542638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p value for 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95786329|NCT02494401|191542638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||p value for 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95813514|NCT01968980|191598785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.2|-1.9|
95813515|NCT01968980|191598785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||3.6|-1.9|
95813516|NCT01968980|191598786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-8.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.7|-25.3|
95813517|NCT01968980|191598786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-7.8||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-7.8|-27.0|
95813518|NCT01968980|191598786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||0.4|-19.4|
95813519|NCT01968980|191598787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-71.4||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-71.4|-86.2|
95957543|NCT02705625|191887626|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|4.48||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time,baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.48|-8.02|0.2887
95957544|NCT02705625|191887626|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC Pain score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.67||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Pain score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Pain score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||1.67|-10.8|0.0753
95999538|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.29|
95999539|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.59|0.29|
95999540|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.38|0.17|
95999541|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.36|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.36|0.21|
95786330|NCT02494401|191542639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95786331|NCT02494401|191542639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95786332|NCT02494401|191542639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95786333|NCT02494401|191542640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95786334|NCT02494401|191542640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95813520|NCT01968980|191598788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.3|-75.0||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-75.0|-91.3|
95813521|NCT01968980|191598789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-87.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.4|-78.7||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-78.7|-95.4|
95813522|NCT01968980|191598790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|-48.5||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-48.5|-59.2|
95786335|NCT02494401|191542640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95786336|NCT02494401|191542641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95786337|NCT02494401|191542641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95786338|NCT02494401|191542641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95813523|NCT01968980|191598791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-8.9|-14.7|
95813524|NCT01968980|191598792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||||||LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||4.9|2.0|
95813525|NCT01968980|191598793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.8|-2.2|
95813526|NCT01968980|191598793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.6|-2.1|
95999542|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.56|0.27|
95813527|NCT01968980|191598793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-1.3|-1.8|
95813528|NCT01968980|191598794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.5|
95861079|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.58|5.59|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||5.59|2.58|< 0.0001
95786339|NCT02494401|191542642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95786340|NCT02494401|191542642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95786341|NCT02494401|191542642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95786342|NCT02494401|191542643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95786343|NCT02494401|191542643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95786344|NCT02494401|191542643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95999543|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.28|0.13|
95786345|NCT02494401|191542644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95786346|NCT02494401|191542644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95786347|NCT02494401|191542644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95786348|NCT02494401|191542645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95786349|NCT02494401|191542645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95786350|NCT02494401|191542645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95786351|NCT02494401|191542646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95786352|NCT02494401|191542646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95786353|NCT02494401|191542646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
95786354|NCT02494401|191542647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95786355|NCT02494401|191542647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95786356|NCT02494401|191542647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95786357|NCT02494401|191542648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||p value of baseline comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95786358|NCT02494401|191542648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p value of 16 week comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95786359|NCT02494401|191542648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p value of 6 month comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95957545|NCT02705625|191887627|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|4.7||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.7|-8.38|0.2898
95786360|NCT00802672|191542671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary efficacy analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-0.20% to +0.20%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.61|2.45|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||2.45|-17.61|
95786361|NCT01677182|191542722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.783|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|3.0||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.0|-1.4|0.783
95786362|NCT01677182|191542722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.329|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|1.7||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.7|-2.6|0.329
95786363|NCT01677182|191542723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|1.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.1|-0.1|0.088
95786364|NCT01677182|191542723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.642|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.5||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-0.7|0.642
95786365|NCT01677182|191542724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.792|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.792
95786366|NCT01677182|191542724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.171|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|0.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.1|-0.4|0.171
95786367|NCT01677182|191542725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.653|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.3||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.3|-0.2|0.653
95786368|NCT01677182|191542725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.673|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.2||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-0.3|0.673
95786369|NCT01677182|191542726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.119|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.4|2.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.0|-0.4|0.119
95786370|NCT01677182|191542726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.791|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.0||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.0|-1.3|0.791
95786371|NCT01677182|191542727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.0|2.1||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.1|-1.0|0.422
95786372|NCT01677182|191542727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.655|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.9||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.9|-1.3|0.655
95786373|NCT01677182|191542728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.5|2.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.8|-4.5|0.696
95999544|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.39|0.20|
95786374|NCT01677182|191542728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.472|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.6|3.8||MMRM model with baseline by week interaction, pooled center, week, treatment, baseline, and week by treatment interaction as factors was used for the analysis.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.8|-3.6|0.472
95786375|NCT01677182|191542729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.53||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.530|0.651|0.994
95786376|NCT01677182|191542729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.886||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.352||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352|0.580|0.575
95786377|NCT01677182|191542730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.577||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.577|0.606|0.927
95786378|NCT01677182|191542730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.865||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.397||Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are analyzed from logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and baseline MADRS total score.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.397|0.536|0.553
95786379|NCT03159299|191542731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.15
95813529|NCT01968980|191598794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.4||||||Week 24:LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.4|-0.4|
95813530|NCT01968980|191598794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference,associated 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region.||-0.3|-0.4|
95813531|NCT01968980|191598795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.24|106.1||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||106.10|25.24|
95786380|NCT00995722|191542756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|N=80, (40 per group), 80% power to detect a group difference of 30%-35% and 5% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used to compare mean values adjusting for the baseline value|QMG Score ranges from 0-15, where 0 is normal and a reduction in score represents imrovement.|Mean Ocular QMG Changes from Baseline to Week 16 . 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||2.8|-7.20|0.37
95786381|NCT00995722|191542757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Net)|6.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|15.71|||ANCOVA||Scores ranges fro 0-100 , where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement|Mean Change in quality of life as measured by the NEI-VFQ-25 at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||15.71|-2.59|0.13
95786382|NCT00995722|191542758|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|1.75|||ANCOVA||Ranges from 0-60, where 0 is Normal and a reduction in score represents improvement.|Mean Change in quality if life as measured by the MG-QOL-15 score at the end of Double- Blinded Treatment. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||1.75|-9.37|0.15
95786383|NCT00995722|191542759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.98||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|43.17|||ANCOVA||Ranges 0-100, where 100 is normal and an increase in score represents an improvement.|Mean Change NEI-VFQ-25 10 item neuro-opthtalmological supplement score baseline to week 16. 95% CI and p-values obtained from the analysis of covariance model to adjust for the baseline value of the outcome variable.||43.17|-9.22|0.16
95786384|NCT01431313|191542772|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95786385|NCT01431313|191542772|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95786386|NCT01431313|191542772|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
95813532|NCT01968980|191598795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.32|147.43||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||147.43|30.32|
95813533|NCT01968980|191598795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|44.01||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||44.01|11.85|
95813534|NCT01968980|191598796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|200.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.16|854.6||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||854.60|47.16|
95813535|NCT01968980|191598796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|1000.39||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1000.39|51.95|
95786387|NCT01431313|191542774|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95813536|NCT01968980|191598796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|259.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.87|1937.06||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% confidence interval and p-value from a Logistic Regression Model with fixed effects for treatment group,baseline value and geographical region was used for analysis.||1937.06|34.87|
95813537|NCT03961308|191598802|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9963|1.1565||||||||1.1565|0.9963|
95813538|NCT03961308|191598803|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0169|1.1521||||||||1.1521|1.0169|
95813539|NCT03961308|191598804|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0465|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9935|1.1023||||||||1.1023|0.9935|
95813540|NCT05047627|191598815|OTHER||Differences in slopes|0.76||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.66|||Robust linear mixed models|||||5.66|-4.14|.755
95813541|NCT05047627|191598816|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.38||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|8.91|||Robust linear mixed models|||||8.91|-6.15|0.713
95813542|NCT05047627|191598817|OTHER||Differences in slopes|1.03||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.09|||Robust linear mixed models|||||3.09|-1.02|0.323
95957546|NCT02705625|191887627|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC difficulty score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.72||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Difficulty score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC difficulty score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.72|-10.3|0.1262
95957547|NCT02705625|191887628|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.1||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic (Yes/No) and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC Stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||4.1|-10.2|0.2
95999545|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.67|0.28|
95786388|NCT01431313|191542774|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95786389|NCT01431313|191542774|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95786390|NCT01431313|191542775|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8
95786391|NCT01431313|191542775|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95813543|NCT05047627|191598818|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-0.33||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.3|||Robust linear mixed models|||||1.30|-1.95|.692
95813544|NCT05047627|191598819|OTHER||Differences in slopes|-2.92||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|0.58|||Robust linear mixed models|||||0.58|-6.41|0.1
95813545|NCT04549454|191598844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.598||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.985
95813546|NCT04549454|191598845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.694|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on weekly drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in weekly drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.694
95813547|NCT04549454|191598846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
95861080|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.53||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|4.03|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.03|1.02|0.0059
95786392|NCT01431313|191542775|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all time points.||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95786393|NCT01431313|191542776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95786394|NCT01431313|191542776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95786395|NCT01431313|191542776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95786396|NCT01431313|191542777|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95786397|NCT01431313|191542777|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95786398|NCT01431313|191542777|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95786399|NCT01431313|191542778|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95786400|NCT01431313|191542778|OTHER|Mixed effects model of concentrations measured at Pre-dose, 15 minutes post 45mg dose and 15 minutes post 90mg dose.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95786401|NCT01431313|191542779|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95786402|NCT01431313|191542779|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95786403|NCT01431313|191542779|OTHER|Mixed effects model across all doses.||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95786404|NCT01990573|191542780|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.002||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
95786405|NCT01990573|191542781|OTHER|ANOVA|F statistic|0.962||||0.962|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.962
95786406|NCT00472732|191542836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in posterior cingulate gray matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||0.003
95786407|NCT00472732|191542836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of myoinositol in parietal white matter will be the same in OTCD patients as in controls.||||<0.001
95786408|NCT00472732|191542836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in posterior cingulate gray matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||0.001
95786409|NCT00472732|191542836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The Bonferroni-corrected a priori p-value was 0.007 (a priori alpha=0.05/number of tests=7).|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that the concentration of glutamine in parietal white matter would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
95786410|NCT00472732|191542837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is adjusted for family wise error rate correction.|t-test, 2 sided|||Two-way between-group t-tests restricted to the prefrontal cortex were performed to compare activation during for the 2-Back\> 1-Back contrast between OTCD patients and controls.||||<0.05
95786411|NCT00472732|191542838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicted that fractional anisotropy, a marker of white matter integrity, would be the same for OTCD patients as for controls.||||<0.001
95786412|NCT02915159|191542839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.4421
95786413|NCT02915159|191542840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3367|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||0.3367
95786414|NCT02915159|191542841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5841|||||||longitudinal repeated measures analysis|||||||.5841
95786415|NCT04534517|191542880|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points|Mean Estimate|58.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|64.9|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included Hyperope group only|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||64.9|52.3|
95786416|NCT04534517|191542880|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for Myopes|Mean Estimate|63.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.9|69.6|||Bayesian multivariate random-effects||Included myope group only.|It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean CLUE vision scores for each sphere stratum to be above the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||69.6|57.9|
95786417|NCT04534517|191542881|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.10 logMAR for Distance|Mean estimate|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|-0.057|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.057|-0.125|
95786418|NCT04534517|191542881|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate|Mean Estimate|-0.057|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|-0.024|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||-0.024|-0.091|
95786419|NCT04534517|191542881|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near|Mean Estimate|0.066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.098|||Bayesian normal random-effects model|Repeated Measures||It was calculated that 60 participants would have \> 99% power to for the mean visual performance at each distance to be below the hypothesis threshold at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using one sample means test for equivalence||0.098|0.031|
95786420|NCT04534517|191542882|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 5%.|Mean Proportion|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0012|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.004|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.004|0.000|
95786421|NCT04534517|191542883|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Proportion|0.005|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.018|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.018|0.000|
95786422|NCT04534517|191542884|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|Mean Proportion|0.992|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.999|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Correlated Binary Data||||0.999|0.973|
95813548|NCT04549454|191598847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on consequences. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in consequences from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
95813549|NCT04549454|191598848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.523
95957548|NCT02705625|191887628|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in WOMAC stiffness score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.17||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the lower one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: Reduction in WOMAC Stiffness score is higher in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline WOMAC stiffness score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||2.17|-12.1|0.0861
95957549|NCT02705625|191887629|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.254|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.206||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.206|-0.302|<0.0001
95957550|NCT02705625|191887629|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-I score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.193|-0.0983||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-I score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-I score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-0.0983|-0.193|<0.0001
95957551|NCT02705625|191887630|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 200 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-270.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|-201.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by-time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-201|-339|<0.0001
95813550|NCT04549454|191598849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on peak drinks. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in peak drinks from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.981
95813551|NCT04549454|191598850|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.889|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 1-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.889
95999546|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.48|
95786423|NCT02121795|191542885|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95.002% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Percentage difference|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-2.5|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by third agent.|Difference in percentages of virologic success between treatment groups and its 95.002% CI were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by the third agent stratum.|||5.1|-2.5|0.5
95786424|NCT00105989|191542938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. The primary efficacy analysis compared the time to recurrence during the maintenance phase between all duloxetine and placebo patients using the log-rank test, stratified by country at α=.05.|Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||A total of 257 randomized patients (randomly assigned with equal probability to the two treatment groups) were needed to have 90% power to detect 40% versus 20% recurrence rates over 52 weeks, using a log rank test at a two-sided significance level of .05.||||<0.001
95786425|NCT00105989|191542939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies are analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator||||||<0.001
95786426|NCT00105989|191542940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Log Rank|The log rank method provides a single p-value comparing time to depressive recurrence for placebo and duloxetine.||||||0.003
95786427|NCT00105989|191542941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Frequencies were analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel controlling for investigator.||||||0.003
95786428|NCT00105989|191542942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786429|NCT00105989|191542942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.016
95786430|NCT00105989|191542943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95786431|NCT00105989|191542944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786432|NCT00105989|191542944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.153
95813552|NCT04549454|191598851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Tukey-Kramer|||As detailed in the statistical analysis plan, a multi-level model which held constant participant age, race, ethnicity, in examining Time\*Arm interactions on HED. To probe the significant Time\*Arm interaction, a Tukey post-hoc test examined the change in HED from baseline to the 6-month follow-up in the Intervention Arm versus the Control Arm.||||.582
95813553|NCT01405196|191598860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.62||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the Odds ratio (ORs) as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.62|0.89|0.076
95861081|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|4.01|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||4.01|1.00|0.0063
95786433|NCT00105989|191542945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95786434|NCT00105989|191542946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
95813554|NCT01405196|191598860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.41||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.41|0.38|0.528
95786435|NCT00105989|191542946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean value at endpoint is significant from 4.||||||<0.001
95786436|NCT00105989|191542947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95786437|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint for all Subscales during Acute phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786438|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.334
95786439|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for Core Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.019
95786440|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Maier Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.046
95813555|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|12.4||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||12.40|0.62|
95813556|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|7.71||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.71|0.31|
95999547|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
95999548|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.65|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.65|0.42|
95786441|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95861082|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.45||||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|2.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.95|-0.06|0.1138
95999549|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.32|0.20|
95786442|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||P-value for Sleep Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.319
95786443|NCT00105989|191542948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Depressed Mood Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assessses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.275
95786444|NCT00105989|191542949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Anxiety Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95786445|NCT00105989|191542949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Core Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95786446|NCT00105989|191542949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Maier Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95786447|NCT00105989|191542949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Retardation Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95786448|NCT00105989|191542949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Sleep Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95786449|NCT00105989|191542949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Depressed Mood Subscale Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95786450|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for all Change from Baseline to Endpoint measures in the Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786451|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.273
95786452|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-value for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.968
95786453|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998||95.0||||P-value for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.998
95786454|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.703||95.0||||P-value for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.703
95786455|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.346||95.0||||P-value for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.346
95786456|NCT00105989|191542950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.963
95786457|NCT00105989|191542951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Overall Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
95786458|NCT00105989|191542951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Headache Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.407
95786459|NCT00105989|191542951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Back Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
95786460|NCT00105989|191542951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Shoulder Pain Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.241
95786461|NCT00105989|191542951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Interference with Daily Activities Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
95786462|NCT00105989|191542951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Pain While Awake Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
95786463|NCT00105989|191542952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786464|NCT00105989|191542952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.157
95786465|NCT00105989|191542953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
95786466|NCT00105989|191542954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in Acute Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786467|NCT00105989|191542954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SDS items in the Continuation Phase were \<0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786468|NCT00105989|191542955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Global Score|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95813557|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.67||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.67|0.40|
95813558|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.05||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.05|0.29|
95813559|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.24||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.24|0.35|
95813560|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.16||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.16|0.16|
95813561|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|4.09||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.09|0.64|
95786469|NCT00105989|191542955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Work/School.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95786470|NCT00105989|191542955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Social Life.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
95861083|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-1.86|0.6976
95861084|NCT02785770|191680924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.12||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|-0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.61|-3.62|0.0208
95786471|NCT00105989|191542955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in Family Life/Home Responsibilities.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
95786472|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for Change from Baseline to Endpoint in all SF-36 subscales in the Acute Phase were \<0.001|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95813562|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.77||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.77|0.27|
95999550|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.43|0.28|
95786473|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value for Physical Component Summary Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.947
95786474|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Component Summary Change to Endpoint|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786475|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for Physical Functioning Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.118
95786476|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||P-value for Bodily Pain Change from Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.550
95786477|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Physical Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.029
95786478|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786479|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for General Health Perceptions Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
95999551|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.29|
95999552|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.41|0.30|
95999553|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.45|0.35|
95999554|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.36|
95999555|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.58|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.58|0.35|
95999556|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.62|0.39|
95786480|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Mental Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786481|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Social Function Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786482|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Vitality Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786483|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0||||P-value for Rate Current Health Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.815
95786484|NCT00105989|191542956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Health Compared to a Year Ago Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786485|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
95786486|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Component Summary.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95786487|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Physical Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.731
95786488|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Bodily Pain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.438
95786489|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Physical.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95786490|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Role Limitations Due to Emotional problems.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95999557|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.54|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.54|0.34|
95786491|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-General Health Perceptions.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
95999558|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.42|0.23|
95786492|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Mental Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95786493|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Social Functioning.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
95786494|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Vitality.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
95786495|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Rate General Health.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.615
95786496|NCT00105989|191542957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value is pairwise comparison of Least Squares Means for Change from Baseline-Health Compared to a Year Ago.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
95999559|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.24|0.15|
95999560|NCT01025336|191975305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.42|
95999561|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.50|0.36|
95999562|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.48|0.36|
95999563|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.44|0.33|
95999564|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.37|0.26|
95999565|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.42|
95999566|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.14|0.64|
95999567|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.82|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.60|
95999568|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.18|0.86|
95999569|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.33|0.22|
95999570|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|0.81|
95999571|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.51|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.34|
95999572|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.09|0.66|
95999573|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.37|
95999574|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
95999575|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.60|0.30|
95999576|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.98|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.98|0.47|
95999577|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.01|0.72|
95999578|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.00|0.71|
95999579|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.50|
95999580|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.56|
95999581|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.54|
95999582|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.05|0.78|
95999583|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.80|0.59|
95999584|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.83|0.53|
95999585|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.51|
95999586|NCT01025336|191975306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the 1 Month Postvaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
95999587|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|10.67|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.67|6.05|
95999588|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|10.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.45|6.65|
95999589|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|6.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.14|3.71|
95999590|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|3.91|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.91|2.59|
95999591|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|5.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.26|3.67|
95999592|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.20|
95999593|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|21.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.34|7.80|
95999594|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|12.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||12.92|6.26|
95999595|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|8.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.07|3.71|
95999596|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|8.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.80|4.35|
95999597|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|16.3|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.30|9.71|
95999598|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|10.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.02|5.59|
95957552|NCT02705625|191887630|SUPERIORITY|One model is fit for all comparison groups (MIV-711 200 mg, MIV-711 100 mg and placebo). This analysis reports the contrast that compares 100 mg versus placebo with respect to mean change from baseline in CTX-II score at Week 26.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-193.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.0|-124.0||p-values reported are unadjusted p-values for tests of significance for the upper one-tailed alternative hypothesis Ha: CTX-II score is lower in the active treatment arm compared to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear mixed model based on the mITT population was used. The model included fixed factors for treatment, time (measured in weeks), the interaction for treatment-by- time, baseline analgesic user (Yes/No), and random effect for clinical site. Baseline CTX-II score was included as a covariate for adjustment.~An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance pattern in the mixed effects model."||-124|-262|<0.0001
95957553|NCT00634842|191887649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \< 7% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0411||95.0|1.03|3.37|||Test for Difference in Proportions|||To show non-inferiority for the primary endpoint, 100 subjects per group provides 80% power to show that the 95% CI for the difference of proportions between treatments is within the 20% margin under the assumption of equality of proportions. It is also sufficient to show superiority under the assumption that the first proportion is greater than the second by at least 20%. With a predicted withdrawal rate of 15%, 236 subjects were needed based on a treatment ratio of 1:1 for the two treatments.||3.37|1.03|0.0411
95957554|NCT00634842|191887650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in efficacy as measured by the proportion of subjects reaching HbA1c level \<= 6.5% between the two FPG titration arms (70-90 mg/dL and 80-110 mg/dL, respectively) with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. If non-inferiority of the 70-90mg/dL arm was established, superiority was to be tested using a Logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as a covariate. Superiority was to be concluded if the odds ratio was significantly greater than 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0064||95.0|1.27|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.27|0.0064
95957555|NCT00634842|191887651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean|-0.271||||0.0019||95.0|-0.441|-0.101|||ANCOVA|The analyses for HbA1c were adjusted for baseline HbA1c values.||||-0.101|-0.441|0.0019
95957556|NCT02509312|191887669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95957557|NCT02509312|191887670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.257
95957558|NCT02509312|191887671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085
95957559|NCT02509312|191887672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.164
95957560|NCT02509312|191887673|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95957561|NCT02509312|191887674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.27||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||Chi-squared|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.0367
95957562|NCT02509312|191887675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0231
95957563|NCT02509312|191887676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.467
95957564|NCT02509312|191887677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.273
95957565|NCT02509312|191887678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162||||||p-value for 12 hours post-op between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0162
95957566|NCT02509312|191887680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value for 6 hours post-op between-group comparison.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
95957567|NCT01751165|191887699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.39|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,6-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.39|0.98|
95957568|NCT01751165|191887699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-nferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE ELISA geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (0,2-month schedule over 0,6-month schedule) at one month post-dose 2 had to be below 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.53|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority in terms of anti-gE humoral immune response one month post-dose 2 given according to a 0,12-month schedule compared to a 0,2-month schedule.||1.53|0.93|
95957569|NCT01036165|191887719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean positive response|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.86|||||Confidence Interval calculated from normal approximation to the binomial. The primary objective was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was \>0.50.|||0.86|0.70|
95957570|NCT01387815|191887728|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison does not include missing.||||<0.001
95786497|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider Visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.838
95999599|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|23.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.81|9.56|
95999600|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|17.38|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.38|8.66|
95999601|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|9.89|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.89|4.29|
95999602|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.59|34.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||34.24|12.59|
95999603|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.56|31.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||31.46|14.56|
95999604|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.24|17.01|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||17.01|7.24|
95999605|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|32.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|52.57|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||52.57|19.75|
95999606|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|65.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||65.43|34.00|
95999607|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|29.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||29.17|12.95|
95999608|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|21.13|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||21.13|7.79|
95786498|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786499|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.236
95786500|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.145
95786501|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.423
95999609|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|18.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.68|8.56|
95999610|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|10.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.10|4.54|
95786502|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Primary Health Care Provider visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.325
95957571|NCT01387815|191887729|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95957572|NCT01387815|191887730|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95957573|NCT01387815|191887731|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95957574|NCT01387815|191887732|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95957575|NCT01387815|191887733|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95957576|NCT01387815|191887734|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95957577|NCT01387815|191887735|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95957578|NCT01387815|191887736|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060
95957579|NCT01387815|191887737|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
95813563|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.84||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.84|0.78|
95813564|NCT01405196|191598861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|2.32||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.32|0.38|
95813565|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.88||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.88|0.28|
95957580|NCT01387815|191887738|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
95957581|NCT01387815|191887739|OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.091
95957582|NCT01387815|191887740|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.106
95786503|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychiatrist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786504|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Psychologist/Therapist visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.915
95786505|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other Specialist Physician visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.223
95786506|NCT00105989|191542958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value for change in number of Other (Specified by Patient) visits in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.362
95786507|NCT00105989|191542959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Primary Health Care Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.462
95786508|NCT00105989|191542959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychiatrist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
95786509|NCT00105989|191542959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Psychologist/Therapist visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.746
95813566|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.01||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.01|0.19|
95813567|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.85||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.85|0.28|
95861085|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-2.53|0.5760
95786510|NCT00105989|191542959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other Specialist Physician visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511
95786511|NCT00105989|191542959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison of means for change from baseline to endpoint in Other (Specified by Patient) Provider visits.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
95786512|NCT00105989|191542960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.506
95813568|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.02||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.02|0.32|
95813569|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.83||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.83|0.30|
95813570|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|1.13||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.13|0.18|
95813571|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.6||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.60|0.58|
95957583|NCT01387815|191887741|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95957584|NCT01387815|191887742|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95957585|NCT01387815|191887743|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
95957586|NCT01387815|191887744|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.495
95957587|NCT01387815|191887745|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
95957588|NCT01387815|191887746|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95957589|NCT01387815|191887747|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95957590|NCT01387815|191887748|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
95957591|NCT01387815|191887749|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
95957592|NCT01387815|191887750|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
95957593|NCT01387815|191887751|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95957594|NCT01387815|191887752|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
95957595|NCT01387815|191887753|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95861086|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.94||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|0.95|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.95|-2.83|0.4126
95957596|NCT01387815|191887754|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.002
95957597|NCT01387815|191887755|OTHER|"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
95957598|NCT01387815|191887756|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95999611|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|20.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||20.02|8.16|
95999612|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|16.23|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.23|8.15|
95786513|NCT00105989|191542960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||P-value for Change in Average Number of Hours Worked In a Week in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.057
95786514|NCT00105989|191542961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.826
95786515|NCT00105989|191542962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Acute Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.105
95786516|NCT00105989|191542962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value for Change in Number of Missed Paid Work Hours in Continuation Phase|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.174
95786517|NCT00105989|191542963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95786518|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.785
95786519|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.354
95786520|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.170
95861087|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.72|-3.06|0.3085
95786521|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.825||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.825
95786522|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.877
95786523|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.009
95786524|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.670
95786525|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.100
95786526|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.021
95786527|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.047
95786528|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.023
95957599|NCT01387815|191887757|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.015
95957600|NCT01387815|191887758|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison does not include the Missing category."||||0.060
95957601|NCT01387815|191887759|OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.501
95957602|NCT01387815|191887760|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
95957603|NCT01387815|191887761|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
95957604|NCT01387815|191887762|OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.918
95957605|NCT01387815|191887763|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
95957606|NCT01387815|191887764|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.367
95957607|NCT01387815|191887765|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
95957608|NCT01387815|191887766|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.793
95957609|NCT01387815|191887767|OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
95957610|NCT01387815|191887768|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.434
95957611|NCT01387815|191887769|OTHER|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
95813572|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.84||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.84|0.30|
95813573|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|4.37||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.37|0.72|
95813574|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.92||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.92|0.50|
95813575|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|5.55||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.55|0.89|
95813576|NCT01405196|191598862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.46||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.46|0.40|
95999613|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|11.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.25|5.75|
95999614|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|30.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.76|12.99|
95999615|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|30.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||30.06|16.50|
95813577|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.35||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.35|0.53|
95813578|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.65||||||Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.65|0.41|
95999616|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|13.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||13.63|7.07|
95813579|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.96||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||1.96|0.33|
95813580|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.23||||||Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.23|0.39|
95813581|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|2.45||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.45|0.42|
95813582|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|3.1||||||Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||3.10|0.55|
95813583|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.88||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.88|0.95|
95813584|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|4.46||||||Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.46|0.74|
95813585|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|7.12||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.12|1.10|
95813586|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.21||||||Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.21|0.66|
95813587|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|7.41||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||7.41|1.18|
95813588|NCT01405196|191598863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|5.06||||||Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||5.06|0.82|
95813589|NCT01405196|191598864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|4.02||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||4.02|0.63|0.205
95813590|NCT01405196|191598864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.08||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||\>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||2.08|0.34|0.625
95813591|NCT01405196|191598864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|20.65||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||20.65|0.38|0.198
95999617|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|16.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.34|8.82|
95999618|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|16.66|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.66|10.21|
95999619|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.94|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.94|5.86|
95786529|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.668
95786530|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.136
95786531|NCT00105989|191542964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.152
95813592|NCT01405196|191598864|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|21.3||P-value was displayed without adjusting for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.||21.30|0.39|0.192
95786532|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786533|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786534|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95999620|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|18.34|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.34|8.05|
95999621|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|23.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||23.24|12.77|
95999622|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.01|16.45|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.45|8.01|
95786535|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786536|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.005
95786537|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.050
95813593|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|1.49||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||1.49|-12.30|
95813594|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.21|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||5.42|-8.21|
95813595|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.71|8.32||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.32|-5.71|
95813596|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|11.57||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||11.57|-2.22|
95813597|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|3.07||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||3.07|-11.04|
95813598|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.87|4.1||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.10|-9.87|
95813599|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.37|0.94||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||0.94|-13.37|
95813600|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.17|9.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.13|-5.17|
95957612|NCT01387815|191887770|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.469
95813601|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.84||||||Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||8.84|-4.70|
95813602|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.62|4.0||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.00|-9.62|
95813603|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.95|10.9||||||Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||10.90|-2.95|
95813604|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.29|9.4||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.40|-4.29|
95957613|NCT01387815|191887771|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.419
95957614|NCT01387815|191887772|OTHER|||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.695
95957615|NCT01387815|191887773|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.452
95957616|NCT01387815|191887774|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95813605|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|9.94||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.94|-3.67|
95813606|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.91|2.03||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||2.03|-11.91|
95813607|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|4.32||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||4.32|-9.61|
95813608|NCT01405196|191598876|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.48|9.8||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.||9.80|-4.48|
95813609|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.63||||||90.0|-2.56|9.83||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||9.83|-2.56|
95813610|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02||||||90.0|-8.21|4.18||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||4.18|-8.21|
95813611|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|8.82||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.82|-3.57|
95957617|NCT01387815|191887775|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
95957618|NCT01387815|191887776|OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
95957619|NCT01387815|191887780|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.143
95957620|NCT01387815|191887781|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.415
95957621|NCT01387815|191887782|OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.604
95957622|NCT01387815|191887783|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
95957623|NCT01387815|191887784|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.920
95957624|NCT01387815|191887785|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95957625|NCT01387815|191887786|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.575
95957626|NCT01387815|191887789|OTHER|||||||0.856|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.856
95957627|NCT01387815|191887790|OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.623
95957628|NCT01387815|191887791|OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.732
95957629|NCT01387815|191887792|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.896
95957630|NCT01387815|191887793|OTHER|||||||0.879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.879
95957631|NCT01387815|191887794|OTHER|||||||0.763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.763
95957632|NCT01387815|191887795|OTHER|||||||0.657|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.657
95957633|NCT01387815|191887796|OTHER|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.987
95957634|NCT01387815|191887797|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95957635|NCT01387815|191887798|OTHER|||||||0.351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.351
95957636|NCT01387815|191887799|OTHER|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
95957637|NCT01387815|191887801|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
95957638|NCT01387815|191887802|OTHER|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
95786538|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.022
95786539|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1 to 5 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.002
95786540|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Sum Items 1\&2 Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786541|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 1-Sex Drive Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786542|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 2-Arousal Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95813612|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.51|7.88||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.88|-4.51|
95813613|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|10.79||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.79|-1.61|
95813614|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.95||||||90.0|-2.24|10.15||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||10.15|-2.24|
95861088|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.88|0.3889
95786543|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.186
95786544|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Item 4-Orgasm Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95861089|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57||||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.46|1.32|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.46|0.6192
95957639|NCT01387815|191887803|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95957640|NCT01387815|191887807|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95957641|NCT01387815|191887808|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95999623|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|18.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||18.19|7.89|
95786545|NCT00105989|191542965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0||||P-value for Item 5-Satisfaction Change to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.308
95786546|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
95786547|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.405||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
95786548|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
95786549|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.384
95813615|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92||||||90.0|-4.17|8.01||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||8.01|-4.17|
95813616|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2||||||90.0|-10.25|1.85||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||1.85|-10.25|
95813617|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|7.55||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||7.55|-4.56|
95813618|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.96|6.15||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||6.15|-5.96|
95957642|NCT01387815|191887810|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.714
95957643|NCT01387815|191887811|OTHER|||||||0.747|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.747
95957644|NCT01387815|191887812|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
95957645|NCT01387815|191887816|OTHER|||||||0.364|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.364
95957646|NCT01387815|191887817|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95957647|NCT01387815|191887818|OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.723
95957648|NCT01387815|191887825|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95957649|NCT01387815|191887826|OTHER|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
95786550|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.268
95786551|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.093
95786552|NCT00105989|191542966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.566
95786553|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 to 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979
95786554|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for the Sum of Items 1 and 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
95786555|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 1-Sex Drive.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.180
95786556|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 2-Arousal.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163
95861090|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.45||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|-0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.56|-4.34|0.0332
95786557|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 3-Vaginal Lubrication/Penile Erection.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
95786558|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 4-Orgasm.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
95786559|NCT00105989|191542967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for pairwise comparison Least Squares Mean change from baseline for Item 5-Satisfaction.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
95786560|NCT00105989|191542968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786561|NCT00105989|191542968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Weight Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786562|NCT00105989|191542969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.314
95957650|NCT01387815|191887827|OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.482
95957651|NCT01387815|191887828|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
95786563|NCT00105989|191542970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95957652|NCT01387815|191887829|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
95957653|NCT01387815|191887830|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
95957654|NCT01387815|191887831|OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.808
95957655|NCT01387815|191887832|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
95957656|NCT01387815|191887833|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
95957657|NCT01387815|191887834|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.305
95957658|NCT01387815|191887836|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.757
95957659|NCT01387815|191887837|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.321
95957660|NCT01387815|191887838|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
95957661|NCT01387815|191887839|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
95957662|NCT01387815|191887841|OTHER|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
95957663|NCT01387815|191887842|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.291
95957664|NCT01475461|191887873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.23|-0.21|0.5206
95957665|NCT01475461|191887873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo||0.05|-0.40|0.1645
95957666|NCT01475461|191887873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons among treatment groups.||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||0.05|-0.39|0.1592
95957667|NCT01475461|191887873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.23|-0.68|0.0049
95813619|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|5.71||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||5.71|-6.39|
95813620|NCT01405196|191598877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.39|3.71||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.||3.71|-8.39|
95813621|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
95999624|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.92|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.92|5.02|
95999625|NCT01025336|191975307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.29|3.52|
95999626|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.49|3.05|
95999627|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.81|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.81|1.92|
95813622|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
95813623|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
95813624|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
95813625|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
95861091|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.48|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.48|-2.30|0.7224
95861092|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|2.41|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.37|0.6507
95999628|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.50|1.83|
95999629|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.74|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.74|1.32|
95999630|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.09|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||11.09|5.82|
95813626|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
95813627|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
95813628|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
95813629|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
95813630|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
95813631|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
95813632|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
95813633|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
95813634|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
95813635|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
95813636|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
95813637|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
95813638|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
95813639|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
95813640|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
95957668|NCT01475461|191887873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.21||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant. Null hypothesis stated there was no difference between PF 04937319 and placebo, alternative hypothesis stated PF 04937319 was superior to placebo.||-0.21|-0.65|0.0068
95957669|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.09||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.09|-0.16|0.3434
95813641|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
95813642|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
95861093|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|0.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.18|-3.62|0.1366
95957670|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.27|0.0892
95957671|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|-0.01||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0826
95957672|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.15|-0.40|0.0031
95813643|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
95813644|NCT01405196|191598879|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
95957673|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.2||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.20|-0.45|0.0005
95957674|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.19|-0.18|0.5133
95813645|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.47||||||90.0|-6.33|7.27||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.27|-6.33|
95813646|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.92||||||90.0|-2.88|10.72||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.72|-2.88|
95813647|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|10.36||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.36|-3.25|
95813648|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|14.66||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||14.66|1.05|
95813649|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|13.92||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||13.92|0.32|
95999631|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|8.21|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||8.21|4.25|
95786564|NCT00105989|191542970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Pulse Change from Baseline to Endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<0.001
95786565|NCT00105989|191542971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
95786566|NCT00105989|191542972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.659
95786567|NCT00105989|191542972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.064
95786568|NCT00105989|191542972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0||||P-value for systolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.224
95786569|NCT00105989|191542972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0||||P-value for diastolic blood pressure change to endpoint.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||0.210
95786570|NCT00105989|191542973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: systolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.134
95786571|NCT00105989|191542973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline: diastolic blood pressure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.816
95786572|NCT00105989|191542974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786573|NCT00105989|191542975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.007
95786574|NCT00105989|191542976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.035
95786575|NCT00105989|191542977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
95861094|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.81||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-4.71|0.0153
95786576|NCT00105989|191542978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95999632|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.0|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||6.00|3.96|
95999633|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|3.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.79|2.58|
95786577|NCT00105989|191542979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.019
95786578|NCT00105989|191542980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.005
95786579|NCT00105989|191542981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.031
95786580|NCT00105989|191542982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786581|NCT00105989|191542983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786582|NCT00105989|191542984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786583|NCT00105989|191542985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786584|NCT00105989|191542986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786585|NCT00105989|191542987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.004
95786586|NCT00105989|191542988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.010
95786587|NCT00105989|191542989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.003
95786588|NCT00105989|191542990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786589|NCT00105989|191542991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.015
95957675|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.06||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.33|0.1873
95957676|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.212|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.07|-0.30|0.2120
95957677|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.35||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.35|-0.73|0.0001
95957678|NCT01475461|191887874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|-0.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.23|-0.61|0.0021
95957679|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.823||0.724|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.32|9.07||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent(%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.07|-3.32|0.7240
95957680|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.13|4.59||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.59|-8.13|0.3608
95957681|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.816||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.42|2.95||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.95|-9.42|0.2511
95957682|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.851||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.51|-1.05||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-1.05|-13.51|0.0673
95957683|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.44|-5.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-5.00|-17.44|0.0106
95957684|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.73|5.47||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.47|-7.73|0.4127
95957685|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.261||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.64|4.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.87|-8.64|0.3604
95957686|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.96|-0.74||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.74|-13.96|0.0770
95957687|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.171||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.43|-2.15||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-2.15|-15.43|0.0451
95957688|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.191||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-13.23||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-13.23|-26.57|0.0001
95957689|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.599||0.5783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.08|8.3||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.30|-6.08|0.5783
95786590|NCT00105989|191542992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The mean change to endpoint of -0.00 indicates that on average, endpoint score decreased from baseline score by less than 0.005 units.|t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.021
95957690|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.785||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.5|5.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.36|-9.50|0.3604
95957691|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.636||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.36|-4.88||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.88|-19.36|0.0161
95786591|NCT00105989|191542993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786592|NCT00105989|191542994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.032
95786593|NCT00105989|191542995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95786594|NCT00105989|191542996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||<.001
95813650|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|11.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||11.13|-2.47|
95813651|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.05||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.05|-5.40|
95813652|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|10.62||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.62|-2.75|
95813653|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.47|5.91||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.91|-7.47|
95813654|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.67||||||90.0|-3.02|10.35||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||10.35|-3.02|
95957692|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.663||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.68|2.87||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.87|-11.68|0.2185
95813655|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|9.68||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||9.68|-3.70|
95813656|NCT01405196|191598880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|8.13||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||8.13|-5.24|
95957693|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.649||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.67|-8.16||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-8.16|-22.67|0.0034
95813657|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.53|3.59||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.59|-2.53|
95957694|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.387||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.03|9.37||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||9.37|-7.03|0.5727
95957695|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.578||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.51|8.38||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.38|-8.51|0.4961
95957696|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.411||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.33|4.14||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||4.14|-12.33|0.2616
95786595|NCT00105989|191542997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.028
95786596|NCT00105989|191542998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.008
95786597|NCT00105989|191542999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test assesses if within treatment mean changes from baseline to endpoint are significantly different from zero.||||||.046
95786598|NCT00105989|191543000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.035
95813658|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.58||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.58|-3.54|
95813659|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|4.34||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.34|-1.78|
95813660|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|4.84||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.84|-1.28|
95813661|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|4.26||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-1.86|
95813662|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.98|3.15||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.15|-2.98|
95786599|NCT00105989|191543001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Change to Endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.011
95786600|NCT00105989|191543002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0||||P-value for fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.744
95786601|NCT00105989|191543002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for non-fasting glucose change from baseline to endpoint.|ANOVA|Type II Sums of Squares from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Ranks: Model = Pooled Investigator and Therapy.||||||0.030
95786602|NCT01151345|191543036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|88.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|96.75||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||96.75|81.23|
95813663|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|3.03||||||MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.03|-3.03|
95813664|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.09|2.92||||||MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.92|-3.09|
95813665|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|2.99||||||MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.99|-3.03|
95813666|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|2.85||||||MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.85|-3.17|
95813667|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|1.43||||||MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||1.43|-4.58|
95813668|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.72|2.3||||||MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||2.30|-3.72|
95813669|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|5.2||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.20|0.14|
95813670|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|5.89||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.89|0.84|
95999634|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|16.49|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||16.49|8.56|
95813671|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|5.76||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.76|0.70|
95813672|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|6.3||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.30|1.24|
95999635|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.76|2.59|
95786603|NCT01151345|191543037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.83|99.34||||||Natural-log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||99.34|83.83|
95813673|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|5.63||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.63|0.57|
95813674|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.03||||||90.0|0.5|5.56||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.56|0.50|
95813675|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|4.46||||||PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.46|-0.53|
95813676|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.68||||||90.0|0.2|5.17||||||PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.17|0.20|
95813677|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|4.32||||||PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.32|-0.65|
95813678|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|4.5||||||PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.50|-0.47|
95813679|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|4.82||||||PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.82|-0.15|
95813680|NCT01405196|191598881|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|5.08||||||PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.08|0.11|
95813681|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|5.42||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the Least Square (LS) mean difference from that model.||5.42|-1.26|
95813682|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|5.29||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.38|
95813683|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|6.15||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.15|-0.53|
95813684|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|7.22||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||7.22|0.54|
95786604|NCT01151345|191543038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric means ratio|83.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.08|103.31||||||Natural-log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||103.31|67.08|
95786605|NCT03883477|191543049|OTHER|The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||||0.013||||||1 week P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95786606|NCT03883477|191543049|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||1 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.007
95786607|NCT03883477|191543049|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||6 month P-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was powered to detect a difference in POSAS score of 10, deemed to be clinically significant by the investigators. To detect a mean difference in POSAS score of 10 points (SD = 8) with a two-sided significance level of 5% and power of 80% with equal allocation to two arms required 12 patients in each arm of the trial.||||0.804
95786608|NCT03883477|191543050|OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.142
95786609|NCT03883477|191543051|OTHER|||||||0.561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
95786610|NCT03883477|191543052|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.748
95786611|NCT03883477|191543053|OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.184
95813685|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|5.29||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.29|-1.39|
95813686|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|5.03||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||5.03|-1.65|
95813687|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.99||||||Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.99|-1.61|
95957697|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.441||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|17.34||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||17.34|0.79|0.9197
95957698|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.398||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.98|-0.54||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-0.54|-16.98|0.0860
95786612|NCT03883477|191543054|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
95999636|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|9.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.03|4.61|
95786613|NCT03883477|191543055|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
95813688|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|4.26||||||Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.26|-2.31|
95786614|NCT01904032|191543064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7982|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0537||0.6982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2691|4.8656|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the CES-D change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||4.8656|-3.2691|.6982
95786615|NCT01904032|191543065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6619||0.9908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2946|7.2097|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the PAID change score between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||7.2097|-7.2946|.9908
95786616|NCT01904032|191543066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4966|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1474||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7366|6.7298|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in systolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||6.7298|-5.7366|.8749
95786617|NCT01904032|191543067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8636||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1784|5.2033|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change in diastolic blood pressure between women who received high dose Vitamin D therapy versus low dose Vitamin D therapy.||5.2033|-2.1784|.4187
95957699|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.476||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.1|8.53||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||8.53|-8.10|0.5132
95957700|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.676||0.656|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.89|11.26||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.26|-5.89|0.6560
95786618|NCT02432209|191543072|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.34|||Chi-squared|||||1.34|0.48|0.404
95813689|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|4.61||||||Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.61|-1.96|
95813690|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|6.89||||||Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||6.89|0.32|
95813691|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|4.19||||||Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||4.19|-2.38|
95786619|NCT02373137|191543098|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity.|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.8 lines better vision at 6 months.|||-1.0|-2.8|<0.001
95786620|NCT02373137|191543099|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.5 lines better vision at 3 months.|Comparison of 3-Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.6|-2.5|0.002
95786621|NCT02373137|191543099|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model with a covariate for baseline visual acuity|Coefficient reported in lines, comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK. Compared to UT-DSAEK, DMEK had 1.4 lines better vision at 12 months.|Comparison of 12 Month Visual Acuity Between Groups||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
95786622|NCT02373137|191543101|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-77.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.0|172.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 3 months.|||172|-326|0.53
95786623|NCT02373137|191543101|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-150.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-356.0|66.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 6 months.|||66|-356|0.17
95786624|NCT02373137|191543101|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-215.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-430.0|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing DMEK to UT-DSAEK at 12 months.|||-0.4|-430|0.051
95786625|NCT02373137|191543107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95786626|NCT01087203|191543114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.16|-2.28|0.025
95786627|NCT01087203|191543115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.32|-0.92|0.332
95786628|NCT01087203|191543115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||0.36|-1.15|0.297
95786629|NCT01087203|191543115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.10|-1.81|0.029
95786630|NCT01087203|191543115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 6: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.30|-2.17|0.010
95786631|NCT01087203|191543115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.34|-2.30|0.009
95786632|NCT01087203|191543115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect, baseline value as covariate, and study site as a random effect was used.||-0.27|-2.36|0.015
95786633|NCT02559570|191543178|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.252|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.252|-0.335|0.7789
95786634|NCT02559570|191543178|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.284|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.284|-0.282|0.9930
95786635|NCT02559570|191543178|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.408|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.408|-0.167|0.4107
95786636|NCT02559570|191543179|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.729|0.552|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.552|-1.729|0.3097
95786637|NCT02559570|191543179|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.913|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.913|-1.286|0.7384
95813692|NCT01405196|191598883|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.68|3.88||||||Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.||3.88|-2.68|
95813693|NCT04756531|191598890|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.21|95.28||||||||95.28|69.21|
95813694|NCT04756531|191598891|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.14|96.2||||||||96.20|60.14|
95786638|NCT02559570|191543179|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|1.477|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.477|-0.748|0.5188
95786639|NCT02559570|191543180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|0.444|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.444|-0.543|0.8426
95786640|NCT02559570|191543180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.525|0.448|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.448|-0.525|0.8770
95786641|NCT02559570|191543180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.842|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.842|-0.131|0.1502
95786642|NCT02559570|191543180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.410|-0.535|0.7949
95786643|NCT02559570|191543180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.392|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.392|-0.540|0.7543
95786644|NCT02559570|191543180|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.728|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.728|-0.204|0.2676
95786645|NCT02559570|191543181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.359|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.359|-0.465|0.7997
95786646|NCT02559570|191543181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.5602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.288|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.288|-0.530|0.5602
95786647|NCT02559570|191543181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Adult derivation||0.170|-0.641|0.2529
95786648|NCT02559570|191543181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.352|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.352|-0.461|0.7923
95957701|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.8285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.17|14.52||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.52|-2.17|0.8285
95957702|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.527||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.59|24.36||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||24.36|7.59|0.9925
95957703|NCT01475461|191887875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.487||0.601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.67|10.0||p-value was 1-sided.|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.00|-6.67|0.6010
95999637|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|4.24|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.24|2.32|
95999638|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|10.33|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||10.33|5.23|
95786649|NCT02559570|191543181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.290|-0.517|0.5802
95786650|NCT02559570|191543181|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.201|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Weighted average||0.201|-0.600|0.3263
95786651|NCT02559570|191543182|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.349|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.349|-0.252|0.7507
95786652|NCT02559570|191543182|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.317|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.317|-0.262|0.8505
95999639|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|7.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.69|4.07|
95786653|NCT02559570|191543182|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.7933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.332|-0.254|0.7933
95786654|NCT02559570|191543183|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.313|0.463|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.463|-1.313|0.3461
95786655|NCT02559570|191543183|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|0.624|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.624|-1.095|0.5892
95786656|NCT02559570|191543183|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.949|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA model was applied with treatment arm groups (linaclotide doses A, B, and C, and placebo) and age group (6 to 11 years of age and 12 to 17 years of age) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.949|-0.789|0.8560
95861095|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.88||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.02|-3.78|0.1040
95999640|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|2.50|
95786657|NCT00305565|191543194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.02|-2.34|0.803
95786658|NCT00305565|191543194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis consisted of contrasts comparing High Dose vs. Low Dose and Medium Dose vs. Low Dose averaged over the 4 Acute Phase visits using the Hochberg approach to adjust for multiplicity. If both comparisons involving the Low Dose were significant, then a test of High Dose vs. Medium Dose was evaluated at the P≤0.05 level. The pivotal analysis was performed on the ITT population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach to impute missing data.||3.05|-2.39|0.813
95786659|NCT02685072|191543252|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5818||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1968|1.7202|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom =1|Odds ratio represents odds of smoking abstinence in TPN + progesterone group versus TPN + placebo group|||1.7202|0.1968|0.3253
95786660|NCT02685072|191543253|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0781||||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|3.2744|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo groups|||3.2744|0.3550|0.8944
95786661|NCT02685072|191543254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7619||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2247|2.5838|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.5838|0.2247|0.6620
95999641|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.04|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||4.04|2.10|
95786662|NCT02685072|191543255|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3171|2.6287|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.6287|0.3171|0.8661
95813695|NCT04756531|191598892|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Suspension), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.42|73.19||||||||73.19|43.42|
95813696|NCT04756531|191598925|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUClast for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|148.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.92|174.72||||||||174.72|126.92|
95813697|NCT04756531|191598926|OTHER|Natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|146.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.8|181.41||||||||181.41|118.80|
95999642|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|3.71|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.71|2.26|
95813698|NCT04756531|191598927|OTHER|Natural log transformed Cmax for PF-07321332 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, and treatment included as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fed was the test treatment and PF-07321332 250 mg (Tablet), Fasted was the reference treatment.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|244.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|188.58|317.87||||||||317.87|188.58|
95861096|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.51||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.40|-3.41|0.1924
95861097|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.94||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.84|-0.04|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.04|-3.84|0.0928
95861098|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.06||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.16|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.16|-3.96|0.0745
95957704|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|1.34||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on least squares (LS) mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.34|0.18|0.0913
95786663|NCT02685072|191543256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.7||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided||(Placebo + TPN) - (Progesterone + TPN)|||9.0|-27.1|0.31
95786664|NCT02685072|191543257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9747|1.2707|||t-test, 2 sided||(placebo + TPN) - (progesterone + TPN)|||1.2707|-0.9747|0.7910
95861099|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.91|0.9|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.90|-2.91|0.3836
95861100|NCT02785770|191680925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.97|-0.17|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.17|-3.97|0.0734
95861101|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.96|-0.36|0.2588
95786665|NCT02685072|191543258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.81|2.71|0.0065
95786666|NCT02685072|191543269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of CO \< 10 ppm (negative for smoking) in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|.6449
95786667|NCT02685072|191543270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7172||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|2.9594|||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1|Odds ratio represents odds of prolonged abstinence in TPN + progesterone versus TPN + placebo.|||2.9594|0.1738|0.6449
95813699|NCT03545672|191598957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95813700|NCT03545672|191598958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95813701|NCT01049373|191598976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0426
95813702|NCT01049373|191598977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0757
95813703|NCT01049373|191598978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
95813704|NCT01049373|191598979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04443
95999643|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|3.63|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.63|2.23|
95786668|NCT05052697|191543312|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.2|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A1||2.20|0.34|
95786669|NCT05052697|191543312|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.7|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: A2||2.70|0.86|
95786670|NCT05052697|191543312|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.28|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B1||2.28|0.40|
95813705|NCT01959529|191599012|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was below 1.3 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of null hypothesis (H0): HR≥1.3 against the alternative hypothesis (Ha): HR\<1.3 was less than 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.055||p value : Refers to one-sided test of HR \>= 1.3 (against Ha: HR\<1.3).|Regression, Cox|||The hazard ratio (HR) (IDeg vs IGlar) was based on Cox regression with investigational medicinal product as only factor for primary analysis.||1.055|0.781|<0.001
95861102|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.30|-1.03|0.8465
95861103|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.18|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.18|-0.15|0.1502
95861104|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.14|-1.19|0.9700
95999644|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|5.2|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.20|3.16|
95813706|NCT01959529|191599013|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.759||p-value : Refers to one-sided test of RR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: RR\<1.0)|Negative binomial regression|The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS.||Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the rate ratio (RR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: RR ≥1.0 against Ha: RR \<1.0, was less than 2.5%||0.759|0.476|<0.001
95861105|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.34|0.0947
95861106|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.36|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.36|-0.96|0.7759
95861107|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.19|-1.13|0.9649
95861108|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 25 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|-1.08|0.9034
95999645|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.14|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.14|2.06|
95999646|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.60|2.46|
95786671|NCT05052697|191543312|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.18|||||GMRs and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean logarithm of the difference (qIRV group minus QIV group) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student t distribution).|Strain: B2||1.18|0.25|
95786672|NCT05052697|191543313|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|53.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A1||53.5|-4.5|
95786673|NCT05052697|191543313|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|49.4|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: A2||49.4|-19.2|
95786674|NCT05052697|191543313|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|19.1|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B1||19.1|-41.7|
95813707|NCT01959529|191599014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.866||p-value: Refers to one-sided test of OR \>= 1.0 (against Ha: OR\<1.0)|Regression, Logistic|The model was logistic regression with log-link function.The model included treatment (IDeg vs IGlar) as a fixed factor and was fitted using the FAS||Superiority of IDeg to IGlar was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio (OR) was below 1.0 or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: OR ≥1.0 against Ha: OR\<1.0, was less than 2.5%.||0.866|0.600|<0.001
95813708|NCT01440764|191599016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. This p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the furosemide test result to the saline test result.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95813709|NCT01440764|191599016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not corrected for multiple comparisons. Thes p-value describes the a priori analysis of comparing the response to furosemide to the mean response to saline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95813710|NCT01440764|191599018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0006
95813711|NCT01440764|191599018|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1e-05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.00001
95813712|NCT01440764|191599018|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-07||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0000002
95813713|NCT02286895|191599029|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.2||||||Based on results from a prior study, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.2|-4.0|
95999647|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.15|2.24|
95999648|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|7.76|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||7.76|4.55|
95786675|NCT05052697|191543313|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.5|||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving seroconversion, qIRV group - Licensed QIV group as reference, expressed as a percentage.|Strain: B2||32.5|-29.2|
95786676|NCT03796676|191543332|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|16.7||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||29.9|3.5|0.0147
95786677|NCT03796676|191543332|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|20.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||33.9|7.3|0.0030
95786678|NCT03796676|191543333|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||39.8|13.1|0.0002
95786679|NCT03796676|191543333|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.5|16.3|<0.0001
95813714|NCT02286895|191599030|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% CI (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.0||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||4.0|-12.2|
95855359|NCT00541658|191670492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.256|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.256|-0.900|
95855360|NCT00541658|191670493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.903|-0.405|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.405|-1.903|
95813715|NCT02286895|191599031|NON_INFERIORITY|The protocol stated that non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (2-sided) for the difference in sero-conversion percentages (group receiving rotavirus minus group not receiving rotavirus) was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.7||||||Based on results from a prior study completed by PATH and CVD-Mali, the sponsor assumed 90% sero-conversion rates in each Arms A and B for each antigen in the two co-primary objectives. To rule out a non-inferiority margin of no more than 10% with 95% power (95% power was chosen to give an overall power of at least 90%) and a one-sided type-one error rate of no more than 2.5%, 237 evaluable subjects were required in each group to explore the co-primary objectives.||2.7|-7.5|
95786680|NCT03796676|191543334|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.7||||0.0119||95.0|3.5|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||25.9|3.5|0.0119
95786681|NCT03796676|191543334|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|38.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 2 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||38.3|13.9|<0.0001
95786682|NCT03796676|191543334|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|10.9||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||23.6|-1.8|0.0971
95786683|NCT03796676|191543334|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 4 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||42.9|16.0|<0.0001
95786684|NCT03796676|191543334|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||37.7|8.0|0.0035
95786685|NCT03796676|191543334|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|25.6||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|40.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimate of the difference in percentages of response at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||40.6|10.6|0.0013
95786686|NCT03796676|191543335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 100 mg minus placebo|||0.0|-1.1|0.0664
95786687|NCT03796676|191543335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The least squares mean difference at Week 12 was calculated by PF-04965842 200 mg minus placebo|||-0.1|-1.3|0.0142
95786688|NCT04776928|191543412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Two-part regression model|||||||0.010
95813716|NCT02286895|191599032|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.1|0.8|
95786689|NCT00103285|191543419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|16.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points.|Physical Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||16.63|1.61|
95786690|NCT00103285|191543419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Social Functioning: Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.27|1.21|
95786691|NCT00103285|191543419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratios in this Statistical Analysis corresponds to all four time points|Parents of 160 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 Generic Core Scales (physical, emotional and social functioning) and Family Assessment Device-General Functioning (FAD-GF) at 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy.||3.34|1.03|
95813717|NCT02286895|191599033|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean concentration (GMC) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine/ GMC of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1|geometric mean titer ratio|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.8||||||||3.8|-5.2|
95813718|NCT02286895|191599034|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence/null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) of group receiving rotavirus vaccine divided by GMT of group not receiving rotavirus vaccine = 1.|geometric mean titer ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3||||||||1.3|0.7|
95786692|NCT00103285|191543420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.974|3.273|||Regression, Cox|||4981 eligible evaluable patients enrolled on AALL0331 had MRD evaluation at Day 29 of induction. MRD status defined as negative (\<0.1%) or positive (\>=0.1%). MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with EFS using Cox regression analysis.||3.273|1.974|
95786693|NCT00103285|191543422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.17|||Chi-squared|||MRD status ( positive vs. negative) was correlated with Early Marrow Status (M1 vs M2/M3) using Chi Square test.||0.17|0.101|
95786694|NCT00103285|191543423|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|12.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Parents of 159 SR-ALL patients enrolled on Children's Oncology Group (COG) therapeutic trial AALL0331 at 31 sites completed the BASC-2 Anxiety Scale at 1 month after diagnosis, and 3 months post-therapy. Of these 159 had data at 1 month after diagnosis and 96 at 3 months post therapy.||12.73|1.31|
95813719|NCT02286895|191599035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|25.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||25.3|9.7|
95813720|NCT02286895|191599036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.4|8.1|
95786695|NCT00913081|191543426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow. Because quercetin has not been used to inhibit flushing from niacin in humans, sample size could not be determined statistically. A sample size of 8 men and 8 women was expected to allow separate estimates of effect size, variability, and shape of distribution for men and women.||||0.5
95999649|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||5.17|3.13|
95999650|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.25|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||9.25|5.16|
95999651|NCT01025336|191975308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 1 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.40|2.24|
95999652|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.08|1.02|
95999653|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.99|1.14|
95999654|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.06|1.22|
95999655|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.56|1.15|
95999656|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.53|1.36|
95999657|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.91|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.91|1.15|
95999658|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.44|1.80|
95999659|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.96|0.99|
95786696|NCT00913081|191543426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.8
95786697|NCT00913081|191543426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that quercetin, at any dose, does not attenuate niacin-induced increases in dermal blood flow.||||0.5
95786698|NCT00762762|191543489|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786699|NCT00762762|191543490|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786700|NCT00762762|191543491|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786701|NCT00762762|191543492|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786702|NCT00762762|191543493|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95999660|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.62|0.73|
95999661|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.39|1.02|
95999662|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.38|
95999663|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.12|1.53|
95813721|NCT02286895|191599037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|36.2||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||36.2|14.6|
95813722|NCT02286895|191599038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|39.0||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||39.0|23.1|
95999664|NCT01025336|191975309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.82|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS-23vPS/13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.82|1.18|
95999665|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.25|1.02|
95999666|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.44|0.78|
95999667|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|1.06|
95999668|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.04|0.41|
95999669|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.24|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.24|1.82|
95786703|NCT00762762|191543494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786704|NCT00762762|191543495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786705|NCT00762762|191543496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786706|NCT00762762|191543497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786707|NCT00762762|191543498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95786708|NCT00947310|191543505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.85|0.24|0.01
95786709|NCT00947310|191543505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||1.02|0.30|0.06
95786710|NCT00947310|191543506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.47|0.71|0.39
95786711|NCT00947310|191543506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||2.05|0.58|0.80
95786712|NCT00947310|191543507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm B. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.34|0.13|<0.001
95999670|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.11|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||4.11|1.43|
95786713|NCT00947310|191543507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated to compare Arm A vs Arm C. Null Hypothesis was that HR = 1||0.40|0.15|<0.001
95786714|NCT02171429|191543538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.2||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|16.12||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||16.12|-3.83|0.1729
95813723|NCT02286895|191599039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|23.5||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||23.5|12.0|
95999671|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.00|0.96|
95999672|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|0.88|
95999673|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.54|0.64|
95999674|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.71|
95999675|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|1.01|
95999676|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.06|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.06|0.84|
95999677|NCT01025336|191975310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|5.2|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||5.20|1.89|
95813724|NCT02286895|191599040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.7|66.3||||||Null hypothesis: percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that received rotavirus vaccine minus the percentage of the seroresponse to rotavirus in the group that did not receive rotavirus vaccine is less than or equal to 0.||66.3|37.7|
95999678|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.51|0.72|
95999679|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.94|0.52|
95999680|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.47|0.58|
95813725|NCT02286895|191599041|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||2.4|1.2|
95813726|NCT02286895|191599042|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1||||||Null hypothesis: 28 days post-vaccination, geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.1|1.7|
95813727|NCT02286895|191599043|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||3.3|1.2|
95786715|NCT02171429|191543539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-6.8||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|2.73||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.73|-16.26|0.1458
95786716|NCT02171429|191543540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
95786717|NCT02171429|191543541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|14.0||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|27.19||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||27.19|-0.12|0.1729
95999681|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.25|
95999682|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.32|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.32|0.85|
95999683|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.82|
95786718|NCT02171429|191543541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-2.5||||0.6726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|9.01||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.01|-13.83|0.6726
95786719|NCT02171429|191543542|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
95813728|NCT02286895|191599044|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean titer ratio|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.9||||||Null hypothesis: geometric mean titer (GMT) in group receiving rotavirus vaccine/GMT in group not receiving rotavirus vaccine ≤ 1||8.9|2.4|
95813729|NCT00163189|191599088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||<0.001
95813730|NCT00163189|191599089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Student's paired t-test|||Month 36||||0.008
95999684|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.97|0.37|
95999685|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.7|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.70|0.54|
95999686|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.59|
95813731|NCT00186628|191599121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||.07
95861109|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 0.5 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.49|-1.85|0.3391
95999687|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.17|0.48|
95999688|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||1.05|0.58|
95786720|NCT02171429|191543543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.4||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.95||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||21.95|-4.31|0.2372
95813732|NCT01331681|191599139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|12.0||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Least square (LS) mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||12.0|6.5|<0.0001
95861110|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.19||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|-0.02|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 1 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.02|-2.35|0.0948
95999689|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||0.88|0.41|
95999690|NCT01025336|191975311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.81|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 13vPnC/23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 13vPnC/23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale.||2.81|1.05|
95999691|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|1.27|
95999692|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.59|0.95|
95999693|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.29|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.29|1.03|
95999694|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.97|0.95|
95999695|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.31|1.42|
95999696|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.04|0.88|
95999697|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.40|0.95|
95999698|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.99|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.99|0.70|
95786721|NCT02171429|191543543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-3.5||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|7.82||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.82|-14.76|0.5341
95999699|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.25|0.57|
95999700|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.12|1.06|
95999701|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||1.69|0.97|
95999702|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.53|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||2.53|1.21|
95999703|NCT01025336|191975312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.42|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/13vPnC - 23vPS/13vPnC)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/13vPnC to 23vPS/13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence on the logarithmic scale||3.42|1.54|
95999704|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.63|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.63|0.80|
95786722|NCT02171429|191543544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
95786723|NCT02171429|191543545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|11.2||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|19.76||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||19.76|0.59|0.2372
95813733|NCT01331681|191599139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|11.8||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value was below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the first secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||11.8|6.3|<0.0001
95861111|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.74||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.43|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 2 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.43|-1.91|0.2959
95999705|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.39|0.77|
95999706|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.69|0.68|
95999707|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.31|1.03|
95999708|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||4.55|1.66|
95786724|NCT02171429|191543545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|2.33||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.33|-17.20|0.1192
95786725|NCT02171429|191543546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
95786726|NCT02171429|191543547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|9.6||||0.2729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|22.02||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.02|-4.71|0.2729
95786727|NCT02171429|191543547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-14.8||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.97|-2.04||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-2.04|-26.97|0.0215
95813734|NCT01331681|191599140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|41.6||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||41.6|15.8|<0.0001
95999709|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.94|2.25|
95999710|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|9.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||9.98|3.85|
95999711|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.4|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||7.40|2.43|
95813735|NCT01331681|191599140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|40.5||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the second secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 10 letters identical in both groups||40.5|14.6|<0.0001
95999712|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.13|0.89|
95999713|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.06|
95999714|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.78|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.78|1.50|
95999715|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||5.04|2.30|
95999716|NCT01025336|191975313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.37|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS)\]|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC/23vPS to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.37|1.37|
95999717|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.90|0.48|
95999718|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.09|0.64|
95999719|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.44|0.20|
95999720|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.26|0.59|
95999721|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.26|0.11|
95999722|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.22|0.49|
95999723|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.76|0.68|
95999724|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.55|0.90|
95999725|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.30|1.02|
95861112|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 3 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.09|-1.24|0.9161
95999726|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.14|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.14|0.52|
95999727|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.08|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.62|
95999728|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.98|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.98|0.89|
95999729|NCT01025336|191975314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.59|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC - 13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPs/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.59|0.26|
95999730|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.22|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.22|0.85|
95999731|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.10|0.82|
95999732|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
95999733|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.87|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.67|
95999734|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.79|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.48|
95999735|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.19|1.32|
95999736|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.26|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.26|1.24|
95999737|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.95|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.95|1.48|
95999738|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.05|1.23|
95786728|NCT02171429|191543548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
95786729|NCT02171429|191543549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
95999739|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.19|0.82|
95999740|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.46|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.46|1.07|
95999741|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.80|1.56|
95999742|NCT01025336|191975315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.48|0.89|
95999743|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.92|0.48|
95999744|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.76|
95786730|NCT02171429|191543549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.2864
95786731|NCT02171429|191543550|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
95786732|NCT02171429|191543551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.1729
95786733|NCT02171429|191543551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4174||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.4174
95786734|NCT02171429|191543552|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
95786735|NCT02171429|191543553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-2.8|0.1659
95813736|NCT01331681|191599141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.6|33.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||33.9|12.6|<0.0001
95861113|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.24|-0.91|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 4 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||-0.91|-3.24|0.0036
95999745|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.22|0.88|
95999746|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.95|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.95|0.93|
95786736|NCT02171429|191543553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||1.4|-1.3|0.9182
95861114|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.3063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|0.44|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 8 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.44|-1.89|0.3063
95999747|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.66|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||0.66|0.27|
95999748|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.56|0.64|
95999749|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||3.04|1.14|
95999750|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.85|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.85|1.01|
95786737|NCT02171429|191543554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
95786738|NCT02171429|191543554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
95999751|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.87|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.87|1.26|
95813737|NCT01331681|191599141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.5|34.9||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the third secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to gain \>= 15 letters identical in both groups||34.9|13.5|<0.0001
95813738|NCT01331681|191599142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|25.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.2|39.4||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||39.4|12.2|<0.0001
95999752|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.19|0.57|
95999753|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.31|0.75|
95999754|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.04|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||2.04|0.93|
95861115|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.4918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.68|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 12 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.68|-1.65|0.4918
95786739|NCT02171429|191543555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||-0.2|-1.7|0.0116
95786740|NCT02171429|191543555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.6771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.8|0.6771
95999755|NCT01025336|191975316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures \[(23vPS/13vPnC-13vPnC)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (23vPS/13vPnC to 13vPnC) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine sequence/group on the logarithmic scale.||1.15|0.50|
95786741|NCT02171429|191543556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
95813739|NCT01331681|191599142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||CMH adjusted difference|19.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|32.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fourth secondary endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratifying by geographic region (Japan vs non-Japan).|The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Probability to improve by \>= 2 steps identical in both groups||32.1|6.6|0.0006
95813740|NCT01331681|191599143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-157.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-190.9|-123.1||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-123.1|-190.9|<0.0001
95861116|NCT02785770|191680926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.78|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|||PF-04447943 100 mg versus Placebo, 24 Hour: P-value was derived from repeated measures model with sequence, period, time, treatment and time-by-treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.55|-1.78|0.3862
95864480|NCT03456882|191686803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.2||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9887
95786742|NCT02171429|191543556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
95786743|NCT02171429|191543557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|7.9||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|16.87||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.87|-3.19|0.1382
95786744|NCT02171429|191543557|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-7.5||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|2.22||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.22|-17.10|0.1163
95786745|NCT02171429|191543558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|2.9||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|10.14||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.14|-6.47|0.4772
95786746|NCT02171429|191543558|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.2||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|2.63||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||2.63|-12.95|0.1801
95786747|NCT02171429|191543559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|4.0||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|15.2||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||15.2|-7.2|0.4833
95786748|NCT02171429|191543559|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.1|-9.2|0.9931
95786749|NCT00320242|191543565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|two-tailed paired t-test||||2.23|0.26|0.0152
95786750|NCT00320242|191543566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|76.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||76.1|23.9|0.005
95786751|NCT00320242|191543567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||two-tailed Wilcoxan signed-rank sum test||||0.02
95786752|NCT00320242|191543568|OTHER|The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||||0.002||||||Two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0. This analysis was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The percentage change in falls was analyzed using a two-tailed one-sample t-test with a hypothesized mean of 0||||0.002
95786753|NCT04846270|191543569|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of manual checks has been reduced.||"POWER is a single arm investigation with cross-over design. Each participating subject will use the study device and act as its own control.~The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week.~The alternate hypothesis (H1) is that there is a reduction in the mean number of checks performed during the investigation week compared to the baseline week."||||0.0006
95864481|NCT03456882|191686804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9622
95786754|NCT04846270|191543571|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of leakages had been reduced.||||||0.0051
95786755|NCT04846270|191543574|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to test if the number of fecal incidents had been reduced.||||||0.76
95786756|NCT00572455|191543576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|3.02||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|5.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.25|0.78|0.028
95786757|NCT00572455|191543576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.96|2.50|<0.001
95786758|NCT00572455|191543576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.33|8.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.79|4.33|<0.001
95786759|NCT00572455|191543576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|7.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.95|3.60|<0.001
95786760|NCT00572455|191543576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|7.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.37|2.74|<0.001
95786761|NCT00572455|191543576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.79|8.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.25|3.79|<0.001
95786762|NCT00572455|191543577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.32|-0.21|0.171
95786763|NCT00572455|191543577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.553
95786764|NCT00572455|191543577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.70|-0.80|0.555
95786765|NCT00572455|191543577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.73|0.22|0.053
95813741|NCT01331681|191599143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-179.3|-106.3||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value and the preceding ones were below the significance level of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing did continue with the fifth secondary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A negative value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||-106.3|-179.3|<0.0001
95786766|NCT00572455|191543577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.80|1.29|<0.001
95786767|NCT00572455|191543577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.81||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|3.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to Latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.07|0.56|0.018
95861117|NCT01235598|191680958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-1.5||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0|-3.0|0.049
95786768|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.90|1.34|0.011
95786769|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.19||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|6.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.47|1.91|0.004
95786770|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|4.19|<0.001
95786771|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.11|7.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.54|3.11|<0.001
95786772|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.66|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|3.66|<0.001
95786773|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|3.52|<0.001
95786774|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|-0.14|0.120
95786775|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|7.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.14|1.97|0.005
95786776|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.75|3.58|<0.001
95786777|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.54|3.52|<0.001
95786778|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.95|4.66|<0.001
95786779|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.91|8.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its Vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.08|2.91|<0.001
95786780|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.53|1.56|0.009
95786781|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.49|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.49|<0.001
95786782|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.11|10.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.11|5.11|<0.001
95786783|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|9.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.53|4.64|<0.001
95999756|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.31|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.31|1.03|
95786784|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.4|8.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.62|3.40|<0.001
95786785|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.11|11.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.30|6.11|<0.001
95786786|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.66||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.02|0.29|0.066
95786787|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.76|0.006
95999757|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.37|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.37|1.07|
95786788|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|8.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.49|3.76|<0.001
95786789|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.51|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.51|<0.001
95786790|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.50|1.53|0.010
95786791|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|7.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.93|3.03|<0.001
95786792|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.91|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.19|1.91|0.006
95786793|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.66|7.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.94|2.66|0.002
95786794|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.87|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||10.16|4.87|<0.001
95786795|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.57|11.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||11.71|6.57|<0.001
95999758|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.68|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.68|1.60|
95999759|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.03|1.55|
95786796|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|8.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.44|2.94|0.002
95786797|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.16|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.62|4.16|<0.001
95813742|NCT01331681|191599144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.01|6.82||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||6.82|-2.01|0.2208
95999760|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.07|0.79|
95999761|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.53|1.05|
95786798|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.58|-0.91|0.269
95786799|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.49||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|7.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.24|1.75|0.009
95786800|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.57|4.08|<0.001
95786801|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.52|8.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.84|3.52|<0.001
95786802|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.71|8.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.33|2.71|0.002
95864482|NCT03456882|191686804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.3||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6533
95999762|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||3.50|1.98|
95999763|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.61|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.61|1.37|
95999764|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.86|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.86|1.33|
95999765|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.42|1.10|
95999766|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.43|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.43|1.14|
95999767|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.6|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.60|1.80|
95999768|NCT01025336|191975317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.06|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Prevaccination 2 and 1 Year Postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.06|1.44|
95786803|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.01|9.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.50|4.01|<0.001
95999769|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.64|0.87|
95786804|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.36||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|5.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||5.76|0.95|0.024
95786805|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|7.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.66|2.82|<0.001
95786806|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.23|9.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.06|4.23|<0.001
95786807|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|7.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.58|2.87|<0.001
95864483|NCT03456882|191686805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9137||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.9137
95999770|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.08|0.63|
95786808|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.88||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.37|1.39|0.012
95786809|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|9.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.48|4.48|<0.001
95999771|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.8|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.80|1.25|
95999772|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.53|0.71|
95786810|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.41||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|6.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.72|2.11|0.003
95786811|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|7.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.33|2.72|<0.001
95999773|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|11.44|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||11.44|4.67|
95999774|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.17|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.17|1.61|
95999775|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.29|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||3.29|1.22|
95999776|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.77|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.77|0.96|
95999777|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.28|0.54|
95999778|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.07|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|0.92|
95999779|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.83|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.83|1.01|
95786812|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.27|8.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.88|4.27|<0.001
95786813|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.31|7.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||7.78|3.31|<0.001
95813743|NCT01331681|191599144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.79|3.37||Significance level alpha=0.025 for two sided test to adjust for multiplicity. Since this p-value is not below of 0.025, the fixed sequence testing stops here. The sixth secondary endpoint cannot be tested confirmatory.|ANCOVA|Treatment group and geographic region (Japan vs. Non-Japan) as factors and baseline value as covariate.|LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||3.37|-5.79|0.5537
95786814|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.82|2.06|0.003
95864484|NCT03456882|191686805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.7||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3985
95999780|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.78|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||1.78|0.77|
95999781|NCT01025336|191975318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale.||4.64|1.97|
95999782|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.15|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 1: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.15|1.15|
95786815|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.7|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||9.47|4.70|<0.001
95786816|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.84|-0.02|0.103
95786817|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||6.18|1.32|0.013
95999783|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 3: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.32|0.76|
95999784|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.05|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 4: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.05|1.09|
95999785|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 5: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.96|0.95|
95999786|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|7.5|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||7.50|3.05|
95786818|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.53|8.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.39|3.53|<0.001
95786819|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.5|8.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.23|3.50|<0.001
95786820|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|8.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.11|3.18|<0.001
95786821|NCT00572455|191543581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.46|8.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag compared to its vehicle with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||8.48|3.46|<0.001
95786822|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.72||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|2.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.08|-0.63|0.377
95786823|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.68||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||-0.35|-3.01|0.039
95786824|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.98|-1.67|0.668
95786825|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|-0.07|0.121
95999787|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.64|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||3.64|1.40|
95999788|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.62|0.58|
95786826|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.67||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.99|0.34|0.039
95786827|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 1 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.31|-0.34|0.220
95786828|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.3||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.59|0.01|0.098
95786829|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-0.77|0.519
95786830|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.55|-1.00|0.724
95786831|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.46||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|2.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.74|0.19|0.059
95957705|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.5236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.30|0.5236
95957706|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.53|0.62||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.62|-0.53|0.9244
95957707|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.88||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.88|-0.28|0.5066
95957708|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|0.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.64|0.8947
95786832|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.98|1.43|<0.001
95813744|NCT01331681|191599145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.29|2.91|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||2.91|-5.29|0.5138
95813745|NCT01331681|191599145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.79|4.05|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference from ANCOVA. The estimate is calculated as EYLEA minus Laser. A positive value indicates a result in favor of EYLEA.|Hypothesis: Mean change identical in both groups||4.05|-4.79|0.8498
95813746|NCT01247064|191599150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95957709|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.52||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.52|0.30|0.0577
95786833|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.37|0.82|0.008
95786834|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.32||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.51|0.13|0.068
95786835|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.18|-1.16|0.994
95786836|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-0.70|0.494
95813747|NCT01247064|191599151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
95813748|NCT01247064|191599152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95813749|NCT01247064|191599153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95813750|NCT01247064|191599154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95813751|NCT01918189|191599212|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain interference (i.e., WHYMPI-Interference Scale) at 10 weeks post-baseline.||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
95813752|NCT01918189|191599213|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the primary measure of pain intensity at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.27
95957710|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|1.14||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.14|-0.12|0.3012
95861118|NCT01235598|191680959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference within group changes|-1.0||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \< 0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \< 0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained. Testing was stopped in the next step.||1.0|-3.0|0.206
95861119|NCT01235598|191680963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.0035||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.0025||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.0025|-0.0120|0.164
95861120|NCT01235598|191680964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-0.069||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.138||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||0.1380|-0.2010|0.865
95861121|NCT01235598|191680965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median difference within group changes|-421.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1542.5|-47.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance. A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses.|Permutation test with general scores||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|A fixed-sequence stepwise hypothesis testing procedure was followed using a pre-specified set of ordered hypotheses. Hypotheses were ordered and tested in that order, beginning with change from Baseline at Week 16, and continuing to earlier time points (Week 8, 4, 2, 1 in that order) only if the previous null hypothesis of zero difference was rejected (p \<0.05). Hypothesis testing was stopped if and when a non-significant result was obtained.||-47.0|-1542.5|0.015
95861122|NCT01235598|191680977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.394
95861123|NCT01235598|191680978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.625
95957711|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|1.09||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.09|-0.13|0.3165
95957712|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.31|0.5191
95786837|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.62|0.16|0.063
95786838|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.34|0.95|0.004
95786839|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.17||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.97|0.004
95786840|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.55||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.32|0.038
95786841|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM : Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.68|-0.72|0.512
95786842|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.89|-0.56|0.373
95786843|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|2.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.56|0.05|0.088
95786844|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.98|0.004
95786845|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.57|1.09|0.003
95786846|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.04|0.69|0.010
95786847|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.05|-0.27|0.205
95957713|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.3|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.30|0.5107
95786848|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.63|0.26|0.045
95786849|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|3.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.31|0.88|0.005
95786850|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.70|1.33|<0.001
95786851|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 7 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.48|1.10|0.002
95786852|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.69|-1.15|0.757
95786853|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.27|-1.54|0.878
95957714|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.42||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.42|0.17|0.1054
95786854|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.17|-1.64|0.780
95861124|NCT01235598|191680979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.128
95861125|NCT01235598|191680980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.732
95861126|NCT01235598|191680981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.411
95861127|NCT01235598|191680982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.208
95999789|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.32|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.32|0.83|
95999790|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 14: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||1.40|0.58|
95999791|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.41|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.41|1.09|
95786855|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.77|-1.04|0.670
95786856|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.98||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.38|0.58|0.021
95786857|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.71|-0.10|0.126
95786858|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.26|-0.32|0.215
95786859|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.65|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.91|-1.65|0.635
95786860|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.35|0.934
95786861|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.87|-0.74|0.478
95786862|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.87|1.26|0.002
95786863|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.30|0.68|0.013
95786864|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.57|-1.04|0.736
95786865|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||0.61|-1.96|0.386
95786866|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.24|-1.35|0.948
95861128|NCT01235598|191680983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||0.0|-1.0|0.254
95861129|NCT01235598|191680984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Two-sided p-value is presented, with p \<0.05 as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference and associated exact 95 % 2-sided confidence interval are provided.|||1.0|-2.0|0.472
95861130|NCT00395343|191680985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.7|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum (on vs. not on metformin); insulin stratum (pre-mixed vs. intermediate or long-acting)||||-0.42|-0.70|<0.001
95861131|NCT00395343|191680986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-23.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-6.5|-23.4|<0.001
95813753|NCT01918189|191599214|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
95957715|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.96||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.96|-0.33|0.5341
95957716|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|1.15||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.15|-0.10|0.2782
95957717|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|0.94||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.32|0.5331
95786867|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.41|0.908
95786868|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.97||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|3.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.28|0.65|0.015
95786869|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.92|0.29|0.046
95786870|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.89|0.31|0.042
95786871|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.34|-1.22|0.940
95786872|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.53|-0.05|0.114
95786873|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.28|-0.35|0.228
95786874|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.29||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.60|0.98|0.005
95786875|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.79|0.17|0.063
95786876|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.91|-0.92|0.562
95786877|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.67||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.07|-0.73|0.431
95786878|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-1.18|0.795
95813754|NCT01918189|191599215|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of mood symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
95957718|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489||0.907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|0.68||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.68|-0.57|0.9070
95957719|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|1.35||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.35|0.04|0.1757
95957720|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.11||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.11|-0.24|0.4083
95957721|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.17||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.17|-0.14|0.3150
95957722|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.6631|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.89||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.89|-0.44|0.6631
95786879|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.23|0.43|0.032
95786880|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|4.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.13|1.34|0.002
95786881|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.44|0.64|0.017
95861132|NCT00395343|191680987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.1|-25.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||-25.1|-47.1|<0.001
95957723|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.512||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.74|0.57||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.57|-0.74|0.8694
95957724|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|1.4||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.40|0.00|0.2031
95957725|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7137|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.93||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.93|-0.52|0.7137
95957726|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.681|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|0.92||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.48|0.6810
95786882|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.26||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|2.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.60|-0.09|0.124
95786883|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.41|-1.25|0.920
95861133|NCT00395343|191680988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|36.5||||0.01||95.0|8.9|64.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; log-scaled baseline value; metformin stratum; insulin stratum||||64.7|8.9|0.01
95957727|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.49||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.49|-0.92|0.6921
95957728|NCT01475461|191887882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value was 2-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 14 (Follow-up): Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.21|-1.19|0.3702
95786884|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.46|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.22|-1.46|0.887
95786885|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.42||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.77|0.08|0.083
95957729|NCT01318538|191887890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|Analyzed using loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (relative changes i.e. % change)||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction.The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores. With a total of 100 women, the study was adequately powered to detect a minimum 5 day benefit in the # of days of any substance use (power = 83%).||||0.821
95786886|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|4.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.01|1.29|0.002
95786887|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.66|0.94|0.006
95786888|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.78|-0.80|0.533
95786889|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.26|-1.29|0.985
95786890|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||1.62|-0.95|0.665
95786891|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.15|-0.44|0.276
95786892|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.65|1.04|0.004
95786893|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|3.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 1 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.35|0.74|0.011
95786894|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.78||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.14|0.41|0.033
95813755|NCT01918189|191599216|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of sleep at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.18
95957730|NCT01318538|191887891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001 reductions in mean # of alcohol use days during treatment (9.9 and 12.4 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.3 and 12.2 day reductions).||||0.519
95786895|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.19|-0.50|0.302
95786896|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.94||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag alone compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.30|-0.42|0.255
95813756|NCT01918189|191599217|OTHER|Mixed models (using an unstructured correlation structure) regression over the baseline and 10-week post-baseline follow-up assessments were used to examine change in outcome measures for preliminary efficacy variables. The primary endpoint for the preliminary efficacy analyses is the mean difference in baseline to post-baseline follow-up scores on the measure of depression symptoms at 10 weeks post-baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
95786897|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||2.46|-0.30|0.198
95957731|NCT01318538|191887892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.253
95957732|NCT01318538|191887893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect models|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. The study was powered for the primary analysis concerning treatment group differences in the degree of improvement in the number of days of any substance use and in the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) composite scores.With 100 women (50 in each treatment group), the study was adequately powered to detect a 0.2 benefit in the ASI drug and alcohol composite scores (power = 94%).||||0.667
95957733|NCT01318538|191887895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95957734|NCT01318538|191887896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95786898|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||4.06|1.30|0.002
95786899|NCT00572455|191543583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.68||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model for effect of taprenepag in combination with latanoprost compared to latanoprost alone on IOP reduction from baseline with treatment and baseline IOP as covariates.||3.06|0.30|0.046
95786900|NCT02258217|191543587|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.66|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two ADL scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post ADL scores."||-0.66|-2.9|0.003
95957735|NCT01318538|191887897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drug use days during treatment (3.0 and 1.5 day reductions for WRG and GDC respectively); however at 6 months post-treatment, the reductions were significant for WRG (2.8 day reduction; p\<0.05) but not for GDC (1.5 day reduction; p\>0.01).||||0.464
95957736|NCT01318538|191887898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||loglinear (negative binomial) regression|We used loglinear (negative binomial) regression models with estimation via generalized estimating equations (GEE).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment group by phase interaction. Note: Women in both WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.0001) reductions in mean number of heavy drinking days during treatment (8.6 and 12.1 days reduction for WRG and GDC, respectively) and at 6 months post-treatment (8.0 and 11.8 day reductions).||||0.904
95957737|NCT01318538|191887899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||linear mixed effect model|This measure was analyzed using using linear mixed effect models with estimation via restricted maximum likelihood (absolute changes in the mean).||The models included the effects of treatment group, phase (3 levels), and the treatment by phase interaction. Note: Women in both the WRG and GDC groups had significant (p\<0.05) reductions in mean number of drinks per drinking day only during the in treatment phase (2.0 and 2.9 reductions for WRG and GDC, respectively).||||0.799
95957738|NCT05694533|191887900|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.76|
95957739|NCT05694533|191887900|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.93||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.93|0.69|
95957740|NCT05694533|191887901|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.92||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.92|0.78|
95957741|NCT05694533|191887901|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.89||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.89|0.74|
95957742|NCT05694533|191887902|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.91||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between Midazolam on Day 15 and Midazolam on Day 1.||0.91|0.78|
95957743|NCT05694533|191887902|OTHER|Descriptive only.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|0.97||||A random effects model was used to calculate the confidence interval.|Day 15/Day 1|The comparison is between 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 15 and 1-hydroxymidazolam on Day 1.||0.97|0.78|
95957744|NCT01983553|191887905|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Any of the 4 Serotypes||1.36|0.64|
95999792|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.03|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.03|1.10|
95786901|NCT02258217|191543588|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in ADL score variable. This was calculated as follows:~ADL score (new relapse) - ADL score (after treatment of current relapse) This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.22|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two RSH scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post RSH scores."||1.22|-1.22|0.99
95786902|NCT02258217|191543590|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in PCS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~PCS score (new relapse) - PCS score (after treatment of current relapse). This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||Paired t-test, two sided|||"We compared the two PCS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new \& after treatment).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0 We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post PCS scores."||-0.18|-3.67|0.03
95786903|NCT02258217|191543591|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS physical score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS physical score (new relapse) - MSIS physical score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||"We compared the two MSIS physical scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post MSIS physical scores."||||0.19
95786904|NCT02258217|191543592|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in MSIS psychological score variable. This was calculated as follows:~MSIS psychological score (new relapse) - MSIS psychological score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.45|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||"We compared the two MSIS psychological scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in means is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in means is not = 0~We used the Paired t-test to compare the pre - post MSIS psychological scores."||5.45|0.74|0.01
95786905|NCT02258217|191543593|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in EDSS score variable. This was calculated as follows:~EDSS score (new relapse) - EDSS score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the median difference in EDSS scores is 0.0 to 0.5|"We compared the two EDSS scores measured in the same arm at different timepoints (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post EDSS scores."||||0.23
95786906|NCT02258217|191543594|EQUIVALENCE|"We created a difference in SAGE score variable. This was calculated as follows:~SAGE score (new relapse) - SAGE score (after treatment of current relapse)~This difference score was tested for equivalence to 0 or not."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test||The interquartile range for the difference in medians is -1 to 0.|"We compared the two SAGE scores measured in the same arm at different time points (new relapse \& after treatment of relapse).~Null Hypothesis = Difference in medians is = 0 Alternate Hypothesis = Difference in medians is not = 0~We used the Wilcoxon Signed rank test to compare the pre - post SAGE scores."||||0.44
95786907|NCT00141518|191543596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Total Score, Change From Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.017
95786908|NCT00141518|191543597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.919|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.919
95786909|NCT00141518|191543598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=25)||||0.002
95786910|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-6.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 0 (n=27)||||0.001
95786911|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 3 (n=23)||||<0.001
95786912|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 6 (n=24)||||0.022
95786913|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 9 (n=23)||||0.005
95786914|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 12 (n=23)||||0.126
95786915|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 18 (n=22)||||0.049
95861134|NCT00395343|191680989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|1.89|6.85||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum||||6.85|1.89|<0.001
95999793|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.02|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.02|0.89|
95786916|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 24 (n=21)||||0.203
95786917|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 30 (n=21)||||0.733
95786918|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Month 36 (n=20)||||0.414
95786919|NCT00141518|191543625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline for the Duodopa Naïve group at Endpoint (n=27)||||0.534
95786920|NCT00141518|191543634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.016
95786921|NCT00141518|191543634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.188
95786922|NCT00141518|191543635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.008
95786923|NCT00141518|191543635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.107
95786924|NCT00141518|191543636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
95786925|NCT00141518|191543636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.010
95786926|NCT00141518|191543637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
95843722|NCT03043872|191654964|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.116||Analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and using the rank tests of association approach.|Log Rank||The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin), and ties handled by Efron approach.|D + T + EP vs D + EP. HR \<1 favors D + T + EP to be associated with a longer PFS than D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||1.116|0.522|0.1673
95786927|NCT00141518|191543637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
95786928|NCT00141518|191543638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.001
95786929|NCT00141518|191543638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.003
95786930|NCT00141518|191543639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||1.000
95786931|NCT00141518|191543639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.002
95786932|NCT00141518|191543640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.017
95786933|NCT00141518|191543640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||||||0.191
95786934|NCT00141518|191543641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.002
95786935|NCT00141518|191543641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||<0.001
95786936|NCT00141518|191543642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.047
95786937|NCT00141518|191543642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.847
95786938|NCT00141518|191543643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.012
95786939|NCT00141518|191543643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.035
95786940|NCT00141518|191543644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.599
95786941|NCT00141518|191543644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
95786942|NCT00141518|191543645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.026
95786943|NCT00141518|191543645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.208
95786944|NCT00141518|191543646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.010
95786945|NCT00141518|191543646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.073
95786946|NCT00141518|191543647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.048
95786947|NCT00141518|191543647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.030
95786948|NCT00141518|191543648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for morning scores||||0.208
95786949|NCT00141518|191543648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon tests|||Change from Baseline to Month 12 for day scores||||0.048
95786950|NCT01806168|191543657|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
95786951|NCT01806168|191543657|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
95786952|NCT01806168|191543657|EQUIVALENCE|a \< 0.05||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95786953|NCT01806168|191543658|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test primary and secondary outcomes, we utilized intention to treat data and linear mixed models with a group random effect. Significance was set to a \< 0.05.||||0.93
95957745|NCT01983553|191887905|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.21|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 1||2.21|0.44|
95957746|NCT01983553|191887905|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.94|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 2||2.94|0.64|
95786954|NCT01806168|191543659|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95786955|NCT01806168|191543660|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95786956|NCT01806168|191543661|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
95786957|NCT01806168|191543662|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
95786958|NCT01029262|191543672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|10.616|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.639|42.702|||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group||||42.702|2.639|<0.001
95786959|NCT01029262|191543673|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.||||||1.000
95786960|NCT01029262|191543674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA for risk ratio is due to 0 responder in placebo group.|P-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact||||||0|< 0.001
95786961|NCT01029262|191543675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.||||||0.639
95786962|NCT01029262|191543676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.276||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.877||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare the lenalidomide arm to the placebo arm.|Fisher Exact|||||1.877|0.867|0.252
95786963|NCT01029262|191543678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.864
95813757|NCT01959932|191599220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|10.2||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||10.20|6.89|<0.001
95843723|NCT03043872|191654965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.244||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||3.244|0.610|0.4320
95999794|NCT01025336|191975319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.97|||||CIs for the GMFR are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the measures \[(13vPnC - 23vPS)\].|Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMT (13vPnC to 23vPS) was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between vaccine group on the logarithmic scale||2.97|1.27|
95786964|NCT01029262|191543679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||p-value from log-rank test to compare lenalidomide and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||0.980
95786965|NCT01029262|191543681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Baseline||||0.823
95786966|NCT01029262|191543681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 12 (±3 days)||||0.371
95786967|NCT01029262|191543681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 24 (±3 days)||||0.391
95786968|NCT01029262|191543681|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 36 (±3 days)||||1.000
95786969|NCT01029262|191543681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|The p-values are calculated based on the Fisher exact test||Week 48 (±3 days)||||0.508
95786970|NCT01029262|191543682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.||Week 12||||0.323
95786971|NCT01029262|191543682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.071
95786972|NCT01029262|191543683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.760
95786973|NCT01029262|191543683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.251
95786974|NCT01029262|191543684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.424
95786975|NCT01029262|191543684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.116
95786976|NCT01029262|191543685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.746
95786977|NCT01029262|191543685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||||||0.460
95786978|NCT01029262|191543686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 12||||0.265
95957747|NCT01983553|191887905|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.51|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 3||2.51|0.48|
95813758|NCT01959932|191599221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS mean ratio|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|45.91||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||45.91|37.75|<0.001
95813759|NCT01959932|191599222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|5.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|6.87||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||6.87|5.21|<0.001
95813760|NCT01959932|191599223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|24.99||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||24.99|22.00|<0.001
95813761|NCT01138514|191599228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|98.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|102.5|||Fieller's method|||||102.5|95.2|0.05
95813762|NCT01138514|191599229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|100.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|105.2|||Fieller's method|||||105.2|95.6|0.05
95813763|NCT01138514|191599230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Clinical success was defined as a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) on Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) at Visit 4/Week 10"|equivalence difference|1.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|7.4|||Wald's method Yates' continuity correct|||||7.4|-4.2|0.05
95813764|NCT02972996|191599250|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|||Values are least-squares means ± SEs (adjusted for the baseline values) from ANCOVA linear mixed model that included covariates of age, baseline (pretreatment values), BMI and weight.||||0.56
95813765|NCT02972996|191599251|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95813766|NCT03274466|191599329|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.08|0.0013
95813767|NCT03274466|191599330|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.7||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.70|0.07|0.1680
95813768|NCT03274466|191599331|SUPERIORITY|Modified Intent-To-Treat|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.39||Threshold for Statistical Significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.04|0.3386
95813769|NCT03274466|191599332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.59||Threshold for statistical significance: alpha = 0.048|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sensitivity analysis of the Primary Endpoint using the Intent-To-Treat population.||0.59|0.08|0.0013
95813770|NCT04712669|191599333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.773||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.716|105.824||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||105.824|8.716|0.0208
95813771|NCT04712669|191599333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.558||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.272|106.54||LSM, SE, CIs for each treatment group; LSM Diff, SE, CIs, and p-value are estimated using an ANCOVA model incl. factors for treatment group and randomization strata with associated baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|H0: The mean change from baseline in PVR at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||106.54|10.272|0.0174
95813772|NCT04712669|191599334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.573
95813773|NCT04712669|191599334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9911||||||P-value based on ordinal logistic regression with treatment group and randomization stratification strata as factors at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|H0: The distribution of change from baseline in WHO FC at Week 24 is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||||0.9911
95957748|NCT01983553|191887905|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.47|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Serotype 4||1.47|0.27|
95786979|NCT01029262|191543686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||3\]: P-value from ANOVA comparison for change from baseline between lenalidomide and placebo adjusted with baseline score.|ANOVA|||Week 24||||0.047
95786980|NCT01029262|191543687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.2909
95786981|NCT01029262|191543687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.0759
95813774|NCT04712669|191599335|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.121||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|1.91||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||1.91|-69.13|0.0636
95813775|NCT04712669|191599335|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.469||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.45|7.35||p-value (alpha=0.05) is estimated using the aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test with the randomization stratification factors as strata.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|H0: The distribution of change from baseline at Week 24 in 6MWT distance (meters) is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.||||7.35|-45.45|0.1573
95813776|NCT04712669|191599336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1125.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|351.28||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|437.39|1814.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1814.39|437.39|0.0014
95813777|NCT04712669|191599336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|866.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|306.56||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|265.41|1467.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|H0: The mean change from baseline at Week 24 in NT-proBNP is equal between placebo and rodatristat ethyl.|Estimates from a REML MMRM with baseline covariate, fixed effects, and unstructured covariance.|||1467.16|265.41|0.0047
95813778|NCT04066829|191599337|OTHER||Difference in Differences|-29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-11.8||||||Pre and post difference in the treatment group as compared to the control group. A log transformation was used.||-11.8|-42.2|
95957749|NCT01983553|191887905|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.22|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative risk; Unserotyped||1.22|0.00|
95786982|NCT01029262|191543688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6957|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6957
95813779|NCT01400412|191599371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-value without adjustment for multiple testing, interpreted at the 5% nominal level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by age (\<30 and \>=30 years)||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two arms in the percent of total hip BMD change from baseline to week 48||||<0.001
95813780|NCT01649869|191599391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome based on generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
95813781|NCT01649869|191599392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
95957750|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.411|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.42|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Any Serotype||3.42|0.64|
95957751|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Any Serotype||1.25|0.53|
95786983|NCT01029262|191543688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1729
95786984|NCT01029262|191543689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.||Week 12||||0.3975
95786985|NCT01029262|191543689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.1714
95786986|NCT01029262|191543690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||0.6408
95786987|NCT01029262|191543690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 24||||0.5750
95786988|NCT01029262|191543691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments||Week 12||||0.2848
95786989|NCT01029262|191543691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on a two-sample t-test comparing the difference between treatments|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||0.1053
95786990|NCT01029262|191543692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.042
95786991|NCT01029262|191543692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.448
95813782|NCT01649869|191599393|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95813783|NCT01649869|191599394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7068|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7068
95813784|NCT01649869|191599395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0752
95813785|NCT01649869|191599397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4823|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.4823
95813786|NCT01649869|191599398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.0859
95813787|NCT01649869|191599399|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8212|||||||Generalized linear model|For binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.8212
95813788|NCT01649869|191599400|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8356|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations.||||||0.8356
95786992|NCT01029262|191543693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.825
95861135|NCT00395343|191680990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.584||95.0|0.45|4.18||Based on a test of the odds ratio = 1, comparing the odds of having A1C \<7.0% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|Logistic Regression|Model terms: treatment; baseline; Metformin stratum; and insulin stratum|This parameter estimate and 95% confidence interval correspond to the odds of having A1C \<6.5% at Week 24 in the Sitagliptin 100 mg q.d. group vs. the Placebo group.|||4.18|0.45|0.584
95861136|NCT00395343|191680991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.72|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; metformin stratum; insulin stratum, treatment by insulin stratum interaction||||-0.40|-0.72|<0.001
95861137|NCT01068964|191681001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 1.5 mmHg was used. That is, if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean diurnal IOP change between the two groups (Group 1 minus Group 2) is less than 1.5 mm Hg, then the null hypothesis will be rejected. The study had an 85% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.57||||||A non-inferiority test was performed for comparing the change from baseline in mean diurnal IOP at Week 4 between treatment groups. The null hypothesis was that the mean diurnal IOP change at Week 4 for Group 1 was at least 1.5 mmHg greater than that for Group 2. The hypothesis was tested using a confidence interval approach based on a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model including factors for treatment and investigator.||0.57|-1.68|
95861138|NCT04657666|191681019|SUPERIORITY||Combined least mean square difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Based on a combination of 300 linear mixed models for crossover data on the response variable change from baseline in LLMT-6 with period level LLMT-6 baseline covariate, treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pattern mixture model (PMM) control-based imputation, mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||0.23|-0.16|0.7152
95861139|NCT03120351|191681078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.06|-7.11|0.28
95861140|NCT02489318|191681089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|0.6|||Log Rank|||||0.600|0.391|<0.0001
95813789|NCT01649869|191599401|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.7961|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome using generalized estimating equations||||||0.7961
95957752|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|4.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|212.02|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 1||212.02|0.70|
95957753|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 1 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.46|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 1||1.46|0.21|
95786993|NCT01029262|191543693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.568
95786994|NCT01029262|191543694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.119
95786995|NCT01029262|191543694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.172
95813790|NCT01649869|191599402|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.8675|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.8675
95786996|NCT01029262|191543695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values were calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.792
95786997|NCT01029262|191543695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.279
95957754|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|2.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|134.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 2||134.83|0.36|
95786998|NCT01029262|191543696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.476
95786999|NCT01029262|191543696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-values are calculated based on Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.052
95787000|NCT01029262|191543697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.759||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.856||p-value is from Fisher's exact test to compare lenalidomide treatment group to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||2.856|1.083|0.017
95787001|NCT01468454|191543705|OTHER||Specificity|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|97.1||||||||97.1|75.2|
95787002|NCT01468454|191543705|OTHER||Sensitivity|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|92.0||||||||92|72.3|
95813791|NCT01649869|191599403|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.9682|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.9682
95861141|NCT02489318|191681090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.793|||Log Rank|||||0.793|0.534|<0.0001
95861142|NCT02489318|191681091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.630|0.350|<.0001
95861143|NCT02489318|191681092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.076|||Log Rank|||||1.076|0.700|0.1966
95787003|NCT01100723|191543711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
95787004|NCT01100723|191543712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||<0.05
95787005|NCT01100723|191543713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with PTH values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
95787006|NCT01100723|191543714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with phosphorus values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
95787007|NCT01100723|191543715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Number of subjects meeting targets were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects with Ca values in the target range was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
95787008|NCT01100723|191543716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||Proportion of subjects on specified medications were compared to the same subjects baseline values using the McNemar test for paired longitudinal data. For the 1 year analysis, the proportion of subjects on the specified medications was calculated at 1 year and that was compared to the proportion of the same subjects who were in target at baseline.||||< 0.05
95813792|NCT01649869|191599404|OTHER|Association of binary outcome and continuous outcome||||||0.6063|||||||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model for binary outcome||||||0.6063
95787009|NCT03428100|191543734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.071
95787010|NCT03428100|191543734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|1.07|0.031
95787011|NCT03428100|191543735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.77|0.65|0.427
95787012|NCT03428100|191543736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|0.55|0.513
95787013|NCT03428100|191543736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|0.73|0.242
95957755|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.74|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 2||2.74|0.53|
95787014|NCT03428100|191543736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.90|1.09|0.030
95787015|NCT03428100|191543737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.45|0.611
95957756|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants at Year 1 for Serotype 3 (4 to 5 year) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 3||12.83|0.20|
95957757|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 3 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.73|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 3||2.73|0.41|
95957758|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.04|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Serotype 4||6.04|0.21|
95957759|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.44|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Serotype 4||1.44|0.18|
95787016|NCT03428100|191543737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.99|0.63|0.325
95787017|NCT03428100|191543737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.14|0.85|0.100
95787018|NCT03428100|191543738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|-6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.58|-28.71|0.002
95813793|NCT01649869|191599405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95813794|NCT01649869|191599406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6043
95813795|NCT01649869|191599407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6513|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6513
95813796|NCT01649869|191599408|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95813797|NCT01649869|191599409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0659
95957760|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (4 to 5 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 585 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 4 to 5 years; Unserotyped||2.60|0.00|
95957761|NCT01983553|191887908|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Unserotyped (6 to 11 years) between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group. Total number of participants analyzed were 2618 instead of 3203.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.75|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; 6 to 11 years; Unserotyped||19.75|0.00|
95957762|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|1.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.03|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Any grade||7.03|0.27|
95999795|NCT02723630|191975372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.52||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.84|106.53||P-value for the formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.53|94.84|0.8826
95813798|NCT01649869|191599410|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95813799|NCT05395338|191599417|OTHER|cox proportional hazards models with stratification by matching pairs|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Regression, Cox||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.05|0.78|0.183
95813800|NCT05395338|191599418|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|1.12|<0.001
95813801|NCT05395338|191599419|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||1.36|1.11|<0.001
95813802|NCT05395338|191599420|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression models with stratification by matching pairs|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.83|0.64|<0.001
95813803|NCT05395338|191599421|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression models|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||Regression, Logistic||rt-PA/non reperfusion|||0.93|0.77|<0.001
95813804|NCT00269113|191599423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.4|||Fisher Exact|||||28.4|6.4|0.0009
95813805|NCT00269113|191599424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95813806|NCT00269113|191599425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0127
95813807|NCT00269113|191599426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95813808|NCT00269113|191599427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
95861144|NCT02489318|191681093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.094|||Log Rank|||||1.094|0.576|0.1563
95813809|NCT00269113|191599428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
95813810|NCT00269113|191599429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0017
95813811|NCT01155050|191599463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.296
95813812|NCT01155050|191599464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.787
95813813|NCT01155050|191599465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.340
95813814|NCT01155050|191599466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the outcome across groups.||||.502
95813815|NCT01155050|191599467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.860
95813816|NCT01155050|191599468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the outcome does not differ across the four groups.||||.634
95813817|NCT01155050|191599469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the outcome across the four treatment groups.||||.879
95813818|NCT01198587|191599472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.88
95813819|NCT01198587|191599472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
95813820|NCT00557193|191599478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.107||||0.672|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.403||A priori significance level threshold of alpha=0.15|Log Rank||Arm C is the numerator and Arm B is the denominator of the estimated hazard ratio|A one-sided log rank test will be used for testing whether the EFS in Arm C (chemo+lest) at DL2 is greater than the EFS in Arm B (chemo). This is equivalent to testing the null hypothesis of hazard ratio (HR)=1 versus the alternative of HR\<1.||1.403||0.672
95813821|NCT00387088|191599497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.118|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with pooled centre, LABA use, and treatment fitted as main effects and the baseline trough FEV1 as a covariate.||||0.118|0.085|<0.0001
95813822|NCT03435380|191599517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.37||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.07|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||5.07|1.11|0.019
95813823|NCT03435380|191599517|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.38|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by age at consent (25-39 vs \>=40), diagnosis (Hodgkin lymphoma vs other) and previous breast imaging exam (either mammogram or breast MRI).||||4.38|0.87|0.092
95813824|NCT02261961|191599533|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24275|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813825|NCT02261961|191599534|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3707|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95861145|NCT02489318|191681094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.194|||Log Rank|||||1.194|0.615|0.3608
95861146|NCT02197078|191681134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||||||||1.03|0.66|
95957763|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes; Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade I||4.83|0.00|
95787019|NCT03428100|191543738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-22.83|0.006
95957764|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Any of the 4 Serotypes Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|2.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|99.1|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Any serotype; Grade II||99.10|0.20|
95957765|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Any grade||39.49|0.01|
95957766|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 2 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 2; Grade I||39.49|0.01|
95957767|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Any grade between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.83|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Any grade||4.83|0.00|
95957768|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade I between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.62|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade I||19.62|0.00|
95957769|NCT01983553|191887916|OTHER|Relative risk analysis of the event rate per 100 participants during Year 1 to Year 4 for Serotype 4 Grade II between the CYD Dengue vaccine group and the Control group.|Relative Risk|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|39.49|||||The 95% confidence interval of the relative risk was calculated using the Exact method described by Breslow and Day.|Relative Risk; Serotype 4; Grade II||39.49|0.01|
95957770|NCT00594178|191887919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.87|277.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise lean muscle mass.||277.21|-778.87|.318
95957771|NCT00594178|191887920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0645||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01827|0.11073|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples T-test was used to assess the statisical changes between baseline and post-exercise bone density.||.11073|.01827|.011
95957772|NCT05215418|191887921|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95957773|NCT05215418|191887921|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0059
95957774|NCT05215418|191887921|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.1867|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1867
95787020|NCT03428100|191543738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.554||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.54|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.70|-31.54|0.0002
95787021|NCT03428100|191543739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|24.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.29|0.71|0.115
95787022|NCT03428100|191543739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|30.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.88|1.11|0.037
95787023|NCT03428100|191543739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|28.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.08|0.81|0.083
95787024|NCT03428100|191543740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.29|0.012
95787025|NCT03428100|191543740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.66|1.59|0.002
95957775|NCT05215418|191887922|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
95957776|NCT05215418|191887922|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0852
95957777|NCT05215418|191887922|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.0001
95861147|NCT02197078|191681134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||||||||1.10|0.65|
95861148|NCT02197078|191681134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86||||||||0.86|0.49|
95861149|NCT02197078|191681134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||||||||1.10|0.83|
95861150|NCT02197078|191681134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||||1.19|0.85|
95861151|NCT02197078|191681134|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||||||||0.96|0.66|
95957778|NCT05215418|191887923|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0109|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0109
95957779|NCT05215418|191887923|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.0339
95861152|NCT02197078|191681135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||||||||1.23|0.66|
95861153|NCT02197078|191681135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.16||||||||1.16|0.57|
95861154|NCT02197078|191681135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.01||||||||1.01|0.48|
95957780|NCT05215418|191887923|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean SBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.6769|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic systolic blood pressure||||0.6769
95861155|NCT02197078|191681135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
95957781|NCT05215418|191887923|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.0082|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0082
95957782|NCT05215418|191887923|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.8131|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.8131
95861156|NCT02197078|191681135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.28||||||||1.28|0.79|
95787026|NCT03428100|191543740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|16.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.82|2.79|0.00002
95861157|NCT02197078|191681135|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.06||||||||1.06|0.62|
95861158|NCT02197078|191681136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.94||||||||0.94|0.51|
95861159|NCT02197078|191681136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9||||||||0.90|0.44|
95861160|NCT02197078|191681136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88||||||||0.88|0.41|
95861161|NCT02197078|191681136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|0.81|
95861162|NCT02197078|191681136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.19||||||||1.19|0.77|
95861163|NCT02197078|191681136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
95861164|NCT02197078|191681137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.38||||||||1.38|0.58|
95861165|NCT02197078|191681137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
95861166|NCT02197078|191681137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.78||||||||0.78|0.24|
95861167|NCT02197078|191681137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.25||||||||1.25|0.73|
95861168|NCT02197078|191681137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52||||||||1.52|0.78|
95861169|NCT02197078|191681137|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05||||||||1.05|0.52|
95861170|NCT02197078|191681138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.18||||||||2.18|1.10|
95861171|NCT02197078|191681138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.03||||||||3.03|1.19|
95861172|NCT02197078|191681138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||||1.68|0.73|
95861173|NCT02197078|191681138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
95861174|NCT02197078|191681138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56||||||||1.56|0.77|
95861175|NCT02197078|191681138|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
95861176|NCT02197078|191681139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.0||||||||2.00|0.97|
95861177|NCT02197078|191681139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.72||||||||2.72|1.07|
95861178|NCT02197078|191681139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
95861179|NCT02197078|191681139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76||||||||1.76|1.01|
95861180|NCT02197078|191681139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.27||||||||2.27|1.02|
95861181|NCT02197078|191681139|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.71||||||||1.71|0.81|
95787027|NCT03428100|191543741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.82|0.039
95787028|NCT03428100|191543741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.23
95787029|NCT03428100|191543741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.18|0.0001
95787030|NCT03428100|191543742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-1.47|0.0714
95787031|NCT03428100|191543742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.50|0.0134
95813826|NCT02261961|191599537|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35579|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813827|NCT02261961|191599538|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004493|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813828|NCT02261961|191599539|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.870653|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813829|NCT02261961|191599540|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38664|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95787032|NCT03428100|191543742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.21|0.0002
95787033|NCT03428100|191543743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.75|0.78|0.183
95813830|NCT02261961|191599541|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.335124|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Outcomes were compared as percent change from the baseline measure using multiple methods by a blinded statistician. Differences between groups were assessed using ANCOVA, Welch's t-test, and Wilcoxon. No significant differences were found between groups for any outcome regardless of method used.||||>0.05
95813831|NCT02261961|191599543|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03145|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95787034|NCT03428100|191543743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|0.76|0.235
95787035|NCT03428100|191543743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.43|0.991
95787036|NCT03428100|191543744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.77|0.263
95787037|NCT03428100|191543744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.13|0.016
95787038|NCT03428100|191543744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.52|1.06|0.031
95787039|NCT03428100|191543745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.96|0.98|0.058
95787040|NCT03428100|191543745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.32|0.95|0.072
95787041|NCT03428100|191543745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.18|0.76|0.224
95787042|NCT03428100|191543746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|86.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||86.08|0.29|0.265
95787043|NCT03428100|191543746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|43.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.09|0.15|0.520
95787044|NCT03428100|191543746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|0.45|0.164
95787045|NCT03428100|191543747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.948||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-11.88|0.040
95787046|NCT03428100|191543747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.533||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|-1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-11.54|0.010
95787047|NCT03428100|191543747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-15.51|<0.001
95787048|NCT03428100|191543748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|73.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.93|0.31|0.265
95787049|NCT03428100|191543748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|38.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.40|0.16|0.511
95787050|NCT03428100|191543748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|77.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||77.11|0.32|0.253
95813832|NCT02261961|191599544|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43902|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813833|NCT02261961|191599554|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07603|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813834|NCT02261961|191599573|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4745|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95813835|NCT02431325|191599577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95813836|NCT02431325|191599578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95813837|NCT02431325|191599579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95813838|NCT02431325|191599580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95813839|NCT02431325|191599581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95813840|NCT02431325|191599582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95813841|NCT02431325|191599583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95813842|NCT02431325|191599584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95813843|NCT02431325|191599585|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95813844|NCT02431325|191599586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95813845|NCT02431325|191599587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95813846|NCT02431325|191599588|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95813847|NCT02431325|191599589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95813848|NCT02431325|191599590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95813849|NCT02431325|191599591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95813850|NCT02431325|191599592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95813851|NCT02431325|191599593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
95813852|NCT02431325|191599594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 24||||0.09
95813853|NCT02431325|191599594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline at week 12||||0.25
95813854|NCT02431325|191599595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95813855|NCT02431325|191599596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95813856|NCT01128569|191599629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.237||||||||0.237|0.087|
95813857|NCT01128569|191599629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.222||||||||0.222|0.069|
95813858|NCT01128569|191599629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.057||||||||0.057|-0.091|
95813859|NCT01908140|191599654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin=-0,055 L|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||MMRM|If non-inferiority on the PP was achieved then switch to superiority was tested on the ITT.||This sample size of 900 had 90% power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol Fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in Peak FEV1 at 24 weeks is above -0,055 L||0.123|0.063|<0.001
95813860|NCT01908140|191599655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority limit -0.5 units|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||The total sample size provided 81% nominal power to show that the lower bound of the two-sided 95 confidence interval for the difference between Aclidinium bromide 400 μg/Formoterol fumarate 12 μg and SeretideTM AccuhalerTM (50/500 μg) in transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) at 24 weeks is above -0,5||0.46|-0.46|>0.05
95813861|NCT01365793|191599656|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.34||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests two null hypotheses. The first of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the Rapid Rehydration and Slower Rehydration groups - is reported here. The analysis of the second hypothesis is reported below.||||0.34
95813862|NCT01365793|191599656|SUPERIORITY|Each statistical test uses stratification to adjust for enrolling hospital, and the arm not being tested (e.g., the test for rapid vs slower rehydration is stratified by 0.45% and 0.9% Saline, and vice versa).||||||0.43||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for each of the 2 p-values is 0.025, for an overall significance of 0.50.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study uses a factorial experimental design, and tests the two null hypotheses. The second of these hypotheses - the frequency of GCS score declines to \<14 is equal between the 0.45% Saline group and the 0.90% Saline group - is reported here. The analysis of the first hypothesis is reported above.||||0.43
95813863|NCT00427193|191599661|OTHER||difference in mean change|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.02||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.059||Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy.|Mixed Models Analysis|||All analysis under intention-to-treat. All observations were included The primary analytic was a repeated measures analysis. The dependent variable was the change from baseline 12 \& 14mos., with treatment, time, and the treatment × time interaction as independent variables. Site, sex, BMI stratum, and the baseline value of the outcome were included as covariates. The predicted mean changes ± standard errors are the adjusted values from the contrasts of the multiple timepoints.||0.059|-0.019|0.70
95813864|NCT00427193|191599662|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.069|-0.0092|0.84
95813865|NCT00427193|191599663|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.8|-60.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.2|-103.8|<0.001
95813866|NCT00427193|191599664|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.5|-37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.5|-90.5|<0.0001
95813867|NCT00427193|191599665|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.16|0.82
95813868|NCT00427193|191599666|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in Fat Mass between prescribed 25% Caloric Restriction (CR) and Ad Libitum (AL) at 12 and 24 months as measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) using the Hologic 4500A, Delphi W or Discovery A, by a standardized protocol according to a standardized protocol. Fat Mass (FM) and Fat Free Mass (FFM) were determined for the whole body.||-5.3|-6.5|<0.001
95813869|NCT00427193|191599667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of change in FM in 2 groups over at 24 mos, controlling for site, sex, BMI group, and baseline FM. A repeated measures Mixed Model was employed for the analysis. For any outcome, Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical gatekeeping strategy testing, first, the GroupXTime interaction, and, if non-significant, the main effects of these two factors. Bonferroni corrections were employed for non-significant effects. All tests were at p\<0.05||-5.3|-6.4|<0.0001
95813870|NCT02013609|191599677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 12 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
95813871|NCT02013609|191599678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95813872|NCT02013609|191599683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95813873|NCT02013609|191599684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95861182|NCT02197078|191681140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.47||||||||1.47|1.04|
95861183|NCT02197078|191681140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||||||||1.61|1.06|
95787051|NCT03428100|191543749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.078||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-12.26|0.044
95787052|NCT03428100|191543749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.632||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-10.67|0.037
95813874|NCT02013609|191599685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is the same for each of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12 of single item sub-scores of tasks: work/ school, social life and family life/ home responsibilities||||<0.0001
95813875|NCT02013609|191599686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95957783|NCT05215418|191887923|OTHER|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment group difference (VI-0521 minus placebo or phentermine) in change from baseline in 24-hr mean DBP was less than 3 mmHg, success for a non-inferiority test was claimed and the null hypothesis was rejected. If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was less than 0 mmHg, superiority was claimed.||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||In-clinic diastolic blood pressure||||0.0150
95813876|NCT02013609|191599687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
95813877|NCT02013609|191599688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||<0.0001
95813878|NCT02013609|191599689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (Go cues)||||0.3439
95813879|NCT02013609|191599689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for p-inhibition failures (No-Go cues)||||0.3385
95813880|NCT02013609|191599690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (Go cues)||||0.2052
95813881|NCT02013609|191599690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for mean reaction time (No-Go cues)||||0.3224
95957784|NCT00496626|191887924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio|101.6|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|117.2||The ANCOVA models showed the lower bounds of two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] were greater than 1 for each HPV type, so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV18, the type with the smallest CI lower bound.|ANCOVA||Superiority of GARDASIL™ to placebo was claimed if, for each of the four HPV types, the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[GARDASIL™/placebo\] being \>1, or equivalently, the two-sided p-value \<0.05.|An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used for each HPV type, based on the pooled data from all age groups and genders. The natural-log-transformed titer was the response variable, and vaccination group, gender and age group were covariates. The null hypothesis was that the GMT ratio (Gardasil/Placebo) was equal to 1.||117.2|88.1|<=0.05
95813882|NCT02013609|191599691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for change from Baseline using t-test.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3169
95813883|NCT02013609|191599692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12||||0.3352
95861184|NCT02197078|191681140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
95861185|NCT02197078|191681140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
95787053|NCT03428100|191543749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.45|-14.37|0.006
95787054|NCT03428100|191543750|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
95787055|NCT03428100|191543750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.797
95787056|NCT03428100|191543750|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.999
95787057|NCT03428100|191543751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.45|||ANCOVA|||||17.45|-0.22|0.056
95813884|NCT02013609|191599693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task k value||||0.3517
95813885|NCT02013609|191599693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 for delay discounting task h value||||0.3799
95813886|NCT02013609|191599694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for food)||||0.2610
95813887|NCT02013609|191599694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
95813888|NCT02013609|191599695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 12 (AUC for money)||||0.8138
95813889|NCT02013609|191599696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with model terms: Baseline, visit, and Baseline by visit interaction||Statistical analysis at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95813890|NCT00461708|191599828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95813891|NCT00461708|191599829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95813892|NCT02394561|191599830|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in percentage of patients achieving PASI 90 response between the Cw6-positive cohort and the Cw6-negative cohort was H0 = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative ≥0.12 and HA = Cw6-positive minus Cw6-negative was \< 0.12. The percentage of PASI 90 response by cohort as well as the difference between cohort together with 97.5% upper CI was provided using Clopper Pearson CI method.|difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.2||||||||6.2|-8.8|
95813893|NCT02394561|191599833|OTHER|difference between cohorts for PASI 90 using Kaplan-Meier estimate||||||0.1295|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1295
95813894|NCT02394561|191599833|OTHER|||||||0.447||||||difference between cohorts for PASI 75 using Kaplan-Meier estimate|Log Rank|||||||0.4470
95813895|NCT02394561|191599834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|At all time points||||||<.0001
95813896|NCT02394561|191599835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||All time points|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
95787058|NCT03428100|191543751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|13.19|||ANCOVA|||||13.19|-2.24|0.164
95787059|NCT03428100|191543751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|16.15|||ANCOVA|||||16.15|-1.66|0.110
95787060|NCT03428100|191543752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.63||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|21.88|||ANOVA|||||21.88|-118.00|0.178
95787061|NCT03428100|191543752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.9||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.56|3.77|||ANOVA|||||3.77|-117.56|0.066
95787062|NCT03428100|191543752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.57||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.24|-1.6|||ANOVA|||||-1.60|-141.24|0.045
95787063|NCT03428100|191543753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-24.33|0.088
95813897|NCT02553629|191599841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95813898|NCT02553629|191599842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95957785|NCT00496626|191887925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroconversion Rate|96.65|||<=|0.05||95.0|93.74|98.46||The lower bound of the 95% CI for the seroconversion rate was greater than 90% for each type so the null hypothesis was rejected. The CI reported is for HPV6, the type with the smallest lower bound.|Exact Binomial CI|||The null hypothesis was that the seroconversion rate in the Gardasil® Group was less than 90% for each HPV type.||98.46|93.74|<=0.05
95999796|NCT02723630|191975372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.03||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|100.12||P-value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and mean treatment difference.|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.12|92.11|0.1095
95787064|NCT03428100|191543753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.725||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.16|-26.67|0.007
95787065|NCT03428100|191543753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.583||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.82|-32.71|0.003
95813899|NCT02553629|191599843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95787066|NCT03428100|191543754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.263||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-28.28|0.055
95787067|NCT03428100|191543754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.297||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.38|-27.15|0.020
95787068|NCT03428100|191543754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.216||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.01|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-32.01|0.014
95787069|NCT03428100|191543755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-4.47|0.095
95787070|NCT03428100|191543755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-5.16|0.004
95787071|NCT03428100|191543755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.70|-7.48|<0.001
95787072|NCT03428100|191543756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.53|0.097
95787073|NCT03428100|191543756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.52|0.033
95787074|NCT03428100|191543756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.86|<0.001
95787075|NCT03428100|191543757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.45|-1.58|0.272
95787076|NCT03428100|191543757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||-0.24|-1.99|0.013
95787077|NCT03428100|191543757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.16|-1.85|0.099
95787078|NCT03428100|191543757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.74|-1.30|0.584
95787079|NCT03428100|191543757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||0.25|-1.51|0.162
95787080|NCT03428100|191543757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||-0.15|-2.18|0.024
95787081|NCT03428100|191543758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.23|0.228
95813900|NCT02553629|191599844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95813901|NCT02553629|191599845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95813902|NCT04436744|191599869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0433
95813903|NCT04436744|191599870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-0.93||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR was calculated using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.||12.81|-14.66|0.8272
95813904|NCT04436744|191599871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rate|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|17.97||||||||17.97|-4.25|
95861186|NCT02197078|191681140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||||1.27|0.90|
95861187|NCT02197078|191681140|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||||||||1.09|0.75|
95787082|NCT03428100|191543758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.876||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-3.35|0.065
95787083|NCT03428100|191543758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.02|-4.99|0.003
95787084|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline (CFB) Absenteeism||5.67|-7.50|0.784
95787085|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|7.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||7.34|-3.75|0.525
95787086|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Absenteeism||6.53|-6.11|0.947
95787087|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.409||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|11.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||11.74|-5.62|0.488
95813905|NCT01240863|191599914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82||statistical significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment and stratification (opioid naïve/opioid experienced) factors as the fixed effects; screening and baseline APIs as covariates.|placebo - hydrocodone|||0.82|-0.11|0.134
95813906|NCT02297412|191599940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0186
95813907|NCT02297412|191599941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1146|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1146
95999797|NCT02723630|191975373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.8||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|106.61||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.61|95.31|0.8121
95787088|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||7.62|-7.02|0.936
95787089|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.267||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|8.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Presenteeism||8.45|-8.35|0.991
95787090|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||10.88|-8.57|0.816
95787091|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|8.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.38|-8.08|0.971
95813908|NCT02297412|191599942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
95787092|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.804||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Work Productivity Loss||8.56|-10.36|0.852
95787093|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.877||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||5.63|-9.61|0.607
95787094|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.319||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||2.12|-10.92|0.186
95787095|NCT03428100|191543759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB Activity Impairment||0.06|-14.96|0.052
95787096|NCT03428100|191543760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|-0.01|0.131
95787097|NCT03428100|191543760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.08|0.01|0.017
95787098|NCT03428100|191543760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB US Health State Index||0.11|0.02|0.003
95787099|NCT03428100|191543760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.11|-0.01|0.102
95787100|NCT03428100|191543760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.12|0.01|0.014
95787101|NCT03428100|191543760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CFB UK Health State Index||0.15|0.03|0.003
95787102|NCT03428100|191543761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.39|-2.41|0.221
95787103|NCT03428100|191543761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.807||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.65|-4.40|0.689
95813909|NCT01355627|191599943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.485|||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment and pooled centre as covariates.|\< 1 implies a smaller likelihood of a TachoSil treated patient to experience a CSF leak.|||||0.485
95813910|NCT01230411|191599945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.0|0.88|0.078
95813911|NCT01729039|191599947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.356
95813912|NCT01729039|191599947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.840
95813913|NCT01729039|191599948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) Alpha=.05|ANOVA|||||||.170
95813914|NCT01729039|191599948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.297
95813915|NCT01729039|191599949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05||||||<.001
95813916|NCT01729039|191599949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.817
95787104|NCT03428100|191543761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|9.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.74|-2.95|0.294
95787105|NCT03428100|191543762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|0.70|0.382
95787106|NCT03428100|191543762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.65|0.638
95813917|NCT01729039|191599950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Main effect of Time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.005
95957786|NCT02005393|191887945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Image settings were considered non-inferior if scores overlapped within 1 SD of mean.||||||||||||||||All 20 subjects enrolled in the study, including Subject 219 that was dropped from the Reader assessments due to corrupted images, were all rated as having similar white light images between the FICE and NBI procedures for each location used in the concurrence study. This assessment was intended to assure that no procedural sequence or visualization bias was introduced into the image acquisition process. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).|The results reported utilized the average Likert scores for each of the 3 readers, for each of the FICE settings (0-9), as compared to FICE. The overall Reader mean (SD) for both FICE and NBI were equal to or greater than 3.0 (0.8).The overall mean scores were comparable between FICE and NBI to provide acceptable diagnostic image visualization quality.|||
96002078|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
95787107|NCT03428100|191543762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.96|0.83|0.169
95813918|NCT01729039|191599950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172||||||Interaction of Time by Group (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.172
95813919|NCT01729039|191599951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Main effect of time (baseline to post-PT) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.009
95813920|NCT01729039|191599951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Interaction of Time by Grou (GS vs. CON) alpha = .05|ANOVA|||||||.146
95813921|NCT01492426|191599964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of noninferiority was based on noninferiority margin of -12% and 2-sided alpha level of 5%. That is, if the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -12%, the Daclatasvir arm would be considered nonnferior to the telaprevir arm.|Percentage difference|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.9||Test of noninferiority carried out by taking a confidence interval (CI) for the difference in rates (daclatasvir arm minus telapravir arm). If lower bound of 95% CI difference exceeded -12%, noninferiority was demonstrated. No p-value was computed.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between SVR12 rate in the experimental and control arms was computed using a stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel confidence interval (95% level) for the difference in rates. The stratification factors were IL28B rs1297860 single nucleotide polymorphism (CC or non-CC) and baseline cirrhosis status (absent or present), unless otherwise indicated.||11.9|-3.3|
95813922|NCT00688467|191600003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|26.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.377||0.411|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.411
95813923|NCT00688467|191600004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|23.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.306||0.292|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.292
95813924|NCT00688467|191600006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.261||0.927|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.927
95813925|NCT00688467|191600007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||100 * (placebo - navarixin) / placebo|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.398||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.645
95787108|NCT03428100|191543763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.674||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|11.66|||Regression, Linear|||||11.66|-26.38|0.447
95787109|NCT03428100|191543763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.454||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.74|||Regression, Linear|||||12.74|-20.50|0.646
95787110|NCT03428100|191543763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.64||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.14|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||||1.77|-36.14|0.075
95813926|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per generalized estimating equations (GEE) model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813927|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813928|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04||||||Difference in change to Week 40||-0.04|-0.63|
95813929|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813930|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813931|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.13|-0.45|
95813932|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813933|NCT02163577|191600065|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813934|NCT02163577|191600066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813935|NCT02163577|191600066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813936|NCT02163577|191600066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813937|NCT02163577|191600066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813938|NCT02163577|191600066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813939|NCT02163577|191600066|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813940|NCT02163577|191600067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813941|NCT02163577|191600067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95999798|NCT02723630|191975373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|96.51||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.53|100.65||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||100.65|92.53|0.1630
95787111|NCT02504320|191543785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9528|1.235|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.2350|0.9528|
95787112|NCT02504320|191543785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.7709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6767|0.8782|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.8782|0.6767|
95787113|NCT02504320|191543785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8246|1.0689|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0689|0.8246|
95787114|NCT02504320|191543786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0435|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.984|1.1066|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.1066|0.9840|
95787115|NCT02504320|191543786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.8777|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8274|0.9311|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9311|0.8274|
95787116|NCT02504320|191543786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8996|1.0117|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0117|0.8996|
95813942|NCT02163577|191600067|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813943|NCT02163577|191600067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||0.0024
95813944|NCT02163577|191600067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0018
95813945|NCT02163577|191600067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||0.0002
95813946|NCT02163577|191600068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813947|NCT02163577|191600068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813948|NCT02163577|191600068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813949|NCT02163577|191600068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813950|NCT02163577|191600068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813951|NCT02163577|191600068|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813952|NCT02163577|191600069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813953|NCT02163577|191600069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813954|NCT02163577|191600069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813955|NCT02163577|191600069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813956|NCT02163577|191600069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95957787|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.33||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-1 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.33|0.89|
96002079|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.41|<0.001
95813957|NCT02163577|191600069|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813958|NCT02163577|191600070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813959|NCT02163577|191600070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||ANCOVA model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0015
95813960|NCT02163577|191600070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813961|NCT02163577|191600070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813962|NCT02163577|191600070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813963|NCT02163577|191600070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes the change from baseline in RSS as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813964|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813965|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813966|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.54||||||Difference in change to Week 40||0.54|-0.12|
95813967|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813968|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813969|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.29||||||Difference in change to Week 64||0.29|-0.34|
95813970|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813971|NCT02163577|191600071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Per GEE model, which included visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813972|NCT02163577|191600072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813973|NCT02163577|191600072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813974|NCT02163577|191600072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813975|NCT02163577|191600072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813976|NCT02163577|191600072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813977|NCT02163577|191600072|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813978|NCT02163577|191600073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813979|NCT02163577|191600073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, regimen group as factor, and RSS at baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813980|NCT02163577|191600073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95813981|NCT02163577|191600073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95861188|NCT02197078|191681141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.06||||||||4.06|0.64|
95787117|NCT02504320|191543787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|1.0283|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9691|1.0911|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen A) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0911|0.9691|
95787118|NCT02504320|191543787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimate|0.9056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8516|0.963|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen B) and reference (Regimen D).||0.9630|0.8516|
95787119|NCT02504320|191543787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Febuxostat formulation 1, 2, and 3 to Febuxostat formulation 4 was declared if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of central values were within the pre-specified interval of 0.80 to 1.25.|Point Estimates|0.9463|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8909|1.0051|||||Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural log (ln)-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence, period, and participants nested within sequence as fixed effects.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in test (Regimen C) and reference (Regimen D).||1.0051|0.8909|
95787120|NCT02420262|191543790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus (IGlar + IAsp) was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.30% or equivalent for non-inferiority using one-sided test for null hypothesis (H0): D ≥0.30% against alternative hypothesis (HA): D \<0.30% was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus basal-bolus).|Treatment contrast|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model.||0.12|-0.16|<0.0001
95787121|NCT02420262|191543791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Negative binomial regression model||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment rate ratio was entirely below 1.0.|Hypoglycaemic episodes were analysed using a negative binomial regression. The model included treatment and region as fixed factors and logarithm of the time period in which a hypoglycaemic episode considered treatment emergent as offset. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||0.17|0.08|<0.0001
95787122|NCT02420262|191543792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for IDegLira vs basal-bolus was considered confirmed if the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was below 0 or equal to zero.|Body weight measurements were analysed using a linear mixed model with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit and region as fixed factors and baseline bodyweight as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and the covariate were also included in the model. The test for superiority of the confirmatory secondary endpoints was carried out only if non-inferiority of IDegLira vs basal-bolus for primary endpoint was confirmed.||-2.95|-4.19|<0.0001
95813982|NCT02163577|191600073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813983|NCT02163577|191600073|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes RGI-C as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and RSS total score at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95861189|NCT02197078|191681141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.58||||||||4.58|0.61|
95787123|NCT02497404|191543795|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|62.8||||||||62.8|30.1|
95787124|NCT02497404|191543796|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
95787125|NCT02497404|191543797|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
95787126|NCT02497404|191543798|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.8|97.1||||||||97.1|75.8|
95787127|NCT02497404|191543799|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.|Proportion (percent)|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|78.8||||||||78.8|47.2|
95787128|NCT02497404|191543800|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|55.4||||||Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the survival proportion.||55.4|23.4|
95813984|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.0088
95787129|NCT02497404|191543801|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the graft failure proportion.|Proportion (percent)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.5||||||||13.5|0.07|
95813985|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465|||||||one sample t-test|||Week 0 to Week 40||||0.4650
95813986|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.0160
95813987|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||one sample t test|||Week 0 to Week 64||||0.4114
95813988|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5335|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.5335
95813989|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64 to Week 112||||0.8606
95861190|NCT02197078|191681141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.48||||||||5.48|0.62|
95861191|NCT02197078|191681141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4||||||||2.40|0.57|
95861192|NCT02197078|191681141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.43||||||||2.43|0.38|
95787130|NCT02497404|191543802|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the GVHD proportion.|Proportion (percent)|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|50.2||||||||50.2|19.1|
95787131|NCT02497404|191543803|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (exact) 95% confidence interval provided for the high-risk extensive chronic graft-versus-host-disease proportion.|Proportion (percent)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|15.3||||||||15.3|0.63|
95787132|NCT05446142|191543820|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.82|99.9||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.90|90.82|
95787133|NCT05446142|191543820|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.71|101.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||101.12|91.71|
95787134|NCT05446142|191543820|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.91|112.47||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||112.47|82.91|
95813990|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1627|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.1627
95813991|NCT02163577|191600074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4096|||||||one sample t test|||Week 112 to Week 160||||0.4096
95813992|NCT02163577|191600075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95813993|NCT02163577|191600075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0569
95813994|NCT02163577|191600075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
95861193|NCT02197078|191681141|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.27||||||||4.27|0.64|
95787135|NCT05446142|191543820|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.59|94.95||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUCinf was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.95|82.59|
95787136|NCT05446142|191543821|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|104.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|119.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||119.04|91.40|
95787137|NCT05446142|191543821|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|90.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.17|103.12||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||103.12|79.17|
95813995|NCT02163577|191600075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0456
95813996|NCT02163577|191600075|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95813997|NCT02163577|191600075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0343||||||GEE model included change from baseline for standing height Z score as dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen, and gender as factors; and age and standing height Z score at baseline as covariates, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0343
95813998|NCT02163577|191600080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0771||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0771
95813999|NCT02163577|191600080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9098||||||GEE model included change in 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.9098
95861194|NCT02223377|191681142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.56|0.997
95861195|NCT02223377|191681147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.03|||ANOVA|||||-0.03|-1.43|0.040
95787138|NCT05446142|191543821|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|79.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.7|108.08||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||108.08|58.70|
95787139|NCT05446142|191543821|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|80.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.82|100.68||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib Cmax was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.68|64.82|
95787140|NCT05446142|191543822|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|100.59||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||100.59|90.37|
95814000|NCT02163577|191600080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0007
95814001|NCT02163577|191600080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0327
95814002|NCT02163577|191600080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1865||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.1865
95814003|NCT02163577|191600080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2654||||||GEE model included change in percent of predicted 6MWT score as the dependent variable; visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors; and 6MWT at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2654
95814004|NCT02163577|191600081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95814005|NCT02163577|191600081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0144||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0144
95814006|NCT02163577|191600081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0384
95814007|NCT02163577|191600081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0004
95814008|NCT02163577|191600081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.9795
95814009|NCT02163577|191600081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.2082
96002080|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
95787141|NCT05446142|191543822|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|99.88||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to CAP) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to CAP) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||99.88|89.73|
95814010|NCT02163577|191600082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95814011|NCT02163577|191600082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0251
95814012|NCT02163577|191600082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9124||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.9124
95814013|NCT02163577|191600082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0016
95814014|NCT02163577|191600082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5677||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.5677
95814015|NCT02163577|191600082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95787142|NCT05446142|191543822|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|95.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.1|109.04||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCC relative to eMCC with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||109.04|84.10|
95787143|NCT05446142|191543822|OTHER||Reference/Test Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.36|94.7||||||Natural log transformed encorafenib AUClast was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and sequence as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and corresponding 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (eMCCL relative to eMCCL with rabeprazole) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The geometric mean ratios are presented as percentages.||94.70|82.36|
95787144|NCT02098395|191543831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus placebo was planned to be concluded if and only if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated difference in HbA1c was less than zero.||-0.2|-0.5|< 0.0001
95787145|NCT02098395|191543831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was planned to be evaluated only if superiority for liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded.||-0.08|-0.38|= 0.0021
95787146|NCT02098395|191543831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of liraglutide 0.6 mg versus placebo was planned to be evaluated only if superiority of liraglutide 1.2 mg was concluded.||-0.1|-0.39|= 0.0011
95787147|NCT00547157|191543851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||||difference is PRT - CRT|||0.07|-0.26|
95787148|NCT00547157|191543852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.656|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.656|0.980|0.0601
95787149|NCT00547157|191543853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.731||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|2.806|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy.|||2.806|1.068|0.0259
95814016|NCT02163577|191600083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95787150|NCT00547157|191543854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.593||||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.793|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus radiotherapy:chemoradiotherapy|||2.793|0.909|0.1039
95787151|NCT00547157|191543855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791||||0.5744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.785|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||1.785|0.342|0.5744
95787152|NCT00547157|191543855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.112|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.112|-0.187|
95787153|NCT00547157|191543856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.278||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|4.043|||Regression, Logistic||The odd ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||4.043|0.438|0.8070
95787154|NCT00547157|191543856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in complete response rate|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.141|||||Difference is objective response rate in the panitumumab plus radiotherapy arm minus the rate in the chemoradiotherapy arm.|||0.141|-0.103|
95787155|NCT01509612|191543878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.397
95787156|NCT01509612|191543879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those groups were compared who received an intervention||||0.02
95787157|NCT01990768|191543908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.1809|ONE_SIDED|||||Based on an interim futility analysis, a one-sided P-value less than .1028 was required to declare benefit.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was adjusted for regional site. Missing outcomes were multiply imputed.|Odds ratio for unfavorable GOS-E (\<=4) for the Combined TXA Arms (numerator) vs. Placebo (denominator)|This study was designed with an asymmetric boundary for tests for treatment harm and benefit. The conventional 0.025 level was used to test for harm while a 0.1 level was used to determine benefit for this Phase II trial. Statistical significance for the primary analysis was conducted under a group-sequential design that included a single, interim futility analysis using a Wang-Tsiatis boundary with parameter 0.8 based on outcome data from the first 200 subjects.||||.1809
95787158|NCT03373461|191543927|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||||||0.038
95787159|NCT03373461|191543927|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|1.0||||||||1.00|0.86|
95787160|NCT03373461|191543927|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|0.98||||||||0.98|0.76|
95814017|NCT02163577|191600083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95787161|NCT03373461|191543927|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
95787162|NCT03373461|191543927|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|0.92||||||||0.92|0.66|
95787163|NCT03373461|191543928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|6.344||||||||6.344|0.210|
95861196|NCT01667419|191681151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.37|0.0010
95787164|NCT03373461|191543928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.642|9.01||||||||9.010|2.642|
95787165|NCT03373461|191543928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.427|6.7||||||||6.700|0.427|
95787166|NCT03373461|191543928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.882|8.638||||||||8.638|2.882|
95787167|NCT03373461|191543929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.253|-3.145||||||||-3.145|-15.253|
95861197|NCT01667419|191681151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.2598
95861198|NCT01667419|191681152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.37|0.0133
95861199|NCT01667419|191681152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|0.57|0.6815
95861200|NCT01667419|191681153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94|||Log Rank|||||.94|0.30|0.0274
95861201|NCT01667419|191681153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Log Rank|||||1.66|0.55|0.8597
95861202|NCT04036396|191681165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.74|||Poisson regression|||||1.74|0.66|0.780
95861203|NCT04036396|191681166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.0|||Longitudinal trajectory model|||||8.0|1.8|0.0006
95861204|NCT04036396|191681167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1191|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1191
95957788|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-4 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.12|0.75|
95861205|NCT04036396|191681168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9689|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9689
95957789|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-5 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.26|0.85|
95999799|NCT02723630|191975374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|99.68||||0.9427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|107.47||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||107.47|92.45|0.9427
95787168|NCT03373461|191543929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.499|-3.0||||||||-3.000|-15.499|
95787169|NCT03373461|191543929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.04|0.26||||||||0.260|-12.040|
95787170|NCT03373461|191543929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.763|-4.471||||||||-4.471|-15.763|
95787171|NCT03373461|191543931|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.742|1.222||||||||1.222|0.742|
95787172|NCT03373461|191543931|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.356||||||||1.356|0.830|
95787173|NCT03373461|191543931|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.569|0.928||||||||0.928|0.569|
95861206|NCT04036396|191681169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683||||||3 month follow-up|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1683
95861207|NCT04036396|191681169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158||||||6 month follow-up|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0158
95861208|NCT04036396|191681169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||9 month follow-up|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6910
95861209|NCT04036396|191681170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5367||||||3 month follow-up|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5367
95861210|NCT04036396|191681170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3976||||||6 month follow-up|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3976
95861211|NCT04036396|191681170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|9 month follow-up||||||0.9283
95861212|NCT04036396|191681171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.72|||Poisson regression|||||1.72|0.73|0.620
95861213|NCT04036396|191681172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6621|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6621
95861214|NCT04036396|191681173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0635|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0635
95861215|NCT06011759|191681186|SUPERIORITY|T-test to evaluate the effect of the intervention compared to control sites on reported suicide behavior events in the past 4 quarters that had an SP 2.0 Consult submitted.||||||0.5747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 6||We compared participating sites with similar non-participating sites. Four non-participating sites were selected as matched controls, one for each participating site. Control sites were matched to participating sites on number of suicide behavior events and prevalence of Suicide Prevention Telehealth Program consults submitted at baseline.||||0.5747
95861216|NCT06011759|191681187|SUPERIORITY|T-test to evaluate the effect of the intervention compared to control sites on referrals to the SP 2.0 Clinic.||||||0.8057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 6||We compared participating sites with similar non-participating sites. Four non-participating sites were selected as matched controls, one for each participating site. Control sites were matched to participating sites on number of suicide behavior events and prevalence of Suicide Prevention Telehealth Program consults submitted at baseline.||||0.8057
95861217|NCT00494676|191681197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.0|||McNemar||The marginal odds ratio based on discordant pairs was computed.|The analysis used a McNemar test for data combined across both periods of the crossover. We estimated that 70% and 35% of participants would say yes to the real and sham prisms, respectively. For a 2-tailed test, the minimum sample size to detect a 35% difference in yes responses to real and sham prisms was 57 participants, assuming 30% overlap (30% said yes to both pairs of glasses), power of 90% and α of 1%. Assuming an attrition rate of 20%, we planned to enroll 68 participants.||21.0|1.8|= 0.001
95864485|NCT03456882|191686806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2543||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2543
95787174|NCT03373461|191543931|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.05||||||||1.050|0.669|
95787175|NCT03373461|191543932|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.741|1.25||||||||1.250|0.741|
95787176|NCT03373461|191543932|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.872|1.458||||||||1.458|0.872|
95787177|NCT03373461|191543932|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.574|0.957||||||||0.957|0.574|
95787178|NCT03373461|191543932|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.706|1.132||||||||1.132|0.706|
95814018|NCT02163577|191600083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0033
95787179|NCT03373461|191543933|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.214||||||||1.214|0.794|
95814019|NCT02163577|191600083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0001
95957790|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.61||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-6B serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.61|0.78|
95787180|NCT03373461|191543933|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.835|1.269||||||||1.269|0.835|
95787181|NCT03373461|191543933|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.616|0.942||||||||0.942|0.616|
95787182|NCT03373461|191543933|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.704|1.027||||||||1.027|0.704|
95787183|NCT03373461|191543934|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.723|1.172||||||||1.172|0.723|
95787184|NCT03373461|191543934|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.767|1.249||||||||1.249|0.767|
95787185|NCT03373461|191543934|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.577|0.937||||||||0.937|0.577|
95957791|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-7F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.88|
95787186|NCT03373461|191543934|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.678|1.052||||||||1.052|0.678|
95787187|NCT03373461|191543943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|7.472||||||||7.472|0.420|
95787188|NCT03373461|191543943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.747|4.39||||||||4.390|-2.747|
95787189|NCT03373461|191543943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.745|3.262||||||||3.262|-2.745|
95787190|NCT03373461|191543943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.368|5.337||||||||5.337|-1.368|
95814020|NCT02163577|191600083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814021|NCT02163577|191600083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95787191|NCT03373461|191543944|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.579||||||||1.579|0.680|
95787192|NCT03373461|191543944|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.607|1.39||||||||1.390|0.607|
95787193|NCT03373461|191543944|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.153||||||||1.153|0.558|
95787194|NCT03373461|191543944|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.614|1.362||||||||1.362|0.614|
95787195|NCT03373461|191543946|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.792|1.692||||||||1.692|0.792|
95787196|NCT03373461|191543946|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.945||||||||0.945|0.446|
95787197|NCT03373461|191543946|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.518|0.997||||||||0.997|0.518|
95787198|NCT03373461|191543946|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.558|1.146||||||||1.146|0.558|
95787199|NCT03373461|191543947|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.765|1.699||||||||1.699|0.765|
95814022|NCT02163577|191600084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0014
95787200|NCT03373461|191543947|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.446|0.984||||||||0.984|0.446|
95787201|NCT03373461|191543947|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.501|0.995||||||||0.995|0.501|
95787202|NCT03373461|191543947|OTHER||Ratio to placebo (of ratio to baseline)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|1.107||||||||1.107|0.520|
95787203|NCT02861664|191543965|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.4||From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.4|-0.8|<.0001
95814023|NCT02163577|191600084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0028
95787204|NCT01000974|191543968|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL.|difference in percentage|-8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|-4.07|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 μg/mL||-4.07|-12.28|
95814024|NCT02163577|191600084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0536
95814025|NCT02163577|191600084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0002
95814026|NCT02163577|191600084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814027|NCT02163577|191600084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814028|NCT02163577|191600085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.2230
95814029|NCT02163577|191600085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1132||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.1132
95861218|NCT00494676|191681198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mobility improvement scores were normally distributed. A paired t-test was used to conduct a within-subjects comparison of the crossover differences in mobility scores between real and sham prism glasses. An alpha level of 5% was used to indicate statistical significance for secondary analyses||1.3|-0.1|= 0.09
95861219|NCT00494676|191681199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.0|0.7|= 0.002
95861220|NCT00494676|191681200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|= 0.21
95957792|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-9V serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.13|0.69|
95814030|NCT02163577|191600085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.2558
95814031|NCT02163577|191600085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0814
95814032|NCT02163577|191600085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||0.0093
95814033|NCT02163577|191600085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814034|NCT02163577|191600086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||< 0.0001
95814035|NCT02163577|191600086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 40||||0.0006
95814036|NCT02163577|191600086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||0.0260
95814037|NCT02163577|191600086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95814038|NCT02163577|191600086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814039|NCT02163577|191600086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GEE model includes change in POSNA-PODCI score as the dependent variable, visit, regimen, visit by regimen as factors, and POSNA-PODCI at baseline as a covariate, with exchangeable covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814040|NCT02163577|191600090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0003
95814041|NCT02163577|191600090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||one sample t test|||Week 40||||0.0021
95814042|NCT02163577|191600090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95814043|NCT02163577|191600090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 64||||< 0.0001
95861221|NCT02853331|191681217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.00012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.84|0.56|0.00012
95787205|NCT01000974|191543968|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Test Hib to Control Hib, each co-administered with DTPa-HBVIPV, 13Pn and HRV vaccines, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 0.15 μg/mL.|Difference in percentage|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-PRP concentration≥ 0.15 μg/mL||2.82|-1.98|
95787206|NCT01000974|191543969|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to diphtheria (Anti-D).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.81|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-D antibody concentrations||1.81|-1.26|
95787207|NCT01000974|191543969|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to tetanus (Anti-T).|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.8|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-T antibody concentrations||1.8|-1.26|
95787208|NCT01000974|191543971|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertussis toxoid \[PT\].|GMC ratio|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.918|1.127|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PT||1.127|0.918|
95787209|NCT01000974|191543971|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to filamentous hemagglutinin \[FHA\].|GMC ratio|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.983|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-FHA||1.204|0.983|
95787210|NCT01000974|191543971|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to pertactin \[PRN\]|GMC ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.03|1.382|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority GMC ratio anti-PRN||1.382|1.03|
95814044|NCT02163577|191600090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95861222|NCT02853331|191681218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||0.74|0.38|0.00005
95861223|NCT02853331|191681219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|23.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|29.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in % \>0|Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||29.9|17.2|<0.0001
95787211|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.873|1.159|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 1 concentrations||1.159|0.873|
95787212|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.921|1.192|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 3 concentrations||1.192|0.921|
95787213|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.886|1.13|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 4 concentrations||1.13|0.886|
95787214|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.19|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 5 concentrations||1.19|0.874|
95787215|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.894|1.188|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6A concentrations||1.188|0.894|
95787216|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs|GMC ratio|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.871|1.32|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 6B concentrations||1.32|0.871|
95787217|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.964|1.251|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 7F concentrations||1.251|0.964|
95814045|NCT02163577|191600090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||one sample t test|||Week 160||||< 0.0001
95814046|NCT02949011|191600105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-14.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was a comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and placebo groups.||-14.6|-42.8|<0.0001
95861224|NCT02853331|191681220|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|17.0|||||Difference in percentages based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC risk group (favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor) and geographic region (North America vs. Western Europe vs. Rest of World).|||17.0|4.8|
95787218|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|1.204|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 9V concentrations||1.204|0.89|
95787219|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.929|1.294|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 14 concentrations||1.294|0.929|
95787220|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|1.207|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 18C concentrations||1.207|0.9|
95787221|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.859|1.167|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19A concentrations||1.167|0.859|
95787222|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.855|1.098|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 19F concentrations||1.098|0.855|
95787223|NCT01000974|191543972|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of a 3-dose primary vaccination course of 13Pn co-administered with Test Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV compared to that of 13Pn co-administered with Control Hib, HRV and DTPa-HBV-IPV in terms of Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pneumoniae) GMCs.|GMC ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.862|1.232|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Pneumoniae 23F concentrations||1.232|0.862|
95787224|NCT01000974|191543973|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group||Difference in seroresponse Anti-FHA||||<0.0001
95787225|NCT01000974|191543973|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PT||||<0.0001
95787226|NCT01000974|191543973|OTHER|To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN in subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV coadministered with Test Hib,13Pn \& HRV vaccines compared to subjects receiving DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn \&HRV vaccines,following 3 primary vaccine doses where seroresponse wasdefined as percentage of subjects showing aconcentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in control|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is computed by integrating on the p-values of one-sided test with alpha=0.025 and the posterior probability of the cut-off in the control group|t-test, 1 sided|||Difference in seroresponse Anti-PRN||||<0.0001
95787227|NCT01000974|191543974|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 1.|Difference in percentage|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.24|0.87|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 1 concentrations||0.87|-2.24|
95787228|NCT01000974|191543974|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 2.|Difference in percentage|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|2.91|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 2 concentration||2.91|-1.45|
95787229|NCT01000974|191543974|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Test Hib, 13Pn and HRV to DTPa-HBV-IPV co-administered with Control Hib, 13Pn and HRV, following 3 primary vaccine doses in terms of immune response to poliovirus 3.|Difference in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|0.88|||Non-inferiority analysis|||Non-inferiority Anti-Polio 3 concentration||0.88|-2.2|
95787230|NCT04194489|191544006|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
95787231|NCT04194489|191544007|OTHER|Effect size|Cohen's d|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
95787232|NCT04194489|191544008|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
95787233|NCT04194489|191544009|OTHER|Effect size calculation|Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Cohen's d effect size was calculated using baseline and follow-up means and standard deviations. An effect size of 0.2 is small, 0.5 is medium and 0.8 is large.||||
96002081|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.41|<0.001
95787234|NCT02964338|191544016|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.5||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||9.82|-2.80|0.2741
95787235|NCT02964338|191544016|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.3||||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|3.01||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.01|-9.59|0.3047
95787236|NCT05076604|191544029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intraoperative packed red blood cell transfusion||||0.354
95814047|NCT02949011|191600105|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|7.9||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Stratified generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||The comparison between the baloxavir marboxil and the oseltamivir groups was conducted as a secondary analysis only if a statistically significant difference was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain control of overall type I error.||7.9|-22.7|0.8347
95814048|NCT02949011|191600105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.0008
95814049|NCT02949011|191600105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8449||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.8449
95814050|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
95814051|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
95999800|NCT02723630|191975374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|93.5||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.63|98.64||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.64|88.63|0.0403
95787237|NCT05076604|191544029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative red blood cell transfusion||||0.314
95787238|NCT04611542|191544030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95814052|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
95814053|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
95814054|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||<0.0001
95814055|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0044
95814056|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||<0.0001
95814057|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1146||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.1146
95814058|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0046
95814059|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.441
95814060|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0929||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0929
95787239|NCT04611542|191544031|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95999801|NCT02723630|191975375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|100.29||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.58||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||106.58|94.37|0.9373
95787240|NCT04611542|191544032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Investigators tested whether pretest to posttest change was significantly greater than 0 at P \< 0.05.|||||<0.001
95787241|NCT02291029|191544033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.89||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.89|-3.70|0.397
95999802|NCT02723630|191975375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|95.17||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.03|99.5||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||99.50|91.03|0.0682
95787242|NCT02291029|191544033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.96||One-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||-0.96|-9.46|0.009
95787243|NCT02291029|191544033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.34||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|7.45||two-sided p-value|Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate.||||7.45|-2.78|0.344
95787244|NCT02291029|191544034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.8|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.80|-2.97|0.205
95787245|NCT02291029|191544034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.5|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||0.50|-2.41|0.188
95787246|NCT02291029|191544034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.35|-2.08|0.663
95787247|NCT02291029|191544035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.26||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|7.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||7.38|-37.90|0.161
95814061|NCT02949011|191600106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0907
95999803|NCT02723630|191975376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|98.73||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.57|110.06||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||110.06|88.57|0.8448
95787248|NCT02291029|191544035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-2.38|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||-2.38|-21.94|0.017
95787249|NCT02291029|191544036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.45||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|17.3|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||17.30|-36.20|0.456
95787250|NCT02291029|191544036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.14||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|10.39|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||10.39|-26.67|0.376
95787251|NCT02291029|191544037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|2.91|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||2.91|-13.91|0.172
95787252|NCT02291029|191544037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
95787253|NCT02291029|191544038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|8.35|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||8.35|-8.49|0.986
95814062|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7383||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.7383
95787254|NCT02291029|191544038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|9.48|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||9.48|-1.81|0.175
95787255|NCT02291029|191544039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|13.15|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||13.15|-10.48|0.807
96002082|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.06|-0.35|0.004
95787256|NCT02291029|191544039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|1.01|||Repeated measures model|with time (as nominal study week), the interaction between time and treatment (all as fixed effects) and with baseline as a covariate||||1.01|-20.66|0.074
95787257|NCT01724177|191544044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"A one sample binomial one sided exact test for the ORR (CR, CRu, or PR) was performed to provide the p-value (significance level: 0.05). The hypotheses of interest:~H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \> 5%"|Exact Test|||||||<0.0001
95787258|NCT03060291|191544065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.549
95787259|NCT03060291|191544065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.854|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.854
95787260|NCT03060291|191544065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.469
95787261|NCT03060291|191544066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.535
95787262|NCT03060291|191544066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.081
95787263|NCT03060291|191544066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.295
95787264|NCT03060291|191544067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.149
95787265|NCT03060291|191544067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.207
95787266|NCT03060291|191544067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.871
95787267|NCT03060291|191544068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.547
95814063|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||0.9619
95787268|NCT03060291|191544068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.575
95787269|NCT03060291|191544068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.964
95787270|NCT03060291|191544069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.236|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.236
95787271|NCT03060291|191544069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.142
95787272|NCT03060291|191544069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.810
95787273|NCT03060291|191544070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.599
95787274|NCT03060291|191544070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.523|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.523
95787275|NCT03060291|191544070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||||.252
95787276|NCT03060291|191544071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.867
95787277|NCT03060291|191544071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in slope with the wait-list control as the reference group.|||||.127
95787278|NCT03060291|191544071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Mean difference in slope with the web/mobile only as the reference group.|||.101
95787279|NCT03193047|191544072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.324|-19.199|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-19.199|-41.324|<0.001
95787280|NCT03193047|191544073|SUPERIORITY||Lease squares mean difference|-35.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.303|-25.466|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|||-25.466|-46.303|<0.001
95787281|NCT03193047|191544074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.602|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.558|-26.944|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 1||-26.944|-49.558|<0.001
95787282|NCT03193047|191544074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.176|-18.626|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Month 2||-18.626|-41.176|<0.001
95787283|NCT03193047|191544075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.509|-16.553|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 1||-16.553|-37.509|<0.001
95787284|NCT03193047|191544075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.225|-15.713|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|Apo B at Month 2||-15.713|-33.225|<0.001
95787285|NCT03193047|191544075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-31.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.689|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.116|-22.163|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 1||-22.163|-41.116|<0.001
95787286|NCT03193047|191544075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.838|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.987|-14.505|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|non-HDL-C at Month 2||-14.505|-33.987|<0.001
95787287|NCT03193047|191544075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.153|-14.729|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 1||-14.729|-29.153|<0.001
95787288|NCT03193047|191544075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.201|-9.839|||ANCOVA||(Bempedoic acid plus evolocumab) minus (placebo plus evolocumab)|TC at Month 2||-9.839|-25.201|<0.001
95787289|NCT03193047|191544076|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-32.479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.395||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.524|-2.339|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 1||-2.339|-70.524|0.046
95814064|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0576||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0576
95814065|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.1237
95957793|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-14 serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.31|0.73|
95957794|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.37||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-18C serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.37|0.86|
95957795|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-19F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.25|0.78|
95787290|NCT03193047|191544076|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-28.512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.124||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.455|-3.93|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median treatment difference (location shift) and the 95% confidence limits are from Hodges-Lehmann estimates.|hs-CRP at Month 2||-3.930|-51.455|0.029
95787291|NCT03665077|191544085|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.684
95787292|NCT03665077|191544086|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level, with time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.02
95787293|NCT03665077|191544087|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effect model of log-transformed oxylipin level: time (date) as a continuous variable, adjusted for batch and clustered on participant||||||0.058
95787294|NCT00996034|191544088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This is a comparison of scan 1 and scan 2||||<0.05
95861225|NCT05569954|191681234|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||0.7|-4.0|
95787295|NCT00941304|191544107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.34||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|12.62|||ANCOVA|||||12.62|-5.94|.4739
95787296|NCT00941304|191544107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.26||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.34|||ANCOVA|||||16.34|-3.81|.2183
95787297|NCT00941304|191544107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.74||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|18.56|||ANCOVA|||||18.56|-1.11|.0809
95787298|NCT01765569|191544142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|2.02||||||||2.02|1.63|
95787299|NCT01765569|191544146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.65||||||||1.65|1.3|
95787300|NCT05415462|191544156|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.952|1.071||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||1.071|0.952|
95787301|NCT05415462|191544156|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.562|1.757||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||1.757|1.562|
95787302|NCT05415462|191544156|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.665|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.702||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Victoria Lineage||0.702|0.630|
95787303|NCT05415462|191544156|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|GMR|0.661|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.63|0.693||||||GMR (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/ Yamagata Lineage||0.693|0.630|
95814066|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.3071
95814067|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9603||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9603
95861226|NCT05569954|191681234|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.7|-1.2|
95787304|NCT05415462|191544157|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H1N1 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.12|8.38||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H1N1 Antibody||8.38|3.12|
95957796|NCT02447432|191887981|NON_INFERIORITY|GMCs ratio and its 95 % CI were obtained using an ANOVA model on the logarithm-10 transformed concentrations-pooled variance.|GMCs ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.8||||||(Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) antibody GMCs ratio for ANTI-23F serotype: to demonstrate non-inferiority of 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (4-dose presentation) as compared to 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine (1-dose presentation) in terms of immune response, 1 month after dose 3. Criterion: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) ratios (Synflorix/10Pn\_4d) should be below a limit of 2-fold for each of the 10 serotypes.||1.80|0.92|
95787305|NCT05415462|191544157|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza A H3N2 strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|16.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.27|19.54||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza A H3N2 Antibody||19.54|14.27|
95787306|NCT05415462|191544157|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Victoria-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-17.34|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.22|-14.43||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Victoria Lineage||-14.43|-20.22|
95787307|NCT05415462|191544157|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint was tested for noninferiority of mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix for Influenza B Yamagata-lineage strain at a 2-sided 0.025 level.|Percentage Difference|-15.68|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.57|-12.76||||||Percentage Difference (mRNA-1010 vs Fluarix) for Influenza B/Yamagata Lineage||-12.76|-18.57|
95787308|NCT00423813|191544190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||0.001
95787309|NCT00423813|191544190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 4.5g and placebo||||<0.001
95814068|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0784
95787310|NCT00423813|191544190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of Xyrem 6.0g and placebo||||0.001
95814069|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5547
95787311|NCT02716584|191544196|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.41||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of exercise sessions attended as a covariate.||||0.02
95787312|NCT02716584|191544197|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.06
95787313|NCT02716584|191544198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.13
95787314|NCT02716584|191544199|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.73
95787315|NCT02716584|191544199|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.73||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at baseline and a midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.33
95787316|NCT02716584|191544200|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.21||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||The analyses for cohorts 1 and 2 utilized the a priori endpoint assessment conducted 1-2 weeks after completion of training.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.62
95787317|NCT02716584|191544200|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.77||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||For cohort 3, positive affect was measured at a baseline and midpoint assessment.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, midpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||.23
95787318|NCT02716584|191544201|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.57
95814070|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.3087
95787319|NCT02716584|191544202|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.35||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.12
95787320|NCT02716584|191544203|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.72||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.07
95814071|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9106||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9106
95814072|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0017
95814073|NCT02949011|191600107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3068||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.3068
95861227|NCT05569954|191681234|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||2.7|-1.6|
95861228|NCT05569954|191681235|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||4.6|-2.9|
95814074|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
95814075|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
95814076|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
95861229|NCT05569954|191681235|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.7||||||95.0|-1.8|5.1|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Headache: estimated difference in percent||5.1|-1.8|
95861230|NCT05569954|191681235|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.7||||||95.0|-3.1|1.7|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.7|-3.1|
95861231|NCT05569954|191681235|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-0.3||||||95.0|-1.5|0.9|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||0.9|-1.5|
95787321|NCT02716584|191544204|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.88
95787322|NCT02716584|191544205|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Data were analyzed using a 2 (groups) x 2 (time: baseline, endpoint) repeated measures ANCOVA with number of sessions attended as a covariate.||||||0.86
95787323|NCT02453256|191544244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.73||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.32|||Repeated Measure|||Difference in least square means between the TCZ group and the Placebo group at week 48. Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the TCZ group and the placebo group in mean change in mRSS from baseline to Week 48.||0.32|-3.78|0.0983
95861232|NCT05569954|191681236|OTHER|Estimated difference in percent and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|0.0||||||95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||V116 minus PPSV23|Vaccine-Related Serious Adverse Events||0.5|-0.5|
95861233|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.23|0.96|<0.001
95787324|NCT02453256|191544245|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.91||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 20% improvement in mRSS.||34.6|9.2|0.0007
95787325|NCT02453256|191544245|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|4.32||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 40% improvement in mRSS.||17.3|-8.7|0.5139
95787326|NCT02453256|191544245|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-5.41||||0.3276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with ≥ 60% improvement in mRSS.||5.4|-16.2|0.3276
95787327|NCT02453256|191544246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||P-value from Van Elteren analysis stratified by IL-6 level (\<10; \>=10 pg/mL) at screening.|Van Elteren|||||||0.0015
95787328|NCT02453256|191544247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.167||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.25|||Repeated Measure|||||0.250|0.083|0.0001
95787329|NCT02453256|191544248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.053||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.085|||Repeated Measure|||||0.085|-0.192|0.4489
95814077|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0024
95814078|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ven Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.9127
95814079|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.5361
95814080|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5739
95861234|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.68||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.68|1.29|<0.001
95861235|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.32||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.04|<0.001
95861236|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.26||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.26|1.00|<0.001
95787330|NCT02453256|191544249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.44||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|3.7|||Repeated Measure|||||3.70|-8.57|0.4339
95787331|NCT02453256|191544250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-2.46||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|3.79|||Repeated Measure|||||3.79|-8.72|0.4378
95787332|NCT02453256|191544251|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.06|||Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.06|0.37|0.0821
95787333|NCT01680653|191544299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||||||In analyzing prolonged events on remote monitoring versus control, we used x squared analysis or Fisher's exact test to analyze data on 2 x 2 contingency tables. Significance was defined as P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was a feasibility and preliminary safety study. As such, the sample size was not statistically derived and the protocol was not powered to provide for definitive conclusions. The study was limited to 20 participants at each camp session. A hypoglycemic event was defined as at least two consecutive CGM readings (10 mins) below the hypoglycemic threshold of \<70 mg/dL. Recovery from a hypoglycemic event required readings above threshold for \> or = 25 minutes.||||0.106
95787334|NCT01680653|191544300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
95787335|NCT01680653|191544301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher's exact test|||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the P value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL longer than one hour||||0.003
95814081|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5466
95814082|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0543||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.0543
95814083|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4677||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.4677
95861237|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.77|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.77|1.37|<0.001
95787336|NCT01680653|191544301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events \<70 mg/dL that were greater than 2 hours||||0.010
95787337|NCT01680653|191544301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test|||This is the p value for the number of events that were \<50 mg/dL for \> 30 minutes||||0.021
95787338|NCT01680653|191544301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact|||This is the P value for the number of events \<50 mg/dL that were \>1 hr||||0.077
95787339|NCT00636636|191544316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-0.88|0.0125
95787340|NCT00636636|191544317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.092||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.18|-0.00|0.0434
95787341|NCT00636636|191544318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.102||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||Z test|||P-value (vs Placebo) for pairwise test of treatment effect between G-ER group and Placebo group is based on Z test for difference between the 2 groups in proportion of participants who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at endpoint. Proportion in each group calculated from number of participants categorized as very much or much improved relative to total number of participants in ITT population.||0.19|0.01|0.0268
95787342|NCT00636636|191544319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.35|||ANCOVA||P-value versus Placebo for pairwise test of difference of LS mean change from baseline between G-ER and Placebo groups is based on t-test of Type III analysis.|||-0.35|-1.07|0.0001
95787343|NCT00636636|191544320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.96|0.007
95787344|NCT01554163|191544362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the betweentreatment difference in LS mean time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks in WOMAC Pain Subscale (VAS) is no greater than 10 mm (non-inferiority margin).|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.63||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.37|0.390
95814084|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.0266
95814085|NCT02949011|191600108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.1281
95814086|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
95814087|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 2||||<0.0001
95814088|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||<0.0001
95999804|NCT02723630|191975376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|90.64||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.51|98.38||P value for formulation|Mixed Models Analysis||Geometric LS Mean ratio was back-transformed least squares mean and treatment difference mean|The effect of crystalline polymorph forms in the drug product on the PK parameters of lenvatinib was estimated using a mixed linear model of logarithmically transformed values of the primary PK parameters with fixed effects for treatment, period, and sequence and a random effect for participant within sequence.||98.38|83.51|0.0498
95999805|NCT02255838|191975380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.05
95999806|NCT00780403|191975427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed at the significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
95999807|NCT00847613|191975428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.73|45.23||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||45.23|27.73|<0.0001
95787345|NCT01554163|191544363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.32||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|-4.88|0.464
95787346|NCT01554163|191544364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Etoricoxib 30 mg will be considered non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference in LS means (etoricoxib minus celecoxib) is no greater than 10 mm.|Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.30|-5.48|0.624
95787347|NCT01554163|191544365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.26|0.369
95787348|NCT01554163|191544366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.25|0.294
95957797|NCT02971228|191888019|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|5.84|||t-test, 2 sided||The estimated mean difference is based on the difference between the mean values for 10 patients in the ZP4207 group (12.78) and the matching 10 patients in the Lilly glucagon group (19.67)|A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||5.84|-19.63|0.2518
95957798|NCT02971228|191888019|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.02||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.85|10.68|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||10.68|-25.85|0.2500
95999808|NCT00847613|191975428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|26.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.28|34.97||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||34.97|17.28|<0.0001
95787349|NCT01554163|191544367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-4.96|0.679
95787350|NCT01554163|191544368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.1||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.30|0.314
95787351|NCT02634983|191544380|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Ventilated Lung Volume||8.60|1.40|0.0254
95787352|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|8.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Ventilation||8.44|1.11|0.0350
95787353|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|9.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Ventilation||9.84|0.08|0.0946
95787354|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|9.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Ventilation||9.07|0.87|0.0486
95787355|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|9.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Ventilation||9.35|1.42|0.0286
95814089|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 3||||0.0015
95814090|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0028
95814091|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 4||||0.0265
95814092|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.0247
95814093|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5298||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 5||||0.5298
95787356|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|7.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Ventilation||7.17|-0.63|0.1650
95787357|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|11.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Ventilation||11.94|-0.71|0.1421
95787358|NCT02634983|191544381|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.98|12.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Ventilation||12.47|2.98|0.0099
95787359|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Perfusion||2.50|-0.64|0.3230
95787360|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Perfusion||2.97|-0.29|0.1717
95787361|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Lower Lobe Perfusion||2.43|-1.05|0.5031
95787362|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.076|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Left Upper Lobe Perfusion||3.65|0.15|0.0760
95787363|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Perfusion||2.16|-1.02|0.5465
95787364|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Lower Lobe Perfusion||1.87|-1.85|0.9913
95787365|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Middle Lobe Perfusion||4.40|-1.39|0.3837
95814094|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9554||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9554
95814095|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 6||||0.9075
95814096|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7624||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.7624
95814097|NCT02949011|191600109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Day 9||||0.6156
95814098|NCT02949011|191600110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0340
95814099|NCT02949011|191600110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.2766
95814100|NCT02949011|191600111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0072
95787366|NCT02634983|191544382|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung, Right Upper Lobe Perfusion||2.48|-0.73|0.3624
95787367|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.18|0.11|<0.0001
95787368|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
95787369|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.24|0.13|<0.0001
95787370|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.27|0.16|<0.0001
95787371|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
95814101|NCT02949011|191600111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.7330
95814102|NCT02949011|191600112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-48.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-48.0|-48.0|<0.0001
95814103|NCT02949011|191600112|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||-24.0|-48.0|<0.0001
95787372|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.23|<0.0001
95787373|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.26|<0.0001
95787374|NCT02634983|191544383|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1 Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.38|0.26|<0.0001
95814104|NCT02949011|191600113|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|0.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||0.0|-96.0|0.0006
95814105|NCT02949011|191600113|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.0||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region||||24.0|-48.0|0.2370
95814106|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.7698
95814107|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5777||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.5777
95814108|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.1112
95814109|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.6483
95814110|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.0004
95814111|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5625||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.5625
95814112|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.0072
95814113|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6234||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.6234
95814114|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0002
95814115|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9547||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.9547
95814116|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0012
95814117|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.1860
95814118|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0274||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.0274
95814119|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9635||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.9635
95814120|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.0081
95814121|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7425||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.7425
95814122|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.0209
95814123|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7448||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7448
95814124|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0644||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.0644
95814125|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4931||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4931
95814126|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0708||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.0708
95814127|NCT02949011|191600114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4024||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.4024
95814128|NCT02949011|191600115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-25.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||<0.0001
95999809|NCT00847613|191975429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.02|-0.79|0.0376
96002083|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.13|-0.43|<0.001
95787375|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.33|0.15|<0.0001
95814129|NCT02949011|191600115|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-8.6||||0.9127||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9127
95814130|NCT02949011|191600116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-15.1||||0.0013||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0013
95814131|NCT02949011|191600116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.3||||0.8498||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.8498
95814132|NCT02949011|191600117|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-24.1||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.0001
95814133|NCT02949011|191600117|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.9237||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.9237
95814134|NCT02949011|191600118|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-12.5||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||-12.5|-28.8|<0.0001
95814135|NCT02949011|191600118|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.7||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||2.7|-9.1|0.2425
95814136|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.1713
95814137|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||12 hours||||0.2249
95861238|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||<|0.001||95.0|1.82|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||2.31|1.82|<0.001
95999810|NCT00847613|191975429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 6: Linear mixed model with treatment effect and site location as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||0.04|-0.73|0.0792
95814138|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0387||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.0387
95814139|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3915||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||24 hours||||0.3915
95814140|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||<0.0001
95814141|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2617||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||36 hours||||0.2617
95814142|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||<0.0001
95814143|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8808||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||48 hours||||0.8808
95814144|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.0001
95814145|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5923||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||72 hours||||0.5923
95957799|NCT02971228|191888020|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||2.99|-3.55|0.8508
95787376|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.0001
95787377|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.42|0.20|<0.0001
95787378|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||0.45|0.25|<0.001
95787379|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.37|0.19|<0.0001
95787380|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
95787381|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||0.54|0.36|<0.0001
95861239|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.90|1.40|<0.001
95787382|NCT02634983|191544384|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
95787383|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||3.12|1.21|0.0006
95787384|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (1 hrs post-dose)||3.33|0.78|0.0106
95787385|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 1 (2 hrs post-dose)||3.44|1.20|0.0013
95787386|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.75 hrs post-dose)||4.23|1.41|0.0017
95999811|NCT00847613|191975430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.31||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.31|-0.49|<0.0001
96002084|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.08|-0.37|0.002
95787387|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|5.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (-0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.09|2.51|<0.0001
95787388|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|5.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (0.25 hrs post-dose)||5.02|2.45|<0.0001
95787389|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.16|6.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (1 hrs post-dose)||6.03|3.16|<0.0001
95787390|NCT02634983|191544385|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment, time and treatment\*Day\*time interaction term as fixed factors and patient factor as random factor. Day\*time was repeated within each patient\*period interaction and subject average baseline and period adjusted baseline were included as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||FEV1/FVC Day 8 (2 hrs post-dose)||6.39|3.56|<0.0001
95787391|NCT02634983|191544386|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lung Clearance Index||0.60|-0.62|0.9820
95787392|NCT02634983|191544387|NON_INFERIORITY|Parameters were analyzed using mixed effects model including sequence, period, treatment as fixed factors and patient as random factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffusion Capacity of Lung for CO||1.27|0.04|0.0821
95787393|NCT01243177|191544388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.8|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.8|-5.5|
95787394|NCT01243177|191544389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The hypothesis was as follows:~H0: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] ≤ -12 % versus HA: \[S(t)LCM\] - \[S(t)CBZ-CR\] \> -12 %, where S(t) (t= 182 days) is the cumulative rate of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months following stabilization at the last evaluated dose (also known as the survivorship function), and -12 % represents the noninferiority margin based on absolute difference."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|The analysis was stratified based on the number of seizures in the 3 months preceding enrollment (≤ 2 and \>2).|The lower limit of the confidence interval was \>-12 %, noninferiority of LCM to CBZ-CR was demonstrated. Additionally, the lower confidence limit relative to the CBZ-CR seizure freedom rate was \>- 20 %.|This was a noninferiority assessment of Lacosamide versus Carbamazepine-CR for the proportion of subjects remaining seizure free for 6 months at the last evaluated dose.||2.7|-5.3|
95787395|NCT03654729|191544484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3842||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8172|2.3446|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||2.3446|0.8172|0.2266
95787396|NCT03654729|191544484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0951||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6356|1.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk of moderate to severe CIPN.||1.8870|0.6356|0.7434
95787397|NCT03397121|191544499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.04|-43.99||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-43.99|-55.04|<.0001
95787398|NCT03397121|191544500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.48|-40.12||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-40.12|-48.48|<0.0001
95787399|NCT03397121|191544501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.11|-60.67||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-60.67|-77.11|<0.0001
95787400|NCT03397121|191544502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-56.48||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-56.48|-69.01|<0.0001
95787401|NCT03397121|191544503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.65|-73.04||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-73.04|-83.65|<0.0001
95787402|NCT03397121|191544504|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean Difference (95% CI) from Placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.59|-27.94||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-27.94|-35.59|<0.0001
95787403|NCT03397121|191544505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.99|-32.14||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-32.14|-39.99|<0.0001
95787404|NCT03397121|191544506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.32|-37.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA||Represents the least squares mean difference from Placebo|||-37.40|-47.32|<0.0001
95787405|NCT04085601|191544512|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7311|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|0.8902||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of packed red blood cell (PRBC) within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in electronic data capture (EDC) data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8902|0.572|<0.0001
95787406|NCT04085601|191544513|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1470.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2113.44|-827.32||p-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-827.32|-2113.44|<0.0001
95787407|NCT04085601|191544514|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.7431||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7431|0.339|<0.0001
95787408|NCT04085601|191544515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-103.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.9|-48.74||P-value for Baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||-48.74|-158.9|0.0002
95814146|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.0064
95957800|NCT02971228|191888020|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.13|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.13|-4.12|>0.9999
95787409|NCT04085601|191544516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.67||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.35||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||4.35|0.99|0.0019
95787410|NCT04085601|191544517|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7505|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9041|-0.5969||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.5969|-0.9041|<0.0001
95787411|NCT04085601|191544518|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5583|0.8899||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8899|0.5583|<0.0001
95787412|NCT04085601|191544519|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.0||Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value for the comparison between treatments is based on median using stratified non-parametric analysis. The 95% confidence interval (CI) is constructed using Hodges-Lehmann Estimation of Location Shift.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||4|2|<0.0001
95787413|NCT04085601|191544520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.51||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|9.24||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||9.24|-0.21|0.061
96002085|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.43|<0.001
95787414|NCT04085601|191544521|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3645||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1648|0.5642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.5642|0.1648|0.001
95787415|NCT04085601|191544522|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.5592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3682|0.7502|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.7502|0.3682|<0.0001
95787416|NCT04085601|191544523|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|34.16||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||34.16|9.35|0.0006
95787417|NCT04085601|191544524|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|55.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|94.74||P-value for baseline, strata and treatment is from LS mean of proc mixed and proc mianalyze based on parameter estimates.|ANCOVA|||||94.74|16.83|0.005
95787418|NCT04085601|191544525|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.4639||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2529|0.675||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by number of PRBC within 12 months prior to screening (\<4, ≥ 4) reported in EDC data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.675|0.2529|0.0002
95787419|NCT04085601|191544526|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.091||Hazard ratio is based on cox proportional hazards model.|Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.091|0.004|<0.0001
95787420|NCT04085601|191544527|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.121|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||0.121|0.005|<0.0001
95787421|NCT03492437|191544531|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|151.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.35|179.93||||||||179.93|127.35|
95787422|NCT03492437|191544532|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|144.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.89|170.39||||||||170.39|122.89|
95814147|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6746||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||96 hours||||0.6746
95787423|NCT03492437|191544533|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least square Mean|138.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.59|157.65||||||||157.65|121.59|
95787424|NCT03492437|191544534|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
95787425|NCT02418234|191544545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95787426|NCT02418234|191544546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95787427|NCT00823264|191544550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95787428|NCT00856999|191544551|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
95787429|NCT00856999|191544552|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric test equivalent to the dependent t-test|||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0004
95787430|NCT02609386|191544557|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.102||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1|||Log Rank|||||2.1|0.6|0.6176
95787431|NCT02609386|191544558|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.3889
95787432|NCT02609386|191544559|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.009||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||Log Rank|||||2.2|0.5|0.5091
95787433|NCT01065571|191544560|EQUIVALENCE|Non-parametric analysis of interval to relapse||||||0.046||||||result from log rank test|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier life table analysis was performed to compare the two groups. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in relapses between the two groups during the study.||||0.046
95957801|NCT02971228|191888021|OTHER|A paired t-test was used for the parametric method to compare patients receiving both treatments. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint. Thus, the 2 patients who withdrew from the trial after the Lilly Glucagon treatment before receiving ZP4207 were not included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test or the Wilcoxon signed rank test for comparison of means with normally or non normally distributed residuals, respectively, was used. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the residuals for each comparison. The residuals were obtained from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group as the fixed effect. If the p-value of the test was \<0.001, the non-parametric method was utilized to analyze the endpoint parameter.||1.62|-0.36|0.1847
95787434|NCT01065571|191544561|SUPERIORITY|fecal calprotectin (micrograms/gm stool)||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95787435|NCT01065571|191544562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||not adjusted for muliple comparisons, a priori threshold of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test comparing baseline and value at end of participation||||0.02
95861240|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.31|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23GMT Ratio||2.31|1.77|<0.001
95787436|NCT00397189|191544594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-6.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was a comparison of sleep latency as measured by the sleep diary at Visit 3 in the ITT 65-80 population, using a linear regression model with terms for treatment (Circadin® 2mg vs. Placebo) and baseline sleep latency.||-6|-25.3|<0.05
95787437|NCT00872521|191544604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.09
95787438|NCT00872521|191544605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
95787439|NCT00872521|191544606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.23
95787440|NCT00872521|191544607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.56
95787441|NCT00872521|191544608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.01
95787442|NCT00872521|191544609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in response rate between 1q21 amplified and 1q21 NOT amplified||||0.28
95787443|NCT03990051|191544629|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline, Active - Placebo.||||||0.0197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0197
95787444|NCT03990051|191544630|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0039
95787445|NCT03990051|191544631|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95787446|NCT03990051|191544632|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95787447|NCT03990051|191544633|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0138
95787448|NCT03990051|191544634|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
95787449|NCT03990051|191544635|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0849
95787450|NCT03990051|191544636|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0041|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
95787451|NCT03990051|191544637|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
95787452|NCT03990051|191544638|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0143|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0143
95787453|NCT03990051|191544639|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0398
95787454|NCT03990051|191544640|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||-3.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||-3.97
95787455|NCT03990051|191544641|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
95787456|NCT03990051|191544642|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
95787457|NCT03990051|191544643|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
95787458|NCT03990051|191544644|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0636|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0636
95787459|NCT03990051|191544645|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0028
95787460|NCT03990051|191544646|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0067|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
95787461|NCT03990051|191544647|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
95787462|NCT03990051|191544648|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
95787463|NCT03990051|191544649|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0155|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0155
95787464|NCT03990051|191544650|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0160
95787465|NCT03990051|191544651|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
95787466|NCT03990051|191544652|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.4649|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4649
95787467|NCT03990051|191544653|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
95787468|NCT03990051|191544654|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0225|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0225
95814148|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8167||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.8167
95787469|NCT03990051|191544655|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1822|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1822
95787470|NCT03990051|191544656|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0515|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0515
95787471|NCT03990051|191544657|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
95787472|NCT03990051|191544658|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes of score from baseline.||||||0.083|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.083
95787473|NCT03990051|191544659|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.7147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7147
95787474|NCT03990051|191544660|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.8251|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8251
95814149|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3773||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||120 hours||||0.3773
95787475|NCT03990051|191544661|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0435|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0435
95787476|NCT03990051|191544662|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
96002086|NCT04003155|191981633|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-0.40|0.002
95787477|NCT03990051|191544663|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.3205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3205
95787478|NCT03990051|191544664|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1401|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1401
95787479|NCT03990051|191544665|SUPERIORITY|Comparison in changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0098|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0098
95787480|NCT03990051|191544666|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.1032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1032
95787481|NCT03990051|191544667|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of changes in score from baseline.||||||0.0389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0389
95787482|NCT03990051|191544668|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Score in 1 year compared to baseline||||<0.00001
95787483|NCT03990051|191544669|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787484|NCT03990051|191544670|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787485|NCT03990051|191544671|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787486|NCT03990051|191544672|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95787487|NCT03990051|191544673|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95787488|NCT03990051|191544674|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787489|NCT03990051|191544675|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787490|NCT03990051|191544676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787491|NCT03990051|191544677|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787492|NCT03990051|191544678|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787493|NCT03990051|191544679|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787494|NCT03990051|191544680|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95787495|NCT03990051|191544681|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787496|NCT03990051|191544682|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787497|NCT03990051|191544683|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787498|NCT03990051|191544684|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787499|NCT03990051|191544685|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.00001
95787500|NCT00718094|191544686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95787501|NCT03293394|191544711|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.001
95787502|NCT03293394|191544712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95787503|NCT03293394|191544713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
95787504|NCT03293394|191544714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.652
95787505|NCT03293394|191544715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.190
95787506|NCT03293394|191544716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95787507|NCT03293394|191544717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95787508|NCT03293394|191544718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95787509|NCT03828214|191544727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.2||0.973|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||C2, C3, C4 were compared to C1 the comparison condition.||||0.973
95814150|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.1041
95787510|NCT02497937|191544747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|2.512|||||Difference estimate of DLco on Day 7 has been presented for Mayo site|||2.512|-0.925|
95787511|NCT01903993|191544798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||Log rank (Stratified)|||Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by a Cox regression model.||0.92|0.52|= 0.0106
95787512|NCT01903993|191544799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rates|0.59|||=|0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|8.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.85|-7.67|= 0.8884
95787513|NCT01903993|191544800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Log rank (Stratified)|||HR were estimated by a Cox regression model. The two treatment comparison was based on a stratified log-rank test.||1.20|0.71|=0.5563
95787514|NCT01903993|191544801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.7|||Log rank (unstratified)|||HR were estimated by a unstratified Cox regression model.||0.70|0.15|= 0.0028
95787515|NCT03681184|191544812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-53.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.314|-44.778||P=1.685E-14|MMRM|||The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-44.778|-62.314|<0.0001
95787516|NCT03681184|191544813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.772||P=1.225E-11|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.772|-1.177|<0.0001
95787517|NCT03681184|191544814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-51.7718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.2653|-39.2784||P=5.032E-10|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate:creatinine ratio as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-39.2784|-64.2653|<0.0001
95814151|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3328||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||144 hours||||0.3328
95957802|NCT02971228|191888021|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|3.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-parametric method p-value was from a Wilcoxon signed rank text. The normality of the residuals was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, where the residuals were obtained from an ANOVA model with treatment group as the fixed effect. A patient was required to have data for both periods to be included in the pre-specified analysis for a given endpoint.||3.09|-0.01|0.0781
95787518|NCT03681184|191544815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94||P=8.341E-07|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤1.5 x ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.94|0.55|<0.0001
95787519|NCT03681184|191544816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants (lumasiran vs. placebo) with 24-hour urinary oxalate ≤ULN at Month 6 is analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by baseline 24-hour urinary oxalate corrected for BSA (≤1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2 vs. \>1.70 mmol/24hr/1.73m\^2). The difference in proportion (lumasiran vs. placebo) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated using the Newcombe method, based on the Wilson score.||0.70|0.23|0.0010
95814152|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7867||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.7867
95957803|NCT00413634|191888053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.092
96002087|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-9.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-9.06|-21.99|<0.001
95787520|NCT03681184|191544817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-39.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-28.87||P=2.862E-08|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-28.87|-50.10|<0.0001
95814153|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||168 hours||||0.8640
95814154|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.6465
95957804|NCT00413634|191888056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.857||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.857
95957805|NCT00413634|191888057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
95957806|NCT00413634|191888058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.378||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.378
95957807|NCT00413634|191888059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
95787521|NCT03681184|191544818|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-5.98||P=3.893E-07|MMRM|||The MMRM includes fixed effects of treatment arms (lumasiran vs. placebo) and scheduled visits (months 3, 4, 5, and 6), baseline plasma oxalate as a continuous fixed covariate, and patient as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix is assumed to be unstructured. Satterthwaite approximation is used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||-5.98|-11.45|<0.0001
95787522|NCT00534638|191544859|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|49.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|68.2||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||68.2|20.1|0.004
95787523|NCT00534638|191544859|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|23.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|51.1||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Engerix-B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Engerix-B Group was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||51.1|-19.0|0.232
95787524|NCT00534638|191544860|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effectiveness percentage|-52.2||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|3.3||An objective was reached if the 2-sided p-value associated to the objective was below 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall efectiveness against HPV-16/18 Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group vs Cervarix/Engerix-B B Group: The analysis of the overall effectiveness of GSK's HPV-16/18 vaccine against HPV-16/18 genital infection in Cervarix/Engerix-B A Group versus Cervarix/Engerix-B B was based on stratified Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for clustering.||3.3|-139.4|0.069
95787525|NCT02500719|191544875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1319||||0.029|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This test is to determine if the difference between engagement and disengagement of emotional arousal is increased by real-time neurofeedback guidance in PTSD participants.||||.029
95787526|NCT00282152|191544898|NON_INFERIORITY|Because the purpose of this trial was to provide preliminary safety and tolerability data, the primary hypothesis was that the DBS+ODT group would not worsen more quickly than the ODT group. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to reach a four-point worsening of the UPDRS-III score following a one week treatment washout as assessed by the blinded rater.||||||0.968|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.968
95787527|NCT00282152|191544899|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Study power was calculated based on the amount of PD medication consumed. We anticipated that the control group (ODT) would have a baseline value of 400 which would increase to 600, and that the treated group (DBS+ODT) would decrease from 400 to 300. A sample size of 12 patients per group (n=15, assuming 20% drop out) would have 80% power to detect a difference in means of 300 assuming that the common standard deviation is 250 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.40
95787528|NCT03538691|191544913|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.669|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.669|0.776|0.5100
95787529|NCT03538691|191544914|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.23||||0.2393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.16|0.2393
95861241|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.6|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.60|1.26|<0.001
95787530|NCT03538691|191544915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.177||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.615|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% CI were derived from the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as fixed effect.|||1.615|0.857|0.3086
95787531|NCT03538691|191544916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6030
95787532|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 21||||0.7081
95787533|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 23||||0.4589
95787534|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 25||||0.5314
95787535|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1433|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 29||||0.1433
95787536|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9636|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 33||||0.9636
95787537|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7596|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 37||||0.7596
95787538|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 41||||0.2402
95787539|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 45||||0.8363
95787540|NCT03538691|191544917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8308|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 46||||0.8308
95787541|NCT03538691|191544918|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.8806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.49|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||1.49|-1.73|0.8806
95787542|NCT03538691|191544919|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.||||0.24|-0.18|0.7956
95787543|NCT03538691|191544920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.61||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Work/School||0.61|-0.31|0.5223
95787544|NCT03538691|191544920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Social Life||0.77|-0.06|0.0904
95861242|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|1.88|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.88|1.46|<0.001
95861243|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.75|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.75|1.34|<0.001
95814155|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4265||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||192 hours||||0.4265
95787545|NCT03538691|191544920|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment, pooled center as factor and Baseline value as covariance.|ANCOVA|||SDS Individual Item: Family Life||0.67|-0.16|0.2289
95814156|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6568||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6568
95814157|NCT02949011|191600119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6102||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||216 hours||||0.6102
95814158|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||-0.01|-0.28|0.0408
95814159|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.09|-0.18|0.5324
95814160|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.06|-0.30|0.0025
95814161|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.08|0.4874
95814162|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
95814163|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.08|-0.15|0.5414
95787546|NCT04672044|191544921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
95787547|NCT00792116|191544927|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
95787548|NCT00792116|191544928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated Measures||||||.05
95787549|NCT03020550|191544953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity.||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in GSR (galvanic skin response). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.034
95814164|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.22|-0.44|<0.0001
95814165|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.05|-0.17|0.3185
95814166|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.06|-0.26|0.0025
95814167|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.11|-0.09|0.8299
95814168|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.01|-0.19|0.0878
95957808|NCT00413634|191888060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.035
95957809|NCT00413634|191888061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95787550|NCT03020550|191544954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|Adjusted for baseline GERD symptom severity||The outcome measure was calculated using a general linear model with average daily post GERD symptom severity as the dependent variable with the following independent variables: baseline average GERD symptom severity and change in RMSSD (high frequency HRV). No term for visit type assignment was included in the model.||||0.56
95957810|NCT00413634|191888062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.557
95957811|NCT00413634|191888063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
95957812|NCT00413634|191888064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95787551|NCT03020550|191544955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||The outcome measure was calculated using a Pearson correlation to compare the session index representing the amount of concordance in GSR between patient and physician and the percent change in patients' GERD symptoms. Visit type assignment was not included in the analysis.||||0.80
95787552|NCT03272347|191544973|OTHER|The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||18.3|-12.5|
95787553|NCT03272347|191544973|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|23.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||23.0|-3.8|
95787554|NCT03272347|191544973|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||16.3|-16.0|
95787555|NCT03272347|191544974|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.4|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.4|-12.2|
95787556|NCT03272347|191544974|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|24.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||24.6|-12.2|
95787557|NCT03272347|191544974|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|14.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||14.8|-27.1|
95787558|NCT03272347|191544975|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|20.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.5|-15.7|
95787559|NCT03272347|191544975|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|20.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.8|-15.0|
95787560|NCT03272347|191544975|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|10.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||10.1|-29.4|
95787561|NCT03272347|191544976|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||14.5|-13.4|
95787562|NCT03272347|191544976|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-16.4|
95787563|NCT03272347|191544976|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in %|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||18.1|-10.8|
95787564|NCT03272347|191544977|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|6.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||6.6|-26.1|
95814169|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.12||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.12|-0.09|0.7498
95814170|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.09|-0.11|0.8030
95957813|NCT00413634|191888065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.027
95957814|NCT00413634|191888066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95957815|NCT00874497|191888099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0824||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0378|0.2025||P-values are based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model of the change FEV1 from baseline to the specified study week using treatment group and current smoking status as fixed effects and the baseline FEV1 value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 104.||0.2025|-0.0378|0.1761
95957816|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.904||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the lung at Week 104.||0.97|-6.77|0.139
95957817|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|2.04|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.04|-4.46|0.460
95957818|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.176||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.63|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.63|-7.98|0.457
95787565|NCT03272347|191544977|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|9.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||9.1|-21.5|
95787566|NCT03272347|191544977|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||8.8|-23.9|
95787567|NCT03272347|191544978|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|27.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||27.7|-23.4|
95787568|NCT03272347|191544978|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|22.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||22.1|-29.6|
95787569|NCT03272347|191544978|OTHER|The 95% CIs were calculated using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (screening HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 or \>100,000 copies/mL).|Treatment Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|25.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in percent response||25.2|-27.7|
95814171|NCT02949011|191600120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptom, region, and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.15|-0.05|0.3577
95814172|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.1||||0.0009||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.0009
95814173|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.2||||0.4074||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Cough||||0.4074
95814174|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-6.3||||0.2496||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2496
95787570|NCT03272347|191544980|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|78.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|138.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||138.1|18.8|
95814175|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.9||||0.2963||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Sore Throat||||0.2963
95814176|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-10.6||||0.039||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.0390
95814177|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|2.0||||0.7877||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Headache||||0.7877
95814178|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-12.1||||0.0017||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.0017
95787571|NCT03272347|191544980|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|133.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||133.1|-31.7|
95787572|NCT03272347|191544980|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.0|64.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.7|-63.0|
95787573|NCT03272347|191544981|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|75.3|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||75.3|-74.1|
95787574|NCT03272347|191544981|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|73.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||73.8|-70.7|
95787575|NCT03272347|191544981|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.6|4.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||4.0|-165.6|
95787576|NCT03272347|191544982|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|83.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||83.8|-134.8|
95787577|NCT03272347|191544982|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.1|-3.1|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-3.1|-212.1|
95787578|NCT03272347|191544982|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-132.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-21.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||-21.9|-242.9|
95787579|NCT03272347|191544983|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|64.0|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||64.0|-195.3|
95957819|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.167||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.54|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||2.54|-6.88|0.362
95957820|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.225||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|4.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.48|-6.94|0.670
95999812|NCT00847613|191975430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in mTSS had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Month 3: Least squares mean difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||-0.16|-0.34|0.0002
95787580|NCT03272347|191544983|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.7|66.8|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||66.8|-188.7|
95787581|NCT03272347|191544983|OTHER|The 95% CI for mean difference in CD4 change was based on t-distribution.|Treatment Difference|-107.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|16.9|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Treatment difference in T-cell count||16.9|-231.2|
95787582|NCT03272347|191544985|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|29.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||29.6|-20.3|
95787583|NCT03272347|191544985|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||33.5|-15.4|
95787584|NCT03272347|191544985|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|20.7|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.7|-30.6|
95787585|NCT03272347|191544986|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.5|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.5|-17.9|
95787586|NCT03272347|191544986|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|8.2|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||8.2|-17.9|
95787587|NCT03272347|191544986|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in %|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.6|||||Islatravir minus DOR/3TC/TDF|Difference in % Islatravir vs DOR/3TC/TDF||20.6|-11.5|
95787588|NCT01001520|191545056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.88
95787589|NCT01001520|191545057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Accuracy was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would increase subject's accuracy during the N-back working memory task.||||0.017
95787590|NCT01001520|191545058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that tolcapone (vs. placebo) would reduce subject's reaction time during the N-back working memory task.||||0.88
95787591|NCT01001520|191545059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers would smoke fewer cigarettes while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo).||||0.85
95787592|NCT01001520|191545060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience less cigarette craving during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.40
95787593|NCT01001520|191545061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was not adjusted. Significance remained at p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||We hypothesized that smokers, while taking tolcapone (vs. placebo), would experience fewer withdrawal symptoms during their 24-hour abstinence period.||||0.43
95787594|NCT01001520|191545062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.18
95814179|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|1.5||||0.8119||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Nasal Congestion||||0.8119
95957821|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.218||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||1.55|-5.98|0.244
95957822|NCT00874497|191888100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.374||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|3.48|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.48|-6.23|0.574
95957823|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.47|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||3.47|-1.53|0.436
95787595|NCT01001520|191545063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase BOLD signal, meaning there would be an increase in brain activity, in the dorsal cingulate/medial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.67
95787596|NCT01001520|191545064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the posterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.98
95814180|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-3.6||||0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.0070
95814181|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.7||||0.9191||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Feverishness or Chills||||0.9191
95814182|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.7||||0.0232||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.0232
95814183|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|4.0||||0.5436||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Muscle or Joint Pain||||0.5436
95861244|NCT05569954|191681237|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>0.5 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||1.04|0.76|<0.001
95999813|NCT00847613|191975431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.44|19.36||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||19.36|9.44|<0.0001
95787597|NCT01001520|191545065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||"Because the five a priori brain regions of interest (ROIs) are highly correlated, the significance threshold was adjusted to p=0.014."|Regression, Linear|BOLD signal change was examined using random effects maximum likelihood regression.||"We hypothesized that tolcapone would increase suppression of BOLD signal, meaning an increase in suppression of brain activity, in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain known to be involved in working memory.~We analyzed for main effects of treatment (tolcapone vs. placebo), back level (0, 1, 2, and 3), treatment order, and relevant covariates (genotype, race, age, sex, FTND score, Shipley IQ score)."||||0.002
95787598|NCT02820870|191545067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|With clustering by provider and team.||||4.9|1.84|<0.01
95787599|NCT02820870|191545068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|With cluster by provider and team.||||2.77|0.99|0.06
95787600|NCT02372344|191545084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least square (LS) mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.77|0.54|
95787601|NCT02372344|191545084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.86|0.59|
95787602|NCT02372344|191545085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.47||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.47|0.27|
95861245|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.84|<0.001
95787603|NCT02372344|191545085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.59||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.59|0.33|
95787604|NCT02372344|191545085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.57||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.57|0.36|
95787605|NCT02372344|191545085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.71||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (Cmax) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.71|0.45|
95787606|NCT02372344|191545086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.45|
95787607|NCT02372344|191545086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.55||||||95.0|0.44|0.69||||||Total EPA: Ratio of Before Meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total EPA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||0.69|0.44|
95814184|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-7.5||||0.0207||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.0207
95814185|NCT02949011|191600121|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-1.9||||0.371||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||Fatigue||||0.3710
95814186|NCT02949011|191600122|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-23.4||||0.4634||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.4634
95814187|NCT02949011|191600122|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|-0.6||||0.6386||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Peto-Prentice's generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by baseline composite symptom score, preexisting and worsened symptoms, and region.||||||0.6386
95814188|NCT02949011|191600123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0112
95814189|NCT02949011|191600123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8478||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8478
95814190|NCT02949011|191600124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||<0.0001
95957824|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Middle region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.79|-0.17|0.067
95787608|NCT02372344|191545086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Fasting to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.04|0.73|
95787609|NCT02372344|191545086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||Total DHA: Ratio of Before meal to After meal. Primary comparisons for total DHA were based on a linear mixed-effect model. This model included log-transformed PK parameter (AUC0-72) as a response variable and treatment, sequence and period as fixed categorical effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random categorical effect.||1.02|0.72|
95787610|NCT01411852|191545130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.25|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating vs. blunt or no trauma (1 patient had neither blunt nor penetrating trauma), and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||1.25|0.12|
95787611|NCT01411852|191545131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-5.5||||||||-5.5|-26.5|
95814191|NCT02949011|191600124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2558||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2558
95814192|NCT01170663|191600138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.962|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.962|0.678|0.0169
95814193|NCT01170663|191600139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.752|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.752|0.536|<0.0001
95814194|NCT01170663|191600140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.596|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|0.72|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||0.720|0.494|<0.0001
95957825|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.77|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.77|-0.83|0.163
95957826|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Upper region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.02|-0.48|0.102
95787612|NCT01411852|191545132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.4||||||||0.40|-2.76|
95787613|NCT01411852|191545133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.08||||||||0.08|-1.61|
95787614|NCT01411852|191545134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.8|
95787615|NCT01411852|191545135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.3|
95787616|NCT01411852|191545136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-42.5|
95787617|NCT01411852|191545137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.06|
95787618|NCT01411852|191545138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-22.4|
95787619|NCT01411852|191545139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.4||||||||1.4|-39.2|
95787620|NCT01411852|191545140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.8||||||||8.8|-29.6|
95787621|NCT01411852|191545141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-16.6|
95814195|NCT01170663|191600142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors: geographic region, time-to-progression from the start of first-line therapy and disease measurability.||||3.16|1.45|0.0001
95814196|NCT01170663|191600150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3973||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group, randomization stratification factors and baseline value of Global Health Status scale.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3973
95814197|NCT04828707|191600168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The Intent-To-Treat (ITT) dataset was used for primary outcome. To overcome impact of missing data, statistical analysis was conducted using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) as an imputation method.~The data of each variable collected from the daily diary was normalized to 28 days for every period (weeks 1-4, weeks 5-8, and weeks 9-12).~Participants' data who entered the treatment phase but dropped out during weeks 5-8 were carried forward and analyzed as their data at weeks 9-12."||||<0.05
95814198|NCT03498716|191600212|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors used in the analysis are axillary nodal status, surgery (breast conserving vs. mastectomy),and tumor PD-L1 status.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.87|0.3846
95814199|NCT01734902|191600248|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|86.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.046|102.151|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.151|74.046|
95957827|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|5.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Lower region of the Lung at Week 104.||5.12|-0.89|0.162
95787622|NCT01411852|191545142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.8|
95787623|NCT01411852|191545143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-3.6|
95787624|NCT01411852|191545144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.1||||||||3.1|-2.9|
95787625|NCT01411852|191545145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.92|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). ISS multiply imputed for one patient.|||0.92|0.03|
95787626|NCT01411852|191545146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|19.11|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years) and Injury Severity Score (ISS).|||19.11|0.19|
95787627|NCT01411852|191545147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.77|||||Adjusted for age (linear spline with knot at 45 years), penetrating mechanism (yes/no), and ISS (linear).|||1.77|0.22|
95787628|NCT01556932|191545161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2541|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95787629|NCT02038179|191545184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Intent-to-Treat Analysis using multiple imputation. Imputed Means and Imputed Standard Errors of the Mean.|paired t-test|||||||0.83
95787630|NCT02038179|191545185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95787631|NCT02038179|191545186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.84
95787632|NCT01720524|191545206|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-2.08|0.9850
95787633|NCT01720524|191545207|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.6||||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|-14.1|0.4935
95787634|NCT01720524|191545208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9885|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9885
95787635|NCT01720524|191545209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4910
95787636|NCT01720524|191545210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.8||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|22.9|||Fisher Exact|||Additional Treatment||22.9|-15.2|0.7065
95787637|NCT01720524|191545210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.5|||Fisher Exact|||ECMO||18.5|-18.5|>0.999
95787638|NCT01720524|191545210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Death||22.8|-5.5|0.2373
95787639|NCT01720524|191545211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9||||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||15.3|-7.5|0.4984
95787640|NCT01720524|191545211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|13.7|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||13.7|-5.5|0.3956
95787641|NCT01720524|191545211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||3.3|-7.6|0.4249
95787642|NCT01720524|191545212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||5.8|-4.3|0.7686
95787643|NCT01720524|191545212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||1.9|-17.8|0.1112
95787644|NCT01720524|191545212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||4.8|-21.2|0.2089
95787645|NCT01720524|191545213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|37.2||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|79.5|||ANCOVA|||Hour 6||79.5|-5.0|0.0829
95787646|NCT01720524|191545213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.6||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|65.9|||ANCOVA|||Hour 12||65.9|-12.7|0.1802
95787647|NCT01720524|191545213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|79.9||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|192.2|||ANCOVA|||Hour 24||192.2|-32.5|0.1576
95787648|NCT00158262|191545247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|16.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||16.7|-2.7|
95787649|NCT00158262|191545248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.3|||||Placebo-Propranolol|CAPS Total Score at Month 1||15.3|-15.5|
95787650|NCT00158262|191545248|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|16.0||||||CAPS Total Score at Month 3||16.0|-20.3|
95787651|NCT00158262|191545249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||||Placebo-Propranolol|||10.7|-4.8|
95787652|NCT00527826|191545250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.73||95.0|||||Negative binomial model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.73
95787653|NCT00527826|191545252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Poisson model for the rate of exacerbations (per year) using the treatment duration as offset term and treatment, COPD severity (stratum) and interaction as fixed factors. This model took further into account a strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV according to the observed rates (SAS code: proc GENMOD).||||||0.66||95.0|||||Poisson model|Least square means adjusted for COPD severity (stratum), interaction of stratum with treatment, and strata imbalance of 73% COPD III vs. 27% COPD IV.||||||0.66
95787654|NCT01808261|191545282|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809||0.713||95.0|-0.119|0.2||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 3/Day 90.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.2|-0.119|0.713
95787655|NCT01808261|191545283|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0857||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.247||P-value presented is the posterior probability that the treatment difference (GSK249320 15mg/kg - placebo) is greater than 0 m/s at Month 6/Day 180.|Bayesian method|||Credible intervals are displayed as confidence intervals. Posterior means, standard deviations, and credible intervals are provided in the table.||0.247|-0.093|0.828
95787656|NCT01808261|191545285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.067|7.883||||||Statistical data for Day 30. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||7.883|-3.067|
95787657|NCT01808261|191545285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8732|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.704|8.735||||||Statistical data for Day 60. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||8.735|-2.704|
95999814|NCT00847613|191975431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent difference|5.61||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|9.38||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and two-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||9.38|1.85|0.0034
95787658|NCT01808261|191545285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5633|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.668|9.538||||||Statistical data for Day 90. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||9.538|-4.668|
95787659|NCT01808261|191545285|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.944|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|11.037||||||Statistical data for Day 180. The point estimate and confidence interval are for the adjusted mean difference based on least square estimates.||11.037|-3.15|
95787660|NCT02585713|191545312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1316|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1316
95787661|NCT01150903|191545314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
95787662|NCT01150903|191545315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.001
95787663|NCT04501952|191545322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
95787664|NCT04501952|191545324|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.191||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.555|||Regression, Cox|P-value was estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.555|0.065|0.0024
95787665|NCT04501952|191545327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.134||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.586|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.586|0.031|0.0076
95787666|NCT04501952|191545328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.43|||Regression, Cox|P-value were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||0.430|0.023|0.0019
95787667|NCT04501952|191545329|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24|||ANCOVA|P-value were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|Least squares Mean (LSM), standard error (SE) and 95% CI were from an ANCOVA model with baseline viral load as a covariate.|||0.24|-0.10|0.4318
95787668|NCT04501952|191545330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.405||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|2.693|||Log Rank|p-value was based on stratified log-rank test with baseline stratification factor as strata.|Hazard ratio and two-sided 95% CI were estimated using the Cox regression with baseline stratification factors as covariates.|||2.693|0.733|0.2987
95787669|NCT04501952|191545332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2163
95814200|NCT01734902|191600249|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R (%)|89.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.26|102.62|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.62|77.26|
95814201|NCT01734902|191600250|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model, analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale includes effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted gMean ratio T/R [%]|90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.78|102.88|||||Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variance \[%\]. Statistical analysis is based on PKS which includes 27 subjects.|||102.88|78.78|
95814202|NCT01854528|191600262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|47.42|||Stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value for the difference in sustained virologic response rates 12 weeks after the last dose between treatment groups with HCV subgenotype (1a, non-1a) from stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel with previous type of response to pegIFN/RBV treatment (relapser, partial or null responder) as strata.||47.42|21.09|<0.001
95814203|NCT01854528|191600263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|11.85|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||11.85|5.43|<0.001
95814204|NCT01854528|191600264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|9.98|||ANCOVA|||P-value from ANCOVA model including baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||9.98|5.11|<0.001
95957828|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Right Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.29|-0.73|0.160
95814205|NCT01854528|191600265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|435.1|||Regression, Logistic|||P-value from logistic regression model including treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype, and previous response to pegIFN/RBV treatment as predictors.||435.1|6.9|<0.001
95814206|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
95814207|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||3|-6|
95957829|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.08||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.75|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Left Whole region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.75|-0.58|0.122
95787670|NCT02080364|191545336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3386||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3386
95787671|NCT02080364|191545336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992||||||p-value for compairons to Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1992
95814208|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
95957830|NCT00874497|191888102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of Whole Lung region of the Lung at Week 104.||4.56|-0.46|0.106
95957831|NCT00874497|191888103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.423||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.48|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean Difference between Tetomilast and Placebo at Week 104.||2.48|-5.32|0.469
95957832|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.27|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||2.27|-4.42|0.519
95787672|NCT02080364|191545337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value for comparison to Placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9394
95787673|NCT02080364|191545337|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||MMRM model does not converge. LS Mean and p-value are NA.|||
95787674|NCT02609984|191545346|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8568||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5507|1.333||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.3330|0.5507|0.4900
95787675|NCT02609984|191545347|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2145||||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|2.0684||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.0684|0.7131|0.4737
95787676|NCT02609984|191545351|OTHER|||||||0.3645||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3645
95787677|NCT02609984|191545352|OTHER|||||||0.3466||||||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank|||||||0.3466
95787678|NCT02609984|191545353|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7006||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4241|1.1574||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||1.1574|0.4241|0.1622
95787679|NCT02609984|191545354|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1849||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5817|2.4134||P-value based on a 2-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by type of sarcoma: synovial sarcoma versus myxoid/round cell liposarcoma.|||2.4134|0.5817|0.6397
95787680|NCT02609984|191545355|OTHER|||||||0.1128|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.1128
95787681|NCT02609984|191545356|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
95787682|NCT02609984|191545357|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.4050
95787683|NCT02609984|191545358|OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||exact Pearson chi-square test|||||||0.0127
95787684|NCT02256839|191545377|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|98.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|99.3||||||||99.3|95.3|
95787685|NCT02256839|191545377|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 contingency table with 95% CI|2 x 2 contingency table|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.4|99.3||||||||99.3|85.4|
95787686|NCT01843803|191545378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"P-Value = 0.029 after adjusting for clinical and demographic, and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.~Comparison of adjusted CARES score yielded a significant difference."|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model was ran with CARES as the dependent variable, adjusted for demographic and clinical measures , and provider as a random effect.||Mixed model adjusted for gender, race, education, marital status, mental health condition, substance disorder, COPD, heart failure, diabetes, coronary artery disease, study site and accounting for clustering of patients within providers.||||0.029
95787687|NCT01843803|191545380|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.86||P-Value derived after adjusting model provider clustering and treating it as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assessed whether a person in the intervention group vs the attention control group was more likely to be probed at least once by their provider after adjusting for other measures and accounting for the provider clustering.||2.86|0.99|.065
95787688|NCT01843803|191545381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||chi-square||||<0.05
95787689|NCT01850394|191545382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|300.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95861246|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.33||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.33|3.99|<0.001
95787690|NCT01850394|191545382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|150.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|200.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95787691|NCT01850394|191545383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95787692|NCT01850394|191545383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95787693|NCT01850394|191545384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95787694|NCT01850394|191545385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95787695|NCT01850394|191545386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95787696|NCT00086450|191545387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.9||||0.005||95.0|3.3|12.5|||Regression, Cox|||||12.5|3.3|0.005
95787697|NCT00086450|191545388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.74||||0.004||95.0|1.91|3.89|||Regression, Cox|||||3.89|1.91|0.004
95787698|NCT00086450|191545389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.049||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
95787699|NCT00086450|191545390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.68
95787700|NCT00436826|191545414|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.63|||Wald Chi-square|||||0.63|0.22|<0.001
95787701|NCT00784719|191545434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|57.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||57.0|
95787702|NCT00784719|191545434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|58.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||58.0|
95787703|NCT00784719|191545434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.0||Upper limit of 80% CI was not estimable as there were insufficient number of participants, who achieved \>=10 mm Schirmer test score in this reporting group, for the analysis.||||||||29.0|
95787704|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.0|28.0||||||||28.0|9.0|
95787705|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|27.0||||||||27.0|8.0|
95787706|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|27.0||||||||27.0|15.0|
95787707|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
95787708|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|15.0||||||||15.0|8.0|
95787709|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.0|43.0||||||||43.0|8.0|
95787710|NCT00784719|191545436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|15.0|30.0||||||||30.0|15.0|
95787711|NCT04550364|191545456|OTHER|Semi-structured interview, background information, DSM 5 diagnosis and ED symptoms.||||||||||||||||23 of 24 women were used ideal type analysis as the methods. EDE-Q and DSM 5 diagnosis were measured.|Ideal type analysis as main method of analysis|||
95861247|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.92|||<|0.001||95.0|2.5|3.42||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.42|2.50|<0.001
95787712|NCT04550364|191545457|OTHER|Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)||||||||||||||||of the 24 mothers there were 7 of them that had undergone In vitro fertilization. These women were interviewed twice and IPA were used in analysis the material.|IPA|||
95787713|NCT04550364|191545458|OTHER|Grounded theory was used analysis method. 5 distinct ED trajectories into motherhood were identified based on the womens experiences from pregnancy to postpartum.||||||||||||||||This study was based on interviews conducted with 24 participants during pregnancy and postpartum. Semi-structured interview with 24 women at two time points: 1. During pregnancy and 2. 4-6 months after birth. DSM 5 diagnosis at both time points were also assessed and symptoms at eating disorders through EDE-Q.|Qualitative methods using Ground theory|||
95787714|NCT03138577|191545488|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
95787715|NCT03138577|191545489|OTHER|||||||||||||||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||Counts and percentages of cases with paralysis were calculated separately for each volume of local anesthetic.|||
95787716|NCT03138577|191545490|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
95787717|NCT03138577|191545490|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
95787718|NCT03138577|191545491|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
95814209|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given concomitantly with HPV and Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup I minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered concomitantly with Tdap and HPV, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||5|-4|
95787719|NCT03138577|191545492|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose response data was fit with a non-parametric smoothing technique for locally weighted regression (lowess) to produce a dose response curve.|||
95787720|NCT03138577|191545493|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||0.01
95787721|NCT03138577|191545493|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|||||||1.00
95787722|NCT03138577|191545494|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95787723|NCT02651337|191545497|OTHER|It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.|||||||||||||||||The study tested the hypothesis that the Alivio flusher could increase flow in occluded or sluggish flowing catheters. Analysis was made on the basis of the procedural results related to priming the flusher, connecting the flusher to the shunt, flushing the system by dome compression, the ability to refill the dome, and the ability to evacuate the dome.|||
95843724|NCT03043872|191654965|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|5.118||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, adjusting for planned platinum therapy in Cycle 1 (carboplatin or cisplatin). P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from addition of a treatment factor to the model.|Regression, Logistic|||D + T + EP vs EP. An odds ratio \>1 favors D + T + EP. The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.||5.118|0.874|0.0986
95787724|NCT00869128|191545513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||ANOVA, The effect of Circadin was checked by means of 2 x 2 mixed design analysis of variance for repeated measurement.||||0.04
95787725|NCT02358031|191545564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.11|0.78|0.21211
95787726|NCT02358031|191545565|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.02|0.69|0.03697
95787727|NCT02358031|191545566|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.02951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.01|0.58|0.02951
95787728|NCT02358031|191545567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.00025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the fourteenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.87|0.60|0.00025
95787729|NCT02358031|191545568|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the twelfth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.80|0.53|0.00002
95787730|NCT02358031|191545569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the eleventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.82|0.45|0.00044
95787731|NCT02358031|191545570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in all participants of the control arm to address the third primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.53|1.09|0.99830
95787732|NCT02358031|191545571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.8958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the second primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||1.36|0.94|0.89580
95787733|NCT02358031|191545572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.46791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the first primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||1.29|0.76|0.46791
95787734|NCT02358031|191545573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.01985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in all participants of the control arm to address the tenth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.99|0.70|0.01985
95787735|NCT02358031|191545574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm to address the eighth primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, HPV status and PD-L1 status.||0.90|0.61|0.00133
95787736|NCT02358031|191545575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG and HPV status.|Regression, Cox|||OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm to address the seventh primary hypothesis. The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG and HPV status.||0.78|0.44|0.00010
95814210|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||||||Immune response to Men A when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||10|1|
95814211|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Immune response to Men C when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|-6|
95814212|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.0||||||Immune response to Men W when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||-10|-21|
95957833|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104.||1.82|-3.92|0.463
95814213|NCT00518180|191600272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immunogenicity of MenACWY given after Tdap was considered non inferior to the immunogenicity of MenACWY administered alone, if, for each serogroup, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentage of subjects with seroresponse at one month after MenACWY vaccination (PGroup III minus PGroup II) was greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0||||||Immune response to Men Y when MenACWY is administered 1 month after Tdap, compared with the immune response to MenACWY when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-9|
95843725|NCT04491136|191654995|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||At least one SVT occurred||||>0.9999
95843726|NCT04491136|191654995|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||At least one NSVT occurred||||0.7905
95843727|NCT04491136|191654995|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||At least one PVC occurred||||0.6250
95843728|NCT04491136|191654997|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||3.70|1.11|0.0008
95957834|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104.||3.94|-6.74|0.598
95957835|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.94||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||1.03|-6.92|0.142
95957836|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|4.59|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||4.59|-6.26|0.757
95787737|NCT02358031|191545582|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-0.8||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.2||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||7.2|-8.7|0.5740
95787738|NCT02358031|191545583|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|0.5||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||9.1|-8.2|0.4586
95787739|NCT02358031|191545584|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|5.0||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|17.4||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||17.4|-7.5|0.2161
95787740|NCT02358031|191545585|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|4.26||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||4.26|-3.46|0.839
95787741|NCT02358031|191545586|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.94|0.9497
95787742|NCT02358031|191545587|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.02||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.02|0.93|0.9476
95787743|NCT02358031|191545588|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.59||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.59|0.69|0.5836
95787744|NCT02358031|191545595|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-19.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-12.1||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in all participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in all participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive , Not Strongly Positive).||-12.1|-25.8|1.0000
95787745|NCT02358031|191545596|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-15.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-8.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||-8.3|-23.4|1.0000
95787746|NCT02358031|191545597|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-12.8||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-1.5||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥20 participants of the control arm. The comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1) and HPV status (Positive vs. Negative).||-1.5|-23.8|0.9869
95787747|NCT02358031|191545598|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.24||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Change from baseline to Week 15 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction, stratification factors (ECOG \[0 vs. 1\], HPV status \[Positive vs. Negative\] and PD-L1 TPS status \[Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive\]) as covariates.||3.82|-3.34|0.893
95957837|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.50|-5.03|0.500
95787748|NCT02358031|191545599|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||2.00|0.95|0.9530
95843729|NCT04491136|191654998|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Ridit analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5733
95957838|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.23|-6.09|0.353
95957839|NCT00874497|191888104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole region of the lung at Week 104.||2.40|-5.43|0.438
95787749|NCT02358031|191545600|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.21||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Pain Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.21|0.53|0.1501
95787750|NCT02358031|191545601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.8751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.88||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox|||TTD in EORTC QLQ-H\&N35 Swallowing Score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the control arm. Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG (0 vs. 1), HPV status (Positive vs. Negative) and PD-L1 TPS status (Strongly Positive, Not Strongly Positive).||1.88|0.85|0.8751
95787751|NCT00511173|191545610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in warfarin dose (mg/wk) between pharmacist dosing and algorithm dosing. In order to gather all SNP groups, the power analysis resulted in \> 100 patients enrolled into each group.||||< 0.05
95787752|NCT03569098|191545649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.7669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.19||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Dysport 300 U versus Placebo.||1.19|-0.55|0.7669
95787753|NCT03569098|191545649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51||One-sided P-value. The model includes the fixed categorical effects of treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and the stratification factor as fixed categorical covariates and the Baseline value as a fixed continuous covariate.|MMRM|||Dysport 500 U versus Placebo.||0.51|-1.24|0.2085
95787754|NCT00758498|191545666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.71|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||3.71|2.07|<0.0001
95787755|NCT00758498|191545666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|7.69|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a factor and baseline value was a co-variate||||7.69|6.06|<0.0001
95787756|NCT00758498|191545667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.25|||ANOVA|||||0.25|-0.20|0.8341
95787757|NCT00758498|191545667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.50|0.0441
95787758|NCT00758498|191545668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95787759|NCT00758498|191545668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95787760|NCT00758498|191545669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons made use of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0012
95787761|NCT00758498|191545669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis by ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95787762|NCT00758498|191545670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as covariate|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95787763|NCT00758498|191545670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95787764|NCT00758498|191545671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||0.0022
95957840|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|351487.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219976.0|922951.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper region of the lung at Week 104.||922951|-219976|0.220
95787765|NCT00758498|191545671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons was based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline as a covariate||||||0.0033
95787766|NCT00758498|191545677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95787767|NCT00758498|191545677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95787768|NCT00758498|191545678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95787769|NCT00758498|191545678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is based on ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95787770|NCT00758498|191545679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95787771|NCT00758498|191545679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of treatment comparisons is from an ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95787772|NCT00758498|191545681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8262|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8262
95787773|NCT00758498|191545681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0040
95787774|NCT00758498|191545682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9595
95957841|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|103036.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37651.0|243723.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle region of the lung at Week 104||243723|-37651|0.146
95957842|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|247358.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252728.0|747444.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower region of the lung at Week 104||747444|-252728|0.322
95957843|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|362384.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126518.0|851286.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper region of the lung at Week 104.||851286|-126518|0.141
95999815|NCT00754390|191975494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium does not affect zinc absorption||||0.17
95999816|NCT00754390|191975494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary Phytate does not affect zinc absorption||||0.0002
95787775|NCT00758498|191545682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|||||0.3539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3539
95787776|NCT00758498|191545683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1038
95787777|NCT00758498|191545683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8112|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8112
95787778|NCT03782987|191545696|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%) (T/ R)|649.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|541.29|779.29|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||779.29|541.29|
95787779|NCT03782987|191545697|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|166.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.42|187.64|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||187.64|148.42|
95787780|NCT03782987|191545698|OTHER||gMean ratio (%) (T/ R)|931.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|785.19|1104.85|||||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA. Standard error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV).|Statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including 'subjects' as random effect and 'treatment' as fixed effect.||1104.85|785.19|
95787781|NCT02781818|191545714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95787782|NCT02781818|191545714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95787783|NCT02781818|191545715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
95787784|NCT02781818|191545715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95787785|NCT02781818|191545716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95787786|NCT02781818|191545716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
95787787|NCT01877668|191545717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|30.21|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR)=non-response (NR)||||30.21|4.06|0.0102
95787788|NCT01877668|191545717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.22|40.26|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||40.26|14.22|<0.0001
95787789|NCT01877668|191545717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|31.66|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||31.66|5.45|0.0055
95787790|NCT01877668|191545718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06173||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|-0.0483|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0483|-0.2910|0.0062
95787791|NCT01877668|191545718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06184||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3411|-0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0980|-0.3411|0.0004
95787792|NCT01877668|191545718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06145||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3213|-0.0797|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation.||||-0.0797|-0.3213|0.0012
95787793|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071225
95787794|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092027
95787795|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.601716
95787796|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639911
95787797|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.842476
95787798|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999941|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999941
95787799|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883479
95787800|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.782208
95787801|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.607134
95787802|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.939549
95787803|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86475
95787804|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704759
95787805|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999989
95787806|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997568
95787807|NCT03365934|191545757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999518
95787808|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985332
95787809|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95787810|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870459
95787811|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004963
95787812|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071935
95787813|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988995
95787814|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.545378
95787815|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000649
95787816|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014600
95999817|NCT00754390|191975494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Two-way mixed model analysis of variance was used to test for main effect of dietary calcium and phytate and their interaction. Null Hypothesis: Dietary calcium and dietary phytate do not affect zinc absorption. Eight women were required to detect a difference in zinc absorption of 7 percentage points with a power of 90%, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.09
95999818|NCT05248945|191975565|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.26|18.9||||||||18.90|13.26|
95787817|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854566|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854566
95787818|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004322|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004322
95787819|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0651
95814214|NCT00518180|191600273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to diphteria antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||4|1|
95814215|NCT00518180|191600273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, was demonstrated for the diphteria and tetanus antigens if the lower limits of the two-sided 95% CIs around the difference in the percentages of subjects with ELISA anti-D toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL \[Group I minus Group III\] were greater than -10%.|Vaccine Group differences (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to tetanus antigen, when Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Differences.||1|-1|
95814216|NCT00518180|191600282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap is administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PT antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.9|0.72|
95814217|NCT00518180|191600282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alone, for PRN antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.81|0.58|
95814218|NCT00518180|191600282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tdap concomitant with MenACWY a was considered non inferior to Tdap alone if, for PT, FHA and pertactin, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the GMCs (GMC Group I / GMC Group III) at 1 month after vaccination was \> 0.67.|Vaccine Group Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.76||||||Non inferiority of the immune response to Tdap when administered concomitantly with MenACWY and HPV, compared with the immune response to Tdap when administered alon, for FHA antigen. Method: ANCOVA. Parameter estimate: Vaccine Group Ratio.||0.76|0.58|
95814219|NCT03060902|191600301|SUPERIORITY||F|10.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
95814220|NCT01538199|191600306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|We used a modified intent-to-treat approach with LOCF and unpaired Student's t-test (one-way), comparing the change in total severity score.||||||0.04
95814221|NCT01538199|191600306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Modified intent-to-treat approach with lost observation carried forward (LOCF) and a two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score.||||||0.08
95814222|NCT01538199|191600306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.01
95814223|NCT01538199|191600306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test to compare the change in total severity score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after).||||0.02
95814224|NCT01538199|191600306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||By means of a paired t-test we tested the significance of the change in the mean HAM-D17 total score (from baseline) to week 8. Although the primary comparison was with the last assessment (week 8). A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was also performed to account for one missing value at week 8.||||0.004
95814225|NCT01538199|191600309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|Last observation carried forward (LOCF), one tailed t-test to compare change in QIDS score.||||||0.18
95814226|NCT01538199|191600309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 1 sided|One-tailed t-test to measure the change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.01
95843730|NCT04491136|191654999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-231.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.03||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-415.9|-47.02|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||-47.02|-415.90|0.0006
95843731|NCT04491136|191655001|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one shock||||>0.9999
95787820|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.300536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.300536
95787821|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.753883
95787822|NCT03365934|191545758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97621
95787823|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027774
95787824|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08431|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08431
95787825|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049247
95787826|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000126
95787827|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010829
95957844|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|294202.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303329.0|891733.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower region of the lung at Week 104.||891733|-303329|0.325
95787828|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787829|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787830|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95814227|NCT01538199|191600309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p≤0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed t-test measuring change in QIDS score for treatment completers.||This analysis includes only treatment completers (participants who who were followed for the entire 8-week study period and who received a clinical assessment immediately after). One treatment completer in Group 1 was excluded because they consistently skipped several answers across self-rated scales for the duration of the study.||||0.02
95814228|NCT03358030|191600321|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 12 through Day 260||||<0.05
95814229|NCT03358030|191600321|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Day 15 through Day 232||||<0.05
95814230|NCT03358030|191600322|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 15 through Day 176||||< 0.05
95814231|NCT03358030|191600322|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test based on t approximation||Day 12 through Day 176||||< 0.05
95814232|NCT00833521|191600347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|91.1||||||90.0|86.3|96.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||96.1|86.3|
95957845|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|575882.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439692.0|1591457.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1591457|-439692|0.258
95787831|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95814233|NCT00833521|191600348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.0||||||90.0|91.0|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|91.0|
95814234|NCT00833521|191600349|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Ratio of Geometric Means|96.8||||||90.0|90.7|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|90.7|
95814235|NCT03449576|191600360|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.3846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5525||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the CAPS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4154
95814236|NCT03449576|191600361|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.267397|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362521||0.4636|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the SAS-SR score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and Treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.4636
95814237|NCT03449576|191600362|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8791||0.735129|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the PCL score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.735129
95814238|NCT03449576|191600363|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.64908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76601||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the AQ score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.580
95814239|NCT03449576|191600364|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3946|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7193||0.808|TWO_SIDED|||||This P value is the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Regression, Linear||This is the beta value for the interaction term between Visit and Treatment.|Test of prediction of dependent variable -- the ITS score-- with the interaction between Visit (pre/post) and treatment type (TMT vs. EXP+EDU), as well as independent variable, age||||0.808
95787832|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999533
95787833|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4205363|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4205363
95787834|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9802252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9802252
95787835|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6845362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6845362
95787836|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9992002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9992002
95787837|NCT03365934|191545759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8562779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8562779
95787838|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0403539
95787839|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2953049
95787840|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.290551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290551
95787841|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.47e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000247
95787842|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0133001
95787843|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.67e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000167
95787844|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.12e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000212
95787845|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95814240|NCT00404248|191600381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.9|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95843732|NCT04491136|191655001|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||Occurrence of at least one ATP event||||0.0654
95957846|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|589373.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426928.0|1605673.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole region of the lung at Week 104.||1605673|-426928|0.247
95957847|NCT00874497|191888105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1156318.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-855009.0|3167645.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region of the lung at Week 104.||3167645|-855009|0.251
95999819|NCT05248945|191975566|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|17.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.59|21.33||||||||21.33|13.59|
95814241|NCT00404248|191600382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95814242|NCT00404248|191600383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95814243|NCT00253422|191600386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.86|0.76
95814244|NCT00253422|191600386|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.83|1.00
95814245|NCT00253422|191600387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95814246|NCT00253422|191600387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
95814247|NCT00253422|191600389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95814248|NCT00253422|191600389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
95814249|NCT00253422|191600391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favour Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.21|0.84|0.95
95814250|NCT00253422|191600391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + placebo|||1.25|0.87|0.66
95814251|NCT00253422|191600392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Arimidex|||1.19|0.82|0.91
95814252|NCT00253422|191600392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||Log Rank||HR less than 1 favours Faslodex + Placebo|||1.32|0.91|0.31
95814253|NCT05788991|191600394|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference of proportions between groups (with 95% CI) and a non inferiority margin of 15 percentage points, assuming a 1-sided α = .025 and 80% power|Farrington-Manning test|-0.5|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|||1 sided alpha|Farrington-Manning test|||The outcome measure of the primary objective was a noninferiority margin of 15 percentage points in the absolute difference in clinical cure rates between dequalinium chloride and metronidazole 7 to 11 days after start of treatment.|||-10.8|<.025
95814254|NCT03802396|191600401|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95814255|NCT03802396|191600402|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.116
95814256|NCT03802396|191600402|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.388
95814257|NCT03802396|191600403|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.569
95814258|NCT03802396|191600403|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.047
95814259|NCT03802396|191600404|OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.498
95814260|NCT03802396|191600404|OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.745
95814261|NCT03802396|191600405|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 24 hours||||0.177
95814262|NCT03802396|191600405|OTHER|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to 6 weeks||||0.478
95814263|NCT03802396|191600406|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
95814264|NCT03802396|191600408|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.41|0.286
95814265|NCT03802396|191600409|OTHER|||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
95814266|NCT00163293|191600410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6625||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.6625
95814267|NCT00163293|191600410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7303||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7303
95814268|NCT00163293|191600411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.1291
95814269|NCT00163293|191600411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|zero inflated Poisson model: adjustment for centre and age \[yrs\] (zero model), treatment and race (Poisson model)||||||0.0145
95814270|NCT00163293|191600413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4754
95814271|NCT00163293|191600413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6844|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6844
95814272|NCT01343888|191600480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.0||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.0|17.9|<0.0001
95814273|NCT01343888|191600480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's methond|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|38.2||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||38.2|19.0|<0.0001
95814274|NCT01343888|191600480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.8|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||5.8|-7.9|
95814275|NCT01343888|191600481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|36.7||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||36.7|17.5|<0.0001
95814276|NCT01343888|191600481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.4||adjusted for genotype and race|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||37.4|18.2|<0.0001
95814277|NCT01343888|191600481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Koch's method|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.3|||||adjusted for genotype and race using Koch's method, with continuity correction|||6.3|-7.6|
95814278|NCT01008618|191600513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0846
95814279|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for FACT-B 3 month Total Score||4.05|-4.48|0.92
95814280|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|1.37||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for FACT-B 6 month Total Score||6.15|-3.41|0.57
95843733|NCT02756572|191655019|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95843734|NCT02756572|191655020|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95843735|NCT02756572|191655021|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
95999820|NCT05248945|191975589|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|14.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|17.82||||||||17.82|12.60|
95999821|NCT05248945|191975592|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|49.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.93|54.9||||||||54.90|44.93|
95787846|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787847|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99999995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99999995
95787848|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0792013
95787849|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870163
95787850|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103828|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.103828
95787851|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.900265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900265
95814281|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|5.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Total Score||5.89|-3.54|0.62
95814282|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.23|-0.99|0.83
95814283|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.45|-1.15|0.82
95814284|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||Data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Physical Well-Being Subscale||1.15|-1.41|0.84
95814285|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.96|-1.31|0.77
95814286|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.56||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||0.79|-1.91|0.42
95843736|NCT02756572|191655022|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95999822|NCT05248945|191975593|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|49.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.79|54.51||||||||54.51|44.79|
95787852|NCT03365934|191545760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.570015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.570015
95787853|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882449
95787854|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088558
95787855|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081846
95787856|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787857|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.03e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000303
95787858|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001817
95787859|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001825|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001825
95787860|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787861|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787862|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
95787863|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038836
95787864|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184508
95787865|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062829
95787866|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.253458
95999823|NCT05248945|191975594|OTHER||Ratio of test and reference treatment|69.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.34|80.4||||||||80.40|60.34|
95787867|NCT03365934|191545761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987798
95787868|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516068
95787869|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358412
95787870|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834145
95787871|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000035
95787872|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000843
95787873|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002997
95787874|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051717
95787875|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787876|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787877|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985602
95957848|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|193.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||193.8|-38.0|0.181
95787878|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046422
95787879|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28061
95787880|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011015
95787881|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089156
95787882|NCT03365934|191545762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963882
95787883|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00526
95787884|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95814287|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Social/Family Well-Being Subscale||1.24|-1.41|0.90
95787885|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.914409
95787886|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013004
95787887|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028517|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028517
95787888|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001356
95787889|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||5.9e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000059
95787890|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787891|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787892|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.859272
95787893|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002821
95787894|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007492
95787895|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208803
95787896|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341884
95787897|NCT03365934|191545763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999531|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999531
95787898|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066788
95787899|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942653
95957849|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|36.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (RV) at Week 104.||36.9|-48.8|0.781
95787900|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893545|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.893545
95787901|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165225
95787902|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.140475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140475
95787903|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002026
95787904|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001916
95787905|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787906|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787907|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999957|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999957
95787908|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672573
95787909|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.630145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.630145
95787910|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832757|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832757
95787911|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803277|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.803277
95787912|NCT03365934|191545764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95787913|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.943522
95787914|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002376
95787915|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787916|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787917|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787918|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061015
95787919|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000211
95787920|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787921|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95787922|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412626
95787923|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104388
95787924|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197791
95787925|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994413|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994413
95787926|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
95787927|NCT03365934|191545765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999621|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999621
95787928|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193667
95787929|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526573
95787930|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.898749
95787931|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.975044
95787932|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.760706|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.760706
95787933|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.985237
95787934|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837995|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837995
95787935|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592697
95957850|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.7||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-77.8|0.445
95787936|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912495
95787937|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99245
95787938|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.925553
95787939|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999171
95787940|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999324
95787941|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999913
95814288|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||0.87|-0.76|0.90
95814289|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.58||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact B 6 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.56|-0.40|0.25
95814290|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Emotional Well-Being Subscale||1.57|-0.36|0.22
95814291|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.14||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 3 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.34|-1.05|0.81
95814292|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.54||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for Fact-B 6 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.94|-0.85|0.45
95787942|NCT03365934|191545766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990516
95787943|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92106|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92106
95787944|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.976812
95787945|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.233992
95787946|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007591|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007591
95787947|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038958
95787948|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99809
95787949|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773028
95787950|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135805
95787951|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.350556|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350556
95787952|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61046
95787953|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062163
95787954|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203418
95787955|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.942304
95787956|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995238
95787957|NCT03365934|191545767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99858
95787958|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998949
95787959|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111084|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111084
95787960|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456846|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.456846
95787961|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00062
95787962|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006871
95787963|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039407|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039407
95787964|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245375|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.245375
95787965|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
95787966|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001612
95787967|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988067
95787968|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.599171
95787969|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928722|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928722
95787970|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256079
95787971|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626498|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626498
95787972|NCT03365934|191545768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988693
95787973|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99916
95787974|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016246
95787975|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.289112
95787976|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.8e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000038
95843737|NCT01712204|191655047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Possion regression|||||1.07|0.62|0.1356
95957851|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.6||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|173.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (RV) at Week 104.||173.2|-48.1|0.259
95957852|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.6|169.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (RV) at Week 104.||169.6|-105.6|0.639
95861248|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|5.09||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||5.09|3.99|<0.001
95957853|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.3||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.9|350.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||350.5|-145.9|0.408
95787977|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014558
95787978|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03731
95787979|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.465745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465745
95787980|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000112|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000112
95787981|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034575
95787982|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889597
95787983|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726932
95787984|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999998
95787985|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.130235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130235
95787986|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.910989|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.910989
95787987|NCT03365934|191545769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.616933
95787988|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999952
95787989|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421347
95787990|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.598141
95787991|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000197
95787992|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000115
95787993|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.511155
95787994|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693868
95787995|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000232|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000232
95787996|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000133
95787997|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999894
95787998|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078046
95787999|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054975|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054975
95788000|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050132
95788001|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034793
95788002|NCT03365934|191545770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
95788003|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997406
95788004|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354187
95788005|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883222
95788006|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000412
95788007|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000332
95788008|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626878
95788009|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.984465
95788010|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001845|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001845
95788011|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001507
95788012|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.970029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.970029
95788013|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19886
95788014|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.177549
95788015|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041698
95788016|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036131
95788017|NCT03365934|191545771|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95788018|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95788019|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.317315
95788020|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.829352
95788021|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010561
95788022|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001099
95788023|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175148|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175148
95788024|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728796|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.728796
95788025|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001992
95788026|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000113
95788027|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974567
95788028|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668933
95788029|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239446
95788030|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.283848
95788031|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06829
95957854|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.8|309.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||309.2|-138.8|0.445
95957855|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|187.6||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.6|654.8|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (RV) at Week 104.||654.8|-279.6|0.421
95957856|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|159.9|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right upper lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||159.9|-58.5|0.353
95788032|NCT03365934|191545772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.979516
95788033|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996522
95788034|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875832
95788035|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938
95788036|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038527
95788037|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018334
95788038|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512209
95788039|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.665529
95788040|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002257
95788041|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000728|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000728
95788042|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999993
95788043|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.417914
95788044|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277469
95861249|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|6.85||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.85|4.81|<0.001
95788045|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385419|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385419
95788046|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257647
95788047|NCT03365934|191545773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999897
95788048|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.862516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.862516
95788049|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00473
95788050|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.085238
95788051|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95788052|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95788053|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.168409
95788054|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652654
95788055|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001436|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001436
95788056|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000235
95788057|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974842|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974842
95788058|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557877|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.557877
95788059|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.277244
95788060|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195527
95788061|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.070843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.070843
95788062|NCT03365934|191545774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997565
95788063|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016628
95788064|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217862
95788065|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.812915
95788066|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999971
95788067|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275557|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.275557
95788068|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.870124|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.870124
95788069|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.380144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.380144
95788070|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029518
95788071|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.815476
95788072|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944307|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.944307
95788073|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.313389
95788074|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999996
95788075|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894272|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894272
95788076|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969093|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969093
95788077|NCT03365934|191545775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.383434
95788078|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393119|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.393119
95788079|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.890335|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890335
95788080|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021978
95788081|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000983
95788082|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006615
95788083|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.951883
95788084|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.692455
95788085|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.257254
95788086|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.530181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.530181
95788087|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.219274
95788088|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029675|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029675
95788089|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111454
95788090|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995849
95788091|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999994|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999994
95788092|NCT03365934|191545776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998744|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998744
95788093|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999858
95788094|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.215132
95788095|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958812|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958812
95788096|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00622
95788097|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017733
95788098|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.330576|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.330576
95788099|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.990334
95788100|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013025
95788101|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034707
95788102|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.771698
95788103|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.790117|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790117
95788104|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923224
95788105|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112245
95788106|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216229
95788107|NCT03365934|191545777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999663
95788108|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91874
95788109|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013582
95788110|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.523284
95788111|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000315
95788112|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059485
95788113|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15037
95788114|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967277|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.967277
95788115|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008729
95788116|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421603
95788117|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647267
95788118|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953645
95788119|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987387
95788120|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147361
95788121|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.930371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.930371
95788122|NCT03365934|191545778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6094
95788123|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99253|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99253
95788124|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795279
95788125|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855067
95788126|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003915
95788127|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000221
95788128|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97816
95788129|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98972|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98972
95788130|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01764
95788131|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001185
95788132|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
95788133|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.119961
95788134|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013468
95788135|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.112192
95788136|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013135
95788137|NCT03365934|191545779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965966|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965966
95788138|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.968005
95788139|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.526293
95788140|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994384|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.994384
95788141|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004967
95788142|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000948
95788143|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.936394
95788144|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999945|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999945
95788145|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.050032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050032
95788146|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01256
95788147|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886978
95788148|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391295
95788149|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163678
95788150|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047937
95788151|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013231
95788152|NCT03365934|191545780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996358
95788153|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995862|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995862
95788154|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223341
95788155|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.834338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.834338
95788156|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.030267|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030267
95788157|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00104
95788158|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.377217
95788159|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965547
95788160|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052284
95788161|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001348
95788162|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927936
95788163|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.946487
95788164|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.327918
95788165|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475038
95788166|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.060057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.060057
95788167|NCT03365934|191545781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.857177
95788168|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999997|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999997
95788169|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.938793
95788170|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.965993
95788171|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057803
95788172|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022816
95788173|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945179
95788174|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.972522
95788175|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033704
95788176|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.010747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010747
95788177|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999999
95788178|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385474
95788179|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213798|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213798
95788180|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388682
95788181|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22386
95814293|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.11||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Functional Well-Being Subscale||1.26|-1.48|0.87
95788182|NCT03365934|191545782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999494
95788183|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891244
95788184|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022659
95788185|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693615
95788186|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000237
95788187|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||5e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000005
95788188|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352008
95788189|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998761|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998761
95788190|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017832
95788191|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000974
95788192|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638238
95788193|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.777423
95788194|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.249909
95861250|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.46|20.03||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||20.03|13.46|<0.001
95788195|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068196
95788196|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005786
95788197|NCT03365934|191545783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954163
95788198|NCT03365934|191545785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1279|-1.8688|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-1.8688|-13.1279|0.009
95788199|NCT03365934|191545785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7083|0.5508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.5508|-10.7083|0.077
95788200|NCT03365934|191545785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0399|3.2192|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||3.2192|-8.0399|0.399
95788201|NCT03365934|191545785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9144|6.3446|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||6.3446|-4.9144|0.802
95788202|NCT03365934|191545786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3738|-5.3723|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-5.3723|-17.3738|<0.001
95788203|NCT03365934|191545786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6789|-6.6775|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-6.6775|-18.6789|<0.001
95788204|NCT03365934|191545786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9571|4.0444|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||4.0444|-7.9571|0.521
95788205|NCT03365934|191545786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3925|14.394|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||14.3940|2.3925|0.006
95788206|NCT03365934|191545787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3967|-22.2538|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-22.2538|-41.3967|<0.001
95788207|NCT03365934|191545787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8727|-17.7298|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-17.7298|-36.8727|<0.001
95788208|NCT03365934|191545787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2784|-4.1355|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-4.1355|-23.2784|0.005
95788209|NCT03365934|191545787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.847||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4969|19.6398|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||19.6398|0.4969|0.039
95788210|NCT03365934|191545788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0324|-29.7496|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-29.7496|-51.0324|<0.001
95788211|NCT03365934|191545788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4787|-27.1959|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-27.1959|-48.4787|<0.001
95788212|NCT03365934|191545788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6336|-10.3508|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-10.3508|-31.6336|<0.001
95788213|NCT03365934|191545788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8871|19.3957|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||19.3957|-1.8871|0.106
95788214|NCT03365934|191545789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3249|-22.4838|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-22.4838|-43.3249|<0.001
95788215|NCT03365934|191545789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7279|-16.8868|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-16.8868|-37.7279|<0.001
95788216|NCT03365934|191545789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1785|-8.3374|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-8.3374|-29.1785|<0.001
95788217|NCT03365934|191545789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.276||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6303|17.2107|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||17.2107|-3.6303|0.200
95788218|NCT03365934|191545790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5325|-22.265|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-22.2650|-39.5325|<0.001
95788219|NCT03365934|191545790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9669|-16.6993|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-16.6993|-33.9669|<0.001
95788220|NCT03365934|191545790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2588|-11.9912|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-11.9912|-29.2588|<0.001
95788221|NCT03365934|191545790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.362|12.9055|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||12.9055|-4.3620|0.330
95788222|NCT03365934|191545791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.368|-6.5419|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-6.5419|-21.3680|<0.001
95788223|NCT03365934|191545791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9563|-4.1302|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-4.1302|-18.9563|0.002
95788224|NCT03365934|191545791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4867|-2.6606|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-2.6606|-17.4867|0.008
95788225|NCT03365934|191545791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.754||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5447|14.2814|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||14.2814|-0.5447|0.069
95788226|NCT03365934|191545792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1631|3.6504|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||3.6504|-9.1631|0.397
95788227|NCT03365934|191545792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6006|7.2129|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||7.2129|-5.6006|0.804
95788228|NCT03365934|191545792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7231|-2.9096|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-2.9096|-15.7231|0.005
95788229|NCT03365934|191545792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.244||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3452|6.4683|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||6.4683|-6.3452|0.985
95788230|NCT03365934|191545794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.0458|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0458|-0.1290|0.348
95957857|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|55.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right middle lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||55.0|-35.3|0.660
95957858|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.7|132.1|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||132.1|-110.7|0.859
95788231|NCT03365934|191545794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1904|-0.0178|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||-0.0178|-0.1904|0.019
95788232|NCT03365934|191545794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1437|0.0278|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.0278|-0.1437|0.183
95788233|NCT03365934|191545794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0725|0.1023|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 1||0.1023|-0.0725|0.736
95788234|NCT03365934|191545795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.0687|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0687|-0.1360|0.516
95788235|NCT03365934|191545795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2459|-0.0412|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||-0.0412|-0.2459|0.006
95788236|NCT03365934|191545795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1235|0.0798|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.0798|-0.1235|0.671
95788237|NCT03365934|191545795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0504|0.2578|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 2||0.2578|0.0504|0.004
95788238|NCT03365934|191545796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1896|0.0579|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0579|-0.1896|0.292
95788239|NCT03365934|191545796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2773|-0.0297|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||-0.0297|-0.2773|0.016
95788240|NCT03365934|191545796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1622|0.0853|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.0853|-0.1622|0.538
95788241|NCT03365934|191545796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.2515|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 3||0.2515|-0.0059|0.061
95788242|NCT03365934|191545797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3265|-0.0895|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.0895|-0.3265|0.001
95788243|NCT03365934|191545797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3614|-0.1243|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||-0.1243|-0.3614|<0.001
95814294|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.16||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 3 month Breast Cancer Subscale||1.45|-1.13|0.80
95861251|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.39|||<|0.001||95.0|2.97|3.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||3.87|2.97|<0.001
95788244|NCT03365934|191545797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0471|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.0471|-0.1899|0.236
95788245|NCT03365934|191545797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0902|0.1492|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 4||0.1492|-0.0902|0.627
95788246|NCT03365934|191545798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3331|-0.1305|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1305|-0.3331|<0.001
95788247|NCT03365934|191545798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3091|-0.1092|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.1092|-0.3091|<0.001
95788248|NCT03365934|191545798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2439|-0.0457|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||-0.0457|-0.2439|0.005
95788249|NCT03365934|191545798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0197|0.2252|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 5||0.2252|0.0197|0.020
95788250|NCT03365934|191545799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4019|-0.2044|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.2044|-0.4019|<0.001
95788251|NCT03365934|191545799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3655|-0.1679|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1679|-0.3655|<0.001
95788252|NCT03365934|191545799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3338|-0.1377|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||-0.1377|-0.3338|<0.001
95788253|NCT03365934|191545799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0767|0.1231|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 6||0.1231|-0.0767|0.646
95788254|NCT03365934|191545800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2254|-0.0384|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0384|-0.2254|0.006
95788255|NCT03365934|191545800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|-0.0574|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0574|-0.2444|0.002
95814295|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.73||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 6 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.24|-0.79|0.35
95814296|NCT02941614|191600535|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects.||The data below is for the Fact-B 12 month Breast Cancer Subscale||2.09|-0.88|0.42
95814297|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction.|see above|-0.03||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.09||We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data below is for the BCPT survey 3 month Total Score.||0.09|-0.15|0.59
95814298|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Total Score||0.19|-0.09|0.47
95814299|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Total Score||0.07|-0.20|0.37
95814300|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.05||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.17|-0.26|0.65
95814301|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.17|0.54
95814302|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Hot Flashes Sub-Scale||0.22|-0.27|0.87
95814303|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.06||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.17|0.32
95814304|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.14|-0.15|0.96
95999824|NCT01494038|191975605|NON_INFERIORITY|Calculate the difference between the immediate arm incidence rate and the deferred arm incidence rate; if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is lower than a 5% difference in incidence rates, non-inferiority will be considered to be proven.|Incidence rate difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|4.98||||||||4.98|-4.77|
95788256|NCT03365934|191545800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2541|-0.0682|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||-0.0682|-0.2541|0.001
95788257|NCT03365934|191545800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0891|0.0998|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 7||0.0998|-0.0891|0.911
95788258|NCT03365934|191545801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0818|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #1 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0818|0.937
95788259|NCT03365934|191545801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1663|-0.0108|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #2 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0108|-0.1663|0.026
95788260|NCT03365934|191545801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1562|-0.0017|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #3 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||-0.0017|-0.1562|0.045
95788261|NCT03365934|191545801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0799|0.0755|||ANCOVA|||Interpretation of between-treatment comparison between Wounded Uncovered group vs Product #4 group based on the change from baseline at Day 14||0.0755|-0.0799|0.956
95788262|NCT02485483|191545810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.74||"Convergent Validity Criterion Correlation coefficient (ρ) \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 221||0.74|0.59|<0.001
95788263|NCT02485483|191545810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||0.76|0.62|<0.001
95788264|NCT02485483|191545811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.58||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 203||0.66|0.48|0.057
95788265|NCT02485483|191545811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between PHQ-9 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 200||0.80|0.67|<0.001
95788266|NCT02485483|191545812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.79||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 258||0.79|0.67|<0.001
95788267|NCT02485483|191545813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.77||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between BDI-II and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 214||0.77|0.64|<0.001
95788268|NCT02485483|191545814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.59||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.49||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.49|-0.67|0.034
95788269|NCT02485483|191545814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.52||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 223||-0.52|-0.68|0.010
95788270|NCT02485483|191545814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.66||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 222||-0.66|-0.78|<0.001
95788271|NCT02485483|191545815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.54||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.43||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and MADRS|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 202||-0.43|-0.63|0.219
95788272|NCT02485483|191545815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.6||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and BDI-II|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 199||-0.60|-0.75|<0.001
95788273|NCT02485483|191545815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.7||"Convergent Validity Criterion ρ \> \|0.50\|"|t-test, 2 sided||Convergent correlation between WHO-5 and PHQ-9|Number of participants analyzed (N) = 205||-0.70|-0.82|<0.001
95788274|NCT00619827|191545848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-2.99|0.0003
95788275|NCT01063855|191545849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.542||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, PDE5I stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as cofactors and baseline Average IELT as a covariate.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm minus PDE5I + Placebo arm difference.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observations carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \>0.||2.542|0.837|<0.001
95788276|NCT01063855|191545850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + placebo arm.|Null hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF). Alternative hypothesis: Difference at Week 12 LPOCF \> 0.||22.3|4.9|0.001
95788277|NCT01063855|191545851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.2||A hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type 1 error rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for type of PDE5I stratum, baseline average IELT stratum, and region.|Risk Difference (RD) = PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm - PDE5I + Placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF).||17.2|1.1|0.013
95999825|NCT01494038|191975606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.093
95999826|NCT01494038|191975608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.288
95999827|NCT01494038|191975609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.073
95999828|NCT01494038|191975610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.264
95788278|NCT01063855|191545852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.204|2.619||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis: PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.619|1.204|0.002
95788279|NCT01063855|191545853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|2.394||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carrried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||2.394|1.108|0.007
95788280|NCT01063855|191545854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.642|3.568||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.568|1.642|<0.001
95788281|NCT01063855|191545855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|1.965||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12 LPOCF.||1.965|0.897|>0.05
95788282|NCT01063855|191545856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|3.423||To properly adjust for multiplicity, a hierarchical (step-down) testing procedure with a priori ordered hypothesis was used to control the family-wise type I error was rate.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model included treatment, type of PDE5i stratum, baseline Average IELT stratum, and region, as factors.|Estimates are based on two-stage sequential analysis using information fraction based weighted test statistics for PDE5I + Dapoxetine arm over PDE5I + Placebo arm ratio.|Null Hypothesis: No difference at Week 12 last postbaseline observation carried forward (LPOCF) Alternative Hypothesis:- PDE5I + Dapoxetine is superior to PDE5I + Placebo with respect to the outcome measure at Week 12.||3.423|1.425|<0.001
95788283|NCT01165307|191545859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95788284|NCT01165307|191545860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 Physical Scale.||||0.82
95788285|NCT01165307|191545860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for the SF-12 mental scale.||||0.11
95788286|NCT01165307|191545861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95788287|NCT01165307|191545862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95788288|NCT01165307|191545863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95788289|NCT01165307|191545864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95788290|NCT01165307|191545865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95788291|NCT01165307|191545869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95788292|NCT02492802|191545871|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||The Wald Type III test|||||||0.77
95788293|NCT02683239|191545971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.159|-0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.293|-1.159|= 0.0010
95788294|NCT02683239|191545971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.646|< 0.0001
95788295|NCT02683239|191545971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.664|-0.793|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.793|-1.664|< 0.0001
95788296|NCT02683239|191545971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.606|-1.477|< 0.0001
95788297|NCT02683239|191545972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|-0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.309|-1.163|= 0.0007
95814305|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Nausea Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.21|0.32
95999829|NCT01494038|191975611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid-P adjustment||||||0.012
95788298|NCT02683239|191545972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|-0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.768|-1.624|< 0.0001
95788299|NCT02683239|191545972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|-0.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.822|-1.698|< 0.0001
95788300|NCT02683239|191545972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-0.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.695|-1.564|< 0.0001
95957859|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.5||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|141.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left upper lung region (TLC)at Week 104.||141.4|-38.4|0.253
95788301|NCT02683239|191545973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.028|-0.380|= 0.0230
95788302|NCT02683239|191545973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|-0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.093|-0.437|= 0.0025
95788303|NCT02683239|191545973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.145|-0.496|= 0.0003
95788304|NCT02683239|191545973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.118|-0.466|= 0.0010
95788305|NCT04391179|191546002|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation represents log-scale difference between average daily change in D-Dimer for Dipyridamole patients minus placebo average daily change. Negative estimates indicate that D-Dimer levels decline faster in Dipyridamole versus placebo patients.|||.023|-.089|0.24
95788306|NCT04391179|191546003|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|97.8|0.78|1.29|||Mantel Haenszel||win ratio= (the probability of a win for the dipyridamole patient)/(probability of a win for the placebo patient)|A win ratio analysis of the hierarchical composite outcome requiring direct comparison of outcomes between each dipyridamole patient and placebo patient. The patient with the superior outcome is adjudicated the 'winner' and receives a +1 score, while the 'loser' scores -1.||1.29|0.78|.98
95788307|NCT04391179|191546004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
95788308|NCT04391179|191546005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Log Rank|||||||.09
95788309|NCT04391179|191546006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.94|||regression, negative binomial||estimated ratio of days on mechanical ventilation for dipyridamole and placebo|||3.94|0.02|0.36
95788310|NCT04391179|191546007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.51|||Regression, Logistic||Odds of a 50 point drop in the dipyridamole group relative to the placebo group.|||2.51|0.43|.94
95788311|NCT04391179|191546008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.95
95861252|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|11.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|13.91||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||13.91|10.16|<0.001
95788312|NCT03280056|191546018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.798|||Chi-squared|||||2.798|0.632|0.453
95788313|NCT03280056|191546019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.395|||Chi-squared|||||2.395|0.416|0.997
95788314|NCT03280056|191546020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.926||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.20|-1.47|0.693
95788315|NCT03280056|191546021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.176||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|13.72|||ANCOVA|||||13.72|-10.65|0.804
95788316|NCT01004978|191546076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4
95788317|NCT01004978|191546077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
95788318|NCT00814138|191546084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-488.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2443.4|1467.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1467.3|-2443.4|0.26
95788319|NCT00814138|191546085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.8|-9.7|0.26
95788320|NCT00814138|191546086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.5|-4.9|0.29
95788321|NCT00814138|191546087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||1.8|-6.3|0.28
95788322|NCT00814138|191546088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||5.4|-7.2|0.82
95788323|NCT00814138|191546089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.8|-3.7|0.21
95788324|NCT00814138|191546090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||If a study participant terminated, their last results were pulled forward.||0.5|-7.1|0.09
95788325|NCT00875563|191546102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An exact test method (Sidik K. 2003, Statistics in Medicine 22: 265-278) for matched controls was used, at a type I error rate of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. 38 pairs of patients were determined necessary, and the power was calculated to be 0.92.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact test for matched pairs|||Patients treated with the Zenith® Fenestrated AAA Endovascular Graft were compared with matched patients treated with the Zenith® AAA Endovascular Graft.||||0.02
95788326|NCT00313846|191546105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||Kaplan-Meier estimate mean|||||||.0026
95788327|NCT04388176|191546171|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in treatment groups in the primary endpoint (log (AUC)) was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0146|||=|0.3801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9859|1.0442|||ANCOVA|||||1.0442|0.9859|=0.3801
95788328|NCT04388176|191546172|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|1.0346|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0086|1.0613|||ANCOVA|||||1.0613|1.0086|=0.0356
95957860|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.3||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|172.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left lower lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||172.6|-126.0|0.754
95957861|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.2||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.1|269.5|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of right whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||269.5|-145.1|0.546
95957862|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.9||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.5|285.3|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of left whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||285.3|-155.5|0.554
95814306|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.11|-0.24|0.44
95814307|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.30|-0.11|0.38
95814308|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.07||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is for the BCPT survey 12 month Bladder Control Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.28|0.47
95788329|NCT04388176|191546173|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Difference in least square means|-0.4991|||=|0.0154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8234|-0.1749|||ANCOVA|||Analysis at the 10 min point||-0.1749|-0.8234|=0.0154
95788330|NCT04388176|191546174|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1.|Ratio in least square means|0.8301|||=|0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6206|1.1102|||ANCOVA|||||1.1102|0.6206|=0.282
95788331|NCT04388176|191546175|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.3989|||=|0.3722|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1718|0.3739|||ANCOVA|||||0.3739|-1.1718|=0.3722
95788332|NCT04388176|191546176|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between treatment groups was to be detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.109|||=|0.4982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4074|0.1895|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy before cold||0.1895|-0.4074|=0.4982
95788333|NCT04388176|191546176|EQUIVALENCE|A difference between treatment groups was detected with a power of 90% and alpha=0.1|Difference in least square means|-0.0637|||=|0.6219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3037|0.1763|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of capillaroscopy post recovery||0.1763|-0.3037|=0.6219
95788334|NCT01689441|191546180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95814309|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.17||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.05|-0.39|0.13
95814310|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||-0.02|-0.55|0.03
95861253|NCT05569954|191681237|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PPSV23) being \>2.0 (one-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|6.87||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMT Ratio||6.87|5.54|<0.001
95999830|NCT01494038|191975614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||0.279
95999831|NCT01494038|191975615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||Fisher Exact|mid-P adjustment||||||.893
95788335|NCT01689441|191546181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95999832|NCT01494038|191975616|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.94|
95788336|NCT01689441|191546182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95788337|NCT01972464|191546185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.52||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for age (18-25 years versus \>25 years) and pre-quit smoking level (\<10 versus \>10 cigarettes per day)|OR represents of odds of abstinence in progesterone group versus placebo group|Null hypothesis- odds of week 8 point prevalence abstinence were equal between placebo and progesterone group.||6.52|0.48|0.39
95788338|NCT01972464|191546186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.38||a priori threshold = 0.05|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age and pre-quit smoking level|Hazard ratio is placebo / progesterone|||3.38|0.66|0.41
95788339|NCT01972464|191546187|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||general estimating equation|adjusted for age \& pre-quit smoking level; specified a gamma distribution, log link, autoregressive correlation structure|risk ratio is progesterone versus placebo|null hypothesis rate of change in QSU-brief scores were equal between treatment groups||0.96|0.86|<0.001
95788340|NCT01919164|191546191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.03|-0.01|
95788341|NCT01919164|191546191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.04|-0.01|
95788342|NCT01919164|191546191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.06|0.02|
95788343|NCT01919164|191546191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||Descriptive statistics was provided for primary endpoint.||0.07|0.03|
95788344|NCT03442725|191546201|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.297|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.805||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of Cmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||2.805|0.600|
95999833|NCT01494038|191975617|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||||1.07|-1.02|
95999834|NCT01494038|191975618|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|1.32||||||||1.32|-4.17|
95814311|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.19||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Vaginal Problems Sub-Scale||0.06|-0.45|0.14
95814312|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.28|-0.14|0.53
95957863|NCT00874497|191888106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|132.2||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.9|549.4|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of whole lung region (TLC) at Week 104.||549.4|-284.9|0.524
95814313|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.35|-0.16|0.47
95814314|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.07||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Musculoskeletal Pain Sub-Scale||0.33|-0.18|0.57
95814315|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.21|-0.18|0.85
95814316|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.32|-0.12|0.38
95814317|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.13||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Cognitive Problems Sub-Scale||0.09|-0.35|0.23
95814318|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.14||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.07|-0.35|0.18
95814319|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.13|-0.36|0.35
95814320|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|-0.12||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Weight Problems Sub-Scale||0.12|-0.36|0.34
95814321|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 3 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.25|-0.06|0.22
95814322|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.11||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 6 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.29|-0.08|0.26
95957864|NCT00874497|191888107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.07|0.5843
95957865|NCT00874497|191888108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.571|||ANCOVA|||||0.571|-0.073|0.1252
95957866|NCT00874497|191888109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1835||||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6892|0.3221|||ANCOVA|||||0.3221|-0.6892|0.4661
95957867|NCT00874497|191888110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-0.19|0.134
95957868|NCT00874497|191888111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sRaw||0.07|-1.50|0.074
95999835|NCT01494038|191975619|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.56||||||||0.56|-1.33|
95788345|NCT03442725|191546201|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.423|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|2.247||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.247|0.901|
95788346|NCT03442725|191546202|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for telotristat ethyl between test group versus the control group.||0.950|-1.000|0.7452
95788347|NCT03442725|191546202|OTHER|Estimate of the median difference and 90% CIs was determined by Hodges-Lehmann estimation.|Median Difference|0.0||||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of tmax for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||1.000|-1.000|0.7039
95788348|NCT03442725|191546204|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.506|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|2.48||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-inf for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.480|0.914|
95788349|NCT03442725|191546205|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.512|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|2.498||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlast for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||2.498|0.915|
95788350|NCT03442725|191546209|OTHER||Arithmetic Mean Difference|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.068||||||ANOVA comparison of fu of LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||0.068|-0.030|
95788351|NCT03442725|191546210|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.727|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|3.443||||||ANOVA comparison of Cmaxu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.443|0.866|
95788352|NCT03442725|191546211|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|3.699||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-infu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.699|0.903|
95788353|NCT03442725|191546212|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.904|3.726||||||ANOVA comparison of AUC0-tlastu for LP-778902 between test group versus the control group.||3.726|0.904|
95788354|NCT02603211|191546236|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"We will obtain 20 tactile image data sets from the breast tumor patients. The tactile images will be converted to size and deformation index. Then these two parameters will be converted to the risk score. This is a small number of patients for statistically significance study. Therefore, we plan to use the Leave-One-Out-Cross-Validation (LOOCV) technique to validate the human test results to determine the performance of the device.~We obtain the Risk Score. Risk Score is a unit less numerical value, which can be used as a scale to classify the tumor as malignant and benign. Based on the calculated size of the tumor and measured deformation index, the breast tumors are classified as benign and malignant using scoring method. The risk score will range from 0 to 5, where 0 represents the benign and 5 represents the malignant tumor.~Comparing the Risk Score and the Pathology reports we obtain sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the system."|||
95788355|NCT01516736|191546251|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
95788356|NCT01516736|191546251|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.08|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||"The primary objective of the study was to compare LA-EP2006 and Neulasta in terms of the DSN in Cycle 1. It was to be shown in a hierarchical way:~1. that LA-EP2006 is equivalent (margin: ±1 day) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 and, if this was successfully established,~2. that LA-EP2006 is non-inferior (margin: -0.6 days) to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1."||0.08|-0.40|0.05
95788357|NCT00524771|191546259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves . These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α of 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; VTE incidence rate of 9.1 VTE/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit on hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COCs is higher or equal to 2. This analysis represents the a priori defined primary statistical analysis.||1.5|0.5|
95788358|NCT00524771|191546259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypothesis: VTE hazard ratio for NuvaRing vs. COC2 is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.4|
95788359|NCT00524771|191546259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of less than 6 months.||2.2|0.3|
95957869|NCT00874497|191888111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sGaw||0.52|-0.09|0.155
95788360|NCT00524771|191546259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of 6 - 12 months.||2.6|0.3|
95957870|NCT00874497|191888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily breath symptoms||0.64|-0.77|0.845
95957871|NCT00874497|191888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily cough symptoms||0.94|-0.52|0.549
95957872|NCT00874497|191888112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for mean prior daily sputum symptoms||0.65|-0.93|0.717
95788361|NCT00524771|191546259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted age, BMI, duration of current use and family history of VTE.|Like analysis 1 (see above) but restricted to exposure period of \> 12 months.||2.3|0.3|
95788362|NCT00524771|191546260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||The hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, Smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.3|0.2|
95788363|NCT00524771|191546260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on the primary statistical analysis (see above).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, and treated hypertension.|||2.6|0.2|
95788364|NCT01781208|191546317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.68, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation.|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
95788365|NCT01781208|191546317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||r=0.73, unadjusted for age, gender, and histologic inflammation score|Pearson Correlation|||Continuous data were summarized using means and standard deviations. The relationship between ARFI (VTIQ) liver shear wave speed and liver histologic fibrosis score were assessed using Pearson correlation. No a priori power analysis was performed.||||<0.0001
95788366|NCT00078403|191546326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||||||P-value is pre-specified 1-sided test that PEG slows liver fibrosis progression. Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted at interim review for lack of fibrosis progression in Arm B (control arm). P-value is unadjusted for interim analysis.|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Accrual and follow-up on Arms A and B were halted for futility at the first independent interim review of the primary endpoint conducted on May 2, 2007.||||0.58
95788367|NCT02922153|191546347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided, two-sample t-test.||||||0.0223
95788368|NCT02922153|191546348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided two-sample t-test.||||||0.6259
95788369|NCT02922153|191546348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||||0.518
95788370|NCT02922153|191546349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||FEV1 one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0201
95788371|NCT02922153|191546349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||FVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
95788372|NCT02922153|191546349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||SVC one-sided, two-sample t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
95788373|NCT02922153|191546350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3085||||||72 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.3085
95788374|NCT02922153|191546350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8196||||||96 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.8196
95788375|NCT02922153|191546350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7269||||||120 Hours Post-Op|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.7269
95788376|NCT02922153|191546352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4421|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Analysis is the time from end of procedure to oral endotracheal extubation||||0.4421
95957873|NCT00874497|191888114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level I (self management) at week 104.||||1.000
95788377|NCT02922153|191546353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4352||||||Total Post-Procedure for Hospital Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test||||||0.4352
95788378|NCT02922153|191546354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2939||||||ICU Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.2939
95788379|NCT02922153|191546354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0998||||||Hospital Length of Stay|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||||0.0998
95788380|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2877|||||||Chi-squared|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.2877
95788381|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5311|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.5311
95788382|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4908|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.4908
95788383|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8621|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.8621
95788384|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||48 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
95788385|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0133|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.0133
95788386|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.0037
95788387|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1671|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.1671
95788388|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1.000
95788389|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||72 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
95788390|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||1
95788391|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2757|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2757
95788392|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9025|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.9025
95788393|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.7942
95788394|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||96 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||1
95788395|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3492|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.3492
95788396|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2644|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to stand up||||0.2644
95788397|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Patient able to walk||||0.8258
95788398|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.67
95788399|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5693|||||||Fisher Exact|||120 Hours Post-Op: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.5693
95788400|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189|||||||Chi-squared|||Discharge: Patient able to sit up in bed||||0.1189
95957874|NCT00874497|191888114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level II (physician visit) at week 104.||||1.0000
95814323|NCT02941614|191600536|OTHER|Conducted test of null hypothesis of no difference vs any, between intervention and control sites at three different time periods (6- vs. 3-months, 12- vs. 6-months, 12- vs. 3-months), as well as omnibus test of treatment-by-time interaction|see above|0.09||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|We used a difference-in-differences model to estimate the time, treatment, and time-by-treatment effects||The data below is the BCPT survey 12 month Arm Problems Sub-Scale||0.27|-0.09|0.34
95814324|NCT02941614|191600537|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.96|0.77|0.006
95999836|NCT01494038|191975620|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.97||||||||0.97|-1.72|
95999837|NCT01494038|191975621|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.1||||||||1.1|-4.48|
95788401|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to stand up||||1
95788402|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6992|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Patient able to walk||||0.6992
95788403|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4429|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Right Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4429
95788404|NCT02922153|191546355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4563|||||||Fisher Exact|||Discharge: Left Shoulder Flexion Movement||||0.4563
95814325|NCT02941614|191600538|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.07|||Regression, Poisson|||||1.07|0.93|0.356
95814326|NCT02941614|191600539|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||Regression/Poisson|||||1.41|0.73|0.919
95814327|NCT02941614|191600540|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.62|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Emergency Department visits||1.62|0.84|0.367
95814328|NCT02941614|191600540|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.38|||Regression, Poisson|||The data below applies to Urgent Care visits||1.38|0.51|0.497
95814329|NCT01469039|191600563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95814330|NCT01469039|191600563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95814331|NCT01469039|191600564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
95814332|NCT01469039|191600564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||significant p-value, active vs placebo|Wilcoxon rank sum test based on LOCF|||||||<0.001
95814333|NCT00856609|191600573|OTHER||Slope|-624.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.8|-347.8|||ANCOVA|||||-347.8|-901.8|0.01
95788405|NCT00522548|191546362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.29
95788406|NCT00522548|191546363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.39
95788407|NCT00522548|191546364|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.0
95814334|NCT00856609|191600574|OTHER||Slope|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.7|41.4|||ANCOVA|||||41.4|-89.7|0.01
95814335|NCT00856609|191600575|OTHER||Slope|-1.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-3.02|0.05
95814336|NCT01788943|191600576|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.037
95814337|NCT01788943|191600577|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95814338|NCT01816295|191600578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95814339|NCT01816295|191600579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.5|1.05|9.07|||ANCOVA|||||9.07|1.05|<0.001
95814340|NCT01816295|191600580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.019|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-0.59|6.45|||ANCOVA|||||6.45|-0.59|0.019
95814341|NCT01816295|191600581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.41|-0.94|0.442
95814342|NCT01816295|191600581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 36||0.72|-0.82|0.905
95814343|NCT01847092|191600583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.279
95814344|NCT01847092|191600584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
95814345|NCT03623698|191600585|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.500|-4.000|<0.001
95861254|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|31.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||31.0|20.9|<0.001
95999838|NCT01494038|191975622|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|1.25||||||||1.25|-3.86|
95999839|NCT01494038|191975623|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|12.13||||||||12.13|-7.86|
95999840|NCT01494038|191975624|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|13.86||||||||13.86|-0.08|
95999841|NCT01494038|191975625|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|24.68||||||||24.68|-13.7|
95999842|NCT01494038|191975626|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.65||||||||29.65|2.11|
95999843|NCT01494038|191975627|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
95999844|NCT01494038|191975628|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
95999845|NCT01494038|191975629|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
95999846|NCT01494038|191975630|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
95999847|NCT01494038|191975631|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
95788408|NCT00522548|191546365|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||1.00
95814346|NCT03623698|191600585|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-2.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.29||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, gastrostomy, non-ambulant.||"Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.~This analysis applies to the category of Total courses of antibiotics."||-1.29|-4.46|0.001
95814347|NCT03623698|191600586|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.50|-1.50|0.001
95814348|NCT03623698|191600586|OTHER||Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||95% confidence interval, significance level p-values \<0.05. Random effects pre-defined from theory and published data, and AIC was were used to define the best model. Outcome measures: Courses of antibiotics; Fixed effect: nebulised saline treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: age, gender, prolonged mechanical ventilation (nasal or tracheostomy), and antibiotic prophylaxis||Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25.||-0.52|-1.53|<0.001
95861255|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|44.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||44.8|33.6|<0.001
95861256|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|11.7||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|15.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||15.9|7.5|0.214
95861257|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8|47.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.8|37.8|<0.001
95861258|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|29.6|41.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V16 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.8|29.6|<0.001
95861259|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|47.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||47.0|37.6|<0.001
95861260|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001||95.0|30.6|41.0||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||41.0|30.6|<0.001
95957875|NCT00874497|191888114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5092|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for level III (hospital visit) at week 104.||||0.5092
95788409|NCT00522548|191546366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.14
95788410|NCT00522548|191546367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.34
95814349|NCT03623698|191600589|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3.00|-5.50|0.003
95957876|NCT00874497|191888115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Fisher's Exact test was used to determine whether the tetomilast and placebo groups differ in the proportion of participants who experienced Level 2 or higher COPD exacerbations during the study.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis at Week 104||||0.630
95957877|NCT00740870|191888128|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier Rate|74.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|67.1||||Z test||||||67.1|<0.0001
95957878|NCT01013740|191888149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.53|1.35|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment HR was based on the log rank test.|||1.35|0.53|
95957879|NCT01013740|191888154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.58||||||||3.58|0.63|
95788411|NCT00522548|191546368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||.51
95788412|NCT00522548|191546369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.95
95999848|NCT01494038|191975632|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|8.07||||||||8.07|-1.31|
95999849|NCT01494038|191975633|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.0||||||||3|-4.63|
95999850|NCT01494038|191975634|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate difference|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.25||||||||8.25|-1.46|
95999851|NCT01494038|191975639|OTHER|Measuring agreement between the tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemars test||||||< 0.0001
95788413|NCT00522548|191546370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.57
95788414|NCT00522548|191546371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 4 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.45
95788415|NCT00522548|191546371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This represents p value for week 24 data. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.58
95788416|NCT00522548|191546372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||This p value is for data at week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.012
95788417|NCT00522548|191546372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for data at week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic Group) in this proof of concept study.||||0.046
95788418|NCT00522548|191546373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||p value represents data for week 4. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.27
95788419|NCT00522548|191546373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p value represents data for week 24. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Sample size was arbitrarily determined as 40 patients (20 in the CellCept group and 20 in the Myfortic group) in this proof of concept study||||0.23
95788420|NCT03506438|191546382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.2|-12.2|0.018
95788421|NCT03506438|191546383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.5|0.48
95788422|NCT03506438|191546384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.4|0.73
95788423|NCT03506438|191546385|SUPERIORITY||estimated mean difference|0.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.0|0.47
95788424|NCT03506438|191546386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.6|0.29
95788425|NCT03506438|191546387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95788426|NCT03506438|191546388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95788427|NCT03506438|191546389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
95814350|NCT03623698|191600590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.0|-2.5|<0.001
95814351|NCT03623698|191600593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.76|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.76|-0.69|0.97
95814352|NCT03623698|191600594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.34|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.34|-3.26|0.09
95999852|NCT01494038|191975639|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.5||||||||0.50|0.35|
95788428|NCT04155463|191546395|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-18.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for all participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to 29.8.|Based on previous pesticide research, we calculated a sample size of 40 participants to provide a power of 0.80 at a 0.05 significance level in a two-sided test. We assumed a standard deviation of 0.5 µg/L.||||0.17
95788429|NCT04155463|191546395|OTHER||Median Percent Change|-24.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for far-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -37.4 to -8.8.|||||0.06
95788430|NCT04155463|191546395|OTHER||Median Percent Change|1.4||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed test for paired data|This calculation shows the median percent change in urinary glyphosate concentrations going from the conventional diet to organic diet for near-field participants. Interquartile range for this was -41.9 to 43.0.|||||0.83
95788431|NCT00113295|191546397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.05||||||No adjustment for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided||This analysis applies to the additional reduction from phase 2 randomization to phase 2 endpoint in HAM-A scores.|In phase 2, comprising randomized double-blind quetiapine augmentation, change scores were examined with two-tailed, two-sample t tests, utilizing scores at phase 2 randomization as baseline. All analyses were intention to treat (ITT) with the last visit carried forward (LVCF) for subjects that did not complete the study.||||<0.05
95788432|NCT01053741|191546401|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in epithelial surface disruption when comparing the two interventions. Power calculation was based on identifying a median difference in histology grade of 0.83, using a two-sided alpha of 0.05 with 90% power in 10 subjects.||||<0.05
95788433|NCT03150082|191546430|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|103.0|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.00|91.13|
95814353|NCT03623698|191600595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.38|-0.38|0.65
95999853|NCT01494038|191975640|OTHER|Agreement between tests||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||0.22
95999854|NCT01494038|191975640|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.21||||||||0.21|0.001|
95999855|NCT01494038|191975641|OTHER|Agreement between tests|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|McNemar's test||||||< 0.0001
95999856|NCT01494038|191975641|OTHER|Agreement between tests|Kappa coefficient|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.53||||||||0.53|0.39|
95999857|NCT05090423|191975646|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
95957880|NCT05324007|191888212|EQUIVALENCE|Estimated effect size was based on Liberman et al. (2017) that found a partial eta squared of .478 for the interaction between different-language and same-language conditions. Using G\*power using an alpha of .05, our target sample size of 30 per condition should provide 99.73% power to detect the main effect in the White-White and Black-Black condition and 99.99% power to detect the main effect in the Black-White condition.|partial eta squared|0.062|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We will examine whether looking time at affiliation will be greater when looking at Black-White interactions than at White-White or Black-Black interactions. That is, we will test if infants will be more surprised (look longer) by affiliation between different-race people interacting than same race people interacting. We will conduct a mixed ANOVA with conditions (Black-White, White-White, Black-Black) as a between-subject and test type (affiliation vs. disengagement) as within-subject factors.||||<.05
95957881|NCT03954223|191888233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
95957882|NCT03954223|191888234|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Mixed-effects generalized linear model of the glycemic profile change extracted from CGM data.||||||0.2
95788434|NCT03150082|191546431|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.09|100.82|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||100.82|86.09|
95788435|NCT03150082|191546432|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.|Percent ratio|96.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|103.11|||||Percent ratio (GR37547 500 mg/ciprofloxacin 500 mg reference) has been presented.|||103.11|91.17|
95788436|NCT03150082|191546433|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence analysis comparing ciprofloxacin test and reference product has been presented.||||||0.3499||||||"P value was analyzed using a nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test."|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.3499
95788437|NCT01718483|191546455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.01|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.70|<0.001
95788438|NCT01718483|191546456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95788439|NCT01718483|191546457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95788440|NCT01718483|191546458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.54|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.54|-7.17|<0.001
95788441|NCT01718483|191546459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-5.88|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-5.88|-8.93|<0.001
95788442|NCT01718483|191546460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.310|<0.001
95788443|NCT01718483|191546461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.092|||ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.330|<0.001
95788444|NCT01718483|191546462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.07|0.308
95814354|NCT01664247|191600621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.01|||ANOVA||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The pre-breakfast measures of SMPG values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed an ANOVA method with treatment, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response as covariates.||-2.01|-2.67|<.0001
95814355|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast.||-2.34|-3.04|<.0001
95861261|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|60.5||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||60.5|51.5|<0.001
95999858|NCT03952546|191975659|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority was carried out by calculating the upper 95% confidence limit (one sided confidence interval) for the difference in estimated blood loss (δ = Unipolar electrocautery system - Saline-coupled bipolar sealer), with the margin of inferiority (δ), set at 200 cc.||||||0.1254|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1254
95788445|NCT01718483|191546463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95999859|NCT03952546|191975660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95788446|NCT01718483|191546464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.3||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.24|<0.001
95788447|NCT01718483|191546465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.57||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.57|0.72|<0.001
95788448|NCT01718483|191546465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-3.39||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-3.39|-4.98|<0.001
95788449|NCT01718483|191546465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-3.91||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.91|-5.49|<0.001
95788450|NCT01718483|191546466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|-8.21||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-8.21|-12.43|<0.001
95788451|NCT01718483|191546467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean difference|-0.31||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.31||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-1.93|0.706
95962407|NCT03607422|191896614|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.||49.8|34.5|<0.001
95788452|NCT03570047|191546515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.766|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.766|0.558|<0.0001
95788453|NCT03570047|191546515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.977|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.977|0.642|0.0291
95788454|NCT03570047|191546515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.842|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.842|0.592|0.0001
95788455|NCT03570047|191546515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.591|0.0012
95788456|NCT03570047|191546516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.843|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.843|0.614|<0.0001
95788457|NCT03570047|191546516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|0.825|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.825|0.529|0.0003
95788458|NCT03570047|191546516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.879|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.879|0.618|0.0007
95788459|NCT03570047|191546516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|0.874|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.874|0.583|0.0011
95788460|NCT03570047|191546517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.984|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.984|0.872|0.0127
95788461|NCT03570047|191546517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.2893||95.0|0.881|1.039|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.039|0.881|0.2893
95788462|NCT03570047|191546517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.004|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.004|0.881|0.0640
95788463|NCT03570047|191546517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.103|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.103|0.958|0.4404
95814356|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after breakfast.||-1.48|-2.71|<.0001
95814357|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before lunch.||-1.56|-2.47|<.0001
95788464|NCT02754518|191546532|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
95788465|NCT02754518|191546533|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
95788466|NCT02754518|191546534|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
95788467|NCT02754518|191546535|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95788468|NCT02754518|191546536|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95788469|NCT02754518|191546537|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95788470|NCT02754518|191546538|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
95957883|NCT01649297|191888244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.16|0.13||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.13|-0.16|<0.0001
95999860|NCT05733286|191975662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Given an SD of approximately 35 min for TST in healthy adults, a sample size of 58 subjects per group will provide 86% power to detect a 20 min difference in TST between treatment groups using a two-sample t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.853
95999861|NCT05733286|191975663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted. P \< 0.05 is considered significant. A sample size of 58 patients per group will provide 80% power to detect a 0.95-point difference between treatment groups using a two-sided t-test with an alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.340
95788471|NCT02754518|191546539|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.|paired t-test|||0.13
95788472|NCT02754518|191546540|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.95
95788473|NCT02754518|191546541|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95788474|NCT02754518|191546542|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95788475|NCT02754518|191546543|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.65
95788476|NCT02754518|191546544|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||0.06
95788477|NCT02754518|191546545|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.76
95788478|NCT02754518|191546546|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Fisher Exact|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as frequency and percentages based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with the Fisher exact test.||||0.07
95788479|NCT02754518|191546547|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
95788480|NCT02754518|191546550|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.03
95788481|NCT02754518|191546551|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
95788482|NCT02754518|191546552|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.02
95999862|NCT00430781|191975686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.535||90.0|0.65|1.7||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value. p\<=0.0037 required for significance, and p\>0.4956 indicated futility.|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing combination to lapatinib monotherapy|||1.7|0.65|0.535
95957884|NCT01649297|191888244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypotheses for non-inferiority:~H10: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg once daily + 0.35%~H20: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 12.5 mg twice daily ≥ mean change from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 16 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 25 mg once daily + 0. 35%"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.26|0.03||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||The primary objective was to test the non-inferiority of empagliflozin 5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 10 mg QD, and non-inferiority of empagliflozin 12.5 mg BID versus empagliflozin 25 mg QD, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%||0.03|-0.26|<0.0001
95788483|NCT02754518|191546553|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as means +/- standard deviations based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with paired t-tests.||||<0.001
95788484|NCT02754518|191546554|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.82
95788485|NCT02754518|191546555|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95788486|NCT02754518|191546556|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.01
95788487|NCT02754518|191546557|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.11
95788488|NCT02754518|191546558|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.17
95788489|NCT02754518|191546559|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.035
95788490|NCT02754518|191546560|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.059
95814358|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after start of lunch.||-1.40|-2.46|<.0001
95814359|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point main evening meal.||-1.23|-2.25|<.0001
95814360|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point 90 mins after main evening meal.||-1.18|-2.26|<.0001
95814361|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before bedtime.||-1.23|-2.27|<.0001
95999863|NCT00430781|191975689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.237
95788491|NCT02754518|191546561|OTHER|||||||0.054||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.054
95861262|NCT05569954|191681238|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PPSV23\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percent Difference|58.7|||<|0.001||95.0|54.6|62.7||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method||V116 minus PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116-PPSV23 Percentage Difference||62.7|54.6|<0.001
95861263|NCT05569954|191681239|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."||||||0.093||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 6C||||0.093
95861264|NCT05569954|191681239|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4 fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \>50 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
95861265|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.25|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 3: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.25|1.04|
95788492|NCT02754518|191546562|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.28
95788493|NCT02754518|191546563|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.002
95788494|NCT02754518|191546564|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-Values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.008
95788495|NCT02754518|191546565|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.005
95788496|NCT02754518|191546566|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Tests were two-tailed, considered statistically significant with a p-value \<0.05, and conducted using STATA MP version 15 (College Station, TX).|Sign test|||Primary outcome was presented at baseline and 1-year as medians (interquartile range) based upon the Shapiro-Wilks test of normality, and then analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.056
95788497|NCT04878055|191546569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.626||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|3.514|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||3.514|0.752|0.216
95788498|NCT04878055|191546570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||||||0.377
95788499|NCT04878055|191546571|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Date 28 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables. Site is considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.468||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|1.386|||Two-sided regression, Logistic|||||1.386|0.158|0.17
95788500|NCT04878055|191546572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.277|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.277|0.247|0.168
95861266|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
95999864|NCT00430781|191975693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.66||||0.013||90.0|0.48|0.91||Stratified log-rank test with one-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.48|0.013
95999865|NCT00320671|191975695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|56.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|69.9|||Log Rank||Only the subjects taking risperidone were analysed in this section|||69.9|43.9|.61
95999866|NCT00320671|191975695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence Analysis|Cumulative Response Rates|62.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.8|74.8|||Log Rank||Only subjects taking aripiprazole were analysed in this section|||74.8|50.8|.61
95999867|NCT00149214|191975703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|16.5||||||95.0|10.5|24.2||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Pemetrexed treatment arm.||24.2|10.5|
95999868|NCT00149214|191975703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|20.2||||||95.0|13.4|28.5||||||Confidence Interval for pathological complete response in the Cyclophosphamide treatment group.||28.5|13.4|
95861267|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 8: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.31|1.04|
95861268|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.76|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.76|1.37|
95861269|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.31|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.31|1.79|
95814362|NCT01664247|191600622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo.|The 8-point profile (SMPG) values after 26 weeks of treatment were analysed jointly using a linear mixed model with an un-structured residual covariance structure and with treatment, time-point and an interaction between treatment and time-point, region and sex as fixed effects, and age and baseline response per time-point as covariates. Missing data was imputed using LOCF. The treatment contrast estimated was IDeg - Placebo for the time point before breakfast the following day.||-2.09|-2.91|<.0001
95814363|NCT00945659|191600629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.36|-0.43|0.86
95814364|NCT00945659|191600629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.04|-0.78|0.03
95814365|NCT00945659|191600630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-0.81|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-0.81|-19.30|0.03
95957885|NCT01649297|191888244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.44|-0.79|<0.0001
95999869|NCT04329923|191975721|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.28
95814366|NCT00945659|191600630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.47||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|9.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||9.9|-11.54|0.88
95814367|NCT00945659|191600631|SUPERIORITY||Generalized Estimating Equation|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.98||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|6.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.32|-13.21|0.49
95814368|NCT00945659|191600631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.76||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.66
95814369|NCT00945659|191600632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.08|-1.29|0.64
95814370|NCT00945659|191600632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.39|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.39|-2.22|0.65
95814371|NCT00945659|191600633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.4||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.56|124.97|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||124.97|-123.56|0.99
95814372|NCT00945659|191600633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.81||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.26|25.83|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||25.83|-28.26|0.93
95814373|NCT00945659|191600634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.04|-1.70|0.43
95814374|NCT00945659|191600634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||0.32|-5.50|0.08
95814375|NCT00945659|191600635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.56|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.56|-1.94|0.43
95814376|NCT00945659|191600635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|-1.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||-1.04|-6.38|.007
95814377|NCT00945659|191600636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.79|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.79|-2.02|0.75
95814378|NCT00945659|191600636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.32|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.32|-3.09|0.78
95814379|NCT00945659|191600637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|3.29|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.29|-1.86|0.58
95814380|NCT00945659|191600637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.3|-3.17|0.41
95814381|NCT00945659|191600638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.66||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|7.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||7.15|-3.26|0.46
95814382|NCT00945659|191600638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|1.96|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.96|-7.99|0.24
95814383|NCT00945659|191600639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.37||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.91|-6.33|0.93
95814384|NCT00945659|191600639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|3.57|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||3.57|-8.01|0.45
95814385|NCT00945659|191600640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.62|||Generalized Estimating Equestion|||||5.62|-7.15|0.81
95814386|NCT00945659|191600640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.72
95814387|NCT00945659|191600641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|6.08|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||6.08|-4.11|0.71
95814388|NCT00945659|191600641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|4.43|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.43|-6.74|0.68
95814389|NCT05018689|191600667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.22|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to identify someone showing depression?||0.22|-0.13|0.642
95814390|NCT05018689|191600667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||How confident to help a friend?||0.25|-0.21|0.864
95814391|NCT05018689|191600668|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.78||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.47|0.336
96002088|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-5.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.74|-18.69|<0.001
95788501|NCT04878055|191546573|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. Estimates were calculated taking into account the following competing risks: Death, discontinuation for AEs and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.167|||||||Gray's Test|||Until Day 28||||0.167
95957886|NCT01649297|191888244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.68|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.32|-0.68|<0.0001
95814392|NCT05018689|191600669|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.05||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression runs in families. Answer: true||1.59|0.70|0.806
96002089|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|-10.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-10.27|-24.32|<0.001
95788502|NCT04878055|191546574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||At Day 3 - please note that the number of subjects is 268 (180+88) and not 270.||||0.55
95788503|NCT04878055|191546574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared mean.||At Day 7 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 266 (n=179 in the Reparixin group and n=87 in the placebo group).||||0.128
95788504|NCT04878055|191546574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 256 (n=173 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.235
95788505|NCT04878055|191546574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 21 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255 (n=172 in the Reparixin group and n=83 in the placebo group).||||0.281
95788506|NCT04878055|191546574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the total of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 50 (n=33 in the Reparixin group and n=17 in the placebo group).||||0.273
95814393|NCT05018689|191600669|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.96||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression can be controlled through willpower. Answer: false||1.30|0.71|0.781
95814394|NCT05018689|191600669|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is treatable. Answer: true||1.39|0.62|0.720
95814395|NCT05018689|191600669|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.11||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Abuse of alcohol and drugs can be a sign of depression. Answer: true||2.38|0.52|0.784
95814396|NCT05018689|191600669|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression is a sign of personal weakness. Answer: false||1.55|0.76|0.662
95814397|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Difficulty concentrating or making decisions||1.26|0.51|0.340
95814398|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.81||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling angry||1.17|0.56|0.265
95814399|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Changes in sleep patterns||1.30|0.38|0.259
95814400|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.12||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Frequent unexplained aches and pains||1.49|0.84|0.450
95788507|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.047
95788508|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.262
95814401|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|2.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling tired or less energetic||4.69|1.11|0.025
95814402|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Eating more than usual||1.44|0.71|0.937
95814403|NCT05018689|191600670|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.83||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Feeling irritable or restless||1.34|0.52|0.447
95814404|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Friend||0.14|-0.11|0.800
95788509|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.367
95814405|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||Parent/guardian||0.08|-0.18|0.451
95814406|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||School counselor||0.2|-0.07|0.335
95814407|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Teacher||0.09|-0.17|0.554
95814408|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Mental health professional||0.10|-0.19|0.541
95814409|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||Regression, Linear|||Doctor||0.19|-0.09|0.454
95814410|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Regression, Linear|||Internet/website||0.12|-0.16|0.749
95814411|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Clergy, priest, rabbi, or other religious person||-0.01|-0.24|0.030
95814412|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Phone helpline||0.18|-0.06|0.334
95814413|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Crisis textline||0.20|-0.05|0.243
95814414|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Other relative (i.e., sister, brother, aunt, uncle)||0.09|-0.19|0.492
95957887|NCT01649297|191888244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.27|-0.62|<0.0001
95957888|NCT01649297|191888244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening eGFR \[MDRD\] value)- fixed effects and baseline HbA1c- linear covariate.||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing HbA1c after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided).||-0.25|-0.60|<0.0001
95814415|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||Boyfriend or girlfriend||0.10|-0.17|0.610
95814416|NCT05018689|191600671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Coach||0.01|-0.25|0.061
95814417|NCT05018689|191600672|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.27||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you had depression symptoms for more than 2 weeks, would you ask for help?||1.66|0.97|0.086
95814418|NCT05018689|191600672|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.13||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||If you thought you had mental health issues, is there a trusted adult you would go to?||1.66|0.77|0.526
95814419|NCT05018689|191600673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||Do you know how to get help in your school?||0.16|-0.03|0.199
95814420|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|||The new student is more dangerous than other students||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
95814421|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||The student is to blame for his or her condition||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
95814422|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||I would have sympathy for the new student||0.18|-0.06|0.310
95814423|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel scared||0.02|-0.21|0.114
95814424|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||The new student makes me feel uncomfortable||0.15|-0.10|0.738
95814425|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||I would help the new student even if I did not know him or her well||0.24|0.01|0.040
95814426|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||I would try to stay away from the new student||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
95814427|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be made fun of at my school||0.11|-0.15|0.798
95814428|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||Regression, Linear|||The new student would be ignored at my school||0.05|-0.22|0.197
95814429|NCT05018689|191600674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||I think other students in my school would try to help the new student||0.16|-0.10|0.623
95814430|NCT05018689|191600675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||On a scale from 1 to 7, if you were seen going into the office of your school social worker or school psychologist, how would you feel?||0.30|-0.21|0.718
95814431|NCT05018689|191600676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.46|||Regression, Linear|||How comfortable are you talking about mental health issues with other students at your school?||0.46|-0.03|0.090
95814432|NCT05018689|191600677|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Depression||1.44|0.67|0.944
95814433|NCT05018689|191600677|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.18||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety||1.68|0.82|0.369
95814434|NCT05018689|191600677|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.07||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Thoughts of suicide||1.50|0.77|0.676
95814435|NCT05018689|191600677|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.79||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||I do not think there are any mental health issues that are concerning for students||1.42|0.44|0.432
95814436|NCT05018689|191600677|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.87||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.35|0.56|0.533
95814437|NCT05018689|191600678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your teachers know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.08|-0.11|0.769
95814438|NCT05018689|191600678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||Regression, Linear|||How much do your school counselors know about addressing student mental health needs?||0.16|-0.05|0.315
95814439|NCT05018689|191600679|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.86||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information sheets at school||1.18|0.63|0.345
95814440|NCT05018689|191600679|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|0.98||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Class activities about mental health||1.33|0.73|0.899
95788510|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.882
95788511|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.19
95788512|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||At Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.161
95788513|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At Day 90 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||0.853
95788514|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.068
95788515|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.672
95788516|NCT04878055|191546575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||At end of treatment (EoT) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.153
95788517|NCT04878055|191546576|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Death, reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.07|||||||Grey's test|||||||0.07
95788518|NCT04878055|191546577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Gray's test|||number of patients included in the analysis=25||||0.07
95788519|NCT04878055|191546578|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Comparison at day 28||||0.668
95788520|NCT04878055|191546579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Gray's test|||Number of patients included in the analysis = 59||||0.668
95788521|NCT04878055|191546580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Gray's test|||Estimates are calculated using a nonparametric method for cumulative incidence function with competing risks data. The null hypothesis is that the cumulative incidence functions are identical across treatment groups and estimates are calculated taking into consideration the following competing risks: Reasons for discontinuation for Adverse events and patient transferred to another institution.||||0.23
95788522|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 3 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 255||||0.444
95788523|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 7 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 246||||0.357
95788524|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 14 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 209||||0.484
95788525|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 21 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 176||||0.753
95788526|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 28 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 190||||0.26
95788527|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 60 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 201||||0.19
95788528|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||day 90 - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 18||||1.000
95788529|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 229||||0.074
95788530|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||EOT - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 241||||0.193
95788531|NCT04878055|191546581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Hospital discharge - please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 195||||0.131
95788532|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 155.||||0.997
95788533|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 143.||||0.712
95788534|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.241
95788535|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 92.||||0.528
95788536|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 106.||||0.814
95788537|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 115.||||0.242
95788538|NCT04878055|191546582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at hospital discharge (HD) - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270 but 65.||||0.722
95788539|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 246.||||0.053
95788540|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 225.||||0.245
95788541|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 118.||||0.067
95788542|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 54.||||0.051
95788543|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 32.||||0.684
95788544|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 14.||||1.00
95788545|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at Day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 246, but it is 3.||||0.48
95788546|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 152.||||0.638
95788547|NCT04878055|191546583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-W hitney U test|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 212.||||0.137
95788548|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 157||||0.399
95814441|NCT05018689|191600679|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.08||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Mental health information on school website||1.48|0.80|0.612
95814442|NCT05018689|191600679|SUPERIORITY||comparison of odds ratios|1.14||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Other||1.65|0.79|0.476
95814443|NCT05018689|191600680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Regression, Linear|||On average, how often do your teachers speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.03|-0.22|0.141
95814444|NCT05018689|191600681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Would you like your teachers to speak to you about your emotions and feelings?||0.13|-0.05|0.392
95814445|NCT00565409|191600689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.0||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and Odds Ratio (OR) stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Loss of efficacy (LOE) imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders/all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||Sample size estimated based on moderate/severe rheumatoid arthritis(RA) trial. Study design included only moderate RA participants, thus a low disease activity estimate of 85% (ETN+MTX) vs 70% (MTX only) assumed, required 175 randomized participants in 3 treatments for a 90% power and Type I error of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis of no ETN+MTX vs MTX only differences. More participants qualified for Period 2 than expected, Period 2 sample size roughly 15% larger than protocol-specified.||9.0|3.2|<0.0001
95788549|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 139||||0.07
95788550|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 73||||0.4
95788551|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 23||||0.517
95788552|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 17||||0.445
95788553|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EoT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 113||||0.324
95788554|NCT04878055|191546584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at Hospital discharge - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 67.||||0.752
95788555|NCT04878055|191546585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 255, because patients who used supplement oxygen were 174 in the Reparixin group and 81 in the placebo group.||||0.447
95788556|NCT04878055|191546586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||At day 28 - Please note that the number of patients in this analysis is not 270 but 245, because patients requiring IMV or ECMO were 163 in the Reparixin group and 82 in the placebo group.||||0.065
95788557|NCT04878055|191546586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of a Chi-squared test||||||0.072
95788558|NCT04878055|191546587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485||||||Number of subjects included in analysis: 98|two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.485
95788559|NCT04878055|191546588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||Number of subjects included in analysis: 17||||0.267
95788560|NCT04878055|191546589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.137
95788561|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is 168||||0.002
95788562|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 146||||0.943
95788563|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 76||||0.88
95814446|NCT00565409|191600689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||2.0|0.7|0.3805
95814447|NCT00565409|191600689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|LOE imputation defined as LOE drop-outs were treated as non-responders and all other participants had LOCF applied as primary analysis.||||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
95861270|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|2.46|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.46|1.97|
95788564|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 38||||0.458
95814448|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||21.4|0.5|0.0853
95788565|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 23.||||0.285
95788566|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 168, but it is 8||||0.885
95788567|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.583|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 74||||= 0.583
95788568|NCT04878055|191546590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|||at End of treatment - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 131.||||0.5
95788569|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 245||||0.005
95788570|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 221||||0.283
95788571|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||at day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 117||||0.512
95788572|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 51||||0.174
95788573|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|at EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 206||||||0.133|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||||||0.133
95788574|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||at day 28 ± 2 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 29||||0.009
95788575|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 144||||0.593
95788576|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 60 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 3||||0.540
95788577|NCT04878055|191546591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to EOS - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.224
95788578|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.||to day 3 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 15||||0.68
95788579|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 7 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.272
95788580|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 14 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||1.000
95788581|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 21 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 9||||0.903
95788582|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to EOT - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 13||||0.432
95788583|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to day 28 - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 6||||0.105
95788584|NCT04878055|191546592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||Comparison between treatment arms is performed by means of two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.|Mann-Whitney U test|||to HD - Please note that the number of subjects in this analysis is not 270, but it is 8||||0.551
95788585|NCT04878055|191546593|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|1.522||Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 60 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Regression, Logistic|||up to day 60||1.522|0.178|0.232
95788586|NCT04878055|191546593|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on logistic regression model with proportion of patients died up to Day 90 as dependent variable, treatment, age group, gender and presence of concomitant disease at baseline as qualitative independent variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.246||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.782|||Regression, Logistic|||Up to Day 90||1.782|0.034|0.158
95788587|NCT04878055|191546594|SUPERIORITY|Freedom from (time to) death or respiratory failure (need of invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO or admission to ICU linked to worsening of respiratory parameters compared to baseline) up to Day 90 was performed using the same Kaplan-Meier analysis and the one-sided log-rank test that were used to test for differences between groups||||||0.33607|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.33607
95788588|NCT00249873|191546630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0133||95.0|0.81|0.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of any component of the primary event for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.98|0.81|0.0133
95788589|NCT00249873|191546631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001||95.0|0.62|0.83||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of stroke for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||0.83|0.62|<0.001
95788590|NCT00249873|191546632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.696||95.0|0.89|1.08||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the clopidogrel group compared with the Placebo group.|||1.08|0.89|0.696
95788591|NCT00249873|191546633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95788592|NCT02762084|191546654|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.030
95788593|NCT02762084|191546654|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.756|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 26||||0.756
95788594|NCT02762084|191546655|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.500
95814449|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||4.8|0.2|0.8491
95788595|NCT02762084|191546655|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.681|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 6||||0.681
95788596|NCT02762084|191546659|OTHER|One-sided comparison||||||0.048|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.048
95788597|NCT02762084|191546659|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.096|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.096
95788598|NCT02762084|191546660|OTHER|Two-sided comparison||||||0.008|||||||Mann Whitey U|||at Week 26||||0.008
95788599|NCT00928434|191546666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was defined as a lower bound (LCL) of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the intermittent and pooled continuous treatments, CADT, (intermittent - continuous) of greater than -12.5%.|Percentage difference|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|3.33||||||||3.33|-0.19|
95788600|NCT00447772|191546687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean difference|-0.322|||=|0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.233|||ANCOVA||The comparative analysis is based on adjusted means data.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included the baseline total Tsui score (patient in sitting position) as covariate and the main type of CD as between-group factor (due to non-significance the interaction between baseline total Tsui score and the main type of CD was removed from the model).||0.233|-0.877|=0.2552
95814450|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|42.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Low Disease Activity||42.5|0.4|0.1278
95814451|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
95814452|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||2.7|0.8|0.3027
95814453|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Low Disease Activity||4.2|1.5|<0.0001
95814454|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.7|<0.0001
95788601|NCT01619852|191546697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
95788602|NCT01619852|191546698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95788603|NCT01619852|191546699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95788604|NCT01619852|191546699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-Sensory-discriminative dimension||||0.69
95788605|NCT01619852|191546699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||McGill Questionnaire-affective dimension||||0.75
95788606|NCT01619852|191546699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief Pain Inventory||||0.81
95788607|NCT01619852|191546700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.19
95788608|NCT01619852|191546701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.29
95788609|NCT01096160|191546704|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|2.92|||Linear mixed effects model|||||2.92|-17.1|0.1194
95788610|NCT01096160|191546704|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-2.48|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-2.48|-23.7|0.0224
95788611|NCT01096160|191546704|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|10.91|||Linear mixed effects model|||||10.91|-10.3|0.4791
95788612|NCT01096160|191546704|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in SBP (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|1.01|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.01|-17.4|0.0705
95788613|NCT01096160|191546705|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|9.22|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.22|-1.51|0.1161
95814455|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.5871
95814456|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Low Disease Activity||6.1|2.3|<0.0001
95788614|NCT01096160|191546705|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|12.97|||Linear mixed effects model|||||12.97|1.60|0.0189
95814457|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|11.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||11.0|3.9|<0.0001
95814458|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||2.0|0.6|0.6716
95814459|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Low Disease Activity||8.6|3.4|<0.0001
95814460|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.6|2.8|<0.0001
95814461|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||1.5|0.5|0.9399
95861271|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.3|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.30|1.72|
95788615|NCT01096160|191546705|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|5.95|||Linear mixed effects model|||||5.95|-5.42|0.4689
95788616|NCT01096160|191546705|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|9.01|||Linear mixed effects model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||9.01|-0.89|0.0869
95788617|NCT01096160|191546706|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.7|-4.09|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-4.09|-15.7|0.003
95788618|NCT01096160|191546706|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|-5.1|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.10|-17.3|0.002
95788619|NCT01096160|191546706|OTHER|Comparison of Day 10 values (TWA\^0-24hrs) for MK-8266 vs placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|0.95|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||0.95|-11.3|0.080
95788620|NCT01096160|191546706|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in AIx (TWA\^0-24hrs)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|-1.46|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||-1.46|-12.1|0.019
95814462|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Low Disease Activity||7.7|3.0|<0.0001
95814463|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||10.5|3.7|<0.0001
95814464|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||1.9|0.6|0.6692
95814465|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Low Disease Activity||8.7|3.4|<0.0001
95814466|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||9.8|3.4|<0.0001
95788621|NCT01096160|191546707|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.28||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|3.05|||Linear mixed effects model|||||3.05|0.53|0.318
95788622|NCT01096160|191546707|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.17|||Linear mixed effects model|||||4.17|0.66|0.17
95788623|NCT01096160|191546707|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.41||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.02|||Linear mixed effcts model|||||1.02|0.16|0.054
95788624|NCT01096160|191546707|OTHER|Difference in change from baseline in cGMP|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.73|||Linear mixed effcts model|||Panel D and Panel E had identical treatments (MK-8266 0.8 mg TID), which were combined for this analysis. Panel D was completed prior to initiation of Panel E.||1.73|0.35|0.297
95861272|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|2.7|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.70|2.12|
95861273|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.67||||||Serotype 19A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio|V116/PPSV23|1.67|1.32|
95788625|NCT03877744|191546710|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 2.5 was set prior to study initiation with a Type I error of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2558||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.1894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Controls technician,site,seat type;Techn. nested in site modeled as random effect;Model allowed heterogeneous variances across arms w Kenward-Roger df|Mixed model allowed the arms to have unequal variance estimates. Degrees of freedom estimated using Kenward-Rogers.|||2.1894||0.0008
95788626|NCT04346199|191546729|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|1.722||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.722|0.323|
95788627|NCT04346199|191546737|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967||||||95.0|0.69|1.353|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.353|0.690|
95788628|NCT05568797|191546740|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is less than or equal (\<=) 1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.13|1.53|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.53|1.13|
95788629|NCT05568797|191546740|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.91|1.18|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.18|0.91|
95788630|NCT05568797|191546740|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.9|1.06|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.06|0.90|
95788631|NCT05568797|191546740|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.95|1.13|||||The comparison was done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the Flu vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain included in the FLU vaccine, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.13|0.95|
95788632|NCT05568797|191546741|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-A neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.87|1.12|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.12|0.87|
95788633|NCT05568797|191546742|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSV-B neutralizing antibody vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.03|1.3|||||The comparison is done using adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the CoAd Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.30|1.03|
95814467|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||2.1|0.7|0.4326
95814468|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Low Disease Activity||8.2|3.2|<0.0001
95814469|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.8|2.8|<0.0001
95814470|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||1.8|0.6|0.6064
95788634|NCT05568797|191546743|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|3.5|16.9||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||16.90|3.50|
95788635|NCT05568797|191546743|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-5.16|8.47||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||8.47|-5.16|
95788636|NCT05568797|191546743|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.92|5.46||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||5.46|-4.92|
95788637|NCT05568797|191546743|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|-4.54|6.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||6.17|-4.54|
95788638|NCT01237327|191546769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7799||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.294|||Log Rank|||Overall survival compared using the hazard ratio; hazard ratio \<1.0 is in favor of exemestane.||1.294|0.47|0.3348
95788639|NCT03877224|191546774|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.16||||0.07905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.01||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||6.01|0.36|0.07905
95788640|NCT03877224|191546775|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.12||||0.23215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|5.37||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, weeks impacted by COVID-19 and treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.00005 • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||5.37|-0.09|0.23215
95788641|NCT03877224|191546776|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|1.6||||0.66801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|The model includes rank-based baseline, treatment group as covariates and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization||For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00005: H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||9.0|-5.9|0.66801
95788642|NCT03877224|191546777|SUPERIORITY|Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|0.19||||0.12523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.48|||Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is • H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus • H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively.||0.48|-0.06|0.12523
95788643|NCT00461097|191546778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|43.9||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 10,000 mg of egg white solid was compared using Barnard's statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||43.9|4.3|0.025
95788644|NCT03101150|191546787|OTHER|A sample size of minimum 152 was calculated to be able to determine incidence of preeclampsia that is in the range of 8-17% with 80% power assuming an alpha of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.163|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Eligible and consented study subjects were randomized according to permuted block design scheme to be allocated in 400 IU arm and 4000 IU arm.||1.32|0.02|<0.05
95788645|NCT03101150|191546788|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95788646|NCT03101150|191546789|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.19|<0.02
95814471|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Low Disease Activity||7.4|3.0|<0.0001
95814472|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.5|0.4626
95814473|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||3.3|0.6|0.2886
95814474|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36 Remission||1.9|0.4|0.7779
95814475|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||4.7|1.8|<0.0001
95814476|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||2.0|0.8|0.2091
95814477|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40 Remission||3.6|1.5|<0.0001
95814478|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2||p-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
95814479|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5351
95814480|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 Remission||4.8|2.0|<0.0001
95814481|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||6.5|2.6|<0.0001
95814482|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||1.3|0.5|0.4574
95814483|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56 Remission||8.0|3.2|<0.0001
95814484|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
95814485|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.5229
95814486|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
95814487|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||8.6|3.3|<0.0001
95814488|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||1.8|0.7|0.6464
95814489|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72 Remission||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
95814490|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|7.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||7.9|3.1|<0.0001
95814491|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||1.7|0.7|0.5499
95814492|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80 Remission||6.4|2.6|<0.0001
95814493|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||7.0|2.8|<0.0001
95814494|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||1.9|0.8|0.1109
95788647|NCT00707057|191546795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the analgesic efficacy using the SPID 8-12 was compared between the 2 treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)model with each subject's outcome being his/her SPID 8-12 as the dependent variable in the ANCOVA model with terms for gender, treatment, and baseline pain score categories (stratified as ≤7 and \>7).||||<0.0001
95788648|NCT00707057|191546796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null versus alternative hypothesis regarding the durability of analgesic efficacy using the PID scores at 24, 36, and 48 hours.An individual subject was to achieve the 2-point reduction at all 3 terminal time points in order to be defined as responder.||||<0.0017
95788649|NCT00707057|191546797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
95788650|NCT00707057|191546798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Time to confirmed first perceptible relief was defined as the time to first perceptible relief, provided that the subject also stopped the second stopwatch indicating meaningful relief. For those who failed to achieve confirmed first perceptible and/or meaningful relief, a censored time was assigned.||||<0.0001
95788651|NCT00707057|191546799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95788652|NCT00707057|191546800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95788653|NCT00707057|191546800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Estimated Confidence Interval: 95%Method: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95788654|NCT00707057|191546801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|With terms for treatment, gender, and baseline pain score categories stratified as ≤7 and \>7.||The PID at each time point prior to dose 2 was derived by substracting the pain intensity from the base line pain intensity, so that a higher value was indicative of a greater improvement. Time weighted SPID for each specified interval was derived by first multiplying each PID score by the time from the previous time point, and adding them together for each scheduled time point within the time interval. Time weighted TOTPAR for ech specified interval was similarly derived.||||<0.0001
95788655|NCT00707057|191546802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95788656|NCT00707057|191546803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportions of subjects who rescued at or prior to hour 8, hour 10, and hour 12 were reported and 95% confidence intervals for the corresponding parameters were calculated.||||<0.0001
95788657|NCT00707057|191546804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The pain relief and PID scores at individual time points were summarized by descriptive statistics. The test and reference were compared at each individual time point at 24, 36 and 48 hours.||||<0.0001
95788658|NCT00707057|191546805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation for dose 1, either at the time of rescue or at dose 2 whichever came first were summarized by descriptive statistics based on non-missing data. The range went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS).||||<0.0001
95788659|NCT00707057|191546806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P- value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Global evaluation scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 2 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
95788660|NCT00707057|191546806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain scores categories.|ANCOVA|||"Maximum relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide maximum relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
95788661|NCT00707057|191546806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||"Overall relief scores for dose 2 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics.~The subjects were to provide overall relief scores for dose 2 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief."||||<0.0001
95788662|NCT00707057|191546807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 3 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
95788663|NCT00707057|191546807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and basee pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
95814495|NCT00565409|191600691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88 Remission||6.0|2.5|<0.0001
95814496|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
95814497|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||0.2|-0.2|0.9344
95814498|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 40||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
95861274|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.10|1.65|
95788664|NCT00707057|191546807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 3 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 3 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
95788665|NCT00707057|191546808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Global evaluation scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide global evaluation of dose 4 study medication using a range that went from 0 (Very poor) to 10 (Excellent) units on an 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
95788666|NCT00707057|191546808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Maximum relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide maximum relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
95788667|NCT00707057|191546808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value from ANCOVA with terms for treatment, gender and baseline pain score categories.|ANCOVA|||Overall relief scores for dose 4 were summarized by descriptive statistics. Only non-missing values are used for the summary statistics. The subjects were to provide overall relief of dose 4 study medication on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS)in response to pain relief.||||<0.0001
95788668|NCT00823134|191546844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95788669|NCT00823134|191546845|OTHER|The number of events found per category (PSG and ApneaLink Plus recording) will be compared. Events are Apneas and Hypopneas per hour of sleep, measured as Apnea-Hypopnea-Index (AHI), Apnea-Index (AI), Obstructive AI, Central AI, Hypopnea-Index (HI) and Oxygen Desaturation Index (ODI).|Correlation coefficient (Bland-Altman)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Per recording, the number of events found per category with PSG and ApneaLink Plus will be compared. As a summary, all PSG values and all ApneaLink Plus values per category will be collected in one graph (Bland-Altmann Plot). The correlation coefficient will be calculated per category. A correlation of \>75% will be seen as threshold for validity.||||
95788670|NCT00377637|191546851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Covariates included Treatment, Race, Geographical Region, and WHO Lupus Nephritis Class V and specified interaction terms.||||||0.478
95788671|NCT00377637|191546852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Testing at the alpha=0.05 level was applied with no adjustments made for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||The difference in Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups (MMF-AZA) was assessed using a log-rank test, which is a non-parametric test to compare the survival distributions of two groups commonly used to analyze time-to-event endpoints.||||0.003
95788672|NCT01116921|191546870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.13|0.006
95814499|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.0|<0.0001
95788673|NCT01111565|191546891|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.4|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.5|=0.079
95788674|NCT01111565|191546891|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-11.2|=0.085
95788675|NCT01111565|191546892|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.5|||=|0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.1|-1.1|=0.148
95788676|NCT01111565|191546892|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Row Mean Scores Test was used to determine the p-value.||||0.3|-1.0|=0.242
95788677|NCT01111565|191546893|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-1.8|=0.910
95788678|NCT01111565|191546893|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|=0.291
95788679|NCT02363387|191546902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|2.7|<0.001
95788680|NCT02541422|191546913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||p-value calculated for the total hangover scale|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95788681|NCT02541422|191546913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p value calculated for symptom of headache|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95788682|NCT02541422|191546913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p value calculated for symptom of nausea|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95788683|NCT02541422|191546913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p value calculated for symptom of weakness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95814500|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||0.2|-0.1|0.6173
95814501|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 48||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95814502|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95814503|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||0.3|-0.1|0.5136
95814504|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 56||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95814505|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95814506|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||0.3|-0.1|0.4868
95788684|NCT00357877|191546914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.11||No interim analyses were done and no adjustment made for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|The primary outcome analysis included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||We hypothesized a lower increment score for the active treatment group but carried out two-tailed hypothesis testing. Sample size was estimated with simulated data with rank normalized scores. We calculated that 832 participants would yield a power of 90% to detect a 20% reduction in caries incidence (from a hypothesized mean increment of 1.5), and adopted a target of 1000 randomized participants to allow for attrition.||1.11|-0.60|0.56
95788685|NCT00357877|191546915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||hypothesized a reduced caries increment in active arm, though conducted two-tailed hypothesis test.||1.46|-0.77|0.54
95788686|NCT00357877|191546916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|treatment and site included as class variables and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized lower increment in active arm, though hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.23|-1.25|0.18
95788687|NCT00357877|191546917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.45||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Identical analyses were run on each imputed dataset, with results combined with SAS® PROC MIANALYZE to obtain final p-values.|Regression, Linear|Model included treatment and site as class variables, and age and age-squared as continuous covariates.||Hypothesized a lower increment for active treatment arm, although hypothesis testing was two-sided.||0.45|-1.80|0.24
95788688|NCT02619617|191546918|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.308||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.082|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.082|0.419|0.698
95788689|NCT02619617|191546919|OTHER|1.5mg SOM230 s.c. vs. Placebo s.c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.033||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|7.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.790|0.530|0.385
95788690|NCT01765296|191546922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy outcome measure is the change in the WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint at Week 6 vs. pre-dose Baseline and was analyzed using a mixed effect ANCOVA. Statistical tests to determine superiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and placebo, are two-sided, and Non-inferiority between two treatment arms, CG100649 2 mg and celecoxib 200 mg is based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval of the difference.||||0.011
95788691|NCT01765296|191546922|NON_INFERIORITY|"The SD for the primary efficacy outcome measure (WOMAC-Pain Subscale in the index joint) has been assumed to be 11 units. A 10% between-group difference was chosen as the non-inferiority margin for this study. The following parameters were used to calculate the sample size needed for this non-inferiority study.~* Level of significance, α = 0.025(one-sided)~* Statistical power, 1-β = 0.95~* Difference between test group and comparison group, Δ=0, δ (\>0) = non-inferiority margin"||||||0.425|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.425
95788692|NCT02256696|191547006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.12|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis||2.12|0.93|0.10
95814507|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 64||-0.7|-1.1|<0.0001
95814508|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
95814509|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||0.2|-0.2|0.7847
95814510|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 72||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95999870|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|5|
95814511|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95814512|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||0.2|-0.2|0.9810
95814513|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 80||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95814514|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.8|-1.3|<0.0001
95999871|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between MenABCWY and MenACWY groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|44.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||44|21|
95788693|NCT02256696|191547006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.87|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.87|1.24|0.003
95788694|NCT02256696|191547006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.15|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.15|0.95|0.09
95788695|NCT02256696|191547006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.89|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol||2.89|1.21|0.005
95788696|NCT02256696|191547009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.44|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth.||mITT analysis||2.44|1.07|0.02
95788697|NCT02256696|191547009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.75|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||mITT analysis||2.75|1.18|0.006
95788698|NCT02256696|191547009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.42|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.42|1.05|0.03
95788699|NCT02256696|191547009|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.85|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for age and sex at birth||per protocol analysis||2.85|1.18|0.007
95788700|NCT02028507|191547027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Global health status/quality of life scale||0.89|0.55|0.003
95788701|NCT02028507|191547027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Physical functioning scale||0.76|0.50|<0.001
95788702|NCT02028507|191547027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Role functioning scale||0.79|0.51|<0.001
95788703|NCT02028507|191547027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Emotional functioning scale||1.25|0.76|0.818
95788704|NCT02028507|191547027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||This statistical Analysis corresponds to Cognitive functioning scale||0.89|0.54|0.004
95814515|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||0.1|-0.3|0.3562
95788705|NCT02028507|191547027|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Social functioning scale||0.78|0.49|<0.001
95788706|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Fatigue scale||0.86|0.57|0.001
95814516|NCT00565409|191600693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region.||Week 88||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
95814517|NCT00565409|191600694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
95788707|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Nausea and vomiting scale||0.76|0.45|<0.001
95788708|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Pain scale||0.99|0.62|0.042
95788709|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Dyspnea scale||1.44|0.81|0.599
95788710|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Insomnia scale||1.10|0.64|0.196
95788711|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Appetite loss scale||0.92|0.54|0.011
95788712|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Constipation scale||1.41|0.83|0.564
95788713|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Diarrhea scale||0.55|0.32|<0.001
95788714|NCT02028507|191547028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Financial difficulties scale||1.07|0.56|0.118
95788715|NCT02028507|191547029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Body image scale||1.21|0.74|0.659
95788716|NCT02028507|191547029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Future perspective scale||1.39|0.74|0.928
95788717|NCT02028507|191547030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Systemic side-effects scale||0.98|0.64|0.029
95788718|NCT02028507|191547030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Breast symptoms scale||1.21|0.71|0.571
95788719|NCT02028507|191547030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||This Statistical Analysis corresponds to Arm symptoms scale||1.09|0.66|0.187
95788720|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.37|
95788721|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.31||||||Comparison of midazolam||2.31|0.77|
95788722|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.62||||||Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.56|
95788723|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.23|
95788724|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.93|0.53|
95788725|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.47|1.51|
95788726|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|9.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.48|2.62|
95788727|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|6.44|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||6.44|1.78|
95788728|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.31|0.76|
95788729|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.42|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.42|1.12|
95788730|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.13|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.13|0.73|
95788731|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.27|0.74|
95788732|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.72|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.72|0.64|
95788733|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.38|0.88|
95814518|NCT00565409|191600694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||<0.0001
95788734|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.76|0.68|
95788735|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.17|0.43|
95814519|NCT00565409|191600694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||Imputation of failure defined as participants who did not reach the endpoint and discontinued due to lack of efficacy, with reason of unsatisfactory response-efficacy, adverse event, other or protocol violation were set to an event at time of discontinuation.||||0.8622
95814520|NCT00565409|191600695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95814521|NCT00565409|191600695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||0.9841
95788736|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.41|0.53|
95788737|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.46|0.89|
95814522|NCT00565409|191600695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 88 censored data was censored at 372 days.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95814523|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95814524|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.3|0.8015
95814525|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95814526|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
95788738|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.14|0.85|
95814527|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.4|0.8534
95814528|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.6|<0.0001
95814529|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
95814530|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.4|0.9074
95788739|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of atorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.22|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.22|0.57|
95788740|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.49|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.49|0.76|
95788741|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.29|0.75|
95788742|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.81|0.65|
95814531|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.7|<0.0001
95814532|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
95814533|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.4|0.9229
95814534|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.8|<0.0001
95814535|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
95814536|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.5|0.9279
95788743|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.33|0.46|
95788744|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.45|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||2.45|0.33|
95788745|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||5.14|0.75|
95788746|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.16|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||3.16|0.49|
95788747|NCT03311841|191547034|OTHER|Comparison of rosuvastatin|Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|||1.86|0.27|
95788748|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.40|
95788749|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.09|0.76|
95788750|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.52|0.57|
95788751|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.70|0.25|
95788752|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.73|0.53|
95788753|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||4.32|1.32|
95788754|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.48|1.75|
95814537|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.9|<0.0001
95814538|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.1|-2.1|<0.0001
95814539|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.4|-0.6|0.7695
95814540|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-2.0|<0.0001
95861275|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.02|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||2.02|1.55|
95788755|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||2.64|0.80|
95788756|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.2|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.20|0.78|
95788757|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.09|1.09|
95788758|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.09|0.77|
95788759|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.85|
95788760|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.56|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.56|0.68|
95788761|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.92|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.92|0.83|
95788762|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.63|0.73|
95788763|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.29|0.56|
95788764|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.23|0.55|
95861276|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.37|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||1.37|1.08|
95788765|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.11|0.89|
95788766|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.77|0.83|
95788767|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.71|0.78|
95788768|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.34|0.70|
95788769|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.28|0.78|
95788770|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.74|0.62|
95788771|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.82|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.82|0.62|
95788772|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.67|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.67|0.58|
95861277|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|4.35|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||4.35|3.29|
95861278|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|10.09|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.09|7.89|
95957889|NCT01649297|191888245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-9.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||1.8|-9.0|
95788773|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.63|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.63|1.09|
95788774|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.93|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.93|0.72|
95788775|NCT03311841|191547036|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.19|0.51|
95788776|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.11|0.36|
95788777|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.28|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||2.28|0.75|
95788778|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.61|0.55|
95788779|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.69|0.23|
95788780|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.95|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.95|0.53|
96002090|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-11.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 2||-11.29|-25.30|<0.001
95788781|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.74|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.74|1.57|
95788782|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|9.87|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||9.87|2.83|
95788783|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||5.07|1.39|
95788784|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.34|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.34|0.76|
95788785|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.46|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.46|1.12|
95788786|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.15|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.15|0.72|
95788787|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.36|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.36|0.76|
95788788|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.65|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.65|0.64|
95861279|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|3.92|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||3.92|3.01|
95957890|NCT01649297|191888245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||||95.0|-10.4|0.5||The two non-inferiority hypotheses H10 and H20 were tested using the Hochberg procedure in order to control the family-wise type I error at 0.025 (one-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: Treatment, geographical region, renal function (screening (eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and baseline HbA1c,baseline FPG-linear covariates||||0.5|-10.4|
95957891|NCT01649297|191888245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.2|-20.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-20.9|-34.2|<0.0001
95957892|NCT01649297|191888245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-15.9|-29.2|<0.0001
95957893|NCT01649297|191888245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.7|-14.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-14.4|-27.7|<0.0001
95957894|NCT01649297|191888245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.1|-10.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:'Treatment','geographical region','renal function'(screening(eGFR)\[MDRD\]value)-fixed effects and 'baseline HbA1c',baseline FPG-linear covariate||Superiority of once daily dose of empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) versus placebo and superiority of twice daily dose of empagliflozin (5 mg and 12.5 mg) versus placebo in reducing FPG after 16 weeks of treatment was tested in an exploratory manner, to demonstrate assay sensitivity against placebo at 0.05 level (two-sided)||-10.8|-24.1|<0.0001
95788789|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.24|0.87|
95788790|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.71|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.71|0.68|
95788791|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.45|
95814541|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-2.3|<0.0001
95814542|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.8|0.2182
95957895|NCT01685047|191888246|OTHER|There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Datasets (Device info at Baseline versus 15 minutes prior to the event) were compared using a 2-sided t-test.|||||<|0.05||||||All events with p \<0.05 were visually inspected to confirm they were evaluable; additional criteria for exclusion from further analysis included inappropriate therapy, aberrant conduction, and occurrence of VT/VF within 24h prior to the event.|t-test, 2 sided|||There were no formal pre-specified statistical hypotheses for the endpoints of the study due to the exploratory nature of this study. Some data was excluded from the primary analysis. All device detections resulting in therapy have been reviewed for appropriateness of the therapy. VT/VF therapy delivered from the device as a result of a non-ventricular arrhythmia or as a result of oversensing by the device has not been included in the primary data analysis.||||<0.05
95999872|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of ABCWY+OMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|0|
95788792|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.52|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.52|0.53|
95788793|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.62|0.90|
95788794|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.23|0.84|
95861280|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|9.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|10.97|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||10.97|8.83|
95788795|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.35|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||2.35|0.58|
95788796|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.97|0.71|
95788797|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.19|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||3.19|0.89|
95788798|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.14|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.14|0.63|
95788799|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.57|0.44|
95788800|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.91|0.56|
95788801|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.81|1.21|
95788802|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.18|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.18|0.70|
95788803|NCT03311841|191547037|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.08|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.08|0.43|
95788804|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.48|0.63|
95788805|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.62|0.69|
95788806|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||1.41|0.62|
95788807|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.83|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||0.83|0.36|
95814543|NCT00565409|191600699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.9|<0.0001
95814544|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
95814545|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.6|-0.3|0.6088
95814546|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
95788808|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.61|0.44|
95788809|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.89|
95788810|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.27|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||3.27|0.93|
95861281|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|8.61|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||8.61|6.68|
95788811|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of dabigatran||1.38|0.38|
95788812|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.4|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.40|0.92|
95788813|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.98|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.98|1.14|
95788814|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.11|0.84|
95788815|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.38|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.38|0.91|
95788816|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.75|0.81|
95788817|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.76|0.82|
95788818|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.57|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.57|0.75|
95788819|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.31|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.31|0.61|
95788820|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.75|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||3.75|0.58|
95788821|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.85|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||5.85|1.11|
95788822|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.81|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||4.81|0.97|
95788823|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.77|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atorvastatin||6.77|1.28|
95788824|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.07|0.59|
95788825|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.17|0.71|
95788826|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.62|0.55|
95788827|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.96|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.96|0.64|
95788828|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.64|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.64|0.46|
95861282|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|5.38|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||5.38|4.26|
95861283|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|21.19||||||95.0|18.98|23.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||23.65|18.98|
95788829|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.32|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||4.32|0.81|
95788830|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.53|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.53|0.51|
95788831|NCT03311841|191547038|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||2.41|0.45|
95788832|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.62|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of midazolam||3.62|0.78|
95788833|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.23|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||2.23|0.75|
95788834|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.41|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||3.41|1.15|
95788835|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.66|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin||1.66|0.58|
95788836|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.03|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.03|0.52|
95788837|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.97|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.97|0.77|
95788838|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.05|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||2.05|0.56|
95788839|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of pitavastatin lactone||1.17|0.30|
95788840|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.94|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.94|0.84|
95788841|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of atovastatin||2.73|0.81|
95788842|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||2.47|0.84|
95788843|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.78|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin||1.78|0.63|
95788844|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.61|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.61|0.95|
95788845|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|5.86|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||5.86|1.64|
95788846|NCT03311841|191547039|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||||Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.|Comparison of rosuvastatin||3.24|0.95|
95788847|NCT00121719|191547068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||This was a pilot study and a statistical sample size calculation was not performed.||||0.0146
95788848|NCT00099632|191547098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants between treatment durations (7-day vs. 21 day), pooled over ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV, FTC/TDF, and LPV/r), stratified by ARV regimen and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.37
95814547|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
95814548|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANOVA|||Week 48||0.6|-0.5|0.9048
95788849|NCT00099632|191547098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||Compare proportion of women with new NNRTI-resistant variants among ARV regimens (3TC/ZDV vs. FTC/TDF vs. LPV/r), pooled over treatment durations 7-day and 21-day, stratified by treatment duration and the actual receipt of antenatal ZDV||||0.091
95788850|NCT00672633|191547129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.52||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||The study was designed with 80% power to detect a net improvement of Triglyceride elevles with a sample size of 60.||||0.52
95788851|NCT00672633|191547130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations done for this outcomes||||0.06
95788852|NCT00672633|191547131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.27||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||No power calculations were conducted for this outcome||||0.27
95788853|NCT01868165|191547132|OTHER||Slope|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.77|||||"Linear regression slope and 95% confidence intervals for the association between calcium channel blocker use and cognitive change was 0.58 (-0.60:1.77).~Multiple adjustments including; age, sex, education."|||1.77|-0.60|
95788854|NCT01603407|191547133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3904|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3904
95788855|NCT01603407|191547133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5690
95788856|NCT01603407|191547133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1518
95814549|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
95814550|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.5|-2.6|<0.0001
95814551|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.5|-0.6|0.8437
95814552|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
95788857|NCT01603407|191547134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7365
95788858|NCT01603407|191547134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95814553|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
95788859|NCT01603407|191547134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95788860|NCT01603407|191547135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2456
95788861|NCT01603407|191547135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0369
95788862|NCT01603407|191547135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3589|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3589
95788863|NCT01603407|191547136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7335
95788864|NCT01603407|191547136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
95788865|NCT01603407|191547136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95788866|NCT01603407|191547137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9532|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9532
95788867|NCT01603407|191547137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0040
95788868|NCT01603407|191547137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0046
95788869|NCT01603407|191547138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3320
95788870|NCT01603407|191547138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1248
95788871|NCT01603407|191547138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5854|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5854
95788872|NCT01603407|191547139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.30814|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30814
95788873|NCT01603407|191547139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1405
95788874|NCT01603407|191547139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6640
95788875|NCT01603407|191547141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8345
95788876|NCT01603407|191547141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3762
95788877|NCT01603407|191547141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5059
95788878|NCT01603407|191547142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5947
95788879|NCT01603407|191547142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1098
95788880|NCT01603407|191547142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2803
95788881|NCT01603407|191547143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3875
95788882|NCT01603407|191547143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4240
95788883|NCT01603407|191547143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9683
95788884|NCT01603407|191547144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6161|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6161
95788885|NCT01603407|191547144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7302|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7302
95788886|NCT01603407|191547144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9007
95861284|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.82|9.65|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 31: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||9.65|7.82|
95861285|NCT05569954|191681241|OTHER|GMCs, GMC ratio, and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|17.07|||||V116/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: V116/PPSV23 GMC Ratio||17.07|14.13|
95788887|NCT01603407|191547145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8138
95788888|NCT01603407|191547145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5995
95788889|NCT01603407|191547145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7616
95788890|NCT01603407|191547146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6800
95788891|NCT01603407|191547146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4365
95788892|NCT01603407|191547146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7281
95788893|NCT01603407|191547147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.545||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.6611|-0.2479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2479|-2.6611|0.0041
95788894|NCT01603407|191547147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9076||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.248|1.1331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1331|-1.248|0.9076
95788895|NCT01603407|191547147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3971||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.2014|2.5927|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5927|0.2014|0.0054
95788896|NCT01603407|191547148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3242|-0.6358|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6358|-2.3242|<0.0001
95788897|NCT01603407|191547148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|2.2222|3.8857|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8857|2.2222|<0.0001
95788898|NCT01603407|191547148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.534|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|3.6941|5.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3738|3.6941|<0.0001
95788899|NCT01603407|191547149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6205||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.4845|0.2434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2434|-1.4845|0.0853
95788900|NCT01603407|191547149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.876||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7292|-0.0229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0229|-1.7292|0.0143
95788901|NCT01603407|191547149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2555||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.1117|0.6007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6007|-1.1117|0.4731
95788902|NCT02692586|191547182|SUPERIORITY|To detect an RV/LV ratio change \> 0.12 with a power of 80% at one-sided alpha = 0.025, the necessary sample size was calculated to be ≥ 52, 31, or 21 patients (to detect RV/LV ratio changes of 0.20, 0.225, or 0.25, respectively).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95788903|NCT02692586|191547183|SUPERIORITY|The hypothesized composite MAE rate was expected to be about 13%. The necessary sample size to detect a difference from an expected MAE rate of 13% with 80% power was calculated to be 103 patients (with a one-sided p value = 0.05).|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95788904|NCT03143257|191547187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95788905|NCT03143257|191547187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95788906|NCT03143257|191547187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95788907|NCT03143257|191547190|SUPERIORITY||Overall Benefit Score|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The overall benefit can be determined by subtracting the aided and unaided scores of Ease of Communication, Reverberation, Background Noise \& Aversiveness. A negative score in overall benefit indicates a positive benefit to the subject.|||||
95788908|NCT04547140|191547210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Dying||||
95788909|NCT04547140|191547210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Requiring ICU Admission||||
95788910|NCT04547140|191547211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on High Flow Oxygen Devices||||
95788911|NCT04547140|191547211|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Percentage of Participants Who are Dependent on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation||||
95788912|NCT04547140|191547212|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.22||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.87||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||2.87|-0.43|0.1453
95788913|NCT04547140|191547212|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.86||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||1.86|-1.44|0.8015
95788914|NCT04547140|191547214|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|1.48||||0.5135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.0||P-value was calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including the length of hospital stay (days) as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||6.00|-3.04|0.5135
95788915|NCT04547140|191547215|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.41||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|7.76||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days in the ICU as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.76|-0.94|0.1221
95788916|NCT04547140|191547216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|2.78||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|8.48||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||8.48|-2.92|0.3329
95788917|NCT04547140|191547217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference of Duration|3.48||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|7.77||P-value was calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.77|-0.81|0.1092
95788918|NCT04547140|191547218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.17||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 15||0.17|-1.43|0.1189
95788919|NCT04547140|191547218|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.07||P-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||Day 29||-0.07|-1.64|0.0341
95861286|NCT05767749|191681253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|14.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine)|||14.0|-12.8|0.93
95861287|NCT05767749|191681253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Ropivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.8|-8.3|0.54
95788920|NCT04547140|191547222|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.9||||0.8809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|28.3||P-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentages of participants experiencing sustained normalization of fever.|Chi-squared|||||28.3|-24.1|0.8809
95788921|NCT03442088|191547244|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.272||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95788922|NCT03442088|191547245|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.98||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2324.0|2516.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2516|-2324|0.934
95788923|NCT03442088|191547246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|0.3097|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3097|-1.685|0.1632
95788924|NCT03442088|191547247|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.344||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|0.5992|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5992|-5.248|0.1063
95788925|NCT03442088|191547248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24||||0.5611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.333|14.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.81|-8.333|0.5611
95788926|NCT00048035|191547265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.42|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X / Week||0.42|0.32|
95957896|NCT01049984|191888269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-4.3|0.012
95957897|NCT01049984|191888270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||0.3|-1.1|0.301
95957898|NCT01049984|191888271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.5||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures model with baseline score as a covariate and factors Treatment, Week in Study, Pooled Center and Week by Treatment interaction.||||-0.5|-3.1|0.007
95957899|NCT01049984|191888272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.255
95788927|NCT00048035|191547265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.76|||||To analyze the appropriateness of the chosen dose conversion factors, a second regression analysis was carried out. This was a regression on the three different conversion factor dose groups, using the regression slope estimates of Hb change.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1 X /2 Week||0.76|0.53|
95788928|NCT02326272|191547289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.965|111.983||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose versus (vs) placebo (PBO).|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||111.983|9.965|<0.0001
95788929|NCT02326272|191547289|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.12|82.36|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||82.36|57.12|
95788930|NCT02326272|191547289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.212|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.686|122.713||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||122.713|10.686|<0.0001
95788931|NCT02326272|191547289|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.47|83.43|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||83.43|58.47|
95788932|NCT02326272|191547290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|106.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.572|1178.843||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1178.843|9.572|<0.0001
95788933|NCT02326272|191547290|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.16|77.46|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||77.46|52.16|
95957900|NCT01049984|191888273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment and pooled center as strata.||||||0.996
95788934|NCT02326272|191547290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|133.163|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.904|1489.578||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||1489.578|11.904|<0.0001
95788935|NCT02326272|191547290|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.48|81.77|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||81.77|57.48|
95788936|NCT02326272|191547291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.386|134.432||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||134.432|4.386|<0.0001
95788937|NCT02326272|191547291|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.04|61.26|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||61.26|35.04|
95861288|NCT05767749|191681253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = (Lidocaine + epinephrine vs Bupivacaine) minus (Ropivacaine vs Bupivacaine)|||15.0|-8.7|0.60
95957901|NCT01049984|191888274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||||||All analyses were performed at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. P values were not adjusted. Only participants with assessment (\>0) are included in the CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH used the proportion of participants in each category between the two treatment arms, with treatment, pooled center, and baseline value as strata.||||||0.967
95788938|NCT02326272|191547291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.895|151.198||The p-value for this analysis as used in the fixed sequence testing procedure was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||151.198|4.895|<0.0001
95788939|NCT02326272|191547291|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.75|64.19|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.19|37.75|
95788940|NCT02326272|191547294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.88|-4.36||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-4.36|-8.88|<0.0001
95788941|NCT02326272|191547294|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Differences|-6.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.46|-3.93||The P-value was obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group, region, prior biologic exposure as factors; Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||-3.93|-8.46|<0.0001
95788942|NCT00583908|191547297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|<|0.0001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||||<0.0001
95788943|NCT00583908|191547297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.0002||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having less degree of rotation||||0.0002
95788944|NCT00583908|191547297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|<|0.0001||95.0||||paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having less degree of rotation||||<0.0001
95788945|NCT00583908|191547298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.0083||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.0083
95788946|NCT00583908|191547298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.052||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to lotrafilcon B toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.052
95788947|NCT00583908|191547298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to omafilcon A toric by having a lower logMAR score||||0.015
95861289|NCT02204124|191681264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95861290|NCT02204124|191681265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.513
95861291|NCT02204124|191681268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95788948|NCT00583908|191547299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.16
95788949|NCT00583908|191547299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.73
95788950|NCT00583908|191547299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference was senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.044
95788951|NCT00583908|191547300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.044||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.044
95788952|NCT00583908|191547300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
95814554|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.7|-0.6|0.8587
95814555|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.4|-2.6|<0.0001
95814556|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.8|-3.0|<0.0001
95814557|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.5|-0.8|0.6323
95788953|NCT00583908|191547300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.44
95814558|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
95814559|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.6|-2.9|<0.0001
95814560|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.5|-0.8|0.6558
95788954|NCT00583908|191547301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.78
95788955|NCT00583908|191547301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.68
95788956|NCT00583908|191547301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.78
95788957|NCT00583908|191547302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.11
95788958|NCT00583908|191547302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.31
95788959|NCT00583908|191547302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.16
95788960|NCT00583908|191547303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.061||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.061
95788961|NCT00583908|191547303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.47
95788962|NCT00583908|191547303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.38
95788963|NCT00583908|191547304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.17
95788964|NCT00583908|191547304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.89||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.89
95814561|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.5|-2.8|<0.0001
95814562|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.1|<0.0001
95861292|NCT02204124|191681269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.132
95788965|NCT00583908|191547304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.56
95788966|NCT00583908|191547305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.0080
95788967|NCT00583908|191547305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1||0.0049||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.0049
95788968|NCT00583908|191547305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omafilcon A|||||0.0058
95788969|NCT00583908|191547306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.27||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus balafilcon A|||||0.27
96002091|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-11.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-11.00|-25.25|<0.001
95788970|NCT00583908|191547306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilocon A minus lotrafilcon B|||||0.85
95788971|NCT00583908|191547306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference is senofilcon A minus omifilcon A|||||0.73
95788972|NCT02427841|191547391|SUPERIORITY|Tested against the standard R0 rate of 37%. Given all evaluable patients are included in the denominator, R0 of 56% was not achieved. Specifically, of the 19 evaluable patients, 11 proceeded to surgery. Of the 11 who underwent surgery, 8 \[42% of those enrolled, but 72.7% of those resected\] achieved R0 resection.|binomial|42.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|67.0||Study was underpowered.|2-sided exact binomial||Test for superiority over standard R0 resection rate of 37%. Study was closed due to slow enrollment, meaning the primary endpoint was underpowered with only 19 of an expected 44 patients enrolled.|Study closed early due to lack of enrollment. Study expected to enrolled 44 evaluable patients to achieve 83% power using the 2-sided binomial test at 10% significance. Study enrolled only 19 evaluable patients, meaning the study was underpowered at \< 62%||67|20|.404
95788973|NCT03257436|191547403|OTHER|"A power calculation using a sample size of 61 subjects as the non-responders with the LV MSP on was calculated based on a one-sided exact test for a single binomial proportion, using SAS Version 9.4 with the following assumptions:~* Performance goal = 90%~* Expected LV MSP feature-related CFR rate between 6 and 12 Month Visit = 98%~* Significance level = 5%~* Power = 80%"|Kaplan Meir Methodology|99.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.1|||||||"The LV MSP feature-related CFR between the 6 Month Visit and the 12 Month Visit was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology.~H0: LV MSP feature-related complication-free rate between 6 Month Visit and 12 Month Visit ≤ 90%.~The sample size of 61 subjects was required to evaluate the Primary Safety Endpoint using an exact test since a power calculation cannot be directly calculated for a one group Kaplan-Meier analysis."|||94.1|
95788974|NCT03257436|191547404|OTHER|Even though fewer subjects (78) were available for the effectiveness endpoint analysis than originally planned (110), the study was still powered at approximately 90%|Proportion|51.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|41.1|||||||"The effectiveness endpoint for SMART MSP PAS is the proportion of the LV MSP Group with an Improved CCS. For this endpoint, those subjects in the LV MSP Group that become responders will be defined as having an Improved CCS.~H0: Proportion of LV MSP Group subjects with Improved CCS from 6 Month Visit through 12 Month Visit ≤ 5%"|||41.1|
95788975|NCT01305811|191547406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||general estimating equations|||||||0.03
95788976|NCT01305811|191547407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In our original proposal to the funder, to protect our main outcome from possibly large attrition, we proposed to initially test mean differences between groups following 2 months of treatment or wait list using Student's t-tests at an alpha=0.05.||||=0.22
95788977|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|7451.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5857.0|9045.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||9045|5857|
95788978|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|11545.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8827.0|14263.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||14263|8827|
95788979|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|63.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||63|58|
95788980|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|53.0|||||The mean predicted cost for emergency department visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||53|49|
95788981|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|231.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|227.0|234.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||234|227|
95788982|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|295.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.0|299.0|||||The mean predicted cost for office visits for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||299|290|
95788983|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|873.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|827.0|919.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||919|827|
95861293|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #1 is for readmission||||0.975
95861294|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #2 is for wound infection.||||0.401
95861295|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #3 is for gastroparesis.||||0.975
95861296|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #4 is for pancreatic fistula.||||0.401
95788984|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1080.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1022.0|1138.0|||||The mean predicted cost for other outpatient and ancillary services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1138|1022|
95788985|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1267.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1251.0|1283.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1283|1251|
95788986|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1234.0|1266.0|||||The mean predicted cost for pharmacy services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1266|1234|
95788987|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1083.0|1267.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for FSC participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1267|1083|
95788988|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1566.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1438.0|1695.0|||||The mean predicted cost for inpatient and emergency department services for TIO participants. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||1695|1438|
95788989|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|2991.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2922.0|3059.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with FSC. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3059|2922|
95788990|NCT01387178|191547450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|3304.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3221.0|3386.0|||||The mean predicted cost for total healthcare services for participants treated with TIO. A generalized linear model with a log link function and gamma distribution for the error term to resolve the issue of skewed cost distribution was used.|||3386|3221|
95788991|NCT01387178|191547451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.964||||0.2198||95.0|0.909|1.022||Risk of Moderate COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||1.022|0.909|0.2198
95788992|NCT01387178|191547451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.0406||95.0|0.752|0.994||Risk of Severe COPD Exacerbations|Regression, Cox|||||0.994|0.752|0.0406
95788993|NCT01387178|191547451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.0962||95.0|0.901|1.009||Risk of Any COPD Exacerbation|Regression, Cox|||||1.009|0.901|0.0962
95788994|NCT03804268|191547455|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|30.8||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||30.8|14.3|<0.0001
95788995|NCT03804268|191547456|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|17.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||17.0|2.3|0.0114
95788996|NCT03804268|191547457|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||8.5|-4.4|1.0000
95788997|NCT03804268|191547458|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.5||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||6.5|3.7|0.0114
95788998|NCT03804268|191547459|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|18.7||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||26.7|10.6|0.0114
95788999|NCT03804268|191547460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.6|0.0114
95789000|NCT03804268|191547461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.6|2.4|0.0114
95789001|NCT03804268|191547462|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||5.0|-7.1|1.0000
95861297|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #5 is for intraabdominal abscess.||||0.219
95861298|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #6 is for anastomotic leakage.||||0.401
95861299|NCT02204124|191681270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis #7 is for blood product transfusion (anemia).||||0.219
95861300|NCT00606905|191681309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.61|||Chi-squared|||||4.61|0.41|<0.05
95861301|NCT02386189|191681310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was conducted on change between baseline and 12-month follow-up.||||0.02
95861302|NCT02386189|191681311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95861303|NCT02386189|191681312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95861304|NCT02386189|191681313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
95861305|NCT02386189|191681314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95789002|NCT03804268|191547463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.9||MMRM with fixed effects: study intervention group,visit,visit by study intervention group interaction,age group,Baseline binocular DCNVA severity,iris color,emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction was used.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.9|1.3|0.0114
95789003|NCT03804268|191547464|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.6||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. 95% confidence interval for the percentage differences was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||21.6|3.5|0.0171
95789004|NCT03804268|191547465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.1|0.5|0.0114
95789005|NCT03804268|191547466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.3|-0.6|0.0114
95789006|NCT03804268|191547467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||ANCOVA was used with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
95789007|NCT01246895|191547468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.017
95789008|NCT01246895|191547469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||||||0.026
95789009|NCT01246895|191547470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Pain||||0.474
95789010|NCT01246895|191547470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Stiffness||||0.236
95789011|NCT01246895|191547470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||WOMAC subscale - Physical function||||0.326
95789012|NCT01246895|191547471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Physical count|||||||0.01
95789013|NCT01246895|191547472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Physical component||||0.478
95789014|NCT01246895|191547472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.|general estimating equations (GEE)|P-values were obtained using general estimating equations (GEE) for longitudinal analysis of repeated correlated measures.||SF-36 v2 Mental component||||0.125
95789015|NCT03066830|191547480|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.574|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.574|-0.946|< 0.0001
95861306|NCT02386189|191681315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95861307|NCT02386189|191681316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95861308|NCT01305577|191681317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||8.28|2.70|<0.001
95814563|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.6|-0.7|0.8688
95789016|NCT03066830|191547481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1685|-1.0471|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-1.0471|-2.1685|< 0.0001
95789017|NCT03066830|191547482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.316|1.669|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.669|-3.316|0.5172
95789018|NCT03066830|191547483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.983||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|0.907|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 30 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.907|-2.946|0.2994
95789019|NCT03066830|191547484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.932|-0.884|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-0.884|-1.932|< 0.0001
95789020|NCT03066830|191547485|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|6.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|10.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130,≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at the screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||10.47|3.03|0.0004
95789021|NCT03066830|191547486|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|23.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization strata of Metformin use at screening. Missing data at Week 26 were assigned a status of non-responder in the analysis.||23.73|11.16|< 0.0001
95789022|NCT03131687|191547500|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789023|NCT03131687|191547500|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789024|NCT03131687|191547500|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789025|NCT03131687|191547500|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789026|NCT03131687|191547501|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789027|NCT03131687|191547501|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789028|NCT03131687|191547501|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789029|NCT03131687|191547501|OTHER||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Statistics are estimated from a Bayesian hierarchical logistic dose response model along with a titrated integrated two-component prediction model to estimate missing values.|||||
95789030|NCT03131687|191547502|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
95789031|NCT03131687|191547502|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.2|<0.001
95789032|NCT03131687|191547502|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-2.5|<0.001
95789033|NCT03131687|191547502|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-2.9|<0.001
95789034|NCT03131687|191547503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95789035|NCT03131687|191547503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-2.0|<0.001
95789036|NCT03131687|191547503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-2.3|<0.001
95789037|NCT03131687|191547503|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.4|<0.001
95789038|NCT03131687|191547504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.7|0.655
95814564|NCT00565409|191600702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.7|-3.0|<0.0001
95789039|NCT03131687|191547504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.001
95789040|NCT03131687|191547504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-10.5|<0.001
95789041|NCT03131687|191547504|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-13.3|<0.001
95789042|NCT03131687|191547505|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
95814565|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
95814566|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.2|0.9636
95814567|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.0|<0.0001
95814568|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
95814569|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-0.2|0.4605
95814570|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
95814571|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
95814572|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.3|-0.3|0.8404
95814573|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
95814574|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
95814575|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.5|-0.1|0.3118
95814576|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95789043|NCT03131687|191547505|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
95789044|NCT03131687|191547505|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789045|NCT03131687|191547505|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789046|NCT03131687|191547506|OTHER|||||||0.193|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.193
95789047|NCT03131687|191547506|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.036
95789048|NCT03131687|191547506|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95789049|NCT03131687|191547506|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95789050|NCT03131687|191547507|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.030
95789051|NCT03131687|191547507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789052|NCT03131687|191547507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789053|NCT03131687|191547507|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789054|NCT03131687|191547508|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
95789055|NCT03131687|191547508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789056|NCT03131687|191547508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789057|NCT03131687|191547508|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95789058|NCT03131687|191547509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-39.4|0.010
95789059|NCT03131687|191547509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-39.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.5|-72.9|<0.001
95789060|NCT03131687|191547509|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-76.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.3|-59.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-59.2|-93.3|<0.001
95789061|NCT03131687|191547509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|-55.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-55.2|-90.9|<0.001
95789062|NCT03131687|191547510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.1|0.396
95789063|NCT03131687|191547510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.903
95789064|NCT03131687|191547510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.1|0.536
95789065|NCT03131687|191547510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.0|0.325
95789066|NCT03131687|191547511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.4|0.565
95789067|NCT03131687|191547511|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
95789068|NCT03131687|191547511|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
95789069|NCT03131687|191547511|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
95789070|NCT03131687|191547512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.7|0.164
95789071|NCT03131687|191547512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95789072|NCT03131687|191547512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.001
95814577|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
95957902|NCT02847637|191888275|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.075||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.075|0.020|<0.0001
95789073|NCT03131687|191547512|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.5|<0.001
95789074|NCT03131687|191547513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.919
95789075|NCT03131687|191547513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.194
95789076|NCT03131687|191547513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|0.145
95789077|NCT03131687|191547513|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.6|0.067
95789078|NCT03131687|191547514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.1|0.539
95789079|NCT03131687|191547514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-6.1|0.001
95789080|NCT03131687|191547514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.7|-8.4|<0.001
95789081|NCT03131687|191547514|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-11.3|<0.001
95789082|NCT00656175|191547546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon sign-rank test used for statistical significance.||||0.52
95789083|NCT04878120|191547547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||"The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. To test the hypothesis that HCL Control with Smart Bolus Calculator reduces exposure to hypoglycemia with respect to Standard HCL Control, a mixed ANOVA was performed with LBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor."||||0.733
95789084|NCT04878120|191547548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.824
95789085|NCT04878120|191547549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent in 70-180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.402
95789086|NCT04878120|191547550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.300
95789087|NCT04878120|191547551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168||||||For interaction between study arm and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with HBGI as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.168
95789088|NCT04878120|191547552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with CGM coefficient of variation as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.476
95789089|NCT04878120|191547553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||For interaction between study group and intervention|ANOVA|||The study followed a randomized crossover design, with two study groups and two intervention types; the two groups differed in the order they received the two intervention types. A mixed ANOVA was performed with total amount of carbohydrate administered as rescue treatments as outcome measure, study group as between-subject factor, and intervention type as within-subject factor.||||0.914
95789090|NCT02499120|191547578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.253||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.253|0.536|0.1800
95789091|NCT02499120|191547579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.4953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.495||1-sided p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by stratification factors ECOG per randomization.|Log Rank|||||1.495|0.669|0.4953
95789092|NCT03705286|191547614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.17|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Physical Component Score (PCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||3.17|-4.21|0.78
95789093|NCT03705286|191547614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|1.07|||Regression, Linear|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the Mental Component Score (MCS) for QOL between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups by comparing their respective mean scores (i.e., mean\[PU-EVAC\] - mean\[PVC\] ). We modeled the data using linear regression and used robust standard error estimates to construct our statistical test and 95% confidence interval estimates. We also estimated the treatment groups' mean quality of life scores with standard error estimates and 95% confidence intervals.||1.07|-7.03|0.15
95789094|NCT03705286|191547615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-0.07|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|-0.07|0.05
95789095|NCT03705286|191547616|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.126||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||Regression, Logistic|||We evaluated whether there are differences in the risk of laryngeal injury between the PU-EVAC and PVC treatment groups, comparing their respective risk difference (i.e., probability\[PU-EVAC\] - probability \[PVC\]). We fit a logistic regression model and incorporated robust (i.e., Huber-White heteroskedastic consistent) standard error estimates for our hypothesis test and 95% confidence interval estimates.||0.26|-0.01|0.05
95789096|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5221||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5221
95789097|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.25||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.25
95789098|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.50
95789099|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
95789100|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8665||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8665
95789101|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
95789102|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.84||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.84
95789103|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.57||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.57
95957903|NCT02847637|191888275|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.066||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.066|0.017|<0.0001
95789104|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3052||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all B cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3052
95789105|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 1.||||||>0.9999
95789106|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
95814578|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.4|-0.2|0.6100
95789107|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of B cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
95789108|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0698||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NK cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0698
95789109|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95789110|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
95789111|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NK cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
95789112|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0127||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all NKT cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0127
95789113|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95789114|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.41||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.41
95789115|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of NKT cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.07
95814579|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95814580|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95861309|NCT01305577|191681317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|10.94|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|The odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo. An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme.||10.94|3.52|<0.001
95789116|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0654||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all cDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0654
95789117|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
95789118|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.21||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.21
95789119|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of cDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.16
95814581|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||0.2|-0.4|0.6552
95814582|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95814583|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.1|-1.8|<0.0001
95814584|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.2|-0.4|0.4753
95814585|NCT00565409|191600705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.0|-1.6|<0.0001
95957904|NCT02847637|191888276|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.099||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.099|0.028|<0.0001
95957905|NCT02847637|191888276|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.103||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value was obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.103|0.030|<0.0001
95789120|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0457||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all pDC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0457
95789121|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95789122|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.55||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.55
95789123|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of pDC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
95789124|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7114||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all MDSC cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7114
95789125|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789126|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
95789127|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of MDSC cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.91
95789128|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2666||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all Treg cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2666
95789129|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
95789130|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.45||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.45
95789131|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of Treg cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
95789132|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0076
95789133|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.38||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.38
95861310|NCT01305577|191681318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|25.87|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||25.87|1.20|0.028
95789134|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.22||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.22
95789135|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.10
95789136|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7144||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7144
95789137|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
95789138|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.06
95789139|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
95789140|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3741||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3741
95789141|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95789142|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.13
95789143|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789144|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3386||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD4 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3386
95789145|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
95789146|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0215||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0215
95814586|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.6|-1.2|<0.0001
95814587|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.3|-0.4|0.7427
95814588|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95789147|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.65
95789148|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5076||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5076
95789149|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95814589|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
95814590|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.2|-0.5|0.3129
95814591|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
95789150|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.68||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.68
95789151|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.73||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.73
95789152|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6577||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 CM cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6577
95789153|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.88||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.88
95814592|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
95814593|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||0.2|-0.5|0.4645
95789154|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.74||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.74
95789155|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 CM cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.20
95789156|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6295||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 EMRA cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6295
95789157|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.63||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95789158|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.999
95789159|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 EMRA cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.36
95789160|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8314||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all CD8 naive cells at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8314
95789161|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 1.||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon test|||||||0.63
95789162|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.64
95789163|NCT01519817|191547637|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8 naive cells at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.30
95789164|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
95789165|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4808||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IFNg cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4808
95789166|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7334||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7334
95789167|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.7109||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNg cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon|||||||0.7109
95789168|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4347||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL10 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4347
95814594|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
95789169|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon|||||||>0.9999
95789170|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.748||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.748
95789171|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 cytokines at dose level 4.||||||0.8203
95789172|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL12p70 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5625
95789173|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789174|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95957906|NCT02847637|191888277|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.085||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.085|0.019|<0.0001
95957907|NCT02847637|191888277|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.07||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.070|0.015|<0.0001
95789175|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12p70 cytokines at dose level 14|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
95789176|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6846||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL1b cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6846
95789177|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789178|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.5||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.5
95814595|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.9|-1.7|<0.0001
95814596|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||0.2|-0.5|0.3793
95814597|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
95814598|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-1.2|-2.0|<0.0001
95814599|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.0|-0.7|0.0816
95957908|NCT02847637|191888278|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.151||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.151|0.025|<0.0001
95814600|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
95814601|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
95814602|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.1|-0.8|0.0256
95814603|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-0.8|-1.5|<0.0001
95814604|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-1.2|-1.9|<0.0001
95789179|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL1b cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95814605|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||0.1|-0.7|0.1158
95789180|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-2 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4375
95814606|NCT00565409|191600708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-0.9|-1.6|<0.0001
95789181|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789182|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789183|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.75||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-2 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.75
95789184|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.4525||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-6 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.4525
95789185|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
95789186|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 3.||||||0.4316|||||||Wilcoxon test|||Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||0.4316
95789187|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-6 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789188|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9906||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all IL-8 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9906
95789189|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon test|The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 1.||||||0.625
95789190|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.791||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.791
95789191|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.8203||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL-8 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.8203
95789192|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.|||||>|0.9999||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all TNF cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||>0.9999
95789193|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
95789194|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.9658||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.9658
95814607|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|-6.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-6.2|-77.1|0.0214
95789195|NCT01519817|191547638|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6523||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNF cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6523
95789196|NCT01519817|191547639|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2901||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD27 cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2901
95789197|NCT01519817|191547639|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.375||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.375
95789198|NCT01519817|191547639|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2036||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2036
95789199|NCT01519817|191547639|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0742||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD27 cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0742
95789200|NCT01519817|191547640|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.1004||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all ratio sCD27:sCD40AL cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.1004
95789201|NCT01519817|191547640|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.625||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.625
95789202|NCT01519817|191547640|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.6772||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.6772
95789203|NCT01519817|191547640|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of ratio sCD27:sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
95789204|NCT01519817|191547641|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.0621||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of all sCD40L cytokines at dose levels 1, 3, and 4. We could not do dose level 2 as we only had data on 2 patients and need an n\>2 to do paired analyses.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0621
95789205|NCT01519817|191547641|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.875||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 1.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.875
95789206|NCT01519817|191547641|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.2402||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 3.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.2402
95789207|NCT01519817|191547641|NON_INFERIORITY|Significance was met if the unadjusted p-value was \<0.05 and \>1/2 of patients had a serum level change of \>25%.||||||0.3008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of sCD40L cytokines at dose level 4.|Wilcoxon test|||||||0.3008
95789208|NCT03934216|191547649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.4|0.3|0.5935
95789209|NCT03934216|191547650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.7|0.6|0.3051
95789210|NCT03934216|191547651|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.4|0.3|0.8764
95789211|NCT03934216|191547652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.5|0.2235
95789212|NCT00735709|191547653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|-2.86||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-2.86|-6.99|<0.001
95814608|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.57||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|24.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||24.5|-45.6|0.5544
95814609|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|4.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||4.0|-66.2|0.0826
95814610|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-80.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-39.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-39.8|-120.3|0.0001
95814611|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.18||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-3.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-3.2|-83.2|0.0344
95814612|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.87||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|3.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.3|-77.1|0.0721
95789213|NCT00735709|191547653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-2.08||Hierarchical testing stopped at SDS total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.08|-6.17|<0.001
95789214|NCT00735709|191547653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.47||This treatment arm is not in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.47|-5.57|<0.001
95789215|NCT00735709|191547654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.48||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.48|-3.56|0.135
95789216|NCT00735709|191547654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.84|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||0.84|-3.07|0.263
95789217|NCT00735709|191547654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.94|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||1.94|-2.03|0.963
95814613|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.7|-49.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-49.7|-128.7|<0.0001
95814614|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.14||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|13.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||13.1|-65.4|0.1910
95814615|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.5|-23.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-23.6|-102.5|0.0018
95814616|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-84.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.1|-39.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-39.6|-129.1|0.0002
95814617|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|42.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||42.6|-46.3|0.9350
95814618|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.2|-37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-37.8|-127.2|0.0003
95814619|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-108.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.0|-60.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-60.4|-157.0|<0.0001
95957909|NCT02847637|191888278|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.056||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level. The p-value is obtained via a global model with a 3-level categorical effect for treatment (emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg/week, emicizumab 3 mg/kg/2 weeks, or no prophylaxis).|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.056|0.006|<0.0001
95789218|NCT00735709|191547655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.30|-0.80|<0.001
95789219|NCT00735709|191547655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.22|-0.71|<0.001
95789220|NCT00735709|191547655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||Mixed model repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.23|-0.72|<0.001
95814620|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|37.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||37.8|-58.2|0.6764
95814621|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-98.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-146.7|-50.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-50.3|-146.7|<0.0001
95814622|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-115.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.7|-73.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-73.3|-157.7|<0.0001
95814623|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69||||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|28.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||28.3|-55.6|0.5219
95814624|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-59.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-59.6|-144.0|<0.0001
95814625|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.9|-26.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-26.3|-116.9|0.0020
95814626|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|57.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||57.3|-32.7|0.5917
95957910|NCT02847637|191888279|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.143||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm A is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm A versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.143|0.016|<0.0001
95789221|NCT00735709|191547656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|5.618|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo.|||5.618|1.995|<0.001
95789222|NCT00735709|191547656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|4.598|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||4.598|1.631|<0.001
96002092|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-14.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 3||-14.09|-28.29|<0.001
95789223|NCT00735709|191547656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.018|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|5.063|||Regression, Logistic|Regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-D24 score.|Odds ratio versus placebo|||5.063|1.799|<0.001
95789224|NCT00735709|191547657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-1.84|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.84|-7.34|0.001
95789225|NCT00735709|191547657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-1.62|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.62|-7.32|0.002
95789226|NCT00735709|191547657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.37|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values are from an MMRM model with Baseline-by-week, center, week, and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-1.37|-6.90|0.004
95789227|NCT00735709|191547658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.951||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|3.517|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.517|1.082|0.026
95789228|NCT00735709|191547658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.673|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.673|1.150|0.015
95789229|NCT00735709|191547658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.158|0.973|0.062
95789230|NCT04033146|191547750|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|||"H1. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for young adults.~H2. Bilateral ankle exoskeletons that provide 'motor-like' assistance will result in lower net metabolic power than those providing 'spring-like' assistance for older adults."||||<0.001
95789231|NCT00974311|191547752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.75|0.53|<0.0001
95789232|NCT00974311|191547753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.47|0.35|<0.0001
95789233|NCT00974311|191547754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|0.835|||Log Rank|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.835|0.566|0.0001
95789234|NCT00974311|191547755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of Participants|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||30.9|18.8|<0.0001
95789235|NCT00974311|191547756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.303||Stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form score (Question #3).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence interval are from Cox regression model.|||0.303|0.204|<0.0001
95789236|NCT00974311|191547757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Rate of Pain Palliation|38.2||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|57.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs. 2).|Confidence Interval based on standard normal approximation.|||57.0|19.4|0.0079
95789237|NCT00458003|191547771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.38
95814627|NCT00565409|191600711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.91||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.2|-38.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-38.7|-129.2|0.0003
95789238|NCT00458003|191547772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.10
95789239|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses versus (vs) Placebo is 14 mm.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|32.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.4|36.4||||||||36.4|28.4|
95789240|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.7|19.6||||||||19.6|11.7|
95789241|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.3|24.3||||||||24.3|16.3|
95789242|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Lasmiditan doses vs Placebo is 14 mm.|LS Mean Difference|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|27.6||||||||27.6|19.6|
95789243|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 100 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.8|20.8||||||||20.8|12.8|
95789244|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 200 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|16.1||||||||16.1|8.10|
95789245|NCT03286218|191547773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) margin for Alprazolam and Lasmiditan 400 mg dose is 5 mm.|LS Mean Difference|8.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|12.8||||||||12.8|4.8|
95789246|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.5|37.7||||||Overall Drug Liking||37.7|28.5|
95789247|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|23.2||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.2|14.0|
95789248|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.5|23.8||||||Overall Drug Liking||23.8|14.5|
95789249|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|28.9||||||Overall Drug Liking||28.9|19.7|
95957911|NCT02847637|191888279|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.147||Not controlled for type I error|Stratified Wald test||Arm B is the numerator and Arm C is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio for Arm B versus Arm C ≠ 1.||0.147|0.018|<0.0001
95789250|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|38.9||||||Take drug again||38.9|29.1|
95789251|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.2|24.0||||||Take drug again||24.0|14.2|
95789252|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|25.6||||||Take drug again||25.6|15.7|
95789253|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.3|30.2||||||Take drug again||30.2|20.3|
95789254|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|77.4||||||Good effects||77.4|62.1|
95789255|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.9|43.2||||||Good effects||43.2|27.9|
95789256|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.4|59.7||||||Good effects||59.7|44.4|
95789257|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.4|60.6||||||Good effects||60.6|45.4|
95789258|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|27.2||||||Bad effects||27.2|13.6|
95789259|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|11.8||||||Bad effects||11.8|-1.76|
95789260|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.487|14.1||||||Bad effects||14.1|0.487|
95789261|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.69|19.3||||||Bad effects||19.3|5.69|
95789262|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.2|83.5||||||Any effects||83.5|67.2|
95789263|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.8|53.0||||||Any effects||53.0|36.8|
95814628|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.7|-11.9|<0.0001
95957912|NCT02847637|191888280|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|0.514||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.514|0.195|<0.0001
95789264|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.7|64.9||||||Any effects||64.9|48.7|
95789265|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|64.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|73.0||||||Any effects||73.0|56.7|
95789266|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|76.6||||||High||76.6|60.6|
95789267|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.4|42.4||||||High||42.4|26.4|
95789268|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|55.5||||||High||55.5|39.5|
95789269|NCT03286218|191547776|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|66.3||||||High||66.3|50.4|
95789270|NCT03286218|191547777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95789271|NCT03286218|191547777|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0781
95789272|NCT03286218|191547777|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
95789273|NCT03286218|191547777|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0098
95789274|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-25.9||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-25.9|-34.0|
95789275|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-12.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-12.8|-20.9|
95789276|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.6|-15.5||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-15.5|-23.6|
95789277|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|-20.8||||||Alertness/drowsiness||-20.8|-28.8|
95789278|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|-26.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-26.5|-35.0|
95789279|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|-15.3||||||Agitation/relaxation||-15.3|-23.7|
95789280|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-17.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-17.5|-25.9|
95789281|NCT03286218|191547778|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.0|-24.5||||||Agitation/relaxation||-24.5|-33.0|
95789282|NCT02976519|191547794|OTHER||Slope|1.2705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1067|1.4343|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4343|1.1067|
95789283|NCT02976519|191547794|OTHER||Slope|1.1361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9598|1.3123|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|Cmax,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.3123|0.9598|
95789284|NCT02976519|191547795|OTHER||Slope|1.2743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1231|1.4255|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.4255|1.1231|
95789285|NCT02976519|191547795|OTHER||Slope|1.0924|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0793|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9296|1.2551|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|AUC0-12,13. The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||1.2551|0.9296|
95957913|NCT02847637|191888281|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.626||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|Non-stratified Wald test||Dnisp: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Dnisp: Pre-Study FVIII Prophylaxis is the denominator for this ABR ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.626|0.220|0.0002
95789286|NCT01630135|191547850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.76|||ANCOVA||The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a model adjusting for Treatment, Baseline, Age, and Sex.|||-0.76|-1.41|<0.001
95789287|NCT04805671|191547893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
95789288|NCT04805671|191547898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
95789289|NCT04805671|191547899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|-2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-2.67|-14.71|0.0047
95789290|NCT04805671|191547900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||ADG20 vs Placebo|A statistical method described in Ge et al. (2011) was used to compute a population-level estimate for the treatment difference (in terms of difference in proportion) with adjustment for the pre-defined prognostic factors. The variance of the estimated treatment difference or relative risk reduction was estimated using the delta method.|-4.81|-17.86|0.0007
95814629|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-5.6|0.1033
95814630|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-3.1|-9.3|<0.0001
95814631|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.8|-15.4|<0.0001
95814632|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.6|-4.0|0.6802
95814633|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-8.1|-14.7|<0.0001
95957914|NCT02847637|191888282|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.067||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.067|0.014|<0.0001
95789291|NCT04805671|191547901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.586|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||1.586|0.964|0.0938
95789292|NCT04805671|191547902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.137||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|1.162|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.162|0.016|0.0361
95814634|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.6|-15.6|<0.0001
95814635|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.1|-4.8|0.4404
95814636|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.2|-14.2|<0.0001
95814637|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-9.4|-16.2|<0.0001
95814638|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||2.1|-4.7|0.4437
95957915|NCT02847637|191888283|SUPERIORITY||ABR Ratio|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.068||Not controlled for type I error|Non-stratified Wald test||Arm A+Bnise: Emicizumab Prophylaxis is the numerator and Arm A+Bnise: Pre-Study Episodic FVIII is the denominator for this ABR Ratio.|H0 (null hypothesis): ABR Ratio = 1. H1 (alternative hypothesis): ABR Ratio ≠ 1.||0.068|0.023|<0.0001
95789293|NCT04805671|191547903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.617|||Regression, Cox|||ADG20 vs Placebo||1.617|0.974|0.0781
95789294|NCT04805671|191547904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||ANCOVA|||ADG20 vs. Placebo||0.32|-0.66|0.4976
95789295|NCT04805671|191547905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.048||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.364|||Regression, Cox|||||1.364|0.806|0.7239
95789296|NCT04805671|191547906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.1||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.70|-21.42|0.0364
95789297|NCT04805671|191547907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|15.31||The p-value and risk difference reported was calculated based on the Day 5 timepoint.|Regression, Logistic|||||15.31|1.15|0.0227
95789298|NCT04805671|191547908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.93||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-15.49|0.1124
95789299|NCT02849587|191547914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||<0.001
95789300|NCT02849587|191547915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Generalized least squares model|Raw data converted to z-score based on pre-smoking performance of entire sample.||||||0.022
95789301|NCT02849587|191547916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.283
95789302|NCT02849587|191547917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Generalized estimating equations model|||||||0.0503
95789303|NCT02849587|191547918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||0.024
95789304|NCT02849587|191547919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analyses.||||||0.716
95789305|NCT02849587|191547920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was standardized prior to analysis.||||||0.005
95789306|NCT02849587|191547921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations model|||||||.366
95789307|NCT02849587|191547922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Generalized least squares model|Outcome was log10 transformed prior to analyses.||||||.225
95789308|NCT02849587|191547923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Generalized least squares model|The outcome was transformed using logit function prior to analyses. Model included treatment (3 groups), time (5 times), and their interaction.||||||.592
95789309|NCT02849587|191547924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.294
95789310|NCT02849587|191547925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Generalized least squares model|||||||.144
95789311|NCT02849587|191547926|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.09|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.090
95789312|NCT02849587|191547926|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.0006|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||.0006
95789313|NCT02849587|191547926|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.053|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.053
95789314|NCT02849587|191547927|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.3|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.300
95789315|NCT02849587|191547927|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.038|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.038
95789316|NCT02849587|191547927|OTHER|Spearman's correlation||||||0.175|||||||Spearman's correlation|||||||0.175
95789317|NCT01261390|191547952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.915|0.561|||||Presented average of the treatment effects on 24hr SBP at 6months and 12months: (6mo + 12mo)/ 2; Comparison: ActivePAP Control. Adjusted for randomization factors (CVD; site; sleepstudy type) with subjectspecific slopes and intercepts.|"We conducted a linear mixed effects regression (LMER) to estimate the treatment effect of CPAP on mean 24hour Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). Timepoint, treatment, and the timepoint\* treatment interaction were included as fixed effects, as were randomization stratification factors. Subject was included as a random effect. Let: y = observed SBP; β = fixed effects; u = random effects; X = known design matrix; Z = vector of subjects~Then our model is:~y = Xβ + Zu + ε"||0.561|-5.915|
95789318|NCT01261390|191547953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), and randomization (CVD; site; diagnostic sleep study type; PAP device type).|Estimated value is minutes of use per night.|We performed a mixed effects analysis of the effect of Motivational Enhancement (ME) on nightly CPAP adherence. Our model included every night of data and adjusted for intervention and study duration (number of nights), as well as randomization stratification factors (CVD; site; diagnostic sleepstudy type; PAP device type).||||0.003
95789319|NCT03421379|191547995|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin is (10%)|Treatment Difference Wald's Method|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.47||||||||1.47|-1.47|
95789320|NCT05464420|191548017|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|8.6||||||Injection site erythema: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.6|3.0|
95789321|NCT05464420|191548017|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3||||||Injection site pain: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||17.3|8.0|
95789322|NCT05464420|191548017|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.2||||||Injection site swelling: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||8.2|2.6|
95789323|NCT05464420|191548019|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0||||||Fatigue: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||6.0|-3.2|
95789324|NCT05464420|191548019|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.7||||||Headache: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||9.7|1.6|
95789325|NCT05464420|191548019|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|10.5||||||Myalgia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||10.5|4.5|
95789326|NCT05464420|191548019|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1||||||Pyrexia: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||2.1|-1.0|
95789327|NCT05464420|191548021|OTHER|Estimated difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Estimated difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Vaccine-related SAEs: V116 Combined Lots - PPSV23||0.2|-0.7|
95814639|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.1|-14.9|<0.0001
95789328|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.24|0.96|<0.001
95789329|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.90|<0.001
95789330|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA Model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.83|<0.001
95789331|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.35|0.97|<0.001
95789332|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.22|0.88|<0.001
95789333|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.06|0.77|<0.001
95789334|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.34|1.01|<0.001
95814640|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.1|-18.5|<0.0001
95814641|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||0.6|-6.8|0.0960
95814642|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-8.0|-15.4|<0.0001
95814643|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-11.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.0|-18.1|<0.0001
95814644|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.6||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.6|-5.4|0.2948
95814645|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-9.1|-16.2|<0.0001
95814646|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-9.5|-16.9|<0.0001
95814647|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.3|-6.0|0.2130
95814648|NCT00565409|191600714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-7.1|-14.5|<0.0001
95814649|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-5.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-5.3|-11.8|<0.0001
95814650|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.8|-3.6|0.8033
95957916|NCT02847637|191888284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|26.98||Statistical significance is controlled at the 2-sided, 0.05 alpha level.|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||26.98|-1.96|0.0891
95789335|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.25|0.94|<0.001
95789336|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
95814651|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-4.9|-11.3|<0.0001
95814652|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-10.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-10.0|-17.2|<0.0001
95814653|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.1|-4.1|0.7830
95814654|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-9.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||-9.5|-16.7|<0.0001
95814655|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-8.9|-16.1|<0.0001
95814656|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization|ANCOVA|||Week 56||2.5|-4.6|0.5732
95814657|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-7.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 56||-7.9|-15.1|<0.0001
95814658|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-10.2|-17.6|<0.0001
95814659|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||1.7|-5.6|0.2972
95814660|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-8.3||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 64||-8.3|-15.6|<0.0001
95814661|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-11.8||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-11.8|-19.4|<0.0001
95814662|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||1.0|-6.6|0.1477
95814663|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-9.0||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 72||-9.0|-16.6|<0.0001
95814664|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-11.1||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-11.1|-18.6|<0.0001
95814665|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.2||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||1.2|-6.3|0.1808
95814666|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 80||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
95814667|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-10.9||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-10.9|-18.5|<0.0001
95999873|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of ABCWY+OMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+OMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses MenABCWY combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||31|5|
95789337|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8 V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.16|0.92|<0.001
95789338|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.93|<0.001
95789339|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.90|<0.001
95789340|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.94|<0.001
95789341|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.87|<0.001
95789342|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.80|<0.001
95789343|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
95789344|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
95789345|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.93|<0.001
95789346|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
95789347|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
95789348|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.90|<0.001
95789349|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.26|0.96|<0.001
96002093|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-9.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-9.26|-24.24|<0.001
95957917|NCT02847637|191888284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.97||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|30.78||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||30.78|1.16|0.0349
95789350|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
95789351|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.81|<0.001
95789352|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.22|0.89|<0.001
95789353|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.86|<0.001
95789354|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.12|0.82|<0.001
95789355|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.38||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.38|0.95|<0.001
95789356|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.42|0.97|<0.001
95789357|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.23|0.85|<0.001
95789358|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.84|<0.001
95789359|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.11|0.84|<0.001
95789360|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.15|0.87|<0.001
95789361|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.11|0.85|<0.001
95814668|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.4||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||1.4|-6.2|0.2077
95957918|NCT02847637|191888285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.91||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|13.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||13.55|-1.72|0.1269
95957919|NCT02847637|191888285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.56||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|16.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||16.35|0.77|0.0317
95957920|NCT02847637|191888286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|4.35||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||4.35|-12.43|0.3402
95957921|NCT02847637|191888286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.15||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|-0.55||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.55|-17.74|0.0373
95814669|NCT00565409|191600717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-8.5||ANCOVA model: Change = Week 36 score + treatment + geographic region + DAS28 Strata. DAS28 Strata is defined as DAS28 low disease (≤3.2) or remission (\<2.6) at randomization.|ANCOVA|||Week 88||-8.5|-16.1|<0.0001
95814670|NCT00565409|191600718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95814671|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.5|0.5|0.8974
95957922|NCT02847637|191888287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm A.|||-0.04|-0.22|0.0060
95957923|NCT02847637|191888287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04||Not controlled for type I error|ANCOVA||The difference in adjusted means was analyzed as Arm C minus Arm B.|||-0.04|-0.23|0.0059
95957924|NCT00337285|191888324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95789362|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.89|<0.001
95814672|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.7|0.8|0.1105
95814673|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.3|0.1900
95814674|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.3|<0.0001
95814675|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.4|0.6|0.4032
95814676|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||7.5|2.4|<0.0001
95814677|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.1|<0.0001
95814678|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||3.6|1.0|0.0272
95814679|NCT00565409|191600719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.0|1.4|0.0004
95814680|NCT00565409|191600720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95814681|NCT00565409|191600720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95814682|NCT00565409|191600720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95814683|NCT00565409|191600720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95814684|NCT00565409|191600720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
95814685|NCT00565409|191600720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
95814686|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.7|0.5|0.1718
95814687|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||7.3|0.2|0.8303
95814688|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||10.1|0.5|0.2130
95814689|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||8.2|2.1|<0.0001
95957925|NCT00337285|191888326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95957926|NCT00553605|191888351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference (parecoxib - ketoprofen) was greater than -10 mm.|Least-squares (LS) mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.3||||||LS mean difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.30|-6.53|
95957927|NCT00553605|191888352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|4.86|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||4.86|-5.04|0.972
95789363|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.92|<0.001
95789364|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.15|0.91|<0.001
95789365|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.07|0.84|<0.001
95789366|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.04|0.82|<0.001
95789367|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.14|0.84|<0.001
95789368|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.24|0.92|<0.001
95789369|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.27||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.27|0.94|<0.001
95789370|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.29|0.93|<0.001
95789371|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.21|0.87|<0.001
95789372|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.10|0.80|<0.001
95789373|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cDLA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.85|<0.001
95789374|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.86|<0.001
95789375|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.87|<0.001
95814690|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.0|0.3|0.4337
95814691|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||10.8|2.5|<0.0001
95814692|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.5|3.0|<0.0001
95814693|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.9|0.4|0.8973
95814694|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||10.1|2.8|<0.0001
95814695|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||8.1|2.4|<0.0001
95861311|NCT01305577|191681318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|52.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline CR-SMFRS value in the model.|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|||52.90|2.75|<0.001
95861312|NCT01305577|191681319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|5.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and Baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 1 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||5.14|1.74|<0.001
95957928|NCT00553605|191888354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Minute 15: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.79|-4.28|0.768
95789376|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.48||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.48|1.00|<0.001
95789377|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.19|0.80|<0.001
95789378|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||0.97|0.66|<0.001
95789379|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.18|0.88|<0.001
95789380|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.88|<0.001
95789381|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.87|<0.001
95789382|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.20|0.87|<0.001
95814696|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.4|0.5708
95814697|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||10.3|3.0|<0.0001
95861313|NCT01305577|191681319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|9.11|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis with treatment and baseline SSRS value in the model|Odds ratio was based on a logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline score. Odds ratios \>1 indicate a positive treatment effect.|"The null hypothesis was there was no difference between deoxycholic acid 2 mg/cm² and placebo.~An adjustment for multiplicity was performed for the two co-primary endpoints. This was accounted for by using the larger of the two P-values in the Bonferroni-Holm scheme."||9.11|2.99|<0.001
95957929|NCT00553605|191888354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.24|||ANCOVA|||Minute 30: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||5.24|-6.22|0.866
95814698|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||12.0|3.3|<0.0001
95861314|NCT01305577|191681320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
95861315|NCT01305577|191681320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model included the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline CR-SMFRS values as covariate.||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
95861316|NCT01305577|191681321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.47|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.47|0.61|<0.001
95861317|NCT01305577|191681321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.84|||ANCOVA|The model includes the fixed effect factor treatment and the Baseline values as covariate.||||1.84|0.99|<0.001
95861318|NCT01305577|191681322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the Baseline values as covariate.||||-0.87|-2.50|<0.001
95789383|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.20|0.87|<0.001
95789384|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.17|0.85|<0.001
95789385|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.33|0.93|<0.001
95789386|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.29|0.90|<0.001
95789387|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.16|0.81|<0.001
95789388|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2||1.17|0.91|<0.001
95789389|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3||1.18|0.91|<0.001
95789390|NCT05464420|191548022|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence can be concluded if both the lower tailed and upper tailed p-values are \< 0.025.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P value for testing the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \>0.5. P value for testing the upper bound of the 95% CI for GMT ratio was \<2.0.|V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3||1.14|0.89|<0.001
95789391|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
95789392|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.02|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.02|3.01|
95789393|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.18|
95789394|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.93|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.77|
95861319|NCT01305577|191681322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|The model includes the fixed effect factors visit and treatment, the visit\*treatment interaction, and the baseline values as covariate.||||-1.15|-2.79|<0.001
95861320|NCT01305577|191681323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
95861321|NCT01305577|191681323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||<0.001
95957930|NCT00553605|191888354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Minute 45: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.26|-4.38|0.729
95957931|NCT00553605|191888354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Minute 60: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||7.48|-2.24|0.290
95789395|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.85|
95789396|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.48|1.18|
95789397|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1.95|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.95|1.56|
95789398|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.56|1.22|
95789399|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|4.56|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMT Ratio v116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.56|3.56|
95789400|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|3.38|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.38|2.49|
95789401|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.17||||||Serotype 16F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.17|3.32|
95789402|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.91|1.53|
95789403|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.84|
95789404|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.67|1.30|
95789405|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.53|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.53|1.17|
95789406|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.84|9.31|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.31|6.84|
95789407|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|23.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|28.55|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|28.55|19.71|
95789408|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|19.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|22.88|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|22.88|16.70|
95789409|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|13.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|15.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|15.71|11.68|
95789410|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97||||||Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.73|
95789411|NCT05464420|191548023|OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|4.09|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMT Ratio V116 Combined Lots / PPSV23|GMT Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.09|3.36|
95789412|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.09|0.88|
95789413|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.85|
95789414|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.87|
95789415|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|0.95|
95789416|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.86|
95789417|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.77|
95789418|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
95789419|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.90|
95789420|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.93|
95789421|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.86|
95789422|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
95957932|NCT00553605|191888354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.37|||ANCOVA|||Minute 90: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||6.37|-2.05|0.314
95814699|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.4|0.8842
95814700|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.8|3.2|<0.0001
95814701|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|14.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||14.4|3.8|<0.0001
95814702|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||3.1|0.6|0.1608
95814703|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|8.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.4|2.9|<0.0001
95814704|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||12.4|3.4|<0.0001
95814705|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||2.7|0.6|0.2825
95814706|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|2.7|<0.0001
95861322|NCT00486291|191681363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||It is anticipated that the pooled standard deviation (SD) of the change from baseline in HbA1c will be between 1.0 and 1.5. With 90 subjects per treatment group the study will have 90% power (two-sided alpha=0.05) to detect a mean difference between groups of 0.486 for SD=1.0, and a mean difference between groups of 0.729 for SD=1.5.||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
95999874|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of ACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup A of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||30|7|
95814707|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.7|2.7|<0.0001
95814708|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.1|0.5|0.4471
95814709|NCT00565409|191600721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.0|2.5|<0.0001
95861323|NCT00486291|191681364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-8.1|<0.0001
95999875|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|42.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup C of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||42|18|
95814710|NCT00565409|191600722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95814711|NCT00565409|191600722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95814712|NCT00565409|191600722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95814713|NCT00565409|191600722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95814714|NCT00565409|191600722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
95814715|NCT00565409|191600722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
95814716|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.4|0.6006
95814717|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.1|0.6|0.4967
95814718|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.5|0.4|0.3648
95814719|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.2|1.2|0.0024
95861324|NCT03462511|191681371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|||||Independent variables: study month, study group, their interactions and a person-level random intercept to incorporate clustering.|Regression, Linear|||Based on estimated effect size from our prior feasibility trial, the target enrollment was 87 dyads plus additional 20% to account for attrition before Month 6 or blood transfusions or acute illness rendering HbF levels inaccurate.||||0.067
95861325|NCT03462511|191681372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We compared the difference in proportion of days covered by hydroxyurea at two timepoints: (1) from the year prior to study entry to 6 months (the end of the active intervention phase of the trial) and (2) from 6 months to 12 months (the sustainability phase of the trial).||||0.60
95861326|NCT03462511|191681373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, generic quality of life (QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||<0.001
95861327|NCT03462511|191681373|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test generic quality of life (QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in quality of life experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.04
95861328|NCT03462511|191681374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) for youth in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 9 months.||||0.47
95957933|NCT00553605|191888354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Minute 120: p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country, and baseline as covariates.||3.55|-3.23|0.926
95789423|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|
95789424|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
95789425|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.77|
95789426|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.98|0.74|
95789427|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
95789428|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.83|
95789429|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
95789430|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
95789431|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.91|
95789432|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.90|
95789433|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.80|
95789434|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.84|
95789435|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.89|
95789436|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
95789437|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.83|
95789438|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
95789439|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.91|
95789440|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.89|
95789441|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|
95789442|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.03|0.78|
95957934|NCT00553605|191888355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.43||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|36.54|||ANCOVA|||p-value, LS mean difference and 95% CI were based on ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and country as covariates.||36.54|-16.3|0.451
95999876|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days after the last vaccination.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|33.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup W-135 of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||33|4|
95789443|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.78|
95789444|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
95789445|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.91|
95789446|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.93|
95789447|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.88|
95789448|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.85|
95789449|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.04|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.79|
95789450|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|
95789451|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.83|
95789452|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
95789453|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|
95789454|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
95789455|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.87|
95789456|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
95789457|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.84|
95789458|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.83|
95789459|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.85|
95789460|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.87|
95789461|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.79|
95789462|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.77|
95789463|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.80|
95789464|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.84|
95789465|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|
95789466|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.0|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.77|
95789467|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.88|
95789468|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.30|1.00|
95789469|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 2|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.89|
95789470|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.88|
95789471|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
95789472|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 2|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.90|
95999877|NCT01272180|191975726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The immune response of MenABCWY+qOMV group was considered to be non-inferior to that of MenACWY group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference between groups in percentage of subjects with seroresponse is greater than -10% for each of A, C, W-135and Y serogroups, at 30 days.|Group Difference % (ABCWY+qOMV - ACWY)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|29.0||||||Non-inferiority of seroresponse against N.meningitidis serogroup Y of two doses of MenABCWY+qOMV combination vaccine to that of one dose of MenACWY vaccine.||29|3|
95789473|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||V116 Lot 1/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 1/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
95789474|NCT05464420|191548024|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||||V116 Lot 2/V116 Lot 3|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Lot 2/ V116 Lot 3|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|
95789475|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.21|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|1.01|
95789476|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|4.45|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|4.45|3.43|
95789477|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.72|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.72|1.38|
95789478|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 8: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.89|0.73|
95789479|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 9N: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.91|
95789480|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.66|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 10A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.66|1.30|
95789481|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.52|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 11A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.26|
95789482|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.62|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 12F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.62|1.23|
95789483|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.08|7.65|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.65|6.08|
95789484|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.67|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 15C: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|3.67|2.86|
95789485|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|7.19|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 16F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.19|5.83|
95789486|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.07|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 17F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|2.07|1.66|
95789487|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.98|
95999878|NCT00624338|191975784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.82||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.74|0.518
95789488|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.71|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 20A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.71|1.37|
95789489|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.49|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.49|1.17|
95789490|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|8.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|9.23|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23A: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|9.23|7.19|
95789491|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|5.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.08|6.48|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 23B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|6.48|5.08|
95789492|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|14.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.77|16.4|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 24F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|16.40|12.77|
95789493|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.61|10.59|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 31: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|10.59|8.61|
95789494|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.73|
95789495|NCT05464420|191548025|OTHER||GMC Ratio|7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|7.77|||||V116 Combined Lots/PPSV23|Serotype 35B: GMC Ratio V116 Combined Lots/ PPSV23|GMC Ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|7.77|6.41|
95789496|NCT00382785|191548054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||univariate analysis|||Power calculation indicated that 60 subjects would be needed. Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in perceived social support based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.315
95789497|NCT00382785|191548055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||univariate analysis|Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference between the moderated and peer-led groups based on type of online support (moderated; peer-led)||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in depressive symptoms based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.23
95789498|NCT00382785|191548056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Univariate Analysis|||Power analysis indicated that 60 subjects were needed. Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in quality of life (QOL) based on type of online support group (moderated or peer-led).||||.32
95957935|NCT00553605|191888356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.3982
95789499|NCT00627926|191548076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|30.0||||||||30.0|15.9|
95789500|NCT00627926|191548076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|36.1||||||||36.1|22.4|
95789501|NCT00627926|191548077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|62.8||||||||62.8|51.4|
95789502|NCT00627926|191548077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|64.0||||||||64.0|52.7|
95789503|NCT00627926|191548078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|54.6||||||||54.6|43.0|
95789504|NCT00627926|191548078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|50.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|56.2||||||||56.2|44.6|
95789505|NCT00627926|191548079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|42.4||||||||42.4|29.0|
95957936|NCT00553605|191888356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.5552
95957937|NCT00553605|191888357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.007||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||p-value was based on logistic regression model with terms for treatment group and baseline as covariates.||1.69|0.60|0.9785
95789506|NCT00627926|191548079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|44.1||||||||44.1|30.9|
95789507|NCT00627926|191548080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|24.0||||||||24.0|11.2|
95789508|NCT00627926|191548080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.2||||||||29.2|17.0|
95789509|NCT00627926|191548081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.4||||||||32.4|18.5|
95789510|NCT00627926|191548081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|37.9||||||||37.9|24.4|
95957938|NCT00553605|191888358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.2482
95789511|NCT00627926|191548082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|32.2||||||||32.2|18.2|
95789512|NCT00627926|191548082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|38.5||||||||38.5|24.9|
95789513|NCT00627926|191548087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|31.9||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||31.9|17.9|
95789514|NCT00627926|191548087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|37.7||||||SVR Protocol Defined: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment without any confirmed detectable HCV RNA between end of treatment visit (up to Week 48) and 24 weeks after last planned dose (up to Week 72).||37.7|24.1|
95789515|NCT00627926|191548087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|32.6||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||32.6|18.8|
95789516|NCT00627926|191548087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|39.2||||||SVR FDA Guidance: undetectable HCV RNA at 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment. Analysis was based only on the HCV RNA assessment in visit window (+/-2 weeks); if there were more than 1 assessment in the window, the last measurement was used.||39.2|25.9|
95789517|NCT02137226|191548114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 12, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-12.0%, 15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|12.7|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 12 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.7|-0.9|
95789518|NCT02137226|191548115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 12 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.05|-0.25|
95789519|NCT02137226|191548115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is not applicable|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.23|||ANCOVA||Difference in least square means of BI 695501 - Humira is presented.|Results based on DAS28 (ESR) mean changes from Baseline after 24 weeks of treatment = overall mean + treatment group + Baseline DAS28 (ESR) + prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||0.23|-0.17|
95814720|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8308||95.0|0.6|||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.|0.6|0.8308
95814721|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.4|1.3|0.0008
95814722|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.2|2.0|<0.0001
95814723|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.8|0.7|0.7374
95957939|NCT00553605|191888358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.7659
95957940|NCT00553605|191888359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9783|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 30: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.9783
95957941|NCT00553605|191888359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6847|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Minute 120: p-value was calculated using CMH model and using modified ridit scores, testing for non-zero correlation and controlling for country.||||0.6847
95957942|NCT00553605|191888360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9645
95789520|NCT02137226|191548117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for ACR20 at Week 24, rounded to 1 decimal place, had to be entirely contained in the predefined equivalence region \[-15.0%;+15.0%\]|Difference in proportions|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.5|||Regression, Logistic||Results from logistic regression model adjusted for treatment, prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes / no), Baseline DAS28 (ESR). Difference in ACR20 Response Rate (BI695501 - Humira, %) is presented.|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportion is produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve||12.5|-3.4|
95789521|NCT01462110|191548118|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.192|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.192|-0.276|<0.001
95789522|NCT01462110|191548119|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.392|-1.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-1.071|-1.392|<0.001
95789523|NCT01462110|191548120|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.071|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.071|-0.140|<0.001
95789524|NCT01462110|191548121|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.639|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.639|-1.020|<0.001
95789525|NCT01462110|191548122|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 2 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.029|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.029|-0.059|<0.001
95789526|NCT01462110|191548123|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is equal between the two cells. The alternative hypothesis was the Week 4 mean is not equal between the two cells.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|-0.043|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment as a factor \& baseline as a covariate.||||-0.043|-0.078|<0.001
95789527|NCT02106351|191548177|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.4||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived least squares (LS) means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.0118
95789528|NCT02106351|191548177|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The 2-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA is performed on the ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANCOVA on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||<0.0001
95789529|NCT02106351|191548178|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.2043
95861329|NCT03462511|191681374|NON_INFERIORITY|30% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) scores for months 4-9 (efficacy period) were compared to months \>9 (sustainability period).||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in sickle cell disease specific quality of life (SC-QOL) experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 9 to month 12.||||0.045
95957943|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.092|0.016|
95957944|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.103|0.027|
95957945|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.122|0.046|
95957946|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.049|-0.027|
95957947|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.069|-0.008|
95814724|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
95814725|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.8|1.9|<0.0001
95814726|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.7|0.6|0.9599
95814727|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
95814728|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.7|2.3|<0.0001
95814729|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||2.0|0.8|0.4509
95861330|NCT03462511|191681375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that, compared to the control group, responsibility for self-management concordance for youth-caregiver dyads in the intervention group would improve from baseline to 6 months.||||0.002
95861331|NCT03462511|191681375|NON_INFERIORITY|50% of the standard deviation was used as the non-inferiority margin. For this test youth caregiver concordance for self-management responsibility scores for months 0-6 (efficacy period) were compared to months 6-12 (sustainability period).||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvement in concordance between youth and caregivers for self-management responsibility experienced by the intervention group would be sustained from month 6 to month 12.||||0.23
95861332|NCT00984620|191681444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|-1.25||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||11.8|-14.3|0.855
95861333|NCT00984620|191681445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|9.02||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||23.3|-5.3|0.229
95957948|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.058|-0.019|
95861334|NCT00984620|191681446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|5.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.3|-7.3|0.417
95861335|NCT00984620|191681447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|2.99||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||16.6|-10.6|0.676
95814730|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.6|1.9|<0.0001
95814731|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.0|2.6|<0.0001
95814732|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.0|0.7|0.3037
95814733|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.1|2.1|<0.0001
95814734|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.2|2.7|<0.0001
95814735|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.7|0.6076
95814736|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
95957949|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.089|0.013|
95999879|NCT00624338|191975784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.78||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.78|0.31|0.003
95789530|NCT02106351|191548178|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference back transformed|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|||||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA was performed on ranked values.||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANOVA on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.||||0.1880
95789531|NCT02106351|191548179|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.7|0.7648
95789532|NCT02106351|191548179|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7||The two-tailed significance level was 0.05.|ANOVA|||The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.||3.7|-2.6|0.7429
95789533|NCT01401543|191548187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.91|
95789534|NCT01401543|191548187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.93|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.93|0.85|
95789535|NCT01401543|191548187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.97|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.97|0.88|
95789536|NCT01401543|191548187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.95|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.95|0.86|
95789537|NCT01401543|191548187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.99|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.99|0.90|
95789538|NCT01401543|191548187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-∞) was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.07|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.07|0.97|
95789539|NCT01401543|191548188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.91|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.91|0.77|
95789540|NCT01401543|191548188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.85|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.85|0.71|
95861336|NCT00984620|191681448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|3.24||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||14.6|-8.1|0.588
95789541|NCT01401543|191548188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.01|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.01|0.85|
95789542|NCT01401543|191548188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.84|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.84|0.70|
95999880|NCT00624338|191975785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.69|0.929
95814737|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
95814738|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.6|0.6|0.7837
95814739|NCT00565409|191600723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
95814740|NCT00565409|191600724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95814741|NCT00565409|191600724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95814742|NCT00565409|191600724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95814743|NCT00565409|191600724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95814744|NCT00565409|191600724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
95861337|NCT00984620|191681449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percent difference|4.78||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted by HCV genotype (1a and 1b only).|p-value presented is 2-sided. The percent differences and p-values are based on a comparison to the Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks).|||18.6|-9.0|0.512
95861338|NCT00984620|191681451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1397||||||Compare 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (24 Weeks) over 120 MG Faldaprevir 120mg (12 Weeks) using log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.1397
95814745|NCT00565409|191600724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
95814746|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.0|0.7|0.5263
95814747|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|0.9|0.1055
95814748|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.4|0.5|0.4348
95814749|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.3|1.4|0.0003
95814750|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.7|0.7|0.5511
95814751|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.9|1.3|0.0013
95814752|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.3|1.8|<0.0001
95814753|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.5|0.6|0.9225
95814754|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||4.5|1.9|<0.0001
95814755|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.6|2.7|<0.0001
95814756|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.9|0.2454
95814757|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
95814758|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|6.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.0|2.4|<0.0001
95814759|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.9|0.8|0.4919
95861339|NCT01946204|191681502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.335|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.335|0.219|<0.0001
95957950|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.122|0.045|
95789543|NCT01401543|191548188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.00|0.84|
95789544|NCT01401543|191548188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factor for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.08|0.91|
95789545|NCT01401543|191548189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||||1.05|0.93|
95789546|NCT01401543|191548189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0||||||||1.00|0.89|
95789547|NCT01401543|191548189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
95789548|NCT01401543|191548189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
95789549|NCT01401543|191548189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
95789550|NCT01401543|191548189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||||1.08|0.95|
95789551|NCT01401543|191548190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.77|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.77|0.68|
95789552|NCT01401543|191548190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.76|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.76|0.66|
95814760|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||4.9|2.0|<0.0001
95789553|NCT01401543|191548190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.05|0.92|
95789554|NCT01401543|191548190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.74|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||0.74|0.65|
95789555|NCT01401543|191548190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.02|0.90|
95789556|NCT01401543|191548190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04|||||Formulation, sequence, and period were included in the model as fixed effects, and participant as a random factor.|||1.04|0.91|
95789557|NCT00069823|191548191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||2.0|0.8|0.35
95789558|NCT00069823|191548192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.6|0.79
95789559|NCT00069823|191548193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||The rates of EPACs were compared using incidence-rate ratios (IRR). IRR and P value were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.5|0.8|0.66
95789560|NCT00069823|191548194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.6|0.62
95814761|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||7.6|3.0|<0.0001
95861340|NCT01946204|191681502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.279|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.342|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for TTM by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
95957951|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.119|0.042|
95957952|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.071|-0.006|
95957953|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.068|-0.009|
95999881|NCT00624338|191975785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87||Cox proportional hazards model was performed to calculate hazard ratios and adjusted for race and disease severity at time of screening.|Regression, Cox|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||0.87|0.36|0.009
95999882|NCT00624338|191975786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.94||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.76|0.412
95999883|NCT00624338|191975786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.722||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||Odds ratios were calculated from a logistic regression model, adjusted for race and disease severity reported at screening.|Regression, Logistic|Atacicept 150 mg arm was discontinued prematurely. The analysis of 150 mg was considered post-hoc.||||1.19|0.44|0.198
95957954|NCT01040403|191888372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.035|-0.041|
95789561|NCT00069823|191548195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Rates were compared with incidence-rate ratios (IRR). The IRR and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.8|0.87
95789562|NCT00069823|191548196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.62||95.0|0.7|1.3||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.3|0.7|0.62
95789563|NCT00069823|191548197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-Rate Ratio|0.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||P values are for the treatment effect of esomeprazole as compared with placebo.|Negative binomial regression|||Incidence-rate ratios and P values were estimated with the use of negative binomial regression models with robust variance estimates.||1.4|0.6|0.70
95789564|NCT00069823|191548198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.08||P values were calculated with the use of linear regression.|Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group, e.g. 0.00 - (-0.02) = -0.03 (rounding)|The treatment effect is the mean change in the Esomeprazole group - mean change in placebo group||0.08|-0.03|0.36
95789565|NCT00069823|191548199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.09|-0.03|0.30
95789566|NCT00069823|191548200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.0|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||16.0|-4.0|0.24
95789567|NCT00069823|191548201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|-1.8||||0.04||95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.1|-3.6|0.04
95789568|NCT00069823|191548202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.2|0.0|0.11
95789569|NCT00069823|191548203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||-0.02|-0.05|0.11
95789570|NCT00069823|191548204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.1|-0.2|0.33
95789571|NCT00069823|191548205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.4|-2.0|0.16
95789572|NCT00069823|191548206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||2.2|-1.1|0.56
95789573|NCT00069823|191548207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.07|-0.05|0.76
95789574|NCT00069823|191548208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment effect is the difference in mean change in the esomeprazole group minus the mean change in the placebo group|||0.3|-0.8|0.39
95789575|NCT00765817|191548213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95789576|NCT00765817|191548214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95789577|NCT00765817|191548215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95789578|NCT00765817|191548216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.174
95789579|NCT00765817|191548218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.203
95789580|NCT00765817|191548219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95789581|NCT00765817|191548220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.745
95789582|NCT00765817|191548221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.933
95789583|NCT00765817|191548222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95789584|NCT00765817|191548223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.226
95789585|NCT00765817|191548224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.026
95789586|NCT00765817|191548225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.070
95789587|NCT00765817|191548226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95789588|NCT00765817|191548227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95789589|NCT00765817|191548228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||0.666
95789590|NCT00765817|191548229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
95814762|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||2.3|1.0|0.0658
95814763|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||4.7|2.0|<0.0001
95957955|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.159|0.040|
95814764|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|6.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.8|2.7|<0.0001
95814765|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.4014
95814766|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||5.5|2.3|<0.0001
95814767|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.2|2.9|<0.0001
95814768|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.2824
95814769|NCT00565409|191600725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.9|2.5|<0.0001
95814770|NCT00565409|191600726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95814771|NCT00565409|191600726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95814772|NCT00565409|191600726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95814773|NCT00565409|191600726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95957956|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.179|0.061|
95814774|NCT00565409|191600726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
95814775|NCT00565409|191600726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||week 36||||<0.0001
95814776|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0575
95814777|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.3|1.0|0.0630
95814778|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.6|0.7|0.9160
95814779|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.0|0.0147
95814780|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.6|0.6|0.8675
95814781|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.0|1.1|0.0174
95814782|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||5.7|1.9|<0.0001
95814783|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.3|0.5|0.4941
95814784|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.0|2.3|<0.0001
95814785|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||5.9|2.0|<0.0001
95814786|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||1.5|0.6|0.8185
95814787|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
95814788|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||6.6|2.2|<0.0001
95814789|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.8|0.7|0.4254
95957957|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.160|0.041|
95789591|NCT00593450|191548259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-3.9|2.9||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.9|-3.9|0.16
95789592|NCT00593450|191548259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.1|2.4||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.4|-4.1|0.16
95789593|NCT00593450|191548259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.7|1.3||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.3|-4.7|0.16
95789594|NCT00593450|191548259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.7|1.6||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||1.6|-5.7|0.16
95814790|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||5.9|1.9|<0.0001
95814791|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||5.8|1.8|<0.0001
95814792|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.7|0.8766
95814793|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||6.4|2.1|<0.0001
95861341|NCT01946204|191681503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|0.356|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.356|0.238|<0.0001
95861342|NCT01946204|191681503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.364|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for PFS by BICR (EX-US Regulatory)||0.364|0.247|<0.0001
95861343|NCT01946204|191681504|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.447|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|0.634|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for Time to Symptomatic Progression||0.634|0.315|<0.0001
95861344|NCT01946204|191681507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.346|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (US Regulatory)||0.346|0.227|<0.0001
95861345|NCT01946204|191681507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.362|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis for MFS by BICR (Ex-US Regulatory)||0.362|0.244|<0.0001
95789595|NCT00593450|191548259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-4.5|2.1||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Lucentis as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Avastin Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||2.1|-4.5|0.16
95789596|NCT00593450|191548259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit for the difference between study groups in the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year was 5 letters (i.e., one line on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study \[ETDRS\] visual-acuity chart)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.16|TWO_SIDED|99.2|-5.9|0.8||This p-value is for the test of overall difference among 4 treatment groups. The p-value for pairwise comparison was not performed, because this is a non-inferiority trial.|ANOVA|We calcularted of two-sided 99.2% confidence intervals. We used Bonferroni approach to accommodate six pairwise treatment comparisons.|Estimate = Mean VA Change in Avastin as Needed Group - Mean VA Change in Lucentis Monthly Group|The study was designed as a non-inferiority trial among four study groups, with the ability to test for superiority if a treatment was found to be non-inferior. Assuming a standard deviation for changes in visual acuity for 15 letters, we determined that a sample of 277 patients per group (which was increased to 300 to allow for a rate of death or dropout of 8%) would provide a power of 90%.||0.8|-5.9|0.16
95789597|NCT01466361|191548274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.23||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 1 minute post dosing.||0.44|-14.89|0.0643
95789598|NCT01466361|191548274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.16||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|2.61|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between nicotine 1.5mg lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 3 minute post dosing.||2.61|-16.93|0.1489
95789599|NCT01466361|191548274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.33||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|3.9|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings at 5 minute post dosing.||3.90|-16.56|0.2225
95789600|NCT01466361|191548274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.11||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|5.66|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 10 minutes post dosing.||5.66|-15.87|0.3491
95789601|NCT01466361|191548274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.59|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 1.5mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 15 minutes post dosing.||6.59|-16.60|0.3936
95789602|NCT01466361|191548275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.58||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|4.7|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, at 1 minute post dosing.||4.70|-11.85|0.3922
95814794|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.4||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.4|2.0|<0.0001
95999884|NCT03476850|191975793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.883|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An a priori sample size calculation found 24 subjects per group (48 total) provided \>80% power to detect a 2 unit difference in patient reported pain based on a 2-sided test and significance level a = 0.05 assuming at least 3 measures per subject and a within subject covariance having a compound symmetric structure with a standard deviation in pain score of 3 units and within subject correlation of 0.5.||||.883
95789603|NCT01466361|191548275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.7||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.59|0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparisons were made between 4mg nicotine lozenge and placebo lozenge at 5% significance level.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to provoked nicotine cravings, 3 minutes post dosing.||0.20|-19.59|0.0547
95814795|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.8|0.3535
95814796|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||6.1|1.9|<0.0001
95999885|NCT03476850|191975794|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.977
95999886|NCT03476850|191975795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.009
95999887|NCT03476850|191975797|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.110
95999888|NCT03476850|191975798|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.719
95999889|NCT01476787|191975799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.128
95999890|NCT01476787|191975800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.120|0.756|0.406
95999891|NCT01476787|191975802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.261||||||||1.261|0.854|
95999892|NCT01476787|191975803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.395||||||||1.395|0.775|
95999893|NCT01476787|191975804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.006|||Regression, Cox|||||1.006|0.651|
95789604|NCT02371616|191548293|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferences: upper end of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the estimated effect of Test relative to Comparator, for success, should be \<=6mm. (i.e., Test is no more than 6mm inferior to Comparator).|Least square (LS) mean difference|2.67||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.4||From ANCOVA model: change from baseline as the response variable, treatment group, baseline Schiff stratum and study site as fixed effects, with baseline VAS score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Statistical analysis applies to change from baseline at week 8 for test and comparator dentifrice.||7.40|-2.06|0.2678
95789605|NCT00593814|191548297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95814797|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||6.1|2.0|<0.0001
95999894|NCT00524303|191975829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|17.9|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the trastuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||17.9|-38.1|
95999895|NCT00524303|191975829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|49.4|||||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||49.4|-8.0|
95999896|NCT00524303|191975830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|32.5|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the lapatinib arm was calculated.|||32.5|-17.8|0.627
95999897|NCT00524303|191975830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|25.1|||Fisher Exact||Approximate 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the transtuzumab arm and the transtuzumab + lapatinib arm was calculated.|||25.1|-25.1|1.000
95999898|NCT01676116|191975859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.11|<0.001
95999899|NCT01877655|191975868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.85||P-value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI was based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness \& donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality and adjudicated CMV EOD. Analysis was completed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at the 1-sided 5% level stratified by use of antithymocyte globulin (ATG) and by receipt of a kidney from a living or deceased donor.||1.85|0.87|0.205
95814798|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||1.9|0.8|0.3231
95814799|NCT00565409|191600727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||5.6|1.9|<0.0001
95814800|NCT00565409|191600728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95999900|NCT01877655|191975869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV viremia through 1 year posttransplant. CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. The 95% CI was based on cumulative incidence function CMV viremia rate at 1 year.||1.22|0.76|0.748
95999901|NCT01877655|191975870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.29||P-value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of CMV-specific antiviral therapy (AVT) through 1 year. Time to first adjudicated CMV-specific therapy was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Rate was based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.29|0.80|0.888
95999902|NCT01877655|191975871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51||P value based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of composite of CMV viremia and adjudicated CMV-AVT. The CMV viremia was defined by the protocol as CMV plasma viral load ≥ 1000 IU/mL as assessed by the central laboratory. CMV-specific AVT was determined by the adjudication committee. Participants with no posttransplant viral load data were excluded from the analysis.||1.51|0.73|0.802
95999903|NCT01877655|191975872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.28||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Parameter estimate from cox proportional hazard model (ASP0113 v placebo) with treatment \& randomization strata adjusted for death as a competing risk||Analysis of rate of adjudicated CMV AVT or CMV EOD. Time to first CMV-specific AVT was defined as time to the start of AVT for CMV viremia or CMV EOD. CMV-specific AVT and EOD and were determined by the adjudication committee. Rate based on cumulative incidence function estimate at 1 year.||1.28|0.80|0.928
95789606|NCT01711983|191548367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin based on 1) the lower 95% confidence bound (= 0.82) for estimated 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (219/253=0.866), and 2) a worst-case analysis of 6-month composite Clinical Success for the historical device (0.81, assuming the 18 subjects with missing echo evaluations were failures).|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0366|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05.|2-sample binomial proportions test||Difference is control - test. Confidence interval is the upper one-sided 95% Wald confidence interval.|"Test null hypothesis of inferiority of test device (test) compared to historical device (control).~H0: Pc - Pt ≥ Δ vs H1: Pc - Pt \< Δ, where Pt and Pc are true proportions of 6-month clinical success for test and control, respectively, and Δ is the non-inferiority margin.~Given Nc = 253, then Nt = 135 test subjects provides 86% power to reject H0 with 95% confidence if Δ = 0.10 and Pc = Pt = 0.866 under H0."||0.007||<0.0001
95789607|NCT00737100|191548381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.001||95.0|1.19|4.7||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.70|1.19|0.001
95789608|NCT00737100|191548381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39||||0.0001||95.0|1.67|5.12||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.67|0.0001
95789609|NCT00737100|191548382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.0184||95.0|0.38|4.11||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||4.11|0.38|0.0184
95789610|NCT00737100|191548382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0179||95.0|0.38|4.06||Comment for p-value: Hierarchical testing was applied. Comparison of 2.5 dose to be performed only if superiority of tiotropium 5.0 dose compared to placebo was shown for both primary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||4.06|0.38|0.0179
95789611|NCT00737100|191548383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.0756||95.0|-0.19|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||3.86|-0.19|0.0756
95789612|NCT00737100|191548383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.0023||95.0|1.12|5.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||5.12|1.12|0.0023
95789613|NCT00737100|191548384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.3857||95.0|-1.08|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||2.79|-1.08|0.3857
95789614|NCT00737100|191548384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.2199||95.0|-0.72|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||3.11|-0.72|0.2199
95814801|NCT00565409|191600728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95814802|NCT00565409|191600728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95999904|NCT01877655|191975873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.73||P value based on cox proportional hazards model parameter estimate for the treatment effect.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) and 95% CI based on CMH general association test stratified by donor-recipient relatedness and donor CMV serostatus.|Analysis of all-cause mortality at 1 year. Participants with unknown survival status at 1 year were considered dead for this analysis.||1.73|0.81|0.393
95789615|NCT00737100|191548385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0363||95.0|0.27|8.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||8.11|0.27|0.0363
95789616|NCT00737100|191548385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.34||||0.0073||95.0|1.45|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||9.23|1.45|0.0073
95789617|NCT00737100|191548386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.7414||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||0.08|-0.06|0.7414
95789618|NCT00737100|191548386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1418||95.0|-0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||0.12|-0.02|0.1418
95861346|NCT05388669|191681586|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tests was based on one-sided test at significance level of alpha = 0.05 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the amivantamab SC-CF relative to amivantamab IV.|Cox regression model|1.427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.266|1.61||||||Arm B Vs Arm A||1.610|1.266|
95999905|NCT01269125|191975926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
95789619|NCT00737100|191548387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.8515||95.0|0.37|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates of treatment and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 2.5 microgram dose versus placebo||1.72|0.37|0.8515
95789620|NCT00737100|191548387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5565||95.0|0.33|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline, center, visit and age group||Comparison of Tiotropium 5.0 microgram dose versus placebo||1.59|0.33|0.5565
95814803|NCT00565409|191600728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95814804|NCT00565409|191600728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||||<0.0001
95814805|NCT00565409|191600728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||||<0.0001
95814806|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||5.2|0.9|0.0089
95957958|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.079|-0.039|
95957959|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.061|-0.059|
95957960|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.040|-0.079|
95957961|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.190|0.071|
95957962|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.191|0.072|
95814807|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||1.7|0.5|0.6932
95814808|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||6.1|1.2|0.0019
95814809|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.6|0.6|0.0797
95957963|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.187|0.067|
95957964|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.061|-0.059|
95957965|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.056|-0.063|
95957966|NCT01040403|191888373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.064|
95957967|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.114|0.035|
95999906|NCT01269125|191975930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.8||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Chi-squared|||||0.3|-0.2|0.80
95814810|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||1.9|0.4|0.8103
95814811|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||4.5|0.8|0.0903
95957968|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
95957969|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.159|0.079|
95957970|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.017|
95957971|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.085|0.004|
95957972|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.062|-0.018|
95957973|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.137|0.057|
95957974|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.168|0.088|
95957975|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.183|0.103|
95957976|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.071|-0.009|
95957977|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.086|0.006|
95957978|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.055|-0.025|
95957979|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.117|0.040|
95957980|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.137|0.060|
95789621|NCT01064414|191548395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.529|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.066|-0.529|0.012
95789622|NCT01064414|191548395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.635|<0.001
95789623|NCT01064414|191548396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.73|0.227
95789624|NCT01064414|191548396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.04|1.19|0.017
95789625|NCT01064414|191548397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.638||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.45|-2.307|||ANCOVA|||||-2.307|-28.45|0.021
95789626|NCT01064414|191548397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.683||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|0.962|||ANCOVA|||||0.962|-25.36|0.069
95789627|NCT00643201|191548401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing: non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025 with margin of 1.8. Demonstration of non-inferiority using both relative risk (RR) (margin = 1.8) and risk difference (RD) (margin = 0.035) were required to achieve the primary objective.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||This is the first test in a sequential testing sequence. p-value calculated based on the Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test stratified by index event strata for non-inferiority. Tested at 1-sided α=0.025|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|For a successful trial; rejection of the null hypotheses for both RR and RD was required.||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatal PE)/VTE-related death.||1.1802|0.5965|<0.0001
95789628|NCT00643201|191548401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical Testing; non-inferiority tested at 1-sided α=0.025. If non-inferiority demonstrated for both RR and RD, the primary objective was achieved.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0128|0.004||Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima test statistic for risk difference (RD).|Yanagawa-Tango-Hiejima|||Hypothesis that apixaban was non-inferior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy in preventing the recurrence of VTE (nonfatal DVT or nonfatalPE)/VTE-related death as measured by risk difference.||0.0040|-0.0128|<0.0001
95789629|NCT00643201|191548401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.839||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5965|1.1802||Tested at 2-sided α=0.05 significance. Further inferential statistical testing halted due to failure to reject the null hypothesis of equivalence for VTE/VTE-related death.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relative risk, CI, and p-value were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.||Hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing required demonstration of non-inferiority using both RR and RD plus demonstration of superiority for major bleeding.||1.1802|0.5965|0.3128
95814812|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||7.8|1.2|0.0035
95814813|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.0|0.5|0.9770
95957981|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.157|0.080|
95957982|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.018|
95789630|NCT00643201|191548402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8151||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6146|1.0812||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0812|0.6146|0.1554
95789631|NCT00643201|191548403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7994||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5737|1.1137||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. . Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was performed on the secondary efficacy dataset; there was no imputation of missing data.||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1137|0.5737|0.1848
95789632|NCT00643201|191548404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6236||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4682|0.8306||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.8306|0.4682|0.0011
95789633|NCT00643201|191548405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4658|0.6569||The test was stratified by index event strata using alpha=0.05 level of significance. Nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6569|0.4658|<0.0001
95789634|NCT00643201|191548406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3735|1.0787|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.0787|0.3735|
95814814|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.3||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||8.3|1.3|0.0036
95814815|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||7.7|1.0|0.0038
95957983|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.079|0.001|
95957984|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.058|-0.019|
95814816|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||2.0|0.5|0.9055
95814817|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 56||9.8|1.2|0.0020
95814818|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||8.8|1.3|0.0020
95814819|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||1.7|0.4|0.5763
95814820|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 64||10.0|1.5|0.0002
95814821|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||8.8|1.2|0.0004
95789635|NCT00643201|191548407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6363|1.8793|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.8793|0.6363|
95789636|NCT00643201|191548408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.5889|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.5889|0.3560|
95789637|NCT00643201|191548409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3419|1.2508|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.2508|0.3419|
95789638|NCT00643201|191548410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5287|1.1906|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||1.1906|0.5287|
95814822|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||1.6|0.4|0.4828
95814823|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 72||9.0|1.4|<0.0001
95789639|NCT00643201|191548411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.307|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1728|0.5452||p-value calculated on the CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk and CI were calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Hypothesis: apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. As per the hierarchical statistical testing cascade, inferential testing for adjudicated major bleeding occurred because non-inferiority for VTE/VTE-related death (Primary efficacy endpoint) was demonstrated earlier. Rejection of the null hypothesis for equivalence for major bleeding allowed inferential testing for superiority of VTE/VTE-related death.||0.5452|0.1728|<0.0001
95814824|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||7.8|1.4|0.0002
95814825|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||1.9|0.6|0.8553
95814826|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.7||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 80||8.7|1.5|0.0003
95814827|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.6||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||7.6|1.6|<0.0001
95814828|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||2.0|0.6|0.5025
95957985|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.136|0.060|
95957986|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.159|0.083|
95957987|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.182|0.105|
95957988|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.062|-0.016|
95957989|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.084|0.007|
95957990|NCT01040403|191888374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.061|-0.016|
95789640|NCT00643201|191548412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3566|0.5453||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint. Inferential testing was not conducted because the null hypothesis pertaining to superiority for VTE/VTE-related death was not rejected.||0.5453|0.3566|<0.0001
95789641|NCT00643201|191548413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3815|0.6022||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6022|0.3815|<0.0001
95789642|NCT00643201|191548414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|0.7034||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.7034|0.5432|<0.0001
95789643|NCT00643201|191548415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5937|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5318|0.6629||Tested at 2-sided alpha=0.05 significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Nominal p-value is reported.|Relative Risk and CI was calculated based on CMH test stratified by index event strata.|Exploratory hypothesis of apixaban therapy being superior to enoxaparin/warfarin therapy for the adjudicated endpoint.||0.6629|0.5318|<0.0001
95789644|NCT02513550|191548438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.005
95789645|NCT02513550|191548438|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.522
95789646|NCT02513550|191548439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.006
95789647|NCT02513550|191548439|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.118
95814829|NCT00565409|191600729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.1||P-value from CMH test of general association, testing treatment effect on response. P-value and OR stratified by geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 88||8.1|1.6|0.0001
95814830|NCT04211363|191600735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|56.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data..|IGA Success Odds Ratio||56.48|7.58|<0.0001
95814831|NCT04211363|191600736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.795|5.351|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to PASI-50||5.351|2.795|<0.0001
95814832|NCT04211363|191600737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.15|27.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||27.93|5.15|<0.0001
95789648|NCT03064113|191548458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|173.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.4|235.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||235.3|112.4|<0.001
95789649|NCT03064113|191548458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|169.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.8|230.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||230.8|107.8|<0.001
95789650|NCT03064113|191548458|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|175.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|114.1|237.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||237.2|114.1|<0.001
95789651|NCT03064113|191548459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|112.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|180.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||180.5|44.5|0.001
95957991|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.012|-0.058|
95789652|NCT03064113|191548459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|123.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|192.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||192.3|54.6|<0.001
95789653|NCT03064113|191548459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|15.3||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|94.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 12 hr||94.1|-53.5|0.659
95789654|NCT03064113|191548459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|102.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|151.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||151.5|54.1|<0.001
95789655|NCT03064113|191548459|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|136.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|185.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr||185.3|87.8|<0.001
95789656|NCT03064113|191548459|SUPERIORITY|Tx Difference of LS Mean FEV1 at 24 hr|Difference of LS Mean|-24.2||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|-72.9|0.327
95789657|NCT03064113|191548460|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|34.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||34.8|18.0|<0.001
95814833|NCT04211363|191600738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|73.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by study site, baseline IGA score, and baseline intertriginous involvement with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||73.09|4.38|<0.0001
95814834|NCT04211363|191600739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|138.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||138.20|2.33|<0.0001
95861347|NCT05388669|191681587|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tests was based on one-sided test at significance level of alpha = 0.05 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the amivantamab SC-CF relative to amivantamab IV.|Cox regression model|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.261||||||Arm B Vs Arm A||1.261|1.040|
95957992|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.040|-0.029|
95789658|NCT03064113|191548460|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||37.4|20.8|<0.001
95789659|NCT03064113|191548460|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-12 hrs||33.9|17.3|<0.001
95814835|NCT04211363|191600740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|288.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||288.36|2.99|0.003
95814836|NCT04211363|191600741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||3.19|0.98|0.1197
95814837|NCT04211363|191600741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||8.26|2.31|<0.0001
95814838|NCT04211363|191600741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|15.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS at Week 8 Odds Ratio||15.94|3.85|<0.0001
95814839|NCT04211363|191600742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 4||-20.0|-31.7|<0.0001
95814840|NCT04211363|191600742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-24.6|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Comparison of change from baseline in PSD score at Week 8||-24.6|-37.2|<0.0001
95814841|NCT02797821|191600752|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.544|-1.216||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the previous comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-1.216|-2.544|<0.0001
95814842|NCT02797821|191600752|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.193||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|-0.581||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥median vs \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|REML|A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate. A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||A fixed sequence testing procedure was performed to compare the 3.0 mg/kg cohort with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort first. The hypothesis testing for the second comparison of the 2.0 mg/kg cohort compared with the 0.5 mg/kg cohort was only performed if the null hypothesis was rejected for the first comparison at a significance level of 0.05 (p-value \<0.05). The primary endpoint was met if the null hypothesis was rejected for both comparisons at a significance level of 0.05 (both p-values \<0.05).||-0.581|-1.805|0.0008
95814843|NCT02797821|191600753|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-34.047||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.171|-7.922||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-7.922|-60.171|0.0128
95814844|NCT02797821|191600753|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-29.492||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.723|-4.261||REML-based repeated measures mixed model (treatment, visit, sex, Baseline PPi, Baseline weight group \[≥ median versus \< median\], and study drug lot assignment as factors) with an unstructured covariance structure for within-participant correlation.|Restricted maximum likelihood-based|A statistical adjustment of p-values was not performed.||||-4.261|-54.723|0.0239
95814845|NCT01812057|191600754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
95814846|NCT01812057|191600755|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 2 hours||||||0.171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.171
95814847|NCT01812057|191600755|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 2 hours||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95789660|NCT03064113|191548460|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||28.2|12.1|<0.001
95789661|NCT03064113|191548460|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|33.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hrs||33.4|17.4|<0.001
95789662|NCT03064113|191548460|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|10.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean AUC, 0-24 hr||18.6|2.5|0.010
95789663|NCT03064113|191548461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
95814848|NCT01812057|191600756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1965|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1965
95957993|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.036|-0.034|
95789664|NCT03064113|191548461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.046
95789665|NCT03064113|191548461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
95789666|NCT03064113|191548461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.003
95789667|NCT03064113|191548461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.048
95789668|NCT03064113|191548461|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.2|0.0|0.007
95789669|NCT03064113|191548462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.054
95789670|NCT03064113|191548462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.2|0.0|0.045
95789671|NCT03064113|191548462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 12 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.503
95789672|NCT03064113|191548462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.183
95789673|NCT03064113|191548462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.1|-0.0|0.422
95789674|NCT03064113|191548462|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|0.0||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tx Difference of LS Mean 24 hr||0.0|-0.1|0.287
95789675|NCT03064113|191548464|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|3975.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2007.3|5943.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5943.7|2007.3|<0.001
95789676|NCT03064113|191548464|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|5888.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3924.4|7853.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7853.4|3924.4|<0.001
95789677|NCT03064113|191548464|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|2654.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|689.7|4619.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4619.6|689.7|0.009
95789678|NCT00809445|191548501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.57|5.72||a-prior threshold for statistical significance is .025|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The numerator is the two HIV rapid testing arms The denominator is the HIV testing referral arm|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a higher rate of HIV testing than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||5.72|3.57|<0.001
95789679|NCT00809445|191548502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate raios (IRR)|1.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.95|1.14||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator includes the two HIV rapid testing groups Denominator is the HIV testing referral group|Hypothesis: The HIV rapid testing arms would have a lower rate of unprotected sexual episodes than the HIV testing referral arm. Thus there is one comparison: HIV rapid test \& counseling+HIV rapid test and info versus HIV testing referral.||1.14|0.95|0.39
95789680|NCT00809445|191548502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (IRR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.26||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .025|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)||Numerator is the HIV rapid test and counseling arm Denominator is the HIV rapid test and info arm|"The data analysis information presented is for the comparison of the 2 on-site testing groups.~Hypothesis: HIV rapid test and counseling group will have fewer unprotected sexual acts than will HIV rapid test and info group"||1.26|0.84|0.81
95789681|NCT00809445|191548503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for significance was .05|Chi-squared|Note that this is a 3 by 3 chi-square: the 3 conditions by discontinued sharing needles /no change in sharing needles/initiated sharing needles||||||0.044
95789682|NCT00809445|191548504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||a-priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|Chi-squared|chi-square = 428.2466, Df=2||||||<0.0001
95789683|NCT01272908|191548544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.293||||0.253|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 12 versus (vs) Week 4||||0.253
95789684|NCT01272908|191548544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.019||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR20: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.005
95789685|NCT01272908|191548544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.552||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.023
95789686|NCT01272908|191548544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.861||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||ACR50: Week 24 vs. Week 4||||0.001
95789687|NCT01272908|191548548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.099||||0.667|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.667
95789688|NCT01272908|191548548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.589|||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good vs Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||<0.001
95789689|NCT01272908|191548548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.138||||0.44|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 12 vs Week 4||||0.440
95789690|NCT01272908|191548548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.009||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Good/Moderate vs None: Week 24 vs Week 4||||0.012
95789691|NCT01272908|191548550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||<0.001
95789692|NCT01272908|191548550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 12||||<0.001
95789693|NCT01272908|191548550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 24||||<0.001
95789694|NCT01272908|191548550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 36||||<0.001
95789695|NCT01272908|191548550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 48||||<0.001
95789696|NCT01272908|191548552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789697|NCT01272908|191548554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95814849|NCT01812057|191600757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.709
95957994|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.063|-0.006|
95814850|NCT01812057|191600758|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 24 hours||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.267
95789698|NCT01272908|191548556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789699|NCT01272908|191548558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789700|NCT01272908|191548560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789701|NCT01272908|191548562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789702|NCT01272908|191548564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789703|NCT01272908|191548566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789704|NCT01272908|191548570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline vs Week 12||||<0.001
95789705|NCT01272908|191548570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Baseline vs Week 24||||<0.001
95789706|NCT03675360|191548589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||linear mixed effects model|||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.05
95789707|NCT03675360|191548590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-4.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.9|-15.6|<0.05
95789708|NCT03675360|191548591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.9|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.9|-7.3|<0.05
95789709|NCT03675360|191548592|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.05|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.05|-0.31|<0.05
95814851|NCT01812057|191600758|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score with movement at 24 hours||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
95814852|NCT01812057|191600759|SUPERIORITY|Pain Score at rest at 48 hours||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
95814853|NCT01812057|191600759|SUPERIORITY|Pain Scores with movement at 48 hours||||||0.525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.525
95814854|NCT01812057|191600760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.355|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Total opioid consumption at 24 hours|||We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with 24h opioid consumption accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factor with the largest p-value over 0.05.In the final model MTS was not associated with 24h opioid consumption parameter estimate (standard error) = 9.15 (5.27), p=0.09.|||0.355
95814855|NCT01812057|191600761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|Chronic pain at 8 weeks||||||0.420
95814856|NCT01812057|191600762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.322
95814857|NCT01812057|191600763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour pain scores at rest between MTS groups|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminate the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores at rest.|||0.805
95789710|NCT03675360|191548593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.4|||linear mixed effects model|||||-4.4|-7.4|<0.05
95789711|NCT03675360|191548594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-2.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.0|-10.5|<0.05
95789712|NCT03675360|191548595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.1|||linear mixed effects model|||||-1.1|-3.7|<0.05
95789713|NCT03675360|191548596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||linear mixed effects model|||||0|-5.2|<0.05
95789714|NCT03675360|191548597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.6|||linear mixed effects model|||||-2.6|-6.7|<0.05
95789715|NCT03675360|191548598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||linear mixed effects model|||||0.3|-1.8|<0.05
95789716|NCT00327717|191548599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
95789717|NCT00327717|191548600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
95789718|NCT00327717|191548601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.211
95789719|NCT00327717|191548602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
95789720|NCT00327717|191548603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||X^2 test|||||||0.044
95789721|NCT00327717|191548604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
95789722|NCT00327717|191548605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.090
95789723|NCT00327717|191548606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.162
95789724|NCT00327717|191548607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||X^2 test|||||||0.678
95789725|NCT00186485|191548612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the HAM-D rating scale: total scores (F (4,96) = 19.88, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|Repeated Measures Anova||ANOVA with partial eta accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.001
95789726|NCT00186485|191548613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the BDI total scores (F (4,96) = 19.35, p \< .001) over the 4 week treatment period.,|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA with partial eta; accounts for multiple repeated measures over the course of treatment.||||<0.01
95789727|NCT00186485|191548614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Repeated Measures ANOVAs over the course of the TMS treatments, by severity of depression on the CGI scores (F (4,88) = 5.31, p \< .01) over the 4 week treatment period.|ANOVA|||Repeated Measures ANOVA with partial eta; p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons over the course of treatment||||<0.01
95789728|NCT03113968|191548625|NON_INFERIORITY|The Farrington-Manning score test was used to assess the noninferiority of KET.|||||<|0.001|||||||The Farrington-Manning score test|||||||<.001
95789729|NCT03113968|191548626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||P-values not reported|||
95957995|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.059|-0.011|
95789730|NCT02782741|191548628|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference of avalglucosidase alfa minus alglucosidase alfa was greater than (\>) -1.1.|LS mean difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.99|||mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||4.99|-0.13|0.0074
95789731|NCT02782741|191548628|SUPERIORITY|A test for superiority of avalglucosidase alfa versus alglucosidase alfa was performed with an overall 5% level of significance.||||||0.0626||||||Threshold for significance at \<0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Analysis performed using MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted, as continuous), sex, age (in years at baseline), treatment group, visit, interaction term between treatment group and visit as fixed effects.||||0.0626
95789732|NCT02782741|191548629|SUPERIORITY|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|30.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.43||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|58.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model with baseline FVC (% predicted) and baseline 6MWT (distance walked in meter), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||58.69|1.33|0.0405
95814858|NCT01812057|191600763|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain scores on movement at 24h|We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to determine factors associated with Pain scores at rest at 24 hours accounting for MTS category, demographic factors, study group allocation (dexamethasone vs placebo) and a preoperative questions to assess patients anxiety, anticipated pain scores after surgery and anticipated analgesic need after surgery. At each step of backward variable selection, we eliminated the factors with the largest p-value over 0.05. MTS category was not included in the final model for 24 h pain scores on movement.|||1.000
95814859|NCT01812057|191600764|SUPERIORITY|Intraoperative nausea and vomiting||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95814860|NCT01812057|191600764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Chi-squared|Need for intraoperative antiemetics||||||0.676
95814861|NCT01812057|191600764|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95814862|NCT01812057|191600766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of postoperative pruritus||||||0.924
95814863|NCT01812057|191600767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.700
95789733|NCT02782741|191548630|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|13.57|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MIP % predicted adjusted for MIP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||13.57|-7.31|0.5522
95814864|NCT01812057|191600768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Chi-squared|Incidence of PONV at 24 h||||||0.302
95814865|NCT01812057|191600768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Postoperative need for rescue antiemetic||||||0.028
95814866|NCT01812057|191600768|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95814867|NCT01812057|191600768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.188
95814868|NCT03937479|191600777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03691||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0517|0.1968||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1968|0.0517|0.0008
95814869|NCT03937479|191600777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03703||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0344|0.18||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1800|0.0344|0.0040
95814870|NCT03937479|191600777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03723||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.1643||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1643|0.0180|0.0148
95814871|NCT03937479|191600777|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03697||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.1501||The MMRM model was used to model the change from baseline FEV1 to peak FEV1 using treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effect, patient as random effect and baseline FEV1 as the covariate.|MMRM||Estimates refer to the Week 4 from treatment by visit interaction.|Comparison was done using a closed testing procedure; testing began at the highest dose of RPL554 compared with placebo. If found statistically significant then the next highest dose was compared with placebo. This continued until a result was found to be non-significant or all RPL554 doses were compared with placebo.||0.1501|0.0048|0.0368
95814872|NCT01180127|191600794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA for the interaction of time (baseline vs 12 week) and flavanol group.||||.0001
95861348|NCT05388669|191681588|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tests was based on one-sided test at significance level of alpha = 0.05 to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the amivantamab SC-CF relative to amivantamab IV.|Geometric mean ratio|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.09||||||Arm B Vs Arm A||1.090|0.976|
95999907|NCT01269125|191975930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.48||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.2|-0.4|0.48
95814873|NCT01180127|191600795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA model included a main effect for both flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the effect of flavanol on Modbent controlling for baseline Modbent and exercise|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of flavanol||||0.038
95814874|NCT01180127|191600795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|||||The ANCOVA included both a main effect for flavanol and exercise, so this p-value is for the test of exercise controlling for baseline Modbent and flavanol|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA used to test main effect of exercise||||0.815
95814875|NCT01180127|191600796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of flavanol||||0.853
95814876|NCT01180127|191600796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for testing main effect of exercise||||0.581
95814877|NCT01180127|191600797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to test for an exercise effect.||||0.237
95999908|NCT01269125|191975930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.22||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Chi-squared|||In order to handle the problem of small sample size combined with the inability to identify the theoretical statistical distribution of data, bootstrap techniques are used (10). Ader and co-workers recommend the bootstrap procedure when (a) the theoretical distribution is complicated or unknown, and/or (b) power calculations have to be performed and a small sample is available (11). Finally, the bootstrap distribution has been used in order to calculate all the confidence intervals.||0.1|-0.4|0.22
95814878|NCT00940602|191600798|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96||Exploratory p-value is one tailed and is based on the stratified log-rank test.|Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model|||0.96|0.42|0.015
95814879|NCT00940602|191600799|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|25.7||||||||25.7|-1.8|
95814880|NCT00940602|191600800|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.28|0.54|0.200
95999909|NCT05299892|191975931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.46153||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.99|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA .Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE moderate. Analysis of age effects was not completed.||12.99|1.79|.005
95814881|NCT00940602|191600801|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.3|
95814882|NCT00940602|191600802|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.4||||||||11.4|-12.0|
95814883|NCT00940602|191600803|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.36|0.184
95814884|NCT00940602|191600804|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.195|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.36|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||0.36|0.11|<.001
95814885|NCT00940602|191600805|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.52|0.303
95814886|NCT00940602|191600806|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.75|0.66|0.389
95814887|NCT00940602|191600808|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.1||||||||8.1|-5.2|
95814888|NCT00940602|191600809|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0||||||||3.0|-1.6|
95814889|NCT00940602|191600810|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|14.6||||||||14.6|-11.9|
95814890|NCT00940602|191600811|OTHER|100 (1-α)% confidence intervals with α of 0.05 are provided|Wilson score test|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|1.6||||||||1.6|-20.8|
95814891|NCT00940602|191600812|OTHER|The study was not designed for confirmatory analyses. Statistical tests were performed in an exploratory sense only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Regression, Cox||95% CI was based on a Wald test from Cox model.|||1.46|0.43|0.232
95814892|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4521||||0.010
95814893|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR107||||0.010
95814894|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR-891a||||0.018
95814895|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR363||||0.021
95814896|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1248||||0.028
95814897|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR944||||0.033
95814898|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.034
95814899|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR103a||||0.036
95814900|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR454||||0.037
95814901|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320e||||0.041
95814902|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.043
95814903|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR130b||||0.044
95814904|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR365a||||0.044
95814905|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.06||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR135b||||0.047
95957996|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.031|-0.039|
95957997|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.073|0.004|
95789734|NCT02782741|191548631|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|9.29|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for MEP % predicted adjusted for MEP % predicted at baseline, age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||9.29|-13.17|0.7321
95789735|NCT02782741|191548632|OTHER|Per the protocol-defined statistical test strategy for multiplicity adjustment, and since superiority was narrowly missed for FVC % predicted, superiority testing for the secondary outcome measure couldn't be performed.|LS mean difference|106.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.17||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.56|240.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM model for HHD lower extremity muscle strength composite score adjusted for summary HHD lower extremity score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||240.50|-26.56|0.1150
95789736|NCT02782741|191548633|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of QMFT.|LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.95||Nominal p-value.|mixed model for repeated measures|||LS mean difference was derived from MMRM models adjust for total QMFT score at baseline, baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.95|0.22|0.0288
95789737|NCT02782741|191548634|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.67|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (PCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||3.67|-2.13|0.5996
95789738|NCT02782741|191548634|OTHER|No formal testing of additional secondary endpoint of SF-12.|Score difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.69|||mixed model for repeated measures|||The MMRM models adjust for baseline score (MCS), baseline FVC (% predicted), age (in years, at baseline), gender, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.||5.69|-1.46|0.2427
95789739|NCT04010461|191548638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.355|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject was excluded from analysis as extraction of FPN eigenvalues failed due to technical deficiencies with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source methods for pre-processing . First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters. Statistical testing was done to establish whether more or less BOLD (neural activity) change occurred between two conditions.||0.355|-0.037|=0.11
95814906|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1273h||||0.048
95814907|NCT02230189|191600820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3177||||0.048
95814908|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6510||||0.0
95814909|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3605||||0
95814910|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3912||||0
95814911|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR15b||||0
95814912|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.35||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR127||||0
95814913|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.59||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146a||||0
95814914|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449b||||0
95814915|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21-5p||||0.01
95957998|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.066|-0.004|
95814916|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.29||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6842||||0.01
95814917|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-5p||||0.01
95814918|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR21||||0.01
95814919|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR493||||0.01
95814920|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR193a||||0.01
95814921|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR149||||0.01
95814922|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR449a||||0.01
95957999|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.076|0.006|
95958000|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.027|-0.043|
95789740|NCT04010461|191548638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.227|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 35 Note: 1 subject excluded from analysis as FPN extraction of eigenvalues failed due to technical issues with image data||Analysis used standard, open-source routes for slice timing correction, field map correction, realignment, smoothing (6 mm Gaussian kernel) and spatial normalization (MNI-152). First-level analysis used the general framework of the modified General Linear Model, implemented in SPM12 with temporal convolution. For the n-back activation task, the first-level design matrix included regressors for 2-back and 1-back conditions, as well as 24 movement parameters.||0.227|-0.245|0.94
95789741|NCT04010461|191548639|OTHER|Group-level analyses were performed using a General Linear Model (GLM). For each individual voxel, a separate GLM was estimated, with first-level connectivity measures at this voxel as dependent variables, and groups or other subject-level identifiers as independent variables. Voxel-level hypotheses were evaluated using multivariate parametric statistics with random effects across subjects and sample covariance estimation across multiple measurements.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Inferences were performed at the level of individual clusters (groups of contiguous voxels). Cluster-level inferences were based on parametric statistics from Gaussian Random Field theory.|random field theory|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and cluster-size threshold of 25 voxels|Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs active)|The contrast reflects the difference in connectivity between the conditions/sessions, at the level of each subject, then spatially averaged across all subjects. Functional connectivity strength for the dlPFC seed was represented by Fisher-transformed bivariate correlation coefficients from a weighted general linear model (weighted-GLM), defined separately for each pair of seed and target areas, modeling the association between their BOLD signal time series.||||1
95789742|NCT04010461|191548639|OTHER|The applied test with random field theory uses a metric of spatial dispersion, testing against the null hypothesis that spatial clusters of difference across the analyzed region are no different from chance clustering.|random field theory|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||random field theory||Number indicates the number of clusters above the threshold of significance for the contrast between two arms (passive vs control)|Results were thresholded using a combination of a cluster-forming p \< 0.001 voxel-level threshold, and a corrected false discovery rate (FDR) p \< 0.05 cluster-size threshold.||||1
95789743|NCT04010461|191548640|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95789744|NCT04010461|191548641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
95789745|NCT04010461|191548641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||||||.65
95789746|NCT04010461|191548642|OTHER||cluster size|42.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Active, testing whether the cluster size is greater than chance.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain.||||0.54
95789747|NCT04010461|191548642|SUPERIORITY||cluster size|16.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value above represents the lowest (most significant) value of the largest cluster, for the contrast of Passive \> Control, testing whether the size of this cluster is greater than one would expect by chance alone.|random field theory||The estimated parameter is the size, in voxels, of the largest cluster. The applied test with random field theory tests whether the size of cluster difference across are no different from chance clustering.|Statistical thresholding using a random field model adjusted for multiple comparisons, with initial voxel magnitude/height threshold set at p \< 0.001 and peak and cluster-corrected significance levels obtained (false discovery rate \[FDR\]corrected), across the entire brain..||||0.93
95789748|NCT04010461|191548643|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.22||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in cerebral blood flow (perfusion) in the frontoparietal network||||0.8
95789749|NCT04010461|191548644|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|3.96||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95789750|NCT04010461|191548644|SUPERIORITY||F-ratio|0.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.68
95789751|NCT04010461|191548645|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures ANOVA for 1- and 2-back conditions|F-ratio|0.72||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95789752|NCT04010461|191548645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.50
95789753|NCT05116202|191548675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|27.7||||||||27.70|-22.25|
95789754|NCT05116202|191548675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-32.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.01|0.46||||||||0.46|-65.01|
95814923|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6511a||||0.01
95789755|NCT05116202|191548675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-17.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|15.21||||||||15.21|-49.75|
95789756|NCT05116202|191548677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.31|17.68||||||||17.68|-31.31|
95789757|NCT05116202|191548677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.79|0.16||||||||0.16|-63.79|
95789758|NCT05116202|191548677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.44|9.8||||||||9.80|-53.44|
95814924|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6843||||0.01
95789759|NCT05116202|191548678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|10.42||||||||10.42|0.42|
95789760|NCT05116202|191548678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.7||||||||19.70|0.79|
95789761|NCT05116202|191548678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|53.7||||||||53.70|0.73|
95789762|NCT05116202|191548679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|7.75||||||||7.75|0.25|
95789763|NCT05116202|191548679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|12.62||||||||12.62|0.35|
95789764|NCT05116202|191548679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|26.32||||||||26.32|0.22|
95789765|NCT05116202|191548680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|12.39||||||||12.39|0.05|
95814925|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR671||||0.01
95814926|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.65||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6503||||0.02
95789766|NCT05116202|191548680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|28.65||||||||28.65|0.23|
95814927|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR450b||||0.02
95814928|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.92||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR485||||0.02
95814929|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR6806||||0.02
95814930|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3182||||0.02
95814931|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR142-3p||||0.02
95789767|NCT05116202|191548680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.58||||||||18.58|0.07|
95789768|NCT05116202|191548681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-21.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.55|7.37||||||||7.37|-50.55|
95814932|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR320d||||0.02
95814933|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR3928||||0.02
95814934|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR744||||0.02
95789769|NCT05116202|191548681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|9.99||||||||9.99|-58.17|
95814935|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.42||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR206||||0.02
95814936|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR30e||||0.03
95814937|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4500||||0.03
95814938|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR125a||||0.03
95814939|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR99b||||0.03
95814940|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1||||0.03
95814941|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.03
95814942|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1255a||||0.03
95814943|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR223||||0.03
95814944|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR642a||||0.03
95814945|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR548ae||||0.4
95814946|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR146b||||0.04
95814947|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR877||||0.04
95814948|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR181a||||0.04
95789770|NCT05116202|191548681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.58|35.4||||||||35.40|-33.58|
95789771|NCT02797678|191548693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.061
95789772|NCT02797678|191548696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.301
95789773|NCT02686164|191548769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.983||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam Versus (vs.) Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.983|0.850|
95789774|NCT02686164|191548769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.148|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.404||||||AUC(0-24) of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.404|0.938|
95789775|NCT02686164|191548769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.335||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.335|0.940|
95789776|NCT02686164|191548769|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.057|1.36||||||AUC(0-24) of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady-state) + Midazolam vs.Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.360|1.057|
95789777|NCT02686164|191548770|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|0.988||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||0.988|0.753|
95814949|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR4467||||0.04
95814950|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR1249||||0.04
95814951|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR766||||0.04
95814952|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR29c||||0.048
95814953|NCT02230189|191600821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||-1.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||miR370||||-1.75
95814954|NCT01227057|191600868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.029||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.029
95855361|NCT00541658|191670493|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.789|-0.299|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.299|-1.789|
95958001|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.037|-0.032|
95789778|NCT02686164|191548770|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.852|1.238||||||Cmax of Midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.238|0.852|
95789779|NCT02686164|191548770|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.268||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 1, Lenvatinib (single-dose) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.268|0.879|
95789780|NCT02686164|191548770|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.845|1.046||||||Cmax of 1'-hydroxy midazolam: Cycle 1 Day 14, Lenvatinib (steady state) + Midazolam vs. Cycle 1 Day -3, Midazolam||1.046|0.845|
95789781|NCT02731300|191548772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
95789782|NCT02731300|191548773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups|ANOVA|||the final Week 4 values compared between active tDCS and sham tDCS groups||||<0.05
95789783|NCT01481558|191548790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95789784|NCT01801111|191548795|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the objective response rate (ORR) is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0005
95789785|NCT01801111|191548796|OTHER|||||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0599
95789786|NCT01801111|191548798|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Exact Clopper-Pearson CI|||Tests null hypothesis that the ORR is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the objective response rate was not equal to 35%.||||0.0001
95789787|NCT01223937|191548829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||"The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.~A summary of mean change in nocturnal voids, assessed longitudinally during 3 months of treatment, is presented below for the FAS using LOCF."||-0.02|-0.42|0.0280
95789788|NCT01223937|191548830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|GEE Method with treatment, visit (including a treatment-by-visit interaction term), and age stratification (\<65, ≥65 years) as factors.||The trial was to be declared positive only if the 25 μg desmopressin group had a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primary outcomes.||2.86|1.19|0.0061
95789789|NCT01223937|191548831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids, using last observation carried forward.||Change from baseline in the adjusted mean number of nocturnal voids in the FAS using LOCF.||-0.07|-0.54|0.0104
95789790|NCT01223937|191548832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.05||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistical regression of 33% responder status adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal voids using last observation carried forward.||||3.05|0.98|0.0586
95789791|NCT01223937|191548833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.03||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|81.7||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline time to first nocturnal void, using last observation carried forward.||||81.70|16.35|0.0034
95789792|NCT01223937|191548834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.56||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.74|-28.38||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline nocturnal urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||-28.38|-138.74|0.0031
95789793|NCT01223937|191548835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.91||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.42|34.6||A priori threshold for significance was p\<=0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline adjusted for age (\<65, \>=65) and baseline 24-hour urine volume, using last observation carried forward.||||34.60|-180.42|0.1829
95789794|NCT03284853|191548838|OTHER|The primary analysis was performed on the ITT population with imputation by Markov Chain Monte Carlo method.|||||<|0.05||||||Linear model with IOP at the given visit and time point as the response, baseline IOP as a covariate, and treatment as a main effect factor at each time point (08:00, 10:00, and 16:00 hours at the Week 2, Week 6, and Month 3 Visits).|Regression, Linear|Non-inferiority for PG324 was concluded if the UL of the 95% CI was ≤ l.5 mmHg at all 9 time points and ≤ l.0 mmHg at the majority of time points||Assuming no difference between PG324 and Ganfort, a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 (2-sided 95% CI) at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.5 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of ≤ 0.60, 200 ITT subjects per arm were necessary to have 85% power to show clinical non-inferiority of PG324 to Ganfort in the mean change from baseline IOP.||||<0.05
95789795|NCT06597084|191548852|OTHER||Percentiles of time to first US|92.0||||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|95.0|||Log Rank|||||95|25|0.2081
95789796|NCT06597084|191548858|OTHER||Overall Survival|||||0.0542|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0542
95789797|NCT01043133|191548868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log-binomial|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|11.79|||log-binomial regression||Robust Huber-White standard errors account for clustering|||11.79|1.34|.01
95789798|NCT01043133|191548869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.78||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-.03|-2.48|.05
95958002|NCT01040403|191888375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.045|-0.025|
95958003|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.138|0.041|
95789799|NCT00490971|191548870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 85.0% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0195.|Weighted Z- test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo in the time to recurrence of any mood symptoms related to bipolar I disorder. An interim analysis was performed when approximately 85% of the required number of recurrences were reported in Pali/Pali and Pali/Placebo treatment groups. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||0.017
95958004|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.139|0.043|
95789800|NCT00490971|191548871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The two treatment groups were compared using a weighted z-statistic based on rho-family of alpha spending function at information fraction of 81.9% at interim analysis analysis (rho=2.5) at 0.025 (1-sided) level. One-sided alpha at final was 0.0198.|Weighted z-test|||At the time of interim analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, the proportion of recurrence of manic symptoms was 81.9% of the number of recurrence of manic symptoms at final analysis. A flexible group-sequential approach was adopted. The general family of alpha spending function based on the rho-family with rho=2.5 at overall type I error of 0.025 (1-sided) was employed.||||<0.001
95789801|NCT00490971|191548872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.46||Cox proportional hazards regression was performed with treatment (Pali/Placebo, Pali/Pali) as a factor. The 2 treatment groups were compared by means of a hazard ratio (Pali/Placebo: Pali/Pali)|Regression, Cox|The percent of participants who reported recurrence of depressive symptoms was: 18% Pali/Placebo, 24% Pali/Pali.|Hazard ratio was estimated with Pali/Placebo in the numerator and Pali/Pali in the denominator|||1.46|0.53|
95789802|NCT00490971|191548873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||-1.98|-6.92|<0.001
95789803|NCT00490971|191548874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||2.55|-1.87|0.763
95789804|NCT00490971|191548875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|10.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||10.09|1.40|0.010
95789805|NCT00490971|191548876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model on ranks with treatment (Pali/Pali, Pali/Placebo) and country as factors with baseline value as covariate||Change from Baseline (Maintenance Phase) to Endpoint (Maintenance Phase)||||0.007
95789806|NCT04754542|191548893|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0121||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1321|0.1287|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test fr difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1287|-0.1321|0.124
95789807|NCT04754542|191548894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.639
95789808|NCT04754542|191548895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.964
95789809|NCT04754542|191548896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.819
95789810|NCT04754542|191548897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
95814955|NCT01227057|191600869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.||||||0.04||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, years of education, and presence of co-morbid obsessive-compulsive disorder due to group differences at baseline.||Linear mixed models with random intercepts were used to evaluate the change in primary and secondary outcome variables over time, the effect of group, the effect of treatment, and the treatment group by time interaction, both for the treatment phase (0-6 months) and follow up phase (6-12 months). All analyses (0-6 months) were conducted first using observed data only (i.e., completer analysis) and then using an intent to treat (ITT) sample.||||.04
95958005|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.164|0.066|
95958006|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.050|-0.046|
95789811|NCT04754542|191548898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.388
95789812|NCT04754542|191548899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.183
95789813|NCT04754542|191548900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.414
95789814|NCT04754542|191548901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998
95789815|NCT04754542|191548902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
95789816|NCT04754542|191548903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
95789817|NCT04754542|191548904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
95789818|NCT04754542|191548905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.514
95789819|NCT04754542|191548906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
95789820|NCT04754542|191548907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
95789821|NCT04754542|191548908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.358
95789822|NCT04754542|191548909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
95789823|NCT04754542|191548910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
95789824|NCT04754542|191548911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.656
95789825|NCT04754542|191548912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
95789826|NCT04754542|191548913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for ordinal-nominal association was used||||||0.063
95789827|NCT01386606|191548916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value of treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||||0.056
95789828|NCT01386606|191548916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-45.77||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|51.98||P-value for Androxal 25 mg treatment group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||51.98|-143.5|0.436
95789829|NCT01386606|191548916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-110.9||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.6|-11.23||P-value for Androxal 12.5 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-11.23|-210.6|0.068
95789830|NCT01386606|191548916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-148.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-54.05||P-value for Androxal 6.25 mg group.|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||-54.05|-242.9|0.011
95789831|NCT01386606|191548916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.79||P-value for morning total testosterone (adjusted for treatment effect if treatment group is significant).|Regression, Linear|||"Regression of 24 Hours Average Total Testosterone, Treatment Group and Morning Testosterone at Week 6.~Modeling 24 hour average total testosterone by morning testosterone and treatment group."||0.79|0.37|<0.001
95789832|NCT01386606|191548917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
95814956|NCT01227057|191600870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the SI-R using effect size estimates from a previous trial comparing individual CBT with a Wait List (WL) control (Steketee2010). In this study, the effect size of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) relative to WL was d = 2.21 on the SI-R. Accounting for a smaller effect size due to having an active control condition, we expected to have 80% power to detect a large (d = .80) effect size. The sample assessed for eligibility (n = 67) was 99% of this target.|||||>|0.1||||||P value is for the group x time interaction.|ANOVA|||||||>.1
95814957|NCT00587041|191600871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||80% power for 0.66 DG difference from placebo. The reported value is the overall p-value for CaOx supersaturation by Kruskal-Wallis test of equal change across all three groups, no pair-wise comparison.||||0.3
95789833|NCT01386606|191548917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
95789834|NCT01386606|191548917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning LH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
95789835|NCT01386606|191548918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.90993|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cavg at Week 6.||||<0.0001
95789836|NCT01386606|191548918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.86541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmin at Week 6.||||<0.0001
95789837|NCT01386606|191548918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation|0.89643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pearson correlation between 9 am morning testosterone and serial testosterone Cmax at Week 6.||||<0.0001
95814958|NCT00587041|191600871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for placebo group CaOx SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.045
95814959|NCT00587041|191600871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked sum T-test for AKSB group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.67
95814960|NCT00587041|191600871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Ranked-sum T-Test for Oxadrop group CaOX SS comparison between 0 and 6 weeks||||0.30
95789838|NCT01386606|191548920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 2. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
95789839|NCT01386606|191548920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 4. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
95789840|NCT01386606|191548920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for treatment group effect.|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - change from baseline in morning FSH at Week 6. Modeling change from baseline by treatment group.||||<0.001
95789841|NCT03429348|191548939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values.||||||0.0000009
95789842|NCT03429348|191548939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||1.8e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|We are comparing the log transformed values||||||0.000018
95789843|NCT00873730|191548950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6031
95789844|NCT00873730|191548951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9166|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9166
95789845|NCT00873730|191548952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7564|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7564
95789846|NCT00873730|191548953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3266
95789847|NCT00873730|191548954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7481|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7481
95789848|NCT00873730|191548955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7721|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7721
95789849|NCT00873730|191548956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Nocturnal Back Pain.||||0.6660
95789850|NCT00873730|191548956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Overall Spinal Pain.||||0.5364
95789851|NCT00873730|191548957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9426|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Physician Global Assessment.||||0.9426
95789852|NCT00873730|191548957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for the Patient Global Assessment.||||0.4969
95789853|NCT00873730|191548958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6687
95814961|NCT02271529|191600895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption that the mean percent change in stent length upon deployment being 0.2% with a standard deviation of 4%, type I error of 0.05, and two one-sided t-tests, a sample size of at least 30 stents provides power \> 0.90 to determine that the mean length change of stents deployed with the thumbwheel delivery system is within +/-10%.|Mean percent change|-1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||two one-sided t-tests|||||-0.4|-1.5|<0.01
95814962|NCT01957865|191600896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Linear and Poisson regressions|||In an intention-to-treat analysis, percentage doses taken each month were compared by linear generalized estimating equations (GEEs); more than 48-h and more than 96-h lapses in dosingwere compared by Poisson GEE regression.||||<0.05
95814963|NCT01957865|191600897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher's exact test|||HIV RNA suppression (\<100 copies/ml) was compared among study arms by Fisher's exact test.||||<0.05
95814964|NCT01419119|191600940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95814965|NCT01419119|191600941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95814966|NCT03768427|191600944|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.3|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (88 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10 mg - ezetimibe 10 mg/Ator 10 mg and 89 participants in arm Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg)."|Difference in least squares mean is Atorvastatin 10 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 10 mg minus Atorvastatin 10mg - Atorvastatin 20 mg.|-12.3|-26.7|<0.001
95814967|NCT03768427|191600944|OTHER|Difference in least squares mean|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.7|||Constrained longitudinal model|||"This statistical analysis was performed by fitting a constrained longitudinal model adjusting for time and the interaction of time by treatment, and time by baseline disease risk category, including all participants with baseline data (137 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg and 140 participants in arm Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg)."|Atorvastatin 20 mg - EZ 10 mg/Ator 20 mg minus Atorvastatin 20 mg - Atorvastatin 40 mg.|-10.7|-21.0|<0.001
95814968|NCT03710889|191600963|OTHER|Within treatment paired t-tests were used to compare the differences in dynamic indices between Baseline and Month 3 using the Bone-Biopsy Population. If the normality assumption is not satisfied at the 0.01 significance level and visual inspection of the data deems it necessary, Wilcoxon signed-rank test is used. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. A 2-sided p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95789854|NCT00873730|191548959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6739
95789855|NCT00873730|191548960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2772
95814969|NCT00542178|191600975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 88% to detect a 15% relative reduction with intensive glycemic control as compared with standard glycemic control||0.87|0.51|0.003
95814970|NCT00542178|191600975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 80% to detect a 20% relative reduction with intensive blood pressure control as compared with standard blood pressure control||1.79|0.84|0.29
95814971|NCT00542178|191600975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Comparisons made using likelihood-ratio tests from logistic-regression models with adjustment for same study-design factors used in ACCORD analysis||Our recruitment goal for the ACCORD Eye study was set in order to achieve a statistical power of 91% to detect a 20% relative reduction with lipid control with a statin and fenofibrate as compared with lipid control with a statin alone||0.87|0.42|0.006
95814972|NCT00542178|191600976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.104|||Regression, Cox|||||1.104|0.901|0.96
95814973|NCT00542178|191600976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.099|||Regression, Cox|||||1.099|0.825|0.50
95789856|NCT00873730|191548961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1560
95789857|NCT00873730|191548962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2099|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Mobility.||||0.2099
95789858|NCT00873730|191548962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8009|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Self-care.||||0.8009
95814974|NCT00542178|191600976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.016|||Regression, Cox|||||1.016|0.762|0.08
95814975|NCT00542178|191600977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.884||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|0.992|||Regression, Cox|||||0.992|0.788|0.0355
95789859|NCT00873730|191548962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Usual activities.||||0.4290
95789860|NCT00873730|191548962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Pain/Discomfort.||||0.0461
95789861|NCT00873730|191548962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis provided for Anxiety/Depression.||||0.5620
95789862|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical functioning.||||0.3476
95789863|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Physical role limitations.||||0.9045
95789864|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Bodily pain.||||0.8558
95789865|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for General health.||||0.3123
95789866|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Vitality.||||0.3327
95789867|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8334|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Social functioning.||||0.8334
95789868|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Emotional role limitations.||||0.7998
95789869|NCT00873730|191548963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis provided for Mental health.||||0.7125
95789870|NCT00873730|191548965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7404
95789871|NCT02026141|191548974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95789872|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|1.00|
95789873|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.01|0.99|
95789874|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.03|0.99|
95789875|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving a pre-commitment prompt to the arm receiving no pre-commitment prompt.|||1.04|1.00|
95789876|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.98|
95789877|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
95789878|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.01|0.97|
95789879|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||||These results compare the arm receiving gain-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.05|0.98|
95814976|NCT00542178|191600977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|1.051|||Regression, Cox|||||1.051|0.755|0.17
95814977|NCT00542178|191600977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.190|0.865|0.86
95789880|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.99|
95814978|NCT00542178|191600978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.71|0.069
95814979|NCT00542178|191600978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.44|0.63
95814980|NCT00542178|191600978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.60|0.78
95958007|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.074|-0.023|
95789881|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.98|
95789882|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.02|0.97|
95789883|NCT04110314|191548985|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.04|||||These results compare the arm receiving loss-framed reminders to the arm receiving no reminders.|||1.04|1.00|
95789884|NCT04428385|191549037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.16||||||||2.16|0.34|
95789885|NCT04428385|191549038|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.78||||||||1.78|0.47|
95789886|NCT04428385|191549039|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
95789887|NCT04428385|191549040|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.33||||||||1.33|0.33|
95789888|NCT04428385|191549041|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.9||||||||1.90|0.62|
95789889|NCT02346708|191549062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.42||We determined whether there was a significant group difference between the real and sham treated PD-MCI patients on the DRS-2 change following rTMS using mixed model regression (MMR) to fit longitudinal models.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom: 46||We estimated a sample size of 20 per group would provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 to detect a between-group difference of 10 on the Matthis Dementia Rating Scale-2, an effect size similar to prior studies of rivastigmine.||0.42|-4.56|0.1
95789890|NCT03416270|191549063|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95789891|NCT03416270|191549063|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95789892|NCT03416270|191549064|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.303
95789893|NCT03416270|191549065|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
95789894|NCT03416270|191549066|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.599
95789895|NCT03416270|191549067|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95789896|NCT03416270|191549068|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
95789897|NCT03416270|191549069|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.536
95789898|NCT03416270|191549070|OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
95789899|NCT03416270|191549071|OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
95814981|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5736|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.5736
95958008|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.072|-0.025|
95958009|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.156|0.059|
95814982|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.304
95814983|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0545|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0545
95814984|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1134|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.1134
95789900|NCT03416270|191549072|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95789901|NCT03416270|191549073|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
95789902|NCT03416270|191549074|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.262
95789903|NCT03416270|191549075|OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.802
95814985|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4326|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.4326
95789904|NCT03416270|191549076|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
95789905|NCT03416270|191549077|OTHER|||||||0.618|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.618
95789906|NCT03416270|191549078|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
95789907|NCT03416270|191549079|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||12 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95789908|NCT03416270|191549079|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95789909|NCT03416270|191549080|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95789910|NCT03416270|191549080|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||1 week|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95789911|NCT02849743|191549110|OTHER||Least Means Square|-0.5||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.92
95789912|NCT02849743|191549111|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-15784.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
95789913|NCT02849743|191549112|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|48.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95814986|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2546|||||||ANOVA|The interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and subsystem (Temporal, Contextual Control) on the magnitude of MFG efferent connectivity||||||0.2546
95814987|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0645|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on the overall magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.0645
95814988|NCT04464473|191600979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2033|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) and Subsystem on the magnitude of FPl efferent connectivity||||||0.2033
95814989|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8152|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) on overall BOLD actviation.||||||0.8152
95814990|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.0085
95814991|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1551
95958010|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.181|0.084|
95789914|NCT02849743|191549113|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-2.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95789915|NCT02849743|191549114|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|1.2||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.86
95789916|NCT02849743|191549115|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.4||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
95789917|NCT02849743|191549116|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.50
95789918|NCT02849743|191549117|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.02||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.49
95789919|NCT02849743|191549119|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.68
95789920|NCT02849743|191549120|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
95789921|NCT02849743|191549121|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Anxiety||||0.91
95789922|NCT02849743|191549121|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|-0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Depression||||0.91
95789923|NCT02849743|191549121|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Cognition||||0.04
95789924|NCT02849743|191549121|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|2.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Neuro-QoL - Social Function||||0.36
95789925|NCT02849743|191549122|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.64
95789926|NCT02849743|191549123|OTHER||Regression Coefficient|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.83
95789927|NCT03677635|191549126|OTHER||Standardised Effect Size|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.86|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.86|.21|
95789928|NCT03677635|191549127|OTHER|Cohen's d was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.48|||Standardised Effect Size|||||.48|-.59|
95789929|NCT02389959|191549135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||0.26|-2.47|0.111
95789930|NCT02389959|191549135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.26||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.38|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2.||0.38|-2.9|0.131
95789931|NCT02389959|191549135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||0.88|-2.57|0.332
95814992|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6431|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6431
95814993|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2447|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.2447
95814994|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.0002
95814995|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1339|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1339
95814996|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1315
95789932|NCT02389959|191549135|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of ESS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6.||1.3|-2.25|0.597
95789933|NCT02389959|191549136|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|2.85||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|7.13|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||7.13|-1.44|0.191
95789934|NCT02389959|191549136|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|5.61|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||5.61|-5.02|0.914
95789935|NCT02389959|191549136|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|7.28|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||7.28|-4.17|0.592
95789936|NCT02389959|191549136|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of PCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|9.12|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||9.12|-2.92|0.31
95789937|NCT02389959|191549137|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 1.||3.11|-8.38|0.366
95789938|NCT02389959|191549137|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|7.76|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 2||7.76|-6.12|0.816
95789939|NCT02389959|191549137|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.61|3.02|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 4.||3.02|-11.61|0.247
95789940|NCT02389959|191549137|OTHER|Linear regression model with repeated measures, controlling for patient's demographic factors, smoking status, and baseline level of MCS. The analysis is weighted by inverse probability treatment weight (IPTW).|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.18||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.76|-0.6|||Regression, Linear|||Analysis between groups at month 6||-0.6|-15.76|0.035
95789941|NCT02389959|191549138|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at baseline.||||0.030
95789942|NCT02389959|191549138|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 2.||||0.719
95789943|NCT02389959|191549138|OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test, 2-sided|||Analysis of intergroup difference at month 6.||||0.467
95789944|NCT02221648|191549174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4470
95789945|NCT02221648|191549175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0293
95789946|NCT02221648|191549176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0448
95789947|NCT00810069|191549177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier Analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Kaplan-Meier Estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.213
95789948|NCT00810069|191549178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate difference|0.02||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.10|-0.06|0.653
95789949|NCT00810069|191549179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.947||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies.||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.947
95789950|NCT00810069|191549180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Analysis of early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy||||0.597
95789951|NCT00810069|191549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.13||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||0.13|-0.22|0.624
95789952|NCT00810069|191549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.06|-0.29|0.208
95789953|NCT00810069|191549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.0||P-value for Week 10: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||-0.00|-0.37|0.044
95789954|NCT00810069|191549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interactions, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.02|-0.35|0.086
95789955|NCT00810069|191549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.06|-0.33|0.181
95789956|NCT00810069|191549181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.20|-0.20|0.994
95789957|NCT00810069|191549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.25||P-value for Week 6: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 6||-0.25|-0.98|0.001
95814997|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6836|||||||ANOVA|The main effect of intervention arm (FPl-TMS, MFG-TMS, S1-TMS) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.6836
95814998|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor control) on overall BOLD activation.||||||0.2146
95789958|NCT00810069|191549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.12|-0.87|0.010
95789959|NCT00810069|191549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||P-value for Week 10: analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 10||0.24|-0.55|0.445
95789960|NCT00810069|191549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.12|-0.71|0.169
95814999|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1541|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on BOLD activation||||||0.1541
95815000|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6657|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.6657
95789961|NCT00810069|191549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.25||P-value for Week 14: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 14||0.25|-0.63|0.393
95815001|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5619|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on BOLD activation||||||0.5619
95815002|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5148|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5148
95815003|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5428|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), contextual control, and subsystem (temporal, contextual, sensorimotor) on BOLD activation||||||0.5428
95815004|NCT04464473|191600980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1249|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention, temporal control, contextual control, and subsystem on BOLD activation||||||0.1249
95815005|NCT04464473|191600981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.9504
95815006|NCT04464473|191600981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7318|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7318
95815007|NCT04464473|191600981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control on error rate||||||0.8424
95815008|NCT04464473|191600981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7652|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control on error rate||||||0.7652
95815009|NCT04464473|191600982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.0266
95815010|NCT04464473|191600982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.2386
95789962|NCT00810069|191549182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.3||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline scores and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.30|-0.61|0.510
95789963|NCT00810069|191549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||0.47|-0.19|0.401
95789964|NCT00810069|191549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.46||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.46|-0.27|0.618
95789965|NCT00810069|191549183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.36||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.36|-0.43|0.856
95789966|NCT00810069|191549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.01||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||-0.01|-0.10|0.021
95789967|NCT00810069|191549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0||P-value for Week 12: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.00|-0.09|0.071
95789968|NCT00810069|191549184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.06||P-value for Week 16: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||0.06|-0.05|0.792
95789969|NCT00810069|191549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.0||P-value for Week 8: Analysis of early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 8||1.00|-1.74|0.597
95789970|NCT00810069|191549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.78||P-value for Week 12: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 12||0.78|-2.13|0.360
95789971|NCT00810069|191549185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||P-value for Week 16: Analysis for early versus delayed intervention strategies LS Mean/Estimate|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models repeated measures with fixed effects for strategy, country, visit, strategy-by-visit interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-visit||Repeated Measurements Analysis: Early Intervention versus Delayed Intervention Strategy at Week 16||1.65|-1.52|0.937
95789972|NCT00810069|191549186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0||||P-value is for early intervention strategy versus delayed intervention strategy.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|Kaplan-Meier analysis with Wilcoxon test to compare strategies||Kaplan-Meier estimates (weeks): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||||0.075
95789973|NCT00810069|191549187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Survival rate difference|-0.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02||P-value is for comparison of early intervention versus delayed intervention as a function of survival rate over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16).|Kaplan-Meier analysis|P-value for comparison of rates is based on normal approximation using Greenwood's estimation for standard error.||Survival function estimated over a 12 week period (Week 4 through Week 16): analysis of early intervention versus delayed intervention strategies||0.02|-0.16|0.116
95789974|NCT01922258|191549202|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.34|||=|0.1454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|0.82|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.82|-5.49|=0.1454
95789975|NCT05607576|191549226|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values blood glucose readings (mg/dL) were grouped based on radiation exposure (\>0-500 µGy and \>500 µGy). A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by cumulative scatter||||||<0.05
95789976|NCT05607576|191549227|OTHER|Clarke error grid analyses (EGA) were performed to compare CGM values to glucometer glucose values. A p-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models with random effects over time were used to assess absolute differences in BG mg/dL by time||||||<0.05
95789977|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-11.0|-18.0|<0.001
95958011|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.193|0.096|
95789978|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-7.09|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-7.09|-14.0|<0.001
95789979|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.55|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.55|-14.4|<0.001
95789980|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-5.93|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg + Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-5.93|-12.9|<.001
95789981|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-7.46|||ANCOVA|||Sema 2.4mg vs Placebo||-7.46|-14.4|<0.001
95815011|NCT04464473|191600982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.4211
95789982|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-6.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-2.94|||ANCOVA|||Sema 1.0mg vs Placebo||-2.94|-9.96|<0.001
95789983|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Bima 30mg/kg vs Placebo||-2.41|-9.47|<0.001
95789984|NCT05616013|191549228|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change difference|-2.68||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Bima 10mg/kg vs Placebo||0.82|-6.18|0.133
95789985|NCT01852513|191549269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
95789986|NCT01852513|191549270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.789
95789987|NCT01852513|191549271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
95789988|NCT01871077|191549273|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.890
95789989|NCT01871077|191549274|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
95789990|NCT01871077|191549275|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Friedman test|||||||1.000
95789991|NCT01871077|191549276|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.497
95789992|NCT00870467|191549323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95789993|NCT00870467|191549324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95789994|NCT00870467|191549325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95789995|NCT00870467|191549326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95789996|NCT00870467|191549327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95789997|NCT00870467|191549328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95789998|NCT00520039|191549455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.03|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The denominator of the Odds ratio represents the odds of improvement for the Standard Care Only (SCO) group.|Test of the null hypothesis that there is no improvement in MEE at Visit 3 using tympanogram.||2.03|0.15|0.02
95789999|NCT00520039|191549456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.62|||Chi-squared|df = 1|The odds of Resolution of MEE before OMT is represented in the denominator of the odds ratio|||1.62|-1.00|0.32
95790000|NCT00520039|191549457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|df = 1||||1.28|-0.78|.31
95790001|NCT02493517|191549464|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is defined as 0.6 SDS for the upper limit of 95% CI of the LS mean difference of the log-transformed IGF-1 SDS without back-transformation.|Treatment difference|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||||||"The Least Square (LS) Means and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were based on the generalised linear model (GLM) with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented."||0.11|-0.74|
95790002|NCT02493517|191549464|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the back-transformed LS Mean ratio of IGF-1 SDS of lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR is exp (0.6) = 1.822.|LS Mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.11||||||"The LS Means and 95% CIs were based on the GLM with IGF-1 SDS change from baseline values as dependent variable, with treatment group and previous pituitary surgery as independent factors, and the baseline value of IGF-1 SDS as independent covariate. A log-transformation with base e was applied to the IGF-1 SDS data before analysing.~The LS Mean ratio (lanreotide Autogel versus lanreotide PR) is presented."||1.11|0.48|
95790003|NCT02493517|191549465|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|17.7||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of normal IGF-1 SDS values at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||17.7|-5.2|
95790004|NCT02493517|191549466|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.4||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||14.4|-17.5|
95790005|NCT02493517|191549467|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.0||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of GH levels ≤1 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.0|-8.9|
95790006|NCT02493517|191549468|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.5||||||The risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage subjects with normal IGF-1 levels and who have GH levels \>1 mcg/L and ≤2.5 mcg/L at EOST/EW Visit is presented.||12.5|-3.1|
95790007|NCT02493517|191549469|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|11.25||||||Treatment difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) is presented.||11.25|-3.98|
95790008|NCT02493517|191549470|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|13.3||||||Risk difference (lanreotide Autogel - lanreotide PR) in the percentage of subjects with at least 20% reduction in the solid component of tumour volume compared to Baseline is presented.||13.3|-24.3|
95790009|NCT00255164|191549548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
95790010|NCT00255164|191549548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00001
95815012|NCT04464473|191600982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return) and contextual control on error rate||||||0.7503
95790011|NCT00255164|191549548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.80473||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.80473
95790012|NCT00255164|191549549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95790013|NCT00255164|191549549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95790014|NCT00255164|191549549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76046||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76046
95790015|NCT00255164|191549551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
95790016|NCT00255164|191549551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||Hochberg's method was used to ensure that the overall 0.0025 level of significance was maintained for the pairwise comparisons between each dexlansoprazole MR dose and placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.00001
95790017|NCT00255164|191549551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37161||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.37161
95790018|NCT00255164|191549552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95790019|NCT00255164|191549552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||95.0||||The 0.0025 level of significance for this secondary endpoint was controlled using Hochberg's method for comparisons of each dose to placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.00001
95790020|NCT00255164|191549552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59700
95790021|NCT01548599|191549569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.028||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|3.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.289|0.766|0.002
95790022|NCT01548599|191549570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95790023|NCT01548599|191549571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95790024|NCT01548599|191549572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|5.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.165|0.013|0.378
95790025|NCT01548599|191549573|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95790026|NCT01548599|191549574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
95790027|NCT02699996|191549594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||RTQ-Survivor Adolescent Responsibility Score||0.86|0.17|<.01
95790028|NCT02699996|191549594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||RTQ-Overall Readiness Score||1.07|0.27|<.01
95790029|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI-total Score||0.42|0.05|0.02
95790030|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Knowledge score||0.73|0.26|<.01
95790031|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Skills/Self-Efficacy Score||0.60|-0.0044|0.053
95790032|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Beliefs/Expectations score||0.24|0.02|0.03
95790033|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Goals/Motivation score||0.69|0.11|<.01
95790034|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||Relationship/Communication Score||0.26|-0.16|0.61
95790035|NCT02699996|191549595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14||TRI Psychosocial/Emotional Score||0.57|-0.37|0.65
95790036|NCT02699996|191549596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|4.34|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||||4.34|-7.62|.56
95790037|NCT02699996|191549597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.75|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||2.75|-6.23|.42
95790038|NCT02699996|191549598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.23|-0.80|.26
95790039|NCT02699996|191549599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.52|0.03|.03
95790040|NCT02699996|191549600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Body Health Subscale||0.52|-0.12|.20
95790041|NCT02699996|191549600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Personal Growth Subscale||0.20|-0.46|.40
95790042|NCT02699996|191549600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||Memory Subscale||0.29|-0.09|.29
95790043|NCT02699996|191549601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 14||||0.03|-0.40|.08
95790044|NCT02359110|191549602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||1.3|-1.2|0.89
95790045|NCT02359110|191549602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 Analysis||1.5|-1.6|0.94
95790046|NCT02359110|191549602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||1.3|-2.2|0.64
95790047|NCT02359110|191549602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 8 Analysis||2.8|-1.6|0.59
95790048|NCT02359110|191549603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 Analysis||15.8|-8.1|0.52
95790049|NCT02359110|191549603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 6 Analysis||15.3|-11.9|0.80
95790050|NCT02359110|191549604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95790051|NCT01307787|191549622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.002
95790052|NCT01307787|191549623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.47
95790053|NCT01307787|191549624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.24
95790054|NCT01307787|191549625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.16
95815013|NCT04464473|191600983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0091
95790055|NCT01307787|191549626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.21
95815014|NCT04464473|191600983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of Visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0045
95815015|NCT04464473|191600983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1082|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.1082
95958012|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.074|-0.024|
95790056|NCT01307787|191549627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.07
95790057|NCT01307787|191549628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.4
95790058|NCT01307787|191549629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess between group changes on delta scores at times T0( at the start of the study in week 1) and T1( post-intervention in week 9). Significance level for all statistical tests was set at p\< 0.05.||||0.6
95790059|NCT02185417|191549679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||Log Rank|||Primary analyses were performed with the use of unadjusted log-rank tests that were stratified according to VA health care system.||1.16|0.94|0.45
95790060|NCT03843372|191549696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The AHI was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare AHI between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
95790061|NCT03843372|191549697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The oxygen desaturation index was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare oxygen desaturation index between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
95790062|NCT03843372|191549698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The total sleep time was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare total sleep time between CPAP and HFNC||||<0.001
95790063|NCT03843372|191549699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The sleep efficiency was not a normal distribution. In the event that no carry over effect was detected between interventions, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was to be used to compare sleep efficiency between CPAP and HFNC||||0.008
95790064|NCT04556760|191549700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.9528||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.5082|-9.3973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-9.3973|-256.5082|0.036
95790065|NCT04556760|191549700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-142.033||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-554.8722|270.8061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||270.8061|-554.8722|0.432
95815016|NCT04464473|191600983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1), phase (sub-task, return), Temporal Control, and Contextual Control on error rate||||||0.0659
95815017|NCT04464473|191600984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.0211
95815018|NCT04464473|191600984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4964|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.4964
95815019|NCT04464473|191600984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.3129
95815020|NCT04464473|191600984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5439|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and temporal control in reaction time||||||0.5439
95815021|NCT04464473|191600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0344
95815022|NCT04464473|191600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5113|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.5113
95815023|NCT04464473|191600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0301|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS) and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.0301
95958013|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.086|-0.010|
95958014|NCT01040403|191888376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.061|-0.036|
95790066|NCT04556760|191549700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.8829||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-236.0426|-17.7233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||-17.7233|-236.0426|0.030
95790067|NCT04556760|191549701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-0.9314|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-0.9314|-2.0820|<0.001
95790068|NCT04556760|191549701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7257|-0.4941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||-0.4941|-1.7257|<0.001
95790069|NCT04556760|191549701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1601||||0.547||95.0|-0.693|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3729|-0.6930|0.547
95790070|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2258|-0.7773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.7773|-2.2258|<0.001
95790071|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8643|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.5611|-1.1674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[24 to 48 h\])||-1.1674|-2.5611|<0.001
95790072|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5998|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3025|-0.8971|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.8971|-2.3025|<0.001
95790073|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8474||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4465|-0.2484|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[00 to 24 h\])||-0.2484|-1.4465|0.013
95790074|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7778||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6022|0.0466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.0466|-1.6022|0.061
95790075|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.143||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7622|-0.5238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg \[48 to 72 h\])||-0.5238|-1.7622|0.003
95790076|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8338|0.1138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[00 to 24 h\])||0.1138|-0.8338|0.125
95790077|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0845||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9706|0.8016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[24 to 48 h\])||0.8016|-0.9706|0.840
95790078|NCT04556760|191549702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1298||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.3864|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5 mg \[48 to 72 h\])||0.3864|-0.6460|0.571
95958015|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.020|-0.059|
95958016|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.026|
95790079|NCT04556760|191549703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.40|-0.55|0.753
95790080|NCT04556760|191549703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.37|-0.46|0.802
95790081|NCT04556760|191549703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.37|-0.37|0.985
95790082|NCT04556760|191549704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20498.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10819.2|30178.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||30178.2|10819.2|<0.001
95790083|NCT04556760|191549704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3321.4||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12975.8|19618.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||19618.6|-12975.8|0.659
95790084|NCT04556760|191549704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2698.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14849.0|9451.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9451.3|-14849.0|0.521
95790085|NCT04556760|191549705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1002.5864||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1620.215|-384.9577|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-384.9577|-1620.2150|0.003
95790086|NCT04556760|191549705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9836||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.6968|608.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||608.6640|-526.6968|0.865
95790087|NCT04556760|191549705|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.4137||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-628.8097|831.637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||831.6370|-628.8097|0.754
95790088|NCT04556760|191549706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1225.905||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2007.2241|-444.5859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||-444.5859|-2007.2241|0.004
95790089|NCT04556760|191549706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.9802||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1521.5088|587.5485|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||587.5485|-1521.5088|0.313
95790090|NCT04556760|191549706|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-375.3161||||0.404||95.0|-1433.6265|682.9943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||682.9943|-1433.6265|0.404
95958017|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.028|
95790091|NCT04556760|191549707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|365.6323||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1097.7973|1829.0618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1829.0618|-1097.7973|0.608
95790092|NCT04556760|191549707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.236||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3214.3323|3590.8043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3590.8043|-3214.3323|0.897
95790093|NCT04556760|191549707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1061.4494||||0.381||95.0|-3588.2233|1465.3244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||1465.3244|-3588.2233|0.381
95790094|NCT04556760|191549708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.4211|||<|0.001||95.0|29.4904|91.3518|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||91.3518|29.4904|<0.001
95790095|NCT04556760|191549708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.4529||||0.432||95.0|-44.9414|97.8471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||97.8471|-44.9414|0.432
95790096|NCT04556760|191549708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0243||||0.282||95.0|-74.0731|26.0245|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||26.0245|-74.0731|0.282
95790097|NCT04556760|191549709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6023||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5463|1.3416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||1.3416|-2.5463|0.531
95790098|NCT04556760|191549709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4621||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0933|3.0176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||3.0176|-2.0933|0.682
95790099|NCT04556760|191549710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0679||||0.526||95.0|-0.152|0.2866|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.2866|-0.1520|0.526
95790100|NCT04556760|191549710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0882||||0.569||95.0|-0.2653|0.4416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg||0.4416|-0.2653|0.569
95790101|NCT04556760|191549710|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1257||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0677|0.3191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.3191|-0.0677|0.166
95790102|NCT04556760|191549711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0072|0.0271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0271|-0.0072|0.226
95790103|NCT04556760|191549711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0033||||0.619||95.0|-0.0128|0.0195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0195|-0.0128|0.619
95790104|NCT04556760|191549711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.917||95.0|-0.0189|0.0207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0207|-0.0189|0.917
95790105|NCT04556760|191549712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0007||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.0022|-0.0008|0.357
95790106|NCT04556760|191549712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0003||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0012|0.0017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||0.0017|-0.0012|0.676
95790107|NCT04556760|191549712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0012||||0.096||95.0|-0.0002|0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||0.0026|-0.0002|0.096
95790108|NCT04556760|191549713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|5.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||5.95|-9.40|0.646
95790109|NCT04556760|191549713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97||||0.11||95.0|-25.39|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||3.44|-25.39|0.110
95790110|NCT04556760|191549713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.932||95.0|-10.32|9.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||9.61|-10.32|0.932
95790111|NCT04556760|191549714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|32.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||32.7|-17.4|0.533
95790112|NCT04556760|191549714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.311||95.0|-26.7|71.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||71.3|-26.7|0.311
95790113|NCT04556760|191549714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.204||95.0|-21.9|83.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||83.9|-21.9|0.204
95790114|NCT04556760|191549724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0066||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|0.8748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 72mg vs Prednisolone 40mg)||0.8748|-8.8880|0.103
95790115|NCT04556760|191549724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7535||||0.005||95.0|2.6034|8.9036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (AZD9567 40mg vs Prednisolone 20mg)||8.9036|2.6034|0.005
95790116|NCT04556760|191549724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0619||||0.023||95.0|1.674|16.4499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise Comparisons with Prednisolone (Placebo vs Prednisolone 5mg)||16.4499|1.6740|0.023
95790117|NCT02157519|191549728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline MMAS-4 scores (dichotomous) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of participants who self-reported adherence problems (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) at post-assessment between groups adjusting for baseline self-reported adherence (i.e., dichotomous MMAS-4 scores) and change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.33|0.23|0.186
95790118|NCT02157519|191549729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.68||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the percentage of medication taken (as recorded by MEMS) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||5.68|-10.35|0.57
95815024|NCT04464473|191600985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6931|||||||ANOVA|Interaction between intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), and contextual control in reaction time||||||0.6931
95790119|NCT02157519|191549730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.53||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom severity (MDASI-severity) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.53|-0.31|0.603
95790120|NCT02157519|191549730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in symptom interference (MDASI-interference) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment.||0.65|-0.64|0.982
95790121|NCT02157519|191549731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.83||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in overall QOL (FACT-G) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.83|-5.66|0.144
95790122|NCT02157519|191549731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.61||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in physical QOL (FACT-Physical Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) baseline from baseline to post-assessment.||0.61|-2.00|0.294
95790123|NCT02157519|191549731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.21||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in social QOL (FACT-Social Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||-0.21|-3.12|0.025
95790124|NCT02157519|191549731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in emotional QOL (FACT-Emotional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||1.63|-0.64|0.392
95790125|NCT02157519|191549731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.44||threshold p \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the change in functional QOL (FACT-Functional Well-Being) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.44|-1.94|0.216
95790126|NCT02157519|191549732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with clinician explanations (FACIT-TS-PS-Clinician Explanations) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.17|-0.93|0.170
95790127|NCT02157519|191549732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post assessment||Analysis comparing change in satisfaction with interpersonal treatment (FACIT-TS-PS Interpersonal Treatment) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.01|-0.72|0.057
95790128|NCT02157519|191549732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.45||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with comprehensive care (FACIT-TS-PS Comprehensive Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.45|-2.39|0.178
95790129|NCT02157519|191549732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with nursing care (FACIT-TS-PS Nursing Care) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.75|-0.35|0.481
95790130|NCT02157519|191549732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.35||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing change in treatment satisfaction with trust in clinicians (FACIT-TS-PS Trust in Clinicians) from baseline to post-assessment between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.35|-0.34|0.970
95815025|NCT04464473|191600986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0189|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0189
95815026|NCT04464473|191600986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0763|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of visit (Baseline, MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.0763
95815027|NCT04464473|191600986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9701|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention (MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.9701
95815028|NCT04464473|191600986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of intervention(MFG-cTBS, FPl-cTBS, S1-cTBS), phase (sub-task, return), temporal control, and contextual control on reaction time||||||0.3826
95815029|NCT03531814|191601010|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 1-4.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
95815030|NCT03531814|191601010|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 5-8.|ANOVA|||||||0.021
95815031|NCT03531814|191601010|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 9-12.|ANOVA|||||||.034
95999910|NCT05299892|191975931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.00961|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|15.11|||ANOVA|||An ANOVA was conducted for the three SE conditions (off, moderate, strong) at 50 dBA . Post -hoc comparisons were done using Bonferroni's correction. Below result is the mean comparison between SE of and SE strong. An analysis of age effects was not completed.||15.11|3.91|<.001
95999911|NCT05299892|191975931|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no significant differences between the mean unaided CNC score at 50 dBA and the mean aided CNC score with SE off.||||<0.001
95790131|NCT02157519|191549733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of emergency department (ED) visits over the study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment.||0.10|-0.15|0.682
95790132|NCT02157519|191549734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15||threshold p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||Analysis comparing the number of hospitalizations over they study period between groups adjusting for change in perceived social support (MSPSS) from baseline to post-assessment||0.15|-0.24|0.640
95790133|NCT01656395|191549735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.127|||cLDA model|||Difference in least squares (LS) means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.127|-0.084|0.685
95790134|NCT01656395|191549735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.07|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.07|-0.149|0.477
95790135|NCT01656395|191549735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.13|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.13|-0.092|0.733
95790136|NCT01656395|191549735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.115|0.89
95790137|NCT01656395|191549735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.1|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in FEV1: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.1|-0.109|0.935
95815032|NCT03531814|191601010|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used because Mauchly's test of sphericity was significant. The reported p-value represents the probability of the differences in the averages of adherence assessment methods for cycles 13-18.|ANOVA|||||||.040
95815033|NCT03531814|191601011|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.21||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.463||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.463|-0.729|0.536
95815034|NCT03531814|191601011|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.134||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|0.715||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.715|-0.557|.713
95815035|NCT03531814|191601011|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.095||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.761||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.761|-0.668|.823
95815036|NCT03531814|191601011|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.333||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.848||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.848|-0.505|.420
95999912|NCT04207710|191975943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
95815037|NCT03531814|191601012|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.333||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|0.352||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.352|-0.785|0.317
95815038|NCT03531814|191601012|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.309||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.794|0.416||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.416|-0.794|.385
95790138|NCT01656395|191549738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|3.08|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||3.08|-17.48|0.169
95790139|NCT01656395|191549738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.092||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|1.485|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.485|-19.67|0.092
95790140|NCT01656395|191549738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.469||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|1.25|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||1.25|-20.19|0.083
95790141|NCT01656395|191549738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.666||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|5.501|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: MK- 1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||5.501|-14.83|0.367
95790142|NCT01656395|191549738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.247||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.36|4.871|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma exacerbation day over Week 6 through Week 12: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes the terms for treatment groups and prior ICS use (Yes/No). Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||4.871|-15.36|0.308
95790143|NCT01656395|191549739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|0.182|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.182|-0.427|0.429
95790144|NCT01656395|191549739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.169|0.370
95790145|NCT01656395|191549739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.225|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.225|-0.402|0.579
95815039|NCT03531814|191601012|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.259||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|0.563||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.563|-0.824|.535
95815040|NCT03531814|191601012|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.222||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.589||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.589|-0.811|.597
95815041|NCT03531814|191601013|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.215||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.459||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.459|-0.731|0.526
95815042|NCT03531814|191601013|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.049||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.67||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.670|-0.613|.894
95815043|NCT03531814|191601013|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.048||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.694||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.694|-0.740|.911
95790146|NCT01656395|191549739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.454|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.454|-0.142|0.305
95815044|NCT03531814|191601013|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.167||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.626||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.626|-0.790|.693
95815045|NCT03531814|191601014|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.607||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|0.009||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.009|-0.889|0.048
95815046|NCT03531814|191601014|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.658||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|-0.027||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.027|-0.914|0.038
95815047|NCT03531814|191601014|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.708||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.945|0.02||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.020|-0.945|0.50
95815048|NCT03531814|191601014|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.878||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.435||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.435|-0.979|0.004
95815049|NCT03531814|191601015|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.293||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.768||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.768|-0.390|0.382
95815050|NCT03531814|191601015|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.278||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.781||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.781|-0.444|0.436
95790147|NCT01656395|191549739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.136||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.163|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline to Week 12 in DSS: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.163|-0.434|0.372
95790148|NCT01656395|191549740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.528||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.184|0.128|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use(Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.128|-1.184|0.114
95790149|NCT01656395|191549740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.6|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.6|-0.75|0.827
95864486|NCT03456882|191686806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2209|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2209
95790150|NCT01656395|191549740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|0.569|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.569|-0.789|0.75
95790151|NCT01656395|191549740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.921|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.921|-0.371|0.403
95790152|NCT01656395|191549740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.389||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|0.257|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in SABA use: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.257|-1.035|0.237
95790153|NCT01656395|191549741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|0.583|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.583|-1.066|0.565
95790154|NCT01656395|191549741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.983|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.983|-0.713|0.754
95790155|NCT01656395|191549741|SUPERIORITY||cLDA model|-0.251||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|0.603|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.603|-1.104|0.563
95790156|NCT01656395|191549741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|0.571|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.571|-1.053|0.559
95790157|NCT01656395|191549741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.071||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.741|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in nocturnal awakenings: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.741|-0.883|0.863
95790158|NCT01656395|191549742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.544||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|21.007|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||21.007|-19.92|0.958
95790159|NCT01656395|191549742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|27.307|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK- 1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||27.307|-14.81|0.559
95790160|NCT01656395|191549742|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.575||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|30.766|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||30.766|-11.62|0.374
95958018|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.072|-0.006|
95790161|NCT01656395|191549742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.114||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|25.272|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||25.272|-15.04|0.618
95790162|NCT01656395|191549742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.604||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|18.554|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for average change from Baseline over Week 6 to Week 12 in AM/PM PEF: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||18.554|-21.76|0.876
95790163|NCT01656395|191549743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.44|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.440|-0.288|0.682
95790164|NCT01656395|191549743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.329|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.329|-0.422|0.807
95790165|NCT01656395|191549743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.552|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.552|-0.222|0.403
95790166|NCT01656395|191549743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.375||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.751|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.751|-0.001|0.051
95790167|NCT01656395|191549743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.319||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.683|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in AQLQ(S) Overall Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Positive differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.683|-0.045|0.086
95790168|NCT01656395|191549744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|21.3|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.3|-16.0|0.7687
95790169|NCT01656395|191549744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.4943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|12.2|||MN Method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||12.2|-24.9|0.4943
95790170|NCT01656395|191549744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|29.6|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||29.6|-9.4|0.3003
95815051|NCT03531814|191601015|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.229||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.813||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.813|-0.585|0.586
95815052|NCT03531814|191601015|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.53||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.904||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.904|-0.302|0.177
95815053|NCT03531814|191601017|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.576||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.879|0.056||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||0.056|-0.879|0.063
95815054|NCT03531814|191601017|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.68||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.066||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 5-8.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.066|-0.920|0.031
95815055|NCT03531814|191601017|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.835||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.292||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables at cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.292|-0.971|0.010
95815056|NCT03531814|191601017|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.933|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.989|-0.652||The reported p-value represents the probability that the strength of the relationship is due to chance at cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation (non-parametric)|||||-0.652|-0.989|<0.001
95815057|NCT03531814|191601018|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.035||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|0.591||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||0.591|-0.634|0.919
95815058|NCT03531814|191601018|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.227||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|0.759||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.759|-0.487|0.528
95815059|NCT03531814|191601018|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.179||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.794||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.794|-0.618|0.672
95815060|NCT03531814|191601018|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|0.041||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|0.737||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.737|-0.697|0.923
95815061|NCT03531814|191601019|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.638||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|-0.041||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 1-4.|Spearman correlation|||||-0.041|-0.899|0.035
95815062|NCT03531814|191601019|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.361||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.367||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 5-8.|Spearman correlation|||||0.367|-0.815|0.306
95790171|NCT01656395|191549744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.7|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.7|-1.9|0.0774
95815063|NCT03531814|191601019|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.407||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.438||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 9-12.|Spearman correlation|||||0.438|-0.870|0.317
95815064|NCT03531814|191601019|OTHER||Spearman's correlation|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|0.0617||The reported p-value represents the strength of the relationship between the variables for cycles 13-18.|Spearman correlation|||||0.0617|-0.795|0.670
95790172|NCT01656395|191549744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.5|||MN method|||Difference for AQLQ(S) Response Rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||35.5|-0.4|0.0555
95790173|NCT01656395|191549745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.288|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.288|-0.495|0.603
95790174|NCT01656395|191549745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.436|0.372|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.372|-0.436|0.875
95790175|NCT01656395|191549745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.265|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.265|-0.568|0.476
95790176|NCT01656395|191549745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.362||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.042|||cLDA model|||Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.042|-0.767|0.079
95790177|NCT01656395|191549745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.227||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.166|||cLDA model|||"Difference in LS means for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ Score: Montelukast vs. Placebo.~cLDA model includes terms for visit as categorical variable, prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment by visit. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast)."||0.166|-0.621|0.257
95790178|NCT01656395|191549746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|21.1|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 10 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||21.1|-15.1|0.742
95790179|NCT01656395|191549746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|15.4|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 30 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||15.4|-22.1|0.7248
95815065|NCT00552071|191601040|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95790180|NCT01656395|191549746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|22.6|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 60 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||22.6|-15.6|0.6991
95790181|NCT01656395|191549746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.2|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: MK-1029 150 mg vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||26.2|-10.6|0.3934
95790182|NCT01656395|191549746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|20.5|||MN method|||Difference for change from Baseline to Week 12 in ACQ response rate: Montelukast vs. Placebo. P-values, estimates and 95% CIs are based on the MN method stratified by prior ICS use (Yes/No).||20.5|-16.0|0.8032
95790183|NCT01656395|191549747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.004|0.853|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 10 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK- 1029 or Montelukast).||0.853|-1.004|0.873
95815066|NCT00552071|191601041|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A two-sided p value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95815067|NCT00952705|191601042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.87|
95855362|NCT00541658|191670494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-0.355|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.355|-1.762|
95815068|NCT00952705|191601042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV-BFS A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.00|0.85|
95815069|NCT00952705|191601042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Yamagata divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Yamagata.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.02|0.79|
95815070|NCT00952705|191601042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV-BFS was declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: FluMist B/Victoria divided by Q/LAIV-BFS B/Victoria.|Ratio of geometric mean titers|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Bootstrapping method|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antigen measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^y (mean \[log\^y x\]) where x was the assay result and y was the natural logarithm.||1.10|0.87|
95815071|NCT04552041|191601070|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||<0.0001
95815072|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row.||||0.0028
95864487|NCT03456882|191686807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.2738
95790184|NCT01656395|191549747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.326|0.575|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 30 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.575|-1.326|0.437
95790185|NCT01656395|191549747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|0.423|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 60 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.423|-1.504|0.270
95790186|NCT01656395|191549747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.839|0.997|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: MK-1209 150 mg vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.997|-0.839|0.865
95790187|NCT01656395|191549747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|0.6|||ANOVA|||Difference in LS means for percent of asthma attack days over Week 6 to Week 12 of a 12-week treatment period: Montelukast vs. Placebo. ANOVA model includes terms for prior ICS use (Yes/No) and treatment. Negative differences are in favor of the first treatment group in the comparison (MK-1029 or Montelukast).||0.600|-1.219|0.503
95790188|NCT02318849|191549752|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.09||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The anaylsis was adjusted for student characteristics.||The null hypothesis was that the of number students who report being a donor (or talking to parents about organ donation) both before and after exposure to the intervention would be equivalent. A secondary null hypothesis would be that longer expsosures to the intervention over time would not increase the number who report becoming a donor at the final assessment.||||0.009
95815073|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Delusional ideas ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1739
95790189|NCT02318849|191549753|SUPERIORITY||Change in percentage|0.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.10
95815074|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Hallucinations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0559
95958019|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.071|-0.009|
95958020|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.037|-0.041|
95790190|NCT02168491|191549754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||paired t test|||||||<0.02
95790191|NCT02168491|191549755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||paired t test|||||||0.24
95999913|NCT04207710|191975943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Ethyl Chloride.||||0.317
95790192|NCT02168491|191549756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t test|||||||0.28
95790193|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.3||||||95.0|0.1|157.7|||ED-50: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED50 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 50: dose providing 50% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||157.7|0.1|
95790194|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|123.9||||||95.0|0.4|523.9|||ED 90: Bootstrap Method||Non-convergence for the non-liner model occurred in some bootstrap samples which were not included in summarizing the ED90 distribution or confidence interval.|Dose response analysis ED 90: dose providing 90% of the maximal effect. Statistics were obtained from three parameter model Y = D + G\*exp(B\*dose) by bootstrapping 2000 data sets, where D = expected response of saturation (maximal effect), B = related to slope of the dose response mechanism (change in response relative to the change in dose), and D+G = expected response at zero dose.||523.9|0.4|
95790195|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472||0.0983||95.0|-8.97|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.77|-8.97|0.0983
95790196|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.415||0.0966||95.0|-8.78|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-8.78|0.0966
95790197|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.0013||95.0|-13.31|-3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.28|-13.31|0.0013
95790198|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.437||0.0353||95.0|-9.96|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.36|-9.96|0.0353
95790199|NCT00676403|191549757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.469||0.0006||95.0|-13.4|-3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. The repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.67|-13.40|0.0006
95790200|NCT00676403|191549758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8784||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8784
95790201|NCT00676403|191549758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6767||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6767
95790202|NCT00676403|191549758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8955||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8955
95790203|NCT00676403|191549758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9505
95790204|NCT00676403|191549758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0466
95790205|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3876
95999914|NCT04207710|191975943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
95999915|NCT04207710|191975943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||A priori threshold was p\<0.05|Friedman|||Comparison of incidence of positive growth in samples obtained following application of ChloraPrep vs. ChloraPrep followed by Gebauer's Pain Ease.||||0.317
95999916|NCT02532543|191975944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.863
95790206|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7959
95999917|NCT02532543|191975945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.718
95999918|NCT02532543|191975945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.853
95999919|NCT02532543|191975946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal bone height||||0.718
95999920|NCT02532543|191975946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal bone height||||0.999
95790207|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2032
95815075|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Agitation ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0174
95815076|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aggression ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3330
95815077|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Dysphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1037
95815078|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0329|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Anxiety ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0329
95815079|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Euphoria ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.2700
95815080|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Apathy ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0557
95815081|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Disinhibition ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.9820
95864488|NCT03456882|191686807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4239
95790208|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.7032
95790209|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0551||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0551
95815082|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Irritability ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.4626
95864489|NCT03456882|191686808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.1708
95815083|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant motor behaviour ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0006
95815084|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Sleep disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.3725
95815085|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Appetite disorders ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.1013
95815086|NCT04552041|191601071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"This analysis applies to domain Aberrant vocalizations ∆ between baseline and 24 weeks row."||||0.0432
95815087|NCT04552041|191601072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.0316
95815088|NCT04552041|191601073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 12 weeks row.||||0.1483
95815089|NCT04552041|191601074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Therapeutic effect row.||||0.0018
95958021|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.093|0.015|
95958022|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.084|0.006|
95790210|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4100
95815090|NCT04552041|191601074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4733|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Side effects row.||||0.4733
95815091|NCT04552041|191601074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to Efficiency index row.||||0.0035
95815092|NCT01669902|191601101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 3||||<0.0001
95815093|NCT01669902|191601101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change at Month 6||||0.0357
95815094|NCT01047189|191601105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95815095|NCT01114737|191601115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS total score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||0.6|-8.9|0.085
95815096|NCT01114737|191601116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline HAMA Anxiety Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.3|-1.5|0.669
95815097|NCT01114737|191601117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline HAM-D Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.9|-1.1|0.588
95815098|NCT01114737|191601118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline CGI-Severity Response, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.2|-0.4|0.531
95815099|NCT01114737|191601119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||3.6|-5.5|0.661
95815100|NCT01114737|191601120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||-0.3|-7.9|0.034
95958023|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.087|0.008|
95790211|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6524||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6524
95790212|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3219||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3219
95790213|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3509||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3509
95790214|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0053
95790215|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9835||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9835
95790216|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6668||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6668
95790217|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2823||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.2823
95790218|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5687
95790219|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0043||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0043
95790220|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8662||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.8662
95790221|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3656||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3656
95790222|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0806||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0806
95790223|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5381||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.5381
95790224|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0090
95790225|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9748||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.9748
95790226|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3936||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.3936
95790227|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1563||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1563
95790228|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6357||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.6357
95790229|NCT00676403|191549759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Last Observation Carried Forward: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0133
95790230|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.4133||95.0|-22.4|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.4|0.4133
95790231|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.6676||95.0|-19.0|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Conrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.2|-19.0|0.6676
95790232|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.9355||95.0|-16.5|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.2|-16.5|0.9355
95815101|NCT01114737|191601121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 ADHD RS/ASRS Total Score, age group, and ADHD medication.||||7.8|-2.6|0.312
95958024|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.031|-0.049|
95958025|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.033|-0.046|
95958026|NCT01040403|191888377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.042|-0.037|
95790233|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.9355||95.0|-15.1|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-15.1|0.9355
95790234|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.1895||95.0|-26.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-26.1|0.1895
95790235|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1443||95.0|-27.8|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-27.8|0.1443
95790236|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.2946||95.0|-24.0|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-24.0|0.2946
95790237|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.3686||95.0|-23.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.8|-23.6|0.3686
95790238|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.6079||95.0|-19.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-19.9|0.6079
95790239|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.0016||95.0|-41.2|-9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-9.7|-41.2|0.0016
95790240|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.5976||95.0|-20.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-20.5|0.5976
95815102|NCT01114737|191601122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMA Anxiety Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.4|-2.4|0.590
95815103|NCT01114737|191601123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 HAMD Rating Scale Total Score, age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD||||1.9|-1.2|0.636
95815104|NCT01114737|191601124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 Global Impression-Severity Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.5|-0.2|0.510
95864490|NCT03456882|191686808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.8133
95958027|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.202|0.084|
95958028|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.210|0.092|
95864491|NCT03456882|191686809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5239||||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.||Global test of treatment\*time interaction effect. Null hypothesis: the change over time is not different between groups.||||0.5239
95958029|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||0.191|0.072|
95958030|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.066|-0.051|
95958031|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||0.048|-0.071|
95999921|NCT02532543|191975946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial bone height||||0.440
95790241|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8527||95.0|-14.3|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-14.3|0.8527
95790242|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.6973||95.0|-19.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.1|-19.6|0.6973
95790243|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.6895||95.0|-19.2|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.7|-19.2|0.6895
95790244|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.0209||95.0|-35.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.9|-35.2|0.0209
95790245|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.4084||95.0|-22.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.3|-22.9|0.4084
95790246|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3958||95.0|-22.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.9|-22.5|0.3958
95790247|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.5776||95.0|-20.9|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.7|-20.9|0.5776
95815105|NCT01114737|191601125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.2|-2.1|0.395
95815106|NCT01114737|191601126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Week 13 BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||4.7|-2.1|0.443
95864492|NCT03456882|191686809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4401|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 24 - baseline) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from baseline to week 24 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4401
95790248|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.5665||95.0|-20.5|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.3|-20.5|0.5665
95815107|NCT01114737|191601127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline ADHD-RS/ASRS Total Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.8|-5.5|0.953
95815108|NCT01114737|191601128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.7|-2.4|0.733
95958032|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||0.039|-0.079|
95958033|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
95958034|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.234|0.116|
95958035|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||0.259|0.140|
95958036|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.059|-0.060|
95958037|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
95790249|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.13||0.0041||95.0|-39.6|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.5|-39.6|0.0041
95790250|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1842||95.0|-27.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-27.1|0.1842
95790251|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.8269||95.0|-17.5|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.0|-17.5|0.8269
95790252|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.3319||95.0|-24.5|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.3|-24.5|0.3319
95790253|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7552||95.0|-13.4|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-13.4|0.7552
95790254|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0137||95.0|-36.3|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-4.2|-36.3|0.0137
95790255|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.1157||95.0|-29.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.2|-29.2|0.1157
95790256|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04||0.3791||95.0|-22.9|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.7|-22.9|0.3791
95815109|NCT01114737|191601129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Hamilton Rating Scale For Depression (HAM-D) Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||2.2|-1.1|0.522
95790257|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.1329||95.0|-29.2|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.9|-29.2|0.1329
95790258|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7723||95.0|-13.6|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.3|-13.6|0.7723
95790259|NCT00676403|191549760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.0063||95.0|-38.6|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score was included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.4|-38.6|0.0063
95815110|NCT01114737|191601130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S), ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||0.4|-0.2|0.564
95815111|NCT01114737|191601131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for age group, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication||||1.64|0.46|0.67
95815112|NCT01114737|191601132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Adult-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||5.0|-6.2|0.833
95958038|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||0.083|-0.035|
95958039|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.197|0.081|
95790260|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1715||95.0|-0.15|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.85|-0.15|0.1715
95790261|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.7944||95.0|-0.43|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.43|0.7944
95790262|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.1994||95.0|-0.17|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.83|-0.17|0.1994
95790263|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.3652||95.0|-0.27|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.72|-0.27|0.3652
95790264|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0481||95.0|0.0|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.99|0.00|0.0481
95790265|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.2501||95.0|-0.21|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.80|-0.21|0.2501
95790266|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.5191||95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.66|-0.33|0.5191
95790267|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0817||95.0|-0.06|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.97|-0.06|0.0817
95790268|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.1146||95.0|-0.1|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.90|-0.10|0.1146
95790269|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0054||95.0|0.21|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.21|0.21|0.0054
95815113|NCT01114737|191601133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for Baseline BRIEF Parent-GEC T Score, ADHD symptom, and ADHD medication.||||1.8|-6.3|0.279
95815114|NCT00887159|191601151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.47||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm B to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.47|0.65|0.45
95864493|NCT03456882|191686810|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction||Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.5725
95864494|NCT03456882|191686810|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5728
95790270|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.3389||95.0|-0.26|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.26|0.3389
95790271|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.5079||95.0|-0.33|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.67|-0.33|0.5079
95790272|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.0453||95.0|0.01|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.01|0.0453
95790273|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.1622||95.0|-0.15|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.86|-0.15|0.1622
95790274|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.0003||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.48|0.45|0.0003
95790275|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0383||95.0|0.03|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.05|0.03|0.0383
95790276|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.4495||95.0|-0.31|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.69|-0.31|0.4495
95864495|NCT03456882|191686811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the survival curves over the on-treatment and the off-treatment follow-up period are not different between groups.||||0.9212
95790277|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0135||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0135
95790278|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.1423||95.0|-0.13|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.87|-0.13|0.1423
95790279|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0035||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.27|0.25|0.0035
95790280|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0125||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0125
95790281|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.8021||95.0|-0.44|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.56|-0.44|0.8021
95790282|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.0249||95.0|0.08|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.13|0.08|0.0249
95958040|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.207|0.092|
95815115|NCT00887159|191601151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48||P-value is one-sided.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing Arm C to Arm A.|There are 2 primary comparisons and each involves comparing the experimental arms (B, C) to the control arm (A). Accrual goal was 54 patients per arm. With a 1-sided 0.1 level logrank test for each test, we have 90% power to detect a 42% reduction in the PFS hazard rate of 0.139 to 0.082 (corresponding to an improvement in median PFS of 5 months to 8.5 months) with 18-month accrual and 12-month follow-up; assuming exponential survival. For each test, 94 events are needed to achieve this power.||1.48|0.66|0.48
95815116|NCT00887159|191601154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.52|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was derived comparing the high CTCs group to the low CTCs group.|||2.52|1.13|0.01
95815117|NCT01990742|191601167|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||MOnte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
95815118|NCT01990742|191601168|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
95790283|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3383||95.0|-0.26|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.75|-0.26|0.3383
95790284|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0001||95.0|0.55|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.57|0.55|0.0001
95815119|NCT01990742|191601169|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Monte carlo simulation|||||||>0.05
95815120|NCT02441218|191601170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.9|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.90|0.75|<0.0001
95790285|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0133||95.0|0.14|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.17|0.14|0.0133
95815121|NCT02441218|191601171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.03|0.80|0.128
95815122|NCT02441218|191601172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.83|0.66|< 0.0001
95815123|NCT02441218|191601173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||1.02|0.80|0.092
95815124|NCT02441218|191601174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.94|0.58|0.0140
95815125|NCT02441218|191601175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.96|0.82|0.0027
95815126|NCT02441218|191601176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.78|0.0002
95815127|NCT02441218|191601177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.95|0.81|0.0013
95815128|NCT02441218|191601178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||Regression, Cox||"Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate.~P-value: Wald test"|||0.92|0.77|0.0002
95815129|NCT02441218|191601179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.89|||Regression, Cox||Estimate of the hazard ratio between treatment groups based on an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model with beta-blocker intake at randomisation as a covariate. P-value: Wald test|||0.89|0.74|< 0.0001
95815130|NCT01103414|191601189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-22.4|0.1819
95815131|NCT01103414|191601189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-31.4|0.0057
95815132|NCT01103414|191601189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-42.3|<0.0001
95958041|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||0.189|0.073|
95958042|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.068|-0.047|
95815133|NCT01103414|191601189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-18.2|||ANCOVA|||||-18.2|-43.8|<0.0001
95864496|NCT03456882|191686812|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment period (change per week, from baseline to week 24) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 24 is not different between groups.||||0.0101
95999922|NCT02532543|191975946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal bone height||||0.729
95999923|NCT02532543|191975947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.613
95999924|NCT02532543|191975948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 2 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.492
95790286|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.382||95.0|-0.28|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.73|-0.28|0.3820
95790287|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0053||95.0|0.23|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.28|0.23|0.0053
95790288|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.3258||95.0|-0.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.76|-0.25|0.3258
95790289|NCT00676403|191549761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0005||95.0|0.41|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.43|0.41|0.0005
95790290|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1429||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1429
95790291|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0547||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0547
95790292|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0095||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0095
95790293|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3676||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3676
95790294|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2959||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2959
95790295|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3435||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3435
95790296|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0895||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0895
95790297|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0844||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.0844
95790298|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0675||95.0|-1.1|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.1|0.0675
95790299|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.225||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.2250
95958043|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||0.051|-0.066|
95958044|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||0.039|-0.076|
95790300|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3728||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3728
95815134|NCT01103414|191601190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.73|0.0273
95958045|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.247|0.131|
95958046|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.236|0.121|
95815135|NCT01103414|191601190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-1.13|<0.0001
95815136|NCT01103414|191601190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.21|<0.0001
95815137|NCT01103414|191601190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-1.32|<0.0001
95958047|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||0.271|0.155|
95958048|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.048|-0.069|
95958049|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||0.082|-0.033|
95958050|NCT01040403|191888378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||0.092|-0.023|
95958051|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.010|-0.106|
95958052|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.051|-0.065|
95958053|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.044|-0.072|
95958054|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.099|-0.017|
95958055|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.093|-0.024|
95815138|NCT00783432|191601210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||This is the Baseline P-Value|ANOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.368
95815139|NCT00783432|191601210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||95.0||||This P-Value if for Month 1|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.327
95815140|NCT00783432|191601210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 3|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.991
95958056|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.051|-0.065|
95958057|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.148|0.032|
95958058|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.118|0.001|
95815141|NCT00783432|191601210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 6|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.168
95864497|NCT03456882|191686812|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast of the slopes during the off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from week 24 to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.5924
95999925|NCT02532543|191975948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group at 4 mm from the height of the bone crest||||0.917
95999926|NCT02532543|191975949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid buccal soft tissue height||||0.353
95999927|NCT02532543|191975949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mid palatal soft tissue height||||0.823
95790301|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2686||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.2686
95790302|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0753||95.0|-1.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.2|0.0753
95790303|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1335||95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.0|0.1335
95790304|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.022||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0220
95790305|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5754||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.5754
95790306|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.348||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3480
95790307|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.0|-1.2|0.0554
95790308|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4362||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4362
95790309|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3631||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.3631
95790310|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1152||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1152
95790311|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4741||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.4|-0.8|0.4741
95815142|NCT00783432|191601210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||This P-Value is for Month 9|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.319
95815143|NCT00783432|191601210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||||||This P-Value is for Month 12/ET|ANCOVA|||Sample size was based on ICH Guideline E1:The Extent of Population Exposure to Assess Clinical Safety for Drugs Intended for Long-Term Treatment of Non-Life-Threatening Conditions. Comparisons performed using ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate. The model included treatment group and country as fixed effects to estimate least squares means.||||0.725
95815144|NCT00110214|191601219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority and futility analyses were conducted for the OS end point. The Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain the overall significance level of alpha=0.05 while conducting interim analyses on OS. The final analysis was performed when 748 deaths had been observed. An intention-to-treat approach was used in the analysis for all the clinical end points with the exception of toxicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.7|0.181
95815145|NCT00110214|191601220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815146|NCT00110214|191601221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91||The primary analysis was adjusted for the stratification factors (24-mo survival probability as predicted by a validated nomogram (\<10%,10%-29.9%,\>=30%), age (\<65, \>=65 years) and prior history of arterial events (yes, no)).|Log Rank|||||0.91|0.71|<0.001
95815147|NCT01088503|191601223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank|||||1.22|0.88|0.7108
95815148|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.464|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with DES vs BMS.|||||
95815149|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with STEMI vs not STEMI|||||
95999928|NCT02532543|191975949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in mesial soft tissue height||||0.243
95999929|NCT02532543|191975949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison between each arm/group of change in distal soft tissue height||||0.756
95815150|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.657|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were Other Race vs Caucasian.|||||
95815151|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.684|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had cardiogenic shock within 24 hours vs no cardiogenic shock within 24 hours.|||||
95815152|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were male vs not male.|||||
95815153|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with EQ-5D US index = 1 vs. \<1.|||||
95999930|NCT01144637|191975982|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 2)|1.1012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9992|1.2136||||||||1.2136|0.9992|
95815154|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who were married vs not married.|||||
95815155|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.125|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had diabetes vs no diabetes.|||||
95815156|NCT01088503|191601224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.172|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with no BMS or DES placement vs BMS.|||||
95815157|NCT01088503|191601225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.93||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is for the analysis at 12 months.|||1.93|0.88|0.1882
95815158|NCT01088503|191601226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||||Statistical analysis adjusted for the differences in baseline characteristics between participants treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel using propensity scoring.|||1.103|0.849|
95815159|NCT01088503|191601230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants who had pre-procedure hemoglobin evaluation vs no hemoglobin evaluation.|||||
95864498|NCT03456882|191686813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9598||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9598
95815160|NCT01088503|191601231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Odds Ratio for selection of Prasugrel for participants with Duke CAD Index vs no Duke CAD Index.|||||
95815161|NCT00811954|191601232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|7.4||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||7.4|-0.7|
95999931|NCT01144637|191975982|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 1 / Group 3)|0.9444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8554|1.0427||||||||1.0427|0.8554|
95999932|NCT01144637|191975982|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margins to show that the 3 vaccine lots are equivalent in terms of PRNT GMTs at Week 6 was predefined as \[0.5; 2\] for the GMT ratios (pairwise)|GMT ratio (Group 2 / Group 3)|0.8577|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7753|0.9488||||||||0.9488|0.7753|
95815162|NCT00811954|191601232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|9.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm C - arm B) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||9.9|1.3|
95790312|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0091||95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.2|-1.4|0.0091
95790313|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1721||95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-1.0|0.1721
95790314|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0262||95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-1.3|0.0262
95790315|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9505||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9505
95815163|NCT00811954|191601232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA level at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights. The pre-specified confidence bounds for equivalence were +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative probability difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|2.3||||||Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm A - arm C) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 96 cumulative probability of virologic failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||2.3|-6.7|
95815164|NCT00811954|191601233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.4|16.1||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||16.1|9.4|
95815165|NCT00811954|191601233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|5.8||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm C and arm B) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm C - arm B) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||5.8|1.4|
95815166|NCT00811954|191601233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Although the study was not specifically powered to be able to detect equivalence, equivalence was declared if the 97.5% confidence interval difference in the cumulative probability of the tolerability endpoint by 96 weeks was entirely contained within +/-10 percentage points.|Cumulative incidence difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|12.9||||||Treatment comparison was made using the methods of Gray. Inference regarding comparisons of the treatment groups (arm A and arm C) with respect to equivalence was made based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of differences (arm A - arm C) in 96 week probability of tolerability failure with 97.5% confidence interval.||12.9|5.5|
96002094|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-13.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 4||-13.61|-28.50|<0.001
96002095|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.02|-10.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-10.12|-25.02|<0.001
95815167|NCT00265850|191601271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.77|0.08
95815168|NCT00265850|191601272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.84|0.45
95815169|NCT00523978|191601277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the success rate in experimental group is less than and equal to the one in control group. This comparison of the rates was performed using a 2-sided Fisher's Exact. A sample size of 240(160 experimental and 80 control) is required to provide 80% power to detect the treatment difference using a 2-sided (alpha = 0.05)Fisher's Exact Test of binomial proportions assuming the success rate was 40% for control and 60% for treatment.||||<0.0001
95864499|NCT03456882|191686813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.9390
95790316|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6877||95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-0.7|0.6877
95815170|NCT00523978|191601278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin was selected based on literature review.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is the proportion of subjects free from MAFE in the experimental group is inferior to that in the control group using 10% non-inferiority margin.A sample size of 160 evaluable cryoablation and 80 control subjects (one-sided α = 0.05, 2:1 randomization) was required to provide 80% power assuming the rate of free from MAFE at 12 months 80.5 and 77% in experimental and control groups respectively .||||<0.001
95815171|NCT00523978|191601279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The test hypothesis is UCBExperimental\_CPE ≥ 14.8% vs UCBExperimental\_CPE \< 14.8%.The performance goal 14.8% was chosen based on a review of SSEDs for similar types of ablation trials.The expected rate for CPEs in a well-monitored trial of left atrial RF ablation for AF was estimated to be 10% (corresponding to a CPE-free rate of 90%).In a trial with 160 subject, the resulting one-sided 95% upper confidence bound would be 14.8%.||||<0.001
95790317|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1271||95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-1.1|0.1271
95790318|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9136||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.6|-0.6|0.9136
95790319|NCT00676403|191549762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4072||95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-0.9|0.4072
95790320|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68||0.186||95.0|-35.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-35.2|0.1860
95790321|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.653||95.0|-25.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-25.5|0.6530
95790322|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.79||0.6263||95.0|-26.5|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.0|-26.5|0.6263
95815172|NCT01991860|191601280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||2-sided|Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.033
95958059|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.114|-0.002|
95790323|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.63||0.4266||95.0|-29.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-29.4|0.4266
95790324|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.4023||95.0|-29.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-29.6|0.4023
95958060|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.028|-0.089|
95958061|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.024|-0.092|
95958062|NCT01040403|191888379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.055|-0.062|
95958063|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.223|0.087|
95958064|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.215|0.079|
95790325|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.1041||95.0|-38.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.6|-38.8|0.1041
95790326|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.6||0.5084||95.0|-27.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.8|-27.9|0.5084
95790327|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.262||95.0|-34.3|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-34.3|0.2620
95790328|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.3347||95.0|-31.4|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-31.4|0.3347
95790329|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.1142||95.0|-37.7|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-37.7|0.1142
95790330|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.1237||95.0|-38.8|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-38.8|0.1237
95790331|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8302||95.0|-18.7|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-18.7|0.8302
95790332|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.22||0.3039||95.0|-33.6|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.5|-33.6|0.3039
95790333|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.4595||95.0|-29.2|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.2|-29.2|0.4595
95790334|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.4338||95.0|-30.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-30.2|0.4338
95815173|NCT01991860|191601281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.16
95790335|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.99||0.0647||95.0|-42.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-42.0|0.0647
95790336|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.61||0.5651||95.0|-27.0|14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.8|-27.0|0.5651
95790337|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16||0.1634||95.0|-37.6|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.4|-37.6|0.1634
95815174|NCT01991860|191601282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.68
95815175|NCT01991860|191601283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.026
95790338|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.2209||95.0|-34.4|8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.0|-34.4|0.2209
95790339|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.84||0.1293||95.0|-37.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-37.8|0.1293
95790340|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.06||0.0161||95.0|-48.5|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-48.5|0.0161
95790341|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.67||0.8506||95.0|-23.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-23.0|0.8506
95790342|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.31||0.0067||95.0|-53.2|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-8.6|-53.2|0.0067
95790343|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1997||95.0|-35.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-35.0|0.1997
95790344|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0159||95.0|-47.9|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-5.0|-47.9|0.0159
95790345|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0388||95.0|-44.4|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.2|-44.4|0.0388
95790346|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.73||0.9962||95.0|-21.2|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-21.2|0.9962
95790347|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.41||0.0839||95.0|-42.3|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.7|-42.3|0.0839
95815176|NCT01991860|191601284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.086
95958065|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.195|0.058|
95790348|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.5216||95.0|-28.3|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-28.3|0.5216
95815177|NCT01991860|191601285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.074
95815178|NCT01991860|191601286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Yates's continuity correction||||||0.15
95815179|NCT01205503|191601287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This is for the interaction between baseline tnf-alpha levels and treatment received (mesna vs saline).|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for baseline biochemical measures, time of measurement, treatment (mesna or saline), chemo type, and first-order interactions.||||||0.014
95790349|NCT00676403|191549763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.98||0.0534||95.0|-42.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.3|-42.9|0.0534
95790350|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0199||95.0|2.2|25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.4|2.2|0.0199
95790351|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0768||95.0|-1.1|21.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.7|-1.1|0.0768
95790352|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.6|-0.7|0.0642
95790353|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.2643||95.0|-5.0|18.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.2|-5.0|0.2643
95790354|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.0358||95.0|0.8|23.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.7|0.8|0.0358
95790355|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0428||95.0|0.4|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.4|0.0428
95790356|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1993||95.0|-4.0|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.9|-4.0|0.1993
95790357|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.0331||95.0|1.1|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.8|1.1|0.0331
95815180|NCT04881760|191601292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-7.34|<0.001
95790358|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.0415||95.0|0.5|23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.8|0.5|0.0415
95790359|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.0295||95.0|1.3|24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.3|1.3|0.0295
95790360|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.1267||95.0|-2.6|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.6|0.1267
95815181|NCT04881760|191601292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.21|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.70|-12.21|<0.001
95790361|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4175||95.0|-6.8|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.2|-6.8|0.4175
95790362|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.0342||95.0|1.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.0|1.0|0.0342
95790363|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1038||95.0|-2.0|21.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.5|-2.0|0.1038
95790364|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0537||95.0|-0.2|23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.4|-0.2|0.0537
95790365|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0772||95.0|-1.2|22.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.4|-1.2|0.0772
95790366|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.1296||95.0|-2.6|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-2.6|0.1296
95790367|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.014||95.0|3.1|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||27.0|3.1|0.0140
95790368|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.0642||95.0|-0.7|22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.7|-0.7|0.0642
95790369|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.073||95.0|-1.0|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.3|-1.0|0.0730
95790370|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0215||95.0|2.1|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.8|2.1|0.0215
95815182|NCT04881760|191601292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.08|-14.42|<0.001
95790371|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.3785||95.0|-6.4|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.7|-6.4|0.3785
95790372|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12||0.0089||95.0|4.1|28.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.2|4.1|0.0089
95790373|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.0609||95.0|-0.5|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.0|-0.5|0.0609
95815183|NCT04881760|191601292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.30|-16.90|<0.001
95815184|NCT04881760|191601292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|-14.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.58|-18.86|<0.001
95790374|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0064||95.0|4.7|28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.1|4.7|0.0064
95790375|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0241||95.0|1.8|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|1.8|0.0241
95790376|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.1032||95.0|-2.0|21.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.1|-2.0|0.1032
95815185|NCT04881760|191601292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-14.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.13|-17.57|<0.001
95815186|NCT04881760|191601293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.20|-8.94|<0.001
95815187|NCT04881760|191601293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.64|-10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.78|-17.64|<0.001
95815188|NCT04881760|191601293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.40|-19.05|<0.001
95815189|NCT04881760|191601293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-16.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.51|-22.73|<0.001
95815190|NCT04881760|191601293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|-18.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.51|-25.05|<0.001
95864500|NCT03456882|191686813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the percentage of patients experiencing at least one adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.3442
95815191|NCT04881760|191601293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-19.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.31|-24.92|<0.001
95815192|NCT04881760|191601294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||49|17|<0.001
95815193|NCT04881760|191601294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|77.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||77|45|<0.001
95815194|NCT04881760|191601294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|54|<0.001
95864501|NCT03456882|191686814|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 physical mobility. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1503
95958066|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.060|-0.075|
95790377|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0076||95.0|4.4|28.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||28.7|4.4|0.0076
95815195|NCT04881760|191601294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
95815196|NCT04881760|191601294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|63|<0.001
95815197|NCT04881760|191601294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|82.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||82|59|<0.001
95815198|NCT04881760|191601295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|54.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||54|20|<0.001
95815199|NCT04881760|191601295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||76|44|<0.001
95815200|NCT04881760|191601295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|57|<0.001
95815201|NCT04881760|191601295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
95815202|NCT04881760|191601295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|62|<0.001
95815203|NCT04881760|191601295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|73.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|67|<0.001
95815204|NCT04881760|191601296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||33|11|<0.001
95815205|NCT04881760|191601296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|73.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||73|38|<0.001
95815206|NCT04881760|191601296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|85.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||85|53|<0.001
95815207|NCT04881760|191601296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|80.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|93.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||93|66|<0.001
95815208|NCT04881760|191601296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|91.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||100|83|<0.001
95815209|NCT04881760|191601296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|87.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|96.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||96|78|<0.001
95815210|NCT04881760|191601297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||31|5|0.008
95815211|NCT04881760|191601297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|81.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||81|48|<0.001
95815212|NCT04881760|191601297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|84.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||84|51|<0.001
95815213|NCT04881760|191601297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|81.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|69|<0.001
95815214|NCT04881760|191601297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|71|<0.001
95815215|NCT04881760|191601297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|84.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|94.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||94|74|<0.001
95815216|NCT04881760|191601298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||17|1|0.029
95815217|NCT04881760|191601298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||43|11|<0.001
95958067|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.041|-0.097|
95815218|NCT04881760|191601298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|60.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||60|26|<0.001
95815219|NCT04881760|191601298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||66|33|<0.001
95815220|NCT04881760|191601298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|83.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||83|51|<0.001
95815221|NCT04881760|191601298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||80|56|<0.001
95815222|NCT04881760|191601299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24|6|0.002
95815223|NCT04881760|191601299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|70.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||70|36|<0.001
95815224|NCT04881760|191601299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|79.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||79|47|<0.001
95815225|NCT04881760|191601299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|71.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87|55|<0.001
95815226|NCT04881760|191601299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||89|62|<0.001
95958068|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.048|-0.089|
95815227|NCT04881760|191601299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|82.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|92.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||92|71|<0.001
95958069|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.242|0.106|
95815228|NCT04881760|191601300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-8.36|<0.001
95815229|NCT04881760|191601300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.30|-13.34|<0.001
95815230|NCT04881760|191601300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.05|-15.99|<0.001
95815231|NCT04881760|191601300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|-14.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.45|-18.41|<0.001
95815232|NCT04881760|191601300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-18.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|-16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.04|-20.93|<0.001
95815233|NCT04881760|191601300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.40|-19.11|<0.001
95815234|NCT04881760|191601301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-10.18|<0.001
95815235|NCT04881760|191601301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.35|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.60|-19.35|<0.001
95815236|NCT04881760|191601301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-13.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.39|-21.19|<0.001
95815237|NCT04881760|191601301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.25|-18.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.12|-25.25|<0.001
95815238|NCT04881760|191601301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|-20.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.36|-27.72|<0.001
95815239|NCT04881760|191601301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-21.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.27|-27.40|<0.001
95815240|NCT04881760|191601302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.80|<0.001
95815241|NCT04881760|191601302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.29|-4.66|<0.001
95815242|NCT04881760|191601302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.82|-5.46|<0.001
95815243|NCT04881760|191601302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-6.34|<0.001
95815244|NCT04881760|191601302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-7.17|<0.001
95815245|NCT04881760|191601302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-6.59|<0.001
95815246|NCT04881760|191601303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-3.42|<0.001
95815247|NCT04881760|191601303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.03|-6.81|<0.001
95864502|NCT03456882|191686814|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 ADL and independence.Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.1556
95790378|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.1257||95.0|-2.6|20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.9|-2.6|0.1257
95790379|NCT00676403|191549764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.0131||95.0|3.2|26.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.6|3.2|0.0131
95790380|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.1824||95.0|-23.0|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.0|0.1824
95790381|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0767||95.0|-25.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-25.5|0.0767
95790382|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0492||95.0|-28.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-28.1|0.0492
95790383|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.2023||95.0|-22.2|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-22.2|0.2023
95790384|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0116||95.0|-30.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-3.9|-30.9|0.0116
95790385|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.1819||95.0|-23.2|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-23.2|0.1819
95815248|NCT04881760|191601303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.67|-7.23|<0.001
95815249|NCT04881760|191601303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.18|-8.62|<0.001
95815250|NCT04881760|191601303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-7.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.05|-9.55|<0.001
95815251|NCT04881760|191601303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-7.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.35|-9.49|<0.001
95815252|NCT04881760|191601304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-5.23|0.022
95815253|NCT04881760|191601304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-5.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.13|-10.32|<0.001
95815254|NCT04881760|191601304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|-7.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.43|-12.47|<0.001
95815255|NCT04881760|191601304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.56|-13.72|<0.001
95958070|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.250|0.113|
95958071|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.272|0.135|
95790386|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.2806||95.0|-20.6|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.0|-20.6|0.2806
95790387|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.1465||95.0|-24.4|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.4|0.1465
95790388|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0046||95.0|-33.1|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-6.1|-33.1|0.0046
95790389|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0187||95.0|-30.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-30.0|0.0187
95790390|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.6128||95.0|-10.2|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.3|-10.2|0.6128
95790391|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.3488||95.0|-19.7|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-19.7|0.3488
95790392|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.1472||95.0|-24.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.7|-24.5|0.1472
95790393|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0791||95.0|-25.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|-25.7|0.0791
95790394|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0282||95.0|-29.1|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.7|-29.1|0.0282
95790395|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1623||95.0|-23.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-23.9|0.1623
95790396|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.3739||95.0|-19.6|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-19.6|0.3739
95815256|NCT04881760|191601304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.90|-14.87|<0.001
95958072|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.076|-0.061|
95790397|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0517||95.0|-28.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.1|-28.5|0.0517
95815257|NCT04881760|191601304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-9.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.43|-14.04|<0.001
95815258|NCT04881760|191601305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.77|0.010
95958073|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.098|-0.038|
95790398|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.0815||95.0|-25.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.5|-25.8|0.0815
95790399|NCT00676403|191549765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.0031||95.0|-34.7|-7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-7.1|-34.7|0.0031
95790400|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.3368||95.0|-8.0|23.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.1|-8.0|0.3368
95790401|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4232||95.0|-21.5|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.1|-21.5|0.4232
95790402|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.7082||95.0|-12.9|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.0|-12.9|0.7082
95790403|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.9466||95.0|-15.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.7|-15.7|0.9466
95790404|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.3746||95.0|-22.1|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-22.1|0.3746
95815259|NCT04881760|191601305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-15.54|<0.001
95815260|NCT04881760|191601305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-16.11|<0.001
95815261|NCT04881760|191601305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-12.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.43|-19.33|<0.001
95815262|NCT04881760|191601305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|-12.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.31|-19.39|<0.001
95958074|NCT01040403|191888380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.090|-0.046|
95958075|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.013|-0.114|
95999933|NCT00906789|191975994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a continuous confidence score (0-100), the trapezoidal method was used to obtain the area under the LROC with bootstrapping at 10,000 iterations to obtain the 95% confidence interval (CI). Acceptance criteria for tests of non-inferiority and superiority were previously set at 95% CI upper bound of ΔAUCUA-SV less than δ=0.1 and δ=0, respectively. If the 95% CI upper bound difference of UA-SV is less than 0.1, then SV is non-inferior. If it is 0 or less than 0, then SV is superior.||||||0.05|||||||Bootstraping|||The sample size of 351 patients, in a 2:1 ratio of nodule absent to present patients was selected to provide 80% power to detect a difference in areas under the curve of 0.10 or greater. This sample size was calculated using PASS software (Hintze, 2008). Settings: • α = 0.025. • one-sided test • AUCA = 0.80 and AUCSV = 0.90.• 2:1 ratio of patients with nodules to those without • areas calculated for the entire curves • correlation 0.3\* • discrete data. • standard deviation ratios of 1\*.||||0.05
95815263|NCT04881760|191601305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|-13.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.78|-20.13|<0.001
95815264|NCT01822665|191601307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.59||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.59|-1.63|<0.0001
95958076|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.071|-0.055|
95958077|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.053|-0.074|
95958078|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.122|-0.004|
95815265|NCT01822665|191601308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||-0.18|-1.23|0.0095
95958079|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.104|-0.024|
95790405|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.9336||95.0|-15.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.3|-15.0|0.9336
95790406|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.2029||95.0|-25.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-25.0|0.2029
95790407|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.18||0.3833||95.0|-23.3|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-23.3|0.3833
95790408|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||0.8152||95.0|-17.0|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.4|-17.0|0.8152
95790409|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.1739||95.0|-26.1|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.7|-26.1|0.1739
95790410|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.3392||95.0|-8.0|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.3|-8.0|0.3392
95790411|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.913||95.0|-16.0|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-16.0|0.9130
95790412|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22||0.6||95.0|-20.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.9|-20.5|0.6000
95790413|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.4445||95.0|-9.3|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||21.2|-9.3|0.4445
95790414|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.85||0.9656||95.0|-15.8|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.1|-15.8|0.9656
95790415|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.5679||95.0|-11.2|20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.4|-11.2|0.5679
95958080|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus +O 2.5/5|||0.045|-0.082|
95958081|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||0.174|0.047|
95790416|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.5619||95.0|-19.9|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-19.9|0.5619
95790417|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.993||95.0|-16.3|16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.4|-16.3|0.9930
95790418|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.79||0.6892||95.0|-12.2|18.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.5|-12.2|0.6892
95790419|NCT00676403|191549766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.4928||95.0|-21.0|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.1|-21.0|0.4928
95815266|NCT01822665|191601308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.72|-0.34|0.4794
95815267|NCT01822665|191601308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.95||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.95|-0.14|0.1429
95815268|NCT01822665|191601308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.84|0.75|<0.0001
95958082|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.144|0.017|
95815269|NCT01822665|191601308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of gastric mucosal damage between two treatments.||1.45|0.34|0.0020
95958083|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.132|0.005|
95958084|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.034|-0.094|
95958085|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.021|-0.105|
95958086|NCT01040403|191888381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.052|-0.075|
95958087|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.533|26.985|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||26.985|10.533|
95958088|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.962|33.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||33.351|16.962|
95958089|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.526|38.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-3h||38.082|21.526|
95958090|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.796|14.592|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||14.592|-1.796|
95958091|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.721|19.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-3h||19.370|2.721|
95958092|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|12.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-3h||12.903|-3.608|
95958093|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.068|26.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||26.568|10.068|
95958094|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|31.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.752|15.270|
95958095|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.543|31.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-3h||31.092|14.543|
95958096|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.115|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||13.500|-3.115|
95958097|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.719|12.717|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-3h||12.717|-3.719|
95958098|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.694|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.941|7.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-3h||7.554|-8.941|
95958099|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.87|26.632|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||26.632|10.870|
95958100|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.158|33.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||33.860|18.158|
95958101|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.416|37.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|AUC 0-6h||37.278|21.416|
95958102|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|15.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||15.109|-0.592|
95958103|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.621|18.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|AUC 0-6h||18.571|2.621|
95958104|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.572|11.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|AUC 0-6h||11.247|-4.572|
95958105|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.75|27.558|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||27.558|11.750|
95958106|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.866|30.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||30.659|14.866|
95958107|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.038|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.607|33.464|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|AUC 0-6h||33.464|17.607|
95958108|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.852|11.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||11.067|-4.852|
95958109|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|13.754|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|AUC 0-6h||13.754|-1.991|
95958110|NCT01040403|191888382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.129|10.675|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|AUC 0-6h||10.675|-5.129|
95815270|NCT01822665|191601309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.31||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.31|-0.49|0.6497
95815271|NCT01822665|191601309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.34|-0.46|0.7591
95958111|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.371|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.268|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.900|-6.268|
95790420|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.2719||95.0|-4.4|15.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.6|-4.4|0.2719
95958112|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.088|13.044|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.044|-4.088|
95999934|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.657||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.584|13.686||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||13.686|1.584|0.005
95999935|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.478||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|7.632||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.632|0.805|0.114
95999936|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|10.555||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.555|1.160|0.026
95999937|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.943||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|11.534||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||11.534|1.348|0.012
95999938|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|4.151||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.151|0.361|0.746
95999939|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.932|16.013||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||16.013|1.932|0.001
95999940|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|8.882||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.882|0.999|0.050
95999941|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.418||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|12.834||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.834|1.521|0.006
95999942|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.165||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.425|12.178||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||12.178|1.425|0.009
95790421|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.693||95.0|-7.9|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||11.8|-7.9|0.6930
95958113|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.668|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|13.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.314|-3.978|
95958114|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.349|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.379|10.702|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||10.702|-6.379|
95958115|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.419|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.326|11.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||11.029|-6.326|
95958116|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||8.810|-8.430|
95958117|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.136|10.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||10.113|-7.136|
95958118|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||11.875|-5.350|
95958119|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.535|15.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||15.778|-1.535|
95958120|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.774|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|10.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||10.458|-6.910|
95958121|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|14.236|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||14.236|-2.970|
95958122|NCT01040403|191888383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.786|12.504|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.504|-4.786|
95790422|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.7178||95.0|-12.2|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-12.2|0.7178
95790423|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.8037||95.0|-11.0|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-11.0|0.8037
95815272|NCT01822665|191601309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.57|-0.24|0.4126
95815273|NCT01822665|191601309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.45|-0.39|0.8903
95815274|NCT01822665|191601309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.67||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments||0.67|-0.16|0.2227
95958123|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.161|28.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||28.204|9.161|
95815275|NCT01822665|191601309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23||||0.2855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.65||No multiple comparisons were carried out.|t-test, 2 sided|Period and treatment were included in the model as fixed effects, while subjects were a random effect.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment, such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no significant difference in mean endoscopy score of duodenal mucosal damage between two treatments.||0.65|-0.20|0.2855
95815276|NCT01822665|191601310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.19||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|23.97||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||23.97|1.60|0.0084
95815277|NCT01822665|191601310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.74||P-value associated with chi-square testing odds ratio.|Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||12.74|0.80|0.0999
95815278|NCT01822665|191601310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.5|||Chi-squared||Odds Ratio from logistic regression model with treatment as factor and period as covariate.|||6.50|0.58|0.2845
95815279|NCT00271544|191601312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.955||||||95.0|0.92|0.955|||||1-side 95% confidence limit lower bound|||0.955|0.92|
95815280|NCT00271544|191601313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.96||||||95.0|0.932|0.989||||||||0.989|0.932|
95815281|NCT00271544|191601314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||||95.0|1.1|1.2|||||1-side 95% confidence limit upper bound|||1.2|1.1|
95815282|NCT00271544|191601315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample mean|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||||97.5|1.9|2.2|||||1-sided 97.5% confidence limit upper bound|||2.2|1.9|
95815283|NCT00271544|191601316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.989||||||95.0|0.974|1.0||||||||1|0.974|
95815284|NCT00271544|191601317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
95815285|NCT00271544|191601318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.973||||||95.0|0.95|0.996||||||||0.996|0.950|
95815286|NCT03571971|191601333|SUPERIORITY|Based on published data, we conservatively estimated that the standard exercise (SE) group and load modification (LM) group would have a 20% and 50% treatment success rate, respectively. We defined treatment success as either: 1) at least 'moderately better' on the Global Rating of Change scale or 2) ≥2 point decrease on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. With one-side type I error=0.1, power=80%, and allocation ratio is 1:1, we estimated the need for 22 participants in each group (total N=44).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.35||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||3.35|0.36|0.879
95815287|NCT03950856|191601343|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.8|-3.3|0.538
95815288|NCT03950856|191601343|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|21.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||21.4|7.9|<0.001
95815289|NCT03950856|191601343|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.0||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.3|-4.3|0.686
95815290|NCT03950856|191601345|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Arthralgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.7|-1.9|0.272
95815291|NCT03950856|191601345|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Fatigue: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||4.5|-6.7|0.812
95815292|NCT03950856|191601345|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Headache: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||5.0|-5.6|0.947
95815293|NCT03950856|191601345|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|Myalgia: V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||10.4|-0.9|0.091
95815294|NCT03950856|191601347|OTHER||Miettinen & Nurminen|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||V114 Combined Lots minus Prevnar 13™|V114 Combined Lots - Prevnar 13™||0.2|-1.6|
95958124|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.116|33.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||33.083|14.116|
95815295|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.83|<0.001
95815296|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
95815297|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.25||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.88|<0.001
95815298|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.75|<0.001
95958125|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.517|39.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||39.677|20.517|
95958126|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.568|14.402|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||14.402|-4.568|
95790424|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0832||95.0|-1.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.6|-1.2|0.0832
95790425|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3554||95.0|-5.4|14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.9|-5.4|0.3554
95790426|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.9538||95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.0|-9.5|0.9538
95958127|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|21.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||21.050|1.780|
95958128|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.057|16.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||16.053|-3.057|
95958129|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.742|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.194|27.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||27.290|8.194|
95958130|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|33.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||33.651|14.580|
95958131|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.52|34.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||34.670|15.520|
95958132|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|15.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||15.986|-3.240|
95958133|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.845|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|16.866|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||16.866|-2.161|
95958134|NCT01040403|191888384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.566|10.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||10.525|-8.566|
95958135|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.853|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|10.699|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||10.699|-8.360|
95958136|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.073|13.945|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||13.945|-5.073|
95958137|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.407|14.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||14.785|-4.407|
95958138|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.214|12.747|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||12.747|-6.214|
95958139|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||13.650|-5.610|
95958140|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.816|10.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||10.322|-8.816|
95958141|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.589|12.561|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||12.561|-6.589|
95958142|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|14.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||14.475|-4.643|
95958143|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|17.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||17.019|-2.154|
95958144|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.708|11.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||11.568|-7.708|
95958145|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.085|13.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||13.978|-5.085|
95958146|NCT01040403|191888385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.046|12.079|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||12.079|-7.046|
95958147|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.523|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.099|-0.523|
95958148|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.634|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||-0.004|-0.634|
95790427|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.5593||95.0|-13.4|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.4|0.5593
95790428|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8663||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-8.9|0.8663
95790429|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.119||95.0|-2.1|18.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||18.1|-2.1|0.1190
95815299|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
95790430|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.1544||95.0|-2.8|17.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.5|-2.8|0.1544
95958149|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 1||0.249|-0.379|
95958150|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.206|-0.420|
95958151|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 1||0.462|-0.168|
95958152|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 1||0.571|-0.062|
95958153|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.355|-0.271|
95958154|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.062|-0.564|
95958155|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 1||0.135|-0.492|
95958156|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.024|-0.611|
95958157|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 1||0.092|-0.533|
95958158|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 1||0.388|-0.242|
95958159|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.462|-0.241|
95958160|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.261|-0.445|
95958161|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Week 4||0.406|-0.301|
95958162|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.150|-0.555|
95958163|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Week 4||0.296|-0.411|
95958164|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Week 4||0.496|-0.208|
95958165|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.135|-0.568|
95958166|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||-0.012|-0.714|
95958167|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Week 4||0.106|-0.598|
95790431|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8439||95.0|-8.8|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.7|-8.8|0.8439
95790432|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.9925||95.0|-10.5|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.4|-10.5|0.9925
95790433|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.8784||95.0|-9.1|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.6|-9.1|0.8784
95790434|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.8948||95.0|-9.5|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||10.8|-9.5|0.8948
95790435|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.2197||95.0|-3.9|16.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||16.8|-3.9|0.2197
95790436|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.6183||95.0|-7.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.5|-7.4|0.6183
95790437|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.4484||95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.5|-14.8|0.4484
95790438|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3857||95.0|-5.6|14.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.4|-5.6|0.3857
95790439|NCT00676403|191549767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8824||95.0|-11.0|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-11.0|0.8824
95790440|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.87||0.1673||95.0|-4.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.4|-4.6|0.1673
95790441|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.9839||95.0|-15.0|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||15.3|-15.0|0.9839
95790442|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.2905||95.0|-7.3|24.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||24.4|-7.3|0.2905
95790443|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.5513||95.0|-10.6|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.7|-10.6|0.5513
95958168|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.210|-0.503|
95958169|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.379|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Week 4||0.321|-0.379|
95815300|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.95|<0.001
95815301|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.97|0.70|<0.001
95815302|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.85|<0.001
95815303|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.03|<0.001
95815304|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.70|<0.001
95815305|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.83|<0.001
95815306|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.42||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.42|0.98|<0.001
95815307|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
95815308|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
95815309|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|<0.001
95815310|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.82|<0.001
95815311|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.18|0.86|<0.001
95958170|NCT01040403|191888389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Week 4||0.470|-0.235|
95958171|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.250|-0.223|
95958172|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.104|-0.370|
95958173|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 1||0.199|-0.278|
95958174|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.088|-0.382|
95815312|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.90|<0.001
95815313|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.93|0.72|<0.001
95815314|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.01|0.79|<0.001
95815315|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.96|<0.001
95958175|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 1||0.186|-0.291|
95815316|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.88|<0.001
95815317|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.12|0.85|<0.001
95815318|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|<0.001
95815319|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.81|<0.001
95815320|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|<0.001
95815321|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.43||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|1.05|<0.001
95815322|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.96|<0.001
95815323|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|1.00|<0.001
95958176|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 1||0.332|-0.144|
95958177|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|-0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||-0.045|-0.519|
95958178|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.124|-0.350|
95958179|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 1||0.180|-0.293|
95815324|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|<0.001
95815325|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.79|<0.001
95958180|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.408|-0.069|
95815326|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.85|<0.001
95815327|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.95|<0.001
95815328|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.81|<0.001
95815329|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.82|<0.001
95815330|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.89|<0.001
95815331|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.77|<0.001
95815332|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.87|<0.001
95815333|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.35||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|0.95|<0.001
95815334|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.81|<0.001
95815335|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.14|0.84|<0.001
95958181|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 1||0.461|-0.010|
95958182|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 1||0.293|-0.180|
95958183|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/ minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.387|-0.067|
95815336|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.88|<0.001
95815337|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.86|<0.001
95815338|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.91|<0.001
95815339|NCT03950856|191601348|EQUIVALENCE|Lower and upper p-values ≤ 0.025 support a conclusion of equivalence.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22||Identical p-values for the lower and upper bounds.|cLDA model|P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the lower bound (0.5). P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMT Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMT ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|<0.001
95815340|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
95815341|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.17|0.89|
95815342|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
95815343|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.77|
95815344|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.91|
95815345|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.32|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.32|1.06|
95815346|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.72|
95815347|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.94|
95815348|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.5||||P-value for the comparison of the GMT ratio to the upper bound (2.0).|Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.50|1.14|
95815349|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.95|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.95|0.72|
95815350|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.84|
95815351|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.02|
95815352|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.78|
95815353|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.16|0.85|
95815354|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.93|
95815355|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.82|
95815356|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
95815357|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.28|0.94|
95815358|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.92|0.70|
95815359|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.10|0.84|
95815360|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.37|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.37|1.04|
95815361|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08|||l||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.83|
95815362|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.13|0.87|
95815363|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.19|0.91|
95815364|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.75|
95815365|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.31|0.98|
95815366|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.52|1.14|
95815367|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.36|1.04|
95815368|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.51|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.15|
95815369|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.27|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.27|0.97|
95815370|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.02|0.78|
95958184|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.491|0.034|
95958185|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148|0.316|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|Day 29||0.316|-0.148|
95815371|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.11|0.86|
95815372|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.25|0.96|
95815373|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.00|0.76|
95815374|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.05|0.80|
95815375|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.21|0.92|
95815376|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.80|
95815377|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.86|
95815378|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.24|0.93|
95815379|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.08|0.81|
95815380|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.26|0.93|
95815381|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.35|1.00|
95815382|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 2|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 2|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.06|0.79|
95815383|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||||Lot 1 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 1 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.22|0.90|
95815384|NCT03950856|191601349|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34|||||Lot 2 divided by Lot 3|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Lot 2 / V114 Lot 3|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.34|0.99|
95815385|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.91|0.62|
95815386|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.61|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.61|1.20|
95815387|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|0.94|0.66|
95815388|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.07|0.74|
95815389|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.43|0.95|
95815390|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.86|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.86|1.21|
95815391|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.73|
95958186|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.328|-0.124|
95958187|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|Day 29||0.154|-0.306|
95958188|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|Day 29||0.052|-0.408|
95815392|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.04|0.72|
95815393|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.20|0.82|
95815394|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.51|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.51|1.05|
95815395|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.15|0.82|
95815396|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.23|0.86|
95815397|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.54|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|1.54|1.03|
95815398|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|14.74|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|14.74|10.11|
95815399|NCT03950856|191601350|OTHER||GMC Ratio|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|11.13|||||V114 Combined Lots divided by Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F: GMC Ratio V114 Combined Lots / Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio and 95% CI were estimated from a cLDA model.|11.13|7.96|
95815400|NCT02121509|191601355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.938|106.789|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||106.789|98.938|<0.0001
95815401|NCT02121509|191601355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|106.121|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||106.121|96.990|<0.0001
95815402|NCT02121509|191601356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.449|114.614|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||114.614|98.449|0.0004
95815403|NCT02121509|191601356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|106.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.614|116.658|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||116.658|97.614|0.0040
95815404|NCT02121509|191601357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|102.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|110.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.72|94.03|0.0001
95815405|NCT02121509|191601357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|96.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.96|103.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.22|89.96|0.0002
95815406|NCT02121509|191601358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.829|115.269|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||115.269|95.829|0.0013
95958189|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.400|-0.056|
95958190|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.285|-0.171|
95958191|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|Day 29||0.346|-0.110|
95958192|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.115|-0.345|
95958193|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|Day 29||0.173|-0.281|
95958194|NCT01040403|191888390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|Day 29||0.289|-0.166|
95815407|NCT02121509|191601358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|113.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.749|119.318|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||119.318|108.749|0.0018
95815408|NCT02121509|191601359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.748|107.487|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||107.487|95.748|<0.0001
95815409|NCT02121509|191601359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|106.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.034||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.268|112.763|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||112.763|100.268|0.0002
95815410|NCT02121509|191601360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|102.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|110.59|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fasted/ L+M 1500 fasted)|||110.59|94.20|<0.0001
95815411|NCT02121509|191601360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.33|103.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 1500 fed/ L+M 1500 fed)|||103.70|90.33|0.0001
95815412|NCT00636181|191601362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||PSG outcomes employed analysis of variance for approximately normally distributed outcomes (or outcomes that could be transformed to an approximately normal distribution), and the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normal outcomes.|Kruskal-Wallis|Pairwise differences were determined using Tukey-Kramer test- ANOVA applied or by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon summed rank tests and Bonferroni adjustment.||||||0.3
95815413|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Rosenberg scores compared baseline to 1 hour by Mann-Whitney U test.||||<0.001
95815414|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mann whitney u to compare rosenberg score baseline to 1 hour||||<.001
95815415|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.001
95815416|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.001
95815417|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.001
95815418|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 2 hours||||<0.01
95815419|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 4 hours||||<0.01
95815420|NCT00867035|191601369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to 1 week||||<0.05
95815421|NCT00867035|191601370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups.||||>0.05
95815422|NCT00867035|191601371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
95815423|NCT00867035|191601372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups||||>0.05
95815424|NCT00867035|191601373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of H2S in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
95815425|NCT00867035|191601374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 1 hour analyzed between groups||||>0.05
95815426|NCT00867035|191601375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 2 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
95815427|NCT00867035|191601376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrations of MM in mouth air at 4 hours analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test.||||>0.05
95815428|NCT00867035|191601377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Concentrtations of MM in mouth air at 1 week analyzed between groups. Each time point was compared between groups by Students t test||||>0.05
95815429|NCT00867035|191601378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Counts of colony forming units from swab of 1square centimeter area on tongue at 1 week cultured on anaerobe plates for 1 week analyzed between groups||||>0.05
95815430|NCT00867035|191601379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of black colonies out of Total Viable Count cultured on anaerobe agar with lead acetate. Black colonies are those producing sulfides (H2S, MM)and creating black lead sulfide. Analyzed between groups. Groups compared at baseline and 1 week.||||>0.05
95815431|NCT04422431|191601390|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1002
95815432|NCT04046939|191601407|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.2283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.431||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.2283 represents the ratio of the 150 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.2051), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.2283 is equivalent to a -77.17% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.431|0.121|<.0001
95790444|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1589||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1589
95790445|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95||0.0541||95.0|-0.3|31.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||31.0|-0.3|0.0541
95790446|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.5987||95.0|-11.0|19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||19.1|-11.0|0.5987
95790447|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.4372||95.0|-9.6|22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||22.2|-9.6|0.4372
95790448|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.8336||95.0|-16.8|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.6|-16.8|0.8336
95790449|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.0804||95.0|-1.7|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||29.4|-1.7|0.0804
95790450|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.2985||95.0|-7.4|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||23.9|-7.4|0.2985
95790451|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.4991||95.0|-9.9|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||20.3|-9.9|0.4991
95790452|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.2675||95.0|-7.0|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.1|-7.0|0.2675
95958195|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/5 minus Olo 5|||0.037|-0.481|
95790453|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1593||95.0|-4.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-4.3|0.1593
95790454|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.0179||95.0|3.3|34.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||34.6|3.3|0.0179
95790455|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0281||95.0|1.9|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||33.7|1.9|0.0281
95790456|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.1883||95.0|-5.0|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||25.5|-5.0|0.1883
95958196|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus Olo 5|||-0.182|-0.700|
95790457|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.23||95.0|-6.3|26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||26.3|-6.3|0.2300
95815433|NCT04046939|191601407|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.3403||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.653||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.3403 represents the ratio of the 75 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.3056), compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.3403 is equivalent to a -65.97% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.653|0.177|0.0014
95790458|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7575||95.0|-13.0|17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||17.8|-13.0|0.7575
95790459|NCT00676403|191549768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.0757||95.0|-1.5|30.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||30.1|-1.5|0.0757
95790460|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.2817||95.0|-18.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-18.0|0.2817
95790461|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.6796||95.0|-13.7|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.0|-13.7|0.6796
95790462|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.2505||95.0|-18.8|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.9|-18.8|0.2505
95790463|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.5102||95.0|-15.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.5|-15.1|0.5102
95864503|NCT03456882|191686814|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 eating and drinking. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.0319
95999943|NCT03114969|191976010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|4.095||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.095|0.357|0.761
95999944|NCT03114969|191976011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.292||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|6.163||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.163|0.853|0.100
95999945|NCT03114969|191976011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.642||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|7.022||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.022|0.994|0.051
95790464|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.5706||95.0|-14.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.1|-14.7|0.5706
95790465|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.4708||95.0|-16.0|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.4|-16.0|0.4708
95958197|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus Olo 5|||0.111|-0.409|
95958198|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.040|-0.478|
95790466|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.6202||95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||14.1|-8.4|0.6202
95790467|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4177||95.0|-16.8|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.0|-16.8|0.4177
95790468|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75||0.6509||95.0|-8.7|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.9|-8.7|0.6509
95790469|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.8273||95.0|-10.3|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||12.8|-10.3|0.8273
95790470|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2842||95.0|-18.1|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.3|-18.1|0.2842
95790471|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.7041||95.0|-9.1|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.5|-9.1|0.7041
95790472|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.7216||95.0|-14.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-14.1|0.7216
95815434|NCT04046939|191601407|SUPERIORITY||Ratio to PBO of the ratios to baseline|0.4489||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.874||A closed hierarchical statistical testing was used. The previous endpoint in the hierarchy was not statistically significant. Therefore, this endpoint was not formally tested and is not considered statistically significant, despite a p-value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||0.4489 represents the ratio of the 37.5 mg BID week 12 ratio to baseline (0.4031) compared to the PBO week 12 ratio to baseline (0.8980). This ratio of 0.4489 is equivalent to a -55.11% change compared to placebo at week 12.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.874|0.231|0.0190
95864504|NCT03456882|191686814|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 communication. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.6419
95958199|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 1.25/5|||0.335|-0.189|
95958200|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.553|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 minus T+O 2.5/5|||0.553|0.031|
95790473|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.6188||95.0|-14.3|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.5|-14.3|0.6188
95790474|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.8096||95.0|-10.2|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||13.0|-10.2|0.8096
95958201|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.382|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 1.25/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.123|-0.641|
95815435|NCT04046939|191601408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0814||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.279||A closed hierarchical procedure testing dexpramipexole against placebo at Week 12 was used. (1) 150 mg BID for AEC (2) 75 mg BID for AEC (3) pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group for pre-bronchodilator FEV1; and (4) 37.5 mg BID for AEC.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the pooled 75 mg and 150 mg BID group from placebo in change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The combined 75 mg and 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.279|-0.116|0.4154
95815436|NCT04046939|191601408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177||||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0456|0.4||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.400|-0.0456|0.1174
95815437|NCT04046939|191601408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0143||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.211||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.211|-0.240|0.8998
95815438|NCT04046939|191601408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.37||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in liters from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.370|-0.0950|0.2425
95815439|NCT04046939|191601409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.245||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.245|-0.772|0.3059
95815440|NCT04046939|191601409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0457||||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.484||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.484|-0.575|0.8642
95815441|NCT04046939|191601409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0276||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.505||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group compared to the placebo group in change in ACQ-6 score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM).||0.505|-0.560|0.9182
95815442|NCT04046939|191601410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0163|0.378||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 150 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.378|-0.0163|0.0716
95815443|NCT04046939|191601410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00474||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.202||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 75 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.202|-0.192|0.9619
95815444|NCT04046939|191601410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0987||||0.3368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.302||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference of the 37.5 mg BID Dexpramipexole group from placebo in change in post-bronchodilator FEV1 from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period) in liters. A positive value indicates improvement in lung function.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.302|-0.105|0.3368
95958202|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus Olo 10|||0.127|-0.390|
95958203|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|-0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus Olo 10|||-0.067|-0.585|
95958204|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.511|-0.010|
95958205|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 1.25/10|||0.314|-0.202|
95790475|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0157||95.0|-26.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-2.8|-26.5|0.0157
95790476|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79||0.6007||95.0|-14.4|8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||8.4|-14.4|0.6007
95790477|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.1057||95.0|-22.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.1|-22.1|0.1057
95815445|NCT04046939|191601411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.4512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.755||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.755|-0.338|0.4512
95815446|NCT04046939|191601411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0642||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.499||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.499|-0.627|0.8214
95864505|NCT03456882|191686814|SUPERIORITY||difference between mean slopes|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with random intercept,slope,unstructured variance covariance matrix.Independent variables:time,treatment,treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|ALSAQ-40 emotional reactions. Contrast of the slopes during the on-treatment and off-treatment follow-up period (change per week, from baseline to week 48) between treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the rate of change from baseline to week 48 is not different between groups.||||0.3951
95999946|NCT03114969|191976012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.995|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.808|8.829||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.829|1.808|<0.001
95999947|NCT03114969|191976012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.181||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.059||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.059|0.940|0.069
95999948|NCT03114969|191976012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|10.08||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||10.080|2.339|<0.001
95999949|NCT03114969|191976012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|5.764||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.764|1.274|0.010
95999950|NCT03114969|191976013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.503||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|7.659||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.659|0.818|0.108
95999951|NCT03114969|191976013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.409||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|7.331||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.331|0.792|0.122
95999952|NCT03114969|191976014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.887||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.903||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||12.903|1.851|0.001
95790478|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.7764||95.0|-13.1|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-13.1|0.7764
95790479|NCT00676403|191549769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.7146||95.0|-13.9|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.5|-13.9|0.7146
95790480|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2978||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.2978
95790481|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7242||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7242
95958206|NCT01040403|191888391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as T+O 5/10 minus T+O 2.5/10|||0.065|-0.453|
95958207|NCT03463577|191888398|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.21|1.58|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted relative risk (RR) for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.58|1.21|
95999953|NCT03114969|191976014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.484|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.106|14.284||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||14.284|2.106|<0.001
95999954|NCT03114969|191976015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.941|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.863|8.337||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||8.337|1.863|<0.001
95999955|NCT03114969|191976015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.391||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|5.256||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.256|1.088|0.030
95999956|NCT03114969|191976015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|9.364||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.364|2.388|<0.001
95999957|NCT03114969|191976015|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.957||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|5.936||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.936|1.473|0.002
95999958|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.404||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|5.676||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||5.676|1.018|0.045
95815447|NCT04046939|191601411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.72||For secondary endpoints which were not key secondary endpoints, no adjustment for multiple testing was used and p \<0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANCOVA||Estimate the difference in the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group from the placebo group in the change in AQLQ score from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A positive value indicates improvement of asthma symptoms.|An ANCOVA analysis was performed comparing the 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group to placebo.||0.720|-0.411|0.5894
95815448|NCT04046939|191601417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0196||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0196
95815449|NCT04046939|191601417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.0207
95815450|NCT04046939|191601417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399||||||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo at Week 12 using a Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5399
95815451|NCT04046939|191601418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0233||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0405|-0.00613||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00613|-0.0405|0.0084
95815452|NCT04046939|191601418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0206||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0384|-0.00281||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 75 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||-0.00281|-0.0384|0.0237
95815453|NCT04046939|191601418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00215||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0203|0.016||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change absolute basophil count (automated differential) from Baseline to Week 12 (end of primary treatment period). A negative value represents fewer basophils.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||0.0160|-0.0203|0.8140
95815454|NCT04046939|191601419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|4.13||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 150 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 150 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||4.13|-20.6|0.1886
95815455|NCT04046939|191601419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.53||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.08||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 75 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 75mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||6.08|-19.1|0.3061
95815456|NCT04046939|191601419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|3.04||No adjustment for multiple testing of exploratory endpoints was used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is the difference of the 37.5 mg BID group from the placebo group in the change in FeNO from Baseline to Week 12 in liters. In eosinophilic asthma, a lower FeNO indicates less eosinophilic inflammation of the airway than a higher value.|The 37.5 mg BID dexpramipexole group was compared to placebo using a mixed effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) with terms for baseline, GINA treatment step, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. The response variable was the post-baseline value minus the baseline value.||3.04|-23.4|0.1294
95815457|NCT04704193|191601420|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.987||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1a. Genetic testing is a blood test that looks for mutations in genes that can increase cancer risk"||.987|.888|
95815458|NCT04704193|191601420|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1b. Genetic test results may help guide my treatment options"||.974|.856|
95815459|NCT04704193|191601420|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|0.981||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1c. Genetic test results may help me understand the future risks of other cancers"||.981|.872|
95815460|NCT04704193|191601420|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|0.918||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1d. Genetic test results may increase stress to me and my family members"||.918|.758|
95815461|NCT04704193|191601420|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|0.974||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1e. There are 3 gene panel options that include either a small, medium, or large number of genes"||.974|.856|
95815462|NCT04704193|191601420|OTHER|This arm includes descriptive statistics only.|count with proportion|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|0.967||||||"Descriptive statistics only/proportion reported good or excellent~Q1f. Gene test results may come back as positive, negative or uncertain"||.967|.839|
95815463|NCT04704193|191601421|OTHER|Summary statistics only|Mean|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95815464|NCT00829998|191601422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|97.4||||||90.0|89.4|106.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106|89.4|
95815465|NCT00829998|191601423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
95815466|NCT00829998|191601424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of Geometric Means|102.0||||||90.0|97.1|107.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||107|97.1|
95815467|NCT01714323|191601440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Data from all three sites were combined after determining that outcomes did not vary by hospital using Breslow-Day tests. The proportion abstinent by treatment arm was assessed using chi-square test.||1.37|0.84|>0.05
95815468|NCT01714323|191601441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95815469|NCT01714323|191601442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||This compares at Month 1||||<0.001
95815470|NCT01714323|191601442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||This is analysis for Month 3||||<0.01
95815471|NCT01714323|191601442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||This is for Month 6||||<0.09
95815472|NCT01714323|191601444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This is the p value for the comparison at each follow up point: 1 mo, 3 mo, and 6 mo.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815473|NCT01714323|191601445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95815474|NCT01714323|191601446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95815475|NCT01415583|191601452|NON_INFERIORITY|Consistent with the noninferiority design, the null hypothesis states that the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone differed from the bleeding rate in patients receiving perioperative placebo; the alternative hypothesis states that the bleeding rate with dexamethasone is not greater than placebo by more than the noninferiority margin.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95815476|NCT01415583|191601452|NON_INFERIORITY|This noninferiority margin was set at 5%, meaning a difference in bleeding rates that did not exceed 5% would be taken as evidence that the bleeding with dexamethasone is not greater than that with placebo by more than 5%.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95815477|NCT04472650|191601465|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.273|98.111||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.111|78.273|
95815478|NCT04472650|191601466|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.12|98.01||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||98.01|78.12|
95815479|NCT04472650|191601467|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.41|101.87||||||Sitravatinib Malate Salt Capsule (Test) vs. Sitravatinib Free Base Capsule (Reference). Analysis based on Relative Bioavailability Analysis Set, defined as the subset of participants in the PK Parameters Analysis Set who had at least 1 primary PK parameter (AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax of sitravatinib) in both periods.||101.87|77.41|
95815480|NCT00272792|191601499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||<0.001
95815481|NCT00272792|191601499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Compared Week 10 to Baseline.||||0.027
95815482|NCT00272792|191601500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Longitudinal Model|Longitudinal model with blood Phe measurements as the response variable and treatment group, visit, and baseline blood Phe level as covariates.||||||0.009
95815483|NCT02277249|191601524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No power calculation performed given that this was a pilot study. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in pain score with injection between the two study arms. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was selected because of the study's small sample size and the non-normal distribution of pain scores. Intention to treat analyses were used.||||0.36
95815484|NCT02921789|191601533|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
95815485|NCT02921789|191601534|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.7||||0.3705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|9.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||9.0|-34.5|0.3705
95815486|NCT02921789|191601534|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-12.4||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|11.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||11.0|-35.8|0.3890
95815487|NCT02921789|191601535|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
95815488|NCT02921789|191601535|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.752||95.0|-15.3|29.2||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||29.2|-15.3|0.7520
95815489|NCT02921789|191601535|SUPERIORITY||Difference|5.0||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|29.0||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||29.0|-18.9|0.7597
95815490|NCT02921789|191601536|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||1||95.0|-24.9|24.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-24.9|1.0
95815491|NCT02921789|191601537|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-3.9||||1||95.0|-30.2|22.4||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 3||22.4|-30.2|1.0
95815492|NCT02921789|191601537|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.2||||0.772||95.0|-31.7|19.3||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 6||19.3|-31.7|0.7720
95815493|NCT02921789|191601537|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.5||||0.772||95.0|-32.6|17.6||Incidence rate comparisons are based on Fisher's Exact test and confidence intervals are based on Normal Approximation.|Fisher Exact|||Month 12||17.6|-32.6|0.7720
95815494|NCT01436110|191601561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.128|||ANCOVA|||||0.128|-0.055|0.430
95815495|NCT01436110|191601561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.010|0.030
95815496|NCT01896687|191601574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"The worst pain and interference scores as dependent variables, and time (baseline, 1-, and 3 week follow up visit), group (Calmare or Sham), and group by time interaction terms as the independent variable."|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95815497|NCT01448616|191601597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||ITT|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.01|0.71|0.086
95815498|NCT01448616|191601597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)|Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.16|0.75|0.54
95815499|NCT01448616|191601597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLME|||For intent to treat analysis, difference between lead-in and treatment phase (within arm comparison)||1.22|0.67|0.47
95815500|NCT01448616|191601598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.07|-0.40|0.18
95815501|NCT01448616|191601598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|-0.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.13|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||-0.13|-0.86|0.008
95815502|NCT01448616|191601598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Change in log copies|0.16||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.6|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Intent to treat analysis||0.60|-0.27|0.45
95815503|NCT01448616|191601599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to treat analysis||1.37|0.70|0.90
95815504|NCT01448616|191601599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.18|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat||1.18|0.54|0.25
95815505|NCT01448616|191601599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.57|||Poisson GLM|||||1.57|0.57|0.82
95815506|NCT01448616|191601600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson GLME|||Intent to Treat||0.92|0.59|0.010
95815507|NCT01448616|191601600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76|||Poisson GLM|||||1.76|0.9|0.09
95815508|NCT01448616|191601600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||Poisson GLM|||Intent to treat analysis||1.22|0.67|0.47
95815509|NCT04577781|191601602|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.55||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) with treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects (with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix).|MMRM|||||0.55|-0.66|0.885
95815510|NCT01259011|191601619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|1.1|<.05
95815511|NCT01259011|191601620|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||HADS-anxiety|Regression, Linear|||||0.3|-2.8|0.12
95815512|NCT01259011|191601620|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.3||HADS-depression|Regression, Linear|||||-0.3|-4.2|<0.05
95815513|NCT01259011|191601621|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.2|-10.2|0.21
95815514|NCT01911260|191601622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Growth Deficit who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
95815515|NCT01911260|191601622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|In intragroup of supplementation (zinc or placebo) we used the t-test for dependent samples in order to compare growth over time.||"Null Hypothesis: There isn't difference in the HAZ mean difference between children with Normal Height who received zinc amino acid or placebo.~We attributed α=0.05, β=0.20, and power=0.80."||||<0.05
95815516|NCT01120405|191601635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of xenon over sevoflurane is accepted if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI around the estimated difference is below the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.|Difference of proportion|0.19||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.07|||Difference of proportion|||"The percentage of patients with MN during the 3 postoperative days in the sevoflurane group and in the xenon group was expected to be 20%. The margin of non-inferiority was 10%. Thus the sample size to prove non-inferiority was 252 patients per group with α = 0.025, a power of 0.80 and the following hypotheses: H0: Px-Pc ≥ 10%; H1: Px-Pc \< 10%.~As it was expected that approximately 15% of patients would be non-evaluable, a total of 600 patients were included."||7.07|-6.70|0.0052
95790482|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0773||95.0|-0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.1|0.0773
95815517|NCT01120405|191601636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.25|||Difference of proportion|||||5.25|-3.90|0.7715
95815518|NCT01120405|191601637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.54|||Difference of proportion|||||2.54|-1.19|0.4763
95815519|NCT01120405|191601638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|-0.34||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.14|||Difference of proportion|||||1.14|-1.82|0.6533
95815520|NCT01120405|191601639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|0.68||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.61|||Difference of proportion|||||1.61|-0.26|0.1559
95815521|NCT01120405|191601641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.69||||0.6056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|8.13|||Difference of proportion|||||8.13|-4.74|0.6056
95815522|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups over 4 weeks of treatment||||0.238
95815523|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.004
95790483|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7831||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7831
95815524|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.277
95815525|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.001
95815526|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 4th week of follow-up||||0.055
95815527|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison among three groups at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.001
95815528|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.330
95815529|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||<0.001
95815530|NCT00508482|191601664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Least-Significant Difference|We translated the data of three groups through rank cases, so that we can use Least-Significant Difference for the comparison of any two groups.||at the 12th week of follow-up||||0.018
95790484|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3291||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3291
95790485|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3692||95.0|-0.3|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.3|0.3692
95790486|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7614||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7614
95790487|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0355||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0355
95790488|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5068||95.0|-0.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.8|-0.4|0.5068
95790489|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0561||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0561
95790490|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2223||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.0|-0.2|0.2223
95790491|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6791||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.6791
95790492|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0188||95.0|0.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.4|0.1|0.0188
95815531|NCT00508482|191601665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
95815532|NCT00508482|191601666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.271
95815533|NCT00508482|191601667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95815534|NCT00508482|191601667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.580
95999959|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.823||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.319||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.319|0.770|0.172
95815535|NCT00508482|191601667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
95815536|NCT00508482|191601667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
95815537|NCT00508482|191601668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.167
95999960|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.989||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.229|7.272||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||7.272|1.229|0.016
95999961|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.747||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|3.937||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||3.937|0.775|0.179
95999962|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.775|0.509|0.690
95999963|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.363||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.639||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||7.639|1.480|0.004
95999964|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|6.42||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||6.420|1.264|0.012
95999965|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.986|10.791||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||10.791|1.986|<0.001
95999966|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|4.528||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator.|||4.528|0.916|0.081
95999967|NCT03114969|191976016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|2.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||2.283|0.438|1.000
95999968|NCT03114969|191976017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.935||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|3.921||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.921|0.955|0.067
95999969|NCT03114969|191976017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|4.961||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.961|1.283|0.007
95999970|NCT03114969|191976018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.399||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.252|4.596||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.596|1.252|0.008
95815538|NCT00508482|191601669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.066
95815539|NCT00508482|191601670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95815540|NCT00508482|191601670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||0.024
95815541|NCT00508482|191601670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
95815542|NCT00508482|191601670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Least-Significant Difference|||||||<0.001
95815543|NCT00508482|191601671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815544|NCT00508482|191601671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.627
95815545|NCT00508482|191601671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815546|NCT00508482|191601671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815547|NCT00508482|191601672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815548|NCT00508482|191601672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
95815549|NCT00508482|191601672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95815550|NCT00508482|191601672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95815551|NCT00508482|191601673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95815552|NCT00508482|191601673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.507
95815553|NCT00508482|191601673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95958208|NCT03463577|191888398|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.12|1.47|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for intra-uterine infections (chorioamnionitis and endometritis) in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.47|1.12|
95958209|NCT03463577|191888399|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.64|0.78|||||Adjusted relative risk with 98.75% CI was estimated by Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for preterm delivery in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||0.78|0.64|
95958210|NCT03463577|191888400|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective was to rule out a two-fold increase (non-inferiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis Ho: RR ≥ 2 was rejected if upper limit of the 98.75% CI for the adjusted RR was below 2.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.94|1.16|||||Adjusted RR with 98.75% CI-Poisson regression model|Demonstration of adjusted RR for small for gestational age in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was less than 2 (non-inferiority testing).||1.16|0.94|
95958211|NCT03463577|191888401|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI -Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for poor fetal growth in the Exposed pregnant women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to the Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.98|0.70|
95958212|NCT03463577|191888401|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.72|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI - Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for placental abortion in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.72|0.99|
95958213|NCT03463577|191888401|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. Superiority to be concluded if lower limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RR is above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.91|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.91|0.64|
95958214|NCT03463577|191888402|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR =1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.67|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for stillbirth/fetal death in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||0.67|0.22|
95999971|NCT03114969|191976018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.812||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|3.544||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||3.544|0.926|0.082
95815554|NCT00508482|191601673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||α was corrected by the method of Bonferroni as 0.0167 (α=0.05/3=0.0167).|Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95855363|NCT00541658|191670494|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.223|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.223|-1.620|
95790493|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1314||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.1314
95790494|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.09||95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.1|-0.1|0.0900
95790495|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4144||95.0|-0.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.9|-0.4|0.4144
95790496|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7699||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7699
95864506|NCT03456882|191686815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.9563
95958215|NCT03463577|191888402|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for transfusion during delivery hospitalization in Exposed women cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical women cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.33|0.86|
95958216|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.73|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for neonatal death in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.73|0.38|
95958217|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of nervous system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.24|0.81|
95958218|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.29|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of eye in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.29|1.06|
95958219|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.55|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of ear, face or neck in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||2.55|1.59|
95999972|NCT03114969|191976018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.135|6.905||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||6.905|2.135|<0.001
95999973|NCT03114969|191976018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.231|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.766||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.766|1.810|<0.001
95958220|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.31|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of cardiovascular system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infant cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.31|0.96|
95958221|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.68|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of respiratory system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.68|1.07|
95958222|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||||95.0|0.78|2.57|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for clefts in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.57|0.78|
95958223|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|1.95|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of upper gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.95|1.57|
95958224|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of lower gastrointestinal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.12|0.36|
95958225|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.42|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of genital organs in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.42|1.01|
95958226|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of renal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing.||1.88|1.04|
95958227|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||||95.0|1.21|1.86|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of musculoskeletal system in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.86|1.21|
95958228|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.52|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of limb in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.52|0.85|
95999974|NCT03114969|191976019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|4.428||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||4.428|0.842|0.120
95999975|NCT03114969|191976019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.664||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||3.664|0.730|0.232
95864507|NCT03456882|191686816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.4||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2253
95958229|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.23|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for congenital anomalies of integument in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||2.23|1.76|
95999976|NCT03114969|191976020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.019|8.807||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||8.807|2.019|<0.001
95999977|NCT03114969|191976020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|11.005||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator.|||11.005|2.660|<0.001
95999978|NCT03114969|191976021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.477||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.274|4.815||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||4.815|1.274|0.007
95999979|NCT03114969|191976021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.328|5.683||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||5.683|1.328|0.006
95999980|NCT03114969|191976021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.896|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|7.118||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||7.118|2.133|<0.001
95999981|NCT03114969|191976021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.508|9.1||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator.|||9.100|2.508|<0.001
95999982|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.347||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|132.143||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||132.143|0.408|0.176
95999983|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|164.465||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||164.465|0.526|0.128
95999984|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.454||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|351.613||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||351.613|1.190|0.038
95999985|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.776||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|311.669||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||311.669|1.131|0.041
95790497|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0406||95.0|0.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|0.0|0.0406
95999986|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.873||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|162.775||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||162.775|0.484|0.141
96002096|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-14.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 5||-14.39|-29.18|<0.001
95999987|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.215||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|200.904||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||200.904|0.519|0.126
95999988|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.717||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|263.125||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||263.125|0.715|0.082
95815555|NCT00811720|191601698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.85|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-0.85|-3.81|0.002
95999989|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.283||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.561|512.532||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||512.532|1.561|0.024
95999990|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.736||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|399.541||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||399.541|1.183|0.038
95999991|NCT03114969|191976022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.603||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|155.763||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||155.763|0.371|0.188
95999992|NCT03114969|191976023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.781||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|124.117||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||124.117|0.488|0.147
95999993|NCT03114969|191976023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.786||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|173.301||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||173.301|0.553|0.120
95854747|NCT02201953|191669505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary analyses consisted of non-inferiority test of Group 1 (SOF/VEL 12 weeks) versus Group 2 (SOF+RBV 24 weeks) at the 0.05 significance level. Non-inferiority was assessed using the conventional confidence interval approach and a non-inferiority margin of 10% was applied. The two-sided 95% confidence intervals was constructed using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (i.e cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience)|Difference in proportions|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.6|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||19.6|9.2|
95999994|NCT03114969|191976024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|11.389||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||11.389|0.383|0.395
95999995|NCT03114969|191976024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|17.244||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.244|0.612|0.166
95958230|NCT03463577|191888403|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to explore differences (superiority testing) in the incidence rate of each of the maternal and infant adverse events, among vaccinated women with Boostrix and their infants as compared to the incidence in a matched cohort of unvaccinated women and their infants. The null hypothesis H0 RR=1 was rejected if lower limit of 95% CI for adjusted RR was above 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85|||||Adjusted RR with 95% CI-Poisson regression model|Assessment of adjusted RR for other and unspecified congenital anomalies in Exposed infants cohort (on or after 1st day of 27th week of pregnancy) compared to Unexposed historical infants cohort was 1 or differed from 1 (superiority testing).||1.85|0.64|
95815556|NCT00811720|191601699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|-5.11|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Month 6||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 213 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|"The primary hypothesis concerned the treatment effect at Month 6. The null hypothesis of no difference in treatment effect was tested against the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference in treatment effect.~MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate; site, sex, time in months (Month 1-6); and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used."||-5.11|-16.81|<0.001
95815557|NCT00811720|191601700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.98|||Adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) response|||The analysis of RSDRL used a logistic regression (LREG) model, with country, sex, Baseline DRL, and treatment as fixed effects, and missing values imputed as non-response.||0.98|0.50|0.039
95815558|NCT00811720|191601701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model; an unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
95815559|NCT00811720|191601702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.15|||Adjusted change from Baseline to Week 24||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 210 participants in the placebo group and 152 participants in the nalmefene group.|MMRM model with the Baseline CGI-S score as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. The Baseline CGI-S score-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were also included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.15|-0.53|<0.001
95815560|NCT00811720|191601703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 211 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed GGT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time interaction and treatment-by-time interaction were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.97|0.80|0.009
95815561|NCT00811720|191601704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|0.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||Adjusted values||The Number of Participants Analyzed is participants with efficacy measurement available at this endpoint, that is, 209 participants in the placebo group and 158 participants in the nalmefene group.|Log-transformed ALAT values were analysed using an MMRM model with the log-transformed Baseline value as a covariate, and site, sex, time in weeks, and treatment as fixed effects. Log-transformed Baseline value-by-time and treatment-by-time interactions were included in the model. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.84|0.011
95815562|NCT04389866|191601725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.018
95815563|NCT04389866|191601725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.864||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 2 (jawline and lateral zygomatic cheek area injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by blinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the blinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.082
95815564|NCT04389866|191601726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||3.1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for arm 1 (jawline injections) analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.00000031
95958231|NCT00236184|191888411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95815565|NCT04389866|191601726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.497||7.28e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by unblinded physician.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the unblinded physician Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0000728
95815566|NCT04389866|191601727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.571|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.611||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline injection arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.014
95815567|NCT04389866|191601727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.714|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.726||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The df = 13 for jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections analysis of Jawline Rating Scale Assessments given by the subjects.|Treatment Difference = 4 Weeks after last injection - Baseline|The null hypothesis for the 7 participants placed randomly 1:1 in the jawline and lateral (zygomatic) cheek area injections arm was that there would be no statistically significant change in the subjects' Jawline Rating Scale Assessment at baseline versus four weeks after last injection.||||0.0065
95815568|NCT01044030|191601736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95815569|NCT00776789|191601749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95815570|NCT00776789|191601750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0||95.0|1.4|4.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Exclusive breast feeding at 48 hours was 95% (19 out of 20 partcipants were exclusively breast feeding)in the skin-to-skin contact group vs. 38.1% in the control group||4.3|1.4|0.00
95815571|NCT00776789|191601751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001||95.0|1.6|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|1.6|0.001
95815572|NCT02742129|191601752|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.56|0.2650
95815573|NCT02742129|191601753|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-263.65|234.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data||234.29|-263.65|0.9069
95815574|NCT02742129|191601754|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||1.27|-1.16|0.9338
95815575|NCT02742129|191601755|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||2.20|-2.79|0.8151
95815576|NCT02742129|191601756|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.05|-1.41|0.4658
95815577|NCT02742129|191601757|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||3.49|-1.37|0.3902
95958232|NCT01664923|191888501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|0.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the case report form (CRF).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.320|0.181|<0.0001
95815578|NCT02742129|191601758|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.69||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.21|74.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||74.6|-53.21|0.7404
95958233|NCT01664923|191888502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.264||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry as reported on the CRF.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.264|0.137|<0.0001
95790498|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7574||95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.7|-0.5|0.7574
96002097|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.03|-10.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-10.75|-26.03|<0.001
95790499|NCT00676403|191549770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0554||95.0|0.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-0.0|0.0554
95790500|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.5409||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5409
95790501|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.823||95.0|-11.5|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.2|-11.5|0.8230
95790502|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.2958||95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.5|0.2958
95790503|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.3708||95.0|-15.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.7|-15.1|0.3708
95790504|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.1853||95.0|-17.4|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.4|0.1853
95790505|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.1834||95.0|-17.9|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.4|-17.9|0.1834
95790506|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8711||95.0|-11.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.4|-11.1|0.8711
95790507|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.3252||95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.4|-16.3|0.3252
95790508|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.3205||95.0|-15.7|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-15.7|0.3205
95790509|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0837||95.0|-19.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.2|-19.8|0.0837
95854748|NCT02201953|191669505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by cirrhosis status and prior HCV treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the lower bound of 95% CI on the difference was \> -10%, the p-value tested for the superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 24 weeks. Superiority was demonstrated if the two-sided p-value is less than 0.05.||||<0.001
95815579|NCT02742129|191601759|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.18|-0.08|0.4282
95815580|NCT02742129|191601761|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.11|-1.08|0.1067
95958234|NCT01664923|191888503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Comparison of the 2 treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Enzalutamide response rate minus bicalutamide response rate.|||58.5|41.4|<0.0001
95790510|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.8895||95.0|-11.4|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.9|-11.4|0.8895
95790511|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.6469||95.0|-12.7|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.9|-12.7|0.6469
95790512|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.2687||95.0|-17.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-17.0|0.2687
95790513|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.1757||95.0|-17.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.3|-17.7|0.1757
95790514|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.0306||95.0|-22.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.1|-22.3|0.0306
95790515|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47||0.0857||95.0|-20.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.2|0.0857
95790516|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.2932||95.0|-16.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.8|-16.0|0.2932
95790517|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0613||95.0|-21.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.5|-21.6|0.0613
95815581|NCT02742129|191601762|SUPERIORITY|The statistical analysis compared the patient level data collected during the AIR001 period to the data collected during the placebo period. The Outcome Measure data is displaying the data as collected during each study phase and is combined together based upon expected treatment assignment for analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mixed models used to generate the p-values included all patients, including those with incomplete data.||0.16|-0.37|0.4411
95958235|NCT01664923|191888504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.497|||Log Rank|P-value is based on an unstratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio is based on an unstratified Cox-regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||0.497|0.211|<0.0001
95958236|NCT01664923|191888505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.192||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified by disease stage at study entry.|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model (with treatment as the only covariate) stratified by disease stage at study entry and is relative to bicalutamide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide.|||1.192|0.695|0.4945
95958237|NCT01664923|191888506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in objective response rate|46.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.79|65.3||This secondary endpoint was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test.||||65.30|26.79|<0.0001
95999996|NCT03114969|191976024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.196||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|17.14||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.140|0.596|0.175
95999997|NCT03114969|191976024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.408||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|27.61||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||27.610|1.059|0.042
95999998|NCT03114969|191976025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.145||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|216.818||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||216.818|0.680|0.090
95999999|NCT03114969|191976025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.991||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|196.435||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||196.435|0.508|0.130
96000000|NCT03114969|191976026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.907||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|188.208||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||188.208|0.753|0.079
96000001|NCT03114969|191976026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.06||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|262.042||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||262.042|0.866|0.063
96000002|NCT03114969|191976027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|13.69||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||13.690|0.521|0.239
95790518|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.5431||95.0|-13.8|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||7.3|-13.8|0.5431
95790519|NCT00676403|191549771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.0262||95.0|-22.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.4|-22.7|0.0262
96000003|NCT03114969|191976027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.929||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|15.125||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.125|0.567|0.200
96000004|NCT03114969|191976027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.269||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|21.489||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||21.489|0.848|0.078
96000005|NCT03114969|191976027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.132||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|25.55||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||25.550|1.031|0.046
96000006|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.483||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|9.961||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||9.961|1.218|0.020
95958238|NCT00726713|191888509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.013
95958239|NCT00726713|191888509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 24||||=0.033
95958240|NCT00726713|191888510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Change from Baseline, Week 16||||=0.027
96000007|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.284||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|6.895||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.895|0.757|0.143
96000008|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.268||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.615|17.187||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||17.187|1.615|0.006
96000009|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.655||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.478|14.666||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||14.666|1.478|0.009
95815582|NCT00251693|191601777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.33||||0.004||95.0|2.17|10.48||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.48|2.17|0.004
95815583|NCT00251693|191601777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10%, noninferiority was concluded. Superiority of primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by comparing the crude healing rate of dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg dose to that of lansoprazole 30 mg using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test with baseline LA EE Grade as strata.|Difference in percentage|6.84||||0.001||95.0|2.7|10.98||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.98|2.70|0.001
95815584|NCT00251693|191601777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.727
95815585|NCT00251693|191601778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95815586|NCT00251693|191601778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
95815587|NCT00251693|191601778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.245
95815588|NCT00251693|191601779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.011
95815589|NCT00251693|191601779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.017
95815590|NCT00251693|191601779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.927
95958241|NCT00726713|191888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
95958242|NCT00726713|191888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Folate, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
95958243|NCT00726713|191888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from Baseline Week 16||||=0.0001
95958244|NCT00726713|191888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total MMA, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0008
96000010|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.274||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|4.005||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.005|0.405|0.679
96000011|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.804||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.372|10.544||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||10.544|1.372|0.010
95815591|NCT00251693|191601780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.2||||0.06||95.0|2.3|10.11||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.11|2.30|0.060
95815592|NCT00251693|191601780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was supported if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference with lansoprazole 30 mg of the estimated 8-week healing rate was greater than -10%. Superiority was assessed based on log-rank tests comparing treatments for the endpoints.|Difference in percentage|6.08||||0.029||95.0|2.16|10.0||Unadjusted p-value is presented. The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Log Rank|||||10.00|2.16|0.029
95815593|NCT00251693|191601780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.707
95815594|NCT00251693|191601781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.705
96000012|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.555||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|7.369||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||7.369|0.886|0.083
96000013|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|18.611||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||18.611|1.890|0.002
96000014|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.929||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.556|15.612||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Incruse/Anoro Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||15.612|1.556|0.007
95815595|NCT00251693|191601781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
95815596|NCT00251693|191601781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.283
95815597|NCT00251693|191601782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.896
95861349|NCT05407064|191681615|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 4 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 4 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 4 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
96000015|NCT03114969|191976028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|3.788||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.788|0.385|0.746
96000016|NCT03114969|191976029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.502||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|3.905||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.905|0.578|0.404
96000017|NCT03114969|191976029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|4.05||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.050|0.625|0.330
95815598|NCT00251693|191601782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||Unadjusted p-value is presented. Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level by Hommel-Simes method within treatment and Hochberg method for comparisons of each dexlansoprazole dose to lansoprazole.|Log Rank|||||||0.241
95815599|NCT00251693|191601782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.211
95815600|NCT04005586|191601789|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group had a mean MRCYL of -0.14 (+/- 0.21D) compared to -0.33 (+/- 0.29D) and -0.40 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066 respectively.|||
95815601|NCT04005586|191601790|OTHER|The comparison was made by descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Two different historical controls implanted under NCT01496066 were used.|The LAL treatment group MRCYL change from baseline was 0.36 (+/- 0.21D) compared to 0.17 (+/- 0.29D) and 0.10 (+/- 0.36D) for the LAL historical control group and the monofocal IOL historical control group in NCT01496066, respectively.|||
95815602|NCT00768261|191601843|OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df= 3,92||||||0.095
95815603|NCT00768261|191601844|OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.066
95815604|NCT00768261|191601844|OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.009
95958245|NCT00726713|191888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 16||||=0.0001
95958246|NCT00726713|191888511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||Total Homocysteine, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0001
95790520|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.1547||95.0|-18.5|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||3.0|-18.5|0.1547
95790521|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.2532||95.0|-16.6|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.4|-16.6|0.2532
95790522|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0848||95.0|-20.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.3|-20.6|0.0848
95790523|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.2424||95.0|-16.8|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.3|-16.8|0.2424
95790524|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.047||95.0|-21.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.2|0.0470
95790525|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.1494||95.0|-18.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.9|-18.8|0.1494
95790526|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.5081||95.0|-13.9|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.9|-13.9|0.5081
95790527|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.2141||95.0|-17.9|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.0|-17.9|0.2141
95790528|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.1484||95.0|-18.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||2.8|-18.4|0.1484
96000018|NCT03114969|191976030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|3.968||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||3.968|0.761|0.189
96000019|NCT03114969|191976030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.799||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.799|0.901|0.086
96000020|NCT03114969|191976030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|4.142||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.142|0.918|0.082
96000021|NCT03114969|191976030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.415||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|5.024||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.024|1.161|0.018
96000022|NCT03114969|191976031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|4.633||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.633|0.492|0.472
95815605|NCT00768261|191601844|OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"There would be a treatment effect on the changes of hippocampal measures over time.~Repeated measures ANOVA on hippocampal volume slopes with hemisphere as a within-subject repeated factor, and treatment group as the main effect."||||0.30
95815606|NCT00768261|191601844|OTHER|||||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA on hippocampal volume slope||||0.0288
95815607|NCT00363311|191601845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.56||||0.009||95.0|0.36|0.87||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.87|0.36|0.009
95815608|NCT00363311|191601845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.61||||0.007||95.0|0.43|0.88||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||0.88|0.43|0.007
96000023|NCT03114969|191976031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.402||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|4.283||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||4.283|0.459|0.553
96000024|NCT03114969|191976032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.523||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|6.407||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.407|0.993|0.052
96000025|NCT03114969|191976032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|6.862||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.862|1.107|0.029
96000026|NCT03114969|191976033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.434||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|5.276||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.276|1.123|0.024
96000027|NCT03114969|191976033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.389||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|5.376||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect and adjusting for the covariate of time on current primary DPI.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.376|1.061|0.035
96002098|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.39|-16.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 6||-16.27|-31.39|<0.001
96002099|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.33|-10.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-10.25|-26.33|<0.001
95958247|NCT00726713|191888512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0306||||||Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 MCS, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.0306
95790529|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0963||95.0|-19.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.6|-19.7|0.0963
95790530|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.8519||95.0|-11.8|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||9.8|-11.8|0.8519
95790531|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.477||95.0|-14.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||6.7|-14.2|0.4770
95790532|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.2166||95.0|-18.0|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||4.1|-18.0|0.2166
95790533|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1062||95.0|-19.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||1.9|-19.4|0.1062
95790534|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0475||95.0|-21.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.1|-21.6|0.0475
95790535|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54||0.0537||95.0|-21.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||0.2|-21.7|0.0537
95815609|NCT00363311|191601846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.46||||0.13||95.0|0.16|1.31||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||1.31|0.16|0.13
95815610|NCT00363311|191601846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.48||||0.053||95.0|0.22|1.03||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.22|0.053
95815611|NCT00363311|191601847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.59||||0.031||95.0|0.36|0.96||Statistical data are for Year 1.5|Log Rank|||||0.96|0.36|0.031
95815612|NCT00363311|191601847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Estimate|0.7||||0.079||95.0|0.46|1.05||Statistical data are for Overall (Years 0-3)|Log Rank|||||1.05|0.46|0.079
95815613|NCT00363311|191601848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
95958248|NCT00726713|191888515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess baseline for continuous and discrete outcomes||HADS Depression, Change from BL, Week 24||||=0.054
95958249|NCT00129649|191888520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95790536|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.3153||95.0|-15.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.2|-15.9|0.3153
95790537|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0424||95.0|-22.8|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-0.4|-22.8|0.0424
95790538|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.3077||95.0|-16.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||5.1|-16.2|0.3077
95790539|NCT00676403|191549772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0224||95.0|-23.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs placebo. Repeated measures model used fixed effects of treatment, geographic region, week and treatment by week interaction. Baseline score is included as a covariate. Additionally, the model includes subject as a repeated measurement block within which the covariance structure is assumed to be compound symmetric (CS).||-1.8|-23.4|0.0224
95790540|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.0646||95.0|0.9|15.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.0|0.9|0.0646
95790541|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.2947||95.0|0.5|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||9.1|0.5|0.2947
95790542|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0249||95.0|1.2|17.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||17.2|1.2|0.0249
95790543|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7671||95.0|0.3|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.9|0.3|0.7671
95790544|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0169||95.0|1.3|15.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.9|1.3|0.0169
95815614|NCT00363311|191601849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95815615|NCT00363311|191601856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95815616|NCT00363311|191601857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95815617|NCT00363311|191601859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
95815618|NCT00363311|191601860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95815619|NCT00120627|191601883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F (1,144) = 4.12, p \< .05||2 group (treatment vs. control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) one-way ANOVA||||<0.05
95815620|NCT00120627|191601883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95815621|NCT00120627|191601884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Intent to treat analysis using Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS, a maximum-likelihood method based on group assignment, demographic variables and clinical variables.||||<0.05
95790545|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.9569||95.0|0.2|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.3|0.2|0.9569
95790546|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.0711||95.0|0.9|11.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means.Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||11.4|0.9|0.0711
95790547|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.1073||95.0|0.8|10.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||10.2|0.8|0.1073
95790548|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.1583||95.0|0.7|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||8.1|0.7|0.1583
95790549|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.0385||95.0|1.1|15.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||15.6|1.1|0.0385
95790550|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4923||95.0|0.4|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.1|0.4|0.4923
95790551|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7169||95.0|0.4|4.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.4|0.4|0.7169
95815622|NCT00120627|191601885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time points (pre-intervention and post-intervention)||||<0.0001
95815623|NCT00120627|191601886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95958250|NCT02547441|191888530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
95958251|NCT02547441|191888531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
95815624|NCT00120627|191601886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mediation using Sobel Test|||||||<0.001
95815625|NCT00120627|191601887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95815626|NCT00120627|191601888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 group (treatment vs control) by 2 time (pre-intervention and post-intervention) ANOVA||||< 0.05
95815627|NCT00120627|191601889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Depression Subscale||||<0.001
95815628|NCT00120627|191601889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Anxiety Subscale||||=0.31
95958252|NCT01322009|191888537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Analysis run over study period but data entered only for the 6 h time point||||||>0.05
95790552|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4156||95.0|0.5|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.2|0.5|0.4156
95790553|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4165||95.0|0.5|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||5.6|0.5|0.4165
95790554|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.4673||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.0|0.4|0.4673
95790555|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.9855||95.0|0.2|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||4.1|0.2|0.9855
95815629|NCT00120627|191601889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Somatization Subscale||||=0.44
95958253|NCT01657877|191888540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The success criterion for this study was to observe the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for difference in % change in SMHR to be \<= 6 units SMHR i.e. 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 5% CSP is no more than 6 units inferior to the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0 % CSP dentifrice.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.23||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.66|||ANOVA|Based on the mixed effects ANOVA considering treatment and study period as factors, and subject as random effect|Difference is 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP minus 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5 % CSP such that a positive difference favors 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 0 % CSP|The null hypothesis states that the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP + 0% CSP minus the population mean for the 1500 ppm fluoride as SMFP and 5% CSP dentifrice is more than 6 %.||1.66|-6.11|0.2601
95790556|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9566||95.0|0.3|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||3.3|0.3|0.9566
95815630|NCT00120627|191601890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Post-hoc analysis||||=0.66
95815631|NCT00120627|191601891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.18
95815632|NCT00120627|191601892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
96000028|NCT03114969|191976033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.889||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|5.819||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||5.819|1.434|0.003
95790557|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.4632||95.0|0.4|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||6.6|0.4|0.4632
95790558|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2042||95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||1.6|0.1|0.2042
95790559|NCT00676403|191549773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.3382||95.0|0.5|7.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6: Contrast of treatment vs. placebo. Differences in proportions were obtained using LS means. Repeated measures logistic regression model used fixed effects including treatment, geographic region, week, and the treatment by week interaction. The within-subject covariance structure was modeled as compound sysmetric.||7.5|0.5|0.3382
95790560|NCT00676403|191549774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.3932||95.0|-6.0|15.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.2|-6.0|0.3932
95790561|NCT00676403|191549774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3||||0.1585||95.0|-2.9|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-2.9|0.1585
95790562|NCT00676403|191549774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.285||95.0|-4.9|16.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||16.5|-4.9|0.2850
95790563|NCT00676403|191549774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8645||95.0|-9.4|11.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.1|-9.4|0.8645
95790564|NCT00676403|191549774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.3031||95.0|-5.0|15.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance of change from baseline; LS Mean, standard error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.8|-5.0|0.3031
95790565|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5384||95.0|-13.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.0|-13.2|0.5384
95790566|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.8015||95.0|-10.9|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.5|-10.9|0.8015
95790567|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.4429||95.0|-14.5|6.4|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.4|-14.5|0.4429
95790568|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.886||95.0|-10.5|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.1|-10.5|0.8860
95790569|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9963||95.0|-10.0|9.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.9|-10.0|0.9963
95854749|NCT04272242|191669511|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.93|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmax, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.93|0.91|
95790570|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.3421||95.0|-6.3|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-6.3|0.3421
95790571|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2849||95.0|-5.4|18.1|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.1|-5.4|0.2849
95790572|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.3058||95.0|-6.1|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|-6.1|0.3058
95790573|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9604||95.0|-12.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.5|-12.1|0.9604
95790574|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.1661||95.0|-3.6|20.6|||ANCOVA|||Role-Physical: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.6|-3.6|0.1661
95790575|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9||||0.1441||95.0|-3.1|20.9|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.9|-3.1|0.1441
95790576|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.3076||95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.5|-5.6|0.3076
95790577|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.1209||95.0|-2.7|22.7|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||22.7|-2.7|0.1209
95790578|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.2791||95.0|-5.3|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||18.0|-5.3|0.2791
95790579|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.0644||95.0|-0.7|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.7|0.0644
95790580|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7544||95.0|-9.5|6.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||6.9|-9.5|0.7544
95790581|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5142||95.0|-10.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||5.2|-10.3|0.5142
95790582|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8158||95.0|-7.4|9.4|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.4|-7.4|0.8158
95790583|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.4599||95.0|-10.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||4.9|-10.8|0.4599
95790584|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8636||95.0|-8.7|7.3|||ANCOVA|||General Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.3|-8.7|0.8636
95790585|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.5281||95.0|-7.8|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-7.8|0.5281
95790586|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.6566||95.0|-8.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.5|-8.5|0.6566
95790587|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.0677||95.0|-0.8|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||23.0|-0.8|0.0677
95790588|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.4443||95.0|-6.8|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-6.8|0.4443
95790589|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.2543||95.0|-4.7|17.7|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.7|-4.7|0.2543
95790590|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9416||95.0|-11.0|11.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.9|-11.0|0.9416
95790591|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.5824||95.0|-14.1|7.9|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||7.9|-14.1|0.5824
95815633|NCT01595529|191601899|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035569|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.054844||||||||0.054844||
95815634|NCT01595529|191601900|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary analysis was a non-inferiority test comparing the proportion of subjects with symptomatic UTIs at the TOC visit to evaluate whether the difference was within the 5% equivalence interval. This test was conducted by calculating the one-sided 95% upper confidence limit for the difference in symptomatic UTI (treatment failure) rate. If this limit was less than or equal to the equivalence interval (0.05), then would conclude that short course therapy is not inferior to standard therapy.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.022169|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03939||||||||0.03939||
95815635|NCT01595529|191601901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03323|0.026102||||||||0.026102|-0.03323|
95815636|NCT01595529|191601902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.00994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04012|0.020236||||||||0.020236|-0.04012|
95815637|NCT01595529|191601903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2282|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.2282
95815638|NCT01595529|191601903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.4876
95815639|NCT01595529|191601904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||At Test of Cure Visit||||0.4184
95815640|NCT01595529|191601904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9782|||||||Chi-squared|||At Outcome Assessment Visit||||0.9782
95815641|NCT01595529|191601905|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08857|-0.01698||||||||-0.01698|-0.08857|
95815642|NCT01595529|191601906|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09479|-0.0185||||||||-0.01850|-0.09479|
95815643|NCT01595529|191601907|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07744|0.016323||||||||0.016323|-0.07744|
95815644|NCT01595529|191601908|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.036117||||||||0.036117|-0.0580|
95815645|NCT01595529|191601909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.10373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14161|-0.06585||||||||-0.06585|-0.14161|
95815646|NCT01595529|191601910|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13006|-0.05391||||||||-0.05391|-0.13006|
95815647|NCT04016714|191601911|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-5.5|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site erythema||0.0|-11.0|= 0.050
95815648|NCT04016714|191601911|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-2.1|||=|0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site induration||3.5|-7.7|= 0.460
95815649|NCT04016714|191601911|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|3.4|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site pain||8.9|-2.1|= 0.225
95815650|NCT04016714|191601911|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.3|||=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Injection-site swelling||7.9|-3.4|= 0.430
95815651|NCT04016714|191601912|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-3.5|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Decreased appetite||2.2|-9.1|= 0.229
95815652|NCT04016714|191601912|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|2.2|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Irritability||4.7|-0.2|= 0.077
95815653|NCT04016714|191601912|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-0.6|||=|0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Somnolence||4.1|-5.4|= 0.793
95815654|NCT04016714|191601912|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|-4.6|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Urticaria||-0.1|-9.1|= 0.045
95815655|NCT04016714|191601913|OTHER||Difference in percentage vs Prevenar 13™|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Vaccine-related SAEs||0.9|-0.9|
95815656|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 1||-0.6|-4.3|< 0.001
95815657|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|10.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|14.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 3||14.6|6.6|< 0.001
95815658|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 4||0.0|-4.0|< 0.001
95854750|NCT04272242|191669512|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|0.96|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for AUC0-24, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||0.96|0.96|
95854751|NCT04272242|191669513|EQUIVALENCE|GMRs and associated 90% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the overall effect of 1HP on DTG PK.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||The numerator represents Day 28 and the denominator represents Entry.|Statistical analysis for Cmin, comparing Day 28 to Day 0.||1.00|0.97|
95854752|NCT04040933|191669543|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.860
95864508|NCT03456882|191686817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.6263
95864509|NCT03456882|191686818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.3671
95790592|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.5668||95.0|-15.3|8.4|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.4|-15.3|0.5668
95790593|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.7769||95.0|-9.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-9.6|0.7769
95790594|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.1753||95.0|-3.5|19.1|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.1|-3.5|0.1753
95790595|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.1508||95.0|-3.2|20.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||20.7|-3.2|0.1508
95790596|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0916||95.0|-1.6|21.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.4|-1.6|0.0916
95790597|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.6222||95.0|-9.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.4|-9.2|0.6222
95790598|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.085||95.0|-1.4|21.8|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||21.8|-1.4|0.0850
95790599|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8||||0.0154||95.0|2.9|26.7|||ANCOVA|||Role-Emotional: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||26.7|2.9|0.0154
95790600|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.7201||95.0|-11.9|8.2|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||8.2|-11.9|0.7201
95790601|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8875||95.0|-9.1|10.5|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.5|-9.1|0.8875
95790602|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.3735||95.0|-5.7|15.1|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||15.1|-5.7|0.3735
95790603|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8621||95.0|-8.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.6|-8.9|0.8621
95790604|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.1203||95.0|-2.1|17.8|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||17.8|-2.1|0.1203
95790605|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.4966||95.0|-5.4|11.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||11.0|-5.4|0.4966
95790606|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.5776||95.0|-5.6|10.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||10.1|-5.6|0.5776
95790607|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.3955||95.0|-4.9|12.3|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.3|-4.9|0.3955
95958254|NCT00241969|191888662|SUPERIORITY|Some data were missing for energy intake (n=3 baseline, n=13 post-treatment), thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measure factor.|maximum likelihood estimation|431.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|581.0|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Some data were missing for energy intake (N = 3 baseline; 13 post treatment), and thus the PROC MIXED procedure (SAS) with maximum likelihood estimation was used to analyze this outcome with time as a repeated measures factor, no group main effect at baseline for energy intake, and sex, baseline Pseudomonas aeruginosa status, and treatment modality as covariates in the statistical model. This model is similar to an analysis of covariance model with baseline energy intake included as an additional covariate, but the PROC MIXED model employs maximum likelihood estimation and consequently allows for data to be missing at random. The test of the time by group interaction within this PROC MIXED model indicated whether the behavioral and nutrition treatment was efficacious relative to our control treatment.|581|282|<0.001
95958255|NCT00241969|191888663|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.09||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.24|-0.06|0.25
95958256|NCT00241969|191888664|SUPERIORITY|All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates.|maximum likelihood|0.14||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.27|||ANCOVA||||All analyses were performed on the full intention-to-treat sample (defined a priori as attending the first treatment session). Analyses of WAZ and HAZ change scores were carried out within the PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute Inc.) using an analysis of covariance model with sex, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status at baseline, treatment modality, and baseline value of the corresponding outcome variable as covariates. Group main effects on these change scores in the presence of covariates were examined to determine the efficacy of the behavioral and nutrition treatment.|0.27|0.001|0.049
95958257|NCT04148521|191888687|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.90|0.27
95958258|NCT04148521|191888688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.75|0.83
95958259|NCT04148521|191888689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.26|0.91|0.12
95958260|NCT04148521|191888690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.73|0.51
95958261|NCT04358068|191888732|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.51||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95790608|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.7994||95.0|-6.9|9.0|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||9.0|-6.9|0.7994
95790609|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.2073||95.0|-2.9|13.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Physical Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||13.2|-2.9|0.2073
95790610|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.5148||95.0|-6.4|12.8|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.8|-6.4|0.5148
95790611|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.5255||95.0|-6.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||12.2|-6.3|0.5255
95790612|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.3793||95.0|-5.5|14.4|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.4|-5.5|0.3793
95790613|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.312||95.0|-4.5|14.1|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||14.1|-4.5|0.3120
95790614|NCT00676403|191549775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.0442||95.0|0.3|19.2|||ANCOVA|||Summary Emotional Score: Least Squares mean difference. LS Mean, Std. Error, 95% CI and P-value are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.||19.2|0.3|0.0442
95790615|NCT00676403|191549776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4452
95790616|NCT00676403|191549776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4342||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4342
95815659|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 5||0.8|-1.4|< 0.001
95815660|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6A||1.0|-1.5|< 0.001
95815661|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 6B||1.5|-1.2|< 0.001
95815662|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 7F||1.4|-0.4|< 0.001
95815663|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 9V||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
95815664|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 14||0.7|-1.7|< 0.001
95815665|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 18C||1.5|-0.6|< 0.001
95815666|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19A||0.7|-1.3|< 0.001
95815667|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 19F||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
95815668|NCT04016714|191601914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 23F||3.0|-1.2|< 0.001
95815669|NCT04016714|191601914|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|94.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|95.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 22F||95.8|91.6|< 0.001
95815670|NCT04016714|191601914|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being \>10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|98.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Serotype 33F||98.4|95.4|< 0.001
95958262|NCT04358068|191888733|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.79||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95815671|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 1||0.63|0.54|< 0.001
95815672|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3||1.43|1.20|< 0.001
95815673|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 4||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
95815674|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 5||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
95815675|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6A||0.67|0.54|< 0.001
95958263|NCT04358068|191888734|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific AUCs were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.53||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95815676|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B||1.00|0.79|< 0.001
95815677|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 7F||0.81|0.69|< 0.001
95815678|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 9V||0.76|0.64|< 0.001
95815679|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14||0.87|0.70|< 0.001
95815680|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.92|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.77|< 0.001
95815681|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19A||0.82|0.68|< 0.001
95815682|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 19F||0.87|0.72|< 0.001
95815683|NCT04016714|191601915|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 13 shared serotypes, a conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F||1.00|0.81|< 0.001
95815684|NCT04016714|191601915|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2- sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|68.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.73|75.65|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 22F||75.65|61.73|< 0.001
95815685|NCT04016714|191601915|SUPERIORITY|For the 2 serotypes unique to V114, a conclusion of superiority of V114 to Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevenar 13™) being \>2.0 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC ratio|48.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.45|54.01|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 33F||54.01|44.45|< 0.001
95815686|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Diphtheria toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
95815687|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Tetanus toxoid||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
95815688|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PT||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
95815689|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FHA||1.0|-0.6|< 0.001
95815690|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - FIM 2/3||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
95815691|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Pertussis - PRN||1.2|-0.8|< 0.001
95815692|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Hib-PRP||0.9|-3.3|< 0.001
95958264|NCT04358068|191888735|SUPERIORITY|Participant specific durations were compared between randomized arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test with a two-sided 5% type I error rate||||||0.83||||||Wilcoxon Test was not stratified by high/low risk because of the small number enrolled|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95958265|NCT01193218|191888739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.57||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-0.57|-0.87|<0.0001
95958266|NCT01193218|191888739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
96000029|NCT03114969|191976033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.974||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|6.055||Sensitivity analysis was performed using logistic regression with treatment cohort as fixed effect. Time on current primary device was removed from the model for this sensitivity analysis as it was confounded with primary device/treatment cohort.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated considering Relvar Ellipta+\[Relvar Ellipta+LAMA\] as comparator. Note: Statistical testing with a small number of events may produce unusual results; odds ratios and confidence intervals should be interpreted with caution.|||6.055|1.461|0.003
96000030|NCT01852344|191976062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
96000031|NCT01852344|191976062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.159
96000032|NCT01852344|191976063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.236
96000033|NCT01852344|191976064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
96000034|NCT01662999|191976106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.867|1.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.026|0.867|
95790617|NCT00676403|191549776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.0942
95790618|NCT00676403|191549776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.1873
95790619|NCT00676403|191549776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CHM test for difference; p-value was adjusted for geographic region at each visit.||||0.4709
95790620|NCT05209880|191549803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5835
95790621|NCT02689804|191549862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95790622|NCT02689804|191549863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95790623|NCT00905424|191549872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-4.5|0.0902
95790624|NCT00905424|191549873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.6||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.4|0.3091
95790625|NCT00905424|191549874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|-0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.7|0.0573
95790626|NCT00905424|191549875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2368
95790627|NCT00905424|191549878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|-0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||-0.5|-5.4|0.0463
95790628|NCT00905424|191549878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||0.3|-4.3|0.1431
95790629|NCT00905424|191549878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.8||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||-0.8|-5.8|0.0281
95790630|NCT00905424|191549879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-6.0|0.0920
95790631|NCT00905424|191549880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.2|0.0774
95790632|NCT00905424|191549881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|4.0||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.6|0.4726
95790633|NCT00905424|191549882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-1.4|0.5182
95790634|NCT00905424|191549883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.1|0.4630
95790635|NCT00905424|191549884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.523||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5230
95790636|NCT00905424|191549887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|4.7||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Global Executive Composite||4.7|-1.0|0.2876
95790637|NCT00905424|191549887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|4.4||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Behavioral Regulation Index||4.4|-2.1|0.5590
95790638|NCT00905424|191549887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|5.2||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||Metacognition Index||5.2|-0.7|0.2079
95790639|NCT00905424|191549888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|0.5||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-8.0|0.1489
95790640|NCT00905424|191549889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|-0.1||The test was performed a priori at the significance level of 0.10|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-2.8|0.0852
95790641|NCT01431339|191549940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the ITT population is greater than -10% the NI of dalbavancin to vancomycin/linezolid will be concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-1.5||||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||||Confidence intervals were adjusted for fever at baseline|||4.6|-7.4|
95790642|NCT00196105|191549962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.057
95790643|NCT00196105|191549963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.04
95790644|NCT00196105|191549963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Death is censored for Kaplan-Meier analysis.|Log Rank|||||||.007
95958267|NCT01193218|191888739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.8||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-0.80|-1.10|<0.0001
95790645|NCT00196105|191549963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.69
95815693|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||HBsAg||0.5|-2.0|< 0.001
95958268|NCT01193218|191888739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||the analyses were made sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significant level (5%) was maintained by the hierarchical procedure.|ANCOVA|'treatment', 'renal function', and 'number of previous antidiabetic medication' as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
95958269|NCT01193218|191888740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|70.236|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 5mg divided by the odds of placebo||70.236|5.340|<0.0001
95958270|NCT01193218|191888740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.889||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.942|40.301|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.||Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 10mg divided by the odds of placebo||40.301|2.942|0.0003
95958271|NCT01193218|191888740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.601|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 25mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|7.601|<0.0001
95958272|NCT01193218|191888740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.12|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes 'treatment', 'renal function', 'number of previous antidiabetic medications' and 'continuous baseline HbA1c'.|The upper limit of confidence interval is actually \>99.99|Odds ratio calculated as the odds of Empa 50mg divided by the odds of placebo||99.99|12.120|<0.0001
95958273|NCT01193218|191888741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.61|-21.8|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 5mg minus placebo||-21.80|-31.61|<0.0001
95958274|NCT01193218|191888741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-24.42|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo||-24.42|-34.25|<0.0001
95958275|NCT01193218|191888741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.66|-32.84|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo||-32.84|-42.66|<0.0001
95790646|NCT00196105|191549963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||6 mm Zilver vs. 10 mm Zilver and 10 mm Wallstent combined||||.02
95790647|NCT00196105|191549964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.16
95790648|NCT00196105|191549966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.32
95790649|NCT00196105|191549966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.69
95790650|NCT02227784|191549995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-23.3|||ANCOVA|||||-23.3|-44.4|<0.001
95790651|NCT02227784|191549995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-36.6|<0.001
95790652|NCT02227784|191549995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.14||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-12.2|0.045
95958276|NCT01193218|191888741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.51|-31.69|||ANCOVA|treatment, renal function, number of previous antidiabetic medication as fixed effects, baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates||Difference calculated as empa 50mg minus placebo||-31.69|-41.51|<0.0001
95958277|NCT00130728|191888764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7583||95.0|0.799|1.177||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; Hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||1.177|0.799|0.7583
95958278|NCT00130728|191888765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.623|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.519|0.748||relative to placebo arm|Log Rank||Stratified analysis; hazard ratio is relative to placebo arm.|||0.748|0.519|<.0001
95958279|NCT00130728|191888766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage difference|6.4||||0.0068||95.0|1.8|11.3||Relative to placebo arm|Mantel Haenszel||Difference in objective response rates relative to placebo arm|||11.3|1.8|0.0068
95958280|NCT01161628|191888772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: p (CR rate) is 0.5 or less versus... Alternative hypothesis: p \>0.5 A sample size of 25 patients gives 90% power with an alpha = 0.05||||<0.5
95958281|NCT02970305|191888781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.1|-3.8|0.0434
95958282|NCT01123512|191888813|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|% Probability of Equivalence = 99.92|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|||||"Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data), calculated using Bayesian multiple imputation for missing 12-month values, as specified in the protocol. The Kiva System is declared non-inferior to control if Pr( Pt - Pc \> -12.5% \| data)\> 96.6%."|Bayesian test of proportions|||||||
95958283|NCT00496834|191888826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was modified intention to treat (Number of patients: Losartan group was 88, Carvedilol group was 94).||0.01|-0.83|
95958284|NCT00496834|191888827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin=-1.5m/s|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.15|||||The lower limit of ≥-1.5m/s was judged to prove the non-inferiority of the test group to the control group.|Participants for analysis was per protocol (Number of patients: Losartan group was 54, Carvedilol group was 67). For the primary efficacy endpoints, Per protocol analysis approach was supplementary used.||0.15|-0.86|
95958285|NCT00496834|191888828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9032||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test.||||||0.9032
95958286|NCT00496834|191888829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0||||Significance level=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|The secondary efficacy analysis was performed in the modified intention to treat population using t-test||||||0.6574
95958287|NCT01817712|191888830|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.46|<0.001
95958288|NCT01817712|191888831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Site used as strata||||||0.004
95958289|NCT01817712|191888832|OTHER|Longitudinal analysis of PCL-5 (change from baseline)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-3.91|0.07
95958290|NCT01042145|191888833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95790653|NCT02227784|191549996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|125.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.1|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||133.6|117.1|<0.001
95958291|NCT01042145|191888834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95790654|NCT02227784|191549996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|131.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.5|139.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||139.5|123.5|<0.001
95958292|NCT01042145|191888836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95958293|NCT01042145|191888837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95958294|NCT01042145|191888838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95958295|NCT01393613|191888839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6. The primary analysis was performed by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance covariance structure. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, baseline, baseline and visit interaction and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||||0.0093
95958296|NCT01393613|191888839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-2.35|-10.6|0.0022
95958297|NCT01393613|191888839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.07|-7.23|0.1448
95958298|NCT01393613|191888839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.37||||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, clinical visit, trial site, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, and Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||1.32|-8.06|0.1588
95958299|NCT01393613|191888840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare the average effect analysis for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day and placebo combined treatment groups at Week 6.||||0.0069
95958300|NCT01393613|191888840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. The analysis of this key secondary endpoint was conducted if both comparisons of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo and brexpiprazole 2 mg/day vs placebo of the primary endpoint were significant. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day vs placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part of the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.15|-0.62|0.0015
95790655|NCT02227784|191549996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|127.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.1|135.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.0|120.1|<0.001
95790656|NCT02227784|191549997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|46.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.79|51.98|||ANCOVA|||||51.98|40.79|<0.001
95790657|NCT02227784|191549997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|52.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.12|57.33|||ANCOVA|||||57.33|47.12|<0.001
95790658|NCT02227784|191549997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|48.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.82|52.86|||ANCOVA|||||52.86|43.82|<0.001
95790659|NCT02227784|191549998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-26.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-20.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.0|-33.4|<0.001
95790660|NCT02227784|191549998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-22.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-28.4|<0.001
95790661|NCT02227784|191549998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.68|-11.5|<0.001
95790662|NCT02227784|191549999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-16.5|||ANCOVA|||||-16.5|-30.00|<0.001
95790663|NCT02227784|191549999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-10.6|||ANCOVA|||||-10.6|-22.3|<0.001
95815694|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 1||0.9|-0.9|< 0.001
95790664|NCT02227784|191549999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-8.47|0.062
95790665|NCT02227784|191550000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|38.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.17|45.88|||ANCOVA|||||45.88|30.17|<0.001
95790666|NCT02227784|191550000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|42.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|49.76|||ANCOVA|||||49.76|34.29|<0.001
95790667|NCT02227784|191550000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|46.08|||ANCOVA|||||46.08|33.20|<0.001
95790668|NCT02227784|191550001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-44.9|<0.001
95790669|NCT02227784|191550001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-32.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-21.8|||ANCOVA|||||-21.8|-44.0|<0.001
95790670|NCT02227784|191550001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-42.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-50.9|<0.001
95790671|NCT02864407|191550013|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790672|NCT02864407|191550014|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790673|NCT02864407|191550015|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790674|NCT02864407|191550016|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790675|NCT02864407|191550017|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95790676|NCT02864407|191550018|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95790677|NCT02864407|191550019|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 24 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95790678|NCT02864407|191550020|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|p-value for difference of Follow-up Week 52 (±2weeks) versus Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95790679|NCT02864407|191550021|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790680|NCT02864407|191550022|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of 52±2 weeks versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790681|NCT02864407|191550023|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 24 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790682|NCT02864407|191550024|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for difference of Week 52 (±2 weeks) versus Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95790683|NCT02465164|191550044|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.208
95790684|NCT03110133|191550054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0488
95790685|NCT03110133|191550057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0347
95790686|NCT03718429|191550086|SUPERIORITY|In line with recommendations for pilot investigations, since there were no preliminary data exploring the pharmacodynamic effects of vascular dose rivaroxaban in addition to antiplatelet therapy, we arbitrarily chose a sample size of 20 patients per treatment cohort.||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
95790687|NCT03718429|191550087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.488
95790688|NCT03718429|191550088|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95790689|NCT05404711|191550091|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
95790690|NCT05404711|191550092|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
95790691|NCT05404711|191550093|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
95790692|NCT05404711|191550094|OTHER||AUC|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.56 (95% CI 0.18-0.94) for 2-hour postprandial glucose.|||0.94|0.18|
95790693|NCT05404711|191550095|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
95790694|NCT05404711|191550096|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
95815695|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 2||1.1|-0.6|< 0.001
95815696|NCT04016714|191601916|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Vaxelis™ administered concomitantly with Prevenar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevenar 13™) being greater than the specified non-inferiority margin (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage point difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Poliovirus 3||0.7|-0.8|< 0.001
95815697|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89||||||Serotype 1||0.89|0.75|
95815698|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.98||||||Serotype 3||1.98|1.66|
95815699|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21||||||Serotype 4||1.21|0.99|
95815700|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||||||Serotype 5||1.01|0.81|
95815701|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.5||||||Serotype 6A||0.50|0.38|
95815702|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.05||||||Serotype 6B||2.05|1.46|
96000035|NCT01662999|191976107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ration of adjusted geometric mean|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(INF). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.008|0.961|
95790695|NCT05404711|191550097|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
95790696|NCT05404711|191550098|OTHER||AUC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 1.00 (based on 100% sensitivity) for elevated fasting glucose.|||||
95815703|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84||||||Serotype 7F||0.84|0.71|
95815704|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||||||Serotype 9V||1.12|0.90|
95815705|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||Serotype 14||1.18|0.89|
95815706|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82||||||Serotype 18C||0.82|0.68|
95815707|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81||||||Serotype 19A||0.81|0.64|
95815708|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.77||||||Serotype 19F||0.77|0.62|
95815709|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.51||||||Serotype 23F||1.51|1.16|
95815710|NCT04016714|191601918|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|81.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.12|89.75||||||Serotype 22F||89.75|73.12|
95815711|NCT04016714|191601918|OTHER||GMC ratio|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|8.94||||||Serotype 33F||8.94|6.82|
95790697|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and HbA1c.||||0.3
95790698|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and HbA1c.||||0.005
95790699|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and HbA1c.||||0.01
95790700|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.23||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.2
95815712|NCT02629861|191601954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95815713|NCT02629861|191601954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95815714|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
95815715|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
95815716|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0032
95815717|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0010
95815718|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0048
95815719|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3 P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||0.0003
95815720|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
95815721|NCT02629861|191601956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.||||<0.0001
95815722|NCT02629861|191601957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
95815723|NCT02629861|191601957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
95815724|NCT02629861|191601958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
95815725|NCT02629861|191601958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint||||<0.0001
95815726|NCT02629861|191601959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
95815727|NCT02629861|191601959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||<0.0001
95815728|NCT02629861|191601960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0023
95815729|NCT02629861|191601960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was conducted as the primary analysis for each active treatment group and placebo treatment group for this endpoint.||||0.0021
95815730|NCT02525679|191601992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.5968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3784|1.8151|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.8151|1.3784|
95815731|NCT02525679|191601992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9668|1.0747|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for Cmax (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0747|0.9668|
95958301|NCT01393613|191888840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.05|-0.42|0.1269
95815732|NCT02525679|191601994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.7123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2525|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1856|3.2389|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||3.2389|2.1856|
95815733|NCT02525679|191601994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9482|1.0525|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality in plasma for AUC(0-tz) (log-transformed scale) was explored based on the linear regression model.||1.0525|0.9482|
95815734|NCT01685684|191601995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Marginal Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.0001
95815735|NCT00902330|191602064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Spearman correlation coefficients were computed for the biomarkers. P-Values shown are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P less than 0.05. This information applies to all rows listed in the table.||||<0.05
95815736|NCT01174563|191602097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.41|0.005
95815737|NCT00896012|191602101|OTHER|||||||0.222||||||Significance was considered to be P \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance and Student t test for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months. Chi-square analysis was used for demographics data.||||0.222
95815738|NCT02735421|191602103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95815739|NCT01978145|191602114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by CB DPI versus FSC administered BID by MD DPI is greater than -45 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.047|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.047|0.002|
95815740|NCT01978145|191602115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.027|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 28|||0.027|-0.019|
95815741|NCT01978145|191602115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.044|||||The estimated value and 95% CI values are provided for Day 56|||0.044|-0.005|
95815742|NCT01978145|191602116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||||95.0|-0.06|0.393||||||||0.393|-0.060|
95815743|NCT01978145|191602117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.272|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 28.|||0.272|-0.278|
95958302|NCT01393613|191888840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.16|-0.37|0.4449
95815744|NCT01978145|191602117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.069||||||95.0|-0.349|0.212|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 56.|||0.212|-0.349|
95815745|NCT01978145|191602117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.148|||||The estimated and 95% CI values are presented for Day 85.|||0.148|-0.413|
95815746|NCT01978145|191602118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.19||||||||1.19|-0.70|
95815747|NCT01978145|191602119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02||||||||-0.02|-1.10|
95815748|NCT02026011|191602143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Medication effect: b = -0.15, SE = 0.17, t = -0.86, p = 0.39|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
95815749|NCT02026011|191602143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.20, SE = 0.21, t = 0.96, p = 0.34|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95815750|NCT02026011|191602143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.13, SE = 0.06, t = 2.10, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95815751|NCT02026011|191602143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.15, SE = 0.21, t = 0.73, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95815752|NCT02026011|191602143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.20, SE = 0.13, t = -1.52, p = 0.13|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95815753|NCT02026011|191602144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Medication effect: b = 0.16, SE = 0.13, t = 1.20, p = 0.23|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
96000036|NCT01662999|191976109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment B versus C in AUC(0-T). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.014|0.966|
95815754|NCT02026011|191602144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Genotype effect: b = 0.37, SE = 0.22, t = 1.69, p = 0.09|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95815755|NCT02026011|191602144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = 0.04, SE = 0.21, t = 0.20, p = 0.84|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95815756|NCT02026011|191602144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = -0.32, SE = 0.16, t = -1.93, p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95815757|NCT02026011|191602145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Medication effect: b = 0.14, SE = 0.23, t = 0.61, p = 0.55|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
95815758|NCT02026011|191602145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Genotype effect: b = -0.11, SE = 0.37, t = -0.30, p = 0.77|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95815759|NCT02026011|191602145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||BrAC effect: b = 0.30, SE = 0.15, t = 2.02, p = 0.04|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
96000037|NCT01662999|191976111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||0.972|0.883|
95815760|NCT02026011|191602145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Medication by genotype interaction: b = -0.21, SE = 0.29, t = -0.72, p = 0.47|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95815761|NCT02026011|191602145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Medication by genotype by BrAC interaction: b = 0.28, SE = 0.21, t = 1.30, p = 0.19|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95815762|NCT02026011|191602147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Medication effect: F(1,71) = 2.24, p = 0.14|Poisson Regression|||||||0.14
95815763|NCT02026011|191602147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Genotype effect: F(1, 71) = 5.79, p = 0.02|Poisson|||||||0.02
95815764|NCT02026011|191602147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Medication by genotype interaction: F(1, 70) = 0.68, p = 0.41.|Poisson|||||||0.41
95815765|NCT00755807|191602150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM):Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week,participant random effect.||Null hypothesis: no difference between duloxetine and placebo on pain severity reduction as measured by weekly mean of the daily 24-hour average pain scores in participants assessed at 6 weeks. Sample size is determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and 5% of randomized participants without post-baseline data due to very early discontinuation. With 119 participants per arm, study has approximately 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.375 on treatment group difference.||||0.001
95815766|NCT00755807|191602151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
95815767|NCT00755807|191602151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (LOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.246
95815768|NCT00755807|191602151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value is for the 30% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95815769|NCT00755807|191602151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for 50% Reduction (BOCF). P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.165
95815770|NCT00755807|191602152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Model: PGI improvement at Endpoint = Treatment + Investigator.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.49|-0.06|0.121
95815771|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.2||P-value is for BPI Severity for Worst Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.20|0.12|0.016
95815772|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95||P-value is for BPI Severity for Least Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.95|0.02|0.043
95815773|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.99||P-value is for BPI Severity for Average Pain score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.99|0.05|0.030
95815774|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.43||P-value is for BPI Severity for Pain Right Now score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.43|0.36|0.001
95815775|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.11||P-value is for BPI Interference for General Activity score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.11|-0.07|0.083
95815776|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.27||P-value is for BPI Interference for Mood score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.27|0.05|0.034
95815777|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19||P-value is for BPI Interference for Walking Ability score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.19|-0.08|0.089
95815778|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93||P-value is for BPI Interference for Normal Work score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.93|-0.28|0.291
95815779|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.05||P-value is for BPI Interference for Relations With Others score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.05|-0.06|0.077
95958303|NCT01393613|191888841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.59||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||7.17|2.02|0.0005
95815780|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.97||P-value is for BPI Interference for Sleep score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.97|-0.15|0.148
95815781|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79||P-value is for BPI Interference for Enjoyment Of Life score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-0.45|0.582
95815782|NCT00755807|191602153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94||P-value is for BPI Mean Interference score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.94|-0.03|0.067
95815783|NCT00755807|191602154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.45|0.01|0.041
95815784|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.91||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.91|-3.90|0.500
95815785|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.44||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.44|-4.87|0.512
95815786|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|3.12||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.12|-4.51|0.720
95815787|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.46||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||3.46|-3.58|0.973
95958304|NCT01393613|191888841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||4.59|-0.58|0.1286
95815788|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.02||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Energy Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.02|-4.07|0.991
95815789|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-11.14|0.441
95815790|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|0.79||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Pain Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.79|-7.94|0.108
95815791|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|5.39||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.39|-5.77|0.948
95815792|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|6.28||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||6.28|-2.37|0.374
95815793|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.87||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.87|-4.10|0.867
95815794|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.17||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||5.17|-1.63|0.306
95815795|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.88||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.88|-4.08|0.733
95958305|NCT01393613|191888841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||6.16|0.26|0.0332
95958306|NCT01393613|191888842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.31|-3.08|0.0166
95958307|NCT01393613|191888842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.93|-1.86|0.5101
95958308|NCT01393613|191888842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.89|-2.26|0.3938
95958309|NCT01393613|191888843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.17|-2.28|0.0231
95815796|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|4.08||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||4.08|-13.88|0.283
95958310|NCT01393613|191888843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.29|-1.83|0.1547
95958311|NCT01393613|191888843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.42|-1.98|0.2004
96000038|NCT01662999|191976113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.004|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite of saxagliptin). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.109|1.004|
96000039|NCT01662999|191976114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.960|
96000040|NCT01662999|191976115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.022|0.961|
96000041|NCT01662999|191976116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
96000042|NCT01662999|191976117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.058|1.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of 5-OH saxagliptin (metabolite). The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.113|1.058|
95815797|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.86||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.86|-4.49|0.664
95815798|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.85||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.85|-7.81|0.504
95815799|NCT00755807|191602155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|3.14||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine|||3.14|-11.18|0.270
96000043|NCT01662999|191976118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the Pharmacokinetics of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.030|0.960|
96000044|NCT01662999|191976119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis assesses the effect of concomitant administration of dapagliflozin on the AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin total active moiety. The statistical model includes treatment and period as fixed effects and measurements within each participant as repeated measurements. The adjusted geometric means are from the mixed model.||1.064|1.029|
96000045|NCT03368404|191976134|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-102 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.13|||||Treatment difference : CBL-102 - Vismed Multi|||0.13|-1.34|
96000046|NCT03368404|191976135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0592||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0592
96000047|NCT03368404|191976136|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
96000048|NCT03368404|191976137|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
96000049|NCT03368404|191976138|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
96000050|NCT03368404|191976139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0176||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 28 (Visit 4)||||0.0176
96000051|NCT03368404|191976139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment to baseline||Change from Baseline in Global Sum Score of Dry Eye Symptoms at Day 90 (Visit 5)||||0.0010
96000052|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Daily Activities"||||0.0251
96000053|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Difficulties with work and handicap"||||0.0015
96000054|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Giving up makeup"||||0.2024
96000055|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acknowledgement of the Disease"||||0.0421
96000056|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Acceptance of the disease"||||0.3945
96000057|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Fear for the Future"||||0.0536
95815800|NCT00755807|191602156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Ideation during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.119
95815801|NCT00755807|191602156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Behavior during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
95815802|NCT00755807|191602156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison in number of participants with CSSR-S Suicidal Acts during first 6 weeks of acute treatment. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
95815803|NCT00755807|191602157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures model:Change from Baseline=Baseline+Treatment+Investigator+Week+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; participant=random effect.||||||0.002
95815804|NCT00755807|191602158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on BDI-II Question #9 score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.04|-0.06|0.662
95958312|NCT01393613|191888844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-0.78|0.0009
95958313|NCT01393613|191888844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.01|-0.60|0.0422
95958314|NCT01393613|191888844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.08|-0.56|0.1358
95815805|NCT00755807|191602159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244||95.0||||This is the P-value for Discontinuation Due to Any Reason.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.244
95815806|NCT00755807|191602159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||This is the P-value for Adverse Event (AE).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95815807|NCT00755807|191602159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||This is the P-value for Protocol Violation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.622
95815808|NCT00755807|191602159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Subject Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95815809|NCT00755807|191602159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Lack of Efficacy.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95815810|NCT00755807|191602159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This is the P-value for Physician Decision.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95815811|NCT00755807|191602162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on Bicarbonate, HCO3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.047
95815812|NCT00755807|191602163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on creatinine. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.033
95815813|NCT00755807|191602164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on platelet count. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.034
95815814|NCT00755807|191602165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on inorganic phosphorus. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.007
95815815|NCT00755807|191602166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on uric acid. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|Model: Rank-transformed change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator.||||||0.025
95815816|NCT00755807|191602167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.84||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on diastolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.84|-2.55|0.322
95815817|NCT00755807|191602167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.52||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on systolic blood pressure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||2.52|-3.32|0.787
95815818|NCT00755807|191602168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.61||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on pulse rate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||0.61|-3.70|0.160
95958315|NCT01393613|191888845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.54||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||2.00|1.20|0.0006
95958316|NCT01393613|191888845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.22||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.62|0.92|0.1680
95790701|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and HbA1c.||||0.5
95790702|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.29||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose (mg/dL) and HbA1c.||||0.1
95790703|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM correlation of variability (CV) and HbA1c.||||0.4
95790704|NCT05404711|191550099|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation and HbA1c.||||0.7
95790705|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and laboratory-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.2
95790706|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
95790707|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
95790708|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
95815819|NCT00755807|191602169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||P-value is for treatment comparison of change from baseline on weight. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline Value.|The mean difference is for placebo - duloxetine.|||1.26|0.27|0.003
95815820|NCT00755807|191602170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean PGI-I score at 18 weeks for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
95815821|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Worst Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Worst Pain.||||||<0.001
95815822|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Least Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Least Pain score.||||||<0.001
95958317|NCT01393613|191888845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.35||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.79|1.02|0.0433
95958318|NCT01393613|191888846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.5202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.51|0.44|0.5202
95790709|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.09||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.6
95790710|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.35||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.05
95790711|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.18||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.3
95790712|NCT05404711|191550100|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|-0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT fasting glucose.||||0.7
95790713|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT fasting glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.6
95790714|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT 2-hour glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
95790715|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.25||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between delta (difference between fasting and postprandial) home-OGTT glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
95790716|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.26||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
95790717|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.27||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between time of home-OGTT peak glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.2
95790718|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.31||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM mean glucose and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.08
95790719|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM coefficient of variability (CV) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.4
96000058|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality if Life (OSD-QoL®) dimension:~Emotional well-being"||||0.1998
95790720|NCT05404711|191550101|OTHER|Spearman correlation analysis|Spearman correlation rho|0.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation analyses were performed to assess the relationship between CGM standard deviation (SD) and lab-OGTT 2-hour glucose.||||0.1
95790721|NCT00325819|191550102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||The study sample size of 1000 children was selected to have 80% power to detect a 30% reduction in risk of the primary outcome of rectal temperature \>=38 following vaccination. In 2009, during the enrollment period of our trial, another paper reported the results of a randomized trial of acetaminophen prophylaxis in infants which found significantly lower immune responses to various vaccines in the acetaminophen group. In light of thse findings we elected to stop enrollment in our trial.||1.01|0.41|0.053
95790722|NCT00325819|191550103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95790723|NCT00325819|191550104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.84|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.84|0.12|0.02
95790724|NCT00325819|191550105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.28|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.28|0.16|0.14
95790725|NCT00325819|191550106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.7|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||0.70|0.25|0.001
95790726|NCT00325819|191550107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.88|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||1.88|0.21|0.40
95790727|NCT00325819|191550108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.94|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||3.94|0.25|1.00
95815823|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-S for Average Pain. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Average Pain score.||||||<0.001
95815824|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-S for Pain Right Now score.||||||<0.001
95815825|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for BPI-I for General Activity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for General Activity score.||||||<0.001
96000059|NCT03368404|191976140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||"Ocular Surface Disease-Quality of Life (OSD-QoL®) questions:~Global Question"||||0.0306
96000060|NCT03368404|191976141|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
95790728|NCT00325819|191550109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.34|||unadjusted Poisson regression|||||14.34|0.60|0.18
95790729|NCT02357459|191550113|SUPERIORITY|The analysis included all study weeks of data, and was not confined to only that at Baseline and Week 12. Descriptive statistics included number of observations, unadjusted mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum, and baseline adjusted means from the mixed model. Treatment differences from control was presented, and estimated via least squares means from the analysis model along with 95% confidence intervals and associated 2-sided p-values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.49||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|longitudinal mixed repeated measures|||||-0.49|-1.47|<0.0001
95790730|NCT02674503|191550162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Linear fixed effect models adjusted for time in months|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95790731|NCT02674503|191550166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear effects model adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.13
95790732|NCT02674503|191550168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects models adjusted for time (in months)||||||0.02
95790733|NCT01022203|191550175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0001|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes, for veterans and their partners. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.0001
95790734|NCT01022203|191550176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.004|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Used Intent to Treat Analysis. General linear mixed models (GLMMs) with main effects of treatment (SAT and PFE), time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions to model the longitudinal trajectories of the outcomes for veterans. Time was flexibly modeled. All available observations from each subject were utilized in the GLMM modeling.||||<0.001
95790735|NCT01022203|191550177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||General linear mixed models with main effects of treatment, time (baseline, end of treatment, and 12 week follow-up), and treatment by time interactions as described for previous analyses.||||<0.0001
95790736|NCT03163446|191550186|OTHER|Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.4||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|27.19|||Fisher Exact|||||27.19|-6.35|0.3137
95790737|NCT03163446|191550196|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|42.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|71.4|||Fisher Exact|||||71.4|14.3|0.0101
95790738|NCT03163446|191550197|OTHER|P value was ad hoc. Descriptive statistics were performed.||||||0.0646|||||||Fisher Exact||||Descriptive statistics were performed.|||0.0646
95815826|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Mood. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Mood score.||||||<0.001
96000061|NCT03368404|191976142|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||>0.05
96000062|NCT03368404|191976143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
95958319|NCT01393613|191888846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.85|0.55|0.9894
95958320|NCT01393613|191888846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.76||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.59|0.36|0.4586
96000063|NCT01151137|191976163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.294||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.337|3.936||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for stroke, systemic arterial embolism, myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||3.936|1.337|0.0019
95790739|NCT03163446|191550199|OTHER|P-value was ad hoc. Statistics considered descriptive as study designed to provide proof of concept and initial assessment of efficacy; not considered confirmatory.|Risk Difference (RD)|-21.3||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.1|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||||2.5|-45.1|0.0556
95790740|NCT01228591|191550262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0044|0.0187|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0187|-0.0044|
95790741|NCT01228591|191550262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0146|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is defined by: Test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) - control lens (Acuvue Advance)|"High Luminance/ Low Contrast grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Acuvue Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Acuvue Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Acuvue Advance)."||0.0146|-0.0086|
95790742|NCT01228591|191550263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0041|0.0282|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference represents: Test lens (Advance Plus) - Control lens (Advance).|"For Low Luminance/ High Contrast Grouping (Monocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior to the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.0282|0.0041|
95790743|NCT01228591|191550263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed with a margin of -0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.3305|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference is defined to be: test lens (Advance Plus) - control lens (Advance).|"For High Luminance/ Low Contrast Grouping (Binocular):~Ho: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be non-inferior from the control lens (Advance).~Ha: The test lens (Advance Plus) will be \<= to the control lens (Advance)."||0.3305|0.0090|
95790744|NCT00754741|191550282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.763
95790745|NCT00754741|191550282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.285
95790746|NCT00754741|191550283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.380
95790747|NCT00754741|191550283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.084
95864510|NCT03456882|191686819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.845|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.845
95790748|NCT00754741|191550284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.667
95790749|NCT00754741|191550284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.530
95790750|NCT00754741|191550285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
95790751|NCT00754741|191550285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.849
95790752|NCT00754741|191550286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
95790753|NCT00754741|191550286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.714
95790754|NCT00754741|191550287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.291
95790755|NCT00754741|191550287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.968
95790756|NCT00754741|191550288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.671
95790757|NCT00754741|191550288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
95790758|NCT00754741|191550289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.829
95790759|NCT00754741|191550289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.283
95790760|NCT00754741|191550290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.971
95790761|NCT00754741|191550290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.115
95790762|NCT00754741|191550291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.573
95790763|NCT00754741|191550291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
95790764|NCT00754741|191550292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.469
95790765|NCT00754741|191550292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.369
95790766|NCT00754741|191550293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.779
95790767|NCT00754741|191550293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.733
95790768|NCT00754741|191550294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
95790769|NCT00754741|191550294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.856
95790770|NCT00754741|191550295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.419
95790771|NCT00754741|191550295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.998
95864511|NCT03456882|191686820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction.|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.2161
95958321|NCT01393613|191888847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.48|-2.30|0.0029
95958322|NCT01393613|191888847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.48|-1.34|0.3559
95958323|NCT01393613|191888847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.56|-1.51|0.3646
95815827|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Walking Ability. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Walking Ability score.||||||<0.001
95958324|NCT01393613|191888848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.33|-2.61|0.1273
95958325|NCT01393613|191888848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.12|-1.83|0.6400
95958326|NCT01393613|191888848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||1.01|-2.32|0.4423
95958327|NCT01393613|191888849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.21|-2.36|0.0194
95958328|NCT01393613|191888849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-2.06|0.0754
95958329|NCT01393613|191888849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.22|-2.22|0.1080
95958330|NCT01393613|191888850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6. Because only the comparison of brexpiprazole 4 mg/day versus placebo met the threshold in the primary analysis, the following analysis is not part for the formal statistical testing and is descriptive only.||-0.43|-2.34|0.0045
95958331|NCT01393613|191888850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.61|-1.31|0.4753
95958332|NCT01393613|191888850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.21|-1.96|0.1150
95958333|NCT01393613|191888851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.46|-2.05|0.0021
95815828|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Normal Work. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Normal Work score.||||||<0.001
95815829|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Relations With Others. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Relations With Others score.||||||<0.001
95815830|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Sleep. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Sleep score.||||||<0.001
95861350|NCT05407064|191681616|SUPERIORITY|Mean change from baseline and mean difference between MM120 dose groups and placebo were estimated using model averaging method (of 3 models). The minimally efficacious dose was defined as a placebo-adjusted improvement of 2.5 points on the HAM-A, with a statistical significance set at an alpha level of 0.05.||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint was evaluated by determining if there was a dose-response relationship between the change from baseline to Week 8 in total HAM-A score and the dose administered using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) methodology. Several candidate parametric models were assumed, and multiple comparison techniques were used to choose the model(s) likely to present the true underlying dose-response curve.|A test statistic was derived from the data using an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline to Week 8 for the HAM-A Total Score as a response variable, treatment arm and Baseline value of HAM-A Total Score as covariates. The ANCOVA model was repeated for each imputed dataset, which resulted in a set of LS mean estimates for all dose groups and the related covariance matrices. Rubin's rule was used to combine the multiple sets of LS mean estimates and the related covariance matrices to a single set of LS mean estimates of change from Baseline to Week 8 for HAM-A Total Score for all dose groups and the related covariance matrix. The SAS procedure PROC MIANALYZE was used to combine the results from imputed datasets.|||
95861351|NCT05407064|191681617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1157|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1157
95861352|NCT05407064|191681617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.6630
95861353|NCT05407064|191681617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0004
95861354|NCT05407064|191681617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0100
95861355|NCT05407064|191681618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2309
95861356|NCT05407064|191681618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7218|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.7218
95861357|NCT05407064|191681618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0637|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0637
95861358|NCT05407064|191681618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0216
95861359|NCT05407064|191681619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.1006
95861360|NCT05407064|191681619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2225|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.2225
95861361|NCT05407064|191681619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0025
95861362|NCT05407064|191681619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0042|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline: ANCOVA determination of Least Squares (LS) Mean and difference in LS Mean from placebo||||0.0042
95861363|NCT05407064|191681620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6258
95861364|NCT05407064|191681620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.95
95861365|NCT05407064|191681620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0174
95861366|NCT05407064|191681620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0206
95861367|NCT05407064|191681621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.5538
95861368|NCT05407064|191681621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.6650
95861369|NCT05407064|191681621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0190
95958334|NCT01393613|191888851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.63|-0.97|0.6792
95958335|NCT01393613|191888851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.65|-1.16|0.5752
95958336|NCT01393613|191888852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 4mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.20|-1.51|0.0104
95958337|NCT01393613|191888852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 2mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||-0.04|-1.35|0.0373
95861370|NCT05407064|191681621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0034
95790772|NCT04152200|191550296|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-33.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.82|15.16|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||15.16|-81.82|
95815831|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI-I for Enjoyment Of Life score.||||||<0.001
95815832|NCT00755807|191602171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value is for the BPI for Mean Interference Score. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BPI for Mean Interference score.||||||<0.001
95815833|NCT00755807|191602172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on CGI-S score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||<0.001
95815834|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Composite Section score.||||||0.002
95958338|NCT01393613|191888852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis fixed effect of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline visit interaction as covariates.||Statistical analysis to compare brexpiprazole 1mg/day and placebo was performed at Week 6.||0.10|-1.39|0.0890
95958339|NCT02154347|191888855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.37|-0.95|<0.001
95790773|NCT04152200|191550297|OTHER|Not applied|Least Squares (LS) Mean|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.71|-34.15|||MMRM|||REML based Mixed Model Repeated Measures MMRM was used to test against the null hypothesis of mean change from baseline outcome being equal to 0. The model includes scheduled visits and baseline plasma oxalate (μmol/L) as fixed effects and patient as a random factor. Autoregressive (1) was used to model the within-patient variability.||-34.15|-50.71|
95790774|NCT03205150|191550339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.075|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.8|-3.78|||ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-22.80|0.075
95790775|NCT03205150|191550339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.33|-11.94|||ANCOVA|||||-11.94|-31.33|0.005
95790776|NCT03205150|191550339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.178|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|16.29|||ANCOVA|||||16.29|0.41|0.178
95815835|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Mental Health Composite Section score.||||||0.054
95815836|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Physical Health Subsection score.||||||0.002
95861371|NCT05407064|191681622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.7236
95861372|NCT05407064|191681622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.9738
95861373|NCT05407064|191681622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0338
95958340|NCT02820597|191888860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rTNSS is 0.||||<0.001
95958341|NCT02820597|191888861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Paired t-tests on the mean change from baseline. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that the within-participant change from baseline in rhinitis symptoms VAS is 0.||||<0.001
95958342|NCT02166476|191888879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference for overall success at EOIVT was \>-15%.|Treatment difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.1|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||9.1|0.7|
95790777|NCT03205150|191550340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.235|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.6|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-3.60|0.235
95790778|NCT03205150|191550340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.14|-2.37|||ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.14|0.004
95815837|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Perceptions Subsection score.||||||0.025
95861374|NCT05407064|191681622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0282
95790779|NCT03205150|191550340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.037|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|4.07|||ANCOVA|||||4.07|0.98|0.037
95790780|NCT03205150|191550341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|-2.08|||ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-4.22|<.001
95790781|NCT03205150|191550341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.28|-3.08|||ANCOVA|||||-3.08|-5.28|<.001
95790782|NCT03205150|191550341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.148|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|0.12|0.148
95790783|NCT03205150|191550349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.79|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||||-5.50|-16.79|0.013
95790784|NCT03205150|191550349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.43|-8.98|||ANCOVA|||||-8.98|-20.43|0.001
95790785|NCT03205150|191550349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.15|8.28|||ANCOVA|||||8.28|-1.15|0.332
95790786|NCT01095835|191550350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95790787|NCT03028142|191550364|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.05||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0022
95790788|NCT03028142|191550364|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|1.05|<0.0001
95790789|NCT03028142|191550365|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.0988
95790790|NCT03028142|191550365|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|1.02|0.0009
95790791|NCT03028142|191550366|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.02||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.98|0.2496
95790792|NCT03028142|191550366|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.06||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|1.02|0.0039
95790793|NCT03028142|191550367|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.03||||0.1404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.99|0.1404
95790794|NCT03028142|191550367|OTHER||LS Means ratio|1.04||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|1.01|0.0228
95790795|NCT01298700|191550442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9||P-value was stratified by baseline prostaglandin analogue (PGA) treatment(yes/no) and by baseline active ocular surface finding (present/absent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||bimatoprost 0.01% ophthalmic solution - bimatoprost 0.03% ophthalmic solution|||1.9|-11|0.148
95790796|NCT00129441|191550444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95790797|NCT00129441|191550445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.162
95790798|NCT00129441|191550446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95790799|NCT00129441|191550447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95790800|NCT00129441|191550448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.249
95790801|NCT00129441|191550449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||At week 4, mean BPRS total scores were nearly the same for the placebo group and L-830982 group as a result of a significant reduction in positive symptoms reported for the placebo group (F=9.12, df=1,13, p=0.01). For the L-830982-treated group, neither total BPRS scores nor any of the factor scores changed over the course of the trial.||||0.01
95790802|NCT00129441|191550450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95790803|NCT00129441|191550451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95790804|NCT01001429|191550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.04
95790805|NCT01001429|191550452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||UMSS scores with subjects propofol vs. Dexmetomidine group||||0.68
95790806|NCT00643760|191550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.35||||0.295||95.0|-1.02|0.31||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.31|-1.02|0.295
95790807|NCT00643760|191550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.02||||0.946||95.0|-0.71|0.66||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.66|-0.71|0.946
95790808|NCT00643760|191550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.55||||0.105||95.0|-1.1|0.01||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential method and the Hochberg procedure in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with BMI, baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||0.01|-1.10|0.105
95790809|NCT00643760|191550464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|0.43||||||95.0|-0.22|1.08||||||||1.08|-0.22|
95790810|NCT00789321|191550503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.7||||0.001||90.0|-18.1|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||-5.4|-18.1|0.001
95790811|NCT00789321|191550504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|39.0||||0.001||95.0|17.9|60.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in systolic blood pressure included as covariate||||60.1|17.9|0.001
95790812|NCT01965327|191550505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Missing data were imputed by last observation carried forward.||||||0.027
95790813|NCT01965327|191550506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
95790814|NCT00104052|191550507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Normal approximation to the binomial|0.654||||||95.0|0.564|0.744||||||||0.744|0.564|
95790815|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-25.2868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1594|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-4.421|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group B||-4.4210||
95861375|NCT05407064|191681623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.9302
95790816|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.3283|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||20.8083|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group B||20.8083||
95790817|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.9241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2146|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.6959|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group C vs. Group A||-43.6959||
95790818|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.6486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8753|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-43.8584|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group B vs. Group A||-43.8584||
95790819|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-90.9353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1044|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-68.8494|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group A||-68.8494||
95790820|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5376|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.6571|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group D vs. Group C||-3.6571||
95790821|NCT03652818|191550509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.9546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0||38.1014|||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|Group E vs. Group D||38.1014||
95790822|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.6821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.1209|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|7.7011||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group B|||7.7011|
95790823|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.1658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3312|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-20.0868||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group B|||-20.0868|
95790824|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|77.3395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4347|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|49.662||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group C vs. Group A|||49.6620|
95790825|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|71.1737|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.0123|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|44.0417||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group B vs. Group A|||44.0417|
95790826|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|104.8558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.2975|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|77.3555||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group A|||77.3555|
95790827|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.5163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.5918|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.9272||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group D vs. Group C|||0.9272|
95790828|NCT03652818|191550510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.1223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.1776|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-63.924||||||Statistics are from ANCOVA including treatment and sex as fixed effects with baseline PI score prior to Dose 2 as a covariate. The upper limit was ∞|Group E vs. Group D|||-63.9240|
95790829|NCT01248455|191550527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No patients obtained a 50% reduction in M-protein concentration and the study did not continue to the second stage of enrollment due to the lack of efficacy as defined by out criteria. This statistical analysis includes all participants (i.e., stable disease (SD), minimal response (MR), biochemical progression (BP), and progressive disease (PD)).||||0.56
95790830|NCT01854697|191550539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|28.2|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||28.2|1.3|
95790831|NCT01854697|191550539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary endpoint assessment comparison was made within each of the 2 HCV genotypes (GT1a and GT1b). Within HCV GT1a, the 3-DAA + RBV and TPV/PR arms were compared. Within HCV GT1b, the 3-DAA and TPV/PR arms were compared. The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the respective HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
95790832|NCT01854697|191550540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||6.65|-2.39|0.351
95790833|NCT01854697|191550540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|9.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.47|2.19|0.002
95790834|NCT01854697|191550540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean of Difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|8.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.54|2.01|0.002
95790835|NCT01854697|191550541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|9.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.44|2.72|<0.001
95790836|NCT01854697|191550541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||8.85|3.55|<0.001
95815838|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Energy Subsection score.||||||0.008
95815839|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems Subsection score.||||||0.858
95815840|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Pain Subsection score.||||||<0.001
95815841|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.637
95815842|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Social Function Subsection score.||||||0.051
95815843|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Health Distress Subsection score.||||||0.270
95815844|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Overall Quality Of Life Subsection score.||||||0.061
96000064|NCT01151137|191976164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.448|2.617||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for unscheduled cardiovascular hospitalization or death from any cause~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||2.617|1.448|<0.0001
96000065|NCT01151137|191976166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.115||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|4.49||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Log Rank|2-sided Log-rank's asymptotic test|"Hazard ratio (HR) of Dronedarone versus placebo for cardiovascular death~HR and confidence interval were estimated using Cox regression model with treatment group as the only factor."|As a consequence of the early termination of the study, the analysis was performed for information only without any adjustment.||4.490|0.996|0.0460
95815845|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Emotional Well-being Subsection score.||||||0.007
95815846|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems score.||||||0.253
95815847|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Cognitive Function Subsection score.||||||0.942
95815848|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Change in Health Subsection score.||||||0.016
95815849|NCT00755807|191602173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on MSQOL Satisfaction with Sexual Function Subsection score.||||||0.381
95815850|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 7). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model: Change from Baseline=Baseline+Investigator+Week+Baseline\*Week; participant was treated as random effect.||||||0.524
95815851|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 8). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
96000066|NCT01933672|191976169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.35|-26.12||||||Change from baseline||-26.12|-36.35|
96000067|NCT01933672|191976169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-31.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.29|-25.37||||||Change from baseline||-25.37|-37.29|
96000068|NCT01933672|191976169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.99|-13.5||||||Change from baseline||-13.50|-24.99|
96000069|NCT01933672|191976169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
96000070|NCT01933672|191976169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.81|-4.17||||||There was no hypothesis to be tested. Difference in change from baseline in WMDG between the 2 treatment groups was calculated based on the mixed effects repeated measures model.||-4.17|-19.81|
96000071|NCT01933672|191976170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.0|-16.85||||||Compared with Baseline||-16.85|-27.00|
96000072|NCT01933672|191976170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.3|-15.1||||||Compared with Baseline||-15.10|-26.30|
95958343|NCT02166476|191888880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the m-MITT Population.|Treatment difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|18.7|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the Eradication rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the m-MITT population||18.7|-0.9|
95790837|NCT01854697|191550541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|9.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included baseline score and region as covariates and treatment arm as a factor.||||9.37|4.36|<0.001
95790838|NCT01854697|191550542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|38.0|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and interleukin 28B (IL28B) genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||38.0|1.4|0.021
95790839|NCT01854697|191550542|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|33.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||33.6|7.9|
95790840|NCT01854697|191550542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|241.1|||Regression, Logistic|Calculated using logistic regression model with treatment arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level, and IL28B genotype (CC versus non-CC) as predictors.||||241.1|3.3|0.002
95790841|NCT01854697|191550542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel after adjusting for IL28B genotype (CC or non-CC).||||||0.005
95790842|NCT01854697|191550545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1a HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|27.0|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1a. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||27.0|-0.4|
95790843|NCT01854697|191550545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|32.7|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.7|6.5|
95790844|NCT01854697|191550545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test treatment arm was considered noninferior to the TPV/PR arm in the GT1b HCV subtype if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment arm difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10.5%.|Difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|32.6|||||Difference (95% CI) from TPV/PR within GT1b. Calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||32.6|6.4|
95790845|NCT00917124|191550546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||"Hypothesis: intraoperative monitoring of cerebral oxigenation with INVOS system will improve cognitive outcome of patients undergoing CABG procedure.~Sample size was determined assuming 50% incidence of cognitive impairment after cardiac surgery and possibility of decreasing that incidence to 30% using cerebral oximetry. Based on 0.8 power to detect a significant difference (p=0.05), 90 patients were required for each study group."||||0.002
95790846|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|1.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.37|-4.44|0.2968
95815852|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 9). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95958344|NCT02166476|191888881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was a difference of 15%. Meropenem-vaborbactam was claimed to be noninferior only if noninferiority was demonstrated for microbial eradication at TOC in the ME Population.|Treatment Difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.0|||||Treatment difference is the estimate of the difference in the overall success rate between the two treatment arms. The difference estimates and the 95% CIs are obtained based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Treatment comparison of the ME population||16.0|-4.2|
95958345|NCT00846768|191888938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3011||95.0|-0.014|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.044|-0.014|0.3011
95958346|NCT00846768|191888938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.1582||95.0|-0.008|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.050|-0.008|0.1582
95861376|NCT05407064|191681623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6763|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6763
95958347|NCT00846768|191888938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0003||95.0|0.025|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.083|0.025|0.0003
95790847|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.95|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-10.95|-19.77|<.0001
95790848|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-21.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-21.49|-33.06|<.0001
95815853|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 10). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815854|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 11). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815855|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 12). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815856|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 13). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815857|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 14). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815858|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 15). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815859|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 16). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815860|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 17). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815861|NCT00755807|191602175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint (Week 18). P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM Model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Investigator + Week + Baseline\* Week, where participant was treated as a random effect.||||||<0.001
95815862|NCT00755807|191602176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|1-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on BDI-II Question #9 score for all participants who entered extension phase.||||||0.706
95815863|NCT00755807|191602180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on monocytes.||||||0.035
95815864|NCT00755807|191602181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on sodium.||||||0.042
95815865|NCT00755807|191602182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on total protein.||||||0.036
95815866|NCT00755807|191602183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on diastolic blood pressure.||||||0.320
95815867|NCT00755807|191602183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on systolic blood pressure.||||||0.182
95815868|NCT00755807|191602184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on pulse rate.||||||0.032
95815869|NCT00755807|191602185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test of mean change from extension phase baseline to endpoint on weight.||||||0.151
95815870|NCT00939107|191602186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||>|0.05||95.0|0.2|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.2|>0.05
95815871|NCT01585025|191602201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.007
95815872|NCT01585025|191602201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.11
95815873|NCT01585025|191602201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired comparison of fasting FGF19 at baseline on day 0 and on day 14 of OCA treatment||||0.12
95815874|NCT01585025|191602202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.72
96000073|NCT01933672|191976170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.24|-10.78||||||Compared with Baseline||-10.78|-22.24|
95815875|NCT01585025|191602202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.51
95815876|NCT01585025|191602202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in FGF19 AUC||||0.13
95790849|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.69|-28.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-28.41|-41.69|<.0001
95790850|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.87|-31.11|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-31.11|-45.87|<.0001
95815877|NCT01585025|191602203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.03
95815878|NCT01585025|191602203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.11
95790851|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.46|-30.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-30.88|-48.46|<.0001
95790852|NCT05556148|191550572|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.69|-41.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-41.51|-63.69|<.0001
95790853|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||1.86|-1.27|0.7112
95790854|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-3.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-3.92|-8.51|<.0001
95790855|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-9.22|-15.00|<.0001
95790856|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.24|-12.71|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-12.71|-19.24|<.0001
95790857|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-15.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-15.59|-23.29|<.0001
95815879|NCT01585025|191602203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in fasting C4||||0.02
95815880|NCT01585025|191602204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
95790858|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|-14.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.69|-24.03|<.0001
95790859|NCT05556148|191550573|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.87|-18.93|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-18.93|-31.87|<.0001
95790860|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.83||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.02|-3.64|0.0481
95790861|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|-6.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-6.55|-11.74|<.0001
95790862|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-11.88|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-11.88|-18.44|<.0001
95815881|NCT01585025|191602204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.04
95815882|NCT01585025|191602204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in bile acid 6h AUC||||0.02
95815883|NCT01585025|191602205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.03
95790863|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|-15.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-15.30|-22.84|<.0001
95790864|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-14.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-14.75|-23.35|<.0001
95790865|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-14.92|-25.70|<.0001
95790866|NCT05556148|191550574|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-21.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-21.92|-32.48|<.0001
95790867|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.31|1.0000
95790868|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-0.97|0.0003
95790869|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.70|-1.50|<.0001
95790870|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.24|-2.20|<.0001
95790871|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.16|-2.33|<.0001
95790872|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.28|-2.51|<.0001
95790873|NCT05556148|191550575|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.64|-3.29|<.0001
95815884|NCT01585025|191602205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.17
95815885|NCT01585025|191602205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in number of stools per week||||0.31
95815886|NCT01585025|191602206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.05
95815887|NCT01585025|191602206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.04
95815888|NCT01585025|191602206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in median stool form||||0.74
95815889|NCT01585025|191602207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.005
95815890|NCT01585025|191602207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.03
95815891|NCT01585025|191602207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired difference in weekly index score||||0.61
95815892|NCT02122380|191602208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of mean growth hormone (GH) levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided). A sample size of 16 participants was needed to provide 93% power to detect a difference in GH means of 0.5 mcg/L.||||0.918
95815893|NCT02122380|191602209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of early insulin secretion between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.054
95815894|NCT02122380|191602210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in blood glucose levels between sitagliptin and placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.009
95861377|NCT05407064|191681623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0816
95861378|NCT05407064|191681623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0190
95861379|NCT05407064|191681624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.5647
95861380|NCT05407064|191681624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3497
95861381|NCT05407064|191681624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0229
95861382|NCT05407064|191681624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total MADRS scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0073
95958348|NCT00846768|191888938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7046||95.0|-0.034|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.023|-0.034|0.7046
95815895|NCT02122380|191602211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the mass of visceral adipose tissue after sitagliptin vs. placebo. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.022
95815896|NCT02122380|191602212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in vascular function between sitagliptin and placebo treatments. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two sided).||||0.943
95861383|NCT05407064|191681625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0158
95861384|NCT05407064|191681625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0429
95958349|NCT00846768|191888938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.063|0.004|0.0248
95861385|NCT05407064|191681625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
95861386|NCT05407064|191681625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
96000074|NCT01933672|191976170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.74|0.92||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||0.92|-11.74|
95815897|NCT01783444|191602213|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.97||||||||0.97|0.57|
95815898|NCT01783444|191602214|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.66||||||||1.66|0.96|
95815899|NCT01783444|191602215|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.7||||||||1.70|0.95|
95815900|NCT01783444|191602215|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.79||||||||1.79|0.99|
95861387|NCT05407064|191681626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0804|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0804
95861388|NCT05407064|191681626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0532
95861389|NCT05407064|191681626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0001
95958350|NCT00846768|191888939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0006||95.0|-0.081|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.023|-0.081|0.0006
95861390|NCT05407064|191681626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
95790874|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.14|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||-0.14|-0.64|0.0023
95790875|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-1.12|-1.82|<.0001
95790876|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.58|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.58|-2.40|<.0001
95790877|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-2.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-2.00|-2.86|<.0001
95790878|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.49|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-2.49|-3.51|<.0001
95790879|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-2.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.18|-3.36|<.0001
95790880|NCT05556148|191550576|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.57|-4.10|<.0001
95790881|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.18|-0.40|0.4495
95790882|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.54|-1.19|<.0001
95790883|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.82|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.82|-1.59|<.0001
95790884|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.12|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.12|-2.05|<.0001
95790885|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.33|-2.40|<.0001
95790886|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.24|-2.45|<.0001
95790887|NCT05556148|191550577|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.75|-3.19|<.0001
95790888|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.42|-0.20|0.4758
95790889|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.24|-0.99|0.0016
95790890|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.79|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.79|-1.67|<.0001
95790891|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.16|-2.18|<.0001
95790892|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.51|-2.46|<.0001
95790893|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.39|-2.77|<.0001
95790894|NCT05556148|191550578|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-2.08|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.08|-3.65|<.0001
95790895|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.28|-0.36|0.8017
95790896|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.30|-1.05|0.0005
96000075|NCT01933672|191976170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|2.49||||||Change from baseline in FPG was analyzed in a mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with regimen, period, sequence, treatment × period, and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modelled as random effects, with each subject's period-specific baseline response included, as fixed covariates.||2.49|-10.86|
95790897|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.89|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.89|-1.69|<.0001
95790898|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.97|-1.86|<.0001
95790899|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.47|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.47|-2.50|<.0001
95790900|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.29|-2.61|<.0001
95790901|NCT05556148|191550579|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|-1.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.54|-3.26|<.0001
95790902|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.31|-0.25|0.8311
95790903|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.04|-0.78|0.0313
95790904|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.39|-1.28|0.0003
95790905|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.59|-1.51|<.0001
95790906|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.66|-1.74|<.0001
95790907|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.42|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.42|-1.69|0.0018
95790908|NCT05556148|191550580|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-0.43|-2.10|0.0041
95790909|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.27|-0.25|0.9380
95790910|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.01|-0.72|0.0416
95815901|NCT01783444|191602218|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.66||||||||1.66|0.72|
96000076|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||0.07|-0.19|
95815902|NCT01783444|191602218|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.77||||||||1.77|0.78|
95815903|NCT01783444|191602219|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.88||||||||0.88|0.46|
96000077|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.21||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.21|-0.09|
96000078|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.45||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||0.45|0.16|
95790911|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.62|-1.29|<.0001
95861391|NCT05407064|191681627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2152
95790912|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.76|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.76|-1.60|<.0001
95790913|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.27|-2.25|<.0001
95790914|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.05|-2.33|<.0001
95790915|NCT05556148|191550581|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-1.52|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.52|-3.08|<.0001
95790916|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.33|-0.25|0.7821
95790917|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.39|-1.14|<.0001
95790918|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-1.19|-2.05|<.0001
95790919|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.86|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.86|-2.73|<.0001
95790920|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.94|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.94|-2.98|<.0001
95790921|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.92|-3.36|<.0001
95790922|NCT05556148|191550582|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.21|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.21|-4.19|<.0001
95790923|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.68|0.21|0.0003
95790924|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||0.24|-0.38|0.6460
95815904|NCT01783444|191602219|NON_INFERIORITY|Hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model (stratified by presence/absence of visceral metastasis as per IWRS)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.91||||||||1.91|0.93|
95815905|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.9||||||Side-effects||11.9|-3.3|
96000079|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|-0.36||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.36|-0.56|
96000080|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.03||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.03|-0.45|
96000081|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.48||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.48|-0.08|
96000082|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|1.03||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||1.03|0.38|
96000083|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.37||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||0.37|-0.26|
96000084|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||||80.0|-0.28|0.57||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.57|-0.28|
96000085|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.11||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||1.11|0.19|
95790925|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.22|-0.95|0.0021
95790926|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.41|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-0.41|-1.25|0.0002
95790927|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-0.73|-1.68|<.0001
95790928|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.68|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-0.68|-2.04|0.0003
95790929|NCT05556148|191550583|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-1.32|-2.95|<.0001
95790930|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1||0.45|-0.04|0.1074
95790931|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2||-0.02|-0.67|0.0364
95790932|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.91|-1.68|<.0001
95861392|NCT05407064|191681627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3369
95790933|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.36|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4||-1.36|-2.25|<.0001
95790934|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.69|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||-1.69|-2.78|<.0001
95790935|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-1.45|-2.70|<.0001
95790936|NCT05556148|191550584|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.1|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||-2.10|-3.84|<.0001
95790937|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.43|-2.33|<.0001
95790938|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.90|<.0001
95790939|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.39|-3.41|<.0001
95790940|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-2.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.77|-3.82|<.0001
95790941|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.37|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.37|-3.53|<.0001
95790942|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.53|-3.98|<.0001
95790943|NCT05556148|191550585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.16|-4.08|<.0001
95790944|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.31|-2.14|<.0001
95790945|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.70|-2.55|<.0001
95790946|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.9|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.90|-2.71|<.0001
95790947|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-2.29|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.29|-3.23|<.0001
95790948|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.39|-3.31|<.0001
95790949|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.64|-3.72|<.0001
95790950|NCT05556148|191550586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.43|-3.90|<.0001
95790951|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.57|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.57|-2.39|<.0001
95790952|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.81|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.81|-2.66|<.0001
95790953|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-2.32|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.32|-3.14|<.0001
95790954|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.43|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.43|-3.40|<.0001
95790955|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.66|-3.68|<.0001
95790956|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.54|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.54|-4.02|<.0001
95790957|NCT05556148|191550587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.7|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.70|-4.24|<.0001
95790958|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.55|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.55|-2.37|<.0001
95790959|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.01|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.01|-2.83|<.0001
95815906|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|5.5||||||Side-effects||5.5|-9.9|
95815907|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|3.8||||||Effectiveness||3.8|-10.4|
95815908|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|3.0||||||Effectiveness||3.0|-9.7|
95815909|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|2.5||||||Convenience||2.5|-5.8|
95815910|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.3||||||Convenience||3.3|-5.5|
95815911|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|2.9||||||Global Satisfaction||2.9|-8.3|
95815912|NCT01783444|191602220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|1.9||||||Global Satisfaction||1.9|-8.4|
95815913|NCT00298389|191602251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95815914|NCT00298389|191602252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95815915|NCT02628444|191602253|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was greater than (\>) 1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.39||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.39|0.862|
95815916|NCT02628444|191602253|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.20|0.820|
95815917|NCT02628444|191602253|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.18||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.18|0.816|
95815918|NCT02628444|191602253|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.14|0.809|
95815919|NCT02628444|191602254|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.4||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 1||1.40|0.757|
95815920|NCT02628444|191602254|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.14||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 2||1.14|0.705|
95815921|NCT02628444|191602254|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 3||1.16|0.724|
95815922|NCT02628444|191602254|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||Group 2/Group 1: Serotype 4||1.09|0.720|
95815923|NCT02628444|191602255|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.399|0.805||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.805|0.399|
95815924|NCT02628444|191602255|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.55|1.01||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.01|0.550|
95815925|NCT02628444|191602255|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.686|1.57||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.57|0.686|
95815926|NCT02628444|191602255|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.434|0.963||||||Group 1a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.963|0.434|
95815927|NCT02628444|191602256|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.342|1.15||||||Group 2a Booster dose/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.15|0.342|
95815928|NCT02628444|191602256|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.809|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.505|1.3||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.30|0.505|
95815929|NCT02628444|191602256|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.732|1.94||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.94|0.732|
95815930|NCT02628444|191602256|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided Bonferroni corrected 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2a Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT Ratio|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.331|0.754||||||Group 2a Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.754|0.331|
96000086|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|0.03|
95790960|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-2.53|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.53|-3.41|<.0001
95790961|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.87|-3.81|<.0001
95790962|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.87|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.87|-3.84|<.0001
95790963|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-2.56|||Student's paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 6||-2.56|-3.91|<.0001
95790964|NCT05556148|191550588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-2.92|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.92|-4.48|<.0001
95790965|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.34|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.34|-2.17|<.0001
95790966|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.67|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-1.67|-2.51|<.0001
95790967|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.97|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-1.97|-2.86|<.0001
95790968|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-2.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.27|-3.22|<.0001
95790969|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.16|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.16|-3.30|<.0001
95790970|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-2.19|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.19|-3.56|<.0001
95790971|NCT05556148|191550589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-2.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.39|-4.01|<.0001
95790972|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.51|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.51|-2.35|<.0001
95790973|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.2|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.20|-3.00|<.0001
95790974|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-2.22|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.22|-3.09|<.0001
95790975|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-2.62|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-2.62|-3.53|<.0001
95815931|NCT02628444|191602257|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.688|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.479|0.989||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||0.989|0.479|
95815932|NCT02628444|191602257|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.673|1.13||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.13|0.673|
95790976|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-2.75|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-2.75|-3.76|<.0001
95790977|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-2.78|-4.04|<.0001
95790978|NCT05556148|191550590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.64|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-2.64|-4.30|<.0001
95790979|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.66|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.66|-2.49|<.0001
95790980|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.33|-3.20|<.0001
95790981|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-2.78|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.78|-3.63|<.0001
95790982|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-3.0|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.00|-3.98|<.0001
95790983|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-3.33|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.33|-4.33|<.0001
95790984|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.46|-4.65|<.0001
95790985|NCT05556148|191550591|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|-3.46|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.46|-4.81|<.0001
95790986|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.77|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 1||-1.77|-2.66|<.0001
95790987|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.31|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 2||-2.31|-3.15|<.0001
95790988|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.73|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 3||-2.73|-3.60|<.0001
95790989|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.05|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 4||-3.05|-4.00|<.0001
95790990|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-3.27|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 5||-3.27|-4.19|<.0001
95790991|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-3.45|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 6||-3.45|-4.55|<.0001
95790992|NCT05556148|191550592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|-3.39|||Student's paired t-test|||Day 7||-3.39|-4.74|<.0001
95790993|NCT00379899|191550603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor (≥ 30 to 399, ≥ 400 to 999, and ≥ 1000)||||||0.073
95790994|NCT00379899|191550604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.094||95.0|0.36|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Logit estimates (Cinacalcet:Control)|||1.08|0.36|0.094
95790995|NCT00379899|191550605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.018
95790996|NCT00379899|191550607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.258
95815933|NCT02628444|191602257|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.887|1.49||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.49|0.887|
95815934|NCT02628444|191602257|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs within groups (Group 1b booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT paired ratio|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.471|0.911||||||Group 1b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||0.911|0.471|
95815935|NCT02628444|191602258|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.462|1.71||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 1||1.71|0.462|
95815936|NCT02628444|191602258|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.402|1.14||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 2||1.14|0.402|
95815937|NCT02628444|191602258|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.573|1.45||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 3||1.45|0.573|
95815938|NCT02628444|191602258|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (Group 2b Booster/Group 1) was \>1/2. Overall non-inferiority was demonstrated if all 4 serotypes achieved non-inferiority.|GMT ratio|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.447|1.1||||||Group 2b Booster/Group 1 Post-dose 3: Serotype 4||1.10|0.447|
95815939|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.33||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.33|0.833|
95815940|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.19||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.19|0.821|
95815941|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.17|0.810|
95815942|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.14||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (28 days after last vaccination)||1.14|0.814|
95815943|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.39||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 1 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.39|0.762|
95815944|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.16||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 2 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.16|0.724|
95815945|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.17||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 3 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.17|0.742|
95815946|NCT02628444|191602259|SUPERIORITY|The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than 1 between groups (Group 2/Group 1). Overall superiority of Group 2 to Group 1 was demonstrated if individual serotype null hypotheses were rejected.|GMT Ratio|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||||||Group2/Group1: Serotype 4 (1 year after last vaccination)||1.12|0.750|
95815947|NCT02079909|191602277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3919
95815948|NCT02079909|191602278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7588
95815949|NCT02079909|191602279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3212
95815950|NCT03423602|191602283|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a Meta-Analysis of a focused systematic literature review from a comparable patient population, the estimated major vascular access site complication rate or PGsafety for the conservative Random Effect Model is 0.125 with a 95% Confidence Interval of 0.09 to 0.17. Given that the upper bound was 0.17 this justified the use of 0.13 as a valid PGsafety plus a non-inferiority margin of 0.04 yielding an overall non-inferiority limit (NLs) of 0.17 for Safety. Study power is greater than 90%|Wilson's exact test|0.0487|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0487|||Wilson's exact test|All 75 enrolled subjects, regardless of their enrolment status at 1-month post implantation, including all reported safety data where included.||"The test for non-inferiority for safety was based on a one-sided test (at the 0.025 significance level) for a binomial proportion with hypotheses:~H0s: Psafety ≥ NLs versus H1s: Psafety \< NLs Where: Psafety is the actual proportion of device related major vascular access site complications within the study population; and NLs is the non-inferiority limit for proportion of expected major vascular access site complications associated with cut-down and suture closure."||0.0487||<.0001
95815951|NCT01000506|191602336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.69||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.69|0.39|<0.001
95861393|NCT05407064|191681627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0010
96000087|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.67||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.67|-0.08|
96000088|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.68||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||0.68|-0.05|
96000089|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.53||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.53|-0.45|
95815952|NCT01000506|191602336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.81||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 250 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.81|0.46|<0.001
95815953|NCT01000506|191602336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.64||Hochberg testing procedure with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% used for controlling multiplicity|Negative Binomial regression model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 750 mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.36|<0.001
95815954|NCT02347605|191602350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95815955|NCT02347605|191602351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for treatment order, session, room sequence|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95815956|NCT01657305|191602421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments.~Negative values for the intra-individual time difference indicate faster healing of the Oleogel-S10-treated wound half.~For right-censored observations (no wound closure observed in blinded photo evaluation), wound closure was conservatively calculated as +1 day after the last photo."||||<0.0001
95815957|NCT01657305|191602425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|11.2||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.2|6.0|<0.0001
95815958|NCT01657305|191602425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||13.4|6.9|<0.0001
95815959|NCT01657305|191602425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.1||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||11.1|4.6|<0.0001
95815960|NCT01657305|191602425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.9||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||10.9|3.9|<0.0001
95815961|NCT01657305|191602425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|9.1||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||9.1|3.7|<0.0001
95815962|NCT01657305|191602425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.9|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 minus standard of care)|||6.4|1.5|=0.0021
95815963|NCT01074125|191602476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||To assess dose ranging, the primary efficacy variable will be analyzed via a model with dose effect. Positive dose ranging confirmed if the null hypothesis of slope =0 was rejected at a significance level of 0.05||||<0.0001
96000090|NCT01933672|191976171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.51||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal C-peptide on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.51|-0.55|
96000091|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.75|1.07||||||Compared with Baseline （Pre-breakfast）||1.07|-0.75|
96000092|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|1.51||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||1.51|-0.58|
96000093|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|2.63||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-breakfast)||2.63|0.58|
96000094|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|-0.05||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||-0.05|-2.84|
96000095|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.63|0.35||||||Pre-breakfast; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.35|-2.63|
96000096|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|3.88||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||3.88|-0.50|
96000097|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.56|6.58||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||6.58|1.56|
96000098|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.42|2.4||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-lunch)||2.40|-2.42|
95815964|NCT02289469|191602485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|31.6|||Chi-squared|||A chi-square test was used to test for differences in proportions between intervention and control groups.||31.6|16.0|<0.0001
95815965|NCT02289469|191602486|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Other|||Descriptive statistics (counts, frequencies) were used to summarize responses.||||<0.01
95815966|NCT00539240|191602526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
95815967|NCT00539240|191602526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
95815968|NCT00539240|191602527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons (no post-hoc contrasts performed)|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score and personality traits (SCL-90)||||||0.19
95815969|NCT00539240|191602528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.04
95815970|NCT00539240|191602528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant, no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.50
95790997|NCT00379899|191550608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.011
95815971|NCT00539240|191602529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity||||||0.04
95815972|NCT00539240|191602529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|adjusted for age, sex, BMI and ethnicity.||||||0.20
95815973|NCT00956384|191602539|SUPERIORITY|A minimally clinically important difference of 4 as statistically significant at the 0.05 level (two-sided), with a power equal to 0.85.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|5.19||Threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||For the comparison of mean BREAST-Q subdomain score at each timepoint, Mann-Whitney U test was used for skewed data, while independent t-test was used for not skewed data. We investigated the possibly variable effects of the treatment group differences across multiple time-points, namely 2 weeks after mastectomy, at 6 months and at 12 months following the reconstruction procedure. A linear regression model was used to account for the correlation between the three time-points within each patient||5.19|-10.57|0.05
95815974|NCT00956384|191602540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We assessed the effect of the surgical method on the occurrences of any complications versus none via logistic regression, and results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs.||||<0.05
95815975|NCT02878382|191602574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Chi-squared|also, Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whtiney were used for comparing the other variables in the study||||||<0.001
95815976|NCT02878382|191602576|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||significance level of 5%|Fisher Exact|||||||=0.001
95815977|NCT02878382|191602577|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney test was used according to the assumption of normality of data for PpIX fluorescence intensity||||=0.048
95815978|NCT01347060|191602586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The P-value relates to differences in combined inpatient/emergency department.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline differences||||0.93|0.68|0.0051
95861394|NCT05407064|191681627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assessment of change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0046
95790998|NCT00379899|191550609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
95815979|NCT01347060|191602587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|883.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|731.66|1041.69||The P-value is on the adjusted difference in total asthma costs.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Model with a log-link and a gamma distribution adjusting for differences at baseline||||1041.69|731.66|0.001
95815980|NCT01347060|191602588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95815981|NCT00444106|191602589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sided exact test for a single propn.|One-sided exact test for a single proportion.||"One-sided null hypothesis that the incidence rate of ABR Wave III latency changes is greater than or equal to 15%.~Increase in ABR Wave III latency between baseline and Day 7 of greater than 0.3 ms."||||<.0001
95815982|NCT03848455|191602595|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP2CA gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
95861395|NCT05407064|191681628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4489|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.4489
95790999|NCT00379899|191550610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
95791000|NCT00379899|191550611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.025
95791001|NCT00379899|191550612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||0.021
95791002|NCT00379899|191550613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
95791003|NCT00379899|191550614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for screening total coronary artery calcification score stratification factor||||||<0.001
95861396|NCT05407064|191681628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.7326
95791004|NCT01569126|191550630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.026||||||95.0|||||||The correlation of time-matched change from baseline QTcF interval (dependent variable) to the time-matched plasma concentration of total fluoxetine and norfluoxetine (covariate) and participant (random effect).|||||
95791005|NCT01156805|191550645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects linear regression, adjusted for clustering within schools and children to assess the effect of intervention on changes in BMI over time||||||0.05
95791006|NCT03430856|191550687|NON_INFERIORITY|Change from baseline in HbA1c at 24 weeks of treatment, was analyzed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) where all available post-baseline HbA1c measurements obtained up to Week 24 was entered as the dependent variables; visit and treatment were included as fixed factors, with Baseline HbA1c and stratification factor variables as covariates. Furthermore, the interaction terms of visit by treatment, visit by stratification factors and visit by Baseline HbA1c were included in the model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.47|||||Insulin Tregopil 45 mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.470|0.502|
95791007|NCT03430856|191550687|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.37|||||Insulin Tregopil 30mg - Insulin Aspart|||1.370|0.414|
95791008|NCT02812186|191550700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95791009|NCT02812186|191550701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95791010|NCT02812186|191550702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95791011|NCT01294423|191550726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.18|-0.52|<0.0001
95791012|NCT01294423|191550726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.23||significant at alpha=0.027 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and gender as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.23|-0.56|<0.0001
95791013|NCT01294423|191550727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-8.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-8.7|-20.1|<0.0001
95791014|NCT01294423|191550727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.892|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-13.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.8|-25.2|<0.0001
95854753|NCT04040933|191669543|OTHER|Change from Baseline in TEWL measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each baseline score within each treatment using paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.051
95854754|NCT04040933|191669544|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.259
95854755|NCT04040933|191669544|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Erythema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.451|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.451
95854756|NCT04040933|191669545|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.999
95854757|NCT04040933|191669545|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Edema measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.739
95854758|NCT04040933|191669546|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95791015|NCT01294423|191550728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3533||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.59|-1.98|0.0003
95791016|NCT01294423|191550728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.69||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (HbA1c at randomization by gender) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.69|-2.08|0.0001
95791017|NCT02452047|191550744|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FOR %|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.5|21.4|||||Stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method by infection type|||21.4|-27.5|
95791018|NCT02452047|191550745|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in AE %|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|18.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||18.0|-33.1|
95791019|NCT02452047|191550746|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in SAE %|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.3|-47.8|
95791020|NCT02452047|191550747|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related AE %|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.2|-42.3|
95791021|NCT02452047|191550748|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related SAE %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|11.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.2|-19.7|
95791022|NCT02452047|191550749|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in discontinuation %|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-6.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-6.2|-43.3|
95791023|NCT02452047|191550750|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in drug-related discon %|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-0.3|-36.3|
95791024|NCT02452047|191550751|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in pyrexia %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|19.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||19.7|-25.2|
95815983|NCT03848455|191602595|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of SYNJ1 gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
95815984|NCT03848455|191602595|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of PPP3CB gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||0.149
96000099|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.62|5.01||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.01|-1.62|
95791025|NCT02452047|191550751|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference blood creatinine inc %|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-10.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-10.1|-49.8|
95791026|NCT02452047|191550752|OTHER|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|Difference in Category 1 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
95791027|NCT02452047|191550752|OTHER|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|Difference in Category 2 ECI %|-12.5||||0.047||95.0|-36.3|-0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||-0.3|-36.3|0.047
95791028|NCT02452047|191550753|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in nephrotoxicity %|-45.9||||0.002||95.0|-69.1|-18.4|||Fisher Exact||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||-18.4|-69.1|0.002
95791029|NCT02452047|191550754|OTHER|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|Difference in Day 28 FCR %|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|51.5|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.5|1.3|
95791030|NCT02452047|191550755|OTHER|Difference in mortality %|Difference in mortality %|-17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.4|6.7|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||6.7|-46.4|
95791031|NCT02452047|191550756|OTHER|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|Adjusted difference in OTX FCR %|33.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|61.1|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||61.1|7.4|
95791032|NCT02452047|191550757|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|Adjusted difference in EOT FCR %|25.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|53.6|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||53.6|3.1|
95791033|NCT02452047|191550758|OTHER|Adjusted difference in EFU FCR %|Difference in EFU FCR %|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|51.4|||||Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by infection-site stratum|||51.4|3.8|
95791034|NCT02452047|191550759|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
95791035|NCT02452047|191550760|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.8|36.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||36.6|-20.8|
95791036|NCT02452047|191550761|OTHER|Difference in percentages|Difference in FMR %|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.8|12.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.8|-52.8|
95791037|NCT03191799|191550787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791038|NCT03191799|191550787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791039|NCT03191799|191550787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791040|NCT03191799|191550787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791041|NCT03191799|191550787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791042|NCT03191799|191550789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791043|NCT03191799|191550789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791044|NCT03191799|191550789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791045|NCT03191799|191550789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95815985|NCT03848455|191602595|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||we use the method of RT-PCR to detect the relative expression level of NSF gene in Parkinson's disease group(90 participants), healthy controls group(125 participants) and Parkinson-plus syndrome group(23 participants).This gene expression is relative to a house keeping gene GAPDH.The data were processed using 2-△△Ct. ΔCT(test) = CT(target, test) - CT(ref, test), ΔCT(calibrator) = CT(target, calibrator) - CT(ref, calibrator),ΔΔCT = ΔCT(test) - ΔCT(calibrator).||||<0.001
95815986|NCT02481258|191602598|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test. A priori calculations to detect an effect size of 0.57 units indicated that that 50 patients per arm were needed to have 80% power. The actual effect size observed in the present study was 0.86.||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||0.05
95815987|NCT02481258|191602600|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-tests assuming initial recruitment of 50 subjects.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95815988|NCT02481258|191602601|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on a two-sample t-test.|||||>|0.05||||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis was done using an ANCOVA analysis adjusting for the baseline aortic valve calcium levels.||||>0.05
95815989|NCT02317627|191602616|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
95815990|NCT02317627|191602616|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0035||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
95791046|NCT03191799|191550789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95815991|NCT02317627|191602616|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0261||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0261
95815992|NCT02317627|191602616|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change for all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95815993|NCT02317627|191602617|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0282||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
95861397|NCT05407064|191681628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0492
95791047|NCT03191799|191550800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||0.0001
95791048|NCT03191799|191550800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95815994|NCT02317627|191602617|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0029
95815995|NCT02317627|191602617|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0703||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0703
95815996|NCT02317627|191602617|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects' PASI from baseline to Week 12.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95815997|NCT02317627|191602622|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
95861398|NCT05407064|191681628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0131
95791049|NCT03191799|191550800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791050|NCT03191799|191550800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791051|NCT03191799|191550800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||0.0004
95791052|NCT03191799|191550802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791053|NCT03191799|191550802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791054|NCT03191799|191550802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791055|NCT03191799|191550802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791056|NCT03191799|191550802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791057|NCT03191799|191550812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791058|NCT03191799|191550812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95815998|NCT02317627|191602622|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0479||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0479
95815999|NCT02317627|191602622|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.1513||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1513
95816000|NCT02317627|191602622|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 4.||||||0.0002||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95816001|NCT02317627|191602623|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
95816002|NCT02317627|191602623|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0017||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0017
95816003|NCT02317627|191602623|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to Week 8.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
95816004|NCT02317627|191602623|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to Week 8.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95816005|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0140
95816006|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0620
95816007|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in 400 mg BID from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.262||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2620
95816008|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 4 weeks.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
95816009|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0137||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
95861399|NCT05407064|191681629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3330
95791059|NCT03191799|191550812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791060|NCT03191799|191550812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791061|NCT03191799|191550812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791062|NCT03191799|191550813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 3 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791063|NCT03191799|191550813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 6 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791064|NCT03191799|191550813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 12 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791065|NCT03191799|191550813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Month 18 vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791066|NCT03191799|191550813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Early Terminatinon/Study Completion vs. Baseline||||<0.0001
95791067|NCT01421498|191550862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.10|0.0007
95791068|NCT01421498|191550863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.11|-0.15|0.7860
95791069|NCT01239797|191550864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.89|0.60|0.0014
95816010|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0064
95816011|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 8 weeks.||||||0.0743||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0743
95861400|NCT05407064|191681629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1193
95791070|NCT01239797|191550865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||Log Rank|2-sided p-value for stratified log rank test||Hazard Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||0.87|0.60|0.0005
95791071|NCT01239797|191550866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by B2 microglobulin (\<3.5 mg/L vs \>=3.5 mg/L), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs \>=2), and immunomodulatory drug use at randomization||Ratio of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab to Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone||2.78|1.36|0.0002
95791072|NCT01239797|191550866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|19.3||||||Difference of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone + Elotuzumab minus Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone computed using the method of DerSimonian and Laird (weighted average over the strata)||19.3|6.2|
95791073|NCT02631941|191550894|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|100.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.82|105.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||105.69|95.82|<0.001
95791074|NCT02631941|191550894|EQUIVALENCE|For budesonide AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80% - 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|102.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.55|109.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||109.13|95.55|<0.001
95791075|NCT02631941|191550895|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.96||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.31|92.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||92.86|83.31|0.002
95791076|NCT02631941|191550895|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol AUC0-last, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%).|Adjusted geometric means ratio|91.17||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.94|99.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.04|83.94|0.005
95791077|NCT02631941|191550896|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|157.86||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.12|172.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.91|144.12|1.00
95791078|NCT02631941|191550896|EQUIVALENCE|For Budesonide Cmax, the 90% Cls for Z7200 compared with Symbicort without and with charcoal do not lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of ( 73.74%, 135.62%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|166.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.35|187.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||187.57|148.35|1.00
95816012|NCT02317627|191602624|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change of all subjects from baseline to 8 weeks.|||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95816013|NCT02317627|191602629|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg QD from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95816014|NCT02317627|191602629|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 200 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.007||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95816015|NCT02317627|191602629|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change in Cohort 400 mg BID from baseline to 12 weeks.||||||0.09||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
95791079|NCT02631941|191550897|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|85.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.66|91.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.17|79.66|0.012
95791080|NCT02631941|191550897|EQUIVALENCE|For Formoterol Cmax, the 90% Cl for Z7200 compared to Symbicort without and with charcoal lie entirely within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (77.65%, 128.79%) and standard bioequivalence acceptance limits of (80.00%, 125.00%), respectively.|Adjusted geometric means ratio|87.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.48|94.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||94.47|81.48|0.020
95791081|NCT03933449|191550909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.82|0.36|0.0015
95791082|NCT03933449|191550910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.69|0.17|0.0008
95791083|NCT03933449|191550911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.83||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||0.83|0.37|0.0021
95791084|NCT03933449|191550912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|12.9||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.5||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||24.5|2.7|0.0084
95791085|NCT03933449|191550913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|17.1||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.0||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||38.0|-2.3|0.0403
95791086|NCT03933449|191550914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|13.3||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in %=0 versus H1: difference in %\>0.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||25.2|2.8|0.0083
95791087|NCT03933449|191550915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.58|0.177
95816016|NCT02317627|191602629|OTHER|No control group was used. Paired t-testing was used to determine the statistical significance of the mean change Overall from baseline to 12 weeks.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
95791088|NCT03933449|191550916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.46|0.44|0.238
95791089|NCT03933449|191550917|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate|||1.23|0.57|0.171
95791090|NCT04456686|191550929|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.70|-0.77|
95791091|NCT04456686|191550930|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.96|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.96|-0.82|
95791092|NCT04456686|191550931|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.63|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.63|-0.45|
95791093|NCT04456686|191550932|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||5.06|-3.31|
95791094|NCT04456686|191550933|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.5|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.50|-0.46|
95791095|NCT04456686|191550934|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.91|-0.72|
95791096|NCT04456686|191550935|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|12.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.20|-7.27|
95816017|NCT02317627|191602630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95816018|NCT02317627|191602630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95816019|NCT02317627|191602630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.084
95816020|NCT02317627|191602630|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made. Missing data were not imputed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
95816021|NCT00038948|191602647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|-2.68||||0.575||95.0|-12.27|6.91||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of 20.0 to 40.0 mL/min||6.91|-12.27|0.575
95816022|NCT00038948|191602647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|1.31||||0.278||95.0|-1.06|3.69||Analysis of covariance p-value|ANCOVA||Data was adjusted for baseline and center.|Baseline GFR of \>40.0 mL/min||3.69|-1.06|0.278
95816023|NCT00038948|191602648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 52 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||52 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.135
95816024|NCT00038948|191602648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||||||Tests the equality of rates between treatments across strata at 104 weeks.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||104 weeks statistical analysis across strata||||0.559
95816025|NCT05270863|191602649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.001
95816026|NCT01861665|191602667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8379||||||Pre Incision vs. Post Incision on Post op day 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8379
95791097|NCT04456686|191550936|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.85|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.85|-0.04|
95791098|NCT04456686|191550937|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|168.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.22|379.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||379.20|-38.22|
95791099|NCT04456686|191550938|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.06|-0.07|
95791100|NCT00243919|191550939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.831||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.391||The trial tested the superiority of LTP delivered early or late, compared to HEP, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05. The study-wide error rate was controlled by applying the Hochberg step-up procedure to the two primary comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Early-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression). Assuming that 30% of HEP participants would improve functional level of walking, we derived a sample size of 400 to detect a clinically relevant 20% effect size with 85% power, adjusting for an loss-to-follow-up rate of 15%.||1.391|0.497|0.481
95791101|NCT00243919|191550939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.192||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between Late-LTP and HEP adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||1.985|0.715|0.501
95791102|NCT00243919|191550940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.242||95.0||||We did not formally conduct statistical inference on the timing effect because the first primary null hypotheses is accepted. The p-value provided is the smallest alpha level that one would claim significant difference between early- and late-LTP.|Regression, Linear||Even though there was no formal inference of timing effect, we still provided descriptive statistics for the 6-month and 12-month changes. In addition, paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements.|The second primary analysis assessed the timing effect and its interaction with initial severity of gait impairment on walking speed change from baseline to 1 year after stroke.||||0.242
95791103|NCT00243919|191550941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: Early-LTP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between early-LTP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.21|1.18|0.010
95816027|NCT01861665|191602667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7263||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision post op day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7263
95816028|NCT01861665|191602667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Pre incision vs. Post incision day 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95816029|NCT03247829|191602668|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparative p-values were calculated by two-sided t-tests (paired analysis).||||||0.001
95791104|NCT00243919|191550941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|Pairwise comparisons were conducted: HEP versus Late-LTP, which had received only usual care in the 2- to 6-month post-stroke period.||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of participants who improved functional level of walking between HEP and Late-LTP (Usual Care) adjusting for pre-specified covariates (severity of impairment, clinical site, age, stroke type, side of hemiparesis and depression).||3.42|1.22|0.007
95791105|NCT00243919|191550942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between early-LTP and late-LTP.||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
95791106|NCT00243919|191550942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.14||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple testing was used in the pair-wise comparisons of the secondary outcomes. A difference is claimed to be statistically significant when p\<0.0014.|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month secondary analysis. Following the overall ANOVA test, pairwise comparison was conducted to assess differences in walking speed changes between HEP and late-LTP.||0.14|0.05|<.0001
95791107|NCT00243919|191550943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 12-month post stroke.|ANOVA|||Primary 12 month analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.45
95791108|NCT00243919|191550943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of 6 minute walking distance from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
95816030|NCT03247829|191602669|OTHER|||||||0.0931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0931
95816031|NCT02722408|191602677|OTHER|||||||0.0041||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0041
95816032|NCT02722408|191602678|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0010
95816033|NCT02722408|191602679|OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0012
95791109|NCT00243919|191550944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.10
95791110|NCT00243919|191550944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test differences across the three groups in change of number of steps from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis procedure was used to assess differences across the three groups in number of steps taken in the community. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare within-group improvements.||||0.04
95816034|NCT02722408|191602680|OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0560
95816035|NCT02722408|191602680|OTHER|||||||0.0219||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0219
95816036|NCT02722408|191602680|OTHER|||||||0.0286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0286
95816037|NCT02722408|191602681|OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0058
95816038|NCT02722408|191602681|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0019
95816039|NCT02722408|191602681|OTHER|||||||0.0024||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0024
95816040|NCT02722408|191602682|OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0592
95816041|NCT02722408|191602682|OTHER|||||||0.0266||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0266
95816042|NCT02722408|191602682|OTHER|||||||0.0336||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0336
96000100|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|7.62||||||Pre-lunch; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||7.62|0.54|
95791111|NCT00243919|191550945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.48
96000101|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.66|2.27||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||2.27|-3.66|
95791112|NCT00243919|191550945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Participation from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
95791113|NCT00243919|191550946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.07
95791114|NCT00243919|191550946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS ADL/iADL from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
95791115|NCT00243919|191550947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.69
95791116|NCT00243919|191550947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of SIS Mobility from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<.0001
95791117|NCT00243919|191550948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.13
95791118|NCT00243919|191550948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of FM-LE from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary analysis. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
95791119|NCT00243919|191550949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.06
95791120|NCT00243919|191550949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of Berg Balance Score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.001
95791121|NCT00243919|191550950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 12-month post stroke.||12 month primary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||0.62
95791122|NCT00243919|191550950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Test differences across the three groups in change of ABC score from baseline to 6-month post stroke.||6 month secondary outcome. Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group improvements and ANOVA to assess differences across the three groups followed with pairwise comparisons.||||<0.001
95791123|NCT02059239|191550951|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|98.6||||||||98.6|65.3|
95791124|NCT02059239|191550951|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|95.9||||||||95.9|54.4|
95791125|NCT02059239|191550952|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
95791126|NCT02059239|191550952|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|100.0||||||||100.0|75.3|
95791127|NCT02059239|191550953|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
95791128|NCT02059239|191550953|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.8||||||||99.8|64.0|
95791129|NCT02059239|191550954|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
95791130|NCT02059239|191550954|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|84.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|98.1||||||||98.1|54.6|
95791131|NCT02059239|191550955|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|100.0||||||||100.0|79.4|
95791132|NCT02059239|191550955|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|74.9||||||||74.9|19.2|
95791133|NCT02059239|191550956|OTHER|Simple proportion in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0.0|
95791134|NCT02059239|191550956|OTHER|Simple proportion in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|45.4||||||||45.4|1.9|
95791135|NCT02059239|191550957|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|86.7||||||||86.7|41.0|
96000102|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.7|8.43||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||8.43|1.70|
95791136|NCT02059239|191550957|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|43.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|70.1||||||||70.1|19.8|
95791137|NCT02059239|191550958|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4||||||||98.4|61.7|
95791138|NCT02059239|191550958|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|76.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.2|95.0||||||||95.0|46.2|
95791139|NCT02059239|191550959|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in autologous group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|81.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|96.0||||||||96.0|54.4|
95791140|NCT02059239|191550959|OTHER|Simple proportion (objective response: CR+PR) in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|61.4||||||||61.4|9.1|
95791141|NCT02059239|191550960|OTHER|Median PFS in allogeneic group with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval.|Median (95% CI)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|25.0||||||||25|5|
95791142|NCT01418339|191550965|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-4.63|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-1.63||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-1.63|-7.62|=0.0028
95791143|NCT01418339|191550966|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.52|||=|0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.12|-0.93|=0.0124
95791144|NCT01418339|191550967|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||=|0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|4.32||P-value was derived from a repeated measures linear model with treatment, week, and treatment by week interaction as fixed categorical effects, the baseline value as a fixed covariate, and week as the time variable for repeated measures.|MMRM|||The statistical comparison was performed using MMRM model at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||4.32|-8.31|=0.5317
95791145|NCT02219685|191550968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95791146|NCT02219685|191550968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95791147|NCT02219685|191550968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95816043|NCT02722408|191602683|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
95861401|NCT05407064|191681629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0032
95791148|NCT02219685|191550969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95816044|NCT02722408|191602683|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0017
95816045|NCT02722408|191602683|OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0017
95816046|NCT02722408|191602684|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
96000103|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|6.94||||||Compared with Baseline (Pre-dinner)||6.94|-0.10|
95791149|NCT02219685|191550969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95791150|NCT02219685|191550969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95791151|NCT02219685|191550970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||This p-value for treatment effect on basal ganglia was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95791152|NCT02219685|191550970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This p-value for treatment effect on frontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95791153|NCT02219685|191550970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||This p-value for treatment effect on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was based on a two sample t-test assuming equal variances.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95791154|NCT02219685|191550971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0795
95791155|NCT02219685|191550972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7007
95791156|NCT02219685|191550973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2677||||||The p-value was ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2677
95791157|NCT02219685|191550974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9870
95958351|NCT00846768|191888939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0019||95.0|-0.076|-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.017|-0.076|0.0019
95791158|NCT02219685|191550975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3388||||||The p-value was from ANCOVA model for change from baseline with treatment group and baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3388
95791159|NCT01746862|191551031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline age and baseline height as the covariates.||||4.78|2.17|<0.0001
95791160|NCT00731822|191551058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.1||||||||5.1|-3.9|
95791161|NCT04073303|191551062|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.1|40.1|<0.0001
95791162|NCT04073303|191551063|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|71.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.7|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||76.3|60.7|<0.0001
95791163|NCT04073303|191551064|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.5|45.6|<0.0001
95791164|NCT04073303|191551065|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|49.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.4|40.6|<0.0001
95791165|NCT04073303|191551066|SUPERIORITY||Rate-Difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|77.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||77.5|59.6|<0.0001
95791166|NCT04073303|191551067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-5.64|<0.0001
95791167|NCT03258593|191551073|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|67.5||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.202
95791168|NCT03258593|191551073|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.0||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||160.3|67.9|0.667
95791169|NCT03258593|191551073|OTHER|Location Tests (Wilcoxon Rank sum test)|Median Difference (Net)|44.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|75.0|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test|||||75|25|0.463
95791170|NCT03258593|191551075|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|-17.75||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.6|170.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||170.3|-211.6|0.863
95791171|NCT03258593|191551075|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|114.1||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|160.3|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||160.3|67.9|0.666
95791172|NCT03258593|191551075|OTHER|Location test (Rank sum based i.e., Wilcoxon test)|Median Difference (Net)|21.3||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.9|269.9|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test||Median change; Signed Rank (S/R) of post-treatment PDL-1 levels minus baseline.|||269.9|-203.9|0.949
95791173|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|38.0||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||38.0|1.7|<0.001
95791174|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.25||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interferon Gamma (IFN-γ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||11.25|1.5|<0.001
95791175|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α) at 3 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.7|0.1|<0.05
95791176|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α ) at 5 weeks compared to their respective baseline values.||0.96|-0.01|0.052
95791177|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.61||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||4.61|-0.03|0.055
95791178|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.96|||Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|Hochberg adjustment may be used.||Interleukin 6 (IL-6) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.96|-0.06|0.06
95791179|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.62||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.62|-1.63|0.420
95791180|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|1.31||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 8 (IL-8) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||1.31|-1.315|0.733
95791181|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 3 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.21|0.04|0.010
95791182|NCT03258593|191551077|OTHER|Other: median difference|Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4||Hochberg adjustment may be used.|Paired samples Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Interleukin 10 (IL-10) at 5 weeks as compared to their respective baseline values.||0.40|0.04|0.014
95791183|NCT03258593|191551079|OTHER|One curve estimated in this cohort. Not compared to any other curves.|Kaplan-Meier product-limit|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.5|97.5||Unadjusted p-value|Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates|||Disease free survival time was evaluated with the product-limit estimator by Kaplan-Meier test.||97.5|2.5|
95791184|NCT04464707|191551095|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.22|||ANCOVA|||||1.22|-1.48|0.8484
95958352|NCT00846768|191888939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.4111||95.0|-0.041|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.017|-0.041|0.4111
95791185|NCT02937623|191551120|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.591|-0.297|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: change from baseline in Schiff sensitivity score as response and treatment as factors and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariate|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-0.297|-0.591|<.0001
95791186|NCT03143101|191551125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|30.9||p-value is calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.9|4.8|0.006
95791187|NCT03143101|191551129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|47.8||p-value is calculated from the CMH test adjusting for the prior influenza vaccination status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.8|14.4|<0.001
95791188|NCT01435759|191551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.14, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model EMax.|||||0.004
95816047|NCT02722408|191602684|OTHER|||||||0.0255||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0255
95816048|NCT02722408|191602684|OTHER|||||||0.0312||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 86||||0.0312
95816049|NCT02722408|191602685|OTHER|||||||0.4489||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4489
95816050|NCT02722408|191602685|OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.5964
95816051|NCT02722408|191602685|OTHER|||||||0.6785||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6785
95816052|NCT02722408|191602686|OTHER|||||||0.2177||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2177
95816053|NCT02722408|191602686|OTHER|||||||0.3209||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3209
95816054|NCT02722408|191602686|OTHER|||||||0.3101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3101
95816055|NCT02722408|191602687|OTHER|||||||0.0057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0057
95861402|NCT05407064|191681629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total CGI-S scores determined by the difference in means and difference between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0127
95958353|NCT00846768|191888939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.709||95.0|-0.035|0.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.024|-0.035|0.7090
95791189|NCT01435759|191551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.48, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.032
95791190|NCT01435759|191551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.26 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
95791191|NCT01435759|191551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.88, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.010
95791192|NCT01435759|191551143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The systolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.12, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
95816056|NCT02722408|191602687|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0022
95861403|NCT05407064|191681630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0046
95861404|NCT05407064|191681630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0052
95791193|NCT01435759|191551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.86 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax.|||||0.011
95791194|NCT01435759|191551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.59, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Exponential.|||||0.023
95791195|NCT01435759|191551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MCP-Mod Analysis|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Least Squares Means|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.28, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||0.003
95791196|NCT01435759|191551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 2.93, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||0.009
95791197|NCT01435759|191551144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The diastolic blood pressure p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.13, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||0.005
95791198|NCT01435759|191551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.24, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Emax|||||<0.001
95791199|NCT01435759|191551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 3.36, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Expontential.|||||0.002
95791200|NCT01435759|191551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Linear.|||||<0.001
95791201|NCT01435759|191551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic1.|||||<0.001
95791202|NCT01435759|191551145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||MCP-Mod Analysis|The pulse p-value was based on a critical value of 1.99 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 4.39 was based on MCP-Mod Analysis for the candidate model Logistic2.|||||<0.001
95791203|NCT01435759|191551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis Method|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.10, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Betamod.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||1.000
95816057|NCT02722408|191602687|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0029
95816058|NCT02722408|191602688|OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0008
95816059|NCT02722408|191602688|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.0005
95791204|NCT01435759|191551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.942|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.41, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Emax.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.942
95791205|NCT01435759|191551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.995|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.20, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Linear.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method.||||0.995
95816060|NCT02722408|191602688|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.0002
95816061|NCT02722408|191602689|OTHER|||||||0.4103||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4103
95861405|NCT05407064|191681630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
95861406|NCT05407064|191681630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
95861407|NCT05407064|191681631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0567
95861408|NCT05407064|191681631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0235
95861409|NCT05407064|191681631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
96000104|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.42|0.18||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||0.18|-8.42|
95791206|NCT01435759|191551146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Means|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.978|ONE_SIDED|||||Any p-value \<=0.10 indicates successful establishment of dose-response relationship.|MCP-Mod Analysis|The adjusted p-value was based on a critical value of 2.02 from a multivariate-t distribution with 341 degrees of freedom.|The t-statistic used for this analysis, 0.30, was based on MCP-Mod Analysis from the linear contrast using optimal coefficients for the pre-specified candidate model Logistic.|Analysis of Dose-Response Using the MCP-Mod Analysis Method||||0.978
95791207|NCT02533934|191551163|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
95791208|NCT02533934|191551163|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||APRI change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
95791209|NCT02533934|191551163|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
95791210|NCT02533934|191551163|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance|||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FIB4 change from baseline to last follow-up||||<.01
95791211|NCT02533934|191551165|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is defined by the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Signed Rank Test)|||||||<0.001
95791212|NCT04552132|191551172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
95791213|NCT04552132|191551173|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95791214|NCT04552132|191551174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
95791215|NCT04552132|191551175|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95791216|NCT04552132|191551176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
95791217|NCT04552132|191551177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.60
95791218|NCT04552132|191551178|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95791219|NCT04552132|191551179|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95861410|NCT05407064|191681631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
95861411|NCT05407064|191681632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2632
95791220|NCT04552132|191551180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95791221|NCT04552132|191551181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.4993
95791222|NCT04552132|191551182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95791223|NCT04552132|191551183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
95791224|NCT01705977|191551206|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.51|||||95% Confidence Interval was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-0.31|
95791225|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.85|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.85|-1.55|
95791226|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.20|-1.60|
95791227|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.31|
95791228|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
95791229|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
95791230|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.96|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.96|-0.44|
95791231|NCT01705977|191551207|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
95791232|NCT01705977|191551209|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.13|||||95% CI was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.13|-1.03|
95861412|NCT05407064|191681632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.2962
95861413|NCT05407064|191681632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0013
95861414|NCT05407064|191681632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0547|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0547
95861415|NCT05407064|191681633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0937
95861416|NCT05407064|191681633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.8230
95791233|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.51|||||95% CI for serious infections was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.51|-2.02|
95791234|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.04|||||95% CI for opportunistic infections and other infections of interest (serious and non-serious) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||-0.04|-1.96|
95791235|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||||95% CI for malignancies (excluding NMSC) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.24|-0.44|
95816062|NCT02722408|191602689|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6164
95816063|NCT02722408|191602689|OTHER|||||||0.6732||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.6732
95816064|NCT02722408|191602690|OTHER|||||||0.2003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.2003
95816065|NCT02722408|191602690|OTHER|||||||0.3323||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600mg: Day 56||||0.3323
95816066|NCT02722408|191602690|OTHER|||||||0.3047||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900mg: Day 84||||0.3047
95816067|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.3601||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3601
95791236|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||||95% CI for NMSC was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.31|-0.21|
95816068|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1920
95816069|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.2912||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2912
95816070|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
95816071|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
95791237|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.58|||||95% CI for psychiatric events suggesting serious mood disorders and anxiety (serious depression) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.58|0.02|
95816072|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
95791238|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||||95% CI for suicidality (C-SSRS) was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||1.05|-0.42|
95791239|NCT01705977|191551210|OTHER||Difference in percentage versus placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||||95% CI for SIHR was calculated using simple asymptotic Chi-Square (Pearson) method.|||0.61|-0.01|
95816073|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0444
95816074|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.0159||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0159
95816075|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.0235||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0235
95816076|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0005
95816077|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
95791240|NCT01705977|191551212|OTHER||Odds ratio versus placebo|1.3||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.65|||Regression, Logistic||95% CI and P-value was calculated from a logistic regression model for the comparison between belimumab and placebo including treatment group, Baseline prednisone dose, screening SELENA SLEDAI score (\<=9 versus \>=10) and region|||1.65|1.03|0.0284
95791241|NCT00248651|191551215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Overall treatment effect from logistic regression model incorporating balancing factors. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.05
95791242|NCT00248651|191551218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for overall quality of life. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.02
95791243|NCT00248651|191551218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Eat/Drink subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
95791244|NCT00248651|191551218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Interference subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.06
95791245|NCT00248651|191551218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Sleep Disturbance subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.01
95791246|NCT00248651|191551218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between antidepressant arms and placebo for Work/Study subscale. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||0.04
95791247|NCT01275144|191551224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.94|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||0.94|0.86|
95791248|NCT01275144|191551225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median of paired differences|0.5||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.00|0.50|0.0021
95791249|NCT01275144|191551226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08|||||Ratio of LY2216684 to Placebo|||1.08|1.01|
95791250|NCT04391842|191551267|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95791251|NCT04391842|191551268|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95791252|NCT00810199|191551269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.799||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.799|0.882|0.2055
95791253|NCT00810199|191551269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.814||Logistic regression including treatment , region and baseline DAS28.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.||||1.814|0.889|0.1894
95791254|NCT00810199|191551270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8742||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8742
95791255|NCT00810199|191551270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6212
95791256|NCT00810199|191551270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.0963
95791257|NCT00810199|191551271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.2969
95791258|NCT00810199|191551271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.2215
95791259|NCT00810199|191551271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1243||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.1243
95791260|NCT00810199|191551272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6775||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.6775
95791261|NCT00810199|191551272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9976||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.9976
95791262|NCT00810199|191551272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2168
95791263|NCT00810199|191551273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8369||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.8369
95791264|NCT00810199|191551273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.6528
95791265|NCT00810199|191551273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2546||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 104||||0.2546
95791266|NCT00810199|191551274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1018
95791267|NCT00810199|191551275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7176
95791268|NCT00810199|191551276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8526
95791269|NCT00810199|191551277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2217|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2217
95791270|NCT00810199|191551278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Baseline DAS28 as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.41|0.0008
95791271|NCT00810199|191551279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.053|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment, region and baseline DAS28.|Odds ratio is for Tocilizumab + Methotrexate relative to Tocilizumab + Placebo.|||2.109|1.053|0.0245
95791272|NCT00810199|191551279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.482||||0.0258||95.0|1.048|2.095||Stratified by region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.095|1.048|0.0258
95791273|NCT00810199|191551280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 24||||0.0287
95791274|NCT00810199|191551280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wald Chi-square|Asymptotic test; parameter estimate is zero.||Week 52||||0.2240
95791275|NCT00810199|191551281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.0497
95791276|NCT00810199|191551281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.3918
95791277|NCT00810199|191551282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 24||||0.0019
95791278|NCT00810199|191551282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Region and baseline DAS28 (≤5.5 and \>5.5) included as stratification variables.||Week 52||||0.1181
95791279|NCT00810199|191551283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7776||||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.7776
95791280|NCT00810199|191551283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8843
95791281|NCT00810199|191551284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9095
95791282|NCT00810199|191551284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7179
95791283|NCT00810199|191551285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3113||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.3113
95791284|NCT00810199|191551285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2931||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.2931
95791285|NCT00810199|191551286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2451||95.0||||P-value is from a 2-sided, Wilcoxon rank-sum test of no difference between the 2 treatment groups in change from baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2451
95791286|NCT00810199|191551286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8841||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.8841
95791287|NCT00810199|191551287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9655
95791288|NCT00810199|191551287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.0308
95791289|NCT00810199|191551288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.5186
95791290|NCT00810199|191551288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7706||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.7706
95791291|NCT00810199|191551289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.6067
95791292|NCT00810199|191551289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.6810
95791293|NCT00810199|191551290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.9323
95791294|NCT00810199|191551290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1448
95791295|NCT00810199|191551291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.09|-0.43|0.2034
95816078|NCT02722408|191602691|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
95791296|NCT00810199|191551291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.32||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.32|-0.88|0.3611
95791297|NCT00810199|191551291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.05||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.05|-1.16|0.0342
95791298|NCT00810199|191551292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.16|-0.23|0.7095
95791299|NCT00810199|191551292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.57||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.57|-0.45|0.8147
95791300|NCT00810199|191551292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||0.04|-0.67|0.0778
95791301|NCT00810199|191551293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.0||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||-0.00|-0.25|0.0441
95791302|NCT00810199|191551293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||-0.13|-0.54|0.0012
95791303|NCT00810199|191551293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.02||Baseline x-ray and DAS28 as covariates and treatment group and region as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||Week 104||-0.02|-0.56|0.0372
95791304|NCT00810199|191551294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.75||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|14.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||Week 52||14.52|-1.02|0.0694
95791305|NCT00810199|191551294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Week 104||||0.1695
95791306|NCT00810199|191551295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.91||||0.0496||95.0|-5.86|0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||0.05|-5.86|0.0496
95791307|NCT00810199|191551296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.48||||0.5188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region and categorical baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5).||||3.62|-6.59|0.5188
95791308|NCT00810199|191551297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2652|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.2652
95791309|NCT00810199|191551297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52||||0.1970
95791310|NCT00810199|191551297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1671|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1671
95791311|NCT00810199|191551299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|5.22||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.64|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||11.64|-1.20|0.1110
95791312|NCT00810199|191551300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Wald CI)|-2.11||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.85|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance model included treatment group, region and baseline DAS28 (≤ 5.5 and \> 5.5) as fixed factors.||||5.85|-10.07|0.6027
95791313|NCT00810199|191551301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1695|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1695
95791314|NCT00810199|191551302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0096
95791315|NCT00810199|191551303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0734
95791316|NCT01691378|191551315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|8.3|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BHS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BHS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BHS as function of arm \& T1 BHS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.3|.52|.03
95791317|NCT01691378|191551315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-1.3|-7.9|.01
95791318|NCT01691378|191551315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.2|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-3.2|-9.3|.0007
95791319|NCT01691378|191551316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BSS compared bet arms controlling for T1 BSS. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BSS as function of arm \& T1 BSS. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||8.0|-.29|.07
95791320|NCT01691378|191551316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||3.1|-3.3|.94
95791321|NCT01691378|191551316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.12|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||.12|-7.0|.06
95791322|NCT01691378|191551317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.9|||ANCOVA|||"Analyses 2-sided test w/ sig level .05. N=35 analyzed w/ α .05 provided 80% power to detect effect size d=1. T1 variables compared using Wilcoxon rank sum \& Fisher exact tests. Per protocol analysis, all participants required T2 BHS.~T2 BDI compared bet arms controlling for T1 BDI. No confounders significant at .10, not included in model. Analysis of covariance modeled T2 BDI as function of arm \& T1 BDI. Estimated mean difference in T2 scores calculated, no adjustment for multiple comparisons."||12.9|-1.7|.13
95791323|NCT01691378|191551317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-3.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis contrasted T1 to T2 change with T2 to T3 change in Waitlist arm only. Waitlist participants serve as their own control \& only variable controlled for was change in Waitlist period (if participants improved greatly during Waitlist period, they would no longer have enough room to change in Intervention period). Linear regression used with difference in change as dependent variable \& Waitlist period change as only predictor. Estimated mean difference in change calculated from this model."||-3.6|-13.8|.003
95791324|NCT01691378|191551317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-5.3|||one-sample t-test|||Analysis investigated change from T1 to T3 within the WtoH Intervention first arm only. This difference was calculated and a 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the estimate was different from zero. As this change was not compared with a control group change, baseline values were not accounted for.||-5.3|-18.0|.002
95816079|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.3646||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3646
95816080|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.1994||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1994
95816081|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.2858||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2858
95791325|NCT00808067|191551318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.64|0.0055
95816082|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.0829||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0829
95816083|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0492
95816084|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.0442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0442
95861417|NCT05407064|191681633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0032
95816085|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.736||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7360
95816086|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.6917||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6917
95816087|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.7131||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.7131
96000105|NCT01933672|191976172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|5.89||||||Pre-dinner; Time-matched change from baseline in pre-meal insulin on Day 14 was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period, treatment, the treatment by-time interaction, period-specific baseline and carryover as fixed effects. Subjects within sequences were modeled as random effects.||5.89|-2.60|
95791326|NCT00808067|191551325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.84|0.5119
95791327|NCT00808067|191551326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.94|0.2371
95791328|NCT00808067|191551327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.89|0.5052
95791329|NCT00808067|191551328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2241||95.0|0.82|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.82|0.2241
95791330|NCT02002871|191551387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was performed on the difference of the change from baseline of the Blue light treated plaque versus the Control plaque.||||0.0152
95791331|NCT03438266|191551428|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper limit of the confidence interval at Month 1 was less than 0.5, then treatment with cannula was considered non-inferior to treatment with needle.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||||The 95% CI is based on the paired t-test.|Change from Baseline at Month 1||0.25|-0.05|
95791332|NCT03438266|191551429|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|3.98||||||||3.98|-7.31|
95816088|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.0014||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0014
95791333|NCT01868646|191551436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95791334|NCT01868646|191551437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0426
95791335|NCT01868646|191551438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5990
95791336|NCT01868646|191551439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of mean value at baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6215
95791337|NCT01868646|191551440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.6155
95791338|NCT01868646|191551440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.7507
95791339|NCT01868646|191551440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4195||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.4195
95816089|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.0009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0009
96000106|NCT01933672|191976175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.39||||||Compared with baseline||1.39|0.21|
95791340|NCT01868646|191551440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3609||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3609
95791341|NCT01868646|191551441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0605
95791342|NCT01868646|191551442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0726
95791343|NCT01868646|191551443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3108|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3108
95816090|NCT02722408|191602692|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis: Change in LDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, patient as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0007
95861418|NCT05407064|191681633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0129
95791344|NCT01868646|191551444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2934
95791345|NCT01868646|191551445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3410
95791346|NCT01868646|191551446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Satisfaction||||0.1577
95791347|NCT01868646|191551446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycemia||||0.5262
95791348|NCT01868646|191551446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7417|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycemia||||0.7417
95791349|NCT01249417|191551447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.38||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.13|-0.64|0.0029
95791350|NCT01249417|191551447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
95791351|NCT01249417|191551448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.14|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.14|0.50|<0.0001
95791352|NCT01249417|191551448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||1.10|0.45|<0.0001
95816091|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.388||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3880
95816092|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.2057||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2057
95816093|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.2892||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2892
95816094|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0052
95816095|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0028
95958354|NCT00846768|191888939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.0211||95.0|0.005|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.064|0.005|0.0211
95791353|NCT01249417|191551449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|5.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.32|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||8.32|2.31|0.0006
95816096|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.0026
95791354|NCT01249417|191551449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.65||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|7.71|||ANOVA|||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons, as well as the p-values were obtained from an ANOVA on the visit value with treatment, age range at baseline, BTX status at baseline and centre as covariates.||7.71|1.59|0.0031
95791355|NCT03074695|191551461|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.03||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|20.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline characteristics (parturient race, ethnicity, height, and induction status).||||20.08|-14.02|0.766
95816097|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0493
95816098|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0253
95816099|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0394||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0394
95791356|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.:~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||2.36|1.0|0.048
95958355|NCT00846768|191888940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1753||95.0|-0.045|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.008|-0.045|0.1753
95791357|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for OS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported. The study was designed to enroll 46 evaluable participants to detect a log hazard ratio of 1.279 for TBmax with HV as a covariate with a 50% event rate||1.81|.75|0.50
95791358|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|0.97|0.97|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.03|0.97|0.90
95791359|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.34|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.34|1.02|0.024
95791360|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.72|||Regression, Cox||HR reported per 0.01 increase|"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.72|1.01|0.045
95791361|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Regression, Cox|||Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.37|0.90|0.31
95791362|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.29|0.88|0.51
95791363|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the lower ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.26|0.79|0.9700
95791364|NCT00902577|191551471|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measures water diffusion through tissue. Cerebral infarction leads to diffusion restriction resulting in a low ADC signal in the infarcted area. A double Gaussian mixed model was fit to the ADC histogram and the mean of the higher ADC curve, was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for overall survival (OS) time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.09|0.91|0.9007
95791365|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||Regression, Cox|||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~This marker was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for Progression Free Survival time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.91|.80|0.33
95791366|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia TBmax was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported.||1.4|.61|0.72
95816100|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
95816101|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
95816102|NCT02722408|191602693|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
95816103|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.3833||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3833
96000107|NCT01933672|191976175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.43|0.93||||||Compared with baseline||0.93|-0.43|
96000108|NCT01933672|191976175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.4||||||Compared with baseline||0.40|-0.92|
96000109|NCT01933672|191976175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.17|1.95||||||||1.95|0.17|
96000110|NCT01933672|191976175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|1.47||||||||1.47|-0.45|
95816104|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.2172||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2172
95958356|NCT00846768|191888940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.3444||95.0|-0.04|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.014|-0.040|0.3444
95816105|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.293||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2930
95816106|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.1217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1217
95816107|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0901||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0901
95816108|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0850
95816109|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0747||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0747
95816110|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0279||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0279
95816111|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0492||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0492
95816112|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0003
95816113|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
95816114|NCT02722408|191602694|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Non-HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0002
95816115|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.8972||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8972
95816116|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.7867||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7867
95958357|NCT00846768|191888940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.1161||95.0|-0.005|0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.049|-0.005|0.1161
96000111|NCT03037905|191976200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-17.1|0.20
95816117|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.4974||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4974
95816118|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.5464||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5464
95816119|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.7668||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7668
95816120|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9276
95816121|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.5821||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.5821
95958358|NCT00846768|191888940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.6789||95.0|-0.033|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.021|-0.033|0.6789
95816122|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.8881||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8881
95816123|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.8525||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8525
95816124|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.0112||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0112
95816125|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0018
95816126|NCT02722408|191602695|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0028
95816127|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.8985||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.8985
95861419|NCT05407064|191681634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1889
95861420|NCT05407064|191681634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1589
95958359|NCT00846768|191888940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0129||95.0|0.007|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.062|0.007|0.0129
95791367|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.04|.98|0.355
95791368|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.23|0.99|0.074
95791369|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||"ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.63|1.04|0.021
95791370|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps, computed from the integral of ∆R2\*(t), were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV); nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature and was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time.~The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.54|1.06|0.0096
95791371|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF and provide another measure of vascular permeability and perfusion.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate Cox regression model for PFS time. The hazard ratio, along with its 95% confidence interval and the p-value based on Wald's statistic are reported."||1.38|1.01|0.038
95791372|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression for SUVpeak to predict PFS6||1.463|0.318|0.3253
95791373|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.9836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|2.434|||Regression, Logistic|||TBmax was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6.||2.434|0.403|0.9836
95791374|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.957||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.017|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypoxic Volume (HV) was modeled with a logistic regression model for 6month progression free survival (PFS6) .||1.017|0.900|0.1566
95791375|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.273|||Regression, Logistic|||"Mean ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Mean ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.273|0.775|0.9554
95791376|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.402|||Regression, Logistic|||"Median ktrans were computed using a matrix-based linearization method to fit tissue ∆R1(t) to the extended Tofts model.~Median ktrans was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6"||1.402|0.602|0.6941
95791377|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.744||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.095|||Regression, Logistic|||"Relative cerebral blood volume (RCBV) maps were corrected for leakage effects and normalized to normal appearing white matter (nRCBV).~nRCBV was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.095|0.506|0.1340
96000112|NCT03037905|191976201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.3|-5.9|0.60
95791378|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|||"cerebral blood flow (CBF) maps were was normalized to the mean of the region of interest (ROI) in normal appearing white matter to produce the nCBF.~nCBF was modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6."||1.161|0.580|0.2642
95816128|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.7664||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7664
95791379|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.855||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.357|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) low values were modeled with a univariate logistic regression model for PFS6||1.357|0.539|0.5069
95791380|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) high values were modeled with a univariate Logistic regression model for PFS6||1.064|0.735|0.1921
95791381|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.79||||||"FMISO selectively binds to hypoxic tissues so that SUVpeak within a region provides a measure of tumor hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.79|0.42|
95791382|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.78||||||"T/Bmax is the pixel in the tumor region with the maximum tumor:blood ratio (T/Bmax) and T/Bmax depicts the magnitude of the hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.78|0.39|
95791383|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.83||||||"Hypoxia Volume (HV) depicts the volume of tumor that has crossed the threshold for hypoxia.~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.46|
95791384|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83||||||"mean ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of mean ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.83|0.42|
95791385|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.84||||||"Median ktrans reflects the rate of gadolinium moves from plasma to extravascular extracellular space (predominantly though blood flow and capillary leakage).~Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of Median ktrans to predict PFS9."||0.84|0.44|
95791386|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.89||||||nRCBV provides a measure of tumor vasculature Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.54|
95791387|NCT00902577|191551472|OTHER|An Area Under the Curve (AUC) with a lower bound of at least 0.5 is considered statistically significant.|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||||||nCBF provides a measure of vascular permeability and perfusion. Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) analysis was perform to determine the accuracy of this marker to predict PFS9.||0.89|0.55|
95791388|NCT00501631|191551535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0|||||Van der Waerden test|||The null hypothesis that there is no difference between two treatment groups (i.e. Placebo and Vivitrol) was tested using a two-sided Van der Waerden test. Response profiles were tabulated as a cumulative percent of subjects at each decile of percent heavy drinking days.||||0.336
95791389|NCT01039467|191551557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95791390|NCT01039467|191551558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95791391|NCT01039467|191551559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.833
95791392|NCT01039467|191551560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.265
95791393|NCT01039467|191551561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95791394|NCT01039467|191551562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95791395|NCT01039467|191551563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0008
95791396|NCT01039467|191551564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
95791397|NCT01039467|191551565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.493
95791398|NCT03575702|191551573|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is considered as change in mean daily urination episodes of 0,8 episodes per day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.5595|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.38|||ANCOVA|The number of urination episodes at the initiation of therapy is used as covariate, and the therapy group is used as a factor.||"The null hypothesis is that effect of Urotol according to the assessment of mean daily urination episodes exceeds effect of Uritos.~A sample containing of 222 patients (111 per study group) is considered sufficient to prove the alternative hypothesis at the significance level 0.025% and study power 80%. Given the expected drop out rate during the treatment period, the total number of patients to be randomized is 300 (150 in each group)."||0.38||=0.5595
95816129|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.4755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.4755
95816130|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.2286||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2286
95816131|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.3975||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3975
95958360|NCT00846768|191888941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.4931||95.0|-0.023|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.047|-0.023|0.4931
95791399|NCT03575702|191551574|OTHER||||||=|0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0008
95791400|NCT03575702|191551575|OTHER||||||=|0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0099
95791401|NCT03575702|191551576|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95791402|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||<0.0001
95791403|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||=|0.0236|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.0236
95791404|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
95791405|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||=|0.0018|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0018
95791406|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||=|0.3835|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||=0.3835
95791407|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||=|0.0088|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in daytime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||=0.0088
95791408|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||=|0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 2||||||=0.0004
95791409|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 4||||||<0.0001
95816132|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.446||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4460
95958361|NCT00846768|191888941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.2597||95.0|-0.015|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.015|0.2597
95791410|NCT03575702|191551577|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in nighttime number of daily incontinence episodes - week 8||||||<0.0001
95791411|NCT03575702|191551578|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
95791412|NCT03575702|191551579|OTHER||||||=|0.1348|||||||ANCOVA|Week 2 changes||||||=0.1348
95791413|NCT03575702|191551579|OTHER||||||=|0.3199|||||||ANCOVA|Week 4 changes||||||=0.3199
95791414|NCT03575702|191551579|OTHER||||||=|0.9537|||||||ANCOVA|Week 8 changes||||||=0.9537
95791415|NCT03575702|191551580|OTHER||||||=|0.5321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.5321
95816133|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.9414||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9414
95816134|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.9735||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9735
95816135|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.9825||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9825
95816136|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.442||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4420
95958362|NCT00846768|191888941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0006||95.0|0.027|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.097|0.027|0.0006
95791416|NCT03575702|191551581|OTHER||||||=|0.4839|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Change week 12||||||=0.4839
95791417|NCT03575702|191551582|OTHER||||||=|0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.86
95791418|NCT00705757|191551588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Upper Lid||||0.769
95791419|NCT00705757|191551588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of Lower Lid||||0.230
95791420|NCT00705757|191551588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||One way ANOVA of cheek/face||||0.851
95791421|NCT05559905|191551594|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.29||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.58|-1.16|0.578
95791422|NCT05559905|191551595|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.69||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.17|-0.79|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||-0.79|-6.17|0.201
95791423|NCT05559905|191551601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.65|2.42|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.42|-3.65|0.736
96000113|NCT03037905|191976202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-7.0|.76
95791424|NCT05559905|191551602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.93||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.88|5.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||5.02|-8.88|0.646
95791425|NCT05559905|191551603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.14||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.04|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.04|-1.31|0.849
95791426|NCT05559905|191551604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-2.09||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.97|1.78|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.78|-5.97|0.371
95791427|NCT05559905|191551605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.82||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.11|1.47|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.47|-5.11|0.360
95791428|NCT05559905|191551606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.46||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.57|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel A (prophylaxis) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.57|-1.50|0.459
95791429|NCT05559905|191551608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|24.5||||||||24.50|-18.28|
95791430|NCT05559905|191551609|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.37|25.69||||||||25.69|-19.37|
95791431|NCT05559905|191551610|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|19.91||||||||19.91|-25.07|
95791432|NCT05559905|191551611|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-16.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.77|5.64||||||||5.64|-36.77|
95791433|NCT05559905|191551612|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent (%)|-2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|19.37||||||||19.37|-25.69|
95791434|NCT05559905|191551613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.69||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|0.31|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.31|-1.68|0.253
95791435|NCT05559905|191551614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.1708||95.0|0.83|3.57|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||3.57|0.83|0.1708
95791436|NCT05559905|191551615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.93||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.61|2.75|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean VL-AUC in each group and the differences in mean VL-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||2.75|-14.61|0.257
95791437|NCT05559905|191551616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|0.71|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean PVL in each group and the differences in mean PVL between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||0.71|-1.88|0.453
95791438|NCT05559905|191551617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.51|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||2.51|0.44|0.9121
95791439|NCT05559905|191551618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.83||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.25|1.6|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||1.60|-5.25|0.377
95791440|NCT05559905|191551619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.13||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|4.02|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) were included in the model. The TSS-AUC-CFB in each group and the differences in mean TSS-AUC-CFB between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI were computed based on the linear model.||4.02|-4.28|0.958
95791441|NCT05559905|191551620|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||Per protocol, only Panel B (treatment) and Panel C (placebo) are included in the model. For both panels, only the participants with RSV infection were included in the analysis. The mean peak TSS in each group and the differences in mean peak TSS between MK-4482 and placebo and the corresponding 2- sided 95% CI was computed based on the linear model.||0.98|-2.21|0.520
95791442|NCT05559905|191551622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.24||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.07|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||5.07|0.99|0.0459
95791443|NCT05696392|191551627|OTHER|difference between the average sleep at baseline and Week 8||||||0.8357|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.8357
95791444|NCT05696392|191551628|OTHER|difference between the average sleep at baseline and Week 8||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
95791445|NCT04817332|191551667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92|||Odds ratio Ordinal Logistic Regression|adjusted for the stratifying factors of age as a fixed effect and site using robust standard errors to account for clustering||||0.92|0.57|0.008
95791446|NCT04817332|191551668|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.058
95791447|NCT04817332|191551671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||||1.13|0.84|
95791448|NCT04817332|191551673|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
95791449|NCT04817332|191551674|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.74||||||||1.74|0.73|
95816137|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
95816138|NCT02722408|191602696|OTHER|||||||0.0378||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in VLDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0378
95791450|NCT04817332|191551675|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04||||||||1.04|0.69|
95791451|NCT04817332|191551676|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.58||||||||2.58|1.09|
95791452|NCT04817332|191551677|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||||1.15|0.92|
95791453|NCT04817332|191551678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88||||||||1.88|1.06|
95791454|NCT04817332|191551692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.0|-31.0||||||||-31|-102|
95791455|NCT04817332|191551696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.066||||||||0.066|-0.06|
95791456|NCT05457257|191551710|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.45||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same variables selected in the primary pooling strategy, using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for the variables. The Efron approach was used for handling ties. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||3.45|0.46|0.726
95791457|NCT05457257|191551711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|59.66||A Fisher's exact test using mid p-values was used.|Regression, Logistic||Objective response rate compared using logistic regression adjusting for previous taxane use as a covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd. CI calculated using profile likelihood method.|The explanation of statistical method||59.66|0.20|0.498
95861421|NCT05407064|191681634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0008
95861422|NCT05407064|191681634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean CGI-I total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0194
96000114|NCT03037905|191976203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.83
95791458|NCT05457257|191551712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.48||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same covariates and using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the Efron approach being used for handling ties, adjusting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||7.48|0.50|0.440
95791459|NCT05457257|191551714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.88||The 2-sided nominal p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same variables selected in the primary pooling strategy, using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusted for the variables selected in the primary pooling strategy: none. The Efron approach was used for handling ties. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||2.88|0.20|0.604
95791460|NCT05457257|191551717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|6.24||The 2-sided nominal p-values were calculated using the log-rank test stratified by the same covariates and using the Breslow method for handling ties.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and CI were calculated using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the Efron approach being used for handling ties, adjusting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 favours Olaparib 300 mg bd.|The explanation of statistical method||6.24|0.19|0.889
95791461|NCT02131064|191551719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in tpCR rate|-11.71||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-2.48||Threshold for significance at 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in tPCR rates between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-2.48|-20.95|0.0126
95816139|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.2305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2305
95816140|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.1836||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1836
95816141|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.6501||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6501
95861423|NCT05407064|191681635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0057
95791462|NCT02131064|191551720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||3.96|0.37|0.7557
95791463|NCT02131064|191551721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in BCS rate|-10.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||95% CI for the difference in BCS rate between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-1.47|-20.21|0.0228
95861424|NCT05407064|191681635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0168
95791464|NCT02131064|191551722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.61||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.98|||Log Rank|The Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||||4.98|1.36|0.0027
95791465|NCT02131064|191551723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.4||||||||2.40|0.52|
95791466|NCT02131064|191551726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-24.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.98|-15.19||||||95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in GHS/QoL score between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-15.19|-33.98|
95791467|NCT02131064|191551727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.78|||Log Rank|Log Rank was used and stratified by local hormone receptor status and clinical stage at presentation.||Stratified cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate Hazard Ratio and CI. Stratification by hormonal receptor status and clinical stage at presentation (stratification factors).||0.78|0.46|0.0001
95791468|NCT02131064|191551738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-16.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.32|-6.94||||||This is the statistical analysis for cognitive functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-6.94|-26.32|
95791469|NCT02131064|191551738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-32.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.74|-23.34||||||This is the statistical analysis for physical functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-23.34|-41.74|
95791470|NCT02131064|191551738|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Deterioration|-28.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.95|-19.8||||||This is the statistical analysis for role functioning. 95% CI for the difference in clinically meaningful deterioration in function subscales between treatment arms was calculated using normal approximation.||-19.80|-37.95|
95791471|NCT03126786|191551742|SUPERIORITY|The sample size was determined such that the difference in visual acuity between the ACTIVE treatment group and CONTROL treatment group could be estimated within +/- five ETDRS letters. Week 24 data from the Eylea prescribing information was used to estimate a pooled standard deviation of 9.17 letters. With 28 subjects per arm, a two-sided 90% confidence interval with a distance from the mean difference to the limits (half of interval width) will be less than 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.4||There was a single primary outcome tested at a single primary endpoint, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed. The primary endpoint was assess with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.100.|Mixed model for repeat measures|The covariance structure was assumed to be unstructured.|Estimated Value calculated as Active minus Control.|The primary efficacy analysis comparing ACTIVE with CONTROL on the mean change from baseline (Visit 2, Day 0) BCVA at Week 12 was be performed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM). This model included treatment (ACTIVE or CONTROL), visit (Visit 3 (Week 4), Visit 4 (Week 8), and Visit 5 (Week 12), Visit 6 (Week 16), Visit 7 (Week 20) and Visit 8 (Week 24), and the 2-way interactions of treatment and visit, and the BCVA baseline included as the covariate.||1.4|-6.2|0.288
95791472|NCT03243305|191551744|OTHER||Seven-cycle Pregnancy Percentage|13.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.91|17.39|||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary hypothesis to be tested is whether subjects using Amphora vaginal gel have a 7-cycle cumulative pregnancy percentage less than or equal to 21%||17.39|9.91|
95816142|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0139||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0139
95958363|NCT00846768|191888941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.6578||95.0|-0.042|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.027|-0.042|0.6578
95791473|NCT01585246|191551748|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD)|960.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) was used The TITE-CRM incorporated a decision rule for the allocation of next participant to a dose of SP based on the current estimate of toxicity. The first men were allocated to lowest dose (320 mg); when no adverse event was reported during 12 weeks, the dose was increased to 640 mg for next men, and then to 960 mg in the absence of advert event.||||
95791474|NCT00427908|191551769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to be greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenA.|Difference in percentage|6.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|16.04||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenA. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenA titer from pre to post vaccination.||16.04|1.15|
95816143|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0077
95816144|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
95816145|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0507||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0507
95816146|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0118
95791475|NCT00427908|191551769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenC.|Difference in percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|24.32||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenC. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenC titer from pre to post vaccination.||24.32|4.79|
95791476|NCT00427908|191551769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenW-135.|Difference in percentage|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|12.21||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenW-135. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenW-135 titer from pre to post vaccination.||12.21|1.51|
95791477|NCT00427908|191551769|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrux minus Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response is greater than or equal to -15% for rSBA-MenY.|Difference in percentage|16.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|26.78||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine compared to Mencevax™ plain polysaccharide vaccine in terms of the vaccine response (VRR) to MenY. Response to a vaccine antigen component was defined as: For initially seronegative subject, post-vaccination serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥ 1:32. For initially seropositive subject, at least 4-fold increase in rSBA-MenY titer from pre to post vaccination.||26.78|8.99|
95791478|NCT00427908|191551772|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority (serogroup C only): one month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Meningitec Group) in the percentage of subjects with rSBA titer ≥ 1:8 is greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limit of -15%.|Difference in vaccine response rate|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|7.89||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response induced by Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed Meningitec™ vaccine for MenC as measured by rSBA.||7.89|-0.27|
95791479|NCT01764841|191551850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7331||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5027|1.069|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 28/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||1.0690|0.5027|0.0650
96002100|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|-13.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 7||-13.48|-29.35|<0.001
95791480|NCT01764841|191551850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5333||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.3568|0.7971|||Wald-type test|||The hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation event within 48 weeks and 97.5% CI was calculated by using Cox proportional hazards model by comparison of Cipro 14/Pooled Placebo reporting groups. P-value was analysed using Wald-type test.||0.7971|0.3568|0.0005
95791481|NCT01764841|191551851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8615||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6264|1.1848|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 28 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.1848|0.6264|0.2944
95791482|NCT01764841|191551851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.7329||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.5237|1.0256|||Poisson regression|||A Poisson regression with adjustment for over-/under dispersion was used to analyze the number of exacerbation events over 48 weeks and to test the difference in the frequency of exacerbation between Ciprofloxacin DPI 14 and Pooled placebo group. P-value was analyzed using Wald-type test along with the incidence rate ratio of the comparison.||1.0256|0.5237|0.0382
95791483|NCT04863872|191551875|OTHER|Difference|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.3|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression with binary primary outcome, estimated using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and robust variance estimation.||||1.30|0.39|0.27
95791484|NCT00549549|191551878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||This was the primary analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group and region as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.18|-0.74|
95791485|NCT00549549|191551878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.52|
95791486|NCT00549549|191551878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|0.29|
95791487|NCT00549549|191551878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.05|
95791488|NCT00549549|191551878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.17|
95791489|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.29|
95791490|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.02|-0.42|
95861425|NCT05407064|191681635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000
95816147|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0122
95816148|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0077||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0077
95861426|NCT05407064|191681635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0000
95791491|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.47|0.04|
95791492|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.39|-0.04|
95791493|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
95791494|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.16|-0.26|
95816149|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0317
95861427|NCT05407064|191681636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0958
95861428|NCT05407064|191681636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0544
95861429|NCT05407064|191681636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0029
95861430|NCT05407064|191681636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0006
95861431|NCT05407064|191681637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.2038
95861432|NCT05407064|191681637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.1977
95791495|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.03|-0.40|
95791496|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.32|-0.11|
95791497|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.27|-0.16|
95816150|NCT02722408|191602697|OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH).||||0.0473
95816151|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.2143||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2143
95816152|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.1874||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1874
95816153|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.6731||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.6731
95861433|NCT05407064|191681637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0357
95791498|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis||0.13|-0.30|
95791499|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.33|
95791500|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.11|-0.53|
95861434|NCT05407064|191681637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test)||||0.0302
95861435|NCT05407064|191681638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2165
95861436|NCT05407064|191681638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.6868
95958364|NCT00846768|191888941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0175||95.0|0.008|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.077|0.008|0.0175
95816154|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0027
95816155|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0020
95816156|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||<0.0001
95816157|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0258||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0258
95816158|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0044||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0044
95816159|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0011
95816160|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0083||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0083
95816161|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0314||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0314
95861437|NCT05407064|191681638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1350
95861438|NCT05407064|191681638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.0273
95816162|NCT02722408|191602698|OTHER|||||||0.0533||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in HDL-C as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0533
95816163|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.3657||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3657
95816164|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.1983||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.1983
95816165|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.297||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2970
95816166|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0092
95816167|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0049
95816168|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0033||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.0033
95816169|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0618||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0618
95816170|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0298||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0298
95816171|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0352||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0352
95861439|NCT05407064|191681639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2450
95791501|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Day /early termination analysis||0.37|-0.05|
95791502|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.25|-0.17|
95791503|NCT00549549|191551879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.05|-0.38|
95791504|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity (for the prior 24 hours) at Baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.29|
95791505|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.16|-0.35|
95791506|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.34|-0.17|
95791507|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.30|-0.20|
95791508|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analysis.||0.25|-0.26|
95791509|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.11|-0.36|
95791510|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.04|-0.44|
95791511|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.46|-0.01|
95816172|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
96002101|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.14|-12.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-12.19|-28.14|<0.001
95791512|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.33|-0.14|
95816173|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
95791513|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analysis.||0.26|-0.22|
95791514|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.10|-0.38|
95791515|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||-0.04|-0.52|
95791516|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.39|-0.08|
95791517|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.26|-0.22|
95791518|NCT00549549|191551880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Day 14/early termination analysis||0.12|-0.36|
95791519|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6402
95791520|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.9739
95791521|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4581|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4581
95791522|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.2962
95791523|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4951
95791524|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4957
95791525|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.8364
95791526|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.6892
95791527|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4110
95791528|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5981|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5981
95791529|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.9317
95791530|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0831
95791531|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5747|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5747
95816174|NCT02722408|191602699|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
95791532|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.6204
95791533|NCT00549549|191551881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analysis||||0.2556
95791534|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1444
95791535|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.7532
95791536|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4722|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.4722
95791537|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.3878
95791538|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 5 analyses||||0.6717
95791539|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3098|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.3098
95791540|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4356
95816175|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.3672||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr||||0.3672
96002102|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-13.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 8||-13.30|-29.04|<0.001
95791541|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.5703
95791542|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.4986
95791543|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7855|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 9 analyses||||0.7855
95791544|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0169
95791545|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.1353
95791546|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.3690
95791547|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.0787
95791548|NCT00549549|191551882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14/Early Termination analyses||||0.5687
95791549|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular), region and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.60|
95791550|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||-0.25|-0.75|
95791551|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.78|0.29|
95791552|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.44|-0.06|
95791553|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 1 analyses||0.28|-0.21|
95791554|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.04|-0.52|
95791555|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||-0.18|-0.74|
95791556|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.84|0.29|
95791557|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.60|0.05|
95791558|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Day 2 analyses||0.39|-0.17|
95791559|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.03|-0.53|
95791560|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||-0.26|-0.83|
95816176|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.2101
95816177|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.3009||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.3009
95816178|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.1567||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1567
95816179|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.1207||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1207
95958365|NCT00846768|191888942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0353||95.0|-0.081|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.003|-0.081|0.0353
95958366|NCT00846768|191888942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2875||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.018|-0.060|0.2875
95958367|NCT00846768|191888942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4553||95.0|-0.024|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.054|-0.024|0.4553
95958368|NCT00846768|191888942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.2902||95.0|-0.06|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.018|-0.060|0.2902
95958369|NCT00846768|191888942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0731||95.0|-0.003|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.075|-0.003|0.0731
95958370|NCT00846768|191888943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0917||95.0|-0.008|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.099|-0.008|0.0917
95791561|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.88|0.32|
95791562|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.64|0.08|
95791563|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 3 analyses||0.34|-0.22|
95861440|NCT05407064|191681639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.3461
95861441|NCT05407064|191681639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.1110
95958371|NCT00846768|191888943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.1273||95.0|-0.012|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.095|-0.012|0.1273
95958372|NCT00846768|191888943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.008||95.0|0.019|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.127|0.019|0.0080
95958373|NCT00846768|191888943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8683||95.0|-0.049|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.058|-0.049|0.8683
95791564|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.00|-0.56|
95791565|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||-0.28|-0.84|
95791566|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.90|0.35|
95791567|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.62|0.07|
95791568|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 4 analyses||0.34|-0.21|
95861442|NCT05407064|191681639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline in total PGI-S scores and the difference in means between treatment and placebo (p-value determined from two-sample t-test).||||0.2386
95861443|NCT05407064|191681640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1475
95958374|NCT00846768|191888943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2444||95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.086|-0.022|0.2444
95958375|NCT00846768|191888944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0023||95.0|-0.162|-0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.036|-0.162|0.0023
95958376|NCT00846768|191888944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0015||95.0|-0.165|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||-0.040|-0.165|0.0015
95861444|NCT05407064|191681640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0308
95791569|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.07|-0.64|
95791570|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||-0.38|-0.94|
95791571|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.93|0.37|
95791572|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.57|0.02|
95791573|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 5 analyses||0.27|-0.29|
95791574|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.10|-0.65|
95791575|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||-0.29|-0.84|
95791576|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.83|0.29|
95791577|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.46|-0.08|
95791578|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 6 analyses||0.26|-0.28|
95791579|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.04|-0.61|
95791580|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||-0.34|-0.92|
95791581|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.78|0.21|
95958377|NCT00846768|191888944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.4508||95.0|-0.087|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.039|-0.087|0.4508
95791582|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.45|-0.11|
95791583|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 7 analyses||0.15|-0.42|
95791584|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.00|-0.57|
95791585|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||-0.27|-0.84|
95791586|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.70|0.14|
95791587|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.41|-0.15|
95791588|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 8 analyses||0.14|-0.42|
95791589|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.02|-0.61|
95791590|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||-0.23|-0.82|
95791591|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.76|0.18|
95791592|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.44|-0.13|
95791593|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 9 analyses||0.23|-0.35|
95791594|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.01|-0.59|
95791595|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||-0.16|-0.76|
95791596|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.69|0.10|
95791597|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.41|-0.18|
95791598|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 10 analyses||0.23|-0.36|
95791599|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.05|-0.56|
95791600|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||-0.17|-0.77|
95791601|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.69|0.10|
95791602|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.44|-0.16|
95816180|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.1045||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.1045
95791603|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Day 11 analyses||0.23|-0.37|
95791604|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.09|-0.53|
95791605|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||-0.15|-0.77|
95791606|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.57|-0.04|
95791607|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.36|-0.25|
95791608|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 12 analyses||0.11|-0.50|
95791609|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.07|-0.56|
95791610|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||-0.19|-0.81|
95791611|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.51|-0.10|
95791612|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.26|-0.35|
95791613|NCT00549549|191551883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Day 13/Early Termination analyses||0.01|-0.60|
95791614|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-0.28|
95791615|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.03|-0.39|
95791616|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.52|0.11|
95791617|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.45|0.04|
95791618|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 2 hours postdose||0.34|-0.08|
95958378|NCT00846768|191888944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.9087||95.0|-0.059|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.066|-0.059|0.9087
95791619|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.08|-0.37|
95791620|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||-0.03|-0.48|
95791621|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.58|0.14|
95791622|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.44|0.00|
95791623|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 4 hours postdose||0.34|-0.11|
95791624|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.17|-0.32|
95791625|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||-0.06|-0.56|
95791626|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.67|0.18|
95816181|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.0631||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0631
95791627|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.59|0.11|
95791628|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 8 hours postdose||0.36|-0.13|
95791629|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.10|-0.42|
95791630|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||-0.11|-0.63|
95791631|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.70|0.19|
95861445|NCT05407064|191681640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0000
95791632|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.55|0.03|
95791633|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 1, 12 hours postdose||0.34|-0.18|
95791634|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.07|-0.46|
95791635|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||-0.04|-0.57|
95791636|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.68|0.16|
95816182|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.0217||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0217
95816183|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0359
95816184|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0001
95791637|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.49|-0.04|
95791638|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 0 hours postdose||0.38|-0.15|
95791639|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.14|-0.40|
95791640|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||-0.05|-0.59|
95791641|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.74|0.20|
95791642|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.61|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.61|0.08|
95791643|NCT00549549|191551884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Day 2, 8 hours postdose||0.42|-0.11|
95791644|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.27|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-0.09|
95791645|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.40|0.04|
95791646|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.14|-0.50|
95791647|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.41|
95791648|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||8 hour postdose analysis||0.08|-0.28|
95816185|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
95816186|NCT02722408|191602700|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TC as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||<0.0001
95816187|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.9417||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9417
95816188|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.7722||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7722
95791649|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.29|-0.10|
95791650|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.45|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.45|0.06|
95791651|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.16|-0.55|
95816189|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.5283||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5283
95816190|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.5905||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.5905
95816191|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.7682||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.7682
95791652|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||-0.07|-0.45|
95791653|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||12 hour postdose analysis||0.09|-0.29|
95791654|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.35|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.35|-0.08|
95791655|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.51|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.51|0.08|
95791656|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.18|-0.61|
95791657|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||-0.05|-0.47|
95791658|NCT00549549|191551885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11|||ANCOVA|||24 hour postdose analysis||0.11|-0.32|
95791659|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses. The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.0459
95791660|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0017
95791661|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0001
95791662|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.0410
95791663|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=30% reduction analyses||||0.5592
95791664|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0277
95791665|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0018
95791666|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||<.0001
95791667|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.0394
95791668|NCT00549549|191551886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>=50% reduction analyses||||0.4603
95791669|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5528
95791670|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1779
95791671|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1754
95791672|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on Day 1. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.3384
95791673|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5005
95791674|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0845
95791675|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0213
95816192|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.9245||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.9245
95816193|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.6325||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.6325
95816194|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.9221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9221
95816195|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.8387||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.8387
95816196|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.0089||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0089
95791676|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1231
95791677|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during treatment. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.6636
95816197|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0013
95816198|NCT02722408|191602701|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0019
95816199|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.9195||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Negative LDLr)||||0.9195
95816200|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.7497||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Negative LDLr)||||0.7497
95816201|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.5056||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Negative LDLr)||||0.5056
95791678|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.5378
95791679|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0818
95791680|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.0317
95791681|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.1592
95791682|NCT00549549|191551889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Withdrawal on any time during study. Pairwise p-values are presented, calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1 or \>1\]) and region.||||0.7956
95791683|NCT00549549|191551890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was conducted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization stratum (2 levels: monoarticular or oligoarticular) and treatment group as factors, and the Patient's Assessment of Pain Intensity at Baseline as a covariate.||0.31|-0.17|
95816202|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.2468||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Defective LDLr)||||0.2468
95816203|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.392||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Defective LDLr)||||0.3920
95816204|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.4456||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Defective LDLr)||||0.4456
95816205|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.9203||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9203
95816206|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.9704||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9704
95816207|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.9755||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.9755
95816208|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.4213||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.4213
95816209|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
95816210|NCT02722408|191602702|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in TG as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84 (Not Met EAS Clinical Diagnosis of HoFH)||||0.0300
95791684|NCT00549549|191551890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.02|
95791685|NCT00549549|191551890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.50|
95791686|NCT00549549|191551890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|
95791687|NCT00549549|191551890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.28|
95791688|NCT00549549|191551891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.3173
95791689|NCT00549549|191551892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4724|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.4724
95791690|NCT00549549|191551892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
95791691|NCT00549549|191551892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics, stratified by number of affected joints \[1; \>1\], and region.||||0.7316
95791692|NCT00689338|191551898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of survival|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|60.9|||Kaplan-Meier|||Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at Day 90 (survivor function).||60.9|45.9|
95791693|NCT04235504|191551900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1|||linear mixed model|||||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
95791694|NCT04235504|191551901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.59|33.6|||linear mixed model|||||33.60|21.59|<0.0001
95791695|NCT04235504|191551902|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-21.55|||linear mixed model|||||-21.55|-34.16|<0.0001
95791696|NCT04235504|191551903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.61|||linear mixed model|||||0.61|-0.37|0.6227
95791697|NCT04235504|191551904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.0||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.00|-2.17|
95791698|NCT04235504|191551905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.34|45.28||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||45.28|12.34|
95791699|NCT04235504|191551906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-11.64||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||-11.64|-45.27|
95791700|NCT04235504|191551907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.59||Due to the small sample size, p value will not be meaningful. Therefore, p value is not presented|linear mixed model|||||0.59|-1.32|
95816211|NCT02722408|191602708|OTHER|||||||0.0294||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300mg: Day 28||||0.0294
95816212|NCT02722408|191602708|OTHER|||||||0.3228||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3228
95816213|NCT02722408|191602708|OTHER|||||||0.5268||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5268
95791701|NCT01921517|191551959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0481|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0481
95791702|NCT00871624|191551960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A difference in the mean four-point NIV intolerance score of 1 over the course of the study or between groups was considered through investigator consensus to be clinically meaningful. Assuming that the SD of NIV intolerance scores was 1 and that an alpha of 0.05 would be used for testing, it was determined that 18 subjects were needed in each group to achieve an 80% power.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.44|0.54
95791703|NCT00871624|191551961|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
95791704|NCT01130272|191551965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.457||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|6.077|||ANCOVA|||||6.077|0.994|0.052
95791705|NCT01130272|191551965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.383||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|5.478|||ANCOVA|||||5.478|1.036|0.041
95791706|NCT01130272|191551965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.079||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|4.842|||ANCOVA|||||4.842|0.893|0.090
95791707|NCT01130272|191551965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.797||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|6.376|||ANCOVA|||||6.376|1.227|0.015
95791708|NCT01130272|191551966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.689|||ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.306|0.449
95791709|NCT01130272|191551966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.373|||ANCOVA|||||2.373|0.615|0.583
95791710|NCT01130272|191551966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.014||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|3.795|||ANCOVA|||||3.795|1.069|0.030
95791711|NCT01130272|191551966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.395||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|2.716|||ANCOVA|||||2.716|0.717|0.326
95791712|NCT00641056|191551971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: 205 patients per treatment group would provide approximately 92% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects. Superiority of exenatide once weekly to insulin glargine is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[exenatide once weekly-insulin glargine\]\<0; noninferiority is concluded if this upper limit\<0.3%.||-0.03|-0.29|0.017
95791713|NCT00641056|191551972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.097
95791714|NCT00641056|191551973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and country served as the stratification factors.||||0.002
95816214|NCT02722408|191602709|OTHER|||||||0.1099||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1099
95816215|NCT02722408|191602709|OTHER|||||||0.5478||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5478
95816216|NCT02722408|191602709|OTHER|||||||0.8837||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in hsCRP as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8837
95816217|NCT02722408|191602710|OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0587
95816218|NCT02722408|191602710|OTHER|||||||0.1491||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.1491
95816219|NCT02722408|191602710|OTHER|||||||0.2224||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2224
95791715|NCT00641056|191551974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in FSG as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.00|0.25|0.001
95791716|NCT00641056|191551975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.52||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in BW as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||-3.52|-4.57|<.001
95791717|NCT00641056|191551976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in total cholesterol as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline total cholesterol, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.06|-0.21|0.292
95816220|NCT02722408|191602711|OTHER|||||||0.0959||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0959
95816221|NCT02722408|191602711|OTHER|||||||0.0923||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0923
95816222|NCT02722408|191602711|OTHER|||||||0.1592||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in fibrinogen as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.1592
95816223|NCT02722408|191602712|OTHER|||||||0.5856||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.5856
95816224|NCT02722408|191602712|OTHER|||||||0.644||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.6440
95816225|NCT02722408|191602712|OTHER|||||||0.2269||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2269
95816226|NCT02722408|191602713|OTHER|||||||0.4814||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4814
95816227|NCT02722408|191602713|OTHER|||||||0.5011||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.5011
95816228|NCT02722408|191602713|OTHER|||||||0.4356||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Lipoprotein(a) as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.4356
95816229|NCT02722408|191602714|OTHER|||||||0.0669||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0669
95861446|NCT05407064|191681640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0004
95816230|NCT02722408|191602714|OTHER|||||||0.0189||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0189
95816231|NCT02722408|191602714|OTHER|||||||0.0316||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0316
95861447|NCT05407064|191681641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0873
95861448|NCT05407064|191681641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1702
96000115|NCT02104180|191976208|NON_INFERIORITY|An estimate of the difference between the pain felt by patient during the two dressings removals along with a 95% confidence interval (CI) has been derived. If the upper limit of the confidence interval was less than 13 mm, clinical non-inferiority of Tulle Gras versus Urgotul has been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|1.864|||||The pain intensity has been analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The model for this cross-over study included sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|||1.864|-1.339|
96000116|NCT02606877|191976213|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|88.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.4|119.97|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||119.97|65.40|
95791718|NCT00641056|191551977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA with change in HDL as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.05|0.377
95791719|NCT00641056|191551978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by MMRM ANCOVA with change in triglycerides as the dependent variable; treatment, baseline triglycerides, country, background OAD stratum, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; patient and error as random effects.||1.15|0.99|0.077
95791720|NCT01811732|191551999|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in sample rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.8|
95791721|NCT00536510|191552012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001||95.0|-18.6|-10.9||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The primary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||-10.9|-18.6|<0.001
95791722|NCT00536510|191552013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001||95.0|12.6|19.2||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05|ANOVA|The efficacy analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with factors for treatment, country, gender, and stratum defined by concomitant statin use.||The secondary hypothesis of superiority of MK0524A 2 g to placebo in lowering High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C) was assessed using the comparison between these 2 groups from the ANOVA model.||19.2|12.6|<0.001
95816232|NCT02722408|191602715|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0685
95816233|NCT02722408|191602715|OTHER|||||||0.0114||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0114
95816234|NCT02722408|191602715|OTHER|||||||0.0263||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein B as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0263
95816235|NCT02722408|191602716|OTHER|||||||0.1466||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1466
95816236|NCT02722408|191602716|OTHER|||||||0.3598||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3598
95791723|NCT02035553|191552014|SUPERIORITY||Diff in MMRM LSM|-1.84||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-3.64|0.0451
95861449|NCT05407064|191681641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0007
95861450|NCT05407064|191681641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0001
96000117|NCT02606877|191976214|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|80.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.27|126.79|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||126.79|51.27|
95791724|NCT01674725|191552034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%.|Planned enrollment is 210 to allow ≥200 GT1b-infected participants to be treated with combination formulation of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 with and without RBV. Enrollment terminated after 187 participants were randomized. Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|95.9|
95791725|NCT01674725|191552034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 64% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Assuming a rate of 82% in each arm, a sample size of 90 participants per arm will have \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each arm to the historical rate based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority.||100.0|94.6|
95791726|NCT01674725|191552035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95791727|NCT01674725|191552036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority.|||100.0|94.6|
95791728|NCT01674725|191552036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 75% to achieve superiority|||100|95.9|
95791729|NCT01674725|191552036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333 treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.4|-0.8|
95791730|NCT02709746|191552039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|4.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||4.2|-1.94|0.4702
95791731|NCT02709746|191552039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.6373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|2.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.27|-3.71|0.6373
95791732|NCT02709746|191552039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||-0.72|-6.74|0.0152
95791733|NCT02709746|191552039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.82|||Mixed Model Repeated Analysis|||||2.82|-2.41|0.8778
95861451|NCT05407064|191681642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.4193
95791734|NCT00113607|191552091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.79||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.65|0.0190
95791735|NCT00113607|191552092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.86||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.72|0.0835
95791736|NCT00113607|191552093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.144|2.367|||Fisher Exact|||||2.367|1.144|0.0080
95791737|NCT00113607|191552094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.95||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.62|0.8203
95791738|NCT00490035|191552142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage Reduction over Placebo|6.5|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|16.9|||ANCOVA|||In order to control the Type I error testing was performed in sequence starting with 50 mg, then 100 mg and finally 20 mg Brivaracetam per day versus Placebo, only moving to the next test if the previous one was significant at the 5 % level.||16.9|-5.2|=0.261
95791739|NCT03519009|191552165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.3|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||6.3|1.8|<0.001
95791740|NCT03519009|191552166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.4|||longitudinal logistic regression|||||4.4|1.5|<0.001
95791741|NCT04585919|191552167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.005
95791742|NCT04585919|191552168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed effect model controlling for secular trend, patient sociodemographic and health characteristics||||||0.19
95791743|NCT03834493|191552182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.22|0.88|0.6621
95791744|NCT03834493|191552183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.14|0.84|0.4073
95791745|NCT03834493|191552184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.83|
95791746|NCT03834493|191552185|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|8.3|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||8.3|-1.5|
95791747|NCT03834493|191552186|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||4.1|-3.4|
95861452|NCT05407064|191681642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1663
95791748|NCT03834493|191552187|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1|||||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||6.1|-0.2|
95791749|NCT03834493|191552189|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.15|0.86|
95791750|NCT03834493|191552190|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.09|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.09|0.74|
95791751|NCT03834493|191552191|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.35|0.82|
95791752|NCT03834493|191552192|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.51|||||Stratified Cox model with Efron's tie handling method|||1.51|0.85|
95791753|NCT03387267|191552202|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.64|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.72||||||||0.72||
95791754|NCT03387267|191552203|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95791755|NCT03387267|191552204|OTHER||AUC under ROC curve|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95816237|NCT02722408|191602716|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0685
95816238|NCT02722408|191602717|OTHER|||||||0.166||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.1660
95816239|NCT02722408|191602717|OTHER|||||||0.3423||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3423
95816240|NCT02722408|191602717|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-I as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0313
95816241|NCT02722408|191602718|OTHER|||||||0.7196||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7196
95791756|NCT00359203|191552239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96|||Log Rank|The risk of syncope recurrence was based on HR obtained by means of the univarate Cox model, with the use of the Breslow method for ties.|numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the Pm ON arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This analysis was planned as a comparison of the cumulative risk of syncope between the 2 groups with the use of a log-rank test.||0.96|0.19|0.04
95816242|NCT02722408|191602718|OTHER|||||||0.4343||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4343
95791757|NCT00359203|191552239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The analysis was designed to have 80% power to detect a 1-year absolute reduction of 25% in the risk of recurrence of first syncope in the treatment arm applying a log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.96||For the final analysis the threshold of statistical significance was set at 0.04.|Log Rank||Numerator=pacemaker ON denominator=pacemaker OFF|||0.96|0.19|0.039
95791758|NCT00871234|191552258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.36
95791759|NCT03389620|191552264|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on previous literature indicating that the minimum clinical threshold for change in NRS pain score is 2 points, a non-inferiority margin of differential change between treatment arms of 2 points at the 2 month time point following the surgical procedure was specified, assuming the true difference between treatment arms is zero.||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.057
95791760|NCT03389620|191552265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.376
95791761|NCT03389620|191552265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.848
95791762|NCT03389620|191552266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.613
95791763|NCT03389620|191552266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.565
95791764|NCT03389620|191552266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.958
95791765|NCT03389620|191552267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.287
95791766|NCT03389620|191552267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.365
95791767|NCT03389620|191552267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.867
95791768|NCT03389620|191552268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.311
95791769|NCT03389620|191552268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.377
95791770|NCT03389620|191552268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.668
95791771|NCT03389620|191552269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.794
95791772|NCT03389620|191552269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.843
95791773|NCT03389620|191552269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.713
95791774|NCT03389620|191552270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.177
95791775|NCT03389620|191552270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.325
95791776|NCT03389620|191552270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.505
95791777|NCT03389620|191552271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.811
95791778|NCT03389620|191552271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.325
95791779|NCT03389620|191552271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.674
95861453|NCT05407064|191681642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0002
95791780|NCT03389620|191552272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 weeks||||0.903
95791781|NCT03389620|191552272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 2 months||||0.500
95791782|NCT03389620|191552272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline to 4 months||||0.716
95791783|NCT03389620|191552273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediately post-procedure||||0.461
95791784|NCT03389620|191552273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||2 days post procedure||||1.00
95791785|NCT06077773|191552294|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (LSMD)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|5.94||MMRM=mixed effects model for repeated measures|MMRM|The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||5.94|-1.96|0.4059
95791786|NCT06077773|191552294|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.385||0.5213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.49|2.42||The p-value was based on the treatment group by week interaction term for the visit of interest.|MMRM||LSMD = EP262 minus placebo|||2.42|-5.49|0.5213
95861454|NCT05407064|191681642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0306
95791787|NCT03834506|191552302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.09|0.78|0.1677
95791788|NCT03834506|191552303|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.71|0.0335
95791789|NCT03834506|191552304|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.01||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Log Rank||HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.01|0.74|0.0331
95791790|NCT03834506|191552306|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.8||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|7.1||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior treatment with a NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||7.1|-10.7|0.6545
95791791|NCT03834506|191552308|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.43|0.77|0.6178
95791792|NCT03834506|191552309|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.33|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||2.33|1.01|0.9788
95791793|NCT03834506|191552310|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.12|0.82|0.2970
95791794|NCT03834506|191552311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|HR based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior treatment with NHA (abiraterone acetate) and type of metastases at baseline.|||1.15|0.78|0.2876
95791795|NCT03311945|191552398|OTHER||||||||||||||||||This was a single-arm study without a comparator group; therefore, no formal hypothesis testing was conducted. The primary endpoint-therapeutic failure at 48 weeks-was analyzed descriptively. The proportion of participants experiencing therapeutic failure was calculated for both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) populations. Exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the failure rates.|||
95791796|NCT01107925|191552418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in median MPA in response to 20 μM ADP in LBW participants who received 5 mg prasugrel to the 75th percentile of MPA response to 20 μM ADP in HBW participants who received10 mg prasugrel at the end of Study Period 1 (Baseline through Day 12) was estimated from the observed data.|Estimate of the difference|-10.1||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|0.2|||bootstrap (to determine 95% CI)||Estimate of the difference = \[median (low body weight) - Q3 (higher body weight)\]|||0.20|-23.40|0.526
95791797|NCT03839394|191552423|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.012
95791798|NCT03839394|191552424|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Z-test of Proportions|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.05
95791799|NCT03839394|191552425|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.750
95861455|NCT05407064|191681643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0534
95791800|NCT03839394|191552426|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.860
95791801|NCT03839394|191552427|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a pilot study positioned to determine the effect size of a clinic-based intervention that has not been evaluated previously. Therefore, sample size was determined to be adequate to discern an effect size, but not powered to determine definitive statistical significance.||||0.760
95791802|NCT00418028|191552432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"If we assume that the non-inferiority level is up to 15% lower (equivalent to a median progression-free time of 3 months), for a one-sided error α=0.05, and 80% power, are necessary 88 patients per group.~Considering an dropout rate of around 10%, the number of patients would be 98 per group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|0.9|0.1224
95958379|NCT00846768|191888944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0146||95.0|0.016|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.142|0.016|0.0146
95958380|NCT00846768|191888945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3291||95.0|-0.08|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.027|-0.080|0.3291
95791803|NCT00418028|191552433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8269|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8269
95791804|NCT00418028|191552434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.07|||Log Rank|||||2.07|0.67|0.5703
95791805|NCT00418028|191552435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.83|0.4676
95791806|NCT00418028|191552436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.66|0.5688
95791807|NCT00418028|191552437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4984
95791808|NCT00418028|191552438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.88|0.2556
95791809|NCT03574974|191552458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95791810|NCT05630196|191552482|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.0|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.00|-0.22|
95791811|NCT05630196|191552483|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.77|-0.44|
95791812|NCT05630196|191552484|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.67|-0.23|
95791813|NCT05630196|191552485|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.18|-0.13|
95791814|NCT05630196|191552486|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||11.87|-3.51|
95791815|NCT05630196|191552487|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.74|
95791816|NCT05630196|191552488|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.85|136.77|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||136.77|-159.85|
95791817|NCT05630196|191552489|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
95791818|NCT03256578|191552525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
95791819|NCT03256578|191552526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
95791820|NCT03256578|191552527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.847
95791821|NCT03256578|191552528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
95791822|NCT03256578|191552529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.346
95791823|NCT03256578|191552530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.094
95791824|NCT03256578|191552531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
95791825|NCT03256578|191552532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.434
95791826|NCT03256578|191552533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.903
95791827|NCT03256578|191552534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.699
95791828|NCT03256578|191552535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.231
95791829|NCT03256578|191552536|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.593||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.561|||Chi-squared|||||1.561|0.225|0.283
95791830|NCT03256578|191552537|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.864||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|4.599|||Chi-squared|||||4.599|0.756|0.168
95791831|NCT03256578|191552538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.947|||Chi-squared|||||0.947|0.474|0.024
95791832|NCT03256578|191552539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
95791833|NCT03256578|191552540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.342
95791834|NCT03256578|191552541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
95791835|NCT03256578|191552543|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.059||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.313|||Chi-squared|||||1.313|0.854|0.518
95791836|NCT03256578|191552544|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.629|||Chi-squared|||||1.629|0.555|0.855
95791837|NCT03256578|191552545|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.994||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.186|||Chi-squared|||||1.186|0.834|0.524
95791838|NCT03256578|191552546|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.649||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|1.434|||Chi-squared|||||1.434|0.294|0.280
95791839|NCT03256578|191552547|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.393||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.76|||Chi-squared|||||2.760|0.703|0.339
95791840|NCT03256578|191552548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.486
95791841|NCT03256578|191552549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.655
95791842|NCT03256578|191552550|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.99|1.00
95791843|NCT00922636|191552551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74||||0.008||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Change is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.008
95791844|NCT00922636|191552551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.04||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Least Squares (LS) Mean Value is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.|The LS Mean difference was computed as treatment minus placebo.|||||0.006
95791845|NCT00922636|191552554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.938||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.938
95791846|NCT00922636|191552554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027 with a Dunnett adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Least squares (LS) mean is from a restricted maximum likelihood-based, mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis.||Gated secondary analysis for total score. If both LY2216684 groups (0.2 mg/kg/day and 0.3 mg/kg/day) were statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.027. If only 0.2 mg/kg/day or 0.3 mg/kg/day LY2216684 was statistically significantly superior than placebo for the primary endpoint, then gated secondary analysis was assessed at an alpha level of 0.023 for the corresponding group.||||0.002
95791847|NCT02308046|191552605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.002
95791848|NCT02308046|191552606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95791849|NCT02308046|191552607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 7-14 days||||<0.001
95791850|NCT02308046|191552607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of culture cure at 21-30 days||||<0.001
95791851|NCT02308046|191552608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.088
95791852|NCT01573000|191552617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|65.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||65|35|
95791853|NCT01573000|191552617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|36.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR). The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||36|9|
95791854|NCT01573000|191552618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) before Crossover.|||32|0|
95791855|NCT01573000|191552618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|97.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response (CR, CCR, PR) after Crossover.|||97|61|
95791856|NCT01573000|191552619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|39.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||39|13|
95861456|NCT05407064|191681643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.6551
95861457|NCT05407064|191681643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.0079
95791857|NCT01573000|191552619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||17|0|
95791858|NCT01573000|191552620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95791859|NCT01573000|191552621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response before Crossover.|||0|0|
95791860|NCT01573000|191552621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|64.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed complete response after Crossover.|||64|20|
95791861|NCT01573000|191552622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||7|0|
95791862|NCT01573000|191552622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||8|0|
95791863|NCT01573000|191552623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
95791864|NCT01573000|191552623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CCR after Crossover.|||15|0|
95861458|NCT05407064|191681643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test||||0.1133
95861459|NCT05407064|191681644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1248
95791865|NCT01573000|191552624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|45.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||45|17|
95791866|NCT01573000|191552624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
95791867|NCT01573000|191552625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR before Crossover.|||0|0|
95791868|NCT01573000|191552625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR and CCR after Crossover.|||70|25|
95791869|NCT01573000|191552626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|28.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=42) is used as the denominator.|||28|5|
95816243|NCT02722408|191602718|OTHER|||||||0.7241||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.7241
95816244|NCT02722408|191602719|OTHER|||||||0.7952||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.7952
95861460|NCT05407064|191681644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.1788
95791870|NCT01573000|191552626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|21.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR. The number of participants evaluable for overall response (confirmed and unconfirmed; n=36) is used as the denominator.|||21|1|
95791871|NCT01573000|191552627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95791872|NCT01573000|191552629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.495
95791873|NCT01573000|191552630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.677
95861461|NCT05407064|191681644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0030
95861462|NCT05407064|191681644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in mean PGI-C total scores (MM120-placebo); p-value determined from two-sample t-test.||||0.0534
95791874|NCT01573000|191552633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.119
95791875|NCT01573000|191552634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.016
95791876|NCT01573000|191552647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|32.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR before Crossover.|||32|0|
95791877|NCT01573000|191552647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR after Crossover.|||52|11|
95791878|NCT00729521|191552666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effects Poisson Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.95|0.88|<0.05
95791879|NCT00729521|191552666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Effected Poisson Model Regression|Comparison group is the control arm.|||0.94|0.88|<.05
95791880|NCT03964207|191552677|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-5.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.48|||Mixed-effects Model||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||-1.48|-9.07|0.007
95816245|NCT02722408|191602719|OTHER|||||||0.4931||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.4931
95816246|NCT02722408|191602719|OTHER|||||||0.8622||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein A-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.8622
95816247|NCT02722408|191602720|OTHER|||||||0.9823||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.9823
95816248|NCT02722408|191602720|OTHER|||||||0.9129||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.9129
95816249|NCT02722408|191602720|OTHER|||||||0.7762||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 84||||0.7762
95861463|NCT03390504|191681678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.48|=0.0031
95861464|NCT03390504|191681678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Stratified log-rank test|||||1.48|0.92|=0.2121
95958381|NCT00846768|191888945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.2638||95.0|-0.084|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.023|-0.084|0.2638
95816250|NCT02722408|191602721|OTHER|||||||0.2683||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2683
95791881|NCT03964207|191552678|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect||-0.56|-7.72|0.024
95791882|NCT03964207|191552679|SUPERIORITY||Difference rate (%)|13.0||||0.249|||||||Chi-square test||The Difference rate was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|Chi-squared test was used to analyze proportion of patients indicating preference in the Patient satisfaction and preference questionnaire (PASAPQ) at week 8. All participants have used both treatments at this point: Handihaler (4 weeks) and Respimat (4 weeks).||||0.249
95791883|NCT03964207|191552680|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.72||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.15|||The mixed model for repeated measures||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||0.15|-9.59|0.057
95791884|NCT03964207|191552681|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSmeans|-4.38||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Least squares means (LSmeans) were adjusted with treatment and visit. And the Difference of LSmeans was calculated as: value from the test treatment group - value from the comparator treatment group.|The hypothesis test was held to investigate the superiority of the test treatment. Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used to analyze the performance domain of PASAPQ score, with treatment and period as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||4.86|-13.63|0.347
95791885|NCT00830219|191552693|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.53||||||90.0|99.16|108.09|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.09|99.16|
95791886|NCT00830219|191552694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3||||||90.0|97.56|107.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.27|97.56|
95791887|NCT00830219|191552695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.54||||||90.0|97.53|107.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.8|97.53|
95791888|NCT01450813|191552728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size needed for a one-way ANOVA test with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to rule out the null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence was a total of 64 or 16 per Group.|||||<|0.05||||||Comparisons of the means were accomplished via student's t-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis that neuromuscular blocking drugs have no effect on CVI with 95% confidence.||||< 0.05
95791889|NCT00752089|191552742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.146||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.904|9.196||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||9.196|-6.904|0.7756
95791890|NCT00752089|191552742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.291||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|11.421||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||11.421|-4.840|0.4194
95816251|NCT02722408|191602721|OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0880
95816252|NCT02722408|191602721|OTHER|||||||0.0165||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-II as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0165
95816253|NCT02722408|191602722|OTHER|||||||0.4585||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.4585
95816254|NCT02722408|191602722|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.3721
95816255|NCT02722408|191602722|OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.5305
95791891|NCT00752089|191552742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.28|30.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||30.120|14.280|<0.0001
95791892|NCT00752089|191552742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.145||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.874|10.164||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||10.164|-5.874|0.5927
95791893|NCT00752089|191552742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|21.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.189|28.919||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||28.919|13.189|<0.0001
95791894|NCT00752089|191552742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|18.909|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.036|26.783||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||26.783|11.036|<0.0001
95791895|NCT00752089|191552743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-321.438||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-818.118|175.242||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||175.242|-818.118|0.1990
95791896|NCT00752089|191552743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-72.68||||0.7718||95.0|-574.398|429.039||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||429.039|-574.398|0.7718
95791897|NCT00752089|191552743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1784.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|1296.044|2273.306||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2273.306|1296.044|<0.0001
95791898|NCT00752089|191552743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|248.758||||0.3164||95.0|-245.962|743.478||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included tratment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||743.478|-245.962|0.3164
95791899|NCT00752089|191552743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2106.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1620.906|2591.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period as fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2591.320|1620.906|<0.0001
95816256|NCT02722408|191602723|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.2937
95816257|NCT02722408|191602723|OTHER|||||||0.2182||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.2182
95816258|NCT02722408|191602723|OTHER|||||||0.2937||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein C-III as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.2937
95816259|NCT02722408|191602724|OTHER|||||||0.0411||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0411
95816260|NCT02722408|191602724|OTHER|||||||0.0192||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0192
95816261|NCT02722408|191602724|OTHER|||||||0.0445||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with percent change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0445
95816262|NCT02722408|191602725|OTHER|||||||0.0465||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 300 mg: Day 28||||0.0465
95816263|NCT02722408|191602725|OTHER|||||||0.0221||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 600 mg: Day 56||||0.0221
95816264|NCT02722408|191602725|OTHER|||||||0.0402||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measures analysis with change in Apolipoprotein E as dependent variable, visit as fixed effect, participant as a random effect. Auto-regressive variance-covariance structure was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Gemcabene 900 mg: Day 84||||0.0402
95816265|NCT00288015|191602727|OTHER|This is a two-stage optimal simon design. If bevacizumab is not effective, there is a 0.050 probability of concluding that it is. If bevacizumab is effective, there is a 0.2000 probability of concluding that it is not.||||||||||||In first stage 12 patients will be entered, if \</=3 patients have PFS time\>3 months p\</=0.22 is likely true. In second stage a total of up to 31 patients data will be analysed. If \>/=10 patients show PFS\</=3 months, it will suggest p\>0.50 is true.|Kaplan-Meier estimate|||This is a two stage optimal simon design testing the Null hypothesis: bevacizumab is not effective with P\<=0.220 and the alternative hypothesis: bevacizumab is effective with P \>=0.450 and has a sample size of 16.96 and a probability of early termination of 0.739. p=probability (progression free survival - PFS time\>/=3 months).|P\<=0.220 is the threshold value of significance that the null hypothesis is true or the alternative hypothesis is true. P Value was not calculated from the data. Median survival time was calculated using a 20% censored Kaplan-Meier table and graph.|||
95816266|NCT01869634|191602773|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Paired samples.||||||0.0025|||||||Sign test|||Comparison between HIV positive naïve to ART before and after ART has been done.||||0.0025
95791900|NCT00752089|191552743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1857.355|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1371.637|2343.072||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANOVA|The model included treatment and period and fixed and participant as random factors.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2343.072|1371.637|<0.0001
95791901|NCT01774981|191552744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0449
95791902|NCT01774981|191552744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0808|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0808
95791903|NCT01774981|191552744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2219
95791904|NCT01324102|191552748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .004 value exceeds this value. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row and category of anxiety.|ANOVA|F=10.25||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing anxiety scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups for changes in anxiety.||||.004
95791905|NCT01324102|191552748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|||||F=4.07. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05. The .056 value does not exceed it. There was only one comparison, so there was no adjustment for multiple comparison. This analysis refers to the row/category of insomnia.|ANOVA|||Repeated measure Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with null hypothesis of no group differences, comparing insomnia scores pre-Yoga versus post-Yoga, between the two groups. This measures changes in insomnia.||||.056
95791906|NCT02337062|191552757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test.||||<0.001
95791907|NCT02337062|191552758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95791908|NCT02337062|191552759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95791909|NCT02337062|191552760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95791910|NCT02337062|191552761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95791911|NCT02337062|191552762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95791912|NCT00975416|191552767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA to deterimine whether oxytocin increased compared to placebo measures of therapeutic alliance (as measured by the Helping alliance questionnaire) pre compared to post 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.927
95791913|NCT00975416|191552767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova to determine if oxytocin compared to placebo increased therpeutic alliance as measured by the working alliance inventory after 12 sessions of CBT.||||0.60
95791914|NCT02858401|191552778|OTHER|||||||0.1498|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1498
95791915|NCT02858401|191552778|OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0640
95816267|NCT01869634|191602774|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95816268|NCT01869634|191602774|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.826|||||||Sign test|||Comparison of coronary artery wall thickness before and after ART in the HIV infected participants.||||0.826
95816269|NCT01869634|191602775|OTHER|Two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between groups (HIV+ vs HIV-)||||<0.001
95791916|NCT02858401|191552778|OTHER|||||||0.2807|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2807
95791917|NCT02858401|191552778|OTHER|||||||0.1228|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1228
95791918|NCT02858401|191552778|OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0289
95791919|NCT02858401|191552778|OTHER|||||||0.5895|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5895
95791920|NCT02858401|191552779|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791921|NCT02858401|191552779|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791922|NCT02858401|191552779|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791923|NCT02858401|191552780|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
95791924|NCT02858401|191552780|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
95791925|NCT02858401|191552780|OTHER|||||||0.8288|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8288
95791926|NCT02858401|191552780|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
95791927|NCT02858401|191552780|OTHER|||||||0.6056|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6056
95791928|NCT02858401|191552780|OTHER|||||||0.5557|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5557
95816270|NCT01869634|191602775|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Sign test|||Changes in systemic immune activation through IL6||||0.807
95816271|NCT03846427|191602798|SUPERIORITY|P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis of ORR = 30% with alternative of ORR \> 30%|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial exact method|||||||<0.0001
95958382|NCT00846768|191888945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3386||95.0|-0.028|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.080|-0.028|0.3386
95791929|NCT02858401|191552781|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791930|NCT02858401|191552781|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791931|NCT02858401|191552781|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95791932|NCT02858401|191552782|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791933|NCT02858401|191552782|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791934|NCT02858401|191552782|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
95791935|NCT02858401|191552782|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95958383|NCT00846768|191888945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8877||95.0|-0.05|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.057|-0.050|0.8877
95958384|NCT00846768|191888945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0402||95.0|0.003|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.111|0.003|0.0402
95791936|NCT02858401|191552782|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791937|NCT02858401|191552782|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791938|NCT02858401|191552783|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95861465|NCT05091567|191681729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) at randomization (0 vs. 1); Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) at randomization (\<=upper limit of normal (ULN) vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) (yes vs. no).||0.67|0.43|< .0001
95791939|NCT02858401|191552783|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791940|NCT02858401|191552783|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
95791941|NCT02858401|191552784|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791942|NCT02858401|191552784|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791943|NCT02858401|191552784|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
95958385|NCT00846768|191888946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0133||95.0|0.018|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.151|0.018|0.0133
95791944|NCT02858401|191552784|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791945|NCT02858401|191552784|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791946|NCT02858401|191552784|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791947|NCT02858401|191552785|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791948|NCT02858401|191552785|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791949|NCT02858401|191552785|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791950|NCT02858401|191552786|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791951|NCT02858401|191552786|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791952|NCT02858401|191552786|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95791953|NCT02858401|191552787|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791954|NCT02858401|191552787|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791955|NCT02858401|191552787|OTHER|||||||0.1556|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1556
95791956|NCT02858401|191552787|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791957|NCT02858401|191552787|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791958|NCT02858401|191552787|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791959|NCT02858401|191552788|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791960|NCT02858401|191552788|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791961|NCT02858401|191552788|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95791962|NCT02858401|191552789|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
95791963|NCT02858401|191552789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791964|NCT02858401|191552789|OTHER|||||||0.4278|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4278
95791965|NCT02858401|191552789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791966|NCT02858401|191552789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791967|NCT02858401|191552789|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791968|NCT02858401|191552790|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95791969|NCT02858401|191552790|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
95791970|NCT02858401|191552790|OTHER|||||||0.1869|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1869
95791971|NCT02858401|191552790|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95791972|NCT02858401|191552790|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95791973|NCT02858401|191552791|OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3613
95791974|NCT02858401|191552791|OTHER|||||||0.4237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4237
95791975|NCT02858401|191552791|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
95791976|NCT02858401|191552792|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
95791977|NCT02858401|191552792|OTHER|||||||0.3971|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3971
95791978|NCT02858401|191552792|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1301
95791979|NCT02858401|191552792|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
95791980|NCT02858401|191552792|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
95791981|NCT02858401|191552792|OTHER|||||||0.3456|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3456
95791982|NCT02858401|191552793|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95791983|NCT02858401|191552793|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
95791984|NCT02858401|191552793|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
95816272|NCT03257358|191602824|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-413.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-422.7||||ANCOVA|||||-404.|-422.7|
95816273|NCT03257358|191602824|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANCOVA|||||3.6|-3.9|
95816274|NCT03257358|191602825|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-368.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-382.8|354.7|||ANCOVA|||||354.7|-382.8|
95816275|NCT03257358|191602825|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-7.1|
95816276|NCT03257358|191602826|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-52.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-46.9|||ANCOVA|||||-46.9|-57.2|
95816277|NCT03257358|191602826|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-7.6|
95816278|NCT03257358|191602827|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-40.3|||ANCOVA|||||-40.3|-46.9|
95816279|NCT03257358|191602827|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||||1.7|-3.0|
95791985|NCT02858401|191552794|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95816280|NCT03257358|191602828|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-35.3|||ANCOVA|||||-35.3|-37.2|
95816281|NCT03257358|191602828|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|
95816282|NCT03257358|191602829|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-53.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-51.3|||ANCOVA|||||-51.3|-55.1|
95816283|NCT03257358|191602829|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|
95816284|NCT03257358|191602830|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-140.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.8|-135.0|||ANCOVA|||||-135.0|-145.8|
95816285|NCT03257358|191602830|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|-1.9|
95816286|NCT03257358|191602831|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-85.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|-81.4|||ANCOVA|||||-81.4|-89.0|
95816287|NCT03257358|191602831|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|
95791986|NCT02858401|191552794|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791987|NCT02858401|191552794|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
95791988|NCT02858401|191552794|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791989|NCT02858401|191552794|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791990|NCT02858401|191552794|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791991|NCT02858401|191552795|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791992|NCT02858401|191552795|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95816288|NCT03257358|191602832|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-51.1|
95816289|NCT03257358|191602832|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-16.3|
95816290|NCT03257358|191602833|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-181.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.3|-179.0|||ANCOVA|||||-179.0|-183.3|
95816291|NCT03257358|191602833|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-4.1|
95816292|NCT03257358|191602834|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-55.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-53.9|||ANCOVA|||||-53.9|-56.5|
95816293|NCT03257358|191602834|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|
95816294|NCT03257358|191602835|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-6.4|||ANCOVA|||||-6.4|-8.0|
95816295|NCT03257358|191602835|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|0.3|
95816296|NCT03257358|191602836|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|96.7|||ANCOVA|||||96.7|42.1|
95816297|NCT03257358|191602836|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|117.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.1|136.9|||ANCOVA|||||136.9|97.1|
95816298|NCT03257358|191602837|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-782.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1058.2|-507.1|||ANCOVA|||||-507.1|-1058.2|
95816299|NCT03257358|191602837|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-485.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|91.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-667.3|-304.4|||ANCOVA|||||-304.4|-667.3|
95816300|NCT03257358|191602838|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-48.2|
95816301|NCT03257358|191602838|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-14.9|||ANCOVA|||||-14.9|-36.7|
95816302|NCT03257358|191602839|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-888.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-914.6|-862.7|||ANCOVA|||||-862.7|-914.6|
95816303|NCT03257358|191602839|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|-17.6|
95816304|NCT03257358|191602840|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.59|-37.42|||ANCOVA|||||-37.42|-41.59|
95816305|NCT03257358|191602840|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|-0.87|
95816306|NCT03257358|191602841|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-248.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.7|-219.2|||ANCOVA|||||-219.2|-278.7|
95816307|NCT03257358|191602841|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.4|-25.1|
95816308|NCT03257358|191602842|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|3.13|
95816309|NCT03257358|191602842|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-0.68|
95816310|NCT03257358|191602843|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-231.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.5|-227.6|||ANCOVA|||||-227.6|-234.5|
95816311|NCT03257358|191602843|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-5.2|
95861466|NCT05091567|191681730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||=|0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOG PS at randomization (0 vs. 1); LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||0.95|0.57|= 0.0174
95791993|NCT02858401|191552795|OTHER|||||||0.2763|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2763
95791994|NCT02858401|191552795|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791995|NCT02858401|191552795|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791996|NCT02858401|191552796|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791997|NCT02858401|191552796|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791998|NCT02858401|191552796|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95791999|NCT02858401|191552797|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792000|NCT02858401|191552797|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792001|NCT02858401|191552797|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
95792002|NCT02858401|191552797|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792003|NCT02858401|191552797|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792004|NCT02858401|191552797|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95861467|NCT05091567|191681731|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOG PS at randomization (0 vs. 1); LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||0.68|0.45|
95792005|NCT02858401|191552798|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792006|NCT02858401|191552798|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792007|NCT02858401|191552798|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792008|NCT02858401|191552799|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792009|NCT02858401|191552799|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
95792010|NCT02858401|191552799|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
95792011|NCT02858401|191552799|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95861468|NCT05091567|191681732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|16.9||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOGPS at randomization (0 vs. 1);LDH at randomization (\<=ULN vs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||16.90|1.07|
95792012|NCT02858401|191552799|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792013|NCT02858401|191552799|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792014|NCT02858401|191552800|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792015|NCT02858401|191552800|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792016|NCT02858401|191552800|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792017|NCT02858401|191552801|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
95792018|NCT02858401|191552801|OTHER|||||||0.3755|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3755
95792019|NCT02858401|191552801|OTHER|||||||0.4577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4577
95792020|NCT02858401|191552801|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
95792021|NCT02858401|191552801|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
95792022|NCT02858401|191552801|OTHER|||||||0.3237|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3237
95792023|NCT02858401|191552802|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792024|NCT02858401|191552802|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
95792025|NCT02858401|191552802|OTHER|||||||0.7526|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7526
95792026|NCT02858401|191552803|OTHER|||||||0.5546|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5546
95792027|NCT02858401|191552803|OTHER|||||||0.6937|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6937
95792028|NCT02858401|191552803|OTHER|||||||0.8207|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8207
95792029|NCT02858401|191552803|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792030|NCT02858401|191552803|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792031|NCT02858401|191552803|OTHER|||||||0.7878|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7878
95792032|NCT02858401|191552804|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792033|NCT02858401|191552804|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792034|NCT02858401|191552804|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792035|NCT02858401|191552805|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792036|NCT02858401|191552805|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792037|NCT02858401|191552805|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792038|NCT02858401|191552805|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792039|NCT02858401|191552805|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95792040|NCT02858401|191552805|OTHER|||||||0.1949|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1949
95792041|NCT02858401|191552806|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95792042|NCT02858401|191552806|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
95792043|NCT02858401|191552806|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
95792044|NCT02858401|191552806|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95792045|NCT02858401|191552806|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95792046|NCT02858401|191552807|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792047|NCT02858401|191552807|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792048|NCT02858401|191552807|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792049|NCT02858401|191552808|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792050|NCT02858401|191552808|OTHER|||||||0.5896|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5896
95792051|NCT02858401|191552808|OTHER|||||||0.1784|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1784
95792052|NCT02858401|191552808|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792053|NCT02858401|191552808|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792054|NCT02858401|191552808|OTHER|||||||0.5383|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5383
95792055|NCT02858401|191552809|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792056|NCT02858401|191552809|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95816312|NCT03257358|191602844|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-7.4|||ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-9.21|
95792057|NCT02858401|191552809|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792058|NCT02858401|191552810|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792059|NCT02858401|191552810|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792060|NCT02858401|191552810|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792061|NCT02858401|191552811|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
95792062|NCT02858401|191552811|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
95792063|NCT02858401|191552812|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792064|NCT02858401|191552812|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792065|NCT02858401|191552812|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792066|NCT02858401|191552813|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
95792067|NCT02858401|191552813|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
95816313|NCT03257358|191602844|OTHER|Estimation|least squares mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.82|||ANCOVA|||||0.82|-0.17|
95854759|NCT04040933|191669546|OTHER|Change from Baseline in Composite Scar Score Measurements was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.053
95792068|NCT02858401|191552813|OTHER|||||||0.5993|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5993
95792069|NCT02858401|191552814|OTHER|||||||0.8504|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.8504
95792070|NCT02858401|191552814|OTHER|||||||0.5716|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5716
95792071|NCT02858401|191552814|OTHER|||||||0.6908|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.6908
95792072|NCT02858401|191552814|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95792073|NCT02858401|191552814|OTHER|||||||0.5186|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.5186
95792074|NCT02858401|191552815|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792075|NCT02858401|191552815|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792076|NCT02858401|191552815|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792077|NCT02858401|191552816|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792078|NCT02858401|191552816|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792079|NCT02858401|191552816|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792080|NCT02858401|191552817|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
95792081|NCT02858401|191552817|OTHER|||||||0.3074|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3074
95792082|NCT02858401|191552818|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792083|NCT02858401|191552818|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792084|NCT02858401|191552818|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792085|NCT02858401|191552819|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792086|NCT02858401|191552819|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792087|NCT02858401|191552819|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||1.0000
95792088|NCT02858401|191552820|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
95792089|NCT02858401|191552820|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
95792090|NCT02858401|191552820|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
95792091|NCT02858401|191552821|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792092|NCT02858401|191552821|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792093|NCT02858401|191552821|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
95792094|NCT02858401|191552822|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792095|NCT02858401|191552822|OTHER|||||||0.4047|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4047
95792096|NCT02858401|191552822|OTHER|||||||0.4652|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.4652
95792097|NCT02858401|191552823|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
95792098|NCT02858401|191552823|OTHER|||||||0.1757|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.1757
95792099|NCT02858401|191552823|OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.2230
95792100|NCT02858401|191552826|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792101|NCT02858401|191552826|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792102|NCT02858401|191552826|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792103|NCT02858401|191552826|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792104|NCT02858401|191552826|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792105|NCT02858401|191552826|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792106|NCT02858401|191552827|OTHER|||||||0.3333|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3333
95792107|NCT02858401|191552828|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792108|NCT02858401|191552828|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792109|NCT02858401|191552828|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792110|NCT02858401|191552828|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792111|NCT02858401|191552828|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792112|NCT02858401|191552828|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792113|NCT02858401|191552829|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792114|NCT02858401|191552829|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792115|NCT02858401|191552829|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792116|NCT02858401|191552829|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792117|NCT02858401|191552829|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792118|NCT02858401|191552829|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95854760|NCT04040933|191669547|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.666
95792119|NCT02858401|191552830|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95816314|NCT00980148|191602917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The treatment failure rate was assumed to be 3% for both treatments. To test this hypothesis at the one-sided 0.10 significance level with power of 0.90 required 153 study subjects per arm in the per-protocol population.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.9|||||The risk difference is the percentage in the azithromycin arm with treatment failure minus the percentage in the doxycycline arm with treatment failure. Noninferiority of azithromycin would be supported if the upper 90% confidence limit is below 5%.|This noninferiority study tested the null hypothesis that the failure rate of azithromycin is 5% higher than that of doxycycline against the alternative hypothesis that there is no difference between the two treatments. The one-sided 90% exact confidence interval was used to estimate the difference between the two failures rates.||5.9||
95816315|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6384|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 23) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6384
95792120|NCT02858401|191552830|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792121|NCT02858401|191552830|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792122|NCT02858401|191552831|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792123|NCT02858401|191552831|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792124|NCT02858401|191552831|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792125|NCT02858401|191552833|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792126|NCT02858401|191552833|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95792127|NCT02858401|191552833|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95816316|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6419|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID + placebo (n = 22) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.6419
95792128|NCT02456727|191552845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.772|0.0291|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0291|-0.7720|0.0691
95792129|NCT02456727|191552846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6452|0.319|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.319|-0.6452|0.5077
95816317|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 400 mg QD + placebo (n = 21) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
95816318|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3859|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg (n = 26) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3859
95792130|NCT02456727|191552847|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0058|0.1506|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1506|-0.0058|0.24
95792131|NCT02456727|191552848|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0487||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1485|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1485|-0.0422|0.17
95792132|NCT02456727|191552849|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0396||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0151|0.1401|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1401|-0.0151|0.17
95792133|NCT02456727|191552850|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0488||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.184|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.184|-0.0075|0.40
95792134|NCT02456727|191552851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1782||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6136|0.0851|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0851|-0.6136|0.1387
95792135|NCT02456727|191552852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6497|0.1829|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change in score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between the two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1829|-0.6497|0.2725
95816319|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4435|||||||Fisher Exact|||LOCF at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil (n = 92) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 18) who achieved PASI 75||||0.4435
95958386|NCT00846768|191888946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.045||95.0|0.002|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.135|0.002|0.0450
95958387|NCT00846768|191888946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0078||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.159|0.025|0.0078
95958388|NCT00846768|191888946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.6268||95.0|-0.05|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.083|-0.050|0.6268
95792136|NCT02456727|191552853|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1185|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1185|-0.0334|0.07
95792137|NCT02456727|191552854|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0477||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0651|0.1218|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1218|-0.0651|0.07
95792138|NCT02456727|191552855|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0356||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0436|0.0961|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0961|-0.0436|0.02
95792139|NCT02456727|191552856|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0539|0.1186|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (\>=30% improvement) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1186|-0.0539|0.06
95792140|NCT02456727|191552857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5288|0.0795|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.0795|-0.5288|0.1475
95792141|NCT02456727|191552858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.546|0.1706|||t-test, 2 sided|The outcome is the change of PGIC from baseline to 12 weeks.|The estimated value is the difference of PGIC change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||0.1706|-0.546|0.3038
95792142|NCT02456727|191552859|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0392||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.1018|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1018|-0.0517|0.03
95792143|NCT02456727|191552860|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0925|0.096|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.096|-0.0925|0.02
95792144|NCT02456727|191552861|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.0602|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0602|-0.081|0.00
95792145|NCT02456727|191552862|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0755|0.1063|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (change post treatment\>=6) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1063|-0.0755|0.03
95861469|NCT05091567|191681733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|11.32||||||Stratified Analysis: The stratification factors were ECOGPS at randomization (0 vs. 1);LDH at randomization (\<=ULNvs \>ULN) via local laboratory test; Presence of liver metastases at enrollment (yes vs. no); Prior receipt of PCI (yes vs. no).||11.32|-3.51|
95861470|NCT05091567|191681736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.12|31.0||||||||31.00|14.12|
95958389|NCT00846768|191888946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.4891||95.0|-0.044|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.091|-0.044|0.4891
95792146|NCT02456727|191552863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5336||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9659|1.13|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.13|-0.9659|0.8778
95792147|NCT02456727|191552864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6252||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8667|1.5912|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.5912|-0.8667|0.5626
95792148|NCT02456727|191552865|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0419|0.1144|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1144|-0.0419|0.05
95792149|NCT02456727|191552866|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0466||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.156|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.156|-0.0266|0.22
95792150|NCT02456727|191552867|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.1335|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1335|-0.029|0.12
95792151|NCT02456727|191552868|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0047|0.1903|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=2) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1903|-0.0047|0.44
95792152|NCT02456727|191552869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5753||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6468|1.6129|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.6129|-0.6468|0.4014
95816320|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2721|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + placebo (n = 14) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.2721
95861471|NCT05091567|191681736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|16.31||||||||16.31|0.72|
95861472|NCT05091567|191681737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|32.2||||||||32.20|15.09|
95792153|NCT02456727|191552870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.9334|||ANCOVA|The outcome is the change of score from baseline to 12 weeks, adjusting for the baseline score.|The estimated value is the difference of score change from baseline to 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group).|||1.9334|-0.61|0.307
95792154|NCT02456727|191552871|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0555|0.0873|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.0873|-0.0555|0.01
95792155|NCT02456727|191552872|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.1117|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 12 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1117|-0.0544|0.05
95792156|NCT02456727|191552873|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0335|0.1112|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1112|-0.0335|0.05
95816321|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg BID+ Placebo (n = 15) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3577
95861473|NCT05091567|191681737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|15.16||||||||15.16|-0.11|
95861474|NCT01129583|191681918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95861475|NCT01129583|191681919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95861476|NCT01129583|191681920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95861477|NCT04672954|191681926|OTHER||Ratio|1.29||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|2.13|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.34|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.13|0.78|0.3941
95816322|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 500 mg QD + Placebo (n = 17) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||> 0.9999
95816323|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3402|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil 600 mg/day (n = 16) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3402
95792157|NCT02456727|191552874|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the group treatment is inferior to the individual treatment. 10% is set as the non-inferiority margin. If the upper limit of 90% confidence interval of the estimated value does not exceed 10%, non-inferiority is demonstrated.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0436||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0247|0.1463|||Chi-squared||The estimated value is the difference of proportion of respondents (score change\>=5) at 24 weeks between two treatment arms (Individual-Group)|||0.1463|-0.0247|0.18
95792158|NCT02456727|191552875|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1658|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1658
95792159|NCT02456727|191552876|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the proportion of participants with self-reported opioid prescription comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.1172|||||||McNemar|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest pre- and post-randomization.||||0.1172
95792160|NCT02456727|191552877|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0326
95792161|NCT02456727|191552878|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that there is no change in the days of self-reported opioid medication use comparing 12 weeks vs baseline.||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Two treatment arms are combined as one group to compare the outcome of interest prior- and post-randomization.||||0.0026
95792162|NCT02456727|191552879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
95816324|NCT02852967|191602919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3542|||||||Fisher Exact|||Observed at 16 weeks (Double-blind Treatment Period): Fisher's Exact Method analysis of the percentage of all subjects treated with belumosudil 200 mg QD + Placebo (n = 62) who achieved PASI 75 compared to the percentage of subjects treated with placebo (n = 10) who achieved PASI 75.||||0.3542
95816325|NCT02852967|191602923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5728|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5728
95816326|NCT02852967|191602923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1962|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.1962
95792163|NCT02456727|191552880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||The change in MME was not normally distributed, thus we report median and IQR rather than mean/standard deviation. We employed Mann-Whitney to assess whether the change in MME between pre- and post-treatment periods differed across intervention arms.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95792164|NCT02456727|191552881|SUPERIORITY|Difference in change in proportion pre and post-treatment differs by treatment arm.||||||0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0059
95792165|NCT02456727|191552882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
95792166|NCT03924323|191552939|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.42||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.15|||mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.15|-2.69|0.0281
95792167|NCT03924323|191552940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.253||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|2.258|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.258|0.695|0.4521
95792168|NCT03924323|191552941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.387|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMMIX)|||||2.387|0.560|0.6928
95792169|NCT03903172|191552944|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 0||||=0.25
95816327|NCT02852967|191602923|SUPERIORITY|Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear|||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.9999
95816328|NCT02852967|191602923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.5583
95816329|NCT02852967|191602923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2538|||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of subjects treated with belumosudil compared to placebo who had a PGA rating of clear or almost clear||||0.2538
95816330|NCT00052910|191602934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.24|0.79|
95816331|NCT00052910|191602935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28|||||Adjusted Hazard Ratio, ECF vs 5-FU/LV|||1.28|0.83|
95816332|NCT00339040|191602936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95816333|NCT01747915|191602997|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.19|-0.15|0.8121
95816334|NCT01747915|191602997|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values from an ANCOVA model including fixed effects for log transformed baseline value, region, age strata, and treatment group.||0.16|-0.19|0.8889
95816335|NCT01747915|191602998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.095||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|2.186||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.186|0.548|0.7973
95816336|NCT01747915|191602998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.934||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.877||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for region, age strata and treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.877|0.465|0.8474
95816337|NCT00988156|191603017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2490
95816338|NCT00988156|191603018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9017
95792170|NCT03903172|191552944|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||=.93
95792171|NCT03903172|191552945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used acetominophen||||=1.0
95792172|NCT03903172|191552945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used ibuprofen||||=1.0
95792173|NCT03903172|191552945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Cyclobenzaprine||||=1.0
95792174|NCT03903172|191552945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Methocarbamol||||=.11
95792175|NCT03903172|191552945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used Hydroxyzine||||=.49
95792176|NCT03903172|191552945|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Used an 'Other' non-pharmacologic medication||||=1.0
95792177|NCT03903172|191552946|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any narcotic medication used||||=1.0
95792178|NCT01939314|191553012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|27.1||||||||27.1|-13.0|
95792179|NCT01939314|191553014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|43.6||||||||43.6|2.6|
95792180|NCT00078286|191553038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|\*Power analysis already provided.|Difference in mean change score|-0.3||||0.89||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Significance was tested at p=.05.||A hierarchical mixed model was used, analyzing the fixed effects of treatment, the natural log of time, natural log of time squared, the interactions of time and time squared with treatment and site, as well as the random effects of patient, patient-by-time, and square of patient-by-time.||||0.89
95792181|NCT00078286|191553039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tests for differences of proportions were used to examine the composite cardiovascular status outcome at the end of acute treatment. Chi-square tests were used to test for overall treatment differences, with a Mantel Haenszel test performed to examine treatment differences when controlling for clinical site. The primary analyses were conducted on the tri-level cardiovascular status outcome.||||.78
95816339|NCT03181971|191603024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.9|0.2|0.68
95816340|NCT03181971|191603024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months||0.7|0.03|0.017
95958390|NCT00846768|191888947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6259||95.0|-0.097|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.059|-0.097|0.6259
95958391|NCT00846768|191888947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.919||95.0|-0.082|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg bid|||0.074|-0.082|0.9190
95792182|NCT00434252|191553068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in survival rates|3.5||||0.5724||95.0|-8.7|15.7|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.||||15.7|-8.7|0.5724
95792183|NCT00434252|191553069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in event rates|12.2||||0.0982||95.0|-2.3|26.6|||z-test|z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method||||26.6|-2.3|0.0982
95792184|NCT05428436|191553101|OTHER||gMean ratio|121.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|170.3|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 78.5.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||170.30|86.14|
95792185|NCT05428436|191553101|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.68|152.48|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 78.5.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||152.48|76.68|
95792186|NCT05428436|191553102|OTHER||gMean ratio|122.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.25|187.84|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 104.0.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||187.84|79.25|
95792187|NCT05428436|191553102|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.33|112.97|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.8.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.97|104.33|
95792188|NCT05428436|191553103|OTHER||gMean ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|162.25|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 72.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||162.25|85.82|
95792189|NCT05428436|191553103|OTHER||gMean ratio|87.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.77|121.28|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 72.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||121.28|63.77|
95792190|NCT05428436|191553104|OTHER||gMean ratio|115.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.64|172.22|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 93.3.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||172.22|77.64|
95792191|NCT05428436|191553104|OTHER||gMean ratio|90.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.82|101.87|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.0.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||101.87|80.82|
95816341|NCT03181971|191603025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||2.0|0.07|.24
95792192|NCT05428436|191553105|OTHER||gMean ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.49|97.21|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.1.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||97.21|90.49|
95792193|NCT05428436|191553105|OTHER||gMean ratio|109.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.72|113.44|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.1.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.44|105.72|
95816342|NCT03181971|191603025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||7.0|0.1|.98
95816343|NCT03181971|191603026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||1.0|-0.6|0.57
95792194|NCT05428436|191553106|OTHER||gMean ratio|95.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|98.77|||||gMean ratio: T1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 7.5.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two formulation groups (T1 \& R)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||98.77|91.39|
95792195|NCT05428436|191553106|OTHER||gMean ratio|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.9|112.89|||||gMean ratio: T2/T1. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 8.2.|ANOVA model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (restricted to the two treatment groups (T1 \& T2)). The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.89|103.90|
95792196|NCT03268343|191553114|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|74.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.39|84.08|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||84.08|66.39|
95792197|NCT03268343|191553115|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.98|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.98|94.20|
95792198|NCT03268343|191553116|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.25|||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test||Hodges-Lehmann method|||2.25|0.50|< 0.0001
95861478|NCT04672954|191681926|OTHER||Ratio|1.66||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.79|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.35|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.79|0.99|0.1089
95958392|NCT00846768|191888947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0985||95.0|-0.012|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.145|-0.012|0.0985
95958393|NCT00846768|191888947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.6991||95.0|-0.093|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Olo 5 mcg qd|||0.063|-0.093|0.6991
95958394|NCT00846768|191888947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0802||95.0|-0.009|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|Means adjusted using a mixed effects model with treatment and period as fixed effects and period as repeated effect with patient as repeated subject.|Olo 5 mcg bid minus Olo 2 mcg bid|||0.149|-0.009|0.0802
95958395|NCT04353817|191888983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.81|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.81|-2.71|<0.0001
95792199|NCT03268343|191553117|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|96.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|99.85|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||99.85|93.30|
95816344|NCT03181971|191603026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.6|-1.5|.40
95816345|NCT03181971|191603027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.1|-0.06|.46
95816346|NCT03181971|191603027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.1|-0.2|.80
95816347|NCT03181971|191603028|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.001||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||0.03|-0.03|.93
95958396|NCT04353817|191888984|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-47.1||This is the nominal p-value without multiplicity controlled.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-47.1|-55.3|<0.0001
95816348|NCT03181971|191603028|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 15 months.||0.02|-0.06|.36
95816349|NCT03181971|191603029|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.5||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in total kcal intake from baseline to 7 months.||8.5|-5.3|0.70
95958397|NCT00665223|191888988|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 45 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.44|0.72|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.72|-1.44|0.456
95958398|NCT00665223|191888988|SUPERIORITY|This analysis compared ACR16 90 mg vs. placebo during the randomization phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|0.1|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) main effects model included a term for treatment and covariates for baseline mMS, gender, and use of antipsychotic medication.||0.10|-2.08|0.042
95792200|NCT03268343|191553121|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|104.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.97|110.87|||||fed / fasted; results obtained using an ANOVA with fixed effects of treatment, period, sequence and participant (sequence).|||110.87|98.97|
95792201|NCT00496769|191553128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62|||Log Rank|||||0.62|0.32|<0.00001
95792202|NCT00496769|191553129|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||0.83|0.53|0.00026
95792203|NCT00496769|191553130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.06782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||Log Rank||All-cause death|||1.02|0.62|0.06782
95792204|NCT00496769|191553130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Log Rank||Composite endpoint of major vascular events and major bleeding-net clinical benefit|||0.90|0.60|0.00280
95792205|NCT00496769|191553130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.36586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank||Vascular death|||1.17|0.65|0.36586
95792206|NCT00496769|191553131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.45|||Log Rank||Major bleeding|||2.45|0.96|0.0716
95792207|NCT00496769|191553131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank||All bleeding|||1.53|1.10|0.0017
95792208|NCT00496769|191553131|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78|||Log Rank||Major or CNRM bleeding|||1.78|1.07|0.0144
95816350|NCT03181971|191603029|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|3.7||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.0||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of food kcal from baseline to 7 months.||12.0|-3.9|.35
95958399|NCT02143063|191889012|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3752.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.01
95792209|NCT00496769|191553132|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.53|||Log Rank|||||1.53|1.10|0.0017
95792210|NCT01181167|191553159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Difference in incidence of thromboembolic events between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.~Incidence of thromboembolic events and 95% CI also calculated by treatment group.~Only when null hypothesis H01 was rejected, upper limit of 95% CI for difference between DU-176b and enoxaparin groups was confirmed. When upper limit of 95% CI was below 0%, DU-176b was considered to be superior to enoxaparin in terms of the prevention of VTE."|Cox Proportional Hazard|-4.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Farrington Manning Method|ANCOVA|||Hypothesis testing of proportion of subjects who experienced at least one thromboembolic events, defined as primary endpoint, carried out using Farrington-Manning method. Null hypothesis H˅01: Incidence of thromboembolic events in DU-176b group (P˅DU) = Incidence of thromboembolic events in enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (8%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (significance level: One-sided, 0.025)||||<0.001
95816351|NCT03181971|191603029|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-10.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in intake of beverage kcal from baseline to 7 months.||8.8|-29.2|.35
95792211|NCT00526474|191553161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.82|0.001
95792212|NCT00526474|191553162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.80|<0.001
95792213|NCT00526474|191553163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.74|1.31|<0.001
95792214|NCT00526474|191553164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.51|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.51|1.31|<0.001
95792215|NCT00526474|191553165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.85|0.009
95816352|NCT03181971|191603029|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-17.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB kcal from baseline to 7 months.||9.6|-37.8|.18
95958400|NCT02143063|191889012|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5287.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.78
95958401|NCT02143063|191889013|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|3675.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary Aim 1: Compare the standard care and standard care plus traditional CM conditions||||.02
95958402|NCT02143063|191889013|SUPERIORITY||comparison of rank sum|5189.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.61
96000118|NCT02606877|191976215|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.84|107.48|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||107.48|87.84|
95792216|NCT00526474|191553166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.78|0.002
95792217|NCT00526474|191553167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.81|<0.001
95792218|NCT00526474|191553168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.86|0.001
95792219|NCT00526474|191553169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.85|<0.001
95792220|NCT00526474|191553170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.76|0.151
95792221|NCT00526474|191553171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
95792222|NCT00526474|191553172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.75|0.108
95792223|NCT00526474|191553173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.14|0.83|0.733
95792224|NCT00526474|191553174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression||Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.07|0.85|0.411
95792225|NCT00526474|191553175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.74|0.001
95792226|NCT00526474|191553176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
95816353|NCT03181971|191603030|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|9.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|49.9||Because of skewed distributions, dietary outcomes were log-transformed and regression coefficients were exponentiated to derive the percent change in outcomes by intervention status over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change from baseline to 7 months.||49.9|-20.6|.59
96000119|NCT02606877|191976216|OTHER||T2/R2 Ratio (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.94|112.56|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T2 and R2 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||112.56|87.94|
95816354|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|34.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 7 months.||34.2|13.1|<.001
95792227|NCT00526474|191553177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.76|<0.001
95792228|NCT00526474|191553178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.89|0.73|<0.001
95792229|NCT00526474|191553179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.71|1.23|<0.001
95792230|NCT00526474|191553180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.31|<0.001
95792231|NCT00526474|191553181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.79|<0.001
95792232|NCT00526474|191553182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.75|<0.001
95816355|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|14.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|25.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from baseline to 15 months.||25.9|4.5|.004
96000120|NCT02606877|191976217|OTHER||T1/R1 Ratio (%)|89.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|120.73|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on a logarithmic scale including effects: 'subject' and 'treatment'.|To get,geometric mean ratio and Confidence Interval,least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T1 and R1 were back transformed to original scale. Standard Deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric Coefficient of Variance(%).|||120.73|66.33|
95792233|NCT00526474|191553183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.90|0.77|<0.001
95792234|NCT00526474|191553184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.95|0.83|<0.001
95792235|NCT00526474|191553185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.94|0.83|<0.001
95816356|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-8.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.4|-15.7|0.063
95861479|NCT04672954|191681926|OTHER||Ratio|1.14||||0.6308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.85|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.32|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||1.85|0.71|0.6308
95816357|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-2.8||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in SSB intake from baseline to 15 months.||6.9|-11.7|.56
95816358|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 7 months.||7|-4.3|.68
95816359|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-1.4||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in juice intake from baseline to 15 months.||5|-7.4|.66
95816360|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-4.0||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||0.5|-8.3|0.079
95816361|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|-3.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in flavored milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||2.3|-8.0|.26
95816362|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 7 months.||11.5|-2.2|.20
95958403|NCT00878553|191889014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.284|-1.927||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-1.927|-15.284|0.0118
95792236|NCT00526474|191553186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.71|0.108
95792237|NCT00526474|191553187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.93|0.73|0.002
95792238|NCT00526474|191553188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.04|0.74|0.127
95792239|NCT00526474|191553189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.87|0.52|0.002
95792240|NCT00526474|191553190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.06|0.80|0.249
95792241|NCT00526474|191553191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.76|0.019
95792242|NCT00526474|191553192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.96|0.83|0.003
95792243|NCT00473083|191553193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8769||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Chi-squared|||||||0.8769
95792244|NCT00473083|191553193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||||||P for arm 1 v arms 2 and 3 combined|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.147
95792245|NCT00473083|191553194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1503||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1503
95792246|NCT00473083|191553194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681||||||P(arm2 v arm3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4681
95792247|NCT00473083|191553194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 1, 2a, or 2b|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0196
95792248|NCT00473083|191553194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||P(arm 1 v arm 2) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1658
95792249|NCT00473083|191553194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||"P(arm 2 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3.~P-value was calculated to be \>0.9999 using the Wilcoxon Rank Sumtest by comparing between the two treatment arms."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
95792250|NCT00473083|191553194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||||||P(arm 1 v arm 3) in patients with maximum severity of rash grade 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
95792251|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5097|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 1||||0.5097
95792252|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Rash Grade 2a||||0.4740
95792253|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.2123
95792254|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.5004
95792255|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9072|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.9072
95792256|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.0464
95792257|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6759|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.6759
95792258|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0065
95792259|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5898|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 1||||0.5898
95792260|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2a||||0.1921
95792261|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0882|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 2b||||0.0882
95792262|NCT00473083|191553195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|||||||Chi-squared|||Maximal Severity Grade 3||||0.0344
95792263|NCT00473083|191553196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3834|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3834
95792264|NCT00473083|191553198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0147
95792265|NCT02915835|191553200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.70
95792266|NCT02915835|191553201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95792267|NCT02915835|191553202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792268|NCT02915835|191553203|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792269|NCT02915835|191553204|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792270|NCT02915835|191553205|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95816363|NCT03181971|191603031|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|2.3||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in plain milk intake from baseline to 15 months.||9.6|-4.4|.51
95816364|NCT03181971|191603032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at lunch from baseline to 7 months.||42.2|21.2|<.001
95792271|NCT02915835|191553206|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792272|NCT02915835|191553207|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792273|NCT02915835|191553208|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792274|NCT02915835|191553209|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792275|NCT02915835|191553210|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792276|NCT02915835|191553211|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792277|NCT02915835|191553212|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792278|NCT02915835|191553213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||.56
95792279|NCT02915835|191553214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||.35
95792280|NCT02915835|191553216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
95792281|NCT02915835|191553217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.57
95792282|NCT02915835|191553218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
95792283|NCT02915835|191553219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.49
95792284|NCT02915835|191553220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.75
95792285|NCT02915835|191553221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.41
95792286|NCT02915835|191553222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95792287|NCT02915835|191553223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
95792288|NCT02915835|191553224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
95792289|NCT02915835|191553225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
95792290|NCT02915835|191553226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
95792291|NCT02915835|191553227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
95792292|NCT02915835|191553228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.90
95792293|NCT02915835|191553229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.68
95792294|NCT02915835|191553230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.25
95792295|NCT02915835|191553231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.95
95792296|NCT02915835|191553232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
95792297|NCT02915835|191553233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.82
95792298|NCT02915835|191553234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.47
95792299|NCT02915835|191553235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95792300|NCT02915835|191553236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
95792301|NCT02915835|191553237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95792302|NCT02915835|191553239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.34
95792303|NCT02915835|191553240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
95792304|NCT02915835|191553241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95792305|NCT02915835|191553242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
95792306|NCT02915835|191553243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
95792307|NCT02915835|191553244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
95792308|NCT02915835|191553245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95792309|NCT02915835|191553246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95792310|NCT02915835|191553247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
95792311|NCT02915835|191553248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
95792312|NCT02915835|191553249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95792313|NCT02915835|191553250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
95792314|NCT02915835|191553251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
95792315|NCT02915835|191553252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
95792316|NCT02915835|191553253|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95792317|NCT02915835|191553254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.73
95792318|NCT02915835|191553255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.32
95792319|NCT02915835|191553256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
95792320|NCT02915835|191553257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
95792321|NCT02915835|191553258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.39
95792322|NCT02915835|191553259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
95792323|NCT00433836|191553272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority delta of 3.5 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.17|||ANOVA|||||1.17|-3.80|
95816365|NCT03181971|191603032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.9||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source during lunch from baseline to 15 months.||13.5|-3.0|.22
96000121|NCT01225068|191976221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||effect size|0.22||||||||||no p value for effect size calculations ES is dimensionless; ES (Cohen's d) is a well described statistical construct and is calculated from the difference between the means (here at baseline and 6 weeks) divided by the pooled standard deviation.|effect size is endpoint and not comparis|no p value for effect size calculations||effect size is endpoint and not comparison||||
95792324|NCT01240382|191553281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in mean change in fluorescein staining score from baseline was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.34) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the 2 treatment groups.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||||95.0|-0.405|0.338|||l|||||0.338|-0.405|
95792325|NCT01240382|191553282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.01||95.0|-1.18|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.67|-1.18|0.010
95792326|NCT02974868|191553304|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|31.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.78|43.5||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.50|18.78|<.0001
95792327|NCT02974868|191553304|SUPERIORITY||Mean of Difference from Placebo|49.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.62|61.74||Hochberg P-value (one-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||61.74|36.62|<.0001
95792328|NCT02974868|191553305|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|25.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.64||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.98|43.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||43.58|7.98|0.0094
95792329|NCT02974868|191553305|OTHER||Mean of Difference from Placebo|46.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.02|64.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|MMRM contains fixed factors of treatment, week, baseline, treatment by week and treatment by baseline interaction and a random effect for subject.||||64.20|29.02|<.0001
95792330|NCT02974868|191553310|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.2|60.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||||60.7|34.2|<.0001
95792331|NCT02974868|191553310|OTHER||Difference in Percentage from Placebo|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.2|73.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||||73.6|48.2|<.0001
95792332|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|0.914|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparison|||0.914|0.799|
95792333|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.677|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.721|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.721|0.635|
95792334|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|0.682|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-inf) comparision|||0.682|0.594|
95816366|NCT03181971|191603032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|17.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|33.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 7 months.||33.3|2.6|.02
95792335|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.747|0.864|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.864|0.747|
95792336|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.608|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.566|0.655|||ANOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.655|0.566|
95792337|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.518|0.599|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-24) comparision|||0.599|0.518|
95792338|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.876|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.876|0.766|
95792339|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.595|0.68|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.680|0.595|
95792340|NCT02634073|191553403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.548|0.626|||ANCOVA||AUC (0-t) comparision|||0.626|0.548|
95792341|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.08|||ANCOVA||C24 comparison|||1.08|0.916|
95792342|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.21|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.21|1.03|
95792343|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.18|||ANCOVA||C24 comparision|||1.18|1.000|
95792344|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.56|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.56|1.13|
95792345|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.71|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.71|1.25|
95792346|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.63|||ANCOVA||Ct comparision|||1.63|1.18|
95792347|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.798|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.798|0.657|
95792348|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.434|0.527|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.527|0.434|
95792349|NCT02634073|191553404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.412|0.5|||ANCOVA||Cmax comparision|||0.500|0.412|
95792350|NCT02634073|191553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.69|||ANCOVA|||||1.69|1.11|
95792351|NCT02634073|191553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.88|||ANCOVA|||||1.88|1.25|
95792352|NCT02634073|191553405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|1.04|
95792353|NCT02634073|191553406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.094|1.251|||ANCOVA|||||1.251|1.094|
95792354|NCT02634073|191553406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|1.576|||ANCOVA|||||1.576|1.386|
95792355|NCT02634073|191553406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.466|1.684|||ANCOVA|||||1.684|1.466|
95792356|NCT01663402|191553429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world).||0.93|0.78|0.0003
96000122|NCT05278104|191976256|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.7|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||1.7|-2.6|
95792357|NCT01663402|191553430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region(North America,South America,Western Europe,Eastern Europe,Asia, Rest of the world).A hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall type-I error at 0.0249 one-sided alpha level(0.0498 two-sided).Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported.Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.||0.95|0.81|0.0013
95792358|NCT01663402|191553431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.96||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.96|0.80|0.0060
95792359|NCT01663402|191553432|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.94|0.81|0.0003
95792360|NCT01663402|191553433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.93||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||0.93|0.79|0.0003
95792361|NCT01663402|191553434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.0498 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard model and log rank test stratified on geographical region (North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Rest of the world). Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.11|0.76|0.3824
95792362|NCT00678418|191553444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis = the distribution function of opioid-free weeks is the same for both treatment groups.||||0.0002
95792363|NCT00678418|191553445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0||||A total of 114 subjects continued on-study beyond the 168-day endpoint for Part A; these subjects were censored as of the first dosing day in Part B.|Kaplan Meier|||P-value was calculated using the log-rank test for the null hypothesis: the distribution of days to discontinuation does not differ by treatment.||||0.0042
95792364|NCT00678418|191553446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"P-value was calculated using the Chi-square test for the null hypothesis: mean treatment difference = 0.~Calculations were based on the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model (normal distribution, identity link and AR(1) correlation structure) for repeated data on change from baseline with treatment and visit as main effects, and baseline as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method."||||<0.0001
95792365|NCT00678418|191553447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0154||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square test was used to calculate the p-value for treatment. Null hypothesis = no association between relapse to dependence and study treatment.~Subjects who discontinued prematurely from the study were imputed as having a positive naloxone challenge test result."||0.95|0.60|0.0154
95816367|NCT03181971|191603032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|4.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|19.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at recess from baseline to 15 months.||19.2|-8.0|.48
95816368|NCT03181971|191603032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|34.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|99.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 7 months.||99.8|-9.4|.14
95816369|NCT03181971|191603032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in change|32.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|96.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of between group change in water intake from water source at PE from baseline to 15 months.||96.2|-11.0|.16
95792366|NCT00678418|191553448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||van der Waerden|||Null hypothesis: Treatment difference=0. Missing data from subjects due to early discontinuation during Part A were imputed using the baseline rate; thus data for subjects who discontinued early were imputed as having no change from baseline.||||0.0031
95816370|NCT04343092|191603035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Historical control population included: Hydroxychloroquin (HCQ) 400mg BID at admission day then 200mg BID for 5 days plus Azithromycin (AZT) 500mg at admission day then 250mg for 5 days.|||0.05
95792367|NCT01545388|191553449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.678|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.868|-0.489|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.489|-0.868|<0.001
95816371|NCT00803738|191603036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For the primary clinical equivalence analysis, a 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the therapeutic cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|15.02|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||15.02|-4.30|
95816372|NCT00803738|191603037|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the mycological cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.66|11.49|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||11.49|-4.66|
95792368|NCT01545388|191553449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.525|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.337|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-0.337|-0.713|<0.001
95792369|NCT01545388|191553449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin (Δ) is set as 0.3% to show the non-inferiority of metformin 500 mg q.d. to metformin 250 mg b.i.d.|Difference in least squares means|0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.306||||||||0.306|0.000|
95792370|NCT01545388|191553450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-11.24|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-11.24|-25.94|<0.001
95792371|NCT01545388|191553450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-16.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.62|-9.06|||cLDA|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above and a constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||-9.06|-23.62|<0.001
95792372|NCT01545388|191553450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|8.14||||||||8.14|-3.63|
95792373|NCT00289211|191553453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.048||||0.048||95.0|1.008|4.164|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who did not experience beginning of substantial relief of the defining symptom within 4 hours after initial treatment were included in the analysis as censored observations. Entries of 4.0 (hours) for median time to event or 95% CI indicate that data were NE (see Population Description). As non-numeric data are not supported by the median and 95% CI fields, entry of the actual results (ie, NE or \>4.0) was not possible.||4.164|1.008|0.048
95792374|NCT00289211|191553454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.062||95.0|0.87|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.87|0.062
95792375|NCT00289211|191553455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.717||||0.001||95.0|1.471|5.02|||Regression, Cox|||Subjects who had not experienced complete resolution of the HAE attack at the time of the follow-up telephone call, or who were lost to follow-up, were censored at 72 hours.||5.020|1.471|0.001
95792376|NCT00289211|191553456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95792377|NCT00289211|191553456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95792378|NCT00289211|191553456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95792379|NCT00289211|191553456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
95792380|NCT00289211|191553457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95816373|NCT00803738|191603038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A 90% confidence interval was constructed on the difference in the clinical cure rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at the Test-of-Cure visit (Visit 3). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Clinical equivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|proportion of subjects in trtmt groups|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|16.88|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity|||||16.88|-1.35|
95792381|NCT00289211|191553457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95792382|NCT00289211|191553457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Percent change 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95792383|NCT00289211|191553457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Percent change 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
95792384|NCT00289211|191553458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1321||95.0||||Change at 1 hour post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1321
95792385|NCT00289211|191553458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5218||95.0||||Change at 2 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5218
95792386|NCT00289211|191553458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.121||95.0||||Change at 4 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1210
95792387|NCT00289211|191553458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Change at 12 hours post-infusion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0017
95792388|NCT01255163|191553477|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||threshold for significance (p \< 0.05)|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
95792389|NCT01255163|191553478|OTHER|||||||0.098||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 52.008) = 1.902, p = 0.098"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED MMSE.tot BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.098
95792390|NCT01255163|191553479|OTHER|||||||0.295||||||"Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05.~Type III Tests of Fixed Effects for Group\*VisitLong F (6, 52.281) = 1.254, p = 0.295"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED ADAS70 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~* CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE)~* FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3)~* METHOD=REML~* PRINT=SOLUTION~* REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI)~* EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.295
95816374|NCT01109108|191603079|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95816375|NCT03420742|191603143|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.915|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||0.915|0.600|
95816376|NCT03420742|191603144|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.662|1.06|||||The ratios of geometric mean were calculated on the basis of the within-participant variance. Participant was treated as a random effect in the model.|||1.06|0.662|
95792391|NCT01255163|191553480|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (6, 47.485) = 1.704, p = 0.141|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age~CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.141
95792392|NCT01255163|191553481|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (6, 51.955) = 2.553, p = 0.031. Univarate Exendin-4 F(3, 51.386) = 2.734, p = 0.053. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.035).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED CDR.sob BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.031
95792393|NCT01255163|191553482|OTHER|||||||0.703||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.251) = 0.360, p = 0.703.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED TAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.703
95792394|NCT01255163|191553483|OTHER|||||||0.845||||||Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05. Type III Tests of Fixed Effects Group \* VisitLong F (2, 15.828) = 0.170, p = 0.845.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED pTAU BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.845
95816377|NCT03273907|191603154|SUPERIORITY|The primary null hypothesis tested was that the observed rate of clinically relevant complications associated with CyPass Micro-Stent placement and stability is greater than or equal to the performance target rate of 7.00 percent.||||||0.187|||||||Exact one-sided binomial test|P-value is provided from exact one-sided binomial test with type I error 0.05 comparing CyPass System with performance criterion of 7.00 percent.||||||0.1870
95816378|NCT01244035|191603172|OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|2.74|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.74|-0.54|0.1325
95816379|NCT01244035|191603172|OTHER||LS Mean difference|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|5.79|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||5.79|2.53|<0.001
95816380|NCT01244035|191603172|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.06||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|-1.42|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-1.42|-4.70|0.0016
95816381|NCT01244035|191603173|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.94||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|-0.57|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.57|-5.30|0.0212
95816382|NCT01244035|191603173|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.76||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.16|-0.36|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0299
95816383|NCT01244035|191603173|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|2.19|||Linear mixed effects model|Period and treatment were fixed effects and participant was a random effect.||||2.19|-2.54|0.4506
95816384|NCT00570323|191603188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
95816385|NCT03856359|191603192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95816386|NCT03856359|191603194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95816387|NCT03856359|191603196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95816388|NCT03856359|191603198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95816389|NCT03856359|191603199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95816390|NCT03856359|191603200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95816391|NCT03856359|191603201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95816392|NCT03856359|191603202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95816393|NCT03856359|191603203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95816394|NCT03856359|191603204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95816395|NCT03856359|191603205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95816396|NCT03856359|191603206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95816397|NCT03856359|191603207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95816398|NCT03856359|191603208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95816399|NCT03856359|191603209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95816400|NCT03856359|191603210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95792395|NCT01255163|191553484|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (2, 16.614) = 5.142, p = 0.018. Univariate tests: Placebo F(1, 16.595) = 4.138, p = 0.058; Exendin-4 F(1, 16.595) = 6.262, p = 0.022. Pairwise for Exendin-4, baseline vs. 18 months (p = 0.022).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline,18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED Ab42 BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.018
95792396|NCT01255163|191553485|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects: Group \* VisitLong F (8, 72.603) = 2.816, p = 0.009. Univarate Exendin-4 F(4, 72.944) = 4.834, p = 0.002. Pairwise comparisons for Exendin-4 showed a decrease in BMI baseline vs. 6 months (p = 0.029).|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed model with Repeated Factor (Visit Long: baseline, 6, 12, 18 months), Fixed Factors (Group,VisitLong, Sex) and Covariate (Age)|||"MIXED BMI BY Group Sex VisitLong WITH Age CRITERIA=CIN(95) MXITER(100) MXSTEP(10) SCORING(1) SINGULAR(0.000000000001) HCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) LCONVERGE(0, ABSOLUTE) PCONVERGE(0.000001, ABSOLUTE) FIXED=Group Sex Age Group\*VisitLong \| SSTYPE(3) METHOD=REML PRINT=SOLUTION REPEATED=VisitLong \| SUBJECT(SubjectID) COVTYPE(AR1) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Sex) COMPARE ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(Group) ADJ(BONFERRONI) EMMEANS=TABLES(Group\*VisitLong) COMPARE(VisitLong) ADJ(BONFERRONI) ."|||0.009
95792397|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.5|20.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||Sample size of 12 subjects, a two-sided 90% CI for the difference in paired PK parameter means on the log scale will have an interval that extends no more than 0.221 units from the observed difference with 90% coverage probability. Assumes CV of 35% for the difference on the original scale.||20.3|7.5|
95792398|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.5|16.3||||||||16.3|6.5|
95792399|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER|relative bioavailibilty|Geometric Mean ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.5|137.6||||||||137.6|50.5|
95792400|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|0.21|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
95816401|NCT02266147|191603213|OTHER|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.||||||||||||||||MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|MTD was not observed because no DLTs occurred at the maximum dose tested. Because this is a safety endpoint, a statistical analysis was not conducted.|||
95792401|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|0.13|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
95792402|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
95816402|NCT00696878|191603231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.4|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 1|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.4||
95792403|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
95792404|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|0.17|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
95792405|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|1.12|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
95816403|NCT00696878|191603231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.8|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 2|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||0.8||
95792406|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|0.08|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
95792407|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|0.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
95792408|NCT03292016|191553522|OTHER||Ratio|1.04|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
95792409|NCT03292016|191553523|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0625
95792410|NCT03292016|191553523|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0313
95792411|NCT03292016|191553523|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Sign test|||||||>0.9999
95792412|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.1|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.1|
95792413|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.0|21.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.3|13.0|
95792414|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|126.4||||||||126.4|74.2|
95792415|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APO-Go 3 mg|||||
95792416|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.16|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 20 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
95792417|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 3 mg and APOKYN 3 mg|||||
95792418|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APO-Go 4 mg|||||
95792419|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 25 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
95792420|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|1.0|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 4 mg and APOKYN 4 mg|||||
95792421|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.15|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APO-Go 5 mg|||||
95792422|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.14|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APL 30 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
95792423|NCT03292016|191553524|OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||||||||||The comparative bioavailability calculated as the ratio of the Test/Reference between APO-Go 5 mg and APOKYN 5 mg|||||
95792424|NCT03292016|191553525|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APOKYN)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|22.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|With fixed effects-treatment and period, random effect-subject nested within sequence to analyze natural-log transformed dose normalized parameter.||||22.5|13.7|
95861480|NCT04672954|191681926|OTHER||Ratio|1.75||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.89|||ANCOVA||Ratio = BI / Placebo. Geometric standard error = 1.33|The difference between the expected means for ln(T) - ln(R) was estimated by the difference in the corresponding least square means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates.||2.89|1.06|0.0690
95861481|NCT01904773|191681941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0087||||||Bonferroni-Holm adjustment, compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||Comparison with placebo||||0.0087
95861482|NCT01904773|191681941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.1198||||||Bonferroni-Holm compared with 0.025|ANCOVA|Each subject received each treatment multiple times in a crossover design||||||0.1198
95861483|NCT02617485|191681945|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0406|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9565|1.1321||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1321|0.9565|
95792425|NCT03292016|191553525|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APL-130277/APO-go)|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.7|21.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.6|13.7|
95792426|NCT03292016|191553525|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (APOKYN/APO-go)|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.6|124.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.8|76.6|
95792427|NCT03292016|191553530|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
95792428|NCT03292016|191553530|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
95792429|NCT03292016|191553530|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.9999
95792430|NCT02756910|191553542|OTHER||percentile method|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||bootstrapping|||||||<0.05
95792431|NCT02554760|191553560|OTHER||success proportion|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|92.3|||Catagorical tabulation|||||92.3|60.4|
95792432|NCT02554760|191553560|OTHER||success proportion|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.4|93.9||||||||93.9|54.4|
95792433|NCT00593918|191553573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.04
95792434|NCT00593918|191553574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Analysis was per protocol based on the number of children enrolled by genotype and completed nasal washes at first visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed random effects model was used both unadjusted and adjustment for relevant co-variates obtained from the literature.||||||0.14
95792435|NCT04195061|191553592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.303
95792436|NCT04195061|191553593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95792437|NCT04195061|191553594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95792438|NCT02688933|191553608|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model with identity link||Analysis was performed using generalized linear model with identity link, had percentage of time glucose concentration within target range 70-180 mg/dL as dependent variable, treatment group as an independent variable, adjusting variables including baseline characteristics: duration of diabetes, baseline BMI, age, and randomization strata (HbA1c at screening \[\<8.0% vs ≥8.0%\], frequency of Lantus injection at screening, current CGM use \[yes/no\], and mealtime insulin titration algorithm).||||0.8494
95792439|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.26801155||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.26801155
95792440|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.27520264||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.27520264
95792441|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792442|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.5623012||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.56230120
95792443|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.35813970
95792444|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.26801155||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.26801155
95792445|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
95792446|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792447|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.59932922||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.59932922
95792448|NCT04379921|191553702|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.35813970
95792449|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.0909144||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.09091440
95792450|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.12858419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.12858419
95792451|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95861484|NCT02617485|191681946|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence met if the 90% CI of the Geo LS Means ratio is contained with the pre-specified equivalence margin of 70% - 143%.|Ratio of Geo LS-means|1.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9822|1.1464||||||Estimated Geo LS-means ratio.||1.1464|0.9822|
96002103|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|-8.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-8.61|-24.73|<0.001
95792452|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.93040170
95792453|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.38647114
95792454|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.0909144||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.09091440
95792455|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.12858419||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.12858419
95792456|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792457|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.93040170
95792458|NCT04379921|191553703|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.38647114
95792459|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.14778771||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.14778771
95792460|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.36288455||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.36288455
95792461|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.95547874|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792462|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.65291937||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.65291937
95792463|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.61429132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.61429132
95792464|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.1589642||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.15896420
95792465|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.39253325||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.39253325
95792466|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.99526258||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.99526258
95792467|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.65291937||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.65291937
95792468|NCT04379921|191553704|OTHER|||||||0.67694276||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.67694276
95792469|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.06340316||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.06340316
95792470|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
95792471|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792472|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.59932922||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.59932922
95792473|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.35813970
95816404|NCT00696878|191603231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage with immunogenicity|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||||Provided limit is upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit for study population for percentage of participants with clinically relevant immunogenicity, after Cycle 3|During sample size determination, the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the population incidence of immunogenicity, if no immunogenicity is observed, was calculated. If no immunogenicity is observed in the projected 150 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 3 COS cycles, then the upper limit for the population is 2%. For the projected 300 participants who receive corifollitropin alfa during 2 COS cycles, the upper limit for the population is 1%.||1.5||
95962408|NCT03607422|191896615|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|56.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||56.5|41.4|<0.001
95792474|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.06340316||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.06340316
95792475|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.08121447||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.08121447
95792476|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95816405|NCT02099084|191603320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.74
95792477|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.59932922|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.59932922
95792478|NCT04379921|191553705|OTHER|||||||0.3581397||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.35813970
95792479|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.52394318||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to SF-36||||0.52394318
95792480|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.37244637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to EQ-5D||||0.37244637
95792481|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792482|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to NDI||||0.93040170
95792483|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.38647114||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: steps to ODI||||0.38647114
95792484|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.7155239||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to SF-36||||0.71552390
95792485|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.35456143||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to EQ-5D||||0.35456143
95792486|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.95547874||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to PROMIS||||0.95547874
95792487|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.9304017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to NDI||||0.93040170
95816406|NCT02099084|191603321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 2-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.20
95816407|NCT02099084|191603321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups for change between 0- and 8-hours. Level of significance = .05||||0.17
95816408|NCT02099084|191603322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.075
95792488|NCT04379921|191553706|OTHER|||||||0.42512141||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \< 0.05. The p-value is adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH method).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of correlation: distance (meters) to ODI||||0.42512141
95792489|NCT04577794|191553730|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with a multiple imputation method to handle missing values, with treatment as fixed effect and baseline score as covariate.||1.7|-1.7|0.981
95792490|NCT02713178|191553733|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-20.249||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.361|31.864|||ANOVA|||||31.864|-72.361|0.4463
95792491|NCT02713178|191553733|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-28.796||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.483|22.892|||ANOVA|||||22.892|-80.483|0.2749
95792492|NCT02713178|191553734|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.853||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.014|||ANOVA|||||1.014|0.717|0.0716
95792493|NCT02713178|191553734|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.913||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.084|||ANOVA|||||1.084|0.769|0.3004
95792494|NCT02713178|191553736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1896|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.1896
95816409|NCT02099084|191603325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.42
95792495|NCT02713178|191553736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2549|||||||Log Rank|||The overall distribution as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis was compared between the EXPAREL arm and the placebo arm.||||0.2549
95816410|NCT02099084|191603326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Level of significance = .05||||0.34
95816411|NCT03141255|191603327|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95816412|NCT03141255|191603328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
95962409|NCT03607422|191896615|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|50.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.6|35.0|0.002
95816413|NCT03141255|191603329|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95816414|NCT03141255|191603330|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95816415|NCT03141255|191603331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
95816416|NCT03141255|191603332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.091
95816417|NCT03141255|191603333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
95816418|NCT03141255|191603334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95816419|NCT03141255|191603335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.516
95816420|NCT03141255|191603336|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.75
95816421|NCT03141255|191603337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95816422|NCT03141255|191603338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
95816423|NCT05501639|191603345|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.758
95816424|NCT05501639|191603346|OTHER|||||||0.474|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.474
95816425|NCT05501639|191603347|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.472
95816426|NCT05501639|191603348|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.604|||||Incidence rate ratio at 6 months|||1.604|0.261|
95816427|NCT05501639|191603348|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.969|||||Incidence rate ratio at 12 months|||1.969|0.513|
95816428|NCT05501639|191603349|OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalisations||||0.222
95816429|NCT05501639|191603349|OTHER|||||||0.553|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.553
95816430|NCT05501639|191603349|OTHER|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||ED visits||||0.192
95816431|NCT05501639|191603349|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.383
95816432|NCT05501639|191603349|OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||Chi-squared|||OP visits||||0.338
95816433|NCT05501639|191603349|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma-related OP visits||||<0.0001
95816434|NCT05501639|191603350|OTHER|||||||0.538|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalisations||||0.538
95816435|NCT05501639|191603350|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related hospitalisations||||0.913
95816436|NCT05501639|191603350|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ED visits||||0.688
95816437|NCT05501639|191603350|OTHER|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related ED visits||||0.892
95816438|NCT05501639|191603350|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OP visits||||<0.0001
95816439|NCT05501639|191603350|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Asthma-related OP visits||||0.002
95816440|NCT05501639|191603351|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
95816441|NCT00114127|191603352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.132||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.132
95816442|NCT00114127|191603353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.292||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.292
95816443|NCT03188263|191603354|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.046||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.046
95816444|NCT03188263|191603355|OTHER|The primary planned analysis was in bright light group only and compared pre-post measurements.||||||0.35||||||A threshold of .05 was selected a priori.|Sign test|A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was estimated to determine if pre-post measures of glucose levels differed significantly.||The primary planned analyses was to examine effect in bright light group. A significance level of .05 was selected a priori.||||.35
95816445|NCT01628523|191603357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95816446|NCT04551898|191603406|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.25||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.84|0.4829
95816447|NCT04551898|191603406|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|-0.51||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.13|0.1739
95816448|NCT04551898|191603406|SUPERIORITY||Least square Mean|0.19||||0.6006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-0.40|0.6006
95816449|NCT04551898|191603406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4996||||||H0: there is a flat dose response curve comparing change from baseline to Day 8 in viral load in the Placebo and other BGB-DXP593 dose groups|t-test, 1 sided|MCP Mod was used to test the primary hypothesis and provide 1-sided p-value accordingly.||||||0.4996
95816450|NCT03427814|191603422|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1428|||||||Log Rank|The one-sided p-value was based on a stratified log-rank test.||||||= 0.1428
95816451|NCT02393859|191603443|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.54|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
95816452|NCT02393859|191603443|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-11.16||||0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
95816453|NCT02393859|191603443|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.19|
95816454|NCT02393859|191603443|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.7|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.70|0.22|
95816455|NCT02393859|191603443|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.64|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.64|0.20|
95816456|NCT02393859|191603444|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.9|||<|0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
95962410|NCT03607422|191896616|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-34.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-34.22|-45.80|<0.001
96000123|NCT05278104|191976257|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the BIS-11 score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||0.3|-4.6|
95816457|NCT02393859|191603444|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-13.61|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for Blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event free survival time.|||||< 0.001
95816458|NCT02393859|191603444|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.61|0.20|
95816459|NCT02393859|191603444|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.22|
95816460|NCT02393859|191603444|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR w/time-dependent covariate|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59|||||Cox proportional hazard model including time from randomization to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Stratification factors: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \<1.0=lower average event rate and longer EFS for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.59|0.20|
95816461|NCT02393859|191603445|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.14||||0.001||||||Stratification factors were: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Stratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||0.001
95816462|NCT02393859|191603445|SUPERIORITY||Normal score|-10.32|||<|0.001|||||||Unstratified log-rank test||A normal score \< 0 indicates fewer than expected events for blinatumomab relative to HC3 and therefore a longer event-free survival time.|||||< 0.001
95816463|NCT02393859|191603445|SUPERIORITY||Stratified HR|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||||Cox proportional hazard model. Stratification factors were: age and marrow/MRD status. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.66|0.16|
95816464|NCT02393859|191603445|SUPERIORITY||Unstratified HR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||||Cox proportional hazard model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.65|0.16|
95816465|NCT02393859|191603446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10\^-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10\^-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by PCR||||< 0.001
95816466|NCT02393859|191603446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification factors: age (1 to 9 years vs other \[\< 1 year and \> 9 years\]), and marrow/MRD status (M1 with MRD level \< 10-3 vs M1 with MRD level ≥ 10-3 vs M2).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||MRD response by flow cytometry||||< 0.001
95816467|NCT02393859|191603447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.52|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.)|||0.52|0.16|
96000124|NCT05278104|191976258|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.4|||||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||2.4|-2.1|
96000125|NCT05278104|191976259|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.|Least square mean difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated regardless of concomitant/rescue medication use or nausea/vomiting (treatment policy). Treatment discontinuation was handled with a while-on-treatment strategy.|Change from baseline was analyzed with an ANCOVA model with the S-UPPS-P score at baseline as covariate and treatment as fixed factor.||3.1|-1.3|
95816468|NCT02393859|191603447|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||||The subdistribution HR estimates are obtained from the subdistribution Cox model. (HR \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer relapse-free time for blinatumomab relative to HC3.) Stratification factors are age and marrow/MRD status.|||0.48|0.15|
95816469|NCT00954447|191603455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.74|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.55|-0.74|<0.0001
95816470|NCT00954447|191603456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.935|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.949|4.419|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 7.0 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 7.0 percent (NCF); there are 593 available values for Placebo and 595 for Linagliptin 5mg||4.419|1.949|<0.0001
95816471|NCT00954447|191603458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.51|-0.39|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.39|-0.51|<0.0001
95816472|NCT00954447|191603459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.52|-0.69|<0.0001
95816473|NCT00954447|191603460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.57|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.57|-0.76|<0.0001
95816474|NCT00954447|191603461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.47|-0.67|<0.0001
95816475|NCT00954447|191603462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.45|-0.65|<0.0001
95816476|NCT00954447|191603463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.43|-0.64|<0.0001
95816477|NCT00954447|191603464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001||95.0|-16.49|-6.71|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-6.71|-16.49|<0.0001
95816478|NCT00954447|191603467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0029||95.0|-2.61|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Linagliptin 5mg - Placebo|||-0.54|-2.61|0.0029
95816479|NCT00954447|191603470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.327|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.221|8.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression of HbA1c \< 6.5 percent at week 52|Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo OR adjusted for baseline HbA1c, categorical renal function impairment, concomitant OADs and treatment|FAS with baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5 percent (NCF); there are 615 available values for Placebo and 616 for Linagliptin 5mg||8.430|2.221|<0.0001
95816480|NCT01979614|191603471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standard Error|-0.1116||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||ANCOVA|||SAP for Global Myocardial Perfusion Reserve Index (MPRI)||0.176|-0.399|0.438
95816481|NCT00457392|191603483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.079||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||1.079|0.822|0.1933
95816482|NCT00457392|191603484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.807||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.937||No p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons for PFS.|Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test with alpha=0.025 was used.||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the 1-sided log rank test, stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown).||0.937|0.695|0.0023
95816483|NCT00457392|191603485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.514||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.002|2.289|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified for smoking status (ever versus never), prior bevacizumab therapy (yes versus no) and EGFR status (positive, versus negative, versus unknown) was used to compare ORR between the 2 treatment arms. The relative risk ratio estimator was used to contrast the treatment effects on response rates. A point estimate of relative risk ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated.||2.289|1.002|0.0471
95816484|NCT00756275|191603489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|20.56|||Chi-squared|||||20.56|.91|<0.05
95816485|NCT00756275|191603490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-6.29|.50
95816486|NCT00756275|191603491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||||14.50|.58|.30
95816487|NCT00756275|191603492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|8.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.68|-24.64|.34
95816488|NCT00756275|191603493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|23.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.52|-8.73|.36
96000126|NCT00492622|191976265|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||<|0.01||||||\<0.01 is used for determining the level of significance.|paired t-tests|||||||< 0.01
96000127|NCT00492622|191976266|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.|||||||||||||||||P\<0.05 was used as the level of significance with ANOVA for this endpoint.|||
95816489|NCT00756275|191603494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.57
95816490|NCT00756275|191603495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.31
95816491|NCT00756275|191603496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.72
95816492|NCT00756275|191603497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.18
95816493|NCT00756275|191603498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.87|-3.98|.75
95816494|NCT03012334|191603512|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|9.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|12.33||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.33|7.39|<.001
95816495|NCT03012334|191603512|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|15.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.87|17.82||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.82|12.87|<0.001
95816496|NCT03012334|191603512|NON_INFERIORITY|Doses of lasmiditan were considered non-inferior to placebo if the upper 95% confidence limit on the difference in SDLP between that dose and placebo was less than 4.4 cm and lower doses also did not exceed the non-inferiority (NI) margin.|LS Mean|21.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|23.52||P-value is obtained from mixed effect model for testing difference versus placebo equals to zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.52|18.60|<0.001
95958404|NCT00878553|191889014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.685|-3.275||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes||-3.275|-16.685|0.0037
95816497|NCT03012334|191603512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|25.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.18|20.23|<0.001
95816498|NCT03012334|191603512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|-10.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.38|-15.32|<0.001
95816499|NCT03012334|191603512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|-4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.88|-9.84|<0.001
95816500|NCT03012334|191603512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.65||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-4.11|0.19
95816501|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1744|2.0335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0335|1.1744|<0.0001
95816502|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8306|2.6926|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6926|1.8306|<.0001
95816503|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4239|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2800|2.4239|<0.0001
95816504|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9568|3.8193|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8193|2.9568|<0.0001
95816505|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2137|-1.3546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3546|-2.2137|<0.0001
95816506|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5574|-0.6956|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.6956|-1.5574|<0.0001
95816507|NCT03012334|191603513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.5||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9642|-0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1081|-0.9642|0.0142
95816508|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6895|-6.5006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.5006|-18.6895|<.0001
95816509|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3631|-18.1357|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.1357|-30.3631|<.0001
95816510|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.442|-22.2897|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.2897|-34.4420|<.0001
95816511|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5068|-24.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.2770|-36.5068|<0.0001
95816512|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7029|23.8908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.8908|11.7029|<.0001
95816513|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.1||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|12.2554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2554|0.0297|0.0489
95816514|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.0||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|8.1021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.1021|-4.0500|0.5123
95816515|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4956|-20.3628|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.3628|-32.4956|<.0001
95816516|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.927|-31.7537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.7537|-43.9270|<.0001
95816517|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-46.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8147|-40.7268|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.7268|-52.8147|<.0001
95816518|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.649|-46.4682|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.4682|-58.6490|<0.0001
95816519|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|26.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0635|32.1953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.1953|20.0635|<.0001
95816520|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6325|20.804|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.8040|8.6325|<.0001
95816521|NCT03012334|191603515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|5.8||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|11.8317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8317|-0.2560|0.0605
96000128|NCT00492622|191976267|EQUIVALENCE|Primary study objective was to compare the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole between IR and DR omeprazole in patients with GERD associated with gastroparesis.||||||0.95||||||An analysis of variance model was used to compare AUC between IR and DR omeprazole using the natural logarithmic transformation. The model included the following factors: treatment, period, sequence and patient nested within the sequence.|ANOVA|||||||0.95
95816522|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.14|<0.001
95816523|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.28|-8.58|<0.001
95816524|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.23|-10.52|<0.001
95816525|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.51|-12.81|<0.001
95816526|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.31|5.02|<0.001
95816527|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.88|2.58|<0.001
95816528|NCT03012334|191603516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.3|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.93|0.64|<0.007
95816529|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2198|1.6583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6583|1.2198|<0.0001
95816530|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7981|2.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2380|1.7981|<0.0001
95816531|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.572|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3536|2.7909|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7909|2.3536|<0.0001
95816532|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.553|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3331|2.773|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7730|2.3331|<0.0001
95816533|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3333|-0.8948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8948|-1.3333|<0.0001
95816534|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7549|-0.3151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3151|-0.7549|<0.0001
95816535|NCT03012334|191603517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.019||||0.8629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1995|0.2379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2379|-0.1995|0.8629
95816536|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0849|0.2746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2746|0.0849|0.0002
95816537|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|0.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3985|0.2082|<.0001
95816538|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.372|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.4662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4662|0.2770|<.0001
95816539|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.6983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6983|0.5080|<.0001
95816540|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5183|-0.3286|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3286|-0.5183|<.0001
95816541|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3949|-0.2047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2047|-0.3949|<0.0001
95816542|NCT03012334|191603519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3261|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1370|-0.3261|<0.0001
95816543|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.05|0.86|<0.001
95816544|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
95816545|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.04|0.85|<0.001
95816546|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.07|0.84|<0.001
95816547|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.06|0.84|<0.001
95816548|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.00|0.81|<0.001
95816549|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.11|0.86|<0.001
95816550|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.06|0.85|<0.001
95816551|NCT01073293|191603520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||0.99|0.80|<0.001
96000129|NCT02531035|191976268|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.97|17.81||P-values from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by different levels of stratification factors of BMI at Screening(\<25 kg/m\^2,\>=25 kg/m\^2),Week -2 A1C(\<=9.0%, \>9.0%),and using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion(CSII) at Screening(yes,no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.81|8.97|< 0.001
96000130|NCT02531035|191976269|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.38|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-0.38|-0.54|< 0.001
95816552|NCT01073293|191603525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.4|-0.7|<0.001
95816553|NCT01073293|191603525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||1.2|-1.1|<0.001
95816554|NCT01073293|191603526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||1.06|0.85|<0.001
95816555|NCT01073293|191603526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.08|0.90|<0.001
95816556|NCT01073293|191603526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.09|0.80|<0.001
95816557|NCT01073293|191603526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Difference in GMT|0.89||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.11|0.72|0.005
95816558|NCT01073293|191603527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 1||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
95816559|NCT01073293|191603527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 2||0.8|-1.2|<0.001
95816560|NCT01073293|191603527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the difference is statistically less than 10 percentage points|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus type 3||0.8|-0.8|<0.001
95816561|NCT01106157|191603557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.552|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.552|0.001|0.017
95816562|NCT01106157|191603558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.30|0.43
95816563|NCT01106157|191603559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-1.64|0.37
95816564|NCT01106157|191603560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|-0.40|0.69
95816565|NCT01106157|191603561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|81.3||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.8|180.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||180.3|-156.8|0.89
95816566|NCT01106157|191603562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.70|-0.15|0.2
95816567|NCT01106157|191603563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.61||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.7|-64.8|0.23
95816568|NCT01106157|191603564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|-0.18|0.79
95816569|NCT01106157|191603565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.35|-18.7|0.163
95816570|NCT01118780|191603576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||5.88|2.47|<0.001
95816571|NCT01118780|191603577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.85|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||4.85|1.61|<0.001
95816572|NCT01118780|191603578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.37||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Psychic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.37|1.43|<0.001
95816573|NCT01118780|191603578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.65||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Somatic Anxiety Factor Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.65|0.87|<0.001
95816574|NCT01118780|191603578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.74||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Anxious Mood Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.74|0.30|<0.001
95816575|NCT01118780|191603578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HAMA Tension Item Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.53|0.09|0.007
95816576|NCT01118780|191603579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Anxiety Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||3.18|1.20|<0.001
95816577|NCT01118780|191603579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.49||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in the HADS Depression Subscale Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||2.49|0.89|<0.001
95816578|NCT01118780|191603580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.79|0.26|<0.001
95816579|NCT01118780|191603581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|0.33|<0.001
95816580|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.11||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Worst Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.11|-0.02|0.059
95816581|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.89||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Least Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.89|-0.05|0.079
95816582|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Average Pain Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.91|-0.06|0.089
95816583|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.73||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Pain Right Now Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.73|-0.27|0.371
95816584|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.09||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF General Activity Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.09|-0.04|0.066
95861485|NCT02191865|191682033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|215.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.71|384.32|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||384.32|120.71|
96000131|NCT02531035|191976270|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-2.66|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m\^2, \>=25 kg/m\^2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9%, \>9%), randomization stratum of Use of CSII at Screening (Yes, No), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline weight-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-2.66|-3.31|< 0.001
95816585|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Mood Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.95|-0.13|0.140
95816586|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Walking Ability Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|0.03|0.040
95816587|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.94||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Normal Work Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.94|-0.19|0.187
95816588|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.68||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Relations With Other People Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||0.68|-0.34|0.515
95816589|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.18||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Sleep Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.18|-0.17|0.141
95816590|NCT01118780|191603582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.07||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in BPI-SF Enjoyment of Life Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.07|-0.07|0.088
95816591|NCT01118780|191603583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Negative values indicated improvement over placebo.|||-2.1|-9.4|0.002
95958405|NCT00878553|191889014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.857|-2.448||Change from baseline in mean WASO3-7 compared values for the 20-mg dose vs. placebo. If that comparison demonstrated superiority of the 20-mg dose, then results for the 15-mg dose vs. placebo were compared; if significant, then 10-mg vs. placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hierarchical, 2-sided testing procedure maintained the overall level of significance at approximately 0.05.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment. A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement|Literature-based estimates of WASO SD range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 20-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||-2.448|-15.857|0.0077
96002104|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-10.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 9||-10.94|-26.84|<0.001
95816592|NCT01118780|191603585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Work/School Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.98|0.27|0.010
95816593|NCT01118780|191603585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Social Life/Leisure Activities Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.48|0.32|0.002
95816594|NCT01118780|191603585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 10 in SDS for Family/Home Management Impairment Score.|Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference was calculated by placebo minus duloxetine. Positive values indicated improvement over placebo.|||1.81|0.61|<0.001
95816595|NCT01118780|191603586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having HAMA response at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95816596|NCT01118780|191603586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤7) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95816597|NCT01118780|191603586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for percentage of participants having remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95816598|NCT01118780|191603587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤5) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95816599|NCT01118780|191603587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having functional remission (SDS Global Score ≤6) at Week 10 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95816600|NCT01118780|191603588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement overall and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95816601|NCT01118780|191603588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||The p-value is for the percentage of participants having HAMA sustained improvement from Week 2 and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.038
95816602|NCT01118780|191603592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.005
95816603|NCT01118780|191603593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first remission (HAMA Total Score ≤10) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95816604|NCT01118780|191603594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
95816605|NCT01118780|191603595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The p-value is for the time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤5) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.006
95816606|NCT01118780|191603595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The p-value is for time to first functional remission (SDS Global Functional Impairment Score ≤6) and was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||0.003
95816607|NCT01118780|191603596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value was adjusted for pooled investigator.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95816608|NCT01374425|191603628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low excision repair cross-complementing (ERCC)-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.01|0.61|0.0555
95816609|NCT01374425|191603629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.56|0.3944
95816610|NCT01374425|191603630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.55|0.0786
95816611|NCT01374425|191603631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.77|0.9576
95816612|NCT01374425|191603632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.53|0.93|0.1658
95816613|NCT01374425|191603633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.32||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.32|0.41|0.3019
95816614|NCT01374425|191603634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.53||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.53|0.48|0.6035
95816615|NCT01374425|191603635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.28|0.54|0.4032
95816616|NCT01374425|191603636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.03|0.41|0.0647
95816617|NCT01374425|191603637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.04|0.56|0.0861
95816618|NCT01374425|191603638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.26|0.51|0.3295
95816619|NCT01374425|191603639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12||P-value (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.12|0.49|0.1519
95962411|NCT03607422|191896616|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|LS Mean Difference|-29.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-23.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Baseline vIGA-AD category and age in the model.||||-23.69|-35.24|<0.001
95816620|NCT01374425|191603640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.62||P-value (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to ERCC-1 Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment.||1.62|0.87|0.2774
95816621|NCT01374425|191603641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.0|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.0|-5.5|
95816622|NCT01374425|191603642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|26.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||26.1|7.2|
95816623|NCT01374425|191603643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||14.1|-9.9|
95816624|NCT01374425|191603644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||6.6|-14.0|
95816625|NCT01374425|191603645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-7.6|
95816626|NCT01374425|191603646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|1.7|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.7|-19.1|
95816627|NCT01374425|191603647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||8.3|-3.7|
95816628|NCT01374425|191603648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||1.5|-10.6|
95816629|NCT01374425|191603649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|7.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||7.8|-15.9|
95816630|NCT01374425|191603650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|3.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.3|-16.3|
95816631|NCT01374425|191603651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
95816632|NCT01374425|191603652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|11.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||11.1|-33.1|
95816633|NCT01374425|191603653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.2|-10.1|
95816634|NCT01374425|191603654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.4|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the Bevacizumab + FOLFIRI arm minus the Bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.4|-11.5|
95816635|NCT01374425|191603655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|0.6|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||0.6|-9.5|
95816636|NCT01374425|191603656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the ERCC-1 High subgroup minus the ERCC-1 Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.1|-6.2|
95816637|NCT01374425|191603657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.69||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.69|0.99|0.0593
95958406|NCT00878553|191889015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.208|2.0||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.000|-13.208|0.1476
95962412|NCT03607422|191896617|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|54.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.1|35.0|<0.001
95816638|NCT01374425|191603658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.24||P-value (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to VEGF-A Low subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||2.24|1.20|0.0020
95816639|NCT01374425|191603659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.88||P-value (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) based on two-sided stratified log rank test and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank||HR (relative to KRAS Wild-Type subgroup) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by high/low ERCC-1 level and region of enrollment.||1.88|0.95|0.0955
95816640|NCT01374425|191603660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.8|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||3.8|-15.7|
95816641|NCT01374425|191603661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|5.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with objective response in the KRAS Mutant subgroup minus the KRAS Wild-Type subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||5.2|-16.0|
95816642|NCT01374425|191603662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.3|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with disease control in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||4.3|-6.5|
95816643|NCT01374425|191603663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Resection Rates|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.1|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||2.1|-8.6|
95816644|NCT01374425|191603664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Complete Resection Rates|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-0.2|||||The difference was calculated as the percentage of participants with complete resection in the VEGF-A High subgroup minus the VEGF-A Low subgroup. The 95% CI was computed using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||-0.2|-9.6|
95816645|NCT00532844|191603669|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH4 concentrations when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH4 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.8|1.2|<0.001
95816646|NCT00532844|191603670|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||The model will constitute the independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in higher plasma BH2 when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the plasma BH2 concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.0|0.7|0.139
95816647|NCT00532844|191603670|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||The model will constitute independent variables of treatment regimen, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect. The dependent variable Total B concentration (AUC0-12 hr) expressed in log transformation.|Mixed Models Analysis|||To determine if administration of saproprterin dihydrochloride administered with Vitamin C results in Total B (biopterin) when compared with administration of sapropterin dihydrochloride alone in subjects with endothelial dysfunction. The difference in the Total B (biopterin) concentration (AUC0-12 hr) between the 2 regimens will be compared using a mixed model with a 0.05 level of significance. The difference is represented as the geometric mean ratio.||1.11|0.83|0.570
95816648|NCT00532844|191603673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||ANCOVA|The model will have the treatments and the baseline measurement as independent variables and measurement at Day 13 as the dependent variable.||The raw value of PAT obtained from the first period (baseline to Day 13) will be used to compare the two treatments.||||0.593
95816649|NCT01953211|191603741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95816650|NCT01953211|191603741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95816651|NCT01953211|191603741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95816652|NCT02765399|191603765|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
96000132|NCT02531035|191976271|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM|||Testing according to the hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), and a treatment-by- time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline SBP-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-1.3|-5.7|= 0.002
95816653|NCT02765399|191603765|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95816654|NCT02765399|191603766|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95816655|NCT02765399|191603766|OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.612
95816656|NCT02765399|191603767|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95816657|NCT02765399|191603767|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
95816658|NCT02765399|191603768|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95816659|NCT02765399|191603768|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.343
95816660|NCT02765399|191603769|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95816661|NCT02765399|191603769|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.865
95816662|NCT02765399|191603770|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
95816663|NCT02765399|191603770|OTHER|||||||0.735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.735
95816664|NCT02765399|191603771|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
95816665|NCT02765399|191603771|OTHER|||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.753
95816666|NCT02765399|191603772|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
95816667|NCT02765399|191603772|OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.499
95816668|NCT02765399|191603773|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95816669|NCT02765399|191603773|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
95816670|NCT02765399|191603774|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95816671|NCT02765399|191603774|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
95816672|NCT02765399|191603775|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
95816673|NCT02765399|191603775|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
95816674|NCT02765399|191603776|OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.173
95816675|NCT02765399|191603776|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
95816676|NCT02765399|191603777|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95816677|NCT02765399|191603777|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95816678|NCT02765399|191603778|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95816679|NCT02765399|191603778|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95816680|NCT02765399|191603779|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95816681|NCT02765399|191603779|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95816682|NCT02765399|191603780|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.011
95816683|NCT02765399|191603780|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95816684|NCT02765399|191603781|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95861486|NCT02191865|191682033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|867.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|572.93|1312.41|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-inf) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1312.41|572.93|
95861487|NCT02191865|191682034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|221.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.73|365.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||365.01|134.73|
95962413|NCT03607422|191896617|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||44.2|24.7|<0.001
95816685|NCT02765399|191603781|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95816686|NCT02765399|191603782|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95816687|NCT02765399|191603782|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95816688|NCT02765399|191603783|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
95816689|NCT02765399|191603783|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95816690|NCT02765399|191603784|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
95816691|NCT02765399|191603784|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95816692|NCT02765399|191603785|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.068
95816693|NCT02765399|191603785|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95816694|NCT00959907|191603790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
95816695|NCT00959907|191603791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.658||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.658
95816696|NCT00959907|191603791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.739
95816697|NCT00959907|191603792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.184
95816698|NCT02030821|191603815|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95816699|NCT02030821|191603816|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95816700|NCT02030821|191603817|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95816701|NCT02030821|191603818|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95816702|NCT04290624|191603923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.40|<0.0001
95816703|NCT04290624|191603924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-19.1|-38.1|<0.0001
95816704|NCT04290624|191603924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.7|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-17.7|-38.2|<0.0001
95816705|NCT04290624|191603925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.27|-0.52|<0.0001
95816706|NCT04290624|191603925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.25|-0.47|<0.0001
95816707|NCT04290624|191603926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.56|-1.14|<0.0001
95816708|NCT04290624|191603926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.67|-1.23|<0.0001
95816709|NCT04290624|191603927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.61|-1.22|<0.0001
95816710|NCT04290624|191603927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.74|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.74|-1.36|<0.0001
95816711|NCT04290624|191603928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.41|<0.0001
95816712|NCT04290624|191603929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.2|-0.9|0.0039
95816713|NCT04290624|191603929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95816714|NCT04290624|191603930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.01|-0.21|0.0367
95816715|NCT04290624|191603930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.01|||Van-Elteren test|||At Week 12||-0.01|-0.14|0.0725
95816716|NCT04290624|191603931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.13|-0.43|0.0006
95816717|NCT04290624|191603931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.11|-0.41|0.0009
95816718|NCT04290624|191603932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||At Week 6||-0.15|-0.62|0.0020
95816719|NCT04290624|191603932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||At Week 12||-0.16|-0.52|0.0005
95816720|NCT01342094|191603949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.2|< 0.001
95816721|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|8.89||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|42.42||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of C4d score||42.42|-24.65|0.6498
95816722|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|18.56||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|35.68||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of margination score||35.68|1.43|0.0768
95816723|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.0||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|13.36||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulitis score||13.36|-21.36|0.6928
95816724|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|7.11||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|12.99||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of vasculitis score||12.99|1.23|0.0508
95816725|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-4.89||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.56||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of glomerulosclerosis score||1.56|-11.34|0.2042
95816726|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.22||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.17||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic glomerulopathy score||0.17|-0.61|0.3322
95816727|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|5.67||||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|9.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of interstitial fibrosis score||9.11|-7.77|0.4723
95861488|NCT02191865|191682034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|761.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|439.01|1319.18|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1319.18|439.01|
96000133|NCT02531035|191976272|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|-6.48|||MMRM|||Testing according to hierarchical procedure. Post-Baseline LS means and p-values were obtained from MMRM model with treatment, randomization stratum of BMI at Screening (\<25 kg/m2, \>=25 kg/m2), randomization stratum of Week -2 A1C (\<=9.0%, \>9.0%), randomization stratum of use of CSII at Screening (yes, no), time (study week), a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and Baseline mean daily bolus insulin dose-by-time interaction as a covariate.||-6.48|-18.17|< 0.001
95816728|NCT01147302|191603987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.56||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|16.37||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of chronic vasculitis score||16.37|-7.25|0.5103
95816729|NCT01147302|191603988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.08||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.51||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||0.51|-0.35|0.7591
95816730|NCT01147302|191603988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.01||||0.9533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.41||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||0.41|-0.44|0.9533
95816731|NCT01147302|191603989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.45||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|22.24||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 20||22.24|-19.34|0.9046
95816732|NCT01147302|191603989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|4.68||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|19.55||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 90||19.55|-10.19|0.5895
95816733|NCT01147302|191603990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|1.56||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|5.11||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 20||5.11|-2.00|0.4558
95816734|NCT01147302|191603990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.24||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|6.52||The p-value for testing the mean for the treatment difference comparison assessed from ANOVA model analysis for CINRYZE versus placebo.|ANOVA|||Analysis of Day 1 through Day 90||6.52|-6.05|0.9470
95816735|NCT04021290|191604041|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the CMH adjusted difference in the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL between each treatment group (DTG/3TC - CAR) is less than 5%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent (ADP)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (protease inhibitor \[PI\], non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor \[NNRTI\], and integrase inhibitor \[INI\]).|||0.8|-2.4|
95816736|NCT04021290|191604042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in success rates between the two treatment arms (DTG/3TC-CAR) is greater than -12%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.9|||||ADP was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factor:Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, and INI).|||5.9|-2.8|
96000134|NCT00151411|191976275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.4|-9.9|0.54
96000135|NCT00151411|191976276|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.6|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the probability of ovulation.||6.6|0.9|0.07
95958407|NCT00878553|191889015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.546|0.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||0.722|-14.546|0.0757
95958408|NCT00878553|191889015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.154|2.113||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed via general linear model that used change from baseline as response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Literature-based estimates of WASO (Wake After Sleep Onset) SD (Standard Deviation) range from 39 to 45 minutes. Null hypothesis: difference between mean WASO3-7 values for placebo and the 15-mg SKP-1041 dose level equals 0. By using a 2-sided, 1-sample t test at the 5% level of significance of this null hypothesis and an assumed SD of 45 minutes, a sample size of 54 completed patients was calculated to provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment difference of 20 minutes.||2.113|-13.154|0.1553
95958409|NCT00878553|191889016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.208|15.454||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.454|2.208|0.0092
95816737|NCT04021290|191604063|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
95816738|NCT04021290|191604064|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||2.2|0.7|<0.001
95816739|NCT04021290|191604065|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||-0.2|-2.9|0.021
95816740|NCT04021290|191604066|OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.5||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||MMRM adjusted for following: Treatment, Visit, Baseline Third Agent Class, Age (continuous), Sex, Race, Baseline Value (continuous), Treatment by Visit interaction, Baseline Value by Visit interaction, with Visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.8|0.398
95816741|NCT05076045|191604074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Results of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in percentage of correct answers between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.03
95816742|NCT05076045|191604075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in reaction time between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.28
95816743|NCT05076045|191604076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in Quick Speech In Noise score between PSAPs and Control. The performance of the QuickSIN for the two sessions (PSAPs, Control) was compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test on paired samples.||||0.005
95816744|NCT05076045|191604077|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
95816745|NCT05076045|191604078|SUPERIORITY|This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).||||||1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||1.00
95816746|NCT05076045|191604079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||This p-value has been adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Result of the pairwise comparisons for the SNR by Session interaction in the linear mixed model analysis.||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in alpha power between PSAPs and Control. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The model included session (PSAPs, Control) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||0.36
95816747|NCT05076045|191604080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 (two-sided).|Cumulative link mixed model|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in listening effort between PSAPs and Control. The listening effort score was analyzed using a cumulative link mixed model. A logit link function with flexible thresholds was used. The model included Session (PSAPs, Control) and Block (1, 2, 3) as within-subject factors. Participants were included as a random factor.||||<0.001
95816748|NCT03391882|191604081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.722||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-3.16|0.8944
95816749|NCT03391882|191604082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.129||||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.637|||generalized linear random effects model|||||2.637|0.484|0.7777
95816750|NCT03391882|191604083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from a 1-sample, 2-sided test of the null hypothesis that the true proportion preferring APL is 50% to evaluate if a significantly higher proportion of the subjects prefer APL-130277 or not.|binomial distribution with normal approx|||||||0.0002
95816751|NCT03391882|191604084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.835||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|4.438|||generalized linear random effects model|||||4.438|0.759|0.1769
95816752|NCT03391882|191604085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.53|||generalized linear random effects model|||||3.53|0.61|0.3922
95816753|NCT03682965|191604086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95816754|NCT03682965|191604087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple tests was used because the two outcomes are based on correlated data.|Clopper-Pearson binomial exact test|||The secondary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of days during peak pollen season for which the average total combined score was lower in the immunotherapy group than in the placebo group.||||<0.05
95816755|NCT03682965|191604089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95816756|NCT00834197|191604107|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59||||||90.0|95.76|105.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.65|95.76|
95816757|NCT00834197|191604108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.17||||||90.0|94.82|101.65|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.65|94.82|
95816758|NCT00834197|191604109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.25||||||90.0|95.22|101.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.39|95.22|
95816759|NCT03384875|191604116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.517
95816760|NCT04776161|191604135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.12|-0.16|0.78
95816761|NCT04776161|191604135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race||||0.13|-0.10|0.79
95816762|NCT04776161|191604136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.22|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level.||||1.22|-0.28|0.22
95816763|NCT04776161|191604136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.26|||Generalized linear models|Adjusted for age, sex, race and baseline uric acid level||||1.26|-0.33|0.24
95816764|NCT01334554|191604137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient (linear regression)|0.12||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58||p- value was unadjusted. Primary outcome underwent logarithmic transformation|Regression, Linear|||H0= 4-week treatment with sildenafil citrate does not improve insulin sensitivity in obese African American women.||0.58|-0.33|0.55
95816765|NCT01334554|191604138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|0.46||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.49||Adjusted for baseline values only|Regression, Linear|||||2.49|-1.58|0.649
95816766|NCT02896257|191604139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.38|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||5.38|2.50|<0.001
95816767|NCT02896257|191604140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.47|0.44|0.47
95816768|NCT02896257|191604141|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed-random effects for provider clustering and adjusting for smoking status. Multiple imputation by chained equations for missing smoking status.||||1.96|0.20|0.42
95816769|NCT02098304|191604147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage agreement|72.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.8|82.7|||Exact binomial test|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 95% Confidence Interval using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated.||The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance.||82.7|59.8|<0.001
95816770|NCT02098304|191604147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's kappa|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.66|||Cohen's Kappa||Cohen's kappa is a chance-adjusted measure of agreement. A value of 0 indicates agreement by chance and 1 perfect agreement.|The null hypothesis was of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) and was tested against a two-sided alternative at the 5% level of significance. The study was powered such that 58 teeth (29 subjects), there would be 95% power to reject the null hypothesis of chance agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0) at the 5% level of significance, given that it was expected to be at least 0.4.||0.66|0.24|0.001
96000136|NCT00151411|191976276|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Zero-altered negative binomial model||Placebo is the reference group, i.e. for the rate ratio, Metformin represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|This statistical analysis models the count of ovulations provided a woman actually ovulated.||1.9|0.7|0.51
95958410|NCT00878553|191889016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.775|17.075||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||17.075|3.775|0.0023
95816771|NCT04723355|191604162|NON_INFERIORITY|In the sample size calculations, we assumed that the innovative 3-lead wireless water resistant Holter System would have a concordance in the diagnosis of arrhythmia compared to the conventional Holter device similar to a previous study that compared a patch to the conventional Holter device. With this assumption, a total sample of 182 participants would have 80% power to demonstrate an accuracy of at least 85% with a significance level of 2.5% (the 95% CI lower limit should be above 85%).|Accuracy|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.92||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.92|0.81|
96000137|NCT00151411|191976277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.0|0.1|0.05
95816772|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.83|
95816773|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Specificity|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.72|
95816774|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
95816775|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.76|
95816776|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
95816777|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|8.58||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||8.58|3.17|
95816778|NCT04723355|191604162|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.21|0.06|
95816779|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Accuracy|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.97|
95816780|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Sensitivity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.85|
95816781|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
95816782|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.78|
95816783|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Negative predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
95816784|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
95816785|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|157.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.25|1107.61||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1107.61|22.25|
95816786|NCT04723355|191604163|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0|0|
95816787|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Accuracy|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.9||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.90|0.79|
95816788|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
95816789|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Specificity|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
95816790|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.90|0.71|
95816791|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.80|
95816792|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
96000138|NCT00417612|191976278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
96000139|NCT04426630|191976294|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||<0.001
96000140|NCT04426630|191976295|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
96000141|NCT04426630|191976296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
95816793|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.43||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||11.43|4.03|
95816794|NCT04723355|191604164|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.34|0.13|
95816795|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.88|
95816796|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.93|0.56|
95816797|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Specificity|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.90|
95816798|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.86|0.48|
95816799|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
95816800|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
95816801|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|15.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|30.99||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||30.99|7.51|
95816802|NCT04723355|191604165|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.5||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.50|0.11|
95816803|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Accuracy|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.96|0.89|
95816804|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.85||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.85|0.28|
95816805|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Specificity|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.98||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.98|0.92|
95816806|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.77||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.77|0.23|
95816807|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.93|
95816808|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
95816809|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|33.17||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||33.17|5.84|
95816810|NCT04723355|191604166|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.85||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.85|0.22|
95816811|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||1.00|0.95|
95816812|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.19|
95816813|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Specificity|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.96|
95816814|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Positive predictive value|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.95|0.15|
95816815|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.97|
95816816|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
95816817|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Positive likelihood ratio|65.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|291.07||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||291.07|14.80|
95816818|NCT04723355|191604167|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.38||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||1.38|0.05|
95816819|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Accuracy|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||The comparison of the two Holter monitoring devices was analyzed in terms of the accuracy of the Innovative 3-lead Wireless Water Resistant Holter System in detecting the arrhythmias compared to the Conventional Holter System as the gold standard.||0.99|0.94|
95816820|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.89||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.89|0.31|
95958411|NCT00878553|191889016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.402||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.498|16.796||All aspects of the study's primary endpoint were statistically significant, and no adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||16.796|3.498|0.0030
95958412|NCT00878553|191889017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|0.11||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||0.110|-1.235|0.1005
95816821|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Specificity|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.98|
95816822|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Positive predictive value|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||1.00|0.59|
95816823|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Negative predictive value|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||||||Other measures of diagnostic accuracy, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also analyzed.||0.99|0.94|
95816824|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Cohen Kappa coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We also did an additional analysis to further evaluate the concordance between both Holter monitoring devices using the Cohen´s Kappa coefficient.||||
95816825|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.|The positive likelihood ratio could not be calculated due to the value of zero in the denominator|||
95816826|NCT04723355|191604168|OTHER||Negative likelihood ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79||||||Exploratory analyses of positive and negative likelihood ratios were also conducted.||0.79|0.17|
95816827|NCT04723355|191604170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.31||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||4.31|-6.20|
95816828|NCT04723355|191604170|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.98||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.98|0.96|
95816829|NCT04723355|191604171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|11.67||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||11.67|-17.09|
95816830|NCT04723355|191604171|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
95816831|NCT04723355|191604172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|6.22||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||6.22|-5.43|
95816832|NCT04723355|191604172|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.93|
95816833|NCT04723355|191604173|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1391.46|1378.72||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1378.72|-1391.46|
95816834|NCT04723355|191604173|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.96||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.96|0.94|
95816835|NCT04723355|191604174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2089.58|2111.65||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||2111.65|-2089.58|
95816836|NCT04723355|191604174|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.89|
95816837|NCT04723355|191604175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|5.2||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||5.20|-5.45|
95816838|NCT04723355|191604175|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.94|0.91|
95816839|NCT04723355|191604176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|12.07||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||12.07|-13.38|
95816840|NCT04723355|191604176|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.99||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.99|0.98|
95816841|NCT04723355|191604177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|1.56||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||1.56|-1.75|
95816842|NCT04723355|191604177|OTHER||Lin´s concordance correlation coeficient|0.9976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|0.998||||||The quantitative secondary outcomes were analyzed using Bland-Altman graphs as well as the Lin´s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC).||0.998|0.997|
95816843|NCT04723355|191604178|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared test statistic|23.529|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95816844|NCT01139411|191604183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis was that the amount of weight lost by adolescents in Enhanced Parent Involvement and Minimal Parent involvement would not be significantly different. The study was powered at .8 to achieve a medium effect size (f = .26; partial eta sq. = 0.06).~The end-of-treatment BMI value was the dependent variable, with the baseline BMI value entered as a covariate."||||0.06
95816845|NCT01139411|191604184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||The end-of-treatment value was the dependent variable, with the baseline value entered as a covariate.||||0.58
95816846|NCT01139411|191604185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.19
95816847|NCT01139411|191604186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.72
95816848|NCT01139411|191604187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
95816849|NCT01139411|191604188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95816850|NCT01139411|191604189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.61
95816851|NCT00328172|191604199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3271||95.0|-0.41|0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||0.14|-0.41|0.3271
95816852|NCT00328172|191604199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0032||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-0.14|-0.69|0.0032
95816853|NCT00328172|191604199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0012||95.0|-0.74|-0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.18|-0.74|0.0012
95816854|NCT00328172|191604199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.1|-0.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Metformin versus placebo||-0.59|-1.1|<0.0001
95816855|NCT00328172|191604200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.7027||95.0|-10.0|15.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||15.1|-10|0.7027
95816856|NCT00328172|191604200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.003||95.0|-32.0|-6.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||-6.6|-32|0.003
96000142|NCT04426630|191976297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|Wilcoxon sign-rank test used to compared baseline outcomes to 6 month outcomes.||Heart failure patients in Uganda were enrolled in an mHealth program at the Uganda Heart Institute. The program intended to promote self-care for heart failure and improve patient healthcare quality of life.||||0.028
95816857|NCT00328172|191604200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.0418||95.0|-26.0|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.5|-26|0.0418
95816858|NCT00328172|191604200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed classification effect and baseline FPG as a linear covariate.||||-22|-47|< 0.0001
95816859|NCT00328172|191604201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.735||||0.413||95.0|0.464|6.492|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 0.5 mg versus placebo||6.492|0.464|0.413
95816860|NCT00328172|191604201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.157||||0.842||95.0|0.275|4.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 2.5 mg versus placebo||4.861|0.275|0.842
95816861|NCT00328172|191604201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.364||95.0|0.492|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||6.910|0.492|0.364
95816862|NCT00328172|191604201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.224||||0.005||95.0|1.648|16.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Metformin versus placebo||16.562|1.648|0.005
95816863|NCT00077974|191604202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|42.8|||||Using exact method based on binomial distribution. Percent equals n divided by N times 100.|||42.8|24.2|
95816864|NCT02848092|191604236|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
95816865|NCT02848092|191604237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 1 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.29|<.0001
95816866|NCT02848092|191604238|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Risk Ratio|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||.76|.52|<.0001
95816867|NCT02848092|191604239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13|||Generalized Estimating Equation|P value is for the interaction between group (intervention vs. control) and time point (baseline vs. 6 month) using a generalized estimating equation.||||-.13|-.31|<.0001
95816868|NCT02848092|191604240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.89||||||||.89|.41|
95816869|NCT02848092|191604241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||||||||.92|.61|
95816870|NCT00512278|191604298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated||||||0.718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.718
95854761|NCT04040933|191669547|OTHER|Change in Baseline in Painful Score with Arm Resting by Side was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
96000143|NCT04426630|191976298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
96000144|NCT04426630|191976299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
96000145|NCT04426630|191976300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
95958413|NCT00878553|191889017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.362||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.362|-1.712|0.0028
95816871|NCT00512278|191604300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the PEG INF/RBV plus infliximab group (70%) and the PEG INF/RBV (45%) group, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated.||||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.|t-test, 2 sided|||SVR was the primary outcome to calculate sample size. Assuming a 25% difference in the rate of SVR between the the two groups, a power of 0.85 and an alpha level of 0.05, 75 patients for each group was estimated. This analysis included patients randomized and received at least one dose of study drugs. A 2-sided probability value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for factors associated with an SVR.||||0.718
95816872|NCT00775268|191604322|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95816873|NCT00775268|191604323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.0313
95816874|NCT01194245|191604357|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be supported if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between Analog-PH20 and the comparator (insulin lispro) did not exceed 0.40.|LS Means Difference|0.05||||0.2878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 110 participants were to be enrolled, allowing approximately 88 participants to complete both treatment periods (44 for each investigational drug). Assuming a dropout rate of no more than 20%, intra-participant correlation of 0.80, standard deviation of 1.2, and a true difference of 0, the study would have a greater than 90% power to show that Analog-PH20 was non-inferior to insulin lispro alone with respect to the change from baseline in A1C at the end of each treatment period.||0.15|-0.05|0.2878
95816875|NCT02706925|191604362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2951|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2242|1.366|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.3660|1.2242|
95816876|NCT02706925|191604362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.088|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9128|1.2633|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2633|0.9128|
95816877|NCT02706925|191604362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1846|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4791|1.89|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.8900|0.4791|
95816878|NCT02706925|191604363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2114|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1409|1.2818|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.2818|1.1409|
95816879|NCT02706925|191604363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0771|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0524|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9696|1.1845|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||1.1845|0.9696|
95816880|NCT02706925|191604363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3969|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5563|2.2375|||||The model of dose proportionality was power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard deviation is actually the standard error of slope.|||2.2375|0.5563|
95816881|NCT03502915|191604364|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.508||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|1.507|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.507|-1.402|0.943
95816882|NCT03502915|191604365|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.443|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.867||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|2.114|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.114|-1.229|0.597
95816883|NCT03502915|191604366|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|0.869|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.869|-0.629|0.748
95816884|NCT03502915|191604367|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.634|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.816||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.927|-0.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.341|-4.927|0.025
95816885|NCT03502915|191604368|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is the standard error of the estimated difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.742||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.543|1.655|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.655|-1.543|0.944
95816886|NCT00149799|191604369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.73||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|8.59|||Regression, Cox|p-value is based on the likelihood ratio Chi-Square statistic.||Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare relapse rates (accounting for censoring and time from randomization to relapse) in Phase II.||8.59|1.01|0.048
95816887|NCT00149799|191604371|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.07006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04163||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=556||"We compared change in depression over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depression symptom severity in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.0930
96000146|NCT04426630|191976301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95816888|NCT00149799|191604372|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.001176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03991||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=43||"We compared change in functional impairment over time during trial phase 2 by treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in functional impairment in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.9766
95816889|NCT00149799|191604373|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.05723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1963||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: 0.0167 Model term of interest: treatment by time interaction (i.e., slope difference between treatments over time)|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom=36||"We compared change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores over time by randomized treatment group (Escitalopram vs. Placebo) using a random coefficient model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Q-LES-Q-SF percent scores in the Escitalopram group will not be significantly different from that of the placebo group \[to be tested\]."||||0.7724
95816890|NCT02031302|191604374|OTHER|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound|||||<|0.0001||||||The proportion of patients who experience an event through 30 days post-procedure out of the patients who have either had an event within 30 days post-procedure or who were event-free with last follow-up at least 23 days post-procedure.|Chi-squared|||Note: the 95% CI is from Clopper-Pearson Exact Method. The analysis was only done for the Lotus valve arm as the Lotus with Depth Guard arm has not sufficient power for this statistical analysis.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson 98.699% upper bound: 4.11% Performance goal is 14%|||<.0001
95816891|NCT01847443|191604382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.107|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.147|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.147|1.070|
95816892|NCT01847443|191604387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.098|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.061|1.137|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in AUC(0-t)||1.137|1.061|
95816893|NCT01847443|191604388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.002|1.089|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.089|1.002|
95816894|NCT01847443|191604389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be established between the test and reference treatment if the 90% CI of ratio of geometric means (Test/Reference) was included within the bioequivalence limits of (0.80, 1.25)|Ratio of Geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.028|1.116|||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the test and reference gums in Cmax||1.116|1.028|
95816895|NCT04067492|191604390|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.63||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|53.05||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||53.05|4.21|0.1331
95816896|NCT04067492|191604390|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|26.5||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||26.50|-30.60|0.1331
95958414|NCT00878553|191889017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.793|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.467|-0.118||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period,sequence, and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustments for multiple testing were made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|This endpoint summarizes the number of times during Hours 3 7, after onset of persistent sleep, that there was a wake entry of at least 2 epochs duration. To be counted, each entry must have been separated by a sleep stage of 2, 3 4, or rapid eye movement.||-0.118|-1.467|0.0216
95958415|NCT00878553|191889018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|5.077||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||5.077|-21.980|0.2190
96000147|NCT04426630|191976302|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
95816897|NCT04067492|191604390|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|46.08||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||46.08|-12.67|0.1331
95816898|NCT04067492|191604390|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.12||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|31.33||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\]|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||31.33|-25.10|0.1331
95816899|NCT04067492|191604390|OTHER|"The study was planned to randomize 85 patients: 15 patients in the RPH-104 4 mg group, and 14 patients in the RPH-104 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 160 mg groups each, a total of 14 patients in the Voltaren® (diclofenac) group.~The sample size was calculated assuming a standard deviation of 26 mm for change in pain intensity at 72 hours."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|36.14||p-value, group|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference. Comparison with the control group \[RPH-104 - Diclofenac\].|It was assumed that the sample size would allow constructing a 95% CI around the mean change in pain intensity at 72 hours after the start of the investigational product use in each group with an accuracy of 30 mm change in pain intensity and would reveal statistically significant differences between the groups in pairwise comparisons, without control for type I error for multiple comparisons, taking into account the type I error α = 5%, if the difference between the compared groups is ≥ 20 mm.||36.14|-24.22|0.1331
95816900|NCT04067492|191604397|OTHER|||||||0.5995|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5995
95816901|NCT04067492|191604397|OTHER|||||||0.9012|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9012
95816902|NCT04067492|191604399|OTHER||difference in proportions|63.5||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|88.6|||Fisher Exact|||||88.6|19.9|0.0066
95816903|NCT04067492|191604399|OTHER||difference in proportions|-5.6|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|45.5|||Fisher Exact|||||45.5|-50.1|>0.9999
95816904|NCT04067492|191604399|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
95816905|NCT04067492|191604399|OTHER||difference in proportions|27.8||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|71.8|||Fisher Exact|||||71.8|-26.8|0.3287
95816906|NCT04067492|191604399|OTHER||difference in proportions|17.8||||0.5804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|67.8|||Fisher Exact|||||67.8|-33.7|0.5804
95816907|NCT01911351|191604435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||kappa statistic|0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\< or = 0.05|Chi-squared|||A kappa statistic was performed for 75% of the group to assess inter-rater agreement of the perception of the success of the procedure.||||<0.001
95816908|NCT04683913|191604436|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|alpha=0.05||||||<0.001
95816909|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 3\&4|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.027
95816910|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 3\&4 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
95816911|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Week 5\&6 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.078
95816912|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||Follow up vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.015
95816913|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||Week 1\&2 vs Week 5\&6|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.567
96000148|NCT04426630|191976303|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
96000149|NCT04426630|191976304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.07
96000150|NCT04426630|191976305|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95816914|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Week 1\&2 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.001
95816915|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||1||||||Week 1\&2 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||1.0
95816916|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.205||||||Week 3\&4 vs Follow up|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.205
95816917|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.162||||||Week 3\&4 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.162
95816918|NCT04683913|191604437|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Week 5\&6 vs Retention|t-test, 2 sided|alpha corrected with Bonferroni-Dunn procedure (k=10).||The change in foot progression angle magnitude at each sequential time point were compared using paired t-tests (with a Bonferroni-Dunn correction). Results indicate whether the change from baseline were significantly different at each time point. Abbreviations: F=Follow up, R=Retention||||0.421
95816919|NCT04683913|191604442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - pain subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.750
95816920|NCT04683913|191604442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - stiffness subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.201
95816921|NCT04683913|191604442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - physical function subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.997
95816922|NCT04683913|191604442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.423|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale - quality of life subscale scores were compared between the delayed and immediate groups at week 6 using ANCOVA.||||0.423
95816923|NCT04683913|191604443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment 1 (early stance) was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.342
95816924|NCT04683913|191604443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Adduction Moment 2 (late stance was analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.844
95816925|NCT04683913|191604443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee Flexion Moments were analyzed as raw Nm with body mass entered as as covariate||||0.774
95816926|NCT04683913|191604444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee adduction moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.186
95816927|NCT04683913|191604444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for body mass, structural severity and sex. alpha=0.05||Knee flexion moment impulses were analyzed as raw Nm\*s with body mass entered as as covariate.||||0.601
95816928|NCT01634152|191604459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.099|-0.028|0.2724
95816929|NCT01634152|191604459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis was performed in a stepwise manner, firstly for this endpoint, then Trough FEV1. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.203|0.075|<0.0001
95816930|NCT01634152|191604460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.085|-0.048|0.5898
95816931|NCT01634152|191604460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo. The analysis for this endpoint was performed in a stepwise manner after the analysis of the primary endpoint was performed. Each step was only considered confirmatory if all previous steps were successful.||0.154|0.019|0.0117
95816932|NCT01634152|191604461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.113|0.2277
95958416|NCT00878553|191889018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.937||0.8441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.327|15.056||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||15.056|-12.327|0.8441
95816933|NCT01634152|191604461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.101|-0.040|0.3998
95816934|NCT01634152|191604462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.026|-0.121|0.2030
95816935|NCT01634152|191604462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.8194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.066|0.8194
95816936|NCT01634152|191604463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.026|0.2907
95816937|NCT01634152|191604463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.184|0.068|<0.0001
95816938|NCT01634152|191604464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.022|-0.103|0.2008
95816939|NCT01634152|191604464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.2545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.100|-0.026|0.2545
95816940|NCT01634152|191604467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.173|-0.133|0.7980
95816941|NCT01634152|191604467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.076|-0.233|0.3166
95816942|NCT01634152|191604469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.261|-0.227|0.8916
95816943|NCT01634152|191604469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.158|-0.336|0.4789
96000151|NCT02786537|191976310|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test derived by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|PROD vs. SOF/LDV based regimens as reported in PRO (ALL PATIENTS WHO STARTED TREATMENT BY ARM AS TREATED), population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date - RBV FREE REGIMENS||0.3|-3.6|
95816944|NCT01634152|191604470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.129|-0.160|0.8361
95816945|NCT01634152|191604470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.060|-0.233|0.2461
95816946|NCT01634152|191604471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.165|-0.096|0.6029
95816947|NCT01634152|191604471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.107|-0.158|0.7034
95816948|NCT01634152|191604472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.686||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.419|13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||13.970|-4.419|0.3083
95816949|NCT01634152|191604472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.747||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.571|14.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||14.057|-4.571|0.3179
95816950|NCT01634152|191604473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.807||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.866|10.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||10.001|-8.866|0.9061
95816951|NCT01634152|191604473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.867||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.658|5.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||5.444|-13.658|0.3990
95816952|NCT01634152|191604474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||1.060|-2.959|0.3542
95816953|NCT01634152|191604474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||1.541|-2.545|0.6298
95816954|NCT01634152|191604475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.043|-0.107|0.4066
95816955|NCT01634152|191604475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.027|-0.125|0.2032
95816956|NCT01634152|191604476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.2064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.028|-0.131|0.2064
95816957|NCT01634152|191604476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.020|-0.142|0.1410
95816958|NCT01634152|191604477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.082|-0.083|0.9869
95816959|NCT01634152|191604477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.077|0.8730
95816960|NCT01634152|191604478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.9043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.091|-0.103|0.9043
95816961|NCT01634152|191604478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.083|-0.112|0.7708
95816962|NCT01634152|191604479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.4864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.066|-0.139|0.4864
95816963|NCT01634152|191604479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.090|-0.117|0.7991
95816964|NCT01634152|191604480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.106|-0.092|0.8884
95816965|NCT01634152|191604480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.088|-0.112|0.8115
95816966|NCT01634152|191604481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.117|-0.084|0.7498
95958417|NCT00878553|191889018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.936||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.522|1.842||Mean (SEM) = adjusted mean change from baseline in each group (and standard error of the mean) and P value = P value for the comparison of the SEM of the active group with that of the placebo group.|Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple testing was made for secondary efficacy endpoints.|A negative mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|Study was powered on the primary endpoint. Data for sWASO were sourced from Question 5 of the Morning Sleep Questionnaire. Its analysis follows a general linear model change from baseline as response variable including effects for patient, period, sequence, and treatment.||1.842|-25.522|0.0894
95958418|NCT00878553|191889019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.823|2.943||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||2.943|-1.823|0.6433
95816967|NCT01634152|191604481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.019|-0.185|0.1108
95816968|NCT01634152|191604482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.102|-0.131|0.8055
95816969|NCT01634152|191604482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.047|-0.189|0.2360
95816970|NCT01634152|191604483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.063|-0.097|0.6748
95816971|NCT01634152|191604483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood model|Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.105|-0.056|0.5497
95816972|NCT01900665|191604489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.14|-1.73|0.095
95816973|NCT00953706|191604523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect, with adjustment for age and continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||4.1|-0.6|0.1509
95816974|NCT00953706|191604524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for for age and baseline value for CFQ-R score, using unstructured covariance matrix||5.6|-2.9|0.5408
95816975|NCT00953706|191604525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable being absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous age and baseline value for age, sweat chloride, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-5.6|0.0384
95816976|NCT00953706|191604526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis used the linear mixed model with treatment as fixed effects, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group (\< 18 years and ≥ 18 years) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume (FEV1) severity (\< 70%, ≥ 70% to ≤ 90%, \> 90%) at screening, with random intercept and random slope. Rate of change in the study period is the slope of weight versus time (days) multiplied by the number of days in the study period (112 days).||0.7|-1.1|0.7265
95816977|NCT01214837|191604548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup A at 13 months of age.||-1|-14|
95816978|NCT01214837|191604548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup C at 13 months of age.||0|-8|
95816979|NCT01214837|191604548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup W at 13 months of age.||3|-3|
95816980|NCT01214837|191604548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:8 against N. meningitidis serogroups C, W and Y between the 3-dose series and (minus) the 4-dose series, is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of Men ACWY 3-dose series (doses at 2, 4 and 12 months) to 4-dose series (doses at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) against serogroup Y at 13 months of age.||4|-2|
95958419|NCT00878553|191889019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.912|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.304|0.481||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean difference from baseline indicates a worsening.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||0.481|-4.304|0.1167
95958420|NCT00878553|191889019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|3.826||Analysis included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean difference from baseline indicates improvement.|Adjusted mean differences were analyzed by using a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.||3.826|-0.958|0.2385
95958421|NCT00878553|191889020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.972|-0.073|0.0914
95958422|NCT00878553|191889020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.690|-0.360|0.5360
95816981|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||5|-6.1|
95816982|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 1.||10.5|3|
95816983|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||6|-11.9|
95816984|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 3.||13.7|-3.3|
95816985|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||2.3|-7.5|
95816986|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 4.||4.7|-4.4|
95816987|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||3.4|-12.1|
95816988|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 5.||11.8|-1.9|
95816989|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||3.8|-3.7|
95816990|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6A.||4.8|-2.2|
95816991|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||7.7|-8.4|
95861489|NCT02191865|191682035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of the geometric means|216.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.37|390.45|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh A (Test): Healthy Child Pugh A (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||390.45|120.37|
95958423|NCT00878553|191889020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.787|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative mean change from baseline indicates a worsening.|The adjusted mean differences were analyzed with a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable and included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.||0.263|-0.787|0.3254
95958424|NCT00878553|191889021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.818||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.175|4.595||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates improvement.|||4.595|-3.175|0.7190
95816992|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 6B.||17.2|3.4|
96000152|NCT02786537|191976310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method. CI for median derived from PROC QUANTREG.|RBV free EBR/GZR regimen compared to PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||3.1|-0.4|
95816993|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-1.7|
95816994|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 7F.||3.5|-2.1|
95816995|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||3.4|-9.7|
95816996|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 9V.||9.7|-1.5|
95816997|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||5.7|-1.2|
95816998|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 14.||6.3|-0.2|
95816999|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||-0.2|-6.3|
95817000|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.2|-6.2|
95817001|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.6|-7.1|
96000153|NCT02786537|191976311|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test completed by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free EBR/GZR regimen vs SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.0|-0.6|
95861490|NCT02191865|191682035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|870.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|576.36|1315.49|||ANOVA|Fixed effect: 'hepatic status'; indicated whether a subject with hepatic impairment or a healthy subject , Random effect: 'matched pair'.|Ratio of Child Pugh B (Test): Healthy Child Pugh B (Reference). The Standard deviation is the Intra-individual gCV|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC (0-tz) was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. Observations from a subject with hepatic impairment and the matched healthy control subject were analysed as a matched pair.||1315.49|576.36|
95958425|NCT00878553|191889021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|4.722||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||4.722|-3.080|0.6784
95817002|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19A.||-0.9|-11.3|
95817003|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-1.7|
95817004|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 19F.||3.4|-2.1|
95817005|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY3 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 2 doses of MenACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||8.2|-4.2|
95817006|NCT01214837|191604555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the between group difference (MenACWY4 minus Routine) in percentage of subjects with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 μg/mL against each pneumococcal anti-capsular polysaccharide is greater than -10%.|Vaccine group difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 7 months of age for Serotype 23F.||10.5|-1.4|
95861491|NCT01523275|191682037|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of 44 subjects (22 in each arm) would provide 90% power to detect a difference in the time interval to reoperation of 6 months between the two treatment arms, at an alpha level of 0.05. This difference of 6 months is clinically meaningful and is smaller than previous case series studies would suggest. However, due to poor patient accrual, the study was closed prior to reaching the desired study size.||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95861492|NCT01523275|191682038|EQUIVALENCE|A difference of 6 months to symptom progression is clinically meaningful.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95861493|NCT01523275|191682039|EQUIVALENCE|0.5 liters per second is clinically significant.||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95958426|NCT00878553|191889021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.586|6.214||Adjusted mean differences were analyzed in a general linear model that used change from baseline as the response variable.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Model included effects for patient, period, sequence and treatment.|A positive mean change from baseline indicates an improvement.|||6.214|-1.586|0.2433
95958427|NCT00878553|191889022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Cmax(ng/mL) \[Maximum plasma zaleplon concentration\]||||0.0009
95861494|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95861495|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95861496|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95861497|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95958428|NCT00878553|191889023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.9142||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test two degrees of freedom||Cmax normalized per dose||||0.9142
95958429|NCT00878553|191889024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.24||||0.1193||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||Time (hour)post-dose of maximum plasma zaleplon concentration||||0.1193
95958430|NCT00878553|191889025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.85||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC ng\*h/mL)||||0.0003
95958431|NCT00878553|191889026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.28||||0.2281||95.0|||||ANOVA|F-test 2 degrees of freedom||AUC/Dose (ng\*h/mL/mg)||||0.2281
95958432|NCT00878553|191889027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.4835||95.0|||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom F-test||Half-Life (t1/2 in hours) of plasma zaleplon from each of 3 doses of SKP-1041||||0.4835
95958433|NCT03790878|191889033|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95817007|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.13|0.77|
96000154|NCT02786537|191976313|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||||The comparisons between regimens can be viewed as superiority test, by comparing whether the 95% CI includes zero|Analysis of EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV irrespective of RBV usage in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization.||1.0|0.0|
95817008|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 1.||1.25|0.83|
95817009|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.4|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.4|0.93|
95817010|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 3.||1.55|1.01|
95817011|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||0.96|0.62|
95817012|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 4.||1.18|0.75|
95817013|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.21|0.86|
95817014|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.29|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 5.||1.29|0.89|
95817015|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.04|0.69|
95817016|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.37|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6A.||1.37|0.88|
95817017|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.05|0.69|
95817018|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 6B.||1.3|0.83|
95861498|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.550
95861499|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95861500|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95861501|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.016
96000155|NCT02786537|191976314|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization and limited RBV sample size.||7.0|-4.2|
95817019|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||0.95|0.67|
95817020|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 7F.||1.25|0.87|
95817021|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||0.96|0.66|
95817022|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 9V.||1.31|0.87|
95817023|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.27|0.84|
95817024|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 14.||1.3|0.83|
95817025|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||0.87|0.59|
95817026|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 18C.||1.36|0.89|
95817027|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.27|0.83|
95817028|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19A.||1.21|0.77|
95861502|NCT00689117|191682045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95861503|NCT00689117|191682046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95861504|NCT00689117|191682046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95958434|NCT03790878|191889034|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.396
95958435|NCT03790878|191889035|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Multilevel modeling|||||||0.002
95958436|NCT02573883|191889037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95958437|NCT02573883|191889038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95958438|NCT02573883|191889040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95958439|NCT02573883|191889042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
96000156|NCT02786537|191976314|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.0|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free PrOD vs. SOF/LDV regimens (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||7.0|-4.2|
96000157|NCT02786537|191976315|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated)||1.3|-1.6|
95817029|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.22|0.82|
95817030|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 19F.||1.32|0.86|
95817031|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between groups (MenACWY3 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 3 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||0.97|0.62|
95817032|NCT01214837|191604556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the ratio of GMCs between the groups (MenACWY4 to routine vaccines) is greater than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority of immune response to PCV-13 antigens after concomitant administration of 4 doses of Men ACWY with routine vaccines including PCV-13, versus administration of routine vaccines only, at 13 months of age for Serotype 23F.||1.13|0.7|
95817033|NCT04050384|191604565|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|These analyses apply to the Frontal, Central, and Central-Parietal regions.||||||<0.001
95817034|NCT04050384|191604566|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95817035|NCT03137771|191604579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||Log Rank|Two-sided test|Reference level = systemic therapy. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by histology (non-squamous vs squamous) and systemic therapy (immunotherapy-based regimens vs chemotherapy- only regimens).|Based on expected 6- and 12-month PFS rates of approximately 60% and 39% for the standard arm, assuming approximately exponential distributions, at least 138 PFS events are needed to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 (a hazard reduction of 40%) with 95% power and a one-sided significance level of 0.15. The Cox proportional hazards model is stratified by histology and systemic therapy type. The hazard ratio estimate must be ≤ 0.83 for the study to proceed to the phase III component.||1.40|0.68|0.66
95817036|NCT04971967|191604605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
95817037|NCT04971967|191604606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.30
95817038|NCT04971967|191604608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.28
95817039|NCT04971967|191604610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.07
95817040|NCT04971967|191604611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Generalized linear regression|||||||0.11
95817041|NCT01187095|191604612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Estimation parameter|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95817042|NCT01187095|191604612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95817043|NCT01772550|191604624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% upper confidence bound for the observed difference in percentages of images with acceptable quality between the control catheter and evaluation catheter was calculated using the Score method. The 20 G BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ can be considered non-inferior for acceptable image quality if this 95% upper confidence bound is smaller than 15% (i.e. C - D \< 15% with 95% confidence). The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6|||||The difference in percent of acceptable image quality is used as an estimate. The Score method was used to estimate the upper 95% confidence limit.|Only the percent of acceptable image quality from the randomized test and reference catheter groups were considered for this statistical analysis. If C is the percentage of acceptable quality images with the control catheter, and D is the percentage of images of acceptable quality with the evaluation catheter, and the non-inferiority criteria is 15%, the hypotheses to be tested are as follows: H0: C - D \> or = 15%; H1: C - D \< 15%.||2.6||
95817044|NCT00559104|191604637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.79|||Regression, Cox||"Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the Parameter Estimate, not of the mean.~Standard Error = 1.02475"|There is no power calculation as this is a phase II study. This is an Event-free Survival, in which an event can be Relapse/Progression, or Death. Censoring can be at the End of follow-up date, or at the End of study date.||3.79|0.07|0.51
95817045|NCT00559104|191604638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.99|||Regression, Cox||"Numerator: Carmustine in the conditioning. Denominator: Irradiation in the conditioning.~Parameter: Hazard ratio. Dispersion: Standard Error of the Hazard Ratio."|Phase II analysis: There was no power calculation.||4.99|0.09|0.69
95817046|NCT01815424|191604640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|32.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||32.77|6.03|<0.0001
95861505|NCT00689117|191682046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Data based on Data on File documenting FDA reanalysis request|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96000158|NCT02786537|191976318|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free EBR/GZR vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date). Analysis limited to RBV free regimen in consideration RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization.||5.5|-1.9|
95817047|NCT01815424|191604640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|11.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||11.86|2.46|<0.0001
95817048|NCT01815424|191604641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.84|151.11||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||151.11|14.84|<0.0001
95817049|NCT01815424|191604641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|25.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for tofacitinib 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||25.17|4.06|<0.0001
95817050|NCT01815424|191604642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-71.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.461|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.2|-54.87||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-54.87|-88.20|<0.0001
95817051|NCT01815424|191604642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-52.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-35.55||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-35.55|-68.70|<0.0001
95817052|NCT01815424|191604643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|70.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.38|267.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||267.15|13.38|<0.0001
95817053|NCT01815424|191604643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|79.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||79.62|4.31|<0.0001
95817054|NCT01815424|191604644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|5.72||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||5.72|-9.32|<0.0001
95861506|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.065
95861507|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.002
96000159|NCT02786537|191976318|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based on whether the 95% CI includes zero|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.7|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|RBV free SOF/LDV vs. PrOD regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||2.7|-4.6|
95817055|NCT01815424|191604644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-3.67||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.67|-7.24|<0.0001
95817056|NCT01815424|191604645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|114.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|2657.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant,only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||2657.62|8.95|<0.0001
95817057|NCT01815424|191604645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|1084.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||1084.02|3.47|<0.0001
95817058|NCT01815424|191604646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||<0.0001
95817059|NCT01815424|191604646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not available due to 0% frequency in placebo group.||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||||0.0386
95817060|NCT01815424|191604647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.709|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-3.7||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-3.70|-6.49|<0.0001
95817061|NCT01815424|191604647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-2.81||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4. This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-2.81|-5.59|<0.0001
95817062|NCT01815424|191604648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-41.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.977||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.91|-9.54||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||-9.54|-72.91|0.0113
95861508|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95817063|NCT01815424|191604648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean of difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.01||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|8.86||Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and a random effect of subject; unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a key secondary endpoint; family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparison was tested at the below specified significance level.||8.86|-54.64|0.1558
95817064|NCT01127633|191604696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin for this hypothesis was specified as 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder study. If the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) was greater than 0, the noninferiority criterion was met, indicating that at least 50% of the treatment difference observed at the end of the feeder studies was maintained at specified time points in the delayed-start period.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|-1.14|0.974
95817065|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||Based on prior studies using a variety of products in this model, the within-product standard deviation of %SMH recovery is estimated to be 13% and the correlation between products is expected to be approximately 0.5. With a sample size of 28 subjects in a 5-way crossover study, the study will have 80% power to detect a %SMH recovery difference of 8.6%, assuming two-sided tests each conducted at a 5% significance level.||||0.0490
95817066|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
95817067|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
95861509|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95817068|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
95817069|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.45
95817070|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
95817071|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.47
95817072|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0423
95861510|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.284
95861511|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-inflammatory lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95861512|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95958440|NCT00582114|191889053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cardiovascular events were counted by subject and included the following: myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, hospitalized angina, arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization and heart valve replacement. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||4.23|1.36|0.001
95817073|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.15
95817074|NCT01665911|191604742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.54
95817075|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
95817076|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.17
95817077|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
95817078|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95817079|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.24
95817080|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.26
95817081|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.18
95817082|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0269
95861513|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95861514|NCT00689117|191682047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total lesion count|Ranked ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95861515|NCT00689117|191682048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.671
95958441|NCT00582114|191889053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||As a post hoc analysis, we determined the narrower definition of cardiovascular events per group that included myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure or cardiovascular death. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals (95% CIs).||5.21|1.07|0.02
95817083|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0142
95817084|NCT01665911|191604743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.81
95817085|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
95817086|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
95817087|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
95817088|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||Non-fluoridated milk, 200 ml vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
95817089|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.14
95817090|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0012
95817091|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||1.5 mg Sodium Fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.19
95817092|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0000
95817093|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||1.5 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0075
95817094|NCT01665911|191604744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0444||||||3 mg sodium fluoride in 100 ml milk vs. 3 mg sodium fluoride in 200 ml milk|ANOVA|||||||0.0444
95817095|NCT03723980|191604745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"the calculated p value is for time interval of 4 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|For multiple comparisons between groups, post hoc (LSD) was applied||||||0.329
95817096|NCT03723980|191604745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of 12 hours~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.764
95817097|NCT03723980|191604745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 2~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
95817098|NCT03723980|191604745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 3~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.786
95817099|NCT03723980|191604745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for time interval of day 4~threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.813
95817100|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.334
95817101|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.448
95817102|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.056
95817103|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.760
95817104|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.828
95817105|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between pre-operative time interval and 4 hours time interval~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.000
95817106|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time interval of 4 hours and time interval of 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.605
95817107|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of 12 hours and day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.80
95817108|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 2 and day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.574
95817109|NCT03723980|191604747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"The calculated p value is for the difference between time intervals of day 3 and day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|ANOVA|||||||0.796
95817110|NCT03723980|191604748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
95817111|NCT03723980|191604748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95817112|NCT03723980|191604748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
95817113|NCT03723980|191604748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
95817114|NCT03723980|191604748|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at Day 4.~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95817115|NCT03723980|191604749|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 4 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
95817116|NCT03723980|191604749|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at 12 hours~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
95817117|NCT03723980|191604749|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 2~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.13
95817118|NCT03723980|191604749|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 3~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.55
95817119|NCT03723980|191604749|OTHER|||||||0.17||||||"The p-value calculated is for pain score difference at day 4~Threshold for statistical significance= \<0.05"|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95817120|NCT04512001|191604750|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -0.6 to 0.5.|Least squares means difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.16|
95817121|NCT04512001|191604752|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for results to be considered equivalent: -15%, 15%.|Difference in % Response Rate|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|2.11||||||||2.11|-9.97|
95817122|NCT04263766|191604764|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to DLPFC had a difference effect on confidence compared to delivered to Vertex.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in confidence across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||<.001
95817123|NCT04263766|191604764|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS to DLPFC leads to equivalent increase in confidence for four delay conditions.||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
96000160|NCT02786537|191976319|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test comparison based on presence of zero in 95% CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis limited to RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage determined by provider and not study randomization. All patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||1.6|-1.4|
95817124|NCT04263766|191604764|EQUIVALENCE|We tested whether TMS delivered to Vertex leads to a same effect on confidence regardless of the delay conditions.||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95817125|NCT04263766|191604765|EQUIVALENCE|We used a two-way ANOVA to test whether TMS affected Mratio differently for DLPFC and Vertex and across different delay conditions.|||||>|0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Our null hypothesis is TMS to DLPFC would not lead to a significant change in Mratio across all 4 delay conditions compared to TMS to the vertex.||||>0.19
95817126|NCT04232943|191604771|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.464|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 1||2.464|0.560|
95817127|NCT04232943|191604771|OTHER|This study was designed to provide at least 96% power to detect ≥ 60% reduction in shedding rate in the IPV+ dmLT group assuming the shedding rate in the IPV alone group is at least 80%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.51|||||RR = Ratio of proportions: (IPV+dmLT) / IPV|Analysis of Shedding of Poliovirus Type 3||1.510|0.606|
95817128|NCT01891396|191604795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0099
95817129|NCT01891396|191604796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0367
95817130|NCT01891396|191604797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0289|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0289
95817131|NCT01891396|191604798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0141
95817132|NCT01891396|191604799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95817133|NCT01891396|191604800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0533
95817134|NCT01891396|191604801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0323
95817135|NCT01891396|191604802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
95817136|NCT01891396|191604803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0030
95817137|NCT01891396|191604804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0440
95817138|NCT01891396|191604805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0579|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0579
95817139|NCT01891396|191604806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95817140|NCT01891396|191604807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0046
95817141|NCT01891396|191604808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0029
95817142|NCT01891396|191604809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0087|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0087
95817143|NCT01891396|191604810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0154
95817144|NCT01891396|191604811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0227
95817145|NCT01891396|191604812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95817146|NCT01891396|191604813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0148
95817147|NCT01891396|191604814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0113|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0113
95817148|NCT01891396|191604815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0016
95817149|NCT01891396|191604816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0056
95817150|NCT01891396|191604817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0095
95817151|NCT01891396|191604818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0136|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0136
95817152|NCT01891396|191604819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95817153|NCT01891396|191604820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
95817154|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|3.44||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||3.44|2.47|
95817155|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.69||||||Serotype 1 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.69|1.23|
95817156|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.25||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.25|1.66|
95817157|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88||||||Serotype 5 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.88|0.65|
95861516|NCT00689117|191682048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.919
95861517|NCT00689117|191682048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95958442|NCT00582114|191889053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.13||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|10.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hospitalization for congestive heart failure between groups was analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||10.99|1.08|0.02
95958443|NCT00582114|191889053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||All-cause hospitalizations between groups were analyzed. The duration of participation in the study per subject, which according to the trial design could be up to 12 months, was determined. Incidence rate ratio (IRR) by treatment was then determined along with the 95%confidence intervals.||2.19|1.18|0.002
96000161|NCT02786537|191976322|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test determined by comparing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.3|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method|Analysis based on RBV free regimens -all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population is limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date.||1.3|-9.9|
95817158|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|16.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|20.03||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||20.03|12.84|
95817159|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||||||Serotype 6A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.06|0.72|
95817160|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|2.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.95|2.14|
95817161|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||Serotype 6B geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.95|0.68|
96000162|NCT02786537|191976322|SUPERIORITY|Superiority comparison by viewing presence of zero in CI.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.4||||||RBV free regimens as reported in PRO (all patients who started treatment by arm as treated, population limited to as randomization date of the last PrOD patient start date)||9.4|-3.4|
95817162|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.44||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.44|1.83|
95817163|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||Serotype 7F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.91|
95817164|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.65||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.65|1.21|
95817165|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||||||Serotype 9V geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.05|0.76|
95817166|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.1||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.10|1.29|
95817167|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||||||Serotype 14 geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.12|0.73|
95817168|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|4.67||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||4.67|2.91|
95817169|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87||||||Serotype 19A geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.87|0.60|
95817170|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.79|0.52|
95817171|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.89||||||Serotype 19F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||0.89|0.62|
95817172|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.76||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Synflorix) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||2.76|1.89|
95817173|NCT03896477|191604824|OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 23F geometric mean concentration ratio (Pneumosil / Prevenar 13) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Differences between groups were considered statistically significant if the 95% CI excludes 1.||1.22|0.82|
95817174|NCT01299389|191604894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) means difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-5.4|-14.0|<0.0001
95817175|NCT01299389|191604897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Positive symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.4|-4.1|<0.0001
95861518|NCT00689117|191682049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95817176|NCT01299389|191604897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Negative symptoms (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
95817177|NCT01299389|191604897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Disorganized thoughts (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-1.1|-3.4|<0.0001
95817178|NCT01299389|191604897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Uncontrolled hostility/excitement (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.5|-2.3|0.0023
95817179|NCT01299389|191604897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety/depression (change at Week 13 or ED): P value was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS factor scores as covariates.||-0.4|-1.9|0.0025
95817180|NCT01299389|191604898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.0|-3.3|0.0003
95817181|NCT01299389|191604899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-1.5|-4.1|<0.0001
95817182|NCT01299389|191604900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13 or Early Discontinuation: P value were calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline PANSS total score as a covariate.||-2.3|-6.9|<0.0001
95817183|NCT02020590|191604919|OTHER||||||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||||||"The success of ALLOB® treatment was based on the percentage of responders. A treated patient was considered as responding if, at the end of the study (6 months):~* He/she had not required rescue surgery and~* The GDE score as perceived by the patient had improved by at least 25% or the TUS (tomographic union score) as assessed by CT scan had increased by at least 2 points."|The response rate at Month 6 for the 21 patients in the PP population was 100 % (CI: 86.71 - 100.0%). None of the treated patients required rescue surgery. An improvement of GDE score of at least 25% was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients. An increase in TUS of at least 2 points was reported for 16 (76.2%) patients; all patients met at least one of these two criteria.|||
95817184|NCT01824290|191604920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.114|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.25|62.0||||||||62.00|-14.25|
95817185|NCT01490918|191604926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baselin HbA1c as covariate||primary outcome efficacy will be evaluated between group 1(placebo + metfromin + sitagliptin) and 2 (sitagliptine + metformin + acarbose)||||0.0036
95817186|NCT01490918|191604927|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline HbA1c as covariate||||||<0.0001
95817187|NCT01490918|191604928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline PPG2hr as covariate||||||0.0185
95817188|NCT01490918|191604929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.0356
95817189|NCT01490918|191604930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8258||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.8258
95817190|NCT01490918|191604931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9217||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.9217
95817191|NCT01490918|191604932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.16
95817192|NCT01490918|191604933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.004
95817193|NCT01490918|191604934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.292
95817194|NCT01490918|191604935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.314
95817195|NCT01490918|191604936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|baseline data as covariate||||||0.7563
95817196|NCT04419467|191604937|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.8|16.3||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean (GM), then expressed as percent treatment difference.|||16.3|-14.8|0.485
95817197|NCT04419467|191604937|SUPERIORITY||GM % treatment difference (80% CI)|8.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.2|27.2||One-sided p-value|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis||Data analyzed are log-transformed values of ACR, using MMRM. Comparisons vs. placebo are back-transformed by exponentiation to obtain geometric mean, then expressed as percent treatment difference|||27.2|-7.2|0.750
95817198|NCT02967679|191604964|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.45||0.7615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7615
95817199|NCT02967679|191604965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.89||0.5995|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5995
95817200|NCT02967679|191604966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1641
95817201|NCT02967679|191604967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
95817202|NCT02967679|191604968|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.2642|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2642
95817203|NCT02967679|191604969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2||0.1777|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1777
95817204|NCT02967679|191604970|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.0371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0371
95958444|NCT02341599|191889093|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.58|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||1.58|1.06|
95817205|NCT02967679|191604971|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
95817206|NCT02967679|191604973|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.201||0.1055|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1055
95817207|NCT02967679|191604974|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.16||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2130
95817208|NCT02967679|191604975|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.112||0.0393|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0393
95817209|NCT02967679|191604976|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.905|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.283||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95817210|NCT02967679|191604977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.21||0.3303|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3303
95817211|NCT02967679|191604978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.092||0.9229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9229
95958445|NCT02341599|191889093|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.32|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.32|0.889|
95817212|NCT01333436|191604997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.8||0.0078||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
95817213|NCT01333436|191604998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.0675||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0675
95817214|NCT01333436|191604999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.1798||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1798
95817215|NCT00543985|191605000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.266|||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Pearson Product correlation was used to determine relationships between resting E/E' and Exercise VO2 max and Stress E/E' and Exercise VO2max.||||=0.14
95817216|NCT00279214|191605004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||24-Hour p-value||||0.238
95817217|NCT00279214|191605004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.281
95817218|NCT00279214|191605005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.478||95.0||||P-value for 96 Hour Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model: Outcome=Therapy + Sedative Indicator + Time + Therapy\*Time + Propensity Score||||||0.478
95817219|NCT00279214|191605006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.442
95817220|NCT00279214|191605006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.871
95817221|NCT00279214|191605007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.704
95817222|NCT00279214|191605007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.702||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.702
95817223|NCT00279214|191605008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||6-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.061
95817224|NCT00279214|191605008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||6-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.027
95817225|NCT00279214|191605009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.242
95817226|NCT00279214|191605009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.083
95817227|NCT00279214|191605009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.810
95817228|NCT00279214|191605009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.623
95817229|NCT00279214|191605010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.686
95817230|NCT00279214|191605010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.575
95817231|NCT00279214|191605011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.165
95817232|NCT00279214|191605013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.552
95817233|NCT00279214|191605013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0||||12-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.129
95817234|NCT00279214|191605013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.030
95817235|NCT00279214|191605013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.002
95817236|NCT00279214|191605015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||24-Hour p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.128
95817237|NCT00279214|191605015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||24-Hour Change from Baseline p-value|Repeated Measures - propensity adjusted|||||||0.234
95817238|NCT01119443|191605043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.3|110.3|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.3|98.3|
95861519|NCT00689117|191682049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95861520|NCT00689117|191682049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95958446|NCT02341599|191889093|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.06|3.06|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||3.06|2.06|
95958447|NCT02341599|191889093|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.806|1.21|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.21|0.806|
95958448|NCT02341599|191889093|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|4.02|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||4.02|2.67|
95958449|NCT02341599|191889093|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group E: Period 2|LS mean ratio|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.378|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.378|0.236|
95958450|NCT02341599|191889094|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group B/Group A|LS mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.27|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.27|0.846|
95817239|NCT01119443|191605044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.8||||||90.0|100.1|109.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.8|100.1|
95817240|NCT01119443|191605045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|108.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.634|122.676|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.676|95.634|
95817241|NCT01119443|191605046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|106.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.189|122.251|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||122.251|93.189|
95817242|NCT01119443|191605047|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|98.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.276|112.58|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.58|84.276|
95817243|NCT01119443|191605048|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|95.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.461|109.698|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||109.698|82.461|
95817244|NCT01119443|191605050|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fed condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|104.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.585|118.263|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||118.263|91.585|
95817245|NCT01119443|191605051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|93.6||||||90.0|86.9|100.8|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||100.8|86.9|
95817246|NCT01119443|191605052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|106.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||106.7|94.0|
95817247|NCT01119443|191605053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
95817248|NCT01119443|191605054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|86.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.583|101.854|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.854|73.583|
95817249|NCT01119443|191605055|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|99.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.688|117.45|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||117.45|80.688|
95817250|NCT01119443|191605056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.571|133.811|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||133.811|89.571|
95817251|NCT01119443|191605058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between pramipexole ER 1.5 mg x 1 tablet q.d. and pramipexole ER 0.375 mg x 4 tablets q.d. in fasted condition|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.871|110.185|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||110.185|77.871|
95817252|NCT02185534|191605080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|104.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|118.19|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||118.19|92.27|
95817253|NCT02185534|191605080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|Geometric mean ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.12|116.45|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25||116.45|81.12|
95817254|NCT02185534|191605081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|108.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.46|122.33|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||122.33|95.46|
95958451|NCT02341599|191889094|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group C/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.428|0.641|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.641|0.428|
95817255|NCT02185534|191605081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.22|117.53|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||117.53|95.22|
95861521|NCT01256190|191682050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95817256|NCT02185534|191605082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.12|101.29|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B, where A= European clopidogrel and B=Japanese clopidogrel|||101.29|87.12|
95817257|NCT02185534|191605082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LS mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|92.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|99.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/C, where A= European clopidogrel and C=US clopidogrel|||99.75|84.91|
95817258|NCT00527618|191605088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA.|Acyclovir was coded as 0 and valacyclovir as 1. The beta-coefficient (slope) indicates the average difference in HIV-1 RNA on valacyclovir and acyclovir; a negative number indicates that plasma HIV-1 RNA was lower on valacyclovir than acyclovir.|We estimated that a sample size of 29 participants, with 4 weeks of weekly plasma HIV-1 RNA levels per treatment arm, would be required to detect a 0.25 log10 copies/ml difference in plasma HIV-1 RNA between the study arms with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
95817259|NCT00527618|191605089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.37|||Random effects poission regression|Adjusted for age.||We estimated that 26 participants would be required to detect a 50% reduction in genital HSV shedding with 80% power, at a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.37|0.66|0.78
95817260|NCT00527618|191605090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95817261|NCT00527618|191605091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.67
95817262|NCT01151020|191605093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Free from major adverse event rate (%)|96.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.6%.||99|91|< 0.001
95817263|NCT01151020|191605094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Device success rate (%)|92.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.2|96.8|||Exact binomial test|||Null Hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® TX2® Low Profile TAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal of 80.7%.||96.8|86.2|< 0.001
95817264|NCT00600067|191605115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.69|0.0381
95817265|NCT00600067|191605116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.21|||ANCOVA|||||-4.21|-9.18|<0.0001
95817266|NCT00881894|191605117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9864||||||90.0|0.9103|1.0688|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0688|0.9103|
95817267|NCT00881894|191605118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9584||||||90.0|0.8861|1.0367|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0367|0.8861|
95817268|NCT00881894|191605119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|0.9896||||||90.0|0.9179|1.0671|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0671|0.9179|
95817269|NCT04571060|191605151|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|4.5|<0.0001
95817270|NCT04571060|191605152|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|13.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.9|3.4|0.0012
95817271|NCT04571060|191605153|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|9.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|14.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.5|3.6|0.0012
95817272|NCT04571060|191605154|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|15.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.5|5.0|0.0001
95817273|NCT04571060|191605155|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.6||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|2.3|0.0048
95817274|NCT04571060|191605156|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.7|1.4|0.0130
95817275|NCT04571060|191605157|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.9||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.5|1.3|0.0076
95958452|NCT02341599|191889094|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group D/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.678|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.554|0.831|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.831|0.554|
95958453|NCT02341599|191889094|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 1/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.221|0.336|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.336|0.221|
95817276|NCT04571060|191605158|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|3.7||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|0.3|0.0308
95817277|NCT04571060|191605159|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|1.8|0.0123
95817278|NCT04571060|191605160|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|14.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.1|3.2|0.0018
95817279|NCT04571060|191605161|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.4|0.6|0.0293
95817280|NCT04571060|191605162|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.7||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.1|0.3|0.0362
95817281|NCT04571060|191605163|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|5.5|<0.0001
95817282|NCT04571060|191605164|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.4||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.6|1.3|0.0059
95817283|NCT04571060|191605165|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.3|4.2|<0.0001
95817284|NCT01361217|191605177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95817285|NCT01361217|191605177|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95817286|NCT01361217|191605178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95958454|NCT02341599|191889094|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group A|LS mean ratio|0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.265|0.402|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||0.402|0.265|
95958455|NCT02341599|191889094|OTHER|LS mean ratio of Group E: Period 2/Group E: Period 1|LS mean ratio|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.0|||||LS mean ratio was calculated from ANOVA model.|||1.00|0.650|
95817287|NCT00362882|191605192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
95817288|NCT01072136|191605252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Under the assumption of a clinical cure proportion of 75% for the Azithromycin/Cefixime group, a 10% non-inferiority margin (i.e., no more than a 10% lower cure rate in the placebo group) at the one-sided 0.05 significance level with 85% power required 270 study participants in each arm (540 total) using an unpooled Z-test (normal approximation). Anticipating that approximately 30% of enrolled participants would not be in the per protocol group, 772 participants were targeted for enrollment.|Risk Difference (RD)|14.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.2||||||Asymptotic one-sided 95% confidence limit for the difference in clinical cure proportions(placebo minus treatment) were computed so that the lower limit could be examined relative to the non-inferiority margin of -10%.|The primary efficacy outcome was MPC clinical cure at 2 months. This was a non-inferiority trial designed to reject the null hypothesis that placebo control is inferior to empiric therapy for MPC.|||-12.2|
95817289|NCT03958331|191605269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|17.25|||ANCOVA|Model controlled for baseline adherence, resistance to peer influence, dose, active seizures, COVID timing, COVID Impact (3 items), and sex|||We also conducted a longitudinal mixed effects model for adherence over time, estimating a groupXtime interaction with the same covariates listed above and allowing for a non-linear effect.|17.25|4|0.002
95817290|NCT03192137|191605291|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.||||||0.0005||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with anterior chamber cells Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||0.0005
95817291|NCT03192137|191605292|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.675||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||5.675|1.823|<0.0001
95817292|NCT03192137|191605292|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|8.161||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||8.161|2.305|<0.0001
96000163|NCT02786537|191976324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1|||||CI for mean derived from PROC TTEST, difference in mean and its 95%CI was calculated by Satterthwaite method.|Analysis based on RBV free regimens in consideration that RBV usage was determined by provider and not study randomization. Population includes patients who started treatment by arm as treated.||2.1|-3.6|
96000164|NCT02786537|191976333|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence range +/-5%|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.3||||||||11.3|-15.3|
95861522|NCT01256190|191682051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
96000165|NCT00077623|191976334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.098|0.38||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.380|-0.098|<0.0001
95817293|NCT03192137|191605292|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.113|8.033||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||8.033|2.113|<0.0001
95817294|NCT03192137|191605292|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.822||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||4.822|1.380|0.0043
95817295|NCT03192137|191605292|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.277||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.695|6.335||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction).|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||6.335|1.695|0.0005
95817296|NCT02737501|191605299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with randomization stratification factors (current) as covariates.|||0.66|0.35|<0.0001
95817297|NCT02737501|191605300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of intracranial central nervous system (iCNS) metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||2.91|1.04|0.0330
95817298|NCT02737501|191605301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of prior chemotherapy for Locally advanced or metastatic disease at study entry (current strata).|||39.11|4.70|<0.0001
95817299|NCT02737501|191605302|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.293|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51||P-values are from a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors (current; presence of iCNS metastases at baseline and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model with prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata) as covariate.|||0.51|0.17|<0.0001
95817300|NCT02737501|191605306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratios and p-values were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at Baseline, and prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease (current strata).|||1.82|0.47|0.8220
95817301|NCT02737501|191605308|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.79||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||p-values were obtained using mixed effects models stratified by presence of iCNS metastases at study entry, prior chemotherapy at Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model is used with an unstructured covariance matrix.||||11.00|0.58|0.0295
95817302|NCT01722929|191605309|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value is for the main effect for the Treatment, Time, and Treatment\*Time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed ANOVA was performed with the arms as a between factor and the three times as the within factor.||||<0.0001
95817303|NCT00405288|191605310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|450.0||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|200.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Birth weight in pregnancies exposed to Proctofoam-HC will be the same as control pregnancies.~To detect a clinically significant decrease of 200 g in birth weight at a power of 80% and alpha of 5%, 200 women per group were required. Post hoc power analysis of our cohort revealed that, in fact, we had a 91.5% power to detect a 200 g difference in birth weight between the two groups."||200|0|0.17
95817304|NCT00405288|191605311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|0|0.16
95817305|NCT00405288|191605312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|30.0||||0.003||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of vaginal deliveries in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same (ie. there will not be a greater proportion of complicated deliveries in either group).||||0.003
95817306|NCT00405288|191605313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|5.0||||0.55||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of pre-term births in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.55
95817307|NCT00405288|191605314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.97||95.0|||||McNemar|||Fetal Distress The null hypothesis is that the proportion of fetal distress in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.97
95817308|NCT00405288|191605315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binary|3.0||||0.31||95.0|||||McNemar|||Low birth weight \<2,500g; The null hypothesis is that the proportion of low birth weight babies in the Proctofoam and Control groups will be the same.||||0.31
95817309|NCT00405288|191605316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|10.0||||0.87||95.0|||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of healthy babies (not requiring NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) or additional medical monitoring) will be the same between the Proctofoam and Control groups.||||0.87
95861523|NCT01256190|191682052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.022
95861524|NCT01256190|191682053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to treat analysis||||0.113
95861525|NCT01256190|191682054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||intent-to-treat analysis||||.025
95861526|NCT02834793|191682055|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-19.3|||=|0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|4.8||The p-value was based on a rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region, and age-group as factors, and prerandomization drop seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.8|-49.2|= 0.107
95861527|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge for survey question What is Lynch syndrome"||||<.0001
95861528|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor Poor diet"||||.002
95861529|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor red and processed meats"||||.048
95861530|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor being overweight or obese"||||.008
95861531|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge for recommended age to start colonoscopy"||||<.0001
95861532|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge for Recommended age to start FIT/FOBT"||||<.0001
95861533|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor tobacco use"||||<.0001
95861534|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor lack of physical activity"||||<.0001
95861535|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor heavy drinking"||||<.0001
95861536|NCT04414306|191682098|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Change in knowledge related to risk factor role of physical activity in reducing CRC risk"||||<.0001
95861537|NCT04414306|191682099|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in intention to get a CRC screening||||.001
95861538|NCT04414306|191682099|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in intention to talk to a healthcare provider about CRC screening||||.006
95861539|NCT04414306|191682099|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in intention to talk to eat a healthier diet||||.0001
95861540|NCT04414306|191682099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in intention to increase physical activity||||<.0001
95861541|NCT04414306|191682099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in intention to talk about CRC with family or friends||||<.0001
95861542|NCT04976192|191682100|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.94||||||||0.94|-1.56|
95861543|NCT04976192|191682101|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.58||||||||0.58|-1.37|
95861544|NCT04976192|191682101|OTHER||Relative Potency|0.89|||||||||||||Relative potency of TEV-45779 and XOLAIR is a co-primary efficacy endpoint for FDA submission.|The relative potency of the test drug to the reference drug was defined as the dose of the test drug that produced the same biological response as 1 unit of the dose of the reference drug. Relative potency was demonstrated if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for relative potency fell entirely within the equivalence margins.||||
95861545|NCT03884101|191682124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5550121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.24|0.83|0.5550121
95861546|NCT03884101|191682125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.1792058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.10|0.77|0.1792058
95861547|NCT03884101|191682126|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was that the hazard ratio was equal to 1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.2459875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.2459875
95861548|NCT03884101|191682126|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.5875597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.26|0.83|0.5875597
95861549|NCT03884101|191682127|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test and stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method for tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||1.12|0.77|0.21552
95861550|NCT03884101|191682128|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.2||||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||3.5|-11.9|0.8569
95861551|NCT03884101|191682129|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0||||0.4999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|||6.7|-6.7|0.4999
95861552|NCT03884101|191682130|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.77||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||cLDA model|||||-0.36|-7.17|0.0302
96002105|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.77|-9.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-9.99|-25.77|<0.001
95817310|NCT00405288|191605317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|4.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95817311|NCT00405288|191605318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|3.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95817312|NCT00405288|191605319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|2.0||||0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95817313|NCT00405288|191605320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.0||||0.35||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
95817314|NCT02012218|191605322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values were calculated according to testing a null hypothesis of zero mean change.|Mixed Models Analysis|This analysis was conducted using a mixed model repeated measures analysis on observed case data.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from baseline in MADRS total score at Week 6 was tested for each treatment group at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).||||<0.0001
95817315|NCT00142792|191605330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Time by group interaction effect, F(2,372) = 1.8, p =0.18)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||The study was powered to detect differences in FMA scores of a minimum effect size of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.01, the smallest effect size difference anticipated between Cyclic NMES and Cyclic Sensory Stimulation based on prior studies. A significance level of 0.01 in the power-analysis was taken since for each measurement occasion, three post-hoc tests are needed. To account for drop out of 20 % , the minimum number of participants required per group is 63.||||0.18
95817316|NCT00142792|191605330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=87.7, p\<0.001)|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
95817317|NCT00142792|191605331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||time by group interaction effect, F(2,373) = 1.3, p =0.27|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||0.27
95817318|NCT00142792|191605331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||time effect, F(1,109)=91.1, p\<0.001|Mixed Models Analysis|A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure. Adjusted for site.||||||<0.001
95861553|NCT03884101|191682131|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors MMR status, ECOG performance status, and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.29||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|0.72|||cLDA model|||||0.72|-5.31|0.1355
95817319|NCT00437268|191605363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.431||||||The type 1 error rate was set at 0.20|Log Rank|||||||0.431
95817320|NCT00437268|191605364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
95817321|NCT00437268|191605365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.157
95817322|NCT00437268|191605366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.539||||||Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for statistical analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.539
95817323|NCT00437268|191605367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.695|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.695
95817324|NCT00480740|191605385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of dexmedetomindine plus sevoflurane compared with the baseline (sevoflurane alone) for any given variable was reached when the difference (steady-state \[dexmedetomidine + sevoflurane\]-baseline \[sevoflurane0\]/baseline \[sevoflurane\]0 and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI) fell completely withing the range of +/-20% indicated by the gray column.||||||0.05||95.0||||The original study design was powered to achieve at least 80% power to detect noninferiority with the two-tailed alpha level set at 0.05 for data with two measurements.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95817325|NCT00444925|191605393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine versus (vs) placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the fifth (5th) and ninety-fifth (95th) percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95817326|NCT00444925|191605393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0107
95817327|NCT00444925|191605393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0172||95.0||||Comparison fesoterodine vs tolterodine ER performed only if statistical significance favoring fesoterodine achieved for fesoterodine vs placebo to preserve overall alpha level at 5%; pairwise comparison also performed for tolterodine ER vs placebo.|Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test (a stratified Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test) adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12. Treatment effects estimated by Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.0172
95817328|NCT00444925|191605394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95817329|NCT00444925|191605394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95817330|NCT00444925|191605394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.8460
95817331|NCT00444925|191605394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95817332|NCT00444925|191605394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||<0.0001
95817333|NCT00444925|191605394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937||95.0|||||Van Elteren's Test|P-value based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline UUI quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4. Winsorized means (5% of the tails were censored, ie, replaced with the value at the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively).||||0.1937
95817334|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817335|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817336|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817337|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817338|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817339|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817340|NCT00444925|191605395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0220
95817341|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0214|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference Least Squares Mean (LSMean) Difference Standard Error (SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0214
95817342|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0149|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0149
95817343|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8659|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.8659
95817344|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817345|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0036
95817346|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1484
95817347|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817348|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.1029|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.1029
95817349|NCT00444925|191605396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0048|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0048
95817350|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0002
95817351|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0006
95817352|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7395|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7395
95817353|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817354|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.0007
95817355|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4185|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.4185
95817356|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817357|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0005
95817358|NCT00444925|191605397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3798|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.3798
95817359|NCT00444925|191605398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
96002106|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|-11.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 10||-11.72|-27.28|<0.001
95817360|NCT00444925|191605398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0002
95817361|NCT00444925|191605398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817362|NCT00444925|191605398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817363|NCT00444925|191605398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817364|NCT00444925|191605398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0003
95817365|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.273|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.2730
95817366|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0652|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0652
95817367|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3503|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3503
95817368|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2667|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.2667
95817369|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1643|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||0.1643
95817370|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7264|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.7264
95817371|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3269|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.3269
95817372|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5059|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.5059
95817373|NCT00444925|191605399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.699|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.6990
95817374|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0008
95817375|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95817376|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.382|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.3820
95817377|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817378|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95958456|NCT02484547|191889117|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.26||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.041|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.041|-0.569|0.0901
95817379|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3498|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3498
95817380|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817381|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817382|NCT00444925|191605401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0542|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0542
95817383|NCT00444925|191605402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0004
96002107|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-12.35|-28.30|<0.001
95817384|NCT00444925|191605402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
95817385|NCT00444925|191605402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95861554|NCT00130247|191682148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.051||||||95.0|0.01|0.09|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|Comparison of binomial proportion of relapse: Intention-to-treat||0.09|0.01|
95861555|NCT00130247|191682151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|3.43||||||95.0|0.94|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 1 year. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 1 year were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||12.5|0.94|
95861556|NCT00130247|191682151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident rate ratio|4.52||||||95.0|1.29|15.9|||Regression, Linear|||Rate of relapse at 2 years. All patients adherent with treatment and remaining in follow-up at 2 years were included in the calculation of the relapse incidence rate.||15.9|1.29|
95861557|NCT00130247|191682157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This two-sided equivalence trial compared the efficacy of 4 and 6 months of treatment. We assumed that the risk of relapse for patients in the 6 month arm was 3.5% and that an absolute difference of 5% (i.e. relapse rate of 8.5%) was clinically meaningful. For a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (two sided), we estimated that 284 evaluable subjects per arm were required.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||||95.0|0.01|0.1|||Regression, Cox||Confidence interval for difference of binomial proportions adjusted with Hauck Anderson continuity correction.|||0.10|0.01|
95958457|NCT02484547|191889117|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.086|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit.||-0.086|-0.694|0.0120
95958458|NCT02484547|191889118|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.48|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.48|-0.65|0.7578
95817386|NCT00444925|191605402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817387|NCT00444925|191605402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817388|NCT00444925|191605402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
95817389|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95817390|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95817391|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5581|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5581
95817392|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817393|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
96002108|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-14.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 11||-14.28|-30.00|<0.001
95817394|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.151|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1510
95817395|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817396|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0001
95817397|NCT00444925|191605403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1391|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1391
95817398|NCT00444925|191605404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817399|NCT00444925|191605404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 1: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817400|NCT00444925|191605404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817401|NCT00444925|191605404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 4: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817402|NCT00444925|191605404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95817403|NCT00444925|191605404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||Inferential testing: percent change from baseline only carried out for given end/time point if corresponding numeric change result statistically significant (to preserve alpha level at 5% within each type of diary endpoint for a given comparison).|ANCOVA|Based on a ranked analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and ranked baseline value as a covariate.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12. Per closed testing procedure, statistical testing for percent change not performed for Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER Week 12: corresponding numerical change result not statistically significant.||||0.0001
95817404|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95817405|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95861558|NCT01954927|191682159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||1-sided p-value|z-test Proportion|z-test of proportions without continuity correction||||||0.227
95861559|NCT01954927|191682160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
95817406|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5972|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.5972
96002109|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-20.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|-11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-11.96|-28.19|<0.001
95817407|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817408|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817409|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.1267
95817410|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817411|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817412|NCT00444925|191605405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0289
95817413|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95817414|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||<0.0001
95817415|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.7288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7288
95817416|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817417|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817418|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2473|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.2473
95817419|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817420|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95861560|NCT01954927|191682161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.181
95861561|NCT01954927|191682162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.730
95817421|NCT00444925|191605406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1047|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.1047
95817422|NCT00444925|191605407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0143||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0143
95817423|NCT00444925|191605407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||<0.0001
95817424|NCT00444925|191605407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
95817425|NCT00444925|191605408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0773||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1||||0.0773
95817426|NCT00444925|191605408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4||||0.0017
95817427|NCT00444925|191605408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|With modified ridit scoring and stratified by country.||Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||0.0008
95817428|NCT00444925|191605409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12||||<0.0001
95817429|NCT00444925|191605410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL concern domain.||||<0.0001
95817430|NCT00444925|191605410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL coping domain.||||<0.0001
95817431|NCT00444925|191605410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.0008|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL sleep domain.||||0.0008
95817432|NCT00444925|191605410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL social interaction domain.||||<0.0001
95817433|NCT00444925|191605410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance model with country and treatment as factors, and centered baseline value as a covariate.|Treatment Difference LSMean Difference(SE), SE is recorded as Parameter Dispersion Type: Standard Error of the mean.|Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo: HRQL scale score total.||||<0.0001
95817434|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0072
95817435|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 1.||||0.0116
95817436|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7828||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 1.||||0.7828
95817437|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817438|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 4.||||<0.0001
95817439|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3104||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 4.||||0.3104
95817440|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs placebo at Week 12.||||<0.0001
95817441|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Tolterodine ER vs placebo at Week 12.||||0.0004
95817442|NCT00444925|191605411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline urgency urinary incontinence quartile.||Treatment Difference Fesoterodine vs Tolterodine ER at Week 12.||||0.0153
95817443|NCT00833027|191605412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Student's T-test|Student's T-test for paired samples||||||<0.001
95817444|NCT04417257|191605414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.0||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants with health status data missing on Day 29 were treated as non-responders, where a non-responder was defined as not reaching a health status of 1-4.||9|-15|0.7377
95817445|NCT04417257|191605414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.8||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants from Per-Protocol population and with available Day 29 health status data||2.8|-10.0|1.000
95861562|NCT01954927|191682163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.713
95817446|NCT04417257|191605414|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.359|0.907||À priori threshold for statistical significance is set at 0.1|Regression, Logistic|"This P-value is for the baseline factor Health Status at baseline. Other baseline factors not significant."||Multivariable logistic regression was constructed for the proportion of participants alive and free of respiratory failure on Day 29 as the outcome variable by screening baseline covariates using stepwise technique with an alpha of 0.1 as the entry and stay criterion, and treatment group was forced to remain in the model. Health status at baseline was used as a continuous variable||0.907|0.359|0.0177
95817447|NCT04417257|191605414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.3537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|18.2||One-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 grouped together with imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||18.2|-10.2|0.3537
95817448|NCT04417257|191605414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|5.4||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 5 and imputation of failure for missing Day 29 data||5.4|-36.6|0.9590
95817449|NCT04417257|191605414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.1||one-sided (right tailed)|Fisher Exact||A positive difference favours LAU-7b, a negative difference favours placebo.|Participants in the ITT population with baseline Health Status of 3 + 4 and available Day 29 health status data (no imputation)||17.1|0.4|0.0553
95817450|NCT04417257|191605415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.9||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|ITT population with Day 60 health status/survival data||13.9|-6.9|0.6600
95817451|NCT04417257|191605415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.6||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|Per-Protocol population with Day 60 health status/survival data||12.6|-10.6|1.000
95817452|NCT04417257|191605418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5459||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 14. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value of Score test = 0.0180) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.5459
95817453|NCT04417257|191605418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6229||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population, Day 29. The proportional odds assumption of the ordinal logistic regression was not met (P-value \<.0001) and a Wilcoxon two sample test was performed.||||0.6229
95817454|NCT04417257|191605419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8222||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.8222
95817455|NCT04417257|191605419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.0536
95817456|NCT04417257|191605419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 29 assessment available.||||0.1131
95817457|NCT04417257|191605421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6689||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants in the overall ITT population who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.6689
95958459|NCT02484547|191889118|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.13|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.13|0.00|0.0493
95817458|NCT04417257|191605421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0536
95817459|NCT04417257|191605421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0786||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available.||||0.0786
95817460|NCT04417257|191605423|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95817461|NCT04417257|191605424|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||1.000
95817462|NCT04417257|191605424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0680
95817463|NCT04417257|191605424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with health status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0534
95817464|NCT04417257|191605425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7923||||||Two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group||||0.7923
95861563|NCT01954927|191682164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
95958460|NCT02484547|191889119|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.701||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7649|0.3627|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.3627|-1.7649|0.1962
95817465|NCT04417257|191605426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8886||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.8886
95817466|NCT04417257|191605426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2735||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2735
95817467|NCT04417257|191605426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3604||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.3604
95817468|NCT04417257|191605427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||1.000
95817469|NCT04417257|191605427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.0253
95817470|NCT04417257|191605427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2729||||||two-sided test|Fisher Exact|||Calculated based on the total number of participants with Health Status 5 at baseline who had the event prior to or with Day 60 assessment available within each group.||||0.2729
95817471|NCT04417257|191605428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||Alpha set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||0.6460
95817472|NCT04417257|191605429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.8722
95817473|NCT04417257|191605429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.5390
95817474|NCT04417257|191605429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2319|||||||Log Rank|||If health status was not improved (remains stable or aggravates) by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.2319
95817475|NCT04417257|191605430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9358
95817476|NCT04417257|191605430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline.||||0.6300
95817477|NCT04417257|191605430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline.||||0.6550
95817478|NCT04417257|191605431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9101||||||Two-sided test|Log Rank|||If health status did not reach categories 2 or 1 by Day 60, it was censored at Day 60. Overall ITT population.||||0.9101
95817479|NCT04417257|191605434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2706||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.2706
95817480|NCT04417257|191605434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0974||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 3 + 4 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.0974
95817481|NCT04417257|191605434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5549||||||two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants with Health Status 5 at baseline. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value.||||0.5549
95817482|NCT04417257|191605435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4787||||||Two-sided test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall ITT population. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and visual check indicated the normality assumption was rejected, and two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to obtain the P-value||||0.4787
95817483|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.02||||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.03|-0.07|0.4746
95817484|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Leat Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29.||0.05|-0.06|0.7445
95817485|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45.||0.05|-0.07|0.7105
95817486|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean difference|-0.01||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60.||0.04|-0.07|0.6424
95817487|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 14 or end of hospitalization data.||0.14|-0.04|0.2789
95817488|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.05||||0.2884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 29||0.14|-0.04|0.2884
95817489|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.06||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 45||0.15|-0.03|0.2058
95817490|NCT04417257|191605437|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means difference|0.03||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference favours LAU-7b, a positive difference favours placebo.|The data were analyzed using the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with change from baseline as the outcome variable. Day 60||0.12|-0.06|0.5160
95817491|NCT00656370|191605440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.93
95817492|NCT00656370|191605441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.67
95817493|NCT01646814|191605446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
95817494|NCT01328743|191605447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
95817495|NCT01328743|191605448|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
95817496|NCT01328743|191605449|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
95817497|NCT01328743|191605450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
95817498|NCT01328743|191605451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
95817499|NCT01328743|191605452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95817500|NCT00326001|191605453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95817501|NCT00326001|191605454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.042
95817502|NCT00326001|191605455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
95817503|NCT00326001|191605456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95817504|NCT01088906|191605465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
95817505|NCT04566731|191605495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95817506|NCT04267926|191605496|OTHER|||||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||||In our work there are several hypotheses for the group comparison for the change. Therefore multiple estimate values that are not suitable for the questions above.|||0.9489
95817507|NCT03046927|191605500|EQUIVALENCE|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model with dependent||Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.001
95817508|NCT03046927|191605501|OTHER||trend analysis|0.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|Trend analysis was performed using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||||<0.01
95817509|NCT03046927|191605502|OTHER|p values were derived from trend analysis using generalized linear models|Mean Difference (Net)|0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.947||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|General linear models|||||0.947|0.066|0.0241
95817510|NCT03046927|191605503|OTHER|p values were obtained from a generalized linear model with repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|10.37||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.13||The p-value was derived from a statistical model adjusted for age, sex, and BMI|Regression, Linear|||||27.13|-6.40|0.23
95817511|NCT03046927|191605504|OTHER||trend analysis|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model|p values were obtained using generalized linear model with GEE for repeated measures.|||Trend analysis was obtained using generalized linear model GEE.|||<0.001
95817512|NCT01848977|191605505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Unpaired t-test was used to compare the difference between SrO2 and StO2.||||<0.05
95817513|NCT04522167|191605508|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for difference in LSMeans is completely contained in the interval \]-3.5 letters; 3.5 letters\[, FBY203 and Eylea are considered equivalent.|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.4|-0.3|2.2||||||||2.2|-0.3|
95817514|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.029
95817515|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.027
95817516|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in GHS/QoL statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.602
95817517|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.631
95817518|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.339|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.339
95817519|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in physical functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.440
95817520|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=1.000
95817521|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.465
95817522|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in role functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.431
95817523|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.650
95817524|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.980
95817525|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in emotional functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.906
95817526|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.381
95817527|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.886
95817528|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in cognitive functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.264
95817529|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.424
95817530|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=1.000
95817531|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in social functioning statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.312
95817532|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.664
95817533|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue functioning statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.170
95817534|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.318|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in fatigue statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.318
95817535|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in Nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.536
95817536|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.900
95817537|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in nausea/vomiting statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=0.188
95817538|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 5.||||=0.370
95817539|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at Cycle 11.||||=0.813
95817540|NCT00532129|191605541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CFB in pain statistical analysis at end of FU.||||=1.000
95817541|NCT03052608|191605545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.413||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ethnicity and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.0081 level at the cutoff date of this report.|one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ ≥1 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \<1, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Lorlatinib/Crizotinib). Evaluation of 177 PFS events was required to have at least 90% power to detect a HR of 0.611 using a one-sided stratified log-rank test at a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided), and a 2-look group-sequential design with a Lan-DeMets (O'Brien-Fleming) α-spending function to determine the efficacy boundaries.||0.413|0.191|<0.0001
95817542|NCT03052608|191605546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.249|||||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.249|0.414|
95817543|NCT03052608|191605547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.307|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.307|0.144|<0.0001
95817544|NCT03052608|191605548|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.254||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|3.891|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||3.891|1.353|0.0005
95817545|NCT03052608|191605549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.499||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.484|4.594|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||4.594|1.484|0.0002
95817546|NCT03052608|191605550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.586|27.233|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Odds ratio was estimated using Mantel-Haenszel method. An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates better outcome for Lorlatinib relative to Crizotinib. Exact CI was calculated.|||27.233|2.586|<0.0001
95817547|NCT03052608|191605551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.17|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||0.170|0.026|<0.0001
95817548|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|8.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Global QOL. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||8.16|1.14|0.0096
95817549|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.05|-1.01|0.1897
95817550|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Role Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||6.04|-1.87|0.2999
95817551|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.22|-0.06|0.0553
95817552|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Cognitive Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.12|-6.47|0.0588
95817553|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27||||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Social Functioning. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.85|-1.30|0.2118
95817554|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.92|-9.42|0.0032
95817555|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Nausea and Vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-5.86|-9.86|<0.0001
95817556|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Pain. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.82|-2.49|0.5310
95817557|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||5.43|-1.98|0.3602
95817558|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-4.64|-11.25|<0.0001
95817559|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Appetite Loss. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-6.62|-11.80|<0.0001
95817560|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.93||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Constipation. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-0.79|-9.07|0.0198
95817561|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-8.58|-15.49|<0.0001
95817562|NCT03052608|191605566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-C30 Financial Difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||2.82|-4.90|0.5947
95817563|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.7254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.60|-2.51|0.7254
95817564|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.55||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Coughing. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||-1.03|-8.06|0.0115
95817565|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.99|-0.75|0.7824
95817566|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Sore Mouth. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.36|-1.04|0.2988
95817567|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||0.76|-3.79|0.1916
95817568|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.37||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Peripheral Neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||10.15|0.59|0.0279
95817569|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||3.49|-3.89|0.9162
95817570|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Chest. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||1.90|-2.96|0.6698
95817571|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.8035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|4.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Arm or Shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||4.04|-3.13|0.8035
95817572|NCT03052608|191605567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.36||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|7.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis for QLQ-LC13 Pain in Other Parts. Estimated change from baseline was based on random intercept random slope mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time (as a continuous variable), treatment-by-time, baseline and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7.55|-0.82|0.1143
95817573|NCT03052608|191605570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.444|||one-sided stratified log-rank|Stratified by the presence of brain metastases (Yes/No) and ethnic origin (Asian/Non-Asian) at randomization.|Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by the presence of brain metastases and ethnic origin at randomization. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Lorlatinib.|||1.444|0.822|0.7293
95817574|NCT00661830|191605579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|2.023|||Regression, Cox|||||2.023|0.811|
95817575|NCT00661830|191605580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.927|||Regression, Cox|||||1.927|0.747|
95817576|NCT01475721|191605588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison is statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.662|||Regression, Cox|||||1.662|0.638|0.003
95817577|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.103|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy.|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.103|0.630|0.203
95817578|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.090|0.645|0.188
95817579|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.905|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.905|0.645|0.002
95817580|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.034|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of time to first exacerbation in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.034|0.451|0.071
95817581|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.17|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.170|0.659|0.373
95817582|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.122|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.122|0.665|0.271
95817583|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.895|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||0.895|0.637|0.001
95817584|NCT01475721|191605589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.04|||Regression, Cox||Analysis of number of asthma exacerbations in efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|The hazard ratio computed is essentially the relative risk of having the event in the treatment group relative to the control group, adjusted for time to the event.||1.040|0.454|0.075
95817585|NCT01475721|191605591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.071|||Regression, Cox|||||1.071|0.562|0.123
95817586|NCT01475721|191605592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.141|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS or non-LABA therapy|||-0.141|-0.385|<0.001
95817587|NCT01475721|191605592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.222||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|-0.076|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects not well-controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.076|-0.369|0.003
95817588|NCT01475721|191605592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|-0.106|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS+LABA therapy|||-0.106|-0.238|<0.001
95817589|NCT01475721|191605592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.056|||Regression, Cox||Efficacy subgroup: Subjects controlled on prior ICS therapy|||0.056|-0.216|0.251
95817590|NCT01639469|191605604|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.68|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing to see if there is a significant difference in fall rates over 12months between the two groups.||0.68|0.22|<0.001
95861564|NCT01954927|191682165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
95861565|NCT00955305|191682166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||one-sided p-value using stratified logrank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.33
95861566|NCT00955305|191682167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||two-sided p-value by stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test stratified on the randomization stratification factors||||||0.95
95817591|NCT00913510|191605605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||1||||||The p-value is calculated to the fourth decimal place.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0 : µt = µc versus H1 : µt ≠ µc µt = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in test group µc = Exp. relative change of frequency of micturitions per day in control group.~Plan was to have 44 evaluable subjects (90% power) but power of the study was reduced by early termination. It cannot be concluded that there is no difference between the treatment groups due to insufficient power."||||1.0000
95817592|NCT01516632|191605613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.21||||||||3.21|.82|
95817593|NCT01516632|191605614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.3||||||||5.30|1.22|
95817594|NCT01516632|191605615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|7.45||||||||7.45|1.48|
95817595|NCT02956746|191605617|OTHER|||||||0.4187||||||threshold for significance p-values \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4187
95817596|NCT02621476|191605652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95817597|NCT01484496|191605653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|1.25|0.0006
95817598|NCT01484496|191605654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.74|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.74|0.35|0.0004
95817599|NCT01484496|191605655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.84|0.95|0.0732
95817600|NCT03198767|191605660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.71||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.00|0.50|0.202
95817601|NCT03198767|191605660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.32|0.14|<0.001
95817602|NCT03198767|191605660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||0.46|0.19|<0.001
95817603|NCT03198767|191605660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.04|0.60|0.275
95817604|NCT03198767|191605660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.78||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.02|0.59|0.234
95817605|NCT03198767|191605660|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.98||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||1.30|0.73|0.921
95817606|NCT03198767|191605661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.68||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|0.54|0.040
95817607|NCT03198767|191605661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.28|<0.001
95817608|NCT03198767|191605661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|0.41|0.008
95817609|NCT03198767|191605661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.79||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.97|0.65|0.141
95817610|NCT03198767|191605661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|0.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.74|0.510
95817611|NCT03198767|191605661|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of number of events|1.14||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|0.93|0.401
95817612|NCT03198767|191605662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.426
95817613|NCT03198767|191605662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.46|0.001
95817614|NCT03198767|191605662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.25|0.009
95817615|NCT03198767|191605662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.68|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.68|0.135
95817616|NCT03198767|191605662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.50|0.436
95817617|NCT03198767|191605662|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.13|0.452
95817618|NCT00589797|191605668|NON_INFERIORITY|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority trial with a margin (delta) of 15%. Additional analyses using a delta of 10% as requested by FDA were also conducted.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95817619|NCT01881009|191605677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95817620|NCT01881009|191605678|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95817621|NCT02831855|191605688|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) of Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo to Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate was concluded if the upper bound of 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) for difference between the 2 arms (Tofacitinib 11 mg + Methotrexate Placebo reporting arm - Tofacitinib 11 mg + continued Methotrexate arm) was lower than 0.6.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48||The p-value is one-sided for the test against the NI margin of 0.6.|MMRM|||Linear mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD), and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.48|0.12|0.0005
95817622|NCT02831855|191605689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||||||Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (ESR) value as a covariate.||0.41|0.03|
95817623|NCT02831855|191605690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.43|0.08|
95861567|NCT00955305|191682168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||two sided p-value by Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95861568|NCT00109590|191682171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject Cpredose LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum.||||0.009
95861569|NCT00109590|191682171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was two-sided P\<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in within-subject C4hour LPV/r plasma drug concentrations within 72 hours after delivery versus at 30 days postpartum||||0.048
95817624|NCT02831855|191605690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.45||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment -by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline DAS28-4 (CRP) value as a covariate.||0.45|0.11|
95817625|NCT02831855|191605691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.07||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.07|0.40|
95817626|NCT02831855|191605691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline CDAI value as a covariate.||3.43|0.83|
95817627|NCT02831855|191605692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.37||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.37|0.53|
95817628|NCT02831855|191605692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.59||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline SDAI value as a covariate.||3.59|0.86|
95817629|NCT02831855|191605693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|2.76||||||Week 36||2.76|-14.15|
95817630|NCT02831855|191605693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|3.94||||||Week 48||3.94|-13.04|
95817631|NCT02831855|191605694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|2.77||||||Week 36||2.77|-13.07|
95817632|NCT02831855|191605694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|-0.76||||||Week 48||-0.76|-16.28|
95817633|NCT02831855|191605695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|0.38||||||Week 36||0.38|-15.17|
95861570|NCT01221285|191682183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|1.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgE. Denominator is baseline IgE.|||2.8|1.1|0.02
95861571|NCT01221285|191682184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.4|||Fold change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG. Denominator is baseline IgG.|||3.4|1.8|<0.0001
95861572|NCT01221285|191682185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fold change|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.5|||Fold Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline IgG4. Denominator is baseline IgG4.|||22.5|7.5|<0.0001
95958461|NCT02484547|191889119|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-1.4||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4596|-0.3396|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group(Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADASCog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||-0.3396|-2.4596|0.0097
95817634|NCT02831855|191605695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|-4.26||||||Week 48||-4.26|-19.56|
95817635|NCT02831855|191605696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|0.77||||||Week 36||0.77|-14.81|
95817636|NCT02831855|191605696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.68|-2.37||||||Week 48||-2.37|-17.68|
95817637|NCT02831855|191605697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.27|-1.78||||||Week 36||-1.78|-15.27|
95817638|NCT02831855|191605697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.83|||Two Sided|||Week 48||5.83|-8.50|
95817639|NCT02831855|191605698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.82||||||Week 36||-0.82|-15.40|
95817640|NCT02831855|191605698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|1.32||||||Week 48||1.32|-13.74|
95817641|NCT02831855|191605699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|2.84||||||Week 36||2.84|-14.12|
95817642|NCT02831855|191605699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|4.36||||||Week 48||4.36|-12.62|
95817643|NCT02831855|191605700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.24||||||Week 36||-1.24|-16.44|
95817644|NCT02831855|191605700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|5.35||||||Week 48||5.35|-10.18|
95817645|NCT02831855|191605701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-8.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.38|-1.31||||||Week 36||-1.31|-16.38|
95817646|NCT02831855|191605701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.99|4.65||||||Week 48||4.65|-10.99|
95817647|NCT02831855|191605702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|0.14||||||Week 36||0.14|-14.06|
95817648|NCT02831855|191605702|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|0.61||||||Week 48||0.61|-13.80|
95861573|NCT01221285|191682186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change|-42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-26.2|||Change||Numerator is geometric mean post-baseline FAB. Denominator is baseline FAB.|||-26.2|-59.4|<0.0001
95861574|NCT03861988|191682188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95861575|NCT00966875|191682224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||A log transformed dose was used in the model.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
96000166|NCT00077623|191976334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority were based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity .|Mean Difference between groups|-0.022|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.262|0.217||The p-value for the non-inferiority test can be derived via the t-test.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|||The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL (Per Protocol Population)||0.217|-0.262|<0.0001
95817649|NCT02831855|191605703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.01|-4.48||||||Week 36||-4.48|-21.01|
95817650|NCT02831855|191605703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-3.75||||||Week 48||-3.75|-20.22|
95817651|NCT02831855|191605704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|2.89||||||Week 36||2.89|-13.63|
95817652|NCT02831855|191605704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|3.36||||||Week 48||3.36|-13.32|
95817653|NCT02831855|191605705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.16|0.02|
95817654|NCT02831855|191605705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD and baseline HAQ-DI.||0.09|-0.06|
95817655|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.92||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||0.92|-1.79|
95817656|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.85||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score as a covariate.||1.85|-0.82|
95817657|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||-0.37|-2.97|
95817658|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.66||||||Change at Week 48: Role Physical Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role physical score score as a covariate.||0.66|-2.13|
95817659|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.21||||||Change at Week 36: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||1.21|-1.50|
95817660|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.93||||||Change at Week 48: Social functioning- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 Social functioning score as a covariate.||0.93|-1.95|
95817661|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||-0.01|-2.90|
95817662|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.73||||||Change at Week 48: Bodily Pain Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 bodily pain score as a covariate.||0.73|-2.23|
95817663|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.29|
95817664|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.02||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Health Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental health score as a covariate.||1.02|-1.94|
95817665|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.43||||||Change at Week 36: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||0.43|-2.64|
95817666|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.01||||||Change at Week 48: Role Emotional Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 role emotional score as a covariate.||1.01|-1.95|
95817667|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.22||||||Change at Week 36: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.22|-2.52|
95817668|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.91||||||Change at Week 48: Vitality Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 vitality score as a covariate.||0.91|-1.94|
95861576|NCT00966875|191682225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95861577|NCT00966875|191682225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
95817669|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||||||Change at Week 36: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.08|-1.30|
95817670|NCT02831855|191605706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83||||||Change at Week 48: General Health Perception Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 general health perception score as a covariate.||1.83|-0.60|
95817671|NCT02831855|191605707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.37||||||Change at Week 36: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||0.37|-2.01|
95817672|NCT02831855|191605707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.29||||||Change at Week 48: Physical Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD), and baseline SF-36 physical component score- as a covariate.||1.29|-1.11|
95817673|NCT02831855|191605707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.49||||||Change at Week 36: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.49|-2.13|
95817674|NCT02831855|191605707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.7||||||Change at Week 48: Mental Component Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline SF-36 mental component score as a covariate.||0.70|-2.06|
95817675|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.37||||||Change at Week 36: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||6.37|-3.14|
95817676|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.99||||||Change at Week 48: Absenteeism Score- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI absenteeism score as a covariate.||3.99|-5.01|
95817677|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|6.89||||||Change at Week 36: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||6.89|-0.51|
95817678|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.61||||||Change at Week 48: Daily activity impairment- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI daily activity impairment score as a covariate.||5.61|-2.41|
95817679|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|8.87||||||Change at Week 36: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||8.87|-2.84|
95817680|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|6.54||||||Change at Week 48: Presenteeism- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI presenteeism score as a covariate.||6.54|-8.34|
95817681|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.65||||||Change at Week 36: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||9.65|-3.97|
95817682|NCT02831855|191605708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|5.8||||||Change at Week 48: Work productivity loss- Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline WPAI work productivity loss score as a covariate.||5.80|-10.72|
95817683|NCT02831855|191605709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.07|
95817684|NCT02831855|191605709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline EQ-5D score as a covariate.||0.01|-0.06|
95817685|NCT02831855|191605710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.0||||||Change at Week 36: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.00|-1.37|
95817686|NCT02831855|191605710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.44||||||Change at Week 48: Linear MMRM was used that included the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, prior use of a bDMARD, and baseline FACIT - fatigue scale score as a covariate.||1.44|-1.07|
95817687|NCT02831855|191605711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.61|-2.42||||||Week 36||-2.42|-17.61|
95817688|NCT02831855|191605711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|1.0||||||Week 48||1.00|-14.26|
95817689|NCT00361972|191605779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95817690|NCT00361972|191605780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95817691|NCT03542266|191605781|OTHER||Proportion (percent)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|90.3|||||Exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence interval for complete response rate.|||90.3|46.5|
95817692|NCT02358993|191605796|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the primary outcome was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was greater than the specified non-inferiority margin of 15%(a clinically relevant margin within the range of those commonly used in non-inferiority and equivalence trials for studies examining antibiotic use for UTI)|Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95817693|NCT00553410|191605838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|.93|.31
95817694|NCT00553410|191605839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|.68|.16
95817695|NCT00553410|191605840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|.71|.25
95817696|NCT00553410|191605841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|.81|.84
95817697|NCT00806260|191605859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.21||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.10%|||0.21|
95817698|NCT00806260|191605859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.12||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.07%|||0.12|
95817699|NCT00806260|191605859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|step-down test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.03||||ANCOVA|||at alcohol level 0.04%|||-0.03|
95817700|NCT00806260|191605860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.07|-0.17|
95817701|NCT00806260|191605860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.04|-0.18|
95817702|NCT00806260|191605860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|||at 2 hr timepoint||0.06|-0.08|
95817703|NCT00806260|191605860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||ANCOVA|||at 6 hr timepoint||0.05|-0.13|
95817704|NCT01897532|191605861|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was chosen as 1.3 (FDA Guidance for Industry - Diabetes Mellitus - Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for Hazard ratio (HR) ≥1.3 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.0002
95817705|NCT01897532|191605861|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided).|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.17|0.89|0.6301
95817706|NCT01897532|191605862|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||p-value for HR ≥1.0 (1-sided)|Regression, Cox|Based on a Cox regression model with terms for treatment group and region.||Cox proportional hazard regression model was performed to compare the effect of linagliptin versus placebo. Model included randomised treatment and geographical region as factors. Breslow's method was used for dealing with ties. First hypothesis (non-inferiority of the primary endpoint) was to be tested at the one-sided alpha-level of 2.5%. In case of significance the next set of hypotheses (two separate hypothesis tests) were to be tested with a sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.||1.22|0.89|0.6918
95817707|NCT05554146|191605930|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.6185||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.25||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||-0.25|-4.98|0.0303
95817708|NCT05554146|191605930|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.8424||||0.4851|TWO_SIDED|||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.4851
95817709|NCT05554146|191605930|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.6038||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A mixed effects model was completed with Arm 2 as the reference.|Mixed Models Analysis|There were no adjustments for any covariates.|Arm 2 was the comparison arm.|The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater reduction in self-reported pain severity than high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.6165
95817710|NCT05554146|191605931|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.63||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.6
95817711|NCT05554146|191605932|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.83||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that anti-inflammatory cytokines (IL-4 and IL-10) would have greater increase in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.49
95861578|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
95817712|NCT05554146|191605933|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.53||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.66
95817713|NCT05554146|191605934|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in NPX values was completed.|F value (F-test)|0.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNFa and IL-6) would have greater reduction in participants randomized to coupons for high CBD products than the other arms.||||0.88
95817714|NCT05554146|191605935|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in adherence score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have poorer Antiretroviral (ARV) medication adherence than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.39
95817715|NCT05554146|191605936|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with mean change in HIV viral load was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have less suppressed HIV viral load than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD or placebo.||||0.31
95817716|NCT05554146|191605937|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in depression score was completed.|F value (F-test)|2.04||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater depression than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.13
95817717|NCT05554146|191605938|SUPERIORITY|An ANOVA test with the mean change in anxiety score was completed.|F value (F-test)|1.58||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Three degrees of freedom (3 DoF)||The study team hypothesized that participants randomized to coupons for high THC products would have greater anxiety than those randomized to coupons for high CBD, equal parts THC and CBD, or placebo.||||0.22
95817718|NCT00620373|191605946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
95817719|NCT00620373|191605946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
95817720|NCT00620373|191605947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.016
95817721|NCT00620373|191605947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||McNemar|||For all cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.07
95817722|NCT00620373|191605947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
95817723|NCT00620373|191605947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||McNemar|||For invasive cancers; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.063
95817724|NCT00620373|191605947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.5
95817725|NCT00620373|191605947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||McNemar|||For ductal carcinoma in situ; significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||>.99
95817726|NCT00620373|191605949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
95817727|NCT00620373|191605949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.069
95817728|NCT00620373|191605950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||<.001
95817729|NCT00620373|191605950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||McNemar|||significant difference p ≤ 0.05||||.218
95817730|NCT04105868|191605991|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-training SSVEP competition index scores||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in SSVEP competition index from baseline to post-training.||||.004
95817731|NCT04105868|191605992|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS sadness scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Sadness scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.25
95817732|NCT04105868|191605993|OTHER|Within-group pre/post differences were tested using a paired t-test.||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed paired samples t-test comparing baseline and post-stressor VAS anxiety scores.||Null hypothesis: No within-subject change in VAS Anxiety scores from baseline to post-stressor.||||.471
95817733|NCT01773967|191606007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.83
95817734|NCT01773967|191606009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Van Elteren's modification Mann-Whitney|||||||0.26
95817735|NCT02413996|191606010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|16.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Does VRRS rehabilitation is superior to the traditional one?||16.51|-4.62|0.05
95817736|NCT00090779|191606023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95817737|NCT00090779|191606024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95817738|NCT02623972|191606032|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 10% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 30% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.10, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.30. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=10%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
95817739|NCT02623972|191606032|OTHER||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Simon minimax two-stage design||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 2% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 23% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: the proportion of participants experiencing pCR is ≤ 0.02, Alternative hypothesis that proportion pCR ≥ 0.23. Hypothesized False Positive Rate(α)=5%; Hypothesized False Negative Rate(1-β)=10%.||||
95861579|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
95861580|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861581|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861582|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861583|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95817740|NCT01925768|191606046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||29.3|6.2|0.0040
95817741|NCT01925768|191606047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.103||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||0.044|-0.251|0.1677
95817742|NCT01925768|191606048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|30.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Those who withdrew early or who did not have sufficient data at Week 16 were counted as non-responders.|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||30.6|6.3|0.0040
95817743|NCT01925768|191606049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.15|-0.85|0.0051
95817744|NCT01925768|191606050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.68||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Those with a baseline and at least 1 postbaseline value at the PBO controlled phase were counted with mixed effects model for repeated measure (MMRM)|The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||4.88|0.49|0.0167
95817745|NCT01925768|191606051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7||Based on an MMRM model for the change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids use as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||2-sided 95% CI for the difference in LS mean.||5.70|1.10|0.0039
95817746|NCT01925768|191606052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|10.2|||Sign test|p-value based on distribution free signed rank test||||10.2|-21.5|0.012
95817747|NCT01925768|191606053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline oral corticosteroids (prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights. The CI is based on a normal approximation.|||31.3|8.0|0.0016
95817748|NCT01925768|191606054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.021|-0.279|0.0229
95817749|NCT01925768|191606055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||The LS mean (SE) and 2-sided p-value were based on a MMRM analysis for change from baseline, with treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and previous DMARD and baseline corticosteroids used as factors and baseline value as a covariate|||-0.35|-1.00|<0.0001
95817750|NCT01925768|191606056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.46||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||5.80|1.13|0.0039
95817751|NCT01925768|191606057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann|10.0||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.0|||Stratified Van Elteren test|p-value based on stratified Van Elteren test, using 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids|Location shift and 95% CI based on Hodges-Lehmann for between treatment median estimates.|||20.0|0.0|0.0168
95817752|NCT01925768|191606058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|20.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|32.8||2 sided-p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by the 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|||32.8|8.5|0.0015
95817753|NCT01925768|191606059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.7||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|17.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 2; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||17.7|1.6|0.0252
95861584|NCT00966875|191682229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861585|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
95861586|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.306
96000167|NCT00401973|191976343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||To detect a difference between treatment arms of 3.06 kg in mean weight change from baseline to endpoint, 150 patients must be enrolled in stepped intervention arm and 50 in control arm. Assuming a standard deviation of 6.87 kg, there is 80% power to detect a difference between treatment arms on a 1-sided 2-sample t-test at the 5% significance level. Primary analysis was the comparison of mean weight change for 'olanzapine only' versus pooled 'olanzapine \& adjunctive treatment' arm at Week 22.||||0.065
95817754|NCT01925768|191606059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.6||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|18.9||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 4; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||18.9|-1.7|0.1121
95817755|NCT01925768|191606059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.8||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|29.3||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 6; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||29.3|6.2|0.0036
95817756|NCT01925768|191606059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|24.6||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 8; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||24.6|0.8|0.0392
95817757|NCT01925768|191606059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|23.2||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 12; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||23.2|-1.3|0.0884
95817758|NCT01925768|191606059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|30.7||Two-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for previous DMARD use and baseline Oral Corticosteroids (Prednisone or equivalent) use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata by 2 stratification factors: previous DMARD use and baseline Corticosteroids use using CMH weights|Week 20; 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average||30.7|6.5|0.0040
95817759|NCT00873821|191606070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.33|55.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference (placebo minus MK-0941) in change from baseline to Day 13||55.32|26.33|<0.001
95817760|NCT02891226|191606072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.08|1.07|0.079
95817761|NCT02891226|191606072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|12.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.07|2.01|0.003
95817762|NCT02891226|191606072|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.81|13.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.42|2.81|<0.001
95817763|NCT02891226|191606073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|0.55|0.241
95817764|NCT02891226|191606073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.76|70.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||70.64|1.76|0.032
95817765|NCT02891226|191606073|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|91.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||91.32|2.82|0.009
95817766|NCT02891226|191606074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.45|0.62|0.330
95817767|NCT02891226|191606074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.21|2.02|0.006
95817768|NCT02891226|191606074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.37|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.07|1.37|0.029
95817769|NCT02891226|191606075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-1.03|0.007
95817770|NCT02891226|191606075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
95817771|NCT02891226|191606075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.84|0.005
95817772|NCT02891226|191606077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.53|34.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.56|13.53|<0.001
95817773|NCT02891226|191606077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.84|40.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.08|18.84|<0.001
95817774|NCT02891226|191606077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.185|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.67|33.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.82|16.67|<0.001
95817775|NCT02891226|191606078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.48|11.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|4.48|<0.001
95817776|NCT02891226|191606078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.67|2.72|0.004
95817777|NCT02891226|191606078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|6.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.686|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|9.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.51|3.94|<0.001
95861587|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95817778|NCT02891226|191606079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|8.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||8.32|1.95|0.008
95817779|NCT02891226|191606079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.951||0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|7.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||7.41|0.96|0.033
95817780|NCT02891226|191606079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||6.34|1.08|0.021
95817781|NCT02891226|191606079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||3.77|-0.59|0.229
95817782|NCT02891226|191606079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.349|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.67|7.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||7.14|2.67|<0.001
95817783|NCT02891226|191606079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Summary (PCS)||5.38|1.81|0.001
95817784|NCT01482715|191606089|OTHER||RP2D|600.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||A MTD was not established based on observation of DLTs in Cycle 1 of treatment. The 600 mg BID dose was considered to be the maximum dose with an acceptable toxicity profile that could be continuously administered to patients and was selected as the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D).|||
95817785|NCT01152437|191606100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.122||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.018|0.844||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Regression, Logistic|Wald Chi-square test and Confidence Interval from logistic regression stratified by number of lines of palliative chemotherapy.||Null hypothesis is that the objective response rate (ORR) in KRAS wild-type patients treated with afatinib is less than or equal to the ORR in KRAS wild-type patients treated with cetuximab. Sample size is based on a 'pick the winner' approach assuming ORR for cetuximab of 12%, undesirable ORR for afatinib of 11% and desirable ORR for afatinib of 16%. As per 'pick the winner' approach, afatinib would be considered 'the winner' if the ORR for afatinib was greater than the ORR for cetuximab.||0.844|0.018|0.0735
96000168|NCT00401973|191976343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||Hypothesis=weight gain associated with olanzapine can be prevented or mitigated with an adjunctive pharmacological algorithm.||||0.113
95817786|NCT01152437|191606101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|12.0||||0.6394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|23.9||The statistical analysis is descriptive and exploratory in nature and performed only to provide a statistical framework from which to view the results and plan further studies.|Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the disease control rate is 10% in patients with KRAS mutation. Sample size calculation based on a 2-sided exact binomial test at 10% significance level to distinguish between the historical disease control rate of 10% and a desirable disease control rate for afatinib of 25%.||23.9|4.9|0.6394
95817787|NCT04570384|191606117|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.45|0.782
95817788|NCT04570384|191606117|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.40|0.46|0.668
95817789|NCT04570384|191606118|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22|||Log Rank|||||4.22|0.59|0.360
95817790|NCT04570384|191606119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.83|||Log Rank|||||1.83|0.13|0.285
95817791|NCT04570384|191606119|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.15|0.471
95817792|NCT04570384|191606125|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.20|0.30|0.668
95817793|NCT04570384|191606125|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.9|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||1.90|0.23|0.437
95817794|NCT04570384|191606126|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.06|0.232
95817795|NCT04570384|191606127|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.28|0.31|0.729
95817796|NCT04570384|191606128|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.22||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.44|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||3.44|0.43|0.706
95817797|NCT04570384|191606128|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.56|||Zero-inflated negative binomial analyses|||||2.56|0.49|0.788
95817798|NCT04570384|191606129|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.25|||Negative binomial analysis|||||2.25|0.52|0.834
95817799|NCT00237042|191606139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare group means at follow up, adjusted for baseline values of the outcome variable.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 6-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.19
95817800|NCT00237042|191606140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.27
95817801|NCT00237042|191606141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Group means compared with linear regression adjusted for baseline values. Adjusted difference: -1.0 between SMT and COCT, -1.0 between TSMT and COCT.||The null hypothesis was that mean characteristic pain intensity at 12-month follow up is equal across the three groups.||||0.003
95817802|NCT00237042|191606142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline value of the outcome variable||||||0.016
95817803|NCT00996658|191606185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.0001
95817804|NCT00996658|191606186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.21|-0.61|< 0.0001
95817805|NCT00996658|191606187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.28|-0.79|< 0.0001
95817806|NCT00996658|191606188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|-0.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and centre||||-0.29|-0.80|< 0.0001
96000169|NCT00401973|191976343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures Analysis||||||0.036
95817807|NCT00996658|191606189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.939||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.432|6.032|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||6.032|1.432|0.0033
95817808|NCT00996658|191606190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.902||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|10.572|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo||10.572|1.440|0.0074
95817809|NCT00996658|191606191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.059||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|3.485|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||3.485|1.216|0.0071
95861588|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.070
95861589|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.058
95861590|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95861591|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR20-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
95861592|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.191
95861593|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
95861594|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95817810|NCT00996658|191606192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.028||95.0|-19.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.1|-19.6|0.0280
95817811|NCT00996658|191606193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.0006||95.0|-24.5|-6.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-6.8|-24.5|0.0006
95817812|NCT00996658|191606194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.021||95.0|-20.2|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||-1.7|-20.2|0.0210
95817813|NCT00996658|191606195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2137||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and centre||||3.6|-16.0|0.2137
95817814|NCT03366454|191606209|OTHER||AUC|0.6692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05322||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5649|0.7735|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7735|0.5649|0.0048
95817815|NCT03366454|191606209|OTHER||AUC|0.6892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05213||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|0.7914|||ROC Curve Analysis|||ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7914|0.5870|0.0029
95817816|NCT03366454|191606210|OTHER||AUC|0.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05635||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|0.7544|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for NLR was determined as 1.335 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.7544|0.5335|0.0233
95861595|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.017
95861596|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
95861597|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
95861598|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR50-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
95861599|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.388
95861600|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95958462|NCT02484547|191889120|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.7||||0.1515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.73|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.73|-0.27|0.1515
95958463|NCT02484547|191889120|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.74|||MMRM|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low dose and BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo,95% CI and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCSADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||2.74|0.75|0.0006
95958464|NCT01355471|191889169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
95958465|NCT00424177|191889185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of subjects in Cycle 2 or 3|0.87||||||95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
95861601|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
95861602|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
95861603|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
95861604|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.696
95861605|NCT00966875|191682231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for ACR70-NRI at Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.112
95861606|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
95861607|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
95861608|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.004
95817817|NCT03366454|191606211|OTHER||AUC|0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04709||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|0.7807|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cut-off value for CRP was determined as 5.70 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value)||0.7807|0.5962|0.0018
95817818|NCT03366454|191606212|OTHER||AUC|0.7063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04857||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6111|0.8015|||ROC Curve Analysis||The optimal cutoff value for PCT was determined as 0.141 using the Youden Index.|ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate outcome. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) was calculated along with a 95% confidence interval and statistical significance (p-value).||0.8015|0.6111|0.0007
95817819|NCT01142388|191606218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on: 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.85
95817820|NCT01142388|191606219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|one-sided stratified log rank test, stratifying on 1) gastroesophageal junction vs. esophagus, 2) squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma.||||||0.50
95817821|NCT00802997|191606221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95817822|NCT01032954|191606279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM= GENERAL LINEAR MODELS WITH REPEATED|||||||<0.05
95817823|NCT01032954|191606280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value threshold for significance: \<0.05|GLM|||||||<0.05
95861609|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861610|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
96000170|NCT00401973|191976344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.498
95817824|NCT01693250|191606379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a feasibility and pilot study. We acknowledge that our sample size will not have adequate power to detect any statistically significant outcomes. We chose a sample size that would be large enough to assess feasibility and effect size and to accommodate recruitment within the study time and budget of this application. We hope to be able to estimate the effect size of the intervention.||||<.001
95817825|NCT01693250|191606380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized the intervention group will have significant reduction of systematic blood pressure compared to the control group at 6 month follow up.||||.001
95817826|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2||||||Change from Baseline at 0.25 Hours Postdose||2.2||
95817827|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.0||||||Change from Baseline at 0.5 Hours Postdose||-4.0||
95817828|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.6||||||Change from Baseline at 1 Hour Postdose||2.6||
95817829|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7||||||Change from Baseline at 1.5 Hours Postdose||1.7||
95817830|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-5.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.6||||||Change from Baseline at 2 Hours Postdose||-0.6||
95817831|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-3.2||||||Change from Baseline at 2.5 Hours Postdose||-3.2||
95817832|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-9.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 3 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
95817833|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-2.9||||||Change from Baseline at 4 Hours Postdose||-2.9||
95817834|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-4.6||||||Change from Baseline at 6 Hours Postdose||-4.6||
95817835|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.4||||||Change from Baseline at 8 Hours Postdose||2.4||
95817836|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.5||||||Change from Baseline at 10 Hours Postdose||-0.5||
95817837|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.4||||||Change from Baseline at 24 Hours Postdose||11.4||
95817838|NCT02197572|191606460|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.1||||||Change from Baseline at 48 Hours Postdose||8.1||
95817839|NCT02975804|191606483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95817840|NCT02975804|191606484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95817841|NCT02975804|191606485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95817842|NCT02975804|191606486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95817843|NCT02975804|191606487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95817844|NCT02975804|191606488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95817845|NCT02975804|191606492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95817846|NCT02975804|191606493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95817847|NCT02383862|191606503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.64|-0.45|0.165
95817848|NCT02383862|191606504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.91|-1.23|0.425
95817849|NCT02383862|191606505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.70|-1.41|0.539
95817850|NCT02383862|191606506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.11|-1.44|0.471
95861611|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
95861612|NCT00966875|191682233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.007
95861613|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.093
95861614|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.023
96000171|NCT00401973|191976344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.637
95817851|NCT02383862|191606507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.65|-0.66|0.174
95817852|NCT02383862|191606508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.35|-1.00|0.222
95817853|NCT02630693|191606528|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the primary objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for progression free survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.3|||||Hazard ratio of Palbociclib100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.30|0.66|
95817854|NCT02630693|191606531|OTHER|As stated in the protocol, the objective of this trial is to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 90% confidence interval. Therefore, we do not conduct any statistical hypothesis test for overall survival.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.69|||||Hazard ratio for Palbociclib 100mg arm vs 125 mg arm|||1.69|0.67|
95817855|NCT02820844|191606538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-1.18||Analysis was performed using mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||-1.18|-3.14|<0.001
95817856|NCT02820844|191606539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.47|40.91||Analysis performed using MMRM, with treatment, site, visit, Baseline urinary urgency incontinence (UUI) episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 or \>=10), treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM||Mean difference (Net) at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.91|18.47|<0.001
95817857|NCT02820844|191606594|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
96000172|NCT00401973|191976344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
95817858|NCT02820844|191606595|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.66||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI are estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with treatment and Baseline urinary urgency incontinence episodes over 3 day diary (\<=9 versus \>=10) as fixed effect.|||0.66|0.38|<0.001
95817859|NCT01718522|191606755|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95817860|NCT01718522|191606756|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.12
95817861|NCT01718522|191606757|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.30
95817862|NCT01718522|191606758|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95817863|NCT01718522|191606759|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.04
95817864|NCT01718522|191606760|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.35
95817865|NCT01718522|191606761|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.001
95817866|NCT01718522|191606762|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.61
95817867|NCT01718522|191606763|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.1
95817868|NCT01718522|191606764|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.22
95817869|NCT02440139|191606771|SUPERIORITY||difference in sensitivity|-0.124|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.034|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.062|-0.186|<0.05
95817870|NCT02440139|191606772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LROC curves|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.071|||ANOVA|||For each study arm, the difference in the least-squares means of the two arms was estimated. A two-sided 95% confidence interval on this difference in study arms (i.e. unaided minus aided by the software) was used to test the hypothesis that the difference in the area under the LROC curve (AUC). The superiority of ClearRead CT will be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference is less than zero.||-0.071|-0.209|<0.05
95817871|NCT02933879|191606774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4615
95817872|NCT02933879|191606776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0404
95817873|NCT02933879|191606776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2106|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2106
95817874|NCT02933879|191606778|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
95817875|NCT02933879|191606780|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0000
95817876|NCT02933879|191606783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2467|||||||Z-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2467
95817877|NCT02141672|191606789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||4.05|1.01|0.045
95817878|NCT02141672|191606789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.27|0.78|0.204
95817879|NCT02141672|191606790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||6.13|1.68|<0.001
95817880|NCT02141672|191606790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.02|1.09|0.026
95817881|NCT02141672|191606791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.78|0.96|0.066
95817882|NCT02141672|191606791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.28|0.82|0.162
95817883|NCT02141672|191606792|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.51|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.51|1.45|<0.001
95817884|NCT02141672|191606792|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.47|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||3.47|1.46|<0.001
95817885|NCT02141672|191606793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.29|||Regression, Cox|||||5.29|1.58|<0.001
95817886|NCT02141672|191606793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||<|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.86|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.86|0.77|<0.248
96000173|NCT00401973|191976345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
96000174|NCT00401973|191976345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
95817887|NCT02141672|191606795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|1.16|0.005
95817888|NCT02141672|191606795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.43|1.25|0.002
95817889|NCT02141672|191606797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||2.15|0.45|0.980
95817890|NCT02141672|191606797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.16|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||4.16|0.95|0.118
95817891|NCT02141672|191606799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||4.33|1.26|0.007
95817892|NCT02141672|191606799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|||week 24||3.76|1.1|0.024
95817893|NCT02141672|191606799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||4.33|1.27|0.007
96000175|NCT00401973|191976345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
96000176|NCT00401973|191976346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95817894|NCT02141672|191606799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|||week 48||5.02|1.43|0.002
95817895|NCT02141672|191606800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.03|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.03|1.36|<0.001
95817896|NCT02141672|191606800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.69|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.69|1.22|0.004
95817897|NCT02141672|191606802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.36|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin low dose vs. placebo||3.36|1.45|<0.001
95817898|NCT02141672|191606802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.84|||Regression, Cox|||Voclosporin high dose vs. placebo||2.84|1.23|0.004
95817899|NCT00075764|191606806|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|Two-sided stratified log-rank test||||0.94|0.68|0.007
95817900|NCT00075764|191606808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.0|||Log Rank|A log-rank test, stratified according to prior or no prior tamoxifen therapy.||||1.00|0.65|0.049
95817901|NCT01135459|191606832|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7649||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as main factors.||1.4|0.4|0.3989
95817902|NCT01803880|191606843|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority Margin = 10 points. Non-inferiority of study device was concluded if lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference \<10.~Superiority of study device was established if LS means of treatment difference and lower limit of one-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference ≤0."|One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137|>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-19.29|||All unscheduled visits were to be included and nominal visits were to be applied using analysis visit windows. Both the assigned analysis visits and the site reported nominal visits were provided in the subject data listings.|ANCOVA|Due to early termination, all inferential analysis was interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in the devices for change from Baseline in the KOOS at Week 52. KOOS was derived as the average of five subscale scores. LOCF imputation was considered for missing value. One-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (Study-Control) was to be used for determining non-inferiority/superiority of the study device.|||-19.29|>0.05
95817903|NCT01057693|191606861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with terms for baseline mean pain score, center and treatment in the model.||0.09|-0.74|0.1221
95817904|NCT01672879|191606893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.5||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.5|-1.2|
95817905|NCT01672879|191606893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in HVPG at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in HVPG at Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.4|-1.2|
95817906|NCT01672879|191606894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.41
95817907|NCT01672879|191606894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by HVPG category (\< 10 mmHg vs ≥ 10 mmHg) and presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.065
95817908|NCT05069649|191606904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
95817909|NCT05069649|191606905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2488
95817910|NCT05069649|191606906|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95861615|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
95817911|NCT05069649|191606907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.32
95817912|NCT05069649|191606908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95817913|NCT05069649|191606909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
96000177|NCT00401973|191976346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
96000178|NCT00401973|191976346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
96000179|NCT00401973|191976347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
95817914|NCT02651116|191606910|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6273|0.9947||P-Value less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05 less than (\<) p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per 24 hours for DXM HBr to placebo), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9947|0.6273|0.0449
95817915|NCT02651116|191606910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6293||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|Negative Binomial Regression|||P-value was obtained from the negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour (based on Baseline Run-in Period) as factors, with interaction term of treatment by age group, and logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||||0.6293
95817916|NCT02651116|191606911|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0912||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6446|1.0049||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.0049|0.6446|0.0552
95817917|NCT02651116|191606912|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.9551|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1491||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7032|1.2971||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||1.2971|0.7032|0.7684
95817918|NCT02651116|191606913|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5178|0.95||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9500|0.5178|0.0220
95861616|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
95861617|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.028
95817919|NCT02651116|191606914|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.7454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0848||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5964|0.9316||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Estimated rate ratio (ratio of rate of cough counts per specified duration for DXM HBr to placebo, used in evaluation of this outcome measure), and corresponding 95% CI for DXM HBr versus placebo was obtained from negative binomial model with treatment, study site (pooled), age group, and log-transformed baseline average cough count per hour as factors, with logarithm of the time over which the cough count was evaluated as the offset parameter.||0.9316|0.5964|0.0098
95817920|NCT02651116|191606915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1324||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4831|0.0411||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), log-transformed baseline cough time and age group terms as factors.||0.0411|-0.4831|0.0977
95817921|NCT02651116|191606916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1224||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5287|-0.0475||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0475|-0.5287|0.0191
95861618|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861619|NCT00966875|191682235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861620|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.247
95861621|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.315
95861622|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.006
96000180|NCT00401973|191976347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.350
96000181|NCT00401973|191976347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.123
96000182|NCT00401973|191976348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.499
96000183|NCT00401973|191976348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
96000184|NCT00401973|191976348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.339
95817922|NCT02651116|191606916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8355||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8355
95817923|NCT02651116|191606917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1104||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5299|-0.0956||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0956|-0.5299|0.0049
95817924|NCT02651116|191606917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8413||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.8413
95817925|NCT02651116|191606918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1337||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4112|0.1146||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding morning baseline impact on sleep by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||0.1146|-0.4112|0.2679
95817926|NCT02651116|191606918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2882||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), screening assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2882
95817927|NCT02651116|191606919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1242||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5255|-0.0369||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough frequency by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0369|-0.5255|0.0242
95817928|NCT02651116|191606919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2892||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.2892
95817929|NCT02651116|191606920|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.3014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1096||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|-0.0858||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), the corresponding afternoon baseline cough severity by participant, and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0858|-0.5170|0.0063
95817930|NCT02651116|191606920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3268||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model contained treatment, study site (pooled), afternoon baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.3268
95817931|NCT02651116|191606921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.2535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1124||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4745|-0.0325||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), the baseline assessment in child global question cold assessment by participant and age group included in the model. The statistical analysis was performed on the composite for all categories.||-0.0325|-0.4745|0.0247
95817932|NCT02651116|191606921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4093||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), baseline assessment by participant, interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4093
95817933|NCT02651116|191606922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|0.1266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3081|0.5614||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.5614|-0.3081|0.5652
95817934|NCT02651116|191606922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.1368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1982||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5292|0.2556||P-Value \<=0.05 level was considered significantly better and P-Value lying between 0.05\<p\<=0.1 level was considered marginally significantly better.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), and age group included in the model.||0.2556|-0.5292|0.4914
95817935|NCT02651116|191606922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Participant: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.1029
95817936|NCT02651116|191606922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4736||||||P-value is for interaction term of treatment by age group. P-value \<=0.10 was considered significant for interaction terms.|ANOVA|||Caregiver: ANOVA model with treatment, study site (pooled), interaction of treatment by age group and age group included in the model.||||0.4736
95817937|NCT03951766|191606929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.1|-1.9|<.0001
95817938|NCT03951766|191606930|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-17.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-17.1|-32.7|<.0001
95861623|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.042
95817939|NCT03951766|191606931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS positive affect||0.4|-0.0|0.06
95817940|NCT03951766|191606931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||PANAS negative affect||0.1|-0.4|0.36
95817941|NCT03951766|191606932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1627
95817942|NCT03951766|191606933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - past week||6.3|-3.8|0.62
95817943|NCT03951766|191606933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||Single-item - right now||4.4|-5.4|0.83
95817944|NCT03951766|191606934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|18.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - Internal||18.7|7.6|<.0001
95817945|NCT03951766|191606934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|16.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||SEQ-12 - External||16.1|6.1|<.0001
95817946|NCT03951766|191606935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.8|1.2|0.0126
95817947|NCT03951766|191606936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.0||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.0|-11.1|0.0053
95817948|NCT03951766|191606937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Adverse Effects||0.2|-0.1|0.76
95817949|NCT03951766|191606937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Psychoactive Benefits||-0.5|-1.0|<.0001
95817950|NCT03951766|191606937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons, because this was a secondary outcome. The p-value is for a planned specific comparison of week 6 to baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||ATS - Pleasure||-0.3|-0.8|<.0001
95817951|NCT03951766|191606938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.3|0.25
95817952|NCT03951766|191606939|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Positive Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-14.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-14.3|-27.2|<.0001
95817953|NCT03951766|191606939|SUPERIORITY|DBI - Negative Experiences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.3||"We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6."|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.3|-8.1|0.27
95817954|NCT03951766|191606940|SUPERIORITY|Pros of Being Smoke-Free|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-2.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.3|-15.9|0.009
95817955|NCT03951766|191606940|SUPERIORITY|Cons of Quitting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|3.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.6|-13.7|0.25
95817956|NCT03951766|191606941|SUPERIORITY|PSS total scores|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.7|-4.1|0.0069
95817957|NCT03951766|191606941|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Helplessness|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0043
95817958|NCT03951766|191606941|SUPERIORITY|PSS - Perceived Self-Efficacy|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.1953
95861624|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.055
95817959|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE Self-distraction|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.1|0.087
95817960|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE active coping|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.209||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.6|0.2866
95817961|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE denial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9296
95817962|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE substance use|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.6599
95817963|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of emotional support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2315
95817964|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE use of instrumental support|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.3|0.6183
95817965|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE behavioral disengagement|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.1|0.2037
95817966|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE venting|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.0060
95817967|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE positive reframing|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.3045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.3045
95817968|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE planning|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.0029
95817969|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE humor|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8274
95817970|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE acceptance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|0.0|0.0349
95817971|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE religion|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3451
95817972|NCT03951766|191606942|SUPERIORITY|Brief COPE self-blame|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||We used hierarchical linear mixed models with maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data, then used a planned, pairwise comparison to test for within-person changes between baseline and week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
95817973|NCT03800030|191606978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.305||||||0.031
95817974|NCT03800030|191606979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 0.083||||||0.935
95817975|NCT03800030|191606980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 1.833||||||0.040
95817976|NCT03800030|191606981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.174||||||0.020
95817977|NCT03800030|191606982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = -0.623||||||0.540
95817978|NCT03800030|191606983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom = 22 t-statistic = 2.989||||||0.007
95817979|NCT00889707|191606984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Test of superiority computed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume. Tested for 2-sided 0.05 level of statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, and baseline prostate volume.||||||0.040
95817980|NCT00889707|191606985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.|ANCOVA|Model with terms for treatment group, baseline total IPSS, baseline prostate volume, and baseline Qmax.||||||0.047
95817981|NCT02041299|191606986|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 96.01% confidence interval (CI) is less than or equal to 2 mg/g dw.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.97|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.97|0.0399
95817982|NCT02041299|191606987|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.000295||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-0.054247|0.053657|||ANCOVA|||Data for this measure were log-transformed.||0.053657|-0.054247|0.0399
95861625|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.365
95817983|NCT02041299|191606988|NON_INFERIORITY|Support for non-inferiority of deferiprone to deferoxamine in serum ferritin is demonstrated if the 96.01% CI contains zero (0)|Mean Difference (Net)|375.07||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|96.01|-260.63|1010.76|||ANCOVA|||||1010.76|-260.63|0.0399
95817984|NCT02041299|191606989|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Physical Summary||||||0.9214|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9214
95817985|NCT02041299|191606989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on SF-36 Mental Summary||||0.1174
95817986|NCT02041299|191606989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6488|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Physical Summary||||0.6488
95817987|NCT02041299|191606989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5915|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on CHQ-PF50 Psychosocial Summary||||0.5915
95817988|NCT01964378|191607015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming equal mean values in both the cebranopadol and morphine groups, it was calculated that for the final analysis of the primary endpoint 170 subjects would have been required per treatment arm in the Per Protocol Set using a 2 sample-t-test for 90% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-2.918|||MMRM|||The MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement) model includes fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, history of opioid intake, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable being the weekly average rescue medication intake.||-2.918|-12.05|< 0.0001
95817989|NCT01964378|191607016|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 8 mg. Assuming that 65% of the participants are available for the Per Protocol Set, a total of 524 participant would have to be allocated (randomized) to IMP. With 262 participants per group in the Full Analysis Set, the non-inferiority of cebranopadol as compared to morphine sulfate prolonged release could have been demonstrated with at least 98% power and a 1-sided significance level of α = 0.025.|point-estimate|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.245|-0.099||MMRM model: fixed effects of pooled country, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, opioid intake history, baseline pain intensity as covariate \& subject-specific random effects. Dependent variable: weekly average rescue medication intake.|MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|For participants with no data in the Maintenance Phase, the average amount of rescue medication over the last 3 days of titration was imputed.|Non-inferiority of cebranopadol compared with morphine will be established if the upper bound of the resulting 95% confidence interval for the average treatment difference is below the non-inferiority margin of 8mg.|The primary endpoint will be analyzed by means of a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), based on observed case weekly averages. Under the assumption of a missing-at-random missing data mechanism, an MMRM does not require an imputation of missing data and can obtain an improved estimate of variance.||-0.099|-9.245|< 0.0001
95817990|NCT05265728|191607072|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LS mean)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.76|||||LS mean (95% Confidence Interval \[CI\]) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||0.76|0.18|
95817991|NCT05265728|191607073|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|13.74|||||LS mean (95% CI) lesions were obtained from a Poisson distribution model with no explanatory variables.|||13.74|0.69|
95817992|NCT00276406|191607107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||<0.01
95817993|NCT00276406|191607111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis was adjusted for BMI and baseline values and incorporated Bonferroni corrections.||||0.096
95817994|NCT00276406|191607112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95817995|NCT00276406|191607113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||0.005
95817996|NCT00276406|191607114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Bowel diaries were analyzed by computing the mean scores for the 9-day baseline period and separately for the last 7 days of the treatment period (i.e., when the pyridostigmine dose was stable in each subject.) Individual subject treatment period mean bowel function scores were then compared using a similar ANCOVA model, with the corresponding individual subject baseline mean bowel function score and gender as covariates.||||<0.04
95817997|NCT02476032|191607136|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
95817998|NCT02476032|191607137|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||P-values for pairwise group comparisons were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Tukey method.|t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons: t-tests comparing the mean change to 0 were utilized. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. SAS V9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for analysis. The sample size of 20 participants per group was based on having 90% power to detect a one standard deviation difference between the DO-strip groups and the placebo group means using ANOVA with a 0.05 level of significance.||||0.05
95817999|NCT01169337|191607146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|stratified 1-sided log-rank test||||||0.0005
95818000|NCT02688192|191607178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the General Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||0.39
95818001|NCT02688192|191607178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the Sleep/Rest Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.49
95861626|NCT00966875|191682237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.005
95818002|NCT02688192|191607178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effect of the intervention on changes in the Cognitive Subscale from baseline to post-intervention (3 months) were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.83
95818003|NCT02688192|191607179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|df = 33||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Physical Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.98
95818004|NCT02688192|191607179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||Effects of the intervention on changes in the PedsQL Psychosocial Summary score were evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.85
95818005|NCT02688192|191607180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|df = 29||||||.29
95861627|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.778
95958466|NCT01227928|191889212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.626|||||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the stratification factor of first-line treatment outcome.|||1.626|0.595|
95958467|NCT01227928|191889213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.751|||Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio (HR) is estimated using a Pike estimator. The HR was adjusted for the three stratification factors.|||1.751|0.376|0.5901
96000185|NCT00401973|191976349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
95818006|NCT02688192|191607181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in lower body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data||||.019
95818007|NCT02688192|191607181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|df = 32||Effect of the intervention on changes in upper body estimated 1-RM was evaluated using group x time in a repeated measures analysis of variance performed in SAS using PROC GLM for participants with complete data.||||.34
95818008|NCT03703232|191607183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.092
95818009|NCT03703232|191607184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.760
95818010|NCT03703232|191607185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.007
95818011|NCT03703232|191607186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
95818012|NCT03703232|191607187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.861
95818013|NCT03703232|191607189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.405
95818014|NCT03703232|191607190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.798
95818015|NCT03703232|191607191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.382
95958468|NCT04088136|191889227|EQUIVALENCE|A one-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted. A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 60.|Negative number reflects fewer errors in EMMI group, as predicted.|||0.55|-0.42|.67
95958469|NCT04088136|191889228|SUPERIORITY|Everyday Metacognitive Memory group predicted to have superior scores to Memory Strategy Control|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||pooled error term, equal variance assumption, df = 60|||||<.47
96000186|NCT00401973|191976349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.976
96000187|NCT00401973|191976349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
95818016|NCT03703232|191607192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.179
95818017|NCT03703232|191607193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.984
95818018|NCT04847843|191607202|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95818019|NCT04847843|191607203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
95818020|NCT04847843|191607204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.62
95818021|NCT04847843|191607206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
95818022|NCT04847843|191607207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
95818023|NCT01061385|191607217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|21.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.7|-6.8|0.2922
95818024|NCT01061385|191607218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|38.0|||||The 95% CI range above is calculated for the current estimated value.|||38.0|-37.7|
95818025|NCT00533429|191607226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.469||||||P-value (one-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.469
95818026|NCT00533429|191607227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.462||||||95% confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution. P-value (2-tailed) calculation based on unadjusted, normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.462
95818027|NCT00533429|191607228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||||||P-value (two-tailed) was calculated based on the un-stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||||0.492
95818028|NCT02379052|191607246|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.16|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.16|-3.22|0.0304
95818029|NCT02379052|191607247|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.45||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.523|-2.387|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-2.387|-50.523|0.0312
95861628|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.865
95861629|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.030
95861630|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.331
95818030|NCT02379052|191607248|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.96|-2.48|0.3830
95818031|NCT02379052|191607249|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|15.467|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||15.467|-37.460|0.4147
95818032|NCT02379052|191607250|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
95818033|NCT02379052|191607251|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.6||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|51.05|||Clopper-Pearson Exact||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo. CI = Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson Exact method|||51.05|-3.04|0.0490
95818034|NCT02379052|191607252|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.23||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.677|3.212|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment as fixed factor.|||3.212|-49.677|0.0850
95861631|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||P-value is for Week 12..|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.039
95818035|NCT02379052|191607253|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.54|0.78|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.78|-28.54|0.0635
95818036|NCT02379052|191607254|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.65||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.828|1.536|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||1.536|-68.828|0.0608
95818037|NCT02379052|191607255|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.42|-1.86|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-1.86|-40.42|0.0318
95818038|NCT02379052|191607256|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|17.8||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|43.55||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||43.55|-11.54|0.1365
95818039|NCT02379052|191607257|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|35.0||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|58.34||P-values were derived by Fisher exact test|Clopper-Pearson Exact|CI = Confidence interval calculated using Exact method|Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||58.34|5.69|0.0044
95818040|NCT02379052|191607258|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-107.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-141.215|-73.046|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-73.046|-141.215|<0.0001
95818041|NCT02379052|191607259|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.68|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\])|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||-0.68|-2.50|0.0006
95818042|NCT02379052|191607260|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.72|||ANCOVA|A 2-step multiple imputation (MI) method addressed missing values (\[seeds = 12345 \& 54321 in the 2 steps respectively; number of imputations=50\]).|The confidence interval (CI) with p-value is based on treatment difference (dupilumab vs. placebo) of the LS mean using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement and baseline SDI score as covariates and the treatment as fixed factor.|||0.720|-0.053|0.0910
95818043|NCT04229888|191607312|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in DEQ-5 score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95861632|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.292
95861633|NCT00966875|191682239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.003
95861634|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.090
95861635|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.131
95861636|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.008
95818044|NCT04229888|191607313|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in MG score, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M= 1 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
95818045|NCT04229888|191607314|NON_INFERIORITY|To establish non-inferiority of the treatment effect on the primary outcome change in TBUT, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on mean difference between the light based (sham) treatment and Lipiflow treatment were compared against a non-inferiority margin M=6 representing the largest clinically acceptable difference based on historical data.||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95818046|NCT01282866|191607319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95818047|NCT02655887|191607323|NON_INFERIORITY|PG of 74%, which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the weighted mean of primary patency (PP2) rate at 12 month at a combination of 55% (PTS) subjects at primary patency rate of 77.1% and 45% (NIVL) subjects at primary patency rate of 93.4%. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Weighted Z-statistics|88.3||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|82.4||||Weighted Z-statistics|||"Hypothesis: H0 :Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is at most as good as that of the PG.~Ha: Primary patency rate at 12 months post-index procedure from the overall VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) patients (PTS and NIVL combined) is better than that of PG."|||82.4|0.0001
95818048|NCT02655887|191607324|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint was evaluated against the PG of 89% which was set at 10% (non-inferiority margin) below the literature-derived average freedom from MAE rate at 30 day of 99%. A one-side p-value is derived based on an exact binomial test. When taking into consideration both co-primary efficacy and safety endpoints, with 138 BVS subjects, the overall study power is at least 85%\*99%=84%.|Exact binomial test|93.5||||0.0322|ONE_SIDED|90.0|89.5||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypothesis: H0: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day at most as large as that of the PG.~Ha: The primary safety endpoint absence from event rate in the VENOVO Venous Stent (BVS) through 30 day is better than that of the PG."|||89.5|0.0322
95818049|NCT02655887|191607325|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||this p value is \< 0.001.|t-test, 2 sided|||"H0: The distribution at the 12-month follow-up remains unimproved compared to baseline.~Ha: The distribution shifts toward lower (less pain) classes."||||0.001
95818050|NCT02655887|191607326|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p value is \< 0.001|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95818051|NCT02948582|191607379|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.033||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.075|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.075|-0.009|0.1257
96000188|NCT00401973|191976350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.122
95818052|NCT02948582|191607379|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.072||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.113|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.113|0.030|0.0008
95818053|NCT02948582|191607379|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.144|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.144|0.061|<0.0001
95818054|NCT02948582|191607379|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.15|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.150|0.066|<0.0001
95818055|NCT02948582|191607379|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.14|||least squares mean|||"An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.~A sample size of 34 subjects (42 with dropouts) provides 80% power to detect a 0.14L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between 2 groups at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a common standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2."||0.140|0.056|<0.0001
95818056|NCT02948582|191607380|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.123|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.123|0.050|<0.0001
95818057|NCT02948582|191607380|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.151|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.187|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.187|0.114|<0.0001
95861637|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.013
96000189|NCT00401973|191976350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
96000190|NCT00401973|191976350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
95818058|NCT02948582|191607380|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.193|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.193|0.120|<0.0001
96000191|NCT00401973|191976351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.020
95818059|NCT02948582|191607380|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.239|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.239|0.165|<0.0001
95818060|NCT02948582|191607380|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.235|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC0\_12 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.235|0.162|<0.0001
95818061|NCT02948582|191607381|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.058||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.095|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.095|0.021|0.0028
95818062|NCT02948582|191607381|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.137|||least squares mena|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.137|0.063|<0.0001
95818063|NCT02948582|191607381|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.142|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.142|0.068|<0.0001
95818064|NCT02948582|191607381|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.135|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.173|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.173|0.098|<0.0001
95818065|NCT02948582|191607381|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean|0.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.166|||least squares mean|||An analysis of covariance was used with change from baseline in standardized FEV1 AUC12\_24 as the response, with factors for center, treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.||0.166|0.091|<0.0001
95818066|NCT03810014|191607398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.2|4.8|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||4.80|0.20|0.01
95818067|NCT03810014|191607398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.002|1.049|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 3 + Arm 4) vs (Arm 1 + Arm 2)||1.049|1.002|0.012
95818068|NCT03810014|191607398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.2|0.9|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||0.90|-2.20|0.33
95818069|NCT03810014|191607398|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.994||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.979|1.009|||Generalized estimating equations|||(Arm 1 + Arm 3) vs (Arm 2 + Arm 4)||1.009|0.979|0.332
95818070|NCT02389465|191607402|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.44
95818071|NCT02389465|191607402|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.11
95818072|NCT02389465|191607402|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.42
95818073|NCT02389465|191607402|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL-6 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-tes||||.49
95818074|NCT02389465|191607402|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL6 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.23
95818075|NCT02389465|191607403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram + celecoxib groups||||.003
95818076|NCT02389465|191607403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and escitalopram groups||||<.001
95818077|NCT02389465|191607403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the healthy control and placebo groups||||.034
95818078|NCT02389465|191607403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||MADRS scores at the final visit compared between the placebo groups and all groups receiving escitalopram (both with and without celecoxib)||||.03
95818079|NCT02389465|191607404|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in healthy controls pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.29
95818080|NCT02389465|191607404|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the placebo group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.19
95818081|NCT02389465|191607404|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.5
95818082|NCT02389465|191607404|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels in the escitalopram + celecoxib group pre- and post-treatment compared using a paired t-test||||.55
95818083|NCT02389465|191607404|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL10 levels at completion of study compared between all MDD groups (placebo, escitalopram, and escitalopram + celecoxib) and the healthy control group||||.06
95818084|NCT03994211|191607461|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.06||||||||1.06|0.83|
95818085|NCT03994211|191607462|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.15||||||||1.15|0.95|
95818086|NCT03994211|191607463|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.7||||||||0.70|0.54|
95818087|NCT03994211|191607464|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
96000192|NCT00401973|191976351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
95958470|NCT04088136|191889229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.6|-3.7|< .13
95818088|NCT03994211|191607465|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.69||||||||0.69|0.48|
95818089|NCT03994211|191607466|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.09||||||||1.09|0.90|
95818090|NCT01107964|191607481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95818091|NCT01107964|191607482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95818092|NCT01107964|191607483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95818093|NCT01107964|191607484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95818094|NCT04951622|191607502|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.52|||mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.38|=0.002
95818095|NCT02101788|191607546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.07|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among patients with a mutation.|||1.07|0.28|
95818096|NCT02101788|191607546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.03|||||Estimation of treatment effect; Trametinib vs. SOC among wild-type patients.|||1.03|0.39|
95818097|NCT02101788|191607546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.08|||Chi-squared||Estimation of mutation effect; mutant vs. wild-type in the SOC group.|Prognostic effect of the mutation status among patients in the SOC arm.||1.08|0.34|0.0929
95818098|NCT02101788|191607546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Chi-squared|||Predictive effect biomarker p-value||||0.7195
95818099|NCT02881775|191607548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||The threshold for significance was P \<.05|ANOVA|"Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors.~Degrees of freedom (DF) = 34.1"||Comparison of CAR BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9994
95818100|NCT02881775|191607549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9768||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of MVIC BL Change (treatment by time)||||.9768
95818101|NCT02881775|191607550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||threshold for statistical significance is p \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 43.1||Comparison of NPRS BL Change (treatment by time)||||0.4440
95818102|NCT02881775|191607551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6608||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||PPT BL Change (treatment by time)||||.6608
95818103|NCT02881775|191607552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7706||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 45||Comparison of TUG BL Change (treatment by time)||||.7706
95818104|NCT02881775|191607553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3665||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of AMT-MEP BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3665
95818105|NCT02881775|191607554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of SICI BL Change (treatment by time)||||.3889
95818106|NCT02881775|191607555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2192||||||Threshold for statistical significance is P \< .05|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger standard errors. DF = 33||Comparison of ICF BL Change (treatment by time)||||.2192
95818107|NCT01445847|191607577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|9.1|||Comparison of proportions|||We used incidence reported to AIMS study to calculate the sample size of this study. We set the null hypothesis as (percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in placebo group (µ1) - percentage point of laryngospasm incidence in Lidocaine group (µ2) = 0), with alternative hypothesis is (µ1 \> µ2) by 5% was analyzed by comparison of two proportions. A sample size of 380 patients (190 per group) was adequate to detect a 5-percentage point difference in the incidence with 80% power and p = 0.05.||9.1|1.7|<0.05
95818108|NCT02297815|191607610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score difference|-1.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-0.36|||Weighted linear regression|Propensity-score based full matching performed. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.|Narrow antibiotics is the reference group. A score difference less than zero indicates that broad spectrum antibiotics are associated with a lower (poorer) health related quality of life score.|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted linear regression.||-0.36|-2.44|0.008
95818109|NCT02297815|191607611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||7.9|-3.1|0.39
95861638|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
95861639|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95958471|NCT04088136|191889230|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of fewer errors in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.6||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 51||||2.6|-4.8|.57
95958472|NCT04088136|191889231|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of fewer errors in EMMI group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Pooled error term, df = 49||||5.5|-3.8|.72
95958473|NCT04088136|191889232|OTHER|Test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|pooled df = 59||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed model analysis with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).~Hypothesis was that Memory Strategy Control group would show greater improvements from pretest to posttest in recall scores"||||< .69
95958474|NCT04088136|191889233|OTHER|One-tailed test of Group X Time interaction|||||<|0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest).~Predicted hypothesis was greater pretest-posttest improvement in the Memory Strategy Contol group"||||< .037
95818110|NCT02297815|191607612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||6.8|-3.9|0.59
95818111|NCT02297815|191607613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.2|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||17.2|7.3|<0.001
95818112|NCT02297815|191607614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||10.6|-0.8|0.09
95818113|NCT02297815|191607615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.6|||Weighted logistic regression|Propensity-score based full matching. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression.|Broad spectrum antibiotics are the reference. A risk difference more than 0 indicates that the broad spectrum antibiotics had a higher risk of adverse outcome|Propensity-score based full matching performed using patient and physician-level characteristics. Average treatment effect weights calculated and applied to a weighted logistic regression. Risk difference obtained by marginal standardization.||9.6|-0.3|0.07
95818114|NCT00600106|191607622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.36|||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.36
95818115|NCT00600106|191607623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.93
95818116|NCT00600106|191607624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.77
95818117|NCT00600106|191607626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05.||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated."||||0.38
95818118|NCT00600106|191607630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test (nonparametric Wilcoxon test)|||"Data were presented in tables as means and SDs for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. Comparisons between the placebo and 1/10 NA/EE groups were don using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous measurement and Fisher's exact test for discrete data. The strategy of analysis was intention to treat with comparing the study groups in term of treatment to which they were randomly allocated. All tests were two-sided with p values \<0.05."||||0.17
95818119|NCT00600106|191607631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.49
95818120|NCT00600106|191607632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.77
95818121|NCT00600106|191607633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.40
95818122|NCT00600106|191607634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.99
95818123|NCT00600106|191607635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.21
95818124|NCT00252512|191607636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Above is calculated p value, a priori threshold for significance set at \<.05|GEE full factorial modeling|||||||<.001
95818125|NCT00252512|191607637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||8 week analysis||||.015
95818126|NCT00252512|191607637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||a priori threshold of \<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||6 month analysis||||0.45
95818127|NCT00252512|191607637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497||||||a prior threshold of .05|t-test, 2 sided|||12 month analysis||||.0497
95818128|NCT00252512|191607638|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Estimation Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow-up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
95818129|NCT00252512|191607638|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Estimating Equation mean modeling|||Costs for period between 6 month follow up and 12 month follow up.||||>.05
95818130|NCT00252512|191607639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow up||||.28
95958475|NCT04088136|191889234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided||one instance of missing data due to computer failure during testing. Pooled error term resulting in df = 59|||8.4|-4.0|.69
95818131|NCT00252512|191607639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up||||.013
95818132|NCT00252512|191607639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up||||.76
95818133|NCT00252512|191607640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.66
95818134|NCT00252512|191607640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||A priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow up.||||.37
95818135|NCT00252512|191607640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||a priori threshold \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow up.||||.19
95818136|NCT00252512|191607641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 8 week follow-up||||.05
95818137|NCT00252512|191607641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6 month follow-up.||||.80
95818138|NCT00252512|191607641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold of \<.05|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 12 month follow-up.||||.12
95818139|NCT03783962|191607675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.003
95818140|NCT03783962|191607676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.97
95818141|NCT03783962|191607677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
95818142|NCT03783962|191607677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818143|NCT03783962|191607677|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818144|NCT03783962|191607678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.18
95818145|NCT03783962|191607678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
95818146|NCT03783962|191607678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
95818147|NCT03783962|191607679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.40
95818148|NCT03783962|191607679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818149|NCT03783962|191607679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818150|NCT03783962|191607680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
95818151|NCT03783962|191607680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818152|NCT03783962|191607680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818153|NCT03783962|191607681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.26
95818154|NCT03783962|191607681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
95818155|NCT03783962|191607681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
95861640|NCT00966875|191682241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95818156|NCT03783962|191607682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.03
95818157|NCT03783962|191607682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
95818158|NCT03783962|191607682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95818159|NCT03783962|191607683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
95818160|NCT03783962|191607683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95818161|NCT03783962|191607683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.01
95818162|NCT03783962|191607684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
95818163|NCT03783962|191607685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95818164|NCT03458325|191607686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||-11,802.70|-22,187.90|<0.0001
95818165|NCT03458325|191607687|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-6.4||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.6765
95818166|NCT03458325|191607688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||0.5856
95818167|NCT03458325|191607689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||1.000
95818168|NCT03458325|191607690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The comparator arm was populated with claims data for patients who presented to the emergency department for worsening HF and were admitted to the hospital for ≤ 72 hours for the treatment of HF. The filter was further strengthened by analyzing diagnostic codes and resource utilization during their hospital stay to exclude hospitalizations other than Heart Failure.~Each subject from the Furoscix group was matched to controls in ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1."||||<0.0001
95818169|NCT03458325|191607691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|25.3|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was obtained from the paired t-test statistic.||Analysis for Summary Score||25.3|0.4|0.0443
95818170|NCT03458325|191607692|SUPERIORITY|Statistical Analysis for the mean change in NT-proBNP over 30 days|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-122.6||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525.8|280.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||280.5|-525.8|0.5133
96000193|NCT00401973|191976351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
95818171|NCT03458325|191607692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-719.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1406.5|-33.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis for mean change in BNP over 30 days||-33.2|-1406.5|0.0420
95818172|NCT02763059|191607735|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.027||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups.||||0.027
95818173|NCT02763059|191607735|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis|||||<|0.0001||||||Kruskal-Wallis test, a non-parametric omnibus test, was used followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for pairwise group analysis. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05 with no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test is an omnibus test comparing all three independent groups on the pain/discomfort outcome.||||<0.0001
95818174|NCT02661997|191607746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Between group differences|ANOVA|||||||0.58
95818175|NCT02661997|191607747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
95818176|NCT02661997|191607748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.17
95818177|NCT02661997|191607749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This is an analysis of pre to post-treatment changes on the Physical Health subscale of the PROMIS Global Health Scale||||0.88
95958476|NCT04088136|191889235|EQUIVALENCE|Directional hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.3||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-257.4|157.4||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, DF = 51||||157.4|-257.4|.63
95958477|NCT04088136|191889236|EQUIVALENCE|Two-tailed test of hypothesis of shorter time in Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.8||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|98.5||A p-value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|Use of pooled error term, df = 49||||98.5|-77.4|.81
95818178|NCT02661997|191607750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.032
95818179|NCT02661997|191607751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.44
95818180|NCT02661997|191607752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.73
95818181|NCT02661997|191607753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
95818182|NCT02661997|191607754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
95818183|NCT02661997|191607755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.006
95818184|NCT02661997|191607756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.55
95818185|NCT02661997|191607757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-value for group by time interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.36
95818186|NCT02661997|191607758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95818187|NCT02661997|191607759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95818188|NCT02661997|191607760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95818189|NCT02661997|191607761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95818190|NCT02661997|191607764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95818191|NCT02661997|191607765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95818192|NCT02661997|191607766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
95818193|NCT02661997|191607767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95818194|NCT02661997|191607768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.99
95818195|NCT02661997|191607769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
95818196|NCT02661997|191607770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
95818197|NCT02661997|191607771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||An adjusted p value was used based on Levene's test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95818198|NCT02661997|191607772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
95818199|NCT02661997|191607773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
95818200|NCT02661997|191607774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95818201|NCT02661997|191607775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
95818202|NCT02661997|191607776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
95818203|NCT02661997|191607777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
95818204|NCT02661997|191607778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95818205|NCT02661997|191607779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95818206|NCT02661997|191607780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.56
95818207|NCT02661997|191607781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
95818208|NCT00131352|191607782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, site, time and time-by-treatment interaction; the baseline score was a covariate.||||||0.047
95818209|NCT00131352|191607783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.064
95818210|NCT00131352|191607784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.92|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using WOMAC A1 data at Week 26.||0.92|0.35|0.022
95818211|NCT00131352|191607785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.679
95818212|NCT00131352|191607786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.266
95818213|NCT00131352|191607787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using PTGA data at Week 26.||0.82|0.31|0.005
95818214|NCT00131352|191607788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.93|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Model-based estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using COGA data at Week 26.||0.93|0.34|0.025
95818215|NCT00131352|191607789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16|||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||Estimate of Odds Ratio (Placebo/Synvisc-One) using Responder classification data at Week 26.||1.16|0.41|0.156
95818216|NCT00383331|191607790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The response rates are separately evaluated for these two treatment arms. For each arm, a sample size of 48 achieves 91% power to detect a difference of 20% between the null hypothesis of 15% response rate and the alternative hypothesis of 35% using a one-sided, binomial hypothesis test with a target significance level of 2.5% (the actual significance level is 2.2%).||||0.48
95818217|NCT00383331|191607795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
95818218|NCT01816776|191607821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|54.0||1-sided. p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||54|25|<0.0001
95818219|NCT01816776|191607823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-16.6||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.6|-29.0|<0.0001
95818220|NCT01816776|191607824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-18.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-18.7|-31.2|<0.0001
95818221|NCT01816776|191607825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-8.7||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-8.7|-21.6|<0.0001
95818222|NCT01816776|191607826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.1||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||5.1|-0.4|0.0244
95818223|NCT01816776|191607827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|68.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Fisher Exact||Risk difference = Treatment - Control|||68|40|<0.0001
95818224|NCT01816776|191607828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.5||Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-16.5|-28.9|<0.0001
95818225|NCT01816776|191607829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.0||1-sided. Secondary endpoints hierarchically tested with p\<0.025 considered significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean difference = Treatment - Control|||-2.0|-5.5|<0.0001
95958478|NCT04088136|191889237|OTHER||||||<|0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed procedure with unrestricted error covariance matrix. Pooled df for MSWithin = 60||We conducted a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater reduction in memory complaints from pretest to posttest in EMMI group||||< .14
95818226|NCT03726658|191607854|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.98
95818227|NCT03726658|191607854|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose). Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed.||||0.25
95818228|NCT03726658|191607854|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 2 (Day 1 post initial dose).||||0.93
95818229|NCT03726658|191607855|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Chane from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
95818230|NCT03726658|191607855|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in baseline in placebo group|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change in placebo group. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.84
95818231|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.69
95818232|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
95818233|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 9. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
95861641|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861642|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.012
95818234|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculaton was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.55
95818235|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.44
95818236|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 15. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.56
95818237|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.80
95818238|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.45
95818239|NCT03726658|191607856|EQUIVALENCE|Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in MADRS score in treated groups compared to placebo group on Day 22. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.67
95818240|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.43
95818241|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 11. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.59
96000194|NCT00401973|191976352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline for Olanzapine versus pooled olanzapine+amantadine and olanzapine+metformin.|ANCOVA|||||||0.474
95818242|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14, Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.35
95818243|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 14. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.82
95818244|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.61
95818245|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 18. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.47
95818246|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study, no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.76
96000195|NCT00401973|191976352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.404
96000196|NCT00401973|191976352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|||||||0.652
95818247|NCT03726658|191607857|EQUIVALENCE|Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in treated group compared to change from baseline in placebo group on Day 21. Since this was a phase 1 study no power calculation was performed. Statistical tests were 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance.||||0.99
95818248|NCT00412958|191607858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square tests from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||6.36|0.24|0.796
95818249|NCT00412958|191607858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||8.36|0.39|0.447
95818250|NCT00412958|191607858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values are from Wald chi-square test from a logistic regression model with study center and treatment as categorical fixed effects comparing active treatment groups with the placebo group as the reference group.||13.95|0.77|0.107
95818251|NCT05710640|191607895|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95818252|NCT05710640|191607896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||0.294
95818253|NCT05710640|191607896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.637
95958479|NCT04088136|191889238|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest)||||.037
95958480|NCT04088136|191889239|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in memory self-efficacy for Everyday Metacognitive Memory group|||||<|0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model specified unrestricted residual (error) covariance matrix. Pooled df in MS Error = 60||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).||||< .33
95818254|NCT05710640|191607896|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.00
95818255|NCT05710640|191607897|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
95818256|NCT05710640|191607897|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.000
95818257|NCT05710640|191607897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.620
95818258|NCT05710640|191607897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.576
95818259|NCT05710640|191607898|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 4||||1.000
95818260|NCT05710640|191607898|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 8||||1.00
95818261|NCT05710640|191607898|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
95818262|NCT05710640|191607898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.637
95818263|NCT05710640|191607899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.331
95818264|NCT05710640|191607899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.500
95818265|NCT05710640|191607899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.285
95818266|NCT05710640|191607899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Baseline and covariates of treatment and Baseline JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.148
95818267|NCT05710640|191607900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.294
95818268|NCT05710640|191607900|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 50 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
95818269|NCT05710640|191607901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||0.335
95818270|NCT05710640|191607901|SUPERIORITY|P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 30 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||1.000
95818271|NCT05710640|191607902|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 12||||1.000
95818272|NCT05710640|191607902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value is from comparing the proportion of JIA ACR 70 Responders between the two device groups using a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Week 16||||0.471
95818273|NCT05710640|191607903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.592
95818274|NCT05710640|191607903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337||||||P-value comes from an analysis of covariance with an outcome of change in JADAS-27 from Week 8 and covariates of treatment and Week 8 JADAS-27 score.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.337
95818275|NCT00703963|191607926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.20
95818276|NCT00703963|191607927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||0.05
95818277|NCT00703963|191607928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.||||<0.001
95818278|NCT03579693|191607984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.31|-0.43|0.33
95818279|NCT03579693|191607984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.82|-0.90|0.93
95818280|NCT03579693|191607985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||0.00|-3.47|0.050
95958481|NCT04088136|191889240|OTHER||||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater increase in memory control in EMMI group||||< .20
95818281|NCT03579693|191607985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Interpretation of mean difference is for a typical participant, i.e. random effect of 0.|||1.05|-2.28|0.47
95818282|NCT00503425|191608018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95818283|NCT00503425|191608018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95818284|NCT00503425|191608018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95818285|NCT00503425|191608018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change from baseline in mean DAS28 was analyzed using paired t-test for course 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95818286|NCT02148263|191608022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95818287|NCT02148263|191608023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95818288|NCT02148263|191608024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.94
95818289|NCT02148263|191608025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
95818290|NCT02148263|191608026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
95818291|NCT02148263|191608027|SUPERIORITY|This is for the upper eyelid evaluation.||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.27
95818292|NCT02148263|191608027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is for the lower eyelid evaluation.||||.58
95818293|NCT02148263|191608028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Extent||||.50
95818294|NCT02148263|191608028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||Type||||.76
95818295|NCT02148263|191608028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||Depth||||.50
95818296|NCT02148263|191608029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95818297|NCT02148263|191608030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95818298|NCT01144416|191608058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in percentage vital pregnancy|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in percentage vital pregnancy was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.4|-7.4|
95818299|NCT01144416|191608059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -3 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANOVA|The estimated difference in number of oocytes retrieved was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs) and center.||||1.2|-0.2|
95861643|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95958482|NCT04088136|191889241|OTHER|Hypothesis was greater increase in use of external mnemonics in EMMI group|||||<|0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .20
96000197|NCT04243369|191976354|OTHER|Only descriptive statistics was provided. The rate and the exact 95% CI of the rate using the Clopper-Pearson Exact method is calculated.|Rate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100|88.4|
95818300|NCT01144416|191608060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was -8%|Difference in Live Birth Rates|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.9|||generalized linear model|The estimated difference in live birth rate was adjusted for age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs. \>38 yrs)||||1.9|-6.5|
95818301|NCT01144416|191608061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
95818302|NCT01144416|191608062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95818303|NCT04271540|191608095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||0.35
95818304|NCT03265145|191608146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||1.72|0.87|
95818305|NCT03265145|191608147|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.04|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.04|0.97|
95818306|NCT03265145|191608148|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.0|||||"Cox proportional hazards model with baseline ICS prior use as a covariate was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the two-sided 95% Wald confidence interval (CI).~Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy."|||2.00|0.62|
95818307|NCT03265145|191608149|OTHER||adjusted annual rate ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.01|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|||2.01|0.58|
95818308|NCT03265145|191608150|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Ratio (RR) (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||1.64|0.89|
95861644|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95818309|NCT03265145|191608150|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.094|||||Ratio: Stiolto Respimat/triple therapy|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with baseline ICS prior use as stratum was used to estimate the Risk Difference (Stiolto Respimat versus triple therapy) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations along with 95% CI.||0.094|-0.022|
95818310|NCT02137070|191608151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Voxel-size (p-FWE \< 0.01) and voxel-peak (p-unc \< 0.001) were corrected for multiple comparisons.|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN|2x2 Factorial ANOVA in CONN - Group (Bariatric surgery vs. control) \& time (pre-surgery baseline vs. 18-month follow-up)||Analysis of variance comparing change scores from 18 months post-surgery relative to pre-surgical baseline were performed. Change in the surgical group was compared to change for the non-surgical controls. The dependent measures were connectivity strengths seeding from the hippocampus and left dorsal lateral pre-frontal cortex to other cortical areas.||||<0.01
95818311|NCT05112679|191608180|OTHER|See SAP|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All participants were randomized to both groups in a cross over design, if a participant started with proprio after 4 weeks of use they will cross over to Empower ankle or vice versa. the data reflect comparison of the groups.||||0.009
95818312|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818313|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Desire to void: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818314|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818315|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818316|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818317|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
95818318|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
95818319|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
95818320|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
95818321|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supplementary motor area||||<0.05
95818322|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818323|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818324|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L angular gyrus||||<0.05
95818325|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
95818326|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
95818327|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
95818328|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
95818329|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
95818330|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R posterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
95818331|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L thalamus||||<0.05
95818332|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R thalamus||||<0.05
95818333|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precuneus||||<0.05
95818334|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precuneus||||<0.05
95818335|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L caudate nucleus||||<0.05
95818336|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
95818337|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L hippocampus||||<0.05
95818338|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L putamen||||<0.05
95818339|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818340|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818341|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L insula lobe||||<0.05
95818342|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818343|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818344|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R cerebellum||||<0.05
95818345|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Strong desire to void: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
95818346|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818347|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R postcentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818348|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818349|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precentral gyrus||||<0.05
95818350|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818351|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818352|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818353|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818354|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior temporal gyrus||||<0.05
95818355|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
95818356|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R supramarginal gyrus||||<0.05
95818357|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: L inferior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
95818358|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior occipital gyrus||||<0.05
95818359|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding Initiation: R middle occipital gyrus||||<0.05
95958483|NCT01494298|191889251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0||||The control group average age was 6 years lower(P=0.001). Results were adjusted via a logistic regression and presented as age-adjusted means and SE. The unadjusted differences had similar results.|t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis - There will be differences in ApoB between AA with T2DM and those without. To achieve a power of 80%, 48 subjects in each group were needed to detect 15 mg/dL difference in ApoB levels, assuming a standard deviation of 26 mg/dL if alpha was set at 0.05. Continuous data were compared using a Students t-test and categorical data were compared using test.||||=0.002
95818360|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
95818361|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
95818362|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L inferior frontal gyrus (p. Opercularis)||||<0.05
95818363|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Orbitalis)||||<0.05
95958484|NCT01494298|191889253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95818364|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior frontal gyrus (p. Triangularis)||||<0.05
95818365|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L cerebellum||||<0.05
95818366|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rectal gyrus||||<0.05
95818367|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rectal gyrus||||<0.05
95818368|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
95818369|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior medial gyrus||||<0.05
95818370|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818371|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818372|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818373|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle frontal gyrus||||<0.05
95818374|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L supplementary motor area (SMA)||||<0.05
95818375|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R SMA||||<0.05
95818376|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L paracentral lobule||||<0.05
95818377|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R paracentral lobule||||<0.05
95818378|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R superior parietal lobule||||<0.05
95818379|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R inferior parietal lobule||||<0.05
95818380|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L superior orbital gyrus||||<0.05
95818381|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
95818382|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle orbital gyrus||||<0.05
95818383|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
95818384|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L calcarine gyrus||||<0.05
95818385|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L anterior cingulate cortex||||<0.05
95818386|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
95818387|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R middle cingulate cortex||||<0.05
95818388|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R angular gyrus||||<0.05
95818389|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L thalamus||||<0.05
95818390|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R thalamus||||<0.05
95818391|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L precuneus||||<0.05
95818392|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R precuneus||||<0.05
95818393|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R caudate nucleus||||<0.05
95818394|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L putamen||||<0.05
95818395|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L amygdala||||<0.05
95818396|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R insula lobe||||<0.05
95818397|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L rolandic operculum||||<0.05
95818398|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: L hippocampus||||<0.05
95818399|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R hippocampus||||<0.05
95818400|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R fusiform gyrus||||<0.05
95818401|NCT03574610|191608190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||Voiding initiation: R rolandic operculum||||<0.05
95818402|NCT03574610|191608191|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Voided volume - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.45
95818403|NCT03574610|191608191|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Voided volume - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.39
95818404|NCT03574610|191608191|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||PVR - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.014
95818405|NCT03574610|191608191|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||PVR - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.66
95818406|NCT03574610|191608191|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Bladder capacity - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.31
95818407|NCT03574610|191608191|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Bladder capacity - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.001
95818408|NCT03574610|191608192|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||% PVR/BC - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.004
95818409|NCT03574610|191608192|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||%PVR/BC - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.038
95818410|NCT03574610|191608193|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Qmax - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.19
95818411|NCT03574610|191608193|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Max - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.91
95818412|NCT03574610|191608194|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.13
95958485|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.29|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.3||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.30|-1.72|=0.772
95818413|NCT03574610|191608194|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||Liverpool nomogram percentile - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.26
95818414|NCT03574610|191608195|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.40
95818415|NCT03574610|191608195|OTHER|||||||0.086||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q1 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.086
95818416|NCT03574610|191608195|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test.||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
95818417|NCT03574610|191608195|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 Q2 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.19
95818418|NCT03574610|191608195|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||UDI-6 Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.04
95818419|NCT03574610|191608195|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||UDI-6 5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.026
95818420|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.044
95818421|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q3 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.017
95818422|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.54
95818423|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.503||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q5 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.503
95818424|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.023
95818425|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q7 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.049
95818426|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.089||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.089
95818427|NCT03574610|191608196|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||AUASS Q8 - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.161
95818428|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.010
95818429|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Incontinence) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.41
95818430|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.32
95818431|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Storage and Voiding) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.02
95818432|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.34
95818433|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (Consequences) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.61
95818434|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs post-treatment||||0.02
95818435|NCT03574610|191608197|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test. (Only used the 8 participants that had data for baseline and 4 month follow-up for statistical calculations)||NBSS (QoL) - baseline vs 4 month follow-up||||0.07
95818436|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.03|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.03|0.24|0.5050
95818437|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.6284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.54|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.54|0.22|0.6284
95818438|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.22|0.40|0.1988
95818439|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.28|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.28|0.42|0.2722
95818440|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.04|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.04|0.17|0.0544
95818441|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.16|||Unstratified log-rank|||||4.16|1.00|0.0442
95818442|NCT02574078|191608217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.45|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.45|0.50|0.5489
95818443|NCT02574078|191608218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.91|0.35|0.9951
95818444|NCT02574078|191608218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.8321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.1|||Unstratified log-rank|||||3.10|0.25|0.8321
95818445|NCT02574078|191608218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.31|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.31|0.41|0.2938
95818446|NCT02574078|191608218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.45|||Unstratified log-rank|||||1.45|0.46|0.4819
95818447|NCT02574078|191608218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.91|||Unstratified log-rank|||||0.91|0.11|0.0241
95818448|NCT02574078|191608218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.1401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.95|||Unstratified log-rank|||||2.95|0.85|0.1401
95818449|NCT02574078|191608222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.31|||Log Rank|stratified by Disease Status (Recurrent Locally Advanced vs. Metastatic), Performance Status (ECOG 0 vs.1 vs. 2) as entered into the IVRS||||1.31|0.40|0.2862
95818450|NCT03980743|191608267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24)||||0.97
95818451|NCT03980743|191608268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) for Healthy Eating||||0.273
95818452|NCT03980743|191608269|SUPERIORITY|Time x treatment (week 0 and week 24) with sum score||||||0.691|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.691
95818453|NCT02709512|191608270|SUPERIORITY|Relative Risk Ratio (ADIPemPlatinum/PlaceboPemPlatinum) is the common relative risk of having a response (CR or PR) based on the Mantel-Haenszel estimator controlling for tumor histology. A relative risk ratio greater than one is favorable to ADIPemPlatinum.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.50|0.9489
95818454|NCT02709512|191608271|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Log Rank|||||0.88|0.47|0.0078
95818455|NCT02709512|191608272|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.55|0.0234
95818456|NCT02709512|191608273|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.46|0.0193
95818457|NCT03292874|191608299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||"Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) were compared between models with standard and high-resolution MRI variables using the nonparametric method described by DeLong.~DeLong. Biometrics 1988;44(3):837-45."|nonparametric method|||||||0.014
95818458|NCT02482298|191608300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06367|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.061|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1510|-0.0610|
95818459|NCT02482298|191608300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06192|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.1832|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1832|-0.0230|
95818460|NCT02482298|191608302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.035|0.2035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2035|0.0350|
95818461|NCT02482298|191608302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04923|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0155|0.1795|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1795|0.0155|
95818462|NCT03053440|191608330|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors per interactive response technology (IRT). p value is 2-sided||||22.0|-1.5|0.0921
95818463|NCT01537315|191608346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|||||A paired comparison between baseline CRP values with values obtained after 1, 3, and 6 months of treatment was conducted, with a p-value of 0.05 used as the a priori threshold of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.4521
95818464|NCT00473889|191608373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Log Rank|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified log rank test.||||||0.992
95818465|NCT00473889|191608374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.862||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the Finkelstein's Interval Censored Method Model.||||||0.862
95818466|NCT00473889|191608375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||This is a one sided p-value, which corresponds to the null hypothesis.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|Disease stage and bevacizumab eligibility are the stratification factors in the stratified Miettinen and Nurmimen method.||||||0.899
95818467|NCT00460655|191608378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.428||||0.006||95.0|-5.841|-1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.016|-5.841|0.006
95818468|NCT02553928|191608396|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.69||Based on full analysis set|ANCOVA||The comparison is to BID memantine.|The ADCS-CGIC was analyzed based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of ADCS-CGIC score at Week 12, with treatment and site as fixed factors, and baseline score as a covariate using observed cases.||0.69|-0.06|0.097
95818469|NCT04970069|191608409|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||Regression, Linear||The numerator and denominator for the ratio of geometric means are analgesic education and general preoperative education respectively.|Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) was used for imputing missing outcomes and covariates.||1.18|0.86|0.890
95818470|NCT04970069|191608410|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.617
95818471|NCT04970069|191608411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.611
95818472|NCT00763256|191608412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95861645|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861646|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||<0.001
95861647|NCT00966875|191682243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.001
95958486|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||=|0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.97||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||2.97|-0.94|=0.299
95818473|NCT00763256|191608413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95818474|NCT00763256|191608414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95818475|NCT00763256|191608415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95818476|NCT00763256|191608416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95818477|NCT00906178|191608419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.94||||||||1.94|.57|
95818478|NCT00906178|191608420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65||||||||1.65|.62|
95818479|NCT00906178|191608421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.62||||||||2.62|.93|
95818480|NCT00906178|191608422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.3||||||||1.30|.37|
95818481|NCT04677543|191608429|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|10.4||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|29.5|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||29.5|-8.6|0.2819
95818482|NCT04677543|191608430|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|24.1|||Standardized Logistic Regression||The percentage difference and confidence intervals are estimated by standardized logistic regression with treatment group and history of MAC lung infection as factors in the model.|||24.1|-11.9|0.5080
95818483|NCT04677543|191608431|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.7||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|34.9|||Standardized Logistic Regression|||||34.9|-1.4|0.0712
95818484|NCT04677543|191608432|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.48||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|9.93|||ANCOVA|||||9.93|-0.97|0.1073
95818485|NCT04677543|191608433|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.2|0.6130
95818486|NCT04677543|191608434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.92|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||1.92|0.79|0.3542
95818487|NCT04677543|191608435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.06|||Regression, Cox||A Cox regression model was applied to calculate the hazard ratio. The model included effects for treatment and history of MAC lung infection (initial or subsequent).|||2.06|0.89|0.1583
95818488|NCT01272037|191608443|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*recurrence score interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with the recurrence score in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on the recurrence score. If the interaction was statistically significant, the interaction term was planned to be included in the Cox model to evaluate the invasive disease-free survival outcome.||1.05|0.98|0.35
95861648|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95861649|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.076
95861650|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95861651|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95861652|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95861653|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12 LOCF.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95861654|NCT00966875|191682245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95861655|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.307
95861656|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.104
95818489|NCT01272037|191608443|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.54|||Regression, Cox|A Cox model was used that included treatment arm, recurrence score, menopausal status, and the chemotherapy\*menopausal status interaction term.||This test describes the interaction of the treatment arm with menopausal status (one of the study stratification factors) in the analysis of invasive disease-free survival in the overall study population, to determine whether chemotherapy benefit depends on menopausal status. If the interaction was statistically significant, separate analyses of IDFS were planned to be conducted by menopausal status.||2.54|1.15|0.008
95818490|NCT01272037|191608443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.83|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.||0.83|0.43|0.002
95818491|NCT01272037|191608443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Regression, Cox||To compare the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm to the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.26|0.82|0.89
95818492|NCT01272037|191608450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis includes only premenopausal participants.|To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|0.87|0.39|0.009
95818493|NCT01272037|191608450|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37|||Regression, Cox||To compare DRFS between the Chemo and Endocrine Therapy arm and the Endocrine Therapy Alone arm, a Cox model was used with adjustment for the continuous recurrence score.|This analysis includes only postmenopausal participants.||1.37|0.81|0.70
95818494|NCT01393899|191608451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||||14.99|-12.11|
95818495|NCT01393899|191608451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.07|31.37||||||||31.37|4.07|
95818496|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|12.79||||||Week 4||12.79|-11.57|
95818497|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.29|13.84||||||Week 8||13.84|-12.29|
95818498|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
95818499|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.56|12.68||||||Week 20||12.68|-14.56|
95818500|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.26|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.04||||||Week 4||17.04|-6.52|
95818501|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
95818502|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.4|17.37||||||Week 12||17.37|-10.40|
95818503|NCT01393899|191608452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|24.46||||||Week 20||24.46|-3.08|
95818504|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.06|10.63||||||Week 4||10.63|-14.06|
95818505|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.15|9.4||||||Week 8||9.40|-17.15|
95818506|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.67||||||Week 12||19.67|-8.04|
95818507|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.11|14.99||||||Week 20||14.99|-12.11|
95818508|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.88|14.87||||||Week 26||14.87|-11.88|
95818509|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.06|14.92||||||Week 4||14.92|-9.06|
95818510|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.53|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.94|4.88||||||Week 8||4.88|-21.94|
95818511|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.74|15.06||||||Week 12||15.06|-12.74|
95818512|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.63|26.77||||||Week 20||26.77|-0.63|
95818513|NCT01393899|191608453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.54|33.66||||||Week 26||33.66|6.54|
95818514|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.41|17.28||||||Week 4||17.28|-10.41|
95818515|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.67|15.11||||||Week 8||15.11|-12.67|
95818516|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|26.67||||||Week 12||26.67|-0.31|
95818517|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.33|14.55||||||Week 20||14.55|-11.33|
95861657|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.139
95818518|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.36|21.64||||||Week 26||21.64|-4.36|
95818519|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.76|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.04|19.56||||||Week 4||19.56|-8.04|
95818520|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.83|5.66||||||Week 8||5.66|-21.83|
95818521|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.63|14.73||||||Week 12||14.73|-11.63|
95818522|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|21.81||||||Week 20||21.81|-4.64|
95818523|NCT01393899|191608454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|26.43||||||Week 26||26.43|0.15|
95818524|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.57|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.63|21.78||||||Week 4||21.78|-8.63|
95818525|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.63|17.2||||||Week 8||17.20|-16.63|
95818526|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.19|41.38||||||Week 12||41.38|7.19|
95818527|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.32|24.03||||||Week 20||24.03|-10.32|
95818528|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.22|27.79||||||Week 26||27.79|-5.22|
95818529|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.41|23.95||||||Week 4||23.95|-6.41|
95818530|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.59|3.59||||||Week 8||3.59|-31.59|
95818531|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.35|19.97||||||Week 12||19.97|-15.35|
95818532|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|27.71||||||Week 20||27.71|-7.41|
95818533|NCT01393899|191608455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.96|39.04||||||Week 26||39.04|4.96|
95818534|NCT01393899|191608456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.75|13.4||||||||13.40|-9.75|
95818535|NCT01393899|191608456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|18.11|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.57|30.64||||||||30.64|5.57|
95818536|NCT01393899|191608457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.39|4.88||||||||4.88|-20.39|
95818537|NCT01393899|191608457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.33|31.33||||||||31.33|4.33|
95818538|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.26|||=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.1|-9.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-9.42|-51.10|=0.0637
95818539|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.06|||=|0.3054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.43|5.31|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||5.31|-47.43|=0.3054
95818540|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.52|||=|0.1316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-78.57|-6.48|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-6.48|-78.57|=0.1316
95818541|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Dofference|-18.01|||=|0.5704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-59.01|22.99|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||22.99|-59.01|=0.5704
95818542|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.0|||=|0.8389|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.22|32.21|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||32.21|-44.22|=0.8389
95818543|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.56|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.27|-2.85|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-2.85|-44.27|=0.1452
95818544|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.61|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.03|16.81|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||16.81|-36.03|=0.6399
95818545|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.0|||=|0.1949|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-73.57|-0.42|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.42|-73.57|=0.1949
95818546|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.74|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.62|-6.87|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-6.87|-88.62|=0.1358
95818547|NCT01393899|191608459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.38|||=|0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-88.03|-12.72|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-12.72|-88.03|=0.0890
95818548|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.44|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.14|1.26||||||Week 4||1.26|-16.14|
95818549|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.43|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.27|3.41||||||Week 8||3.41|-18.27|
95818550|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.48|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.68|0.72||||||Week 12||0.72|-25.68|
95818551|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.81|1.34||||||Week 20||1.34|-26.81|
95818552|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.52|1.72||||||Week 26||1.72|-39.52|
95818553|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.39|6.48||||||Week 4||6.48|-12.39|
95818554|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.14|13.36||||||Week 8||13.36|-10.14|
95861658|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.056
95818555|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-8.09|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.54|5.36||||||Week 12||5.36|-21.54|
95818556|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.99|1.19||||||Week 20||1.19|-26.99|
95818557|NCT01393899|191608460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-26.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.54|-6.02||||||Week 26||-6.02|-46.54|
95818558|NCT01393899|191608461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.44|32.66||||||||32.66|-11.44|
95818559|NCT01393899|191608461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.15|37.49||||||||37.49|-4.15|
95818560|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.53|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.53|-1.34|<0.0001
95818561|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.76|||=|0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.28|-1.24|=0.0024
95818562|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.75|||=|0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.24|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.24|-1.26|=0.0044
95818563|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||0.02|-1.13|=0.0582
95818564|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.61|||=|0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.09|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||0.09|-1.31|=0.0865
95818565|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.52|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 4||-0.52|-1.32|<0.0001
95818566|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.92|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.45|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.45|-1.40|=0.0002
96000198|NCT01254344|191976391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a 70% rate (i.e., proportion of participants with success of prophylaxis) for both groups and a significance level of 0.025, at least 200 evaluable participants per group were needed to have 90% probability that the lower limit of the 95% (two-sided) confidence interval for the difference in the response rates between the 2 groups was greater than -15 percentage points."|Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.5|-5.2|
96000199|NCT01254344|191976392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of prophylaxis|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.1|-2.2|
95818567|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.71|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.71|-1.75|<0.0001
95818568|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.74|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 20||-0.74|-1.87|<0.0001
95818569|NCT01393899|191608463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.95|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.95|-2.30|<0.0001
95818570|NCT01393899|191608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.39|||=|0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.01|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||0.01|-0.79|=0.0566
95818571|NCT01393899|191608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21|||=|0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||0.20|-0.61|=0.3144
95818572|NCT01393899|191608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.02|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.02|-1.10|=0.0434
95818573|NCT01393899|191608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.57|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 8||-0.18|-0.96|=0.0050
95818574|NCT01393899|191608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.66|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 12||-0.25|-1.06|=0.0017
95818575|NCT01393899|191608465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.67|||Linear mixed-effects model||Parameter Type: Adjusted Mean Difference|Week 26||-0.67|-1.72|<0.0001
95818576|NCT03328832|191608482|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||0.276|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.276
95818577|NCT03328832|191608483|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95818578|NCT03328832|191608484|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence means p value \> 0.05||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95818579|NCT00132301|191608485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.11||Log rank test stratified by site.|Log Rank|||||1.11|0.58|0.40
95818580|NCT02720523|191608486|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|51.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.0|14.3|<0.001
95818581|NCT02720523|191608486|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.1|23.5|<0.001
95818582|NCT02720523|191608486|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|19.4|<0.001
95818583|NCT02720523|191608486|OTHER|Cochran-Armitage test was conducted for demonstrating a dose response relationship.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||<0.001
95818584|NCT02720523|191608487|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.693|-0.88|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.880|-1.693|<0.001
95818585|NCT02720523|191608487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|-1.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.190|-2.005|<0.001
95818586|NCT02720523|191608487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.027|-1.216|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor prior bDMARD use as covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.216|-2.027|<0.001
95818587|NCT02720523|191608488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.144|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.144|-0.465|<0.001
95818588|NCT02720523|191608488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.184|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.184|-0.505|<0.001
95861659|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
95861660|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
96000200|NCT00467649|191976393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0180
96000201|NCT00949650|191976511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0002
96000202|NCT00949650|191976511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576||||0.0002||95.0|0.426|0.778|||Regression, Cox|Cox Proportional Hazard (PH) regression stratified by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg versus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||0.778|0.426|0.0002
96000203|NCT00949650|191976512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.802|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.855|8.075|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||8.075|2.855|<0.0001
96000204|NCT00949650|191976513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.288||||0.0118||95.0|1.202|4.356|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified for EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||4.356|1.202|0.0118
95818589|NCT02720523|191608488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.229|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment as the fixed factor, and the baseline value and stratification factor prior bDMARD use as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.229|-0.550|<0.001
95818590|NCT02720523|191608489|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.7|7.3|0.007
95818591|NCT02720523|191608489|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||65.9|32.1|<0.001
95818592|NCT02720523|191608489|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|41.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|58.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||58.8|24.5|<0.001
95818593|NCT02720523|191608490|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|30.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.3|6.4|0.004
95818594|NCT02720523|191608490|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|18.7|<0.001
95818595|NCT02720523|191608490|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|12.9|<0.001
95818596|NCT02720523|191608491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.57|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.57|2.10|<0.001
95818597|NCT02720523|191608491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.75|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.75|1.25|0.002
95818598|NCT02720523|191608491|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|8.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||8.22|3.64|<0.001
95818599|NCT02720523|191608492|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||52.4|17.0|<0.001
95818600|NCT02720523|191608492|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.9|34.2|<0.001
95818601|NCT02720523|191608492|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|70.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.1|37.1|<0.001
95818602|NCT02720523|191608493|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|15.5|<0.001
95818603|NCT02720523|191608493|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|66.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.4|35.6|<0.001
95818604|NCT02720523|191608493|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.5|59.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.3|28.5|<0.001
95818605|NCT02720523|191608494|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|37.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.5|7.4|0.006
95818606|NCT02720523|191608494|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||30.6|2.1|0.026
95818607|NCT02720523|191608494|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|25.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|41.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor prior bDMARD use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||41.0|10.6|0.002
95818608|NCT02720523|191608495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.2|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.20|0.12|0.040
95818609|NCT02720523|191608495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.79||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|4.35|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||4.35|-0.77|0.169
95818610|NCT02720523|191608495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.43|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||3.43|-1.73|0.516
95818611|NCT02720523|191608496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.39|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.39|-4.68|0.021
95818612|NCT02720523|191608496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.25|-4.36|0.080
95818613|NCT02720523|191608496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.94|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||0.94|-4.06|0.220
95818614|NCT02720523|191608497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.04|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.04|-2.57|<0.001
95818615|NCT02720523|191608497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.05|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.05|-2.59|<0.001
95818616|NCT02720523|191608497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.18|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.18|-2.73|<0.001
95818617|NCT01890265|191608498|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.33|||=|0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|8.3||The analysis of the change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) was based on the random coefficient regression model based on observed cases.|Random coefficient regression|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in FVC (% predicted) is presented.||8.3|0.35|= 0.0331
95818618|NCT01890265|191608499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF score is presented.||-0.2|-3.3|= 0.0236
95818619|NCT01890265|191608499|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|||=|0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.3|||ANCOVA with MI|||The absolute LS mean treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for change from Baseline to Week 48 in QLF score is presented.||0.3|-6.6|= 0.0729
95818620|NCT01890265|191608500|SUPERIORITY||Absolute difference|-21.4|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The absolute treatment difference (pamrevlumab - placebo) for percentage of participants with IPF progression at Week 48 is presented.||-6.2|-36.6|= 0.0133
95818621|NCT03674970|191608505|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
95818622|NCT03674970|191608506|OTHER|||||||0.2146|||||||ANOVA|||||||.2146
95818623|NCT03674970|191608507|OTHER|||||||0.5642|||||||ANOVA|||||||.5642
95818624|NCT03674970|191608508|OTHER|||||||0.4353|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4353
95818625|NCT03674970|191608509|OTHER|||||||0.0348|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0348
95818626|NCT03674970|191608510|OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||ANOVA|||||||.4040
95818627|NCT04587869|191608527|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||2.07|.73|.44
95818628|NCT04587869|191608528|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Result is for indicator of assignment to intervention arm (vs. control)|Nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.47
95818629|NCT04587869|191608529|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Result was adjusted for HIV status and age (dichotomized at 50+ vs. \<50), as those characteristics were used to stratify sampling|Slope is adjusted regression coefficient for indicator of intervention arm (so mean of outcome across follow-ups was 0.19 higher for intervention vs. control)|Unlike the two primary outcomes which have a single value for each participant, for this outcome we employed a repeated measures style structure with one record for each of up to 3 FU observations. A sandwich estimator (SAS Proc Surveyreg) was employed to account for clustering of observations within participant. In addition, nonresponse weights were employed to account for potential bias from excluding participants who did not complete any follow-up assessments.||||.02
95818630|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.43|||||6 months visit|||0.43|-0.57|
95818631|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.71|||||12 months visit|||0.71|-0.31|
95818632|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.68|||||18 months visit|||0.68|-0.33|
95818633|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.26|||||6 months visit|||0.26|-0.71|
95818634|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.72|||||12 months visit|||0.72|-0.26|
95818635|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.21|
95818636|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.29|||||6 months visit|||0.29|-0.66|
95818637|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.75|||||12 months visit|||0.75|-0.19|
95818638|NCT01342926|191608539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.86|||||18 months visit|||0.86|-0.08|
95818639|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.61|||||6 months visit|||0.61|-0.34|
95861661|NCT00966875|191682247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||||0.029
95818640|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.89|||||12 months visit|||0.89|-0.07|
95818641|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.89|||||18 months visit|||0.89|-0.06|
95818642|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.37|||||6 months visit|||0.37|-0.55|
95818643|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.8|||||12 months visit|||0.80|-0.13|
95818644|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.63|||||18 months visit|||0.63|-0.30|
95818645|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.57|||||6 months visit|||0.57|-0.31|
95818646|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.99|||||12 months visit|||0.99|0.10|
95818647|NCT01342926|191608547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.36|||||18 months visit|||1.36|0.47|
95818648|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.55|||||6 months visit|||0.55|-0.34|
95818649|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.9|||||12 months visit|||0.90|0.00|
95818650|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.77|||||18 months visit|||0.77|-0.12|
95818651|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.51|
95818652|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.66|||||12 months visit|||0.66|-0.21|
95818653|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.55|||||18 months visit|||0.55|-0.32|
95818654|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.35|||||6 months visit|||0.35|-0.48|
95818655|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.62|||||12 months visit|||0.62|-0.22|
95818656|NCT01342926|191608548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92|||||18 months visit|||0.92|0.08|
95818657|NCT01102491|191608628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95818658|NCT03008070|191608630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 800 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.12|0.98|=0.061
95818659|NCT03008070|191608630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.82|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The primary endpoint was a binary outcome (Yes/No). Responders rates were compared between the placebo and lanifibranor 1200 mg at the end of the treatment period (week 24) using a Cochran Mantel Haenzel test stratified on diabetic status at baseline (that was the stratified factors in the randomisation).~The CMH risk ratio is used to estimate the effect size. Patients with missing data are considered as non-responders."||2.4|1.24|=0.004
95818660|NCT03941483|191608658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.927|||Chi-squared|||||1.927|0.715|0.595
95818661|NCT03941483|191608659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.297||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|2.026|||Chi-squared|||||2.026|0.831|0.335
95818662|NCT03941483|191608660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.025||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.179|||Chi-squared|||||1.179|0.891|0.773
95818663|NCT03941483|191608661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.038||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.935|1.152|||Chi-squared|||||1.152|0.935|0.563
95818664|NCT03941483|191608662|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.174||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.567|2.429|||Chi-squared|||||2.429|0.567|0.717
95818665|NCT03941483|191608663|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.614||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|3.3|||Chi-squared|||||3.300|0.789|0.266
95818666|NCT02292537|191608666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and age at Screening and baseline HFMSE score as covariates.||||6.7|3.1|0.0000001
95818667|NCT02292537|191608667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|14.91||Based on multiple imputation and logistic regression with treatment effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and HFMSE score at baseline.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.91|2.09|0.0006
95818668|NCT02292537|191608667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|48.31|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure are from multiple imputation procedure and are based on binomial proportions.|||48.31|12.74|
95818669|NCT02292537|191608668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|13.8||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|34.17|||Fisher Exact||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||34.17|-6.64|0.0811
95818670|NCT02292537|191608669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and number of milestones at baseline.|||0.7|0.2|
95818671|NCT02292537|191608670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Differenec|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.0|||||From multiple imputation procedure, based on ANCOVA with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant's age at screening and derived total score at baseline.|||5.0|2.3|
95818672|NCT02292537|191608671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.84|19.34|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||19.34|-21.84|
95818673|NCT02292537|191608672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|22.1|||||Difference in proportions of Nusinersen minus Sham Procedure is based on exact unconditional confidence interval.|||22.10|-19.10|
95818674|NCT01444430|191608688|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio will be used to assess statistical non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin=2).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.65|||Regression, Cox|||||1.650|0.698|
95818675|NCT01444430|191608689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.835||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.937|||Regression, Cox|||||0.937|0.745|0.002
95818676|NCT01444430|191608690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.4|||ANOVA|||||5.4|3.3|<0.001
95818677|NCT01444430|191608691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.5|0.272
95818678|NCT01444430|191608692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.2|<0.001
95818679|NCT01444430|191608693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
95818680|NCT01444430|191608694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
95818681|NCT01444430|191608695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.055|||Regression, Cox|||||1.055|0.518|0.095
95818682|NCT01530178|191608703|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.91||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-11.2|||ANOVA|||||-11.2|-44.7|0.003
95818683|NCT01530178|191608703|OTHER|Non-specified|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.131||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|8.652|||ANOVA|||||8.652|-12.91|0.68
95818684|NCT01530178|191608703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.39|-13.17|||ANOVA|||||-13.17|-38.39|0.0005
95818685|NCT01834287|191608704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|52.4|||Regression, Linear|||||52.4|9.6|.001
95818686|NCT00958360|191608708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95818687|NCT00958360|191608709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95818688|NCT00958360|191608710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95818689|NCT00958360|191608711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95818690|NCT00958360|191608712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95818691|NCT01061723|191608713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sarilumab group was compared to placebo group. Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived.||2.5|0.4|0.966
95818692|NCT01061723|191608713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|0.6|0.467
95818693|NCT01061723|191608713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.9|0.3|0.559
95818694|NCT01061723|191608713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.4||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.6|0.496
95818695|NCT01061723|191608713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|0.8|0.143
95818696|NCT02263326|191608725|NON_INFERIORITY|We considered DTG/3TC was noninferior to cART if the 90% confidence interval for the difference in proportions, calculated with Miettinen-Nurminen (score) confidence limits, excluded the 12% noninferiority margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.098|0.102||||||A sample size of 41 participants per arm provided 80% power to show noninferiority of DTG/3TC to cART based on a 12% noninferiority margin, assuming an estimated treatment failure rate of 5% per arm by week 24 and 5% 1-sided type I error rate.||0.102|-0.098|
95818697|NCT02263326|191608726|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in virologic outcomes based on the FDA snapshot algorithm at week 48 (HIV RNA \<50 copies/mL) was compared between arms, with 95% confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.165||||||||0.165|-0.126|
95818698|NCT02263326|191608727|OTHER|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
95818699|NCT02263326|191608728|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.613
95818700|NCT02263326|191608729|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
95818701|NCT02263326|191608730|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
95818702|NCT02263326|191608732|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.1|||Regression, Linear|||||4.1|-3.0|0.76
95818703|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56|||||Confidence Intervals (CI) for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 minus \[-\] Vax 1).|Serotype 1: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.56|0.28|
95818704|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.67|
95818705|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.72|0.44|
95818706|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.53|0.32|
95854762|NCT04040933|191669548|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.761
95854763|NCT04040933|191669548|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Painful Score with Arm in Normal Motion was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.456
95818707|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.91|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.91|0.45|
95818708|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.01|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.01|0.56|
95818709|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.25|
95818710|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.4|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.40|0.16|
95818711|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.40|
95818712|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.65|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.65|0.40|
95818713|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.48|0.30|
95818714|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.35|
95818715|NCT00500357|191608733|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.86|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.86|0.86|
95818716|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.57|0.34|
95818717|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.95|0.66|
95818718|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.22|0.76|
95861662|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.272
96000205|NCT00949650|191976514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7916||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.7916
96000206|NCT00949650|191976514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.385||95.0|0.66|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||1.174|0.660|0.3850
95958487|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.11|||=|0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.13|-2.34|=0.924
95958488|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.86|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.04||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.04|-0.32|=0.091
95958489|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.18|||=|0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-2.82|=0.887
95818719|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.80|0.57|
95818720|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.84|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||2.84|1.39|
95818721|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.63|1.11|
95818722|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.41|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.41|0.18|
95818723|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.27|
95818724|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.83|0.57|
96000207|NCT00949650|191976515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|-13.64|-5.99|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SoD, EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg-Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy.|||-5.99|-13.64|<0.0001
95818725|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.66|
95818726|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.58|
95861663|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.962
95958490|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.36||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.36|-0.76|=0.162
95958491|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|2.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||2.29|-3.01|=0.784
95958492|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.79|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||4.37|-0.79|=0.166
96000208|NCT00949650|191976518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0062
95818727|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.73|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.73|0.47|
95818728|NCT00500357|191608736|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority declared if the lower limit of the 95 %confidence interval for the back-transformed GMFR was \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion as a basis for comparison).|geometric mean fold rise|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.94|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.94|1.18|
95818729|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.82|0.52|
95818730|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.43|
95818731|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.53|
95818732|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.39|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.39|0.27|
95818733|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.10|0.74|
95818734|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.99|0.63|
95818735|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.60|
95818736|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.6|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.60|0.42|
95818737|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.98|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.98|0.59|
95818738|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.46|0.31|
95958493|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.82|-1.98|=0.724
96000209|NCT00949650|191976518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||0.2133||95.0|0.401|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.866|0.401|0.2133
95818739|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.49|
95818740|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.52|
95818741|NCT00500357|191608737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of concentrations (Vax 3 - Vax 1).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 1 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.93|0.62|
95861664|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.236
95861665|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.316
95861666|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.138
95818742|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.78|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 1: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.78|0.60|
95818743|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.64|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 3: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.64|0.48|
95818744|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 4: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.87|0.65|
95818745|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 5: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.76|0.61|
95818746|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.75|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.75|1.27|
95818747|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 6B: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.21|0.94|
95818748|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 7F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.79|0.58|
95818749|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.68|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 9V: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.68|0.53|
95818750|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.67|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 14: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.67|0.51|
95818751|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.74|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 18C: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.74|0.60|
95818752|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19A: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.88|0.69|
95818753|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.62|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 19F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||0.62|0.47|
95818754|NCT00500357|191608738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean fold rise|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.25|||||CI for the GMFR was a back transformation of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of titers (Vax 3 - Vax 2).|Serotype 23F: GMFR was calculated using all participants with available data from both the Vax 2 and Vax 3 blood draws.||1.25|0.90|
95818755|NCT01734785|191608739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.93|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.46|-0.93|<0.0001
95818756|NCT01734785|191608739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline Estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-0.55|-1.02|<0.0001
95818757|NCT01734785|191608740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.61|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.57|-2.61|<0.0001
95861667|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.975
95818758|NCT01734785|191608740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.31|-1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo: change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.28|-2.31|<0.0001
95818759|NCT01734785|191608741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.92|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 25 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 25 mg vs. placebo: change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-1.52|-2.92|<0.0001
95818760|NCT01734785|191608741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.47|-2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Empagliflozin 10 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Empagliflozin 10 mg vs. placebo:change in body weight using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).||-2.07|-3.47|<0.0001
95818761|NCT02397915|191608742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for country and symptomatology. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818762|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute scent/odor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.065
95818763|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute immediate taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
95818764|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute after taste.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.138
95818765|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LDTT.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818766|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute LRON.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.017
95818767|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute more soothing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.046
95958494|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.81|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.14|-0.52|=0.124
95818768|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute less irritating.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818769|NCT02397915|191608743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||||||Par. preferences were analyzed using Prescott's test, as approximated by a CMH test, adjusted for ctry and sym. All preference p-values were also adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method. P-value is for product attribute UTS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
95958495|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|3.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||3.48|-2.91|=0.856
95818770|NCT02397915|191608744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95818771|NCT02397915|191608745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
95818772|NCT02397915|191608746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
95818773|NCT02397915|191608747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.179||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.179
96000210|NCT00949650|191976519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.0129
95818774|NCT02397915|191608748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.00
95818775|NCT02397915|191608749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818776|NCT02397915|191608750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818777|NCT02397915|191608751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95818778|NCT02397915|191608752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.188||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all immediate attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.188
95818779|NCT02397915|191608753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
95818780|NCT02397915|191608754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
95818781|NCT02397915|191608755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
95818782|NCT02397915|191608756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.004||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.004
95818783|NCT02397915|191608757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.223||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.223
95818784|NCT02397915|191608758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818785|NCT02397915|191608759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.008||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.008
95818786|NCT02397915|191608760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.831||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.831
95818787|NCT02397915|191608761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95818788|NCT02397915|191608762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.007||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
95818789|NCT02397915|191608763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.568||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.568
95818790|NCT02397915|191608764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.951||||||Analyzed using an ANOVA mixed model with par. as random effect, ctry, tmt, BL rhinitis sym subgrp, and tmt seq as main effects. P-values for all delayed attribute rating scores adjusted for multiplicity using Hochberg's method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.951
95818791|NCT00368745|191608765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2838||95.0||||significance determined using 2-tailed significance level of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) with country as a covariate||Primary objective: evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin in maintaining the benzodiazepine free state in subjects with prior stable alprazolam use.||||0.2838
95818792|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0709||95.0|-3.1|0.13||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|Least squares (LS) Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.13|-3.10|0.0709
95861668|NCT00966875|191682249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.079
96000211|NCT00949650|191976519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0078||95.0|0.499|0.927|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||0.927|0.499|0.0078
95818793|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0006||95.0|-6.04|-1.74||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.74|-6.04|0.0006
95818794|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0718||95.0|-4.98|0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.22|-4.98|0.0718
95818795|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.092||95.0|-7.37|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.60|-7.37|0.0920
95818796|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.1371||95.0|-12.67|2.23||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT week 5||2.23|-12.67|0.1371
95818797|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0882||95.0|-7.96|0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.61|-7.96|0.0882
95818798|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0135||95.0|-5.05|-0.61||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.61|-5.05|0.0135
95818799|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.3924||95.0|-3.38|1.35||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||1.35|-3.38|0.3924
95818800|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.3868||95.0|-3.29|1.3||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||1.30|-3.29|0.3868
95818801|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.9966||95.0|-2.31|2.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||2.32|-2.31|0.9966
95958496|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.64|||=|0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|4.76||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.76|-1.48|=0.292
95958497|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.37||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.37|-3.14|=0.944
95958498|NCT04159805|191889255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.85|||=|0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.02||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.02|-2.33|=0.589
95818802|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6873||95.0|-3.07|2.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||2.05|-3.07|0.6873
95818803|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5337||95.0|-3.62|1.91||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||1.91|-3.62|0.5337
95818804|NCT00368745|191608766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0008||95.0|-7.51|-2.07||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-2.07|-7.51|0.0008
95818805|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.122||95.0|-4.97|0.6||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.60|-4.97|0.1220
95818806|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0053||95.0|-6.15|-1.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-1.11|-6.15|0.0053
95818807|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.1048||95.0|-6.32|0.62||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.62|-6.32|0.1048
95818808|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.0357||95.0|-6.57|-0.25||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||-0.25|-6.57|0.0357
95818809|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.4263||95.0|-8.82|4.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||4.26|-8.82|0.4263
95861669|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.982
95958499|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.93|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.31|-3.17|=0.406
95818810|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0104||95.0|-9.96|-1.51||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||-1.51|-9.96|0.0104
95818811|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0069||95.0|-6.73|-1.12||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-1.12|-6.73|0.0069
95818812|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.2185||95.0|-4.47|1.05||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||1.05|-4.47|0.2185
95818813|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.7832||95.0|-2.41|1.83||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||1.83|-2.41|0.7832
95818814|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.7062||95.0|-1.9|2.79||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||2.79|-1.90|0.7062
95818815|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.7161||95.0|-2.49|1.73||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||1.73|-2.49|0.7161
95818816|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0376||95.0|-6.03|-0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.19|-6.03|0.0376
95818817|NCT00368745|191608769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0122||95.0|-6.74|-0.85||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.85|-6.74|0.0122
95818818|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052||95.0|-0.76|-0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.14|-0.76|0.0052
95818819|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0001||95.0|-1.11|-0.38||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.38|-1.11|0.0001
95818820|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0528||95.0|-1.0|0.01||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 3||0.01|-1.00|0.0528
95818821|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3085||95.0|-1.11|0.37||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 4||0.37|-1.11|0.3085
95818822|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.1807||95.0|-1.92|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 5||0.47|-1.92|0.1807
95818823|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1074||95.0|-1.58|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AT Week 6||0.17|-1.58|0.1074
95818824|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013||95.0|-1.1|-0.28||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.28|-1.10|0.0013
95818825|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0503||95.0|-0.99|0.0||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 2||0.00|-0.99|0.0503
95818826|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0364||95.0|-1.09|-0.04||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.04|-1.09|0.0364
95818827|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.914||95.0|-0.51|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 4||0.46|-0.51|0.9140
95818828|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7789||95.0|-0.62|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-0.62|0.7789
95818829|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3189||95.0|-0.95|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||AF Week 6||0.32|-0.95|0.3189
95818830|NCT00368745|191608771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0031||95.0|-1.26|-0.27||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.27|-1.26|0.0031
95818831|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.126||95.0|-0.86|0.11||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||0.11|-0.86|0.1260
95818832|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0074||95.0|-1.4|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.40|0.0074
95818833|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.125||95.0|-1.35|0.17||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.17|-1.35|0.1250
95818834|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.8991||95.0|-1.17|1.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.32|-1.17|0.8991
95818835|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1747||95.0|-2.07|0.46||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.46|-2.07|0.1747
95818836|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0744||95.0|-1.79|0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.09|-1.79|0.0744
95818837|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0063||95.0|-1.67|-0.29||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||-0.29|-1.67|0.0063
95818838|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.014||95.0|-1.56|-0.18||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||-0.18|-1.56|0.0140
95818839|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0267||95.0|-1.46|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||-0.09|-1.46|0.0267
95818840|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5104||95.0|-1.03|0.52||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.52|-1.03|0.5104
95818841|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2702||95.0|-1.35|0.39||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.39|-1.35|0.2702
95818842|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1241||95.0|-1.52|0.19||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||0.19|-1.52|0.1241
95818843|NCT00368745|191608772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0109||95.0|-1.67|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.22|-1.67|0.0109
95818844|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0226||95.0|-1.22|-0.09||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Taper (AT) Week 1||-0.09|-1.22|0.0226
95818845|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0099||95.0|-1.58|-0.22||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 2||-0.22|-1.58|0.0099
95818846|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2827||95.0|-1.07|0.32||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 3||0.32|-1.07|0.2827
95818847|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8232||95.0|-1.07|1.34||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 4||1.34|-1.07|0.8232
95818848|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2409||95.0|-2.41|0.72||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 5||0.72|-2.41|0.2409
95818849|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.476||95.0|-1.73|0.84||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AT Week 6||0.84|-1.73|0.4760
95818850|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1252||95.0|-1.14|0.14||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Alprazolam Free (AF) Week 1||0.14|-1.14|0.1252
95818851|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0717||95.0|-1.26|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 2||0.06|-1.26|0.0717
95818852|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0707||95.0|-1.33|0.06||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 3||0.06|-1.33|0.0707
95818853|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.4341||95.0|-1.08|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 4||0.47|-1.08|0.4341
95861670|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.276
95861671|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.050
95958500|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||=|0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|3.14||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.14|-1.34|=0.418
95861672|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.010
95818854|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.37||95.0|-1.23|0.47||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 5||0.47|-1.23|0.3700
95818855|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0328||95.0|-1.83|-0.08||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||AF Week 6||-0.08|-1.83|0.0328
95818856|NCT00368745|191608773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0096||95.0|-1.8|-0.26||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country as covariate||Endpoint \[LOCF\]||-0.26|-1.80|0.0096
95818857|NCT00368745|191608774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8897||95.0|-5.74|4.99||contrasts performed using Dunnett's Test|ANCOVA|LS Means from the ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and country and baseline as the covariate||||4.99|-5.74|0.8897
95818858|NCT00368745|191608775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0626||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0626
95818859|NCT00368745|191608776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||p-value is from the log-rank statistic from the tests for equality over treatment as strata and country used as covariate|Log Rank|||||||0.0148
95958501|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.65||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||1.65|-3.53|=0.463
95958502|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||=|0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.49||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||2.49|-2.70|=0.936
95958503|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.8|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.82||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||0.82|-4.41|=0.170
96000212|NCT00949650|191976520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1882||||||Two-sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Log Rank|||||||0.1882
95818860|NCT00368745|191608777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1159||95.0||||p-value is obtained using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel option|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1159
95818861|NCT00293813|191608778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||||95.0|2.6|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|2.6|
95818862|NCT00293813|191608778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||||95.0|-0.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-.6|
95818863|NCT00770562|191608788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95818864|NCT00770562|191608789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95818865|NCT00770562|191608790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
95818866|NCT01194219|191608792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.5|||Chi-squared|||||32.5|23.1|<0.0001
95818867|NCT01194219|191608793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|21.9|||Chi-squared|||||21.9|13.7|<0.0001
95818868|NCT01194219|191608794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.34|-35.21|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-35.21|-46.34|<0.0001
95818869|NCT01194219|191608795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-30.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||-30.6|-39.9|<0.0001
95818870|NCT01194219|191608796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|47.7|||Chi-squared|||||47.7|35.7|<0.0001
95818871|NCT01194219|191608797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-19.8|||ANOVA|Based on an analysis of variance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor (an ANOVA model).||||-19.8|-28.7|<0.0001
95818872|NCT01194219|191608798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-3.6|||ANOVA||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor, the baseline value, and the treatment by baseline interaction term as covariates.|||-3.6|-5.4|<0.0001
95818873|NCT01194219|191608799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. The estimation and p-value were adjusted by the covariate.||||4.35|1.81|<0.0001
95861673|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.046
95861674|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.017
95818874|NCT01194219|191608800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|20.7|||Chi-squared|||||20.7|12.8|<0.0001
95818875|NCT01194219|191608801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|3.969|||Log Rank|||||3.969|1.768|<0.0001
95818876|NCT00003869|191608826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
95818877|NCT00003869|191608827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
95861675|NCT00966875|191682251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted for treatment and baseline value.||||||0.066
95861676|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.538
95818878|NCT00003869|191608828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
95818879|NCT00003869|191608829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95818880|NCT00003869|191608830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
95818881|NCT00778336|191608856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
95818882|NCT00778336|191608856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
95818883|NCT00778336|191608856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
95818884|NCT00778336|191608856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \> 0.||||||<0.0001
95861677|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
95861678|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
95958504|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.13||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.13|-2.10|=0.687
95818885|NCT03163134|191608879|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.017
95818886|NCT03163134|191608880|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.577
95818887|NCT04585269|191608881|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-4.93|<0.001
95861679|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.053
95861680|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.393
95818888|NCT04585269|191608882|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-4.05|0.003
95818889|NCT04585269|191608883|SUPERIORITY|Testing for a difference between arms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.45|0.34|0.029
95818890|NCT05111613|191609126|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.97||||||||6.97|3.68|
95818891|NCT05111613|191609127|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35||||||||2.35|0.78|
95818892|NCT01166347|191609176|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 15%.|Difference in Percentages|3.7||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|95.0||12.56|||Wald test||Difference = Control - HeartWare|Primary endpoint is 2 year survival free from disabling stroke (Modified Rankin Scale \>=4), death, exchange, explant due to device malfunction or urgent transplantation. Subjects who are electively transplanted or explanted due to recovery (no disabling stroke) must survive to 2 years post original implant to be considered a success.||12.56||0.0110
95818893|NCT01166347|191609177|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|1.1||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.8||If p\<0.05, then the test is statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment as the only independent variable.|Difference = HeartWare - Control|If non-inferiority is established for the primary endpoint, statistical testing for superiority and p-value estimation for the 3 secondary endpoints (incidence of bleeding, incidence of major infection, overall survival) will be performed in a pre-specified sequence and testing will continue at the nominal alpha level until the first non-significant result. This fixed sequence procedure strongly controls the family-wise error rate for the collection of the 3 secondary endpoints.||10.8|-8.5|0.5922
95818894|NCT03382912|191609218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.9|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)), smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||5.9|0.3|
95861681|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.077
95861682|NCT00966875|191682253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||||||P-value is for Week 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.105
95861683|NCT02280408|191682356|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861684|NCT02280408|191682356|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861685|NCT02280408|191682356|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861686|NCT02280408|191682356|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.010
95818895|NCT03382912|191609219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.951|||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (interactive web response system (IWRS)) and smoking status (IWRS).|||1.951|0.519|
95818896|NCT03382912|191609220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.532|||||||The estimate of the hazard ration (HR) stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS).|4.532|0.772|
95861687|NCT02280408|191682356|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
95861688|NCT02280408|191682356|OTHER|||||||0.969|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.969
95861689|NCT02280408|191682357|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
95861690|NCT02280408|191682357|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
95861691|NCT02280408|191682357|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
95861692|NCT02280408|191682357|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
95861693|NCT02280408|191682357|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||<0.001
95861694|NCT02280408|191682357|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed||||||0.733
95861695|NCT02280408|191682358|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95818897|NCT03382912|191609221|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||||Odds Ratio stratified based on tumor histology at randomization (IWRS) and smoking status (IWRS). Confidence intervals were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||4.1|0.4|
95818898|NCT03541499|191609241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.807
95818899|NCT03541499|191609241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Barnard's exact test|||At any time point||||0.043
95818900|NCT03541499|191609242|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
95818901|NCT03541499|191609242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.301
95818902|NCT03541499|191609243|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
95818903|NCT03541499|191609243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.009
95818904|NCT03541499|191609245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.526
95818905|NCT03541499|191609245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.100
95818906|NCT03541499|191609245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.055
95818907|NCT03541499|191609245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
95818908|NCT03541499|191609246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.174
95818909|NCT03541499|191609246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.006
95818910|NCT03541499|191609246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.745
95818911|NCT03541499|191609246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.023
95818912|NCT03541499|191609252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.023
95818913|NCT03541499|191609252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.142
95818914|NCT03541499|191609252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
95818915|NCT03541499|191609252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.142
95818916|NCT03541499|191609253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||0.836
95818917|NCT03541499|191609253|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgA, any time point||||1.000
95818918|NCT03541499|191609253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.526
95818919|NCT03541499|191609253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||Barnard's exact test|||IgG, any time point||||0.119
95818920|NCT03541499|191609254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.271
95818921|NCT03541499|191609254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.226
96000213|NCT00949650|191976520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.0427||95.0|0.618|1.104|||Regression, Cox|Cox PH regression stratified by EGFR mutation group and race.|Afatinib 40 mg vs. Pemetrexed/Cisplatin Chemotherapy, if HR\<1 then favours Afatinib 40 mg.|||1.104|0.618|0.0427
95818922|NCT03541499|191609255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.783
95818923|NCT03541499|191609255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.001
95818924|NCT03541499|191609256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.745
95818925|NCT03541499|191609256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.068
95818926|NCT03541499|191609257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||0.585
95818927|NCT03541499|191609257|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Barnard's exact test|||Any time point||||1.000
95818928|NCT01402869|191609288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons. P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in peak methemoglobin blood levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
95818929|NCT01402869|191609288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
95818930|NCT01402869|191609288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
95818931|NCT01402869|191609288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.89||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.89
95818932|NCT01402869|191609289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in the time frame to peak methemoglobin levels following the administration of prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
95818933|NCT01402869|191609289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.43||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.43
95818934|NCT01402869|191609289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
95818935|NCT01402869|191609289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
95818936|NCT01402869|191609290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||95.0||||P\<.05|ANOVA|LSD post hoc test was used for multiple group comparisons.||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference in delta methemoglobin blood levels following the administration prilocaine, lidocaine, or no local anesthetic in pre-cooperative children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia.||||<.001
95818937|NCT01402869|191609290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
95818938|NCT01402869|191609290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||<|0.001||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||<.001
95818939|NCT01402869|191609290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power of 80|||||=|0.92||||||P\<.05|Least significant difference post hoc|||LSD post hoc pairwise comparison||||=.92
95818940|NCT00125788|191609299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.076
95818941|NCT00125788|191609300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.072
95818942|NCT00125788|191609301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.129
95818943|NCT03533660|191609377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES subscales recognition, ambivalence, taking steps at 6 weeks|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95818944|NCT03533660|191609377|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to SOCRATES total scores and subscales (recognition, ambivalence, and taking steps) at intake and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95818945|NCT03533660|191609378|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Applies to alcohol self-efficacy scale total score and subscales scores at intake, 6 weeks and 3 months|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95818946|NCT04446312|191609381|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|4.27|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.27|-3.97|<0.001
95818947|NCT05360966|191609434|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|46.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|46.8|30.8|<0.0001
95818948|NCT05360966|191609435|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||0.9|-7.2|0.1321
95818949|NCT05360966|191609436|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.8|6.9|<0.0001
95818950|NCT05360966|191609437|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|47.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|47.9|32.3|<0.0001
95818951|NCT05360966|191609438|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||8.9|6.3|<0.0001
95818952|NCT05360966|191609439|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|45.9||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|45.9|28.7|<0.0001
95854764|NCT04040933|191669549|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95818953|NCT05360966|191609440|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|9.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.6|6.5|<0.0001
95818954|NCT05360966|191609441|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.3|-6.1|0.5626
95818955|NCT05360966|191609442|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.6|-6.3|0.5981
95818956|NCT05360966|191609443|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||3.2|-6.4|0.5161
95818957|NCT05360966|191609444|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||5.4|-4.5|0.8574
95818958|NCT05360966|191609445|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.2||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||4.2|-6.3|0.6980
95818959|NCT00348946|191609524|SUPERIORITY|BOT Visual-motor control||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95818960|NCT00348946|191609524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT upper limb speed||||0.17
95818961|NCT00348946|191609524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||BOT strength||||0.17
95818962|NCT00348946|191609524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Hand dynamometer||||0.06
95818963|NCT00348946|191609524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||PANESS||||0.87
95818964|NCT00348946|191609525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: General concept ability||||0.44
95818965|NCT00348946|191609525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Verbal Cluster||||0.57
95818966|NCT00348946|191609525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Nonverbal Cluster||||0.55
95818967|NCT00348946|191609525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||DAS: Spatial Cluster||||0.65
95818968|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Digit Span backward||||0.23
95818969|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||Phonetic fluency||||0.36
95818970|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||Semantic fluency||||0.37
95818971|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: omissions||||0.41
95818972|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: commissions||||0.73
95818973|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: hit reaction time||||0.40
95818974|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: variability||||0.95
95818975|NCT00348946|191609526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||CPT: preservations||||0.78
95818976|NCT00348946|191609527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Behavior total||||0.16
95818977|NCT00348946|191609527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: Internalizing total||||0.10
95818978|NCT00348946|191609527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANCOVA|||CBCL: externalizing total||||0.24
95818979|NCT00348946|191609527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||CDI: Total||||0.50
95818980|NCT00348946|191609528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
95818981|NCT03332173|191609600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value was based on the exact binomial test against the null hypothesis H0: MRR = 0.30 at a significance level of 0.025 (1-sided)|Exact binomial test|||Zanubrutinib versus historical control estimate of 30%||||<0.0001
95818982|NCT05507567|191609657|OTHER|||||||0.0331|||||||Chi-squared|||A priori primary analysis group||||0.0331
95818983|NCT05507567|191609658|OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1427
95818984|NCT05507567|191609659|OTHER|||||||0.1307||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.1307
95818985|NCT05507567|191609660|OTHER|||||||0.0382||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0382
95818986|NCT05507567|191609661|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||H-L estimation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum||||||0.0110
95818987|NCT04830215|191609688|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95818988|NCT04830215|191609689|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||MMRM included fixed effect terms for visit, baseline value, an interaction term of baseline value by visit, and trial center.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95818989|NCT02526212|191609743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the small sample size, planned analyses that assessed for clustering by group assignment or primary care physician could not be conducted. Chi square using fisher's exact test was conducted to investigate differences in abstinence between study arms.||||0.44
95818990|NCT02526212|191609746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Each of the 17 items were rated on a scale from 1 to 5. For each participant, the scores from these items were summed and divided by 17 for an average satisfaction score. The average satisfaction score was compared between study arms.||||0.20
95818991|NCT00040742|191609748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||.017
95818992|NCT00040742|191609748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.036|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.036
95818993|NCT00040742|191609748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.431|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.431
95818994|NCT00040742|191609748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Parameter estimated using a contrast.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs. Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Peak Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.003
95818995|NCT00040742|191609749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (0.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 0.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.046
95818996|NCT00040742|191609749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.0g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.076
95854765|NCT04040933|191669549|OTHER|Change from Baseline In Itchy Score was analyzed within-treatment and between-treatment. The within-treatment comparison was performed at each post-baseline time point by comparing the post-baseline scores with the baseline score within each treatment using the paired t-test. The between-treatment comparison was performed by comparing the change from baseline between treatments using a mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.325
95818997|NCT00040742|191609749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.738|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted using theTukey-Kramer method.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analyses and Type 3 tests of fixed effects using the Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom procedure were used.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (1.5 gm ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"H0: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between 1.5g and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.738
95818998|NCT00040742|191609749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts used for estimation.|The estimation parameter (mean difference) is the difference in mean change from baseline (post-intervention - baseline) between groups (any ginger - placebo). Negative values are favorable for the ginger group.|"Placebo vs Any Ginger. H0: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea = 0.~Ha: Mean difference between \[(0.5g +1.0g +1.5g) / 3\] and placebo of change from baseline of Average Acute Nausea \> 0. (Two-sided)"||||0.013
95818999|NCT01313910|191609774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxin-rank test used to determine decrease in bowel movements/day after 8 weeks of intervention||||0.008
95819000|NCT01313910|191609775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95819001|NCT01313910|191609776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95819002|NCT01313910|191609778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95819003|NCT01340664|191609779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.251|||ANCOVA|||||-0.251|-0.637|<0.001
95819004|NCT01340664|191609779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.792|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||||-0.407|-0.792|<0.001
95819005|NCT01340664|191609780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|-14.38|||ANCOVA|||||-14.38|-32.78|<0.001
95819006|NCT01340664|191609780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.661|<|0.001||95.0|-33.18|-14.83|||ANCOVA|||||-14.83|-33.18|<0.001
95819007|NCT01340664|191609781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.1|<0.001
95819008|NCT01340664|191609781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.5|<0.001
95819009|NCT01340664|191609782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.90|1.21|0.013
95819010|NCT01340664|191609782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|1.68|<0.001
95958505|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.24|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|1.57||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||1.57|-4.05|=0.374
95819011|NCT01926444|191609785|OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||ANOVA|||AUC- censorsed (standardized); FAS||||0.506
95819012|NCT01926444|191609785|OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (standardized); FAS||||0.299
95819013|NCT01926444|191609785|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||ANOVA|||AUC Censored (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.234
95819014|NCT01926444|191609785|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANOVA|||AUC LOCF (Standardized)- PP Population||||0.219
95819015|NCT01926444|191609786|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||Time to Caecum||||0.047
95819016|NCT01926444|191609787|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
95819017|NCT02622295|191609794|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95819018|NCT02622295|191609795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95819019|NCT02622295|191609796|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95819020|NCT02622295|191609797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.467
95819021|NCT02622295|191609798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95819022|NCT02622295|191609799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.932|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.932
95819023|NCT02622295|191609800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.326
95819024|NCT02622295|191609801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.673
95819025|NCT02622295|191609802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.539
95819026|NCT02622295|191609803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.155
95819027|NCT02622295|191609804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
95819028|NCT02622295|191609805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.493
95819029|NCT02622295|191609806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.458
95819030|NCT02520388|191609807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
95819031|NCT02520388|191609808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.05
95819032|NCT02340169|191609814|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Adrenal suppression rates in the evaluable population were 35% (21 out of 60), 43.3% (13 out of 30) and 20% (2 out of 10) in Cohorts 1, 2 a nd 3, respectively.|||
95819033|NCT01158820|191609849|OTHER|No data available for power analysis|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95819034|NCT01158820|191609850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.75|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are µg|See reference power analysis||||<0.01
95819035|NCT01158820|191609851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||units are mg|See reference for power analysis||||0.01
95819036|NCT00707993|191609870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||ANCOVA|Treatment, randomization schedule, and geographic region as class effects; baseline value for the endpoint as a continuous covariate.||Primary null hypothesis: the average Week 52 HbA1c change from Baseline for alogliptin is inferior to that for glipizide (1-sided 97.5% CI \[alpha=0.025\] compared to non-inferiority margin of 0.4%). If the primary null hypothesis was rejected (non-inferiority demonstrated), an additional comparison for statistical superiority of alogliptin was performed. The CI was re-evaluated; statistical superiority declared if the upper limit was \< 0%.||0.13||
95819037|NCT04409834|191609896|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.95||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.55|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.55|1.08|0.028
95819038|NCT04409834|191609897|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the FDAC arm divided by the total number of wins in the SDPAC arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the FDAC arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.79||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.47|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||FDAC = Full Dose Anticoagulation; SDPAC = Standard Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation||3.47|0.92|0.087
95819039|NCT04409834|191609898|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|1.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||2.01|0.54|0.90
95819040|NCT04409834|191609899|SUPERIORITY|"Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided~* The estimated win ratio is calculated by taking the total number of wins in the Anti-platelet arm divided by the total number of wins in the No Anti-platelet arm. A win ratio greater than 1 was in favor of the Anti-platelet arm.~* The win ratio methodology is explained in the following reference Pocock et al. Eur Heart J 2012;33:176-82 (doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352)."|Win Ratio|0.79||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.65|||Stratified Win-Ratio Analysis, 2-sided|||||1.65|0.38|0.53
95819041|NCT00932035|191609913|SUPERIORITY|To achieve a power of 0.84, a sample size of 72 patients, evenly distributed is required. With 36 patients per group, a Fisher's exact test with a one-sided alpha of 0.05 will have a 84% power to detect the difference between the experimental group (axillary reverse mapping) of 5% or less and a control group (standard dissection) of 30% or more. Response estimates were chosen based on reported lymphedema rates.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95819042|NCT00932035|191609914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95819043|NCT00932035|191609915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95819044|NCT01682356|191609963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0153|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0153
95819045|NCT01682356|191609964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||||||0.0131
95819046|NCT01682356|191609965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.83
95819047|NCT01682356|191609966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 6.06 x 10\^-18.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
95819048|NCT01682356|191609967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 1.87 x 10\^-20.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
95958506|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.99|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|3.8||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.80|-1.82|=0.478
95819049|NCT01682356|191609968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 8.23 x 10\^-21.|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
95819050|NCT01682356|191609969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
95819051|NCT01682356|191609970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6847||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6847
95819052|NCT01682356|191609971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
95819053|NCT01682356|191609972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4078||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Plasma nitrate values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.4078
95819054|NCT01682356|191609973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3042||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3042
95861696|NCT02280408|191682358|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861697|NCT02280408|191682358|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861698|NCT02280408|191682358|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.132
95819055|NCT01682356|191609974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 3.469 x 10\^-7.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
95819056|NCT01682356|191609975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-07||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 7.202 x 10\^-8|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||<0.0000001
95819057|NCT01682356|191609976|SUPERIORITY|||||||2.13e-06||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity. Exact P value 2.129 x 10\^-6.|ANOVA|Breath nitric oxide values were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.00000213
95819058|NCT01682356|191609977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
95819059|NCT01682356|191609978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0598||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.05980
95819060|NCT01682356|191609979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3918||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.3918
95958507|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.09||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.09|-3.12|=0.690
95819061|NCT01682356|191609980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.09870
95819062|NCT01682356|191609981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
95819063|NCT01682356|191609982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6044||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.6044
95819064|NCT01682356|191609983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8819||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8819
95819065|NCT01682356|191609984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8987||||||P values adjusted for multiplicity|ANOVA|Values for blood pressure were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA followed by Holm-Šídák multiple comparison testing||||||0.8987
95819066|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.22||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.22|-3.62|
95819067|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.98||||||Day 8 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.30|
95819068|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.68||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.68|-3.20|
95819069|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.15||||||Day 8 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO|LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.15|-4.38|
95819070|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.88||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.88|-5.06|
95819071|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-2.14||||||Day 8 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.14|-4.57|
95819072|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-1.89||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.89|-3.66|
95958508|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.12|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.71||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.71|-0.48|=0.106
95819073|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|-2.05||||||Day 8: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-2.05|-3.79|
95819074|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.31||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.31|-4.28|
95819075|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.67||||||Day 29 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.67|-4.03|
95819076|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.52||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.52|-4.04|
95819077|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.85||||||Day 29 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.85|-5.16|
95819078|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-3.09||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-3.09|-6.13|
95819079|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.52||||||Day 29 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.52|-4.68|
95819080|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-2.02||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.02|-4.43|
95819081|NCT02712983|191610013|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.78||||||Day 29: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.78|-4.19|
95819082|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.36||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.36|-3.82|
95819083|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29||||||Day 57 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.29|-2.21|
95819084|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.08||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.08|-3.87|
95819085|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.16||||||Day 57 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.16|-3.34|
95819086|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.22||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-2.22|-5.50|
95819087|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|0.41||||||Day 57 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.41|-3.26|
95819088|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.25||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.25|-3.98|
95819089|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.19||||||Day 57: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.19|-2.50|
95819090|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.38||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.38|-4.00|
95819091|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.13||||||Day 85 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.13|-3.81|
95819092|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.96|
95819093|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-1.73||||||Day 85 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.73|-5.44|
95819094|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.07||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.07|-4.90|
95958509|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||2.12|-3.89|=0.547
95819095|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.53||||||Day 85 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.53|-4.66|
95819096|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.17||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.17|-4.11|
95819097|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.23||||||Day 85: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-1.23|-4.12|
95819098|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.08||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.08|-4.55|
95819099|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.71||||||Day 113 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|-1.61|
95819100|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-0.29||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.29|-4.93|
95819101|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.25||||||Day 113 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.25|-3.62|
95819102|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.3||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.30|-4.94|
95958510|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.19|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|5.18||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.18|-0.81|=0.144
95819103|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.43||||||Day 113 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.43|-4.37|
95819104|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.45||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-1.45|-4.24|
95819105|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.13||||||Day 113: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.13|-2.73|
95819106|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.73||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.73|-3.64|
95819107|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.43||||||EoT Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.43|-1.61|
95819108|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.25||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.25|-2.81|
95819109|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.14|
95819110|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.98||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.98|-3.89|
95819111|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.22||||||EoT Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.22|-3.12|
95819112|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-0.85||||||EoT: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||-0.85|-3.08|
95819113|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.04||||||EoT: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.04|-2.25|
95819114|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.99||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.99|-2.63|
95819115|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.98||||||Day 141 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.98|-1.83|
95819116|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.41||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.41|-2.03|
95819117|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.01||||||Day 141 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.01|-3.68|
95819118|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|1.07||||||Day 141 Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||1.07|-2.78|
95819119|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|0.89||||||Day 141 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.89|-3.36|
95819120|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.98||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.98|-1.97|
95819121|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.45||||||Day 141: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.45|-2.45|
95819122|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.61||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||0.61|-3.24|
95819123|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.91||||||Day 169 Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.91|-3.05|
95819124|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.62||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.62|-2.73|
95819125|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.08||||||Day 169 Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||-0.08|-4.22|
95819126|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.1||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.10|-2.48|
95819127|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.13||||||Day 169 Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.13|-2.33|
95819128|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.86||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||0.86|-2.24|
95819129|NCT02712983|191610014|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.4||||||Day 169: Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||0.40|-2.61|
95819130|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.18|0.14|
95819131|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.85|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.85|0.18|
95819132|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.77|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.77|0.42|
95819133|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.20|
95819134|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.17|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.17|0.21|
95819135|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.62|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.62|0.44|
95819136|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.23|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||2.23|0.44|
95819137|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.71|0.34|
95819138|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.83|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.83|0.08|
95819139|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.89|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.89|0.25|
95819140|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.93|0.25|
95819141|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.36|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.36|0.19|
95819142|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.57|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.57|0.02|
95819143|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.41|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.41|0.16|
95861699|NCT02280408|191682358|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.070
95819144|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.31|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.31|0.13|
95819145|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.8|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.80|0.28|
95819146|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|104.19|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||104.19|1.10|
95819147|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|52.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||52.29|0.41|
95819148|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|37.06|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||37.06|0.28|
95819149|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|25.94|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||25.94|0.10|
95819150|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|117.34|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||117.34|1.09|
95819151|NCT02712983|191610015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|37.32|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||37.32|0.50|
95958511|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.37|||=|0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|2.17||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||2.17|-4.91|=0.431
95819152|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.15|46.81|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||46.81|-27.15|
95819153|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|62.14|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||62.14|-22.63|
95819154|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.32|47.26|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||47.26|-31.32|
95819155|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|51.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||51.89|-26.49|
95819156|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|89.61|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||89.61|3.37|
95819157|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.21|40.64|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||40.64|-34.21|
95819158|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|50.89|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||50.89|-8.03|
95819159|NCT02712983|191610016|OTHER||LS Mean Diff (SE) vs pooled placebo|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.52|41.29|||||ANCOVA model includes treatment as a fixed-effect factor and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||41.29|-17.52|
95819160|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.13|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.13|0.51|
95819161|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.46|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.46|0.15|
95819162|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.21|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.21|0.44|
95819163|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.18|0.32|
95958512|NCT04159805|191889256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||=|0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.74|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||4.74|-2.34|=0.488
95819164|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.10|
95819165|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.99|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.99|0.43|
95819166|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.76|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.76|0.37|
95819167|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.61|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Overall Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||1.61|0.36|
95819168|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.30|
95819169|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.03|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort A: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.03|0.20|
95819170|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||3.60|0.40|
95819171|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.55|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.55|0.31|
95819172|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.27|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||1.27|0.06|
95819173|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.73|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||3.73|0.45|
95819174|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||1.60|0.27|
95819175|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.02|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Oral Pooled TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||2.02|0.40|
95819176|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|16.52|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort A: TIP, Pooled PBO||16.52|0.84|
95819177|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|8.16|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP, Pooled PBO||8.16|0.22|
95819178|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.05|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort B: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||10.05|0.46|
95819179|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.87|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP, Pooled PBO||4.87|0.05|
95819180|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|12.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Parenteral Cohort C: TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||12.49|0.53|
95819181|NCT02712983|191610021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.68|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Paremteral Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||5.68|0.33|
95819182|NCT02712983|191610026|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|38.18|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||38.18|0.83|
95819183|NCT02712983|191610026|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|19.16|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||19.16|0.21|
95819184|NCT02712983|191610026|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|21.8|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||21.80|0.43|
95819185|NCT02712983|191610026|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|17.42|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||17.42|0.19|
95819186|NCT02712983|191610026|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|25.03|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||25.03|0.47|
95819187|NCT02712983|191610026|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|16.07|||||Generalized linear model assuming the negative binomial distribution including treatment and baseline macrolide use as class-effect factors. The log exposure to study in years is included as an offset variable in the model.|||16.07|0.47|
95819188|NCT02712983|191610027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|26.42|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort A (3 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||26.42|0.77|
95819189|NCT02712983|191610027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|14.47|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||14.47|0.28|
95819190|NCT02712983|191610027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.6|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort B (5 capsules o.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||11.60|0.20|
95819191|NCT02712983|191610027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.49|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP, Pooled PBO||7.49|0.06|
95819192|NCT02712983|191610027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|23.29|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Cohort C (4 capsules b.i.d.): TIP/PBO, Pooled PBO||23.29|0.62|
95819193|NCT02712983|191610027|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.45|||||Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as fixed effect and number of pulmonary exacerbations in the 12 months prior to screening as a covariate, stratified by baseline macrolide use.|Pooled TIP, Pooled PBO||9.45|0.35|
95819194|NCT02522429|191610121|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7)|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95819195|NCT02522429|191610122|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistic adjusted at familywise level alpha of 0.05 with a Gaussian Random Field Cluster Correction (Z \> 2.7). All significant voxels have an associated p-value smaller-or-equal to 0.05 (corrected for multiplicity).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95819196|NCT02522429|191610124|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximum CRS-R prior to LIFUP compared to Maximum CRS-R after LIFUP||||<0.05
95819197|NCT00294671|191610126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 2 years.||||<0.001
95819198|NCT00294671|191610126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in NIS+7 change from baseline to 1years.||||0.02
95819199|NCT00294671|191610127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.002
95819200|NCT00294671|191610127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in Kumamoto score change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.10
95819201|NCT00294671|191610128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.21
95819202|NCT00294671|191610128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in mBMI change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.43
95819203|NCT00294671|191610129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.001
95819204|NCT00294671|191610129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 physical component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.06
95819205|NCT00294671|191610130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 2 years.||||0.06
95819206|NCT00294671|191610130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Longitudinal analysis of the difference between placebo and diflunisal treatment groups in SF-36 mental component change from baseline to 1 year.||||0.37
95819207|NCT02978157|191610147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95819208|NCT00485758|191610151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-21.4|-14.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||-14.4|-21.4|<0.001
95819209|NCT00485758|191610152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|20.7|25.7|||Repeated Measures Analysis|Study times: 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Terms: treatment-by-time, gender-by-time and baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol -by-time interaction.||||25.7|20.7|<0.001
95819210|NCT00485758|191610153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.2|-18.9|||ANCOVA|Nonparametric Analysis of Covariance model based on Tukey's normalized ranks with term for treatment, gender and Tukey's normal score of baseline.|The median difference between treatments is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift with a corresponding distribution-free Confidence Interval based on Wilcoxon's rank|||-18.9|-27.2|<0.001
95861700|NCT02280408|191682358|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.743
95861701|NCT02280408|191682359|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861702|NCT02280408|191682359|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95819211|NCT00910910|191610160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.66|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.66|0.88|0.323
95819212|NCT00910910|191610161|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|Stratification factors: Disease stage (Binet A or Binet B or Rai I or Rai II versus (VS) Binet C or Rai III or Rai IV); Presence of at least one of the co-morbidities Asparate transaminase (AST)/Alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3.0 times Upper Limits of Normal (ULN,) Creatinine clearance ≥ 30 to \< 60 mL/min, Yes VS No); Presence of at least one 11q deletion, 17p deletion, unmutated Immunoglobulin Heavy-chain Variable-region (IgVH) or Beta-2 Microglobulin (ß2M )\> 4.0 mg/L (Yes versus No VS Unknown)||1.29|0.76|0.967
95819213|NCT00910910|191610164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Fisher Exact|||||0.96|0.44|0.032
95861703|NCT02280408|191682359|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||<0.001
95861704|NCT02280408|191682359|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.014
95861705|NCT02280408|191682359|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.011
95819214|NCT00910910|191610165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Fisher Exact|||||0.98|0.45|0.047
95819215|NCT00910910|191610166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.52|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.52|0.58|0.826
95819216|NCT00910910|191610167|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.05|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.05|0.48|0.149
95819217|NCT00910910|191610170|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46|||Log Rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups.|||1.46|0.73|0.883
95819218|NCT00910910|191610171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.34|||stratified log rank||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with treatment groups|||1.34|0.83|0.709
95819219|NCT03024112|191610176|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.680
95819220|NCT01399229|191610180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Agreement between SureCALL® and Tocodynamometer Contraction Peak Times~Null hypothesis: The mean peak difference between RMS and TOCO is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: The mean peak difference is not equal to 0."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4086||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.74|30.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|-28.74|0.4901
95819221|NCT02253433|191610181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-.87|0.575
95819222|NCT02253433|191610182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.68|-.18|0.141
95819223|NCT02253433|191610183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|ED visits over the previous 12 months were positively skewed (skewness 2.95; kurtosis 14.1); the responses were dichotomized (0 vs. 1 or more).||||1.57|.47|0.043
95819224|NCT04503551|191610184|SUPERIORITY||CMH Weighted Percentage Difference|71.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|61.0|81.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was done by baseline ETDRS-DRSS level (47 vs.53) \& baseline intraretinal/subretinal fluid status on SD-OCT (present vs. absent).||||81.2|61.0|<0.0001
95819225|NCT04503551|191610185|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the Hazard ratio (HR).|0.3|0.1|< 0.0001
95819226|NCT04503551|191610186|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.1|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.1|0.1|< 0.0001
95819227|NCT04503551|191610187|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.3|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.3|0.1|<0.0001
95861706|NCT02280408|191682359|OTHER|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||||||0.923
95861707|NCT04075734|191682379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.59
95861708|NCT04075734|191682379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.003
95861709|NCT04075734|191682380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
95861710|NCT04075734|191682381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.07
95861711|NCT04075734|191682382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.2
95861712|NCT04075734|191682383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.006
95861713|NCT04075734|191682384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.86
95958513|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.34|||=|0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.45||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.45|-4.14|=0.855
95958514|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.19|||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|6.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||6.95|-0.56|=0.093
95819228|NCT04503551|191610188|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
95819229|NCT04503551|191610189|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|8.3|21.9|||Fisher Exact|||||21.9|8.3|0.0003
95819230|NCT04503551|191610190|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.1|0.2|||Stratified Log-Rank||||A stratified log-rank test was used for hypothesis testing comparing the PDS arm with the comparator arm. A Cox proportional hazards regression model (stratified) was used as a supportive analysis to estimate the HR.|0.2|0.1|<0.0001
95819231|NCT00237666|191610234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95819232|NCT03938103|191610243|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.101
95819233|NCT03938103|191610244|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.383
95819234|NCT01152788|191610277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Log Rank|||||2.01|0.6|0.76
95819235|NCT01152788|191610278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|16.8||||||||16.8|-18.7|
95819236|NCT01152788|191610279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.38|0.55
95819237|NCT01152788|191610280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95819238|NCT04445519|191610281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95.1% CIs around the difference (NCX 470 minus latanoprost 0.005%) in mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline in the study eye was greater than or equal to -1.5 mmHg at all time points and was greater than or equal to -1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.1||||The primary efficacy assessment was the non-inferiority analysis of the difference in the treatment effect between NCX 470 and latanoprost 0.005% for mean IOP reduction from time-matched baseline at the 8AM and 4PM time-points.|||The analysis assumed a true difference of 1.0 mmHg at the Week 2 time points and 1.25 mmHg at the Week 6 and Month 3 time points; a common standard deviation (SD) at each time-point of 3.25 mmHg; and a two-sided significance level of 4.9%.|||||
95819239|NCT00394329|191610291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96||Hochberg adjustment was applied to the p-value to account for each of three active group comparisons to the placebo group. The unadjusted p-value is 0.033.|Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.32|0.066
95819240|NCT00894699|191610308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95819241|NCT00894699|191610308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95819242|NCT02626156|191610309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Chi-squared||Asymptotic standard error was used|||0.3|-0.02|0.091
95819243|NCT00418093|191610337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.87||Exact 95% CI for the partial response rate (13/19 = 0.684): 43.4% \~ 87.4%|Estimation of PR based on Binomial Model|We did not perform a test. Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model is provided. Thus there is no p-value to report.|Point estimate of PR and its exact 95% CI based on Binomial Model|||0.87|0.43|
95819244|NCT00418093|191610337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single Proportion|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.874||We did not perform hypothesis test. We made an estimation for a single proportion (partial response) with its two-sided 95% exact Binomial confidence interval.|Fisher Exact||Estimation of a single proportion (partial response rate) with exact 95% Binomial confidence interval|||0.874|0.434|
95819245|NCT03035864|191610341|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.11|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||6.63|-6.85|=0.974
95819246|NCT03035864|191610341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|2.88|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|9.61|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis related to severity||9.61|-3.85|=0.399
95861714|NCT04075734|191682385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
95861715|NCT04075734|191682386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of intervention over time.||||||0.02
95819247|NCT03035864|191610342|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.04|||=|0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.02|=0.214
95819248|NCT03035864|191610346|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.43|||=|0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|5.27|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 4||5.27|-6.13|=0.881
95819249|NCT03035864|191610346|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-0.31|||=|0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - week 8||6.33|-6.96|=0.926
95819250|NCT03035864|191610346|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-2.29|||=|0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.38|||ANCOVA|||Frequency - Week 12||3.38|-7.97|=0.426
95819251|NCT03035864|191610346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.62|||=|0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 4||6.29|-5.04|=0.828
95819252|NCT03035864|191610346|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.86|||=|0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|9.47|||ANCOVA|||Severity - Week 8||9.47|-3.75|=0.394
95861716|NCT04075734|191682387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.29
95819253|NCT03035864|191610346|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-1.49|||=|0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|3.44|||ANCOVA|||Severeity - Week 12||3.44|-6.41|=0.552
95819254|NCT01392573|191610412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.84|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous antidiabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate||||-0.84|-1.25|<0.0001
95819255|NCT03063606|191610444|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.0002
95819256|NCT03063606|191610445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||||||.83
95819257|NCT03079531|191610450|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in papule/pustule count at baseline and after 16 weeks of secukinumab; the alternative hypothesis is that there would be a difference. Using an alpha=0.05 and power=0.80 (two sided test), the sample size needed would be 20. Assuming a dropout rate of 20%, 24 patients would be needed to achieve sufficient sample size.||||0.01
95819258|NCT03079531|191610451|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
95819259|NCT03079531|191610452|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
95819260|NCT03079531|191610453|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
95819261|NCT03079531|191610454|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95819262|NCT03079531|191610456|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
95819263|NCT01198574|191610462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GLM for repeated measures|The Hb concentration at Week 0, Week 6 and Week 12 are analyzed using GLM repeated measures.||"Null Hypothesis~1. Haemoglobin level was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the haemoglobin level of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
95819264|NCT01198574|191610463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis~1. Iron status indicator (serum ferritin) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve the iron status indicator (serum ferritin) concentration of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
95819265|NCT01198574|191610464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||GLM for repeated measures ANOVA|||"Null Hypothesis~1. iron status indicator (sTfR) was not influenced by sub-clinical inflammation during iron supplementation in the anaemic adolescent school girls~2. Vitamin A does not improve iron status indicator (sTfR) of the anaemic schoolgirls during iron supplementation in the presence of inflammation."||||<0.05
95819266|NCT00841412|191610465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The above results are for just one of multiple feeding assistance care process measures: proportion of meals during which residents received assistance to eat baseline to post intervention.|||0.96|0.59|<0.05
95819267|NCT00325130|191610466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819268|NCT00325130|191610468|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819269|NCT00325130|191610469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819270|NCT00325130|191610470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -5%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819271|NCT00325130|191610471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819272|NCT00325130|191610472|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819273|NCT00325130|191610473|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819274|NCT00325130|191610474|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819275|NCT00325130|191610475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819276|NCT00325130|191610476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The difference in seroconversion rates (concomitant group -~nonconcomitant group) must be greater than -10%"|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|Miettinen & Nurminen|Miettinen \& Nurminen method for difference in proportions, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26||||||<0.001
95819277|NCT00325130|191610477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819278|NCT00325130|191610478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819279|NCT00325130|191610479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819280|NCT00325130|191610480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.5."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819281|NCT00325130|191610481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819282|NCT00325130|191610482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819283|NCT00325130|191610483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819284|NCT00325130|191610484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The ratio of GMTs (concomitant group / nonconcomitant group)~must be greater than 0.67."|||||<|0.001||95.0||||Since p\<0.05, the hypothesis of noninferiority is accepted for this outcome.|ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region, vaccination group and their interaction.||||||<0.001
95819285|NCT06631274|191610502|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.184|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for personal adjustment|Hedges' g=-0.14. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is personal adjustment||0.184|-0.296|0.646
95819286|NCT06631274|191610502|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.473|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for internalizing problems|Hedges' g=0.40. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is internalizing problems||0.473|-0.096|0.196
95958515|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.8|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.2||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.20|-2.61|=0.410
95819287|NCT06631274|191610503|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.539|||ANOVA|one-way repeated ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.92. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.539|0.112|<0.01
95819288|NCT06631274|191610504|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.681||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|1.549|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted.|Hedges' g=0.51. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.549|-0.187|0.11
95819289|NCT06631274|191610505|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.367|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for avoidance coping|Hedges' g=0.16. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is avoidance coping||0.367|-0.212|0.599
95861717|NCT04075734|191682388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.13
95819290|NCT06631274|191610505|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.617|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for approach coping|Hedges' g=0.63. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|The outcome measure is approach coping||0.617|0.152|0.044
95819291|NCT06631274|191610506|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.764|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.85. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||1.764|0.284|<.01
95819292|NCT06631274|191610507|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.589||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.178|-0.0005|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.61. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||-0.0005|-1.178|0.0498
95819293|NCT06631274|191610508|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.65|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=0.41. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.650|-0.127|0.182
95819294|NCT06631274|191610509|EQUIVALENCE|A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the impact of intervention, in which participation in the intervention (treatment vs. control) was used as the between-subject factor and time points (time 1 and time 2) was used as the within-subject factor. The interaction between group and time was the focus and was reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.551|||ANOVA|one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted|Hedges' g=-0.04. The mean difference between the two time points (change) was computed as time2 minus time1. Hedges' g was the standardized mean difference between change in the treatment group and change in the control group.|||0.551|-0.612|0.927
95819295|NCT03430843|191610516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.85|||1-sided, Log Rank Test|||||0.85|0.57|0.0001
95819296|NCT01477710|191610557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ANOVA F-value|266.39|||<|0.0001||||||This p-value is for the omnibus F-test of between-treatment differences in tidal volume|ANOVA|The p-value for the omnibus F-test was \<0.0001||Using ANOVA, pairwise comparisons of treatment means were made using a Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95819297|NCT01477710|191610557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|314.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|264.7|364.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||364.1|264.7|<0.0001
95819298|NCT01477710|191610557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|576.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|526.9|626.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||626.3|526.9|<0.0001
95819299|NCT01477710|191610557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|262.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.5|312.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||312.0|212.5|<0.0001
95819300|NCT01893411|191610573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.14|-0.23|= 0.65
95819301|NCT01893411|191610573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|-0.04|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.18|-0.26|= 0.741
95958516|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|7.5||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||7.50|-1.25|=0.154
95819302|NCT01893411|191610574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.16|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.34|-0.02|= 0.075
95819303|NCT01893411|191610574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-Mean difference|0.06|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||0.27|-0.16|= 0.603
95958517|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||=|0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.41||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||3.41|-5.29|=0.662
95819304|NCT00336284|191610611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95819305|NCT00336284|191610612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size of the study is based on the safety endpoint and based on a Blackwelder type test of non inferiority with the standard design criteria: Type I error (one-sided), statistical power of 80%, and 2:1 randomization. The evaluation of the primary safety endpoint was based on an exact binomial non-inferiority test comparing the proportions of patient deaths, strokes or surgical interventions.||||||0.005||95.0|||||Exact binomial test for non-inferiority|1-sided||||||0.005
95819306|NCT00336284|191610613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95819307|NCT00861757|191610616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.0|0.003
95819308|NCT00861757|191610616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.9|0.004
95819309|NCT00861757|191610616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-3.7|<0.001
95819310|NCT00861757|191610617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
95819311|NCT00861757|191610617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.005
95819312|NCT00861757|191610617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||This is the p value for the Voiding (Obstructive) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
95819313|NCT00861757|191610617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.0|0.072
95819314|NCT00861757|191610617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.021
95819315|NCT00861757|191610617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||This is the p value for the Storage (Irritative) Score.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.023
95819316|NCT00861757|191610618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.031
95819317|NCT00861757|191610618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.013
95819318|NCT00861757|191610618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
95958518|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.26|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|7.54||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||7.54|-1.02|=0.130
95958519|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.27|||=|0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|5.98||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||5.98|-3.44|=0.586
95819319|NCT00861757|191610619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.0|0.201
95819320|NCT00861757|191610619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.393
95819321|NCT00861757|191610619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.4|0.007
95819322|NCT00861757|191610620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.6|0.331
95819323|NCT00861757|191610620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.8|0.140
95819324|NCT00861757|191610620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.1|0.940
95819325|NCT00861757|191610621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819326|NCT00861757|191610621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819327|NCT00861757|191610621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the PGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819328|NCT00861757|191610622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 2.5 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
95819329|NCT00861757|191610622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 5.0 mg Tadalafil) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95819330|NCT00861757|191610622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||The p-value came from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to assess if there was any association between treatment (that is, placebo vs 0.2 mg Tamsulosin) and 7 categories of the CGI-I.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95819331|NCT00861757|191610623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.412
95819332|NCT00861757|191610623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
95819333|NCT00861757|191610623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.456
95819334|NCT00861757|191610624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.688
95819335|NCT00861757|191610624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.510
95819336|NCT00861757|191610624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
95819337|NCT00861757|191610625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95819338|NCT00861757|191610625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.274
95819339|NCT00861757|191610625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.538||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
95819340|NCT00861757|191610625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95819341|NCT00861757|191610625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.216
95819342|NCT00861757|191610625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.524
95819343|NCT00861757|191610626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.007
95819344|NCT00861757|191610626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.723
95819345|NCT00861757|191610626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.273
95819346|NCT00861757|191610626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.005
95958520|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.93|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||9.60|0.26|=0.039
95958521|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|3.6||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.60|-4.03|=0.909
95819347|NCT00861757|191610626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.054
95958522|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.65|||=|0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|6.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||6.40|-1.09|=0.158
95819348|NCT00861757|191610626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic blood pressure.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.278
95819349|NCT00861757|191610627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.330
95958523|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.88|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.05||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||5.05|-6.80|=0.764
95958524|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.2|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|11.06||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||11.06|-0.67|=0.080
95819350|NCT00861757|191610627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.838
95819351|NCT00861757|191610627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.409
95819352|NCT03308968|191610631|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.42|-3.84|<0.0001
95819353|NCT03308968|191610631|OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method with treatment, sex, region, special group of treatment failure (yes or no), migraine classification (that is; CM or EM), and treatment-by-migraine classification interaction as fixed effects, and baseline number of migraine days and years since onset of migraines as covariates. The stratification factors (as randomized) were used in the model.||-2.78|-4.19|<0.0001
95819354|NCT00135330|191610657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ratio of the ASI-iAUC at Week 20 to that at baseline was compared between the treatment groups.||||0.282
95819355|NCT00135330|191610658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95819356|NCT00135330|191610659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.308
95819357|NCT00135330|191610660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
95819358|NCT00135330|191610661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.252
95819359|NCT00135330|191610662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.465
95819360|NCT00135330|191610663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.348
95819361|NCT00135330|191610667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||||0.039
95819362|NCT00135330|191610668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.555
95819363|NCT00135330|191610670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.106
95819364|NCT00135330|191610671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.341
95819365|NCT00135330|191610672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||<0.001
95819366|NCT00135330|191610673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.276
95819367|NCT00135330|191610674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.840
95819368|NCT00135330|191610675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.096
95819369|NCT00135330|191610676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.875
95819370|NCT00135330|191610677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.581
95819371|NCT00135330|191610678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.631
95819372|NCT00135330|191610679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.724
95819373|NCT00135330|191610680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.117
95958525|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||3.95|-5.98|=0.677
95958526|NCT04159805|191889257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.81|||=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||9.73|-0.10|=0.055
95958527|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|4.27||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.27|-3.23|=0.780
95958528|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.5|||=|0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.99||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||3.99|-2.99|=0.771
95958529|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||=|0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|4.14||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||4.14|-4.22|=0.984
95958530|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.44|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|6.35||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||6.35|-1.47|=0.213
95958531|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.97|||=|0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.45||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||2.45|-6.40|=0.371
95819374|NCT00135330|191610681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.251
95819375|NCT00135330|191610682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||MMRM|||||||0.710
96000214|NCT01678846|191976556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio of less than 1 would demonstrate a protective effect of the intervention. Unadjusted odds ratio presented, accounting for correlation between students within schools.|Does the Toolkit intervention reduce physical violence from school staff to Ugandan primary school students.||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
95819376|NCT00135330|191610683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.575
95819377|NCT00135330|191610684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.436
95819378|NCT00135330|191610685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Model|||||||0.168
95958532|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.23||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||4.23|-4.01|=0.956
95958533|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.06|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|3.53||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.53|-5.65|=0.641
96000215|NCT03322657|191976560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.5|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||6.5|2.2|<0.001
96000216|NCT03322657|191976561|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14|-2.0|0.13
96000217|NCT03322657|191976562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.34|0.43|0.30
95819379|NCT00066222|191610725|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This study was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year overall survival rate from 47% to 60%. Using a one-group chi-square test with a one-sided significance level of 0.10, a sample of 67 patients was deemed sufficient to detect the difference between the null hypothesis (H0: P .47) and the alternative hypothesis (HA: P .60) with 80% power.|If the point estimate for two-year survival is less than or equal to 0.54815, the upper bound of the one-sided 90% confidence interval on 47%, then H0 would not be rejected and the conclusion would be that the two-year survival rate did not statistically improve from 47% under the new treatment. If the point estimate is greater than 0.54815, then H0 would be rejected and the conclusion is that the two-year survival rate did improve from 47% to 60% under the new treatment.|||
95819380|NCT00066222|191610728|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of severe esophagitis was 30% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 27 or more cases of severe esophagitis among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
95819381|NCT00066222|191610729|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The following rule would reject the null hypothesis that the proportion of treatment-related fatalities was less than or equal to 5% with an overall significance level of 0.05: 6 or more instances of treatment-related fatalities among the total sample of evaluable patients.|||
95819382|NCT00405392|191610731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95819383|NCT00405392|191610732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95819384|NCT00405392|191610733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9456
95819385|NCT00635349|191610734|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower confidence limit interval was less than -1.0 (1-sided , 97.5% confidence interval)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.4258|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.31||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-6.31|0.4258
96000218|NCT03322657|191976563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-0.35|0.21
96000219|NCT03322657|191976564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.81|-0.18|0.04
95819386|NCT00635349|191610735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0628|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.41||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-1.41|0.0628
95819387|NCT00635349|191610736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0131||||||Day 29: p-value was calculated by fisher exact test|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0131
95819388|NCT00635349|191610736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9834||||||Day 57; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.9834
95819389|NCT00635349|191610736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1131||||||Day 85; p-value was calculated by Chi-squared test|Chi-squared|||||||0.1131
95819390|NCT04283656|191610785|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
95819391|NCT04283656|191610786|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.32|0.66|
95819392|NCT04283656|191610787|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.24||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for doravirine C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.24|0.76|
95819393|NCT04283656|191610788|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.5||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.50|0.91|
95819394|NCT04283656|191610789|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.6||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||2.60|0.73|
96000220|NCT04382651|191976565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|4.7||1-Sided|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-2.7|0.33
96000221|NCT04083144|191976587|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95854766|NCT04040933|191669550|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||All hypothesis tests was conducted at 0.05 level without adjustment of multiple comparisons||||<0.001
96000222|NCT04083144|191976588|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.16||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
96000223|NCT04083144|191976589|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
96000224|NCT04083144|191976590|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.07||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
96000225|NCT04083144|191976591|SUPERIORITY||η2|0.17||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
96000226|NCT03443024|191976615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0165|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0165
95958534|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||3.95|-4.61|=0.876
95819395|NCT04283656|191610790|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.4||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment A (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for tenofovir C24 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.40|0.93|
95819396|NCT04283656|191610791|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratio for estradiol AUC falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.70|
95819397|NCT04283656|191610792|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.36||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol Cmax falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.36|0.92|
95819398|NCT04283656|191610793|EQUIVALENCE|The no-effect (bioequivalence) boundaries of 80%-125% were used.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 with a mean ratio of 1 for no effect was assumed.||A post hoc power analysis determined 80% power would be achieved for 6 subjects to detect an effect size of 1.43 or greater at 5% significance level.|Ratio represents Treatment C (Single-dose oral doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administered with estradiol and spironolactone) over Treatment B (Single-dose estradiol and spironolactone co-administered with placebo)|6 participants completed the study and were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. As all participants received the same treatment groups but not necessarily in the same order, calculations were done between arms (Sequence E and F). 10 subjects was determined to achieve 80% power to reject the null hypothesis (geometric mean ratios for estradiol C12 falls outside of the no-effect boundaries) with two-sided significance level of 0.05 assuming a mean ratio of 1 for no effect.||1.35|0.88|
95819399|NCT00995436|191610795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.36|||||Maxillary right molar|||0.36|-1.53|
95819400|NCT00995436|191610795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.04|||||Maxillary left molar|||-0.04|-1.89|
95819401|NCT00995436|191610795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.55|||||Maxillary right molar|||1.55|-0.32|
96000227|NCT03443024|191976615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0022
95958535|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.18||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.18|-6.91|=0.458
96000228|NCT03443024|191976615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0005
96000229|NCT03443024|191976616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0610
96000230|NCT03443024|191976616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
96000231|NCT03443024|191976616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
96000232|NCT03443024|191976617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1917
96000233|NCT03443024|191976617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0392|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0392
96000234|NCT03443024|191976617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
96000235|NCT03443024|191976618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2043
96000236|NCT03443024|191976618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0021
96000237|NCT03443024|191976618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0018
96000238|NCT03443024|191976619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0554
95861718|NCT04075734|191682389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.14
95819402|NCT00995436|191610795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.83|||||Maxillary left molar|||0.83|-1|
95819403|NCT00995436|191610795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.05||||||Maxillary right molar. F(2, 67) = 3.10. Overall effect of treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95819404|NCT00995436|191610795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The calculation indicated that for a study with the power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 we required 21 participants per group. Assumed drop out rate 20%, suggesting 75 patients required.||||||0.08||||||Overall effect of treatment F(2,67) = 2.58.|ANCOVA|||Maxillary left molar.||||0.08
95819405|NCT03162796|191610817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.1|18.6|< 0.001
95819406|NCT03162796|191610817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|26.1|< 0.001
95819407|NCT03162796|191610818|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2483|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.1325|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1325|-0.3640|< 0.001
95819408|NCT03162796|191610818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.3226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4385|-0.2066|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2066|-0.4385|< 0.001
95819409|NCT03162796|191610819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|12.1|< 0.001
95819410|NCT03162796|191610819|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|17.6|< 0.001
95819411|NCT03162796|191610820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|28.9|< 0.001
95819412|NCT03162796|191610820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|71.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||71.8|48.3|< 0.001
95819413|NCT03162796|191610821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|38.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.1|15.3|< 0.001
95819414|NCT03162796|191610821|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.0|23.5|< 0.001
95819415|NCT03162796|191610822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.73|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.98|-0.48||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.98|< 0.001
95819416|NCT03162796|191610822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-1.16|< 0.001
95819417|NCT03162796|191610823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-0.3|0.069
95861719|NCT04075734|191682390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeat measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.03
95819418|NCT03162796|191610823|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.9|< 0.001
95819419|NCT03162796|191610824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.3||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|1.0|0.036
95958536|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.68|||=|0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|4.0||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.00|-5.37|=0.769
95819420|NCT03162796|191610824|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|23.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.4|4.4|0.006
95819421|NCT03162796|191610825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|5.85|||ANCOVA|||||5.85|2.42|< 0.001
95819422|NCT03162796|191610825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001||95.0|3.19|6.63|||ANCOVA|||||6.63|3.19|< 0.001
96000239|NCT03443024|191976619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0037
95819423|NCT03162796|191610826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.5||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-1.6|0.094
95819424|NCT03162796|191610826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|34.6||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|4.9|0.013
95819425|NCT03162796|191610827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.83|0.185
95819426|NCT03162796|191610827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.74||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.24||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.24|0.004
95819427|NCT03162796|191610828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.77||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||2.77|-1.10|0.398
95819428|NCT03162796|191610828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.23||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.16||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||3.16|-0.71|0.214
95819429|NCT03162796|191610829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|34.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.8|-1.5|0.088
95819430|NCT03162796|191610829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|33.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.7|-6.9|0.212
95819431|NCT03162796|191610830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.82||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.49||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-4.12|0.121
95819432|NCT03162796|191610830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.95||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||0.95|-4.00|0.225
95861720|NCT04075734|191682391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.66
96000240|NCT03443024|191976619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
96000241|NCT03443024|191976620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0800
96000242|NCT03443024|191976620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
96000243|NCT03443024|191976620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
96000244|NCT03443024|191976621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0773|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0773
95861721|NCT04075734|191682392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used. The group x time interaction evaluated the effect of the intervention over time.||||||0.15
95861722|NCT06394323|191682450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Welch's t test, 2 sided|The Welch's t test statistic was -1.25 and the degrees of freedom were 84.67.|The mean difference was calculated by subtracting the mean DCS of the SOC arm from the mean DCS of the MyChoice intervention arm (MyChoice mean - SOC mean).|The null hypothesis is that the mean DCS for the MyChoice and SOC arms are equal.||1.9|-8.9|0.2157
95861723|NCT02655016|191682466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.755||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.755|0.502|<0.0001
95861724|NCT02655016|191682467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.106||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.106|0.442|0.1238
95861725|NCT02655016|191682468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|0.802||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||0.802|0.521|0.0001
95861726|NCT02655016|191682469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.2242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.139||p-value was calculated based on stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors: administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, best response to platinum therapy and HRD status.|Log Rank||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then niraparib can be considered as superior to placebo.|||1.139|0.577|0.2242
95861727|NCT02578095|191682496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.80|1.70|0.0032
95958537|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.14|||=|0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|4.8||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||4.80|-7.07|=0.699
95958538|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.1|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|6.62||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 14||6.62|-4.41|=0.687
95958539|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|5.95||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||5.95|-5.55|=0.944
96000245|NCT03443024|191976621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0459
95861728|NCT02578095|191682496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|10.54|||ANCOVA|||||10.54|3.76|<0.0001
96000246|NCT03443024|191976621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
96000247|NCT03443024|191976622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0047
95861729|NCT02578095|191682496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.55|12.6|||ANCOVA|||||12.60|5.55|<0.0001
95861730|NCT01303224|191682508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted by using the Hochberg Procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel-Test was used to compare separately each of the 3 active treatment groups with placebo using a two-sided overall significance level of 5%. The proportion of responders was tested with the following hypotheses: H0 (placebo) vs H1(Ibodutant:1mg/3mg/10mg). Approximately 80% power based on the assumptions: rate placebo 40%, expected mean therapeutic gain over placebo 15% for at least one dose of Ibodutant.||||<0.05
95861731|NCT01303224|191682509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure.|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.05
95861732|NCT01888432|191682513|NON_INFERIORITY|HO: πT - πC ≥ 0.12 vs. HA: πT - πC \< 0.12, where πT and πC are the true proportions of composite efficacy failure of tBPAR, GL, or D, (tBPAR/GL/D) at 12 months post-transplant for the respective treatment groups. The proportion of 0.12, or 12%, was pre-determined as the non-inferiority (NI) margin for composite efficacy failure.|Kaplan-Meier|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.7||Z-test p-value for non-inferiority test (non-inferiority margin = 12%) is for one-sided test and should be compared to 0.05 significance level.|Z-test|||non-inferior efficacy failure of the reduced tacrolimus regimen to control by rejecting the null hypothesis.||3.7|-5.2|< 0.001
95861733|NCT01888432|191682514|NON_INFERIORITY|the null hypothesis below was tested at the one-sided α = 0.05 level: H0: μT - μC ≤ -6 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs. HA: μT - μC \> -6 mL/min/1.73 m\^2, where μT and μC are the true means of change in eGFR (MDRD-4) from randomization to Month 12 post-transplant for the reduced tacrolimus group and control group, respectively.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.574|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.40|-0.09|< 0.001
95861734|NCT01888432|191682515|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.70|-1.21|<0.001
95861735|NCT01888432|191682517|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.0|-4.7|
95861736|NCT01888432|191682517|OTHER|tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|2.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||2.6|-5.1|
95861737|NCT01888432|191682517|OTHER|On-treatment tBPAR - month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.4|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||1.4|-5.7|
96000248|NCT03443024|191976622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95819433|NCT03299244|191610921|NON_INFERIORITY|Etelcalcetide was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide) was smaller than 12%, or if the lower bound of (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) greater than -12%. If this criterion was met, the 2 key secondary endpoints were tested sequentially. If both key secondary endpoints were statistically significant, the other secondary endpoints were to be formally tested at an overall significance level of 0.05.|Treatment Difference|4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|12.09|||||Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|"The analysis was conducted on the full analysis set (637 participants). Imputation under the non-inferiority null method was applied to participants who did not have PTH data during the EAP.~The Mantel-Haenszel estimator was used to calculate the treatment (Cinacalcet - Etelcalcetide), stratified by screening PTH level (\< 900 pg/mL, ≥ 900 pg/mL), screening serum cCa (\< 9.0 mg/dL, ≥ 9.0 mg/dL) measured by the central laboratory, and country (China versus non-China)."||12.09|-3.05|
95819434|NCT03299244|191610922|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||2.77|1.47|<0.001
95819435|NCT03299244|191610923|SUPERIORITY|Testing of this key secondary efficacy endpoint at an overall significance level of 0.05 was to be performed if non-inferiority was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, and superiority was demonstrated for the previous key secondary endpoint.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.96|1.03|0.033
95819436|NCT03299244|191610924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.5|||Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures|Model includes treatment group, randomization stratification factors, study week, and study week by treatment as covariates.|Treatment difference (Etelcalcetide - Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region. Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the least squares means difference.|||-1.50|-4.14|<0.001
95819437|NCT03299244|191610925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|Odds ratio (Etelcalcetide : Cinacalcet) stratified by screening iPTH level, screening cCa level, and country/region.|||1.65|0.82|0.41
95819438|NCT04209387|191610932|OTHER|p \< .01||||||0.01||||||p adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from baseline (before therapy) to the end of therapy.~Pair-wise comparison of changes in coherency from end of therapy to 3-month follow-up"|ANOVA test of means|||0.01
95819439|NCT00145626|191610934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative Incidence|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The cumulative incidence estimate and its standard error for occurrence of regimen-related mortality by the end of the first 100 days post-transplant was calculated.|||||
95819440|NCT03896750|191610949|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%.||1.26|0.54|
95819441|NCT03896750|191610949|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-last). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-last) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.14|0.67|
95819442|NCT03896750|191610950|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.39|0.54|
95861738|NCT01888432|191682518|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|5.1|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.1|-3.4|
95958540|NCT04159805|191889258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.48|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|7.83||From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 16||7.83|-2.87|=0.351
95958541|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.9|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.18|4.38||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||4.38|-60.18|=0.090
95958542|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.77|||=|0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|15.96||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||15.96|-47.50|=0.328
95958543|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.65|||=|0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.63||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||19.63|-44.94|=0.441
95958544|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.39|||=|0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|33.12||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||33.12|-30.33|=0.931
96000249|NCT03443024|191976622|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
96000250|NCT03443024|191976623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6674
95819443|NCT03896750|191610950|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis by 90% confidence interval. If the interval encompasses 1 there is no clinically meaningful difference in pretomanid AUC(0-infinity). Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%|Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.28|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for site||No formal hypothesis testing was conducted. Assuming a 20% coefficient of variation for the AUC(0-infinity) of both groups, the probability of observing at least a 50% increase in the geometric mean ratio of AUCs given a true 100% increase is \>99%. The probability of the lower bound of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUCs being at least 1.5 in this scenario is approximately 70%||1.28|0.71|
95819444|NCT03744910|191610975|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|0.35||||||||0.35|-5.84|
95819445|NCT03419897|191611066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Binomial exact test|||Tislelizumab compared with historical ORR rate of 7%||||0.0001
95819446|NCT00161616|191611103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0541|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 13.||||0.0541
95819447|NCT00161616|191611103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7983|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Healed vs Not healed/No outcome for week 20.||||0.7983
95819448|NCT00161616|191611104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8961
95819449|NCT01521923|191611110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.719|||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|3.354|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order beginning with the CZP standard maintenance dosing (200 mg Q2W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing (PBO) + MTX group. If this analysis was statistically significant at the alpha =0.05 level, then an additional comparison of the CZP reduced frequency dosing (200 mg Q4W) + MTX group vs the CZP stopped dosing + MTX group was performed with testing at the alpha =0.05 level||3.354|0.881|=0.112
95819450|NCT01521923|191611110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.889|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.026|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|||In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in a hierarchical order. A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the Overall significance level for the multiplicity of endpoints. Hypothesis testing was performed in the following predefined order, each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level||3.480|1.026|=0.041
95819451|NCT03037476|191611148|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.235||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 6 Month Follow-up Outcomes reported in this section.||-.023|-.446|0.03
95819452|NCT03037476|191611148|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.149||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes from Baseline to 12 Month Follow-up reported in this section.||.061|-.360|0.164
95819453|NCT03037476|191611149|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.24||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.650|-1.120|.603
95819454|NCT03037476|191611149|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.336||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.238|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Medical Misuse of Prescription Stimulant Medication Among those with ADHD Diagnosis from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.566|-1.238|.465
95819455|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.108|-.227|.486
95819456|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.006||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.172|-.160|.942
95819457|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.042||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.097|-.180|.552
95819458|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.037||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.177|-.104|.608
95819459|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.015||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.160|-.130|.840
95819460|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.007||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Other Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.155|-.142|.927
95819461|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.01||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.223|-.244|.932
95819462|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.057||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 12 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.187|-.300|.648
95819463|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.059||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.245|-.363|.702
95819464|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Tobacco Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.208|-.408|.524
95819465|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.008||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.153|-.137|.913
95819466|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.032||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regresision||Change in Past 3 Month Alcohol Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.181|-.117|.676
95819467|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.035||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.152|-.223|.712
95819468|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.005||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Marijuana Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||0.197|-.186|.956
95819469|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.149||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||.531|-.234|.446
95819470|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.055||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Stimulant Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||.462|-.353|.793
95819471|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.005|2.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||2.003|-2.005|.999
95819472|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.999||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Heroin Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||3.310|-1.312|.397
95819473|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.465||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 6 Month Followup||1.349|-.419|.303
95819474|NCT03037476|191611150|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.939|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.751|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in Past 3 Month Nonmedical Prescription Drug Use from Baseline to 12 Month Followup||1.751|.128|<.05
95819475|NCT03037476|191611151|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1816||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4295|0.0663|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative binomial regression||Change in ASSIST Score over time: 6 month follow up||0.0663|-0.4295|0.151
95819476|NCT03037476|191611151|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0601||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3133|0.1931|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Changes in ASSIST scores at 12 month follow up||0.1931|-0.3133|0.642
95819477|NCT03037476|191611152|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.2177||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4566|0.0213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 6 month follow up||0.0213|-0.4566|0.074
95819478|NCT03037476|191611152|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1165||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3612|0.1282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in consequence score at 12 month follow up||0.1282|-0.3612|0.351
95819479|NCT03037476|191611153|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.044||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.1197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity at 6 months (reported by number of standard drinks)||0.1197|-0.032|0.255
95819480|NCT03037476|191611153|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0315||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0463|0.1092|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in peak alcohol quantity (reported in standard drinks) at 12 month follow-up||0.1092|-0.0463|0.428
95819481|NCT03037476|191611154|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0021||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0936|0.0978|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 6 months||0.0978|-0.0936|0.966
95819482|NCT03037476|191611154|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0559||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1542|0.0424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in DDQ score at 12 month follow-up||0.0424|-0.1542|0.265
95819483|NCT03037476|191611155|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0128||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1633|0.1378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.1378|-0.1633|0.868
95819484|NCT03037476|191611155|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0445||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1993|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RAPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1102|-0.1993|0.573
95819485|NCT03037476|191611156|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0899||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0685|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 12 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0685|-0.2484|0.266
95819486|NCT03037476|191611156|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0197||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1859|0.1465|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Past 12 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1465|-0.1859|0.816
95819487|NCT03037476|191611156|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1031||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2639|0.0577|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.0577|-0.2639|0.209
95819488|NCT03037476|191611156|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.006||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1729|0.1608|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past 6 month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1608|-0.1729|0.944
95819489|NCT03037476|191611156|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0391||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2102|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 6 month follow-up||0.1320|-0.2102|0.654
95819490|NCT03037476|191611156|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0646||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.1152|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month marijuana use at 12 month follow-up||0.1152|-0.2444|0.481
95819491|NCT03037476|191611157|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0411||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1569|0.0747|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 6 month follow-up||0.0747|-0.1569|0.487
95819492|NCT03037476|191611157|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0177||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in RMPI count at 12 month follow-up||0.1375|-0.1021|0.772
95819493|NCT03037476|191611158|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.1285||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0131|0.2702|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 6 month follow up||0.2702|-0.0131|0.075
95819494|NCT03037476|191611158|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0936||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0517|0.2388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in PBS count at 12 month follow up||0.2388|-0.0517|0.207
95819495|NCT03037476|191611159|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1604|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2525|-0.0683|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (in perceived days of use in past year) at 6 month follow up||-0.0683|-0.2525|<0.001
95819496|NCT03037476|191611159|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.1441|||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2404|-0.0478|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in perceived norm (perceived number of days of use in past year) at 12 month follow up||-0.0478|-0.2404|<.003
95819497|NCT03037476|191611160|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0157||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1096|0.0782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 6 month follow-up||0.0782|-0.1096|0.743
95819498|NCT03037476|191611160|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0133||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0816|0.1081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in MSLQ score at 12 month follow up||0.1081|-0.0816|0.784
95819499|NCT03037476|191611161|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0061||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1161|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in cumulative grade point average at 6 month follow up||0.104|-0.1161|0.914
95819500|NCT03037476|191611161|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0092||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1202|0.1018|||Mixed Models Analysis|General Linear Model||Change in cumulative grade point average at 12 month follow up||0.1018|-0.1202|0.871
95819501|NCT03037476|191611161|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1063|0.1124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 6 month follow-up||0.1124|-0.1063|0.957
95819502|NCT03037476|191611161|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0006||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1098|0.1109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson regression||Change in last term GPA at 12 month follow-up||0.1109|-0.1098|0.992
95819503|NCT03037476|191611162|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.039||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 6 month follow-up||0.1395|-.0615|0.447
95819504|NCT03037476|191611162|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0398||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0619|0.1414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol frequency at 12 month follow-up||0.1414|-0.0619|0.443
95819505|NCT03037476|191611163|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|0.0002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1066|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month alcohol typical quantity at 6 months||0.1070|-0.1066|0.997
95819506|NCT03037476|191611163|OTHER|General Linear Model|Slope|-0.0136||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1236|0.0963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Negative Binomial Regression||Change in past month typical alcohol quantity at 12 month follow-up||0.0963|-0.1236|0.808
95819507|NCT02403817|191611182|OTHER|This is a small pilot study with no power calculations required (and no data upon which to base a priori power estimates).||||||5e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary attention outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.00005
95819508|NCT02403817|191611183|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis compares pre-intervention to post-intervention scores in the eye movement training group on the primary eye movement outcome measure. The hand movement Control in this pilot was not feasible and the sample is too small for analysis. This is a small pilot study and so power analyses were not computed. The null hypothesis was no difference between pre- and post-training outcome measure (alpha .05).||||0.018
95819509|NCT00501592|191611192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 25 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.040
95819510|NCT00501592|191611192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoints are calculated as the change (post minus pre treatment) during low dose and high dose insulin infusion periods. These are compared between placebo and INT-747 50 mg using t-tests for independent samples. These tests will be made without correction for multiple comparisons using 0.05 as the alpha criterion for significance. Results will be described with the corresponding means and standard deviations.||||0.28
95819511|NCT00501592|191611193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0031
95819512|NCT00501592|191611193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95819513|NCT00501592|191611193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95819514|NCT00501592|191611193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
95819515|NCT01498692|191611202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Target Lesion Failure|2.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.3|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 21.1%.||7.3||<0.0001
95819516|NCT03782259|191611242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
96000251|NCT03443024|191976623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1166|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1166
96000252|NCT03443024|191976623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0119
95958545|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.18|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.46|4.11||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||4.11|-60.46|=0.087
95958546|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.29|36.16||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||36.16|-27.29|=0.783
95819517|NCT03782259|191611243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0125||||||Given that there were 4 separate comparisons of the primary outcomes, the level of significance was adjusted from 0.05 to 0.0125 (.05/4) using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments for covariates.||||||< 0 .0125
95819518|NCT01771991|191611282|SUPERIORITY||sum of scores|453.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum||Standard Deviation under the Null hypothesis for each group.|||||0.57
95819519|NCT01771991|191611283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in pain change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||0.95|-0.60|0.65
95819520|NCT01771991|191611284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|11.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Looking at the difference in range of motion change over time. The null hypothesis is there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||11.91|-6.65|0.57
95819521|NCT02229825|191611297|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||p-value for treatment effect|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline score and treatment as the main factor.||The null hypothesis was that the mean change in MADRS total score between week 4 and baseline was the same for the 2 duloxetine treatment groups.||||0.88
95819522|NCT02229825|191611298|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Treatment effect.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratification factors and HAMD6 baseline as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||Comparison between treatment regimes at Week 4.||||0.86
95819523|NCT02229825|191611299|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparisons, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819524|NCT02229825|191611299|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819525|NCT02229825|191611299|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Singed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819526|NCT02229825|191611299|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819527|NCT02229825|191611301|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819528|NCT02229825|191611301|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819529|NCT02229825|191611301|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819530|NCT02229825|191611301|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Within group comparisons were performed at week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819531|NCT02229825|191611302|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.32
95819532|NCT02229825|191611304|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Treatment effect.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment groups were compared regarding the number of responders and non-responders at week 4, using a logistic regression with stratification factors (country and pretreatment) and baseline scores as covariates and treatment regimen as main factor.||||0.57
95819533|NCT02229825|191611307|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.68
95819534|NCT02229825|191611308|OTHER||Statistic|-528.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
95819535|NCT02229825|191611308|OTHER||Statistic|-540.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
95819536|NCT02229825|191611308|OTHER||Statistic|-1024.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
95819537|NCT02229825|191611308|OTHER||Statistic|-279.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Signed Rank test||Difference is value at week 8 minus week 4.|At week 8, within-group comparison versus week 4 was performed.||||<0.0001
95819538|NCT02229825|191611309|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was tested.||||||0.07||||||Stratified by country, 60 mg vs. 120 mg|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"At week 4 CGI-S items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes before formal testing. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2: normal, 3-5: moderate, 6-7: severe. Treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||0.07
95819539|NCT02229825|191611311|OTHER||CMH statistic|0.0||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Before testing, PGI-I items were pooled to reduce the possible number of classes. The 3 classes used (instead of 7 items) were: 1-2= improved, 3-5=Stable, 6-7=Worsened. At week 4 treatment groups were compared using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification by centre."||||1.00
95819540|NCT02229825|191611313|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Treatment effect|ANCOVA|||Comparison between HAMA scores between treatment regimens.||||0.92
95819541|NCT02229825|191611314|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819542|NCT02229825|191611314|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819543|NCT02229825|191611314|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819544|NCT02229825|191611314|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
96000253|NCT03443024|191976624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2371|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2371
96000254|NCT03443024|191976624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1067
95819545|NCT02229825|191611316|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, Week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819546|NCT02229825|191611316|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.001
95819547|NCT02229825|191611316|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||<0.0001
95819548|NCT02229825|191611316|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Student statistic t-test|||Within-group comparison, week 8 versus baseline.||||0.28
95819549|NCT01309997|191611329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95819550|NCT01309997|191611329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95819551|NCT00282087|191611330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Two year PFS|78.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|91.0|||Bayesian Posterior Probability|||The primary endpoint is progression-free survival time, with progression defined as a patient having evidence of recurrent LMS on follow-up evaluation and CT scan. Futility monitoring will be based on the accumulating right-censored PFS time data. The monitoring rules will be based on a Bayesian model.||91|67|0.15
95819552|NCT00282087|191611332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00269|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Age correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819553|NCT00282087|191611333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Menopausal status at diagnosis correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819554|NCT00282087|191611334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.101|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Uterine serosal involvement correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819555|NCT00282087|191611335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.00676|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Mitotic rate correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819556|NCT00282087|191611336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.708|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819557|NCT00282087|191611337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.906|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Progesterone receptor (PR) status correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819558|NCT00282087|191611338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.207|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||1988 FIGO Stage correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819559|NCT00282087|191611339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||Estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive correlation with progression-free survival for patients on study treatment.||||
95819560|NCT04474197|191611340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.5|<0.0001
95819561|NCT04474197|191611340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.1|1.6|<0.0001
95819562|NCT04474197|191611340|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||2.9|1.5|<0.0001
95819563|NCT04474197|191611342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.6|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.6|2.4|<0.0001
95958547|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-29.08|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.36|3.21||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||3.21|-61.36|=0.077
96000255|NCT03443024|191976624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0008
95819564|NCT04474197|191611342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.0|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||4.0|1.9|<0.0001
95819565|NCT04474197|191611342|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
95819566|NCT03462641|191611352|SUPERIORITY||t-value|-2.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|||||Alpha was set to 0.05.|Paired-Sample Two-Tailed T-Test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in PIGD score within participants before and after flumazenil infusion.||||0.0407
95819567|NCT03462641|191611352|OTHER||F-value|2.861||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||"P value is given for the Drug\*Time term, which represents interaction between time relative to administration (before infusion vs after infusion) and treatment administered (placebo vs flumazenil).~Alpha was set to 0.05."|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there is no significant interaction between drug and time of administration (pre vs. post infusion).||||0.103
95819568|NCT03462641|191611353|OTHER||Standardized β Coefficient|0.6||||2.9e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.07||P value presented is for model comparison between interaction model and random intercept model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A pair of maximum likelihood mixed linear models were estimated. The first was a random intercept model that merely accounted for individual differences in PIGD score before infusion. The second was an interaction model, that added an interaction term between baseline FMZ PET binding and PIGD score change from pre to post infusion. The interaction model was compared against the random intercept model to determine significance of the interaction using likelihood ratio goodness of fit test.||1.07|0.13|0.00000029
95819569|NCT03645096|191611354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0554||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0703|0.1689||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1689|-0.0703|.195
95819570|NCT03645096|191611354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0565||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0943|0.1467||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Amygdala-PCC functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1467|-0.0943|.325
96000256|NCT03443024|191976625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4631
96000257|NCT03443024|191976625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
95819571|NCT03645096|191611355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0878||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.1827||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1827|-0.1969|.468
95819572|NCT03645096|191611355|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0891||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1803|0.1996||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: dlPFC-Insula functional connectivity (z-score) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.1996|-0.1803|.458
95819573|NCT03645096|191611356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0078||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0132|0.0209||Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0209|-0.0132|.316
95819574|NCT03645096|191611356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0084||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0312||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: GABA concentration (mM) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||0.0312|-0.0050|.071
95861739|NCT01888432|191682518|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||5.6|-3.6|
95861740|NCT01888432|191682519|OTHER|graft loss at month 24|Kaplan-Meier|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.5|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||0.5|-2.1|
95861741|NCT01888432|191682520|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
95861742|NCT01888432|191682520|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|6.6|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||6.6|-2.1|
95861743|NCT01888432|191682521|OTHER|Month 12|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.8|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.8|-2.5|
95819575|NCT03645096|191611357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11322.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3750.52||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19577.27|-3067.62||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-3067.62|-19577.27|.006
95861744|NCT01888432|191682521|OTHER|Month 24|Kaplan-Meier|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|7.2|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||7.2|-1.1|
95861745|NCT01888432|191682521|OTHER|Month 24 (On-treatment death)|Kaplan-Meier|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|3.9|||||KM rate and 90% CI are obtained using KM probability estimates of composite efficacy failure rates and standard error derived based on Greenwood's formula.|||3.9|-2.5|
95861746|NCT01888432|191682522|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|5.3|||||Month 12|||5.3|-3.9|
95861747|NCT01888432|191682522|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|7.2|||||Month 24|||7.2|-3.0|
95861748|NCT01888432|191682523|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.1|||||Month 12|||3.1|-4.5|
95861749|NCT01888432|191682523|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|4.2|||||Month 24|||4.2|-4.2|
95861750|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|30.6|||||Composite endpoint|||30.6|-19.9|
95861751|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3|||||On-treatment composite endpoint|||19.3|-6.0|
95861752|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.7|||||Graft loss/death|||28.7|-24.6|
95861753|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tBPAR|||33.1|-4.2|
95861754|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6|||||Death|||31.6|-9.4|
95861755|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||AR|||35.2|-28.9|
95861756|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|33.1|||||tAR|||33.1|-4.2|
95861757|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|52.1|||||BPR|||52.1|-22.3|
95861758|NCT01888432|191682527|OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|35.2|||||BPAR|||35.2|-28.9|
95861759|NCT01888432|191682528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.91|39.89||||||||39.89|-59.91|
95861760|NCT03054129|191682529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.866|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.866
95861761|NCT03054129|191682530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
95861762|NCT03054129|191682531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
95861763|NCT03054129|191682532|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95861764|NCT03054129|191682533|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95861765|NCT03054129|191682534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.357
95861766|NCT03054129|191682535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
95958548|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.72|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.45|16.0||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 5||16.00|-47.45|=0.330
95819576|NCT03645096|191611357|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11828.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3620.42||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19650.24|-4007.33||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Pregnenolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-4007.33|-19650.24|.003
95819577|NCT03645096|191611358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2523.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|545.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3724.93|-1322.22||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 500 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1322.22|-3724.93|.001
95819578|NCT03645096|191611358|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2480.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|582.63||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3739.32|-1221.93||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be less than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Allopregnanolone level (pg/mL) at 800 mg will be greater than that at placebo."||-1221.93|-3739.32|.001
95819579|NCT03645096|191611359|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6377||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7659|4.1777||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (500 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 500 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.1777|-2.7659|.336
95819580|NCT03645096|191611359|NON_INFERIORITY|"Using the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (Schuirmann, 1987), equivalence is established at the α significance level if a (1-2α) × 100% confidence interval for the difference in efficacies (new - current) is contained within the interval (-δ, δ)~Schuirmann, D. J. (1987). A comparison of the two one-sided tests procedure and the power approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability. Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 15, 657-680."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4662||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8131|4.8131||Statistical significance is evaluated at p (one-tailed) \<= .05.|t-test, 1 sided|Paired samples t-test with corrected standard deviation of the difference.|Mean Difference = placebo - pregnenolone (800 mg)|"Null Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be greater than or equal to that at placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: SAFTEE (total) scores at 800 mg will be less than that at placebo."||4.8131|-9.8131|.240
95819581|NCT01434654|191611451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for arm\*time interaction fixed effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|49 datapoints included from baseline, 6 months, and 12 months visits (low CNS penetrance n=14; high CNS penetrance n=35)||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.99
95958549|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.14|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|18.91||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||18.91|-47.19|=0.400
95819582|NCT01434654|191611452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
95958550|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.18|32.19||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 6||32.19|-32.18|=1.000
95958551|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-26.47|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.64|6.69||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||6.69|-59.64|=0.117
95819583|NCT01434654|191611452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.44
95819584|NCT01434654|191611452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.86
95819585|NCT01434654|191611452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.98
95819586|NCT01434654|191611453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.16
95819587|NCT01434654|191611453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.09
95819588|NCT01434654|191611453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.06
96000258|NCT03443024|191976625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0232
96000259|NCT03443024|191976626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4729|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4729
95819589|NCT01434654|191611453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.68
95819590|NCT01434654|191611453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.58
95819591|NCT00803361|191611455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.48||p-value is for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.48|-2.76|0.006
95819592|NCT00803361|191611456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.34||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.34|-4.78|0.024
95819593|NCT00803361|191611457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.15|||ANOVA|||||-0.15|-0.74|0.004
95819594|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11||p-value is for Severity of Worst Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.93|0.125
95819595|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||p-value is for Severity of Least Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.09|-0.75|0.014
95819596|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11||p-value is for Severity of Average Pain Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.11|-0.93|0.012
95819597|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25||p-value is for Severity of Pain Right Now Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
95819598|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.08||p-value is for Interference of Pain, General Activity, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-0.87|0.101
96000260|NCT03443024|191976626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0282
95819599|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.22||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Mood, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.22|-0.83|0.252
95819600|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11||p-value is for Interference of Pain,Walking Ability, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.11|-0.72|0.149
95819601|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Normal Work, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.26|-0.71|0.367
95819602|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Relations with Others, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.24|-0.59|0.395
95819603|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.44||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Sleep, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.44|-0.63|0.731
95819604|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||p-value is for Interference of Pain, Enjoyment of Life, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-0.85|0.186
95819605|NCT00803361|191611458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16||p-value is for Mean Interference Score, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.16|-0.67|0.220
95819606|NCT00803361|191611459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.06||p-value is for symptoms have disrupted your work/schoolwork - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.29|0.076
95819607|NCT00803361|191611459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.17||p-value is for symptoms disrupted social/leisure - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.17|-1.16|0.140
95819608|NCT00803361|191611459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.08||p-value is for symptoms disrupted family life - change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.08|-1.14|0.087
95819609|NCT00803361|191611459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.21||p-value is for Global Functional Impairment Total Score - change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.21|-3.46|0.083
95819610|NCT00803361|191611460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.3||p-value is for Severity of Overall Pain, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.30|-10.93|0.063
95819611|NCT00803361|191611460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.22||p-value is for Severity of Headaches, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||4.22|-6.64|0.660
95819612|NCT00803361|191611460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.76||p-value is for Severity of Back Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-0.76|-11.30|0.025
95819613|NCT00803361|191611460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|2.19||p-value is for Severity of Shoulder Pain, Past Week, Change.|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||2.19|-8.06|0.260
95819614|NCT00803361|191611460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|1.28||p-value is for Pain Interference, Daily Activities, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||1.28|-8.61|0.145
95819615|NCT00803361|191611460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.15||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-1.66||p-value is for Pain During Waking Hours, Past Week, Change|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||-1.66|-12.64|0.011
95819616|NCT00803361|191611461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.06||p-value is for Change from Baseline|ANCOVA|Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||0.06|-1.72|0.068
95861767|NCT03054129|191682536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
96000261|NCT03443024|191976626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0506|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0506
95819617|NCT00363142|191611462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of FPV/r100 to FPV/r200 would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in percentage of participants not meeting the virologic failure definition \[FPV/r100 minus FPV/r200\] was -12% or greater.|Difference in the percentages|-2.12||||||95.0|-9.36|5.12|||||Difference in percentages = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||5.12|-9.36|
95819618|NCT00402324|191611518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||<0.001
95819619|NCT00402324|191611519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||All tests of treatment effects will be conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 unless otherwise stated.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Change = Therapy PooledINV Visit Baseline Baseline\*Visit Therapy\*Visit. P-value from therapy term in model.||The overall power of the two co-primary analyses-the probability of simultaneously rejecting both co-primary null hypotheses-for this sample size under assumed effect sizes of 0.5 and 0.45 is estimated as approximately 85-87% and 77-80%, respectively.||||0.022
95819620|NCT00402324|191611520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
95819621|NCT00402324|191611521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
95819622|NCT00402324|191611522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= TRT + Pooled Investigator + Baseline.||||||0.056
95819623|NCT00402324|191611524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value for Total Cholesterol Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.657
95819624|NCT00402324|191611524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||95.0||||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.924
95819625|NCT00402324|191611524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.122
95819626|NCT00402324|191611525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.293
95819627|NCT00402324|191611526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value for Fasting Blood Glucose Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.007
95819628|NCT00402324|191611527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin Total Change from Baseline|ANOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANOVA model: Ranked Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator||||||0.046
95819629|NCT00402324|191611528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
95819630|NCT00402324|191611529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares of ANCOVA model: Change= Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline||||||<0.001
95819631|NCT00402324|191611530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95819632|NCT00997984|191611551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95819633|NCT00997984|191611551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95819634|NCT00997984|191611551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A hierarchical testing structure was employed. First placebo vs all-active, then placebo vs am and lastly placebo vs pm. Testing was stopped when one comparison was not significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||Study designed to detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95819635|NCT00997984|191611552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819636|NCT00997984|191611552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819637|NCT00997984|191611552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819638|NCT00997984|191611553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819639|NCT00997984|191611553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819640|NCT00997984|191611553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95819641|NCT00997984|191611554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.099||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.099
95819642|NCT00997984|191611554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.596||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.596
95819643|NCT00997984|191611554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
95819644|NCT00997984|191611556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95819645|NCT00997984|191611556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95819646|NCT00997984|191611556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95819647|NCT00997984|191611557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.712
95819648|NCT00997984|191611557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.531||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.531
95861768|NCT03054129|191682537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
95819649|NCT00997984|191611557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.226||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.226
95819650|NCT00997984|191611558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.859
95819651|NCT00997984|191611558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.527
95819652|NCT00997984|191611558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.739
95819653|NCT00997984|191611559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95819654|NCT00997984|191611559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95819655|NCT00997984|191611559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||No formal adjustment for multiplicity was done.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95819656|NCT00295646|191611604|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.53||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter disease-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||1.53|0.78|0.59
95819657|NCT00295646|191611605|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided significance level of 2.5% was used in this 2x2 factorial design of two primary endpoints according to the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment to control multiplicity.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.91||Two-sided significance level of 2.5%, with the application of the Bonferroni-Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer disease-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of disease-free survival. Disease-free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death from any cause.||0.91|0.46|0.01
95819658|NCT00295646|191611606|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.56|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter recurrence-free time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of arimidex (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.||1.56|0.80|0.53
96000262|NCT02708212|191976627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of fentanyl and midazolam between the two study groups.||||<0.0001
95819659|NCT00295646|191611607|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Log Rank|||To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of recurrence-free survival. Recurrence-free survival is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a local or regional recurrence, cancer in the contralateral breast, distant metastasis, second primary carcinoma, or death related to breast cancer.|From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer recurrence-free time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|0.92|0.46|0.01
95819660|NCT00295646|191611608|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with endocrine treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and a shorter survival time for arimidex relative to tamoxifen.|To determine the effect of anastrozole (AZ and AC) compared to tamoxifen (TZ and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||3.38|0.96|0.07
95819661|NCT00295646|191611609|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment was applied.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.11|||Log Rank||From the Cox Proportional hazard model with Zoledronic Acid treatment fitted as a covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for Zoledronic Acid relative to no Zoledronic Acid.|To determine the effect of Zoledronic Acid (AZ and TZ) compared to no Zoledronic Acid (AC and TC) in terms of overall survival. Overall survival is defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause.||1.11|0.32|0.10
95819662|NCT04660552|191611624|EQUIVALENCE|The post treatment cars scores of active and sham group will be statistically different as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|12.107|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.107|2.357|0.01
95819663|NCT03759639|191611626|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.75|0.25|0.029
95819664|NCT03759639|191611628|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.13||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.50|-0.25|0.318
95819665|NCT03759639|191611631|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0854||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0123|0.1777|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||0.1777|-0.0123|0.084
95819666|NCT03759639|191611631|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.0399||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1269|0.1031|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.1031|-0.1269|0.315
95819667|NCT03759639|191611632|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-1.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.75|-0.5|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment With IB1001||-0.50|-1.75|0.001
95819668|NCT03759639|191611632|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||2.00|0.50|0.002
95819669|NCT03759639|191611634|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.021|0.0|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Treatment with IB1001||0.000|-0.021|0.121
95819670|NCT03759639|191611634|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.021||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.042|||1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Post-Treatment Washout||0.042|0.000|0.056
95819671|NCT03759639|191611635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||<0.001
95819672|NCT03759639|191611635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.006
95819673|NCT03759639|191611636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.005
95819674|NCT03759639|191611636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment With IB1001||||0.038
95819675|NCT03759639|191611637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment with IB1001||||0.003
95819676|NCT03759639|191611637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Treatment Washout||||0.034
95819677|NCT04301934|191611659|NON_INFERIORITY|The prevalence of UTI for the LASER group and vaginal estrogen group was calculated. Non-inferiority test using Farrington-Manning method was applied to test the risk difference against the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (20%).||||||0.034|||||||Farrington-Manning|||||||0.034
95819678|NCT02550288|191611661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-32.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-32.2|-40.5|<0.001
95819679|NCT02550288|191611661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-8.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-8.2|-14.9|<0.001
95819680|NCT02550288|191611661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-35.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-35.8|-44.1|<0.001
95819681|NCT02550288|191611661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-6.8|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.8|-13.5|<0.001
95819682|NCT00842153|191611684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269||95.0||||P-value for Week 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1269
95819683|NCT00842153|191611684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 2|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95819684|NCT00842153|191611684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||P-value for Week 4|Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
95819685|NCT03012828|191611705|OTHER|The model was used for predicting population average and 90% 2-sided bootstrapped CI of the baseline-adjusted difference between active and placebo at each time point bound at clinically relevant concentrations.|Slope|-0.0077||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0255|0.0101|||Mixed Models Analysis||The primary mixed effects model analysis revealed a nearly flat dQTcF - plasma concentration gradient|The primary analysis used a mixed-effects model to explore the relationship between the time-matched, baseline-adjusted QTcF (delta (d)QTcF) and moxidectin concentrations. dQTcF was a dependent variable and treatment, time point, and treatment by time point interaction as the independent variables with baseline QTcF as a covariate and time-matched concentrations of moxidectin as a covariate with random effects of intercept and slope for each subject.Concentrations of zero were used for placebo.||0.0101|-0.0255|0.4727
95819686|NCT01637584|191611741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> Non-Rapid Eye Movement (NREM): Mean K-cluster voxels (Ke)=15,586: x,y,z= -36, -74, 0. Left Brodmann's Area (BA) 3, 6, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20,21,23, 38||||<0.001
95819687|NCT01637584|191611741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< NREM: Ke=7,013: x,y,z= 26, 22, -40. Right BA 4, 10-14, 21, 25, 32, 38, 45;||||0.039
95819688|NCT01637584|191611741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \> (Rapid Eye Movement (REM): No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||0.701
95819689|NCT01637584|191611741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Wakefulness \< REM: No cluster size, coordinates, or brain regions to report||||1.00
95819690|NCT01637584|191611741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state decrease in rCMRglc: Ke=6,150: x,y,z= -30, -30, 2. Left BA 40, insula, hippocampus, caudate, and putamen;||||0.03
95819691|NCT01637584|191611741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for significance: \<.05|Full Factorial ANOVAs and Paired T-tests|||Within-state increase in rCMRglc: Ke=7,049: x,y,z= 66, -18, 26. Right BA 1, 3, 15, 21, 22, 23, 41, 42||||0.01
95819692|NCT02689206|191611763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.45|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 10 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.45|-0.31|
95819693|NCT02689206|191611763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 15 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||1.42|-0.40|
95819694|NCT02689206|191611763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.35|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 25 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.35|0.59|
95819695|NCT02689206|191611763|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57|||||Analysis using a Repeated Measures Model with terms included for baseline, treatment, time and treatment\*time. Model-adjusted treatment difference of dapro 30 mg arm from Placebo along with 95 percent CI are presented.|||2.57|0.77|
95819696|NCT00191945|191611814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at week 12 (Atomoxetine minus Placebo)|||-4.8|-11.0|<0.001
95861769|NCT03054129|191682538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
95861770|NCT03054129|191682539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
95861771|NCT03054129|191682540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95819697|NCT00191945|191611815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.5|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at Week 9 (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-3.6|-9.5|<0.001
95819698|NCT00191945|191611816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.0009||95.0|-8.2|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 6 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-2.2|-8.2|0.0009
95819699|NCT00191945|191611817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0033||95.0|-6.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference at 4 weeks (Atomoxetine - Placebo)|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-1.3|-6.4|0.0033
95819700|NCT00191945|191611818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.013||95.0|-4.9|-0.6||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus 6 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis method: treatment, study site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks|A gatekeeper strategy was employed for sequentially testing the secondary hypotheses using a REML-based Mixed-Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) technique as defined for the primary efficacy analyses. If primary hypothesis is significant at 0.05 (2-sided), first secondary hypothesis will be tested at Visit 6 from MMRM. If comparison is significant, subsequent secondary hypotheses will be tested in sequence until first null hypothesis fails to be rejected.||-0.6|-4.9|0.013
95819701|NCT00191945|191611821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-15.1|-6.2||P-value is for the difference between groups in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures analyis: treatment, visit, patient, and CPRS-R: S Total score at baseline as covariate, with treatment\*visit interaction|Least Squares Mean difference between groups (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in change from baseline to 12 weeks.|||-6.2|-15.1|<0.001
95819702|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.81||95.0|-3.39|4.33||P-value for Parent: Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.33|-3.39|0.810
95819703|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.96||||0.243||95.0|-1.35|5.29||P-value for Parent: Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.29|-1.35|0.243
95819704|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.419||95.0|-2.26|5.39||P-value for Parent: Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||5.39|-2.26|0.419
95819705|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.41|||<|0.001||95.0|4.27|12.55||P-value for Parent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||12.55|4.27|<0.001
95819706|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.39||||0.042||95.0|0.13|6.65||P-value for Parent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.65|0.13|0.042
95861772|NCT03054129|191682541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
95861773|NCT03054129|191682542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
95861774|NCT03054129|191682543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.673
95861775|NCT03054129|191682544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
95958552|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.75|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|19.44||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 7||19.44|-44.94|=0.436
95819707|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.323||95.0|-4.06|1.35||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Satisfaction difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||1.35|-4.06|0.323
95958553|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY|From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|Difference in LS Mean|-47.91|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.54|-14.29||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||-14.29|-81.54|=0.005
95958554|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.48|||=|0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.92|11.95||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 8||11.95|-52.92|=0.215
95819708|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.452||95.0|-1.49|3.34||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Comfort difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||3.34|-1.49|0.452
95819709|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.91||95.0|-2.59|2.9||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Resilience difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||2.90|-2.59|0.910
95819710|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.006||95.0|1.04|6.08||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Risk Avoidance difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||6.08|1.04|0.006
95819711|NCT00191945|191611822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.541||95.0|-2.21|4.19||P-value for Child/Adolescent:Achievement difference (Atomoxetine - Placebo) in the change from 12 weeks minus baseline.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model: Dependent variable=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 7 minus scores at Visit 1; Factors=Treatment, Investigator, Rater; Covariate=standardized mean scores of domain at Visit 1. Both treatment by rater and treatment by covariate interaction terms included in model.||4.19|-2.21|0.541
95819712|NCT00289289|191611836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.629|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5||P-value is from a paired t-test since each subject had the intervention pacing features turned ON and OFF in this crossover study|t-test, 1 sided|One-sided paired t-test with 221 degrees of freedom|A mean difference greater than zero indicates an average increase in atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia symptomatic episodes while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|Null Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods when intervention pacing features ON is greater to or equal to the rate of symptomatic atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation episodes during periods where intervention pacing features were programmed OFF Alternative Hypothesis: rate of symptomatic AT/AF during periods of ON programming is less than the rate of symptomatic AT/AF during OFF programming||0.5||0.629
95819713|NCT00289289|191611837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is from Koch's adaptation to the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test comparing the within subject ON minus OFF differences to 0|A negative change means an improvement in AF symptom frequency with intervention pacing therapy programmed ON. Total possible improvement while intervention features are programmed ON is -64. Total possible worsening during ON programming is 64.|"The null hypothesis is that the symptom frequency score does not differ between while intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.~This secondary objective was not powered."||||0.165
95819714|NCT00289289|191611838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.73||P-value is based on a repeated measures Cox proportional hazards model to the rate of AF cardioversion attempts between periods of ON and OFF programming|Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio compares rate of first attempted cardioversion for AF while the intervention pacing features were programmed ON versus OFF.|"Null Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is the same during periods of ON and OFF programming~Alternative Hypothesis: AF Cardioversion attempt rate is different during periods of ON and OFF programming"||1.73|0.39|0.603
95819715|NCT00289289|191611839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.394||95.0||||Within each randomized subject, the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was computed. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was used to determine if the ON minus OFF difference in AT/AF burden was different from zero.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A negative median difference represents an improvement (lessening) of AT/AF burden during periods of ON versus OFF programming. A positive median difference represents an increase in AT/AF burden during ON compared to OFF programming.|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in AT/AF burden during periods on ON and OFF programming Alternative Hypothesis: AT/AF burden is lower during periods of ON programming compared to periods of OFF programming||||0.394
95861776|NCT03054129|191682545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.040
95861777|NCT03054129|191682546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
95861778|NCT03054129|191682547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.152
95819716|NCT03711370|191611851|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by bottle type interactions on infant intake during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.76||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.76
95819717|NCT03711370|191611852|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to model between-subject effects of group (Clear versus Opaque), within-subjects effects of use of clear versus opaque bottles during the feeding observations, and potential group by-bottle type interactions on maternal sensitivity during post-test feeding observations.||||||0.64||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for pre-test values, infant sex and age, time since last feeding, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.64
95819718|NCT03711370|191611853|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test weight-for-length z-scores (WLZ).||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|These models controlled for baseline values (i.e., baseline WLZ), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.02
95819719|NCT03711370|191611854|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test waist circumference for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e., waist circumference), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.07
95819720|NCT03711370|191611855|OTHER|General linear models were used to compare post-test triceps skinfold z-scores for the Clear versus Opaque groups.||||||0.7||||||Statistical significance was defined as p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model controlled for baseline values (i.e.,triceps skinfolds z-scores), infant sex and age, and whether the assessment was in-person or remote.||||||0.70
95819721|NCT01433042|191611994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0||||||||||since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|percentage|percentage of SB3 images graded as superior in image quality to SB2|since the study results analysis is purley discriptive no P value and confidence interval was used for the analysis|"Primary Endpoint~o Physician's subjective assessment questionnaire was evaluated in a quality manner.~The physicians were required to assess the performance of SB3 system as compare to SB2 by answering a short questionnaire.~The physicians were requested to indicate whether capsule SB3 was better as compared to SB2."||||
95819722|NCT02195700|191612024|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|unstructured covariance|||The linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, each scheduled time point (5 levels: weeks 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12), the treatment-by-time point interaction, and the DRA status. Baseline AIMS score was a covariate. The unstructured covariance model was used, and the primary analysis compared the SD-809 and placebo groups at week 12. This was based on the F-test using the Satterhwaite method to compute the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0188
95819723|NCT02195700|191612025|SUPERIORITY||Differences in %|7.9||||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|25.2||5% level of significance (2-sided)|Pearson's chi-square test|||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a hierarchical testing procedure. If the primary analysis was statistically significant (p\<0.05), then the first key secondary endpoint was to be analyzed. If the first key secondary endpoint was statistically significant, then the second key secondary endpoint was to be similarly analyzed. For any analysis that was not statistically significant, all subsequent analyses of key secondary endpoints were exploratory rather than confirmatory.||25.2|-10.2|0.4001
95819724|NCT01352221|191612032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
95819725|NCT01352221|191612036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
95819726|NCT01352221|191612037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|ANCOVA||||||1.43|< 0.0001
95819727|NCT01352221|191612048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
95819728|NCT01352221|191612049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
95819729|NCT01597908|191612061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.83|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.83|0.58|
95819730|NCT01597908|191612062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.73|||||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.73|0.52|
95819731|NCT01597908|191612064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||||||||0.81|0.51|
95819732|NCT06875284|191612069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-6.96|-11.06|<0.0001
95819733|NCT06875284|191612069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.09|-4.22|0.041
95861779|NCT03054129|191682548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.129
95861780|NCT03054129|191682549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
95819734|NCT06875284|191612069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Covariates included cohort and history of peer victimization.||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|-6.25|-10.76|<0.0001
95819735|NCT06875284|191612070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.08|-2.27|0.035
95819736|NCT06875284|191612070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.76|-1.44|0.54
95819737|NCT06875284|191612070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-2.60|0.023
95819738|NCT06875284|191612071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.34|-3.98|<0.0001
95819739|NCT06875284|191612071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.39|-3.09|0.012
95958555|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||=|0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.34|29.4||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||29.40|-37.34|=0.815
95819740|NCT06875284|191612071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-1.03|-3.88|0.0008
95819741|NCT06875284|191612072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||1.02|-0.02|0.058
95819742|NCT06875284|191612072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.01|-1.07|0.046
95819743|NCT06875284|191612072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.09|-1.06|0.097
95819744|NCT06875284|191612073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.26|-0.16|0.64
95958556|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.31|||=|0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.84|28.22||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 10||28.22|-36.84|=0.794
95819745|NCT06875284|191612073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||0.33|-0.09|0.25
95819746|NCT06875284|191612073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The SCC plus eCHECKUP TO GO arm was the reference group.|||-0.02|-0.47|0.033
95819747|NCT01519791|191612091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.283|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.503|3.468|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||3.468|1.503|<0.001
95819748|NCT01519791|191612092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.957|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.384|2.767|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio measuring the treatment effect was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||2.767|1.384|<0.001
95819749|NCT01519791|191612093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|-0.978|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.5|||ANCOVA on ranks||"ANCOVA model on the ranks with the terms for treatment, region, and time since RA diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and rank Baseline value as a covariate.~Confidence Interval is an asymptotic Moses CI."|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.500|-1.005|<0.001
95958557|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.78|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.48|-3.08||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 12||-3.08|-70.48|=0.033
96000263|NCT02708212|191976628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The two-sample t test will be used to compare the total doses of midazolam between the two study groups.||||0.0012
95854767|NCT04040933|191669550|OTHER|Time to complete healing was analyzed using a survival analysis method. The survival function (cumulative percentage of wounds healed at each time point) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method for each treatment separately. The median time to complete healing was derived from the estimated survival functions and be compared using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|||||<|0.001||||||no adjustments|Boot-strap sampling method|||||||<0.001
95861781|NCT03054129|191682550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.978
95819750|NCT01519791|191612098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.989|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio was estimated from a logistic regression model including terms for treatment, region and stratification factor. Nonresponder imputation (NRI) was used.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||1.989|1.052|=0.023
95819751|NCT01519791|191612110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.082|||ANCOVA||The CfB in HAQ-DI at Week 52 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region, and time since Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) diagnosis at Baseline (≤4 months or \>4 months) as factors and Baseline value as a covariate.|"In order to control the overall study-wise Type I error rate at 5 %, hypothesis testing was performed in the following hierarchical order (each at a 2-sided 95 % alpha level):~1. Primary: sustained DAS28(ESR) remission at Week 52~2. Key secondary: sustained DAS28(ESR) LDA at Week 52~3. ACR50 response at Week 52 in relation to Baseline~4. Change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 52~5. Change from Baseline in mTSS at Week 52"||-0.082|-0.273|<0.001
95819752|NCT01525862|191612122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P values \<0.05 are considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95819753|NCT01701362|191612164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1823||95.0|-0.54|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures = MMRM|MMRM analysis includes fixed categorical effects of treatment, country, trauma type, visit week, treatment-by-visit interaction, and fixed continuous effect of baseline value. Missing mean pain scores imputed by multiple imputation method|||0.10|-0.54|0.1823
95819754|NCT01701362|191612165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||||||The p-value is derived from CMH test, stratified for pooled center and trauma type and excludes missing values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95819755|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0119||95.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 1||-0.08|-0.62|0.0119
95819756|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0135||95.0|-0.62|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 2||-0.07|-0.62|0.0135
95819757|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0028||95.0|-0.69|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 3||-0.14|-0.69|0.0028
95819758|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0016||95.0|-0.72|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 4||-0.17|-0.72|0.0016
95819759|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 5||-0.20|-0.75|0.0007
95819760|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006||95.0|-0.76|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 6||-0.21|-0.76|0.0006
95819761|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008||95.0|-0.75|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 7||-0.20|-0.75|0.0008
95819762|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0003||95.0|-0.79|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 8||-0.24|-0.79|0.0003
95819763|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 9||-0.26|-0.82|0.0001
95819764|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.77|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 10||-0.22|-0.77|0.0005
95819765|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0007||95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 11||-0.20|-0.76|0.0007
95819766|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 12||-0.27|-0.82|0.0001
95861782|NCT03054129|191682551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
95819767|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 13||-0.28|-0.84|<0.0001
95819768|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0005||95.0|-0.78|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 14||-0.22|-0.78|0.0005
95819769|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0031||95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Week 15||-0.14|-0.71|0.0031
95819770|NCT01701362|191612166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Analyzed for treatment, center, trauma type, week \& treatment-by-week interaction and fixed continuous effect of baseline value on the ITT population.||Overall||-0.23|-0.71|0.0001
95819771|NCT01701362|191612167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005||95.0|-0.77|-0.14|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.14|-0.77|0.0050
95819772|NCT01701362|191612168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0168||95.0|-0.7|-0.07|||ANCOVA|This secondary endpoint has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||||-0.07|-0.70|0.0168
95819773|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.6841||95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for mobility||0.06|-0.09|0.6841
95819774|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6564||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for self-care||0.04|-0.07|0.6564
95819775|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.859||95.0|-0.08|0.09|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for usual activities||0.09|-0.08|0.8590
95819776|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.1628||95.0|-0.14|0.02|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for pain/discomfort||0.02|-0.14|0.1628
95819777|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.4654||95.0|-0.05|0.1|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for anxiety/depression||0.10|-0.05|0.4654
95819778|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.5||95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 1997 Index score||0.04|-0.02|0.5000
95819779|NCT01701362|191612169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaset squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.5493||95.0|-0.07|0.04|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||This statistical analysis is for Dolan 2001 Index Score||0.04|-0.07|0.5493
95819780|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0545||95.0|-0.07|7.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Disturbance Score||7.00|-0.07|0.0545
95819781|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3913||95.0|-6.47|2.54|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Adequancy Score||2.54|-6.47|0.3913
95819782|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.6059||95.0|-5.06|2.96|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Snoring Score||2.96|-5.06|0.6059
95819783|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.7317||95.0|-2.76|3.93|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath Score||3.93|-2.76|0.7317
95819784|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2663||95.0|-0.45|0.12|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Quantity of Sleep Score (hours)||0.12|-0.45|0.2663
95819785|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1562||95.0|-5.08|0.82|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Somnolence Score||0.82|-5.08|0.1562
95819786|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least square mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.249||95.0|-1.18|4.53|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Sleep Problem Index (9) Score||4.53|-1.18|0.2490
96000264|NCT02708212|191976629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6967
95958558|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-10.79|||=|0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.26|21.67||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 12||21.67|-43.26|=0.513
95819787|NCT01701362|191612171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||leaet squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0609||95.0|-0.15|0.0|||ANCOVA|This sub-score has been analyzed using ANCOVA with model terms of treatment, center, trauma type and baseline value on the ITT population.||Statistical analysis for Optimal Sleep Score||0.00|-0.15|0.0609
95819788|NCT01701362|191612172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7165||||||p-values based on CMH test stratified by pooled center and trauma type, patients with unknown status at baseline or endpoint will not be included in the calculation of p-values.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7165
95819789|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0028||95.0|1.5|6.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.86|1.50|0.0028
95819790|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.036||95.0|1.03|2.68|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||2.68|1.03|0.0360
95819791|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0235||95.0|1.07|2.45|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||2.45|1.07|0.0235
95819792|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0619||95.0|0.98|2.24|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.24|0.98|0.0619
95819793|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0677||95.0|0.97|2.2|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||2.20|0.97|0.0677
95819794|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0707||95.0|0.97|2.16|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.16|0.97|0.0707
95819795|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1313||95.0|0.91|2.06|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.06|0.91|0.1313
95819796|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.3072||95.0|0.82|1.86|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||1.86|0.82|0.3072
95819797|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3947||95.0|0.79|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||1.80|0.79|0.3947
95819798|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1462||95.0|0.9|2.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.05|0.90|0.1462
95819799|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6854||95.0|0.72|1.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||1.64|0.72|0.6854
95819800|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5025||95.0|0.76|1.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||1.74|0.76|0.5025
95819801|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.4908||95.0|0.76|1.76|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||1.76|0.76|0.4908
95819802|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4245||95.0|0.78|1.8|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||1.80|0.78|0.4245
95819803|NCT01701362|191612173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8464||95.0|0.61|1.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||1.49|0.61|0.8464
95819804|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1633||95.0|0.74|6.0|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 1||6.00|0.74|0.1633
95819805|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0652||95.0|0.96|3.85|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 2||3.85|0.96|0.0652
95819806|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0039||95.0|1.29|3.77|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 3||3.77|1.29|0.0039
95861783|NCT03054129|191682552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
95819807|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0382||95.0|1.03|2.83|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 4||2.83|1.03|0.0382
95819808|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0137||95.0|1.14|3.05|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 5||3.05|1.14|0.0137
95819809|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0693||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 6||2.49|0.97|0.0693
95819810|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0349||95.0|1.04|2.73|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 7||2.73|1.04|0.0349
95819811|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1227||95.0|0.91|2.29|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 8||2.29|0.91|0.1227
95819812|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0364||95.0|1.03|2.63|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 9||2.63|1.03|0.0364
95819813|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0667||95.0|0.97|2.49|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 10||2.49|0.97|0.0667
95861784|NCT03054129|191682553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.933
95861785|NCT03054129|191682554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.684
95958559|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-56.21|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.69|-20.73||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-20.73|-91.69|=0.002
95819814|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0176||95.0|1.1|2.84|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 11||2.84|1.10|0.0176
95819815|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.003||95.0|1.27|3.23|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 12||3.23|1.27|0.0030
95819816|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0256||95.0|1.07|2.74|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 13||2.74|1.07|0.0256
95819817|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0314||95.0|1.05|2.64|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 14||2.64|1.05|0.0314
95819818|NCT01701362|191612174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1889||95.0|0.85|2.21|||Gen linear model-logistic link function|Model terms include categorical: treatment, center, trauma type, week, and treatment-by-week interaction; and continuous: baselines mean pain score.||Statistical analysis at Week 15||2.21|0.85|0.1889
95819819|NCT00443872|191612178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of mean group scores at baseline and 12 weeks||||<0.01
95819820|NCT00443872|191612179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95819821|NCT00443872|191612180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of baseline vs. 3 month circumference of the Left and Right lower leg/ankle (change identical for both legs).|Change in pedal edema as measured by change in lower leg/ankle circumference in the left and right legs||||<0.01
95819822|NCT00443872|191612181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95819823|NCT00443872|191612182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is for the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) section of the scale||||<0.01
95819824|NCT00443872|191612182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis is for the motor section of the UPDRS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95861786|NCT03054129|191682555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.112
95861787|NCT03054129|191682556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95861788|NCT03054129|191682557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.633
95861789|NCT03054129|191682558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.736
95861790|NCT03054129|191682559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
96000265|NCT00069121|191976641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93||This test used a two-sided significance level of 5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.93|0.69|0.0038
95861791|NCT03054129|191682560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
95861792|NCT03054129|191682561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
95861793|NCT03054129|191682562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
95861794|NCT03054129|191682563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.715
95861795|NCT03054129|191682564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.593
95819825|NCT00443872|191612183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95819826|NCT00443872|191612184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95958560|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.94|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.39|-2.48||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 14||-2.48|-71.39|=0.036
95958561|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-62.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.64|-25.31||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||-25.31|-100.64|=0.001
96000266|NCT00069121|191976642|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.91|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.91|0.67|0.0015
95819827|NCT00443872|191612185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95819828|NCT00443872|191612186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95819829|NCT01951586|191612199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.53|0.81|0.5157
95819830|NCT01951586|191612200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3759|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3759
95819831|NCT01951586|191612200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3666|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3666
95819832|NCT01951586|191612200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1917|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1917
95819833|NCT01951586|191612200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3353|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3353
95819834|NCT01951586|191612200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3179|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3179
95819835|NCT01951586|191612200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1583|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membranes; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.1583
95819836|NCT01951586|191612201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3946|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3946
95819837|NCT01951586|191612201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3735|||||||Cox propotional hazard model|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.3735
95819838|NCT01951586|191612202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.35|0.43|0.3491
95819839|NCT01951586|191612203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4760
95819840|NCT01951586|191612203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2582|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2582
95819841|NCT01951586|191612203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2230
95819842|NCT01951586|191612203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4329
95861796|NCT03054129|191682565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
96000267|NCT00069121|191976644|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was calculated as XELOX versus 5-FU/LV arms.|||0.99|0.70|0.0367
95819843|NCT01951586|191612203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level measured in the membranes (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2620
95819844|NCT01951586|191612203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2081|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANK expression level total (cytoplasm + membrane; H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANK expression level and treatment-by-RANK expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.2081
95819845|NCT01951586|191612204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4671|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (all intensity) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4671
95819846|NCT01951586|191612204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4236|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction of RANKL expression level measured in the cytoplasm (H-score) and treatment effect was evaluated using a logistic regression model that included treatment group, RANKL expression level and treatment-by-RANKL expression level interaction stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||0.4236
95819847|NCT01951586|191612205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.|Based on a logistic regression model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors; an odds ratio ≥ 1 favors denosumab.|||1.43|0.46|0.4654
95819848|NCT01951586|191612206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the randomized stratification factors.|"Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomized stratification factors.~Hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab."|||1.43|0.78|0.7363
95819849|NCT03645421|191612214|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-42.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.47|-33.75|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-33.75|-50.47|<0.0001
95819850|NCT03645421|191612214|OTHER||LS mean difference|-33.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.04|-24.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-24.18|-43.04|<0.0001
95819851|NCT03645421|191612214|OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.49|-31.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-31.12|-49.49|<0.0001
95819852|NCT03645421|191612215|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||0.47|-3.08|0.1476
95819853|NCT03645421|191612215|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.69|-4.37|0.0080
95819854|NCT03645421|191612215|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.74|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.74|-4.30|0.0063
95819855|NCT03645421|191612218|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.70|-1.48|<0.0001
95819856|NCT03645421|191612218|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.71|-1.49|<0.0001
95819857|NCT03645421|191612218|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
95819858|NCT03645421|191612219|OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|-39.09|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-39.09|-74.30|<0.0001
95819859|NCT03645421|191612219|OTHER||LS mean difference|-60.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.53|-40.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-40.63|-80.53|<0.0001
95819860|NCT03645421|191612219|OTHER||LS mean difference|-55.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.28|-35.86|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-35.86|-74.28|<0.0001
95819861|NCT03645421|191612220|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.047|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 100 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 100 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.047|-0.094|<0.0001
96000268|NCT04800315|191976655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-7.7|||ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-35.81|0.003
96000269|NCT04800315|191976655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.38||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.19|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-27.19|0.057
96000270|NCT04800315|191976655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.28||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.88|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-30.88|0.029
95958562|NCT04159805|191889259|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.81|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.12|8.51||From MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and adjusted by baseline value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.51|-66.12|=0.130
95958563|NCT02930837|191889264|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of patients|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.42|71.42|||One-sample test||Percentage of patients with Favourable outcome|A null hypothesis of p ≤40% versus the alternative hypothesis of p \>40% was tested using a one sample test at two-sided significance level of 0.05, where p denoted the response rate in Chinese patients who were treated within 3-4.5 h after stroke onset.||71.42|54.42|<0.0001
95958564|NCT00276016|191889331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.561||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||0.561
95958565|NCT00276016|191889332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||For endpoint||||<.001
96000271|NCT04800315|191976656|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|24.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|39.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|8.8|0.004
95819862|NCT03645421|191612220|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 200 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 200 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.030|-0.077|<0.0001
95819863|NCT03645421|191612220|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|-0.024|||ANCOVA|Analysis used treatment group as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = MEDI0382 300 mcg - Placebo|Pair-wise comparison of MEDI0382 300 mcg versus Placebo.||-0.024|-0.074|0.0002
95819864|NCT00700622|191612263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 92 subjects in each group was required to complete the trial. Approximately 230 subjects were to be randomized to achieve 184 completers (assuming a 20% dropout rate). This would have provided 80% power for a noninferiority design to test the difference of a 4-month change in HbA1c levels between treatment groups, assuming the upper noninferiority margins Δ of 0.5% with a standard deviation of 1.2 and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.31|
95819865|NCT00924612|191612273|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|130.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0844||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.59|150.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model|ANOVA of a multicenter, 4 sequence, 5 treatment crossover model using ln-transformed data. Normal fat diet compared to fasting, very low fat, low fat, and high fat diets as part of the overall analysis. No adjustments for multiplicity made.|150.70|113.59|0.0025
95819866|NCT00924612|191612273|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954||0.8494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|119.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||119.47|86.80|0.8494
95819867|NCT00924612|191612273|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|73.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0902||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.23|85.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||85.55|63.23|0.0013
95819868|NCT00924612|191612273|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|62.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0954|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|76.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of diets based on full crossover model||76.46|53.38|<0.0001
95819869|NCT01204905|191612298|OTHER|This was a pilot study with a small sample population. There were no power calculations performed.|||||||||||||||||The percentage of patients with HIV-1 viral loads less than 50 c/ml at 48 weeks.|||
95819870|NCT01204905|191612299|OTHER|There were no power calculations performed due to the size of the pilot study.|||||||||||||||||Number of weeks to virologic suppression|||
95819871|NCT00104416|191612307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.8|48.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.1|15.8|<0.0001
95819872|NCT01804049|191612330|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.45||||||For lean total body mass, t(118)=0.744, p=0.45.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation for total lean mass: 0.74.||||||0.45
95854768|NCT01432730|191669578|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.6027||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9049|-0.3005|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.3005|-0.9049|0.0003
95854769|NCT01432730|191669579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|-9.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-9.62|-41.53|0.003
95854770|NCT01432730|191669580|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.4212||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8568|0.01438|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||0.01438|-0.8568|0.057
95854771|NCT01432730|191669581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.53||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.93|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||3.87|-20.93|0.172
95854772|NCT01432730|191669582|SUPERIORITY||Log mean difference (Active - Placebo)|-0.582||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8934|-0.2707|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model included terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment \& period. Average \& period baseline covariates included.||||-0.2707|-0.8934|0.001
95854773|NCT01432730|191669583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.538||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.849|-0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.227|-4.849|0.033
95854774|NCT01432730|191669584|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.267||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.523|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-0.010|-4.523|0.049
95854775|NCT01432730|191669585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.237||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.759|-1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.716|-16.759|0.018
95854776|NCT01432730|191669586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.25||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.96|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model fitting terms for treatment sequence, participant within sequence, treatment, and period.||||-1.54|-40.96|0.035
95854777|NCT02653417|191669612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 1 = 5 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
95962414|NCT03607422|191896618|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.8|26.9|<0.001
95819873|NCT01804049|191612330|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis: metformin will reduce loss of total appendicular lean mass in insulin-resistant older adults over a three year period. It was determined (prior to the initiation of the study) that a sample size of 60 participants per group will have a 73% power to detect a 0.09 m/s difference in gait speed.||||||0.79||||||For lean appendicular body mass, t(118) = 0.264, p=0.79.|t-test, 2 sided|T-test calculation appendicular lean mass: 0.26.||||||0.79
95819874|NCT01804049|191612331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(118)=0.703, p=0.48||||||0.48
95819875|NCT03985943|191612340|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|11.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.7|18.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.3|4.7|0.0003
95819876|NCT03985943|191612341|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.1|22.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.5|6.1|0.0002
95819877|NCT03985943|191612342|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.8|22.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.0|7.8|<0.0001
95819878|NCT03985943|191612343|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.6|26.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.6|9.6|<0.0001
95819879|NCT03985943|191612344|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|31.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||31.5|18.4|<0.0001
95819880|NCT03985943|191612344|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|22.0|34.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.3|22.0|<0.0001
95819881|NCT03985943|191612345|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.4|35.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||35.7|19.4|<0.0001
95819882|NCT03985943|191612345|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|32.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.4|39.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||39.8|24.4|<0.0001
95819883|NCT03985943|191612346|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.7|25.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.2|13.7|<0.0001
95819884|NCT03985943|191612347|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.8|26.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.8|13.8|<0.0001
95854778|NCT02653417|191669612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 2 = 10 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
95958566|NCT02979613|191889344|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|The null hypothesis was that the TAF group is at least 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48. The alternative hypothesis was that the TAF group is less than 4% worse than the TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants with HBV DNA ≥ 20 IU/mL at Week 48.||2.0|-1.9|
96000272|NCT04800315|191976656|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|15.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|29.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.8|0.8|0.061
96000273|NCT04800315|191976656|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference VS Placebo|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.2|13.6|<0.001
96000274|NCT04800315|191976657|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|23.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|41.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.2|6.2|0.018
95819885|NCT03985943|191612348|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.3|24.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.5|11.3|<0.0001
95819886|NCT03985943|191612349|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.2|28.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||28.2|11.2|<0.0001
95819887|NCT03985943|191612350|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.8|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26|15.8|<0.0001
95819888|NCT03985943|191612351|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.8|27.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||27.6|14.8|<0.0001
95819889|NCT03985943|191612352|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.2|16.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||16.3|8.2|<0.0001
95819890|NCT03985943|191612353|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|14.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.2|5.2|<0.0001
95819891|NCT03985943|191612354|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.6|18.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||18.7|10.6|<0.0001
95819892|NCT03985943|191612355|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.5|22.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.3|11.5|<0.0001
95819893|NCT03985943|191612356|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|3.4||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|5.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||5.8|1.1|0.0064
95819894|NCT03985943|191612357|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|4.3||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.9|7.7||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||7.7|0.9|0.0177
95958567|NCT02979613|191889345|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||1.9|-1.9|
96000275|NCT04800315|191976657|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|21.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.3|4.3|0.033
95819895|NCT01181804|191612379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.07|
95819896|NCT01181804|191612380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.54|||ANOVA|||||1.54|1.32|
95819897|NCT01181804|191612381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANOVA|||||1.14|1.06|
95819898|NCT01181804|191612382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of boceprevir tablet versus capsule used a mixed-effects model with fixed effects for formulation, sequence, and period, and a random effect for participant within sequence. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of boceprevir tablet to boceprevir capsule is presented with two-sided 90% CIs. Equivalence of formulations was signified by the GMR falling within prespecified bioequivalence bounds.|Least Squares Geometric mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.21|||ANOVA|||||1.21|1.09|
95819899|NCT00200967|191612512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.99||95.0|-14.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for AM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design. A sample size of 40 participants per genotype was required to detect a difference of 25 L/min in AM PEF (and relevant effect sizes for secondary outcomes) with a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test with 90% statistical power and a 15% drop-out rate.||14|-14|0.99
95819900|NCT00200967|191612513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.82||95.0|-15.0|12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PM PEF rate.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||12|-15|0.82
95819901|NCT00200967|191612514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.31||95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for PEF variability.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.5|-1.6|0.31
95819902|NCT00200967|191612515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.09||95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for asthma symptoms.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few symptoms were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.07|-0.02|0.09
95819903|NCT00200967|191612516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.25||95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for rescue medication use.|A mixed-effects linear model was attempted but could not converge because very few usages of rescue medications were recorded, so a nonparametric analysis was applied.||0.2|-0.1|0.25
95819904|NCT00200967|191612517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.34||95.0|-0.1|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FEV1, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.03|-0.10|0.34
95819905|NCT00200967|191612518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.91||95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry FVC, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.07|-0.08|0.91
95819906|NCT00200967|191612519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.93||95.0|-15.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for Spirometry PEF rate, pre-bronchodilator.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||14|-15|0.93
95819907|NCT00200967|191612520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.13||95.0|-0.04|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for eNO.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the natural logarithm of eNO to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.31|-0.04|0.13
95819908|NCT00200967|191612521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.79||95.0|-0.56|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for EBC.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.43|-0.56|0.79
95819909|NCT00200967|191612522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.004||95.0|0.43|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for methacholine PC20.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to the base-2 logarithm of the methacholine PC20 to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||2.21|0.43|0.004
95819910|NCT00200967|191612523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89||95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The comparison represents the difference between Arg/Arg and Gly/Gly participants based on the change between placebo salmeterol and active salmeterol for ACQ.|A mixed-effects linear model was applied to account for the repeated measurements within each treatment period of the crossover design.||0.26|-0.23|0.89
95819911|NCT05696444|191612537|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.85.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|||||||<0.0001
95819912|NCT05696444|191612538|SUPERIORITY|Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||||0.0006||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||||||0.0006
95819913|NCT05696444|191612538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.45||||0.0025
95819914|NCT05696444|191612538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Holm adjusted at alpha = 0.025|Exact test|||Test was calculated using an exact test against a null value of 0.2||||0.0001
95819915|NCT02908685|191612571|SUPERIORITY|This is the first end point and first family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.55||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.81|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.81|0.30|0.0156
95819916|NCT02908685|191612572|SUPERIORITY|This is the second end point and second family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model.The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.44||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald test|||||5.44|1.01|0.0469
95861797|NCT00843284|191682567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.35|-3.97|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||Change from Baseline; observational study||-3.97|-4.35|<0.0001
95861798|NCT00843284|191682568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.24|-3.8|||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test.||Change from baseline||-3.80|-4.24|<0.0001
95958568|NCT02979613|191889345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9953||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9953
95958569|NCT02979613|191889346|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% CI approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||||Difference in the percentage of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||3.7|-3.7|
95861799|NCT02123251|191682614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2139||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0092|0.8293|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, race, gender, and baseline hypertension.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||0.8293|-0.0092|0.0553
95958570|NCT02979613|191889346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.98
96000276|NCT04800315|191976657|OTHER|Risk Difference|Difference VS Placebo|26.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.0|9.3|0.006
96000277|NCT04800315|191976658|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|2.3|
95819917|NCT02908685|191612573|SUPERIORITY|This is the third end point and third family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.59||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.62||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|0.55|0.0469
95819918|NCT02908685|191612574|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.58||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.69||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.69|-0.53|0.3902
95819919|NCT02908685|191612575|SUPERIORITY|This is one of the two end points in family four in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|2.56||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|-6.67|0.3902
95958571|NCT02979613|191889348|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using a 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.|Difference in the Percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.2|||||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||5.2|-3.5|
95958572|NCT02979613|191889348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6863||||||P-value for the superiority tests compared the percentage of each HBV DNA outcome was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6863
95958573|NCT02979613|191889350|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|1.4||||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.1||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||10.1|-7.2|0.7258
95819920|NCT02908685|191612576|SUPERIORITY|This is the sixth endpoint and the fifth family tested in the hierarchical testing. The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.55||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.17||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.17|0.93|0.3902
95819921|NCT02908685|191612577|SUPERIORITY|This is the seventh endpoint and the sixth family tested in the hierarchical testing. Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74||Adjusted p-Value The adjusted p-values were derived based on all the p-values from end points in order of the hierarchical testing up to the current endpoint.|Wald-test|||CGI Improved||2.74|0.70|0.3902
95819922|NCT02908685|191612578|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.93|||Wald test|||||3.93|1.02|0.0430
95819923|NCT02908685|191612580|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.64||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.47|-0.20|0.1328
95819924|NCT02908685|191612581|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.97||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.34|-0.40|0.1030
95819925|NCT02908685|191612582|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.62|0.05|0.0451
96000278|NCT04800315|191976658|OTHER|Risk Difference|Risk Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.7|-4.6|
95819926|NCT02908685|191612583|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.56|0.01|0.0489
95819927|NCT02908685|191612584|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.16||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.14|0.18|0.0326
95819928|NCT02908685|191612585|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|2.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||2.62|-8.36|0.3029
95819929|NCT02908685|191612586|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.28||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||4.99|-2.42|0.4937
95819930|NCT02908685|191612587|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.35||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|7.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||7.80|-3.11|0.3967
95819931|NCT02908685|191612588|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.96||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|16.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||16.70|-10.78|0.6704
95819932|NCT02908685|191612589|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||5.45|-6.30|0.8856
95819933|NCT02908685|191612590|SUPERIORITY|The variables included in the MMRM model are: baseline total score, treatment, age group, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit interaction.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.45||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|3.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||||3.57|-0.68|0.1778
95819934|NCT02908685|191612591|SUPERIORITY|Logistic Regression Model. The variables included in the logistic regression are: baseline total score, treatment and age group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.83|||Wald-test|||CGI No Change or Improved||2.83|0.52|0.6636
95819935|NCT01691014|191612618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.990
95819936|NCT01691014|191612618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.586|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.586
95819937|NCT01691014|191612618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||DAS28: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.980
95819938|NCT01691014|191612619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Baseline: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.945
95958574|NCT02979613|191889351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.7||||0.1348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.7||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||7.7|-2.3|0.1348
95958575|NCT02979613|191889352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|9.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|20.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||20.1|-2.0|0.1005
95819939|NCT01691014|191612619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 3: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.458
95819940|NCT01691014|191612619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 6: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.896
95819941|NCT01691014|191612619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||HAQ: Month 12: Continuous variables were compared between treatment groups using one way ANOVA.||||0.390
95819942|NCT03522246|191612654|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.72|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification and timing of surgery.|||0.72|0.31|0.0004
95819943|NCT03522246|191612655|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib vs Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
95819944|NCT03522246|191612656|SUPERIORITY|Rucaparib + Nivolumab vs Rucaparib + Placebo|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.53|||Log Rank||The stratified cox proportional hazard model is adjusted for the randomization strata of HRD classification, disease status post-chemotherapy, and timing of surgery.|||1.53|1.08|0.0038
95819945|NCT00814580|191612669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis test for non-inferiority of tapentadol IR over oxycodone IR required that upper limit of 95% CI for LS mean difference (oxycodone IR minus tapentadol IR) was less than the inferiority margin (\< 72). If the upper limit was less than 0 then tapentadol IR was superior to oxycodone IR for SPID over 3 days at a 5% level of significance.|Least square mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.2||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|36.9||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||Tapentadol IR versus Oxycodone IR||36.9|-18.9|0.5265
95819946|NCT00814580|191612670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7306||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7306
95819947|NCT00814580|191612671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8524
95819948|NCT00814580|191612672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9078||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9078
95819949|NCT00814580|191612673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2633||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2633
95819950|NCT00814580|191612674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4498||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4498
95819951|NCT00814580|191612675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2158||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (Row Mean Score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
95819952|NCT00814580|191612676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|25.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||25.0|-11.8|0.4811
95819953|NCT00814580|191612677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.13||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|46.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||46.0|-64.7|0.7405
95819954|NCT00814580|191612678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.3||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.3|-16.5|0.3097
95819955|NCT00814580|191612679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|6.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||6.1|-26.7|0.2179
95819956|NCT00814580|191612680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.16||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|5.5||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-58.1|0.1051
95819957|NCT00814580|191612681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|24.8||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||24.8|-22.8|0.9367
95819958|NCT00814580|191612682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.53||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|35.2||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||35.2|-37.8|0.9441
95819959|NCT00814580|191612683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.45||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.3|38.1||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included baseline pain intensity score as the covariate and treatment and pooled center as class variables.|ANCOVA|||||38.1|-109.3|0.3427
95819960|NCT00814580|191612684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1618||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1618
95819961|NCT00814580|191612685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0481||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0481
95819962|NCT00814580|191612686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (row mean score option) controlling for pooled investigator centers|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0109
95819963|NCT01340625|191612703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.91|115.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115.24|100.91|
95819964|NCT01340625|191612704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|111.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.88|96.74|
95819965|NCT01340625|191612705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|108.62|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.62|95.73|
95819966|NCT01340625|191612706|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.04|102.86|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.86|90.04|
95819967|NCT01340625|191612707|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.89|103.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.97|93.89|
95819968|NCT01340625|191612708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|104.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.50|94.91|
95819969|NCT05791565|191612754|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1609|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0221|1.3185|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.3185|1.0221|
95819970|NCT05791565|191612755|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.4081|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2998|1.5255|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5255|1.2998|
95819971|NCT05791565|191612756|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3885|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2793|1.507|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.5070|1.2793|
95819972|NCT05791565|191612757|OTHER||Ratio of the Geometric LS Means|1.3141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1816|1.4614|||||Ratio of the Geometric LS means = Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-152a MDI to the Geometric LS mean of the Salbutamol HFA-134a MDI.|||1.4614|1.1816|
95819973|NCT01709110|191612799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4071||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.647|0.256|0.000094
96000279|NCT04800315|191976658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.4|0.4|
95819974|NCT01709110|191612799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4431||||9.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.677|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.677|0.290|0.000094
96000280|NCT04800315|191976659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|-14.44|||ANCOVA|||||-14.44|-41.89|
95819975|NCT01709110|191612800|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4187||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.652|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.652|0.269|0.000075
95819976|NCT01709110|191612800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4561||||7.5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|0.682|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.682|0.305|0.000075
95854779|NCT02653417|191669612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Regimen 3 = 20 mg vs Regimen 4 = placebo||||
95854780|NCT00904033|191669617|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|Main Effects Results only for No Exercise vs Exercise||||||0.86
96000281|NCT04800315|191976659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.26|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-27.26|
96000282|NCT04800315|191976659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|-4.62|||ANCOVA|||||-4.62|-33.53|
96000283|NCT04800315|191976660|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-3.54|||ANCOVA|||||-3.54|-41.46|
95958576|NCT02979613|191889353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|2.5||||0.4154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups.|||9.5|-4.5|0.4154
95958577|NCT02979613|191889354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.0||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||0.3|-4.4|0.0281
95958578|NCT02979613|191889356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-0.8||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.1||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.1|-3.7|0.5373
95958579|NCT02979613|191889357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|0.4||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|||2.5|-1.7|0.5845
95958580|NCT02979613|191889358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.5||||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||10.6|-1.6|0.1405
95958581|NCT02979613|191889358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|3.8||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.4||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||11.4|-3.7|0.3133
95958582|NCT02979613|191889359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|14.1||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|44.6||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory criteria||44.6|-16.4|0.3381
95958583|NCT02979613|191889359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|23.8||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|42.3||P-value was from the CMH test, stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentage of participants between the treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||42.3|5.3|0.0136
95958584|NCT02979613|191889360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-2.9||||0.2803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.6||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||2.6|-8.4|0.2803
96000284|NCT04800315|191976660|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-13.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.67|4.33|||ANCOVA|||||4.33|-30.67|
96000285|NCT04800315|191976660|OTHER|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|Adjusted Mean Difference VS Placebo|-16.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|3.75|||ANCOVA|||||3.75|-36.40|
95819977|NCT01709110|191612801|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4831||||0.000869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|0.739|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||0.739|0.316|0.000869
95819978|NCT01709110|191612802|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6553||||0.099023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.101|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.101|0.390|0.099023
95819979|NCT01709110|191612803|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5786||||0.062432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.052|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimate and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.052|0.318|0.062432
96000286|NCT04800315|191976661|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|2.7|0.042
96000287|NCT04800315|191976661|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|19.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|35.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.7|4.1|0.029
95819980|NCT01709110|191612804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.614|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.614|0.237|<0.001
95819981|NCT01709110|191612804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.646|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.646|0.270|<0.001
95854781|NCT00904033|191669618|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
95819982|NCT01709110|191612805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1593||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.728|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.728|0.035|0.007
95819983|NCT01709110|191612805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1643||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.744|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.||||0.744|0.036|0.007
95819984|NCT01709110|191612806|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.696||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified Log Rank test was adjusted for the antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures and recent bisphosphonate use.|The Stratified Hazard Ratio estimates and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the number of observed and expected events as part of the stratified log-rank test calculations.|||1.050|0.461|0.078
95819985|NCT01709110|191612807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline body height(cm).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.28|0.093
95819986|NCT01709110|191612808|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate and baseline back pain (no pain - worst pain \[0-10\]).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.24|-0.42|0.585
95819987|NCT01709110|191612809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (UK).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.02|-0.03|0.757
95819988|NCT01709110|191612810|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Model included the following fixed effects: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, antecedent of recent clinical vertebral fractures, recent use of bisphosphonate baseline EQ-5D-5L (US).|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance matrix was assumed to account for the correlation between observations of the same participant.|Treatment difference was calculated as Teriparatide - Risedronate.|||0.01|-0.02|0.694
95819989|NCT01129765|191612819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point likert scale, with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
95819990|NCT01129765|191612820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.83|
95819991|NCT01129765|191612821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.97||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||One-sample proportion|||"Null hypothesis: Pr ≤ 0.7 versus HA: Pr \> 0.7; Pr is proportion using device appropriately. Observed rate calculated with exact 95% confidence interval from the binomial distribution. 2-sided p-value from binomial distribution.~With the proposed sample size of 30 subjects, we will reject the primary null hypothesis if at least 27 are observed to use the device properly. We will have 80% power for this to occur provided that the true rate in the population is at least 92%."||1.0|0.83|0.0005
95819992|NCT01129765|191612822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion responding \>=3 on a 5-point Likert scale, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||1.0|0.88|
95819993|NCT01129765|191612823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion observed to have a safety issue, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
95819994|NCT01129765|191612824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.12|||Descriptive|||Descriptive summary of proportion found to have injury, with exact 95% confidnce interval from the binomial distribution.||0.12|0|
95819995|NCT02767869|191612838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95819996|NCT02767869|191612839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.530
95819997|NCT02767869|191612840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
95819998|NCT02767869|191612841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95819999|NCT02767869|191612842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
95820000|NCT02767869|191612843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.047
95820001|NCT02767869|191612844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
95820002|NCT02767869|191612845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
95820003|NCT02767869|191612846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
95820004|NCT02767869|191612847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.347|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.347
95820005|NCT02767869|191612848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.227
95820006|NCT02767869|191612849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.410
95820007|NCT02767869|191612850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95820008|NCT04904744|191612903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message (reference group)|||2.06|0.88|0.165
95820009|NCT04904744|191612903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.03|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.03|0.87|0.193
95820010|NCT04904744|191612903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||1.52|0.68|0.930
95854782|NCT00904033|191669619|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
95854783|NCT00904033|191669620|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95820011|NCT04904744|191612904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.52|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||3.52|1.21|0.008
95820012|NCT04904744|191612904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||2.23|0.70|0.457
95820013|NCT04904744|191612904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.74|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||2.74|1.00|0.049
95820014|NCT04904744|191612905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. No Message|||4.82|0.86|0.104
95820015|NCT04904744|191612905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22|||Regression, Logistic||Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message vs. No Message|||3.22|0.49|0.631
95820016|NCT04904744|191612905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.61|||Regression, Logistic||Low Tailored Message vs. Low tailored message plus COVID-19 vaccine message|||3.61|0.73|0.238
95820017|NCT03248531|191612927|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|31.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|50.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 95% credible intervals were presented for the bimekizumab (BKZ) vs placebo (PBO) comparison.||50.4|11.0|
95820018|NCT03248531|191612927|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-11.2|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model. 60% credible intervals were presented for the BKZ vs adalimumab (ADA) comparison.||6.6|-11.2|
95820019|NCT03248531|191612927|OTHER||Pr [Diff>0%] (%)|99.8|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
95820020|NCT03248531|191612927|OTHER||Pr[Diff > 0%](%)|42.1|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||Results were based on a Bayesian logistic regression model where the number of responders were assumed to follow a binomial distribution. Treatment and Baseline Hurley Stage were included as predictors in the model.||||
95820021|NCT04075513|191612987|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since higher time in range means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \> 0.|Least square mean difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.44||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 90% of Tresiba LS mean.|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||5.44|0.88|0.0067
95820022|NCT04075513|191612988|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was based on a relative margin of 10%. Since lower CV means better outcome, non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean at Week 12 was \< 0.|Least square mean difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-4.38||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA||This estimation parameter corresponds to the difference between Toujeo LS mean and 110% of Tresiba LS mean.|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially only when the primary endpoint demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||-4.38|-6.50|<0.0001
95820023|NCT04075513|191612989|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted difference estimate of Toujeo and Tresiba at Week 12 was \>0.|Least square mean difference|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|0.05||Threshold of significance at \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type I error. The hierarchical testing was then performed sequentially when the primary endpoint and the secondary endpoint of total CV demonstrated non-inferiority. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model including the fixed categorical effect of treatment groups and randomization stratum of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%) and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline percent time in range value.||0.05|-4.75|0.0548
95820024|NCT03249909|191613002|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the change in exudate status (Decrease, Equal/Unchanged, Increase) from baseline to 4 weeks in the treatment groups with the two-sided Sign test on the Intent To Treat (ITT) population at 95% confidence interval.||||||0.0019|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0019
95820025|NCT01277822|191613016|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin was 3 mmHg as Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) guidance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||0.4|-3.0|0.1339
95820026|NCT01277822|191613017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4478||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4478
95820027|NCT01277822|191613018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis||||||0.0717
95820028|NCT01277822|191613019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8736|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No imputation for missing data was performed||||||0.8736
95820029|NCT01277822|191613020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
95820030|NCT01277822|191613021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2508||||||No imputation for missing data was performed|Chi-squared|||||||0.2508
95820031|NCT01277822|191613022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6646
95820032|NCT01277822|191613023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7911||||||Left ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7911
95854784|NCT00904033|191669621|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95820033|NCT01277822|191613023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5933||||||Right ankle: Last observed non-missing, post-baseline value was imputed for missing value. If no such value existed, the value was treated as missing in analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
95820034|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.8|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in the average vegetable consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.8|1.8|<0.05
95820035|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|10.3|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fruit consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||10.3|-13.6|<0.05
95820036|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average water consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||6.5|-5.4|<0.05
95820037|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sweet snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-8.9|<0.05
95820038|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average fast food consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-0.5|<0.05
95820039|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average savory snacks consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.0|-0.5|<0.05
95820040|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.4|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average sugar-sweetened beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||3.4|-4.9|<0.05
95820041|NCT01539070|191613052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in the average added sugar in beverage consumption from baseline to 3 months, the intervention group compared with the usual care group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||4.1|-8.4|<0.05
95958585|NCT02979613|191889360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-5.9||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|0.7||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.7|-12.6|0.0788
95958586|NCT02979613|191889361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-23.9||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|3.4||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Central Laboratory Criteria||3.4|-51.2|0.0880
95820042|NCT01539070|191613053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.5|||Regression, Linear|All Regression models adjusted for clustering by clinic, child age, change in age, BMI z-score, maternal education and occupation, and season|The change in mean physical activity between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI) are reported.||5.5|-29.1|<0.05
95820043|NCT01539070|191613053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean sleep time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.5|-0.2|<0.05
95820044|NCT01539070|191613053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.1|||Regression, Linear||The change in mean screen time between the baseline measurement and 3 months, the intervention group compared with the control group|In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||1.1|-4.4|<0.05
95820045|NCT01539070|191613055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||Regression, Linear|||In intent-to-treat analyses, we used unadjusted and adjusted multivariate regression models, to examine differences from baseline to 3 months between the intervention and usual care groups. For continuous outcomes, we used linear regression models, and for dichotomous outcomes, we used logistic regression models. To account for clustering by practices, we performed generalized linear mixed models. The Estimator (Est) and Confidence Interval 95% (95% CI)are reported.||0.35|-0.04|<0.05
95820046|NCT00177294|191613058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||We conducted Cox regreassion analyses of time to remission and logistic modeling for rates of remission. We tested group difference in Hamilton depession ratings over time via mixed-effects modeling.||||0.14
95820047|NCT02998671|191613059|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.81|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.81|0.79|
95820048|NCT02998671|191613059|SUPERIORITY|Comparison at end of Period 1 (P1): CJM112 versus Placebo.|Ratio of geometric means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.8|||Bayesian model for repeated measurements||"Ratio of Geometric Means (CJM112 / Placebo) calculated. A value \> 1 indicates a higher number of lesion counts in the CJM112 group.~Bayesian analysis. The credible interval was calculated and presented under confidence interval."|||1.80|0.66|
95820049|NCT00595881|191613095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in sensitivity|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.0||"We calculated the differences between the sensitivities and specificities. The difference in sensitivity between the clinical exam alone vs clinical exam + ultrasound was -1.7% (-3.4%, 0%).~The difference in specificity was -2.8% (-9.7%, 4.1%)."|Mixed effects logistic regression|We used the bootstrap method to obtain valid confidence intervals and compare sensitivity and specificity for the 2 tests.|The clinical exam alone was compared to the clinical exam + ultrasound.|See sample size calculations already entered. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the sensitivity or specificity of clinical exam alone compared with clinical exam+ultrasound.||0|-3.4|
95820050|NCT00595881|191613095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in specificity|-2.8||||||95.0|-9.7|4.1||Statistical significance was defined as a CI surrounding the difference between groups not including 0.||as previously described for sensitivity||as previously described for sensitivity||4.1|-9.7|
95820051|NCT01479764|191613096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.059|||Pearson's Chi-square test|||Sugammadex is the numerator and Neostigmine/Glycopyrrolate is the denominator.||0.059|0.000|<0.0001
95820052|NCT01479764|191613097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Ratio of Geometric Means|0.83||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, Body Mass Index, comorbidity index \& length of surgical procedure||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate is the denominator. Used log-transformed time intervals.||0.97|0.71|0.021
95820053|NCT00260832|191613098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||The primary treatment comparison was based on two sided long-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk, ECOG performance status||||0.1079
95820054|NCT00260832|191613099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.78|||Fisher Exact|||||4.78|1.40|0.0011
95820055|NCT02473471|191613100|OTHER|The sample size was calculated based on a type I error frequency of 5%. According to the power analysis and assuming a large effect size difference between groups (effect size= 0.8), the power analysis yielded 28 subjects per group at a conventional alpha level (p = 0.05) and desired power (1 - β) of 0.90||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95820056|NCT02473471|191613101|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95820057|NCT02473471|191613102|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95820058|NCT02473471|191613103|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95820059|NCT02473471|191613104|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95820060|NCT02473471|191613105|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||There was no significant difference in tooth movement between control and MOP sides from baseline to 1st, 2nd and 3rd months. P Value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95820061|NCT02473471|191613106|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at baseline.||||0.59
95820062|NCT02473471|191613106|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Root length at 3 months||||0.48
95820063|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediate after intervention||||0.388
95820064|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 hour after intervention||||0.092
95820065|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||12 hour after intervention||||0.100
95820066|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 after intervention||||0.302
95820067|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.582|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 after intervention||||0.582
95820068|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5 after intervention||||0.743
95958587|NCT02979613|191889361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|-18.6||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|0.2||P-value was from CMH tests stratified by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in the percentages of participants between treatment groups and its 95% CI were calculated based on the stratum-adjusted MH percentage, adjusted by baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years) and baseline HBeAg status strata.|AASLD Criteria||0.2|-37.4|0.0510
95820069|NCT02473471|191613107|OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7 after intervention||||0.809
95820070|NCT02473471|191613108|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.09
95820071|NCT02473471|191613108|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.29
95820072|NCT02473471|191613108|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.57
95958588|NCT02979613|191889362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in least squares mean (LSM), and its 95% CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with baseline age groups (\< 50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.00|-0.03|0.0186
95958589|NCT02979613|191889363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||0.01|-0.02|0.6956
95958590|NCT02979613|191889364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.536|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.536|0.797|< 0.0001
95820073|NCT02473471|191613108|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.82
95820074|NCT02473471|191613109|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.27
95820075|NCT02473471|191613109|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.37
95820076|NCT02473471|191613109|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.33
95820077|NCT02473471|191613109|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||> 0.05
95820078|NCT02473471|191613110|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.05
95820079|NCT02473471|191613110|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.47
95820080|NCT02473471|191613110|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.09
95820081|NCT02473471|191613110|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95820082|NCT02473471|191613111|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1||||0.18
95820083|NCT02473471|191613111|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3||||0.57
95820084|NCT02473471|191613111|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 5||||0.30
95820085|NCT02473471|191613111|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 7||||0.56
95820086|NCT02473471|191613112|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Descriptive statistics|||||||< 0.05
95820087|NCT03745638|191613114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.556|11.923||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||11.923|3.556|< 0.0001
95958591|NCT02979613|191889365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.977||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.49|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.490|0.465|0.0002
95958592|NCT02979613|191889366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|2.486|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||2.486|1.275|< 0.0001
95820088|NCT03745638|191613114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.178|14.04||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||14.040|4.178|< 0.0001
95820089|NCT03745638|191613115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.441|6.808||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.808|2.441|< 0.0001
95820090|NCT03745638|191613115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.145|8.831||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.831|3.145|< 0.0001
95820091|NCT03745638|191613116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.773|8.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||8.083|1.773|0.0002
95820092|NCT03745638|191613116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.931|13.22||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.220|2.931|< 0.0001
95820093|NCT03745638|191613117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.242|5.723||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||5.723|1.242|0.0081
95854785|NCT00904033|191669622|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95854786|NCT00904033|191669623|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95854787|NCT00904033|191669624|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95820094|NCT03745638|191613117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|6.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||6.083|1.334|0.0039
95820095|NCT03745638|191613118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|3.391||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.391|0.862|0.1421
95820096|NCT03745638|191613118|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|3.665||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.665|0.949|0.0746
95820097|NCT03745638|191613128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|-27.32|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-27.32|-43.64|< 0.0001
95820098|NCT03745638|191613128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Method of Mean Difference]|-40.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.44|-32.13|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 2||-32.13|-48.44|< 0.0001
95820099|NCT03745638|191613128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|-35.74|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-35.74|-54.28|< 0.0001
95820100|NCT03745638|191613128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-48.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-38.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 4||-38.79|-57.30|< 0.0001
95820101|NCT03745638|191613128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.95|-24.3||The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-24.30|-41.95|< 0.0001
95820102|NCT03745638|191613128|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-30.72|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Percent change from Baseline in EASI score at Week 8||-30.72|-48.32|< 0.0001
95820103|NCT03745638|191613129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.62|-17.95|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-17.95|-32.62|< 0.0001
95820104|NCT03745638|191613129|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.68|-23.06|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent change from Baseline in SCORAD score at Week 8||-23.06|-37.68|< 0.0001
95820105|NCT03745638|191613130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.91|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-0.91|-1.87|<0.0001
95820106|NCT03745638|191613130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.16|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 2||-1.16|-2.11|<0.0001
95820107|NCT03745638|191613130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.15|-2.25|<0.0001
95820108|NCT03745638|191613130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.53|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 4||-1.53|-2.63|<0.0001
95820109|NCT03745638|191613130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.01|-2.20|<0.0001
95820110|NCT03745638|191613130|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.4|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in Itch NRS score at Week 8||-1.40|-2.58|<0.0001
95820111|NCT03745638|191613132|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.74|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-0.74|-1.74|<0.0001
95820112|NCT03745638|191613132|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in Skin Pain NRS score at Week 8||-1.13|-2.11|<0.0001
95820113|NCT03745638|191613135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.47|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.47|-2.60|0.0049
95958593|NCT02979613|191889367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.604||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.317|||ANOVA|||P-value, difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were from ANOVA with baseline age groups (\<50, ≥ 50 years), baseline HBeAg status, and treatment group as fixed effects in the model.||1.317|-0.110|0.0970
95958594|NCT02979613|191889368|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.0001
95820114|NCT03745638|191613135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.25|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-1.25|-3.37|<0.0001
95820115|NCT03745638|191613135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.15|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.15|-3.52|0.0001
95820116|NCT03745638|191613135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.67|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-1.67|-4.03|<0.0001
95820117|NCT03745638|191613135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-1.14|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.14|-3.93|0.0004
95820118|NCT03745638|191613135|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.79|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form-Sleep Disturbance (8b) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-1.79|-4.57|<0.0001
95820119|NCT03745638|191613136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.01|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.01|-2.35|0.0487
95820120|NCT03745638|191613136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.51|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 2||-0.51|-2.84|0.0049
95820121|NCT03745638|191613136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.35|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.35|-2.94|0.0128
95820122|NCT03745638|191613136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.62|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 4||-0.62|-3.20|0.0037
95820123|NCT03745638|191613136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.65|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.65|-3.58|0.0048
95820124|NCT03745638|191613136|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.84|||Mixed-Model with Repeated Measures|The MMRM included the fixed effect of treatment, stratification factor, the visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||Change from Baseline in PROMIS Short Form - Sleep-Related Impairment (8a) 24-hour recall score at Week 8||-0.84|-3.75|0.0020
95820125|NCT03745638|191613139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.18|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.18|-4.07|<0.0001
95820126|NCT03745638|191613139|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-2.79|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in %BSA at Week 8||-2.79|-4.67|<0.0001
95820127|NCT03745638|191613141|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|-3.8|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-3.80|-6.43|<0.0001
95820128|NCT03745638|191613141|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-5.0|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in POEM score at Week 8||-5.00|-7.62|<0.0001
95820129|NCT03745638|191613143|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-2.68|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-2.68|-4.85|<0.0001
95958595|NCT02979613|191889369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7535||||||P-values were from the 2-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare the 2 treatment groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.7535
95958596|NCT00477464|191889376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|72.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants who achieved a best overall response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease.|||72.4|44.2|
95958597|NCT03568812|191889396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|111.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|182.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted CD4 level||182.7|40.9|0.02
95958598|NCT03568812|191889396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|140.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted CD4 level||140.8|5.9|0.03
95958599|NCT03568812|191889397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Th17 change after intervention||1.0|-0.5|0.55
96000288|NCT04800315|191976661|OTHER|Risk Difference VS Placebo|Risk Difference VS Placebo|18.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|2.3|0.052
96000289|NCT04800315|191976663|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-23.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.48|-4.76|||ANCOVA|||||-4.76|-41.48|
95820130|NCT03745638|191613143|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.42|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total DLQI score at Week 8||-3.42|-5.56|<0.0001
95820131|NCT03745638|191613145|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-1.26|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-1.26|-5.29|0.0018
95820132|NCT03745638|191613145|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|-0.13|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in total CDLQI score at Week 8||-0.13|-4.43|0.0378
95820133|NCT03745638|191613149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.632|11.018||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||11.018|3.632|<0.0001
95820134|NCT03745638|191613149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.755|15.083||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||Percentage of participants with a score of either 1 or 2 on the PGIC at Week 8||15.083|4.755|<0.0001
95820135|NCT03745638|191613150|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|8.15|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.15|1.59|0.0037
95820136|NCT03745638|191613150|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|8.96|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Change from Baseline in EQ VAS score at Week 8||8.96|2.45|0.0006
95820137|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|1.65|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||1.65|-11.49|0.1417
95820138|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|4.77|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent work time missed due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||4.77|-8.19|0.6037
95820139|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-5.12|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.12|-16.89|0.0003
95820140|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|-6.47|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent impairment while working due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.47|-17.98|<0.0001
95820141|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-7.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-7.81|-22.95|<0.0001
95820142|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|-5.01|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent overall work impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-5.01|-19.85|0.0011
95820143|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-6.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-6.29|-14.64|<0.0001
95820144|NCT03745638|191613151|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-8.29|||ANCOVA|P-value was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment, stratification factors and Baseline score as covariates if applicable.||Percent activity impairment due to AD: Change from Baseline in WPAI-SHP v2.0 at Week 8||-8.29|-16.60|<0.0001
95820145|NCT01104545|191613180|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/Fasted|||||
95820146|NCT01104545|191613181|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||||||||||GMR = Fed/fasted|||||
95820147|NCT02063984|191613198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.56|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||1.56|.11|
95820148|NCT02063984|191613199|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.07|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||3.07|.79|
95820149|NCT02063984|191613200|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.82||||||CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||4.82|.18|
95820150|NCT02063984|191613201|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.54|||||Outcome was tested in a zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) model|CM+No WMT is the comparison condition||2.54|.33|
95820151|NCT02063984|191613202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.45||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.45|.45|
95820152|NCT02063984|191613202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.2||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||6.20|.84|
95820153|NCT02063984|191613202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.13|.23|
95820154|NCT02063984|191613203|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.92||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.92|.76|
95958600|NCT03568812|191889397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||There is no difference between probiotics - placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Th17 change after intervention||0.9|-0.7|0.79
96000290|NCT04800315|191976663|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-8.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|8.59|||ANCOVA|||||8.59|-25.16|
95820155|NCT02063984|191613203|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.18||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||1.18|.49|
95820156|NCT02063984|191613203|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of means|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.15||||||Strategy 1 is the comparison condition||2.15|.83|
95820157|NCT01696981|191613215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
95820158|NCT01696981|191613217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||Poisson regression|||||0.85|0.72|
95820159|NCT01696981|191613219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87|||Poisson regression|||||0.87|0.63|
95820160|NCT01763333|191613236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6942|1.0513|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0513|0.6942|
95820161|NCT01763333|191613236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8277|1.0405|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for Cmax was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0405|0.8277|
95820162|NCT01763333|191613236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|112.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.579|132.993|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||132.993|95.579|
95820163|NCT01763333|191613236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|52.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.488|68.499|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||68.499|40.488|
95820164|NCT01763333|191613236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|239.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|197.445|290.83|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||290.830|197.445|
95820165|NCT01763333|191613236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.427|130.208|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for Cmax. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||130.208|85.427|
95958601|NCT03568812|191889399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of unadjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-1.5|-23.9|0.03
95958602|NCT03568812|191889399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05 The variable was adjusted to duration of ARV regimen and baseline CD4 level|ANCOVA||Treatment difference = Probiotics - Placebo|The statistical analysis of adjusted Fecal Calprotectin Level change after intervention||-3.6|-27.6|0.01
95958603|NCT03568812|191889401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Chi-squared|||The statistical analysis of food frequency change after intervention (12 weeks)||||0.551
95958604|NCT04269434|191889501|NON_INFERIORITY|"The No Screening Arm is considered non-inferior if the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval is less than 1.25"|Incidence rate ratio|1.318|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.627||||||Compared to screening group||1.627|1.068|
95820166|NCT01763333|191613238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6485|1.0198|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-inf was analysed.The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0198|0.6485|
95820167|NCT01763333|191613238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8059|1.0239|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose).Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-inf was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0239|0.8059|
95820168|NCT01763333|191613238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean Ratio|86.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.529|98.029|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.029|76.529|
95820169|NCT01763333|191613238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|74.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.322|83.562|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.562|66.322|
95820170|NCT01763333|191613238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.708|157.353|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1 (PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.353|119.708|
95820171|NCT01763333|191613238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.462|121.724|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC0-inf.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||121.724|111.462|
95820172|NCT01763333|191613239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.0275|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC 0- tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0275|0.6580|
95820173|NCT01763333|191613239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9307|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8187|1.0426|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of solution for AUC0-tz was analysed. The per protocol set for the evaluation of dose proportionality (PPS-DP) was used. This set included all subjects of the TS-SRD who provided at least one observation for at least one of the endpoints Cmax, AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, or Aet1-t2, without experiencing emesis at or before 2 times median tmax and without important PVs relevant to the statistical evaluation of PK.||1.0426|0.8187|
95820174|NCT01763333|191613239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean Ratio|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.735|98.027|||||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Tab. fed (T1) : Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz. The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T1 vs R1 (PPS-BA-T1-R1) was used.||98.027|75.735|
95820175|NCT01763333|191613239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean)|gMean ratio|74.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.979|83.941|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2) : Sol. fasted (R2) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs R2 (PPS-BA-T2-R2) was used.||83.941|65.979|
95820176|NCT01763333|191613239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|137.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.611|157.374|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fasted (R2): Tab. fasted (R1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of R2 vs R1(PPS-BA-R2-R1) was used.||157.374|119.611|
95820177|NCT01763333|191613239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were log transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. The difference between the expected means of the 2 treatments of interest for each pairwise comparison were estimated by the difference in the corresponding Least Square Means (point estimate) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals based on the t-distribution were computed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator (geometric mean).|gMean ratio|116.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.814|122.079|||||Adjusted gMean ratio.|Relative bioavailability comparison Sol. fed (T2): Tab. fed (T1) for AUC 0-tz.The per protocol set for the evaluation of relative bioavailability of T2 vs T1 (PPS-BA-T2-T1) was used.||122.079|111.814|
95820178|NCT02131662|191613242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|58.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.55|70.94||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||70.94|44.55|
95820179|NCT02131662|191613242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|52.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|65.42||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||65.42|38.8|
95820180|NCT02131662|191613242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|54.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.41|66.95||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||66.95|40.41|
95820181|NCT02131662|191613242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.92|41.5||||||The placebo-adjusted amenorrhea rate was summarized by dose with unconditional 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each active treatment group. This unconditional confidence interval was calculated by inverting 2 separate one-sided tests of half the nominal significance level each.||41.5|15.92|
95958605|NCT04269434|191889502|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|0.863||||||For Azithromycin. Compared to screening group||0.863|0.719|
95958606|NCT04269434|191889502|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|0.739||||||For Ceftriaxone. Compared to screening group||0.739|0.426|
95958607|NCT04269434|191889502|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin|Incidence rate ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|0.588||||||For Doxycycline. Compared to screening group||0.588|0.515|
95820182|NCT03335150|191613258|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4856||||0.6662|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = Standard Error (SE) of the interaction term.|||||0.6662
95820183|NCT03335150|191613258|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2415||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean Matrix Reasoning Total (MRT) difference between two visits while controlling for intervention.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1617
95820184|NCT03335150|191613258|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5087||||0.6236|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean MRT difference between two interventions while controlling for visit.|estimated value = SE|||||0.6236
95820185|NCT03335150|191613259|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.0496
95820186|NCT03335150|191613260|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.047
95820187|NCT03335150|191613261|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.001
95820188|NCT03335150|191613262|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.020
95820189|NCT03335150|191613263|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of interaction term|||||0.444
95820190|NCT03335150|191613263|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.145||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between intervention groups controlling for visit and other significant covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0233
95958608|NCT04269434|191889503|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.956||||||Compared to screening group||1.956|0.963|
95958609|NCT04269434|191889504|NON_INFERIORITY|No prespecified margin.|Incidence rate ratio|1.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|2.299||||||Compared to screening group||2.299|0.943|
95820191|NCT03335150|191613263|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6281|||<|0|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|There is significant difference in MIST between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention group and other significant covariates|estimated value = SE|||||<0.000
95958610|NCT01086384|191889505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression Cox|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|0.985|||||The estimated values is the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|||0.985|0.642|
95820192|NCT03335150|191613264|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.205||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||estimated value = SE of interaction term|||||0.073
95820193|NCT03335150|191613265|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction Term|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
95820194|NCT03335150|191613265|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1172||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mean PDQ-39 difference between baseline and week 10 controlling for intervention and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.0257
95820195|NCT03335150|191613265|OTHER|Equality|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8649||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Difference in PDQ-39 between two interventions controlling for visit and covariates.|estimated value = SE|||||0.1101
95820196|NCT03335150|191613266|OTHER|Equality|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.784||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction term|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value = SE of the interaction term.|||||0.0263
95820197|NCT01575808|191613278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|86.3||||z-test|One-sided z-test||A literature-based Surgical Bypass Efficacy Goal of 65% was compared to the percentage of subjects maintaining primary assisted patency at 12 months. A one-sided z-test using a Type I error of 5% was performed to test the hypotheses that the 12-month primary assisted patency probability of GP1101 is superior to the SBEG of 65%.|||86.3|<0.0001
95820198|NCT01575808|191613279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis is that the post-procedure hospital stay duration for GP1101 is superior to the post-procedure hospital stay for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||||<0.0001
95820199|NCT01575808|191613280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated with binomial exact method.|The hypothesis is that the rate of avoidance of general anesthesia for GP1101 is superior to the rate of avoidance of general anesthesis for the retrospective surgical bypass group.||100|96.5|<0.0001
95820200|NCT01575808|191613281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence intervals calculated using the binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
95820201|NCT01575808|191613311|OTHER||Percentage|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.4||||||||99.4|91.7|
95820202|NCT01575808|191613331|OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0|||||Confidence Interval calculated with binomial exact method.|||100.0|96.5|
95820203|NCT02842086|191613340|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.191|1.149||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% confidence interval (CI) constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.149|0.191|
96000291|NCT04800315|191976663|OTHER|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|Adjusted mean difference VS Placebo|-10.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.39|7.66|||ANCOVA|||||7.66|-29.39|
96000292|NCT01065428|191976668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95820204|NCT02842086|191613341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.655|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included baseline TVD for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment as fixed effects.||1.655|0.628|<0.0001
96000293|NCT01065428|191976669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95820205|NCT02842086|191613342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.22|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.220|0.913|<0.0001
95820206|NCT02842086|191613343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
95820207|NCT02842086|191613344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
95820208|NCT02842086|191613345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.0048
95820209|NCT02842086|191613346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
95820210|NCT02842086|191613347|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of DVY to TVD was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95.003% CI of the rate ratio (DVY group over TVD group) in the HIV infection incidence rate was less than 1.62.|Rate Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.227|1.264||||||Noninferiority was assessed using a 95.003% CI constructed using a generalized model associated with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link with the treatment group being the main effect and with a noninferiority margin of 1.62.||1.264|0.227|
95820211|NCT02842086|191613348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|2.237|||ANOVA|||Hip BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||2.237|0.896|<0.0001
96002110|NCT04003155|191981634|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-24.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-16.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from MMRM analysis of covariance model with CFB as dv \& trt group, wk \& smoking status as factors, with bl measurement \& bl wt as covariates, as well as an interaction of trt by wk \& interaction of bl measurement by wk.|MMRM|||Week 12||-16.20|-32.16|<0.001
95820212|NCT02842086|191613349|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.437|3.069|||ANOVA|||Spine BMD results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using ANOVA, which included baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects.||3.069|1.437|<0.0001
95820213|NCT02842086|191613350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
95820214|NCT02842086|191613351|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from the Van Elteren test stratified by baseline TVD for PrEP.|Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
95820215|NCT02842086|191613352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2163||||||P-value for difference between treatment groups in distributions of UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g versus \> 200 mg/g was from the rank analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline category and baseline TVD for PrEP.|Rank analysis of covariance|||||||0.2163
95820216|NCT02842086|191613353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Results were compared between the 2 treatment groups using the ANCOVA model including baseline TVD for PrEP and treatment as fixed effects and baseline serum creatinine as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.02|<0.0001
95820217|NCT00928187|191613356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL Viral Load (VL) threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|differences in proportions|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.4||||||||16.4|-5.1|
95820218|NCT00928187|191613356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesizing 80% efficacy at the 50 copies/mL VL threshold in the control group at W48, we calculated a required sample size of 150 participants per group to show non-inferiority of ABC/ddI and DRV groups compared with control group in ITT analysis, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%, a power of 90% and a two-sided α of 5%.|difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.7||||||||16.7|-4.5|
95820219|NCT00928187|191613361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95820220|NCT00928187|191613362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95820221|NCT00928187|191613363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95820222|NCT03224403|191613369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
95820223|NCT03224403|191613369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
95820224|NCT03224403|191613369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
95820225|NCT03224403|191613369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.035
95820226|NCT03224403|191613369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||<0.001
95820227|NCT03224403|191613370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
95820228|NCT03224403|191613370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
95820229|NCT03224403|191613370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||||||<0.001
95820230|NCT03224403|191613370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.671
95820231|NCT03224403|191613370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||The significance threshold level was 0.049 (two-sided). P-values are from the comparison of median survival time using the bootstrap re-sampling method.|bootstrap re-sampling method|||||||0.487
95820232|NCT03224403|191613371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820233|NCT03224403|191613372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820234|NCT03224403|191613373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820235|NCT03224403|191613374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820236|NCT03224403|191613375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820237|NCT03224403|191613376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820238|NCT03224403|191613377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820239|NCT03224403|191613378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820240|NCT03224403|191613379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820241|NCT03224403|191613380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820242|NCT03224403|191613381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820243|NCT03224403|191613382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820244|NCT03224403|191613383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820245|NCT03224403|191613384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820246|NCT03224403|191613385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820247|NCT03224403|191613386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820248|NCT03224403|191613387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95820249|NCT03224403|191613388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.007
95820250|NCT03224403|191613389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
95820251|NCT03224403|191613390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.080
95820252|NCT01631747|191613401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and tested at an a priori type I error rate of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size was based on an independent 2-sample t-test using a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.05, and 80% power. Assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 15lbs (6.8kg), a clinically meaningful difference of 5lbs (2.4kg) between groups, and 10% attrition, a sample size of 150/group was required.||||0.01
95820253|NCT01631747|191613401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for actual gestational age of 36 week weight, gestational age, bmi, and maternal age at randomization, maternal race and paternal race.||||||0.02
95820254|NCT01631747|191613402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.54
95820255|NCT01631747|191613403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change in glucose (log scale), but presented as Median and inter-quartile range for interpretability||||||0.89
95820256|NCT01631747|191613404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes in HDL, but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.30
95820257|NCT01631747|191613405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on changes between groups. Data presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.69
95820258|NCT01631747|191613406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.19
95820259|NCT01631747|191613407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test used to compare changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation.||||||0.27
95820260|NCT01631747|191613408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test performed on changes between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.003
95820261|NCT01631747|191613409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.24
95820262|NCT01631747|191613410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test run on change between groups (log scale), but presented as median and IQR for ease of interpretation||||||0.32
95820263|NCT01631747|191613411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test performed on change between groups (log scale). Median and IQR are presented for ease of interpretation||||||0.26
95820264|NCT01631747|191613412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95820265|NCT01631747|191613413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95820266|NCT01631747|191613414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95820267|NCT01631747|191613415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95820268|NCT01631747|191613416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95820269|NCT01631747|191613417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95820270|NCT02482428|191613436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.2|||Posterior mean|||||0.20|-0.03|0.862
95820271|NCT02482428|191613436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.19|||posterior mean|||||0.19|-0.07|0.541
95820272|NCT00241176|191613590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||YGTSS Global Severity score (M=61.8 SD=13.49) declined significantly to end point (M=33.7 SD=15.18; p=0.003).|Group 1 Baseline vs. Endpoint||||<.05
95820273|NCT00241176|191613591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mean (SD) CGI-Tic severity scores reduced significantly from (M=4.45 SD=0.52) (moderate-marked) at baseline to (M=3.18 SD =0.60) (mild) at end point ( p=0.004).|Mean scores baseline to endpoint||||<.05
95820274|NCT03206970|191613592|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<.0001
95820275|NCT03206970|191613596|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|83.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|90.8|||Binomial Exact Test|||A binomial exact test was performed to test against the null hypothesis H0: ORR=0.40 using the significant level of 0.025 (1-sided)||90.8|74.2|<0.0001
95820276|NCT02516982|191613599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.994
95820277|NCT02516982|191613600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7
95820278|NCT02516982|191613601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.008
95820279|NCT02516982|191613602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.919
95820280|NCT02516982|191613603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001467|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0001467
95820281|NCT02516982|191613604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
96002111|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|5.999||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.999|1.823|<0.001
95820282|NCT02516982|191613605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.869
95820283|NCT02819297|191613646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95820284|NCT03583359|191613782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|66.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|75.2|||Fisher's exact test|The Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the superiority of treatment (Radiesse \[+\]) over control group.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for difference in responder rate.|||75.2|53.7|<0.0001
95820285|NCT01625416|191613788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square (2) =5.9, p=0.05|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.05
95820286|NCT01625416|191613789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|Chi square(2) = 0.74, p = 0.69|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.69
95820287|NCT01625416|191613792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Chi square (2) = 0.06, p = 0.97|Chi-squared||||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.97
95820288|NCT01625416|191613793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square (2) =0.68, p=0.71|||This chi-square analysis was derived from a mixed repeated measures model comparing intervention results with control results over 4 time points.|||0.71
95820289|NCT01831466|191613794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|-4.3|0.5425
95958611|NCT01086384|191889505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|18.2||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF 100 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||18.2|13.5|0.036
95958612|NCT01086384|191889505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.8||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|14.9||P-value for the Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox regression analysis for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus FF 100 µg, adjusted for an interim analysis.|Regression, Cox||The estimated value represents the adjusted probability of 1 or more severe asthma exacerbations by Week 52 for FF/VI 100/25 µg. Cox Proportional Hazards Model estimate at mean Baseline FEV1, age, and proportional coefficients for sex and region.|||14.9|10.7|0.036
95958613|NCT02586415|191889535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.7||Criteria to assess superiority was a two-sided P value of \<0.05. The study was terminated early because the pre-specified stopping boundary of P \<0.0025 was crossed at the first interim analysis (N=182)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.70|1.63|<0.001
95958614|NCT01841112|191889544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7272|2.0151|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3038.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||2.0151|0.7272|
95820290|NCT01831466|191613794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.5|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.5|-11.5|0.4976
95820291|NCT01831466|191613794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.5|-4.9|0.6039
95820292|NCT01831466|191613794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.1|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-4.1|0.5279
95820293|NCT01831466|191613795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.071|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|3.1|0.0710
95820294|NCT01831466|191613795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.9|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.5|-7.9|0.8175
95820295|NCT01831466|191613795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.8|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|3.8|0.0513
95820296|NCT01831466|191613795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-0.0|0.2021
95820297|NCT00005947|191613823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.052||95.0|0.99|2.11|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|||2.11|0.99|0.052
95820298|NCT00005947|191613823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.01|||Log Rank||Obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|||1.01|0.47|0.052
95820299|NCT00005947|191613824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.01||95.0|1.13|2.58|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[placebo/sipuleucel-T\].|ITT Population - all randomized participants||2.58|1.13|0.010
95820300|NCT00005947|191613824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.586||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.884|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the independent variable \[sipuleucel-T/placebo\]|ITT Population - all randomized participants.||0.884|0.388|0.010
95820301|NCT00434993|191613826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||The trial had a statistical power of 90.7% to detect a 2.25-day increase in VFDs,assuming a SD of 10.5 days. A group sequential design was used.||0.3|-4.7|0.087
95820302|NCT00434993|191613827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|14.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||14.7|-4.0|0.302
95820303|NCT00434993|191613828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|15.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||15.4|-3.7|0.261
95820304|NCT00434993|191613829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||-0.4|-4.9|0.023
95820305|NCT00434993|191613830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.9|-4.3|0.226
95820306|NCT00434993|191613831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||0.6|-5.3|0.130
95820307|NCT00434993|191613832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline shock.||||19.6|-3.1|0.176
95820308|NCT00434993|191613833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-7.8|0.048
95820309|NCT00434993|191613834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.9|-6.9|0.265
95820310|NCT02285023|191613838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was employed. An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5.|||||<|0.01||||||An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5|exploratory factor analysis|An eigenvalue ≥ 1 was chosen as the criterion to retain domains. Each item was classified into the domain when loading with a domain loading ≥ 0.5||Exploratory factor analysis||||<0.01
95820311|NCT02285023|191613839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cronbach's alpha|0.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Crohbach's alpha|||||||<0.05
95958615|NCT01841112|191889544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.3652|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0421|1.6883|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1516.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.6883|1.0421|
95820312|NCT04776720|191613881|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
95820313|NCT04776720|191613882|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
95820314|NCT04776720|191613883|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
95820315|NCT04776720|191613884|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
95820316|NCT04776720|191613885|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
95820317|NCT04776720|191613886|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
95820318|NCT04776720|191613887|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
95820319|NCT04776720|191613888|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
95820320|NCT04776720|191613889|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
95820321|NCT04776720|191613890|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
95820322|NCT01740687|191613896|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.23|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.1% at 1 year||||
95820323|NCT01740687|191613897|OTHER||95% upper Bayesian credible interval|1.33|||||||||||||%|predetermined study success threshold of 2.8% at 3 years||||
95820324|NCT03306433|191613909|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there are no significant paired differences between the groups. The power calculation is based on the observed variation and number of participants|Paired difference t-test|-12.139|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.101||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired difference p value comparing UDMA-K18 vs Adhesive Control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 12 participants (pairs) for this comparison|Paired difference test within each participant.||||0.0003
95958616|NCT01841112|191889545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4794|1.9202|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3380.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.9202|0.4794|
95820325|NCT03306433|191613909|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis was that there were no differences between the groups|Paired difference t-test|-7.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.049||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired differrnce between UDMA-K18 and UDMA control|Paired difference test, 2 sided||There are 9 participant pairs for this comparison|Paired comparison||||0.0063
95820326|NCT03306433|191613910|EQUIVALENCE|The Null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|15.77||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||WSL Index is non-parametric||||0.0033
95820327|NCT03306433|191613910|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that there would not be any differences between the groups|Chi Square on WSL Index frequency|6.8321||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1450
95820328|NCT00803595|191613911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours (h) was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.9||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||6.9|-9.9|0.748
95820329|NCT00803595|191613911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-0.4||2-sided p-value without adjustments for multiple testing|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time to illness alleviation||-0.4|-18.2|0.038
95854238|NCT00303069|191668279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|43.8||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||43.8|6.7|<0.001
95820330|NCT00803595|191613911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 18 hours was set to assure the superiority of laninamivir octanoate over a putative placebo. A meta-analysis using 3 placebo-controlled trials reported that the difference between the median time to illness alleviation in the placebo and oseltamivir groups was 33.1 h and the 95% confidence interval ranged from 19.1 to 47.1 h. From this, a margin that was less than the lower limit of this 95% CI was selected.|Median Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.2|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||This trial was designed to confirm the efficacy of laninamivir octanoate by showing that the median time to illness alleviation in patients treated with laninamivir octanoate was not \>18 hours longer than that in patients treated with oseltamivir. Sample size of 300 patients in each group was determined to achieve a power of at least 80% to show noninferiority at both dose levels of laninamivir octanoate with use of a Monte Carlo simulation.||17.2|-1.5|0.104
95820331|NCT00803595|191613912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||9.1|-2.8|0.318
95820332|NCT00803595|191613912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||5.7|-5.8|0.981
95820333|NCT00803595|191613912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.1||2-sided P value without adjustments for multiple testing.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the time for return to normal axillary temperature.||3.1|-9.1|0.344
95820334|NCT00556439|191613918|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.049||||||The p value of 0.049 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in giant cell arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.049
95820335|NCT00556439|191613918|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier curves of relapse free survival were constructed, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||||0.853||||||The p value of 0.853 reflects comparison of relapse free survival of abatacept versus placebo in Takayasu arteritis.|Log Rank|||The planned sample size was determined by the minimally clinically meaningful result (i.e., an approximate 30% improvement in relapse-free survival) to be detected utilizing a one-sided alpha of 0.1. Kaplan-Meier curves of RFS were constructed for each stratum, and differences in treatment arms compared using the logrank test. The analysis of the primary outcome was based upon intent to treat.||||0.853
95820336|NCT00281099|191613921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.21. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.21 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.21 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.139||||||96.3|1.139|1.59||There were 167 events by 90 subjects in the VVI 40 arm, compared to 188 events among 104 subjects in the MVP arm.|Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was used to account for multiple primary endpoints per subject.|4 interim analyses were performed \& the O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending function required a 96.3% confidence interval.|"This is a multiple events survival analysis, with time to first primary endpoint, time between successive endpoints, and time from last endpoint to last follow-up visit determined for each subject. The null hypothesis is that the mortality/ heart failure (HF) urgent care/HF hospitalization hazard rate for patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40."||1.590|1.139|
95820337|NCT00281099|191613922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.241. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.241 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.241 was derived by using a non-inferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month HF event-free rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029||||||95.0|1.029|1.381|||Andersen-Gill Model|An Andersen-Gill model was utilized to account for multiple HF events per subject.||This is a multiple events survival analysis, and so the time from randomization to first HF event, time between successive HF events, and time from last HF event to last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. Since non-inferiority analysis is intended to prove that one therapy is equivalent or superior to another therapy, the null hypothesis being tested is that the worsening HF hazard rate for patients with MVP programming is greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||1.381|1.029|
95861800|NCT02123251|191682615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9571||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1274|1.5442|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.5442|-6.1274|0.2416
95958617|NCT01841112|191889545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7131|1.3466|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3466|0.7131|
95958618|NCT01841112|191889546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5078|1.8952|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.3272.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Chinese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.8952|0.5078|
95958619|NCT01841112|191889546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.0301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7133|1.3469|||||The standard error of slope estimate = 0.1486.|Dose proportionality was assessed in Japanese subjects. For the power model perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.3469|0.7133|
95820338|NCT00281099|191613923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interactions between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logits Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||A model with covariates for time and randomization arm was fit to test the null hypothesis that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. This analysis combined NYHA IV and Death into one category. The model included interaction terms for time and randomization arm.||||> 0.05
95820339|NCT00281099|191613923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The a priori alpha level for each covariate was 0.05. The p-value outcome provided is for the randomization arm main effect and all interaction terms between randomization arm and time.|Cumulative Logit Model|The analysis included data for all four time points (baseline, 12, 24, and 36 months) and all NYHA levels.||The null hypothesis for this analysis was the same as for the prior analysis: that the risk of worsening NYHA status over time among patients with MVP programming was equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming. In this analysis, however, death was considered a 5th category in addition to NYHA I-IV. An interaction term for time and randomization arm was also included.||||> 0.05
95820340|NCT00281099|191613924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates, the interaction between them included. Interaction shown to not be significant and model refit without it.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the followoing: LVEDD, LVESD, Septal Wall Thickness, and Posterior Wall Thickness; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
95820341|NCT00281099|191613925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: LV Ejection Fraction and LV Fractional Shortening; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were also collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
95820342|NCT00281099|191613926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0424||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model was fit with time and arm as covariates.||"A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values for left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.0424
95820343|NCT00281099|191613926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||In each case the a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||"Similar models were fit for left ventricle (LV) End Systolic Volume and Left Atrial Volume."||||>0.10
95820344|NCT00281099|191613927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0418||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication had a different values of Left Ventricular Sphericity Index over time than similar patients with VVI 40. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.0418
95861801|NCT02123251|191682616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2622||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5632|1.3846|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||1.3846|-3.5632|0.3881
95820345|NCT00281099|191613928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance for Arm was 0.05, with no correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models were fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: TR Velocity, Mitral Inflow-peak E and Mitral Inflow-peak A; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
95820346|NCT00281099|191613929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for Mitral Inflow - Deceleration time; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||0.9490
95958620|NCT02024750|191889599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.03||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.030|-0.021|0.72
95958621|NCT02024750|191889599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.013||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Negative values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on A1c. Results reflect the difference in A1c trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.013|-0.034|0.38
95958622|NCT02024750|191889600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.295||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.295|-0.249|0.87
95820347|NCT00281099|191613930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05, with no adjustment for multiple analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models fit with time and arm as covariates.||A linear mixed model was fit for each of the following: Left Atrial Area and Mitral Regurgitation Area; the purpose was to test whether patients with MVP and no pacing indication over time had a different average value for that measure than patients with VVI and no pacing indication. Two-sided tests were used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits.||||> 0.10
95820348|NCT00281099|191613931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8403||95.0||||The a priori threshold for significance for Arm was 0.05.|Cumulative Logits Model|Because Composite Mitral Regurgitation Score was measured on the ordinal scale, a GEE cumulative logits model was fit.||"A General Estimating Equation (GEE) Cumulative Logits model was fit with Arm, Time, and their interaction as covariates in the model to test the hypothesis that patients with no pacing indication and MVP programming have different Mitral Regurgation over time than similar patients with VVI 40 programming. A two-sided test was used. Data were collected from the 36 month visits but were excluded due to the trial being stopped early and only a subset of patients having data for those visits."||||0.8403
95820349|NCT00281099|191613932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||||95.0|0.949|1.209|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which true VT/VF occurred) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within subject of days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of true VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (values less than one favor MVP) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.209|0.949|
95820350|NCT00281099|191613932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|-0.015||||||95.0|-0.015|0.033|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of true VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.033|-0.015|
95820351|NCT00281099|191613932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||||95.0|1.31|1.858|||Andersen-Gill model|This model was fit to account for multiple events (i.e. days in which non-VT/VF detected by device as VT/VF) within subject.|Because of the possible correlation within a subject for days with episodes, a subsequent analysis was done using a bootstrap confidence interval for the annualized rate of episodes per patient month.|The pre-specified analysis called for a comparison of the hazard rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF between the two arms by way of a one-sided 95% confidence interval on the hazard ratio (MVP in numerator) after fitting a model. The unit of time was days, not episodes, so the analysis did not account for multiple episodes on the same day. If the upper bound was less than 1, the null hypothesis of equal hazard rates would be rejected.||1.858|1.310|
95820352|NCT00281099|191613932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Annualized Rates|0.017||||||95.0|0.017|0.036|||Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||A 95% one-sided bootstrap confidence interval was generated for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in annualized rates of inappropriately detected non-VT/VF per patient month. If the interval upper bound was less than 0, the null hypothesis of equal rates would be rejected.||0.036|0.017|
95820353|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.7166||95.0|1.22|3.0||The threshold for significance was the one-sided upper confidence bound being less than 1.|Andersen-Gill model|||This analysis compared the hazard rates for clinically important AF (defined as a calendar day with \>20 hour of AT/AF as measured by the device). The null hypothesis was that this hazard rate for patients with MVP was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40. The pre-specified model had Arm as a covariate, and accounted for time to first event and time between successive events per subject.||3.0|1.22|0.7166
95820354|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.8||The threshold for significance was defined as the upper one-sided confidence bound being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis compared the percentage of days with \>20 hours of AT/AF as measured by the device(definition of clinically important AF) between arms. The null hypothesis was that this percentage of days for patients with MVP was equal or greater to that of patients with VVI 40.||0.8|-100|
95820355|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|A one-sided test was used.||This analysis tested the null hypothesis that the hazard rate for development of persistent AF(defined as 2 consecutive visits presenting with AT/AF, 7 consecutive days of 22 or more hours per day of AT/AF, or \< 7 such days due to a cardioversion) in patients with MVP and no pacing indication was equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40.||||0.325
95820356|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.145||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF through 6 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) through 6 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.145|0|
95820357|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.227||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 6 to 12 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 6 to 12 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.227|0|
95820358|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|0.261||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 12 to 24 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 12 to 24 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.261|0|
95820359|NCT00281099|191613933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.1|0.11||The a priori threshold for significance was defined as the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the MVP - VVI 40 difference in average AT/AF burden from 24 to 36 months being less than 0.|Bootstrap Confidence Interval|||This analysis tested the hypothesis that the average AT/AF burden (hours per day of AT/AF) from 24 to 36 months post-implant in patients with no Class I pacing indication and MVP is equal to or greater than that of similar patients with VVI 40. Only subjects with complete AT/AF data for this time interval were included in the analysis.||0.110|-0.1|
95820360|NCT00281099|191613934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. The threshold was met, and the null hypothesis rejected.|Log Rank|||Physicians recorded at each scheduled and unscheduled follow-up whether the subject had developed a Class I indication since their last visit. The time from randomization to Class I indication development or last visit if censored was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the hazard rate for time to development of a Class I pacing indication among patients with MVP programming was equal to or greater than that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.0053
95820361|NCT00281099|191613936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9791||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 6 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.9791
95820362|NCT00281099|191613936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8984||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 12 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 12 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming.||||0.8984
95820363|NCT00281099|191613936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7144||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 24 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 24 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.7144
95820364|NCT00281099|191613936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5165||95.0||||The one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test yielded a p-value greater than 0.05, which was the a priori threshold for significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Alternative hypothesis:patients with MVP \& no pacing indication have less mean ventricular pacing through 36 months than similar patients with VVI 40.||All subjects from the analysis cohort with available data for the time period of interest were included in the corresponding analysis. The null hypothesis was that the average percent ventricular pacing through 36 months post-implant for patients with MVP programming and no pacing indication was greater than or equal to that of patients with VVI 40 programming and no pacing indication.||||0.5165
95820365|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Physical Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0073
95820366|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2493||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Stability Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.2493
95820367|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7728||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Frequency Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.7728
95820368|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3082||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Symptom Burden Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.3082
95820369|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5422||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Total Symptom Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.5422
95820370|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0851||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Self-Efficacy Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0851
95820371|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Quality of Life Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0502
95820372|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Social Limitation Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0463
95820373|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0227||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0227
95820374|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0582||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the KCCQ Overall Clinical Summary Score, the change from baseline to 12 months was compared between the two arms, using a two-sided test. If a subject died prior to the time point, a score of 0 was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.0582
95820375|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all ten KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 24 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 24 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 24 month score.||||> 0.15
95820376|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Tests for all 10 KCCQ subscores yielded p-values greater than 0.15 (the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in these analyses.||The 10 KCCQ analyses were repeated comparing changes from baseline to 36 months between arms. Again if a subject died prior to their 36 month visit, a value of 0 was imputed for their 36 month score.||||> 0.15
95820377|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1399||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 12 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 12 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 12 month score.||||0.1399
95820378|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3573||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, and no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 24 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 24 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 24 month score.||||0.3573
95958623|NCT02024750|191889600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.369||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on child quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.369|-0.517|0.74
95820379|NCT00281099|191613937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5183||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05, with no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because the trial was stopped early, only 178 subjects were included in this analysis.||The change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score from baseline to 36 months was compared using a two-sided test. If a subject died before their 36 month visit, a value of 105 (worst possible MLWHF score) was imputed for their 36 month score.||||0.5183
95820380|NCT00281099|191613938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was performed, with the hazard ratio as the parameter of interest and the non-inferiority threshold of 1.44. The one-sided upper confidence bound for the hazard ratio had to be less than 1.44 for the null hypothesis to be rejected. The threshold of 1.44 was derived by using a noninferiority threshold of a 5 percentage point difference in 24 month survival rates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|1.26|1.75|||||This was a non-inferiority analysis, and so a one-sided 95% confidence interval was performed comparing the MVP arm to the VVI 40 arm.|The time from randomization to all cause mortality or last follow-up visit was determined for each subject. The null hypothesis was that the mortality hazard rate for patients with MVP programming was greater than that of patients with VVI40 programming.||1.75|1.26|
95820381|NCT01668628|191613945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t-test: Comparison of baseline physical health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
95820382|NCT01668628|191613945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline mental health score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.008
95820383|NCT01668628|191613945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline kidney disease component score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group||||0.008
95820384|NCT01668628|191613945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test: Comparison of baseline BDI score between Normohydration group and Overhydration group.||||0.157
95958624|NCT02024750|191889601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.237||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.237|-0.312|0.79
95958625|NCT02024750|191889601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.448||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent quality of life. Results reflect the difference in QOL trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.448|-0.467|0.97
95820385|NCT03636893|191613989|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing disease-free survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.884||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Disease-free survival analysis in intention-to-treat population. DFS defined as time from randomization to first occurrence of local recurrence, regional recurrence, distant metastases, or death from any cause.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate DFS curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios.|1.884|0.597|0.842
95820386|NCT03636893|191613990|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test comparing overall survival between treatment groups. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Statistical significance set at P \<0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|2.036||P-value from two-sided log-rank test. No adjustment for multiple comparisons as overall survival was a pre-specified secondary endpoint. Alpha level set at 0.05.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test for between-group comparison. Analysis performed using SPSS version 30.0.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards regression with FLOT as reference group.|Primary survival analysis comparing overall survival between neoadjuvant FLOT and SOX regimens in intention-to-treat population.|Kaplan-Meier method used to estimate survival curves. Cox regression performed to calculate hazard ratios. Multivariable analysis performed to identify independent predictors.|2.036|0.595|0.759
95820387|NCT03818607|191614008|NON_INFERIORITY|The clinical similarity of the Week 27 LDH between treatments was assessed by comparing the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence interval (CI) limit for the geometric mean ratio of LDH at Week 27 between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a non-inferiority margin of 2.873.|Geometric LS mean ratio (GMR)|1.0628|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1576||||||||1.1576||
95820388|NCT03818607|191614009|OTHER|The clinical similarity of the AUEC between treatments was assessed by comparing 2-sided 90% CI for the GMR of the time-adjusted AUEC of LDH (Week 13 to Week 27, Week 39 to Week 53, and Week 65 to Week 79) between ABP 959 treatment and eculizumab treatment with a similarity margin of (0.77, 1.30).|GMR|0.9812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9403|1.0239||||||||1.0239|0.9403|
95958626|NCT02024750|191889602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.388||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.388|-0.121|0.30
95820389|NCT03818607|191614017|OTHER||GMR|1.0314|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.1201||||||||1.1201||
95820390|NCT03818607|191614020|OTHER||GMR|0.9122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7586|1.0968||||||Total PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.0968|0.7586|
95820391|NCT03818607|191614020|OTHER||GMR|0.9508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7454|1.213||||||Unbound PK AUC GMR (ABP 959/Eculizumab)||1.2130|0.7454|
95820392|NCT01147250|191614024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).||1.168|0.886|
95820393|NCT01147250|191614024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.017||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.168|||Log Rank||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model with treatment groups, and region (North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa/Near East, and Asia/Pacific) as covariates, and the associated two-sided 95% CI. Superiority of lixisenatide versus placebo was to be claimed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the hazard ratio was \<1.0.||1.168|0.886|0.8542
95820394|NCT03588806|191614028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.218
95820395|NCT03588806|191614029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures||||||0.268
95820396|NCT03588806|191614030|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
95820397|NCT03588806|191614031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.228
95820398|NCT03588806|191614032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.043
95820399|NCT03588806|191614033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Social Roles score||||0.486
95820400|NCT03588806|191614033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Sleep Disturbance T-Scores||||0.078
95820401|NCT03588806|191614033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Depression T-Scores||||0.874
95820402|NCT03588806|191614033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||PROMIS Anxiety T-Score||||0.389
95820403|NCT03588806|191614034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||ANOVA|Univariate repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.676
95820404|NCT01345929|191614038|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.57||||||||14.57|2.31|
95820405|NCT01345929|191614039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.97||||||||13.97|1.95|
95820406|NCT03629223|191614043|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%. In the below, LS-means = least squares mean.|Percentage of Ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.55|122.58||||||||122.58|108.55|
95820407|NCT03629223|191614043|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.61|212.28||||||||212.28|163.61|
95820408|NCT03629223|191614043|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.17|182.1||||||||182.10|146.17|
95820409|NCT03629223|191614044|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|115.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.51|122.6||||||||122.60|108.51|
95820410|NCT03629223|191614044|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|186.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.78|212.77||||||||212.77|163.78|
95820411|NCT03629223|191614044|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|163.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.09|182.46||||||||182.46|146.09|
95820412|NCT03629223|191614045|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with equivalence acceptance range for 90% confidence interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|113.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.62|119.85||||||||119.85|107.62|
95820413|NCT03629223|191614045|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|236.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|215.69|259.34||||||||259.34|215.69|
95820414|NCT03629223|191614045|OTHER||Percentage of ratio of Geometric LS-Mean|199.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|176.44|225.82||||||||225.82|176.44|
95820415|NCT02674464|191614064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Assuming an exchangeable correlation structure|CC/SC arm compared to the SCP arm.|||1.30|0.62|0.68
95820416|NCT02674464|191614065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm was compared to the SCP arm.|||2.30|-1.32|0.60
96002112|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.964|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.658|5.497||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.497|1.658|<0.001
95820417|NCT02674464|191614066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.71||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression|||||2.71|-1.04|0.38
95820418|NCT02674464|191614067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.01||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Effects Regression||CC/SC arm compared to SCP arm.|||0.01|-2.43|0.05
95820419|NCT01262638|191614099|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-9.7|||ANCOVA|||||-9.7|-21.8|<0.0001
95820420|NCT01262638|191614099|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-16.9|||ANCOVA|||||-16.9|-28.9|<0.0001
95820421|NCT01262638|191614099|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-30.5|<0.0001
95820422|NCT03115827|191614141|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95820423|NCT00617097|191614160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.6|||Regression, Linear|||expected level of pain during procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||12.6|-13.7|0.94
95820424|NCT00617097|191614160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|13.2|||Regression, Linear|||after speculum insertion greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||13.2|-15.1|0.9
95820425|NCT00617097|191614160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|9.0|||Regression, Linear|||during paracervical block administration greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||9|-18.6|0.49
95820426|NCT00617097|191614160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-1.7|||Regression, Linear|||after cervical dilation greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||-1.7|-28.3|0.03
95820427|NCT00617097|191614160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.0|||Regression, Linear|||immediately after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||18|-12.2|0.7
95820428|NCT00617097|191614160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||30 min after procedure greater number is worse (i.e., more pain) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less pain); maximum: 100 mm (more pain)||8.8|-17|.52
95820429|NCT00617097|191614161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||greater number is better (i.e., more satisfaction) 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): minimum: 0 mm (less satisfaction); maximum: 100 mm (greater satisfaction) Measured at end of study (i.e., upon clinic discharge)||||0.93
95820430|NCT00617097|191614162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||greater number is worse (i.e., more symptoms)||||0.07
95820431|NCT00617097|191614163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||minor complications greater number is worse (i.e., more complications)||||1
95820432|NCT00617097|191614163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||serious complications||||0.15
95820433|NCT02565147|191614164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7505|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.7505
95820434|NCT00244725|191614177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.012
95820435|NCT00244725|191614177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|1.1|0.017
95820436|NCT00244725|191614177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8|1.0|0.080
95820437|NCT04004221|191614189|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|1-sided p-value was based on binomial exact test of Tislelizumab versus historical rate of 0.1||||||< 0.0001
95820438|NCT02110485|191614222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95820439|NCT02110485|191614223|OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
95820440|NCT02110485|191614224|OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.67
95820441|NCT02110485|191614225|OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.17
95820442|NCT02110485|191614226|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.84
95820443|NCT02110485|191614227|OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
95820444|NCT00809926|191614255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-4.61|0.295
95820445|NCT00809926|191614256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|-1.93|0.790
95820446|NCT00809926|191614257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.1||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|17.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.67|-1.56|0.101
95820447|NCT00809926|191614258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.6||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|21.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.33|2.00|0.018
95820448|NCT00809926|191614261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-6.34|0.028
95820449|NCT00809926|191614262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-0.14|||GENMOD|Based on a generalized estimating equations using SAS procedure GENMOD.||||-0.14|-6.02|0.040
95820450|NCT00809926|191614263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||||-2.93|-14.38|0.004
95820451|NCT00809926|191614264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||||-1.42|-8.37|0.006
95820452|NCT02311881|191614297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.51||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.037|1.016|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between twice daily Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablets and placebo."||1.016|-6.037|0.1626
95820453|NCT02311881|191614297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Paracetamol 2000mg BID is non-inferior to Paracetamol 1330mg TID if the upper bound of the 95% confidence Interval is less than 5.3.|LS mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.894|1.166|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is ≤ - 5.3 (inferiority).~H1: Difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 1000 mg SR tablet and Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablet is \> - 5.3 (noninferiority)."||1.166|-5.894|
95820454|NCT02311881|191614297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.9352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.687|3.394|||ANCOVA||LS treatment means from mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment, target joint and center pools as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|"H0: There is no significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo.~H1: There is a significant difference in mean change from baseline through week 12 of WOMAC Pain between Paracetamol 665 mg SR tablets and placebo."||3.394|-3.687|0.9352
95820455|NCT06899737|191614334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.55|-7.64|0.32
95820456|NCT06899737|191614335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|10.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.30|-1.94|0.18
95820457|NCT06899737|191614336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.81|0.71
95820458|NCT06899737|191614337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.24|-0.03|0.32
95820459|NCT06899737|191614338|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|-0.82|0.91
95820460|NCT06899737|191614339|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.42|-0.03|0.059
95820461|NCT06899737|191614340|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.71|-0.92|0.79
95820462|NCT06899737|191614341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.15|-0.16|0.14
95820463|NCT06899737|191614342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.19|0.42
95820464|NCT06899737|191614343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.07|-0.40|0.37
95820465|NCT06899737|191614345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.51|-0.06|0.05
95820466|NCT06899737|191614346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|-0.26|0.23
95820467|NCT06899737|191614347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.39|-0.09|0.08
95820468|NCT06899737|191614348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.35|-0.15|0.11
95820469|NCT06899737|191614349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.36|-0.01|0.05
95820470|NCT01082081|191614360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 500 mg caplet.||7.39|2.15|0.0004
95820471|NCT01082081|191614360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|10.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.45|4.04|<0.0001
95820472|NCT01082081|191614360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.48||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|5.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 500 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||5.69|-0.74|0.1307
95820473|NCT03159468|191614381|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||This p-value is for the main effect of beverage condition.|ANOVA|||||||.041
95820474|NCT03159468|191614381|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This p-value is for the main effect of intervention condition.|ANOVA|||||||.160
95820475|NCT03159468|191614381|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||This p-value is for the beverage condition by intervention condition interaction.|ANOVA|||||||.462
95820476|NCT00375674|191614385|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.761||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|0.975|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||Superiority analysis||0.975|0.594|0.030
95820477|NCT00375674|191614386|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.811||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.023|||Cox Proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group||Superiority analysis||1.023|0.643|0.077
95820478|NCT00375674|191614387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.929||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.289|||Log-rank test|||Hazard ratio was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by UISS High-Risk Group.||1.289|0.670|0.661
95958627|NCT02024750|191889602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.373||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments were made for study stratification variables and covariates that were imbalanced between study arms at baseline.|Positive values indicate a clinical benefit.|During the post-intervention period, the treatment effect on parent fear of hypoglycemia. Results reflect the difference in FOH trend between usual care and intervention arms.||0.373|-0.384|0.98
96002113|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.187||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.549||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.549|1.363|0.001
95820479|NCT00335283|191614396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||7.59|1.28|.01
95820480|NCT00335283|191614396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|3.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.67|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment affect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||8.67|1.41|.006
95820481|NCT00335283|191614397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||2.70|0.38|.97
95820482|NCT00335283|191614397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.11||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||3.06|0.40|.84
95820483|NCT00335283|191614398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.44||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.31|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||6.31|.95|.06
95820484|NCT00335283|191614398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|4.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.6|1.5|.007
95820485|NCT00335283|191614399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.17||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|13.2|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 8 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||13.2|2.02|.006
95820486|NCT00335283|191614399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|5.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|14.3|||Regression, Logistic|||This applies to the 16 week treatment effect. A sample size of 33 patients in treated arm was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 35% between groups, assuming a lansoprazole treatment response of 70% and a placebo response of 35% with an alpha level of .05 and 90% power. A total of 75 patienst was considered an adequate sample size to allow for a 10% dropout rate.||14.3|1.97|.001
95820487|NCT02388165|191614400|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
95820488|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Redness: Any||9.8|6.9|<0.001
95820489|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.6||||||Redness: Mild||5.6|3.3|
95820490|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.0||||||Redness: Moderate||4.0|2.3|
95820491|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Redness: Severe||1.4|0.5|
95820492|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Swelling: Any||8.4|5.7|<0.001
95820493|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.0||||||Swelling: Mild||5.0|2.8|
95820494|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.3||||||Swelling: Moderate||3.3|1.7|
95820495|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||||||Swelling: Severe||1.2|0.4|
95958628|NCT00746356|191889655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3103|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used, and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|<0.0001
96002114|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.786|4.601||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.601|1.786|<0.001
95820496|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pain at the injection site: Any||18.1|13.3|<0.001
95820497|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|14.5||||||Pain at the injection site: Mild||14.5|10.0|
95820498|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.2||||||Pain at the injection site: Moderate||4.2|1.9|
95820499|NCT02388165|191614401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0||||||Pain at the injection site: Severe||1.0|0.1|
95820500|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.6||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fever: Any||1.6|-0.2|0.146
95820501|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.2||||||Fever: 38.0 degree C to 38.4 degree C||1.2|-0.3|
95820502|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||||||Fever: 38.5 degree C to 38.9 degree C||0.6|-0.4|
95820503|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||||||Fever: 39.0 degree C to 40.0 degree C||0.5|-0.2|
95820504|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Fever: \>40.0 degree C||0.3|-0.2|
95820505|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.9||||0.093||95.0|-0.5|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Fatigue: Any||6.2|-0.5|0.093
95820506|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.7||||||Fatigue: Mild||3.7|-0.9|
95820507|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||||||Fatigue: Moderate||4.2|-1.6|
95820508|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.6||||||Fatigue: Severe||1.6|-1.2|
95820509|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.2||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Headache: Any||4.4|-1.9|0.443
95820510|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||||||Headache: Mild||2.3|-2.9|
95820511|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.8||||||Headache: Moderate||3.8|-0.7|
95820512|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||||||Headache: Severe||0.8|-0.8|
95820513|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.0||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diarrhea: Any||3.4|-1.6|0.462
95820514|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||||||Diarrhea: Mild||3.0|-1.5|
95820515|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.7||||||Diarrhea: Moderate||1.7|-0.7|
95820516|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||||||Diarrhea: Severe||0.2|-1.0|
95820517|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.6||||0.3||95.0|-1.8|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Vomiting: Any||0.5|-1.8|0.300
95820518|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||||||Vomiting: Mild||0.8|-1.3|
95820519|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||Vomiting: Moderate||0.1|-0.9|
95820520|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.276||95.0|-1.3|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Muscle pain: Any||4.7|-1.3|0.276
95820521|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.8||||||Muscle pain: Mild||2.8|-1.2|
95820522|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||||||Muscle pain: Moderate||3.5|-1.4|
95820523|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.2||||||95.0|-1.2|0.8||||||Muscle pain: Severe||0.8|-1.2|
95820524|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.7||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Joint pain: Any||4.6|-1.3|0.273
95820525|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||Joint pain: Mild||3.6|-0.2|
95820526|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.4||||||Joint pain: Moderate||2.4|-2.6|
96000294|NCT00196937|191976670|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.29||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.29|-1.97|
95820527|NCT02388165|191614402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.1||||||95.0|-0.9|1.0||||||Joint pain: Severe||1.0|-0.9|
95820528|NCT02388165|191614410|SUPERIORITY||VE|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.3|55.81|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||55.81|-126.30|
95820529|NCT02388165|191614411|SUPERIORITY||VE|-9.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.06|41.41|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||41.41|-104.06|
95861802|NCT02123251|191682617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7086||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4517|13.7653|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||13.7653|-16.4517|0.8617
96002115|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.096||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.326|3.345||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||3.345|1.326|0.002
96002116|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.333|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|5.302||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.302|2.121|<0.001
95820530|NCT02388165|191614412|SUPERIORITY||VE|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.42|40.8|||||VE was calculated as 1-(P/\[1-P\]\*100), where P is the number of SA4Ag cases divided by the total number of cases. The CI was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||40.80|-100.42|
95820531|NCT00365105|191614455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||Assuming an exponential distribution, the weighted yearly SRE hazard rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.7991 which translates to a median time to SRE of 10.4 months. The study was designed to show a 33% relative reduction in the yearly SRE hazard rate, i.e. 15.6 months median time to SRE. Using a two-sided log-rank test assuming a type I error of 0.05, one planned interim analysis with 90% statistical power, 257 SREs are required with a total of 316 patients.||1.54|0.70|0.844
95820532|NCT00365105|191614456|SUPERIORITY|The power of detecting an improvement from 55% in the control arm to 41% in the experimental arm with a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha 0.05 is 66%.||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
95820533|NCT00365105|191614457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52|||Log Rank|||Assuming the disease site distribution is 40%, 40%, and 20% from prostate, breast, and lung cancer populations, respectively, the weighted yearly death rate for patients treated with bisphosphonates only is 0.4390, translating to a median overall survival time of 18.9 months assuming an exponential distribution. Statistical power to detect a relative difference of 33% in the yearly death rate is 70% using a two-sided log-rank test at a 0.05 significance level and 87% to detect 50% difference.||1.52|0.86|0.37
95820534|NCT00365105|191614458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G Total||||0.96
95820535|NCT00365105|191614458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Well-Being||||0.97
95820536|NCT00365105|191614458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Social/Family Well-Being||||0.57
95820537|NCT00365105|191614458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Emotional Well-Being||||0.70
95820538|NCT00365105|191614458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Two-sided significance level of 0.01|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Functional Well-Being||||0.46
95820539|NCT00365105|191614459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||2-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95820540|NCT00365105|191614460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Index Score||||0.43
95820541|NCT00365105|191614460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Score||||0.15
95820542|NCT00758069|191614472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-25.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-34.2|-17.5||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-17.5|-34.2|<0.001
96002117|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.323|3.233||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.233|1.323|0.001
96002118|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.025|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.947|4.746||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.746|1.947|<0.001
96002119|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.357||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.357|1.363|<0.001
95820543|NCT00758069|191614472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-28.0|-11.1||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.1|-28.0|<0.001
95820544|NCT00758069|191614473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-19.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-26.6|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.9|-26.6|<0.001
95820545|NCT00758069|191614473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-12.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-20.4|-5.4||No multiplicity adjustment among the pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin against placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-5.4|-20.4|<0.001
95820546|NCT02277691|191614493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
95820547|NCT02277691|191614493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough SBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
95820548|NCT02277691|191614493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 12 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
95820549|NCT02277691|191614493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in office trough sitting DBP at Week 52 (LOCF).||||<0.0001
95820550|NCT02277691|191614494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
95820551|NCT02277691|191614494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home SBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
95820552|NCT02277691|191614494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at End of Week 12.||||<0.0001
95820553|NCT02277691|191614494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||P-value has been estimated for change from baseline in home DBP, morning at EOT (Up to Week 52).||||<0.0001
95820554|NCT04343534|191614495|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||"SDM Process score distributions were compared to determine of the scores spanned the range of possible values, were normally distributed, had low rates of missing data, and whether there was indications of floor or ceiling effects.~we conducted independent t-tests to determine if there were differences in SDM Process scores between the two versions."||0.33|-0.02|0.092
95820555|NCT02516098|191614514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference product (for Stage 1) was assessed on the basis of the point estimate of the geometric mean ratio for Cmax in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|87.52|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|77.18|99.24|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||99.24|77.18|
95820556|NCT02516098|191614515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the test and reference products for Stage 1 was assessed on the basis of the 92.46% confidence intervals for the geometric mean (test/reference) ratio for the AUC0-t in relation to the bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%, with a one-sided alpha of 0.0377.|Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.74|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.51|100.78|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The study design is a two-stage Pocock-like group sequential design according to the alpha spending function approach. The alpha level for Stage 1 was 0.0377 (one-sided).||100.78|83.51|
95820557|NCT02516098|191614516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|91.66|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|83.59|100.51|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||100.51|83.59|
95820558|NCT02516098|191614517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (%): T/REF|92.96|||||TWO_SIDED|92.46|81.94|105.47|||||ANOVA model was used with 'sequence', 'treatment' and 'period' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as a random effect after logarithmic transformation of the data.|The test product was compared to the reference product by means of statistical analysis.||105.47|81.94|
95820559|NCT01092780|191614518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|10.2||||||Difference in least squares (LS) means||10.20|6.11|
95820560|NCT01092780|191614518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|10.15||||||Difference in LS means||10.15|6.07|
95820561|NCT01092780|191614519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.10|
95820562|NCT01092780|191614519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.09|
95820563|NCT01092780|191614521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.76|-0.35||||||Difference in LS means||-0.35|-3.76|
95820564|NCT01092780|191614521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.79|-0.4||||||Difference in LS means||-0.40|-3.79|
95820565|NCT01092780|191614522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|10.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.49|11.92||||||||11.92|8.49|
95820566|NCT01092780|191614523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|-0.05||||||Difference in LS means||-0.05|-0.08|
95820567|NCT01734395|191614524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4262|-0.9467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.9467|-1.4262|<.0001
95820568|NCT01734395|191614525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9188|2.0438|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0438|0.9188|<.0001
95958629|NCT00746356|191889656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0948||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
95958630|NCT00746356|191889657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0556|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0824||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If all three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met, a value of 2.5% were used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
95820569|NCT01734395|191614526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.814|-0.5586|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5586|-0.814|<.0001
95820570|NCT01257230|191614527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.234|0.034|0.0085
95820571|NCT01257230|191614527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.272|0.076|0.0005
95820572|NCT01257230|191614528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.194|-0.025|0.1307
95820573|NCT01257230|191614528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.223|0.010|0.0320
95820574|NCT01257230|191614529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.200|-0.024|0.1231
95820575|NCT01257230|191614529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.182|-0.037|0.1950
95820576|NCT01257230|191614530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.181|-0.055|0.2921
95820577|NCT01257230|191614530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.150|-0.080|0.5495
95820578|NCT01257230|191614531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.225|0.034|0.0079
95820579|NCT01257230|191614531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.275|0.088|0.0002
95820580|NCT01257230|191614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.016|0.0945
95820581|NCT01257230|191614532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.175|-0.032|0.1755
95820582|NCT01257230|191614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.178|-0.184|0.9760
95820583|NCT01257230|191614534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.186|0.9224
95820584|NCT01257230|191614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.185|-0.140|0.7852
95820585|NCT01257230|191614535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.271|-0.046|0.1649
95820586|NCT01257230|191614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.249|-0.312|0.8253
95820587|NCT01257230|191614536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.319|-0.232|0.7559
95820588|NCT01257230|191614537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.010|-0.330|0.0653
95820589|NCT01257230|191614537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.2516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.069|-0.263|0.2516
95820590|NCT01257230|191614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.333|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.038|-0.333|0.1200
95820591|NCT01257230|191614539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.127|-0.235|0.5589
95820592|NCT01257230|191614541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.87|||Regression, Cox|||||1.87|0.21|0.4023
95861803|NCT02123251|191682618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5519||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7478|38.1737|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||38.1737|-73.7478|0.5333
95861804|NCT02123251|191682619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2351||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3509|11.1702|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||11.1702|-9.3509|0.8620
95861805|NCT02123251|191682620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0433||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3272|2.7626|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The analysis adjusted for the effects of age, gender, race, and hypertension at baseline.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine the pre- and post-intervention changes between groups due to interventions in biometric indicators. The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no differences in the biometric measure from baseline to endpoint between groups.||2.7626|-1.3272|0.4915
95861806|NCT02123251|191682621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||standard diffs-in-diffs model|||A standard diffs-in-diffs model was utilized to estimate the causal effect of the intervention on medical costs per patient/day. The average change in cost over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference-in-differences values was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the cost per patient per day from baseline to endpoint between groups.||||>0.05
95861807|NCT02123251|191682622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3148||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0233|1.2572|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model||The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that for the control group. The difference in these average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p = 0.05. Null hypothesis assumed no difference in the General Diet subscale from baseline to endpoint between groups. Generalized estimating equation modeling was used to examine changes in SDSCA between groups at different time points.||1.2572|0.0233|0.0420
95861808|NCT02123251|191682623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0981|4.1395|||Generalized Estimating Equation Model|The effect of age and gender is adjusted in the GEE model.|The estimates denote the differences between longitudinal changes within the treatment group and longitudinal changes within the control group.|The average change in scores over time for the intervention group was compared to that of the control group. The difference in the average changes is referred to as the difference-in-differences values which was assessed for significance at p=0.05. Null assumed no group difference in the Physical Component Summary measure of SF-36v2 from baseline to midpoint. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling was used to examine changes in health measures between groups at different time points.||4.1395|0.0981|.0399
95861809|NCT00669409|191682659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.8|-17.8|
95861810|NCT00669409|191682659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
95958631|NCT00746356|191889658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was calculated for an 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at 1.67% significance level.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0028|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2852||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|||P-value was adjusted for multiple efficacy endpoints. If three primary effectiveness endpoints were met a value of 5% was used, if two were met a value of 2.5% was used and if one was met a value of 1.67% was used.|t-test, 1 sided|If the data is not normally distributed, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to perform the two one-sided testing.||The null hypothesis was rejected at significance level 1.67% if the mean difference between the automatic test and the manual test was \<0.25 volts.|||-0.25|0.0001
95861811|NCT00669409|191682659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.1|-18.5|
95861812|NCT00669409|191682659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|1.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.8|-29.4|
95861813|NCT00669409|191682659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.7|-55.2|
95958632|NCT03029819|191889659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
95820593|NCT01257230|191614541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.05|0.0620
95820594|NCT01257230|191614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.65|0.8700
95958633|NCT00519285|191889668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.822|1.08||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.044 using the O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function to account for two interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified on ECOG Performance Status|Hazard ratio (HR) aflibercept versus placebo estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified on ECOG Performance Status|"Null hypothesis: No difference between aflibercept and placebo~The study was designed to provide 90% power to detect a 1.25-fold increase in median survival with aflibercept compared to placebo at a overall one-sided significance level of 0.025 with 873 deaths."||1.08|0.822|0.3802
95820595|NCT01257230|191614542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.51|0.4198
95820596|NCT02300558|191614547|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||paired t- test|||Based on a 2-sided, paired t-test ( α = 0.05), and a standard deviation (SD) of 30 msec, a sample size of 40 participants provided greater than 95% power assuming a difference in mean daytime QTcF interval (AUC0-6/6) as measured by standard 12-lead ECG between baseline and Week 24 of 20 msec. The null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the baseline and Week 24 mean daytime QTcF interval was zero.||||0.0087
95820597|NCT03517371|191614557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.35||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-943.34|1088.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1088.04|-943.34|.89
95820598|NCT03517371|191614558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.10|-3.80|.42
95958634|NCT01482429|191889679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||binomial test|||||||0.03
95958635|NCT01482429|191889680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95958636|NCT00983892|191889683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.56||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.15|||GEE|Adjusting for baseline symptom severity, caregiver type, week number, and cancer site.||||-0.15|-2.97|0.030
95820599|NCT03517371|191614559|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.64|24.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Levene's test significant, equal variances not assumed values reported.||||24.97|-20.64|.85
95820600|NCT03517371|191614560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.065|-.081|.824
95820601|NCT01407952|191614562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A intent to treat analysis was performed, using multiple imputation methods.||3.97|1.36|0.002
95820602|NCT01407952|191614562|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|7.92||Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=17.37|Chi-squared|||||7.92|1.99|<0.01
95820603|NCT01407952|191614563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95820604|NCT01407952|191614564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
95820605|NCT01407952|191614565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom = 0.865||||||0.352
95820606|NCT01407952|191614566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.769
95820607|NCT01407952|191614567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=0.217||||||0.641
95820608|NCT01407952|191614568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|chi-square test statistic with one degree of freedom=8.82||||||0.003
95820609|NCT01407952|191614569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=1.955||||||0.162
95820610|NCT01407952|191614570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95820611|NCT01407952|191614571|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test statistic with one degree of freedom=14.743||||||<0.01
95820612|NCT01407952|191614572|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95820613|NCT00935493|191614573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95820614|NCT00935493|191614573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.47
95820615|NCT00935493|191614574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
95820616|NCT00935493|191614574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
95820617|NCT00935493|191614575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
95820618|NCT00935493|191614575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
95820619|NCT01939977|191614578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Chi-squared|||"Taking per protocol population, the percentage of patients with iPTH\> 110 pg / ml at 6 months post-transplant treated with Paricalcitol was statistically lower than in patients treated with Calcifediol"||||0.0083
95820620|NCT01576939|191614612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.022|||Regression, Cox|This was a Cox proportional hazards model with dose as the single predictor.||||1.022|0.979|0.9906
95820621|NCT01576939|191614613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2795||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.634|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||0.634|-0.077|0.1209
95820622|NCT01576939|191614614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.285||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.28|26.71|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model with dose as the single predictor in the model.||||26.71|-27.28|0.9832
95820623|NCT01576939|191614615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03795||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00483|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor. QoL values were measured for each patient every week.||||0.071|0.00483|0.0263
95820624|NCT01576939|191614616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0567||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0199|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated measures model with dose as the single predictor and QoL values measured each week for each patient.||||0.0935|0.0199|0.0039
95958637|NCT03181282|191889691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0132|0.0925|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.0925|0.0132|0.0194
95958638|NCT03181282|191889691|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0231||0.004625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0242|0.1194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation Condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||0.1194|0.0242|0.004625
95820625|NCT03641716|191614617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95958639|NCT03181282|191889692|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.5248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8439||0.038389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6038|20.4459|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the On Medication / On Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||20.4459|0.6038|0.038389
95820626|NCT03641716|191614618|OTHER||Effect Size - Cohen's d|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.65||||||Due to limited size of sub-sample, we calculated a Cohen's d effect size for raw total score on the PSI from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, with a 95% confidence interval.||.65|-.66|
95820627|NCT03641716|191614619|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set at p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|We ran a paired samples t-test with pre/post intervention data (from baseline and 3-month assessments).||After examining the data to ensure it met the statistical assumptions (e.g. normality, no outliers), we ran a paired-sample pre-post t-test to examine the difference in scores from baseline to 3 months on the NutriSTEP (Screening Tool for Every Preschooler) assessment.||||<.01
95820628|NCT02218697|191614645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.46|0.88|
95820629|NCT02218697|191614645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.21|0.78|
95861814|NCT00669409|191682660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
95958640|NCT03181282|191889692|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.7233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.668||0.109873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8652|17.3117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with repeated measures.||This analysis is for the Off Medication / Off Stimulation condition. Age was controlled for in the analysis given the baseline difference in age between groups.||17.3117|-1.8652|0.109873
95958641|NCT03448536|191889708|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.56|||ANCOVA|||||6.56|2.06|< 0.001
95958642|NCT03448536|191889709|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|13.85|||ANCOVA|||||13.85|5.75|< 0.001
95958643|NCT03448536|191889710|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|1.52|||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|-0.45|= 0.129
95820630|NCT02218697|191614645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.40|0.98|
95820631|NCT02218697|191614645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Control Group / Co-Ad Group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at Day 28 post Influsplit™ Tetra vaccination, the GMT ratio of Control group/Co-Ad group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titer as covariate.||1.16|0.84|
95820632|NCT02218697|191614646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.5|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 01 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.50|0.86|
95958644|NCT03448536|191889711|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|10.78|||ANCOVA|||||10.78|5.76|< 0.001
95958645|NCT03448536|191889712|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.56|||=|0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-0.52|= 0.307
95958646|NCT03448536|191889713|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.16|||ANCOVA|||||5.16|2.34|< 0.001
95958647|NCT03448536|191889714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95958648|NCT03448536|191889716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.002
95958649|NCT03783546|191889738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95958650|NCT03783546|191889740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
96002120|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.223|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.067|5.08||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.080|2.067|<0.001
95820633|NCT02218697|191614646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.45|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 03 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.45|0.96|
95820634|NCT02218697|191614646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 04 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.62|0.98|
95820635|NCT02218697|191614646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.63|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 7F serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.63|0.95|
95820636|NCT02218697|191614646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 14 serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.57|0.91|
95820637|NCT02218697|191614646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of six pneumococcal serotypes): UL of the 95% CI for the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio (Control group over Co-Ad group) does not exceed 2.0.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.7|||ANCOVA||The GMCs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMCs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMC ratio with 95% confidence interval.|Anti-pneumococcal antibody concentrations for Polysaccharide 19A serotype at Day 28 post Pneumovax™ 23 vaccination, the GMC ratio of Control Group/Co-Ad Group and the two sided 95% CI were computed by fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titres/concentrations, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination titre/concentration as covariate.||1.70|1.05|
95820638|NCT01108731|191614662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
95958651|NCT01424189|191889747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCDVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCDVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03||||||||0.030||
95820639|NCT01108731|191614663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (GLM)|||||||<0.05
95820640|NCT01108731|191614664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95820641|NCT02227810|191614702|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
95861815|NCT00669409|191682660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|0.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.8|
95958652|NCT01424189|191889748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With 300 subjects in the ReSTOR Toric IOL test group and 150 subjects in the ReSTOR IOL control group, there was over 99% power to demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence limit for the observed difference in UCNVA between IOL groups was less than the clinical performance target of 0.1 logMAR units at Month 12, assuming the true difference between groups is zero. This estimate was based on an assumed standard deviation for UCNVA of 0.16 logMAR units and a 1-sided, α=0.05 test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017||||||||-0.017||
95958653|NCT00513461|191889753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.160
95958654|NCT00513461|191889766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.878
95820642|NCT02227810|191614702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
95820643|NCT02227810|191614703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
95820644|NCT02227810|191614703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95820645|NCT02227810|191614704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
95820646|NCT02227810|191614705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.792
95820647|NCT00819156|191614706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|61.0||||||95.0|41.0|78.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||78|41|
95820648|NCT00819156|191614706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|64.0|95.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||95|64|
95958655|NCT00513461|191889767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.66||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Two-Group t-test|||||||0.212
95820649|NCT00819156|191614706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|81.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|81|
95820650|NCT00819156|191614706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
95820651|NCT00819156|191614706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|90.0||||||95.0|73.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|73|
95820652|NCT00819156|191614706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|74.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter from Day 28 to Day 364. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|74|
95820653|NCT00819156|191614707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|92.0||||||95.0|80.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|80|
95820654|NCT00819156|191614707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|96.0||||||95.0|86.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|86|
95820655|NCT00819156|191614707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|93.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone (T) \<=0.5 nanograms (ng)/milliliter (mL) from Day 28 to Day 364 for Patients With T \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|93|
95958656|NCT00312845|191889776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.039
95958657|NCT00312845|191889777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95958658|NCT01077622|191889795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||SERC assessment|||93.3|34.8|
95820656|NCT00819156|191614708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|70.0||||||95.0|51.0|85.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||85|51|
95820657|NCT00819156|191614708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|75.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|75|
95820658|NCT00819156|191614708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|84|
95820659|NCT00819156|191614708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|97.0||||||95.0|83.0|100.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|83|
95820660|NCT00819156|191614708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|80.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|80|
95820661|NCT00819156|191614708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|77.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 28. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|77|
95820662|NCT00819156|191614709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|83.0||||||95.0|65.0|94.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||94|65|
95820663|NCT00819156|191614709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|94.0||||||95.0|79.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|79|
95820664|NCT00819156|191614709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|87.0||||||95.0|70.0|96.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||96|70|
95958659|NCT01077622|191889795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|93.3|||||Investigator assessment|||93.3|34.8|
95958660|NCT04380688|191889927|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.145|1.952||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||1.952|0.145|
95958661|NCT04380688|191889935|OTHER|No formal hypothesis testing for this endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|2.183||P-value not generated.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for age (\<65 vs \>=65 years) and comorbidities (present vs absent). Ties handled by Efron approach. HR CI using profile likelihood approach.||||2.183|0.794|
95958662|NCT02250183|191889940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Each case (participant) serves as its own control because they received both treatment modalities simultaneously.|McNemar|McNemar test was used because participants received both treatments, so this variable was non-independent in our single group sample.|2-sided|Each participant received both treatment modalities - MEDIHONEY® and SANTYL - and thus had two wound cultures performed, one for each treatment modality. This was a single group study; however, wound culture results were contrasted with each other across participants. Thus, independent variable was treatment modality, while dependent variable was the wound culture result (positive for presence of bacteria versus negative for absence of bacteria).||||1.00
95820665|NCT00819156|191614709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
95820666|NCT00819156|191614709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|91.0||||||95.0|76.0|98.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||98|76|
95820667|NCT00819156|191614709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|93.0||||||95.0|78.0|99.0|||||The estimated value is the percentage of patients with Testosterone \<=0.5 nanograms/milliliter at Day 3. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|78|
95820668|NCT00819156|191614710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0933
95820669|NCT00819156|191614711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.165
95958663|NCT02250183|191889941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|4.565||The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|df = 13||A paired samples, 2-tailed, t-test was used to compare means within participants for ratings of MEDIHONEY and SANTYL satisfaction total scores. The null hypothesis was that the two mean scores would not differ significantly at p\<.05 level.||4.565|1.149|.003
95820670|NCT00819156|191614712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.429||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.429
95958664|NCT03282799|191889943|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
95958665|NCT03282799|191889944|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
95958666|NCT03282799|191889945|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
95958667|NCT03282799|191889946|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
95958668|NCT03282799|191889947|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.685
95958669|NCT03282799|191889948|OTHER|||||||0.784|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.784
95820671|NCT00851890|191614720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.012
95820672|NCT00851890|191614720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.071
95820673|NCT00851890|191614720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.140
95820674|NCT00851890|191614721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.008
95820675|NCT00851890|191614721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.003
95820676|NCT00851890|191614721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||Eight participants per ABT-333 group and 12 participants in the placebo group provided \>95% power to detect a 1.4 log10 difference with a common standard deviation of 0.7 log10 using a two-sided, non-paired t-test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
95958670|NCT03282799|191889949|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.587
95958671|NCT03282799|191889950|OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.394
95958672|NCT03282799|191889951|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.660
95958673|NCT03282799|191889952|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.290
95958674|NCT03302559|191889995|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.001
95958675|NCT03302559|191889996|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.005
95820677|NCT00851890|191614728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.018
95820678|NCT00851890|191614728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.020
95820679|NCT00851890|191614728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Day 28 time point.||||0.054
95820680|NCT00851890|191614728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.010
95820681|NCT00851890|191614728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.005
95820682|NCT00851890|191614728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The treatment group was the factor and log10 baseline HCV RNA level was the covariate.||The statistical analysis represents the Final Visit time point.||||0.014
95820683|NCT00851890|191614729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
95820684|NCT00851890|191614729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
95958676|NCT03302559|191889996|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.02
95820685|NCT00851890|191614729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
95820686|NCT00851890|191614730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
95958677|NCT03302559|191889996|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||0.0006
95958678|NCT03302559|191889996|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.001
95820687|NCT00851890|191614730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.473
95820688|NCT00851890|191614730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
95820689|NCT00851890|191614731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.209
95820690|NCT00851890|191614731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95820691|NCT03135431|191614734|NON_INFERIORITY|\<=.5g/dl difference in the decrease in hemoglobin was considered equivalent as 1 unit of blood typically raises the hemoglobin by 1g/dl and would be a clinical significant difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04121||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0712|||t-test, 1 sided|||Assuming that a difference of 0.5 g/dl in the drop in hemoglobin between study arms would be considered as equivalent, and assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1 based on previous studies of cesarean deliveries deliveries , the study would have 80% power to test for non-inferiority with 60 participants in each arm (120 total).|Based on new data from a retrospective study preformed at Mayo Clinic sites an additional power calculation was preformed. Based on the new information, our study was well powered (84%) to assess our primary aim with 38 participants (18 salpingectomy, 20 BTL); therefore, we discontinued recruitment and completed the study with the accrued subjects.|.0712||0.08
95820692|NCT03135431|191614735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.3|||||Evidence to suggest salpingecotomy procedure had a longer operation time than a tubal ligation.|||-8.3|-14.1|
95820693|NCT03135431|191614736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.17||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.5|54.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis preformed as categorical and categorical variable. Both analyzes had the same conclusion.||54.17|-72.5|0.77
95820694|NCT00943098|191614759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.20|-6.62|0.813
95820695|NCT00943098|191614772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of non-inferiority of Diclofenac HPBCD 75mg/ml s.c. versus Voltarol® 75mg/3ml i.m. with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours after study drug administration). The clinically significant difference (delta) between groups was defined in 15 mm of pain intensity difference (a 30% decline from starting levels of pain intensity of 50 mm or greater on a 0 to 100 VAS).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.22|||ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference in means of 0 mm, a common standard deviation of 22.5 mm, a sample size of 60 subjects in each group had 95% power to reject the null hypothesis.||5.22|-6.23|0.862
95820696|NCT03122145|191614775|SUPERIORITY|Mann whitney U between groups comparison for voluntary cough parameters between healthy controls and individuals with ALS outcomes: peak expiratory cough flow and cough volume acceleration||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis that voluntary cough \> reflex cough strength and effectiveness in healthy volunteers||||0.0005
95820697|NCT02016716|191614779|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI (or the lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI) of the mean difference between the 2 romosozumab groups was \> -2.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||||Based on ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, and baseline lumbar spine BMD T-score.|The primary hypothesis was that the mean percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 6 in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 90 mg/mL concentration would not be inferior to that in participants receiving romosozumab 210 mg QM using the 70 mg/mL concentration.||0.7|-1.5|
95820698|NCT01659996|191614792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup A and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.93||||||Meningococcal serogroup A: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||2.93|-3.11|
95820699|NCT01659996|191614792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup C and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.64||||||Meningococcal serogroup C: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.64|-0.84|
95820700|NCT01659996|191614792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup Y and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14||||||Meningococcal serogroup Y: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||5.14|0.14|
95820701|NCT01659996|191614792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for serogroup W-135 and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.67||||||Meningococcal serogroup W-135: The null hypothesis (H0: pm - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pm - ppm ≤ δ), where pm and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 1 and in Group 2, respectively, who achieved a Menactra vaccine response for meningococcal serogroups A, C, Y and W-135, with δ = 0.10.||3.67|-0.84|
95820702|NCT01659996|191614797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.06||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.06|0.852|
95820703|NCT01659996|191614797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.08||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.08|0.866|
95820704|NCT01659996|191614797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the antibodies concentration was log normally distributed, if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMCs is ≤ 1.5 for each antigen, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.31||||||Pertactin (PRN): The null hypothesis (H0: GMCp / GMCpm \> 1.5) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: GMCp / GMCpm ≤ 1.5), where GMCp and GMCpm were the GMCs of antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN) in Group 3 and in Group 2, respectively||1.31|0.937|
95820705|NCT01659996|191614798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.19||||||Pertussis toxoid (PT) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PT), with δ = 0.10.||3.19|-5.44|
95854788|NCT03762993|191669649|OTHER|Changes in phonation threshold pressure were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is for the effect of time. A priori significance level set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95958679|NCT03302559|191889997|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Forehead)||||0.02
95958680|NCT03302559|191889997|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Periocular)||||0.006
95958681|NCT03302559|191889997|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Cheeks)||||<0.001
95958682|NCT03302559|191889997|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.5||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Perioral)||||0.5
95958683|NCT03302559|191889998|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.002
95820706|NCT01659996|191614798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53||||||Filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (FHA), with δ = 0.10.||4.53|-2.54|
95820707|NCT01659996|191614798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was \< δ for each antibody and assuming the difference between the two proportions was normally distributed, the inferiority assumption was to be rejected.|Difference between 2 percentages|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.66||||||Pertactin (PRN) antigen: The null hypothesis (H0: pp - ppm \> δ) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (H1: pp - ppm ≤ δ), where pp and ppm were the proportions of subjects in Group 3 and Group 2, respectively, who achieved a pertussis vaccine response in antibodies against the pertussis antigen (PRN), with δ = 0.10.||3.66|-3.62|
95820708|NCT03206918|191614801|SUPERIORITY||2-side Clopper-Pearson|87.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.81|||Exact Binomial Test|The null hypothesis is ORR = 32%||||93.81|79.40|<0.0001
95820709|NCT03823287|191614815|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95.03% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. A sample size of approximately 320 participants in each arm provided greater than 90% power to show non-inferiority of faricimab to aflibercept in the change from baseline BCVA averaged over Weeks 40, 44, and 48 in the ITT population, using a non-inferiority margin of 4 letters at the one-sided 0.02485 significance level.||2.5|-1.1|
95820710|NCT03823287|191614816|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||2.7|-1.2|
95820711|NCT03823287|191614818|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|10.1|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||10.1|-1.6|
95820712|NCT03823287|191614818|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.7|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||12.7|-2.0|
95820713|NCT03823287|191614818|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||8.9|-6.6|
95958684|NCT03302559|191889999|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.0008||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.0008
95958685|NCT03302559|191890000|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||0.02
95958686|NCT03302559|191890005|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.3||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Normal Skin)||||0.3
95958687|NCT03302559|191890005|OTHER|Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||||0.4||||||Statistical significance is defined as a p-value ≤0.05.|Paired t-test|||Change from Baseline at Week 12 (Target Lesion)||||0.4
95958688|NCT05294328|191890012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
95958689|NCT05294328|191890012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||||<0.0001
95958690|NCT02080403|191890023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.40|0.1159
95958691|NCT01171183|191890051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.64||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95958692|NCT01171183|191890052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95958693|NCT04260464|191890053|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|110.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.76|144.86||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||144.86|83.76|
95958694|NCT04260464|191890053|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|94.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.84|160.19||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||160.19|55.84|
95958695|NCT04260464|191890053|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|124.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.24|153.89||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for PF-06700841 between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||153.89|100.24|
95820714|NCT03823287|191614818|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥0 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Gaining ≥0 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||5.4|-7.9|
95820715|NCT03823287|191614819|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||8.5|-3.2|
95820716|NCT03823287|191614824|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.8|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥15 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||4.8|-2.2|
95820717|NCT03823287|191614824|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.9|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥10 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥10 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||3.9|-4.6|
95820718|NCT03823287|191614824|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|6.4|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥5 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Avoiding a Loss of ≥5 Letters: Treatment Difference at Weeks 40-48||6.4|-4.0|
95820719|NCT03823287|191614825|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants avoiding a loss of ≥15 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 52-60||3.6|-3.9|
95820720|NCT03823287|191614829|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.5|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants gaining ≥15 letters or achieving BCVA ≥84 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||9.5|-3.6|
95820721|NCT03823287|191614831|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.6|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants achieving BCVA ≥69 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||6.6|-7.7|
95820722|NCT03823287|191614833|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.3|||||The treatment difference in CMH weighted percentage of participants with BCVA ≤38 letters is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept.|Treatment Difference in CMH Weighted Percentages at Weeks 40-48||3.3|-4.2|
95820723|NCT03823287|191614841|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|0.8|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 40-48||0.8|-15.7|
95820724|NCT03823287|191614842|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.4|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline CST is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|Treatment Difference in Adjusted Means at Weeks 52-60||9.4|-7.4|
96002121|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|3.21||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.210|1.317|0.002
95820725|NCT00475085|191614858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|0.2||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 2 (palonosetron vs. granisetron)||0.200|-0.225|0.718
95820726|NCT00475085|191614858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.407||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 1 - Group 4 (adding dexamethasone)||0.407|-0.017|0.010
95820727|NCT00475085|191614858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.186||Response skewed. P-value determined after Box-Cox transformation (lambda=-1.6). Significance level set to 0.017 to account for three tested hypotheses.|ANOVA|Testing and estimation performed using contrasts in the context of an omnibus ANOVA.||Group 3 - Group 4 (aprepitant vs. prochlorperazine)||0.186|-0.236|0.557
95820728|NCT04683029|191614887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.8|-11.4|||MMRM model|||||-11.4|-13.8|< 0.001
95820729|NCT04683029|191614888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.3|-10.7||||||||-10.7|-13.3|
95820730|NCT04683029|191614889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.3||||||Week 24||0.3|0.0|
95820731|NCT04683029|191614889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.2||||||Week 52||0.2|0.0|
95820732|NCT04683029|191614890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|203.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|42.1|980.6||||||Week 24||980.6|42.1|
95820733|NCT04683029|191614890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|28.2|601.9||||||Week 52||601.9|28.2|
95820734|NCT04683029|191614891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-96.8|2.4||||||Week 24||2.4|-96.8|
95820735|NCT04683029|191614891|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|28.8||||||Week 52||28.8|-57.2|
95820736|NCT04683029|191614892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|1.6||||||Week 24||1.6|-1.7|
95820737|NCT04683029|191614892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.4|1.7||||||Week 52||1.7|-1.4|
95820738|NCT04683029|191614893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.44|0.27||||||Week 24||0.27|-0.44|
95820739|NCT04683029|191614893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.71||||||Week 52||0.71|-0.29|
95820740|NCT04683029|191614894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|-0.34||||||Week 24||-0.34|-3.81|
95820741|NCT04683029|191614894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|2.42||||||Week 52||2.42|-2.13|
95820742|NCT04683029|191614895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-4.0||||||Week 24||-4.0|-5.7|
95820743|NCT04683029|191614895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-3.5||||||Week 52||-3.5|-5.1|
95820744|NCT04683029|191614896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4006|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5344|-0.2668||||||Week 24||-0.2668|-0.5344|
95820745|NCT04683029|191614896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2355|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.373|-0.098||||||Week 52||-0.0980|-0.3730|
95820746|NCT00218634|191614932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||HLM|||We used HLM with weekly visit data for the acute outcome. There were, therefore, 11 time points used.||||<.05
95820747|NCT00218634|191614933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||GLM - CBT-AD would be superior to ETAU at post. HLM - CBT-AD would be superior to CBT-AD at follow ups.|GLM and HLM|||||||<.05
95820748|NCT00218634|191614935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CD4 would be more improved in the treatment condition|HLM|||follow up analysis revealed that CD4, over time, significantly improved over control when covarying out baseline levels.||||<.05
95820749|NCT00734604|191614940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.19||p-value is for difference in LS Means change from baseline between tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.19|0.04|0.001
95820750|NCT00734604|191614941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is for difference in Pairs Sexual Self-Confidence Domain Score LS Mean and Change from Baseline between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Population|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.|LS Mean difference = Tadalafil OaD-Tadalafil PRN|||0.08|-0.06|0.872
95958696|NCT04260464|191890054|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|112.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.85|206.45||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||206.45|60.85|
95820751|NCT00734604|191614942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.20|0.10|<0.001
95820752|NCT00734604|191614942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in change from baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.07|-0.03|0.395
95820753|NCT00734604|191614943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.25||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.25|-0.36|<0.001
95820754|NCT00734604|191614943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in Change from Baseline in LS Mean.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.08|-0.20|<0.001
95820755|NCT00734604|191614944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.27||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.27|-1.43|0.004
95820756|NCT00734604|191614944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.22|-1.37|0.007
95820757|NCT00734604|191614945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.09||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.09|0.03|<0.001
95820758|NCT00734604|191614945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.12||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.12|0.06|<0.001
95861816|NCT00669409|191682660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.9|-11.7|
95820759|NCT00734604|191614946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
95820760|NCT00734604|191614946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.23||p-value is for difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|||||-0.23|-0.78|<0.001
95958697|NCT04260464|191890054|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|70.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.6|182.49||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||182.49|27.60|
95820761|NCT00734604|191614947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.055
95820762|NCT00734604|191614947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.00|-0.44|0.046
95820763|NCT00734604|191614948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|6.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil PRN and Sildenafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||6.17|1.16|0.004
95820764|NCT00734604|191614948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-1.04||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN change in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||-1.04|-6.05|0.006
95820765|NCT00734604|191614950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.17||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||2.17|-1.95|0.915
95820766|NCT00734604|191614950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|0.74||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN Change from Baseline in LS Means.|t-test|Kenward-Roger approximation was used for denominator degrees of freedom in the mixed model.||||0.74|-3.35|0.212
95820767|NCT00734604|191614951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.09|0.403
96000295|NCT00196937|191976670|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Cervarix (15-25 years) Group minus Cervarix (26-45 years) Group\] was below 10%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of the Cervarix vaccine, one month after the third dose (Month 7), in young women 26 - 45 years of age is non-inferior to that in women 15 - 25 years of age.||2.03|-1.87|
95820768|NCT00734604|191614951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.23|-0.08|0.367
95820769|NCT00734604|191614952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.32|0.07|0.002
95820770|NCT00734604|191614952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.10|-0.15|0.722
95820771|NCT00734604|191614953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.37||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.37|-0.65|<0.001
95820772|NCT00734604|191614953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.16||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||-0.16|-0.43|<0.001
95820773|NCT00734604|191614954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Sildenafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.22|-0.01|0.070
95820774|NCT00734604|191614954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is for the difference between Tadalafil OaD and Tadalafil PRN in LS Means.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||0.09|-0.14|0.637
95820775|NCT02222909|191614975|OTHER|The significance of the difference-in-differences statistic was assessed using randomization inference, a non-parametric permutation test. Confidence intervals were determined by inversion of the test statistic.|Difference in differences|0.0182||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||We calculated the proportion of permuted statistics with values higher in magnitude than that of the observed adjusted difference in differences (the p-value). We inverted the test statistic to determine confidence intervals.|Randomization inference||The estimation parameter is the difference between the average adjusted change in the monthly ED visits and hospital days from the pre- to post- intervention periods for the patients assigned to the iCBOs as compared to the cCBOs.|The difference between the average sum of the number of days spent in the hospital and ED visits in the past month, pre- and post-intervention, adjusted for pre- intervention variables, was calculated for each patients. The average change scores among patients assigned to each CBO defined the CBO-level outcomes. We calculated a weighted average of the CBO outcomes separately for the iCBOs and cCBOs, defining the difference-in-differences statistic as the difference between the two averages.||0.11|-0.12|0.63
95820776|NCT00117715|191614977|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(DM/DX) over time||||0.035
96000296|NCT02973815|191976684|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.067|||Regression, Linear|||This was adjusted for the baseline BMI-Z score, child sex, baseline child age, and economic assistance||0.067|-0.194|0.342
96000297|NCT02973815|191976685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73104||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.71|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Fruit value, and economic assistance status||2.71|-0.20|0.09
96000298|NCT02973815|191976686|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline HFI Vegetable value, and economic assistance status||2.44|0.02|0.047
95820777|NCT00117715|191614978|OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log(3HM/DX) over time||||0.194
95820778|NCT00117715|191614979|OTHER|||||||0.831||||||Post-hoc analysis performed using Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test.|ANOVA|||Univariate analysis (ANOVA) of the change in log ((AAMU+1MX+1MU)/1,7,U) over time||||0.831
95820779|NCT01460875|191614991|NON_INFERIORITY|The method to be developed will allow us to declare that a response at a lower dose is not inferior to that at the standard dose for a particular patient, using a patient specific inferiority test.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.22
95820780|NCT02150057|191615035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95820781|NCT00654745|191615053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-18.4|-21.5|<0.0001
95820782|NCT00654745|191615054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-10.3||24-hour mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.3|-12.2|<0.0001
95820783|NCT00654745|191615054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.5||daytime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.5|-12.9|<0.0001
95820784|NCT00654745|191615054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.0||nighttime mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.0|-11.7|<0.0001
95820785|NCT00654745|191615054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-9.7||last 6 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.7|-12.2|<0.0001
95820786|NCT00654745|191615054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8||last 4 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
95820787|NCT00654745|191615054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-10.0||last 2 hours mean DBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-10.0|-13.1|<0.0001
95820788|NCT00654745|191615055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-18.9||daytime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-18.9|-22.6|<0.0001
95820789|NCT00654745|191615055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-16.6||nighttime mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.6|-20.4|<0.0001
95820790|NCT00654745|191615055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-17.0||last 6 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.0|-20.7|<0.0001
95820791|NCT00654745|191615055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-17.1||last 4 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.1|-21.1|<0.0001
95861817|NCT00669409|191682660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|4.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.6|-26.6|
96000299|NCT02973815|191976687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline healthfulness score and economic assistance status||0.88|0.08|0.019
95820792|NCT00654745|191615055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4||last 2 hours mean SBP change from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with 164 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline to week12 in ABPM is 0. Change from baseline to week12 is primary efficacy variable and used all ABPM subjects. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
95820793|NCT00654745|191615056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-8.6||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.6|-12.0|<0.0001
95820794|NCT00654745|191615056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.1||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-16.1|-19.8|<0.0001
95820795|NCT00654745|191615056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-17.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-17.8|-22.2|<0.0001
95820796|NCT00654745|191615056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-21.7||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-21.7|-25.7|<0.0001
95820797|NCT00654745|191615056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-26.2||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-26.2|-30.8|<0.0001
95820798|NCT00654745|191615056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-28.8||Change in mean seated systolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-28.8|-33.3|<0.0001
95820799|NCT00654745|191615057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-3.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 3.|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-3.1|-5.1|<0.0001
95820800|NCT00654745|191615057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-7.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 6|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-7.1|-9.4|<0.0001
95820801|NCT00654745|191615057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-8.4||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 9|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-8.4|-10.9|<0.0001
95820802|NCT00654745|191615057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.9||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 12|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-9.9|-12.5|<0.0001
95861818|NCT00669409|191682660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-30.5|
95861819|NCT00669409|191682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-19.4|
95958698|NCT04260464|191890054|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|147.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.17|290.21||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for PF-06700841 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||290.21|75.17|
96000300|NCT02973815|191976688|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline vegetable intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.09|-0.4|0.218
96000301|NCT02973815|191976689|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.77|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline fruit intake, child age (baseline), parent education status (bachelors or higher vs lower)||0.77|-0.03|0.066
96000302|NCT02973815|191976690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|3.98|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline MVPA, child age (baseline), and child sex||3.98|-13.56|0.28
95861820|NCT00669409|191682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-2.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.8|-34.3|
95861821|NCT00669409|191682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.0|-12.6|
95861822|NCT00669409|191682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-25.0|
95861823|NCT00669409|191682661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|16.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.1|-25.4|
95861824|NCT00669409|191682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-18.1|
95958699|NCT04260464|191890055|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|177.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.82|232.04||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||232.04|135.82|
95820803|NCT00654745|191615057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-13.1||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 15|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.1|-15.7|<0.0001
95820804|NCT00654745|191615057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-13.6||Change in mean seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 18|t-test, 2 sided|standard 1-sample confidence interval construction using t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom||Primary null hypothesis is change from baseline is 0. Null hypothesis used 1-sample t-test on change. Sample size of 200 expected to provide 99% power at significance level of 0.05%.||-13.6|-16.5|<0.0001
95820805|NCT04551963|191615082|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.56||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.56|0.42|
95820806|NCT04551963|191615082|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.51||||||Arm a: Zanubrutinib alone vs. Zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.34|
95861825|NCT00669409|191682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.1|-33.6|
95861826|NCT00669409|191682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|14.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.4|-17.2|
95861827|NCT00669409|191682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.4|-26.7|
95861828|NCT00669409|191682662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-5.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.0|-46.5|
95958700|NCT04260464|191890055|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|132.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.08|185.17||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.17|95.08|
95958701|NCT04260464|191890055|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|122.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.47|176.3||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||176.30|84.47|
95861829|NCT00669409|191682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|15.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.0|-16.6|
95861830|NCT00669409|191682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.8|
95861831|NCT00669409|191682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-21.0|
95958702|NCT04260464|191890056|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|445.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|326.55|609.13||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||609.13|326.55|
95958703|NCT04260464|191890056|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|144.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.76|185.5||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the mild impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||185.50|112.76|
95820807|NCT04551963|191615083|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||0.99|0.66|
95820808|NCT04551963|191615083|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.41|
95820809|NCT04551963|191615084|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||1.08|0.82|
95820810|NCT04551963|191615084|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.99||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.99|0.66|
95820811|NCT04551963|191615085|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.06||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.06|0.65|
95820812|NCT04551963|191615085|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.58||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.58|0.40|
95820813|NCT04551963|191615086|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.58||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + fluconazole||0.58|0.35|
95820814|NCT04551963|191615086|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.51||||||Arm A: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + diltiazem||0.51|0.32|
95820815|NCT04551963|191615087|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.0||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + voriconazole||1.00|0.68|
95820816|NCT04551963|191615087|EQUIVALENCE|Two one sided tests procedure by estimation of ratio of geometric means and 90% CI; exponential transformation from estimated difference in natural logarithm scale obtained from linear mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.64||||||Arm B: Zanubrutinib alone vs. zanubrutinib + clarithromycin||0.64|0.39|
95820817|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
95820818|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.14|0.02|0.0001
95820819|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.29|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.29|0.08|0.0002
95854789|NCT03762993|191669650|OTHER|Changes in lung volumes were analyzed using a linear mixed effect model. Fixed factors included in the statistical model included time, group, and restoration strategy (controlled phonation or vocal rest). In addition, appropriate interactions were included and participant was added as a random factor in order to control for individual variation.|||||<|0.01||||||P-value represents effect of group. A priori threshold for significance set at .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95958704|NCT04260464|191890056|OTHER||Test/Reference Ratio|229.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|189.97|276.35||||||ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for M1 between normal renal function group (Reference) and the moderate impaired renal function group (Test). Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||276.35|189.97|
96000303|NCT02973815|191976691|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for: baseline screentime, child age (baseline), and child sex||0.34|-0.31|0.928
95958705|NCT03898700|191890070|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Performance scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
95958706|NCT03898700|191890070|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This one-group feasibility study examined outcomes of coaching using descriptive statistics (changed score) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A changed score of 2 points reflects clinical significance. The Wilcoxon was used to determine statistical significance. Satisfaction scores from 31 coaching goals across 7 informal caregivers were used for analysis.||||<0.001
95820820|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.03||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.1|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.10|0.01|0.0005
95820821|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY|Prophylactic treatment with PF-06741086 will be considered superior to On Demand treatment with respect to ABR reduction if 1) the upper limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand is \<1 and 2) the estimate of the ratio of ABR in PF/historical On Demand ≤0.3. Drug will be considered not superior to On Demand treatment if the lower limit of the 2-sided 80%CI of the ratio of PF/historical On Demand \>0.3.|ratio|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.16|||Negative Binomial Model|||The comparator was the Historical on Demand Group||0.16|0.05|<0.0001
95820822|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|0.31|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.31|0.11|<0.0001
95820823|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.22|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.22|0.04|0.0002
95820824|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.2||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.09|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.47|0.09|0.0154
95820825|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.14|0.01|0.0005
95820826|NCT02974855|191615108|SUPERIORITY||ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.2|||Negative Binomial Model|||On-Study versus Pre-Treatment||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
95820827|NCT01474772|191615125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints had p-values that were less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach was applied.||0.01|-0.46|0.0659
95820828|NCT01474772|191615126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.543|-0.038||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. Unstructured covariance structure was used to estimate the within-participant errors.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||This longitudinal analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. P-value was based on a repeated measure mixed effects model including pooled center, time point, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6 as well as interaction terms as fixed effect factors. For analysis purpose, it is assumed that participants were on placebo at Baseline, took the same treatment as in Period 1 during Week 1 of washout, and were on placebo in Week 2 of washout.||-0.038|-0.543|0.0242
95820829|NCT01474772|191615127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. The study was considered positive only if both co-primary endpoints have p-values that are less than 0.05, hence there was no need for multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, time, treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The model term 'time' may take 2 values corresponding to Week 3 and Week 6 in each period.||0.18|-0.44|0.4120
95820830|NCT01474772|191615128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.55||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.55|0.94|0.0847
95854790|NCT03038100|191669656|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.79|0.2785
95854791|NCT03038100|191669657|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.65|0.0376
95958707|NCT00511836|191890092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|2e-05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0.||||<0.00002
95958708|NCT00511836|191890095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||<0.013
95854792|NCT03038100|191669658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2), tumor PD-L1 status (IC0 vs. IC1/2/3), and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.09|0.78|0.3432
95854793|NCT03038100|191669659|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.06|||Log Rank|||Stratified by: stage and/or surgical status (Stage III vs. Stage IV), ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1 or 2) and treatment strategy (adjuvant vs. neoadjuvant).||1.06|0.66|0.1316
95820831|NCT01474772|191615129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.39||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Generalized linear mixed model|||Analysis was done overall (period 1 and period 2) using a generalized linear mixed model which included response as the dependent variable, sequence, period, pooled center, treatment as fixed effects, and subject within treatment as random effect. LOCF approach was applied.||2.39|0.80|0.2459
95820832|NCT01474772|191615130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.12||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.12|-1.71|0.0889
95820833|NCT01474772|191615131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.53||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.53|-2.86|0.1781
95820834|NCT01474772|191615132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline pain, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.15|-0.53|0.2719
95820835|NCT01474772|191615133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|563.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4098.74||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7549.82|8676.6||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||8676.60|-7549.82|0.8909
95958709|NCT00511836|191890096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mean treatment difference=0||||0.245
95820836|NCT01474772|191615134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|206.37||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.26|406.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||406.01|-411.26|0.9899
95854794|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.62|0.58|0.9096
95958710|NCT02106195|191890145|SUPERIORITY|Change from Baseline to Day 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.04||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-3.7|0.324
95958711|NCT04367480|191890151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.67|||ANCOVA|||"Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation (MI) with the fully conditional specification (FCS) method. 100 replicates were imputed.~ANCOVA analysis was applied within each replicate. SAS PROC MI and MIANALYZE were used to calculate the reported estimates. (N: Active TENS=71, Placebo TENS=70)"||2.67|-0.56|0.199
95958712|NCT04367480|191890152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.08|-0.34|0.302
95958713|NCT04367480|191890152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Hot/Burning Pain. (N: Active TENS=22, Placebo TENS=22)||3.08|-0.33|0.112
95958714|NCT04367480|191890153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.02|-0.37|0.351
95958715|NCT04367480|191890153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.79|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Sharp/Shooting Pain. (N: Active TENS=24, Placebo TENS=23)||2.79|-0.36|0.128
95958716|NCT04367480|191890154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.27|-0.22|0.166
95958717|NCT04367480|191890154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Numbness. (N: Active TENS=60, Placebo TENS=50)||1.05|-0.51|0.492
95958718|NCT04367480|191890155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||0.94|-0.56|0.622
95958719|NCT04367480|191890155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Tingling. (N: Active TENS=55, Placebo TENS=50)||1.08|-0.61|0.587
95958720|NCT04367480|191890156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis on the Study Completers (N: Active TENS=67, Placebo TENS=62)||1.31|-0.02|0.058
95820837|NCT01474772|191615135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.15||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||1.15|-3.88|0.2854
95820838|NCT01474772|191615136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.68||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.68|-3.60|0.1805
95820839|NCT01474772|191615137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.31||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.31|-0.99|0.3028
95820840|NCT01474772|191615138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.30|-0.41|0.7542
95820841|NCT01474772|191615139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-2.62|0.0634
95820842|NCT01474772|191615140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.62||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.62|-0.13|0.1985
95820843|NCT01474772|191615141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.20|-0.21|0.9686
95820844|NCT01474772|191615142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio is based on the binary response for any improvement while p-value is from the comparison of the original scale of 7 possible outcomes. P-value was calculated by using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. PGIC values at the end of Period 1 data was compared between treatment groups.||4.95|1.30|0.0020
95820845|NCT01474772|191615143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. LOCF approach was applied.||-0.09|-0.68|0.0105
95958721|NCT04367480|191890156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.02|||ANCOVA|||Subgroup analysis was performed on participants who reported at least 4 out of 10 at baseline for Cramping. (N: Active TENS=18, Placebo TENS=18)||3.02|-0.32|0.110
95958722|NCT04702893|191890160|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.1185|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.1185
95958723|NCT04702893|191890161|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.5135|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.5135
95958724|NCT04702893|191890162|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.0764|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.0764
95958725|NCT04702893|191890163|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.||||||0.3478|||||||Z-test of correlation|||||||0.3478
95854795|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||2.01|0.73|0.4662
95854796|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.40|0.51|0.5237
95958726|NCT01114139|191890185|SUPERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval was calculated using the large sample assumption.|Treatment Difference|75.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.15|80.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - placebo) was expressed as a percentage.|Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only. Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information.||80.02|71.15|<0.0001
95820846|NCT01474772|191615144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.07|-0.63|0.1178
95820847|NCT01474772|191615145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.13||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.13|-0.60|0.1990
95820848|NCT01474772|191615146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.71107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.037||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 1997. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.037|-0.025|0.71107
95820849|NCT01474772|191615146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.039||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Linear mixed effects model|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the Index score Dolan 2001. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including baseline value, sequence, period, center, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.039|-0.021|0.53965
95820850|NCT00425698|191615226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: Erythopoietin significantly improves kidney graft function. Power calculation: with a difference of at least 4 mL/min in mean eGFR between groups the number of patients enrolled per group (at least 41) would allowed the detection of a significant difference between groups at a 5% level (p\<0.05)||||<0.05
95820851|NCT03497975|191615239|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.13||Logistic regression model includes WI-NRS baseline score as a covariate, treatment and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|1.07|0.0309
95820852|NCT03497975|191615240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-3.3||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline ItchyQoL value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-3.30|-10.82|0.0002
95820853|NCT03497975|191615241|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.07||Logistic regression model includes PAS (Item 5a) baseline score as a covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and the study site (with pooling) as a fixed effect.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.07|1.11|0.0179
95820854|NCT03497975|191615242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-2.31||Repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline PROMIS value. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||||-2.31|-6.55|<0.0001
95820855|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity of lesion shape|0.694|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests.||||<0.001
95820856|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, conservative|0.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
95820857|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity spec, agressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
95820858|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity,conservative|0.657||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kiloPascals (kPa) (7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.001
95854797|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||2.07|0.76|0.3826
95958727|NCT01150045|191890201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.76|0.12
96000304|NCT03165981|191976692|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.10|0.36|0.7588
96000305|NCT03165981|191976693|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.40|0.39|.9412
95820859|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. elasticity specificity, aggressive|0.774|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
95820860|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value specificity|0.626||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.18
95820861|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter ratio specificity|0.512||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
95820862|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median elasticity ratio specificity|0.649||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.006
95820863|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale specificity,conservative|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
95820864|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale specificity, aggressive|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in specificity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall specificity = 78.5%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image specificity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||<0.001
95820865|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion shape sensitivity|0.979||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image lesion shape.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.48
95820866|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lesion homogeneity sens, conservative|0.969||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.74
95820867|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homogeneity,aggressive,sensit|0.962||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the homogeneity of elasticity with the lesion and surrounding tissue using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if they were not homogeneous on the color overlay SW elastographic image; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if they were very or reasonably homogeneous).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.37
95854798|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.76|0.56|0.9893
95854799|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.61|0.49|0.6892
96000306|NCT03165981|191976694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
96000307|NCT03165981|191976695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.13|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||3.13|0.24|0.8325
96000308|NCT03165981|191976696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.||||||0.3408
96000309|NCT03165981|191976697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.48|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenzel is stratified by site.|RR is adjusted by site.|||2.48|0.21|0.6101
96000310|NCT03165981|191976698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.848
96000311|NCT03165981|191976700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95958728|NCT00704171|191890213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Fisher Exact|||Primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of PleuraSeal as an adjunct compared to standard of care alone. Tissue closure rates for the treatment and control groups were assumed to be 0.40 and 0.15, respectively. To achieve 80 percent power (alpha=0.05, 2-tailed, Fisher's Exact Test) required 112 completed subjects. To account for potential subject withdrawals, an additional 8 subjects were to be enrolled for a total of 120 randomized subjects (approx. 60 per treatment group).||||0.257
95820868|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||elasticity homegeneity,conservative,sens|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05~Overall sensitivity = 99.0%"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 30 kPa (3.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
95820869|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||max. elasticity sensitivity,aggressive|0.972|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of the maximum elasticity using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if maximum elasticity was 160 kPa(7.3 m/sec) or more; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the maximum elasticity was 80 kPa (5.2 m/sec) or less).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||>0.99
95820870|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median mean elasticity value sensitivity|0.986||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median mean elasticity value.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.046
95820871|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||diameter ratio sensitivity|0.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image diameter ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.025
95820872|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median elasticity ratio sensitivity|0.983||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image median elasticity ratio.~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.083
95820873|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max.color scale sensitivity,conservative|0.997||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using conservative strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.008
95820874|NCT00716482|191615255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Max. color scale sensitivity, aggressive|0.986||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"P-value was that to test the null hypothesis that there is no change in sensitivity with addition of the ShearWave elastographic feature.~Significance threshold P-value = 0.05"|McNemar|||"Elastography image sensitivity of color using a six-point color scale of maximum elasticity in the mass and surrounding parenchyma using aggressive strategy (BIRADS 3 mass upgraded to BIRADS 4a' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was red; BIRADS 4a mass downgraded to BIRADS 3' if the max stiffness on the color overlay SW elastographic image was black to dark blue, or light blue).~Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two tests."||||0.21
95820875|NCT00716482|191615256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA. Kruskal-Wallis was performed once to get p-values for all of the 9 categories at once.||Null hypothesis: no variance of similarity exists between the three groups||||<0.001
95820876|NCT02027311|191615282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model used to identify the factors related to the presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).||If the true difference in the experimental and control means is 4, total 26 experimental subjects and 26 control subjects was required to reject the null hypothesis that the means of the primary outcome values of experimental and control groups are equal with probability (power) 0.8. The Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis is 0.05.||||0.05
95820877|NCT02027311|191615283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|50.94||Logistic regression model were used in univariate and corrected multivariate analyses to identify the factors related to the primary outcome variables, such as, presence of intervention (frequency of intervention = 0, vs. ≥ 1).|Regression, Logistic|||All the continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and dichotomous categorical variables was used and the Pearson chi-square with Fisher exact test. We used the linear mixed model to compare the differences of paired data, such as mean values of RR, SpO2, MAP, HR, and RSS at different time points of the two different sedation groups. For two-sided tests, p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||50.94|2.41|0.002
95820878|NCT04855240|191615285|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|4.4|||ANOVA|||||4.4|-25.4|0.1683
95820879|NCT04855240|191615285|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.8356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|16.6|||ANOVA|||||16.6|-13.4|0.8356
95820880|NCT04855240|191615286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|1.155|||Log Rank|||||1.155|0.598|0.2280
95820881|NCT04855240|191615286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.527|||Log Rank|||||1.527|0.793|0.5604
95820882|NCT04855240|191615287|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.05|0.2457
95958729|NCT00704171|191890214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|two-sided||||||<0.001
95820883|NCT04855240|191615287|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.09|-0.22|0.3997
95820884|NCT04855240|191615288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4771
95820885|NCT04855240|191615288|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.2925
95820886|NCT04855240|191615289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.22|-0.09|0.4628
95820887|NCT04855240|191615289|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.06|-0.24|0.3090
95820888|NCT04855240|191615290|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.36||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|-47.8|0.2494
95820889|NCT04855240|191615290|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.42||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|35.4|||ANOVA|||||35.4|-25.1|0.7385
95820890|NCT04855240|191615291|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.91||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|22.3|||ANOVA|||||22.3|-67.5|0.3238
95820891|NCT04855240|191615291|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.99||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|52.9|||ANOVA|||||52.9|-37.3|0.7344
95820892|NCT04855240|191615292|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-3.7|0.8489
95861832|NCT00669409|191682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-28.3|
95861833|NCT00669409|191682663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.2|-49.6|
95820893|NCT04855240|191615292|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||||5.3|-1.5|0.2768
95820894|NCT04855240|191615293|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.8|||ANOVA|||||3.8|-6.2|0.6291
95820895|NCT04855240|191615293|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.3182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.5|||ANOVA|||||7.5|-2.5|0.3182
95820896|NCT04855240|191615294|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-12.8|0.3299
95820897|NCT04855240|191615294|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.2|||ANOVA|||||9.2|-7.9|0.8822
95820898|NCT04855240|191615295|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|9.8|||ANOVA|||||9.8|-24.0|0.4094
95820899|NCT04855240|191615295|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|20.4|||ANOVA|||||20.4|-13.5|0.6901
95820900|NCT04855240|191615296|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.5536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.7|||ANOVA|||||11.7|-21.9|0.5536
95820901|NCT04855240|191615296|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.64||0.7811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|19.3|||ANOVA|||||19.3|-14.5|0.7811
95820902|NCT04855240|191615297|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.5267
95820903|NCT04855240|191615297|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-0.3|0.3228
95820904|NCT04855240|191615298|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.7617
95820905|NCT04855240|191615298|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.6241
95820906|NCT04855240|191615299|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.3442
95820907|NCT04855240|191615299|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.3|0.7896
95820908|NCT04855240|191615300|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-1.2|0.6003
95820909|NCT04855240|191615300|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-0.6|0.4086
95820910|NCT04855240|191615301|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-1.6|0.4958
95820911|NCT04855240|191615301|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.7|-0.8|0.4595
95820912|NCT04855240|191615302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.04|0.1686
95820913|NCT04855240|191615302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.8333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.11|-0.10|0.8333
95820914|NCT04855240|191615303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1939
95820915|NCT04855240|191615303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
95820916|NCT04855240|191615304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.20|-0.02|0.1894
95820917|NCT04855240|191615304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.10|0.9595
95820918|NCT04855240|191615305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.7117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.24|-0.06|0.7117
95820919|NCT04855240|191615305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.7599
95861834|NCT00669409|191682664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|14.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-16.8|
95861835|NCT00669409|191682664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-35.0|
95820920|NCT04855240|191615306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.16|0.7070
95820921|NCT04855240|191615306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.20|0.6877
95820922|NCT04855240|191615307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.22|0.8690
95820923|NCT04855240|191615307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.19|0.3790
95820924|NCT04855240|191615308|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|-0.9|0.0897
95820925|NCT04855240|191615308|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|6.7|||ANOVA|||||6.7|-7.1|0.9434
95820926|NCT04855240|191615309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.04|0.8355
95820927|NCT04855240|191615309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.15|-0.12|0.3561
95820928|NCT04855240|191615310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|-0.06|0.9413
95820929|NCT04855240|191615310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.15|0.7819
95820930|NCT04855240|191615311|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANOVA|||||0.4|-0.5|0.8461
95820931|NCT04855240|191615311|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
95820932|NCT04855240|191615312|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.9022
95820933|NCT04855240|191615312|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2450
95820934|NCT04855240|191615313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4205||0.4205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4205
95820935|NCT04855240|191615313|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.4336
95820936|NCT04855240|191615314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.2|0.2718
95820937|NCT04855240|191615314|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-0.1|0.1727
95820938|NCT03724981|191615371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
95820939|NCT03724981|191615372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Prescott test|||||||<0.0001
95820940|NCT01456195|191615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.24|-0.72|<0.001
95820941|NCT01456195|191615373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.52||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.52|-1.00|<0.001
95820942|NCT01456195|191615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.79||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|1.20|0.010
95820943|NCT01456195|191615374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.82||P-Value used a logistic model with treatment, country and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.82|2.48|<0.001
95820944|NCT01456195|191615375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-4.6||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.6|-22.7|0.003
95820945|NCT01456195|191615375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-13.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-13.2|-31.4|<0.001
95820946|NCT01456195|191615376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|5.7||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.7|-63.2|0.100
95820947|NCT01456195|191615376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.5|5.5||ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-65.5|0.096
95820948|NCT03304054|191615387|OTHER|||||||0.2196||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.2196
95820949|NCT03304054|191615388|OTHER|||||||0.3736||||||P-value for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test of Equality of change from baseline distributions between the amifampridine phosphate and placebo treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test of equality of change from baseline distributions between subjects diagnosed with MuSK-MG treated with amifampridine and placebo was conducted.||||0.3736
95820950|NCT01380535|191615413|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.373
95820951|NCT01579565|191615414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001||95.0|0.494|0.686||p-value based on the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||0.686|0.494|0.0001
95854800|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.17|0.30|0.1324
95820952|NCT01579565|191615415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0002||95.0|-6.917|-2.244||p-value is based on the generalized CMH test stratified by the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH-weighted mean difference (OMS302 - Placebo) is adjusted for the randomization strata.||||-2.244|-6.917|0.0002
95820953|NCT01579565|191615416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95820954|NCT01579565|191615417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95820955|NCT01579565|191615418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0760
95820956|NCT01579565|191615419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0806
95820957|NCT01579565|191615420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
95820958|NCT01579565|191615421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3923||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3923
95820959|NCT01579565|191615422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Treatment comparisons are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0060
95820960|NCT01579565|191615423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3286||||||Treatment comparisons are based on generalized CMH test stratified by randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3286
95820961|NCT01579565|191615424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361||||||Treatment comparisons based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by randomization strata.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2361
95820962|NCT02791191|191615437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.418
95820963|NCT02791191|191615437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.231
95820964|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
95820965|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||White Matter Disease||||1.000
95820966|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.404
95820967|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cortical Superficial Siderous||||1.000
95861836|NCT00669409|191682664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|9.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.8|-21.8|
95958730|NCT00704171|191890215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Kaplan-Meier|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times for each treatment group and the log-rank test was used to compare the two treatments.||||||0.790
95958731|NCT00704171|191890216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.559
95958732|NCT00704171|191890217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||2-sample t-test|||||||0.292
95958733|NCT00704171|191890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
95958734|NCT00704171|191890218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||For subgroup with pre-randomization air leak grade of 2 or 3|Fisher Exact|||||||.013
95958735|NCT01196819|191890219|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.13mm, if the two-sided upper 95% confidence bound is \<Δ, the Firehawk Stent being tested will be considered non-inferior to the control. This corresponds to a P value \<0.05 from a two-sided Student t-test comparing the difference between FirehawkStent and Xience stent to delta.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|||H0: Pe - Pc≥ ∆, H1: Pe - Pc \< ∆. Pe and Pc are the mean 9-month in-stent late loss for the subject in the Firehawk DES group and the Xience group, respectively. ∆ is the non-inferiority margin. A two-sided upper 95% confidence bound will be calculated for the difference in 9-month in-stent late loss .||0.29|0|0.94
95820968|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|Lacunar Infarct||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95820969|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lacunar Infarct||||0.457
95820970|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||1.000
95820971|NCT02791191|191615438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Other Infarct||||0.457
95820972|NCT02791191|191615439|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||1.000
95820973|NCT02791191|191615439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Vasogenic Edema||||0.457
95820974|NCT02791191|191615439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||0.703
95820975|NCT02791191|191615439|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Increase in Microhemorrhage||||1.000
95820976|NCT02791191|191615440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment Emergent Suicidal Ideation||||0.452
95820977|NCT02791191|191615440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||TE Suicidal Ideation|Fisher Exact|||||||0.279
95820978|NCT02791191|191615440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.293
95820979|NCT02791191|191615440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||Emergence of Suicidal Behavior||||0.486
95820980|NCT02791191|191615442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta||||<.001
95820981|NCT02791191|191615442|SUPERIORITY|Amyloid Beta|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95820982|NCT02791191|191615442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
95820983|NCT02791191|191615442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-40||||<.001
95820984|NCT02791191|191615442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
95820985|NCT02791191|191615442|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Amyloid Beta 1-42||||<.001
95820986|NCT02791191|191615443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.970
95820987|NCT02791191|191615443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Meausres|||||||0.586
95820988|NCT02791191|191615444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.088
95820989|NCT02791191|191615444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.150
95820990|NCT02791191|191615445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.153
95820991|NCT02791191|191615445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.176
95820992|NCT01696968|191615460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
95820993|NCT01696968|191615462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||Poisson regression|||||1.00|0.95|
95820994|NCT01696968|191615464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.12|||Poisson regression|||||1.12|0.98|
95958736|NCT01196819|191890220|NON_INFERIORITY|Assume the in-stent percent diameter stenosis of both FIREHAWK and XIENCE V are 16 ± 16%, the non-inferiority value is 5%, the level of statistical significance is 0.05 (bilateral test), the power is 85%.||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95958737|NCT01196819|191890221|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95820995|NCT01696968|191615468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07|||Poisson regression|||||1.07|0.91|
95820996|NCT00301262|191615481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|<|0.0001||95.0|11.4|24.86||Since there was only one primary endpoint no multiple comparison adjustments were made for primary analysis. Final stat. model included centre, treatment, smoking status and history of ED as factors, and age, duration of ED (baseline) as covariates.|ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|The primary analysis population was the FAS. The sample size was estimated based on an expected difference of 16.5 with a standard deviation of 28.4, based on previously observed data.||24.86|11.40|<0.0001
95820997|NCT00301262|191615482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.761||0.0028||95.0|1.8|8.37|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||8.370|1.800|0.0028
95820998|NCT00301262|191615482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.294|<|0.0001||95.0|20.58|31.455|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||31.455|20.580|<0.0001
95820999|NCT00301262|191615483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.008||95.0|0.47|3.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||3.06|0.47|0.0080
95821000|NCT00301262|191615484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.909||0.0051||95.0|0.29|1.585|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.585|0.290|0.0051
95821001|NCT00301262|191615484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.013|<|0.0001||95.0|1.812|3.77|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.770|1.812|<0.0001
95821002|NCT00301262|191615485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.922||0.0054||95.0|0.78|4.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.43|0.78|0.0054
95821003|NCT00301262|191615486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.4232||95.0|-0.43|1.02|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.02|-0.43|0.4232
95821004|NCT00301262|191615487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0156||95.0|0.13|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.22|0.13|0.0156
95821005|NCT00301262|191615488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.0096||95.0|0.3|2.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||2.11|0.30|0.0096
95821006|NCT00301262|191615489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0135||95.0|0.19|1.61|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||1.61|0.19|0.0135
95861837|NCT00669409|191682664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-28.0|
95958738|NCT01196819|191890222|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.76
95821007|NCT00301262|191615490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.392||0.0033||95.0|0.051|2.465|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.465|0.0510|0.0033
95821008|NCT00301262|191615490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.346|<|0.0001||95.0|3.676|6.772|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||6.772|3.676|<0.0001
95821009|NCT00301262|191615491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57||0.2581||95.0|-0.149|0.549|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.549|-0.149|0.2581
95821010|NCT00301262|191615491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.582|<|0.0001||95.0|0.758|2.018|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.018|0.758|<0.0001
95958739|NCT01196819|191890223|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.77
95958740|NCT01196819|191890224|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95958741|NCT03974100|191890230|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PPS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.509|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.509|-0.798|
95958742|NCT03974100|191890231|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set TP1 FAS): 95% CI for difference in means contained in \[-1.45%, 1.45%\] (criteria 1) or in \[-2.00%, 2.00%\] (criteria 2)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.475|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|MMRM included treatment, prior bisphosphonate use, DXA machine type, visit, visit-treatment interaction, and baseline LS-BMD as a continuous covariate|Difference GP2411 (Test) - EU-Prolia (Reference)|||0.475|-0.830|
95821011|NCT00301262|191615492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.456||0.2857||95.0|-0.149|0.499|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.499|-0.149|0.2857
95821012|NCT00301262|191615492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.706||0.0005||95.0|0.345|1.177|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.177|0.345|0.0005
95821013|NCT00301262|191615493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.548||0.0102||95.0|0.183|1.317|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.317|0.183|0.0102
95821014|NCT00301262|191615493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.979|<|0.0001||95.0|1.557|3.01|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.010|1.557|<0.0001
95821015|NCT00301262|191615494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.847||0.0016||95.0|0.264|1.086|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.086|0.264|0.0016
95821016|NCT00301262|191615494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.297|<|0.0001||95.0|1.335|2.456|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.456|1.335|<0.0001
95821017|NCT00301262|191615495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0083||95.0|0.73|4.83|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||4.83|0.73|0.0083
95821018|NCT00301262|191615496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.193||0.9146||95.0|-1.218|1.093|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.093|-1.218|0.9146
95821019|NCT00301262|191615496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.463|<|0.0001||95.0|3.961|7.114|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||7.114|3.961|<0.0001
95821020|NCT00301262|191615497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.826||0.0002||95.0|8.88|27.96|||ANCOVA||Mean difference between the sidenafil group compared to the placebo group was calculated along with 95% confidence intervals for these differences.|||27.96|8.88|0.0002
95821021|NCT00301262|191615498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.444||0.0064||95.0|1.857|10.956|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||10.956|1.857|0.0064
95821022|NCT00301262|191615498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.384|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.636|33.971|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||33.971|19.636|<0.0001
95821023|NCT00301262|191615499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.491||||0.0001||95.0|3.042|13.851|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.851|3.042|0.0001
95821024|NCT00301262|191615500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.915|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.396|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.080|2.396|<0.0001
95821025|NCT00301262|191615501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.676||||0.0187||95.0|1.242|10.875|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.875|1.242|0.0187
95821026|NCT00301262|191615502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716||0.0037||95.0|4.59|23.22|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.22|4.59|0.0037
95821027|NCT00301262|191615503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.496||0.0321||95.0|0.84|18.6|||independent-samples t-test||Mean Difference = Week 8 - Baseline|||18.60|0.84|0.0321
95821028|NCT00301262|191615504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.901||0.0427||95.0|-15.68|-0.27|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-0.27|-15.68|0.0427
95821029|NCT00301262|191615505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903||0.0533||95.0|-15.32|0.11|||independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.11|-15.32|0.0533
95821030|NCT00301262|191615506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3041||0.0002||95.0|0.566|1.768|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.768|0.566|0.0002
95821031|NCT00301262|191615507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3638||0.0001||95.0|0.727|2.164|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||2.164|0.727|0.0001
95821032|NCT00301262|191615508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3946||0.0032||95.0|0.403|1.961|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.961|0.403|0.0032
95821033|NCT00301262|191615509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3549||0.0008||95.0|0.511|1.913|||2-sample independent t-test||A 2-sample independent t-test was used to test the difference between treatment for the change between baseline and Week 8 (change = Week 8 - baseline).|||1.913|0.511|0.0008
95821034|NCT00301262|191615510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.454||0.0195||95.0|0.064|0.711|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.711|0.064|0.0195
95821035|NCT00301262|191615510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.207|<|0.0001||95.0|1.551|2.628|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.628|1.551|<0.0001
95821036|NCT00301262|191615511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.489||0.0186||95.0|0.069|0.731|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.731|0.069|0.0186
95821037|NCT00301262|191615511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.573|<|0.0001||95.0|2.044|3.299|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.299|2.044|<0.0001
95821038|NCT00301262|191615512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.917||0.0033||95.0|0.223|1.077|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||1.077|0.223|0.0033
95821039|NCT00301262|191615512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.335|<|0.0001||95.0|2.042|3.182|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||3.182|2.042|<0.0001
95821040|NCT00301262|191615513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.606||0.0143||95.0|0.093|0.807|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||0.807|0.093|0.0143
95821041|NCT00301262|191615513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.178|<|0.0001||95.0|1.454|2.516|||paired t-test||A paired t-test was used to examine the within treatment difference between week 8 and week 14 (open label phase).|||2.516|1.454|<0.0001
95861838|NCT00669409|191682664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.1|-50.6|
95861839|NCT00669409|191682665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-11.9|
95958743|NCT03974100|191890232|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 95% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
95958744|NCT03974100|191890232|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PDS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUEC including treatment and log baseline CTX value as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.01|0.98|
95958745|NCT03974100|191890233|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed Cmax including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.03|0.92|
95958746|NCT03974100|191890234|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence criteria (analysis set PKS): 90% CI for ratio of geometric means contained in \[0.80, 1.25%\]|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on log-transformed AUCinf including treatment and weight as a continuous covariate|Geometric mean ratio of GP2411 (Test) to EU-Prolia (Reference)|||1.05|0.93|
95958747|NCT03398421|191890260|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|2.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.807|2.224||||||||2.224|1.807|
95821042|NCT00301262|191615514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0325
95821043|NCT00301262|191615514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
95821044|NCT00301262|191615515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0196
95958748|NCT03398421|191890267|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.933||||||||0.933|0.690|
95958749|NCT02601209|191890383|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95958750|NCT02601209|191890384|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1419|ONE_SIDED|85.0||1.7|||Log Rank|1-sided statistical test and p-value||||1.70||0.1419
95958751|NCT00859976|191890396|SUPERIORITY|A superiority test was used to calculate the number of patients that are needed in order to show a difference between the bone mineral density surrounding BoneMaster coated cups compared to plasma HA sprayed cups.||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Change in bone mineral density, normalised to baseline levels.||||||0.4570
95821045|NCT00301262|191615515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||<0.0001
95821046|NCT00301262|191615516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.3173
95821047|NCT00301262|191615516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||McNemar|||Exact p-values calculated using McNemar's test for difference between Week 8 and Week 14.||||0.0016
95821048|NCT00301262|191615517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.958||0.0624||95.0|-11.39|0.29|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.29|-11.39|0.0624
95821049|NCT00301262|191615517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835||0.4523||95.0|-2.24|5.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.01|-2.24|0.4523
95861840|NCT00669409|191682665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-3.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-35.1|
95861841|NCT00669409|191682665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.3|
95821050|NCT00301262|191615518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.962||0.2081||95.0|-6.35|1.4|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.40|-6.35|0.2081
95821051|NCT00301262|191615518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.958||0.4131||95.0|-2.26|5.48|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.48|-2.26|0.4131
95821052|NCT00301262|191615519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.126||0.4069||95.0|-5.97|2.43|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||2.43|-5.97|0.4069
95821053|NCT00301262|191615519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.1137||95.0|-0.57|5.31|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.31|-0.57|0.1137
95821054|NCT00301262|191615520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.829||0.0123||95.0|-21.77|-2.7|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||-2.70|-21.77|0.0123
95821055|NCT00301262|191615520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.883||0.8993||95.0|-10.27|9.03|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.03|-10.27|0.8993
95821056|NCT00301262|191615521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.458|<|0.0001||95.0|11.25|32.81|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||32.81|11.25|<0.0001
95821057|NCT00301262|191615521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.4165||95.0|-16.24|6.76|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||6.76|-16.24|0.4165
95821058|NCT00301262|191615522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.351||0.0257||95.0|1.21|18.39|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||18.39|1.21|0.0257
95821059|NCT00301262|191615522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.209||0.0971||95.0|-11.7|0.98|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.98|-11.70|0.0971
95821060|NCT00301262|191615523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0726||95.0|-6.66|0.3|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||0.30|-6.66|0.0726
95821061|NCT00301262|191615523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.798||0.2581||95.0|-5.61|1.52|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||1.52|-5.61|0.2581
95821062|NCT00301262|191615524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8158||95.0|-9.86|7.78|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.78|-9.86|0.8158
95821063|NCT00301262|191615524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.8464||95.0|-3.68|3.02|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||3.02|-3.68|0.8464
95821064|NCT00301262|191615525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.789||0.9529||95.0|-11.82|11.13|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||11.13|-11.82|0.9529
95821065|NCT00301262|191615525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.994||0.8899||95.0|-10.59|9.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||9.20|-10.59|0.8899
95821066|NCT00301262|191615526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.897||0.2001||95.0|-25.83|5.47|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||5.47|-25.83|0.2001
95821067|NCT00301262|191615526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.724||0.1527||95.0|-3.64|23.01|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||23.01|-3.64|0.1527
95821068|NCT00301262|191615527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.774||0.0606||95.0|-0.67|30.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||30.15|-0.67|0.0606
95821069|NCT00301262|191615527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.318||0.3678||95.0|-21.12|7.88|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||7.88|-21.12|0.3678
95821070|NCT00301262|191615528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.474||0.5429||95.0|-10.25|19.37|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||19.37|-10.25|0.5429
95821071|NCT00301262|191615528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.595||0.5849||95.0|-8.02|14.15|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||14.15|-8.02|0.5849
95821072|NCT00301262|191615529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.952||0.0002||95.0|9.08|28.64|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||28.64|9.08|0.0002
95821073|NCT00301262|191615529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212||0.429||95.0|-7.35|17.2|||Independent-samples t-test||Independent-samples t-test was used to test mean difference of zero between treatment groups (Viagra - Placebo) at each visit interval.|||17.20|-7.35|0.4290
95821074|NCT01716039|191615547|OTHER|Comparing the change in the modified Baron score from baseline to week 18 between the treatment groups||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.758
95821075|NCT01716039|191615547|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95821076|NCT01716039|191615548|OTHER|||||||0.908||||||p-value for the overall treatment difference is based on an analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline UCEIS|ANCOVA|||||||0.908
95821077|NCT01667224|191615598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
95821078|NCT01667224|191615599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
95821079|NCT01667224|191615600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.D. to detect a 0.3kg(S.E.=0.6kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
95821080|NCT01667224|191615601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data are present as the mean±S.E. to detect a 0.3kg(S.D.=0.60kg) difference in body weight between groups with 80% power and a two-tailed α-value of 0.05.||||<0.05
95821081|NCT01450696|191615621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.78|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 milliliters per minute \[mL/min\] and greater than or equal to \[≥\] 60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.78|0.86|0.2401
95821082|NCT01450696|191615621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.88|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||1.88|0.92|0.1285
95821083|NCT01450696|191615623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.04|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.04|0.49|0.9931
95821084|NCT01450696|191615623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.02|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.52|0.9458
95821085|NCT01450696|191615625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis included stratum of creatinine clearance (45 to 59 mL/min and ≥60 mL/min). Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.02|0.63|0.6759
95821086|NCT01450696|191615625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified analysis. Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.||2.05|0.67|0.5764
95821087|NCT01450696|191615626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.58||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|16.6|||Chi-squared|||The 95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||16.60|-31.75|0.5402
95821088|NCT01450696|191615626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.96||||||||1.96|0.28|
95821089|NCT01843673|191615639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05 . The p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and CBCT was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
95821090|NCT01843673|191615639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. Those are the p-values for pairwise comparison.||||||1||||||Statistical significance testing at 5% level of significance, p-value being larger than 0.05. The p-values for pairwise comparison lateral and vertical, for OBI and ExacTrac was 1.00.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pairwise comparison for each direction between each pair of technologies were done using a t test to check if the difference in the recommended shift is more than 2 mm. Clinical significance is based on a 2 mm difference. Statistical significance is determined based on 5% level of significance.||||1.00
95821091|NCT00123162|191615642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score).||With 26 subjects per treatment group and an assumed within-group standard deviation of 7 units, the study was designed to have 90% statistical power for a two-sided, 0.05 significance level test to detect a difference of 6.5 units in TOPAR4 between a single dose of 100 mg of sildenafil and placebo. However, we anticipated subject drop-out as high as 15%; therefore, we planned to recruit 31 subjects per treatment group.||7.6|2.9|<0.001
95821092|NCT00123162|191615643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of the VAS score at hour 4 (Sildenafil Citrate - Placebo)|||-26.8|-58.3|<.001
95821093|NCT00853242|191615669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0249
95821094|NCT00853242|191615669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.0001
95958752|NCT02864342|191890411|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||The effect of medication reminders on Symbicort adherence was evaluated using a t-test. The equality of variances was also tested and as the variances were not equal, the Satterthwaite-t test was reported.||||<0.001
95821095|NCT00853242|191615669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||<0.0001
95821096|NCT00853242|191615670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.2647
95821097|NCT00853242|191615670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.7944
95821098|NCT00853242|191615670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tests|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||0.3724
95821099|NCT01471028|191615699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.027||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.53|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.53|0.689|0.904
95821100|NCT01471028|191615700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
95821101|NCT01471028|191615701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.952|||Log Rank|||||1.952|0.886|0.168
95958753|NCT00118703|191890417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.45|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline rTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.45|-0.26|0.604
95821102|NCT01471028|191615702|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.732|||Log Rank|||||0.732|0.109|0.007
95821103|NCT00904670|191615703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-10.17|||ANOVA|||Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-10.17|-14.75|<0.0001
95821104|NCT00904670|191615704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.11|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-4.11|-8.53|<0.0001
95821105|NCT00904670|191615704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-7.91|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-7.91|-12.04|<0.0001
95821106|NCT00904670|191615704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-6.75|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-6.75|-11.92|<0.0001
95821107|NCT00904670|191615704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-1.54|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.54|-6.04|0.0016
95821108|NCT00904670|191615704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.94|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.94|-7.61|0.0016
95821109|NCT00904670|191615705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.36|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.36|-1.88|0.0051
95821110|NCT00904670|191615705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.95|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.95|-2.23|<0.0001
95821111|NCT00904670|191615705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-1.2|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.20|-3.37|0.0001
95958754|NCT00118703|191890418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.41|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was adjusted for Baseline iTNSS, country, age, and gender, in addition to treatment effect.||||0.41|-0.29|0.729
95958755|NCT00118703|191890419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Regression, Logistic|Overall evaluation of response to therapy was illustrated and analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for age, gender, investigator, and treatmen||||||0.064
95821112|NCT00904670|191615705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.47|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.47|-2.52|0.0055
95821113|NCT00904670|191615705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.29|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.29|-1.38|0.1977
95821114|NCT00904670|191615705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.00|-1.76|0.0491
95821115|NCT00904670|191615706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.02|-2.36|<0.0001
95821116|NCT00904670|191615706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.50|<0.0001
95821117|NCT00904670|191615706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-2.13|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.13|-3.77|<0.0001
95821118|NCT00904670|191615706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.66|-3.33|<0.0001
95958756|NCT00461123|191890420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.5248||95.0|-4.18|8.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of least squares (LS) means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||8.05|-4.18|0.5248
95821119|NCT00904670|191615706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.44|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.44|-2.07|0.0035
95958757|NCT00461123|191890421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.87||95.0|-3.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||3.04|-3.58|0.8700
95821120|NCT00904670|191615706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.35|-2.51|0.0109
95821121|NCT00904670|191615707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|25.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.26|34.96|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||34.96|16.26|<0.0001
95821122|NCT00904670|191615707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.54|47.66|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||47.66|26.54|<0.0001
95854801|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.70|0.62|0.9176
95854802|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.68|0.50|0.7861
95958758|NCT00461123|191890422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.57||||0.4162||95.0|-8.21|19.35|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||19.35|-8.21|0.4162
95821123|NCT00904670|191615707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|45.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.89|60.65|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||60.65|30.89|<0.0001
95821124|NCT00904670|191615707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|48.78|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||48.78|22.14|<0.0001
95821125|NCT00904670|191615707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|14.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|26.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||26.73|3.00|0.0155
95821126|NCT00904670|191615707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|20.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|33.22|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||33.22|8.17|0.0019
95821127|NCT00904670|191615709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.74|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.74|-2.85|0.0014
95821128|NCT00904670|191615709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.82|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.82|-3.76|<0.0001
95821129|NCT00904670|191615709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-2.67|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.67|-5.12|<0.0001
95821130|NCT00904670|191615709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-1.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.33|-3.97|0.0002
95821131|NCT00904670|191615709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||0.49|-1.34|0.3492
95821132|NCT00904670|191615709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.33|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.33|-2.34|0.0105
95821133|NCT00904670|191615710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Hour 0.75: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.00|-2.43|<0.0001
95821134|NCT00904670|191615710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-2.1|||ANOVA|||Hour 2: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.10|-3.78|<0.0001
95821135|NCT00904670|191615710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-2.57|||ANOVA|||Hour 4: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-2.57|-4.11|<0.0001
95821136|NCT00904670|191615710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.76|||ANOVA|||Hour 8: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-1.76|-3.64|<0.0001
95958759|NCT00461123|191890423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0588||95.0|-13.25|0.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), baseline as covariate, treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group at day +90||0.26|-13.25|0.0588
95958760|NCT00461123|191890424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.7878||95.0|-22.03|16.82|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA), treatment as fixed factor|Difference of LS means (Placebo minus Vardenafil)|null hypothesis: mean of Vardenafil group equals mean of Placebo group||16.82|-22.03|0.7878
95821137|NCT00904670|191615710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.73|||ANOVA|||Hour 10: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.73|-2.40|0.0006
95821138|NCT00904670|191615710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Hour 12: Treatment comparisons for observed scores were assessed using linear models with sequence (Placebo/NWP06 and NWP06/Placebo), period, and treatment (NWP06 and Placebo) as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a repeated effect with a compound symmetry correlation structure. A negative point difference indicated a positive effect of NWP06 over Placebo.||-0.30|-1.94|0.0087
95821139|NCT01825512|191615731|NON_INFERIORITY|Deferiprone was declared non inferior to Deferasirox if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportion of successful chelation in the two groups is above -12.5%.|Treatment success rate|-12.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-12.5||||||||||-12.5|
95821140|NCT01825512|191615732|OTHER|GLM model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|4.468|||ANCOVA|||||4.468|-0.213|0.074
95821141|NCT01825512|191615733|OTHER|GLM Analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.741||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.085|2.819|||ANCOVA|||||2.819|-4.085|0.717
95821142|NCT01825512|191615734|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority of Deferiprone to Deferasirox is tested considering a non-inferiority margin of 400 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|164.734||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-323.58|324.781|||GLM|||||324.781|-323.580|0.997
95821143|NCT02091362|191615735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|1.11|<.001
95958761|NCT00984698|191890445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
95821144|NCT02091362|191615736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.66|<0.01
95821145|NCT03231917|191615767|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95821146|NCT00286091|191615776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|Primary and secondary endpoint analyses were conducted hierarchically. To preserve an overall type I error rate of 0.05, a 0.0488 2-sided test of bone metastasis-free survival was performed. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was established, time to first bone metastasis was tested with a 2-sided significance level of 0.050. If superiority of denosumab over placebo was also established, overall survival time was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.050.||0.98|0.73|0.0284
95821147|NCT00286091|191615777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||0.98|0.71|0.0317
95821148|NCT00286091|191615778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||Wald test||Based on the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by PSA ≥ 8.0 ng/mL, PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months and previous or current chemotherapy for prostate cancer. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.20|0.85|0.9125
95821149|NCT03423238|191615799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.388
95821150|NCT03423238|191615800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.017
95821151|NCT03423238|191615800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.002
95821152|NCT03423238|191615801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.653
95821153|NCT03423238|191615802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.684
95821154|NCT03423238|191615802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.458
95821155|NCT03423238|191615803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.550
95821156|NCT03423238|191615804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.973
95821157|NCT03423238|191615804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.432
95821158|NCT03423238|191615805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.23063
95821159|NCT03423238|191615806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
95821160|NCT03423238|191615806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.874
95821161|NCT03423238|191615807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.563
95821162|NCT03423238|191615808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.008
95821163|NCT03423238|191615808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.922
95958762|NCT00984698|191890446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis must be qualified by small sample size, worse baseline symptom severity in CBSRT arm, and greater levels of attrition in PCGT arm||||<.05
95958763|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.23
96002122|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.097|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.994|4.858||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.858|1.994|<0.001
95861842|NCT00669409|191682665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.4|-27.8|
95821164|NCT03423238|191615809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.667
95821165|NCT03423238|191615810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.692
95821166|NCT03423238|191615810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.590
95821167|NCT03423238|191615811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.844
95821168|NCT03423238|191615812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.721
95821169|NCT03423238|191615812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.851
95821170|NCT03423238|191615813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.815
95821171|NCT03423238|191615814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.488
95821172|NCT03423238|191615814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.237
95821173|NCT03423238|191615815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
95821174|NCT03423238|191615816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.549
95821175|NCT03423238|191615816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.303
95821176|NCT03423238|191615817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.934
95821177|NCT03423238|191615818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.792
95821178|NCT03423238|191615818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.417
95821179|NCT03423238|191615819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.685
95821180|NCT03423238|191615820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.854
95821181|NCT03423238|191615820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.903
95821182|NCT03423238|191615821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.569
95821183|NCT03423238|191615822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.824
95821184|NCT03423238|191615822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.401
95821185|NCT03423238|191615823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.188
95821186|NCT03423238|191615824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.338
95821187|NCT03423238|191615824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.484
95821188|NCT03423238|191615825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.533
95821189|NCT03423238|191615826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.992
95821190|NCT03423238|191615826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.639
95821191|NCT01032603|191615837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|9.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=46%, RR group=37%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||23|-6|0.24
95821192|NCT01032603|191615838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=34%, RR group=26%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||21|-6|0.25
95821193|NCT01032603|191615839|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-7.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.23|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria was obtained by Kaplan-Meier method. BLR group=3%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||0.23|-14|0.06
95821194|NCT01032603|191615840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.0|||Z test||Proportion of participants meeting criteria by 3 yrs was obtained by KM method. BLR group=14%, RR group=10%. Probability was compared b/w groups using Z test. A group difference and 95% CI were calculated. Positive differences favor the RR group.|||14|-5|0.36
95821195|NCT01032603|191615842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year distance control will adjust for baseline distance control).||||0.44
95821196|NCT01032603|191615845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||3-year control outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value (e.g. ANCOVA model of 3-year near control will adjust for baseline near control).||||0.64
95821197|NCT01032603|191615848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.21
95821198|NCT01032603|191615851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||3-year PACT outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.38
95821199|NCT01032603|191615854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.93
95821200|NCT01032603|191615857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||3-year stereoacuity outcomes were analyzed as continuous variables and compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANOVA) models that adjust for the corresponding baseline value.||||0.82
95821201|NCT01032603|191615859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Child 5 to 7 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.30
95821202|NCT01032603|191615859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Child 8 to 13 years old|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.77
95861843|NCT00669409|191682665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-4.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.3|-45.8|
95958764|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.07
95958765|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Orienting. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.99
95821203|NCT01032603|191615859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Parent Proxy IXTQ|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.51
95821204|NCT01032603|191615859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parent Psychosocial|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.42
95821205|NCT01032603|191615859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Parent Function|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.68
95821206|NCT01032603|191615859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Parent Surgical|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the each of the two age-specific versions of the child IXTQ, the proxy questionnaire, and for each of the three parent questionnaire subscales, mean Rasch-based HRQOL scores9, 10 at 3 years were compared between treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.64
95821207|NCT01032603|191615860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|13.0||||||"The cumulative proportion of participants with re-operation by 3 years was obtained using the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method.~A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.~Treatment-group differences were calculated as BLR minus RR."||13|-2|
95821208|NCT01032603|191615861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-0.0003||||||All treatment-group differences were calculated as the BLRc group minus the R\&R group. A treatment-group difference and a corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated.||-.0003|-30|
95821209|NCT01032603|191615862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|25.0||||||The proportion of participants with suboptimal surgical outcome at 3 years was compared between treatment groups using Barnard's exact test, and an exact 95% CI on the treatment-group difference was calculated using Farrington-Manning scores.||25|-1|
95821210|NCT01813058|191615865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|195.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95821211|NCT03525600|191615883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2296||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|0.0111|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0111|-0.4703|0.0615
95821212|NCT03525600|191615883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2077||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4444|0.029|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||0.0290|-0.4444|0.0854
95821213|NCT03525600|191615884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7451||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1539|-0.3362|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3362|-1.1539|0.0004
95821214|NCT03525600|191615884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6331||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0508|-0.2153|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.2153|-1.0508|0.0030
95821215|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0547||||0.4282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1899|0.0806|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0806|-0.1899|0.4282
95821216|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.0793||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2131|0.0546|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0546|-0.2131|0.2457
95854803|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.65|0.65|0.4539
95854804|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.86|0.27|0.4849
95821217|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1722||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|-0.0174|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0174|-0.3270|0.0292
95821218|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1659||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3202|-0.0115|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0115|-0.3202|0.0352
95821219|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.145||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2909|0.0009|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||0.0009|-0.2909|0.0514
95821220|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.168||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3164|-0.0196|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0196|-0.3164|0.0265
95821221|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.3532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5245|-0.1819|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1819|-0.5245|<0.0001
95821222|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2848||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4336|-0.1361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1361|-0.4336|0.0002
95821223|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7251||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1373|-0.3129|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3129|-1.1373|0.0006
95861844|NCT00669409|191682666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.5|-9.1|
95958766|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Fidget. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and BeSAFE).||||.005
95958767|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Overall Behavior. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.01
95821224|NCT03525600|191615885|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.698||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1142|-0.2817|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.2817|-1.1142|0.0010
95821225|NCT02168062|191615905|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.109
95821226|NCT02168062|191615907|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Systolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.85
95821227|NCT02168062|191615907|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Diastolic Blood Pressure measurement comparison||||0.10
95821228|NCT02168062|191615908|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weight measurement comparison||||0.70
95821229|NCT02168062|191615909|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage body fat measurement comparison||||0.11
95821230|NCT02168062|191615910|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Waist measurement comparison||||0.32
95958768|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.04
95958769|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriate Response. Change-from-baseline analyses were conducted (post-intervention assessment ratings minus pre-intervention assessment ratings) and compared between intervention groups (Floreo and TAU).||||.06
95958770|NCT03605368|191890460|EQUIVALENCE|Simple linear models ('lm' in R) were conducted. Statistical significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
95958771|NCT03605368|191890461|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.55
95821231|NCT02168062|191615911|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hemoglobin A1C measurement comparison||||0.70
95821232|NCT02168062|191615912|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insulin resistance score comparison||||0.46
95821233|NCT02168062|191615913|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total Cholesterol measurement comparison||||0.44
95821234|NCT02168062|191615913|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total low density lipid measurement comparison||||0.52
95821235|NCT02168062|191615913|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total high density lipid measurement comparison||||0.40
95821236|NCT02168062|191615913|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total triglyceride measurement comparison||||0.53
95821237|NCT02168062|191615914|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Non-vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.38
95821238|NCT02168062|191615914|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate physical activity comparison||||0.979
95821239|NCT02168062|191615914|OTHER|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Moderate-Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.884
95821240|NCT02168062|191615914|OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vigorous physical activity comparison||||0.678
95821241|NCT02168062|191615914|OTHER|||||||0.464|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total physical activity comparison||||0.464
95821242|NCT02168062|191615915|OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average MVPA Minutes per Day Comparison||||0.838
95821243|NCT02168062|191615916|OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the lumbar spine comparison||||0.677
95821244|NCT02168062|191615916|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density at the femoral neck comparison||||0.493
95821245|NCT02168062|191615916|OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bone Density of the total hip comparison||||0.807
95821246|NCT02168062|191615917|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Serum 25-(OH) vitamin D level comparison||||0.403
95821247|NCT02168062|191615918|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.385
95821248|NCT02168062|191615919|OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Attention Function Index (AFI) Score Comparison||||.148
95821249|NCT02168062|191615920|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mental Composite Score Comparison||||.077
95821250|NCT02168062|191615920|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Physical Composite Score Comparison||||0.401
95821251|NCT02168062|191615921|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
95821252|NCT02168062|191615922|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.676
95821253|NCT02168062|191615923|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.183
95821254|NCT02168062|191615924|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Total Score Comparison||||0.66
95821255|NCT02168062|191615924|OTHER|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Incontinence Score Comparison||||0.844
95821256|NCT02168062|191615924|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Urinary Irriation Score Comparison||||0.175
95821257|NCT02168062|191615924|OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Bowel Function Score Comparison||||0.472
95821258|NCT02168062|191615924|OTHER|||||||0.405|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Sexual Function Score Comparison||||0.405
95958772|NCT03605368|191890461|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression compared change in Police Interaction Knowledge scores by group (Floreo vs. TAU) from pre- to post-intervention. Significance was set at p\<.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
95821259|NCT02168062|191615924|OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC-26 Hormonal Function Score Comparison||||0.749
95821260|NCT02168062|191615925|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Fatigue Scale Score Comparison||||0.907
95821261|NCT02168062|191615925|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Energy Scale Score Comparison||||0.792
95821262|NCT00923351|191615951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.043
95821263|NCT00182078|191615954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.017
95821264|NCT00182078|191615955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95958773|NCT01125566|191890466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4224||95.0|0.87|1.41||Two sided p-value was derived from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|||1.41|0.87|0.4224
95821265|NCT00182078|191615956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.65
95821266|NCT00940290|191615957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||After reading the clinical practice guideline, the median response from the four groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis statistic||||0.007
95821267|NCT00361231|191615994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
95821268|NCT00361231|191615995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
95821269|NCT02993822|191616011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.49|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.49|0.88|0.324
95821270|NCT02993822|191616011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.48|0.88|0.332
95821271|NCT02993822|191616011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.20|0.71|0.531
95821272|NCT02993822|191616012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.15|0.75|0.482
95821273|NCT02993822|191616012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.75|0.460
95821274|NCT02993822|191616012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.06|0.69|0.144
95821275|NCT02993822|191616013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.27|0.78|0.992
95854805|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.34|0.19|0.7470
95854806|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.0896
95854807|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
95821276|NCT02993822|191616013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.14|0.71|0.387
95821277|NCT02993822|191616013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change from baseline to each visit (Week 2, Week 4 and Week 12) in log transformed awake objective cough frequency was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation. The treatment effect at Week 12 was estimated using the ratio of geometric means (i.e. the difference between the treatments least squares means \[adjusted means\] on the log scale, back transformed to the original scale).||1.19|0.74|0.600
95821278|NCT02993822|191616014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.0|0.042
95821279|NCT02993822|191616014|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|0.1|0.026
95821280|NCT02993822|191616014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.5|0.003
95821281|NCT02993822|191616015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.7|-0.4|0.250
95821282|NCT02993822|191616015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.5|-0.5|0.325
95821283|NCT02993822|191616015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.2|0.1|0.029
95958774|NCT01125566|191890467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.63||Two sided p-value from a log rank test stratified by the setting of prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.63|1.03|0.0240
95958775|NCT01125566|191890468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6431||95.0|0.756|1.572|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours Afatinib.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.572|0.756|0.6431
96002123|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.984||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.097||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.097|1.280|0.002
95821284|NCT02993822|191616016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.3|0.1|0.038
95821285|NCT02993822|191616016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.0|-0.2|0.118
95854808|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.50|0.56|0.7347
95854809|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.00|0.32|0.0479
95821286|NCT02993822|191616016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.4|0.2|0.025
95821287|NCT02993822|191616017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.9|-0.5|0.258
95821288|NCT02993822|191616017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||1.8|-0.5|0.243
95821289|NCT02993822|191616017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||"The change from baseline in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline.~The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in LCQ total score and the three domain scores was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation."||2.8|0.4|0.009
95821290|NCT02993822|191616018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.5|-16.6|0.008
95821291|NCT02993822|191616018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-11.4|0.198
95821292|NCT02993822|191616018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.1|-13.7|0.055
95821293|NCT02993822|191616019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.1|-16.3|0.026
95821294|NCT02993822|191616019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.3|-9.6|0.571
95821295|NCT02993822|191616019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.3|-15.2|0.043
95821296|NCT02993822|191616020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-19.7|0.006
95861845|NCT00669409|191682666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-0.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-31.7|
95861846|NCT00669409|191682666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-18.5|
95821297|NCT02993822|191616020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.8|-11.1|0.435
95821298|NCT02993822|191616020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.4|-17.4|0.022
95821299|NCT02993822|191616021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.4|-15.3|0.103
95821300|NCT02993822|191616021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||5.6|-10.6|0.546
95821301|NCT02993822|191616021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.7|-17.2|0.034
95821302|NCT02993822|191616022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-18.8|0.004
95821303|NCT02993822|191616022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.4|-11.5|0.282
95821304|NCT02993822|191616022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|4.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.3|-10.7|0.398
95821305|NCT02993822|191616023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.7|-18.3|0.019
95821306|NCT02993822|191616023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.4|-13.7|0.170
95821307|NCT02993822|191616023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|4.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.5|-11.7|0.384
95821308|NCT02993822|191616024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.3|-20.0|0.006
95821309|NCT02993822|191616024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.0|-13.0|0.222
95821310|NCT02993822|191616024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.3|-16.0|0.058
95854810|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.05|0.36|0.0712
95854811|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.58|0.56|0.8168
95821311|NCT02993822|191616025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.2|-18.9|0.027
95821312|NCT02993822|191616025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||2.2|-14.9|0.147
95821313|NCT02993822|191616025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the Cough Severity VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in Cough Severity VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-17.6|0.046
95821314|NCT02993822|191616026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.5|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-5.5|-19.5|<0.001
95821315|NCT02993822|191616026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||1.3|-12.4|0.114
95821316|NCT02993822|191616026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|0.2|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||0.2|-13.7|0.056
95821317|NCT02993822|191616027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.0|-16.8|0.027
95821318|NCT02993822|191616027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||4.1|-11.3|0.357
95821319|NCT02993822|191616027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.8|-16.2|0.031
95821320|NCT02993822|191616028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-2.9|-19.2|0.008
95821321|NCT02993822|191616028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.9|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||3.9|-11.8|0.321
95861847|NCT00669409|191682666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|5.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.3|-25.9|
95958776|NCT01125566|191890469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.8829||95.0|0.707|1.496|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression stratified by prior Trastuzumab failure, hormone receptors status and region of the investigational site.|The odds ratio for the comparison afatinib + vinorelbine vs. trastuzumab + vinorelbine below 1 favours AV.|Results of presented analyses are to be seen as exploratory (no confirmatory testing was performed)||1.496|0.707|0.8829
95821322|NCT02993822|191616028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-0.1|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-0.1|-16.0|0.047
95821323|NCT02993822|191616029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-1.8|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-1.8|-18.4|0.018
95821324|NCT02993822|191616029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||6.4|-9.8|0.682
95821325|NCT02993822|191616029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-3.6|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Change in the urge-to-cough VAS was summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) in terms of absolute values and changes from baseline. The effect of treatment in terms of the change from baseline to each scheduled visit (Week 2, Week 4, Week 8 and Week 12) in urge-to cough VAS was analysed using a MMRM with REML estimation.||-3.6|-20.0|0.005
95821326|NCT02993822|191616030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
95821327|NCT02993822|191616030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.134
95821328|NCT02993822|191616030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
95821329|NCT02993822|191616031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.401
95821330|NCT02993822|191616031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.175
95821331|NCT02993822|191616031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.126
95821332|NCT02993822|191616032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.002
95821333|NCT02993822|191616032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.144
95821334|NCT02993822|191616032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
95821335|NCT02993822|191616033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.158
95821336|NCT02993822|191616033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.597
95821337|NCT02993822|191616033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.124
95821338|NCT02993822|191616034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.01
95821339|NCT02993822|191616034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.049
95821340|NCT02993822|191616034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.001
95854812|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.52|0.50|0.6417
95821341|NCT02993822|191616035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.309
95821342|NCT02993822|191616035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.387
95821343|NCT02993822|191616035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.025
95821344|NCT02993822|191616036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.003
95821345|NCT02993822|191616036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.152
95821346|NCT02993822|191616036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.004
95821347|NCT02993822|191616037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.100
95821348|NCT02993822|191616037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.557
95821349|NCT02993822|191616037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The Global Rating of Change responses were summarised by treatment group and visit (Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12) as categorical endpoints (worse, about the same and better). Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test stratified by region using modified ridit scores (row mean scores differ)."||||0.054
95821350|NCT02374060|191616145|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.65|0.96||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single pre-planned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||.96|.65|<0.0001
96002124|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.062|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.977|4.788||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.788|1.977|<0.001
95821351|NCT02374060|191616145|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.56|0.86||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||0.86|0.56|<0.0001
95821352|NCT02374060|191616145|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.71|1.08|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.08|.71|
95821353|NCT02374060|191616146|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.95||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16||Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single Two sided type I error threshold was 0.00132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||Ratio of intravitreal over periocular|||1.16|0.77|0.35
95821354|NCT02374060|191616146|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.89||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.72|1.1||the 2 sided type 1 error threshold was 0.000132 since recruitment was halted after the single preplanned interim analysis|mixed effects model||ratio of dexamethasone over periocular|||1.10|0.72|0.07
95821355|NCT02374060|191616146|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin was 1.16|Ratio of the proportion of BL|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|99.87|0.77|1.16|||||A mixed effects model was used to create the confidence interval for testing non-inferiority. The direction is the ratio of dexamethasone over intravitreal|||1.16|0.77|
95821356|NCT02374060|191616147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.53|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.53|0.24|<0.0001
95821357|NCT02374060|191616147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.59|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.59|0.29|<0.0001
95821358|NCT02374060|191616147|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.19|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.19|-0.09|0.45
95821359|NCT02374060|191616148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - Periocular|||0.27|-0.03|0.10
95821360|NCT02374060|191616148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Periocular|||0.28|-0.03|0.11
95821361|NCT02374060|191616148|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - Intravitreal|||0.16|-0.16|0.98
95821362|NCT02374060|191616149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.27||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.43|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.43|0.11|0.0005
95821363|NCT02374060|191616149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.56|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.56|0.25|<0.0001
96000312|NCT05176847|191976704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted; primary and secondary outcomes were addressed using repeated measure. Models: time, group, group x time.|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted; primary and secondary outcomes were addressed using repeated measure. Models: time, group, group x time.|0.09|-3.71|0.09
96000313|NCT01981122|191976723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures||||||.095
96000314|NCT02773758|191976724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|-1.071|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response and treatment and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as covariates.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|||-1.071|-1.509|<0.0001
95821364|NCT02374060|191616149|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.13||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.30|-0.04|0.12
95821365|NCT02374060|191616150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.004||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||0.17|-0.16|0.96
95821366|NCT02374060|191616150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.06||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||0.23|-0.11|0.51
95821367|NCT02374060|191616150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||0.22|-0.12|0.54
95821368|NCT02374060|191616151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|8.82|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||8.82|1.82|0.003
95821369|NCT02374060|191616151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.72|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||8.72|1.60|0.004
95821370|NCT02374060|191616151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.16||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|3.34|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - intravitreal|||3.34|-3.67|0.93
95821371|NCT02374060|191616152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.53||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.92|||mixed effects model||Intravitreal - periocular|||9.92|1.14|0.013
95861848|NCT00669409|191682666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-2.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.7|-44.2|
96000315|NCT00089843|191976731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.6||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate) on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||4.6|1.8|<0.0001
96000316|NCT00089843|191976731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8||This p value was for the effect of testosterone on bone mineral density of the spine.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||0.8|-2.0|0.41
96000317|NCT00089843|191976732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-41.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p value was for the effect of Actonel (risedronate).|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.002
95821372|NCT02374060|191616152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|5.14||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.44|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone - periocular|||9.44|0.84|0.019
95821373|NCT02374060|191616152|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.37|||mixed effects model||Dexamethasone-intravitreal|||3.37|-4.16|0.84
95821374|NCT02374060|191616156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||1.24|0.09|0.10
95821375|NCT02374060|191616156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||1.50|0.14|0.20
95821376|NCT02374060|191616156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.26|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.26|0.34|0.62
95821377|NCT02374060|191616157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.29|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.29|0.86|0.11
95821378|NCT02374060|191616157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.28|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Intravitreal|||6.28|1.30|0.009
95821379|NCT02374060|191616157|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.81|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.81|0.72|0.30
95821380|NCT02374060|191616158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.65|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/periocular|||3.65|0.91|0.09
95861849|NCT00669409|191682667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|27.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.0|-4.6|
95861850|NCT00669409|191682667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.5|-30.0|
96000318|NCT00089843|191976732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent change between 0 and 12 months|-11.0||||0.39||95.0||||This p value was for the effect of testosterone.|Factorial analysis|||Factorial analysis||||0.39
96000319|NCT01466751|191976733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|8.687||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A-priori threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons. The omnibus effect from the linear mixed model for the Treatment Arm x Time Interaction was utilized to establish significance of the effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom=1, Denominator degrees of freedom = 168||A linear mixed model was utilized to test the null hypothesis that the intervention groups would show equivalent performance change on the outcome measure from baseline to the 3 month time points.||||0.004
96000320|NCT01466751|191976734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Type III Tests of Fixed Effects|2.032||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold was: p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Numerator degrees of freedom: 1, Denominator degrees of freedom: 168||A linear mixed model was used to test the null hypothesis that the two treatment groups would display no differential changes in amygdala BOLD signal from baseline to 3 months as a main effect or in interaction with facial affect type (fear or happy) or by brain hemisphere (left or right).||||0.156
95821381|NCT02374060|191616158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.91|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/periocular|||4.91|1.29|0.007
95821382|NCT02374060|191616158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.43|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/intravitreal|||2.43|0.72|0.37
95821383|NCT02374060|191616159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.01|||Regression, Cox||Intravitreal/Periocular|||4.01|0.28|0.92
95821384|NCT02374060|191616159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.11|||Regression, Cox||Dexamethasone/Periocular|||3.11|0.16|0.65
95821385|NCT02374060|191616159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.59|||Regression, Cox||Dexamthasone/Intravitreal|||2.59|0.16|0.53
95821386|NCT02526524|191616180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-0.63|0.1449
95821387|NCT02526524|191616180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||0.02|-0.69|0.0643
95821388|NCT02526524|191616180|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.79|0.0214
95958777|NCT05400226|191890485|OTHER|Summary statistics of quantitative data, one-sided exact binomial test for null hypothesis, Clopper-Pearson method for 95% exact confidence intervals|Proportion|0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.591|||Exact Binomial Test||The Parameter Dispersion Value is the asymptotic standard error of the proportion.|Single arm open-label||0.591|0.270|< .0001
95821389|NCT02526524|191616180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.91|0.0022
95821390|NCT02526524|191616180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Included treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and HbA1c value at Baseline as a covariate.||||-0.67|-1.39|<0.0001
95821391|NCT00394251|191616183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.641
95821392|NCT00394251|191616189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentage of participants with at least one taxane-emergent toxicity||||0.323
95821393|NCT04644276|191616192|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|102.0||0.8125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.6|140.7|||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks test||Unit is percent change.|Percent change in leak 100% x (\[Mask with mask adhesive\] - \[Mask without mask adhesive\])/ \[Mask without mask adhesive\]. The comparison between the two arms is captured in the reported percentage change.||140.7|-112.6|0.8125
95821394|NCT03086408|191616362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-9.00|0.09
95821395|NCT03086408|191616363|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.69|-2.89|0.61
95958778|NCT05400226|191890486|OTHER||Proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.939||||||||0.939|0.675|
95958779|NCT05400226|191890487|OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.733||||||||0.733|0.202|
95821396|NCT03086408|191616364|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-0.61|0.78
95821397|NCT03086408|191616365|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-1.30|0.30
95821398|NCT03086408|191616366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|8.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.82|-8.62|0.98
95821399|NCT03086408|191616367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.84|-1.64|0.61
95821400|NCT03086408|191616368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|26.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.77|0.63|0.04
95821401|NCT03086408|191616369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-2.80|1
95821402|NCT03086408|191616370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.98|-2.38|0.82
95821403|NCT03086408|191616371|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-5.29|0.37
95821404|NCT03367403|191616372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|6.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.27|0.12|0.042
95821405|NCT03367403|191616373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-3.63|0.040
95821406|NCT03367403|191616374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.83|0.139
95821407|NCT03367403|191616375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.40|0.227
95821408|NCT03367403|191616376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.009||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|-0.77|0.230
95821409|NCT03367403|191616377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-85.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.867|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.68|-77.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-77.43|-92.68|<0.001
95821410|NCT03367403|191616378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Tau-IQ||0.03|-0.01|0.560
95958780|NCT05400226|191890488|OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.633||||||||0.633|0.126|
95958781|NCT05400226|191890489|OTHER||Proportion|0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.862||||||||0.862|0.650|
95958782|NCT02598934|191890501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|27.7||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate was effective in treating osteoporosis|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||27.7|6.1|0.002
95821411|NCT03367403|191616378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.062|||ANCOVA|||MUBADA-Cerebellum||0.062|0.007|0.012
95958783|NCT02598934|191890501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|25.8||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for the item in the BCS: ibandronate reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.8|4.0|0.009
95821412|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Cortical||-1.43|-3.92|< 0.001
95821413|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Entorhinal Cortex||0.02|-0.02|0.916
95821414|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.03|0.771
95821415|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Inferior Parietal Lobe||0.01|-0.17|0.094
95821416|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Isthmuscingulate||0.00|-0.04|0.052
95821417|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Lateral Parietal Lobe||-0.11|-0.57|0.005
95821418|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Medial Temporal Lobe||0.06|-0.08|0.731
95821419|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Precuneus||-0.07|-0.25|<0.001
95821420|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Prefrontal Lobe||-0.17|-0.62|<0.001
95821421|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Superior Temporal Lobe||-0.12|-0.30|<0.001
95821422|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.43|1.14|< 0.001
95821423|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.519||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-1.59|-7.58|0.003
95958784|NCT02598934|191890501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|16.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis or reduces risk of breaking bone.||||27.5|6.3|0.001
95821424|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Temporal Lobe||-0.33|-1.03|<0.001
95958785|NCT02598934|191890501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|14.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.9||P-value between Consult group and Non-consult group for items in BCS: ibandronate effective in treating osteoporosis and reduces risk of breaking bone.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||25.9|3.9|0.010
95821425|NCT03367403|191616379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.987||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral White Matter||-0.33|-4.23|0.022
95821426|NCT03470194|191616381|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.002
95821427|NCT01822899|191616382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|0.046|<0.001
95821428|NCT00152477|191616413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|20.5||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \<5.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.384
95821429|NCT00152477|191616413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|6.4|||=|0.409||95.0|-7.7|20.5||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-7.7|=0.409
95821430|NCT00152477|191616413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.744
95821431|NCT00152477|191616413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|2.6|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|18.8||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.8|-13.5|=0.783
95821432|NCT00152477|191616413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||Two-sided Chi-square test. Fisher's Exact test presented when number of responders in a treatment group is \< 5.|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.234
95821433|NCT00152477|191616413|SUPERIORITY||Difference of response rate|10.2|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|27.2||CMH test stratified by country and disease stage (3 levels: Stage IIIb without malignant pleural effusion versus Stage IIIb with malignant pleural effusion or Stage IV or recurrent).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|-6.8|=0.228
95821434|NCT05059301|191616426|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 2) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 2 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.21|0.94|
95854813|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.72|0.53|0.8821
95958786|NCT02808975|191890515|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.049|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.049
95821435|NCT05059301|191616426|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 1 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.04||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 1 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||1.04|0.81|
95821436|NCT05059301|191616426|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence is demonstrated if the 2 sided 95% CI of the GMC ratios (RSV OA\_Lot 2 divided by RSV OA\_Lot 3) is within the pre defined limit of \[0.67, 1.5\].|Adjusted group GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||To demonstrate the clinical equivalence of RSV OA\_Lot 2 versus RSV OA\_Lot 3 in terms of RSV PreF3 IgG concentrations expressed as group GMC ratio at one month post vaccination. The 2-sided 95% CI for group GMC ratio was derived from an ANCOVA model on log10 transformed RSV PreF3 IgG antibody titers. The ANCOVA model included the treatment group and the age category (age at vaccination: 60-69, 70-79 or \>=80 years) and the center as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.||0.99|0.77|
95821437|NCT01194089|191616470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for the postoperative opioid use during the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, using a one tailed P value.||||0.828
95821438|NCT01194089|191616470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for the first 24 hours postoperatively, using a one tailed P value.||||0.752
95821439|NCT01194089|191616471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison between the arms for antiemetic medication use in the PACU.||||0.002
95821440|NCT01194089|191616472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score on admission.||||0.354
95821441|NCT01194089|191616472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 30 minutes.||||0.492
95821442|NCT01194089|191616472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at 60 minutes.||||0.809
95821443|NCT01194089|191616472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The arms were compared for numeric pain score at discharge.||||0.381
95821444|NCT01864148|191616473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.07|0.46|0.9584
95958787|NCT02808975|191890516|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.067
95958788|NCT02808975|191890517|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.003
95958789|NCT02808975|191890518|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.313|||||||ANCOVA|Across all strata, P-values are calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||||=0.313
95958790|NCT02808975|191890519|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Across all strata, P-value calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. Stratum containing zero count: 0.1 added to each cell.||||||=0.746
95958791|NCT00362375|191890527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||GEE cluster-adjusted odds ratio||4.50|1.28|<0.05
95958792|NCT00362375|191890528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.16|||GEE|||||1.16|0.20|<0.05
95821445|NCT01864148|191616473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.31|0.97|0.0636
95821446|NCT01864148|191616473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||3.84|1.11|0.0220
95821447|NCT01864148|191616473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.21|0.36|0.1771
95821448|NCT01864148|191616473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8931|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.8931
95821449|NCT01864148|191616474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.49|0.28|0.3058
95958793|NCT00362375|191890529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.95|||GEE|||||1.95|0.99|<0.05
95958794|NCT00362375|191890530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.44|||GEE|GEE incident rate ratio||||1.44|0.80|<0.05
95958795|NCT00362375|191890531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71|||GEE|||||2.71|0.76|<0.05
95958796|NCT04469465|191890565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||||0.0007
95958797|NCT04469465|191890565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Re-randomization Test|||Full Analysis||||0.0007
95958798|NCT04469465|191890565|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|31.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interim Efficacy Analysis||31.99|16.90|<0.0001
96000321|NCT02413255|191976743|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0195||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9752|1.0637|||Power Model|||||1.0637|0.9752|0.465
96000322|NCT02413255|191976744|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.1124||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9913|1.2336|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.2336|0.9913|0.126
96000323|NCT02413255|191976744|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.09||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9962|1.1838|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1838|0.9962|0.114
95821450|NCT01864148|191616474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.89|0.81|0.1873
95821451|NCT01864148|191616474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||2.65|0.76|0.2766
95958799|NCT04469465|191890565|SUPERIORITY||Difference|23.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.585|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.31|30.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Full Analysis||30.61|16.31|<0.0001
95958800|NCT02229578|191890592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||2.1|-1.2|<0.05
95958801|NCT02229578|191890593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop pain on 24 hour pain. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||1.49|-1.77|<0.05
96000324|NCT02413255|191976745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||0.5402
95821452|NCT01864148|191616474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, 95% CI and p-values are based on logistic regression adjusted for MS type, region and baseline component assessments.||||1.65|0.45|0.6578
95958802|NCT02229578|191890594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|6.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome was residual change score calculated by regressing immediate postop hydromorphone on 24 hour hydromorphone. This allows patient to serve as own control for intial values.||6.09|-9.62|<0.05
95821453|NCT01864148|191616474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5255|||||||Trend test|Trend test p-value is based on a linear contrast in logistic regression.||||||0.5255
95821454|NCT03928418|191616487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.9||p-value comparing live call booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||4.9|2.1|<0.001
95821455|NCT03928418|191616487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.1||p-value comparing technology booster to SOC arm: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline # of drinking days, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||5.1|2.2|<0.001
95821456|NCT03928418|191616488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.5|190.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.643|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm reported here.|||190.3|-117.5|0.643
95854814|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.30|0.32|0.2158
95958803|NCT01015677|191890606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.28||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.64|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||11.64|-24.20|0.488
95958804|NCT01015677|191890606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-17.45||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|1.38|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model with terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||1.38|-36.28|0.069
95958805|NCT01015677|191890609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differrence in the least squares means|-6.05||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|12.96|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||12.96|-25.06|0.529
96000325|NCT02413255|191976746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 1||||0.7824
96000326|NCT02413255|191976746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4056|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||Day 9||||0.4056
96000327|NCT02413255|191976747|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0606||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0187|1.1026|||Power Model|||||1.1026|1.0187|0.019
96000328|NCT02413255|191976748|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0789||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9628|1.195|||Power Model|||Day 1||1.1950|0.9628|0.258
96000329|NCT02413255|191976748|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0929||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9878|1.198|||Power Model|||Day 9||1.1980|0.9878|0.144
96000330|NCT02413255|191976751|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0799||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0371|1.1227|||Power Model|||||1.1227|1.0371|0.003
95821457|NCT03928418|191616488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|132.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.711|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline PEth level, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm reported here.|||132.9|-194.8|0.711
95821458|NCT03928418|191616489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.515|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||4.7|-9.3|0.515
95821459|NCT03928418|191616489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.801|Regression, Logistic||SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||6.4|-8.3|0.801
95821460|NCT03928418|191616490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|40.7||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||40.7|17.0|<0.001
95821461|NCT03928418|191616490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|36.8||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p \< 0.001 (calculated)|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||36.8|13.0|<0.001
95821462|NCT03928418|191616491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|7.3||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC: p = 0.002|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus live call booster arm presented here.|||7.3|1.6|0.002
95821463|NCT03928418|191616491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC: p = 0.003|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline alcohol use, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC arm minus technology booster arm presented here.|||7.2|1.5|0.003
95821464|NCT03928418|191616493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2||p-value comparing live call booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.610.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus live call booster arm presented here.|||2.2|-3.8|0.610
95958806|NCT01015677|191890609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-11.22||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|8.59|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|LDA model includes terms for treatment, week (Weeks 1, 2 and 4), region, and interaction of treatment by week.||||8.59|-31.03|0.264
95821465|NCT03928418|191616493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||p-value comparing technology booster arm to SOC arm: p = 0.474.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model; random effects for participants; fixed effects for sex, baseline ART adherence, visit, arm, interaction btwn visit and arm|SOC minus technology booster arm presented here.|||1.9|-4.1|0.474
95821466|NCT05319600|191616506|SUPERIORITY|treatment group as predictor baseline-residualized week 12 scores in linear regression|Slope|129.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.96|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.52|280.98|||Regression, Linear||Control coded as 0 and treatment as 1|||280.98|-22.52|<0.05
95821467|NCT00712725|191616518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with PF at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
95821468|NCT00712725|191616519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response PR at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
95821469|NCT00712725|191616520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Photophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
95821470|NCT00712725|191616521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Phonophobia at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
95821471|NCT00712725|191616522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with Absence of Nausea at 2 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||0.007
95821472|NCT00712725|191616523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value constructed from trend test of dose response, by testing the slope of the MK3207 dose covariate (all dose groups included) in a generalized linear regression model with binary response SPF 2-24 hours postdose as the dependent variable.|Generalized linear regression model|Model adjusted for geographic region (US, ex-US), baseline severity (moderate, severe), treatment and age (continuous), using identity link function.||||||<0.001
95854815|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.51|0.4762
95958807|NCT01015677|191890610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.94||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|8.07|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||8.07|-6.19|0.827
95821473|NCT03587428|191616524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3252||||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8101|0.1596|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.1596|-0.8101|0.1787
95821474|NCT03587428|191616524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7037||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1886|-0.2187|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA for treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect and two baseline terms as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment; a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.2187|-1.1886|0.0063
95821475|NCT00683930|191616544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference in response rate|5.1||||0.6558||97.5|-17.4|27.6|||Fisher Exact|Alpha = 0.025||||27.6|-17.4|0.6558
95821476|NCT01732510|191616557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.82||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|-2.77|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||The reduction from baseline in EASI at week 12 for participants receiving MK-8226 3 mg/kg was compared to placebo (MK-8226 3 mg - Placebo). The constrained longitudinal data analysis model used variance component covariance matrix to model correlation among repeated visits, without adjustment for interaction of treatment group by visit.||-2.77|-16.87|0.015
95821477|NCT00313144|191616583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
95821478|NCT00313144|191616585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.009
95821479|NCT00313144|191616586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.005
95821480|NCT00313144|191616588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
95821481|NCT00313144|191616589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.044
95821482|NCT00313144|191616590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.046
95821483|NCT02487654|191616609|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95958808|NCT01015677|191890610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS means|-14.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|-7.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, stage of the trial, and baseline value as a covariate in PP population only.||||-7.32|-21.73|0.001
95958809|NCT03603639|191890624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|3.48||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.48|-0.72|
95958810|NCT03603639|191890624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|2.63||||||The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.63|-0.49|
95821484|NCT02443116|191616613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-12.09|-5.59||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-5.59|-12.09|<0.001
95821485|NCT02443116|191616613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-14.39|-7.74||p-values are adjusted using a stepdown-Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-7.74|-14.39|<0.001
95821486|NCT02443116|191616613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.112|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.11|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||0.67|-5.11|0.112
95821487|NCT02443116|191616614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-2.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-2.99|-8.48|<0.0001
95821488|NCT02443116|191616614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|-3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.79|-9.41|<0.0001
95821489|NCT02443116|191616614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||1.98|-3.71|0.5467
95821490|NCT02443116|191616614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-3.25|-8.55|<0.0001
95854816|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.96|0.61|0.7585
95958811|NCT03603639|191890625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.54||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.54|-0.75|
95958812|NCT03603639|191890625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.21||||||In eye closure condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1.21|-0.60|
95821491|NCT02443116|191616614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||2.55|-2.89|0.9037
96000331|NCT02413255|191976752|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0897||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9735|1.206|||Power Model|||||1.2060|0.9735|0.201
95821492|NCT02443116|191616614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||3.45|-2.05|0.6134
95821493|NCT02443116|191616615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute change in liver fat content from baseline to Week 12 was compared between treatment groups using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and diabetic status as cofactors and baseline endpoint and baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) as covariates.||-1.91|-8.03|0.0018
95821494|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95821495|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.39||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey compared with immediate follow-up survey||||0.39
95821496|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
95821497|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.19
95821498|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline survey versus immediate follow-up||||0.38
95958813|NCT03603639|191890625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|4.39||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||4.39|-1.16|
96000332|NCT02413255|191976753|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0188||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9734|1.0642|||Power Model|||||1.0642|0.9734|0.490
95958814|NCT03603639|191890625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|2.98||||||In eyes closed condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.98|-0.89|
96000333|NCT02413255|191976754|EQUIVALENCE|Dose proportionality is declared when the 90% confidence interval of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9679, 1.0321) for the dose range of 0.1 mg to 105 mg.|Slope|1.0846||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.2002|||Power Model|||||1.2002|0.9690|0.224
95821499|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.25
95821500|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90 days post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
95821501|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up between the two arms||||0.03
95821502|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.65||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge comparison between the 2 arms||||0.65
95821503|NCT05352412|191616621|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.97||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-days post discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.97
95821504|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.77||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline comparison between the 2 arms||||0.77
95821505|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.85
95821506|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.38||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2-week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.38
95821507|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.21||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.21
95821508|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared with baseline survey||||0.32
95821509|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.09||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 week post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.09
95821510|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared with baseline survey||||0.07
95821511|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.26||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||2 weeks post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.26
95821512|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up compared between the 2 arms||||0.69
95958815|NCT03603639|191890625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|2.28||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||2.28|-1.87|
96000334|NCT02413255|191976761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analysis results were obtained using ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect.||||||<.0001
96000335|NCT02413255|191976777|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.772|1.628||||||||1.628|0.772|
96000336|NCT02413255|191976777|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.678||||||||1.678|0.796|
96000337|NCT02413255|191976777|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.676|1.425||||||||1.425|0.676|
96000338|NCT02413255|191976777|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.701|1.587||||||||1.587|0.701|
96000339|NCT02413255|191976777|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|1.604||||||||1.604|0.761|
96000340|NCT02413255|191976777|OTHER||Estimated Ratio|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.778||||||||1.778|0.844|
95821513|NCT05352412|191616622|OTHER||Mann-Whitney U|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||90-day post-discharge compared between the 2 arms||||0.32
95821514|NCT05352412|191616626|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95821515|NCT05352412|191616626|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95821516|NCT05352412|191616626|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95821517|NCT05352412|191616626|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.12||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.12
95821518|NCT05352412|191616627|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95821519|NCT05352412|191616627|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95958816|NCT03603639|191890625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|3.11||||||In eyes open condition. The mixed effects model for the crossover part of the study will include treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (Predose) measurement as a covariate, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||3.11|-0.57|
95958817|NCT04599855|191890638|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) means difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|-2.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.33|-7.91|<0.001
95958818|NCT04599855|191890638|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-4.07|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.07|-9.48|<0.001
95958819|NCT04599855|191890639|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-1.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.22|-6.29|=0.004
95958820|NCT04599855|191890639|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.00|-5.89|=0.006
95958821|NCT00858247|191890640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
95958822|NCT00858247|191890641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.80
95958823|NCT00858247|191890642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
95958824|NCT00858247|191890643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.68
95958825|NCT00858247|191890644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.40
95958826|NCT00858247|191890645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
95958827|NCT02165397|191890646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.42||The treatment effect was tested with a stratified log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval were based on a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|||0.420|0.148|< 0.0001
95958828|NCT02165397|191890647|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|2.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|3.639||Response rate was compared using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.639|1.753|< 0.0001
95958829|NCT02165397|191890648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.212||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using a stratified Cox regression model.|||0.212|0.049|< 0.0001
95958830|NCT02165397|191890649|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.813|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.357|2.421|||Chi-squared|||||2.421|1.357|< 0.0001
96000341|NCT03351244|191976904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|2.056|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.056|0.585|0.7735
95821520|NCT05352412|191616627|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.17||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95821521|NCT05352412|191616627|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.42
95821522|NCT05352412|191616628|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||1.00
95821523|NCT05352412|191616628|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.11
95821524|NCT05352412|191616628|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up||||0.89
95821525|NCT05352412|191616628|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.55||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up||||0.55
95821526|NCT05352412|191616629|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.66||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline||||0.66
95821527|NCT05352412|191616629|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.20
95821528|NCT05352412|191616629|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.85||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline versus immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.85
95821529|NCT05352412|191616629|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U|Mann-Whitney U|0.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Immediate follow-up post randomization||||0.07
95821530|NCT00810771|191616631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.873
95821531|NCT00810771|191616632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.671
95821532|NCT00810771|191616633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95821533|NCT00810771|191616634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.186
95821534|NCT00810771|191616635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.576
95821535|NCT00810771|191616636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95821536|NCT03594747|191616637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.74|0.37|0.0001
95821537|NCT03594747|191616637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.67|||One-sided stratified log-rank test|||||0.67|0.33|<0.0001
95821538|NCT03594747|191616638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.61||||||||0.61|0.32|
95821539|NCT03594747|191616638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59||||||||0.59|0.30|
95958831|NCT02165397|191890650|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.238||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.603||CMH chi squared test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.603|0.955|0.1059
95958832|NCT02165397|191890651|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.99||P-value is from unstratified log rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|Data cutoff 18 December 2019||1.99|0.328|0.643
95821540|NCT04382586|191616649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|7.391|||Unstratified 1-sided Fisher's exact test|||||7.391|0.349|0.4099
95958833|NCT00469456|191890710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.07||95.0|-0.1|2.8|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 12 in FLCI total score. Missing FLCI total scores at Week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||2.8|-0.1|0.070
95958834|NCT00469456|191890711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.022||95.0|0.9|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 12 in the total score of the Social Communication subscale and Communication of Basic Needs subscale of the ASHA FACS. Missing scores at week 12 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||10.9|0.9|0.022
95958835|NCT01841697|191890712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between omarigilptin and sitagliptin is less than the non-inferiority margin, δ =0.3%, then omarigliptin will be declared non-inferior to sitagliptin in terms of A1C reduction at Week 24.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||0.08|-0.15|
96000342|NCT03351244|191976904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|1.77|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.770|0.468|0.7809
95821541|NCT04382586|191616650|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.648|||Log Rank|||||1.648|0.511|0.7619
95821542|NCT02907216|191616677|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-D antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-D antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.74|-2.66|
95821543|NCT02907216|191616677|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL for anti-T antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|2.71|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-T antibody concentration ≥ 0.1 IU/mL.||2.71|-4.39|
95821544|NCT02907216|191616678|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.12|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PT antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||9.12|-2.7|
95821545|NCT02907216|191616678|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations ≥ 10 IU/mL for anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference-Seroprotective concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.72|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-FHA antibody concentration ≥ 10 IU/mL.||2.72|-2.66|
95821546|NCT02907216|191616679|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 1 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.74|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 1 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.74|-2.68|
95854817|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.93|0.52|0.9985
95958836|NCT01841697|191890713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.2|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||3.2|-11.8|
95958837|NCT01841697|191890714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8|||||Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.8|-3.6|
95958838|NCT01841697|191890715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.2||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.6|||Constrained logitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Difference is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.|||0.6|-9.0|0.089
96000343|NCT03351244|191976904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.753|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.753|0.576|0.9862
96000344|NCT03351244|191976905|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.38||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|1.57|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.570|-0.809|0.5289
96000345|NCT03351244|191976905|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.21||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.055|1.475|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.475|-1.055|0.7440
95821547|NCT02907216|191616679|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 2 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.95|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 2 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||2.95|-2.92|
95821548|NCT02907216|191616679|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: The LL of the standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group) in the percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers ≥ 8 ED50 for anti-polio 3 antibodies should be ≥ -10%.|Difference in seroprotective titer|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|4.47|||||The 2-sided asymptotic standardised 95% CIs for the difference between groups in terms of percentage of subjects with antibody concentration ≥ to the pre-defined cut-off.|Difference between Co-administration Group minus Staggered Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-polio 3 seroprotective titres ≥ 8 ED50.||4.47|-2.04|
95821549|NCT02931838|191616709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.4873
95821550|NCT02931838|191616709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||0.0003
95821551|NCT02931838|191616709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
95821552|NCT02931838|191616709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||< 0.0001
95821553|NCT02931838|191616709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal p-value|Chi-squared|P-value is from the Fishers Exact if at least one cell count is \<5. Otherwise, p-value is from the Chi-Square test.||||||<0.0001
95821554|NCT01448824|191616769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
95821555|NCT01448824|191616770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||0.50|-0.50|1.0000
95821556|NCT01448824|191616771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Up to 12 participants were enrolled in order for 8 to complete the study. The estimated variability in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was 20% coefficient of variation following a single dose of 100 mg LY2484595. Assuming that 70% of the total variability is contributed by intra-participant variability, a sample size of 8 participants provides a precision of \~15% for the geometric means ratio in AUC and Cmax of LY2484595 + ketoconazole to LY2484595 alone in log scale.|Ratio of Geometric LS means|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|3.18||||||||3.18|1.77|
95821557|NCT02370537|191616780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-square means (LSmeans) for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|Geometric least-squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.1|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.10|0.52|
95821558|NCT02370537|191616780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.72|0.32|
95821559|NCT02370537|191616780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.82|0.44|
96000346|NCT03351244|191976905|OTHER|A restricted maximum likelihood-based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements was applied.|Placebo-corrected adjusted mean|0.31||||0.5659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.745|1.358|||Mixed model with repeated measurements|The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit, and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit.||||1.358|-0.745|0.5659
95854818|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||5.06|0.85|0.1067
96000347|NCT03351244|191976908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|4.989|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.989|0.203|0.9938
96000348|NCT03351244|191976908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|5.531|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||5.531|0.225|0.8930
96000349|NCT03351244|191976908|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|4.233|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||4.233|0.265|0.9360
95821560|NCT02370537|191616781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.93|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.93|0.84|
95821561|NCT02370537|191616781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.51|
95821562|NCT02370537|191616781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.82|0.92|
95821563|NCT02370537|191616782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.28|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.28|0.63|
95821564|NCT02370537|191616782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.85|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.85|0.39|
95821565|NCT02370537|191616782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.0|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.00|0.55|
95821566|NCT02370537|191616783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.73|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.73|0.37|
95821567|NCT02370537|191616783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.67|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.67|0.32|
95854819|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.61|0.36|0.6171
95854820|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||23.57|0.08|0.8084
96000350|NCT03351244|191976910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|2.118|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||2.118|0.293|0.6362
96000351|NCT03351244|191976910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|1.826|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.826|0.205|0.3782
96000352|NCT03351244|191976910|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.671|||Regression, Cox|The model included the treatment effect as the only covariate and was stratified by country.||||1.671|0.296|0.4253
95821568|NCT02370537|191616783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.7|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.70|0.40|
95821569|NCT02370537|191616784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of least-squares LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.36|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.36|0.77|
95821570|NCT02370537|191616784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.25|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.25|0.67|
95821571|NCT02370537|191616784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.4|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||1.40|0.88|
95821572|NCT02370537|191616785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.92|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.92|0.49|
95821573|NCT02370537|191616785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.84|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.84|0.42|
95821574|NCT02370537|191616785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exposure of a single dose of EPANOVA® 4 g (reference) relative to OMACOR® 4 g (test) was estimated by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC. Natural log estimates of LSmeans for each treatment and differences of the LSmeans (OMACOR®-EPANOVA®) along with 90% CIs by degree of pancreatic exocrine function using level of FEC were exponentiated.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.9|||||OMACOR®/EPANOVA®|Back transformed results are based on the analysis of natural log-transformed data with a Linear Mixed Model containing the terms of FEC classification, treatment, FEC x treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient nested within sequence as random effect.||0.90|0.54|
95821575|NCT00678535|191616860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.3158||95.0|0.92|1.292|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median PFS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|Primary efficacy analysis: To test equality of progression free survival time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%).||1.292|0.920|0.3158
95821576|NCT00678535|191616861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9547||95.0|0.866|1.165|||Stratified log rank||Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS time. HR was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata.|To test equality of OS time between treatment groups, applying the two-sided stratified log-rank test (randomization strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior (neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, α=5%)||1.165|0.866|0.9547
95821577|NCT00678535|191616862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0435||||0.7696||95.0|0.7844|1.3882|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The best overall response rate was compared with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (strata: disease stage, previous oesophagectomy/gastrectomy and prior(neo-) adjuvant(radio) chemotherapy, two-sided with α=5%).||1.3882|0.7844|0.7696
95821578|NCT03817463|191616911|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.7|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-(broad+specific)||0.83|0.60|<0.005
95821579|NCT03817463|191616911|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline||HHF-(broad + specific).||0.78|0.57|<0.005
95821580|NCT03817463|191616912|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.75|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.81|0.69|<0.005
95821581|NCT03817463|191616912|OTHER||Ajusted hazard ratio|0.78|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.88|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-broad.||0.88|0.69|<0.005
95821582|NCT03817463|191616913|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.68|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.83|0.56|<0.005
95821583|NCT03817463|191616913|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.64|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||HHF-specific. Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.81|0.51|<0.005
95821584|NCT03817463|191616914|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.55|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.63|0.48|<0.005
95821585|NCT03817463|191616914|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.65|0.54|<0.005
95821586|NCT03817463|191616915|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.76|0.56|<0.05
95821587|NCT03817463|191616915|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.72|0.61|<0.005
95821588|NCT03817463|191616916|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.82|0.64|<0.005
95821589|NCT03817463|191616916|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.72|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.78|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.78|0.66|<0.005
95861851|NCT00669409|191682667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|17.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.3|-14.3|
95821590|NCT03817463|191616917|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.18|0.88|0.816
95821591|NCT03817463|191616917|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.87||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.97|0.78|0.013
95821592|NCT03817463|191616918|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.82|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.96|0.71|<0.011
95821593|NCT03817463|191616918|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.01|0.69|0.064
95821594|NCT03817463|191616919|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.59|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.84|0.42|<0.005
95821595|NCT03817463|191616919|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.6|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.72|0.49|<0.005
95821596|NCT03817463|191616920|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.54|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.64|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.64|0.46|<0.005
95821597|NCT03817463|191616920|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.66|0.47|<0.005
95821598|NCT03817463|191616921|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.11|0.81|0.545
95821599|NCT03817463|191616921|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.91||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||0.99|0.83|0.036
95821600|NCT03817463|191616922|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.93||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.09|0.79|0.353
95821601|NCT03817463|191616922|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.9||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.05|0.78|0.197
95821602|NCT03817463|191616923|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.43|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.63|0.30|<0.005
95821603|NCT03817463|191616923|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.27|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.44|0.16|<0.005
95861852|NCT00669409|191682667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.3|-21.9|
95821604|NCT03817463|191616924|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.05||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.25|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.25|0.89|0.535
95821605|NCT03817463|191616924|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.98||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.15|0.84|0.850
95821606|NCT03817463|191616925|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.31|0.81|0.828
95821607|NCT03817463|191616925|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.42|0.72|0.944
95821608|NCT03817463|191616926|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.22|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.22|0.73|0.642
95821609|NCT03817463|191616926|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||||1.19|0.66|0.417
95821610|NCT03817463|191616927|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.89||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.02|0.77|0.091
95821611|NCT03817463|191616928|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.97|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.03|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||3.03|1.28|<0.005
95821612|NCT03817463|191616929|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.20|0.75|0.654
95821613|NCT03817463|191616930|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.78||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||1.17|0.52|0.233
95861853|NCT00669409|191682667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|1.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.0|-40.5|
95821614|NCT03817463|191616931|OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.56|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables at baseline.||Hazards ratios reported include data from all countries with non-missing values.||0.82|0.38|<0.005
95821615|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.8|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Finland||0.80|0.69|
95821616|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.38|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - Japan||1.38|0.59|
95821617|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visits - South Korea||1.00|0.82|
95821618|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Spain||0.87|0.59|
95821619|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Sweden||1.01|0.87|
95821620|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Emergency room visit - Taiwan||0.93|0.80|
95821621|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.85|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Finland||0.85|0.75|
95821622|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.84|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Japan||0.84|0.68|
95821623|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - South Korea||0.82|0.69|
95821624|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Norway||0.94|0.78|
95821625|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.89|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Spain||0.89|0.66|
95821626|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Sweden||0.93|0.81|
95821627|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||||HR and confidence interval were estimated using a cox proportional hazard model, comparing treatment groups and adjusting for unbalanced propensity score (PS)-variables.|First impatient stay - Taiwan||0.86|0.74|
95821628|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.71|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions||0.71|0.64|
95821629|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76|||||Poisson regression model was used.|For all-cause hospital admissions - Japan||0.76|0.63|
95821630|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.75|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - South Korea||0.75|0.66|
95821631|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.85|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Norway||0.85|0.77|
95821632|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Spain||0.77|0.60|
95821633|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.89|||||Poisson regression model was used.|All-cause hospital admissions - Sweden||0.89|0.80|
95821634|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.87||||||All-cause hospital admissions - Taiwan||0.87|0.72|
95821635|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.79|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Finland||0.79|0.77|
95821636|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Japan||0.97|0.94|
95821637|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.97|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - South Korea||0.97|0.96|
95821638|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.97||||||Outpatient healthcare visits - Norway||0.97|0.94|
95821639|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.91|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visit - Spain||0.91|0.85|
95821640|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.98|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Sweden||0.98|0.94|
95821641|NCT03817463|191616932|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Outpatient healthcare visits - Taiwan||1.00|0.94|
95821642|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Japan||0.94|0.89|
95821643|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - South Korea||0.93|0.81|
95821644|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.11|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different antidiabetic drugs - Taiwan||1.11|1.08|
95821645|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Finland||1.12|1.10|
95821646|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Japan||0.83|0.81|
95821647|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - South Korea||1.00|0.99|
95821648|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.14|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Norway||1.14|1.11|
95821649|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.27|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Sweden||1.27|1.25|
95821650|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on different drugs - Taiwan||1.02|0.98|
95821651|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.02|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Finland||1.02|1.01|
95821652|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.84|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Japan||0.84|0.82|
95821653|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - South Korea||1.01|0.99|
95821654|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.93|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Norway||0.93|0.92|
95821655|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.87|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Spain||0.87|0.84|
95821656|NCT03817463|191616933|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Pharmacy dispensations/prescriptions based on prescriptions - Sweden||1.00|1.00|
95821657|NCT03817463|191616934|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total cost - Finland||0.94|0.83|
95821658|NCT03817463|191616934|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Norway||1.12|0.86|
95821659|NCT03817463|191616934|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Sweden||1.05|0.92|
95821660|NCT03817463|191616935|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.88|||||Poisson regression model was used.|||0.88|0.80|
95821661|NCT03817463|191616936|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.68|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - South Korea||1.68|0.34|
95821662|NCT03817463|191616937|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||||Poisson regression model was used.|Total costs - Taiwan||1.03|0.92|
95821663|NCT02578680|191616938|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.43|<0.00001
95821664|NCT02578680|191616939|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.64|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.64|0.38|<0.00001
95821665|NCT02578680|191616940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage vs. Control|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|35.4||H0:Difference in percentages=0 vs H1:Difference in percentages\>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen method with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||35.4|21.1|<0.0001
95854821|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||94.30|-100.00|0.3173
95821666|NCT02578680|191616944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59|||Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 status (≥1% vs. \<1%), platinum chemotherapy (cisplatin vs. carboplatin) \& smoking status (never vs. former/current). Pembrolizumab=numerator; Control=denominator.|||0.59|0.41|<0.00001
95821667|NCT05425732|191616966|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.1|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||1.1|-2.8|
95821668|NCT05425732|191616966|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-8.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||-8.2|-16.2|
95821669|NCT05425732|191616966|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||-0.2|-4.4|
95821670|NCT05425732|191616966|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.3|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site erythema: estimated difference in percent||10.3|-6.6|
95821671|NCT05425732|191616966|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site pain: estimated difference in percent||8.6|-12.7|
95821672|NCT05425732|191616966|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.9|||||V116 minus PCV20|Injection site swelling: estimated difference in percent||7.9|-9.2|
95821673|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.8|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||3.8|-2.7|
95821674|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-4.1|
95821675|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.8|1.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||1.2|-2.8|
95821676|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||1.0|-1.0|
95821677|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|17.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Fatigue: estimated difference in percent||17.6|-5.3|
95821678|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|-5.5|15.5|||||V116 minus PCV20|Headache: estimated difference in percent||15.5|-5.5|
95821679|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.6|||||V116 minus PCV20|Myalgia: estimated difference in percent||10.6|-6.8|
95821680|NCT05425732|191616967|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in Percent|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.2|||||V116 minus PCV20|Pyrexia: estimated difference in percent||6.2|-2.2|
95821681|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.72||1-sided|cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.40|<0.001
95821682|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.88|0.68|<0.001
95821683|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.18|0.95|<0.001
95821684|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.53|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.53|1.25|<0.001
95821685|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.93|0.75|<0.001
95821686|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|1.72|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.72|1.39|<0.001
95821687|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.21|0.92|<0.001
95821688|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.84|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.84|0.69|<0.001
95821689|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||0.92|0.72|<0.001
95821690|NCT05425732|191616969|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT Ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||1.32|1.01|<0.001
95821691|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|5.04|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||5.04|4.12|<0.001
95821692|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.74|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||3.74|2.91|<0.001
95821693|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.34|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||2.34|1.77|<0.001
96000353|NCT01165229|191976924|OTHER|The efficacy of Herpes Zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of VE was above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.54|94.32|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79 YOA group.||94.32|83.54|<0.0001
96000354|NCT01165229|191976924|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.65|96.16|||Poisson exact method|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.16|74.65|<0.0001
96000355|NCT01165229|191976924|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|89.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.29|93.66|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) disease between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||93.66|84.29|<0.0001
96000356|NCT01165229|191976925|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|93.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.47|99.19|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||99.19|72.47|<0.0001
96000357|NCT01165229|191976925|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|71.16||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.51|97.08|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||97.08|-51.51|0.1844
96000358|NCT01165229|191976925|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|88.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|97.1|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||97.10|68.70|<0.0001
96000359|NCT01165229|191976926|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.04|94.85|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||94.85|86.04|<0.0001
95821694|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|6.41|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.41|5.16|<0.001
96000360|NCT01165229|191976926|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.22|96.94|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.94|80.22|<0.0001
96000361|NCT01165229|191976926|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 10%|Vaccine efficacy|91.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.88|94.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of herpes zoster disease between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=70YOA Group||94.46|86.88|<0.0001
96000362|NCT01165229|191976927|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|90.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.57|98.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of of Vaccine Efficacy (VE) in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 placebo 70-79YOA Group||98.95|62.57|<0.0001
96000363|NCT01165229|191976927|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|65.76||||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.58|96.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||96.62|-91.58|0.3072
96000364|NCT01165229|191976927|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|85.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.52|96.3|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||96.30|58.52|<0.0001
96000365|NCT01165229|191976928|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|21.7||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|54.39|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||54.39|-34.40|0.3749
96000366|NCT01165229|191976928|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|51.76||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|85.95|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=80YOA Group||85.95|-65.55|0.2466
96000367|NCT01165229|191976928|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against duration of severe worst HZ associated pain was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|28.4||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|56.44|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo\>=70YOA Group||56.44|-17.69|0.1877
95821695|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|16.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|19.09|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||19.09|14.90|<0.001
95821696|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|10.79|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||10.79|8.66|<0.001
95821697|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.86|9.55|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||9.55|6.86|<0.001
95821698|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|10.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.48|12.0|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||12.00|8.48|<0.001
95821699|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|38.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.87|44.25|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||44.25|33.87|<0.001
95821700|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|21.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.68|25.18|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||25.18|18.68|<0.001
95821701|NCT05425732|191616969|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116/PCV20) being \> 2.0 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|6.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|6.8|||cLDA model||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMT Ratio||6.80|5.59|<0.001
95821702|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|48.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||48.6|40.7|<0.001
95821703|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|35.8||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||35.8|25.8|<0.001
95821704|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|12.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||12.9|5.6|<0.001
95821705|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.1|54.9||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||54.9|47.1|<0.001
95958839|NCT01841697|191890716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|2.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||9.9|-5.9|0.619
96000368|NCT01165229|191976931|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.2533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.13|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||100.00|-144.13|0.2533
96000369|NCT01165229|191976931|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.14|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-435.14|0.5024
96000370|NCT01165229|191976931|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against overall and HZ related hospitalizations was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of overall and HZ related hospitalizations between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||100.00|-9.92|0.0636
95821706|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|66.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|69.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||69.6|62.8|<0.001
95821707|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.2|61.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||61.1|54.2|<0.001
95854822|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Presurgical/Surgery||1.77|0.69|0.6802
95958840|NCT01841697|191890717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Proportion (rate) for each group was estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques. Between-group difference in proportion is omarigliptin minus sitagliptin.||11.4|-2.5|0.212
95958841|NCT00913068|191890720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
96000371|NCT01165229|191976932|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-65.69||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-827.06|73.62|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||73.62|-827.06|0.4947
95821708|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|46.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||46.6|37.6|<0.001
96000372|NCT01165229|191976932|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-558.05|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||100.00|-558.05|1.0000
96000373|NCT01165229|191976932|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against HZ related complications was demonstrated if the LL of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.97||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-433.32|83.16|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of HZ related complications between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||83.16|-433.32|1.0000
96000374|NCT01165229|191976933|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|43.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|70.53|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||70.53|10.77|0.0112
95821709|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|39.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||39.6|32.1|<0.001
95821710|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|74.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|77.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype24F: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||77.1|71.1|<0.001
95821711|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|62.1||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype 31: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||62.1|54.8|<0.001
95821712|NCT05425732|191616970|SUPERIORITY|A conclusion of superiority is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference \[V116 - PCV20\] between the percentages of participants with a ≥4-fold rise from baseline being \>10 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|Percent Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|56.6||1-sided|Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen||V116 minus PCV20|Serotype35B: V116-PCV20 Percentage Difference||56.6|49.6|<0.001
95821713|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 3: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.33|0.90|<0.001
95821714|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.62||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.62|1.61|<0.001
95821715|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.23|1.84||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 7F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.84|1.23|<0.001
95821716|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.79||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 8: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.79|1.26|<0.001
95821717|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.43||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 9N: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.43|1.59|<0.001
95861854|NCT00669409|191682668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|26.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.6|-5.0|
95821718|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.92||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 10A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.92|1.26|<0.001
95821719|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 11A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
95821720|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.17||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 12F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.17|1.37|<0.001
95821721|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.37||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.37|1.55|<0.001
96000375|NCT01165229|191976933|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of the VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|27.03||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|73.2|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||73.20|-26.43|0.3903
96000376|NCT01165229|191976933|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against use of pain medications was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|39.6||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|64.75|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in use of pain medication between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||64.75|10.79|0.0083
95821722|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.35||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.35|1.36|<0.001
95821723|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.91||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 16F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.91|1.26|<0.001
95821724|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.02||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 17F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.02|1.26|<0.001
95821725|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.4||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 19A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.40|0.97|<0.001
95821726|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.18||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 20A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.18|1.39|<0.001
95821727|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.49||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 22F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.49|1.58|<0.001
95821728|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.44||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23A: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.44|1.43|<0.001
95821729|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.04||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 23B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.04|1.11|<0.001
95821730|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.67||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 24F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.67|1.10|<0.001
95861855|NCT00669409|191682668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.0|
96000377|NCT01165229|191976934|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|58.94||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|80.96|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo 70-79YOA Group||80.96|11.45|0.0232
96000378|NCT01165229|191976934|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|-14.56||||0.8324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-303.3|67.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=80YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=80YOA Group||67.46|-303.30|0.8324
95821731|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.69||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 31: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.69|1.63|<0.001
95821732|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.57||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 33F: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.57|1.52|<0.001
95821733|NCT05425732|191616971|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.87||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 35B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||1.87|1.26|<0.001
95821734|NCT05425732|191616972|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."||||||0.667||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 6C||||0.667
95821735|NCT05425732|191616972|OTHER|"A conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI of the percentages of participants with a~≥4-fold rise from baseline to 30 days postvaccination being \> 50 percentage points (one-sided p-value \< 0.025)."|||||<|0.001||||||1-sided|Clopper-Pearson method.|||Serotype 15B||||<0.001
95821736|NCT05425732|191616973|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.77|||||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 6C: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT Ratio||2.77|1.52|
95861856|NCT00669409|191682668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.0|-14.6|
95958842|NCT00832000|191890721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.706|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.706|-2.66|<0.001
95821737|NCT05425732|191616973|OTHER|A conclusion of immunobridging is based on the lower bound of the 95% CI for the estimated GMT ratio (V116 18-49 Years/V116 50-64 Years) being \> 0.5 (one-sided p-value \< 0.025).|GMT|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||1-sided|LDA model||V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years|Serotype 15B: V116 18-49 years/V116 50-64 years GMT ratio||2.60|1.57|<0.001
95821738|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.6|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 3: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.60|1.35|
95821739|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.89|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 6A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.89|0.70|
95821740|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 7F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
95821741|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.59|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 8: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.59|1.29|
95821742|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 10A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.92|0.72|
95821743|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.36|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 11A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.36|1.11|
95821744|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 12F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.26|0.96|
95821745|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 19A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.77|0.63|
95821746|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.9|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 22F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||0.90|0.72|
96000379|NCT01165229|191976934|OTHER|Efficacy of the HZ/su vaccine against duration of pain medication associated with HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|49.25||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|73.47|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction in duration of pain medication associated with HZ between Zoster-022 GSK1437173A \>=70YOA Group and Zoster-022 Placebo \>=70YOA Group||73.47|2.92|0.0404
96002125|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.748|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|4.294||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.294|1.774|<0.001
95821747|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.18|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 33F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||1.18|0.95|
95821748|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.06|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 9N: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||6.06|4.82|
95821749|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|7.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.64|6.03|
95821750|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|2.79|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 15C: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||2.79|2.17|
95821751|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|8.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|9.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 16F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||9.64|7.95|
95821752|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|16.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.25|18.41|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 17F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||18.41|15.25|
95821753|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|12.92|||||TWO_SIDED|5.0|11.81|14.13|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 20A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||14.13|11.81|
95821754|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|7.24|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23A: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||7.24|5.69|
95821755|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|3.64|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 23B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||3.64|2.91|
95821756|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|21.08|||||TWO_SIDED|85.0|18.97|23.43|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 24F: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||23.43|18.97|
95821757|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|11.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|12.34|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 31: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||12.34|10.36|
95821758|NCT05425732|191616974|OTHER|cLDA model|GMC Ratio|14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.97|15.4|||||V116/PCV20|Serotype 35B: V116/PCV20 GMC Ratio||15.40|12.97|
95821759|NCT00306293|191617009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Placebo|-78.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Percent change in days with Subclinical HSV-2 Viral Shedding after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||<0.001
95821760|NCT00306293|191617010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from Baseline|-77.0||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Percent change in 'percentage of days with clinical HSV-2 viral shedding', after VALTREX 1g treatment from the placebo|||||0.014
95821761|NCT02589665|191617018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.27||||||||12.27|0.70|
95821762|NCT02589665|191617018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.65||||||||27.65|1.88|
95821763|NCT02589665|191617018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|14.17||||||||14.17|0.92|
95821764|NCT02589665|191617019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|8.98||||||||8.98|1.73|
95821765|NCT02589665|191617019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.63||||||||15.63|2.94|
95821766|NCT02589665|191617019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.29||||||||6.29|1.23|
95821767|NCT02589665|191617020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.986
95821768|NCT02589665|191617020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.553
95821769|NCT02589665|191617020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.560
95821770|NCT02589665|191617021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.55||||||||6.55|0.80|
95821771|NCT02589665|191617022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|34.9||||||||34.9|11.0|
95821772|NCT02589665|191617022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.3||||||||32.3|8.7|
95821773|NCT02589665|191617022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|22.5||||||||22.5|-1.0|
95821774|NCT02589665|191617024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.41||||||||-0.41|-1.39|
95821775|NCT02589665|191617024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||||||||-0.59|-1.54|
95821776|NCT02589665|191617024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-1.07|
95821777|NCT02589665|191617027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.31|1.57|0.003
95821778|NCT02589665|191617027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|15.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.20|2.81|<0.001
95821779|NCT02589665|191617027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.22|0.98|0.054
95821780|NCT02589665|191617028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|0.19|0.131
95821781|NCT02589665|191617029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.07|0.63|0.215
95821782|NCT02589665|191617029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|25.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.00|2.37|<0.001
95821783|NCT02589665|191617029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.14|1.41|0.012
95821784|NCT02589665|191617030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.31|0.428
95821785|NCT01120236|191617031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|An intention-to-treat approach was used in analysis of the primary endpoint. A 45% undetectable PSA \<= 0.2 ng/mL rate at 28 weeks was assumed for (control) arm II , based on data from SWOG 9346. Using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10, we had 90% statistical power to detect an absolute difference of 20% in the undetectable PSA rate with the addition of cixutumumab using Fisher's exact test.||||0.16
96000380|NCT01165229|191976943|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.88|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59YOA Group.Comparison of vaccine efficacy for groups 70-79 and above 80 YOA are presented in outcome measure 2.||100.00|40.88|0.0081
96002126|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.536|3.712||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.712|1.536|<0.001
95821786|NCT01120236|191617033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Arm I (Androgen Deprivation and Cixutumumab) represents the numerator and Arm II (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) represents the denominator for relative risk.|Proportion of patients in each arm with PSA \> 4 ng/mL after seven cycles of protocol treatment were compared.||||0.11
95821787|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4261
95821788|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4219
95821789|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1826
95821790|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0090
95821791|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3421|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3421
95821792|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0100
95821793|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2103
95821794|NCT01018134|191617074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1200
95821795|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2631|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2631
95821796|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2968|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2968
95821797|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0186
95821798|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0361
95821799|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||statistically significant difference between treatment groups|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0070
95821800|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1583
95821801|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2078
95821802|NCT01018134|191617075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2878|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2878
95821803|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2713
95821804|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2689
95821805|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0419
95821806|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0309
95821807|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1126
95821808|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0033
95821809|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4967
95821810|NCT01018134|191617076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0749
95821811|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2442|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2442
95821812|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2664|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2664
95821813|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1328
95821814|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0528
95821815|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0297
95821816|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0093
95821817|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2230
95821818|NCT01018134|191617077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
95821819|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2397|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2397
95821820|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3794|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3794
95821821|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0383
95821822|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0154
95821823|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1892
95821824|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
95821825|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0363
95821826|NCT01018134|191617078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2162
95821827|NCT01751906|191617080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9256|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9256
95821828|NCT01751906|191617081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5040
95821829|NCT01751906|191617082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2126
95821830|NCT01751906|191617109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0665
95821831|NCT01981863|191617137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95821832|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108)=.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.92
95821833|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = .01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.92
95821834|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|F(1,108) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.61
96000381|NCT01165229|191976943|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine against PHN was demonstrated if the lower limit of the of the 2-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.83|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69YOA Group||100.00|-442.83|0.5097
95821835|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 6.75||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.01
95821836|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 3.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.05
95821837|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 9.53||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.003
95821838|NCT04925076|191617140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 2.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.12
95821839|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.78||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.38
95821840|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.27||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
95821841|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.70
95821842|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 3.87||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.05
95821843|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 5.18||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.03
95821844|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.14
95821845|NCT04925076|191617141|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 17.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain tolerance. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||<.001
95821846|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.83
95821847|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 2.43||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.12
95821848|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 1.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.25
96000382|NCT01165229|191976944|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-649.86|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 50-59 YOA Group||100.00|-649.86|1.0000
95821849|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.31||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.58
95821850|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.90
95821851|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = .004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
95821852|NCT04925076|191617142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.68
95821853|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,107) = 0.83||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.36
95821854|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 1.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.24
95821855|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
95821856|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
95821857|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 139.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||<.001
95821858|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.84
95821859|NCT04925076|191617143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,108) = 0.30||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.59
95821860|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.19||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.66
95821861|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.41
96000383|NCT01165229|191976944|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3938.7|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 60-69 YOA Group||100.00|-3938.70|1.0000
95821862|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.74||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
95821863|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.54||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.22
95821864|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.06
95821865|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.99
95821866|NCT04925076|191617144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.88||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.09
95821867|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.55
95821868|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.36
95821869|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.36
95821870|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.93||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.17
95821871|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.55
95821872|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.63||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hypothalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.43
95821873|NCT04925076|191617145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.96||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.33
95821874|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.34
95821875|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.88
95821876|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.56
95821877|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.90
95821878|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.59||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.45
95821879|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.85
96000384|NCT01165229|191976944|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|21.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.41|78.91|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A 70-79 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo 70-79 YOA Group||78.91|-149.41|1.0000
95821880|NCT04925076|191617146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.22||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on medial prefrontal cortex. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.64
95821881|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.07||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.30
95821882|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.11
95861857|NCT00669409|191682668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.2|-21.0|
95821883|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.39
95821884|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.89
96000385|NCT01165229|191976944|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|-223.81||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-883.05|18.84|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo\>=80 YOA Group||18.84|-883.05|0.1528
96002127|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.051||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|3.186||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.186|1.329|0.001
95958843|NCT00832000|191890721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.04||95.0|-3.85|-0.139|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model (n=57). When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.139|-3.85|0.04
96000386|NCT01165229|191976944|OTHER|The efficacy of HZ/su vaccine in reduction of PHN in subjects with confirmed HZ episodes was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE was above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|0.29||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.53|65.57|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of Vaccine efficacy in reduction of PHN incidence in subjects with confirmed HZ episode in Zoster-022/006 Pooled GSK1437173A \>=50 YOA Group versus Zoster-022/006 Pooled Placebo \>=50 YOA Group||65.57|-161.53|0.5417
95821885|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.72||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.01
95821886|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.15||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.08
95821887|NCT04925076|191617147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.71||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.06
95821888|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.29
95821889|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.84||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on nucleus accumbens activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.10
95821890|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.47||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.49
95821891|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.99
95821892|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.13
95821893|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.82
95821894|NCT04925076|191617148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=6.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on periaqueductal gray activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||0.02
95821895|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.32
95821896|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.000||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.99
95821897|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.83
95821898|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.75
95821899|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.25||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.62
95861858|NCT00669409|191682668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.2|-35.3|
95958844|NCT00832000|191890722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.26|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.26|-2.00|<0.001
95861859|NCT00669409|191682669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|26.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.1|-5.5|
95861860|NCT00669409|191682669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-27.0|
95861861|NCT00669409|191682669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|18.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.3|-13.3|
95861862|NCT00669409|191682669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-19.2|
95861863|NCT00669409|191682669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-34.4|
95861864|NCT00669409|191682670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|26.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||26.8|-4.8|
95861865|NCT00669409|191682670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.6|-23.9|
95958845|NCT00832000|191890723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.861|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.861|-1.67|<0.001
95958846|NCT00832000|191890724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.532|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.532|-1.30|<0.001
95958847|NCT00832000|191890725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.109|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.563|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|-0.056|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.056|-0.177|<0.001
95958848|NCT00832000|191890726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|9.75|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||9.75|-0.680|0.09
95861866|NCT00669409|191682670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-14.0|
95861867|NCT00669409|191682670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
95861868|NCT00669409|191682670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-33.5|
95861869|NCT00669409|191682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|27.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.2|-4.4|
95861870|NCT00669409|191682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.3|-21.2|
95861871|NCT00669409|191682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-11.2|
95861872|NCT00669409|191682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-20.3|
95861873|NCT00669409|191682671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|16.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.6|-24.9|
95861874|NCT00669409|191682672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|12.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.3|-20.7|
95861875|NCT00669409|191682672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.0|-35.6|
95958849|NCT00832000|191890727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.812|-0.325|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.325|-0.812|<0.001
95821900|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.92
95821901|NCT04925076|191617149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.76||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on anterior cingulate cortex activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.39
95821902|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.45||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.50
95821903|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.28
95821904|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.60
95821905|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.48||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.04
95821906|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.37||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.25
95821907|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.01||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.89
95821908|NCT04925076|191617150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.28||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on amygdala activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.26
95821909|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.76
95958850|NCT00832000|191890728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.142|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.142|-0.633|<0.001
95958851|NCT00832000|191890729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.889|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.149|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.149|-0.602|<0.001
95821910|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.00||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.09
95821911|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.10||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.76
95821912|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.09||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.77
95821913|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.52
95821914|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.007||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on pain hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.93
95821915|NCT04925076|191617151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.64||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on hippocampus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.42
95821916|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.62||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.44
95861876|NCT00669409|191682672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|12.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.1|-20.5|
95821917|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.27
95821918|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.06
95821919|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.13||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.73
95821920|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=4.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.047
95821921|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.97
95821922|NCT04925076|191617152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on insula activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.82
96000387|NCT01165229|191976945|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|23.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|53.78|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A 70-79YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo 70-79YOA Group||53.78|-25.80|0.2885
95821923|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.57||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||0.45
95821924|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.29||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.59
95821925|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=3.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.07
95821926|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.26||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.61
95821927|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.05||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||.82
95821928|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.23||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.63
95821929|NCT04925076|191617153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.36||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on postcentral gyrus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.55
95821930|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history X sex interaction.||||.57
95821931|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.17||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X sex interaction.||||.14
95821932|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the condition X family history interaction.||||.69
95821933|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.92||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the family history X sex interaction.||||.34
95821934|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=1.16||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of condition.||||0.29
95821935|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=0.004||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of family history.||||.95
95821936|NCT04925076|191617154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|F(1,93)=2.65||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (family history: positive vs. negative) X 2 (sex: men vs. women) mixed general linear model on thalamus activation. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of sex.||||.11
95821937|NCT01089413|191617183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.70|0.8579
95821938|NCT01089413|191617184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.30|0.1555
95821939|NCT01971463|191617189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||Change in oCBF from baseline to post-bolus, ipsilesional hemisphere||||<0.05
95821940|NCT01971463|191617189|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects regression, modeling the interaction term for time x normal saline bolus in the ipsilesional hemisphere|Slope|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|0.03|<0.001
95821941|NCT00473668|191617194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|2.84||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||2.84|-6.39|
95861877|NCT00669409|191682672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.3|-31.9|
95958852|NCT00832000|191890730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|-0.254|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wilcoxon test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. The Wilcoxon test was substituted because the outcome is not continuous and therefore normality of the residuals is not satisfied. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-0.254|-0.675|<0.001
95958853|NCT00832000|191890731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|6.73|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||6.73|-3.34|0.50
95821942|NCT00473668|191617194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between the two groups in terms of anti-PRP seroprotection (SPR) rates was below (\<) 10%.|Difference in anti-PRP SPR rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|3.99||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ Kft. vaccine compared to Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ vaccine with respect to the anti-PRP antibody response, after a three-dose primary vaccination course.||3.99|-4.16|
95958854|NCT00832000|191890732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.3|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||-1.30|-4.07|<0.001
95958855|NCT00832000|191890733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|7.72|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||7.72|3.44|<0.001
95958856|NCT00832000|191890734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|5.17|||Wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||5.17|-5.87|0.90
96002128|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.701|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.204||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.204|1.750|<0.001
95821943|NCT02039219|191617209|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at baseline OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 14.9(2.4), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 16.4 (2.2).|Baseline||||0.1758
95821944|NCT02039219|191617209|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.8||0.3839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Two-sample t-test compared MELD score between OCA and placebo arms at day 42 OCA arms had a mean (SD) of 11.5 (6.8), Placebo arms had a mean (SD) of 13.9(4.6).|Day 42||||0.3839
95821945|NCT02039219|191617217|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|ONE_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
95821946|NCT02039219|191617217|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
95821947|NCT02039219|191617217|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Anaylsis|0.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
95821948|NCT02039219|191617217|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 42||||.3938
95821949|NCT02039219|191617217|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 90||||.3938
95821950|NCT02039219|191617217|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Survival Analysis|0.09||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Day 180||||.3938
95821951|NCT02039219|191617221|SUPERIORITY|The type of statistical test is superiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8094
95821952|NCT02226562|191617226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.92||The P-value was less than 0.0001|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a factor for treatment and baseline as covariate||||-0.92|-1.28|0.0001
95821953|NCT00191724|191617240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose in right ventricular function at Day 6|Regression, Linear|||||||0.528
95958857|NCT00832000|191890734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|20.6|||wald||Residual standard deviation.|P value indicates significance level of the Wald test associated with mexiletine effect from the linear mixed effects model. When a carryover effect was detected, the significance level associated with the additive portion of the mexiletine effect (labeled period 1) is followed by the level associated with the interaction of mexiletine and period 2 (labeled period 2). All P values were 2-sided and .05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.||20.6|0.941|0.03
95821954|NCT00191724|191617240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value for effect of drotrecogin alfa (activated) dose on right ventricular function at Day 90|Regression, Linear|||||||0.230
95821955|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90-Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.018
95821956|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.720
95821957|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.481
95821958|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.161
95821959|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.068
95821960|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.985
95821961|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.281
95821962|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.273
95821963|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.848
95821964|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.841
95821965|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.797
95821966|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.963
95821967|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Dyspnea 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.149
95821968|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0||||P-value for Emotional 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.141
95821969|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774||95.0||||P-value for Fatigue 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
95821970|NCT00191724|191617241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Mastery 90 Day Follow-Up.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.394
95821971|NCT01963767|191617371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Ancovas were conducted with group as the between subjects factor and performance at baseline as the covariate.||||.03
95821972|NCT03479541|191617418|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.097||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|-0.02||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.020|-0.173|0.013
95958858|NCT01121913|191890737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
95821973|NCT03479541|191617419|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.073||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.016||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.016|-0.130|0.013
95821974|NCT03479541|191617420|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.098||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.173||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.173|0.024|0.010
95821975|NCT03479541|191617421|OTHER|||||||0.5158|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5158
95821976|NCT03479541|191617422|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0404||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0648|0.146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.146|-0.0648|0.450
95821977|NCT03479541|191617423|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the reference. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|0.05353||||0.6039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1503|0.2574||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Horizontal DVA Lines Lost||0.2574|-0.1503|0.6039
95821978|NCT03479541|191617423|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time point (pre-physical therapy and post-physical therapy), and group x time point injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, Initial SCAT symptom severity total score, and days since injury before physical therapy), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group and pre-physical therapy time point served as the references. Values were log-transformed for model assumptions.|Slope|-0.235||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|-0.0093||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change from pre-physical therapy to post-physical therapy time points (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Vertical DVA Lines Lost||-0.0093|-0.461|0.0414
95821979|NCT03479541|191617424|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.028||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.035|-0.090|0.387
95821980|NCT03479541|191617425|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.008||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.019||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.019|-0.003|0.135
95821981|NCT03479541|191617426|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0107||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0146||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.0146|-0.0360|0.406
95821982|NCT03479541|191617427|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00391||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00052|0.00835||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.00835|-0.00052|0.083
95821983|NCT03479541|191617428|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFi condition||0.002|-0.007|0.240
95821984|NCT03479541|191617428|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.005||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|-0.002||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for EcFo condition||-0.002|-0.009|0.003
95821985|NCT03479541|191617429|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0112||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0219|-0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Average Lap Time||-0.0004|-0.0219|0.042
95861878|NCT00669409|191682672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Mean Square Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-13.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-13.8|-56.4|
95861879|NCT00669409|191682673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.2|
95861880|NCT00669409|191682673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-0.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-33.0|
95958859|NCT01121913|191890737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|117.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||117|93.9|
96000388|NCT01165229|191976945|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|54.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.03|86.46|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=80 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo \>=80 YOA Group||86.46|-50.03|0.1940
95958860|NCT01121913|191890737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.5|
95958861|NCT01121913|191890737|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|109.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||109|87.7|
95958862|NCT01121913|191890738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|114.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||114|91.8|
95958863|NCT01121913|191890738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|118.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||118|95.1|
95958864|NCT01121913|191890738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.1|106.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||106|85.1|
95958865|NCT01121913|191890738|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.3|110.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||110|88.3|
96000389|NCT01165229|191976945|OTHER|The VE of HZ/su against duration of severe worst pain in subjects with confirmed HZ was demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 95% CI of VE derived from the Hazard ratio was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|30.48||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|56.27|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of VE in reduction of duration of severe worst HZ associated pain between Zoster-022/006 pooled GSK1437173A \>=70 YOA Group and Zoster-022/006 pooled Placebo\>=70 YOA Group||56.27|-10.52|0.1243
95821986|NCT03479541|191617429|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0111||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Average Lap Time||-0.0010|-0.0211|0.0311
95821987|NCT03479541|191617430|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00029||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.00087||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Gait Speed||0.00087|-0.0003|0.3226
95821988|NCT03479541|191617430|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00035||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0009||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Auditory Stroop Gait Speed|The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|0.00090|-0.0002|0.2218
95854823|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.29|0.48|0.3470
95854824|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.53|0.5564
95958866|NCT01121913|191890739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.2|85.0|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Triticco®|||85|63.2|
95958867|NCT01121913|191890739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|59.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.5|69.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 1)/Desyrel®|||69.4|51.5|
95958868|NCT01121913|191890739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.5|96.4|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Triticco®|||96.4|71.5|
95958869|NCT01121913|191890739|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 75% and 133%.|Mean ratio|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.4|78.5|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD (prototype 2)/Desyrel®|||78.5|58.4|
95821989|NCT03479541|191617431|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.161||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0159|0.338||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.338|-0.0159|0.0742
95821990|NCT03479541|191617431|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.217||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.385||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop 180 Degree Turn Velocity||0.385|0.0480|0.0121
95821991|NCT03479541|191617432|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.00063||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0084|0.00961||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Single Task Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00961|-0.0084|0.8906
95821992|NCT03479541|191617432|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0107|0.00874||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for Auditory Stroop Percentage of Double Support Time of Gait Cycle||0.00874|-0.0107|0.8447
96000390|NCT01745055|191977009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|107.29||||||Natural log transformed, AUC (0-12) of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.29|99.00|
96000391|NCT01745055|191977010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.79|112.47||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of CP-690,550 was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.47|93.79|
95821993|NCT03479541|191617433|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0003||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0005|-0.0001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Visual Weight (VS/EO)||-0.0001|-0.0005|0.013
95821994|NCT03479541|191617433|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Vestibular Weight (SS+VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0003|0.780
95821995|NCT03479541|191617434|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.11||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (VS/EO)||-0.110|-0.361|<0.001
96000392|NCT01745055|191977011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|89.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|103.57||||||Natural log transformed, AUClast of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||103.57|77.38|
96000393|NCT01745055|191977012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|87.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.03|100.12||||||Natural log transformed, Cmax of MTX was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.12|76.03|
96000394|NCT01720667|191977026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of 24 hour seizure termination rates using a Fisher's exact test.||||<0.001
96000395|NCT01720667|191977027|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of seizure cessation at 48 hours using Fisher's exact test||||<0.001
96000396|NCT03240081|191977075|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when defining and evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95861881|NCT00669409|191682673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.1|-13.5|
95861882|NCT00669409|191682673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.2|
95861883|NCT00669409|191682673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-32.8|
95861884|NCT00669409|191682674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.1|-22.9|
95861885|NCT00669409|191682674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.7|
95861886|NCT00669409|191682674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|17.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.6|-15.0|
95861887|NCT00669409|191682674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-27.1|
95861888|NCT00669409|191682674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-26.0|
95861889|NCT00669409|191682675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.9|-21.1|
95861890|NCT00669409|191682675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-35.9|
95861891|NCT00669409|191682675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|12.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.2|-20.4|
95861892|NCT00669409|191682675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.3|-30.0|
95861893|NCT00669409|191682675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|-6.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.2|-48.8|
95861894|NCT00669409|191682676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.4|-19.6|
95861895|NCT00669409|191682676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-3.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.1|-35.8|
95861896|NCT00669409|191682676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.4|
95861897|NCT00669409|191682676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.5|-32.8|
95861898|NCT00669409|191682676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.4|-53.9|
95861899|NCT00669409|191682677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|12.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.9|-20.1|
95861900|NCT00669409|191682677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-5.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.2|-37.9|
95861901|NCT00669409|191682677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|6.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.9|-25.7|
95861902|NCT00669409|191682677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-31.5|
95861903|NCT00669409|191682677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-11.2|-53.7|
95861904|NCT00669409|191682678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|16.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.0|-17.0|
95958870|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-1.40|-4.58|0.0002
95821996|NCT03479541|191617434|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.142||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|-0.052||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Time Delay (SS+VS/EO)||-0.052|-0.233|0.002
95821997|NCT03479541|191617435|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0003||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0002|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (VS/EO)||0.0007|-0.0002|0.237
95821998|NCT03479541|191617435|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0008||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0003|0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Stiffness (SS+VS/EO)||0.001|0.0003|0.002
95821999|NCT03479541|191617436|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0001||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|0.0004||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (VS/EO)||0.0004|-0.0001|0.247
95822000|NCT03479541|191617436|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|0.0004||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0001|0.0007||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Normalized Damping (SS+VSEO)||0.0007|0.0001|0.008
95822001|NCT03479541|191617437|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|-0.001||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked Center of Mass (CoM) Sway (VS/EO)||-0.001|-0.006|0.003
95822002|NCT03479541|191617437|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.001||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.0005||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Evoked CoM Sway (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0005|-0.003|0.004
95822003|NCT03479541|191617438|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.004||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.007|0.031
95822004|NCT03479541|191617438|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.003||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.0003||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|Analysis for CSMI Outcome - Internal Sensory Noise (SS+VS/EO)||-0.0003|-0.005|0.003
95854825|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.99|0.72|0.5000
95854826|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.78|0.57|0.9778
96000397|NCT03240081|191977076|NON_INFERIORITY|We set 2 points (20%) as the margin of difference when evaluating non-inferiority in comparing the 2 arms at 4 weeks.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.95|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
96000398|NCT01088412|191977146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.||5.96|2.24|
95822005|NCT03479541|191617439|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age and gender), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0321||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0957|0.0315||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0315|-0.0957|0.3221
95822006|NCT03479541|191617440|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0136||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0413|0.0142||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||0.0142|-0.0413|0.336
95822007|NCT03479541|191617441|OTHER|Linear mixed effect model containing fixed effects for group (earlier or later), time since injury, and group x time since injury interaction with random intercepts, covariates (age, gender, and Initial SCAT symptom severity total score), and inverse probability weights. Later Physical Therapy Group served as the reference.|Slope|-0.0406||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0779|-0.0032||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||The slope estimate is the group difference (Early Physical Therapy Group - Later Physical Therapy Group) in change per day per day (the interaction effect of the mixed model analysis).|||-0.0032|-0.0779|0.033
95822008|NCT03040011|191617483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
95822009|NCT03040011|191617484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.25
95822010|NCT03040011|191617485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.17
95822011|NCT03040011|191617486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
95822012|NCT03040011|191617487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
95822013|NCT03040011|191617488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
95822014|NCT03040011|191617489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95822015|NCT03040011|191617490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95822016|NCT03040011|191617491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
95822017|NCT03040011|191617493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
95822018|NCT03040011|191617494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.90
95822019|NCT03040011|191617495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95822020|NCT03040011|191617496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95822021|NCT03040011|191617497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
96000399|NCT01088412|191977147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.2||||||Epidemiological comparison between incidence of primary malignancies in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and gender.||1.20|0.39|
96000400|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All DM (T1, T2 and DM Not Otherwise Specified \[NOS\] Combined)"||4.15|2.14|
95822022|NCT03040011|191617498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
95822023|NCT03040011|191617499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.18
95822024|NCT03040011|191617500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.68
95822025|NCT03040011|191617501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.40
95822026|NCT03040011|191617502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.44
95822027|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|26.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.33|32.22|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) Confidence interval (CI) were based on Least square mean (LSM) from analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||32.22|20.33|<0.001
95822028|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|30.29|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.29|18.44|<0.001
95822029|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|33.42|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||33.42|21.53|<0.001
95822030|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|24.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.93|30.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||30.78|18.93|<0.001
95822031|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.42||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|5.58|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.58|-2.73|0.501
95822032|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|3.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.64|-4.61|0.817
96000401|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.15||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||4.15|1.72|
95822033|NCT01559259|191617512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.62||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|6.78|||ANOVA|||Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|-1.53|0.216
95822034|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|29.19|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||29.19|5.52|<0.001
95822035|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|23.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||23.02|4.36|<0.001
95822036|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|26.83|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.83|5.07|<0.001
95822037|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|19.77|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||19.77|3.74|<0.001
95822038|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.02|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.02|1.08|0.014
95822039|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.86|0.332
95958871|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-2.17|-5.38|<.0001
95822040|NCT01559259|191617513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85|||Proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.85|0.99|0.056
95861905|NCT00669409|191682678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|-4.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-37.6|
95958872|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-4.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.36|-7.77|<.0001
96000402|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.69||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.69|1.80|
96000403|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.93||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||7.93|0.84|
95822041|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.24|27.91|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||27.91|5.24|<0.001
95822042|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|20.44|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||20.44|3.86|<0.001
95822043|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|26.42|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||26.42|4.98|<0.001
95822044|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|18.68|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||18.68|3.52|<0.001
95822045|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.04|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||2.04|1.09|0.012
95861906|NCT00669409|191682678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.5|-24.1|
95822046|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.80|0.570
95822047|NCT01559259|191617514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.93|||Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates.||1.93|1.03|0.030
95822048|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.71|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.71|0.08|0.014
95822049|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.64|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.02|0.038
95822050|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.17|0.003
95822051|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.54|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.09|0.155
95822052|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.05|0.135
95822053|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.11|0.350
95822054|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.47|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|0.03|0.024
95822055|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.77|0.90|<0.001
95822056|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|0.83|<0.001
95822057|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.78|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.91|0.001
95822058|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|0.43|<0.001
95822059|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.77|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|0.16|0.003
95822060|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.10|0.010
95822061|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.18|0.002
95822062|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.66|<0.001
95822063|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.42|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.42|1.50|<0.001
95822064|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.6|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.60|1.67|<0.001
95861907|NCT00669409|191682678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.2|
95861908|NCT00669409|191682678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-5.5|-48.1|
95822065|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.2|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.20|1.28|<0.001
95822066|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.7|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.70|0.05|0.022
96000404|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.83|0.00|
95822067|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.10|0.181
95822068|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.72|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.07|0.016
95822069|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.88|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.88|1.98|<0.001
95822070|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.62|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.62|1.72|<0.001
95822071|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.91|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|2.01|<0.001
95822072|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.58|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.68|<0.001
95822073|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.02|0.065
95822074|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.28|0.817
95822075|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.64|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.64|0.01|0.043
95822076|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.06|<0.001
95822077|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.82|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.82|1.87|<0.001
95822078|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.11|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.11|2.15|<0.001
95822079|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.84|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.84|1.89|<0.001
95822080|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-0.16|0.312
95822081|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.35|0.910
95822082|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.06|0.113
95822083|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.97|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|1.98|<0.001
95861909|NCT00669409|191682679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.2|-12.8|
96000405|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.83||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||10.83|0.36|
95822084|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.75|1.76|<0.001
95822085|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.01|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.01|2.02|<0.001
96000406|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.66||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||11.66|1.24|
95822086|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.85|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.85|1.86|<0.001
95822087|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.22|0.482
95822088|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.573
95822089|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.5|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.19|0.368
95822090|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.91|1.88|<0.001
95822091|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.68|1.66|<0.001
95822092|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.96|1.93|<0.001
95822093|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.74|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.74|1.72|<0.001
95822094|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.19|0.352
95822095|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.3|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.41|0.771
95822096|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.58|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|-0.14|0.235
95822097|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.86|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.79|<0.001
95822098|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.58|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.58|1.52|<0.001
95822099|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|1.83|<0.001
95822100|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.73|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.73|1.66|<0.001
95822101|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.25|0.510
95822102|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.23|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.52|0.442
96000407|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.3||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown DM (T1, T2 and DM NOS Combined)"||24.30|0.00|
95822103|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.17||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.20|0.372
95822104|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.55|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.55|1.39|<0.001
96000408|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.44||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T1 DM."||1.44|0.56|
95822105|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.4|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.40|1.25|<0.001
95822106|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.72|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|1.57|<0.001
95822107|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.45|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|1.30|<0.001
95822108|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.31|0.639
95822109|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.45|0.803
95822110|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.67|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.67|-0.13|0.184
95822111|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|1.07|<0.001
95822112|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.17|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.17|0.99|<0.001
95822113|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.43|1.25|<0.001
95822114|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.28|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.28|1.10|<0.001
95822115|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.44|0.910
95822116|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.52|0.607
95822117|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.56|-0.27|0.484
95822118|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.86|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.64|<0.001
95822119|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.97|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|0.75|<0.001
95822120|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.99|0.77|<0.001
95822121|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.1|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.10|0.89|<0.001
96000409|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.4||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T1DM."||1.40|0.36|
95861910|NCT00669409|191682679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-34.8|
95822122|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.18|-0.67|0.256
95822123|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.29|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|-0.56|0.526
95822124|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.31|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.54|0.602
95822125|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.34|0.002
95822126|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.98||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.59|0.38|0.001
95822127|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|0.65|<0.001
95822128|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|0.61|<0.001
95822129|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.26||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.16|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.69|0.224
95822130|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.65|0.283
95822131|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.46|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.46|-0.39|0.860
95822132|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.22|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.03|0.038
95822133|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.24|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.06|0.031
95822134|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.62|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.62|0.43|<0.001
95822135|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.95||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.54|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.54|0.36|0.002
95822136|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.09|-0.74|0.129
95822137|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.11|-0.71|0.154
95822138|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.49|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.34|0.714
95822139|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.96|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.96|-0.22|0.217
95822140|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.03|-0.14|0.136
95822141|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.37|0.19|0.010
95822142|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.41|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.24|0.006
95822143|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.04|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.87|0.031
95822144|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.03|-0.79|0.070
95822145|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-0.46|0.822
95822146|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.83|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.28|0.327
95822147|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.34||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.89|-0.21|0.224
95822148|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.63||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|0.08|0.025
95822149|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|0.15|0.012
95822150|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-0.81|0.030
95822151|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.02|-0.75|0.064
95822152|NCT01559259|191617515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.721
95822153|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.02|0.033
95822154|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.08|0.224
95822155|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|0.03|0.024
95822156|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.27|-0.13|0.501
95822157|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.29|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.29|0.01|0.036
95822158|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.08|0.435
95822159|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|0.02|0.023
95822160|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|0.52|<0.001
95822161|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.97|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|0.37|<0.001
95822162|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|0.45|<0.001
95822163|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.75|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|0.16|0.003
95822164|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.58|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.58|0.16|<0.001
95822165|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.42|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|0.01|0.039
95822166|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|0.08|0.006
96000410|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T1DM."||4.38|0.31|
95822167|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.65|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.65|1.01|<0.001
95822168|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|0.85|<0.001
95822169|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.67|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.03|<0.001
95822170|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.36|0.72|<0.001
95822171|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.52|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|0.07|0.011
95822172|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.10|0.267
95822173|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.53|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|0.09|0.007
95822174|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.89|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.24|<0.001
95822175|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|1.06|<0.001
95822176|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.25|<0.001
95822177|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.67|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.67|1.02|<0.001
95822178|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.01|0.056
95822179|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.26|-0.19|0.759
95822180|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.23||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.00|0.051
95822181|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.30|<0.001
95822182|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.18|<0.001
95822183|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.05|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.05|1.37|<0.001
95822184|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.86|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.19|<0.001
95822185|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-0.12|0.342
95822186|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.24|0.943
95822187|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.18||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.42|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.42|-0.05|0.126
95822188|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.98|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|1.27|<0.001
95822189|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.86|1.15|<0.001
95822190|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.0|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.00|1.29|<0.001
96000411|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.14||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T1DM."||4.14|0.29|
95822191|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.89|1.18|<0.001
95822192|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.15|0.453
95822193|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.22|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.28|0.816
95822194|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.36|-0.14|0.384
95822195|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.91|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.91|1.19|<0.001
95822196|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
95822197|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.97|1.25|<0.001
95822198|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.82|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.82|1.10|<0.001
95822199|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-0.16|0.483
95822200|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.25|0.991
95822201|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.41|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-0.10|0.228
95822202|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.85|1.10|<0.001
95822203|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.69|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.69|0.94|<0.001
95822204|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.9|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.90|1.15|<0.001
95822205|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|1.03|<0.001
95822206|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.33|-0.19|0.587
95822207|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.35|0.517
95822208|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.12||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.38|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.14|0.360
95861911|NCT00669409|191682679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|11.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.0|-21.7|
95958873|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-6.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|-5.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-5.09|-8.28|<.0001
95822209|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.60|0.81|<0.001
95822210|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.57|0.78|<0.001
95822211|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.76|0.97|<0.001
95822212|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.56|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.77|<0.001
95822213|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.31|-0.24|0.811
95822214|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.27|0.977
95861912|NCT00669409|191682679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|2.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.1|-30.1|
95861913|NCT00669409|191682679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.5|-46.0|
95861914|NCT00669409|191682680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.5|
96000412|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.23||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T1DM."||7.23|0.00|
95861915|NCT00669409|191682680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|0.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.6|-32.0|
95861916|NCT00669409|191682680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|15.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.9|-16.7|
95822215|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.47|-0.08|0.164
95822216|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.43|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.43|0.63|<0.001
95822217|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.40|0.60|<0.001
95822218|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.56|0.75|<0.001
95822219|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.46|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.46|0.66|<0.001
95822220|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.25|-0.31|0.846
95822221|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.23|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-0.33|0.702
95822222|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-0.18|0.496
95861917|NCT00669409|191682680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.7|-25.5|
95861918|NCT00669409|191682680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.5|-42.0|
95861919|NCT00669409|191682681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.6|-8.4|
95861920|NCT00669409|191682681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.0|-32.6|
95861921|NCT00669409|191682681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-17.1|
95861922|NCT00669409|191682681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-24.4|
95861923|NCT00669409|191682681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-38.0|
95861924|NCT00669409|191682682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|25.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.3|-7.7|
95861925|NCT00669409|191682682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|3.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.5|-29.2|
95958874|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-6.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-6.16|-9.42|<.0001
95958875|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-4.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-4.35|-7.61|<.0001
95958876|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||4.60|1.38|0.0003
96000413|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.38||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T1DM."||3.38|0.00|
95861926|NCT00669409|191682682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|16.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.8|-15.8|
95861927|NCT00669409|191682682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|8.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.6|-23.6|
95861928|NCT00669409|191682682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-37.0|
95861929|NCT00669409|191682683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|25.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||25.5|-7.4|
95861930|NCT00669409|191682683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.5|-27.1|
95861931|NCT00669409|191682683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.7|-16.9|
95861932|NCT00669409|191682683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.4|-23.9|
95861933|NCT00669409|191682683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-37.1|
95861934|NCT00669409|191682684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.1|
95822223|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.22|0.41|<0.001
95822224|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.21|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.40|<0.001
95822225|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.26|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.26|0.46|<0.001
95822226|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.52|<0.001
95822227|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.17|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.17|-0.39|0.441
95822228|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.16|-0.40|0.408
95822229|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.06||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-0.35|0.652
95822230|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|0.21|0.003
95822231|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.95|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.15|0.007
95822232|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
95822233|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.1|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.29|<0.001
95822234|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-0.36|0.567
95822235|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.315
95822236|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.28|-0.28|0.997
95822237|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.77|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.77|-0.01|0.056
95822238|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|0.01|0.047
95822239|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.95|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|0.17|0.005
95822240|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.92|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|0.14|0.007
95854827|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.65|0.6005
95822241|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.12|-0.42|0.276
95822242|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.13|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.41|0.318
95822243|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.30|-0.25|0.849
95822244|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.66|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.09|0.138
95822245|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.68|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.68|-0.07|0.111
95822246|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.79|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.79|0.04|0.031
95822247|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.87|0.11|0.011
95822248|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.06|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.47|0.135
95822249|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.08|-0.44|0.175
95822250|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.19|-0.34|0.590
95822251|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.49|-0.20|0.402
95958877|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||3.84|0.57|0.0082
95958878|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||1.64|-1.82|0.9209
95822252|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.54|-0.15|0.261
95822253|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.61|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.61|-0.08|0.134
95822254|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|0.03|0.031
95822255|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-0.47|0.061
95958879|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||0.92|-2.33|0.3960
95822256|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.06|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.06|-0.42|0.138
95822257|NCT01559259|191617516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.13|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-0.35|0.353
95822258|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.51|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.51|0.25|0.006
95822259|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.69||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.31|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|0.07|0.030
95822260|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.81||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.44|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|0.17|0.012
95822261|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.01|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.01|-0.25|0.237
95822262|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|0.07|0.024
95822263|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.31||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.11|0.150
95822264|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.43||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.86|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.01|0.054
95822265|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.85|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.85|1.92|<0.001
95822266|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.56|<0.001
95822267|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.47|1.54|<0.001
95822268|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.72|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.72|0.79|<0.001
95958880|NCT03856047|191890756|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference (%-points)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomised treatment as factor and baseline (week 0) body weight as covariate. For each treatment arm, multiple (x1000) imputation of intermittend missing data was done using Markov Chain Monte Carlo, followed by sequential regression for monotone missing values of body weight including sex and region as factors.||-0.16|-3.46|0.0316
95822269|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.79|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.79|0.47|<0.001
95822270|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.76||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.11|0.021
95822271|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.41|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|0.09|0.027
95822272|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|5.84|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.84|3.65|<0.001
95822273|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.29|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.29|3.13|<0.001
95822274|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|5.56|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.56|3.37|<0.001
95958881|NCT00239681|191890814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.46|0.69|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.69|0.46|<0.0001
95822275|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.02|2.83|<0.001
95822276|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.58|0.08|0.031
95822277|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.02|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.44|0.442
95822278|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.20|0.152
95822279|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.52|6.72|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.72|4.52|<0.001
95822280|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|6.13|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.13|3.96|<0.001
95822281|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.5|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.30|<0.001
95822282|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|5.98|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.98|3.78|<0.001
95822283|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.49|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.49|-0.01|0.055
95822284|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.9|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.90|-0.57|0.666
95822285|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.27|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|-0.24|0.181
95958882|NCT00239681|191890815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.021||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.97|0.67|<0.021
95958883|NCT00239681|191890816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.172||95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.08|0.65|<0.172
95822286|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|7.01|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||7.01|4.71|<0.001
95822287|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.29|6.57|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.57|4.29|<0.001
95822288|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|6.94|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.94|4.64|<0.001
95822289|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.5|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.50|4.19|<0.001
95822290|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.31|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.31|-0.27|0.200
95822291|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.69|0.831
95822292|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.24|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|-0.34|0.268
95822293|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|6.91|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.91|4.54|<0.001
95958884|NCT00239681|191890817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<|0.015||95.0|1.05|1.53|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.53|1.05|<0.015
95958885|NCT00239681|191890818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.018||95.0|0.35|0.91|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||0.91|0.35|0.018
95822294|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|6.48|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.48|4.13|<0.001
95822295|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|6.78|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.78|4.41|<0.001
95822296|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.54|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.17|<0.001
95822297|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.19|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.19|-0.44|0.367
95822298|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.75|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.84|0.908
95822299|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.06|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.06|-0.57|0.553
95958886|NCT00239681|191890819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.548||95.0|0.88|1.28|||Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio shows (Rosuvastatin hazard/Placebo hazard)|||1.28|0.88|0.548
95822300|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|6.68|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.68|4.22|<0.001
95822301|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.31|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.31|3.88|<0.001
95822302|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|6.66|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.66|4.19|<0.001
95822303|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|6.4|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.40|3.94|<0.001
95822304|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.12|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.12|-0.57|0.518
95854828|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.00|0.50|0.9900
95854829|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||2.15|0.81|0.2634
95854830|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.56|0.9640
95854831|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.46|0.40|0.4117
95854832|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.62|0.63|0.3505
95854833|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||9.45|0.55|0.2439
95854834|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||100.00|-44.86|0.1573
95854835|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
95854836|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role Functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.16|0.45|0.1820
95854837|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||0.80|0.28|0.0046
95854838|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||0.97|0.36|0.0361
95958887|NCT03121612|191890820|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.65||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; primary outcome, so not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.65
95822305|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.75|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.75|-0.90|0.860
95822306|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.1|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|-0.59|0.556
95822307|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|6.71|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.71|4.17|<0.001
95822308|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|6.19|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.19|3.68|<0.001
95958888|NCT03121612|191890820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 28-33 gestational weeks (n=41). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.64
95958889|NCT03121612|191890820|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Planned sub-group analysis for infants born at 34-36 gestational weeks (n=10). No adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||1.0
96000414|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.1||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T1DM."||6.10|0.43|
96000415|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio]|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|14.84||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T1DM."||14.84|0.00|
95822309|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|6.54|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.54|4.00|<0.001
95822310|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.34|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.34|3.79|<0.001
95822311|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.25|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.25|-0.49|0.392
95822312|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.72|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.72|-0.98|0.762
95822313|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.21||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.08|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.66|0.638
95822314|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.9|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.90|3.20|<0.001
95822315|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|5.78|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.78|3.11|<0.001
95822316|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|6.26|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||6.26|3.56|<0.001
95822317|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.74|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.74|3.04|<0.001
95822318|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.08|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|-0.77|0.741
95822319|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.95|-0.85|0.907
95822320|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.51||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.44|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.44|-0.41|0.274
95822321|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.13|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.13|2.40|<0.001
95822322|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.26|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.26|2.56|<0.001
95822323|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.48|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.48|2.75|<0.001
96000416|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.96||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for All T2 DM."||5.96|2.24|
96000417|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.87||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for GHD T2DM."||6.87|2.03|
96000418|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|6.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|18.89||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for TS T2DM."||18.89|1.33|
96000419|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for ISS T2DM."||7.52|0.00|
95822324|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|5.38|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.38|2.64|<0.001
95822325|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.69|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.69|-1.18|0.607
95822326|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.02|0.824
95822327|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.04|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.04|-0.83|0.827
95822328|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.39|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.39|1.58|<0.001
95822329|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.65|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.65|1.88|<0.001
95822330|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.52|1.71|<0.001
95822331|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.98|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|2.16|<0.001
95822332|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.59||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.38|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.55|0.232
95822333|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.31||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.63|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-1.24|0.522
95822334|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.45||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.51|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.51|-1.41|0.356
95822335|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.69|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.69|0.92|0.001
95822336|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.82|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.82|1.08|<0.001
96000420|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.16||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SHOX-D T2DM."||31.16|0.00|
95822337|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.08|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.08|1.31|<0.001
95822338|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.23|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.23|1.46|<0.001
95822339|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.41|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.41|-1.49|0.264
95822340|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.32|0.400
95822341|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.15||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-1.10|0.758
95822342|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.97|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.97|0.27|0.018
95822343|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.21|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.21|0.55|0.006
95822344|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.63|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.63|0.94|<0.001
95822345|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.75|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.75|1.05|<0.001
95822346|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.14|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.14|-1.70|0.097
95822347|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.38|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.42|0.254
95822348|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.11||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.81|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-1.03|0.812
95822349|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.61|0.03|0.045
95822350|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.87|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.87|0.31|0.015
95822351|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.73||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.02|0.43|0.009
95822352|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.37|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.37|0.78|0.002
95822353|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.76||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.13|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.13|-1.64|0.094
95822354|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.38|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.38|-1.35|0.269
95822355|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-1.23|0.437
95822356|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.92|-0.44|0.218
95958890|NCT03121612|191890821|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.8||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution not normal by visual examination, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.80
95822357|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.35|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.35|0.02|0.046
95854839|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.06|0.39|0.0848
95854840|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.13|0.37|0.1224
95854841|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.33|0.41|0.3127
95854842|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.65|0.42|0.6065
95822358|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.49|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.49|0.13|0.030
95822359|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.93|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.93|0.57|0.004
95822360|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.2|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.20|-1.82|0.014
95958891|NCT03121612|191890822|SUPERIORITY|Power calculated based on 40 infants in each arm, permitting detection of a difference of 0.67 SD between the groups with power of 80% and alpha=0.05. Study recruitment was below anticipated (51/80) despite extending the planned period of recruitment.||||||0.86||||||Threshold for superiority p\<0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation.||"Analysis restricted to change at 6 hours, as least affected by missing data.~Distribution non-normal, so non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) used."||||0.86
95822361|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.22|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.22|-1.35|0.160
95822362|NCT01559259|191617517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.37|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.37|-1.25|0.284
95822363|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.1|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.10|0.13|0.014
95822364|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.94|-0.03|0.066
95822365|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.2|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.20|0.22|0.004
95822366|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.78|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.19|0.232
95822367|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.66|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.66|-0.02|0.067
95958892|NCT03121612|191890826|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
95822368|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.16||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.5|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.50|-0.18|0.354
95822369|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANOVA|||0.25 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.76|0.08|0.017
95822370|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.86|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.86|1.45|<0.001
95822371|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.64|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.64|1.23|<0.001
95822372|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.80|1.39|<0.001
95822373|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.02|0.61|<0.001
95854843|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.20|0.45|0.2173
95854844|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.15|0.35|0.1316
95854845|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.76|0.46|0.7678
95854846|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.14|0.34|0.7331
95958893|NCT03121612|191890827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational group.||||||0.33
95958894|NCT03121612|191890828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for stratification by gestational age-group.||||||0.31
95958895|NCT03121612|191890829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|van Elteren's extension to Wilcoxon|van Elteren's extension used to control for stratification by gestation||||||0.81
95958896|NCT03121612|191890830|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95958897|NCT03121612|191890836|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|No failures in older stratum, so stratification by gestational age-group not controlled for in analysis.||||||1.0
95958898|NCT03121612|191890838|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No adjustment for multiple comparisons||||||1.0
95958899|NCT02271230|191890850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.11||||||||1.11|0.78|
95958900|NCT02271230|191890850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||||||||1.14|0.80|
95958901|NCT02271230|191890851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
95958902|NCT02271230|191890851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.998||||||||0.998|0.74|
95854847|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||10.92|0.73|0.1235
95854848|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|84.09||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||84.09|-84.09|
95854849|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
95854850|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Presurgical/Surgery||1.78|0.65|0.7869
95854851|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 4 Day 1||1.25|0.43|0.2502
95854852|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 6 Day 1||1.41|0.50|0.5066
95854853|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.59|0.56|0.8124
95854854|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4656
95854855|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||2.12|0.62|0.6725
95854856|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.41|0.5780
95854857|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/Early Termination Visit||1.76|0.66|0.7611
95854858|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.94|0.62|0.7588
95854859|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.19|0.30|0.1428
95854860|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.39|0.41|0.9802
95854861|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.70|0.63|0.1967
95854862|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Respnders|8.33||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.28|85.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||85.94|-69.28|0.4795
95854863|NCT03038100|191669665|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-94.30|
95854864|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.70|0.6651
95854865|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.75|0.9927
95854866|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.77|0.8209
95854867|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.45|0.79|0.6507
95854868|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.87|0.2596
95854869|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.58|0.75|0.6532
95854870|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7592
95854871|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.40|0.62|0.7424
95854872|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.1912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.19|0.85|0.1912
95822374|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.33|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.33|0.34|<0.001
95822375|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.11|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.11|0.12|0.014
95822376|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.27|||ANOVA|||0.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.27|0.28|0.002
95822377|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.22|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.22|2.69|<0.001
95822378|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|3.89|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.89|2.36|<0.001
95822379|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.26|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.72|<0.001
95822380|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.54|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.54|2.02|<0.001
95822381|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.67||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.21|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.21|0.14|0.014
95822382|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.88|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.88|-0.19|0.202
95822383|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.24|||ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.24|0.17|0.010
95822384|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|4.76|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.76|3.24|<0.001
95822385|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|4.31|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.31|2.79|<0.001
95822386|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.79|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|3.27|<0.001
95822387|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.24|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.24|2.72|<0.001
95822388|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.52||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.05|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.05|-0.01|0.056
95822389|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.6|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.60|-0.46|0.789
95822390|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.55||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08|||ANOVA|||1.5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.08|0.02|0.042
95822391|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|4.98|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.98|3.37|<0.001
95822392|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.66|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.66|3.06|<0.001
95822393|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.14|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||5.14|3.54|<0.001
95822394|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|4.69|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.69|3.09|<0.001
95822395|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.85|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.85|-0.28|0.317
95822396|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.53|-0.59|0.922
95822397|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.45||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.02|||ANOVA|||2 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.02|-0.11|0.112
95822398|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|4.94|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.94|3.27|<0.001
95822399|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.59|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.59|2.92|<0.001
95822400|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.99|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.99|3.32|<0.001
95822401|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.72|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.72|3.05|<0.001
95958903|NCT02725528|191890852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958904|NCT02725528|191890853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958905|NCT02725528|191890854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958906|NCT02725528|191890855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958907|NCT02725528|191890856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958908|NCT02725528|191890857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958909|NCT02725528|191890858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95958910|NCT02725528|191890859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95822402|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.22||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.81|-0.37|0.464
95822403|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.45|-0.71|0.667
95822404|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.86|||ANOVA|||3 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.32|0.368
95822405|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.81|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.81|3.08|<0.001
95958911|NCT02725528|191890860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Between groups analysis for PROMs, QALYs and ROM at 12-months were determined using one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Group was entered as the independent variable, the 12-month outcome of interest was entered as the dependent variable and the baseline value for the corresponding outcome measure was entered as the covariate. Statistical significance was considered at p \< .05; all analyses were performed using SPSS® version 26.0||||0.05
95822406|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|4.49|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.49|2.77|<0.001
95822407|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|4.92|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.92|3.19|<0.001
95822408|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|4.54|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.54|2.82|<0.001
95822409|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.26||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.86|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.86|-0.34|0.397
95822410|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.55|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.65|0.866
95822411|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.37||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.97|||ANOVA|||4 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.97|-0.23|0.226
95822412|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.7|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.70|2.90|<0.001
95822413|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|4.26|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.26|2.47|<0.001
95822414|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.79|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.79|2.99|<0.001
95822415|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|4.5|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.50|2.70|<0.001
95822416|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.2||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.83|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.83|-0.43|0.536
95822417|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.39|-0.86|0.467
95822418|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.29||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.92|||ANOVA|||5 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.92|-0.34|0.361
95822419|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.13|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.13|2.21|<0.001
95822420|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.95|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.95|2.04|<0.001
95822421|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|4.47|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.47|2.55|<0.001
95822422|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.0|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||4.00|2.09|<0.001
95822423|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.13||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.8|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.80|-0.54|0.704
95822424|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.62|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.62|-0.71|0.890
95854873|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.53|0.45|0.5526
95822425|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.14|||ANOVA|||6 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.14|-0.20|0.170
95822426|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.67|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.67|1.72|<0.001
95822427|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.56|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.56|1.61|<0.001
95822428|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.97|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.97|2.01|<0.001
95822429|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.72|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.72|1.77|<0.001
95822430|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.63|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.63|-0.74|0.882
95822431|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.16||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.84|0.640
95822432|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.93|||ANOVA|||7 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.93|-0.44|0.482
95822433|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.06|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.06|1.07|<0.001
95822434|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.16|1.17|<0.001
95822435|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.24|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.24|1.25|<0.001
95822436|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.41|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||3.41|1.43|<0.001
95861935|NCT00669409|191682684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|8.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-24.4|
95861936|NCT00669409|191682684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|18.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.4|-14.2|
95822437|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.34|-1.05|0.314
95822438|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.44|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.44|-0.95|0.469
95822439|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.52|||ANOVA|||8 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.52|-0.87|0.616
95822440|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.56|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.57|0.002
95822441|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.53|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.53|0.55|0.002
95822442|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.94|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.94|0.95|<0.001
95861937|NCT00669409|191682684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|8.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.0|-24.3|
95861938|NCT00669409|191682684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|14.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.9|-27.6|
95822443|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.9|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.90|0.92|<0.001
95822444|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.34||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.35|-1.04|0.330
95822445|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.32|-1.06|0.288
95822446|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.73|||ANOVA|||9 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.73|-0.66|0.916
95822447|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.01||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.98|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.98|0.04|0.041
95822448|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.01|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.01|0.08|0.034
95822449|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.56|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.56|0.62|0.001
95822450|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.45|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.45|0.52|0.003
95822451|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.2|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.20|-1.15|0.171
95958912|NCT02706847|191890861|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|36.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|46.2||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.2|26.2|<0.001
95822452|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.44||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.23|-1.11|0.201
95822453|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.78|||ANOVA|||10 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.78|-0.57|0.763
95958913|NCT02706847|191890861|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.1|17.8|<0.001
96000421|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|28.52||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for SGA T2DM."||28.52|0.96|
95822454|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.66||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.61|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.61|-0.30|0.175
95822455|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.70|-0.20|0.120
95822456|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.15|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.15|0.24|0.014
95822457|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.26|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||2.26|0.36|0.007
95822458|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.01|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.01|-1.32|0.054
95822459|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.56||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.1|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.10|-1.22|0.096
95822460|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.55|||ANOVA|||11 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.55|-0.79|0.724
95822461|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.42||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.3|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.30|-0.46|0.345
95822462|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.41|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.41|-0.34|0.228
95822463|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.78|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.78|0.02|0.045
95822464|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.96|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||1.96|0.21|0.016
95822465|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||-0.04|-1.27|0.036
95822466|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.07|-1.15|0.081
95822467|NCT01559259|191617518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43|||ANOVA|||12 hour: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LSM from ANOVA with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR terms used as covariates.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
95822468|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.05|2.01|<0.001
95822469|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|2.75||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.75|1.72|<0.001
95822470|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.08|2.04|<0.001
95822471|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.60|1.57|<0.001
95958914|NCT02706847|191890862|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|38.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||38.3|19.9|<0.001
95822472|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.44||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.81|0.08|0.016
96000422|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.7||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Other T2DM."||16.70|0.08|
95822473|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.14||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.50|-0.21|0.428
95822474|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.47||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.84||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.84|0.11|0.010
95854874|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.52|0.32|0.3609
95822475|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|10.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.18|6.59|<0.001
95822476|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|9.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.47|5.89|<0.001
95822477|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|10.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.50|6.91|<0.001
95822478|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.86|<0.001
95822479|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.74||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.99|-0.52|0.250
95861939|NCT00669409|191682685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|11.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.8|-21.6|
95958915|NCT02706847|191890862|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|37.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.4|19.0|<0.001
96000423|NCT01088412|191977154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized Incidence Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|63.97||||||"Epidemiological comparison between incidence of type 2 diabetes in study versus general population registry data, stratified by age and ethnicity.~Standardized Incidence Ratio for Unknown T2DM."||63.97|0.00|
95822480|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.28|-1.21|0.956
95822481|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.06||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.31|-0.20|0.099
95861940|NCT00669409|191682685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
96000424|NCT03494725|191977160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Outcome was subjected to transformation to meet model assumptions. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||The sample size was computed for a repeated measurement ANOVA with two groups and seven repeated measurements (power=0.85, α=0.05, f=0.1). The calculation resulted in a group size of 56 participants each, which was rounded up to 60 participants per treatment group to account for attrition.||||0.757
96000425|NCT05593432|191977193|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.17||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|51.33||stratified by Baseline Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score (3 or 4)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||51.33|7.55|0.0129
96000426|NCT05593432|191977193|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|12.38|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||12.38|1.32|
95861941|NCT00669409|191682685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|11.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-21.8|
95861942|NCT00669409|191682685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.2|-31.6|
96000427|NCT05593432|191977194|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.68||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|53.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||53.51|7.71|0.0141
95822482|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.78|12.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.66|7.78|<0.001
95822483|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|11.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||11.92|7.06|<0.001
95822484|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|13.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||13.15|8.28|<0.001
95822485|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|9.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.19|12.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||12.06|7.19|<0.001
95822486|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-1.11|0.492
95822487|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.14||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.56|-1.83|0.873
95822488|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.09||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.79||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.79|-0.62|0.210
95822489|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|15.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.20|8.10|<0.001
95958916|NCT02706847|191890863|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.01||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.01|-1.57|<0.001
96000428|NCT05593432|191977194|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|13.17|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||13.17|1.31|
96000429|NCT05593432|191977196|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Response Rate Difference|40.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.09||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.61|64.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)||||64.00|16.61|0.0027
95854875|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.23|0.20|0.7527
95854876|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
95854877|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.17|0.62|0.3177
95854878|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4184
95854879|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.67|0.5710
95854880|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.19|0.65|0.3973
95854881|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.55|0.80|0.5163
95854882|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.35|0.64|0.6897
95958917|NCT02706847|191890863|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.99||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.99|-1.56|<0.001
95822490|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.48|7.40|<0.001
95822491|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.2||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.20|9.10|<0.001
95822492|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|15.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.26|8.18|<0.001
95822493|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|2.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.42|-2.55|0.957
95822494|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.78||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.69|-3.25|0.534
95822495|NCT01559259|191617519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.93||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.41|-1.55|0.462
95822496|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|10.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.89|7.23|<0.001
95822497|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|9.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.95|6.33|<0.001
95861943|NCT00669409|191682685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-19.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-19.0|-62.6|
95958918|NCT02706847|191890864|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
95822498|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|8.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|10.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||10.49|6.83|<0.001
95822499|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|7.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|9.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.44|5.78|<0.001
96000430|NCT05593432|191977196|EQUIVALENCE|A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) at a 2-sided α = 0.05 level was used for the comparison between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream BID and vehicle cream BID at Week 16.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|24.02|||||stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4)|||24.02|1.85|
95861944|NCT00669409|191682686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|12.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.5|-20.9|
95822500|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.45||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.70|0.19|0.024
95958919|NCT02706847|191890864|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2) and baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
95822501|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.53||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.76|-0.69|0.392
95822502|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.05||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.30|-0.21|0.101
95822503|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.97|36.48||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.48|23.97|<0.001
95822504|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.74|34.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||34.11|21.74|<0.001
95822505|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||36.12|23.60|<0.001
95822506|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|27.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.33|33.86||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||33.86|21.33|<0.001
95822507|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.63||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|6.92||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.92|-1.65|0.228
95822508|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.51|-3.84|0.875
95822509|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|6.55||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.55|-2.02|0.299
95854883|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.67|0.5735
96002129|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.725|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.742|4.306||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.306|1.742|<0.001
95854884|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.10|0.50|0.1414
95854885|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.55|0.59|0.8655
95854886|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.35|0.38|0.3017
96000431|NCT05593432|191977198|EQUIVALENCE|A log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor, Baseline IGA score (3 or 4), was used for between-treatment group comparisons. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval was estimated based on the stratified Cox regression model. using Efron's method accounting for ties.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.381|||Log Rank|stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|Cox regression model stratified by Baseline IGA score (3 or 4) was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate between ruxolitinib 1.5% cream and vehicle cream|||5.381|1.510|0.0008
96000432|NCT02273973|191977246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.71||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|21.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.32|0.11|0.0490
96000433|NCT02273973|191977247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.21||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.55|||Fisher Exact|||||3.55|-1.12|0.3698
96000434|NCT02273973|191977248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|18.19||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|33.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.81|2.57|0.0332
95822510|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|36.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.48|45.47||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.47|28.48|<0.001
95822511|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|43.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.50|26.70|<0.001
95958920|NCT02706847|191890865|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean DIfference|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.15||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.15|1.72|<0.001
95822512|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|37.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||45.59|28.60|<0.001
95958921|NCT02706847|191890865|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|6.36||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.36|2.89|<0.001
95822513|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|35.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|43.68||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||43.68|26.67|<0.001
95854887|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.39|0.26|0.2325
95854888|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.69|0.06|0.1717
96000435|NCT02273973|191977249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.37||||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.04|||Fisher Exact|||||4.04|-1.30|0.4803
96000436|NCT02273973|191977250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.2||||0.5017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|19.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.61|-9.20|0.5017
96000437|NCT02273973|191977251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|4.75|||Fisher Exact|||||4.75|-2.65|1.0000
96000438|NCT02273973|191977252|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|21.14||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.68|5.59|0.0115
96000439|NCT02273973|191977253|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.66||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.20|-11.88|0.7928
96000440|NCT02273973|191977254|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.45||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.70|-5.80|0.2659
96000441|NCT02273973|191977255|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.63||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.60|-6.34|0.3299
96000442|NCT02273973|191977256|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|10.68||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|25.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.32|-3.96|0.1554
96000443|NCT02273973|191977257|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|2.41||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|16.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.63|-11.82|0.7870
96000444|NCT02273973|191977258|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Week 3.||1.05|0.65|0.117
96000445|NCT02273973|191977258|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.25||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.65|||Regression, Linear|||Statistical analysis for changes in Ki67 levels from Baseline to Surgery.||1.65|0.95|0.105
95958922|NCT02706847|191890866|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|31.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.1|13.6|<0.001
95958923|NCT02706847|191890866|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.7||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||32.7|15.1|<0.001
95958924|NCT02706847|191890867|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|11.2||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||11.2|-1.1|0.110
95822514|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.8||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|7.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.63|-4.02|0.543
95822515|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-5.75|0.979
95822516|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.92||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.74|-3.90|0.517
95822517|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.51|55.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||55.41|30.51|<0.001
95822518|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|42.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|54.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||54.51|29.90|<0.001
95822519|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|45.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.67|57.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||57.57|32.67|<0.001
95958925|NCT02706847|191890867|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|23.9||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.9|9.1|<0.001
95822520|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|44.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.79|56.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||56.71|31.79|<0.001
95822521|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.29||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|7.25||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.25|-9.82|0.767
95958926|NCT02706847|191890868|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.1||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.1|8.5|<0.001
95958927|NCT02706847|191890868|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|22.3||The nominal p-value is reported|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological DMARD use (stratum 1 vs stratum 2).|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|6.1|<0.001
95958928|NCT01174264|191890869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.34|1.30|0.003
95958929|NCT01174264|191890869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.08||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.44||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|0.81|0.65
95958930|NCT01174264|191890870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||2.42|1.25|0.008
96000446|NCT02273973|191977260|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-13.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|-4.96|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.96|-21.67|0.002
95822522|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.04||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|6.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.27|-10.36|0.629
95822523|NCT01559259|191617520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.87||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||9.39|-7.66|0.841
95822524|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|4.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.73|3.22|<0.001
95958931|NCT01174264|191890870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.49|0.84|0.51
96000447|NCT03246529|191977264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test (by response status and baseline platelet count),||||||<0.0001
96000448|NCT03246529|191977265|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
96000449|NCT03246529|191977266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95822525|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|4.39||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.39|2.88|<0.001
95854889|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analsyis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
95958932|NCT01174264|191890872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95958933|NCT01174264|191890872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95958934|NCT01174264|191890873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95958935|NCT01174264|191890873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95854890|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.46|0.84|0.4745
95854891|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.22|0.69|0.5499
95854892|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.29|0.73|0.8436
95854893|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.46|0.81|0.5798
95958936|NCT01174264|191890874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.38|0.97|0.17
95958937|NCT01174264|191890875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|Performed on log-transformed data.||||1.35|0.95|0.25
96000450|NCT01287117|191977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.21||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.21|-4.71|0.0010
96000451|NCT01287117|191977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.95||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.18||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.18|-4.72|0.0012
96000452|NCT01287117|191977276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|-4.1||A multiplicity type I error control plan was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.10|-7.49|<0.0001
96000453|NCT01287117|191977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.75||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|-1.92||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-1.92|-9.59|0.0035
95958938|NCT01174264|191890876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.22||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.48||Performed on log-transformed data.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.48|1.00|0.096
95822526|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|4.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|4.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.83|3.32|<0.001
95822527|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|3.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.14|2.64|<0.001
95822528|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.58||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.11|0.05|0.031
95822529|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||0.77|-0.28|0.360
95822530|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.68||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.21|0.15|0.011
95822531|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.54|15.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||15.73|10.54|<0.001
95958939|NCT01174264|191890877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95958940|NCT00562484|191890916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|52.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||52|30|
95822532|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|11.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|14.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.52|9.35|<0.001
95822533|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|13.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.95|16.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||16.13|10.95|<0.001
95822534|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|12.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|14.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||14.63|9.45|<0.001
95861945|NCT00669409|191682686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|0.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.7|-32.6|
95958941|NCT00562484|191890917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|72.0||||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 x (1 - ratio of incidence rate)||72|44|
95958942|NCT02811302|191890929|OTHER|A simple count and percentage of the population were calculated based on the number of patients adjudicated as having Respiratory Depression.|||||||||||||||||To determine the risk assessment score, first the number of patients with Respiratory Depression (RD) had to be identified. Per the rules established for the Clinical Endpoint Committee, 655 (43.6%) patients were identified as having RD.|||
95958943|NCT02811302|191890930|OTHER|Multivariable model for (Multivariate logistic regression) Respiratory Depression, followed by validation with Harrell's Optimism using a bootstrap sampling method.|Area Under the Curve|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.79|||||The model was performed using stepwise selection including all potential predictors and interactions terms (medical history and baseline characteristics).|A modified Full Analysis Dataset (1335) was used to derive and validate the risk assessment tool. Subjects were excluded if they had major deviations or consent withdrawals. Subjects that did not have any monitoring data were also excluded. Finally, 69 subjects were further excluded from the model, as they were missing parameters to calculate their risk score.|The model derived from the logistic regression was assessed by the Hosmer-Lemshow goodness of fit test (P = 0.831). The derived model was validated by Harrell's Optimism using a Bootstrap sampling method (500 samples from the modified dataset, 1335) with replacement. The logistic regression model with stepwise selection was performed for each bootstrap sample, and AUC calculated. The optimism calculated by Harrell's algorithm was 0.02. The model was then checked for the quartiles of the effective monitoring and for geography used as a random effect. The performance measurement of the final model was adjusted according the Harrell's Optimism for a final adjusted AUC of 0.74.|0.79|0.73|
95861946|NCT00669409|191682686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
95822535|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.1||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.91|-0.72|0.235
95822536|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.70|-1.91|0.910
95822537|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.31|-0.32|0.105
95822538|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.49|19.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||19.61|12.49|<0.001
95822539|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|14.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.33|18.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.43|11.33|<0.001
95822540|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|16.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|20.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||20.32|13.20|<0.001
95822541|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|15.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|18.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||18.78|11.68|<0.001
95822542|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.32|-1.66|0.514
95822543|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.35||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.13||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.13|-2.82|0.783
95822544|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.02|-0.96|0.227
95958944|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS X axis||||0.098
95958945|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Y axis||||0.389
95958946|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||ANS Z axis||||0.780
95958947|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.054
95958948|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point Y axis||||0.323
95822545|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.95|23.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.61|12.95|<0.001
95958949|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||A point X axis||||0.371
95958950|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level X axis||||0.011
95958951|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Y axis||||0.426
95822546|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|22.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||22.61|11.99|<0.001
95822547|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|20.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.13|25.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.78|15.13|<0.001
95822548|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|18.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|24.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.24|13.61|<0.001
95822549|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.64||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.09||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.09|-4.37|0.736
95822550|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|2.08||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.08|-5.32|0.390
95822551|NCT01559259|191617521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.53||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|5.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.26|-2.19|0.420
95822552|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.76|5.25|<0.001
95822553|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|7.11||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.11|4.62|<0.001
95822554|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|6.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|7.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||7.88|5.38|<0.001
95822555|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|6.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||6.73|4.23|<0.001
95822556|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.03||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.90|0.15|0.022
95958952|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||UI level Z axis||||0.621
95958953|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale X axis||||0.275
95822557|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||1.26|-0.48|0.380
95822558|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.03|0.28|0.010
95958954|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Y axis||||0.361
95958955|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||pronasale Z axis||||0.284
95822559|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|21.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|25.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||25.87|17.17|<0.001
95822560|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.29|23.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR, baseline numerical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||23.95|15.29|<0.001
95822561|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|22.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|26.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||26.59|17.89|<0.001
95822562|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|19.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|24.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||24.02|15.35|<0.001
95822563|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|1.83||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||4.88|-1.21|0.237
95822564|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.95||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||2.95|-3.09|0.965
95822565|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.56||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|5.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.60|-0.48|0.099
95822566|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|29.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|38.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||38.73|21.14|<0.001
95822567|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|28.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.48|37.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||37.00|19.48|<0.001
95822568|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.31|41.89||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||41.89|24.31|<0.001
95822569|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|30.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.87|39.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||39.41|21.87|<0.001
95822570|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|5.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||5.44|-6.86|0.821
95822571|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|3.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||3.71|-8.51|0.440
95822572|NCT01559259|191617522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|2.46||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|8.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, treatment-by-baseline categorical PSR and gender terms used as covariates. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|ANOVA|||0-12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LSM from the ANOVA model.||8.61|-3.69|0.432
95958956|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale X axis||||0.119
95822573|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.08||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.20|-1.04|0.571
95822574|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.98||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-0.94|0.593
95822575|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.65||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||7.68|-0.39|0.282
95822576|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.16||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|3.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.42|-1.11|0.552
95822577|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.01||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.11|-3.13|0.994
95822578|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.23||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.80|-3.26|0.879
95822579|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|6.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.64|-1.98|0.280
95822580|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|33.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.54|42.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||42.81|24.54|<0.001
95958957|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Y axis||||0.019
95822581|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.93|31.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.75|14.93|0.003
95822582|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|22.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.55|31.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.00|13.55|0.005
95822583|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.39||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|20.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.50|6.28|0.035
95822584|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|20.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.67|31.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||31.62|8.67|0.001
95822585|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.56||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|20.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.51|-1.39|0.088
95958958|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||subnasale Z axis||||0.034
95958959|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious X axis||||0.422
95958960|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Y axis||||0.177
95822586|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.36||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|20.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.45|-1.73|0.100
95822587|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|62.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.93|74.15||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.15|50.93|<0.001
95822588|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|51.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|63.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.82|39.50|<0.001
95822589|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.92|76.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.43|52.92|<0.001
95822590|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|52.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.43|63.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.63|40.43|<0.001
95822591|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.66||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|24.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.35|-3.04|0.138
95822592|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.59||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|13.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.52|-14.71|0.935
95958961|NCT01473745|191890975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||labiale superious Z axis||||0.133
95822593|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|27.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.17|-0.57|0.063
95861947|NCT00669409|191682686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|4.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.5|-28.4|
95861948|NCT00669409|191682686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-38.8|
95861949|NCT00669409|191682687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|11.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.2|-22.2|
95958962|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Intercanthal distance||||0.218
95958963|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal height||||0.336
95958964|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P- value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance||||||0.192
95958965|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal tip protrusion||||0.135
95958966|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||nasal width||||0.277
95861950|NCT00669409|191682687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-36.1|
95861951|NCT00669409|191682687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|17.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.7|-15.6|
95861952|NCT00669409|191682687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|4.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.8|-28.0|
95958967|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.505
95958968|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.299
95958969|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.738
95822594|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.82|86.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.53|62.82|<0.001
95822595|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.42|75.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.95|50.42|<0.001
95822596|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.21|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|59.21|<0.001
95822597|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|60.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.89|73.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.11|47.89|<0.001
95822598|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.43||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|26.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.89|1.97|0.027
95822599|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.35||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|15.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.61|-10.91|0.729
95822600|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.33||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|24.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.21|-1.55|0.087
95822601|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|88.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.70|62.50|<0.001
95822602|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.65|81.24||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.24|53.65|<0.001
95854894|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.39|0.74|0.9094
95958970|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.008
95958971|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneious height of upper lip||||0.116
95958972|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.528
95958973|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.123
95958974|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.250
95958975|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.706
95958976|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.804
95958977|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.114
95958978|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal length||||0.457
95958979|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||Nasal tip protrusion||||0.565
95958980|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.781|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.781
95958981|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.164
95822603|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.21|87.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.70|61.21|<0.001
95822604|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.3|78.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.17|50.30|<0.001
95958982|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.554
95822605|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|11.59||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|23.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.06|0.12|0.052
95822606|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|15.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.16|-9.49|0.652
95822607|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|22.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||22.03|-1.47|0.090
95822608|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|79.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.41|92.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||92.46|67.41|<0.001
95822609|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|85.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.05|58.25|<0.001
95822610|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|78.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.29|91.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.56|66.29|<0.001
95822611|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.04|84.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.07|57.04|<0.001
95854895|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.67|0.81|0.4006
95854896|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.19|0.65|0.4024
95854897|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.41|0.67|0.8796
95854898|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.32|0.53|0.4350
95958983|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.508
95958984|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.358
95958985|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.049
95958986|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
95958987|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.062
95958988|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.029
95958989|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.011
95958990|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||intercanthal distance||||0.211
95958991|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal height||||0.102
95822612|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.61||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|19.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.80|-0.59|0.069
95822613|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.65||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|12.03||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.03|-10.73|0.911
95822614|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.27||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|18.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.77|-2.23|0.127
95822615|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.37|90.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.72|62.37|<0.001
95822616|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.93|85.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.28|55.93|<0.001
95822617|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
95822618|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.02|83.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.09|53.02|<0.001
95822619|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.57||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|18.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.61|-1.47|0.098
95822620|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|13.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.04|-9.02|0.721
95958992|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal length||||0.136
95822621|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.28||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|18.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.41|-1.85|0.115
95822622|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|77.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.63|91.69||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||91.69|63.63|<0.001
95822623|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.07|86.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.22|57.07|<0.001
95958993|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal tip protrusion||||0.113
95958994|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||nasal width||||0.115
95958995|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||alar base width||||0.535
95958996|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||R nostril show vertical dimension||||0.850
95958997|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||L nostril show vertical dimension||||0.891
95958998|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||columellar length||||0.262
95822624|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.22|90.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||90.79|62.22|<0.001
95822625|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.14|84.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.06|54.14|<0.001
95822626|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.56||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|18.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.27|-1.15|0.086
95822627|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.01||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|12.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.77|-8.76|0.714
95822628|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.21||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.22||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.22|-2.80|0.164
95822629|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
95822630|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.29|84.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.70|54.29|<0.001
95822631|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
95822632|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.4|82.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.61|51.40|<0.001
95822633|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|7.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|17.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.04|-2.12|0.129
95958999|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||cutaneous height of upper lip||||0.344
95959000|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||overall upper lip height||||0.057
95959001|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||vermillion height of upper lip||||0.995
95959002|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||lower prolabial width||||0.440
95959003|NCT01473745|191890976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance(\*).||upper lip protrusion||||0.078
95959004|NCT01473745|191890977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|||||intergroup difference of conventional group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.104
96000454|NCT01287117|191977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.75||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-2.75|-10.33|0.0008
95959005|NCT01473745|191890977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||Intergroup difference of modified group|t-test, 2 sided|P value \<0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.043
95959006|NCT01473745|191890977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|P value \< 0.05 was set as statistical significance.||||||0.888
95822634|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.43|-8.50|0.712
95822635|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|16.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.00|-3.76|0.229
95822636|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
95822637|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|70.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.45|85.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.64|55.45|<0.001
95822638|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
95822639|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.53|83.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.57|52.53|<0.001
95822640|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.38||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|15.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.81|-3.05|0.186
95822641|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.97||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|12.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.12|-8.18|0.703
95822642|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.06||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|14.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.79|-4.68|0.312
95822643|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
95822644|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
95822645|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
95822646|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
95822647|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95854899|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.56|0.47|0.6225
95822648|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822649|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822650|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.56|89.2||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||89.20|59.56|<0.001
95822651|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.61|86.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.57|56.61|<0.001
95959007|NCT02806505|191890992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.06||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.06|0.49|0.6746
95959008|NCT02806505|191890993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.76||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||3.76|0.60|0.3923
95959009|NCT02806505|191890994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.68||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.68|0.43|0.8843
95822652|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.18|88.3||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.30|58.18|<0.001
95822653|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.86|84.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||84.56|53.86|<0.001
95822654|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822655|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822656|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822657|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822658|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95854900|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.77|0.36|0.5775
95822659|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822660|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822661|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822662|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822663|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822664|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822665|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822666|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822667|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822668|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822669|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95854901|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||1.94|0.07|0.2343
95959010|NCT02806505|191890994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.04||Assessed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country (Brazil, France, Other) and HCV genotype (1 vs. non-1).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 135 mcg group with the odds of a response in the Peginterferon alfa-2a 90 mcg group.||2.04|0.28|0.5866
95959011|NCT02330276|191890995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
95959012|NCT02330276|191890996|OTHER|one way ANOVA between groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|85.5||for change in heart rate at 24 hr post-dosing from baseline between the 3 doses|ANOVA|||Primary hypothesis: None of the doses of (+)-epicatechin will differ with regard to change from baseline in any of the major safety endpoints; heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure.||85.5|70.3|<0.05
96002130|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.505|6.214||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.214|2.505|<0.001
95822670|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822671|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822672|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822673|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822674|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822675|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822676|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822677|NCT01559259|191617523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822678|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|23.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|34.67||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and its associated 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.67|13.32|0.003
95822679|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.83||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|25.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.07|4.59|0.048
95822680|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|24.98||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.43|36.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.53|13.43|0.005
95822681|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|16.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|26.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||26.88|6.25|0.030
95822682|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.86||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|18.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.53|-4.80|0.269
95959013|NCT02330276|191890997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
95959014|NCT02330276|191890998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
95959015|NCT02330276|191890999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The reported P-Value was calculated|General linear mixed-effects models|||||||0.05
95959016|NCT02366143|191891020|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.74|0.52|<0.0001
95822683|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.95||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|9.43||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.43|-13.34|0.735
95822684|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.58||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|21.04||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.04|-3.88|0.176
95822685|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|63.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.07|77.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||77.52|49.07|<0.001
95822686|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|56.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.28|71.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||71.34|42.28|<0.001
95822687|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.58|81.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.55|53.58|<0.001
95822688|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|53.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.62|67.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.99|38.62|<0.001
95822689|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|10.28||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|23.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.82|-3.26|0.140
95822690|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.98||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|16.89||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.89|-10.94|0.674
95822691|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|14.58||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|27.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||27.93|1.22|0.034
95822692|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.25|86.39||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.39|58.25|<0.001
95822693|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.63|81.78||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.78|52.63|<0.001
95822694|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|86.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.40|58.40|<0.001
95822695|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|64.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.32|78.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.91|49.32|<0.001
95959017|NCT02366143|191891020|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.68|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.68|0.38|<0.0001
95959018|NCT02366143|191891021|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.64|0.0164
95959019|NCT02366143|191891022|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.002|||Log Rank|||||1.002|0.707|0.0528
95959020|NCT02366143|191891023|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT population||0.85|0.59|0.0002
95861953|NCT00669409|191682687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|13.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.5|-30.1|
95959021|NCT02366143|191891023|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.564||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.76|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||0.760|0.418|0.0001
95822696|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.4||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|18.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.85|-2.06|0.119
95822697|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|2.84||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|13.98||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.98|-8.30|0.616
95822698|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|8.34||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.87|-2.20|0.125
95822699|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|74.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.73|88.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||88.25|60.73|<0.001
95822700|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.05|83.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.71|55.05|<0.001
95861954|NCT00669409|191682688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|12.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.8|-20.6|
95861955|NCT00669409|191682688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-2.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.3|-35.6|
95959022|NCT02366143|191891024|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.649|||Log Rank|||Teff-high Population||0.649|0.374|<.0001
95959023|NCT02366143|191891024|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.72|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.720|0.517|<.0001
95959024|NCT02366143|191891026|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|0.647|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Subgroup||0.647|0.352|<.0001
95959025|NCT02366143|191891026|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.639|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 Subgroup||0.639|0.386|<.0001
96000455|NCT01287117|191977277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-9.16||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-9.16|-16.44|<0.0001
95861956|NCT00669409|191682688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|13.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.7|-19.6|
95861957|NCT00669409|191682688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-30.9|
95959026|NCT02366143|191891027|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.169|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3, WT ITT||1.169|0.580|0.2765
95959027|NCT02366143|191891027|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.035|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3, WT ITT||1.035|0.575|0.0829
95959028|NCT02366143|191891028|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.913|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT-WT||0.913|0.551|0.0073
95959029|NCT02366143|191891028|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.907|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3 Population||0.907|0.484|0.0097
95959030|NCT02366143|191891029|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.167|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.167|0.592|0.2843
95959031|NCT02366143|191891029|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802||||0.1861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.113|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.113|0.579|0.1861
95959032|NCT02366143|191891029|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.926|||Log Rank|||ITT||0.926|0.630|0.0060
95959033|NCT02366143|191891030|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.038|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT||1.038|0.595|0.0894
95959034|NCT02366143|191891030|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.061|||Log Rank|||Teff high||1.061|0.626|0.1276
95822701|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|73.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.65|87.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||87.38|59.65|<0.001
95822702|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.01|82.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||82.71|54.01|<0.001
95822703|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|6.33||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|15.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.65|-2.99|0.187
95822704|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.79||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|10.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||10.99|-9.42|0.881
95822705|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.05||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.71|-4.60|0.311
95822706|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822707|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95959035|NCT02366143|191891030|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.011|||Log Rank|||ITT||1.011|0.733|0.0681
95959036|NCT02366143|191891031|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.188|||Log Rank|||Teff high-WT ITT||1.188|0.683|0.4599
95959037|NCT02366143|191891032|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.675|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT||0.675|0.406|<.0001
95959038|NCT02366143|191891032|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|0.624|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT||0.624|0.283|<.0001
95959039|NCT02366143|191891034|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|6.68||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|13.9|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||13.90|-0.54|0.0697
95959040|NCT02366143|191891034|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.71||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|18.73|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||18.73|0.70|0.0347
96000456|NCT01287117|191977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.75||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.54||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||-0.54|-4.95|0.0149
95854902|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.0833
95959041|NCT02366143|191891034|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.89||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|21.29|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.29|-1.51|0.0890
95959042|NCT02366143|191891034|OTHER|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.34||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|23.84|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||23.84|-3.17|0.1336
95959043|NCT02366143|191891035|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|4.18||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.48|||Z-test|||1-Year ITT-WT Population||11.48|-3.13|0.2624
95959044|NCT02366143|191891035|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|9.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|16.9|||Z-test|||2-Year ITT-WT Population||16.90|2.43|0.0088
95959045|NCT02366143|191891035|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|10.56||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|21.77|||Z-test|||1-Year Teff-high WT Population||21.77|-0.65|0.0649
95959046|NCT02366143|191891035|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|18.69|||Z-test|||2-Year Teff-high WT Population||18.69|-4.15|0.2120
95959047|NCT02366143|191891036|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.45|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.450|0.571|0.6899
95959048|NCT02366143|191891036|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.089|||Log Rank|||Teff-high WT Population||1.089|0.413|0.1043
95959049|NCT02366143|191891036|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.173||95.0|0.912|1.665|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.665|0.912|0.1730
95822708|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822709|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822710|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822711|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822712|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822713|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95959050|NCT02366143|191891036|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.084||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.483|||Log Rank|||ITT WT||1.483|0.792|0.6145
95959051|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.8816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.763|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT population||1.763|0.614|0.8816
96002131|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.363|3.27||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.270|1.363|<0.001
95822714|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822715|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822716|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822717|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822718|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95959052|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.741||||0.2995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.309|||Log Rank|||Cough for Teff-high WT ITT Population||1.309|0.419|0.2995
95959053|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|1.422|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.422|0.616|0.7578
95959054|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.56|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in Teff-high WT Population||1.560|0.694|0.8470
96002132|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.953|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|4.602||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.602|1.912|<0.001
95822719|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822720|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822721|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822722|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822723|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95959055|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.659||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|1.133|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.133|0.383|0.1289
96000457|NCT01287117|191977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.44||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.32||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.32|-5.57|0.0017
95822724|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822725|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822726|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822727|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95854903|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Superiority|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.21|0.71|0.6012
95854904|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.11|0.65|0.2291
95854905|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.24|0.71|0.6574
95854906|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.35|0.76|0.9217
95959056|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.2381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.235|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in Teff-high WT Population||1.235|0.430|0.2381
95959057|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.732|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.732|0.685|0.7163
95959058|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.145|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in Teff-high WT||1.145|0.420|0.1502
95959059|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.43|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.430|0.713|0.9568
95959060|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.284|||Log Rank|||Cough in ITT-WT Population||1.284|0.619|0.5377
95959061|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.163|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.163|0.685|0.4012
96000458|NCT01287117|191977278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-6.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.76||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly number of hives score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-4.76|-9.10|<0.0001
95959062|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.363|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea in ITT-WT Population||1.363|0.809|0.7149
95822728|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822729|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822730|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822731|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95959063|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.422|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.422|0.786|0.7126
95959064|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.258|||Log Rank|||Arm and/or Shoulder Pain in ITT-WT||1.258|0.675|0.6053
95959065|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.194|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.194|0.576|0.3134
95959066|NCT02366143|191891037|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.309|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest in ITT-WT Population||1.309|0.633|0.6115
95822732|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822733|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822734|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822735|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95854907|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.30|0.70|0.7693
95959067|NCT02034162|191891050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95959068|NCT02034162|191891051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95854908|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.31|0.64|0.6470
95959069|NCT02034162|191891053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95959070|NCT02034162|191891054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
96002133|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.894||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.961||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.961|1.220|0.005
96002134|NCT04003155|191981635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.035|4.944||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.944|2.035|<0.001
95822736|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822737|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822738|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822739|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822740|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822741|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95959071|NCT00760513|191891060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance = P\</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of liver fat percentage||We estimated that a 20% decrease in liver fat with Omacor treatment, assuming a sigma of 0.3, and an alpha of 0.05; with 91 participants completing our trial, we had 86% power to detect a 20% change in liver fat (two tailed test) (see HEPATOLOGY 2014;60:1211-1221).||3.0|-6.3|0.48
95959072|NCT00760513|191891061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||A priori p value threshold \</=0.5|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||Based on the available evidence at the time, we assumed that a 0.6-1.0 unit change in fibrosis score might be clinically significant (Hepatology 2008 Feb;47(2):455-460). Consequently, to detect a minimum 0.6 unit change in score (e.g. 9.0 at baseline and 8.4 at the end of the study) with an SD of 1.0, 100 participants would provide \>80% power at the 5% significance level, and with a 15% drop out of participants there would also be \>80% power to detect this effect.||0.3|-0.3|1.0
95822742|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822743|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822744|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822745|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822746|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822747|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822748|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822749|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822750|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822751|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822752|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822753|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822754|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822755|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822756|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822757|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822758|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822759|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822760|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822761|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95854909|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion Of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.25|0.70|0.6391
95822762|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822763|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822764|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822765|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822766|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822767|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822768|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822769|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822770|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822771|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822772|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822773|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822774|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822775|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95854910|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.05|0.51|0.0892
95822776|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|71.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.82|86.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||86.38|55.82|<0.001
95822777|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|68.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.88|83.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||83.74|52.88|<0.001
95822778|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|69.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.47|85.48||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||85.48|54.47|<0.001
95822779|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|65.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.16|81.74||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.74|50.16|<0.001
95822780|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.25||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|14.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.41|-3.92|0.265
95822781|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.82|11.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.53|-7.82|0.710
95822782|NCT01559259|191617524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|3.99||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|13.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.49|-5.52|0.416
95822783|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.45|0.17|<0.001
95822784|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.39||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.39|0.15|<0.001
95822785|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.35||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.35|0.13|<0.001
95822786|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.41||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||0.41|0.15|<0.001
95822787|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.12||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.63|0.77|0.549
95822788|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.97||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.42|0.66|0.863
95854911|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.01|0.41|0.0550
95854912|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||0.88|0.27|0.0168
95959073|NCT00760513|191891062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||A priori threshold for statistical significance p \</=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline measurement.||There was no power calculation for this end point.||0.3|-0.4|0.9
95822789|NCT01559259|191617525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.86||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg), p-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating and gender terms used as covariates.||1.28|0.57|0.454
95822790|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-41.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-22.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.58|-59.56|<0.001
95959074|NCT00575042|191891087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Sample size calculation estimated that with 20 patients, and assuming a 10% drop-out rate, the study would have 80% power to detect a response rate in 35% or more of the study patients. A two-sided p value\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95822791|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.41|-22.56||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.56|-59.41|<0.001
95822792|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.79|-57.49|<0.001
95822793|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-38.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.94|-19.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-19.28|-56.94|<0.001
95822794|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.13||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-8.67|0.274
95861958|NCT00669409|191682688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|-7.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-51.2|
95959075|NCT00158197|191891093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
95822795|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.89||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.62|-8.40|0.304
95822796|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.96||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|5.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.49|-7.41|0.769
95822797|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-54.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-54.38|-88.00|<0.001
95822798|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.26|-49.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.72|-84.26|<0.001
95822799|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.75|-50.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.19|-84.75|<0.001
95959076|NCT00158197|191891093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
95822800|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.45|-45.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-45.07|-80.45|<0.001
95822801|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.53||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|-1.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.50|-15.55|0.021
95822802|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|4.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.07|-12.05|0.337
95822803|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.26||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|2.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.76|-13.28|0.204
95822804|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-77.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.29|-63.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-63.49|-92.29|<0.001
95822805|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.71|-56.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.58|-86.71|<0.001
95861959|NCT00669409|191682689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|17.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.1|-16.3|
95959077|NCT00158197|191891093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.01|||||||Generalized estimating equations||Value represents the odds of submitting a methamphetamine negative urine sample in the treatment group (1 of 3) compared to the standard care group.|||||<0.01
95959078|NCT00158197|191891094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Yes, the a priori plan to handle post hoc multiple comparisons was to use the method of Bonferroni adjustment. Thus, the new alpha level for these comparisons was \<0.0125.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
95959079|NCT00158197|191891094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95822806|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-72.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.06|-57.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.68|-88.06|<0.001
95822807|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-67.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.87|-51.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-51.52|-82.87|<0.001
95822808|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-3.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.21|-18.20|0.007
95822809|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.99||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|4.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.88|-12.86|0.385
95822810|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|2.4||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.40|-14.97|0.162
95959080|NCT00158197|191891094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95959081|NCT00158197|191891094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95959082|NCT00158197|191891095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.78
95959083|NCT00158197|191891095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.68
95959084|NCT00158197|191891095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||We used GEE to investigate change in methamphetamine abstinence (i.e., provision of a negative methamphetamine UA) during the follow-up period.||||0.20
95822811|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-76.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.35|-62.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-62.27|-91.35|<0.001
95822812|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-70.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.79|-55.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-55.41|-85.79|<0.001
95822813|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-56.31||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.31|-87.00|<0.001
95822814|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
95822815|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-3.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-3.55|-19.86|0.007
95822816|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|4.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.46|-14.34|0.310
95959085|NCT02666664|191891109|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-16.1|||ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-20|<0.001
95822817|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-7.36||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|1.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.90|-16.63|0.126
95822818|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-75.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.35|-60.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-60.93|-90.35|<0.001
95822819|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-66.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.99|-50.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-50.88|-81.99|<0.001
95822820|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-69.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.96|-53.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-53.71|-84.96|<0.001
95822821|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-65.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.03|-49.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-49.34|-81.03|<0.001
95822822|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-10.61||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-2.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-2.19|-19.02|0.016
95854913|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.65|0.13|0.0021
95959086|NCT02666664|191891111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-18.2|<0.001
95959087|NCT02666664|191891112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||||-11.6|-15.1|<0.001
95959088|NCT02666664|191891113|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||||-9.8|-12.5|<0.001
95822823|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-0.69||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|9.32||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.32|-10.69|0.895
95822824|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.09||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|4.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.62|-14.80|0.308
95822825|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-71.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.58|-56.13||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-56.13|-86.58|<0.001
95822826|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.04|-46.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.19|-78.04|<0.001
95822827|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-64.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.64|-48.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.50|-80.64|<0.001
95822828|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-59.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.12|-43.55||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-43.55|-76.12|<0.001
95959089|NCT02666664|191891114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-13.6|<0.001
95959090|NCT02666664|191891115|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.96|-16.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-16|-26.96|<0.001
95822829|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.49||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-1.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-1.35|-21.63|0.028
95822830|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-1.88||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.15|9.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.38|-13.15|0.747
95822831|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-5.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.88|5.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.12|-16.88|0.303
95822832|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-62.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.64|-46.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.34|-78.64|<0.001
95822833|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-60.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.15|-44.02||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-44.02|-76.15|<0.001
95822834|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-63.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.64|-47.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-47.27|-79.64|<0.001
95854914|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.80|0.17|0.7817
95854915|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|
95854916|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.41|0.80|0.6646
95854917|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.30|0.73|0.8677
95822835|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|-36.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.72|-70.10|<0.001
95822836|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-9.14||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|2.9||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||2.90|-21.18|0.137
95822837|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|5.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.71|-18.39|0.311
95822838|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-11.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|0.52||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||0.52|-22.97|0.067
95822839|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-51.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.42|-34.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-34.66|-68.42|<0.001
95822840|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-57.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.27|-40.76||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.76|-73.27|<0.001
95822841|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-53.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.16|-36.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-36.26|-70.16|<0.001
95822842|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-30.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.83|-64.81|<0.001
95822843|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-3.52||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|9.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.85|-16.89|0.604
95959091|NCT02666664|191891116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-15.8|<0.001
95822844|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-8.78||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|3.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.94|-21.50|0.184
95822845|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-6.43||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.56|6.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||6.70|-19.56|0.340
95854918|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.38|0.79|0.7670
95854919|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.28|0.71|0.7487
95959092|NCT02666664|191891125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95959093|NCT03382561|191891164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: Arm A (CEN)/Arm B (CE)|||1.11|0.55|0.17
95959094|NCT01076244|191891169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|13.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.42|18.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.43|8.42|<0.0001
95959095|NCT01076244|191891171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||change from baseline|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.16|1.17|<0.0001
95959096|NCT01101997|191891202|SUPERIORITY||sucess proportion|0.853|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|0.91|||Chi-squared|||H0: p= 0.6 and Ha: p ≠ 0.6||.910|.773|<0.001
95959097|NCT01101997|191891203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95959098|NCT00736125|191891207|EQUIVALENCE|nonparametric data were analyzed using Mann Whitney U Tests|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95959099|NCT00736125|191891208|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95959100|NCT00014222|191891229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0007
95822846|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-40.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.67|-22.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-22.88|-57.67|<0.001
95822847|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-47.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.21|-30.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-30.27|-64.21|<0.001
95822848|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-43.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-25.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-25.72|-60.57|<0.001
95822849|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-44.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.55|-27.34||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-27.34|-61.55|<0.001
95822850|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.29||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.38||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.38|-9.80|0.548
95822851|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.51||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.18|-16.20|0.721
95959101|NCT00014222|191891230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.084
95822852|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.44||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|14.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||9 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.35|-13.47|0.951
95822853|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-29.13||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.66|-11.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-11.59|-46.66|0.005
95822854|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.62|-16.97||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-16.97|-51.62|0.001
95822855|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-36.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|-18.73||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-18.73|-53.80|<0.001
95854920|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.68|0.90|0.1882
95959102|NCT00935259|191891231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.1||0.455||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||||||0.455
95854921|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.72|0.84|0.3015
95959103|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.7||||0.014||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 16:00||||0.014
95959104|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 18:3n3||||<0.001
95959105|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.217||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n6||||0.217
95822856|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-34.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.77|-17.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-17.35|-51.77|<0.001
95822857|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|5.45||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|19.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||19.79|-8.89|0.455
95822858|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|14.65||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.65|-13.80|0.953
95822859|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-2.48||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|11.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||10 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.66|-16.63|0.731
95822860|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-22.63||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.97|-5.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-5.29|-39.97|0.024
95822861|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-26.87||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.12|-9.62||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-9.62|-44.12|0.009
95822862|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-30.76||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.36|-13.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-13.16|-48.36|0.003
95822863|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-27.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.51|-10.0||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.00|-44.51|0.007
95822864|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|4.66||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|18.82||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.82|-9.50|0.516
95822865|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|0.55||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|14.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||14.72|-13.63|0.939
95822866|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.53||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.86|9.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||11 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.80|-18.86|0.536
95822867|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-15.81||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.02|1.41||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.41|-33.02|0.107
95854922|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.32|0.73|0.9059
95854923|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.35|0.65|0.7125
95854924|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.07|0.43|0.0947
95854925|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.05|0.32|0.0686
96002135|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.158||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|64.304||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||64.304|0.398|0.322
95959106|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.666||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 20:3n9||||0.666
95959107|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.776||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:5n6||||0.776
96000459|NCT01287117|191977279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.03||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups.||2.03|0.95|0.0879
95822868|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-23.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.91|-6.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-6.51|-40.91|0.019
95822869|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-28.44||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.99|-10.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-10.88|-45.99|0.006
95822870|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-25.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.23|-7.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 400 mg - placebo) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-7.85|-42.23|0.012
95822871|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|9.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|23.08||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 200 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.08|-4.75|0.195
95854926|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||0.86|0.17|0.0175
95854927|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.30|0.09|0.3376
95854928|NCT03038100|191669666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-50.0||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|23.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||23.34|-100.00|0.5637
95854929|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.30|0.76|0.9770
95854930|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.80|0.7317
95854931|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.39|0.80|0.6937
95854932|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.18|0.66|0.3916
95854933|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.17|0.63|0.3363
95854934|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.55|0.75|0.6761
95854935|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.26|0.71|0.6997
95854936|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.72|0.82|0.3592
95854937|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.51|0.62|0.8798
95854938|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.39|0.43|0.3857
95822872|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|1.48||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|15.5||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 250 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||15.50|-12.54|0.835
95822873|NCT01559259|191617526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion|-4.41||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.61|9.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||12 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen 300 mg + Acetaminophen 500 mg - Ibuprofen 400 mg) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.79|-18.61|0.542
95822874|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|<0.001
95822875|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.01|0.79|< 0.001
95822876|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.99|0.73|< 0.001
95822877|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.95|0.65|< 0.001
95959108|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.018||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Cholesterol Ester 22:6n3||||0.018
95822878|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.37|-0.07|0.174
95822879|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.26|-0.18|0.722
95822880|NCT01559259|191617527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.11||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference and its associated 95% CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.11|-0.32|0.365
95822881|NCT02242435|191617548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.26
95822882|NCT02242435|191617549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Adjustment for baseline WOMAC score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.30
95959109|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.152||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Lysophosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.152
95959110|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-132.1||||0.007||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 18:2n6||||0.007
95959111|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8||||0.325||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:3n6||||0.325
95959112|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3||||0.419||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 20:4n6||||0.419
96002136|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.925||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|77.353||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.353|0.569|0.225
95822883|NCT02383420|191617550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.415
95822884|NCT02383420|191617551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Level of significance (alpha) = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0000
95822885|NCT00420004|191617552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.494
95822886|NCT01696994|191617573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.04|0.95|
95822887|NCT01696994|191617575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.48|||Poisson regression|||||1.48|0.99|
95822888|NCT01696994|191617585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.54|.91|
95822889|NCT00129701|191617623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.064
95822890|NCT03576066|191617626|OTHER|||||||0.6855|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.6855
95959113|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.07||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n3||||0.070
95822891|NCT03576066|191617626|OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||LS mean difference in HBeAg-negative participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.1750
95822892|NCT03576066|191617627|OTHER|||||||0.2916|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares (LS) mean difference in HBeAg-positive participants: ABI-H0731 + SOC NUC minus placebo + SOC NUC at Week 24||||0.2916
95822893|NCT01466660|191617640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.032||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.032|0.655|0.0891
95822894|NCT01466660|191617641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.944||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.944|0.595|0.0136
95822895|NCT01466660|191617642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.2343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|1.101||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|Stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|A Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation group and presence of baseline brain metastases was used to estimate the hazard ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||1.101|0.674|0.2343
95822896|NCT01466660|191617643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.307||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|2.223||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.223|0.768|0.3235
95822897|NCT01466660|191617646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138||||0.7856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|2.896||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Stratified for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Ratio calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||2.896|0.447|0.7856
95822898|NCT01466660|191617648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.23||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline sum of diameters, EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested.||0.23|-7.13|0.0657
95959114|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.769||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylcholine 22:5n6||||0.769
95959115|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Phosphatidylethanolamine 18:2n6||||<0.001
95822899|NCT01466660|191617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib minus Gefitinib|"EQ-5D UK utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.01|-0.06|0.1422
95822900|NCT01466660|191617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-5D Belgium utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.00|-0.06|0.0540
95822901|NCT01466660|191617649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for EGFR mutation group and presence of brain metastases at baseline|Difference calculated as Afatinib divided by Gefitinib|"EQ-VAS utility score.~Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested."||0.8|-3.9|0.2032
95822902|NCT00608023|191617665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95822903|NCT00608023|191617666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95822904|NCT00608023|191617667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95822905|NCT00608023|191617668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95959116|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-240.8||||0.016||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 16:00||||0.016
95822906|NCT00608023|191617669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95959117|NCT00935259|191891232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.833||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Triacylglycerol 20:3n9||||0.833
95822907|NCT00967694|191617682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed effects model was used to assess change in IOP over time using time-points as the primary independent variable with significance set at p \< 0.05. Power calculations showed that 20 subjects would allow detection of a 2.8-mmHg difference in IOP between any two time-points with 80% power assuming a standard deviation of 3.5 mmHg for IOP and a correlation between two time- points of 0.25||||>0.05
95822908|NCT06053541|191617683|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.24
95822909|NCT06053541|191617684|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.37
95822910|NCT06053541|191617685|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.03
95959118|NCT00935259|191891233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.027||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fasted||||0.027
95822911|NCT06053541|191617686|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in the general practice and Pulmonology: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.11
95822912|NCT06053541|191617686|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Beds in Adults ICU: For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||<0.01
95822913|NCT06053541|191617687|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.01
95822914|NCT06053541|191617688|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the evaluation of statistical significance, considering that the data do not follow a normal distribution and that the two samples are independent and not paired, the Mann-Whitney test was applied and a p value \< 0.05 was considered.||||0.07
95822915|NCT00245050|191617705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.16|||Chi-squared|||Based on published literature, it is estimated that the incidence of HFS for all grades is 49%. A decrease of 50% or more in the incidence of HFS in patients receiving pyridoxine would be of clinical significance. A sample size of 27 patients per group was chosen as this would allow us to detect a difference between HFS incidence of 49% and 11.5% (alpha=0.05, two-sided, power=0.80). Interim analysis was conducted after 30 patients were enrolled and had evaluable HFS assessment data.||2.16|0.536|<0.05
95822916|NCT00245050|191617706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.916
95822917|NCT00729677|191617713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95822918|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 antibody concentrations.||1.05|0.72|
95822919|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 antibody concentrations.||1.26|0.84|
95822920|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 antibody concentrations.||1.10|0.74|
95854939|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.85|0.39|0.6854
96002137|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.334||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|120.422||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||120.422|1.064|0.089
95959119|NCT00935259|191891233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0||||Endpoint was analyzed as appropriate for a 2-period crossover model using a mixed model with fixed terms of period and treatment with participants as a random factor.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured covariance and Kenward Roger degrees of freedom were assumed.||Fed||||<0.001
95959120|NCT00935259|191891235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:4n6 / c20:3n6||||0.247
95822921|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B antibody concentrations.||1.07|0.66|
95822922|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.2||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F antibody concentrations.||1.20|0.84|
95822923|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V antibody concentrations.||1.14|0.78|
95822924|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 antibody concentrations.||1.23|0.78|
95822925|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.67||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C antibody concentrations.||0.67|0.41|
95822926|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F antibody concentrations.||1.08|0.68|
95959121|NCT00935259|191891235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cholesterol ester c20:5n3 / c20:4n3||||0.151
95822927|NCT00758264|191617741|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Nimenrix +Synflorix Group and the Synflorix Group (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group over Synflorix Group) is above (\>) 0.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.38||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Synflorix vaccine when co-administered with Nimenrix conjugate vaccine versus Synflorix vaccine given alone (Nimenrix conjugate vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F antibody concentrations.||1.38|0.83|
95822928|NCT00758264|191617742|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|8.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup A (rSBA-MenA).||8.15|-1.09|
95822929|NCT00758264|191617742|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|6.22||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup C (rSBA-MenC).||6.22|-2.11|
95959122|NCT03269695|191891264|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|47.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||47.2|-41.0|1.0000
95959123|NCT03269695|191891265|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|37.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||37.0|-37.0|1.0000
95959124|NCT03269695|191891266|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|57.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||57.9|-23.8|0.4700
95959125|NCT03269695|191891267|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.0||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|45.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||45.6|-20.7|0.5221
95959126|NCT03269695|191891268|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.1||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|74.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||74.1|-23.7|0.3166
95822930|NCT00758264|191617742|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.76||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup W-135 (rSBA-MenW-135).||6.76|-0.94|
95822931|NCT00758264|191617742|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in percentage of subjects with serum bactericidal antibody using baby rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY) titer ≥ 1:8 (Nimenrix + Synflorix Group minus Nimenrix Group) is ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.6||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of Nimenrix conjugate vaccine when co-administered with Synflorix vaccine versus Nimenrix conjugate vaccine given alone (Synflorix vaccine was administered 1 month later) in terms of serum bactericidal assay using rabbit complement against Neisseria meningitides serogroup Y (rSBA-MenY).||4.6|-2.18|
95822932|NCT01988662|191617764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"H0: There is no difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept.~HA: There is a difference in the percent change in VEGF level after 3 months for patients with nAMD treated with ranibizumab compared to aflibercept."|Mean Difference (Net)|62.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.639||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.96|111.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||H0: μR = μA versus HA: μR ≠ μA||111.17|13.96|0.012
95822933|NCT01467037|191617774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.384|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.384|0.020|
95861960|NCT00669409|191682689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-2.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.2|-35.4|
95861961|NCT00669409|191682689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|9.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.1|-24.1|
95822934|NCT01467037|191617774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted OR|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.307|||||Conditional logistic regression was used. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \*100|||0.307|0.018|
95822935|NCT03831191|191617783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.81|0.04|0.638
95822936|NCT03831191|191617783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|8.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.76|0.05|0.773
95822937|NCT03831191|191617783|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.26|0.05|0.671
95822938|NCT03831191|191617784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|19.9|||Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-27.2|>0.999
95822939|NCT03831191|191617784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|30.8|||Fisher Exact|||||30.8|-20.7|>0.999
95822940|NCT03831191|191617784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.2|-40.0|0.107
95822941|NCT03831191|191617785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-18.1|>0.999
95822942|NCT03831191|191617785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.1|||Fisher Exact|||||14.1|-22.7|>0.999
95822943|NCT03831191|191617785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||||11.2|-22.7|>0.999
95822944|NCT03831191|191617786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
95822945|NCT03831191|191617786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
95822946|NCT03831191|191617786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
95822947|NCT03831191|191617787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.55||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|19.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.45|-6.36|0.310
95822948|NCT03831191|191617787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.56||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|18.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.63|-7.50|0.393
95822949|NCT03831191|191617787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-8.91|0.564
95822950|NCT03831191|191617788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.61||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|24.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.05|-8.82|0.356
95822951|NCT03831191|191617788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|19.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.30|-14.64|0.783
95861962|NCT00669409|191682689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|0.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.9|-31.9|
95861963|NCT00669409|191682689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|-9.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-9.5|-53.1|
95861964|NCT00669409|191682690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-16.9|
95861965|NCT00669409|191682690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-3.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.4|-36.7|
95861966|NCT00669409|191682690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-24.2|
95861967|NCT00669409|191682690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|3.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.0|-29.8|
95861968|NCT00669409|191682690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-12.0|-55.6|
95959127|NCT03269695|191891269|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|20.0||||0.5234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|58.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||58.5|-22.9|0.5234
95959128|NCT03269695|191891270|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-25.0||||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||29.1|-69.6|0.7393
95959129|NCT03269695|191891271|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.8||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.67|||ANCOVA|||||16.67|-5.08|0.2705
95959130|NCT03269695|191891272|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|48.2||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|84.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||84.7|-4.4|0.0732
95959131|NCT03269695|191891273|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|30.0||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|69.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999)|||||69.2|-18.4|0.2633
95959132|NCT03269695|191891274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 2||6.54|0.15|1.0000
95959133|NCT03269695|191891274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|10.0|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 4||10.00|0.23|0.6691
95959134|NCT03269695|191891274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.6248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.4|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 8||4.40|0.09|0.6248
95959135|NCT03269695|191891274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|8.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||At Week 12||8.30|0.12|0.9965
95959136|NCT05043883|191891282|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome specificity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the specificity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Specificity is the ability to correctly detect true negative values of the ground-truth negative EGM classifications. The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that specificity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.006
95959137|NCT05043883|191891282|SUPERIORITY|This clinical investigation is intended to demonstrate that the performance of the PVI Analyzer software is superior to clinically relevant performance level, and therefore the study is designed as a 1-sample superiority test of the sampled outcome Sensitivity. The lower bound 95% CI (α=0.05) and at a statistical power of 95% (β=0.05).|Percentage|86.0||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The success of the PVI Analyzer output was assumed to follow a binominal distribution with a given true proportion of 87.50%. It was tested whether the sensitivity was superior to the 80% limit.|Z-test|A one-tailed test with a significance level of 95% (α = 0.05) was applied.||Sensitivity of the PVI analyzer is determined by the capability to detect true positive among all ground-truth positive EGM classifications.The PVI Analyzer software classifies an EGM in positive (isolated) or negative (non-isolated), compared to the SOC outcomes. EGMs prior-isolation were labeled as ground-truth negative (non-isolated), EGMs after isolation as ground-truth positive (isolated). The null hypothesis is that sensitivity is lower or equal to the superiority limit 80%.||||0.004
95959138|NCT05043883|191891283|OTHER|Descriptive|Percentage|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.39|||||Only one AE was reported for one subject ( which was considered moderate in severity and not related to the device, but related to the SOC procedure.|A descriptive analysis was performed to evaluate the AEs and device deficiencies, estimating the percentages and 95% CI on each category.||5.39|0.02|
95959139|NCT05043883|191891284|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|94.0||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.00002
96002138|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.026||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|96.916||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||96.916|0.797|0.143
96002139|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.468||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.468|0.370|0.711
95861969|NCT00669409|191682691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|20.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.4|-12.9|
95861970|NCT00669409|191682691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-36.5|
95861971|NCT00669409|191682691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|10.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-23.3|
95861972|NCT00669409|191682691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|1.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-31.2|
95959140|NCT05043883|191891284|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|82.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Radiofrequency procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.32
95822952|NCT03831191|191617788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.52||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.43|-9.40|0.414
95959141|NCT05043883|191891284|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|79.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that specificity is below 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a specificity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Specificity was performed.||||0.66
95822953|NCT03070171|191617791|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-tz of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.46909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.44605|115.97833|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.97833|101.44605|
95822954|NCT03070171|191617792|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.9587|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.78627|116.63654|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||116.63654|101.78627|
95822955|NCT03070171|191617793|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.61507|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61938|115.09714|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.09714|100.61938|
96000460|NCT01287117|191977279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.14||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||2.14|1.04|0.0301
95822956|NCT03070171|191617794|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of Cmax of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|106.69566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.50139|114.4101|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.41010|99.50139|
95822957|NCT03070171|191617795|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of total dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|107.83324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.25584|114.8379|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||114.83790|101.25584|
95822958|NCT03070171|191617796|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by ensuring that the T/R ratio of AUC0-∞ of free dabigatran was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|T/R Ratio|108.43158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87254|115.41292|||ANOVA||Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA. Ratio calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet (T) divided by Dabigatran Etexilate capsule (R).|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'.||115.41292|101.87254|
95822959|NCT05319899|191617879|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|140.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.94|166.26||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||166.26|118.94|
95822960|NCT05319899|191617879|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|77.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.67|91.8||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||91.80|65.67|
95822961|NCT05319899|191617880|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|128.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.99|145.52||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||145.52|112.99|
95822962|NCT05319899|191617880|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.54|108.88||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||108.88|84.54|
95959142|NCT05043883|191891284|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|92.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Computed p values are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is below 80% and alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||Automated PVI Analyzer classification of PV isolation in SR by Cryo-balloon procedure from EP procedure until study completion at discharge (an average of 24 hours), with a sensitivity superior to 80%. A superiority Z-test for Sensitivity was performed.||||0.0008
96000461|NCT01287117|191977279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.36||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cox proportional hazards model|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||3.36|1.63|<0.0001
95959143|NCT05043883|191891285|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|96.0||||5e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||To compute the proportional agreement between two non-overlapping samples, a one-sample Z-test was performed with the alternative hypothesis that agreement was above 90%, which was considered sufficient for a real-time assessment.|Z-test|||This endpoint used the same EGMs extracted for the primary endpoint, including only EGMs from T Baseline and T Final measurements from patients in sinus rhythm.||||0.000005
95959144|NCT05043883|191891286|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|54.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the specificity are below 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||1
95959145|NCT05043883|191891286|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|100.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||The p values calculated are the result of running a one sample z-test with a null hypothesis that the sensitivity are below 80% and an alternative hypothesis that sensitivity is at or above 80%.|Z-test|||The data analysis and processing were similar to those of the primary endpoint, but taking into consideration that subjects shall be in non-sinus rhythm during the duration of the EGM snippet. Apart from this, the processing was the same and the threshold was also defined as 50: values below 50 were classified as baseline, while values at or above 50 were considered as isolated veins.||||0.0007
95959146|NCT05043883|191891287|SUPERIORITY||Percentage (%)|87.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|The estimate was done using a one-sample Z-test with a null hypothesis that sensitivity is at or below 80% and a 95% significance level.||This secondary endpoint aimed to determine the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer at the time of isolation, which requires the EGMs at the T PVI. A Z-test for sensitivity was performed to assess the sensitivity of the PVI Analyzer analysis to identify expert-defined isolation during the PVI ablation.||||0.04
95822963|NCT00344318|191617906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 1 was computed.|Difference in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.88||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||4.88|-1.51|
95822964|NCT00344318|191617906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 2 was computed|Difference in percentage|-1.48||||||95.0|-6.05|1.92||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||1.92|-6.05|
95822965|NCT00344318|191617906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Towards this, standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C after Dose 3 was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|6.19||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||6.19|-1.02|
95822966|NCT00344318|191617906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix™ minus Prevenar™\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C across doses was computed.|Difference in percentage|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.01||||||Analysis aimed to demonstrate that Synflorix™ vaccine administered as a 3-dose primary vaccination course (either at 6-10-14 weeks or at 2-4-6 months of age), is non-inferior to Prevenar™ in terms of the incidence of post-immunization rectal fever \>39.0°C, when co-administered with Tritanrix™-HepB/Hiberix™ and Polio Sabin™ or Poliorix™ vaccines.||8.01|-2.65|
95822967|NCT01606176|191618002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.39||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.4|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.40|-1.18|0.332
95822968|NCT01606176|191618003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-29.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.08|-11.02|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as a factor.||-11.02|-48.08|0.002
95822969|NCT01606176|191618004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.34||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.00|-0.68|0.052
95822970|NCT01606176|191618005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|2.56|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||2.56|-8.14|0.300
95822971|NCT01606176|191618006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.66||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|1.1|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||1.10|-4.42|0.233
95822972|NCT01606176|191618007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.28||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.91|-0.36|0.387
95822973|NCT01606176|191618008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.47||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|18.51|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||18.51|-21.56|1.000
95822974|NCT01606176|191618009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.86||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.26|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline pain score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Box Scale-11 Pain Score = Baseline Pain Score + Treatment"||0.26|-1.97|0.128
95822975|NCT01606176|191618010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-31.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.07|-8.47|||ANOVA|||The proportions were compared between treatment groups using ANOVA with treatment as a factor.||-8.47|-55.07|0.009
95822976|NCT01606176|191618011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.32||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.16|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline sleep disturbance score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Sleep Disturbance Score = Baseline Sleep Disturbance Score + Treatment"||0.16|-0.80|0.184
95822977|NCT01606176|191618012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.18||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|1.68|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Pain Disability Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Pain Disability Index Score = Baseline Pain Disability Index Score + Treatment"||1.68|-12.05|0.134
95822978|NCT01606176|191618013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.77||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score = Baseline Total Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) Score + Treatment"||-0.36|-7.17|0.031
95822979|NCT01606176|191618014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.04||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.88|||ANCOVA|||"The change was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The significance of the treatment effect, after adjusting for baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index score, was assessed using the F-test from the ANCOVA. The model was as follows:~Change in Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score = Baseline Total Spitzer Quality of Life Index Score + Treatment"||0.88|-0.79|0.915
95822980|NCT01606176|191618015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|3.95||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|27.47|||Fisher Exact|||"The proportion of patients who considered their condition Very Much Improved or Much Improved was compared between treatment groups using a Fisher's Exact Test."||27.47|-21.85|1.00
95822981|NCT01262560|191618017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%).||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in liquid form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.92
95822982|NCT01262560|191618017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Due to the skewed nature of the data, median was reported instead of mean.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Each arm had less than the designed sample size. Therefore the statistical power was reduced (76% instead of 80%)||Null hypothesis: Manuka honey in lozenge form is/not effective at reducing esophagitis-related pain, measured by mean change score from 0 to 4 weeks. A 2-sample t-test for difference of means with alpha 0.05 after adjusting for multiple comparisons (1-sided with overall alpha 0.1 before the Bonferroni adjustment) and 80% statistical power for each hypothesis test requires 45 patients per arm to detect \>= 15% relative reduction (absolute difference of mean change score of 3.1; effect size=0.53).||||0.93
95822983|NCT01262560|191618018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.87
95822984|NCT01262560|191618018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.46
95822985|NCT01262560|191618018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0023
95854940|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.70|0.11|0.4533
95822986|NCT01262560|191618018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0025
95822987|NCT01262560|191618018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Each explanatory variable is reported separately.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with NRPS score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
95822988|NCT01262560|191618019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.70
95959147|NCT05043883|191891288|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||McNemar test assumes as a null hypothesis that the two datasets cause the PVI Analyzer to have a similar proportion of errors.|McNemars test|A paired McNemars test with an alpha value of 0.05, was applied to analyze the differences in classification performance.||A paired McNemar's Chi-Square test was performed to analyze the differences in classification performances||||0.0002
95822989|NCT01262560|191618019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.71
95822990|NCT01262560|191618019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.0002
95822991|NCT01262560|191618019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0051
95822992|NCT01262560|191618019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with dysphagia score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||<0.0001
95822993|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.086
95822994|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.20
95822995|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.44
95822996|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||0.0066
95959148|NCT01721746|191891292|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||||From stratified cox proportional hazard model with treatment group as a single covariate, stratified by BRAF status, prior anti-CTLA-4 benefit, and PD-L1 status (IVRS source)|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.08|0.68|
95959149|NCT01721746|191891293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.78|1.36|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab 3 mg/kg (IV) over Investigator's Choice (Dacarbazine or Carboplatin+Paclitaxel)||1.36|0.78|
95822997|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC global health status (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.36
95822998|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Explanatory variables are reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Liquid Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.94
95822999|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Treatment (Lozenge Honey vs. Supportive Care) is reported here."||||0.58
95823000|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Percentage of esophagus is reported here."||||0.28
95823001|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each exploratory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Opioid use is reported here."||||<0.0001
95959150|NCT01721746|191891294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.16||||||For \<5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||3.16|0.44|
95823002|NCT01262560|191618020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately.||"A linear fixed effects model using maximum likelihood estimation was run with EORTC pain score (baseline, weekly during treatment and 12 weeks from the end of treatment) as the outcome of interest. Percentage of esophagus (V60\>=30% as reference level), opioid use (yes as reference level), time, and treatment arm were factors in the model. The results for each explanatory variable are reported separately. Time is reported here."||||0.28
95823003|NCT01262560|191618021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95823004|NCT01262560|191618021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
95823005|NCT01262560|191618022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95959151|NCT01721746|191891294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|19.08||||||For \>=5% PD-L1 expression. Ratio of Nivolumab over Investigator's Choice||19.08|1.92|
95959152|NCT01721746|191891295|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Positive||1.01|0.50|
95959153|NCT01721746|191891296|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||||From unstratified Cox proportional hazard model|PD-L1 Negative||1.41|0.75|
95959154|NCT03599622|191891303|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|19.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.5|-11.0|0.5812
95823006|NCT01262560|191618022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95823007|NCT01262560|191618023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95823008|NCT01262560|191618023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95959155|NCT03599622|191891303|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.5|0.6|0.5812
95959156|NCT03599622|191891303|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|7.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||7.6|-20.2|0.3720
95959157|NCT03599622|191891303|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.5|0.3|0.3720
95959158|NCT03599622|191891304|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.3||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||26.3|3.7|0.0198
96002140|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|5.328||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.328|0.508|0.441
95823009|NCT01262560|191618026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.39
95823010|NCT01262560|191618026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Because data was not normally distributed, this test was used instead of the t-test.||Each experimental arm was compared to the control arm (i.e. 2 comparisons) using two-sample t-tests. Forty-five patients with data in each arm, provides 80% power to detect an effect size (in standard deviation units) of 0.60 and 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.69 using a two-sided T-test with a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05 for each comparison (overall alpha 0.10). Due to the lack of prior data on the PRO-CTCAE, moderate effect sizes were used.||||0.69
95823011|NCT01932372|191618028|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|4.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|7.03||||||||7.03|3.34|
95823012|NCT01932372|191618028|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.96||||||||6.96|3.31|
95823013|NCT01932372|191618028|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.51||||||||4.51|0.95|
95823014|NCT01932372|191618028|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.47||||||||6.47|2.24|
95823015|NCT01932372|191618028|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.09||||||||6.09|2.08|
95823016|NCT01932372|191618028|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|6.25||||||||6.25|2.31|
95823017|NCT01932372|191618029|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio (unadjusted)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.19||||||||2.19|1.16|
95823018|NCT01932372|191618029|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.13||||||||2.13|1.12|
95823019|NCT01932372|191618029|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 1)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.99||||||||2.99|1.16|
95823020|NCT01932372|191618029|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 2)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.43||||||||2.43|1.06|
95823021|NCT01932372|191618029|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 3)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.35||||||||2.35|1.00|
95823022|NCT01932372|191618029|OTHER||Hazard ratio (adjusted 4)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.22||||||||2.22|1.03|
95823023|NCT01932372|191618030|OTHER||Mortality rate ratio (unadjusted)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.78||||||||5.78|1.99|
95823024|NCT01932372|191618030|OTHER||Hazard ratio (unadjusted)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.61||||||||5.61|1.93|
95823025|NCT05285644|191618040|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|42.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|42.0|26.9|<0.0001
95823026|NCT05285644|191618041|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||-1.0|-9.1|0.0138
95823027|NCT05285644|191618042|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|8.6||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center||The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|8.6|5.8|<0.0001
95854941|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|-33.33||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|75.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||75.44|-100.00|0.3173
95854942|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.47|0.87|0.3658
95854943|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.36|0.80|0.7619
95854944|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.81|0.6580
95959159|NCT03599622|191891304|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.8|1.2|0.0198
95959160|NCT03599622|191891304|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|19.0||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||19.0|-2.6|0.1584
95823028|NCT05285644|191618043|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Difference in Percentages|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|34.0|19.5|<0.0001
95823029|NCT05285644|191618044|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|7.5||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||7.5|4.9|<0.0001
95823030|NCT05285644|191618045|OTHER|Difference (2 sided)|Difference in Percentages|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|41.4||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|Pearson's Chi-squared test||Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.|For binary endpoint, the underlying continuous measurement of unanesthetized Schirmer score was imputed, change score calculated and then dichotomized to ascertain attainment of greater than or equal to 10 millimeter increase from pre-drop baseline.|41.4|24.8|<0.0001
95823031|NCT05285644|191618046|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||9.0|6.0|<0.0001
95854945|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.57|0.88|0.2726
95959161|NCT03599622|191891304|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||6.1|0.7|0.1584
95959162|NCT03599622|191891305|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|23.6||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||23.6|-8.2|0.3464
95854946|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.69|0.6973
95854947|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.64|0.80|0.4470
95959163|NCT03599622|191891305|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||2.8|0.7|0.3464
95959164|NCT03599622|191891305|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|14.7||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||14.7|-17.0|0.8857
95823032|NCT05285644|191618047|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.7||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.7|-7.3|0.2184
95823033|NCT05285644|191618048|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.266|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-7.5|2.1||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.1|-7.5|0.2660
95959165|NCT03599622|191891305|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.9|0.5|0.8857
95823034|NCT05285644|191618049|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.0||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||2.0|-7.2|0.2741
95823035|NCT05285644|191618050|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-8.2|0.1590
95823036|NCT05285644|191618051|OTHER|Difference (2-sided)|Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.3||Multiple imputation methodology was implemented in handling missing data, both related to and unrelated to intercurrent events.|ANCOVA|Based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with effects of treatment, baseline, and analysis center|Difference equals 0.003% AR-15512 minus AR-15512 Vehicle|The primary estimand targeted the treatment effect attributable to the randomly assigned treatment, regardless of compliance to study treatment and assuming subjects who discontinued due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or disallowed concurrent treatments followed the behavior of subjects in the reference arm for the duration of the study and subjects who discontinued for other reasons would have followed the behavior of subjects who were still in the study under same randomly assigned treatment.||1.3|-9.2|0.1369
95823037|NCT00349349|191618067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.39|0.6||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.60|0.39|<0.0001
95854948|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.21|0.68|0.5150
95854949|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.82|0.88|0.2103
95959166|NCT03599622|191891306|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|22.9||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||22.9|-6.7|0.2841
95959167|NCT03599622|191891306|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||3.1|0.7|0.2841
95823038|NCT00349349|191618067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.33|0.53||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.53|0.33|<0.0001
95823039|NCT00349349|191618067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of responders|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.35|0.85||The p value is testing the hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 15% versus the response rate is not equal to 15%.|Two-sided exact binomial test||Two-sided 95.3% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution.|||0.85|0.35|<0.001
95823040|NCT04114071|191618124|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t tests was used to examine the difference score for each of the four outcome measures of interest (steps, WC, weight, and HbA1c) between intervention and control groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95823041|NCT01263015|191618133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.2||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||12.2|2.3|0.003
95823042|NCT01263015|191618135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.1||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 96:The estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||13.1|1.2|0.016
95959168|NCT03599622|191891306|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|9.2||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||9.2|-17.6|0.5417
95823043|NCT01263015|191618135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG + ABC/3TC minus EFV/TDF/FTC) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \>-10%.|Difference in percentage|8.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.6||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Week 144:Estimated value reflects the percentage on DTG + ABC/3TC minus the percentage on EFV/TDF/FTC.|||14.6|1.9|0.010
95823044|NCT01263015|191618138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted mean is the estimated mean change from baseline (BL) in CD4 + Cell Count at Week 144 in each arm calculated from a repeated measures model including the following covariates: treatment, visit, BL plasma HIV-1 RNA, BL CD4 cell count, treatment\*visit interaction, BL HIV-1 RNA\*visit interaction and BL CD4 cell count\*visit interaction. No assumptions were made about the correlations between a par.'s readings of CD4 i.e. the correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for the test of superiority.|Repeated Measure Mixed Model|||||||0.003
95823045|NCT01461928|191618159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.53||Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address its primary objective.|Stratified Long-rank|||The stratified log rank test p-value was derived using the following randomization stratification strata : Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) risk category (low, intermediate, high) and indolent NHL subtype (follicular lymphoma, non-follicular lymphoma). Power at time of final analysis was less than 40%. Final analysis was not able to address it's primary objective.||1.53|0.37|= 0.410
95823046|NCT01962987|191618172|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of patients between Test and Reference to be contained within -20%, + 20%, using the Per-Protocol Population.|(Test-Ref) Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|9.42|||||Applicable to Percentage of Subjects with Cure (100% complete AK clearance at day 90)|||9.42|-8.06|
95959169|NCT03599622|191891306|SUPERIORITY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by geographic region (US, Japan, Rest of World), prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi; Exposed/Naive), and concomitant corticosteroid use (Yes/No).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||1.8|0.3|0.5417
95823047|NCT01962987|191618172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0010
95959170|NCT03599622|191891307|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4.3|
95959171|NCT03599622|191891307|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.1||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||3 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.1|-3.7|0.0428
95959172|NCT03599622|191891307|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.0|-4.8|
95959173|NCT03599622|191891307|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted means, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values are from an analysis of covariance model with factors for geographic region, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, and concomitant corticosteroid use, and the baseline value as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4||Based on a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.025.|ANCOVA||6 mg BMS-986165 (numerator) vs Placebo (denominator)|||-0.4|-4.1|0.0177
95959174|NCT03599622|191891307|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change From Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||||||||0.3|-2.6|
95854950|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.66|0.68|0.7969
95959175|NCT03599622|191891307|EQUIVALENCE|Mean Change from Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-9.7|
95959176|NCT00338949|191891319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
95959177|NCT00338949|191891320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958
95959178|NCT03713320|191891334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of the treatment groups is based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test controlling for the number of tumors at screening (at least one tumor at screening versus no tumors at screening) and number of prognostic factors (0-1 versus 2 prognostic factors). Prognostic factors include age at diagnosis \> 60 years and lactate dehydrogenase level \> upper limit of normal at diagnosis. Number of subjects achieving ORR4 and exact binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals are presented.||||.9539
95959179|NCT03713320|191891335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (cobomarsen/vorinostat) and p-value comparing the treatment groups is based on a Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors cobomarsen over vorinostat.||||0.011
95959180|NCT00909532|191891349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.6||The primary and key secondary endpoints were analyzed using Hochberg's step-up procedure: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, CFQ-R resp domain (Wk24) and sweat chloride (Wk24)(α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted FEV1.||12.6|8.6|<0.0001
95959181|NCT00909532|191891350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis of this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were obtained from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the continuous baseline values of age and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1),using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.5|8.5|<0.0001
95959182|NCT00909532|191891351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|11.4||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for the respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, domain score, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.4|4.7|<0.0001
95959183|NCT00909532|191891351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for the CFQ-R respiratory domain score endpoint was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age,sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1,using unstructured covariance matrix.||11.9|5.3|<0.0001
95959184|NCT00909532|191891352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-44.5||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.5|-51.3|<0.0001
95959185|NCT00909532|191891352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|-44.7||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for age, sweat chloride, and percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||-44.7|-51.5|<0.0001
96000462|NCT01287117|191977280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0148
96000463|NCT01287117|191977280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||<0.0001
96000464|NCT01287117|191977280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
96000465|NCT01287117|191977281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.0118
96002141|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.351||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|35.172||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||35.172|1.383|0.032
96002142|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.059||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|21.086||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.086|0.693|0.175
95854951|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.91|0.60|0.8300
96002143|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.225||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|28.29||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||28.290|1.039|0.071
96002144|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.348|34.323||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||34.323|1.348|0.035
96002145|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.064||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.912|45.64||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||45.640|1.912|0.011
96002146|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.949||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|44.892||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||44.892|1.881|0.012
96002147|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.344||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|35.134||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||35.134|1.381|0.032
96002148|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.514||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.055|48.354||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||48.354|2.055|0.008
96002149|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.238||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.222|10.148||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.148|1.222|0.026
96002150|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|10.714||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.714|1.311|0.019
96002151|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.626||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|6.951||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.951|1.101|0.037
96002152|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|7.263||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.263|1.167|0.027
96002153|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|3.968||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.968|0.753|0.210
96002154|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|4.634||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.634|0.923|0.087
96002155|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|6.157||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.157|0.795|0.148
96002156|NCT04003155|191981636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.262||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|9.194||Based on logistic regression with treatment group and smoking status (current vs former/never) as factors and mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms at baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.194|1.329|0.015
96002157|NCT02435173|191981644|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and log10 transformed baseline SPD as a covariate.||||-0.11|-0.37|0.0012
96002158|NCT02435173|191981645|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|40.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.51|51.75|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||51.75|28.51|<0.0001
96002159|NCT02345161|191981661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.194|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.194|0.148|<0.001
96002160|NCT02345161|191981662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.226|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.226|0.131|<0.001
96002161|NCT02345161|191981663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.0|-3.5|<0.001
96002162|NCT02345161|191981664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.2|-5.5|0.065
96002163|NCT02345161|191981665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.84|0.30|<0.001
96002164|NCT02345161|191981666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.97|||Mixed effect repeated measures model|||||0.97|-0.28|0.279
96002165|NCT02345161|191981667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.9|0.817
96002166|NCT02345161|191981668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.1|0.767
95861973|NCT00669409|191682691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-6.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.4|-50.0|
95959186|NCT00909532|191891353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at Week 24|0.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.71||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 24 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.71|0.23|0.0016
95959187|NCT00909532|191891353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard at 48 Weeks|0.46||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05); test 3 using Hochberg's on time to pulmonary exacerbation (Wk 48) and weight (Wk 48).|Regression, Cox|||Time to first pulmonary exacerbation through Week 48 was analyzed using Cox regression. The model included a covariate for treatment and adjustments for the age group and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity at baseline.||0.73|0.28|0.0012
95959188|NCT00909532|191891354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect, and intercept, visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||3.7|1.8|<0.0001
96002167|NCT02345161|191981669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.86|||Generalized linear modeL|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.86|0.49|0.002
96002168|NCT02345161|191981670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.85|||Generalized Linear model|Generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution||||0.85|0.37|0.006
96002169|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.66|-1.25|<0.001
96002170|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
96002171|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.78|-1.57|<0.001
96002172|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.91|-1.75|<0.001
96002173|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.97|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.97|-1.85|<0.001
96002174|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.91|-1.79|<0.001
96002175|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.36|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.36|-0.67|<0.001
96002176|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
96002177|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.48|-0.90|<0.001
96002178|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.52|-0.97|<0.001
96002179|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.56|-1.03|<0.001
96002180|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.54|-1.01|<0.001
96002181|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 1-4|||-0.09|-0.26|<0.001
96002182|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 5-8|||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
96002183|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 9-12|||-0.05|-0.28|0.004
96002184|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 13-16|||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
96002185|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 17-20|||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
96002186|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.10|-0.35|<0.001
96002187|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||-0.18|-0.37|<0.001
96002188|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.23|-0.46|<0.001
96002189|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.21|-0.47|<0.001
95959189|NCT00909532|191891354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Analyzed in sequence: test 1, primary (α=0.05); test 2, using Hochberg's step-up procedure on CFQ-R resp domain(Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24) (α=0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a linear mixed effects (LME) model with treatment as a fixed effect and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for age group and baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.1|1.3|0.0001
95854952|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.55|0.53|0.6987
96000466|NCT01287117|191977281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||||0.0226
96000467|NCT01287117|191977281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly itch severity score (\< 13 vs ≥ 13) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
96000468|NCT01287117|191977282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.34||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.51||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||-0.51|-4.17|0.0124
96000469|NCT01287117|191977282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.27||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||-1.27|-5.05|0.0012
96000470|NCT01287117|191977282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-5.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-3.87||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline weekly size of largest hive score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-3.87|-7.59|<0.0001
96000471|NCT01287117|191977283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.7956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.28||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||2.28|-1.76|0.7956
96000472|NCT01287117|191977283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.31||||0.2286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups.||0.84|-3.46|0.2286
96000473|NCT01287117|191977283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-2.2||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|ANCOVA|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline overall DLQI score (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||-2.20|-5.96|<0.0001
96000474|NCT01287117|191977284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4867||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4867
96000475|NCT01287117|191977284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1747||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.1747
95861974|NCT00669409|191682692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|24.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||24.0|-9.4|
96000476|NCT01287117|191977284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratification variables included in the analysis were presence of angioedema at baseline (yes vs no) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
96000477|NCT01287117|191977285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 75 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.4580
96000478|NCT01287117|191977285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 150 mg groups. The p-value was not evaluated for statistical significance in accordance with the type I error rate control plan.||||0.2087
96000479|NCT01287117|191977285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A pre-specified hierarchical order of testing was employed to adjust for the comparison of multiple omalizumab groups to the placebo group in order to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05 (2-sided) within each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Covariates included in the analysis were baseline UAS7 (\< median vs ≥ median) and baseline weight (\< 80 kg vs ≥ 80 kg).||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the placebo and the omalizumab 300 mg groups.||||<0.0001
96000480|NCT03191396|191977293|NON_INFERIORITY|HbA1c non-inferiority was tested using a non-inferiority margin of 0.3.|Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56||The non-inferiority p-value is calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3.|ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from subjects within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor as categorical effect and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
96000481|NCT03191396|191977293|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-0.56|-0.82|<0.0001
96000482|NCT03191396|191977294|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-3.09|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide 1.0 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg|||-3.09|-4.57|<0.0001
96000483|NCT01438710|191977334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change (i.e., absolute change) from baseline (Day 7, pre-conversion) on FTM overall score to Day 14 (post-conversion) was evaluated using paired t-test (at 0.05 significance level, two sided). An estimation of mean change from baseline and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided.||||0.0048
96000484|NCT00945750|191977340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the AUC geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01||||||90.0|0.94|1.09||||||||1.09|0.94|
96000485|NCT00945750|191977341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the Cmax geometric mean ratio (famotidine CT without water/famotidine FCT with water) is within the hypothesized interval (0.80 and 1.25), then the primary hypothesis of bioequivalence between CT without water and FCT with water is accepted.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
96000486|NCT00945750|191977342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.04|1.2||||||||1.20|1.04|
96000487|NCT00945750|191977343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||||90.0|1.02|1.24||||||||1.24|1.02|
96000488|NCT01240811|191977359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
96000489|NCT01240811|191977359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
96000490|NCT01240811|191977360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Difference in paired change in Nugent score from baseline to 2 months||||0.08
96000491|NCT01240811|191977361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of H2O2 producing Lactobacilli species by qPCR||||0.46
96000492|NCT01240811|191977361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in quantity of Garnerella vaginalis species by qPCR||||0.62
96000493|NCT01543490|191977368|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.6||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.|||16.6|0.2|0.0354
96000494|NCT01543490|191977369|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoint was 2-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05, and missing data imputed using the LOCF approach.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.0||The p-value was from a 2-sided Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|The point estimate of treatment effect (ISV-305 compared with Vehicle) was reported using Fisher's exact test.|The risk difference was obtained by taking the difference in proportions (ISV-305 minus Vehicle). A 2-sided exact unconditional 95% CI was calculated.|||15.0|-1.3|0.1036
96000495|NCT00474630|191977394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.34|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-4.34|<0.001
95959190|NCT01062269|191891357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Differences between test products were assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance. If sequence was not found to be statistically significant(p\>0.05),then it was removed from the final model.|measures analysis of variance|Differences between test powders assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons between treatments by Scheffe procedure.||"The BASA scale components were derived from the parameters best shown to differentiate acceptability between different BAS preparations (taste and texture),as well as other parameters useful for differentiating between different BAS preparations(appearance and mixability). The scale was then weighted based upon an Importance of Acceptability questionnaire regarding the individual scale components. The developed scale should reasonably allow for future comparisons of differing BAS formulations."||||<0.05
95823048|NCT01814878|191618185|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study drug treatment group was considered non-inferior to comparator treatment group, if lower limit of the confidence interval was larger than -2.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.68||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.93||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||Non-inferiority comparison for Tramadol Hydrochloride/Acetaminophen ER to Tramadol HCl/Acetaminophen IR was performed.||1.93|-11.29|0.1648
95959191|NCT02604342|191891369|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.33|||Stratified log-rank test||Estimated hazard ratio obtained from stratified Cox model with treatment group as covariate.|||0.33|0.12|<0.001
95959192|NCT02604342|191891370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in C-ORR|0.667|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86|||Chi-squared|||95% confidence interval of the difference (alectinib - chemotherapy) computed using Hauck-Anderson approach.||0.86|0.39|<0.001
95959193|NCT01702519|191891393|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25|Treatment Ratio|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.982|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the two treatments.||0.982|0.912|
95959194|NCT01702519|191891394|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio (Test/Ref) of geometric means was included in the limit of 0.80 - 1.25.|Treatment Ratio|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.0|||Treatment Ratio||The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated|Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments.||1.00|0.92|
95959195|NCT02725008|191891418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|10.07|||Chi-squared|||||10.07|0.54|0.3
95959196|NCT02725008|191891419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
96000496|NCT00474630|191977395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.71|<0.001
96000497|NCT00474630|191977396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.50|2.15|<0.001
95959197|NCT01149876|191891421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95959198|NCT01149876|191891421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
95959199|NCT01149876|191891421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
95959200|NCT00988117|191891455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tscore|5.19|||<|0.01||95.0||||t-tests were statistically thresholded using the joint probability distribution method to correct for multiple comparisons, p \< 0.01 for voxel height and p \< 0.05 for cluster extent|t-test, 2 sided|A mask included only those regions where the patients showed abnormally low fALFF at either timepoint relative to a sample of 15 age-matched controls.||"Each voxel's BOLD signal time series was detrended and transformed to the frequency domain. We divided the sum of the square roots across the 0.01-0.08 Hz range by that across the entire frequency range (0-0.25 Hz).~fALFF group comparisons were evaluated using t-tests corrected for multiple comparisons. To determine if there were treatment-associated changes in brain activity, we compared voxel-wise fALFF in the patients at baseline to post-treatment."||||<0.01
95823049|NCT01814878|191618186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.45||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.45|-1.10|0.4082
95823050|NCT01814878|191618186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.48||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.48|-2.68|0.1720
95959201|NCT00988117|191891456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation coefficient|-0.82|||<|0.01||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left inferior frontal gyrus / premotor falff change||||<.01
95959202|NCT00988117|191891456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.35||||0.36||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.36
95959203|NCT00988117|191891457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's r correlation|0.18||||0.58||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||correlation with left premotor / inferior frontal gyri falff change||||.58
96000498|NCT00474630|191977397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
96000499|NCT00474630|191977398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.84|||ANCOVA|||||4.84|1.80|<0.001
96000500|NCT00474630|191977399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.21|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-16.21|0.065
95823051|NCT01814878|191618186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|0.11||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||0.11|-6.09|0.0589
95823052|NCT01814878|191618187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1542
95861975|NCT00669409|191682692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-1.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.2|-34.4|
95959204|NCT00988117|191891457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson's correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.41||95.0||||This p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||correlation with left supplementary motor area falff change||||.41
95959205|NCT04522778|191891463|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.029
95959206|NCT04522778|191891464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A ratio of events per month was calculated for each participant. Participants were compared to themselves prior to intervention (i.e. event ratios pre intervention were compared to event ratios following intervention.)||||.35
95959207|NCT04522778|191891465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.334
95959208|NCT04522778|191891466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.195||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.926154|500.4402|||Chi-squared|||||500.4402|2.926154|.005
95959209|NCT04522778|191891467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.73483||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|297.17|||Chi-squared|||||297.17|3.22|.003
95959210|NCT04522778|191891468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.72||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|265.45|||Chi-squared|||||265.45|2.82|.004
95959211|NCT04522778|191891469|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.345||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|69.82|||Chi-squared|||||69.82|1.71|.011
95861976|NCT00669409|191682692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|13.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.2|-20.0|
95959212|NCT04522778|191891470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2189||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0706|1.258|||Chi-squared|||||1.258|.0706|.099
95861977|NCT00669409|191682692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-29.9|
95959213|NCT04522778|191891471|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|6.562|||Chi-squared|||||6.562|.549|.312
95959214|NCT04522778|191891472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.022||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|20.623|||Chi-squared|||||20.623|.112|.753
95959215|NCT04522778|191891473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|1.541|||Chi-squared|||||1.541|.067|.156
95959216|NCT04522778|191891474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|2.122|||Chi-squared|||||2.122|.099|.318
95959217|NCT04522778|191891475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|21.003|||Chi-squared|||||21.003|.009|.684
95959218|NCT04522778|191891476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.683||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|22.194|||Chi-squared|||||22.194|.246|.460
95959219|NCT04522778|191891477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47293||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.279|18.927|||Chi-squared|||||18.927|.279|.439
95959220|NCT04522778|191891478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.187||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|22.514|||Chi-squared|||||22.514|.119|.714
95959221|NCT04522778|191891479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|3.842|||Chi-squared|||||3.842|.037|.412
95823053|NCT01814878|191618187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0714||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0714
95823054|NCT01814878|191618187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1147
95823055|NCT01814878|191618187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2209||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2209
95823056|NCT01814878|191618188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1498||||||Hour 6: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1498
95823057|NCT01814878|191618188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0485||||||Hour 12: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0485
95823058|NCT01814878|191618188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404||||||Hour 24: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.0404
95823059|NCT01814878|191618188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||||||Hour 48: P-value was calculated using Student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.1210
95823060|NCT01814878|191618189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4216||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4216
95823061|NCT01814878|191618190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1000
95823062|NCT01814878|191618191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3255||||||P-value was calculated using Mann-Whitney's U test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3255
95959222|NCT04522778|191891480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|3.582|||Chi-squared|||||3.582|.094|.558
95959223|NCT04522778|191891481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.90|.121|.673
95959224|NCT04522778|191891482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.406|||Chi-squared|||||2.406|.189|.544
95861978|NCT00669409|191682692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-6.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-6.7|-50.3|
95861979|NCT00669409|191682693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|29.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.1|-4.3|
95861980|NCT00669409|191682693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|1.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.9|-31.4|
95861981|NCT00669409|191682693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.6|-14.6|
95959225|NCT04522778|191891483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|10.278|||Chi-squared|||||10.278|.345|.464
95959226|NCT04522778|191891484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.675||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|40.854|||Chi-squared|||||40.854|.766|.090
95959227|NCT04522778|191891485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|9.114|||Chi-squared|||||9.114|.107|.991
96000501|NCT00474630|191977400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.59||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.59|-3.57|
96000502|NCT00474630|191977401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.88||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.88|1.79|
96000503|NCT00474630|191977402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.04||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.04|1.50|
96000504|NCT00474630|191977403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.86|0.35|
96000505|NCT00474630|191977404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.57||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||7.57|0.27|
96000506|NCT00474630|191977405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|12.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||12.67|0.55|
96000507|NCT00474630|191977406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
96000508|NCT00474630|191977407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
96000509|NCT00474630|191977408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||5.14|1.36|
96000510|NCT00474630|191977409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.51||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.51|-0.77|
96000511|NCT00474630|191977410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
96000512|NCT00474630|191977412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-0.74||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.74|-9.22|
96000513|NCT00474630|191977413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.62||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.62|-7.48|
96000514|NCT00474630|191977414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.33||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.33|-1.02|
96000515|NCT00474630|191977415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-1.04|
96000516|NCT00474630|191977416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.65|0.59|
96000517|NCT00474630|191977417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.27|-0.42|
96000518|NCT00474630|191977418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.76|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-0.76|
95823063|NCT01814878|191618192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848||||||Day 3: P-value was calculated using student's t-test|Student's t-test|||||||0.2848
95823064|NCT02752633|191618279|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data are presented as the urinary DHA excretion (mg/24 hr) and as the DHA-to-creatinine ratio (mg/mmol) in first morning void urine samples. Data are presented as a median (range). Differences in the median urinary DHA excretion and the urinary DHA-to-creatinine ratio between periods off pharmacotherapy and on the two study drugs, febuxostat and allopurinol, were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<.05
95854953|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||17.77|0.62|0.1441
96000519|NCT01335971|191977419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in alveolar macrophages||||0.45
96000520|NCT01335971|191977419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.40
96000521|NCT01335971|191977419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.75
96000522|NCT01335971|191977419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in alveolar macrophages||||0.49
96000523|NCT01335971|191977419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of nuclear factor erythroid 2 like 2 (Nrf2) in alveolar macrophages||||0.88
96000524|NCT01335971|191977419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in alveolar macrophages||||0.71
96000525|NCT01335971|191977420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Nrf2 in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.68
96000526|NCT01335971|191977421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of NAD(P)H Quinone Dehydrogenase 1 (NQ01) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.69
96000527|NCT01335971|191977421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Kelch Like ECH Associated Protein 1 (Keap1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||<0.01
96000528|NCT01335971|191977422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Heme Oxygenase 1 (HO1) in bronchial epithelial cells||||0.53
96000529|NCT01335971|191977423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C1 (AKR1C1) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||<0.01
96000530|NCT01335971|191977424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to gene expression of Aldo-Keto Reductase Family 1 Member C3 (AKR1C3) in bronchial epithelial cells.||||0.06
96000531|NCT01335971|191977425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
96000532|NCT01335971|191977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to C-reactive protein concentration||||0.41
96000533|NCT01335971|191977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-6 concentration||||0.07
96000534|NCT01335971|191977426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to Interleukin-8 concentration||||0.65
96000535|NCT01335971|191977427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to interleukin-8 results||||0.71
96000536|NCT01335971|191977427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to secretory leukoprotease inhibitor results||||0.33
96000537|NCT01335971|191977428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to isoprostane results.||||0.80
96000538|NCT01335971|191977428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to thiobarbituric acid reactive substances results.||||0.35
96000539|NCT01335971|191977428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Applies to total antioxidants results.||||0.53
96000540|NCT03069690|191977440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.665||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.649|4.85||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.850|-5.649|.80
96000541|NCT03069690|191977440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.387|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.755||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.813|2.039||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||2.039|-8.813|.80
96000542|NCT03069690|191977440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|4.184||The value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||4.184|-6.530|.80
96000543|NCT00641147|191977448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
96000544|NCT00641147|191977448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
96000545|NCT00641147|191977449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
96000546|NCT00641147|191977450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
96000547|NCT00641147|191977451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
96000548|NCT00641147|191977452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
96000549|NCT00641147|191977453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
96000550|NCT00641147|191977454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
96000551|NCT00641147|191977455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
96000552|NCT00641147|191977456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.93
96000553|NCT00641147|191977457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
96000554|NCT00641147|191977458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
96000555|NCT00641147|191977459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
96000556|NCT00641147|191977463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
96000557|NCT01873950|191977469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
96000558|NCT01873950|191977470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
96000559|NCT01873950|191977471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the biomarker change from baseline between the treatment and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|For each ECG biomarker and treatment, the placebo-corrected change from baseline was computed using linear mixed effect model.||||||<0.05
96000560|NCT01512368|191977515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.144||All reported p values are based on two-sided tests considering ≤0.05 as significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, time of exercise, creatinine, waist to hip ratio, fat percentage, body mass index, mean rest heart rate, blood pressure.|Metabolic equivalents (METs) consumed were independently associated with the log of delta (final-basal) FGF21 levels.|"FGF21 was log transformed to approximate normality before analyses. Null hypothesis was Ho = Y1 (FGF21 level at baseline) = Y2 (FGF21 level after two weeks of exercising). Power calculation was 80% with 60 participants evaluated (one group). To evaluate the effect of exercise on clinical and biochemical parameters, we used the difference between final - basal levels (delta)."||0.144|0.034|<0.001
96000561|NCT01499576|191977546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent agreement|89.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
96000562|NCT01499576|191977547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa index of agreement|0.808|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa index of agreement|||||||<0.01
96000563|NCT01499576|191977548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||persent of adverse event|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
96000564|NCT02334267|191977549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
96000565|NCT02334267|191977550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
95861982|NCT00669409|191682693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.8|-25.0|
95861983|NCT00669409|191682693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-1.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-44.9|
95861984|NCT00669409|191682694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|28.3||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.3|-5.1|
96000566|NCT02334267|191977551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
96000567|NCT02334267|191977552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||trend analysis over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95861985|NCT00669409|191682694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|1.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.1|-32.1|
95861986|NCT00669409|191682694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|19.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||19.7|-13.5|
95861987|NCT00669409|191682694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|9.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.7|-23.1|
95861988|NCT00669409|191682694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|2.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.9|-40.7|
96000568|NCT00909090|191977568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
96000569|NCT00909090|191977569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis compared mean differences between placebo and intervention at the 12-month time point.||||0.21
95861989|NCT00669409|191682695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|29.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.0|-4.4|
95861990|NCT00669409|191682695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|5.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.8|
95861991|NCT00669409|191682695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|20.1||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.1|-13.2|
96000570|NCT00909090|191977570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis compared mean change from baseline to 12-month time points.||||0.01
95861992|NCT00669409|191682695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|9.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-23.9|
96000571|NCT00909090|191977571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis conducted on mean change over one year, between groups||||0.02
96000572|NCT00234104|191977579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.0074||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0074
96000573|NCT00234104|191977579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0459||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0459
95861993|NCT00669409|191682695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|3.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.2|-40.4|
95861994|NCT00669409|191682696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|27.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||27.9|-5.5|
95861995|NCT00669409|191682696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.0|-26.3|
95959228|NCT04522778|191891486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.027||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|43.326|||Chi-squared|||||43.326|.415|.223
95959229|NCT04522778|191891487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|20.348|||Chi-squared|||||20.348|.238|.488
95959230|NCT04522778|191891488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0424|0.743|||Chi-squared|||||.743|.0424|.018
95959231|NCT04522778|191891489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.358||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|37.379|||Chi-squared|||||37.379|.364|.269
95959232|NCT04522778|191891490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.829||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|24.84|||Chi-squared|||||24.84|.728|.108
95959233|NCT04522778|191891491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.658|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|18.157|||Chi-squared|||||18.157|.737|.113
95959234|NCT04522778|191891492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|6.202|||Chi-squared|||||6.202|1.004|.049
96000574|NCT00234104|191977579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Dunnett's test was used||||||0.0010
96000575|NCT02926573|191977580|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.27|
96000576|NCT02926573|191977581|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|21.0||||||||21|-3.0|
96000577|NCT02926573|191977583|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.0|||||"The estimation parameter is based on those participants who answered they were very satisfied with overall pain control."|||11|-15|
96000578|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||18.3|-3.4|
96000579|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|20.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||20.3|-2.9|
96000580|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|18.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.9|-4.6|
96000581|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|16.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||16.8|-6.6|
96000582|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|18.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||18.3|-3.6|
96000583|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||21.6|-5.6|
96000584|NCT02926573|191977584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||23.8|-3.5|
96000585|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||22.3|-0.9|
96000586|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||21.6|-3.4|
95861996|NCT00669409|191682696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|18.5||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.5|-14.7|
95861997|NCT00669409|191682696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|9.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.2|-23.6|
95861998|NCT00669409|191682696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|1.4||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.4|-42.2|
95861999|NCT00669409|191682697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|30.2||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||30.2|-3.2|
95862000|NCT00669409|191682697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.9||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.3|
96000587|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|18.6|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||18.6|-6.1|
96000588|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|17.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|||17.8|-7.3|
96000589|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|23.8|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||23.8|-1.4|
96000590|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|29.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||29.9|-0.1|
96000591|NCT02926573|191977585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|26.0|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||26.0|-2.8|
96000592|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.9|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7AM.|||11.9|-14.7|
96000593|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|19.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 10AM.|||19.2|-8.6|
96000594|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|24.2|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 1 7PM.|||24.2|-2.4|
96000595|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|20.7|||||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7AM.|20.7|-6.6|
96000596|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 10AM.|||22.3|-6.4|
96000597|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.7|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 2 7PM.|||31.7|-0.4|
96000598|NCT02926573|191977586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|33.4|||||This statistical analysis is for the mean difference between the 2 arms at Post-Operative Day 3 7AM.|||33.4|0.0|
96000599|NCT02052960|191977587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.359|||Log Rank|||||1.359|0.736|0.86
96000600|NCT02052960|191977588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-14.5|0.77
96000601|NCT02052960|191977589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|9.63|||Chi-squared|||||9.63|-12.05|0.83
96000602|NCT02052960|191977590|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.372|||Log Rank|||||1.372|0.814|0.70
96000603|NCT02052960|191977591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.396|||Log Rank|||||1.396|0.734|0.96
96000604|NCT01633060|191977608|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.53||||Log Rank||||||0.53|<0.001
96000605|NCT01462292|191977689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.946||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.122|21.229||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilizing a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||21.229|-39.122|0.554
96000606|NCT01462292|191977689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.099||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|56.408||Due to the two comparisons for the two different doses, the type 1 error rate (5% overall) was preserved by utilising a hierarchical approach, testing the 6mg/kg GSK2402968 dose first|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, centre grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||56.408|-2.210|0.069
96000607|NCT01462292|191977690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.387||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|2.392||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||2.392|-1.618|0.699
96000608|NCT01462292|191977690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.831||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.072|2.735||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.735|-1.072|0.384
96002190|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.25|-0.51|<0.001
95862001|NCT00669409|191682697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|21.7||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||21.7|-11.5|
95862002|NCT00669409|191682697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|8.8||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.8|-24.1|
95862003|NCT00669409|191682697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|12.0||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-31.6|
95959235|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The first blood samples from both groups were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.377
95862004|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|6.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.4|-24.7|
95862005|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-4.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-4.9|-36.0|
95862006|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|11.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.4|-19.9|
95862007|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-0.4||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.4|-30.9|
95862008|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-8.9||||||Change at Week 1, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-8.9|-49.4|
95862009|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|14.3||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.3|-16.9|
95862010|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|1.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.7|-29.5|
96002191|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
96002192|NCT02345161|191981671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS Scores, Week 21-24|||-0.22|-0.50|<0.001
96002193|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 1-4|||0.09|-1.13|0.094
96002194|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.34|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 5-8|||-0.34|-1.80|0.004
96002195|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.419||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 9-12|||-0.14|-1.79|0.022
96002196|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.445||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.88|0.024
96002197|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 17-20|||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
96002198|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Score, Week 21-24|||-0.16|-2.05|0.022
96002199|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 25-28|||-0.35|-2.29|0.008
96002200|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 29-32|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
96002201|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 33-36|||-0.48|-2.52|0.004
96002202|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 37-40|||-0.23|-2.22|0.016
96002203|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 41-44|||-0.48|-2.50|0.04
96002204|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 45-49|||-0.50|-2.56|0.007
96002205|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||EXACT-RS Scores, Week 49-52|||-0.39|-2.45|0.007
96002206|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.00|-0.66|0.051
95823065|NCT04478071|191618280|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.009|||||"Risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Primary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a lower probability, at treatment day 14, of death (8) or hospitalization, on invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO (7) or hospitalization, on non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices (6) on the NIAID-OS. See Statistical Analysis Plan for more details.||0.009|-0.084|
95823066|NCT04478071|191618280|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Probability|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk difference of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
95823067|NCT04478071|191618281|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||"Risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo. Values under confidence interval reflect Bayesian 95% credible interval rather than frequentist confidence interval."|Trial used Bayesian analysis for superiority. Hypothesis Testing for Secondary Outcome: Among adult hospital admissions with lab-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, vadadustat 900 mg will demonstrate superiority to placebo as defined by a higher probability, at treatment day 14, of recovery on the MSOFA scale (MSOFA = 0).||1.1|0.92|
95823068|NCT04478071|191618281|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probability|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Posterior probability of the risk ratio of Vadadustat relative to Placebo.|||||
95862011|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|16.5||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.5|-15.4|
96002207|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.20|-1.02|0.003
96002208|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.15|-1.07|0.010
96002209|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.13|-1.10|0.013
96002210|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
96002211|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.11|-1.16|0.018
96002212|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.21|-1.30|0.006
96002213|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.31|-1.40|0.002
96002214|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.38|-1.51|0.001
96002215|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.20|-1.32|0.008
96002216|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.24|-1.40|0.006
96002217|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||Breathlessness score, Week 41-44||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
96002218|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Breathlessness EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52EXA|||-0.30|-1.45|0.003
96002219|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.16|-0.20|0.840
96002220|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.06|-0.36|0.167
96002221|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||0.12|-0.34|0.359
96002222|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||0.13|-0.36|0.360
96002223|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||0.17|-0.36|0.490
96002224|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||0.15|-0.39|0.388
96002225|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||0.10|-0.44|0.218
96002226|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||0.07|-0.47|0.138
96002227|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||0.11|-0.44|0.239
96002228|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||0.16|-0.38|0.417
96002229|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||0.03|-0.54|0.078
96002230|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||0.01|-0.54|0.058
96002231|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Cough and sputum EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||0.11|-0.45|0.231
96002232|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 1-4|||0.01|-0.37|0.068
96002233|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 5-8|||-0.09|-0.56|0.006
96002234|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 9-12|||-0.01|-0.53|0.042
96002235|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 13-16|||-0.03|-0.57|0.027
95862012|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|3.7||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||3.7|-27.3|
95959236|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.051
95959237|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples from both groups were collected 24 hours after Operation.||||0.282
96000609|NCT01462292|191977691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.883|0.886||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment,centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Ascent Week 24||0.886|-0.883|0.997
96000610|NCT01462292|191977691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.803||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|0.048||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Ascent, Week 24||0.048|-1.655|0.064
96000611|NCT01462292|191977691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.685||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|0.662||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.662|-2.033|0.311
96000612|NCT01462292|191977691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.412||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.702|0.878||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Placebo (combined) Vs GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week, Descent Week 24||0.878|-1.702|0.523
96000613|NCT01462292|191977692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.564||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.127||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, centre grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.127|0.000|0.050
96000614|NCT01462292|191977692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.037||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.498|0.571||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||0.571|-0.498|0.890
96000615|NCT01462292|191977693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.356||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.936|15.648||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||15.648|-10.936|0.723
96000616|NCT01462292|191977693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.821||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.034|13.676||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model includes terms for Treatment, Centre Grouping and Baseline Muscle Strength Total Score||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6mg||13.676|-12.034|0.898
96000617|NCT01462292|191977695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.92||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg||1.92|-2.90|0.684
96000618|NCT01462292|191977695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.12||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|ANCOVA|Model included terms for treatment, center grouping and baseline||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg||2.12|-2.49|0.873
96000619|NCT01462292|191977697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-892.88||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4391.1|2605.35||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 24||2605.35|-4391.10|0.610
96000620|NCT01462292|191977697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2054.86||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5587.33|1477.6||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 3 mg, Week 48||1477.60|-5587.33|0.248
96000621|NCT01462292|191977697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1305.46||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4668.41|2057.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 24||2057.48|-4668.41|0.439
96000622|NCT01462292|191977697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|167.39||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3208.98|3543.77||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Model included terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit, center grouping, baseline and baseline by visit||Treatment difference: Placebo Vs GSK2402968 6 mg, Week 48||3543.77|-3208.98|0.921
96000623|NCT01462292|191977704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|7.01||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 3 mg/kg/week||7.01|0.02|0.541
95823069|NCT01626118|191618297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|317.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|149.6694||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.297|611.926|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||611.926|23.297|0.034
95823070|NCT01626118|191618297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|342.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.0397||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.09|637.175|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||637.175|47.090|0.023
95823071|NCT01626118|191618297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|61.972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|150.2717||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.527|357.471|||ANCOVA|||The p value was obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment effect as the factor and baseline pain intensity as the covariate. This was the primary analysis of the primary efficacy parameter.||357.471|-233.527|0.680
95823072|NCT01626118|191618297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|503.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.3149|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|301.93|704.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||704.086|301.930|<0.001
96002236|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 17-20|||-0.09|-0.67|0.010
96002237|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 21-24|||-0.09|-0.66|0.010
96002238|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 25-28|||-0.12|-0.70|
96002239|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 29-32|||-0.09|-0.68|0.011
96002240|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 33-36|||-0.09|-0.71|0.011
96002241|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 37-40|||-0.07|-0.67|0.014
96002242|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 41-44|||-0.12|-0.72|0.007
96002243|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 45-48|||-0.13|-0.76|0.006
96002244|NCT02345161|191981672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Chest EXACT-RS score, Week 49-52|||-0.09|-0.73|0.013
96002245|NCT02345161|191981681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||3.4|0.3|0.023
96002246|NCT02345161|191981681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||1.0|-2.1|0.471
96002247|NCT02345161|191981682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For QTcF|||2.5|-4.7|0.564
96002248|NCT02345161|191981682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||For PR interval|||3.3|-2.9|0.908
96002249|NCT02345161|191981685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, SBP|||1.2|-1.0|0.849
96002250|NCT02345161|191981685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 24, DBP|||0.9|-0.6|0.613
96002251|NCT02345161|191981686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||: LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, SBP|||0.8|-3.9|0.183
96002252|NCT02345161|191981686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 52, DBP|||0.6|-2.3|0.253
96002253|NCT02345161|191981688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.2|-0.6|0.526
96002254|NCT02345161|191981689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.5|0.7|0.007
96002255|NCT00631488|191981738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|22.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between group difference.||22.7|5.2|0.002
96002256|NCT00631488|191981738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-9.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour WMG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour WMG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-9.2|-26.5|<0.001
95959238|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. These blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary Bypass.||||0.277
95959239|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Creatinine concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Creatinine was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected from both groups 72 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.308
95959240|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.211
95959241|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.004
95959242|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 24 hours after operation.||||0.221
95959243|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after operation.||||0.796
95959244|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of serum Cystatin C concentration. We test the null hypothesis that serum Cystatin C was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 72 hours after operation.||||0.463
95959245|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The first blood samples were collected before cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.118
95959246|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected on arrival of intensive care unit.||||0.0001
95959247|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected one hour after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
95959248|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected four hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.0001
95959249|NCT02672514|191891526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The early diagnosis of AKI currently depends on the detection of reduced kidney function by the rise of the postoperative NGAL levels in plasma. We test the null hypothesis that the NGAL level was the same in both groups. The blood samples were collected 48 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass.||||0.171
95959250|NCT00942188|191891528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.23|-1.94|
95959251|NCT00942188|191891528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-2.48|
95959252|NCT00942188|191891528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.54|||ANCOVA|||||0.54|-1.76|
95959253|NCT00942188|191891529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-9.82|
95959254|NCT00942188|191891529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|-10.21|
95959255|NCT00942188|191891529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|5.89|||ANCOVA|||||5.89|-9.16|
95959256|NCT00942188|191891531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.05||This is the estimated value for week 10 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.59|
95959257|NCT00942188|191891531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.74|
95959258|NCT00942188|191891531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 10.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.59|
95959259|NCT00942188|191891531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.08||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.61|
95959260|NCT00942188|191891531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.0||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.79|
95959261|NCT00942188|191891531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15||This is the estimated value for HbA1c at week 12.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.59|
95959262|NCT01536587|191891536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5062||95.0|||||paired t-Test, 2-sided|||||||0.5062
95959263|NCT02783573|191891570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.752|5.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.776|-0.752|0.129
95959264|NCT02783573|191891570|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.725|3.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.296|-3.725|0.903
95959265|NCT02783573|191891571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.488|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.580|-6.488|0.100
96000624|NCT01462292|191977704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|4.27||No adjustment for multiplicity was made, so p-values should not be used to make conclusions with regards to statistical significance|Regression, Logistic|Model includes terms for Treatment and Centre Grouping||Placebo (combined), GSK2402968 6 mg/kg/week||4.27|0.03|0.417
96000625|NCT01751646|191977715|OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||P-value from Wilcoxon rank sum test for change between baseline and Week 48 Vitamin D vs. Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1166
95823073|NCT01626118|191618297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|511.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.5851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|309.749|712.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||712.965|309.749|<0.001
95854954|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in proportion of Responders|-66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|4.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||4.39|-100.00|0.3173
95854955|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.74|0.7591
96000626|NCT01751646|191977717|OTHER|||||||0.8383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.8383
96000627|NCT01751646|191977720|OTHER|||||||0.1378|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1378
95862013|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|-2.4||||||Change at Week 1, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.4|-43.1|
95862014|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-0.3||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.3|-33.2|
96000628|NCT01751646|191977722|OTHER|||||||0.4686|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4686
96000629|NCT01751646|191977724|OTHER|||||||0.7601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7601
95862015|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-10.8||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-10.8|-43.7|
95862016|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|9.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-23.4|
96000630|NCT01751646|191977726|OTHER|||||||0.3978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3978
96000631|NCT01751646|191977728|OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1187
96000632|NCT01751646|191977731|OTHER|||||||0.5098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5098
96000633|NCT01751646|191977732|OTHER|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2550
96000634|NCT01751646|191977733|OTHER|||||||0.6499|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.6499
96000635|NCT01751646|191977734|OTHER|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2348
96000636|NCT01751646|191977737|OTHER|||||||0.2648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.2648
96000637|NCT01751646|191977740|OTHER|||||||0.3728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3728
96000638|NCT01751646|191977743|OTHER|||||||0.7825|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7825
96000639|NCT01751646|191977746|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1950
96000640|NCT01751646|191977749|OTHER|||||||0.7127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.7127
96000641|NCT01751646|191977752|OTHER|||||||0.4676|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4676
96000642|NCT01751646|191977755|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0210
96000643|NCT01751646|191977758|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0144
96000644|NCT01751646|191977761|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||< 0.0001
96000645|NCT01751646|191977764|OTHER|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.0814
96000646|NCT01751646|191977767|OTHER|||||||0.4808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4808
96000647|NCT01751646|191977770|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.3870
96000648|NCT01751646|191977773|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4290
96000649|NCT01751646|191977774|OTHER|||||||0.9186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.9186
96000650|NCT01751646|191977775|OTHER|||||||0.4016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.4016
96000651|NCT01751646|191977776|OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.5810
96000652|NCT01751646|191977777|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test for change between baseline and Week 48 Group A (Vitamin D3) vs. Group B (Placebo)||||0.1570
96000653|NCT01751646|191977783|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to week 48||||<0.0001
96000654|NCT01751646|191977783|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of change from baseline to Week 48||||<0.0001
96000655|NCT01751646|191977786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
96000656|NCT01751646|191977786|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Test of Week 48 difference from baseline||||< 0.0001
96000657|NCT03851510|191977790|OTHER|95% confidence of prevalence measure.|prevalence|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.4||||||All participants that were consented, eligible, and completed the Vector EFL screening (supine).||60.4|32.6|
96000658|NCT03478683|191977838|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated, if the lower bound of the two-sided 95 percentage (%) confidence interval around the (FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO) treatment difference was above -50 milliliter.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.043|||||The primary treatment effect estimated (hypothetical effect) excluded data following intercurrent events: discontinuation of treatment, taking wrong treatment, taking prohibited medication, unblinding, noncompliance, COPD exacerbation or pneumonia.|||0.043|-0.013|
95959266|NCT02783573|191891571|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.525|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.525|-6.876|0.092
95959267|NCT02783573|191891572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|3.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.499|-1.045|0.285
95823074|NCT01626118|191618297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|341.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.7761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|139.249|543.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The p value was obtained from a mixed-model repeated-measure (MMRM) model that used all available data from all subjects to derive an estimate of pain intensity scores for subjects following study withdrawal, rather than imputing a score for individual subjects. The MMRM analysis was a sensitivity analysis of the primary efficacy parameter."||543.215|139.249|<0.001
95823075|NCT01626118|191618298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
95823076|NCT01626118|191618298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.108
95823077|NCT01626118|191618298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
95823078|NCT01626118|191618299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
95823079|NCT01626118|191618299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
95823080|NCT01626118|191618299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.458
95823081|NCT01626118|191618300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95823082|NCT01626118|191618300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
95823083|NCT01626118|191618300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
95823084|NCT01626118|191618301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
95823085|NCT01626118|191618301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
95823086|NCT01626118|191618301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.716
95823087|NCT01626118|191618302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95823088|NCT01626118|191618302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95823089|NCT01626118|191618302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.593
95823090|NCT01626118|191618303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
95823091|NCT01626118|191618303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95823092|NCT01626118|191618303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.447
95823093|NCT01626118|191618304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
95823094|NCT01626118|191618304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.017
95823095|NCT01626118|191618304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.577
95823096|NCT00002540|191618305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.|Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
95823097|NCT00002540|191618307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.00|0.93|
95823098|NCT00002540|191618309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.17|||Poisson regression|Two-sided. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for significance 0.05.||||1.17|1.07|
95823099|NCT00002540|191618319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36|||Poisson regression|||||1.36|0.87|
95823100|NCT01500252|191618371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95823101|NCT01500252|191618372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95823102|NCT01500252|191618374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95823103|NCT01500252|191618375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95823104|NCT01500252|191618376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95823105|NCT01500252|191618377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95823106|NCT01500252|191618378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95823107|NCT01500252|191618379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95823108|NCT01500252|191618380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95823109|NCT01106651|191618389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.436|||ANCOVA|||||-0.436|-0.708|<0.001
95823110|NCT01106651|191618389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|-0.566|||ANCOVA|||||-0.566|-0.841|<0.001
95823111|NCT01106651|191618390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.001||95.0|1.93|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.93|<0.001
95823112|NCT01106651|191618390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.95|2.89|<0.001
95823113|NCT01106651|191618391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.32|||ANCOVA|||||-19.32|-31.68|<0.001
95959268|NCT02783573|191891572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.889|1.843|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.843|-2.889|0.661
95959269|NCT02783573|191891573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.103|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.56|-10.103|0.079
95959270|NCT02783573|191891573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.573|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.62|-7.573|0.486
95959271|NCT02783573|191891574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.391|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.391|-0.890|0.663
96000659|NCT03478683|191977839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 2 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 2|||0.018|-0.037|0.481
96000660|NCT03478683|191977839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.086||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 28 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 28|||0.086|0.037|<0.001
96000661|NCT03478683|191977839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.084||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 84 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 84|||0.084|0.032|<0.001
96000662|NCT03478683|191977839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.066||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on change from Baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 85 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||Day 85|||0.066|0.010|0.007
96000663|NCT03478683|191977840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.013||Only if superiority is achieved on the primary study endpoint, then inferences can be made on weighted mean change from Baseline in FEV1 over 0-24 hours on Day 1 using p-values.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.013|-0.030|0.415
96000664|NCT03478683|191977841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0138||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.04||The analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures analysis, which included covariates of Baseline FEV1, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment and visit by Baseline interaction.|Mixed model repeated measures||The treatment effect to be estimated was hypothetical effect if all participants stayed on their randomized study treatment. Only on treatment data was included in analysis.|||0.040|-0.014|0.335
95823114|NCT01106651|191618391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.97|-21.49|||ANCOVA|||||-21.49|-33.97|<0.001
95823115|NCT01106651|191618392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
95823116|NCT01106651|191618392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-3.5|<0.001
96000665|NCT03461965|191977870|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing total responses that were correct across all participants in both arms||||0.007
96000666|NCT03461965|191977871|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.0001
96000667|NCT03461965|191977871|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.03
96000668|NCT03461965|191977871|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.352
96000669|NCT03461965|191977872|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
96000670|NCT03461965|191977872|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||0.04
96000671|NCT03461965|191977872|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.052
96000672|NCT03461965|191977873|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
96000673|NCT03461965|191977873|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference of pre (baseline) and post-test scores within each treatment group||||<0.0001
96000674|NCT03461965|191977873|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Comparing change in scores (post-stage minus baseline) between experimental and control groups||||0.208
96000675|NCT03461965|191977874|OTHER|p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|||||<|0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.03
96000676|NCT02680301|191977875|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon sign- rank test values with ranks from change in cream efficacy ratings minus change in ointment efficacy ratings.||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
96000677|NCT00095121|191977881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||End of double-blind treatment|Fisher Exact|||After unblinding the results, due to the small number of responders in the placebo group, it was determined that a statistical exact test would be more appropriate in the evaluation of treatment group differences than the originally planned 95% confidence intervals of the difference between the groups. Therefore, the results were analyzed by study visit, and a Fisher exact test was used to evaluate treatment differences between the adefovir dipivoxil and placebo groups.||||<0.001
96000678|NCT00095121|191977897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Loss|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
96000679|NCT00095121|191977897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||Comparison of HBeAg Seroconversion|Fisher Exact|||||||0.051
96002257|NCT00631488|191981739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||18.2|0.0|0.050
95823117|NCT01106651|191618393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.339|-0.842|||ANCOVA|||||-0.842|-2.339|<0.001
96002258|NCT00631488|191981739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 24-hour FPG than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a standard deviation (SD) of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 24-hour FPG between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-10.1|-28.0|<0.001
96002259|NCT00631488|191981740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|45.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||45.8|-0.6|0.056
96002260|NCT00631488|191981740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-21.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-hr Glucose AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants per group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Glucose Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a two-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% confidence interval for the between group difference.||-21.8|-67.3|<0.001
96002261|NCT00631488|191981741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||6.7|1.7|0.001
96002262|NCT00631488|191981741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|15.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Total GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||15.7|10.7|<0.001
96002263|NCT00631488|191981742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-3.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+sitagliptin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference||-3.8|-9.5|<0.001
96002264|NCT00631488|191981742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-8.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Hypothesis: After 4 weeks of treatment, MK-0893+metformin provide greater reduction in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC than sitagliptin+metformin. Using a SD of 23.5 mg/dL, a sample size of 40 participants/group had 80% power to detect a true difference of 15 mg/dL in the mean change from BL in 2-Hour Active GLP-1 Total AUC between any 2 treatment groups for a 2-sided test at alpha=0.05, with a half-width of 10.3 mg/dL around the 95% CI for the between group difference.||-8.5|-14.1|<0.001
96000680|NCT05635838|191977932|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-2.21|0.0215
96000681|NCT05635838|191977934|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-1.65|0.1671
96000682|NCT05635838|191977935|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.27|0.7982
96000683|NCT05635838|191977936|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.40|-0.52|0.2031
96000684|NCT05635838|191977938|SUPERIORITY|Response Variable = Treatment + Baseline AN Count Category (≥3 to 4, ≥5 to 10) + Visit + Treatment\*Visit|least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-2.20|0.2387
96000685|NCT02031146|191977971|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Two sample test of proportion in Stata|||||||0.29
96000686|NCT02031146|191977972|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.69
96000687|NCT02031146|191977973|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.04
96000688|NCT00112151|191977977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). The primary analysis was conducted in the PRT groups and compared CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
96000689|NCT00112151|191977977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||A one-sided P-value of \<0.025 was used to define statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (any T). To address whether the effects of any T on physical function are the same without PRT, the analysis was also conducted in the No PRT groups, comparing CS-PFP at 12 months with any T to placebo, adjusted for baseline CS-PFP score.||||<0.025
96000690|NCT00112151|191977978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
96000691|NCT00112151|191977978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average upper body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
96000692|NCT00112151|191977979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
96000693|NCT00112151|191977979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in average lower body strength with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
96000694|NCT00112151|191977980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
96000695|NCT00112151|191977980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in leg extensor power with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
96000696|NCT00112151|191977981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
96000697|NCT00112151|191977981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
96000698|NCT00112151|191977982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to PRT.||||<0.05
96000699|NCT00112151|191977982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||As prespecified, the lower- and higher-range T groups were combined (Any T). The analysis compared change from baseline to 12 months in fat free mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with any T to placebo in subjects assigned to no PRT.||||<0.05
96000700|NCT03990766|191978002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|42.3||||||||42.3|-35.6|
96000701|NCT03990766|191978003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||||5|-3|
96000702|NCT03990766|191978004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.0||||||The within-subject change in QOD-NS scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort.||-4|-15|
96000703|NCT03990766|191978005|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||The within-subject change in ODOR scores from baseline and 6 weeks was calculated for each individual patient. Then the median of all the patients' change in score for each cohort was calculated. Because these were within-subject changes in scores, the median difference values for each cohort do not necessarily correspond with simply subtracting the median change in score in the theophylline cohort from the median change in score in the placebo cohort. We confirmed the reported results.||17|-2|
96002265|NCT00103194|191981743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PSA response rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|8.2||||||||8.2|0|
96000704|NCT01040832|191978022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Stratified log rank|||||1.6|0.7|0.793
95862017|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-3.2||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-35.6|
95728945|NCT02173704|191427847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.7|99.98|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis H44/76 strain: The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective is that the proportion of subjects with hSBA titers ≥ 1:5 one month after the third dose of the Bexsero® vaccine was ≤ 0.70. Assuming the results for the three strains are independent, the power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objectives to demonstrate sufficiency of response (for all three strains was 92%.||99.98|95.7|
96000705|NCT01040832|191978023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||>0.999
96000706|NCT01040832|191978024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.557
96000707|NCT02767570|191978041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|For the primary hypothesis that there would be a greater reduction in pain for the altered compared to the consistent FPA group, an effect size of 0.57 was assumed. To achieve 80% power with an alpha of 0.05, 39 participants per group were needed, so our recruitment goal was 40 subjects per group.||-0.5|-1.9|0.001
96000708|NCT02767570|191978042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-0.13|-0.39|<0.001
96000709|NCT02767570|191978043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||-1.05|-6.42|0.006
96000710|NCT02767570|191978044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||1.30|-1.42|0.93
96000711|NCT02767570|191978045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|2.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||2.80|-3.38|0.85
96000712|NCT02767570|191978046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.9||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear||Difference = Altered FPA - Consistent FPA|||0.90|-0.89|0.99
96000713|NCT01306058|191978108|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.05
96000714|NCT01306058|191978109|NON_INFERIORITY|Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001||||||Cycle 1 day 15 vs. cycle 1 day 1|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
96000715|NCT01306058|191978109|NON_INFERIORITY|Cycle 2 day 1 vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
96000716|NCT01306058|191978109|NON_INFERIORITY|eos (end of study) vs. cycle 1 day 1. Paired T-test. Two tailed.||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
96000717|NCT01334125|191978113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.903
96000718|NCT01334125|191978114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Individual two-way mixed ANOVA models were fitted for each of our outcomes of interest, with treatment type (metformin or placebo) as the fixed effect, and baseline values, age, gender, and BMI as covariates.|ANOVA|||Analyses were based on the intent-to-treat principle and were performed using SPSS v.22 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY).||||0.578
96000719|NCT01334125|191978115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||Two way ANOVA comparison of the means of the adiponectin/leptin ratios between the metformin and placebo groups||||0.057
96000720|NCT01334125|191978116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis for minor hypoglycemia||||1.00
96000721|NCT01334125|191978116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value represents the analysis of the nocturnal hypoglycemia||||1.00
96000722|NCT01183858|191978124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33||Unstratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||1.33|0.83|0.671
96000723|NCT01183858|191978130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.84|0.625
96000724|NCT01570491|191978143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||"We hypothesized that real-time US guidance would result in a 20% lower number of attempts compared to the control group.~At the 0.05 level of significance with a power of 0.8, we will require a minimum of 20 patients per group, therefore we planned to recruit 40 patients in total."||||0.83
96000725|NCT01570491|191978144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
96000726|NCT01570491|191978145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
96000727|NCT01570491|191978146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
96000728|NCT01507545|191978170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||One-sided log-rank test|||||1.67|0.76|0.7335
96000729|NCT01507545|191978171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||One-sided log-rank test|||||2.19|0.93|0.9498
96000730|NCT01507545|191978172|SUPERIORITY||Difference of arms|-2.4||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.992|2.23|||Fisher Exact|||||2.230|-6.992|0.333
96000731|NCT01753518|191978188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.053
96000732|NCT01753518|191978189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
96000733|NCT01753518|191978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for staple expulsion or suture trimming||||0.25
96000734|NCT01753518|191978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Surgical Site Infection||||0.06
96000735|NCT01753518|191978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Superficial Wound Separation||||0.21
95862018|NCT00669409|191682698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.9||||||Change at Week 1, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-2.9|-45.8|
96000736|NCT01753518|191978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Seroma||||0.49
96000737|NCT01753518|191978190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Hematoma||||0.50
96000738|NCT01753518|191978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Tylenol use.||||0.48
96000739|NCT01753518|191978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Ibuprofen use.||||0.30
96000740|NCT01753518|191978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Toradol use.||||0.85
95959272|NCT02783573|191891574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.423|0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.983|-1.423|0.717
96000741|NCT01753518|191978191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the arms for Oxycodone use.||||0.78
95823118|NCT01106651|191618393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.833|-1.368|||ANCOVA|||||-1.368|-2.833|<0.001
96000742|NCT01753518|191978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison for negative responses to Appearance of incision question."||||0.51
95823119|NCT01106651|191618394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.633|-0.428|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.428|-1.633|<0.001
95959273|NCT02783573|191891576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.297|4.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.889|-4.297|0.899
95959274|NCT02783573|191891576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.267|1.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.238|-7.267|0.164
95959275|NCT02783573|191891577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.891|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.362|-2.891|0.126
95959276|NCT02783573|191891577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|1.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.566|-1.867|0.862
95959277|NCT02783573|191891578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.49||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.35|47.26|||ANCOVA|||||47.26|-122.35|0.343
95959278|NCT02783573|191891578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.12||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.17|38.73|||ANCOVA|||||38.73|-120.17|0.276
95959279|NCT02783573|191891579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.3||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.75|8.87|||ANCOVA|||||8.87|-132.75|0.079
96000743|NCT01753518|191978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison for negative responses to Would recommend treatment to friends question."||||0.098
96000744|NCT01753518|191978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of negative responses to Willingness to use treatment again question."||||0.57
96000745|NCT01753518|191978193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of negative responses to Overall satisfaction question."||||0.41
96000746|NCT01753518|191978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for appearance of incision."||||0.85
96000747|NCT01753518|191978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for recommend treatment."||||0.004
96000748|NCT01753518|191978194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison between arms for willingness to use treatment again."||||<0.001
96000749|NCT01753518|191978195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
96000750|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar painful.||||0.35
96000751|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar itching.||||0.48
96000752|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar color is different.||||0.034
96000753|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar stiffness is different.||||0.041
96000754|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar thickness is different.||||0.23
96000755|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: scar more irregular.||||0.13
96000756|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for patient: overall opinion.||||0.11
96000757|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: vascularity.||||0.68
96000758|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pigmentation.||||0.18
96000759|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: thickness||||0.75
96000760|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: relief.||||0.36
96000761|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: pliability.||||0.78
96000762|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: surface area.||||0.76
96000763|NCT01753518|191978196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between arms for observer: overall opinion.||||0.97
96000764|NCT00514449|191978202|OTHER||number of voxels in a cluster|2037.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA||Time by treatment group interaction term|||||0.004
96000765|NCT00149825|191978211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Chi-squared|This is a one-tailed test||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants randomized to MED+CBTI will experience remission of depression||||.13
96000766|NCT00149825|191978212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We hypothesized that compared with MED+CTRL, a greater percent of participants in MED+CBTI will experience remission of insomnia.||||.05
96000767|NCT01821677|191978224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
96000768|NCT01821677|191978224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
96000769|NCT01821677|191978224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
96000770|NCT01821677|191978225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
96000771|NCT01821677|191978225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
96000772|NCT01821677|191978225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.14
96000773|NCT00538642|191978235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95823120|NCT01106651|191618394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|-0.587|||ANCOVA|||Region percent total fat||-0.587|-1.772|<0.001
96000774|NCT02858193|191978271|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.|Geometric means ratio|111.63||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|94.12|100.51|123.99||"treatment p-value reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in %|||123.99|100.51|0.0482
95823121|NCT01106651|191618395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.677|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.430|-1.677|0.001
95823122|NCT01106651|191618395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.584|||ANCOVA|||||-0.584|-1.812|<0.001
95823123|NCT01106651|191618396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.134|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.854|-2.401|||ANCOVA|||||-2.401|-6.854|<0.001
95823124|NCT01106651|191618396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.147|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-5.641|||ANCOVA|||||-5.641|-10.14|<0.001
95823125|NCT01106651|191618397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-12.1|0.194
95823126|NCT01106651|191618397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.1|||ANCOVA|||||8.1|-6.6|0.846
95823127|NCT01106651|191618398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.9|||ANCOVA|||||7.9|2.6|<0.001
95823128|NCT01106651|191618398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||ANCOVA|||||7.4|2.0|<0.001
95823129|NCT01106651|191618399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.4|
95823130|NCT01106651|191618399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.9|
95823131|NCT01106651|191618400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.9|
95823132|NCT01106651|191618400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.0|
95823133|NCT01106651|191618401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.3|
95823134|NCT01106651|191618401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|
95823135|NCT01106651|191618402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.8|
95823136|NCT01106651|191618402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|
95823137|NCT00323960|191618403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228||||||For multiple hypothesis testing, we used Bonferroni's correction (with n=3 posterior comparisons).|Chi-squared|To assess proportions we used the χ² test or Fisher's exact test||We calculated that a sample size of 40 patients would be needed in each study group (total 120 patients) to have 80% power for comparison of combination treatments (prednisone plus methotrexate or prednisone plus ciclosporin) with the reference treatment (prednisone alone).||||0.0228
95823138|NCT00323960|191618404|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.0|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3) versus prednisone alone (group 1) and prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 and 2 versus group 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||5.0|1.2|0.012
95823139|NCT00323960|191618405|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.15|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||3.15|1.2|0.009
95823140|NCT00323960|191618406|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone+methotrexate arm or prednisone+ciclosporin versus prednisone alone.|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 2 and 3 versus group 1) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
95823141|NCT00323960|191618406|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.14|||Log Rank||RR related to prednisone alone (group 1) versus prednisone plus ciclosporin (group 2) and prednisone plus methotrexate arm (group 3).|We used the Kaplan-Meier method to produce survival curves (groups 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and compared them with the Log-Rank test. We judged a p value less than 0·05 significant. We reported in the table the incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals of the 3 groups.||2.14|1.24|0.002
95959280|NCT02783573|191891579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.27||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.88|36.59|||ANCOVA|||||36.59|-104.88|0.303
95959281|NCT02783573|191891580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.29||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|48.659|||ANCOVA|||||48.659|-16.015|0.283
95959282|NCT02783573|191891580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.21||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.929|16.82|||ANCOVA|||||16.820|-42.929|0.349
95959283|NCT02783573|191891581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.457|6.64|||ANCOVA|||||6.640|-3.457|0.494
95959284|NCT02783573|191891581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.743|2.481|||ANCOVA|||||2.481|-6.743|0.323
95959285|NCT02783573|191891582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.76||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.569|31.017|||ANCOVA|||||31.017|-26.569|0.873
96000775|NCT02858193|191978273|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies|geometric means ratio|109.41||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|94.12|104.93|114.07||"treatment p-value is reported"|ANOVA||Estimated value and limits are expressed in%|||114.07|104.93|0.0002
95823142|NCT02466425|191618407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure||Between treatment groups|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
95823143|NCT01901289|191618409|OTHER||Cumulative Probability|0.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.956|||||The estimate of the variance of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used the methods described by Peto et al.|||0.956|0.881|
95823144|NCT00889603|191618410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.2|||||Change from baseline in MMSE at LOCF analyzed using single-sample t-test; a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for mean change at LOCF.|||2.20|1.65|
95823145|NCT00889603|191618411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.08|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 8 from repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.08|0.75|
95823146|NCT00889603|191618411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.8|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 16 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||1.80|1.32|
95823147|NCT00889603|191618411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.25|||||LS Mean and 95% CI for change from baseline in MMSE Total to Week 24 from a repeated-measures mixed model including terms for baseline MMSE and Week.|||2.25|1.69|
95823148|NCT00893152|191618420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95823149|NCT01208961|191618421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|400.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|326.87|490.36|||ANOVA|ANOVA on log-trans baseline-adj PK values using sequence, period, and treatments as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||490.36|326.87|<0.001
96000776|NCT02858193|191978274|EQUIVALENCE|Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) of the T/R ratios of the geometric means of the analysed PK parameters were within the 80.00-125.00% range according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies.||||||0.593|||||||Friedman|||||||0.5930
95823150|NCT01208961|191618422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mans|649.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|511.75|824.75||ANOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors. LSM estimate performed on log-scale|ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||824.75|511.75|<0.01
95823151|NCT01208961|191618423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|369.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|301.74|452.86|||ANOVA|||Results for the analyses of the High-Fat Periods were not posted because the critical comparison was the response of Lovaza versus Epanova to the clinically relevant low-fat diet to be used as adjunct in hypertriglyceridemia.||452.86|301.74|<0.001
95823152|NCT00744380|191618435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8
95823153|NCT00744380|191618436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For open label midazolam||||0.25
95823154|NCT00744380|191618436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For all midazolam||||0.048
95823155|NCT00744380|191618436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For fentanyl||||0.88
95823156|NCT00744380|191618437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For Riker scores||||0.75
95823157|NCT00744380|191618437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||For pain scores||||0.17
95823158|NCT00744380|191618438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For hypotension||||>0.1
95823159|NCT00744380|191618438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||For bradycardia||||>0.1
95823160|NCT00744380|191618438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For tachycardia||||>0.1
95823161|NCT00744380|191618438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||For delirium, new onset||||0.07
95823162|NCT00744380|191618439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median number of experiences remembered||||0.015
95823163|NCT00744380|191618440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95823164|NCT00744380|191618441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95823165|NCT00744380|191618442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For anxiety||||>0.1
95823166|NCT00744380|191618442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For depression||||>0.1
95823167|NCT02152371|191618458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.56|-0.97|<.001
95823168|NCT02152371|191618459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.44|-26.02|<.001
95823169|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-8.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Morning Meal||-2.25|-13.87|.007
96002266|NCT00103194|191981744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis is testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment PSA slopes.||||||0.006
96002267|NCT00907881|191981747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Regression, Linear|Pearson correlation coefficient||||||0.0002
96002268|NCT02546856|191981751|NON_INFERIORITY|For the hypothesis that the relative dose of BBs would reach 52% by the end of the study and using an equivalence margin of 7%, we would need 157 patients per group for an alpha level of significance of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80% (beta of 0.80).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.1|7.5|<0.001
95862019|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.6||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.6|-18.5|
96002269|NCT02546856|191981752|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|1.4||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|6.32|||Chi-squared|||||6.32|-3.33|0.52
95823170|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-8.40|-25.96|<.001
95823171|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Midday Meal||-7.52|-23.58|<.001
95823172|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-18.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.18|-9.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Midday Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-9.12|-27.18|<.001
95823173|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|-5.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-Evening Meal||-5.99|-23.93|.001
95823174|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-21.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.46|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening Meal 2-Hour Postprandial||-10.10|-32.46|<.001
95823175|NCT02152371|191618460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Diff|-19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|-10.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3:00AM (Morning)||-10.18|-28.77|<.001
95823176|NCT02152371|191618461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.64|-3.19|<.001
95823177|NCT02152371|191618462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Means Diff|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|-6.84|||MMRM|||||-6.84|-19.55|<.001
95823178|NCT02152371|191618469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.00|3.70|<.001
95823179|NCT02152371|191618469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio, log|5.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|9.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.73|3.35|<.001
95823180|NCT02152371|191618470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|2.32|<.001
95823181|NCT02152371|191618471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.09|<.001
95823182|NCT02152371|191618472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.62|3.26|<.001
95823183|NCT00349921|191618495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups in proportion of patients meeting the success criterion of \>30% reduction in visual analog scale pain 120 min after intrathecal injection||||>0.05
95823184|NCT01866111|191618499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||A step down procedure was used for the primary efficacy analyses to ensure the type one error rate for multiple comparisons was controlled at the 5% level using the following hierarchy: 200 mg vs placebo, 400 mg vs placebo, 100 mg vs placebo, in which a statistically significant difference had to be detected in this order for each subsequent comparison to occur.||||<0.001
95823185|NCT01866111|191618499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95823186|NCT01866111|191618499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95823187|NCT01866111|191618500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823188|NCT01866111|191618500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823189|NCT01866111|191618500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95823190|NCT06099223|191618501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95823191|NCT06099223|191618502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.029
95823192|NCT06099223|191618504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95823193|NCT06099223|191618505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95823194|NCT06099223|191618506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95823195|NCT06099223|191618507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95823196|NCT06099223|191618508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95823197|NCT06099223|191618509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95823198|NCT06099223|191618510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95823199|NCT06099223|191618511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95823200|NCT06099223|191618512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
95823201|NCT06099223|191618513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.098
95823202|NCT06099223|191618514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
95823203|NCT06099223|191618515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
95823204|NCT06099223|191618516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
95823205|NCT06099223|191618518|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95823206|NCT06099223|191618519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.919
96002270|NCT02546856|191981753|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|6.1|||Chi-squared|||||6.1|-1.9|0.31
96002271|NCT02546856|191981754|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.63||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.85|||Chi-squared|||||5.85|-7.1|0.85
96002272|NCT02546856|191981755|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|2.12||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.54|||Chi-squared|||||7.54|-3.3|0.44
96002273|NCT02546856|191981757|NON_INFERIORITY|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.04|||Chi-squared|||||3.04|-1.6|0.56
96002274|NCT02546856|191981761|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.83|-2.69|0.96
95823207|NCT02791516|191618524|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||11.5|7.6|<0.001
95823208|NCT02791516|191618525|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.7|1.4|<0.001
95823209|NCT02791516|191618526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline DXA BMD value, machine type, and machine type-by-baseline DXA BMD value.||||3.6|0.7|0.004
95823210|NCT01468207|191618552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|15.9|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|26.5||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|5.3|=0.003
95823211|NCT01468207|191618552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|29.3|||Chi-squared|||||29.3|0.3|=0.048
95823212|NCT01468207|191618552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|2.2|=0.027
95823213|NCT01468207|191618553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||=|0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|14.1|||Chi-squared|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.1|-13.4|=0.961
95823214|NCT01468207|191618554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|2.8|||=|0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|14.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||14.2|-8.6|=0.628
95823215|NCT01468207|191618555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, baseline, and treatment as covariates.||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||2.4|-19.7|=0.124
95823216|NCT03002818|191618564|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-108266.0||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235037.0|18504.0|||one-sample t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||18504|-235037|0.091
95823217|NCT03002818|191618564|SUPERIORITY||mean change|-98373.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235667.0|38921.0|||one-sample t-test|||mITT (n=24): Change at Day 168 minus Baseline||38921|-235667|0.152
95823218|NCT03002818|191618564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=26): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.091
95823219|NCT03002818|191618564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.152
95823220|NCT03002818|191618565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=34): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.461
95823221|NCT03002818|191618565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.630
95823222|NCT03002818|191618565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||paired t-test|||sdITT (n=32): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.855
95823223|NCT03002818|191618565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||paired t-test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.750
95823224|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.063|3.137||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.137|2.063|
95823225|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||mean change|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.212|3.428||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||3.428|2.212|
95823226|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
95823227|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||<0.001
95823228|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
95823229|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||<0.001
95823230|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
95823231|NCT03002818|191618566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||<0.001
95823232|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.651|1.871||||||sdITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||1.871|-0.651|
95823233|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY||mean change|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|2.088||||||mITT: mean change Baseline minus Day 168||2.088|-0.608|
95823234|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=37): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.381
95823235|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=24): Baseline vs. Day 168||||0.304
95823236|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=35): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.014
95823237|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||mITT (n=22): Baseline vs. Day 28||||0.278
95823238|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=36): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.881
95823239|NCT03002818|191618567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Paired Wilcoxon Test|||sdITT (n=23): Baseline vs. Day 84||||0.775
95823240|NCT01328041|191618573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T distribution|-1.432|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.343||The P value was derived by the null hypothesis testing of no change from Baseline in HIV-1 RNA at Day 8 at the two-sided 5% significance level using a single sample t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.343|-1.520|<0.001
95823241|NCT01328041|191618574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|76.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 24.|||76|62|
96002275|NCT02546856|191981762|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.47||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.0|748.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||748|-781|0.97
96002276|NCT02546856|191981763|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|-11.27|0.44
96002277|NCT02546856|191981765|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.81|-6.63|0.75
96002278|NCT02546856|191981766|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.2|0.20
95823242|NCT01328041|191618575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|70.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL at Week 48.|||70|56|
95959286|NCT02783573|191891582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.43||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.488|17.096|||ANCOVA|||||17.096|-47.488|0.337
95823243|NCT00664560|191618592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin of 10mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|4.32|||ANCOVA|||||4.32|-4.76|
95823244|NCT00664560|191618593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|10 mm Non-Inferiority (NI) margin between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.57|
95823245|NCT00664560|191618594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin 10 mm between Arm 1 and Arm 2 (NI design uses confidence intervals, not p-values)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.14|||ANCOVA|||||4.14|-5.08|
95823246|NCT02456636|191618611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.87||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.51|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||-0.23|-3.51|.025
95823247|NCT02456636|191618611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.0|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.29|-3.00|0.25
95823248|NCT02456636|191618611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group visits) versus DM (phone group visits)||1.13|-2.15|.025
95823249|NCT02456636|191618612|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling).||-0.18|-3.50|.025
95823250|NCT02456636|191618612|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.99|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DM (phone group counseling) versus FFS (in clinic individual counseling)||0.32|-2.99|.025
95823251|NCT02456636|191618612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.15|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||PCMH (in clinic group counseling) versus DM (phone group counseling)||1.15|-2.15|.025
95823252|NCT00100230|191618626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.30
95823253|NCT00100230|191618627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95823254|NCT00100230|191618627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95823255|NCT00100230|191618628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis: standard power calculation of 20%; used 2-sided t-test||||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.000008
95823256|NCT05312632|191618635|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95823257|NCT05312632|191618636|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95823258|NCT05312632|191618637|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95823259|NCT05312632|191618638|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95823260|NCT05312632|191618639|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.013
95823261|NCT05312632|191618640|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.053
95823262|NCT05312632|191618641|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95823263|NCT01610557|191618643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.5|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||2.5|0.07|0.039
95823264|NCT01610557|191618644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-31.0|||Linear mixed-effects model||The difference represents the estimated difference between ranibizumab and bevacizumab, adjusted for baseline visual acuity, study period, and clinical site and a subject effect for eyes nested within subject.|||-31|-65|<0.001
95823265|NCT01942668|191618646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
95823266|NCT01942668|191618646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
96002279|NCT02546856|191981767|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-5.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.4|||Chi-squared|||||-1.4|-9.7|0.01
95823267|NCT01942668|191618646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
95959287|NCT02783573|191891583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.927
95959288|NCT02783573|191891583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.015|0.930
95959289|NCT02783573|191891584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.708|0.464|||ANCOVA|||||0.464|-3.708|0.127
96002280|NCT02546856|191981768|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 5%|Difference in percentages|-0.68||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.87|||Chi-squared|Equivalence margin of 7%||||2.87|-4.2|0.71
96002281|NCT02546856|191981769|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|24.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.3|8.7|<0.001
96002282|NCT02546856|191981770|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.1|-15.1|0.93
95823268|NCT01942668|191618646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
95823269|NCT01942668|191618647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
95823270|NCT01942668|191618647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
95823271|NCT01942668|191618647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
95823272|NCT01942668|191618647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
95823273|NCT01942668|191618648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
95823274|NCT01942668|191618648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
95823275|NCT01942668|191618648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
95823276|NCT01942668|191618648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
95823277|NCT01942668|191618649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
95823278|NCT01942668|191618649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
95823279|NCT01942668|191618649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
95823280|NCT01942668|191618649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpt in each dose group tested at alpha=0.05;multiple dose groups vs. PBO comparisons are conducted using gatekeeping procedure|Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
95823281|NCT01942668|191618650|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
96002283|NCT02546856|191981771|NON_INFERIORITY|Equivalence margin of 7%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|-7.1|0.86
95823282|NCT01942668|191618650|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
96002284|NCT02385123|191981825|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95823283|NCT01942668|191618650|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
95823284|NCT01942668|191618650|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
95823285|NCT01942668|191618650|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
95823286|NCT01942668|191618651|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.06||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||1.06||
95823287|NCT01942668|191618651|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.98||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg.||0.98||
95823288|NCT01942668|191618651|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||0.97||
95823289|NCT01942668|191618651|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.09||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg.||1.09||
95823290|NCT01942668|191618651|OTHER|Per FDA guidance hyperplasia proportion must be \<=1% with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval \<=4%.|incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||Between group comparison was not performed.|||This calculation is based on a binomial distribution.|Between group comparison is not intended. The purpose of the analysis is to calculate the incidence rate and the 95% CI of endometrial hyperplasia per FDA published guidance for Placebo.||3.20||
95823291|NCT01942668|191618652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|6.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.30|-3.57|0.588
95823292|NCT01942668|191618652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|6.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.15|-3.56|0.601
95823293|NCT01942668|191618652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|8.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.06|-1.71|0.202
95823294|NCT01942668|191618652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.89|-6.76|0.431
95823295|NCT01942668|191618653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|1.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.64|-10.34|0.154
95854956|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.42|0.83|0.5403
96002285|NCT02385123|191981826|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96000777|NCT04192448|191978278|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.82|26.19|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||26.19|-29.82|.28
95823296|NCT01942668|191618653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.73||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||5.73|-6.06|0.956
96000778|NCT04192448|191978278|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.01|35.01|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in sexual aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of sexual aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||35.01|-33.01|.39
96002286|NCT02385123|191981827|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95823297|NCT01942668|191618653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|9.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||9.46|-2.37|0.240
95823298|NCT01942668|191618653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.08|-8.62|0.353
95823299|NCT01942668|191618654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.36|-14.75|0.007
95823300|NCT01942668|191618654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|2.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.35|-9.86|0.227
95823301|NCT01942668|191618654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||4.47|-7.77|0.597
95823302|NCT01942668|191618654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-1.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.19|-13.28|0.019
95823303|NCT01942668|191618655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.29|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-19.29|<0.001
95823304|NCT01942668|191618655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.46|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.68|-14.46|0.013
95823305|NCT01942668|191618655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.59|-11.21|0.141
95823306|NCT01942668|191618655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-4.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.08|-16.73|0.001
95823307|NCT01942668|191618656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-9.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.02|-22.16|<0.001
95854957|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.55|0.89|0.2654
95823308|NCT01942668|191618656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.34|-3.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.41|-16.34|0.003
95959290|NCT02783573|191891584|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.172|-0.991|||ANCOVA|||||-0.991|-5.172|0.004
95823309|NCT01942668|191618656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.59|-12.40|0.075
95823310|NCT01942668|191618656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.47|-5.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.64|-18.47|<0.001
95823311|NCT01942668|191618657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-11.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.05|-24.57|<0.001
95823312|NCT01942668|191618657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.70|-18.00|<0.001
95823313|NCT01942668|191618657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.14|-14.50|0.022
95823314|NCT01942668|191618657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|-5.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.91|-19.11|<0.001
95823315|NCT01942668|191618658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|-11.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.06|-24.45|<0.001
95823316|NCT01942668|191618658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-6.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.70|-19.88|<0.001
95823317|NCT01942668|191618658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-3.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.60|-16.83|0.003
95823318|NCT01942668|191618658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.15|-7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.07|-20.15|<0.001
95823319|NCT01942668|191618659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.35|-9.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.91|-23.35|<0.001
95823320|NCT01942668|191618659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|-6.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.36|-19.58|<0.001
95823321|NCT01942668|191618659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-2.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-2.99|-16.27|0.005
95823322|NCT01942668|191618659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|-5.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.41|-18.53|<0.001
95959291|NCT01458522|191891602|OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Poisson regression model|||||||0.512
95959292|NCT00730015|191891640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|17.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be at least 90% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||17.47|3.41|<0.0001
95959293|NCT00730015|191891640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|16.59||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo. The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be greater than 96% based on study NCT00402337(MCP-103-201) data.||16.59|3.14|<0.0001
96002287|NCT02385123|191981828|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people|||
96002288|NCT02385123|191981829|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95823323|NCT01942668|191618660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-10.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.44|-23.79|<0.001
95823324|NCT01942668|191618660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.15|-9.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.01|-22.15|<0.001
95823325|NCT01942668|191618660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-4.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.44|-17.65|0.001
95823326|NCT01942668|191618660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|-6.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.50|-19.54|<0.001
95823327|NCT01942668|191618661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.58|-10.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.03|-23.58|<0.001
95823328|NCT01942668|191618661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.32|-8.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.99|-22.32|<0.001
95823329|NCT01942668|191618661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-4.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.49|-17.90|0.001
95823330|NCT01942668|191618661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-5.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.55|-18.78|<0.001
95823331|NCT01942668|191618662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-11.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.29|-24.92|<0.001
95823332|NCT01942668|191618662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.17|-9.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.74|-23.17|<0.001
95823333|NCT01942668|191618662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.15|-5.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.66|-19.15|<0.001
95823334|NCT01942668|191618662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-6.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.93|-20.26|<0.001
95823335|NCT01942668|191618663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.33|-9.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-9.82|-23.33|<0.001
95823336|NCT01942668|191618663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.72|-8.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.42|-21.72|<0.001
95823337|NCT01942668|191618663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-4.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.10|-17.48|0.002
95823338|NCT01942668|191618663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.11|-18.31|<0.001
95823339|NCT01942668|191618664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.06|0.801
95823340|NCT01942668|191618664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.07|0.991
95823341|NCT01942668|191618664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.05|0.642
95854958|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.48|0.82|0.5138
95959294|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|3.94|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||3.940|0.258|
95959295|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.177|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.177|0.497|
95823342|NCT01942668|191618664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.07|0.928
95823343|NCT01942668|191618665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.231
95823344|NCT01942668|191618665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.14|0.173
95823345|NCT01942668|191618665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.07|0.717
95823346|NCT01942668|191618665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.09|0.849
95823347|NCT01942668|191618666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.039
95823348|NCT01942668|191618666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.21|0.030
95823349|NCT01942668|191618666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.10|0.946
95823350|NCT01942668|191618666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.15|0.309
95823351|NCT01942668|191618667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.25|0.031
95823352|NCT01942668|191618667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.05|-0.28|0.005
95823353|NCT01942668|191618667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.17|0.401
95823354|NCT01942668|191618667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.21|0.100
96000779|NCT04192448|191978279|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.63|||t-test, 1 sided|This t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol Condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.63|-2.88|.33
95823355|NCT01942668|191618668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.37|0.001
95854959|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.67|0.89|0.2138
95959296|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|3.71|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||3.710|0.317|
95959297|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.74|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.740|0.536|
95959298|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|4.827|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||4.827|0.247|
95959299|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|2.801|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.801|0.461|
95959300|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||4.030|0.493|
96002289|NCT02385123|191981830|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95959301|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|3.994|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||3.994|0.301|
95823356|NCT01942668|191618668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.28|0.034
95823357|NCT01942668|191618668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.16|0.790
95823358|NCT01942668|191618668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.25|0.086
95823359|NCT01942668|191618669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
95823360|NCT01942668|191618669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.030
95823361|NCT01942668|191618669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.26|0.247
95823362|NCT01942668|191618669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.022
95823363|NCT01942668|191618670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
95823364|NCT01942668|191618670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.42|0.002
95823365|NCT01942668|191618670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.34|0.031
95823366|NCT01942668|191618670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.36|0.016
95823367|NCT01942668|191618671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
95823368|NCT01942668|191618671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.40|0.008
95854960|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.82|0.88|0.2114
95959302|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|4.03|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||4.030|0.493|
95959303|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.954|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.172|7.445|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||7.445|1.172|
95959304|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|4.432|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.432|0.299|
95959305|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|6.743|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||6.743|0.113|
96002290|NCT02385123|191981831|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95823369|NCT01942668|191618671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.32|0.087
95823370|NCT01942668|191618671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.092
95823371|NCT01942668|191618672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
95823372|NCT01942668|191618672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.12|-0.47|0.001
95823373|NCT01942668|191618672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
95823374|NCT01942668|191618672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.42|0.007
95823375|NCT01942668|191618673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
95823376|NCT01942668|191618673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
95823377|NCT01942668|191618673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.41|0.016
95823378|NCT01942668|191618673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.28|0.310
95823379|NCT01942668|191618674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
95823380|NCT01942668|191618674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.19|-0.56|<0.001
95959306|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|2.461|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 × IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.461|0.545|
95823381|NCT01942668|191618674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.06|-0.44|0.011
95823382|NCT01942668|191618674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.36|0.076
95823383|NCT01942668|191618675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.38|-0.77|<0.001
95823384|NCT01942668|191618675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.59|<0.001
95823385|NCT01942668|191618675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
95823386|NCT01942668|191618675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.096
95823387|NCT01942668|191618676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.14|-5.16|0.865
95959307|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.244|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.244|0.280|
95823388|NCT01942668|191618676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.10|-5.01|0.847
95823389|NCT01942668|191618676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|7.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||7.68|-3.50|0.463
95823390|NCT01942668|191618676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.97|-9.07|0.207
95823391|NCT01942668|191618677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||1.67|-11.80|0.140
95823392|NCT01942668|191618677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||6.55|-6.70|0.982
95823393|NCT01942668|191618677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|8.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||8.98|-4.32|0.492
95823394|NCT01942668|191618677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|2.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.43|-10.72|0.216
95823395|NCT01942668|191618678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-3.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.50|-17.26|0.003
95823396|NCT01942668|191618678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.02|-10.53|0.277
95823397|NCT01942668|191618678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||3.84|-9.75|0.394
95823398|NCT01942668|191618678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.15|-14.58|0.022
95823399|NCT01942668|191618679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|-7.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.89|-22.75|<0.001
95823400|NCT01942668|191618679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.24|-1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-1.60|-16.24|0.017
95823401|NCT01942668|191618679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||2.78|-11.90|0.223
95823402|NCT01942668|191618679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.57|-4.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.07|-18.57|0.002
95823403|NCT01942668|191618680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-10.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.28|-24.65|<0.001
95823404|NCT01942668|191618680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|-3.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-3.18|-17.33|0.005
95823405|NCT01942668|191618680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.89|-13.31|0.087
95823406|NCT01942668|191618680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|-5.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.65|-19.68|<0.001
95959308|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|1.862|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.862|0.038|
95959309|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|0.849|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||0.849|0.201|
95959310|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|1.194|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.194|0.075|
95823407|NCT01942668|191618681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|-12.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.87|-27.77|<0.001
95823408|NCT01942668|191618681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-5.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.28|-19.95|<0.001
95823409|NCT01942668|191618681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.96|-15.70|0.027
95823410|NCT01942668|191618681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|-6.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.58|-21.13|<0.001
95823411|NCT01942668|191618682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.87|-14.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.04|-28.87|<0.001
95823412|NCT01942668|191618682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-8.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.80|-23.39|<0.001
95823413|NCT01942668|191618682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-4.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.68|-19.34|0.001
95823414|NCT01942668|191618682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.97|-8.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.49|-22.97|<0.001
95823415|NCT01942668|191618683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-12.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.97|-28.06|<0.001
95823416|NCT01942668|191618683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.95|-22.80|<0.001
95823417|NCT01942668|191618683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-4.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.03|-18.95|0.003
95823418|NCT01942668|191618683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.19|-6.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.46|-21.19|<0.001
95823419|NCT01942668|191618684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|-12.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.74|-27.93|<0.001
95823420|NCT01942668|191618684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|-10.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.45|-25.39|<0.001
95823421|NCT01942668|191618684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|-5.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.46|-20.49|<0.001
95823422|NCT01942668|191618684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.87|-21.70|<0.001
95823423|NCT01942668|191618685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-13.29|-28.72|<0.001
95823424|NCT01942668|191618685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|-10.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.78|-25.96|<0.001
95823425|NCT01942668|191618685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-5.39|-20.66|<0.001
95823426|NCT01942668|191618685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.19|-7.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-7.12|-22.19|<0.001
95823427|NCT01942668|191618686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.57|-14.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-14.08|-29.57|<0.001
95823428|NCT01942668|191618686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-11.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-11.77|-27.02|<0.001
95823429|NCT01942668|191618686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.65|-6.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.32|-21.65|<0.001
95823430|NCT01942668|191618686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|-8.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-8.10|-23.23|<0.001
95823431|NCT01942668|191618687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.32|-12.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-12.89|-28.32|<0.001
95823432|NCT01942668|191618687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|-10.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-10.65|-25.84|<0.001
95959311|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|6.362|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||6.362|0.917|
95823433|NCT01942668|191618687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-4.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-4.98|-20.26|0.001
95823434|NCT01942668|191618687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-6.43||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-6.43|-21.51|<0.001
95823435|NCT01942668|191618688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.04|0.676
95823436|NCT01942668|191618688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.07|-0.03|0.436
95823437|NCT01942668|191618688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.10|-0.01|0.106
95823438|NCT01942668|191618688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.06|0.752
95823439|NCT01942668|191618689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.12|0.193
95823440|NCT01942668|191618689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.11|0.319
95823441|NCT01942668|191618689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.12|-0.03|0.239
95959312|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.688|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|4.655|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.655|0.612|
95959313|NCT05923112|191891686|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|1.99|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.990|0.408|
95959314|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|4.391|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||4.391|0.086|
95959315|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|1.491|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.491|0.188|
96002291|NCT02385123|191981832|OTHER|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95823442|NCT01942668|191618689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.06|-0.09|0.720
95823443|NCT01942668|191618690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.20|0.030
95823444|NCT01942668|191618690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.19|0.060
95823445|NCT01942668|191618690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.13|-0.06|0.506
95823446|NCT01942668|191618690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.04|-0.15|0.232
95823447|NCT01942668|191618691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.24|0.027
95823448|NCT01942668|191618691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.26|0.011
95823449|NCT01942668|191618691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.13|0.710
95823450|NCT01942668|191618691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.21|0.072
95823451|NCT01942668|191618692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.09|-0.36|<0.001
95823452|NCT01942668|191618692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.062
95823453|NCT01942668|191618692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.14|-0.12|0.886
95823454|NCT01942668|191618692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.26|0.067
95823455|NCT01942668|191618693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.53|<0.001
95823456|NCT01942668|191618693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.00|-0.32|0.053
95823457|NCT01942668|191618693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.09|-0.23|0.413
95862020|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|0.8||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||0.8|-30.3|
95959316|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|4.723|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||4.723|0.217|
95959317|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|2.594|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.594|0.316|
95959318|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|5.455|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||5.455|0.085|
95959319|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|2.335|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.335|0.267|
95959320|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||7.900|0.845|
95823458|NCT01942668|191618693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.35|0.018
95823459|NCT01942668|191618694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.20|-0.54|<0.001
95823460|NCT01942668|191618694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
95823461|NCT01942668|191618694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.32|0.072
95823462|NCT01942668|191618694|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.014
95823463|NCT01942668|191618695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.21|-0.55|<0.001
95823464|NCT01942668|191618695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.04|-0.37|0.016
95823465|NCT01942668|191618695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.05|-0.29|0.169
95823466|NCT01942668|191618695|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.02|-0.31|0.081
95959321|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|6.163|||||"Risk Ratio of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of past medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||6.163|0.131|
95823467|NCT01942668|191618696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.30|-0.66|<0.001
95823468|NCT01942668|191618696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.10|-0.45|0.003
95823469|NCT01942668|191618696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.03|-0.39|0.022
95823470|NCT01942668|191618696|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.43|0.006
95823471|NCT01942668|191618697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.33|-0.71|<0.001
95823472|NCT01942668|191618697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.07|-0.44|0.007
95823473|NCT01942668|191618697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.39|0.038
95823474|NCT01942668|191618697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.08|-0.29|0.283
95823475|NCT01942668|191618698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.34|-0.72|<0.001
95823476|NCT01942668|191618698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.16|-0.54|<0.001
95823477|NCT01942668|191618698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.02|-0.41|0.027
95959322|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|7.9|||||"Risk Ratio of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of present medical history - Hepatitis or hepatic disease||7.900|0.845|
95959323|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|9.63|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||9.630|0.796|
95823478|NCT01942668|191618698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.01|-0.36|0.071
95823479|NCT01942668|191618699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
95823480|NCT01942668|191618699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.18|-0.57|<0.001
95823481|NCT01942668|191618699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||-0.01|-0.40|0.039
95823482|NCT01942668|191618699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted for baseline using MMRM|||0.03|-0.36|0.088
95823483|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.850
95823484|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.622
95823485|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
95823486|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.374
95959324|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|8.827|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||8.827|0.418|
95823487|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.706
95959325|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
95823488|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.372
95823489|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.316
95823490|NCT01942668|191618700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.221
95823491|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.283
95823492|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
95823493|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.680
95959326|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|2.062|||||"Risk Ratio of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug either \> 1.5 × the institutional upper limit normal range (IULN) to ≤ 1.5 ×IULN"|Subgroup analyses of AST and ALT levels immediately before the start of this drug||2.062|0.184|
95959327|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.729|||||"Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug \> 50 IU/L to ≤ 50 IU/L"|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug||1.729|0.249|
95823494|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.232
95823495|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.677
95823496|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.073
95823497|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.301
95823498|NCT01942668|191618701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.013
95823499|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
95823500|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823501|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.135
95823502|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.231
95823503|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.377
95823504|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.478
95823505|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
95823506|NCT01942668|191618702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.100
95823507|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823508|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823509|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
95823510|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
95823511|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95823512|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
95823513|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823514|NCT01942668|191618703|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823515|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823516|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823517|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.066
95823518|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.055
95823519|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.174
95823520|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.319
95823521|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.007
95823522|NCT01942668|191618704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
95823523|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823524|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823525|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.019
95823526|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.061
95823527|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.026
95823528|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.104
95823529|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823530|NCT01942668|191618705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.018
95823531|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823532|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823533|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
95823534|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
95823535|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.017
95823536|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.025
95823537|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823538|NCT01942668|191618706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.037
95823539|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823540|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823541|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823542|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.016
95823543|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.012
95823544|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.053
95823545|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
95823546|NCT01942668|191618707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
95823547|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823548|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823549|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823550|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823551|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.009
95823552|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
95823553|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
95823554|NCT01942668|191618708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
95823555|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
95959328|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of γ-GTP level immediately before the start of this drug not performed to ≤ 50 IU/L"|||
95823556|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823557|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
95823558|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
95823559|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823560|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.009
95823561|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.018
95823562|NCT01942668|191618709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.021
95823563|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823564|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823565|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823566|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823567|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
96000780|NCT04192448|191978279|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.88|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in physical aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of physical aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||2.88|-2.53|.33
95862021|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|28.1||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.1|-3.2|
96000781|NCT04192448|191978280|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|6.67|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined differences in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A positive value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Alcohol condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||6.67|-8.00|.23
96000782|NCT04192448|191978280|OTHER|Target sample size was 200 participants. Power calculation was determined using nQuery version 8.4.1 for the 2x2 design, using 50 subject per group (including a conservative 10% dropout). Power calculation estimated 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.3 in both factors with no interaction, and greater power if there is an interaction effect. Current enrollment indicates study is underpowered. Because there are not enough participants to conduct an ANOVA or ANCOVA, t-tests were conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|11.17|||t-test, 1 sided|The t-test examined the difference in psychological aggression intentions between those in the Anger condition and those in the Control condition.|The estimation parameter refers to the mean difference in the outcome between those in the Alcohol condition and those in the Sober condition. A negative value indicates greater likelihood of psych aggression among those in the Control condition.|The number of participants enrolled in the study constrained the type of statistical analyses able to be conducted. Indeed, the Sober x Anger condition could not be compared to the other arms because no participants were randomly assigned to that arm.||11.17|-10.84|.44
96000783|NCT00435539|191978281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4783|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4783
96000784|NCT00435539|191978281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0932|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0932
96000785|NCT00435539|191978281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0721
96000786|NCT00435539|191978282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
96000787|NCT00435539|191978282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4762
96000788|NCT00435539|191978282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5343
96000789|NCT02340104|191978283|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant and error as random effects.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.81|||||Geometric Least Square (LS) Means values were calculated using Log pharmacokinetic (PK) model with treatment, participant, random error as independent variables, where participant was fitted as a random effect.|||0.810|0.769|
96000790|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
96000791|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
96000792|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
96000793|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95823568|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823569|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823570|NCT01942668|191618710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823571|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823572|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823573|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823574|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823575|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
95823576|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
95862022|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.4||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-23.1|
95959329|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.836|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.836|0.273|
95823577|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.015
95823578|NCT01942668|191618711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.005
95823579|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.523
95823580|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
95823581|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.821
95823582|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
95823583|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.828||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.828
95823584|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||1.000
95823585|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.239
95823586|NCT01942668|191618712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 1|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.377
95823587|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.036
95823588|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.015
95823589|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||1.000
95823590|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.546
95823591|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.352
95823592|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.261
95823593|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.058
95823594|NCT01942668|191618713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 2|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.011
95823595|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823596|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823597|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.115
95823598|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.110
95823599|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.089
95823600|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.074
95823601|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
95823602|NCT01942668|191618714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 3|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.008
95823603|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823604|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823605|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.011
95823606|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823607|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.002
95823608|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.002
95823609|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823610|NCT01942668|191618715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823611|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823612|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823613|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
95823614|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
95823615|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.063
95823616|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.058
95823617|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
95823618|NCT01942668|191618716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 5|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
95823619|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823620|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823621|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.050
95823622|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.006
95823623|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.048
95823624|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
95823625|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.020
95823626|NCT01942668|191618717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 6|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
95823627|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823628|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823629|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823630|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823631|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.006
95823632|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823633|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823634|NCT01942668|191618718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 7|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823635|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823636|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823637|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.013
95823638|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823639|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823640|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.004
95823641|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.003
95823642|NCT01942668|191618719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.001
95823643|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823644|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823645|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823646|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823647|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823648|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823649|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.004
95823650|NCT01942668|191618720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 9|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823651|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823652|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823653|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823654|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823655|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823656|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823657|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||0.001
95823658|NCT01942668|191618721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 10|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823659|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823660|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823661|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823662|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823663|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823664|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.003
95823665|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823666|NCT01942668|191618722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 11|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823667|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823668|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823669|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823670|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||<0.001
95823671|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823672|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.056
95823673|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=50% Reduction||||<0.001
95823674|NCT01942668|191618723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||\>=75% Reduction||||0.017
95823675|NCT01942668|191618724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823676|NCT01942668|191618724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95823677|NCT01942668|191618724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95823678|NCT01942668|191618724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95823679|NCT01942668|191618726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823680|NCT01942668|191618726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823681|NCT01942668|191618726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95823682|NCT01942668|191618726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 8|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95823683|NCT01942668|191618728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823684|NCT01942668|191618728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823685|NCT01942668|191618728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823686|NCT01942668|191618728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value is derived from comparing % Very Much Improved+Much Improved between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95823687|NCT01942668|191618730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
95823688|NCT01942668|191618730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
95823689|NCT01942668|191618730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.280
95823690|NCT01942668|191618730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.692
96000794|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95823691|NCT01942668|191618731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
95823692|NCT01942668|191618731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.069
95823693|NCT01942668|191618731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.131
95823694|NCT01942668|191618731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
95823695|NCT01942668|191618732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
95823696|NCT01942668|191618732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
95823697|NCT01942668|191618732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
95823698|NCT01942668|191618732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.495
95823699|NCT01942668|191618733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
95823700|NCT01942668|191618733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
95823701|NCT01942668|191618733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.137
95823702|NCT01942668|191618733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
95823703|NCT01942668|191618734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.000
95823704|NCT01942668|191618734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
95823705|NCT01942668|191618734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
95823706|NCT01942668|191618734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.792
95823707|NCT01942668|191618735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95823708|NCT01942668|191618735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
95823709|NCT01942668|191618735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
95823710|NCT01942668|191618735|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823711|NCT01942668|191618736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95823712|NCT01942668|191618736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.075
95823713|NCT01942668|191618736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.225
95823714|NCT01942668|191618736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.769
95823715|NCT01942668|191618737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95823716|NCT01942668|191618737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.084
95823717|NCT01942668|191618737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
95823718|NCT01942668|191618737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
95823719|NCT01942668|191618738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95823720|NCT01942668|191618738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
95823721|NCT01942668|191618738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.386
95823722|NCT01942668|191618738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.737
95823723|NCT01942668|191618739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
95823724|NCT01942668|191618739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
95823725|NCT01942668|191618739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.745
95823726|NCT01942668|191618739|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823727|NCT01942668|191618740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
95823728|NCT01942668|191618740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
95823729|NCT01942668|191618740|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823730|NCT01942668|191618740|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823731|NCT01942668|191618741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.261
95823732|NCT01942668|191618741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.536
95823733|NCT01942668|191618741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823734|NCT01942668|191618741|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823735|NCT01942668|191618742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.463
95823736|NCT01942668|191618742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
95823737|NCT01942668|191618742|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823738|NCT01942668|191618742|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823739|NCT01942668|191618743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823740|NCT01942668|191618743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
95823741|NCT01942668|191618743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
95823742|NCT01942668|191618743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.328
95823743|NCT01942668|191618744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823744|NCT01942668|191618744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.123
95823745|NCT01942668|191618744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
95823746|NCT01942668|191618744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.649
95823747|NCT01942668|191618745|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823748|NCT01942668|191618745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
95823749|NCT01942668|191618745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
95823750|NCT01942668|191618745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
95823751|NCT01942668|191618746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823752|NCT01942668|191618746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.044
95823753|NCT01942668|191618746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95823754|NCT01942668|191618746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.481
95823755|NCT01942668|191618747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95959330|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|1.79|||||"Risk Ratio of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 1000 /μL to ≤ 1000 /μL"|Subgroup analyses of peripheral blast count immediately before the start of this drug||1.790|0.034|
95959331|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.927|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|10.294|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||10.294|0.832|
96000795|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95823756|NCT01942668|191618747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.110
95823757|NCT01942668|191618747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.045
95823758|NCT01942668|191618747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.853
95823759|NCT01942668|191618748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823760|NCT01942668|191618748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95959332|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||5.279|0.296|
96000796|NCT00500149|191978328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The primary efficacy variable will be onset of effect, which will be determined from the results of inferential analyses across multiple time points. No adjustment will be made to the levels of significance as a result of the multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
96000797|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 1.5 hours post-dose||||< 0.0001
95823761|NCT01942668|191618748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.145
95823762|NCT01942668|191618748|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823763|NCT01942668|191618749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823764|NCT01942668|191618749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.163
95823765|NCT01942668|191618749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
95823766|NCT01942668|191618749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.693
95823767|NCT01942668|191618750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823768|NCT01942668|191618750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
95823769|NCT01942668|191618750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.097
95823770|NCT01942668|191618750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.522
95823771|NCT01942668|191618751|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95959333|NCT05923112|191891687|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|4.058|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.058|0.588|
95959334|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.528|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.939|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.939|0.144|
95959335|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|2.041|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.041|0.849|
96000798|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 2.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
96000799|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 5.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95823772|NCT01942668|191618751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.315
95823773|NCT01942668|191618751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
95823774|NCT01942668|191618751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.821
95823775|NCT01942668|191618752|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823776|NCT01942668|191618752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.387
95823777|NCT01942668|191618752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.215
95823778|NCT01942668|191618752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
95823779|NCT01942668|191618753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95823780|NCT01942668|191618753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.643
95823781|NCT01942668|191618753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.501
95823782|NCT01942668|191618753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823783|NCT01942668|191618754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95823784|NCT01942668|191618754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.616
95823785|NCT01942668|191618754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
95823786|NCT01942668|191618754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823787|NCT01942668|191618755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
95823788|NCT01942668|191618755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.535
95823789|NCT01942668|191618755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.183
95823790|NCT01942668|191618755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
95823791|NCT01942668|191618756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823792|NCT01942668|191618756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95823793|NCT01942668|191618756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95959336|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.351|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.351|0.500|
95823794|NCT01942668|191618756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
95823795|NCT01942668|191618757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823796|NCT01942668|191618757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
95823797|NCT01942668|191618757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95823798|NCT01942668|191618757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.256
95823799|NCT01942668|191618758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823800|NCT01942668|191618758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95823801|NCT01942668|191618758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.025
95823802|NCT01942668|191618758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.182
95823803|NCT01942668|191618759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95823804|NCT01942668|191618759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.469
95823805|NCT01942668|191618759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
95823806|NCT01942668|191618759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.613
95823807|NCT01942668|191618764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95823808|NCT01942668|191618764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.135
95823809|NCT01942668|191618764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.260
95959337|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.142|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.142|0.781|
95823810|NCT01942668|191618764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 1|Fisher Exact|||||||0.257
95823811|NCT01942668|191618765|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95823812|NCT01942668|191618765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.085
95823813|NCT01942668|191618765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.184
95862023|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|17.2||||||Change at Week 2, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.2|-23.3|
95823814|NCT01942668|191618765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 2|Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
95823815|NCT01942668|191618766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95959338|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.715|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.715|0.120|
95823816|NCT01942668|191618766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
95823817|NCT01942668|191618766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
95823818|NCT01942668|191618766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.685
95823819|NCT01942668|191618767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
95823820|NCT01942668|191618767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
95823821|NCT01942668|191618767|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823822|NCT01942668|191618767|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo during Trimester 4|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95823823|NCT01942668|191618772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-1.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.17|-2.13|<0.001
95823824|NCT01942668|191618772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.79|<0.001
95823825|NCT01942668|191618772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.64|<0.001
95823826|NCT01942668|191618772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.58|-1.51|<0.001
95823827|NCT01942668|191618773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.89||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.89|-1.91|<0.001
95823828|NCT01942668|191618773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-1.81|<0.001
95823829|NCT01942668|191618773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-1.63|<0.001
95959339|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.653|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.653|0.605|
95823830|NCT01942668|191618773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.19|0.007
95823831|NCT01942668|191618774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.66|-1.75|<0.001
95823832|NCT01942668|191618774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.98|<0.001
95823833|NCT01942668|191618774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.76|<0.001
95823834|NCT01942668|191618774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-1.26|0.008
95823835|NCT01942668|191618775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.49|0.284
95823836|NCT01942668|191618775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.36|0.732
95823837|NCT01942668|191618775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.44|0.437
95823838|NCT01942668|191618775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.43|0.439
95823839|NCT01942668|191618776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.68|0.040
95959340|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.228|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.228|0.542|
95823840|NCT01942668|191618776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.63|0.066
95823841|NCT01942668|191618776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.45|0.469
95823842|NCT01942668|191618776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.41|0.616
95823843|NCT01942668|191618777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.57|0.250
95823844|NCT01942668|191618777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.88|0.002
95823845|NCT01942668|191618777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.40|0.796
95823846|NCT01942668|191618777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-0.36|0.955
95823847|NCT01942668|191618778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.38|0.474
95823848|NCT01942668|191618778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.378
95823849|NCT01942668|191618778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.61|0.018
95823850|NCT01942668|191618778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|-0.32|0.730
95823851|NCT01942668|191618779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.49|0.197
95823852|NCT01942668|191618779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.44|0.308
95823853|NCT01942668|191618779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.54|0.117
95823854|NCT01942668|191618779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.34|0.739
95823855|NCT01942668|191618780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-0.42|0.635
95823856|NCT01942668|191618780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.75|0.010
95823857|NCT01942668|191618780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.62|0.092
95823858|NCT01942668|191618780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.53|0.243
95823859|NCT01942668|191618781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.00|-0.83|0.049
95823860|NCT01942668|191618781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-0.34|0.773
95823861|NCT01942668|191618781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.77|0.081
95823862|NCT01942668|191618781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.50|0.625
95823863|NCT01942668|191618782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.70|0.221
95823864|NCT01942668|191618782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.42|0.992
95823865|NCT01942668|191618782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.72|0.181
95823866|NCT01942668|191618782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.47|0.846
95823867|NCT01942668|191618783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.71|0.421
95823868|NCT01942668|191618783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.97|0.044
95823869|NCT01942668|191618783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.92|0.093
95823870|NCT01942668|191618783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.79|0.247
95823871|NCT01942668|191618784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.87|<0.001
95823872|NCT01942668|191618784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.62|0.016
95823873|NCT01942668|191618784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
95823874|NCT01942668|191618784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.60|0.023
95823875|NCT01942668|191618785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.84|<0.001
95823876|NCT01942668|191618785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.004
95823877|NCT01942668|191618785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.73|0.003
95823878|NCT01942668|191618785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.179
95823879|NCT01942668|191618786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.76|0.012
95823880|NCT01942668|191618786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.05|<0.001
95823881|NCT01942668|191618786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.81|0.004
95823882|NCT01942668|191618786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.63|0.070
95823883|NCT01942668|191618787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.35|-8.44|0.033
95823884|NCT01942668|191618787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.50|0.207
95823885|NCT01942668|191618787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-8.58|0.024
95823886|NCT01942668|191618787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.007||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.41|-6.47|0.207
95823887|NCT01942668|191618788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-1.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.28|-9.68|0.011
95823888|NCT01942668|191618788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|-1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-9.36|0.012
95823889|NCT01942668|191618788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-1.41||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.41|-9.75|0.009
95823890|NCT01942668|191618788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-9.11|0.018
96000800|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 7.5 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95823891|NCT01942668|191618789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-9.38|0.058
95823892|NCT01942668|191618789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.322||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-2.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.92|-12.04|0.001
95823893|NCT01942668|191618789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-3.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.25|-12.67|<0.001
95823894|NCT01942668|191618789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-11.50|0.005
95823895|NCT01942668|191618790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-1.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-11.92|0.020
95823896|NCT01942668|191618790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.715||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|1.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|-8.69|0.216
95823897|NCT01942668|191618790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-11.22|0.033
95862024|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|16.3||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||16.3|-14.9|
95959341|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.714|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.714|0.667|
95959342|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.705|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.705|0.485|
95823898|NCT01942668|191618790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.685||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|2.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|-8.27|0.265
95959343|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.688|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.688|0.125|
95823899|NCT01942668|191618791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.854||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.93|-13.14|0.008
95823900|NCT01942668|191618791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|-1.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-12.18|0.016
95823901|NCT01942668|191618791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.847||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-14.28|0.002
95823902|NCT01942668|191618791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-0.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-11.68|0.028
95823903|NCT01942668|191618792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-12.80|0.040
95823904|NCT01942668|191618792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-15.99|0.001
95823905|NCT01942668|191618792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.129||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-3.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.81|-16.11|0.002
96000801|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
96000802|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.001
95823906|NCT01942668|191618792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.127||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-0.7||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-12.99|0.029
95959344|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.362|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.362|0.580|
96000803|NCT00500149|191978329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Using a linear mixed model that includes sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects and subject-within-sequence as a random effect.||Statistical analysis of SKAMP scores at 13.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95823907|NCT01942668|191618793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.003||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|9.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.05|-2.75|0.294
95823908|NCT01942668|191618793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|8.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.60|-2.87|0.327
95823909|NCT01942668|191618793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.947||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|4.39||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.39|-7.18|0.637
95823910|NCT01942668|191618793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.893||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|5.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.86|-5.51|0.952
95823911|NCT01942668|191618794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.219||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|8.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.14|-4.51|0.573
95823912|NCT01942668|191618794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|5.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.01|0.769
95823913|NCT01942668|191618794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-12.56|0.047
95959345|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.725|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.725|0.728|
95959346|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.536|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.536|0.639|
96000804|NCT01157169|191978330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.67|120.07|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.07|101.67|
95823914|NCT01942668|191618794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|3.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.56|-8.74|0.409
95823915|NCT01942668|191618795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|8.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-4.85|0.579
95823916|NCT01942668|191618795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.275||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.44|-10.43|0.223
95823917|NCT01942668|191618795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.56|-8.67|0.542
95823918|NCT01942668|191618795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.376||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|4.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-9.04|0.476
95823919|NCT01942668|191618796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.84|-6.34|0.631
95823920|NCT01942668|191618796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|6.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-3.84|0.651
95823921|NCT01942668|191618796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|4.45||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.45|-5.67|0.813
95823922|NCT01942668|191618796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.52||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.52|-5.35|0.869
95823923|NCT01942668|191618797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.48|0.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-10.48|0.074
95959347|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|3.643|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.643|1.093|
95959348|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|3.279|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.279|0.977|
95823924|NCT01942668|191618797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.722||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-6.22|0.748
95823925|NCT01942668|191618797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.805||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|5.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.56|-5.46|0.987
95823926|NCT01942668|191618797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|4.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.36|-6.41|0.709
95959349|NCT05923112|191891688|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.286|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.286|0.464|
96000805|NCT01157169|191978331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|112.45|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.45|99.74|
95823927|NCT01942668|191618798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.968||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.22|-8.44|0.379
95823928|NCT01942668|191618798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.832||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|2.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.49|-8.64|0.279
95823929|NCT01942668|191618798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.949||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.40|-6.19|0.894
95959350|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|2.159|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||2.159|0.158|
95823930|NCT01942668|191618798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.923||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-8.72|0.308
95823931|NCT01942668|191618799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.081||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|7.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.86|-4.24|0.558
95823932|NCT01942668|191618799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.031||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.57|-2.34|0.233
95823933|NCT01942668|191618799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.036||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|12.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.13|0.20|0.043
95823934|NCT01942668|191618799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|7.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.80|0.488
95823935|NCT01942668|191618800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.206||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|10.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-2.23|0.205
95823936|NCT01942668|191618800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|15.74||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.74|3.43|0.002
95823937|NCT01942668|191618800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|11.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.23|0.115
95823938|NCT01942668|191618800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|15.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.13|2.75|0.005
95823939|NCT01942668|191618801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|8.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|-6.34|0.796
95959351|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.826|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||1.826|0.667|
95959352|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.311|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.311|0.410|
95959353|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|1.897|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||1.897|0.624|
95959354|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|2.108|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.108|0.141|
96000806|NCT01157169|191978332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|111.24|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.24|97.18|
95823940|NCT01942668|191618801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.568||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|12.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.15|-1.87|0.150
95823941|NCT01942668|191618801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|15.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.77|1.39|0.019
95823942|NCT01942668|191618801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.667||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|14.71||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.71|0.30|0.041
95823943|NCT01942668|191618802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-7.00|0.221
95823944|NCT01942668|191618802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.65|0.511
95823945|NCT01942668|191618802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.92|-3.60|0.761
95823946|NCT01942668|191618802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|2.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.11|-6.25|0.332
95823947|NCT01942668|191618803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.86||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.86|-5.86|0.687
95823948|NCT01942668|191618803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-6.88|0.373
95862025|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|5.7||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.7|-25.5|
95823949|NCT01942668|191618803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.94||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.94|-5.75|0.714
95823950|NCT01942668|191618803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|3.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.87|-5.67|0.711
96000807|NCT01157169|191978333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|101.93|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.93|85.37|
96000808|NCT01157169|191978334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|94.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|101.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.46|87.44|
95823951|NCT01942668|191618804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.682||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|3.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.08|-7.46|0.415
95823952|NCT01942668|191618804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-0.97||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-11.04|0.019
95823953|NCT01942668|191618804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.46||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-9.90|0.074
95823954|NCT01942668|191618804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.637||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-10.94|0.030
96000809|NCT01157169|191978335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.56|104.39|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.39|86.56|
95823955|NCT01942668|191618805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-8.13|0.059
95823956|NCT01942668|191618805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.067||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.49||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-6.63|0.215
95823957|NCT01942668|191618805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-1.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-9.19|0.015
95823958|NCT01942668|191618805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|0.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-7.17|0.122
95823959|NCT01942668|191618806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.135||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-1.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-9.52|0.013
95823960|NCT01942668|191618806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-1.68||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-9.85|0.006
95823961|NCT01942668|191618806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.77|0.009
95823962|NCT01942668|191618806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.093||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-1.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-9.79|0.007
95823963|NCT01942668|191618807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.47||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|-8.24|0.171
95823964|NCT01942668|191618807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-11.14|0.006
95823965|NCT01942668|191618807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|-2.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.61|-12.17|0.003
95823966|NCT01942668|191618807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.92||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-11.46|0.006
95823967|NCT01942668|191618808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-8.21|0.039
95823968|NCT01942668|191618808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.997||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|1.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.53|-6.31|0.232
95823969|NCT01942668|191618808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.012||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-8.32|0.030
95823970|NCT01942668|191618808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.66||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-6.09|0.262
95823971|NCT01942668|191618809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.119||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-9.57|0.011
95823972|NCT01942668|191618809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.065||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.48||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.48|-9.60|0.008
95823973|NCT01942668|191618809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.115||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-9.90|0.007
96000810|NCT01330381|191978336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9002
96000811|NCT01330381|191978337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3520
96000812|NCT01330381|191978338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5228|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5228
96000813|NCT01330381|191978347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.377
96000814|NCT01330381|191978350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1599|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.1599
95959355|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.753|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||1.753|0.547|
95823974|NCT01942668|191618809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-9.40|0.011
95823975|NCT01942668|191618810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.421||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|0.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-8.96|0.083
95823976|NCT01942668|191618810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.317||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|-2.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.81|-11.91|0.002
95823977|NCT01942668|191618810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-3.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.23|-12.60|<0.001
95823978|NCT01942668|191618810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.381||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-2.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.10|-11.46|0.005
95823979|NCT01942668|191618811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.12|0.938
95823980|NCT01942668|191618811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.10|0.779
95823981|NCT01942668|191618811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.14|0.646
96000815|NCT01330381|191978351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
95823982|NCT01942668|191618811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.07|0.421
95823983|NCT01942668|191618812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.01|0.075
95823984|NCT01942668|191618812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.01|0.074
95823985|NCT01942668|191618812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.07|0.370
95823986|NCT01942668|191618812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.11|0.851
95823987|NCT01942668|191618813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.18|0.452
95823988|NCT01942668|191618813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.05|0.244
95823989|NCT01942668|191618813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.19|0.354
95823990|NCT01942668|191618813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.17|0.527
95823991|NCT01942668|191618814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-1.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-2.29|<0.001
95823992|NCT01942668|191618814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
95823993|NCT01942668|191618814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.81|<0.001
95959356|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|2.793|||||"Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment||2.793|0.662|
95959357|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.349|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.349|0.439|
95959358|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.816|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.816|0.507|
95959359|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.627|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.627|0.036|
95823994|NCT01942668|191618814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.88||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-1.62|<0.001
95823995|NCT01942668|191618815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.34|-2.12|<0.001
95823996|NCT01942668|191618815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.68|<0.001
95823997|NCT01942668|191618815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.81||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.81|-1.58|<0.001
95823998|NCT01942668|191618815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.57||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.34|<0.001
95823999|NCT01942668|191618816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.25|-2.06|<0.001
95824000|NCT01942668|191618816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.07|-1.87|<0.001
95824001|NCT01942668|191618816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.90|-1.70|<0.001
95824002|NCT01942668|191618816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.48|<0.001
95959360|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.518|1.391|||||"Risk Ratio of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 4000/mm³ to \< 4000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of white blood cell count immediately before the start of this drug||1.391|0.518|
95959361|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.547|||||"Risk Ratio of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug ≥ 2000/mm³ to \< 2000/mm³"|Subgroup analyses of neutrophil count immediately before the start of this drug||1.547|0.578|
95824003|NCT01942668|191618817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.46|0.126
95824004|NCT01942668|191618817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.42|0.200
95824005|NCT01942668|191618817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.41|0.222
95824006|NCT01942668|191618817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.37|0.358
95824007|NCT01942668|191618818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.59|0.023
95824008|NCT01942668|191618818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.55|0.045
95824009|NCT01942668|191618818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.39|0.384
96000816|NCT01330381|191978352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4647|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.4647
95824010|NCT01942668|191618818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.38|0.424
95824011|NCT01942668|191618819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.52|0.153
95824012|NCT01942668|191618819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.58|0.058
95854961|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.53|0.85|0.3938
95959362|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.95|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||1.950|0.685|
95959363|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.329|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||4.329|1.113|
95824013|NCT01942668|191618819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.39|0.550
95824014|NCT01942668|191618819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.854
95824015|NCT01942668|191618820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.38|0.181
95824016|NCT01942668|191618820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.41|0.108
95824017|NCT01942668|191618820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.51|0.014
95824018|NCT01942668|191618820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.34|0.323
95824019|NCT01942668|191618821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.48|0.056
95824020|NCT01942668|191618821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.38|0.279
96000817|NCT01330381|191978353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||<0.0001
95862026|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.5|-3.4|
95824021|NCT01942668|191618821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.34|0.435
95824022|NCT01942668|191618821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.31|0.607
95824023|NCT01942668|191618822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.53|0.060
95824024|NCT01942668|191618822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.57|0.026
95824025|NCT01942668|191618822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.49|0.097
95824026|NCT01942668|191618822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.44|0.230
95824027|NCT01942668|191618823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.61|0.107
95824028|NCT01942668|191618823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.51|0.302
95824029|NCT01942668|191618823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.60|0.106
95824030|NCT01942668|191618823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.57|0.156
95824031|NCT01942668|191618824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.65|0.081
95824032|NCT01942668|191618824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.56|0.212
95959364|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.384|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||3.384|0.821|
95959365|NCT05923112|191891689|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|1.719|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||1.719|0.586|
95959366|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
95824033|NCT01942668|191618824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.51|0.345
95824034|NCT01942668|191618824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.38|0.829
95824035|NCT01942668|191618825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.029
95824036|NCT01942668|191618825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.84|0.026
95824037|NCT01942668|191618825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.72|0.093
95824038|NCT01942668|191618825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.64|0.223
95824039|NCT01942668|191618826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.85|<0.001
95824040|NCT01942668|191618826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.71|<0.001
95824041|NCT01942668|191618826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
95824042|NCT01942668|191618826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.64|<0.001
95824043|NCT01942668|191618827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.85|<0.001
95824044|NCT01942668|191618827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.22||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.69|<0.001
95824045|NCT01942668|191618827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
95824046|NCT01942668|191618827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.03|-0.50|0.030
95824047|NCT01942668|191618828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
95824048|NCT01942668|191618828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-0.88|<0.001
95824049|NCT01942668|191618828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
95824050|NCT01942668|191618828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
95824051|NCT01942668|191618829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.629||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|-1.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.69|-8.08|0.003
95824052|NCT01942668|191618829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.42||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-6.80|0.027
95824053|NCT01942668|191618829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.618||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-6.61|0.034
95824054|NCT01942668|191618829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.71|0.119
95824055|NCT01942668|191618830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|-2.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.05|-8.73|0.002
96000818|NCT01330381|191978354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3044|||||||Van Elteren test|||||||0.3044
96000819|NCT00663858|191978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.592|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.894|0.709|||ANOVA|||||0.709|-1.894|0.371
95824056|NCT01942668|191618830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.696||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-2.06||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.06|-8.72|0.002
95824057|NCT01942668|191618830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-1.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.58|-8.19|0.004
95824058|NCT01942668|191618830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.09||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-7.75|0.009
95824059|NCT01942668|191618831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.9||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.90|-10.18|<0.001
95824060|NCT01942668|191618831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.00|-11.23|<0.001
95824061|NCT01942668|191618831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.04|<0.001
95824062|NCT01942668|191618831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-3.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.10|-10.41|<0.001
95824063|NCT01942668|191618832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.146|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.13||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-11.55|<0.001
95959367|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|11.824|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||11.824|0.480|
96000820|NCT00663858|191978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-709.0|2.132|||ANCOVA|||||2.132|-0709|0.3253
95824064|NCT01942668|191618832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.80|0.009
95862027|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|9.0||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.0|-21.9|
96000821|NCT00663858|191978358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.542|-0.106|||ANCOVA|||||-0.106|-2.542|0.0333
95824065|NCT01942668|191618832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.132||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-0.95||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.95|-9.31|0.016
95824066|NCT01942668|191618832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-7.22|0.154
95824067|NCT01942668|191618833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.04|-12.72|<0.001
95824068|NCT01942668|191618833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.201|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|-3.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.20|-11.83|<0.001
95824069|NCT01942668|191618833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-3.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.02|-11.63|<0.001
95824070|NCT01942668|191618833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.207||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-1.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-9.93|0.011
95824071|NCT01942668|191618834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|-4.19||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-13.76|<0.001
95824072|NCT01942668|191618834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-4.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.85|-14.34|<0.001
95824073|NCT01942668|191618834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-4.56||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.56|-14.03|<0.001
95959368|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
95959369|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|23.432|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||23.432|0.342|
96000822|NCT01539837|191978360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||calculated|Pairwise comparisons,post-hoc Bonferoni|||||||<0.01
96000823|NCT00849693|191978361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
95862028|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|15.5||||||Change at Week 2, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||15.5|-25.2|
95862029|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|11.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.5|-21.4|
95862030|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|2.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.7|-30.3|
95862031|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|32.7||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||32.7|-0.6|
95862032|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|9.5||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.5|-22.9|
95862033|NCT00669409|191682699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|17.4||||||Change at Week 2, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||17.4|-25.5|
95862034|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|8.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||8.2|-22.9|
95862035|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-3.3||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.3|-34.4|
95862036|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|6.1||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.1|-25.2|
95862037|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-0.2||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-0.2|-30.8|
95862038|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-7.6||||||Change at Week 4, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.6|-48.1|
95862039|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|9.9||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||9.9|-21.3|
95862040|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-1.4||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.4|-32.6|
95862041|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|7.5||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-24.3|
95862042|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-1.3||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.3|-32.2|
95862043|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-7.1||||||Change at Week 4, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-7.1|-47.8|
95862044|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|7.4||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.4|-25.5|
95862045|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-3.2||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.2|-36.1|
95862046|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|11.3||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||11.3|-22.1|
95862047|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|1.6||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.6|-30.9|
95862048|NCT00669409|191682700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-1.5||||||Change at Week 4, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-1.5|-44.4|
95862049|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|18.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||18.8|-12.2|
95824074|NCT01942668|191618834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-2.93||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.93|-12.51|0.002
95824075|NCT01942668|191618835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|7.07||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.07|-3.03|0.434
95824076|NCT01942668|191618835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.564||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.0||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.00|-3.06|0.442
95824077|NCT01942668|191618835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.558||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|6.51||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.51|-3.52|0.558
95824078|NCT01942668|191618835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.60|-3.42|0.534
95824079|NCT01942668|191618836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.719||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.58||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.58|-5.08|0.927
95824080|NCT01942668|191618836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.699||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-6.95|0.541
95824081|NCT01942668|191618836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.691||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|1.6||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.60|-8.96|0.171
96000824|NCT01954628|191978392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|23.7||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.3|175.7||AAC were compared between treatments using an analysis of variance model adjusting for treatment and region as factors and including the baseline score as a covariate.|ANOVA|||Sample size based on area above the daily EXACT score curve (AAC) from Day 1 to Day 29 from subjects with an acute COPD exacerbation, collected over 28 days. Assuming a residual SD of 500 points, a sample size of 200 subjects per arm would be expected to have an 80% power to detect a true treatment difference in the AAC of 140 points over 12-weeks treatment, using a 2-sided test; alpha-level of 0.05.This difference corresponds to a mean daily improvement of 1.67 points on the EXACT symptom score||175.7|-128.3|0.759
95824082|NCT01942668|191618836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|4.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.15|-6.48|0.667
95824083|NCT01942668|191618837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.863||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.87||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-4.36|0.662
95824084|NCT01942668|191618837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.834||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|4.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.21|-6.91|0.635
95824085|NCT01942668|191618837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.11|-5.98|0.877
95824086|NCT01942668|191618837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.867||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|5.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-6.01|0.893
95824087|NCT01942668|191618838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.058||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|3.59||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-4.48|0.830
95824088|NCT01942668|191618838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.38||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.38|-4.66|0.755
95824089|NCT01942668|191618838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.53|-3.50|0.802
95824090|NCT01942668|191618838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.043||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-4.46|0.823
95824091|NCT01942668|191618839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.166||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|-6.71|0.255
95824092|NCT01942668|191618839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|1.96||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|-6.49|0.293
95824093|NCT01942668|191618839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.148||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|2.77||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.77|-5.66|0.502
96000825|NCT01954628|191978393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-0.34||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.89|||ANOVA|||ANOVA model with fixed factors treatment, region and baseline total CAT score as covariate were used. Missing post-treatment data were imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||0.89|-1.57|0.588
95824094|NCT01942668|191618839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.76|-5.71|0.495
95824095|NCT01942668|191618840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.274||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.5||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.50|-6.42|0.389
95824096|NCT01942668|191618840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|1.99||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.99|-6.85|0.281
95824097|NCT01942668|191618840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.91|-5.92|0.504
95824098|NCT01942668|191618840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.277||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.78||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.78|-6.15|0.460
95824099|NCT01942668|191618841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.28||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.28|-0.58|0.084
95824100|NCT01942668|191618841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.53|-2.30|0.298
96000826|NCT01954628|191978394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|1.083||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.52|||Negative binomial regression model|Negative binomial regression model with fixed factors treatment, region and time in study as offset.||The number of subjects with at least one COPD exacerbation were summarised by treatment group.||1.520|0.771|0.646
95824101|NCT01942668|191618841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.496||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|8.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.62|-1.17|0.136
95824102|NCT01942668|191618841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.492||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|8.37||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.37|-1.41|0.163
95824103|NCT01942668|191618842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|10.31||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.31|-0.08|0.054
95824104|NCT01942668|191618842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.634||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|12.26||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.26|1.93|0.007
95824105|NCT01942668|191618842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|11.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.04|0.75|0.025
95824106|NCT01942668|191618842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.638||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|13.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.55|3.20|0.002
95824107|NCT01942668|191618843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.945||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.8||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.80|-0.76|0.089
95824108|NCT01942668|191618843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.29||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.29|1.83|0.010
95824109|NCT01942668|191618843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.911||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|13.36||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.36|1.94|0.009
95824110|NCT01942668|191618843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.944||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|13.67||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.67|2.11|0.007
95824111|NCT01942668|191618844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.749||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.07|0.349
95824112|NCT01942668|191618844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.60|0.499
95824113|NCT01942668|191618844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.737||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.55|-3.27|0.936
96000827|NCT01954628|191978397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||ANOVA|||Missing post-treatment data was imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward principle.||||0.226
96000828|NCT00591227|191978442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
96000829|NCT01629667|191978452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.77||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-4.13|0.140
96000830|NCT01629667|191978452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|-3.73|0.234
96000831|NCT00984659|191978486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.05|-0.03|0.713
95824114|NCT01942668|191618844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.736||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.72|-4.08|0.696
95824115|NCT01942668|191618845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.69||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.69|-4.86|0.572
95824116|NCT01942668|191618845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.914||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.62||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-4.89|0.553
95824117|NCT01942668|191618845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.32|-5.16|0.456
95824118|NCT01942668|191618845|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.919||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.64||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.64|-3.89|0.949
95824119|NCT01942668|191618846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.026||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|0.61||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.61|-7.34|0.097
95824120|NCT01942668|191618846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.4||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.40|-9.28|0.008
95824121|NCT01942668|191618846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-1.01||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-8.87|0.014
96000832|NCT00984659|191978490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted Forced Expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95824122|NCT01942668|191618846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.029||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|0.1||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-7.86|0.056
95824123|NCT01942668|191618847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-8.18|0.003
95824124|NCT01942668|191618847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-0.53||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-7.05|0.023
95824125|NCT01942668|191618847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.04||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-6.52|0.047
95824126|NCT01942668|191618847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.652||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.17||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-6.65|0.039
95824127|NCT01942668|191618848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-2.33||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-9.05|<0.001
95824128|NCT01942668|191618848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.704||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-2.24||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.24|-8.93|0.001
95824129|NCT01942668|191618848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.697||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-1.79||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-8.45|0.003
95824130|NCT01942668|191618848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.708||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.76||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-8.46|0.003
95824131|NCT01942668|191618849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.32||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-9.71|0.001
95824132|NCT01942668|191618849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|-3.55||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.55|-10.89|<0.001
95824133|NCT01942668|191618849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.863|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.27||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.27|-10.58|<0.001
95824134|NCT01942668|191618849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.886|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-2.72||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.72|-10.12|<0.001
95824135|NCT01942668|191618850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.609||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-1.44||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.44|-7.75|0.004
96000833|NCT00984659|191978491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
96000834|NCT00984659|191978492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and percent predicted FEV1 at Screening|ANCOVA|||||||0.008
96000835|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.31||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 8|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.18|<0.001
95824136|NCT01942668|191618850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.605||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|-0.34||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-6.64|0.030
95824137|NCT01942668|191618850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-0.02||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-6.29|0.049
95824138|NCT01942668|191618850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.65|-5.61|0.121
95824139|NCT01942668|191618851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|-2.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-8.74|0.001
95824140|NCT01942668|191618851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-2.25||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.25|-8.81|<0.001
95824141|NCT01942668|191618851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.667||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.85||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-8.39|0.002
95824142|NCT01942668|191618851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.35||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.35|-7.93|0.006
95824143|NCT01942668|191618852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.65||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-9.91|<0.001
95824144|NCT01942668|191618852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.98||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.98|-11.18|<0.001
95824145|NCT01942668|191618852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.828|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-3.84||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.84|-11.02|<0.001
95824146|NCT01942668|191618852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|-2.91||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.91|-10.17|<0.001
95824147|NCT01942668|191618853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.04|0.225
95824148|NCT01942668|191618853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.08|0.741
95824149|NCT01942668|191618853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.06|0.414
95824150|NCT01942668|191618853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.11|0.690
95824151|NCT01942668|191618854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.21||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.00|0.045
95824152|NCT01942668|191618854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.01|0.069
95824153|NCT01942668|191618854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.02|0.126
95824154|NCT01942668|191618854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 6|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.10|0.907
96000836|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 15|ANCOVA|||||0.19|0.06|<0.001
96000837|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.16||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 22|ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.06|<0.001
96000838|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|0.06|0.17||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 29|ANCOVA|||||0.17|0.06|<0.001
95824155|NCT01942668|191618855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 1 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.992
95959370|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
95824156|NCT01942668|191618855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.15||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 100 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.07|0.450
95824157|NCT01942668|191618855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.5 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.13|0.663
95824158|NCT01942668|191618855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||p-value is derived from comparison between Combined Estradiol 0.25 mg / Progesterone 50 mg against Placebo at Month 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.16|0.309
95824159|NCT04115748|191618856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|61.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio) DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||61.6|2.6|0.048
95824160|NCT04115748|191618856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.4||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|49.2||The stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.2|-12.4|0.23
95824161|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|0.17
95824162|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||36.6|-13.3|0.27
95824163|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|41.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.5|-20.4|0.42
95824164|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.6|-16.0|0.26
95824165|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|62.3||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||62.3|-5.0|0.062
95824166|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|64.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||64.6|-1.5|0.047
95824167|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|40.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.2|-24.6|0.58
95824168|NCT04115748|191618858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|49.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.9|-16.2|0.27
95824169|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
95824170|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
95824171|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
95824172|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|8.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||8.5|-29.6|
95959371|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|3.862|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.862|0.161|
95824173|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|28.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.9|-17.2|
95824174|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||19.5|-19.5|
95959372|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
95824175|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|21.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.4|-10.3|
95824176|NCT04115748|191618859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||29.5|-8.4|
95824177|NCT04115748|191618865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|41.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||41.9|-9.7|
95824178|NCT04115748|191618865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||28.8|-16.5|
95824179|NCT04115748|191618865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|56.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||56.6|-8.8|
95824180|NCT04115748|191618865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|59.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||59.4|-5.2|
95824181|NCT04115748|191618866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.1|-5.1|
95824182|NCT04115748|191618866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
95824183|NCT04115748|191618866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|36.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||36.6|-13.3|
95824184|NCT04115748|191618866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.4|-16.4|
95824185|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||45.2|-13.6|0.20
95854962|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.38|0.65|0.7793
95959373|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|4.355|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.355|0.196|
95959374|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.84|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||5.840|0.070|
95959375|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
95959376|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.386|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|3.107|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||3.107|0.048|
95959377|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959378|NCT05923112|191891690|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959379|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|||
95959380|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|6.556|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]||6.556|0.139|
95959381|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.529|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|38.18|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||38.180|0.168|
95959382|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|12.119|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||12.119|0.106|
95959383|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|||
95959384|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.146|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||2.146|0.046|
95959385|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
95824186|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.8|-27.8|0.60
95959386|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|4.928|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||4.928|0.043|
95824187|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|73.8||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||73.8|11.5|0.008
95824188|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|47.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||47.6|-12.0|0.17
95824189|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|76.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||76.2|8.1|0.011
95824190|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|40.6||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||40.6|-30.1|0.69
95824191|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|35.7||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|70.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||70.4|0.9|0.033
95824192|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|0.19
95824193|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|0.007
95824194|NCT04115748|191618867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|44.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.1|-28.8|0.63
95824195|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|0.98
95824196|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|0.50
95824197|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|27.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||27.4|-16.4|0.54
95824198|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|0.92
95959387|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|10.079|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||10.079|0.091|
95959388|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
95959389|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.772|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|7.207|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||7.207|0.083|
95959390|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
96000839|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.001||95.0|0.08|0.18||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 36|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
96000840|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.18||95.0|-0.03|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Day 43|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.03|0.180
96000841|NCT00984659|191978494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.307||95.0|-0.07|0.23||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; difference between responders and non-responders during Week prior to Visit 3/PD|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.07|0.307
95824199|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|51.4||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.4|-9.3|0.13
95824200|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|45.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.2|-13.6|0.22
95824201|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|45.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|77.2||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.2|12.8|0.007
95824202|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|63.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||63.0|0.2|0.039
95824203|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||44.0|-18.4|0.34
96000842|NCT00984659|191978498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.001||95.0|0.14|0.34||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CGI-C responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.14|<0.001
95824204|NCT04115748|191618868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|64.9||P-value was calculated by logistic regression with treatment group and stratification factors (geographic region and concurrent use of csDMARDs and/or apremilast at randomization) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||64.9|-0.1|0.040
95824205|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||20.6|-10.0|
95824206|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.4|-5.4|
95824207|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|20.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.4|-9.9|
95824208|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||5.3|-5.3|
95824209|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|35.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-14.0|
95862050|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|4.1||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||4.1|-27.0|
96000843|NCT00984659|191978499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for CRQ-SAS Dyspnea Domain responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.21|<0.001
96000844|NCT00984659|191978500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.535||95.0|-0.08|0.15||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparision of mean SOBDA score for Physician-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.08|0.535
96000845|NCT00984659|191978500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08||95.0|-0.02|0.19||ANCOVA adjusted for age, gender, and SOBDA Baseline score; comparison of mean SOBDA score for Participant-Completed mMRC responders and non-responders|ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.02|0.08
96000846|NCT00201201|191978511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic (1,161)=4.44,p=0.035).||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use. Non-parametric tests (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic), based on rank scores, controlling for participant code were used for the transformed behavior risk scores within groups.||||0.035
96000847|NCT00201201|191978512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0204
95824210|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|27.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||27.6|-17.1|
95824211|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||53.9|1.7|
95824212|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||51.4|1.3|
95824213|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|40.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.8|-16.3|
95824214|NCT04115748|191618869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|51.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||51.4|-8.2|
95824215|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|25.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||25.2|-46.3|
95824216|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|27.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||27.7|-45.3|
95824217|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|45.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||45.8|-22.1|
95824218|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|54.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.5|-15.6|
95824219|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
95824220|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|47.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||47.0|-26.0|
95824221|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|29.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|66.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||66.0|-6.3|
95824222|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|67.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||67.0|-3.8|
95824223|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|42.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.0|-32.0|
95824224|NCT04115748|191618877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|71.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.6|6.8|
95824225|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||24.8|-24.8|
95824226|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|26.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.0|-24.9|
95824227|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|21.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||21.5|-30.5|
95824228|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.0|-18.4|
95824229|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|56.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||56.3|-14.1|
95824230|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|33.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||33.3|-33.3|
95824231|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|69.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||69.3|-0.3|
95824232|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||55.1|-13.0|
95824233|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|58.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.6|-9.7|
95824234|NCT04115748|191618878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|66.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||66.2|-1.0|
95824235|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|16.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||16.0|-47.6|
95824236|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|10.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.4|-51.3|
95824237|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.9|-26.8|
95824238|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|48.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||48.6|-20.8|
95824239|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|52.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||52.3|-20.7|
95824240|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|41.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||41.6|-31.0|
95824241|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|60.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.9|-12.4|
95824242|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|57.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.4|-15.2|
95824243|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|41.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||41.2|-32.3|
95824244|NCT04115748|191618880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|58.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||58.8|-12.5|
95824245|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|19.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.5|-19.5|
95824246|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|10.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||10.2|-20.7|
95824247|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|19.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.3|-18.7|
95824248|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||20.1|-19.0|
95824249|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|24.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.8|-24.8|
95824250|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||17.1|-27.6|
95824251|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|44.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||44.0|-10.1|
95824252|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|54.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.8|-2.1|
95824253|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|33.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.6|-20.3|
95824254|NCT04115748|191618881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|38.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.7|-16.6|
95824255|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||34.8|-34.8|
95824256|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|17.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||17.6|-47.4|
95824257|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|27.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|63.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||63.0|-7.2|
95824258|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|44.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||44.3|-26.6|
95824259|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||55.1|-13.0|
95824260|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.3|-47.4|
95824261|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|60.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||60.8|-11.1|
95824262|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|57.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||57.0|-14.9|
95824263|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|43.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|75.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||75.4|12.4|
95824264|NCT04115748|191618883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|49.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||49.1|-23.4|
95824265|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|89.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||89.8|-14.8|
95824266|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||100.0|-25.4|
95824267|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|51.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||51.2|-100.0|
95824268|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||77.7|-97.7|
95824269|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|88.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||88.0|-73.7|
95824270|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.7|77.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.7|-97.7|
95824271|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
95824272|NCT04115748|191618885|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|97.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||97.9|-67.9|
95824273|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||54.2|-29.2|
96000848|NCT00201201|191978513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||.0001
95824274|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||77.6|-37.6|
95824275|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||73.8|-23.8|
95824276|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||100.0|-25.4|
95824277|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|99.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||99.2|-13.4|
95824278|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||100.0|-25.4|
95824279|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|100.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||100.0|-35.3|
95824280|NCT04115748|191618886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.5|72.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||72.5|-82.5|
95824281|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
95824282|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
95824283|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||54.2|-29.2|
95824284|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
95824285|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
95824286|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||77.6|-37.6|
95824287|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|73.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||73.8|-23.8|
95824288|NCT04115748|191618887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
95824289|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||18.8|-18.8|
95824290|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.5|-22.5|
95824291|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|18.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.8|-18.8|
95824292|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.5|-22.5|
95824293|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-31.3|
95824294|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||22.5|-22.5|
95824295|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|54.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||54.2|-29.2|
95824296|NCT04115748|191618888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.6|77.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||77.6|-37.6|
95824297|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-value was calculated from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.20|-0.22|0.94
95824298|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.24|-0.18|0.81
95824299|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.05||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.05|-0.39|0.13
95824300|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.02|-0.43|0.073
95824301|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.03||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.03|-0.46|0.083
95824302|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.38|0.28
95824303|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.02||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.54|0.038
95824304|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.11|-0.41|0.25
95824305|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.16|-0.39|0.41
95824306|NCT04115748|191618892|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.12|-0.43|0.26
95824307|NCT04115748|191618893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|7.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.9|-1.1|0.14
95824308|NCT04115748|191618893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||7.7|-1.5|0.18
95824309|NCT04115748|191618893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.7|-1.4|0.15
95824310|NCT04115748|191618893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.9||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|-0.3|0.062
95824311|NCT04115748|191618895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.6||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.6|1.9|0.003
95824312|NCT04115748|191618895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|8.3||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||8.3|1.5|0.006
95824313|NCT04115748|191618895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.0||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||8.0|-0.4|0.076
95824314|NCT04115748|191618895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||P-value was calculated from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, and participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||7.7|-0.7|0.10
95824315|NCT01200407|191618900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-34.4|-37.2|0.000
95824316|NCT01200407|191618900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-18.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP with LOCF (Week 12)||-18.6|-20.3|0.000
95824317|NCT01200407|191618901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-23.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-23.4|-26.1|0.000
95824318|NCT01200407|191618901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-31.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-31.6|-34.4|0.000
95824319|NCT01200407|191618901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||SBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-34.7|-37.9|0.000
95824320|NCT01200407|191618901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-12.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 4)||-12.4|-14.0|0.000
96000849|NCT00201201|191978514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures linear-mixed model ANOVA methodology was employed as each participant was measured on 4 visits and the 4 repeated measures are likely dependent. We used study group (intervention vs. control) and visit as categorical variables and controlled for gender, age, APRN, income, education, computer use.||||0.0001
95824321|NCT01200407|191618901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-16.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 8)||-16.7|-18.4|0.000
95824322|NCT01200407|191618901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-18.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||DBP w/o LOCF (Week 12)||-18.9|-20.8|0.000
96000850|NCT00201201|191978515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0431
95824323|NCT00489736|191618926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.28|1.98||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of treatment failure for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.98|1.28|<0.0001
95824324|NCT00489736|191618927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.13||95.0|0.6|1.07||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of main safety event occurrence for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||1.07|0.60|0.13
95824325|NCT00489736|191618928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.002||95.0|0.44|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using time-to-event non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimate. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It provides the relative hazard of MSE occurrence excluding gastrointestinal events, for the dronedarone group compared with the amiodarone group.|||0.84|0.44|0.002
95824326|NCT03458910|191618978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.782
95824327|NCT03458910|191618979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.480
95824328|NCT03458910|191618980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.410
95824329|NCT03458910|191618981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.480
95824330|NCT03458910|191618982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for younger adults||||0.170
95824331|NCT03458910|191618983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal interaction in behavioral emotional intensity rating for older adults||||0.478
95824332|NCT03458910|191618984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for younger adults||||0.441
95824333|NCT03458910|191618985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the left amygdala for older adults||||0.621
95824334|NCT03458910|191618986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for younger adults||||0.190
95824335|NCT03458910|191618987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||ANOVA|||time x condition x regulation goal (2 x 2 x 3) interaction effect in the right amygdala activity for older adults||||0.864
95824336|NCT03458910|191618988|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of fair offers||||1.000
96000851|NCT00201201|191978516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzed at 0 and 12 weeks.||||<.10
96000852|NCT02927171|191978553|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
96000853|NCT03237845|191978600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.9|3.3|0.0006
96000854|NCT03237845|191978601|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.9|6.9|< 0.0001
96000855|NCT03237845|191978602|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.8|9.4|< 0.0001
96000856|NCT03237845|191978603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.6|3.2|0.0039
96000857|NCT03237845|191978604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|9.4|< 0.0001
95824337|NCT03458910|191618988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing acceptance rate of unfair offers||||0.716
95824338|NCT03458910|191618989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for dorsal anterior cingulate cortex activation.||||0.014
95824339|NCT03458910|191618989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups for anterior insula activation.||||0.059
95824340|NCT03458910|191618990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.144
95824341|NCT03458910|191618990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
96000858|NCT03237845|191978605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-Value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary outcome measures listed after this outcome measure in the hierarchy were not tested.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.2|-2.7|0.2084
96000859|NCT01221233|191978615|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
96000860|NCT03865407|191978616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1839
96000861|NCT03865407|191978617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3036
96000862|NCT03865407|191978618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
96000863|NCT03865407|191978619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1421
96000864|NCT03865407|191978620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0022
96000865|NCT03865407|191978621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3032
95824342|NCT03458910|191618991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||.288
95824343|NCT03458910|191618991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.191
95824344|NCT03458910|191618992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.894
95824345|NCT03458910|191618992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.425
95824346|NCT03458910|191618993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.916
95824347|NCT03458910|191618993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.235
95824348|NCT03458910|191618994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.462
95824349|NCT03458910|191618994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.468
95824350|NCT03458910|191618995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.481|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.481
95824351|NCT03458910|191618995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.159
95824352|NCT03458910|191618996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.602
95824353|NCT03458910|191618996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.562
95824354|NCT03458910|191618997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.697
95824355|NCT03458910|191618997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Linear mixed effects model with random factors (intercepts) for participants; F- and p-values determined using Satterthwaite's method|Mixed Models Analysis|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.901
95824356|NCT03458910|191618998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.516
95824357|NCT03458910|191618999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.944
95824358|NCT03458910|191619000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.285
95824359|NCT03458910|191619001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.807
95824360|NCT03458910|191619002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||<0.001
95824361|NCT03458910|191619003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction||||||0.740
95824362|NCT03458910|191619004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.083
95824363|NCT03458910|191619005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.176
95824364|NCT03458910|191619006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.325
95824365|NCT03458910|191619007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.751
95824366|NCT03458910|191619008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.011
95824367|NCT03458910|191619009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||ANOVA|p-value reflects effect of interest, a time x condition interaction on scores||||||0.885
95824368|NCT03458910|191619010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.259
95824369|NCT03458910|191619011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000146||||||p-value reflects time x condition interaction|ANOVA|||2 (time) x 2 (condition) ANOVA to test effects of time, condition, and time x condition interaction||||0.000146
95824370|NCT03458910|191619012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.463
95824371|NCT03458910|191619013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.990
95824372|NCT03458910|191619014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.034
95824373|NCT03458910|191619015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.398
95824374|NCT03458910|191619016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.113
95824375|NCT03458910|191619017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.637
96000866|NCT01645280|191978628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.184
96000867|NCT01645280|191978628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.130
96000868|NCT01645280|191978628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.642
96000869|NCT01645280|191978628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.832
96000870|NCT01645280|191978629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.019
95824376|NCT03458910|191619018|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for younger adults||||||0.133|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.133
95824377|NCT03458910|191619019|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in CRP for older adults||||||0.402|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.402
95824378|NCT03458910|191619020|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for younger adults||||||0.236||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.236
95824379|NCT03458910|191619021|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-1b for older adults||||||0.6||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.600
95824380|NCT03458910|191619022|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for younger adults||||||0.788||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.788
95824381|NCT03458910|191619023|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-6 for older adults||||||0.917||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.917
95824382|NCT03458910|191619024|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for younger adults||||||0.844||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.844
95824383|NCT03458910|191619025|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine IL-8 for older adults||||||0.75||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.750
95824384|NCT03458910|191619026|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for younger adults||||||0.074||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.074
95824385|NCT03458910|191619027|SUPERIORITY|time x condition interaction in cytokine TNF-a for older adults||||||0.0505||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||||||0.0505
95824386|NCT03458910|191619042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.022
95824387|NCT03458910|191619043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was performed to compare the two groups.||||0.455
95824388|NCT03458910|191619044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.022
95824389|NCT03458910|191619045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 (time: pre, post) X 2 (condition: HRV-increase, HRV-decrease) ANOVA was performed.||||0.455
95824390|NCT03458910|191619046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.462
95824391|NCT03458910|191619047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.305||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.305
95824392|NCT03458910|191619048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.804
95824393|NCT03458910|191619049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.141
95824394|NCT03458910|191619050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||time point x group(2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.292
95824395|NCT03458910|191619051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905||||||time point x group (2 way) interaction|ANOVA|||||||0.905
95824396|NCT03458910|191619052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for younger adults||||0.641
95824397|NCT03458910|191619053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813||||||p value for time x condition x error type interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x error type interaction in Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) for older adults||||0.813
95824398|NCT03458910|191619054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for younger adults||||.695
95824399|NCT03458910|191619055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Hits during recognition task for older adults||||.270
95824400|NCT03458910|191619056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for younger adults||||.102
95824401|NCT03458910|191619057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||ANOVA|||False alarms during recognition task for older adults||||.257
95824402|NCT03458910|191619058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for younger adults||||.067
95824403|NCT03458910|191619059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Group difference for recall for older adults||||.117
95824404|NCT03458910|191619060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||p value for time x condition interaction effect|ANOVA|||time x condition x collection interaction in cortisol levels for younger adults||||0.558
95824405|NCT05275010|191619061|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.08|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.08|0.93|
95824406|NCT05275010|191619062|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the AUC0-62 values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.09|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.09|0.93|
95824407|NCT05275010|191619063|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for pertuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.12|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.12|0.96|
95824408|NCT05275010|191619064|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected and bioequivalence will be concluded if the bounds of the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of the Cmax values for trastuzumab by administration using OBDS (Arm 2) relative to the handheld syringe (Arm 1) are entirely contained within standard bioequivalence margins (0.8 to 1.25).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.13|||||GMR of test treatment group (Arm 2: PH FDC SC using OBDS) to reference treatment group (Arm 1: PH FDC SC using handheld syringe).|||1.13|0.95|
95824409|NCT02301546|191619108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95824410|NCT02743949|191619113|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0584||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.5778||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.5778|0.7100|0.7480
95824411|NCT02743949|191619113|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney odds estimator|1.0975||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7368|1.6349||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||1.6349|0.7368|0.5985
95824412|NCT02743949|191619114|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.91||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.44|1.91||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||1.91|0.44|0.782
95824413|NCT02743949|191619114|SUPERIORITY||Miettinen-Nurminen|0.96||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.46|2.01||P-values were obtained using a Pearson chi-square test for each Vonoprazan treatment compared with Esomeprazole.|Pearson chi-square|||||2.01|0.46|0.912
95824414|NCT03389555|191619115|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: if confidence interval for mean difference between SOFA scores at 72 hour time-point for two groups overlaps 0 (p-value \> 0.05) scores considered to be equivalent. Note: The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups, for those patient for whom a SOFA score could be calculated at the 72 hour time point (i.e patients that were alive at the 72 hour time point, 90 patients in the treatment and 88 patients in the control).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||A priori threshold for significance, p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary outcome was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model where the correlation of within-patient repeated SOFA score measures was accounted for via the use of an unstructured variance-covariance matrix and linear contrasts. Covariates included age, sex, treatment group, time, and the interaction between treatment group and time. Study site was included as a random intercept. The model estimates the mean difference in SOFA score at 72 hours between treatment and control groups.||0.2|-1.7|0.12
95824415|NCT03389555|191619116|EQUIVALENCE|For the key secondary outcome of kidney failure, 200 patients were estimated to provide 94% power, assuming that 30% of participants in the treatment group and 55% in the placebo group would develop kidney failure. If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of kidney failure in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||20.0|-10.0|0.58
95824416|NCT03389555|191619117|EQUIVALENCE|If confidence interval for hazard ratio crosses 0, hazard of death assumed to be equivalent in the two groups.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Regression controlling for site used to identify hazard ratio for outcome of death for treatment versus intervention group. Null hypothesis is that hazard ratio is 1.||2.2|0.8|0.05
95824417|NCT03389555|191619118|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ventilator free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ventilator free days.||1.9|-1.9|>0.99
95824418|NCT03389555|191619119|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in shock free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's shock free days.||1.8|0.2|0.02
95824419|NCT03389555|191619120|EQUIVALENCE|If the confidence interval for the median difference in ICU free days between groups crosses 0, the two groups are considered equivalent.|Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Quantile Regression|||Quantile regression controlling for site performed to compare treatment and control group's ICU free days.||6.0|-3.0|0.69
95824420|NCT03389555|191619121|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|20.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of hospital mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site..||20.0|-10.0|0.55
95824421|NCT03389555|191619122|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of ICU mortality in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||10.0|-10.0|0.80
95824422|NCT03389555|191619123|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating the key secondary outcome of occurrence of delirium in treatment group (intervention versus placebo) controlling for treatment site.||4|-25|0.16
95824423|NCT03389555|191619124|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted risk difference from the logistic regression analysis overlaps 0, there was considered to be no difference between groups|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression analysis evaluating home hospital disposition in survivors to hospital discharge in intervention versus placebo group controlling for treatment site.||14|-18|0.82
95824424|NCT01885208|191619125|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
95854963|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.39|0.69|0.7370
95854964|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||1.79|0.55|0.9658
95854965|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.46|0.29|0.3015
95854966|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||3.94|0.15|0.7534
95824425|NCT01885208|191619125|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and exenatide ER 2.0 mg was below the pre-specified superiority margin (0 %).|Treatment difference|-0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post-baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.44|-0.8|< 0.0001
95824426|NCT00920218|191619143|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of ceellular immune (CMI) response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|32.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.65|50.54|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group below (\<) 1.||50.54|20.65|<0.0001
95824427|NCT00920218|191619143|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of CMI response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 2.|Fold increase over Control|9.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|6.07|14.9|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group/Placebo Group \< 2.||14.9|6.07|<0.0001
95824428|NCT00920218|191619144|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|74.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|33.12|167.17|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||167.17|33.12|<0.0001
95824429|NCT00920218|191619144|SUPERIORITY|Criterion for superiority: The Lower Limit (LL) of the Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of geometric means, in terms of humoral response for Placebo-GSK 1437173A F1 Group as compared to Placebo Group, is above (\>) 3.|Fold increase over Control|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|76.16|20.2|88.13|||Dunnett for multiple comparisons|||The null hypothesis was H0: Placebo-GSK 1437173A 1 Group/Placebo Group \< 1.||88.13|20.20|<0.0001
95824430|NCT01709422|191619157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95824431|NCT01709422|191619158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95959391|NCT05923112|191891691|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95824432|NCT01005316|191619159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||Fisher Exact|||The p-value compares Cohort A: Non-Sensitized with Cohort B: Sensitized, Crossmatch Positive.||||0.2580
95959392|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of hepatic impairment|"Regarding Risk Ratio of hepatic impairment present to absent"|||
95824433|NCT02163967|191619210|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.Increase in HRV at 2Amp compared to sham.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in High frequency HRV after 20 minutes of stimulation or 15 minutes after cessation of stimulation at the low (1mAmp) or high (2mAmp) dose compared to sham stimulation||||<.02
95824434|NCT02163967|191619211|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the number of side effects reported during either dose of stimulation compared to sham stimulation. Statistical differences were examined for light flickering in peripheral vision . Other side effects were reported by too few subjects to be analyzed statistically.||||<.001
95824435|NCT02163967|191619212|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.81
95824436|NCT02163967|191619213|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||Mixed effects regression model, a nested (within subject) random intercept for dose, fixed effects for age, dose, time and dose x time interaction. Significance level p=.05, Bonferonni correction was used for post-hoc tests.|Regression, Linear|Post-hoc comparisons were made using least-square means. Kenward-Roger adjustments to denominator degrees of freedom.||||||0.47
95824437|NCT04295681|191619230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of MoCA scores (90th day of treatment minus baseline) were compared.||1.70|0.47|0.0006
95824438|NCT04295681|191619231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 12th day of treatment) were compared.||0.37|-0.58|0.67
95824439|NCT04295681|191619231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Estimated value is calculated as MMH-MAP minus Placebo difference in mean MoCA scores changes."|Mean changes of NIHSS scores (baseline minus 90th day of treatment) were compared.||0.50|-0.47|0.94
95824440|NCT04295681|191619232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with no significant disabilities after 90 days of treatment .||||0.89
95824441|NCT04295681|191619233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.067
95959393|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|14.352|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||14.352|0.059|
95959394|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug ≥ 2 to 1"|||
96000871|NCT01645280|191978629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.025
96000872|NCT01645280|191978629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.248
95824442|NCT04295681|191619233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.81
96000873|NCT01645280|191978629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.045
95824443|NCT04295681|191619233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index score comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||0.17
95824444|NCT04295681|191619234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Fisher Exact|||The percentage of participants having at least one adverse event were compared.||||0.656
95824445|NCT04295681|191619235|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95959395|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug not performed to 1"|||
95824446|NCT04295681|191619237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
95824447|NCT04295681|191619238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.96
95824448|NCT04295681|191619239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Systolic blood pressure. Analysis of varience (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.438
95824449|NCT04295681|191619239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|"P-value for interaction between factors Treatment and Visit is demonstrated."||"Diastolic blood pressure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures has been used. Factors are Treatment, Visit and interaction Treatment-Visit. Significance of interaction as a factor representing difference in outcome value dynamics has been tested."||||0.56
95862051|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-17.4|
95959396|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||The risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(A).|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|||
95824450|NCT04295681|191619240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison at the baseline.||||0.72
96000874|NCT01645280|191978630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.381
96000875|NCT01645280|191978630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.543
95824451|NCT04295681|191619240|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison on 90th day of treatment.||||1
95824452|NCT04295681|191619241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95824453|NCT01153711|191619242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|168.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.5|182.4||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||182.4|155.5|1.0000
95824454|NCT01153711|191619243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|166.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.6|179.6||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||179.6|153.6|1.0000
95824455|NCT01153711|191619243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.211|113.463||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||113.463|100.211|0.0001
95959397|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959398|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 65 years, ≥ 15 to \< 65 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 65 years to ≥ 15 to \< 65 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
96000876|NCT01645280|191978630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.629
96000877|NCT01645280|191978630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Screening CRP level (\>= 1.50 mg/dL; \< 1.50 mg/dL) was used as stratification factors.||||||0.273
96000878|NCT01645280|191978631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.060
96000879|NCT01645280|191978631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.134
96000880|NCT01645280|191978631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.280
96000881|NCT01645280|191978631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|Treatment, screening CRP level (\>=1.50 mg/dL, \<1.50mg/dL) and baseline score as covariates.||||||0.345
96000882|NCT00611455|191978632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|1.67|<0.001
95824456|NCT01153711|191619246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|144.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.853|155.417||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||155.417|133.853|0.9986
95824457|NCT01153711|191619246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|132.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.9||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.732|143.843||P-value for ratio outside 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||143.843|122.732|0.8991
95824458|NCT01153711|191619247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|100.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.534|109.692||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Ketoconazole and Olodaterol||109.692|92.534|0.0001
95824459|NCT01178944|191619281|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison is CR+PR vs stable disease/progression||1.38|0.78|0.585
95824460|NCT03703817|191619315|SUPERIORITY|Effectiveness: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.3648|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.3648
95824461|NCT03703817|191619315|SUPERIORITY|Side effect: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1395|||||||Conditional logistic regression|||||||0.1395
95824462|NCT03703817|191619315|SUPERIORITY|Convenience: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.0349|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.0349
95862052|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|5.8||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.8|-24.8|
95959399|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959400|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 55 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 55 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959401|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 15 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age \< 15 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959402|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]|"Regarding Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959403|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95824463|NCT03703817|191619315|SUPERIORITY|Global satisfaction: Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1546|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.1546
95959404|NCT05923112|191891692|OTHER|Estimation||||||||||||||||Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug|"Regarding Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 3rd or later to 1st, the risk ratio was reported as participants in this group are related to Category(B)."|||
95959405|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|2.405|||||"Risk Ratio of age \< 18 years to ≥ 18 to \< 55 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[\< 18 years, ≥ 18 to \< 55 years\]||2.405|0.046|
95959406|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.56|||||"Risk Ratio of age ≥ 40 years to ≥ 15 to \< 40 years"|Subgroup analyses of age \[≥ 40 years, ≥ 15 to \< 40 years\]||3.560|0.340|
95824464|NCT03703817|191619316|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.1602|||||||Conditional logistic regression model|||||||0.1602
95959407|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|4.056|||||"Risk Ratio of chromosome karyotype Philadelphia chromosome positive to negative"|Subgroup analyses of chromosome karyotype||4.056|0.371|
96000883|NCT03849560|191978681|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H1N1 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82||||||||1.82|0.82|
96000884|NCT03849560|191978681|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for antigen H3N2 in group Grippol® Quadri and groups Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.3||||||||2.30|1.08|
95824465|NCT03703817|191619317|SUPERIORITY|Multivariate analysis was used to control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (demographic and clinical characteristics).||||||0.9921|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.9921
95824466|NCT01179217|191619318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|||||"1. The primary analysis was analyzed using a CMH analysis of the number of SCCs using modified ridit scores.~2. P-value (controlling for region and HU use)~3. The null hypothesis of the final analysis was performed at the 0.045 significance level."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0052
95824467|NCT01179217|191619319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0045
95824468|NCT01179217|191619320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0888|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0888
95959408|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.966|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before the start of this drug||1.966|0.183|
95824469|NCT01818258|191619342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.40
95824470|NCT01818258|191619343|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for number who experienced at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event related to study treatment. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
95824471|NCT01818258|191619344|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.6|0.4|0.49
95824472|NCT01818258|191619344|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
95824473|NCT01818258|191619344|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|0.3|0.63
95824474|NCT01818258|191619345|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of LPV Clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.5|0.89
95824475|NCT01818258|191619345|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.7|0.37
95824476|NCT01818258|191619345|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 Comparison of LPV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.9|0.5|0.63
95824477|NCT01818258|191619346|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 Comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.42
95824478|NCT01818258|191619346|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.11
95824479|NCT01818258|191619346|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.5|0.4|0.44
95824480|NCT01818258|191619347|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.5|0.84
95824481|NCT01818258|191619347|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.54||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.1|0.8|0.21
95824482|NCT01818258|191619347|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of RTV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.5|0.7|0.44
95824483|NCT01818258|191619348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.2|0.5|0.27
95824484|NCT01818258|191619348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.0|0.4|0.047
95824485|NCT01818258|191619348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.9|0.6|0.76
96000885|NCT03849560|191978681|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for YAMA antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.15||||||||2.15|0.90|
95824486|NCT01818258|191619349|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.5|-0.4|0.89
95824487|NCT01818258|191619349|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.3|0.8|0.18
95824488|NCT01818258|191619349|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of 3TC clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.5|0.53
95824489|NCT01818258|191619350|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.27||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.2|0.7|0.39
95824490|NCT01818258|191619350|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||3.0|0.6|0.43
95854967|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/ QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
95824491|NCT01818258|191619350|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV AUC between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||2.0|1.2|0.003
95824492|NCT01818258|191619351|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 1 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 1 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.1|0.3|0.090
95824493|NCT01818258|191619351|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 12 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 12 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.4|0.3|0.23
95824494|NCT01818258|191619351|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Week 24 Geometric Mean Ratio of Severe Malnutrition/Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Week 24 comparison of ZDV clearance between cohorts. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||0.8|0.5|0.0003
95824495|NCT01818258|191619352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Odds Ratio (SAM/non-SAM) for Lopinavir Ctrough \>= 1 ug/mL through 48 weeks|Odds ratio (SAM/non-SAM) of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL from entry through 48 weeks from repeated measures mixed model, with the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to zero (no difference between cohorts in odds of Ctrough \>=1 ug/mL).||1.29|0.22|0.17
95824496|NCT01818258|191619353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition Cohort - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 1 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 1 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-0.9|-3.9|0.003
95824497|NCT01818258|191619353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 12 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 12 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||-1.1|-6.6|0.011
95824498|NCT01818258|191619353|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition for Week 24 Free Fraction (%) of LPV|Week 24 comparison of LPV free faction. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-2.4|0.46
95824499|NCT01818258|191619354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.7|-0.3|0.15
95959409|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|2.481|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level immediately before the start of this drug||2.481|0.284|
95959410|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|6.621|||||"Risk Ratio of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug \< 10 × 10⁴/μL to ≥ 10 × 10⁴/μL"|Subgroup analyses of platelet count immediately before the start of this drug||6.621|0.604|
95959411|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|3.026|||||"Risk Ratio of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug \> 50% to ≤ 50%"|Subgroup analyses of myeloblast count immediately before the start of this drug||3.026|0.278|
95959412|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.93|||||"Risk Ratio of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug 2nd to 1st"|Subgroup analyses of salvage line of the induction treatment with this drug||1.930|0.036|
96000886|NCT03849560|191978681|NON_INFERIORITY|Odds ratio was calculated to compare seroconversion for VICT antigen in group Grippol® Quadri and group Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage)|Odds Ratio, log|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.63||||||||1.63|0.68|
95824500|NCT01818258|191619354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.4|0.20
95824501|NCT01818258|191619354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.2|0.13
95824502|NCT01818258|191619354|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in log10 plasma HIV viral load from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||1.8|-0.1|0.089
95959413|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|4.161|||||"Risk Ratio of HSCT before the start of this drug performed to not performed"|Subgroup analyses of HSCT before the start of this drug||4.161|0.497|
95959414|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.03|||||"Risk Ratio of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with myeloablative conditioning to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant with nonmyeloablative conditioning"|Subgroup analyses of type of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.030|0.187|
95959415|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|2.192|||||"Risk Ratio of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug 0 to 1"|Subgroup analyses of ECOG PS before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||2.192|0.155|
95959416|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|10.293|||||"Risk Ratio of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug \< 10 g/dL to ≥ 10 g/dL"|Subgroup analyses of hemoglobin level before conditioning for the first HSCT after the start of this drug||10.293|0.630|
95862053|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|1.3||||||Change at Week 8, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||1.3|-39.2|
95862054|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.6||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.6|-10.6|
95862055|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.1||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.1|-24.0|
95862056|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|14.8||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.8|-17.1|
95862057|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|6.3||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||6.3|-24.6|
95862058|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|2.5||||||Change at Week 8, Physical functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||2.5|-38.2|
95862059|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|14.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||14.6|-18.3|
95862060|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-3.6||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||-3.6|-36.5|
95862061|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||13.9|-19.5|
95862062|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|5.4||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.4|-27.1|
95862063|NCT00669409|191682701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|10.9||||||Change at Week 8, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.9|-32.0|
95862064|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.6||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.6|-2.5|
95862065|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|10.0||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.0|-21.0|
96000887|NCT03849560|191978682|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H1N1 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H1N1 was ≤1.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7762|1.03||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H1N1||1.030|0.7762|
95862066|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|20.9||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.9|-10.4|
95862067|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|7.5||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.5|-23.1|
95862068|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|10.8||||||Change at Week 13, Pain: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.8|-29.7|
95862069|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|29.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||29.8|-1.3|
95862070|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-19.2|
95862071|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|22.8||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||22.8|-9.1|
95862072|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|5.1||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||5.1|-25.8|
95824503|NCT01818258|191619355|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||>0.999
95824504|NCT01818258|191619355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.15
95824505|NCT01818258|191619355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
95824506|NCT01818258|191619355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48 Comparison, with null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||||0.065
95824507|NCT01818258|191619356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 12. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||4.4|-3.9|0.89
95824508|NCT01818258|191619356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 24. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.6|-2.5|0.31
95824509|NCT01818258|191619356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference in cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 36. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||7.8|-1.5|0.18
95824510|NCT01818258|191619356|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of comparison: Severe Malnutrition - Normal Nutrition/Mild Malnutrition|Difference between cohorts of change in CD4 percent from baseline to week 48. Null hypothesis of no difference between cohorts.||11.0|1.1|0.018
95824511|NCT01818258|191619357|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 24 equal to 0||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
95824512|NCT01818258|191619357|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in WHO weight-for-height Z-score from entry to week 48 equal to 0||3.37|2.09|<0.0001
95862073|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|12.0||||||Change at Week 13, Physical Functions: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||12.0|-28.8|
95959417|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|5.87|||||"Risk Ratio of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug ≥ 4 weeks to \< 8 weeks to \< 4 weeks"|Subgroup analyses of time from the date of final dose of this drug to the date of the first HSCT after the start of this drug||5.870|0.237|
95959418|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|7.158|||||"Risk Ratio of best overall response progression or relapse to complete remission (CR) or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi)"|Subgroup analyses of best overall response||7.158|0.665|
95824513|NCT01818258|191619358|SUPERIORITY||Mean|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 24 equal to 0||3.28|1.96|<0.0001
95824514|NCT01818258|191619358|SUPERIORITY||Mean|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: change in MUAC from entry to week 48 equal to 0||4.24|2.83|<0.0001
95824515|NCT02684058|191619361|SUPERIORITY|one-sided p-value at 2.5% level of significance|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|22.4|||Chi-squared|||||22.4|2.3|<0.001
95824516|NCT02684058|191619366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.55||Log-rank test at an overall one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Log Rank|||Up to approx. 3 years||0.55|0.17|<0.001
95824517|NCT01221623|191619413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0059
95824518|NCT01221623|191619414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0496
95824519|NCT01221623|191619415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95824520|NCT01221623|191619416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0340
95824521|NCT01221623|191619417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1168
95824522|NCT01221623|191619418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0144
95824523|NCT01221623|191619419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0248
95824524|NCT01221623|191619420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.6949
95824525|NCT01221623|191619421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0249
95824526|NCT04283994|191619422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.114||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.197||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.197|0.030|0.023
95959419|NCT05923112|191891694|OTHER|Estimation|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|6.037|||||"Risk Ratio of MRD test not performed to negativity achieved"|Subgroup analyses of minimal residual disease (MRD)||6.037|0.392|
95959420|NCT02053610|191891697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.58|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.58|0.41|<0.0001
95959421|NCT02053610|191891699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.54|0.33|<0.0001
95959422|NCT02053610|191891701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|13.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.1|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with EOTR: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||20.1|6.3|0.0001
95959423|NCT02053610|191891702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|19.8|||Chi-squared|||Includes participants with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||19.8|6.1|0.0002
95824527|NCT04283994|191619422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.068||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.150|-0.013|0.294
95824528|NCT04283994|191619422|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.045||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.044||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bidirectional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|A total sample size of 600 (200 per arm) would give 80% power to detect a difference in proportions of 0.16 for each of the 3 pairwise comparisons assuming an overall 0.5 significance threshold, a Bonferroni adjustment for the 3 comparisons, and variance based on a proportion of 0.54.||0.044|-0.134|0.952
95824529|NCT04283994|191619429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.7|-1.3|1.650
95824530|NCT04283994|191619429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.5|-1.6|0.985
95824531|NCT04283994|191619429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||2.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.4|-1.0|2.155
95824532|NCT04283994|191619430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||2.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis,|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||4.4|-3.1|2.169
95824533|NCT04283994|191619430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.0|-7.5|0.391
95824534|NCT04283994|191619430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||8.2|-0.3|0.210
95824535|NCT04283994|191619431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.4|-0.8|1.010
95824536|NCT04283994|191619431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||2.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||1.7|-1.7|2.923
95824537|NCT04283994|191619431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||1.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||2.5|-0.9|1.034
95824538|NCT04283994|191619432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|7.9||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||7.9|-1.0|0.384
95824539|NCT04283994|191619432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||1.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.7|-6.1|1.923
95824540|NCT04283994|191619432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||9.4|-0.1|0.166
95824541|NCT04283994|191619433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.00|-0.23|0.160
95824542|NCT04283994|191619433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.04|-0.18|0.652
95824543|NCT04283994|191619433|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.07|-0.16|1.390
95824544|NCT04283994|191619434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||1.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.06|1.192
95824545|NCT04283994|191619434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||2.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.11|2.698
95824546|NCT04283994|191619434|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||1.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.16|-0.08|1.477
95824547|NCT04283994|191619435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||2.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.16||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||3.16|-4.30|2.293
95824548|NCT04283994|191619435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||2.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|3.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.14|-4.11|2.381
95824549|NCT04283994|191619435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||2.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|3.69||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||3.69|-3.86|2.893
95824550|NCT04283994|191619436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||2.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.12|-0.13|2.829
95854968|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.06|0.61|0.1177
95854969|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.56|0.88|0.2730
95824551|NCT04283994|191619436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.24||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.24|-0.01|0.188
95824552|NCT04283994|191619436|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.01|-0.24|0.190
95824553|NCT04283994|191619437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||1.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.14|-0.09|1.994
95824554|NCT04283994|191619437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.19|-0.05|0.771
95824555|NCT04283994|191619437|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||1.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.08||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|"Complete case analysis. Unsure responses counted as non-events."||0.08|-0.17|1.447
95824556|NCT04283994|191619440|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.012||||1.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.034||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.034|-0.058|1.836
95824557|NCT04283994|191619440|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||1.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.073||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.073|-0.030|1.250
95824558|NCT04283994|191619440|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.033||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.017||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.017|-0.084|0.581
95824559|NCT04283994|191619441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.039||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.025||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.025|-0.102|0.692
95824560|NCT04283994|191619441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.038||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.109||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.109|-0.033|0.887
95824561|NCT04283994|191619441|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.077||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|-0.009||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Risk difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||-0.009|-0.145|0.080
95824562|NCT04283994|191619442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.1|0.9|0.293
95824563|NCT04283994|191619442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis|Hazard ratio = clinician-facing intervention / usual care. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||2.5|1.1|0.027
95854970|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.33|0.73|0.9306
95824564|NCT04283994|191619442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||1.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Wald test adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Hazard ratio = bi-directional intervention / clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via cox proportional hazards regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Exponentiated Wald confidence intervals.|Censoring by death.||1.2|0.6|1.009
95824565|NCT04283994|191619443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.7||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.70|-1.55|1.366
95824566|NCT04283994|191619443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.58||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.58|-1.73|0.978
95824567|NCT04283994|191619443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||2.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.3||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.30|-0.99|2.390
95824568|NCT04283994|191619444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||1.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.51||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.51|-0.57|1.125
95824569|NCT04283994|191619444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.94||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.94|-0.13|0.258
95824570|NCT04283994|191619444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||1.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.63||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.63|-1.5|1.267
95824571|NCT04283994|191619445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||1.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.32|-0.68|1.594
95959424|NCT02053610|191891703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.43|<0.0001
96000888|NCT03849560|191978682|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccines for the strain A/H3N2 if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for H3N2 was ≤1.5|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8913|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7516|1.0593||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) and Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain A/H3N2||1.0593|0.7516|
95824572|NCT04283994|191619445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||1.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.36||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.36|-0.79|1.803
95854971|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.32|0.72|0.8631
95854972|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.86|0.95|0.0977
96000889|NCT03849560|191978682|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Yamagata if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Yamagata antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6918|0.9683||||||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) for the strain B/Yamagata||0.9683|0.6918|
95959425|NCT02053610|191891704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.97|0.60|0.0245
95959426|NCT02053610|191891705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.61|0.41|<0.0001
95959427|NCT02053610|191891707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.73|0.46|<0.0001
96000890|NCT03849560|191978682|NON_INFERIORITY|The Grippol® Quadri vaccine considered non-inferior to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) vaccine for the strain B/Victoria if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of means of geometric antibody titers for Victoria antigen was ≤1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0328||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.857|1.2445|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of Grippol® Quadri over Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) for the strain B/Victoria||1.2445|0.8570|0.05
95824573|NCT04283994|191619445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||2.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||1.07|-1.01|2.851
95824574|NCT04283994|191619446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||1.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.4||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.40|-0.97|1.243
95824575|NCT04283994|191619446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||1.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.35||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.35|-1.00|1.032
95824576|NCT04283994|191619446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.78||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.78|-0.70|2.742
95824577|NCT04283994|191619447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||2.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.22|-0.26|2.658
95824578|NCT04283994|191619447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||1.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.29|-0.14|1.523
95824579|NCT04283994|191619447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||1.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|||0.15|-0.33|1.381
95824580|NCT04283994|191619448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.25||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.25|-0.18|2.191
95824581|NCT04283994|191619448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||2.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = clinician-facing intervention - usual care. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||0.27|-0.19|2.138
95824582|NCT04283994|191619448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||2.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|22.0||P-value is after a Bonferroni adjustment for three comparisons. The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Wald test with robust standard errors, adjusting for hospital site and dementia diagnosis.|Mean difference = bi-directional intervention - clinician-facing intervention. Estimated via linear regression after adjusting for hospital and dementia diagnosis. Confidence intervals using robust standard errors.|Complete case analysis.||022|-0.23|2.879
95824583|NCT03088930|191619450|OTHER||Summary statistics|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|Three subjects enrolled. No statistical analysis completed due to low accrual.|||
96000891|NCT03849560|191978683|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
95824584|NCT01159171|191619468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||0.0||||One-sided p-value|One sample exact binomial test|||||||0.0047
96000892|NCT03849560|191978683|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain A/H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage)+Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) groups||||||0.282|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.282
96000893|NCT03849560|191978683|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||||||0.352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
96000894|NCT03849560|191978683|NON_INFERIORITY|Seroprotection for strain B/Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group in comparison to Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||||||0.815|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.815
96000895|NCT03849560|191978684|OTHER|||||||0.452|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.452
95824585|NCT03392883|191619528|OTHER|Paired version (T-test for paired sample, Friedman and McNemar tests) was used for contrasting the equality among the variables at different moments of time. In order to adjust our results by potential confounders, ANCOVA analyses was performed. Symmetric 95% confidence intervals will be provided for relevant parameters. All p-values were referred to two-sided hypotheses. P-values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||<0.001
95824586|NCT03392883|191619528|OTHER|||||||0.552||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Acceptability subscale results.||||0.552
95824587|NCT03392883|191619528|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.320
95824588|NCT03392883|191619528|OTHER|||||||0.879||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.879
95824589|NCT03392883|191619528|OTHER|||||||0.242||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||We analyzed changes over time for every subscale in this instrument. This Statistical Analysis describes the Reach/Access subscale results.||||0.242
95824590|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.237||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.237
95824591|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.492
95824592|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.285||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.285
95824593|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.964||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.964
96000896|NCT03849560|191978684|OTHER|||||||0.639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.639
95824594|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.942||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Resources subscale results.||||0.942
95824595|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.366||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Scope subscale results.||||0.366
95824596|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.021||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.021
95824597|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.832
95824598|NCT03392883|191619529|OTHER|||||||0.827||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.827
95824599|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.118||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.118
96000897|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of mean geometri|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|5.6||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Quadri group||5.60|4.22|
96000898|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|6.24||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Quadri group||6.24|4.53|
96000899|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|6.25||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Quadri group||6.25|4.78|
96000900|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|5.49||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Quadri group||5.49|4.14|
96000901|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.59|4.94||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.94|3.59|
96000902|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||6.12|4.45|
95824600|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.896||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Accessibility subscale results.||||0.896
95824601|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.739||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Appropriateness subscale results.||||0.739
95824602|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.724||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Feasibility subscale results.||||0.724
95824603|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Adoption subscale results.||||0.301
95824604|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.034||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Organizational Climate subscale results.||||0.034
95824605|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Leadership in Implementing subscale results.||||0.015
95824606|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the General Leadership Skills subscale results.||||0.081
95824607|NCT03392883|191619530|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes over time in this data for every sub-scale. This Statistical Analysis describes the Knowledge subscale results.||||0.790
95824608|NCT03392883|191619531|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time.||||0.023
95862074|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|23.4||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||23.4|-9.5|
96000903|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|4.69||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Yamagata in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Yamagata lineage) group||4.69|3.48|
96000904|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.34||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H1N1 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.34|3.97|
96000905|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|6.12||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for H3N2 in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||6.12|4.38|
95824609|NCT03392883|191619532|OTHER|||||||0.589||||||p\<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We analyzed changes in the overall scores over time in this data.||||0.589
95824610|NCT03392883|191619533|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
95824611|NCT03392883|191619534|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the total scores (sum of 12 items) at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
95824612|NCT03392883|191619535|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the scores at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
95824613|NCT03392883|191619536|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We analyzed changes over time by calculating the mean difference of the number of standard drinks per week at baseline assessment and at 12-month follow-up assessment.||||
95824614|NCT02688088|191619550|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.06||||||||1.06|0.965|
95824615|NCT02688088|191619551|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.0||||||||1.00|0.871|
95824616|NCT02688088|191619552|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.22||||||||1.22|0.898|
95824617|NCT02688088|191619553|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.94||||||||0.940|0.760|
95824618|NCT02688088|191619554|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|1.81||||||||1.81|1.35|
95824619|NCT02688088|191619555|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.956|1.13||||||||1.13|0.956|
95824620|NCT02688088|191619556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.18||||||||1.18|0.805|
95824621|NCT02688088|191619557|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.775|0.972||||||||0.972|0.775|
95824622|NCT03130439|191619575|OTHER||Objective Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.247||||||||0.247|0.000|
95824623|NCT03130439|191619578|OTHER||Disease Control Rate|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423||||||||0.423|0.086|
96000906|NCT03849560|191978686|OTHER|The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI (log 10) on coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria should be ˃ 2.5|Coefficient of increase of GMT|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.56||||||Coefficient of increase of mean geometric antibody titer for Victoria in Grippol® Plus, trivalent (Victoria lineage) group||5.56|4.00|
95824624|NCT03130439|191619579|OTHER||Clinical Benefit Rate|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.337||||||||0.337|0.042|
95824625|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.172
95824626|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.027
95824627|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.053
95824628|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
95824629|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.006
95824630|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
95824631|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.967
95824632|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.446|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.446
95824633|NCT02731820|191619580|OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.869
95824634|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.954
95824635|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.798
95824636|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.377
95824637|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.886
95824638|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.040
95824639|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.017
95824640|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.343
95824641|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.859
95824642|NCT02731820|191619581|OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.172
95824643|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.213
95824644|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.191
95824645|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.234
95824646|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.370
95824647|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T0||||0.176
95824648|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T6 vs T3||||0.139
95824649|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.551
95824650|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.371
95824651|NCT02731820|191619582|OTHER|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.466
95824652|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T3 vs T0||||0.094
95824653|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||0.0004
95824654|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.008
95824655|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Placebo: T3 vs T0||||0.002
95824656|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T0||||<0.0001
95824657|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired analysis within the group to evaluate the effect of Potassium Citrate: T6 vs T3||||0.0007
95824658|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T0||||0.458
95824659|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T3||||0.434
95824660|NCT02731820|191619583|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent comparison (unpaired analysis) between Potassium Citrate and Placebo at T6||||0.555
95824661|NCT01074463|191619656|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.25|120.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||120.12|99.25|
95854973|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||2.10|0.97|0.0726
95854974|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.38|0.73|0.9974
95854975|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.63|0.72|0.7069
96000907|NCT00553787|191978713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.96|9.25||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.25|7.96|<0.0001
96000908|NCT00553787|191978713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|7.37||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.37|5.79|<0.0001
96000909|NCT00553787|191978713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.82||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||2.82|1.24|<0.0001
95824662|NCT01074463|191619657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|109.68|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.68|98.73|
95824663|NCT01074463|191619658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|107.11|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.11|97.78|
95824664|NCT01126437|191619671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.094|0.837|
95824665|NCT01126437|191619671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Three tests were conducted in hierarchical order. Non-inferiority of time to death from any cause was tested on the two Respimat doses: Tio R 5 vs. Tio HH18, then if non-inferiority was achieved Tio R 2.5 vs Tio HH18. If successful, a test of superiority of Tio R5 over Tio HH18 for time to first COPD exacerbation was conducted. The non-inferiority delta for time to death was 1.25. Non-inferiority tests were performed at one-sided α=0.025 level. Superiority test was performed at two sided α=0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.136|||Regression, Cox|||H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \>= 1.25 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 1.25||1.136|0.872|
95824666|NCT01126437|191619672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.032|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.032|0.928|0.4194
95824667|NCT01126437|191619672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.070|0.964|0.5593
95824668|NCT01126437|191619672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.094|||Regression, Cox|||"H0: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler = 1 Ha: Hazard Ratio for Respimat/HandiHaler ≠ 1~at alpha = 0.05"||1.094|0.985|0.1639
95854976|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.16|0.78|0.3068
96000910|NCT00553787|191978714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.955|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|11.11||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||11.11|7.34|<0.0001
96000911|NCT00553787|191978714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.768|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|7.97||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||7.97|4.93|<0.0001
95854977|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.16|0.85|0.1375
96000912|NCT00553787|191978714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 500 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||1.81|1.15|0.0018
96000913|NCT01450137|191978732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.79|||Fisher Exact|||||0.79|0.11|0.0301
96000914|NCT01450137|191978733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.94|||Fisher Exact|||||0.94|0.36|0.0010
96000915|NCT01450137|191978734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
96000916|NCT01450137|191978735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|39.0|||z-test||Difference between restricted mean survival time at 12 months|||39|11|0.0005
96000917|NCT01208181|191978745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.09|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.09|-0.49|0.004
95824669|NCT01126437|191619673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.018||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||0.018|-.038|
95824670|NCT01126437|191619673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The first test performed was to test the main effect for treatment in the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 5ug and Tio HH 18ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL. If that test was successful, the second test in the hierarchy was to test the main effect for treatment in the MMRM model, specifically the 95% CI for the contrast between Tio R 2.5 ug and Tio HH 18 ug was compared to the non-inferiority delta of 50 mL.|Adjusted mean difference|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|-0.009||An autoregression-1 covariance structure modeled the within-subject errors because visits were equally spaced. The Kenward-Roger approximation estimated denominator degrees of freedom.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, investigative site, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction, and a random term of patient.|"FEV1 was analyzed through Week 120 using REML-based repeated measures.~H0: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler ≥ 50ml Ha: Adjusted mean difference for Respimat/HandiHaler \< 50 ml"||-.009|-.065|
95824671|NCT01126437|191619674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.06|0.95|0.8330
95824672|NCT01126437|191619674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.05|0.94|0.8047
95824673|NCT01126437|191619674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.07|0.96|0.6468
95824674|NCT01126437|191619675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.176|||Regression, Cox|||||1.176|0.971|0.1762
95824675|NCT01126437|191619675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|1.128|||Regression, Cox|||||1.128|0.929|0.6384
95824676|NCT01126437|191619675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.044||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.148|||Regression, Cox|||||1.148|0.949|0.3784
95824677|NCT01126437|191619676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.22|0.98|0.1255
95862075|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|10.6||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||10.6|-22.4|
95959428|NCT02641587|191891710|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of MHBMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|85.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.06|87.47||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of MHBMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of MHBMA.||87.47|82.06|<0.001
96000918|NCT01208181|191978745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-0.27||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||-0.06|-0.48|0.034
96000919|NCT01208181|191978746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-4.13|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-4.13|-11.85|<0.001
96000920|NCT01208181|191978746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-6.66|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-6.66|-14.74|<0.001
95824678|NCT01126437|191619676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.18|0.94|0.3441
95824679|NCT01126437|191619676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of events|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.16||p-value from negative binomial regression.|Negative binomial regression|||||1.16|0.92|0.5573
95824680|NCT01126437|191619677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.066|||Regression, Cox|||||1.066|0.959|0.6823
95824681|NCT01126437|191619677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.983||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||||1.037|0.932|0.5377
95824682|NCT01126437|191619677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.028||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||||1.084|0.975|0.3048
95824683|NCT01126437|191619678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.105||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.336|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.336|0.913|0.3043
95824684|NCT01126437|191619678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.331|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.331|0.909|0.3263
95824685|NCT01126437|191619678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.004||||0.9644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.209|||Regression, Cox|||Causes of death from MACE were determined by adjudication.||1.209|0.834|0.9644
95824686|NCT01126437|191619679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.171||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.526|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.526|0.898|0.2439
95824687|NCT01126437|191619679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.453|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.453|0.850|0.4413
95824688|NCT01126437|191619679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.363|||Regression, Cox|||Time to death from MACE was analyzed using the full study duration including vital status follow-up.||1.363|0.814|0.6910
95824689|NCT01220973|191619683|OTHER||Slope|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95824690|NCT03272828|191619686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
95824691|NCT03272828|191619687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.06
95824692|NCT03272828|191619688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Unequal-variance 2-sample t-test|||||||0.45
95824693|NCT01562314|191619733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.292|2.309|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.309|0.292|0.7532
95824694|NCT01562314|191619734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.419|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.040|0.419|0.7032
95824695|NCT01180036|191619753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|55.4|||Chi-squared|||||55.4|24.6|0.001
95824696|NCT01180036|191619754|NON_INFERIORITY|With a non-inferiority margin of 15%. enrollment of 63 evaluable patients per study are is required to achieve 80% power to show that RTX is not inferior.||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
96000921|NCT01208181|191978747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|0.02||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heysetrend test|||||0.14|-0.10|0.730
95824697|NCT04243577|191619755|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were calculated as plus or minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and were ± 3.1.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
95824698|NCT04243577|191619755|EQUIVALENCE|Margins for this test were based on the absolute value of the effect size (Cohen's d) being smaller than 0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a Confidence Interval for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing again, we hypothesized that normalized amplitude during swallow trials obtained using the conventional sensors and the experimental sensors will be equivalent. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
95824699|NCT04243577|191619756|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was calculated as minus half a standard deviation using preliminary data acquired with the conventional electrodes, which were considered as the current gold standard and was -.99.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
95824700|NCT04243577|191619756|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin for this test was based on the effect size (Cohen's d) being larger than -0.5.|||||<|0.025||||||Alpha level based on Bonferroni correction was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.|Bootstrapping CIs|In this 2nd iteration testing, we are accounting for variance uncertainty, and thus bootstrapping a one-sided confidence bound for Cohen's d.||For Iteration 2 testing, we again hypothesized that Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the newer version of the experimental sensors will not be inferior to the Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) obtained using the conventional sensors. Alpha level was set to .025 to correct for multiple comparisons.||||<0.025
95824701|NCT04243577|191619757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 1 testing, we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
95824702|NCT04243577|191619757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test||For Iteration 2 testing, again we hypothesized that ease of use/comfort expressed after using the experimental patch will be higher than the one reported using the conventional electrodes. Alpha level was set to .05.||||<0.05
95824703|NCT03077438|191619759|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.0||||||Serogroup A||14|1.1|
95824704|NCT03077438|191619759|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|52.2||||||Serogroup C||52.2|42.2|
95824705|NCT03077438|191619759|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.7||||||Serogroup Y||16.7|7.7|
95824706|NCT03077438|191619759|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|20.5||||||Serogroup W||20.5|8.9|
95824707|NCT03077438|191619760|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32||||||Serogroup A||1.32|0.91|
96000922|NCT01208181|191978748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least squares mean|-2.71||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.45|||Tukey-Ciminera-Heyse trend test|||||-0.45|-4.98|0.019
95824708|NCT03077438|191619760|OTHER||GMT Ratio|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|17.3||||||Serogroup C||17.3|11.3|
95824709|NCT03077438|191619760|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.9||||||Serogroup Y||1.9|1.31|
95824710|NCT03077438|191619760|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.69||||||Serogroup W||1.69|1.21|
95824711|NCT03077438|191619761|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.47||||||Serogroup A||1.47|0.883|
95824712|NCT03077438|191619761|OTHER||GMT Ratio|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|22.6||||||Serogroup C||22.6|13.4|
95824713|NCT03077438|191619761|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.78||||||Serogroup Y||1.78|1.07|
95824714|NCT03077438|191619761|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.83||||||Serogroup W||1.83|1.12|
95824715|NCT03077438|191619762|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.38||||||Serogroup A||1.38|0.816|
95824716|NCT03077438|191619762|OTHER||GMT Ratio|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.24|16.0||||||Serogroup C||16|8.24|
95824717|NCT03077438|191619762|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.38||||||Serogroup Y||2.38|1.41|
95824718|NCT03077438|191619762|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82||||||Serogroup W||1.82|1.16|
95824719|NCT03077438|191619763|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.7||||||Serogroup A||16.7|-1.6|
95824720|NCT03077438|191619763|OTHER||Percentage Difference|51.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|57.8||||||Serogroup C||57.8|43.5|
95824721|NCT03077438|191619763|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.1||||||Serogroup Y||18.1|4.2|
95862076|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.9||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||28.9|-4.5|
96000923|NCT01208181|191978749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in the least squares mean|1.61||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|3.71|||covariance model|||||3.71|-0.49|0.327
96000924|NCT01333189|191978852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.329
96000925|NCT01333189|191978853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.891
95824722|NCT03077438|191619763|OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|20.9||||||Serogroup W||20.9|3.9|
95824723|NCT03077438|191619764|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6||||||Serogroup A||16.6|-1.3|
95824724|NCT03077438|191619764|OTHER||Percentage Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.8|50.6||||||Serogroup C||50.6|36.8|
95824725|NCT03077438|191619764|OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|19.2||||||Serogroup Y||19.2|7.6|
95824726|NCT03077438|191619764|OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7||||||Serogroup W||24.7|9.4|
95824727|NCT03888235|191619780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.003
95824728|NCT03888235|191619780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||SI Exercise versus usual care. Bonferroni alpha correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95824729|NCT03888235|191619780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in Oswestry low back pain and disability score between those using a pelvic support belt and those using usual treatment||||0.314
95824730|NCT03888235|191619781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Oswestry low back pain and disability (ODI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares the score at initial visit and the score 2 months later after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. =(ODI time 0 - ODI 2 months). The greater the difference, the better the recovery of back function.||||< 0.001
95824731|NCT03888235|191619782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes that after one month, there is no difference in brief pain inventory score improvement between the three treatment groups.||||0.17
95824732|NCT03888235|191619782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Bonferroni alpha correction of p\<0.0167.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score at the one month visit, is used to compare the pain levels of those having done one month of corrective exercises to those who continued with conventional treatments for their low back pain.||||0.089
95824733|NCT03888235|191619782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The brief pain inventory score is used to compare those using a pelvic support belt for one month and those with delayed treatment||||0.092
95824734|NCT03888235|191619783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All participants are assessed as a single group as they receive the same two treatments for one month. Brief pain inventory (BPI) score change over two months for all participants. This compares BPI score at baseline visit and BPI score 2 months later, after all participants have been using the corrective exercise and sacroiliac stabilization belt for one month. The score is between 0 and 10. The higher the change in score the greater the pain relief.||||< 0.001
95824735|NCT03888235|191619784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumes there is no improvement after one month in posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) measured using the sacroiliac forward flexion test (SIFFT) between the three treatment groups.||||0.016
95824736|NCT03888235|191619784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||The Bonferroni alpha correction is used p\<0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the distance between the posterior sacroiliac spine levels (PSISL) between those who use their usual low back pain treatments and those who are given the corrective exercises (SIFFTE) and use them as needed for one month.||||0.009
95824737|NCT03888235|191619784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Bonferroni correction p\< 0.0167|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that that using a pelvic support belt will not help correct sacroiliac joint asymmetry as measured using the distance between the posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL), baseline and one month later better than conventional treatment for low back pain.||||0.034
96000926|NCT01333189|191978854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
96000927|NCT01333189|191978855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.509
96000928|NCT01333189|191978855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.500
96000929|NCT01333189|191978855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.607
95824738|NCT03888235|191619785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Since all participants have received the same 2 treatment for one month, we will treat them as a single group. We will measure the distance between their posterior superior iliac spine levels (PSISL) when they enter the study and two months later after they have used the corrective exercise and the sacroiliac belt for one month. Corona prevented some participants from returning for examination, which this test requires. Only 11 participants were present in each group: 33 participants tested.||||< 0.0001
95824739|NCT03888235|191619785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
95824740|NCT03888235|191619786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the physiotherapy as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
95824741|NCT03888235|191619787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the acupuncture as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
95962415|NCT03607422|191896618|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer. This endpoint was a multiplicity-controlled key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes only.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||24.9|13.3|<0.001
95824742|NCT03888235|191619788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the yoga exercises as they were with using the corrective exercises and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
95824743|NCT03888235|191619789|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with the core exercises as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
95824744|NCT03888235|191619790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||the null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with treatments by a chiropractor as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt||||<0.00001
95824745|NCT03888235|191619791|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that all participants were as satisfied with massage therapy as they were with using the corrective exercise and the pelvic stabilization belt.||||<0.00001
95824746|NCT04392141|191619792|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of odds of death between both groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.87||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|83.89|||Fisher Exact|||||83.89|1.16|0.0318
95824747|NCT04392141|191619793|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 (%) between admission and discharge times in standard treatment group||-3.96|-7.03|0.0001
95824748|NCT04392141|191619793|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of SpO2 percentage between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of SpO2 % between admission and discharge times in the Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-1.81|-3.28|0.0001
95824749|NCT04392141|191619794|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of means of the length of hospitalization between both groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.80|1.63|0.0001
95824750|NCT04392141|191619795|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||0.176|-0.136|0.80
95824751|NCT04392141|191619795|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of lymphocytes count between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||-0.23|-0.63|0.0001
95824752|NCT04392141|191619796|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.06||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.76|72.64|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in standard treatment||72.64|-124.76|0.602
95824753|NCT04392141|191619796|EQUIVALENCE|equivalence of mean of LDH between admission and discharge phases|Mean Difference (Final Values)|137.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.19|236.46|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test||Statistical comparison of LDH between admission and discharge times in Colchicine and Herbal Phenolic Monoterpene Fractions treatment||236.46|38.19|0.006
95824754|NCT02357472|191619797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample Size to Achieve 0.80 Power to Test Equivalency at the α = 0.05 Significance Level for True Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6216|2.002|||t-test, 2 sided|||It was caculated that 60 paticipants randomized in a 1:1between 2 arms would would have at least 85% power to detect a difference of 1.32 oocytes between the high dose group and standard dose group after 12 weeks.Sample size was determined using 2 sided 2 sample t-test (α = 0.05).Assumptions included a common standard deviation of 1.72.||2.002|0.6216|0.0003
95824755|NCT00803400|191619812|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A p-value less than 0.05 (≤ 0.05) is statistically significant. It indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, as there is less than a 5% probability the null is correct (and the results are random)||||<0.001
95824756|NCT03802630|191619841|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is greater than -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-3.9|0.018
95854978|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||2.29|0.46|0.9540
95854979|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||2.64|0.10|0.4283
95824757|NCT03989349|191619857|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|19.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||19.8|4.6|0.0006
95824758|NCT03989349|191619858|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|14.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.6|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|5.6|0.0008
95824759|NCT03989349|191619859|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|12.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.6|20.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||20.3|4.6|0.0006
95824760|NCT03989349|191619860|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6|26.0||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.0|6.6|0.0004
95824761|NCT03989349|191619861|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.1|30.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||30.3|16.1|<0.0001
95824762|NCT03989349|191619861|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.2|34.5||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using multiple imputation (MI) with missing at random (MAR) assumption.||34.5|21.2|<0.0001
95824763|NCT03989349|191619862|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|17.5|36.6||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Participants with missing data were considered non-responders.||36.6|17.5|<0.0001
95824764|NCT03989349|191619862|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|24.5|42.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimates are from 50 complete datasets by MI-MAR assumption.|Nemolizumab 30 mg versus Placebo using MI-MAR assumption.||42.3|24.5|<0.0001
95824765|NCT03989349|191619863|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.9|23.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||23.3|10.9|<0.0001
95824766|NCT03989349|191619864|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|25.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||25.8|11.0|<0.0001
95824767|NCT03989349|191619865|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.8|24.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||24.3|10.8|< 0.0001
95962416|NCT03607422|191896619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.9|73.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||73.8|45.9|<0.001
95962417|NCT03607422|191896619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.1|70.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.4|41.1|<0.001
96000930|NCT01333189|191978856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
96000931|NCT01333189|191978857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.480
95824768|NCT03989349|191619866|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|21.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.5|31.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||31.4|12.5|<0.0001
95824769|NCT03989349|191619867|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|26.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting the randomized stratification variables (IGA severity and PP NRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||26.1|15.6|< 0.0001
95824770|NCT03989349|191619868|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.0|29.9||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||29.9|15.0|<0.0001
95824771|NCT03989349|191619869|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.0|17.4||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||17.4|9|< 0.0001
95824772|NCT03989349|191619870|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.5|14.3||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||14.3|5.5|0.0001
95824773|NCT03989349|191619871|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.0|19.2||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level||19.2|11|< 0.0001
95824774|NCT03989349|191619872|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.5|22.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||22.1|10.5|<0.0001
95824775|NCT03989349|191619873|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.8|9.1||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\] and PP NRS \[\>=7, \<7\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for the preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||9.1|3.8|<0.0001
95824776|NCT03989349|191619874|OTHER||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|8.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.2|11.8||Strata-adjusted p-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting randomized stratification variables (IGA severity \[3=moderate, 4=severe\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when the test for preceding outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 2.5% significance level.||11.8|4.2|0.0004
95824777|NCT02248649|191619875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|covariates: baseline age and years of education||||||0.2
95824778|NCT02248649|191619876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95824779|NCT02248649|191619877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95824780|NCT03172884|191619899|OTHER||LS means|1.385|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|2.081||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Healthy Subjects||2.081|0.921|
96000932|NCT01333189|191978857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.120
96000933|NCT01333189|191978857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.668
95824781|NCT03172884|191619899|OTHER||LS means|1.445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.093||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.093|0.998|
95824782|NCT03172884|191619899|OTHER||LS means|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.486|0.858||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||0.858|0.486|
95824783|NCT03172884|191619900|OTHER||LS Means|1.711|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|2.55||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.550|1.148|
95824784|NCT03172884|191619900|OTHER||LS Means|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.115|3.46||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.460|2.115|
95824785|NCT03172884|191619900|OTHER||LS Means|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.659||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.659|0.696|
96000934|NCT01333189|191978858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.511
96000935|NCT01333189|191978859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.402
96000936|NCT01333189|191978860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.021
95824786|NCT03172884|191619901|OTHER||LS Means|1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.251|2.498||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||2.498|1.251|
95824787|NCT03172884|191619901|OTHER||LS Means|2.735|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.163|3.459||||||Severe hepatic impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||3.459|2.163|
95824788|NCT03172884|191619901|OTHER||LS Means|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.549||||||Severe renal impairment group vs Healthy Subjects||1.549|0.815|
95824789|NCT00778258|191619906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.77||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.31|0.58
95824790|NCT00778258|191619907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.13||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 12 Months||2.68|0.48|0.78
95824791|NCT00778258|191619907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.81||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Progression comparison at 24 Months||1.91|0.34|0.62
95824792|NCT00778258|191619908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 12 Months||||0.14
95824793|NCT00778258|191619908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 24 Months||||0.17
95824794|NCT00778258|191619908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison at 36 Months||||0.33
95824795|NCT00778258|191619909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
96000937|NCT01333189|191978861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.686
96000938|NCT01333189|191978861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.434
96000939|NCT01333189|191978861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.227
95824796|NCT00778258|191619910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
95824797|NCT00778258|191619910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.01
95824798|NCT00778258|191619911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin||||<0.01
95824799|NCT00778258|191619911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Betalactoglobulin IgE||||<0.01
95824800|NCT00778258|191619911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
95824801|NCT00778258|191619911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Casein IgE||||<0.01
95824802|NCT00778258|191619911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
95824803|NCT00778258|191619911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Cow's Milk IgE||||<0.01
95824804|NCT00778258|191619912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.01
95824805|NCT00778258|191619912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Max Basophil Assessment||||0.22
95824806|NCT00778258|191619912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.59
95824807|NCT00778258|191619912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Null hypothesis is that correlation = 0|Spearman Correlation|||Analysis on Tregs||||0.32
95824808|NCT00778258|191619913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.50
95824809|NCT00778258|191619914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||||||Correlation = -0.18|Spearman Correlation|||Baseline Comparison||||0.033
95824810|NCT00778258|191619914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Correlation = -0.34|Spearman Correlation|||Month 12 Comparison||||0.002
95824811|NCT00778258|191619914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||Correlation = -0.20|Spearman Correlation|||Month 24 Comparison||||0.156
95824812|NCT00778258|191619914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||||||Correlation = -0.27|Spearman Correlation|||Month 36 Comparison||||0.077
95824813|NCT00778258|191619915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||36 Month Comparison||||<0.01
95824814|NCT00107900|191619928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.238
95824815|NCT03895632|191619932|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects model was fit to assess the association between α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) and signal segment.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value obtained form the Wald statistics of the linear mixed-effects model. The threshold for statistical signifiance was p=0.01.|Linear mixed-effects model|||The null hypothesis was that α (the slope of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) plot) is not related to signal segment (off-, approaching- and on-target).||||<0.0001
95824816|NCT03571672|191619958|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.98||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.868
95824817|NCT03571672|191619958|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.445||0.606|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.606
95824818|NCT03571672|191619958|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.212||0.224|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.224
95824819|NCT03571672|191619959|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.682||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.715
95824820|NCT03571672|191619959|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.526||0.956|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.956
95824821|NCT03571672|191619959|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.584||0.771|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.771
95824822|NCT03571672|191619960|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.970|0.944|
95824823|NCT03571672|191619960|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.964||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.964|0.931|
95824824|NCT03571672|191619960|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.969||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.941|
96000940|NCT01333189|191978862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.068
96000941|NCT01333189|191978863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the hip||||=0.160
95824825|NCT03571672|191619960|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.909|
95824826|NCT03571672|191619960|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.946|
95824827|NCT03571672|191619960|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|0.954||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.913|
95824828|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
95824829|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|0.99||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.990|0.981|
95824830|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|0.971||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.971|0.945|
95824831|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.925|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.897|0.945||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.897|
95824832|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
95824833|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.934||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.934|0.876|
95824834|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
95824835|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.989|0.979|
95959429|NCT02641587|191891711|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of 3-HPMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|48.73||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of 3-HPMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of 3-HPMA.||48.73|30.25|<0.001
95962418|NCT03607422|191896620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||67.3|40.6|<0.001
95962419|NCT03607422|191896620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.1|25.7|<0.001
95962420|NCT03607422|191896621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|66.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.1|40.0|<0.001
95824836|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
95824837|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.961||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.961|0.927|
95824838|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
95824839|NCT03571672|191619961|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.954||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.954|0.914|
95824840|NCT03571672|191619962|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|0.967||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.967|0.909|
95824841|NCT03571672|191619962|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.95||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.950|0.864|
95824842|NCT03571672|191619962|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.900|
95824843|NCT03571672|191619962|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.935||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.935|0.827|
95824844|NCT03571672|191619962|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.971||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.971|0.920|
95824845|NCT03571672|191619962|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.939||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.939|0.838|
95824846|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|0.986||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.986|0.961|
95824847|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.991||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.991|0.974|
95824848|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.960|0.890|
95824849|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.912||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.912|0.770|
95824850|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.914|
95824851|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.824|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|0.892||||||Inter-reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.892|0.721|
95824852|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|0.989||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.970|
95824853|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.985||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.985|0.957|
95824854|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.969||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.969|0.915|
95824855|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.933||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.933|0.822|
95824856|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|0.975||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.975|0.932|
95824857|NCT03571672|191619963|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.922||||||Inter-reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.922|0.794|
95824858|NCT00303446|191619964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes percent change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.28
95824859|NCT00303446|191619965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.86
95824860|NCT00303446|191619966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||Comparison of changes from baseline in manual muscle testing results.||||0.47
95824861|NCT00303446|191619967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.13
95824862|NCT00303446|191619968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.46
95824863|NCT00303446|191619969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.11
95824864|NCT00303446|191619970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.08
95824865|NCT00303446|191619971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.73
95824866|NCT00303446|191619972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.37
95824867|NCT00303446|191619973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.65
95824868|NCT00303446|191619974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.99
95824869|NCT00303446|191619975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||1.0
95824870|NCT00303446|191619976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.014
95824871|NCT00303446|191619977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Generalized estimating equation model showed a significant interaction between time and treatment; therefore a two sample t-test was used at each time point. P-value is given for comparison at 24 months.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95824872|NCT00303446|191619978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Generalized estimating equation model|The analysis includes change from baseline at 12 and 24 months.||||||0.61
95824873|NCT00450294|191620004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
95824874|NCT00450294|191620005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||That the means at the different timepoints would not all be equal.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures anova with post hoc t-tests using tukey's correction.||||<0.001
95824875|NCT02998203|191620010|OTHER|One-sample t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||<0.001
95824876|NCT02998203|191620011|OTHER|non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||<0.001
95824877|NCT02998203|191620012|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95824878|NCT02998203|191620013|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.017
95824879|NCT02998203|191620014|OTHER|Logistic mixed-effect model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95824880|NCT02998203|191620015|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.167|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.167
95824881|NCT02998203|191620016|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.07
95824882|NCT02998203|191620017|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.014||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95824883|NCT02998203|191620018|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.023|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.023
95824884|NCT02998203|191620019|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.259
95854980|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.56|100.0||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-95.56|
95854981|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.10|0.64|0.2153
95962421|NCT03607422|191896621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|48.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.2|21.8|<0.001
95824885|NCT02998203|191620020|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model|||||<|0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=\<0.001.||||<0.001
95824886|NCT02998203|191620021|OTHER|One-sample t-test||||||0.913|||||||One-sample t-test|||A one-sample t-test was used to assess whether the percent change was different than zero.||||0.913
95824887|NCT02998203|191620022|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The overall differences in the medians of biomarkers between the conventional and the organic periods were assessed with the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.338
95824888|NCT02998203|191620023|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect regression model||||||0.001||||||Multiple testing was accounted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, considering 58 regression parameter tests of the aforementioned models. Q-value\<0.05 were considered statistically significant (controlling the false discovery rate at 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The interaction term for time and treatment was included in the models since it met the threshold of p-value\<0. 05. Specifically, for the interaction term of time and organic treatment b=-0.016, 95% CI=\[-0.023,-0.010\], p-value=0.01.||||0.001
95824889|NCT04838054|191620056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values \<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
95824890|NCT04838054|191620057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 means statistically significant|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95824891|NCT04838054|191620058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95824892|NCT02447250|191620061|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of mean birth weights between responders and non-responders||||0.14
95824893|NCT02447250|191620062|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95824894|NCT02447250|191620063|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95824895|NCT02447250|191620065|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
96000942|NCT01333189|191978863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the knee||||=0.008
95824896|NCT02447250|191620066|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95824897|NCT02851797|191620121|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|generalised least square mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|0.989||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|ANCOVA||LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model on change from baseline in 4SC at Month 18 with baseline values for: the above mentioned parameters as covariates, with steroid use and treatment group as independent classificat factors.|Log transformation applied||0.989|0.745|=0.0345
95962422|NCT03607422|191896622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|47.5|<0.001
96000943|NCT01333189|191978863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Internal moment at the ankle||||=0.877
95824898|NCT02851797|191620122|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in time to rise from the Floor at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 m, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|difference in least square means|-3.28|||=|0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.573|3.018||See comment above|ANCOVA||See comment above|||3.018|-9.573|=0.3044
95824899|NCT02851797|191620123|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6-minute walking test (6MWT) at Month 18 with baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|9.96|||=|0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.071|31.983||See comment above|ANCOVA|LS means, CIs, p-values were obtained from analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in distance walked at the end of the 6MWT at Month18.|See comment above|||31.983|-12.071|=0.3723
95824900|NCT02851797|191620124|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in total NSAA score at Month 18 with baseline values for: total NSAA score, 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|1.91|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.533||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above.|||3.533|0.295|=0.0209
95843759|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.24||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2718). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.24|0.11|
96000944|NCT02042131|191978866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Log Rank|||Omnibus test of all three groups||||.082
95962369|NCT01515943|191896582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.0|11.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Biniomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Negative values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-PU group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-PU groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 15% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||11|-19|0.56
96000945|NCT02042131|191978866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Log Rank|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||.028
96000946|NCT02042131|191978866|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.24||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||0.96|0.06|.040
95824901|NCT02851797|191620125|SUPERIORITY|Estimated cumulative failures, ratio of cumulative failures, CIs, and p-values are obtained from a negative binomial regression on the subject cumulative number of failures across all post-baseline visits. Total failed items at baseline, baseline values for: 4SC, time to rise from floor, time to run/walk 10 metres, distance walked in 6 minutes and re-derived age at first dose were included as independent covariates, with treatment group and steroid use included as indep classification factors.|Ratio of cumulative failures|0.61|||=|0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.927||same comment as above|negative binomial regression model|Estimated cumulative failures, their ratio were obtained from a negative binomial regression on the cumulative N of failures across all visits.|"A lower ratio indicates a greater reduction in cumulative loss of function across 18 months for givinostat compared with placebo.~See also comment above."|||0.927|0.408|=0.0202
95824902|NCT02851797|191620126|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.19|||=|0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.401||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall knee extension||0.401|-0.030|=0.0902
95824903|NCT02851797|191620126|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in normalised muscle strength at Month 18 with baseline normalised muscle strength and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|0.09|||=|0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.213||same comment as above|ANCOVA||same comment as above|Overall elbow flexion||0.213|-0.041|=0.1818
95824904|NCT02851797|191620127|SUPERIORITY|LS Means, CIs, and p-values are obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on change from baseline in VL MFF at Month 18 with baseline VL MFF and re-derived age at first dose fitted as covariates, with concomitant steroid use and treatment group as independent classification factors.|Difference in least square means|-2.92|||=|0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.641|-0.204||Same comment as above|ANCOVA||Same comment as above|||-0.204|-5.641|=0.0354
95824905|NCT03552536|191620140|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants. Least squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval) for change from baseline at 168 hours post dose of pooled historical placebo was -0.03 log10 copies/mL (-0.14, 0.09).|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.6|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8583 and placebo at least 0.5 log10 copies/mL was 64%.|||||
95824906|NCT01229254|191620158|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval was within the pre-specified bounds of \[0.66, 1.50\], the hypothesis of similarity between lower weight and higher weight groups was supported.|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.948||||||Compared to Betrixaban 90 mg (≥80 kg)||0.948|0.591|
95824907|NCT06359028|191620185|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.72|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.72|-2.16|<0.0001
95824908|NCT06359028|191620186|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.599|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.23|64.51|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||64.51|50.23|<0.0001
95824909|NCT06359028|191620187|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.41|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||-1.41|-1.89|<0.0001
95824910|NCT06359028|191620188|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|43.86|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||||43.86|26.88|<0.0001
95824911|NCT06359028|191620189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 28||0.13|-1.04|0.1268
95824912|NCT06359028|191620189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.316|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.13|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q7, Day 56||-1.13|-2.38|<0.0001
95824913|NCT06359028|191620189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.09|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 28||-0.09|-1.35|0.0245
95824914|NCT06359028|191620189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.318|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.18|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q8, Day 56||-1.18|-2.44|<0.0001
96000947|NCT02042131|191978867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Omnibus test comparing all three groups.||||<0.001
96000948|NCT02042131|191978867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
96000949|NCT02042131|191978868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Planned contrast #1: TAU vs. S-CRP/E-CRP||||<0.001
96000950|NCT02042131|191978869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Omnibus test of all groups||||0.040
96000951|NCT02042131|191978869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Planned contrast #2: E-CRP vs. TAU/S-CRP||0.9|0.002|0.045
95824915|NCT06359028|191620189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.37|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 28||0.37|-0.96|0.3851
95824916|NCT06359028|191620189|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q9, Day 56||-0.73|-2.22|0.0002
95824917|NCT06359028|191620190|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.674||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|3.08|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||3.08|-15.46|0.1884
95824918|NCT06359028|191620190|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-11.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-11.97|-37.00|0.0002
95824919|NCT06359028|191620191|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.774||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.73|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.73|-2.34|0.3003
95824920|NCT06359028|191620191|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.97|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.97|-4.56|0.0028
95824921|NCT06359028|191620192|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.44|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.44|-8.00|0.0784
95824922|NCT06359028|191620192|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.074||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-2.07|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-2.07|-14.27|0.0092
95824923|NCT06359028|191620193|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.54|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.54|-1.82|0.8686
95824924|NCT06359028|191620193|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.976||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.31|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-1.31|-5.18|0.0012
95824925|NCT06359028|191620194|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.444||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|2.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||2.69|-3.04|0.9047
95824926|NCT06359028|191620194|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.95|-3.38|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-3.38|-9.95|0.0001
95824927|NCT06359028|191620195|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.19|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||1.19|-2.14|0.5733
95824928|NCT06359028|191620195|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|-0.84|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.84|-4.92|0.0060
95824929|NCT06359028|191620196|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.11|-0.39|0.2768
95824930|NCT06359028|191620196|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.04|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.04|-0.48|0.0232
95824931|NCT06359028|191620197|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.85|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 28||0.85|-0.75|0.8996
95824932|NCT06359028|191620197|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Day 56||-0.14|-1.66|0.0204
95824933|NCT05248997|191620201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.09||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.53||LM included baseline value as covariate,\& fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled time point(TP),TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.53|-0.71|0.7782
95824934|NCT05248997|191620202|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.29||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.24||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||1.24|-1.83|0.7079
95824935|NCT05248997|191620203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.23||||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.36|-0.81|0.4398
95824936|NCT05248997|191620204|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|0.04||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||LM included baseline value as covariate, and fixed effects for treatment group,stratification factor,scheduled TP, TP by treatment group interaction.Repeated measures:modelled by unstructured covariance structure for within participant error.|Linear model (LM)|||||0.59|-0.51|0.8890
95824937|NCT05248997|191620205|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|3.8||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|19.7|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||19.7|-12.1|0.6412
95824938|NCT05248997|191620206|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-2.7||||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.2|||Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by presence of nasal polyps at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.||||5.2|-10.6|0.5001
95824939|NCT00673231|191620221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.31||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.31|-0.59|<0.0001
95824940|NCT00673231|191620221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.38||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.38|-0.66|<0.0001
95824941|NCT00673231|191620221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.45|-0.74|<0.0001
95824942|NCT00673231|191620222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.49||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.49|-1.50|0.0001
95824943|NCT00673231|191620222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2523|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.50|-1.50|<0.0001
95824944|NCT00673231|191620222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-1.18||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.18|-2.19|<0.0001
95824945|NCT00673231|191620223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-4.28||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-4.28|-9.46|<0.0001
95824946|NCT00673231|191620223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-3.13||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.13|-8.25|<0.0001
95824947|NCT00673231|191620223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3286|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-3.63||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-3.63|-8.84|<0.0001
95824948|NCT00673231|191620224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.1||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||14.1|0.2|0.0427
95824949|NCT00673231|191620224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.434||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|12.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||12.5|-0.9|0.0903
95824950|NCT00673231|191620224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.634||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, adjustment for stratum (other oral anti-diab med use) and baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||15.8|1.6|0.0166
95824951|NCT00673231|191620225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.684||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-6.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-6.6|-25.0|0.0008
95824952|NCT00673231|191620225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-13.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-13.1|-31.2|
95854982|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.27|0.73|0.7878
95854983|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.08|0.61|0.1544
95824953|NCT00673231|191620225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-15.8||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) and stratum (other oral anti-diabetic med use) as effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.8|-34.3|<0.0001
95824954|NCT02063867|191620233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.17
95824955|NCT02063867|191620234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.16
95824956|NCT02063867|191620235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.43
95824957|NCT02063867|191620242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||<0.001
96000952|NCT01274897|191978870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.0|81.0||The immune response considered sufficient if for serogroup A the lower limit of the two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval (CI) of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse is ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup A.|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||81|71|
95824958|NCT02063867|191620243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126||||||Remains significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0126
95824959|NCT02063867|191620244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.002
95824960|NCT02063867|191620245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032||||||Remained significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed if hazard ratio between intervention vs baseline periods differs between study groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals||||||0.0032
95824961|NCT04470908|191620254|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.525|0.61||||||||0.610|0.525|
95824962|NCT04470908|191620255|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.589||||||||0.589|0.532|
95824963|NCT04470908|191620256|OTHER|Estimate the geometric least square mean ratio of Zanubrutinib vs Zanubrutinib + Rifabutin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.608||||||||0.608|0.441|
95824964|NCT04376684|191620263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.82||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.82|0.96|0.0456
95824965|NCT04376684|191620264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8574
95824966|NCT04376684|191620265|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.22|0.61|0.2057
95824967|NCT04376684|191620266|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.24|0.50|0.3061
95824968|NCT04376684|191620267|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.41|0.59|0.6665
95824969|NCT04376684|191620268|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.18||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.18|0.65|0.1942
95824970|NCT04376684|191620269|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24||p-value is generated from a two-sided test|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.24|0.65|0.5324
95824971|NCT04376684|191620270|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.49|0.80|0.2871
96000953|NCT01274897|191978870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.0|90.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup C, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup C|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||90|82|
95962370|NCT01515943|191896583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|22.0||Linear contrasts performed with a type I error rate of 2.5% based on a Bonferroni adjustment (overall type I error rate of 5% for 2 pairwise treatment group comparisons).|Binomial regression|Adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur. Linear contrasts performed with Bonferroni adjustment (alpha=0.025)|Positive values for the treatment group difference favor the HB-C group. Results of the treatment group comparison are adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS, mean NPC break and mean PFV blur.|The primary outcome was success at 12 weeks. The sample size was computed to have 90% power to detect a treatment group difference between the HB-C versus HB-P groups, assuming true population success percentages of 30% and 10% for the HB-C and HB-PU groups, respectively, with a type I error rate of 2.5%. The treatment group comparison was adjusted for baseline covariates of CISS score (\<28 points vs ≥28 points), mean NPC break (\<10 cm vs ≥10 cm) and mean PFV blur (≥15 pd vs \<15 pd).||22|-12|0.52
96000954|NCT01274897|191978870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|33.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup W, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For the serogroup W|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||33|23|
96000955|NCT01274897|191978870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|74.0||The immune response was considered sufficient if for serogroup Y, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse was ≥50%.|Clopper and Pearson||For serogroup Y|The null hypothesis associated with the primary immunogenicity objective is that for at least one of the four serogroups, the percentage of subjects with hSBA seroresponse at 29 days postvaccination is \< 50%.||74|63|
96000956|NCT00035815|191978874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.529||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of MMT was calculated as a ratio of change from baseline to last follow-up to time to duration until last follow-up. For the patients that died during the study period, the last follow-up time was considered as the time of death with a zero score for MMT measurement. Analysis was performed using intention to treat approach. Comparison of rate of change in MMT scores between the placebo and IGF-1 group was made using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test as appropriate.||||0.529
95824972|NCT04376684|191620271|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.58||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.58|0.85|0.1754
95824973|NCT04376684|191620272|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.79||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.79|0.93|0.0616
95824974|NCT04376684|191620273|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.63||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.63|0.84|0.1830
95824975|NCT04376684|191620274|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.39||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.39|0.95|0.0831
95824976|NCT04376684|191620275|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.0||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.00|0.83|0.2557
95824977|NCT04376684|191620276|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.61|0.67|0.8560
95824978|NCT04376684|191620277|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.66|0.69|0.7533
95824979|NCT04376684|191620278|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.32||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.32|0.95|0.0959
95824980|NCT04376684|191620279|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.50|0.84|0.4421
96000957|NCT00035815|191978875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Patients who elected to proceed to tracheostomy were assessed on the day of their procedure. Subjects who continuously utilized NIPPV for greater than 10 days were assessed as being ventilator-dependent on the first day they began continuous NIPPV. Survival between groups was compared using the Cox-proportional Hazards model.||1.4|0.77|0.415
95824981|NCT04376684|191620280|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.8||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.80|0.73|0.2814
95854984|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.40|0.77|0.8017
95959430|NCT02641587|191891712|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of S-PMA for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|83.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.61|85.9||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of S-PMA will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of S-PMA.||85.90|81.61|<0.001
95824982|NCT04376684|191620281|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.42||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.42|0.77|0.3901
95824983|NCT04376684|191620282|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.36|0.75|0.4763
95824984|NCT04376684|191620283|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.56|0.84|0.1973
95824985|NCT04376684|191620284|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.67||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, and both clinical status at Baseline and age group as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone discriminant multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.67|0.88|0.1173
95824986|NCT04376684|191620285|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.13||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||10.13|1.57|0.0037
95824987|NCT04376684|191620286|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.06||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||2.06|0.77|0.3581
95962423|NCT03607422|191896622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4|59.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.9|33.4|<0.001
95824988|NCT04376684|191620287|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.54|0.63|0.9621
95824989|NCT04376684|191620288|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.29|0.54|0.4167
95824990|NCT04376684|191620289|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||1.25|0.53|0.3408
95824991|NCT04376684|191620290|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.23|0.85|0.4250
95824992|NCT04376684|191620291|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.59|0.81|0.4774
95824993|NCT04376684|191620292|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.89||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis performed using logistic regression adjusted for treatment, age, and both clinical status at Baseline and sex as randomized. Missing data was imputed with monotone logistic multiple imputation assuming data is missing at random.|||0.89|0.18|0.0119
95962424|NCT03607422|191896623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.6|33.2|<0.001
95962425|NCT03607422|191896623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|48.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.4|21.4|<0.001
95824994|NCT04376684|191620293|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.4404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.24|0.83|0.4404
95854985|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.21|0.63|0.4295
95824995|NCT04376684|191620294|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.72||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.72|0.72|0.6253
95824996|NCT04376684|191620295|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.30|0.94|0.1078
95824997|NCT04376684|191620296|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.31||p-value is from a one-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized and age group as randomized.|||1.31|0.94|0.1140
95824998|NCT04376684|191620297|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.40|0.80|0.7084
95824999|NCT04376684|191620298|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52||p-value is generated from a two-sided test.|Regression, Cox||Model adjusted analysis performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by treatment, clinical status at Baseline as randomized, sex as randomized and age.|||1.52|0.84|0.4085
95825000|NCT02470585|191620336|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|0.683||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.683|0.277|<0.001
95825001|NCT02470585|191620337|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.572|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|0.756||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.756|0.433|<0.001
95825002|NCT02470585|191620338|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.831||A 2-sided p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the following hierarchical testing sequence: PFS was to be compared first in the BRCA-mutation cohort, then in the HRD cohort, and then in the ITT population.|Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The primary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib group (Arm 3) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||0.831|0.562|<0.001
95825003|NCT02470585|191620339|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.799|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.799|0.821|0.335
95825004|NCT02470585|191620340|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.414|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.414|0.855|0.462
95854986|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio, log|0.99||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.44|0.68|0.9540
95854987|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.30|0.69|0.7494
95854988|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.74|0.6412
96000958|NCT00035815|191978876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The final secondary outcome measure was the rate of change in the ALSFRS-r score. The ALSFRS-r was completed at each visit (randomization and then at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post-randomization). As with the MMT scores a score of 0 was imputed on the day of death. Analysis of the ALSFRS-r scores as a secondary outcome was performed in similar manner as MMT score.||||0.321
95825005|NCT02470585|191620341|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity considerations included 3 treatment arms, (2 pairwise comparisons), 3 sequentially inclusive populations (BRCA-mutation population, HRD population, and ITT population), and multiple endpoints. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate at 0.05 from the primary efficacy endpoints sequentially through the secondary efficacy endpoints.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.287|||Log Rank|Stratified according to residual disease status and disease stage, choice of the paclitaxel regimen, and BRCA-mutation status|Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|The secondary efficacy analyses compared investigator-assessed PFS in the Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 2) vs. the Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo group (Arm 1).||1.287|0.895|0.450
95825006|NCT02470585|191620342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.429||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.429|0.567|0.328
95825007|NCT02470585|191620342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.218||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.903||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.903|0.780|0.808
95825008|NCT02470585|191620343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.114||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.114|0.640|0.116
95825009|NCT02470585|191620343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.242||Stratified by residual disease (no residual disease after primary surgery versus any residual disease after primary surgery or interval surgery) and stage of disease (stage III versus stage IV)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above.|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.242|0.726|0.352
95825010|NCT02470585|191620344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.144||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank|||Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Veliparib (Arm 3) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.144|0.782|0.283
95825011|NCT02470585|191620344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.244||Stratified by residual disease (none after primary surgery vs any residual disease after primary/interval surgery); disease stage (III vs IV); paclitaxel dosing (Q-weekly vs Q3-weekly); BRCA-Deficient status (Deficient vs wildtype or unknown/missing)|Log Rank||Cox proportional hazards model stratified according to the same factors as those used in the log-rank test above|Veliparib + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 2) versus Placebo + Carboplatin + Paclitaxel -\> Placebo (Arm 1)||1.244|0.859|0.638
95825012|NCT02602275|191620348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||0.004
95825013|NCT02602275|191620349|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
95825014|NCT02602275|191620350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level was 0.05.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but the preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.001
95825015|NCT02602275|191620351|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas (AAL) coordinates.|Paired t-test|||||||>0.05
95825016|NCT02602275|191620352|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Significance level is 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons in the search volume which is anatomically defined by the AAL (Automated Anatomical Labelling Atlas) coordinates.|Paired t-test|The outcome was deemed exploratory, as multiplicity was controlled using a priori ordered hypotheses, but a preceding endpoint was not met.||||||<0.05
95825017|NCT04091581|191620414|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95825018|NCT04091581|191620414|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the baseline tear evaporation rate of the non-dry eye and dry eye group.||||0.022
95825019|NCT03315793|191620417|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.39||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-3.3|6.08|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||6.08|-3.30|0.5587
95825020|NCT03315793|191620418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||21.5|-10.7|0.5111
95825021|NCT03315793|191620419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||13.5|-13.5|1.0000
96002292|NCT02385123|191981833|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96000959|NCT05652660|191978913|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.77|138.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||138.59|104.77|
96000960|NCT05652660|191978914|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.53|118.06|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Rosuvastatin administered alone as the Reference and ARV-471 coadministered with rosuvastatin as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.06|103.53|
96000961|NCT03726671|191978922|OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Betaine IER||||0.0247
95825022|NCT03315793|191620420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.1||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by age||||6.3|-14.4|0.4423
95825023|NCT03315793|191620421|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.14||||0.3836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.46|||mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.46|-0.18|0.3836
95825024|NCT01331837|191620422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to reject the null hypothesis and claim non-inferiority of TCZ compared to ETA, a HR point estimate of ≤ 1.278 and upper limit of 95% CI \<1.8 was required.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.43|0.77|
95825025|NCT01331837|191620424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62||||||"The analysis assessed in the OT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.62|0.76|
95825026|NCT01331837|191620426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.40|0.73|
95825027|NCT01331837|191620428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis and not for the sensitivity analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.56||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the primary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.56|0.70|
96000962|NCT03726671|191978922|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Choline IER||||<0.0001
95825028|NCT01331837|191620430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.34|0.73|
95825029|NCT01331837|191620432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|'The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis'|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.49||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.49|0.54|
95854989|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.67|0.65|0.8652
96000963|NCT03726671|191978922|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0002
96000964|NCT03726671|191978923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||||14.7|3.48|<0.001
96000965|NCT03726671|191978923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.11|||Fisher Exact|||||8.11|2.06|0.01
96000966|NCT03726671|191978923|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.58|||Fisher Exact|||||3.58|0.86|0.086
96000967|NCT03726671|191978924|OTHER|||||||0.6985|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Betaine IER||||0.6985
96000968|NCT03726671|191978924|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Choline IER||||0.0350
96000969|NCT03726671|191978924|OTHER|||||||0.6864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.6864
95825030|NCT01331837|191620434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.63||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.63|0.64|
95825031|NCT01331837|191620436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.92||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||2.92|0.80|
95825032|NCT01331837|191620438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was only formally tested for the primary ITT analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41||||||"The analysis assessed in the ITT population the hazard ratio of the secondary endpoint in TCZ compared to ETA patients. This was done through a comparison of the hazard functions between TCZ and ETA patients.~A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used in evaluating the relative CV event rate of TCZ over ETA, with the following randomization factors used as strata:~* Previous exposure to anti-TNF (Yes/No)~* History of CV events (Yes/No)"||1.41|0.70|
95825033|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||0.18|-0.36|0.4990
95825034|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.29|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.29|-0.83|<0.0001
95825035|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference is calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||-0.56|-1.10|<0.0001
95959431|NCT02641587|191891713|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of COHb for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|55.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.03|61.56||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of COHb will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of COHb.||61.56|49.03|<0.001
95959432|NCT02641587|191891714|OTHER|"The analysis will test if the geometric LS mean level of Total NNAL for CHTP is lower than for CC. The following hypothesis will be evaluated:~H0: XCHTP - XCC ≤ 0.0~HA: XCHTP - XCC \> 0.0~where XCHTP and XCC are the geometric LS means of CHTP and CC, respectively. H0 is rejected with a type I error α = 2.5% (one-sided test)."|LS Mean Reduction|79.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.73|84.39||The primary endpoints will be tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|Generalized linear model||Least squares (LS) means and estimate of the difference, and 95% CI will be back-transformed for obtaining geometric LS means for each arm, the reduction (calculated as 100% - ratio of CHTP 1.2 : CC \[%\]), and their 95% CI.|Analysis will be conducted on the natural log scale. The Day 5 levels of Total NNAL will be analyzed by means of a generalized linear model using randomized arm as covariate adjusting for sex, average cigarette consumption over the previous 6 weeks prior to Admission (value at Admission for stratification), and log-transformed baseline value of Total NNAL.||84.39|72.73|<0.001
95825036|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.08|-0.52|0.0090
95825037|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-0.45|-0.89|<0.0001
95959433|NCT00781937|191891718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-6.06|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.5|-4.62||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||-4.62|-7.50|<0.0001
95962426|NCT03607422|191896624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|60.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.0|32.4|<0.001
95825038|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||-1.22|-1.66|<0.0001
95825039|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
95825040|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-0.39|-0.85|<0.0001
95825041|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.38|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||-1.38|-1.85|<0.0001
95825042|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.14|-0.59|0.0015
95825043|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.61|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-0.61|-1.05|<0.0001
95825044|NCT05243745|191620457|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.49|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||-1.49|-1.95|<0.0001
95825045|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.572||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|11.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||11.02|0.83|0.0231
95825046|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.37|23.47|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||23.47|13.37|<0.0001
95825047|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.571|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.83|29.02|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 3||29.02|18.83|<0.0001
95825048|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.293||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|13.51|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||13.51|4.43|0.0002
95825049|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.22|22.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||22.20|13.22|<0.0001
95825050|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|32.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.27|37.34|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 14||37.34|28.27|<0.0001
95825051|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|15.13|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||15.13|5.28|<0.0001
95825052|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|18.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||18.80|9.05|<0.0001
95959434|NCT00781937|191891719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|7.71||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||7.71|3.01|<0.0001
95825053|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.42|41.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control.|Change from Baseline at Day 28||41.60|31.42|<0.0001
95825054|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.761||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|15.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 1 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||15.20|4.26|0.0006
95959435|NCT00781937|191891720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.44|6.09||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3) and the hypotheses of equality between liraglutide and placebo for each were tested in a hierarchical manner; i.e. a conclusion of liraglutide superiority for a given co-primary endpoint could be drawn only if all preceding hypotheses of equality in the hierarchy had been rejected.||6.09|2.44|<0.0001
95825055|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|19.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.57|24.55|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Comparator 2 value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||24.55|13.57|<0.0001
95825056|NCT05243745|191620458|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|39.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.73|44.94|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with study product, baseline Schiff stratification as a factor and baseline tactile threshold as covariate.|Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as Test value minus Negative Control value.|Change from Baseline at Day 56||44.94|33.73|<0.0001
95825057|NCT04187144|191620471|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the 2.098 Z-statistic boundary.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 5.8838.|22.8|6.4|
95825058|NCT04187144|191620471|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in Percent|14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.8|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.018 p-value boundary||22.8|6.4|0.0003
95825059|NCT02449889|191620573|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment comparisons were done in a sequential manner. First non-inferiority (NI) was tested for HP-hCG IM compared to rhCG SC (lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) \> -3.0). If NI was demonstrated, NI was also to be tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.8|-0.6|
95825060|NCT02449889|191620573|NON_INFERIORITY|As step 2 in the pre-specified sequential testing, NI was tested for HP-hCG SC compared to rhCG SC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.0|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Mean number of oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||2.0|-0.5|
95825061|NCT02449889|191620574|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of MII oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.5|-0.6|
95825062|NCT02449889|191620574|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of Mll oocytes retrieved for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC||1.6|-0.4|
95825063|NCT02449889|191620575|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG IM versus rhCG SC||1.3|-0.6|
95825064|NCT02449889|191620575|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified supportive endpoint analyzed in a similar manner as the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||ANOVA with treatment, stratum (\<10 or ≥10 follicles with a diameter ≥12 mm), and site as fixed factors.|Number of fertilized (2 pronuclei (2PN)) oocytes for the treatment comparison of HP-hCG SC versus rhCG SC.||1.4|-0.5|
95825065|NCT03622112|191620587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.054|-0.126|0.437
95825066|NCT03622112|191620587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.035|-0.143|0.236
95959436|NCT00781937|191891721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.79|10.08||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.08|2.79|<0.0001
95825067|NCT03622112|191620587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|-0.050|0.389
95825068|NCT03622112|191620587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.165|-0.013|0.094
95959437|NCT00781937|191891722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||0.26|0.03|<0.0001
95962427|NCT03607422|191896624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.3|17.3|<0.001
96000970|NCT03726671|191978925|EQUIVALENCE|There are linear combinations of metabolites that differentiate (non-equivalent) the 25% choline diet from the 100% choline diet.|||||<|0.049|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test||||Supervised OPLSDA was used to determine the variable importance to projections of metabolites/signals that differentiated the 25% and 100% choline diet arms.|||<0.049
95825069|NCT03622112|191620587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|-0.003|0.060
95825070|NCT03622112|191620587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|0.023|0.014
95825071|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.105|-0.048|0.463
95825072|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.098|-0.055|0.576
95825073|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.154|0.001|0.047
95825074|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.179|0.025|0.009
95825075|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.178|0.031|0.006
95825076|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.194|0.041|0.003
95825077|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.103|-0.068|0.685
95825078|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.144|-0.026|0.176
95825079|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.183|0.013|0.024
95825080|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.191|0.021|0.014
95825081|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.196|0.032|0.006
95959438|NCT00781937|191891724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.12|10.98||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||10.98|3.12|<0.0001
95825082|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.249|0.081|< 0.001
95825083|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.106|-0.072|0.707
95825084|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.094|-0.083|0.904
95825085|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.157|-0.018|0.121
95825086|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.188|0.012|0.026
95825087|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.224|0.055|0.001
95825088|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.209|0.035|0.006
95959439|NCT00781937|191891725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.65|9.92||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, country, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of endpoint as covariate.||||9.92|3.65|<0.0001
96000971|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.9567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9567
95825089|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.081|-0.068|0.856
95825090|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.082|-0.066|0.832
95825091|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.145|-0.003|0.060
95825092|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.170|0.022|0.011
95825093|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.181|0.039|0.003
95825094|NCT03622112|191620588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.202|0.055|<0.001
95825095|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.936||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||1.067|0.822|0.322
95825096|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|0.999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.999|0.768|0.047
95825097|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.842||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.959|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.959|0.739|0.010
95825098|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.825||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|0.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.941|0.724|0.004
95825099|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.779|0.606|<0.001
95825100|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2||0.719|0.553|<0.001
95825101|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.931||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.076|0.805|0.329
95825102|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.052|0.789|0.203
95959440|NCT00781937|191891726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-5.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|-7.3|-4.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-4.43|-7.30|<0.0001
95825103|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.923||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||1.065|0.800|0.273
95825104|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.846||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.977|0.734|0.023
95825105|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|0.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.852|0.646|<0.001
95825106|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.810|0.609|<0.001
95825107|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.917||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.074|0.783|0.283
95825108|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.933||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.092|0.797|0.386
95825109|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.886||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.035|0.758|0.126
95825110|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.855||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||1.000|0.731|0.050
95825111|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.723|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.840|0.623|<0.001
95959441|NCT00781937|191891727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-4.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.04|-2.43||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.43|-6.04|<0.0001
95959442|NCT00781937|191891728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.72||||0.0068||95.0|-4.69|-0.76||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in systolic blood pressure.||-0.76|-4.69|0.0068
95962428|NCT03607422|191896625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.0||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.6|-0.5|0.075
95825112|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.642|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.749|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8||0.749|0.550|<0.001
95825113|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.927||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.090|0.789|0.359
95825114|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.953||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.118|0.813|0.556
95825115|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.019|0.742|0.084
95825116|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.813||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.953|0.693|0.011
95825117|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.757|0.559|<0.001
95825118|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.623|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.729|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.729|0.533|<0.001
95825119|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.928||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.049|0.821|0.231
95825120|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.037|0.812|0.170
95825121|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.879||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.994|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.994|0.778|0.039
95825122|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.835||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.943|0.739|0.004
95825123|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.787|0.622|<0.001
95825124|NCT03622112|191620589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.649|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.732|0.575|<0.001
95825125|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.070|-0.139|0.519
95825126|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.026|-0.181|0.141
95825127|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.119|-0.088|0.772
95825128|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.162|-0.045|0.270
95825129|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.126|-0.072|0.592
95825130|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.158|-0.045|0.275
95825131|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.083|-0.087|0.963
95825132|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.058|-0.112|0.533
95825133|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.126|-0.044|0.342
95825134|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.165|-0.004|0.061
95825135|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.127|-0.037|0.278
95825136|NCT03622112|191620590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.159|-0.009|0.079
95825137|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.023|-0.328|0.088
95825138|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.257||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.084|-0.430|0.004
95825139|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.049|-0.393|0.012
95825140|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.020|-0.366|0.029
95825141|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.269||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.104|-0.434|0.001
95825142|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||-0.054|-0.393|0.010
95825143|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.125||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.003|-0.253|0.055
95825144|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.014|-0.268|0.029
95825145|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.003|-0.257|0.044
95825146|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.074|-0.328|0.002
95825147|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.339|<0.001
95825148|NCT03622112|191620591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.053|-0.305|0.005
95825149|NCT03622112|191620592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.664||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|16.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.730|-1.403|0.097
95825150|NCT03622112|191620592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.981||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|14.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.941|-2.980|0.190
95825151|NCT03622112|191620592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.123||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|18.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.052|0.195|0.045
95825152|NCT03622112|191620592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.443|24.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||24.445|6.443|<0.001
95825153|NCT03622112|191620592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.031|25.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||25.167|8.031|<0.001
95825154|NCT03622112|191620592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.491||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.726|19.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.256|1.726|0.019
95825155|NCT03622112|191620593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.398||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.494|11.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.290|-6.494|0.597
95825156|NCT03622112|191620593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.162||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.623|10.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||10.948|-6.623|0.629
95825157|NCT03622112|191620593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.833||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.907|12.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||12.573|-4.907|0.389
95825158|NCT03622112|191620593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.258||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.456|19.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.059|1.456|0.022
95825159|NCT03622112|191620593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.994||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.571|20.417|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||20.417|3.571|0.005
95825160|NCT03622112|191620593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.129||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.479|14.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.737|-2.479|0.163
95825161|NCT03622112|191620594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.243||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|-0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.054|-0.431|0.012
95825162|NCT03622112|191620594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.034|-0.344|0.108
95825163|NCT03622112|191620594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.087|-0.286|0.295
95825164|NCT03622112|191620594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.116|-0.500|0.002
95825165|NCT03622112|191620594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.126|-0.489|<0.001
95825166|NCT03622112|191620594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.009|-0.362|0.062
95825167|NCT03622112|191620595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.993|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.795|-4.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-4.191|-15.795|<0.001
95825168|NCT03622112|191620595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.972||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.694|-2.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.251|-13.694|0.006
95825169|NCT03622112|191620595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.361||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.051|1.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||1.329|-10.051|0.133
95825170|NCT03622112|191620595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.797||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.555|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-2.040|-13.555|0.008
95825171|NCT03622112|191620595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.729||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.195|-3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-3.264|-14.195|0.002
96000972|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.0899|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0899
95825172|NCT03622112|191620595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.622|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.211|-6.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-6.034|-17.211|<0.001
95825173|NCT03622112|191620596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.212|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.094|-0.329|<0.001
95825174|NCT03622112|191620596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||0.007|-0.228|0.066
95825175|NCT03622112|191620596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.022|-0.255|0.020
95825176|NCT03622112|191620596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.110|-0.350|<0.001
95825177|NCT03622112|191620596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.185||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.298|-0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.071|-0.298|0.001
95825178|NCT03622112|191620596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||-0.090|-0.321|<0.001
95825179|NCT03622112|191620597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.611||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|18.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.042|1.180|0.026
95825180|NCT03622112|191620597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.503||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.927|13.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||13.933|-2.927|0.200
95825181|NCT03622112|191620597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|15.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.119|-1.546|0.110
95825182|NCT03622112|191620597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.066||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|18.672|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.672|1.461|0.022
95825183|NCT03622112|191620597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.62||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|16.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.750|0.489|0.038
95825184|NCT03622112|191620597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.178||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.112|15.467|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.467|-1.112|0.090
95825185|NCT03622112|191620598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.936||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|18.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.031|-2.160|0.123
95825186|NCT03622112|191620598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.112|11.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||11.065|-9.112|0.849
95825187|NCT03622112|191620598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.242||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.233|8.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||8.748|-11.233|0.807
95825188|NCT03622112|191620598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.789||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.488|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||22.090|1.488|0.025
95825189|NCT03622112|191620598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.574||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|17.307|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||17.307|-2.160|0.127
95825190|NCT03622112|191620598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.058||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.874|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||14.990|-4.874|0.318
95825191|NCT03622112|191620599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.046|18.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.855|2.046|0.015
95825192|NCT03622112|191620599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.192||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.208|15.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||15.592|-1.208|0.093
95825193|NCT03622112|191620599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.606||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|16.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||16.913|0.298|0.042
95825194|NCT03622112|191620599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.773|19.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||19.914|2.773|0.010
95825195|NCT03622112|191620599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.122||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.021|18.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.222|2.021|0.014
95825196|NCT03622112|191620599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.689||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.424|18.953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment period average||18.953|2.424|0.011
95825197|NCT03622112|191620610|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.199|0.851|0.909
95825198|NCT03622112|191620610|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.118||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.336|0.935|0.218
95825199|NCT03622112|191620610|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|1.129||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.349|0.944|0.181
95825200|NCT03622112|191620610|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.984||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|1.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.174|0.825|0.859
95825201|NCT03622112|191620610|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.916||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.077|0.780|0.285
95825202|NCT03622112|191620610|SUPERIORITY||geometric LSMean ratio|0.991||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.182|0.831|0.923
95825203|NCT00075946|191620629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|The primary analysis is to compare the time to rituximab failure (TTRF) between the retreatment arm and the scheduled arm in follicular patients.||1.88|0.90|0.33
96000973|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.9003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.9003
96000974|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.9932|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.9932
96000975|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.3984|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.3984
95825204|NCT00075946|191620629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in non-follicular patients.|||6.19|1.22|0.012
95825205|NCT00075946|191620630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.13|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for Rituximab Retreatment Arm/Rituximab Scheduled Arm in follicular patients.|||7.13|1.45|0.002
95825206|NCT00075946|191620630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
95825207|NCT00075946|191620631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.270
95825208|NCT03639623|191620633|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.053
95825209|NCT03639623|191620634|OTHER|||||||0.958|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.958
95825210|NCT03639623|191620635|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.011
95825211|NCT03639623|191620636|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.454
95825212|NCT03639623|191620637|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.154
95825213|NCT03639623|191620638|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALT||||0.125
96000976|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.3080
95825214|NCT03639623|191620638|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: AST||||0.375
95825215|NCT03639623|191620638|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: ALP||||<0.001
95825216|NCT03639623|191620639|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.054
95825217|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: Total Cholesterol||||0.378
95825218|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Triglyceride||||0.010
95825219|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.264|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Non-HDL-C||||0.264
95825220|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C||||0.954
95825221|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 2||||0.127
95825222|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: HDL-C Subclass 3||||0.029
95825223|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome variable: LDL-C||||0.630
95825224|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL-C||||0.010
95825225|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL concentration||||0.160
95825226|NCT03639623|191620640|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||Small dense LDL-C||||0.020
95825227|NCT03639623|191620641|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.529
95825228|NCT03639623|191620642|OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: LDL Size||||0.403
95825229|NCT03639623|191620643|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.669
95825230|NCT03639623|191620644|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.021
95825231|NCT03639623|191620644|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Large VLDL chylomicron particles||||0.011
95825232|NCT03639623|191620644|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Medium VLDL particles||||0.060
95825233|NCT03639623|191620644|OTHER|||||||0.324|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Small VLDL particles||||0.324
95825234|NCT03639623|191620645|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.010
95825235|NCT03639623|191620646|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.249
95825236|NCT03639623|191620647|OTHER|||||||0.0193|||||||paired t-test|||Time to peak RQ||||0.0193
95825237|NCT03639623|191620648|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Physical component score||||0.960
95825238|NCT03639623|191620648|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||paired t-test|||Outcome Variable: Mental component score||||0.249
95825239|NCT03709277|191620666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95825240|NCT03709277|191620667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95825241|NCT03709277|191620669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95825242|NCT00367744|191620691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment groups were compared for change in limb fat using a two-sided signed rank test||The primary outcome measure was the change in limb fat at 48 weeks between the rosiglitazone and placebo group.||||0.02
95825243|NCT03664674|191620693|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.207||Generalized Linear Model - Negative Binomial Regression Model with count data by subject transformed using the log-link function.|Regression, Linear|The parameter estimate + conf. int. results back-transform to the ratio of adjusted mean DVDs (OTO-104/Placebo) to be 0.802 (0.523, 1.230).||||0.207|-0.648|0.312
95825244|NCT01453205|191620770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5543|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5543
95825245|NCT01453205|191620771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8567|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8567
95825246|NCT01453205|191620772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7412|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7412
95825247|NCT01453205|191620773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9996
95825248|NCT01453205|191620774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1686|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1686
95825249|NCT04270682|191620810|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed urine 23S-pentol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.794|-2.331|||paired t-test|||||-2.331|-3.794|<0.0001
96000977|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.7603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.7603
96000978|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.2995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.2995
96000979|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||Diet x SNP interaction effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0003
96000980|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.1303|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.1303
96000981|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0015
95825250|NCT04270682|191620811|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed plasma cholestanol in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.399|||paired t-test|||||-0.399|-1.640|0.0083
95825251|NCT04270682|191620812|EQUIVALENCE|The null (H0) hypothesis and the alternative (Ha) hypothesis to be tested for the primary efficacy endpoint are that H0: Δ = 0 versus Ha: Δ ≠ 0 where Δ is the true paired treatment difference between CDCA and placebo for the change from baseline in loge-transformed Plasma 7αC4 in the adult cohort.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-3.207|||paired t-test|||||-3.207|-4.193|<0.0001
95825252|NCT04270682|191620813|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.077||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36|||Prescott's|||||0.36|0.00|0.0006
95825253|NCT04270682|191620813|EQUIVALENCE|Exact 2 sided p-value for observing contingency tables of rescue data with equal or more extreme values is calculated using Prescott's method. Rejection of the null hypothesis for no association suggests there is a difference between two treatments.|proportion|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.86|||Prescott's|||||0.86|0.32|0.0006
95825254|NCT02241733|191620816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent t-test was completed.||||0.94
95825255|NCT02241733|191620817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
95825256|NCT02241733|191620818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95825257|NCT02241733|191620819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95825258|NCT02118766|191620851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.038
95825259|NCT01252186|191620864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|-11.54||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-440.1|417.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||417.0|-440.1|0.958
95825260|NCT01252186|191620864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A conclusion of non-inferiority was reached if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the comparison (active control minus 91-day Levonorgestrel) was greater than -0.13 nmol/L (130 pmol/L).|Treatment Difference|422.76||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|863.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The primary endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||863.8|-18.3|0.060
95825261|NCT01252186|191620865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-14.31||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|72.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||72.2|-100.8|0.745
95825262|NCT01252186|191620865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|71.31||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|160.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||160.1|-17.5|0.115
95825263|NCT01252186|191620866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-17.14||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.4|105.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||105.1|-139.4|0.782
95825264|NCT01252186|191620866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|97.09||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|223.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||223.4|-29.2|0.131
95854990|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.18|0.60|0.6912
96000982|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.4185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Betaine IER in Males||||0.4185
96000983|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.3464|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.3464
96000984|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0019
96000985|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.2091|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Choline IER in Males||||0.2091
95825265|NCT01252186|191620867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.04||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.1|0.428
95825266|NCT01252186|191620867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.1|-0.3|0.002
95825267|NCT01252186|191620868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.1|-0.2|0.868
95825268|NCT01252186|191620868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|0.0|0.012
95825269|NCT01252186|191620869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.09||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-0.1|0.317
95825270|NCT01252186|191620869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.16||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.0|-0.4|0.081
95825271|NCT01252186|191620870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.004||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.004|-0.013|0.331
95825272|NCT01252186|191620870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.006||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.003|-0.015|0.173
95825273|NCT01252186|191620871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.3|-1.4|0.194
95825274|NCT01252186|191620871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.9|-0.9|0.967
95825275|NCT01252186|191620872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.09||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.8|-3.6|0.648
95825276|NCT01252186|191620872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.68||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||6.6|-3.2|0.496
95825277|NCT01252186|191620873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.71||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|29.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||29.3|-11.9|0.405
95825278|NCT01252186|191620873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|28.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|50.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||50.2|7.7|0.008
95825279|NCT01252186|191620874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.3||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-4.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.5|-4.9|0.425
95825280|NCT01252186|191620874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.76||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||17.2|0.3|0.041
95825281|NCT01252186|191620875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.4||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.4|-5.2|0.088
95825282|NCT01252186|191620875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.19||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-0.3|-6.0|0.028
95825283|NCT01252186|191620876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.75||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||8.9|-5.4|0.631
95825284|NCT01252186|191620876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.73||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||11.2|-3.7|0.323
95825285|NCT01252186|191620877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.86||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|595.0|-7.0|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||5.3|-7.0|0.783
95825286|NCT01252186|191620877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.83||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.6|-9.2|0.384
95825287|NCT01252186|191620878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.66||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||7.5|-4.1|0.572
95825288|NCT01252186|191620878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-20.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-15.0|-27.0|<0.001
95825289|NCT01252186|191620879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||3.7|-4.6|0.841
95825290|NCT01252186|191620879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-6.3|-14.8|<0.001
95825291|NCT01252186|191620880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-2.11||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||1.3|-5.6|0.227
95825292|NCT01252186|191620880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||-2.4|-9.6|0.001
95825293|NCT01252186|191620881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.7|-0.0|0.076
95825294|NCT01252186|191620881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||0.8|0.1|0.021
95854991|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||1.86|0.33|0.5834
95959443|NCT00781937|191891728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.34||||0.6386||95.0|-1.74|1.07||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||Analysis is of treatment contrast, change in diastolic blood pressure.||1.07|-1.74|0.6386
95959444|NCT00781937|191891729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.97||||0.1968||95.0|-0.51|2.45||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||2.45|-0.51|0.1968
96000986|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.8141|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Pre-Menopausal Females||||0.8141
95825295|NCT01252186|191620882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|44.46||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|111.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.2|-22.3|0.190
95825296|NCT01252186|191620882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.74||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|78.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||78.9|-59.4|0.781
95825297|NCT01252186|191620883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.49||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||111.4|-136.4|0.843
95825298|NCT01252186|191620883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|58.3||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.3|187.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||187.9|-71.3|0.376
95825299|NCT01252186|191620884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.01||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Levonorgestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||19.0|-27.0|0.731
95825300|NCT01252186|191620884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|130.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.2|154.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference is calculated as (28-day Desogestrel - 91-day Levonorgestrel)|The endpoint was analyzed using a maximum likelihood-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with covariate adjustment for baseline, treatment, month, and the treatment-by-month interaction.||154.1|106.2|<0.001
95825301|NCT01926041|191620885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||0.84|0.48|0.008
95825302|NCT01926041|191620886|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.04||Statistical significance levels were determined by two-tailed tests (P \< 0.05).|Regression, Cox|||||3.04|1.13|0.023
95825303|NCT01926041|191620892|OTHER||Beta Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95825304|NCT00147017|191620896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95825305|NCT00147017|191620897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95825306|NCT00147017|191620898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||calculated|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95825307|NCT04621240|191620900|SUPERIORITY|Mean level change from pre- to post-testing|Mean Difference (Net)|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95825308|NCT04621240|191620900|OTHER|Regression of the change in BrainHealth Index on age|Slope|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95825309|NCT05032690|191620915|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|104.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||104.93|93.72|
95825310|NCT05032690|191620915|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.28|169.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||169.01|109.28|
95825311|NCT05032690|191620916|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|97.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||97.61|90.08|
96000987|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Post-Menopausal Females||||0.0187
96000988|NCT03726671|191978926|OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The model evaluates effects from SNP, diet and SNP x diet interaction. Due to crossover design, period and sequence effects were adjusted in the model||SNP effect on Phosphatidylcholine IER in Males||||0.0107
96000989|NCT03726671|191978927|OTHER|||||||0.0842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0842
96000990|NCT03726671|191978927|OTHER|||||||0.0819|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.0819
96000991|NCT03726671|191978927|OTHER|||||||0.9015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9015
95825312|NCT05032690|191620916|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|162.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.25|202.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted"||202.84|130.25|
95825313|NCT05032690|191620917|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.83|102.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 4\*25 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed."||102.80|93.83|
95825314|NCT05032690|191620917|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|146.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.88|182.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"For comparison of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed vs. Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted, the model is a mixed effect model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.~The reference treatment of Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fed is Bosutinib 1\*100 mg Capsule Fasted."||182.58|117.88|
95825315|NCT00487942|191620924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.81|
95825316|NCT00487942|191620924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.68|
95825317|NCT00487942|191620924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.95||Inferential statistics were not performed.|ANCOVA|||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.95|-0.66|
95825318|NCT00487942|191620925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.80|
95854992|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||16.05|0.05|0.9578
95959445|NCT00781937|191891730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.031||95.0|-0.2|-0.01||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.01|-0.20|0.0310
95959446|NCT00781937|191891731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.09||||0.1098||95.0|-0.2|0.02||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.02|-0.20|0.1098
95959447|NCT00781937|191891732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.11||||0.1149||95.0|-0.24|0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||0.03|-0.24|0.1149
96000992|NCT03726671|191978927|OTHER|||||||0.1191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non-parametric method was used due to data deviation from normality.||||||0.1191
96000993|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.2351|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. betaine IER||||0.2351
96000994|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4501
96000995|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.4136|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.4136
96000996|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.9463|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.9463
96000997|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.0675|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.0675
96000998|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.2863|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.2863
96000999|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.5552|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Betaine IER||||0.5552
96001000|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.4209|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Phosphatidylcholine IER||||0.4209
96001001|NCT03726671|191978928|OTHER|||||||0.6647|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||Liver choline concentration vs. Choline IER||||0.6647
95825319|NCT00487942|191620925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.14|-0.51|
95825320|NCT00487942|191620925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.66|
95825321|NCT00487942|191620926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
95825322|NCT00487942|191620926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.66||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.66|-0.86|
95825323|NCT00487942|191620926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.28||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.28|-0.31|
95825324|NCT00487942|191620927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.03|
95825325|NCT00487942|191620927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.65|
95825326|NCT00487942|191620927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.6||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.60|-0.97|
95825327|NCT00487942|191620928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.44||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.44|-1.08|
96001002|NCT00494871|191978930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.0|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.87|0.025
96001003|NCT00494871|191978931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.0||||||||1.00|0.24|
96001004|NCT00494871|191978932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.22||||||||1.22|0.34|
96001005|NCT00494871|191978933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34||||||||1.34|0.41|
96001006|NCT00494871|191978934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.98||||||||0.98|0.22|
96001007|NCT00494871|191978935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.85||||||||15.85|0.06|
96001008|NCT00494871|191978936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|28.16||||||||28.16|0.30|
96001009|NCT00494871|191978937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|14.7||||||||14.70|0.60|
96001010|NCT00494871|191978938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.4||||||||1.40|0.16|
96001011|NCT00494871|191978939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.31||||||||4.31|0.43|
96001012|NCT00494871|191978940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.43||||||||1.43|0.50|
95825328|NCT00487942|191620928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.74||Inferential Statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.77|
95825329|NCT00487942|191620928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.89|
95825330|NCT00487942|191620929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.90|-0.61|
95825331|NCT00487942|191620929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.50|
95825332|NCT00487942|191620929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.25||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.25|-0.34|
95825333|NCT00487942|191620930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.33|
95825334|NCT00487942|191620930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
95825335|NCT00487942|191620930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.68|
95825336|NCT00487942|191620931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.37|
95825337|NCT00487942|191620931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.81|
95825338|NCT00487942|191620931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.77||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.77|-0.80|
95854993|NCT03038100|191669667|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|0.5637
95959448|NCT00781937|191891733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-13.01||||0.0141||95.0|-23.4|-2.64||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.64|-23.40|0.0141
95959449|NCT00781937|191891734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.1199||95.0|0.36|1.12||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included treatment, gender, and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and metabolic status and weight at baseline as covariates.||||1.12|0.36|0.1199
95825339|NCT00487942|191620932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.19||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.19|-1.79|
95825340|NCT00487942|191620932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.11|-1.44|
95825341|NCT00487942|191620932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.82|
95825342|NCT00487942|191620933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
95825343|NCT00487942|191620933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.68|
95825344|NCT00487942|191620933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.63|-0.00|
95825345|NCT00487942|191620934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.37||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.37|-1.16|
95825346|NCT00487942|191620934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.31||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.31|-1.21|
95825347|NCT00487942|191620934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-0.99|
95825348|NCT00487942|191620935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.23||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.23|-0.30|
95854994|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.63|0.75|0.6063
95854995|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.29|0.63|0.5739
95959450|NCT00781937|191891735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-3.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-2.15||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-2.15|-4.84|<0.0001
96001013|NCT00494871|191978941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56||||||||1.56|0.92|
95825349|NCT00487942|191620935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.48|
95825350|NCT00487942|191620935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.93||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.93|-0.64|
95825351|NCT00487942|191620936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-0.99|
95825352|NCT00487942|191620936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.42|
95825353|NCT00487942|191620936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.85||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.85|-0.72|
95825354|NCT00487942|191620937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-0.95|
95825355|NCT00487942|191620937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.41||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.41|-1.11|
95825356|NCT00487942|191620937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.95|
95854996|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.25|0.56|0.3792
95959451|NCT00781937|191891736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-2.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-1.57||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-1.57|-2.53|<0.0001
95854997|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.73|0.73|0.6022
95959452|NCT00781937|191891737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|2.35||||0.3689||95.0|-2.79|7.49||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||7.49|-2.79|0.3689
95825357|NCT00487942|191620938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.30|
95825358|NCT00487942|191620938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.35||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.35|-0.25|
95825359|NCT00487942|191620938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
95825360|NCT00487942|191620939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.15||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.15|-1.43|
95825361|NCT00487942|191620939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.53|-1.05|
95825362|NCT00487942|191620939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
95825363|NCT00487942|191620940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.92|
95825364|NCT00487942|191620940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.04||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.04|-0.54|
95825365|NCT00487942|191620940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.49|-1.12|
95825366|NCT00487942|191620941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.33||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.33|-1.22|
95825367|NCT00487942|191620941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.08||Inferential statistics not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||-0.08|-1.69|
95959453|NCT00781937|191891738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.1||||0.0053||95.0|-0.16|-0.03||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.03|-0.16|0.0053
95959454|NCT00781937|191891739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.26||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.26|-0.50|<0.0001
95825368|NCT00487942|191620941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.7||Inferential statistics not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the Trails B Test score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.95|
95825369|NCT00487942|191620987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.0||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.0|-0.76|
95825370|NCT00487942|191620987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.48|-1.15|
95825371|NCT00487942|191620987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.15||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SCoRS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.15|-0.61|
95825372|NCT00487942|191620988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.24|-0.58|
95825373|NCT00487942|191620988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.91|
95825374|NCT00487942|191620988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.33|
95825375|NCT00487942|191620989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.10|-0.75|
95825376|NCT00487942|191620989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.98|
95854998|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.49|0.59|0.7893
95854999|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.22|0.42|0.2125
95855000|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.46|0.70|0.9661
95855001|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.32|0.52|0.4299
95959455|NCT00781937|191891740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-1.85||||0.0147||95.0|-3.34|-0.37||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.37|-3.34|0.0147
95959456|NCT00781937|191891741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|-0.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.33|-0.21||Two sided, conducted at a 5% significance level|ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment, gender, country and stratification factor(s) as fixed effects and randomisation value of the endpoint as covariate.||||-0.21|-0.33|<0.0001
95959457|NCT03305809|191891746|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|0.969|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM), and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||0.969|-2.776|
95825377|NCT00487942|191620989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.27|-0.54|
95825378|NCT00487942|191620990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.14|
95825379|NCT00487942|191620990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.89|
95825380|NCT00487942|191620990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.84|
95825381|NCT00487942|191620991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.4||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.40|-1.21|
95825382|NCT00487942|191620991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.52|-1.09|
95825383|NCT00487942|191620991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.14||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.14|-1.51|
95825384|NCT00487942|191620992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.58|-1.06|
95855002|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.18|0.36|0.1542
95959458|NCT03305809|191891746|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|1.879|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.879|-1.996|
95959459|NCT03305809|191891746|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.873|1.277|||||Analyses were conducted using a bayesian MMRM, and posterior mean change difference is reported.|||1.277|-2.873|
95959460|NCT03305809|191891747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.54|0.273
95959461|NCT03305809|191891747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
95959462|NCT03305809|191891747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.29|< 0.001
95959463|NCT03305809|191891748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.495||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.53|64.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||64.11|-205.53|0.303
95959464|NCT03305809|191891748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-107.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.647||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.09|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|-244.09|0.125
95959465|NCT03305809|191891748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.892||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-267.18|19.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.74|-267.18|0.091
95959466|NCT03305809|191891749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-2.34|0.686
95959467|NCT03305809|191891749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.70|0.485
95959468|NCT03305809|191891749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-2.98|0.406
95825385|NCT00487942|191620992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.75||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.75|-0.85|
95825386|NCT00487942|191620992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.70|-0.90|
95825387|NCT00487942|191620995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.71||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.71|-0.80|
95825388|NCT00487942|191620995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.45||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.45|-1.06|
95825389|NCT00487942|191620995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the SANS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.68|
95825390|NCT00487942|191620996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.88|
95959469|NCT03305809|191891750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.74|0.464
95825391|NCT00487942|191620996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.72|
95825392|NCT00487942|191620996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.81||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.81|-0.80|
95825393|NCT00487942|191620997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.2||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.20|-1.44|
95825394|NCT00487942|191620997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.98|
95855003|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||6.76|1.04|0.0363
95959470|NCT03305809|191891750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|-1.00|0.720
95959471|NCT03305809|191891750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-0.34|0.149
95959472|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.76|-3.01|0.607
95825395|NCT00487942|191620997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.63||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.63|-0.97|
95825396|NCT00487942|191620998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
95825397|NCT00487942|191620998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.72||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.72|-0.88|
95825398|NCT00487942|191620998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.89|-0.72|
95825399|NCT00487942|191620999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.65|
95825400|NCT00487942|191620999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.88||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.88|-0.63|
95825401|NCT00487942|191620999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.6||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.60|0.78|
95825402|NCT00487942|191621000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.46||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.46|-1.06|
95855004|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|8.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||8.93|0.85|0.0814
95959473|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.265||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||0.79|-4.19|0.180
95959474|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.325||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.86|-3.36|0.572
95959475|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.17|-0.51|0.320
95959476|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||-0.02|-0.73|0.037
95959477|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Delusions||0.26|-0.49|0.558
95959478|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.34|-0.38|0.924
95959479|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.02|-0.73|0.061
95959480|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hallucinations||0.10|-0.68|0.148
95959481|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.25|-0.46|0.552
95959482|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.31|-0.43|0.735
95959483|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Agitation/Aggression||0.15|-0.63|0.224
95825403|NCT00487942|191621000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.67|-0.87|
95825404|NCT00487942|191621000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.74|0.05|
95825405|NCT00487942|191621001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.55|-1.05|
95825406|NCT00487942|191621001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.09||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.09|-0.52|
95825407|NCT00487942|191621001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.58||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.58|-0.08|
95825408|NCT00487942|191621002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.82||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.82|-0.78|
95825409|NCT00487942|191621002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.36||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.36|-0.27|
95825410|NCT00487942|191621002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.55||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||2.55|0.70|
95855005|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.1915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||38.00|0.43|0.1915
95959484|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.48|-0.37|0.783
95959485|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.55|0.640
95959486|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression/Dysphoria||0.34|-0.59|0.592
95959487|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.39|-0.39|0.993
95959488|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.62|-0.19|0.290
95959489|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.35|-0.50|0.722
95959490|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.08|-0.30|0.246
96001014|NCT02940886|191978955|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement was used for testing and included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.13|-0.13|
95825411|NCT00487942|191621003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
95825412|NCT00487942|191621003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.64|-0.87|
95825413|NCT00487942|191621003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.54||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the PANSS Negative Scale score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.54|-0.08|
95825414|NCT00487942|191621004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.27|-1.27|
95825415|NCT00487942|191621004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.05|
95825416|NCT00487942|191621004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.11||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.11|-0.51|
95825417|NCT00487942|191621005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.68||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.68|-0.92|
95825418|NCT00487942|191621005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.73|
95855006|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|66.67||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Emotional functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-4.39|0.3173
96001015|NCT02940886|191978956|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.88|0.06|
95825419|NCT00487942|191621005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.83||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.83|-0.77|
95825420|NCT00487942|191621006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.80|-0.80|
95825421|NCT00487942|191621006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.98||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.98|-0.62|
95825422|NCT00487942|191621006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.49||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.49|-0.16|
95825423|NCT00487942|191621007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.01||Inferential statistics were not performed||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||1.01|-0.51|
95825424|NCT00487942|191621007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.78||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.78|-0.73|
95825425|NCT00487942|191621007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the ESS Total score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.56|-1.01|
95825426|NCT00487942|191621008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.87|-0.64|
95825427|NCT00487942|191621008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.74||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.74|-0.79|
95825428|NCT00487942|191621008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.5||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.50|-1.11|
95825429|NCT00487942|191621009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.65||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.65|-0.95|
95959491|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.06|-0.34|0.175
95825430|NCT00487942|191621009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.73|-0.87|
95825431|NCT00487942|191621009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.38||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.38|-1.24|
95825432|NCT00487942|191621010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.86||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.86|-0.75|
95825433|NCT00487942|191621010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.62||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.62|-0.99|
95825434|NCT00487942|191621010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||Inferential statistics were not performed.||||This study was not designed for hypothesis testing, but to gather information relative to the efficacy of armodafinil treatment in improving cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Inferential statistics were not performed. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of the effect sizes for the change from baseline in the composite score are provided for each armodafinil treated group compared with placebo. Actual changes from baseline are summarized using descriptive statistics.||0.34|-1.28|
95825435|NCT00661726|191621037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
95959492|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Elation/Euphoria||0.13|-0.28|0.482
95959493|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.07|-0.97|0.091
95959494|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.23|-0.87|0.248
95825436|NCT00661726|191621039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.045
95825437|NCT00661726|191621040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.083
95825438|NCT00661726|191621041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.039
95959495|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apathy/Indifference||0.38|-0.76|0.516
95825439|NCT00661726|191621042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
95825440|NCT00661726|191621043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
95825441|NCT00661726|191621044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.069
95825442|NCT00661726|191621045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.18
95959496|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.24|-0.21|0.875
95959497|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.57|0.10|0.005
95959498|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||0.28|-0.21|0.761
95959499|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.12|-0.60|0.183
95825443|NCT00661726|191621046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.022
95825444|NCT00661726|191621047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||0.11
95825445|NCT00661726|191621048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression after adjusting for time duration was used to test the mean difference between baseline and follow-up values.||||<0.01
95825446|NCT03319953|191621067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.2079
95825447|NCT03319953|191621067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0633||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>2.0.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0633
95825448|NCT03319953|191621068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.1706
95825449|NCT03319953|191621068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0373||||||Bayesian method was used to calculate the posterior probability. High posterior probability of a difference between TAK-041 and placebo \>0.09.|Bayesian Normal Linear Model|||||||0.0373
95825450|NCT02438384|191621074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1||||||||2.1|1.2|
95825451|NCT02438384|191621074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
95825452|NCT02226198|191621123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
95825453|NCT02226198|191621124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Rosuvastatin treatment gives on average a 22.3% lower geometric LS mean than placebo.|cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc. Powered for 90% detection of 15% delta||-9.1|-33.5|0.005
95825454|NCT02226198|191621125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
95825455|NCT02226198|191621126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-9.1||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-9.1|-29.7|0.003
95825456|NCT02226198|191621127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
95825457|NCT02226198|191621128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-22.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-10.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.3|-33.7|0.003
95825458|NCT02226198|191621129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
95825459|NCT02226198|191621130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-17.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|-2.9||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-2.9|-29.2|0.024
95825460|NCT02226198|191621131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
95825461|NCT02226198|191621132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|7.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|24.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||24.5|-7.4|0.314
95825462|NCT02226198|191621133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
95825463|NCT02226198|191621134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-26.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|6.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||6.0|-48.7|0.080
95825464|NCT02226198|191621145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
95825465|NCT02226198|191621146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-13.3||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-13.3|-44.2|0.004
95825466|NCT02226198|191621147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-27.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-11.0||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.0|-41.2|0.006
95825467|NCT02226198|191621148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-25.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.5||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-10.5|-38.1|0.005
95825468|NCT02226198|191621149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-28.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-11.4||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-11.4|-41.7|0.005
95855007|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.35|0.73|0.9818
95825469|NCT02226198|191621150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative difference in geometric LSM|-20.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-5.6||statistical significance set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||cross-over, null hypothesis is no difference between ros and plc.||-5.6|-32.8|0.013
95825470|NCT04545047|191621155|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality risk difference comparing patients assigned to each group. Adjustment for covariates would be carried out via inverse probability weighting.||3.60|-2.30|
95825471|NCT04545047|191621155|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||||||The investigators estimated the 30-day mortality hazard ratio comparing patients assigned to each group. The hazard ratio was estimated from pooled logistic models with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding.||1.62|0.64|
95825472|NCT00896363|191621163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|3.32|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||3.32|-1.62|
95825473|NCT00896363|191621163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|2.78|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||2.78|-2.12|
95825474|NCT00896363|191621163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.01|5.14|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||5.14|-2.01|
95825475|NCT00896363|191621163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|5.13|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of HAMD17|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||5.13|-1.81|
95825476|NCT00896363|191621164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|1.56|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||1.56|-0.93|
95825477|NCT00896363|191621164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.75|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.75|-0.73|
95959500|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.31|-0.43|0.765
95825478|NCT00896363|191621164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|2.42|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.42|-1.10|
95825479|NCT00896363|191621164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|2.48|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of BECH 6 scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.48|-0.93|
95825480|NCT00896363|191621165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|2.37|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 14||2.37|-0.94|
95825481|NCT00896363|191621165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.21|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 14||1.21|-2.10|
95825482|NCT00896363|191621165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.9|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 1 mg on Day 42||2.90|-1.22|
95825483|NCT00896363|191621165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of QIDS-SR scale|Comparison of placebo and GSK163090 3 mg on Day 42||2.85|-1.22|
95825484|NCT01730339|191621180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|1.16|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.16|0.19|0.0219
95959501|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Irritability/Lability||0.61|-0.18|0.279
95825485|NCT01730339|191621180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.72|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.72|-0.24|0.4038
95825486|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.2||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.20|-0.43|
95959502|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.46|-0.12|0.252
95959503|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.20|-0.40|0.526
95825487|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.11||||||Vascularity: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.11|-0.43|
95825488|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.15|
95825489|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.36||||||Vascularity: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.36|-0.22|
95825490|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.77||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.77|0.07|
95825491|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.65||||||Vascularity: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.65|0.05|
95825492|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.68||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|-0.03|
95825493|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.52||||||Vascularity: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.09|
95959504|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aberrant Motor Behavior||0.36|-0.28|0.800
95825494|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.42||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.18|
95825495|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.22||||||Pigmentation: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.22|-0.35|
95825496|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.24||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.47|
95825497|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.06||||||Pigmentation: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.06|-0.60|
95825498|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.41||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.41|-0.35|
95825499|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.37||||||Pigmentation: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.37|-0.33|
95825500|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.53||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.53|-0.24|
95825501|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.32||||||Pigmentation: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.39|
95825502|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.58||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.58|-0.22|
95825503|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.35||||||Thickness: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.42|
95825504|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.84||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.84|-0.05|
95825505|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.23||||||Thickness: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.62|
95825506|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.49||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.49|0.40|
95825507|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.72||||||Thickness: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|-0.30|
95825508|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.24||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.24|0.13|
95825509|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.67||||||Thickness: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.38|
95825510|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.78||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.78|-0.01|
95959505|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.98|-0.59|0.623
95825511|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.28||||||Relief: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.28|-0.50|
95825512|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.67||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.23|
95825513|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.24||||||Relief: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.63|
95825514|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.26||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.26|0.21|
95825515|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.59||||||Relief: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.59|-0.41|
95825516|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.02||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.02|0.02|
95825517|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.63||||||Relief: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.33|
95825518|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.67||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.67|-0.09|
95825519|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.34||||||Pliability: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.34|-0.39|
95825520|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.74||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.74|-0.12|
95825521|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.05||||||Pliability: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.05|-0.76|
95862077|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|7.2||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||7.2|-25.2|
95825522|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.2||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.25|
95825523|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Pliability: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.46|
95825524|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|1.05||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.05|0.01|
95825525|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.98||||||Pliability: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.98|0.00|
95825526|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.62||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.62|-0.29|
95825527|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.43||||||Surface Area: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.43|-0.28|
95825528|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.0||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.00|0.02|
95825529|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.23||||||Surface Area: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.53|
95825530|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.2||||||Surface Area: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.20|0.08|
95825531|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.42||||||Surface Area : Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.42|-0.44|
95825532|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.28||||||Surface Area: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.28|0.09|
95825533|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.69||||||Surface Area: week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.69|-0.23|
95825534|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.6|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Week 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.60|-0.12|0.2778
95959506|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.44|-1.21|0.354
95825535|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.45|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 8 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.45|-0.28|0.6888
95825536|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.65|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.65|-0.18|0.3515
95825537|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.19|||Repeated measures model|Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||Overall Opinion: Weekl 11 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.19|-0.64|0.3788
95825538|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.29|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||1.29|0.35|0.0044
95825539|NCT01730339|191621181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.58|||Repeated measures model|||Overall Opinion: Weekl 18 A total sample size of 100 (accounting for approximately 10% drop rate) that is approximately 50 per group at one sided 0.05 level with delta of 1.5 points with standard deviation of 2 provided at least 80% power to detect a difference from placebo using a paired test. Statistical significance was tested at the two-sided significance level of 0.1, without adjusting for multiplicity.||0.58|-0.35|0.6848
95825540|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|0.64|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.64|-0.44|0.7552
95825541|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.52|||Repeated measures model|||Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.52|-0.30|0.6605
95825542|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.56|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.56|-0.55|0.9842
95825543|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.63|||Repeated measures model|||Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.63|-0.21|0.4010
95825544|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.07|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.07|-0.19|0.2491
95825545|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.47|||Repeated measures model|||Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.47|-0.47|0.9980
95825546|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.93|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.93|-0.37|0.4730
95825547|NCT01730339|191621182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.31|||Repeated measures model|||Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.31|-0.67|0.5413
95825548|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.28|5.92||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.92|-3.28|
95825549|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|2.91||||||Appearance: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.91|-3.63|
95825550|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|10.24||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||10.24|-2.60|
95825551|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.37|4.68||||||Appearance: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||4.68|-4.37|
95825552|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.34|2.95||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||2.95|-4.34|
95825553|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.53|1.45||||||Symptoms: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.45|-4.53|
95825554|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|5.58||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||5.58|-2.07|
95825555|NCT01730339|191621183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.24|1.99||||||Symptoms: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||1.99|-4.24|
95825556|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.35||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.35|-0.15|
95825557|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.29||||||Physician: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.29|-0.22|
95825558|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.54|0.04|
95825559|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.15||||||Physician: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.15|-0.36|
95825560|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.82||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.82|0.32|
95825561|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.3||||||Physician: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.21|
95825562|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.68||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.68|0.18|
95825563|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.32||||||Physician: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.32|-0.18|
95825564|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.39|-0.20|
95825565|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23||||||Participant: Week 8: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.23|-0.28|
95959507|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.437||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders||0.75|-0.97|0.809
95959508|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.64|-0.84|0.790
95959509|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.35|-1.20|0.280
95959510|NCT03305809|191891751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Appetite/Eating Disorders||0.92|-0.70|0.797
95959511|NCT03305809|191891752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-1.91|0.247
95825566|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.3||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.30|-0.29|
95825567|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.33||||||Participant: Week 11: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.33|-0.18|
95825568|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.72||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.72|0.12|
95825569|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.24||||||Participant: Week 18: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.24|-0.27|
95825570|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.5||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.50|-0.09|
95825571|NCT01730339|191621184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||Participant: Week 24: Difference is calculated as Placebo minus PF-06473871. A positive difference favors PF-06473871||0.40|-0.11|
95825572|NCT03920293|191621267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7||Statistical significance was tested at α=0.05.|MMRM|||||-0.7|-2.6|=0.0009
95855008|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.45|0.80|0.6263
95855009|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.40|0.73|0.9407
95959512|NCT03305809|191891752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.12|0.164
95855010|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.39|0.64|0.7700
95959513|NCT03305809|191891752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-2.90|0.017
95959514|NCT03305809|191891753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-12.04|0.026
95959515|NCT03305809|191891753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.53|-13.24|0.014
95959516|NCT03305809|191891753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.104|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.72|-4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.48|-16.72|<0.001
95825573|NCT03989427|191621273|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.424||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|2.628||The threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05|ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on BPI scores .||"Null hypothesis is that the sequence of brushing first and flossing later has no effect on gingival inflammation.~No previous studies with Mean and SD were available. Hence, a pilot study was done. 30 participants were randomly assigned to Brush first and floss later (BF) group ; and Floss first brush later(FB) group. After 1 week there was cross-over. 80% power is required to detect mean difference in BPI scores."||2.628|0.221|0.022
95825574|NCT03989427|191621274|EQUIVALENCE|The two treatment sequence could be called equivalent if the observed difference and its 95% CI are completely inside the interval of clinical equivalence. A significant result (p \< 0.05) means that the two treatments are equivalent, according the definition of equivalence as defined clinically.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|3.219|||ANOVA|Three-way mixed ANOVA was done to determine the effect of Intervention on RMNPI index scores||"Null hypothesis:~The sequence of brushing and flossing has no effect on plaque scores~There were no previous studies with Mean and SD to calculate sample. So a pilot study was conducted. 30 participants were randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion to Brush-floss (GroupA) and Floss brush group (group B). Then after 1 week there was cross-over among the groups.2 groups would have at least 80% power to detect the mean difference in BPI scores."||3.219|-3.335|0.971
95825575|NCT03344549|191621275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshoid for statistical significance was p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||0.37
95825576|NCT03344549|191621276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|U Mann Whitney was used for inter-group comparison||||||0.46
95825577|NCT03344549|191621277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95825578|NCT03520348|191621283|NON_INFERIORITY|It is considered less than 20% of differences between groups to consider non-inferiority||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
95825579|NCT03520348|191621284|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.680
95825580|NCT03520348|191621285|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.839|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.839
95825581|NCT03520348|191621286|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.137
95825582|NCT03520348|191621288|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.667
95825583|NCT03520348|191621289|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.561|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.561
95825584|NCT03520348|191621290|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95825585|NCT03520348|191621291|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.317|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
95825586|NCT03520348|191621292|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered noninferiority if there are no differences in the 20% between the research drug and the reference medicine||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.414
95825587|NCT01155466|191621354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated mean change from baseline in mean off time for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.53|-0.62|0.8700
95825588|NCT01155466|191621356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||1.6|-7.3|0.899
95825589|NCT01155466|191621356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||2.6|-6.8|0.815
95825590|NCT01155466|191621356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with diastolic blood pressure \>=105 mm Hg for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||6.9|-3.9|0.295
95825591|NCT01155466|191621359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.629
95825592|NCT01155466|191621359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||3.7|-5.1|0.625
95825593|NCT01155466|191621359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||The estimated parameter is the difference in the percentage of participants with suicidality for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||0.7|-6.8|0.948
95825594|NCT01155466|191621360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 2 mg - placebo|||0.90|-0.61|0.7044
95825595|NCT01155466|191621360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 5 mg - placebo|||1.14|-0.4|0.3439
95825596|NCT01155466|191621360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||0.3941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.08|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis||The estimated parameter is the difference in the change from baseline in mean ESS score for preladenant 10 mg - placebo|||1.08|-0.43|0.3941
95825597|NCT01155466|191621361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Odds ratio was calculated for all randomized and treated participants with at least 1 post treatment value.|"Confidence intervals and P-values were based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline average off time as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect."|||1.657|0.597|0.983
95825598|NCT01155466|191621362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||"The estimated parameter is the difference in the estimated change from baseline in on time without troublesome dyskinesias for preladenant 10 mg - placebo."|||0.80|-0.49|0.6405
95825599|NCT02075047|191621363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.32|-7.14|0.005
95959517|NCT03305809|191891754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.24|-2.13|0.683
95825600|NCT02075047|191621364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.69|<0.001
95825601|NCT02075047|191621364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.174
95825602|NCT02075047|191621364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.71|0.024
95825603|NCT02075047|191621364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.138
95825604|NCT02075047|191621365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|-3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.54|-8.16|<0.001
95825605|NCT02075047|191621365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|-1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-1.59|-6.74|0.002
95959518|NCT03305809|191891754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-0.37|0.089
95959519|NCT03305809|191891754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.489||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-1.37|0.294
95825606|NCT02075047|191621365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||-3.04|-8.21|<0.001
95825607|NCT02075047|191621366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.78|0.001
95825608|NCT02075047|191621366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.16|-0.45|0.349
95825609|NCT02075047|191621366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.103
95959520|NCT03305809|191891755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-0.13|0.105
95959521|NCT03305809|191891755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.87|0.27|0.009
95825610|NCT02075047|191621366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects along with participant as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.68|0.044
95825611|NCT02075047|191621380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|0.00|0.050
95825612|NCT02075047|191621380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.25|-0.03|0.124
95825613|NCT02075047|191621380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
95825614|NCT02075047|191621380|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.20|-0.02|0.104
95825615|NCT02075047|191621381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.01|-0.06|0.169
95825616|NCT02075047|191621381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.08|-0.10|0.893
95825617|NCT02075047|191621381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.04|0.915
95959522|NCT03305809|191891755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.33|-0.35|0.253
95959523|NCT03305809|191891756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||0.08|-3.56|0.061
95959524|NCT03305809|191891756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-0.47|-4.26|0.014
95959525|NCT03305809|191891756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Experiences of Daily Living||-1.51|-5.50|<0.001
95959526|NCT03305809|191891756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.32|-6.86|0.074
95825618|NCT02075047|191621381|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.04|-0.01|0.289
95825619|NCT02075047|191621382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.06|-0.01|0.145
95825620|NCT02075047|191621382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.07|-0.01|0.148
95825621|NCT02075047|191621382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.15|-0.01|0.082
95825622|NCT02075047|191621382|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Week 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance model treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and weight category as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate along with participant as a random effect.||0.09|-0.00|0.070
95825623|NCT03119181|191621393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||one-sided permutation test|||one-sided permutation test at 2.5% significance||||0.0097
95959527|NCT03305809|191891756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||0.45|-7.00|0.085
95959528|NCT03305809|191891756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Motor Exam||-0.37|-8.09|0.032
95959529|NCT03305809|191891758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.61|-4.92|0.898
95959530|NCT03305809|191891758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||5.94|-4.71|0.821
95959531|NCT03305809|191891758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|14.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||14.61|4.11|<0.001
95959532|NCT03305809|191891758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.08|-2.40|0.805
95959533|NCT03305809|191891758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.69|-1.85|0.513
95825624|NCT02379988|191621406|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.0063||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Heart Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0063
95825625|NCT02379988|191621406|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding Lung Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0 .0110
95825626|NCT02379988|191621406|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.5098||||||P-value for Free breathing and Breath Holding LAD Mean|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.5098
95825627|NCT02379988|191621407|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions|||||=|0.001||||||P-value for Heart Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0010
95825628|NCT02379988|191621407|EQUIVALENCE|The wilcoxon paired signed rank test was used as the primary analysis because of the non-normal distributions.|||||=|0.011||||||P-value for Lung Max Free breathing and Breath Hold|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.0110
95825629|NCT02379988|191621408|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.01||||||P-value for Large breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.01
95825630|NCT02379988|191621408|EQUIVALENCE|Paired T-test|||||=|0.1||||||P-value for Small breast volume group|Paired T-test|||||||=0.10
95959534|NCT03305809|191891758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||6.28|0.83|0.011
95959535|NCT03305809|191891759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.08|-0.16|0.065
95959536|NCT03305809|191891759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.21|0.93|0.008
95959537|NCT03305809|191891759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|11.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.27|6.06|<0.001
95825631|NCT02379988|191621409|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon test was used due to the non-normal distribution of the data|||||=|0.7776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.7776
95825632|NCT02089464|191621423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
95825633|NCT02089464|191621424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95825634|NCT02089464|191621425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95825635|NCT02089464|191621426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95825636|NCT02089464|191621427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95825637|NCT02089464|191621429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95825638|NCT02089464|191621430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95825639|NCT02089464|191621431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
95825640|NCT02780856|191621500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
95825641|NCT02780856|191621500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binomial|An exact binomial test was used and an exact 97.5% Confidence Level using the Clopper-Pearson method was calculated||The null and alternative hypothesis for each tooth population was of chance agreement (50%) and was tested against an exact binomial one-sided 97.5% confidence interval||||<0.0001
95825642|NCT03569748|191621562|NON_INFERIORITY|Margin=0.04|Proportion Difference|0.1342||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0014|0.2671|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||H0: P1-P2 ≤ -Margin||0.2671|0.0014|0.0051
95825643|NCT03569748|191621563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0003
95825644|NCT03569748|191621564|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0003
95825645|NCT02308163|191621569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.58||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.58|1.76|<0.001
95825646|NCT02308163|191621569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|12.2||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR20-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.20|3.56|<0.001
95855011|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.45|0.63|0.8458
95959538|NCT03305809|191891760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.99|-1.72|0.339
95959539|NCT03305809|191891760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||4.73|-2.26|0.486
95959540|NCT03305809|191891760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||7.81|0.56|0.024
95959541|NCT03305809|191891760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.88|-2.04|0.935
95959542|NCT03305809|191891760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||2.72|-1.34|0.505
95825647|NCT02308163|191621571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.75||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.75|2.14|<0.001
95825648|NCT02308163|191621571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|17.5||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR50-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.50|3.53|<0.001
95825649|NCT02308163|191621573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|301.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: ACR70-CRP response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||301.61|5.29|<0.001
95825650|NCT02308163|191621575|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.71|-1.41|<0.001
95825651|NCT02308163|191621575|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-1.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.24|-1.86|<0.001
95825652|NCT02308163|191621577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.67|-1.38|<0.001
95959543|NCT03305809|191891760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.30|-0.91|0.266
95959544|NCT03305809|191891761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.28|0.550
95959545|NCT03305809|191891761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-0.14|0.069
95959546|NCT03305809|191891761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.83|0.89|0.005
95959547|NCT03305809|191891762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||-0.15|-13.92|0.045
95959548|NCT03305809|191891762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||10.32|-4.05|0.390
95959549|NCT03305809|191891762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Systolic Blood Pressure||6.16|-8.32|0.768
95959550|NCT03305809|191891762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||-0.17|-8.48|0.041
95959551|NCT03305809|191891762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||3.72|-4.81|0.802
95959552|NCT03305809|191891762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sitting Diastolic Blood Pressure||1.97|-6.67|0.284
95825653|NCT02308163|191621577|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.31||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.31|-1.96|<0.001
95825654|NCT02308163|191621579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
95855012|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.46|0.57|0.7028
95959553|NCT03305809|191891763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-4.17|0.996
95959554|NCT03305809|191891763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.69|-4.99|0.767
95959555|NCT03305809|191891763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.79|-4.96|0.791
95959556|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.88|-0.93|0.312
95959557|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.95|-0.89|0.289
95825655|NCT02308163|191621579|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.0|-8.1|<0.001
95825656|NCT02308163|191621581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.4||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.4|-4.6|<0.001
95825657|NCT02308163|191621581|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68 + the prior biologic - DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.9|-6.8|<0.001
95825658|NCT02308163|191621583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.67||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||17.67|2.31|<0.001
95825659|NCT02308163|191621583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|27.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.27|3.76|<0.001
95825660|NCT02308163|191621585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|166.66||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score \< 2.6 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo. Difference vs. Peficitinib 100mg was not estimable.||166.66|2.83|0.003
95825661|NCT02308163|191621587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|12.29||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.29|2.74|<0.001
95825662|NCT02308163|191621587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|20.41||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-CRP score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||20.41|4.57|<0.001
95959558|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.65|-0.53|0.141
95959559|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.01|-1.89|0.954
95959560|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.70|-1.53|0.584
95959561|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.65|-1.59|0.623
95959562|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.79|-1.02|0.256
95959563|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.86|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||3.86|-1.04|0.258
95825663|NCT02308163|191621589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.12||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.12|1.29|0.012
95825664|NCT02308163|191621589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|3.42|19.63||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: DAS28-ESR score ≤ 3.2 (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.63|3.42|<0.001
95825665|NCT02308163|191621591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|-0.679||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.679|-1.546|<0.001
95959564|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|7.25|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||7.25|1.93|<0.001
95959565|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.51|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||2.51|-2.47|0.988
95959566|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.90|0.51|0.020
95959567|NCT03305809|191891764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up||5.91|0.46|0.022
95959568|NCT01642147|191891766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same before anesthesia.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||0.554
95959569|NCT01642147|191891767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: Mean Blood Flow Velocity in Middle Cerebral Artery of the 2 groups are the same at extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
95959570|NCT01642147|191891768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 30min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
95825666|NCT02308163|191621591|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-1.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.114|-1.241||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.241|-2.114|<0.001
95825667|NCT02308163|191621593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|-5.84||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.84|-15.95|<0.001
95825668|NCT02308163|191621593|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-21.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.01|-16.27||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.27|-26.01|<0.001
95825669|NCT02308163|191621595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|14.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.83|2.98|<0.001
95825670|NCT02308163|191621595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|24.03||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||24.03|4.91|<0.001
95959571|NCT01642147|191891769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 60min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
95959572|NCT01642147|191891770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 90min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
95959573|NCT01642147|191891771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni correction is used when P-value is significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"H0: mean blood flow velocity in middle cerebral artery of the 2 groups are the same 120min after extubation.~Power calculation: beta=0.2, alpha=0.05, two-tailed"||||<0.001
95959574|NCT02007200|191891781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||Linear Repeated Measures Model|||||||<0.005
95959575|NCT01844726|191891790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in BOLD signal activation across task derived learning circuit were compared between GLYX-13 and placebo groups using an independent group t-test.||||.10
95959576|NCT01844726|191891791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.57
95959577|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.05||||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-0.81|0.8916
95959578|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.22||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.95|0.5569
95959579|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.53||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-1.25|0.1544
95959580|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.94||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.69|0.0137
95959581|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.88||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.61|0.0171
95959582|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least square means|-1.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-1.74|0.0060
95959583|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.17||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.03|0.7051
95959584|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.47||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-1.33|0.2772
95959585|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.89||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.77|0.0458
95959586|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.83||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-1.69|0.0569
95959587|NCT01496365|191891792|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.96||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.81|0.0271
95959588|NCT01660256|191891805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95959589|NCT01660256|191891806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95959590|NCT01646385|191891807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, baseline steroid, smoking history, previous cancer, and body mass index was used for analysis.||1.025|0.683|0.084
95959591|NCT01646385|191891808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.952|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age was used for analysis.||0.952|0.276|0.035
95855013|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.83|0.92|0.1391
95825671|NCT02308163|191621597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.04||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.04|2.38|<0.001
95825672|NCT02308163|191621597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|38.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.51|7.31|<0.001
95825673|NCT02308163|191621599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|12.08||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||12.08|1.52|0.006
95825674|NCT02308163|191621599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|11.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|29.74||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.74|4.07|<0.001
95825675|NCT02308163|191621601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.001||95.0|2.11|6.93||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.93|2.11|<0.001
95825676|NCT02308163|191621601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.17||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Wald's chi-squared test||Based on logistic regression model: Good or Moderate Response (responder, non-responder) = Treatment + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||29.17|6.39|<0.001
95825677|NCT02308163|191621607|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-6.22||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-6.22|-13.66|<0.001
95825678|NCT02308163|191621607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-14.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.15||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.15|-17.71|<0.001
95825679|NCT02308163|191621611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-5.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.20|-12.19|<0.001
95825680|NCT02308163|191621611|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-12.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|-9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA Model: CDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline CDAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.71|-15.96|<0.001
95825681|NCT02308163|191621613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-9.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.00|-21.40|<0.001
95825682|NCT02308163|191621613|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-17.51||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.51|-28.78|<0.001
95825683|NCT02308163|191621615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-16.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.81|-9.95||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-9.95|-23.81|<0.001
95825684|NCT02308163|191621615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.83|-17.28||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.28|-29.83|<0.001
95855014|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.62|0.69|0.8002
95825685|NCT02308163|191621617|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.36|-10.81||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.81|-24.36|<0.001
95825686|NCT02308163|191621617|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.24|-17.57||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-17.57|-30.24|<0.001
95825687|NCT02308163|191621619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.033
95825688|NCT02308163|191621619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||No Multiplicity Adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.035
95825689|NCT02308163|191621620|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
95825690|NCT02308163|191621620|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea., and Taiwan)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
95825691|NCT02308163|191621622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.05||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.05|3.69|<0.001
95825692|NCT02308163|191621622|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|9.85||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.85|4.11|<0.001
95825693|NCT02308163|191621624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.87||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.87|0.91|0.004
95825694|NCT02308163|191621624|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.19||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.19|1.30|0.001
95825695|NCT02308163|191621626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|5.83||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.83|-1.29|0.210
95825696|NCT02308163|191621626|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|9.71||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: SF-36v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF-36v2 + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.71|2.74|<0.001
95825697|NCT02308163|191621628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.00|-16.11|0.027
95825698|NCT02308163|191621628|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.88|-2.47||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.47|-17.88|0.010
95825699|NCT02308163|191621630|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|-10.89||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.89|-30.44|<0.001
95855015|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.68|0.60|0.9751
95855016|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.78|0.68|0.3811
95825700|NCT02308163|191621630|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-22.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-11.97||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.97|-32.06|<0.001
95825701|NCT02308163|191621632|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.38|-10.06||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.06|-30.38|<0.001
95825702|NCT02308163|191621632|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.16|-13.17|||Covariance model|No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.17|-34.16|<0.001
95825703|NCT02308163|191621634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-10.61||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-10.61|-24.00|<0.001
95825704|NCT02308163|191621634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|-14.24||No multiplicity adjustment. Etanercept was open-label reference group and it was not included in statistical test.|Covariance model||Based on analysis of covariance model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI + the prior biologic-DMARD-IR (No, Yes) + concomitant DMARD use (No, Yes) + study region (Japan, Korea, and Taiwan).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.24|-26.59|<0.001
95825705|NCT01974206|191621689|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization strata, and the 90% CIs of the CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.47|0.43|0.307
95959592|NCT01646385|191891809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.251|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, baseline DMARDs, methotrexate, disease activity score based on 28-joints count (DAS28), and smoking history was used for analysis.||1.251|0.831|0.855
95959593|NCT01646385|191891810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, and baseline health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) score was used for analysis.||0.870|0.564|0.001
95959594|NCT01646385|191891811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|0.958|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, gender, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, methotrexate, baseline HAQ score, Charlson index, smoking history, and body mass index was used for analysis.||0.958|0.537|0.024
95959595|NCT01646385|191891814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95959596|NCT01646385|191891815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) using the General Linear Model (GLM) method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
95825706|NCT01974206|191621690|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|2.15||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||2.15|0.46|0.576
95855017|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||3.90|0.58|0.3950
95959597|NCT01646385|191891815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
95959598|NCT01646385|191891815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
95959599|NCT01646385|191891815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 4: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.0001
95825707|NCT01974206|191621691|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.59||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.59|0.48|0.408
95825708|NCT01974206|191621692|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.88||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) estimate of the common odds ratio (ASP0113 vs placebo) stratified by randomization group, and the 90% CI of the exact CMH odds ratio stratified by randomization group.||1.61|0.48|0.419
95825709|NCT01974206|191621693|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value (1-sided) of the Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted odds ratio stratified by randomization group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common odds ratio could not be calculated as 100% of ASP0113 group showed graft survival, and this leads to having a value of 0 for the denominator for the ratio thus odds ratio is not estimable. The 90% CI (2-sided) values for the odds ratio are 0.11 to NA, where NA is an infinity value.||||0.5
95825710|NCT02333396|191621695|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.9|-5.77|0.44
95825711|NCT02333396|191621696|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-0.61|0.09
95825712|NCT02333396|191621697|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|8.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.36|-0.09|0.05
95825713|NCT02333396|191621698|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimare|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.67|-1.63|0.19
95825714|NCT02333396|191621699|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-5.33|0.93
95825715|NCT02333396|191621700|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.31|-3.02|0.79
95825716|NCT02333396|191621703|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|-2.62|0.64
95825717|NCT02333396|191621704|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-3.02|0.39
95825718|NCT02333396|191621706|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estiamte|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
95825719|NCT02333396|191621707|SUPERIORITY||Beta Estimate|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.98|-0.55|0.13
95825720|NCT02059499|191621709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1877||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1877
95825721|NCT02059499|191621710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1068||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1068
95959600|NCT01646385|191891815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 5: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline DAS28, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||0.01
95959601|NCT01646385|191891818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95825722|NCT02059499|191621711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8071||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8071
95825723|NCT02059499|191621712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6562||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6562
95825724|NCT02059499|191621713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
95825725|NCT02059499|191621714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0141||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0141
95825726|NCT02059499|191621718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1409
95825727|NCT02059499|191621719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0805
95825728|NCT02059499|191621721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5726|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5726
95825729|NCT02059499|191621722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6184
95825730|NCT02059499|191621724|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean between count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold for interpreting significance : 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of number of hrHPV genotypes in each arm observed at baseline vs at week 20 in imiquimod arm||||0.3
95825731|NCT02059499|191621724|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||||0.3||||||A priori threshold to interpret significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in 5FU arm||||0.3
95825732|NCT02059499|191621724|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of mean number of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||||0.26||||||A priori cutoff of significance: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the count of hrHPV genotypes observed at baseline vs at week 20 in observation arm||||0.26
95855018|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|5.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||5.12|0.16|0.8993
95959602|NCT01646385|191891819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 1: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
95959603|NCT01646385|191891819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 2: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
95825733|NCT02488135|191621727|NON_INFERIORITY|An a priori sample size was calculated using a non-inferiority limit (d) set at 25%, significance level (α) of 5% and power of 80%. We assumed that success in each group would be 93% based on the literature examining anterior nasal packing in ideal conditions and considering our selection criteria in the Floseal® (Baxter, USA) population. Attrition was assumed to be 0% due to the short duration of treatment. This yielded 26 participants with 13 patients in each study arm.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95825734|NCT02488135|191621728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during placement.||||0.0022
95825735|NCT02488135|191621728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups for pain during treatment.||||0.0007
95825736|NCT02488135|191621728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between scores for pain during removal.||||0.0021
95825737|NCT05151445|191621735|OTHER||95% CI|-3.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.46|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||-1.46|-5.65|0.002
95825738|NCT05151445|191621735|OTHER||95% CI|-3.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.15|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-1.15|-5.07|0.004
95825739|NCT05151445|191621735|OTHER||95% CI|-2.53||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.16|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||0.16|-4.90|0.038
95825740|NCT05151445|191621736|OTHER||95% CI|9.61||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.77|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||19.77|-0.55|0.062
95825741|NCT05151445|191621736|OTHER||95% CI|9.78||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|21.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||21.56|-2.01|0.098
95825742|NCT05151445|191621736|OTHER||95% CI|17.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|27.6|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||27.60|6.51|0.003
95825743|NCT05151445|191621737|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||0.37
95825744|NCT05151445|191621737|OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||0.724
95825745|NCT05151445|191621737|OTHER|||||||0.289|||||||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||||0.289
95825746|NCT05151445|191621738|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||||1.000
95959604|NCT01646385|191891819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Change at Year 3: analysis was performed with ANCOVA using the GLM method applying age, gender, baseline HAQ, previous non-RA drugs, baseline steroid, and baseline methotrexate as covariates.||||<0.001
95959605|NCT00107978|191891832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 10% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||||95.0|-2.9|7.9||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|2-sided 95% confidence interval|2-sided 95% confidence interval calculated on the difference in cure rates between treatment groups.||||7.9|-2.9|
95959606|NCT02669407|191891834|OTHER|Single group|||||<|0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||||||<0.001
95728946|NCT02173704|191427847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|99.82|||Exact test for binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||99.82|94.7|
95825747|NCT05151445|191621738|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||||1.000
95825748|NCT05151445|191621738|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Weel 12 vs. Baseline||||1.000
95825749|NCT05151445|191621739|OTHER||95% CI|-1.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.76|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||4.76|-6.96|0.696
95959607|NCT02669407|191891835|OTHER|Single group||||||0.001|||||||Tukey's method|||Baseline, 30 minutes||||0.001
95825750|NCT05151445|191621739|OTHER||95% CI|-1.08||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|5.56|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||5.56|-7.72|0.734
95825751|NCT05151445|191621739|OTHER||95% CI|-4.15||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|3.23|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||3.23|-11.53|0.249
95825752|NCT05151445|191621740|OTHER||95% CI|-0.04||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|5.18|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.18|-5.25|0.989
95825753|NCT05151445|191621740|OTHER||95% CI|3.43||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|9.69|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||9.69|-2.83|0.263
95825754|NCT05151445|191621740|OTHER||Slope|0.44||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|6.68|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||6.68|-5.80|0.882
95825755|NCT05151445|191621741|OTHER||95% CI|-0.62||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.98|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||0.98|-2.23|0.425
95825756|NCT05151445|191621741|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.88|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||-0.88|-9.08|0.205
95825757|NCT05151445|191621741|OTHER||95% CI|-4.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|-0.8|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||-0.8|-9.08|0.020
95825758|NCT05151445|191621742|OTHER||95% CI|0.429||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.01|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||11.01|-4.90|0.429
95959608|NCT02669407|191891836|OTHER|Single group||||||0.007|||||||Tukey's method|||baseline, 30 minutes||||0.007
95959609|NCT02669407|191891840|OTHER|Single group||||||0.237|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end diastolic dimension||||0.237
95959610|NCT02669407|191891840|OTHER|Single group||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in left ventricular end systolic dimension||||0.586
95959611|NCT02669407|191891841|OTHER|Single group||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.175
95959612|NCT02669407|191891843|OTHER|Single group||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.061
95959613|NCT02669407|191891844|OTHER|Single group||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.787
95959614|NCT02669407|191891846|OTHER|Single group||||||0.606|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 90 minutes||||0.606
95959615|NCT02669407|191891846|OTHER|Single group||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline, 24 hours||||0.045
95962429|NCT03607422|191896625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.5|3.9|0.005
95825759|NCT05151445|191621742|OTHER||95% CI|-4.39||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|3.46|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||3.46|-12.24|0.255
95825760|NCT05151445|191621742|OTHER||95% CI|-7.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|1.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||1.55|-15.55|0.102
95825761|NCT05151445|191621743|OTHER||95% CI|-1.94||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|5.1|||McNemar|||Week 4 vs. Baseline||5.10|-8.99|0.568
95825762|NCT05151445|191621743|OTHER||95% CI|-4.11||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.37|||McNemar|||Week 8 vs. Baseline||2.37|-10.59|0.198
95825763|NCT05151445|191621743|OTHER||95% CI|-3.76||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|2.55|||McNemar|||Week 12 vs. Baseline||2.55|-10.08|.225
95825764|NCT02644096|191621769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Changes in physical function after 3 months|unpaired t-test|||"Power calculation in this study was based on findings in a previous cross-sectional study.~The physical dimensions in health status was the primary outcome variable. The mean physical score was 49.4, SD was 26.1; alpha in this study was set to 5% and β to 20%. We considered that the intervention could lead to an improvement of 50% in the physical health score and were willing to overlook a difference in score of 12. When the sample size was calculated, 68 patients were needed in both groups."||||<0.05
95825765|NCT01457014|191621770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p values have undergone Bonferroni adjustment for Central Apnea Index (CAI), Obstructive Apnea Index (OAI) and Hypopnea Index (HI)||||||<0.001
95825766|NCT01457014|191621771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|||||p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment. P-Value applies to Av. 02 saturation|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p value has undergone Bonferroni adjustment||||||0.627
95825767|NCT01457014|191621772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.161
95825768|NCT00098748|191621792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For hypothesis of superiority, if upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of TX difference was \<0 log10 copies/mL, it was concluded that MVC regimen was superior to PBO meaning that MVC added to Optimized Background Therapy (OBT) provides an additional reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA compared to OBT alone. If superiority could not be concluded, then a hypothesis of noninferiority was tested. If upper bound of CI is \<0.25 log10 copies/mL, noninferiority of MVC regimen to placebo was claimed.|Least squares mean|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2575|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.528|0.638|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC versus (vs) PBO=advantage of MVC.|Maraviroc (MVC) QD versus placebo (PBO) treatment (TX) difference at Week 24. If upper bound of 97.5% confidence interval is \<0, it is concluded that dose is superior to PBO. If upper bound is \<0.25, it is concluded that MVC is non-inferior to PBO. Assumption: 79% of subjects are dual-tropic; total N=192 needed to be randomized to get N=150 dual-tropic. Standard deviation=0.8 with 2-sided p-value=0.025: 80% power for TX difference of 0.5 for change from baseline in log10-transformed viral load.||0.638|-0.528|
95825769|NCT00098748|191621792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.829|0.364|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.364|-0.829|
95825770|NCT00098748|191621792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2567|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.351|0.81|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.810|-0.351|
95825771|NCT00098748|191621792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2628|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.856|0.333|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons by use of 2-sided 97.5% CI to maintain alpha=0.05.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.333|-0.856|
95825772|NCT00098748|191621793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.18|-0.12|
95959616|NCT03845075|191891894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|13.78||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||13.78|-6.58|0.4671
95959617|NCT03845075|191891894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.11||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|25.36||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||25.36|-5.14|0.1808
95825773|NCT00098748|191621793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.23|-0.08|
95825774|NCT00098748|191621793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.17|-0.12|
95825775|NCT00098748|191621793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.25|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.25|-0.07|
95855019|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
95825776|NCT00098748|191621794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.15|
95825777|NCT00098748|191621794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
95825778|NCT00098748|191621794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.22|
95825779|NCT00098748|191621794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.28|-0.07|
95825780|NCT00098748|191621795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.12|-0.21|
95825781|NCT00098748|191621795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.10|
95825782|NCT00098748|191621795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.13|-0.18|
95825783|NCT00098748|191621795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.29|-0.04|
95825784|NCT00098748|191621796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.20|-0.07|
95825785|NCT00098748|191621796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO difference in proportions at Week 24.||0.26|-0.03|
95825786|NCT00098748|191621796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.10|-0.18|
95825787|NCT00098748|191621796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||||The TX difference is weighted (by inverse of the variance) difference in proportions adjusted for randomization strata. Positive values for TX difference favor MVC. CI estimated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference in proportions at Week 48.||0.21|-0.10|
95825788|NCT00098748|191621797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|23.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.359|49.213|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||49.213|-1.359|
95825789|NCT00098748|191621797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|26.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0678|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|52.49|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||52.490|0.869|
95825790|NCT00098748|191621797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.412|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|47.03|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||47.03|-17.80|
95825791|NCT00098748|191621797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|27.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.754|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|60.8|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||60.80|-5.38|
95825792|NCT00098748|191621798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|234.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|80.799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.913|394.084|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||394.084|74.913|
95825793|NCT00098748|191621798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|188.817|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.999|353.635|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||353.635|23.999|
95825794|NCT00098748|191621798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|155.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|87.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|328.37|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||328.37|-16.49|
95959618|NCT03845075|191891894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.63||||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|16.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||16.33|-7.08|0.4171
95959619|NCT03845075|191891894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.33||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|16.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||16.10|-5.43|0.3116
95959620|NCT03845075|191891894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|15.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||15.72|-4.12|0.2353
95825795|NCT00098748|191621798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|182.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|90.174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|361.02|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.|Negative values for change from baseline=benefit of TX; negative values for MVC vs PBO=advantage of MVC.|MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||361.02|4.81|
95825796|NCT00098748|191621799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7524||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.7524
95825797|NCT00098748|191621799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 24. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.2540
95825798|NCT00098748|191621799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8243||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC QD vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.8243
95825799|NCT00098748|191621799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6657||95.0|||||Log Rank|||MVC BID vs PBO at Week 48. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. TX difference evaluated by log-rank test.||||0.6657
95825800|NCT00098748|191621800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|0.535|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.535|-0.396|
95825801|NCT00098748|191621800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|0.258|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 24.||0.258|-0.694|
95825802|NCT00098748|191621800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2388|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.681|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC QD vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.681|-0.262|
95825803|NCT00098748|191621800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.199|||ANCOVA|TX difference adjusted for randomization strata.||MVC BID vs PBO treatment difference at Week 48.||0.199|-0.767|
95825804|NCT00642174|191621808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference (Net)|61.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|53.83|69.31||P-value is for 4 Hours After Loading Dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (i.e. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there is no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 4 hours after administration of loading dose. Assuming 90% power, 2-sided alpha of 0.05, and a 17.5% difference in IPA between treatment groups with a standard deviation of 20, a total of 15 completed subjects per sequence group (i.e., 15 subject who receive prasugrel first, then clopidogrel; and 15 subjects who receive clopidogrel first, then prasugrel) was determined.||69.31|53.83|<0.0001
95825805|NCT00642174|191621809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|27.43|45.52||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 1 hour after administration of the loading dose.||45.52|27.43|<0.0001
95825806|NCT00642174|191621809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|49.56|66.19||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours after administration of the loading dose.||66.19|49.56|<0.0001
95825807|NCT00642174|191621809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|10.27|25.04||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in IPA assessed by Accumetrics VerifyNow™ P2Y12 24 hours post-Last Maintenance Dose (LMD).||25.04|10.27|<0.0001
95825808|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.5466||95.0|-3.66|1.97||P-value for Baseline (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||1.97|-3.66|0.5466
95855020|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.25|0.68|0.5988
95855021|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.34|0.72|0.8859
95959621|NCT03845075|191891894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
95825809|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.45|-17.55||P-value for 1 After Post Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.55|-28.45|<0.0001
95825810|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.18|-22.02||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statisitical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-22.02|-31.18|<0.0001
95825811|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.42|-19.17||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-19.17|-27.42|<0.0001
95825812|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.0001||95.0|-12.78|-4.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (5 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-4.58|-12.78|0.0001
95825813|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.8779||95.0|-2.8|3.26||P-value for Baseline (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||3.26|-2.80|0.8779
95825814|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.43|-17.87||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-17.87|-32.43|<0.0001
95855022|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.16|0.58|0.2531
95855023|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.04|0.46|0.0785
95959622|NCT03845075|191891895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.6543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|4.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||4.72|-7.33|0.6543
95959623|NCT03845075|191891895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.38||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||8.38|-6.50|0.7941
95959624|NCT03845075|191891895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|5.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||5.73|-9.72|0.5937
95959625|NCT03845075|191891895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.56||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|11.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||11.23|-6.11|0.5423
95959626|NCT03845075|191891895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|8.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||8.16|-5.77|0.7226
95959627|NCT03845075|191891895|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
95959628|NCT03845075|191891896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.7023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|5.97||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 4; Safety set; LOCF||5.97|-8.67|0.7023
95959629|NCT03845075|191891896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.9012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|7.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 8; Safety set; LOCF||7.61|-8.58|0.9012
95962430|NCT03607422|191896626|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||7.6|-1.2|0.151
95959630|NCT03845075|191891896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.14||||0.6138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|10.92||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 12; Safety set; LOCF||10.92|-6.63|0.6138
95959631|NCT03845075|191891896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|10.72||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 16; Safety set; LOCF||10.72|-8.26|0.7889
95959632|NCT03845075|191891896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|10.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 20; Safety set; LOCF||10.94|-10.34|0.9536
95959633|NCT03845075|191891896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24; Safety set; LOCF||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
95959634|NCT03845075|191891900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.52||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|16.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||16.20|-21.23|0.7782
95728947|NCT02173704|191427847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 75%.|Single binomial proportion|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|97.4|||Exact test for binomial proportions|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the secondary objective for strain NZ98/254 was 99%.||97.4|88.7|
95825815|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.32|-29.78||P-value for 4 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-29.78|-40.32|<0.0001
95825816|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.32|-25.66||P-value for 24 Hour After Loading Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-25.66|-36.32|<0.0001
95825817|NCT00642174|191621810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.19|-7.58||P-value for 24 Hour After Last Maintenance Dose (20 uM ADP). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in MPA assessed by Light Transmittance Aggregometry (LTA).||-7.58|-17.19|<0.0001
95825818|NCT00642174|191621811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.3692||95.0|-3.6|9.44||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||9.44|-3.60|0.3692
95825819|NCT00642174|191621811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-47.43|-24.98||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-24.98|-47.43|<0.0001
95825820|NCT00642174|191621811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-61.89|-44.02||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-44.02|-61.89|<0.0001
95825821|NCT00642174|191621811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-50.03|-35.55||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-35.55|-50.03|<0.0001
95855024|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.03|0.43|0.0641
95855025|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Cycle 20 Day 1||0.80|0.29|0.0046
95962431|NCT03607422|191896627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||22.3|3.4|0.008
95959635|NCT03845075|191891900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.26||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|7.56||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||7.56|-22.09|0.3130
95959636|NCT03845075|191891900|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.73||||0.4033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.92|8.47||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48||8.47|-19.92|0.4033
95959637|NCT03845075|191891901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-0.71||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24||-0.71|-14.29|0.0325
96001016|NCT02940886|191978956|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.71||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.71|-0.91|
95825822|NCT00642174|191621811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.0012||95.0|-23.42|-6.37||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as assessed by VASP.||-6.37|-23.42|0.0012
95825823|NCT00642174|191621812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5238||95.0|-5.35|2.78||P-value for Baseline. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||2.78|-5.35|0.5238
95825824|NCT00642174|191621812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|-21.15|-11.33||P-value for 1 Hour After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-11.33|-21.15|<0.0001
95825825|NCT00642174|191621812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.67|-18.11||P-value for 4 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-18.11|-29.67|<0.0001
95825826|NCT00642174|191621812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.97|-14.9||P-value for 24 Hours After Loading Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||-14.90|-24.97|<0.0001
95825827|NCT00642174|191621812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.3725||95.0|-8.46|3.26||P-value for 24 Hours After Last Maintenance Dose. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model with treatment, sequence and treatment by sequence (ie. period) as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Prasugrel minus Clopidogrel.|Null hypothesis: no difference between prasugrel and clopidogrel in Inhibition of Platelet Function as measured by Thromboelastography (TEG)-Platelet Mapping Maximum Amplitude - Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP).||3.26|-8.46|0.3725
95825828|NCT04098367|191621875|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.34|46.79|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||46.79|13.34|
95825829|NCT04098367|191621875|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.54|46.68|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||46.68|12.54|
95825830|NCT04098367|191621876|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.91|17.42|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||17.42|-21.91|
96001017|NCT02940886|191978956|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
96001018|NCT02940886|191978957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5695|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.5695
96001019|NCT02940886|191978958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3913|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.3913
95825831|NCT04098367|191621876|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.0|27.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||27.80|-12.00|
95959638|NCT03845075|191891901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|8.4||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48||8.40|-9.04|0.9394
95825832|NCT04098367|191621877|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.66|40.86|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus SYMFONY|||40.86|4.66|
95825833|NCT04098367|191621877|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval exceeds zero.|Difference in percentage|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.16|57.22|||Miettinen-Nurminen||VIVITY minus AT LARA|||57.22|21.16|
95825834|NCT02642393|191621878|OTHER||Slope|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|3.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.106|-0.594|0.183
95825835|NCT02642393|191621879|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.192|||Poisson Regression|||||1.192|0.979|0.124
95825836|NCT02642393|191621880|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.154||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.273|||Poisson Regression|||||1.273|1.046|0.004
95825837|NCT02642393|191621881|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95825838|NCT02642393|191621882|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.497
95962432|NCT03607422|191896628|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-8.0|-28.0|<0.001
95825839|NCT02642393|191621883|OTHER||Slope|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|0.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.685|-0.825|0.856
95825840|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.368|0.521|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||0.521|-0.368|0.736
95825841|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Function||0.714|-0.124|0.167
95825842|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.474|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Communication||0.474|0.038|0.022
95825843|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional and Behavioral Dyscontrol||0.435|-0.245|0.584
95825844|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||0.541|-0.560|0.973
95825845|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lower Extremity Function||0.437|-0.098|0.214
95825846|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Affect and Well-Being||0.262|-0.931|0.271
95825847|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stigma||0.194|-0.355|0.566
95825848|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.487|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Upper Extremity Function||0.487|-0.063|0.130
95825849|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||0.468|-0.325|0.723
95728948|NCT02584140|191427874|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The P-Value for Week 4 was \<0.001; The P-Value for Week 12 was 0.005; The P-Value for Week 24 was 0.029; The P-Value for Week 36 was 0.008; The P-Value for Week 48 was 0.03.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95825850|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities||0.579|-0.592|0.984
95825851|NCT02642393|191621884|OTHER||Slope|-0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|0.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participation in Social Roles and Activities||0.371|-0.877|0.426
95825852|NCT02642393|191621885|OTHER||Slope|-0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.171|-0.382|0.454
95825853|NCT02642393|191621886|OTHER||Slope|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.858|-0.764|0.910
95825854|NCT02642393|191621887|OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.215|-0.295|0.758
95825855|NCT02642393|191621888|OTHER||Slope|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.783|1.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BL to V01||1.367|-1.783|0.796
95825856|NCT02642393|191621888|OTHER||Slope|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|4.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||V10 to SV||4.355|-9.156|0.486
95825857|NCT00378599|191621897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.38||||||||0.38|0.21|
95825858|NCT01973387|191621913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.291|||Log Rank|||||0.291|0.109|<0.0001
95825859|NCT00322023|191621930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 30 mg/kg dose||||||<0.0001
95825860|NCT00322023|191621930|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 60 mg/kg dose||||||<0.05
95825861|NCT00322023|191621930|SUPERIORITY|These are paired t test baseline vs final for the 120 mg/kg dose|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95825862|NCT00322023|191621931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 30mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95825863|NCT00322023|191621931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 60mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95825864|NCT00322023|191621931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||These are paired t test baseline vs final for 120mg/kg|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95825865|NCT03327220|191621932|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|1.3||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that true iovera° mean was greater than or equal to the true standard of care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that true iovera° mean was less than true standard of care mean.||3.2|-0.6|0.0841
95825866|NCT03327220|191621933|NON_INFERIORITY|The objective met if the t-test for non-inferiority was statistically significant using a one-sided α = 0.025 level of statistical significance.|Difference in Means|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.1||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing null hypothesis that Standard of Care mean minus the iovera° mean was greater than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 14 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in means was less than 14.||6.1|-2.3|<0.0001
95825867|NCT03327220|191621934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|0.5||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Pain in the Past 7 days - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||1.2|-0.2|0.0946
95825868|NCT03327220|191621934|SUPERIORITY|Pain Right Now - Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.|Difference in Means|0.4||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test,|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.3|-0.6|0.2204
95825869|NCT03327220|191621935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Means|-0.8||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||p-value was calculated from a one-sided, two-sample t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis that the iovera° mean was less than or equal to the Standard of Care mean versus the alternative hypothesis that the iovera° mean was greater than the Standard of Care mean.||2.5|-4.0|0.3231
95825870|NCT00523705|191621938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.467|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||estimate of main effect of treatment in a linear mixed effects model.|Pilot data were examined at treatment endpoint for change from baseline. Statistical power was very low due to the small sample size.||||0.467
95825871|NCT01972308|191621980|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.64|
95825872|NCT01972308|191621981|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-1.38|
95825873|NCT01972308|191621982|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.33|
95825874|NCT01972308|191621983|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48||||||||0.48|-0.42|
95825875|NCT01972308|191621984|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.10|
95825876|NCT01972308|191621985|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.24|
95825877|NCT03575065|191622006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||p-value was based on an exact binomial test with historic control ORR=0.25|Exact Binomial Test|||||||0.0210
95825878|NCT04452435|191622113|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4891
95825879|NCT04452435|191622113|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0881|||||||ANCOVA|||A subgroup analyses was performed in subjects with supplemental oxygen use at baseline. A total of 26 subjects in the C21 group and 27 in the placebo group were included in the analysis of change in CRP from baseline to the mean of the last 2 non-missing scheduled assessments during the treatment period by baseline supplemental oxygen use.||||=0.0881
95825880|NCT04452435|191622114|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0492
95825881|NCT04452435|191622115|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9923|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9923
95825882|NCT04452435|191622116|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5355|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.5355
95825883|NCT04452435|191622117|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.4738
95825884|NCT04452435|191622118|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9418|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9418
95825885|NCT04452435|191622119|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.9733|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.9733
95825886|NCT04452435|191622120|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.0568|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.0568
95825887|NCT04452435|191622121|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.6088|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||=0.6088
95825888|NCT04452435|191622122|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.5757|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.5757
95825889|NCT04452435|191622123|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.8588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.8588
95825890|NCT04452435|191622125|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the treatments were equivalent and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis that a treatment difference existed, if the probability of the null hypothesis being true was less than 10%.|||||=|0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.003
95825891|NCT02135029|191622129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-49.0|||MMRM|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|LS-mean differences,associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,treatment group\*visit interaction,baseline value, baseline value\*visit\*group interaction, country.|||-49.0|-60.1|<0.001
95825892|NCT02135029|191622130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-34.2|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-34.2|-42.6|<0.001
95825893|NCT02135029|191622130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-26.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-26.2|-35.9|
95825894|NCT02135029|191622131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-41.1|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-41.1|-51.9|<0.001
95825895|NCT02135029|191622131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-33.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-33.2|-45.4|
95825896|NCT02135029|191622132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-46.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-46.0|-56.3|<0.001
95825897|NCT02135029|191622132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-35.8|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-35.8|-47.7|
95825898|NCT02135029|191622133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-10.8|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-10.8|-35.7|<0.001
95825899|NCT02135029|191622133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-5.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-5.1|-29.6|
95825900|NCT02135029|191622134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|17.0|||MMRM||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||17.0|7.8|<0.001
95825901|NCT02135029|191622134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||16.4|6.7|
95825902|NCT02135029|191622135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|-38.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-38.2|-51.3|
95825903|NCT02135029|191622136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
95825904|NCT02135029|191622136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
95825905|NCT02135029|191622137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|10.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||10.1|2.2|
95825906|NCT02135029|191622137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||9.7|1.5|
95959639|NCT03845075|191891901|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.91||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 28||12.18|1.65|0.0135
95959640|NCT03845075|191891902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.17||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||0.98|-9.31|0.1048
95959641|NCT03845075|191891902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.7189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|4.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT observed.||4.77|-6.75|0.7189
96001020|NCT02940886|191978960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.72|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||4.72|1.27|0.0077
95825907|NCT02135029|191622138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.7|0.8|
95825908|NCT02135029|191622138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||10.5|2.4|
95825909|NCT02135029|191622139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-5.2|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-5.2|-23.5|
95825910|NCT02135029|191622139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||0.4|-19.8|
95825911|NCT02135029|191622140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.5|-84.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-84.1|-103.5|
95825912|NCT02135029|191622141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-98.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.9|-87.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-87.5|-109.9|
95825913|NCT02135029|191622142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.0|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||8.0|3.7|
95825914|NCT02135029|191622143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-103.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.6|-92.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-92.7|-114.6|
95825915|NCT02135029|191622145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-52.4|-66.0|
95825916|NCT02135029|191622146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-4.5|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-4.5|-8.7|
95825917|NCT02135029|191622147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.1|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-2.1|-2.7|
95825918|NCT02135029|191622147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.7|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-1.7|-2.4|
95825919|NCT02135029|191622148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.4|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 12||-0.4|-0.5|
95825920|NCT02135029|191622148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3|||||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, for treatment group, visit, treatment group\* visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\* visit\* group interaction, country.|Week 24||-0.3|-0.4|
96001021|NCT02940886|191978960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.26|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||3.26|1.80|<0.0001
96001022|NCT02940886|191978960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.58|0.96|0.1049
95825921|NCT05898672|191622160|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.89|148.48||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||148.48|115.89|
95825922|NCT05898672|191622161|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|212.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.31|258.9||||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant within sequence as a random effect. Ratio of adjusted geometric means of test to reference was reported; where test treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg + Nirmatrelvir 300 mg/ Ritonavir 100 mg and reference treatment is Rosuvastatin 10 mg. Ratio and associated 90% CIs were reported in percentage.||258.90|174.31|
95825923|NCT03359785|191622172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.2401|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.246||||ANOVA||||||-0.246|0.2401
95825924|NCT03359785|191622172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.9053|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.513||||ANOVA||||||-1.513|0.9053
95825925|NCT01907321|191622180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||.001
95825926|NCT01907321|191622181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||.519
95825927|NCT01920568|191622185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.192|||ANCOVA||Primary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.192|-0.440|<0.0001
95825928|NCT01920568|191622186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.188|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, ie log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr)/(BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect and the stratification factor (Chinese participants, yes or no) and log transformed BL value|||-0.188|-0.444|<0.0001
95825929|NCT01920568|191622187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.539|-0.193|||ANCOVA||Secondary analysis evaluated the log transformed chg from BL, i.e. log\[(Wk 13 uNTx/Cr) / (BL uNTx/Cr)\] by ANCOVA model with trt group as main effect, stratification factor (Breast cancer, yes or no) and log transformed BL value as covariates.|||-0.193|-0.539|<0.0001
95825930|NCT03655301|191622194|OTHER||Least squares mean|0.9405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8093|1.0931||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of Cmax||1.0931|0.8093|
95959642|NCT03845075|191891902|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT observed.||6.91|-0.73|0.1053
95959643|NCT03845075|191891903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.12||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.21||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||-1.21|-5.02|0.0033
95825931|NCT03655301|191622195|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1205|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2555||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC(0-24)||1.2555|1.0000|
95825932|NCT03655301|191622196|OTHER||Least squares mean|1.1147|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9772|1.2714||||||Day 8 (with copanlisib) to Day 1 (without copanlisib) ratio of AUC||1.2714|0.9772|
95825933|NCT00252694|191622215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.076|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.076|0.704|0.1994
95825934|NCT04262882|191622261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age and religion. Analysis in GEE to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Reference group is the comparator arm|||3.64|0.77|0.20
95825935|NCT04262882|191622264|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.|||||<0.001
95825936|NCT04262882|191622264|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825937|NCT04262882|191622264|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825938|NCT04262882|191622265|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|64.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints.||"Tests of significance for each follow-up time point:~7-months: unstandardized beta=1.08, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001; 10-months: unstandardized beta=0.79, standard error=0.14, p \< 0.001"|||<0.001
95825939|NCT04262882|191622265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825940|NCT04262882|191622265|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825941|NCT04262882|191622266|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|23.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825942|NCT04262882|191622266|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825943|NCT04262882|191622266|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825944|NCT04262882|191622267|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|48.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models were run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825945|NCT04262882|191622267|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Cox|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825946|NCT04262882|191622267|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.04
95825947|NCT04262882|191622268|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|9.87||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm\*Time p value for 10-months follow up overall.|Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.007
95825948|NCT04262882|191622268|SUPERIORITY|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.|unstandardized beta|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
95825949|NCT04262882|191622268|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
95825950|NCT04262882|191622269|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|10.42||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.005
95825951|NCT04262882|191622269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.85||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.85|0.99|0.05
95825952|NCT04262882|191622269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Logistic|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||1.22|0.75|0.71
95825953|NCT04262882|191622270|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
95825954|NCT04262882|191622270|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.07
95825955|NCT04262882|191622270|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825956|NCT04262882|191622271|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|78.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
95825957|NCT04262882|191622271|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825958|NCT04262882|191622271|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.001
95825959|NCT04262882|191622272|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|19.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Model controls for age and religion. Model was run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825960|NCT04262882|191622272|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 7-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||0.008
95855026|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.37|0.70|0.8928
95825961|NCT04262882|191622272|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 10-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for age and religion. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, dyadic data.||||||<0.001
95825962|NCT02950155|191622273|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|2.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.11|||Fisher Exact|||The primary end-point was analyzed as an intention-to-treat analysis, with Fisher's exact test of the difference in proportion, with α=0·05 to indicate statistically significant difference||5.11|1.20|0.007
95825963|NCT02950155|191622274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||2.1|-4.4|0.79
95825964|NCT02950155|191622275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||0.8|-3.3|0.34
95825965|NCT02950155|191622276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Subjects receiving rescue treatment before evaluation being censored (per-protocol analysis)||3.8|-8.2|0.47
95825966|NCT02950155|191622277|SUPERIORITY||probability ratio|1.89||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.44|||Fisher Exact|||||3.44|1.04|0.036
95825967|NCT00468676|191622284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||scaled marginal model parameter|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.02||Significance of the four outcome composite|Scaled Marginal Model||Intervention group had significantly lower scaled marginal mean scores than usual care|||-1.02|-2.12|.001
95825968|NCT00468676|191622285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.01|||<|0.01||95.0|||||general estimating equations|||Disability outcomes were measured at six and 12 months after randomization using linear regression models adjusted for baseline values. The disability models combined information across time points and were estimated using general estimating equations to account for correlation. All analyses were based on intent to treat principles||||<0.01
95825969|NCT00468676|191622287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.26|-0.56|<0.001
95825970|NCT00468676|191622288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.1|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||0.1|-6.9|
95825971|NCT00468676|191622289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Regression, Linear||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a linear-regression model predicting a 12-month outcome.|||-0.8|-17.5|
95825972|NCT00468676|191622290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Between Group Difference|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.27|||Generalized-Estimating-Equation Model||Between Group Difference is the difference in the change from Baseline to 12 month data calculated from a generalized-estimating-equation model predicting a 6- and 12-month outcome.|||-0.27|-0.85|
95825973|NCT02825420|191622326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
95825974|NCT02825420|191622327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
95825975|NCT02825420|191622328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
95825976|NCT02825420|191622330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95825977|NCT02825420|191622332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
95825978|NCT02825420|191622333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
95825979|NCT01288612|191622373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95825980|NCT01288612|191622373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
95825981|NCT01288612|191622373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95825982|NCT01288612|191622373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
95825983|NCT01288612|191622374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
95825984|NCT01288612|191622375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95825985|NCT01288612|191622376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95825986|NCT01288612|191622377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95825987|NCT01288612|191622378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95825988|NCT01288612|191622379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for pain scale||||<0.001
95825989|NCT01288612|191622379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for choking scale||||<0.001
95825990|NCT01288612|191622379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for gagging scale||||<0.001
95825991|NCT01288612|191622379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the arms for anxiety scale||||<0.001
95825992|NCT01288612|191622379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between arms for overall tolerance scale||||<0.001
95825993|NCT01288612|191622380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95825994|NCT03095027|191622381|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin is 0.05. With a sample size of 10, there was approximately 80% power to reject the null hypothesis of inferiority in visual acuity with assumed standard deviation of 0.0474 (one-sided alpha=0.05)|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01||||||||0.01||
95825995|NCT02019108|191622423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.5|-1.1|0.495
95825996|NCT02019108|191622423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.1|-1.6|0.079
95825997|NCT02019108|191622424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.3|-2.6|0.117
95825998|NCT02019108|191622424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.3|-2.5|0.133
95825999|NCT02019108|191622425|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.04||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks||0.04|-0.31|0.125
95826000|NCT02019108|191622425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks||0.03|-0.37|0.103
95826001|NCT02019108|191622426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
95826002|NCT02019108|191622426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.01|-0.40|0.056
95826003|NCT02019108|191622427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.01||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-0.01|-0.11|0.031
95826004|NCT02019108|191622427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.00|-0.12|0.058
95826005|NCT02019108|191622428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-6.86||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||-6.86|-11.22|<0.001
95826006|NCT02019108|191622428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-4.75||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||-4.75|-8.82|<0.001
95826007|NCT02019108|191622429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.9||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.9|-8.3|0.111
95826008|NCT02019108|191622429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||1.8|-7.3|0.232
95826009|NCT02019108|191622430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.78||a priori threshold for significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.78|-0.36|0.462
95826010|NCT02019108|191622430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.54||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.54|-0.76|0.737
95826011|NCT02019108|191622431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 17 weeks.||0.43|-0.50|0.876
95826012|NCT02019108|191622431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.49||a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline values and walking speed.||This is the comparison between Gait Modification Group and Walking Only Group at 21 weeks.||0.49|-0.43|0.897
95826013|NCT00132691|191622432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|6.68||unadjusted|Generalized estimating equations, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|"Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in change in visual acuity between treatment groups.~Assuming 67% bilateral disease, between eye correlation of 0.4, SD of 16 letters' change over 2 years and two-sided type 1 error rate of .05, a sample size of 250 provided 91% power (assuming 10% crossover) to detect a treatment difference of 7.5 standard ETDRS letters' change in visual acuity from baseline to 24 months."||6.68|-1.16|0.16
95826014|NCT00132691|191622433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of macular edema at 2 yrs as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect is the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||1.03|0.34|0.071
95862078|NCT00669409|191682702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.5||||||Change at Week 13, Stiffness: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures analyses included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment by week, part, and baseline values.||20.5|-22.4|
96001023|NCT02940886|191978960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥2 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.38|0.80|0.7032
95826015|NCT00132691|191622434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of odds ratios|0.29||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.6||unadjusted|GEE, logistic||For each treatment group the odds of uveitis activity at 2 years as compared to baseline was computed. The treatment effect represents the ratio of these odds (implant divided by systemic).|||.60|.13|0.001
95826016|NCT00132691|191622435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|11.15||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 30 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||11.15|3.32|<.0001
95826017|NCT00132691|191622436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|5.5||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP of 24 mmHg or greater. The systemic arm was the reference group|||5.50|2.34|<.0001
95826018|NCT00132691|191622437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.58||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards with RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of experiencing an IOP that was 10mmHg or greater than the baseline value. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.58|2.78|<.0001
95826019|NCT00132691|191622438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|9.63||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing glaucoma. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||9.63|1.82|0.0008
95826020|NCT00132691|191622439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.47||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of using an IOP-lowering therapy. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||6.47|2.67|<.0001
95826021|NCT00132691|191622440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|20.82||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of having surgery to lower IOP. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||20.82|3.39|<0.0001
95826022|NCT00132691|191622441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.67||unadjusted|Cox proportional hazards w/ RE||A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect to account for between-eye correlation was used to estimate the relative hazard of developing a cataract. The systemic arm was the reference group.|||7.67|2.21|<0.0001
95826023|NCT00132691|191622442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.15||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||9.15|0.14|0.043
95826024|NCT00132691|191622443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.76||unadjusted|GEE, linear||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic)|||6.76|0.49|0.023
95826025|NCT00132691|191622444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.36||unadjusted|Generalized Estimating Equations||The treatment effect is a model-based comparison of within group treatment change from enrollment to 24 months (the difference of the differences - implant minus systemic).|||5.36|0.54|0.016
95826026|NCT00132691|191622445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.15||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hyperlipidemia for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.15|0.39|0.84
95826027|NCT00132691|191622446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of hypertension for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||1.29|0.13|0.13
95826028|NCT00132691|191622447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.44||unadjusted|Regression, Cox||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relative hazard of diabetes mellitus for the implant and systemic treatments. The systemic treatment is the reference group.|||2.44|0.03|0.24
95826029|NCT01545232|191622462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.75||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size (580) planned to detect a clinically meaningful 10% difference in 24-hour mortality (11% vs. 21%) supported by prior data. Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 pts. \& given the final observed mortality proportions in 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 95% power to detect the pre-specified 10% difference at 24 hours if such differences existed.||1.08|0.52|0.12
95855027|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.74|0.72|0.6106
96001024|NCT02940886|191978961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0880
96001025|NCT02940886|191978962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.41|0.92|0.2420
96001026|NCT02940886|191978963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.28|0.81|0.8746
96001027|NCT02940886|191978964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|5.71|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||5.71|3.58|<0.0001
95826030|NCT01545232|191622463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Relative Risk|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12|||Mantel Haenszel|The critical level for significance (p\<0.044) was adjusted for two interim analyses, and all tests were conducted using two-sided tests.||Initial sample size of 580 planned to detect clinically meaningful a 12% difference in 30-day mortality (23% vs. 35%),supported by prior data. DSMB increased sample size to 680 according to trial's adaptive design. With 680 patients \& given final observed mortality proportions in the 1:1:1 group, PROPPR had 92% power to detect the pre-specified 12% difference at 30 days, if such differences existed.||1.12|0.65|0.26
95826031|NCT01545232|191622465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.83
95826032|NCT01545232|191622466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.44
95826033|NCT01545232|191622468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.11
95826034|NCT01545232|191622469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.8|
95826035|NCT01545232|191622470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.8|
95826036|NCT01545232|191622471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||generalized logit model regression|||||||0.37
95826037|NCT01545232|191622472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.14
95826038|NCT01545232|191622473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren's test for medians|||||||0.10
95826039|NCT00396006|191622530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0195
95826040|NCT00396006|191622534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
95826041|NCT00396006|191622535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-tests|||||||<0.0001
95826042|NCT00396006|191622537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1875
95826043|NCT00396006|191622538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.4375
95826044|NCT01691885|191622546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with covariates of treatment, baseline, period and subject as a random effect.||||8.91|2.74|<0.001
95826045|NCT02512874|191622551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95826046|NCT03777709|191622565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value|Regression, Linear||A recruitment aim of 40 participants per church (16 churches, 8 per arm, mean of 5 participants per church) provides 80% power to detect a difference of 1.45 in mean LS7 score change between groups (effect size 0.73).|Effect size of 1-unit difference in mean LS7 score was based on meta-analysis indicating each unit increase in mean LS7 metrics equates to a 19% and 11% reduction in CVD and all-cause mortality, respectively. Power calculations to estimate sample size: church goal of 16 churches (8/arm), with mean 5 participants/church (40/arm) to provide 80% power to detect 1.45 difference in average LS7 score change between groups (.01 intracluster correlation, and .5 coefficient of variation of church sizes).||||<0.0001
95826047|NCT02292758|191622621|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.912||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.93|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.930|0.431|0.7609
95826048|NCT02292758|191622621|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|1.656|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.656|0.249|
95826049|NCT02292758|191622624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.062|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.062|0.209|0.0446
95826050|NCT02292758|191622624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|1.089|||||Adjusted HR; Model adjusted by: age, gender, race (white vs others), number of metastatic sites (1 vs 2 vs 3+), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumor site (colon, rectum/rectosigmoid, multiple)|||1.089|0.151|
95826051|NCT02292758|191622626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3415
95826052|NCT02292758|191622627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1279
95826053|NCT02292758|191622628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.447
96001028|NCT02940886|191978965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
96001029|NCT02940886|191978965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.38|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.38|0.19|<0.0001
96001030|NCT02940886|191978965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.20|-0.02|0.1091
96001031|NCT02940886|191978966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|267.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|246.3|289.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||289.0|246.3|<0.0001
95826054|NCT02292758|191622629|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.655|||Log Rank||Unadjusted HR; Model stratified by: prior bevacizumab (Y vs N) and prior lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2+)|||1.655|0.345|0.3738
95826055|NCT02292758|191622630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cetuximab comparison||||0.4283
95826056|NCT02292758|191622630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Irinotecan comparison||||0.5262
95826057|NCT01191736|191622640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Null hypothesis: the medians for all seven arms are equal.||Kruskal-Wallis test for multiple comparisons||||.05
95826058|NCT01191736|191622641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Null hypothesis: the proportions within the seven arms are equal.||Comparison of proportions of subjects who assessed responsiveness||||.05
95826059|NCT01218958|191622644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||The Hochberg method was used to adjust P-value for multiple comparisons (ie, 380 mg dose vs. placebo and 190 mg dose vs. placebo).|Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox|||"The event rate (percentage) is represented by the number of heavy drinking days divided by number of days at risk. For each day, the active groups' results were contrasted with placebo to form the event rate ratio. Thus, a hazard ratio of 0.75 for the 380 mg group indicates a 25% reduction in heavy drinking compared with that of placebo.~The method of analysis estimates the average ratio over time and accounts for discontinuation. Point/interval estimates for pairwise ratios were derived."||0.940|0.600|0.0245
95826060|NCT01218958|191622644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|1.018|||Andersen-Gill recurrent-event Cox model|||||1.018|0.677|0.0744
95826061|NCT00744978|191622646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; Type I error rate for primary hypothesis was 5%; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.53|-1.37|0.3873
95826062|NCT00744978|191622647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.49||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.49|-0.39|0.2465
95826063|NCT00744978|191622648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.2092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.5||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.50|-0.33|0.2092
95826064|NCT00744978|191622649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.4339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.56||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.56|-1.30|0.4339
95826065|NCT00744978|191622650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect, and stratum, site, period, sequence, and treatment as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9745
95826066|NCT00744978|191622651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.92||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.92|-0.57|0.2852
95826067|NCT00744978|191622652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.53||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||2.53|0.02|0.0468
95826068|NCT00744978|191622653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.03|-0.02|0.8811
95855028|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||1.95|0.67|0.6159
96001032|NCT02940886|191978966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|57.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||57.8|25.6|<0.0001
95959644|NCT03845075|191891903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.58||||0.6663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||3.41|-2.24|0.6663
95959645|NCT03845075|191891903|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.59||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|5.98||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||5.98|1.21|0.0058
95959646|NCT03845075|191891904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed||0.30|-6.34|0.0713
95959647|NCT03845075|191891904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.96||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.96|-5.92|0.1457
95959648|NCT03845075|191891904|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.15||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||2.15|-0.45|0.1837
95826069|NCT00744978|191622654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.00|0.0830
95826070|NCT00744978|191622655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.03|0.7226
95826071|NCT00744978|191622656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.62||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Week 1: difference from placebo. Analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.62|-6.68|0.5588
95826072|NCT00744978|191622657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.15||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|1.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||1.05|-9.34|0.1173
95826073|NCT00744978|191622658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|3.96||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||3.96|-6.58|0.6251
95826074|NCT00744978|191622659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.05|0.9109
95826075|NCT00744978|191622660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.06|0.6632
95826076|NCT00744978|191622661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.07|0.5450
95826077|NCT00744978|191622662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.05|-0.02|0.2799
95826078|NCT00744978|191622663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo aAnalyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.04|-0.03|0.9675
95826079|NCT00744978|191622664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.05|0.5008
95826080|NCT00744978|191622665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.2245
95826081|NCT00744978|191622666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.01|-0.03|0.4974
95826082|NCT00744978|191622667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||ANCOVA model using unstructured covariance structure; tested using a nominal 5% Type I error rate; no adjustments made for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Difference from placebo analyzed using a mixed effects longitudinal linear model with subject (nested within sequence) as a random effect and fixed effects stratum, site, period, sequence, treatment, week, and treatment by week.||0.02|-0.02|0.8525
95826083|NCT01703208|191622739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.29|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.29|0.77|
95826084|NCT01703208|191622740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.48|
95826085|NCT01703208|191622741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the LS Means vs Placebo|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27|||Longitudinal data analysis|Longitudinal data analysis model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.27|-0.50|<0.001
95826086|NCT01703208|191622742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs. Placebo|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||4.9|-7.2|
95826087|NCT01703208|191622743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. The 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||1.7|-1.0|
95826088|NCT01703208|191622745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.68|0.66|
95826089|NCT01703208|191622747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.26|0.60|
95826090|NCT01703208|191622749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.52|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.52|0.58|
95826091|NCT01703208|191622751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.85|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.85|0.88|
95826092|NCT01703208|191622752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.14|||||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.|||-0.14|-0.46|
95826093|NCT01703208|191622758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.1||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|4.5|||Longitudinal constrained data analysis||Based on a LDA model including terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.|||4.5|-10.8|0.421
95826094|NCT01703208|191622759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between group rate difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|16.8||Estimated using standard multiple imputation techniques.|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||16.8|6.9|<0.001
95826095|NCT01703208|191622761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.05|||||Based on the proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor.|||1.05|0.35|
95826096|NCT01271712|191622809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||The two treatment groups were compared using a stratified log rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.01 stratified by (3rd vs 4th-line; and geographical region). The null hypothesis that both treatment arms have the same PFS distribution was tested against the alternative hypothesis that the distribution of PFS in the regorafenib arm is different from the control arm according to a proportional hazards relation between the treatment arms.||||<0.000001
95826097|NCT01271712|191622809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.388|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over placebo|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI (Confidence Interval) was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||0.388|0.185|
95826098|NCT01271712|191622810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285777|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||0.285777
95826099|NCT01271712|191622810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.265|||Regression, Cox|stratified|regorafenib over control. 58 (87.9%) patients in placebo group and 91 (68.4%) patients in regorafenib had started open-label treatment with regorafenib before time of final database cutoff 08 Jun 2015.|Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified Cox Regression Model||1.265|0.653|
95826100|NCT01271712|191622811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|1e-06|||||||Log Rank|stratified||||||<0.000001
95826101|NCT01271712|191622811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.364|||Regression, Cox|stratified||||0.364|0.170|
95826102|NCT01431014|191622816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95826103|NCT02685748|191622842|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.815|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.815|-0.969|0.863
95826104|NCT02685748|191622843|OTHER|T test for independent samples|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.364||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.147|8.379|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.379|-1.147|0.133
95826105|NCT02685748|191622844|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||1.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1553|0.172|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.172|-1.1553|1.607
95826106|NCT02685748|191622845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.807|2.241|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.241|-4.807|0.468
95826107|NCT02685748|191622846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.765|-0.869|0.899
95826108|NCT02685748|191622847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.797||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.602|20.703|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.703|-6.602|0.305
95826109|NCT02685748|191622848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|160.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.525||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.118|480.714|||t-test, 2 sided|||||480.714|-160.118|0.320
95826110|NCT02685748|191622849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.642|5.651|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.651|-8.642|0.676
95826111|NCT02979093|191622850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025||0.106|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown||||0.106
95826112|NCT02979093|191622850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.20458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1101||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for the Amygdala: Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces.||||0.0709
95826113|NCT02979093|191622850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08546||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Striatum: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0964
95826114|NCT02979093|191622850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07914||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is for Amygdala: Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces.||||0.0538
95826115|NCT02979093|191622851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09687||0.319|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (Addiction vs. Control) and condition (Oxytocin \[OT\] vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs. placebo for Ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) for happy own vs. happy unknown infant faces."||||0.319
95826116|NCT02979093|191622851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10968||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for vmPFC for Happy Own vs. Happy Unknown infant faces."||||0.171
95826117|NCT02979093|191622851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.20839|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08405||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on OT vs placebo for Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC) for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.0179
95826118|NCT02979093|191622851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11827||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||"This is a mixed effects model with group (addiction vs. control) and condition (OT vs Placebo).~Both variables were included in the model. The interaction effect was tested but not included in the model. This result focuses on addiction vs. control for dlPFC for Sad Own vs. Sad Unknown infant faces."||||0.7171
95826119|NCT02438683|191622877|OTHER||Slope|0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0012|0.0046||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected HR change from baseline (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis).||0.0046|0.0012|
95826120|NCT02438683|191622878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|6.97||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||6.97|0.73|
95826121|NCT02438683|191622879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|8.16||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.16|1.69|
95826122|NCT02438683|191622880|OTHER||Slope|0.0011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0009|0.003||||The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected QTcF change from baseline (ddQTcF) and independent variable. Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject (Primary analysis). The covariance structure is No diagonal Factor Analytic FA0(2).||0.0030|-0.0009|
95826123|NCT02438683|191622881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.39|5.7||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||5.70|3.39|
95959649|NCT03845075|191891905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.33||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF||0.33|-0.42|0.7926
95959650|NCT03845075|191891905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.17|-0.72|0.2124
95959651|NCT03845075|191891905|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Week 24 to Week 48; mITT LOCF||0.43|-0.72|0.6084
95959652|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|34.85||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to week 24; mITT observed. (Like to eat something fatty)||34.85|-2.85|0.0905
95959653|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.65||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|35.36||P-value from ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Like some meat/fish)||35.36|-22.05|0.6285
95959654|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.81||||0.5884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|19.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something salty).||19.43|-33.05|0.5884
95826124|NCT02438683|191622882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.13||||For the repeated effect 'time', the covariance structure was chosen to be unstructured.|Mean Difference (Net) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 200 mg minus Placebo.|The a repeated measures model included 'period baseline', 'subject baseline' (defined as the arithmetic mean of the 2 period baselines), 'treatment', 'baseline\*time' interaction, 'treatment\*time' interaction and 'time' as fixed effects and subject as random effect (Primary analysis).||8.13|1.34|
95826125|NCT02438683|191622883|OTHER||Slope|0.0054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0032|0.0076||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected max HR (dHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept and slope estimates for each subject. (Primary analysis)||0.0076|0.0032|
95826126|NCT02438683|191622884|OTHER||Slope|-0.0014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0008||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||0.0008|-0.0036|
95855029|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Analysis||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||2.49|0.62|0.5372
95962433|NCT03607422|191896628|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-7.7|-28.1|0.001
95962434|NCT03607422|191896629|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.3|34.8|<0.001
95962435|NCT03607422|191896629|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.6|11.8|0.001
95962436|NCT03607422|191896630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|68.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.0|38.4|<0.001
95962437|NCT03607422|191896630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|31.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||47.1|16.5|<0.001
95962438|NCT03607422|191896631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||64.1|33.8|<0.001
95962439|NCT03607422|191896631|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|53.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.6|21.1|<0.001
95962440|NCT03607422|191896632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|70.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||70.2|37.4|<0.001
95962441|NCT03607422|191896632|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.7|24.3|<0.001
95959655|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.98||||0.8533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|36.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Eat something sweet).||36.68|-30.73|0.8533
95826127|NCT02438683|191622884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0052|-0.0007||||The covariance structure is Unstructured.||The regression model with response variable placebo-corrected change from max HR to recovery HR (ddHR) and independent variable Plasma concentration includes a fixed slope effect as well as random intercept estimates for each subject (Primary analysis).||-0.0007|-0.0052|
95826128|NCT03111550|191622917|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for corneal edema)||||||0.02041|ONE_SIDED||||||Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.02041
95826129|NCT03111550|191622918|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.3% for retinal detachment)||||||0.1969|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 retinal detachment|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.1969
95826130|NCT03111550|191622918|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4655|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZHR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test of binomial distribution|||||||0.4655
95826131|NCT03111550|191622918|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.021|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZQR00 secondary surgical intention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.0210
95826132|NCT03111550|191622918|SUPERIORITY|Compare if study AE rate is significantly higher than ISO SPE rate (0.8% for secondary surgical intervention)||||||0.4698|ONE_SIDED|||||For ZXR00 secondary surgical intervention|Exact test on binomial distribution|||||||0.4698
95826133|NCT03549871|191622928|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.389|||=|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.675||The threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Repeated measures NB regression model|||Analyzed using repeated measures NB model with fixed effect of treatment period (fitusiran efficacy period or factor/BPA prophylaxis period) and robust sandwich covariance matrix was constructed to account for within participant dependence, logarithm of duration (in years) that each participant spends in each study period matching BE data being analyzed as an offset variable.||0.675|0.224|=0.0008
95826134|NCT03549871|191622930|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.842||||||||0.842|0.234|
95959656|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.33||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.87|7.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||7.20|-41.87|0.1529
95962442|NCT03607422|191896633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.7|28.0|<0.001
95826135|NCT03549871|191622932|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|0.91||||||||0.910|0.259|
95826136|NCT01846299|191622965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.16|0.40|0.0111
95826137|NCT02956044|191623010|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|108.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.35|125.3|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric Least Square (LS) Mean was used as PK parameters||125.30|94.35|
95826138|NCT02956044|191623010|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|95.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.73|106.63|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.63|84.73|
95826139|NCT02956044|191623010|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|89.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.39|113.65|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||113.65|70.39|
95826140|NCT02956044|191623010|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|111.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|129.19|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||129.19|97.02|
95826141|NCT02956044|191623010|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|126.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.08|143.17|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||143.17|112.08|
95826142|NCT02956044|191623010|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|114.23|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||114.23|84.90|
95826143|NCT02956044|191623013|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|87.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.02|95.38|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||95.38|80.02|
95826144|NCT02956044|191623013|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|103.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.59|112.68|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||112.68|94.59|
95826145|NCT02956044|191623013|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|Ratio of Geometric LSM|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.34|111.06|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||111.06|80.34|
95826146|NCT02956044|191623013|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|127.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.33|146.62|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||146.62|110.33|
95826147|NCT02956044|191623013|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|113.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.61|118.86|||||Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||118.86|107.61|
95826148|NCT02956044|191623013|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%|[Ratio of Geometric LSM]|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|107.17||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Confidence interval from ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect|107.17|99.30|
95826149|NCT00798317|191623038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|17.0||Comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||17.00|1.97|<0.001
95826150|NCT01106859|191623051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups.||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 4 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||1.5|0.1|0.0174
95826151|NCT01106859|191623051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||2.1|0.8|<0.0001
95826152|NCT01106859|191623051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 114 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDLP (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDLP (Placebo).||3.1|1.8|<0.0001
95826153|NCT01106859|191623052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 4 hours prior) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.27|0.03|0.0145
95826154|NCT01106859|191623052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.2||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zolpidem 3 Hours) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.20|-0.05|0.2179
95959657|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.75||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|13.65||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||13.65|-37.15|0.3399
95959658|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.95||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.84|1.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||1.93|-49.84|0.0673
95959659|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.6||||0.1657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.65|10.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||10.46|-55.65|0.1657
95826155|NCT01106859|191623052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|The degrees of freedom are 113 for the p-value testing the difference between treatment groups||P-value is based on ANOVA model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, a random effect for subject within sequence, and assuming compound symmetry covariance structure; the p-value is reported from LS Mean difference between Treatment Groups: LS mean of SDS (Zopiclone) - LS mean of SDS (Placebo).||0.29|0.04|0.0096
95826156|NCT01106859|191623055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2188||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.2188
95826157|NCT01106859|191623055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0117||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0117
95826158|NCT01106859|191623055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
95826159|NCT01106859|191623057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.1250
95826160|NCT01106859|191623057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0074
95826161|NCT01106859|191623057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-2.0 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of Zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||<0.0001
95826162|NCT01106859|191623059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 4 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.5000
95826163|NCT01106859|191623059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablet 3 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0156
95855030|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||5.58|0.89|0.0845
95855031|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|21.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||21.56|0.62|0.1344
95959660|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.18||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-8.06||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like to eat something fatty).||-8.06|-52.31|0.0108
95855032|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|50.0||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.34|100.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Global health status/QoL, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-23.34|0.3173
95962443|NCT03607422|191896633|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|48.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.8|10.7|0.002
95959661|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.79||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|7.13||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Like some meat/fish).||7.13|-36.71|0.1710
95826164|NCT01106859|191623059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||No adjustments. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|McNemar|McNemar's exact test with one degree of freedom is used.||Symmetry analysis was performed for the probability of difference from placebo falling above and below the threshold of +/-3.5 cm in Standard Deviation of Lateral Position (SDLP) following administration of zopiclone 9 hours prior to driving. Statistically significant asymmetries indicate a decrement in driving performance. Lack of statistical significance indicates symmetry which shows a lack of treatment effect on driving performance.||||0.0001
95826165|NCT01007435|191623060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|7.14||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||7.14|3.19|<0.0001
95826166|NCT01007435|191623060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.55||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 8 mg/kg + placebo to methotrexate treatment groups.||5.55|2.47|<0.0001
95826167|NCT01007435|191623060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.11||A hierarchy of statistical testing was implemented in order to control the type I error rate for multiple comparisons. This comparison came after the break in statistical hierarchy.|Regression, Logistic|The stratification factors, region and serologic status, were included in the model.|"Last observation carried forward was used for TJC and SJC. No imputation was used for ESR and GH. Patients who withdrew prematurely or where a DAS28 could not be calculated were set to non-responder."|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the DAS28 remission response at Week 24 between the placebo to tocilizumab + methotrexate and the tocilizumab 4 mg/kg + methotrexate treatment groups.||4.11|1.80|<0.0001
95826168|NCT00939029|191623133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.5||1 tailed p-value|Regression, Logistic|||||7.5|1.0|0.05
95826169|NCT00939029|191623134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|11.6||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||11.6|1.4|0.014
95826170|NCT00939029|191623135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|6.0||1 tailed|Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|0.8|0.087
95826171|NCT04686084|191623150|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95826172|NCT01425359|191623174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Angina frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.008
95826173|NCT01425359|191623175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Sublingual nitroglycerin use frequency was compared by fitting a generalized linear model with log link and negative binomial distribution response.|Generalized linear model|||||||0.003
95826174|NCT01528891|191623180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Heart rate values at each time point were compared between groups.||||<0.01
95826175|NCT01528891|191623180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
95826176|NCT01528891|191623180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||Heart rate values were compared over time against the baseline value.||||<0.01
95826177|NCT01528891|191623181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.0001 was calculated for both groups.|Fisher Exact|||The incidence of agitated patients in each group was compared.||||<0.0001
95826178|NCT01528891|191623182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, and PACU.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic blood pressure values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
95826179|NCT01528891|191623182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, and 5 minutes.~P-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
95826180|NCT01528891|191623182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to the baseline value: 5 minutes and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||SBP values were compared against the baseline within each group over time.||||<0.01
95959662|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.86||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-5.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something salty).||-5.93|-33.80|0.0083
95826181|NCT01528891|191623183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points: 1 minute and PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|t-test, 2 sided|||DBP values were compared between groups at each time point.||||<0.01
95826182|NCT01528891|191623183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 1 minute, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared within each group against the baseline value.||||<0.01
95826183|NCT01528891|191623183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"P\<0.01 for the following time points, as compared to baseline: 4 minutes, 5 minutes, PACU.~P-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANOVA|||DBP values were compared against the baseline value within each group over time.||||<0.01
95826184|NCT01437098|191623199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of IF Implanted Subjects|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.5|98.2|||Exact binomial|||||98.2|77.5|<0.001
95826185|NCT00823212|191623247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-group Farrington-Manning test was used to test the 1-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in differences with a non-inferiority margin of 3.5%. A p value \<0.05 would indicate non-inferiority and correspond to the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference not exceeding 3.5%.|Difference in percent of participants|0.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.13|||Farrington-Manning test||The standard error for the difference was estimated according to the Farrington-Manning test.|Study had 89% statistical power to demonstrate non-inferiority for target lesion failure (TLF, accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%), assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 5.5% for both stents.||2.13||0.001
95826186|NCT00791479|191623296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
95826187|NCT00791479|191623296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
95826188|NCT00791479|191623296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.069||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
95826189|NCT00791479|191623296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826190|NCT00791479|191623296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826191|NCT00791479|191623296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95959663|NCT03845075|191891906|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.98||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.39|1.43||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Eat something sweet).||1.43|-47.39|0.0631
95826192|NCT00791479|191623297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
95826193|NCT00791479|191623297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Treatment comparison at Week 4. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.023
95826194|NCT00791479|191623297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
95826195|NCT00791479|191623297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at Week 8. A priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
95826196|NCT00791479|191623298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
95826197|NCT00791479|191623298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
95826198|NCT00791479|191623298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.456||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.456
95826199|NCT00791479|191623298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.53|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826200|NCT00791479|191623298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.96|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826201|NCT00791479|191623298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.71|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826202|NCT00791479|191623299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels \<7.0%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
95826203|NCT00791479|191623299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≤6.5%.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|The Cochran-Armitage trend test included the placebo arm.||||||<0.001
95826204|NCT00791479|191623300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
95826205|NCT00791479|191623300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||<0.001
95826206|NCT00791479|191623300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.65||||0.378||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.378
95826207|NCT00791479|191623300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.09|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826208|NCT00791479|191623300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.34|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826209|NCT00791479|191623300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.67|||<|0.001||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95826210|NCT00791479|191623301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||<0.001
95826211|NCT00791479|191623301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.036
95826212|NCT00791479|191623302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.450
95826213|NCT00791479|191623302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.329
95826214|NCT00791479|191623310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response with placebo.||||0.969
95826215|NCT00791479|191623310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of log linear dose response without placebo.||||0.009
95826216|NCT00791479|191623310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.14||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.140
95826217|NCT00791479|191623310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.247||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.247
95826218|NCT00791479|191623310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.975||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.975
95826219|NCT00791479|191623310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1||||||An adjustment for multiplicity was performed when comparing the individual doses to placebo using a Dunnett's test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.00
95826220|NCT01778049|191623313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0013||95.0|-0.52|-0.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10) value.|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR), geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.52|0.0013
95826221|NCT01778049|191623313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.66|-0.28|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in HbA1c using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariates \& baseline eGFR, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.0001
95826222|NCT01778049|191623314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0103||95.0|-1.15|-0.16|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E10) minus Plc (E10).|Superiority of lina5 (E10) vs. Plc (E10): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.16|-1.15|0.0103
95826223|NCT01778049|191623314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0452||95.0|-0.87|-0.01|||MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the adjusted mean difference value calculated as lina5 (E25) minus Plc (E25).|Superiority of lina5 (E25) vs. Plc (E25): change in FPG using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The model includes baseline HbA1c \& baseline eGFR as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.87|0.0452
95826224|NCT01849575|191623344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95826225|NCT03397134|191623383|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals||||||0.043||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||To evaluate the efficacy of 2 fixed doses (32 mg and 64 mg) of MIN-101 compared to placebo in improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia as measured by the change from Baseline in the PANSS Marder negative symptoms factor score (NSFS) over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. Approximation 501 eligible patients will be randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio at baseline to 1 of 4 treatment arms.||||0.043
95962444|NCT03607422|191896634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|7.5|<0.001
95826226|NCT03397134|191623384|SUPERIORITY|All statistical tests will be 2-sided hypothesis tests performed at the 5% level of significance. All confidence intervals will be 2-sided 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.016||||||The p-values must be ≤0.025 to allow for rejecting the null hypothesis for the representative dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Kenward-Roger approximation will be used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||The PSP involves four subscale domains: (a) socially useful activities, (b) personal and social relationships, (c) self-care, and (d) disturbing and aggressive behaviors. After each of these four areas is scored on an anchored Likert-type scale (0-5), raters are instructed to select a 10-point range within a 100-point scale, guided by the area scores assigned during assessment.||||0.016
95826227|NCT01774097|191623393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-0.6|0.238
95826228|NCT01774097|191623394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|-0.2|0.116
95826229|NCT01774097|191623395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-0.8|0.978
95826230|NCT01774097|191623396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.91||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.91|-1.26|0.752
95826231|NCT01774097|191623397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.03|-0.02|0.871
95826232|NCT01774097|191623398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.06|0.256
95826233|NCT01774097|191623399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||interaction term|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-0.2|0.241
95826234|NCT01774097|191623401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.8||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.8|-0.6|0.131
95826235|NCT01774097|191623402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.2||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.2|-2.6|0.626
95826236|NCT01774097|191623403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||2.3|-4.1|0.591
95826237|NCT01774097|191623404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||Threshold 0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons per protocol.|Regression, Linear|||||4.7|-3.3|0.722
95826238|NCT00934947|191623412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.36
95826239|NCT00934947|191623413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.32
95826240|NCT00934947|191623414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.48
95826241|NCT00557310|191623415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.363
95826242|NCT00557310|191623416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
95826243|NCT00557310|191623417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.816
95826244|NCT00557310|191623417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.934
95826245|NCT00557310|191623418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.324
95826246|NCT00557310|191623418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.089
95826247|NCT00557310|191623419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.847
95826248|NCT00557310|191623419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.212
95826249|NCT00557310|191623420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.||||||0.335
95826250|NCT00557310|191623420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.916||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.916
95826251|NCT00557310|191623420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 12 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.610
95826252|NCT00557310|191623420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.||||||0.363
95826253|NCT00557310|191623420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.837
95826254|NCT00557310|191623421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95826255|NCT00557310|191623422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.021
95826256|NCT00557310|191623423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95826257|NCT00557310|191623424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
95826258|NCT00557310|191623425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95826259|NCT00557310|191623425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95826260|NCT00557310|191623426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
95959664|NCT03845075|191891907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.56||||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|19.53||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed.||19.53|-24.65|0.8082
95826261|NCT00557310|191623426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.049
95826262|NCT00557310|191623427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
95826263|NCT00557310|191623427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.092
95826264|NCT00557310|191623428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
95826265|NCT00557310|191623428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
95826266|NCT00557310|191623429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 18 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.106
95826267|NCT00557310|191623429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|ANOVA|||||||0.436
95826268|NCT00557310|191623430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
95826269|NCT00557310|191623430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
95826270|NCT00557310|191623430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||<0.001
95826271|NCT00557310|191623431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 3 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
95826272|NCT00557310|191623431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 6 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.012
95826273|NCT00557310|191623431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for the percent change from baseline at 24 months.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|||||||0.016
95826274|NCT03061721|191623435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95959665|NCT03845075|191891907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|23.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||23.10|-25.94|0.9034
95826275|NCT03061721|191623435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95826276|NCT03061721|191623435|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95826277|NCT03061721|191623436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5681|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5681
95826278|NCT03061721|191623436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4487
95826279|NCT03061721|191623436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0021
95826280|NCT03061721|191623437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0070
95826281|NCT03061721|191623437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
95826282|NCT03061721|191623437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95826283|NCT03061721|191623438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2241
95826284|NCT03061721|191623438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0304|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0304
95826285|NCT03061721|191623438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0595|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0595
95826286|NCT03061721|191623439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0449|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0449
95826287|NCT03061721|191623439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0053
95826288|NCT03061721|191623439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0036
95826289|NCT03061721|191623440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0045
95826290|NCT03061721|191623440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
95826291|NCT03061721|191623440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
95826292|NCT03061721|191623449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2387
95826293|NCT03061721|191623449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1496|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1496
95826294|NCT03061721|191623449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0445|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0445
95826295|NCT03650803|191623454|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||MRF T1 Changes||||0.046
95826296|NCT03650803|191623454|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.064|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 Changes||||0.064
95826297|NCT03650803|191623455|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T1 relaxation time||||0.820
95826298|NCT03650803|191623455|OTHER|Significance (alpha) set to 0.05||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MRF T2 relaxation time||||0.605
95826299|NCT01639339|191623461|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.32||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 1 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.32|1.04|0.0311
95826300|NCT01639339|191623462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.74||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 2 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.74|1.11|0.0167
95826301|NCT01639339|191623463|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.38||P-value was calculated using logistic regression model. Test 3 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||2.38|1.06|0.0245
95826302|NCT01639339|191623464|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. Test 4 of 5 in a step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model||Treatment comparison between Belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo using Cox proportional hazards ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval has been presented.|||0.77|0.34|0.0014
95826303|NCT01639339|191623465|OTHER|||||||0.0096||||||P-value is rank analysis of covariance model comparing Belimumab and Placebo with covariates for treatment group, induction regimen(CYC vs MMF),race(Black vs Non-black), Baseline uPCR, and eGFR. Test 5 of 5 in step-down sequential testing procedure.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.0096
95826304|NCT03894969|191623485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PD is \> 0.667. The anti-PD GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.765|1.159|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.159|0.765|
95826305|NCT03894969|191623485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PE is \> 0.667. The anti-PE GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.719|1.093|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.093|0.719|
95826306|NCT03894969|191623485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-PilA is \> 0.667. The anti-PilA GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.884|1.474|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.474|0.884|
95826307|NCT03894969|191623485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio for anti-UspA2 is \> 0.667. The anti-UspA2 GMC ratio is presented in this test with its 95% CI.|GMC ratio|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.948|1.245|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, age category, smoking status and center as fixed effects and pre-Dose 1 log-concentration as a covariate.||To demonstrate the non-inferiority (NI) of the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSK Biologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine when administered 1 after Shingrix vaccine versus the humoral immune response 1 month after Dose 2 of GSKBiologicals' NTHi-Mcat investigational vaccine alone.||1.245|0.948|
95826308|NCT03070223|191623535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.10|-0.30|0.31
95826309|NCT03070223|191623537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.88|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model.|Comparison of Month 24 values||2.88|-1.72|0.62
95826310|NCT03070223|191623538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.004|-0.007|0.61
95826311|NCT03070223|191623539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.028||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.19|-0.25|0.80
95826312|NCT03070223|191623540|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative annualized risk of impairment in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.06|0.98|0.33
95826313|NCT03070223|191623541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is from the time and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect was estimated as the difference in annualized rate of change (slope) with randomized pitavastatin compared to placebo from linear mixed effects models (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||0.002|-0.013|0.18
95826314|NCT03070223|191623542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Log-binomial regression using GEE|P-value is from the time (before vs. after study treatment initiation) and treatment group interaction.|Treatment effect is shown as relative average risk of impairment over follow-up time in the pitavastatin group compared to placebo (1 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|||1.24|0.91|0.47
95826315|NCT03070223|191623547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.4|-2.7|0.55
95826316|NCT03070223|191623548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||1.8|-2.8|0.67
95826317|NCT03070223|191623549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference (pitavastatin minus placebo) at Month 24 was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.52|-0.50|0.98
95826318|NCT03070223|191623550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.3|-0.8|0.31
95826319|NCT03070223|191623551|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference at Month 24 (pitavastatin minus placebo) was estimated using baseline-adjusted linear regression model (0 reflects no difference between treatment groups).|Comparison of Month 24 values||0.9|-0.2|0.21
95826320|NCT03219034|191623557|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cross-over design: Median differences between oral appliances at the end of the first 4-week leg of the study (T2). The hypothesis tested was that REI would be lowered more with Appliance A than B.||||0.152
95826321|NCT00118846|191623559|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.91||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope = Mean difference in annualized rate of change|||1.05|-2.86|0.35
95826322|NCT00118846|191623560|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.13|0.36
95826323|NCT00443053|191623563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Fisher Exact|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
95826324|NCT00443053|191623564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.32|||Fisher Exact|||||0.32|0.12|<0.001
95826325|NCT02136680|191623583|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.046||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.400
95826326|NCT02136680|191623583|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.119||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.022
95826327|NCT02136680|191623583|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Self-Esteem from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.347
95826328|NCT02136680|191623584|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.003||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.959
95826329|NCT02136680|191623584|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.143||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.021
95826330|NCT02136680|191623584|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.048||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Global QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.454
95826331|NCT02136680|191623584|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.015||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to First Follow-up||||0.774
95826332|NCT02136680|191623584|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.137||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.018
95826333|NCT02136680|191623584|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.051||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Summary QOL from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.362
95826334|NCT02136680|191623585|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|-0.072||||0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to First Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.213
95826335|NCT02136680|191623585|SUPERIORITY||Regression Coefficient|0.037||||0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Palliative Outcomes from Baseline to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group||||0.561
95826336|NCT02136680|191623585|SUPERIORITY|Change in Palliative Outcomes from First Follow-up to Second Follow-up: Intervention Group vs. Control Group|Regression Coefficient|0.165||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.008
95826337|NCT00737568|191623619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was controlled for strata (HBeAg status and ALT level).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference between the FTC/TDF and TDF treatment groups. These hypotheses were evaluated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for randomization strata, with the missing = failure method in which participants with missing data were considered to have failed to achieve the endpoint.||||0.43
95826338|NCT00350272|191623632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.2||||||The difference in proportions between the group of participants who received lamivudine 300 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks and the group of participants who received elvucitabine 10 mg/day (in combination with efavirenz and tenofovir) over 12 weeks along with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval for risk difference using asymptotic normal theory.||8.2|-35.2|
95826339|NCT03832114|191623635|OTHER|Log Ratio to Baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.65|0.46|0.0003
95826340|NCT03832114|191623636|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.75|-0.75|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.75|-3.75|0.0313
95826341|NCT03832114|191623637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.46|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.65|0.46|0.0003
95826342|NCT03832114|191623637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.4766|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.28|0.49|0.4766
95826343|NCT03832114|191623637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.69|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.69|0.51|0.0002
95826344|NCT03832114|191623638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM|||Day 84||0.68|0.47|0.0011
95826345|NCT03832114|191623638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|1.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.33|0.75|0.9998
95826346|NCT03832114|191623638|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.77|0.56|0.0016
95826347|NCT03832114|191623639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MRM)|||Day 84||0.64|0.47|<0.0001
95826348|NCT03832114|191623639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.27|0.30|0.3707
95826349|NCT03832114|191623639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|0.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.71|0.51|0.0002
95826350|NCT03832114|191623640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.47|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.70|0.47|0.0018
95826351|NCT03832114|191623640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|0.98|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||0.98|0.67|0.1632
95826352|NCT03832114|191623640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.57|0.79|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||0.79|0.57|0.0040
95826353|NCT03832114|191623641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59||||0.1795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|5.06|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||5.06|0.12|0.1795
95826354|NCT03832114|191623641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7763|TWO_SIDED|0.7763|-3.36|2.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||2.15|-3.36|0.7763
95826355|NCT03832114|191623641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|3.22|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||3.22|-0.59|0.3754
95826356|NCT03832114|191623642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.04||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.36|-0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measuers (MMRM)|||Day 84||-0.72|-9.36|0.1364
95826357|NCT03832114|191623642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|16.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||16.13|-1.79|0.3038
95826358|NCT03832114|191623642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.56|4.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||4.01|-5.56|0.8352
95826359|NCT03832114|191623643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|1.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.17|0.99|0.2752
95826360|NCT03832114|191623643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.83|1.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 84||1.72|0.83|0.476
95826361|NCT03832114|191623643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 84||1.20|1.00|0.1963
95826362|NCT03832114|191623645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.65|0.48|<0.0001
95826363|NCT03832114|191623645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.28|0.76|0.9544
95826364|NCT03832114|191623645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|0.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.72|0.56|<.0001
95826365|NCT03832114|191623646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||0.69|0.50|<.0001
95826366|NCT03832114|191623646|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Day 64||1.26|0.60|0.6209
95826367|NCT03832114|191623646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Overall- Day 64||0.73|0.54|0.0002
95826368|NCT01939002|191623654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||1-sample Chi-square test comparing to Null hypotheses at 25%.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95826369|NCT01939002|191623655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2037||||||Chi-square test between 2 treatment arms.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2037
95826370|NCT01939002|191623657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|McNemar tests the null hypothesis of no difference in FLS between 4WRI and F8W.||||||1.00
95826371|NCT01939002|191623657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
95826372|NCT01939002|191623657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5811
95826373|NCT01939002|191623658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0525
95826374|NCT01939002|191623658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0654
95826375|NCT01939002|191623658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5488|||||||McNemar|||||||0.5488
95826376|NCT01939002|191623659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0945|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0945
95826377|NCT01939002|191623659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8246|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8246
95826378|NCT01939002|191623659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2533|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2533
95826379|NCT01939002|191623659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1631|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1631
95826380|NCT01939002|191623660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3189|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3189
95826381|NCT01939002|191623660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3582|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3582
95826382|NCT01939002|191623660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8484|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.8484
95826383|NCT01939002|191623660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1771|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.1771
95826384|NCT01939002|191623661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
95826385|NCT01939002|191623661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
95826386|NCT01939002|191623661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
95826387|NCT01939002|191623661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3792|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.3792
95826388|NCT01939002|191623662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0019
95826389|NCT01939002|191623662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0009
95826390|NCT01939002|191623662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||<0.0001
95826391|NCT01939002|191623663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0105
95826392|NCT01939002|191623663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0789
95826393|NCT01939002|191623663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0027
95826394|NCT01939002|191623663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.8380
95826395|NCT01939002|191623664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1407|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.1407
95826396|NCT01939002|191623664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7805|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.7805
95826397|NCT01939002|191623664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.2186
95826398|NCT01939002|191623664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4234|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4234
95826399|NCT01939002|191623665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0090
95959666|NCT03845075|191891907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|12.93||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||12.93|-26.93|0.4658
95826400|NCT01939002|191623665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0075
95826401|NCT01939002|191623665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0002
95826402|NCT01939002|191623665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7497|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.7497
95826403|NCT01939002|191623666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0545|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0545
95826404|NCT01939002|191623666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3377|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.3377
95826405|NCT01939002|191623666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||||||0.0391
95826406|NCT01939002|191623666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4861|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||||||0.4861
95826407|NCT01939002|191623667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0834|||||||Fisher Exact|||first 8 weeks||||0.0834
95826408|NCT01939002|191623667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 0-2||||0.0767
95826409|NCT01939002|191623667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 3-4||||0.7320
95826410|NCT01939002|191623667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 5-6||||0.5008
95826411|NCT01939002|191623667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Fisher Exact|||Weeks 7-8||||0.6422
95826412|NCT01939002|191623668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2123|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.2123
95826413|NCT01939002|191623668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5834|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.5834
95826414|NCT01939002|191623668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8723|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.8723
95826415|NCT01939002|191623668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4173|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.4173
95826416|NCT01939002|191623668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2267|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2267
95826417|NCT01939002|191623668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Term||||0.0171
95826418|NCT01939002|191623669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0001
95826419|NCT01939002|191623669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.0007
95826420|NCT01939002|191623669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.0365
95826421|NCT01939002|191623669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.0197
95826422|NCT01939002|191623669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.4031
95826423|NCT01939002|191623669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0060
95826424|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
95959667|NCT03845075|191891908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|0.1||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT LOCF.||0.10|-11.46|0.0537
95826425|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
95826426|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
95826427|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
95826428|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
95826429|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1789|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1789
95826430|NCT01939002|191623670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.2248
95826431|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
95826432|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||<0.0001
95826433|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||<0.0001
95826434|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||<0.0001
95826435|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||<0.0001
95826436|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||<0.0001
95826437|NCT01939002|191623671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||<0.0001
95826438|NCT01939002|191623672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7012|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.7012
95826439|NCT01939002|191623672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0548|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0548
95826440|NCT01939002|191623672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0782|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0782
95826441|NCT01939002|191623673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0006
95959668|NCT03845075|191891908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.69||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|3.61||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF.||3.61|-8.98|0.3772
95962445|NCT03607422|191896634|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|13.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.5|3.9|0.006
95826442|NCT01939002|191623673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0792|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0792
95826443|NCT01939002|191623673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0961|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.0961
95826444|NCT01939002|191623674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
95826445|NCT01939002|191623674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
95826446|NCT01939002|191623674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4973|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.4973
95826447|NCT01939002|191623675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||<0.0001
95826448|NCT01939002|191623675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0464|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 4||||0.0464
95826449|NCT01939002|191623675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1905|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||change at Week 4||||0.1905
95826450|NCT01939002|191623676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6569|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6569
95826451|NCT01939002|191623676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1584
95826452|NCT01939002|191623676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5106|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.5106
95826453|NCT01939002|191623676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5927|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.5927
95826454|NCT01939002|191623676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.3840
95826455|NCT01939002|191623676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4182||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.4182
95826456|NCT01939002|191623677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2588|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.2588
95826457|NCT01939002|191623677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1092|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.1092
95826458|NCT01939002|191623677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||1.0000
95826459|NCT01939002|191623677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2190
95826460|NCT01939002|191623677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6402||||||p-value on slope is based on general linear model with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.6402
95826461|NCT01939002|191623678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4821|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.4821
95826462|NCT01939002|191623678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5298|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 24||||0.5298
95826463|NCT01939002|191623678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1584|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 36||||0.1584
95826464|NCT01939002|191623678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2547|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.2547
95826465|NCT01939002|191623678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0824|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.0824
95826466|NCT01939002|191623678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3148||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.3148
95826467|NCT01939002|191623679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6508|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 12||||0.6508
95826468|NCT01939002|191623679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Week 48||||0.0315
95826469|NCT01939002|191623679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||change at Early Termination||||0.1190
95826470|NCT01939002|191623679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||||||p-value on slope is based GLM with repeat measures over all visits.|general linear model|||||||0.1520
95826471|NCT01939002|191623681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0049
95826472|NCT01939002|191623681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.2230
95826473|NCT01939002|191623681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||paired t-test within 1 arm|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.0031
95826474|NCT01939002|191623681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1624|||||||2-sample t-test between 2 arms|||Change from 4WRI to L4W||||0.1624
95826475|NCT03730961|191623690|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-448.0||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-714.0|-183.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-183|-714|0.0021
95826476|NCT03730961|191623690|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.1||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-3.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.51|-40.7|0.0222
95826477|NCT03730961|191623691|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|-0.876|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.876|-7.63|0.0163
95826478|NCT03730961|191623691|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|8.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.77|-38.8|0.2018
95826479|NCT03730961|191623691|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.61||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|0.0446|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0446|-7.27|0.0526
95826480|NCT03730961|191623691|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|9.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9|-38.8|0.2076
95826481|NCT03730961|191623692|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.05|-0.189|0.1621
95826482|NCT03730961|191623692|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-4 hours after furosemide|Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|61.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||61.3|2.72|0.0338
95826483|NCT03730961|191623692|SUPERIORITY|Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|0.766||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-0.0353|0.0600
95826484|NCT03730961|191623692|SUPERIORITY|Percent change Drug - placebo, 0-8 hours after start of infusion|Mean Difference (Net)|33.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.02|63.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||63|4.02|0.0280
95826485|NCT03730961|191623695|SUPERIORITY||Difference between drug and placebo|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.74||||||||||||||||
95826486|NCT04035564|191623706|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|1.533|||Chi-squared|||||1.533|0.026|0.71
95826487|NCT04035564|191623707|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|18.09|||Chi-squared|||||18.09|0.081|0.89
95826488|NCT04035564|191623708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.861|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
95826489|NCT04035564|191623708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.286||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.461|-0.261|||ANOVA|||||-0.261|-5.461|0.032
95826490|NCT04035564|191623709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.858|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.858|-8.43|0.107
95826491|NCT04035564|191623709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.299||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.85|||ANOVA|||||0.85|-8.43|0.107
95826492|NCT04035564|191623710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
95826493|NCT04035564|191623710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-4.57|||ANOVA|||||-4.57|-74.18|0.028
95826494|NCT04035564|191623711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.932|||Chi-squared|||||1.932|0.296|0.55
95826495|NCT04035564|191623712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|7.096|||Chi-squared|||||7.096|0.169|0.84
95826496|NCT04035564|191623713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|2.448|||Chi-squared|||||2.448|0.266|0.70
95826497|NCT04035564|191623714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95826498|NCT04035564|191623714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.57
95826499|NCT00834990|191623724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.41||||||90.0|97.13|110.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110.08|97.13|
95826500|NCT00834990|191623725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.68||||||90.0|96.79|106.83|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.83|96.79|
95826501|NCT00834990|191623726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated statistically by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for the experimental design of this study.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.17||||||90.0|98.5|108.05|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.05|98.5|
95826502|NCT00521599|191623729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|assume n=240 per group and standard deviation (STD) = 45 L/min for AM Peak Flow Rate at Week 8. If the two actives are the same, 95% CI of their mean difference has 90% probability to be completely within +/- 15 L/min.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.0||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|5.49|||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||5.49|-8.74|0.654
95826503|NCT00521599|191623729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.003
95826504|NCT00521599|191623729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Week 8 End scores||||0.001
95826505|NCT00496197|191623740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|83.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.7|88.8|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||88.8|78.7|
95826506|NCT00496197|191623741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|96.7|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||96.7|89.4|
95826507|NCT00496197|191623742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.3|98.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOT||98.3|92.3|
95826508|NCT00496197|191623743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.4|92.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||92.6|84.4|
95826509|NCT00496197|191623744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|96.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||96.4|89.8|
95826510|NCT00496197|191623745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|95.9|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at EOIV||95.9|89.3|
95826511|NCT00496197|191623746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.3|82.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||82.3|70.3|
95826512|NCT00496197|191623747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|98.1|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.1|91.5|
95826513|NCT00496197|191623748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.2|98.5|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 2 Follow-up||98.5|92.2|
95826514|NCT00496197|191623749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|70.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|76.6|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.6|63.5|
95826515|NCT00496197|191623750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Clinical response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
95826516|NCT00496197|191623751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.7|97.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Microbiological response of Success (eradication or presumed eradication) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||97.4|89.7|
95826517|NCT00496197|191623752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.7|89.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOT||89.3|75.7|
95826518|NCT00496197|191623753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|91.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at EOIV||91.4|79.8|
95826519|NCT00496197|191623754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|84.4|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 2 Follow-up||84.4|69.0|
95826520|NCT00496197|191623755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.9|76.3|||||95% Confidence interval based on normal approximation to the binomial. Percentages based on the number of participants in analysis.|Global response of Success (cure or improvement) at Week 6 Follow-up (EOS)||76.3|58.9|
95959669|NCT03845075|191891908|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.03||||0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|6.91||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF.||6.91|-0.85|0.1171
95959670|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in total cholesterol)||0.50|-0.59|0.8623
95959671|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.30|-0.25|0.8327
95959672|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.42|-0.53|0.8080
95959673|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.07|||ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 24; mITT observed. (Change in triglycerides)||1.07|-0.62|0.5791
95826521|NCT02351349|191623819|OTHER|paired t test pre compared to post readings||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0143
95826522|NCT02351349|191623820|OTHER|as above||||||0.1416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post comparison of time up and go in intervention group||||0.1416
95826523|NCT02351349|191623821|OTHER|||||||0.9013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||pre and post value comparison with paired t test was carried out||||0.9013
95826524|NCT01509677|191623824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7922||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided test at 5% significant level||||0.7922
95826525|NCT01509677|191623824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||||1.30|0.82|0.7917
95826526|NCT01509677|191623825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||||||"This is p-value testing significance of treatment effect"|Poisson regression model|||2-sided, 5% test||||0.7145
95826527|NCT01509677|191623826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.30|0.83|0.7136
95826528|NCT01509677|191623827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.4606||95.0|-19.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||42.1|-19.2|0.4606
95959674|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.77||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.77|-0.71|0.9337
95959675|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.23||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.23|-0.21|0.9305
95959676|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.59||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.59|-0.40|0.6910
95959677|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Baseline to Week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||1.01|-0.30|0.2688
95959678|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in cholesterol)||0.67|-0.54|0.8262
96001033|NCT02940886|191978966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|2.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.2|-20.3|0.1150
95826529|NCT01509677|191623828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.64|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.64|0.87|0.2744
96001034|NCT02940886|191978966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.0|-17.7|0.0812
95826530|NCT01509677|191623829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.04|0.70|0.1128
95826531|NCT01509677|191623830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.31|||Regression, Linear|Poisson regression model||2-sided 5% test||1.31|0.66|0.6740
95826532|NCT01509677|191623831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.01|0.69|0.0677
95826533|NCT01509677|191623832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.3566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||Poisson regression model|||2-sided 5% test||1.25|0.54|0.3566
95826534|NCT01509677|191623833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30185||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9429|6.2137|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||6.2137|-2.9429|0.4794
95826535|NCT01509677|191623834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32866||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|1.1264|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||1.1264|-0.1810|0.1541
95959679|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in HDL cholesterol)||0.17|-0.20|0.8293
95959680|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.49||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in LDL cholesterol)||0.49|-0.27|0.5486
95959681|NCT03845075|191891909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Change in triglycerides)||0.75|-0.26|0.3226
95959682|NCT03845075|191891910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|6.73||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||6.73|-5.55|0.8420
95959683|NCT03845075|191891910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.6693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|6.67||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||6.67|-10.15|0.6693
95959684|NCT03845075|191891910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83||||0.5444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|4.46||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||4.46|-8.12|0.5444
95826536|NCT01509677|191623835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03681||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.0106|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0106|-0.1358|0.0927
95826537|NCT01509677|191623836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01647||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0435|0.022|||ANCOVA|||2 sided 5% test||0.0220|-0.0435|0.5175
95826538|NCT01509677|191623837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3253||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.466|8.757|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||8.757|-4.466|0.5205
95826539|NCT01509677|191623838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0057||0.7052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.835|7.117|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||7.117|-4.835|0.7052
95826540|NCT01509677|191623839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7331||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.324|-0.409|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||-0.409|-3.324|0.0127
95862079|NCT02891070|191682717|NON_INFERIORITY|To demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of Tisseel to DuraSeal for the primary endpoint, the lower limit of the 95% CI (based on normal approximation) for the difference in average predicted proportions had to be greater than -10%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
95959685|NCT03845075|191891910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.76||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||4.76|-8.47|0.5595
95826541|NCT01509677|191623840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1871||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.321|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5 % test||0.321|-0.423|0.7862
95826542|NCT01509677|191623841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.15|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.15|-1.84|0.8769
95959686|NCT03845075|191891910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|3.41||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Physical component score)||3.41|-7.54|0.4331
95959687|NCT03845075|191891910|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.03||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|Week 24 to week 48; mITT LOCF. (Mental component score)||5.03|-7.90|0.6427
95959688|NCT03845075|191891912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.86||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|17.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||17.48|-5.76|0.3037
95959689|NCT03845075|191891912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|10.16||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.16|-7.85|0.7912
95959690|NCT03845075|191891912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.29||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|25.83||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||25.83|-5.25|0.1773
95959691|NCT03845075|191891912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|12.2||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||12.20|-9.55|0.7980
95959692|NCT03845075|191891912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.77||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|18.94||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure)||18.94|-3.40|0.1580
95959693|NCT03845075|191891912|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.64||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|10.64||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure)||10.64|-7.36|0.7021
95826543|NCT01509677|191623842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|711.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2768.79||0.7978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4778.3|6200.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||6200.5|-4778.3|0.7978
95826544|NCT01509677|191623843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.26||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|245.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||245.6|-68.6|0.2669
95826545|NCT01509677|191623844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.78||0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-160.3|108.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||108.5|-160.3|0.7033
95959694|NCT03845075|191891913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.8728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|21.18||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||21.18|-18.17|0.8728
95959695|NCT03845075|191891913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.46||||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|11.54||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||11.54|-6.61|0.5714
95959696|NCT03845075|191891913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.15||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.51|7.22||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in systolic blood pressure mean)||7.22|-27.51|0.2322
96001035|NCT02940886|191978967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|12.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||12.7|10.1|<0.0001
96001036|NCT02940886|191978967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.6|1.2|0.0001
95826546|NCT01509677|191623845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.039||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|63.55|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||63.55|-7.97|0.1264
95826547|NCT01509677|191623846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|296.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.07||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|542.7|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||542.7|50.9|0.0185
95826548|NCT01509677|191623847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.17|-0.17|0.9989
95826549|NCT01509677|191623848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.309||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|2.03|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||2.03|-3.15|0.6701
95826550|NCT01509677|191623849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||3.9|-0.4|0.1105
95826551|NCT01509677|191623850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.9261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|29.5|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||29.5|-32.4|0.9261
95826552|NCT01509677|191623851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|19.0|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||19.0|1.2|0.0257
95826553|NCT01509677|191623852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.11||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|168.6|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||168.6|-3.0|0.0728
95826554|NCT01509677|191623853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.122|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.122|0.004|0.0380
95826555|NCT01509677|191623854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0552||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.173|||ANCOVA|||2-sided 5% test||0.173|-0.045|0.2482
95826556|NCT01509677|191623855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Between treatment difference||2 sided 5 % test||1.00|-2.00|0.2629
95826557|NCT04730635|191623866|OTHER||Posterior Probability|46.3||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≥2 percentage points. A posterior probability value \>55% was required to satisfy the primary hypothesis.||||
95826558|NCT04730635|191623867|OTHER||Posterior Probability|80.67||||||||||||||There was a threshold of ≤ 0.1 for this standard deviation change. A posterior probability value \>70% was required to satisfy this secondary hypothesis.||||
95826559|NCT04730635|191623868|OTHER||Posterior Probability|98.8||||||||||||||||||
95826560|NCT04762043|191623871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.33|59.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Effect size used for mixed effects model is partial eta-squared (ηp2).||||59.76|53.33|<.001
95826561|NCT01468233|191623872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|42.2||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|20.7|<0.001
95826562|NCT01468233|191623872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|40.5||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|10.5|<0.001
95826563|NCT01468233|191623872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|53.3||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotic use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.3|22.8|<0.001
95826564|NCT01468233|191623873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|19.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.2||P-value adjusted for baseline antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||34.2|4.7|=0.01
96001037|NCT02940886|191978967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.1|0.2|0.0162
96001038|NCT02940886|191978967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.8|0.0|0.0569
96001039|NCT02940886|191978968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|49.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||49.3|38.1|<0.0001
95826565|NCT01468233|191623874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.6||P-value adjusted for baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use (Y/N).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||37.6|12.7|<0.001
95826566|NCT01468233|191623875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.1||P-value calculated from ANCOVA with stratum (baseline Hurley Stage and antibiotics use), baseline value, and treatment as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Secondary end points 1 (AN 0/1/2 counts), 2 (NRS30), and 3 (modified Sartorius score) were ranked analyses.||-10.1|-28.6|<0.001
95826567|NCT00522418|191623876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||F Test|||||||.01
95826568|NCT00522418|191623879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
95826569|NCT00522418|191623882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.17
95826570|NCT00522418|191623883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.28
95826571|NCT00522418|191623884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.03
95826572|NCT00522418|191623885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||F-Test|||||||0.26
95826573|NCT01632241|191623915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.93|0.1068
95826574|NCT01632241|191623924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.15|0.94|0.0937
95826575|NCT01632241|191623926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.17|0.51|0.2264
95826576|NCT01632241|191623928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.8||Nominal p-value due to step-down sequential testing procedure.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.80|0.61|0.4996
95826577|NCT00027378|191623959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.702||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measures||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.05
95826578|NCT01030874|191623988|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at baseline.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||1.99|0.67|0.6
95826579|NCT01030874|191623989|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for whether patient had orthostatic hypotension at discharge.|Arm 2 is in the numerator of OR calculation.|||3.24|0.74|0.3
95826580|NCT01357161|191624061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.89|0.45|0.080
95826581|NCT01357161|191624063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||0.79|0.39|0.030
95826582|NCT01357161|191624065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|11.4||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||11.4|-2.9|
95826583|NCT01357161|191624066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.6||||||P-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for between-treatment differences (MK-1775 vs. placebo) in the percentage of participants with events.||13.6|-16.2|
95855033|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.92|1.04|0.0260
96001040|NCT02940886|191978968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||9.8|0.3|0.0375
95826584|NCT01357161|191624067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Response Rat|5.2||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|21.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method with a two-sided p-Value for testing was used for comparison of the ORRs between the treatment groups in Part 2 portion of the study. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates was provided.||21.1|-10.9|0.5247
95826585|NCT01357161|191624068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||A stratified \[number of prior platinum based regimens (1 vs. 2 and 3), time since last platinum based therapy (\<12 months vs. ≥12 months)\] Cox proportional hazards model, with Efron method of tie handling, was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference between the treatment arms. The p-value from the score test was used in the significance test and the hazard ratio (MK-1775 versus Placebo) and its 95% confidence interval from the same Cox model was reported.||3.34|0.40|0.800
95826586|NCT01686750|191624082|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.81|||Prevalence ratio||Therefore, the exponentiated coefficients for intervention status represent the prevalence ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) and are interpreted as the relative percentage difference in the outcome associated with the intervention.|We compared the sampling-weighted prevalence of outcomes at Integrated Care Centers (ICCs) and usual care from the evaluation survey. We used linear regression models that had terms for intervention status (integrated care vs usual care), stratum (PWID and MSM), and the baseline proportion of the outcome being assessed. Site-level proportions from both evaluation and baseline respondent-driven sampling were log transformed before being entered into the regression model.||1.81|0.95|0.09
95826587|NCT01686750|191624083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||||1.50|0.80|
95826588|NCT01686750|191624084|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.81||||||||1.81|0.61|
95826589|NCT01686750|191624085|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.41||||||||2.41|0.77|
95826590|NCT01686750|191624087|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.28||||||||1.28|0.65|
95826591|NCT01686750|191624089|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.93||||||||4.93|0.42|
95826592|NCT01686750|191624090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.16||||||||7.16|0.49|
95826593|NCT01686750|191624091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56||||||||1.56|0.53|
95826594|NCT01686750|191624092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2||||||||4.2|-4.2|
95826595|NCT01686750|191624094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|0.47|
95826596|NCT01686750|191624096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-3.0|
95826597|NCT01686750|191624097|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||||||||1.36|0.64|
95826598|NCT02240368|191624109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
95826599|NCT02240368|191624110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||bootstrap|||||||<0.01
95826600|NCT02240368|191624111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95826601|NCT02240368|191624112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95826602|NCT02793817|191624138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|8.3||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|14.7||To account for multiplicity, a step-down testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared tests (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.05.||14.7|2.0|0.0105
95826603|NCT02793817|191624139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|28.4||To account for multiplicity, a step-down closed testing procedure was applied, whereby inference for a test in the pre-defined hierarchy was dependent upon statistical significance having been demonstrated for the previous test in the hierarchy.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|P-values were based on 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted), wherein a priori significance level was 0.05||28.4|11.6|<0.0001
95826604|NCT02793817|191624140|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|17.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|25.0||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||25.0|9.1|<0.0001
95826605|NCT02793817|191624141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|26.9||P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.|Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|||26.9|11.0|<0.0001
95826606|NCT02793817|191624142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||Chi-squared|Without adjustment for any covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL.|P-value was based on a 2-sided chi-squared test (unadjusted) wherein the a priori significance level was 0.0167 for each secondary endpoint. Overall alpha for all secondary endpoints was controlled at 0.05.||-0.05|-0.31|0.0078
95826607|NCT02793817|191624143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without any adjustment for covariates|Estimated Value is the between-group difference in change from BL|||-0.11|-0.38|0.0005
95826608|NCT02793817|191624144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.03||P-values have no inferential value for post hoc evaluations.|Chi-squared|Without adjustments for any covariates.|Estimated Value is the between-group difference for change from BL|||-0.03|-0.28|0.0169
95855034|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.37|0.75|0.9179
95855035|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.53|0.79|0.5820
95826609|NCT03995680|191624159|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Egg Reduction Rate (%)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, weight and baseline hookworm infection intensity (light or moderate/heavy)||The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ERRs and the difference between ERRs were estimated via bootstrap resampling. Superiority was claimed if the 95% confidence interval of the difference in ERRs did not include unity. Logistic regression models were used to assess efficacy in terms of CRs. In a subsequent analysis an adjusted logistic regression (adjustment for age, sex, weight and baseline infection intensity) was performed.||12.6|-7.8|
95959697|NCT03845075|191891913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.46||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|5.68||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 12; mITT LOCF. (Change in diastolic blood pressure mean)||5.68|-12.61|0.4321
95826610|NCT00871117|191624160|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-group differences in booster response to diphtheria was greater than or equal to (≥)-10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|2.58||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of diphtheria (D) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||2.58|-2.54|
95826611|NCT00871117|191624160|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to tetanus was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|4.26||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of tetanus (T) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.26|-1.99|
95826612|NCT00871117|191624161|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PT was ≥ -10%|Difference in booster response rates|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.51||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||3.51|-5.07|
95959698|NCT03845075|191891916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.5551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|12.12||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 24; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||12.12|-6.72|0.5551
95959699|NCT03845075|191891916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.13||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|10.63||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From baseline to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||10.63|-14.88|0.7256
95959700|NCT03845075|191891916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.29||||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|6.48||P-value from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA||(Tesofensine/Metoprolol -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol) - (Placebo -\> Tesofensine/Metoprolol). Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline as covariate|From week 24 to week 48; safety set LOCF. (Change in heart rate)||6.48|-13.05|0.4822
95959701|NCT01313624|191891919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.7||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||4.7|-3.1|0.68
95959702|NCT01313624|191891920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|1.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.6||P-value was based on T-test from mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM).|MMRM|||||5.6|-3.0|0.56
95959703|NCT00905359|191891923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test analysis performed using Multiple imputation and one-sided p-value testing non-inferiority of the percentage change from baseline at 10%. One-sided p-value is significant if \<0.025 or the upper limit of the CI is less than 10%.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.172
95959704|NCT01130168|191891946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-10.9|||ANOVA|||||-10.9|-15.3|<0.0005
95959705|NCT01130168|191891946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.6|||ANOVA|||||-0.6|-4.9|0.016
95959706|NCT01130168|191891947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.3|||ANOVA|||||4.3|-1.7|0.407
95959707|NCT01130168|191891947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.9|||ANOVA|||||-2.9|-8.9|<0.0005
95959708|NCT01130168|191891948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-10.1|||ANOVA|||||-10.1|-21.2|<0.0005
95959709|NCT01130168|191891948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-6.3|||ANOVA|||||-6.3|-17.4|0.001
95959710|NCT01130168|191891949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-9.5|0.186
95959711|NCT01130168|191891949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-10.5|||ANOVA|||||-10.5|-21.7|<0.0005
95959712|NCT01130168|191891950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-12.1|<0.0005
95959713|NCT01130168|191891950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-6.0|0.035
95959714|NCT01130168|191891951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.6|||ANOVA|||||2.6|-6.1|0.428
95959715|NCT01130168|191891951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.5|||ANOVA|||||-4.5|-13.1|<0.0005
95959716|NCT01130168|191891952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.0|||ANOVA|||||-10.0|-17.5|<0.0005
95959717|NCT01130168|191891952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.0|||ANOVA|||||-1.0|-8.5|0.015
95826613|NCT00871117|191624161|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to FHA was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.39||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.39|-3.59|
95826614|NCT00871117|191624161|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the between-group differences in booster response to PRN, was ≥ -10%.|Difference in booster response rates|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|4.08||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster response one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||4.08|-0.32|
95826615|NCT00871117|191624162|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios for poliovirus type 1 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.1|0.76|
95826616|NCT00871117|191624162|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 2 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||0.99|0.7|
95959718|NCT01130168|191891953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-9.9|0.112
95959719|NCT01130168|191891953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-9.8|||ANOVA|||||-9.8|-20.7|<0.0005
95959720|NCT01130168|191891954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.2|||ANOVA|||||-6.2|-11.8|<0.0005
95959721|NCT01130168|191891954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.8|0.039
95959722|NCT01130168|191891955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-6.6|0.267
95959723|NCT01130168|191891955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.3|||ANOVA|||||-4.3|-12.7|<0.0005
95959724|NCT01185171|191891956|NON_INFERIORITY|The power of the study was conducted as a two-stage, non-inferiority phase II trial with a total sample size of 59 patients to detect a 15% lower rate than 80% achieved with TFHX, with alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20. In the first stage, 25 patients were recruited, with a plan to terminate if 16 or less complete responses (CR) were observed. Otherwise, additional 34 patients would be recruited and the treatment would be deemed not inferior to historical if more than 45 CRs were observed.|proportion|0.88|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95||Ho: CR rate = 0.65 vs Ha: CR rate \> 0.65|Binomial test for a proportion|||||0.95|0.77|< 0.01
95959725|NCT01024036|191892008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0012
95959726|NCT01024036|191892008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the response rate|34.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Fisher Exact|Without adjusting for the stratification factor: corticosteroid use||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the durable tumor and symptomatic response rate between the 2 treatment arms||54.8|11.1|0.0004
95959727|NCT01024036|191892010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in overall response rates|33.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|11.1|0.0022
95959728|NCT01024036|191892012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.815|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI from a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.815|0.214|0.0084
95959729|NCT01024036|191892013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|61.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|85.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||85.1|28.3|0.0002
95959730|NCT01024036|191892014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of hemoglobin response rates|41.9||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|70.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in hemoglobin response rates is equal to hemoglobin response rate for siltuximab+best supportive care \[BSC\] arm minus hemoglobin response rate for Placebo+BSC arm.|||70.7|7.8|0.0195
95959731|NCT00691678|191892035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis measures whether there is a statistically significant change, at the 5% significance level, between the mean WOMAC score among study participants at baseline and at week 24.||||0.004
95959732|NCT00097669|191892036|SUPERIORITY|"We used Kaplan-Meier methods to construct cumulative time-to-event curves for the two groups, with a comparison by use of the log-rank test.~We used a Cox proportional hazard model analysis to control for any potential imbalance in baseline characteristics and follow-up between the two groups."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.82|0.05
95959733|NCT00097669|191892036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Analysis before adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.00|0.81|<0.05
96001041|NCT02940886|191978968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.3|-4.0|0.6027
96001042|NCT02940886|191978968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by-week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||3.4|-2.7|0.8207
96001043|NCT02940886|191978969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.01|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||2.01|0.04|0.0422
96001044|NCT02940886|191978969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.66|-1.44|0.4646
96001045|NCT02940886|191978969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.76|-1.39|0.5703
96001046|NCT03216265|191978983|OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.78|||ANCOVA|Analysis model (ANCOVA) included participant as random effect, treatment arm and side of body as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment adjusted (LS) mean change from baseline (Visit 2) minus the second named treatment adjusted mean change from baseline (Visit 2).|||-0.78|-2.10|<0.0001
95826617|NCT00871117|191624162|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratios of poliovirus type 3 antigens was ≥ 0.67.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with Varicella and MMR vaccines compared to DTaP-IPV vaccine co-administered with MMR only in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs), one month after vaccination with DTaP-IPV vaccine.||1.01|0.71|
95826618|NCT05894538|191624184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.92|
95826619|NCT05894538|191624185|SUPERIORITY|Due to the low event rate, a posterior probability was not estimated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|17.18|||||Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|||17.18|0.74|
96001047|NCT05099991|191979085|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated with a mean increase in procedure of 5 minutes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.2||||||||8.2|-7.8|
96001048|NCT05099991|191979086|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
96001049|NCT01650779|191979102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0002
96001050|NCT01650779|191979102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
96001051|NCT01650779|191979102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||<0.0001
96001052|NCT01650779|191979103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1178|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1178
96001053|NCT01650779|191979103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1176|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.1176
96001054|NCT01650779|191979103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||One sample t-test|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample t-test.||||0.0322
96001055|NCT01650779|191979104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5811|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 2: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.5811
96001056|NCT01650779|191979104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 4: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.7744
96001057|NCT01650779|191979104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877|||||||One sample test of median (sign test)|||Baseline versus Month 6: Analysis was performed using one sample test of median (sign test). The percent change and absolute change from baseline in urine GL-3 levels were not normally distributed and thus medians were evaluated.||||0.3877
96001058|NCT01103349|191979108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|3.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.494||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|6.809||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||6.809|0.931|0.0050
96001059|NCT01103349|191979108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|2.369|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.567||0.0657||95.0|-0.713|5.452||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (placebo)||5.452|-0.713|0.0657
95826620|NCT05894538|191624188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.45|0.60|
95826621|NCT05894538|191624192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.96|0.61|
95826622|NCT05894538|191624192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.85|0.49|
95826623|NCT05894538|191624192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||0.92|0.52|
95826624|NCT05894538|191624192|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.36|0.72|
95826625|NCT05894538|191624193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.56|1.03|
95826626|NCT05894538|191624193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.51|1.00|
95826627|NCT05894538|191624193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.35|0.87|
95826628|NCT05894538|191624193|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.86|
95826629|NCT05894538|191624194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.26|0.81|
95826630|NCT05894538|191624194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.66|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.66|1.00|
95826631|NCT05894538|191624194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||2.02|1.15|
95855036|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.47|0.67|0.9772
95826632|NCT05894538|191624194|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.47|0.86|
95826633|NCT05894538|191624195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.24|0.76|
95826634|NCT05894538|191624195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.75|
95826635|NCT05894538|191624195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.72|
95826636|NCT05894538|191624195|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.28|0.75|
95826637|NCT05894538|191624196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.33|0.84|
95826638|NCT05894538|191624196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.43|0.87|
95826639|NCT05894538|191624196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.55|0.91|
95826640|NCT05894538|191624196|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.26|0.75|
95826641|NCT05894538|191624197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.20|0.79|
95826642|NCT05894538|191624197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.02|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.02|0.63|
95959734|NCT00097669|191892036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Analysis after adjusting for any potential imbalance in the baseline characteristics and follow-up duration between the groups.||||1.03|0.81|<0.05
95826643|NCT05894538|191624197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.14|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.14|0.69|
95826644|NCT05894538|191624197|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.35|0.84|
95826645|NCT05894538|191624198|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.19|0.78|
95826646|NCT05894538|191624198|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.39|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.39|0.92|
95826647|NCT05894538|191624198|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.36|0.91|
95826648|NCT05894538|191624198|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.21|0.82|
95826649|NCT05894538|191624199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.32|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|||0.32|-0.39|
95826650|NCT00395135|191624201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|3.0|<0.0001
95826651|NCT00395135|191624203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||||-3.25|-4.09|<0.001
95826652|NCT00395135|191624204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-3.29|<0.001
95826653|NCT00395135|191624204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportion (%)|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.19|||ANCOVA|||||2.19|1.10|<0.001
96001060|NCT01103349|191979108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|1.501|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.602||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.653||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||H0: Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (BI671800 ED 400 mg bid) ≤ Mean FEV1 % predicted trough change from baseline (Montelukast 10 mg qd)||4.653|-1.652|0.1748
96001061|NCT01103349|191979109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|-0.048||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||-0.048|-0.512|0.0092
96001062|NCT01103349|191979109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.124||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.063||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.063|-0.423|0.0732
96001063|NCT01103349|191979109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean treatment differences|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.126||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.147||α=0.025 one-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline, treatment, day, treatment by day interaction and baseline by day interaction as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.||||0.147|-0.347|0.2139
96001064|NCT00958568|191979121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Power estimate assumes approximately 1230 participants enter SPII. With a 60% drop-out/disqualification rate in SPII, then 492 participants enter SPIII. If 26% of participants drop out during SPIII, then 364 participants enter SPIV. Assuming 20% drop-out rate, 25% relapse rate on OFC and 40% relapse rate for fluoxetine (hazard ratio = 0.56), the log-rank test is 80% powered to detect a difference at a 2-sided 0.05 level. A total of 95 relapse events during SPIV should satisfy these assumptions.||||<0.001
95826654|NCT04962230|191624205|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|specify in comments|56.82||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.04|68.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||68.62|47.04|0.05
95826655|NCT04962230|191624206|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.77|58.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.65|33.77|0.05
95826656|NCT04962230|191624207|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|25.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.76|34.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||34.91|18.76|0.05
96001065|NCT00958568|191979122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
96001066|NCT00958568|191979123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
96001067|NCT00958568|191979124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.713
96001068|NCT00958568|191979125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Relapse rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||<0.001
96001069|NCT00958568|191979126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
96001070|NCT00958568|191979127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.831
96001071|NCT00958568|191979128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
96001072|NCT00958568|191979132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Remission rates were analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for country.||||||0.047
96001073|NCT00958568|191979133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|-1.36||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.36|-4.46|<0.001
95826657|NCT04962230|191624208|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|16.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.32|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||20.60|13.32|0.05
95826658|NCT04962230|191624214|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|44.59||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.99|58.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||58.50|33.99|0.05
95826659|NCT04962230|191624219|OTHER|PF-07321332/ritonavir administered alone was the Reference treatment and PF-07321332/ritonavir coadministered with carbamazepine was the Test treatment.|Specified in comments|12.92||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.28|17.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Mixed Model was fitted to obtain:~1.Ratio of adjusted geometric means 2.90% CI for the ratios"|||17.99|9.28|0.05
95826660|NCT02275117|191624223|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|1.3|0.0330
95826661|NCT02275117|191624223|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-0.5|0.0715
95826662|NCT02275117|191624223|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-3.5|0.2013
95826663|NCT02275117|191624223|SUPERIORITY|75% Migraine Responder Rate - Week 1-12 (Modified Full Analysis Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-4.6|0.2938
95826664|NCT02266277|191624243|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.47||Adjusted for age, sex, race and utilization|Regression, Logistic|||||1.47|1.15|0.0001
95826665|NCT02266277|191624243|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.36|1.07|.0026
95826666|NCT02266277|191624243|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|1.02|.0206
95826667|NCT02266277|191624243|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.21|.96|.2330
95826668|NCT02266277|191624243|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.26|.996|.0579
95826669|NCT02266277|191624243|SUPERIORITY|"We calculated frequencies and performed intention-to-treat bivariate analyses. We then performed multivariate logistic regression analyses.~With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations based on estimates of baseline vaccination rates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.14|.86|.87
95826670|NCT02266277|191624244|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.81|.82
95959735|NCT01502371|191892056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.09||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo||7.09|0.64|0.019
95959736|NCT01502371|191892056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|9.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo||9.53|3.05|<0.001
95959737|NCT01502371|191892056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|8.61||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo||8.61|2.07|0.001
95959738|NCT01502371|191892057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|19.15||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|37.87||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||37.87|0.43|0.045
95826671|NCT02266277|191624244|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio, log|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.36
95826672|NCT02266277|191624244|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|.71|.33
95826673|NCT02266277|191624244|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|.69|.23
95826674|NCT02266277|191624244|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|.79|.96
95826675|NCT02266277|191624244|SUPERIORITY|Using as a denominator those patients identified as being overdue for pneumococcal vaccine at the time of randomization, we calculated frequencies and performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, examining the association between randomization group and completion of pneumococcal vaccine. We analyzed portal users and non-portal users separately.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|.82|.76
95826676|NCT02436668|191624246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.525|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.873||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.873|1.241|<0.0001
95826677|NCT02436668|191624247|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70-80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\].|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.109||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.363|||Log Rank|||The treatment effect was tested with an stratified log rank test. Hazard ratio is estimated using Cox regression model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors \[KPS (70 80 vs. 90-100), liver metastasis (present vs. absent), and age (≤65 vs. \>65)\] and with treatment as the only covariate.||1.363|0.903|0.3225
95826678|NCT02436668|191624249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.695||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|0.903|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo + Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.903|0.535|0.0058
95826679|NCT02436668|191624251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||This 0.85 (0.722 to 1.0) with CI is referring to risk ratio not proportional/percentage of patients.|For rate ratio, numerator is Ibr+Gem/Abr arm and denominator is Pbo+Gem/Abr arm. P-value for rate ratio is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the three randomization stratification factors. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for rate ratio is based on Mantel-Haenszel method.||1.0|0.722|0.0488
95826680|NCT02436668|191624252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.642||P-value is from log-rank test stratified by the three randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||\[1\] Hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the three randomization stratification factors for time until definitive deterioration (TUDD1), a hazard ratio \< 1 favors Ibr + Gem/Abr. TUDD1 is defined as the time interval between randomization and the first occurrence of a decrease in score by \>= 10 points without any further improvement in score by \>= 10 points or any further available QoL data due to dropout after deterioration.||1.642|0.975|0.0782
95855037|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.10|0.49|0.1300
95959739|NCT01502371|191892057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|46.08||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||46.08|8.63|0.004
95826681|NCT02436668|191624253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3343|||||||Chi-squared|||"For rate of VTEs, denominator is number of subjects in the Intent-to-Treat population and numerator is number of Intent-to-Treat subjects with at least one VTE observed any time on study. Confidence interval for rate of VTEs is based on Clopper-Pearson method.~\[1\] P value is based on Chi-square test."||||0.3343
95826682|NCT01444027|191624263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status||||||0.002
95826683|NCT01444027|191624263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.90
95826684|NCT01444027|191624263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.002
95826685|NCT01444027|191624264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
95826686|NCT01444027|191624264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.48
95826687|NCT01444027|191624264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||.01
95826688|NCT01444027|191624265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
95826689|NCT01444027|191624265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.83
95826690|NCT01444027|191624265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
95826691|NCT01444027|191624266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.003
95826692|NCT01444027|191624266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.16
95826693|NCT01444027|191624266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.17
95826694|NCT01444027|191624267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.001
95826695|NCT01444027|191624267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.78
95826696|NCT01444027|191624267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline value of the measure, hospice agency, and bereaved status.||||||0.004
95826697|NCT01514240|191624279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 90% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (remission rate) between the D9421-C 9mg group and the Mesalazine 3 g group was calculated at week 8 using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 90% CI was higher than -10% in FAS Population.|Difference of proportion|5.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.49|18.94|||Chi-squared|||The primary objective of this study was to determine non-inferiority in the differences in remission rates at Week 8 for D9421-C 9 mg as compared to Mesalazine 3 g.||18.94|-8.49|0.526
95826698|NCT01514240|191624280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|1.8||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.54|12.15|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 2 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||12.15|-8.54|0.768
95826699|NCT01514240|191624281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportion|8.9||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|20.58|||Chi-squared||Differences in remission rate at Week 4 between D9421-C 9 mg and Mesalazine 3 g along with their 2-sided 90% CIs calculated by the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction|||20.58|-2.87|0.208
95826700|NCT01514240|191624282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.89||0.058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.55|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-3.09|-42.55|0.058
95855038|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.08|0.40|0.0990
95826701|NCT01514240|191624283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.05||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.95|-9.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||-9.96|-49.95|0.014
95826702|NCT01514240|191624284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.74|-45.47|0.144
95959740|NCT01502371|191892057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.01||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|36.53||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in AM PEF: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||36.53|-0.51|0.057
95959741|NCT01502371|191892058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.27|-0.08|0.280
95959742|NCT01502371|191892058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 100 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.30|-0.06|0.178
95959743|NCT01502371|191892058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA|||Change from Baseline in PAQLQ(S) Total Score: MF MDI 200 mcg BID vs. Placebo. Only participants who received MF MDI or Placebo were included in the statistical analysis.||0.36|0.00|0.045
95959744|NCT01502371|191892059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.44||cLDA model method proposed by Liang \& Zeger includes terms for treatment, time in weeks, age strata (age 5-6, 7-11), treatment by time interaction \& region (North America, Latin America \& the European Union)|cLDA model|||Change from Baseline in percent predicted FEV1 at Week 12: MF MDI 50 mcg BID vs. MF DPI 100 mcg QD. Only participants who received MF MDI 50 mcg BID or MF DPI 100 mcg QD were included in the statistical analysis.||4.44|-1.65|0.368
95959745|NCT02188784|191892061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.38|76.43|||Regression, Linear|||||76.43|-34.38|0.4570
95959746|NCT02188784|191892062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|22.59|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||22.59|-24.12|0.9487
95959747|NCT02188784|191892062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.67||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.71|6.37|||Regression, Linear|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||6.37|-31.71|0.1921
95959748|NCT02188784|191892063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|182.43||||0.4296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.14|637.0|||Regression, Linear|||||637.0|-272.14|0.4296
95959749|NCT02188784|191892064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|7.52|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 8||7.52|-0.33|0.0722
95959750|NCT02188784|191892064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.24|||Regression, Linear|||Change from baseline to week 16||4.24|-2.83|0.6927
95959751|NCT02188784|191892065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.56||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|7.33|||Regression, Linear|||||7.33|-0.21|0.0643
95959752|NCT02188784|191892066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.58|||Regression, Linear|||||2.58|-1.04|0.4006
95959753|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER|||||||0.594||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 3 months||||0.594
96001074|NCT00958568|191979134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-2.24||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-2.24|-5.39|<0.001
95826703|NCT01514240|191624288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
95959754|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER|||||||0.501||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 6 months||||0.501
95959755|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER|||||||0.694||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 12 months||||0.694
95959756|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER|||||||0.611||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 24 months||||0.611
96001075|NCT00958568|191979135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-0.12|-0.55|0.002
96001076|NCT00958568|191979138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.53||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment and country.||||-0.53|-3.36|0.007
95826704|NCT01514240|191624289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|29.61|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||29.61|1.66|
95826705|NCT01514240|191624290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|30.29|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||30.29|0.85|
95826706|NCT01514240|191624291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|19.71|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||19.71|-5.67|
95826707|NCT01514240|191624292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|27.4|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||27.40|0.50|
95826708|NCT01514240|191624293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.44|26.68|||||90% CI calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity corrections.|||26.68|-2.44|
95826709|NCT01514240|191624294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|16.14|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||16.14|4.86|
95826710|NCT01514240|191624295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.07|19.11|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.11|6.07|
95826711|NCT01514240|191624296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|19.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||19.72|5.40|
95826712|NCT01514240|191624297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.9|21.23|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||21.23|6.90|
95826713|NCT01514240|191624298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|5.29|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.29|1.49|
95826714|NCT01514240|191624299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.97|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.97|1.64|
95826715|NCT01514240|191624300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.58|6.64|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.64|1.58|
95826716|NCT01514240|191624301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|5.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||5.76|0.90|
95826717|NCT01514240|191624302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|3.17|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.17|0.89|
95826718|NCT01514240|191624303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|3.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.19|0.73|
95826719|NCT01514240|191624304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.76|0.96|
95826720|NCT01514240|191624305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|4.09|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||4.09|1.15|
95959757|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 3||||< 0.001
95826721|NCT01514240|191624306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|6.19|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||6.19|1.44|
95826722|NCT01514240|191624307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.14|7.65|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.65|2.14|
95959758|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 6||||< 0.001
95826723|NCT01514240|191624308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|7.25|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||7.25|1.40|
95959759|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 12 months||||0.003
95959760|NCT03467919|191892095|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 24 months||||0.005
95959761|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.847||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 3 months||||0.847
95959762|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.839||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 6 months||||0.839
95959763|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.791||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 12 months||||0.791
95826724|NCT01514240|191624309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.56|9.72|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||9.72|3.56|
95826725|NCT01514240|191624310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|2.43|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.43|0.01|
95826726|NCT01514240|191624311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|3.12|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.12|0.42|
95826727|NCT01514240|191624312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|3.04|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||3.04|0.19|
95826728|NCT01514240|191624313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference between group|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|2.76|||||The analysis using a MMRM analysis including a covariate of the corresponding score at baseline,fixed effects of time (as a categorical factor) and treatment and interaction between time and treatment group.|||2.76|-0.15|
95826729|NCT01103063|191624327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0647||0.12237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.25|0.97|0.12237
95959764|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.241||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 24 months||||0.241
95826730|NCT01103063|191624328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1243||0.84117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint)|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.80|0.84117
95826731|NCT01103063|191624329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1745||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.23|0.62|0.4428
95855039|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.50|0.76|0.7133
95959765|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.149||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.149
95855040|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||2.11|0.90|0.1384
95855041|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.26|0.78|0.2895
95959766|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 6 months||||0.006
95855042|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.14|0.77|0.2221
95855043|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||26.10|2.08|0.0005
95959767|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 12 months||||0.008
95826732|NCT01103063|191624330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1882||0.6086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.31|0.63|0.6086
95826733|NCT01103063|191624331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2866||0.7035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.57|0.51|0.7035
95826734|NCT01103063|191624332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.11|0.95|0.4605
95826735|NCT01103063|191624333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1817||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.33||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.33|0.65|0.7105
95826736|NCT01103063|191624334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1842||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.59|0.3468
95826737|NCT01103063|191624335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of STIs).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.02|-0.08|0.0011
95826738|NCT01103063|191624336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0604||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.21|0.96|0.2265
95826739|NCT01103063|191624337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03||Analysis based on an ANCOVA model with model terms for baseline value, treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANCOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0131
95826740|NCT01103063|191624338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2694||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.53||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.53|0.53|0.6978
95826741|NCT01103063|191624339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2908||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.64|0.6542
95855044|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.2171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||34.56|0.40|0.2171
96001077|NCT00958568|191979139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001078|NCT00958568|191979140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
96001079|NCT00958568|191979141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001080|NCT00958568|191979142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|7.89||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||7.89|-9.71|0.839
95826742|NCT01103063|191624340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.9145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|40.8||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable.|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||40.8|-36.5|0.9145
95826743|NCT01103063|191624341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis based on an ANOVA model with model terms for treatment group and randomization stratification variable. A negative mean difference between treatment groups favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine (reduction in number of symptomatic malaria).|ANOVA|||The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the mean difference is 0 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 0.||-0.04|-0.09|<0.0001
95826744|NCT01103063|191624342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.62||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.62|0.38|<0.0001
95826745|NCT01103063|191624343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2295||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.97|0.39|0.0360
95826746|NCT01103063|191624344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.163||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.12||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.12|0.59|0.1975
95826747|NCT01103063|191624345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5675||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.01||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its SE, with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||2.01|0.22|0.4655
95826748|NCT01103063|191624346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0918||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.90|0.62|0.0016
95826749|NCT01103063|191624347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5338||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.66||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||6.66|0.82|0.1113
95826750|NCT01103063|191624348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6386||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.86|0.07|0.0284
95826751|NCT01103063|191624349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3291||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.88||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.88|0.24|0.0188
95826752|NCT01103063|191624350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1336||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.00|0.59|0.0527
95826753|NCT01103063|191624351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1536||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.98|0.54|0.0384
95855045|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.49|79.82||||||Role functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||79.82|-46.49|
95826754|NCT01103063|191624352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8648||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|11.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||11.38|0.38|0.3942
95826755|NCT01103063|191624353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4439||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.93||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||0.93|0.16|0.0332
95826756|NCT01103063|191624354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4195||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the common relative risk is presented, adjusting for randomization strata. A relative risk less than 1 favors Azithromycin + Chloroquine treatment group (reduction in risk for the endpoint).|Mantel Haenszel||The estimated risk ratio is presented along with its standard error (SE), with the SE on the log(e) scale.|The 2-sided P-value tests the null hypothesis that the relative risk equals 1 (treatment group equality) versus not equal 1.||1.38|0.27|0.2321
95826757|NCT01103063|191624355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.76||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
95826758|NCT01103063|191624355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
95826759|NCT01103063|191624356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 6 presented above.||||1.0000
95826760|NCT01103063|191624356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Visit 7 presented above.||||1.0000
95826761|NCT01679600|191624389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||F1-LD-F1 model by Brunner and Langer|||||||0.53
95826762|NCT00108303|191624390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log (odd ratio)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95826763|NCT00108303|191624390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This parameter was estimated by simulating 1000 samples with random genotypes and finding no value equal to or greater than 5.2.|Simulation|||||||<0.001
95959768|NCT03467919|191892096|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 24 months||||0.002
95826764|NCT00108303|191624391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Firsher's transform r to Z|||The coefficient of segregation versus no segregation of the P50 sensory gating percent in families with schizophrenia.||||0.001
95826765|NCT01685801|191624393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior Mean|2.251|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|4.144|||||The posterior distribution of overall treatment difference was obtained using the Bayesian hierarchical model and 95% credible interval of the treatment effect (posterior mean) was calculated.|"This statistical analysis is for Overall category."||4.144|0.383|
95826766|NCT00385944|191624403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-8.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.81|-17.02|<0.001
95826767|NCT00385944|191624404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.65|-10.96|<0.001
95826768|NCT00385944|191624405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.90|-17.06|<0.001
95959769|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.633||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 3 months||||0.633
95826769|NCT00385944|191624406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-6.84|0.001
95826770|NCT00385944|191624407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|23.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.26|7.05|<0.001
95826771|NCT00385944|191624408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.81|5.56|0.001
95826772|NCT00385944|191624409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|18.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.34|2.17|0.015
95826773|NCT00385944|191624410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|8.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.84|-1.13|0.123
95826774|NCT00385944|191624411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.05|-10.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.62|-23.05|<0.001
95826775|NCT00385944|191624412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.87|-38.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.01|-70.87|<0.001
95826776|NCT00385944|191624414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||||||<.001
95826777|NCT00385944|191624415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.011||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.011
95826778|NCT00385944|191624415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.847||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|||Paired t-test for each arm separately||||0.847
95826779|NCT00385944|191624416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.24||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-2.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.49|-15.99|0.008
95826780|NCT00385944|191624417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.22|25.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||||25.83|9.22|<0.001
95826781|NCT04077996|191624450|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non inferiority analysis was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Summary statistics were computed, and a significance level (α) of 5% has been established.||1.3|0.91|<0.05
95826782|NCT04077996|191624450|NON_INFERIORITY|margin 30%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95959770|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.158||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 6 months||||0.158
95959771|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.358||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 12 months||||0.358
95826783|NCT04077996|191624451|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin was established at 30%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|1.0|0.14|6.6|||Fisher Exact|||||6.6|0.14|<0.05
95826784|NCT04049266|191624511|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-8.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, categories for baseline BCVA, BCVA-low luminance VA baseline, geographical location.||||-4|-8|> 0.9999
95826785|NCT03541187|191624552|SUPERIORITY|The comparison between arms will be conducted using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, in which the change from the baseline to the 12-month TNSS mean serves as the outcome. The ANCOVA model will incorporate factors for treatment while adjusting for both the baseline TNSS mean and site.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.70|-1.15|0.63
95826786|NCT03541187|191624554|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.99|0.69
95826787|NCT03541187|191624555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.54|||Regression, Cox||At the reactive dose of 15.4 mcg/mL after 12 months, there were 11 participants who were right-censored in the Cockroach SCIT arm and 8 participants who were right-censored in the Placebo arm.|||1.54|0.42|.51
95826788|NCT03541187|191624556|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49|||ANCOVA|||||0.49|-0.54|0.91
95826789|NCT03541187|191624557|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|5.87|||ANCOVA|||||5.87|4.77|<0.001
95826790|NCT00068250|191624633|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose escalation followed the standard 3+3 design, although up to six patients could be accrued per dose level before suspending accrual for toxicity evaluation. If none of the first three patients (0/3), or one of the first three and none of the second three (1/3 and 0/3), experience a DLT, then the current dose level would be considered acceptable, and the next dose opened. Otherwise, the current dose level would be considered too toxic. The highest dose achieved with an acceptable level of toxicity was to considered the Maximum Tolerable Dose (MTD). If at any time a grade 5 toxicity was observed, accrual will be suspended, and the Study Chair would review the event. Furthermore, if the cumulative incidence (obtained by time to event analysis), at any time, of combined acute/late DLTs estimated the toxicity rate to be greater than 30% at any dose level, then the Executive Committee will be notified, and the committee would determine whether to stop accrual.|||
95826791|NCT00068250|191624634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||One-sample z-test|||Null hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \<= 64%; Alternative hypothesis: Two-year survival rate \> 64%. The fixed survival rate for comparison comes from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9310. (RTOG 9310 does not fall within ClinicalTrials.gov registration/reporting requirements.)||||0.006
95826792|NCT00068250|191624635|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample test of proportions||RTOG 93-10 reported a pre-irradiation chemotherapy complete response rate of 59%. A chi-square test with a 0.20 one-sided significance level provides 81% power to detect the difference between a null hypothesis complete response rate of 59% and the alternative rate of 71% (a 20% increase) for the planned sample size of 52 patients.||||0.82
95826793|NCT00433160|191624658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement Point. No adjustments for multiplicity was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in bone mineral density at lumbar spine (L2-L4) after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826794|NCT00433160|191624662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826795|NCT00433160|191624662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826796|NCT00433160|191624662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826797|NCT00433160|191624662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826798|NCT00433160|191624662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in PINP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826799|NCT00433160|191624663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826800|NCT00433160|191624663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826801|NCT00433160|191624663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826802|NCT00433160|191624663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wicoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.060
95826803|NCT00433160|191624663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in BAP from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||0.130
95826804|NCT00433160|191624664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.976||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 4. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 4-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||0.976
95826805|NCT00433160|191624664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 12. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 12-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826806|NCT00433160|191624664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 24. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 24-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826807|NCT00433160|191624664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Week 52. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX after 52-week treatment between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826808|NCT00433160|191624664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Percent Change to Last Measurement. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the percent change in CTX from baseline to the last measurement point between the two treatment groups.||||<0.001
95826809|NCT03222973|191624678|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.15||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||P-values are based on the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) adjusted for background DMT group, baseline magnetization transfer ratio (MTR)/diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) category and baseline component assessments.|MMRM|||Over 72 weeks: Overall Response Score||0.35|-0.05|0.1479
95826810|NCT03222973|191624680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.79||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.65|0.7682
95826811|NCT03222973|191624681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.22||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.22|0.41|0.2131
95826812|NCT03222973|191624682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.41||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.47|0.4654
95959772|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.996||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 24 months||||0.996
95959773|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 3 months||||0.004
95959774|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 6 months||||0.001
95826813|NCT03222973|191624683|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.11||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.11|1.02|0.0417
95826814|NCT03222973|191624684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.33||Odds ratio (active vs. placebo), 95% CI and p-value are based on logistic regression adjusted for background DMT group, baseline MTR/DTI category and baseline component assessments.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.33|0.78|0.2908
95826815|NCT02080481|191624696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric means|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.76|||Regression, Linear|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||0.76|0.61|< 0.001
95826816|NCT02080481|191624697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.25|9.6|||Regression, Logistic|intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and was adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Odds ratio for Infiniti Plus versus conventional needle patients|||9.6|0.25|0.56
95826817|NCT02080481|191624698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|1.78||Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between groups and adjusted for in the logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.01|0.06
95826818|NCT02080481|191624699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-7.7|14.6|||Regression, Linear|Intraoperative management strategy was imbalanced between randomized groups and adjusted for in the linear regression model.||||14.6|-7.7|0.74
95959775|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 12 months||||0.002
95959776|NCT03467919|191892097|OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at 24 months||||0.019
95959777|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.593||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 3 months||||0.593
95959778|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 6 months||||0.820
95959779|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.867||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 12 months||||0.867
95826819|NCT03998670|191624701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The primary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean distance control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline distance control. The planned convenience sample size of 64 was expected to provide outcome data for at least 60 participants (30 per group).||1.1|-0.5|
95826820|NCT03998670|191624702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|32.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||32|-17|
95826821|NCT03998670|191624703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|19.0|||||Difference between Prism minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group better than Non-Prism group).|||19|-27|
95826822|NCT03998670|191624705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Difference in mean control and 95% confidence interval (CI) are from ANCOVA model adjusting for corresponding baseline control score. Prism group minus Non-Prism group (positive difference indicates Prism group worse than Non-Prism group).|The secondary analysis was the treatment group difference (and 95% CI) in mean near control at the 8-week outcome visit using an ANCOVA adjusted for baseline near control.||0.7|-0.7|
95826823|NCT05858450|191624744|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.018|1.205||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.205|1.018|
95826824|NCT05858450|191624744|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.634|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.664||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.664|0.606|
95826825|NCT05858450|191624745|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.107||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.107|1.016|
95826826|NCT05858450|191624745|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|0.919||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.919|0.875|
95826827|NCT05858450|191624746|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|2.1||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.1|1.133|
95826828|NCT05858450|191624746|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.206||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.206|1.014|
95826829|NCT05858450|191624747|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.217||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.217|0.903|
95826830|NCT05858450|191624747|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|0.973||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.973|0.846|
95826831|NCT05858450|191624748|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.137|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.211||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.211|1.068|
95826832|NCT05858450|191624748|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.007|1.11||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.11|1.007|
95826833|NCT05858450|191624749|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|0.807||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.807|0.718|
95826834|NCT05858450|191624749|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|0.907||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.907|0.811|
95826835|NCT05858450|191624750|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.731||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.731|0.88|
95826836|NCT05858450|191624750|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.238||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.238|0.865|
95826837|NCT05858450|191624751|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|0.687|
95826838|NCT05858450|191624751|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.945||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||0.945|0.722|
95826839|NCT05858450|191624752|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.264||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||2.264|1.088|
95826840|NCT05858450|191624752|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.233||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.233|1.015|
95826841|NCT05858450|191624753|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|1.082|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.286||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.286|0.911|
95959780|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.439||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 24 months||||0.439
95826842|NCT05858450|191624753|OTHER||Weighted Hazard Ratio|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.01||||||To account for imbalance in participant characteristics between the vaccine exposure groups, an IPTW was applied. Analysis performed using IPTW method.||1.01|0.859|
95826843|NCT05693922|191624760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
95826844|NCT05693922|191624761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
95826845|NCT05693922|191624762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.865|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.865
95826846|NCT03710876|191624809|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||1-sided|Log Rank|||||1.59|0.43|0.2840
95826847|NCT03710876|191624811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.3||2-sided|Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving objective response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving objective response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||24.3|-17.3|1.0000
95826848|NCT03710876|191624812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|29.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||29.2|-25.2|1.0000
95826849|NCT03710876|191624813|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|20.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference is proportion achieving response in r+C+G group minus the proportion achieving response in C+ G group. The confidence interval was calculated by the exact conditional method of Chan and Zhang.|||20.3|-34.9|0.7665
95826850|NCT03710876|191624814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|23.0||2-sided.|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||23.0|-31.7|0.7537
95826851|NCT03710876|191624815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|45.6||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||45.6|-8.8|0.1855
95959781|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.004
95862080|NCT02891070|191682719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in Average Predicted Proportion (Tisseel - Duraseal)|||2.54|-21.11|
95959782|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.003
95959783|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 12||||<0.001
95826852|NCT03710876|191624816|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-13.8|0.3570
95826853|NCT03710876|191624817|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.5||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|38.3||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||38.3|-11.3|0.2856
95826854|NCT03710876|191624818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
95862081|NCT02891070|191682720|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
95826855|NCT03710876|191624819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|30.0||2-sided|Chi-squared|Variance calculated by Greenwood's method.|Risk difference is estimated probability of survival in r+C+G minus the estimated probability of survival in C+G group.|Percentage proportion calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.||30.0|-17.8|0.6173
95826856|NCT01460719|191624821|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval of the GMFR is \>1.0.|||||<|0.001|||||||Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustments made for pre-vaccination values||||||<0.001
95826857|NCT01151761|191624828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||months|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|10.0|||||There were only two patients in the study. Both died without having any local failure. One patient died at 10 months, the other at 7 months. The range for the 95%CI is both the full range and the 95%CI.|The median Progression Free Survival (PFS) time as calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. For PFS both death and progression are counted as events.||10|7|
95826858|NCT01151761|191624833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||None of the two patients who participated had a local recurrence before they died.|||||
95862082|NCT02891070|191682721|OTHER|||||||0.1015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1015
95862083|NCT02891070|191682722|OTHER|||||||0.9943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9943
95862084|NCT02891070|191682723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.39|-13.60|
95862085|NCT03255629|191682730|OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||McNemar|||||||0.103
95959784|NCT03467919|191892098|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 24||||0.008
95959785|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 3 months||||0.480
95826859|NCT03022097|191624844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.124||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.124|0.060|<0.001
95826860|NCT03022097|191624845|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.117||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.117|0.053|<0.001
95826861|NCT03022097|191624846|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.166||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.166|0.103|<0.001
95826862|NCT03022097|191624847|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|0.25||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Screening pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1, age, baseline FEV1 as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||0.250|0.184|<0.001
95826863|NCT03022097|191624848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.3|0.2|0.005
95826864|NCT03022097|191624848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|BDI, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||1.0|-0.1|0.132
95826865|NCT03022097|191624849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-1.4|-6.7|0.003
95826866|NCT03022097|191624849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.3||Pre-specified hierarchical sequence of testing used to adjust for multiplicity. P-value is nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline SGRQ, age as covariates; treatment, country, smoking, visit and group-by-visit as factors.||||-0.3|-5.5|0.031
95826867|NCT01574157|191624860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|40.1||||||The primary analysis compared the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||40.1|-9.6|
95826868|NCT01574157|191624861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|30.8||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||30.8|-38.2|
95826869|NCT01574157|191624862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|4.2||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||4.2|-56.3|
95826870|NCT01574157|191624863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|36.5||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||36.5|-15.1|
95826871|NCT01574157|191624864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|35.9||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||35.9|-24.6|
95826872|NCT01574157|191624865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|6.79||||||The main analytic strategy for this secondary outcome was a comparison of the mean change from baseline in the sodium bicarbonate group to the mean change from baseline in the placebo group.||6.79|-0.05|
95959786|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.686||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 6 months||||0.686
95826873|NCT00457821|191624878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
95959787|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.229||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 12 months||||0.229
95959788|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.564||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|two-sample t-test|||Between-group analysis of change at 24 months||||0.564
95826874|NCT00457821|191624879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
95826875|NCT00457821|191624881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Within-dose group and between-dose group analyses were performed, using a linear mixed effect model with baseline, dose, and period as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||||<0.05
95826876|NCT03315104|191624887|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV High Dose (450 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.174
95826877|NCT03315104|191624887|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.572
95862086|NCT03255629|191682731|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||||||0.180
95862087|NCT03255629|191682733|OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
96001081|NCT00958568|191979143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.352
95826878|NCT03315104|191624887|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test||Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift||1.000|0.000|0.534
95826879|NCT03315104|191624887|SUPERIORITY|A median estimated value of 0.000 indicates no difference between groups.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact test|FLU-IGIV pooled (450 mL + 250 mL) - Placebo|Pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum test for a location shift where the two active dose groups were pooled and compared to placebo.||1.000|0.000|0.534
95826880|NCT00445848|191624888|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The overall survival rate at year 1 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.85|0.67|
95826881|NCT00445848|191624888|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.67||||||The overall survival rate at year 2 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.67|0.46|
95826882|NCT00445848|191624888|OTHER||proportion of participants|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.53||||||The overall survival rate at year 3 was estimated using Kaplan-Meier.||0.53|0.32|
95826883|NCT02139878|191624901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.088|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.088
95826884|NCT02139878|191624902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.980
95826885|NCT00835640|191624919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|81.33||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
95826886|NCT00835640|191624920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.87||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
95826887|NCT00835640|191624921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|88.45||||||90.0|||||||To establish bioequivalence, the ratio of the mean must fall within 80-125.|||||
95826888|NCT00812006|191624922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
95826889|NCT00812006|191624923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
95826890|NCT00812006|191624924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
95826891|NCT00812006|191624925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's falsediscovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient.||||||<0.001
95826892|NCT00812006|191624926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Nominal p-value was adjusted under Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate procedure for the multiple secondary endpoints at α=0.1 significance level.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|A compound-symmetry covariance matrix was used to model the correlation among repeated measurements within a patient, due to a convergence issue.||||||<0.001
95826893|NCT00246025|191624927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155||95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
95855046|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 3 Day 1||1.48|0.84|0.4647
96001082|NCT00958568|191979143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001083|NCT00958568|191979143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001084|NCT00958568|191979144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|6.54||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||6.54|-9.69|0.703
95826894|NCT00246025|191624927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006||95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
95826895|NCT00246025|191624927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted because of hierarchical testing from highest to lowest dose.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.|The risk differences are calculated as risk in the dabigatran groups minus risk in the placebo group.|Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested by means of hierarchical tests. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-19.6|-45.4|<0.0001
95826896|NCT00246025|191624928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
95826897|NCT00246025|191624928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
95826898|NCT00246025|191624928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
95826899|NCT00246025|191624929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1124||95.0|-9.1|1.0||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.0|-9.1|0.1124
95826900|NCT00246025|191624929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0||||0.1183||95.0|-9.1|1.1||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||1.1|-9.1|0.1183
95826901|NCT00246025|191624929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.0138||95.0|-10.3|-1.3||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-1.3|-10.3|0.0138
95826902|NCT00246025|191624930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6107||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6107
95826903|NCT00246025|191624930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||1.0000
95862088|NCT03255629|191682734|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||McNemar|||||||0.008
95862089|NCT03255629|191682735|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||McNemar|||||||0.083
95862090|NCT03255629|191682736|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||||||0.025
95862091|NCT03255629|191682738|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.049
95862092|NCT03255629|191682739|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models to account for correlation within subjects over time||||||0.056
95862093|NCT03255629|191682740|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95862094|NCT03255629|191682741|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
95826904|NCT00246025|191624930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6162||95.0||||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|Fisher Exact|||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested based on Fisher's exact test.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||||0.6162
95826905|NCT00246025|191624931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.8||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-3.4||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-3.4|-30.2|0.0155
95826906|NCT00246025|191624931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-10.5||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-10.5|-37.0|0.0006
95826907|NCT00246025|191624931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-19.6||Multiplicity was not adjusted.|normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||"Superiority of dabigatran etexilate to placebo was tested. Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.~The dabigatran groups were compared to the placebo group.. The null hypotheses are Ho: placebo = 220mg, Ho: placebo = 150mg and Ho: placebo = 110mg. ,All comparisons were two-sided with a significance level of 5%. Confidence intervals were two-sided with a level of 95%."||-19.6|-45.4|<.0001
95826908|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||1.0000
95826909|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.4960
95959789|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.122||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 3||||0.122
95959790|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.027||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 6||||0.027
95959791|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 12||||0.018
95959792|NCT03467919|191892099|OTHER|||||||0.232||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|paired t-test|||Analysis of change at month 24||||0.232
95959793|NCT04058990|191892112|NON_INFERIORITY|13.2% non-inferiority margin||||||0.0012|||||||Farrington-Manning|||\[Not Specified\]||||0.0012
95959794|NCT01165177|191892128|OTHER|Criteria for the vaccine efficacy (VE) objective of herpes zoster subunit (HZ/su) vaccine against herpes zoster (HZ) disease, in the 50-59 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.6|99.3||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||99.3|89.6|<0.0001
95826910|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6223||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Placebo for the category major bleeding events||||0.6223
95826911|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.5||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1513
95826912|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|-2.4||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||1.0|-5.9|0.1696
95826913|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.7||||0.7802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.2|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||5.2|-3.9|0.7802
95826914|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.7||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.7|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||8.7|-5.3|0.6313
95826915|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.3||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.4|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||9.4|-4.9|0.5377
95862095|NCT03255629|191682742|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.195
95959795|NCT01165177|191892128|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 60-69 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.1|99.7||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 60-69 YOA group and placebo over 60-69 YOA group||99.7|90.1|<0.0001
95826916|NCT00246025|191624934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|2.8||||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.0|||normal approximation method|Statistical inference was made on the basis of the normal approximation of two independent binomial distributions.||Absolute difference versus Placebo for the category any bleeding events||10.0|-4.4|0.4493
95826917|NCT03955250|191624938|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95959796|NCT01165177|191892128|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the 70-79 YOA strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.9|100.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|87.9|0.0001
95826918|NCT03955250|191624939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
95826919|NCT03955250|191624939|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
95826920|NCT03955250|191624940|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||>0.05
95826921|NCT03955250|191624940|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
95959797|NCT01165177|191892128|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against herpes zoster disease, in the overall age strata : The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of VE had to be above 10%.|Vaccine efficacy|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|99.0||Two sided exact P-value conditional to number of cases.|Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||99|93.7|<0.0001
95959798|NCT01165177|191892129|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 50-59 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 50-59 YOA group and placebo 50-59 YOA group||100|40.9|0.0081
95959799|NCT01165177|191892129|OTHER|Criteria for VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 60-69 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-442.8|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A 60-69 YOA group and placebo 60-69 YOA group||100|-442.8|0.5097
95826922|NCT03955250|191624941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|time||||||<0.05
95826923|NCT03955250|191624941|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|condition||||||>0.05
95826924|NCT03385265|191624942|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826925|NCT03385265|191624943|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|CESD-R = within subject variable; group = between subject variable||||||
95826926|NCT03385265|191624944|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826927|NCT03385265|191624945|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826928|NCT03385265|191624946|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826929|NCT03385265|191624947|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95826930|NCT03385265|191624948|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826931|NCT03385265|191624949|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826932|NCT03385265|191624950|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||
95826933|NCT02437305|191624958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value compares the increase in skin self-exams from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||0.048
95826934|NCT02437305|191624959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||P-value compares the increase in knowledge from pre-intervention to 2-months follow-up between the 2 groups.|McNemar|||||||>0.50
95826935|NCT03220581|191624970|SUPERIORITY||F|9.026||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline number of days of game play in the past week was included as a covariate.||||||.004
95826936|NCT03220581|191624971|SUPERIORITY||F|7.922||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Covariate = number of days of gaming in the past week at baseline, reported by the parent.||||||.007
95826937|NCT03220581|191624972|SUPERIORITY||F|3.73||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder at baseline - assessed through clinical interview with child||||||.059
95826938|NCT03220581|191624973|SUPERIORITY||F|2.91||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline number of symptoms of Internet gaming disorder, assessed through clinical interview with the parent||||||.095
95826939|NCT01185964|191624975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.672||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.021|||Log Rank|||||1.021|0.442|0.0615
95826940|NCT01185964|191624978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.463||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.71|||Log Rank|||||0.710|0.301|0.0003
95826941|NCT01920893|191624986|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-1.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-0.67|-2.43|0.0009
95826942|NCT04346108|191625029|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.15||||||||3.15|0.73|
95826943|NCT04346108|191625029|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
95826944|NCT04346108|191625029|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|1.34|
95826945|NCT04346108|191625030|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.3||||||||5.30|1.02|
95826946|NCT04346108|191625030|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|23.82||||||||23.82|2.82|
95826947|NCT04346108|191625030|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|5.18||||||||5.18|1.37|
95959800|NCT01165177|191892129|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the 70-79 YOA strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.4|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A over 70 YOA group and placebo over 70 YOA group||100|41.4|0.0078
95826948|NCT04346108|191625031|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|4.01||||||95.0|1.46|8.54||||||||8.54|1.46|
95826949|NCT04346108|191625031|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|3.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.74||||||||10.74|0.37|
95826950|NCT04346108|191625031|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|5.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|11.93||||||||11.93|2.32|
95826951|NCT04346108|191625032|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.0|0.0|
95826952|NCT04346108|191625032|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||||||||0.35|0.03|
95826953|NCT04346108|191625032|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
95826954|NCT04346108|191625033|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
95826955|NCT04346108|191625033|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.76||||||||2.76|0.25|
95959801|NCT01165177|191892129|OTHER|Criteria for the VE objective of HZ/su vaccine against PHN in the overall ages strata: The lower limit of the 95% CI of VE had to be above 0%|Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|100.0|||Poisson exact test|||Comparison of vaccine efficacy in prevention of PHN between GSK1437173A overall ages group and placebo overall ages group||100|77.1|<0.0001
95826956|NCT04346108|191625034|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68||||||||2.68|0.38|
95826957|NCT04346108|191625034|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.82||||||||4.82|0.91|
95826958|NCT04346108|191625034|SUPERIORITY||Poisson Estimate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.15||||||||2.15|0.07|
95959802|NCT05499130|191892150|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|15.7||||||||||||||||||
95959803|NCT05499130|191892150|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.949|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
95959804|NCT05499130|191892150|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|27.4||||||||||||||||||
95959805|NCT05499130|191892150|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.997|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
95959806|NCT05499130|191892151|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|13.0||||||||||||||||||
95826959|NCT01327274|191625042|OTHER|Pre-treatment and post-treatment Pectus Severity Indices were compared using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||0.486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.486
95826960|NCT00386477|191625044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.11||95.0|0.26|1.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.11|0.26|0.11
95826961|NCT01081301|191625045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of the Herth Hope Index over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
95826962|NCT01081301|191625046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Mental health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
95826963|NCT01081301|191625047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of General Self Efficacy Scale scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
95826964|NCT01081301|191625048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of Non Death Revised Grief Experience Inventory scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||>0.05
95855047|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 5 Day 1||1.40|0.78|0.7676
95855048|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 8 Day 1||1.71|0.89|0.1983
95855049|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 12 Day 1||1.44|0.69|0.9874
95855050|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 16 Day 1||1.29|0.58|0.4716
95855051|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Cycle 20 Day 1||1.18|0.46|0.2041
95855052|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Completion of Treatment/ Early Termination Visit||1.45|0.76|0.7771
95826965|NCT01081301|191625049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value were not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p-value of 0.05 was used for statistical significance.|ANOVA|Modified version of ANOVA as it overcomes the shortcoming of the ANOVA model by taking into account unbalanced data and repeated measures.||Generalized estimating equations were used to determine change in patterns of SF-12v2 Physical health scores over time (Day 7, 14 and 3, 6, and 12 months) compared to baseline. The advantage of utilizing general estimating equations was that it effectively increases the sample size (increasing power) and estimated more robust standard errors by taking into account the repeated measures and adjusting for covariates.||||<0.05
95826966|NCT02014480|191625074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.151||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 milliliters (mL) at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.151|0.065|<0.001
95826967|NCT02014480|191625074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.149||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to UMEC=responders to UMEC or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.149|0.064|<0.001
95826968|NCT02014480|191625074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.171||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.171|0.086|<0.001
95826969|NCT02014480|191625074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.125||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to VI=responders to VI or to both monotherapies, as defined by a participant with an increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at \>=1 time point over 0-6 hours post-dose in FEV1 on Day 1.|||0.125|0.040|<0.001
95826970|NCT02014480|191625074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.12||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.120|0.036|<0.001
95826971|NCT02014480|191625074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.099||Analysis was performed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, period, mean Baseline, period Baseline, response type and treatment by response type interaction.|ANCOVA||Responders to Neither=responders to neither UMEC nor VI, as defined by a participant with at least one FEV1 assessment over 0-6 hours post-dose on Day 1 but no increase from Baseline of \>=12% and 200 mL at any assessment(s).|||0.099|0.015|0.008
95826972|NCT01865812|191625084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-0.51|
95826973|NCT01865812|191625085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-0.63|
95826974|NCT01865812|191625086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.58|
95826975|NCT01865812|191625137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.852|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.852
95826976|NCT01865812|191625138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.549
95826977|NCT01865812|191625139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.912
95826978|NCT01605227|191625171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||1.06|0.76|0.213
95826979|NCT01605227|191625172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity and baseline ECOG performance status.||||||<0.001
95826980|NCT01605227|191625173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.57|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by prior cabazitaxel, baseline pain severity, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.||||0.57|0.40|<0.001
95826981|NCT00901511|191625200|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the median time to rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group minus the median the time to rescue WLL in the Control Group|||||0.0078
95826982|NCT00901511|191625201|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.0||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|39.9|||Fisher Exact||Calculated as risk ratio of rescue WLL in the Control Group compared to the risk ratio of rescue WLL in the GM-CSF Group|||39.9|1.60|0.0152
95826983|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|13.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the between group difference in mean PaO2 in the Control Group|||13.3|5.7|<0.0001
95826984|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|28.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.16|2.04|0.0261
95855053|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 3 Months||1.45|0.64|0.8542
95862096|NCT03255629|191682743|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.043
95862097|NCT03255629|191682744|OTHER|||||||0.659|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.659
95826985|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.03|3.92|0.1521
95826986|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.26|29.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.82|6.26|0.0051
95959807|NCT05499130|191892151|OTHER||Posterior Probability|0.939|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
95959808|NCT05499130|191892151|OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|34.8||||||||||||||||||
95959809|NCT05499130|191892151|OTHER||Posterior Probability|1.0|||||||||||||A beta-binomial model was employed to obtain this posterior probability using a non-informative prior to assess superior efficacy compared to placebo.|||||
95826987|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.88|10.63|0.0004
95826988|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.43|32.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.40|7.43|0.0038
95826989|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.81|30.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.03|3.81|0.0149
95826990|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|33.79|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.79|4.26|0.0148
95826991|NCT00901511|191625202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|25.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean PaO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean PaO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean PaO2 in the Control Group|25.02|-3.02|0.1158
95826992|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-5.4|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of A-aDO2 in the Control Group|Primary analysis||-5.4|-14.8|<0.0001
95855054|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 6 Months||2.50|0.90|0.1230
95959810|NCT00013611|191892166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ count stratum (50-199 or 200-299) and country of randomization.||Null hypothesis was that event rates in two groups are equal. Study was designed with 80%, two-sided alpha=.05, assuming a 28% reduction in the hazard of opportunistic disease or death.||1.18|0.70|0.47
95959811|NCT00013611|191892167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.44|0.77|0.73
95959812|NCT00013611|191892168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by CD4+ stratum and country of randomization.||||1.06|0.51|0.10
95959813|NCT00013611|191892169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.90|0.35
95959814|NCT00013611|191892170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.7|40.3|< 0.001
95959815|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.9|5.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.6|-3.9|
95959816|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.3||||||95.0|-7.3|13.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||13.8|-7.3|
95959817|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3||||||95.0|-2.1|7.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.3|-2.1|
95826993|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.19|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the pre-WLL visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.27|-25.19|0.0545
95826994|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|6.35|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||6.35|-20.52|0.2802
95826995|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
95826996|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.18|-8.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 3 -month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-8.36|-29.18|0.0015
95826997|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.49|-6.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-6.70|-31.49|0.0049
95826998|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|-3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.48|-28.23|0.0152
95826999|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.31|-3.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.71|-30.31|0.0154
95827000|NCT00901511|191625203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.05|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean A-aDO2 in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean A-aDO2 in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean A-aDO2 between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.02|-24.05|0.0921
95827001|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.3|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of the DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of the DLCO in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||21.3|1.9|0.0220
95827002|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|25.63|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.63|-9.06|0.3186
95827003|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.51|-8.40|0.4111
95827004|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|26.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.73|-0.95|0.0658
95827005|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|26.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||26.34|-6.78|0.2287
95827006|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|30.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||30.64|-4.86|0.1432
95855055|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 9 Months||3.34|0.88|0.1089
95862098|NCT03255629|191682745|OTHER|||||||0.406|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
95862099|NCT03255629|191682746|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.611
95827007|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|29.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||29.73|-6.17|0.1833
95827008|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|32.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.23|-6.90|0.1888
95827009|NCT00901511|191625204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|22.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean DLCO in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean DLCO in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean DLCO between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.85|-14.41|0.6374
95827010|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||9.90|-5.30|0.5320
95827011|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|19.52|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.52|-13.09|0.6772
95827012|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|15.64|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||15.64|-12.52|0.8320
95827013|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|18.14|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.14|-15.19|0.8532
95827014|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.44|-14.00|0.7752
95827015|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.65||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|24.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean value of VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean value of VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||24.18|-12.70|0.5174
95827016|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|19.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||19.94|-12.61|0.6393
95827017|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|22.73|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||22.73|-12.28|0.5361
95827018|NCT00901511|191625205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean VC between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.|Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean VC in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean VC in the Control Group|16.60|-13.26|0.8159
95827019|NCT00901511|191625206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.822||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.01|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the median value of the GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median value of the GGO Score in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||0.01|-1.70|0.0530
95959818|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.2|4.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.7|-8.2|
95855056|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 12 Months||18.30|1.85|0.0011
95959819|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|-2.8|9.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-2.8|
95959820|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.7||||||95.0|-3.5|5.1||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||5.1|-3.5|
95827020|NCT00901511|191625206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
95827021|NCT00901511|191625206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0332
95827022|NCT00901511|191625206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0676
95827023|NCT00901511|191625206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0629
95827024|NCT00901511|191625206|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median GGO Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the median GGO Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median GGO Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
95827025|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.22|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the CEA levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.22|-0.71|0.0010
95827026|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0059
95827027|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0382
95827028|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
95827029|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0400
95827030|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0142
95827031|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0071
95827032|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0137
95827033|NCT00901511|191625207|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum CEA levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum CEA levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum CEA levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0315
95827034|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3689.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6972.0|-406.0|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the between group difference in the KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the KL-6 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-406|-6972|0.0300
95855057|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|14.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 18 Months||14.74|0.43|0.2950
95959821|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-8.4|10.6||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||10.6|-8.4|
95827035|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3265.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0770
95827036|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5018.0||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.0745
95827037|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6343.0||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2581
95827038|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4102.0||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4894
95827039|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6818.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||>0.9999
95827040|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1570.0||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.8633
95827041|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4200.0||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3401
95827042|NCT00901511|191625208|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4307.0||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum KL-6 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median KL-6 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum KL-6 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.2973
95827043|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.04|||Repeated measures ANOVA||Calculated as the between group difference in the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|Primary Analysis||-0.04|-0.44|0.220
95827044|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.42|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|•The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.42|-28.80|0.0560
95959822|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-4.8|9.2||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.2|-4.8|
95959823|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-7.9|4.2||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||4.2|-7.9|
95959824|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-5.6|9.9||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||9.9|-5.6|
95959825|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-9.9|7.6||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||7.6|-9.9|
95959826|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|2.8||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||2.8|-3.0|
95827045|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.29|-8.80|0.0648
95827046|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.25|-11.28|0.0175
95855058|NCT03038100|191669668|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Proportion of Responders|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|100.0||||||Social functioning, Post-Treatment Follow Up 24 Months||100.00|-37.72|
95827047|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-3.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-3.76|-29.85|0.0148
95827048|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.56|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-1.56|-9.27|0.0089
95827049|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-0.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||-0.43|-9.92|0.0343
95827050|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.69|-9.21|0.0871
95827051|NCT00901511|191625209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean serum Cyfra21.1 levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||2.06|-8.09|0.2265
95827052|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
95827053|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.82||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1672
95827054|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.24||||0.4363|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.4363
95827055|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.34||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
95827056|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.71||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.1615
95959827|NCT00464945|191892190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Manufacturing - 13vPnC Pilot) was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
95827057|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.3865
95827058|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.6475|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||• Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6475
95827059|NCT00901511|191625210|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.6481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the median serum GMAb levels in the GM-CSF Group minus the median serum GMAb levels in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in median serum GMAb levels between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||||0.6481
95862100|NCT03255629|191682747|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.183
95862101|NCT03255629|191682748|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95827060|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.06|-3.17|0.0582
95827061|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|3.48|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||3.48|-1.17|0.3068
95827062|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.15|-2.04|0.5647
95827063|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.40|-2.11|0.1669
95827064|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.93|-1.99|0.4530
95827065|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.97|-2.04|0.4594
95827066|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||1.00|-1.61|0.6302
95827067|NCT00901511|191625211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean WBC count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean WBC count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean WBC counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||0.80|-2.24|0.3300
95827068|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.79||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|28.96|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||28.96|-136.4|0.1864
95827069|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.3||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.8|77.51|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the baseline visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the baseline visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||77.51|-119.8|0.6541
95855059|NCT00918255|191669673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.022
95855060|NCT00918255|191669673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.025
95827070|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.58||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.89|33.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.33|-70.89|0.4560
95827071|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.98||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.12|37.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.23|-94.12|0.3721
95827072|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.1812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.41|14.86|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||14.86|-72.41|0.1812
95827073|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.38||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.67|23.44|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||23.44|-75.67|0.2805
95827074|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.75||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.56|20.89|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||20.89|-75.56|0.2470
95827075|NCT00901511|191625212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.57||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.97|18.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean platelet count in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean platelet count in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean platelet counts between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||18.97|-80.97|0.2070
95827076|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|11.33|||Repeated measures ANOVA|Data was evaluated via repeated measures ANOVA after adjustment for baseline values, gender, age, and number of patients at risk at each time point.|Calculated as the difference in the mean value of the SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the Control Group|Primary analysis||11.33|-1.88|0.1490
95827077|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.07||0.7263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|21.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the Pre-WLL visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the Pre-WLL visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||21.43|-30.04|0.7263
95827078|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.3298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|25.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 1-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 1-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||25.91|-9.24|0.3298
95827079|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|27.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 3-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 3-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||27.62|-0.15|0.0478
95827080|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|33.39|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 6-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 6-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.39|2.16|0.0281
95827081|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.07||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|33.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 10-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 10-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||33.00|-9.67|0.2634
95827082|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|32.24|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 18-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 18-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||32.24|-12.24|0.3548
95855061|NCT00918255|191669673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.252
95855062|NCT00918255|191669674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
96001085|NCT00958568|191979145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.139
96001086|NCT00958568|191979145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.746
95827083|NCT00901511|191625213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.68||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|37.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Calculated as the difference at the 30-month visit in the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the GM-CSF Group minus the mean SF-36 General Health Score in the Control Group|The secondary analysis includes evaluation of the difference in mean SF-36 General Health Score between groups at the 30-month visit after imputation of missing data using a last observation carried forward method.||37.18|-3.85|0.1043
95827084|NCT02880514|191625214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||P-value not adjusted for multiplicity.|McNemar|McNemar's exact binomial test was employed to obtain the two-sided p-value at alpha level of 0.05.||||||0.0391
95827085|NCT02880514|191625215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95827086|NCT01300819|191625246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.26||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysing was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||Null hypothesis: mean change in the total Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score is the same for rotigotine- and placebo-treated group.||1.26|-8.43|0.147
95827087|NCT01300819|191625247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.92||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.92|-4.27|0.002
95827088|NCT01300819|191625248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-0.37||Two-sided p-values are presented.|ANCOVA|Testing was performed using an ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.37|-5.21|0.024
95827089|NCT01300819|191625249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.5||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.50|-0.67|0.773
95827090|NCT01300819|191625250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.29||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.29|-2.41|0.122
95827091|NCT01300819|191625251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.02||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.02|-3.59|0.047
95827092|NCT01300819|191625252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.37|-0.22|0.601
95827093|NCT01300819|191625253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.99||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.99|-0.99|0.997
95827094|NCT01300819|191625254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.49|-0.87|0.584
95827095|NCT01300819|191625255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.6||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||1.60|-0.84|0.536
95855063|NCT00918255|191669674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.019
96001087|NCT00958568|191979145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.458
96001088|NCT00958568|191979146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-1.47||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||-1.47|-5.99|0.001
96001089|NCT00958568|191979147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
96001090|NCT00958568|191979148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001091|NCT00958568|191979149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|28.26||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||28.26|-1.72|0.083
96001092|NCT00958568|191979150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value is for Borderline to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
95827096|NCT01300819|191625256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.94||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||0.94|-0.81|0.889
95827097|NCT01300819|191625257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.03||Two-sided p-value is presented. No multiplicity adjustment is performed.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed with ANCOVA model, adjusted for several terms.||||-0.03|-2.06|0.043
95827098|NCT01038713|191625272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Analysis comparing the number of patients who had stent occlusion|Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||||||0.22
95827099|NCT01038713|191625272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of attempted surgical resection||||0.14
95827100|NCT01038713|191625272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|3 x 2 contingency table comparing all three groups||Analysis comparing the rate of death between groups||||0.96
95827101|NCT01038713|191625273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANOVA|||||||1.00
95827102|NCT00320372|191625277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|38.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.3|39.9|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||39.9|36.3|
95827103|NCT00320372|191625277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|19.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS responders (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||19.0|15.2|
95827104|NCT00320372|191625277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
95827105|NCT00320372|191625278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison for Kaplan Meier Median Time until recurrence|Log Rank|Null hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is not different. Alternate hypothesis: median TUR between 2 groups is different.||||||0.1015
95827106|NCT00320372|191625279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|21.3|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||21.3|18.4|
95827107|NCT00320372|191625279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|9.5|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on MADRS remitters (binary variable with 1=yes, 0=no) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|Null Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of remitters across groups is different.||9.5|6.9|
95827108|NCT00320372|191625279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is the same. Alternate Hypothesis: Percentage of responders across groups is different.||||<.0001
95827109|NCT00320372|191625285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.34997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline suicidal thoughts."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<0.0001
95827110|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||3 Month Time point||||<.0001
95827111|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||6 Month Time point||||.0068
95827112|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||9 Month Time point||||.0008
95827113|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||12 Month Time point||||.0003
95855064|NCT00918255|191669674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analyzed using ANCOVA adjusting for Baseline Hurley Stage (I/II vs III).||||||0.286
95862102|NCT03255629|191682749|OTHER|||||||0.789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
95827114|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||18 Month Time point||||<.0001
95827115|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||24 Month Time point||||.0059
95827116|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||30 Month Time point||||.0028
95827117|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||36 Month Time point||||.0002
95827118|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||42 Month Time point||||.0051
95827119|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||48 Month Time point||||.0363
95827120|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||54 Month Time point||||.0048
95827121|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."|F-Test|||60 Month Time point||||.0009
95827122|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|12.1009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8979|13.3039|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||13.3039|10.8979|
95827123|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM Least Squares Mean|7.5964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1327|9.0602|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measure analysis on Q-LES-Q change from baseline score (continuous var) as the response variable in the model. The covariates are treatment, visit and propensity quintile. This analysis of covariance produced least square means.|"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||9.0602|6.1327|
95827124|NCT00320372|191625286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"Null Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups equals zero.~Alternate Hypothesis: Difference between change from baseline value of two treatment groups is not equal to zero."||||<.0001
95827125|NCT00320372|191625287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14837|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline medical threat to life."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
95827126|NCT00320372|191625288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.14819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS f/u suicidal thoughts and baseline intent of suicidal gesture."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||<.0001
95855065|NCT00918255|191669675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95855066|NCT00918255|191669675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
95855067|NCT00918255|191669675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.097
95862103|NCT03255629|191682750|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||McNemar|||||||0.865
95959828|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|1.1|1.65||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.65|1.10|
95959829|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.7|1.31||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio was calculated||1.31|0.70|
95959830|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.89|1.24||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio was calculated||1.24|0.89|
95959831|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.22|0.71|
95959832|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.86|1.3||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio was calculated||1.30|0.86|
95959833|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.81|1.17||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.81|
95959834|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.7|1.15||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.15|0.70|
95959835|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.1||||||95.0|0.88|1.37||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.37|0.88|
95959836|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.83|1.2||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.20|0.83|
95959837|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.16||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.16|0.79|
95959838|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.66|1.05||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.05|0.66|
95959839|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.79|1.11||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio was calculated||1.11|0.79|
95959840|NCT00464945|191892194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.13||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio was calculated||1.13|0.79|
95959841|NCT03831854|191892202|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.08
95959842|NCT03831854|191892203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|The relative risk could not be assessed due to zero incidence in the treatment group||||||0.11
95862104|NCT03255629|191682751|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||McNemar|||||||0.875
95959843|NCT03831854|191892204|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|98.5|-9.5|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.0|-9.5|0.63
95959844|NCT03831854|191892205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.7|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-1.7|0.58
95959845|NCT03831854|191892206|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.3|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.3|1.0
95959846|NCT01663506|191892218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||<0.01
95959847|NCT01663506|191892218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
95959848|NCT01663506|191892218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
95959849|NCT01663506|191892220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
95959850|NCT01663506|191892220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
95959851|NCT01663506|191892221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
95959852|NCT01663506|191892221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.0001
95959853|NCT01663506|191892223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
95959854|NCT01663506|191892223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
95959855|NCT01663506|191892224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
95959856|NCT01663506|191892226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.001
95959857|NCT01663506|191892226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
95959858|NCT01663506|191892227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.05
95959859|NCT01663506|191892227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
95959860|NCT01663506|191892229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
95959861|NCT01663506|191892229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
95959862|NCT01663506|191892229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||SJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
95959863|NCT01663506|191892229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||TJC28: Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.01
95959864|NCT01663506|191892230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
95959865|NCT01663506|191892230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
95959866|NCT01663506|191892231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||<0.01
95959867|NCT01663506|191892231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||<0.001
95827127|NCT00320372|191625289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|0.04625||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||"Null hypothesis: There is a correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE.~Alternate hypothesis: There is no correlation between MADRS follow-up suicidal thoughts and baseline primary diagnosis of MDE."|Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||The statistical modeling of predictors of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations considered 15 variables, defined in the protocol a priori to determine which ones were predictive of suicide attempts and suicidal ideations. Four variables representing the baseline disease and patient factors were considered predictors of suicidality. This outcome measure presents the underlying data collected and the corresponding correlation coefficient for one of the 4 variables identified.||||.0012
95827128|NCT04063787|191625290|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is the difference is zero. Thus the equivalence margin equals zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.408|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Compare before and after use of Fist Assist||||0.012
95827129|NCT03551665|191625295|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.056|||Regression, Linear|||These data are the immediate improvements (base 2 - post 1) in the MS group.||0.056|.002|0.036
95827130|NCT03551665|191625296|OTHER||Spearman's Rho|0.019||||0.92|||||||Spearman Correlation|||We correlated cognition (SDMT; above) to the improvement in performance (margin of stability) to to determine whether cognition predicted improvement in stepping outcomes.||||.92
95827131|NCT03551665|191625297|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.119||95.0|-0.007|0.059|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step length before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||0.059|-0.007|0.119
95827132|NCT03551665|191625298|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.012||95.0|-0.073|-0.009|||Regression, Linear|||We assessed the change in reactive step latency before (Baseline 2) to immediately after (post 1) training in the MS group||-0.009|-0.073|0.012
95827133|NCT05538312|191625299|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|168.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.66|180.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||180.94|157.66|
95827134|NCT05538312|191625300|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|152.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.9|169.18|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.18|136.90|
95827135|NCT05538312|191625301|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|148.7|176.47|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||176.47|148.70|
95827136|NCT05538312|191625302|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|153.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.51|169.3|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.30|138.51|
95827137|NCT05538312|191625303|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|171.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.96|184.15|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||184.15|159.96|
95827138|NCT05538312|191625304|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|157.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.51|169.95|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUC120 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||169.95|146.51|
95827139|NCT05538312|191625309|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|178.86|207.94|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|ARV-471 administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 administered after multiple doses of itraconazole as Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||207.94|178.86|
96001093|NCT00958568|191979150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Borderline. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95827140|NCT00734071|191625315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.911||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.38||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||2.38|-1.20|0.518
95827141|NCT00734071|191625316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.85||Hierarchical testing stopped at the primary endpoint in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05).||0.85|-1.29|0.685
95827142|NCT00734071|191625317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.28|-0.27|0.984
95827143|NCT00734071|191625318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.04||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||2.04|-1.38|0.703
95827144|NCT00734071|191625319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.795|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||1.795|0.713|0.602
95827145|NCT00734071|191625320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.558||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.07||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||3.07|-3.09|0.995
95827146|NCT00734071|191625321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|6.83||Statistical tests were 2-sided and results were presented with 95% confidence intervals with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||6.83|-4.79|0.731
95827147|NCT00395291|191625362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The IGF-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IGF-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Power calculation: We assumed that the IGF-I data will be lognormally distributed and thus the parameter of interest will be the IGF-1 geometric mean. If n=22 individuals complete the study and the intervention effect is 48% greater for one intervention than the other we will have at least 0.80 power to reject the null hypothesis."||||<0.001
95827148|NCT00395291|191625363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|The Acyl-Ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Acyl-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.169
95827149|NCT00395291|191625364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|The Leptin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in leptin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Leptin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.063
95827150|NCT00395291|191625365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|The insulin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in serum-insulin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because serum-insulin is considered a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.075
95827151|NCT00395291|191625366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.782
95827152|NCT00395291|191625367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||ANCOVA|The TNF-a data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in TNF-a is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.385
96001094|NCT00958568|191979150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.054
96001095|NCT00958568|191979151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.56||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||9.56|2.22|0.002
96001096|NCT00958568|191979152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
95959868|NCT02431052|191892238|OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0006
96001097|NCT00958568|191979152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95827153|NCT00395291|191625368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||ANCOVA|The CRPs data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in CRPs is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because CRPs is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.929
95827154|NCT00395291|191625369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-1 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-1 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-1 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted"||||0.905
95827155|NCT00395291|191625370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.233
95827156|NCT00395291|191625371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANCOVA|The IL-10 data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in IL-10 is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because IL-10 is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.277
95827157|NCT00395291|191625372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||ANCOVA|The esterase data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in esterase is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.875
95827158|NCT00395291|191625373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANCOVA|The adiponectin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in adiponectin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.545
95827159|NCT00395291|191625374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANCOVA|Total ghrelin data were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model in correspondence to a 2-period crossover design ANCOVA.||"Null hypothesis: the intra-subject pre-intervention to post-intervention change in Total-Ghrelin is the same for both the MK-0677 and placebo interventions.~Because Acyl-Ghrelin is considered as a secondary outcome, no power analysis was conducted."||||0.900
95827160|NCT02210832|191625394|SUPERIORITY|38.27% vs. 9.09%|||||<|0.001||||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance was P \< 0.05.|Chi-squared|chi square test statistic = 20.23, df = 1||Hypothesized that women assigned to Best practices plus financial incentives would achieve greater abstinence than women assigned to Best practices only.||||<0.001
95827161|NCT02210832|191625395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Used generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||||||<0.05
95827162|NCT02210832|191625395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||chi square test statistic = 21.93, df=7|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Trial condition by assessment time interaction||||0.003
95827163|NCT02210832|191625396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||chi square test statistic = 9.52, df = 10|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Interaction of trial condition and time||||0.48
95959869|NCT02431052|191892239|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ANCOVA with factors of treatment group (combined vehicle as one group) and baseline count as covariate.||||||0.0002
95827164|NCT02210832|191625397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||chi square test statistic = 33.51, df = 2|Mixed Models Analysis|Conducted a generalized estimating equation utilizing a logistic link function with treatment condition and assessment time adjusting for covariates.||Examining main effect of treatment condition.||||<0.0001
95959870|NCT02431052|191892240|OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (vehicle treatment groups included as single combined treatment group).||||||0.0055
95959871|NCT02094898|191892241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959872|NCT02094898|191892241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
96001098|NCT00958568|191979152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value is for Normal to Impaired. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.344
96001099|NCT00958568|191979152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0||||P-value is for Normal/Impaired to High. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
96001100|NCT00958568|191979153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|4.88||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||4.88|2.96|<0.001
95827165|NCT02210832|191625397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||chi square test statistic = 5.00, df = 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing interaction of treatment condition and assessment time||||0.89
95827166|NCT02210832|191625398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
95827167|NCT02210832|191625399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||F\[7,922\]=3.62|ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of covariance was conducted with Bonferroni corrections for post-doc tests and across repeated assessments.||Examine interaction of treatment condition and assessment time.||||<0.001
95827168|NCT02210832|191625399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||<0.001
95827169|NCT02210832|191625400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Method was mixed model repeated measures analysis of covariance.||||||0.009
95827170|NCT02210832|191625401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|Method is logistic regression adjusted for covariates.||||||0.01
95827171|NCT02210832|191625402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95827172|NCT02210832|191625403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95827173|NCT02210832|191625405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95827174|NCT02210832|191625409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|All comparisons adjusted for infant gestational age at time of delivery.||||||0.006
95827175|NCT01007123|191625502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.2
95827176|NCT01007123|191625502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95827177|NCT01007123|191625502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95827178|NCT01007123|191625503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95827179|NCT01007123|191625503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95827180|NCT01007123|191625503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95827181|NCT01007123|191625504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95827182|NCT01007123|191625504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95827183|NCT01007123|191625504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95827184|NCT01007123|191625505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
95827185|NCT01007123|191625505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95827186|NCT01007123|191625505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95827187|NCT01007123|191625506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||0.01
95827188|NCT01007123|191625506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison vs placebo||||<0.05
95827189|NCT01007123|191625507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95827190|NCT01007123|191625507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95827191|NCT01007123|191625507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95827192|NCT02838901|191625508|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis, and was based on the overall assessment of feasibility of the intervention.||||||0.058||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was used, and the assumption was there would be no difference in adherence between the Active Juice and the Placebo Juice, and therefore a two-sided t approximation was reported. Since this was a pilot study, power calculations were not performed. The adherence in the two groups was compared using the Wilcoxon two-sample test.||||0.058
95827193|NCT02838901|191625509|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis and was under the goal of assessing safety of the intervention.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was assumed, no power calculation was done since this was a pilot study.||||1.00
95827194|NCT02838901|191625510|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study.||||0.0003
95827195|NCT02838901|191625511|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study, and no power calculations were performed.||||||0.1023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1023
95827196|NCT02838901|191625512|OTHER|This was a descriptive analysis for a pilot study to gather preliminary data for a larger trial. No power calculations were performed for this outcome.||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9581
95827197|NCT02838901|191625512|OTHER|||||||0.6678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was assumed, and no power calculation was performed since this was a pilot study and the purpose was to collect preliminary data for a larger trial.||||.6678
95827198|NCT02838901|191625514|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95827199|NCT02838901|191625514|OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.876
95827200|NCT02838901|191625515|OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.889
95827201|NCT02838901|191625515|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.532
95827202|NCT02838901|191625516|OTHER|||||||0.888|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.888
95827203|NCT02838901|191625517|OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
95827204|NCT02838901|191625518|OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.135
95827205|NCT02838901|191625519|OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.185
95827206|NCT00929773|191625552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95827207|NCT00929773|191625553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95827208|NCT00929773|191625554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95827209|NCT00929773|191625555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95827210|NCT00929773|191625556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95827211|NCT00929773|191625557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95827212|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.22|-0.26|0.025
95855068|NCT00918255|191669676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
96001101|NCT00958568|191979154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95827213|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects after 12 weeks||0.09|-0.43|0.025
95827214|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.38|-0.11|0.025
95827215|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.29|-0.23|0.025
95827216|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in stiffness when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 4 weeks||0.04|-0.45|0.025
95827217|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater change when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effect at 12 weeks||0.07|-0.45|0.025
95827218|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
95827219|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||0.42|-0.62|0.025
95827220|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.36|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||0.62|-0.36|0.025
95827221|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|-0.02|0.025
95827222|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.17||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.32|-0.66|0.025
95827223|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.39||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.91|-0.13|0.025
95827224|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.24|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||0.74|-0.24|0.025
95827225|NCT02868034|191625574|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||0.92|-0.12|0.025
95827226|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.67|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.||SMT Component Main Effects at 4 weeks|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|1.52|-2.67|0.025
95827227|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.76|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|SMT Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||2.02|-2.76|0.025
95827228|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.03|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||2.16|-2.03|0.025
95855069|NCT00918255|191669676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.051
96001102|NCT00958568|191979155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||P-value is for suicidal ideation. The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.392
96001103|NCT00958568|191979156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.27||The test was run using an a priori 2-sided threshold for statistical significance of 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The model adjusted for baseline (Week 20), treatment, country, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||||2.27|-5.42|0.421
96001104|NCT00972244|191979160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0987|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.28|-0.67|<0.0001
95827229|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Mobilizing Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||3.11|-1.68|0.025
95827230|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.94|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 4 weeks||1.25|-2.94|0.025
95827231|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.97|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A positive value indicates greater improvement in muscle activation when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component at 12 weeks||1.82|-2.97|0.025
95827232|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.39|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||4.99|-3.39|0.025
95827233|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.68||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.47|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||4.11|-5.47|0.025
95827234|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-1.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.75|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||2.63|-5.75|0.025
95827235|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.42||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|6.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||6.21|-3.37|0.025
95827236|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.44||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.63|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||3.75|-4.63|0.025
95827237|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|2.01||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.77|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.80|-2.77|0.025
95959873|NCT02094898|191892242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95959874|NCT02094898|191892243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95827238|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.37|4.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.01|-4.37|0.025
95827239|NCT02868034|191625575|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.56||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.22|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Three-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||5.35|-4.22|0.025
95827240|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.0|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||1.68|-4.0|0.025
95827241|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.46|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 12-weeks||3.07|-3.46|0.025
95827242|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.2|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||1.48|-4.2|0.025
95855070|NCT00918255|191669676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.320
95959875|NCT02094898|191892243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959876|NCT02094898|191892243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
95959877|NCT02094898|191892244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95959878|NCT02094898|191892245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959879|NCT02094898|191892245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
95959880|NCT02094898|191892246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959881|NCT02094898|191892247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
96001105|NCT00972244|191979160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.26|-0.65|<0.0001
95827243|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.99|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 12-weeks||1.55|-4.99|0.025
95827244|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.18|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Exercise Treatment Component main effect after 4-weeks||0.50|-5.18|0.025
95827245|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.62||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.89|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater improvement in disability when the component was used|Activating Treatment Component Main Effect after 12-weeks||-0.35|-6.89|0.025
95827246|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|3.24||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.45|8.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||8.92|-2.45|0.025
95827247|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.34||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|10.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||10.87|-2.19|0.025
95827248|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.12|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||6.25|-5.12|0.025
95827249|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.2|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||5.87|-7.20|0.025
95827250|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|4.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||10.32|-1.04|0.025
95827251|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|1.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.04|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||8.02|-5.04|0.025
95827252|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|-0.86||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.54|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||4.82|-6.54|0.025
95959882|NCT02094898|191892247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959883|NCT02094898|191892248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959884|NCT02094898|191892249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
95959885|NCT02094898|191892249|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
95959886|NCT02094898|191892250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95827253|NCT02868034|191625576|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.04||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.5|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||6.57|-6.50|0.025
95827254|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effect at 4-weeks||0.32|-0.60|0.025
95827255|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|SMT Treatment Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.61|-0.44|0.025
95959887|NCT02094898|191892251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.05
95959888|NCT02094898|191892251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.08
95959889|NCT02094898|191892252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95959890|NCT02094898|191892253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959891|NCT02094898|191892253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||alpha level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95959892|NCT03771898|191892255|SUPERIORITY|Survival probability free of loss of locomotion estimated up to Week 106 (or two years).|Difference in survival probability (%)|-2.2|||=|0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|17.7||One-sided, over time intervals during entire follow-up. Stratified generalized log-rank test was used, where matching identification created from matching process in SAS PSMATCH Procedure used as strata.|Log Rank||For the shared time interval up to Week 106 (or two years).|Interval censoring survival analysis.||17.7|-22.2|=0.585
95959893|NCT03520075|191892287|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean (Geo LSM)|27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|91.2|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||91.2|8.50|
95827256|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.92|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.0|-0.92|0.025
95827257|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Mobilizing Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.34|-0.70|0.025
95827258|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.62|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 4 weeks||0.30|-0.62|0.025
95827259|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Consistent with the randomized design, mean values for the Phase II baseline were constrained to be equal to a common overall mean.|A negative value indicates greater reduction in pain intensity when the component was used|Activating Exercise Component Main Effects at 12 weeks||0.33|-0.71|0.025
95827260|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.38||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.30|-0.54|0.025
95827261|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.45||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of mobilizing and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.49|-0.60|0.025
95827262|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 4 weeks||1.04|-0.80|0.025
95827263|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.23||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and activating exercise components after 12 weeks||1.28|-0.81|0.025
95827264|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|0.89||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-0.03|0.025
95827265|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||interaction relative mean difference|-0.02||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.07|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pairwise interaction effect of SMT and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.02|-1.07|0.025
95827266|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.71||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 4 weeks||1.63|-0.21|0.025
95827267|NCT02868034|191625577|SUPERIORITY||3-way interaction relative mean dif.|0.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3-way interaction effect of SMT, activating exercise and mobilizing exercise components after 12 weeks||1.04|-1.05|0.025
95827268|NCT04699032|191625579|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.423|0.909||||||||0.909|0.423|
95827269|NCT04699032|191625580|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for apraglutide between normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe impaired renal group (Test). Estimates of the mean differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model. The mean differences and 90% CIs for the mean differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the geometric least-square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Geometric least-square mean ratio|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.458|1.05||||||||1.050|0.458|
95827270|NCT03640052|191625602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
95827271|NCT03640052|191625602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
95827272|NCT03640052|191625602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||>0.5
95827273|NCT03640052|191625602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||mean difference vs Placebo||||0.33
95827274|NCT03640052|191625603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95827275|NCT04239222|191625604|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 22 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 5 points on the PLUS-M scale using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 7.7 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot,|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean PLUS-M score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean PLUS-M score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (11 negative, 8 positive and 4 null), Z=-1.066.|||0.286
95827276|NCT04239222|191625605|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 21 subjects was required to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 0.2 points in the TAPES-AR score using Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test and alpha of 0.05. A standard deviation of 0.3 was used to calculate the sample size.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.094|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.212||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≥ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-AR score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (5 negative, 13 positive and 5 null), Z=-2.156|||0.031
95827277|NCT04239222|191625607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.29||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean ABC score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean ABC score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (12 negative, 7 positive and 4 null), Z=-0.805.|||0.421
96001106|NCT00972244|191979160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.53|-0.92|<0.0001
95827278|NCT04239222|191625608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.844||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference represents Revo-M - Everyday Foot.|HO: μRevo-M ≤ μEveryday, μRevo-M is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Revo-M and μEveryday is the mean TAPES-FUN score using the Everyday foot at baseline.|2-sided Wilcoxon matched pairs signed ranks test, n=23 (6 negative, 9 positive and 8 null), Z=-0.767.|||0.443
95827279|NCT00090233|191625638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative Risk ≤10.0 (non-inferiority margin).|relative risk|1.6||||0.006||95.0|0.4|6.4||"p≤ 10/11, where p is proportion of participants with intussusception in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with intussusception. Based on conditional binomial approach.~Adjusted for group-sequential design."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test adjusted for group-sequential design.||||6.4|0.4|0.006
95827280|NCT00090233|191625639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|81.2|||<|0.001||95.0|72.9|87.8||p≥42%, where p is proportion of participants with ≥3-fold rise in antibody titer from Predose 1 to Postdose 3 in vaccine group. Based on binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||87.8|72.9|<0.001
95827281|NCT00090233|191625640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|74.0|||<|0.001||95.0|66.8|79.9||"Efficacy≥35%. Based on p≤.65/(.65+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine.~Based on conditional binomial approach."|Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test.|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|||79.9|66.8|<0.001
95827282|NCT00090233|191625641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|94.5|||<|0.001||95.0|91.2|96.6||Rate Reduction\>0%|Poisson regression|"Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations.~Validated with Van Elteren's extension of Wilcoxon Rank Sum test."|Risk ratio of rate of hospitalizations and emergency department visits between treatment groups. Reported here are results after 12 additional emergency department visits were identified among placebo recipients and data were re-analyzed.|||96.6|91.2|<0.001
95827283|NCT00090233|191625642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|74.9|86.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Estimated value is based on the worst episode scores.|||86.7|74.9|<0.001
95827284|NCT00090233|191625643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy=1-Relative Risk|98.0|||<|0.001||95.0|88.3|100.0||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of participants with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test|||||100|88.3|<0.001
95827285|NCT00090233|191625644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference (vaccine-placebo) in seroprotection rates was greater than -.10 (non-inferiority margin).|||||<|0.001||95.0||||p\<0.001 was obtained for all comparisons. pv - pp ≥-.10, where p is proportion of participants who achieved seroprotection in the vaccine and placebo groups, respectively.|Miettenen and Nurminen|||||||<0.001
95827286|NCT00090233|191625645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis PT|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis PT was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
95827287|NCT00090233|191625645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis FHA|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis FHA was used for analysis.||1.1|0.7|<0.001
95827288|NCT00090233|191625645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for Pertussis Pertactin|0.6||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for Pertussis Pertactin was used for analysis.||0.8|0.4|0.193
95827289|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 4|1.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.0|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 4 was used for analysis.||1.4|1.0|<0.001
95827290|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 6B|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.9|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 6B was used for analysis.||1.9|1.0|<0.001
95827291|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 9V|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 9V was used for analysis.||1.3|0.9|<0.001
95827292|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 14|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 14 was used for analysis.||1.3|0.7|<0.001
96001107|NCT00972244|191979160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.59||significant at alpha=0.015 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A sequential closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.015 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.59|-0.99|<0.0001
95827293|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 18C|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 18C was used for analysis.||1.6|1.1|<0.001
95827294|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 19F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 19F was used for analysis.||1.4|0.8|<0.001
95827295|NCT00090233|191625646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMTR was greater than 0.5 (non-inferiority margin).|GMTR for pneumococcal serotype 23F|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||t-test, 1 sided|t-test on natural log of titers||The GMT Ratio between RotaTeq™ and Placebo (GMTR) for pneumococcal serotype 23F was used for analysis.||1.5|0.9|<0.001
95827296|NCT01035346|191625648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|8.33||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|24.6||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on Least-squares (LS) means from the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model.||24.60|-7.94|0.228
95827297|NCT01035346|191625649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.99||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|15.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-4: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||15.97|-3.99|0.171
95827298|NCT01035346|191625649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.96||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.78|32.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||STEMPD 0-8: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||32.69|-14.78|0.354
95827299|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.54|-0.84|0.576
95827300|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.87|-0.50|0.502
95827301|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.31||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.12||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.12|-0.51|0.116
95827302|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.58||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.14|-0.98|0.161
95959894|NCT03520075|191892287|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|38.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.4|132.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||132|11.4|
95827303|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.87||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|5.41||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.41|-1.66|0.215
95827304|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.52|-2.18|0.388
95827305|NCT01035346|191625650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment and baseline temperature terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.61|-3.98|0.849
95827306|NCT01035346|191625652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion|11.11||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|32.89||p-value was calculated using CMH general association test using table scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||8 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and its associated CI were calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportion and the corresponding standard errors.||32.89|-10.67|0.378
95827307|NCT01035346|191625653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.27||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.27|-0.30|0.324
95827308|NCT01035346|191625654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium-Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||1.18|-0.12|0.210
95827309|NCT01779869|191625655|SUPERIORITY|Accuracy was assessed compared to an imaging reference standard.||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||Significance testing between the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT and PET, and SPECT and MR, and SPECT and PET/MR was performed by using chi square test. A P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||||0.35
95827310|NCT00957944|191625721|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0302||||||90.0|0.9693|1.0951|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0951|0.9693|
95827311|NCT00957944|191625722|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0571||||||90.0|0.9903|1.1284|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.1284|0.9903|
95827312|NCT00957944|191625723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of geometric LS- Means is included within 0.8- 1.25, the patches are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS- Means|1.0289||||||90.0|0.9714|1.0899|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log- transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates (LS- Means) and Confidence Intervals (CIs).|Bioequivalence is concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio Treatment A/ Treatment B are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8- 1.25 for AUC(0-tz), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax.|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval (CI).||1.0899|0.9714|
95827313|NCT01133626|191625747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of a two-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio of BDP HFA 320 mcg/day to placebo was greater than 0.80.|geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.87|
95827314|NCT00855933|191625750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.24||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||2-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||0.24|-0.03|0.126
95827315|NCT01960998|191625752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||||Data were not collected beyond the 12-month follow up, at which point fewer than 50% of participants in both groups had achieved continence. Thus, their time to continence could not be determined and the medians could not be calculated.|||0.22
95827316|NCT01960998|191625753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not corrected for multiple testing|ANCOVA|Baseline score was included as a covariate in analysis.|||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the ICIQ-SF are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean ICIQ-SF score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 7.0 (standard deviation 4.4) and in the telehealth group was 7.1 (SD 4.3). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline ICIQ-SF score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
95827317|NCT01960998|191625754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the EPIC-UI are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPIC-UI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 63.5 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 63.9 (SD 22.1). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with each of the 10 imputations, adjusting for baseline EPIC-UI score, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.70
95827318|NCT01960998|191625755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the IIQ are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean IIQ score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 22.3 (standard deviation 24.1) and in the telehealth group was 19.4 (SD 22.4). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.46
95827319|NCT01960998|191625756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Quality of Life question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 31.4% (Delighted/Pleased), 22.8% (Mostly Satisfied), 19.4% (Mixed), 12.0% (Mostly Dissatisfied), and 14.4% (Unhappy/Terrible) and in the telehealth group were 20.8%, 26.3%, 26.3%, 12.6%, and 14.0%, respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the IPSS Quality of Life question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
95854584|NCT05386329|191668812|SUPERIORITY|Pre-post comparison|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4944|-5.1903||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT end of treatment (week 8) HAM-D score compared to the baseline (week 0) HAM-D score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in HAM-D total scores between baseline (week 0) and end of treatment (week 8).||-5.1903|-10.4944|<.0001
95862105|NCT01086358|191682779|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.49|-2.92|0.007
95827320|NCT01960998|191625757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Patient Satisfaction question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Completely Satisfied), 40.2% (Somewhat Satisfied), and 8.7% (Not at All Satisfied) and in the telehealth group were 34.8%, 59.9%, and 5.3%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Patient Satisfaction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.04
95827321|NCT01960998|191625758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||||Mean values for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Estimated Percent Improvement (EPI) are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean EPI score in the no telehealth group at 6 months was 65.1 (standard deviation 34.5) and in the telehealth group was 69.6 (SD 29.6). Two-sample t-tests were performed with each of the 10 imputations, and p values were combined using the Rubin-Licht method.|||0.67
95827322|NCT01960998|191625759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Global Perception of Improvement (GPI) question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 46.3% (Much Better), 30.7% (Better), 16.7% (About the Same), 2.3% (Worse), and 3.9% (Much Worse) and in the telehealth group were 38.3%, 41.1%, 15.3%, 2.9%, and 2.5%, respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 5 levels of the Global Perception of Improvement question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.65
95827323|NCT01960998|191625760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||P values were not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||"Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 43.5% (Not at All), 44.4% (Somewhat), and 12.1% (Extremely) and in the telehealth group were 38.9%, 53.2%, and 7.9% respectively. Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the How Disturbing is the Urine Leakage? question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method."|||0.37
95827324|NCT01960998|191625761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||P values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 51.0% (Not at all), 36.5% (Some of the time), 7.2% (Most of the time), and 5.3% (All of the time) and in the telehealth group were 56.5%, 33.5%, 4.2%, and 5.8% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Activity Restriction question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.63
95827325|NCT01960998|191625762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P values not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 52.3% (Yes), 5.0% (No, not yet recovered from surgery), 1.9% (No, other reason), and 40.7% (Retired or disabled) and in the telehealth group were 62.3%, 3.5%, 0.8%, and 33.5% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 4 levels of the Return to Work question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.71
95855071|NCT00918255|191669677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95855072|NCT00918255|191669677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||1.000
95855073|NCT00918255|191669677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.673
95855074|NCT00918255|191669678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
95855075|NCT00918255|191669678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.020
95855076|NCT00918255|191669678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyzed using CMH test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.721
96001108|NCT00972244|191979161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7589|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.45|-16.7||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-16.70|-35.45|<0.0001
95827326|NCT01960998|191625763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P values not corrected for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared, Corrected||||Frequencies for the telehealth and no telehealth groups on the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies question are presented above. Multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data, using the Multiple Imputation via Chained Equations (MICE) package in R. Across 10 imputations, the mean frequencies for the no telehealth group at 6 months were 7.4% (None), 29.8% (Some), 62.8% (All) and in the telehealth group were 4.9%, 23.0%, and 72.2% respectively (frequencies to not add to exactly 100% due to rounding). Chi-squared analysis with continuity correction was used to determine if there were differences in the observed frequencies between groups (telehealth versus no telehealth) across the 3 levels of the Resumption of Normal Activities question relative to the expected frequencies with each of the imputations, and p values were combined using the Enders (2001) method.|||0.41
95827327|NCT03199053|191625764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.57|< 0.001
95827328|NCT03199053|191625765|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.93|0.078
95827329|NCT03199053|191625766|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.44|0.004
95827330|NCT03199053|191625767|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.05|0.067
95827331|NCT03199053|191625768|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.76|< 0.001
95827332|NCT03199053|191625769|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-0.92|0.146
95827333|NCT03199053|191625770|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-2.02|0.024
95827334|NCT03199053|191625771|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.15|0.833
95827335|NCT03199053|191625772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-2.07|0.047
95827336|NCT03199053|191625773|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|||||0.42|-1.50|0.268
95827337|NCT03199053|191625774|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-2.11|0.026
95827338|NCT03199053|191625775|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.92|0.644
95827339|NCT03199053|191625776|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|11.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.7|1.2|0.019
95827340|NCT03199053|191625776|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.6|0.8|0.114
95827341|NCT03199053|191625777|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.5||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||11.4|1.0|0.042
95827342|NCT03199053|191625777|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.4|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||7.4|0.7|0.175
95827343|NCT03199053|191625778|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|4.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.2|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.2|1.4|0.009
95827344|NCT03199053|191625778|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.5|||Weighted Logistic Regression|||||13.5|1.1|0.042
95827345|NCT03199053|191625779|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.94|||ANCOVA|||||0.94|-1.00|0.955
95827346|NCT03199053|191625779|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|-1.20|0.640
95827347|NCT03199053|191625780|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|-2.39|0.476
95827348|NCT03199053|191625780|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-3.81|0.075
95827349|NCT03199053|191625781|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-19.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|5.7|||Fisher Exact|||||5.7|-44.5|0.182
95827350|NCT03199053|191625782|SUPERIORITY||Unadjusted Difference in Percentage|-6.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|16.5|||Fisher Exact|||||16.5|-29.8|0.650
95827351|NCT01057225|191625811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Using a cohort of 3 design, it was determined the maximum tolerated dose of carfilzomib is Dose Level 1: 20 mg/m\^2 for the first cycle and 36 mg/m\^2 for subsequent cycles.|||||
95827352|NCT04600505|191625850|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|111.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.01|137.1||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.1|91.01|
96001109|NCT00972244|191979161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-20.14||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-20.14|-38.70|<0.0001
95827353|NCT04600505|191625850|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.67|124.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||124.0|78.67|
95827354|NCT04600505|191625850|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|108.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|137.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||137.3|85.50|
95827355|NCT04600505|191625850|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|120.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||120.5|74.69|
95827356|NCT04600505|191625850|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|109.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.02|122.7||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||122.7|97.02|
95827357|NCT04600505|191625850|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|100.1||||||90.0|83.78|119.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.5|83.78|
95827358|NCT04600505|191625851|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|104.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|119.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||119.2|91.95|
95827359|NCT04600505|191625851|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.33|115.3||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.3|83.33|
95827360|NCT04600505|191625851|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|96.0||||||90.0|70.33|131.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||131.0|70.33|
95827361|NCT04600505|191625851|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|116.7||||||90.0|86.31|157.8||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||157.8|86.31|
95827362|NCT04600505|191625852|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.53|121.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||121.9|94.53|
95827363|NCT04600505|191625852|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.59|115.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Budesonide PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||115.4|84.59|
95827364|NCT04600505|191625852|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.18|130.6||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||130.6|86.18|
95827365|NCT04600505|191625852|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.84|123.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Glycopyrronium PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||123.0|80.84|
95827366|NCT04600505|191625852|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|98.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.44|111.4||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment A (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||111.4|86.44|
95827367|NCT04600505|191625852|OTHER|Results based on linear mixed-effects analysis of variance model|Geometric mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|128.9||||||Statistical Comparison of Formoterol PK Parameters for Treatment B (test) versus Treatment C (reference)||128.9|88.82|
95959895|NCT03520075|191892287|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|222.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||222|15.7|
95959896|NCT03520075|191892287|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|47.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.7|108.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-24 between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||108|20.7|
95827368|NCT04612842|191625878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95827369|NCT01819129|191625889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment was done by comparing the difference of faster aspart vs. NovoRapid®/NovoLog® in change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of randomized treatment to a non-inferiority limit of 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The estimated parameter i.e mean difference is the estimated treatment difference for Faster aspart vs. NovoRapid (Faster aspart - NovoRapid).|Change from baseline in HbA1c is analysed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measurements including changes from baseline in HbA1c at visit 14, 18, 22, 26, 30 and 36. The model includes treatment, region and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) strata as fixed effects, subject as random effect, HbA1c at baseline as covariate and interaction between all fixed effects and visit, and between the covariate and visit.||0.10|-0.15|
95827370|NCT03777917|191625893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|72.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|83.5|||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's exact test was used to test for the superiority of treatment (Belotero Balance®) over control.|Two-sided Newcombe confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.|||83.5|47.5|< 0.0001
95827371|NCT04948307|191625899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7326|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7326
95827372|NCT04948307|191625900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7396|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7396
95827373|NCT04948307|191625901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8710
95827374|NCT04948307|191625902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8816|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.8816
95827375|NCT04948307|191625903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5281|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5281
95827376|NCT04948307|191625904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2996
95827377|NCT04948307|191625908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7201|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnoff|||||||0.7201
95827378|NCT04948307|191625910|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|Summary statistics are presented|||
95827379|NCT04948307|191625912|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Summary statistics are presented.|||
95827380|NCT03131596|191625916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||The p-value is not adjusted and a p-value of \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||200 patients were eligible and randomised in a 1:1 fashion. 9 patients did not complete the full protocol, resulting in 94 cases in the balloon group and 97 cases in the control group included in the final analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.The null hypothesis is the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in balloon group will less than the percentage of the patients with reformed uterine adhesion in control group. A Chi-squared analysis was used.||||0.012
95827381|NCT03131596|191625917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95827382|NCT03131596|191625918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95827383|NCT03131596|191625919|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95827384|NCT00623545|191626019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|185.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|240.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\< 0.05|ANOVA||units are kcal/d|Previously published literature showed an average weight loss of 1.8 kg at 12 weeks of exenatide treatment. This was converted to differ- ence in TEE, estimating an average imbalance of 2 kg × 7800 kcal·kg-1 divided by 84 days or 185 kcal·day-1.We demonstrated an average reproducibility of the DLW method of 6% or 240 kcal·day-1. For a 5% probability of finding this difference with a power of 80%, we determined a need for 14 subjects to complete the study.||||0.001
95827385|NCT00623545|191626019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95827386|NCT00623545|191626020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that energy intake was unchanged between the period before treatment and at the end of treatment.||||< 0.05
95827387|NCT00623545|191626020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95827388|NCT05479097|191626026|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.5||||0.03232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0||A priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Systolic blood pressure was not normally distributed in the study sample, so nonparametric analysis was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in systolic blood pressure.||-1.0|-12.0|0.03232
95827389|NCT05479097|191626027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|As diastolic blood pressure was normally distributed in our sample, we used a paired t-test to evaluate the mean difference in measurements.||The null hypothesis was that there was no change in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.1|-6.1|0.045
95827390|NCT05479097|191626028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was no change in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure well-controlled (\<=140 mmHg) from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
95827391|NCT05479097|191626029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7237||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P \<0.05|McNemar|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the proportion of patients with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to their personalized goal from baseline to 6 months.||||0.7237
95827392|NCT05463744|191626052|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|
95827393|NCT05463744|191626053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.052||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.181|||ANCOVA|||||0.181|-0.077|0.432
95827394|NCT05463744|191626054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.60|-2.22|0.751
95827395|NCT05463744|191626055|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Negative binomial model|||||1.31|0.79|0.900
95827396|NCT05463744|191626056|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.157|||ANCOVA|||||0.157|-0.110|
95827397|NCT05463744|191626057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|4.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 26||4.93|-7.38|0.697
95827398|NCT05463744|191626057|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.84||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.96|-11.64|0.163
95827399|NCT05463744|191626058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.66|-0.61|0.939
95827400|NCT05463744|191626058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.52||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 49 to Week 52||1.17|-0.13|0.116
95827401|NCT05463744|191626059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||ANCOVA|||||2.62|-1.54|0.610
95827402|NCT05463744|191626060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||3.38|-21.30|0.155
95827403|NCT05463744|191626060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.88||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.55|-19.31|0.278
95827404|NCT05463744|191626061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-2.03|-5.52|<0.001
95827405|NCT05463744|191626061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-1.71|-5.26|<0.001
95827406|NCT05463744|191626062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.59|-20.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||-20.98|-57.59|<0.001
95827407|NCT05463744|191626062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|-17.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||-17.43|-54.44|<0.001
95827408|NCT05463744|191626063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||5.06|1.32|<0.001
95827409|NCT05463744|191626063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||4.70|0.91|0.004
95827410|NCT05463744|191626064|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||||1.41|1.04|0.016
95827411|NCT05463744|191626065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.086||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||0.53|-0.35|0.702
95827412|NCT05463744|191626065|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||0.56|-0.33|0.609
95827413|NCT05463744|191626066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||0.19|-0.13|0.681
95827414|NCT05463744|191626066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 49 to Week 52||0.24|-0.05|0.182
95827415|NCT05463744|191626067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 23 to Week 26||2.05|-2.06|0.999
95827416|NCT05463744|191626068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|1.41|||ANCOVA|||||1.41|-3.06|0.468
95827417|NCT05463744|191626069|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95827418|NCT05463744|191626070|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95827419|NCT05463744|191626071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 26||1.19|-0.33|0.270
95827420|NCT05463744|191626071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score: Week 52||1.45|0.000|0.050
95827421|NCT05463744|191626071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 26||1.38|-0.94|0.710
95827422|NCT05463744|191626071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score: Week 52||1.61|-0.71|0.447
95827423|NCT00759356|191626072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|Mean ratio|109.8||||||90.0|95.3|126.5|||ANOVA|||||126.5|95.3|
95827424|NCT00759356|191626074|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.5||||||90.0|95.6|107.9|||ANOVA|||||107.9|95.6|
95827425|NCT00759356|191626075|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.7||||||90.0|95.9|107.9|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||107.9|95.9|
95827426|NCT03554772|191626099|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for each dose group vs placebo comparison|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as main effect , baseline NPRS and basline BMI as covariates P-value is Dunnett adjusted (individual treatment arms)||||||<0.0001
95827427|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||||||Diphtheria: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.5|-1.6|
95827428|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Tetanus: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
95827429|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9||||||Pertussis toxoid: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.9|-4.7|
95827430|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
95827431|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Pertussis pertactin: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
95827432|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.8||||||Pertussis fimbrial agglutinogens types 2+3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||0.8|-3.6|
95827433|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 1: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
95827434|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 2: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
95827435|NCT01323270|191626128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Poliovirus type 3: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) was reported for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.1|-1.1|
95827436|NCT03054350|191626146|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.82|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.82|0.56|0.0004
95827437|NCT03054350|191626146|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.19|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.19|0.93|<0.0001
95827438|NCT03054350|191626146|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.54|1.23|<0.0001
95827439|NCT03054350|191626152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups;1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.54|0.04|0.0232
95827440|NCT03054350|191626152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.62|0.13|0.0033
95827441|NCT03054350|191626152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.74|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.74|0.26|0.0002
95827442|NCT03054350|191626152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.3289
95827443|NCT03054350|191626152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.01|0.2607
95827444|NCT03054350|191626152|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.03|0.00|0.0252
95827445|NCT03054350|191626154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.94|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.94|0.67|0.0154
95827446|NCT03054350|191626154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.16|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.16|2.06|0.0008
95827447|NCT03054350|191626154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|8.56|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||8.56|3.31|<0.0001
95827448|NCT03054350|191626154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.81|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.81|-0.30|0.3572
95827449|NCT03054350|191626154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.69|-0.33|0.4758
95827450|NCT03054350|191626154|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.84|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.84|-0.19|0.2048
95827451|NCT03054350|191626156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9373
95827452|NCT03054350|191626156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6623|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.6623
95827453|NCT03054350|191626156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.9374
95827454|NCT03054350|191626156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2085|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.2085
95827455|NCT03054350|191626156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0016
95827456|NCT03054350|191626156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0001
95827457|NCT03054350|191626158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2708|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.2708
95827458|NCT03054350|191626158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0966|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0966
95827459|NCT03054350|191626158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0424|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.0424
95827460|NCT03054350|191626160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0207
95827461|NCT03054350|191626160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0022
95827462|NCT03054350|191626160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
95827463|NCT03054350|191626160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0062
95827464|NCT03054350|191626160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0002
95827465|NCT03054350|191626160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
95827466|NCT01643850|191626171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||ANCOVA|||||1.36|0.71|0.915
95827467|NCT01643850|191626171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.57|0.117
95827468|NCT01643850|191626171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.91|||ANCOVA|||||0.91|0.52|0.010
95827469|NCT03242772|191626203|OTHER|||||||0.2664||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -3.5729 - 11.6929|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.2664
95827470|NCT03242772|191626204|OTHER|||||||0.3721||||||Significance at \<0.05|95% confidence interval|confidence interval (CI) = -17.7698 - 7.2698|||Presentation of results will include p-values and 95% confidence intervals for the least mean square values at weeks 0, 10, 24 (week 24 is exploratory).|||0.3721
95827471|NCT02499900|191626230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.321|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1615|0.4814||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: MSQ=baseline MSQ score+treatment+visit+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as MSQ is not measured at baseline for these patients.||0.4814|0.1615|<0.001
95827472|NCT02499900|191626231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.448|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9538|11.9429||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-value are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: TSQM-9 convenience score=baseline TSQM-9 convenience score+treatment+CGR+treatment by visit interaction. Treatment-naïve patients are not included in this analysis as TSQM-9 is not measured at baseline for these patients.||11.9429|6.9538|<0.001
95827473|NCT02499900|191626232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.802||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.4461||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.4461|-2.0500|0.208
95827474|NCT02499900|191626232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.231||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8588|0.3962||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Physical Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.3962|-0.8588|0.470
95827475|NCT02499900|191626232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.639||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2564|-0.0214||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Cognitive Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||-0.0214|-1.2564|0.043
95827476|NCT02499900|191626232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0672|0.2711||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MFIS Psychosocial Subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MFIS score=baseline MFIS score+treatment+visit +CGR+treatment by visit interaction.||0.2711|-0.0672|0.237
95827477|NCT02499900|191626233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.706||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5947|1.0074||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Total Score Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.0074|-0.5947|0.287
95827478|NCT02499900|191626233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5179|1.7991||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Anxiety subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.7991|-1.5179|0.868
95827479|NCT02499900|191626233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.481||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0734|2.0348||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Depression subscale estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||2.0348|-1.0734|0.544
95827480|NCT02499900|191626233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.867||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3843|3.3487||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Behavioral Control subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||3.3487|0.3843|0.014
95827481|NCT02499900|191626233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8565|1.6728||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||MHI Positive Affect subscale Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline MHI score=baseline MHI Total Score +treatment +visit +country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||1.6728|-1.8565|0.919
95827482|NCT02499900|191626234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6777|0.5592||0.05 level of significance|Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Estimates and p-values are obtained from baseline-adjusted repeated measures ANCOVA model with visit as a repeated effect: change from baseline BDI-II total score=baseline BDI-II total score+treatment+visit+country/geographic region +treatment by visit interaction.||0.5592|-0.6777|0.851
95827483|NCT01089023|191626260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95827484|NCT01089023|191626261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value measures the significance between each visit using analysis of variance|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95827485|NCT03410797|191626262|OTHER|Due to small sample size, nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare VHI-10 before and after therapy.|Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics characterized this patient perception measurement.||||.0076
95827486|NCT03410797|191626263|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0329
95827487|NCT03410797|191626264|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|15.39||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0164
95827488|NCT03410797|191626265|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1141
95827489|NCT03410797|191626266|OTHER|Descriptive statistics characterized acoustic and aerodynamic measures, and patient perception measurements.|Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3329
95827490|NCT01527513|191626268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2001||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|||||203.993|-137.593|0.700
95827491|NCT01527513|191626269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"A 121ms non-inferiority margin was selected based on a previous study with Cognitive Drug Research (CDR) system comparing newly diagnosed patients to a healthy normative sample.~Assuming a Standard Deviation (SD) of 202.3 for the Power of Attention score, a total of 102 patients in the PP population would provide 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the mean increase from baseline Power of Attention was at least 121 ms smaller in the placebo group."|95% CI lower bound vs non-inf margin|33.2001|||<|0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.593|203.993|||ANCOVA||The predefined non-inferiority margin was -121ms.|||203.993|-137.593|<0.700
95827492|NCT02323204|191626276|OTHER|||||||0.6298|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6298
95827493|NCT02323204|191626276|OTHER|||||||0.2341|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2341
95862106|NCT01086358|191682780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||-0.27|-1.79|0.010
95827494|NCT02323204|191626277|OTHER|||||||0.7893|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7893
95827495|NCT02323204|191626277|OTHER|||||||0.2951|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2951
95827496|NCT02323204|191626278|OTHER|||||||0.7166|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7166
95827497|NCT02323204|191626278|OTHER|||||||0.4501|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4501
95827498|NCT02323204|191626279|OTHER|||||||0.6756|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.6756
95827499|NCT02323204|191626279|OTHER|||||||0.5381|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5381
95827500|NCT02323204|191626280|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.1507
95827501|NCT02323204|191626280|OTHER|||||||0.0769|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0769
95827502|NCT02323204|191626281|OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0654
95827503|NCT02323204|191626281|OTHER|||||||0.7957|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.7957
95827504|NCT02323204|191626282|OTHER|||||||0.0286|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0286
95827505|NCT02323204|191626282|OTHER|||||||0.0201|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0201
95827506|NCT02323204|191626283|OTHER|||||||0.9928|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.9928
95827507|NCT02323204|191626283|OTHER|||||||0.0982|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0982
95827508|NCT02323204|191626284|OTHER|||||||0.0325|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.0325
95827509|NCT02323204|191626284|OTHER|||||||0.2568|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.2568
95827510|NCT02323204|191626285|OTHER|||||||0.5824|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.5824
95827511|NCT02323204|191626285|OTHER|||||||0.4635|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||"A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with log link and gamma distribution was fit to five imputed data sets. Obtained estimates and standard errors were adjusted accordingly.~A comparison of intervention efficacy was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Statistical significance of the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in effect between interventions over time."||||0.4635
95827512|NCT02323204|191626286|OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation over time between interventions was made through the intervention-time interaction effect included in the model. Significance in the interaction effect is indicative of a difference in the rate of change in implementation between interventions over time.||||0.7949
95827513|NCT02323204|191626286|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wald 2-sided t-test|||A Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) with cumulative logit link and multinomial distribution was fit to the data. A comparison of implementation between interventions was made through the intervention main effect included in the model. The model at hand does not contain an interaction between intervention and time. Significance in the main intervention effect is indicative of a difference in implementation between intervention groups.||||0.0003
95827514|NCT01095653|191626299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.56||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.94|<0.0001
95959897|NCT03520075|191892288|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.28|61.9|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||61.9|5.28|
95827515|NCT01095653|191626299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.63||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.01|<0.0001
95959898|NCT03520075|191892288|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.32|234.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||234|8.32|
95827516|NCT01095653|191626300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.203|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-21.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-21.4|-34.0|<0.0001
95827517|NCT01095653|191626300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-27.9||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-27.9|-40.4|<0.0001
95827518|NCT01095653|191626301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5667|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-34.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-34.96|-60.80|<0.0001
95827519|NCT01095653|191626301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.66|-43.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-43.28|-68.66|<0.0001
95827520|NCT01095653|191626302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3259|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-2.01|<0.0001
95827521|NCT01095653|191626302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3242|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|-1.34||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.62|<0.0001
95827522|NCT01095653|191626303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|31.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||31.6|11.1|<0.0001
95827523|NCT01095653|191626303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|38.3||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||38.3|18.6|<0.0001
95959899|NCT03520075|191892288|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|58.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.7|220.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||220|15.7|
95827524|NCT02825966|191626304|EQUIVALENCE|The two one-sided t-test (TOST) was used to test equivalence. Using TOST, equivalence was established at α = 0.05 significance level if a (1-2α)\*100% confidence interval for the average difference in EMAT (WCD-AUDICOR) was contained within the interval \[-12, 12\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.89|4.69|||two one-sided test (TOST)|||First, the difference in EMAT between the LifeVest and AUDICOR device (first wear) was calculated for each subject. Then the mean and standard deviation of the differences in EMAT were calculated. The 2 devices were considered equivalent if the 90% confidence interval for mean difference in EMAT was within the pre-specified margin of \[-12, 12\] ms.||4.69|-2.89|< 0.001
95827525|NCT02752958|191626305|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|12.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus Week 4 score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (Baseline ) versus (vs.) Week 4||12.80|-1.018|0.0944
95959900|NCT03520075|191892288|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.3|113.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on AUC0-inf between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||113|14.3|
95827526|NCT02752958|191626306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.128|23.849|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 8||23.849|10.128|<0.0001
95959901|NCT03520075|191892289|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.62|54.3|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||54.3|5.62|
95827527|NCT02752958|191626307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|29.539|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 12||29.539|15.870|<0.0001
95855077|NCT00918255|191669679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||When this initial overall comparison of the 3 treatment groups was significant, pairwise comparisons of each adalimumab dose group versus placebo were performed.|Van Elteren test|||||||0.045
95855078|NCT00918255|191669679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.014
95959902|NCT03520075|191892289|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.0|99.4|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||99.4|12.0|
95827528|NCT02752958|191626308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.245|34.165|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 16||34.165|20.245|<0.0001
95827529|NCT02752958|191626309|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.464|38.385|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||38.385|24.464|<.0001
95827530|NCT02752958|191626310|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.585|39.506|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 (baseline) vs. Week 24||39.506|25.585|<.0001
95827531|NCT02752958|191626311|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|2.262|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 4||2.262|0.108|0.0312
95827532|NCT02752958|191626312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.728|3.866|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||3.866|1.728|<.0001
95827533|NCT02752958|191626313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.192|4.322|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||4.322|2.192|<.0001
95827534|NCT02752958|191626314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.844|5.012|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||5.012|2.844|<.0001
95827535|NCT02752958|191626315|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.063|5.232|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||5.232|3.063|<.0001
95827536|NCT02752958|191626316|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.654|5.823|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.823|3.654|<.0001
95827537|NCT02752958|191626317|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.4185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.592|3.821|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 4||3.821|-1.592|0.4185
95827538|NCT02752958|191626318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.391|9.764|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||9.764|4.391|<.0001
95827539|NCT02752958|191626319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.674|11.026|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 12||11.026|5.674|<.0001
95827540|NCT02752958|191626320|OTHER|Week 0 Vs Week 16|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.708|13.158|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||13.158|7.708|<.0001
95827541|NCT02752958|191626321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.008|14.459|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||14.459|9.008|<.0001
95827542|NCT02752958|191626322|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.235|14.686|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||14.686|9.235|<.0001
95855079|NCT00918255|191669679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0|||||Van Elteren test|Analyzed using Van Elteren test stratified by Hurley Stage.||||||0.169
95855080|NCT02392624|191669682|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-39.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-22.5|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-22.5|-54.5|<0.0001
95855081|NCT02392624|191669683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
96001110|NCT00972244|191979161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7402|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.28|-23.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-23.60|-42.28|<0.0001
95827543|NCT02752958|191626323|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.738|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.738|-0.604|0.3415
95827544|NCT02752958|191626324|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.935|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.935|0.610|0.0029
95827545|NCT02752958|191626325|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.582|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||3.582|1.266|<0.0001
95827546|NCT02752958|191626326|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.371|4.729|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||4.729|2.371|<.0001
95827547|NCT02752958|191626327|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|5.568|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||5.568|3.210|<0.0001
95827548|NCT02752958|191626328|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.119|5.477|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||5.477|3.119|<0.0001
95827549|NCT02752958|191626329|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|4.352|||ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||4.352|0.483|0.0145
95827550|NCT02752958|191626330|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.498|6.339|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||6.339|2.498|<0.0001
95827551|NCT02752958|191626331|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.933|8.759|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||8.759|4.933|<0.0001
95827552|NCT02752958|191626332|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.219|9.115|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||9.115|5.219|<.0001
95827553|NCT02752958|191626333|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.438|10.335|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||10.335|6.438|<0.0001
95827554|NCT02752958|191626334|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.726|10.623|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 24||10.623|6.726|<0.0001
96001111|NCT00972244|191979161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8358|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.9|-31.85||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group (all treatment groups included) as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-31.85|-50.90|<0.0001
95827555|NCT02752958|191626335|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.738|1.989|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.989|-0.738|0.3676
95827556|NCT02752958|191626336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|2.255|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 8||2.255|-0.451|0.1907
95827557|NCT02752958|191626337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|3.162|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 12||3.162|0.467|0.0085
95827558|NCT02752958|191626338|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|3.489|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||3.489|0.744|0.0026
95827559|NCT02752958|191626339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|4.116|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.||Week 0 Vs Week 20||4.116|1.371|0.0001
95959903|NCT03520075|191892289|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.6|299.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||299|17.6|
95959904|NCT03520075|191892289|SUPERIORITY||Geo LSM|72.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|181.0|||||Ratio of Geo LSM was calculated for Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029.|Comparison of effect of food on Cmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||181|29.1|
95959905|NCT03520075|191892290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-2.275||||0.0388671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.216|-0.083|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||-0.0830|-5.2160|0.0388671
95959906|NCT03520075|191892290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|1.45||||0.4795001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.917|5.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 6 (fed state) and Cohort 9 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 80 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||5.1500|-0.9170|0.4795001
95959907|NCT03520075|191892290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|-0.45||||0.8272593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.467|0.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C1D1.||0.9500|-2.4670|0.8272593
95827560|NCT02752958|191626340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|4.222|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 24||4.222|1.477|<.0001
95827561|NCT02752958|191626341|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.243|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Valu|Week 0 Vs Week 4||0.243|-0.059|0.2326
95827562|NCT02752958|191626342|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.216||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||0.216|-0.085|0.3934
95827563|NCT02752958|191626343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.284|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||0.284|-0.016|0.0795
95827564|NCT02752958|191626344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.294|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 vs Week 16||0.294|-0.011|0.0682
95827565|NCT02752958|191626345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.287|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||0.287|-0.018|0.0844
95959908|NCT03520075|191892290|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimator|0.583||||0.5126908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|3.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The Hodges-Lehmann estimator and 90% CI was calculated using the Moses approximation.|Comparison of effect of food on Tmax between Cohort 7 (fed state) and Cohort 10 (fasted state) treatment arm groups of 120 mg ASTX029 in C2D1.||3.5000|-6.4500|0.5126908
95959909|NCT05146206|191892320|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95959910|NCT05146206|191892321|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||MANOVA|||||||<0.001
95827566|NCT02752958|191626346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.332|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 24||0.332|0.027|0.0211
95827567|NCT02752958|191626347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.194|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||1.194|0.002|0.0493
95827568|NCT02752958|191626348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.013|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||2.013|0.830|<0.0001
95827569|NCT02752958|191626349|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.457||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.457|1.278|<0.0001
95827570|NCT02752958|191626350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.429|2.629|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.629|1.429|<.0001
95827571|NCT02752958|191626351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 20||2.943|1.743|<.0001
95827572|NCT02752958|191626352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.743|2.943|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.943|1.743|<.0001
95827573|NCT02752958|191626353|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|1.295|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.295|0.474|<.0001
95827574|NCT02752958|191626354|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.69|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.690|0.875|<.0001
95827575|NCT02752958|191626355|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.333|2.145|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.145|1.333|<.0001
95827576|NCT02752958|191626356|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.545|2.371|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 16||2.371|1.545|<.0001
95827577|NCT02752958|191626357|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.643|2.469|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.469|1.643|<.0001
95827578|NCT02752958|191626358|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.794|2.62||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.620|1.794|<.0001
95827579|NCT02752958|191626359|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.66|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 4||1.660|0.703|<0.0001
95959911|NCT00816556|191892322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.42
95959912|NCT00816556|191892322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Dryness bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.22
95959913|NCT00816556|191892322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Itching severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.37
95959914|NCT00816556|191892322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||Itching bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.27
95959915|NCT00816556|191892322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Burning severity: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.46
95827580|NCT02752958|191626360|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|1.926|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 8||1.926|0.977|<.0001
95827581|NCT02752958|191626361|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|2.418|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|"Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice.~Week 0 = Baseline Value"|Week 0 Vs Week 12||2.418|1.473|<.0001
95827582|NCT02752958|191626362|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.848|2.81|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week16||2.810|1.848|<.0001
95827583|NCT02752958|191626363|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|2.694|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs. Week 20||2.694|1.732|<.0001
95827584|NCT02752958|191626364|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.982|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 Vs Week 24||2.982|2.020|<.0001
95827585|NCT02752958|191626365|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.919|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 4||0.919|-0.050|0.0786
95827586|NCT02752958|191626366|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.171|||ANOVA|\[1\] From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 8||1.171|0.210|0.0050
95827587|NCT02752958|191626367|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.875|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 12||1.875|0.918|<.0001
95827588|NCT02752958|191626368|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.926|||ANOVA|\[From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||1.926|0.951|<.0001
95827589|NCT02752958|191626369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.653||From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|ANOVA||Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|Week 0 vs Week 20||1.653|0.678|<.0001
95827590|NCT02752958|191626370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|2.047|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with visit and site as fixed effect and subject as random effect. Visit\*site interaction included where significant at 10% level.|Difference is the baseline score minus other weeks score such that a positive difference favour to test dentifrice. Week 0 = Baseline Value|||2.047|1.072|<.0001
95827591|NCT02836873|191626371|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.28||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||This is a mixed-effects repeated measures analysis including region, screening anti-diabetic treatment regimen, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline HbA1c as a fixed effect covariate. Data from Weeks 6, 12, and 24 are used in the model.||-0.10|-0.46|0.0026
95827592|NCT02836873|191626372|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.03|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-1.03|-2.50|< 0.0001
95827593|NCT02836873|191626373|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.63||||0.2035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|1.44|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||1.44|-6.70|0.2035
95827594|NCT02836873|191626374|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.2||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||0.05|-0.44|0.1156
95827595|NCT02836873|191626375|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.1|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Region, screening anti-diabetic treatment, baseline eGFR, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.||||-0.10|-0.65|0.0078
95959916|NCT00816556|191892322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|||Burning bothersomeness: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.67
95827596|NCT02863523|191626547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95827597|NCT02863523|191626548|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
95827598|NCT02863523|191626549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95959917|NCT00816556|191892323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.33
95959918|NCT00816556|191892323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.99
95959919|NCT00816556|191892323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.58
95827599|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.10|-0.56|0.0056
95827600|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.48|-0.95|<0.0001
95827601|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.51|-0.98|<0.0001
95827602|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.34|-0.81|<0.0001
95827603|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
95827604|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.49|-0.95|<0.0001
95827605|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.56|-1.03|<0.0001
95827606|NCT01719003|191626550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-0.40|-0.86|<0.0001
95827607|NCT01719003|191626550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 25 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.62|0.15|0.6246
95855082|NCT02392624|191669684|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Worsening Rate Difference|-32.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-14.9|||Chi-squared|||For participants who transitioned to open-label omalizumab, data prior to the date of transitioning was used for analysis.||-14.9|-47.9|0.0004
95959920|NCT00816556|191892324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 2: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.007
95959921|NCT00816556|191892324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Baseline vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.32
95959922|NCT00816556|191892324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2 vs. week 12: P-value for the global F-test testing for all treatment arm effects equal.||||0.02
95959923|NCT03546816|191892325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||P-value from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.229
95827608|NCT01719003|191626550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority of empagliflozin 10 mg qd against metformin 1000 mg bid were to be tested for HbA1c change from baseline to Week 24 at the level of α=0.025 (one-sided), through application of a non-inferiority margin of 0.35%.|Adjusted mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 10 mg qd minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of HbA1c (in units of %) after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||0.63|0.16|0.6558
95827609|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-12.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-12.2|-25.5|<0.0001
95827610|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-16.3||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-16.3|-29.7|<0.0001
95827611|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-20.0|-33.5|<0.0001
95827612|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-9.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 25 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-9.2|-22.8|<0.0001
95827613|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-8.9||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG of double-blind treatment||-8.9|-22.3|<0.0001
95827614|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-8.2||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-8.2|-21.4|<0.0001
95827615|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-21.5||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-21.5|-35.0|<0.0001
95827616|NCT01719003|191626551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-6.0||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Empagliflozin 10 mg qd|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of FPG after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-6.0|-19.1|0.0002
95959924|NCT03546816|191892326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.013
95827617|NCT01719003|191626552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.68||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.68|-3.33|<0.0001
95827618|NCT01719003|191626552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-1.69||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 12.5 mg bid+ Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.69|-3.35|<0.0001
95827619|NCT01719003|191626552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.37||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 1000 mg bid minus Metformin 1000 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment||-1.37|-3.03|<0.0001
95827620|NCT01719003|191626552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.43||Since previous step in the hierarchical testing failed (primary measure analyses 9 and 10), the analyses for secondary measures of FPG and body weight are considered exploratory and not confirmatory|Mixed Models Analysis|'Baseline HbA1c':linear covariate;'treatment','baseline renal function','region','visit' \& 'visit by treatment interaction':fixed effects.|Empagliflozin 5 mg bid + Metformin 500 mg bid minus Metformin 500 mg bid|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach comparing the change from baseline of body weight after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment.||-1.43|-3.09|<0.0001
95827621|NCT02130986|191626559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95827622|NCT02130986|191626560|NON_INFERIORITY|Procalcitonin algorithm implementation increases or does not change the proportion of subjects who experience a composite endpoint of adverse outcomes by Day 30. The prespecified noninferiority margin is 4.5 percentage.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95827623|NCT02130986|191626561|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|30.0||||||||30|-12.2|
95827624|NCT02084238|191626584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the data between baseline and week 10.||||<0.01
95827625|NCT00438854|191626602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimating proportion of responders|0.2||||||||||||||The primary measures of efficacy of tumor response were: complete remission (CR), nodular partial remission (nPR), or partial remission (PR), as per NCI-WG criteria. The true ORR is reported as percentage and 90% CI calculated using the binomial exact test. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was defined from the date on study to date of progression, death in remission, initiation of non-protocol therapy in the absence of progression, or censored on the last visit.||||
95843738|NCT01059318|191655052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|196.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FVC change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||196|-45|
95843739|NCT01059318|191655053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|279.0|||Bayesian analysis|A Bayesian posterior distribution of the treatment effect at 26 weeks was evaluated using a non-informative prior.|MILES study and current study had different study designs, so change from baseline to 26 weeks in MILES study was estimated from the publicly reported rate of change per month in order to provide a meaningful comparison based on Bayesian analysis.|"Proof of Concept was proposed as follows:~* 90% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \> 0 mL~* 50% level of proof that difference in FEV1 change from baseline everolimus vs. Historical Placebo Control arm from MILES study \>= 100 mL~Historical data from 43 patients treated with placebo from the MILES study were down weighted to an effective sample size of 18 for comparison."||279|93|
95843740|NCT01279681|191655069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.49|0.93
95843741|NCT04290039|191655139|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5265|0.636|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6360|0.5265|
95843742|NCT04290039|191655139|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.349|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3171|0.3839|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3839|0.3171|
95862107|NCT01086358|191682781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Analysis is a superiority comparison based on the use of linear mixed effect model with subject as a random effect, with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects.||0.03|-1.39|0.059
95827626|NCT04411420|191626606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.55|0.37||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||0.37|-1.55|0.169
95827627|NCT04411420|191626607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|1.52||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway 3-month change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway 3-month change.|||1.52|-0.33|0.139
95827628|NCT04411420|191626608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.72||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.||||0.72|-1.69|0.417
95827629|NCT04411420|191626609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.57|-1.37|0.409
95827630|NCT04411420|191626609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.91||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-1.04|0.899
95827631|NCT04411420|191626609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.08||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||1.08|-1.01|0.946
95827632|NCT04411420|191626610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|4.61||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Odds Ratio calculated for Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway relative to Coordinated Care Management Pathway.|||4.61|-4.62|0.992
95827633|NCT04411420|191626611|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|2.18||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|||2.18|-7.52|0.262
95959925|NCT03546816|191892327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.236
95827634|NCT04411420|191626612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.31|0.5||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.50|-1.31|0.37
95827635|NCT04411420|191626612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|0.39||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.39|-1.54|0.24
95827636|NCT04411420|191626612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.54|-1.43|0.37
95959926|NCT03546816|191892328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-values, least squares means (LS Mean) and standard deviations (LS SD) from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.083
95959927|NCT03546816|191892328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.049
95827637|NCT04411420|191626613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|0.72||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.72|-0.51|0.727
95959928|NCT03546816|191892328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 6||||0.081
95959929|NCT03546816|191892328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.157
95827638|NCT04411420|191626613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.91||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.91|-0.43|0.478
95827639|NCT04411420|191626613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|0.66||Threshold for significance is 0.025 due to dual primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.66|-0.75|0.894
95827640|NCT04411420|191626614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.04|-0.15|0.222
95827641|NCT04411420|191626614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.09|-0.10|0.988
95827642|NCT04411420|191626614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.05|-0.16|0.269
95827643|NCT04411420|191626615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.10|-0.22|0.477
95827644|NCT04411420|191626615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.17|-0.19|0.877
95827645|NCT04411420|191626615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.11|-0.29|0.360
95827646|NCT04411420|191626616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.28|-0.23|0.858
95827647|NCT04411420|191626616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.21|-0.32|0.688
95827648|NCT04411420|191626616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.26|-0.32|0.833
95827649|NCT04411420|191626617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.64|-0.18|0.259
95827650|NCT04411420|191626617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.81|-0.03|0.068
95827651|NCT04411420|191626617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.57||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.57|-0.29|0.514
95843743|NCT04290039|191655139|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5524|0.6582|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6582|0.5524|
95827652|NCT04411420|191626618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.20|-0.22|0.895
95827653|NCT04411420|191626618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.30|-0.13|0.438
95827654|NCT04411420|191626618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.21||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.21|-0.24|0.890
95827655|NCT04411420|191626619|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 3 months||0.02|-0.04|0.508
95827656|NCT04411420|191626619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 6 months||0.03|-0.03|0.992
95827657|NCT04411420|191626619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Hierarchical linear model fit included random effects for clinic and clinic by time and pre-specified clinic- and patient-level covariates.|Difference is calculated as Integrated Sequenced Care Pathway change minus Coordinated Care Management Pathway change.|Baseline to 12 months||0.02|-0.05|0.389
95827658|NCT00628589|191626637|SUPERIORITY|LS mean was used in the primary efficacy analysis||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||0.0004
95827659|NCT00628589|191626637|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model||||||<0.0001
95827660|NCT00628589|191626638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
95827661|NCT00628589|191626638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95827662|NCT00628589|191626639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0015
95827663|NCT00628589|191626639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95827664|NCT00297102|191626644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||60|18|0.0003
95827665|NCT00297102|191626645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.982||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.982|0.737|0.0278
95827666|NCT00297102|191626646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|71.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||71|26|<0.0001
95827667|NCT00297102|191626647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.034||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 765 in the roflumilast group, n= 758 in the placebo group).|||2.034|0.526|0.9212
95827668|NCT00297102|191626648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|0.9521||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8472|1.0699||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.0699|0.8472|0.4089
95827669|NCT00297102|191626649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.449||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.449|0.016|0.0356
95827670|NCT01459653|191626664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6989|1.1182|||Chi-squared|||||1.1182|0.6989|0.3038
95827671|NCT01459653|191626665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1897||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9428|1.5012|||Chi-squared|||||1.5012|0.9428|0.1432
95827672|NCT01459653|191626666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8794||||0.6483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5063|1.5276|||Chi-squared|||||1.5276|0.5063|0.6483
95827673|NCT01459653|191626676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8113|2.9177|||Chi-squared|||||2.9177|1.8113|<0.0001
95827674|NCT01459653|191626677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.6605|||Chi-squared|||||0.6605|0.3730|<0.0001
95827675|NCT01459653|191626678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9451||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|1.3391|||Chi-squared|||||1.3391|0.6671|0.7509
95827676|NCT01459653|191626679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2683||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.5061|||Chi-squared|||||1.5061|1.0680|0.0067
95827677|NCT01459653|191626687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6382|1.4874|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||1.4874|0.6382|<0.0001
95959930|NCT03546816|191892329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 2||||0.151
95827678|NCT01459653|191626688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2739||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4832|-0.0646|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4507||||-0.0646|-0.4832|0.0103
95827679|NCT01459653|191626689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.3812|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.5295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4495||||0.5295|0.2330|<0.0001
95827680|NCT01459653|191626697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1031||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0075|0.2136|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.2136|-0.0075|0.0677
95827681|NCT01459653|191626698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0018||||0.8968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0259|0.0295|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4516||||0.0295|-0.0259|0.8968
95827682|NCT01459653|191626699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|0.1029|||ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 4505||||0.1029|-0.0452|<0.0001
95827683|NCT01459653|191626707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4255|1.2698|||Chi-squared|||||1.2698|0.4255|0.2698
95827684|NCT01459653|191626708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95827685|NCT01459653|191626725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5977
95827686|NCT01459653|191626726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2435
95827687|NCT01459653|191626727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7630
95959931|NCT03546816|191892329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4||||0.052
95827688|NCT01459653|191626728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3830
95827689|NCT01459653|191626729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0002
95827690|NCT01459653|191626730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0301
95827691|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.92||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF treatment decision (under vs correct) as predictor for ANC||1.01|0.84|0.0683
95827692|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.89||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Over vs correct) as predictor for ANC||0.96|0.82|0.0019
95827693|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|degrees of freedom: 3181||GCSF decision (Under vs over) as predictor for ANC||1.15|0.94|0.4469
95827694|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Study drug dose (higher vs lower) as predictor for ANC||1.19|1.03|0.0079
95827695|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Tumor type (hematological vs solid) as predictor for ANC||0.91|0.72|0.0004
95827696|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient gender (female vs male) as predictor for ANC||0.92|0.80|<0.0001
95827697|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.04||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||ECOG (per 1 point) as predictor for ANC||1.08|1.01|0.0235
95827698|NCT01459653|191626731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.05|||Regression, Linear|||Hb (per g/dL) as predictor for ANC||1.05|1.02|<0.0001
95827699|NCT01459653|191626732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to quantify the variability in patient outcome attributable to within-center variability before any patient-level determinants are considered.|ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the center-level.||||0.0003
95827700|NCT01459653|191626732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the patient within center-level.||||<0.0001
95827701|NCT01459653|191626732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used taking into account center, patient within center-level and within-patient level (over time). This appendix describes the within-patient level.||||<0.0001
95827702|NCT01459653|191626737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.544||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.812|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.812|0.365|0.003
95827703|NCT01459653|191626737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
95827704|NCT01459653|191626737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.242|7.092|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||7.092|3.242|<0.001
95827705|NCT01459653|191626737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|3.925|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||3.925|1.542|<0.001
95827706|NCT01459653|191626737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.452||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|0.766|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.766|0.267|0.003
95827707|NCT01459653|191626738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.925||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.592|5.374|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||5.374|1.592|0.001
95827708|NCT01459653|191626738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.572||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.331|4.969|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||4.969|1.331|0.005
95827709|NCT01459653|191626738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.328|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.557|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN grade 4 episode||0.557|0.193|<0.001
95959932|NCT03546816|191892329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-value from a CMH test stratified by Baseline WI-NRS used for randomization stratification. Value has been adjusted for multiple imputation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 10||||0.175
95827710|NCT01459653|191626739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.179|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||2.179|1.284|<0.001
95827711|NCT01459653|191626739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.777|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||7.968|2.777|<0.001
95827712|NCT01459653|191626739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for FN episode||3.574|1.342|0.002
95827713|NCT01459653|191626739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.215||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.687|||Regression, Logistic|||History of anaemia at enrollment as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.687|0.067|0.010
95827714|NCT01459653|191626739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.501||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.169|10.487|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||10.487|1.169|0.025
95827715|NCT01459653|191626740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.991|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient age (per 1 year) as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.991|0.958|0.003
95827716|NCT01459653|191626740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for FN episode||3.570|1.610|<0.001
95827717|NCT01459653|191626740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.562||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.527|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as patient-level predictor for FN episode||4.527|1.450|0.001
95827718|NCT01459653|191626740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.232|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.499|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||0.499|0.108|<0.001
95827719|NCT01459653|191626740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.261||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|8.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for FN episode||8.084|1.315|0.011
95827720|NCT01459653|191626741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.814|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||2.355|1.397|<0.001
95827721|NCT01459653|191626741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.296|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.791|6.065|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.065|1.791|<0.001
95827722|NCT01459653|191626741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.205||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycles as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.524|1.380|0.001
95959933|NCT03546816|191892330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.475
95959934|NCT03546816|191892330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.020
95827723|NCT01459653|191626741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.863||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|3.293|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.293|1.054|0.032
95827724|NCT01459653|191626741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.385||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.879|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.879|0.168|0.024
95827725|NCT01459653|191626741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.843||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|11.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||11.942|1.964|0.001
95827726|NCT01459653|191626742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.473|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.946|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG ≥2 during study as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||3.946|1.550|<0.001
95827727|NCT01459653|191626742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.695|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||0.695|0.210|0.002
95827728|NCT01459653|191626742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.108||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|6.192|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related hospitalization||6.192|1.560|0.001
95827729|NCT01459653|191626743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.931|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.426|14.699|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||14.699|5.426|<0.001
95827730|NCT01459653|191626743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.336||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Hematological cancer (vs. oncologic) as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||0.740|0.152|0.007
95827731|NCT01459653|191626743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Cancer patients seen in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.000|0.999|0.006
95827732|NCT01459653|191626743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Chemotherapy-treated cancer patients in 2009 (per 1 patient) as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||1.001|1.000|<0.001
95827733|NCT01459653|191626743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.456||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|5.353|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||5.353|1.127|0.024
95827734|NCT01459653|191626743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.344||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.342|8.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Center type: academic-affiliated vs non-academic as center-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||8.331|1.342|0.010
95827735|NCT01459653|191626744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.965||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.218|3.172|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||3.172|1.218|0.006
95959935|NCT03546816|191892330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.492
95959936|NCT03546816|191892331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 2||||0.175
95827736|NCT01459653|191626744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.594||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.469|4.581|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance||4.581|1.469|0.001
95827737|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|0.821|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS (1 vs. 0) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.821|0.424|0.002
95827738|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.644||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 4-5 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.859|0.489|0.003
95827739|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.842|||Regression, Logistic|||Zarzio duration: 1-3 days vs. 6 or more as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.842|0.398|0.004
95827740|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.643|||Regression, Logistic|||ECOG score (per 1 point) as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||1.643|1.140|0.001
95827741|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|4.985|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||4.985|2.456|<0.001
95827742|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.096|5.336|||Regression, Logistic|||CIN1/4 in previous cycle as cycle-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.336|3.096|<0.001
95827743|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.545||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|2.033|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.033|1.175|0.002
95827744|NCT01459653|191626745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.596||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN Grade 4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.340|1.088|0.017
95827745|NCT01459653|191626746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.281|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.281|1.152|0.006
95827746|NCT01459653|191626746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.898||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||History of CIN4 at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||2.979|1.209|0.005
95827747|NCT01459653|191626746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.984|||Regression, Logistic|||History of repeated infections at enrollment as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||5.984|1.200|0.016
95827748|NCT01459653|191626746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Over- vs. correctly prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.660|0.291|<0.001
95827749|NCT01459653|191626746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.053||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.295|3.256|||Regression, Logistic|||Under- vs. over-prophylacted as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||3.256|1.295|0.002
95827750|NCT01459653|191626746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.558||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.939|||Regression, Logistic|||GIS at enrollment (1 vs. 0) as patient-level predictor for composite outcome (any of CIN Grade 4, FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalization, CIN/FN-related chemotherapy disturbance)||0.939|0.332|0.028
95827751|NCT01459653|191626747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2064||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1931|4.0803|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient level predictor: History of anemia at enrollment||4.0803|1.1931|0.0116
95827752|NCT01459653|191626747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3049||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2754|4.1656|||Regression, Logistic|||Liver/renal/cardiac comorbidity as patient level predictor||4.1656|1.2754|0.0057
95827753|NCT01459653|191626747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2159|37.4243|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient level predictor||37.4243|8.2159|<0.0001
95827754|NCT01459653|191626751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Female gender as patient-level predictor for cancer-related mortality||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
95827755|NCT01459653|191626751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9567|37.1225|||Regression, Logistic|||Poor performance (ECOG \>=2) during study as patient-level predictor||37.1225|5.9567|<0.0001
95827756|NCT05257148|191626761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95827757|NCT03883113|191626775|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
95827758|NCT03883113|191626775|OTHER|||||||0.1654|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1654
95827759|NCT03883113|191626775|OTHER|||||||0.1711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1711
95959937|NCT03546816|191892331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 4||||0.169
95827760|NCT03883113|191626776|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical analysis applies to participants with Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness versus participants without Virologically confirmed Influenza-like Illness||||1.000
95827761|NCT03883113|191626777|OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qPCR confirmed Influenza versus participants with no qPCR confirmed Influenza||||0.143
95827762|NCT03883113|191626778|OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis applies to participants with qCulture confirmed Influenza versus participants without qCulture confirmed Influenza||||0.3504
95827763|NCT03883113|191626779|OTHER|||||||0.5558|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5558
95827764|NCT03883113|191626780|OTHER|||||||0.6534|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6534
95827765|NCT03883113|191626781|OTHER|||||||0.5485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
95827766|NCT03883113|191626782|OTHER|||||||0.6753|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6753
95827767|NCT03883113|191626783|OTHER|||||||0.711|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.711
95827768|NCT03883113|191626784|OTHER|||||||0.4689|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4689
95827769|NCT03883113|191626787|OTHER|||||||0.5001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5001
95827770|NCT03883113|191626788|OTHER|||||||0.6799|||||||zero-inflated poisson model|||||||0.6799
95827771|NCT03883113|191626789|OTHER|||||||0.5911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5911
95827772|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.67|75.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 1||75.42|-79.67|0.956
95827773|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.41|106.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 14||106.07|-105.41|0.995
95959938|NCT03546816|191892331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.516
95959939|NCT03546816|191892332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.814
95959940|NCT03546816|191892333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||P-values, LS mean and SD from ANCOVA with treatment group and stratification factor as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||At Week 10||||0.113
95827774|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.35||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-191.15|72.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 5 mg and placebo on Day 28||72.45|-191.15|0.366
95827775|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.02||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.96|-20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 1||-20.08|-179.96|0.016
95827776|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-137.85||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.28|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 14||-30.43|-245.28|0.014
95827777|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-229.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-362.17|-95.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 10 mg and placebo on Day 28||-95.91|-362.17|0.001
95827778|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-89.98||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.62|-12.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 1||-12.33|-167.62|0.025
95827779|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-222.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-326.54|-117.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 14||-117.51|-326.54|<0.001
95827780|NCT04465877|191626800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-248.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.35|-118.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between change from baseline in PPG (AUEC0-4) value for JTT-662 20 mg and placebo on Day 28||-118.28|-379.35|<0.001
95827781|NCT01396265|191626801|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.815|72.057|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.057|60.815|
95827782|NCT01396265|191626802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|66.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.656|72.213|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||72.213|60.656|
95827783|NCT01396265|191626803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|78.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.363|84.968|||ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||84.968|72.363|
95827784|NCT02446418|191626811|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.5|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by-visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.5|0.1|0.033
95843744|NCT04290039|191655140|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4971|0.6004|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6004|0.4971|
95959941|NCT01161446|191892335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95959942|NCT01161446|191892336|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority bound: Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio fell below 2.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.90|0.61|
95959943|NCT01161446|191892337|NON_INFERIORITY|Home testing was to be considered non-inferior to standard testing with respect to STI prevalence if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two arms (home - standard) fell below 10%.|Difference in proportions|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.016||||||||0.016|-0.16|
95827785|NCT02446418|191626812|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of fixed combination FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA in inhalation powder was assessed assuming a non-inferiority margin of -1.5.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||||The analysis method was an MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, visit (Week 6, Week 12, Week 18 and Week 24), Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline ACT total score-by visit interaction, gender, age, country and participant fitted as a random factor. The REML estimation approach was used with a default covariance structure of unstructured.|1.1|-0.3|0.224
95827786|NCT02446418|191626813|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|2.62|0.47|0.820
95827787|NCT02446418|191626813|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.41||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24|The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, correct use of inhaler device at Baseline, gender, age and country.|4.60|0.43|0.566
95827788|NCT00435162|191626844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.05||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Slope change across all 3 active treatment groups.||0.20|-2.31|0.0990
95827789|NCT00977938|191626865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
95827790|NCT00977938|191626866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.48||P-value was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|The primary efficacy analysis was a superiority analysis. We controlled the two-sided family-wise error rate of 0.05 across the two coprimary end points using the Hochberg-Benjamini method. With this method, the null hypothesis of randomized treatment equivalence is rejected if significance is achieved for both end points at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 or for one end point at a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.48|0.17|<0.001
95827791|NCT00977938|191626867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary safety analysis was a noninferiority analysis performed with the use of the Farrington-Manning risk-difference approach. Assuming an annualized rate for moderate or severe bleeding of 1.9% and an absolute noninferiority margin of 0.8%, at a one-sided alpha level of significance of 0.025, we calculated that a sample size of 9960 patients would give the study 80% power to detect noninferiority.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.96||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Farrington-Manning||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.53|0.38|0.704
95827792|NCT00977938|191626868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 2.28% (0.0228)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.82|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 97.5% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have MACCE rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||0.03||<0.001
95827793|NCT00977938|191626869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.97% (0.0097)|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.05|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.27||One-sided P-value for non-inferiority|Nam and Kwon|P-value was computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|Weighted RD and 1-sided 95% upper CL were computed for clustered matched pairs based on Nam and Kwon (2009).|The null hypothesis was that DAPT patients treated with DES would have stent thrombosis rate between 0 and 33 months post-index procedure that exceeds that of the control arm (patients treated with BMS) by at least a pre-specified absolute margin of δ.||-0.27||<0.001
95827794|NCT00977938|191626870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.97|0.70|
95962371|NCT01515943|191896589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|17.0|||Bernard's exact test|A p-value was not reported in the manuscript results, but has been included here, reported directly from the analysis.||For the HB-C group, the association between completion of the computer vergence/accommodative therapy (CVAT) program (defined as achieving at least 15 stars for the jump vergence exercise) and overall success at 12 weeks was evaluated using Bernard's exact test.||17|-27|<0.01
95827795|NCT00977938|191626871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.69|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||0.69|0.29|
95827796|NCT00977938|191626872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.48|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||1.48|0.24|
95827797|NCT00977938|191626873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.47||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.47|0.57|0.722
95827798|NCT00977938|191626874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64||This analysis was not powered. P-value was stratified according to geographic region, thienopyridine received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for ST; P-value was adjudsted using the Benjamini Hochberg approach.|Log Rank||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|This analysis was not powered.||1.64|0.15|0.478
95827799|NCT00977938|191626875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.12||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.31|||Farrington-Manning|No formal hypothesis testing was done.|30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.31|-0.06|0.706
95827800|NCT00977938|191626876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis|||1.40|0.58|
95959944|NCT01161446|191892338|NON_INFERIORITY|Self-testing was to be considered non-inferior with respect to the number of reported male CAI partners if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the fold-difference in the number of partners between the two arms (self ÷ standard testing) fell below 2.|Incidence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Poisson regression|Used generalized estimating equations with exchangeable working correlation and robust standard errors to account for repeated measures.|The home testing arm represents the numerator and the standard testing arm the denominator.|||1.33|0.64|
95959945|NCT02270671|191892351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
95959946|NCT02270671|191892352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.026|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
95959947|NCT02270671|191892353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \>.05|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
95959948|NCT02270671|191892354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: \<.0001|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
95959949|NCT02270671|191892355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Group x Time interaction p-value: \>.05; Gender p-value: =.007|ANOVA|2x2x3 repeated measures ANOVA. 2 between-subjects factors (Group; Gender) and 1 within-subject factor (Time). P value adjusted to p \< .025.||||||>.05
95959950|NCT00476242|191892357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||||||.047
95827801|NCT00977938|191626877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.64|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT; HR was stratified according to geographic region (NA, EU, or AU and NZ), thienopyridine drug received at the time of randomization, and presence or absence of risk factors for stent thrombosis.|||1.64|0.15|
95827802|NCT00977938|191626878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|2.28|||||30-month DAPT vs. 12-month DAPT|||2.28|-0.21|
95959951|NCT01657799|191892377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by graded prognostic assessment (GPA) score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.933
95843745|NCT04290039|191655140|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2788|0.3367|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.3367|0.2788|
95959952|NCT01657799|191892377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||The primary analysis used a Hochberg testing procedure to preserve the familywise error rate for multiple comparisons, where the larger P-value for the comparisons of veliparib 50 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT and veliparib 200 mg BID + WBRT with placebo BID + WBRT were compared to an α = 0.05. If statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), both comparisons were considered significant. If the larger P-value was not statistically significant, the smaller P-value was compared to an α = 0.025.||||0.909
95827803|NCT00747344|191626887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. With 120 subjects (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in the primary endpoint between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight (\<=65kg vs \> 65 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power was \> 99% at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95827804|NCT00747344|191626888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight (≤ 65 kg vs \> 65 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95827805|NCT00747344|191626889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95827806|NCT00884039|191626901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
95827807|NCT02648022|191626911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.27|||Regression, Linear|Multivariable Regression Analysis||||9.27|0.92|0.07
95827808|NCT02847858|191626938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.07||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) minus Arm2 (Control); Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to Post-visit Follow-up||2.07|0.26|0.011
95827809|NCT02847858|191626938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.07||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||2.07|1.01|<0.001
95827810|NCT02847858|191626938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.48||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.05||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is Post-visit Follow-up minus Baseline|Null hypothesis: No Time difference (Post-visit Follow-up vs. Baseline) in outcome||1.05|-0.10|0.108
95827811|NCT02847858|191626939|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2,1611; Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparisons are 3 months - Baseline and 6 months - Baseline and 6 months - 3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months or from Baseline to 6 months||||0.04
95827812|NCT02847858|191626939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.82||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.11||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site||Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 3 months|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 3 months - Baseline|2.11|-0.48|.218
95827813|NCT02847858|191626939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.58||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.77||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention - Control; Time comparison is 6 months - Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in change in mean self-efficacy from Baseline to 6 months||2.77|0.38|0.008
95827814|NCT02847858|191626940|SUPERIORITY||F statistic:Time X Arm Interaction|3.72||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|df=2, 1007; Arm comparison is Intervention/Control; Time comparisons are 3 months/Baseline and 6 months/Baseline and 6 months/3 months|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months or to 6 months||||0.025
95827815|NCT02847858|191626940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.36||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 3 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 3 months||10.36|1.04|0.042
95827816|NCT02847858|191626940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|18.06||Post hoc comparison pursuant to significant Arm by Time Interaction; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Intervention / Control; Time comparison is 6 months / Baseline|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in change in percentage of participants using non-barrier method from Baseline to 6 months||18.06|1.7|0.005
95827817|NCT02847858|191626941|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.82||Time main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; random intercepts and slopes over time; clustering by recruitment site|Time comparison is post-app minus pre-app|Null hypothesis: No change in contraception knowledge from immediate pre-app to immediate post-app among Intervention group participants||1.82|1.43|<0.001
95827818|NCT02847858|191626942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.01||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who discussed birth control with health care provider at visit||5.01|0.98|0.055
95827819|NCT02847858|191626943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.78||Arm main effect; a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<.05|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, purpose of visit, and whether sexually active prior 3 months; clustering by recruitment site|Arm comparison is Arm 1 (Intervention) / Arm2 (Control)|Null hypothesis: No difference between study arms in percentage of participants who receive/make appointment/get prescription for a non-barrier method||3.78|0.73|0.227
95827820|NCT02210221|191627069|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in 6-month mortality||||<0.0001
95827821|NCT02210221|191627069|OTHER||observed to expected ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||||numerator: 6-month mortality observed denominator: 6-month mortality expected 95% CIs estimated according to a Poisson distribution|||0.76|0.62|
95827822|NCT02210221|191627070|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 mental component summary||||<0.0001
95827823|NCT02210221|191627070|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in SF-12v2 physical component summary||||<0.0001
95827824|NCT02210221|191627071|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No corrections for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum in Qolibri Overall Scale||||<0.0001
95827825|NCT02210221|191627072|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827826|NCT02210221|191627073|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827827|NCT02210221|191627074|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001||||||No correlations for multiple comparisons were done|ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827828|NCT02210221|191627075|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827829|NCT02210221|191627076|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.169
95827830|NCT02210221|191627077|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827831|NCT02210221|191627078|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827832|NCT02210221|191627079|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827833|NCT02210221|191627080|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.637|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.637
95827834|NCT02210221|191627081|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827835|NCT02210221|191627082|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.480
95827836|NCT02210221|191627083|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827837|NCT02210221|191627084|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.024
95827838|NCT02210221|191627085|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0||||||0.064|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||0.064
95827839|NCT02210221|191627086|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis: no difference between ER stratum, Admission stratum and ICU stratum||||<0.0001
95827840|NCT02230761|191627087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.020
95827841|NCT02230761|191627088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95827842|NCT02230761|191627089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95827843|NCT02042534|191627096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6765
95827844|NCT02042534|191627097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3753|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3753
95827845|NCT02042534|191627098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<.0001
95827846|NCT02042534|191627099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3301|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3301
95827847|NCT03093974|191627107|SUPERIORITY|The number of NCFB pulmonary exacerbations was compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model including treatment, pooled site (country) and baseline use of stable concomitant therapy with oral macrolides as fixed effects and log-time on treatment as an offset.|LS Mean rate ratio|0.612||||0.00101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.82|||two-sided Wald chi-square test|||||0.820|0.457|0.00101
95827848|NCT03906656|191627138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=73). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0002
95827849|NCT03906656|191627138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-values based on Holm-Bonferroni method. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=77). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the KAFO and C-Brace means (n=86 and n=77, respectively).|H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
95827850|NCT03906656|191627138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is for paired data (n=86). This explains the discrepancy between the mean difference and the difference between the Baseline and KAFO means (n=102 and n=86, respectively).|KAFO vs. Baseline -- H0: the mean difference (KAFO - Baseline) \<= 0.||||<0.00001
95827851|NCT03906656|191627139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|63.6 degrees of freedom.||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.005
95827852|NCT03906656|191627140|SUPERIORITY|P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|74.4 degrees of freedom||H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.005
95827853|NCT03906656|191627141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.6||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1207.5, effect size r = 0.026, p=0.583.|||0.583
95827854|NCT03906656|191627142|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.37||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (SAI - Down)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=438, effect size r = 0.21, p=0.008|||0.0078
95827855|NCT03906656|191627143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.0||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=267, effect size r = 0.32, p=0.002|||0.0020
95827856|NCT03906656|191627144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.178||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0. (Fear of falling - indoors)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=433, effect size r = 0.33, p=0.002|||0.0023
95827857|NCT03906656|191627144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.973|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.43||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=557.5, effect size r = 0.265, p=0.0066|||0.0066
95827858|NCT03906656|191627145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|McNemar|||Paired dataset. H0: The probability of fallers wearing C-Brace becoming non-fallers wearing KAFO is the same as the probability of non-fallers wearing C-Brace becoming fallers wearing KAFO.||||0.006
95827859|NCT03906656|191627146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.4||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=1325.5, effect size r = 0.181, p=0.08.|||0.08
95827860|NCT03906656|191627147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.184||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1124.5, effect size r = 0.125 p=0.151|H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.151
95827861|NCT03906656|191627148|SUPERIORITY|H0: the mean of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \>= 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.281|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|16.7 degrees of freedom||WLQ-25 - Physical||||0.281
95827862|NCT03906656|191627149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|48.4 degrees of freedom||OPUS - Low Extremity Functional Status. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.00019
95827863|NCT03906656|191627150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|22.1 degrees of freedom||Emotional well-being. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0226
95959953|NCT01657799|191892377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.985||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.355|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.355|0.716|0.927
95827864|NCT03906656|191627150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/Fatigue. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.||||0.0020
95827865|NCT03906656|191627150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.528||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Health change. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. V=649, effect size r = 0.285, p=0.00493|||0.0049
95827866|NCT03906656|191627150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.2||6.47e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|37.35 degrees of freedom||Physical Functioning Score. H0: the mean difference (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0||||0.0000647
95827867|NCT03906656|191627151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.843||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-values \< 0.05 used as threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Device. H0: the median of the population differences (C-Brace - KAFO) \<= 0|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test V=1018.5, effect size r = 0.056, p=0.301|||0.301
95827868|NCT00405964|191627158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Determined for site. P-value of \<.001 for treatment as well.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
95827869|NCT00405964|191627159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0||||Determined for site. Treatment p-value \<.001|ANOVA|||||||0.035
95827870|NCT00405964|191627160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Same p-value for treatment and site.|ANOVA|||||||<.001
95827871|NCT00882908|191627168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|13.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|28.0|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 75mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC435 75 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 were compared with the percentage of participants acheiving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||28.0|-1.9|0.051
95827872|NCT00882908|191627168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|18.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|33.5|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in percentages of participants in the TMC435 150mg and placebo groups with undetectable plasma Hepatitis C virus ribonucleic acid levels at end of treatment (EOT) and at Week 72 estimated from the logistic regression model.|TMC/PR 150 mg 12 and 24 week treatment groups were pooled and the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 was compared the percentage of participants achieving SVRW72 in the placebo treatment group.||33.5|4.4|0.004
95827873|NCT00700102|191627205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.69|0.0062
95827874|NCT00700102|191627206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05|||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier Estimate||1.05|0.77|0.1713
95827875|NCT00700102|191627208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.59|<.0001
95959954|NCT01657799|191892377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.354|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening. Nominal P-values were reported.||||1.354|0.710|0.906
95827876|NCT00700102|191627209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|-1.5|0.3113
95827877|NCT00700102|191627209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4315
95827878|NCT02818036|191627215|OTHER|difference in neural activity to social task when taking naltrexone as compared to placebo|||||<|0.01||||||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 75||||||<.01
95827879|NCT02818036|191627216|OTHER|differences in feelings of social connection between those who took naltrexone and those who took placebo||||||0.338||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.338
95827880|NCT01287221|191627226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.82
95827881|NCT01287221|191627227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.62
95827882|NCT01287221|191627228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.23
95827883|NCT01287221|191627229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31
95827884|NCT01287221|191627230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.65
95827885|NCT01287221|191627231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.61
95827886|NCT01287221|191627232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Given that there were no imbalances identified between the two groups at baseline and the slope estimates for the two treatment arms did not support assumption of normality, the analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.22
95827887|NCT04030247|191627273|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
95827888|NCT04030247|191627274|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.16
95827889|NCT04030247|191627275|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.03
95827890|NCT04030247|191627276|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.9
95959955|NCT01657799|191892378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.535
95959956|NCT01657799|191892378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.898
95959957|NCT01657799|191892379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.314
95959958|NCT01657799|191892379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.536
95959959|NCT01657799|191892379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.301||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.168|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.168|0.780|0.313
95959960|NCT01657799|191892379|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.999|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.999|0.698|0.534
95827891|NCT04030247|191627277|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.5
95827892|NCT04030247|191627278|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.4
95827893|NCT04030247|191627280|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between baseline and month 3||||0.6
95827894|NCT03654885|191627294|NON_INFERIORITY|By assuming the margin of non-inferiority at 24%, the null hypothesis for this non-inferiority testing was to be set up as XEN implanted group (P1)-Trabeculectomy group (P2) ≤-0.24 versus the alternative hypothesis as P1-P2 \>-0.24. Equivalently, non-inferiority of P1 to P2 was to be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the above endpoint between the two treatment groups computed using normal approximation was found to be greater than -24%.|Percentage Difference|-6.1||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.8|-22.9|0.487
95827895|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.074|-3.538||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Day 1||-3.538|-8.074|<0.001
95827896|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.163||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.503|2.066||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 1||2.066|-2.503|0.851
95827897|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|4.309||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Week 2||4.309|-0.253|0.081
95827898|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.157||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|4.484||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 1||4.484|-0.059|0.056
95827899|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.416|7.054||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 3||7.054|2.416|<0.001
95959961|NCT01657799|191892380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.864
95959962|NCT01657799|191892380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||||0.301
95959963|NCT01657799|191892380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.754|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||1.754|0.626|0.860
95959964|NCT01657799|191892380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|2.086|||Cox proportional hazard model|Cox proportional hazard model stratified by GPA score (≤ 2.5 or \> 2.5) at screening.||||2.086|0.803|0.289
95959965|NCT04182113|191892427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.044||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing Target vs. Foil activity following 1Hz rTMS to Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.044|-0.129|0.32
95959966|NCT04182113|191892427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.12||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activation following 1 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activation following Sham stimulation..||0.12|-0.03|0.25
95959967|NCT04182113|191892427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.181||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test between Target vs. Foil activity following 20 Hz rTMS and Target vs. Foil activity following Sham stimulation.||0.181|-0.024|0.13
95959968|NCT04182113|191892428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.034||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.034|0.001|0.038
95959969|NCT04182113|191892428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.033|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 1Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following 20 Hz rTMS stimulation.||0.033|-0.015|0.44
95959970|NCT04182113|191892428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.009|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing precuneus connectivity following 20Hz rTMS to precuneus connectivity following sham stimulation.||0.009|-0.032|0.25
95959971|NCT04182113|191892429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.9||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||6.9|-1.6|0.20
96001112|NCT00972244|191979162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.6||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||7.6|-9.1|1.0000
96001113|NCT00972244|191979162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|18.8||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||18.8|-2.3|0.2057
96001114|NCT00972244|191979162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2||||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|13.2||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||13.2|-6.2|0.6203
96001115|NCT00972244|191979162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.5||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a sequential closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||19.5|-2.0|0.2050
95827900|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|5.358||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 6||5.358|0.657|0.012
95827901|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.197||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.182|5.883||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 9||5.883|1.182|0.003
95827902|NCT03654885|191627296|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and Baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in Mean IOP Over Time: Month 12||5.183|0.358|0.024
95827903|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Day 1||0.18|-0.36|0.505
95827904|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 1||0.26|-0.28|0.949
96001116|NCT03249350|191979180|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.49
96001117|NCT03249350|191979181|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.92
96001118|NCT03249350|191979182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=13.58.||Cognitive Behavioral Components||||<0.001
96001119|NCT03249350|191979182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|Main effect of group, F=3.02.||Behavioral Modification Components||||0.08
96001120|NCT03249350|191979183|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.09
96001121|NCT03249350|191979184|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.95
96001122|NCT03249350|191979185|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||APQ - Poor Monitoring - Parent Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.88
96001123|NCT03249350|191979186|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
96001124|NCT03249350|191979187|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.50
96001125|NCT03249350|191979188|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.03
96001126|NCT03249350|191979189|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GAIN - Substance Frequency Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.54
96001127|NCT03249350|191979190|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
96001128|NCT03249350|191979191|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||BISBAS Drive - Youth Report. Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
96001129|NCT03249350|191979192|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.35
96001130|NCT03249350|191979193|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.13
95827905|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.34||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Week 2||0.34|-0.19|0.581
95827906|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.41||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 1||0.41|-0.13|0.302
95827907|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.66||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 3||0.66|0.12|0.005
95827908|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.59||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 6||0.59|0.04|0.026
95827909|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.64||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 9||0.64|0.09|0.010
95827910|NCT03654885|191627298|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in Mean Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications Over Time: Month 12||0.54|0.00|0.052
95827911|NCT03654885|191627299|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.229||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|5.183||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.183|0.358|0.024
95827912|NCT03654885|191627300|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.54|0.00|0.052
95827913|NCT03654885|191627301|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.579|6.151||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed model repeated measures|||||6.151|-2.579|0.421
95827914|NCT03654885|191627302|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.84||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables was used for analysis.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.84|-0.16|0.180
95827915|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤18 mmHg||2.3|-33.0|0.064
95827916|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|2.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤17 mmHg||2.5|-32.7|0.078
95827917|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤16 mmHg||0.4|-34.7|0.051
95827918|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-16.9||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|1.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤15 mmHg||1.0|-34.1|0.064
95827919|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤14 mm Hg||4.8|-30.5|0.200
95843746|NCT04290039|191655140|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5104|0.6164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.6164|0.5104|
96001131|NCT03249350|191979194|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.30
95827920|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-2.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤13 mm Hg||-2.0|-37.1|0.042
95827921|NCT03654885|191627303|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12: IOP Value of ≤12 mm Hg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
95827922|NCT03654885|191627304|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-3.6||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥25% IOP Reduction||14.2|-21.3|0.712
95827923|NCT03654885|191627304|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.9||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|5.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥30% IOP Reduction||5.0|-30.3|0.201
95827924|NCT03654885|191627304|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-2.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-2.3|-37.3|0.030
95827925|NCT03654885|191627304|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-18.8||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-0.8|-36.0|0.043
95827926|NCT03654885|191627304|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|0.0|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥45% IOP Reduction||0.0|-35.1|0.048
95827927|NCT03654885|191627304|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-3.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-3.2|-38.1|0.015
95827928|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.7||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|6.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||6.3|-29.0|0.252
95827929|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-11.5||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|6.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤17 mmHg||6.5|-28.9|0.258
95827930|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-13.6||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤16 mm Hg||4.4|-30.9|0.139
95862108|NCT01086358|191682782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|6.84|||Regression, Logistic|As noted above, results are adjusted for study period and treatment order.||Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used. In these models, a logit link function was used for a favorable response (yes/no) with treatment as the primary fixed effect and including study period and treatment order as other fixed effects..||6.84|1.22|0.016
95827931|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.7||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|3.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||3.3|-32.0|0.136
95827932|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.%.|Percentage Difference|-10.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|7.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||7.1|-28.2|0.274
95862109|NCT02250703|191682799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||Difference in proportions in satisfactory sedation on separation from parents and on induction between M and D groups (Primary Outcome variables)|Chi-squared|||A sample size of at least 33 patients in each group would detect at least 30% difference in proportion of children who achieve satisfactory sedation between the M and D groups at 0.05 level of significance and 80% power||||0.025
95862110|NCT02250703|191682800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
96001132|NCT03249350|191979195|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.70
96001133|NCT03249350|191979196|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.89
96001134|NCT03249350|191979197|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.06
96001135|NCT03249350|191979198|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||EATQ Effortful Control - Youth Report Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.11
96001136|NCT03249350|191979199|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.99
95827933|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-17.7||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||0.3|-35.0|0.065
95827934|NCT03654885|191627305|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|5.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving at Least a 20% IOP Reductions and Specific IOP Targets on Same or Lower Number of Topical IOP-Lowering Medications at Month 12- IOP Target ≤12 mmHg||5.2|-30.1|0.180
95827935|NCT03654885|191627308|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|44.1|||Fisher Exact|||||44.1|-41.6|1.000
95827936|NCT03654885|191627309|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-32.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-66.8|0.215
95827937|NCT03654885|191627311|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-14.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|3.1|||Fisher Exact|||||3.1|-32.2|0.144
95827938|NCT03654885|191627312|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-10.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||||7.3|-28.0|0.254
95827939|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-7.4||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|14.2|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤18 mm Hg||14.2|-28.6|0.563
95827940|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-12.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|9.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤17 mm Hg||9.1|-33.5|0.188
95827941|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-15.9||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|5.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤16 mmHg||5.6|-36.7|0.118
95827942|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤15 mm Hg||2.1|-40.2|0.085
95827943|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-21.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|0.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤14 mm Hg||0.4|-42.0|0.059
95827944|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.5||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.4|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤13 mm Hg||-1.4|-43.9|0.045
95827945|NCT03654885|191627313|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-20.8||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific IOP Targets at Month 12 in Medication-free Eye- IOP Target ≤12 mm Hg||1.1|-41.3|0.076
95827946|NCT03654885|191627314|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-9.6||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|12.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥ 25% IOP Reduction||12.1|-31.0|0.464
95827947|NCT03654885|191627314|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-19.8||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥30% IOP Reduction||2.1|-40.6|0.069
95827948|NCT03654885|191627314|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-26.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-4.7|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥35% IOP Reduction||-4.7|-46.9|0.023
95827949|NCT03654885|191627314|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-23.7||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-1.6|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥40% IOP Reduction||-1.6|-43.9|0.046
96001137|NCT03249350|191979200|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.82
96001138|NCT03249350|191979201|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Peer Delinquency||||0.23
96001139|NCT03249350|191979202|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.73
95959972|NCT04182113|191892429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.9||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 1Hz rTMS to accuracy following sham rTMS.||9.9|-1.9|0.17
95827950|NCT03654885|191627314|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-27.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|-5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥45% IOP Reduction||-5.9|-47.6|0.014
95827951|NCT03654885|191627314|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Percentage Difference|-30.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-9.5|||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of Participants Achieving Specific Percentage IOP Lower Targets From Baseline at Month 12 With Medication-free Eyes: ≥50% IOP Reduction||-9.5|-50.8|0.006
95827952|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses: Day 1||1.72|0.33|0.004
95827953|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 1||1.88|0.47|0.001
95827954|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Week 2||1.20|-0.20|0.162
95827955|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.19||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 1||1.19|-0.23|0.185
95827956|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.79||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 3||0.79|-0.64|0.846
95827957|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.7||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 6||0.70|-0.73|0.965
95827958|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.33||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 9||1.33|-0.11|0.096
95827959|NCT03654885|191627321|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.43||MMRM model with treatment and time as the factors, treatment by time interaction and baseline as the covariate variables were used for analysis|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) With Current Glasses:Month 12||1.43|-0.04|0.063
95862111|NCT02250703|191682801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95862112|NCT02250703|191682802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95862113|NCT01776307|191682819|OTHER|Descriptive analysis for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||The exact 95% confidence interval is based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|||
95862114|NCT01776307|191682820|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
95862115|NCT01776307|191682821|OTHER|Estimates provided for investigational arms; no comparator analysis|||||||||||||||||Estimated from Kaplan Meier Curve|||
95959973|NCT04182113|191892429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|8.2||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test of scene recognition performance accuracy following 20Hz rTMS to accuracy following 20 Hz rTMS.||8.2|-10.8|0.77
95959974|NCT03634839|191892430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.184||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95959975|NCT03634839|191892431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.881||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models with flavor as a within-subject factor. A significant main effect of flavor with greater liking of sweet plus cooling flavor than sweet minus cooling flavor will be considered supportive of our hypotheses.||||0.187
95959976|NCT03634839|191892432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
95959977|NCT03634839|191892433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.942||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.210
95962446|NCT03607422|191896635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.284|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.32|-41.55|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-41.55|-70.32|<0.001
95827960|NCT03654885|191627322|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 1||0.000|-0.105|0.048
95827961|NCT03654885|191627322|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.045|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 3||0.045|-0.062|0.742
95827962|NCT03654885|191627322|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.051|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 6||0.051|-0.056|0.925
95827963|NCT03654885|191627322|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change From Baseline in Manifest Refraction - Mean Visual Acuity Using Snellen in LogMAR Scale: Month 12||-0.010|-0.118|0.021
95827964|NCT03654885|191627325|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.562|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3231||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2082|0.0851|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Week 1||0.0851|-1.2082|0.087
95827965|NCT03654885|191627325|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3355||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.809|0.5324|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 1||0.5324|-0.8090|0.682
95827966|NCT03654885|191627325|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3484||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1483|0.2434|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change from Baseline in Surgically Induced Astigmatism - Topography at Selected Sites at Month 12||0.2434|-1.1483|0.199
95827967|NCT03654885|191627326|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2026||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4103|0.4086|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Day 1||0.4086|-0.4103|0.997
95959978|NCT01772563|191892460|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|93.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.07|106.81|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=25.1.|"Statistical analysis of Volasertib:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||106.81|82.07|
95827968|NCT03654885|191627326|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2124||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.6506|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in Optical Biometry - Anterior Chamber Depth at Week 2||0.6506|-0.2068|0.302
95827969|NCT03654885|191627327|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3336||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3289|1.0154|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Day 1||1.0154|-0.3289|0.309
95827970|NCT03654885|191627327|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3278||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3993|0.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K1 at Week 2||0.9220|-0.3993|0.430
95827971|NCT03654885|191627327|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.409|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4457||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3071|0.4882|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Day 1||0.4882|-1.3071|0.363
95827972|NCT03654885|191627327|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4383||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3709|0.3954|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - K2 at Week 2||0.3954|-1.3709|0.272
95827973|NCT03654885|191627327|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4502||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6722|0.142|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Day 1||0.1420|-1.6722|0.096
95862116|NCT03001817|191682867|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862117|NCT03001817|191682868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862118|NCT03001817|191682869|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
95862119|NCT03001817|191682870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5443|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5443
95959979|NCT01772563|191892460|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|75.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.83|84.632|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=21.0.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-tz was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||84.632|67.830|
95959980|NCT01772563|191892461|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.896|97.137|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=39.3.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||97.137|64.896|
95827974|NCT03654885|191627327|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4411||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4655|0.3129|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Mean Change in from Baseline Optical Biometry - Delta D at Week 2||0.3129|-1.4655|0.198
95827975|NCT03654885|191627338|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3331||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5597|5.4973|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Score||5.4973|-11.5597|0.485
95827976|NCT03654885|191627338|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-10.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5666||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-1.5144|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Score||-1.5144|-19.5000|0.022
95827977|NCT03654885|191627338|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-7.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0382||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4841|0.4275|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Total Bothersome Score||0.4275|-15.4841|0.064
95827978|NCT03654885|191627338|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Local Eye Symptoms Frequency Score||0.37|-1.28|0.278
95827979|NCT03654885|191627338|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.47|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Change From Baseline in Symptom and Health Problem Checklist (SHPC-18)- Vision Function Problem Frequency Score||-0.47|-2.96|0.007
95827980|NCT03654885|191627339|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.534|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Not at all||||0.534
95827981|NCT03654885|191627339|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.263|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Somewhat||||0.263
95827982|NCT03654885|191627339|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Moderately so||||1.000
95827983|NCT03654885|191627339|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Mostly||||0.018
95827984|NCT03654885|191627339|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Completely||||0.350
95827985|NCT03654885|191627339|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.||||||0.264|||||||Fisher Exact|||PRO: Percentage of Participants With Post-Surgical Resumption of Activities and Daily Routine- Missing||||0.264
95827986|NCT03654885|191627340|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-8.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1445||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8681|24.2624|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment- Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Health||24.2624|-40.8681|0.610
95827987|NCT03654885|191627341|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. P-value for treatment differences was provided for reference.|Least Square Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|2.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||PRO: Percent Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Percent Activity Impairment Due to Health||2.52|-30.32|0.097
95827988|NCT03559699|191627351|OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||1-sided P-value|Binomial exact test|||||||0.0002
95827989|NCT02080260|191627368|SUPERIORITY||16-week PFS Rate|0.1||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.317||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of the study. The study enrollment was stopped early due to futility.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The null hypothesis assumes a median PFS of 6 weeks, corresponding to a 16-week PFS rate of approximately 0.15. A single-stage design will be used to test that the 16-week PFS rate is less than or equal to 0.15. If at least 8 of the 32 subjects are alive and progression free at 16 weeks, the null hypothesis will be rejected. Assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level, this will provide at least 90% power to reject the null hypothesis, assuming the true 16-week PFS rate is 0.35.||0.317|0.012|0.824
95827990|NCT02080260|191627369|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|7.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||7.1|2.9|
95827991|NCT02080260|191627370|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|17.0|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS(in weeks) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||17.0|8.1|
95827992|NCT02080260|191627371|OTHER|Estimation only|Overall Response Rate|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.249|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.249|0.001|
95827993|NCT02080260|191627372|OTHER|Estimation only.|Disease Control Rate|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.543|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.543|0.119|
95827994|NCT02091284|191627418|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni's multiple comparisons as post-hoc test and linear regression analyses. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.01
95862120|NCT03001817|191682871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann Method|||||||<0.0001
95862121|NCT03001817|191682872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862122|NCT03001817|191682873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862123|NCT03001817|191682874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95827995|NCT02091284|191627418|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and tDCS groups with unpaired t tests.||||<0.05
95827996|NCT02853435|191627425|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0417|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9809|1.1063|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1063|0.9809|
95827997|NCT02853435|191627425|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0459|1.1797|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-inf).|||1.1797|1.0459|
95827998|NCT02853435|191627426|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.0408|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9792|1.1062|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1062|0.9792|
95827999|NCT02853435|191627426|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0479|1.1838|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters AUC(0-t).|||1.1838|1.0479|
95828000|NCT02853435|191627428|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|0.9586|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.844|1.0888|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.0888|0.8440|
95828001|NCT02853435|191627428|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS means|1.1487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0113|1.3047|||||A mixed effects model with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameters Cmax.|||1.3047|1.0113|
95828002|NCT02853435|191627429|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.233||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.267|0.0||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.267|0.309
95828003|NCT02853435|191627429|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.492|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|-0.25||The p-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||The median, median difference and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.250|-0.500|<0.001
95862124|NCT03001817|191682875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
96001140|NCT03249350|191979203|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression model tested for between-group differences in change over time.||||0.31
95828004|NCT02209948|191627540|OTHER|Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)||||||0.943||||||Threshold P-value of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.943
95828005|NCT02209948|191627541|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.88||Threshold of significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.88|0.90|0.16
95828006|NCT02209948|191627542|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.5||Threshold for significance P-value 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.65|0.99
95828007|NCT02209948|191627543|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.33||threshold for significance 0.05|Regression, Cox|||||2.33|0.89|0.13
95828008|NCT04754230|191627578|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||two sided Z-test|This estimate uses two sided Z-test while assuming type I error=0.05||Comparison of bleeding at day 1||||0.8
95828009|NCT00909545|191627668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|4.07||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 5mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.07|-3.99|0.9834
95828010|NCT00909545|191627668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.8||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model.|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 10mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.80|-5.01|0.5761
95828011|NCT00909545|191627668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|1.99||P-values for efficacy outcomes will be one-sided test with alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance is used, with terms representing assigned treatment group and baseline value of the measure in the model|Least square mean(standard error) and 95% confidence intervals of the difference between Isradipine CR 20mg and placebo groups is estimated.|Change in UPDRS total score of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.99|-5.98|0.322
95828012|NCT00909545|191627669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1587||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0196|1.8411|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 5mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||1.8411|0.0196|0.1383
95828013|NCT00909545|191627669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0123|0.9591|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 10mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.9591|0.0123|0.0248
95862125|NCT03001817|191682876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4939|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4939
95862126|NCT03001817|191682877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
96001141|NCT04458857|191979209|OTHER||LS mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.90|0.0210
96001142|NCT00995371|191979223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.96|1.09|<0.05
95828014|NCT00909545|191627669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0028|0.2087|||Fisher Exact|||The tolerability of 20mg/day dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.||0.2087|0.0028|<0.0001
95959981|NCT01772563|191892461|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|63.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.372|72.775|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV%)=26.1.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~Cmax was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||72.775|55.372|
95959982|NCT01772563|191892462|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.09|109.94|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.7.|"Statistical analysis of volasertib:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||109.94|87.09|
95959983|NCT01772563|191892462|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (GMR) [%]|77.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.001|86.871|||||GMR (test/reference) i.e. (Volasertib+Itraconazole/ Volasertib). Intra- individual coefficient of variation (gCV %)=22.5.|"Statistical analysis of CD 10899:~AUC0-∞ was log-transformed prior to fitting an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. This model included effects for 'treatment' and 'subject'. 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, then back-transformed to the original scale to give the point estimator and interval estimates for the geometric mean ratio (GMR)."||86.871|69.001|
95828015|NCT00909545|191627670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.22|-0.30|0.2324
95828016|NCT00909545|191627670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.73|-0.73|1
95828017|NCT00909545|191627670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change in Mental UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.47|-1.02|0.4675
95828018|NCT00909545|191627671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.23|-1.03|0.4648
95828019|NCT00909545|191627671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||1.07|-2.09|0.525
95828020|NCT00909545|191627671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change in ADL UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.88|-2.36|0.3674
95828021|NCT00909545|191627672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.14|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.14|-3.80|0.579
95828022|NCT00909545|191627672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.48|-3.30|0.7778
95828023|NCT00909545|191627672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change in Motor UPDRS subscale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.31|-3.58|0.669
95828024|NCT00909545|191627673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.17|-0.27|0.6677
95828025|NCT00909545|191627673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.07|-0.36|0.1755
95828026|NCT00909545|191627673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Hoehn \& Yahr Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.06|-0.38|0.1463
95828027|NCT00909545|191627674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||2.26|-3.30|0.7111
95828028|NCT00909545|191627674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.04|-1.35|0.3237
95828029|NCT00909545|191627674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.05|||ANCOVA|||Change in Modified Schwab \& England Independence Scale of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.05|-1.51|0.3658
95828030|NCT00909545|191627675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|5.13|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.13|-0.12|0.0608
95828031|NCT00909545|191627675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.33|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||3.33|-2.07|0.6445
95828032|NCT00909545|191627675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change in BDI-II of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||4.67|-0.63|0.1336
95828033|NCT00909545|191627676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.59|-1.64|0.3533
95828034|NCT00909545|191627676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.4045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 10mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.65|-1.59|0.4045
95828035|NCT00909545|191627676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.7049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||0.92|-1.36|0.7049
96001143|NCT00995371|191979223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||1.55|-1.43|>0.05
95828036|NCT00909545|191627677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.79|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.79|-1.40|0.2278
95828037|NCT00909545|191627677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|5.42|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 5mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.42|-1.97|0.356
95828038|NCT00909545|191627677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Change in PDQ-39 of Isradipine CR 20mg/day arm is compared to placebo group.||5.71|-1.56|0.2600
95828039|NCT00909545|191627684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2632|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.159||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5432|50.9977||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||The analyses is to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||50.9977|0.5432|0.1384
95828040|NCT00909545|191627684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8214|134.0403||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||134.0403|1.8214|0.0024
95828041|NCT00909545|191627684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7004|438.5694||The analysis of common AE of each active dosage of isradipine CR will be compared with that of the placebo group using one-sided Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment will be made for multiple comparisons in these analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Oedema Peripheral.||438.5694|5.7004|<.0001
95828042|NCT00909545|191627685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6715||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2022|2.812|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8120|0.2022|0.7735
95828043|NCT00909545|191627685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6419||0.7385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2314|2.8658|||Fisher Exact|||one-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||2.8658|0.2314|0.7385
95862127|NCT03001817|191682878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.8371
95828044|NCT00909545|191627685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6463||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2549|3.2112|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dizziness.||3.2112|0.2549|0.6823
95862128|NCT03001817|191682879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3415|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3415
95828045|NCT00909545|191627686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9188||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4172|15.2975|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||15.2975|0.4172|0.2756
95828046|NCT00909545|191627686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8584||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8217|23.7875|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||23.7875|0.8217|0.07
95862129|NCT03001817|191682880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862130|NCT03001817|191682881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862131|NCT03001817|191682882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862132|NCT03001817|191682883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7442|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7442
95862133|NCT03001817|191682884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862134|NCT03001817|191682885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862135|NCT03001817|191682886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0374
95862136|NCT03001817|191682887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7429|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.7429
95862137|NCT03001817|191682888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862138|NCT03001817|191682889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862139|NCT03001817|191682890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
96001144|NCT00995371|191979224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|19.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||19.31|3.35|<0.05
95959984|NCT01898442|191892466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95862140|NCT03001817|191682891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862141|NCT03001817|191682892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862142|NCT03001817|191682893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3669|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.3669
95862143|NCT03001817|191682894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862144|NCT03001817|191682895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862145|NCT03001817|191682896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95959985|NCT03124550|191892472|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly average steps over the 6-week intervention.||||.0008
95959986|NCT03124550|191892473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.01
95959987|NCT03124550|191892474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre-test and post-test comparison||||.94
95959988|NCT03124550|191892475|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Multilevel Modeling|||Multilevel modeling with the LMER package in R was used to determine whether participants changed in weekly number of social contact over the 6-week intervention.||||.0007
95862146|NCT03001817|191682897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862147|NCT03001817|191682898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0509
95862148|NCT03001817|191682899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862149|NCT03001817|191682900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862150|NCT03001817|191682901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862151|NCT03001817|191682902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862152|NCT03001817|191682903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0647
95862153|NCT03001817|191682904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0007
95862154|NCT03001817|191682905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1399|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1399
95862155|NCT03001817|191682906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0122|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0122
95862156|NCT03001817|191682907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0994
95862157|NCT03001817|191682908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0904|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0904
95862158|NCT03001817|191682909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4346|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4346
95862159|NCT03001817|191682910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1474|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1474
95862160|NCT03001817|191682911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0054
95862161|NCT03001817|191682912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0002
95862162|NCT03001817|191682913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862163|NCT03001817|191682914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0118
95862164|NCT03001817|191682915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862165|NCT03001817|191682916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95862166|NCT03001817|191682917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2049
95862167|NCT03001817|191682918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862168|NCT03001817|191682919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862169|NCT03001817|191682920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862170|NCT03001817|191682921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862171|NCT03001817|191682922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9117
95862172|NCT03001817|191682923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95862173|NCT01015638|191682981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95862174|NCT01015638|191682982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Dunn's Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||>0.05
95862175|NCT01015638|191682983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95862176|NCT01015638|191682984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test|||||||> 0.05
95862177|NCT03530124|191683005|SUPERIORITY|The number of infants with ≥1 apneic event for each group and compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group (\< 28 weeks versus ≥ 28 weeks) to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|5.73|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the primary objective.|||5.73|1.27|0.0104
95862178|NCT03530124|191683006|OTHER|The number of apnea events were compared using a linear regression model (assuming a Poisson distribution) with study site and gestational age group covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.11
95862179|NCT03530124|191683007|OTHER|Average duration of apnea episodes between groups were compared using a mixed effects model with a random intercept for each infant with one or more events and study site and gestational age group as covariates to control for the randomization blocks.||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Effects Model|No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.||||||0.36
95959989|NCT02635386|191892485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measure||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
95959990|NCT02635386|191892486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95959991|NCT02635386|191892487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95959992|NCT02635386|191892488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|one way with Bonferroni contrast||One way ANOVA with Bonferroni test to compare differences between groups if significant||||<0.0001
95828047|NCT00909545|191627686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9174||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3975|14.4919|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nasopharyngitis.||14.4919|0.3975|0.2953
95828048|NCT00909545|191627687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8719||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2082|6.3508|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||6.3508|0.2082|0.6049
95828049|NCT00909545|191627687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7704||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5081|10.4105|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||10.4105|0.5081|0.2327
95828050|NCT00909545|191627687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Headache.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
95828051|NCT00909545|191627688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
95828052|NCT00909545|191627688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8681||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1824|5.482|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||5.4820|0.1824|0.666
95828053|NCT00909545|191627688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8227||0.4534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3057|7.6897|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Constipation.||7.6897|0.3057|0.4534
95828054|NCT00909545|191627689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
95828055|NCT00909545|191627689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9584||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2392|10.241|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||10.2410|0.2392|0.5000
95828056|NCT00909545|191627689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9605||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2609|11.2639|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Fatigue.||11.2639|0.2609|0.4609
95828057|NCT00909545|191627690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
95828058|NCT00909545|191627690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
95828059|NCT00909545|191627690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9604||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|4.5779|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Nausea.||4.5779|0.1061|0.7996
95828060|NCT00909545|191627691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2599||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2015|28.1366|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||28.1366|0.2015|0.4532
95828061|NCT00909545|191627691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1347||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6439|55.0272|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Tract Infection.||55.0272|0.6439|0.0953
95828062|NCT00909545|191627692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402||95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
95828063|NCT00909545|191627692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
95828064|NCT00909545|191627692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0428||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1413|8.4197|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Depression.||8.4197|0.1413|0.6641
95828065|NCT00909545|191627693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
95843747|NCT04290039|191655141|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4273|0.7118|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.7118|0.4273|
95828066|NCT00909545|191627693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Somnolence.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
95828067|NCT00909545|191627694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9617||0.4402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2733|11.8558|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||11.8558|0.2733|0.4402
95828068|NCT00909545|191627694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2577||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|5.6461|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||5.6461|0.0408|0.8824
95828069|NCT00909545|191627694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Insomnia .||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
95828070|NCT00909545|191627695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1919||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|3.6084|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.6084|0.0337|0.9294
95828071|NCT00909545|191627695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
95828072|NCT00909545|191627695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1924||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0322|3.4459|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Dyspepsia .||3.4459|0.0322|0.9351
95828073|NCT00909545|191627696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2596||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0462|6.4433|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.4433|0.0462|0.8589
95828074|NCT00909545|191627696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0409||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|7.6906|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||7.6906|0.1300|0.6951
95828075|NCT00909545|191627696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2594||0.8673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0442|6.1537|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Diarrhoea.||6.1537|0.0442|0.8673
95828076|NCT00909545|191627697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9616||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1109|4.8065|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||4.8065|0.1109|0.7852
95828077|NCT00909545|191627697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1912||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0297|3.1612|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Sinusitis.||3.1612|0.0297|0.9448
95828078|NCT00909545|191627698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
95862180|NCT03530124|191683008|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants requiring an increase in respiratory support for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.23|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|||7.23|0.59|0.3555
95828079|NCT00909545|191627698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3453|36.9408|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Back Pain.||36.9408|0.3453|0.2746
95828080|NCT00909545|191627699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4444||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|19.264|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 5mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||19.2640|0.0670|0.7236
95828081|NCT00909545|191627699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2576||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1771|24.5057|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 10mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||24.5057|0.1771|0.5000
95828082|NCT00909545|191627699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2727|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2592||0.4694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1926|26.8124|||Fisher Exact|||One-sided Fisher's exact test will be used to compare Isradipine CR 20mg group to the placebo group with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing the adverse event of Hypotension.||26.8124|0.1926|0.4694
95828083|NCT03060512|191627701|OTHER|||||||0.9239|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference in preference for the two treatments (Prefer Movantik, No Preference, Prefer PEG 3350) in subjects who completed the entire treatment sequence.||||0.9239
95828084|NCT03060512|191627701|OTHER|||||||0.8874|||||||Prescott's test|||Assessment of the difference between preference for treatment in Period 1, preference for treatment in Period 2, no preference||||0.8874
95828085|NCT03060512|191627704|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model assessing treatment difference in PGIC at Visits 3 and 5 between Movantik and PEG 3350 treatment. Adjustments were performed for treatment, period and sequence.||0.3|-0.3|
95828086|NCT03060512|191627706|OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0||||||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model assessing treatment difference in BFI change from baseline at Visits 3/5 between Movantik and PEG 3350. Adjustments were performed for for baseline BFI score, treatment, period and sequence.||3.0|-4.7|
95828087|NCT02182440|191627729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-16.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.243||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.57|29.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 1||29.50|-62.57|0.949
95828088|NCT02182440|191627729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|13.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis for Part 2||13.80|-23.09|0.691
95828089|NCT02182440|191627729|SUPERIORITY||Combined p-value|0.896||||0.896|TWO_SIDED||||||Inverse normal method||The p-values from Part 1 (see Statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical Analysis 2) were combined to an overall p-value using the inverse normal method.|Combination of analysis results from Part 1 (see statistical Analysis 1) and Part 2 (see Statistical analysis 2)||||0.896
95828090|NCT02182440|191627730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.4|||Chi-squared|||||2.4|0.8|0.28
95828091|NCT02182440|191627731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.02|0.02
95828092|NCT02182440|191627732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|0.01|0.03
95828093|NCT02182440|191627733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.0|0.045
95828094|NCT02182440|191627734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.26|1.06|0.03
95828095|NCT00072293|191627735|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As originally designed, target accrual was 1960 patients with analysis planned after 558 events. These targets were based on having 90% power to detect non-inferiority of no axillary dissection with a one-sided statistical signifi cance level of 10% (ie, α=0·10) under the assumption that 5-year disease-free survival with axillary dissection was 70% and defining non-inferiority as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 (no axillary dissection relative to axillary dissection).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11||Test for non-inferiority of no axillary dissection. Stratified logrank test compared groups. HR (no-AD vs AD) estimated from test statistic and variance as HR=exp(\[O-E\]/V), compared to 1.25 in 1-sided test of non-inferiority.|1-sided non-inferiority test||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.11|0.55|0.004
95828096|NCT00072293|191627736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio is no axillary dissection/axillary dissection.|||1.54|0.52|0.73
95828097|NCT02680574|191627738|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change of hemoglobin: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.07|-0.09|
95828098|NCT02680574|191627739|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per Food and Drug Administration \[FDA\]) and 1.3 (per European Medicines Agency \[EMA\]).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.446|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.446|0.930|=0.2015
95828099|NCT02680574|191627739|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||=|0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.355|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 382 and 344 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 50.07 (23.00, 82.86) weeks versus 51.93 (27.79, 91.00) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.355|1.012|=0.0725
95828100|NCT02680574|191627740|NON_INFERIORITY|Establishment of non-inferiority was based on a margin of -0.75 g/dL applied to the difference in mean change: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin alfa.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.09||||||Treatment comparison: Vadadustat minus Darbepoetin Alfa||0.09|-0.10|
95828101|NCT02680574|191627741|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|1.268|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.268|0.851|=0.7770
95843748|NCT04290039|191655141|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0381|0.0641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.0641|0.0381|
95843749|NCT04290039|191655141|OTHER|Estimation only|Geometric ratio of least-square means|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0695|0.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Only subjects who had at least 2 periods where study drug was received with an evaluable PK profile were included in the comparisons.|||0.1167|0.0695|
95843750|NCT00453154|191655169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using a 1-sided significance level of 0.15, the study has approximately 89% power to reject the null hypothesis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|70.0|1.27|2.08||All randomization was done using a permuted-block scheme with a block size of 6, stratified by combination chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin) and number of combination chemotherapy cycles (\< 6 vs 6 cycles)|Log Rank|||||2.08|1.27|0.02
95862181|NCT03530124|191683009|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of infants with ≥1 cardiorespiratory event using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|Only Duke University had viable monitoring data to analyze this compound outcome objective.||2.77|0.29|1.0000
95862182|NCT03530124|191683010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|21.63|||Mantel Haenszel||No adjustments were made to the alpha level (two-sided alpha=0.05) for the secondary objectives.|The proportion of infants requiring positive pressure ventilation for each group were compared using a Mantel-Haenszel statistic in a stratified analysis by study site and gestational age group to control for the randomization blocks at the two-sided alpha 0.05 level and corresponding 95% confidence interval for the occurrence of apnea during the 48-hour monitoring period.||21.63|0.17|1.0000
95862183|NCT02447302|191683017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|-0.3||The analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.30|-1.68|= 0.0091
95862184|NCT02447302|191683017|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|=|0.1457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.24||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the adapted MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.24|-1.11|= 0.1457
95862185|NCT02447302|191683018|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.8|39.0||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||39.0|9.8|= 0.003
95828102|NCT02680574|191627741|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.267|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first MACE plus hospitalization for heart failure or thromboembolic events excluding vascular access thrombosis for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 451 and 424 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 42.86 (19.71, 73.43) weeks versus 43.86 (21.36, 80.43) weeks, respectively.||1.267|0.972|=0.2305
95828103|NCT02680574|191627742|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||=|0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.501|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.501|0.817|=0.5509
95828104|NCT02680574|191627742|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||=|0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.42|||Gray's Test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular MACE for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 198 and 178 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 45.57 (21.71, 73.29) weeks versus 47.36 (20.00, 88.43) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.420|0.947|=0.2531
95828105|NCT02680574|191627743|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.258|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.258|0.610|=0.4184
95828106|NCT02680574|191627743|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.8613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.293|||Gray's test|Based on non-parametric analysis.||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first cardiovascular death for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 127 and 131 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 48.29 (28.86, 76.14) weeks versus 48.43 (21.29, 92.29) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.293|0.792|=0.8613
95862186|NCT02447302|191683018|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.98|=|0.3059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|17.2||MH estimated common risk difference adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.2|-9.1|= 0.3059
95862187|NCT02447302|191683019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.36||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.36|-1.32|= 0.0020
95959993|NCT02635386|191892489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95828107|NCT02680574|191627744|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.315|||Log Rank|Based on non-parametric analysis.||Statistical analysis from study AKB-6548-CI-0015 has been reported in this section.||1.315|0.820|=0.8041
95828108|NCT02680574|191627744|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 1.25 (per FDA) and 1.3 (per EMA).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.4577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.274|||Log Rank|||MACE analysis was performed on pooled data from studies AKB-6548-CI-0014 (NCT02648347) and AKB-6548-CI-0015 (NCT02680574). Time to first all-cause mortality for the Vadadustat and Darbepoetin alfa treatment groups was as follows: participants with events = 319 and 307 respectively; median time to first event (Q1, Q3) = 52.14 (28.71, 84.71) weeks versus 53.00 (30.71, 94.14) weeks, respectively. Statistical analysis from the pooled data has been reported in this section.||1.274|0.930|=0.4577
95828109|NCT02370641|191627822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Firmicutes abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.012
95828110|NCT02370641|191627822|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made to week 4 minus baseline change of phylum Proteobacteria abundance between urolithin excretors and non excretors||||0.009
95828111|NCT02133664|191627832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||With the initial sample size plan of 53 subjects, we expect an 80% power to detect a significant difference in PASAT score with a mean difference of 8.3 points between the treatment and placebo group.||4.32|-2.03|0.05
95828112|NCT02370095|191627859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2416|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Only one placebo subject had data to allow for change from baseline to be calculated||||0.2416
95828113|NCT02370095|191627860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The change in S/F ratio over time was evaluated using a mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.06
95828114|NCT02370095|191627861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0679
95828115|NCT02370095|191627866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Measurement of MAP were evaluated from baseline to end of treatment||||||0.567
95959994|NCT02635386|191892490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measure design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
95959995|NCT02635386|191892491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95959996|NCT02635386|191892492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95959997|NCT02635386|191892493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95959998|NCT02635386|191892494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.01
95959999|NCT02635386|191892495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
95960000|NCT02635386|191892496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95828116|NCT02370095|191627867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2507
95828117|NCT02370095|191627869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5055|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5055
95828118|NCT02525939|191627874|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||The estimated HR was presented with a 95% CI and a p-value. The primary analysis was conducted at the 0.05 significance level.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the primary endpoint. This model included treatment as a main effect, and region and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) index event type as stratification factors. The null and alternative hypotheses tested with the above Cox model were: H0: λ = 1 vs HA: λ ≠ 1, where λ is the, assumed constant, hazard ratio (HR) for the time to occurrence of the composite events of the primary endpoint for the dalcetrapib and placebo treated groups.||1.03|0.75|0.12
95828119|NCT02525939|191627875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.13|0.88|0.95
95855083|NCT02392624|191669685|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 1 sided|The p-value from this test was used to determine the importance of continued treatment in this study. P-value is one-sided with alpha = 0.05.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \>/=5 and the alternative hypothesis was that the mean change from Week 24 to Week 48 in UAS7 score was \<5.||||<0.0001
95855084|NCT02392624|191669686|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample t-test, 2 sided|The p-value from this test was used to evaluate the importance of retreatment after experiencing clinical worsening.||The null hypothesis for this test was that the mean change from the time of retreatment to 12 weeks after retreatment in UAS7 was zero and the alternative hypothesis was that this change was non-zero.||||<0.0001
95862188|NCT02447302|191683019|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|=|0.0858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.08||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the 2-component MCS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.08|-0.85|= 0.0858
95828120|NCT02525939|191627876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||Secondary endpoints were expressed as time to event and an analysis similar to that for the primary endpoint was conducted. In order to control the family-wise Type I error that results from the multiplicity of endpoints, the secondary endpoints were formally tested using the Hochberg's step-up procedure only if the primary analysis results in significant treatment effect at p\<0.05. Otherwise, statistical tests for the secondary endpoints were presented solely for illustrative purposes.||1.07|0.79|0.27
95828121|NCT02481713|191627883|NON_INFERIORITY|All analyses were two-tailed with alpha set at 0.05||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95828122|NCT02481713|191627884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.69|||Regression, zero-inflated Poisson|||||1.69|1.25|.0001
95828123|NCT00042432|191627885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.006||95.0|1.6|20.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline glomenular filtration rate (GFR) strata|Logit estimates|||20.06|1.60|0.006
95828124|NCT00042432|191627886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adusted for baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) strata||||||<0.001
95828125|NCT01853072|191627887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.0|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for United States (US) registration and secondary for European Union (EU) registration.||3.0|1.5|<0.001
95828126|NCT01853072|191627888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Regression, Logistic||Parameter dispersion is the standard error for the odds ratio.|This endpoint was considered primary for EU registration and secondary for US registration.||0.3|0.1|<0.001
95828127|NCT01527383|191627893|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
95828128|NCT01527383|191627894|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal regression|Visit and stratification factor (biologic or non-biologic autoimmune therapy) were covariates|||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||<0.0001
95862189|NCT02447302|191683020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.17|-0.37||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 2 mg from placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||-0.37|-2.17|= 0.0100
95960001|NCT02635386|191892497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.02
95828129|NCT01800318|191627904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||RM Anova of effects of treatment groups on PIPP scores: .|ANOVA|||||||0.07
95828130|NCT01800318|191627904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and sham NESAP.||||<0.05
95828131|NCT01800318|191627904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with NESAP and oral water.||||<0.01
95828132|NCT01800318|191627904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni correction||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in group with 24% sucrose and NESAp combined.||||<0.05
95828133|NCT01800318|191627904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Bonferroni||t test comparing baseline PIPP score with heel stick PIPP scores in standard care group (Sham NESAP with oral water).||||<0.01
95828134|NCT01800318|191627905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95828135|NCT01800318|191627906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95828136|NCT01800318|191627908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|F4.048||||||0.008
95828137|NCT00131456|191627909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to analyze all dichotomous outcomes. The dichotomous primary outcome marijuana abstinence was modeled using independent predictors: treatment(Venlafaxine vs. Placebo) and baseline urine THC level. The initial analysis included an interaction between treatment and baseline urine THC levels which was deemed not significant and omitted from the final logistic model.||||<0.01
95828138|NCT03809910|191627944|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.09|<.0001
95828139|NCT03809910|191627945|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.07||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.17|<0.0001
95828140|NCT03809910|191627946|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.16|<0.0001
95828141|NCT03809910|191627947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.19||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.25|<0.0001
95828142|NCT03809910|191627948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.33||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.43|<0.0001
95828143|NCT03809910|191627949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.29||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.39|<0.0001
95828144|NCT03809910|191627950|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.18||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|0.13|<0.0001
95828145|NCT03809910|191627951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.31||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|0.21|<0.0001
95828146|NCT03809910|191627952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.28||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|0.18|<0.0001
95828147|NCT03809910|191627953|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.15||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|0.09|<0.0001
95828148|NCT03809910|191627953|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.06|0.0214
95828149|NCT03809910|191627954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.23||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|0.13|<0.0001
95828150|NCT03809910|191627954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.14|0.0010
95828151|NCT03809910|191627955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.25||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|0.15|<0.0001
95828152|NCT03809910|191627955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.01||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product, sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect and two baseline terms as covariates;1-participant-level baseline score,2-period level baseline minus the participant-level baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.09|0.1652
95828153|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.391
95828154|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.861
95828155|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.835
95828156|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.877
95828157|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.969
95828158|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
95828159|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.689
95828160|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.427
95828161|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.504
95828162|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.893|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.893
95828163|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.918|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.918
95828164|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.755
95828165|NCT03880838|191627967|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.858|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.858
95828166|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.436|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.436
95828167|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.539
95828168|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.994
95828169|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.700
95828170|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.258
95828171|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.428
95828172|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.434
95828173|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.228|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.228
95828174|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.674
95828175|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.799
95828176|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.794
95828177|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.871|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.871
95828178|NCT03880838|191627968|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.139
95828179|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, letter was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.357
95828180|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no contact control was compared against all other conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group). The key outcome is the interaction between conditions and time (2019 as the reference group).||||.294
95828181|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.496
95828182|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.722
95828183|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against no nudge conditions (coded into one category and set as the reference group).||||.445
95828184|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.531
95828185|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.177
95828186|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.314
95828187|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the letter condition (set as the reference group).||||.850
95828188|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, no nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.391
95828189|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, prevention conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.906
95828190|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, commitment conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||.635
95828191|NCT03880838|191627969|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||In this contrast, both nudge conditions (coded into one category) were compared against the no contact condition (set as the reference group).||||0.093
95828192|NCT00241631|191628001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95828193|NCT00241631|191628002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95828194|NCT00241631|191628003|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95828195|NCT02081638|191628016|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for statistical significance was a priori set to \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||>0.05
95828196|NCT02081638|191628016|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.022
95828197|NCT02081638|191628017|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.13
95828198|NCT02081638|191628017|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.097
95828199|NCT02081638|191628017|OTHER|||||||0.0269|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the change of sCD14 from baseline and month 12 measurement within each arm.||||0.0269
95828200|NCT02081638|191628017|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95828201|NCT02081638|191628017|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Plasma biomarkers (CRP, sCD14, TF, IL-6) were log(e) transformed and a linear mixed effect model with the biomarker as outcome and with random slope per participant was used to calculate the percentage of change from baseline.|||
95828202|NCT02214225|191628028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.98||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.87|
95828203|NCT02214225|191628028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.98||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.88|
95828204|NCT02214225|191628028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.93||||||For B/Yamagata strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.93|0.81|
95855085|NCT03819114|191669687|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.20|0.81|
95828205|NCT02214225|191628028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||||||For B/Victoria strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.01|0.86|
95960002|NCT02635386|191892498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
95960003|NCT02635386|191892499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95960004|NCT02635386|191892500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
95960005|NCT02635386|191892501|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||>0.05
95960006|NCT02635386|191892502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.04
95960007|NCT02635386|191892503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.0001
95960008|NCT02635386|191892504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.05
96001145|NCT00995371|191979224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.65|||>|0.05||95.0|-4.12|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||15.41|-4.12|>0.05
95828206|NCT02214225|191628029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.4|
95828207|NCT02214225|191628029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6||||||||1.6|-5.0|
95828208|NCT02214225|191628029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Yamagata. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.5||||||||0.5|-7.0|
95960009|NCT02635386|191892505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.001
95960010|NCT02635386|191892506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
95960011|NCT02635386|191892507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.035|||||||ANOVA|Nested repeated measures design||Repeated Measure general linear model (SS/Drug treatments by visits) including arm of drug treatment as between subjects effect and visit (baseline and post 22-24 weeks treatment) as within subject effect||||<0.035
95960012|NCT01438840|191892510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95960013|NCT02804399|191892513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|14.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.78|17.01||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||17.01|12.78|
95960014|NCT02804399|191892514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|23.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.58|26.43||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||26.43|21.58|
96001146|NCT00995371|191979225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|||<|0.05||95.0|0.61|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||3.77|0.61|<0.05
96001147|NCT00995371|191979225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.05||95.0|-0.66|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for VAS using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||2.66|-0.66|>0.05
95828209|NCT02214225|191628029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/Victoria. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||||||||2.4|-5.6|
95828210|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.85|
95828211|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.99||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.99|0.83|
95828212|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.76|
95828213|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.98|0.76|
95828214|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H1N1)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02||||||For A/H1N1 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.88|
95828215|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (A/H3N2)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.02||||||For A/H3N2 strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.02|0.89|
95828216|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/YAM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.97||||||For B/YAM strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||0.97|0.84|
95828217|NCT02214225|191628030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio was that the upper bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of Pooled TIV (for A strains) or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria)/ bioCSL QIV should not exceed 1.5.|GMT ratio (B/VIC)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||||||For B/VIC strain. The GMT ratio (defined as the geometric mean of postvaccination (day 21) HI titer for TIV divided by the geometric mean of the postvaccination HI titer for QIV) for each virus strain included in the vaccines was determined: bioCSL TIV-1 and bioCSL TIV-2 GMTs were pooled for analysis of the A strains.||1.14|0.94|
95828218|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.6||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.6|-6.9|
95828219|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|0.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||0.2|-9.3|
95960015|NCT02804399|191892515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.09|16.12||||||Mixed model was fitted to obtain ratio of geometric means of Rifampin 600 mg QD + PF-06463922 100 mg SD (test) to PF-06463922 100 mg SD (reference) and the results are presented as percentage. 90% CI was calculated on ratio of geometric means.||16.12|12.09|
95960016|NCT03432390|191892534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95960017|NCT03559829|191892579|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.025
95960018|NCT03559829|191892580|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.01
95960019|NCT03559829|191892581|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.3
95960020|NCT03559829|191892582|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.098
95828220|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.3|-10.3|
95828221|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||1.2|-10.5|
95828222|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H1N1. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||4.0|-4.4|
95828223|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For A/H3N2. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||5.2|-3.1|
95828224|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/YAM. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/YAM)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.0||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||2.0|-6.3|
95828225|NCT02214225|191628031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For B/VIC. The non-inferiority criterion was that the upper bound of the two sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs (Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus bioCSL QIV) should not exceed 10%.|Difference in SCR (B/VIC)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.2||||||The SCR difference was defined as the SCR percentage for bioCSL Pooled TIV or TIV-1 (B Yamagata) or TIV-2 (B Victoria) minus the SCR percentage for bioCSL QIV.||6.2|-3.7|
95828226|NCT02214225|191628032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) overall|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.57|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.57|1.38|
95828227|NCT02214225|191628032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) overall|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.7|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT ratio was greater than 1.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.70|1.45|
95828228|NCT02214225|191628032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) 18 through 64 years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|1.87|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.87|1.50|
95828229|NCT02214225|191628032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) 18 through 64 years|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.01|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||2.01|1.55|
95855086|NCT03819114|191669687|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio compared to reference interval (0.7, 1.43).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.6|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.60|1.12|
95960021|NCT03559829|191892583|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2
95828230|NCT02214225|191628032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.4|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.40|1.21|
95828231|NCT02214225|191628032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT ratio (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.51|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in the bioCSL QIV but not in the bioCSL TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on GMT was greater than 1|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. The GMT ratio was calculated as bioCSL QIV GMT/bioCSL TIV GMT for the superiority analyses, which is the reverse of how it was calculated for the non-inferiority analyses.||1.51|1.27|
95828232|NCT02214225|191628033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) overall|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|18.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||18.6|12.1|
95828233|NCT02214225|191628033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) overall|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|23.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||23.6|16.5|
95828234|NCT02214225|191628033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) 18 through 64y|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|28.2|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||28.2|17.7|
95855087|NCT03819114|191669687|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|2.18|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.18|1.27|
95855088|NCT03819114|191669687|SUPERIORITY|Confidence Interval on Geometric Mean Ratio excluding 1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.45|
95960022|NCT03559829|191892584|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.07
95960023|NCT00702546|191892586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|0.7||||||Treatment groups were compared with a generalized linear model for the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate including covariates treatment group, age class (\< 32 yrs vs. ≥ 32 yrs), planned IVF treatment (IVF vs. ICSI) and region (Europe vs. Asia).||0.7|-19.5|
95960024|NCT01214421|191892597|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.99||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from the least squares (LS) mean difference between the treatment groups at each visit using MMRM model with factors of treatment, visit, region, baseline, baseline hypertensive status, baseline renal volume status, baseline creatinine clearance status, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of baseline and visit.|1.02|0.96|0.358
95960025|NCT01214421|191892598|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (final values)|3.15||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.462|4.836|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from MMRM analysis with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment visit interaction, hypertensive status, renal volume status and creatinine clearance status at baseline, region, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as covariates, and with a heterogeneous toeplitz variance covariance matrix.|4.836|1.462|0.0003
95960026|NCT01214421|191892599|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|1.011||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|1.023|1.000|0.0462
95960027|NCT01214421|191892600|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority for early-treatment and delayed-treatment groups.|Ratio of geometric means (final values)|-0.113||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from testing interaction of time and treatment using linear mixed model in which intercept and time are treated as random effects.|0.520|-0.746|0.7259
95960028|NCT01214421|191892601|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.992||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|1.002|0.982|0.1080
95962447|NCT03607422|191896635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.384|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.12|-21.96|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-21.96|-51.12|<0.001
95828235|NCT02214225|191628033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) 18 through 64y|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|34.1|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||34.1|23.1|
95828236|NCT02214225|191628033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/YAM) ≥ 65 years|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.6|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage||11.6|4.3|
95828237|NCT02214225|191628033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in SCR (B/VIC) ≥ 65 years|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|16.0|||||Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (eg, the influenza B strain included in bioCSL QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCRs was \> 0.|Immunologic superiority of the alternate B strain (ie, the influenza B strain included in the QIV but not in the TIV formulation) in bioCSL QIV was assessed separately within each age group (18 to \< 65 years and ≥ 65 years of age), and overall. Seroconversion rate difference = bioCSL QIV SCR percentage - bioCSL TIV-1 or TIV-2 SCR percentage.||16.0|7.7|
95828238|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|Data was analyzed with multiple repeat ANOVA for all visits and paired samples were also evaluated.|||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-2||||<0.05
95828239|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis||||||0.035|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-4||||0.035
95828240|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-8||||0.33
95828241|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-9||||0.68
95828242|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-17||||0.020
95828243|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||FGF||||0.021
95828244|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Eotaxin||||0.02
95828245|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||GM-CSF||||0.045
95828246|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL15||||0.47
95828247|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL-1a||||0.90
95828248|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||IL18||||0.80
95960029|NCT01214421|191892602|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means (final values)|0.361||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||||Derived from linear mixed model with terms of participant, treatment, time, interaction of treatment and time, interaction of participant and time, and baseline for intra-participant comparison between 251 and 271. Time and intercept are treated as random effects.|0.946|-0.224|0.2265
95828249|NCT01669421|191628054|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||M-CSF||||0.027
95828250|NCT01669421|191628055|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||No power calculation and this is an exploratory pilot analysis We expected cytokines to decrease after subjects receive double dose and a rebound after administering standard dose.||||0.07
95828251|NCT01669421|191628057|OTHER|between Week 4 and Week 8||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Desmosine (DES) and isodesmosine (IDES) are used as indicator of elastin degradation. Levels of DES/IDES were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry.||||0.03
95828252|NCT01669421|191628057|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between Week 8 and Week 12||||0.33
95828253|NCT01669421|191628057|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||between Week 4 and Week 12||||0.029
95828254|NCT00681564|191628073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (baseline). Note: data analysis of patients who completed the study protocol (n=86). Intention-to-treat analysis analysis was not used because its application for the evaluation of continuous data would imply imputing missing data for patients lost to follow-up. Mean and standard deviation of flow-mediated dilatation, including data from all patients randomized in this study, is reported in the field of baseline characteristics.||||0.98
95828255|NCT00681564|191628073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||Analyzed variable: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (24 hours).||||0.005
95828256|NCT00681564|191628073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||A P value of 0.05 was used as a cut-off for statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test appropriate for the analysis of non-normally distributed data.||"Statistical analysis: Brachial Artery Flow-mediated Dilation (12 weeks). Intention-to-treat analysis was not used because input of values for patients lost at follow-up will artificially amplify the precision of outcome measures.~Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. www.cochrane-handbook.org."||||0.43
95828257|NCT02961790|191628094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0041
95828258|NCT02961790|191628094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0001
95828259|NCT02961790|191628095|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
95828260|NCT02961790|191628096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for effects specified in outcome measure description.||||||<0.0001
95828261|NCT02961790|191628097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0174
95960030|NCT03506347|191892603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95960031|NCT03506347|191892604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95828262|NCT02961790|191628097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0279|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0279
95828263|NCT02961790|191628098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0011
95828264|NCT02961790|191628098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0025
95828265|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
95828266|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.49
95828267|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG1 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.50
95828268|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
95828269|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
95828270|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG2 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.65
95828271|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
95828272|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.76
95960032|NCT02920021|191892650|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|60.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.918||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.566|228.657|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||228.657|-108.566|0.463
95960033|NCT02920021|191892651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.032|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Etokimab - Placebo|||0.032|-0.031|0.962
95828273|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgG3 at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.54
95828274|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2015-16 season||||0.90
95828275|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2016-17 season||||0.95
95828276|NCT02649192|191628144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference between intervention and placebo groups in the ratio of IgA/IgM at day 56 in 2017-18 season||||0.34
95828277|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||0|0|
95828278|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|6.2|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||6.2|-51.7|
95828279|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|26.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H1N1||26.5|-49.4|
95828280|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.1|56.1|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||56.1|-70.1|
95828281|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|20.6|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||20.6|-38.8|
95828282|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|57.9|||||Treatment group minus placebo|H3N2||57.9|-17.5|
95828283|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||0|0|
95828284|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||5.8|-54.1|
95828285|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|53.3|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Phuket||53.3|-23.1|
95828286|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||0|0|
95828287|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-26.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|5.8|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||5.8|-54.1|
95828288|NCT02649192|191628145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference in Seroconversion R|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|30.5|||||Treatment group minus placebo|B/Brisbane||30.5|-45.4|
95828289|NCT03849690|191628149|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed on natural log(ln)-transformed TAK-906 Cmax which exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means(LSM) and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence interval (CI) were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.70|0.3011
95828290|NCT03849690|191628150|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUClast which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90 percent (%) CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.99|||ANOVA|||||0.99|0.77|0.0865
95960034|NCT00953199|191892667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||.05 was set as level of significance|Chi-squared|||We calculated the sample size to be 570 in each arm, providing 80% power, allocation 1:1, two-sided, alpha 0.05, withdrawal rate of 3% and a reduction in pancreatitis from 8% to 4%. Randomization is performed with permuted blocks of 20. Analysis is based on intention to treat.||||.45
95828291|NCT03849690|191628151|OTHER|ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed TAK-906 AUC∞ which were exponentiated to provide estimates on original scale. ANOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Each ANOVA included calculation of LSM and difference between treatment LSM. Geometric mean ratios and 90% CI were determined by exponentiation of appropriate estimates for difference between treatments in log-transformed parameters.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.00|0.78|0.3011
95828292|NCT01319721|191628156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95828293|NCT01319721|191628157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95828294|NCT01319721|191628158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95828295|NCT01319721|191628159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95828296|NCT01319721|191628160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95828297|NCT04883528|191628172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95828298|NCT04883528|191628173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
95828299|NCT04883528|191628174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
95828300|NCT04883528|191628175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
95828301|NCT04883528|191628176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95828302|NCT04883528|191628177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95828303|NCT04883528|191628178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
95828304|NCT04883528|191628179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
95828305|NCT04883528|191628180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95828306|NCT04883528|191628184|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.07|0.64
95828307|NCT04883528|191628185|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.55||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-14.59|0.04
95828308|NCT00468845|191628188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1378||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.1378
95828309|NCT00468845|191628188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.471||95.0||||Weighted Z-score test method of Fisher (1998) and Cui et al (1999)applied to maintain alpha level. A step down procedure for multiple comparisons to control the maximum experiment wise type I error rate at 0.05 level. 300mg tested prior to 150mg.|ANOVA|||||||0.4710
95828310|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.7752
95828311|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3375||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.3375
95828312|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7029||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.7029
95828313|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8618||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.8618
95828314|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2117||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2117
95828315|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6255||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6255
95828316|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0942
95828317|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9907||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.9907
95828318|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4678||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4678
95828319|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5500
95828320|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9333||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.9333
95828321|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7396||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7396
95828322|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2932||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.2932
95828323|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0164||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0164
95828324|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2468||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.2468
95828325|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7022
95828326|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7257||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7257
95828327|NCT00468845|191628189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3854||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3854
95828328|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5997||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5997
95828329|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8582||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8582
95828330|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3704||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.3704
95828331|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9747||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.9747
95828332|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2033
95828333|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2752
95828334|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.0183
95828335|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6906||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.6906
95828336|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5446||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.5446
95828337|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4852||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.4852
95828338|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5879||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.5879
95828339|NCT00468845|191628190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7699||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||144 hours PS||||0.7699
95828340|NCT00468845|191628191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9676||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.9676
95960035|NCT03865953|191892682|SUPERIORITY|Analysis used a two-period two-treatment crossover design|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Subject numbers gave a 90% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in the mean change from baseline NPRS for the active treatment compared with placebo of at least 1 unit, with a two sided test at a 5% level of significance||0.49|-0.76|0.67
95960036|NCT01777126|191892697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.0|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was the interval from surgery to discharge. Discharge means that the patient returns to his home. Preliminary data from our institution showed that all patients received parenteral nutrition very early post-surgery and were discharged after a mean of 19.3 ± 5.6 days. Therefore, the primary objective by implementing the ONP was to reduce the length of stay with 3 days.||||<0.001
95960037|NCT01777126|191892700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||<0.01
95960038|NCT01777126|191892701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test. Results were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.487
95960039|NCT01777126|191892702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
95828341|NCT00468845|191628191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4944||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4944
95828342|NCT00468845|191628192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4801||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4801
95828343|NCT00468845|191628192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8832||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.8832
95828344|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2125||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hours PS||||0.2125
95828345|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 Hour PS||||0.7602
95828346|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4053||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4053
95828347|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4147||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 Hours PS||||0.4147
95828348|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5556||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.5556
95828349|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.482||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.4820
95828350|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.5088
95828351|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 Hours PS||||0.3900
95828352|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9659||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.9659
95828353|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 Hours PS||||0.3968
95828354|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8308||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.8308
95828355|NCT00468845|191628193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0902||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.0902
95828356|NCT00468845|191628194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4388||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.4388
95828357|NCT00468845|191628194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||||||0.3364
95828358|NCT00468845|191628195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2409||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.2409
95828359|NCT00468845|191628195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1654||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.1654
95828360|NCT00468845|191628195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.111||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1110
95828361|NCT00468845|191628195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0598||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0598
95828362|NCT00468845|191628195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0398||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0398
95828363|NCT00468845|191628195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0623||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.0623
95828364|NCT00468845|191628196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.2730
95960040|NCT01777126|191892703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's Exact Test. The result was considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.117
95828365|NCT00468845|191628196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1015||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||0-24 Hours PS||||0.1015
95828366|NCT00468845|191628196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2438||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.2438
95828367|NCT00468845|191628196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0102||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24-48 Hours PS||||0.0102
95828368|NCT00468845|191628196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2063||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.2063
95828369|NCT00468845|191628196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48-72 Hours PS||||0.0387
95828370|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5995||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5995
95828371|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 Hours PS||||0.9104
95828372|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 Hours PS||||0.2177
95828373|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.1770
95828374|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1229
95828375|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1274||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.1274
95828376|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0568
95828377|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0354||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.0354
95828378|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4269||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.4269
95828379|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2058||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2058
95828380|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8215
95828381|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5331||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.5331
95828382|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7365||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7365
95828383|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9989||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.9989
95828384|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2501
95828385|NCT00468845|191628197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.6021
95828386|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6613||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.6613
95828387|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1311||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (prior to first dose)||||0.1311
95828388|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6574||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6574
95828389|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6949||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day (1 hour after dosing)||||0.6949
95828390|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.2008
95828391|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3022
95828392|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6382||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.6382
95960041|NCT01777126|191892704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|||||0.049||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.049
95828393|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.8624
95828394|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3858||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.3858
95828395|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4814
95828396|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.952||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9520
95828397|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2315||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.2315
95828398|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7061||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.7061
95828399|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.2908
95960042|NCT01777126|191892705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|||||0.698||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis was performed by the Leuven Statistics Research Centre, KU Leuven, using SPSS package (SPSS Statistics 20.0 for Windows). Statistical analysis was performed using Chi-square Test. Outcome measures were considered statistically significant if p-values were \< 0.05.||||0.698
95828400|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4782||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4782
95828401|NCT00468845|191628198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.8130
95828402|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.894||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8940
95828403|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.5938
95828404|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4306||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.4306
95828405|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5899||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.5899
95828406|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2209||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2209
95828407|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7145||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.7145
95828408|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1022||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.1022
95828409|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||1st Week PS||||0.7243
95828410|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.2310
95960043|NCT02232399|191892726|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.||To test whether there were any significant differences between the two treatment groups over time (group vs time interaction), a repeated measurement mixed-model approach was used. This assumed an unstructured covariance pattern.||||0.45
95828411|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9192||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS||||0.9192
95828412|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.3214
95828413|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8641||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS||||0.8641
95828414|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3024||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.3024
95828415|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7359||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS||||0.7359
95828416|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.4303
95828417|NCT00468845|191628199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Till Discharge||||0.2133
95828418|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.5682
95828419|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1005||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||8 hours PS||||0.1005
95828420|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8261||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.8261
95828421|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9981||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||16 hours PS||||0.9981
95828422|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8884||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.8884
95828423|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4507||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours PS||||0.4507
95828424|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.2994
95828425|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4371||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||32 hours PS||||0.4371
95828426|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8295
95828427|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8783||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||40 hours PS||||0.8783
95960044|NCT02232399|191892727|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.70
95960045|NCT02309346|191892735|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as a 2% difference. The sample size calculation aimed for 90% power at a 5% one-sided significance level, assuming clinical cure rates of 99% (standard arm) and 100% (experimental arm). This required 95 patients per arm, with a target enrollment of 100 per arm to account for potential dropouts.|Difference between 2 proportions|-0.02||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.02||||Chi-squared|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the two arms was calculated.||The null hypothesis (H₀) was that the treatment success rate of the once-daily clindamycin regimen is inferior to that of the thrice-daily regimen by a pre-specified non-inferiority margin (delta) of 2%. To achieve 90% power with a one-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 to reject the null hypothesis, a sample size of approximately 95 patients per group was required.|||-0.02|0.06
95960046|NCT02706951|191892737|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|35.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||35.6|17.5|<0.001
95960047|NCT02706951|191892737|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.9||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||38.9|21.0|<0.001
95960048|NCT02706951|191892738|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|33.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||33.7|16.8|<0.001
95828428|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.2161
95828429|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||48 hours PS||||0.0440
95828430|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3855||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.3855
95828431|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||56 hours PS||||0.2010
95828432|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.7104
95828433|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6107||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||64 hours PS||||0.6107
95828434|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6705||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.6705
95828435|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2083||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||72 hours PS||||0.2083
95828436|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.3234
95828437|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5938||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||80 hours PS||||0.5938
95828438|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9711||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.9711
95828439|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4869||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||88 hours PS||||0.4869
95828440|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7439||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.7439
95828441|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||96 hours PS||||0.8045
95828442|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5925||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.5925
95828443|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||104 hours PS||||0.6830
95828444|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8266||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.8266
95828445|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||112 hours PS||||0.1929
95828446|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.7071
95828447|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||120 hours PS||||0.9367
95828448|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6046||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.6046
95828449|NCT00468845|191628200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5119||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||128 hours PS||||0.5119
95828450|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6966||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.6966
95828451|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.1808
95828452|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2616||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2616
95828453|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1014||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.1014
95828454|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4401||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4401
95828455|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5615
95828456|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7615||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7615
95828457|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6204||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6204
95828458|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8766||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.8766
95828459|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1717||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1717
95828460|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4065||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.4065
95828461|NCT00468845|191628201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0746
95828462|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2201||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.2201
96001148|NCT00995371|191979226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.13|||<|0.05||95.0|7.43|24.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||24.83|7.43|<0.05
96001149|NCT00995371|191979226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||>|0.05||95.0|-1.24|13.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean change from baseline was assessed for ODI using a paired t-test. The resulting p-values are to be considered as descriptive statistics. Two-sided test with 5% Type I error was used.||13.58|-1.24|>0.05
95828463|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0606
95828464|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5303
96001150|NCT01748695|191979244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||||||Based on a linear mixed measures model with treatment and period included as fixed effects, subject included as a random effect and between- and within- subject baseline covariates included.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.834
95828465|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2227||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.2227
95828466|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8237||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8237
95828467|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7476||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.7476
95828468|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6882||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.6882
95828469|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9689
95828470|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.501||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5010
95828471|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9143||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.9143
95828472|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7381||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.7381
95828473|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5336||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.5336
95828474|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6479||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.6479
95828475|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1133||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.1133
95828476|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7637||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.7637
95828477|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1056||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1056
95828478|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8079||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.8079
95828479|NCT00468845|191628202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0917
95828480|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7511
95828481|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6742||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6742
95828482|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3808||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.3808
96001151|NCT01282814|191979284|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|115.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.45|123.72|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||123.72|108.45|
96001152|NCT01282814|191979285|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|109.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.68|116.63|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.63|103.68|
95828483|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7021
95828484|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0045
95828485|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7916||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.7916
95828486|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3682||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.3682
95828487|NCT00468845|191628203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1419||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1419
95828488|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3323||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.3323
95828489|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5662||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.5662
95828490|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9538||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.9538
95828491|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4592||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.4592
95960049|NCT02706951|191892738|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|42.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||42.1|25.1|<0.001
95828492|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.4793
95828493|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8517||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.8517
95828494|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1829||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.1829
95960050|NCT02706951|191892739|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.85||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.85|-1.32|<0.001
95828495|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3544||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.3544
95828496|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.1718
95828497|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 6 PS||||0.5078
95828498|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.2443
95828499|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8296||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7 PS||||0.8296
95828500|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3243||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3243
95828501|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||2nd Week PS (Average)||||0.3755
95828502|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9584||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.9584
95828503|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||3rd Week PS (Average)||||0.1187
95828504|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7915||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.7915
95828505|NCT00468845|191628204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||4th Week PS (Average)||||0.0703
95828506|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1975||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.1975
95828507|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2784||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge;||||0.2784
95828508|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0271
95828509|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0881||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0881
95828510|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0159||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0159
95828511|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.187||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.1870
95828512|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1752||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.1752
95828513|NCT00468845|191628205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6923||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6923
95828514|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6295||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6295
95828515|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6890
95828516|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5094||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.5094
95828517|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8741||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.8741
95828518|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0214
95828519|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9366||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.9366
95828520|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7833||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.7833
95828521|NCT00468845|191628208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2983||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2983
95828522|NCT00468845|191628211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6861||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.6861
95828523|NCT00468845|191628211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery Day||||0.9905
95828524|NCT00468845|191628212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4264||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.4264
95828525|NCT00468845|191628212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3045||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS||||0.3045
95828526|NCT00468845|191628213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.0714
95828527|NCT00468845|191628213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4455||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS||||0.4455
95828528|NCT00468845|191628214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7418||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.7418
95828529|NCT00468845|191628214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5154||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS||||0.5154
95828530|NCT00468845|191628215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6715||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.6715
95828531|NCT00468845|191628215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS||||0.9013
95828532|NCT00468845|191628216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9126||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||0.9126
95828533|NCT00468845|191628216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS||||1.0000
95828534|NCT00468845|191628217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1233||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1233
95828535|NCT00468845|191628217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.1666
95828536|NCT00468845|191628218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0361||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0361
95828537|NCT00468845|191628218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0797||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0797
95828538|NCT00468845|191628219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0206
95828539|NCT00468845|191628219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.0011
95828540|NCT00468845|191628221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3506||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||24 hours||||0.3506
95828541|NCT00468845|191628222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0287
95828542|NCT00468845|191628222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.2270
95828543|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1872||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.1872
95828544|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3994||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Discharge||||0.3994
95828545|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0422||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.0422
95855089|NCT03819114|191669688|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95828546|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3647||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Medication Subscale at Day 28||||0.3647
96001153|NCT01282814|191979286|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.45|111.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.71|101.45|
95828547|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1729||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.1729
95828548|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2234||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Discharge||||0.2234
95828549|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.095||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.0950
95828550|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4345||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Characteristics at Day 28||||0.4345
95828551|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.2840
95828552|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6404||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Discharge||||0.6404
95828553|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.0550
95828554|NCT00468845|191628223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4531||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Efficacy at Day 28||||0.4531
95828555|NCT00468845|191628224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9712||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.9712
95828556|NCT00468845|191628224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.0112
95828557|NCT00468845|191628224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0090
95828558|NCT00468845|191628224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.865||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.8650
95828559|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8914||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.8914
95828560|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2214||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Discharge||||0.2214
95828561|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.1008
95828562|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9135||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 1997 Day 28||||0.9135
95828563|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.5609
95828564|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Discharge||||0.4047
95828565|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1663||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.1663
95828566|NCT00468845|191628225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8364||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||EQ-5D 2001 Day 28||||0.8364
95828567|NCT00468845|191628226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7218||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7218
95828568|NCT00468845|191628226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4425||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.4425
95828569|NCT00468845|191628227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7889||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.7889
95828570|NCT00468845|191628227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival distribution estimation;||||0.1565
95828571|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6211||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.6211
95828572|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3687||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Total subscale||||0.3687
95828573|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7078||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.7078
95828574|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8696||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Burning Spontaneous subscale||||0.8696
96001154|NCT03425656|191979369|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Chi-squared|||||0.16|-0.23|0.73
96001155|NCT03425656|191979370|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
96001156|NCT03425656|191979371|OTHER||Chi-squared|0.42||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.42
96001157|NCT03425656|191979372|NON_INFERIORITY|We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.25 for the primary endpoint.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95828575|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.4320
95828576|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8843||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Pressing Spontaneous subscale||||0.8843
95828577|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6215||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.6215
95960051|NCT02706951|191892739|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.17||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-1.17|-1.64|<0.001
95960052|NCT02706951|191892740|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.22|-0.43|<0.001
95960053|NCT02706951|191892740|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed factor, and baseline value and the stratification factor geographic region as the covariates.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-0.30|-0.51|<0.001
95960054|NCT02706951|191892741|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|3.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||5.42|2.52|<0.001
95960055|NCT02706951|191892741|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.32||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||7.32|4.42|<0.001
95960056|NCT02706951|191892742|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|26.8||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||26.8|12.8|<0.001
95828578|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2722||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paroxysmal pain subscale||||0.2722
95828579|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.5500
95828580|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9942||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Evoked Pain subscale||||0.9942
95828581|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0075||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.0075
95828582|NCT00468845|191628228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1464||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Paresthesia/dysesthesia||||0.1464
95960057|NCT02706951|191892742|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|39.7||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||39.7|24.6|<0.001
95960058|NCT02706951|191892743|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-41.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.56|-16.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-16.50|-66.56|0.001
95962448|NCT03607422|191896636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.34|-29.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-29.90|-55.34|<0.001
96001158|NCT02209597|191979374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
96001159|NCT02961764|191979378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.289|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.532|||Fisher Exact|||||0.532|0.156|<0.001
95960059|NCT02706951|191892743|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error prevalence of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses of upadacitinib were strongly controlled by means of a graphic multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-49.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.23|-24.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and geographic region, and the baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||-24.40|-74.23|<0.001
95828583|NCT00468845|191628229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9877||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.9877
95828584|NCT00468845|191628229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 3 PS.||||0.1334
95828585|NCT00468845|191628229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3566||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.3566
95828586|NCT00468845|191628229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6262||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers and salpingo-oophorectomy strata||Incidence of chronic PS pain at Month 6 PS.||||0.6262
95828587|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.9463
95828588|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7347||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Surgery day;||||0.7347
95828589|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4132||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4132
95828590|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4929||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 1 PS;||||0.4929
95828591|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6003||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.6003
95828592|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 2 PS;||||0.9343
95828593|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3838||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.3838
95828594|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 3 PS;||||0.1351
95828595|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3343||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.3343
95828596|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7948||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 4 PS;||||0.7948
95828597|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.8090
95828598|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4035||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 5 PS;||||0.4035
95828599|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6009||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.6009
96001160|NCT02961764|191979379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.005
95828600|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Discharge||||0.7597
95828601|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7804||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.7804
95828602|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 7||||0.0463
95828603|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4951||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.4951
95828604|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 14||||0.3030
96001161|NCT02961764|191979380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.050
96001162|NCT02961764|191979382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
96001163|NCT00969618|191979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for total ADHD symptoms score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001164|NCT00969618|191979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for inattention subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001165|NCT00969618|191979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001166|NCT00969618|191979493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for ADHD index subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001167|NCT00969618|191979494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001168|NCT00969618|191979495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001169|NCT00969618|191979495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001170|NCT00969618|191979495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95828605|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.0104
95828606|NCT00468845|191628230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6978||95.0|||||ANOVA|LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and salpingo-oophorectomy strata.||Day 28||||0.6978
95828607|NCT03840525|191628240|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted. No group comparisons were done due to the fact that this was a feasibility trial and not an efficacy trial. 80% was used as the benchmark for acceptability.|||
95828608|NCT03840525|191628241|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics was conducted to determine acceptability for both the qigong and sham qigong group. No between group comparisons were conducted. A benchmark of 80% was used to determine acceptability.|||
95828609|NCT03840525|191628242|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate precision, 95%CI will be calculated using Wilson's score method, which uses asymptotic variance and is appropriate for small sample sizes100. The formula is as follows: (2np + z2 ± √(z2 + 4npq)) / 2(n+ z2). If the proportion of participants who rate the intervention as acceptable is 80% or greater, we will consider the intervention acceptable.|||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics were conducted to determine acceptability. Benchmark for acceptability was set at 80% of participant attending at least 70% of the classes.|||
95828610|NCT00844805|191628299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.9|||=|0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|31.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.5|-1.7|=0.0884
95828611|NCT00844805|191628300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|21.7|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|32.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||32.5|11.0|=0.0013
95828612|NCT00844805|191628301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||25.5|10.7|=0.0004
95828613|NCT00844805|191628302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||=|0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|31.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||31.7|-11.7|=0.5005
95828614|NCT00844805|191628303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.5|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||9.9|-14.9|=1.0000
95828615|NCT00844805|191628304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||6.8|-6.8|=1.0000
96001171|NCT00969618|191979496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.200
96001172|NCT00969618|191979497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001173|NCT00969618|191979498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GEC subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001174|NCT00969618|191979498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for behavioral regulation subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001175|NCT00969618|191979498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for metacognition subscale score.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96001176|NCT00969618|191979499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.384
96001177|NCT02026908|191979558|OTHER|Paired T- test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||A p-value was calculated. Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.0001
96001178|NCT02026908|191979559|OTHER|Paired t test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
96001179|NCT02026908|191979560|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.0001
96001180|NCT02026908|191979561|OTHER|Paired T Test|p value|0.05||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
96001181|NCT02026908|191979562|OTHER|Paired T test|p value|0.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant. A p-value was calculated. Comments: Pretreatment (baseline) values for each parameter are compared to post-treatment values in a paired fashion.|||||0.008
95828616|NCT00844805|191628305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3802||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||=0.3802
95828617|NCT00844805|191628306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0|||=|0.6153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||4.5|-14.5|=0.6153
95828618|NCT00844805|191628307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|18.4|||=|0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|34.3|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||34.3|2.5|=0.0263
95828619|NCT00844805|191628308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|8.4|||=|0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% CI for treatment differences were computed using Wilson's Method.|||22.8|-6.0|=0.3011
95828620|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
95828621|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
95828622|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0313
95862190|NCT02447302|191683020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.48|0.27||The analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model that incorporated treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, prior exposure to TNFα antagonists, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the TMS change from baseline between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|Estimated least square mean difference in etrasimod 1 mg from placebo|||0.27|-1.48|= 0.1277
95960060|NCT02706951|191892744|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|26.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|34.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||34.8|18.5|<0.001
95828623|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
95862191|NCT02447302|191683021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||=|0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|5.51||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||5.51|1.40|= 0.0071
95960061|NCT02706951|191892744|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|45.0||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||45.0|28.6|<0.001
95960062|NCT02706951|191892745|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|25.8||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||25.8|13.8|<0.001
95828624|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
95828625|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0156
95828626|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
95828627|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1563||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.1563
95960063|NCT02706951|191892745|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|36.9||This comparison was not part of the pre-specified multiplicity testing sequence; the nominal p-value is reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factor geographic region.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Methotrexate|||36.9|23.6|<0.001
95828628|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4375||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.4375
95828629|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0781
95828630|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
95828631|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0137
95828632|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0547
95828633|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0488
95828634|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
95828635|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0488||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0488
95828636|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1055||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.1055
95828637|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.9102
95828638|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
95828639|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.1641
95828640|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0137
95828641|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
95828642|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
95828643|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
95828644|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0547||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0547
95828645|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0195
95828646|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0059
95828647|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
95960064|NCT03491215|191892746|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.311||||||Group 3 vs Group 2||1.311|0.490|
95828648|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
95828649|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
95828650|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0039
95828651|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from baseline to 24 months.||||0.5703
95828652|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for whole body, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
95960065|NCT03491215|191892746|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|1.846||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.846|0.532|
95828653|NCT00259298|191628309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value if for whole body, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole body from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0039
95828654|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
95828655|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0039
95828656|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
95828657|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1641||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1641
95828658|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for whole skeleton, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the whole skeleton from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0078
95828659|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0078
95828660|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0078
95828661|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||p-value is for skull, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0781
95828662|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0078
95828663|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156||95.0||||p-value is for skull, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the skull from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0156
95828664|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0391||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0391
95828665|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0313
95828666|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from baseline to 24 months.||||0.2969
95828667|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5625||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.5625
95828668|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0469||95.0||||p-value is for mandible, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the mandible from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0469
95828669|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
95828670|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 3 months.||||0.2324
95828671|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0645
95828672|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for spine, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no change in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0273
95828673|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7344||95.0||||p-value is for spine, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the spine from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.7344
95828674|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 3 months.||||0.1934
95828675|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 18 months.||||0.7695
95828676|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from baseline to 24 months.||||0.6523
95828677|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2324||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.2324
95828678|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6523||95.0||||p-value is for pelvis, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the pelvis from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.6523
95828679|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0098
95828680|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
95828681|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.0039
95828682|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.0273
95828683|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3594||95.0||||p-value is for upper extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the upper extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.3594
95828684|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 3 months.||||0.0371
95828685|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0098
95828686|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4609||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, baseline to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from baseline to 24 months.||||0.4609
95828687|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1934||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 3 months to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 3 months to 18 months.||||0.1934
95828688|NCT00259298|191628310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273||95.0||||p-value is for lower extremities, 18 months to 24 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no decrease in skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP in the lower extremities from 18 months to 24 months.||||0.0273
95828689|NCT00259298|191628311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 3 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 3 months.||||1.0
95828690|NCT00259298|191628311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||p-value is for focal change, baseline to 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in focal skeletal uptake of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||1.0
95828691|NCT00259298|191628313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||p-value is for change at 18 months|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Tested was the hypothesis that there would be no increase in whole skeletal plasma clearance of 99m Tc-MDP from baseline to 18 months.||||0.0020
95828692|NCT01400243|191628330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
95828693|NCT01400243|191628331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95828694|NCT00953680|191628335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.993||||||90.0|0.95|1.039||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.039|0.950|
95828695|NCT00953680|191628336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.835||||||90.0|0.749|0.931||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100-mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||0.931|0.749|
95828696|NCT00953680|191628337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.924||||||90.0|0.825|1.035||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.035|0.825|
95828697|NCT00953680|191628338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence Bounds of (0.80, 1.25).|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.931||||||90.0|0.836|1.037||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (A/B); A= Single dose losartan 100 mg-HCTZ 12.5 mg combination tablet; B= Single dose losartan 100 mg tablet + HCTZ 12.5 mg capsule||1.037|0.836|
95960066|NCT03491215|191892746|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.639|2.394||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.394|0.639|
95960067|NCT03491215|191892747|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.425|1.184||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||1.184|0.425|
95960068|NCT03491215|191892747|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.506|1.851||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.851|0.506|
95960069|NCT03491215|191892747|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|1.365|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.686|2.714||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.714|0.686|
95960070|NCT03491215|191892749|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.245|2.352||||||Group 3 vs. Group 2||2.352|0.245|
95960071|NCT03491215|191892749|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.784||||||Group 3 vs. Group 1||1.784|0.150|
95960072|NCT03491215|191892749|OTHER|Comparison|GMR|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.178|2.597||||||Group 2 vs. Group 1||2.597|0.178|
95960073|NCT03491215|191892757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.109||||||||1.109|0.858|
95960074|NCT03491215|191892757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.232||||||||1.232|0.735|
95960075|NCT03491215|191892758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.115||||||||1.115|0.921|
95960076|NCT03491215|191892758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.258||||||||1.258|0.841|
95960077|NCT03491215|191892759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.117||||||||1.117|1.012|
95828698|NCT02726880|191628340|SUPERIORITY||F|1.13||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Number of days of gaming in the past week, measured at baseline, is included as a covariate in the model.||||||.296
95828699|NCT02827500|191628390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.33|1.88|0.002
95828700|NCT02827500|191628391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
95828701|NCT02827500|191628392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference in change in heart rate between the treatment arms.||||0.011
95828702|NCT02827500|191628393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054||||||The apriori threshold for statistical significance is alpha=0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|The p-value is obtained using the F-test (combination of Chi-Squared tests) due to multiple imputation.||The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the treatment arms in the proportion of patients with heart rate \< 70 BPM.||||0.054
95828703|NCT02827500|191628394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.717
95828704|NCT02827500|191628395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.784
95828705|NCT01822535|191628396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Between-group differences in percent changes in core body temperature from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed. Because individuals with tetraplegia have impaired thermoregulatory mechanisms, we hypothesized that their percent change in core body temperature would be significantly larger than that of able-bodied controls.||||<0.01
95828706|NCT01822535|191628397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Stroop Interference T-scores from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.018
95828707|NCT01822535|191628398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Between-group comparisons of percent changes in Delayed Recall from baseline values to after cool exposure were analyzed.~We hypothesized that subjects with tetraplegia would have greater declines in cognitive performance after cool exposure than able-bodied controls."||||0.0431
95828708|NCT01822535|191628399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"We hypothesized that administration of midodrine would attenuate the fall in core body temperature.~Within-group percent changes in core body temperature were analyzed to compare data from visit 1 (no drug) to visit 2 (drug)."||||0.30
95828709|NCT00737711|191628407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used to estimation of p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95828710|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based physical functioning score||||.81
95828711|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-physical score||||.18
95828712|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based bodily pain score||||.48
95828713|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based general health score||||.26
95828714|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based vitality score||||.23
95828715|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based social functioning score||||.36
95960078|NCT03491215|191892759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.25||||||||1.25|1.025|
95960079|NCT02489734|191892779|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk (RR)|3.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.1|||Chi-squared|||||8.1|1.4|0.003
95960080|NCT00551135|191892790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0668
95960081|NCT00551135|191892790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS (least squares) means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0334
95828716|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based role-emotional score||||.41
95828717|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 norm-based mental health score||||.80
95828718|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized physical component score||||.80
95828719|NCT01307462|191628472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SF-36 standardized mental component score||||.23
95828720|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT physical well-being||||0.28
95828721|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT social/family well-being||||0.1
95828722|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT emotional well-being||||0.63
95828723|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT functional well-being||||0.78
95828724|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT BMT subscale||||.84
95828725|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT trial outcome index||||.37
95828726|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-G||||.71
95828727|NCT01307462|191628473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACT-BMT total||||.54
95828728|NCT01307462|191628474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP maximum activity score - highest item still doing||||.37
95960082|NCT00551135|191892790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Hochberg's adjustment applied to p-value; Hochberg's adjusted p-value was the primary analysis.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
95828729|NCT01307462|191628474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HAP adjusted activity score - MAS minus stopped||||.39
95828730|NCT01307462|191628474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Modified HAP adjusted activity score||||.39
95828731|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom skin scale||||.11
95828732|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom energy scale||||.007
95828733|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom lung scale||||.20
95828734|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom eye scale||||.002
95828735|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom nutrition scale||||.52
95828736|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom psychological scale||||.22
95828737|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom mouth scale||||.002
95862192|NCT02447302|191683021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||=|0.1192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|3.14||The analysis was performed using an ordered logistic regression model with terms for treatment, current oral corticosteroid use, and prior exposure to TNFα antagonists.|ANCOVA|The analysis compared the odds of achieving higher trichotomous composite score between the groups using 1-sided test at 0.05 level of significance.||||3.14|0.83|= 0.1192
95828738|NCT01307462|191628475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Lee symptom overall summary scale||||<0.001
95828739|NCT00289198|191628555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.78||Change from Baseline (Day 1) in reflective total nasal symptom scores for Placebo versus that for fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
95828740|NCT00289198|191628556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.459|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.99||Mean change from Baseline in AM pre-dose instantaneous TNSS over entire period for Placebo versus that for Fluticasone furoate|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-1.93|<0.001
95828741|NCT00289198|191628557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Based on logistic regression adjusting for age, gender and country||||||<0.001
95828742|NCT00289198|191628558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.274|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.74|<0.001
95828743|NCT00289198|191628559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-1.77|<0.001
95828744|NCT00289198|191628560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.118|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-8.21|||ANCOVA|||||-8.21|-20.03|<0.001
95828745|NCT00289198|191628561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.033|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.13|-12.94|||ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-27.13|<0.001
95828746|NCT00289198|191628562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.41|<0.001
95828747|NCT00289198|191628562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
95828748|NCT00289198|191628562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.47|<0.001
95828749|NCT00289198|191628562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.27|-0.52|<0.001
95828750|NCT00289198|191628563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.22|-0.50|0.001
95828751|NCT00289198|191628563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.23|-0.51|0.001
95828752|NCT00289198|191628563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
95828753|NCT00289198|191628563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.372||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.24|-0.50|0.001
95828754|NCT00289198|191628564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.281||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score,Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.14|-0.42|0.001
95828755|NCT00289198|191628564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.314||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.17|-0.45|0.001
95828756|NCT00289198|191628564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.324||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal itching score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.19|-0.45|0.001
95828757|NCT00289198|191628564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.374||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo versus fluticasone furoate||-0.25|-0.50|0.001
95828758|NCT00289198|191628565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.292|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.43|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Rhinorrhea score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.15|-0.43|<0.001
95828759|NCT00289198|191628565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Congestion score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.12|-0.40|<0.001
95828760|NCT00289198|191628565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Itching score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.20|-0.48|<0.001
95828761|NCT00289198|191628565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.28|-0.54|<0.001
95828762|NCT00289198|191628566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.506||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.85|0.004
95828763|NCT00289198|191628567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.491||||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.85|0.007
95828764|NCT00289198|191628568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.531||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.88|0.003
95828765|NCT00289198|191628569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
95828766|NCT00289198|191628570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.34|0.001
95828767|NCT00289198|191628570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.137||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.028
95828768|NCT00289198|191628570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.04|-0.27|0.010
95828769|NCT00289198|191628571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
95828770|NCT00289198|191628571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161||||0.016||95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing or watering, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.03|-0.29|0.016
95828771|NCT00289198|191628571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.24|0.076
95828772|NCT00289198|191628572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.211||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.08|-0.34|0.001
95828773|NCT00289198|191628572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye tearing/watering, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.27|0.023
95828774|NCT00289198|191628572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs Fluticasone furoate||-0.05|-0.30|0.005
95828775|NCT00289198|191628573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Eye itching/burning, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.09|-0.35|0.001
95828776|NCT00289198|191628573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Eye Tearing/Watering score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.01|-0.25|0.040
95828777|NCT00289198|191628573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Eye Redness score, Placebo vs fluticasone furoate||-0.02|-0.26|0.022
95828778|NCT00289198|191628574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.376||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.04|||ANCOVA|||||14.04|2.71|0.004
95828779|NCT00289198|191628575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|15.04|||ANCOVA|||||15.04|3.52|0.002
95828780|NCT00289198|191628576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.638||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|13.39|||ANCOVA|||||13.39|1.89|0.009
95828781|NCT04172467|191628578|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|5.42||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||5.42|3.72|<0.001
95828782|NCT04172467|191628578|OTHER|To estimate the relevance of guideline adherent treatment (GLAD) for the susceptibility to infection, full GLAD is taken as reference category.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.21||For effect estimation, hazard ratios are reported with 95% confidence interval. The significance level is set to two-sided ≤ 5% (p ≤ 0.05).|Regression, Cox|The Model developed by Anderson and Gill (1982) is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis.||For the analysis of susceptibility to infection, the time to next infection was examined using the Andersen-Gill model. This model is an extension to the proportional hazard model (Cox model) for time to recurrent event analysis. The null hypothesis is that the GLAD-Score has no effect on susceptibility to infection.||3.21|1.98|<0.001
95828783|NCT02406443|191628579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=0.012
95828784|NCT02406443|191628580|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
95828785|NCT02406443|191628581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.15
95828786|NCT02406443|191628582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95828787|NCT02406443|191628583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95828788|NCT02406443|191628584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
95828789|NCT01344538|191628586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95828790|NCT01340937|191628587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.77|
95828791|NCT01340937|191628587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.72|
95828792|NCT01340937|191628587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.12|0.79|
95862193|NCT02447302|191683022|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.5|38.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||38.1|13.5|= 0.0003
95862194|NCT02447302|191683022|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|17.7||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||17.7|-3.5|= 0.1360
95862195|NCT02447302|191683023|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92|=|0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.6|35.3||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 2 mg from Placebo|The primary comparison in the study was between etrasimod 2 mg versus placebo.||35.3|2.6|= 0.0282
95862196|NCT02447302|191683023|SUPERIORITY||MH estimate for difference in percentage|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|=|0.1309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|28.1||The analysis was performed using MH method that was adjusted for current oral corticosteroid therapy at baseline and previous exposure to TNFα antagonists.|Mantel Haenszel|The analysis compared the difference in proportions between treatment groups using a 1-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.|MH estimated difference in etrasimod 1 mg from Placebo|||28.1|-5.3|= 0.1309
95862197|NCT01400880|191683051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.27||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for TOCO and IUPC. Agreement between TOCO and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.27|1.70|
95862198|NCT01400880|191683051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|4.92||||||All subjects were monitored with the electrode sensor, TOCO and IUPC. Measurements were taken with the electrode sensor vs. IUPC and were also taken with TOCO vs. IUPC and those measurements were compared to each other. These results are for the electrode sensor and IUPC. Agreement between electrode sensor and IUPC. Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0.||4.92|2.98|
95862199|NCT02695420|191683065|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|34.7|||Repeated Measures Model|||||34.7|9.6|0.0008
95862200|NCT02695420|191683065|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|42.3|||Repeated measures model|||||42.3|16.3|< 0.0001
95862201|NCT02695420|191683065|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.4|||Repeated measures model|||||38.4|12.6|0.0002
95862202|NCT02448641|191683067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.09||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.09|0.35|0.6743
95862203|NCT02448641|191683068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.18||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with mRS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||1.18|0.15|0.1000
95862204|NCT02448641|191683071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.17||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): -0.36 (1.283)|Statistical analysis: NeuroQOL score for the Upper Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.17|-2.90|0.7788
95862205|NCT02448641|191683071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.43||Combined SB623 vs. Sham at month 6 MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 0.58 (0.934)|Statistical Analysis: NeuroQOL score for Lower Extremity Function (Represents Mean Change from Baseline in T-Scores at Month 6)||2.43|-1.26|0.5347
95864512|NCT03456882|191686821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance level set to 0.05|repeated measures ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with unstructured variance covariance matrix. Independent variables: time, treatment and treatment\*time interaction|RNS60 vs. Placebo|Contrast between treatment groups of the differences (week 48 - week 24) within treatment groups. Null hypothesis: the change from week 24 to week 48 is not different between treatment groups.||||0.4962
95828793|NCT01340937|191628587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.35|<0.001
95828794|NCT01340937|191628588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|3.35|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||3.35|-4.31|
95828795|NCT01340937|191628588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|2.12|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.12|-5.38|
95828796|NCT01340937|191628588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|2.58|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|Equivalence for titer \>=1 µg/mL||2.58|-4.89|
95828797|NCT01340937|191628588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|7.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|13.17|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1 µg/mL||13.17|3.38|<0.001
95828798|NCT01340937|191628588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.12|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 µg/mL||5.12|0.39|<0.001
95828799|NCT01340937|191628589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.98|0.76|
95828800|NCT01340937|191628589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.74|
95828801|NCT01340937|191628589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.86|
95828802|NCT01340937|191628590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.07|0.84|
95862206|NCT02448641|191683073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||MMRM: Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, pooled site, corresponding Baseline sub-domain T-score, Baseline mRS score, and the treatment-by-visit interaction|LSMD (Least square mean difference) (SE): 1.2 (1.18)|"Change from Baseline at Month 6~Between-group Effect size is calculated as the LS mean difference divided by the model estimate of the pooled SD, obtained from the square root of the diagonal element, associated with the analysis visit summarized, from the covariance matrix."||3.6|-1.1|0.2959
95828803|NCT01340937|191628590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.86|
95828804|NCT01340937|191628590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.14|0.90|
95828805|NCT01340937|191628591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.04|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.04|0.91|
95828806|NCT01340937|191628591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
95828807|NCT01340937|191628591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.13|0.98|
95828808|NCT01340937|191628592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.10|0.96|
95828809|NCT01340937|191628592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.95|
95828810|NCT01340937|191628592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.06|0.92|
95828811|NCT01340937|191628592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.29|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.29|1.11|<0.001
95828812|NCT01340937|191628593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.96|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.83|
95828813|NCT01340937|191628593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.83|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.83|0.72|
95828814|NCT01340937|191628593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.94|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.94|0.81|
95828815|NCT01340937|191628593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.67||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.73|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||0.73|0.62|0.419
95828816|NCT01340937|191628594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
95828817|NCT01340937|191628594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.83|
95828818|NCT01340937|191628594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.08|0.85|
95828819|NCT01340937|191628594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.17|0.90|<0.001
95828820|NCT01340937|191628595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.85|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.85|0.72|
95828821|NCT01340937|191628595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.87|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.87|0.73|
95828822|NCT01340937|191628595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMC ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMC Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||GMC ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.11|0.93|
95828823|NCT01340937|191628595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.66|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary analysis||1.66|1.37|<0.001
95828824|NCT01340937|191628596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.96|0.76|
95828825|NCT01340937|191628596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.99|0.79|
95828826|NCT01340937|191628596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.15|0.92|
95828827|NCT01340937|191628597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.05|0.84|
95828828|NCT01340937|191628597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.02|0.82|
95862207|NCT02448641|191683074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.92||GLMM: Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Mixed Models Analysis|A GLMM with FMMS responder as outcome, treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pooled site, Baseline FMMS and Baseline mRS scores as covariates||Combined SB623 Implant Vs Sham Surgery group at Month 6||5.92|0.31|0.6854
95862208|NCT01742286|191683075|OTHER||MTD/RDE|510.0||||||||||||||||||
95862209|NCT01742286|191683075|OTHER||MTD/RDE|500.0||||||||||||||||||
95862210|NCT02445794|191683114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
95828829|NCT01340937|191628597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.09|0.87|
95828830|NCT01340937|191628598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot B)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.22|0.92|
95828831|NCT01340937|191628598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot A/Lot C)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.26|0.95|
95828832|NCT01340937|191628598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% confidence intervals of the GMT ratio are within the margin 0.67 to 1.5|GMT Ratio (Lot B/Lot C)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||||GMT ratio was adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.19|0.90|
95828833|NCT01340937|191628599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.3|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.30|-1.23|
95828834|NCT01340937|191628599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.32|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.32|-1.23|
95828835|NCT01340937|191628599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.66|-0.64|
95828836|NCT01340937|191628599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.90|0.20|<0.001
95828837|NCT01340937|191628600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.24|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.24|-3.74|
95828838|NCT01340937|191628600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.57|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.57|-5.26|
95828839|NCT01340937|191628600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|2.28|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.28|-5.56|
95828840|NCT01340937|191628600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|2.09|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.09|-6.02|<0.001
95828841|NCT01340937|191628601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.91|
95828842|NCT01340937|191628601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.47|-0.90|
95828843|NCT01340937|191628601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.62|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.62|-0.63|
95828844|NCT01340937|191628601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.33|0.46|<0.001
95828845|NCT01340937|191628602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.4|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.40|0.37|
95828846|NCT01340937|191628602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.63|-0.77|
95855090|NCT03819114|191669689|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.41|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.41|0.96|
95828847|NCT01340937|191628602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|0.15|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.15|-3.03|
95828848|NCT01340937|191628602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|3.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.14|-0.59|<0.001
95828849|NCT01340937|191628603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|2.47|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||2.47|-5.17|
95828850|NCT01340937|191628603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|0.67|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.67|-6.79|
95828851|NCT01340937|191628603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.94|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||1.94|-5.37|
95828852|NCT01340937|191628603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.86|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.86|-7.73|<0.001
95828853|NCT01340937|191628604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|7.39|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.39|-1.83|
95828854|NCT01340937|191628604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.06|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||7.06|-2.21|
95828855|NCT01340937|191628604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|4.42|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||4.42|-5.14|
95828856|NCT01340937|191628604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.85|-1.70|<0.001
95828857|NCT01340937|191628605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|-4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-0.63|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.63|-7.69|
95828858|NCT01340937|191628605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-0.66|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||-0.66|-7.75|
95828859|NCT01340937|191628605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -10% and 10%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.2|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||3.20|-3.32|
95828860|NCT01340937|191628605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.36|-0.85|<0.001
95828861|NCT01340937|191628606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95828862|NCT01340937|191628606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95828863|NCT01340937|191628606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95828864|NCT01340937|191628606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.36|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.36|0.18|<0.001
95828865|NCT01340937|191628607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95862211|NCT05126225|191683115|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.960|0.032|0.05
95862212|NCT05126225|191683116|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.440|0.160|0.05
95862213|NCT02248675|191683144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||.153
95862214|NCT02248675|191683145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.627
95960083|NCT00551135|191892790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8003
95960084|NCT00551135|191892790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6932|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted (raw) p-value.|ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline worst pain (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6932
95960085|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4471
95828866|NCT01340937|191628607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
95828867|NCT01340937|191628607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.60|-0.61|
95828868|NCT01340937|191628607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.24|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|-0.20|<0.001
95828869|NCT01340937|191628608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot B)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95828870|NCT01340937|191628608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot A - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95828871|NCT01340937|191628608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence requires that the 2-sided 95% Confidence Intervals of the response rate difference are between -5% and 5%|Response Rate Difference (Lot B - Lot C)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.61|||||Response rate difference was stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine|||0.61|-0.61|
95828872|NCT01340937|191628608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.85|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.85|0.05|<0.001
95828873|NCT01340937|191628609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Analysis of Covariance|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.17|0.98|<0.001
95828874|NCT01340937|191628610|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.79|<0.001
95828875|NCT01340937|191628611|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.74||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.83|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.83|0.66|0.035
95828876|NCT01340937|191628612|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.46|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.46|1.17|<0.001
95828877|NCT01340937|191628613|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.58|-1.11|<0.001
95828878|NCT01340937|191628614|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|3.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.22|-2.41|<0.001
95862215|NCT02248675|191683146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
95960086|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7248
95960087|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7556
95828879|NCT01340937|191628615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|5.47|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||5.47|-2.13|<0.001
95828880|NCT01340937|191628616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (Comb - Ctrl)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||7.40|-0.39|<0.001
95828881|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 1||1.04|0.82|<0.001
95828882|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 3||1.06|0.84|<0.001
95828883|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 4||1.12|0.89|<0.001
95828884|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 5||1.07|0.80|<0.001
95828885|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6A||0.99|0.77|<0.001
95828886|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 6B||0.96|0.64|0.055
95828887|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 7F||0.99|0.80|<0.001
95828888|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 9V||1.13|0.88|<0.001
95828889|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 14||1.10|0.82|<0.001
95828890|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.0|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 18C||1.00|0.79|<0.001
95828891|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.03|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19A||1.03|0.80|<0.001
95828892|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 19F||1.08|0.87|<0.001
95855091|NCT03819114|191669689|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.69|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.69|1.21|
95862216|NCT02248675|191683147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|multiple regression controlling for baseline values of the dependent variable was used to examine between group effects at post-treatment||||||<.001
95862217|NCT04491604|191683156|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|45.8||||0.00192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|68.0|||McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (primary wounds with complete healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||68.0|23.6|0.00192
95862218|NCT04491604|191683157|EQUIVALENCE|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data.|responder rate difference|51.0||||0.00047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|72.6||There is no multiplicity adjustment needed since the hypothesis testing are hierarchical.|McNemar|The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. A multiple imputation approach was used for missing data.|The difference is the treatment/discordance difference in percentage of responders (complete wound healing), which is the same as the difference in the percentage of treatment responders and the percentage of placebo responders.|The null hypothesis of interest was the absence of a treatment effect on wound healing and the alternative hypothesis is the presence of a treatment effect on wound healing. The Hypothesis was tested by exact McNemar's test on the paired primary wound healing data. For subjects with missing primary wound healing data, a multiple imputation approach was used.||72.6|29.3|0.00047
95862219|NCT01248104|191683163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Continuous variables were compared by multivariate linear regression analysis to adjust for possible covariates of intraoperative fluids, age, bypass time, and procedure time. Tukey-Kramer test was then used to compare for specific differences between groups for each variable. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test. All comparisons were made at a significance level of 0.05, and analysis was performed with Minitab version 17).||||||0.35||||||The primary outcome measure showed that there was no difference in PRBC transfusion frequency or amounts in the operating room or the in ICU up to POD 2|ANOVA|||A power analysis based on the comparison of a 15% difference in total transfusion amounts up to POD 2 between the treatment groups indicated a total sample size of 80 with a power of 0.8, confidence interval 0.9, and p= 0.05.||||0.35
95862220|NCT01410357|191683164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Bonferroni corrections were conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.785
95862221|NCT01410357|191683165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.016
95862222|NCT01410357|191683166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||<0.001
95862223|NCT01410357|191683167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.003
95862224|NCT01410357|191683168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.086
95960088|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0571
95862225|NCT01410357|191683169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.872
95862226|NCT01410357|191683170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.662
95862227|NCT01410357|191683171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
95862228|NCT01410357|191683172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.175
95862229|NCT01410357|191683173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||||.680
95862230|NCT01410357|191683174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.407
95960089|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0197
95862231|NCT01410357|191683175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.870
95862232|NCT01410357|191683176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.707
95960090|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2398
95862233|NCT01410357|191683177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.838
95862234|NCT01410357|191683178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
95862235|NCT01410357|191683179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.853
95862236|NCT01410357|191683180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.510
95862237|NCT01410357|191683181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.573
95862238|NCT01410357|191683182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.758
95960091|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0709
95828893|NCT01340937|191628617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (Combined/Control)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Pneumococcal Serotype 23F||1.06|0.77|<0.001
95828894|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \<38.0°C||-8.4|-18.8|
95828895|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|8.3|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°||8.3|-0.9|
95828896|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°||11.9|4.8|
95828897|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.7|
95828898|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-5.9|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \<38.0°C||-5.9|-16.6|
95828899|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference; rectal \>=38.0°C and \<38.5°C||7.8|-1.4|
95828900|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|11.6|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.6|4.6|
95828901|NCT01340937|191628619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence interval is based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated Difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.1|-0.7|
95828902|NCT00328653|191628621|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2187||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2699
95828903|NCT00328653|191628621|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H Chi-square|1.2359||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2719
95828904|NCT00328653|191628624|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.05% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|4.2925||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0386
95828905|NCT00328653|191628624|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of NOVA22007 0.1% to vehicle|M-H-Chi-square|5.3007||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0208
95828906|NCT02317809|191628637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.87|118.15|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||118.15|110.87|
95828907|NCT02317809|191628638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.42|112.86|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||112.86|101.42|
95828908|NCT02317809|191628639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|112.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.44|119.27|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||119.27|106.44|
95828909|NCT02317809|191628640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|103.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|114.47|||||Percentage of geometric LS mean ratio was presented.|Mixed model analysis was used.||114.47|93.16|
95828910|NCT05074888|191628661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.0016
95828911|NCT05074888|191628662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.3183
95828912|NCT05074888|191628663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5805|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.5805
95828913|NCT05074888|191628664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and 4 weeks later row.||||0.2143
95828914|NCT05074888|191628665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.8156
95828915|NCT05074888|191628666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.1049
95828916|NCT05074888|191628667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.7260
95828917|NCT05074888|191628668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between value after 4 weeks and after 8 weeks row.||||0.6808
95828918|NCT05074888|191628669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of pulse rate (heart rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95828919|NCT05074888|191628670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of respiration rate (breathing rate) from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95828920|NCT05074888|191628671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of systolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to SBP/Visit1, SBP/Visit2 and SBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.87
95862239|NCT01410357|191683183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
95828921|NCT05074888|191628671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of diastolic blood pressure from Visit 1 to 3 between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to DBP/Visit1, DBP/Visit2 and DBP/Visit3 rows.||||0.22
95960092|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9902|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9902
95828922|NCT05074888|191628672|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95828923|NCT05074888|191628673|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95828924|NCT05074888|191628674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
95828925|NCT05074888|191628675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95828926|NCT00294645|191628676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Modified Peto-Peto|A one-sided test was used.||Null hypothesis: control rate = remote rate||||<0.0001
95828927|NCT02419131|191628736|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of the experimental arms (CBTH and CPT) compared to usual care (TAU)|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4||p-value represents an aggregate of post-treatment outcomes (i.e., post-treatment, 3-month, and 6-month outcomes entered simultaneously into the GLMM to represent a single metric of all post-treatment assessment intervals into one estimate).|Mixed Models Analysis|Outcome observations at posttreatment, 3-month and 6-month follow-ups were entered simultaneously into the mixed model to provide a single inference.|Contrast of aggregated post-treatment outcomes of HIT-6 total score for CBTH compared to TAU|Sample size based on 2-tailed specified joint superiority testing of 2 primary outcomes at α = .025 and power of 0.80 to detect an effect size (d) of 0.52 for both primary outcomes (representing a clinically significant change of 2.8 points on the HIT-6). The primary analysis set was intention to treat (ITT). multiple imputation accounted for missing data in ITT. Missing outcome scores at posttreatment, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups were multiply imputed (m = 100) using multilevel models.||-1.4|-5.4|<0.001
95828928|NCT02419131|191628736|SUPERIORITY|See previous section for analysis|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-1.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||For comparison of post-treatment HIT-6 total score between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|See above for details.|See above.|See previous section for power||0.8|-3.7|0.21
95828929|NCT02419131|191628737|SUPERIORITY|Key parameters and details the same as HIT-6 described above.|Aggregated contrast CBTH to TAU|-6.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-0.3||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CBTH and TAU||Same sample size calculation as HIT-6 analyses, powered to detect a difference of 8.2 points on the PCL-5 total score.||-0.3|-12.7|0.04
95828930|NCT02419131|191628737|SUPERIORITY|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Aggregated contrast CPT to TAU|-8.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-1.9||Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU|Mixed Models Analysis|Contrast of aggregate post-treatment outcomes between CPT and TAU||See above.||-1.9|-15.9|0.01
95828931|NCT00089986|191628743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate difference|1.1||||0.329|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.1||||Chi-squared||||||-2.1|0.329
95828932|NCT00089986|191628743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-4.4||||0.879|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-9.4||||Chi-squared||||||-9.4|0.879
95828933|NCT01310400|191628747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|4.5||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||7.5|1.4|0.0036
95828934|NCT01310400|191628747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-3.0||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H1N1 strain.||1.0|-7.0|0.1465
95862240|NCT01410357|191683184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.156
95862241|NCT01410357|191683185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95862242|NCT01410357|191683186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.878
95862243|NCT01410357|191683187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.014
95862244|NCT01410357|191683188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.227
95960093|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0018
95960094|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4639
95960095|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4845
95828935|NCT01310400|191628747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.7||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||12.7|3.3|<0.001
95828936|NCT01310400|191628747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|0.9||||0.7493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.2||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the A/H3N2 strain.||6.2|-4.5|0.7493
95828937|NCT01310400|191628747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|20.2||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.0||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||27.0|13.5|0.0000
95828938|NCT01310400|191628747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.5 mL Inflexal V and 0.25 mL Inflexal V in comparison to 0.25 mL Agrippal. Seroconversion rate was the primary endpoint. The difference in seroconversion rates between each Inflexal V and the control group was used for the evaluation of non-inferiority. If the lower limit of the 95% CI of this difference was greater than -10% for all 3 strains, the Inflexal V group was considered non-inferior to the control group.|Difference in seroconversion rates|10.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.6||The significance level α = 0.05 (one-sided) was adjusted to α = 0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint|Chi-squared|||This statistical anaylsis evaluated the non-inferiority of 0.25 mL Inflexal V vs. 0.25 mL Agrippal for the B-strain.||17.6|3.7|0.0029
95828939|NCT01118520|191628751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95828940|NCT01118520|191628751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
95828941|NCT00904618|191628754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test applies to the number of participants improved.||||0.0087
95828942|NCT01071200|191628759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon two sample test|||Change at hCG day : Wilcoxon two sample test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.07
95828943|NCT03831880|191628774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.71|-11.27||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.27|-19.71|<0.0001
95828944|NCT03831880|191628776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-2.09||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.09|-8.69|0.0017
95828945|NCT03831880|191628778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|-7.45||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.45|-19.74|<0.0001
95828946|NCT03831880|191628780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-18.57||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.57|-30.10|<0.0001
95828947|NCT03831880|191628782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.83||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|0.77||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-16.42|0.0739
95828948|NCT03831880|191628784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-10.06||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.06|-25.15|<0.0001
95828949|NCT03831880|191628786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.51||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-2.09|0.6137
95828950|NCT03831880|191628788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.8404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|6.41||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.41|-5.29|0.8404
95828951|NCT03831880|191628790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|-9.35||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.35|-17.59|<0.0001
96001182|NCT01894516|191979563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||52.6|22.4|< 0.0001
95862245|NCT01250496|191683199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed. The threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: aminophylline administration does not reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint as compared to placebo. The chi-square test was used to compare event rate between the study arm.||0.98|0.2|0.04
96001183|NCT01894516|191979563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|51.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||51.8|21.3|< 0.0001
95828952|NCT03831880|191628792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.36||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-5.16|0.0245
95828953|NCT03831880|191628804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-10.44||95% CI: Model-based difference in means. Results were based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.44|-18.72|<0.0001
95828954|NCT01852825|191628811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.355||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.515|3.661|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.661|1.515|0.003
95828955|NCT01852825|191628812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.182||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.364|3.49|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the Week 12 geometric mean fold difference is \>1.0.||3.490|1.364|0.010
95828956|NCT01852825|191628813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.066|0.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|The hypothesis is supported if the lower bound of the 1-tailed 95% CI around the mean difference in change from baseline excludes zero||0.410|0.066|0.027
95828957|NCT01852825|191628814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.068||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.272|4.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||4.190|0.272|0.935
95828958|NCT01852825|191628815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.21||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.605|8.066|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment divided by Placebo treatment|||8.066|0.605|0.296
95862246|NCT01250496|191683200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7||P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||"null hypothesis: the rate of regadenoson adverse effects (global symptomatic burden) in the aminophylline and placebo group are not statistically different.~The chi-square test was used for comparison."||0.7|0.2|< 0.001
95862247|NCT00567255|191683270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.56|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.19|-3.93|||ANCOVA|||||-3.93|-5.19|<0.001
95828959|NCT01852825|191628816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.115||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.185|-22.045|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||MK-8237 treatment minus Placebo treatment|||-22.045|-100.185|0.014
95828960|NCT01414205|191628823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Hauck-Anderson)|17.89||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|40.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by the randomization stratification factors as supportive analyses.||||40.72|-4.95|0.0779
95862248|NCT00567255|191683271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-4.38|||ANCOVA|||||-4.38|-5.95|<0.001
95862249|NCT00567255|191683272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.61|||<|0.001||95.0|4.95|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.84|4.95|<0.001
95862250|NCT00567255|191683273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|7.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.47|4.05|<0.001
95862251|NCT00567255|191683274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|7.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.98|3.60|<0.001
95862252|NCT00567255|191683275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-2.53|||ANCOVA|||||-2.53|-4.33|<0.001
95862253|NCT00567255|191683276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.57|||ANCOVA|||||3.57|1.61|<0.001
96001184|NCT01894516|191979563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.4|58.2||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||58.2|28.4|< 0.0001
96001185|NCT00408421|191979580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||Null hypothesis: the difference in 24-hour average pain score between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups at last visit of treatment phase is zero. This study will have at least 80% power to detect a treatment group difference of 1.0 point in the baseline-to-endpoint mean change on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups based on Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF).||||<0.001
96001186|NCT00408421|191979581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.001||95.0|-0.84|-0.21||Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), PGI severity at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean outcome measure at endpoint.||-0.21|-0.84|0.001
95828961|NCT02498067|191628892|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of dual method use differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.177
95828962|NCT02498067|191628893|OTHER|||||||0.318||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants' mean reported scores for frequency of condom use alone (without another method) differ between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.318
95828963|NCT02498067|191628894|OTHER|||||||0||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of whether participants reported more consistent contraceptive use (i.e., using contraception every time they had sex) between baseline (pre-rPlan) and 3-month follow-up (post-rPlan)||||.000
95828964|NCT02498067|191628896|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an IUD in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.030
95828965|NCT02498067|191628897|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use an implant in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.140
95828966|NCT02498067|191628898|OTHER|||||||0.315||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported likelihood to use condoms in the future (on a scale ranging from 1- very unlikely, to 5- very likely) before and directly after using the rPlan app||||.315
95828967|NCT02498067|191628899|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported contraceptive self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.028
95828968|NCT02498067|191628900|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported condom use self-efficacy (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all confident, to 5- extremely confident) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.918
95828969|NCT02498067|191628902|OTHER|||||||0.209||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' self-reported number of sexual partners in the past 3 months (for those were sexually active) between baseline and 3-month follow-up||||.209
95828970|NCT02498067|191628903|OTHER|||||||0.652||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse negative condom attitudes (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.652
95862254|NCT00567255|191683277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95828971|NCT02498067|191628904|OTHER|||||||0.498||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' reported degree to which they endorse positive motivators for condom use (on a scale ranging from 1- strongly disagree, to 5- strongly agree) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.498
95828972|NCT02498067|191628905|OTHER|||||||0.977||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of negative contraceptive attitudes on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.977
95828973|NCT02498067|191628906|OTHER|||||||0.673||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of participants' rated importance of positive motivators for contraceptive use on their decision to use contraception (on a scale ranging from 1- not at all important, to 5- extremely important) before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.673
95828974|NCT02498067|191628907|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether pills or condoms are more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.049
95828975|NCT02498067|191628907|OTHER|||||||0.265||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparison of proportion of participants who provided correct answers to whether the IUD or shot is more effective at preventing pregnancy, before and 3 months after engaging in rPlan||||.265
95828976|NCT03373890|191628908|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
95862255|NCT00567255|191683278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.09|||ANCOVA|||||5.09|2.46|<0.001
95862256|NCT00567255|191683279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.24||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.091
96002293|NCT02385123|191981834|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96002294|NCT02385123|191981835|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95828977|NCT03373890|191628909|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
95828978|NCT03373890|191628910|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
95960096|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1641
95960097|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1025
95828979|NCT03373890|191628911|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
95828980|NCT03373890|191628912|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
95828981|NCT03373890|191628913|OTHER|Independent samples Mann Whitney U||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.99
95828982|NCT03373890|191628914|OTHER|LInear mixed model||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.008
95828983|NCT03373890|191628915|OTHER|Linear mixed model regression||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.34
95828984|NCT01874275|191628918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2413
95828985|NCT00300482|191628922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
95828986|NCT00300482|191628922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 17% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
95828987|NCT00300482|191628923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95828988|NCT00300482|191628923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 92% power to detect a 5% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95828989|NCT00300482|191628924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95828990|NCT00300482|191628924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 205 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 43% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95828991|NCT01726673|191628930|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|302.0||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.256
95828992|NCT01726673|191628930|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with upper extremity fugl meyer score for the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|222.0||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score from baseline to 36 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.222
95855092|NCT03819114|191669689|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.96|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.96|1.17|
95855093|NCT03819114|191669689|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.0|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.00|0.60|
95855094|NCT03819114|191669690|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.61|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.61|0.22|
95960098|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5615
95828993|NCT01726673|191628931|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U Value|251.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||1.0
95828994|NCT01726673|191628931|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month follow-up) was assessed with the WOLF Motor Function test time score (out of 1800 seconds) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in WMFT time score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|208.5||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the WMFT time score from baseline to 36 weeks ( 6 month follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.592
95828995|NCT01726673|191628932|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 12 weeks of training was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|270.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 12 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U test|||||||0.680
95828996|NCT01726673|191628932|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 36 (6 month FU) was assessed with the Motor Power Manual Muscle Test Score for the upper extremity (out of 100 points) in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in MRC score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|187.5||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare median change in the MRC score from baseline to 6 month FU across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tDCS).|Mann-Whitney U Test|||||||0.837
95828997|NCT00762996|191628933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"margin +/- 0.5 logMar lines~The range of non-inferiority for this value is 0.50 thus +/- 0.50 is considered non-inferior to the 0.0 mark.~logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00976||||95.0|-0.01389|0.2447|||Mixed Models Analysis||logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMar) ideal is 0.0 and represents 20/20 Snellen acuity. logMar values \> 0.00 indicate vision poorer than the ideal and values \<0.00 indicate vision greater than the ideal.|Null Hypothesis: etafilcon A is greater than or equal to omafilcon A.||0.2447|-0.01389|
95828998|NCT00762996|191628934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2505||||95.0|0.05563|0.4757|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is etafilcon A minus omafilcon A.|||0.4757|0.05563|
95862257|NCT00567255|191683280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
95828999|NCT01318070|191628961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.224|
95829000|NCT01318070|191628961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.225|-0.135||||||||-0.135|-0.225|
95829001|NCT01318070|191628962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.292||||||||-0.292|-0.434|
95829002|NCT01318070|191628962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|-0.287||||||||-0.287|-0.432|
95829003|NCT01318070|191628963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.484||||||||-0.484|-0.692|
95829004|NCT01318070|191628963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.526||||||||-0.526|-0.743|
95829005|NCT01318070|191628964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-4.47||||||||-4.47|-13.20|
95829006|NCT01318070|191628964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.86|-8.26||||||||-8.26|-17.86|
95829007|NCT01318070|191628965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|-6.25||||||||-6.25|-16.22|
95829008|NCT01318070|191628965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-9.63||||||||-9.63|-20.00|
95829009|NCT01318070|191628966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.09|-7.68||||||||-7.68|-18.09|
95829010|NCT01318070|191628966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-11.53||||||||-11.53|-22.64|
95829011|NCT01318070|191628967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|-6.4||||||||-6.40|-18.51|
95829012|NCT01318070|191628967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.78|-10.19||||||||-10.19|-22.78|
95829013|NCT01318070|191628968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.51|-3.1||||||||-3.10|-21.51|
95829014|NCT01318070|191628968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-11.95||||||||-11.95|-30.43|
95862258|NCT00567255|191683281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.85||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.85|-1.60|
95829015|NCT01318070|191628969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.717|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.586||||||||-0.586|-0.848|
95829016|NCT01318070|191628969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|-0.634||||||||-0.634|-0.913|
95829017|NCT02312765|191628970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95829018|NCT00657150|191629041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 7.7%|Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.79|1.64||Superiority p-value = 0.4367|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.64|-3.79|< 0.0001
95829019|NCT00657150|191629042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.91||||0.029||95.0|-3.64|-0.19|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||||-0.19|-3.64|0.029
95829020|NCT00657150|191629043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-1.79||||0.0358||95.0|-3.47|-0.12|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||-0.12|-3.47|0.0358
95829021|NCT00657150|191629044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.96||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.73|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||1.73|-3.65|0.4839
95829022|NCT00657150|191629045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0612
95829023|NCT00657150|191629046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6231||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6231
95829024|NCT00657150|191629047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4977||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4977
95829025|NCT00657150|191629048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.6870
95829026|NCT00657150|191629049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin for the category major bleeding events||||0.4022
95829027|NCT00657150|191629049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category major and clinically relevant bleeding events||2.3|-0.8|0.3305
95829028|NCT00657150|191629049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference (Percentage)|1.4||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution||Absolute difference versus Enoxaparin for the category any bleeding events||3.9|-1.1|0.2626
95829029|NCT02575118|191629053|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||In one saliva sample collected before treatment, the BPA concentration was more than 100 times higher (11.6 ng/ml) than the mean value and more than 100 SD from the mean of the remaining 19 samples. This saliva sample was excluded from the statistical analysis because it was probably contaminated. One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points) were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
95829030|NCT02575118|191629054|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||linear mixed-effects regression models|All available data, and hence data for participants with missing observations at some time points, were included in the model.||One participant had breakfast before the sample time point 1 wk after treatment, and thus the samples collected from this participant at this time point were not included in the statistical analysis.|We used mixed effects models and all available data (also data for participants with missing observations at some time points), were included in the model. Using mixed effects models is a recognized method when there are missing data. Thus, data from all 20 individuals were used for estimations at all time points (see: Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, Volume I, Third Edition. 2012, page 279).|||<0.05
95829031|NCT00432744|191629055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.48||Two-sided Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Positive value of Tau-B would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.48|-0.44|0.95
95829032|NCT00432744|191629056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kendall's Tau B|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||A positive value would favor CoQ.|Study intended to accrue 40 subjects, but only obtained 14 evaluable on this endpoint.||0.72|-0.12|0.18
95829033|NCT00432744|191629057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||The Hotelling T-sq=1.74 and 42% of the rerandomizations to groups of 7 and 8 had Hotelling T-sq of at least 1.74. This is the standard method for permutation tests. The large sample null is chi-sq with 2 df, which has a mean=2.|Non-parametric Hotelling T-square|||The actual study was powered to have 40 participants but only 24 participated and of these only 15 had outcome data.||||0.42
95829034|NCT00130923|191629058|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment slopes|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment slopes in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||0.054
95829035|NCT00130923|191629059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in treatment means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.035
95829036|NCT00130923|191629060|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.57
95829037|NCT00130923|191629061|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.32
96001187|NCT00408421|191979582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.41||||0.003||95.0|-2.33|-0.48||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.48|-2.33|0.003
96001188|NCT00408421|191979583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.004||95.0|-1.09|-0.22||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.22|-1.09|0.004
95829038|NCT00130923|191629062|SUPERIORITY||difference in treatment means|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||We report the estimated coefficient for difference in treatment means in a mixed model and its standard error.|||||.44
95829039|NCT00130923|191629063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|Statistical test of hypothesis. Value of the Chi-squared statistic is 9.08||||||.003
95829040|NCT00554099|191629064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.3781|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.809|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||-0.809||0.3781
95829041|NCT00554099|191629064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6285|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.815|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||0.815||0.6285
95829042|NCT00554099|191629064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference vs. Asacol|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.4365|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.573|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, number of diverticulitis attacks and baseline value as covariate.||It was assumed that the placebo treatment group and mesalamine treatment group would have an average composite score of 8.4 and 5.88 at Week 12, respectively. The common standard deviation was set to 4.5 based on the 2 standard deviation rule. Based on these assumptions, 60 patients per treatment group required to detect 30% treatment difference at 1-sided, 0.1 level of significance, with 80% power.||3.573||0.4365
95829043|NCT00554099|191629065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.53||0.0576|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||5.1|0.0576
95829044|NCT00554099|191629065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.27||0.3248|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-10.2||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-10.2|0.3248
95829045|NCT00554099|191629065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.8596|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-30.8||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-30.8|0.8596
95829046|NCT00554099|191629066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.0||0.1266|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-1.3||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-1.3|0.1266
95829047|NCT00554099|191629066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.13||0.9288|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.9||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-38.9|0.9288
95829048|NCT00554099|191629066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.98||0.9962|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-54.1||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.|||||-54.1|0.9962
95829049|NCT00554099|191629067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.784||0.3082|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.196|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.196||0.3082
96001189|NCT00408421|191979584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.18||||0.001||95.0|-8.33|-2.03||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.03|-8.33|0.001
95829050|NCT00554099|191629067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.5113|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.832|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.832||0.5113
95829051|NCT00554099|191629067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.836||0.6988|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.145|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.145||0.6988
95829052|NCT00554099|191629068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.067||0.4448|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.541|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.541||0.4448
96001190|NCT00408421|191979585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.42||||0.004||95.0|-10.72|-2.11||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-2.11|-10.72|0.004
95829053|NCT00554099|191629068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Placebo|0.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.151||0.6029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.903|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||4.903||0.6029
95829054|NCT00554099|191629068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs. Mesalamine|1.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.996||0.6615|ONE_SIDED|90.0||5.129|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and number of diverticulitis attacks.||||5.129||0.6615
95829055|NCT00554099|191629069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7165|ONE_SIDED|90.0||7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||7.9||0.7165
95829056|NCT00554099|191629069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1708|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||0.6||0.1708
95829057|NCT00554099|191629069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.1039|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||-0.6||0.1039
95829058|NCT00554099|191629070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.21||0.1907|ONE_SIDED|90.0||3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||3.0||0.1907
95829059|NCT00554099|191629070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.173|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||2.5||0.1730
95829060|NCT00554099|191629070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4613|ONE_SIDED|90.0||9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||9.0||0.4613
95829061|NCT00554099|191629071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.3983|ONE_SIDED|90.0||12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||12.1||0.3983
95829062|NCT00554099|191629071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.66||0.6721|ONE_SIDED|90.0||22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||22.2||0.6721
95829063|NCT00554099|191629071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs. Mesalamine|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.7703|ONE_SIDED|90.0||24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by number of diverticulitis attacks.||||24.6||0.7703
95829064|NCT00085254|191629074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.3|0.5|0.4
95829065|NCT00085254|191629076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||adjusted for age: p=.0003, kps: p=.004; and surgical procedure: p=.003|Log Rank|||Primary endpoint death - defined from histological diagnosis to death. we assume pt in the study will have overall failure rate of 0.56 per person-year of f/up, a 30% reduction compared to hazard rate of 0.8 per person-year in historical NABTT database. Expected hazard ratio is 0.7 and cohort will produce 63 events among total of 94 pt planned f/up. One-sided test, have 95% power to detect observed ratio of 0.7 at alpha level of 0.1, or we have 88% power at alpha of 0.5 statistical significant||0.5|0.3|0.0001
95829066|NCT04342689|191629077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.99
95829067|NCT04342689|191629078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95829068|NCT04342689|191629079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95829069|NCT01460407|191629080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.42|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.42|1.16|
95829070|NCT01460407|191629081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.31|||||Ratio of LY2216684 and Clarithromycin to LY2216684|||1.31|1.12|
95829071|NCT01460407|191629082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of paired differences|0.0||||0.7656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||LY2216684 and Clarithromycin minus (-) LY2216684|||0.50|-0.50|0.7656
95829072|NCT02818114|191629084|OTHER|Assessment of number of PE sessions attended, review of direction of change in PTSD Checklist scores||||||||||||||||This is a single-arm feasibility study. With N=8, formal hypothesis testing is not possible. We were assessing the extent to which veterans would be willing to engage in the intervention, and if the direction of change in symptoms is still in the expected direction when peer support services are added. Outcomes are reported more qualitatively.|As a feasibility trial, tests of statistical significance are not appropriate.|||
95829073|NCT03553498|191629099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95829074|NCT03553498|191629100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.989
95829075|NCT03553498|191629101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.414
95862259|NCT00567255|191683282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
95829076|NCT03553498|191629102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.153
95829077|NCT01498185|191629103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.5425|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.85|35.86||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||35.86|-40.85|
95829078|NCT01498185|191629103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.7228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|33.82||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||33.82|-35.36|
95829079|NCT01498185|191629103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1548|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|28.45||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||28.45|-42.21|
95829080|NCT01498185|191629103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.4617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.22|37.16||No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|Descriptive statistics|||||37.16|-39.22|
95829081|NCT02032641|191629112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95862260|NCT00567255|191683283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-4.54||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-4.54|-9.92|
95829082|NCT02032641|191629112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||The threshold for significance is p\<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.10
95829083|NCT01710527|191629120|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed Cmax fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|96.85||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|102.11|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|||102.11|91.86|0.3125
95829084|NCT01710527|191629121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-t fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.52||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.45|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-t||106.45|98.74|0.2701
95829085|NCT01710527|191629121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg with Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log transformed AUC0-infinity fell within the acceptance range of 80 to 125%.|Ratio (%)|102.44||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|106.23|||ANOVA||Analysis was performed on log transformed geometric least square means.|Comparison of Treatment T-Metformin 500 mg and Treatment R- Glucophage 500 mg for AUC0-infinity.||106.23|98.78|0.2702
95829086|NCT00262847|191629139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.448||95.0|0.844|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.078|0.844|0.448
95829087|NCT00262847|191629139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765|||<|0.001||95.0|0.676|0.866|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||0.866|0.676|<0.001
95829088|NCT00262847|191629140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.069||||0.41||95.0|0.912|1.255|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.255|0.912|0.410
95829089|NCT00262847|191629140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.131||95.0|0.746|1.039|||Regression, Cox|Proportional Hazards model stratified by stage of disease and size of residual disease following initial staging surgery.||||1.039|0.746|0.131
95829090|NCT03495102|191629174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.29|0.003
95829091|NCT03495102|191629174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
95829092|NCT03495102|191629175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
95829093|NCT03495102|191629175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-2.1|<0.001
95829094|NCT03495102|191629176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.98|1.12|0.006
95829095|NCT03495102|191629176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|1.65|<0.001
95829096|NCT03495102|191629177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-7.8|0.084
95829097|NCT03495102|191629177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.3|<0.001
95829098|NCT05320393|191629235|OTHER|This study was not powered for formal hypothesis testing; analyses were intended for interpretation purposes only. Analysis was performed using the modified Intent-to-Treat population and regardless of responder status.||||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The primary effectiveness endpoint was a measure of duration of effect, described by Kaplan-Meier curves and the median times, with associated 2-sided 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group.||||0.0109
95829099|NCT05160766|191629237|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.661||0.03143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|23.946|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.||23.946|1.168|0.03143
95829100|NCT05160766|191629237|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.671||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.621|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.||7.621|1.04|0.0101
95862261|NCT00567255|191683284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-1.44||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.44|-7.29|
95862262|NCT00567255|191683285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.30|-0.70|
95829101|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|12.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.04405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|23.998|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|23.998|0.338|0.04405
95829102|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.767||0.01744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|25.814|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|25.814|2.61|0.01744
95829103|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|14.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.932||0.02039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|26.173|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|26.173|2.305|0.02039
95829104|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.636||0.04989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|18.656|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|18.656|0.005|0.04989
95829105|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|10.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.373||0.02259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|19.111|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|19.111|1.514|0.02259
95829106|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.601|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.634||0.01583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.279|20.924|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|20.924|2.279|0.01583
95829107|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|11.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.323||0.00856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.166|20.56|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|20.56|3.166|0.00856
95829108|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.249|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|11.249|2.41|0.00258
95829109|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.244||0.00748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|10.466|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|10.466|1.63|0.00748
95829110|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.782||0.00922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.821|12.782|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.782|1.821|0.00922
95829111|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.791|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.07136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|10.001|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|10.001|-0.419|0.07136
95829112|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.196||0.07218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|8.29|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|8.29|-0.36|0.07218
95829113|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.202||0.02949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|9.155|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|9.155|0.484|0.02949
95829114|NCT05160766|191629238|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.263||0.08403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|8.382|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|8.382|-0.531|0.08403
95829115|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.42797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.475|31.145|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|31.145|-13.475|0.42797
95829116|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.575||0.73961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|24.929|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|24.929|-17.85|0.73961
95829117|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.683||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.524|29.695|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|29.695|-13.524|0.45370
95829118|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.187||0.87323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.969|22.241|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|22.241|-18.969|0.87323
95829119|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.848||0.93489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.109|20.728|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis relfects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|20.728|-19.109|0.93489
95862263|NCT00567255|191683286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.58||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.58|0.16|
95829120|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.845||0.74784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.425|25.448|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|25.448|-18.425|0.74784
95829121|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.409||0.84202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.966|23.143|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|23.143|-18.966|0.84202
95829122|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.15477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.207|13.821|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.1.7 (alpha)."|13.821|-2.207|0.15477
95829123|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.984||0.37773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.327|11.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.351 (beta)."|11.368|-4.327|0.37773
95829124|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.29212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.821|12.647|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.1 (gamma)."|12.647|-3.821|0.29212
95829125|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.1414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|13.919|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.1 (omicron)."|13.919|-1.998|0.14140
95960099|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2904|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2904
95829126|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.875||0.5709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|9.832|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4 (omicron)."|9.832|-5.434|0.57090
95829127|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.071||0.11012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.491|14.548|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.4.6 (omicron)."|14.548|-1.491|0.11012
95829128|NCT05160766|191629241|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.29755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.759|12.237|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.5 (omicron)."|12.237|-3.759|0.29755
95829129|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.191||0.39426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.995|32.275|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|32.275|-12.995|0.39426
95829130|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.765||0.42055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.011|30.539|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|30.539|-13.011|0.42055
95829131|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.953||0.44391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.683|30.627|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|30.627|-13.683|0.44391
95829132|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.82||0.43775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.402|30.368|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|30.368|-13.402|0.43775
95829133|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.892||0.53511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.819|26.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|26.2|-13.819|0.53511
95829134|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.801||0.67576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.295|26.399|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|26.399|-17.295|0.67576
95829135|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.168||0.45443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.15|31.027|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|31.027|-14.15|0.45443
95829136|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|8.901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.218||0.38904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.768|29.569|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|29.569|-11.768|0.38904
95829137|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.47466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.147|27.751|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|27.751|-13.147|0.47466
95829138|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.824||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.993|22.749|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|22.749|-16.993|0.77110
95829139|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.753||||0.86646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|22.701|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|22.701|-19.195|0.86646
95960100|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6017
95960101|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8549
95829140|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.705||0.57972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|25.049|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|25.049|-14.21|0.57972
95829141|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.408||0.90166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.859|20.199|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|20.199|-17.859|0.90166
95829142|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|1.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.92279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.099|22.136|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|22.136|-20.099|0.92279
95829143|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.496||0.71191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.675|22.74|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|22.74|-15.675|0.71191
95829144|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.755||0.73415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.714|20.703|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|20.703|-14.714|0.73415
95829145|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|7.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.548||0.45798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.155|26.469|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part A of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|26.469|-12.155|0.45798
95862264|NCT00567255|191683287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.49|
95862265|NCT00567255|191683288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.52|-0.56|
95829146|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.055||0.23582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.169|12.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant P.2 (gamma)."|12.808|-3.169|0.23582
95829147|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.074||0.19354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.713|13.337|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617."|13.337|-2.713|0.19354
95829148|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.471|13.899|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.1 (kappa)."|13.899|-2.471|0.17033
95829149|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.997||0.13895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|13.808|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.3 (delta)."|13.808|-1.94|0.13895
95829150|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.812||0.26924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.288|11.732|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant AY.4.2 (delta)."|11.732|-3.288|0.26924
95829151|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.996||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.382|13.362|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.617.3."|13.362|-2.382|0.17080
95829152|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.18502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.683|13.818|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant B.1.526.1 (iota)."|13.818|-2.683|0.18502
95829153|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.938||0.38344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|11.195|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452M (omicron)."|11.195|-4.318|0.38344
95829154|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.982||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.565|11.124|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2+L452R (omicron)."|11.124|-4.565|0.41100
95829155|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.014||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.237|10.577|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.12.1 (omicron)."|10.577|-5.237|0.50660
95829156|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.28604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|12.891|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75 (omicron)."|12.891|-3.82|0.28604
95829157|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|6.259|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.11715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.582|14.1|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.2.75.2 (omicron)."|14.1|-1.582|0.11715
95829158|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957||0.33567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.978|11.613|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BA.3 (omicron)."|11.613|-3.978|0.33567
95829159|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|5.775|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.022||0.15232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.147|13.697|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BF.7 (omicron)."|13.697|-2.147|0.15232
95829160|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.21234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.766|12.383|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1 (omicron)."|12.383|-2.766|0.21234
95862266|NCT00567255|191683289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.02||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.02|-0.98|
95864513|NCT03456882|191686822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8738||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 4 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 4 weeks is not different between groups||||0.8738
95829161|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.22687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.866|12.026|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant BQ.1.1 (omicron)."|12.026|-2.866|0.22687
95829162|NCT05160766|191629246|OTHER||Difference of means in percent|3.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.047||0.38832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.475|11.47|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis reflects Part B of the study.|"The above provided values refer to the variant XBB.1 (omicron)."|11.47|-4.475|0.38832
95829163|NCT01688739|191629249|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy Participants|||1.4|0.8|0.7595
95829164|NCT01688739|191629251|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5481
95829165|NCT01688739|191629252|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|1.1||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Migraine participants / Healthy participants|||1.4|0.9|0.5506
95829166|NCT00996801|191629254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.96||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.35|-3.58|0.012
95862267|NCT04145219|191683307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average daily TCRS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
95829167|NCT00996801|191629254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.25|-3.37|0.019
95829168|NCT00996801|191629254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.41|-3.23|0.019
95829169|NCT00996801|191629255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.38|-3.90|<0.001
95829170|NCT00996801|191629255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.40|-3.83|<0.001
95829171|NCT00996801|191629255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-1.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.02|-3.22|<0.001
95829172|NCT00996801|191629255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.74||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.52|-1.99|0.376
95829173|NCT00996801|191629255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-1.93|0.376
95829174|NCT00996801|191629255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.88||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.88|-1.32|0.699
95829175|NCT00996801|191629256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.64|-3.43|0.002
95829176|NCT00996801|191629256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.29||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.09|-2.48|0.035
95829177|NCT00996801|191629256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.76||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.38|-3.14|0.009
95829178|NCT00996801|191629256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.54|-2.26|0.335
95829179|NCT00996801|191629256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.11||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-1.30|0.857
95829180|NCT00996801|191629256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.79||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.79|-1.96|0.542
95829181|NCT00996801|191629257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.91|<0.001
95829182|NCT00996801|191629257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-1.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.57|-4.78|<0.001
95862268|NCT04145219|191683308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.6|0.2|<0.0001
96001191|NCT00408421|191979586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.005||95.0|-1.4|-0.25||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-Baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.25|-1.40|0.005
95829183|NCT00996801|191629257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.74||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-1.74|-4.66|<0.001
95829184|NCT00996801|191629257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.93|0.180
95864514|NCT03456882|191686822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7556||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 12 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 12 weeks is not different between groups||||0.7556
95864515|NCT03456882|191686822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 24 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 24 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6477
95829185|NCT00996801|191629257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.4||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.40|-2.81|0.180
95829186|NCT00996801|191629257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.22||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.23|-2.68|0.180
95829187|NCT00996801|191629258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.54||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.54|-2.18|0.001
95829188|NCT00996801|191629258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-0.55||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.55|-2.46|0.001
95829189|NCT00996801|191629258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.91|-2.93|<0.001
96001192|NCT00408421|191979587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for treatment effect at last visit. Effects evaluated based on 2-sided significance level=0.05. Model: treatment, NSAID use, investigator, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline score and baseline-by-week interaction.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.||||||<0.001
95960102|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3386
95960103|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
95960104|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5244
95960105|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4245
95829190|NCT00996801|191629258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-1.21|0.383
95829191|NCT00996801|191629258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.45|-1.49|0.383
95829192|NCT00996801|191629258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.94||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.09||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.09|-1.96|0.084
95829193|NCT00996801|191629259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.88|0.680
95829194|NCT00996801|191629259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.28||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.28|-1.30|0.993
95862269|NCT04145219|191683309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rhinitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.8|0.2|0.0016
95960106|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8624
95829195|NCT00996801|191629259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.46|-2.67|0.230
95960107|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7552|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7552
95960108|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7329
95960109|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3053
95960110|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5290
95960111|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7951|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7951
95829196|NCT00996801|191629259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.84||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.61|-2.29|0.333
95829197|NCT00996801|191629259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.37||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.94|-1.69|0.577
95829198|NCT00996801|191629259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.47||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.12|-3.07|0.078
95829199|NCT00996801|191629260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.99||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|0.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.25|-4.22|0.094
95829200|NCT00996801|191629260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.66||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.50|-3.82|0.157
95829201|NCT00996801|191629260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.38|-3.53|0.157
95829202|NCT00996801|191629260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.76||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.76|-2.61|0.937
95829203|NCT00996801|191629260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.01|-2.21|0.992
95829204|NCT00996801|191629260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.01||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.90|-1.93|0.992
95829205|NCT00996801|191629261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.47||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.56|-2.50|0.824
95829206|NCT00996801|191629261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-2.28|0.824
95862270|NCT04145219|191683310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs.12 SQ-HDM|||1.7|0.6|<0.0001
95829207|NCT00996801|191629261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-3.23|0.624
95829208|NCT00996801|191629261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.78||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.82|-1.25|0.700
95829209|NCT00996801|191629261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.83||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.06|-1.39|0.700
95829210|NCT00996801|191629261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.19||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.19|-1.60|0.759
95862271|NCT04145219|191683311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.7|0.3|<0.0001
95829211|NCT00996801|191629262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.22||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.15|6.72||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||6.72|-39.15|0.227
95829212|NCT00996801|191629262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.85||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|21.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.61|-17.90|0.853
95829213|NCT00996801|191629262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.14||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.67|9.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.39|-35.67|0.327
95829214|NCT00996801|191629262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.74||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.91|18.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||18.43|-23.91|0.940
95829215|NCT00996801|191629262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|15.33||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|38.52||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||38.52|-7.86|0.273
95829216|NCT00996801|191629262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.33||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|19.9||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||19.90|-19.23|0.973
95829217|NCT00996801|191629263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.29|-2.66|0.010
95829218|NCT00996801|191629263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.01||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.01|-2.29|0.053
95829219|NCT00996801|191629263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||-0.11|-2.19|0.053
95829220|NCT00996801|191629263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.58||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.60|-1.77|0.509
95829221|NCT00996801|191629263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.25||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.27|0.843
95829222|NCT00996801|191629263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.26||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.92|-1.43|0.843
95829223|NCT00996801|191629264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|86.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|108.29||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||108.29|64.87|<0.001
95862272|NCT04145219|191683312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis DMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|0.2|0.0018
95862273|NCT04145219|191683313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||This endpoint was controlled for multiplicity using hierarchical testing|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The overall PRQLQ score was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the overall PRQLQ score as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline overall PRQLQ score as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.1|<0.0001
95829224|NCT00996801|191629264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|82.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|101.66||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||101.66|63.00|<0.001
96001193|NCT00408421|191979588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.039||95.0|-1.69|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.69|0.039
95829225|NCT00996801|191629264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|107.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|133.23||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||133.23|82.03|<0.001
95829226|NCT00996801|191629264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.87||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|49.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||49.68|-3.80|0.104
95829227|NCT00996801|191629264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|18.68||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|42.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||42.56|-5.11|0.123
95829228|NCT00996801|191629264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|43.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|75.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||75.06|12.85|0.003
95829229|NCT00996801|191629265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|187.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.44|221.25||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||221.25|154.44|<0.001
95829230|NCT00996801|191629265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|200.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.21|240.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||240.91|161.21|<0.001
95829231|NCT00996801|191629265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|224.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|180.19|270.39||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||270.39|180.19|<0.001
95829232|NCT00996801|191629265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|48.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|93.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||93.11|3.75|0.034
95829233|NCT00996801|191629265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|61.27||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|114.22||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||114.22|8.80|0.019
95829234|NCT00996801|191629265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|85.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|144.63||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||144.63|26.70|0.002
95829235|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|<0.001
95829236|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|133.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.01|156.75||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||156.75|110.01|0.001
95829237|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|131.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.7|152.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||152.94|110.70|<0.001
95829238|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|169.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.59|199.11||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||199.11|141.59|<0.001
95862274|NCT04145219|191683314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average asthma DSS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.2|0.0|0.0259
95829239|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|58.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.42|88.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||88.04|29.42|<0.001
95829240|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|57.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.76|83.64||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||83.64|30.76|<0.001
95829241|NCT00996801|191629266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|95.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|130.91||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||130.91|60.40|<0.001
95829242|NCT00996801|191629267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.31|68.6||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||68.60|39.31|<0.001
95829243|NCT00996801|191629267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|53.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.37|66.38||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||66.38|41.37|<0.001
95829244|NCT00996801|191629267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|55.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.19|69.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||69.94|41.19|<0.001
95829245|NCT00996801|191629267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|20.53||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
95829246|NCT00996801|191629267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Mean Squares|20.47||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|35.03||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.03|5.96|0.009
95829247|NCT00996801|191629267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|22.13||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.47|39.89||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 12, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||39.89|4.47|0.009
95829248|NCT04332614|191629272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8791371||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7856042|0.9838058||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9838058|0.7856042|0.0248
95829249|NCT04332614|191629272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5980109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5159511|0.6931219||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6931219|0.5159511|<0.0001
95829250|NCT04332614|191629272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8380003||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7285712|0.9638653||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9638653|0.7285712|0.0133
95829251|NCT04332614|191629273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3700794|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2870513|0.4771231||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4771231|0.2870513|<0.0001
95829252|NCT04332614|191629273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.285144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1881589|0.4321194||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4321194|0.1881589|<0.0001
95829253|NCT04332614|191629273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5565905||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4059477|0.7631354||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.7631354|0.4059477|0.0003
95829254|NCT04332614|191629274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72429741||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49167734|1.0669736||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0669736|0.49167734|0.103
95829255|NCT04332614|191629274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63578603||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35943749|1.1246013||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1246013|0.35943749|0.120
95829256|NCT04332614|191629274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06482385||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67282661|1.6852036||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.6852036|0.67282661|0.789
95829257|NCT04332614|191629275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8837908||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7912382|0.9871694||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9871694|0.7912382|0.0286
95829258|NCT04332614|191629275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6000149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5193168|0.6932528||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.6932528|0.5193168|<0.0001
95829259|NCT04332614|191629275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8225743||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7167043|0.9440832|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.9440832|0.7167043|0.0055
95829260|NCT04332614|191629276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3948795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.310437|0.5022914||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.5022914|0.3104370|<0.0001
95829261|NCT04332614|191629276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2790595|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1875017|0.4153254||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.4153254|0.1875017|<0.0001
95829262|NCT04332614|191629276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6097538||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4528751|0.8209762||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.8209762|0.4528751|0.0011
95829263|NCT04332614|191629277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0049587||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72693253|1.3893201||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.3893201|0.72693253|0.976
95829264|NCT04332614|191629277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7576895||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4741259|1.2108458||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.2108458|0.47412590|0.246
95829265|NCT04332614|191629277|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1728665||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79090107|1.7393021||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.7393021|0.79090107|0.428
95829266|NCT04332614|191629278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9980487||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8680298|1.147543||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.147543|0.8680298|1
95829267|NCT04332614|191629278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953032||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7771682|1.031395||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.031395|0.7771682|0.276
95829268|NCT04332614|191629278|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8970536||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7785981|1.033531||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.033531|0.7785981|0.289
95829269|NCT04332614|191629279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9313889||||0.94591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6003591|1.444944||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.444944|0.6003591|0.94591
95829270|NCT04332614|191629279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8998642||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2809137|2.817898||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.817898|1.2809137|0.0041
95829271|NCT04332614|191629279|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0398184||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3648075|3.048678||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.048678|1.3648075|0.0015
95829272|NCT04332614|191629280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.180837||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6750639|2.065546||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.065546|0.6750639|0.829
95829273|NCT04332614|191629280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432003||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8279689|2.476702||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.476702|0.8279689|0.404
95829274|NCT04332614|191629280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.212702||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7161724|2.05348||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053480|0.7161724|0.753
95829275|NCT04332614|191629281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9747188||||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8501783|1.1175028||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1175028|0.8501783|0.9284
95864516|NCT03456882|191686822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084||||||Significance level set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean AE treatment discontinuation 48 weeks. Null hypothesis: the number of adverse events occurred within 48 weeks is not different between groups||||0.6084
95829276|NCT04332614|191629281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8518974||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741461|0.9787827||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.9787827|0.7414610|0.0612
95829277|NCT04332614|191629281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.873993||||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7602296|1.0047804||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.0047804|0.7602296|0.1407
95829278|NCT04332614|191629282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9089673||||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6109603|1.352333||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.352333|0.6109603|0.8848
95864517|NCT03009396|191686841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2112|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2112
95829279|NCT04332614|191629282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6914929||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1762411|2.43245||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.432450|1.1762411|0.0127
95829280|NCT04332614|191629282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8608951||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2800275|2.705356||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.705356|1.2800275|0.0033
95829281|NCT04332614|191629283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8619131||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5709078|1.301251||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.301251|0.5709078|0.759
95829282|NCT04332614|191629283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0950508||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7331329|1.635633||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.635633|0.7331329|0.897
95829283|NCT04332614|191629283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2704886||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8377249|1.926816||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05. All 3 comparisons run within same logistic regression model, correcting for the 3 pairwise comparisons using Tukey's Contrasts.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.926816|0.8377249|0.498
95829284|NCT03369431|191629284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the percentage change from baseline in the ATEC Total between Vivomixx and Placebo.~A sample size of 72 participants was needed to determine an effect size of 0.50 with 80% power, with a type 1 error of 5% using a two-sided test. This calculation is based on the assumed effect size of the primary outcome measure, the ATEC. The minimally clinically important difference based on the primary outcome measure with this instrument was 15 points."||||0.784
95829285|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Abdominal Pain between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.357
95829286|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Gaseousness between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.290
95829287|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Diarrhoea between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.418
95829288|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Constipation between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.734
95829289|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Pain on Stooling between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.362
95829290|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in frequency of Difficulty Swallowing between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.705
95829291|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.589|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of vomiting between Vivomixx and placebo||||0.589
95829292|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in stool between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
95829293|NCT03369431|191629285|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change from baseline in frequency of blood in vomit between Vivomixx and placebo||||1.0
95829294|NCT03369431|191629286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Irritability score between Vivomixx and Placebo||||0.635
95829295|NCT03369431|191629286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of ABC Lethargy/social withdrawal score between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.367
95829296|NCT03369431|191629286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline in the ABC Stereotypic behaviour between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.609
95829297|NCT03369431|191629286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Hyperactivity/Noncompliance between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.805
95829298|NCT03369431|191629286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank test used.||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from baseline of the ABC Inappropriate Speech between Vivomixx and Placebo.||||0.985
95829299|NCT03369431|191629287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank||||||0.661
95864518|NCT03009396|191686842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0356
95864519|NCT03009396|191686843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0514|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0514
95864520|NCT03009396|191686844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1259|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1259
95864521|NCT03009396|191686845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4114|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4114
96001194|NCT00408421|191979589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.14||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
96001195|NCT00408421|191979590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.46||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.46|-1.66|<0.001
96001196|NCT00408421|191979591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.004||95.0|-1.28|-0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.24|-1.28|0.004
96001197|NCT00408421|191979592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.52|-0.42||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
95729076|NCT00094302|191428294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 56 subjects (29 in the Spironolactone group and 27 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.83|0.64|0.76
95829300|NCT02753127|191629317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.117||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on stratified log-rank test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification factors including Time to progression on 1st line therapy, RAS mutation, and Bev as part of study treatment.~A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.117|0.854|0.3629
95829301|NCT02753127|191629317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.179||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard Ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin+ FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.179|0.797|0.3782
96001198|NCT00408421|191979593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.003||95.0|-1.5|-0.32||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.32|-1.50|0.003
96001199|NCT00408421|191979594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.019||95.0|-1.3|-0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.12|-1.30|0.019
96001200|NCT00408421|191979595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.164||95.0|-0.97|0.17||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.17|-0.97|0.164
96001201|NCT00408421|191979596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.049||95.0|-1.25|0.0||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.00|-1.25|0.049
96001202|NCT00408421|191979597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.093||95.0|-1.1|0.08||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.08|-1.10|0.093
95829302|NCT02753127|191629318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.18||1-sided|Log Rank|"Based on stratified log rank test stratified by actual stratification factors~. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment."|"Based on Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by actual stratification~. A HR \<1 indicates a lower risk with Arm 1 compared with Arm 2."|General population||1.180|0.917|0.7307
95829303|NCT02753127|191629318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.283||1-sided|Log Rank|Based on unstratified log-rank test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio is for Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev vs FOLFIRI ± bev. Based on unstratified Cox Proportional hazards model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Napabucasin + FOLFIRI ± bev compared with FOLFIRI ± bev.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||1.283|0.883|0.7434
95829304|NCT02753127|191629319|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|0.1||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.2||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment .|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||5.2|-4.9|0.4797
95829305|NCT02753127|191629319|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-3.1||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||4.7|-11.0|0.783
96001203|NCT00408421|191979598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29||||0.287||95.0|-0.82|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-0.82|0.287
96001204|NCT00408421|191979599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.033||95.0|-1.23|-0.05||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.05|-1.23|0.033
96002295|NCT02385123|191981836|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96002296|NCT02385123|191981837|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96002297|NCT02385123|191981838|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96001205|NCT00408421|191979600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.015||95.0|-1.4|-0.15||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.15|-1.40|0.015
95829306|NCT02753127|191629320|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-0.9||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by actual stratification factors. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on Harmonic Means method adjusting stratification factor|General population||3.0|-4.8|0.6776
95829307|NCT02753127|191629320|SUPERIORITY||rate difference|-2.0||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.7||1-sided|Z test|Based on one-sided Z test. P-value is nominal p-value without multiplicity adjustment.|Treatment difference and 95% CI is based on normal approximation method.|activated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 (pSTAT3)-positive (pSTAT3(+)) Subpopulation patients||3.7|-7.7|0.7513
95829308|NCT06276881|191629328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided||||Multiple regression analysis|||.37
95829309|NCT06276881|191629329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
95829310|NCT02583230|191629331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in PHQ-9 total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0005
95829311|NCT02583230|191629332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the change in QIDS total scores over the eight-week study period.||||||.0008
95829312|NCT00046930|191629333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age (\< 70 vs. \>=70) and type of leukemia (de novo AML, secondary RAEB-t, or secondary RAEB AML)||The study was designed to have 80% power to detect a non-proportional hazards difference in OS at the one-sided 0.025 significance level of 30.2% vs 39.6%, 12.8% vs 27.1% and 7.0% vs 14.0% at 1 years, 2 years, and full information for zosuquidar and placebo, respectively.||||0.28
95829313|NCT00046930|191629334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified on age and type of leukemia||||||0.16
95829314|NCT00046930|191629335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.65||Test was stratified on age and type of leukemia.|Mantel Haenszel||Zosuquidar/Placebo|Test of difference in the CR (complete remission) rate between the arms.||1.65|0.77|0.617
95829315|NCT01694108|191629360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney-test comparing the decisional conflict scores of participating mothers vs. declining mothers.||||||<0.001
95829316|NCT01657760|191629363|EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect difference p\<0.05 two tailed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||ANOVA, uncorrected for MC.|ANOVA|||||||0.87
95829317|NCT02124512|191629378|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated to be \>0.05.|ANOVA|||Comparison of the pre- and post-treatment timecourse between untreated and rifaximin-treated participants.||||>0.05
95829318|NCT02124512|191629379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||unpaired Student's t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment difference (change in placebo pre- and post-treatment versus change in rifaximin pre- and post-treatment).||||0.12
95829319|NCT02936284|191629411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed effect regression model including covariates: child sex, child birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid grouping|difference between music and play group change|||||0.016
95829320|NCT02936284|191629412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|29.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||music group vs. play group baseline to 24 months|mixed effect regression analysis, unstructured covariance, no covariates. Reporting group x time interaction||||0.70
95829321|NCT02936284|191629413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||increase in weight for length z-score for music group|mixed-effect regression analysis with covariates: child sex, birth weight, breastfeeding duration, percent class attendance and covid categories||||0.540
95829322|NCT01610596|191629431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95829323|NCT01519674|191629439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.24||||0.011||95.0|0.06|0.43||No corrections for multiplicity were performed.|Regression, Linear|||"The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by:~H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Met and BID+Sita+Met)."||0.43|0.06|0.011
95855095|NCT03819114|191669690|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|0.44|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.44|0.15|
95829324|NCT01519674|191629439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.11||||0.231||95.0|-0.3|0.07|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||0.07|-0.30|0.231
95829325|NCT01519674|191629439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||The null-hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (HA) in each of the comparisons as given by: H0: D = 0% against HA: D ≠ 0% D being the mean treatment difference for change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment between the two treatment group comparisons (BID+Sita+Met and OD+Sita+Met).||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
95829326|NCT01519674|191629440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.022||95.0|0.39|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.93|0.39|0.022
95829327|NCT01519674|191629440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.618||95.0|0.73|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.73|0.618
95829328|NCT01519674|191629440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.005||95.0|1.2|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.20|0.005
95829329|NCT01519674|191629441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.02||95.0|0.38|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.92|0.38|0.020
95829330|NCT01519674|191629441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.286||95.0|0.81|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.81|0.286
95829331|NCT01519674|191629441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.39|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.47|1.39|<0.001
95829332|NCT01519674|191629442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.13||||0.52||95.0|-0.26|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|-0.26|0.520
95829333|NCT01519674|191629442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.05||||0.788||95.0|-0.34|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.34|0.788
95829334|NCT01519674|191629442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.07||||0.708||95.0|-0.46|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||||0.31|-0.46|0.708
95829335|NCT01519674|191629443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.28||||0.291||95.0|-0.24|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|-0.24|0.291
95862275|NCT04145219|191683315|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a SABA free day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included SABA free day (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average asthma DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day where a subject with asthma did not use SABA, odds ratio is (odds active/odds Placebo).||3.3|1.0|0.0527
95829336|NCT01519674|191629443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.88||||0.001||95.0|-1.41|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-1.41|0.001
95829337|NCT01519674|191629443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.16|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.69|-0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.64|-1.69|<0.001
95829338|NCT01519674|191629444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.85||||0.005||95.0|0.26|1.45|||Regression, Linear|||||1.45|0.26|0.005
95829339|NCT01519674|191629444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.52||||0.085||95.0|-0.07|1.12|||Regression, Linear|||||1.12|-0.07|0.085
95829340|NCT01519674|191629444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.33||||0.275||95.0|-0.92|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.92|0.275
95829341|NCT01519674|191629445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.12||||0.674||95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Regression, Linear|||||0.45|-0.70|0.674
95829342|NCT01519674|191629445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.72||||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||||1.30|0.14|0.015
95829343|NCT01519674|191629445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.84||||0.004||95.0|0.27|1.41|||Regression, Linear|||||1.41|0.27|0.004
95829344|NCT01519674|191629446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.31||||0.08||95.0|-0.04|0.65|||Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-0.04|0.080
95829345|NCT01519674|191629446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.09||||0.613||95.0|-0.26|0.43|||Regression, Linear|||||0.43|-0.26|0.613
95829346|NCT01519674|191629446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.22||||0.213||95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||0.13|-0.56|0.213
95829347|NCT01519674|191629449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.29||||0.8||95.0|-1.97|2.56|||Regression, Linear|||||2.56|-1.97|0.800
95829348|NCT01519674|191629449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|0.02||||0.989||95.0|-2.26|2.29|||Regression, Linear|||||2.29|-2.26|0.989
95829349|NCT01519674|191629449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.28||||0.809||95.0|-2.52|1.97|||Regression, Linear|||||1.97|-2.52|0.809
95829350|NCT01974752|191629461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.3195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.27|||Log Rank|Factor for treatment and liver metastases|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.27|0.48|0.3195
95829351|NCT01974752|191629463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.94||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA of log (W6/BL) tumour assessments with a factor for trt, and covariates for liver mets, log BL tumour size, and time from BL scan to rand.|A geometric least squares mean ratio \< 1 favours Selumetinib in combination with Dacarbazine|||1.02|0.88|0.1284
95829352|NCT01974752|191629464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.4011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.39|0.4011
95829353|NCT04065074|191629602|OTHER|Proportion of Successful Administrations|Proportion of Successful Administrations|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.9||||||||0.90|0.51|
95829354|NCT02370004|191629603|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired T-tests were used to evaluate changes in spirometry results||||.10
95829355|NCT01062841|191629610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.77|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.94|0.62|<0.05
95829356|NCT01062841|191629611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.54||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||0.97|0.30|0.04
95829357|NCT01062841|191629612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.96||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.96|0.64|<0.05
95829358|NCT01062841|191629613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.75||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.75|0.82|>0.05
95829359|NCT01062841|191629614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.44||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||1.44|0.61|>0.05
95829360|NCT01062841|191629615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97||The model was adjusted for participant-specific covariates (participant-level baseline colonization with the specific MDRO, age, sex, race, and length of stay before enrollment), and NH quality ratings.|Regression, Poisson|||A mixed-effects multilevel Poisson regression model was used to predict MDRO prevalence density as a function of the intervention (primary outcome), including facility as a random effect and offset by the number of anatomic sites sampled. Because we expected participants colonized at baseline to have a greater likelihood of subsequent colonization, we included participant-level baseline MDRO colonization as a fixed effect.||0.97|0.58|<0.05
95829361|NCT01062841|191629617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.45|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||5.45|0.22|0.92
95829362|NCT01062841|191629618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.31|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model using the cluster option with robust standard errors was used to predict time to the first and recurrent infections, adjusting for participant-level and facility-level covariates.||6.31|0.53|0.34
95829363|NCT01062841|191629619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||0.95|0.65|0.01
95829364|NCT01062841|191629620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effect of this intervention on an individual's risk of new MDRO acquisition, defined as the number of residents with new acquisitions per 1000 device-days at risk after adjusting for resident-level and facility-level covariates, as well as clustering by facility. Residents colonized with the specific MDRO at baseline were excluded from these analyses.||1.60|0.45|0.61
95829365|NCT01062841|191629621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.60|0.59
95829366|NCT01187004|191629635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|significant level for inclusion at the univariate analysis was p\<0.05.||Our hypothesis was that mechanical ventilation with large tidal volume might represent a risk factor for acute lung injury in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.||||<0.05
95829367|NCT01187004|191629636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.272|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.272|1.129|<0.001
95862276|NCT04145219|191683316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The endpoint was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model. The model includes the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||1.0|-0.1|0.1256
95960112|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7150
95829368|NCT00733135|191629647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||GEE|||||||<0.05
95829369|NCT01891344|191629654|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.437||||||||0.437|0.170|
95829370|NCT01891344|191629654|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.871||||||||0.871|0.428|
95829371|NCT01854632|191629666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.996
95829372|NCT03523273|191629682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95829373|NCT03523273|191629683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
95829374|NCT04240093|191629696|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot intervention trial and was not powered to detect statistical significance.|Beta coefficient|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.2||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication doses in the past 30 days at follow-up.||0.20|-1.11|0.17
95829375|NCT04240093|191629697|SUPERIORITY|This pilot feasibility and acceptability study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.72||a priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a Poisson distribution controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: The CoMBAT intervention arm would be superior to the Standard of Care control arm with regard to reductions in missed medication-related visits in the past 30 days at follow-up.||2.72|-3.09|0.90
95829376|NCT04240093|191629698|SUPERIORITY|As a pilot feasibility and acceptability trial, this study was not powered to detect a statistically significant effect.|Beta coefficient|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-0.7||A priori alpha p\<0.05|Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling with a binomial distribution, controlling for baseline values.||Hypothesis: Fewer participants in the CoMBAT experimental arm will have a positive opioid toxicology screen at the 6-month follow-up compared to participants in the SOC control arm.||-0.70|-8.72|0.02
95829377|NCT00787930|191629699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95829378|NCT00787930|191629700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||1.00
95829379|NCT00787930|191629701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6056||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.6056
95829380|NCT00787930|191629702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory hypothesis|t-stat estimated value|1.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2||0.081|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0||||t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 6 df=7|||||0|0.081
95829381|NCT00787930|191629703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory analyses|t-stat estimated value|1.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.56||0.091|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.0|||no adjustment for multiple analyses|t-test, 1 sided|missing values: 5 df=7|||||0|0.091
95829382|NCT01294462|191629713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.53||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.53|0.94|
95829383|NCT01294462|191629714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.44||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.44|0.88|
95960113|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4566|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4566
95829384|NCT01294462|191629715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.4||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison.||2.40|1.23|
95829385|NCT01294462|191629716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.5||No P-value provided since the objective was not to perform formal statistical comparison.|Regression, Cox|Analyzed based on proportional hazards model including treatment group only.|Ticagrelor/Placebo|No formal statistical comparison based on hypothesis test.||2.50|0.91|
95829386|NCT00394901|191629731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.262||95.0|-0.85|0.23|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.23|-0.85|0.262
95829387|NCT00394901|191629731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.002||95.0|-1.39|-0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.32|-1.39|0.002
95829388|NCT00394901|191629731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.019||95.0|-1.15|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.15|0.019
95829389|NCT00394901|191629732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.016||95.0|-1.16|-0.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.12|-1.16|0.016
95829390|NCT00394901|191629732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.008||95.0|-1.14|-0.17|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment group modified based on the expected pregabalin exposure as a factor, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.17|-1.14|0.008
95829391|NCT00394901|191629733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.1160
95829392|NCT00394901|191629733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0015
95829393|NCT00394901|191629733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0107||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Proportion of responders were used for the statistical analyses. Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0107
95829394|NCT00394901|191629734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.038||95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.99|0.038
95829395|NCT00394901|191629734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
95829396|NCT00394901|191629734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.002||95.0|-1.19|-0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-1.19|0.002
95829397|NCT00394901|191629735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.048||95.0|-0.97|0.0|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.00|-0.97|0.048
95829398|NCT00394901|191629735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.47|<0.001
95829399|NCT00394901|191629735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.49|-0.56|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-1.49|<0.001
95829400|NCT00394901|191629736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.096||95.0|-0.89|0.07|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.07|-0.89|0.096
95829401|NCT00394901|191629736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.44|-0.48|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.48|-1.44|<0.001
95829402|NCT00394901|191629736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.52|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.52|-1.46|<0.001
95829403|NCT00394901|191629737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.505||95.0|-2.16|1.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.06|-2.16|0.505
95829404|NCT00394901|191629737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.023||95.0|-3.46|-0.26|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.26|-3.46|0.023
95829405|NCT00394901|191629737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.012||95.0|-3.56|-0.44|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.44|-3.56|0.012
95829406|NCT00394901|191629738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.349||95.0|-0.91|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.91|0.349
95829407|NCT00394901|191629738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.024||95.0|-1.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.32|0.024
95829408|NCT00394901|191629738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.045||95.0|-1.21|-0.01|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.01|-1.21|0.045
95829409|NCT00394901|191629739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.441||95.0|-2.93|1.28|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.28|-2.93|0.441
95829410|NCT00394901|191629739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.017||95.0|-4.64|-0.46|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-4.64|0.017
95829411|NCT00394901|191629739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61||||0.012||95.0|-4.65|-0.56|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.56|-4.65|0.012
95829412|NCT00394901|191629740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23||||0.47||95.0|-8.28|3.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.83|-8.28|0.470
95829413|NCT00394901|191629740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04||||0.008||95.0|-14.0|-2.06|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.06|-14.0|0.008
95829414|NCT00394901|191629740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.43||||0.013||95.0|-13.3|-1.59|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-1.59|-13.3|0.013
95829415|NCT00394901|191629741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.178||95.0|-0.48|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.09|-0.48|0.178
95829416|NCT00394901|191629741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.003||95.0|-0.72|-0.15|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-0.72|0.003
95829417|NCT00394901|191629741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.03||95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
95829418|NCT00394901|191629742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.001||95.0|-1.23|-0.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.30|-1.23|0.001
95829419|NCT00394901|191629742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001||95.0|-1.27|-0.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.34|-1.27|0.001
95829420|NCT00394901|191629742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.49|-1.40|<0.001
95829421|NCT00394901|191629743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.001||95.0|-14.2|-3.61|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-3.61|-14.2|0.001
95829422|NCT00394901|191629743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.24||||0.002||95.0|-13.5|-2.99|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-2.99|-13.5|0.002
95829423|NCT00394901|191629743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-6.22|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-6.22|-16.5|<0.001
95862277|NCT04145219|191683317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.5|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis mild day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis TCRS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a day with no or mild rhinitis symptoms, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||2.5|1.3|0.0008
95829424|NCT00394901|191629744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.29||||0.245||95.0|-2.95|11.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.54|-2.95|0.245
95829425|NCT00394901|191629744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.417||95.0|-4.2|10.11|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.11|-4.20|0.417
95829426|NCT00394901|191629744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.007||95.0|2.67|16.74|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||16.74|2.67|0.007
95829427|NCT00394901|191629745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.76||95.0|-3.83|5.24|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.24|-3.83|0.760
95829428|NCT00394901|191629745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.754||95.0|-3.75|5.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.18|-3.75|0.754
95829429|NCT00394901|191629745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.641||95.0|-5.43|3.35|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.35|-5.43|0.641
95862278|NCT04145219|191683318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)||Odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo)|The odds of having a rhinitis exacerbation day was analysed using a generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) with a logit link function. The model included the endpoint (yes/no) as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed effects, the baseline average rhinitis DSS as a covariate, the combined (country/region) variable within cohort and subject as random effects. Proportion is the estimated probability of having a rhinitis exacerbation day, odds ratio is (odds 12 SQ-HDM / odds Placebo).||0.7|0.4|<0.0001
95829430|NCT00394901|191629746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.955||95.0|-0.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.32|-0.30|0.955
95829431|NCT00394901|191629746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.084||95.0|-0.04|0.58|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.58|-0.04|0.084
95829432|NCT00394901|191629746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.17||95.0|-0.09|0.52|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.52|-0.09|0.170
95829433|NCT00394901|191629747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01||||0.296||95.0|-3.52|11.55|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.55|-3.52|0.296
95829434|NCT00394901|191629747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.007||95.0|2.87|17.73|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.73|2.87|0.007
95829435|NCT00394901|191629747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.106||95.0|-1.29|13.3|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.30|-1.29|0.106
95829436|NCT00394901|191629748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.191||95.0|-1.97|9.83|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.83|-1.97|0.191
95829437|NCT00394901|191629748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.21|||<|0.001||95.0|5.41|17.02|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||17.02|5.41|<0.001
95829438|NCT00394901|191629748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.23|||<|0.001||95.0|8.5|19.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||19.95|8.50|<0.001
95829439|NCT00394901|191629749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.061||95.0|-8.25|0.18|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-8.25|0.061
95829440|NCT00394901|191629749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.133||95.0|-7.37|0.98|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.98|-7.37|0.133
95829441|NCT00394901|191629749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.24||95.0|-6.52|1.64|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.64|-6.52|0.240
95960114|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.775|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7750
95829442|NCT00394901|191629750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2842||95.0|0.34|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||1.37|0.34|0.2842
95829443|NCT00394901|191629750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0577||95.0|0.98|3.66|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.66|0.98|0.0577
95829444|NCT00394901|191629750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.1893||95.0|0.81|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the optimal sleep score at baseline as covariate||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||2.95|0.81|0.1893
95829445|NCT00394901|191629751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0466||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.0466
95829446|NCT00394901|191629751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95829447|NCT00394901|191629751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95829448|NCT00394901|191629752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||0.3440
95829449|NCT00394901|191629752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95829450|NCT00394901|191629752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by CLcr stratum||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95829451|NCT00394901|191629753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51||||0.057||95.0|-0.1|7.13|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.13|-0.10|0.057
95829452|NCT00394901|191629753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.67||95.0|-2.78|4.32|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.32|-2.78|0.670
95829453|NCT00394901|191629753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.559||95.0|-2.45|4.53|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||4.53|-2.45|0.559
95829454|NCT00394901|191629754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.004||95.0|3.01|15.78|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||15.78|3.01|0.004
95829455|NCT00394901|191629754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.67||||0.037||95.0|0.39|12.95|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.95|0.39|0.037
95829456|NCT00394901|191629754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.643||95.0|-4.74|7.66|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.66|-4.74|0.643
95829457|NCT00394901|191629755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.811||95.0|-4.5|5.75|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.75|-4.50|0.811
95829458|NCT00394901|191629755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07||||0.006||95.0|2.03|12.12|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.12|2.03|0.006
95829459|NCT00394901|191629755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.03||||0.047||95.0|0.06|10.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.00|0.06|0.047
95829460|NCT00394901|191629756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.013||95.0|1.1|9.5|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.50|1.10|0.013
95829461|NCT00394901|191629756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.82||||0.07||95.0|-0.31|7.96|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.96|-0.31|0.070
95829462|NCT00394901|191629756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.058||95.0|-0.13|8.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.00|-0.13|0.058
95862279|NCT04145219|191683319|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
95960115|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9241
95829463|NCT00394901|191629757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.443||95.0|-3.79|8.65|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||8.65|-3.79|0.443
95829464|NCT00394901|191629757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41||||0.018||95.0|1.28|13.54|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||13.54|1.28|0.018
95829465|NCT00394901|191629757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.549||95.0|-4.18|7.85|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.85|-4.18|0.549
95829466|NCT00394901|191629758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.15||||0.075||95.0|-0.63|12.92|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.92|-0.63|0.075
95829467|NCT00394901|191629758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41||||0.111||95.0|-1.25|12.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.08|-1.25|0.111
95829468|NCT00394901|191629758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.366||95.0|-3.55|9.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.60|-3.55|0.366
95829469|NCT00394901|191629759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64||||0.039||95.0|0.29|11.0|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||11.00|0.29|0.039
95829470|NCT00394901|191629759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.42||||0.006||95.0|2.14|12.69|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.69|2.14|0.006
95829471|NCT00394901|191629759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.15||||0.117||95.0|-1.05|9.34|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||9.34|-1.05|0.117
95829472|NCT00394901|191629760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99||||0.154||95.0|-1.5|9.49|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05||9.49|-1.50|0.154
95829473|NCT00394901|191629760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.99||||0.012||95.0|1.58|12.4|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||12.40|1.58|0.012
95829474|NCT00394901|191629760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76||||0.079||95.0|-0.56|10.08|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||10.08|-0.56|0.079
95829475|NCT00394901|191629761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.6451||95.0|0.45|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||3.59|0.45|0.6451
95829476|NCT00394901|191629761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0745||95.0|0.91|7.19|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||7.19|0.91|0.0745
95829477|NCT00394901|191629761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1787||95.0|0.73|5.58|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.58|0.73|0.1787
95829478|NCT00394901|191629762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0732||95.0|0.93|5.52|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.52|0.93|0.0732
95829479|NCT00394901|191629762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0353||95.0|1.07|6.53|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||6.53|1.07|0.0353
95829480|NCT00394901|191629762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0393||95.0|1.05|5.96|||Regression, Logistic|treatment, CLcr stratum, and the presence of symptom at baseline as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||5.96|1.05|0.0393
95829481|NCT00394901|191629763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.227||95.0|-0.78|0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.18|-0.78|0.227
95829482|NCT00394901|191629763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.34|<0.001
95829483|NCT00394901|191629763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.40|<0.001
95829484|NCT00394901|191629764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.577||95.0|-0.62|0.35|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.35|-0.62|0.577
95829485|NCT00394901|191629764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.39|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
95829486|NCT00394901|191629764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.27|-1.22|0.002
95829487|NCT00394901|191629765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.275||95.0|-0.75|0.21|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.21|-0.75|0.275
95829488|NCT00394901|191629765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.001
95829489|NCT00394901|191629765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.002||95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.28|-1.22|0.002
95829490|NCT00394901|191629766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.334||95.0|-0.72|0.25|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.25|-0.72|0.334
95855096|NCT03819114|191669690|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|3.7|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.70|1.20|
95829491|NCT00394901|191629766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.38|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.38|<0.001
95829492|NCT00394901|191629766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.006||95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.19|-1.14|0.006
95829493|NCT00394901|191629767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|-0.64|0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.33|-0.64|0.530
95829494|NCT00394901|191629767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
95829495|NCT00394901|191629767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.017||95.0|-1.05|-0.1|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.10|-1.05|0.017
95829496|NCT00394901|191629768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.392||95.0|-0.7|0.27|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.27|-0.70|0.392
95829497|NCT00394901|191629768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.35|-0.38|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.38|-1.35|<0.001
95829498|NCT00394901|191629768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.016||95.0|-1.06|-0.11|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.11|-1.06|0.016
95829499|NCT00394901|191629769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.364||95.0|-0.71|0.26|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.26|-0.71|0.364
95829500|NCT00394901|191629769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.42|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.42|-1.39|<0.001
95862280|NCT04145219|191683320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo vs. 12 SQ-HDM|The average rhinoconjunctivitis CSMS was analysed using a linear mixed effect (LME) model with square root transformation. The model includes the square root of the endpoint as response variable, treatment and cohort as fixed factors, the square root of the baseline value as a covariate, country/region within cohort as a random effect, and with different residual errors specified for each treatment. No missing data approach was applied.||0.3|0.1|<0.0001
95862281|NCT02657408|191683325|EQUIVALENCE|confirmatory statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.27||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.87|||ANOVA|||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.87|0.86|0.3043
95960116|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8994
95960117|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2088
95829501|NCT00394901|191629769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.031||95.0|-1.0|-0.05|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.05|-1.00|0.031
95829502|NCT00394901|191629770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.326||95.0|-0.73|0.24|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.24|-0.73|0.326
95862282|NCT02657408|191683326|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.16||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.16|0.88|
95960118|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2152
95829503|NCT00394901|191629770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.43|-0.46|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.46|-1.43|<0.001
95829504|NCT00394901|191629770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.007||95.0|-1.13|-0.18|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.18|-1.13|0.007
95829505|NCT00394901|191629771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.241||95.0|-0.78|0.2|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.20|-0.78|0.241
95829506|NCT00394901|191629771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.001||95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.37|-1.34|0.001
95829507|NCT00394901|191629771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.01||95.0|-1.1|-0.15|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.15|-1.10|0.010
95829508|NCT00394901|191629772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.281||95.0|-0.76|0.22|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||0.22|-0.76|0.281
95829509|NCT00394901|191629772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.001||95.0|-1.3|-0.33|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.33|-1.30|0.001
95829510|NCT00394901|191629772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.012||95.0|-1.09|-0.14|||repeated measures analysis|The model included treatment and CLcr stratum as factors, and baseline score as covariate.||Hypothesis testing was conducted using two-sided tests with significance level of 0.05.||-0.14|-1.09|0.012
95829511|NCT01062061|191629808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9733||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9733
95829512|NCT01062061|191629809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95829513|NCT01457950|191629840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.36|||ANCOVA|||||4.36|2.06|<0.0001
95829514|NCT02963987|191629877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95829515|NCT02963987|191629878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95829516|NCT02963987|191629879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95862283|NCT02657408|191683327|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|4.03||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||4.03|0.59|
95862284|NCT02657408|191683328|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.85||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||2.85|0.49|
95829517|NCT03180398|191629880|SUPERIORITY|It was hoped to compare radiomics features, using non-parametric tests, but this was not possible because of the small number of patients accrued.|||||||||||||||||Not enough patients were accrued for radiomics analysis. PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
95829518|NCT03180398|191629881|OTHER|Analysis could not be completed.|||||||||||||||||PI left institution and country. Analysis could not be completed.|||
95829519|NCT02337530|191629887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.01|||Fisher Exact|||||7.01|0.28|0.73
95829520|NCT02337530|191629887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|24.8|||Fisher Exact|||||24.8|1.65|0.01
95829521|NCT02337530|191629888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.60|0.42|0.56
95829522|NCT02337530|191629888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.40|0.44
95829523|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 29||0.46|-0.11|
95829524|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 57||0.17|-0.34|
95829525|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 85||0.20|-0.37|
95829526|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 113||0.04|-0.50|
95829527|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 141||0.32|-0.26|
95862285|NCT02657408|191683329|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.83||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.83|0.91|
95862286|NCT02657408|191683330|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.18|0.90|
95829528|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 169||0.15|-0.41|
95829529|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 197||0.13|-0.38|
95829530|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.25|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 225||0.25|-0.32|
95829531|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 253||0.36|-0.19|
95829532|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.38|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 281||0.38|-0.12|
95862287|NCT02657408|191683331|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.53||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.53|0.91|
95862288|NCT02657408|191683332|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.09|0.80|
95862289|NCT02657408|191683333|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.28||||||The statistical model used for the primary analysis of primary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||1.28|0.51|
95862290|NCT02657408|191683334|EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tested|Geometric mean ratio (%)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.97||||||The statistical model used for the analysis was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale. This model included the effect 'treatment'.||0.97|0.43|
95862291|NCT03679754|191683377|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Subjects in the Expansion trial did not have biopsies analyzed for cellular responses.|||
95862292|NCT00329797|191683403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Log Rank|||The study is designed to show a 40% relative reduction in the yearly ABF hazard rate, equivalent to an improvement in a 3-year FABF rate from 88% to 92.6%. A sample size of 1030 analyzable patients with a one-sided log-rank test at α = 0.05, was calculated to provide 80% statistical power, with one interim analysis and a final analysis for efficacy using Haybittle-Peto boundaries.||||0.95
95862293|NCT00329797|191683404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Lumbar||||<0.0001
95862294|NCT00329797|191683404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - right||||0.47
95862295|NCT00329797|191683404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Hip - left||||0.0002
95862296|NCT00329797|191683404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - right||||0.076
95862297|NCT00329797|191683404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Femoral - left||||0.0007
95829533|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.22|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 309||0.22|-0.27|
95829534|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.31|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 337||0.31|-0.37|
95829535|NCT00989235|191629908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.55|||ANCOVA|Adjustment based on ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Change from Baseline = Post-baseline - Baseline value.|Day 365||0.55|-0.09|
95829536|NCT00989235|191629909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||18.0|-17.2|
95829537|NCT00989235|191629910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|3.2|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||3.2|-20.3|
95829538|NCT00989235|191629912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.69|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio determined by a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only covariate.|Through Month 12||1.69|0.45|
95862298|NCT00329797|191683405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical subscale||||0.33
95862299|NCT00329797|191683405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Social subscale||||0.82
95862300|NCT00329797|191683405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional subscale||||0.51
95862301|NCT00329797|191683405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Functional subscale||||0.25
95862302|NCT00329797|191683405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||significance level = 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Total||||0.63
95862303|NCT02791763|191683415|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (-1.0 g/dL).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.28||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.28|-0.07|<.0001
95862304|NCT02791763|191683416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
95862305|NCT02791763|191683417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.04||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, and Baseline ESA use.|||3.04|0.33|0.4941
95862306|NCT00711477|191683512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9||||||||0.90|0.50|
95862307|NCT00711477|191683513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.72|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.72|-1.83|0.380
95862308|NCT00711477|191683514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.07|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||2.07|-2.87|0.744
95862309|NCT00711477|191683515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.64||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.56|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.56|-3.84|0.139
95862310|NCT00711477|191683516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.24|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.24|-2.96|0.094
95862311|NCT00711477|191683517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.48||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|0.51|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||0.51|-5.48|0.102
95862312|NCT00711477|191683518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.16||95.0|-22.7|3.89|||ANCOVA|Type III sums of squares from ANCOVA model: Treatment and Baseline||||3.89|-22.7|0.160
95862313|NCT00711477|191683519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.8||||||||0.80|0.40|
95862314|NCT00711477|191683520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.0||||||||1.00|0.50|
95862315|NCT00711477|191683521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.24||||||||1.24|0.74|
95862316|NCT00711477|191683522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.65||||||||1.65|0.95|
95862317|NCT00711477|191683523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.57||||||||0.57|0.31|
95862318|NCT05661851|191683549|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Least-square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|13.38|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||13.38|-1.67|
95862319|NCT05661851|191683550|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -20 was used.|Mean Population Difference Estimate|5.843|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.456|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8904|14.5768|||Bootstrapping methods||Bootstrap Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|A sample size of 104 subjects provides at least 90% statistical power to test non-inferiority of the Test eyedrop compared to the Control eyedrop using a two sample t-test with a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||14.5768|-2.8904|
95862320|NCT01136785|191683551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||two-sided t test for the change from baseline between the treated and untreated groups.||||0.01
95862321|NCT01136785|191683552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||2-sided Paired t-test|||comparing pre and post Interstitial Glucose levels in the active CPAP group||||0.011
95862322|NCT01136785|191683553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.071
95862323|NCT01136785|191683554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||Plasma cortisol pre and post 1-week of active CPAP||||0.754
95862324|NCT01136785|191683555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.308
95862325|NCT01136785|191683556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||two-sided paired t-test|||comparing pre and post levels in the active CPAP group||||0.036
95862326|NCT00612807|191683557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.056||95.0||||Interaction indicates that slope of change varied by identified patient status and tx condition. Slope of change in depression was significantly negative for everyone but identified patients in the control condition.|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.056
95862327|NCT00612807|191683558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether slope of change over time varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.32||95.0|||||Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.32
95862328|NCT00612807|191683558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing whether means at each timepoint varied by identified patient status and treatment condition.|Interaction term|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.005||95.0||||We probed this interaction and discovered that at each assessment, spouses in the couple therapy + medication treatment group reported greater dyadic adjustment than did spouses in the medication alone condition (b = 10.53, z = 2.72, p = 0.006).|Fixed effect in multi-level model|||Utilized a hierarchical linear model with time nested within individual and individual nested within couple. Given the small sample size, we chose to include participants' baseline depression scores as a covariate, and model the trajectory of change in depression scores beginning with the second assessment, which occurred one month into the study. Additional fixed effect predictors included status as identified patient or spouse, treatment condition, time, and all possible interactions.||||0.005
95862329|NCT01057589|191683567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
96001206|NCT00408421|191979601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.029||95.0|-1.06|-0.06||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||-0.06|-1.06|0.029
96001207|NCT00408421|191979602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.033
95829539|NCT00989235|191629913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7|||normal approximation|For 95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.7|-12.9|
95829540|NCT00989235|191629914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|7.3|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||7.3|-22.6|
95829541|NCT00989235|191629915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|10.0|||normal approximation|95% CI: normal approximation with continuity correction.||||10.0|-31.1|
95829542|NCT01229943|191629976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||Tests were stratified by: prior treatment with cytotoxic chemotherapy (no vs yes), prior use of octreotide (no vs yes), and prior therapy with sunitinib (no vs yes).|Log Rank|||Based on the log rank test, with 130 patients enrolled over 22 months and followed an additional 24 months, the difference in median PFS between 9 months and 14 months can be detected with approximately 90% power (1-sided, α=0.15).||1.17|0.55|0.12
95829543|NCT01394614|191629979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence-rate difference|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference between the incidence rate of exposed-to-vaccine cases (0.52) and that of unexposed cases (0.11) is 0.41 per 100,000 persons-years|||||
95829544|NCT01394614|191629979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||||Risk of developing narcolepsy if exposed to H1N1 vaccination (using the 16-week post-vaccination period as reference).|||11.12|1.5|
95862330|NCT01057589|191683567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
95829545|NCT01149486|191629980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|108.88|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.88|80.20|
95855097|NCT03819114|191669690|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.32|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.32|0.09|
95855098|NCT03819114|191669691|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|5.12|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||5.12|3.17|
95855099|NCT03819114|191669691|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|3.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||3.65|2.33|
96001208|NCT00408421|191979603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||This study will also have at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of 25% in the response rates (≥30% reduction from baseline) based on the weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity between duloxetine and placebo treatment groups.||||0.075
96001209|NCT00408421|191979604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.088||95.0|-0.28|3.94||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.94|-0.28|0.088
95862331|NCT01057589|191683568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||||||P-value is for Change at End of Triplet Combination Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.223
95862332|NCT01057589|191683568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||||||P-value is for Change at End of Maintenance Therapy. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.788
95862333|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95862334|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95862335|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||P-value is for NOD, Triplicate Combination Therapy Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95862336|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95862337|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95862338|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95862339|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value is for NOD, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95862340|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95862341|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95960119|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7662
95862342|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||P-value is for EIP, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95862343|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95862344|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95862345|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95862346|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||P-value is for EIP, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95862347|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 2. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95862348|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 4. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95862349|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value is for UOS, Triplicate Combination Cycle 6. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95862350|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 1. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95862351|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 3. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95862352|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 5. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95862353|NCT01057589|191683569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value is for UOS, Maintenance Cycle 7. Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95862354|NCT00744042|191683570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Testing whether median change in rickets severity from Baseline to Week 24, measured by RGI-C at Week 24, is from zero.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|The last post-baseline observation carry forward method is used; patients with no post-baseline assessments were imputed as having no change.||One treatment group||||0.0039
95862355|NCT02654769|191683584|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic- Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.37|8.63|||Fisher Exact|||||8.63|-12.37|<0.0001
95862356|NCT02654769|191683585|EQUIVALENCE|Difference (Generic - Picato)|90% Wald's confidence interval|-2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.14|7.86|||Fisher Exact|||Partial Clearance at Week 8||7.86|-13.14|<0.0001
95862357|NCT01497366|191683605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentages|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.0|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and the 95% CI calculated were based on stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||8.0|-7.5|
95862358|NCT02745080|191683622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.72|0.98|0.0719
95862359|NCT02745080|191683623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.71|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||3.71|1.67|<0.0001
95960120|NCT00551135|191892791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from sitting (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7579
95829546|NCT01149486|191629981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.18|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.18|93.15|
95829547|NCT01149486|191629982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|106.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.12|93.10|
95829548|NCT01149486|191629983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|111.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.47|122.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122.79|101.47|
95829549|NCT01149486|191629984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|112.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.41|99.58|
95829550|NCT01149486|191629985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.64|111.82|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.82|99.64|
95829551|NCT01149486|191629986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.96|115.23|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||115.23|98.96|
95829552|NCT01149486|191629987|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.14|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.14|98.75|
95829553|NCT01149486|191629988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.72|106.01|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||106.01|98.72|
95829554|NCT00598078|191629999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.013
95829555|NCT00598078|191629999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.713
95829556|NCT00598078|191629999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
95829557|NCT01479595|191630008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.811|-0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.217|-0.811|0.005
95829558|NCT02120365|191630019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986||0.867|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Medication dose was a within-subjects factor (crossover design)||||0.867
95829559|NCT02120365|191630020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.038||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models, medication was a within-subjects factor||||0.071
95829560|NCT02120365|191630021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.667|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|mixed models||||0.667
95829561|NCT02120365|191630022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.393||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|||||0.285
95829562|NCT02120365|191630023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|Mixed Models||||.843
95829563|NCT02120365|191630024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Representing the high dose 10mg compared to the placebo 0mg dose.|We report the main effect of dose on the outcome measure||||.691
95829564|NCT01344629|191630025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|100.9||||||90.0|97.7|104.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||104.2|97.7|
95829565|NCT01344629|191630026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|97.2||||||90.0|87.2|108.3||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||108.3|87.2|
95829566|NCT01344629|191630027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|101.7||||||90.0|98.3|105.2||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||105.2|98.3|
95829567|NCT01344629|191630028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|110.1||||||90.0|95.8|124.4||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||124.4|95.8|
95829568|NCT01344629|191630029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|91.4||||||90.0|85.6|97.6||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||97.6|85.6|
95829569|NCT01344629|191630030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.4||||||90.0|102.4|116.8||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||116.8|102.4|
95829570|NCT01344629|191630031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between T80/A 5mg FDC tablet and T80mg / A5 mg tablet in concomitant use|Test/Reference Ratio of the mean x 100|109.0||||||90.0|101.5|117.1||No statistical test|ANOVA|||||117.1|101.5|
95829571|NCT02305849|191630032|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|47.0||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.0|26.7|<0.001
95829572|NCT02305849|191630032|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|52.6||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.6|<0.001
95829573|NCT02305849|191630033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on Rank Analysis of Covariance (RANCOVA) Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
95829574|NCT02305849|191630033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Closed testing procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment.|RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
95829575|NCT02305849|191630035|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|30.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||30.7|13.8|<0.001
95829576|NCT02305849|191630035|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|47.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||47.3|29.3|<0.001
95829577|NCT02305849|191630037|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||15.6|3.8|<0.001
95829578|NCT02305849|191630037|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|28.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.5|13.9|<0.001
95829579|NCT02305849|191630039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
95829580|NCT02305849|191630039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of mTSS Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of mTSS.|RANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
95829581|NCT02305849|191630040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.018
95829582|NCT02305849|191630040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.002
95862360|NCT02745080|191683624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.55|0.90|0.2251
95862361|NCT02745080|191683625|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean change|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment group, analysis visit as factors, weight/baseline score as covariates, treatment by analysis visit, baseline score by analysis visit as interation terms and unstructured covariance structure|||0.05|-0.10|0.5465
95829583|NCT02305849|191630040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.039
95829584|NCT02305849|191630040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of JSN Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of JSN Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.006
95829585|NCT02305849|191630041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.036
95829586|NCT02305849|191630041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
95829587|NCT02305849|191630041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||0.013
95829588|NCT02305849|191630041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||RANCOVA|Based on RANCOVA Model: Rank of Erosion Score Change = Treatment + Baseline Rank of Erosion Score.||Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||||<0.001
95829589|NCT02305849|191630042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.6|10.0|<0.001
95829590|NCT02305849|191630042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|37.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 28/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.9|15.7|<0.001
95829591|NCT02305849|191630042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|32.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.9|10.2|<0.001
95829592|NCT02305849|191630042|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|37.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Week 52/ET: Treatment Difference vs Placebo||37.6|15.2|<0.001
95829593|NCT02305849|191630043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.97||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.97|-1.46|<0.001
95829594|NCT02305849|191630043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.33||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.33|-1.85|<0.001
95829595|NCT02305849|191630045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.94||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.94|-1.44|<0.001
95829596|NCT02305849|191630045|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.36||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: DAS28 Change = Treatment + Baseline DAS28.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.36|-1.89|<0.001
95829597|NCT02305849|191630047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-6.9|-3.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-3.5|-6.9|<0.001
95829598|NCT02305849|191630047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-5.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: TJC68 Change = Treatment + Baseline TJC68.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-5.6|-8.9|<0.001
95829599|NCT02305849|191630049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.6|-5.3|<0.001
95829600|NCT02305849|191630049|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-4.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SJC66 Change = Treatment + Baseline SJC66.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-4.3|-6.9|<0.001
95829601|NCT02305849|191630051|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|32.3||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||32.3|15.1|<0.001
95829602|NCT02305849|191630051|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|27.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|36.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||36.2|18.6|<0.001
95829603|NCT02305849|191630053|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||16.5|4.3|<0.001
95829604|NCT02305849|191630053|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected)|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||23.9|10.0|<0.001
95829605|NCT02305849|191630055|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||44.2|25.1|<0.001
95829606|NCT02305849|191630055|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|55.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||55.0|36.0|<0.001
95829607|NCT02305849|191630057|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|28.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||28.1|12.5|<0.001
95829608|NCT02305849|191630057|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|31.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|40.0||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||C.I. was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||40.0|23.1|<0.001
95829609|NCT02305849|191630059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-1.247||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: CRP Change = Treatment + Baseline CRP.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.247|-1.948|<0.001
95829610|NCT02305849|191630059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.852|-1.065||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-1.065|-1.852|<0.001
95829611|NCT02305849|191630061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|-14.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-14.17|-21.61|<0.001
95829612|NCT02305849|191630061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-16.56||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: ESR Change = Treatment + Baseline ESR.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-16.56|-24.67|<0.001
95829613|NCT02305849|191630063|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|42.2||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||42.2|23.7|<0.001
95829614|NCT02305849|191630063|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||54.8|36.2|<0.001
95829615|NCT02305849|191630065|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.5|32.3|<0.001
95829616|NCT02305849|191630065|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|49.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.7|58.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||58.9|39.7|<0.001
95829617|NCT02305849|191630067|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.3|||Fisher Exact|No multiplicity adjustment.|CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||27.3|12.1|<0.001
95829618|NCT02305849|191630067|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|38.7||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||38.7|22.0|<0.001
95829619|NCT02305849|191630069|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|52.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||52.6|32.3|<0.001
95829620|NCT02305849|191630069|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|56.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||56.9|37.1|<0.001
95829621|NCT02305849|191630071|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|5.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||9.5|1.0|0.011
95829622|NCT02305849|191630071|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||14.6|4.1|<0.001
95829623|NCT02305849|191630073|SUPERIORITY|No multiplicity adjustment.|Percent Difference|6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.0|||Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||11.0|1.8|0.003
95829624|NCT02305849|191630073|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|19.4||No multiplicity adjustment.|Fisher Exact||CI was based on normal approximation to the binomial distribution (continuity corrected).|Treatment Difference vs Placebo||19.4|7.5|<0.001
95829625|NCT02305849|191630075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.60|-13.84|<0.001
95829626|NCT02305849|191630075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.35|-11.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SDAI Change = Treatment + Baseline SDAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-11.98|-17.35|<0.001
95829627|NCT02305849|191630077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-17.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.11|-13.22||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-13.22|-22.11|<0.001
95829628|NCT02305849|191630077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001||95.0|-28.66|-19.51||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: PGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline PGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-19.51|-28.66|<0.001
95829629|NCT02305849|191630079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-12.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS)||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.19|-21.09|<0.001
95829630|NCT02305849|191630079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|-15.61||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGA (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGA (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.61|-25.07|<0.001
95829631|NCT02305849|191630081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-12.38||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.38|-22.00|<0.001
96001210|NCT00408421|191979605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.08||95.0|-0.22|3.96||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.96|-0.22|0.080
96001211|NCT00408421|191979606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.001||95.0|0.03|0.1||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.10|0.03|<0.001
95829632|NCT02305849|191630081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-20.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-15.98||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SGAP (100 mm VAS) Change = Treatment + Baseline SGAP (100 mm VAS).||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-15.98|-25.80|<0.001
95829633|NCT02305849|191630084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.17|-0.36|<0.001
95829634|NCT02305849|191630084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: HAQ-DI Change = Treatment + Baseline HAQ-DI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
95829635|NCT02305849|191630086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.74||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||8.74|4.09|<0.001
95829636|NCT02305849|191630086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|10.86||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||10.86|6.36|<0.001
95829637|NCT02305849|191630088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.18||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.18|1.21|<0.001
95829638|NCT02305849|191630088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||3.19|0.11|0.036
95829639|NCT02305849|191630090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.02||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||5.02|-0.44|0.099
95862362|NCT02745080|191683626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline weight as a covariate|||1.87|0.91|0.1498
95829640|NCT02305849|191630090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|6.91||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: SF36-v2 Change = Treatment + Baseline SF36-v2.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||6.91|1.53|0.002
95829641|NCT02305849|191630092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.42||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||4.42|-5.16|0.879
95829642|NCT02305849|191630092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.23||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||2.23|-5.86|0.377
95829643|NCT02305849|191630094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-2.73||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.73|-16.54|0.007
95829644|NCT02305849|191630094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.24|-7.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.10|-21.24|<0.001
95829645|NCT02305849|191630096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-2.25||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-2.25|-16.60|0.010
95829646|NCT02305849|191630096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|-7.31||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-7.31|-21.92|<0.001
96002298|NCT02385123|191981840|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96002299|NCT02385123|191981841|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95829647|NCT02305849|191630098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.23|-8.16||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-8.16|-18.23|<0.001
95960121|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6896
95829648|NCT02305849|191630098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.57|-12.66||No multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA Model: WPAI Change = Treatment + Baseline WPAI.||Treatment Difference vs Placebo||-12.66|-22.57|<0.001
95829649|NCT00355342|191630103|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status.|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|1.49|0.06|
95829650|NCT00355342|191630104|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis for the primary measure is that the difference between the effects of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination product 250/50mcg BID and salmeterol 50mcg BID on the change in BMD assessed at the L1-L4 region of the spine is greater than 1 %/year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.24|||||Analysis Model: Percent change from baseline BMD = treatment + time (years) + treatment\*time + baseline BMD + sex + investigator + age + BMI + FEV1 severity + b/l activity level + b/l calcium supp. use + smoking status|The analysis is presented for slope estimate calculated for the percent change from Baseline values at Week 26, 52, 78, 104, 130, and 156.|Age split by category (40-64 years old, 65 or older). FEV1 severity based on GOLD Stage (Mild/Moderate, Severe/Very Severe). Activity based on 0-10 Physical Activity Scale (split by median, \<7, \>=7). Slope estimates based on treatment\*time via repeated measures model with unstructured covariance.|0.24|-0.78|
95829651|NCT00434759|191630111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|We report the interaction effect.|The reported interaction effect is significant (p\< .05) in favour of standard therapy.|||||<0.05
95829652|NCT00434759|191630112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
95829653|NCT00434759|191630113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.05||95.0||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is not significant.|||||<0.05
95829654|NCT00434759|191630114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.43|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 p-value ist not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction is not significant.|||||<0.05
95829655|NCT00434759|191630115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|||<|0.05||95.0||||priori threshold for statistical significance ist 0.05 p-value ist nor adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|we report the interaction effect|The reported interaction effect is significant (p \< .05) in favour of standard therapy|||||<0.05
95829656|NCT01735708|191630116|SUPERIORITY|ITT analysis using multiple imputation by chained equation with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.34||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|standard error of difference in means|||-0.34|-2.28|0.008
95829657|NCT01735708|191630117|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.4||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.||||0.40|-1.53|0.251
95829658|NCT01735708|191630118|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.61||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.61|-1.32|0.844
95829659|NCT01735708|191630119|SUPERIORITY|Intent to treat analysis using multiple imputation by chained equations with 50 fully populated data sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.15||A priori threshold for significance was two-tailed p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Standard errors were based on robust Huber-White variance estimator.|Standard error of difference in means.|||1.15|-2.18|0.545
95829660|NCT00334282|191630120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||1e-07||95.0|0.34|0.62||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing pazopanib to placebo.|||0.62|0.34|.0000001
95960122|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1934
95960123|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6034
95829661|NCT01689350|191630148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.14|||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the control group and experimental group in terms of frequency of leucopenia.(α=0.05） Chi-square test was applied to test the difference. The Chi-square value was 10.08 and the P-value was 0.0015, which indicated that the null hypothesis could be rejected.||14.14|1.76|<0.01
95829662|NCT01689350|191630149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.13|||Chi-squared|||||7.13|1.01|<0.05
95829663|NCT00461305|191630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|17.77|||Binominal parameter by exact method||No group comparison were planned. Binomial parameter on each treatment arm was estimated by exact method.|Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group. If the upper confidence limit is lower than 27.56% (threshold incidence), the treatment arm will be concluded to be acceptable. No group comparison was planned.||17.77|9.73|
95829664|NCT00461305|191630150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence on one treatment arm|7.1||||||95.0|1.98|17.29|||Binominal parameter by exact method|||Exact 95% confident intervals were calculated using F-distribution by treatment group.||17.29|1.98|
95829665|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.84
95829666|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.76
95829667|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Arm||||0.53
95829668|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Foot||||0.07
95829669|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.25
95829670|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||0.27
95829671|NCT01370837|191630215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm vs foot||||< 0.01
95829672|NCT02839902|191630216|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-17.147||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.344|-7.95|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-7.950|-26.344|0.0004
95829673|NCT02839902|191630216|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-9.774||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.986|2.439|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with triglycerides concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||2.439|-21.986|0.1141
95829674|NCT02839902|191630216|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-10.246||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.143|-1.349|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with free cholesterol concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-1.349|-19.143|0.0248
95829675|NCT02839902|191630216|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|-11.511||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-3.682|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with phospholipid concentration in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||-3.682|-19.340|0.0047
95855100|NCT03819114|191669691|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.52|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.52|0.82|
95855101|NCT03819114|191669691|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|4.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||4.93|2.65|
95855102|NCT03819114|191669692|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.66|2.65|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.65|1.66|
95855103|NCT03819114|191669692|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.39|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.39|0.89|
95855104|NCT03819114|191669692|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.66|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.66|0.87|
95855105|NCT03819114|191669692|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.24|
95855106|NCT03819114|191669693|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.59|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.59|0.46|
95855107|NCT03819114|191669693|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.43|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.43|0.34|
95855108|NCT03819114|191669693|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.25|0.93|
95855109|NCT03819114|191669693|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.56|0.41|
95855110|NCT03819114|191669695|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.93|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.93|0.60|
96001212|NCT00408421|191979607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.641||95.0|-1.19|0.74||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.74|-1.19|0.641
96001213|NCT00408421|191979608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.193||95.0|-1.17|0.24||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment, NSAID use (Yes/No), the outcome score at baseline, and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.24|-1.17|0.193
95829676|NCT02839902|191630217|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|9.499||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.623|23.622|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with TG to cholesterol ratio in sd LDL fraction at Week 8 using an ANCOVA model.||23.622|-4.623|0.1826
95829677|NCT02839902|191630218|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.066||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.776|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.776|0.356|0.0040
95829678|NCT02839902|191630218|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|1.553||||0.4428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.884|5.991|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by triglycerides using an ANCOVA model.||5.991|-2.884|0.4428
95829679|NCT02839902|191630218|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.76||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|1.544|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by free cholesterol using an ANCOVA model.||1.544|-0.024|0.0570
95829680|NCT02839902|191630218|OTHER|Least square (LS) mean difference|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.838||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|1.62|||ANCOVA||TAK-085 4 g - Control Group|The least square (LS) mean percentage change was compared between treatment groups with particle size (nm) of LDL at Week 8 monitored by phospholipid using an ANCOVA model.||1.620|0.057|0.0360
95829681|NCT00740714|191630235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|2.51||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||2.51|-1.33|>0.025
95829682|NCT00740714|191630235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|>|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.03||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-values for efficacy outcomes will be 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA is used with the change in total UPDRS of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day arm compared to placebo group.||3.03|-0.85|>0.025
95829683|NCT00740714|191630236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|1.68||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.68|-2.12|0.7943
95829684|NCT00740714|191630236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.306||95.0|-2.79|1.04||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month on Modified Schwab \& England will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||1.04|-2.79|0.306
95855111|NCT03819114|191669695|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.36|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.36|0.90|
96001214|NCT00408421|191979609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.003
95829685|NCT00740714|191630237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.1615|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.06|-0.25|<0.1615
95829686|NCT00740714|191630237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-Adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plats and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Modified Rankin will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.17|0.7627
95829687|NCT00740714|191630238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.6383|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|3.21||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.21|-2.10|0.6383
95829688|NCT00740714|191630238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.17||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on PD Quality of Life Scale will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||2.17|-3.20|0.667
95829689|NCT00740714|191630239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.671|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.09|3.06||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||3.06|-2.09|0.671
95829690|NCT00740714|191630239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|1.87||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Symbol Digit Modalities Test will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable||1.87|-3.34|0.671
95829691|NCT00740714|191630240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.04|0.13||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided, with a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assessed with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline Visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr Score will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.13|-0.04|0.3445
95829692|NCT00740714|191630240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.239||95.0|-0.04|0.14||The primary analysis compares each active treatment arm to the placebo arm. P-Values for efficacy outcomes are 2-sided. with a Bonferroni-adjustd significance level of .025 used to preserve the overall alpha level for the 2 comparisons at .05.|ANCOVA|COCF is used for missing data and those lost to follow up. Outliers and non-compliant patients are assess with scatter and residual plots and ITT.||Change from Baseline visit to 16-month visit on Hoehn \& Yahr will be analyzed using ANCOVA in the same way as for the primary outcome variable.||0.14|-0.04|.239
95829693|NCT00740714|191630241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|1.091|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final visit to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for all treatment groups.||1.091|-0.018|0.0577
95829694|NCT00740714|191630241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|1.136|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 2400 mg/day.||1.136|-0.647|0.5889
95862363|NCT00829504|191683644|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.16||||||90.0|95.5|105.04|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.04|95.5|
95960124|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7992
95829695|NCT00740714|191630241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|1.831|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the treatment group of Coenzyme Q10 1200 mg/day.||1.831|-0.569|0.3006
95829696|NCT00740714|191630241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|4.633|||ANOVA|The ANOVA is using UPDRS worsening as outcome, Change of CoQ10 level as predictor, adjusting for site and baseline UPDRS score.||The analysis will be using the actual change of plasma levels of CoQ10(from final to baseline) as predictors of UPDRS worsening. Correlation of UPDRS worsening with plasma levels of CoQ10 will be calculated for the placebo group.||4.633|-0.382|0.096
95829697|NCT00740714|191630242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.8|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||2.80|0.57|<0.05
95829698|NCT00740714|191630243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.57|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subject experiencing a particular adverse experience||3.57|0.62|<0.05
95829699|NCT00740714|191630244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||4.20|0.65|<0.05
95829700|NCT00740714|191630245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.79|||ANCOVA||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.79|0.46|<0.05
95829701|NCT00740714|191630246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.41|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.41|0.66|<0.05
95829702|NCT00740714|191630247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.72|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9.72|0.81|<0.05
95829703|NCT00740714|191630248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.52|0.31|<0.05
95829704|NCT00740714|191630249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.7|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.70|0.36|<0.05
95829705|NCT00740714|191630250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.58|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.58|0.69|<0.05
95829706|NCT00740714|191630251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.62|0.31|<0.05
95862364|NCT00829504|191683645|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.76||||||90.0|95.45|108.49|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.49|95.45|
95829707|NCT00740714|191630252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.77|<0.05
95829708|NCT00740714|191630253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.12|||Fisher Exact||Odds ration \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||1.12|0.25|<0.05
95829709|NCT00740714|191630254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.01|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||8.01|0.64|<0.05
95829710|NCT00740714|191630255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0198|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio of \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||3.24|0.55|<0.05
95829711|NCT00740714|191630256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0197|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|0.48|<0.05
95829712|NCT00740714|191630257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9999.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9999.99|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio \>1 indicates a higher frequency in active treatment group.|All adverse experiences were tabulated by treatment group, severity and perceived relationship to study medication. Fisher's exact test was used to compare active treatment arms to the placebo arm with regard to the proportion of subjects experiencing a particular adverse experience.||9999.99|2.51|<0.05
95829713|NCT03688555|191630258|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301|=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.59||All Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) values observed between baseline and Week 12 were included in the analysis. Changes from baseline to post-baseline visits in NPS were analyzed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM).|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.59|-0.06|= 0.062
95829714|NCT03688555|191630259|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.316|=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|2.45|||ANCOVA|||||2.45|-10.41|= 0.161
95829715|NCT01071356|191630279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|-0.006||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.011|||Random Effects modeling||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.011|-.023|.47
95829716|NCT01071356|191630280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time averaged post-bline diff in diff|0.007||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.013|||Random effects model||Stat Mixed Model: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended.|Stat Mixed Model Estimated was: MI9 (Post - Bline) - MI1 (Post - Bline) taken across 2, 4, and 6 month follow-ups adjusted for gender, age, and # sessions attended. This was done because a statistical test of trend of the post-baseline effect across the 3 post interviews indicated a homogeneous post-baseline treatment effect across time for both MI1 and MI9 conditions.||.013|.001|.034
95829717|NCT02278614|191630281|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on Day 84 for the contralateral eye,|Adjusted mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.57|
95829718|NCT02278614|191630281|OTHER|The change from baseline in mean IOP on D42 for the worse eye|Adjusted mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.69|
95829719|NCT02789410|191630286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
95829720|NCT02789410|191630287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.590
95829721|NCT02789410|191630288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
95829722|NCT00260065|191630351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|33.0||||||95.0|24.2|43.5||||||||43.5|24.2|
95829723|NCT00260065|191630352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|52.0||||||95.0|41.3|61.7||||||||61.7|41.3|
95829724|NCT03875664|191630399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95855112|NCT03819114|191669695|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.33|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.33|1.29|
96001215|NCT00408421|191979610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA on ranked data.||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Rank-transformed data will be used in the analysis given the view that the change scores for most of the laboratory analytes are not normally distributed. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||||0.026
95829725|NCT03938324|191630404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.0034
95829726|NCT03938324|191630405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.5137
95829727|NCT03938324|191630406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4107||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.4107
95829728|NCT03938324|191630407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1708||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.1708
95829729|NCT03938324|191630408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7982||||||The two-tailed significance set at 0.05 was not adjusted for multiple outcomes or comparisons. No adjustments for pairwise comparisons were required for the model.|Multi-level mixed effects|Fixed effects were treatment, time, treatment-by time; whereas, random effects were participant and participant-by-time.||Multi-level mixed effects model for longitudinal data to compare treatment group difference in trajectory across 12 months. Group sizes provided at least 80% power to detect a true difference in change trajectories (treatment-by-time interaction effect), assuming a medium effect size, two-tailed tests, and statistical significance set at 0.05. Null hypothesis was no treatment group difference in the trajectory from baseline to 12 months (no significant treatment-by-time effect).||||0.7982
95829730|NCT01073930|191630439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the treatment difference (PICOPREP minus HalfLytely) was \>-9% for the percentage of responders. Superiority was demonstrated if the 1-sided 97.5% CI for treatment difference was \>0%.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.4||||||||||3.4|
95829731|NCT01073930|191630440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|4.9|||||||Ascending colon comparison|||4.9|
95829732|NCT01073930|191630440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|6.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.6|||||||Mid colon comparison|||1.6|
95729077|NCT00094302|191428295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 103 subjects (52 in the Spironolactone group and 51 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.50|0.69|0.94
95829733|NCT01073930|191630440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4|||||||Recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||0.4|
95829734|NCT01073930|191630440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval exceeds -9.0% then PicoPrep will be declared non-inferior to HalfLytely. If the non-inferiority test is satisfied then a test for superiority will be performed by comparing the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval with 0.0%. If the lower bound of the confidence interval is above 0.0% then superiority will be declared.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|5.2|||||||Overall: Ascending, mid, and recto-sigmoid colon comparison|||5.2|
95829735|NCT01073930|191630441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95829736|NCT01073930|191630442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95829737|NCT01073930|191630443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95829738|NCT01073930|191630444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95829739|NCT01073930|191630445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95829740|NCT01073930|191630446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95829741|NCT01266590|191630449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0664||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.0664
95829742|NCT00511134|191630451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Descriptive data|||It was hypothesized that the Zyban+Lunesta group would report lower ISI scores at end of trial than the Zyban+Placebo group.||||<0.05
95829743|NCT00511134|191630452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Degrees of freedom=1||It is predicted that subjects taking eszopiclone will be more likely to report abstinence at trial endpoint than those taking placebo.||||<0.05
95829744|NCT00541346|191630487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|33.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change (Pre-Post) Score at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||33.1|19.6|<0.001
95829745|NCT00541346|191630488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|29.3||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||29.3|16.9|<0.001
95829746|NCT00541346|191630489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|16.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.||Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||16.8|5.4|<0.001
95855113|NCT03819114|191669695|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.58|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.58|0.32|
95855114|NCT03819114|191669696|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.78|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.78|0.49|
96001216|NCT00408421|191979611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.459||95.0|-1.32|2.92||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||2.92|-1.32|0.459
95829747|NCT00541346|191630490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|11.1||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||11.1|3.3|<0.001
95829748|NCT00541346|191630491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|4.1|||<|0.01||95.0|1.2|6.9||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.9|1.2|<0.01
95829749|NCT00541346|191630492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian random intercept model.|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.2||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||5.2|1.8|<0.001
95829750|NCT00541346|191630493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.4||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-5.4|-16.8|<0.001
95829751|NCT00541346|191630494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|1.94|||>|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|6.82||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||6.82|-2.98|>0.21
95829752|NCT00541346|191630495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-3.4|||>|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.8||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||0.80|-7.9|>0.06
95829753|NCT00541346|191630496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|-5.26|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-1.18||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Above Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear dose and time effects.||-1.18|-9.37|<0.01
96002300|NCT02385123|191981842|OTHER|Single group analysis.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
96002301|NCT02385123|191981843|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95960125|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4770
95960126|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
95829754|NCT00541346|191630497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian Mean Change Score|7.6|||>|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|20.7||Posterior-Predictive Probability of Mean Change Score (Pre-Post) at or Below Zero.|Mixed Models Analysis|Bayesian random intercept model.|The confidence interval listed is a Bayesian credible interval which represents the probabilistic likelihood that the population mean change falls within these bounds.|Random intercept growth curves were fit to all outcome data, including intermediate assessments. A Bayesian posterior-predictive mean change score and its associated 95% credible interval were estimated using the MCMC Gibbs sampler with non-informative priors. Models included linear and quadratic dose effects, effect for compliance, baseline Life Participation Scale (LPS) effect, LPS by compliance interaction, a functional time component, and interaction between LPS and time.||20.7|-5.6|>0.11
95829755|NCT04253587|191630498|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was no difference between mean change scores for time-points X conditions.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Mixed effects ANOVA applied family wise error for post-hoc tests according to a priori hypothesis|ANOVA|||||0.06|-0.06|= 0.016
95829756|NCT04253587|191630499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANOVA|effect of condition (F1,20 = 1.616, p = 0.22), effect of time (F1,20 = 0.613, p = 0.44)||||0.03|-0.03|= 0.22
95829757|NCT02408523|191630529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.774||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.774|0.377|<0.001
95829758|NCT02408523|191630530|SUPERIORITY||KM seizure free of LCM vs Placebo|14.1|||=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.1||Superiority of LCM vs Placebo p-value was based on a chi-square test on 1 degree of freedom.|Mantel Haenszel||Stratified difference in proportion of subjects who are seizure-free from PGTCS on Lacosamide (FAS) vs Placebo (FAS).|The key secondary efficacy variable was evaluated using an extended Mantel-Haenszel testing procedure. Baseline PGTCS Frequency from Combined Baseline and development (age from interactive response technology (IRT)) were calculated from IRT.||25.1|3.2|=0.011
95829759|NCT02408523|191630531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.921||Wald's method was used to calculate the p-value, Hazard Ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs).|Regression, Cox|||Comparison of LCM versus Placebo was based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with an effect for treatment, stratifying for the following combinations of study participants' Baseline PGTCS frequency and Development from interactive response technology (IRT) (\<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Pediatric, \<= 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period and Adult, and \> 2 per 28 days in the Combined Baseline Period). The reference group was Placebo.||0.921|0.507|=0.012
95829760|NCT02937766|191630549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.||||0.9|-0.1|0.093
95829761|NCT02937766|191630550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||The t-test tested the hypothesis of no treatment difference between treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-0.2|0.234
95829762|NCT00997425|191630586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door approach behavior||||||0.098
95829763|NCT00997425|191630586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||P values above 0.05 are considered statistically not significant in this study|paired t-test|statistical analysis applies to door pass through behavior||||||0.045
95829764|NCT00610441|191630610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6996||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.911|-0.4881||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements||Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||-0.4881|-10.911|0.0147
95855115|NCT03819114|191669696|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.1|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||1.10|0.71|
95855116|NCT03819114|191669696|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.4|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.40|1.31|
95960127|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2000
95960128|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5059
95829765|NCT00610441|191630610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9926||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2961|5.2814||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.2814|-3.2961|0.5910
95829766|NCT00610441|191630611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|26.0878|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||26.0878|1.7990|
95829767|NCT00610441|191630611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3119|2.8701|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||2.8701|0.3119|
95829768|NCT00610441|191630612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6712|58.1395|||||Since no participants in the Placebo group achieved a 50% reduction, the comparison was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and 0.5 was added to both groups.|||58.1395|0.6712|
95829769|NCT00610441|191630612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0152|1.388|||||Logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment and period, and baseline AISRS score as covariate.|||1.3880|0.0152|
95829770|NCT00610441|191630615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2074|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5654|2.5785|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||2.5785|0.5654|
95829771|NCT00610441|191630615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6951|4.9494|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||4.9494|0.6951|
95829772|NCT00610441|191630616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5402|3.2008|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.2008|0.5402|
95829773|NCT00610441|191630616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|3.7309|||||Proportional odds model with fixed effects for treatment and period.|||3.7309|0.5240|
95829774|NCT00610441|191630617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3163||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8138|1.1812||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1812|-1.8138|0.6155
95829775|NCT00610441|191630617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2934||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.7449|3.3317||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline ESS score as covariate. For statistical analyses, the average score from Days 14 and 21 was used.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||3.3317|-0.7449|0.1330
95829776|NCT00610441|191630618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5501||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9427|2.0429||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||2.0429|-0.9427|0.3907
95829777|NCT00610441|191630618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0065||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9486|0.9357||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline PSQI score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||0.9357|-0.9486|0.9872
95829778|NCT00610441|191630619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1543||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4898|1.1811||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.1811|-1.4898|0.7828
95829779|NCT00610441|191630619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4222||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5187|1.363||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline QIDS-C score as covariate. Scores from Days 14 and 21 were averaged for statistical analyses.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||1.3630|-0.5187|0.2883
95829780|NCT00610441|191630620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9685||||0.6532|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9599|4.0229|||MMRM|To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100 mg MK-8777 fixed dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||4.0229|-5.9599|0.6532
95960129|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
95829781|NCT00610441|191630620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1022||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8951|5.0996||To correct for multiplicity, p-values (2-sided) should be compared with the 2.5% level of significance.|MMRM||MMRM with fixed effects for treatment, period, visit, center and treatment by visit interaction, and random effect for participant, and baseline TASS score as covariate.|The treatment difference between 100-300 mg MK-8777 rising dose and Placebo was estimated for the average effect (average change from baseline) of the 2nd and 3rd week of each period (Day 14 and Day 21).||5.0996|-2.8951|0.5247
95829782|NCT01643876|191630640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the extent of palatal inflammation before and 3 months after palatal brushing. Assuming that the minimal practically important pre/post difference in the mean change score is 20 percent and the standard deviation of the distribution of the change in score is 0.8, a sample size of 44 participants is required to ensure a power of 90 % of rejecting the null hypothesis if it is indeed false.||||<0.0001
95829783|NCT01643876|191630641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-57.5|||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: in individuals with denture stomatitis, there are no difference in the number of Candida Colony-Forming Units (CFUs), before and 3 months after palatal brushing.||||<0.05
95829784|NCT01945775|191630642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.711|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.711|0.413|<0.0001
95829785|NCT01945775|191630643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status.||8.83|2.93|<0.0001
95829786|NCT01945775|191630644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.073|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||1.073|0.670|0.1693
95829787|NCT01945775|191630652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on repeated measures mixed-effect model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate. Analysis was based on restricted maximum likelihood using unstructured covariance matrix.||12.3|4.6|<0.0001
95829788|NCT01945775|191630653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.549|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system metastasis status).||0.549|0.257|<0.0001
95829789|NCT01945775|191630654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.392||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.775|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate (stratification factors: number of prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, triple negative status, history of central nervous system).||0.775|0.198|0.0053
95829790|NCT03461406|191630660|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
95829791|NCT03461406|191630660|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8|Relative risk|1.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 4 Minutes (Soft Tissue)||1.16|0.91|< 0.001
95829792|NCT03461406|191630661|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
95829793|NCT03461406|191630661|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 7 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
95829794|NCT03461406|191630662|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Parenchymous)||1.02|0.94|< 0.001
95829795|NCT03461406|191630662|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was deemed to have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeds 0.8.|Relative risk|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Hemostasis by 10 Minutes (Soft tissue)||1.09|0.92|< 0.001
95829796|NCT01969500|191630681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|6.96|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||6.96|-8.37|.85
95829797|NCT01969500|191630682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.06|||Linear mixed effects model||Mean difference (Intervention Arm - TAU) in change from baseline to 12 weeks|||2.06|-4.66|.44
95960130|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3815
95829798|NCT02193087|191630685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.36||||||DEN-1||0.36|0.23|
95829799|NCT02193087|191630685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.26||||||DEN-2||1.26|0.90|
95829800|NCT02193087|191630685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.89||||||DEN-3||1.89|1.13|
95829801|NCT02193087|191630685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the Two One-Sided Tests (TOST) with α=0.05, if the 90% CI for the ratio of GMT for a given dengue serotype for the comparison was within the range of 0.67 and 1, then the 2 formulations were deemed equivalent.|LS Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.95||||||DEN-4||0.95|0.57|
95829802|NCT00946322|191630715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.028
95829803|NCT00946322|191630716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-tests were used. Due to variable skewness, variables were logarithm-transformed to improve their distributions.||||.022
95829804|NCT00946322|191630717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.043
95829805|NCT00946322|191630718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.482
95829806|NCT00946322|191630719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.009
95829807|NCT00946322|191630720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.001
95829808|NCT00946322|191630721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.027
95829809|NCT00946322|191630722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample t-test||||.177
95829810|NCT03343080|191630724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.776
95829811|NCT03343080|191630725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 hours post-extubation||||0.296
95862365|NCT00829504|191683646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.1||||||90.0|95.64|109.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109|95.64|
95829812|NCT03697993|191630727|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.0||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|8.7|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||8.7|-43.4|0.264
95829813|NCT03697993|191630731|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|24.3|||Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-26.2|1.000
95829814|NCT03697993|191630732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.5|||Proportional odds model using Wald test|||||2.5|0.3|0.894
95829815|NCT03697993|191630733|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|25.3|||Multiple imputation using Wald method|||||25.3|-26.3|0.973
95829816|NCT04384107|191630734|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-1.1|||=|0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||3.6|-5.9|= 0.641
95829817|NCT04384107|191630734|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.2|||=|0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site induration||5.6|-6.1|= 0.937
95829818|NCT04384107|191630734|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|7.1|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||13.8|0.5|= 0.036
95829819|NCT04384107|191630734|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-4.0|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||2.2|-10.2|= 0.208
95829820|NCT04384107|191630735|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.4|||=|0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Decreased appetite||6.0|-6.7|= 0.912
95960131|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4716
95960132|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1063
95960133|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3884
95829821|NCT04384107|191630735|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|5.9|||=|0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Irritability||13.0|-1.3|= 0.108
95829822|NCT04384107|191630735|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|1.0|||=|0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Somnolence||8.4|-6.4|= 0.792
95829823|NCT04384107|191630735|OTHER|Estimated differences, confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Urticaria||2.8|-3.5|= 0.843
95829824|NCT04384107|191630736|OTHER|Estimated differences and CIs are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method and are provided in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.4|
95829825|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
95829826|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.5|1.0|< 0.001
95829827|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
95829828|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
95829829|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.2|-2.6|< 0.001
95829830|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-1.3|-6.9|< 0.001
95829831|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
95829832|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
95960134|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3787
95829833|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.9|< 0.001
95960135|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2537
95960136|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0952
95829834|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.1|-3.0|< 0.001
95829835|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|< 0.001
95829836|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|< 0.001
95829837|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-0.2|-4.0|< 0.001
95855117|NCT03819114|191669696|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.47|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.47|0.26|
95855118|NCT03819114|191669697|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.63|0.39|
95855119|NCT03819114|191669697|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group D / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.86|0.55|
95855120|NCT03819114|191669697|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|2.45|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group B / group A) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||2.45|1.32|
95855121|NCT03819114|191669697|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was performed.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.38|||||The ratios of the geometric means (group A / group C) and its 90% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|||0.38|0.20|
95855122|NCT04226742|191669698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.88||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-3.71|0.79
95855123|NCT04226742|191669699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|4.32||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.32|-2.52|.61
95855124|NCT04226742|191669700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.68||Significance threshold of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.05|0.088
95855125|NCT04226742|191669701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|31.99||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.99|-4.62|0.142
95855126|NCT04226742|191669702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.87||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|1.54||Threshold for statistical significance of alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-15.28|0.109
95855127|NCT04226742|191669703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.89|-6.92|0.736
95855128|NCT03841604|191669704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.32|-1.75|0.1695
95855129|NCT03841604|191669705|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.12|-2.1|0.0784
95855130|NCT03841604|191669706|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.01|-0.45|0.0744
95855131|NCT03841604|191669707|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.49|-0.70|0.7247
95829838|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||4.3|0.4|<0.001
95829839|NCT04384107|191630737|NON_INFERIORITY|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI and p-value based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - PCV13) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Difference in Percent|-6.8|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||-3.5|-10.6|= 0.048
95829840|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.67|||Linear model|||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.67|0.55|< 0.001
95829841|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.05|||Linear model|||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||2.05|1.67|< 0.001
95829842|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Linear model|||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||0.93|0.76|< 0.001
95829843|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.87|||Linear model|||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.87|0.69|< 0.001
95829844|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.56|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.63|||Linear model|||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.63|0.50|= 0.019
95829845|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.59|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.68|||Linear model|||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.68|0.51|= 0.015
95829846|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||Linear model|||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|< 0.001
95829847|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||Linear model|||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.97|0.78|< 0.001
95829848|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.85|||Linear model|||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.85|0.66|< 0.001
95829849|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.67|< 0.001
95829850|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||Linear model|||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.72|0.59|< 0.001
95829851|NCT04384107|191630738|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors. A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to PCV13 is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/PCV13) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.82|||Linear model|||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.82|0.69|< 0.001
95829852|NCT04384107|191630739|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|107.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.18|120.03||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||120.03|96.18|
95829853|NCT04384107|191630739|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|32.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.72|38.05||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||38.05|27.72|
95829854|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 1: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
95829855|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.8||||||Serotype 3: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||5.8|1.8|
95829856|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||||||Serotype 4: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||0.8|-1.7|
95829857|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 5: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829858|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829859|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829860|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 7F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829861|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 9V: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829862|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 14: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829863|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 18C: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829864|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19A: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829865|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Serotype 19F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.1|-1.1|
95829866|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9||||||Serotype 23F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||1.9|-1.1|
95829867|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|94.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.8|96.7||||||Serotype 22F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||96.7|91.8|
95829868|NCT04384107|191630740|OTHER|The stratum-adjusted proportion difference using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight, and the corresponding 95% CI based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen stratified by age category.|Difference in Percent|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.5|91.6||||||Serotype 33F: Participants With IgG ≥0.35 μg/mL||91.6|84.5|
95829869|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.59||||||Serotype 1: IgG GMC Ratio||0.59|0.47|
95829870|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.9||||||Serotype 3: IgG GMC Ratio||1.90|1.53|
95829871|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.05||||||Serotype 4: IgG GMC Ratio||1.05|0.80|
95829872|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.75||||||Serotype 5: IgG GMC Ratio||0.75|0.59|
95829873|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.73||||||Serotype 6A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.73|0.56|
95829874|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||||||Serotype 6B: IgG GMC Ratio||0.84|0.65|
95829875|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.92||||||Serotype 7F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.71|
95829876|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.73|
95829877|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||Serotype 14: IgG GMC Ratio||0.96|0.74|
95829878|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||||||Serotype 18C: IgG GMC Ratio||1.14|0.87|
95829879|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||||||Serotype 19A: IgG GMC Ratio||0.92|0.73|
95960137|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7725
95960138|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0660
95829880|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94||||||Serotype 19F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.94|0.75|
95829881|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7||||||Serotype 23F: IgG GMC Ratio||0.70|0.52|
95829882|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|86.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.61|96.95||||||Serotype 22F: IgG GMC Ratio||96.95|77.61|
95829883|NCT04384107|191630741|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed IgG concentrations as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|45.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.07|51.54||||||Serotype 33F: IgG GMC Ratio||51.54|40.07|
95829884|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.78|0.55|
95829885|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.59||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||1.59|1.23|
95829886|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||1.10|0.85|
95829887|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.80|
95829888|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.89|0.65|
95829889|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.69|
95829890|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.95|0.70|
95829891|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.94|0.71|
95829892|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.38||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.38|0.97|
95829893|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.11|0.90|
95829894|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.77|0.61|
95960139|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3657
95960140|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7717|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7717
95960141|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5849
95829895|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.04||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.04|0.84|
95829896|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.74||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.74|0.53|
95829897|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|560.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.05|662.63||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||662.63|474.05|
95829898|NCT04384107|191630742|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|196.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|141.85|271.21||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||271.21|141.85|
95829899|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.75||||||Serotype 1: OPA GMT Ratio||0.75|0.38|
95829900|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03||||||Serotype 3: OPA GMT Ratio||2.03|1.28|
95862366|NCT01043939|191683658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11||24 participants required to achieve 80% power to detect mean difference of 0.3 in RH-PAT index score between juice groups, assuming standard deviation of the difference was 0.25, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|||0.11|-0.42|0.25
95862367|NCT01043939|191683659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of least square means|3.09||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.||||8.91|-2.73|0.29
95960142|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.958|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9580
95960143|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9884
95829901|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93||||||Serotype 4: OPA GMT Ratio||0.93|0.57|
95829902|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||||||Serotype 5: OPA GMT Ratio||1.13|0.66|
95829903|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91||||||Serotype 6A: OPA GMT Ratio||0.91|0.57|
95829904|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.83||||||Serotype 6B: OPA GMT Ratio||0.83|0.52|
95829905|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.07|0.68|
95829906|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.84||||||Serotype 9V: OPA GMT Ratio||0.84|0.50|
95829907|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.9||||||Serotype 14: OPA GMT Ratio||1.90|1.16|
95829908|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48||||||Serotype 18C: OPA GMT Ratio||1.48|0.95|
95829909|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Serotype 19A: OPA GMT Ratio||1.01|0.60|
95829910|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.52||||||Serotype 19F: OPA GMT Ratio||1.52|1.00|
95960144|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6743
95829911|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||||||Serotype 23F: OPA GMT Ratio||0.49|0.28|
95829912|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|155.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.84|238.59||||||Serotype 22F: OPA GMT Ratio||238.59|101.84|
95829913|NCT04384107|191630743|OTHER|Based on a linear model with natural log-transformed OPA titers as response variable, and vaccination group and age category as factors.|GMT Ratio|16.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.74|24.08||||||Serotype 33F: OPA GMT Ratio||24.08|11.74|
95829914|NCT01751776|191630751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1843|2.9168|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the first adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 1.||2.9168|1.1843|
95829915|NCT01751776|191630751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0869|1.7584|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for Cmax was explored after the last (fourth) adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7584|1.0869|
95829916|NCT01751776|191630752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|2.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1706|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6607|2.3575|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUC 0-infinity was explored after the last adminstration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||2.3575|1.6607|
95829917|NCT01751776|191630753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|1.4225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0876|1.7574|||||Dose proportionality was explored using a regression model. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|Dose proportionality for AUCtau was explored after the last administration of BI 65564 on Day 22.||1.7574|1.0876|
95829918|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.7|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Observed difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
95829919|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||||||||||||Mean Difference in percentage|Expected difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo||||
95829920|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 0%||||
95829921|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|99.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 5%||||
95829922|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|98.7||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 10%||||
95829923|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|96.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 15%||||
95829924|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|90.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 20%||||
95855132|NCT03841604|191669708|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.38|-0.43|0.9052
95829925|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|79.0||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 25%||||
95829926|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|62.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 30%||||
95829927|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|42.9||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 35%||||
95829928|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|24.5||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 40%||||
95829929|NCT01751776|191630755|OTHER|Evaluation of the difference in ACR20 response rates using a Bayesian approach. Results based on 1000000 simulations of the posterior distribution; for the treatment group a non-informative beta (0,0) prior was used; for the placebo group, an informative beta (5.5, 16.5) prior was used; prior to any imputation, assessments up to the End of Trial (EoT) visit were mapped to an on-treatment visit window (Visit 4/Week 2 - Visit 14 (EoT)/Week 12) relative to the day of the first dose.|Probability in percentage|11.1||||||||||||||Probability that difference of ACR20 response for BI 120mg - Placebo is larger than 45%||||
95829930|NCT01751776|191630756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference, unadjusted|18.2||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|38.6|||One-sided exact test (see description)|One-sided exact test for superiority testing|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||38.6|-6.6|0.0754
95829931|NCT01751776|191630756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|39.0|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor (TNF)|adjusted||39.0|-4.6|
95829932|NCT01751776|191630757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, unadjusted|4.5||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|22.3|||one-sided exact test (see description)|one-sided exact test for superiority testing.|The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||22.3|-18.4|0.3938
95829933|NCT01751776|191630757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.1|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||21.1|-18.9|
95829934|NCT01751776|191630760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|32.7|||||The exact 95% confidence interval was calculated by Clopper and Pearson.|unadjusted||32.7|-17.6|
95829935|NCT01751776|191630760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||risk difference, adjusted|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|34.2|||||The 95 % confidence interval was determined by root method to determine the cumulative distribution function. Adjusted for treatment, region and anti-TNF history|adjusted||34.2|-15.9|
95829936|NCT01751776|191630761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.39|||||difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo. The ANCOVA model was used. In this model the mean was adjusted for region, anti-TNF history and baseline DAS28-CRP.|difference calculated as BI 655064 120mg minus placebo.||0.39|-0.67|
95829937|NCT02739321|191630763|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesized benchmark of 30%|Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95829938|NCT02739321|191630764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95829939|NCT02739321|191630765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95829940|NCT02739321|191630766|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
95829941|NCT02739321|191630767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.058
95829942|NCT02739321|191630768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95829943|NCT02739321|191630769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.232
95829944|NCT02739321|191630770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
95829945|NCT02739321|191630771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.285
95829946|NCT02739321|191630772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
95829947|NCT02739321|191630773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
95829948|NCT02739321|191630774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.471
95829949|NCT02739321|191630775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
95829950|NCT02739321|191630776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95829951|NCT02739321|191630777|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of mattress technology was 5.61 (SE = 0.25).|||
95855133|NCT03841604|191669709|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.88|-0.61|0.7115
95829952|NCT02739321|191630778|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely poor, 7 = exceptional) that was used to rate tolerance.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported tolerance of actigraph watch was 5.51 (SE = 0.13).|||
95829953|NCT02739321|191630779|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority compared to the median rating of four on the seven point scale (1 = extremely difficult, 7 = extremely easy) that was used to rate ease of use.|||||||||||||||||The mean rating of parent reported ease of us of the mattress technology was 6.04 (SE = 0.15).|||
95829954|NCT02739321|191630780|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95829955|NCT02558400|191630783|SUPERIORITY|To claim superiority PG324 had to be statistically superior to netarsudil and to latanoprost at all 9 of 9 primary efficacy timepoints|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
95829956|NCT02558400|191630783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
95829957|NCT05065190|191630812|OTHER||Adjusted difference|106.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.13|260.28|||||Adjusted difference between treatment groups was based on a random slope and intercept model with fixed effects for treatment, HRCT pattern, and baseline FVC \[mL\], and including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.|||260.28|-47.13|
95829958|NCT04732949|191630821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to hospital discharge - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.27|0.89|0.509
95829959|NCT04732949|191630822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Cox proportional hazard model|||Hazard Ratio for time to OSCI recovery - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.81|0.888
95829960|NCT04732949|191630823|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for progression to severe disease or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.15|0.44|0.161
95829961|NCT04732949|191630824|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for intubation or death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.61|0.45|0.610
95829962|NCT04732949|191630825|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for death - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.67|0.38|0.544
95829963|NCT04732949|191630826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.64|0.85|0.323
95829964|NCT04732949|191630826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.70|0.81|0.406
95829965|NCT04732949|191630826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.43|0.64|0.828
95829966|NCT04732949|191630826|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for hospital discharge (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.40|0.61|0.706
95829967|NCT04732949|191630827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 7) - SNG001 vs Placebo||3.22|0.90|0.101
95829968|NCT04732949|191630827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 14) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.45|0.67|0.942
95829969|NCT04732949|191630827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 21) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.35|0.68|0.824
95829970|NCT04732949|191630827|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio for OSCI recovery (Day 28) - SNG001 vs Placebo||1.28|0.66|0.613
95829971|NCT04732949|191630829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SNG001 vs Placebo||0.3|-0.1|0.410
95960145|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2689
95829972|NCT01023672|191630839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis was done per protocol (n=17)||||0.003
95829973|NCT01304329|191630863|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.9|105.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||105.29|98.90|
95829974|NCT01304329|191630864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.06|128.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone"||128.07|80.06|
95829975|NCT01304329|191630864|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.09|122.07|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||122.07|90.09|
95829976|NCT01304329|191630865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.91|123.69|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone||123.69|96.91|
95855134|NCT03841604|191669710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.12|-0.04|0.1967
95829977|NCT01304329|191630866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.3|123.77|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||123.77|76.30|
95829978|NCT01304329|191630866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.44|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"Cmax of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||111.44|84.90|
95829979|NCT01304329|191630867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.1|106.06|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by empa alone.||106.06|99.10|
95829980|NCT01304329|191630868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.39|130.29|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||130.29|80.39|
95829981|NCT01304329|191630868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|111.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.93|129.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|"AUC of simvastatin acid.~Considered characteristic is empa plus simvastatin divided by simvastatin alone."||129.02|95.93|
95829982|NCT05545644|191630876|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
95829983|NCT05545644|191630877|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
95829984|NCT05545644|191630878|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
95829985|NCT05545644|191630878|SUPERIORITY|Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Hedges g = .04; SE = .42|||
95829986|NCT05545644|191630879|SUPERIORITY||Hedges g|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||Given the small sample size, we relied more heavily on effect size calculations (Hedges g adjusted for small sample bias).||||||||
95829987|NCT02469714|191630880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total scheduled appointments from 1-13 months||||.04
95829988|NCT02469714|191630880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparison of total achieved appointments from 1-13 months||||.008
95960146|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6907
95829989|NCT02469714|191630881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.135
95829990|NCT02469714|191630882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.077
95829991|NCT02469714|191630883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.0005
95829992|NCT02469714|191630884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.060
95829993|NCT02469714|191630885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.073
95829994|NCT02469714|191630886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.34
95829995|NCT02469714|191630887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis applies from baseline to 12 month.||||.21
95829996|NCT02876328|191630888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Each active group is compared to placebo using a 2-sided .0167 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analyses are stratified by site.||Analysis applies to both adults and children.||||<.001
95829997|NCT05432167|191630899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.79|-13.36|0.003
95829998|NCT05432167|191630900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.051||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-1.19|-13.24|0.019
95855135|NCT03841604|191669711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.26|-0.13|0.5122
95855136|NCT03841604|191669713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|2.16|||ANCOVA|||||2.16|-3.03|0.7376
95960147|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4798
95960148|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5609
95829999|NCT05432167|191630901|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.098||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures including fixed effects for treatment, visit, stratification variables (SGLT2 inhibitor use and CKD category), and the treatment-by-visit interaction, along with a covariate of the baseline seated SBP value and the baseline seated SBP by visit interaction.||-2.87|-15.10|0.004
95830000|NCT02068118|191630924|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.23|0.77|=0.80
95830001|NCT02068118|191630925|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.82|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.1|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.10|0.62|=0.18
95830002|NCT02068118|191630926|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.6|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.92|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths that occurred during hospitalization with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||0.92|0.39|=0.02
95830003|NCT02068118|191630927|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.68
95830004|NCT02068118|191630929|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Log Rank|||Time to death from any cause compared using the log-rank test||||=0.85
95830005|NCT02068118|191630930|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.21|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).||1.21|0.78|=0.77
95830006|NCT02068118|191630931|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.97|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||negative binomial regression|||"Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up).~Deaths from cardiovascular cause that occurred during a hospitalization for cardiovascular cause with an overnight stay were counted as two events."||1.27|0.74|=0.83
95830007|NCT02068118|191630932|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.84|||=|0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.15|0.62|=0.28
95830008|NCT02068118|191630933|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.71|||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.04|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||1.04|0.48|=0.078
95830009|NCT02068118|191630934|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.5|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.91|||negative binomial regression|||Number of events compared using a negative binomial regression model with log link for the expected rate of events (i.e., number of events divided by the effective duration of follow-up)||0.91|0.28|=0.023
95960149|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9834
95960150|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8339
95830010|NCT02068118|191630935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.99|0.62|=0.044
95830011|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.06|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.61||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with physical functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.61|-2.48|=0.17
95830012|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.8|||=|0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|6.21||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Physical score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role physical score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||6.21|-2.61|=0.23
95830013|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.46|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.33||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Bodily Pain score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with bodily pain score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||8.33|0.59|=0.50
95855137|NCT03841604|191669714|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|5.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.43|-10.33|0.5349
95830014|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.52|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|5.12||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA General Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with general health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||5.12|-0.07|=0.19
95830015|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.38|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.85||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Vitality score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with vitality score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.85|-0.09|=0.034
95830016|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|4.03|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.47||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Social Functioning score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with social functioning score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||7.47|0.60|=0.025
95830017|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.01|||=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|4.81||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Role Emotional score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with role emotional score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.81|-2.79|=0.90
95830018|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|2.26|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.37||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Health score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with mental health score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||4.37|0.16|=0.19
95830019|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|0.9|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.28||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Physical Component Summary (PCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with PCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.28|-0.48|=0.26
95830020|NCT02068118|191630936|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Means Difference|1.2|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.31||Study group effect over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||ANCOVA Mental Component Summary (MCS) score: Parametric analysis of covariance mixed model on repeated measurements (Baseline, 12 and 18 months) with MCS score assessed at baseline as covariate, study group and visit as fixed factors, interaction between study group and visit, interaction between study group and score assessed at baseline and patient as random factor||2.31|0.08|=0.17
95830021|NCT02068118|191630941|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.03
95830022|NCT02068118|191630942|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15|||||||Log Rank|||Time to first event compared using the log-rank test||||=0.15
95830023|NCT02068118|191630943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.95|0.53|=0.02
95830024|NCT02068118|191630944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||Time to first unplanned hospital readmission for heart failure compared using multivariable Cox regression model||0.98|0.39|=0.043
95830025|NCT00353873|191630950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.5|||ANCOVA|||||13.5|1.7|0.012
95830026|NCT00353873|191630951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. If the lower confidence interval for the difference SFC-FP falls above -12 L/min the once daily SFC treatment combination was deemed to be statistically non-inferior. In the event that the lower confidence limit (2.5% 1-sided significance) exceeded 0, and using a separate closed testing procedure, superiority could be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.3|3.2|0.003
95830027|NCT00353873|191630952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.7|0.389
95830028|NCT00353873|191630953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.9|0.7|0.535
95855138|NCT00248040|191669784|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.275||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.45|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours time point||4.45|-5.00|0.9076
95855139|NCT00248040|191669784|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|2.444||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|7.21|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 1-3 hours timepoint.||7.21|-2.32|0.3084
95855140|NCT00248040|191669784|OTHER||Difference between means|-2.719||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|2.03|||Other|||||2.03|-7.47|0.2565
95830029|NCT03743064|191630974|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.851|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant.~The null hypothesis for mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks (H0w) and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (H1w) were:~H0w: MWa = MWp H1w: MWa ≠ MWp~Where MWa is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the anamorelin arm and MWp is the mean change in body weight from baseline over 12 weeks for the placebo arm."||1.851|0.718|<0.0001
95830030|NCT03743064|191630975|SUPERIORITY|The Multiple Imputation process (N=100) was performed leading to least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) estimates using the ANOVA model (including treatment group and the 3 stratification factors at randomization as categorical covariates). The estimates were pooled using Rubin rule, with corresponding p-value for difference between treatment groups. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each treatment group and for the pooled difference between the groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.923|||ANOVA|||"To declare anamorelin superior to the placebo, both co-primary endpoints had to be significant. The null hypothesis for mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in patient 5-IASS (H0A) and the corresponding alternative (H1A) were:~H0A: MAa = MAp; H1A: MAa ≠ MAp~Where MAa is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the anamorelin arm and MAp is the mean change from baseline over 12 weeks in 5-IASS for the placebo arm."||0.923|-0.641|0.7241
95830031|NCT03743064|191630976|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|3.216|||ANOVA|||||3.216|0.946|0.0003
95830032|NCT03743064|191630977|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.471|3.337|||ANOVA|||||3.337|1.471|<0.0001
95830033|NCT03743064|191630978|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|1.472|||ANOVA|||||1.472|-0.215|0.1443
95830034|NCT03743064|191630979|SUPERIORITY|All secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same statistical model and multiple imputation approach as for the co-primary efficacy endpoints.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.452||0.7376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|1.036|||ANOVA|||||1.036|-0.734|0.7376
95830035|NCT03973905|191630987|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|65.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|92.68|||||Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy (at least 14 days before delivery) at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.68|-64.93|
95830036|NCT03973905|191630988|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|42.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1071.8|97.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.13|-1071.80|
95830037|NCT03973905|191630988|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|62.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-439.75|97.35|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during first or second trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||97.35|-439.75|
95830038|NCT03973905|191630988|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.37|52.16|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||52.16|-166.37|
95830039|NCT03973905|191630989|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|64.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.51|92.13|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix at any time during pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||92.13|-57.51|
95830040|NCT03973905|191630990|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|17.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12529.0|99.46|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix before pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||99.46|-12529.0|
95855141|NCT00248040|191669784|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-0.063||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|6.79|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||6.79|-6.91|0.9855
95960151|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8730
95830041|NCT03973905|191630990|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|85.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.91|98.03|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix during third trimester of pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||98.03|-13.91|
95830042|NCT03973905|191630990|OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|37.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|79.25|||||VE was estimated as (1-odds ratio) × 100%. The Confidence Interval was calculated based on the conditional binomial distribution of cases in the exposed group and the total number of cases.|To assess the effectiveness of maternal vaccination with Boostrix after pregnancy at preventing pertussis in infants \<2 months||79.25|-87.40|
95830043|NCT02648217|191630991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Contrast|0.02||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|||The endpoint was analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, sex, region, previous OAD treatment, pre-Ramadan trial exposure and visit as factors and age and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates are included in the model.||0.24|-0.20|0.8426
95830044|NCT02553538|191630998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95830045|NCT02553538|191630999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95830046|NCT02553538|191631000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95830047|NCT02553538|191631001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95830048|NCT00870194|191631002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority Margin of 0.4%||||||0.012||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.012
95830049|NCT00870194|191631002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.53|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Standard Error of the Least Square Mean|Power calculation: 80% assuming 200 patients (100 in each arm), no true difference and 1.0% standard deviation.||0.53|0.07|.012
95830050|NCT00870194|191631003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.038
95960152|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6327
95830051|NCT00870194|191631004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.027
95830052|NCT00870194|191631005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.480
95830053|NCT00870194|191631006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.038
95830054|NCT00870194|191631007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.266
95830055|NCT00870194|191631008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.095
95830056|NCT00870194|191631009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.567
95830057|NCT00870194|191631010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||.207
95830058|NCT00870194|191631011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.055
95830059|NCT00870194|191631012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.269
95830060|NCT00870194|191631013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.622
95830061|NCT00870194|191631014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.888
95830062|NCT00870194|191631015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.287
95830063|NCT00870194|191631016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.498
95830064|NCT00870194|191631017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||.247
95830065|NCT00870194|191631018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||1.00
95830066|NCT00707746|191631024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C was 20%. A sample size of 30 patients was planned for this study: 20 patients in the mipomersen group and 10 patients in the placebo group. A 2-sided t-test with an alpha level of 0.05 was expected to provide ≥90% power to detect a 30% difference in LDL-C percent reduction between the 2 groups (35% reduction for the mipomersen group and 5% reduction for the placebo group).||||<0.001
95830067|NCT00707746|191631027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
95830068|NCT00707746|191631029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95960153|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3986
95862368|NCT01043939|191683660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|0.92||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|MPO was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||1.03|0.82|0.15
95862369|NCT01043939|191683661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of means|1.34||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects ANCOVA model with baseline included as a covariate, subject as a random effect; juice, period \& group as fixed effects.|hs-CRP was log transformed prior to analyses; the difference of log-transformed least square means (95% CI) were back-transformed to obtain the ratio of the means (95% CI).|||2.62|0.69|0.37
95862370|NCT03467152|191683727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6909||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6909
95862371|NCT03467152|191683728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.8251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.492||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.492|0.695|0.8251
95862372|NCT03467152|191683729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.853||||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.247||Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analysis (GLMM)|GLMM|||||1.247|0.584|0.3003
95862373|NCT03467152|191683730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9198||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.9198
95862374|NCT03467152|191683731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2909
95862375|NCT03467152|191683732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.6127
95862376|NCT03467152|191683733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8780
95862377|NCT03467152|191683734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.4090
95862378|NCT03467152|191683735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8736||||||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM)|MMRM|||||||0.8736
95960154|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6370
95960155|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9869
95862379|NCT01236547|191683748|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.1379|Log Rank||Reference arm = placebo|Assuming hazard ratio (pazopanib/placebo) of 0.625 (1-year 19% vs. 35.4%), 1-sided alpha 0.15, logrank test, 80% power, 1 interim analysis, required 71 deaths in 79 eligible patients (88 allowing 10% ineligible) in original design. The protocol was amended for phase II final analysis to be performed after all phase II eligible participants were potentially followed for 3 years with 1-sided alpha 0.1379, providing 77% power. See Limitations and Caveats||1.43|0.52|0.2831
95862380|NCT01236547|191683750|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.67|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.15|Reference arm = placebo|||2.67|0.55|0.6880
95862381|NCT01236547|191683751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1921||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1921
95862382|NCT01236547|191683752|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95862383|NCT01236547|191683753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||1.00
95862384|NCT00435045|191683769|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the non-HDL-C response was assessed by calculating the 2-sided 90% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)for each difference in response based on comparing the effects of increases in atorvastatin dose on the percent changes from baseline to the end of each atorvastatin period, a repeated-ANOVA model was used.||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95862385|NCT01743001|191683794|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-4.7||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|13.5||To control for multiplicity across the primary and secondary endpoints, all secondary endpoints were analyzed hierarchically according to order and significance as pre-specified in the protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group, presence of DS (yes/no), and WHO FC (II vs III/IV) as categorical factors, and baseline 6MWD value as covariate||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between macitentan and placebo for the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in 6MWD. Null hypothesis was tested by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||13.5|-22.8|0.6120
95960156|NCT00551135|191892792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from walking (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7550
95960157|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2912
95960158|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3723
95862386|NCT01743001|191683795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.24||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model adjusted for randomized treatment group and location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid / post-tricupsid ) as factors.||For this secondary endpoint of WHO functional class, the improvement from baseline to Week 16 in WHO functional class was evaluated. The null hypothesis is the odds of improvement are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group.||1.24|0.23|0.1450
95862387|NCT01743001|191683796|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.08||||0.6818||95.0|-0.29|0.44||The secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed hierarchically as this approach eliminated the requirement for further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect(pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors, baseline Borg dyspnea index as covariate||The null hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 in the Borg dyspnea index is the same in the macitentan and in the placebo group.||0.44|-0.29|0.6818
95862388|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.1|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning.||3.1|-5.0|0.6431
95862389|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical.||3.9|-6.7|0.5988
95862390|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index.||6.2|-5.9|0.9642
95862391|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|3.1||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions.||7.3|-1.2|0.1542
95862392|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality.||5.3|-3.1|0.6020
95862393|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning.||4.4|-7.2|0.6340
95862394|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.8||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional.||3.0|-8.7|0.3384
95862395|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-2.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.8|-6.4|0.2704
95862396|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.4||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Physical Functioning (norm-based).||1.3|-2.1|0.6431
95862397|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.5988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Physical (norm-based).||1.5|-2.6|0.5988
95960159|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6116
95960160|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0835
95960161|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1497
95960162|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3950
95960163|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5892
95960164|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6143|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6143
95960165|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0104
95830069|NCT00707746|191631031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95830070|NCT00707746|191631033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95830071|NCT00707746|191631035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95830072|NCT00707746|191631037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95830073|NCT00707746|191631039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95830074|NCT00707746|191631041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
95830075|NCT00707746|191631043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤0.05. No further adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
95830076|NCT02076399|191631056|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.1|||Fisher Exact|||||28.1|7.2|0.0261
95830077|NCT02076399|191631061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.01|0.6642
95830078|NCT02076399|191631062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.3365
95830079|NCT01049802|191631074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95830080|NCT01049802|191631075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95830081|NCT01049802|191631076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95830082|NCT01049802|191631077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95830083|NCT01049802|191631078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95830084|NCT02741570|191631184|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.51|0.59|1.03|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.03|0.59|0.0469
95960166|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5666
95960167|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9008
95960168|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0967
95960169|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8353
95960170|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4530
95960171|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7297|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7297
95960172|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0692
95830085|NCT02741570|191631185|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.4951|TWO_SIDED|97.9|0.8|1.13|||Log Rank|stratified regular log-rank test||||1.13|0.80|0.4951
95830086|NCT02741570|191631186|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95||||||||0.95|0.68|
95830087|NCT02741570|191631187|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.63|||||All Randomized Participants|||1.63|1.19|
95830088|NCT02741570|191631187|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.3|||||All Randomized PD-L1 CPS \>= 20 Participants|||1.30|0.77|
95830089|NCT02741570|191631190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97||||||||0.97|0.60|
95830090|NCT02741570|191631191|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08||||||||1.08|0.82|
95830091|NCT01075971|191631192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.19||Analysis of variance with repeated measurements (daily scores from day 1 to day 5) for the whole set of patients was performed adjusted on the formulation (SL vs. FDT). Other independent factors were the subject and the day.|Analysis of variance|||||2.19|1.35|<0.0001
95830092|NCT01241760|191631204|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin of -11%, non-inferiority was established.|Difference in proportion of response, %|1.5||||||95.0|-4.9|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|The 95% confidence interval of the difference in proportions was estimated using a logistic regression model.|Observed data|||12|-4.9|
95830093|NCT01688921|191631233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.12|0.88|
95830094|NCT01688921|191631234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.21||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.21|0.96|
95830095|NCT01688921|191631235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (GMT with NS / GMT with PJ Stratis) for each antigen did not exceed 1.5 fold.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 99% to rule out the 1.5-fold difference using a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming equal GMTs between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||1.06|0.83|
95830096|NCT01688921|191631236|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||6.5|-4.8|
95855142|NCT00248040|191669784|SUPERIORITY|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|4.519||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|11.39|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours timepoint.||11.39|-2.36|0.1934
95960173|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6333
95960174|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0325
95830097|NCT01688921|191631237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Seroconversion rate defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer. The non-inferiority margin was defined as the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates(rate with NS - with PJ Stratis) for each vaccine strain did not exceed 10 percentage points|Seroconversion Rate Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.1||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 95% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||7.1|-4.5|
95830098|NCT01688921|191631238|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Seroconversion rate was defined as the proportion of subjects with either a pre-vaccination titer of \<10 achieving a post-vaccination antibody of HI titer of ≥ 40 or with a pre-vaccination HI titer of ≥ 10 achieving a four-fold or greater increase in post-vaccination HI titer.~The upper-bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in seroconversion rates for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains did not exceed 10 percentage points (6.5, 7.1, and 5.9 respectively)."|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9||||||For a sample size of 550 per group each test has an individual power of \> 91% to rule out the 10 percentage points difference using a one-sided α = 0.025, assuming equal seroconversion rates between the two treatment groups. The overall power for the study to demonstrate the non-inferiority for the 6 co-primary endpoints is \> 80%, computed as product of 6 individual powers.||5.9|-5.2|
95830099|NCT01688921|191631239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immediate adverse events were reported within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination; therefore, they are all considered related to study treatment.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95830100|NCT01688921|191631240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The safety population included subjects who received the vaccination and for whom follow-up data were available for a specific safety analysis. Therefore, the denominators for different safety tables vary, depending on the availability of the data.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95830101|NCT01636713|191631243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.191|0.110|<0.001
95830102|NCT01636713|191631243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference= UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.257|0.175|<0.001
95830103|NCT03582813|191631283|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-perceived Recovery and that this effect would be maintained overtime;||||<.01
95830104|NCT03582813|191631284|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in self-esteem that would be maintained longitudinally||||.031
95830105|NCT03582813|191631285|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in coping mastery that would be maintained longitudinally||||<0.01
95830106|NCT03582813|191631286|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report larger increases than controls in perceived autonomy support that would be maintained longitudinally||||0.030
95830107|NCT03582813|191631287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.74|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of employment that would be maintained longitudinally||4.74|1.01|0.046
95830108|NCT03582813|191631288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.44|||Regression, Logistic|||This mixed effects random regression analysis tested whether intervention participants would report greater likelihood of enrollment in educational classes that would be maintained longitudinally||11.44|1.50|<0.01
95830109|NCT00316524|191631290|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 4 (vaccinia experienced subjects receiving a single vaccination) is non-inferior to Group 1 (vaccinia naive subjects receiving 2 vaccinations) in terms of seroconversion rate 2 weeks after the last vaccination was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-3.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-7.36||||||||||-7.36|
95830110|NCT02525094|191631301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33||||||||4.33|0.90|
95830111|NCT02117349|191631313|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.8|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|401.0||Study was terminated early at 55 randomized subjects, therefore p-value is considered nominal|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) and Wald-based 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) are from logistic regression model comparing the response between treatment arms.||401.0|4.58|= 0.0010
95830112|NCT02033213|191631321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.410
95830113|NCT02033213|191631321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.621
95830114|NCT02033213|191631322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.791
95830115|NCT02033213|191631322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.410
95830116|NCT02033213|191631323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement aws assessed at 10 minutes time point.||||0.322
95830117|NCT02033213|191631323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||The measurement was assessed at 6 hours time point.||||0.574
95830118|NCT02033213|191631324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.030
95830119|NCT02033213|191631324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||||||P \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.096
95830120|NCT02033213|191631325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.362
95830121|NCT02033213|191631326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.020
95830122|NCT03474081|191631328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.128||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.128|0.062|<0.001
95830123|NCT03474081|191631329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.15||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.150|0.094|<0.001
95830124|NCT03474081|191631330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.118||The MMRM model included Baseline FEV1, visit, geographical region, and treatment as covariates and visit-by-Baseline FEV1 and visit-by-treatment interaction terms.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.118|0.056|<0.001
95830125|NCT02230683|191631338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.89|||Paired t-test||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.89|-3.16|0.257
95830126|NCT02230683|191631338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|4.32|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup||4.32|-0.52|0.1174
95830127|NCT02230683|191631338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-3.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.05||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-1.46|||ANCOVA||within group change|Statistical Analysis for the mean change of the Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup||-1.46|-5.88|0.0025
95830128|NCT02230683|191631339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.03|-0.42|0.026
95830129|NCT02230683|191631339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.46||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the mean change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-0.21|-0.72|0.001
95830130|NCT02230683|191631339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||within group change|-0.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in log-transformed caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||0.18|-0.26|0.72
95830131|NCT02230683|191631340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-21.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT for the overall evaluable population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.105
95830132|NCT02230683|191631340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-52.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|-6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG \< 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||-6|-109|0.016
95830133|NCT02230683|191631340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|12.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change of caspase-cleaved cytokeratin serum levels from Baseline to Day 28/EOT in the HVPG ≥ 12 mmHg subgroup population treated with IDN-6556 25 mg twice daily||13|-60|0.839
95830134|NCT02230683|191631341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||0|-7|0.0084
95830135|NCT02230683|191631342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis for the median change in Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) from Baseline to Day 28/EOT||-1|-7|0.0131
95830136|NCT02230683|191631343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-772.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.0|-19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimated value is the ratio for the difference from baseline.|Statistical Analysis for the median change in concentration of Caspase 3/7 Relative Light Units from baseline to Day 28/EOT||-19|-1188|0.003
95830137|NCT02440789|191631348|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.56
95830138|NCT02440789|191631350|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.11
95830139|NCT02440789|191631352|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test; results less than the analysis lower limit (0.7 cp/mL) were imputed to a value of one half the analysis lower limit.||||||0.93
95830140|NCT02440789|191631354|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.041
95830141|NCT02440789|191631357|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
95830142|NCT02440789|191631359|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.26
95830143|NCT02440789|191631361|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.75
95830144|NCT02440789|191631363|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.97
95830145|NCT02440789|191631365|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
95830146|NCT02440789|191631367|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.47
95830147|NCT02440789|191631369|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.72
95830148|NCT02440789|191631371|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
95830149|NCT02440789|191631373|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.7
95830150|NCT02440789|191631375|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.28
95830151|NCT02440789|191631377|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.77
95830152|NCT02440789|191631379|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.93
95830153|NCT02440789|191631381|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.65
95830154|NCT02440789|191631383|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.22
95830155|NCT02440789|191631385|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.031
95830156|NCT02440789|191631387|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.005
95830157|NCT02440789|191631389|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.69
95830158|NCT02440789|191631391|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.008
95830159|NCT03780959|191631402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by study center and the number of active joints at randomization||||||0.0030
95830160|NCT03780959|191631403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95830161|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \<1250 gm||||0.571
95830162|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \<1250 gm while anemic||||0.345
95830163|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in superior mesenteric artery blood flow velocity from pre- to post- feed in the anemic state for babies \>1250 gm||||0.006
95830164|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change in peak systolic blood flow velocity from pre-to post feed for babies \>1250 gm while anemic||||0.035
95830165|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.910
95830166|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \<1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.850
95830167|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in mean mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.507
95830168|NCT00167388|191631416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in peak systolic mesenteric blood flow velocity from pre-to post-feed for babies \>1250 gm after the PRBC transfusion||||0.286
95830169|NCT00098722|191631457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1802|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.426|-0.616||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.616|-1.426|
95830170|NCT00098722|191631457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1786|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.444|-0.64||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.640|-1.444|
95830171|NCT00098722|191631458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.379|-0.544||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.544|-1.379|
95830172|NCT00098722|191631458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.523|-0.695||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.695|-1.523|
95830173|NCT00098722|191631459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|8.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||8.23|2.56|<0.0001
95830174|NCT00098722|191631459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||10.78|3.35|<0.0001
95830175|NCT00098722|191631459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|7.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.20|2.25|<0.0001
95830176|NCT00098722|191631459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|7.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.85|2.47|<0.0001
95830177|NCT00098722|191631460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|8.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.10|2.72|<0.0001
95830178|NCT00098722|191631460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.62|2.91|<0.0001
95830179|NCT00098722|191631460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.32|2.13|<0.0001
95830180|NCT00098722|191631460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|8.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.02|2.69|<0.0001
95830181|NCT00098722|191631461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.64|<0.0001
95830182|NCT00098722|191631461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|9.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||9.39|3.13|<0.0001
95830183|NCT00098722|191631461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.00|2.29|<0.0001
95830184|NCT00098722|191631461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.89|2.91|<0.0001
95830185|NCT00098722|191631462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.48|1.95|<0.0001
95830186|NCT00098722|191631462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odd ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.59|0.0005
95830187|NCT00098722|191631462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|7.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.92|2.26|<0.0001
95830188|NCT00098722|191631462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.64|2.20|<0.0001
95830189|NCT00098722|191631464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.64|74.25||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||74.25|21.64|
95830190|NCT00098722|191631464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|38.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|64.28||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||64.28|11.96|
95830191|NCT00098722|191631464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|52.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.803|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.06|81.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||81.25|23.06|
95830192|NCT00098722|191631464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.53|87.4||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||87.40|29.53|
95830193|NCT00098722|191631465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|218.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.59|358.54||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||358.54|78.59|
95830194|NCT00098722|191631465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|70.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|272.47||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||272.47|-6.03|
95830195|NCT00098722|191631465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|136.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.24|250.62||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||250.62|23.24|
95830196|NCT00098722|191631465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|140.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.15|253.35||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||253.35|27.15|
95830197|NCT00098722|191631466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.56|0.29|<0.0001
95830198|NCT00098722|191631466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.46|0.23|<0.0001
95830199|NCT00098722|191631467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.177|-0.575||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.575|-1.177|
95830200|NCT00098722|191631467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1521|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.584|-1.181|
95830201|NCT00098722|191631467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.855|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.521||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.521|-1.189|
95830202|NCT00098722|191631467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1685|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.701||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.701|-1.364|
95830203|NCT02046070|191631499|OTHER|||||||0.4859|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.4859
95830204|NCT02046070|191631499|OTHER|||||||0.6757|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR rate=27% in treatment arms obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.6757
95830205|NCT02046070|191631500|OTHER|||||||0.9688|||||||Chi-squared|||P-value tests the null hypothesis: CR+VGPR+PR rate=60% obtained using the one-sided Chi-Square test with alpha=0.10.||||0.9688
95830206|NCT05601102|191631534|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.41
95830207|NCT05601102|191631535|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale analysis||||.01
95830208|NCT05601102|191631535|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.42
95830209|NCT05601102|191631536|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
95830210|NCT05601102|191631537|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
95830211|NCT05601102|191631538|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
95830212|NCT05601102|191631539|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.22
95830213|NCT05601102|191631540|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
95830214|NCT05601102|191631541|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95830215|NCT05601102|191631542|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
95830216|NCT05601102|191631543|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95830217|NCT05601102|191631544|EQUIVALENCE|pre- to post-intervention paired t-test, two-tailed|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95830218|NCT00300677|191631547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
95830219|NCT00300677|191631547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
95830220|NCT00300677|191631548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|300.28||||||90.0|192.91|467.43|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||467.43|192.91|
95830221|NCT00300677|191631548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|192.72||||||90.0|123.81|300.0|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||300.00|123.81|
95830222|NCT00300677|191631549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted geometric means|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
95830223|NCT00300677|191631549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted geometric means|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
95855143|NCT00248040|191669784|OTHER|The model included fixed effect terms for center, time point, and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.|Difference between means|-4.582||||0.1797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.17|||Other|||This analysis refers to the 10-12 hours time point.||2.17|-11.3|0.1797
95855144|NCT00118417|191669803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||Paired t-test between endpoint and baseline PDSS|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 38||||||0.0000
95862398|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.1||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Pain Index (norm-based).||2.6|-2.5|0.9642
95830224|NCT00300677|191631550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||predose: ratio adjusted mean|12.39||||||90.0|7.09|21.65|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plama (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 pre-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||21.65|7.09|
95830225|NCT00300677|191631550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||postdose: ratio adjusted mean|31.57||||||90.0|18.06|55.18|||ANOVA|Mixed-effects analysis of variance model with time, compartment, and time by compartment interaction as fixed effects and subjects as random effects.|Estimated value = ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means comparing brain (test) vs. plasma (reference) concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide.|Other estimated parameter represents the Day 3 post-dose ratio of the adjusted geometric means comparing brain vs. plasma concentrations of voriconazole N-oxide. Natural-log transformed concentrations of voriconazole were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to obtain the adjusted mean difference (Test-Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the difference which were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of the adjusted geometric means and 90% CI for the ratio.||55.18|18.06|
95830226|NCT00159913|191631565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.056||95.0|-0.19|15.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons have been made.|ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||15.60|-0.19|0.056
95830227|NCT00159913|191631565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||||95.0|-6.11|13.73|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||13.73|-6.11|
95830228|NCT00159913|191631565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||||95.0|1.72|20.94|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||20.94|1.72|
95830229|NCT00159913|191631565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||||95.0|-1.64|17.6|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates.||||17.60|-1.64|
95830230|NCT00159913|191631566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.172||95.0|-7.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.3|-7.5|0.172
95830231|NCT00159913|191631566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||||95.0|-4.5|7.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||7.6|-4.5|
95830232|NCT00159913|191631566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-8.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||1.9|-8.9|
95830233|NCT00159913|191631566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-12.4|-2.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met with main analysis: alternative=excluding outliers||||-2.1|-12.4|
95830234|NCT00159913|191631567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.041||95.0|-8.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-0.2|-8.0|0.041
95830235|NCT00159913|191631567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||||95.0|-5.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||4.7|-5.9|
95830236|NCT00159913|191631567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-9.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||0.3|-9.3|
95830237|NCT00159913|191631567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||||95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|Covariates:etiology, wt grp, capability performing exercise test. Normality assumptions not met w/ main analysis: alternative=natural log transformed||||-2.7|-11.7|
95830238|NCT00159913|191631568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.795||95.0|-4.07|5.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||5.30|-4.07|0.795
95862399|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|1.5||||0.1542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of General Health Perceptions (norm-based).||3.5|-0.6|0.1542
95830239|NCT00159913|191631568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||||95.0|-3.31|8.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||8.54|-3.31|
95830240|NCT00159913|191631568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||||95.0|-7.09|4.5|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||4.50|-7.09|
95830241|NCT00159913|191631568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.24|6.28|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||6.28|-5.24|
95830242|NCT00159913|191631569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2||0.139||95.0|-3.05|21.54|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.54|-3.05|0.139
95830243|NCT00159913|191631569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||95.0|-5.21|25.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||25.90|-5.21|
95830244|NCT00159913|191631569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.67||||95.0|-3.78|26.64|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||26.64|-3.78|
95830245|NCT00159913|191631569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||||95.0|-9.16|21.08|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology and weight group||||21.08|-9.16|
95830246|NCT00159913|191631570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.172||95.0|-7.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.3|-7.1|0.172
95830247|NCT00159913|191631570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||||95.0|-5.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||5.9|-5.5|
95830248|NCT00159913|191631570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-8.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.7|-8.5|
95830249|NCT00159913|191631570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-10.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||-0.7|-10.3|
95830250|NCT00159913|191631571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.015||95.0|0.14|1.34|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.34|0.14|0.015
95830251|NCT00159913|191631571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||||95.0|-0.1|1.52|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.52|-0.10|
95830252|NCT00159913|191631571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||95.0|-0.12|1.35|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.35|-0.12|
95830253|NCT00159913|191631571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||||95.0|0.21|1.58|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.58|0.21|
95830254|NCT00159913|191631572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.44||95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.77|-1.77|0.440
95830255|NCT00159913|191631572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||||95.0|-1.91|1.57|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.57|-1.91|
95830256|NCT00159913|191631572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||||95.0|-1.73|1.36|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||1.36|-1.73|
95830257|NCT00159913|191631572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||||95.0|-2.61|0.33|||ANCOVA|The model included the covariates etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test||||0.33|-2.61|
95830258|NCT00159913|191631573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.75||95.0|-4.45|3.21|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||3.21|-4.45|0.750
95830259|NCT00159913|191631573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||||95.0|-4.21|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|-4.21|
95830260|NCT00159913|191631573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||||95.0|-4.68|5.15|||ANCOVA|||||5.15|-4.68|
95830261|NCT00159913|191631573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||||95.0|-7.37|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|-7.37|
95830262|NCT00159913|191631574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.784||95.0|-3.41|2.58|||ANCOVA|The covariates included in the model were baseline scale, etiology, weight and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.58|-3.41|0.784
95830263|NCT00159913|191631574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||||95.0|-3.49|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.30|-3.49|
95830264|NCT00159913|191631574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||||95.0|-5.99|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-5.99|
95830265|NCT00159913|191631574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||||95.0|-3.06|3.97|||ANCOVA|||||3.97|-3.06|
95830266|NCT00159913|191631575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.184||95.0|0.75|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||4.45|0.75|0.184
95830267|NCT00159913|191631575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.409||95.0|0.18|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||2.01|0.18|0.409
95830268|NCT00159913|191631575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.146||95.0|0.75|6.69|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||6.69|0.75|0.146
95855145|NCT00118417|191669804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change score|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 22||||||0.97
95830269|NCT00159913|191631575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.006||95.0|1.56|13.1|||Regression, Logistic|Proportional odds method. Model covariates were baseline WHO functional class, etiology, weight group and capability of performing the exercise test.||||13.10|1.56|0.006
95830270|NCT00159913|191631576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.179||95.0|-2.74|14.53|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||14.53|-2.74|0.179
95830271|NCT00159913|191631576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||||95.0|-9.49|11.77|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||11.77|-9.49|
95830272|NCT00159913|191631576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||||95.0|0.66|21.96|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||21.96|0.66|
95830273|NCT00159913|191631576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||||95.0|-5.02|15.5|||ANCOVA|Analyses performed using analysis of covariance with etiology, weight and baseline peak VO2 as the covariates||||15.50|-5.02|
95830274|NCT02590562|191631635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||<0.0001
95830275|NCT02590562|191631636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||F test|||||||0.0108
95830276|NCT00824005|191631644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the change in the cell group to the change in the placebo group.||2.34|-0.42|0.169
95830277|NCT00824005|191631645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|12.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end systolic volume over time.||12.07|-10.05|0.856
95830278|NCT00824005|191631646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.3||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|10.1||Is the change in percent reversible defect the same between the two groups|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in percent of the defect that is reversible||10.1|-12.5|0.835
95830279|NCT00824005|191631649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||0.14|-0.30|0.471
95830280|NCT00824005|191631650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.784||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in average improvement in Canadian Class Score over time between the two groups.||0.16|-0.66|0.227
95830281|NCT00824005|191631651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in NYHA score between the two groups||0.21|-0.56|0.361
95830282|NCT00824005|191631652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the proportion of particip|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.045||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Difference in the change in anti-anginal meds across groups||0.09|-0.01|0.28
95830283|NCT00824005|191631653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|104.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|409.0||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|303.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in six minute walk distance||303|-95|0.302
95830284|NCT00824005|191631654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change in BNP(reg) between cell and placebo group||80|-150|0.55
95830285|NCT00824005|191631655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|23.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in the difference of end diastolic volume between the two groups over time.||23.93|-5.03|0.198
95830286|NCT00824005|191631656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the incidence rates|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.039|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events between the two groups over time. (Incidence rate)||0.039|-0.133|0.47
95830287|NCT00824005|191631657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in the change between the two groups||3.36|-4.78|0.7
95830288|NCT00385723|191631683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.028||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months||-0.028|-0.19|0.03
95830289|NCT00385723|191631683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.052||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.052|-0.22|0.004
95830290|NCT00385723|191631684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.21|-0.62|0.0003
95830291|NCT00385723|191631684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.22||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||-0.22|-0.64|0.0002
95830292|NCT00385723|191631685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||1.25 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.18|-0.64|0.80
95830293|NCT00385723|191631685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in change from baseline|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.21||Bonferroni-adjusted to account for multiple testing.|Mixed Models Analysis||2.5 g/d minus placebo|Comparison was made on the change from baseline to 4 months.||0.21|-0.61|1.0
95830294|NCT03458702|191631686|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline that there were no differences between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95830295|NCT03458702|191631686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA for TIME||||<0.001
95830296|NCT03458702|191631687|EQUIVALENCE|It would be expected at baseline there would be no difference between groups.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95830297|NCT03458702|191631687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: Condition x Time Interaction||||<0.001
95830298|NCT03458702|191631687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.005
95830299|NCT03458702|191631688|EQUIVALENCE|It would be hypothesized that there would not be a difference at baseline.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
95830300|NCT03458702|191631688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: CONDITION X TIME INTERACTION||||0.042
95830301|NCT03458702|191631688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||ANOVA: TIME||||<0.001
95830302|NCT03458702|191631689|EQUIVALENCE|A difference at baseline was not expected.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95830303|NCT03458702|191631689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA: TIME||||0.016
95830304|NCT03458702|191631690|EQUIVALENCE|no difference is expected at baseline|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95830305|NCT03458702|191631690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA:TIME||||0.026
95830306|NCT03458702|191631691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
95862400|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.6||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Vitality (norm-based).||2.6|-1.5|0.6020
95862401|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-0.6||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Social Functioning (norm-based).||1.9|-3.1|0.6340
95830307|NCT00168103|191631728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.525||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.217|-0.033||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold was 0.024 (overall Type 1 error 0.025 adjusted for alpha spending for an interim analysis).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.033|-2.217|0.0025
95830308|NCT00168103|191631729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1088||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0392|0.3023||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Fisher Exact|1-sided|The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|Worsened intensity was evaluated between 2 and 4 hours after start of study treatment relative to baseline for at least 1 of the HAE symptoms present at baseline.||0.3023|0.0392|0.0014
95830309|NCT00168103|191631730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.292||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-1.05||1-sided, exploratory test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided|The median difference was estimated by the Hodge-Lehmann estimate.|This was an exploratory analysis.||-1.050|-5.150|0.0237
95830310|NCT00168103|191631731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0642|0.4575|||||The Odds Ratio was calculated as C1-INH 20 U/kg bw (numerator) versus Placebo (denominator).|This was an exploratory analysis.||0.4575|0.0642|
95830311|NCT00168103|191631732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||1-sided P-value. The a priori threshold for significance was 0.1 (trend).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-sided||||||0.0329
95830312|NCT03249935|191631733|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Assumptions were that 20% of enrolled chlamydia-infected males will have urethral symptoms and azithromycin treatment failures will occur in 10% of symptomatic men vs. 2% of asymptomatic men. At a one-sided 0.05 significance level with power of 0.80, a sample size of 357 evaluable males would be needed, or approximately 72 symptomatic and 285 asymptomatic males. Assuming 20% of males enrolled would be unevaluable, a total of 446 males was targeted for enrollment.|Given that the study closed early and there were only 4 treatment failures, formal hypothesis testing was not performed.|||
95830313|NCT03249935|191631734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for age in years as a continuous variable in a logistic regression model predicting treatment failure at day 28||2.62|0.22|0.656
95830314|NCT03249935|191631734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|47.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for reporting at baseline new partners in the last 30 days (reference group=no new partners) from a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||47.89|0.45|0.197
95830315|NCT03249935|191631734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio for Chlamydia viral load at baseline as a continuous variable in a logistic model predicting treatment failure at day 28.||1.01|0.45|0.058
95830316|NCT00689793|191631747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0||Significant level of treatment effect was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Level of fatigue at four weeks:dependant variable. Group allocation and level of fatigue at baseline: independant variables.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in fatigue VAS scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 4 weeks||10|0|0.69
95830317|NCT00689793|191631748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5|<|0.05||95.0|0.0|10.0|||Regression, Linear|Hemoglobin value at four weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and hemoglobin value at baseline : independant variables.||||10|0|<0.05
95830318|NCT00689793|191631749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|30.0|||Regression, Linear|Ferritin level at 4 weeks : dependant variable. Group allocation and ferritin level at baseline: independant variables.||||30|0|<0.05
95830319|NCT00689793|191631750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||Regression, Linear|Aerobic capacity at 4 weeks : dependant variables. Group allocation and aerobic capacity at baseline : independant variable.||||6|0|0.05
95830320|NCT02266875|191631802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
95830321|NCT02266875|191631803|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95830322|NCT00413010|191631805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||||95.0|-2.16|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, pooled center baseline, HAM-A total score,time,and treatment-by time|Since an interim analysis was conducted and the sample size was larger than the targeted 173 subjects per group, a critical t-value adjustment was 1.977, yielding an adjusted 95% CI shown above.|Null hypothesis: no difference between Pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) BID and Placebo BID treatment groups. An initial sample size of 173 subjects per double-blind treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to detect an effect size (ie, difference in the true means between 2 treatment groups/standard deviation) of 0.36 for the HAM-A total score change from Baseline using a 2-sided nominal significance level of 4.9%.||-0.26|-2.16|
95830323|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||||95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||-0.4|-2.3|
95830324|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||||95.0|-2.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.1|-2.2|
95830325|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||||95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||-0.2|-2.7|
95830326|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.1|-2.6|
95960175|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5788
95862402|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Role-Emotional (norm-based).||1.4|-4.1|0.3384
95830327|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||||95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-2.1|
95830328|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||||95.0|-2.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.1|-2.5|
95830329|NCT00413010|191631806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||||95.0|-2.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (tx) adjusted, pooled center baseline HAM-A total score,time,and tx-by time. Degrees of freedom adjusted using Satterthwaite approximation|Difference reflects pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.2|-2.9|
95830330|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||||95.0|1.37|8.24||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at each week with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||8.24|1.37|
95830331|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||||95.0|0.9|2.87||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.87|0.90|
95830332|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||||95.0|1.76|5.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||5.66|1.76|
95960176|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9224
95830333|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|1.06|3.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||3.05|1.06|
95830334|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||||95.0|0.9|2.73||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.73|0.90|
95830335|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||||95.0|0.86|2.66||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.66|0.86|
95830336|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||||95.0|1.08|3.22||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responsers at each each with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||3.22|1.08|
95830337|NCT00413010|191631807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||||95.0|1.12|2.79||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (last observation carried forward, LOCF)||2.79|1.12|
95830338|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||||95.0|0.94|8.8||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 1||8.80|0.94|
95830339|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||||95.0|0.72|3.06||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 2||3.06|0.72|
95830340|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||||95.0|1.09|3.97||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 3||3.97|1.09|
95830341|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||||95.0|0.99|3.28||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 4||3.28|0.99|
95830342|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.82|2.85||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 5||2.85|0.82|
95862403|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.3||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the SF-36 domain score of Mental Health Index.||1.0|-3.6|0.2704
95830343|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||95.0|0.71|2.48||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 6||2.48|0.71|
95830344|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||||95.0|0.85|2.83||P-value less that the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A remission at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8||2.83|0.85|
95830345|NCT00413010|191631808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||||95.0|0.92|2.53|||Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the HAM-A responders at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a remitter (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a remitter for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Foward (LOCF)||2.53|0.92|
95830346|NCT00413010|191631809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0137||||||P-value corresponds to the 2-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Kaplan Meier product limit estimate for calculating median time in days to onset sustained HAM-A Improvement.||||0.0137
95830347|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||||95.0|0.96|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic|Based on fitting a logistic regression on the CGI-I responders at Week 8 with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 1||2.47|0.96|
95830348|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||||95.0|1.01|2.47||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 2||2.47|1.01|
95830349|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||||95.0|1.09|2.82||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 3||2.82|1.09|
95830350|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.77|2.05||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 4||2.05|0.77|
95830351|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.72|2.11||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 5||2.11|0.72|
95830352|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.84|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 6||2.50|0.84|
95830353|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||||95.0|0.61|1.84||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8||1.84|0.61|
95862404|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|0.7||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Physical Component Summary Score.||2.3|-1.0|0.4332
95830354|NCT00413010|191631810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||||95.0|0.71|1.76||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. Odds of being a responder (yes) for pregabalin relative to the odds of being a responder for placebo.|Week 8 (LOCF) Last Observation Carried Forward||1.76|0.71|
95830355|NCT00413010|191631811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||||95.0|1.07|2.3||P-value less than the nominal 0.05 level is suggestive of a treatment difference; P-value corresponds to Wald's Chi square test.|Cumulative Logit Model|Based on fitting a logistic regression model for ordinal response of CGI-S scores at Week 8 (LOCF) with treatment and center in the model.|The odds ratio represented the odds of demonstrating an improvement comparing pregabalin versus placebo. The odds of having an increasingly better response for pregabalin relative to the odds of having an increasingly better response for placebo.|Week 8 Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.30|1.07|
95830356|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||||95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 1||0.0|-1.5|
95830357|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||||95.0|-1.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 2||0.2|-1.5|
95830358|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||||95.0|-1.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 3||0.1|-1.6|
95830359|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 4||-0.6|-2.1|
95830360|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 5||0.5|-1.3|
95830361|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||||95.0|-1.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 6||0.0|-1.8|
95830362|NCT00413010|191631812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Repeated analysis of covariance heterogeneous auto-regressive w/ tx center wk \& tx by wk fixed effects; Baseline HAM-D total score covariate in model.|Difference is pregabalin minus placebo.|Week 8||0.1|-2.1|
95830363|NCT04375397|191631828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.2|20.4|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at two-sided alpha = 0.2.||20.4|-9.2|=0.599
95830364|NCT04375397|191631828|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|28.7|||Miettinen-Nurminen method||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) CI for the adjusted risk difference across strata|The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm were analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method, adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. The MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 at twosided alpha = 0.2.||28.7|-18.1|=0.599
95830365|NCT04375397|191631829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|10.44|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||10.44|0.13|=0.886
95830366|NCT04375397|191631829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||=|0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.43|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -2~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||6.43|0.06|=0.705
95830367|NCT04375397|191631829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||The upper limit of this 95% CI is infinite.||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = -1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"|||0.00|=0.996
95830368|NCT04375397|191631829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 0~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
95830369|NCT04375397|191631829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 1~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
95830370|NCT04375397|191631829|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|32.18|||Multinomial Logistic Regression|||"Change in ordinal score from baseline to day 14 = 3~To evaluate the odds of clinical status improvement as determined by the WHO-8 ordinal scale, a multinomial logistic regression model was used.~Pairwise Comparison in Reference to the Group with Change = -4"||32.18|0.04|=0.969
95830371|NCT04375397|191631830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-1.5|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on supplemental oxygen was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.801
95830372|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
95830373|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 7-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
95960177|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5527
95830374|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.7|7.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||7.3|-6.7|=1.000
95830375|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.5|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 14-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||15.5|-14.4|=1.000
95830376|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
95830377|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 21-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
95830378|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.7|14.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||14.8|-1.7|=0.267
95830379|NCT04375397|191631831|SUPERIORITY||Mortality rate difference|4.8|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|22.8|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"At Day 28-- Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC~The Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2 and associated confidence intervals are reported."||22.8|-9.6|=0.267
95830380|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
95830381|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 7~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
95830382|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.8|3.3|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||3.3|-24.8|=0.314
95830383|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-10.7|||=|0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.0|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 14~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||12.0|-32.8|=0.314
95830384|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
95830385|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 21~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
95855146|NCT00118417|191669805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||T-test of PDSS change between baseline and endpoint of Phase 3|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom = 17||||||0.061
95960178|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2624
95830386|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.4|9.2|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||9.2|-20.4|=0.599
95830387|NCT04375397|191631832|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference (%)|-5.8|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|18.1|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||"Failure/Mortality Rate Difference Compared to Placebo + SOC at Day 28~The difference in response rates between the experimental arm and the control arm was analyzed using the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir. MN test p-value for testing the rate difference = 0 adjusting for the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights at two-sided alpha of 0.2."||18.1|-28.7|=0.599
95830388|NCT04375397|191631833|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.851|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of mechanical ventilation-free survival, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.851
95830389|NCT04375397|191631834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|0.0|||=|0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median days spent on mechanical ventilation were compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.745
95830390|NCT04375397|191631835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Medians|-0.5|||=|0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Van Elteren's test]||Ibrutinib 420 mg + SOC - Placebo + SOC|Median duration of hospitalization was compared between treatment groups using Van Elteren's test with the stratification factor of prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.977
95830391|NCT04375397|191631836|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.969|||||||Log Rank|||For the analysis of time to discharge from hospital, the distribution of time to event was estimated by treatment group using Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared between the experimental arm and the control arm using the log-rank test stratified by prescription for remdesivir.||||=0.969
95830392|NCT00086502|191631847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.54||"Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic~agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]"|ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-0.85|<0.001
95830393|NCT00086502|191631848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.9|<|0.001||95.0|-24.3|-11.0||Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy \[not on AHA, monotherapy with oral AHA, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-based combination therapy\]|ANCOVA|||||-11.0|-24.3|<0.001
95830394|NCT01443130|191631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2441||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2441
95830395|NCT01443130|191631866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of placental malaria infection based on histology is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
95830396|NCT01443130|191631867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4941||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4941
95830397|NCT01443130|191631867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria by placental impression smear is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4990
95830398|NCT01443130|191631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3089||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3089
95830399|NCT01443130|191631868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6973||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6973
95830400|NCT01443130|191631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
95830401|NCT01443130|191631869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of maternal severe anemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.00
95830402|NCT01443130|191631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4979||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4979
95862405|NCT01743001|191683797|SUPERIORITY||least-square (LS) mean difference|-1.1||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for randomized treatment group, location of cardiac defect (pre-tricupsid/post-tricupsid) as factors and baseline scores as covariates.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline to Week 16 is the same in the macitentan and the placebo group for the Mental Component Summary Score.||1.2|-3.4|0.3416
95862406|NCT03052426|191683798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9327||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.1394, DF 2 for aches||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for aches/pains at the three month time frame||||0.9327
95830403|NCT01443130|191631870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of stillbirth is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1166
95830404|NCT01443130|191631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.6237
95830405|NCT01443130|191631871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of miscarriage is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||1.000
95830406|NCT01443130|191631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5187||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5187
95830407|NCT01443130|191631872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2163||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of preterm delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2163
95830408|NCT01443130|191631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5959||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.5959
95830409|NCT01443130|191631873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8127||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infant mortality within 14 weeks of delivery is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.8127
95830410|NCT01443130|191631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2566
95830411|NCT01443130|191631874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of low birth weight is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.7839
95830412|NCT01443130|191631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.2553
95830413|NCT01443130|191631875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of intrauterine growth restriction is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4354
95830414|NCT01443130|191631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.3690
95862407|NCT03052426|191683798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7523||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.5693, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the three month time frame||||0.7523
95830415|NCT01443130|191631876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4947||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of active placental malaria infection is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4947
95862408|NCT03052426|191683798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9196||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 0.1676, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the three month time frame.||||0.9196
95862409|NCT03052426|191683799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6316||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 0.9190, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSquare Analysis were completed||||0.6316
95830416|NCT01443130|191631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0630
95830417|NCT01443130|191631877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of malaria infection (all species) measured by positive parasitemia is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4184
95830418|NCT01443130|191631878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.0268
95830419|NCT01443130|191631878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Cox proportional hazards|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of clinical malaria (all species) is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1646
95830420|NCT01443130|191631879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4501||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine prophylaxis vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.4501
95830421|NCT01443130|191631879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758||||||A Bonferroni correction was used due to multiple comparisons. Comparisons are statistically significant if the two-sided p-value is ≤ 0.05/2=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is the incidence of infection in the fetal circulation is identical between subjects receiving maternal chloroquine IPT vs. maternal SP IPT.||||0.1758
95830422|NCT00364533|191631882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|91.4|||<|0.001||95.0|49.77|133.07|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||133.07|49.77|<0.001
95830423|NCT00364533|191631882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|38.66|124.29|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||124.29|38.66|<0.001
95830424|NCT00364533|191631882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|81.5|||<|0.001||95.0|39.21|123.8|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||123.80|39.21|<0.001
95830425|NCT00364533|191631882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference of SPID48|82.4|||<|0.001||95.0|38.96|125.88|||ANCOVA|||The study was terminated and did not reach the planned sample size.||125.88|38.96|<0.001
95830426|NCT02008357|191631907|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.816|0.22|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.220|-0.816|0.260
95830427|NCT02008357|191631909|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|1.02|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||1.020|-0.089|0.100
95830428|NCT02008357|191631911|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.265|0.076|||Natural Cubic Spline (NCS) method|||||0.076|-1.265|0.082
95830429|NCT02008357|191631913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|-0.028|||ANCOVA|||||-0.028|-0.057|<0.001
95830430|NCT02008357|191631914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|3.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8719||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.02|68.498|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal fluid Tau Protein Immunoassay||68.498|-62.020|0.922
95830431|NCT02008357|191631914|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6535||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.241|4.311|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Phosphorylated Tau Protein Immunoassay||4.311|-6.241|0.717
95862410|NCT03052426|191683799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2595||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSqaure 2.6983, DF||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for discomfort at the six month time frame.||||0.2595
95830432|NCT02008357|191631915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|12738.449|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|998.7048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10757.047|14719.851|||ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-40 Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||14719.851|10757.047|<0.001
95830433|NCT02008357|191631915|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|996.411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.7404|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|875.873|1116.948||p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + APOE4 + AGE + Treatment.|ANCOVA|||Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta 1-42 Mod Modified ELISA - INNOTEST||1116.948|875.873|<0.001
95830434|NCT02008357|191631916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0388||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Total hippocampal volume||0.022|-0.131|0.161
95830435|NCT02008357|191631916|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4513||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|1.236|||ANCOVA|||Total Lateral Ventricular Volume||1.236|-0.535|0.437
95830436|NCT01048866|191631934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-196.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.0|-72.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-72.2|-321.0|0.0021
95830437|NCT01048866|191631935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-9.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Baseline DSS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-9.3|-28.7|0.0002
95830438|NCT01048866|191631936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-179.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.7|-53.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-53.8|-305.7|0.0054
95830439|NCT01048866|191631937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-16.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-7.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||-7.0|-25.9|0.0008
95830440|NCT01048866|191631938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-168.4||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.7|-43.1|||ANOVA|||||-43.1|-293.7|0.0087
95830441|NCT01048866|191631939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-19.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.0|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||-10.0|-28.0|<0.0001
95830442|NCT01048866|191631940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-118.9||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.3|57.5|||ANOVA|Baseline STPIS fitted as a covariate and centre as a fixed effect.||||57.5|-295.3|0.1844
95830443|NCT01048866|191631941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95830444|NCT01048866|191631942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8827|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8827
95830445|NCT01048866|191631943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified by centre||||||0.0105
95960179|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3263
95830446|NCT01048866|191631945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.9||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.6|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.6|-12.4|0.0743
95830447|NCT01048866|191631946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-5.5||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|0.8|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with patient as a random effect.||||0.8|-11.7|0.0871
95830448|NCT01048866|191631947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-6.0||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.2|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.2|-12.3|0.0595
95830449|NCT01048866|191631948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|0.5||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA model with participant as a random effect.||||0.9|0.1|0.0195
95830450|NCT01048866|191631949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0322|||||||Regression, Logistic|Effect for centre||||||0.0322
95830451|NCT01048866|191631950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
95830452|NCT01048866|191631951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.2||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANOVA|||||-0.0|-0.4|0.0288
95830453|NCT01048866|191631952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least-square means difference|-0.1||||0.4274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4274
95830454|NCT01831817|191631989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.1||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference was First named treatment-second named treatment that a negative difference implied the mean of the second named treatment was larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.15|-0.35|0.4321
95830455|NCT01831817|191631989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
95830456|NCT01831817|191631989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.49||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.24|-0.74|0.0002
95830457|NCT01831817|191631989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.38||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.13|0.0028
95830458|NCT01831817|191631989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.63|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline waas the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.63|0.14|0.0022
95830459|NCT01831817|191631989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.01||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.24|-0.25|0.9606
95960180|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3746
95830460|NCT01831817|191631990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.38|-0.30|0.8030
95830461|NCT01831817|191631990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.48|-1.16|<0.0001
95862411|NCT03052426|191683799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4495||||||p=0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|ChiSquare 1.5991, DF 2||Wilcoxon/Kruskal-Wallis Tests and ChiSqaure analysis were completed for interference at the six month time frame||||0.4495
95960181|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0050
95960182|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0493
95960183|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0773
95960184|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0547
95960185|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1976
95830462|NCT01831817|191631990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is First named treatment - second named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||-0.53|-1.20|<0.0001
95830463|NCT01831817|191631990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.19|0.53|<0.0001
95830464|NCT01831817|191631990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the second named treatment is larger than that of the first named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||1.23|0.58|<0.0001
95830465|NCT01831817|191631990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.04||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate. Difference is Second named treatment - first named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the first named treatment is larger than that of the second named treatment|Principal null hypothesis to be tested was- H0: The change from baseline was the same for both treatments in all pairwise comparisons||0.28|-0.37|0.7872
95830466|NCT01831817|191631991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.9642
95830467|NCT01831817|191631991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0016
95830468|NCT01831817|191631991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|0.00|0.0100
95862412|NCT03052426|191683800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Aches (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.26, 15.18) = 34.70, p \< 0.0001)|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||<0.0001
95830469|NCT01831817|191631991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0020
95830470|NCT01831817|191631991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.0122
95830471|NCT01831817|191631991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.7138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.7138
95830472|NCT01831817|191631992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||5.00|-5.00|0.9834
95830473|NCT01831817|191631992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0001
95830474|NCT01831817|191631992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|2.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||15.00|0.00|0.0003
95960186|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3832
95960187|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4216
95960188|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5852|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5852
95830475|NCT01831817|191631992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|<0.0001
95830476|NCT01831817|191631992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|-5.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the second named treatment|||0.00|-10.00|0.0002
95960189|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7336
95830477|NCT01831817|191631992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift|0.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehmann Wilcoxon non-parametric||Positive values favour the first named treatment|||0.00|0.00|0.2894
95830478|NCT01831817|191631993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.24||||0.5555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.56|-1.03|0.5555
95830479|NCT01831817|191631993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.06||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.73|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.73|-0.86|0.8769
95830480|NCT01831817|191631993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.76||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.02|-1.55|0.0562
95830481|NCT01831817|191631993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.18||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.6|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.60|-0.95|0.6562
95830482|NCT01831817|191631993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.53||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.3|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.30|-0.24|0.1788
95830483|NCT01831817|191631993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.07|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.07|-1.47|0.0734
95830484|NCT01831817|191631994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|0.19||||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||1.10|-0.71|0.6727
95830485|NCT01831817|191631994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.24||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.34|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.34|-2.14|0.0072
95830486|NCT01831817|191631994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-1.27||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||-0.38|-2.16|0.0056
95830487|NCT01831817|191631994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change diference|1.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.31|0.56|0.0016
95830488|NCT01831817|191631994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|1.46||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.33|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||2.33|0.59|0.0011
95830489|NCT01831817|191631994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change difference|-0.03||||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.84|||ANCOVA||Treatment as fixed factor. Baseline Schiff strata and VRS as covariates. Difference is 1st named treatment - 2nd named treatment that a negative difference implies the mean of the 2nd named treatment is larger than that of the 1st named treatment|||0.84|-0.90|0.9413
95830490|NCT00958217|191631997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2nd order effects of time (2 slope|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values based on likelihood ratio tests for the significance of the first and second order trajectory parameters. Primary tests compared curvilinear trajectories of the two treatment groups.|Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Data analyses included comparison of mean scores and linear mixed effects models used to ascertain trajectories for depression symptoms.||||<.05
95830491|NCT00958217|191631998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|57.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Models||We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|||||<.05
95830492|NCT00958217|191631999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.43|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model.|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Analysis of substance use was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of substance use (any alcohol or drug use) on a particular day.||||<.05
95830493|NCT00958217|191631999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Second order effect of time (2 slopes)|0.26|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A logit link was used in this model|We gauged sampling error with 95% confidence bands.|Second statistical analysis evaluates trajectories of heavy drinking (\<5 drinks on a given day) Analysis of heavy drinking was conducted using trajectories modeled as a dichotomous outcome using logit links to predict the probability of heavy drinking (5 or more drinks) on a particular day.||||<.05
95830494|NCT01999218|191632006|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22|||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.|||0.22|-0.02|
95830495|NCT01999218|191632006|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is declared if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference is less than 0.3%.|Difference in the Least Squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||"Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.~Time was treated as a categorical variable."|||0.30|0.06|
95830496|NCT01999218|191632007|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-4.5|
95830497|NCT01999218|191632007|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.5||||||||6.5|-5.6|
95830498|NCT01999218|191632008|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4||||||||6.4|-0.3|
95830499|NCT01999218|191632008|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.7||||||||4.7|-1.7|
95830500|NCT01999218|191632009|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.8|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-9.8|-18.4|<0.001
95830501|NCT01999218|191632009|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride|-16.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.2|||Based on Miettinen & Nurminen method||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|-12.2|-20.3|<0.001
95830502|NCT01999218|191632010|OTHER||Difference in LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-3.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis||LSM=Least Squares Means||Constrained Longitudinal Data analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.80|-4.77|<0.001
95830503|NCT01999218|191632010|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-3.38|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.38|-4.36|<0.001
95830504|NCT01999218|191632011|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-4.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|-3.25|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-3.25|-6.29|<0.001
95830505|NCT01999218|191632011|OTHER||Difference in the LSM vs. Glimepiride|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|-4.73|-1.67|||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis||||Constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis with fixed effects for treatment, time, interaction of time by treatment, prior anthyperglycemic medication (monotherapy or dual therapy), and baseline eGFR (continuous).|-1.67|-4.73|<0.001
95830506|NCT01280695|191632012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|14.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.0|-34.0|0.4195
95830507|NCT01280695|191632012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-18.0||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|-38.0|0.0811
95830508|NCT01280695|191632012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.0||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-38.0|0.0639
95830509|NCT01280695|191632012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-12.0|-50.0|0.0022
95862413|NCT03052426|191683800|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006||||||Uncomfortable (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.43, 17.15) = 14.39, p = 0.0006), from time 1 to times 2 and 3|MANOVA|||Three and six month results were combined and compared to baseline data for each of the outcome variables. Repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine the decrease of variables over time from time 1 to times 2 and 3.||||=0.0006
95830510|NCT01192568|191632033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.612||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|30.9|||ANCOVA|||||30.90|-2.45|0.0928
95830511|NCT01192568|191632034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.089||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.13|58.7|||ANCOVA|||||58.70|11.13|0.0054
95830512|NCT01192568|191632035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.215||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.89|80.07|||ANCOVA|||||80.07|-14.89|0.1739
95830513|NCT01192568|191632036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Results from a pre-specified test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p \<= 0.05) determined that the Pre-Am3 and Post-Am3 OTG data should be analyzed separately for the primary analysis.||0.15|-0.53|0.2660
95830514|NCT01192568|191632036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.21|-1.13|0.0070
95830515|NCT06359080|191632037|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between post treatment CARS scores and pre treatment CARS scores will be statistically significant as measured by independent sample t-test with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|6.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|8.19||It's a calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||8.19|5.36|<0.05
95830516|NCT05063539|191632076|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|3.771|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.771|-0.375|
95830517|NCT05063539|191632076|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.354|-1.042|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||-1.042|-5.354|
95830518|NCT05063539|191632077|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|3.697|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||3.697|-0.443|
95830519|NCT05063539|191632077|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.277|-2.862||||||||-2.862|-7.277|
95830520|NCT05063539|191632078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|0.488|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.488|-0.763|0.665
95830521|NCT05063539|191632078|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.736|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.736|0.435|0.001
95830522|NCT05063539|191632079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|0.749|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.749|-0.641|0.878
95830523|NCT05063539|191632079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|2.05|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.050|0.615|<0.001
95830524|NCT05063539|191632080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.073|0.811|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.811|-3.073|0.252
95830525|NCT05063539|191632080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.252|1.797|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.797|-2.252|0.825
95830526|NCT05063539|191632081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.779|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.779|-2.527|0.733
95830527|NCT05063539|191632081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|3.877|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||3.877|-0.565|0.143
95830528|NCT05063539|191632082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.802|2.158|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||2.158|-1.802|0.860
95830529|NCT05063539|191632082|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.567|-0.456|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.456|-4.567|0.017
95830530|NCT05063539|191632083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.949|1.387|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.387|-2.949|0.479
95830531|NCT05063539|191632083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.239|-1.788|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-1.788|-6.239|<0.001
95830532|NCT05063539|191632084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|1.642|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.642|-0.445|0.259
95830533|NCT05063539|191632084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|0.541|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||0.541|-1.629|0.324
95830534|NCT05063539|191632085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.313|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||1.313|-0.946|0.749
95830535|NCT05063539|191632085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.462|-0.134|||NCS2|A NCS model with 2 degrees of freedom (NCS2) was used.||||-0.134|-2.462|0.029
95830536|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.03|-0.01|0.346
95830537|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.01|-0.04|0.412
95830538|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.02|-0.04|0.421
95830539|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.00|-0.05|0.080
95830540|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.01|-0.07|0.192
95830541|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.02|-0.07|0.279
95830542|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.02|-0.04|0.693
95830543|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||-0.00|-0.07|0.040
95830544|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.03|-0.03|0.838
95830545|NCT05063539|191632086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.00|-0.06|0.055
95830546|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.04|-0.02|0.455
95830547|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Frontal||0.02|-0.03|0.745
95830548|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.04|-0.02|0.676
95830549|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Parietal||0.03|-0.03|0.794
95830550|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.03|-0.05|0.643
95830551|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Lateral occipital||0.04|-0.05|0.880
95830552|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Lateral temporal||0.03|-0.04|0.844
95830553|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY|Lateral temporal|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.388
95830554|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.04|-0.03|0.815
95830555|NCT05063539|191632087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02|||ANCOVA|||AD neocortical signature (measured using MUBADA)||0.02|-0.04|0.562
95830556|NCT05063539|191632088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.14|0.04|<0.001
95830557|NCT05063539|191632088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.18|0.08|<0.001
95830558|NCT05063539|191632088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.21|-3.53|<0.001
95830559|NCT05063539|191632088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.43|-2.84|0.008
95830560|NCT05063539|191632088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.715|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.56|4.79|<0.001
95830561|NCT05063539|191632088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.804|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|12.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||12.92|5.81|<0.001
95830562|NCT05063539|191632089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.13|0.04|<0.001
95830563|NCT05063539|191632089|SUPERIORITY|Bilateral Hippocampus|LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|0.08|<0.001
95830564|NCT05063539|191632089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-1.08|-3.33|<0.001
95830565|NCT05063539|191632089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Lateral Ventricles||-0.28|-2.57|0.015
95830566|NCT05063539|191632089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.635|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||10.40|3.95|<0.001
95830567|NCT05063539|191632089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||11.47|4.85|<0.001
95830568|NCT02262078|191632105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95830569|NCT05501795|191632122|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
95830570|NCT04243330|191632134|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.48||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.48|-0.46|0.18
95830571|NCT04243330|191632135|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.58||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.28||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.28|-0.11|.06
95830572|NCT04243330|191632136|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.9||the p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.9|-4.5|0.60
95830573|NCT04243330|191632137|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|4.7||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-12.8|0.36
95830574|NCT04243330|191632138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.67||p-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-8.3|.02
95862414|NCT03052426|191683800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Interference (F-test G-G Epsilon (1.55, 18.66) = 34.09, p \< 0.0001), from time 1 to times 2 and 3.|MANOVA|||We used repeated measures MANOVAs with pairwise comparisons to examine the decrease of the variables over time. Significant differences for within subjects by time were found||||<0.0001
95830575|NCT04243330|191632139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|-5.5|0.82
95830576|NCT03826342|191632158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.2964
95830577|NCT03826342|191632158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3404|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.3404
95830578|NCT03826342|191632159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7915|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.7915
95830579|NCT03826342|191632159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2131|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.2131
95830580|NCT03826342|191632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8357|||||||Generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||Baseline to 2-month assessment||||0.8357
95830581|NCT03826342|191632160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||2-month assessment to 6-month assessment||||0.0950
95830582|NCT03826342|191632161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7496|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.7496
95830583|NCT03826342|191632162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4492|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.4492
95830584|NCT03826342|191632163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0765
95830585|NCT03826342|191632164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.535
95830586|NCT03826342|191632165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4302
95830587|NCT03826342|191632166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||generalized linear mixed model analysis|generalized linear mixed model analysis under a negative binomial framework||||||0.8070
95830588|NCT02888743|191632212|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.6|14.6|||Chi-squared||Arm A compared with Arm C; normal approximation for confidence interval|||14.6|-14.6|0.99
95830589|NCT02888743|191632212|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportions|-3.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|9.6|||Chi-squared||Arm B compared with Arm C; normal approximation used for confidence interval.|||9.6|-17.3|0.64
95862415|NCT04413617|191683801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||-0.08|-0.62|0.0158
95862416|NCT04413617|191683801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.23|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||The primary clinical hypothesis is that mean decrease at Week 12 in DAS28-CRP score in one or both combo arms exceeds the mean decrease in the reference (tofacitinib) treatment arm, regardless of occurrence of intercurrent events. The null hypothesis is that the mean decrease in DAS28-CRP score at Week 12 is identical in the control (tofacitinib arm) and combination arms.||0.23|-0.32|0.3933
95862417|NCT00312195|191683815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2544||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95||P value is from a logistic regression analysis with terms for treatment effect, country and pain site (hip, knee, back and other).|Regression, Logistic||Primary variable was defined as: ratio of the probability of having ineffective treatment divided by the probability of having effective treatment.|H0: the odds of ineffective treatment is the same for subjects receiving placebo as for those receiving BTDS versus the alternative H1: the odds of ineffective treatment is different for subjects receiving placebo from those receiving BTDS.||2.95|1.09|.0217
95862418|NCT05498701|191683851|OTHER||Ratios of Adjusted Geometric Means|93.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|99.7||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis AUCinf fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||99.70|87.10|
95862419|NCT05498701|191683852|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.0||||||90.0|76.25|86.04||||||Bioequivalence of the Test treatment (Tafamidis free acid 12.2 mg oral tablet \[Fasted\]) to Reference treatment (Tafamidis meglumine 20 mg oral capsule \[Fasted\]) was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for tafamidis Cmax fell entirely within the acceptance region of (80%,125%).||86.04|76.25|
95862420|NCT01763996|191683911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|13.76||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model that includes sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subjects within sequence as a random factor.||||13.76|-10.10|0.756
95862421|NCT00947882|191683922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0911||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0911
95862422|NCT00947882|191683922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0865
95862423|NCT00947882|191683922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.2342||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 3 in the FAS population using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2342
95862424|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.0367||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Months 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0367
95960190|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1647
95960191|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2813
95960192|NCT00551135|191892793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain from coughing (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8423
95830590|NCT02888743|191632213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||||1.58|0.60|0.92
95830591|NCT02888743|191632213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.50|0.55
95830592|NCT02888743|191632214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.30|0.24
95830593|NCT02888743|191632214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.36|0.44
95830594|NCT02888743|191632218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95830595|NCT06504524|191632229|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128|||=|0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.804|||Regression, Cox||IPTW hazard ratio (HR) were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.804|0.705|=0.615
95830596|NCT06504524|191632230|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.64|0.85|=0.4429
95830597|NCT06504524|191632231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.115|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.115|0.390|=0.120
95830598|NCT06504524|191632232|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.71|0.38|=0.0011
95830599|NCT06504524|191632233|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759|||=|0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.71|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.710|0.337|=0.503
95830600|NCT06504524|191632234|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.57|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.57|0.26|<0.0001
95830601|NCT06504524|191632235|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.436|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||1.436|0.587|=0.706
95830602|NCT06504524|191632236|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HR were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances. Stabilized IPT weights truncated at the 99.5th percentile were used.|||0.88|0.52|=0.0182
95830603|NCT01114360|191632251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way repeated measures mixed model ANOVA.||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.075
95830604|NCT01114360|191632251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
95830605|NCT01114360|191632252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
95830606|NCT01114360|191632253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
95830607|NCT01114360|191632254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.64
95830608|NCT01114360|191632255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95830609|NCT01114360|191632256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
95830610|NCT01114360|191632257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95830611|NCT01114360|191632258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and primary outcomes.||||0.75
95830612|NCT01114360|191632259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.71
95830613|NCT01114360|191632260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.38
95830614|NCT01114360|191632261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.11
95830615|NCT01114360|191632262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
95830616|NCT01114360|191632263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95830617|NCT01114360|191632264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.52
95830618|NCT05268744|191632346|SUPERIORITY|Since all outcomes were normally distributed, one-sided paired t-test was used to compare mean pre- and post-treatment scores to see whether post-treatment scores of ABI-S and SRS had improved compared to pre-treatment scores|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was no improvement in mean ABI-S and SRS scores at the end of the study, compared to baseline||||<0.05
95830619|NCT02699450|191632351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.6|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-0.6|0.37
95855147|NCT02978781|191669807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14 (predose)|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.49|-0.44|0.9143
95830620|NCT02699450|191632351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.5|5.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.6|1.5|0.03
95830621|NCT02699450|191632352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-2.3|0.63
95830622|NCT02699450|191632353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.3||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|4.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.3|0.2|0.15
95830623|NCT02699450|191632353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|4.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline BCVA.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.7|1.1|0.04
95830624|NCT02699450|191632354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.3|12.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.8|-11.3|0.94
95830625|NCT02699450|191632354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.4|19.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.9|-5.4|0.46
95830626|NCT02699450|191632355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.4||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|20.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.5|-7.7|0.56
95830627|NCT02699450|191632356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|17.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.2|-4.0|0.43
95830628|NCT02699450|191632356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|7.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.6|17.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||17.0|-2.6|0.34
95855148|NCT02978781|191669808|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-3.50|0.0529
95862425|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.0231||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.0231
95862426|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.1638||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 4 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1638
95862427|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.1941||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparisons vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparison was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1941
95862428|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.1083||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1083
95862429|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.2782||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 5 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.2782
95862430|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.1562||||||P-values based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1562
95960193|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.397|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.3970
95830629|NCT02699450|191632357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|20.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||20.6|-1.6|0.27
95862431|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.1736||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.1736
95830630|NCT02699450|191632357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|6.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|18.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||18.5|-4.9|0.45
95830631|NCT02699450|191632358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.8|15.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||15.5|-16.8|0.96
95830632|NCT02699450|191632359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|19.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||19.7|0.1|0.19
95830633|NCT02699450|191632359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|4.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|13.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||13.6|-5.3|0.57
95830634|NCT02699450|191632360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|4.9||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.9|-10.5|0.64
95830635|NCT02699450|191632360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.8||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.8|6.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.2|-9.8|0.78
95830636|NCT02699450|191632361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.7|8.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||8.2|-12.7|0.78
95830637|NCT02699450|191632362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|6.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||6.7|-7.7|0.93
95830638|NCT02699450|191632362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.3|4.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction term.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||4.4|-8.3|0.69
95830639|NCT02699450|191632363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.5||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.8|14.7||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||14.7|-27.8|0.69
95830640|NCT02699450|191632363|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.5|-1.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-1.2|-44.5|0.18
95830641|NCT02699450|191632364|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-49.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-84.2|-14.2||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-14.2|-84.2|0.07
95830642|NCT02699450|191632365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-17.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.0|3.4||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.4|-38.0|0.28
95830643|NCT02699450|191632365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.8|-10.6||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline FCPT.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-10.6|-47.8|0.05
95830644|NCT02699450|191632366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.7|5.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.0|-29.7|0.36
95830645|NCT02699450|191632366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-21.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.7|-3.5||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.5|-38.7|0.13
95830646|NCT02699450|191632367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-65.9|-11.3||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-11.3|-65.9|0.07
95830647|NCT02699450|191632368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-20.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.4|-3.8||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-3.8|-36.4|0.12
95830648|NCT02699450|191632368|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.3|-12.0||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Mixed Effects Model of Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates: treatment group, categorical visit, and visit by treatment group, stratification factors; continuous covariate: baseline CST.|The mean difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-12.0|-41.3|0.02
95830649|NCT02699450|191632369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4948
95830650|NCT02699450|191632369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-4.08||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.7|-0.46||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||-0.46|-7.70|0.4960
95830651|NCT02699450|191632370|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.08|5.49||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||5.49|-11.08|1.0000
95830652|NCT02699450|191632371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.12||||0.5759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.41|3.17||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm B vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||3.17|-15.41|0.5759
95830653|NCT02699450|191632371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.15||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.02|11.33||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arms B and C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): Either of the faricimab treatment arms (Arm B or C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||11.33|-5.02|0.7437
95830654|NCT02699450|191632372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|2.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.6|12.64||There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons. Test for Arm C vs. Arm A was carried out at one-sided 10% alpha.|Fisher Exact||The difference between arms was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|Null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference between either of the faricimab treatment arm (Arm C) and the active comparator ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha): The faricimab treatment arms (Arm C) is different from the ranibizumab treatment arm (Arm A).||12.64|-8.60|1.0000
95830655|NCT01173029|191632418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' tests Yates's corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test, when appropriate Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||4.1|0.7|0.19
95830656|NCT01173029|191632419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study power calculation was post-hoc based on composite end-point achieved. Number of exposed: 62 Non-exposed to exposed ratio: 0.5 Relative risk worth detecting: 2.5 Attack rate among non-exposed: 23% Alpha risk: 0.05 Calculated power: 89.8%|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.3||not adjusted|Chi-squared, Corrected|1 degree-of-freedom||"Long-term intention-to-treat data analysis:~Student 't' test Yates' corrected Chi-squared or Fisher's exact test Relative risk estimation Cox proportional-hazard model Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium"||7.3|1.01|0.01
95962449|NCT03607422|191896636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.41|-22.9|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-22.90|-48.41|<0.001
95830657|NCT01173029|191632419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Proportional-risk hypothesis was tested using the correlation between Schoenfeld's residuals and time (Schoenfeld's global test). The correlation rho was -0.08, Chi-squared was 0.12, and p was 0.73. Therefore, the hypothesis of proportional risk was accepted, validating the correct application model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.8||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic groups|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for both groups.||Cox proportional hazard model for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction) was assessed. By taking pseudo-resistant arterial hypertension as baseline reference, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated.||4.8|1.1|0.04
95830658|NCT01173029|191632420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||C-statistic|0.66|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||At an optimal value of \>3, polygenic risk score yielded 90% sensitivity and 40% specificity for composite endpoint.|z test|Area under receiver operating characteristic curve.|The optimal cutoff value for polygenic risk score was set to \>3.|Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the polygenic score as predictor of composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction)||0.76|0.56|<0.01
95862432|NCT00947882|191683923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.3132||||||P-value based on Williams' extended trend test of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Step-down, Williams' extended trend test|Step-down procedure (starting with 30 mg vs. placebo) to identify the minimum effective dose. The step-down testing protects the type I error rate.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|ANCOVA of the change from baseline in IPSS at Month 6 in the FAS population using the LOCF method, including the baseline IPSS as adjusting covariate and treatment group, prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL), and region (North America and Europe) as factors.||||0.3132
95862433|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.628||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.628|0.814|0.2034
95862434|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|2.71||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||2.710|0.834|0.1748
95862435|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.195||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.195|0.964|0.0658
95862436|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.184||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.184|0.979|0.0587
95862437|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|3.283||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||3.283|1.003|0.0490
95862438|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.464||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 4."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 4."|||2.464|0.774|0.2742
95862439|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.304||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.304|0.706|0.4206
95862440|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|2.16||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||2.160|0.664|0.5494
95862441|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.975||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 5."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 5."|||1.975|0.609|0.7586
95862442|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|2.717||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.717|0.816|0.1946
95862443|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|2.174||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.174|0.667|0.5380
95862444|NCT00947882|191683924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.308||"Adjustments were made for treatment group, baseline IPSS, graphical region (North America and Europe) and baseline prostate size (\<30 mL and ≥30 mL).~Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6."|Regression, Logistic|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. LOCF.|"Odds ratio of treatment response between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||2.308|0.702|0.4263
95862445|NCT00947882|191683925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.113|4.59||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.590|-10.113|0.4607
95962450|NCT03607422|191896637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|68.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||68.1|36.9|<0.001
95830659|NCT01173029|191632420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.9||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.2||The p-value was adjusted for confounders: Framingham risk score, body mass index, ethnic group|Regression, Cox|The actuarial function of events per time since the first diagnosis of arterial hypertension was plotted for polygenic risk score\<=3 and \>3.||Cox proportional hazard model of the polygenic risk score\<=3 and \> 3 for the composite endpoint (stroke + myocardial infarction). By taking polygenic risk score\<=3, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was calculated for polygenic risk score\>3 .||9.2|1.2|0.04
95830660|NCT01842581|191632422|NON_INFERIORITY|Threshold for significance=upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for hazard ratio less than (\<) 1.56.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.959||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|3.672|||Score statistics|||Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.672|1.045|0.0359
95830661|NCT01842581|191632423|SUPERIORITY|2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.739||||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|3.382||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by analysis region. Hazard ratio estimate (hazard of breakthrough HE for rifaximin compared to rifaximin + lactulose) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with effect for treatment, stratified by analysis region.||3.382|0.894|0.0985
95830662|NCT00140842|191632432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the groups for peak growth hormone on the growth hormone stimulation test.||||<0.05
95830663|NCT00140842|191632433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the groups for visceral adipose tissue||||<0.05
95830664|NCT01515475|191632439|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|18.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||18|-12|0.72
95830665|NCT01515475|191632439|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|4.0|||Barnard's Exact Test|||||4|-31|0.14
95830666|NCT01515475|191632447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.11|1.09||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.09|0.11|0.002
95830667|NCT01515475|191632447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.1|1.06||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Older Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||1.06|0.10|0.002
95830668|NCT01515475|191632447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.51|0.84||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.84|-0.51|0.53
95830669|NCT01515475|191632447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.43|0.86||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye, Younger Cohort:~An analysis of covariance model adjusting for refractive error at enrollment was used to compare mean change in refractive error between treatment groups."||0.86|-0.43|0.38
95830670|NCT01515475|191632448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-49.0|1.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the more hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||1|-49|0.013
95830671|NCT01515475|191632448|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|-18.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|8.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||"Analysis for the less hyperopic eye:~Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups."||8|-42|0.08
95830672|NCT01515475|191632449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.04|-0.02|0.22
95830673|NCT01515475|191632449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Older Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.03|-0.06|0.41
95830674|NCT01515475|191632449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Better-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.01|-0.12|0.02
95830675|NCT01515475|191632449|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.19|0.05|||ANCOVA|||"Test for Difference in Means in Worse-Seeing Eye: Younger Cohort~An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups. Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01."||0.05|-0.19|0.15
95830676|NCT01515475|191632450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
95830677|NCT01515475|191632450|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|14.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||14|-18|0.79
95830678|NCT01515475|191632451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||13|-18|0.51
95830679|NCT01515475|191632451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-24.0|16.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test was used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||16|-24|0.68
95830680|NCT01515475|191632452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.12|0.05||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.05|-0.12|0.21
95830681|NCT01515475|191632452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.1|0.04||Results are considered statistically significant if p≤0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model, adjusting for age at the 3-year visit and visual acuity at baseline, was used to compare mean visual acuity between treatment groups.||0.04|-0.10|0.25
95830682|NCT01515475|191632453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-18.0|13.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||13|-18|0.51
95830683|NCT01515475|191632453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-17.0|17.0||No p-value, because there was 0% difference||||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||17|-17|
95830684|NCT01515475|191632454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.11|0.14||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit, anisometropia at the most recent visit, and stereoacuity at enrollment.||0.14|-0.11|0.74
95830685|NCT01515475|191632454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance model was used to compare mean change in stereoacuity between treatment groups. The analysis controlled for age at the 3-year visit and anisometropia at the most recent visit.||0.1|-0.4|0.15
95830686|NCT01515475|191632455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-14.0|26.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups||26|-14|0.53
95830687|NCT01515475|191632455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-40.0|2.0||Results are considered statistically significant if p\<0.01.|Barnard's Exact Test|||Barnard's exact test used to compare proportions between treatment groups.||2|-40|0.02
95830688|NCT05260333|191632505|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
95830689|NCT00613080|191632515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion (reported as percentage)|51.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This study was designed for a one-sided chi-square test to detect at least 12% reduction in the 40% rate of ≥ grade 2 treatment-related preoperative GI AEs from the conventional radiotherapy / capecitabine /oxaliplatin arm of study RTOG-0247 (NCT00081289) with 80% power and a one-sided type I error rate of 0.10.||||0.93
95830690|NCT02905006|191632524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95830691|NCT02905006|191632524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95830692|NCT02905006|191632524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95830693|NCT02905006|191632524|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value evaluating dose response excludes the BKZ Dose 3 group; is based on a logistic regression model with fixed effects for region, prior biologic exposure, continuous treatment variable with values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 for the remaining groups.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95830694|NCT02905006|191632525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.43|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|101.88|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||101.88|4.51|=0.0001
95830695|NCT02905006|191632525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|63.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|309.83|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||309.83|12.90|<0.0001
95830696|NCT02905006|191632525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|62.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|308.29|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||308.29|12.61|<0.0001
95830697|NCT02905006|191632525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|693.51|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||693.51|24.50|<0.0001
95830698|NCT02905006|191632525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.07|342.4|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||342.40|14.07|<0.0001
95830699|NCT02905006|191632526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.23|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|87.76|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||87.76|3.79|=0.0003
95830700|NCT02905006|191632526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.19|191.59|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||191.59|8.19|<0.0001
95830701|NCT02905006|191632526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.19|392.93|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||392.93|15.19|<0.0001
95830702|NCT02905006|191632526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.26|767.72|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||767.72|26.26|<0.0001
95830703|NCT02905006|191632526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|288.0|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||288.00|11.89|<0.0001
95830704|NCT02905006|191632527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95830705|NCT02905006|191632527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95830706|NCT02905006|191632527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95830707|NCT02905006|191632527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95830708|NCT02905006|191632527|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI90 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95830709|NCT02905006|191632528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.82|156.38|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||156.38|6.82|<0.0001
95830710|NCT02905006|191632528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|94.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.54|481.86|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||481.86|18.54|<0.0001
95830711|NCT02905006|191632528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.08|626.89|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||626.89|22.08|<0.0001
95830712|NCT02905006|191632528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|280.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.06|1789.24|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||1789.24|44.06|<0.0001
95830713|NCT02905006|191632528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|107.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.82|558.57|||Regression, Logistic|Confidence intervals, odds ratios, p-values derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment, region, prior bio-exposure.||||558.57|20.82|<0.0001
95830714|NCT02905006|191632529|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0001
95830715|NCT02905006|191632529|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||=0.0002
95830716|NCT02905006|191632529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
95830717|NCT02905006|191632529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
95830718|NCT02905006|191632529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The placebo treatment group contained no PASI100 responders and as such the p-values for the pairwise comparisons are based upon the Fisher's exact test.||||<0.0001
95830719|NCT05149313|191632564|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|27.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.63|40.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.14|15.63|<0.0001
95830720|NCT05149313|191632565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.8||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.03|28.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.57|7.03|0.0052
95830721|NCT05149313|191632566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|18.15||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|30.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.83|5.47|0.0114
95830722|NCT05010018|191632588|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||welch's t-test|||||||0.22
95830723|NCT03824158|191632600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
95830724|NCT03824158|191632601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.76
95830725|NCT03824158|191632602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95830726|NCT03824158|191632603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95830727|NCT03824158|191632604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||Advance directive or living will||||0.002
95830728|NCT03824158|191632604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||POLST||||0.02
95830729|NCT03824158|191632604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Code Status||||0.78
95830730|NCT03824158|191632604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Chi-squared|||Goals of Care discussion||||0.61
95830731|NCT03824158|191632605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95830732|NCT03824158|191632606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95830733|NCT03824158|191632607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95830734|NCT03824158|191632608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.83
95830735|NCT03824158|191632609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Total Score p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95830736|NCT03824158|191632610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IES-R Total Score p-value||||0.01
95830737|NCT03824158|191632611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95830738|NCT03824158|191632612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95830739|NCT03824158|191632613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95830740|NCT03824158|191632614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4
95830741|NCT03824158|191632615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95830742|NCT03824158|191632616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
95830743|NCT03824158|191632617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95830744|NCT03824158|191632618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.20
95830745|NCT03824158|191632619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95830746|NCT03007745|191632633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
95830747|NCT03007745|191632633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
95830748|NCT03007745|191632633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted mean changes and adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values|ANCOVA|||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9171
95830749|NCT03007745|191632633|NON_INFERIORITY|We hypothesized that the lower bound of the non-inferiority analysis of FOSQ-10 would be greater than the a-priori threshold of -1.0.|||||>|0.05||||||"Adjusted group difference in mean change in FOSQ-10 score from baseline to Month 3, controlling for baseline FOSQ and site, was -0.06 ± 061 (SEM) (P = 0.917).~The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -1.08"|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95830750|NCT03007745|191632634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.86|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
95830751|NCT03007745|191632634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
95830752|NCT03007745|191632634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.9251|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. ANCOVA model included main effects for type of study (home versus in-laboratory), site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure.||||0.9251
95830753|NCT03007745|191632635|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||0.4116|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Within arm change from baseline to 3 month follow-up||||0.4116
95830754|NCT03007745|191632635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.2201|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test comparing change in score (3-month - baseline) within group||||0.2201
95830755|NCT03007745|191632635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes between groups from baseline to month 3 in participants initiated on CPAP (LOCF applied using 1-month data).||||0.1732
95830756|NCT03007745|191632636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|<|0.0003|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0003
95830757|NCT03007745|191632636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data) Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group||||<0.0001
95830758|NCT03007745|191632636|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure||Adjusted differences in mean changes were estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for treatment group differences in mean pre-treatment baseline values. Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.6730
95830759|NCT03007745|191632637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||<0.0001
95830760|NCT03007745|191632637|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test comparing baseline and 3-month measures within group (LOCF applied using 1-month data)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||Subjects initiated on CPAP and receiving a 3-month follow-up (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.0001
95830761|NCT03007745|191632637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA included main effects for group, site, and the pre-treatment baseline value of the outcome measure|ANCOVA|Adjusted differences in mean changes estimated as site-total-sample-size weighted values controlling for group differences in mean baseline values||Between group comparison of change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||0.9903
95830762|NCT03007745|191632641|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) at 3 months (LOCF applied using 1-month data)||||>0.05
95962451|NCT03607422|191896637|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|54.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||54.9|21.2|<0.001
95862446|NCT00947882|191683925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.24||||0.3876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|4.128||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||4.128|-10.614|0.3876
95862447|NCT00947882|191683925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|3.096||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||3.096|-11.650|0.2548
95862448|NCT00947882|191683925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|5.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.322|-9.729|0.5652
95862449|NCT00947882|191683925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22||||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.768|6.322||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||6.322|-8.768|0.7502
95862450|NCT00947882|191683925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.513|5.581||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline TPV as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors. LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||5.581|-9.513|0.6089
95862451|NCT00947882|191683926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.8511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.294||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.294|-1.068|0.8511
95862452|NCT00947882|191683926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.477||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.477|-0.900|0.6331
95862453|NCT00947882|191683926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.113|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 3.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 3."|||1.250|-1.113|0.9090
95862454|NCT00947882|191683926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|1.802||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 30 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.802|-0.956|0.5469
95728990|NCT02300025|191428013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|132.1|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||132.1|54.6|
95830763|NCT03007745|191632642|NON_INFERIORITY|The a-priori lower bound selected for the non-inferiority analysis of average daily CPAP use over 3 months was -0.75 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||Group difference (REVAMP - In-person) in mean CPAP daily use over all days adjusted for investigative site.|ANCOVA|The lower bound of the 95% noninferiority confidence interval was -0.22.||||||0.308
95830764|NCT03344172|191632643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.71|||Fisher Exact|||||6.71|0.30|0.63
95830765|NCT03344172|191632644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.25|-1.00|0.13
95862455|NCT00947882|191683926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 20 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||1.200|-1.576|0.7906
95862456|NCT00947882|191683926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.773|0.987||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. Unadjusted p-value of comparison vs. placebo at Month 6.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline Qmax as covariate and treatment group, region (North America,Europe) and prostate volume stratum (\<30 mL,≥30 mL) as factors.LOCF.|"Treatment difference between Degarelix 10 mg and Placebo at Month 6."|||0.987|-1.773|0.5757
95862457|NCT00916929|191683988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate per patient year of follow up|1.5||||||95.0|||||exact method|95% Upper Confidence Limit of objective performance criteria||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Expected False Positive Rate ≥1.5 per patient-year of follow-up Ha: Expected False Positive Rate \<1.5 per patient-year of follow-up~The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) for expected FPR is less than 1.5 per patient-year of follow-up."||||
95830766|NCT03859739|191632650|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.79|||||||||||||Posterior Probability (PP) of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 2.44 %.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
95830767|NCT03859739|191632650|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.97|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 7.60%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
95830768|NCT03859739|191632650|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.58|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 74.99%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
95830769|NCT03859739|191632650|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted by Placebo data pooled from historical placebo data from recent monotherapy studies in HIV-1 infected participants (NCT00100048, NCT01466985, NCT01152255, and NCT01353898) and fitted with a LDA model containing fixed effects for study and time, and a random effect for participants.|Posterior Mean Difference|-1.78|||||||||||||PP of true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA change from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo ≤ -1.4 copies/mL was 87.41%.|It was hypothesized that the true mean difference in the plasma HIV-1 RNA reduction from baseline between MK-8558 and placebo is ≥ 1.4 log10 copies/mL.||||
95830770|NCT03859739|191632658|OTHER||Standard Error (SE)|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 0.25%.|The posterior probability (PP) that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
95830771|NCT03859739|191632658|OTHER||SE|0.146|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 65.41%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
95830772|NCT03859739|191632658|OTHER||SE|0.133|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.99%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
95830773|NCT03859739|191632658|OTHER||SE|0.163|||||||||||||PP that the true C168hr in plasma MK-8558 is ≥ 9.0 μM was 99.98%.|The PP that the true GM C168hr is ≥ 9.0 μM was calculated using a non-informative (Jeffrey's) prior under an assumption of normality of log C168hr.||||
96001217|NCT00408421|191979612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.326||95.0|-1.1|3.28||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||3.28|-1.10|0.326
95830774|NCT01804582|191632669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent to treat analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model to determine if there was any significant difference in change from baseline to 3 months based on time and condition. Data for all participants was included at baseline and 3 months.||||.15
95830775|NCT01804582|191632670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d was calculated to measure the estimation parameter.|||||.53
95830776|NCT01804582|191632671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.80
95830777|NCT01804582|191632672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.33
95830778|NCT01804582|191632673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21|||||||Wald Chi-Squared|||||||.21
95830779|NCT01804582|191632674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Phi|0.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi Squared (1, N = 229) = 7.99.||The total n=229 included those on medication at 90 days (119 never filled the prescription or changed to a different med)||||.005
96001218|NCT00408421|191979613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16||||0.069||95.0|-0.25|6.56||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||6.56|-0.25|0.069
95830780|NCT00765882|191632692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.72||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 145-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 90% based on study NCT00402337 (MCP-103-201) data."||5.72|1.50|0.0012
96002302|NCT02385123|191981844|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95830781|NCT00765882|191632692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.1||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 12-week CSBM overall responders between patients taking the 290-μg dose and those taking placebo.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 96% based on study NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) data."||8.10|2.20|<0.0001
95830782|NCT01811303|191632737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95830783|NCT01811303|191632737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.016||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
95830784|NCT00892606|191632773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0072
95830785|NCT00892606|191632774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95830786|NCT00892606|191632775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0146
95830787|NCT01511809|191632776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the two proportions of treatment failure (triple therapy-monotherapy) below the pre-specified margin of non-inferiority of -10% established inferiority. A sample size of 342 patients (171 per treatment arm) provided 80% power (one-sided, alpha 0.05) to establish non-inferiority of ATV/r monotherapy as compared to ATV/r triple therapy with an overall treatment failure (TF) rate of 15% at week 48.|difference between TF proportions|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Here are reported the results of the 48-week interim analyses according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. ITT=F (with re-intensification=failure) and the ITT=S (with re-intensification=success) treatment failure results are shown.~Based on the efficacy data review, in June 2013, an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommended to stop further patients' enrolment and to follow-up the enrolled patients until 96 weeks, after having signed an updated informed consent."||||
95830788|NCT01996592|191632778|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||"PROMIS -perceived stress scale was utilized (a validated test). Scoring ranges from 0-40, with the following ranges indicative of low, moderate, or high perceived stress:~0-13=low stress 14-26=moderate stress 27-40=high perceived stress"||||<0.01
95830789|NCT01996592|191632779|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||p-value was calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95830790|NCT00815191|191632783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority delta of 0.5°C|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.321|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.321|-0.139|<0.0001
95830791|NCT01741532|191632792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0761|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0761
95830792|NCT01741532|191632793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7279
95830793|NCT01741532|191632794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7228|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part I||||0.7228
95830794|NCT01741532|191632794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part II||||0.3677
95830795|NCT01741532|191632794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part III||||0.2182
95830796|NCT01741532|191632794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of treatment groups on change in score on UPDRS Part VI||||0.1749
95830797|NCT01741532|191632795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1524|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1524
95830798|NCT01741532|191632796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2026
95830799|NCT01741532|191632797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Patient self-report, total score||||0.9759
95830800|NCT01741532|191632797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5781|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Parent proxy-report, total score||||0.5781
95830801|NCT01741532|191632798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6323
95830802|NCT01741532|191632799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0000
95830803|NCT00973102|191632800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|5.25|||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||5.25|1.16|.252
95830804|NCT00973102|191632801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.895
95830805|NCT02360293|191632804|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|122.7|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Active Minutes as a function of arm and f/u time, adjusted for Sex, Baseline PA Goal (AM), and type of Smart Phone. Represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|Estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA, adjusted for baseline AM goal, Type of Smart Phone, and Sex.||122.7|-119.0|
95830806|NCT02360293|191632805|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|5.81|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting Weight as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||5.81|-15.85|
95830807|NCT02360293|191632806|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.969|0.646|||||Generated through ANCOVA predicting PHQ-8 Score as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.646|-2.969|
95830808|NCT02360293|191632807|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.353|||||"Estimate generated through ANCOVA predicting Pain In Past Week as a function of the interaction of arm and follow-up time. Estimate represents the contrast between SS+Coaching, 12 mos. - Baseline vs. SS alone, 12 mos. - Baseline.."|The estimated marginal means/least squares means are derived from a linear mixed model/rmANOVA/rmANCOVA.||0.353|-1.044|
95830809|NCT02945553|191632824|OTHER|Mixed model analysis of variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1596.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|202.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95830810|NCT02945553|191632829|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95855149|NCT02978781|191669814|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.7795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.70|-3.47|0.7795
95830811|NCT02593825|191632856|SUPERIORITY|Significance was based on α = .05. Hedges' g, corrected for small sample bias, was calculated as a measure of effect size using the model-predicted group differences in rate of change in the numerator and the pooled standard deviation estimated from the 3 or 12 month assessment (for short- and long-term effects, respectively) in the denominator.|Slope|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Piecewise linear mixed modeling (LMM) was performed to address the study questions. LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months) and post-intervention (3 to 12 months) phases, and accounted for variation in the time between assessments across children. All models controlled for intercept-level differences by site, as well as intercept- and slope-level differences by baseline-adjusted age and motor severity. Intervention effects were derived via intervention by slope interaction terms. Three-way interaction terms were subsequently added to the models to obtain intervention effects stratified by severity.|||<0.05
95830812|NCT02593825|191632857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear piecewise modeling|||||||.05
95830813|NCT02593825|191632858|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||data shown is for the 12 month time point for the severely delayed group comparison|Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5 Standard Deviations below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)||||<0.05
95830814|NCT02593825|191632860|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|LMM was necessary to account for repeated measures nested within children. Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months).|||<0.05
95830815|NCT02593825|191632861|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Also examined these groups in sub-groups of mildly delayed (\<2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline) and significantly motor delayed (\>2.5SD below the mean on motor Bayley score at baseline)|Piecewise modeling, using individually-varying timepoints, allowed separate slopes to be estimated across the intervention (baseline to 3 months)|||<0.05
95830816|NCT02593825|191632862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
95830817|NCT05926544|191632865|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.16|||||The Standard implementation arm was the reference group.|||1.16|0.18|
95830818|NCT04692077|191632866|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Reported Grade 2 and Above AEs|99.7|51.8|
95830819|NCT04692077|191632867|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|48.3|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Discontinued Early due to Intolerability of Injection or Burden of Study Procedures|48.3|0.3|
95830820|NCT04692077|191632868|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|95.7|||||||Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion for Participants who received at least one injection and preferred injectable PrEP at end of step 2.|95.7|22.3|
95830821|NCT04692077|191632872|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||The Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Number of Participants with Grade 2 or above AEs during Injection Phase.|99.7|51.8|
95830822|NCT04692077|191632873|OTHER||Exact CI for Proportions|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.8|99.7|||||||Exact 95% Confidence Interval for Proportion for Participants who Completed All Scheduled Injections among those who received at least one Injection|99.7|51.8|
95830823|NCT05431387|191632877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|7.098||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with whether subjects had smoked \>100 cigarettes in their lifetime (yes, no) as stratification.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 9 to 12||7.098|1.062|0.0350
95830824|NCT05431387|191632877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.133|6.491||Derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||6.491|1.133|0.0348
95830825|NCT05431387|191632877|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.17||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.284||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.284|0.012|0.0120
95830826|NCT05431387|191632878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|4.551|||Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 3 to 6||4.551|0.766|0.2205
95830827|NCT05431387|191632878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.058|
95830828|NCT05431387|191632879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|5.202|||Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|Abstinence from Week 6 to 9||5.202|0.967|0.0850
95830829|NCT05431387|191632879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.263||||||||0.263|-0.019|
95830830|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|7.309||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 2||7.309|0.653|0.3038
95830831|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.144||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 2||0.144|-0.058|0.3038
95830832|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|3.8||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 3||3.800|0.817|0.1996
95830833|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.251||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 3||0.251|-0.055|0.1996
95830834|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|6.414||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 4||6.414|1.458|0.0035
95830835|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.395||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 4||0.395|0.078|0.0035
95830836|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|3.809||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 5||3.809|0.905|0.1183
95830837|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.14||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.29||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 5||0.290|-0.035|0.1183
95830838|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|4.585||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 6||4.585|1.035|0.0532
95830839|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.17||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.311||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 6||0.311|-0.004|0.0532
95830840|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.539|6.989||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 7||6.989|1.539|0.0019
95830841|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.4||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 7||0.400|0.089|0.0019
95830842|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|4.944||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 8||4.944|1.119|0.0246
95830843|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.18||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.33||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 8||0.330|0.014|0.0246
95728991|NCT02300025|191428013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.1|60.7|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and severe hepatic impairment (test) where hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||60.7|25.1|
95830844|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|4.762||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 9||4.762|1.076|0.0362
95830845|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.18||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.321||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 9||0.321|0.005|0.0362
95830846|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|3.668||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 10||3.668|0.871|0.1215
95830847|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.13||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.281||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 10||0.281|-0.044|0.1215
95830848|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.935||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 11||3.935|0.882|0.1123
95830849|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.13||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.274||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 11||0.274|-0.040|0.1123
95830850|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|4.626||Two-sided, derived from marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 12||4.626|1.006|0.0516
95830851|NCT05431387|191632880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.16||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.298||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Week 12||0.298|-0.011|0.0516
95830852|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) means difference|-32.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6646||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.1192|90.1072||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 2||90.1072|-155.1192|1.0000
95830853|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-72.832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.6388||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3491|49.6842||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 3||49.6842|-195.3491|1.0000
95830854|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-74.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.8018||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.2184|49.0381||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 4||49.0381|-197.2184|1.0000
95830855|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-83.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.7865||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.4354|39.7066||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 5||39.7066|-206.4354|1.0000
95830856|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-79.952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9139||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.5009|43.5976||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 6||43.5976|-203.5009|1.0000
95830857|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-49.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2714||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-174.2006|75.5817||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 7||75.5817|-174.2006|1.0000
95830858|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-78.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2237||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.8196|46.6046||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 8||46.6046|-202.8196|1.0000
95830859|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-86.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.5025||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.7643|39.7529||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 9||39.7529|-211.7643|1.0000
95830860|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-62.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.151||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.1187|61.7592||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 10||61.7592|-187.1187|1.0000
95830861|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-63.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2292||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.9952|61.4704||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 11||61.4704|-187.9952|1.0000
95830862|NCT05431387|191632881|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-57.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2475||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.1302|67.4727||A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used. Bonferroni adjusted p-values are reported.|Compound symmetry covariance matrix|||Change at Week 12||67.4727|-182.1302|1.0000
95830863|NCT05431387|191632882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.319||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||Abstinence from Week 9 to 16||5.319|0.820|0.1470
95830864|NCT05431387|191632882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.1||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.211||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations|||||0.211|-0.044|0.1470
95830865|NCT04271475|191632883|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.16|||MMRM||Least square mean and SE of the mean was estimated by mixed model repeated measurements method.|||0.16|-32.34|0.974
95830866|NCT04088331|191632907|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||"Hypotheses:~H0: p ≤ 0.65 H1: p \> 0.65 where p = the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success.~Hypotheses evaluated using a one-sided exact binomial test.~Power calculation assumed a treatment success rate of 80%. With a one-sided type I error of 0.025 and a type II error of 0.10 (90% power), a sample size of 96 subjects needed to demonstrate the proportion of subjects who are a treatment success exceeds 65%."||||< 0.001
95830867|NCT01300351|191632952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||With a sample size of 220 randomised patients and 150 progression events, if treatment effect is consistent between ethnicities/the study populations, there is an 89% chance the HR \<1.|Log Rank|||The results of this study would be considered to be consistent with that of the CONFIRM study if the hazard ratio (HR) point estimate for the treatment comparison was \<1 (ie, it favoured fulvestrant 500 mg), without the requirement for the benefit of fulvestrant 500 mg to be statistically significant.||1.03|0.54|0.078
95830868|NCT01300351|191632953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.24|0.93|0.107
95962452|NCT03607422|191896638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|55.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|76.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||76.3|35.5|<0.001
95830869|NCT01300351|191632954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|1.04|0.023
95830870|NCT00673881|191632970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0042
95830871|NCT00673881|191632971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison baseline to end-of-treatment||||0.0002
95830872|NCT00673881|191632972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||NS|0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison from baseline to end-of-treatment||||NS
95830873|NCT00673881|191632980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95830874|NCT01189292|191632990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|42.0|||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis: Incidence of PONV is the same in both treatment arms||42|12|0.001
95830875|NCT01189292|191632991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||per protocol analysis||40|7|0.006
95830876|NCT01189292|191632994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model over the mean ranks at all time points measured (4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 48 hours)||||||0.674
95830877|NCT01189292|191632995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.835
95830878|NCT00357656|191633001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority by the 200% margin of non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of a 95% 2-sided confidence interval for the ratio of means did not exceed 200%.|Mean ratio CI/BI|0.924||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.046||one-sided p-value against the null hypothesis of ration \>=200%|Hypothesis test|||The main analysis used a point estimate and a two-sided 95% confidence interval for ratio of the primary outcome measure of CI over BI combined over the three strata: stratum A: unilateral knee replacement, stratum B: hip surgery, stratum C: shoulder/elbow/ankle/knee (except knee replacement) surgery.||1.046|0.816|0.001
95830879|NCT02573246|191633008|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.056||A priori threshold for significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The results presented are between the active right and sham conditions.|A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||-.056|-.590|0.019
95830880|NCT02573246|191633008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed models analysis of variance (MMANOVA) examining regulation duration during each regulation period was conducted using treatment condition (active right, active left, sham), experimental condition (regulation1, regulation2, regulation3), and baseline as predictors.||.508|-.034|.08
95830881|NCT02573246|191633008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|-0.02||A priori threshold for significance was set to .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|we controlled for baseline and for the distance between the brain and the scalp||Regulation duration was transformed using a logarithmic transformation to achieve normality||-.020|-.434|.033
95830882|NCT02573246|191633009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.256||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||A univariate general linear model was employed to test of regulation duration, transformed for normality.||.256|-0.504|.51
95830883|NCT02573246|191633009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|0.378|||ANOVA|||||.378|-.364|.97
95830884|NCT02573246|191633009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167031||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215936|0.511921||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||A t test of the variable 'time it took to return to HR baseline', transformed for normality was used to examine between condition differences at the 1 month follow up.||0.511921|-0.215936|0.39
95830885|NCT02573246|191633010|SUPERIORITY|HF-HRV was transformed using the function lg10\*(HF-HRV\*1000000) in order to be normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.267||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||In the original study (CR+active left rTMS vs CR+ active right rTMS vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation.||.267|.044|.022
95830886|NCT02573246|191633010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000037|0.213074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMANOVA||0.213074|0.000037|0.0499
95830887|NCT02573246|191633010|SUPERIORITY|Aimed to recruit 20 participants in each condition to align with other neurostimulation studies where 6-20 adults per condition were sufficient to demonstrate proof-of-concept for novel treatments (Bentwich et al., 2011; Cunningham et al., 2015).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.215||Significance threshold was set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMANOVA analysis used an unstructured covariance structure.|In the supplemental study (CR+active left rTMS with functional targeting vs CR+sham rTMS), mixed-effects hierarchical linear models (MMANOVA) with analytically determined covariance structures were used to analyze the repeated measures data. We hypothesized that active neurostimulation would increase HF-HRV during regulation when compared with sham.||.215|.129|<.000001
95830888|NCT02573246|191633011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091544||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078086|0.300661||A priori threshold was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in dlPFC activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.|Parameter estimate is the value of the difference between active stimulation and sham stimulation.|Difference between treatment conditions in dlPFC activation change between feeling negative emotions and downregulation of negative affect a week after intervention, when controlling for baseline activation difference||0.300661|-0.078086|.236
95830889|NCT02573246|191633011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.359024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144067||0.020347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.657049||Threshold was set at 0.05 a priori|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vlpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vlPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted using FSL featquery. A univariate general linear model excluding one outlier from the active condition was conducted for this outcome measure.||0.657049|0.061000|0.020347
95830890|NCT02573246|191633011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461481||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.732963|1.17633||A priori threshold was set to .05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in vmpfc activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly higher activation following active intervention in the vmPFC when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with FSL featquery.||1.176330|-0.732963|0.635
95830891|NCT02573246|191633011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178029||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188868|0.547692||a priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in amygdala activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the amygdala when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. ROI data was extracted with featquery (FSL).||0.547692|-0.188868|.324
95830892|NCT02573246|191633011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071185||0.76819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126027|0.168489||A priori set threshold was 0.05|ANCOVA|Brain to skull difference and intake difference in insula activation between regulation and feeling negative were included as confounds.||Expected significantly lower activation following active intervention in the insula when compared to sham when engaging in downregulation versus passive experience of negative emotions induced with autobiographical stressors. FSL featquery tool was used to extract ROI (region of interest) data.||0.168489|-0.126027|0.768190
95830893|NCT02573246|191633012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|1.293||a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANOVA|||Likert-type questions about acceptability were rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely) and then averaged to create a mean for acceptability. This average score was normally distributed and therefore was entered into a univariate general linear model where acceptability was entered as a dependent variable and condition as a fixed factor.||1.293|-0.553|0.69
95830894|NCT02573246|191633012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|1.139|||ANOVA|||||1.139|-.592|.53
95830895|NCT02573246|191633012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.27||a priory threshold for significance was .05|t-test, 2 sided|||we compared differences in acceptability between conditions using an independent samples t-test (acceptability was normally distributed)||0.27|-1.59|0.15
95830896|NCT02573246|191633013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.912||a priori threshold was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||We compared differences between conditions in the perceived feasibility of the procedures. Feasibility average was normally distributed and therefore a general linear model, univariate was employed to test between condition effects.||0.912|-0.322|0.551
95830897|NCT02573246|191633013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.571|||ANOVA|||||.571|-.567|.995
95830898|NCT02573246|191633013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09957|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8672|0.6681||A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 23||We examined differences in feasibility between the active and sham condition in the sub-study where fMRI targeting was utilized. Average feasibility was normally distributed and therefore an independent samples t-test was used to test this outcome.||0.6681|-0.8672|0.791
95830899|NCT02573246|191633014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.048||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.522964|21.60462||A priori threshold was set to 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||To test the long-term effects of the intervention, a MMANOVA model was conducted examining between-condition differences at the 1-week and 1-month follow-up in the OQ-45. Baseline was co-varied.||21.604620|-9.522964|0.61
95830900|NCT02573246|191633014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.906|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|14.02||a priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.02|-15.83|.90
95830901|NCT02573246|191633014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.971581|26.892619||threshold was set to 0.05 a priori|Mixed Models Analysis||HLM models used a compound symmetry covariance structure.|||26.892619|-5.971581|.20
95830902|NCT02573246|191633015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062356|-0.043203||A priori threshold was set to .05 for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) right before the intervention were co-varied as baseline.|Results reported are for active left vs. sham comparison.|Hypothesized that active neurostimulation would lead to lower daily distress than sham stimulation. We used a hierarchical linear model (HLM) for this analysis with an identity covariance structure (random intercept and random slope).||-0.043203|-1.062356|.034
95830903|NCT02573246|191633015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.47||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesized that active neurostimulation will lead to less daily distress than sham neurostimulation during the ambulatory data collection. An HLM analysis was conducted using an unstructured covariance structure and reported distress right before the intervention as baseline.||1.47|-.208|.133
95830904|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.300772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.670936||0.629061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.708548|4.107||A priori threshold was set to .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Intake values for the dependent measures were covaried. The time by condition interaction term was included.||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less functional impairment than sham neurostimulation.||4.107|-6.708548|0.629061
95830905|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.977394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.605189||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.255223|4.300434|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We expected lower functional impairment in the active right versus the sham condition.||4.300434|-6.255223|0.71
95830906|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.292137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.314194||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.157811|3.573537||A priori set threshold was .05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline WSAS was covaried|The analysis compared sham versus active stimulation.|Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology in the substudy also. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less impairment than sham neurostimulation.||3.573537|-10.157811|0.331
95830907|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276698||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27603|0.845209||A priori set threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.845209|-0.276030|0.31
95830908|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.129377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.150339||0.275257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.394724|28.653479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that active right neurostimulation would yield lower emotional dysregulation after the intervention when compared to sham neurostimulation.||28.653479|-8.394724|0.275257
95830909|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.212753||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.002351|-0.372281||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation.||-0.372281|-26.002351|0.044
95830910|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.927909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.603423||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.508252|20.364071||A priori set threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|baseline was covaried||We expected active stimulation to lead to less emotional dysregulation than sham neurostimulation. A MMANOVA model was employed, controlling for baseline.||20.364071|-18.508252|.924
95830911|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267983||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.560994|0.525901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||we expected more use of cr following active right neurostimulation then after following sham neurostimulation.||0.525901|-0.560994|.95
95830912|NCT02573246|191633016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.096719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389897||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.900919|0.707481||A priori set significance threshold was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline use of cognitive restructuring was covaried||Mixed model analyses of variance (MMANOVAs) were conducted to explore the difference between active and sham neurostimulation on self reported indices of regulation and psychopathology. We expected active neurostimulation to lead to more use of cognitive restructuring than sham neurostimulation.||0.707481|-0.900919|.806
95830913|NCT02256267|191633026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0771|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0671|0.0886||||||||0.0886|0.0671|
95830914|NCT02256267|191633027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0376|0.0581||||||||0.0581|0.0376|
95830915|NCT02700165|191633055|OTHER||sucess proportion|78.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|95.3|||||Independent physician reviewers correctly identified 13/14, 11/14 and 10/14, respectively for an overall percentage of correct identification of 34/42 or 81%. Two of three reviewers correctly identified 11/14 (78.6%) photos.|||95.3|49.2|
95830916|NCT01739803|191633059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||To control for experiment-wise Type I error rate in this analysis, a comparison-wise alpha of 0.01 was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We projected mean composite adherence rate for all participants to be approximately 80% ± 15. We anticipated at least 10% increase in intervention group adherence at end of intervention. To have 80% power to detect expected difference of 10% at the 2-tailed 5% significance level, sample size needed to be at least 36 RTRs per group. We took a conservative approach, in combination with anticipated attrition over the course of study, and increased enrollment.||||<0.05
95830917|NCT01739803|191633060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95830918|NCT01739803|191633061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95830919|NCT00915148|191633062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The reported p-value corresponds with each area under the ROC assessments|Chi-squared|||In a previous study we investigated women before induction of labor. Using 40 mm as cut-off level for fetal head - perineum distance, the Cesarean section rate in primiparous women was 7% in the group with a short distance and 27% in the group with a long distance. We assumed similar results, with alpha 0.05, power 0.8 and a ratio of 1 : 1 for the numbers of women with a long and short distance. We would need to include 110 women in the study.||||<0.01
95830920|NCT00915148|191633063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||the reported p-value corresponds with each log rank comparison|Log Rank|||"Kaplan Meier plots were used to compare time from a defined prolonged labor in the first stage to delivery for~1. women with fetal head-perineum distance ≤40 mm vs. women with distance \>40 mm measured with 2D ultrasound.~2. women with angle of progression ≥110 degrees vs. women with angle \<110 degrees measured with 2D ultrasound"||||<0.01
95830921|NCT01428336|191633071|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT||0.60|-0.20|
95830922|NCT01428336|191633071|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT||-0.01|-0.69|
95830923|NCT01428336|191633071|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.04||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT||0.04|-0.65|
95830924|NCT01428336|191633072|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.65||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 1ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||0.65|-0.24|
95830925|NCT01428336|191633072|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.15||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. Peak 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.15|-0.91|
95830926|NCT01428336|191633072|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority region of 0.15 for the difference in correlations is expected.|Difference in correlation|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.14||||||Analysis comparing Peak 25ug CST correlation with ITT vs. 30-minute 250ug CST correlation with ITT - free cortisol||-0.14|-0.94|
95830927|NCT02449018|191633076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.24|0.130
95830928|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance between baseline and 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
95830929|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
95830930|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
95830931|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance from baseline to 24 month follow-up;||||0.025
95830932|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.747
95830933|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
95830934|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
95830935|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms success rate from baseline to 24 month recall. For Esthetic and Biological-FDI comparison p values were \> 0.05. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
95830936|NCT02698371|191633117|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms retention rate from baseline to 24 month recall. Adjusted P-values.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
95830937|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
95830938|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE(G4G6) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.189
95830939|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE (G1) and MM-SE (G4G6) adhesives result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.189
95830940|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.025|||||||McNemar|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.025
95830941|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.154
95830942|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.747|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC-SE-EE (G2) and MM-ER (G3G5) result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.747
95830943|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) clinical (aesthetic, functional and biologic) behaviour/performance;||||0.070
95830944|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restorations (aesthetic, functional and biologic) success rates;||||0.070
95830945|NCT02698371|191633118|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar restoration retention rates;||||0.070
95830946|NCT02698371|191633119|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Esthetic of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Esthetic outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
95830947|NCT02698371|191633119|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Functional of FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Functional outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||1.000
95830948|NCT02698371|191633119|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.998||||||Applied for rows/Categories- Acceptance Vs Not Acceptance Biologic FDI and of USPHS comparison; Applied to G1G2; G3G4 and G5G6 separately.|Chi-squared|||H0: FDI or USPHS criteria Biological outcomes not differ at 24th month follow-up regarding Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4) and ADU (G5G6) adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes.||||0.998
95830949|NCT02698371|191633120|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.029||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.029
95830950|NCT02698371|191633120|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.002||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall;||||0.002
95830951|NCT02698371|191633120|EQUIVALENCE|alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.618||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Surface Luster-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Luster performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.618
95830952|NCT02698371|191633121|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.009||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.009
95830953|NCT02698371|191633121|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.059||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin Performance at 24 Month Follow-up recall.||||0.059
95830954|NCT02698371|191633121|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.829||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Staining Margin-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Staining Margin performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.829
95830955|NCT02698371|191633122|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
95830956|NCT02698371|191633122|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
95962453|NCT03607422|191896638|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|72.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||72.9|26.3|<0.001
95830957|NCT02698371|191633122|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.064||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Colour Stability-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Colour Stability performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.064
95830958|NCT02698371|191633123|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.006||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.006
95830959|NCT02698371|191633123|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
95830960|NCT02698371|191633123|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.054||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Fractures and Retention-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Fractures and Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.054
95830961|NCT02698371|191633124|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.01||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.010
95830962|NCT02698371|191633124|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.071||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.071
95830963|NCT02698371|191633124|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.898||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Marginal Adaptation-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Adaptation performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.898
95830964|NCT02698371|191633125|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
95830965|NCT02698371|191633125|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
95830966|NCT02698371|191633125|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Hypersensibility, Tooth Vitality performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
95830967|NCT02698371|191633126|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
95962454|NCT03607422|191896639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.492|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|-32.06|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-32.06|-57.74|<0.001
95830968|NCT02698371|191633126|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||.317
95830969|NCT02698371|191633126|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.575||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Recurrence of Caries, Erosion \& Abfraction-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Recurrence of Caries, Erosion, Abfraction performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.575
95830970|NCT02698371|191633127|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
95830971|NCT02698371|191633127|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.107||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.107
95830972|NCT02698371|191633127|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.592||||||Applied for all rows/Categories (graded on a 5-point scale) of Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks)-FDI comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Tooth Integrity (enamel cracks) performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.592
95830973|NCT02698371|191633128|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
95830974|NCT02698371|191633128|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
95830975|NCT02698371|191633128|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Surface Staining-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Surface Staining performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
95830976|NCT02698371|191633129|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.011||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.011
95830977|NCT02698371|191633129|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.034||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.034
95830978|NCT02698371|191633129|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.885||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Marginal Discoloration-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Discoloration performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.885
95830979|NCT02698371|191633130|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||1||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||1.000
95830980|NCT02698371|191633130|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
95830981|NCT02698371|191633130|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.403||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Color Match-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Color Match performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.403
95862458|NCT00916929|191683989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|50.0||||exact method|||"For each patient cohort, the hypothesis is formally expressed as follows:~H0: Sensitivity ≤ 50% Ha: Sensitivity \> 50%~The desired outcome was to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 5% significance level if the 95% lower confidence limit (LCL) for sensitivity is greater than 50%."|||50|
95830982|NCT02698371|191633131|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
95830983|NCT02698371|191633131|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.02||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.020
95830984|NCT02698371|191633131|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.04||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie of Retention-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Retention performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.040
95830985|NCT02698371|191633132|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
95830986|NCT02698371|191633132|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered|||||<|0.001||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||<0.001
95830987|NCT02698371|191633132|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.211||||||Applied for rows/categories alfa/bravo/charlie/delta of Marginal Integrity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Marginal Integrity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.211
95830988|NCT02698371|191633133|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.102||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.102
95830989|NCT02698371|191633133|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.18||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.180
95830990|NCT02698371|191633133|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.99||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Postoperative Sensitivity-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted.|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Postoperative Sensitivity performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.990
95830991|NCT02698371|191633134|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.157||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.157
95830992|NCT02698371|191633134|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.317||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.317
95830993|NCT02698371|191633134|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.334||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Secondary Caries-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Secondary Caries performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.334
95830994|NCT02698371|191633135|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.132||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1 and G4G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by Self-Etch mode (FBDC-SE; G1) and MM adhesives by SE mode (MM-SE; G4G6) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.132
95830995|NCT02698371|191633135|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.257||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G2 and G3G5 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC by SE and enamel etching mode (FBDC-SE-EE; G2) and MM adhesives by Etch-and-Rinse mode (MM-ER; G3G5) result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.257
95862459|NCT02428478|191683993|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Tonic analysis||||0.01
95862460|NCT02428478|191683993|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Phasic analysis||||0.38
95830996|NCT02698371|191633135|EQUIVALENCE|An alpha value of 0.05 was considered||||||0.918||||||Applied for rows/categories No Evidence vs Evidence of Gingival Bleeding-USPHS comparison between G1G2 and G3G4 and G5G6 Arms performance from baseline to 24 month recall. P-value adjusted|Kruskal-Wallis|||H0 - Bonding to NCCLs with FBDC (G1G2) or FBU (G3G4), DC adhesives, and ADU (G5G6) light-curing adhesive, with SE or SE-ER/ER modes result in similar (no significant differences) Gingival Bleeding performance at 24 month follow-up recall.||||0.918
95830997|NCT05714943|191633205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.99
95830998|NCT05714943|191633206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
95830999|NCT05714943|191633207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
95831000|NCT05714943|191633208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
95831001|NCT05714943|191633209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
95831002|NCT05714943|191633210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
95831003|NCT05714943|191633211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
95831004|NCT05714943|191633212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.21
95831005|NCT05714943|191633213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
95831006|NCT05714943|191633214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
95831007|NCT05714943|191633215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.86
95831008|NCT05714943|191633216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
95831009|NCT05714943|191633217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
95831010|NCT05714943|191633218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
95831011|NCT05714943|191633219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
95831012|NCT05714943|191633220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
95831013|NCT05714943|191633221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.00
95831014|NCT05714943|191633222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.88
95831015|NCT05714943|191633223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.94
95831016|NCT01274611|191633231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95831017|NCT01274611|191633232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A sample of 20 patients, or 40 treatment sites (the unit of randomization), provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.68 using a paired t test at a type I error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.0|||>|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.01
95831018|NCT00897390|191633254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.075||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.075|1.009|
95831019|NCT00897390|191633254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.019||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.019|0.958|
95862461|NCT02428478|191683994|OTHER||Median Change|-0.6||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Passive Pcrit||||0.037
95831020|NCT00897390|191633256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.013|1.077||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.077|1.013|
95831021|NCT00897390|191633256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.022||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.022|0.962|
95862462|NCT02428478|191683994|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Rank Test|||Active Pcrit||||>0.5
95862463|NCT01309282|191684003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
95960194|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7640
95831022|NCT00897390|191633257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|1.077|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.185||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.185|0.978|
95831023|NCT00897390|191633257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.083||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.083|0.900|
95831024|NCT00897390|191633260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.03||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.030|0.921|
95831025|NCT00897390|191633260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.966||||||90.0|0.915|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.915|
95831026|NCT00897390|191633261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.962||||||90.0|0.906|1.02||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.020|0.906|
95831027|NCT00897390|191633261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.974||||||90.0|0.92|1.032||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.032|0.920|
95862464|NCT01309282|191684004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0078
95862465|NCT01309282|191684005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01403|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01403
95862466|NCT01309282|191684006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0355
95862467|NCT01309282|191684007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.5469
95862468|NCT01309282|191684008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
95862469|NCT01309282|191684009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0225
95831028|NCT00897390|191633262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.864|1.016||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.016|0.864|
95960195|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Sitting; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by sitting. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5064
95831029|NCT00897390|191633262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals were calculated for the Arm B to Arm A and Arm D to Arm C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF) and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|adjusted geometric mean|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.042||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of formulation (FDC tablet versus co-administration of separate saxagliptin tablet and metformin IR tablet) in the fasted and fed state, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\] and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.042|0.891|
95831030|NCT01216683|191633280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||one-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study was designed to detect a 16% difference in CR rate from 50% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab arms to 66% in the Bendamustine + Rituximab + Bortezomib arm, with 90% power at the one-sided alpha 0.15 level.||||0.02
95831031|NCT01216683|191633281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on Groupe d'Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires status and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index||||||0.02
95831032|NCT05011513|191633306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6027|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6027
95831033|NCT05011513|191633308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796||||||P-value reported for COVID-19 hospitalization and death due to any cause.|Normal approximation|||||||0.1796
95831034|NCT05011513|191633310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0971|||||||Negative binomial|||||||0.0971
95831035|NCT05011513|191633312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.819||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.084|0.618|0.1622
95831036|NCT05011513|191633313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4298
95831037|NCT05011513|191633316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.802||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status (positive/negative), vaccination status (complete/not vaccinated) and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL).||1.050|0.613|0.1086
95831038|NCT05011513|191633317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.333||||0.3262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.163|192.472|||Breslow-Day Test|||||192.472|13.163|0.3262
95831039|NCT05011513|191633317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.36|59.08||||||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1||59.080|8.360|
95831040|NCT04327024|191633336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.08|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.08|-1.28|0.862
95831041|NCT04327024|191633337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.64|||ANCOVA|Model included change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable and baseline peak VO2 as covariate.||||1.64|-0.76|0.472
95831042|NCT04327024|191633338|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs placebo) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||8.94|-2.65|0.287
95831043|NCT04327024|191633339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment as the independent variable and visit, visit by treatment, and baseline KCCQ-TSS as covariates.||"H0: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) = 0 Ha: Difference in mean change from baseline in KCCQ-TSS (verinurad + allopurinol vs allopurinol) ≠ 0~A hierarchical test sequence was used for the confirmatory analysis of the primary and secondary objectives in order to address the issue of multiple testing and control the Type I error rate at an overall two-sided 0.05 level."||5.61|-5.90|0.960
95831044|NCT05818137|191633361|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.6|-68.4|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-68.4|-129.6|
95831045|NCT05818137|191633364|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|55.5|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||55.5|27.8|
95831046|NCT05818137|191633366|OTHER||Change from baseline estimate|-48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-24.8|||||The change from baseline estimate and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-24.8|-77.0|
95831047|NCT05925374|191633374|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95831048|NCT05925374|191633375|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95831049|NCT05925374|191633376|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.136
95831050|NCT03320330|191633379|OTHER|Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503), administered to children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors (Part A), was determined by the rolling-6 design.|Recommended Phase 2 dose|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Recommended Phase 2 dose of pepinemab (VX15/2503) is 20 mg/kg.|||||
95831051|NCT03323736|191633391|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.80) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.91|0.80|
95831052|NCT03323736|191633391|SUPERIORITY|The Procedural Success endpoint would be successfully met if the lower bound of the 95% Credible Interval (lower limit 0.82) exceeded the 68% success rate performance goal.|Credible Interval|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.93||||||Procedural success rate was compared to the performance goal of 68% using a Bayesian Hierarchical model.||0.93|0.82|
95831053|NCT03323736|191633392|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mean tube placement FPS-R score to a performance goal of 4.2.||||||0.0072||||||Mean FPS-R score hypothesized to be less than (superior to) a performance goal of 4.2, at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0072
95831054|NCT03323736|191633393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>80%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Patency endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with patent tubes was greater than (superior to) 80% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
95831055|NCT03323736|191633394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>88%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||Tube Retention endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with retained tubes was greater than (superior to) 88% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
95831056|NCT03323736|191633395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Pre-specified threshold for superiority was \>85%, at alpha = 0.025.|mid-P method for single proportion|||The Anesthesia Effectiveness endpoint would be successfully met if the percentage of subjects with successful anesthesia was greater than (superior to) 85% (by subject), at a significance level of 0.025 (p\<0.025).||||<0.0001
95831057|NCT01364740|191633396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
95831058|NCT01364740|191633397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
95831059|NCT01364740|191633398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
95831060|NCT01364740|191633399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Sign test|||Patient data from one night with the PMP-300E compared to In-Lab PSG data||||>0.05
95831061|NCT05206370|191633404|SUPERIORITY|Abstinence from Week 3 to Week 6|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.475|5.617||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|||5.617|1.475|0.0008
95831062|NCT05206370|191633404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.485|5.094||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||5.094|1.485|0.0010
95831063|NCT05206370|191633404|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.09||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.134||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.134|0.033|0.0006
95831064|NCT05206370|191633405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.566|7.343||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 12||7.343|2.566|< 0.0001
95831065|NCT05206370|191633405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.575|6.885||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||6.885|2.575|< 0.0001
95831066|NCT05206370|191633405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.267||p-value for difference in proportions4|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.267|0.141|< 0.0001
95831067|NCT05206370|191633406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|34.619||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (Stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 6 to Week 24||34.619|1.851|0.0006
95831068|NCT05206370|191633406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.026|27.544||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||27.544|2.026|0.0007
95831069|NCT05206370|191633406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.06||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.075||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.075|0.023|0.0007
95831070|NCT05206370|191633407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.888|12.458||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Abstinence from Week 9 to Week 24||12.458|2.888|< 0.0001
95831071|NCT05206370|191633407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.091|12.13||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||12.130|3.091|< 0.0001
95831072|NCT05206370|191633407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.202||p-value for difference in proportions|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.202|0.110|< 0.0001
95831073|NCT05206370|191633408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|2.297||Two-sided, calculated by exact computations with clinical site as a stratifier.|Exact computations||Common odds ratio (stratified by site)|Relapse free at Week 24||2.297|0.652|0.5538
95831074|NCT05206370|191633408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.231||Two-sided, derived from marginal odds ratio.|Exact computations||Marginal (unadjusted) odds ratio|||2.231|0.691|0.5560
95831075|NCT05206370|191633408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2822|||||||Zelen's exact test (Pr ≤ P)|||||||0.2822
95831076|NCT03500172|191633517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.455
95831077|NCT03500172|191633518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962||||||Statistical significance threshold: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.962
95831078|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for steady partner, living together vs. single.||0.99|0.61|<0.05
95831079|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.51||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for 5-9 new clients in the past month vs. 0 clients in the past month.||2.51|1.02|<0.05
95831080|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.57||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU for use of marijuana in the past 30 days vs. no marijuana use in the past 30 days||1.57|1.09|<0.05
95831081|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.52||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those experiencing physical violence in the past 6 months vs. no experience of physical violence in the past 6 months.||1.52|1.01|<0.05
95831082|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those who have experienced sexual violence in the past 6 months vs. those who have not||2.00|1.31|<0.05
95831083|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.33|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.29||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral loads from 50-1000 copies/mL at baseline vs. \<50 copies/mL.||3.29|1.65|<0.05
95831084|NCT03500172|191633519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.36||Threshold for significance: 0.05|Regression, Cox|||Statistical test for risk of LTFU among those with viral load greater than 1000 copies/mL vs. those with viral load less than 50 copies/mL.||3.36|1.82|<0.05
95831085|NCT03500172|191633520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.756
95831086|NCT03500172|191633521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.295
95831087|NCT03500172|191633522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149||||||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.149
95831088|NCT03500172|191633523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Threshold of significance: 0.05|Two sample test of proportions|||||||0.301
95831089|NCT03500172|191633526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.212
95831090|NCT03298451|191633543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0398) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0035
95831091|NCT03298451|191633543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||0.92|0.66|
95831092|NCT03298451|191633544|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-interiority for the comparison of arm Durva 1500 mg vs Sora 400 mg is declared if the upper limit of the two-sided alpha adjusted CI for HR is less than the NI margin of 1.08.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.67|0.73|1.03|||Regression, Cox||The 95.67% confidence interval were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|The analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). Values of the variables used for adjustment were obtained from IVRS.||1.03|0.73|
95831093|NCT03298451|191633544|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was tested sequentially per protocol as non-inferiority was satisfied.||||||0.0674||||||The adjusted alpha levels (0.0433) for the two-sided superiority test were derived based upon the exact number of OS events for each comparison using the Lan and DeMets approach that approximates the O'Brien Fleming spending function.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using stratified log-rank test adjusting for treatment, etiology of liver disease (HBV versus HCV versus others), ECOG (0 versus 1), and macro-vascular invasion (yes versus no). The values of the stratification factors were obtained from IVRS.||||0.0674
95831094|NCT04908280|191633561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0308
95831095|NCT06987201|191633566|OTHER|Test for Difference Between Groups|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.398|-1.902|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.902|-3.398|<0.001
95831096|NCT03968159|191633611|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||0.8|-2.5|0.2956
95831097|NCT05579249|191633621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.78|||Regression, Linear|||Week 52 responses were analysed using a binary regression model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||4.78|2.12|<0.0001
96001219|NCT00408421|191979614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.107||95.0|-1.2|0.12||P-value for Change from Baseline. Treatment effects and interaction effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Change=Endpoint-baseline.|ANOVA||Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains the terms of treatment and investigator. Type III sum-of-squares for the least-squares mean (LSMean) was used to test the null hypothesis that there is no treatment difference on the mean change from baseline to the endpoint of the outcome measure.||0.12|-1.20|0.107
95831098|NCT01299571|191633630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.8||||||95.0|3.2|4.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with adverse events.|||4.4|3.2|
95831099|NCT00443781|191633642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||McNemar|Exact test was used.||Mcnemar test was used to test the difference between paired PD (provocative discography) and F.A.D. (Functional Anesthetic Discography) proportions.||||0.002
95831100|NCT01672866|191633689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.0|-1.3|
95831101|NCT01672866|191633689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSMeans [SIM - Placebo]|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||||||An MMRM with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||0.8|-1.5|
95831102|NCT01672866|191633690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.73
95831103|NCT01672866|191633690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Stratified log-rank test|||Differences in EFS between a given SIM group and placebo were assessed using the log-rank test stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes at baseline.||||0.85
95831104|NCT02100475|191633694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in the response after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method with treatment and baseline IDegLira dose strata as fixed factors and baseline response as a covariate. Missing data were imputed using LOCF.||0.46|-1.05|0.427
95831105|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.359|0.083|1.000
95831106|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.23||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.492|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.492|0.111|0.9999
95831107|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.568|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.568|0.121|0.9997
95831108|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.66|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.660|0.136|0.9997
95831109|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.632|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.632|0.133|0.9991
95831110|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.46||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|1.081|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.081|0.213|0.9631
95831111|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9941||95.0|0.157|0.789|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.789|0.157|0.9941
95831112|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.179|0.891|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.891|0.179|0.9875
95831113|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.33||||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.759|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.759|0.151|0.9956
95831114|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.747|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.747|0.157|0.9964
95831115|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.532|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.532|0.114|0.9999
95831116|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.647|0.130|0.9991
95831117|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.36||||0.9852|TWO_SIDED|0.9852|0.137|0.906|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.906|0.137|0.9852
95862470|NCT01309282|191684010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0904
96001220|NCT03825042|191979626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-15.2|||ANCOVA|||||-15.20|-26.80|0.0000
96001221|NCT03825042|191979627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-3.61|||ANCOVA|||||-3.61|-8.45|0.0000
95831118|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.014|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||AngII, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.014|0.230|0.9719
95831119|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.263|6.919|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||6.919|2.263|1.0000
95831120|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.46||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.976|6.052|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||6.052|1.976|1.000
95831121|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.59||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||6.345|2.060|1.0000
95831122|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.82||||0.9806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|3.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||3.170|1.031|0.9806
95831123|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.5||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.636|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||2.636|0.828|0.9129
95831124|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.92||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.098|3.349|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.349|1.098|0.9891
95831125|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.29||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.316|3.974|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||3.974|1.316|0.9983
95831126|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.94||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|3.359|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||3.359|1.112|0.9900
95831127|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|2.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||2.163|0.729|0.7996
95831128|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|2.087|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||2.087|0.718|0.7778
95831129|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.24||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.113|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.113|0.705|0.7730
95831130|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.45||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.604|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.604|0.814|0.8951
95831131|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.57||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||1.183|0.276|0.9324
95831132|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.63||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.257|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-5 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.257|0.351|0.8982
95831133|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|4.22||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.905|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||8.905|1.910|0.9998
95831134|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|3.67||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|7.97|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||7.970|1.689|0.9993
95831135|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|5.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|11.754|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||11.754|2.392|1.0000
95831136|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.25||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|5.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||5.136|0.972|0.9713
95831137|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|2.19||||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.975|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||4.975|0.940|0.9649
95831138|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.59||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|3.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||3.473|0.711|0.8749
95831139|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.99||||0.9566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|4.342|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||4.342|0.899|0.9566
95831140|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.91||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|4.173|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||4.173|0.862|0.9549
95831141|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.81||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|4.005|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||4.005|0.816|0.9275
95831142|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.32||||0.7483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|3.007|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||3.007|0.584|0.7483
95831143|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.675|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||2.675|0.516|0.6480
95831144|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.76||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|4.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||4.170|0.741|0.9038
95831145|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.915|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||3.915|0.490|0.7339
95831146|NCT01597635|191633718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.38||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|3.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang1-7 , Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.321|0.651|0.7714
95862471|NCT01309282|191684011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2969
95862472|NCT02692391|191684021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95960196|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1318
95831147|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.07||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.032|1.0000
95831148|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.209|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.209|0.048|1.0000
95831149|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.054|0.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.243|0.054|1.0000
95831150|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.547|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.547|0.113|0.9996
95831151|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.29||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.634|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.634|0.130|0.9991
95831152|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.32||||0.9979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.682|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.682|0.149|0.9979
95831153|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.19||||1||95.0|0.091|0.417|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.417|0.091|1.0000
95831154|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.539|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.539|0.119|0.9998
95831155|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.666|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.666|0.141|0.9985
95831156|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.73|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.730|0.162|0.9977
95831157|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.22||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.468|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.468|0.105|0.9999
95831158|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.26||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.570|0.119|0.9996
95831159|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.82||||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|2.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||2.136|0.319|0.6621
95831160|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.79||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.847|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-5, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.847|0.324|0.7085
95831161|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||0.140|0.028|1.0000
95831162|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.216|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||0.216|0.043|1.0000
95831163|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.177|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||0.177|0.034|1.0000
95831164|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.2||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.453|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||0.453|0.086|0.9998
95831165|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.17||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||0.400|0.075|0.9999
95831166|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.4||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.901|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||0.901|0.173|0.9863
95831167|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.529|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||0.529|0.103|0.9998
95831168|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.28||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.626|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||0.626|0.119|0.9992
95831169|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.561|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||0.561|0.102|0.9995
95831170|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.31||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.729|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||0.729|0.131|0.9964
95831171|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.25||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||0.584|0.107|0.9995
95831172|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.24||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.578|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||0.578|0.098|0.9993
95831173|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.34||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.969|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 96 hours||0.969|0.119|0.9781
96001222|NCT03825042|191979628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.56||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.02|-9.11|||ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-20.02|0.0000
96001223|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95831174|NCT01597635|191633719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.38||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|1.341|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Ang II/Ang1-7, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.341|0.154|0.9375
95831175|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.215|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.215|0.752|0.2598
95831176|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.273|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.273|0.783|0.3949
95831177|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.294|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.294|0.791|0.4175
95831178|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.292|0.806|0.4420
95831179|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.262|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.262|0.811|0.4432
95831180|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.229|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.229|0.818|0.4578
95831181|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.167|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.167|0.790|0.3365
95831182|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.163|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.163|0.770|0.3339
95831183|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.166|0.786|0.3608
95831184|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.168|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.168|0.788|0.3584
95831185|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.073|0.725|0.1219
95831186|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.21|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.210|0.814|0.4662
95831187|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.247|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.247|0.828|0.5748
95831188|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.4104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.204|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.204|0.786|0.4104
95831189|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.246|0.817|0.5114
95831190|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.200|0.783|0.4213
95831191|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.132|0.731|0.2663
95831192|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.142|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.142|0.720|0.2373
95831193|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.149|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.149|0.721|0.2575
95831194|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.127|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.127|0.708|0.2173
95831195|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.143|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.143|0.717|0.2406
95831196|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.151|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.151|0.721|0.2471
95831197|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.157|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.157|0.727|0.2585
95831198|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.17|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.170|0.737|0.3101
95831199|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.16|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.160|0.727|0.2476
95831200|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.222|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.222|0.767|0.3887
95831201|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.146|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.146|0.749|0.2294
95831202|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.234|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PEEP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.234|0.916|0.8522
95831203|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.164|0.890|0.5885
95831204|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.230|0.940|0.8558
95831205|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.224|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hour||1.224|0.932|0.8374
95831206|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|1.152|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.152|0.887|0.5886
95831207|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.18|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.180|0.918|0.7532
95831208|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.179|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.179|0.906|0.7108
95831209|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.190|0.918|0.7445
95831210|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.115|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.115|0.863|0.3759
95831211|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.118|0.859|0.3980
95831212|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.103|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.103|0.849|0.3231
95960197|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9367
95831213|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.056|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.056|0.812|0.1245
95831214|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.134|0.870|0.4631
95831215|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.047|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.047|0.801|0.1026
95831216|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.101|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.101|0.850|0.3152
95831217|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.035|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.035|0.803|0.0762
95831218|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.0274||95.0|0.763|1.003|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.003|0.763|0.0274
95831219|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.112|0.853|0.3594
95831220|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.197|0.906|0.7027
95831221|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.246|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.246|0.941|0.8661
95831222|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.228|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.228|0.924|0.8084
95831223|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.300|0.976|0.9504
95831224|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.164|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.164|0.871|0.5300
95831225|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.243|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.243|0.942|0.8595
95831226|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.261|0.943|0.8802
95831227|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.11||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.278|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.278|0.958|0.9232
95831228|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.07||||0.7911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.256|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.256|0.902|0.7911
95862473|NCT02692391|191684022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
96001224|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0261|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0261
96001225|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0364|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0364
95831229|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.28||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.514|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.514|1.059|0.9946
95831230|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.444|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Peak ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.444|1.019|0.9830
95831231|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.261|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.261|0.910|0.8024
95831232|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.166|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.166|0.843|0.4806
95831233|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.223|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.223|0.869|0.6658
95831234|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.212|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.212|0.856|0.6131
95831235|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.197|0.856|0.5795
95831236|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.993|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||0.993|0.716|0.0209
95831237|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.187|0.830|0.4823
95831238|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||0.0406|0.85||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.021|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.021|0.703|0.0406
95831239|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.169|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.169|0.844|0.5186
95831240|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.132|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.132|0.824|0.3870
95831241|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.065|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.065|0.770|0.1281
95831242|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.181|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.181|0.837|0.4754
95831243|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.217|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.217|0.856|0.5627
95831244|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.22|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.220|0.848|0.5552
95831245|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.201|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.201|0.843|0.5030
95831246|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.218|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.218|0.840|0.5558
95831247|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.135|0.769|0.2709
95831248|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.208|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.208|0.795|0.4143
95831249|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.7886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.348|0.891|0.7886
95862474|NCT02692391|191684023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
95862475|NCT02692391|191684024|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
96001226|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
96001227|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
96001228|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
96001229|NCT02316470|191979629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
96001230|NCT02316470|191979630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
95728992|NCT02300025|191428015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.0|186.0|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and mild hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||186.0|52.0|
95831250|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.08||||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.353|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.353|0.885|0.7607
95831251|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|1.4|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.400|0.922|0.8677
95831252|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.7012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|1.302|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.302|0.847|0.7012
95831253|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.23|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.230|0.805|0.5156
95831254|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.178|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.178|0.783|0.3524
95831255|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.292|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.292|0.845|0.6380
95831256|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.4003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.241|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.241|0.743|0.4003
95831257|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.16||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.502|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.502|0.907|0.8817
95831258|NCT01597635|191633720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.14||||0.8145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.505|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Plateau ventilatory pressure, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.505|0.804|0.8145
95831259|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.321|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.321|0.765|0.6468
95831260|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.136|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||1.136|0.658|0.1965
95831261|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|1.129|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.129|0.694|0.1681
95831262|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.0877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.075|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.075|0.669|0.0877
95831263|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.159|0.715|0.2011
95831264|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.345|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.345|0.842|0.6855
95831265|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.04||||0.6093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.325|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.325|0.800|0.6093
95831266|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.253|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||1.253|0.765|0.4350
95831267|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.195|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.195|0.722|0.2232
95831268|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.2|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.200|0.733|0.2716
95831269|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.93||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.19|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.190|0.726|0.2866
95831270|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.5033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.270|0.780|0.5033
95831271|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.12|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.120|0.684|0.1493
95831272|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.301|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.301|0.759|0.4947
95831273|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.89||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.161|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.161|0.678|0.1951
95831274|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.8||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.050|0.612|0.0512
95831275|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.279|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.279|0.775|0.4700
95831276|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.368|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.368|0.811|0.6340
95831277|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.183|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.183|0.689|0.2129
95831278|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|1.411|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.411|0.798|0.6418
95831279|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.315|0.754|0.4797
95831280|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.2659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.199|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.199|0.703|0.2659
95831281|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.159|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.159|0.687|0.2102
95831282|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.240|0.740|0.3623
95831283|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.225|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.225|0.730|0.3499
95831284|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.377|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.377|0.787|0.6494
95831285|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|1.358|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.358|0.766|0.5567
95831286|NCT01597635|191633721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.85||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.073|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||PaO2/FiO2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.073|0.615|0.1095
95831287|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.644|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 0.5 hours||1.644|0.721|0.6098
95831288|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.35||||0.9441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|2.068|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 1 hour||2.068|0.931|0.9441
95831289|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.621|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 2 hours||1.621|0.749|0.7173
95831290|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.949|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 4 hours||1.949|0.810|0.8292
95831291|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.832|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 6 hours||1.832|0.775|0.8008
95831292|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.2||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.799|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 8 hours||1.799|0.776|0.7905
95831293|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.958|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.958|0.737|0.7566
95831294|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.8349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|2.05|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 18 hours||2.050|0.812|0.8349
95831295|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.527|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.527|0.713|0.4739
95831296|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.647|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24.5 hours||1.647|0.763|0.6291
95831297|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.18||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.814|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 25 hours||1.814|0.830|0.8032
95831298|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.416|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 26 hours||1.416|0.626|0.3250
95831299|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.63|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 28 hours||1.630|0.687|0.5828
95831300|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.4546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.512|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 30 hours||1.512|0.661|0.4546
95831301|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.06||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.639|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 32 hours||1.639|0.719|0.6158
95831302|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.77|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 36 hours||1.770|0.752|0.7748
95831303|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.6565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.686|1.714|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 42 hours||1.714|0.686|0.6565
95831304|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.87||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.38|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.380|0.566|0.2773
95862476|NCT02969655|191684042|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -1.0 g/dL. Even if the 95% CI for the difference was completely negative (i.e. lied fully within the range -1.0 to \<0 g/dL) non-inferiority was concluded on condition that the mean Hgb estimated in the daprodustat group was within the target range.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the non-inferiority assessment.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Analysis was performed by a MMRM with covariates of treatment, Baseline Hgb, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline-by-visit interaction.|||0.23|-0.11|<.0001
95862477|NCT02969655|191684043|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.71||The p value on this table is one-sided and calculated for the superiority assessment.|Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed by logistic regression with covariates of treatment and Baseline Hgb.|||1.71|0.34|0.7442
95862478|NCT01980485|191684063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study had 87% power to detect a 40% increase in 28-dayabstinence rates (i.e., from 50% to 70%) based on a two-tailed chi-squared test and alpha = 0.05. We selected this effect size as being at the lower end of the effect size continuum that would be clinically meaningful at 28 days and have the potential to still be meaningful in the longer term even with similar relapse rates in both groups over subsequent months.||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.65
95862479|NCT02633020|191684066|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.7||0.7451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.26|20.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline % aberrant IELs vs total IELs as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||20.56|-30.26|0.7451
96001231|NCT02316470|191979631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
95729078|NCT00094302|191428296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 129 subjects (65 in the Spironolactone group and 64 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.42|0.71|0.98
95831305|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.467|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48.5 hours||1.467|0.610|0.3606
95831306|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 49 hours||1.317|0.555|0.2211
95831307|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.348|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 50 hours||1.348|0.587|0.2860
95831308|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.4079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.51|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 52 hours||1.510|0.609|0.4079
95831309|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.02||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.663|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 54 hours||1.663|0.614|0.5284
95831310|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.3586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.458|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 56 hours||1.458|0.568|0.3586
95862480|NCT02633020|191684067|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.48||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.73|19.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline % aberrant IELs vs intestinal epithelial cells as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||19.29|-95.73|0.1803
95831311|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.13||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.853|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 60 hours||1.853|0.672|0.6768
95831312|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.77||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.39|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 66 hours||1.390|0.488|0.1574
95831313|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.584|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.584|0.521|0.3900
95831314|NCT01597635|191633722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.05||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.516|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Oxygenation index, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 168 hours||1.516|0.748|0.5915
95831315|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.06828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.501|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.501|0.528|0.06828
95862481|NCT02633020|191684068|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0||0.6607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.97|60.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline VH:CD ratio as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||60.31|-38.97|0.6607
95862482|NCT02633020|191684069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|0.20|0.9204
95862483|NCT02633020|191684070|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.34||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.57|52.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA) model with baseline total IEL counts as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||52.12|-77.57|0.6885
96001232|NCT02316470|191979632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the p-value was \<0.0001 at each time point (Day 14, 28, 35, 56, 120, 210)|Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||statistical test was applied across all treatment groups at each of the listed time points.||||<0.0001
96001233|NCT00283712|191979703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.22|||Fisher Exact|||The study goals were to gather evidence of safety and possible efficacy of infliximab for treatment of pemphigus vulgaris (PV). The analyses focused on estimation rather than hypothesis testing; therefore, there was not sufficient power to detect plausible treatment differences unless they were very large. The sample size reflects a balance between the desire to meet study goals and to expose as few participants as possible until the safety of infliximab for treatment of PV has been clarified.||0.22|-0.22|1.00
95831316|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.96||||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.609|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.609|0.570|0.5674
95831317|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.66||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.316|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.316|0.321|0.8855
95831318|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.97||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.76|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.760|0.531|0.5358
95831319|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.17||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.155|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CXCL-8 (IL-8), Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.155|0.622|0.6990
95831320|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.721|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.721|0.549|0.5130
95831321|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.73||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.731|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.731|0.300|0.7696
95831322|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.51||||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.289|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.289|0.203|0.9254
95831323|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.72||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|2.419|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.419|0.216|0.7088
95831324|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.47||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|1.69|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||IL-6, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.690|0.112|0.8787
95831325|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.197|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.197|0.714|0.7338
95831326|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.0||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.415|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.415|0.703|0.4955
95831327|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|1.788|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.788|0.541|0.5264
95729079|NCT00094302|191428297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.35||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~This endpoint was adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee. There were 117 subjects (57 in the Spironolactone group and 60 in the Placebo group) with confirmed events."||1.35|0.65|0.73
95831328|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.91||||0.6183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.742|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.742|0.454|0.6183
95831329|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.03||||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|2.118|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||RAGE, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.118|0.483|0.5291
95831330|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.09||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.448|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.448|0.828|0.7400
95831331|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.25||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.683|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.683|0.937|0.9375
95831332|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.771|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.771|0.896|0.9118
95831333|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.43||||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|2.382|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.382|0.866|0.9217
95831334|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.48||||0.8676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.064|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||MPO, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||3.064|0.730|0.8676
95831335|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.83||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.135|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.135|0.609|0.8835
95831336|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.98||||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.33|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.330|0.723|0.5446
95831337|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.95||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.333|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.333|0.679|0.6267
95831338|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.88||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.26|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.260|0.612|0.7668
95831339|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.94||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.509|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Angiopoietin-2, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.509|0.588|0.6100
95831340|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.68||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|1.623|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Renin, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.623|0.291|0.8159
95831341|NCT01597635|191633725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.53||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|2.657|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||Aldosterone, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.657|0.106|0.7988
95831342|NCT01597635|191633726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.024|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||2.024|0.626|0.6536
95831343|NCT01597635|191633726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.3||||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.955|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.955|0.876|0.9066
95831344|NCT01597635|191633726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.23||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|2.066|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.066|0.723|0.7859
95831345|NCT01597635|191633726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.9||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.963|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.963|0.413|0.6058
95831346|NCT01597635|191633726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.29||||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|3.632|||Ratio of Active/Placebo|||CRP, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||3.632|0.456|0.6921
95831347|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.92||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.14|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.140|0.737|0.7934
95831348|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.01||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.317|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.317|0.782|0.5205
95831349|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.12||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.865|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||1.865|0.673|0.6682
95831350|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.99||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.315|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||1.315|0.744|0.5304
95831351|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|0.81||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.112|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||CCP-16, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||1.112|0.582|0.9078
95831352|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.26||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.526|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 12 hours||1.526|1.042|0.9907
95831353|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.27||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.606|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 24 hours||1.606|1.005|0.9973
95831354|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.61||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.331|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 48 hours||2.331|1.130|0.9954
95831355|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.65||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|2.588|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 72 hours||2.588|1.045|0.9830
95831356|NCT01597635|191633727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Active/Placebo|1.52||||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|2.737|||Bayesian repeated measures model|||SP-D, Part B (Placebo BID) Vs Part B (GSK2586881 BID) at 120 hours||2.737|0.867|0.9312
95831357|NCT00344500|191633746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted trajectory of mean weight change between matched UC and LB subjects over 12 months (treatment\*time interaction: F(1,1275)=68.75, p\<.01).||General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) used to illustrate the magnitude of difference between slopes for major outcomes for two hypothetical participants with identical baseline characteristics over 12 months.||||<0.01
95831358|NCT02198794|191633790|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group and dopamine receptor antagonist status at the pre-withdrawal visit as fixed effects and the pre-withdrawal visit value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.42|0.121
95831359|NCT01885910|191633801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
95831360|NCT00789672|191633863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0||||||Given this was pilot study, no formal sample size estimates were calculated.||1|-6|
95831361|NCT04473664|191633869|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.1|117.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||117|77.1|
95831362|NCT04473664|191633871|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|201.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||201|59.5|
95831363|NCT04473664|191633871|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean]|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|207.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||207|57.9|
95831364|NCT04473664|191633875|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|74.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|173.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||173|32.0|
95831365|NCT04473664|191633877|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.3|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||111|35.3|
95831366|NCT04473664|191633877|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|69.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.8|104.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for AC886.||104|46.8|
95831367|NCT04473664|191633880|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|44.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|111.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|Statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||111|18.0|
95831368|NCT04473664|191633881|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|165.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUClast statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||165|16.0|
95831369|NCT04473664|191633881|OTHER|Least squares (LS) means were calculated from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on log-transformed scale. The LS means for each treatment were back transformed from the log scale to provide estimates of the geometric means (GMS). The ratio (%) of GMS was calculated and 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio (%) of GMS were presented.|Ratio (%) of Geometric LS Mean|51.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.8|168.0|||||For the comparison, the Moderate Hepatic Impairment treatment group represents the numerator and Normal Hepatic Function treatment group represents the denominator.|AUCinf statistical comparison was analyzed for Quizartinib.||168|15.8|
95831370|NCT02252965|191633885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin of this efficacy outcome measure is -0.4%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||||||||0.17|-0.10|
95831371|NCT02252965|191633886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|-1.52||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.56|-8.60|0.674
95831372|NCT00680797|191633896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of pre- to post-intervention insulin levels between the groups receiving E only versus the group receiving no hormone replacement.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.023
95831373|NCT00680797|191633896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison in the change in insulin levels between the groups receiving E with or without T.|ANCOVA|||The major outcome variable being presented is changes in insulin levels. Changes in insulin levels were analyzed using an ANCOVA model that adjusted for baseline insulin and age.||||0.042
95831374|NCT06038123|191633923|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|100.0||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|97.5|93.94|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|One-proportion binomial exact test|||Alternative hypothesis: MRI-related event-free rate within 1-month post-MRI \>90%. Null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is \>90%. Assuming type I error rate of 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis being 90% and true even-free rate being 99.5%, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned patients to achieve 90% power. One-proportion binomial exact test along with a one-sided 97.5% lower (Clopper-Pearson) confidence bound was used.|||93.94|0.002
95831375|NCT04051827|191633929|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.42|||||The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of midazolam Cmax on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.42|0.739|
95831376|NCT04051827|191633930|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.676|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.532|0.859|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 24 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 1 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||0.859|0.532|
95831377|NCT04051827|191633931|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|1.92|||||The GMR of midazolam Cmax on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam Cmax (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.92|0.886|
95831378|NCT04051827|191633932|OTHER|Geometric Mean Ratio|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.673|1.04|||||The GMR of midazolam AUC∞ on Day 25 (with mobocertinib) versus on Day 2 (without mobocertinib) were calculated.|The ratios of geometric mean midazolam AUC∞ (in the presence vs absence of mobocertinib) and the associated 2-sided 90% CIs were calculated on the basis of the within-patient variance using a mixed-effects ANOVA model fitting terms for treatment (midazolam in the absence and presence of mobocertinib).||1.04|0.673|
95831379|NCT01424566|191633940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.42|0.9173
95831380|NCT04763824|191633951|OTHER|Fisher Exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Also used Fisher exact tests.||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
95831381|NCT04763824|191633953|OTHER|Fisher exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
95831382|NCT04763824|191633955|OTHER|Fisher exact tests|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
95831383|NCT04763824|191633957|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
95831384|NCT04763824|191633959|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
95831385|NCT04763824|191633961|OTHER|Fisher exact test|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in cancer survivorship performance indicators and surveillance rates by tumor types before and after intervention were assessed using Fisher Exact tests.||||<0.05
95831386|NCT01533922|191633983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 once daily (QD) minus Placebo|||0.298|0.191|<0.0001
95831387|NCT01533922|191633983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg|||0.172|0.065|<0.0001
95831388|NCT01533922|191633983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.167|0.061|<0.0001
95831389|NCT01533922|191633983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.271|0.164|<0.0001
95831390|NCT01533922|191633983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.038|0.0008
95831391|NCT01533922|191633983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.141|0.034|0.0015
95831392|NCT01533922|191633984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.132|1.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.292|1.132|<0.0001
95831393|NCT01533922|191633984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.070|0.937|0.9633
95831394|NCT01533922|191633984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.061|0.930|0.8415
95831395|NCT01533922|191633984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.184|1.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.351|1.184|<0.0001
95831396|NCT01533922|191633984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.119|0.980|0.1717
95831397|NCT01533922|191633984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated asTiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.110|0.972|0.2610
95831398|NCT01533922|191633985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0004
95831399|NCT01533922|191633985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.002|-0.001|0.8291
95831400|NCT01533922|191633985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.8570
95831401|NCT01533922|191633985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
95831402|NCT01533922|191633985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.7294
95831403|NCT01533922|191633985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.4567
95831404|NCT01533922|191633986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.352|0.293|<0.0001
95960198|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Walking; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by walking. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1259
95831405|NCT01533922|191633986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.160|0.101|<0.0001
95831406|NCT01533922|191633986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.143|0.084|<0.0001
95831407|NCT01533922|191633986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.256|<0.0001
95831408|NCT01533922|191633986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.123|0.063|<0.0001
95831409|NCT01533922|191633986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.106|0.047|<0.0001
95831410|NCT05028517|191634013|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|0.511||||0.602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.602
95831411|NCT05028517|191634013|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|-0.22||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.334.|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.23|-0.69|.33
95831412|NCT05028517|191634014|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA Omnibus F test|1.245||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.294
95831413|NCT05028517|191634014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.602|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .652||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data in SPSS. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.524
95831414|NCT05028517|191634015|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.585||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.039
95728993|NCT02300025|191428015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means ratio|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.0|193.2|||||The 90% CI for differences in LS means between the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were also back-transformed to give 90% CIs for the ratio of the test treatment relative to the reference treatment.|AUC (0-t) was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA to determine 90% CI of the ratio between normal hepatic function (reference) and moderate hepatic impairment (test) where, hepatic impairment group was a fixed factor. The LS means of the test and reference treatments obtained from the mixed model were back-transformed to give geometric LS means (a point estimate).||193.2|54.0|
95831415|NCT05028517|191634015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.893|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .606||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.548
95831416|NCT05028517|191634016|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.723||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.032
95831417|NCT05028517|191634016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.143|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = 4.595||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.013
95831418|NCT05028517|191634017|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.588||||0.672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.672
95831419|NCT05028517|191634017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.893|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .776||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.463
95831420|NCT05028517|191634018|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|2.612||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.038
96001234|NCT00283712|191979703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|42.67|||Fisher Exact|||||42.67|0.02|1.00
95831421|NCT05028517|191634018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.462|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = 2.544||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.084
95831422|NCT05028517|191634019|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.196||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.940
95831423|NCT05028517|191634019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.961|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .040||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.961
95831424|NCT05028517|191634020|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.59||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.671
95831425|NCT05028517|191634020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.523|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2)=1.696||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.190
95831426|NCT05028517|191634021|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.896||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.468
95831427|NCT05028517|191634021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.683||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.817|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2) = .384||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.683
95831428|NCT05028517|191634022|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|3.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline, 6 week, and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||0.01
95831429|NCT05028517|191634022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131||||||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.480|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2)=2.081||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Analyses utilized linear mixed modeling for variables collected at the three timepoints.||||.131
95831430|NCT05028517|191634023|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.384||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.257
95831431|NCT05028517|191634023|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.49||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.94||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.055|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.94|-0.02|.039
95831432|NCT05028517|191634024|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.686||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using repeated measures ANOVA, including baseline and 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.192
95831433|NCT05028517|191634024|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.47||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.93||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.055|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. Baseline and FMF Connect group status were entered into the regression model simultaneously. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.93|0.02|.039
95831434|NCT05028517|191634025|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|0.651||||0.524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Mean comparisons of 3 separate groups using ANOVA for 12 week data. Participants with missing data were excluded. All participants were retained in their originally assigned group regardless of app usage.||||.524
95831435|NCT05028517|191634025|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.46||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.91||False discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons, p=.066|Regression, Linear|||The FMF Connect + Coaching and FMF Connect groups were aggregated for analyses. Analyses were intent-to-treat, including all participants assigned to condition. Full information maximum likelihood (FMIL) was used for missing data in MPlus. The dependent variable entered was the measure at the 12-week follow-up to determine treatment effects.||0.91|0.00|.048
95831436|NCT05028517|191634026|SUPERIORITY||Anova Omnibus F test|1.32||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.255
95831437|NCT00110461|191634045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.5|-8.49|<0.0001
96001235|NCT00283712|191979704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.26|
95831438|NCT00110461|191634045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-5.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||The change scores were analyzed by using ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline Y-MRS total score as a covariate. For comparing YMRS-Total score in treatment groups at baseline, only treatment was included in the ANOVA model with baseline values as the dependent variable. The LS means obtained from a type III analysis using SAS were used for the treatment comparisons. Two-tailed student's t-tests were used to test differences between the LS means within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.77|-10.7|<0.0001
95831439|NCT00110461|191634046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.08|-8.7|<0.0001
95831440|NCT00110461|191634046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
95831441|NCT00110461|191634047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|12.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||12.84|5.77|<0.0001
95831442|NCT00110461|191634047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|15.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||15.03|7.99|<0.0001
95831443|NCT00110461|191634048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.48|-1.15|<0.0001
95831444|NCT00110461|191634048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.59|-0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.93|-1.59|<0.0001
95831445|NCT00110461|191634049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|0.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.25|-4.81|0.0767
95831446|NCT00110461|191634049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.32|-3.69|0.3515
95831447|NCT00110461|191634050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-3.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.73|-8.02|<0.0001
95831448|NCT00110461|191634050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.32|-7.40|<0.0001
95831449|NCT00110461|191634051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-5.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-5.43|-12.3|<0.0001
95831450|NCT00110461|191634051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-4.83|-11.6|<0.0001
95831451|NCT00110461|191634052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|13.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.93|5.07|<0.0001
95831452|NCT00110461|191634052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|14.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.14|5.87|<0.0001
95862484|NCT02633020|191684071|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model with subject as a random effect and treatment group, time (week) and their interaction as fixed effects.||||1.8|0.77|0.4469
95831453|NCT00110461|191634053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.33|-1.08|0.0003
95831454|NCT00110461|191634053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.66|-1.41|<0.0001
95831455|NCT00110461|191634054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.04|-0.54|0.0878
95831456|NCT00110461|191634054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.03|-0.55|0.0752
95831457|NCT00110461|191634055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.13|-0.51|0.2553
95831458|NCT00110461|191634055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-0.71|0.0166
95831459|NCT00110461|191634056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.51|-1.16|<0.0001
95831460|NCT00110461|191634056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.86|-1.51|<0.0001
95831461|NCT00110461|191634057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.40|-1.13|<0.0001
95960199|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1812|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1812
95831462|NCT00110461|191634057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.0001
95831463|NCT00110461|191634058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.92||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.85|-4.69|0.1729
95960200|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9600
95831464|NCT00110461|191634058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.75586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-3.17|0.75586
95831465|NCT00110461|191634059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.61|-6.90|<0.0001
95831466|NCT00110461|191634059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.50|-6.78|<0.0001
95831467|NCT00110461|191634060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.03|-3.67|0.0468
95831468|NCT00110461|191634060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.20|-3.85|0.0296
95831469|NCT00110461|191634061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.43|-3.31|0.1309
95831470|NCT00110461|191634061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.77|-4.51|0.0058
95831471|NCT00110461|191634062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-0.07|-4.20|0.0430
95831472|NCT00110461|191634062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.76|-2.37|0.7696
95831473|NCT00110461|191634063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
95831474|NCT00110461|191634063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.67|0.19
95831475|NCT00110461|191634064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.86|-1.73|0.9418
95831476|NCT00110461|191634064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.98|-1.61|0.8377
95831477|NCT00110461|191634065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||1.08|-2.71|0.3969
95831478|NCT00110461|191634065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||0.68|-3.09|0.2101
95831479|NCT00110461|191634066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-3.64|-10.5|<0.0001
95831480|NCT00110461|191634066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyses were performed by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline score as covariate. Two pair-wise comparisons, aripiprazole 10 mg target dose versus placebo and aripiprazole 30 mg target dose versus placebo, were performed within the ANCOVA or ANOVA model.||-2.16|-8.94|0.0014
95831481|NCT00110461|191634067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.01|32.4|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||32.40|5.01|0.0074
95831482|NCT00110461|191634067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.68|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||51.68|23.41|<0.0001
95831483|NCT00110461|191634068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|37.24|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||37.24|9.57|0.0009
95831484|NCT00110461|191634068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.05|42.87|||Chi-squared|||Analyzed using a Chi-square test. Ninety five percent confidence intervals for difference in the responder rates are derived from the normal approximation to binomial.||42.87|15.05|<0.0001
95831485|NCT00110461|191634069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.66|-1.29|<0.0001
95831486|NCT00110461|191634069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.0001
95831487|NCT00110461|191634070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.24|-1.04|0.0020
95831488|NCT00110461|191634070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.41|-1.19|0.0001
95831489|NCT00110461|191634071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.26|-0.96|0.0010
95831490|NCT00110461|191634071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.16|-0.85|0.0053
95831491|NCT00110461|191634072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||0.11|-0.64|0.1726
95831492|NCT00110461|191634072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.12|-0.89|0.0113
95831493|NCT00110461|191634073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.67|-1.31|<0.0001
95831494|NCT00110461|191634073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.72|-1.39|<0.0001
95831495|NCT00110461|191634074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.22|-1.04|0.0030
95831496|NCT00110461|191634074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score statistic by week.||-0.40|-1.18|0.0001
95831497|NCT00316888|191634075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218|||||||one sample binomial test|||Null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.218
95831498|NCT00316888|191634075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592|||||||one sample binomial test|||The null hypothesis is that the local failure rate at 3 years is no more than 35%.||||0.592
95831499|NCT01302054|191634088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-2.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.02|-2.63|<0.0001
95831500|NCT01302054|191634089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.13||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used. Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Multiple hypothesis testing was carried out in a hierarchical sequentially rejective manner. Statistical testing between fesoterodine and placebo (Analysis of covariance \[ANCOVA\]) was carried out only if the change from baseline at Week 12 in UUI episodes for fesoterodine group was found statistically significant (paired t-test).||-0.13|-0.87|0.0079
95831501|NCT01302054|191634090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.07||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||0.07|-0.86|0.0931
95831502|NCT01302054|191634091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.02||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-0.02|-1.37|0.0438
95831503|NCT01302054|191634092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95831504|NCT01302054|191634093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Change at Week 12: the p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0095
95831505|NCT01302054|191634094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.58||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||-3.58|-11.10|0.0001
95831506|NCT01302054|191634095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|12.91||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||12.91|5.12|<0.0001
95831507|NCT01302054|191634095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.62||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||11.62|3.87|<0.0001
95831508|NCT01302054|191634095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.45||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.45|2.60|0.0012
95831509|NCT01302054|191634095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.36||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Social Interaction Subscale - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||7.36|0.90|0.0123
95831510|NCT01302054|191634095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|10.57||Statistical testing: one-sided, at alpha = 0.025.|ANCOVA|||Total HRQL - Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and country with centered baseline value as a covariate was used.||10.57|3.63|<0.0001
95831511|NCT01302054|191634096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
95831512|NCT01302054|191634097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0027
95831513|NCT01302054|191634098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 4: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0427
95831514|NCT01302054|191634098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment difference at Week 12: p-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test and stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1461
95831515|NCT02855944|191634113|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.639||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|0.835|||Regression, Cox|||||0.835|0.489|0.0010
95831516|NCT02855944|191634114|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.665||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.858|||Regression, Cox|||||0.858|0.516|0.0017
95831517|NCT02855944|191634117|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.589||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.976|||Regression, Cox|||||0.976|0.356|0.0401
95831518|NCT02855944|191634118|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.564||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.927|||Regression, Cox|||||0.927|0.343|0.0240
95831519|NCT00966719|191634125|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Fisher Exact|||||1.24|0.56|0.40
95862485|NCT02633020|191684073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.26|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.26|-0.53|0.4832
95831520|NCT00966719|191634126|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.02|||Fisher Exact|||||3.02|0.44|1
95831521|NCT00966719|191634127|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.91|1
95831522|NCT00966719|191634128|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Fisher Exact|||||1.26|0.85|0.78
95831523|NCT00966719|191634129|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.94||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|27.3|||Fisher Exact|||||27.30|0.32|0.32
95831524|NCT00966719|191634130|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.95|0.09
95831525|NCT00966719|191634131|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.27|||Fisher Exact|||||1.27|0.83|0.77
95831526|NCT00966719|191634132|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.15|||Fisher Exact|||||3.15|0.58|0.6
95831527|NCT03242018|191634141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.051|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.051|-0.628|0.0962
95862486|NCT02633020|191684074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.35|||Linear mixed effects repeated measures|Linear mixed effects repeated measures model with baseline value, treatment group, time point and a time point-by-treatment group as fixed effects.||||0.35|-0.64|0.5561
95831528|NCT03242018|191634142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.338|0.431|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.431|-0.338|0.8124
95831529|NCT03242018|191634143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.5501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5431|0.822|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.8220|-1.5431|0.5501
95831530|NCT03242018|191634143|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5298||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7524|0.3246|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.3246|-1.7524|0.1779
95831531|NCT03242018|191634144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|0.557|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||0.557|-2.197|0.2432
95831532|NCT03242018|191634144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.008|-2.810|0.0487
95831533|NCT03242018|191634145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.515||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.066|2.792|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.792|-7.066|0.3954
95862487|NCT02758184|191684131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1031.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|681.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95862488|NCT03745820|191684158|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328|=|0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|2.37|||MMRM|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM)model was used to analyze change from baseline of outcome measure(OM)using fixed effects of treatment group,region,study visit,study visit-by-treatment interaction,baseline value of OM,baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.37|-2.88|=0.8472
95831534|NCT03242018|191634145|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|0.386|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.386|-9.185|0.0716
96001236|NCT00283712|191979705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.36||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||0.36|-0.31|1.00
96001237|NCT00283712|191979705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|38.35||All secondary analyses are considered supplemental supportive analyses|Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analysis was replicated using the per-protocol population.||38.35|0.02|1.00
96001238|NCT00283712|191979706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.55|||Fisher Exact|||||0.55|-0.15|0.65
96001239|NCT00283712|191979706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.79|||Fisher Exact|||||2.79|0.06|0.650
96001240|NCT00283712|191979716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Fisher Exact|||||0.3|-0.3|1.00
96001241|NCT00090285|191979718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|90.6||||||95.0|70.1|98.2|||||Confidence Interval (CI) based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter.|||98.2|70.1|
96001242|NCT00090285|191979726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|77.5||||||95.0|39.6|93.3||||||||93.3|39.6|
96001243|NCT00090285|191979727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|85.5||||||95.0|77.0|91.3|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||91.3|77.0|
96001244|NCT00090285|191979728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|51.0||||||95.0|40.3|59.9|||||CI based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter. Hochberg multiplicity adjustment applied to the CI.|||59.9|40.3|
95831535|NCT03242018|191634146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.103||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.365|0.881|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.881|-7.365|0.1232
95831536|NCT03242018|191634146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.077||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.433|-1.292|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.292|-9.433|0.0098
95831537|NCT03242018|191634147|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-20.37||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.75|14.77|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||14.77|-44.75|0.222
95831538|NCT03242018|191634147|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-21.17||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.05|13.1|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||13.10|-45.05|0.1965
95831539|NCT03242018|191634148|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||8.66|-2.17|0.2420
95831540|NCT03242018|191634148|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||12.93|0.04|0.0513
95831541|NCT03242018|191634149|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|20.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||20.61|3.48|0.0066
95831542|NCT03242018|191634149|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|13.0||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|21.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening.||21.75|4.28|0.0043
95960201|NCT00551135|191892794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"Coughing; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain caused by coughing. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward algorithm or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.1050
95831543|NCT01355796|191634182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.75|-1.76|<0.05
95831544|NCT03945019|191634184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
95831545|NCT03945019|191634185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Previous biologic agent and/or JAK inhibitors exposure, Use of oral corticosteroids treatment at Week 0, Clinical remission at Week 10.||||||<0.0001
95831546|NCT02720692|191634216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P\<0.05 applies to Day 1 (0-24 Hours; p=0.0033), Days 1-2 (0-48 Hours; p=0.0077), and Days 1-3 (0-72 Hours; p=0.0152).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95831547|NCT01769196|191634217|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.45|0.88|0.329
95831548|NCT01769196|191634218|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 50th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||1.43|0.74|0.851
95831549|NCT01769196|191634219|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that there is no difference in PFS between simtuzumab and simtuzumab placebo in participants with sLOXL2 ≥ 75th percentile. The alternative hypothesis was that there is a difference. These hypotheses were evaluated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.0|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.00|0.72|0.475
95831550|NCT01769196|191634220|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.37|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted, sLOXL2 level categories, and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.37|0.61|0.602
95831551|NCT01769196|191634221|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.28|0.43|0.988
95831552|NCT01769196|191634222|OTHER|The difference in OS between the treatment groups was assessed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusted for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant use of pirfenidone or nintedanib (P/N) at time of screening.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.99|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox regression model adjusted for treatment and stratified for screening post-bronchodilator FVC % predicted and concomitant pirfenidone/nintedanib use at time of screening.|||2.99|0.30|0.925
95831553|NCT00321464|191634251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|<0.0001
95831554|NCT00321464|191634252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01||95.0|0.71|0.95||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.95|0.71|0.010
95831555|NCT00321464|191634253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate ratio|0.77||||0.001||95.0|0.66|0.89||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure|Anderson-Gill model||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prior oral bisphosphonate use, current chemotherapy, and location in Japan).|||0.89|0.66|0.001
95831556|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.|GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 1.||1.07|0.74|
95831557|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 4.||1.23|0.84|
95831558|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 5.||1.15|0.83|
95862489|NCT03745820|191684158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.323|=|0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.29|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.29|-2.94|=0.8053
95831559|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.26|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 6B.||1.26|0.69|
95831560|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel Group groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 7F.||1.13|0.82|
95831561|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.16|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 9V.||1.16|0.78|
95831562|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 14.||1.21|0.85|
95831563|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.|GMC ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.03|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over ), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 18C.||2.03|1.28|
95831564|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.|GMC ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.36|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 19F.||1.36|0.82|
95831565|NCT00652951|191634262|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for the pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.|GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns pneumococcal vaccine serotype 23F.||1.23|0.7|
95831566|NCT00652951|191634263|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority criteria: The upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio for between groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), was lower than 2 for protein D.|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||ANOVA|||The 2-sided 95% CI of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between the Synflorix + Infanrix hexa and Synflorix + Pediacel groups (Synflorix + Infanrix hexa Group over Synflorix + Pediacel Group), at one month after Dose 3 of pneumococcal vaccine, was computed for each of the 10 pneumococcal vaccine serotypes and protein D. This statistical method concerns protein D.||1.06|0.77|
95862490|NCT03745820|191684162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.835|=|0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.20|=0.0637
95831567|NCT01206582|191634307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0002
95831568|NCT01206582|191634307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 7||||0.008
95862491|NCT03745820|191684162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|=|0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|7.06|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||7.06|-0.23|=0.0659
95831569|NCT01206582|191634308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for day 3||||0.0003
95831570|NCT01206582|191634315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
95831571|NCT01206582|191634316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Day 7||||<0.05
95831572|NCT01206582|191634317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Platelets on Day 4||||0.01
96001245|NCT02747043|191979749|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint will first be demonstrated by comparing the 1-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 between ABP 798 and rituximab with a noninferiority margin of -15%. If this is successful, the 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit of the RD of ORR by week 28 will be compared with a nonsuperiority margin of +35.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|16.8|||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR by week 28 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).|||16.8|-1.4|
95831573|NCT01755455|191634318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||0.81
95862492|NCT03745820|191684163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.5|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.50|-0.32|=0.6653
95831574|NCT01755455|191634319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||<0.05
95831575|NCT01755455|191634320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fixed-effect model|||Fixed-effect models accounted for repeated measurements within subjects and treatment sequence. The estimated effect signifies the absolute change from baseline at 6 weeks in the specified outcome measure and (standard error).||||<0.05
95831576|NCT01755455|191634321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fixed-effect model|||||||0.16
95831577|NCT02100969|191634322|SUPERIORITY||"proportion of successes"|0.864||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.0||No adjustment is required as we are not doing multiple comparisons for the primary outcome analyses.|One sample Z test of proportions||One sample Z test of proportions is used. Method of handling missing data (as per protocol) is Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF). Only 2 participants had missing values and in our case the LOCF results reflect a 'best-case' scenario.|"Sample size/power calculations are mentioned in the study protocol.~The study hypotheses are as follows:~H0: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase ≤ 0.65 HA: Proportion of patients whose QMG scores are increased by no more than 3 points at the end of the SCIg treatment phase \> 0.65"||1.000|0.720|0.0179
95831578|NCT02100969|191634323|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed rank test statistic is 44.50.|||||0.113
95831579|NCT02100969|191634324|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.612
95831580|NCT02100969|191634325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data||The value of the signed-rank test statistic is 53.|||||0.047
95831581|NCT02100969|191634326|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.901|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.901
95831582|NCT02100969|191634327|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|4.2||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.510
95831583|NCT02100969|191634328|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|8.3||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.289
95831584|NCT02100969|191634329|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|715.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank for paired data|||||||0.0028
96001246|NCT02747043|191979749|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|18.6||||||||18.6|-3.2|
96001247|NCT02747043|191979750|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.2||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||11.2|-9.3|
95831585|NCT02702180|191634344|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-4.6||||0.1688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|Primary endpoint was evaluated using analysis of covariance with treatment, whole lung lavage within 2 months before baseline, and geographic region as factors, and baseline values as covariates. To control type I error, key secondary endpoints were analyzed using a testing hierarchy wherein once daily molgramostim and placebo was compared and if statistical significance was reached, evaluation of intermittent molgramostim and placebo would proceed.||2.0|-11.1|0.1688
95831586|NCT02702180|191634344|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-2.8||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.7|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||3.7|-9.3|0.3968
95831587|NCT02702180|191634345|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|20.6||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|61.0|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||61.0|-19.8|0.3159
95831588|NCT02702180|191634345|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|5.6||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|45.2|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||45.2|-34.1|0.7809
95831589|NCT02702180|191634346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24.|||-1.8|-13.4|0.0103
95960202|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2818
95960203|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8631
95831590|NCT02702180|191634346|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSmean)|-7.0||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the estimated difference between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups in LSmean change from baseline to week 24..|||-1.3|-12.7|0.0173
95831591|NCT02702180|191634347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.284||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|1.881|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between once daily molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.881|0.043|0.1918
95831592|NCT02702180|191634347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.367||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|1.968|||Negative binomial regression||The estimated value represents the RR between intermittent molgramostim and placebo groups.|||1.968|0.068|0.2421
95831593|NCT00528801|191634356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for gender, age, and education.|Cases are lower than controls.|Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the WAIS-III Perormance IQ (PIQ) Index. A linear model controlling for gender, age, and education was used to compare controls versus cases using an F statistic. Based on sample-size calculations, 120 patients and 36 controls were needed to have 80% power to detect an 8-point difference on the WAIS-III PIQ Index.||||0.008
95831594|NCT00528801|191634357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.11||||0.048||95.0|0.026|0.199|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is no difference between cases and controls in the proportion of subjects with lacunae. This was tested using a Fisher's Exact Test.||.199|.026|0.048
95960204|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5074
95960205|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0401
96001248|NCT02747043|191979750|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|13.2||||||The 2-sided 95% confidence limits of the risk difference (RD) of ORR at week 12 used a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (geographic region and age group).||13.2|-11.3|
95831595|NCT02207491|191634359|NON_INFERIORITY|Clinical noninferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% CIs around the difference (AR-13324 - timolol) was within 1.5 mmHg at all time points and was within 1.0 mmHg at a majority of the time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated p-value|ANCOVA|Statistical analysis applies at all 3 timepoints on Day 15, Day 43, and Day 90||Assuming zero difference between AR-13324 and timolol, a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05 at each of 9 time points, a common SD of 3.0 mmHg, and a correlation between time points of 0.60 or less, 170 PP subjects per arm were necessary to have 90% power to show clinical noninferiority of AR-13324 to timolol in mean IOP.||||<0.0001
95831596|NCT00599755|191634361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|0.55||||||||0.55|0.27|
96001249|NCT02747043|191979756|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Any adverse event of interest'||16.3|-8.3|
96001250|NCT02747043|191979756|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.3||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Infusion reactions including hypersensitivity'||12.3|-12.1|
95960206|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5509
96001251|NCT02747043|191979756|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.0||||||Percentage risk difference for 'Hematological reactions'||13.0|-11.8|
95831597|NCT00599755|191634362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Concordance correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|0.92||||||||0.92|0.85|
95831598|NCT00599755|191634366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
95831599|NCT02690649|191634381|SUPERIORITY||estimated adherence rate for the interve|94.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|95.0|||Regression, Linear|||estimated adherence rate for the intervention group Generalized linear models were used to test the effect of the intervention on medication adherence. These generalized linear models used a Poisson distribution to estimate the rate of adherence with the log of total prescribed doses as an offset term in the linear predictor.||95|92|0.28
95960207|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0004
95831600|NCT02690649|191634382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A negative binomial distribution because the outcome was a count variable and it was over-dispersed.|Regression, Linear|Age, previous patient portal logins, and gender were used as co-variates in the model.||||||<0.001
95831601|NCT02690649|191634383|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.07||baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level were all used as co-variates.|Regression, Linear|generalized linear model tested whether AF knowledge at study completion was related to baseline AF knowledge, gender, age, and educational level||||-0.07|-1.14|0.03
95831602|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||||90.0|-3.8|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.59|-3.80|
95831603|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93||||||90.0|-3.55|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.31|-3.55|
95862493|NCT03745820|191684163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|=|0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was applied adjusting for treatment group and baseline value of the OM.||0.51|-0.30|=0.6140
95960208|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7070
95960209|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3840
96001252|NCT02747043|191979756|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Cardiac disorders'||13.2|-11.8|
96001253|NCT02747043|191979756|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|14.0||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Serious infections'||14.0|-10.9|
95862494|NCT03745820|191684164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033|=|0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.94|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.14|=0.2886
95862495|NCT03745820|191684164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032|=|0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.53|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||2.53|-1.55|=0.6349
95862496|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.345|=|0.7372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|3.11||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.11|-2.21|=0.7372
95862497|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346|=|0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.12||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Verbal Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.12|-3.20|=0.6894
95862498|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.162|=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|0.16||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.16|-4.44|=0.0674
95862499|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161|=|0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Speed of Processing: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.87|-2.72|=0.7132
95862500|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203|=|0.9428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|2.29||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.29|-2.46|=0.9428
95862501|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.202|=|0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|3.3||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Attention/Vigilance: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.30|-1.45|=0.4425
95862502|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|=|0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|1.64||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.64|-4.66|=0.3455
95862503|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.595|=|0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.21||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Visual Learning: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.21|-3.09|=0.9686
95862504|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.351|=|0.3832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.85||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.85|-1.49|=0.3832
95862505|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean DIfference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.357|=|0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.75||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Social Cognition: Change From Baseline at Week 12||3.75|-1.61|=0.4297
95862506|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|=|0.6245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.14|-3.55|=0.6245
95862507|NCT03745820|191684165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|=|0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|4.43||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Reasoning and Problem Solving: Change From Baseline at Week 12||4.43|-1.25|=0.2698
95862508|NCT03745820|191684166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.76||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.76|-1.65|=0.4654
95862509|NCT03745820|191684166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.608|=|0.5886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.87||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Positive Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.87|-1.53|=0.5886
95831604|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||||90.0|-7.69|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.30|-7.69|
95831605|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-4.58|-1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.34|-4.58|
95831606|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88||||||90.0|-7.58|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.19|-7.58|
95831607|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.82||||||90.0|-5.44|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-2.20|-5.44|
95831608|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-4.74|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.64|-4.74|
95831609|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||||90.0|-3.38|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.15|-3.38|
95831610|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||||90.0|-4.77|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.62|-4.77|
95831611|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||90.0|-2.49|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.74|-2.49|
95831612|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-4.99|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-4.99|
95862510|NCT03745820|191684166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655|=|0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.22||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||1.22|-1.37|=0.9079
95831613|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||||90.0|-2.47|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.77|-2.47|
95831614|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||||90.0|-6.91|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.52|-6.91|
95862511|NCT03745820|191684166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|=|0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Negative Symptoms Subscale: Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.79|-1.78|=0.4441
95831615|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51||||||90.0|-4.13|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-4.13|
95831616|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.94||||||90.0|-4.63|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.76|-4.63|
95831617|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32||||||90.0|-3.94|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.70|-3.94|
95831618|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||||90.0|-8.22|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.50|-8.22|
95831619|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||||90.0|-6.29|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.56|-6.29|
95831620|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||||90.0|-10.77|-3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.05|-10.77|
95831621|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79||||||90.0|-8.15|-3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-3.42|-8.15|
95831622|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||||90.0|-9.66|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.94|-9.66|
95831623|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.65||||||90.0|-9.01|-4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-4.29|-9.01|
95831624|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27||||||90.0|-8.13|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.41|-8.13|
95831625|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||||90.0|-6.01|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.29|-6.01|
95831626|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||||90.0|-5.91|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.81|-5.91|
95960210|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2732|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2732
95831627|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||||90.0|-3.46|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.27|-3.46|
95831628|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||||90.0|-6.16|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||1.56|-6.16|
95831629|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||||90.0|-5.79|-1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-1.06|-5.79|
95831630|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||||90.0|-7.33|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.39|-7.33|
95831631|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.26||||||90.0|-5.62|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||-0.90|-5.62|
95831632|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||||90.0|-4.13|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing systolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||3.59|-4.13|
95831633|NCT00853840|191634473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||||90.0|-4.62|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing diastolic BP~Vardenafil minus Placebo~A total sample size of 18 subjects provides 90% confidence intervals for the difference between vardenafil and placebo of ±5.90 on the standing diastolic BP with 98% coverage probability at each time postdose."||0.10|-4.62|
95831634|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.95||||||90.0|4.18|9.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.72|4.18|
95831635|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.51||||||90.0|2.73|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.28|2.73|
95831636|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.64||||||90.0|0.87|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.42|0.87|
95831637|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||||90.0|0.12|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.67|0.12|
95831638|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||||90.0|-0.71|4.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||4.83|-0.71|
95831639|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||||90.0|2.68|8.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.22|2.68|
95960211|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4418
95960212|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8379
95960213|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5944
95960214|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8139
95960215|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9709
95960216|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9666
95831640|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||||90.0|1.34|6.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.89|1.34|
95831641|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.45||||||90.0|0.68|6.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for supine pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||6.22|0.68|
95831642|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.33||||||90.0|3.7|10.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"1.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.95|3.70|
95831643|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|3.2|10.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||10.45|3.20|
95862512|NCT03745820|191684166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.017|=|0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.79||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.79|-5.18|=0.5537
95862513|NCT03745820|191684166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.02||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Total Score: Change From Baseline at Week 12||2.02|-5.95|=0.3320
95862514|NCT03745820|191684167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.8517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.28|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.28|-0.23|=0.8517
95862515|NCT03745820|191684167|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||MMRM|||A MMRM model was used to analyze the change from baseline of the OM of interest, using fixed effects of treatment group, region, study visit, study visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline value of OM, baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.25|-0.25|=0.9952
95862516|NCT01589653|191684181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently when the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).|Treatment difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analyses were adjusted for treatment, strata, country and baseline HbA1c||The null-hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by: H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D ≤ 0.4% where D is the mean treatment difference for change in HbA1c (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.08|-0.54|<0.001
95862517|NCT04250077|191684217|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.36923076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16518156||0.02578184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0021812|0.64531855|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.64531855|-0.0021812|0.02578184
95862518|NCT04250077|191684218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0454545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62386242||0.00787297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.18213496|35.9087741|||t-test, 1 sided|||||35.9087741|4.18213496|0.00787297
95862519|NCT04250077|191684219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.183333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8274398||0.01387108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.356073|-5.0105927|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-5.0105927|-73.356073|0.01387108
95862520|NCT04250077|191684220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.43728901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28323704||0.00908118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59437702|15.280201|||t-test, 1 sided|||||15.2802010|1.59437702|0.00908118
95862521|NCT04250077|191684221|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47698833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68529034||0.34633293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1910435|9.14502026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.14502026|-6.1910435|0.34633293
95862522|NCT04250077|191684222|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4285714|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07315199||0.57872623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4078121|4.55066924|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.55066924|-5.4078121|0.57872623
95862523|NCT04250077|191684223|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.29230769|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81588207||0.06283641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3873203|2.97193574|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.97193574|-0.3873203|0.06283641
95960217|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3204
95960218|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0869
95831644|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.02||||||90.0|1.4|8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"2.5 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.65|1.40|
95960219|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9386
95960220|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4352
95831645|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.72||||||90.0|1.09|8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"3 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.34|1.09|
95831646|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05||||||90.0|0.43|7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"4 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||7.67|0.43|
95831647|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||||90.0|2.73|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"6 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||9.98|2.73|
95831648|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.08||||||90.0|1.45|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"8 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||8.70|1.45|
95831649|NCT00853840|191634474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||||90.0|-1.74|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequence, period, time, treatment, \& time by treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject within sequence as random effect. Baseline was covariate.||"12 hour post-dose for standing pulse rate~Vardenafil minus Placebo"||5.51|-1.74|
95831650|NCT01852383|191634487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95831651|NCT01852383|191634488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|Corrlation|||||||<0.1
95831652|NCT01852383|191634489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Week 0 to Week 12, not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95862524|NCT04250077|191684224|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.11794871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16796576||0.26422281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2233244|0.43508919|||Agresti Caffo proportion comparison|||||0.43508919|-0.2233244|0.26422281
95862525|NCT00926029|191684259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95862526|NCT00926029|191684260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95831653|NCT01852383|191634490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Pearson correlation coefficient. Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha=0.05 for statistical significance threshold.|Pearson correlation|||Correlation of maximum duloxetine dose with change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from 0 Weeks to 12 Weeks.||||<.001
95831654|NCT02636946|191634508|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||-0.13|-1.28|0.0166
95831655|NCT02636946|191634509|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.05|-1.09|0.0735
95831656|NCT02636946|191634510|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM was used for IOP change from baseline. The model includes IOP change from baseline as the response variable and treatment, visit, eye, baseline IOP, treatment-by-baseline, treatment-by-eye, treatment-by-visit, visit-by-eye interactions as covariates. A Kronecker product of unstructured covariance matrix for study visit and compound symmetry covariance matrix for between eye correlation was used in the analysis.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 24: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to SLT if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was ≤ 1.5 mmHg at all scheduled visits (Weeks 4, 12, and 24).||0.32|-0.81|0.3928
95831657|NCT04405245|191634534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.366||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.63|0.8070
95831658|NCT04405245|191634534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.64|0.0130
95831659|NCT02391961|191634569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842672|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PSR at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.842672
95831660|NCT02391961|191634570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972866|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and average PTD at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.972866
95831661|NCT02391961|191634571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: RA at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and RA at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.95
95831662|NCT02391961|191634572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and MRS at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.9
95831663|NCT02391961|191634573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.990995|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 4 subgroups: 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on dalfampridine, and 25 FWT at baseline and after 3 hours on placebo.||||0.990995
95831664|NCT02391961|191634574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean VFQ-25 scores on dalfampridine vs mean VFQ-25 scores on placebo||||0.71
95831665|NCT02391961|191634575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to the 2 groups, mean 10-item NOS scores on dalfampridine vs mean 10-item NOS scores on placebo||||0.95
95831666|NCT02725593|191634576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.15|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.15|-1.65|0.101
95831667|NCT02725593|191634577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.85|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||0.85|-2.42|0.340
95831668|NCT02725593|191634578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.96||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|9.62|||Fisher's exact test|||||9.62|-20.11|0.655
95831669|NCT02725593|191634579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|41.11|||Fisher's exact test|||||41.11|0.50|0.056
95960221|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4522
95831670|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
95831671|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.52|
95831672|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.51|
95831673|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the two groups (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was greater than or equal to (≥) -10%.|Difference in percentage|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|11.57||||||Non-inferiority of 2 doses of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||11.57|1.37|
95831674|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.46|
95831675|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.09||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||5.09|-2.48|
95831676|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.02||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||5.02|-2.48|
95831677|NCT00969436|191634616|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after second vaccination dose was concluded if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the seroconversion rates between the 2 groups (Priorix/Priorix-Tetra Group minus Control Group) was ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.29||||||Non-inferiority of Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix-Tetra® vaccine compared to Priorix™ vaccine followed by Priorix™ vaccine co-administered with Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of anti-varicella seroconversion rates.||10.29|-1.59|
95831678|NCT00351273|191634625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentages of participants with response between all those who received combination therapy vs. placebo||||0.01
95831679|NCT01018095|191634633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at TOC was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||1.00|0.25|.045
95831680|NCT01018095|191634633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98||Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.21|<0.05
95862527|NCT02471612|191684261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||Comparing the sensitivity of APACHE-II and P-POSSUM|McNemar|||"Area under the curve (AUC) is used to measure the size of the prediction composed by the graphic display between the 'sensitivity' and the '1-specificity' relationship. AUC can range from 0.5 to 1.0 and a result of 1.0 indicates a perfect discriminatory ability. An AUC value \> 0.8 is considered good, a range between 0.60-0.80 is considered as moderate, and an AUC value \< 0.60 is regarded as poor."||||0.665
95831681|NCT01018095|191634634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were assessed for normality, and tested accordingly. When appropriate, continuous variables were categorized using clinically relevant cut-points. Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-square test. The measure of association at 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.98|||Relative risk|The measure of association at TOC and 3 months was calculated as a relative risk with 95% confidence interval.||It was initially estimated that a total of 380 participants (190 per arm) would be required, with 90% power and a significance level of 5%, to establish equivalency between the two treatment arms.31 Enrollment rates were lower than estimated and only 270 participants (135 per arm) were enrolled.||0.98|.21|=0.03
95831682|NCT01122108|191634635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||If a sequence was not found to be statistically significant, then that term was removed from final model. Normality of residuals was investigated for each outcome variable using the Shapiro-Wilk test.|repeated measures analysis of variance|Sensitivity analyses were run to evaluate possible product by sequence interactions||"The BASA scale was previously developed to effectively compare differing Bile acid sequestrant forumulations. The BASA scale should differentiate subject acceptability of Colesevelam HCl 3.75 vs Cholestyramine 12g based upon the sum of ratings for taste, texture, appearance and mixability.~If normality hypothesis was rejected, then further inspection of the distribution utilizing normal quantile-quantile and kernel density plots was employed."||||<0.05
95831683|NCT04075409|191634643|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.426|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.83|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.830|1.112|
95831684|NCT04075409|191634643|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9619|1.584|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.584|0.9619|
95831685|NCT04075409|191634643|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.156|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9008|1.483|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.483|0.9008|
95831686|NCT04075409|191634644|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.122|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.706|2.638|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.638|1.706|
95831687|NCT04075409|191634644|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.037|1.603|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.603|1.037|
95831688|NCT04075409|191634644|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.323|2.046|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.046|1.323|
95831689|NCT04075409|191634645|OTHER||LS means ratio|2.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.709|2.639|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.639|1.709|
95831690|NCT04075409|191634645|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.604|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.604|1.039|
95831691|NCT04075409|191634645|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.645|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.324|2.044|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||2.044|1.324|
95831692|NCT04075409|191634648|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.089|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8859|1.339|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.339|0.8859|
95862528|NCT03083990|191684325|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9502|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8921|1.012|||ANOVA|||||1.0120|0.8921|>0.05
95862529|NCT03083990|191684326|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio and its 90%CI are obtained after anti-logarithmic transformation.If 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio of AUC 0-t and AUC 0-∞ (trial/control) ranges between 0.8-1.25, then it is considered that IBI305 and Bevacizumab are bioequivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9483|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8896|1.0108|||ANOVA|||||1.0108|0.8896|>0.05
95862530|NCT03083990|191684327|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9749|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9123|1.0418|||ANOVA|||||1.0418|0.9123|>0.05
95862531|NCT01864005|191684353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons. statistical significance level: 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0021
95862532|NCT01864005|191684353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.421||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.559|58.283|||ANOVA|||||58.283|18.559|0.0003
95862533|NCT01864005|191684354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0828
95862534|NCT01864005|191684355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95862535|NCT01864005|191684356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95862536|NCT01864005|191684357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95960222|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6606|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6606
95960223|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1733
95960224|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8788
95862537|NCT00763698|191684358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||The objective performance criteria established for freedom from left ventricular lead related complications at 3 months was greater than 80%. At least 80% of the patients were required to be free from left venticular lead related complications at 3 months.|||5|
95862538|NCT00763698|191684359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Performance Criteria|80.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.5||||Wilson score interval method||||||2.5|
95862539|NCT02184572|191684361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 39.0°C (≥ 102.2°F) should be equal to or below 5%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.89||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C.||2.89|-0.93|
95862540|NCT02184572|191684361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper limit of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference (INV\_MMR minus COM\_MMR) in incidence of fever ≥ 38.0°C (≥ 100.4°F) should be equal to or below 10%.|Difference in incidence of fever|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.85||||||Difference between groups (INV\_MMR Group minus COM\_MMR Group) in incidence of fever \> 38.0°C.||4.85|-2.89|
95862541|NCT05871450|191684385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.05
95862542|NCT01099449|191684400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.73
95862543|NCT01099449|191684400|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used\>\> to compare the AUC of CIPN sensory subscale between each of the two schedules of\>\> Ca/Mg infusions vs placebo arms at the 2.5% significance level. If the CIPN sensory\>\> subscales are observed to be unbalanced, we will adjust for the baseline CIPN sensory\>\> subscale scores from the AUC or incorporate them as a covariate in generalized linear\>\> regression model.||||.29
95862544|NCT01099449|191684401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.054
95862545|NCT01099449|191684401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.27
95960225|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8474
95960226|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2938
95960227|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7602
95831693|NCT04075409|191634648|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
95831694|NCT04075409|191634648|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8489|1.283|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.283|0.8489|
95831695|NCT04075409|191634649|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.344|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.653|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.653|1.092|
95831696|NCT04075409|191634649|OTHER||LS means ratio|0.9991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.812|1.229|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.229|0.8120|
95831697|NCT04075409|191634649|OTHER||LS means ratio|1.345|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.655|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included genotype group as the fixed effects. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and were back-transformed.||Point estimates for the geometric least squares (LS) means ratio and the respective 2-sided 90% CIs were computed using the LS means and the root mean squares of error, based on of the log-transformed data with subsequent exponential transformation.||1.655|1.093|
95831698|NCT01595581|191634677|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher exact test for categorical variables|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 6 weeks post operative."||||0.35
95831699|NCT01595581|191634677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 12 weeks post operative."||||0.48
95831700|NCT01595581|191634677|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Power was estimated for change in lean mass of 3.0 plus or minus 1.5 kg in healthy men receiving testosterone. Using a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80, a sample size of 6 participants per group was calculated.~This statistical analysis applies to lean mass in participants 24 weeks post operative."||||0.74
95831701|NCT00279812|191634707|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95831702|NCT00279812|191634708|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95831703|NCT00279812|191634709|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95831704|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.69||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||2.69|-1.31|0.4994
95831705|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.51|-2.60|0.6014
95831706|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.72||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.72|-2.17|0.8166
95831707|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.24||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. LS means differences (95 % confidence intervals) for Week 10 are reported.||1.24|-1.96|0.6588
95831708|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.3914|||||||MCP-Mod sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg, and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 75 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.3914
95831709|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4104|||||||MCP-Mod Emax1 model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4104
95831710|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.456|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No parameter assumptions required.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4560
95831711|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4908|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4908
95831712|NCT04566601|191634726|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the baseline ZAN-BPD total score strata indicator (\<=18 vs. \>=19), the continuous fixed covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.4974|||||||MCP-Mod Emax2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 5 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 4 doses of BI 1358894 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.100).||||0.4974
95831713|NCT04566601|191634727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.207|1.14|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 5mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||1.140|0.207|
95831714|NCT04566601|191634727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|7.48|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 25mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||7.480|0.829|
95831715|NCT04566601|191634727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|4.861|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 75mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||4.861|0.698|
95831716|NCT04566601|191634727|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|2.913|||||Odds Ratio of BI 1358894 125mg vs. Placebo.|The odds ratio (OR) and associated confidence intervals between the active treatment arm versus placebo were calculated through a logistic regression model that was adjusted for fixed factors of treatment, baseline ZAN-BPD strata indicator (≤18 vs. ≥19), and the continuous covariate of baseline ZAN-BPD total score.||2.913|0.642|
95831717|NCT04566601|191634728|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.9||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.90|-5.11|0.9675
95855150|NCT02978781|191669815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.33|-0.65|0.4846
95831718|NCT04566601|191634728|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|5.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.10|-5.08|0.9969
95831719|NCT04566601|191634728|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.7542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|4.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.15|-5.73|0.7542
95831720|NCT04566601|191634728|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|5.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by REML-based MMRM including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline DERS-16 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.19|-2.86|0.5683
95831721|NCT04566601|191634729|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|2.35||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.35|-6.49|0.3568
95831722|NCT04566601|191634729|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|5.75||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.75|-3.33|0.6009
95831723|NCT04566601|191634729|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.98|-4.70|0.8705
95831724|NCT04566601|191634729|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.5262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|4.71||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline STAI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.71|-2.41|0.5262
95831725|NCT04566601|191634730|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.21||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-3.87|0.0782
95831726|NCT04566601|191634730|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.32||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.32|-1.86|0.8266
95862546|NCT01099449|191684402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.29
95960228|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6881
95960229|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7883
95960230|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5374
95831727|NCT04566601|191634730|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.74||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.74|-2.28|0.7910
95831728|NCT04566601|191634730|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.51||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PHQ-9 total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-1.77|0.8743
95831729|NCT04566601|191634731|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.37||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.47|0.8016
95831730|NCT04566601|191634731|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.67|0.2929
95831731|NCT04566601|191634731|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.42|0.9666
95831732|NCT04566601|191634731|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline CGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.52|0.2833
95831733|NCT04566601|191634732|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.2||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 5mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-0.45|0.4552
95862547|NCT01099449|191684402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests will be used as in\>\> primary analysis.||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We will not adjust p-values (or significance level) for multiple\>\> comparisons among the numerous hypothesis testings of secondary endpoints due to the\>\> exploratory nature of these secondary analyses. The significance results from secondary\>\> analyses will be interpreted cautiously in a hypothesis-generating fashion.||||.25
95960231|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9774
95960232|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3082
95831734|NCT04566601|191634732|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 25mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.22|-0.47|0.4734
95831735|NCT04566601|191634732|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.29||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 75mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-0.36|0.8388
95831736|NCT04566601|191634732|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed effects model repeated measures||"Least Squares Mean of BI 1358894 125mg - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares (LS) mean difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effects model repeated measures (REML-based MMRM) including the fixed categorical covariates of treatment, visit (baseline and Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline PGI-S total score, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as baseline-by-visit interaction. Patient was considered as random. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.19|-0.35|0.5540
95831737|NCT01209078|191634786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for end of therapy Clinical Success.||||
95831738|NCT01209078|191634786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-24.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Follow-up Clinical Success.||||
95831739|NCT01209078|191634787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
95831740|NCT01209078|191634788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-9.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||-9.4|-60.6|
95831741|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 exudate or pus score.||0.74|-0.41|
95831742|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 exudate or pus score.||0.45|-0.70|
95831743|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 exudate or pus score.||0.43|-0.74|
95831744|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 exudate or pus score.||0.95|-0.25|
95862548|NCT01099449|191684405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.89|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.89
95862549|NCT01099449|191684405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Kruskal Wallis Analysis||||||0.496|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.496
95831745|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 exudate or pus score.||0.72|-0.49|
95831746|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.66|-0.53|
95831747|NCT01209078|191634791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow- up exudate or pus score.||0.58|-0.65|
95831748|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
95831749|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
95862550|NCT01099449|191684406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
95862551|NCT01099449|191684406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Chi-Squared Analysis||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.66
95960233|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4373
95831750|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
95831751|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
95831752|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
95831753|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
95831754|NCT01209078|191634792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (final values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
95831755|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 total SIS.||1.33|-3.04|
95831756|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 total SIS.||1.41|-2.94|
95831757|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 total SIS.||2.75|-1.68|
95831758|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 total SIS.||4.05|-0.46|
95831759|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 total SIS.||3.47|-1.09|
95831760|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.98|-1.49|
95831761|NCT01209078|191634793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up total SIS.||2.52|-2.09|
95831762|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-68.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.8|-4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 2 wound area.||-4.95|-132.8|
95831763|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.54|60.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 3 wound area.||60.43|-66.54|
95831764|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|31.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.53|96.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 4 wound area.||96.47|-33.53|
95831765|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|110.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 8 wound area.||110.31|-22.43|
95831766|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.03|101.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Day 11 wound area.||101.45|-33.03|
95831767|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.25|103.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 7 Day Follow-up wound area.||103.40|-28.25|
95831768|NCT01209078|191634794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.77|105.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||The point estimate was calculated as least square mean difference (net values) of GSK1322322 1500 mg and Linezolid 600 mg.|GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for 28 Day Follow-up wound area.||105.56|-30.77|
95831769|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-35.4|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Staphylococcus aureus (all).||||
95831770|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MRSA.||||
95831771|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-28.6|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for MSSA.||||
95831772|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-66.7|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Streptococcus pyogenes.||||
95831773|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-25.0|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for Gram-negative pathogens.||||
95831774|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-37.5|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for All pathogens.||||
95831775|NCT01209078|191634795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||||||||Regression, Logistic|||GSK1322322 1500 mg versus Linezolid 600 mg for No pathogens.||||
95831776|NCT01939366|191634801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.04||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.04|-1.43|0.0621
95831777|NCT01939366|191634801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.02||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||0.02|-1.50|0.0564
95831778|NCT01939366|191634801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.2||Due to the exploratory character of this trial, no multiple testing adjustment for control of the false positive rate was applied.|Mixed Models Analysis|The analysis consisted of the contrasts (mixed model Wald tests) of individual cebranopadol doses versus placebo during Week 6 of Maintenance Phase.||The mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model included fixed effects of pooled sites, treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline pain, and a subject-specific random effect. The model was based on the weekly average 24-hour pain intensity of the 2 weeks in the Titration Phase and 6 weeks in the Maintenance Phase. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the covariance structure, denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation.||-0.20|-1.83|0.0153
95831779|NCT04201093|191634803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
95831780|NCT04201093|191634803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
95831781|NCT04201093|191634804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
95831782|NCT04201093|191634804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
95831783|NCT04201093|191634805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.339|11.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.321|3.339|<0.0001
95831784|NCT04201093|191634805|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.968|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|11.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.062|3.220|<0.0001
95831785|NCT04201093|191634806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.2|-13.8|<0.0001
95831786|NCT04201093|191634806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.8|-14.4|<0.0001
95831787|NCT04201093|191634807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-9.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.1|-14.4|<0.0001
95831788|NCT04201093|191634807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-9.3|-14.7|<0.0001
95960234|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6540
95831789|NCT04201093|191634808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.5|-1.0|0.4822
95862552|NCT01708902|191684428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.01|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||0.01|-0.45|0.0587
95831790|NCT04201093|191634808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||0.6|-0.9|0.7742
95831791|NCT04201093|191634808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.3|<0.0001
95831792|NCT04201093|191634808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
95831793|NCT04201093|191634808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-7.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.3|-10.8|<0.0001
95831794|NCT04201093|191634808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-7.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-7.6|-11.2|<0.0001
95831795|NCT04201093|191634809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
95831796|NCT04201093|191634809|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
95831797|NCT04201093|191634810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
95862553|NCT01708902|191684428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.78|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.78|-1.23|<0.0001
95831798|NCT04201093|191634810|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.2|<0.0001
95831799|NCT04201093|191634811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.4|<0.0001
95831800|NCT04201093|191634811|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
95960235|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0002
95831801|NCT04201093|191634812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.5|-0.8|0.6047
95831802|NCT04201093|191634812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.3|-1.0|0.2570
95831803|NCT04201093|191634813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.1|-1.4|0.8516
95831804|NCT04201093|191634813|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||1.0|-1.6|0.6421
95831805|NCT02596230|191634820|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.249||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.249|0.322|0.188
95831806|NCT02596230|191634821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.778||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.017||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||2.017|0.300|0.606
95831807|NCT02596230|191634822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|1.885||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.885|0.299|0.542
95831808|NCT02596230|191634823|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|"Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.~Hazard Ratio is actually \<0.01~95% Confidence Interval is not calculable (NA) due to insufficient number of participants with events."|||||0.996
95831809|NCT02596230|191634824|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.828||One-side p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox-regression proportional hazards model including fixed effects for treatment.|Hazard Ratio \< 1 favors Dabigatran etexilate.|||1.828|0.402|0.690
95831810|NCT03242252|191634867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.054|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.054|-0.245|0.2095
95831811|NCT03242252|191634867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|-0.085|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.085|-0.386|0.0021
95831812|NCT03242252|191634868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2397||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0564|-0.1169|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.1169|-1.0564|0.0144
95831813|NCT03242252|191634868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2368||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|-0.0136|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-0.0136|-0.942|0.0436
95831814|NCT03242252|191634869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.265|1.709|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1.709|-6.265|0.2627
95831815|NCT03242252|191634869|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.799||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.052|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||1|-6.052|0.1602
95831816|NCT03242252|191634870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.301||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|0.958|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.958|-4.142|0.2212
95831817|NCT03242252|191634870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.297||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.171|0.912|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.912|-4.171|0.2089
95831818|NCT03242252|191634871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.644|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.644|-1.92|< 0.0001
95831819|NCT03242252|191634871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.339||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|-0.156|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.156|-1.487|0.0155
95831820|NCT03242252|191634872|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-30.72||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-13.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-13.07|-44.78|0.0015
95831821|NCT03242252|191634872|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-36.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.91|-18.68|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, randomization stratum of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening, country as fixed effects, and and log-transformed baseline UACR as a covariate.||-18.68|-49.91|0.0003
95831822|NCT03242252|191634873|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|5.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.21|-2.23|0.4328
95831823|NCT03242252|191634873|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||5.17|-2.2|0.4328
95831824|NCT03242252|191634874|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.0||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|12.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||12.21|-0.23|0.0614
95831825|NCT03242252|191634874|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|7.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening and randomization strata of CKD stage (3A, 3B) at screening.||13.65|1.08|0.023
95831826|NCT01116427|191634895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95862554|NCT01708902|191684428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
95831827|NCT01116427|191634896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the total number of new lesions were converted to ranks and then compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95831828|NCT01116427|191634897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95831829|NCT01116427|191634898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and the ranks were compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95831830|NCT01116427|191634899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which mean numbers of new lesions per participant were converted to ranks and compared between groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95831831|NCT01116427|191634900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.65
95831832|NCT01116427|191634902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per subject were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95831833|NCT01116427|191634903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis was stratified on the presence or absence of subclinical activity as demonstrated by a Gd-enhanced lesion on one MRI in the past year prior to enrollment.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95831834|NCT01116427|191634904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Rank sum test in which the lesion volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between the treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95831835|NCT01116427|191634905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the percent brain volume change values per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95831836|NCT01116427|191634906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95831837|NCT01116427|191634908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test in which the change from baseline scores per participant were converted to ranks and compared between treatment groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95831838|NCT02968914|191634956|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|94.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.16|101.21|||ANOVA|||||101.21|88.16|
95831839|NCT02968914|191634957|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.41|98.58|||ANOVA|||||98.58|87.41|
95831840|NCT02968914|191634958|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.34|98.75|||ANOVA|||||98.75|86.34|
95831841|NCT00576472|191635040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0452|-0.0208|||ANOVA|||||-0.0208|-0.0452|<.0001
95831842|NCT00576472|191635041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.038|||ANOVA|||||0.0380|0.0190|<.0001
95831843|NCT00576472|191635042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.000204|0.0285|||ANOVA|||||0.0285|0.000204|0.025
95831844|NCT00576472|191635042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0442|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0292|0.0591|||ANOVA|||||0.0591|0.0292|<.0001
95831845|NCT00576472|191635042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.0586|||ANOVA|||||0.0586|0.0396|<.0001
95831846|NCT00576472|191635042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00974|0.0499|||ANOVA|||||0.0499|0.00974|.0004
95831847|NCT00576472|191635042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.0445|||ANOVA|||||0.0445|0.0250|<.0001
95831848|NCT00576472|191635042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0083||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00865|0.0185|||ANOVA|||||0.0185|-0.00865|.552
95831849|NCT00576472|191635043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.3|||ANOVA|||||-3.3|-11.0|.0005
95831850|NCT00576472|191635044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-6.5|0.0413
95831851|NCT00576472|191635045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-6.4|||ANOVA|||||-6.4|-11.0|<.0001
95831852|NCT00576472|191635046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-7.0|||ANOVA|||||-7.0|-12.0|<.0001
95831853|NCT00576472|191635047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|4.4|<.0001
95831854|NCT00576472|191635048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||||1.9|-2.3|.8425
95831855|NCT00576472|191635049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.9|||ANOVA|||||-0.9|-3.9|.0016
95831856|NCT00576472|191635050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|||||2.3|-1.9|.8329
95831857|NCT00576472|191635052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0077||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0077
95831858|NCT00576472|191635052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95831859|NCT00576472|191635052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1408||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1408
95831860|NCT00576472|191635053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0428||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0428
95831861|NCT00576472|191635053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
95831862|NCT00576472|191635053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4258
95831863|NCT00576472|191635054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
95831864|NCT00576472|191635054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95831865|NCT00576472|191635054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4086||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4086
95831866|NCT00576472|191635055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95831867|NCT00576472|191635055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
95831868|NCT00576472|191635055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7007
95831869|NCT00576472|191635056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95831870|NCT00576472|191635056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
95831871|NCT00576472|191635056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6237
95831872|NCT00576472|191635057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95831873|NCT00576472|191635057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95831874|NCT00576472|191635057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6071
95831875|NCT00576472|191635058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1386
95831876|NCT00576472|191635058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0905
95831877|NCT00576472|191635058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8039
95831878|NCT00576472|191635059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7496||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7496
95831879|NCT00576472|191635059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9489||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9489
95831880|NCT00576472|191635059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7021
95831881|NCT00576472|191635060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0190
95831882|NCT00576472|191635060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95831883|NCT00576472|191635060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1622
95831884|NCT00576472|191635061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1202||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1202
95831885|NCT00576472|191635061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0103
95831886|NCT00576472|191635061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2831
95831887|NCT00576472|191635062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7027
95831888|NCT00576472|191635063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7493
95831889|NCT00576472|191635064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7339||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7339
95831890|NCT00576472|191635065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6148
95831891|NCT00576472|191635066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4456
95831892|NCT00576472|191635067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5866||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5866
95831893|NCT00576472|191635068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8918||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8918
95831894|NCT00576472|191635069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4427||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4427
95831895|NCT00576472|191635070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4203||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4203
95831896|NCT00576472|191635071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5754||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5754
95831897|NCT00576472|191635072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
95831898|NCT00576472|191635073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1049
95831899|NCT03689244|191635083|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.95||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Ratio of Geometric mean of Selexipag to Placebo was reported.||1.07|0.84|0.412
95831900|NCT01541917|191635086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|-0.02|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since group procedures were initiated.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time (regardless of group) on the outcome variable||-.02|-.06|<.001
95831901|NCT01541917|191635086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.027|||Multilevel growth model||The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.027|-.055|.51
95831902|NCT01541917|191635087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.46|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.46|.27|<.001
95831903|NCT01541917|191635087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.252|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.252|-.144|.59
95831904|NCT01541917|191635088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.14|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.14|.10|<.001
95831905|NCT01541917|191635088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.03|-.05|.63
95831906|NCT01541917|191635089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||-.01|-.18|.02
95831907|NCT01541917|191635089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.155|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.155|-.174|.91
95831908|NCT01541917|191635090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.04|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values.|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.04|.02|<.001
95831909|NCT01541917|191635090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.013|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.013|-.02|.67
95831910|NCT01541917|191635091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values|The parameter represents the average monthly change on the outcome variable since before group procedures were started.|Multilevel growth model evaluating average change over time on the outcome variable||.01|-.01|.58
95831911|NCT01541917|191635091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.018|||Multilevel growth model|Adjusted for baseline values on the outcome variable|The estimated parameter value represents the difference in the monthly change (since baseline) in the outcome variable attributed to being in the treatment group (web-based coping skills training) versus the control group (online disease education).|Multilevel linear growth modeling was used for analyses, with the time variable coded as months since randomization. All models included an adjustment for baseline group differences on the outcome variable.||.018|-.009|.49
95960236|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0696
95862555|NCT01708902|191684428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.64|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.~The null and alternative hypotheses were tested in a hierarchical sequence. The next null hypothesis was tested in a confirmatory way only if all prior null-hypotheses were rejected. 'Greater effect' refers to a greater reduction in HbA1c."||-0.64|-1.09|<0.0001
95831912|NCT00121641|191635092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.33|-0.90|<.0001
95831913|NCT00121641|191635092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.36||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.36|-0.93|<.0001
95831914|NCT00121641|191635092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.44||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-0.44|-1.02|<.0001
95831915|NCT00121641|191635093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.47|-9.72||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-9.72|-31.47|0.0002
95831916|NCT00121641|191635093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-3.97||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-3.97|-25.50|0.0074
95831917|NCT00121641|191635093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|-11.84||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-11.84|-33.79|<.0001
95831918|NCT00121641|191635094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|11.1||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|24.9||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||24.9|-3.1|0.1141
95831919|NCT00121641|191635094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|14.0||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|27.6||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||27.6|-0.1|0.0443
95831920|NCT00121641|191635094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.1||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|31.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||31.0|2.8|0.0133
95831921|NCT00121641|191635095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6221.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1701.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9570.0|-2872.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2872|-9570|0.0003
95831922|NCT00121641|191635095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6249.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1675.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9546.0|-2952.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-2952|-9546|0.0002
95831923|NCT00121641|191635095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1707.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10798.0|-4076.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model:post - pre = pre treatment|||-4076|-10798|<.0001
95831924|NCT03263780|191635130|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.25||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.46||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.46|0.19|0.056
95862556|NCT01708902|191684429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.946|2.961|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.961|0.946|0.0771
95831925|NCT03263780|191635130|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.56||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.78|0.44|0.56
95831926|NCT03263780|191635130|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.22||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.47||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.47|0.17|0.060
95831927|NCT03263780|191635130|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.5||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.74||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 6+)||0.74|0.39|0.083
95831928|NCT03263780|191635131|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.35||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.65||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.65|0.26|0.096
95831929|NCT03263780|191635131|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 3-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
95831930|NCT03263780|191635131|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66||mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI and PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.66|0.23|0.063
95831931|NCT03263780|191635131|SUPERIORITY||Sensitivity|0.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.9||mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)|Durkalski's Chi-square test||We did not present standard deviation as the variability is already incorporated in the provided confidence interval.|mpMRI vs hrMRI or PET (PIRADS 4-5 \& Gleason 7+)||0.90|0.46|0.317
95831932|NCT01184417|191635141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|32.0||||||||32|4|
95831933|NCT01184417|191635142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|49.0||||||||49|4|
95831934|NCT01184417|191635143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|82.0||||||||82|-4|
95831935|NCT01184417|191635145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|23.0||||||||23|-11|
95831936|NCT01969721|191635154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.147|0.103|<0.0001
95831937|NCT01969721|191635154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.15||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.150|0.107|<0.0001
95831938|NCT01969721|191635154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.124||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.124|0.081|<0.0001
95831939|NCT01969721|191635154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.128||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (L)|"Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 µg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-12h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 µg).~Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect."||0.128|0.085|<0.0001
95855151|NCT02978781|191669815|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.36|-2.70|0.4567
95831940|NCT01969721|191635155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.103||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.103|0.061|<0.0001
95831941|NCT01969721|191635155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.107||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.107|0.065|<0.0001
95831942|NCT01969721|191635155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.086||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.086|0.045|<0.0001
95831943|NCT01969721|191635155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.09||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 0-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.090|0.048|<0.0001
95831944|NCT01969721|191635156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.071||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.071|0.022|0.0002
95855152|NCT02978781|191669816|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.96|-2.48|0.3771
95855153|NCT02978781|191669817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.69|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.69|-0.97|0.7302
95855154|NCT02978781|191669817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.85|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|"Change from Randomization in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 14"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.85|-1.10|0.7916
95855155|NCT02978781|191669818|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Randomization (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Randomization at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.23|-1.17|0.1807
95831945|NCT01969721|191635156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.082||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.082|0.034|<0.0001
95831946|NCT01969721|191635156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.067||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.067|0.018|0.0007
95831947|NCT01969721|191635156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.078||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean trough FEV1 change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.078|0.029|<0.0001
95831948|NCT01969721|191635157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.062||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.062|0.017|0.0007
95831949|NCT01969721|191635157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.065||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.065|0.021|0.0002
95831950|NCT01969721|191635157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.051||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.051|0.006|0.0146
95831951|NCT01969721|191635157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.054||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 AUC 12-24h change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.054|0.009|0.0055
95862557|NCT01708902|191684429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|9.522|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||9.522|3.164|<0.0001
95862558|NCT01708902|191684429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.678|4.767|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.767|1.678|<0.0001
95862559|NCT01708902|191684429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.818|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.259|6.454|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.454|2.259|<0.0001
95862560|NCT01708902|191684430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.565||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|8.701|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||8.701|1.997|0.0001
95831952|NCT01969721|191635158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.166||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.166|0.118|<0.0001
95831953|NCT01969721|191635158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.171||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.171|0.123|<0.0001
95831954|NCT01969721|191635158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.135||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 250/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 250/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.135|0.087|<0.0001
95831955|NCT01969721|191635158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.14||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation and Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as T+O 2.5/5 - F+S 500/50 adjusted mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (L)|Null hypothesis: Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Tiotropium + Olodaterol 2.5/5 μg) = Mean FEV1 peak (0-3h) change from patient baseline (Fluticasone propionate + Salmeterol 500/50 μg). Hypothesis was analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed effect repeated measures model including fixed effects of treatment and period; period baseline and patient baseline as covariates; patient as a random effect.||0.140|0.092|<0.0001
95831956|NCT01058941|191635191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|3.13||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADL changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||3.13|-3.97|0.82
95862561|NCT01708902|191684431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|2.746|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.746|1.004|0.0480
95862562|NCT01708902|191684431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.452|10.164|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.164|3.452|<0.0001
95862563|NCT01708902|191684431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.563|4.239|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||4.239|1.563|0.0002
95862564|NCT01708902|191684431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.682|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|7.968|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.968|2.751|<0.0001
95960237|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0029
95831957|NCT01058941|191635192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.46||We used a significance level of p = 0.025 for our measure of ADAS-cog changes based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment since we have two primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline outcome, time from baseline, age, education category, BMI, cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, vitamin E, and Apo-E.||The target enrollment was 60 subjects, allowing for up to a 20% drop-out. It was calculated that with 48 subjects (24 per group) we would have 80% power to see differences in ADL scores over 18 months between the treatment and placebo groups with a significance level of 0.025 based on a simple Bonferroni adjustment, since we had two primary outcomes.||-1.46|-5.90|0.001
95831958|NCT03449433|191635193|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.1||||||||1.10|0.985|
95831959|NCT03109184|191635215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-Month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
95831960|NCT03109184|191635215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between group odds ratio of DV perpetration|||||
95831961|NCT03109184|191635215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
95831962|NCT03109184|191635215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups odds ratio of DV victimization|||||
95831963|NCT03109184|191635216|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
95831964|NCT03109184|191635216|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of general aggression|||||
95831965|NCT03109184|191635217|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
95831966|NCT03109184|191635217|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent attitudes support aggression|||||
95831967|NCT03109184|191635217|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
95831968|NCT03109184|191635217|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent attitudes support aggression|||||
95831969|NCT03109184|191635218|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
95831970|NCT03109184|191635218|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent short-term self-regulation|||||
95831971|NCT03109184|191635218|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
95831972|NCT03109184|191635218|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent long-term self-regulation|||||
95831973|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
95831974|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported open family communication|||||
95831975|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
95831976|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported problems in family communication|||||
95831977|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
95831978|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
95831979|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
95831980|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported open family communication|||||
95831981|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
95831982|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported problems in family communication|||||
95831983|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
95831984|NCT03109184|191635219|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of parent reported number of relationship topics discussed|||||
95831985|NCT03109184|191635220|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
95831986|NCT03109184|191635220|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent emotion-regulation|||||
95831987|NCT03109184|191635221|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||3-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
95831988|NCT03109184|191635221|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size (d)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||9-month follow-up between groups effect size of adolescent distress tolerance|||||
95831989|NCT03268941|191635226|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|7.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|13.52||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||13.52|4.03|<0.001
95960238|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3695
95960239|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9346|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9346
95831990|NCT03268941|191635226|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|21.41||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration as covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||21.41|5.91|<0.001
95831991|NCT03268941|191635226|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.94|23.59||ANCOVA model was used for analysis. Treatment, underlying disease (DG/IG) were fixed factors. ln of baseline prolactin concentration - covariate, ln of ratio of Cmax to baseline concentration as response. Results in original scale are presented.|ANCOVA|||Change in serum prolactin on Day 1 at the Tmax as a ratio of Cmax to serum prolactin concentration at Baseline.||23.59|6.94|<0.001
95831992|NCT03268941|191635227|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.648||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.89|37.41||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.41|-21.89|0.599
95831993|NCT03268941|191635227|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.469||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|37.59||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||37.59|-25.04|0.687
95831994|NCT03268941|191635227|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.45||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.22|39.33||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 7 in Part 1.||39.33|-23.22|0.605
95831995|NCT03268941|191635228|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.708||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|31.19||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||31.19|-16.06|0.522
95831996|NCT03268941|191635228|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.143||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|37.43||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||37.43|-11.58|0.293
95831997|NCT03268941|191635228|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.654||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|30.52||P-value was obtained by ANCOVA model with treatment and underlying disease (DG/IG) condition as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline in GEBT gastric half-emptying time on Day 1 in Part 1.||30.52|-16.52|0.551
95831998|NCT03268941|191635229|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-18.14||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.58|13.56||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||13.56|-307.58|0.274
95831999|NCT03268941|191635229|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-26.95||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.73|530.49||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE time measured by the SmartPill on Day 7 in Part 1.||530.49|-229.73|0.481
95832000|NCT03268941|191635229|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Median Diff|-24.49||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-225.87|98.91||P-value was obtained with pairwise Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests|||Percent Change in GE on time measured by the SmartPill Day 7 in Part 1.||98.91|-225.87|0.382
95832001|NCT03878758|191635235|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in incidence of needle bending with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.04|||Fisher Exact|||||1.04|-1.82|0.591
95832002|NCT03878758|191635235|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.06|||Fisher Exact|||||3.06|-2.8|0.931
95832003|NCT03878758|191635235|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.75|||Fisher Exact|||||2.75|-1.91|0.723
95832004|NCT03878758|191635236|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-3.5|-9.0|<0.001
95832005|NCT03878758|191635236|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs. comparator was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-14.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.49|-1.69||Although a site difference was detected - all sites combined p-value was generated,|Fisher Exact|||||-1.69|-26.49|0.026
95832006|NCT03878758|191635236|SUPERIORITY|The average difference in percentage of occurrence with BD Nano vs.Comparator pen needle was calculated with 95% confidence interval and assessed for statistical significance.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||Fisher Exact|||||0.6|-1.9|0.644
95832007|NCT03878758|191635237|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98||||||||0.98|0.62|
95862565|NCT01708902|191684432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.383|7.11|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||7.110|1.383|0.0062
95960240|NCT00551135|191892795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9631
95832008|NCT03878758|191635237|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16||||||||1.16|0.8|
95832009|NCT03878758|191635237|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined (a p-value \< 0.05 for the pen needle group effect indicates non-poolability) and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates.|Overall Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||||||||0.49|0.13|
95832010|NCT03878758|191635238|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD Nano Pro vs Artsana 34G||-0.141||<0.001
95832011|NCT03878758|191635238|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122||||0.104|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Artsana 33G. A significant site effect was detected at one site; the most conservative p-value is reported.||0.016||0.104
95832012|NCT03878758|191635238|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Comparator PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary. The upper bound of the confidence interval was compared to 0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.068||||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BD NANO vs Comfort EZ 33G||-0.017||0.003
95832013|NCT03878758|191635239|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
95832014|NCT03878758|191635239|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
95832015|NCT03878758|191635239|SUPERIORITY|The number and proportion of needle breaking occurrence for each pen needle type were summarized. A 95% confidence interval for difference in proportions between BD Nano Pro and the Comparator was calculated using the score method for independent proportions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.4|
95832016|NCT04557787|191635307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|44.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.6|12.2|0.001
95832017|NCT04557787|191635307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|44.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||44.4|12.0|0.001
95832018|NCT04557787|191635307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||16.3|-16.0|0.983
95832019|NCT04557787|191635308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.4|17.0|<0.001
95832020|NCT04557787|191635308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|46.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||46.0|13.5|<0.001
95832021|NCT04557787|191635308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|19.7||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.7|-12.6|0.667
95832022|NCT04557787|191635309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||7.0|-14.2|0.503
95962455|NCT03607422|191896639|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.383|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-17.36|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD category|Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.36|-42.60|<0.001
95960241|NCT00551135|191892796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.9025
95832023|NCT04557787|191635309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||11.2|-10.1|0.916
95832024|NCT04557787|191635309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied||6.5|-14.8|0.438
95832025|NCT04557787|191635310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||10.9|-10.3|0.955
95832026|NCT04557787|191635310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||2.2|-19.2|0.118
95832027|NCT04557787|191635310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||19.5|-1.8|0.104
95832028|NCT04557787|191635311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.22|0.352
95832029|NCT04557787|191635311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-0.41|0.980
95832030|NCT04557787|191635311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-0.21|0.339
95832031|NCT04557787|191635312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.42|-0.62|0.700
95832032|NCT04557787|191635312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.84||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.84|-0.20|0.227
95832033|NCT04557787|191635312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.1||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.10|-0.94|0.112
95832034|NCT04557787|191635313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.17||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.17|0.22|0.013
95832035|NCT04557787|191635313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.51|-0.05|0.065
95962456|NCT03607422|191896640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.8||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|50.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||50.4|5.2|0.016
95960242|NCT00551135|191892796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.5652
95832036|NCT04557787|191635313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.04|-0.51|0.497
95832037|NCT04557787|191635314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.88||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.88|0.06|0.027
95832038|NCT04557787|191635314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.02||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.02|0.19|0.005
95832039|NCT04557787|191635314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.28|-0.54|0.532
95832040|NCT04557787|191635315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-0.26|0.461
95832041|NCT04557787|191635315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.73||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.73|-0.09|0.120
95832042|NCT04557787|191635315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.24||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.24|-0.58|0.404
95832043|NCT04557787|191635316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.71||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.71|-0.33|0.478
95832044|NCT04557787|191635316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.58||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.58|-0.46|0.824
95832045|NCT04557787|191635316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-0.39|0.626
95832046|NCT04557787|191635317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.64|0.09|0.030
95832047|NCT04557787|191635317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.66||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.66|0.11|0.027
95832048|NCT04557787|191635317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.75||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.75|-0.80|0.956
95832049|NCT04557787|191635318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.78|-0.05|0.084
95960243|NCT00551135|191892796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||"LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.~Last observation carried forward or first non-missing observation carried backward algorithm applied to missing scores 1-3 h PS and independently to missing scores 24-48 h PS, before applying trapezoidal rule to compute AUC. AUC=missing if all scores 1-3 or 24-48 h PS missing."||||0.7920
95832050|NCT04557787|191635318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.81||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.81|-0.02|0.063
95832051|NCT04557787|191635318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.38||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Subject was included as a random effect, 'Visit' (Visit 1, 2 and 3) and 'Treatment' (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2) as fixed effects.||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.38|-0.44|0.885
95832052|NCT02639338|191635321|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
95832053|NCT02639338|191635321|SUPERIORITY|The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 83%.|||||<|0.001||||||The reported p-value was calculated. The statistical test was performed in SOF/VEL for 12 weeks at 0.05 significance level if and only if the statistical test performed in SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 weeks was significant at 0.05 significance level.|2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
95832054|NCT02715726|191635327|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Alirocumab group was compared to ezetimibe group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-30.7|-40.6|<0.0001
95832055|NCT02715726|191635328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-32.6|-42.1|<0.0001
95832056|NCT02715726|191635329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.2|-39.5|<0.0001
95832057|NCT02715726|191635330|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-35.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|-30.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.7|-40.0|<0.0001
95832058|NCT02715726|191635331|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|LS mean difference|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-23.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.9|-30.8|<0.0001
95832059|NCT02715726|191635332|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-24.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.4|-31.2|<0.0001
95832060|NCT02715726|191635333|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-23.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.6|-31.8|<0.0001
95832061|NCT02715726|191635334|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.7|-32.6|<0.0001
95832062|NCT02715726|191635335|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-17.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-17.2|-23.1|<0.0001
95960244|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6679|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6679
95832063|NCT02715726|191635336|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-23.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.2|-29.8|<0.0001
95832064|NCT02715726|191635337|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-22.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.8|-30.5|<0.0001
95960245|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7308
95832065|NCT02715726|191635338|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-16.5|-22.1|<0.0001
95832066|NCT02715726|191635339|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||17.7|7.1|<0.0001
95832067|NCT02715726|191635340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||22.3|8.3|<0.0001
95832068|NCT02715726|191635341|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.273|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.262|-29.285||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.285|-39.262|<0.0001
95832069|NCT02715726|191635342|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W/up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Ezetimibe|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.9|-1.2|0.2280
95832070|NCT01177969|191635349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.04
95832071|NCT01177969|191635350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||This analysis applies to the post-treatment assessment (16 weeks after baseline)|ANCOVA|||||||.25
95832072|NCT02576860|191635412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.799
95832073|NCT02576860|191635413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.858
95832074|NCT01792518|191635430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in HbA1c is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline HbA1c by visit and baseline log10 (UACR) by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||-0.43|-0.78|<0.0001
95832075|NCT01792518|191635431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.94||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||ANCOVA||Ratio of relative change for Linagliptin 5 mg over placebo is presented.|Superiority of Linagliptin 5 mg vs. placebo: change in UACR is analysed using analysis of covariance model. Model includes baseline HbA1c and baseline log10 (UACR) as linear covariates and treatment as fixed effect.||1.03|0.85|0.1954
95832076|NCT01792518|191635432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as Linagliptin 5 mg minus Placebo.|Change in eGFR is analysed using mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline log10 (UACR), baseline eGFR, baseline HbA1c by visit, baseline log10 (UACR) by visit and baseline eGFR by visit as linear covariates and treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||2.68|-7.95|0.3306
95832077|NCT04468074|191635444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95832078|NCT04468074|191635445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0159
95832079|NCT04468074|191635446|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.85||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0066
95832080|NCT02011490|191635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.12|7.11|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.11|4.12|
95832081|NCT02011490|191635469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.17|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.17|1.84|
95832082|NCT02011490|191635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.22|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||7.22|4.18|
95832083|NCT02011490|191635470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||3.18|1.84|
95832084|NCT02011490|191635471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.21|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (severe renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (severe renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.21|0.73|
95832085|NCT02011490|191635471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.18|||||Difference in least squares means of log-transformed data (moderate renal impaired - healthy) was back transformed to geometric least squares mean ratio (moderate renal impaired/healthy)|Log-transformed plasma values were modeled using an ANOVA linear fixed-effect model with population (severe insufficiency, moderate insufficiency, and healthy control) as a fixed effect||1.18|0.72|
95832086|NCT01014455|191635483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
95832087|NCT03995355|191635486|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.1|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis||Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||20.1|2.6|
95832088|NCT03995355|191635487|NON_INFERIORITY|Subjective overall comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least square mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||10.4|-5.3|
95832089|NCT03995355|191635488|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.77|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|||1.770|0.528|
95832090|NCT03995355|191635488|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.203|||Generalized linear Mixed Model Analysis||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control. No difference was concluded if 1 fall within the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio.|30-Day follow-up||2.203|0.610|
95832091|NCT03995355|191635489|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|19.616|||Fisher Exact||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||19.616|0.178|
95832092|NCT03995355|191635490|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|15.4|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||15.4|0.7|
95832093|NCT03995355|191635491|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.0|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least square mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||17.0|1.7|
95832094|NCT00249613|191635493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79||Odds ratio is 0.40, confidence interval is 0.21-0.79.|Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only participants are less likely than Mixed-Gender participants to engage in criminal activities.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.79|0.21|0.01
95832095|NCT00249613|191635494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta coefficient|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.7|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models do not separate arms: group status (women-only vs mixed-gender) is the dependent variable. Because we were not able to randomly assign, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (education, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, history of sexual abuse, criminal justice funding source, had child, mental health symptoms, and a time in treatment by group interaction term) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.70|-2.11|0.33
95832096|NCT00249613|191635495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||The direction of the comparison would dictate that odds ratio of less than 1 would indicate Women-Only treatment participants are less likely than the Mixed-Gender group to use drugs or alcohol during the 30 days prior to the 12-Mo follow-up.|Logistic regression does not separate arms because group status (women-only vs mixed gender) is the dependent variable in our multinomial logistic regression. Because we were not able to randomly assign after all, we also included a propensity score, and additional variables (substance use in past 30 days at baseline, age, race/ethnicity, childhood sexual abuse history, previous treatment, criminal justice funding source, and primary drug) to adjust for the non-random sampling.||0.82|0.22|0.01
95832097|NCT04728594|191635505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.69||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.69|1.65|<.001
95832098|NCT04728594|191635505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.87||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||2.87|1.77|<.001
95832099|NCT04728594|191635505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with delayed contact as the reference group.||1.30|0.88|<.001
95832100|NCT00128713|191635512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
95832101|NCT00128713|191635512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.83
95832102|NCT00128713|191635512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Three one-degree-of-freedom chi-square tests, each comparing a pair of treatment groups. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.||||||0.66
95832103|NCT00128713|191635513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95832104|NCT00128713|191635513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95832105|NCT00128713|191635513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses are based on intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95832106|NCT00128713|191635514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95832107|NCT00128713|191635514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95832108|NCT00128713|191635514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||All analyses were carried out using intention to treat. These tests were carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95960246|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6781
95832109|NCT00128713|191635516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.51
95832110|NCT00128713|191635516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.82
95832111|NCT00128713|191635516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Each pair of treatment arms was compared using an exact version of the Mantel-Haenszel test for trend.|Mantel Haenszel|These tests will be carried out at the .017 significance level to adjust for the multiple comparisons||||||0.68
95832112|NCT03159104|191635601|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|The difference between final and initial total scholastic skill score was calculated for each participant. Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of these differences because data distribution differs from normal.||9|1|0.0113
95832113|NCT03159104|191635602|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||5|0|0.0608
95832114|NCT03159104|191635603|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||0|0|0.0824
95832115|NCT03159104|191635604|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimator was used for the difference between median change of total scholastic skill score in each comparison group.|||1|0|0.2391
95832116|NCT03159104|191635605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0033
95832117|NCT03159104|191635606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
95855156|NCT02978781|191669819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.8709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline(SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes Spirals (AS) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.9|-1.7|0.8709
95960247|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0930
95832118|NCT01294163|191635607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Xenon was to be concluded non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the prespecified margin of 0.63 ng/mL. Assuming a margin of 0.63, a same concentration of troponin I at 24 hours in the xenon and sevoflurane groups, a common standard deviation of 1.9 ng/mL and a one-sided type I error of 0.025, 164 patients per group were deemed necessary to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95%CI assessed using ANCOVA with 24h troponin I as response, treatment group and pre-induction troponin I as covariates.||||0.47|-1.27|0.02
95832119|NCT01294163|191635616|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was to be concluded that xenon was non-inferior to sevoflurane if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference \[mean troponin I level (xenon) - mean troponin I level (sevoflurane)\] was below the margin of 0.15 ng/mL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As the residuals from the primary ANCOVA model were non-normal and skewed, the non-inferiority analysis was repeated using log-transformed blood troponin levels.||0.11|-0.30|0.0186
95832120|NCT01563172|191635617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.98||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||10.98|2.91|0.0008
95832121|NCT01563172|191635618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.7||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.66||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||9.66|1.74|0.0049
95832122|NCT01563172|191635619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-6.94||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-6.94|-14.77|<0.0001
95832123|NCT01563172|191635620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.54||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-5.54|-13.68|<0.0001
95832124|NCT01563172|191635621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|15.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|19.31||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||19.31|11.45|<0.0001
95832125|NCT01563172|191635622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|514.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|283.02|744.99||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||744.99|283.02|<0.0001
95832126|NCT01563172|191635623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|265.92||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|492.83||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||492.83|39.00|0.0218
95832127|NCT01563172|191635624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-822.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.34|-598.42||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-598.42|-1047.34|<0.0001
95832128|NCT01563172|191635625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-574.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.08|-341.5||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||-341.50|-808.08|<0.0001
95832129|NCT01563172|191635626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1294.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1069.24|1519.43||Between Treatment p-Values based on the statistical model adjusting for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).|ANOVA||"LS Mean from ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and participant (random effect).~Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment."|||1519.43|1069.24|<0.0001
95832130|NCT01742065|191635645|SUPERIORITY|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclinic correlation coefficient was 0.05 after model covariates adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.8||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||6.8|.1|.05
95862566|NCT01708902|191684433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.07|-0.53|0.0109
95862567|NCT01708902|191684433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.81|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.81|-1.27|<0.0001
95862568|NCT01708902|191684433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID ' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID' .|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.24|-0.70|<0.0001
95862569|NCT01708902|191684433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.58|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"Sensitivity analysis: Mixed Model for repeated measurements~The model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate; visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed classification effects and patient as a random effect with unstructured covariance structure to model within-patients errors."||-0.58|-1.04|<0.0001
95862570|NCT01708902|191684434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|"The treatment effect of the 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' was compared with 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The model includes treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate."||-0.63|-1.87|0.0001
95862571|NCT01708902|191684435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||2.130|0.456|0.9705
95862572|NCT01708902|191684435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.029||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.612|5.938|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.938|1.612|0.0007
95832131|NCT01742065|191635646|OTHER|To assess effectiveness, we fit generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logistic link to model patient-level data. We weighted patient data so that each clinic's data had an equal weight. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and health center. They used robust variance estimators and independent correlation structures. We specified clinic as a clustering variable to account for intraclinic correlation; the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.05 after covariable adjustment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.0||We report effectiveness as the absolute difference between intervention and usual care clinics in adjusted probabilities calculated using mean values for all covariates;|Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|Reported P values based on the corresponding adjusted odds ratio and account for reduced degrees of freedom owing to clustering.||||7|.6|.02
95832132|NCT02409342|191635647|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.89|||Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.890|0.398|0.0106
95832133|NCT02409342|191635648|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.14|||Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||1.140|0.661|0.3091
95832134|NCT02409342|191635648|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. OS was tested hierarchically in the efficacy analysis populations.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.037||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC/1/2/3-WT||1.037|0.688|0.1070
95832135|NCT02409342|191635649|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.884||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.884|0.449|0.0070
95832136|NCT02409342|191635650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.82||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.820|0.501|0.0004
95832137|NCT02409342|191635650|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.863||P-value is descriptive as it was not formally tested.|Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.863|0.595|0.0004
95862573|NCT01708902|191684435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.243||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.486|6.849|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||6.849|1.486|0.0029
95832138|NCT02409342|191635651|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in ORR|9.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|23.56||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||23.56|-4.07|
95862574|NCT01708902|191684435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.846|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|10.238|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||10.238|2.318|<0.0001
95832139|NCT02409342|191635652|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|12.42||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||12.42|-9.14|
95832140|NCT02409342|191635652|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Difference in ORR|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|7.39||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||7.39|-8.84|
95832141|NCT02409342|191635653|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.365|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.8||||||TC3 or IC3-WT Population||0.800|0.166|
95832142|NCT02409342|191635654|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.235|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.409||||||TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||0.409|0.135|
95832143|NCT02409342|191635654|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.424||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||0.424|0.190|
95832144|NCT02409342|191635655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|14.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|28.55||||||1-Year TC3 or IC3-WT Population||28.55|-0.03|
95832145|NCT02409342|191635656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|38.47||||||2-Years TC3 or IC3-WT Population||38.47|2.94|
95832146|NCT02409342|191635657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|15.4||||||1-Year TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||15.40|-5.93|
95832147|NCT02409342|191635657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|13.4||||||1-Year TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||13.40|-3.27|
95832148|NCT02409342|191635658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|19.45||||||2-Years TC2/3 or IC2/3-WT Population||19.45|-1.99|
95832149|NCT02409342|191635658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|10.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.04||||||2-Years TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT Population||19.04|2.83|
95832150|NCT02409342|191635659|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.984||||||Cough in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.984|0.657|
95832151|NCT02409342|191635659|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.43||||||Dyspnoea in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.430|0.555|
95832152|NCT02409342|191635659|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|2.049||||||Chest pain in TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.049|0.737|
95832153|NCT02409342|191635661|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|2.03||||||Cough for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.030|0.477|
95832154|NCT02409342|191635661|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|1.604||||||Dyspnea for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||1.604|0.569|
95832155|NCT02409342|191635661|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.222||||||Chest pain for TC3 or IC3-WT Populations||2.222|0.472|
95832156|NCT02409342|191635662|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||1.000|0.500|
95832157|NCT02409342|191635662|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.956||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.956|0.502|
95832158|NCT02409342|191635662|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.018||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||1.018|0.579|
95832159|NCT02409342|191635663|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.89||||||SP263 \>=50%-WT Population||0.890|0.511|
95832160|NCT02409342|191635663|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.904||||||SP263 \>=25%-WT Population||0.904|0.539|
95832161|NCT02409342|191635663|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.91||||||SP263 \>=1%-WT Population||0.910|0.577|
95832162|NCT02409342|191635664|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.301||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.301|0.578|
95832163|NCT02409342|191635664|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.414|1.351||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||1.351|0.414|
95832164|NCT02409342|191635664|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.638||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.638|0.362|
95832165|NCT02409342|191635665|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.052||||||bTMB \>=10-WT Population||1.052|0.525|
95832166|NCT02409342|191635665|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.924||||||bTMB \>=16-WT Population||0.924|0.331|
95832167|NCT02409342|191635665|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.062||||||bTMB \>=20-WT Population||1.062|0.295|
95832168|NCT00649428|191635676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||.00001
95832169|NCT00649428|191635679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by combined treatment site.||A 5% level of significance was used as the threshold for determination of statistical significance, and all tests were two-tailed. the effect size and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided for all comparative efficacy outcomes. Primary analysis of the two co-primary efficacy endpoints and the secondary efficacy endpoints were performed on the ITT population.||||<.00001
95832170|NCT00448747|191635712|OTHER||ROC AUC|0.923|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0|0.85|||||||Summary of ROC Analyses following macimorelin administration.|||0.850|
95832171|NCT00448747|191635712|OTHER|Sensitivity|sensitivity (percent)|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
95832172|NCT00448747|191635712|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity (percent)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
95832173|NCT00448747|191635712|OTHER|Misclassification|misclassification (percent)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||ROC analysis on peak GH concentrations in response to macimorelin: GH cut point of 2.7 ng/mL.||||
95832174|NCT00448747|191635713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Summary of IGF-1 before and after AEZS-130 administration: post - pre differences||||
95832175|NCT00448747|191635713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95832176|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.228||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.04|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.040|-0.417|0.0179
95832177|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.209||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|-0.02|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.020|-0.398|0.0307
95832178|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|-0.046|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.046|-0.425|0.0151
95832179|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0053|||||||MCP-Mod E-max model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0053
95832180|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0102|||||||MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0102
95832181|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.023|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: no assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0230
95832182|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0292|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0292
95862575|NCT01708902|191684436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|5.42|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||5.420|0.642|0.2523
95960248|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3751
95960249|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0111
95960250|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6811
95832183|NCT04736628|191635751|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0468|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of avenciguat and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (Emax, exponential, linear, quadratic, sigmoid emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050).~The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active avenciguat 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg)."||||0.0468
95832184|NCT04736628|191635752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.217||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.018|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 1 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.018|-0.416|0.0327
95832185|NCT04736628|191635752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.206||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|-0.005|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 2 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.005|-0.408|0.0447
95832186|NCT04736628|191635752|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.012|||Mixed-effect Model repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of Avenciguat 3 mg TID - Least Squares Mean of Placebo."|Least Squares Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12, and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.012|-0.387|0.0654
95832187|NCT04736628|191635753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.79||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.79|1.01|0.0476
95832188|NCT04736628|191635753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.94||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.94|1.25|0.0119
95832189|NCT04736628|191635753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.45||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||7.45|1.58|0.0019
95832190|NCT04736628|191635754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.55||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 1 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.55|1.00|0.0497
95832191|NCT04736628|191635754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.61||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 2 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.61|1.00|0.0502
95832192|NCT04736628|191635754|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.49||Nominal p-value.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio (Avenciguat 3 mg TID vs. Placebo).|Treatment and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at randomization were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||4.49|0.98|0.0572
95832193|NCT03270891|191635764|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and 6 month values||||0.0115
95832194|NCT03270891|191635764|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.027
95832195|NCT03270891|191635765|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline p value to six month||||0.0327
95832196|NCT03270891|191635765|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.2088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison p value||||0.2088
95832197|NCT03270891|191635766|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of equality.||||||0.947|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline to 6 month comparison||||0.947
95832198|NCT06225466|191635768|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.047|||ANOVA|||||0.047|-0.005|0.123
95832199|NCT06225466|191635769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.26|0.102
95832200|NCT06225466|191635770|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|2.37||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.52|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||4.52|1.25|0.008
95832201|NCT02066415|191635819|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04."|Difference in LS Means|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.39|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.39|-3.52|<0.001
95960251|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7426
95832202|NCT02066415|191635819|SUPERIORITY|"A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the 2 erenumab doses and the primary and secondary endpoints.~This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01."|Difference in LS Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.38|-3.51|<0.001
95832203|NCT02066415|191635820|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.27|1.46|<0.001
95832204|NCT02066415|191635820|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test after the missing data were imputed as non-response, stratified by stratification factors (region and medication overuse status).||3.51|1.56|<0.001
95832205|NCT02066415|191635821|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.13|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.13|-2.60|<0.001
95832206|NCT02066415|191635821|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.82|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.82|-3.28|<0.001
95832207|NCT02066415|191635822|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.04.|Difference in LS Means|-9.54||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|7.9|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||7.90|-26.98|0.28
95832208|NCT02066415|191635822|SUPERIORITY|This comparison was tested at a 2-sided significance level of 0.01.|Difference in LS Means|-19.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|-1.92|||Generalized linear mixed model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and medication overuse status), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-1.92|-36.71|0.030
95832209|NCT00530920|191635832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.997|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.997
95832210|NCT00530920|191635832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||1
95832211|NCT00530920|191635832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.998|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NULL HYPOTHESIS (H0): Median viral load reduction from baseline \>1.2 log10 copies/mL within each group||||0.998
95832212|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.26|0.53|0.3598
95832213|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.39|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.39|0.59|0.6544
95960252|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1619
95960253|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1132
95960254|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9822|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9822
95960255|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1883
95960256|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9391
95960257|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9664
95960258|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 1 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0747
95832214|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.58|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.58|0.64|0.9958
95832215|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.37|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.37|0.59|0.6276
95832216|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.49|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.49|0.63|0.8819
95832217|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.42|0.60|0.7197
95832218|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.7|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.70|0.73|0.6204
95832219|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.84|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.84|0.75|0.4779
95832220|NCT00907296|191635849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9952
95832221|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.14|0.47|0.1713
95832222|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.53|0.65|0.9958
95832223|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.97|0.81|0.2950
95960259|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9681
95960260|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3246
95960261|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7984
95832224|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.05|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.05|0.44|0.0844
95832225|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.24|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.24|0.52|0.3225
95832226|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.81|0.76|0.4754
95832227|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.75|0.74|0.5578
95832228|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||2.07|0.87|0.1864
95832229|NCT00907296|191635852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||Cox proportional hazard model||A hazard ratio \> 1 favors romosozumab.|The cause-specific hazard was modeled using a Cox proportional hazards model with 10 treatment groups as the independent variable, stratified by type of fracture and definitive fracture fixation (closed with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with reamed IM nail, Gustilo type I/II open with unreamed IM nail) and adjusting for quality of surgical fixation.||1.59|0.68|0.8488
95832230|NCT04135859|191635879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
95832231|NCT04135859|191635880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
95832232|NCT04135859|191635881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
95832233|NCT01291836|191635887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Area under Receiver-Operator Curve (ROC)|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.73||||||Null Hypothesis: ROC AUC of 0.58; using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.73|0.586|
95832234|NCT01291836|191635888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ROC AUC|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.702||||||Null Hypothesis: AUC ≤0.55, using a one-sided z-test at a significance level of 0.025. Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|Efficacy determined by the evaluation of the area under the Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) generated from the study primary endpoint data. The units on both axes of the ROC curve are dimensionless proportions from 0 to 1.|0.702|0.598|
95832235|NCT03249103|191635889|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 20 mg||||0.032
95832236|NCT03249103|191635890|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||placebo - NYX-2925 200 mg||||0.039
95832237|NCT03249103|191635891|OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|comparing Week 2 (Placebo) to Week 6 (NYX-2925 200 mg)||||||0.0072
95832238|NCT00257660|191635920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-4.74||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the analysis at Week 4 excludes the scores for the 7 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.74|-12.94|<0.0001
95832239|NCT00257660|191635921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.91|-4.71||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 8 analysis excludes the scores for the 24 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-4.71|-12.91|<0.0001
95960262|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8581
95832240|NCT00257660|191635922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12||||0.019||95.0|-7.55|-0.68||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline TWSTRS score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|"Baseline TWSTRS total scores are analysed for all subjects of ITT population, while the Week 12 analysis excludes the scores for the 27 subjects who were not assessed.~Mean difference = difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport - Placebo)."|||-0.68|-7.55|0.019
95832241|NCT00257660|191635923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.0|-6.4||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 4 subjects (and 13 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.4|-24.0|<0.001
95832242|NCT00257660|191635924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS CD symptom score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 4) excludes 3 subjects (and 8 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-6.1|-22.3|<0.001
95832243|NCT00257660|191635925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-25.8|-8.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-8.1|-25.8|<0.001
95832244|NCT00257660|191635926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-7.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-7.8|-24.2|<0.001
95832245|NCT00257660|191635927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05||||0.007||95.0|-19.0|-3.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Subject VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 4 subjects (and 4 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-3.1|-19.0|0.007
95832246|NCT00257660|191635928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.05||||0.028||95.0|-13.3|-0.8||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline Investigator VAS Pain score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 12) excludes 3 subjects (and 3 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||-0.8|-13.3|0.028
95832247|NCT00257660|191635929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.061||95.0|-0.17|7.47||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 mental health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in the ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.47|-0.17|0.061
95855157|NCT02978781|191669819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|1.4|-1.8|0.7843
95960263|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9677
95832248|NCT00257660|191635930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.002||95.0|1.73|7.58||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment group, baseline SF-36 physical health summary score, center and previous treatment by botulinum toxin or not were fitted in ANCOVA model.|Analysis at baseline (and on change at Week 8) excludes 3 subjects (and 37 subjects respectively) of ITT population who were not assessed. Mean difference=difference in adjusted least squares mean (Dysport-placebo)|||7.58|1.73|0.002
95832249|NCT00257660|191635931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.206|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.01|17.26||A hierarchical testing procedure was applied for the primary and secondary outcome measures ranked in the order of priority listed. At each step of the hierarchical testing procedure, there was one comparison and p\<0.05 was considered significant.|odds ratio|The odds ratio represents the odds of success on Dysport versus Placebo stratified for strata and country||The number of participants considered treatment successes was analysed using a logistic model with treatment, strata (naive or non-naive) and center as factors in the model.||17.26|3.01|<0.0001
95832250|NCT02025439|191635948|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95832251|NCT04881747|191635967|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.919||||||||0.919|0.834|
95832252|NCT04881747|191635967|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|0.934||||||||0.934|0.846|
95832253|NCT04881747|191635968|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.976||||||||0.976|0.914|
95862576|NCT01708902|191684437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|0.98|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 1000mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||0.98|-11.72|0.0971
95862577|NCT01708902|191684437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.67|-26.16|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-26.16|-38.67|<0.0001
95960264|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7104
95832254|NCT04881747|191635968|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|0.978||||||||0.978|0.914|
95832255|NCT04881747|191635969|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.972||||||||0.972|0.910|
95832256|NCT04881747|191635969|EQUIVALENCE|Model: Log(PK) = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Participant(Sequence) + Random Error, where participant within sequence is fitted as a random effect.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.913|0.977||||||||0.977|0.913|
95832257|NCT02138240|191635973|OTHER|Pre-post comparison|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||<0.001
95832258|NCT02138240|191635976|OTHER|Pre-post comparison of baseline median weight to median weight at 6-month follow up||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank sum|||||||0.21
95832259|NCT00424268|191635990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
95832260|NCT00424268|191635991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|110.0||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||110|51|<0.0001
95832261|NCT00424268|191635992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.768|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.146||No adjustment of the significance level (0.05) was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||1.146|0.515|0.1957
95832262|NCT00424268|191635993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.7|0.1|0.0032
95832263|NCT00424268|191635994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.8||This secondary endpoint was analyzed in an exploratory manner.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 24 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||-0.8|-4.5|0.0051
95862578|NCT01708902|191684437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-3.27|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-3.27|-15.66|0.0028
95960265|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8978|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8978
95832264|NCT01378429|191636000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.|LS Mean Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|22.6||\<0.025 for a one-sided test.|ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as Placebo - Ciclesonide.|35 subjects per arm would have ≥90% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (equivalent to the upper bound of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the difference of placebo minus ciclesonide nasal aerosol would be less than 20% of the baseline value of 175 mcg•h/dL or a noninferiority limit of 35 mcg•h/dL assuming a SD of 40 and a one-sided α of 0.025. A total of 40 subjects will be randomly assigned to ensure 35 subjects complete the study per arm.||22.6|-7.4|
95960266|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.626|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6260
95832265|NCT03002454|191636017|EQUIVALENCE|"Control: 99mTc MDP Injection:fission Investigation: 99mTc MDP Injection:neutron-bombardment~Anticipated sample size of 50 participants with sample size parameters of:~Alpha 0.05 Power 80% Kappa of significance 0.7 - 0.8 Prevalence of abnormal bone scans 30%~Actual study population of 4 participants with 4 out of 4 demonstrating gross abnormal biodistribution therefore the study was terminated and no statistical analysis was conducted."|||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis - insufficient study population|||
95832266|NCT02014584|191636084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|18.8|||Fisher's Exact Test|||||18.8|-4.7|0.27
95832267|NCT02014584|191636130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 4|||3.4|-10.4|0.62
95832268|NCT02014584|191636130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|17.6|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 12|||17.6|-4.7|0.34
95832269|NCT02014584|191636130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.7|||Fisher's Exact Test||DB Week 24|||16.7|-4.2|0.31
95832270|NCT02014584|191636132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 4|||3.0|-0.2|0.082
95832271|NCT02014584|191636132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.9|-3.4|0.25
95832272|NCT02014584|191636132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||2.1|-2.0|0.99
95832273|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 4|||0.9|-0.4|0.46
95832274|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 12|||0.3|-1.8|0.14
95832275|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Erectile Function DB Week 24|||0.5|-1.9|0.27
95832276|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.8|-0.1|0.13
95832277|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.5|-0.8|0.73
95832278|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Intercourse satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.8|0.64
95832279|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.1|0.23
95832280|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.5|0.33
95832281|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Orgasmic function DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.6|0.64
95832282|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 4|||0.7|-0.1|0.19
95832283|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 12|||0.2|-0.7|0.28
95832284|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Sexual desire DB Week 24|||0.5|-0.5|1.00
95832285|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 4|||0.5|-0.2|0.28
95832286|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 12|||0.3|-0.5|0.64
95960267|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4047
95832287|NCT02014584|191636134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test from general linear model||Overall sexual satisfaction DB Week 24|||0.3|-0.5|0.69
95832288|NCT02014584|191636136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||3.4|-1.1|0.33
95832289|NCT02014584|191636136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||5.6|1.1|0.004
95832290|NCT02014584|191636138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 12|||0.4|-1.7|0.22
95832291|NCT02014584|191636138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||t-test from general linear model||DB Week 24|||1.0|-2.0|0.50
95832292|NCT03907033|191636177|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Hydrocodone use||||1.000
95832293|NCT03907033|191636177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Oxycodone use||||0.010
95960268|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4461
95832294|NCT03907033|191636178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Ibuprofen use||||0.248
95832295|NCT03907033|191636178|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm for Tylenol use||||1.000
95832296|NCT03907033|191636180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 24 hours post-surgery||||0.846
95832297|NCT03907033|191636180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 48 hours post-surgery||||0.490
95832298|NCT03907033|191636180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm 72 hours post-surgery||||0.564
95832299|NCT03907033|191636181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.264
95832300|NCT03907033|191636181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.970
95832301|NCT03907033|191636181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.536
95832302|NCT03907033|191636182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 24 hours post-surgery||||0.957
95832303|NCT03907033|191636182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 48 hours post-surgery||||0.353
95832304|NCT03907033|191636182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.165
95832305|NCT03907033|191636184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 72 hours post-surgery||||0.802
95832306|NCT03907033|191636184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Standard Bupivacaine study arm compared to Liposomal Bupivacaine study arm at 7-10 days post-surgery||||0.656
95832307|NCT01439373|191636187|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.119|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.905. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.22 to 0.68.|||||
95832308|NCT01439373|191636188|OTHER||Mean posterior difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.122|||||||||Bayesian probability model|"P1= P(p805 \>pPLC +0.3 \| data)= 0.822. A probability of 95% (P1 \> 0.95) or greater was to be considered 'substantial evidence of superiority."|Posterior Distribution of Difference= p805 - pPLC, where, p805 is the RVR rate for GSK2336805 and pPLC is the RVR rate for Placebo. 95% credible set was defined as the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. 95% credible interval for the estimate was 0.17 to 0.6|||||
95832309|NCT02020408|191636225|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|ANOVA|||||||> 0.05
95832310|NCT02020408|191636226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p value was calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni).|General Linear Model|||A General Linear Model using log(\[11C\]raclopride BPND) after amphetamine administration as dependent variable and Diagnostic Group as independent variable was used. Baseline (before amphetamine administration) \[11C\]raclopride BPND was used as covariate.||||<0.05
95832311|NCT00602420|191636250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||3.24|0.10|0.037
95832312|NCT00602420|191636250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||||0.007
95832313|NCT02008227|191636255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.87|0.62|0.0003
95960269|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9099
95832314|NCT02008227|191636255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.86|0.62|0.0002
95832315|NCT02008227|191636256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.58|0.0102
95832316|NCT02008227|191636256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.91|0.58|0.0052
95832317|NCT02008227|191636259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.10|0.82|0.4928
95832318|NCT02008227|191636259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.08|0.81|0.3596
95832319|NCT02008227|191636260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||1.12|0.74|0.3806
95832320|NCT02008227|191636260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.10|0.74|0.3249
95832321|NCT02008227|191636263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.55|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.55|0.18|<0.0001
95832322|NCT02008227|191636263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.55|0.21|<0.0001
95832323|NCT02008227|191636264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.62|0.15|0.0006
95832324|NCT02008227|191636264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.65|0.22|0.0003
95832325|NCT02008227|191636268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest: Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per IxRS, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per eCRF.||0.93|0.55|0.0111
95832326|NCT02008227|191636268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.33|||Log Rank|||Cough: Unstratified Analysis||1.33|0.84|0.6305
95832327|NCT02008227|191636268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea: Unstratified Analysis||1.16|0.81|0.7406
95832328|NCT02008227|191636268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||Arm/Shoulder Pain||1.17|0.73|0.5221
95960270|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8805|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8805
95960271|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2348
95832329|NCT02008227|191636283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.70|0.0012
95832330|NCT02008227|191636284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.92|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.92|0.64|0.0045
95832331|NCT02008227|191636285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.84|0.49|0.0012
95832332|NCT02008227|191636286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.68|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on the strata of IC levels per interactive voice/web response system (IxRS), the number of prior chemotherapy regimens per IxRS, and histology per electronic case report form (eCRF).||0.68|0.30|<0.0001
95832333|NCT02008227|191636287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.96||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.85|0.4981
95832334|NCT02008227|191636289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.48||||||||0.48|0.21|
95960272|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4445|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4445
95960273|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8849
95960274|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2796
95832335|NCT00757822|191636293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.6|||>|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|18.6|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of PON per arm will be determined and expressed as a percentage of the total patients per arm. Treatment efficacy will be measured as the percentage-point decrease in PON in the treatment arm (Marinol) compared to the standard therapy arm (ondansetron). Null hypothesis: Marinol treatment is not superior to ondansetron treatment. We will test the statistical significance with Fisher's Exact test at a significance level of 0.05||18.6|-9.5|>0.76
95832336|NCT00757822|191636294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.92|||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's Exact test was performed comparing the percentage of subjects with at least one VAS score \> 0. (Marinol\>Ondansetron).||||||>0.92
95832337|NCT00757822|191636295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.7|||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-12.1|>0.55
95832338|NCT00757822|191636296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.981|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||=0.981
95832339|NCT00757822|191636297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.90
95832340|NCT00757822|191636298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.37
95832341|NCT00757822|191636299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons at 24-48 hr post-surgery. Null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction.||||>0.75
95832342|NCT00757822|191636299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks; null hypothesis: dronabinol is not superior to ondansetron in patient satisfaction||||>0.10
95832343|NCT00757822|191636300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ procedure|||Comparison of both group responses at 24-48 hours.||||>0.29
95832344|NCT00757822|191636300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||FREQ Procedure|||Comparisons of both arms at 2-6 weeks.||||>0.55
95832345|NCT00568126|191636326|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|25.2||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||25.2|0.18|0.55
95832346|NCT00568126|191636327|SUPERIORITY|Remission rates for maca vs. placebo were compared by chi-squared and by odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.34||P values above are calculated. No multiple comparisons. Threshold for significance set a priori as P\<0.05.|Chi-squared||Odds ratio for attaining remission while taking maca vs taking placebo|"Treatment groups were compared based on percentage reaching remission thresholds per scale: a total score of 12 (minimally diminished) or less on the MGH-SFQ scale, and a total score of 10 (very strong/very easily/very satisfying) or less on the ASEX."||7.34|0.40|0.47
95832347|NCT01463072|191636336|OTHER||Percent|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|52.0|||||35% of participants were responders (CR+PR).|||52|21|
95832348|NCT01463072|191636338|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|33.1|||Fisher Exact||Ratio is intermediate/high toxicity risk over low toxicity risk|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of chemotherapy toxicity (grade 3)||33.1|1.3|0.01
95832349|NCT01463072|191636338|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of group means|1.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio is dose reduction over no dose reduction.|CARG chemotherapy toxicity risk predictive of dose reduction due to chemotherapy toxicity||1.80|1.04|0.02
95832350|NCT03002311|191636386|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a conditional power analysis 120 days after 6 months of enrollment. We determined the effect size based on the difference of proportions of follow-up attendance in the intervention and control arms. We used the effect size of 20% to estimate the sample size needed for a two-sided alpha of 0.05 at 90% power and a 1:1 ratio to require 266 participants. Loss to follow-up was estimated to be 20%, increasing target enrollment to 334 total participants.|||||<|0.001|||||||Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence function.||||||<0.001
95832351|NCT03002311|191636387|SUPERIORITY|This was a secondary analysis so no power analysis was done.||||||0.8||||||We used a two-sided alpha of 0.05 to determine significance.|Gray's test|We compared the cumulative incidence functions.||||||0.8
95832352|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||60.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.85|60.66
95832353|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||95.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|0.97|95.21
95832354|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||74.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.88|74.29
95832355|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||99.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|1.06|99.48
95832356|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||13.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.66|13.98
95832357|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.28||||97.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|1.01|97.92
95832358|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||80.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.84|80.24
95832359|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.3||||97.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|1.01|97.79
95832360|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.81|51.27
95832361|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||90.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.93|90.66
95832362|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|54.89
95832363|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.45
95832364|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.98|94.09
95832365|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.91|62.95
95832366|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.26|0.99|96.86
95862579|NCT01708902|191684437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.54|-18.08|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' minus 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-18.08|-30.54|<0.0001
95862580|NCT01708902|191684438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.48|-16.95|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the adjusted mean of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' minus 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.|The model includes continuous baseline HbA1c, continuous baseline FPG and treatment group.||-16.95|-53.48|0.0002
95960275|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5225
95832367|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||94.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.98|94.16
95832368|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.86|48.99
95832369|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.98|94.51
95832370|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||94.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.97|94.59
95832371|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||61.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.86|61.27
95832372|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||96.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.99|96.63
95832373|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||94.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.97|94.02
95832374|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.87|53.24
95832375|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|70.84
95862581|NCT01708902|191684439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.838|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.838|0.052|0.0271
95960276|NCT00551135|191892797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7015
96001254|NCT02747043|191979756|OTHER|Risk difference (ABP 798 - Rituximab) and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|13.2||||||Percentage risk difference in 'Severe mucocutaneous reactions'||13.2|-11.7|
95862582|NCT01708902|191684439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.916||0.9699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.202|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Metformin 500mg BID'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||6.202|0.150|0.9699
95862583|NCT01708902|191684439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.882|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'Main: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 500mg BID' / 'Main: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c. The validity of the model is questionable as there is possibly a quasi-complete separation of data points, the results shown are based on the last maximum likelihood iteration."||0.882|0.038|0.0343
95862584|NCT01708902|191684440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||"Comparison of 'APG: Linagliptin 2.5mg / Metformin 1000mg BID' / 'APG: Linagliptin 5mg QD'.~The logistic regression includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c."||0.976|0.013|0.0474
95862585|NCT01014910|191684441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on a previously-identified mean LOS of 65.3 hours, we estimated we would need to enroll 80 patients in each study arm to provide adequate sample size to detect a difference in mean LOS of 18 hours with 80% power and alpha=0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Sample size calculations were performed using Power and Sample Size Calculator, version 3.0 (by developers William D. Dupont and Walton D. Plummer Jr)||Differences in LOS were compared between study arms using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 for Windows (StataCorp). All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||<0.05
95862586|NCT01014910|191684442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of patients transferred to the intensive care unit in each study arm was compared between study arms using the Pearson χ2 test. All patients enrolled in the study, including those who subsequently had consent for the intervention withdrawn, were included for analysis (intention to treat).||||0.05
95862587|NCT00800254|191684454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95862588|NCT00800254|191684456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.003
96001255|NCT02238028|191979767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||Paired Student's t tests were used in the absence and presence of wearing respirators. HRV was log-transformed before regression analyses. Linear mixed-effect models were applied to investigate the effects of wearing respirators. Age, sex, body mass index, PM2.5 concentration, 48-h mean temperature and 48-h mean humidity were introduced into the model as fixed-effect terms. At last, we incorporated random-effect intercepts for subjects to account for correlations between repeated measurements.||||<0.05
95862589|NCT02055118|191684463|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|13.3|||Mixed model repeated measures|||The Mixed model repeated measures included fixed categorical effects for treatment, visit week, treatment by visit week interaction, baseline GCA classification factor (less than or equal to \[\<=\] 70 or \>70), baseline age group (\<6 years or \>=6 years), treatment by baseline GCA classification factor interaction, treatment by baseline age group interaction, interaction between baseline GCA classification factor and baseline age group, genotype, and the baseline GCA score as a continuous covariate.||13.3|-7.3|0.5669
95862590|NCT01818752|191684495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.101||The p-value boundary for PFS analysis was 0.02141.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The inferential test associated with the primary analysis of PFS was assessed against an overall 1-sided significance level of α=0.025.||1.101|0.746|0.1590
95862591|NCT01818752|191684496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.211||||0.8934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.637||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Log Rank|Log-rank p-value (1-sided) stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|The hazard ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.637|0.896|0.8934
95862592|NCT01818752|191684497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.973||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.973|1.010|0.0218
96001256|NCT02238028|191979768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test,2 sided|||||||<0.05
96001257|NCT03136705|191979775|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|1.009||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||1.031|0.989|0.3738
96001258|NCT03136705|191979776|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|0.0043||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0414|0.0499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||0.0499|-0.0414|0.854
96001259|NCT03136705|191979777|SUPERIORITY||trend analysis|20.38||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|42.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed model for repeated measures data||42.03|-1.26|0.0648
96001260|NCT01342640|191979781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 20 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<0.0001
96001261|NCT01342640|191979782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 24 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
95832376|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||74.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|74.15
95832377|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||65.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.87|65.43
95832378|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||97.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|97.15
95832379|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||63.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.34|0.81|63.99
95832380|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||91.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.94|91.99
95832381|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.94|76.81
95832382|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Central; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.95|67.01
95832383|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||63.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.85|63.91
95832384|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||96.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.99|96.47
95832385|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||72.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.93|72.17
95832386|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||74.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|74.38
95960277|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3332
96001262|NCT01342640|191979783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline in mean Hb levels at Week 28 was analyzed using paired t-test.||||<.0001
96001263|NCT02677701|191979787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.44||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.35|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||7.35|-0.48|0.0846
95832387|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||53.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.90|53.85
95832388|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||95.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.98|95.02
95832389|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||92.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.97|92.27
95832390|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||54.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.88|54.65
95832391|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||87.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.95|87.93
95832392|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||77.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|77.57
95832393|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|77.07
95832394|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||78.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|78.42
95832395|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.93|44.15
95832396|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.79
95832397|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||94.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.24|0.98|94.51
95832398|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||93.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|93.16
95832399|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||73.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.70
95832400|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.96|81.04
95832401|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.94|52.58
95832402|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||15.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.86|15.85
95832403|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.90|48.69
95832404|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|52.25
95832405|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||66.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.91|66.48
95862593|NCT01818752|191684498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.589||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|Odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region and age.|||1.589|0.875|0.1388
95960278|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0933|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0933
95832406|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||9.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.72|9.12
95832407|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||16.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.78|16.95
95960279|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0031
95960280|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9451
95960281|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7312
95832408|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.75|0.89
95832409|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.86|50.40
95832410|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||7.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.76|7.44
95832411|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||56.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.87|56.35
95832412|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.87|4.03
95832413|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|24.79
95832414|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||77.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|77.08
95832415|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||23.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.89|23.07
95832416|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.88|18.58
95832417|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||44.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.92|44.94
95862594|NCT01818752|191684499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.048|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.088||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Pearson Chi-Square test||Unstratified odds ratio (Carfilzomib/Bortezomib) was estimated.|||0.088|0.026|< 0.0001
95960282|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0348
95960283|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8936
95960284|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7672
95832418|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||2.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.80|2.21
95832419|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.83|6.09
95832420|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||66.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.92|66.60
95832421|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||3.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.23
95832422|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||20.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|20.83
95832423|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.96|87.60
95832424|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||7.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.84|7.90
95832425|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.39
95832426|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||76.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.95|76.16
95832427|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||22.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.87|22.54
95832428|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||58.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.91|58.17
95960285|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4285
95960286|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0785
95832429|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||6.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.76|6.22
95832430|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.85
95832431|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|25.44
95832432|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||18.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|18.15
95832433|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||8.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|8.12
95832434|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.39
95832435|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|10.00
95832436|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|29.88
95832437|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||12.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.89|12.63
95832438|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.91|32.29
95832439|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||69.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.95|69.92
95960287|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3348
95960288|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1366
95832440|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||6.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.84|6.10
95832441|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||33.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|33.63
95832442|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||86.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.07
95832443|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||41.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|41.38
95832444|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|24.88
95832445|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||29.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|29.89
95832446|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||7.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.87|7.13
95832447|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||32.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.90|32.91
95832448|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||81.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.96|81.15
95832449|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|21.87
95832450|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||24.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|24.49
95960289|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3338|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3338
95832451|NCT02294734|191636429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||55.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|55.52
95832452|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||59.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.84|59.55
95832453|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.18||||94.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|(FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.96|94.01
95832454|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||82.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12, The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.90|82.27
95832455|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||99.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|1.06|99.22
95832456|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||46.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.75|46.24
95832457|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||98.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.64||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.64|1.02|98.30
95832458|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||92.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.92|92.60
95832459|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||99.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.81||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.81|1.05|99.01
95832460|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||58.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.82|58.80
95832461|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||86.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.91|86.82
95960290|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4460
95960291|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1078
95832462|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||67.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|67.37
95832463|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||98.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|1.01|98.35
95832464|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||96.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.99|96.86
95832465|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||86.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.95|86.18
95832466|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||98.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|1.02|98.89
95832467|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||91.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.97|91.94
95832468|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||55.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.88|55.32
95832469|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||97.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|1.00|97.17
95832470|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||96.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.99|96.57
95960292|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8273
95960293|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6140
95960294|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1684
95960295|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
95960296|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2640
95832471|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||79.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.90|79.13
95832472|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||99.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|1.05|99.54
95832473|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||97.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|1.00|97.80
95832474|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||71.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.91|71.94
95832475|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||85.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.23|0.94|85.30
95832476|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||82.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.94|82.15
95832477|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.88|72.55
95832478|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||98.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.47||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.47|1.02|98.44
95832479|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||78.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.86|78.24
95960297|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8956
95832480|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||96.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.52|0.99|96.80
95832481|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||91.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.97|91.11
95960298|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0058
95960299|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9929
95832482|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||89.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal;Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|89.30
95832483|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||74.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.87|74.67
95832484|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.23||||98.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|1.02|98.25
95832485|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||87.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region;Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.96|87.80
95832486|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||91.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.97|91.54
95832487|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||68.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.92|68.89
95832488|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|1.01|98.19
95832489|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||94.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.98|94.07
95832490|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.92|75.74
95832491|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||95.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.99|95.83
95862595|NCT01818752|191684500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|6.51||Based on the pre-specified multiplicity adjustment method, secondary endpoints were to be tested only if the results of the primary endpoint were significant. The p-values for all secondary endpoints are descriptive only.|Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure|||Treatment groups were compared using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment (all baseline responses were modeled with a dummy treatment), the randomization stratification factors - ISS stage, choice of route of bortezomib administration, region, age, and random effects of subject intercept and coefficient on time.||6.51|3.48|< 0.0001
95862596|NCT01584440|191684502|SUPERIORITY||Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Z-statistic|-1.5|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD): data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
95832492|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||79.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.94|79.80
95832493|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||95.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|95.29
95832494|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.99|96.27
95832495|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.94|47.62
95832496|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||71.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.92|71.55
95832497|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||98.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|1.01|98.29
95832498|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bayesian repeated measures model|1.08||||95.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.99|95.09
95832499|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||93.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.98|93.68
95832500|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||96.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|1.00|96.58
95832501|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||56.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.95|56.99
95832502|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||13.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.85|13.08
95832503|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||52.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.89|52.99
95832504|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||60.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.90|60.75
95832505|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||75.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LUL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.92|75.23
95832506|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||28.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.78|28.14
95832507|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||38.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RML; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.84|38.43
95832508|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||25.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.12|0.80|25.21
95832509|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||81.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; RLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.27|0.91|81.73
95832510|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.76|9.87
95832511|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||63.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Lobes; LLL; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.87|63.15
95832512|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||4.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.86|4.03
95862597|NCT01584440|191684502|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95960300|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0473
95862598|NCT01584440|191684502|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95960301|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2426
95960302|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3478
95832513|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
95832514|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||80.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.95|80.34
95832515|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||25.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.89|25.65
95832516|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||24.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.88|24.36
95832517|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.91|48.45
95832518|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||1.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.99|0.81|1.95
95832519|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||14.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.85|14.15
95832520|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||80.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.95|80.61
95832521|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||3.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.81|3.30
95832522|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.88|42.22
95832523|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.09||||95.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.99|95.24
95832524|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||6.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.83|6.38
95862599|NCT01584440|191684504|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
95862600|NCT01584440|191684504|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 36|||
95832525|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.86|28.82
95832526|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.05||||87.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.14||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.14|0.97|87.39
95832527|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||23.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.87|23.27
95832528|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||57.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Upper; D28.The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.90|57.82
95832529|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||9.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.77|9.67
95832530|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||70.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Lower; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.89|70.73
95832531|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Central; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|25.61
95832532|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||44.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Cetral; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|44.10
95832533|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||10.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.82|10.14
95862601|NCT01584440|191684504|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95960303|NCT00551135|191892801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 10 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1694
95960304|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0630
95960305|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
95960306|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0024
95960307|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0767
95960308|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1327
95960309|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0078
95832534|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||62.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Distal D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.90|62.87
95832535|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||11.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.93|11.82
95832536|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||51.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Longitudinal; Region; Total; D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.95|51.44
95832537|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||9.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.88|9.54
95832538|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||30.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.89|30.03
95832539|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||73.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.95|73.03
95832540|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||4.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.83|4.64
95832541|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||42.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.89|42.13
95832542|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||93.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.98|93.33
95832543|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||27.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.95|27.33
95960310|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0694
95832544|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||34.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|34.15
95832545|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||58.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|58.42
95832546|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||5.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.86|5.93
95832547|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||35.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.89|35.88
95832548|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||86.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.97|86.41
95832549|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||13.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|13.52
95832550|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||32.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.95|32.84
95832551|NCT02294734|191636430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||78.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.98|78.09
95832552|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||60.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.66|60.07
95855158|NCT02978781|191669819|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.984||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217 - placebo|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 14|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|2.10|-2.72|0.7604
96001264|NCT02677701|191979788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|5.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||5.26|-2.64|0.51
96001265|NCT02677701|191979789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.89||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).||||1.22|-7.01|0.17
96001266|NCT02677701|191979790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.77||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||6.77|-3.70|0.56
95832553|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||51.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.65|51.75
95832554|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|0.60|65.66
95832555|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||81.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.59|81.67
95832556|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||89.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.51|89.98
95832557|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||43.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.70|43.88
95832558|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.1||||36.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.91|0.64|36.10
95832559|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.47|95.74
95832560|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.67|50.74
95832561|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||72.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.51|72.81
95832562|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.73||||94.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.50|94.41
95832563|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||81.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.55|81.07
95832564|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||69.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.50|69.29
95832565|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||73.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.54|73.67
95832566|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.87||||75.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.59|75.82
95832567|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||54.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.69|54.22
95832568|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||66.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.35||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.35|0.63|66.46
95832569|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.16||||21.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.71||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28 . The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.71|0.79|21.45
95832570|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||69.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.50|69.91
95832571|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||75.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.57|75.29
95832572|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.58||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.58|0.68|44.05
95832573|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||94.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region; Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.65|94.93
95960311|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2173|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2173
95960312|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0193
95960313|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0673
95960314|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2629
95960315|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0388
95832574|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.77||||97.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.59|97.11
95832575|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||85.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.41
95832576|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||54.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.53|0.62|54.73
95832577|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||72.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.30|0.61|72.31
95832578|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||15.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|15.05
95832579|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||84.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.68|84.87
95832580|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||92.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.63|92.24
95832581|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||63.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.75|63.42
95832582|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.17||||9.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.93|9.05
95832583|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||66.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.74|66.40
95832584|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.78||||97.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.00|0.60|97.39
95832585|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||16.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.42|0.89|16.02
95862602|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|0.77||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Delusions Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.444
95832586|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||75.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.21|0.68|75.69
95832587|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||90.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.69|90.22
95832588|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.21||||9.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.62|0.91|9.64
95832589|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.15||||20.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.82|20.44
95832590|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.73|55.06
95832591|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.36||||5.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.97|0.94|5.29
95832592|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.11||||28.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.77|28.82
95832593|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.61|93.00
95832594|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||1.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.95||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.95|1.03|1.64
95832595|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.38||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.38|0.72|50.71
95832596|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.68||||99.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.91|0.51|99.52
95862603|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 36|||||
95862604|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Delusions Domain; Day 70|||||
95862605|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.18||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Hallucinations Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.861
95832597|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.99|3.10
95832598|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||75.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.71|75.39
95832599|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||93.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.68|93.29
95832600|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.33||||3.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.82||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.82|0.97|3.79
95832601|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||36.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.48|0.76|36.75
95832602|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.72||||99.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.93|0.56|99.32
95832603|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.06||||18.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.93|18.91
95832604|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.15|0.87|47.35
95832605|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.96||||78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.86|78.00
95832606|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.29||||2.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.67|1.00|2.65
95832607|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||58.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.29||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.29|0.73|58.48
95862606|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 36|||||
95862607|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Hallucinations Domain; Day 70|||||
95862608|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.32||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Depression/Dysphoria Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.749
95832608|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||99.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.92|0.61|99.64
95832609|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||1.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.40|1.01|1.90
95832610|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.97||||63.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.16|0.81|63.03
95832611|NCT02294734|191636431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.83||||99.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.97|0.72|99.19
95832612|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||67.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.33|0.64|67.19
95832613|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||44.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.66|44.80
95832614|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||59.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.46|0.61|59.90
95832615|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||70.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.31||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.31|0.63|70.12
95832616|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.82||||83.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.22||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.22|0.54|83.98
95832617|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.08||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.57|0.73|34.93
95832618|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.14||||32.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.96|0.65|32.45
95832619|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||95.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.46|95.35
95862609|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 36|||||
95832620|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||50.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.54||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.54|0.66|50.10
95832621|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||59.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.55|59.37
95832622|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.8||||87.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.55|87.99
95832623|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||70.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.59|70.87
95832624|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||63.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.51|63.71
95832625|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||65.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.57|65.99
95832626|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.89||||71.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.60|71.95
95832627|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.71|48.28
95832628|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.95||||61.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.39|0.65|61.06
95832629|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||18.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.74||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.74|0.82|18.05
95832630|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||61.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.61||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.61|0.53|61.12
95832631|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.92||||64.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|0.61|64.40
95862610|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Depression/Dysphoria Domain; Day 70|||||
95832632|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||38.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.66||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.66|0.69|38.12
95832633|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.67|91.00
95832634|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.81||||94.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.62|94.52
95832635|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.9||||82.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.72|82.11
95832636|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||48.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.60|0.64|48.10
95832637|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||65.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.36||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.36|0.64|65.66
95832638|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.25||||11.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.8||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.80|0.87|11.46
95832639|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.91||||77.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.17|0.70|77.20
95832640|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||87.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.66|87.35
95832641|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||56.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures random effect|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.77|56.53
95832642|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.19||||7.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.5||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.50|0.94|7.29
95832643|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||55.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.28|0.75|55.09
95862611|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.81||||0.416|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Anxiety Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.416
96001267|NCT02677701|191979791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.47||Adjusted for baseline: ppFEV1 (25%-50%, \>50%-75%, \>75%), azithromycin use (current vs. non-current), inhaled tobramycin type (powder vs. solution).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|0.03|0.043
95832644|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.79||||96.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.61|96.49
95832645|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.13||||14.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.44|0.90|14.54
95832646|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.94||||66.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.25|0.71|66.85
95832647|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.88||||85.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.11||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LUL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.11|0.70|85.77
95832648|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.24||||8.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|0.91|8.67
95832649|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||14.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.75||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.75|0.84|14.80
95832650|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||45.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.37||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RML; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.37|0.75|45.69
95832651|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.42||||2.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.06|0.99|2.94
95832652|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||13.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.73|0.85|13.92
95832653|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.86||||86.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.13||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; RLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.13|0.65|86.40
95862612|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain; Day 36|||||
95862613|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Anxiety Domain|||||
95862614|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.07||||0.287|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Euphoria/Elation Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.287
96001268|NCT01703819|191979801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7726||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOVAs.||||0.7726
95960316|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0651
95832654|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.46||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||2.00|1.06|0.88
95832655|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||41.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.43|0.75|41.25
95832656|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.7||||99.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Lobes; LLL; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.52|99.20
95832657|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.22||||3.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.51||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD12 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.51|0.98|3.49
95832658|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.93||||73.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.19|0.72|73.09
95832659|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||92.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Upper; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.69|92.41
95832660|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.38||||2.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.89||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.89|1.01|2.29
95960317|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3242
95960318|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0345
95832661|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.12||||23.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters.Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region; Lower; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.56|0.81|23.67
95862615|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 36|||||
95960319|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0487
95960320|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3384|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3384
95960321|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0467
95960322|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0347
95960323|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3086
95832662|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.75||||98.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed; Region;Lower; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.96|0.59|98.87
95832663|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.07||||14.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Central; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.20|0.95|14.50
95832664|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||30.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region Central; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.91|30.26
95832665|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||62.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region Central; D12D28 .The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.89|62.84
95832666|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.31||||2.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Distal; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.70|1.01|2.06
95832667|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region; Distal; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.32|0.76|49.97
95832668|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.76||||99.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Distal; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.94|0.62|99.43
95832669|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.2||||1.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed; Region;Total; SCRD12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.41|1.02|1.17
95832670|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||49.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC;Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; SCRD28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.18|0.84|49.78
95832671|NCT02294734|191636432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.85||||98.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC; Scan Trimmed;Region;Total; D12D28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||0.98|0.73|98.66
95960324|NCT00551135|191892802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0406
95832672|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|32.51
95862616|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Euphoria/Elation Domain; Day 70|||||
95960325|NCT00551135|191892803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4177
95832673|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.08|0.99|6.21
95832674|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||15.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|15.91
95832675|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||6.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.09|0.99|6.73
95832676|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||27.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|27.65
95832677|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||12.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|12.19
95832678|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||11.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.98|11.62
95832679|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||7.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.10|0.99|7.66
95832680|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.88
95832681|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.96|28.28
95832682|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||27.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|27.87
95832683|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||9.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.No|FRC Region; Upper Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.99|9.83
95832684|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||21.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|21.87
95832685|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||18.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.97|18.58
95832686|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.98|22.28
95832687|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.03||||10.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Region; Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|10.86
95832688|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL; Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.89
95832689|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.78
95832690|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||69.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LUL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|69.42
95832691|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||62.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes;LUL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|62.63
95832692|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||72.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.96|72.55
95832693|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||36.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RML Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|36.28
95832694|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||47.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.96|47.44
95832695|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||22.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; RLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|22.99
95862617|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.31||||0.191|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Apathy/Indifference Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.191
95862618|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
95832696|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.98||||85.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.94|85.95
95832697|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||60.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lobes; LLL Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|60.20
95832698|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||81.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Upper Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|81.34
95832699|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||63.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC UpperDay 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|63.04
95832700|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||69.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.96|69.67
95832701|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||39.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Lower Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.04|0.97|39.81
95832702|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||73.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|73.01
95832703|NCT02294734|191636433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||48.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Total Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.97|48.97
95862619|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Apathy/Indifference Domain; Day 36|||||
95832704|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.04||||2.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|1.00|2.89
95832705|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||8.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.99|8.49
95832706|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.02||||86.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.07||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.07|0.98|86.21
95862620|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.1||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Disinhibition Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.271
95862621|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 36|||||
95862622|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Disinhibition Domain; Day 70|||||
95832707|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||75.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.98|75.20
95832708|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||84.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.97|84.29
95832709|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||71.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|71.08
95832710|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||34.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|34.93
95832711|NCT02294734|191636434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||25.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is greater than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.01|0.98|25.05
95832712|NCT02294734|191636435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||28.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.06|0.97|28.51
95832713|NCT02294734|191636435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.01||||32.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|FRC Length/Diameter Day 28. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.05|0.97|32.15
95832714|NCT02294734|191636435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|0.99||||66.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 12. The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.02|0.97|66.51
95832715|NCT02294734|191636435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Median Ratio|1.0||||45.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.03||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1. P-value is denoted in percentage.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|TLC Length/Diameter Day 28 The data entered to the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval.|||1.03|0.98|45.28
95832716|NCT02294734|191636443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.5|115.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||115.3|-118.5|0.487
95862623|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.18||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Irritability/Lability Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.029
95832717|NCT02294734|191636443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|60.6||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|194.3|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||194.3|-73.3|0.816
95832718|NCT02294734|191636446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.144||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.133|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.133|-0.420|0.151
95832719|NCT02294734|191636446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.551|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.551|-0.305|0.712
95862624|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 36|||||
95862625|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Irritability/Lability Domain; Day 70|||||
95862626|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.21||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.027
95832720|NCT02294734|191636447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.57|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 28|||0.570|-0.216|0.817
95832721|NCT02294734|191636447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.549|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.|Day 84|||0.549|-0.324|0.697
95832722|NCT02294734|191636450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.171||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.988|1.388|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.388|0.988|0.965
95832723|NCT02294734|191636450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.114||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.305|||Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted, accounting for correlation within region and visit.||||1.305|0.953|0.913
95832724|NCT03344640|191636453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.84|7.3|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All Patients at day 99||7.30|-8.84|0.875
95832725|NCT03344640|191636454|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|8.97|||LS mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patientts at day 15||8.97|-1.03|0.190
95832726|NCT03344640|191636454|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.39|9.11|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 29||9.11|-3.39|
95832727|NCT03344640|191636454|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.761||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.81|6.08|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 57||6.08|-8.81|0.761
95832728|NCT03344640|191636454|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.765||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.27|9.03|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 85||9.03|-6.27|0.765
95832729|NCT03344640|191636454|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.491||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|11.45|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at day 127||11.45|-4.73|0.491
95832730|NCT03344640|191636454|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|2.44||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.19|11.07|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in WORC total percentage score||All patients at end of study||11.07|-6.19|0.639
95832731|NCT03344640|191636455|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.23||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.81|7.28||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||7.28|-4.81|0.735
95960326|NCT00551135|191892803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4410
95832732|NCT03344640|191636455|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus Placebo|1.51||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|7.79|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in QuickDASH total score||Statistical analysis results of QuickDASH total score (PD analysis set) at End of Study||7.79|-4.76|0.689
95832733|NCT03344640|191636456|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI vesus placebo|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|10.54|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at day 99||10.54|-3.54|0.411
95832734|NCT03344640|191636456|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|1.14||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|8.78|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in ASES total percentage score||Statistical analysis results of ASES total score (PD analysis) at End of Study set)||8.78|-6.50|0.804
95832735|NCT03344640|191636457|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.26||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|4.29|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in Your Health Today Score at day 99||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||4.29|-6.81|0.706
95832736|NCT03344640|191636457|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|4.99|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in Your Health Today score||Statistical analysis results of Your Health Today EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study||4.99|-8.79|0.647
95832737|NCT03344640|191636458|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.01||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at day 99 (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.03|0.613
95832738|NCT03344640|191636458|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.06|||LS Mean|LS mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L Index score||Statistical analysis results of of EQ-5D-5L Index score at End of Study (PD Analysis Set)||0.06|-0.04|0.740
95832739|NCT03344640|191636459|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-5.55||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|2.97|||LS Mean|LS MMean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||2.97|-14.07|0.281
95832740|NCT03344640|191636459|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-1.49||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.33|7.35|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at End of Study||7.35|-10.33|0.780
95832741|NCT03344640|191636460|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-3.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.28|4.64|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale (PD Analysis Set) at day 99||4.64|-11.28|0.489
95960327|NCT00551135|191892803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5560
96001269|NCT01703819|191979802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5702||||||Threshold less than or equal to 0.05. The final analysis demonstrated reasonable doubt of the implicit normality assumption of the two sets of AUC data, thus medians presented for efficacy analysis. Need for further investigation (ex-post analyses).|ANCOVA|||The null-hypotheses of no treatment differences were tested by the two-sided t-tests from the respective ANCOV As.||||0.5702
95832742|NCT03344640|191636460|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-8.29||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.26|-0.32|||LS Mean|LS Mean change from baseline in VAS score||Statistical analysis results of pain score using VAS scale at End of Study||-0.32|-16.26|0.087
95832743|NCT03344640|191636461|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 99% CL versus placebo|6.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|13.91|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at day 99||13.91|-1.90|0.210
95832744|NCT03344640|191636461|SUPERIORITY||Difference and 90% CI versus placebo|-0.37||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|8.11|||LS Mean|LS Mean CFB (90% CI)||Statistical analysis results of PhGA score using VAS scale at End of Study||8.11|-8.86|0.942
95832745|NCT00548717|191636468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 1.||||0.77
95832746|NCT00548717|191636468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 2.||||0.59
95832747|NCT00548717|191636468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 3.||||0.92
95832748|NCT00548717|191636468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 8.||||0.63
95832749|NCT00548717|191636468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between Grade 0-I aGVHD vs Grade II-IV aGVHD in the Siro/MMF group at week 12.||||0.79
95832750|NCT01943552|191636472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|154.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.08|218.63|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of FEV1 from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||218.63|91.08|<0.0001
95832751|NCT01943552|191636473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.48||0.3509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|158.46|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of forced vital capacity (FVC) from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||158.46|-56.55|0.3509
95832752|NCT01943552|191636474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.07|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||7.07|-1.54|0.2069
95832753|NCT01943552|191636475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for Oxygen saturation between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||0.93|-0.19|0.1899
95832754|NCT01943552|191636476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55|||ANCOVA||The Mean Difference; nebulized ipratropium minus placebo was estimated by the difference of their adjusted means.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method was used to compare the change of blood gas analyses from pre-bronchodilator at baseline to post-nebulization on treatment day 3 for PaCO2 between the active arm and the placebo arm, with baseline value as covariate and two stratification factors based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age as main effects.||1.55|-0.72|0.4758
95832755|NCT01943552|191636477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Statistic|1.82||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For main post-operative pulmonary complications, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel analysis was performed on the SCS. Mantel-Haenszel test with strata based on acute bronchodilator responsiveness at baseline and age was used to compare the number of patients with main post-operative pulmonary complications between the two arms.||||0.1779
95832756|NCT04268173|191636531|EQUIVALENCE|A two sample t-test was conducted to test the null hypothesis that the pre-intervention mean response was equivalent to the post-intervention mean response in the Prevention Navigation group. Hypothesis: A p-value greater than 0.05 suggests the means are not statistically different from one another.||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95832757|NCT03233438|191636590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|0.6|0.003
96001270|NCT02064439|191979914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.59||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.59|0.20|0.0001
96001271|NCT02064439|191979914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.14|0.47||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.47|0.14|<0.0001
95832758|NCT03233438|191636591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.56||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.8|0.6|0.003
95832759|NCT02219503|191636631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Non-inferiority was to be declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 72.7%.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|||100.0|94.0|
95832760|NCT02219503|191636631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Wilson score method.|The superiority of the Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir regimen in SVR12 to a historical threshold for sofosbuvir plus pegIFN/ ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of participants with HCV Genotype 1b (GT1b) infection and cirrhosis was calculated using a 2-sided 95% CI from Wilson's score method. Superiority was declared if the lower confidence bound was greater than 83.2%.||100.0|94.0|
95832761|NCT03426631|191636738|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95832762|NCT00343382|191636741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1675|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1675
95832763|NCT00343382|191636741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5974|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5974
95832764|NCT00343382|191636742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Rigors among arms.||||0.002
95832765|NCT00343382|191636742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of Urinary Frequency among arms||||0.006
95832766|NCT00343382|191636742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of nausea among arms||||0.030
95832767|NCT00343382|191636742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of sweating among arms||||0.062
95832768|NCT04971941|191636755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1||This P value applies to comparison of IAN with and without DentalVibe|t-test, 2 sided|df =58||Sample size estimation from Nanitsos 2010: Using the P value from the paired T test with 61 degrees of freedom the T statistic calculated at 4.365. From mean difference 9.3 SD was calculated as 16.66 for an effect size of 0.558. This generated a sample size of 44 subjects, receiving 2 injections (1 with DV3 and 1 without), is necessary to attain 95% power for a paired t-test comparing the 2 pain measures at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05. P value for IAN||2.1|0.4|0.001
95832769|NCT04971941|191636755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|df= 58||||-1.5|-1.7|0.02
95832770|NCT04971941|191636755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.1|0.4|0.004
95832771|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|14.0|0.4|4.8||This P value applies to comparing IAN with or with DV as measured by SSI tolerability/ability to endure|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.8|0.4|0.001
95832772|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95832773|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95832774|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
95832775|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95832776|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.044
95832777|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95832778|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95832779|NCT04971941|191636756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95832780|NCT04971941|191636757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no relation between use of DV and numb times. There were no studies from which to perform a power calculation for this outcome measure||||0.459
95832781|NCT00500760|191636758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|||0.09|-0.23|
95832782|NCT00500760|191636759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 6 months||0.12|-0.18|
95832783|NCT00500760|191636759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimate|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.12|||||The difference between the treatment groups is calculated as panitumumab plus chemoradiation minus chemoradiotherapy alone.|Difference between treatment groups at 12 months||0.12|-1.09|
95862627|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 36|||||
96001272|NCT02064439|191979914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.75||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.75|0.65|0.4328
95832784|NCT00500760|191636760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.328||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|2.299|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||2.299|0.767|0.3106
95832785|NCT00500760|191636761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.961|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||1.961|0.675|0.6069
95832786|NCT00500760|191636762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.628||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.019|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab plus chemoradiation:chemoradiotherapy alone.|||3.019|0.877|0.1223
95832787|NCT00500760|191636763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.535||||0.1737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an overall response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||1.262|0.217|0.1737
95832788|NCT00500760|191636763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|-10.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.56|4.14|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||4.14|-24.56|
95832789|NCT00500760|191636764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|2.712|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having a complete response in the panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm relative to the odds in the chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||2.712|0.448|1.0000
95832790|NCT00500760|191636764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rate|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|14.71|||||Difference is presented as the rate in panitumumab plus chemoradiation arm minus the rate in chemoradiotherapy alone arm.|||14.71|-13.23|
95832791|NCT00129961|191636767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||||||Poisson regression was used to model NMSC counts using the years in study as an offset. The generalized estimated equations (GEE) approach was used to estimate parameters and compare treatment differences.|Poisson regression|Adjusted by baseline strata; Poisson model = strata + treatment.||||||0.022
95832792|NCT00129961|191636768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline lesions||||||0.047
95832793|NCT00129961|191636769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.015
95832794|NCT00129961|191636770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
95832795|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Well differentiated||||0.014
95832796|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Moderately differentiated||||0.491
95832797|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Poorly differentiated||||0.905
95832798|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive||||0.018
95832799|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC In Situ||||0.012
95832800|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive with Perineural Invasion||||0.463
95832801|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||SCC Invasive without Perineural Invasion||||0.004
95832802|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Superficial||||0.094
95832803|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Nodular||||0.720
95832804|NCT00129961|191636771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||BCC Infiltrative||||0.227
95832805|NCT00129961|191636772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.748
95832806|NCT00129961|191636773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline lesion strata||||||0.425
95832807|NCT00129961|191636776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
95832808|NCT00129961|191636777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.672
95832809|NCT00129961|191636778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
95832810|NCT00129961|191636779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
95832811|NCT00129961|191636780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
95832812|NCT00129961|191636781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
95832813|NCT01325714|191636782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||This is the p value from the discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|DF = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the comparison group.|"Univariate time-to-event analyses, using discrete-time Cox regression models to evaluate differences between PAVeD and EU-PC in the primary outcome of incidence of aggression over time.~We expected that patients with dementia among dyads randomized to PAVeD arm would be less likely to develop aggression compared to those randomized to the enhanced usual care arm."||1.11|0.45|0.13
95832814|NCT01325714|191636782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and T1 error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group versus 19% for the treatment group. Given this, our goal was to include 220 total participants (after 10% attrition: N = 198).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.39||From discrete time-cox regression time-to-event analysis.|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The enhanced usual care arm is the reference group.|Comparison of incidence of non-verbal aggression between treatment groups.||1.39|0.43|0.39
95832815|NCT01325714|191636782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = .4) between treatment groups in rate of aggression onset (the primary outcome) over a 1-year period, assuming 80% power and type I error rate of 5%. This differential rate in aggression onset is comparable to a 37% rate of aggression onset over a 1 year period for the control group (anticipated based on estimated rates from prior work) versus 19% for the treatment group|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37||From discrete-time Cox regression time-to-event analyses|Regression, Cox|df = 1|The usual care arm is the reference group.|Examination of group differences in incidence of verbal aggression. We expected those in paved to have lower incidence of verbal aggression relative to those in enhanced usual care.||1.37|0.51|0.84
95960328|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
95832816|NCT01325714|191636783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 0.86||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.46
95832817|NCT01325714|191636784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.43||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported worst pain over time.||||0.23
95832818|NCT01325714|191636785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.45||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 455) = 1.45||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported overall pain over time.||||0.23
95832819|NCT01325714|191636786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.86||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 409) = 0.59||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in patient-reported overall pain over time.||||0.62
95832820|NCT01325714|191636787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.94||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 453) = 0.94.||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in depression over time.||||0.42
95832821|NCT01325714|191636788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|1.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 457) = 1.10||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in pleasant events over time.||||0.35
95832822|NCT01325714|191636789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|0.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 2.00||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver burden over time.||||0.11
95832823|NCT01325714|191636790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Results of F value of growth curve model|3.84||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P value of the interaction between treatment group and time (time coded as 0, 3, 6, 12).|Mixed Models Analysis|F (3, 456) = 3.84||Growth curve models were conducted to examine whether there were differences between treatment groups in change in caregiver reported mutuality over time.||||0.01
95832824|NCT02265796|191636800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||the reported p value is for all between group comparisons of the SAQ domains.|t-test, 2 sided|||between group comparison for all SAQ domains||||>0.05
95832825|NCT02265796|191636800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation, angina frequency and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
95832826|NCT02265796|191636800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
95832827|NCT02265796|191636800|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||reported p value is for the physical limitation and treatment satisfaction domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||>0.05
95832828|NCT02265796|191636800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||reported p value is for the angina stability, angina frequency and quality of life domains|paired t test|||within group comparison of change from baseline||||<0.05
95832829|NCT02265796|191636801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||"between group comparison for the excellent/good"||||0.58
95832830|NCT02265796|191636801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Between group analysis for fair/poor"||||0.80
95832831|NCT02265796|191636801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.50
95960329|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
95832832|NCT02265796|191636801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.48
95832833|NCT02265796|191636801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||McNemar|||within group analysis of change from baseline for excellent/good||||0.19
95832834|NCT02265796|191636801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||McNemar|||within group comparison of change from baseline for fair/poor||||0.067
95832835|NCT02265796|191636802|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95832836|NCT02651220|191636874|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|100.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.78|103.91||||||||103.91|96.78|
95832837|NCT02651220|191636875|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is based on 90% confidence interval within 80-125%.|Bioavailability|99.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.04|103.56||||||||103.56|96.04|
95832838|NCT02651220|191636876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95832839|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.33|0.75|
95832840|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.94|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.94|1.24|
95832841|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.41|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.41|0.74|
95832842|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.00|1.01|
95832843|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.51|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.51|1.18|
95832844|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.07|
95832845|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|0.79|
95832846|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.25|0.58|
95832847|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.93|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.93|0.94|
95832848|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.61|0.96|
95862628|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain; Day 70|||||
95862629|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.09||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Sleep/Nighttime Behavior Disorders Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.274
95832849|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.12|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.12|1.09|
95832850|NCT00574548|191636881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.35|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.35|1.86|
95832851|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.57|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.57|1.43|
95832852|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|3.16|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.16|1.95|
95832853|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.96|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.96|1.12|
95832854|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.31|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.31|1.67|
95832855|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.47|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.47|1.19|
95832856|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|6.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||6.61|2.76|
95832857|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|5.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||5.45|1.97|
95832858|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.1|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.10|0.98|
95832859|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.69|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.69|1.32|
95832860|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.07|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.07|1.27|
95832861|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.74|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.74|1.96|
95832862|NCT00574548|191636882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|ratio of geometric mean titer|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC / 23vPS\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.45|1.05|
95832863|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.54|
95832864|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.49|0.99|
95832865|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.68|0.43|
95832866|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.77|0.43|
95832867|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.08|0.67|
95832868|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.12|0.71|
95832869|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.49|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.49|0.24|
95832870|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.51|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.51|0.26|
95832871|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.02|0.60|
95832872|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.87|0.54|
95832873|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.82|0.53|
95862630|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 36|||||
95832874|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.69|
95832875|NCT00574548|191636883|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.13|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.13|1.15|
95832876|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 1: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.75|0.55|
95832877|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 3: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||2.01|1.52|
95832878|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.66|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 4: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.66|0.49|
95832879|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 5: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.03|0.67|
95832880|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 6B: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.79|0.57|
95832881|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.52|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 7F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.52|0.35|
95832882|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 9V: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.69|0.41|
95832883|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 14: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.15|0.75|
95862631|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sleep/Nighttime Behavior disorders Domain; Day 70|||||
95862632|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.65||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Appetite/Eating Changes Domain. SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.513
95960330|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
95862633|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 36|||||
95862634|NCT01584440|191684505|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Appetite/Eating Changes Domain; Day 70|||||
95862635|NCT01584440|191684506|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.53|||<=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||<=0.001
95960331|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5272
95832884|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 18C: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.85|0.58|
95832885|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.74|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19A: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.74|0.58|
95832886|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 19F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||1.39|0.89|
95832887|NCT00574548|191636884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion on which to declare non-inferiority = lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean fold rise greater than 0.5.|Geometric mean fold rise|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73|||||CIs are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the mean fold rise.|Serotype 23F: geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) calculated using all evaluable participants with data from both the postvaccination 1 and postvaccination 2 blood draws.||0.73|0.50|
95832888|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 1: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.03|
95832889|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 3: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||1.89|1.18|
95832890|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.55|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 4: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.55|2.07|
95832891|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.61|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 5: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.61|1.77|
95832892|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.88|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 6B: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.88|1.94|
95832893|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|12.6|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 7F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||12.60|5.68|
95832894|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.22|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 9V: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||10.22|4.45|
95832895|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.18|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 14: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||2.18|1.02|
95832896|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.89|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 18C: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.89|2.01|
95862636|NCT01584440|191684506|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95832897|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|3.13|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19A: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.13|1.92|
95862637|NCT01584440|191684506|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95862638|NCT01584440|191684507|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.001
95862639|NCT01584440|191684507|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862640|NCT01584440|191684507|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95862641|NCT01584440|191684508|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.014
95832898|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.44|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 19F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||3.44|1.80|
95832899|NCT00574548|191636885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean titer|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.28|||||CIs for the ratio are back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (\[13vPnC\] - \[23vPS / 13vPnC\]).|Serotype 23F: ratio for GMT calculated by back transformation of the mean difference between vaccine groups on the logarithmic scale.||4.28|1.92|
95832900|NCT01815840|191636910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.7|||||Asymptotic confidence intervals are presented for the difference between treatment arms.|The mean difference in the mean relative reduction between treatment arms, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval, was estimated by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as main effect and the following covariates: number of basal cell carcinomas at baseline, geographical region, immunosuppression status, confirmed basal cell carcinoma nevus syndrome.||5.7|-22.2|
95832901|NCT00434642|191636924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.605||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups, ie, that the hazard ratio is equal to 1. The alternative hypothesis was that progression free survival was longer in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group, ie, that the hazard ratio is not equal to 1.||0.605|0.388|<0.0001
95832902|NCT00434642|191636925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.2||A P-value \< 0.05 was required for significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (6-12, \> 12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (yes, no).|The difference in response rates and the 95% confidence intervals for response rates were computed using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with an objective response between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that a larger percentage of patients had an objective response in the carboplatin and gemcitabine + bevacizumab group.||29.2|13.0|<0.0001
95832903|NCT00434642|191636927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.176||Summaries of duration of overall survival (median, percentiles) were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. The 95% confidence interval for the median was computed using the method of Brookmeyer and Crowley.|Log Rank|The analysis was stratified for time since the last platinum therapy (≤12, \>12 months) and cytoreductive surgery for recurrent disease (Yes, No).|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the carboplatin and gemcitabine + placebo group.|||1.176|0.771|0.6479
95832904|NCT02429791|191636936|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.0|||||Estimates based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI).|||3.0|-4.3|
95832905|NCT02429791|191636938|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Age group (\< or \>=50 years old) and Baseline third agent (PI, NNRTI, INI). No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||4.0|-1.9|
95832906|NCT02429791|191636949|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (25 hydroxy-vitamin D)|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95832907|NCT02429791|191636949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.034||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.034|0.888|0.275
95832908|NCT02429791|191636949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.793|1.025||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||1.025|0.793|0.112
95832909|NCT02429791|191636949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.847||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.942||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (25 hydroxy-vitamin D - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and baseline biomarker level.|||0.942|0.763|0.002
95960332|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4257|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4257
95960333|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1428
95832910|NCT02429791|191636951|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95862642|NCT01584440|191684508|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.65|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95960334|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2316|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2316
95960335|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3468
95832911|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.724|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|0.772||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.772|0.679|<.001
95832912|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.825|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.918||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.918|0.742|<.001
95832913|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.884||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (bone-specific alkaline phosphatase - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.884|0.742|<.001
95832914|NCT02429791|191636951|OTHER|||||||0.677||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
95832915|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.817|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|0.863||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (procollagen type 1-N-propeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.863|0.774|<.001
95832916|NCT02429791|191636951|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline third agent (osteocalcin)|ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95832917|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.943||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - NNRTI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.943|0.823|<.001
95832918|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.829||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - INI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.930|0.740|0.001
95832919|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|0.759||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (osteocalcin - PI)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.759|0.628|<.001
95832920|NCT02429791|191636951|OTHER|||||||0.782||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and baseline third agent (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA|||||||0.782
95832921|NCT02429791|191636951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|0.872||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for Baseline third agent class, age, sex, BMI category, smoking status and Baseline biomarker level.|||0.872|0.742|<.001
95832922|NCT02429791|191636964|OTHER|||||||0.317||||||One-sided p-value from weighted least squares chi-squared statistic. A p-value \<=0.10 was used to indicate statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity in the difference in proportions across levels of each analysis strata.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.317
95832923|NCT02429791|191636964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|1.5|||||NNRTI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||1.5|-7.7|
95862643|NCT01584440|191684508|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Day 70|||
95832924|NCT02429791|191636964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.0|||||INI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||9.0|-5.1|
95832925|NCT02429791|191636964|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.8|||||PI: No formal non-inferiority margin has been pre-specified for secondary endpoints.|||10.8|-5.3|
95832926|NCT02429791|191636972|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 4)|ANCOVA|||||||0.940
95832927|NCT02429791|191636972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.924|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-1.588||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-1.588|-4.260|<.001
95832928|NCT02429791|191636972|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 24)|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95832929|NCT02429791|191636972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.192||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.656|0.271||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||0.271|-2.656|0.110
95832930|NCT02429791|191636972|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||P-value for interaction between treatment group and Baseline symptom bother score (Week 48)|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
95832931|NCT02429791|191636972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.569||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.048|-0.09||P value to assess difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|ANCOVA||Estimates are calculated from an ANCOVA model adjusting for age, Baseline third agent, gender, race and Baseline score.|||-0.090|-3.048|0.038
95832932|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
95832933|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total Score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95832934|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs Total score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
95832935|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95832936|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95862644|NCT01584440|191684509|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.57||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.010
95862645|NCT01584440|191684509|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862646|NCT01584440|191684509|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95832937|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs lifestyle/ease sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.005
95832938|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 4)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.063
95832939|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 24)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.002
95832940|NCT02429791|191636975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||P-value to assess HIVTSQs General satisfaction/CS sub- score difference between treatment groups (Week 48)|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.099
95832941|NCT00849108|191637006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||sensitivity|0.769||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|0.884||P-Value for sensitivity comparison of PET MPI for the same reader|McNemar|two-sided McNemar test with 1 degree of freedom.|No standard deviation can be calculated for PET sensitivity|||0.884|0.655|0.02
95832942|NCT00849108|191637006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|0.596||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|0.73||p-value for sensitivity comparison for SPECT MPI for the same reader|McNemar||No standard deviation can be calculated for SPECT sensitivity|||0.730|0.463|0.02
95832943|NCT00849108|191637008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PET specificity|0.877||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|0.952||p-value for comparison of PET specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for PET specficity|||0.952|0.801|0.317
95832944|NCT00849108|191637008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SPECT specificity|0.836||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.921||p-value for comparison of SPECT specificity for same reader|McNemar||no standard deviation for SPECT specificity|||0.921|0.751|0.317
95832945|NCT04676867|191637009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
95832946|NCT04676867|191637010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
95832947|NCT04676867|191637011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
95832948|NCT04676867|191637012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
95832949|NCT04676867|191637013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
95832950|NCT04676867|191637014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
95832951|NCT04676867|191637015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2
95832952|NCT04676867|191637016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2
95832953|NCT04676867|191637017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95832954|NCT04676867|191637018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
95832955|NCT04676867|191637019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
95832956|NCT04676867|191637021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2
95832957|NCT04676867|191637022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2
95832958|NCT02809053|191637032|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate (%)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.35|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Adjusted Difference Rate (%) in Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 28.||6.35|-14.80|
95832959|NCT02809053|191637033|OTHER|The 95%CI (confidence interval) for the difference in the overall response rate (ORR) was calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method based on CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) weight with stratification factor FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk).|Adjusted Difference Rate|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|0.61|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Adjusted Difference Rate of Overall Response Rate (ORR) of SAIT101 versus MabThera at Week 12.||0.61|-20.92|
95832960|NCT02809053|191637038|OTHER|The estimated Hazard Ratio with 95% CI was obtained from Cox regression model; however, stratification factors, ie, FLIPI-2 (low, intermediate and high risk), were only taken into account if FLIPI-2 score=all.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|3.482|||||Hazard Ration of TTE SAIT101:MabThera|Time to Event (TTE) Hazard Ratio (HR) of SAIT101:MabThera. The TTE is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date when an event occurs; an event is disease progression as assessed by Investigator, death due to any cause, or the start of new treatment, whichever comes first.||3.482|0.853|
95832961|NCT02809053|191637039|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|101.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.86|107.24|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure pharmacokinetic parameter AUC0-168,w1 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Curve Day 0 to Week 1 (AUC0-168,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||107.24|95.86|
95832962|NCT02809053|191637039|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Difference (%)|96.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter AUC0-168,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% Confidence Interval (CI)) %) of SAIT101 versus MabThera Area Under the Concentration time Cure Day 0 to Week 4 (AUC0-168,w4) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
95832963|NCT02809053|191637040|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.85|103.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with Cmax,w1 exposure within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 1 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment.||103.40|90.85|
95862647|NCT01584440|191684510|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-3.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.002
95862648|NCT01584440|191684510|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.56|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862649|NCT01584440|191684510|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95832964|NCT02809053|191637040|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ration (%)|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|105.92|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Cmax,w4 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera maximum plasma concentration at Week 4 (Cmax,w1) (h×µg/mL). The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||105.92|92.96|
95832965|NCT02809053|191637043|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|GLS Mean Ratio (%)|95.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.85|102.55|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera. Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated for SAIT101 and MabThera with exposure PK parameter Ctrough,d29 within the standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%).|Statistical Comparison: geometric least square (GLS) Mean Ratio (90% CI) (%) of SAIT101 versus MabThera trough plasma concentration at the end of the dosing period (Day 29) (Ctrough,d29) (µg/mL) . The statistical comparison of the log-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model with fixed effect for treatment||102.55|88.85|
95832966|NCT02809053|191637047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.0|45.4|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 1 (AUEC0-168,w1), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||45.4|-31.0|
95832967|NCT02809053|191637047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|57.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 2 (AUEC0-168,w2), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||57.6|-21.6|
95832968|NCT02809053|191637047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|61.0|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 3 (AUEC0-168,w3), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||61.0|-18.3|
95832969|NCT02809053|191637047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|60.2|||||comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 4 (AUEC0-168,w4), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||60.2|-19.3|
95832970|NCT02809053|191637047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|54.6|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 12 (AUEC0-168,w12), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||54.6|-23.1|
95832971|NCT02809053|191637047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.0|51.8|||||Comparison: SAIT101 versus MabThera.|Statistical Comparison of CD19+ B-cell Pharmacodynamic Parameters (Pharmacodynamic Analysis Set). Area under the pharmacodynamic time effect curve from baseline (Time 0) to Week 28 (AUEC0-168,w28), normalized (cells/µL). The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||51.8|-26.0|
95832972|NCT02809053|191637051|OTHER|||||||0.587||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis: Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Region (European Union / Other). The interaction p-value for the Region subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.587
95832973|NCT02809053|191637051|OTHER|||||||0.421||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Overall Response Rate by Age Group (18-60 years and \>60 years). The interaction p-value for the Age subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.421
95832974|NCT02809053|191637051|OTHER|||||||0.288||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Simon|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Gender (Male / Female). The interaction p-value for the Gender subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate. The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.||||0.288
95862650|NCT01584440|191684511|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.008
95862651|NCT01584440|191684511|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95960336|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5367|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5367
95960337|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0549
95832975|NCT02809053|191637051|OTHER|||||||0.588||||||The p-value was calculated using Gail-Simon Test for Qualitative Interactions.|Gail-Wilson|||Exploratory statistical analysis. Comparison of Overall Response Rate (ORR) by Anti-drug Antibody (ADA) status (Positive / Negative). The interaction p-value for the ADA subgroup was calculated based upon the full set of data, and based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) model including treatment, and applicable stratification covariate.||||0.588
95832976|NCT00884832|191637064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Proportion of semi-formed and loose stools (Bristol Form 5-7) associated with diarrhea subgroup versus no diarrhea subgroup.||||<0.001
95832977|NCT00884832|191637065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95832978|NCT00884832|191637065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||drug\*group interactions||||0.047
95832979|NCT00884832|191637067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.082
95832980|NCT02337725|191637068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|-4.25|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the least squares mean difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-4.250|-8.530|<0.0001
95832981|NCT01571453|191637077|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Vortioxetine was declared to be non-inferior to venlafaxine if the upper limit of the calculated two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference at Week 8 between vortioxetine and venlafaxine was less than +2.5 MADRS units versus venlafaxine.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.199||95.0|-3.03|0.63||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The sample size calculation was based on a non-inferiority comparison of the treatment groups in the change from baseline to Week 8 in MADRS total score using a two-sided 95% CI against a margin of +2.5 points. Assuming a standard deviation of 9.0 points and an expected true mean difference between treatments of 0 points, a total of 410 patients (205 per treatment group) were needed to provide a power of 80% for correctly concluding non-inferiority.||0.63|-3.03|0.199
95832982|NCT01571453|191637078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.09|-0.39|0.228
95832983|NCT01571453|191637079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.06|-0.35|0.174
95832984|NCT01571453|191637080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.45||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|LOCF was used.||The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||0.45|-2.09|0.207
95832985|NCT01571453|191637081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.272||95.0|0.84|1.86||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.86|0.84|0.272
95832986|NCT01571453|191637082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.731||95.0|0.73|1.58||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.73|0.731
95832987|NCT01264770|191637084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.56||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.9|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.90|0.23|0.006
95832988|NCT01264770|191637084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.84|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.84|0.14|0.022
95832989|NCT01264770|191637084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.56|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.56|-0.12|0.280
95832990|NCT01264770|191637085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.005
95832991|NCT01264770|191637085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.27|-0.94|0.020
95855159|NCT02978781|191669820|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.17|-1.13|0.1333
95862652|NCT01584440|191684511|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95832992|NCT01264770|191637085|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison with adalimumab a non-inferiority margin of -0.6 in the mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 was defined. The lower 80% confidence interval for treatment difference was below this value so non-inferiority could not be concluded. A p-value is also provided for a 2-sided test of superiority.|Treatment difference|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.04|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Non-responder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.40|-1.04|0.004
95832993|NCT01264770|191637086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|5.86|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||5.86|1.59|0.005
95832994|NCT01264770|191637086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|8.05|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||8.05|2.10|<0.001
95832995|NCT01264770|191637086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.83|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||2.83|0.76|0.335
95832996|NCT01264770|191637087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.68|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.68|0.20|0.007
95832997|NCT01264770|191637087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.89|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.89|0.26|0.051
95832998|NCT01264770|191637087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.65|||Proportional odds model||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.65|0.20|0.004
95832999|NCT01264770|191637088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.4||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.40|0.17|<0.001
95833000|NCT01264770|191637088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|0.18|<0.001
95833001|NCT01264770|191637088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.31||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.31|0.07|0.007
95833002|NCT01264770|191637088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.16||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.03||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.03|-0.30|0.049
95855160|NCT02978781|191669820|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.03|-1.64|0.0572
95855161|NCT02978781|191669820|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.05|-1.05|0.0707
95833003|NCT01264770|191637088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.12||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.12|-0.16|0.803
95833004|NCT01264770|191637088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|-0.1||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.10|-0.37|0.003
95833005|NCT01264770|191637089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.18|0.01|0.059
95833006|NCT01264770|191637089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.17||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.17|0.01|0.071
95833007|NCT01264770|191637089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.01||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.07||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.07|-0.05|0.758
95833008|NCT01264770|191637089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.12||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-0.24|0.114
95833009|NCT01264770|191637089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.14||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.078
95833010|NCT01264770|191637089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.09||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.09|-0.32|0.003
95833011|NCT01264770|191637090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.03||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.03|-0.07|0.460
95833012|NCT01264770|191637090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.0||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.06||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.06|-0.05|0.903
95862653|NCT01584440|191684512|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.96||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.050
95862654|NCT01584440|191684512|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862655|NCT01584440|191684512|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95833013|NCT01264770|191637090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.01||Week 6|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.01|-0.08|0.172
95833014|NCT01264770|191637090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|-0.01||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.01|-0.21|0.082
95833015|NCT01264770|191637090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.11||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.00|-0.21|0.092
95833016|NCT01264770|191637090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|-0.08||Week 24|Mantel Haenszel|p-values are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|90% confidence intervals are calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.08|-0.27|0.002
95833017|NCT01264770|191637091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|23.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.57|40.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||40.00|9.57|<0.001
95833018|NCT01264770|191637091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|22.97||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.84|38.34|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||38.34|7.84|0.006
95833019|NCT01264770|191637091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|5.72||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|21.68|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||21.68|-3.20|0.234
95833020|NCT01264770|191637092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.72||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.01|0.0|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.00|-25.01|0.030
95833021|NCT01264770|191637092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.49||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.0|6.96|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||6.96|-25.00|0.207
95833022|NCT01264770|191637092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.01|-6.25|||Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) and pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-6.25|-30.01|0.002
95833023|NCT01264770|191637093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.24||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.38|0.09|0.007
95833024|NCT01264770|191637093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.37|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.37|0.07|0.016
95862656|NCT01584440|191684513|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.020
95862657|NCT01584440|191684513|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862658|NCT01584440|191684513|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95862659|NCT01584440|191684514|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.94||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.053
95862660|NCT01584440|191684514|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862661|NCT01584440|191684514|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95833025|NCT01264770|191637093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.14||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.29|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.29|0.00|0.094
95833026|NCT01264770|191637094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.04|-0.36|0.043
95833027|NCT01264770|191637094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.02|-0.31|0.158
95833028|NCT01264770|191637094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.16|-0.47|0.001
95833029|NCT01264770|191637095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.08|-0.45|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.45|-5.08|0.050
95833030|NCT01264770|191637095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.33||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.73|1.06|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.06|-3.73|0.360
95833031|NCT01264770|191637095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.99||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.29|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||-0.70|-5.29|0.032
95833032|NCT01264770|191637096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.95|1.92|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.92|-3.95|0.568
95833033|NCT01264770|191637096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.66||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.69|1.38|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||1.38|-4.69|0.368
95833034|NCT01264770|191637096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.38|0.43|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate \& treatment, DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) \& pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data.||0.43|-5.38|0.160
95833035|NCT01985360|191637098|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.29||||||||1.29|0.79|
95833036|NCT00721175|191637123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2407407|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0920078||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4210726|-0.0604089|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0604089|-.4210726|0.011
95833037|NCT00721175|191637124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0021
95833038|NCT00721175|191637126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0929622||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4609466|-0.0965414|||Two-sample test of proportion|||||-.0965414|-.4609466|0.004
95862662|NCT01584440|191684515|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-0.72||||0.469|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Caregiver|||||0.469
95833039|NCT03869333|191637177|OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.504
95833040|NCT03869333|191637177|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.010
95833041|NCT03869333|191637177|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.038
95833042|NCT03869333|191637177|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.016
95833043|NCT03869333|191637177|OTHER|||||||0.058|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.058
95833044|NCT03869333|191637177|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.038
95833045|NCT03869333|191637178|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.129
95862663|NCT01584440|191684515|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 36|||||
95862664|NCT01584440|191684515|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Caregiver: Day 70|||||
95862665|NCT01584440|191684515|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|1.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population|Participant|||||0.159
95833046|NCT03869333|191637178|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 22||||0.017
95833047|NCT03869333|191637178|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 43||||0.008
95833048|NCT03869333|191637178|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.011
95833049|NCT03869333|191637178|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 57||||0.029
95833050|NCT03869333|191637178|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 71||||0.042
95833051|NCT03869333|191637179|OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.226
95833052|NCT03869333|191637179|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.601
95833053|NCT03869333|191637179|OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.628
95833054|NCT03869333|191637179|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.878
95833055|NCT03869333|191637180|OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Baseline||||0.762
95833056|NCT03869333|191637180|OTHER|||||||0.335|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 8||||0.335
95833057|NCT03869333|191637180|OTHER|||||||0.229|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 29||||0.229
95833058|NCT03869333|191637180|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMT at Day 50||||0.102
95833059|NCT03869333|191637181|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.828
95833060|NCT03869333|191637181|OTHER|||||||0.629|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.629
95833061|NCT03869333|191637181|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||>0.999
95833062|NCT03869333|191637181|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
95833063|NCT03869333|191637181|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||0.825
95833064|NCT03869333|191637182|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 22.||||0.005
95833065|NCT03869333|191637182|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 43||||0.082
95833066|NCT03869333|191637182|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.293
95833067|NCT03869333|191637182|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 57||||>0.999
95833068|NCT03869333|191637182|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail test of the difference between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 71||||>0.999
95833069|NCT03869333|191637183|OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||0.828
95833070|NCT03869333|191637183|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.913
95833071|NCT03869333|191637183|OTHER|||||||0.924|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.924
95833072|NCT03869333|191637184|OTHER||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 8||||>0.999
95833073|NCT03869333|191637184|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 29||||0.412
95833074|NCT03869333|191637184|OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact 2-tail tests of differences between the 3 Invaplex\[AR-Detox\] dose groups in seroconversion rates at Day 50||||0.847
95833075|NCT03869333|191637185|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.009
95833076|NCT03869333|191637185|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.037
95833077|NCT03869333|191637185|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.009
95833078|NCT03869333|191637185|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.036
95833079|NCT03869333|191637185|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.042
95833080|NCT03869333|191637186|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 22||||0.028
95833081|NCT03869333|191637186|OTHER|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 43||||0.088
95833082|NCT03869333|191637186|OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.146
95833083|NCT03869333|191637186|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 57||||0.126
95833084|NCT03869333|191637186|OTHER|||||||0.273|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 71||||0.273
95833085|NCT03869333|191637188|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 8||||0.348
95833086|NCT03869333|191637188|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 29||||0.179
95833087|NCT03869333|191637188|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test of any difference between the 3 active dose groups in GMFR at Day 50||||0.089
95833088|NCT01064687|191637189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.88||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.88|-1.22|<0.001
95833089|NCT01064687|191637189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.0001
95833090|NCT01064687|191637189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.67||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.67|-1.01|<0.001
95833091|NCT01064687|191637189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.66|<0.001
95833092|NCT01064687|191637189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
95833093|NCT01064687|191637189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.18||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.18|-0.44|<0.001
95833094|NCT01064687|191637190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
95833095|NCT01064687|191637190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
95833096|NCT01064687|191637190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity based on a tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
95833097|NCT01064687|191637190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.11||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.11|-0.44|<0.001
95833098|NCT01064687|191637191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.85|-3.58|<0.001
95833099|NCT01064687|191637191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|-0.88|0.571
95862666|NCT01584440|191684515|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 36|||||
95833100|NCT01064687|191637191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-2.06|0.007
95833101|NCT01064687|191637191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|0.64|<0.001
95833102|NCT01064687|191637191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.65|-3.39|<0.001
95833103|NCT01064687|191637192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-1.25|0.507
95833104|NCT01064687|191637192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.19|0.32|0.009
95833105|NCT01064687|191637193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.67|-1.27|<0.001
95833106|NCT01064687|191637193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.31|0.568
95833107|NCT01064687|191637193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.72|0.006
95862667|NCT01584440|191684515|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participant: Day 70|||||
95862668|NCT01584440|191684516|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.163
95862669|NCT01584440|191684516|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 36|||||
95862670|NCT01584440|191684516|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 70|||||
95833108|NCT01064687|191637193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.24|<0.001
95833109|NCT01064687|191637193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.20|<0.001
95833110|NCT01064687|191637194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.42|0.580
95833111|NCT01064687|191637194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.79|0.14|0.005
95833112|NCT01064687|191637195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-23.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.02|-34.50|<0.001
95833113|NCT01064687|191637195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.62|-5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.06|-13.62|<0.001
95833114|NCT01064687|191637195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-29.80|<0.001
95833115|NCT01064687|191637195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.61||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-8.95|0.038
95833116|NCT01064687|191637195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.18|-13.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.65|-25.18|<0.001
95833117|NCT01064687|191637196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.52|-12.84|0.004
95833118|NCT01064687|191637196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.47||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-9.66|0.092
95833119|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|23.4||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.4|7.4|<0.001
95833120|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|10.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.1|3.9|<0.001
95833121|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.0|2.8|<0.001
95833122|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
95862671|NCT01584440|191684517|SUPERIORITY||OLS Z-statistic|-1.08||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|SPCD: data from the Stages 1 and 2 are analyzed together using the mITT Population||||||0.279
95833123|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.3|0.004
95833124|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|20.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.8|6.7|<0.001
95833125|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
95833126|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.9||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.9|3.7|<0.001
95833127|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.6|<0.001
95833128|NCT01064687|191637197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.6|1.6|<0.001
95833129|NCT01064687|191637198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.6||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.6|2.4|<0.001
95833130|NCT01064687|191637198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.5||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|1.1|0.008
95833131|NCT01064687|191637198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.1|2.3|<0.001
95833132|NCT01064687|191637198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.1||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.4|<0.001
95833133|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.26|43.16||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.16|27.26|<0.001
95833134|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.97|27.28||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.28|14.97|<0.001
95833135|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|30.72||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.72|14.63|<0.001
95833136|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|14.87||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.87|2.31|0.007
95833137|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|22.11||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.11|6.06|<0.001
95833138|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.17||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.17|-14.56|0.207
95833139|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|5.32||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.32|-8.41|0.659
95862672|NCT01584440|191684517|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 8|||||
95862673|NCT01584440|191684517|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 22|||||
95862674|NCT01584440|191684517|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 43|||||
95862675|NCT01584440|191684517|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Day 57|||||
95833140|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|7.56||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.56|-10.37|0.759
95833141|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.75||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|9.76||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.76|-4.25|0.441
95833142|NCT01064687|191637199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.15||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.79||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.79|-13.10|0.362
95833143|NCT01064687|191637200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.08||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.08|15.20|<0.001
95833144|NCT01064687|191637200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|18.68||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-B|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.68|5.56|<0.001
95833145|NCT01064687|191637200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.73||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.43||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.43|-10.90|0.307
95833146|NCT01064687|191637200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.55||Treatment comparison of HOMA2-S|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.55|-9.05|0.638
95833147|NCT02299076|191637267|SUPERIORITY|Welch Two Sample t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95833148|NCT00162266|191637269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||||38.4|12.8|<0.001
95833149|NCT00162266|191637269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||||19.4|-6.2|0.31
95833150|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.9||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||16.7|-4.9|0.283
95833151|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-11.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-2.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||-2.3|-20.9|0.015
95833152|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|23.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||23.8|-0.8|0.067
95833153|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-9.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||2.2|-20.8|0.113
95833154|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|34.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||34.8|9.3|<0.001
95833155|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||11.3|-13.5|0.86
95833156|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|18.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|31.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||31.4|5.9|0.004
95833157|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||15.4|-9.8|0.664
95833158|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||36.7|11.1|<0.001
95833159|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||19.9|-6.0|0.292
95833160|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||35.8|10.2|<0.001
95862676|NCT01584440|191684518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.5|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||4.50|1.62|0.0001
95833161|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.5||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|21.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||21.3|-4.3|0.193
95833162|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|38.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||38.4|12.8|<0.001
95833163|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.31||95.0|-6.2|19.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||19.4|-6.2|0.31
95833164|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|40.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||40.1|14.5|<0.001
95833165|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.7||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|18.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||18.4|-7.1|0.384
95833166|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|29.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|41.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||41.8|16.2|<0.001
95833167|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|17.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||17.2|-8.0|0.476
95833168|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|39.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||39.3|13.7|<0.001
95833169|NCT00162266|191637270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|5.8||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|18.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||18.6|-7.0|0.377
95833170|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-0.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||2.9|-4.5|0.679
95833171|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 15||0.5|-5.5|0.101
95833172|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||15.7|0.4|0.039
95833173|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-2.1||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||3.6|-7.7|0.474
95833174|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.6||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|16.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||16.5|-3.3|0.192
95833175|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|-1.8||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.4|-11.0|0.702
95862677|NCT01584440|191684518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||3.43|0.75|0.2184
95862678|NCT01584440|191684519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|5.42|||ANCOVA|||||5.42|1.11|0.0266
95862679|NCT01584440|191684520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.55|||ANCOVA||Day 36|||3.55|1.31|0.002
95862680|NCT01584440|191684520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.0|||ANCOVA||Day 70|||5.00|1.08|0.031
95833176|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|21.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||21.7|1.8|0.02
95833177|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.5||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.8|-4.8|0.339
95833178|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|28.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||28.9|7.0|0.001
95833179|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.0||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||11.7|-7.6|0.682
95833180|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|31.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||31.8|9.3|<0.001
95833181|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|1.2||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||10.9|-8.6|0.813
95833182|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||35.7|13.8|<0.001
95833183|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||20.9|1.2|0.027
95833184|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|15.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||27.0|4.0|0.008
95833185|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|0.8||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|11.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||11.4|-9.8|0.885
95833186|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|35.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||35.4|12.6|<0.001
95833187|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|6.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||16.9|-3.4|0.19
95833188|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|33.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||33.4|9.7|<0.001
95833189|NCT00162266|191637271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||13.5|-8.1|0.625
95833190|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.04||95.0|0.2|6.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||6.8|0.2|0.04
95833191|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 30||5.9|-0.2|0.063
95833192|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||13.9|3.5|0.001
95833193|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.8||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 60||7.3|0.3|0.032
95833194|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|7.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||13.3|2.4|0.005
95833195|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 90||8.2|-0.3|0.07
95833196|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|16.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 120||16.7|2.7|0.007
95833197|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395||95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||||7.8|-3.1|0.395
95833198|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|10.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.7|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||17.7|3.4|0.004
95833199|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|2.4||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.8|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 150||7.8|-3.1|0.395
95833200|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||22.2|7.5|<0.001
95833201|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.9|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 180||14.9|2.7|0.005
95833202|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||21.4|5.0|0.002
95833203|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|3.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.1|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 240||10.1|-3.0|0.292
95833204|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|29.5|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||29.5|12.4|<0.001
95833205|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|8.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.3|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 300||14.3|1.6|0.014
95833206|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|13.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|22.2|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||22.2|4.4|0.003
95833207|NCT00162266|191637272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate of Difference|4.8||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|12.6|||Chi-squared|||Response on Day 360||12.6|-3.0|0.227
95833208|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.2676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|5.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||5.61|-1.56|0.2676
95833209|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 15 Treatment Comparison||-0.14|-7.46|0.0418
95833210|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|12.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||12.41|2.08|0.0061
95833211|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|4.16||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 30 Treatment Comparison||4.16|-6.45|0.6713
95833212|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|17.84|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||17.84|5.67|0.0002
95833213|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 60 Treatment Comparison||6.82|-5.62|0.8495
95833214|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|18.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||18.56|5.63|0.0003
95833215|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.19||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|10.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 90 Treatment Comparison||10.81|-2.44|0.0003
95833216|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.54||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.28|21.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||21.81|7.28|0.0001
95833217|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|10.64|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 120 Treatment Comparison||10.64|-3.43|0.3141
95833218|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.96||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|25.43|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||25.43|8.49|0.0001
95833219|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.32||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|10.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 150 Treatment Comparison||10.37|-3.73|0.3552
95833220|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|30.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||30.54|10.19|0.0001
95833221|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.38||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|14.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 180 Treatment Comparison||14.60|0.16|0.0451
95833222|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|26.44|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||26.44|8.83|0.0001
95833223|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|10.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 240 Treatment Comparison||10.28|-4.73|0.4669
95833224|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.51|31.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||31.48|10.51|0.0001
95833225|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||3.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|10.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 300 Treatment Comparison||10.41|-4.15|3.13
95833226|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|30.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||30.56|10.20|0.0001
95833227|NCT00162266|191637273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|11.72|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|Estimate= Model AUC for abatacept+methotrexate - Model AUC for placebo+methotrexate|Day 360 Treatment Comparison||11.72|-3.61|0.2989
95833228|NCT00162266|191637274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2132.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1067.32|3197.94||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||3197.94|1067.32|0.0001
95833229|NCT00162266|191637274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|353.47||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-544.46|1251.41||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 180||1251.41|-544.46|0.4393
95833230|NCT00162266|191637274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5641.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2823.46|8459.74||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||8459.74|2823.46|0.0001
95833231|NCT00162266|191637274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1054.38||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-955.59|3064.35||ANOVA model: AUC = treatment|ANOVA||Estimate = Model AUC for Aripiprazole+MTX - Model AUC for PLACEBO+MTX|Comparison at Day 360||3064.35|-955.59|0.3029
95833232|NCT00162266|191637278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|42.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||42.66|12.67|0.0003
95833233|NCT00162266|191637278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.68||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 180||||0.3253
95833234|NCT00162266|191637278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|48.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||48.33|16.14|0.0001
95833235|NCT00162266|191637278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.48||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|26.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: % change = pretreatment|Estimate = adjusted % change (BMS10mg/kg+MTX or BMS 2mg/kg+MTX) - adjusted change for placebo+MTX|Day 360||26.78|-1.82|0.0869
95833236|NCT02228096|191637339|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
95833237|NCT00377364|191637398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline RAVLT scores used as covariate.||||<0.05
95833238|NCT00377364|191637401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ISS scores used as a covariate. ANCOVA results were not significant.||||||<0.05
95833239|NCT00377364|191637402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD scores used as a covariate.||||<0.05
95833240|NCT00377364|191637404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline YMRS scores used as a covariate.||||||0.05
95833241|NCT00377364|191637406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Baseline ACQ scores used as a covariate.||||||<0.05
95833242|NCT02925728|191637407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95833243|NCT02963701|191637408|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|99.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.52|101.89|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.89|96.52|
95833244|NCT02963701|191637409|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%|T/R Ratio (%)|89.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.88|94.76|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||94.76|83.88|
95833245|NCT02963701|191637410|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.73|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||103.95|95.73|
95833246|NCT02963701|191637411|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|102.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.3|107.27|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|||107.27|97.30|
95833247|NCT02963701|191637412|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|98.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.44|101.57|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%)of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||101.57|96.44|
95833248|NCT02963701|191637413|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|99.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.48|104.04|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.04|95.48|
95833249|NCT02963701|191637414|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|95.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|100.4|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.40|91.70|
95833250|NCT02963701|191637415|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|96.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|100.51|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||100.51|91.92|
95833251|NCT02963701|191637416|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|90.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.87|97.21|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||97.21|84.87|
95862681|NCT01584440|191684521|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.46|||ANCOVA|||||4.46|1.31|0.0048
95833252|NCT02963701|191637417|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.89|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.33|104.46|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||104.46|99.33|
95833253|NCT02963701|191637418|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|101.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.4|103.95|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||103.95|99.40|
95833254|NCT02963701|191637419|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|T/R Ratio (%)|86.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.03|91.28|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||91.28|82.03|
95833255|NCT02963701|191637420|EQUIVALENCE|A claim of bioequivalence was made if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric means of T/R ratio was contained in the pre-defined acceptance range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio (%)|106.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.3|111.26|||ANOVA|Results are based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment.|The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of Test and Reference products. The parameter dispersion type (Standard Deviation) was actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|||111.26|101.30|
95833256|NCT03480009|191637421|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
95833257|NCT03480009|191637421|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.20
95833258|NCT03480009|191637422|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.81
95833259|NCT03480009|191637422|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||acetaminophen||||.24
95833260|NCT03480009|191637422|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||oxycodone||||.54
95833261|NCT03480009|191637422|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ibuprofen||||.61
95833262|NCT03480009|191637422|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Acetaminophen||||.24
95833263|NCT03480009|191637423|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Wald Chi Square|Wald Chi Square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.99
95833264|NCT03480009|191637423|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wald Chi Square|P-value from Wald chi-square from mixed effects linear regression||||||.56
95833265|NCT03480009|191637424|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.07
95833266|NCT03480009|191637424|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.50
95833267|NCT00086411|191637433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2734|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|GEE model for repeated binary outcomes|Model included hx of heavy smoking, elevated depression, cigarettes per day, gender, and race|The above was for the main effect of BUP versus NTX on cessation.|Rates of abstinence were addressed using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model. Counseling type and medication type were entered as the main explanatory variables along with time and the interaction of these factors, together with some covariates (described below). The sample size provided 80% power to detect a difference of about 14% between groups across three time points (i.e., 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-treatment initiation.||2.25|0.77|<0.017
95833268|NCT02530996|191637436|OTHER|Power calculations were performed using G\*Power computer software version 3. Sample-size calculations were based on the number of patients needed to detect significant differences in FMD between placebo and BH4.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistics were performed using SPSS software (IBM, Chicago, IL). Paired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between placebo and BH4. Unpaired t-tests were used to identify significant changes in measured variables between ordered groups. Based on data published in PMID: 25511849 power calculations for this study of SSc patients were made.||||<0.05
95833269|NCT00752726|191637451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.491||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for treatment, baseline VAT and center effect using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined. For this primary analysis, only one statistical test was performed and therefore, no multiple comparison adjustment was done.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.491|0.035|0.0244
95960338|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1351
95960339|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9599
95960340|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4273
95960341|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4466
95833270|NCT00752726|191637452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0834||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.337||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline VAT and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 12 between the two treatment groups.||0.337|0.007|0.0415
95833271|NCT00752726|191637453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.74||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline weight and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.74|0.25|0.026
95833272|NCT00752726|191637454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7174||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|3.065||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.065|0.219|0.0242
95833273|NCT00752726|191637455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total fat mass and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2.87|0.07|0.039
95833274|NCT00752726|191637456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.974||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.63||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline waist circumference and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between Placebo group and Orlistat group was determined.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||3.63|-0.24|0.085
95833275|NCT00752726|191637458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0232||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.023||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline liver fat and center effects, using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||0.023|-0.069|0.3235
95833276|NCT00752726|191637459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|783.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|726.54||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-657.3|2224.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Mean change was adjusted for the treatment, baseline total calories expended and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference between placebo group and Orlistat group was evaluated.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the two treatment groups.||2224.9|-657.3|0.28
95833277|NCT00752726|191637460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.542||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.72||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Mean difference was adjusted for the treatment, baseline value and center effects using an ANCOVA model.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as placebo minus orlistat.|The null hypothesis considered no difference in the change from baseline to week 24 between the treatment groups.||4.72|-1.40|0.2847
95833278|NCT01555125|191637475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95833279|NCT01555125|191637475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95833280|NCT01555125|191637476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95833281|NCT01555125|191637476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95833282|NCT04836247|191637498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95833283|NCT04836247|191637499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95862682|NCT02872285|191684553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8||||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.793|8.199||ANCOVA was used to compare mean percent change in PASI score between baseline and Week 12 between LYC-30937 and placebo treatment groups with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Subjects included in this analysis had to have both a baseline and Week 12 PASI scores.||8.199|-33.793|0.2205
95833284|NCT04836247|191637500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<.001 is calculated p-value in SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95833285|NCT04836247|191637501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95833286|NCT04836247|191637502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95833287|NCT04836247|191637503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95833288|NCT04268745|191637504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.603||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.634|-1.573|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.573|-25.634|0.027
95833289|NCT04268745|191637505|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.405||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.474|8.335|||Regression, Linear|||||8.335|4.474|0.0001
95833290|NCT04268745|191637506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.703||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.235|-9.172|||Regression, Linear|||||-9.172|-28.235|0.0002
95833291|NCT04268745|191637507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.556||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|16.174|||Regression, Linear|||||16.174|0.938|0.028
95833292|NCT04268745|191637508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.665|||Regression, Linear|||||0.665|-0.443|0.695
95833293|NCT04268745|191637509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.514||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.901|0.874|||Regression, Linear|||||0.874|-1.901|0.469
95862683|NCT02872285|191684554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Chi-squared|2-sided p-value.||||||0.4712
95862684|NCT02872285|191684555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.87|20.18|||ANCOVA|||||20.18|-30.87|0.6695
95862685|NCT02872285|191684556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
95862686|NCT02872285|191684557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712||||||2-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.4712
95833294|NCT02039856|191637510|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences using ordered logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights. We verified that proportional odds assumption was met.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.33|||difference-in-differences analysis||The estimated value is predicted change in the odds of WH-PACT achievement, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in the odds of achieving a higher WH-PACT element.||1.33|0.627|0.637
95833295|NCT02039856|191637511|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in gender sensitivity score between EBQI and control over time||0.57|0.10|0.006
95833296|NCT02039856|191637512|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for gender, race/ethnicity, years worked at VA, worked in women's health clinic vs general primary care clinic, clinician status vs staff status, fulltime employment, percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2253||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.87|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value reported here is the predicted mean change over time, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in team functioning score between EBQI and control over time.||0.87|-0.01|0.055
95833297|NCT02039856|191637513|SUPERIORITY|We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1922||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated value is the predicted mean, adjusting for weights, worked in women's health vs general PC clinic, years worked at the VA, race/ethnicity, gender, full-time employment, and percent of women veterans enrolled at the VA facility.|||1.04|0.13|0.058
95833298|NCT02039856|191637514|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.36|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA primary care visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient primary care visits between EBQI and control over time||2.36|0.14|0.008
95833299|NCT02039856|191637515|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD, and the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.51|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA women's health visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient visits to women's health care between EBQI and control over time||2.51|0.88|0.000
95833300|NCT02039856|191637516|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA hospitalization, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of patient hospitalization for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.12|-0.15|0.794
95833301|NCT02039856|191637517|SUPERIORITY|Difference-in-differences analysis using linear regression, adjusted for adjusted for survey weights, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, dual use of VA and non-VA for care, diagnosis of PTSD. We adjusted our analysis using the population weights, which were the product of design weights and non-response weights.|Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.306|||Regression, Linear||The estimated value is predicted change in the number of VA emergency room visits, adjusting for characteristics described in the statistical analysis overview.|Change in number of emergency room visits for any cause between EBQI and control over time||0.306|-0.265|0.888
95833302|NCT01174173|191637545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed with p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
95833303|NCT01174173|191637546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for change in 6-minute walk test and p-value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95833304|NCT01174173|191637547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided t-test was performed for difference from baseline and 3-month KCCQ score. A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant a priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95833305|NCT01174173|191637549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95833306|NCT01174173|191637550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95833307|NCT02467582|191637622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95833308|NCT02467582|191637622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.22|||||Unstratified|||1.22|0.27|
95833309|NCT02467582|191637622|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.46|||||Stratified|||1.46|0.22|
95833310|NCT02467582|191637623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
95833311|NCT02467582|191637623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.19|||||Unstratified|||1.19|0.21|
95833312|NCT02467582|191637623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.55|||||Stratified|||1.55|0.20|
95833313|NCT02467582|191637624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3
95833314|NCT02467582|191637624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.13|||||Unstratified|||2.13|0.23|
95833315|NCT02467582|191637624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|2.43|||||Stratified|||2.43|0.15|
95833316|NCT01370265|191637627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for hyperemic global MBF between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05.||||0.14
95833317|NCT01370265|191637629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for Cardiac Flow Rate (CFR) between Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), alpha level of 0.05||||0.21
95833318|NCT01370265|191637630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention), for Hyperemic MBF Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.57
95833319|NCT01370265|191637630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Septum, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
95833320|NCT01370265|191637630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention)for Hyperemic MBF Inferior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.44
95833321|NCT01370265|191637630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for Hyperemic MBF Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.74
95833322|NCT01370265|191637631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Anterior, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.78
95833323|NCT01370265|191637631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Septum, alpha level of 0.05||||0.42
95833324|NCT01370265|191637631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention for CFR Inferior, alpha level of 0.05||||0.96
95833325|NCT01370265|191637631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for CFR Lateral, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.13
95833326|NCT01370265|191637632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for resting heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.28
95833327|NCT01370265|191637632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for hyperemic heart rate, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.51
95833328|NCT01370265|191637633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for systolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.31
95833329|NCT01370265|191637633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis comparing Regadenoson and Adenosine groups (per intervention) for diastolic blood pressure, alpha level of 0.05.||||0.08
95833330|NCT01593592|191637818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||A total of 70 patients were included; 35 in each arm. The sample size was calculated assuming eradication of H. pylori in at least 70% of treated patients, aiming to detect a difference of 30% based on a 0.80 power to detect significant difference (p =0.05, two-sided).||||
95833331|NCT01959841|191637837|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(400mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||2.41e-06|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The non-inferiority of each ASP2151 dose level versus valaciclovir was assessed stepwise using a closed testing procedure.First step analysis was performed in the ASP2151(400mg) once daily.||||0.00000241
95833332|NCT01959841|191637837|NON_INFERIORITY|Wherein the non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. If the one-sided P-value was less than 0.025 between the ASP2151(200mg) once daily and the valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily, non-inferiority of ASP2151 to valaciclovir was assumed.||||||0.0688|||||||Modified Farrington-Manning test|||The analysis was performed in the ASP2151(200 mg) once daily only when non-inferiority of the ASP2151(400 mg) 0nce daily to valaciclovir 1000 mg three times daily was assumed.||||0.0688
95960342|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3785
95833333|NCT03335774|191637852|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8918
95833334|NCT03335774|191637853|SUPERIORITY|To determine if the 'hydrocortisone' arm was indeed superior than 'placebo' to reduce swelling and itching associated with internal hemorrhoids||||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software Version 9.4.All statistical tests were two-sided at a significance level of α = 0.05. Continuous data were presented using descriptive statistics (i.e. number of subjects, mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum).Baseline value of each assessment was defined as the latest available assessment obtained prior to the first administration of the study drug.||||0.8323
95833335|NCT00125957|191637854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the mean change MADRS score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||.04
95833336|NCT00125957|191637855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in the median HAM-D score between Wellbutrin-Placebo and Placebo-Wellbutrin treatment groups||||0.09
95833337|NCT03121365|191637868|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Cognitive Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.7635
95833338|NCT03121365|191637868|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.0996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.0996
95833339|NCT03121365|191637868|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.2291|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Gross Motor Composite Scores between infants 12-18 months old in the Standard and Digital Arms||||.2291
95833340|NCT03121365|191637869|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 9 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.0180
95833341|NCT03121365|191637869|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 9 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4144
95833342|NCT03121365|191637869|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.4251|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||StimQ scores between infants 6 months of age and 12 months of age in the board book arm and e-book arm||||.4251
95833343|NCT03121365|191637870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Difference in Board Book Reading|Chi-squared|||||||0.235
95833344|NCT03121365|191637871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95833345|NCT03121365|191637872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.601
95833346|NCT03121365|191637873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.219
95833347|NCT03121365|191637874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95833348|NCT03121365|191637875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.574
95833349|NCT03121365|191637876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.430
95833350|NCT03121365|191637877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95833351|NCT03121365|191637878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.861
95833352|NCT00746863|191637880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0251||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A 2.0 cm difference on a 10.0 cm VAS scale was clinically significant. Assuming a power of 80% to detect a 2.0 difference on scores between groups, standard deviation of 2.2, an α of 0.05, then, 21 patients would be needed in each group for a total of 42 subjects. A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0251
95833353|NCT00746863|191637881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0923||95.0||||Adjusted for multiple comparisions|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups.||||0.0923
95833354|NCT00746863|191637882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4756||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi square was performed to compared the two groups and the patient's ability to pass their voiding trial prior to discharge||||0.4756
95833355|NCT00746863|191637883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.258
95833356|NCT00746863|191637884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A t-test was used in comparing the intervention and control groups, if continuous variables were approximately normal. If data were not approximately normal, a Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was used in comparing the two groups. Normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the data. A Bonferroni correction was used when evaluating the VAS results to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.435
95833357|NCT00655629|191637885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.45|-5.38|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.38|-8.45|<0.0001
95833358|NCT00655629|191637886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.972|||<|0.0001||95.0|-32.688|-19.256|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.256|-32.688|<0.0001
95833359|NCT00655629|191637887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.432|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.439|-26.425|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.425|-40.439|<0.0001
95960343|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2869
95833360|NCT00655629|191637888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|53.8693|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
95833361|NCT00655629|191637889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.078|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.41|-9.746|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-9.746|-22.41|<0.0001
95833362|NCT00655629|191637890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.281|-25.987|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-25.987|-40.281|<0.0001
95833363|NCT00655629|191637891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.934|||<|0.0001||95.0|-41.119|-26.749|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-26.749|-41.119|<0.0001
95833364|NCT00655629|191637892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.902|||<|0.0001||95.0|-27.724|-14.081|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.081|-27.724|<0.0001
95833365|NCT00655629|191637894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.866|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.599|-11.133|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-11.133|-22.599|<0.0001
95833366|NCT00655629|191637895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.547|-20.533|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-20.533|-31.547|<0.0001
95833367|NCT00655629|191637896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.676|-14.315|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-14.315|-24.676|<0.0001
95833368|NCT00655629|191637897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.418|||<|0.0001||95.0|-24.439|-12.396|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-12.396|-24.439|<0.0001
95833369|NCT00655629|191637898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.379|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.006|-16.753|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-16.753|-28.006|<0.0001
95833370|NCT00655629|191637899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.758|||<|0.0001||95.0|-36.736|-24.779|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.779|-36.736|<0.0001
95833371|NCT00655629|191637900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|60.2391|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH adjusted for age group and center||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
95833372|NCT03416127|191637903|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.031
95833373|NCT03416127|191637904|OTHER|||||||0.963|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.963
95833374|NCT03416127|191637905|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.236
95833375|NCT03416127|191637906|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.015
95833376|NCT03416127|191637907|OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.017
95833377|NCT03416127|191637908|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
95833378|NCT03416127|191637909|OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.686
95833379|NCT03416127|191637910|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95833380|NCT03416127|191637911|OTHER|||||||0.945|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.945
95833381|NCT03416127|191637912|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.332
95833382|NCT03416127|191637913|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.075
95833383|NCT03416127|191637914|OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.903
95833384|NCT03416127|191637915|OTHER|||||||0.697|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.697
95833385|NCT03416127|191637916|OTHER|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
95833386|NCT03416127|191637917|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.308
95833387|NCT03416127|191637918|OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.318
95833388|NCT03416127|191637919|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
95833389|NCT03416127|191637920|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.376
95833390|NCT03416127|191637921|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.210
95833391|NCT03416127|191637922|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.880
95833392|NCT03416127|191637923|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.059
95833393|NCT03416127|191637924|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.978
95833394|NCT03416127|191637925|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.122
95833395|NCT03416127|191637926|OTHER|||||||0.551|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.551
95833396|NCT02277925|191637933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.14|||Chi-squared|||||5.14|0.59|0.30
95833397|NCT02277925|191637934|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.96|0.43
95833398|NCT02277925|191637935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.7|-14.7|0.39
95833399|NCT00082407|191637936|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2534||95.0|-0.28|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.28|0.2534
95833400|NCT00082407|191637937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0779||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0779
95960344|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9905
95833401|NCT00082407|191637938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95833402|NCT00082407|191637939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6456
95833403|NCT00082407|191637941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7888||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7888
95833404|NCT00082407|191637942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3722||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3722
95833405|NCT01754493|191637943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-18.24|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|-12.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total MADRS symptom scores for MDD. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-12.63|-23.44|<.05
95833406|NCT01754493|191637944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-20.71|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|-13.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in total GSRS symptom scores for IBS. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-13.97|-27.44|<0.05
95833407|NCT01754493|191637945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-MDD score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.03|-2.16|<0.05
95833408|NCT01754493|191637945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in CGI-IBS score. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.11|-1.99|<0.05
95833409|NCT01754493|191637946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of overall pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-1.16|<0.05
95862687|NCT00531427|191684558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistics are based on a mixed effect general linear model||"\[Week 12 analysis\] The null hypothesis was no group differences. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS arm was superior to the placebo arm.~Pain scale is 11 points (0 = no pain to 10 = pain as bad as you can imagine)."||0.05|-0.80|0.0853
95833410|NCT01754493|191637946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.47|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessed the rate of change in VAS score of pain interfering with daily activities. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a 1st-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (wks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis||2.01|-1.07|<0.05
95833411|NCT01754493|191637946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of headaches. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.10|-2.28|<0.05
95833412|NCT01754493|191637946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.35|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of back pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||.87|-1.56|<0.05
95833413|NCT01754493|191637946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample, including all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in VAS score of shoulder pain. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||1.03|-2.00|<0.05
95833414|NCT01754493|191637947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-4.38|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|-1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used the intention-to-treat (ITT) sample with all subjects dispensed medication (n=17). This was a repeated-measures mixed-effects regression analysis assessing the rate of change in PHQ-15 scores of somatization symptoms. To account for the correlation of observations within individuals, we used mixed-effects models with random intercepts and a first-order autocorrelation structure. Data from each time point (weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12) were used in the single repeated-measures analysis.||-1.36|-7.39|<0.05
95960345|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 24 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9381
95833415|NCT03464019|191637948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.623|||Peto-Peto test|||In Part 1, participants who converted following medical assistance were censored at the time of conversion after medical assistance. Participants who presented missing data from time t to the end were censored at the time of last available data. Participants who did not convert or were not censored before 5 hours were censored at 5 hours.||1.623|0.726|0.1212
95833416|NCT03464019|191637948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.857|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.868|4.371||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon|||In Parts 2 and 3, participants converting after additional medication interventions were censored after the end of the observation period.||4.371|1.868|<0.001
95833417|NCT00767806|191637949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory 24-hour average pain score after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.001
95833418|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P-value is for BPI severity of worst pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
95833419|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.14||P-value is for BPI severity of least pain - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of least pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.14|-0.85|0.006
95833420|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46||P-value is for BPI severity of pain right now - change|ANCOVA|Main effect model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of square)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory severity of pain right now score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
95833421|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.35||P-value is for BPI interference with general activity - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with general activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.16|<0.001
95833422|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34||P-value is for BPI interference with mood score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with mood score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.34|-1.09|<0.001
95833423|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||P-value is for BPI interference with walking ability - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with walking ability score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.84|0.020
95833424|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11||P-value is for BPI interference with normal work - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with normal work score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.11|-0.90|0.012
95833425|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value is for BPI interference with relations to others - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with relations to others score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.22|-0.92|0.001
95833426|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.27||P-value is for BPI interference with sleep score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with sleep score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.27|-1.13|0.002
95833427|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.18||P-value is for BPI interference with enjoyment of life score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory interference with enjoyment of life score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.18|-0.96|0.005
95833428|NCT00767806|191637950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.25||P-value is for BPI average interference score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Brief Pain Inventory average interference score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.25|-0.92|<0.001
95833429|NCT00767806|191637951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.35||p-value is for weekly 24-hour average pain rating score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour average pain rating score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.35|-1.05|<0.001
95862688|NCT00531427|191684559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.159||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|ANCOVA|with treatment as a factor and screening and pre-randomization mean pain as covariates.||Categorical analysis P value is based on a Fisher's exact test. Mean daily number of tablets for subjects who took \<=1 dose of supplemental analgesia||0.159|-0.233|0.7098
95833430|NCT00767806|191637951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||p-value is for weekly 24-hour worst pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour worst pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
95833431|NCT00767806|191637951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||p-value is for weekly 24-hour night pain score - change|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the weekly 24-hour night pain score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.87|0.004
95833432|NCT00767806|191637952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.108
95833433|NCT00767806|191637953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating - difference between placebo and duloxetine|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=50% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory average pain severity rating after 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.006
95833434|NCT00767806|191637954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0||||p-value is difference between duloxetine and placebo in number of patients who achieve criteria described in null hypothesis|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in number of patients who achieve a \>=30% reduction of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity rating from baseline to endpoint and baseline to earlier visit than last visit and maintains a \>=20% reduction of BPI average pain rating from baseline at every visit.||||0.082
95833435|NCT00767806|191637955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical overall cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction|Kolnogorov-Smirnov test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between duloxetine and placebo groups in the empirical cumulated distribution of the percentage pain reduction.||||0.013
95833436|NCT00767806|191637956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Clinical Global Impression of Severity score after 12 weeks of treatment.||0.02|-0.33|0.077
95833437|NCT00767806|191637957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: PGI-I=Treatment+Investigator+Baseline(Type III sums of squares). PGI-Severity score from baseline visit was used as the baseline.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups Patient's Global Impression of Improvement endpoint value during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.07|-0.56|0.011
95833438|NCT00767806|191637958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.34||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire total score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.34|-1.28|0.255
95833439|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Tension-Anxiety subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.38|<0.001
95833440|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Depression-Dejection subscore during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|-0.90|0.133
95833441|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Anger-Hostility score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.37|-1.46|<0.001
95833442|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Vigor-Activity score during 12 weeks of treatment.||1.88|0.38|0.003
95833443|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Fatigue-Inertia score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.43|-0.93|0.469
95833444|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.17||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Confusion-Bewilderment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.17|-0.98|0.006
95833445|NCT00767806|191637959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|-1.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Profile of Mood States Total Mood Disturbance score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-1.60|-6.41|0.001
95833446|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|3.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the 36-SF Health Survey Physical Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.02|-0.53|0.168
95833447|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.96||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Component score during 12 weeks of treatment.||3.96|0.53|0.010
95833448|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.58||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.3||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Bodily Pain Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||8.30|0.86|0.016
95833449|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Mental Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|2.15|<0.001
95833450|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.67||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey General Health Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||5.67|-0.50|0.101
95833451|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|7.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Physical Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.12|-0.12|0.058
95960346|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2158
95833452|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|6.37||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Emotional Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.37|-1.52|0.227
95833453|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|6.21||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Role-Physical Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||6.21|-2.39|0.383
95960347|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7887
95833454|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|7.61||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Social Functioning Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.61|0.38|0.030
95833455|NCT00767806|191637960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.6||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the SF-36 Health Survey Vitality Transformed score during 12 weeks of treatment.||7.60|0.59|0.022
95833456|NCT00767806|191637961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United Kingdom population-based Index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.12|0.03|<0.001
95833457|NCT00767806|191637961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.08||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire - 5 Dimension - United States population-based index score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.08|0.02|0.002
95833458|NCT00767806|191637962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Absenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.06|-0.03|0.461
95833459|NCT00767806|191637962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Presenteeism score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.03|-0.09|0.374
95833460|NCT00767806|191637962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.05||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Work Productivity Loss score during 12 weeks of treatment.||0.05|-0.09|0.557
95833461|NCT00767806|191637962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument (WPAI) - Activity Impairment score during 12 weeks of treatment.||-0.02|-0.10|0.007
95960348|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME 72 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9250
95833462|NCT00767806|191637964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in uric acid - change|ANOVA|Change Variable = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares). Rank-transformed change was used as change variable in the ANOVA model.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of uric acid during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.010
95833463|NCT00767806|191637965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in albumin - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Albumin during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.031
95833464|NCT00767806|191637966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alkaline phosphatase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of alkaline phosphatase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.004
95833465|NCT00767806|191637967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in alanine aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of Alanine Aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.013
95833466|NCT00767806|191637968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||p-value for difference between duloxetine and placebo in aspartate aminotransferase - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of aspartate aminotransferase during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.039
95833467|NCT00767806|191637969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in creatinine - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of creatinine during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.024
95960349|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1472
95833468|NCT00767806|191637970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in total protein - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of total protein during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.019
95833469|NCT00767806|191637971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of systolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.329
95833470|NCT00767806|191637971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||p-value is for difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure|ANOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Investigator (Type III sums of squares)||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of diastolic blood pressure during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.562
95833471|NCT00767806|191637973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||p-value is for difference between duloxetine and placebo in pulse rate - change|ANOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there is no difference between placebo and duloxetine groups in change of pulse rate during 12 weeks of treatment.||||0.680
95833472|NCT00858208|191637978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0072
95833473|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 6||||0.0433
95833474|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 12||||0.0133
95833475|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 18||||0.0278
95833476|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 24||||0.0160
95833477|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 30||||0.0264
95833478|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 36||||0.0278
95833479|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 42||||0.1854
95833480|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 48||||0.1684
95833481|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 54||||0.4718
95833482|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 60||||0.4340
95833483|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7765|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 66||||0.7765
95833484|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7544|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 72||||0.7544
95833485|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7201|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 84||||0.7201
95833486|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5692|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 90||||0.5692
95833487|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 96||||0.2749
95833488|NCT00858208|191637979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline at Week 102||||0.2749
95833489|NCT00858208|191637981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 6||||0.2970
95833490|NCT00858208|191637981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 12||||0.1392
95833491|NCT00858208|191637981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 18||||0.0573
95833492|NCT00858208|191637981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Change at Month 24||||0.7625
95833493|NCT00858208|191637982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2759
95833494|NCT01272635|191637992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.98|||Discrete time survival analysis||Hazard ratio: Numerator is Azithromycin and Denominator is Placebo|||0.98|0.41|0.04
95833495|NCT01543776|191637998|NON_INFERIORITY|The above criteria for non-inferiority corresponds to a response rate in the low dose arm that is no more than 15% lower than the response rate in the high dose arm (i.e., non-inferiority margin of 15%), under the assumption that the log ratios are approximately normally distributed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3976|||<|0.1|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.1111|||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 1 sided||||||-0.1111|<0.10
95833496|NCT01543776|191637999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
95833497|NCT01543776|191638000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95833498|NCT01543776|191638001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
95833499|NCT01543776|191638002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95833500|NCT02397057|191638014|OTHER|Observed cases, logistic regression analysis. Subjects with missing data on Day 42 were excluded from the statistical testing.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.63||p-value was estimated by logistic regression with treatment, region (US, EUR), and baseline RLS medication-related augmentation as fixed factors, and baseline IRLS as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.63|0.70|0.3690
95833501|NCT02397057|191638018|OTHER||Least square(LS) mean difference|-4.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.083|0.941|||ANCOVA|||LOCF, ANCOVA Analysis||0.941|-9.083|0.1108
95833502|NCT02397057|191638019|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was estimated using continuity-corrected chi-square test.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0002
95833503|NCT00126776|191638041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mean cumulative frequency|||primary outcome is mean cumulative frequency of COPD related hospitlaizations and ED visits ;ver 1 yr: 0.48 for disease management; 0.82 for usual care, difference 0.34 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; P\<0.001)||||< 0.001
95833504|NCT02893917|191638042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.969|||Regression, Cox|||||0.969|0.392|0.0359
95833505|NCT02893917|191638043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|2.399||no p value provided|Regression, Cox|||||2.399|0.705|
95833506|NCT02893917|191638046|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.272|1.504|||Regression, Cox|||HRD positive ONLY||1.504|0.272|
95833507|NCT02893917|191638046|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.348|||Regression, Cox|||HRD negative ONLY||1.348|0.448|
95833508|NCT02868229|191638175|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-5.666||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.082|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-2.250|-9.082|0.002
95833509|NCT02868229|191638175|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-6.913|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.613|-3.214|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-3.214|-10.613|<0.001
95833510|NCT02868229|191638175|SUPERIORITY||Differences of LS Means|-9.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.217|-5.965|||ANCOVA|||The P-value was obtained from rank transformed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, where the rank transformed change from baseline (CFB) values as the response variable and treatments as a factor and the rank transformed baseline value as its covariate.||-5.965|-13.217|<0.001
95833511|NCT00545103|191638344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.778||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.778
95833512|NCT00545103|191638344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.159
95960350|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5383
95833513|NCT00545103|191638344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.368||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.368
95960351|NCT00551135|191892804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||CT Distinct CME EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline pain catastrophizing total score. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8869
95833514|NCT00545103|191638345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.685
95833515|NCT00545103|191638345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.198
95833516|NCT00545103|191638345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.441
95833517|NCT02358044|191638351|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Primary Analysis Approach: Non-Inferiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|<0.001
95833518|NCT02358044|191638351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to zero to evaluate superiority. The M=F approach was used to handle missing values.||"Secondary Analysis Approach: Superiority~Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was conducted using the M\&N method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir +elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% CIs and p-values were provided."||15.3|3.6|0.001
95833519|NCT02358044|191638352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-31.9||||||The percentage of participants with an event were assessed via point estimates with 95% CIs provided for between-group comparisons.||-31.9|-51.1|
95833520|NCT02358044|191638354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Total Tier 1 AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-19.6|-35.5|<0.001
95833521|NCT02358044|191638354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.4||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Serious drug-related AEs:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||0.6|-6.8|0.078
95855162|NCT02978781|191669821|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-2.87|0.0278
95960352|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.4024
95960353|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9766|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9766
95960354|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 3 h PS;||||0.9975
95833522|NCT02358044|191638354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.1||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"DC due to drug-related AE:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||2.1|-4.4|0.312
95833523|NCT02358044|191638354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.0||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Neutrophil count \<0.75 x 10\^9/L:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-8.0|-19.7|<0.001
95833524|NCT02358044|191638354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-7.9||% of participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event = total number participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event ÷ total number ASaT participants within each treatment arm. M\&N method used to calculate a 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference and corresponding p-value.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||"Hemoglobin \<10 g/dL:~If, and only if the primary efficacy null hypothesis was rejected, the Tier 1 safety superiority hypothesis was tested at the 2-sided 5% alpha level. The safety superiority hypothesis was that the percentage of grazoprevir+elbasvir participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event is lower than the percentage of SOF+PR participants with ≥1 Tier 1 event."||-7.9|-20.8|<0.001
95833525|NCT02358044|191638355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of 95% CIs was compared to pre-specified non-inferiority margin, -10% to evaluate non-inferiority. The Missing=Failure (M=F) approach was used to handle missing values.|Adjusted Difference in Percentage|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|15.7||||||Analyses of the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 was conducted using the Miettinen \& Nurminen (M\&N) method. The analysis was adjusted for genotype (1a vs. non-1a) and fibrosis stage (cirrhotic vs. non-cirrhotic). The adjusted differences (grazoprevir+elbasvir arm minus SOF+PR arm) in percentages along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values were provided.||15.7|3.3|
95833526|NCT00903331|191638362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between ACT-064922 and placebo for the change in FVC from baseline to the end of Period 1. The aim was to detect a placebo-corrected change in FVC of ≥ 0.1 L (Standard Deviation = 0.2 L) at a two-sided 0.05 type 1 error level and 80% power.||0.08|-0.09|0.9631
95833527|NCT00903331|191638363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.7056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.996|||Log Rank|||||1.996|0.626|0.7056
95833528|NCT02437084|191638364|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|SSPG concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 69||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in steady-state plasma glucose (SSPG) concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
95833529|NCT02437084|191638365|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Insulin secretion rate AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63.||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in insulin secretion rate AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 9 - 10 weeks.||||<0.001
95833530|NCT02437084|191638366|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma glucose concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.10
95833531|NCT02437084|191638367|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Fasting plasma insulin concentration was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 68||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in fasting plasma insulin concentration after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.01
95833532|NCT02437084|191638368|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 70||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT glucose AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 - 10 weeks.||||0.03
95833533|NCT02437084|191638369|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Paired samples t test, 2 sided|OGTT insulin AUC was log-transformed for statistical analysis; degrees of freedom = 63||Null hypothesis: There will be no change in OGTT insulin AUC after treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 8 weeks.||||0.27
95833534|NCT00454181|191638375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response.||||0.30
95833535|NCT00454181|191638376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group meeting the definition of positive response||||0.26
95960355|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9038
95960356|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.9370
95833536|NCT00454181|191638377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in oral warts from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.50
95833537|NCT00454181|191638378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects in each group reporting change in global oral health from baseline to week 24 as better."||||0.29
95833538|NCT00454181|191638379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with respect to changes in oral warts from baseline to week 24 by the attending investigator."||||0.74
95833539|NCT00454181|191638380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-square analysis of the proportion of subjects rated as improved with resepect to changes from baseline to week 24 in global oral health by the attending investigator."||||.71
95833540|NCT02598128|191638395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The independent variables in the mixed model analysis included fixed effect factors for treatment (placebo or RELiZORB).||||||<0.001
95960357|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 24 h PS;||||0.2134
95960358|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
95960359|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.2207
95833541|NCT01345682|191638416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.977||Log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance score (PS)(0 or 1) and prior use of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody in the Recurrent and/or Metastatic (R/M) setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.977|0.643|0.0257
95833542|NCT01345682|191638417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.169||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||1.169|0.786|0.6755
95833543|NCT01345682|191638418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||4.14|0.88|0.1010
95833544|NCT01345682|191638419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||2.26|1.03|0.0353
95833545|NCT01345682|191638421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score (PS) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||-0.42|-8.31|0.0300
95833546|NCT01345682|191638422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.9773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.18||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.18|-4.30|0.9773
95833547|NCT01345682|191638423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|4.39||Adjusted for baseline ECOG performance score (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for R/M HNSCC (Yes or No).|longitudinal models||Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|Changes in scores over time were assessed using longitudinal models, i.e. mixed effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG PS and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).||4.39|-3.28|0.7767
95833548|NCT01345682|191638424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.990|0.717|0.494
95833549|NCT01345682|191638425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.950|0.687|0.584
95833550|NCT01345682|191638426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.705|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value (two-sided) from logistic regression stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No). Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate|||1.705|0.657|0.816
95960360|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
95960361|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0686
95960362|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0746
95833551|NCT01345682|191638427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.96||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|||0.96|0.55|0.0217
95833552|NCT01345682|191638428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.89|0.50|0.0040
95833553|NCT01345682|191638429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97||Log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).|Stratified Log-rank test||"Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 or 1) and prior use of EGFR-targeted antibody in the R/M setting (Yes or No).~Afatinib (BIBW 2992) vs Methotrexate"|||0.97|0.56|0.0268
95833554|NCT03592368|191638457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95833555|NCT03592368|191638459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95833556|NCT03592368|191638460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
95960363|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue at EOT;||||0.0512
95960364|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7118|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.7118
95960365|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9883
95833557|NCT03831100|191638461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|0.9||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.9|-5.0|0.25
95833558|NCT03831100|191638462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|-2.5||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||-2.5|-9.1|.006
95833559|NCT03831100|191638463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|0.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The mean for each study arm represents the mean difference in the score at the post-treatment timepoint relative to the score at baseline. The mean difference (net) represents the mean model-based difference between study arms.|||0.0|-15.9|.10
95833560|NCT03831100|191638464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-8.6||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||||-8.6|-25.6|.002
95833561|NCT03831100|191638465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|2.0||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores|||2.0|-8.8|0.30
95833562|NCT03831100|191638466|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-4.2||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-4.2|-15.2|0.005
95833563|NCT03831100|191638467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.4||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.4|-6.4|0.064
95833564|NCT03831100|191638468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|-0.8||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.8|-7.8|0.046
95833565|NCT03831100|191638469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||2.1|-5.2|0.49
95833566|NCT03831100|191638470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|0.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||0.3|-6.5|0.14
95833567|NCT03831100|191638471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|6.3||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||6.3|0.2|0.082
95833568|NCT03831100|191638472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|5.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||5.7|-0.4|0.15
95833569|NCT03831100|191638473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|-0.7||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.7|-5.2|0.22
95833570|NCT03831100|191638474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|-0.1||A two-sided P \< .10 indicates the a priori threshold for statistical significance. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Model-based treatment effect estimated using ANCOVA with change score modeled as a function of treatment group (AC, BRIGHT/Therapist A, BRIGHT/Therapist B), with adjustment for baseline scores.|||-0.1|-5.8|0.093
95833571|NCT01107665|191638485|OTHER||Log Rank HR|0.784||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|.41|0.49
95960366|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 3 h PS;||||0.9770
95960367|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.5457
95960368|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.2579
95960369|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 24 h PS;||||0.1232
95833572|NCT01452919|191638561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.17||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.170
95833573|NCT01452919|191638562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.109||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 0.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.109
95833574|NCT01452919|191638562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.372||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.372
95833575|NCT01452919|191638562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.555||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 1.5.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.555
95833576|NCT01452919|191638562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.806||95.0||||Two-sided p-value. P-value is for Week 2.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.806
95833577|NCT01452919|191638563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.762||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.762
95833578|NCT01452919|191638564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.506||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.506
95833579|NCT01452919|191638565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.515||95.0||||Two-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.515
95833580|NCT01452919|191638568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.966||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.966
95833581|NCT01452919|191638569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.895||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 sums of squares|||||||0.895
95833582|NCT00151476|191638574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|14.49||||||95.0|3.48|301.64|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|"Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); twenty-fifth (25th) percentile presented due to limited number of subjects.~Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.~Only 13 matched pairs identified: p-values not computed in analysis of time-to-event endpoints"||301.64|3.48|
95833583|NCT00151476|191638574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.06||||||95.0|3.48|11.76|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||11.76|3.48|
95833584|NCT00151476|191638574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.52||||||95.0|3.48|14.49|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||14.49|3.48|
95833585|NCT00151476|191638575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|5.98||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
95833586|NCT00151476|191638575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|0.0|33.77|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||33.77|0.00|
95960370|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.2880
95833587|NCT00151476|191638576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|137.34||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile. Index date based on most recent colon and or rectum adenomatous polyps evaluation, most recent duodenal adenomatous polyps evaluation, and most recent desmoids tumors evaluation for Matched Control, Not Matched Celecoxib, and All Celecoxib Treated, respectively.||183.48|104.73|
95833588|NCT00151476|191638576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|169.94||||||95.0|104.73|183.48|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||183.48|104.73|
95833589|NCT00151476|191638577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|11.28||||||95.0|9.07|38.24|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||38.24|9.07|
95833590|NCT00151476|191638578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.63||||||95.0|8.05|48.03|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||48.03|8.05|
95833591|NCT00151476|191638578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|40.21||||||95.0|8.31|105.68|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||105.68|8.31|
95833592|NCT00151476|191638578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|16.03|56.34|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||56.34|16.03|
95833593|NCT00151476|191638578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|20.22||||||95.0|12.35|40.31|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related surgical events (months); 25th percentile.||40.31|12.35|
95833594|NCT00151476|191638580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|21.22||||||95.0|4.07|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|4.07|
95833595|NCT00151476|191638580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event|19.81||||||95.0|3.68|64.16|||||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Event (months).|Time to FAP-related events (months); 25th percentile.||64.16|3.68|
95833596|NCT03445559|191638661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Chi-squared|||||0.98|0.30|0.006
95833597|NCT03445559|191638662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66|||Chi-squared|||||2.66|0.70|0.42
95833598|NCT03445559|191638663|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95833599|NCT02411929|191638769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test (oral)/Reference (IV) of means|104.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.64|107.91|||||Natural log transformed AUCinf(dn) and AUClast(dn) from Period 1 were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences were exponentiated.|Ratio - Test (oral) / Reference (IV) of means||107.91|101.64|
95833600|NCT02411929|191638779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.71|||||||||||||The ratio (Test/Reference) of the geometric means of dose normalized natural log transformed Total 14\^C in Urine will be estimated. Total 14\^C\_Urine\_IV is the Reference formulation and Total 14C\_Urine\_Oral is the Test formulation (expressed as a %).|Ratio - Test (Oral) / Reference (IV) (%)||||
95833601|NCT00599638|191638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306||0.391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.31|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.48|-0.31|0.3910
95833602|NCT00599638|191638802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.78|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.78|0.0002
95833603|NCT00599638|191638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0055||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||1.71|0.30|0.4959
95833604|NCT00599638|191638803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0763||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.69|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis was performed compositely for all categories.||8.46|1.69|0.0011
95833605|NCT00599638|191638805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.819||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.47|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.47|0.3380
95833606|NCT00599638|191638805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.89|-5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.42|-13.89|0.0022
95833607|NCT03836677|191638841|OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio to baseline|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.13||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.13|1.38|<0.0001
95833608|NCT03836677|191638841|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.83||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||1.83|1.28|<0.0001
95833609|NCT03836677|191638842|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.63||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.39|<0.0001
95833610|NCT03836677|191638842|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
95833611|NCT03836677|191638843|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.37|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||2.11|1.37|<0.0001
95833612|NCT03836677|191638843|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.80|1.26|0.0001
95833613|NCT03836677|191638844|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.63|0.40|<0.0001
95833614|NCT03836677|191638844|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
95833615|NCT03836677|191638845|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.346||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.509|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.509|0.182|0.0003
95833616|NCT03836677|191638845|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.273||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.405|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.405|0.140|0.0004
95833617|NCT03836677|191638846|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.28||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||0.21|-0.77|0.2515
95833618|NCT03836677|191638846|OTHER||Mean ratio to baseline|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test.||||-0.18|-0.81|0.0040
95833619|NCT01600092|191638860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G1||1.07|0.79|
95833620|NCT01600092|191638860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G2||1.33|0.99|
95960371|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.0894
95833621|NCT01600092|191638860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|3.74|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G3||3.74|2.75|
95833622|NCT01600092|191638860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.2|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype G4||1.20|0.94|
95833623|NCT01600092|191638860|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67|GMT Ratio (Experimental/Existing)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.35|||||GMTs and GMT ratio were based on a model with terms for treatment and country, with the constraint that the mean baseline value is the same for both treatment groups|Serotype P1A\[8\]||1.35|1.00|
95833624|NCT00079677|191638865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0003||95.0|1.67|5.46||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05||5.46|1.67|0.0003
95833625|NCT00079677|191638866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0069
95833626|NCT02914561|191638867|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||20.7|4.7|0.0017
95833627|NCT02914561|191638867|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.2||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.7|-2.4|0.1730
95833628|NCT02914561|191638867|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||19.9|4.1|0.0023
95833629|NCT02914561|191638867|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.7|-5.2|0.6038
95833630|NCT02914561|191638868|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (0, \>=1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.9|-2.0|0.1365
95833631|NCT02914561|191638868|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|9.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||9.5|-4.8|0.5103
95833632|NCT02914561|191638868|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|0.1||||0.9797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of corticosteroids (Yes/No), immunomodulators (Yes/No), and prior exposure to biologic agents (\<=1, \>1) at Day 1.||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||6.6|-6.5|0.9797
95833633|NCT02914561|191638868|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.4||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.8|-3.9|0.4264
95833634|NCT02914561|191638869|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|13.7||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||28.4|-1.0|0.0839
95960372|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at 72 h PS;||||0.1979
95833635|NCT02914561|191638869|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.5||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||15.0|-12.1|0.8288
95833636|NCT02914561|191638870|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||33.1|8.2|0.0038
95833637|NCT02914561|191638870|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||18.3|-6.6|0.3466
95833638|NCT02914561|191638871|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|6.9||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||15.2|-1.4|0.0963
95833639|NCT02914561|191638871|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, \>=1).||12.2|-3.9|0.3050
95833640|NCT02914561|191638871|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.2|3.7|0.0039
95833641|NCT02914561|191638871|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|1.1||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||8.5|-6.2|0.7556
95833642|NCT02914561|191638872|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||20.8|3.2|0.0074
95833643|NCT02914561|191638872|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.5||||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (0, ≥1).||14.1|-3.2|0.2159
95833644|NCT02914561|191638872|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|11.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||20.6|2.6|0.0110
95833645|NCT02914561|191638872|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|8.2||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of oral, systemic corticosteroids (Yes/No) and of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Day 1, and number of prior exposures to biologic agent (\<=1, \>1).||16.7|-0.4|0.0593
95960373|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0686
95833646|NCT02914561|191638873|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|16.8||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||31.6|2.0|0.0382
95833647|NCT02914561|191638873|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|5.8||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||20.0|-8.5|0.4263
95833648|NCT02914561|191638874|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|10.9||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|26.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||26.4|-4.7|0.1827
95833649|NCT02914561|191638874|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|4.0||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||19.2|-11.1|0.5944
95833650|NCT02914561|191638875|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|15.2||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|29.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||29.3|1.0|0.0512
95833651|NCT02914561|191638875|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use of immunomodulators (Yes/No) at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||13.0|-13.3|0.9801
95833652|NCT02914561|191638876|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|14.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||33.1|-5.1|0.1900
95833653|NCT02914561|191638876|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-5.5||||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||11.6|-22.6|0.4248
95833654|NCT02914561|191638877|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|19.9||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||34.0|5.7|0.0122
95833655|NCT02914561|191638877|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|2.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by concomitant use immunomodulators (Yes/No), at Maintenance baseline, and history of exposure to a biologic agent (Yes/No).||16.1|-12.0|0.7708
95833656|NCT02914561|191638878|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|12.0||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|32.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||32.3|-8.3|0.2631
95833657|NCT02914561|191638878|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Percentage Difference|-3.4||||0.6444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was stratified by immunomodulators (Yes) at Maintenance baseline, immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (Yes), and immunomodulators (No) at Maintenance baseline and history of exposure to biologic agent (No).||14.0|-20.9|0.6444
95833658|NCT03101085|191638930|OTHER|We performed a paired T-test analysis to ascertain whether the COX/CS activity while on S-equol was comparable or different than the COX/CS while on placebo. For each participant, the COX/CS value while on S-equol was subtracted from their COX/CS value while on placebo.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||As the order of the intervention does not matter, all 39 participants who contributed data to the final analysis are included together.||||>0.05
95833659|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|41.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.25|21.76|
95833660|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|41.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.17|21.66|
95833661|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|30.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.89|41.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||41.12|21.89|
95833662|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Difference in percentages|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|3.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.36|-3.15|
95833663|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.54|48.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.90|28.54|
95833664|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|39.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.16|49.46|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.46|29.16|
95833665|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|38.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.03|49.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||49.06|29.03|
95833666|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.92|-4.12|
95833667|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|59.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.49|69.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||69.32|49.49|
95833668|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|57.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.71|66.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||66.88|46.71|
95833669|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|58.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.32|67.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||67.94|48.32|
95833670|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|6.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W-DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.62|-1.17|
95833671|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|45.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.11|55.47|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.47|35.11|
95833672|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|42.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.34|53.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||53.04|32.34|
95833673|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|43.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.92|54.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y-day 29-Total seroresponse (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||54.14|33.92|
95833674|NCT02986854|191638960|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Difference in percentages|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|6.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- DAY 29 : Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.3|-0.86|
95833675|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.41|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.41|1.23|
95833676|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|10.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|16.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.14|3.54|
95833677|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|13.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.58|2.72|
95833678|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method.|Between group differences in percentage|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|3.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.24|-8.17|
95833679|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|14.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||14.15|-3.57|
95833680|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|16.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||16.52|-1.77|
95833681|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|13.48|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.48|-2.34|
95833682|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|5.82|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.82|-9.84|
95833683|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.25|54.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.60|30.25|
95833684|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|38.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|48.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.58|23.93|
95833685|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.15|49.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.72|28.15|
95833686|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|17.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.71|-5.31|
95833687|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|37.65|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.65|19.25|
95833688|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|37.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.95|19.60|
95833689|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|37.76|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.76|19.50|
95833690|NCT02986854|191638966|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.86|-2.56|
95833691|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.23|38.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.27|16.23|
95833692|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.78|31.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.03|8.78|
95960374|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.0746
95833693|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|24.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|33.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.86|13.28|
95833694|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|15.42|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.42|-0.76|
95833695|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.04|42.14|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||42.14|11.04|
95833696|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|16.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|0.04|
95833697|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|36.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.11|6.73|
95833698|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|10.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|21.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||21.60|-0.42|
95833699|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.65|58.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.93|28.65|
95833700|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.45|63.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.13|33.45|
95833701|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|46.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.52|60.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||60.59|31.52|
95833702|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.69|-11.84|
95833703|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|21.22|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.22|7.53|
95833704|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|20.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||20.89|7.10|
95833705|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|21.05|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||21.05|7.34|
95833706|NCT02986854|191638967|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
95833707|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|25.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.39|3.46|
95833708|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|26.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.89|5.00|
95833709|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.91|25.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.62|4.91|
95833710|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.50|-8.51|
95833711|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|34.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.83|5.25|
95833712|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|35.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.50|5.88|
95833713|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.53|34.58|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||34.58|6.53|
95833714|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||8.40|-9.67|
95833715|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|45.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.45|16.78|
95833716|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.29|49.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.20|21.29|
95833717|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|32.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|47.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.13|19.30|
95833718|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.74|-9.45|
95833719|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
95833720|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.95|9.28|
95833721|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|23.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||23.94|9.28|
95833722|NCT02986854|191638968|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
95833723|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.19|32.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.25|10.19|
95833724|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|25.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.29|3.15|
95833725|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.92|7.44|
95862689|NCT00531427|191684560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.46||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-1.48||To control multiplicity and family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy (stepwise approach) was used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary variables. If the primary is negative, the secondary P values are descriptive only.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 4, 8, 12 analysis The sleep disturbance subscale was analyzed using the mixed effect linear model with fixed effects for treatment (BTDS or placebo) and time (weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12) as categorical, screening mean and prerandomization mean value as covariates, and subject as a random effect.||-1.48|-7.44|0.0034
95833726|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|15.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.17|-1.20|
95833727|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|36.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.37|5.57|
95862690|NCT05688670|191684573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.18|-0.59|0.001
95833728|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||37.00|6.05|
95833729|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|35.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.38|6.89|
95833730|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|11.03|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.03|-12.11|
95833731|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.26|54.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.95|24.26|
95833732|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.71|57.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||57.17|26.71|
95833733|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.12|55.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.55|26.12|
95833734|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||5.73|-10.41|
95833735|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|32.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||32.08|15.26|
95833736|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.86|31.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.74|14.86|
95833737|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.08|31.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.90|15.08|
95833738|NCT02986854|191638969|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥8-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.99|-0.96|
95833739|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|11.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.23|2.08|
95833740|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|12.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.74|3.28|
95833741|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|7.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|10.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.78|2.87|
95833742|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.49|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.49|-6.10|
95833743|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|12.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.44|-3.04|
95862691|NCT05688670|191684574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-24 hour postoperative opioid use||0.08|-0.20|0.41
95833744|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|13.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.01|-2.71|
95833745|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|10.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||10.90|-2.66|
95833746|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||6.43|-7.27|
95833747|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|41.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|50.63|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.63|28.85|
95833748|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|36.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.39|46.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.34|24.39|
95833749|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.61|46.33|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||46.33|27.61|
95833750|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|15.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||15.83|-7.04|
95833751|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.68|41.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.79|22.68|
95833752|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.85|41.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.08|21.85|
95833753|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|31.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.39|41.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||41.38|22.39|
95833754|NCT02986854|191638970|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.52|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.52|-1.81|
95833755|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|30.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.55|38.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.83|19.55|
95833756|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|29.69|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.69|10.48|
95833757|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|33.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.21|15.79|
95833758|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|17.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||17.16|1.01|
95833759|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.82|38.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.90|8.82|
95833760|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|15.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|29.86|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.86|-0.44|
95833761|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|20.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|33.08|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.08|5.32|
95833762|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|9.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|20.68|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||20.68|-2.45|
95833763|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|50.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.09|63.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.67|34.09|
95833764|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.21|63.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||63.01|33.21|
95833765|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|49.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|62.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.60|34.42|
95833766|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.92|-8.30|
95833767|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|39.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.75|21.34|
95833768|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|39.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.74|21.32|
95833769|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|29.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.35|39.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||39.73|21.35|
95833770|NCT02986854|191638971|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.67|-1.60|
95833771|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|28.67|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.67|5.85|
95833772|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|29.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||29.25|6.39|
95833773|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|28.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.28|6.85|
95862692|NCT05688670|191684574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||24-48 hour postoperative opioid use||0.06|-0.37|0.14
95960375|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Drowsiness at EOT;||||0.4669
95833774|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||7.20|-8.32|
95833775|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|14.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|30.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.38|-0.98|
95833776|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|22.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|38.16|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.16|7.30|
95862693|NCT05688670|191684574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12-48 hours hours after surgery||0.09|-0.52|0.16
95960376|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.5533
95862694|NCT05688670|191684575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.22|-1.02|0.004
95862695|NCT05688670|191684576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|-20.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-20.1|-78.9|0.002
96001273|NCT02064439|191979915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.04||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||8.04|0.50|0.3235
95862696|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.06||||0.69||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.69
95862697|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.3||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.30
95862698|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
95862699|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.67||||0.001||95.0||||Values from Groups I, II and III were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.001
95862700|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.61||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.61
95862701|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.02||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.02
95862702|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.002||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.002
95862703|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.08
95862704|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.004||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95862705|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95862706|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862707|NCT00488683|191684577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95862708|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.70
95862709|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.37||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.37
96001274|NCT02064439|191979915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.84||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||6.84|0.39|0.5005
96001275|NCT02064439|191979915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.03||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||4.03|0.37|0.7337
95833777|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|33.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||33.37|4.14|
95960377|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
95833778|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-8.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|2.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.38|-18.34|
95833779|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|39.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|54.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||54.07|23.76|
95833780|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|42.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|56.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||56.98|27.08|
95833781|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|40.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.91|55.15|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||55.15|25.91|
95833782|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.89|-10.20|
95833783|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
95833784|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.74|
95833785|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.75|28.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||28.83|12.75|
95833786|NCT02986854|191638972|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|-1.31|
95833787|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|30.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.60|11.44|
95833788|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|17.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.34|26.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||26.43|7.34|
95833789|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|19.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|27.43|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.43|10.09|
95960378|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 3 h PS;||||0.1611
95833790|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 1- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.04|-3.80|
95833791|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|30.99|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||30.99|2.92|
95833792|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|31.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||31.06|2.83|
95862710|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
95960379|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.4793
95862711|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.0001
95833793|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|18.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|29.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||29.39|3.83|
95833794|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|11.39|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 4- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||11.39|-11.35|
95833795|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.64|62.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||62.38|32.64|
95833796|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.87|61.79|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||61.79|31.87|
95833797|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|48.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.04|61.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||61.31|33.04|
95833798|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.04|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 6- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||10.04|-8.60|
95833799|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|35.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.5|45.62|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||45.62|26.50|
95833800|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.94|44.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.28|24.94|
95833801|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|34.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.78|44.93|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||44.93|25.78|
95833802|NCT02986854|191638973|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Between groups differences in percentage|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- hSBA titer ≥16-Vaccine comparison at Day 29- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.60|0.10|
95833803|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|4.94|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4- Total seroresponse (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.94|-6.08|
95833804|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|6.21|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.21|-5.32|
95833805|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.09|-5.68|
95833806|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|3.01|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.01|-4.98|
95960380|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.3533
95833807|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|34.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.38|44.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||44.07|22.38|
95833808|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|26.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|36.13|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||36.13|14.67|
95833809|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|30.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.42|37.97|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||37.97|19.42|
95862712|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.01||||0.94||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.94
95833810|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|18.81|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup A- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||18.81|-3.25|
95833811|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.35|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.35|-14.26|
95833812|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.98|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|-8.70|
95833813|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|4.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.90|-11.35|
95833814|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-0.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-0.57|-12.25|
95833815|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|40.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.37|50.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.92|25.37|
95833816|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|36.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.14|47.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||47.90|22.14|
95833817|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.79|47.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.57|24.79|
95833818|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|14.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup C- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||14.73|-8.44|
95833819|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|2.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||2.31|-14.28|
95833820|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|11.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||11.60|-7.40|
95833821|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.66|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||5.66|-10.70|
95833822|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|-1.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||-1.80|-13.89|
95862713|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.7||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.70
95960381|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 24 h PS;||||0.8852
95960382|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
95833823|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.35|49.88|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||49.88|24.35|
95833824|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|37.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.23|48.95|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.95|23.23|
95960383|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.3173
95960384|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at 72 h PS;||||0.8864
95960385|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.8084
95960386|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.3173
95833825|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|38.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|47.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||47.56|24.80|
95833826|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|12.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup W- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||12.60|-10.51|
95833827|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|7.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|13.36|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||13.36|0.15|
96001276|NCT02064439|191979916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.57||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.57|0.20|<0.0001
96001277|NCT02064439|191979916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||0.54|0.19|<0.0001
96001278|NCT02064439|191979916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.8172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||Statistical analysis was performed on the first occurrence of the composite outcome.||2.06|0.57|0.8172
96001279|NCT02064439|191979917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.02||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.02|0.69|0.3318
95833828|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|9.24|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.24|-3.15|
95833829|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|9.55|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.55|-1.41|
96001280|NCT02064439|191979917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.2||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||2.20|0.44|0.9726
96001281|NCT02064439|191979917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||P-value and hazard ratio estimates based on stratified proportional hazards model, with stratification based index event (DVT or PE with or without DVT).|Wald test|||||3.06|0.70|0.3137
96001282|NCT01849250|191979927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.50
96001283|NCT01849250|191979930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.19
96001284|NCT01849250|191979931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANOVA|||||||.52
96001285|NCT01849250|191979932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
96001286|NCT00942708|191980062|OTHER|Single group evaluation of change in PVR between 12 weeks and baseline (T-test for one group, 2-sided, p\<0.05 considered significant)||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
96001287|NCT01524289|191980092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-33.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Between group comparison of percent change from baseline performed using Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model.||||-33.7|-45.7|<0.001
96001288|NCT01524289|191980093|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|8.4|-11.5|
96001289|NCT01524289|191980094|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.6|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|12.6|-4.8|
96001290|NCT01524289|191980095|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|5.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|5.6|-8.9|
96001291|NCT01524289|191980096|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|6.1|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen|6.1|-5.5|
96001292|NCT01524289|191980097|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Difference in Percentages|-8.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-20.1|0.168
96001293|NCT01524289|191980098|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-7.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|3.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.3|-18.7|0.179
96001294|NCT01524289|191980099|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-13.9||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-3.1|-25.0|0.011
96001295|NCT01524289|191980100|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||8.4|-6.8|0.696
96001296|NCT01524289|191980101|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.2|0.480
95833830|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|9.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 4-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||9.54|-2.48|
95833831|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|39.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.76|50.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse- (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||50.29|25.76|
95833832|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|48.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|58.34|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||58.34|33.89|
95833833|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|43.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.79|52.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||52.37|30.79|
95833834|NCT02986854|191638974|OTHER|Differences in percentages and associated 95% CIs between study groups were calculated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen score method|Differences in percentage|-8.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.61|3.45|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Serogroup Y- Day 6-Total seroresponse - (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||3.45|-19.61|
95833835|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.7||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.70|0.93|
95833836|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.82||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.82|0.98|
95833837|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4(Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||1.72|0.97|
95833838|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.17|0.76|
95833839|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|9.47||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.47|2.84|
95833840|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|7.5||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||7.50|2.24|
95833841|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|4.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|8.15||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||8.15|2.62|
95833842|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.91||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.91|0.84|
95833843|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|8.85||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||8.85|4.84|
95833844|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|9.98||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||9.98|5.44|
95833845|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|6.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|9.21||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||9.21|5.23|
95833846|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1||||||Serogroup A-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.72|
95833847|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|between group GMT ratios|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|6.04||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||6.04|1.95|
95833848|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.77||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.77|1.21|
95833849|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.64||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.64|1.60|
95833850|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||2.40|1.07|
95833851|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|25.19||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.19|7.51|
95833852|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|24.66||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||24.66|7.31|
95833853|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|13.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|24.0||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||24.00|7.70|
95833854|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.56||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.56|0.67|
95833855|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|27.51||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||27.51|13.73|
95833856|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|17.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|25.12||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||25.12|12.50|
96001297|NCT01524289|191980102|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
95833857|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|18.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|25.73||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||25.73|13.40|
95862714|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.3||||0.04||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
96001298|NCT01524289|191980103|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.7|>0.999
96001299|NCT01524289|191980104|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.5||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.5|-4.0|0.722
96001300|NCT01524289|191980105|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
96001301|NCT01524289|191980106|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|-1.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.9|-5.4|0.157
96001302|NCT01524289|191980107|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|1.5||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.3|-2.2|0.218
96001303|NCT01524289|191980108|OTHER|Pre-specified|Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.9|-3.6|>0.999
95833858|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||||||Serogroup C-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.40|0.86|
95833859|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.11||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||3.11|1.13|
95833860|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.08||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.08|1.48|
95833861|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.44||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||3.44|1.33|
95833862|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.10|0.53|
95833863|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|12.22||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||12.22|4.05|
95833864|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|15.66||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||15.66|5.16|
95833865|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|7.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|13.35||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||13.35|4.72|
95833866|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.14||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.14|0.54|
95833867|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.83|35.65||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||35.65|17.83|
95833868|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|34.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.06|48.23||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||48.23|24.06|
95833869|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|29.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.09|40.52||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||40.52|21.09|
95833870|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||||||Serogroup W-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||0.94|0.58|
95833871|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|4.07||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.07|1.36|
95833872|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||4.54|1.51|
95833873|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|4.14||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 - (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||4.14|1.48|
95833874|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 4 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.33|0.61|
96001304|NCT01524289|191980109|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|102.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|110.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||110.1|94.2|<0.001
95833875|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|17.64||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.64|5.47|
95833876|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|17.19||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||17.19|5.31|
95833877|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|9.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|16.79||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||16.79|5.59|
95833878|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 6 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.54|0.69|
95833879|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|28.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.23|40.2||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Naive)||40.20|20.23|
95833880|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|26.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.02||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menactra-Menveo vs. Naive)||38.02|19.09|
95833881|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.26||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Pooled Menveo-Menveo and Menactra-Menveo vs. Naïve)||38.26|20.10|
95833882|NCT02986854|191638975|OTHER|GMTs ratio and 95% CI, at each time point against each serogroups A, C, W and Y strains was obtained by exponentiating the mean between-group differences in log-transformed titers and the corresponding 95% CIs at each of the timepoints specified|Between group GMT ratios|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.35||||||Serogroup Y-Vaccine comparison at day 29 (Menveo-Menveo vs. Menactra-Menveo)||1.35|0.83|
95833883|NCT04484207|191638990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||GEE|||||||0.031
95833884|NCT04232215|191639007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.1|||Regression, Linear|A generalized linear model adjusting by intervention group and the order of randomization was conducted.||Difference in ease of use between our standard fetal Doppler and HeraBEAT™ device, as measured by the System Usability Survey (SUS) will be the primary outcome. We aim to recruit 50 participants (50 per arm, with cross-over) for a 99.7% power to detect a 10-point difference in SUS, as this accounts for a withdraw / post-randomization exclusion as high as 10% (assuming a proportion of expectant mothers to withdraw participation after being enrolled or found to not meet criteria after the fact).||6.1|-10.2|0.64
95833885|NCT04232215|191639008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.53|||Chi-squared|||||2.53|0.57|0.63
95833886|NCT04583956|191639009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.61|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.61|0.59|0.927
95833887|NCT04583956|191639010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).||2.25|0.36|0.829
95833888|NCT04583956|191639011|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.56|0.84|0.399
95833889|NCT04583956|191639012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.71|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.71|0.62|0.910
95862715|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46||||0.004||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.004
95862716|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.005||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95833890|NCT04583956|191639013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.93|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for those lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.93|0.68|0.617
95833891|NCT04583956|191639046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.46|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.46|0.82|0.550
95833892|NCT04583956|191639047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Risankizumab.|Hazard ratio (HR), confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||1.48|0.82|0.523
95833893|NCT00896441|191639058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One sample t-test||||||<0.01
95833894|NCT00896441|191639060|OTHER||||||<|0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Single group t-test||||||<.006
95833895|NCT01031979|191639064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.59|||mixed effects/hierarchical linear model|||||-0.59|-2.29|<0.001
95833896|NCT01031979|191639065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.39
95862717|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95833897|NCT01031979|191639066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.55||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||||.58
95833898|NCT01031979|191639067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta|-1.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.49|||Hierarchical Linear Modeling|||||-0.49|-2.71|.03
95833899|NCT02814175|191639068|OTHER|Between group difference|point estimate difference|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factor which is the duration of prior MTX 15 mg ew use of ≤ 3 months or \> 3 months.||||38.9|17.8|< 0.001
95833900|NCT00924508|191639089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
95833901|NCT00924508|191639089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
95833902|NCT00924508|191639089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and post-treatment comparison||||<0.001
95833903|NCT00244101|191639091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.03||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX or NCPAP.||1.03|0.59|
95833904|NCT00244101|191639091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.27||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.27|0.25|
95833905|NCT00244101|191639092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.94||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95 % CI calculated for PS (reference) versus ISX.||1.94|0.49|
95833906|NCT00244101|191639092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09||||||PS group used as standard of care. Relative risk and 95% CI calculated for PS (reference) versus NCPAP.||1.09|0.64|
95833907|NCT00741013|191639127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Only a single statistical analysis was performed upon completion of the study.|ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance was performed to determine whether lovastatin or rhAPC effectively reduced endotoxin-induced lung inflammation.||||<0.05
95833908|NCT04493281|191639138|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-t for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||||1.04|0.91|
95833909|NCT04493281|191639139|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-inf for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.04||||||||1.04|0.92|
95833910|NCT04493281|191639140|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), which included factors accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects nested in sequences, period, and treatment. For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for oral suspension and intravenous formulation were required to be within the range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio (PO/IV)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.36||||||||1.36|1.09|
95833911|NCT02870101|191639193|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|94.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.7|97.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.0|90.7|
95862718|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.43||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95833912|NCT02870101|191639193|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
95833913|NCT02870101|191639194|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|94.4|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.4|86.5|
95833914|NCT02870101|191639194|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.3|
95833915|NCT02870101|191639195|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.3|97.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||97.3|91.3|
95833916|NCT02870101|191639195|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|99.2|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.2|98.3|
95833917|NCT02870101|191639196|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|98.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.3|92.9|
95833918|NCT02870101|191639196|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.8|99.5|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.5|98.8|
95833919|NCT02870101|191639197|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|89.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.0|79.4|
95862719|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.82||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and memory B cells at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95862720|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.68||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 2 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.68
95833920|NCT02870101|191639197|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.7|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.7|99.2|
95833921|NCT02870101|191639198|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.2|92.0|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.0|83.2|
95833922|NCT02870101|191639198|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.2|
95833923|NCT02870101|191639199|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||98.9|86.3|
95833924|NCT02870101|191639199|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
95833925|NCT02870101|191639200|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|89.9|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||89.9|80.9|
95833926|NCT02870101|191639200|OTHER|Estimated Negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|99.6|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.6|98.9|
95833927|NCT02870101|191639201|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|94.5|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||94.5|76.6|
95833928|NCT02870101|191639201|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|99.8|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.8|99.4|
95862721|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.46||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.46
96001305|NCT01524289|191980110|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|-31.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-31.1|-41.7|<0.001
95833929|NCT02870101|191639202|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|88.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|92.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||92.3|83.9|
95833930|NCT02870101|191639202|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|99.1|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.1|98.2|
95833931|NCT02870101|191639203|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.5|91.7|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||91.7|71.5|
95833932|NCT02870101|191639203|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.5|99.9|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.9|99.5|
95833933|NCT02870101|191639204|OTHER|Estimated positive percent agreement (PPA) defined as: (Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Positive + Index Test Positive; ASIS Positive + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Indeterminate + Index Test Negative; ASIS Indeterminate)|PPA|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.6|87.3|||||PPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||87.3|77.6|
95833934|NCT02870101|191639204|OTHER|Estimated negative percent agreement (NPA) defined as: (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative) / (Index Test Negative; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Negative + Index Test Equivocal; ASIS Negative + Index Test Positive; ASIS Indeterminate)|NPA|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|99.4|||||NPA estimated with two-sided 95% score confidence interval.|||99.4|98.6|
95833935|NCT04776135|191639240|OTHER|AUC0-t was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.041|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-t, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.041|0.936|
95833936|NCT04776135|191639240|OTHER|AUC0-inf was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.033|||ANOVA|||For AUC0-inf, MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.033|0.931|
95833937|NCT04776135|191639241|OTHER|Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed by analysis of variance using administration groups, the administration route, study periods, and subjects as factors. Estimates of the mean values on the log scale, the mean difference between administration routes on the log scale, and 90% CIs for the difference were back transformed to present mean ratios and their 90% CIs for administration via NGT to oral administration.|Ratio (NGT/oral)|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.903|1.227|||ANOVA|||MT-1186 orally Versus MT-1186 via NGT||1.227|0.903|
95833938|NCT03392649|191639258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95833939|NCT03392649|191639259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
95833940|NCT03392649|191639260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95833941|NCT03392649|191639261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
95833942|NCT03392649|191639262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
95833943|NCT03392649|191639263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95833944|NCT03392649|191639264|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95833945|NCT03392649|191639265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95833946|NCT03927144|191639273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|9.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (no. of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2) after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||9.82|4.28|<0.0001
95833947|NCT03927144|191639274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.53|16.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||16.87|7.53|<0.0001
95833948|NCT03927144|191639275|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.52|||Linear mixed effects model||AMG334 70 mg/140 mg vs Oral Prophylactic|Comparison of mean change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Week 52||-1.52|-2.74|<0.001
95833949|NCT03927144|191639276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.08|20.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for number of prior prophylactic migraine treatment failures=1 vs 2 after missing data were imputed as non-response.||||20.83|9.08|<0.001
95833950|NCT04617496|191639296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95833951|NCT04617496|191639297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95833952|NCT04508530|191639309|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1||||0.00855|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.2|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|0.2|0.00855
95833953|NCT04508530|191639310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.0718|ONE_SIDED|2.5||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||6.7||0.0718
95833954|NCT04508530|191639311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0111
95833955|NCT03703856|191639320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||Change in ADAS-Cog score over time||||0.68
95833956|NCT03703856|191639321|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95833957|NCT03703856|191639322|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95833958|NCT04071158|191639378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||||||Difference in percentage||2.8|-1.4|
95833959|NCT04071158|191639379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.7||||||Difference in percentage||1.7|-4.6|
95833960|NCT04071158|191639380|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||1.00|0.64|
95833961|NCT04071158|191639380|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.70|0.50|
95833962|NCT04071158|191639380|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.76||||||Anti-PT: Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing the GMC of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMC of placebo/Tdap arm.||0.76|0.48|
95833963|NCT04071158|191639381|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups greater than (\>) 0.5.||1.13|0.84|
95833964|NCT04071158|191639382|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|2.0-fold margin (related to primary objective): primary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.5.||1.14|0.81|
95833965|NCT04071158|191639387|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.13|0.84|
95833966|NCT04071158|191639388|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||||Ratio of geometric mean was calculated by dividing GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with Tdap arm by GMT of RSV vaccine with aluminum hydroxide with placebo arm.|1.5-fold margin (related to secondary objective): secondary objective was demonstrated if the lower limit of 95% CI from the ratio of titers with 50 percent cut off from two treatment groups \> 0.67.||1.14|0.81|
95833967|NCT03245008|191639393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.86||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.86|-1.57|<0.001
95833968|NCT03245008|191639393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.76|0.103
95833969|NCT03245008|191639394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.92||Adjusted P-value|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.60|<0.001
95960387|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Inability to Concentrate at EOT;||||0.2207
95833970|NCT03245008|191639394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.05||||||||-0.05|-0.84|
95833971|NCT00997620|191639409|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis was of t testing of the difference of the mean between the baseline and after two weeks. The power analysis was prior to data collection was not performed for this test. The null hypothesis is no different, no difference between placebo and active treatment.||||< .05
95833972|NCT02096263|191639485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.31|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid (PT), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.31|0.92|
95833973|NCT02096263|191639485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.35|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Infanrix vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||1.35|0.97|
95833974|NCT02096263|191639485|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigens will be demonstrated if, for each of the three antigens, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio \[Pediarix Group divided by Infanrix hexa Group\] is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Adjusted GMC (ANCOVA model adjusted with the vaccine group as fixed effect and the Tdap vaccination history of the mother during pregnancy as continuous regressor.).|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Infanrix hexa to Pediarix co-administered with ActHIB, in terms of antibody geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for pertussis antigen, pertactin (PRN), one month after the third dose of the primary vaccination.||0.99|0.63|
95833975|NCT01300455|191639541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|5.09|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||5.09|0.22|
95833976|NCT01300455|191639544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|0.42|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.42|-0.49|
95833977|NCT01300455|191639544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.33|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.33|-0.45|
95960388|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.3747
95833978|NCT01300455|191639545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|2.79|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.79|-1.31|
95833979|NCT01300455|191639545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.59|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.59|-0.10|
95833980|NCT01300455|191639545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.01|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||1.01|-0.59|
95833981|NCT01300455|191639545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.65|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.65|-0.09|
95833982|NCT01300455|191639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.49|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.49|-0.61|
95833983|NCT01300455|191639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.5|||Difference of the Least Sqares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.41|
95833984|NCT01300455|191639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.1|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.10|-1.13|
95833985|NCT01300455|191639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.24|
95833986|NCT01300455|191639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.43|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.43|-0.40|
95833987|NCT01300455|191639546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.25|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.25|-0.61|
95833988|NCT01300455|191639547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|2.26|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.26|-3.20|
95833989|NCT04598269|191639586|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means (LSM) % Differences|-33.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.95|-18.08||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Week 4: Least Square Means (LSM) % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|||-18.08|-47.95|<0.001
95833990|NCT04598269|191639587|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.47|-8.59||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|MMRM||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 8: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 8 statistical analysis||-8.59|-38.47|0.005
95833991|NCT04598269|191639587|SUPERIORITY||LSM % Differences|-23.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.971||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.38|-8.5||P-value is based on a 1-sided hypothesis test of the superiority of ATI-1777 relative to the vehicle. Significance level at α = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factors for treatment, visit, visit\*treatment, baseline measurement. A compound symmetry covariance matrix was used to account for within-subject variability.~Day 15: LSM % differences ATI-1777 arm minus vehicle arm"|Day 15 statistical analysis||-8.50|-38.38|0.005
95833992|NCT04598269|191639588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|63.2||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||63.2|3.9|<0.001
95833993|NCT04598269|191639589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|17.0||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Linear||Active/Vehicle|||17.0|2.1|0.003
95833994|NCT04598269|191639590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.3||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|Regression, Logistic||Active/Vehicle|||5.3|0.6|0.203
95833995|NCT04598269|191639591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.148
95833996|NCT04598269|191639591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.017
95833997|NCT04598269|191639591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.002
95833998|NCT04598269|191639592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.088
95833999|NCT04598269|191639592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.022
95834000|NCT04598269|191639592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance.|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||<0.001
95834001|NCT04598269|191639593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 8 statistical analysis||||0.014
95834002|NCT04598269|191639593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Day 15 statistical analysis||||0.069
95834003|NCT04598269|191639593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||1-sided p-value of responders in the treatment groups at 0.05 level of significance|MMRM|||Week 4 statistical analysis||||0.060
95855163|NCT02978781|191669822|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.9579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.54|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Forward outstretched postural tremor (FOPT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.54|-0.57|0.9579
95834004|NCT00424190|191639595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||6.2|-4.2|
95834005|NCT02102399|191639621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95834006|NCT02102399|191639622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.345
95834007|NCT02102399|191639623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95834008|NCT02102399|191639624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.171
95834009|NCT02102399|191639625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.022
95834010|NCT02102399|191639626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.451
95834011|NCT02102399|191639627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.477
95834012|NCT02102399|191639628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.007
95834013|NCT02102399|191639629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.049
95862722|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.08||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
95834014|NCT02102399|191639630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.323
95834015|NCT02102399|191639631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.296
95834016|NCT02102399|191639632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.776
95834017|NCT02102399|191639633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon's signed-rank test|||||||0.959
95834018|NCT02102399|191639634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95834019|NCT02102399|191639635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95834020|NCT02102399|191639636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.20
95834021|NCT02102399|191639637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95834022|NCT02102399|191639638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95834023|NCT02102399|191639639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95834024|NCT02102399|191639640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
95834025|NCT02102399|191639641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.030
95834026|NCT02102399|191639642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.107
95834027|NCT01115673|191639655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|469.37|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
95834028|NCT01115673|191639655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|102.09||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||0.001
95834029|NCT01115673|191639655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|367.28|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.|SPRID6 = 0.25 times (PRID at 15 min + PRID at 30 min + PRID at 45 min + PRID at 60 min + PRID at 75 min + PRID at 90 min) + 0.5 times (PRID at 120 minutes) + PRID at 3 hours + PRID at 4 hours + PRID at 5 hours + PRID at 6 hours.|First test H1: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs placebo at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level; If H1 was rejected then, Test H2: acetaminophen 1000 mg vs acetaminophen 650 mg, and Test H3: acetaminophen 650 mg vs placebo; H2 and H3 were each tested at the alpha = 0.025 one-tail level.||||<0.001
95834030|NCT01115673|191639656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.7|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834031|NCT01115673|191639656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.14||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
95862723|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45|||<|0.001||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||<0.001
95834032|NCT01115673|191639656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|178.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834033|NCT01115673|191639657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|242.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834034|NCT01115673|191639657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.95||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834035|NCT01115673|191639657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|188.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834036|NCT01115673|191639658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.037||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.037
95834037|NCT01115673|191639658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.294||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.294
95834038|NCT01115673|191639658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.66||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
95834039|NCT01115673|191639659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.85|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834040|NCT01115673|191639659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.946||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.946
95834041|NCT01115673|191639659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834042|NCT01115673|191639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834043|NCT01115673|191639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.661||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.661
95834044|NCT01115673|191639660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.62|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834045|NCT01115673|191639661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.56|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834046|NCT01115673|191639661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.13||95.0||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.13
95834047|NCT01115673|191639661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.67|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834048|NCT01115673|191639662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95960389|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.1450
95960390|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 3 h PS;||||0.2054
95960391|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.4106
95960392|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2199
95960393|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at 24 h PS;||||0.2896
95960394|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||1.0000
95960395|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3173
95834049|NCT01115673|191639662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42||||0.041||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.041
95834050|NCT01115673|191639662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95960396|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Nausea at EOT;||||0.3943
95960397|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.1703
95960398|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.0807
95960399|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 3 h PS;||||0.7728
95960400|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.4770
95960401|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.3625
95960402|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 24 h PS;||||0.0617
95960403|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at 72 h PS;||||0.3061
95960404|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.2207
95960405|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dizziness at EOT;||||0.3173
95960406|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.9191
95960407|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.3173
95960408|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 3 h PS;||||0.2207
95960409|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6692
95834051|NCT01115673|191639663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.97|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834052|NCT01115673|191639663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34||||0.02||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.02
95834053|NCT01115673|191639663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.63|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834054|NCT01115673|191639664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.46|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834055|NCT01115673|191639664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.08||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
95834056|NCT01115673|191639664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.38|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834057|NCT01115673|191639665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834058|NCT01115673|191639665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.83||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834059|NCT01115673|191639665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.59|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834060|NCT01115673|191639666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.99|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834061|NCT01115673|191639666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95862724|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.75||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||0.75
95960410|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7793|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.7793
95960411|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 24 h PS;||||0.6065
95834062|NCT01115673|191639666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.42|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834063|NCT01115673|191639667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.04|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834064|NCT01115673|191639667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834065|NCT01115673|191639667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834066|NCT01115673|191639668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834067|NCT01115673|191639668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.58||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834068|NCT01115673|191639668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95862725|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.27||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||0.27
95960412|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.3570
95834069|NCT01115673|191639669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.35||||0.028||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.028
95834070|NCT01115673|191639669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.462||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.462
95834071|NCT01115673|191639669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.008||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.008
95834072|NCT01115673|191639670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.81|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834073|NCT01115673|191639670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.907||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.907
95834074|NCT01115673|191639670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834075|NCT01115673|191639671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.19|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834076|NCT01115673|191639671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.655||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.655
95834077|NCT01115673|191639671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834078|NCT01115673|191639672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.15|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834079|NCT01115673|191639672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.33||||0.155||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.155
95834080|NCT01115673|191639672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834081|NCT01115673|191639673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.69|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95960413|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.9690
95834082|NCT01115673|191639673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.04||||0.05||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.05
95834083|NCT01115673|191639673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834084|NCT01115673|191639674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.83|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834085|NCT01115673|191639674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.74||||0.032||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.032
95834086|NCT01115673|191639674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834087|NCT01115673|191639675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.36|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95960414|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at 72 h PS;||||0.5299
95960415|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.4821
95834088|NCT01115673|191639675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52||||0.003||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.003
95834089|NCT01115673|191639675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834090|NCT01115673|191639676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834091|NCT01115673|191639676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834092|NCT01115673|191639676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.75|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834093|NCT01115673|191639677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.84|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834094|NCT01115673|191639677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834095|NCT01115673|191639677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.02|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834096|NCT01115673|191639678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.4|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95960416|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8295|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.8295
95960417|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Constipation at EOT;||||0.3304
95960418|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 3 h PS;||||0.2482
95960419|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
95834097|NCT01115673|191639678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834098|NCT01115673|191639678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834099|NCT01115673|191639679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834100|NCT01115673|191639679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
95834101|NCT01115673|191639679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.55|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834102|NCT01115673|191639680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65||||0.027||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.027
95834103|NCT01115673|191639680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49||||0.365||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.365
95960420|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.2207
95960421|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8055|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 24 h PS;||||0.8055
96001306|NCT01524289|191980111|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-20.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-20.1|-29.5|<0.001
95834104|NCT01115673|191639680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14||||0.005||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.005
95834105|NCT01115673|191639681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.65|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834106|NCT01115673|191639681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.923||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.923
95834107|NCT01115673|191639681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834108|NCT01115673|191639682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.87|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834109|NCT01115673|191639682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.653||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.653
95834110|NCT01115673|191639682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834111|NCT01115673|191639683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.71|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834112|NCT01115673|191639683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21||||0.138||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.138
95834113|NCT01115673|191639683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834114|NCT01115673|191639684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.66|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834115|NCT01115673|191639684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.043||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.043
95834116|NCT01115673|191639684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.2|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834117|NCT01115673|191639685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.8|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834118|NCT01115673|191639685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.08||||0.024||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.024
95834119|NCT01115673|191639685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.72|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834120|NCT01115673|191639686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834121|NCT01115673|191639686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834122|NCT01115673|191639686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.23|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834123|NCT01115673|191639687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.22|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
96001307|NCT01524289|191980112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|37.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||37.6|28.2|<0.001
96001308|NCT01524289|191980113|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-21.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the median difference between treatments with a corresponding distribution-free confidence interval (CI) based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test.|||-21.2|-34.7|<0.001
95834124|NCT01115673|191639687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.87||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834125|NCT01115673|191639687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834126|NCT01115673|191639688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|85.82|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834127|NCT01115673|191639688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834128|NCT01115673|191639688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834129|NCT01115673|191639689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.44|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834130|NCT01115673|191639689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834131|NCT01115673|191639689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.94|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834132|NCT01115673|191639690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.39|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834133|NCT01115673|191639690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.98||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834134|NCT01115673|191639690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.41|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834135|NCT01115673|191639691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95960422|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.9191
95834136|NCT01115673|191639691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.26
95834137|NCT01115673|191639691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834138|NCT01115673|191639692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834139|NCT01115673|191639692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.934
95834140|NCT01115673|191639692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the Wilcoxon test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Wilcoxon test, from SAS PROC LIFETEST|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834141|NCT01115673|191639693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
95834142|NCT01115673|191639693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
95834143|NCT01115673|191639693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). p-Values are based on the log-rank test from PROC LIFETEST that compared survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects not rescuing during the 6-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 6 hours and were censored.||||<0.001
95834144|NCT01115673|191639694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834145|NCT01115673|191639694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.002||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.002
95834146|NCT01115673|191639694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834147|NCT01115673|191639695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834148|NCT01115673|191639695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834149|NCT01115673|191639695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834150|NCT01115673|191639696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.45|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834151|NCT01115673|191639696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.006
95834152|NCT01115673|191639696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by categorical baseline pain rating.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834153|NCT01115673|191639697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834154|NCT01115673|191639697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||0.001
95834155|NCT01115673|191639697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical ratings were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||||<0.001
95834156|NCT01732770|191639698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.46% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
95834157|NCT01732770|191639699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI) of (denosumab - zoledronic acid) was compared with the non-inferiority margin of -0.51% for assessing non-inferiority.|Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the non-inferiority analysis the 1-sided significance level was 2.5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
95834158|NCT01732770|191639700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.6|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||2.6|1.6|<0.0001
95834159|NCT01732770|191639701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|The model included treatment, screening sCTX, baseline BMD, DXA machine type (Hologic or Lunar), and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction.|Treatment difference = denosumab - zoledronic acid|A step-down sequential testing procedure was used in order to maintain the overall type I error rate at 5% for the tests of primary and secondary BMD endpoints. For the superiority analysis the 2-sided significance level was 5%.||1.7|1.0|<0.0001
95834160|NCT02170870|191639703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs diabetics adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.06
95960423|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.8488
95834161|NCT02170870|191639703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Mean GI symptom score during lipid infusion in controls vs functional dyspepsia adjusted for treatment status (ie, exendin or placebo)||||0.0001
95834162|NCT01128192|191639708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.240
95834163|NCT01128192|191639708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose level||||0.339
95834164|NCT01128192|191639709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
95960424|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at 72 h PS;||||0.2482
95834165|NCT01128192|191639709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834166|NCT01128192|191639709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P Value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834167|NCT01128192|191639709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
95834168|NCT01128192|191639709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834169|NCT01128192|191639709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834170|NCT01128192|191639710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||0.019
95834171|NCT01128192|191639710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in fasting plasma insulin level||||<0.001
95834172|NCT01128192|191639711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
95834173|NCT01128192|191639711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834174|NCT01128192|191639711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834175|NCT01128192|191639711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-30 minutes||||<0.001
95834176|NCT01128192|191639711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 30-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834177|NCT01128192|191639711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834178|NCT01128192|191639712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
95834179|NCT01128192|191639712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Change in Baseline Insulin Level||||<0.001
95834180|NCT01128192|191639713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
95834181|NCT01128192|191639713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834182|NCT01128192|191639713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834183|NCT01128192|191639713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-10 minutes||||<0.001
95834184|NCT01128192|191639713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 10-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834185|NCT01128192|191639713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Pre and Post treatment Area Under the Curve (AUC) 0-180 minutes||||<0.001
95834186|NCT01128192|191639714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.608
95834187|NCT01128192|191639714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Basal EGP||||0.132
95834188|NCT01128192|191639715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.178
95834189|NCT01128192|191639715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.111
95834190|NCT01128192|191639716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in high-dose % EGP Inhibition||||0.573
95834191|NCT01128192|191639717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
95834192|NCT01128192|191639717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in Low-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.125
95834193|NCT01128192|191639718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.993
95834194|NCT01128192|191639718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P value.|ANOVA|||Change in High-Dose Glucose Disposal Rate (GDR)||||0.956
95834195|NCT04207749|191639727|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures||Least squares mean difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity).|||0.02|-0.00|
95960425|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
95834196|NCT04207749|191639728|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects is presented. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||Since noninferiority hypotheses are being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning||Lens difference (LID015385 minus Biofinity)|||0.04|-0.06|
95834197|NCT03176771|191639729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.6|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||"Control for multiplicity was accomplished through the a fixed-sequence testing procedure for Week 6 outcomes:~* AIMS dyskinesia total score mean change from baseline (CFB): MT-5199 80 mg vs. placebo.~* AIMS: MT-5199 40 mg vs. PBO. For a test result in the above list to be considered statistically significant, all of the test results higher in the list must have been significant at the 0.05 level of significance."||-2.6|-4.5|<0.001
95834198|NCT03176771|191639729|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.3|-3.0|<0.001
95834199|NCT03176771|191639730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
95834200|NCT03176771|191639730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95834201|NCT03176771|191639731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.3|-2.7|0.013
95834202|NCT03176771|191639731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-3.5|<0.001
95834203|NCT03176771|191639732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.7|0.021
95834204|NCT03176771|191639732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||ANOVA|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
95834205|NCT01192412|191639773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.35||||||We estimated that with a sample size of 514 per group, the study would have 80% power, at a two-tailed alpha level of 0.05, assuming primary outcome rates of 33% in the tight-control group and 25% in the less-tight-control group, a 10% rate of crossover, a 1% loss to follow-up, and two interim analyses, as calculated with the chi-square test with the use of East software (Cytel) and the Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming-type boundaries for early stopping.||1.35|0.77|
95960426|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2207
95834206|NCT01192412|191639774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.84||||||||3.84|0.79|
95834207|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.309|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.309|0.854|0.6294
95834208|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||30.7|18.4|
95834209|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|34.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||34.4|20.9|
95834210|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.5032
95834211|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.3|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||13.3|4.7|
95834212|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 12 months|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.5|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.5|3.3|
95834213|NCT02421588|191639775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6742|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.6742
95834214|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.209|||Log Rank|||PFS between treatments||1.209|0.805|0.7673
95834215|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|35.4|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||35.4|22.8|
95834216|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 6 months|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|33.9|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 6 months||33.9|21.3|
95834217|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7385|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 6 months between treatments||||0.7385
95834218|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.7|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.7|4.8|
95834219|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY||PFS (%) at 12 months|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|12.2|||||Percent of Participants|PFS (%) at 12 months||12.2|4.2|
95834220|NCT02421588|191639776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8245|||||||Normal approximation|||PFS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.8245
95834221|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.183|||Log Rank|||OS between treatments||1.183|0.772|0.8021
95834222|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY||OS at 12 months|48.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.3|54.8|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||54.8|41.3|
95834223|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 12 months|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.0|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 12 months||52.0|38.4|
95834224|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5515|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 12 months between treatments||||0.5515
95834225|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|28.2|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.2|16.8|
95834226|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY||OS (%) at 24 months|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|28.7|||||Percent of Participants|OS (%) at 24 months||28.7|17.1|
95834227|NCT02421588|191639777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9253|||||||Normal approximation|||OS (%) at 24 months between treatments||||0.9253
95834228|NCT02421588|191639778|SUPERIORITY||ORR|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|19.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||19.8|10.1|
95834229|NCT02421588|191639778|SUPERIORITY||ORR|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|17.8|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate||17.8|8.6|
95834230|NCT02421588|191639778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6772|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate between treatments||||0.6772
95960427|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Itching at EOT;||||0.2482
95834231|NCT02421588|191639779|SUPERIORITY||ORR|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|21.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||21.3|11.3|
95834232|NCT02421588|191639779|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate (ORR)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.3|||||Percent of Participants|Overall response rate (ORR)||22.3|12.1|
95834233|NCT02421588|191639779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8976|||||||Fisher Exact|||Overall response rate (ORR) between treatments||||0.8976
95834234|NCT02421588|191639780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.569|||Log Rank|||Duration of response between treatments||2.569|0.769|0.2631
95834235|NCT02421588|191639781|SUPERIORITY|Duration of response between treatments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.743|||Log Rank|||||1.743|0.64|0.8276
95834236|NCT02421588|191639782|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|33.8|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||33.8|20.2|
95834237|NCT02421588|191639782|SUPERIORITY||ORR (%)|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|26.3|||||Percent of Participants|ORR (%) by CA-125||26.3|13.7|
95834238|NCT02421588|191639782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Fisher Exact|||ORR (%) by CA-125 between treatments||||0.1231
95960428|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.3291
95834239|NCT02354222|191639807|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-1.16|<0.001
95834240|NCT02354222|191639808|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||||-7.9|-23.3|<0.001
95834241|NCT02354222|191639809|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23|||ANCOVA|||||2.23|0.63|<0.001
95834242|NCT02354222|191639810|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-37.6|||ANCOVA|||||-37.6|-74.1|<0.001
95834243|NCT02354222|191639811|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-25.2|||ANCOVA|||||-25.2|-49.9|<0.001
95834244|NCT03436693|191639850|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.5||||||||21.5|1.2|
95834245|NCT03436693|191639851|OTHER|Point Estimate|Difference(Multiple imputation method)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.7||||||||11.7|-4.1|
95834246|NCT03436693|191639852|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSMean|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.40|-1.21|0.351
95834247|NCT03436693|191639853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.55|||Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.23|0.293
95834248|NCT03436693|191639854|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMean|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.646|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.646|0.418|<0.001
95834249|NCT02473367|191639875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. least-squares mean ratio (GLSMR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.24|
95834250|NCT02473367|191639875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.73|
95834251|NCT02473367|191639875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.03|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.03|0.80|
95834252|NCT02473367|191639876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.32|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.32|0.21|
95834253|NCT02473367|191639876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.15|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||1.15|0.65|
95834254|NCT02473367|191639876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.17|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||1.17|0.81|
95834255|NCT02473367|191639877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.61|||||Raltegravir+TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.61|0.45|
95834256|NCT02473367|191639877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|0.52|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs Leader Antacid/Raltegravir only|||0.52|0.34|
95834257|NCT02473367|191639877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GLSMR|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.51|||||Raltegravir+12 Hrs TUMS/Raltegravir only|||0.51|0.36|
95834258|NCT04816721|191639880|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.28|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.28|-2.21|0.1249
95834259|NCT04816721|191639880|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|0.05|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.05|-2.88|0.0580
95834260|NCT04816721|191639880|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|1.16|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.16|-2.02|0.5877
95834261|NCT04816721|191639880|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.43|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.43|-0.76|0.2932
95960429|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.1391
95960430|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 3 h PS;||||0.6318
95834262|NCT04816721|191639881|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
95834263|NCT04816721|191639881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.58|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.58|-1.23|0.4728
95834264|NCT04816721|191639881|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.39|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.39|-1.79|0.2058
95834265|NCT04816721|191639881|OTHER|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.41|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.41|-0.74|0.5391
95834266|NCT04816721|191639883|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.59|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 3: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||0.59|-0.93|0.6574
95834267|NCT04816721|191639883|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.47|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 5: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||1.47|-2.81|0.5359
95834268|NCT04816721|191639883|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.73||||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.5|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 9: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||2.50|-7.95|0.3029
95862726|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.07||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
95960431|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.6319
95834269|NCT04816721|191639883|SUPERIORITY|The model included treatment group (EDP-938, placebo) and Day (3, 5, 9, and 14) as fixed effect, associated baseline, and treatment group by day interaction term as factors. An unstructured covariance matrix was imposed. The Satterthwaite approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64||||0.3871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|4.69|||Mixed-effect Model of Repeated Measures|||Day 1 through Day 14: EDP-938 Versus Placebo||4.69|-11.98|0.3871
95834270|NCT00510744|191639918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired changes in fat absorption assessed by parametric (t test) or non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney)||||<0.05
95834271|NCT02678923|191639927|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.52||Baseline parameter value as a covariate and treatment group as factor, adjusting for country and prior statin use.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|-0.07|0.0738
95834272|NCT04018313|191639953|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|105.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.91|116.31||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||116.31|95.91|
95834273|NCT04018313|191639953|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax|Ratio of geometric least square means|98.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|108.58||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.58|89.76|
95834274|NCT04018313|191639953|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.09|102.68||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||102.68|85.09|
95960432|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8149|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.8149
95960433|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 24 h PS;||||0.5795
95834275|NCT04018313|191639954|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.96|113.89||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.89|94.96|
95834276|NCT04018313|191639954|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.79|108.61||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||108.61|90.79|
95834277|NCT04018313|191639954|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|95.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|104.37||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||104.37|87.36|
95834278|NCT04018313|191639955|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.15|124.11||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||124.11|103.15|
95834279|NCT04018313|191639955|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|103.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.83|113.8||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||113.80|94.83|
95834280|NCT04018313|191639955|EQUIVALENCE|The similarity of PK between CT-P39 versus EU-approved Xolair, CT-P39 versus US-licensed Xolair, and EU-approved Xolair versus US-licensed Xolair was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of geometric means of each comparison are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least square means|91.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.87|100.52||||||The statistical analysis of the log-transformed primary endpoints was based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline body weight, total IgE level and sex as covariates.||100.52|83.87|
95834281|NCT05342597|191639962|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.128|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.128|0.931|
95834282|NCT05342597|191639962|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.056|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.056|0.871|
95834283|NCT05342597|191639962|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.827|1.002|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.002|0.827|
95834284|NCT05342597|191639962|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.712|0.901|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.901|0.712|
95834285|NCT05342597|191639963|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.429|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.429|0.821|
95834286|NCT05342597|191639963|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|1.15|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.150|0.661|
95834287|NCT05342597|191639963|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.621|1.082|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.082|0.621|
95834288|NCT05342597|191639963|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of each meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.362|0.794|||ANOVA|||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.794|0.362|
95834289|NCT03446456|191639977|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in changes of BOLD signal in the brain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00264||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|t-test, 2 sided|||Percentage of BOLD signal change was calculated as the BOLD signal in the right supplementary motor area (SMA, a typical brain area responding to pain stimulation), divided by the BOLD signal of the whole-brain average during the 24 trials of 20-second painful stimulations. The percentage of BOLD signal changes in SMA during the 20-second painful stimulations were compared between the Saline group and the Vasopressin group using an equivalence test.||||0.982
95834290|NCT03446456|191639978|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in heating temperature that was used for the testing phase.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.282||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|ANCOVA|The drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as a between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||||||0.269
95834291|NCT03446456|191639979|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in implicit racial biases.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.378|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Drug group (Vasopressin vs. Saline) was set as between-subject factor. Age and race were treated as covariates.||"Response latencies were recorded to calculate the IAT difference score (D). A difference score (D) was calculated based on the following steps: 1) Compute the standard deviation (SD) of response latencies from overall trials; 2) M1 is the mean of the response latencies in the condition where White people and good share the same response key. M2 is the mean of the latencies in the condition where African-American/Asian people and good share the same response key; 3) D = (M2-M1)/SD."||||0.378
95834292|NCT03446456|191639980|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test was conducted to compare if the vasopressin group differed from the saline group in self-reported pain intensity ratings.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni corrected|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and heating temperature used during the testing phase were treated as covariates.||||||0.014
95834293|NCT02227394|191640032|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.098|0.724|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.724|-1.098|0.727
95834294|NCT02227394|191640033|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.002|0.007|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.007|-0.002|0.366
95834295|NCT02227394|191640035|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.035|0.084|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.084|-0.035|0.486
95834296|NCT02227394|191640036|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.049||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.052|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.150|-0.052|0.413
95834297|NCT02227394|191640037|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.289|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.090|-0.289|0.375
95834298|NCT02227394|191640038|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.092|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.110|-0.092|0.879
95834299|NCT02227394|191640039|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.149|0.195|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.195|-0.149|0.819
95834300|NCT02227394|191640040|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.87|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.070|-1.870|0.643
95834301|NCT02227394|191640041|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.122|-0.100|0.866
95834302|NCT02227394|191640042|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.054||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.043|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.043|0.346
95834303|NCT02227394|191640043|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.001|0.058|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.058|0.001|0.093
95834304|NCT02227394|191640044|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.074||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.386|0.238|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.238|-0.386|0.686
95834305|NCT02227394|191640046|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.368||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.659|6.922|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.922|-27.659|0.312
95834306|NCT02227394|191640047|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.361|0.321|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.321|-0.361|0.920
95834307|NCT02227394|191640048|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.513|0.673|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.673|-0.513|0.818
95834308|NCT02227394|191640049|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.789|20.011|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.011|2.789|0.034
95834309|NCT02227394|191640050|OTHER|The difference between the predose and postdose values of test product and the reference product was compared after applying Benjamini-Hochberg correction (BH) to control the false discovery rate and after Holm-Bonferroni correction (Holm) to control the family-wise error rate.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.323|17.523|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.523|-6.323|0.427
95834310|NCT01178099|191640075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.33|0.829|
95834311|NCT01178099|191640075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.718|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||1.12|0.718|
95834312|NCT01178099|191640075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.656|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD.|||1.25|0.656|
95960434|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.1750
95960435|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at 72 h PS;||||0.0676
95834313|NCT01178099|191640076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.664|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall).|||1.37|0.664|
95834314|NCT01178099|191640076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.436|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD.|||0.860|0.436|
95834315|NCT01178099|191640076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.625|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD.|||1.68|0.625|
95834316|NCT01178099|191640077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
95834317|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.10|1.10|
95834318|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.94|1.06|
95834319|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.21|0.918|
95834320|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.27|0.742|
95834321|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.05|0.633|
95834322|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for the 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.38|0.658|
95960436|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.2943
95834323|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.65|0.833|
95834324|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.779|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.48|0.779|
95834325|NCT01178099|191640078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(AUC) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.30|0.510|
95834326|NCT01178099|191640079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95834327|NCT01178099|191640080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
95834328|NCT01178099|191640081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.219
95834329|NCT01178099|191640082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
95834330|NCT01178099|191640083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.168
95834331|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-95913 metabolite.|||2.22|1.01|
95834332|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||1.58|0.751|
95834333|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-95913 metabolite.|||3.20|1.09|
95834334|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.873|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.15|0.660|
95834335|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.524|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||0.886|0.524|
95960437|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difficulty Urinating at EOT;||||0.0719
95834336|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-106583 metabolite.|||1.32|0.612|
95834337|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.773|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 10 mg SD (overall) for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.46|0.773|
95834338|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 7.5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.06|0.582|
95834339|NCT01178099|191640084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means, SCD:Healthy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.648|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Log(Cmax) = Participant + Population + Dose + Population\*Dose + Random Error|This is the estimated value for 5 mg MD for the R-119251 metabolite.|||1.55|0.648|
95834340|NCT01178099|191640085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.060
95834341|NCT01178099|191640086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by flow cytometry. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
95834342|NCT01178099|191640086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||This is the p-value for PRI by ELISA. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error|ANCOVA|||||||0.679
95834343|NCT01178099|191640087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 6.5 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.396
95834344|NCT01178099|191640087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to 20 µM ADP. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
95834345|NCT01178099|191640087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to Collagen. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.095
95834346|NCT01178099|191640087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||This is the p-value for AU\*min to TRAP-6. The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.086
95834347|NCT01178099|191640088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.083
95960438|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9283|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9283
95834348|NCT01178099|191640089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The p-value is from model: Change from Baseline = Baseline + Treatment + Population + Treatment\*Population + Random Error.|ANCOVA|||||||0.124
95834349|NCT02354235|191640090|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.15|<0.001
95834350|NCT02354235|191640091|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-29.2|||ANCOVA|||||-29.2|-48.5|<0.001
95834351|NCT02354235|191640092|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.45|||ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-3.20|<0.001
95834352|NCT02354235|191640093|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-100.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.2|-78.4|||ANCOVA|||||-78.4|-122.2|<0.001
95834353|NCT02354235|191640094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.9|-36.9|||ANCOVA|||||-36.9|-64.9|<0.001
95834354|NCT04481789|191640095|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.08||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.08|0.97|
95960439|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.9024
95960440|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 3 h PS;||||0.7655
95834355|NCT04481789|191640095|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.99||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||0.99|0.88|
95834356|NCT04481789|191640095|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.09|0.98|
95834357|NCT04481789|191640096|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Rosuvastatin + Edaravone / Rosuvastatin).|LS Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.06|0.91|
95834358|NCT04481789|191640096|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Sildenafil + Edaravone / Sildenafil Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.1||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.10|0.80|
95834359|NCT04481789|191640096|OTHER|Estimates of least squares mean difference of log-transformed PK parameters between treatments were obtained with their 2-sided 90%CIs for the difference. These estimates and limits were then back-transformed to obtain ratios of least squares geometric means. If the 90%CIs lay entirely within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25, this would provide evidence of no effect of edaravone on the PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide (LS Mean Ratio: Furosemide + Edaravone / Furosemide Alone).|LS Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.23||||||PK parameters of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide alone and in the presence of edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of effect on PK of rosuvastatin, sildenafil, and furosemide by edaravone.||1.23|0.96|
95834360|NCT04481789|191640111|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.017||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.017|0.697|
95960441|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||1.0000
95960442|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.8460
95834361|NCT04481789|191640111|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.891||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.891|0.610|
95834362|NCT04481789|191640112|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90% CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 1 Hour After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.379|1.137||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||1.137|0.379|
95834363|NCT04481789|191640112|OTHER|Estimated difference in least squares means and corresponding 90%CI of log-transformed PK parameters were back transformed to obtain the estimate and CI of the geometric mean ratio of 4 Hours After a High-fat Meal condition to the fasted state.|LS Mean Ratio|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.301|0.903||||||PK parameters of unchanged edaravone were analyzed for the assessments of food effect on PK.||0.903|0.301|
95834364|NCT05216224|191640125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|4.52||Significance level of 0.05|MMRM|Fixed effect terms for treatment, study visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline count of inflammatory abscesses and nodules as a covariate.||||4.52|1.50|>0.999
95834365|NCT02159118|191640157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95834366|NCT02159118|191640158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95834367|NCT02159118|191640159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95834368|NCT02159118|191640160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95834369|NCT02159118|191640161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95834370|NCT02159118|191640162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95834371|NCT02159118|191640163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95834372|NCT02159118|191640164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95834373|NCT02159118|191640165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95834374|NCT04856904|191640224|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||||-2|-4.4|< 0.0001
95834375|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|=|0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 1: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9476
95834376|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 2: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0248
95834377|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 4: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.2|-1.4|= 0.0072
95834378|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 8: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-0.7|-2.1|< 0.0001
95834379|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.3|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 12: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.3|-2.9|< 0.0001
95834380|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 16: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.6|-3.8|< 0.0001
95834381|NCT04856904|191640225|SUPERIORITY||Bilateral difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.5|||Student's t-test for paired samples|||Week 20: Trifarotene 50 mcg/g, vehicle cream||-1.5|-3.5|< 0.0001
95834382|NCT01641822|191640226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.743||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.238|||Negative binomial regression|||Ratio between rates||1.238|0.446|0.25
95834383|NCT01641822|191640227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|3.2||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in FEV1 % predicted||3.2|-0.55|0.16
95834384|NCT01641822|191640228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.67
95834385|NCT01641822|191640229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.59|||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to exacerbation||1.59|0.50|0.71
95834386|NCT01641822|191640230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.642||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.164|||Negative binomial regression|||Comparison of hospitalization rate||1.164|0.355|0.14
95834387|NCT01641822|191640231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|7.82||The p-value is from an MMRM analysis. The model includes terms for baseline value, previous exacerbations (1, 2, ≥ 3), treatment, visit (categorical), and treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in change in CFQ-R RSS||7.82|-1.71|0.21
95834388|NCT00454584|191640232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
95834389|NCT00454584|191640232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||To control the overall type I error rate at 0.05 level in the primary endpoint analysis, a step-down test procedure was applied. First, ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept were compared. Then ustekinumab 45 mg and etanercept would be compared.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: Assuming the PASI 75 response rates of ustekinumab 90 mg, 45 mg, etanercept are 65%, 64%, and 50% , respectively, with 325 participants each in the ustekinumab 90 mg and etanercept groups, the power to detect a treatment difference is 97%. With 200 participants in the ustekinumab 45 mg group, the complete power to further detect a treatment difference was 87%.||||0.012
95834390|NCT00454584|191640233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
95834391|NCT00454584|191640233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95834392|NCT00454584|191640234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||||||<0.001
95834393|NCT00454584|191640234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|The test was stratified by baseline weight \[\<90kg vs. ≥ 90 kg).||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 90 mg or 45 mg and etanercept at an overall significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95834394|NCT02250664|191640241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
95834395|NCT02250664|191640241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANOVA|||The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.|Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
95834396|NCT03847909|191640242|SUPERIORITY|P value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect, age category, baseline eGFR category, baseline Uox value as covariates for adjustment.|Difference of Least Mean Square|5171.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1144.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2929.3|7414.2|||ANCOVA|||||7414.2|2929.3|<0.0001
95834397|NCT00462748|191640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
95834398|NCT00462748|191640313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hochberg's FDR was used to power the study; the power was based on a two-sided p value of 0.025.|Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included terms for treatment and stratum; treatment by stratum interaction was assessed.||Ho is no difference in proportion achieving the target of LDL-C \< 2mmol/l.. 240 patients per group give a power of at least 85% to detect a 15% difference in this proportion, assuming the percentage decrease from baseline in LDL-C was 25% in the E/S group and 15% in the two comparator groups. A two-sided 0.025 test to allow for multiple comparisons was used.||||<0.001
95834399|NCT03429543|191640314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.3|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.30|-0.99|0.2935
95834400|NCT03429543|191640314|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 1 (TG1) consisting of Placebo, Linagliptin 5 mg and Empagliflozin pooled Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.19|-1.50|0.0116
95834401|NCT03429543|191640314|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.27|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 2 (TG2) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 25mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||0.27|-1.31|0.1943
95834402|NCT03429543|191640314|OTHER|Only after having obtained statistically significant results for both hypotheses of the primary family of hypotheses (TG1), the secondary hypotheses were to compare the individual empagliflozin doses versus placebo based on TG2 and TG3.The ANCOVA utilised a weight of zero for patients who were not in the hypothesis test of interest, a value of 2 for re-randomised patients who were in the hypothesis test of interest and a value of 1 otherwise.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.45|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Treatment group 3 (TG3) consisting of Placebo, Empagliflozin 10mg Patients: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a continuous covariate (baseline HbA1c) and categorical covariates (treatment and age). The effect of linagliptin and of empagliflozin (including responders and non-responders) was compared with placebo at an overall α of 0.05 (2-sided) using the Hochberg method to account for multiple testing.||-0.45|-1.90|0.0015
95834403|NCT03429543|191640315|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
95834404|NCT03429543|191640315|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|43.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference calculated as \[treatment\]-\[placebo\].|Risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 90% confidence interval based on the method of Chan and Zhang. Patients were assigned to the treatment they were randomised to at the initial randomisation.||43.7|-58.7|1.0000
95834405|NCT03429543|191640316|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.49|-2.86|0.4828
95834406|NCT03429543|191640316|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) approach with mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and categorical covariate age (baseline) and continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of response variable and baseline of response variable-by-visit interaction. Covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model within-patient measurements.||1.88|-2.64|0.7047
95834407|NCT03429543|191640317|OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.8626
95834408|NCT03429543|191640317|OTHER|||||||0.2827|||||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed by Kaplan-Meier estimates up to the end of the study. A log-rank test compared linagliptin and empagliflozin pooled versus placebo up to Week 26.||||0.2827
95834409|NCT03429543|191640318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.41||||0.6438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.49|17.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||17.67|-28.49|0.6438
95834410|NCT03429543|191640318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.18||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.61|-11.74|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||-11.74|-58.61|0.0035
95834411|NCT03429543|191640318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.62||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|72.7|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||72.70|4.54|0.0310
95834412|NCT03429543|191640318|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.01|53.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed classification effect, baseline FPG as linear covariate and age at randomisation as categorical covariate. The random error was assumed to be normally distributed.||53.11|-13.01|0.1994
95834413|NCT03429543|191640319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.41|-0.48|0.1394
95834414|NCT03429543|191640319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.19|-2.68|0.4476
95834415|NCT03429543|191640319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||3.90|-3.80|0.9789
95834416|NCT03429543|191640319|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.99|-5.68|0.5092
95862727|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.23||||0.06||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||0.06
95960443|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 24 h PS;||||0.6419
95960444|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.9522
95960445|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.5800
95960446|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at 72 h PS;||||0.7675
95960447|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1672
95960448|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.9634
95834417|NCT03429543|191640320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.22|-2.40|0.5870
95834418|NCT03429543|191640320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||1.88|-4.72|0.3967
95834419|NCT03429543|191640320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|11.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||11.47|-6.42|0.5414
95862728|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0029||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95960449|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confusion at EOT;||||0.1161
95960450|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0754
95960451|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
95960452|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 3 h PS;||||0.0711
95960453|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
95960454|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.8091
95960455|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at 24 h PS;||||0.2482
95960456|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
95960457|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.3173
95960458|NCT00551135|191892805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Retching/Vomiting at EOT;||||0.4386
95960459|NCT00551135|191892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1723
95834420|NCT03429543|191640320|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||10.13|-10.13|0.9995
95834421|NCT03429543|191640321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.02|-1.03|0.2433
95834422|NCT03429543|191640321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||2.56|-2.52|0.9878
95834423|NCT03429543|191640321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|15.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||15.65|-9.00|0.5670
95834424|NCT03429543|191640321|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the categorical covariate age at randomisation and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline of the response variable and baseline of the response variable-by-visit interaction. The covariate visit was treated as repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements.||4.95|-18.19|0.2348
95834425|NCT03429543|191640322|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|6.0||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|19.9|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.9|-7.7|0.3536
95834426|NCT03429543|191640322|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|11.7||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|26.3|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||26.3|-2.4|0.0914
95834427|NCT03429543|191640322|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
95834428|NCT03429543|191640322|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
95834429|NCT03429543|191640323|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|2.4||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|19.5|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||19.5|-15.2|0.7789
95834430|NCT03429543|191640323|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|10.1||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|28.1|||Wald test||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and two-sided Wald test.||28.1|-7.7|0.2548
95834431|NCT03429543|191640323|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|-23.3||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.9|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||27.1|-67.9|0.5455
95834432|NCT03429543|191640323|OTHER||Rate difference (percentage)|26.7||||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference calculated as \[Treatment\] - Placebo.|The risk difference of active treatments versus placebo was determined and assessed by an exact 2-sided 95% confidence interval. Exact 95% CI by Chan and Zhang. Asymptotic and Fisher's exact test.||70.8|-30.8|0.5671
95834433|NCT00082381|191640324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4% (i.e., noninferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in change in HbA1c between exenatide and insulin glargine is less than 0.4%.)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4602||95.0|-0.09|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.09|0.4602
95834434|NCT00082381|191640325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7839||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7839
95834435|NCT00082381|191640326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834436|NCT00082381|191640327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834437|NCT00082381|191640329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3002
95834438|NCT00082381|191640330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3385
95834439|NCT02428413|191640331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95834440|NCT02428413|191640332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95834441|NCT01786252|191640342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the vehicle group.||||<0.05
95834442|NCT01786252|191640342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular and stromal dating within the hCG group.||||>0.05
95834443|NCT01786252|191640342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare stromal staging between hCG and IVF media group.||||<0.01
95834444|NCT01786252|191640342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Sidak-multiple comparison test was performed to detect significant differences between groups.||Statistical analysis to compare differences between endometrial glandular dating between hCG and IVF media groups.||||>0.05
95834445|NCT01786252|191640343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95834446|NCT01786252|191640344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95834447|NCT01786252|191640345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95834448|NCT03045341|191640346|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
95834449|NCT03045341|191640346|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.58
95834450|NCT03045341|191640347|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||BWL versus no BWL||||0.0001
95834451|NCT03045341|191640347|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data.||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat. Analyses were performed for all randomized patients who attended the first treatment session.||NB versus placebo||||0.63
95834452|NCT03045341|191640348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Analyses used all available data.||||.004
95834453|NCT03178669|191640349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|5.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.47|0.75|0.1806
95834454|NCT03178669|191640349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6649|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.24||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.24|0.20|0.6649
95834455|NCT03178669|191640349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.53|9.47||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.47|1.53|0.0247
95834456|NCT03178669|191640349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.52|3.88||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.88|0.52|0.3279
95834457|NCT03178669|191640350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.69|4.99||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.99|0.69|0.2115
95834458|NCT03178669|191640350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|1.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.06|0.8498
95834459|NCT03178669|191640350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.01|6.62||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.62|1.01|0.0977
95834460|NCT03178669|191640350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|2.84||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.84|0.32|0.5220
95834461|NCT03178669|191640351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|2.94||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.94|0.74|0.2335
95834462|NCT03178669|191640351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|2.69||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.69|0.73|0.2511
95834463|NCT03178669|191640351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.96|3.52||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.52|0.96|0.1162
95834464|NCT03178669|191640351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3467|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|2.4||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.40|0.63|0.3467
95834465|NCT03178669|191640352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.5||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.50|0.50|0.6326
95834466|NCT03178669|191640352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.37||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.37|0.45|0.7127
95834467|NCT03178669|191640352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.2658|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|2.34||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.34|0.75|0.2658
95834468|NCT03178669|191640352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.8301|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|1.16||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16|0.36|0.8301
95834469|NCT03178669|191640353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|1.27||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.27|0.32|0.7994
95834470|NCT03178669|191640353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.16|0.72||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.16|0.9665
95960460|NCT00551135|191892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS||||0.0639
95960461|NCT00551135|191892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.0021
95834471|NCT03178669|191640353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.82||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.82|0.80|0.2049
95834472|NCT03178669|191640353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.6||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.60|0.42|0.6504
95834473|NCT03178669|191640354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9207|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.18|0.93||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.93|0.18|0.9207
95834474|NCT03178669|191640354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.9228|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|0.92||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.92|0.19|0.9228
95834475|NCT03178669|191640354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.39|1.61||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.61|0.39|0.6636
95834476|NCT03178669|191640354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.34|1.41||one-sided and adjusted for stratification factors, p values of less than 0.10 were regarded as statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.41|0.34|0.7449
95834477|NCT00651625|191640367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non-applicable|||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||group comparisons using t-test and confidence intervals.||||0.05
95834478|NCT01561963|191640398|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% confidence interval (CI) limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.56|104.82|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.82|88.56|
95834479|NCT01561963|191640398|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.63|30.34|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUCt of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.34|25.63|
95834480|NCT01561963|191640399|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.99|104.12|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||104.12|87.99|
95834481|NCT01561963|191640399|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|27.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|30.41|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of AUC∞ of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||30.41|25.70|
95834482|NCT01561963|191640400|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.18|123.91|||||Apremilast + IV Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||123.91|103.18|
95834483|NCT01561963|191640400|EQUIVALENCE|No statistically significant interaction between apremilast and rifampicin was confirmed if both the upper and lower 90% CI limits for the geometric least squares mean ratios of apremilast administered with rifampicin to apremilast alone fell within the no effect boundary of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.84|62.25|||||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin / Apremilast Alone|The effect of rifampicin on the PK of apremilast was evaluated using a linear mixed effect analysis of variance on the log-transformed values of Cmax of apremilast, to estimate the mean ratio of apremilast administered with and without rifampicin treatment. The model included treatment as fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.||62.25|51.84|
95834484|NCT01561963|191640401|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.25||||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + IV Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-0.75|0.2656
95834485|NCT01561963|191640401|OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||Apremilast + Multiple Dose Oral Rifampin - Apremilast Alone|Tmax was analyzed using nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||0.00|-1.00|0.1141
95834486|NCT00915551|191640448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95834487|NCT00915551|191640449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95834488|NCT02262754|191640500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.6||||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used for missing data.||0.60|-0.28|
95834489|NCT02262754|191640500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.87||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.87|-0.02|
95834490|NCT02262754|191640500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.18||||||An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-2.36, 0.542\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. A last observation carried forward LOCF was used for missing data.||0.18|-0.70|
95834491|NCT02262754|191640506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.3||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.76|
95960462|NCT00551135|191892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.1127
95834492|NCT02262754|191640506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.65||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.41|
95834493|NCT02262754|191640506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.17||||||The ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.87|
95834494|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.36||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.20|
95834495|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.07||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.48|
95834496|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.56||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.56|0.01|
95834497|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.34||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.34|-0.43|
95834498|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.15|-0.62|
95834499|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.58||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.58|-0.19|
95834500|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.45||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.45|-0.39|
95834501|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.16|-0.69|
95834502|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||||90.0|-0.12|0.71||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.71|-0.12|
95834503|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.55||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.55|-0.40|
95834504|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.11||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.11|-0.84|
95834505|NCT02262754|191640507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.03|
95834506|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.08|-0.03|
95834507|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.02||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.02|-0.09|
95834508|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|0.01|
95834509|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.1||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.10|-0.09|
95834510|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.05||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.15|
95960463|NCT00551135|191892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0703
95960464|NCT00551135|191892806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||EOT.||||0.0012
95834511|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.15||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.15|-0.04|
95834512|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.12|-0.12|
95834513|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.07||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.07|-0.16|
95834514|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.16||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.16|-0.07|
95834515|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.14||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.14|-0.16|
95834516|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.05|-0.24|
95834517|NCT02262754|191640508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.23||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model includes treatment, week and the week\*treatment interaction as fixed effects, week repeated within each subject as a repeated effect and log baseline as a response. LS Mean Difference and 90 percent confidence interval was calculated from log values.||0.23|-0.05|
95834518|NCT02262754|191640509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.73|0.54|
95834519|NCT02262754|191640509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.51||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.51|0.81|
95834520|NCT02262754|191640509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.2||||||\>=30 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|0.39|
95834521|NCT02262754|191640509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.81||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|0.37|
95834522|NCT02262754|191640509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|2.35||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||2.35|0.53|
95834523|NCT02262754|191640509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.6||||||\>=50 percent sustained response rates: Odds Ratios based on a logistic regression model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|0.33|
95834524|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.7||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.70|-1.06|
95834525|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.03||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.03|-1.80|
95834526|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.61||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.61|-0.15|
95862729|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0059||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95834527|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|0.29||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.29|-1.69|
95834528|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.11|-2.11|
95834529|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.39||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.39|-0.57|
95834530|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.6||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||0.60|-1.42|
95834531|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.28|-0.27||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.27|-2.28|
95834532|NCT02262754|191640515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|1.85||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline was included as a covariate.||1.85|-0.12|
95834533|NCT02262754|191640516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.35||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||0.35|-1.63|
95834534|NCT02262754|191640516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|-0.45||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||-0.45|-2.40|
95862730|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95960465|NCT00551135|191892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||24 h PS.||||0.1927
95834535|NCT02262754|191640516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.8||||||Week 4: An ANCOVA model within an outlier robust Bayesian framework was applied. Baseline was included as a fixed effect. An informative N (-3.28, 1.19\^2) prior for the placebo effect was assumed. Non informative prior distributions were assumed for the rest of the model parameters. LOCF was used for missing data.||1.80|-0.22|
95834536|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|0.78||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.78|-1.52|
95834537|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.20|-2.10|
95834538|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.71||||||Total recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.71|-0.56|
95834539|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.02||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-2.06|
95834540|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|-0.17||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.17|-2.25|
95834541|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|1.19||||||Total Recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||1.19|-0.82|
95834542|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.39|-0.15||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.15|-1.39|
95862731|NCT00488683|191684578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0||||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccinations and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95960466|NCT00551135|191892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3865|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS||||0.3865
95834543|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.45||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.45|-0.80|
95834544|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.02||||||Delayed recall score at Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.02|-1.21|
95834545|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.28||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.28|-1.42|
95834546|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.46||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||0.46|-0.67|
95862732|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
95834547|NCT02262754|191640517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.2||||||Delayed recall score at Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate. Unplanned readings were excluded from the analysis.||-0.20|-1.29|
95834548|NCT02262754|191640518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.58||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||1.58|0.61|
95834549|NCT02262754|191640518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|3.14||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||3.14|1.33|
95834550|NCT02262754|191640518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.74||||||A repeated measures logistic regression model included treatment and week as fixed effects and LBPI baseline as a covariate. Participant was included as a repeated effect.||0.74|0.31|
95834551|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.2||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.20|-0.19|
95834552|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.34|
95834553|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.35|-0.05|
95834554|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.18|-0.26|
95834555|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.07||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.07|-0.37|
95834556|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.33||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.33|-0.10|
95834557|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.38||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.09|
95834558|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.25||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.25|-0.21|
95834559|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.36||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.36|-0.10|
95834560|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.38||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.13|
95834561|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.05||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.05|-0.46|
95960467|NCT00551135|191892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.9869
95834562|NCT02262754|191640519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.58||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect. Baseline (recordings on Day 1) was included as a covariate.||0.58|0.08|
95834563|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.08||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.08|-0.42|
95834564|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|-0.12||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.62|
95834565|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.45||||||Week 1: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.45|-0.05|
95834566|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.21||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.38|
95834567|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.01||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.01|-0.58|
95834568|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.49||||||Week 2: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.49|-0.09|
95834569|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.21||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.36|
95834570|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|-0.1||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.10|-0.67|
95834571|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.59||||||Week 3: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.59|0.03|
95834572|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (PF-06372865-Placebo)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.21||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.21|-0.42|
95834573|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Naproxen-Placebo)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|-0.12||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||-0.12|-0.75|
95834574|NCT02262754|191640520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference(PF-06372865-Naproxen)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.63||||||Week 4: The mixed effect repeated measures model was used and included treatment, week, baseline, the week \* treatment interaction, and the baseline \* week interaction as fixed effects and week repeated within each participant as a repeated effect.||0.63|0.02|
95834575|NCT02262754|191640521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.56||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||1.56|0.46|
95834576|NCT02262754|191640521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.81||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||0.81|0.23|
95960468|NCT00551135|191892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.4354
95834577|NCT02262754|191640521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|3.65||||||Odds Ratios were based on a logistic regression model and included treatment as a fixed effect.||3.65|1.06|
95834578|NCT04943432|191640524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2 - T1||||0.06
95834579|NCT04943432|191640524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3 - T1||||0.68
95834580|NCT04943432|191640526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
95834581|NCT04943432|191640526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.32
95834582|NCT04943432|191640527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.44
95834583|NCT04943432|191640527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.007
95834584|NCT04943432|191640531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.01
95834585|NCT04943432|191640531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.11
95834586|NCT04943432|191640532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.82
95834587|NCT04943432|191640532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.36
95834588|NCT04943432|191640533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.34
95834589|NCT04943432|191640533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.02
95834590|NCT04943432|191640535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||.14
95960469|NCT00551135|191892808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjests have been combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||72 h PS.||||0.8061
95862733|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
95862734|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.006||||0.98||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.98
95862735|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
95862736|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
95862737|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.68
95862738|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.006
95862739|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.16||||0.48||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.48
95834591|NCT04943432|191640535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.29
95834592|NCT04943432|191640537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T2-T1||||<.001
95834593|NCT04943432|191640537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T3-T1||||.23
95834594|NCT00241904|191640547|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||Intention to treat analysis was used||||<0.001
95834595|NCT00241904|191640548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.003
95834596|NCT00241904|191640549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||0.034
95834597|NCT00241904|191640550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Mixed Model|||||||<0.001
95834598|NCT04099511|191640594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.693|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.693
95834599|NCT04099511|191640595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.536
95862740|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.26||||0.46||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
95862741|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
95862742|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.12||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.60
95862743|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.4||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
95862744|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
95862745|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.0||||1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
95834600|NCT04099511|191640596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.260
95834601|NCT04099511|191640597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.387
95834602|NCT04099511|191640598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
95834603|NCT04099511|191640599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
95834604|NCT04099511|191640600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.388
95834605|NCT04099511|191640601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
95834606|NCT04302545|191640629|OTHER|Other Primary outcomes were the extent of injury, operative time, blood loss and proportion of subjects receiving a blood transfusion. Postoperatively, subjects were assessed for secondary outcomes of UTI, micturition problems, and fistula formation during the hospital stay and for the next 3 months. Postoperative micturition problems were feeling of incomplete evacuation, frequency, urgency, urethral and extra-urethral incontinence.|Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.178|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.094||The threshold for statistical significance was \<.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Null Hypothesis: During the cesarean section of women with adhesions of the previous cesarean section that obscure the bladder, the bladder injury rate is not significantly decreased in cystoinflation group compared to the control.~In this study, the bladder injury rate was seven times lesser in cystoinflation group compared to the control, thereby strongly supporting our hypothesis. The power of the study for bladder injury was 0.988, calculated with statistical software G'Power version 3.1."||-.094|-.261|<.0001
95834607|NCT04302545|191640630|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-211.776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-290.7|-132.84|||Regression, Linear|||||-132.84|-290.70|<0.0001
95862746|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.24
95960470|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1682
95960471|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2821
95960472|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4781
95962457|NCT03607422|191896640|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|22.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|45.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.7|-1.1|0.062
95834608|NCT04302545|191640631|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|3.634|||Regression, Linear|||Null Hypothsis:Cystoinflation is ineffective to prevent bladder injury in adhesions of previous C-section.The cystoinflation was to be cosidered ineffective if proportion of bladder injury in study group was less than %0% of the control.The power of the study for bladder injury prevention was.988,calculated with statistical software G'Power version3.1.||3.634|-3.634|1
95834609|NCT04302545|191640632|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.093||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.708|-0.479|||Regression, Linear|||||-.479|-1.708|.001
95834610|NCT04302545|191640633|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.073|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.073|-0.226|<0.0001
95834611|NCT04302545|191640634|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.103||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|-0.035|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.035|-0.171|0.003
95834612|NCT04302545|191640635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|1.991|||Regression, Linear|||||1.991|-0.682|.336
95834613|NCT04302545|191640636|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.393||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|-0.06|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.06|-0.725|.021
95834614|NCT04302545|191640637|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.813|-0.963|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.963|-2.813|<0.0001
95834615|NCT04302545|191640638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.318|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.021|-0.614|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.614|-2.021|<.0001
95834616|NCT04302545|191640640|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.065||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|-0.023|||Regression, Linear|||||-.023|-.108|.003
95834617|NCT00117793|191640707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb volume was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.05
95834618|NCT00117793|191640708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0056||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on activity level was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0056
95834619|NCT00117793|191640709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0021||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study limb on limb pistoning was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||=0.0021
95834620|NCT00869401|191640717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16||Using Logrank Test|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.54|.222
95834621|NCT00869401|191640719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||Log Rank|||||1.11|0.59|0.183
95834622|NCT02522442|191640721|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||0.377
95834623|NCT02522442|191640722|OTHER|Pilot study, not powered for any endpoint.||||||0.624|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.624
95834624|NCT00975143|191640726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \< 4.|LS Mean Difference|0.1382||||0.5077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2712|0.5475||P values are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for Baseline total nodular lesion count, gender and analysis site.|ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the adjusted least square mean difference (CIP-ISOTRETINOIN minus Isotretinoin) was calculated using the ANCOVA model.||Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value||0.5475|-0.2712|0.5077
95834625|NCT00975143|191640727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the two co-primary endpoints were significant, a 95% 2 sided CI on the difference between treatments (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was calculated.|Proportion difference|-3.48|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4|||Normal approximation|95% CI on difference in proportions (CIP-Isotretinoin minus Isotretinoin) was estimated using normal approximation.||The analysis of the secondary efficacy endpoint was based on observed cases only, with no imputation for missing values.||1.4|-8.4|>0.05
95834626|NCT00975143|191640728|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority: lower bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference \> -10.|Proportion difference|-2.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|3.74|||Normal approximation|||||3.74|-7.94|>0.05
95834627|NCT03322423|191640765|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.035|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.035|-0.080|
95834628|NCT03322423|191640765|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.01 logMAR for distance.|Least-Square Mean Estimate|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.054|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||-0.054|-0.099|
95834629|NCT03322423|191640766|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
95834630|NCT03322423|191640766|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was below +0.17 logMAR for near.|LS Mean Estimate|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.17|||Linear mixed model analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.170|0.112|
95834631|NCT03322423|191640767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|49.9|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||49.9|41.2|
95834632|NCT03322423|191640767|SUPERIORITY|Statistical superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens was above 32 CLUE points.|LS Mean Estimate|46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|50.8|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||50.8|42.1|
95834633|NCT02453555|191640781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 10 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.91|-1.36|<0.0001
95834634|NCT02453555|191640783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Empagliflozin group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.99|-1.45|<0.0001
95834635|NCT02453555|191640784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Linagliptin 5 mg + Placebo 25 mg group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.0001
95834636|NCT02453555|191640785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted Mean Difference was calculated as: (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in Empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg group) - (adjusted mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 52 in All Placebo group)|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used with baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease \[MDRD\] formula), prior use of antidiabetic drug, treatment, visit, visit by Treatment interaction as fixed effect(s). The covariance used to fit the model was unstructured.||-0.84|-1.34|<0.0001
95834637|NCT02772978|191640803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale, non-planning subscale.||||0.04
95834638|NCT02772978|191640804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|||||||< 0.05
95834639|NCT03624127|191640833|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.51|36.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.81|9.51|<0.0001
95834640|NCT03624127|191640834|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|18.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.95|6.49|<0.0001
95834641|NCT03624127|191640835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|37.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.72|6.91|<0.0001
95834642|NCT03624127|191640835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.60|1.51|0.0002
95834643|NCT03624127|191640836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|239.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||239.36|4.09|<0.0001
95834644|NCT03624127|191640837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.84|2.07|<0.0001
95960473|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0557
95834645|NCT03624127|191640837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|295.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||295.75|5.29|<0.0001
95960474|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6098
95960475|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h BS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1821
95960476|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1628
95834646|NCT03624127|191640838|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4.9|-12.8|<0.0001
95834647|NCT03624127|191640839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.67||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|105.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||105.50|1.77|0.0013
95834648|NCT03624127|191640839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.42|0.76|0.1702
95834649|NCT03624127|191640840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.53|3.46|<0.0001
95834650|NCT03624127|191640841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|10.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.96|0.73|0.1049
95834651|NCT03624127|191640842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.78|<0.0001
95834652|NCT03624127|191640843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.70|<0.0001
95834653|NCT03624127|191640844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.69|21.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.25|6.69|<0.0001
95834654|NCT03624127|191640844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.04|2.21|<0.0001
95834655|NCT03624127|191640845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|4.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.83|2.16|<0.0001
95834656|NCT03624127|191640846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.60|2.53|<0.0001
95834657|NCT03624127|191640847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.05|1.71|<0.0001
95834658|NCT03624127|191640848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|1.96|<0.0001
95834659|NCT03624127|191640849|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|2.06|<0.0001
95862747|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
95862748|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95960477|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8999
95834660|NCT03624127|191640850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.19|1.55|0.0002
95834661|NCT01817959|191640851|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.001||||0.9863|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.205|0.207||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.207|-0.205|0.9863
95834662|NCT01817959|191640852|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.024||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.184|0.232||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||||0.232|-0.184|0.7115
95834663|NCT01817959|191640853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.21||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.63||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||Analytical statistics are reported for Day 75 after transplant 2||1.63|0.03|0.1346
95834664|NCT01817959|191640854|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.93||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||4.93|0.17|0.9130
95834665|NCT01817959|191640855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.66||Treatment p value|Regression, Logistic|||||2.66|0.16|0.5467
95834666|NCT01817959|191640856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1383
95834667|NCT01817959|191640858|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.021||||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.088||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.088|-0.130|0.6952
95834668|NCT01817959|191640858|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.028||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.124||This is a treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.124|-0.068|0.5560
95834669|NCT01817959|191640858|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.056||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.154||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.154|-0.042|0.2537
95834670|NCT01817959|191640859|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-7.4||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|20.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||20.3|-35.2|0.5910
95834671|NCT01817959|191640859|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.2||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|20.2||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||20.2|-11.8|0.5966
95834672|NCT01817959|191640859|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|6.1||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|24.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||24.4|-12.1|0.5005
95834673|NCT01817959|191640860|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.21||||0.3253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.63||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.63|-0.21|0.3253
95834674|NCT01817959|191640860|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.16||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78||Treatment p value|least square mean difference|||This is the analytic statics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||0.78|-0.46|0.6069
95834675|NCT01817959|191640860|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.17||||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.93||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|Treatment p value||This is the analytic statics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.93|-0.56|0.6437
95960478|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
95834676|NCT01817959|191640861|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.0||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.9||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||6.9|-3.0|0.4290
95834677|NCT01817959|191640861|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.0||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.3||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||8.3|-6.3|0.7853
95862749|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862750|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862751|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95834678|NCT01817959|191640861|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.9||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.4||Treatment p value|ANCOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||10.4|-6.6|0.6583
95834679|NCT01817959|191640865|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.28||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||1.28|-1.28|0.9949
95834680|NCT01817959|191640865|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.1||||0.8753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.38||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||1.38|-1.18|0.8753
95834681|NCT01817959|191640865|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.59||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.8||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.80|-1.97|0.3955
95862752|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862753|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95834682|NCT01817959|191640866|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.105||||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.075||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 1)||0.075|-0.286|0.2444
95834683|NCT01817959|191640866|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.218||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|-0.019||Treatment p value|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)||-0.019|-0.417|0.0328
95834684|NCT01817959|191640866|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.177||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.039||This is the analytic statistics for Day 75 (Transplant 2)|ANOVA|||This is the analytic statistics for Day 365 (last Transplant)||0.039|-0.393|0.1059
95834685|NCT01455194|191640897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.109|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.109|-0.353|0.2988
95834686|NCT01455194|191640897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.266|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.266|-0.198|0.7741
95862754|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95960479|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2665
95834687|NCT01455194|191640897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1172||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.074|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean difference were derived from an ANCOVA model with baseline ACQ and age as covariates, and treatment, centre pool, sex, and prestudy ICS dose as factors.||0.074|-0.387|0.1835
95862755|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862756|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.0002||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.0002
95862757|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.90
95862758|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.02
95862759|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
95834688|NCT01455194|191640899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|0.0||||0.8465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||4.000|-3.000|0.8465
95834689|NCT01455194|191640899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate|1.0||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment comparisons were carried out using an exact Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test.|||5.000|-2.000|0.4175
95834690|NCT01455194|191640900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4186|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.4186
95834691|NCT01455194|191640900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.1460
95834692|NCT01455194|191640900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Well-controlled Asthma||||0.6017
95834693|NCT01455194|191640900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3305|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.3305
95834694|NCT01455194|191640900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.4860
95834695|NCT01455194|191640900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8922|||||||Fisher Exact|||ACQ Improvement||||0.8922
95834696|NCT01455194|191640901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0806||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.221|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.221|0.890|0.6062
95834697|NCT01455194|191640901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.197|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.197|0.921|0.4674
95834698|NCT01455194|191640901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1597||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.642|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.642|0.878|0.2523
95834699|NCT01455194|191640901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1354||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.191|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.191|0.700|0.5026
95834700|NCT01455194|191640901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.219|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|Well-controlled Asthma||1.219|0.661|0.4893
95834701|NCT01455194|191640901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1351||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.538|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ Improvement||1.538|0.906|0.2193
95834702|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0917||0.5397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.266|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.266|0.884|0.5397
95834703|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0738||0.9458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.161|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.161|0.870|0.9458
95834704|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0708||0.7213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.178|0.893|0.7213
95834705|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.917|1.202|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.202|0.917|0.4807
95834706|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1791||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.884|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.884|0.934|0.1150
95834707|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.431|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.431|0.805|0.6281
95834708|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1415||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.397|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.397|0.803|0.6853
95834709|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1388||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.385|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.385|0.804|0.6995
95834710|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1744||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.178|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 0.5||1.178|0.595|0.3080
95834711|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1461||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.25|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.0||1.250|0.705|0.6645
95834712|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1408||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.308|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.25||1.308|0.753|0.9564
95834713|NCT01455194|191640902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1375||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.371|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \>1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|ACQ cut-off at 1.5||1.371|0.800|0.7367
95834714|NCT01455194|191640903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2583||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|2.267|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.267|0.824|0.2264
95834715|NCT01455194|191640903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5001||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|5.602|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||5.602|0.789|0.1373
95834716|NCT01455194|191640903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4365||0.7732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.074|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \<1 represented a benefit for the test treatment.|||2.074|0.375|0.7732
95834717|NCT01455194|191640904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2880
95834718|NCT01455194|191640904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2864
95834719|NCT03916484|191640914|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.33
95834720|NCT03916484|191640915|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95834721|NCT03916484|191640915|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95834722|NCT03916484|191640915|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95834723|NCT03916484|191640915|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95834724|NCT03916484|191640915|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95834725|NCT03916484|191640916|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||No a priori threshold for statistical significance was specified.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95834726|NCT03916484|191640917|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95834727|NCT03916484|191640917|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||McNemar|||||||0.07
95834728|NCT03916484|191640917|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
95834729|NCT03916484|191640918|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||||||0.25
95834730|NCT03916484|191640918|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
95834731|NCT03916484|191640918|OTHER|||||||0.453|||||||McNemar|||||||0.453
95834732|NCT03916484|191640918|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.500
95834733|NCT03916484|191640918|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.003
95834734|NCT01727414|191640961|SUPERIORITY|General linear mixed models were used to evaluate the subtype\*dose interaction to determine if the subtypes have unique MPH dose-response curves, with the outcome being Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder total symptom scores (minimum=0, maximum=54, higher=worse)|Slope|0.29|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95834735|NCT03281304|191640962|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|25.0||||||Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.0|0.5|
95834736|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
95834737|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
95834738|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|25.2||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|2.9|
95834739|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
95834740|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
95834741|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
95834742|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|28.5||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.5|-0.7|
95834743|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
95834744|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|20.4||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.4|-9.3|
95834745|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.6||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.6|-7.0|
95834746|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.3|-12.8|
95834747|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
95834748|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
95834749|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|11.9||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||11.9|-20.2|
95834750|NCT03281304|191640964|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|19.9||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.9|-11.7|
95834751|NCT03281304|191640965|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||24.1|-1.5|
95834752|NCT03281304|191640965|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|35.0||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||35.0|3.6|
95834753|NCT03281304|191640965|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
95834754|NCT03281304|191640965|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|18.0||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.0|-12.5|
95834755|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|13.4||||||Month 1: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.4|-7.5|
95834756|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|22.8||||||Month 3: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.8|0.1|
95834757|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|25.6||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.6|2.4|
95834758|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.8||||||Month 9: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||31.8|8.0|
95834759|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|28.7||||||Month 12: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.7|2.2|
95834760|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|27.9||||||Month 15: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||27.9|0.0|
95834761|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|29.9||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||29.9|0.7|
95960480|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4885|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4885
95834762|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.6||||||Month 21: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||20.6|-9.5|
95834763|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|21.9||||||Month 24: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||21.9|-8.0|
95834764|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.1||||||Month 27: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.1|-5.7|
95834765|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|19.7||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.7|-11.4|
95834766|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|17.2||||||Month 33: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.2|-14.4|
95834767|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 36: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
95834768|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|13.3||||||Month 39: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||13.3|-18.8|
95834769|NCT03281304|191640966|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
95834770|NCT03281304|191640967|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|30.8||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||30.8|-0.4|
95834771|NCT03281304|191640967|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|28.3||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.3|-3.5|
95834772|NCT03281304|191640967|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|16.7||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.7|-14.0|
95834773|NCT03281304|191640968|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.8|
95834774|NCT03281304|191640970|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.1|
95834775|NCT03281304|191640970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.2|
95834776|NCT03281304|191640970|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.2|
95834777|NCT03281304|191640972|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-1.2|
95834778|NCT03281304|191640974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 1||0.3|-0.3|
95834779|NCT03281304|191640974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||||||Month 3||0.2|-0.3|
95834780|NCT03281304|191640974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Month 6||0.3|-0.3|
95834781|NCT03281304|191640976|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|23.1||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||23.1|-0.3|
95834782|NCT03281304|191640976|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|18.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.6||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||32.6|3.5|
95834783|NCT03281304|191640976|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|28.1||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||28.1|-3.3|
95834784|NCT03281304|191640976|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|16.1||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||16.1|-16.1|
95834785|NCT03281304|191640977|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|22.0||||||Month 6: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||22.0|1.3|
95834786|NCT03281304|191640977|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|26.4||||||Month 18: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||26.4|-4.2|
95834787|NCT03281304|191640977|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.2||||||Month 30: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||25.2|-5.8|
95960481|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6415|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6415
95834788|NCT03281304|191640977|OTHER||Adjusted (weighted) difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|18.5||||||Month 42: Adjusted (weighted) difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.5|-13.0|
95834789|NCT01990612|191641000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Chi-squared|Group sequential method to control type I error w/ Lan-DeMets characterization of O'Brien-Fleming boundary. 2-tailed p-value \<0.46 considered stat sig|One interim analysis was performed; in final analysis of the primary outcome, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.046 considered to indicate statistical significance. Since adjustment is minimal, we report 95% confidence interval for relative risk.|||1.00|0.64|0.049
95834790|NCT01990612|191641001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.33|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.33|0.12|
95834791|NCT01990612|191641002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93||||||||0.93|0.55|
95834792|NCT01990612|191641003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.32|
95834793|NCT01990612|191641004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.37|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.37|0.35|
95834794|NCT01990612|191641005|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.12|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||8.12|0.91|
95834795|NCT01990612|191641006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.76|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.76|0.31|
95834796|NCT01990612|191641007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.19|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.19|0.35|
95834797|NCT01990612|191641008|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.55|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.55|0.38|
95834798|NCT01990612|191641009|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.42|||||Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||3.42|0.48|
95834799|NCT01990612|191641010|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.79|||||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes. Widths of the confidence intervals for components of the primary outcome have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and should not be used to infer definitive effects of management strategies.|||1.79|0.06|
95834800|NCT01990612|191641011|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.93|0.76|<0.001
95834801|NCT01990612|191641012|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.92||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.92|0.36|0.02
95834802|NCT01990612|191641013|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.72|0.07
95834803|NCT01990612|191641014|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.83|0.35
95834804|NCT01990612|191641015|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52|||Chi-squared|||||1.52|0.87|0.33
95834805|NCT01990612|191641017|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.55|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||1.55|0.13|0.26
95834806|NCT01990612|191641018|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.74||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||||0.74|0.56|<0.001
95834807|NCT01990612|191641019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.82|0.81
95834808|NCT01990612|191641020|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 6-96 hours after delivery||||<0.001
95834809|NCT01990612|191641020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for 4-8 weeks after delivery||||0.01
95834810|NCT01990612|191641021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Worst labor pain score||||<0.001
95834811|NCT01990612|191641021|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Chi-squared|||Analysis for Overall labor pain score||||<0.001
95834812|NCT01990612|191641022|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Chi-squared|||||1.10|0.53|0.15
95834813|NCT01990612|191641023|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|26.8|||Chi-squared|The P-values has not been adjusted for multiplicity of comparisons of secondary outcomes.|Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||26.8|0.26|1.00
95834814|NCT01990612|191641025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
95834815|NCT01990612|191641026|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.68|0.56
95834816|NCT01990612|191641027|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.28|||Chi-squared|||||1.28|0.64|0.56
95834817|NCT01990612|191641028|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.74|||Chi-squared||Exact confidence intervals are provided for rare outcomes.|||2.74|0.20|0.75
95834818|NCT01990612|191641029|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.81|0.91
95834819|NCT01990612|191641030|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||Chi-squared|||||1.66|0.66|0.84
95834820|NCT01990612|191641031|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.79|0.13
95834821|NCT01990612|191641032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||||<0.001
95834822|NCT01990612|191641033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.01
95834823|NCT01990612|191641034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The P value remained significant after controlling for multiple comparisons with the false discovery rate method.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.002
95834824|NCT01990612|191641036|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||Odds ratios from multinomial logistic regression.|Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are breastfeeding and formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.15|0.89|0.88
95834825|NCT01990612|191641036|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Multinomial logistic regression using participants who are breastfeeding only as the reference group. This analysis compares the participants who are only formula feeding to participants who are only breastfeeding.||1.12|0.86|0.78
95834826|NCT00006400|191641042|SUPERIORITY|The primary analysis was done using an intention-to-treat principle.||||||0.21||||||The spleen endpoint was to be tested at an overall alpha = 0.04. Originally there was a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but this outcome was dropped.|Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or decreased to absent) and not worsening (from decreased to decreased, normal to normal, or decreased to normal) as measured by splenic uptake on a technetium-99m (99mTc) sulfur colloid liver-spleen scan. Children with missing data or absent spleen function at baseline were excluded from the analysis (26 subjects from hydroxyurea and 23 subjects from placebo group were excluded).||||0.21
95834827|NCT00006400|191641043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This was originally a second primary outcome to be tested at alpha = 0.01, but was later dropped from the protocol. We analyzed the available data.|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by DTPA GFR were compared between treatment groups.||||0.93
95834828|NCT00006400|191641044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||All secondary outcomes were tested at alpha=0.01|ANOVA|||The change from baseline to exit as measured by GFR (calculated using Shwartz formula) were compared between treatment groups.||||0.43
95834829|NCT00006400|191641045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||All secondary outcomes were to be tested at alpha = 0.01|ANOVA|||The change in GFR from baseline to exit were compared between treatment groups. GFR was calculated using new Schwartz formula.||||0.48
95834830|NCT01078168|191641098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3769||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03025|0.7235||threshold: p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7235|0.03025|0.0347
95834831|NCT00666224|191641099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.55||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77||Type of unifocal presentation at baseline, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization, and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Cox|||||0.77|0.40|0.0005
95834832|NCT00666224|191641100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61|||Quasi-Likelihood NB* Regression|"\*NB = Negative Binomial~Center and baseline number of enhancing lesions as covariates."||||0.61|0.29|<0.0001
95834833|NCT00666224|191641101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means ratio|0.87||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.95|||ANCOVA|Used log-transformed measurements comparing the adjusted geometric means of T2 volume. Center and baseline T2 volume used as covariates.||||0.95|0.79|0.0013
95834834|NCT00666224|191641104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.61||Type of unifocal presentation, past corticosteroid treatment (Yes/No) for the initial attack prior to randomization and center effects as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.61|0.27|<0.0001
95834835|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs).||1.37|0.95|
95834836|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.88|
95834837|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
95834838|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.77|
95834839|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.5||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.50|1.03|
95834840|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.21||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.85|
95834841|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.17||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.82|
95834842|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
95834843|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.27||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.90|
95834844|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.07|0.72|
95834845|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.81|
95834846|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.21|0.81|
95834847|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.72|
95834848|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.4||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.40|1.00|
95834849|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.91|
95834850|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.6||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.60|1.03|
95834851|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.88|
95834852|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.46||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|0.91|
95834853|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.43||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.43|0.87|
95834854|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 2) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.83|
95834855|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.46|1.01|
95834856|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.96|
95834857|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.22||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.22|0.82|
95834858|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.89|
95834859|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.69|1.16|
95834860|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.35|0.94|
95834861|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.81|
95834862|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.87|
95834863|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.94|
95834864|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.13|0.75|
95834865|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.2||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.20|0.86|
95862760|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.22||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.22
95862761|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||<0.0001
95834866|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
95834867|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.25||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.78|
95834868|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.16|0.83|
95834869|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.30|0.87|
95834870|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.80|
95834871|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.42|0.94|
95834872|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.82|
95834873|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.26|0.77|
95834874|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 1 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.82|
95834875|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28||||||Serotype 1: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.28|0.89|
95834876|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Serotype 3: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.95|
95834877|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27||||||Serotype 4: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.27|0.85|
95834878|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41||||||Serotype 5: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.41|0.96|
95834879|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.36||||||Serotype 6A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.36|0.93|
95834880|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33||||||Serotype 6B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.33|0.93|
95834881|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19||||||Serotype 7F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.19|0.83|
95834882|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.78|
95834883|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24||||||Serotype 14: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.88|
95834884|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||||||Serotype 18C: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.29|0.86|
95834885|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.25|0.91|
95834886|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.17||||||Serotype 19F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.79|
95834887|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||||||Serotype 23F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.37|0.85|
95834888|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 8: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.98|0.70|
95862762|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.82||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.82
95862763|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.66||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.66
95862764|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.03
95862765|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.53||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.53
95862766|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.35||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.35
95862767|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.47||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
95862768|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.04
95862769|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
95862770|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.56||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.56
95862771|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.84
95862772|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.59||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862773|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.001||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862774|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862775|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862776|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862777|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.66||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862778|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862779|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862780|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.29||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.08
95862781|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.05||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.74
95862782|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.94
95862783|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.09||||0.51||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
95862784|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
95834889|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17||||||Serotype 10A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.17|0.78|
95834890|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96||||||Serotype 11A: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||0.96|0.62|
95834891|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31||||||Serotype 12F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.31|0.87|
95834892|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15||||||Serotype 15B: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.15|0.71|
95834893|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12||||||Serotype 22F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.12|0.69|
95834894|NCT03828617|191641110|EQUIVALENCE|Lots were considered equivalent if each of the pairwise 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMRs of OPA titers was contained in the interval (0.5, 2.0).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.24||||||Serotype 33F: GMRs (ratio of GMTs for 20vPnC Lot 2 to Lot 3) and 2-sided 95% CIs.||1.24|0.79|
95834895|NCT00303485|191641134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in median|-64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.28|-46.21|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-46.21|-80.28|< 0.0001
95834896|NCT00930553|191641162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|22.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|27.06|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||27.06|18.33|
95834897|NCT00930553|191641162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|29.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.42|34.49|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||34.49|25.42|
95834898|NCT00930553|191641163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|15.56|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||15.56|5.54|
95834899|NCT00930553|191641163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|13.9|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||13.90|4.48|
95834900|NCT00930553|191641163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.67|28.03|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.03|14.67|
95834901|NCT00930553|191641163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SAD|11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.63|18.58|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SAD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||18.58|7.63|
95834902|NCT00930553|191641164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|32.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.96|39.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||39.28|26.96|
95834903|NCT00930553|191641164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.08|48.28|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||48.28|37.08|
95834904|NCT00930553|191641165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|16.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|28.47|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||28.47|9.75|
95834905|NCT00930553|191641165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage with SRD|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|22.33|||||The percentage and 95% CI of the participants with SRD are estimated by the Kaplan Meier method.|||22.33|8.47|
95834906|NCT01818492|191641189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0134|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0134
95834907|NCT01818492|191641190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0031
95834908|NCT01818492|191641191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%||||0.0205
95834909|NCT01818492|191641192|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Exact binomial test|This test was undertaken at the one-sided 0.025 significance level.||Pre-specified null hypothesis that ORR is at most 40%.||||0.0053
95834910|NCT04783077|191641233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.5|||Regression, Logistic||The estimated odds ratio of return donation attempt represents WhatsApp compared to control.|The primary analysis applies only to the RCT participants (N=130). Docudrama participants were not assessed for return blood donation. Analysis used fitted logistic regression with outcome donation attempted (Y/N) on the modiﬁed intention-to-treat (mITT) population, adjusted for type of donor (FRD, VNRBD).|Missing data on the primary outcome from the mITT analysis was handled using multiple imputation via chained equations with 50 imputations, and included stratum, group assignment (WhatsApp, Control) and ethnicity. Ethnicity was the only baseline variable with a minimum Kendall's tau of 0.2 with donation attempt.|8.50|0.61|0.23
95834911|NCT00552409|191641250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|251.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean urine ACR on treatment was 17% lower among participants assigned to cholecalciferol, compared to participants assigned to placebo, adjusted for baseline values.|||251|-56|
95834912|NCT04566692|191641271|NON_INFERIORITY|The bi-weekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.003|1.0685||||||Geometric least-squares means (GLSMs), GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.0685|1.0030|
95834913|NCT04566692|191641274|NON_INFERIORITY|The biweekly treatment was considered non-inferior to the weekly treatment if the lower bound of the 90% CI was \> 0.8.|GLSM Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9447|0.9957||||||GLSMs, GLSM ratio, and 90% CI of GLSM ratio were determined from a mixed-effect model for the log-transformed parameter value with treatment period (weekly or bi-weekly) as a fixed effect and participants as a random effect.||0.9957|0.9447|
95834914|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834915|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834916|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95834917|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95834918|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.72
95834919|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834920|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95834921|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95834922|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834923|NCT01229449|191641283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95834924|NCT01300260|191641300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.64||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.64|2.41|<0.001
95834925|NCT01300260|191641300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) means ratio|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|7.13||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||7.13|4.09|<0.001
95834926|NCT01300260|191641301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.59||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.59|2.66|<0.001
95834927|NCT01300260|191641301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|7.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|13.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||13.0|4.82|<0.001
95834928|NCT01300260|191641302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|4.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.45|5.0||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||5.00|3.45|<0.001
95834929|NCT01300260|191641302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.78||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||4.78|2.99|<0.001
95834930|NCT01300260|191641303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.31||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.31|1.26|0.011
95834931|NCT01300260|191641303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.47||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||3.47|1.71|<0.001
95834932|NCT01300260|191641304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.22||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.43|1.04|0.021
95834933|NCT01300260|191641304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.53||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.53|1.27|<0.001
95834934|NCT01300260|191641305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.43||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.8||P-value is two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.80|1.14|0.009
95834935|NCT01300260|191641305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|1.94||P-value is 2-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model analysis included treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested in sequence as a random effect.||||1.94|1.59|<0.001
95834936|NCT02533726|191641306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.75|||Fisher Exact|||Per-protocol (PP) analysis, consistent with regulatory guidance (FDA).||.75|.1|.012
95834937|NCT02533726|191641306|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Per protocol analysis adjusted for admitting team, unit of admission, and risk for pressure injury.||0.74|0.06|0.015
95834938|NCT01147848|191641312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.015|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, region, sex, age, and treatment.|||0.015|-0.088|0.162
95834939|NCT04033068|191641325|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2003|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.2003
95834940|NCT04033068|191641326|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1448|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.1448
95834941|NCT04033068|191641327|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9111|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 0.9111
95834942|NCT04033068|191641328|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton Test|||||||= 1.0000
95834943|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.9|||=|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.2|= 0.9990
95834944|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.2|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.2|0.1|= 0.9798
95834945|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|10.1|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.1|0.1|= 0.9958
95834946|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 0||5.5|0.1|= 0.9935
95834947|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.7|||ANOVA|||Day 0||10.7|0.2|= 0.9852
95834948|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.6|||=|0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.4|||ANOVA|||Day 0||14.4|0.2|= 0.9440
95834949|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.2|||=|0.9943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.5|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.5|0.2|= 0.9943
95834950|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.0|||=|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Day 28||5.1|0.2|= 0.9999
95834951|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||14.3|0.4|= 0.6476
95834952|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|0.8|||=|0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Day 28||4.3|0.2|= 0.9911
95834953|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.9|||=|0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|12.0|||ANOVA|||Day 28||12.0|0.3|= 0.7647
95834954|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.3|||=|0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.8|||ANOVA|||Day 28||15.8|0.3|= 0.6447
95834955|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.3|0.3|= 0.9638
95834956|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||7.7|0.4|= 0.7837
95834957|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.9|||=|0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.3|||ANOVA|||Day 56||15.3|0.5|= 0.3427
95834958|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.3|||=|0.9578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||ANOVA|||Day 56||5.8|0.3|= 0.9578
95834959|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|2.2|||=|0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.7|||ANOVA|||Day 56||11.7|0.4|= 0.5637
95834960|NCT04033068|191641330|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|1.7|||=|0.8471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.6|||ANOVA|||Day 56||9.6|0.3|= 0.8471
95834961|NCT02540265|191641345|OTHER||Effect Size|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95834962|NCT02540265|191641345|OTHER||Effect Size|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95834963|NCT02540265|191641346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0049
95834964|NCT02540265|191641346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0076
95834965|NCT02540265|191641347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95834966|NCT02540265|191641347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Applies to SPID 0-6, SPID 0-12, SPID 0-24, SPID 12-24, SPID 12-48, and SPID 24-48|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95834967|NCT00324233|191641374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||equivalence testing|||||||0.56
95834968|NCT01972789|191641377|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a non-inferiority study design, with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 5 letters between intensive and relaxed groups. That is, if the change from Baseline in BCVA at Month 24 in the intensive group is not more than 5 letters higher than the relaxed group, then the relaxed group is regarded not inferior to the intensive group|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.32|-2.51|0.787
95834969|NCT01972789|191641378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.31||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.58|-3.20|0.833
95834970|NCT01972789|191641379|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-21.39||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-43.17|0.054
95834971|NCT01972789|191641380|OTHER||Negative Binomial Regression|1.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.18|||Mixed Model|||||1.18|1.04|0.001
95834972|NCT01972789|191641381|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-0.28|0.338
95834973|NCT01972789|191641382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12||2.80|0.74|0.284
95834974|NCT01972789|191641382|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24||2.33|0.71|0.407
95834975|NCT01972789|191641383|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.04|0.12|0.217
95834976|NCT01972789|191641384|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.42|0.615
95834977|NCT01972789|191641385|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.54|0.819
95834978|NCT01972789|191641387|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|630.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||630.5|0.03|0.565
95834979|NCT01972789|191641388|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.90|1.03|0.034
95834980|NCT01707381|191641389|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.773|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.166|||ANCOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-1.166|-2.380|<0.001
95834981|NCT01707381|191641390|OTHER||Bonferroni t-test used for paired compar|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||the bonferroni result applies to nocturnal supine OPP data comparing BOL group to timolol group|Statistical analysis of nocturnal (supine) OPP was performed among baseline, the BOL-303259-X treatment and timolol treatment using ANOVA. the criteria for statistical significance was P\<0.05. Post hoc Bonferroni T-tests were then utilized to compare BOL and timolol groups.||||<0.05
95834982|NCT01707381|191641391|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.915|-0.625|||ANOVA||Treatment Difference = BOL-303259-X 0.024% - Timolol maleate 0.5%.|||-0.625|-2.915|0.004
95834983|NCT04016077|191641407|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|118.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.96|159.64|||ANOVA|||||159.64|87.96|
95834984|NCT04016077|191641408|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Geometric Means|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|145.23|||ANOVA|||||145.23|74.48|
95834985|NCT03262441|191641423|OTHER||Slope|-0.00033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0014||||||||0.0014|-0.0020|
95834986|NCT03262441|191641424|OTHER||Slope|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0036|0.0056||||||||0.0056|-0.0036|
95834987|NCT03262441|191641425|OTHER||Slope|0.0024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.0078||||||||0.0078|-0.003|
95834988|NCT01304589|191641445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95834989|NCT01304589|191641446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|paired T-test|"Subjects completed a tampon insertion pain test once a week. The values were averaged and compared pre-treatment versus post-treatment."||||||.003
95834990|NCT01304589|191641447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95834991|NCT01304589|191641448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A paired T-Test was calculated assuming a standard difference (d) between the 4 paired outcomes for pain of 0.60 (moderate effect size), a SD of 1 for each outcome variable and a correlation of 0.50 between each paired variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95834992|NCT00559988|191641458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.064||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.75|0.732
95834993|NCT00148941|191641486|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.08|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.080|0.871|
95834994|NCT00148941|191641486|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.07|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.070|0.863|
95834995|NCT00148941|191641486|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.103|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.103|0.890|
95834996|NCT00148941|191641486|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.097|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.097|0.866|
95834997|NCT00148941|191641486|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.988|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.988|0.780|
95834998|NCT00148941|191641486|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.901|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.014|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.014|0.800|
95834999|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.063|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.063|0.828|
95835000|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.091|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.091|0.850|
95835001|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.162|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.162|0.906|
95835002|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|0.976|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||0.976|0.783|
95835003|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.057|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.057|0.849|
95835004|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.209|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.209|0.971|
95835005|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.148|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.148|0.867|
95835006|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.2|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.200|0.907|
95835007|NCT00148941|191641487|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMCs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMC ratio|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.202|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline concentration - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of pertactin (PRN) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.202|0.909|
95835008|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.181|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.181|0.836|
95835009|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.172|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.172|0.831|
95835010|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.18|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 1 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.180|0.836|
95835011|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.951|
95855164|NCT02978781|191669822|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|"Change from Baseline in Lateral wing beating postural tremor (LWBPT) at Day 15"|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.30|-1.31|0.0039
95960482|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2269
95960483|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3228|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3228
95835012|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.183|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.183|0.856|
95835013|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\] for Anti-poliovirus type 2.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|1.06|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 2 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.060|0.765|
95835014|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.314|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.314|0.941|
95835015|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.22|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.220|0.876|
95835016|NCT00148941|191641488|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity would be demonstrated if the lower and upper limits of the 95% CIs for the ratios of GMTs for each antigen (D, T, PT, FHA, PRN, and Poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3) and between each pair of the three lots of SB213503 vaccine were within the pre-defined clinical limits of \[0.67; 1.5\].|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.099|||ANCOVA|Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance with more than 2 groups.||The lot-to-lot consistency of three manufacturing lots of SB213503 vaccine in terms of poliovirus type 3 geometric mean titers (GMTs) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.||1.099|0.787|
95835017|NCT00148941|191641488|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ration|0.792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.922|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 1 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.922|0.680|
95835018|NCT00148941|191641488|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.925|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 2 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.925|0.696|
95835019|NCT00148941|191641488|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.085|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of anti-poliovirus type 3 (measured by the GMT ratio of Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group over SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.085|0.811|
95862785|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.09
95835020|NCT00148941|191641489|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of diphtheria toxoid (D) booster responses (i.e measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.21|-0.98|
95835021|NCT00148941|191641489|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-0.09||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of tetanus toxoid (T) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|-0.09|-6.55|
95835022|NCT00148941|191641490|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|3.71||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertussis toxoid (PT) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.71|-3.83|
95835023|NCT00148941|191641490|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.21||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|3.21|-2.50|
95835024|NCT00148941|191641490|NON_INFERIORITY|The objectives were achieved if for D, T, PT, FHA and PRN: the upper limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI of the difference in booster response rates was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% AND for poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3: the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 1.5.|Difference between groups|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.14||||||Analysis of the non-inferiority of SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of pertactin (PRN) booster responses (measured by the difference in percentage of subjects with a booster response between the Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group and (minus) the SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups) in a subset of subjects one month after vaccination when co-administered with M-M-R II.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|1.14|-3.79|
95835025|NCT00148941|191641491|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority objective was considered demonstrated, when the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference between groups (SB213503 + M-M-R Group = pooled lot 1, 2 \& 3 groups minus Infanrix + IPOL + M-M-R Group) in percentage of subjects reporting increased circumferential swelling was equal or less than 2%.|Difference in percentage|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the SB213503 vaccine compared to Infanrix + IPOL administered separately in terms of the incidence of increased circumferential swelling at the SB213503 and Infanrix injection site, defined as an injection site swelling diameter that involves \> 50% of the length of the upper arm that also is associated with a \> 30 mm increase of the mid-upper arm circumference compared to the baseline measurement.|SB213503 lot 1, SB213503 lot 2, and SB213503 lot 3 Arms/Groups were pooled for statistical analysis.|0.16|-1.26|
95835026|NCT01092663|191641511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835027|NCT01092663|191641512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835028|NCT01092663|191641513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effects between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95960484|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1808
95960485|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3282
95835029|NCT01092663|191641514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835030|NCT01092663|191641515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835031|NCT01092663|191641516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
95835032|NCT01092663|191641517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Treament difference in fasting EGP between the 2 groups were compared.||||>0.05
95835033|NCT01092663|191641518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
95835034|NCT01092663|191641519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired ttest||Difference in treatment effect between groups was evaluated||||>0.05
95835035|NCT01092663|191641520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835036|NCT01092663|191641521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||=0.01
95835037|NCT01092663|191641522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||differerences in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835038|NCT01092663|191641523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835039|NCT01092663|191641524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835040|NCT01092663|191641525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835041|NCT01092663|191641526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835042|NCT01092663|191641527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
95835043|NCT01092663|191641528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.05
95835044|NCT01092663|191641529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
95835045|NCT01092663|191641530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||<0.01
95835046|NCT01092663|191641531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|unpaired t-test||Difference in treatment effect between the 2 groups||||>0.05
95835047|NCT00360724|191641539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|9.43||||0.003|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|df 1,55|time X Drug group, f=9.43,df 1,55, p=.003|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||.003
95835048|NCT00360724|191641541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|8.72||||0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55|Time x Treatment: F=8.72, d.f=1,55, p=0.05|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.05
95835049|NCT00360724|191641542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|5.33||||0.025|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f. 1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.025
95835050|NCT00360724|191641543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|0.26||||0.6|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|d.f.=1,55||Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare measures between baseline and week 10.||||0.6
95835051|NCT00360724|191641548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95835052|NCT00360724|191641549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95835053|NCT00605345|191641557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the response rate of the CERA group was greater than the observed response rate of the darbepoetin group minus 15%. The calculated lower limit of an acceptable difference in response rates thus, was based on the actual percentage of responders in the darbepoetin group and this percentage minus 15% had to be excluded."||||||0.5947|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5947
95835054|NCT02577016|191641567|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.62|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.62|-1.05|<0.001
95835055|NCT02577016|191641570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-31.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-31.2|-53.7|<0.001
95835056|NCT02577016|191641571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-67.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.0|-50.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-50.0|-84.0|<0.001
95835057|NCT02577016|191641572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-5.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-5.2|-17.2|<0.001
95835058|NCT05399290|191641580|OTHER|Chi square analysis was conducted to detect any significant between group differences (100 mg vs 20 mg) in perceived acne severity.||||||0.677|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.677
95835059|NCT05399290|191641580|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 100 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.002|||||||Friedman's test|||||||0.002
95835060|NCT05399290|191641580|OTHER|Friedman's test was conducted for the 20 mg treatment arm to detect any significant within group differences in perceived acne severity.||||||0.018|||||||Fried|||||||0.018
95835061|NCT00659230|191641597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.18||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|The analysis was conducted using a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The model consisted of two factors - treatment at two levels and time (5 time points including baseline) and group by time interaction.||0.27|-0.64|0.723
95835062|NCT00659230|191641598|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.39|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.39|-.52|0.540
95835063|NCT00659230|191641599|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.18||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.27|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.27|-0.64|0.951
95835064|NCT00659230|191641600|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.11||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.56|||ANOVA||Effect size (ES) for change in CAPS-D score relative to baseline was calculated according to the method of Cohen.|||0.56|-0.35|0.396
95835065|NCT00826618|191641613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare final visual acuity to baseline visual acuity||||0.0015
95835066|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
95835067|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0182|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 1: Specificity||||0.0182
95835068|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
95835069|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0002|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 2: Specificity||||0.0002
95835070|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
95835071|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.997|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Reader 3: Specificity||||0.9970
95835072|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Sensitivity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||||<0.0001
95862786|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.81||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.81
95835073|NCT03354273|191641639|OTHER|Specificity was compared to a pre-specified threshold of 60%.||||||0.0781|||||||One-sided z-tests|The hypothesis tests were one-sided z-tests with a significance level of 0.025.||Majority Rule: Specificity||||0.0781
95835074|NCT03354273|191641640|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.4|||McNemar|The hypothesis tests were 1-sided McNemar's tests with a significance level of 0.025 for sensitivity.||Reader 1: Sensitivity||22.4|6.5|<0.0001
95835075|NCT03354273|191641640|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||9.7|-4.9|0.0004
95835076|NCT03354273|191641640|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|21.0|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||21.0|4.7|0.0002
95835077|NCT03354273|191641640|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|11.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||11.8|-2.1|<0.0001
95835078|NCT03354273|191641640|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||19.9|6.6|<0.0001
95835079|NCT03354273|191641640|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|1.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.4|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||8.4|-6.0|0.0011
95835080|NCT03354273|191641640|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.2|4.1|0.0003
95835081|NCT03354273|191641640|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||9.3|-5.0|0.0004
95835082|NCT03354273|191641641|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|24.4||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|43.4|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||43.4|5.4|0.0127
95835083|NCT03354273|191641641|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|20.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||20.2|-1.2|0.0001
95835084|NCT03354273|191641641|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|22.0||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|41.7|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||41.7|2.2|0.0195
95835085|NCT03354273|191641641|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|16.8|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||16.8|-3.2|0.0004
95835086|NCT03354273|191641641|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|32.4|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||32.4|1.7|0.0174
95835087|NCT03354273|191641641|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|0.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|11.3|||Nam's RMLE|||||11.3|-9.9|0.0240
95862787|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.07||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.07
95862788|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.02
95862789|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.59||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
95862790|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.51
95962458|NCT03607422|191896641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|18.4|<0.001
95835088|NCT03354273|191641641|SUPERIORITY||Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|17.1||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|35.6|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||35.6|-1.5|0.0448
95835089|NCT03354273|191641641|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|17.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||17.0|-3.4|0.0004
95835090|NCT03354273|191641642|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|12.0||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|23.9|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||23.9|0.0|0.0116
95835091|NCT03354273|191641642|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.2|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.2|-2.9|0.0003
95835092|NCT03354273|191641642|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.8||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||18.9|-5.2|0.1085
95835093|NCT03354273|191641642|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||21.1|2.1|<0.0001
95835094|NCT03354273|191641642|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|13.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.5|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||23.5|3.8|0.0017
95835095|NCT03354273|191641642|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|2.8||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||12.1|-6.6|0.0034
95835096|NCT03354273|191641642|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.7||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.0|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||19.0|-3.6|0.0641
95835097|NCT03354273|191641642|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|14.6|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||14.6|-4.6|0.0010
95835098|NCT03354273|191641643|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.0||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|24.6|||McNemar|||Reader 1: Sensitivity||24.6|-2.6|0.0294
95835099|NCT03354273|191641643|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|3.9||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.1|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 1: Specificity||16.1|-8.3|0.0117
95835100|NCT03354273|191641643|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|6.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|20.3|||McNemar|||Reader 2: Sensitivity||20.3|-7.1|0.1444
95835101|NCT03354273|191641643|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|11.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|23.7|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 2: Specificity||23.7|-0.4|0.0001
95835102|NCT03354273|191641643|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|8.8||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|18.9|||McNemar|||Reader 3: Sensitivity||18.9|-1.3|0.0440
95835103|NCT03354273|191641643|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|20.3|||Nam's RMLE|||Reader 3: Specificity||20.3|-4.8|0.0022
95835104|NCT03354273|191641643|SUPERIORITY|The test of sensitivity comparison between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a 1-sided McNemar's test at a significance level of 0.025 using 1-sided McNemar's tests.|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|4.4||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.2|||McNemar|||Majority Rule: Sensitivity||17.2|-8.4|0.2164
95835105|NCT03354273|191641643|NON_INFERIORITY|The test of specificity noninferiority between Flurpiridaz (18F) Injection PET MPI and SPECT MPI was performed with a paired test for noninferiority at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 using Nam's RMLE method (margin=0.1).|Difference between PET MPI and SPECT MPI|9.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|22.0|||Nam's RMLE|||Majority Rule: Specificity||22.0|-2.6|0.0006
95960486|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0342
95835106|NCT02524158|191641708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
95835107|NCT02524158|191641709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95835108|NCT02524158|191641710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95835109|NCT02524158|191641711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95835110|NCT02524158|191641712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.044
95835111|NCT02524158|191641713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95835112|NCT02524158|191641714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
95835113|NCT02524158|191641715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.66
95835114|NCT02524158|191641716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.10
95835115|NCT02524158|191641717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.202
95835116|NCT02524158|191641718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.369
95835117|NCT02524158|191641719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.50
95835118|NCT02524158|191641720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.067
95835119|NCT02524158|191641722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
95835120|NCT02524158|191641723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
95835121|NCT02524158|191641724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||The a priori specified threshold is p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.036
95835122|NCT02524158|191641725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
95835123|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Normal walk, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.478
95835124|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Normal walk, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.612
95835125|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stand up/squat down, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.534
95835126|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stand up/squat down, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.538
95835127|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Bend to biggest angle, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.195
95835128|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.232||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Bend to biggest angle, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.232
95835129|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Normal walk, Left.||||0.369
95835130|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Normal walk, Right.||||0.593
95835131|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stand up/squat down, Left.||||0.918
95835132|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stand up/squat down, Right.||||0.990
95835133|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Bend to biggest angle, Left.||||0.263
95835134|NCT06581094|191641786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Bend to biggest angle, Right.||||0.235
95960487|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 2 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4198
95835135|NCT06581094|191641787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of up-and-go test on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.399
95835136|NCT06581094|191641787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of timed up-and-go test.||||0.106
95835137|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of AROM, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.502
95835138|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of AROM, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.724
95835139|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of PROM, Left baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.414
95835140|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of PROM, Right baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.563
95835141|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of AROM, Left.||||0.110
95835142|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of AROM, Right.||||0.245
95835143|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of PROM, Left.||||0.113
95835144|NCT06581094|191641788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of PROM, Right.||||0.395
95835145|NCT06581094|191641789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Pain on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.823
95862791|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.9||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.9
95835146|NCT06581094|191641789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Stiffness on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.895
95835147|NCT06581094|191641789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||It calculated the p value of two treatment (Control group and Test group). The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the overall (main) effect of treatment-comparing Control and Test groups across the three time points (baseline, week 6, and week 12) Comparison groups: Control and Test group of Physical function on baseline, week 6, and week 12.||||0.682
95835148|NCT06581094|191641789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Pain.||||0.303
95835149|NCT06581094|191641789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Stiffness.||||0.148
95835150|NCT06581094|191641789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283||||||It calculated the p value of the interaction between 2 groups X 3 time points. The threshold of statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||It calculated the interaction between 2 groups (Control group and Test group) X 3 time points (Baseline, week 6, week 12) of Physical function.||||0.283
95835151|NCT05740618|191641791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||MCC60 was analyzed using a linear repeated measure model including visit number, skew of the deposition histogram as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95862792|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.02||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.02
95835152|NCT05740618|191641792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline cough clearance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95835153|NCT05740618|191641793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline Mucociliary Clearance (MCC) Over 90 Minutes.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95835154|NCT05740618|191641794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline FEV1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95835155|NCT05740618|191641795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline CFQR-R respiratory domain.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95835156|NCT05740618|191641796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-tests performed as paired analyses using baseline CFRSD-CRISS.||||||0.13
95835157|NCT00596830|191641810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.179||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.404||The p-value stated is the 2-sided p-value from the log rank test stratified by gender, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, and histology.|Log Rank|||||1.404|0.990|0.064
95835158|NCT00596830|191641811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.103||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.315||2-sided p-value is from the unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||HR was based on the Cox proportional hazards model|||1.315|0.925|0.270
95835159|NCT00596830|191641812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk difference|-1.472||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.6|||Chi-squared||Risk difference confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||5.6|-8.6|0.685
95835160|NCT00988091|191641828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|5.33||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|10.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because there was a single treatment comparison for the primary endpoint. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||A treatment difference of \>=7.0 mm and a pooled SD of 27.6 mm, requires a sample size of 244 subjects/treatment to complete the trial at 80% power at a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for 18% dropout rate, the sample size was increased to 298/arm (total of 596). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||10.24|0.41|0.034
95835161|NCT00988091|191641829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.89||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.08||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||7.08|-1.29|0.175
95835162|NCT00988091|191641830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.777||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.136||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||1.136|0.532|0.193
95835163|NCT00988091|191641831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||||0.887
95835164|NCT00988091|191641833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|8.98||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate and study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.||8.98|-0.99|0.116
95835165|NCT00988091|191641834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.044||For secondary outcome measures, fixed-sequence testing was used in a sequentially rejective fashion. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The analysis included study center as a stratification variable.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (HA) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 26 weeks is unequal.\[||1.044|0.483|0.081
95835166|NCT02516592|191641884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.084|0.005|0.028
95835167|NCT02516592|191641885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.94|-0.03|0.063
95835168|NCT02516592|191641886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.167|0.037|0.002
95835169|NCT02516592|191641887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.3|0.319
95835170|NCT02516592|191641888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.20|0.662
95835171|NCT01716104|191641889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
95835172|NCT01716104|191641890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
95835173|NCT01716104|191641891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
95835174|NCT01716104|191641892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
95835175|NCT01716104|191641893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0054
95835176|NCT01716104|191641894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0437
95835177|NCT01716104|191641895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0862
95835178|NCT01716104|191641896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0621|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0621
95835179|NCT01716104|191641897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0142
95835180|NCT03688100|191641903|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.62||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 3 MONTHS||0.86|0.45|0.005
95835181|NCT03688100|191641903|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 6 MONTHS||0.86|0.60|0.008
95835182|NCT03688100|191641903|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means for ED visits , BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Emergency Department visits AT 12 MONTHS||0.85|0.62|0.0001
95835183|NCT03688100|191641904|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model|||Differences in the number of hospital readmissions between BA and MEDS at 3, 6, and 12 months||||>0.05
95835184|NCT03688100|191641905|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 3 months||0.92|0.75|0.002
95835185|NCT03688100|191641905|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.81||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.87||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital at 6 MONTHS||0.87|0.75|0.005
95835186|NCT03688100|191641905|SUPERIORITY||ratio of means|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Zero Inflated Poisson (ZIP) Model||For the ratio of means, BA is the numerator and MEDS is the denominator.|Days in the Hospital AT 12 MONTHS||0.68|0.60|<0.0001
95835187|NCT03688100|191641906|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|Kaplan Meier survival plots|||||||>0.05
95835188|NCT00849862|191641919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.2||||||90.0|85.0|100.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||100|85.0|
95835189|NCT00849862|191641920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0||||||90.0|96.3|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104|96.3|
95835190|NCT00849862|191641921|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.6||||||90.0|96.2|103.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||103|96.2|
95835191|NCT00418574|191641931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.315|||Regression, Cox|||||1.315|0.919|0.301
95835192|NCT03596450|191641936|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.36||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Estimate and p-value are based on logistic regression model with logit link function, treatment as categorical effect, and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|1.03|0.033
95835193|NCT03037983|191642005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.849|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.849
95835194|NCT03037983|191642007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|||||t = 0.287|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.782
95835195|NCT04038567|191642035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.2||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.20|-1.14|
95835196|NCT04038567|191642035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.04||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for his vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.04|-2.39|
95835197|NCT04038567|191642035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.23||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.23|-1.12|
95835198|NCT04038567|191642036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.16||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.16|-2.12|
95835199|NCT04038567|191642036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-1.80|
95835200|NCT04038567|191642036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.49||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.49|-0.48|
95835201|NCT04038567|191642037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.01||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.01|-1.66|
95835202|NCT04038567|191642037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.14||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.14|-2.81|
95835203|NCT04038567|191642037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.15||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response to symptoms. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.15|-0.52|
95835204|NCT04038567|191642038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.91||||||||0.91|-1.23|
95835205|NCT04038567|191642038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.15||||||||-0.15|-2.29|
95835206|NCT04038567|191642038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.37||||||||0.37|-1.77|
95835207|NCT04038567|191642039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.25||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.25|-4.41|
95960488|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9049
95960489|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0456
95835208|NCT04038567|191642039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|2.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for hig vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.42|-3.26|
95835209|NCT04038567|191642039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.33||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||4.33|-1.35|
95835210|NCT04038567|191642044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.78||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.78|-0.62|
95835211|NCT04038567|191642044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.92||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.92|-0.47|
95835212|NCT04038567|191642044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.39||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.39|-1.00|
95835213|NCT04038567|191642045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||2.27|-0.45|
95960490|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 3 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2463
95960491|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8231
95960492|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0221
95960493|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 4 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6974
95835214|NCT04038567|191642045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.38||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.38|-1.33|
95835215|NCT04038567|191642045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.99||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.99|-1.72|
95835216|NCT04038567|191642046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.30|-1.30|
95835217|NCT04038567|191642046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.27||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.27|-1.33|
95835218|NCT04038567|191642046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.05||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.05|-.55|
95835219|NCT04038567|191642047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.41||||||||0.41|-1.41|
95835220|NCT04038567|191642047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.55||||||||0.55|-1.27|
95835221|NCT04038567|191642047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.42||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.42|-0.40|
95835222|NCT04038567|191642048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|7.91||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.91|-3.25|
95960494|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7461
95835223|NCT04038567|191642048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|10.4||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||10.40|-0.76|
95835224|NCT04038567|191642048|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.56||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||5.56|-5.60|
95835225|NCT04038567|191642049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|9.37||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||9.37|-3.01|
95835226|NCT04038567|191642049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|7.47||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||7.47|-4.92|
95862793|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.20
95962459|NCT03607422|191896641|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|5.9||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (Baseline vIGA-AD categories)|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||23.6|-11.7|0.510
95962460|NCT01920932|191896653|SUPERIORITY||Binomial proportions|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The comparison of the complete rate between the first 32 evaluable participants and the historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk patients was estimated by the binomial proportions test.||||In the historical control (HOD99) 17% of patients had CR at week 8. Sample size for this objective is calculated based on a binomial distribution to test H0: p=17% vs. Ha: p\>17%, where p is the true CR rate after 2 cycles of AEPA. 32 patients are needed to detect 20% increase of CR rate with 80% power and 5% type I error. If it shows efficacy, the response results will be reported, and the study will continue to enroll for a total of 77 patients to assess response and EFS.||||
95962461|NCT01920932|191896655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion of patient's complete response rate between HLHR13 and HOD99 (NCT00145600) unfavorable risk arm 2 (UR2).||||0.004
95962462|NCT01920932|191896656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||The comparison of the EFS between HLHR13 and historical control of HOD99 unfavorable risk 2 arm (UR2) was done by the two-sample log-rank test.||||0.0008
95835227|NCT04038567|191642049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|6.3||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||6.30|-6.09|
95835228|NCT04038567|191642056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.13||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app introduction. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||-0.13|-5.26|
95835229|NCT04038567|191642056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.67||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for high vs. standard dose. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||0.67|-4.46|
95835230|NCT04038567|191642056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.83||||||Values are change in model-estimated means for therapist vs. app response. Intervention components are coded as follows: introduction method (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]), dose (high \[1\] vs low \[-1\]), and symptom management (therapist \[1\] vs app \[-1\]).||1.83|-3.31|
95835231|NCT02726022|191642059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.647
95835232|NCT02726022|191642059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.373
95835233|NCT02726022|191642060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.049
95835234|NCT02726022|191642060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.860
95835235|NCT02726022|191642061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.921
95835236|NCT02726022|191642061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.962
95835237|NCT02726022|191642062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.052
95960495|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1198
95835238|NCT02726022|191642062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.677
95835239|NCT02726022|191642063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.720
95835240|NCT02726022|191642063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.237
95835241|NCT02726022|191642064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between gender status (male vs female) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.184
95835242|NCT02726022|191642064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical significance of change from baseline to 24 weeks after EOT between drug addiction status (yes vs no) was tested using Fisher's exact test.||||0.889
95835243|NCT00235716|191642065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.39||p-value adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||5.39|0.92|0.03
95835244|NCT00235716|191642065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.98||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.2||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.20|-0.24|0.40
95835245|NCT00235716|191642065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|4.0||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||4.00|-0.48|0.49
95835246|NCT00235716|191642065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.85||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.85|-3.63|0.60
95962463|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
95835247|NCT00235716|191642065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.01||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||2.01|-2.44|0.85
95835248|NCT00235716|191642065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|3.39||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.39|-1.04|0.60
95835249|NCT00235716|191642066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||p- value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons because its a 3 degrees of freedom test for any treatment group differences|Log Rank|3 degrees of freedom test||||||0.69
95835250|NCT00235716|191642067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.92||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.92|-0.54|0.84
95835251|NCT00235716|191642067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.84||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.84|-0.61|0.84
95835252|NCT00235716|191642067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.1||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.10|-0.36|0.84
95835253|NCT00235716|191642067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.84||95.0|-0.56|0.9||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.90|-0.56|0.84
95835254|NCT00235716|191642067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.98|-0.47|0.84
95835255|NCT00235716|191642067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.8||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.80|-0.65|0.84
95835256|NCT00235716|191642068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.33||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.33|-3.28|0.10
96001309|NCT02519231|191980114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05|t-test, 2 sided|For days with bleeding/spotting outcomes, we used independent t-tests to compare the unadjusted mean difference between groups.|Treatment Difference = Naproxen - Placebo|We originally planned to enroll 60 subjects based on other similar studies that evaluated treatment for bleeding among women using contraception; as reported by Cohen et al., a sample size of 42 provided 80% power to detect a difference of 7 bleeding/spotting days in 30 days by two-sample t-test, allowing for an expected 20% drop-out.|We designed the study to include another site, in addition to the UW site enrolled participants. After 6 months of failed active recruitment at the other site, we discontinued that site from the study. Resources did not permit us to contract with an alternative recruitment site, and thus the protocol was revised to enroll 32 participants at the Seattle site only.|||.11
95835257|NCT00235716|191642068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.07|-2.85|0.25
96001310|NCT02519231|191980115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95960496|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 5 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8031
95835258|NCT00235716|191642068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.17||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.17|-3.12|0.14
95835259|NCT00235716|191642068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-1.32|0.84
95835260|NCT00235716|191642068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.21||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.21|-1.72|0.84
95835261|NCT00235716|191642068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.06||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.06|-1.88|0.84
95835262|NCT00235716|191642069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.63|-3.55|0.94
95835263|NCT00235716|191642069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.7||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.70|-2.47|0.94
95835264|NCT00235716|191642069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.63|-2.57|0.94
95835265|NCT00235716|191642069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|3.07||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.07|-1.09|0.94
95835266|NCT00235716|191642069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.99|-2.16|0.94
95960497|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8515
95835267|NCT00235716|191642069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.99||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||0.99|-3.14|0.94
95835268|NCT00235716|191642070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.79||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.23||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.23|-3.35|0.12
95835269|NCT00235716|191642070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.94||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.94|-1.18|0.86
95835270|NCT00235716|191642070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.42||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the placebo group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.42|-1.70|0.86
95835271|NCT00235716|191642070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.19||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the vitamin E group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||3.19|0.11|0.14
95835272|NCT00235716|191642070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.02||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E + memantine group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||1.02|-2.07|0.86
95835273|NCT00235716|191642070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.63||p-value is adjusted for 6 treatment group comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model assuming data missing at random, adjusted for medical center as a random effect and for the baseline outcome score.|Mean difference is the least squares mean changes from baseline for the vitamin E group minus the memantine group.|Longitudinal analysis to assess the average treatment effect over 48 months with visits at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months using all available data.||-0.63|-3.71|0.03
95835274|NCT00235716|191642071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.13||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for vitamin E group relative to the placebo group.|||1.13|0.67|0.31
95835275|NCT00235716|191642071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.24|0.91|0.47
95835276|NCT00235716|191642071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||p-value is unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is for the vitamin E + memantine group relative to the placebo group.|||1.54|0.57|0.80
95835277|NCT03036189|191642072|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95835278|NCT03036189|191642073|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
95835279|NCT03036189|191642074|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95835280|NCT03036189|191642075|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
95960498|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1285
95835281|NCT03036189|191642076|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95835282|NCT03036189|191642077|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.49||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
95835283|NCT03036189|191642078|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95835284|NCT03036189|191642079|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95835285|NCT03036189|191642080|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.25||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95835286|NCT03036189|191642081|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95835287|NCT03036189|191642082|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.99||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.40
95835288|NCT03036189|191642083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95835289|NCT03036189|191642084|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95835290|NCT03036189|191642085|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-23.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95835291|NCT00788710|191642086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95835292|NCT00788710|191642086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95835293|NCT00788710|191642087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95835294|NCT00788710|191642087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95835295|NCT00788710|191642088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95835296|NCT00788710|191642088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95835297|NCT00727558|191642089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1943||||97.47|0.1721|0.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.554|0.1721|
95835298|NCT00727558|191642090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03555||||97.47|-0.1734|-0.1037|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||-0.1037|-0.1734|
95835299|NCT00727558|191642091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3968|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1548||||98.7|0.04983|0.3968|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.3968|0.04983|
95835300|NCT00727558|191642092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054||||98.7|0.03714|0.3875|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A.||0.3875|0.03714|
95835301|NCT00727558|191642093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1563||||98.7|0.213|0.6735|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.6735|0.213|
95835302|NCT00727558|191642094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648||||98.7|-0.2375|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A||0.132|-0.2375|
95835303|NCT00727558|191642095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04448||||97.47|-0.2469|-0.1599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is narafilcon A minus nelfilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis: narafilcon A is superior to nelfilcon A by having a lower level of inferior region corneal staining||-0.1599|-0.2469|
95835304|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1097.0||||||90.0|793.6|1461.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||1461|793.6|
95835305|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|54.6||||||90.0|35.36|85.49||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||85.49|35.36|
95835306|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|79.81|142.0||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||142.0|79.81|
95835307|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|134.3||||||90.0|80.83|197.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||197.1|80.83|
95835308|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|200.3||||||90.0|151.9|302.4||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||302.4|151.9|
95835309|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|181.3||||||90.0|119.8|253.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||253.1|119.8|
95835310|NCT00488826|191642120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.02||||||90.0|57.93|150.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC Separately group to the DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||150.5|57.93|
95835311|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|665.1||||||90.0|473.3|851.2||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 4.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||851.2|473.3|
95835312|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|22.2||||||90.0|13.99|31.77||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 6B.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||31.77|13.99|
95835313|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.7||||||90.0|56.41|103.6||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 9V.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||103.6|56.41|
95835314|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.48||||||90.0|61.09|147.5||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 14.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||147.5|61.09|
95835315|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|164.0||||||90.0|114.9|232.9||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 18C.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||232.9|114.9|
95835316|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.45||||||90.0|57.98|119.1||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 19F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||119.1|57.98|
95835317|NCT00488826|191642121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|44.7||||||90.0|29.48|68.71||P-Values were not calculated.|||This analysis is for Serotype 23F.|"The ratio of the 7vPnC + DTaP Concurrently group to DTaP Alone group geometric mean comparisons (GMC) was provided with a corresponding 90% confidence interval."||68.71|29.48|
95835318|NCT01854281|191642122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||0.02
95835319|NCT01854281|191642122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||null hypothesis: there is no difference in the occurence of arterial bubbles after simulated dive between closure and PFO groups.||||<0.01
95862794|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
95835320|NCT03208088|191642130|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 1 - Control.|||11.6|0.1|
95962464|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.002
95835321|NCT03208088|191642130|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 2 - Control.|||8.1|-4.0|
95835322|NCT03208088|191642131|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 3 - Control.|||4.6|-7.5|
95835323|NCT03208088|191642131|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least Square Mean|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as Test 4 - Control.|||2.3|-9.0|
95835324|NCT01504841|191642206|OTHER||%|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|69.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||69.2|10.9|
95835325|NCT01504841|191642206|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|100.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE.|||100|39.8|
95835326|NCT01504841|191642209|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medications.|||51.8|2.5|
95835327|NCT01504841|191642209|OTHER||%|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II, percentage of participants who experienced a grade 3+ AE at least possibly related to study medication.|||60.2|0|
95835328|NCT01504841|191642210|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||51.8|2.3|
95835329|NCT01504841|191642210|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
95835330|NCT01504841|191642210|OTHER||%|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|61.0|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||61|6|
95835331|NCT01504841|191642210|OTHER||%|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|99.4|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants who experienced Virologic Failure.|Week 48 time point.||99.4|19.4|
95835332|NCT01504841|191642214|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||41.3|0.2|
95835333|NCT01504841|191642214|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 12, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 12 time point.||93.2|6.8|
95835334|NCT01504841|191642214|OTHER||%|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|41.3|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||41.3|0.2|
95835335|NCT01504841|191642214|OTHER||%|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|80.6|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 24, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 24 time point.||80.6|0.6|
95835336|NCT01504841|191642214|OTHER||%|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|51.8|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort I Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||51.8|2.3|
95835337|NCT01504841|191642214|OTHER||%|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|93.2|||||Exact Binomial (Clopper-Pearson) confidence intervals for Cohort II Week 48, percentage of participants with a \>5% decline in absolute CD4 %.|Week 48 time point.||93.2|6.8|
95835338|NCT01959139|191642216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.34|||Regression, Cox|||||3.34|1.28|<0.01
95835339|NCT01959139|191642217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|1.14|0.01
95835340|NCT06292130|191642228|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95835341|NCT06292130|191642229|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95835342|NCT02381015|191642236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95835343|NCT02381015|191642237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95835344|NCT02381015|191642238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95835345|NCT02381015|191642239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
95835346|NCT02381015|191642240|OTHER||Beta|93.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The statistical analysis shows the relation between risk given and risk recall at the immediate post results assessment for the total number of participants.||||0.42
95835347|NCT02381015|191642241|OTHER||Beta|94.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
95835348|NCT00118742|191642242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0012||95.0|14.8|35.0|||ANCOVA|||||35.0|14.8|0.0012
95835349|NCT00118742|191642243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.7|35.6|||ANCOVA|||||35.6|15.7|<0.0001
95835350|NCT00118742|191642244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.7||||0.0053||95.0|13.7|43.7|||ANCOVA|||||43.7|13.7|0.0053
95835351|NCT00118742|191642245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|12.5|29.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 6 months posttransplant||29.6|12.5|<0.0001
95835352|NCT00118742|191642245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.9|26.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 12 months posttransplant||26.6|9.9|<0.0001
95835353|NCT00118742|191642245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.6||||0.0006||95.0|10.2|37.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for calculated creatinine clearance at 24 months posttransplant||37.0|10.2|0.0006
95835354|NCT00787189|191642287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0005
95835355|NCT01532869|191642328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) mean|-2.7||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.45|-5.85|0.0915
95835356|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.43||||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.91|-10.78|0.9336
95835357|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.12||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.96|-15.21|0.4609
95835358|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.28||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.13|-14.70|0.8493
95835359|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|4.89||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|18.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||18.37|-8.59|0.4717
95835360|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.08||||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.78|-9.93|0.9876
95835361|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-6.8||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Intestinal VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||4.71|-18.30|0.2407
95835362|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.54||||0.7742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|12.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Breathing VAS Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||12.26|-9.18|0.7742
95835363|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-4.48||||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.28|9.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Raynaud Syndrome Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||9.31|-18.28|0.5182
95835364|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-5.8||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Finger Ulcers Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.59|-17.20|0.3106
95835365|NCT01532869|191642330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-7.82||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Overall Disease Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||3.48|-19.11|0.1717
95835366|NCT01532869|191642331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.02||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction||0.225|-0.186|0.8503
95835367|NCT01532869|191642331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.207||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.056|-0.471|0.1212
95835368|NCT01532869|191642332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.99||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 24.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||7.23|-9.20|0.8118
95835369|NCT01532869|191642332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-9.02||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.04|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Clinician's Global Assessment at Week 48.The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||1.00|-19.04|0.0768
95962465|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.067
95835370|NCT01532869|191642333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.85||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.34|-13.04|0.4063
95835371|NCT01532869|191642333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-8.3||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.71|-19.31|0.1371
95835372|NCT01532869|191642334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|1.43||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||5.82|-2.97|0.5197
95835373|NCT01532869|191642334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|2.75||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Score at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||6.88|-1.38|0.1886
95835374|NCT01532869|191642335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|0.79||||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 24. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||2.51|-0.94|0.3651
95835375|NCT01532869|191642335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-1.11||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change From Baseline in 5-D Itch Scale at Week 48. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.94|-3.16|0.2841
95835376|NCT01532869|191642336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-3.55||||0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous covariates of baseline score and baseline score-by-visit interaction.||0.12|-7.23|0.0579
95835377|NCT01532869|191642337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment and the stratification factor of joint involvement at the baseline visit. The continuous covariate of baseline mRSS score was also included in the model.||9.50|0.60|0.2159
95835378|NCT00820222|191642354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.63|||Odds Ratio||The Odds Ratio is based on a logistic regression model. The P-value for the test of Odds Ratio is 1.|||1.63|0.26|0.360
95835379|NCT00820222|191642355|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.64|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.64|1.04|0.021
95835380|NCT00820222|191642357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.9|||Log Rank||A HR \> 1 indicates a higher risk for lapatinib+capecitabine compared with trastuzumab+capecitabine.|||1.90|0.95|0.095
95835381|NCT00820222|191642358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7984||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5407|1.1771|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Overall Response (CR+PR)||1.1771|0.5407|0.2731
95835382|NCT00820222|191642359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9016||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6315|1.2866|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison for Clinical Benefit||1.2866|0.6315|0.6106
95835383|NCT00590577|191642365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-13.71|-5.85||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-5.85|-13.71|<0.001
95835384|NCT00590577|191642365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001||95.0|-12.62|-4.78||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-4.78|-12.62|<0.001
95843751|NCT03629886|191655182|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=1963). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.23|0.09|
95960499|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 6 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5561
95960500|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6858
95962466|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.115
95835385|NCT00590577|191642365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.034||95.0|-9.01|-1.1||Used analysis of covariance model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone palmitate 25, 100, 150 mg eq.) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. P-values adjusted for multiplicity for comparison with placebo using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|The overall type I error rate for testing all paliperidone palmitate doses vs. placebo for both the primary outcome and key secondary outcome was controlled at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 2 families of hypotheses (in each family, comparison of each paliperidone palmitate dose vs. placebo) were tested using a parallel gatekeeping procedure that adjusts for multiplicity by using Dunnett's method in each family of hypotheses and using Bonferroni's inequality between different families.||-1.10|-9.01|0.034
95835386|NCT00590577|191642366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001||95.0|3.26|9.12||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||9.12|3.26|<0.001
95855165|NCT02978781|191669822|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Kinetic tremor (KT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.19|-1.14|0.0099
95855166|NCT02978781|191669823|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Archimedes spirals (AS) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.3|-1.5|0.1595
95855167|NCT02978781|191669823|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Handwriting at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|-0.1|-0.9|0.0126
95855168|NCT02978781|191669823|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Least squares mean difference from Baseline (SAGE-217)|Change from Baseline in Dot approximation task (DAT) at Day 15|MMRM model was used for analysis with change from randomization of the Kinesia kinetic tremor combined scores as the dependent variable, treatment group by study visit/time point interaction as fixed effects, and randomization value as a covariate.|0.10|-0.55|0.1536
95855169|NCT00084136|191669832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04||Not adjusted for multiple interim analyses. Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by country and screening RNA (\< 100,000 c/mL vs \>= 100,000 copies/mL).|The HR is for ddI+FTC+ATV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|||2.04|1.12|<0.01
95855170|NCT00084136|191669833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Other||The HR is for TDF/FTC+EFV vs. ZDV/3TC+EFV.|While original study design specified a non-inferiority test, study follow-up stopped early, not due to treatment effect size or futility, but due to slowing accumulation of primary outcome events. Therefore, 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals about the estimated treatment effect (relative effect estimated by a hazard ratio) are provided.||1.27|0.72|
95855171|NCT00627393|191669916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinary multiple logistic regression including treatment arm, infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|Control group is the reference group. Model adjusted for infection strata, underlying disease, zubrod score, respiratory symptoms, and age.|||3.20|0.44|0.73
95855172|NCT00627393|191669919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank P-Value|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Competing risks analysis for time to GVHD for subjects with allogeneic HST. The sample size was very small (n=7 in the granulocyte group, and n=8 in the control group).|Competing Risks|||||||0.43
95855173|NCT00627393|191669924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25885||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|2.147|||Log Rank|Log-rank test to compare survival distributions between the control group and treatment group.|The control group is considered the reference group.|||2.147|0.778|0.35
95855174|NCT03994081|191669930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.332
95855175|NCT03994081|191669931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
95855176|NCT03994081|191669932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.464
95855177|NCT03994081|191669932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.765
95855178|NCT03994081|191669933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.072
95855179|NCT03994081|191669933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.811
95835387|NCT00590577|191642366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.007||95.0|1.43|7.31||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||7.31|1.43|0.007
95835388|NCT00590577|191642366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least-squares means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.509||95.0|-1.96|3.95||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity between PANSS total score (primary efficacy endpoint) and PSP, as well as different dose levels in comparison with placebo, using the Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping method.|ANCOVA||The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|Analysis of the key secondary endpoint was conducted using an analysis of covariance model with treatment and country as factors, and the baseline PSP score as a covariate. The Dunnett-Bonferroni-based parallel gatekeeping approach was used to adjust for multiple testing.||3.95|-1.96|0.509
95835389|NCT00590577|191642367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
95835390|NCT00590577|191642367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.005
95835391|NCT00590577|191642367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||Comparisons with placebo were without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.140
95835392|NCT03927404|191642369|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).|||||<|0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||<0.05
95835393|NCT03927404|191642371|OTHER|We used median (Inter-quartile range) to describe the continuous measures of limb health such as TEWL, Hydration, and Oxygenation levels at each visit and each location of the measurements in the sound (SL) and residual limbs (RL).||||||0.05||||||In a bivariate analysis, we used two-sided equality of the median test for the matched pairs of observations|bivariate analysis|||||||0.05
95835394|NCT02641067|191642372|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.04||||||||2.04|1.00|
95835395|NCT02641067|191642373|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.92||||||||1.92|0.99|
95835396|NCT02641067|191642374|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.15||||||||1.15|0.61|
95835397|NCT04118595|191642461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95835398|NCT04118595|191642462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.41
95835399|NCT04118595|191642463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
95835400|NCT04118595|191642464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.64
95835401|NCT04118595|191642465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.57
95835402|NCT04118595|191642466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
95835403|NCT04118595|191642467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.19
95835404|NCT04118595|191642468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.15
95835405|NCT04118595|191642469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95835406|NCT04118595|191642470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.36
95960501|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0693
95835407|NCT03274518|191642488|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.4534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4534
95835408|NCT03274518|191642489|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.1179|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1179
95835409|NCT03274518|191642490|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 20% in comparison to reference method (olHDF)||||||0.3054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3054
95835410|NCT03274518|191642491|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower the ECW/TBW ratio, the lower pre-dialysis excess fluid. A non-inferiority margin was defined as difference within 10% from reference method (olHDF)||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
95835411|NCT04407234|191642495|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.803|0.967|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.967|0.803|
95835412|NCT04407234|191642495|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.28|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||1.28|1.05|
95835413|NCT04407234|191642496|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.509|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.509|0.390|
95835414|NCT04407234|191642496|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.589|0.783|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.783|0.589|
95835415|NCT04407234|191642498|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.888|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.01||||||||1.01|0.778|
95835416|NCT04407234|191642498|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.42||||||||1.42|1.07|
95835417|NCT04407234|191642499|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.766|0.999||||||||0.999|0.766|
95835418|NCT04407234|191642499|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.25||||||||1.25|0.938|
95835419|NCT04407234|191642500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.545||||||||0.545|0.376|
95835420|NCT04407234|191642500|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.979||||||||0.979|0.660|
95835421|NCT04407234|191642501|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.364|0.527||||||||0.527|0.364|
95835422|NCT04407234|191642501|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometricleast squares mean|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.471|0.698||||||||0.698|0.471|
95835423|NCT00348309|191642505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.7|0.049
95835424|NCT00348309|191642505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-1.7|0.808
95835425|NCT00348309|191642505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.9|0.035
95835426|NCT00348309|191642505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.0|0.999
95835427|NCT00348309|191642505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
95835428|NCT00348309|191642505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.2|0.661
95835429|NCT00348309|191642506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.0|=0.056
95835430|NCT00348309|191642506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||APOE4 negatives|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|=0.587
95835431|NCT00348309|191642506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.004
95835432|NCT00348309|191642506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||All except E4/E4s|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|=0.402
95835433|NCT00348309|191642506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|=0.002
95835434|NCT00348309|191642506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||Full population|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.2|=0.478
95835435|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-2.0|=0.340
95835436|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-2.5|=0.079
95835437|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-1.7|=0.910
95835438|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.0||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.1|0.521
95835439|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||=|0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-0.5|=0.154
95835440|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.6|=0.836
95835441|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.2||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-0.1|0.061
95835442|NCT00348309|191642507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.9|=0.566
95835443|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.3|=0.414
95835444|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Week 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.0|0.931
95835445|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-1.4|0.485
95835446|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5||Week 16|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.8|0.550
95835447|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-1.8|0.264
95835448|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Week 24|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|0.732
95835449|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-2.9|0.043
95835450|NCT00348309|191642508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-1.4|0.814
95835451|NCT00348309|191642509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.870
95835452|NCT00348309|191642509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.617
95835453|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Q1||6.9|-5.2|0.789
95835454|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|5.6||Week 12Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|-9.0|0.643
95835455|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|0.1||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-14.7|0.052
95835456|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.6||Week 24 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-14.0|0.481
95835457|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.2||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-15.6|0.195
95835458|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|10.7||Week 36 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.7|-12.9|0.857
95835459|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|6.7||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-15.9|0.422
95835460|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|8.6||Week 48 Q1|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.6|-15.7|0.562
95835461|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|20.2||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.2|-2.6|0.129
95835462|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|19.9||Week 12 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-4.0|0.194
95835463|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|13.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.1|-10.5|0.832
95835464|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|19.1||Week 24 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1|-6.8|0.351
95835465|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.5||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.5|-13.3|0.949
95835466|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|22.6||Week 36 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.6|-6.0|0.253
95835467|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|11.4||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.4|-16.2|0.735
95835468|NCT00348309|191642510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.2||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|32.0||Week 48 Q2|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.0|0.3|0.046
95835469|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-2.3|0.914
95835470|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.4||Week 12 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-3.3|0.415
95835471|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.063
95835472|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.3||Week 36 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-5.6|0.030
95835473|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.8||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-1.5|0.392
95835474|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.0||Week 48 Thermometer|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-3.7|0.557
95835475|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.01|0.320
95835476|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||Week 12 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.04|0.180
95835477|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.02|0.498
95835478|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0||Week 36 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.06|0.081
95835479|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.00|0.077
95835480|NCT00348309|191642511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||Week 48 Utility|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.640
95835481|NCT00348309|191642512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.6|0.105
95835482|NCT00348309|191642512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-1.3|0.483
95835483|NCT00348309|191642513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.004
95835484|NCT00348309|191642513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.3|0.554
95835485|NCT00348309|191642514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.292
95835486|NCT00348309|191642514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.3|0.297
95835487|NCT00348309|191642515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.598
95835488|NCT00348309|191642515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.073
95835489|NCT00348309|191642516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|0.02|0.006
95835490|NCT00348309|191642516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.01|0.140
95835491|NCT00348309|191642526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.027
95835492|NCT00348309|191642526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1||Week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.1|0.091
95835493|NCT00348309|191642526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.268
95835494|NCT00348309|191642526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Week 36|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-1.1|0.318
95835495|NCT00348309|191642526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.030
95835496|NCT00348309|191642526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7||Week 48|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.797
95835497|NCT00223704|191642527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||This P-value is for the main comparison of receiving any transfusion.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95835498|NCT00223704|191642528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
95835499|NCT00223704|191642529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
95835500|NCT00223704|191642530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in Interleukin-6 concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, post-bypass, postoperative day 1 and 2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for Interleukin-6 concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||0.92
95835501|NCT00223704|191642531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The P-value reflects the difference in D-dimer concentrations among the 3 treatment groups over the course of the study (baseline, 30min, 60min, post-bypass, and postoperative day 1)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The time course for D-dimer concentrations were analyzed using mixed-effects models with fixed effects of drug treatment (placebo, aminocaproic acid, HOE 140) and time since randomization. We included a random subject effect and a first-order autoregressive process to account for the correlation in the response variable in the mixed-effects model||||<0.001
95835502|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.030
95835503|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.025
95835504|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.037
95835505|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.011
95835506|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.050
95835507|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.055
95835508|NCT02684188|191642556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.137
95835509|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 112(68 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.279
95835510|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 110 (66 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.211
95835511|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 104 (61 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.424
95835512|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (57 baseline and 41 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.191
95962467|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.455
95835513|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (56 baseline and 39 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.478
95835514|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (53 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.452
95855180|NCT04973449|191669937|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||1.32|1.08|
95835515|NCT02684188|191642557|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.||||||0.381||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic||||For day 90, 83 (49 baseline and 34 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.381
95835516|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of hospital visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of hospital visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.502
95835517|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.286
95835518|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.347
95835519|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.250
95835520|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.220
95835521|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.116
95835522|NCT02684188|191642558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of ED visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of ED visits for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.126
95835523|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 3; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 115 (70 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.597
95835524|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 7; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 113 (68 baseline and 45 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.504
95835525|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 14; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 107 (63 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.558
95960502|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5547|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 7 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5547
95835526|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 21; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 101 (59 baseline and 42 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.472
95960503|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4610
95835527|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 30; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.462
95835528|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 60; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 90 (55 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.394
95835529|NCT02684188|191642559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Comments (covariates): P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for PAM10.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the proportion of patients with at least one ED visits by day 90; H1: The proportion of patients with at least one ED visit for the standard discharge group is greater than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 86 (51 baseline and 35 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.368
95835530|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.946
95835531|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.613
95835532|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.541
95835533|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|For day 21, 98 (58 baseline and 40 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.765
95835534|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE+ score.|Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.919
95835535|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.|Poisson regression|P-values comparing the counts for the 2 groups after adjusting for sex, age, number in household, county, and LACE score.||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.999
95835536|NCT02684188|191642560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Poisson regression|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.995
95835537|NCT02684188|191642561|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF12 Physical Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, and the number of people in a household. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.371||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.371, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF12 Physical Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF12 Physical Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.371
95835538|NCT02684188|191642562|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures ANOVA model was used to model the SF-12 Mental Health score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and county. All hypotheses were 2-sided and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||||0.232||||||The P-value comparing the means for the 2 groups averaged across the 7 days is p = 0.232, after adjusting for covariates.|ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: Hoi: There is no difference in mean SF-12 Mental Health scores between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1i: The mean SF-12 Mental Health scores differ between the standard and enhanced discharge groups.||||0.232
95835539|NCT02684188|191642563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806|||||||ANCOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean CTM3 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean CTM3 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|An analysis of covariance was used to model the CTM3 discharge planning score as a function of treatment group. An ANOVA F-test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of patient age and income. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, County, Number in Household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score did not differ in their mean CTM3 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.806
95855181|NCT04973449|191669938|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.14|0.90|
95855182|NCT04973449|191669939|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|6.49||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||6.49|-3.11|
95835540|NCT02684188|191642564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742|||||||ANOVA|||The following hypotheses were tested: H0: There is no difference in the mean RTM14 score between the standard and enhanced discharge groups (null hypothesis); H1: Patients in the enhanced discharge group will have a higher mean RTM14 rating than patients in the standard discharge group.|A repeated measures ANOVA model (over the 6 time measurement periods) was used to model the RTM14 score as a function of treatment group. The likelihood ratio test was used to calculate the p-values for the treatment effect and covariates. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Hypotheses were tested after adjusting for the effects of the repeated measures, patient age, income, and whether or not a patient had visited a hospital or ED prior to that day. The hypothesis test for the group comparison was 1-sided, hypotheses to assess significance of covariates were 2-sided, and p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The covariates Sex, Number in household, LACE+ score, and PAM10 score were not significant in explaining SF-12 scores so were not retained in the model.|||0.742
95835541|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||: H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 3 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 3.|For day 3, 114 (70 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.717
95835542|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 7 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 7.|For day 7, 111 (67 baseline and 44 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.479
95835543|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 14 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 14.|For day 14, 105 (62 baseline and 43 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.329
95835544|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 21 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 21.|This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|||0.780
95835545|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 30 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 30.|For day 30, 95 (57 baseline and 38 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.779
95835546|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 60 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 60.|For day 60, 87 (54 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.848
95835547|NCT02684188|191642565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||This Hypothesis was tested with no adjustments for covariates since none were significant.|Regression, Logistic|||H0: There is no difference in the cumulative number of PCP visits for day 90 (null hypothesis); H1: The cumulative number of PCP visits for the standard discharge group is less than that for the enhanced discharge group for day 90.|For day 90, 83 (50 baseline and 33 intervention) patients were used in this analysis.|||0.857
95835548|NCT02126839|191642580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|33.94|||mixed model repeated measures analysis|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||33.94|16.10|<0.0001
95960504|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6640
95960505|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 8 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6158
95835549|NCT02126839|191642581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.76|104.91|||mixed model repeated measures|Fixed effects of treatment group, treatment day, and study day by treatment interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as a covariate.||||104.91|47.76|<0.0001
95835550|NCT00238238|191642590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95835551|NCT00238238|191642591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95835552|NCT01007838|191642594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Omnibus ANCOVA. An interaction would suggests patients responded to exercise differently than controls||||0.30
95835553|NCT01007838|191642594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Statistical significance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in chronic kideny disease patients only. An interaction would suggest patients allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.0017
95835554|NCT01007838|191642594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Statistical sigficance was accepted if p \< 0.05.|ANOVA|||Follow up ANOVA in healthy controls only. An interaction would suggest healthy controls allocated to the resistance exercise group increased muscle size more than those allocated to the sham exercise group.||||0.024
95835555|NCT01345669|191642596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.126||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.569|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (Afatinib vs. Placebo) from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|DFS was analysed using a stratified log-rank test with nodal status (N0- N2a vs. N2b-N3) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1) being the stratification factors.||1.569|0.809|0.4806
95835556|NCT01345669|191642597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates|-6.27||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.04|2.5|||Log Rank||Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates of Afatinib vs. Placebo is provided.|Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were calculated for each treatment group, separately, and the estimates of DFS probabilities from the curves and 95% Confidence interval (CI) (using the Greenwood standard error estimate) were tabulated||2.50|-15.04|0.1610
95835557|NCT01345669|191642598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.444||||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|2.332||p-value (two-sided) from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.332|0.895|0.1301
95835558|NCT01345669|191642599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.431||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|2.068|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Swallowing (Q5-Q8 from QLQ-HN35).||2.068|0.991|0.0561
95835559|NCT01345669|191642599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.446||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|2.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Pain HN35 (Q1-Q4 from QLQ-HN35).||2.098|0.996|0.0523
95835560|NCT01345669|191642599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.818||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio and p-value from logistic regression analysis of 'improved vs. not improved' stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3) for Global health status/QoL(Q29-Q30 from QLQ-C30).||1.158|0.577|0.2570
95835561|NCT01345669|191642600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.7||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For swallowing scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.700|0.986|0.0591
95835562|NCT01345669|191642600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.456||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.905||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For pain HN35 scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||1.905|1.113|0.0049
95835563|NCT01345669|191642600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.604||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.238|2.079||P-value from log-rank test stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Log Rank|||For global health status/QoL scale; Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).||2.079|1.238|0.0002
95835564|NCT01345669|191642601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (swallowing scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||3.45|-0.81|0.2232
95960506|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1632
95835565|NCT01345669|191642601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (pain scale) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||5.36|1.12|0.0028
95835566|NCT01345669|191642601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom calculated using the Kenward-Roger method.|Afatinib minus Placebo mean adjusted for total with data for baseline ECOG (0 or 1) and nodal status (N0-N2a or N2b-N3).|Scores (global health/QoL) over time were assessed using longitudinal mixed-effects growth curve models with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model adjusted for the fixed effects baseline ECOG performance score and nodal status.||-1.49|-5.33|0.0005
95835567|NCT00061633|191642617|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was selected on the basis of clinical judgment and was deemed adequate to provide clinically meaningful descriptive results consistent with study objectives. This sample size was estimated to provide 39% power to test televancin's non-inferiority to vancomycin with respect to clinical response using a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.5289|||||||2-sided 95% confidence interval|||95% Confidence Interval: -0.1349 to 0.0485 No est. value. Parameter that was estimated: Risk Difference||||0.5289
95835568|NCT03738618|191642618|OTHER||Treatment difference|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|47.6|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|||47.6|36.5|<0.001
95835569|NCT03738618|191642619|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|25.7|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Ongoing Pregnancy Rate in the Fresh Cycle||25.7|14.9|<0.001
95835570|NCT03738618|191642623|OTHER||Treatment difference|26.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|30.8|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||30.8|19.8|<0.001
95835571|NCT03738618|191642623|OTHER||Treatment difference|52.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|56.3|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Clinical pregnancy rate cumulatively||56.3|44.9|<0.001
95835572|NCT03738618|191642624|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|27.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate in the fresh cycle||27.2|16.7|<0.001
95835573|NCT03738618|191642624|OTHER||Treatment difference|45.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|49.9|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Vital pregnancy rate cumulatively||49.9|38.5|<0.001
95835574|NCT03738618|191642626|OTHER||Treatment difference|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|36.2|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate in the fresh cycle||36.2|24.9|<0.001
95835575|NCT03738618|191642626|OTHER||Treatment difference|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|63.0|||Fisher Exact||95% exact Agresti-Min confidence intervals.|Positive βhCG rate cumulatively||63.0|51.9|<0.001
95835576|NCT03738618|191642638|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95835577|NCT03738618|191642639|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95835578|NCT03738618|191642640|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
95835579|NCT03738618|191642641|OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.396
95835580|NCT01336140|191642710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||"We calculated that a minimum of 248 subjects are needed to attain 80% power to detect 70% reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint (diarrhea), assuming an event rate of 15% in the control group (2-tailed α = 0.05). We targeted enrolling 300 patients to allow some room for error in our assumptions.~null hypothesis: incidence of diarrhea is no different between the aminophylline arm and the placebo arm."||||0.002
95835581|NCT01336140|191642711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95960507|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1770
95960508|NCT00551135|191892809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Day 9 PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline VAS score and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4882
95960509|NCT00551135|191892810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7936
95960510|NCT00551135|191892810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5092
95960511|NCT00551135|191892810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4233
95835582|NCT01336140|191642712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95835583|NCT01336140|191642713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95835584|NCT00660179|191642714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.516|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.516|0.0108
95835585|NCT00660179|191642714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.547|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.392|0.762|||Log Rank|||||0.762|0.392|<0.0001
95835586|NCT00660179|191642715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.462|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.970|0.462|0.0146
95835587|NCT00660179|191642715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.335|0.747|||Log Rank|||||0.747|0.335|<0.0001
95835588|NCT00660179|191642716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971||||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.477|1.976|||Log Rank|||||1.976|0.477|0.9249
95835589|NCT00660179|191642716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638||||0.2037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.287|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.287|0.2037
95835590|NCT00660179|191642717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.653|1.673|||Log Rank|||||1.673|0.653|0.8312
95835591|NCT00660179|191642717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771||||0.2509|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.464|1.282|||Log Rank|||||1.282|0.464|0.2509
95835592|NCT02255461|191642743|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome neutropenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
95835593|NCT02255461|191642744|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome lymphopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.15||||||||1.15|0.97|
95835594|NCT02255461|191642745|OTHER|Ordinal logistic regression model was built for outcome leukopenia (0/1/2). Explanatory variable AUC was transformed by dividing by 100.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.2||||||||1.20|1.01|
95835595|NCT00711971|191642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for the BDI test at 26-28 weeks||||.29
95835596|NCT00711971|191642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Significance for BDI at 34-36 weeks gestation||||.51
95835597|NCT00711971|191642760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||BDI score at 6-8 weeks postpartum||||.56
95835598|NCT00711971|191642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Gestational diabetes mellitus||||.06
95835599|NCT00711971|191642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hypertension or preeclampsia||||.12
95835600|NCT00711971|191642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Induced labor||||.20
95835601|NCT00711971|191642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||Cesarean section||||.08
95835602|NCT00711971|191642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||Spontaneous vaginal delivery||||.88
95835603|NCT00711971|191642761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Operative vaginal delivery||||.32
95835604|NCT00711971|191642762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95835605|NCT00711971|191642763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||||||.81
95835606|NCT00711971|191642764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis test was used for outliers; Tukey multiple comparisons test was also used.||||||<.001
95835607|NCT00711971|191642765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||.39
95835608|NCT00711971|191642766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
95835609|NCT00711971|191642767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95835610|NCT00711971|191642768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
95962468|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Pain and Hurt-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.636
95835611|NCT02967510|191642769|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.304
95835612|NCT02967510|191642769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.109
95835613|NCT02967510|191642769|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.119
95835614|NCT02967510|191642770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.031|-0.444|||ANCOVA|||||-0.444|-1.031|<0.001
95835615|NCT02967510|191642770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.458|||ANCOVA|||||-0.458|-1.051|<0.001
95835616|NCT02967510|191642770|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.951|-0.369|||ANCOVA|||||-0.369|-0.951|<0.001
95835617|NCT02967510|191642771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.278|||ANCOVA|||||0.278|0.147|<0.001
95835618|NCT02967510|191642771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.078|<0.001
95960512|NCT00551135|191892810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2033
95960513|NCT00551135|191892810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2142|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2142
95835619|NCT02967510|191642771|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.226|||ANCOVA|||||0.226|0.097|<0.001
95835620|NCT02967510|191642772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-0.603|<0.001
95835621|NCT02967510|191642772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|-0.365|||ANCOVA|||||-0.365|-0.572|<0.001
95835622|NCT02967510|191642772|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|-0.331|||ANCOVA|||||-0.331|-0.531|<0.001
95835623|NCT02967510|191642773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.47
95835624|NCT02967510|191642773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|0|-1|=0.448
95835625|NCT02967510|191642773|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.451
95835626|NCT02967510|191642774|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.329
95835627|NCT02967510|191642774|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.348
95835628|NCT02967510|191642774|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
95835629|NCT02967510|191642775|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.122
95835630|NCT02967510|191642775|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.188
95835631|NCT02967510|191642775|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.222
95835632|NCT02967510|191642776|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.393
95960514|NCT00551135|191892810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center, baseline item score and basline PCS (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1218
95960515|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0830
95960516|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2339
95960517|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0629
95960518|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5721
95960519|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9713
95835633|NCT02967510|191642776|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.221
95835634|NCT02967510|191642776|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.432
95835635|NCT02967510|191642777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.487|||ANCOVA|||||1.487|-1|=0.65
95835636|NCT02967510|191642777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|-1.568|=0.361
95835637|NCT02967510|191642777|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.188|1.257|||ANCOVA|||||1.257|-1.188|=0.522
95835638|NCT02967510|191642778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.079|||ANCOVA|||||0.079|-1.204|=0.043
95835639|NCT02967510|191642778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-1.158|=0.061
95835640|NCT02967510|191642778|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.111|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.111|=0.071
95835641|NCT02967510|191642779|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.012
95835642|NCT02967510|191642779|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.007
95835643|NCT02967510|191642779|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
95835644|NCT02967510|191642780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.438
95835645|NCT02967510|191642780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.388
95835646|NCT02967510|191642780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
95835647|NCT02967510|191642781|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
95960520|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total score change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4809
95960521|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1561
95960522|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5267
95960523|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1125|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1125
95960524|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2965
95960525|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7774|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.7774
95960526|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Rumination change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3990
95960527|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4465|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4465
95960528|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4385|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4385
95960529|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2265
95960530|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.5985
95960531|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2146
95960532|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3382|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Magnification change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3382
95960533|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0430
95835648|NCT02967510|191642781|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.02
95835649|NCT02967510|191642781|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.003
95855183|NCT04973449|191669940|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|3.89||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.89|3.09|
95835650|NCT02967510|191642782|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.002
95835651|NCT02967510|191642782|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.331
95835652|NCT02967510|191642782|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.043
95835653|NCT02967510|191642783|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.022
95835654|NCT02967510|191642783|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.032
95835655|NCT02967510|191642783|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
95835656|NCT02967510|191642784|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.176
95835657|NCT02967510|191642784|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.358
95835658|NCT02967510|191642784|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.21
95960534|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1128
95960535|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at 3 h PS; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0632
95960536|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.8667
95960537|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.6365
95835659|NCT02967510|191642785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.106
95835660|NCT02967510|191642785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||1|0|=0.229
95835661|NCT02967510|191642785|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.345
95855184|NCT04973449|191669943|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|3.36||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.36|3.06|
95835662|NCT02967510|191642786|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.026
95835663|NCT02967510|191642786|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.424
95835664|NCT02967510|191642786|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.414
95835665|NCT02967510|191642787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.36
95835666|NCT02967510|191642787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.12
95835667|NCT02967510|191642787|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.266
95835668|NCT02967510|191642788|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.47
95835669|NCT02967510|191642788|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.137
95862795|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.33||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
95862796|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95962469|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
95835670|NCT02967510|191642788|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.133
95835671|NCT02967510|191642789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|2.153|||ANCOVA|||||2.153|-0.669|=0.85
95835672|NCT02967510|191642789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87|||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.611|2.361|||ANCOVA|||||2.361|-0.611|=0.877
95835673|NCT02967510|191642789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.009|0.728|||ANCOVA|||||0.728|-2.009|=0.178
95835674|NCT02967510|191642790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.531|||ANCOVA|||||0.531|-0.854|=0.323
95835675|NCT02967510|191642790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.917|0.484|||ANCOVA|||||0.484|-0.917|=0.272
95835676|NCT02967510|191642790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.084|||ANCOVA|||||0.084|-1.29|=0.043
95835677|NCT02967510|191642791|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.009
95835678|NCT02967510|191642791|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.025
95835679|NCT02967510|191642791|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
95835680|NCT02967510|191642792|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.04
95835681|NCT02967510|191642792|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.259
95835682|NCT02967510|191642792|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.104
95835683|NCT02967510|191642793|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
95835684|NCT02967510|191642793|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
95835685|NCT02967510|191642793|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
95835686|NCT02967510|191642794|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|<0.001
95960538|NCT00551135|191892811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Helplessness change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline PCS score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.||||0.9275
95962470|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
95835687|NCT02967510|191642794|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|=0.054
95835688|NCT02967510|191642794|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|0|<0.001
95835689|NCT02967510|191642795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.008
95835690|NCT02967510|191642795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.01
95835691|NCT02967510|191642795|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (HLE) of median difference between treatments was calculated. Medians were not calculated per SAP as might cause confusion since the HLE of treatment difference is not identical to the difference between 2 treatment medians|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of location shift and corresponding asymptotic Confidence Interval|||0|-1|=0.001
95835692|NCT02967510|191642796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.548|||ANCOVA|||||-0.548|-1.071|<0.001
95835693|NCT02967510|191642796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.484|||ANCOVA|||||-0.484|-1.013|<0.001
95835694|NCT02967510|191642796|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.916|-0.397|||ANCOVA|||||-0.397|-0.916|<0.001
95835695|NCT02967510|191642797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.535|||ANCOVA|||||0.535|0.337|<0.001
95835696|NCT02967510|191642797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.494|||ANCOVA|||||0.494|0.291|<0.001
95835697|NCT02967510|191642797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.439|||ANCOVA|||||0.439|0.245|<0.001
95835698|NCT02967510|191642798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|-0.371|||ANCOVA|||||-0.371|-0.575|<0.001
95835699|NCT02967510|191642798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.592|-0.383|||ANCOVA|||||-0.383|-0.592|<0.001
95835700|NCT02967510|191642798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
95835701|NCT03668613|191642810|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Log-OR|4.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.782|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.782|3.422|
95835702|NCT03668613|191642810|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.422|6.772|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.772|3.422|
95835703|NCT03668613|191642811|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log -OR|4.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|6.513|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.513|2.638|
95835704|NCT03668613|191642811|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.919|6.78|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||Compared to historical placebo||6.780|2.919|
95862797|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0027||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95960539|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2136
95960540|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0094
95835705|NCT03668613|191642812|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.916|6.202|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.202|2.916|
95835706|NCT03668613|191642812|SUPERIORITY||Predicted log-OR|4.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.201|6.58|||Bayesian method using (MAP)|||||6.580|3.201|
95835707|NCT01835158|191642820|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||Log Rank|||||.95|.46|0.012
95835708|NCT01835158|191642821|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.26||||||||1.26|0.50|
95835709|NCT00939562|191642826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|102.95||||||90.0|94.74|111.86|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||111.86|94.74|
95835710|NCT00939562|191642827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|104.67||||||90.0|98.95|110.73|||||The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs were exponentiated to provide the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Doxycycline carragenate=Reference, doxycycline monohydrate=Test.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model (sequence, period and treatment were fixed effects and subject within sequence was a random effect).||110.73|98.95|
95835711|NCT01059994|191642828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95835712|NCT01059994|191642829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95835713|NCT01677858|191642830|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg/m²)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95835714|NCT00773747|191642846|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.774|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.941|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||0.941|0.636|= 0.0100
95835715|NCT00773747|191642848|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.858||||0.3496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.184|||Regression, Cox|||Cox model stratified by myeloma stage at enrollment, history of a bone marrow transplant, and number of prior treatment regimens, with a single treatment covariate.||1.184|0.622|0.3496
95835716|NCT04929249|191643063|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-53.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.0|-46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-46.0|-60.0|<0.001
95835717|NCT04929249|191643064|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the one-sided 98.75% confidence interval did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Difference in percentage|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|-3.0|||Normal approx. to binomial distribution||||Upper limit of one-sided 98.75% CI (-3.0%)|-3.0|-18.3|
95835718|NCT04929249|191643065|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.8|-42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-42.3|-52.8|<0.001
95835719|NCT04929249|191643066|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-54.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-49.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-49.8|-59.0|<0.001
95835720|NCT04929249|191643067|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-48.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-44.9|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.9|-52.9|<0.001
95835721|NCT04929249|191643068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|81.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||81.16|22.07|<0.001
95835722|NCT04929249|191643069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|44.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.66|6.72|<0.001
95835723|NCT04929249|191643070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.18|42.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.19|14.18|<0.001
95835724|NCT04929249|191643071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.51|63.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.24|19.51|<0.001
95835725|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-26.3|-33.8|<0.001
95835726|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||9.5|3.6|<0.001
95835727|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-39.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-39.3|-49.1|<0.001
95835728|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-10.0|-23.8|<0.001
95835729|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-10.9|-24.7|<0.001
95835730|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|-37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-37.8|-47.5|<0.001
95835731|NCT04929249|191643072|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-18.0|-25.8|<0.001
95835732|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-43.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||-43.9|-56.0|<0.001
95835733|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL Cholesterol||4.4|1.8|<0.001
95835734|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-46.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholesterol||-46.7|-58.1|<0.001
95835735|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||VLDL Cholesterol||-2.8|-6.5|<0.001
95835736|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||-15.8|-34.8|<0.001
95835737|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-32.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B||-32.9|-39.7|<0.001
95835738|NCT04929249|191643073|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lipoprotein(a)||-6.8|-10.7|<0.001
95835739|NCT04929249|191643074|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.61|||proportional odds model|||||2.61|0.43|0.899
95862798|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0002||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95835740|NCT04929249|191643075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.008||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.039|||Regression, Linear|||||0.039|-0.055|0.727
95835741|NCT01727336|191643094|OTHER||recommended dose for Part 2|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The recommended dose level for Part 2 was determined to be 0.9 mg/kg|||||
95835742|NCT00439374|191643141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.35||||||All deliveries less than 37 weeks||1.35|0.79|
95835743|NCT00439374|191643141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||Spontaneous deliveries||1.40|0.70|
95835744|NCT00439374|191643141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.84||||||Medically-indicated deliveries||1.84|0.65|
95835745|NCT00439374|191643142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95835746|NCT00439374|191643143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.8||||||||1.80|0.61|
95835747|NCT00439374|191643144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.21||||||||1.21|0.58|
95835748|NCT00439374|191643145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||||||||1.43|0.54|
95835749|NCT00439374|191643146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3||||||||1.30|0.36|
95835750|NCT00439374|191643147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||||||||1.15|0.82|
95835751|NCT00439374|191643148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29||||||||1.29|0.55|
95835752|NCT00439374|191643149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55||||||||1.55|0.77|
95835753|NCT00439374|191643150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.33||||||||5.33|0.43|
95835754|NCT00439374|191643151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||||||||1.72|0.78|
95835755|NCT00439374|191643152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.41||||||||2.41|0.56|
95835756|NCT00439374|191643154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58||||||||1.58|0.34|
95835757|NCT00439374|191643155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.52||||||||2.52|0.84|
95835758|NCT00439374|191643156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.46||||||||1.46|0.79|
95835759|NCT00439374|191643157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||Any side effect||1.13|0.92|
95835760|NCT00439374|191643157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17||||||Injection site||1.17|0.93|
95835761|NCT00439374|191643157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|22.78||||||Urticaria||22.78|1.11|
95835762|NCT00439374|191643157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||||||Nausea||1.83|0.27|
95835763|NCT00439374|191643158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.3||||||Analysis is for the total composite||1.30|0.46|
95835764|NCT00439374|191643159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95835765|NCT00439374|191643167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95835766|NCT01336023|191643169|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority of IDegLira vs. IDeg was confirmed when 95% confidence interval for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0.3%.~IDegLira minus IDeg"|Treatment Contrast|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IDeg|||-0.36|-0.58|
95835767|NCT01336023|191643169|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority of IDegLira over liraglutide was confirmed when the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference for change in HbA1c lies entirely below 0%.~IDegLira minus Liraglutide"|Treatment contrast|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.53|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus Liraglutide|||-0.53|-0.75|
95835768|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.008
95835769|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||0.040
95835770|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 months||||0.033
95835771|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.500
95835772|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.750
95835773|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.156
95835774|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 3 months||||0.938
95835775|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 6 months||||0.250
95835776|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 12 months||||0.999
95835777|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.057
95835778|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.031
95835779|NCT01846741|191643181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.625
95835780|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0008
95962471|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Nausea-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.006
95835781|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure Score||||0.0544
95835782|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0207
95835783|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0163
95835784|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0156
95835785|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0742
95835786|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0884|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0884
95835787|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0007
95835788|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.1173
95835789|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0214
95835790|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0114
95835791|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0078
95835792|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0875
95835793|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.1526
95835794|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0031
95962472|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.099
95962473|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.050
95962474|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Procedural Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.520
95962475|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.024
95962476|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.011
95962477|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Treatment Anxiety-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.009
95962478|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
95835795|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizure||||0.0828
95835796|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery||||0.0092
95835797|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity||||0.0096
95835798|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery||||0.0234
95960541|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2131
95960542|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3245
95960543|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.4070
95960544|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||PCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.3490
95960545|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1122
95960546|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.1380
95960547|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS at baseline; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2023
95960548|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2639
95960549|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.2524
95835799|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery||||0.0284
95835800|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery||||0.0679
95835801|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0003
95835802|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0728
95835803|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.0005
95835804|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.0005
95835805|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.0078
95835806|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.0078
95835807|NCT01846741|191643182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.0273
95835808|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0192
95835809|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.8069
95962479|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||<.001
96001311|NCT01707147|191980124|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.71|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-0.71|-0.83|<0.0001
95835810|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.2416
95835811|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1111
95835812|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0014
95835813|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3247
95835814|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0826
95835815|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1040
95862799|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0077||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
96001312|NCT01707147|191980127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-15.12|||Paired t-test||p-value of paired t-test for change from baseline is presented. 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated using t-distribution.|||-15.12|-20.98|<0.0001
95835816|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0094
95835817|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5874|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.5874
95835818|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1508|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1508
95835819|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.0136
95835820|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0015
95835821|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3522|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.3522
95835822|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0240
95835823|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0353
95835824|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0361
95835825|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue||||0.1921
95835826|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being||||0.1639
95835827|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning||||0.1738
95835828|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning||||0.0401
95835829|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2753|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects||||0.2753
96001313|NCT01666444|191980188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.923|ONE_SIDED|92.0||1.48||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).|Treatment Hazard ratio for overall survival (PLD+VTX relative to PLD+placebo). Survival is measured from date of enrollment and randomization on the study until death from any cause, or date of last contact.|The null hypothesis is that the hazards of death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment of this hypothesis was done with a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature to assess this hypothesis when at least 211 deaths had occurred among all individuals enrolled. Type I error was to be set to 0.08 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 30% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.70) due to VTX-2337 was 88.2%.||1.48||0.923
96001314|NCT01666444|191980189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.943|ONE_SIDED|98.0||1.56||P-value is for a one-sided hypothesis test.|Log Rank|The logrank test is stratified for platinum-free interval (\<= 6 months vs \> 6 months), and performance status (0 vs 1).||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of first progression or death are equal for both treatment groups. The primary assessment was to use a stratified logrank test and the study was to be considered sufficiently mature when survival is mature for analysis. Type I error was to be set to 0.02 for a one-sided test and the power for detecting a 31% reduction in the hazard (hazard ratio=0.69) due to VTX-2337 was expected to be approximately 83%.||1.56||0.943
95835830|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0056
95835831|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1173|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.1173
95835832|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.0268
95835833|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final||||0.4406
95835834|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7926|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional Well Being Final||||0.7926
95835835|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final||||0.0987
96001315|NCT00641043|191980195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.30|-0.71|<0.0001
95835836|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final||||0.0361
95835837|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final||||0.0615
95835838|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry||||0.0024
95835839|NCT01846741|191643183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life||||0.0155
95835840|NCT01846741|191643185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||3 months||||0.0625
95835841|NCT01846741|191643185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||6 months||||0.1094
95835842|NCT01846741|191643185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||12 months||||0.0342
95835843|NCT01846741|191643185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||18 Months||||0.5417
95835844|NCT01399866|191643196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.574
95835845|NCT01399866|191643196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.747
95835846|NCT01399866|191643197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.94
95835847|NCT01399866|191643198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.818
95835848|NCT01399866|191643199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.123
95835849|NCT01399866|191643200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.473
95835850|NCT00383162|191643201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.17|9.36|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||9.36|2.17|<0.001
95835851|NCT00767819|191643220|SUPERIORITY|The lower limit of the confidence interval was used to support the decision in favor of p0 or p1: if the lower limit of the confidence interval overlapped p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be rejected; on the other side, if the lower limit of the confidence interval excluded p0, the hypothesis that p is greater than or equal to p1 could be accepted.|percentage of participants|40.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|29.5|52.4|||Clopper-Person confidence interval|||||52.4|29.5|0.1
95855185|NCT04973449|191669944|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.45|
95855186|NCT04973449|191669945|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.35||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.35|0.27|
96001316|NCT00641043|191980196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
96001317|NCT00641043|191980197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
95835852|NCT03916081|191643243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.18||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.983|0.619||MMRM = mixed effects model for repeated measures vIGA-AD = validated Investigator Global Assessment scale for Atopic Dermatitis|MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.619|-2.983|0.356
95835853|NCT03916081|191643243|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference vs Vehicle|-1.6||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.382|0.178|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.178|-3.382|0.097
95835854|NCT03916081|191643244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.37||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.789|4.044|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||4.044|-26.789|0.248
95835855|NCT03916081|191643244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.28||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.666|5.114|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||5.114|-25.666|0.349
95835856|NCT03916081|191643244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.82||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|-22.52|-22.52|10.88|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||10.880|-22.520|0.912
95835857|NCT03916081|191643244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.17||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.686|7.341|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 2 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||7.341|-25.686|0.548
95835858|NCT03916081|191643244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.53||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.157|3.097|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||3.097|-30.157|0.164
95835859|NCT03916081|191643244|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.48||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.921|-0.048|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Percent Change from Baseline in Week 4 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||-0.048|-32.921|0.049
95835860|NCT03916081|191643245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.412|0.568|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.568|-2.412|0.440
95835861|NCT03916081|191643245|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.061|0.914|||MMRM|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline EASI as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in Week 1 EASI Total Score: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.914|-2.061|0.875
95835862|NCT03916081|191643246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.352
95835863|NCT03916081|191643246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.803
95835864|NCT03916081|191643246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.250
95962480|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Worry-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.035
95962481|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.037
95962482|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.043
95962483|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Cognitive Problems-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.044
95962484|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.091
95962485|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.248
95962486|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Perceived Physical Appearance-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.069
95862800|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862801|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862802|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0023||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862803|NCT00488683|191684579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862804|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.59||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.59
95835865|NCT03916081|191643246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.756
95835866|NCT03916081|191643246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.097
95862805|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
95862806|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.12||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
95862807|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.26
95862808|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.43||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.08
95862809|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.17||||0.42||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.42
95862810|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.77||||0.02||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.02
95862811|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.12||||0.65||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.65
95960550|NCT00551135|191892813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||MCSS change at EOT; LS Means from ANOVA model with terms of treatment, pooled center and baseline score (for baseline visit ANOVA model with terms of treatment and pooled center). Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects have were combined into pooled centers.||||0.0832
95960551|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.2371
95960552|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.4435
95960553|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 month PS.||||0.1692
95960554|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.8169
95835867|NCT03916081|191643246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-50 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.054
95835868|NCT03916081|191643247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.178
95835869|NCT03916081|191643247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.046
95835870|NCT03916081|191643247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.469
95835871|NCT03916081|191643247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.446
95835872|NCT03916081|191643247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.009
95835873|NCT03916081|191643247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-75 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.045
95835874|NCT03916081|191643248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.317
95835875|NCT03916081|191643248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.182
95835876|NCT03916081|191643248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.485|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.485
95835877|NCT03916081|191643248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.913
95835878|NCT03916081|191643248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-90 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.288
95862812|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.58||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.58
95960555|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.5592
95835879|NCT03916081|191643249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.340
95835880|NCT03916081|191643249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.146
95835881|NCT03916081|191643249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.967
95835882|NCT03916081|191643249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Baseline vIGA-AD was included as stratification factor.||Number Achieving EASI-100 at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.088
95835883|NCT03916081|191643250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|1.852|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.852|-1.098|0.989
95835884|NCT03916081|191643250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.566|1.367|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.367|-1.566|>0.999
95835885|NCT03916081|191643250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.702|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.702|-1.510|0.966
95835886|NCT03916081|191643250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.415|1.744|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.744|-2.415|0.999
95835887|NCT03916081|191643250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|2.119|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||2.119|-2.624|>0.999
95835888|NCT03916081|191643250|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.285|1.398|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline BSA as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in BSA Affected at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.398|-3.285|0.798
95835889|NCT03916081|191643251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.075|0.506|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.506|-2.075|0.466
95835890|NCT03916081|191643251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.322|0.255|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.255|-2.322|0.180
95835891|NCT03916081|191643251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.921|1.069|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.069|-1.921|0.967
95835892|NCT03916081|191643251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.762|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||0.762|-2.205|0.684
95835893|NCT03916081|191643251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.221|1.003|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.003|-2.221|0.856
95835894|NCT03916081|191643251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.105|1.089|||MMRM|Dunnett's method was used to control for multiple comparisons|Change from BL MMRM model includes treatment, visit, vIGA-AD strata, treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline WI-NRS as a covariate.|Change from Baseline in WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||1.089|-2.105|0.932
95835895|NCT03916081|191643252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.637
95835896|NCT03916081|191643252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 1: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.124
95835897|NCT03916081|191643252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.196
95862813|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.19||||-0.51||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||-0.51
95862814|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
95960556|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 month PS.||||0.4453
95960557|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.4795
95960558|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.2733
95960559|NCT00551135|191892814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled centers. Centers with fewer than 8 treated subjects were combined into pooled centers.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 month PS.||||0.3173
95960560|NCT04294667|191892817|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|14.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|3.3|0.0110
95835898|NCT03916081|191643252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 2: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.985
95835899|NCT03916081|191643252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.05% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.401
95835900|NCT03916081|191643252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|v-IGA-AD included as a stratification factor.||Number of Participants Achieving a ≥4-Point Improvement from Baseline WI-NRS at Week 4: Roflumilast Cream 0.15% vs. Vehicle Cream||||0.996
95835901|NCT04146935|191643259|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.4147||||||Visit 1 (baseline) to visit 4 (peak)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4147
95835902|NCT04146935|191643260|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95835903|NCT04146935|191643261|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.6957|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6957
95835904|NCT04146935|191643262|OTHER|||||||0.0092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0092
95835905|NCT04146935|191643263|OTHER|Mixed model repeated measures||||||0.1383|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1383
95835906|NCT04146935|191643264|OTHER|mixed model repeated measures||||||0.0572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0572
95835907|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% confidence intervals (CI) were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.61|122.13||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 12 to \< 18 Years old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||122.13|90.61|
95835908|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|65.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.62|76.37||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||76.37|56.62|
95835909|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.51|107.27||||||AUCtau of GS-331007 for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||107.27|82.51|
95835910|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|127.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|170.45||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||170.45|94.89|
95835911|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|82.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.34|110.3||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||110.30|61.34|
95835912|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|120.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.18|155.73||||||AUCtau of LDV for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||155.73|93.18|
95835913|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|159.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.89|185.37||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 12 to \< 18 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||185.37|137.89|
95835914|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|129.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.79|151.32||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 6 to \< 12 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||151.32|110.79|
95835915|NCT02249182|191643270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined if the 90% CIs were within the predefined equivalence boundaries of 50% to 200% for all age groups.|Percentage Geometric Mean Ratio|187.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.41|245.82||||||AUCtau of SOF for the 3 to \< 6 Years Old group in the PK Lead-in Phase was compared against historical data collected in adult Phase 2/3 studies.||245.82|143.41|
95835916|NCT01124955|191643291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||,|0|||||||ANOVA|||||||0,05
95835917|NCT01220180|191643318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835918|NCT01220180|191643319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835919|NCT01220180|191643320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835920|NCT01220180|191643321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835921|NCT01220180|191643322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835922|NCT01220180|191643323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835923|NCT01220180|191643324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835924|NCT01220180|191643325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95835925|NCT02980133|191643354|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.9||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||5.3|-1.6|0.285
95835926|NCT02980133|191643355|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (inhaled corticosteroid \[ICS\] or noncorticosteroid \[NCS\]), and investigational medicinal product (IMP) treatment group.||8.8|3.2|<0.001
95835927|NCT02980133|191643355|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) investigational center, previous therapy (ICS or NCS), and IMP treatment group.||9.8|4.1|<0.001
95835928|NCT00422383|191643373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|-0.01||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, rheumatoid factor (RF) status, and treatment.|||0.10|-0.13|0.8156
95835929|NCT00422383|191643373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Difference|0.07||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|||0.19|-0.05|0.2419
95835930|NCT00422383|191643376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.7127
95835931|NCT00422383|191643376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status and treatment.|ANOVA|||||||0.1018
95835932|NCT00422383|191643377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5029
95835933|NCT00422383|191643377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by region, prior biologic use, RF status, and treatment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
95835934|NCT02510001|191643428|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with PD-0325901 at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or PD-0325901.~The MTD for the PD 0325901/PF-02341066 combination was 8mg BD(days1-21) and 200mg BD continuously in a 28 day cycle (Dose Level 4)."|||
95835935|NCT02510001|191643430|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The primary dose escalation analysis was to find the MTD, which was defined as the dose of PF-02341066 in combination with Binimetinib at which no more than one out of six patients experience a DLT (dose limiting toxicity). The DLT was based on observed toxicity in cycle 1, and was defined as an almost certainly or probably drug-related adverse event to PF-02341066 and/or Binimetinib.|"Binimetinib 30mg BD on days 1 - 21 every 28 days with Crizotinib 250 mg OD continuously is the MTD, the recommended dose and schedule for further evaluation in our and other trials.~This was as only one DLT was experienced in 6 evaluable patients at this final dose escalation level."|||
95835936|NCT04120402|191643468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95835937|NCT04120402|191643469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.014
95835938|NCT04120402|191643470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95835939|NCT04120402|191643471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.518
95835940|NCT04120402|191643472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
95835941|NCT01357551|191643477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.13||A priori threshold was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Parameters included common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, dummy-coded time, and indicators for the maintenance X each follow-up time point||The sample size estimate was based on the primary hypothesis that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less mean weight regain at week 56 than those randomized to usual care. The week 0 standard deviation was estimated as 24.6kg, the correlation between week 0 and week 56 as 0.95, and the week 56 dropout rate as 10%. To detect a difference of 3.5 kg with 90% power and a type I error rate of 5%, 230 total (115 in each group) randomized patients were needed.||3.13|.07|.04
95835942|NCT01357551|191643478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|78.64||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-280.71|29.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have less caloric intake at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||29.72|-280.71|.11
95835943|NCT01357551|191643479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of walking per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||1.68|0.63|.91
95835944|NCT01357551|191643480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence rate ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Common intercept, initial weight loss stratum, indicators for week 26 \& 56, group X time interaction; negative binomial distribution with log link||The hypothesis was that patients randomized to receive the maintenance intervention would have higher rates of moderate physical activity per week at week 56 than those randomized to usual care.||2.03|0.57|.83
95835945|NCT05362058|191643481|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|
95835946|NCT05362058|191643482|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.26|
95835947|NCT05362058|191643483|NON_INFERIORITY|0.4% noninferiority margin (NIM)|LS Mean Difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.28|
95862815|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.36||||0.06||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.06
95862816|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.72||||0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.001
95835948|NCT05362058|191643484|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.22|0.188
95835949|NCT05362058|191643485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|6.08|||ANCOVA|||||6.08|0.09|0.043
95835950|NCT05362058|191643486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.17|0.260
95835951|NCT05362058|191643487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-2.48|0.848
95835952|NCT05362058|191643488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.18||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 26 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||9.30|1.06|0.014
95835953|NCT05362058|191643488|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using ANCOVA model with Baseline + Country + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization + SU Use at Randomization + Treatment (Type III sum of squares) as variables. Missing data at Baseline were imputed with multiple imputation with assumption of missing at random. Missing data at week 52 were imputed by return-to-baseline multiple imputations approach.||4.06|-3.65|0.918
95835954|NCT05362058|191643489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.34|-1.06|0.310
95835955|NCT05362058|191643489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.17|-1.19|0.138
95835956|NCT05362058|191643490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||4.1|-30.5|0.136
95835957|NCT05362058|191643490|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-2.4|-37.0|0.026
95835958|NCT05362058|191643491|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.78|||Negative binomial model|||||1.78|0.94|0.111
95835959|NCT05362058|191643492|SUPERIORITY||Relative Rate|1.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.53|0.983
95835960|NCT05362058|191643493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.94|0.064|0.025
95835961|NCT05362058|191643493|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.056||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.50|-0.38|0.801
96001318|NCT00641043|191980198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.32|-0.70|<0.0001
95835962|NCT05362058|191643494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.41|-0.15|0.374
95835963|NCT05362058|191643494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.67|-0.09|0.130
95835964|NCT05362058|191643494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.72|-0.12|0.162
95835965|NCT05362058|191643495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||0.08|-0.15|0.594
95835966|NCT05362058|191643495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||0.16|-0.04|0.266
95835967|NCT05362058|191643495|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||0.14|-0.10|0.791
95862817|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.32||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.12
95835968|NCT05362058|191643496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 to Week 12 (Statistical Analysis)||2.18|-3.00|0.757
95835969|NCT05362058|191643496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 to Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||1.85|-3.72|0.511
95835970|NCT05362058|191643496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.39||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 to Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||-0.39|-6.39|0.027
95835971|NCT05362058|191643497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 (Statistical Analysis)||3.07|0.26|0.021
95835972|NCT05362058|191643497|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 (Statistical Analysis)||3.44|0.57|0.006
95835973|NCT05362058|191643498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.63|-1.03|0.638
95835974|NCT05362058|191643498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.60|-1.24|0.499
95835975|NCT05362058|191643498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.01|-0.68|0.695
95835976|NCT05362058|191643498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) -LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use at Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.71|-1.17|0.626
95835977|NCT05362058|191643499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.004|-0.034|0.128
95835978|NCT05362058|191643499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 26 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.58|-2.80|0.196
95835979|NCT05362058|191643499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L Health State Index Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||0.008|-0.029|0.285
95835980|NCT05362058|191643499|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ VAS Score at Week 52 (Statistical Analysis) - LS mean was determined using MMRM model with Baseline + HbA1c Stratum at Baseline + Country + GLP-1 RA Use Randomization Flag + SU Use at Randomization Flag + Treatment + Time + Treatment\*Time (Type III sum of squares) as variables.||1.44|-2.15|0.701
96001319|NCT00641043|191980199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-21.1|<0.0001
96001320|NCT00641043|191980200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-10.5|-22.3|<0.0001
96001321|NCT00641043|191980201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.5|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.0|-19.5|<0.0001
96001322|NCT00641043|191980202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-20.5|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-7.3|-20.5|<0.0001
96001323|NCT00641043|191980203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.103||||0.0051||95.0|1.25|3.539|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||3.539|1.25|0.0051
95835981|NCT01363908|191643519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0781
95835982|NCT01363908|191643519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5000
95835983|NCT01363908|191643519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.2609
95835984|NCT01363908|191643519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from the analysis of Wilcoxon signed rank test at post-treatment time point vs baseline.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.9219
95835985|NCT01363908|191643521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.6875
95835986|NCT01363908|191643521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||1.0000
95862818|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.49||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.18
95862819|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.25||||0.34||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.34
95835987|NCT01363908|191643521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.8181
95835988|NCT01363908|191643521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from analysis of Wilcoxon signed-rank test at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|Wilcoxon signed-rank|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.5566
95835989|NCT01363908|191643523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0475
95835990|NCT01363908|191643523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.4410
95835991|NCT01363908|191643523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0417
95835992|NCT01363908|191643523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0409
95835993|NCT01363908|191643524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.9901
95835994|NCT01363908|191643524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 6 to \<12 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.3039
95835995|NCT01363908|191643524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 24 weeks||||0.0044
95835996|NCT01363908|191643524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value was from paired t test for log-transformed data at post-treatment time point vs. baseline.|paired t test|||Analysis of 12 to \<18 year olds at 48 weeks||||0.0395
95835997|NCT05258149|191643525|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.46|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.46|1.10|
95835998|NCT05258149|191643526|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.79|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A|||2.79|1.27|
95835999|NCT05258149|191643527|NON_INFERIORITY|A Non-Inferiority margin of 10% was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.42|1.3|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|1.30|0.42|
95962487|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.010
95962488|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.292
95962489|NCT01920932|191896661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.3.0 Communication-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.429
95962490|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.975
95962491|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.032
95962492|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.497|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.497
95962493|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Total Score-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.399
95836000|NCT05258149|191643528|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.91|2.75|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|2.75|0.91|
95836001|NCT05258149|191643529|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 1 was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|1.24|3.5|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Odds Ratio was calculated as senofilcon A C3 over delefilcon A||confidence intervals were adjusted using 98.33% per each secondary endpoint|3.50|1.24|
95836002|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|5.0|15.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||15|5|
95836003|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|18.0|31.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||31|18|
95836004|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|25.0|39.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||39|25|
95836005|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|29.0|43.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||43|29|
95836006|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|6.0|22.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||22|6|
95836007|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|27.0|42.0|||||Superiority criterion versus placebo: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>20%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||42|27|
95855187|NCT04973449|191669946|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.58||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.58|1.25|
95855188|NCT04973449|191669947|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.08|1.63|
95855189|NCT04973449|191669948|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.99||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.99|0.78|
95855190|NCT04973449|191669949|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.97|0.78|
95855191|NCT04973449|191669950|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.08|0.83|
95855192|NCT04973449|191669951|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|6.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|7.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.40|5.82|
95855193|NCT04973449|191669952|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.47||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.47|1.99|
95855194|NCT04973449|191669953|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group is \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|4.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.90|3.86|
95855195|NCT04973449|191669954|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.39|1.13|
95855196|NCT04973449|191669955|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|5.08||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||5.08|3.85|
95855197|NCT04973449|191669956|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|3.84||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.84|-6.62|
95855198|NCT04973449|191669957|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|23.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.32|10.18|
95855199|NCT04973449|191669958|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-12.07||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.07|-24.22|
95836008|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-32.0|-17.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-17|-32|
95836009|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-16.0|-4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||-4|-16|
95836010|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-9.0|4.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||4|-9|
95836011|NCT01393639|191643576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|-5.0|8.0|||||Non inferiority criterion versus prednisone 10 mg: Lower bound of 60% credible interval \>-5%. Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts at Week 8.|Bayesian 4 Parameter Emax Model Based Estimates are provided.||8|-5|
95836012|NCT01393639|191643577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|17.03|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||17.03|-13.75|
95836013|NCT01393639|191643577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.16|8.75|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||8.75|-22.16|
95862820|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95962494|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.451
95836014|NCT01393639|191643577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.45|10.3|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||10.30|-20.45|
95836015|NCT01393639|191643577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.19|3.72|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||3.72|-27.19|
95836016|NCT01393639|191643578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|19.61|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||19.61|-12.92|
95836017|NCT01393639|191643578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.86|9.81|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||9.81|-22.86|
95836018|NCT01393639|191643578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|20.55|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||20.55|-12.11|
95836019|NCT01393639|191643578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|29.15|||||Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures mixed model with fixed effects for treatment and visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.|||29.15|-3.49|
95836020|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|29.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.56|-6.84|
95836021|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|30.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.19|-5.88|
95836022|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|38.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.17|0.91|
95836023|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|40.58|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||40.58|3.60|
95836024|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|26.25|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.25|-9.38|
95836025|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|34.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||34.84|-1.84|
95836026|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|10.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.80|-28.58|
95836027|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|35.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.49|-4.85|
96001324|NCT00641043|191980205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.3547||95.0|0.716|2.537|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||2.537|0.716|0.3547
95836028|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|46.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.53|6.80|
95836029|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|33.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.40|-7.01|
95836030|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|29.33|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.33|-11.56|
95836031|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|25.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|45.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 comparisons presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||45.07|5.35|
95836032|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|21.85|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||21.85|-17.40|
95836033|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|35.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.45|-4.24|
95836034|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|42.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.23|2.20|
95862821|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95836035|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|24.53|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.53|-14.60|
95836036|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|35.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.63|-4.51|
95836037|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|23.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|43.06|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||43.06|3.31|
95836038|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.73|14.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.45|-24.73|
95836039|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|15.09|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.09|-23.79|
95836040|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
95836041|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
95836042|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-34.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-14.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-14.80|-53.40|
95836043|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.68|9.88|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.88|-29.68|
95836044|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|20.92|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||20.92|-18.02|
95836045|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-12.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.84|7.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.79|-31.84|
95836046|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-20.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.98|-0.94|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.94|-40.98|
95836047|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.82|12.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.65|-27.82|
96001325|NCT00641043|191980207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.823|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.286|6.394|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetes medication."||6.394|2.286|<0.0001
96001326|NCT03567291|191980220|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-3.4|0.78
96001327|NCT01591018|191980221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||Pre-study calculations using chi-square test with a continuity correction showed that ≥60 patients in each group were needed to reach a significant difference with an alpha value of 0.05 (two-tailed) and a beta value of 0.8.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Sample size was based on an expected 20% reduction of new ischemic lesions on DW-MRI in the sonolysis group (estimated prevalence, 10%) compared with the control group (estimated prevalence, 30%).||||<0.05
95836048|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|19.43|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||19.43|-21.36|
95836049|NCT01393639|191643579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-18.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|1.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||1.73|-38.18|
95836050|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.93|7.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.38|-11.93|
95836051|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|12.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.91|-9.15|
95836052|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.23|-9.09|
95836053|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|33.23|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||33.23|4.19|
95836054|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|4.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||4.00|-13.19|
95836055|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|26.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.41|-0.92|
95962495|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.198
95836056|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
95836057|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.48|-2.90|
95836058|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.71|41.17|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||41.17|7.71|
95836059|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|16.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|32.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||32.29|0.80|
95836060|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|12.98|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.98|-12.98|
95836061|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|19.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|35.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.48|3.16|
95836062|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|9.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||9.57|-18.46|
95836063|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|28.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||28.70|-4.49|
95836064|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|24.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|42.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||42.24|6.63|
95836065|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.33|44.65|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||44.65|9.33|
95836066|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|25.31|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.31|-7.53|
95836067|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|38.91|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||38.91|3.88|
95836068|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.57|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.57|-6.80|
95836069|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|35.2|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||35.20|1.96|
95836070|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|35.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.89|53.21|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||53.21|17.89|
95962496|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.967
95962497|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Physical Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.647
95962498|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.145
95962499|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||<.001
95962500|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.073
95962501|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Emotional Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.156
96001328|NCT02639182|191980238|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||||0.983||||||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||||0.983
96001329|NCT02639182|191980239|SUPERIORITY|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.423||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|2.192||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|||||2.192|0.924|0.110
95836071|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|29.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|46.49|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||46.49|11.94|
95836072|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|29.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||29.63|-2.96|
95836073|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|32.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.83|49.8|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||49.80|14.83|
95836074|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|15.79|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.79|-15.79|
95836075|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|19.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.67|-12.67|
95836076|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|23.47|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||23.47|-10.13|
95836077|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|14.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||14.74|-16.25|
95836078|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|25.96|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.96|-8.19|
95836079|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|22.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||22.77|-10.50|
95836080|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-2.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.00|-28.03|
95836081|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|3.19|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.19|-24.93|
95836082|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|3.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||3.48|-24.83|
95836083|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|22.9|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||22.90|-10.96|
95836084|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-21.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|-5.86|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-5.86|-37.22|
95836085|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|10.95|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.95|-25.01|
95836086|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|24.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||24.41|-14.17|
95836087|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.22|15.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.67|-21.22|
95836088|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-25.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.54|-9.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-9.14|-42.54|
95836089|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.22|9.62|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.62|-28.22|
95836090|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|23.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.02|-16.94|
95836091|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|25.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||25.45|-14.26|
95836092|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-23.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-4.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.59|-42.26|
95836093|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-13.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.35|5.87|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.87|-33.35|
95836094|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|23.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||23.74|-17.26|
95836095|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|17.07|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||17.07|-23.27|
95836096|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||10.50|-22.77|
95836097|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.63|14.35|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||14.35|-19.63|
95836098|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|18.12|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.12|-17.06|
95862822|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862823|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862824|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95836099|NCT01393639|191643580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|9.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.46|-23.24|
95836100|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
95836101|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|10.24|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.24|-1.54|
95836102|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
95836103|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||13.37|-0.60|
95836104|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.52|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||6.52|-2.08|
95836105|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.83|0.55|
95836106|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||0.00|0.00|
95836107|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|16.48|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.48|0.53|
95836108|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|26.14|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||26.14|4.96|
95836109|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|27.76|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||27.76|6.27|
95836110|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.46|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.46|-1.57|
95836111|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|25.59|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.59|4.83|
95836112|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|5.18|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||5.18|-9.62|
95836113|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|19.6|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||19.60|-2.96|
95836114|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|8.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|20.5|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.50|-2.72|
95836115|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|12.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|24.89|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||24.89|0.26|
95962502|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.844
95960561|NCT04294667|191892818|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.4|-3.6|0.1776
95960562|NCT04294667|191892819|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|10.8||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.1|0.0518
95960563|NCT04294667|191892820|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the CMH risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|11.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.4|0.0257
95960564|NCT04294667|191892821|SUPERIORITY|The difference in proportion responding between SOC+DZP 24mg/kg and SOC+PBO was estimated and tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference estimate controlling for the randomization stratification factors, Pooled Region (North America vs Western Europe/Asia-Pacific vs Latin America/Eastern Europe), Screening disease activity (chronic active vs acute flaring) and Screening SLEDAI score (\<10 vs \>=10).|Difference in Proportions (%)|7.2||||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-1.5|0.1042
95960565|NCT04294667|191892822|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Change(DZP+SOC vs PBO+SOC)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||MMRM|The Least Squares (LS) Mean, the difference (DZP+SOC versus PBO+SOC), and the 95% CIs was computed from the MMRM.||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0001
95960566|NCT04294667|191892827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0111
95960567|NCT04294667|191892828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0228
95960568|NCT04198948|191892887|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation was performed using SAS Proc Power procedure for equivalence test in 2x2 crossover design. For an equivalence range of 80-125%, the within-subject coefficient of variation for the AUC values for gliclazide of 7.8% based on previous PK studies, and expected test/reference geometric mean ratios between 87-115%, 14 volunteers (7 individuals per sequence) are required to show the lack of interaction with 85% power.|Geometric least square mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.48|||||The TOST (two one-sided test) test of equivalence showed that the geometric mean ratio and 90% CI for gliclazide AUC(0-24) between omeprazole and placebo phase was 1.13 (0.86-1.48), with upper confidence limit above the usual 1.25 boundary.|The main evaluated outcome was systemic exposure to gliclazide, expressed as AUC(0-t). The geometric mean was calculated for gliclazide AUC(0-24). The ratio of the geometric means with 90% CIs was assessed by linear mixed models between the two treatment assignments: gliclazide and omeprazole co-administration to that of gliclazide and placebo. The obtained 90% CI was compared with the equivalence 0.8-1.25 range.||1.48|0.86|
95960569|NCT04198948|191892888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.636
95960570|NCT04198948|191892889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
95960571|NCT04962698|191892917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.00238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||>0.00238
95960572|NCT04962698|191892918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95960573|NCT04962698|191892919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.028
95960574|NCT04962698|191892920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.00231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.00231
95960575|NCT04962698|191892921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.00238, which was adjusted from the original 0.05 as described below.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The alpha value for p-value comparison was adjusted for 21 pair-wise comparisons (0.05/21 = 0.00238) across seven tasks.||||||<0.0020
95960576|NCT02312206|191892962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5735|1.1889|||Log Rank|||||1.1889|0.5735|0.3028
95960577|NCT01006616|191892972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.091|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use (yes/no)||||0.091|-0.030|0.325
95960578|NCT01006616|191892972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.029||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.034|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.034|-0.091|0.370
95960579|NCT01006616|191892972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.131|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and baseline smoking status (yes/no) and ICS use (yes/no)||||0.131|0.004|0.037
95960580|NCT01006616|191892973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||6.9|-0.6|0.096
95960581|NCT01006616|191892973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|18.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||18.4|7.4|<0.001
95960582|NCT01006616|191892973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Analysis of Week 26 data|||26.9|13.8|<0.001
95836116|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|11.67|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||11.67|-7.23|
95836117|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|17.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|30.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.64|3.94|
95836118|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|10.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.16|-14.60|
95836119|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|20.04|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||20.04|-8.22|
95836120|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|15.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|31.4|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||31.40|-0.29|
95836121|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|25.03|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||25.03|-4.70|
95836122|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|7.27|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||7.27|-16.16|
95862825|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95962503|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.206
95962504|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.491
95962505|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 Social Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.906
95962506|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T1, At Diagnosis (baseline)||||0.580
95962507|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T2, completion of 2 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 2 months)||||0.012
95962508|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T3, completion of 4 cycles of chemotherapy (approximately 4 months)||||0.010
95962509|NCT01920932|191896662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PedsQL v.4.0 School Functioning-T4, completion of radiation (approximately 8 months)||||0.005
95962510|NCT01653210|191896793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95962511|NCT00820664|191896795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.49|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.31|<0.001
95962512|NCT00820664|191896795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.19||||0.032||95.0|0.02|1.0||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|A one-way ANOVA model with term treatment was fit to the square root transformed response.||||1.00|0.02|0.032
95962513|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.1||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||4.9|0.2|0.9998
95962514|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.5||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.5|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||7.5|0.3|0.9345
95962515|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.5||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||2.1|0.1|0.5836
95962516|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.4||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|10.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||10.6|0.5|0.4844
95962517|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|1.4||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||6.8|0.3|0.9725
95836123|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|14.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|30.63|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||30.63|-0.68|
95836124|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
95836125|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|18.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||18.10|-5.90|
95836126|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||10.30|-10.30|
95836127|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|12.64|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||12.64|-8.96|
95836128|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|16.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||16.16|-7.27|
95836129|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|15.77|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo.||15.77|-7.37|
95862826|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.6||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862827|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95836130|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-0.55|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-0.55|-16.83|
95836131|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.7|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||5.70|-14.39|
95836132|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|2.73|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||2.73|-15.68|
95836133|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|8.41|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||8.41|-13.04|
95836134|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-4.83|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-4.83|-25.59|
95836135|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|6.38|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.38|-19.79|
95836136|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|15.16|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.16|-14.49|
95836137|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|16.74|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||16.74|-13.13|
95836138|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.19|-6.84|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-6.84|-32.19|
95836139|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|6.29|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||6.29|-24.24|
95836140|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|7.1|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.10|-23.92|
95836141|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|11.32|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||11.32|-20.76|
95836142|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-17.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.36|-2.02|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||-2.02|-32.36|
95836143|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.69|7.56|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.56|-25.69|
95836144|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|18.68|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||18.68|-17.53|
95836145|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|12.45|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||12.45|-22.07|
95836146|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
95836147|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|15.0|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||15.00|-11.21|
96001330|NCT02639182|191980240|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) analysis of the ORR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported.||||1.1|0.1|0.062
95836148|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|7.37|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||7.37|-15.77|
95836149|NCT01393639|191643581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|9.66|||||Non-responder imputation was used to handle dropouts.|Week 12 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg.||9.66|-14.38|
96001331|NCT02639182|191980241|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376||||0.439||95.0|0.031|4.482||The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and the number of prior systemic RCC regimens, without any other covariate(s). The model contained terms for treatment group and stratum.|Log Rank|The difference between treatment groups was tested using a stratified log rank test at a one-sided 0.1 significance level.||||4.482|0.031|0.439
96001332|NCT02639182|191980242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746||||||Test conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The stratification factors were the ECOG PS at baseline and number of prior systemic RCC regimens.|Log Rank|||||||0.746
96001333|NCT02639182|191980243|SUPERIORITY|A CMH analysis of the DCR, stratified for baseline ECOG-PS and number of prior systemic therapies for RCC, was conducted at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||The stratified Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the odds ratio for experiencing objective response, with the axitinib arm as the reference level, was reported as a measure of relative treatment effect, along with its two-sided 95% CI.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|0.2|0.152
95836150|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.07|-4.19|
96001334|NCT01097616|191980263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.6|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 97.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.1|12.0|<0.00001
96002303|NCT02385123|191981845|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95836151|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.57|-5.63|
95836152|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-0.97||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.97|-5.06|
95836153|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-5.73|
95836154|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|0.12||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.12|-3.97|
95836155|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.39|-5.46|
95836156|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-4.03|
95836157|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|-0.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-5.04|
95836158|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-0.64||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.64|-5.07|
95836159|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.56|-4.98|
95836160|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.59|-3.85|
95836161|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|-1.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.06|-5.48|
95836162|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.20|-4.66|
95836163|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-1.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.77|-6.62|
95836164|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|-1.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.31|-6.15|
95836165|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.26|-6.09|
95836166|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-4.69|
95836167|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-1.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.70|-6.52|
95836168|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-5.34|
95836169|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|-1.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.83|-6.93|
95836170|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-2.66||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.66|-7.74|
95836171|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-2.36||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.36|-7.43|
95836172|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-0.2||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-5.28|
96001335|NCT01097616|191980264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|27.6||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 95.7%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.6|11.9|<0.00001
96001336|NCT01097616|191980265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.2||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 99.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-19.2|-33.5|<0.00001
95836173|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.05||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.05|-7.10|
95836174|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.33|-0.73|
95836175|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.84||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.18|
95836176|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.44|-1.61|
95836177|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-2.27|
95836178|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.68|-0.74|
95836179|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.65||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-1.76|
95836180|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.79|
96001337|NCT01097616|191980266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-22.9|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-15.4||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 WASO, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-15.4|-30.3|<0.00001
95836181|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.70|-1.69|
95836182|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|4.29||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-0.53|
95836183|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.33||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.33|-2.50|
95836184|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|2.79||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.79|-2.03|
95836185|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.84||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.84|-1.97|
95836186|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.75|
95836187|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-2.34|
95836188|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.89|-3.14|
95836189|NCT01393639|191643582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.19||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.19|-2.84|
95836190|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.91|
95836191|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.73||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-4.17|
95836192|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.29||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.29|-3.76|
95836193|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.4||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.40|-4.82|
95836194|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.33||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-3.13|
95836195|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.07||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.07|-4.52|
95836196|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.29|-3.63|
96002304|NCT02385123|191981846|OTHER|A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure.|||||||||||||||||A single group analysis was used to determine this outcome measure. These are basic science, hypothesis-generating studies with limited numbers of participants and no control group. The outcomes have no comparisons built into them - the outcomes are stating what the cell counts are, what the antibody titers are, what percentage of people seroconverted, etc. As such, we cannot report any p-values etc. for comparisons (e.g. with unvaccinated people).|||
95836197|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-3.94|
95836198|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.11||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-4.03|
95836199|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-1.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.09|
95836200|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.85|
95836201|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.88||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.88|-4.79|
95836202|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-3.25|
95836203|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-3.90|
95836204|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.5||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.50|-4.35|
95836205|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.83||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.83|-4.66|
95836206|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-3.88|
96002305|NCT04498910|191981847|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.2|-3.6|
95836207|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-5.00|
95836208|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-4.20|
95836209|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-5.17|
95836210|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.23|-5.65|
95836211|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.12|-5.52|
95855200|NCT04973449|191669959|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|7.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.23|-7.28|
96002306|NCT04498910|191981848|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.0|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.0|-4.2|
96002307|NCT01809262|191981854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0005||95.0|0.031|0.109|||ANCOVA|||||0.109|0.031|0.0005
96001338|NCT01097616|191980267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.4||||0.00298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.9%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.5|-12.3|0.00298
95836212|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-4.60|
95836213|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-6.07|
96002308|NCT01809262|191981854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.06|0.138|||ANCOVA|||||0.138|0.060|<0.0001
95836214|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.34|-0.10|
95836215|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.05||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.36|
95836216|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.48|-0.94|
95836217|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.38|-2.01|
95836218|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.12|-0.79|
95836219|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.10|
95836220|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.72||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.72|-1.19|
95836221|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.66||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.66|-2.24|
95836222|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.67||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.67|-0.16|
95836223|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|3.04||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.04|-0.81|
95836224|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.57|-1.26|
95836225|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.25||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.25|-1.57|
95836226|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|4.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.07|-0.31|
95855201|NCT04973449|191669960|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|31.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.44|37.82||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.82|24.44|
96001339|NCT01097616|191980268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||[Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.4||||0.00019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-4.0||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.0|-12.8|0.00019
96002309|NCT01809262|191981854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.074|0.152|||ANCOVA|||||0.152|0.074|<0.0001
96002310|NCT01809262|191981854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.080|<0.0001
96002311|NCT01809262|191981855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.139|||ANCOVA|||||0.139|0.077|<0.0001
96002312|NCT01809262|191981855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.186|||ANCOVA|||||0.186|0.124|<0.0001
96002313|NCT01809262|191981855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANCOVA|||||0.192|0.130|<0.0001
95836227|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.13|-1.28|
95836228|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-1.76|
95836229|NCT01393639|191643584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.74||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-1.63|
95836230|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|3.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.55|-12.52|
95836231|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-2.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.20|-18.10|
95836232|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.94|-2.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.92|-18.94|
96002314|NCT01809262|191981855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|0.161|<0.0001
96002315|NCT01809262|191981856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|0.068|<0.0001
96002316|NCT01809262|191981856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.107|<0.0001
96002317|NCT01809262|191981856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.185|||ANCOVA|||||0.185|0.122|<0.0001
96002318|NCT01809262|191981856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001||95.0|0.152|0.215|||ANCOVA|||||0.215|0.152|<0.0001
96002319|NCT01809262|191981857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.117|||ANCOVA|||||0.117|0.056|<0.0001
96002320|NCT01809262|191981857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.148|||ANCOVA|||||0.148|0.087|<0.0001
96002321|NCT01809262|191981857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.168|||ANCOVA|||||0.168|0.107|<0.0001
96002322|NCT01809262|191981857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.193|||ANCOVA|||||0.193|0.132|<0.0001
96002323|NCT01809262|191981858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|0.041|<0.0001
96002324|NCT01809262|191981858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.062|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.062|<0.0001
96002325|NCT01809262|191981858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.156|||ANCOVA|||||0.156|0.089|<0.0001
96002326|NCT01809262|191981858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.174|||ANCOVA|||||0.174|0.107|<0.0001
96002327|NCT01809262|191981859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.158|||ANCOVA|||||0.158|0.084|<0.0001
96002328|NCT01809262|191981859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.203|||ANCOVA|||||0.203|0.129|<0.0001
96002329|NCT01809262|191981859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
96002330|NCT01809262|191981859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.250|0.176|<0.0001
96002331|NCT01809262|191981860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.21|0.402|||ANCOVA|||||0.402|0.210|<0.0001
95836233|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-8.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.24|-24.01|
95836234|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|2.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.56|-13.45|
95836235|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-6.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.11|-22.09|
95836236|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|4.29||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.29|-11.13|
95836237|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-0.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.26|-15.70|
95836238|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|2.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.59|-12.93|
95836239|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.54|-17.90|
95836240|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|10.19||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.19|-5.32|
95836241|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.83|-3.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.45|-18.83|
95836242|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|1.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.59|-12.44|
95836243|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-5.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.20|-19.27|
95836244|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.11|-2.14||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.14|-16.11|
95836245|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.88|-16.89|
95836246|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|4.4||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.40|-9.63|
95836247|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|-5.98||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.98|-19.88|
95836248|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|3.83||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.83|-10.03|
95836249|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.06|-3.13||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.13|-17.06|
95836250|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|-3.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.77|-17.57|
95836251|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-0.86||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.86|-14.72|
95836252|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|3.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-9.98|
95836253|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-6.54||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.54|-20.27|
95836254|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|17.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.61|1.62|
95836255|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|11.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.85|-3.96|
95836256|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|11.13||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.13|-4.80|
95836257|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|5.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-9.86|
95836258|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|15.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.42|0.03|
95836259|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|10.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.87|-4.54|
95836260|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|13.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.71|-1.77|
95836261|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-6.75|
95836262|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|14.43||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.43|0.57|
95836263|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|7.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.64|-6.26|
95836264|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|10.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.70|-3.09|
95836265|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|9.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.96|-3.87|
95836266|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|17.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.18|3.43|
96001340|NCT01097616|191980269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-11.2||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-6.1||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 81.4%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-6.1|-16.3|0.00002
96002332|NCT01809262|191981860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.452|||ANCOVA|||||0.452|0.258|<0.0001
96002333|NCT01809262|191981860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.253|0.447|||ANCOVA|||||0.447|0.253|<0.0001
95836267|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|10.22||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.22|-3.59|
95836268|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.57|-4.10|
95836269|NCT01393639|191643586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|12.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.48|-1.25|
95836270|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|8.31||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.31|-7.56|
95836271|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|-0.3||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.30|-16.01|
95836272|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.01|-6.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.20|-22.01|
95836273|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-4.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.06|-19.70|
95836274|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|8.48||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.48|-7.33|
95836275|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-4.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.98|-20.80|
95836276|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|8.58||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.58|-9.31|
95836277|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|-0.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.53|-18.43|
95836278|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|-4.44||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-22.39|
95836279|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|0.33||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.33|-17.48|
95836280|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.38|-11.57|
95836281|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|-4.78||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.78|-22.73|
95836282|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|8.88||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.88|-9.32|
95836283|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-3.17||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.17|-21.39|
96002334|NCT01809262|191981860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.359|0.551|||ANCOVA|||||0.551|0.359|<0.0001
96002335|NCT02345434|191981868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|13.4||||||||13.4|-6.35|
96002336|NCT02345434|191981869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.1||||||||2.1|-3.68|
96001341|NCT01097616|191980270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.4||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.3||By multiplicity strategy above, overall Type I error among primary hypotheses was controlled at two-sided 5% significance level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Month 3 LPS, had planned marginal power of 76.2%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints; the same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.6|0.00037
96001342|NCT01097616|191980271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|13.6||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|20.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||20.3|6.9|0.00007
95836284|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.53|-7.36||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.36|-25.53|
95836285|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-0.34||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-18.42|
95836286|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|4.57||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.57|-13.61|
96001343|NCT01097616|191980271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|27.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSTm, had planned marginal power of 98.3%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||27.4|15.5|<0.00001
96001344|NCT01097616|191980272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|16.3||||0.00016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|24.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||24.8|7.9|0.00016
96001345|NCT01097616|191980273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|10.7||||0.01711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||19.5|1.9|0.01711
96001346|NCT01097616|191980274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-25.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-25.7|-39.3|<0.00001
96001347|NCT01097616|191980274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-32.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 WASO, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-32.3|-44.5|<0.00001
96001348|NCT01097616|191980275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-26.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|-18.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-18.4|-34.3|<0.00001
96002337|NCT00859898|191981873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.32||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.74|<0.0001
95836287|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-4.69||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.69|-22.87|
95836288|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.6||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.60|-7.90|
96002338|NCT00859898|191981873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant. Two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||||-0.33|-0.75|<0.0001
96002339|NCT00859898|191981873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 0.35%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||0.20|-0.22|
96002340|NCT00859898|191981873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1054||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.2||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||0.20|-0.22|0.9144
95836289|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.51|-0.93||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.93|-20.51|
95836290|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|-8.77||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.77|-28.28|
95836291|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|-3.25||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.25|-22.67|
95836292|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|2.3||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.30|-17.21|
95836293|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-6.48||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.48|-26.00|
95836294|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.34|21.2||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||21.20|5.34|
95836295|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|12.59||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.59|-3.12|
95836296|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.68||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.68|-9.10|
95836297|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|8.81||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.81|-6.79|
95862828|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.83||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.001
95862829|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.57||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.57
95836298|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|22.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.38|4.39|
95836299|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|13.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.27|-4.73|
95836300|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|9.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.35|-8.68|
95836301|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|14.12||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.12|-3.77|
95836302|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|22.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.68|4.44|
95836303|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|10.64||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||10.64|-7.64|
95836304|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.44|-11.76|
95836305|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|13.46||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.46|-4.65|
95836306|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.34|27.84||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||27.84|8.34|
95836307|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|15.32||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.32|-4.27|
95836308|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|7.46||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.46|-12.03|
95836309|NCT01393639|191643588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|12.98||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.98|-6.42|
95836310|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-0.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-14.07|
95862830|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.65||||0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.001
95862831|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.11||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.11
95862832|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.02||||0.94||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.94
95862833|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.0003||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||1.00
96001349|NCT01097616|191980276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.6||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-8.3|-24.8|0.00009
95836311|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.34|-5.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.56|-19.34|
95836312|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.79|-5.91||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.91|-19.79|
95836313|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.79|-9.06||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.06|-22.79|
95836314|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|2.99||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-10.89|
95836315|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|-6.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.57|-20.44|
95836316|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.65|0.16||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-14.65|
96001350|NCT01097616|191980277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.6||||0.01564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-1.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.1|-10.2|0.01564
96001351|NCT01097616|191980277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.7||||0.00609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Week 1 sTSOm, had planned marginal power of 99.6%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-1.6|-9.7|0.00609
96001352|NCT01097616|191980278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.4||||0.05191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||0.0|-10.9|0.05191
95862834|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.004||||1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||1.00
95836317|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-4.68||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.68|-19.38|
95836318|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-8.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.35|-23.10|
95836319|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|-6.63||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.63|-21.27|
95836320|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.31|1.43||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.43|-13.31|
95836321|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-8.79||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.79|-23.54|
95836322|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-13.50|
95862835|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.3||||0.37||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.37
95862836|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.52||||0.09||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.09
95960583|NCT03672175|191893004|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.6638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM)||1.3|-2.0|0.6638
95960584|NCT03672175|191893004|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.3|-3.1|0.1158
95960585|NCT03672175|191893005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.4|0.6905
95960586|NCT03672175|191893005|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM was used for the analysis. Treatment, BL CGI-S score, BL antidepressant use, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were included in the model and were treated as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.1082
95960587|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.5725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||0.9|-1.7|0.5725
95960588|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 3||-0.3|-2.8|0.0160
96001353|NCT01097616|191980279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-5.2||||0.03771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-0.3|-10.2|0.03771
95836323|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-5.65||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.65|-20.46|
95836324|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-7.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.93|-22.69|
95836325|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.66|-5.96||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-5.96|-20.66|
95836326|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|-1.68||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.68|-16.44|
96001354|NCT01097616|191980282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-9.6||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-4.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance and sleep onset endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either the subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test the Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.3|-14.9|0.00041
95836327|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|-7.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-7.06|-21.82|
95836328|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.53|3.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.09|-12.53|
95836329|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.21|-4.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.59|-20.21|
95836330|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|-8.71||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.71|-24.25|
95836331|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-4.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.44|-19.94|
95836332|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|0.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.04|-15.50|
96001355|NCT01097616|191980282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-5.5|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||The null hypothesis, that suvorexant HD did not differ from placebo for Night 1 LPS, had planned marginal power of 100.0%. Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints and either subjective or objective Month 3 endpoint must be significant to test Week 1/Night 1 endpoints. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-5.5|-15.0|0.00002
95836333|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|-6.21||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.21|-21.75|
95836334|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|13.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.42|-0.53|
95836335|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|7.92||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.92|-5.81|
95836336|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|7.57||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.57|-6.25|
95836337|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|4.42||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.42|-9.26|
95855202|NCT04973449|191669961|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-3.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.90|-9.40|
95855203|NCT04973449|191669962|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|23.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.41|30.23||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||30.23|15.41|
96001356|NCT01097616|191980283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.3||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-4.6|-16.0|0.00040
95836338|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|16.35||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.35|1.48|
95836339|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|11.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||11.51|-3.24|
95836340|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|7.84||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.84|-6.96|
95836341|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|9.56||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.56|-5.14|
95836342|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|15.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.77|0.92|
95836343|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|8.8||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.80|-6.03|
95836344|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|6.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.52|-8.26|
95862837|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.4||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.40
95862838|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.2||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.20
96001357|NCT01097616|191980284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-8.1||||0.00606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-2.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model terms: baseline value, age group, region, gender, treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction.||Sleep maintenance (sTSTm, WASO) and sleep onset (sTSOm, LPS) endpoints were tested at two-sided 2.5% significance level. Both Month 1 endpoints for sleep maintenance must be significant to test Month 3 endpoints. A sleep maintenance LD endpoint was tested if ≥1 HD Month 3 endpoint for sleep maintenance and corresponding HD endpoint were significant. The same approach was used for sleep onset endpoints.||-2.3|-13.8|0.00606
96001358|NCT01380093|191980288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-18.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least square (LS) mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.1|-31.7|<0.0001
95836345|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|8.49||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.49|-6.23|
95836346|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|17.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||17.06|1.46|
95836347|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|9.38||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.38|-6.23|
95836348|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|5.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.27|-10.27|
96001359|NCT01380093|191980288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|18.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.6|5.1|0.0009
96001360|NCT01380093|191980288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|43.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||43.6|30.0|<0.0001
96001361|NCT01380093|191980289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-11.1||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence. Planned power of at least 89% assumed a mean difference of 15 to 30 points and a standard deviation of paired differences of 15 to 20 points, with conservative multiple comparison adjustment for alpha of 0.025.||-11.1|-20.2|<0.0001
95836349|NCT01393639|191643590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|9.53||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.53|-5.95|
95836350|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.89|5.14||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.14|-10.89|
95836351|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-14.80|
95836352|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-6.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.38|-22.34|
95836353|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-4.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.41|-20.22|
95836354|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|5.85||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.85|-10.12|
95836355|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.05|-6.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.04|-22.05|
95862839|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.03||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.03
95862840|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
95836356|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|7.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.30|-9.83|
95836357|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|-1.53||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.53|-18.67|
95836358|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|-6.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.82|-24.01|
95836359|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-3.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.26|-20.33|
96001362|NCT01380093|191980289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|18.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.0|8.9|<0.0001
96001363|NCT01380093|191980289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|33.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.7|24.6|<0.0001
95836360|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|2.62||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.62|-14.57|
95836361|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.98|-6.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.76|-23.98|
95836362|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|9.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.03|-9.49|
95836363|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-1.08||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.08|-19.64|
95836364|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.83|-6.32||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.32|-24.83|
95836365|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.56|-2.13||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.13|-20.56|
95836366|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.61|3.89||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.89|-14.61|
95836367|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|-6.61||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-6.61|-25.15|
96001364|NCT01380093|191980290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-41.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-41.0|-61.2|<0.0001
95836368|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|8.94||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.94|-10.32|
95836369|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.95|-0.59||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-19.95|
95836370|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|-10.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-10.06|-29.34|
95836371|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.25|-3.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-3.04|-22.25|
95836372|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.24|2.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.04|-17.24|
95836373|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.99|-9.68||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-9.68|-28.99|
95836374|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.16|3.18|
96001365|NCT01380093|191980290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|34.6||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.6|14.5|<0.0001
96001366|NCT01380093|191980290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|75.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.6|85.8||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||85.8|65.6|<0.0001
95836375|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|15.15||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||15.15|-0.78|
95836376|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|7.65||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.65|-8.28|
95836377|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|9.61||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.61|-6.14|
95836378|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.51|22.71||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||22.71|5.51|
95836379|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|13.92||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.92|-3.38|
95836380|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.59||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.59|-8.68|
95836381|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|12.15||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||12.15|-4.99|
95836382|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.38|24.93||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||24.93|6.38|
95862841|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.3||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.30
95836383|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|14.86||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||14.86|-3.81|
95836384|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|9.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.59|-8.97|
95836385|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|13.77||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||13.77|-4.69|
95836386|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|28.27||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||28.27|9.03|
95836387|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|18.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||18.78|-0.64|
95862842|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.26||||0.74||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.74
95862843|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.378||||0.25||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.25
95862844|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.69||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862845|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862846|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.42||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862847|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862848|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0004||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862849|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862850|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862851|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers rise from pre-booster to one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862852|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.86||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.86
95862853|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.7
95862854|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.58||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.58
95862855|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.44||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.44
95960589|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||0.9|-2.1|0.4450
95960590|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 8||-0.5|-3.6|0.0081
95960591|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.1|-1.6|0.8219
95960592|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.6|-2.0|0.8166
95960593|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.0||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||2.0|-2.3|0.9000
95960594|NCT03672175|191893006|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.3||MMRM was used for analysis with change from BL in HAM-D total score as dependent variable; treatment, BL HAM-D total score, antidepressant use, assessment time point, time point-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables and fixed effects.|MMRM|||Day 182||1.3|-2.7|0.5004
96001367|NCT01380093|191980291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-11.8|<0.0001
96001368|NCT01380093|191980291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.1|2.3|0.0006
95836388|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.28|-10.00|
95836389|NCT01393639|191643592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|16.29||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||16.29|-2.91|
95836390|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.02|-0.37|
95836391|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.11||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.11|-0.46|
95836392|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.1||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.10|-0.45|
95836393|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.52|
95836394|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.00|-0.35|
95836395|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.53|
96001369|NCT01380093|191980291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.0|11.2|<0.0001
95836396|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.31|
95836397|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.17|-0.54|
95836398|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.47|
95836399|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.56|
95836400|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.39|
95836401|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.25|-0.63|
95836402|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.34|
95836403|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.2||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.20|-0.59|
95836404|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-0.51|
95836405|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.16|-0.55|
95836406|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.01|-0.38|
95836407|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.27|-0.67|
95836408|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.15||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.15|-0.30|
95836409|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.63|
95960595|NCT03672175|191893007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.63||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15: Generalized estimating equation (GEE)||1.63|0.65|0.8903
95836410|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.18|-0.64|
95836411|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.14|-0.59|
95960596|NCT03672175|191893007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.25||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.25|0.91|0.1207
95836412|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.09||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.09|-0.54|
95836413|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.35||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.35|-0.81|
95836414|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.01|
95836415|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.24|-0.10|
95836416|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.25||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.10|
95855204|NCT04973449|191669963|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-34.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.77|-27.45||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-27.45|-40.77|
95836417|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.17|
95836418|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.51||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.51|0.13|
95836419|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.11|
95836420|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.34||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.34|-0.04|
95836421|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.25|-0.13|
95862856|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.75||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.75
95836422|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.52||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.52|0.13|
95960597|NCT03672175|191893007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.70|0.67|0.7897
95960598|NCT03672175|191893007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.76||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.76|0.69|0.6837
95836423|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.27|-0.12|
95960599|NCT03672175|191893007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.53|0.51|0.6602
95836424|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.35||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.35|-0.05|
95836425|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.31||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-0.08|
95862857|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.84||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.84
96001370|NCT01380093|191980292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.5|-62.0|<0.0001
96001371|NCT01380093|191980292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|42.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.3|15.8|<0.0001
96001372|NCT01380093|191980292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|77.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.5|91.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||91.0|64.5|<0.0001
95836426|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.73|0.28|
95836427|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.05|
95836428|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.06|
95836429|NCT01393639|191643594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.01|
95836430|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.78|
95836431|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.12|
95836432|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.18|
96001373|NCT01380093|191980293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.0|-42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-42.2|-95.0|<0.0001
95836433|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.74||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.74|-1.48|
95836434|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.72|
96001374|NCT01380093|191980293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|56.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|82.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||82.8|30.1|<0.0001
95836435|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.46||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.46|-1.19|
95836436|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.00|-0.85|
95836437|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.31||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.31|-1.15|
95836438|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.52||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.52|-1.37|
95836439|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.39|
95836440|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.18||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.67|
95836441|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.49||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.49|-1.33|
96001375|NCT01380093|191980293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|125.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.7|151.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||151.5|98.7|<0.0001
96001376|NCT01380093|191980294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.8|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-39.2|-112.8|0.0001
96001377|NCT01380093|191980294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|66.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||103.2|29.8|0.0006
96001378|NCT01380093|191980294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|142.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|179.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||179.3|105.7|<0.0001
95836442|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.02||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.02|-0.90|
95836443|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.41||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.41|-1.32|
95836444|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.62||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.62|-1.53|
95836445|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.6||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.60|-1.51|
95836446|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.89|
95836447|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.50|
95836448|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.00|
95836449|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.43||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.43|-1.40|
96001379|NCT01380093|191980295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-86.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-136.5|0.0011
95836450|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.8||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.80|-1.77|
95836451|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.72||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.72|-1.69|
96001380|NCT01380093|191980295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||120.0|19.7|0.0071
96001381|NCT01380093|191980295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.7|206.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||206.3|105.7|<0.0001
95836452|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.01||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.01|-0.98|
95836453|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.73||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.73|-1.69|
95836454|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|0.04|
95836455|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.44||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.29|
95836456|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.35|
95836457|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.65|
95836458|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.91||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|0.06|
95836459|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.60|-0.24|
95836460|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.38||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.38|-0.46|
95836461|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.37|-0.48|
95836462|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.06||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.06|0.15|
95836463|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.63||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.63|-0.28|
95836464|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.42||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.49|
95836465|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.47|
95862858|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.67||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.67
95836466|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|0.22|
95836467|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.78||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.78|-0.18|
95836468|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.40|-0.55|
96001382|NCT01380093|191980296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.7|-0.6|0.1254
96001383|NCT01380093|191980296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.6|-3.6|0.4592
95836469|NCT01393639|191643596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.49||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.49|-0.47|
95836470|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.03||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.03|-0.76|
95836471|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.39||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.39|-1.17|
95836472|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.54||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.32|
95836473|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.78||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.78|-1.56|
95862859|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.002||||0.99||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.99
96001384|NCT01380093|191980296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.4|-5.6|0.0251
95836474|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-0.70|
95836475|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.55||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.55|-1.34|
95862860|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.62
95862861|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.17||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.36
96001385|NCT01380093|191980297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.0|-19.9|<0.0001
96001386|NCT01380093|191980297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.7|4.8|<0.0001
95836476|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.07||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.07|-0.84|
95836477|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.32||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.32|-1.23|
95836478|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.61||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.61|-1.52|
95836479|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.54||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.54|-1.45|
95836480|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.21|-0.71|
95836481|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.57|-1.48|
95836482|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.11|-0.89|
95836483|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.45||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.45|-1.44|
95836484|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.71||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.71|-1.71|
95836485|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.59||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.59|-1.59|
95836486|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.05||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-0.95|
95862862|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.003||||0.99||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.99
95836487|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.66||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.66|-1.65|
95836488|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.08||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.08|-0.96|
95836489|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.44||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.44|-1.48|
95836490|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.91|-1.94|
95836491|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.76|-1.80|
95836492|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.03|-1.06|
95960600|NCT03672175|191893007|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.69||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||1.69|0.56|0.9268
95836493|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.81||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.81|-1.85|
95836494|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.98|0.19|
95836495|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.22|
95836496|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.41||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.41|-0.38|
95836497|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16||||||Week 2 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.16|-0.62|
95836498|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.09|0.18|
95836499|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.21|
95862863|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.2||||0.24||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.24
95960601|NCT03672175|191893008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.83|0.62|0.8245
95960602|NCT03672175|191893008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.67||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||2.67|0.95|0.0756
95960603|NCT03672175|191893008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||2.01|0.70|0.5309
95836500|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.50|
95836501|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.48||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-0.43|
95836502|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.26||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.26|0.26|
95836503|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.7||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.70|-0.29|
95836504|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.44||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.44|-0.55|
95862864|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.62||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.62
95960604|NCT03672175|191893008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.66||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 42||1.66|0.56|0.9085
95960605|NCT03672175|191893008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.44|0.73|0.3476
95836505|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.56||||||Week 6 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-0.43|
95836506|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.41|0.37|
95836507|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.89|-0.15|
95836508|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.42||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.42|-0.61|
95836509|NCT01393639|191643598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.57||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.57|-0.46|
95836510|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|2.17||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.17|-4.94|
95836511|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.08||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.08|-3.98|
95836512|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|3.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.82|-3.34|
95836513|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.28||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.28|-2.75|
95836514|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.27||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.27|-4.88|
95836515|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.82||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.82|-1.32|
95836516|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|1.87||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-5.89|
95855205|NCT04973449|191669964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|15.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||15.10|-1.31|
95960606|NCT03672175|191893008|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.57||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL HAM-D total score, stratification factor (anti-depressant use at BL), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 182||2.57|0.82|0.2060
95960607|NCT03672175|191893009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||1.65|0.67|0.8303
95960608|NCT03672175|191893009|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.24||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, CGI-S BL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||||2.24|0.91|0.1199
95960609|NCT03672175|191893010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.9|-1.9|0.5021
95960610|NCT03672175|191893010|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-A total score, anti-depressant use at BL (Yes or No), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|0.2868
95862865|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.08||||0.69||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for the analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
95862866|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.13||||0.6||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.60
95862867|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.01||||0.95||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.95
95862868|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862869|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862870|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862871|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
96001387|NCT01380093|191980297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||29.1|20.3|<0.0001
96001388|NCT01380093|191980298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-116.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.5|-95.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-95.7|-136.5|<0.0001
96001389|NCT01380093|191980298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.1|39.3|<0.0001
95862872|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862873|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
96001390|NCT01380093|191980298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|175.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|155.4|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||196.2|155.4|<0.0001
95862874|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862875|NCT00488683|191684580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise from pre-booster levels in serogroup specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862876|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.14||||0.68||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.68
96001391|NCT01380093|191980299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-202.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|-165.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-165.3|-239.0|<0.0001
96001392|NCT01380093|191980299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|122.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|159.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||159.2|85.7|<0.0001
96001393|NCT01380093|191980299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|324.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|287.7|361.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||361.5|287.7|<0.0001
95862877|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.44||||0.09||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.09
95960611|NCT03672175|191893011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5987
95836517|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|5.4||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.40|-2.41|
95836518|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|5.34||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.34|-2.44|
95862878|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.11||||0.69||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.69
95862879|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.38||||0.2||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.20
96001394|NCT01380093|191980300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-253.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-301.5|-204.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-204.5|-301.5|<0.0001
95960612|NCT03672175|191893011|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.7||MMRM with treatment, BL MADRS total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||0.7|-4.7|0.1443
96001395|NCT01380093|191980300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|151.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|103.5|200.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||200.2|103.5|<0.0001
95960613|NCT03672175|191893012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.8499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.0|-3.3|0.8499
95836519|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.76||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.76|-1.98|
95836520|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.61||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.61|-3.16|
95836521|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|8.06||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.06|0.29|
95960614|NCT03672175|191893012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.8|-4.6|0.6265
95960615|NCT03672175|191893012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.5||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.5|-3.2|0.7418
96001396|NCT01380093|191980300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|404.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|356.4|453.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||453.3|356.4|<0.0001
96001397|NCT01380093|191980301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-306.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-370.9|-242.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-242.6|-370.9|<0.0001
96001398|NCT01380093|191980301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|168.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|232.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||232.6|104.7|<0.0001
96001399|NCT01380093|191980301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|475.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|411.3|539.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||539.6|411.3|<0.0001
96001400|NCT01380093|191980302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.6|0.5607
96001401|NCT01380093|191980302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.2|<0.0001
96001402|NCT01380093|191980302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|1.0|<0.0001
96001403|NCT01380093|191980303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-10.3|-20.3|<0.0001
96001404|NCT01380093|191980303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|16.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.2|6.3|<0.0001
96001405|NCT01380093|191980303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.5|21.5|<0.0001
96001406|NCT01380093|191980304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.9|-59.5|<0.0001
96001407|NCT01380093|191980304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||40.1|16.5|<0.0001
96001408|NCT01380093|191980304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|87.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||87.8|64.2|<0.0001
96001409|NCT01380093|191980305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.9|-85.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-85.6|-132.9|<0.0001
96001410|NCT01380093|191980305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|90.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.6|43.5|<0.0001
96001411|NCT01380093|191980305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|176.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.6|199.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||199.9|152.6|<0.0001
96001412|NCT01380093|191980306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-190.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-234.2|-147.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-147.3|-234.2|<0.0001
96001413|NCT01380093|191980306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|178.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||178.0|91.5|<0.0001
96001414|NCT01380093|191980306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.1|368.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||368.9|282.1|<0.0001
96001415|NCT01380093|191980307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.0|-187.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-187.7|-302.0|<0.0001
96001416|NCT01380093|191980307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.5|223.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||223.5|109.5|<0.0001
96001417|NCT01380093|191980307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|411.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|354.3|468.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||468.6|354.3|<0.0001
96001418|NCT01380093|191980308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-310.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-384.5|-235.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-235.5|-384.5|<0.0001
96001419|NCT01380093|191980308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|185.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.8|259.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||259.5|110.8|<0.0001
95836522|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-0.06||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.06|-7.21|
95836523|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.85||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.85|-6.25|
95836524|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.6||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.60|-5.63|
95836525|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|2.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-5.02|
95836526|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-2.31||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.31|-10.07|
95836527|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.23||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.23|-6.60|
95836528|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.18||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.18|-6.64|
95836529|NCT01393639|191643600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.58||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.58|-6.16|
95836530|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.30|-0.83|
95836531|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.45||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.45|0.35|
95836532|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|8.7||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.70|3.54|
96001420|NCT01380093|191980308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|495.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|420.6|569.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||569.7|420.6|<0.0001
96001421|NCT01380093|191980309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|-22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-22.3|-38.7|<0.0001
96001422|NCT01380093|191980309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|39.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.0|22.6|<0.0001
96001423|NCT01380093|191980309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|69.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.5|53.1|<0.0001
96001424|NCT01380093|191980310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.8|-1.0|0.8671
95960616|NCT03672175|191893012|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.7837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D core subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.3|-4.3|0.7837
95960617|NCT03672175|191893013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.7|-4.1|0.6848
95960618|NCT03672175|191893013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.6||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.6|-6.1|0.1100
96001425|NCT01380093|191980310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.7|0.9|0.0001
95836533|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|7.26||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.26|2.19|
95836534|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.76||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.76|-0.39|
95836535|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|7.99||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.99|2.83|
95836536|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.65||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.65|-1.08|
95836537|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.28||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.28|1.52|
95836538|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|9.07||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.07|3.33|
95836539|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.55||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.55|0.85|
95836540|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.47||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.47|0.74|
95836541|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.04||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to placebo. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.04|3.29|
95836542|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-1.09||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.09|-6.27|
95960619|NCT03672175|191893013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.9|-2.4|0.5090
95960620|NCT03672175|191893013|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D anxiety subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.7|-3.2|0.8948
96001426|NCT01380093|191980310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.0|<0.0001
96001427|NCT01380093|191980311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-17.0|<0.0001
96001428|NCT01380093|191980311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||12.8|4.8|<0.0001
96001429|NCT01380093|191980311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||25.8|17.8|<0.0001
95836543|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|0.05||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.05|-5.07|
95836544|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.3||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.30|-1.88|
95836545|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.87||||||Week 4 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.87|-3.23|
95836546|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-1.5||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.50|-7.26|
95836547|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|1.12||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.12|-4.65|
95836548|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.91||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.91|-2.84|
95836549|NCT01393639|191643602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|0.39||||||Week 8 analysis presented in this section for comparison to prednisone 10 mg. Statistical analyses presented are derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline value; unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.39|-5.33|
95836550|NCT00793325|191643610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<15 years and \>=15 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.575
95836551|NCT00793325|191643611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.206
95836552|NCT00793325|191643612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between mild, moderate and severe in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.033
95836553|NCT00793325|191643612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Severity. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of severity."||||=0.207
95836554|NCT00793325|191643613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Past history of any disease. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history of any disease and Without past history any disease in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
95836555|NCT00793325|191643614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Complication(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With complication(s) and Without complication(s)in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.009
95836556|NCT00793325|191643615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Function Disorder. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between with Hepatic Function Disorder and without Hepatic Function Disorder in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
95836557|NCT00793325|191643616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Impairment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Renal Impairment and Without Renal Impairment in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||<0.001
95836558|NCT00793325|191643617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drug(s). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With Concomitant Drug(s) and Without Concomitant Drug(s) in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.003
95836559|NCT00793325|191643618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
95836560|NCT00793325|191643618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
95836561|NCT00793325|191643618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the growth rate SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
95836562|NCT00793325|191643619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at one year and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
95836563|NCT00793325|191643619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the null hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at two years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
95836564|NCT00793325|191643619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the mean value of the change in the height SD score for calendar age between SGA at three years and SGA at baseline.||||<0.001
95836565|NCT00887549|191643629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.021|||Regression, Cox|The Cox model, based upon participant level data, included PFS as dependent variable and TS score in the nucleus as independent variable.||||1.021|1.008|<0.0001
95836566|NCT01318408|191643650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing effects on cognition over time.||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The intent-to-treat group included all individuals who initiated levetiracetam. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine changes in participants' scores for cognition, function, and behavior between baseline and 12 weeks.Change in MMSE test scores was the primary outcome measure.||||.01
95836567|NCT01318408|191643651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessing cognitive effects over time.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Lower scores (negative change) indicate improvements on the ADAS-cog.||||||.02
95836568|NCT02881762|191643701|OTHER|Comparison of mean change analyzed with unpaired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in change in HCV viral load between Maraviroc and No Maraviroc||||0.13
95836569|NCT02881762|191643702|OTHER|Comparison of difference in mean analyzed with paired t-test for parametric data. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|||||>|0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in HCV viral load between baseline and 7 days of maraviroc.||||>0.5
95836570|NCT00465088|191643709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||An n = 81 for niacin extended-release with simvastatin and n = 54 for atorvastatin would provide \> 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C with niacin extended-release with simvastatin relative to atorvastatin, assuming an SD of 16%||||<0.001
95836571|NCT00475904|191643745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.547|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2709||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|ANOVA|||In the initial analysis, the efficacy of the test treatment NP-1 cream was compared with placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis was conducted using the ITT population to compare the mean changes in pain scores from baseline to endpoint for the 2 treatments; the LOCF approach was employed for patients who did not complete the trial.||1.08|0.01|0.0441
95836572|NCT00475904|191643746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2311||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.43||To conclude that the NP-1 was not inferior to gabapentin, the upper limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for the difference between treatments for the endpoint mean pain score was required to be below the non-inferiority margin of 0.70.|ANCOVA|||the primary hypothesis of this study was that NP-1 topical cream (amitriptyline 4%/ketamine 2%) administered twice daily in doses of 4 gm for 4 weeks is not inferior to the standard treatment (oral gabapentin 600 mg 3 times daily) for relieving the pain of adult patients with PHN.||0.43|-0.33|0.8409
95836573|NCT00880191|191643747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete Responders by Arm - Days 2-6, the primary analysis utilizes Fisher's exact test to compare the percentage of complete responders in each group (dex/gabapentin vs. dex/placebo), with complete response being defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue therapy for days 2 through 6. If a patient does not complete the study or does not provide complete data, they will be assumed to be a non-responder.||||0.2344
95836574|NCT00880191|191643748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis described above was repeated using a slightly different alternate definition of complete response: no emetic episodes, no more than a mean of 2.5 on the nausea numeric analogue scale, and no rescue agents.||||0.3694
95836575|NCT01919801|191643775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||||||Test was performed using a weighted log-rank test called the Peto-Prentice test with a global 2-sided significance level of 5% after adjusting for stratification factors (race, and severity) in the ITT population.|Adjusted Peto-Prentice|||A total of 121 participants were analysed, however 3 participants did not receive the study medication and were censored at time 0.||||0.633
95960621|NCT03672175|191893014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.3|-4.5|0.9591
95960622|NCT03672175|191893014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||2.0|-7.0|0.2713
95836576|NCT01843062|191643785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||The primary endpoint was to be considered statistically significant if the 2-sided p-value was less than 0.05. P-value and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
96001430|NCT01380093|191980312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-35.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-35.3|-55.3|<0.0001
95960623|NCT03672175|191893014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.8048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||5.4|-4.2|0.8048
96001431|NCT01380093|191980312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.5|14.6|<0.0001
95836577|NCT01843062|191643786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
95836578|NCT01843062|191643787|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.87|0.61|0.8205
95836579|NCT01843062|191643788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.73||P-value and CIs were calculated using profile likelihood.|Regression, Logistic|||Selumetinib in combination with RAI was compared with placebo in combination with RAI. The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model including treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \>1 favours selumetinib in combination with RAI.||1.73|0.42|0.6549
95836580|NCT03078855|191643789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.98|||Regression, Cox||The EFS hazard ratio was adjusted for enrolling site, continuous age at randomization, and (via stratification) 3 randomization strata: non-follicular histology, follicular (FL) with low/intermediate FLIPI score and FL with high FLIPI score.|||1.98|0.83|0.26
95836581|NCT03194646|191643811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.26||||||||-1.26|-2.44|
95836582|NCT03194646|191643811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.8||||||||-1.80|-2.87|
95836583|NCT03194646|191643811|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.1||||||||-1.10|-2.51|
95836584|NCT00098306|191643820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1571|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.141|-0.435||||||The difference between the treatment least square means (LS means) adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.435|-1.141|
95836585|NCT00098306|191643820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1568|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.275|-0.57||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.570|-1.275|
95836586|NCT00098306|191643821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (less than \[\<\] 100,000 or greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio greater than (\>) 1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.78|<0.0001
95836587|NCT00098306|191643821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.95|2.26|<0.0001
95836588|NCT00098306|191643821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|6.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.64|2.36|<0.0001
95836589|NCT00098306|191643821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|8.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.59|3.04|<0.0001
95836590|NCT00098306|191643822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.13|1.63|<0.0001
96001432|NCT01380093|191980312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|69.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||79.8|59.9|<0.0001
96001433|NCT01380093|191980313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-109.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.3|-88.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-88.8|-129.3|<0.0001
96001434|NCT01380093|191980313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||80.4|39.9|<0.0001
96001435|NCT01380093|191980313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|148.9|189.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||189.5|148.9|<0.0001
96001436|NCT01380093|191980314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-207.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.0|-172.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-172.1|-242.0|<0.0001
95836591|NCT00098306|191643822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
95836592|NCT00098306|191643822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.67|1.83|<0.0001
95836593|NCT00098306|191643822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.32|2.08|<0.0001
95836594|NCT00098306|191643823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.88|1.92|<0.0001
95836595|NCT00098306|191643823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|5.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.68|2.22|<0.0001
95836596|NCT00098306|191643823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.31|2.05|<0.0001
95836597|NCT00098306|191643823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||6.51|2.50|<0.0001
95836598|NCT00098306|191643824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||4.04|1.46|0.0006
95836599|NCT00098306|191643824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||5.23|1.90|<0.0001
95836600|NCT00098306|191643824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||7.25|2.32|<0.0001
95960624|NCT03672175|191893014|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.7665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Bech-6 subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||3.9|-5.3|0.7665
95960625|NCT03672175|191893015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.8575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||4.1|-3.4|0.8575
95862880|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.88||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.88
95960626|NCT03672175|191893015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.3|-6.3|0.1978
96001437|NCT01380093|191980314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|118.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|153.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||153.5|83.9|<0.0001
95836601|NCT00098306|191643824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|8.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Two-sided 95% CI was presented for the odds ratios between treatment groups with placebo as the comparator. CIs were calculated using the Wald-approximation. Logistic model with treatment, screening HIV concentrations (\<100,000 or \>=100,000), enfuvirtide use (Yes or No) as covariates was used. Odds ratio \>1 favors maraviroc.||8.77|2.82|<0.0001
95836602|NCT00098306|191643826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|54.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.435|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.07|78.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||78.92|30.07|
95836603|NCT00098306|191643826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.63|83.26||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.26|34.63|
95836604|NCT00098306|191643826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|58.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.677|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.66|83.46||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||83.46|33.66|
95836605|NCT00098306|191643826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|68.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.69|93.25||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||93.25|43.69|
95836606|NCT00098306|191643827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|284.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.779|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|182.51|385.92||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||385.92|182.51|
95836607|NCT00098306|191643827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|303.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|201.9|404.23||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||404.23|201.90|
95836608|NCT00098306|191643827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|213.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.77|310.92||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||310.92|115.77|
95836609|NCT00098306|191643827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|235.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.68|332.8||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Positive value favors maraviroc over placebo.||332.80|138.68|
95836610|NCT00098306|191643828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.60|0.34|<0.0001
95836611|NCT00098306|191643828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.5|||Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using Log rank test controlling for the effect of the randomization strata. Hazard ratio calculated by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment group and randomization strata. Hazard ratio \<1 favors maraviroc.||0.50|0.28|<0.0001
95836612|NCT00098306|191643829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.961|-0.432||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.432|-0.961|
95836613|NCT00098306|191643829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.065|-0.538||||||Week 24: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.538|-1.065|
95836614|NCT00098306|191643829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1497|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|-0.474||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.474|-1.061|
95836615|NCT00098306|191643829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.638||||||Week 48: The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 95% CI. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.638|-1.225|
95836616|NCT00098306|191643830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1621|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.217|-0.489||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.489|-1.217|
96001438|NCT01380093|191980314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|325.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|290.8|360.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||360.7|290.8|<0.0001
96001439|NCT01380093|191980315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-268.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-313.2|-223.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-223.2|-313.2|<0.0001
95836617|NCT00098306|191643830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1618|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.385|-0.658||||||The difference between the treatment LS means adjusted for the randomization strata was presented in addition to 2-sided 97.5% CI as an adjustment for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Negative value favors maraviroc over placebo.||-0.658|-1.385|
95836618|NCT00300365|191643837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95836619|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.12||||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.28|-0.52|0.5456
95836620|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.1029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.07|-0.75|0.1029
95836621|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 7||0.62|-0.19|0.2879
95836622|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.56|-0.45|0.8213
95836623|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.3457||95.0|-0.74|0.27||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.27|-0.74|0.3457
95836624|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q3 at Day 7||0.79|-0.20|0.2364
95836625|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.57||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.57|-0.21|0.3553
95836626|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.20|-0.58|0.3369
95836627|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.76||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q17 at Day 7||0.76|-0.01|0.0591
95836628|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.7686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.31|-0.42|0.7686
95836629|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||-0.09|-0.83|0.0151
95960627|NCT03672175|191893015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||4.3|-3.9|0.9298
95836630|NCT01122849|191643857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.77||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 7||0.77|0.05|0.0256
95836631|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1at Day 14||0.30|-0.52|0.5958
95836632|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.11|-0.73|0.1429
95836633|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q1 at Day 14||0.62|-0.21|0.3348
95836634|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.4425||95.0|-0.32|0.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.72|-0.32|0.4425
95836635|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.34|-0.71|0.4795
95836636|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q3 at Day 14||0.90|-0.13|0.1375
95836637|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.31||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.31|-0.56|0.5750
96001440|NCT01380093|191980315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|147.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.1|191.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.9|102.1|<0.0001
95836638|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||-0.04|-0.92|0.0337
95836639|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.79||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q17 at Day 14||0.79|-0.08|0.1061
95836640|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.7092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day 14||0.34|-0.50|0.7092
95836641|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q18 at Day14||-0.06|-0.91|0.0250
95836642|NCT01122849|191643858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q18 at Day 14||0.82|0.00|0.0503
95836643|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.84||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|3.59||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||3.59|-1.92|0.5462
95836644|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|0.42||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 7||0.42|-5.16|0.0942
95836645|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep problems at Day 7||5.93|0.48|0.0221
95836646|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.72||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|2.68||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Sleep Time problems at Day 7||2.68|-4.11|0.6731
95836647|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.57||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|0.83||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 7||0.83|-5.98|0.1354
95836648|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.86||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.21||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of sleep time problems at Day 7||5.21|-1.50|0.2722
95836649|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.71||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.14||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on walking in the morning at Day 7||2.14|-3.55|0.6195
95836650|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.83||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.96||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at day 7 for symptoms for walking in the morning||-0.96|-6.70|0.0099
95836651|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 7||5.93|0.32|0.0298
95836652|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.4||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||1.40|-2.01|0.7211
95836653|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.9||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||0.90|-2.51|0.3500
95836654|NCT01122849|191643859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.18||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 7||2.18|-1.19|0.5564
96001441|NCT01380093|191980315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|415.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|370.2|460.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||460.2|370.2|<0.0001
96001442|NCT01380093|191980316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-336.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.4|-276.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-276.6|-395.4|<0.0001
95836655|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Sleep Problems at Day 14||3.35|-2.20|0.6804
95836656|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.49||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||1.49|-4.12|0.3524
95836657|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.89||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|4.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep problems at Day 14||4.63|-0.86|0.1739
95836658|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.98||||0.2463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.36||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||Comparison for Sleep time problems at Day 14||5.36|-1.41|0.2463
95836659|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.28||||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|3.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||3.68|-3.11|0.8677
95836660|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for sleep time problems at Day 14||5.04|-1.65|0.3136
95836661|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.65||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||2.65|-2.93|0.9183
95836662|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.68||||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||0.13|-5.50|0.0614
95836663|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|5.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for symptoms on waking in the morning at Day 14||5.29|-0.21|0.0695
95836664|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.1||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day14||2.10|-1.03|0.4947
95836665|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.72||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.72|-1.42|0.8454
95836666|NCT01122849|191643860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.38||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for practical problems at Day 14||1.93|-1.17|0.6223
95836667|NCT01122849|191643861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.34||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|LS Mean Difference|||Comparison at Day 7||2.01|-4.68|0.4258
95836668|NCT01122849|191643861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|0.33||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||0.33|-6.43|0.0764
95836669|NCT01122849|191643861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.71||||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.97||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison at Day 7||4.97|-1.56|0.2986
95836670|NCT01122849|191643862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.12||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.29||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||4.29|-2.05|0.4820
95836671|NCT01122849|191643862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.81||||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||1.39|-5.02|0.2607
95836672|NCT01122849|191643862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.93||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|6.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||6.02|-0.16|0.0623
95836673|NCT01122849|191643863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.36||||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|9.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||9.39|-18.1|0.5278
95836674|NCT01122849|191643863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.14||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|23.93||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||23.93|-3.64|0.1458
95836675|NCT01122849|191643863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.91||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-28.1|0.0370
95836676|NCT01122849|191643864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|8.29|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||8.29|-18.5|0.4483
95836677|NCT01122849|191643864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.28||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|27.77|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||27.77|0.79|0.0385
95836678|NCT01122849|191643864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-19.37||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-6.23|||ANCOVA|Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals||||-6.23|-32.5|0.0046
95836679|NCT01122849|191643865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.24||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|25.02||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||25.02|5.45|0.0029
95836680|NCT01122849|191643865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|14.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||14.01|-6.53|0.4683
95836681|NCT01122849|191643865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.55||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||21.55|1.44|0.0259
95836682|NCT01122849|191643866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.79||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|19.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.19|-3.62|0.1764
95836683|NCT01122849|191643866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63||||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|12.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||12.94|-11.7|0.9183
95836684|NCT01122849|191643866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.2313||95.0|-4.7|19.01||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||||19.01|-4.70|0.2313
95836685|NCT01122849|191643867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.63||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.63|-0.09|0.1345
95836686|NCT01122849|191643867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.04|-0.68|0.0815
95836687|NCT01122849|191643867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.94||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.94|0.24|0.0015
95836688|NCT01122849|191643867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean differnence|-1.03||||0.0292||95.0|-1.96|-0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.11|-1.96|0.0292
95836689|NCT01122849|191643867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.47||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.47|-0.39|0.2497
95836690|NCT01122849|191643867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.66||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||-0.66|-2.48|0.0011
95836691|NCT01122849|191643868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.51|-0.40|0.8063
95836692|NCT01122849|191643868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differnence|-0.35||||0.1356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.11||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.11|-0.82|0.1356
95836693|NCT01122849|191643868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.41||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.87|-0.05|0.0786
95836694|NCT01122849|191643868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.32||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparisons for Q4 at Day 14||0.32|-1.75|0.1693
95836695|NCT01122849|191643868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.08||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.13|0.03|0.0438
95836696|NCT01122849|191643868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.78||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||-0.78|-2.82|0.0009
95836697|NCT01122849|191643869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 7||0.13|-0.62|0.1991
95836698|NCT01122849|191643869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.21||||0.2964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.19|-0.60|0.2964
95836699|NCT01122849|191643869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 7||0.35|-0.42|0.8495
95836700|NCT01122849|191643869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.62||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 7||2.62|0.08|0.0381
95836701|NCT01122849|191643869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.82||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||1.82|-0.74|0.4005
95836702|NCT01122849|191643869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.81||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|2.07||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q4 at Day 7||2.07|-0.45|0.2020
95836703|NCT01122849|191643870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.23|-0.41|0.5741
95836704|NCT01122849|191643870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q2 at Day 14||0.39|-0.26|0.6935
95836705|NCT01122849|191643870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.16||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of Q2 at Day 14||0.16|-0.47|0.3330
95836706|NCT01122849|191643870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|1.39||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.73|0.04|0.0434
95836707|NCT01122849|191643870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.32||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.67||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||1.67|-1.02|0.6333
95836708|NCT01122849|191643870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|2.37||Between treatment p-values and confidence intervals.|ANCOVA|||Comparison for Q4 at Day 14||2.37|-0.25|0.1091
95836709|NCT00781859|191643902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.24||comparing placebo and ocriplasmin|Fisher Exact|||||5.24|1.32|0.003
95836710|NCT04978818|191643947|NON_INFERIORITY|The anti-PRP IgG GMC for children receiving dose 1 of Vaxelis® was defined a priori as non-inferior if it was within a 1.5-fold margin of the GMC for children receiving dose 1 of PedvaxHIB®, corresponding to the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the IgG GMC ratio (Vaxelis® to PedvaxHIB®) being greater than 0.67.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Concentration|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis||The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.67. Thus, Vaxelis® post-dose 1 anti-PRP IgG immunogenicity met the non-inferiority criterion compared to PedvaxHIB®.|||1.41|0.75|0.85
95836711|NCT04978818|191643948|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95836712|NCT04978818|191643949|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95836713|NCT04978818|191643950|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95836714|NCT04978818|191643951|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
95836715|NCT04978818|191643952|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95836716|NCT04978818|191643953|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95836717|NCT01793883|191643955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.251
95836718|NCT01793883|191643955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.818
95836719|NCT00516165|191643956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||0.05
95836720|NCT00516165|191643957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
95836721|NCT00516165|191643958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||<0.05
95836722|NCT00516165|191643959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
95836723|NCT00516165|191643960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
95836724|NCT00516165|191643961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.05
95836725|NCT01431963|191643966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|43.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.85|55.96|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for all seizures.|||55.96|30.85|
95836726|NCT01431963|191643966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.02|54.09|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B+C seizures.|||54.09|27.02|
95836727|NCT01431963|191643966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.63|56.72|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for A+B seizures.|||56.72|25.63|
95836728|NCT01431963|191643966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.29|84.41|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for C seizures.|||84.41|51.29|
95836729|NCT01431963|191643966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.39|97.48|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants who were seizure free for D5 seizures.|||97.48|44.39|
95836730|NCT01865448|191644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2780
95836731|NCT01865448|191644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8689
95836732|NCT01865448|191644029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4533
95836733|NCT01865448|191644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71833|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71833
95836734|NCT01865448|191644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836735|NCT01865448|191644030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836736|NCT01865448|191644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.51900
95836737|NCT01865448|191644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836738|NCT01865448|191644031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836739|NCT01865448|191644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24567|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24567
95836740|NCT01865448|191644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836741|NCT01865448|191644032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836742|NCT01865448|191644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9573
96001443|NCT01380093|191980316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|165.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.4|224.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||224.8|106.4|<0.0001
95836743|NCT01865448|191644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5257
95836744|NCT01865448|191644033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0657
95836745|NCT01865448|191644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7474
95836746|NCT01865448|191644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3745
95836747|NCT01865448|191644034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0476
95836748|NCT01865448|191644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27444|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.27444
95836749|NCT01865448|191644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
96001444|NCT01380093|191980316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|501.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|442.2|561.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||561.0|442.2|<0.0001
96001445|NCT01380093|191980317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-26.8|-40.7|<0.0001
95836750|NCT01865448|191644035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836751|NCT01865448|191644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28489
95836752|NCT01865448|191644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836753|NCT01865448|191644036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95836754|NCT01865448|191644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04491|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.04491
95836755|NCT01865448|191644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836756|NCT01865448|191644037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836757|NCT01865448|191644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24396|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.24396
95836758|NCT01865448|191644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
95836759|NCT01865448|191644038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00162|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.00162
95836760|NCT01865448|191644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82322|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.82322
95836761|NCT01865448|191644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
95836762|NCT01865448|191644039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25908|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.25908
95836763|NCT01865448|191644040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.76435
95836764|NCT01865448|191644040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
95836765|NCT01865448|191644040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18876|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.18876
95836766|NCT01865448|191644041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.40485|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.40485
95836767|NCT01865448|191644041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836768|NCT01865448|191644041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836769|NCT01865448|191644042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13911|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.13911
96001446|NCT01380093|191980317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|33.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.6|19.7|<0.0001
96001447|NCT01380093|191980317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|60.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|67.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.4|53.4|<0.0001
95836770|NCT01865448|191644042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
95836771|NCT01865448|191644042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05726|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.05726
95836772|NCT01865448|191644043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.60214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.60214
95836773|NCT01865448|191644043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836774|NCT01865448|191644043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836775|NCT01865448|191644044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.66053
95836776|NCT01865448|191644044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836777|NCT01865448|191644044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.05
95836778|NCT01865448|191644045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.28743
95836779|NCT01865448|191644045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
96001448|NCT01380093|191980318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.4|0.3345
95836780|NCT01865448|191644045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.001
95836781|NCT01865448|191644046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58561|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.58561
95836782|NCT01865448|191644046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||<0.001
95836783|NCT01865448|191644046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95836784|NCT01865448|191644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1953
95836785|NCT01865448|191644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0351
96001449|NCT01380093|191980318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.3|1.5|<0.0001
96001450|NCT01380093|191980318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.8|1.1|<0.0001
95836786|NCT01865448|191644047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0795
95836787|NCT01865448|191644048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6664
95836788|NCT01865448|191644048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.4310
95836789|NCT01865448|191644048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
95836790|NCT01865448|191644049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2470
95836791|NCT01865448|191644049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2755
95836792|NCT01865448|191644049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.8226
95836793|NCT01865448|191644050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6779|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6779
95836794|NCT01865448|191644050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3761
95836795|NCT01865448|191644050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0281
95836796|NCT01865448|191644051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8591
95836797|NCT01865448|191644051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0404
95836798|NCT01865448|191644051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0474
95836799|NCT01865448|191644052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3187
95836800|NCT01865448|191644052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0482
95836801|NCT01865448|191644052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0394
95836802|NCT01865448|191644053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2813|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2813
95836803|NCT01865448|191644053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4421|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4421
95836804|NCT01865448|191644053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3198
95836805|NCT01865448|191644054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2792
95836806|NCT01865448|191644054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1034
95836807|NCT01865448|191644054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.9898
95960628|NCT03672175|191893015|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8||MMRM with treatment, BL HAM-D Maier subscale score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.8|-5.2|0.5487
95836808|NCT01865448|191644055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7047
95836809|NCT01865448|191644055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4749
95960629|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.2|0.6270
95960630|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.5463
95836810|NCT01865448|191644055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.6014
95836811|NCT01865448|191644056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5932
95836812|NCT01865448|191644056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.7140
95836813|NCT01865448|191644056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5827|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5827
95836814|NCT01865448|191644057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2894
95836815|NCT01865448|191644057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2128|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2128
96001451|NCT01380093|191980319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.0|-2.0|0.0453
95836816|NCT01865448|191644057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0823
95836817|NCT01865448|191644058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3450
95836818|NCT01865448|191644058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1365
95836819|NCT01865448|191644058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0073
95836820|NCT01865448|191644059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2333
95836821|NCT01865448|191644059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4292|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4292
95836822|NCT01865448|191644059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3356|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3356
95836823|NCT01865448|191644060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6830
95836824|NCT01865448|191644060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.8625
95836825|NCT01865448|191644060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0068
95836826|NCT01865448|191644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.3694
95836827|NCT01865448|191644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0291
95836828|NCT01865448|191644061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0402
95836829|NCT01865448|191644062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1226
95836830|NCT01865448|191644062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0472
95836831|NCT01865448|191644062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0197
96001452|NCT01380093|191980319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.3|-0.7|0.5637
96001453|NCT01380093|191980319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|0.3|0.0110
96001454|NCT01380093|191980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.9||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.6|-8.2|0.0041
95836832|NCT01865448|191644063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8969|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8969
95836833|NCT01865448|191644063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7218|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7218
95836834|NCT01865448|191644063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4536
95836835|NCT01865448|191644064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.8765
95836836|NCT01865448|191644064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5114|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.5114
95836837|NCT01865448|191644064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0237
95836838|NCT01865448|191644065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2914
95836839|NCT01865448|191644065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5594
95836840|NCT01865448|191644065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2532|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2532
95836841|NCT01865448|191644066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0528
95836842|NCT01865448|191644066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1920
95836843|NCT01865448|191644066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0011
95836844|NCT01865448|191644067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2999|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2999
95836845|NCT01865448|191644067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5184
95836846|NCT01865448|191644067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0564
95836847|NCT01865448|191644068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0783
95836848|NCT01865448|191644068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1263
95836849|NCT01865448|191644068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6484|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.6484
95836850|NCT01865448|191644069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6896|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.6896
95836851|NCT01865448|191644069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0980
95836852|NCT01865448|191644069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.3526
95836853|NCT01865448|191644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9662|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9662
95836854|NCT01865448|191644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.1450
95836855|NCT01865448|191644070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3811
95836856|NCT01865448|191644071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.2643
95836857|NCT01865448|191644071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0761
95836858|NCT01865448|191644071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.1342
95836859|NCT01865448|191644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1410
95836860|NCT01865448|191644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.3774
95836861|NCT01865448|191644072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1811
95836862|NCT01865448|191644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
95836863|NCT01865448|191644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
95836864|NCT01865448|191644073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
95836865|NCT01865448|191644074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5893|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.5893
95836866|NCT01865448|191644074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0431
95836867|NCT01865448|191644074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0066
95836868|NCT01865448|191644075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||<0.0001
95836869|NCT01865448|191644075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
95836870|NCT01865448|191644075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||<0.0001
95836871|NCT01865448|191644076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.9850
95836872|NCT01865448|191644076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 6 month data||||0.0049
95836873|NCT01865448|191644076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0062
95836874|NCT01865448|191644077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1946|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.1946
95836875|NCT01865448|191644077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.2337
95836876|NCT01865448|191644077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.9188
95836877|NCT01865448|191644078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.7964
95836878|NCT01865448|191644078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.7680
95836879|NCT01865448|191644078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.5669
95836880|NCT01865448|191644079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.0320
95836881|NCT01865448|191644079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.0220
95836882|NCT01865448|191644079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 2 month data||||0.4563
95836883|NCT01865448|191644080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72828|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.72828
95836884|NCT01618695|191644082|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.112|4.519|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95 percent (%) confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||4.519|-14.112|0.2330
95836885|NCT01618695|191644082|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.683|-7.251|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-7.251|-25.683|0.0003
95836886|NCT01618695|191644082|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.878|-16.235|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-16.235|-33.878|<0.0001
95836887|NCT01618695|191644083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3954
95836888|NCT01618695|191644083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
95836889|NCT01618695|191644083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95836890|NCT01618695|191644084|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.27||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.067|1.671|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.671|-18.067|0.0552
95836891|NCT01618695|191644084|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.941|-11.368|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.368|-30.941|<0.0001
95836892|NCT01618695|191644084|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.698|-19.794|||ANCOVA||Median Difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-19.794|-37.698|<0.0001
95836893|NCT02813889|191644087|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|-0.0031||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0031|-0.0261|0.0054
95836894|NCT02813889|191644088|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0331|-0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0070|-0.0331|0.0005
95836895|NCT02813889|191644089|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0146||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|-0.0026||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||-0.0026|-0.0267|0.0088
95836896|NCT02813889|191644090|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0059||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0062||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length (Full-Term) - Path Length (Pre-Term)|||0.0062|-0.0180|0.7624
95836897|NCT02813889|191644091|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0129||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0007|0.0251||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0251|0.0007|0.0326
95836898|NCT02813889|191644092|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0138|0.048||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0480|0.0138|<0.0001
95836899|NCT02813889|191644093|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.017||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0045|0.0295||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0295|0.0045|0.0025
95836900|NCT02813889|191644094|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0066||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0059|0.0191||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = Path Length per second (Typical) - Path Length per second (Atypical)|||0.0191|-0.0059|0.6782
95836901|NCT02813889|191644095|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.064||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|2.122||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.122|0.006|0.0479
95836902|NCT02813889|191644096|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.278||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.477||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.477|-0.921|0.9947
95836903|NCT02813889|191644097|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.835||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|1.945||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||1.945|-0.274|0.2614
95836904|NCT02813889|191644098|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|2.286||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Full-Term) - StdDevY (Pre-Term)|||2.286|0.066|0.0314
95836905|NCT02813889|191644099|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.255|0.1059||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1059|-2.255|0.0958
95836906|NCT02813889|191644100|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5248||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1243|2.1739||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||2.1739|-1.1243|0.9660
95960631|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.3|-0.3|0.8716
95960632|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Depressed Mood||0.2|-0.4|0.4383
95960633|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.4794
95960634|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Feelings of Guilt||0.2|-0.2|0.9717
95960635|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3701
95960636|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Feelings of Guilt||0.3|-0.1|0.3972
95960637|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.5761
96001455|NCT01380093|191980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.3|-1.2|0.2178
96001456|NCT01380093|191980320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.3|3.7|<0.0001
95836907|NCT02813889|191644101|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4198||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6278|0.7882||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.7882|-1.6278|0.9462
96001457|NCT01380093|191980321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.9|-28.8|0.0001
96001458|NCT01380093|191980321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||16.3|-2.6|0.1510
95836908|NCT02813889|191644102|SUPERIORITY|Two-Factor ANOVA in repeated measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0705||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2785|0.1375||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|p Values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer tests.|Difference = StdDevY (Typical) - StdDevY (Atypical)|||0.1375|-2.2785|0.1129
95836909|NCT02391363|191644159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.08 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate of .05."||||0.77
95960638|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.4379
95960639|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.6087
95960640|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Suicide||0.1|-0.1|0.9791
95960641|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2093
95960642|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.1|-0.3|0.5189
95960643|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.2|-0.2|0.6617
95960644|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early - Early Night||0.3|-0.1|0.2632
95960645|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.3|0.2740
95960646|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.0|-0.3|0.1185
95960647|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.2|-0.2|0.9450
96001459|NCT01380093|191980321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|35.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.7|16.8|<0.0001
96001460|NCT01380093|191980322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.9|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-34.4|-75.9|<0.0001
95836910|NCT02391363|191644160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.50 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PSWQ-A, controlling for baseline PSWQ-A.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.07
95836911|NCT02391363|191644161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.92. (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.34
95836912|NCT02391363|191644162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 3.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAD-7, controlling for baseline GAD-7.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.08
95836913|NCT02391363|191644163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.59 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.45
95836914|NCT02391363|191644164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.37 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GAI-SF, controlling for baseline GAI-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.13
95836915|NCT02391363|191644165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
95836916|NCT02391363|191644166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.14 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PHQ-8, controlling for baseline PHQ-8.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.29
95855206|NCT04973449|191669965|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|29.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.76|35.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||35.81|21.76|
95960648|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Middle - Middle Night||0.1|-0.2|0.6343
95960649|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.3|0.3169
95960650|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.0|-0.4|0.0178
95960651|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.2|-0.2|0.8504
96001461|NCT01380093|191980322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.5||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||39.2|-2.2|0.0796
96001462|NCT01380093|191980322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|73.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|94.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||94.4|52.9|<0.0001
96001463|NCT01380093|191980323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-52.7|-112.9|<0.0001
96001464|NCT01380093|191980323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.9||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||56.9|-3.1|0.0780
95836917|NCT02391363|191644167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 2.19 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.14
95836918|NCT02391363|191644168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.30 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month GDS-SF, controlling for baseline GDS-SF.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
96001465|NCT01380093|191980323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|109.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.6|139.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||139.8|79.6|<0.0001
95836919|NCT02391363|191644169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.22 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
95836920|NCT02391363|191644170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.88 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month ISI, controlling for baseline ISI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.35
95836921|NCT02391363|191644171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.42 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.52
95836922|NCT02391363|191644172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = .01(Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.92
95836923|NCT02391363|191644173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.29 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.59
96001466|NCT01380093|191980324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-111.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-70.2|-153.7|<0.0001
95836924|NCT02391363|191644174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.20 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month LL-FDI, controlling for baseline LL-FDI.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.89
96001467|NCT01380093|191980324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|33.9||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|75.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||75.5|-7.8|0.1089
96001468|NCT01380093|191980324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|145.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.1|187.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||187.5|104.1|<0.0001
96001469|NCT01380093|191980325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-8.6|-18.8|<0.0001
96001470|NCT01380093|191980325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.1|0.9|0.0215
96001471|NCT01380093|191980325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|24.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||24.8|14.6|<0.0001
95836925|NCT02391363|191644175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.23 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.64
95836926|NCT02391363|191644176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.94
95836927|NCT02391363|191644177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.98
95836928|NCT02391363|191644178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F= 0.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month SF-12, controlling for baseline SF-12.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.88
95836929|NCT02391363|191644179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 1.02 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.31
95836930|NCT02391363|191644180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||P-value for treatment-group effect (CL vs ECC)|ANCOVA|Treatment group F = 0.00 (Numerator df = 1, Denominator df varies, as multiple imputation was used).||"Analyses were ITT using PROC MI and PROC MI ANALYZE in conjunction with ANCOVA. We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month PCL-5, controlling for baseline PCL-5.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.96
95836931|NCT02391363|191644181|SUPERIORITY|"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||||0.52||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.40 (SE = 0.63). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||||||0.52
95855207|NCT04973449|191669967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.42||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.42|1.30|
96001472|NCT01380093|191980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-3.6|0.0007
95836932|NCT02391363|191644182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.79 (SE = 0.85). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month health service use, controlling for baseline health service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
95836933|NCT02391363|191644183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 1.56 (SE = 0.74). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.04
95836934|NCT02391363|191644184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 2.96 (SE = 0.91). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month hospital admissions, controlling for baseline hospital admissions.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.001
95836935|NCT02391363|191644185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.42 (SE = 0.51). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.42
95836936|NCT02391363|191644186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = 0.09 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month social service use, controlling for baseline social service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.85
95836937|NCT02391363|191644187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.28 (SE = 0.46). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 6 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.55
95836938|NCT02391363|191644188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Parameter estimate for treatment group = -0.29 (SE = 0.47). Controlled for baseline health service use, ERS-expectancies and race/ethnicity|Regression, Logistic|ITT analyses with PROC MI AND MI ANALYZE in conjunction with multiple logistic regression.||"We expected to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment group difference in 9 month psychological service use, controlling for baseline psychological service use.~Race/ethnicity and ERS-expectancies significantly differed between groups at baseline and were included as covariates.~A total of 134 participants allowed for 80% power to detect moderate group differences (d=.49) in primary and secondary outcomes given a 2-tailed type 1 error rate"||||0.54
95836939|NCT00799266|191644189|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.414||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.806|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 12||0.806|0.022|0.0392
95836940|NCT00799266|191644190|SUPERIORITY|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|0.29||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.673|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMD Z-score at Month 6||0.673|-0.094|0.1322
95836941|NCT00799266|191644191|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|1.979||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.869|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 6||3.869|0.089|0.0409
95836942|NCT00799266|191644191|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|2.155||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|5.798|||ANCOVA|||Lumbar Spine BMC at Month 12||5.798|-1.488|0.2340
95836943|NCT00799266|191644192|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|34.058||||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.385|113.502|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 6||113.502|-45.385|0.3827
95862881|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.12||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.12
95862882|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.25||||0.37||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.37
95862883|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.28||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.36
96001473|NCT01380093|191980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.6|0.0|0.0455
96001474|NCT01380093|191980326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.9|2.3|<0.0001
96001475|NCT01380093|191980327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.3|-0.9|0.3749
96001476|NCT01380093|191980327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-0.5|0.7939
96001477|NCT01380093|191980327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.0|-0.3|0.2524
96001478|NCT01380093|191980328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.5|-3.8|0.1211
96001479|NCT01380093|191980328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.5|-0.7|0.1997
96001480|NCT01380093|191980328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|0.9|0.0057
96001481|NCT01380093|191980329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.8||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-16.7|0.0057
96001482|NCT01380093|191980329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.4|-2.3|0.1918
96001483|NCT01380093|191980329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|21.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||21.2|7.5|<0.0001
95862884|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862885|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.2||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
96001484|NCT01380093|191980330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.5||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-12.9|-50.2|0.0013
96001485|NCT01380093|191980330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.5|-3.7|0.1136
96001486|NCT01380093|191980330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|65.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||65.1|27.8|<0.0001
96001487|NCT01380093|191980331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-24.0|-83.2|0.0006
96001488|NCT01380093|191980331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.2||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|52.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||52.7|-6.3|0.1207
95836944|NCT00799266|191644192|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|80.741||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.602|227.084|||ANCOVA|||Total Body BMC at Month 12||227.084|-65.602|0.2634
95836945|NCT00799266|191644193|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-211.782||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.765|-59.8|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 6||-59.800|-363.765|0.0631
95836946|NCT00799266|191644193|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-381.132||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-565.416|-196.848|||ANCOVA|||Serum P1NP at Month 12||-196.848|-565.416|0.0049
95836947|NCT00799266|191644194|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-11.223||||0.2129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.595|0.149|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 6||0.149|-22.595|0.2129
95836948|NCT00799266|191644194|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.435||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.96|-6.909|||ANCOVA|||Serum BSAP at Month 12||-6.909|-33.960|0.0215
95836949|NCT00799266|191644195|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-20.938||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.766|-8.11|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 6||-8.110|-33.766|0.0254
95836950|NCT00799266|191644195|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-27.574||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.037|-16.111|||ANCOVA|||Serum NTX at Month 12||-16.111|-39.037|0.0002
95836951|NCT00799266|191644196|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.874||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.931|0.182|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 6||0.182|-3.931|0.2178
95836952|NCT00799266|191644196|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-1.837||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.103|0.429|||ANCOVA|||Serum TRAP-5b at Month 12||0.429|-4.103|0.1840
95836953|NCT00799266|191644197|OTHER|The number and percentage of patients with new vertebral fractures at Month 12 were presented by treatment group and between-treatment differences were evaluated using Fisher's exact test.||||||0.2258|||||||Fisher Exact|||New vertebral fractures at Month 12||||0.2258
95836954|NCT00799266|191644198|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.018||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.019|||ANCOVA|||Vertebral morphometry at Month 12||0.019|-0.055|0.3180
95836955|NCT00799266|191644199|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 3||5.20|0.04|0.5226
95960652|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insomnia Early Hours - Morning||0.1|-0.2|0.5647
95960653|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.3|0.5914
95960654|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4603
95836956|NCT00799266|191644199|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|999.99||\>999.99 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 6||999.99|0.01|0.5220
95836957|NCT00799266|191644199|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 9||6.22|0.04|0.6019
95836958|NCT00799266|191644199|OTHER|Presented by treatment group and evaluated using a logistic regression model with treatment, pooled centers, underlying condition treated with glucocorticoids and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|0.9652|0.01|999.99||0.45 (\<0.01, \>999.99)|Regression, Logistic|||Reduction in Pain at Month 12||999.99|0.01|0.9652
95836959|NCT00799266|191644200|OTHER|Difference in least squares (LS) = LS mean for the zoledronic acid group-LS mean for the placebo group.|Difference in LS mean|-0.04||||0.5165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||2nd metacarpal cortical width at Month 12||0.09|-0.17|0.5165
95836960|NCT00265317|191644215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.3206|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.575|1.404||Primary analysis was based on an unstratified 1-sided log rank test with alpha=0.1|Log Rank|||Sample size for randomized portion of study determined based on these assumptions: median PFS (erlotinib)=10 weeks, accrual time=12 months. With 6 months follow-up, study was powered to detect a difference in PFS of 5 weeks. 1-sided log rank test comparing the 2 treatment groups with 115 events of PD or death among a target sample size of 126 participants (63 per group) achieved 80% power at a 10% significance level to detect a 50% improvement in PFS from 10 to 15 weeks.||1.404|0.575|0.3206
95836961|NCT00265317|191644216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.546||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|8.954|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||95% confidence interval (CI) calculated based on f-distribution||8.954|0.267|0.6251
95836962|NCT00265317|191644217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|1.485||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.485|0.572|0.3732
95836963|NCT00265317|191644219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.612||p-value from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.612|0.705|0.6171
95836964|NCT00265317|191644220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|44.3||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Sunitinib + Erlotinib Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||44.3|19.7|
95836965|NCT00265317|191644220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|54.2||||||Percentage of participants surviving at 1 year in the Erlotinib + Placebo Treatment Group, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method||54.2|30.1|
95836966|NCT00265317|191644248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.748||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.591|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.591|0.351|0.2247
95836967|NCT00265317|191644248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|2.414|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.414|0.581|0.6797
95836968|NCT00265317|191644248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
95836969|NCT00265317|191644250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|1.628|||Log Rank|||Positive EGFR Expression||1.628|0.458|0.3223
95836970|NCT00265317|191644250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|2.474|||Log Rank|||Negative EGFR Expression||2.474|0.362|0.4608
95836971|NCT00265317|191644250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.632||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.627|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Expression||1.627|0.245|0.1693
95836972|NCT00265317|191644252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.031|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||2.031|0.542|0.5526
95960655|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.5637
95960656|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Work and Activities||0.2|-0.4|0.4638
95960657|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1846
95862886|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95960658|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Retardation||0.2|-0.1|0.4837
95836973|NCT00265317|191644252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Copy Number Increase||1.344|0.380|0.1529
95836974|NCT00265317|191644254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|2.085|||Log Rank|||No EGFR Gene Amplification||2.085|0.557|0.5839
95836975|NCT00265317|191644254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.344|||Log Rank|||Unmeasured EGFR Gene Amplification||1.344|0.380|0.1529
95836976|NCT00265317|191644256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|2.608|||Log Rank|||Wild Type EGFR Gene Mutation||2.608|0.516|0.6324
95836977|NCT00265317|191644256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.424|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate EGFR Gene Mutation||1.424|0.464|0.2413
95836978|NCT00265317|191644258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.2077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|2.91|||Log Rank|||Mutated KRAS Gene Mutation||2.910|0.079|0.2077
95836979|NCT00265317|191644258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|2.531|||Log Rank|||Wild Type KRAS Gene Mutation||2.531|0.534|0.6439
95836980|NCT00265317|191644258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|1.489|||Log Rank|||Indeterminate KRAS Gene Mutation||1.489|0.457|0.2664
95836981|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.36||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.360|0.541|0.7423
95836982|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.236||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.236|0.290|0.1570
95836983|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|4.819||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||4.819|0.131|0.7954
95836984|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.833||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.732||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/G||1.732|0.401|0.6210
95836985|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.64||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||1.640|0.385|0.5268
95836986|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.011||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|2.027||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.027|0.504|0.9753
95836987|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.378||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.85||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||0.850|0.168|0.0141
95836988|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
95836989|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.288||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.288|0.422|0.2788
95836990|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.352|3.286||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||3.286|0.352|0.8971
95836991|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.388||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||2.388|0.251|0.6559
95836992|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.939||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.889||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||1.889|0.466|0.8563
95836993|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.12||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||1.120|0.130|0.668
95836994|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs35636987 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
95836995|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.237||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||2.237|0.331|0.7520
95836996|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|1.098||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.098|0.276|0.0833
95836997|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.506||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||5.506|0.444|0.4772
95836998|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|2.048||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.048|0.522|0.9235
95836999|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|1.126||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.126|0.223|0.0845
95837000|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.724||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|10.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||10.47|0.284|0.5493
95862887|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.15||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific plasma cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95837001|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|3.987||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.987|0.492|0.5210
95837002|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.108||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.108|0.261|0.0854
95837003|NCT00265317|191644260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.489||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||2.489|0.365|0.9198
95837004|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/C||2.014|0.473|0.9486
95837005|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.9084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.897||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: C/T||1.897|0.487|0.9084
95837006|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.876||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|15.48||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1531289 Genotype: T/T||15.48|0.534|0.2009
95837007|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.098||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|2.175||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305845 Genotype: G/G||2.175|0.554|0.7863
95837008|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.442||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: G/T||2.442|0.633|0.5267
95837009|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|6.208||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305945 Genotype: T/T||6.208|0.049|0.6240
95837010|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.254||||0.4882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.384||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEFR/rs1870377 Genotype: T/T||2.384|0.660|0.4882
95837011|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.189||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: T/A||1.189|0.290|0.1307
95837012|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.236||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|35.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs1870377 Genotype: A/A||35.90|0.139|0.5596
95837013|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.833||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/C||1.833|0.628|0.7966
95837014|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.954||||0.9224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|2.484||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2305948 Genotype: C/T||2.484|0.366|0.9224
95837015|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|3.025||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/C||3.025|0.363|0.9317
95837016|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.8696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|2.044||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: C/T||2.044|0.546|0.8696
95837017|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|2.554||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7692791 Genotype: T/T||2.554|0.453|0.8694
95837018|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs3563987 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
95862888|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
96001489|NCT01380093|191980331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|76.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|106.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||106.4|47.3|<0.0001
96001490|NCT01380093|191980332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|-33.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-33.0|-118.6|0.0008
95837019|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.157||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|3.026||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/C||3.026|0.442|0.7667
95837020|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.401|1.422||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: C/T||1.422|0.401|0.3822
95837021|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.419||||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|4.04||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs7667298 Genotype: T/T||4.040|0.498|0.5089
95837022|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.326||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.544||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/G||2.544|0.691|0.3944
95837023|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.416||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: G/A||1.416|0.339|0.3103
95837024|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|8.294||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs41408948 Genotype: A/A||8.294|0.089|0.8942
95837025|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|3.304||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/G||3.304|0.466|0.6650
95837026|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.779||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.475||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: G/A||1.475|0.412|0.4415
95837027|NCT00265317|191644261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.458||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|4.06||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: VEGFR2/rs2071559 Genotype: A/A||4.060|0.523|0.4682
95837028|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|5.47||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||5.470|0.304|0.7301
95837029|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.592||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||PDGFRB/rs2304060 C/A||1.592|0.390|0.5013
95837030|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.686||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|1.578||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: A/A||1.578|0.298|0.3680
95837031|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|1.467||2-sided, unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.467|0.371|0.3804
95837032|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.247||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||1.247|0.261|0.1507
95837033|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||||0.0772
95837034|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.284||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.284|0.339|0.2149
95837035|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.26||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/RS2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.260|0.466|0.9491
95837036|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.881||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.881|0.447|0.8114
95837037|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.221||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.221|0.273|0.1379
95837038|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.859||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|13.51||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.51|0.256|0.5341
95837039|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|2.014||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||2.014|0.431|0.8564
95837040|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.788||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||1.788|0.355|0.5766
95837041|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.557||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||1.557|0.140|0.2043
95837042|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.317||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||1.317|0.214|0.1626
95837043|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.006||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.006|0.484|0.9680
96001491|NCT01380093|191980332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|31.8||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|74.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||74.5|-10.8|0.1410
96001492|NCT01380093|191980332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|107.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|150.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||150.5|64.9|<0.0001
95837044|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.92||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||1.920|0.171|0.3587
95837045|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.4635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|1.662||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||1.662|0.331|0.4635
95837046|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|2.069||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.069|0.476|0.9834
95837047|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||1.725|0.072|0.1764
95837048|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.209||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||1.209|0.422|0.2018
95837049|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.354|9.673||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||9.673|0.354|0.4592
95837050|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.184||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.184|0.373|0.1593
95837051|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.327||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|3.755||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||3.755|0.469|0.5897
95837052|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.309||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.309|0.488|0.3681
95837053|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.3235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|1.336||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.336|0.423|0.3235
95837054|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.7463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|2.355||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.355|0.303|0.7463
95837055|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.593||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: rs740751 Genotype: C/C||1.593|0.330|0.4179
95837056|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.05||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.050|0.462|0.9423
95837057|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.725||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs7407451 Genotype: T/T||1.725|0.072|0.1764
95837058|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.501||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.501|0.201|0.2352
95837059|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.986||||0.9674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.003||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.003|0.485|0.9674
95837060|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.629||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.686||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||1.686|0.235|0.3524
95837061|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.124||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||2.124|0.308|0.6652
95837062|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.618||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||1.618|0.436|0.5931
95837063|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.475||||0.2625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.813||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.813|0.125|0.2625
95837064|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.239||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.239|0.400|0.2168
95837065|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.987||||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.759||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||2.759|0.353|0.9802
95837066|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.652||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||1.122|0.378|0.1145
95837067|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.946||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||3.946|0.360|0.7725
95837068|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.473||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||1.473|0.321|0.3286
95837069|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||2.028|0.470|0.9480
95837070|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.531||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|2.282||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||2.282|0.125|0.3844
95837071|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.153||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.153|0.381|0.1373
95837072|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.114||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|3.667||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||3.667|0.339|0.8586
95837073|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.861||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||1.861|0.470|0.8478
95837074|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.634||||0.2445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|1.401||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.401|0.287|0.2445
95837075|NCT00265317|191644263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|18.59||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||18.59|0.072|0.9191
95837076|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.121||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|3.847||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/C||3.847|0.326|0.8563
95837077|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|2.064||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304060 Genotype: C/A||2.064|0.599|0.7375
95837078|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.8066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.147||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs234060 Genotype: A/A||2.147|0.375|0.8066
95837079|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.708||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/C||1.708|0.449|0.6945
95837080|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|2.122||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: C/T||2.122|0.536|0.8536
95837081|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.732||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.283|26.42||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17656204 Genotype: T/T||26.42|0.283|0.3657
95837082|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.483||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/G||1.483|0.424|0.4657
95837083|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.364||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|2.9||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304061 Genotype: G/A||2.900|0.641|0.4168
95960659|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.2|0.0|0.1178
95960660|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Retardation||0.1|-0.1|0.7888
95960661|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.1|-0.1|0.9496
95837084|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.908||||0.7836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.809||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/A||1.809|0.456|0.7836
95837085|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.8531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|1.863||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: A/T||1.863|0.472|0.8531
95837086|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.32||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|13.07||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1077724 Genotype: T/T||13.07|0.412|0.3272
95837087|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.972||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/A||1.972|0.491|0.9630
95837088|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.227||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|2.656||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: A/G||2.656|0.567|0.6003
95837089|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|2.58||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs919751 Genotype: G/G||2.580|0.229|0.6703
95837090|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.106||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|2.525||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/G||2.525|0.485|0.8100
95837091|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.076||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: G/C||2.141|0.541|0.8335
95837092|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.141||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2304058 Genotype: C/C||2.141|0.268|0.5980
95837093|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|2.199||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/G||2.199|0.487|0.9287
95837094|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.053||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|2.106||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: G/A||2.106|0.526|0.8842
95837095|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs1864972 Genotype: A/A||4.028|0.316|0.8501
95837096|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.229||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|2.017||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/G||2.017|0.749|0.4118
95837097|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.286||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|1.596||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3733678 Genotype: G/A||1.596|0.051|0.1299
95837098|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.2||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/T||1.200|0.399|0.1859
95837099|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.672||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|10.44||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs246396 Genotype: T/C||10.44|1.291|0.0091
95837100|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.652||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs34586048 Genotype: C/C||1.652|0.654|0.8708
95837101|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.681||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/T||1.681|0.590|0.9888
95837102|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.891||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs11740355 Genotype: T/G||2.891|0.360|0.9702
95837103|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.032||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/C||2.032|0.466|0.9419
95837104|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.112||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.252||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: C/T||2.252|0.549|0.7677
95837105|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.129||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|4.028||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs740751 Genotype: T/T||4.028|0.316|0.8501
95837106|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.782||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/G||1.782|0.322|0.5233
95837107|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.297||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: G/A||2.297|0.549|0.7500
95837108|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.232||||0.6614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|3.142||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs4705415 Genotype: A/A||3.142|0.483|0.6614
95837109|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.779||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|4.855||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/T||4.855|0.652|0.2552
95837110|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.7931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|2.052||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: T/G||2.052|0.577|0.7931
95837111|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.449||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|1.331||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776075 Genotype: G/G||1.331|0.152|0.1365
95837112|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|1.447||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/G||1.447|0.504|0.5544
95837113|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.021||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs17708574 Genotype: G/A||5.021|0.590|0.3132
95837114|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.263||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.113||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/T||2.113|0.755|0.3698
95837115|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.411||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.423||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs10063714 Genotype: T/A||1.423|0.119|0.1495
95837116|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.613||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|3.332||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/A||3.332|0.781|0.1911
95837117|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|1.636||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: A/G||1.636|0.384|0.5259
95837118|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.339||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs3776081 Genotype: G/G||1.339|0.082|0.0996
95837119|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.259||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/G||1.259|0.450|0.2755
95837120|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|18.78||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2007637 Genotype: G/A||18.78|1.253|0.0120
95837121|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.274||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.457||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/G||2.457|0.661|0.4663
95837122|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867||||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|1.848||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: G/A||1.848|0.406|0.7097
95837123|NCT00265317|191644264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.607||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|3.158||2-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Locus: PDGFRB/rs2302273 Genotype: A/A||3.158|0.117|0.5340
95837124|NCT00265317|191644267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.2702
95837125|NCT00265317|191644267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7354||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGF-C ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.7354
95837126|NCT00265317|191644269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
95837127|NCT00265317|191644269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-2 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
95837128|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.921||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High CSF-1R expression||1.921|0.159|0.1667
95837129|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.451||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|3.944||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low CSF-1R expression||3.944|0.534|0.7688
95837130|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.574||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate CSF-1R expression||1.574|0.503|0.3498
95837131|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.687||||0.9497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|9.143||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRalpha expression||9.143|0.790|0.9497
95837132|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.386||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|1.173||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRalpha expression||1.173|0.127|0.0401
95837133|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.487|1.524||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRalpha expression||1.524|0.487|0.3128
95960662|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.0497
95837134|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.823||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.488||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High PDGFRbeta expression||2.488|0.273|0.3650
95837135|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|3.48||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low PDGFRbeta expression||3.480|0.408|0.6105
95837136|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.502||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate PDGFRbeta expression||1.502|0.488|0.3027
95837137|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.914||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|3.184||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF expression||3.184|0.262|0.4436
95837138|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.953||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|3.062||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF expression||3.062|0.296|0.4582
95837139|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.548||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF expression||1.548|0.536|0.3720
95837140|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.397||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGF-C expression||3.397|0.350|0.5586
95837141|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.842||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.266||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGF-C expression||2.266|0.313|0.3652
95837142|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.554||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGF-C expression||1.554|0.493|0.3301
95862889|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|1.0||||||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862890|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95837143|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.097||||0.5605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|3.636||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR1 expression||3.636|0.331|0.5605
95837144|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.236||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR1 expression||2.236|0.160|0.2132
95837145|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.537||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR1 expression||1.537|0.530|0.3605
95837146|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.4438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|2.784||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR2 expression||2.784|0.304|0.4438
95837147|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.122||||0.5699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|3.125||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR2 expression||3.125|0.403|0.5699
95837148|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.528||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR2 expression||1.528|0.489|0.3147
95837149|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.581||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||High VEGFR3 expression||3.581|0.281|0.5015
95837150|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|3.025||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Low VEGFR3 expression||3.025|0.334|0.4887
95837151|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.414||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate VEGFR3 expression||1.414|0.473|0.2432
95837152|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|4.101||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FGF expression||4.101|0.048|0.2321
95837153|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.316||||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.292||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FGF expression||3.292|0.526|0.7143
95837154|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|1.465||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FGF expression||1.465|0.486|0.2812
95837155|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.406||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.248|7.96||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected FLT3 expression||7.960|0.248|0.6504
95837156|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|1.876||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected FLT3 expression||1.876|0.375|0.3266
95837157|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate FLT3 expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
95837158|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.342||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.297||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected KIT expression||4.297|0.419|0.6907
95837159|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.731||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Participants with no detected KIT expression||1.731|0.265|0.1990
95837160|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.896||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.598||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate KIT expression||1.598|0.502|0.3597
95837161|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|6.765||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Detected RET expression||6.765|0.071|0.3757
95862891|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
96001493|NCT01380093|191980333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.6|-14.4|<0.0001
95837162|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.358|2.13||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||No detected RET expression||2.130|0.358|0.3723
95837163|NCT00265317|191644270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|1.523||1-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||Indeterminate RET expression||1.523|0.501|0.3263
95837164|NCT00265317|191644271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
95837165|NCT00265317|191644271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||VEGFR-3 Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
95837166|NCT00265317|191644273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 2, Day 1||||<0.0001
95837167|NCT00265317|191644273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||sKIT Ratio to Baseline for Cycle 3, Day 1||||<0.0001
95837168|NCT00265317|191644278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3681
95837169|NCT00265317|191644279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5982||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5982
95837170|NCT00265317|191644280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9807||95.0||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.9807
95862892|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and memory B cells one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95837171|NCT00265317|191644281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3945||||||2-sided normal approximated p-value|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.3945
95837172|NCT04756804|191644314|OTHER|This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||||||||||||||||This was a descriptive study, no hypothesis testing was performed.|||
95837173|NCT01496469|191644334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A total of 120 enrolled participants (60 participants per treatment group) was sufficient to achieve 80 percent (%) power to detect a difference of 6.0 mmHg between the placebo and febuxostat 80 mg treatment groups by a 2 sample t-test of the mean change from Baseline at Week 6 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||3.4|-3.9|0.882
95837174|NCT01496469|191644335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||3.2|-1.9|0.613
95837175|NCT01496469|191644336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi as covariates.||-2.9|-3.9|<0.001
95837176|NCT01504412|191644348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.42||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.15||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.99|0.1995
95837177|NCT01504412|191644348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.37||||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.2||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.93|0.2886
95837178|NCT01504412|191644348|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.3||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.27||Dunnett method was used for adjustment of multiple testing.|ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.87|0.4704
95837179|NCT01504412|191644349|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.2||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 10 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.4|-10.8|0.0691
95837180|NCT01504412|191644349|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.4||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||0.2|-10.9|0.0577
95837181|NCT01504412|191644349|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.4||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||This analysis assessed placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day for the visual analog scale.||-1.8|-13.0|0.0093
95837182|NCT05224453|191644350|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-3.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.78|-6.21|<0.05
95837183|NCT05224453|191644351|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.86|-6.53|<0.05
95837184|NCT05224453|191644351|SUPERIORITY|Parametric t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-3.84|<0.05
95837185|NCT01963845|191644354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
95837186|NCT01963845|191644355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in AST values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7583
95837187|NCT01963845|191644356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8569|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in ALT values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.8569
95837188|NCT01963845|191644357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7984|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in LDL values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.7984
95837189|NCT01963845|191644358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in HOMA-IR values from baseline to 24 weeks between the two groups.||||0.5560
95837190|NCT04273893|191644359|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Changes from baseline ALC were conducted using repeated measures models with an unstructured covariance matrix and model terms for tumor location, follow-up time. Adjustments for stratification factors were made using least squares means.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
96001494|NCT01380093|191980333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.7|-0.1|0.0529
95837191|NCT03626545|191644362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model stratified by line of therapy and histology|||1.48|0.76|0.633
95837192|NCT05173012|191644403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.5325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.62|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 15 mg - placebo.|||1.62|-0.84|0.5325
95837193|NCT05173012|191644403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.634||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.97|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 30 mg - placebo.|||0.97|-1.54|0.6549
95837194|NCT05173012|191644403|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.41|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.|Difference was calculated as Monotherapy: SAGE-324 60 mg - placebo.|||2.41|-0.36|0.1462
95837195|NCT05173012|191644404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||4.67|0.59|0.1271
95837196|NCT05173012|191644404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|1.89|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||1.89|-3.45|0.5642
95837197|NCT05173012|191644404|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.85|||MMRM|MMRM model included treatment, baseline score, assessment timepoint, and timepoint-by-treatment as explanatory variables, treated as fixed effects.||||3.85|-1.84|0.4860
95862893|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.08||||0.79||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.79
95960663|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.1|-0.2|0.4189
95960664|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Agitation||0.0|-0.3|0.1342
95960665|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9202
95960666|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Psychic||0.0|-0.5|0.0260
95960667|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.9370
95960668|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Psychic||0.2|-0.3|0.8440
95837198|NCT02936843|191644407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided||TTEST, two sided||||0.41
95837199|NCT01393821|191644422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6311|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6311
95837200|NCT02920749|191644441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
95837201|NCT02920749|191644442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The P value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant. With type I α = 5% and with type II (power) of 90%, we therefore needed 27 patients/group.|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS version 21 for Windows (IBM Corporation) software. All data are expressed as means ± SD. Mann-Whitney test was performed to assess the differences between patient subgroups.||||<0.05
95837202|NCT00286494|191644443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.28|-0.67|<0.001
95862894|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.35||||0.16||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.16
96001495|NCT01380093|191980333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||18.7|9.9|<0.0001
95837203|NCT00286494|191644443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.41||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment, treatment regimen and geographic region as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and baseline value for the endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.41|-0.80|<0.001
95837204|NCT00286494|191644444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.36|<0.001
95837205|NCT00286494|191644444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.21|-0.41|<0.001
95837206|NCT00286494|191644445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.27|-0.56|<0.001
95837207|NCT00286494|191644445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
95837208|NCT00286494|191644446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.30|-0.63|<0.001
96001496|NCT01380093|191980334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-3.8|0.0806
96001497|NCT01380093|191980334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.2769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.1|-0.9|0.2769
95837209|NCT00286494|191644446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.43|-0.75|<0.001
96001498|NCT01380093|191980334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.0|0.9|0.0056
96001499|NCT01380093|191980335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-1.7|0.1100
95837210|NCT00286494|191644447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.63|<0.001
95855208|NCT04973449|191669968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.81|0.70|
96001500|NCT01380093|191980335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|-1.0|0.9421
96001501|NCT01380093|191980335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.7|-0.2|0.1266
95837211|NCT00286494|191644447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.40|-0.76|<0.001
95837212|NCT00286494|191644448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
95837213|NCT00286494|191644448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.74|<0.001
95837214|NCT00286494|191644449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.9|-18.9|0.003
95837215|NCT00286494|191644449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.0|-23.0|<0.001
95837216|NCT00286494|191644450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-11.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.9|-26.4|<0.001
95837217|NCT00286494|191644450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|-12.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.3|-26.6|<0.001
95837218|NCT00286494|191644451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-13.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.6|-27.5|<0.001
95862895|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.48||||0.1||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.10
95960669|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4480
95960670|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.1|0.6345
95960671|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.3|-0.1|0.4123
95960672|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Anxiety Somatic||0.2|-0.2|0.7523
95837219|NCT00286494|191644451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-16.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-16.0|-29.9|<0.001
95837220|NCT00286494|191644452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.7|-24.4|<0.001
95837221|NCT00286494|191644452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-13.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-13.3|-28.9|<0.001
95862896|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.98||||0.003||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.003
96001502|NCT01380093|191980336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.2|-5.3|0.0723
96001503|NCT01380093|191980336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.8|-1.7|0.4515
96001504|NCT01380093|191980336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.4|0.8|0.0121
95837222|NCT00286494|191644453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.4|-18.5|0.011
95837223|NCT00286494|191644453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-24.3|<0.001
95837224|NCT00286494|191644454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-18.9|0.029
95837225|NCT00286494|191644454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.5|-23.3|0.002
95837226|NCT00286494|191644455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-24.2|<0.001
95837227|NCT00286494|191644455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.7|-23.8|<0.001
95837228|NCT00286494|191644456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-4.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-4.8|-23.1|0.003
95862897|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.91||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.91
96001505|NCT01380093|191980337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.3|-18.7|0.0059
96001506|NCT01380093|191980337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||11.8|-3.5|0.2800
96001507|NCT01380093|191980337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||22.8|7.5|0.0002
95837229|NCT00286494|191644456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-5.0|-23.3|0.003
95837230|NCT00286494|191644457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.271|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.499||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.499|0.147|<0.001
95837231|NCT00286494|191644457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.438||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen, \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.438|0.126|<0.001
95862898|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.57||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.01
95837232|NCT00286494|191644458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.628||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.277|1.425||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.425|0.277|0.266
95837233|NCT00286494|191644458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.658||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|1.487|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.487|0.292|0.315
95837234|NCT00286494|191644459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.1|-10.6|0.003
95837235|NCT00286494|191644459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.7|-9.1|0.023
95837236|NCT00286494|191644460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-8.3|0.043
95837237|NCT00286494|191644460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.6|-5.5|0.489
95837238|NCT00286494|191644461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.3|-8.8|0.068
95837239|NCT00286494|191644461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.1|-8.9|0.056
95837240|NCT00286494|191644462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.2|-4.9|0.884
95837241|NCT00286494|191644462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-4.5|0.993
95960673|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6505
95960674|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.3|0.3674
95960675|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.2|-0.2|0.8360
95837242|NCT00286494|191644463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.3|-9.4|0.009
95837243|NCT00286494|191644463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.0|-7.0|0.143
95837244|NCT00286494|191644464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.5|-8.6|0.080
95837245|NCT00286494|191644464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.9|-5.2|0.782
95837246|NCT00286494|191644465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.70|-2.68|0.249
95837247|NCT00286494|191644465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.80|-2.56|0.303
95837248|NCT00286494|191644466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.15||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.15|-2.46|0.478
95837249|NCT00286494|191644466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.17|-1.41|0.674
95837250|NCT00286494|191644467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.06|-2.18|0.743
95960676|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal||0.1|-0.2|0.6870
95960677|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1364
95960678|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: General Somatic Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1578
95960679|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9062
95960680|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.8596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: General Somatic Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.8596
95960681|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.2|-0.2|0.9488
95960682|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Genital Symptoms||0.0|-0.3|0.1514
95960683|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.2|0.5796
95837251|NCT00286494|191644467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.02|-3.18|0.662
95837252|NCT00286494|191644468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.45|-0.96|0.390
95855209|NCT04973449|191669969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.39||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||4.39|3.40|
95837253|NCT00286494|191644468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.38|-1.00|0.423
95837254|NCT00286494|191644469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|-1.87|0.807
95837255|NCT00286494|191644469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.51|-1.79|0.867
95837256|NCT00286494|191644470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.33|-1.10|0.483
95837257|NCT00286494|191644470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.51|-0.89|0.352
95837258|NCT00286494|191644471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.022||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.022|-0.092|0.001
95837259|NCT00286494|191644471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.093|0.001
95837260|NCT00286494|191644472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.014||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.014|-0.084|0.006
95960684|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Genital Symptoms||0.1|-0.3|0.4739
95960685|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.9439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.1|0.9439
95837261|NCT00286494|191644472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|-0.016||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.016|-0.086|0.004
95837262|NCT00286494|191644473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.000|-0.092|0.050
95837263|NCT00286494|191644473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.102|0.014
96001508|NCT01380093|191980338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-36.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-54.8|0.0001
96001509|NCT01380093|191980338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||31.2|-4.8|0.1488
96001510|NCT01380093|191980338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|67.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||67.9|31.8|<0.0001
96001511|NCT01380093|191980339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-60.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.5|-31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.6|-88.5|<0.0001
96001512|NCT01380093|191980339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.4||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|48.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||48.7|-8.0|0.1556
96001513|NCT01380093|191980339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|108.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||108.9|52.0|<0.0001
96001514|NCT01380093|191980340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-84.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.8|-43.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-43.2|-124.8|0.0001
96001515|NCT01380093|191980340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.4||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-13.3|0.1826
96001516|NCT01380093|191980340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|111.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.6|152.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||152.2|70.6|<0.0001
96001517|NCT01380093|191980341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-7.0|-16.4|<0.0001
96001518|NCT01380093|191980341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||8.9|-0.5|0.0811
96001519|NCT01380093|191980341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||20.6|11.1|<0.0001
96001520|NCT01380093|191980342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.1|-3.8|0.0007
96001521|NCT01380093|191980342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.3|-0.4|0.1631
96001522|NCT01380093|191980342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.8|2.1|<0.0001
96001523|NCT01380093|191980343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.7|-3.1|0.2117
96001524|NCT01380093|191980343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|0.2|0.0345
96001525|NCT01380093|191980343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.2|1.4|0.0011
96001526|NCT01380093|191980344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-6.0|-18.4|0.0002
95837264|NCT00286494|191644474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.027||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.064|0.144
95960686|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Hypochondriasis||0.1|-0.2|0.3891
95960687|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0308
95960688|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Hypochondriasis||0.3|0.0|0.0620
95960689|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.7744
95960690|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.9312
95960691|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.1|-0.2|0.3105
95960692|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Loss of Weight||0.2|-0.1|0.8406
95960693|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.4834
95960694|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: Insight||0.0|-0.1|0.0961
95960695|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.8290
95960696|NCT03672175|191893016|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||MMRM with treatment, each BL individual item HAM-D score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: Insight||0.0|0.0|0.9546
95837265|NCT00286494|191644474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.067|0.105
95960697|NCT03672175|191893017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.7|0.1308
95960698|NCT03672175|191893017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.5||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.5|-3.5|0.0096
96001527|NCT01380093|191980344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|14.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.6|2.3|0.0081
95837266|NCT00286494|191644475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.100|0.004
95837267|NCT00286494|191644475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.011|-0.092|0.012
95960699|NCT03672175|191893017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.7|-0.7|0.2674
95960700|NCT03672175|191893017|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.9771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||MMRM with treatment, BL ISI total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.7|-1.7|0.9771
95960701|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||6.4|-10.9|0.6110
95837268|NCT00286494|191644476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.005|-0.095|0.028
95837269|NCT00286494|191644476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.006|-0.082|0.093
95837270|NCT00286494|191644477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.255||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.255|-0.280|0.928
95837271|NCT00286494|191644477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.324||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.324|-0.212|0.683
95837272|NCT00286494|191644478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.265||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.265|-0.277|0.967
95837273|NCT00286494|191644478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.405||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.405|-0.135|0.327
95837274|NCT00286494|191644479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.226||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.226|-0.363|0.649
95837275|NCT00286494|191644479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.051||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.243||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.243|-0.344|0.735
95837276|NCT00286494|191644480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.492||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.492|-0.053|0.114
95837277|NCT00286494|191644480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.51||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.510|-0.033|0.086
95837278|NCT00286494|191644481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.273||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.273|-0.221|0.835
95837279|NCT00286494|191644481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.378||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.378|-0.115|0.296
95837280|NCT00286494|191644482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.380|-0.134|0.349
95837281|NCT00286494|191644482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.479||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.479|-0.034|0.089
95960702|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sSL||0.3|-16.2|0.0581
95960703|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|6.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||6.9|-15.5|0.4493
96001528|NCT01380093|191980344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||26.8|14.4|<0.0001
95837282|NCT00286494|191644483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.815||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.736|13.358|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||13.358|1.736|0.003
96001529|NCT01380093|191980345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|-20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.8|-55.6|<0.0001
96001530|NCT01380093|191980345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|34.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|51.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||51.7|17.0|0.0002
96001531|NCT01380093|191980345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|72.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||90.0|55.2|<0.0001
96001532|NCT01380093|191980346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-100.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.2|-58.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-58.4|-142.2|<0.0001
95837283|NCT00286494|191644483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.017|15.176|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||15.176|2.017|<0.001
95837284|NCT00286494|191644484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.903||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.393|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.393|1.067|0.029
95837285|NCT00286494|191644484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.301||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regiment \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.100|1.291|0.005
95837286|NCT00286494|191644485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.783|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|5.005|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.005|1.547|<0.001
95837287|NCT00286494|191644485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.147|<0.001
95837288|NCT00286494|191644486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|7.146|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.146|2.392|<0.001
95837289|NCT00286494|191644486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.247|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.027|9.094|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.094|3.027|<0.001
95837290|NCT00286494|191644487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.789|7.532|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||7.532|1.789|<0.001
95837291|NCT00286494|191644487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.303|9.56|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||9.560|2.303|<0.001
95837292|NCT00286494|191644488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.107|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.107|1.300|0.015
96001533|NCT01380093|191980346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|93.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|135.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||135.7|52.1|<0.0001
96001534|NCT01380093|191980346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|194.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.3|236.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||236.1|152.3|<0.0001
95837293|NCT00286494|191644488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.806|14.95|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||14.950|1.806|0.002
95837294|NCT00286494|191644489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.959||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|8.362|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||8.362|0.459|0.364
95837295|NCT00286494|191644489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.849||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|11.672|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline pioglitazone dose, baseline treatment regimen \& baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||11.672|0.696|0.146
95837296|NCT00286494|191644490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose,baseline value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.65|-0.45|0.718
95837297|NCT00286494|191644490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.58||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.58|-0.52|0.906
95837298|NCT00286494|191644491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.78|-0.50|0.672
95837299|NCT00286494|191644491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.67||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.67|-0.61|0.922
95837300|NCT00286494|191644492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.96|-0.56|0.607
95837301|NCT00286494|191644492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.76||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.76|-0.77|0.985
95837302|NCT00286494|191644493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.22|-0.37|0.294
95837303|NCT00286494|191644493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.84||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment, geographic region and baseline treatment regimen as class variables; baseline pioglitazone dose and value for endpoint as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.84|-0.74|0.900
95837304|NCT00774800|191644645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.54||||0.0011||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0011
95837305|NCT00774800|191644645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|3.06|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
95837306|NCT00774800|191644646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.35||||0.0057||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0057
95837307|NCT00774800|191644646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Means Ratio|1.66|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
95862899|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.39||||0.19||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.19
96001535|NCT01380093|191980347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-147.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.1|-89.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-89.6|-205.1|<0.0001
96001536|NCT01380093|191980347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|134.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|191.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||191.7|76.5|<0.0001
96001537|NCT01380093|191980347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|281.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.7|339.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||339.2|223.7|<0.0001
96001538|NCT01380093|191980348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-201.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.3|-123.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-123.6|-279.3|<0.0001
96001539|NCT01380093|191980348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|169.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|246.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||246.7|91.5|<0.0001
96001540|NCT01380093|191980348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|370.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|292.7|448.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||448.4|292.7|<0.0001
96001541|NCT01380093|191980349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.0|-23.8|<0.0001
96001542|NCT01380093|191980349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||33.1|18.3|<0.0001
96001543|NCT01380093|191980349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|49.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||49.5|34.7|<0.0001
96001544|NCT01380093|191980350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.2|-2.6|0.0253
96001545|NCT01380093|191980350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.0|1.6|<0.0001
96001546|NCT01380093|191980350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.4|3.0|<0.0001
96001547|NCT01380093|191980351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.6|-3.7|0.0062
96001548|NCT01380093|191980351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.0|-1.0|0.4998
96001549|NCT01380093|191980351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.2|1.1|0.0008
96001550|NCT01380093|191980352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.0|-11.1|0.0009
96001551|NCT01380093|191980352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||6.3|-1.8|0.2693
96001552|NCT01380093|191980352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||13.3|5.3|<0.0001
96001553|NCT01380093|191980353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.2||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-5.3|-27.2|0.0042
95837308|NCT00774800|191644647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-18.33|||<|0.0001||||||Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|ANOVA|||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||<0.0001
95837309|NCT00774800|191644647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-62.46||||0.0018|||||||ANOVA|Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.||Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the sample size is not based on a formal calculation.||||0.0018
95837310|NCT00066963|191644649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.6|||Mantel Haenszel|2 d.f.|Counseling Only vs FV 2x/yr+Counseling|Planned sample size of 384 participants (128/study arm) (alpha = 0.05, power = 90%, 50% attrition, χ2 test) to detect caries incidence differences, based on caries incidence in the literature (20% to 50% over two years). 50% attrition in the sample size calculation was selected based on the literature (e.g. Weinstein et al., 1994 reported 53% attrition in six months.)||7.6|1.9|<0.001
95837311|NCT04765202|191644655|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|14.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|40.21|||Fisher Exact||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 1.||40.21|-11.64|1.0000
95837312|NCT04765202|191644655|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Difference was calculated as (percent area of wound closure in SOMA Tx site) - ((percent area of wound closure in AG Tx site). 95% CI was derived using the normal approximation to binomial distribution.|Comparison of complete wound closure without additional autografting at Month 2 in AG TX site and SOMA TX site in Cohort 1 Group 2.||0|0|
95837313|NCT05758402|191644657|OTHER||Rate difference|1.21||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.13|||Chi-squared||Rate difference = detection rate of PsA in EARP group - detection rate of PsA in routine practice group|||5.13|-2.71|0.544
95837314|NCT05758402|191644658|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Chi-squared|||Sensitivity||||0.256
95960704|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sSL score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sSL||8.6|-16.0|0.5587
95837315|NCT05758402|191644658|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificity||||<0.001
95960705|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.8||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||5.8|-10.1|0.5976
95960706|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|10.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sWASO||10.3|-9.6|0.9421
95960707|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.5581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|12.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||12.4|-6.7|0.5581
95960708|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.82||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|15.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sWASO score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sWASO||15.4|-7.5|0.4997
95960709|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|44.7||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||44.7|3.4|0.0224
95960710|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|38.9||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: sTST||38.9|-4.1|0.1117
96001554|NCT01380093|191980353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.7||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||19.6|-2.2|0.1139
95837316|NCT05758402|191644658|OTHER|||||||0.336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||||0.336
95960711|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|42.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||42.0|-13.8|0.3208
95960712|NCT03672175|191893018|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|36.6||MMRM with treatment, BL sTST score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28: sTST||36.6|-16.1|0.4440
95960713|NCT03672175|191893019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.1|-0.3|0.4737
95960714|NCT03672175|191893019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.0|-0.4|0.0138
95960715|NCT03672175|191893019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.4|0.0|0.1098
96001555|NCT01380093|191980353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||35.9|14.1|<0.0001
95837317|NCT05758402|191644658|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||||0.490
95837318|NCT05758402|191644659|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Age characteristics||||0.101
95837319|NCT05758402|191644660|OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Chi-squared|||Gender characteristics||||0.836
95837320|NCT05758402|191644661|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Body Mass Index (BMI) characteristics||||0.520
95837321|NCT05758402|191644662|OTHER|||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared|||Drinking history characteristics||||0.216
95837322|NCT05758402|191644662|OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||Chi-squared|||Smoking history characteristics||||0.719
95837323|NCT05758402|191644663|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of Psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.831
95837324|NCT05758402|191644664|OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriasis (PsO) characteristics||||0.274
95837325|NCT05758402|191644664|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Fisher Exact|||Family history of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) characteristics||||0.272
96001556|NCT01380093|191980354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|-27.7||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment. At least one primary outcome for each of drug liking and high was required to be significant with adjusted p-value less than or equal to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-27.7|-42.1|<0.0001
95837326|NCT05758402|191644665|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score characteristics||||0.622
95837327|NCT05758402|191644666|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of hard-to-treat area involvement characteristics||||<0.001
95837328|NCT05758402|191644666|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Status of musculoskeletal symptoms characteristics||||<0.001
95837329|NCT05758402|191644667|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left hand characteristics||||<0.001
95837330|NCT05758402|191644667|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right hand characteristics||||0.010
95837331|NCT05758402|191644667|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of left foot characteristics||||0.001
96001557|NCT01380093|191980354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|34.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||34.4|20.1|<0.0001
96001558|NCT01380093|191980354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|69.4||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons with Hochberg adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean and 95% CI were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||69.4|54.9|<0.0001
95837332|NCT05758402|191644667|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NAPSI score of right foot characteristics||||<0.001
95837333|NCT05758402|191644667|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total NAPSI score characteristics||||0.001
95837334|NCT05758402|191644668|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
95837335|NCT05758402|191644668|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
95837336|NCT05758402|191644668|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SJC66/TJC68 total joint count characteristics||||<0.001
95837337|NCT05758402|191644669|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||Heart diseases||||0.043
95837338|NCT05758402|191644669|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Stroke||||1.000
95837339|NCT05758402|191644669|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Diabetes||||1.000
95837340|NCT05758402|191644669|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperlipidemia||||0.019
95837341|NCT05758402|191644669|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared|||Hypertension||||0.073
95837342|NCT05758402|191644669|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatty liver||||0.377
95837343|NCT01009086|191644684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837344|NCT01009086|191644684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837345|NCT01009086|191644684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837346|NCT01009086|191644685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837347|NCT01009086|191644685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837348|NCT01009086|191644685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837349|NCT01009086|191644686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837350|NCT01009086|191644686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837351|NCT01009086|191644686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837352|NCT01009086|191644687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837353|NCT01009086|191644687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837354|NCT01009086|191644687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837355|NCT01009086|191644688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837356|NCT01009086|191644688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837357|NCT01009086|191644688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
96001559|NCT01380093|191980355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.1||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.7|-58.5|0.0039
96001560|NCT01380093|191980355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|42.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||42.7|-4.0|0.1026
96001561|NCT01380093|191980355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|77.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||77.8|31.0|<0.0001
95837358|NCT01009086|191644689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
95837359|NCT01009086|191644689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837360|NCT01009086|191644689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95837361|NCT01424228|191644690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.367
95837362|NCT01192828|191644707|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.235
95837363|NCT01192828|191644708|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.701|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.701
95837364|NCT01192828|191644709|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.190
95837365|NCT01192828|191644710|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.052
95837366|NCT01192828|191644711|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed.||||0.014
95837367|NCT01192828|191644713|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.541|||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||Null hypothesis assumed|Spearman's rank correlation rho is 0.179, with p value 0.541, N is 14|||.541
95837368|NCT01192828|191644715|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.014
95837369|NCT01192828|191644716|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis assumed||||0.012
95837370|NCT01192828|191644717|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Null hypothesis applied.||||0.160
96001562|NCT01380093|191980356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.5|-73.1|0.0051
96001563|NCT01380093|191980356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25.3||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|55.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||55.0|-4.4|0.0941
95837371|NCT01192828|191644718|OTHER|Descriptive analysis||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
96001564|NCT01380093|191980356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|68.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.8|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||98.4|38.8|<0.0001
96001565|NCT01380093|191980357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.0|-13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-13.1|-85.0|0.0083
96001566|NCT01380093|191980357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.3||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|68.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||68.1|-3.5|0.0766
95837372|NCT02951429|191644728|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|3.06||||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-11.30|0.6527
95837373|NCT02951429|191644729|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.34|0.67|0.7568
95837374|NCT02951429|191644730|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.15|||Log Rank|Log-rank test based on the time to the first event to compare the two treatment arms.||||1.15|0.68|0.3760
95837375|NCT02951429|191644731|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|2.85||||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|17.84|||Chi-squared|||||17.84|-12.13|0.7046
95837376|NCT02951429|191644732|SUPERIORITY||Difference (95% CI)|0.94||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Log Rank|||||1.41|0.62|0.7550
95960716|NCT03672175|191893019|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM with treatment, BL sNAW score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 28||0.3|-0.2|0.6234
95837377|NCT02951429|191644733|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.65|0.9174
95837378|NCT02951429|191644734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||||1.62|0.70|0.7748
95837379|NCT02951429|191644735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.50|0.38|0.4258
95837380|NCT02951429|191644737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.31|0.3161
95837381|NCT02951429|191644747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from baseline|-206.59||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.03|506.85|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||506.85|-920.03|0.5646
95837382|NCT02951429|191644748|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|2.36|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -4.22||||2.36|-9.98|0.5255
95837383|NCT02951429|191644749|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA|Difference in mean change in total score: -5.07||||6.00|-18.00|0.4263
95837384|NCT01853878|191644756|EQUIVALENCE|P-value of the Wald test from a Cox regression model to test H0 = { HR=1} (Y = Time to Event)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.592||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|35.167|||Regression, Cox|||Estimates of Hazard Ratio (HR) and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained by Cox regression modelling.The Likelihood ratio test was used to compare the groups. The Cox proportional hazard regression was stratified by previous treatment \[Chemotherapy (CT) vs. no-CT\] and disease stage.||35.167|0.600|0.1422
95837385|NCT03997825|191644766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95837386|NCT03997825|191644767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95837387|NCT03089541|191644772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Eating/Drinking using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||0.52|0.06|0.002
95837388|NCT03089541|191644772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Traveling using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||7.65|0.92|0.07
95837389|NCT03089541|191644772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Working/Reading/Studying using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.64|0.59|0.40
95837390|NCT03089541|191644772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison on Socializing using a model adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7). The significance level was 0.05.||3.53|0.51|0.60
95837391|NCT03089541|191644772|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Model on Public Space adjusted for timing of the assessment (weekend, time of day (am vs. pm), and day of study (1 to 7)). The significance level was 0.05.||3.38|0.96|0.06
95837392|NCT00360568|191644798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95837393|NCT00360568|191644799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
95837394|NCT00360568|191644800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95837395|NCT00360568|191644801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95837396|NCT00360568|191644802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.055
95837397|NCT00360568|191644803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.766
95837398|NCT00360568|191644804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
95837399|NCT00360568|191644805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.583
95837400|NCT00360568|191644806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95837401|NCT00360568|191644807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
95837402|NCT00360568|191644808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.341
95837403|NCT00360568|191644809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.220
96001567|NCT01380093|191980357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|117.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||117.3|45.4|<0.0001
96001568|NCT01380093|191980358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.0||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.1|-12.9|0.0018
96001569|NCT01380093|191980358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||9.7|-0.1|0.0527
96001570|NCT01380093|191980358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17.7|7.9|<0.0001
95837404|NCT00360568|191644810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.174
95837405|NCT00360568|191644811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.259
95837406|NCT00360568|191644812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.922
95837407|NCT00360568|191644813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.258
95837408|NCT00360568|191644814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.104
96001571|NCT01380093|191980359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-1.4|0.3986
96001572|NCT01380093|191980359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.5|0.6|0.0023
96001573|NCT01380093|191980359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.0|0.0002
96001574|NCT01380093|191980360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-18|0.0029
96001575|NCT01380093|191980360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.1||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||15|1|0.0286
96001576|NCT01380093|191980360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|27.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||27|12|<0.0001
95837409|NCT00360568|191644815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.650
95837410|NCT00360568|191644816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
95837411|NCT00360568|191644817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
95837412|NCT00360568|191644818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
95837413|NCT04254666|191644823|OTHER||||||||||||||||||pre and post scores for this measure are presented as the percent of foods correctly classified.|||
95837414|NCT02611817|191644835|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|13.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by electronic data capture (EDC) stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||23.7|3.8|0.008
95837415|NCT02611817|191644836|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|7.3||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||17.5|-3.0|0.167
95837416|NCT02611817|191644837|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|27.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||42.3|11.9|0.002
95837417|NCT02611817|191644838|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson method|4.3||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by EDC stratum according to concomitant use of corticosteroids, clinical remission status at Week 6, and previous TNF-alpha antagonist failure/exposed or concomitant immunomodulator use.||20.3|-11.6|0.591
95837418|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837419|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837420|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.524
95837421|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837422|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
95837423|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
95837424|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
95837425|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.236
95837426|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
95837427|NCT00931606|191644910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
95837428|NCT00931606|191644913|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837429|NCT00931606|191644913|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837430|NCT00931606|191644913|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95837431|NCT00931606|191644913|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95960717|NCT03672175|191893020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.53||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.53|0.52|0.6741
95960718|NCT03672175|191893020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.36||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 15||1.36|0.46|0.3924
96001577|NCT01380093|191980361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4|-22|0.0050
95837432|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837433|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837434|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
96001578|NCT01380093|191980361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||17|-1|0.0700
95837435|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837436|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
96001579|NCT01380093|191980361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|30.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||30|12|<0.0001
95837437|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95837438|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999, are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95837439|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
95837440|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95837441|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
95837442|NCT00931606|191644914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
95837443|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837444|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837445|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||0.206
95837446|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Overall||||>0.999
95837447|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||0.333
95837448|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95960719|NCT03672175|191893020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.6||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.60|0.51|0.7307
95960720|NCT03672175|191893020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.7||GEE for binary response model, with factors for treatment, BL sleep quality response, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|GEE|||Day 28||1.70|0.52|0.8358
95862900|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.89||||0.04||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.04
95960721|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.7375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.2|-1.6|0.7375
95960722|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: PCS Score||1.0|-1.9|0.5144
95960723|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.8343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||1.4|-1.7|0.8343
96001580|NCT01380093|191980362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.9|0.5|<0.0001
95862901|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95960724|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 physical component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: PCS Score||2.3|-1.0|0.4569
95960725|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.4||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||4.4|-2.0|0.4663
95960726|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.0||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15: MCS Score||6.0|-0.6|0.1138
95960727|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||3.9|-3.0|0.7901
95960728|NCT03672175|191893021|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.8||MMRM with treatment, BL SF-36v2 mental component score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42: MCS Score||4.8|-1.9|0.3955
95960729|NCT03672175|191893022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||1.5|-1.8|0.8821
95960730|NCT03672175|191893022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.4||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.4|-2.8|0.1510
95960731|NCT03672175|191893022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||2.5|-0.8|0.2926
95960732|NCT03672175|191893022|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||MMRM with treatment, BL PHQ-9 total score, anti-depressant use at BL, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Day 42||1.0|-2.2|0.4785
95960733|NCT04974723|191893035|NON_INFERIORITY|Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1||||||||1.10|0.81|
95960734|NCT04974723|191893036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.30|0.89|
95960735|NCT04974723|191893037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22||||||Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratio with teriparatide as reference. Noninferiority of abaloparatide to teriparatide was to be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HR between abaloparatide versus teriparatide was \<1.3.||1.22|0.95|
95960736|NCT05720949|191893039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95960737|NCT05720949|191893040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU||||0.037
95960738|NCT05720949|191893040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours||||0.54
95960739|NCT05720949|191893040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||0.51
95960740|NCT05720949|191893040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours||||0.86
95960741|NCT05720949|191893040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours||||0.43
95960742|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU-rest||||0.004
95837449|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Weekly Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95960743|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU-movement||||0.08
95837450|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.429
95837451|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||"P-values greater than 0.999 are reported as \>0.999."|Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||>0.999
95837452|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.143
95837453|NCT00931606|191644915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Fisher Exact|Clopper and Pearson exact approach||Less Frequent Chemotherapy||||0.519
95837454|NCT04255862|191644932|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.4|123.8||||||||123.8|86.4|
95837455|NCT04255862|191644932|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.9|135.0||||||||135.0|97.9|
95837456|NCT04255862|191644933|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|121.5||||||||121.5|87.0|
95837457|NCT04255862|191644933|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|131.9||||||||131.9|97.4|
95837458|NCT04255862|191644934|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.3|119.7||||||||119.7|90.3|
95960744|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours-rest||||0.2
95960745|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours-movement||||0.49
95960746|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours-rest||||0.48
95837459|NCT04255862|191644934|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 80 to 125 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|131.4||||||||131.4|99.5|
95855210|NCT04973449|191669970|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.7||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.70|0.64|
95855211|NCT04973449|191669971|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.09||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.09|-0.61|
95960747|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours-movement||||0.97
95960748|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours-rest||||0.22
95960749|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours-movement||||0.73
95960750|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours-rest||||0.63
95960751|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours-movement||||0.83
95960752|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours-rest||||0.74
95960753|NCT05720949|191893041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours-movement||||0.46
95960754|NCT05720949|191893042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-24 hours||||0.17
95960755|NCT05720949|191893042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-48 hours||||0.34
95960756|NCT05720949|191893042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-72 hours||||0.34
95960757|NCT05720949|191893042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-96 hours||||0.50
95960758|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative Worst Pain||||0.66
95960759|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative Least Pain||||0.19
95960760|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative Average Pain||||0.50
95960761|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative Current Pain||||0.79
95837460|NCT02219334|191644988|EQUIVALENCE|Historical data at the institution for similar patients had a mean length of stay(LOS) of 25.7 hours (standard deviation-\[SD\] =10.3) from 9/2012- 9/13 was observed for 134 patients admitted to the emergency department observation unit and treated with the standard of care (NeoSucker). Given a LOS-SD of 10.3 hours, 75 subjects per treatment group would provide 80% statistical power at the 5% significance level to demonstrate equivalence in the two treatments' length of stay within ±5 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|15.72|||two one-sided t-test (TOST)||Due to slower than anticipated patient recruitment, the target size of 75 participants per treatment group was not reached.|The primary hypothesis of length of stay equivalence within a margin of ± 5 hours was tested using the two one-sided t-test (TOST) procedure, with a 5% significance level.||15.72|-10.74|<0.05
95837461|NCT00921843|191644998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95837462|NCT01013194|191645022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4340
95837463|NCT01013194|191645023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0076
95837464|NCT01013194|191645024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at 1 year Follow-up||||0.0437
95837465|NCT00536471|191645025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group A change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||0.051
95960762|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Preoperative Interference||||0.49
95837466|NCT00536471|191645025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Repeated Measures Analysis for Group B change from baseline to 8 week endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit||||||<0.001
95837467|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95837468|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837469|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.026
95837470|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Maier 8 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837471|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
95837472|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837473|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
95837474|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Bech 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837475|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
95837476|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837477|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
95837478|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
95837479|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.629
95837480|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value for Total Score 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.194
95837481|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.525||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.525
95837482|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for Maier 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.595
95837483|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.736
95837484|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-value for Anxiety/Somatization 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
95837485|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.660
95837486|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0||||P-value for Bech 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.334
95837487|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.568
95837488|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||P-value for Retardation 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
95837489|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
95837490|NCT00536471|191645026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0||||P-value for Sleep 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.275
95837491|NCT00536471|191645027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
96001581|NCT01380093|191980362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
96001582|NCT01380093|191980362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.0|-1.5|<0.0001
96001583|NCT01380093|191980363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||2.9|1.9|<0.0001
95837492|NCT00536471|191645027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837493|NCT00536471|191645027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
95837494|NCT00536471|191645027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.167
95837495|NCT00536471|191645028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95837496|NCT00536471|191645028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95837497|NCT00536471|191645028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
95837498|NCT00536471|191645028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.417
95837499|NCT00536471|191645029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.204
95837500|NCT00536471|191645029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95837501|NCT00536471|191645029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
95837502|NCT00536471|191645029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
95837503|NCT00536471|191645030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
96001584|NCT01380093|191980363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.3|-2.2|<0.0001
96001585|NCT01380093|191980363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-3.6|-4.6|<0.0001
95862902|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862903|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.23||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862904|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.96||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95862905|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.46||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.46
95862906|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.9||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.90
95862907|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.51||||0.008||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.008
95862908|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.42||||0.08||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.08
95862909|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.15||||0.52||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||0.52
95862910|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.27||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||0.18
95960763|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours worst pain||||0.51
95862911|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.37||||0.07||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||0.07
95960764|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours least pain||||0.72
95862912|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.14||||0.55||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||0.55
95862913|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup A||||
95862914|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862915|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup W-135||||
95862916|NCT00488683|191684581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration one week after booster vaccination for the serogroup Y||||
95960765|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours average pain||||0.38
95960766|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours current pain||||0.21
95960767|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours interference||||0.49
95960768|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours worst pain||||0.24
95960769|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours least pain||||0.15
95837504|NCT00536471|191645030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.100
95837505|NCT00536471|191645030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
95837506|NCT00536471|191645030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
95837507|NCT00536471|191645031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.332
95837508|NCT00536471|191645031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.041
95837509|NCT00536471|191645031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.775||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
95837510|NCT00536471|191645031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
95837511|NCT00536471|191645032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.624
95837512|NCT00536471|191645032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
95837513|NCT00536471|191645032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.787
95837514|NCT00536471|191645032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.086
95960770|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours average pain||||0.43
95960771|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours current pain||||0.53
95960772|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours interference||||0.34
95960773|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours worst pain||||0.46
95837515|NCT00536471|191645033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.099
95837516|NCT00536471|191645033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.223
95837517|NCT00536471|191645033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.473
95837518|NCT00536471|191645033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
95837519|NCT00536471|191645034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.577
95837520|NCT00536471|191645034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
95837521|NCT00536471|191645035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.670
95960774|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours least pain||||0.35
95960775|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours average pain||||0.40
95960776|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours current pain||||0.50
95960777|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours interference||||0.11
95960778|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours worst pain||||0.73
95960779|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours least pain||||0.71
95960780|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours average pain||||0.72
95837522|NCT00536471|191645035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
95837523|NCT00536471|191645035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.930
95837524|NCT00536471|191645035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.567
95837525|NCT00536471|191645036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.896
95837526|NCT00536471|191645036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.796||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.796
95837527|NCT00536471|191645036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
95837528|NCT00536471|191645036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
95837529|NCT00536471|191645037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.038
95837530|NCT00536471|191645037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95837531|NCT00536471|191645037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
95837532|NCT00536471|191645037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.253
95837533|NCT00536471|191645038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
95837534|NCT00536471|191645038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.312
95837535|NCT00536471|191645038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
95837536|NCT00536471|191645038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.913
95837537|NCT00536471|191645039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
95837538|NCT00536471|191645039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.216
95837539|NCT00536471|191645039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.853
95837540|NCT00536471|191645039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.908
95837541|NCT00536471|191645040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
95837542|NCT00536471|191645040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95837543|NCT00536471|191645040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
95837544|NCT00536471|191645040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.717
95837545|NCT00536471|191645041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.780
95837546|NCT00536471|191645041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.152
95960781|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours current pain||||0.56
95960782|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||96 hours interference||||0.51
95960783|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours worst pain||||0.31
95837547|NCT00536471|191645041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
95837548|NCT00536471|191645041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
95837549|NCT00536471|191645042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.517
95837550|NCT00536471|191645042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
95837551|NCT00536471|191645042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
95837552|NCT00536471|191645042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
95837553|NCT00536471|191645043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.741
95837554|NCT00536471|191645043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.722
95837555|NCT00536471|191645043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
95837556|NCT00536471|191645043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
95837557|NCT00536471|191645044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
95837558|NCT00536471|191645044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
95837559|NCT00536471|191645044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
95837560|NCT00536471|191645044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.268
95837561|NCT00536471|191645045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
95837562|NCT00536471|191645045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95837563|NCT00536471|191645045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
95837564|NCT00536471|191645045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.813
95837565|NCT00536471|191645046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.438
95837566|NCT00536471|191645046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95837567|NCT00536471|191645046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
95837568|NCT00536471|191645046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
95960784|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours least pain||||0.88
95837569|NCT00536471|191645047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.588
95960785|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours average pain||||0.38
95960786|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours current pain||||0.93
95960787|NCT05720949|191893043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||168 hours interference||||0.83
95960788|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU Satisfaction with Pain Management||||0.002
95837570|NCT00536471|191645047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.758
95837571|NCT00536471|191645047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
95837572|NCT00536471|191645047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
95837573|NCT00536471|191645048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.507
95837574|NCT00536471|191645048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
95837575|NCT00536471|191645048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
95837576|NCT00536471|191645048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
95837577|NCT00536471|191645049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.487
95837578|NCT00536471|191645049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.678
95837579|NCT00536471|191645049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
95837580|NCT00536471|191645049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.668||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.668
95837581|NCT00536471|191645050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
95837582|NCT00536471|191645050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.135
95837583|NCT00536471|191645050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
95837584|NCT00536471|191645050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||1.000
95862917|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.45||||0.0006||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0006
95960789|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU Satisfaction with Being Informed and Involved with Decision Making||||0.028
95960790|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PACU Satisfaction with Care from Healthcare Team||||0.032
95960791|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 Hours Satisfaction with Pain Management||||0.19
95837585|NCT00536471|191645051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.175
95837586|NCT00536471|191645051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95837587|NCT00536471|191645051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
95837588|NCT00536471|191645051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
95837589|NCT00536471|191645052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.675
95960792|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours Satisfaction with Being Informed and Involved with Decision Making||||0.36
95960793|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours Satisfaction with Care from Healthcare Team||||0.91
95837590|NCT00536471|191645052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.139
95837591|NCT00536471|191645052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.576
95837592|NCT00536471|191645052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.676
95837593|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95837594|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
95837595|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.020
95837596|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.324
95837597|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95837598|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95837599|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95837600|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
95960794|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 Hours Satisfaction with Pain Management||||0.001
95837601|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
95837602|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
95837603|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
95837604|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.435
95837605|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.090
95837606|NCT00536471|191645053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.313
95837607|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
95837608|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.584
95837609|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.251
95837610|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Tension-Anxiety (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.265
95837611|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
95960795|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours Satisfaction with Being Informed and Involved with Decision Making||||0.12
95960796|NCT05720949|191893044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours Satisfaction with Care from Healthcare Team||||0.59
95960797|NCT05720949|191893045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours||||0.93
95960798|NCT05720949|191893045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours||||0.54
95960799|NCT05720949|191893046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Medial Calf||||0.0002
95837612|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Depression-Dejection (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.257
95837613|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
95837614|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Anger-Hostility (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
95837615|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.765
95837616|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Vigor-Activity (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.522
95837617|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.986
95837618|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Fatigue-Inertia (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.602
95960800|NCT05720949|191893046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||Lateral Calf||||0.0002
95837619|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.110
95837620|NCT00536471|191645054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Confusion-Bewilderment(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.505
95837621|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
95837622|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
95837623|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
95960801|NCT05720949|191893046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Dorsal Calf||||<0.0001
95960802|NCT05720949|191893046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||Plantar Aspect||||0.027
95960803|NCT05720949|191893047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.928
95960804|NCT05720949|191893048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95960805|NCT00992992|191893050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|75.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response (CR).|||75|37|
95960806|NCT00992992|191893050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed complete response unconfirmed (CRu).|||19|0|
95960807|NCT00992992|191893050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|36.0|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with unconfirmed partial response.|||36|4|
95960808|NCT00458393|191893067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.404|0.824||secondary p-value given.|Log Rank|stratified by site|Efron correction for ties. Placebo is reference. Results typically quoted as efficacy = 100\*(1-HR)|Primary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 0.7 or less. Secondary null hypothesis: Relative hazard of 1.0 or less.||.824|.404|0.002
95960809|NCT00458393|191893068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.25||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Fisher Exact||||Extensive analysis and methods published in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3966916/|2.25|0.79|0.28
95960810|NCT00458393|191893069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.96|||Fisher Exact|||||2.96|.57|0.54
95960811|NCT00458393|191893070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.65|0.50
95960812|NCT00458393|191893071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.79|0.92
95960813|NCT00458393|191893072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis of no difference||||1.00
95960814|NCT00458393|191893072|SUPERIORITY|Desc|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95960815|NCT00458393|191893073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05 for statistical significance. no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95960816|NCT00458393|191893074|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.95|||median regression|||||-0.95|-6.6|0.009
95862918|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.41||||0.0021||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||0.0021
95862919|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells at 12 months of age||||
95862920|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.15||||0.53||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells 1 month after booster vaccination||||0.53
95862921|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.21||||0.26||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Groups 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
95862922|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.05||||0.84||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.84
95862923|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|0.22||||0.26||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||0.26
95837624|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.044
95862924|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
95862925|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after booster vaccination||||
95960817|NCT00458393|191893075|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.3|||median regression|||||9.3|-9.3|1.00
95960818|NCT00458393|191893076|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.1|||median regression|||||1.1|-5.5|0.19
95862926|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
95960819|NCT00458393|191893077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|-.18|0.56
95960820|NCT00458393|191893078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is the proportion of mutations is identical.|Detailed resistance data is found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176446/|||1.00
95960821|NCT00458393|191893079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|54.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54|-69|0.32
95837625|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.092
95862927|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
95862928|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 1, 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age||||<0.001
95960822|NCT00458393|191893080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of pills returned||0.01|-0.02|0.53
95960823|NCT00458393|191893081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided||||Detailed methods and results are available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110718/|1.6|-1.1|0.70
95960824|NCT00458393|191893082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95960825|NCT00458393|191893083|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.42||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance, p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Full details available in the methods section of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24367497|.42|-.42|0.76
95960826|NCT00458393|191893084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.008||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.03|||Chi-squared|||Null is no difference between arms||0.030|-0.047|0.68
95837626|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95837627|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score(Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.142
95960827|NCT00458393|191893085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.43|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between the arms||1.43|0.89|0.30
95960828|NCT00458393|191893086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Log Rank||||Details in the manuscript https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956614/|1.7|0.8|0.41
95862929|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.24||||0.06||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.06
95862930|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Pearson correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||<0.001
95862931|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.31||||0.01||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.01
95862932|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.2||||0.1||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Spearman correlation coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||0.10
95862933|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
95862934|NCT00488683|191684582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.25||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between CRM197 specific memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and CRM197 specific IgG concentration one month after booster vaccination||||
95862935|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|0.04||||0.7||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.70
95862936|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.04||||0.63||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.63
96001586|NCT01380093|191980364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||5.8|3.9|<0.0001
96001587|NCT01380093|191980364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-4.3|-6.3|<0.0001
95837628|NCT00536471|191645055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95862937|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.74
95837629|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.921
95862938|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson correlation coefficient|-0.03||||0.74||95.0|||||Parametric correlation|||Pearson correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.74
95862939|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.18||||0.05||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||0.05
95862940|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.07||||0.36||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||0.36
95837630|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Work Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
95862941|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|-0.11||||0.18||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||0.18
95862942|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman correlation coefficient|0.02||||0.82||95.0|||||Non-parametric correlation|||Spearman correlation coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||0.82
96001588|NCT01380093|191980364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-9.2|-11.1|<0.0001
96001589|NCT01380093|191980365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||10.7|6.6|<0.0001
95837631|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.789
95837632|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Social Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.761
95837633|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.519
95862943|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0013||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup A||||
95862944|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0014||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup C||||
95862945|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0008||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup W-135||||
95862946|NCT00488683|191684588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0009||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at day 1 in the serum of mother for the serogroup Y||||
95862947|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.34||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95862948|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95862949|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.09||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells at 5 months of age and hSBA titers at 12 months of age after a 2, 4-month course of MenACWY-CRM vaccination for the serogroup C||||
95862950|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95862951|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.22||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862952|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862953|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.74||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95862954|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.53||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95862955|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95862956|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.14||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95862957|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95862958|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95862959|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.9||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862960|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.78||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862961|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.94||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95837634|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Family Life (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.755
95837635|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
96001590|NCT01380093|191980365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-11.8|-15.9|<0.0001
96001591|NCT01380093|191980365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-20.4|-24.5|<0.0001
96001592|NCT01380093|191980366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||14.7|8.7|<0.0001
96001593|NCT01380093|191980366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-18.6|-24.5|<0.0001
96001594|NCT01380093|191980366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-30.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-30.2|-36.2|<0.0001
96001595|NCT01380093|191980367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||23.3|11.6|<0.0001
96001596|NCT01380093|191980367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-31.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-31.9|-43.6|<0.0001
96001597|NCT01380093|191980367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-49.3|-61.1|<0.0001
95837636|NCT00536471|191645056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Total Score (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.723
96001598|NCT01380093|191980368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.4|0.8|<0.0001
96001599|NCT01380093|191980368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-1.5|-2.1|<0.0001
96001600|NCT01380093|191980368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||-2.6|-3.2|<0.0001
96001601|NCT01380093|191980369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||4.6|0.3|0.0262
96001602|NCT01380093|191980369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||3.0|-1.3|0.4180
96001603|NCT01380093|191980369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean, 95% CI, and unadjusted p-value were calculated using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.6|-3.7|0.1479
96001604|NCT01380093|191980370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Tmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.35|0.07|0.0181
96001605|NCT01380093|191980371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.83|0.68|<0.0001
96001606|NCT01380093|191980372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-1) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.86|0.69|0.0004
96001607|NCT01380093|191980373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-2) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||0.94|0.79|0.0065
96001608|NCT01380093|191980374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-4) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.06|0.91|0.6399
95837637|NCT00536471|191645057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.753
95837638|NCT00536471|191645057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
95837639|NCT00536471|191645059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.342
96001609|NCT01380093|191980375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-8) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.08|0.94|0.9057
96001610|NCT01380093|191980376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-12) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.10|0.97|0.4250
95837640|NCT00536471|191645059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect|Regression, Linear|||||||0.111
95837641|NCT00536471|191645061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.302
95837642|NCT00536471|191645061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.029
95862962|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.85||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and hSBA titers at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95960829|NCT00458393|191893087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.34|0.09
95837643|NCT00536471|191645061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.325
95837644|NCT00536471|191645061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.423||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.423
95837645|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.731||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.731
95837646|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
95960830|NCT06185101|191893094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and gender||||||0.84
95960831|NCT03311269|191893102|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for both treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection and ClariVein RES 3% Injection) combined.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||Continuous variables summarized using descriptive statistics, specifically the mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum. Categorical variables summarized using frequencies and percentages. All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated. For efficacy analyses, missing post-treatment data will be imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF). Missing safety data will not be imputed.||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
95960832|NCT03311269|191893102|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.0||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 1% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.0|-5.8|0.011
95960833|NCT03311269|191893102|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline for the primary efficacy endpoint=0. The alternative hypothesis is that the mean change does not =0. The primary analysis will be a one-sample t-test for both treatment groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline equals 0. Primary analysis will be performed for each treatment group separately.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.6||This p-value corresponds to the change from Baseline to Week 12 for the ClariVein RES 3% Injection treatment group.|t-test, 2 sided|One-Sample||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||-1.6|-8.7|0.010
95960834|NCT03311269|191893102|OTHER|An ANCOVA was performed to compare the change from baseline for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection with treatment as the class variable and with baseline score as the covariate|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||This p-value corresponds to the difference between treatment groups (ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection).|ANCOVA|||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.||1.3|-3.7|0.531
95960835|NCT03311269|191893103|OTHER||Descriptive (Percentage)|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|99.9|||||The count of the combined treatment group for the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment is 17/18 (94.4%).|The secondary efficacy endpoint, the elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, will be summarized for both treatments combined using the count and percentage, together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the proportion.||99.9|72.7|
95960836|NCT03311269|191893103|OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|42.8||All statistical tests will be performed at the 0.05 significance level (p -value ≤ 0.050) unless otherwise indicated.|Chi-squared|||For elimination of saphenous vein reflux at Week 12 posttreatment, the treatment difference for ClariVein RES 1% Injection versus ClariVein RES 3% Injection for the proportion was assessed by a chi-square test together with a 95% Wilson (score) confidence interval for the treatment difference.||42.8|-20.5|1.000
96001611|NCT01380093|191980377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-24) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.18|1.03|0.0204
96001612|NCT01380093|191980378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using linear mixed model with fixed effects for sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for participant nested in sequence.||1.49|1.17|0.0005
95837647|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
95837648|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
95837649|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
95837650|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.442
95837651|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.218
95837652|NCT00536471|191645062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.648
95837653|NCT00536471|191645063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.653
95837654|NCT00536471|191645063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for 12 week HAMD-17. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95837655|NCT00536471|191645063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
95837656|NCT00536471|191645063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value for 12 week QIDS16. Model=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, and Treatment\*Visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
95960837|NCT01182181|191893104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.34|98.95|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||98.95|92.34|
96001613|NCT01873742|191980451|OTHER|The BDI's Cronbach's alpha was .93 at start of therapy, and .95 at the end of therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95960838|NCT01182181|191893105|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|99.57|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.57|93.14|
96001614|NCT02487745|191980452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
96001615|NCT02487745|191980453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.05
96001616|NCT01214434|191980464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
96001617|NCT01214434|191980466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.03
95837657|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
95837658|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
95837659|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.213||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.213
95837660|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.536
95837661|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.158
95837662|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 1 Average Pain Severity 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.759
95837663|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.190
95862963|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.03||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
96001618|NCT01214434|191980467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.6
96001619|NCT01214434|191980468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.24||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.24
96001620|NCT01214434|191980469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.8
96001621|NCT03503773|191980470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||There was no formal hypothesis testing conducted in the study. 95% CIs are intended to be descriptive in nature only|The null hypothesis to be tested is that there is no difference in the change in 24 hour mean SBP between treatment and sham control. The Type I error rate for rejecting the null hypothesis will be set at an alpha level of 0.05.||1.7|-4.8|0.2682
96001622|NCT03503773|191980471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6964|||||||ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment arms||||0.6964
95837664|NCT00536471|191645064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Item 7 How Bothered by Pain 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.852
95837665|NCT00536471|191645065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
95837666|NCT00536471|191645065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
96001623|NCT03503773|191980472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.0775
95837667|NCT00536471|191645065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.705
95837668|NCT00536471|191645065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.388
95837669|NCT00536471|191645066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
95837670|NCT00536471|191645066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
96001624|NCT03503773|191980474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4734|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group difference||||0.4734
96001625|NCT03503773|191980476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
96001626|NCT03503773|191980478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.073|||Fisher Exact|||||0.073|-0.132|0.573
96001627|NCT04392011|191980515|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.57||||||||1.57|1.23|
96001628|NCT04392011|191980516|OTHER||AUC ratio (geometric mean)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19||||||||1.19|0.83|
96001629|NCT04392011|191980518|OTHER||Cmax ratio (midazolam)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.7||||||||1.70|1.32|
96001630|NCT04392011|191980518|OTHER||Cmax ratio (dextromethorphan)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||||1.19|0.78|
96001631|NCT04392011|191980520|OTHER||half-life ratio (dextromethorphan)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||||1.08|0.92|
96001632|NCT04392011|191980520|OTHER||half-life ratio (midazolam)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.17||||||||1.17|0.98|
96001633|NCT02795767|191980562|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.023|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.023|0.006|
96001634|NCT02795767|191980563|OTHER||ABR Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.21|||||Emicizumab QW is the numerator and Prophylactic/Episodic Bypassing Agent is the denominator.|||0.210|0.051|
96001635|NCT05341466|191980601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0098|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0098
96001636|NCT05341466|191980601|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.418||||0.014|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step length asymmetry.||||0.014
96001637|NCT05341466|191980601|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.496||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus step time asymmetry.||||0.006
96001638|NCT05341466|191980601|OTHER||Adjusted R-squared|0.666||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression analyses performed with the change in the MEP amplitude versus changes in net metabolic power.||||0.001
96001639|NCT05341466|191980602|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0232||0.744|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.744
96001640|NCT05341466|191980603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0231||0.269|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.269
96001641|NCT05341466|191980604|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.681||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
96001642|NCT00477451|191980614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
96001643|NCT00477451|191980615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.368
96001644|NCT00477451|191980616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.207
95837671|NCT00536471|191645066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.982
95837672|NCT00536471|191645066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
95837673|NCT00536471|191645067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
96001645|NCT00044044|191980657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
96001646|NCT00044044|191980658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
96001647|NCT00044044|191980659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
96001648|NCT00044044|191980660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95837674|NCT00536471|191645067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95837675|NCT00536471|191645067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.231
95837676|NCT00536471|191645067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.040
95837677|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.914
95837678|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95837679|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
95837680|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.034
95837681|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
95837682|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.614||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.614
95837683|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.146
95960839|NCT00511797|191893106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.34||Pre-defined sequential tests were applied to protect alpha inflation by multiplicity.|t-test, 1 sided|||Three null hypotheses were sequentially tested. H01: DRSP 3 mg \>= Placebo (Active is equal or less in decrease of score) vs H11: DRSP 3 mg \< Placebo (Active is greater in decrease of score), H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo, H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.34|-1.49|<0.001
95960840|NCT00511797|191893106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|<|0.001||95.0|-1.64|-0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||Second null hypothesis was tested. H02: DRSP 2 mg \>= Placebo vs H12: DRSP 2 mg \< Placebo.||-0.55|-1.64|<0.001
95837684|NCT00536471|191645068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.877||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.877
95837685|NCT00536471|191645069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95837686|NCT00536471|191645069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
95837687|NCT00536471|191645069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.701
95837688|NCT00536471|191645069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.081
95837689|NCT00536471|191645070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95960841|NCT00511797|191893106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001||95.0|-2.0|-0.89|||t-test, 1 sided|||Third null hypotheses was tested. H03: DRSP 1 mg \>= Placebo vs H13: DRSP 1 mg \< Placebo.||-0.89|-2.00|<0.001
95837690|NCT00536471|191645070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 12 Week Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.672
95837691|NCT00536471|191645070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.874
95837692|NCT00536471|191645070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0||||Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit. P-value for 9 Month Change (Change=Endpoint minus baseline).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.390
95837693|NCT00536471|191645075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
95837694|NCT00536471|191645075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value for Creatinine - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.031
95837695|NCT00536471|191645075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
95837696|NCT00536471|191645075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value for Bilirubin - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.033
95837697|NCT00536471|191645075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Uric Acid - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
95837698|NCT00536471|191645076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
95837699|NCT00536471|191645076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0||||P-value for Hematocrit - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.029
95837700|NCT00536471|191645077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.013
95837701|NCT00536471|191645077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for MCV - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.014
95837702|NCT00536471|191645078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.022
95837703|NCT00536471|191645078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for Urea Nitrogen - 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.044
95837704|NCT00536471|191645078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Chloride - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95837705|NCT00536471|191645078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for Cholesterol - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.045
95837706|NCT00536471|191645078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0||||P-value for Sodium - 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.043
95862964|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95960842|NCT00511797|191893107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.46|||t-test, 1 sided|||Test results of 3 mg DRSP and placebo at Cycle 4 are shown. 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated. To keep consistency with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, 2.5% 1-sided significance levels were used for the statistical tests.||-0.46|-1.74|<0.001
95837707|NCT00536471|191645079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.017
95837708|NCT00536471|191645079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for 9 Month Change.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
95837709|NCT00536471|191645080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
95837710|NCT00536471|191645081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.045
95837711|NCT00536471|191645082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
95960843|NCT00511797|191893107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.001||95.0|-1.95|-0.73|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.73|-1.95|<0.001
95960844|NCT00511797|191893107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.317|<|0.001||95.0|-2.16|-0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-0.90|-2.16|<0.001
95837712|NCT00536471|191645082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
95837713|NCT00536471|191645083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95837714|NCT00536471|191645083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value for Potassium - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.049
95837715|NCT00536471|191645084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Lymphocytes - High.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95837716|NCT00536471|191645084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for Hemoglobin - Low.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
95837717|NCT05438576|191645128|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.27|1.05|0.032
95837718|NCT05438576|191645133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.74|0.621
95837719|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-3.17|<0.0001
95837720|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-3.36|<0.0001
95837721|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-4.86|<0.0001
95837722|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.44|||ANCOVA|||||-3.44|-5.39|<0.0001
95837723|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-2.53|<0.0001
95837724|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.11|<0.0001
95837725|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-2.68|||ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-5.54|<0.0001
95837726|NCT03100058|191645136|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|-3.43|||ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-5.54|<0.0001
95837727|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.67|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||6.67|0.85|0.099
95837728|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|1.18||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.84|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.84|0.36|0.779
95837729|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.11|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||10.11|1.35|0.011
95837730|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|12.88|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||12.88|2.41|<.001
95837731|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.74|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||3.74|0.36|0.812
95837732|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.69|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||5.69|0.66|0.229
95837733|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||11.46|1.61|0.004
95837734|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|14.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5%||14.93|2.72|<.001
95837735|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.41|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.41|0.10|0.943
95862965|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.007||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95837736|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|15.77|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||15.77|0.28|0.465
95837737|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|17.15|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||17.15|0.15|0.696
95837738|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||12.10|0.38|0.389
95837739|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.87|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.87|0.09|0.976
95837740|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|11.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||11.70|0.09|0.986
95960845|NCT01586975|191893148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not adjusted, and no a priori threshold was used|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric ANOVA test||||0.0742
95960846|NCT02654132|191893149|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.32|0.0043
95960847|NCT02654132|191893150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|10.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.43|2.05|0.0002
95960848|NCT02654132|191893151|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.37|0.0217
95960849|NCT01390441|191893166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.16|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.16|0.87|
95837741|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|22.18|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||22.18|0.56|0.181
95837742|NCT03100058|191645137|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|20.54|||ANCOVA|||\>=10%||20.54|0.77|0.100
95837743|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.29||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|38.76|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||38.76|1.02|0.048
95837744|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio, log|3.94||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|28.03|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dsyglycemic)||28.03|0.55|0.171
95837745|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.17||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|47.27|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||47.27|1.09|0.041
95837746|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.89||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|60.93|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.93|2.32|0.003
95837747|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|11.72|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||11.72|0.08|0.976
95837748|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|56.44|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||56.44|1.37|0.022
95837749|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|46.99|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||46.99|1.20|0.032
95837750|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|11.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|60.46|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Dysglycemic)||60.46|2.11|0.005
95837751|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|21.28|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||21.28|0.48|0.227
95837752|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.85|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.85|0.06|0.763
95837753|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||28.70|0.76|0.095
95960850|NCT01390441|191893168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part A: MK-8808 500 mg/m\^2 - Part A: MabThera 500 mg/m\^2) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||3.6|-38.6|
95960851|NCT01390441|191893168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|10.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: MabThera 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||10.9|-44.4|
95960852|NCT01390441|191893168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|24.6|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MK-8808 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||24.6|-34.9|
95960853|NCT01390441|191893168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent differnce|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|38.9|||Miettinen-Nurminen|||The difference in percent AE incidence was determined for the treatment comparison (Part B: MabThera® 1000 mg - Part B: Rituxan® 1000 mg) when \>=4 participants in an arm experienced an event.||38.9|-15.6|
95960854|NCT01390441|191893170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK bioequivalence was assumed if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio for the comparison fell within the range 0.80-1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|||Back-transformed least squares mean and confidence interval from fixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values containing treatment as a fixed effect and gender as a covariate.||1.1|0.87|
96001649|NCT02099799|191980661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.189
95837754|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|24.83|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||24.83|1.14|0.033
95837755|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.1|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||8.10|0.06|0.788
95837756|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.62|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||7.62|0.06|0.751
95837757|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|51.09|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||51.09|1.27|0.027
95837758|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|34.0|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (Normoglycemic)||34.00|1.30|0.023
95837759|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|4.78|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||4.78|0.05|0.528
95837760|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|6.68|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||6.68|0.17|0.958
95837761|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.49|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.49|0.30|0.546
95837762|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|11.75|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||11.75|0.81|0.098
95837763|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|8.7|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||8.70|0.31|0.563
95837764|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|5.38|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||5.38|0.06|0.610
95837765|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|9.16|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||9.16|0.32|0.528
95837766|NCT03100058|191645138|OTHER|Dose finding study|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|16.9|||ANCOVA|||\>=5% (T2DM)||16.90|1.23|0.023
95837767|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.37|||ANCOVA|||||1.37|-2.96|0.470
95837768|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|0.199
95862966|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.04||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95960855|NCT01390441|191893174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 6 weeks.||0.5|-0.9|
95837769|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|-3.64|<0.001
95837770|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-3.56|0.206
95837771|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.18|0.006
95837772|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.70|0.002
95837773|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||||-1.51|-5.10|<0.001
95837774|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.82|0.391
95837775|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-3.10|0.259
95837776|NCT03100058|191645139|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-4.91|0.048
95837777|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.61|||ANCOVA|||||2.61|-0.62|0.225
95837778|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-2.62|0.247
95837779|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-3.75|0.019
95837780|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-2.96|0.015
95960856|NCT01390441|191893174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|The model included a term for treatment.||Estimated difference vs MabThera® at 12 weeks.||1.2|-0.4|
95960857|NCT00623363|191893177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503|||||||Monte Carlo estimates|||Baseline (Day -7)||||0.503
95960858|NCT00623363|191893177|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|39.37||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||39.37|1.82|
95837781|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-2.97|0.106
95837782|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-3.54|0.020
95837783|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-3.44|0.035
95837784|NCT03100058|191645140|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-3.22|0.004
95837785|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-0.05|0.082
95837786|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.63|0.319
95837787|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-1.05|0.008
95837788|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.76|0.015
95837789|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.50|0.707
95837790|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.65|0.280
95837791|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.80|0.086
95837792|NCT03100058|191645141|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.72|0.030
95837793|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.07|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.07|-6.64|0.156
95862967|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95960859|NCT00623363|191893177|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|22.37||||||Change from Baseline||22.37|-15.18|
95960860|NCT00623363|191893177|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|36.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.04|49.14||||||Average of Days 1 and 2||49.14|24.04|
95960861|NCT00623363|191893177|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|19.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|32.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline||32.14|7.04|0.160
95960862|NCT03802617|191893193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63|||MMRM|||||0.63|-0.85|0.770
95960863|NCT03802617|191893193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-1.55|0.038
95960864|NCT03802617|191893193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.03|||MMRM|||||-0.03|-1.54|0.041
95960865|NCT00823836|191893207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of ropinirole PR/XR tablets to ropinirole IR tablets was assessed with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5.|Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.09||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: value of change from Week 0 at Week 24 = treatment group + Week 0 value|ANCOVA|||||2.09|-1.41|0.702
95960866|NCT01795859|191893270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|-2.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.69|<0.0001
95960867|NCT01795859|191893271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|49.8|||Difference of proportions|||||49.8|12.4|0.0020
95837794|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|0.89|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.89|-7.11|0.127
95837795|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-2.42|-10.52|0.002
95837796|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.42|||ANCOVA|||SBP||0.42|-5.86|0.089
95837797|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.57|||ANCOVA|||SBP||1.57|-6.12|0.245
95837798|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|3.02|||ANCOVA|||SBP||3.02|-4.65|0.678
95837799|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-8.07|0.040
95837800|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||SBP||-0.19|-6.61|0.038
95837801|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|1.96|||ANCOVA|||DBP||1.96|-3.38|0.601
95837802|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.34|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.34|-3.20|0.760
95837803|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.01|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.01|-5.60|0.051
95837804|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|0.38|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.38|-3.98|0.105
95837805|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.98|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.98|-2.36|0.820
95837806|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|0.74|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.74|-4.58|0.157
95837807|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.49|||ANCOVA|||DBP||2.49|-2.99|0.859
95960868|NCT01795859|191893272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.4|||Difference of proportions|||||46.4|11.4|0.0022
95960869|NCT01795859|191893273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference|4.34||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.27|0.41|0.0308
95837808|NCT03100058|191645142|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|0.04|||ANCOVA|||DBP||0.04|-4.41|0.054
95837809|NCT03100058|191645144|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.66|||ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.84|0.355
95837810|NCT03100058|191645144|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.83|0.373
95837811|NCT03100058|191645144|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.36|<0.001
95837812|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|0.81|0.632
95837813|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||||1.55|0.86|0.352
95837814|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.92|||ANCOVA|||||1.92|1.04|0.027
95837815|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.85|0.587
95837816|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.47|||ANCOVA|||||1.47|0.82|0.508
95837817|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.76|0.945
95960870|NCT01795859|191893274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-0.3|0.1415
95960871|NCT01182207|191893275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.82|107.79|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.79|86.82|
96001650|NCT02099799|191980662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.572
96001651|NCT02099799|191980663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.799
96001652|NCT02099799|191980664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1312.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
96001653|NCT02099799|191980665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2265
96001654|NCT02099799|191980666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8897
95837818|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.45|||ANCOVA|||||1.45|0.81|0.602
95837819|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||ANCOVA|||||1.35|0.84|0.612
95837820|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.68|0.382
95837821|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.67|0.310
95837822|NCT03100058|191645150|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.65|0.525
95837823|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|5.65|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||5.65|-21.37|0.254
95837824|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|11.99|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.99|-17.44|0.716
95862968|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862969|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.13||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95862970|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.28||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95837825|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.86|-30.30|0.038
95837826|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|4.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||4.06|-18.15|0.213
95862971|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95862972|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.1||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup A||||
95837827|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|11.96|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.96|-15.38|0.806
95837828|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|11.21|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||11.21|-15.80|0.739
95837829|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.36|15.26|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||15.26|-12.36|0.837
95837830|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||-0.07|-22.71|0.049
95837831|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|9.82|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.82|-7.22|0.764
95837832|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|11.63|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.63|-6.43|0.571
95837833|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.46|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.46|-9.30|0.987
95837834|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|16.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||16.87|2.85|0.006
95837835|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||5.48|-12.03|0.463
95837836|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|9.01|||ANOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.01|-8.18|0.925
95837837|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|10.53|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||10.53|-7.19|0.711
95837838|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|11.26|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||11.26|-3.10|0.265
95837839|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|7.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||7.36|-7.31|0.995
95837840|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|11.81|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||11.81|-3.52|0.288
95837841|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.5|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||12.50|-3.50|0.269
95837842|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.27|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.27|1.23|0.018
95837843|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|9.73|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.73|-5.32|0.565
95837844|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.09|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||9.09|-5.67|0.649
95837845|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|8.36|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||8.36|-6.87|0.847
95837846|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|7.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|13.43|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||13.43|1.14|0.020
95862973|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.11||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
95862974|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.06||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup C||||
96001655|NCT00465738|191980669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% Newcombe-Wilson confidence interval for the difference between the response rates of the groups was calculated. The lower bound of the Newcombe-Wilson CI for the difference of proportions was compared to the non-inferiority margin of -25%.|difference in response rates|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|24.9|||||difference in response rates = response rate for high volume dilution group (20 U/ml) - response rate for low volume dilution group (50 U/ml)|Null hypothesis: The response rate for the low volume dilution group (50 U/ml) is greater than the response rate for the high volume dilution group (20 U/ml).||24.9|-4.4|
95837847|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|9.57|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.57|-17.09|0.579
95837848|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|19.02|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||19.02|-9.08|0.487
95837849|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|10.3|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.30|-18.96|0.561
95837850|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|20.25|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||20.25|-1.68|0.097
95837851|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.26|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||5.26|-22.10|0.227
95837852|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|9.64|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.64|-17.22|0.580
95862975|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862976|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862977|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.39||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
96001656|NCT00377299|191980772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.05
96001657|NCT00377299|191980773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
96001658|NCT00377299|191980774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
96001659|NCT00377299|191980775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95837853|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.67|9.03|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.03|-18.67|0.494
95837854|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|9.65|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||9.65|-12.81|0.782
95837855|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|17.54|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||17.54|-13.82|0.816
95837856|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.02||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|23.42|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||23.42|-8.13|0.341
95837857|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|9.99||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.39|13.91|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides (TG)||13.91|-25.39|0.566
95837858|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|8.36|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||8.36|-3.38|0.405
95837859|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|7.87|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||7.87|-3.92|0.511
95837860|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Cholesterol (TC)||9.79|-4.83|0.506
95837861|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.7|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.70|-4.20|0.392
95837862|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|10.53|||ANOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||10.53|-4.45|0.426
95837863|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|17.8|||ANCOVA|||HDL Cholesterol||17.80|-0.72|0.071
95837864|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.42|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||11.42|-5.56|0.498
95837865|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Median Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|10.9|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||10.90|-6.17|0.586
95837866|NCT03100058|191645151|OTHER|Dose finding study|Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|12.67|||ANCOVA|||LDL Cholesterol||12.67|-8.47|0.696
95837867|NCT03549104|191645172|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
95837868|NCT03549104|191645173|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
95837869|NCT03549104|191645174|OTHER||||||||||||||||||We will evaluate the effects of within-group and between-group differences from baseline (Week 0) to program completion (Week 8) to calculate effect sizes for sample size estimation for a future larger study.|||
95837870|NCT00479856|191645193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.3||||||95.0|7.5|70.1||||||||70.1|7.5|
95837871|NCT01973998|191645199|EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome is time from randomization to a composite outcome of all cause re-hospitalization and all-cause mortality, whichever comes first. The primary analysis will be a log-ranked test and associated Kaplan-Meier plot, unadjusted for any covariates|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789|<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133||Because this is a pilot study the intent is to see if there is a signal that would justify a larger clinical trial. Therefore the significance level has been set to 0.1 and the power has been set at 0.7.|Log Rank|||||2.133|1.175|<0.1
95837872|NCT01973998|191645199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.654|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4789||0.1|TWO_SIDED|10.0|1.175|2.133|||Log Rank|||A total of 100 patients is required in a 2 treatment parallel-design study. There is a 70% probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a 2-sided 10% significance level, if the true hazard ratio is 1.654. This is based on the assumption that the accrual period will be 36 months and the follow up period will be 6 months and the median time to event is 8 months. The total number of events will be 73.||2.133|1.175|0.1
95837873|NCT02332291|191645227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.8642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.475||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analyses utilized a logistic regression model with remission status (defined as final MADRS \<= 7) as the dependent variable. The independent variable of interest was treatment arm assignment, and the model included age, sex, and baseline depression severity by MADRS as covariates.||||0.0689
95837874|NCT02332291|191645228|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effect|-1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|344 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed model. MADRS score was the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest for this analysis was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment. A statistically significant interaction term would indicate that one treatment arm experienced a greater change in MADRS score over time than the other treatment arm.||||0.0001
95837875|NCT02332291|191645229|SUPERIORITY||Slope, fixed effects|-0.3117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1566||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|150 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, sex, and treatment assignment. The primary variable of interest was an interaction term between time and treatment assignment.||||0.0483
95837876|NCT02332291|191645230|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effect|-1.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|128 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with MADRS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||<0.0001
95837877|NCT02332291|191645231|OTHER|Analyses tested for effects of time in this one-arm, open-label study phase.|Slope, fixed effects|-0.2342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0908||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|61 degrees of freedom||Statistical analyses utilized mixed models, with QIDS score being the repeated measures dependent variable. Independent variables included time, age, and sex. The primary variable of interest was time, to indicate a change in depression severity over time with open-label treatment.||||0.0123
95837878|NCT02332291|191645232|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.924||0.742|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear model. Final AES score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline AES score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.742
95837879|NCT02332291|191645233|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.4705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.352||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Statistical analyses used a linear regression model. Final RRS score at week 8 was the dependent variable. Independent variables included age, sex, baseline RRS score, baseline MADRS score, and treatment assignment. Treatment assignment was the independent variable of interest.||||0.0232
95862978|NCT00488683|191684589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.33||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and serogroup specific IgG concentration at 12 months of age for the serogroup Y||||
95862979|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.24||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95960872|NCT01182207|191893276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|105.27|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.27|101.10|
96001660|NCT00377299|191980776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Significance was set at a p value of ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95862980|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
96001661|NCT04799782|191980796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
96001662|NCT04799782|191980797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
96001663|NCT02160977|191980808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
96001664|NCT02160977|191980809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
96001665|NCT02160977|191980810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
96001666|NCT02772965|191980869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.45|0.08
96001667|NCT02772965|191980870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.32
95837880|NCT00395850|191645234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.02|||<|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures Logistic Regression|Repeated Measures Generalized Linear Models on a Binomial distribution, thus a Repeated Measures Logistic Regression||Used placebo group as contrast to determine whether slopes of disulfiram groups differed from slope of placebo group data||||<0.05
95837881|NCT00395850|191645235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95837882|NCT01868334|191645236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period||||||0.05
95837883|NCT01868334|191645236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for percentage point difference between Baseline and Year 1 for RCCT study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
95837884|NCT01868334|191645237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square tests for comparisons between-arm changes in vaccination rates between pre and post intervention for Pre-post study period||||||0.05
95837885|NCT01868334|191645237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||||||Cochran-Armitage trend tests for difference between pre and post changes in vaccination rates for Pre-Post study period|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.05
95837886|NCT01620528|191645241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95960873|NCT01182207|191893277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.67|104.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.80|100.67|
95960874|NCT01182207|191893278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.45|106.5|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||106.50|89.45|
95960875|NCT01182207|191893279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.62|102.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.25|95.62|
95960876|NCT01182207|191893280|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|101.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.12|95.36|
96001668|NCT02772965|191980871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95837887|NCT01620528|191645241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837888|NCT01620528|191645242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837889|NCT01620528|191645242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837890|NCT01620528|191645243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
95837891|NCT01620528|191645243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
95837892|NCT01620528|191645244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
96001669|NCT02772965|191980872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
96001670|NCT02772965|191980873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
96001671|NCT02772965|191980874|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||Chi-squared|||||1.04|0.49|0.08
96001672|NCT03918642|191980881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.83|-2.35|<0.001
96001673|NCT03918642|191980882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.78|0.01
95837893|NCT01620528|191645244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
95837894|NCT01620528|191645245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.004
95837895|NCT01620528|191645245|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
95960877|NCT02554383|191893281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (2).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and pathogens in the nasopharynx.||||0.02
95837896|NCT01620528|191645246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.910
95837897|NCT01620528|191645246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
95837898|NCT01620528|191645247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.185
95837899|NCT01620528|191645247|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
95837900|NCT01620528|191645248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.144|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.144
95837901|NCT01620528|191645248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.003
95837902|NCT01620528|191645249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.424|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.424
95837903|NCT01620528|191645249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.002
95960878|NCT02554383|191893281|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.51|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-1.51|-2.40|
95960879|NCT02554383|191893281|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|-0.12|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of one or more pathogens in the nasopharynx at enrollment.||-0.12|-1.63|
95960880|NCT02554383|191893282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The interactions (1) between treatment \& pathogens and (2) between treatment \& colored nasal discharge are tested simultaneously.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p value is adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day, study site, treatment, pathogens, colored nasal discharge \& interaction (1).||Null hypothesis: The effect of treatment with antibiotics does not differ in the subgroups of children defined, respectively, by the presence and by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment, i.e., there is no significant interaction between treatment and colored nasal discharge.||||0.37
95837904|NCT01620528|191645250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837905|NCT01620528|191645250|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837906|NCT01620528|191645251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837907|NCT01620528|191645251|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
96001674|NCT03918642|191980883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|0.12|<0.001
96001675|NCT03918642|191980884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.46|-3.30|0.14
95837908|NCT01620528|191645252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837909|NCT01620528|191645252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837910|NCT01620528|191645253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837911|NCT01620528|191645253|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837912|NCT01620528|191645254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837913|NCT01620528|191645254|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837914|NCT01620528|191645255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.103
95837915|NCT01620528|191645255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.023
95837916|NCT01620528|191645256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.031
95837917|NCT01620528|191645256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837918|NCT01620528|191645257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837919|NCT01620528|191645257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837920|NCT01620528|191645258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
95837921|NCT01620528|191645258|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837922|NCT01620528|191645259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
95837923|NCT01620528|191645259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837924|NCT01620528|191645260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.306
95837925|NCT01620528|191645260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.239
95837926|NCT01620528|191645261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.855
95837927|NCT01620528|191645261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
95837928|NCT01620528|191645262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
95837929|NCT01620528|191645262|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837930|NCT01620528|191645263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.061
95837931|NCT01620528|191645263|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95837932|NCT01620528|191645264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.126
95837933|NCT01620528|191645264|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95960881|NCT02554383|191893282|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.16|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the presence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.16|-2.09|
95837934|NCT01620528|191645265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.34|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.34|-0.65|< 0.001
95837935|NCT01620528|191645265|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
95837936|NCT01620528|191645266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.79|< 0.001
95837937|NCT01620528|191645266|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.51|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-1.51|< 0.001
95837938|NCT01620528|191645267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.83|-0.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.53|-0.83|< 0.001
95837939|NCT01620528|191645267|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.54|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.54|< 0.001
95837940|NCT01620528|191645268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.81|-0.49|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.49|-0.81|< 0.001
95837941|NCT01620528|191645268|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|-1.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.16|-1.49|< 0.001
95837942|NCT01620528|191645269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.75|-0.43|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.43|-0.75|< 0.001
95837943|NCT01620528|191645269|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.58|-1.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.25|-1.58|< 0.001
95960882|NCT02554383|191893282|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-1.03|||||The Amoxicillin-clavulanate group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Placebo group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for PRSS score at enrollment, diary day and study site.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the subgroup of children defined by the absence of colored nasal discharge at enrollment.||-1.03|-2.38|
95960883|NCT02554383|191893283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||||0.003
95837944|NCT01620528|191645270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-24.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.288|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.45|-16.69|||mixed-effects model|||||-16.69|-31.45|< 0.001
95837945|NCT01620528|191645270|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-31.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.41|-23.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.60|-38.41|< 0.001
95837946|NCT01620528|191645271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.107||-30.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.77|-23.82|||mixed-effects model|||||-23.82|-37.77|-30.79
95837947|NCT01620528|191645271|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.85|-56.71|||mixed-effects model|||||-56.71|-70.85|< 0.001
95837948|NCT01620528|191645272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-32.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.35|-25.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-25.08|-39.35|< 0.001
95837949|NCT01620528|191645272|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-64.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.19|-57.68|||mixed-effects model|||||-57.68|-72.19|< 0.001
95837950|NCT01620528|191645273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.28|-22.59|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.59|-37.28|< 0.001
96001676|NCT03918642|191980885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.42|-1.99|0.85
96001677|NCT03918642|191980886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-5.88|0.03
95837951|NCT01620528|191645273|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.44|-54.36|||mixed-effects model|||||-54.36|-69.44|< 0.001
95837952|NCT01620528|191645274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.96|-21.31|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.31|-35.96|< 0.001
95837953|NCT01620528|191645274|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.95|-59.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-59.04|-73.95|< 0.001
95837954|NCT01620528|191645275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.2|-13.57|||mixed-effects model|||||-13.57|-29.20|< 0.001
95837955|NCT01620528|191645275|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-60.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.557|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-68.77|-52.79|||mixed-effects model|||||-52.79|-68.77|< 0.001
95837956|NCT01620528|191645276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.111|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.14|0.111
95837957|NCT01620528|191645276|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.18|0.008
95837958|NCT01620528|191645277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.092|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.18|0.092
95837959|NCT01620528|191645277|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.08|-0.28|< 0.001
95837960|NCT01620528|191645278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.017|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.01|-0.23|0.017
95837961|NCT01620528|191645278|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
95837962|NCT01620528|191645279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.31|-0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.07|-0.31|< 0.001
95837963|NCT01620528|191645279|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.51|< 0.001
95837964|NCT01620528|191645280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.27|0.004
95837965|NCT01620528|191645280|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.52|-0.27|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.27|-0.52|< 0.001
95837966|NCT01620528|191645281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.748||0.024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.4|-0.06|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.06|-12.40|0.024
95837967|NCT01620528|191645281|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.756||0.005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.9|-1.53|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.53|-13.90|0.005
95837968|NCT01620528|191645282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.226||0.078|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.93|1.56|||mixed-effects model|||||1.56|-12.93|0.078
95837969|NCT01620528|191645282|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.249|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.01|-6.42|||mixed-effects model|||||-6.42|-21.01|< 0.001
95837970|NCT01620528|191645283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.475||0.015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.27|-0.66|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.66|-16.27|0.015
95960884|NCT02554383|191893284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children developing AOM over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||.007
95960885|NCT02554383|191893285|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children receiving a systemic antibiotic over the first 10 days of follow-up.||||<0.001
95960886|NCT02554383|191893286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children for whom diarrhea or generalized rash was reported.||||0.004
95837971|NCT01620528|191645283|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.38|-14.6|||mixed-effects model|||||-14.60|-30.38|< 0.001
95837972|NCT01620528|191645284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.36|-5.87|||mixed-effects model|||||-5.87|-22.36|< 0.001
95837973|NCT01620528|191645284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.78|-22.04|||mixed-effects model|||||-22.04|-38.78|< 0.001
95837974|NCT01620528|191645285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.736||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.94|-3.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.16|-19.94|0.002
95837975|NCT01620528|191645285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.788|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.19|-21.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.18|-38.19|< 0.001
95837976|NCT01620528|191645286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.805||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.92|-3.83|||mixed-effects model|||||-3.83|-20.92|0.001
95837977|NCT01620528|191645286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-29.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.868|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.66|-21.28|||mixed-effects model|||||-21.28|-38.66|< 0.001
95837978|NCT01620528|191645287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.038|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.22|0.038
95837979|NCT01620528|191645287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.488|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||||0.08|-0.16|0.488
95837980|NCT01620528|191645288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.252|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.20|0.252
95837981|NCT01620528|191645288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||0.02|-0.25|0.058
95960887|NCT02554383|191893287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children compliant with study product.||||0.75
95960888|NCT02554383|191893288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Log-binomial regression|The p-value is adjusted for study site and presence of colored nasal discharge.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of children with a nonsusceptible pathogen at the follow-up visit.||||0.63
96001678|NCT03918642|191980887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-4.33|0.02
95837982|NCT01620528|191645289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.34|0.009
95837983|NCT01620528|191645289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.50|< 0.001
95837984|NCT01620528|191645290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.06|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||0.03|-0.30|0.060
95837985|NCT01620528|191645290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.10|-0.44|< 0.001
95837986|NCT01620528|191645291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.118|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.28|0.118
95837987|NCT01620528|191645291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.48|-0.13|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.13|-0.48|< 0.001
95837988|NCT01620528|191645292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.313|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.14|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.14|0.313
95837989|NCT01620528|191645292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-0.22|0.006
95837990|NCT01620528|191645293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.519|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.13|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||||0.07|-0.13|0.519
95837991|NCT01620528|191645293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.11|-0.32|< 0.001
95837992|NCT01620528|191645294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.037|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||||0.01|-0.23|0.037
95960889|NCT00727506|191893290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148||95.0||||P-value is from an approximate normal test for the 6 month time point.|z-test|||||||0.148
96001679|NCT03918642|191980888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.49||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-4.30|0.006
96001680|NCT03918642|191980889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-4.34|0.11
96001681|NCT03918642|191980890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.39||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-8.44|0.03
96001682|NCT03918642|191980891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-7.83|0.07
95837993|NCT01620528|191645294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.17|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.17|-0.41|< 0.001
95837994|NCT01620528|191645295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.05|||mixed-effects model|||||0.05|-0.19|0.200
95837995|NCT01620528|191645295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.18|-0.42|< 0.001
95837996|NCT01620528|191645296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.34|||ANOVA|||||-0.34|-0.72|< 0.001
96001683|NCT03918642|191980892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.10|0.36|0.005
96001684|NCT03918642|191980893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-0.40|0.17
95837997|NCT01620528|191645296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-0.93|< 0.001
95837998|NCT01620528|191645297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.19|||ANOVA|||||-0.19|-0.58|< 0.001
95862981|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.52||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95837999|NCT01620528|191645297|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.82|||ANOVA|||||-0.82|-1.21|< 0.001
95838000|NCT01620528|191645298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANOVA|||||-0.41|-0.81|< 0.001
96001685|NCT03918642|191980894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.44|-4.14|0.11
96001686|NCT03918642|191980895|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.57||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-5.73|0.11
96001687|NCT03918642|191980896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-2.33|0.33
96001688|NCT03918642|191980897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|-1.74|0.69
96001689|NCT03918642|191980898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|0.77|<0.001
96001690|NCT03918642|191980899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|0.62|<0.001
96001691|NCT03918642|191980900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|99.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||99.56|4.66|<0.001
95838001|NCT01620528|191645298|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.92|||ANOVA|||||-0.92|-1.32|< 0.001
95838002|NCT01620528|191645299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.42|||ANOVA|||||-0.42|-0.83|< 0.001
95838003|NCT01620528|191645299|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.05|||ANOVA|||||-1.05|-1.47|< 0.001
95838004|NCT01620528|191645300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.91|< 0.001
95838005|NCT01620528|191645300|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.1|||ANOVA|||||-1.10|-1.54|< 0.001
95838006|NCT01620528|191645301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-0.96|< 0.001
95960890|NCT00727506|191893290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is an approximate normal test for the six month time point.|z-test|||||||0.008
95960891|NCT00727506|191893292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95960892|NCT00727506|191893292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1954||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1954
95960893|NCT00727506|191893293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.088|2.912|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.912|1.088|0.0320
95960894|NCT00727506|191893293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.392||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|2.301|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio was calculated from Cox proportional hazard model stratified by age class (\<=50 vs. \>50 years old) and baseline KPS score (70, 80 vs. 90, 100). P-value was two-sided from log-rank test stratified by the same variables.||2.301|0.841|0.2044
95960895|NCT03459612|191893353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in Least Square (LS) means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.39|-0.43|<0.0001
95960896|NCT03459612|191893353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.20|0.32|<0.0001
95960897|NCT03459612|191893353|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|LS Means|4.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.58|6.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.38|3.58|<0.0001
95960898|NCT03459612|191893354|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-1.28|<0.0001
95838007|NCT01620528|191645301|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-1.11|||ANOVA|||||-1.11|-1.59|< 0.001
95838008|NCT01620528|191645302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.03|-0.52|0.011
95838009|NCT01620528|191645302|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.65|< 0.001
95838010|NCT01620528|191645303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.77|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.16|-0.77|<0.001
95838011|NCT01620528|191645303|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||-0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.65|-1.27|-0.96
95838012|NCT01620528|191645304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.17|-0.44|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.44|-1.17|< 0.001
95838013|NCT01620528|191645304|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.98|-1.24|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.24|-1.98|< 0.001
95838014|NCT01620528|191645305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.05|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
95838015|NCT01620528|191645305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.99|-1.23|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.23|-1.99|< 0.001
95838016|NCT01620528|191645306|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.04|-0.25|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.25|-1.04|< 0.001
95838017|NCT01620528|191645306|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.0|-1.2|||mixed-effects model|||||-1.20|-2.00|< 0.001
95838018|NCT01620528|191645307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|-3.21|||ANCOVA|||||-3.21|-9.37|< 0.001
95838019|NCT01620528|191645307|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-6.61|||ANCOVA|||||-6.61|-12.91|< 0.001
95838020|NCT01620528|191645308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-9.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-5.91|||ANCOVA|||||-5.91|-12.66|< 0.001
95862982|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
96001692|NCT03918642|191980901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|30.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.06|1.74|0.006
95838021|NCT01620528|191645308|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|-15.27|||ANCOVA|||||-15.27|-22.22|< 0.001
95838022|NCT01620528|191645309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.48|-8.66|||ANCOVA|||||-8.66|-16.48|< 0.001
95838023|NCT01620528|191645309|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.12|-21.09|||ANCOVA|||||-21.09|-29.12|< 0.001
95838024|NCT01620528|191645310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.02|||ANCOVA|||||3.02|-4.59|0.685
95838025|NCT01620528|191645310|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||||-1.05|-9.04|0.013
96001693|NCT03918642|191980902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|58.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.25|2.38|0.002
95838026|NCT01620528|191645311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-9.43|0.047
95838027|NCT01620528|191645311|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|-8.84|||ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.89|< 0.001
95838028|NCT01620528|191645312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|-10.43|0.107
95838029|NCT01620528|191645312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-11.5|||ANCOVA|||||-11.50|-23.52|< 0.001
95838030|NCT01620528|191645313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.61|0.741
95838031|NCT01620528|191645313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.90|0.002
95838032|NCT01620528|191645314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.16|0.172
95838033|NCT01620528|191645314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.97|< 0.001
95838034|NCT01620528|191645315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.90|0.016
95838035|NCT01620528|191645315|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-2.65|< 0.001
95838036|NCT01620528|191645316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-1.63|0.080
95838037|NCT01620528|191645316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-2.25|0.003
95838038|NCT01620528|191645317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.14|||ANCOVA|||||0.14|-1.44|0.106
95838039|NCT01620528|191645317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.67|< 0.001
95838040|NCT01620528|191645318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.97|0.232
96001694|NCT03918642|191980903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|43.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||43.67|0.99|0.05
96001695|NCT03918642|191980904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|225.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||225.44|0.86|0.06
96001696|NCT03918642|191980905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|89.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.30|0.35|0.22
95838041|NCT01620528|191645318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.93|||ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-3.48|< 0.001
95838042|NCT01620528|191645319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.65|0.013
95838043|NCT01620528|191645319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.90|-2.35|< 0.001
95838044|NCT01620528|191645320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-2.24|0.005
95838045|NCT01620528|191645320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.56|< 0.001
95838046|NCT01620528|191645321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-2.53|< 0.001
95838047|NCT01620528|191645321|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-3.02|< 0.001
95838048|NCT01620528|191645322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||||-0.38|-2.05|0.004
95838049|NCT01620528|191645322|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.06|< 0.001
95838050|NCT01620528|191645323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-1.74|0.013
95838051|NCT01620528|191645323|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.58|< 0.001
95838052|NCT01620528|191645324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-2.22|0.007
95862983|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95838053|NCT01620528|191645324|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-3.44|< 0.001
95838054|NCT01620528|191645325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.57|0.326
95838055|NCT01620528|191645325|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-3.67|0.031
95838056|NCT01620528|191645326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-3.13|0.107
95838057|NCT01620528|191645326|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-5.28|< 0.001
95838058|NCT01620528|191645327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-2.63|0.219
95838059|NCT01620528|191645327|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.59|< 0.001
95838060|NCT01620528|191645328|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-3.01|0.026
95838061|NCT01620528|191645328|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-2.43|||ANCOVA|||||-2.43|-5.34|< 0.001
95838062|NCT01620528|191645329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|-2.00|0.502
95838063|NCT01620528|191645329|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||||-1.56|-4.70|< 0.001
95838064|NCT01620528|191645330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-3.02|0.108
95838065|NCT01620528|191645330|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-6.19|< 0.001
95838066|NCT01620528|191645331|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.90|0.001
95838067|NCT01620528|191645331|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-1.76|0.004
95838068|NCT01620528|191645332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.02|||mixed-effects model|||||-0.02|-1.49|0.045
95838069|NCT01620528|191645332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.81|0.006
95838070|NCT01620528|191645333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.19|0.103
95838071|NCT01620528|191645333|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.64|0.003
95838072|NCT01620528|191645334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.01|0.390
95838073|NCT01620528|191645334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-1.75|0.003
95838074|NCT01620528|191645335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-0.72|0.460
95838075|NCT01620528|191645335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.57|< 0.001
95838076|NCT01620528|191645336|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.28|0.095
95838077|NCT01620528|191645336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-2.01|< 0.001
95838078|NCT01620528|191645337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|-2.61|0.462
95838079|NCT01620528|191645337|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.16|0.001
96001697|NCT03270085|191980906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
96001698|NCT03270085|191980907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
95862984|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.29||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862985|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95862986|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.05||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95862987|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.7||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95838080|NCT01620528|191645338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-3.93|0.039
95838081|NCT01620528|191645338|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-6.82|< 0.001
95862988|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95862989|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.5||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95862990|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.16||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95862991|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|1.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862992|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.3||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95862993|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.21||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95862994|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.12||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in hSBA after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95862995|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0015||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95960899|NCT03459612|191893354|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.88|-1.51|<0.0001
95960900|NCT03459612|191893354|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.45|3.17|<0.0001
95838082|NCT01620528|191645339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-4.21|0.032
95838083|NCT01620528|191645339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-6.95|< 0.001
95838084|NCT01620528|191645340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-4.26|0.010
95862996|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0057||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95862997|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95960901|NCT03459612|191893355|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Differnce in LS Means|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-2.30|<0.0001
95960902|NCT03459612|191893355|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-2.40|<0.0001
96001699|NCT03270085|191980908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95838085|NCT01620528|191645340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-3.36|||ANCOVA|||||-3.36|-7.14|< 0.001
95838086|NCT01620528|191645341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-3.02|0.215
95838087|NCT01620528|191645341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.20|-7.06|< 0.001
95838088|NCT01620528|191645342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-4.53|0.053
95838089|NCT01620528|191645342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||||-4.41|-9.17|< 0.001
95838090|NCT01620528|191645343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-3.24|< 0.001
95838091|NCT01620528|191645343|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-1.49|||ANCOVA|||||-1.49|-3.71|< 0.001
95838092|NCT01620528|191645344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-3.40|0.002
95838093|NCT01620528|191645344|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-3.98|< 0.001
95838094|NCT01620528|191645345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.39|< 0.001
95838095|NCT01620528|191645345|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-1.76|||ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-4.23|< 0.001
95838096|NCT01620528|191645346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-2.80|0.017
95862998|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.02||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95862999|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0048||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95863000|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0018||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Groups 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95838097|NCT01620528|191645346|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.98|||ANCOVA|||||-1.98|-4.50|< 0.001
95838098|NCT01620528|191645347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-2.22|0.038
95838099|NCT01620528|191645347|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.74|||ANCOVA|||||-1.74|-3.91|< 0.001
95838100|NCT01620528|191645348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.13|0.006
95838101|NCT01620528|191645348|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-2.44|||ANCOVA|||||-2.44|-5.06|< 0.001
95838102|NCT04569357|191645352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 25%.||||0.0199
95838103|NCT04569357|191645353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0096
95838104|NCT04569357|191645354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (attention deficit subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0063
95838105|NCT04569357|191645355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0525|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean changes of ADHD-RS-V scores (hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||||0.0525
95838106|NCT04569357|191645356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect analysis.||||0.0024
95838107|NCT04569357|191645356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.1722
95838108|NCT04569357|191645356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.0012
95838109|NCT04569357|191645357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
95863001|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.01||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95838110|NCT04569357|191645358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Systolic pressure data.||||0.81
95838111|NCT04569357|191645358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to Diastolic pressure data.||||0.22
95838112|NCT04569357|191645359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline visit 1 to visit 2 and 3 endpoint between Prospekta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.13
95838113|NCT04569357|191645360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95838114|NCT04569357|191645361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95838115|NCT04569357|191645362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95838116|NCT04569357|191645363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0254
95838117|NCT01457846|191645364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.57||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|2.21||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||2.21|1.12|0.9581
95838118|NCT01457846|191645365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|1.95||1-sided|Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.89|0.8156
95838119|NCT01457846|191645366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.02|0.35||1-sided|Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|0.02|0.9970
95838120|NCT03533244|191645391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218||||||To reserve the family-wise error rate, the main treatment effect will be first assessed at the global level at alpha = 0.05. If this is significant, then pairwise comparisons will be conducted using the Bonferroni adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||An empirical sample size estimation was used as this was an exploratory study. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between AG-86893 and AG-86893 Vehicle. It is expected that the active group is at least 50% better than the vehicle.||||0.218
95838121|NCT03533244|191645391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
95838122|NCT03533244|191645392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.193
95838123|NCT03533244|191645392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.399
95838124|NCT03533244|191645393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
95838125|NCT03533244|191645393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
95838126|NCT05546229|191645405|OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||patient plasma versus isf value for methadone||||.0049
95838127|NCT05546229|191645406|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|8 degrees of freedom||||||.0025
95838128|NCT00966550|191645409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95838129|NCT00847197|191645415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.3||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||4.3|-3.9|0.926
95838130|NCT00847197|191645416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.1||The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The test for the treatment difference in terms of percentage change from baseline to a given time point was done using the contrast statement.||For the analysis of percent change from baseline in LDL-C at study endpoint, a Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) method was used. The repeated measures model included terms for treatment, time (Day 15, 29), and the interaction of time-by-treatment. The analysis model also adjusted for baseline, baseline-by-time interaction, region and gender.||8.1|1.0|0.013
95838131|NCT00847197|191645417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.9|||Wilcoxon's Rank Sum Test|The significance test was 2-tailed with α=0.05.||Triglycerides was analyzed by non-parametric methods with terms for treatment, gender and region. Specifically, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was applied to the Tukey's normal scores of the percent change from baseline. The estimate of the difference in medians between MK1903 and the placebo groups utilizing the Hodges-Lehmann estimate and a distribution-free 95% CI for the difference based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test was provided.||-1.9|-18.9|0.02
95838132|NCT00622388|191645432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|20.0|||||Response rate is calculated as the number of responses divided by the number of participants treated, expressed as a percentage.|||20|5|
95838133|NCT03824587|191645479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.13|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.13|0.0004
95863002|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.0||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95838134|NCT03824587|191645480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0097
95838135|NCT03824587|191645481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0027
95838136|NCT03824587|191645482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
95838137|NCT02610777|191645485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.861||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.286||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.286|0.577|0.464
95838138|NCT02610777|191645486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|1.061||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival (EFS)||1.061|0.469|=0.092
95838139|NCT02610777|191645489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.562|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.579||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor.|||1.579|0.200|=0.267
95863003|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.27||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95838140|NCT02610777|191645490|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|9.61|||=|0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|28.04||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.04|-8.83|=0.312
95838141|NCT02610777|191645491|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|5.63||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|24.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||24.44|-13.19|0.560
95838142|NCT02610777|191645492|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|8.64|||=|0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|26.38||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||26.38|-9.09|=0.343
95838143|NCT02610777|191645493|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-18.82|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|15.26||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||15.26|-52.91|=0.296
95838144|NCT02610777|191645494|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|30.81||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.81|-4.49|=0.152
96001700|NCT04655586|191980911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715||||||All rNAPc2 vs. Heparin|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.4715
95838145|NCT02610777|191645495|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|10.53|||=|0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|30.18||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||30.18|-9.13|=0.301
95838146|NCT02610777|191645496|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|13.16|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|35.44||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||35.44|-9.12|=0.254
96001701|NCT04655586|191980912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1883|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.1883
96001702|NCT04655586|191980915|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||1.0
95838147|NCT02610777|191645497|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.71|||=|0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|28.92||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Absolute difference \>0 represent better response achieved on pevonedistat combination compared to azacitidine treatment alone.|||28.92|-38.33|=0.787
95838148|NCT02610777|191645498|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789|||=|0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.02||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||2.020|0.308|=0.620
95838149|NCT02610777|191645499|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.719|||=|0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.653||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.653|0.313|=0.436
95838150|NCT02610777|191645500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.662||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||1.662|0.395|=0.565
96001703|NCT04655586|191980916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0254
96001704|NCT04655586|191980917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.0535
96001705|NCT04655586|191980918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||All rNAPc2 doses (lower and higher) were pooled and compared to Heparin for statistical analysis presentation.||||0.8300
96001706|NCT00117338|191980969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.775||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.775
95838151|NCT02610777|191645501|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||=|0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|3.109||P-value comparing duration of CR in low blast AML between treatment groups is based on unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model and treatment as a factor in the model.|||3.109|0.057|=0.383
95838152|NCT02610777|191645502|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.206|||=|0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|2.081||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\>1 for the treatment indicates a shorter time to first CR, CRi or PR in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||2.081|0.699|=0.498
95863004|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.19||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup A||||
95838153|NCT02610777|191645503|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||=|0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|3.62||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to Subsequent Therapy in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||3.620|0.226|=0.888
95838154|NCT02610777|191645504|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|19.231|||=|0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.925|45.386||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBCs-transfusion Independence||45.386|-6.925|=0.162
95838155|NCT02610777|191645504|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|20.0|||=|0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.381|66.381||P-value is from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||66.381|-26.381|=0.454
96001707|NCT00117338|191980970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.931||95.0|-0.41|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.45|-0.41|0.931
96001708|NCT00117338|191980971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.975||95.0|0.61|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||1.61|0.61|0.975
96001709|NCT00117338|191980972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.612||95.0|-0.05|0.09|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.09|-0.05|0.612
96001710|NCT00117338|191980973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.774||95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.08|-0.06|0.774
96001711|NCT00117338|191980974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.173||95.0|-0.02|0.11|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||0.11|-0.02|0.173
96001712|NCT00117338|191980975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model (Nonparametric) based on Tukey's normalized ranks with terms treatment, region (US, non-US) and baseline FEV1 as covariate||||||0.580
96001713|NCT05057988|191980979|OTHER|paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.55|0.53|<.001
96001714|NCT05057988|191980980|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.17||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.37|-1.42|.208
95838156|NCT02610777|191645506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.198||P-value is from an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR is based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor. HR\<1for the treatment indicates a longer time to PD, Relapse, or Death in the Pevonedistat Combination arm compared to the Azacitidine only arm.|||1.198|0.521|=0.266
95838157|NCT01724866|191645512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.27|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||1.27|0.19|0.296
95838158|NCT01724866|191645512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.64|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.64|-0.28|0.002
95838159|NCT01724866|191645512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-values was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||-0.06|-0.56|<0.001
95838160|NCT01724866|191645513|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.74|0.06|0.001
95838161|NCT01724866|191645513|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.24|-0.16|<0.001
95838162|NCT01724866|191645513|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.06|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.06|-0.19|<0.001
95838163|NCT01724866|191645514|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.72|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.72|-0.07|0.002
95838164|NCT01724866|191645514|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.30|-0.27|<0.001
95863005|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95838165|NCT01724866|191645514|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.28|-0.27|<0.001
95838166|NCT01724866|191645515|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.47|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||2.47|-0.01|0.781
95838167|NCT01724866|191645515|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.38|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.38|-0.17|<0.001
95838168|NCT01724866|191645515|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI was \< 1 day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||Bootstrap method|||A 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean DSN between any 2 arms was calculated. Non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the proportion of treatment difference greater than 1 in the resampling.||0.22|-0.23|<0.001
95838169|NCT01724866|191645516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|1.1|0.002
95838170|NCT01724866|191645516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.6|0.711
95838171|NCT01724866|191645516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||0.9|0.1|0.028
95838172|NCT01724866|191645517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.672
96001715|NCT05057988|191980981|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.20|0.52|<.001
96001716|NCT05057988|191980982|OTHER|Paired t test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.65||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.47|-.84|.328
96001717|NCT05057988|191980983|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|4.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.16|1.26|<.001
96001718|NCT05057988|191980984|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.53|-1.22|.486
96001719|NCT05057988|191980985|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.57||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.99|-2.46|.832
95838173|NCT01724866|191645517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.3|0.5|0.348
95838174|NCT01724866|191645517|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.9|0.4|0.973
95838175|NCT01724866|191645518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.4|0.8|0.618
96001720|NCT05057988|191980986|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.47|-1.33|.340
96001721|NCT05057988|191980988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample t test||paired sample t test||0.89|-0.34|0.370
96001722|NCT05057988|191980988|OTHER|Paired T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.09||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.89|-.34|.370
96001723|NCT03065530|191981030|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The sample size was calculated on the basis of an our initial pilot study, and the SD was 1.4 between the four groups. We hypothesized that the differences in VAS between the four groups and the SDs would be 15%. A power analysis suggested that there will be 80% power to detect differences at an α=0.05 significance level (two-tailed), including 24 individuals per treatment group. Considering the exclusion of 25% of patients, 30 parturients were eventually recruited in each group.||||<0.05
96001724|NCT00479466|191981053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-17.3|||ANCOVA|||||-17.3|-44.0|<0.001
96001725|NCT00479466|191981053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-33.4|||ANCOVA|||||-33.4|-59.7|<0.001
96001726|NCT00479466|191981053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-38.0|||ANCOVA|||||-38.0|-64.3|<0.001
96001727|NCT00479466|191981053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-47.8|||ANCOVA|||||-47.8|-74.6|<0.001
96001728|NCT00479466|191981053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-22.4|||ANCOVA|||||-22.4|-48.6|<0.001
95838176|NCT01724866|191645518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.6|0.5|0.661
96001729|NCT00479466|191981054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.53|<0.001
96001730|NCT00479466|191981054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-1.91|<0.001
95838177|NCT01724866|191645518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||2.8|0.3|0.754
95838178|NCT01724866|191645519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.7|1.1|0.009
95838179|NCT01724866|191645519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||1.8|0.7|0.527
95838180|NCT01724866|191645519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||Log Rank|||A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its two-sided 95% CI.||3.9|0.4|0.815
95838181|NCT01724866|191645520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.008
95838182|NCT01724866|191645520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.911
95838183|NCT01724866|191645520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.002
95838184|NCT01724866|191645521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
95838185|NCT01724866|191645521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.633
96001731|NCT00479466|191981054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.31|||ANCOVA|||||-1.31|-2.07|<0.001
96001732|NCT00479466|191981054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.68|||ANCOVA|||||-1.68|-2.45|<0.001
95838186|NCT01724866|191645521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.027
95838187|NCT01724866|191645522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.015
95838188|NCT01724866|191645522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.571
95838189|NCT01724866|191645522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.066
95838190|NCT01724866|191645523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.106
95838191|NCT01724866|191645523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.156
95838192|NCT01724866|191645523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Asymptotic Normality Assumption|P-values was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||||0.005
95838193|NCT01724866|191645524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.8||||||||0.80|0.25|
95838194|NCT01724866|191645524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.04||||||||2.04|0.53|
95838195|NCT01724866|191645524|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.54||||||||4.54|1.40|
95838196|NCT01724866|191645525|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8||||||||0.80|0.30|
95838197|NCT01724866|191645525|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.79||||||||1.79|0.70|
95838198|NCT01724866|191645525|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.79||||||||2.79|1.07|
95838199|NCT01724866|191645526|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.89||||||||0.89|0.34|
95838200|NCT01724866|191645526|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85||||||||1.85|0.71|
95838201|NCT01724866|191645526|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.49||||||||2.49|0.97|
95838202|NCT01724866|191645527|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||||1.10|0.40|
95960903|NCT03459612|191893355|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value tests null hypothesis that difference in LS means ≥ 4.4 versus alternative hypothesis that difference in LS means \< 4.4.|Difference in LS Means|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.38|2.73|<0.0001
95960904|NCT03459612|191893356|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.15|
95960905|NCT03459612|191893356|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.1||||||||1.10|0.22|
95960906|NCT03459612|191893356|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.24||||||||1.24|0.39|
95838203|NCT01724866|191645527|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.38||||||||2.38|0.87|
95838204|NCT01724866|191645527|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.96||||||||2.96|1.23|
95838205|NCT01724866|191645532|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|24.9|||Fisher Exact|||||24.9|-20.2|1.000
95838206|NCT01724866|191645532|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
95838207|NCT01724866|191645532|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-26.7|1.000
95838208|NCT01724866|191645534|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-6.2||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|16.9|||Fisher Exact|||||16.9|-28.5|0.469
95838209|NCT01724866|191645534|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-5.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|18.7|||Fisher Exact|||||18.7|-29.3|0.710
95838210|NCT01724866|191645534|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-11.1||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.3|||Fisher Exact|||||13.3|-34.6|0.199
95838211|NCT01340586|191645544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.616|1.006||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.006|0.616|
95838212|NCT01340586|191645544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.697|1.173||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.173|0.697|
95838213|NCT01340586|191645544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.049||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.049|0.723|
95838214|NCT01340586|191645546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.553||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.553|0.907|
95838215|NCT01340586|191645546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.389|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.097|1.758||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.758|1.097|
95838216|NCT01340586|191645546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.033||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.033|0.707|
95838217|NCT01340586|191645548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.165|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.543||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.543|0.880|
95960907|NCT03459612|191893357|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.96||||||||0.96|0.00|
95960908|NCT03459612|191893357|SUPERIORITY||Differnce of Least Square Means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.14|
95960909|NCT03459612|191893357|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78||||||||1.78|0.81|
95960910|NCT03459612|191893358|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-1.10|
95960911|NCT03459612|191893358|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.89|
95960912|NCT03459612|191893358|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.96||||||||0.96|-0.09|
95960913|NCT03459612|191893359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.62||||||||1.62|-1.61|
95960914|NCT03459612|191893359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Lease Square Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|1.01||||||||1.01|-2.49|
95960915|NCT03459612|191893359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.89||||||||0.89|-2.32|
95960916|NCT03459612|191893360|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-3.52|
95960917|NCT03459612|191893360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.42||||||||1.42|-2.00|
95960918|NCT03459612|191893360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-2.08||||||||-2.08|-5.53|
95960919|NCT03459612|191893361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.15||||||||1.15|-1.71|
95960920|NCT03459612|191893361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08||||||||1.08|-1.71|
95960921|NCT03459612|191893361|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.27||||||||-1.27|-4.13|
95960922|NCT03459612|191893362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.6875|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.6875
95960923|NCT03459612|191893362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.3750
95863006|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.08||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup C||||
95863007|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.45||||0.0436||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||0.0436
95863008|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.17||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup W-135||||
95863009|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.37||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95863010|NCT00488683|191684590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-square|0.07||||||95.0|||||Regression, Linear||Values from Group 2 and 3 were combined for this analysis.|Linear regression coefficient between demographic factors, memory B cells one month after primary vaccination and rise in serogroup specific IgG concentration after booster vaccination age for the serogroup Y||||
95863011|NCT01767142|191684621|OTHER||sucess proportion|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.8|90.7||||||||90.7|74.8|
95863012|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|Comparison to baseline values||Evaluated within group across time||||0.49
95863013|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
95863014|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
95863015|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
95863016|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
95863017|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.31
95960924|NCT03459612|191893362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.0115|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0115
95863018|NCT00955201|191684623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.28
95863019|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.53
95863020|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
95863021|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
95863022|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
95863023|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.80
95863024|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.63
95863025|NCT00955201|191684624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wk||||0.31
95960925|NCT03459612|191893363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.1563|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1563
95838218|NCT01340586|191645548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.357|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.066|1.728||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose after hemodialysis over Normal Renal Function||1.728|1.066|
95838219|NCT01340586|191645548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.858|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.707|1.042||||||Geometric Mean Ratio: ESRD Dose before hemodialysis over ESRD Dose after hemodialysis||1.042|0.707|
95838220|NCT01173601|191645573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
95838221|NCT01173601|191645573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||||||In order to test the primary outcome between each LY2216684 dose and placebo while controlling the overall Type I error at 0.05, the significance level was a priori partitioned equally between the 2 LY2216684 dose-placebo comparisons at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.201
95863026|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.39
95863027|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
95863028|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||1.00
95863029|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
95863030|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.70
95863031|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.45
95863032|NCT00955201|191684625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.22
95863033|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
95863034|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.90
95863035|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
95863036|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.78
95863037|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.63
95863038|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wk||||0.97
95863039|NCT00955201|191684626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
95960926|NCT03459612|191893363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.5938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.5938
95863040|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
96001733|NCT00479466|191981054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-1.70|<0.001
96001734|NCT00479466|191981055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-34.3|||ANCOVA|||||-34.3|-79.4|<0.001
96001735|NCT00479466|191981055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.8|-48.2|||ANCOVA|||||-48.2|-91.8|<0.001
95838222|NCT04737278|191645594|OTHER|test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different from the baseline score in the Placebo group|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95863041|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.69
95863042|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.98
95863043|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
95863044|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.45
95863045|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.91
95863046|NCT00955201|191684627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.51
95863047|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
95838223|NCT04737278|191645594|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||test of the hypothesis that the score on day 28 is different than the baseline score||||0.01
95838224|NCT04737278|191645595|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 28. Between group comparison was made using ANCOVA accounting for baseline values, no significance at p\<0.05. Within group comparisons were made using the paired Student's t test.||||0.15
95838225|NCT04737278|191645596|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95838226|NCT04737278|191645596|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made between placebo and Cunermuspir at baseline||||0.03
95838227|NCT04737278|191645596|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison made at day 28||||0.01
95838228|NCT04737278|191645596|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28||||0.07
95838229|NCT04737278|191645597|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||base line between group comparisons||||0.54
95838230|NCT04737278|191645597|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
95863048|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.72
95863049|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
95863050|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
95863051|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.85
95863052|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.98
95863053|NCT00955201|191684628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.68
95863054|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.91
95863055|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
95863056|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.94
95863057|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.93
95863058|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.38
95863059|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
95863060|NCT00955201|191684629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.94
95863061|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
95863062|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.97
95863063|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
95863064|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
95863065|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.16
95863066|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.37
95863067|NCT00955201|191684630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.75
95863068|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
95863069|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
95863070|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
95863071|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
96001736|NCT00479466|191981055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.4|-65.3|||ANCOVA|||||-65.3|-109.4|<0.001
96001737|NCT00479466|191981055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.2|-79.1|||ANCOVA|||||-79.1|-124.2|<0.001
96001738|NCT00479466|191981055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.7|-38.8|||ANCOVA|||||-38.8|-82.7|<0.001
96001739|NCT01035606|191981062|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.01
96001740|NCT01035606|191981063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
96001741|NCT03626415|191981064|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.96|141.55|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||141.55|62.96|
95838231|NCT04737278|191645598|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
95838232|NCT04737278|191645599|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||The original report from KGK Synergize/Science did not specify if the results are ANCOVA or a between group comparison at 2ay 28||||<0.01
95838233|NCT04737278|191645600|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.31
95838234|NCT04737278|191645601|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
95838235|NCT04737278|191645602|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
95838236|NCT04737278|191645603|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
95838237|NCT04737278|191645604|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95838238|NCT04737278|191645605|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95838239|NCT04737278|191645606|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95838240|NCT04737278|191645607|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.48
95863072|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.28
95863073|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.28
95863074|NCT00955201|191684631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.83
95960927|NCT03459612|191893363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.0938|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0938
95960928|NCT03459612|191893364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.1250
95838241|NCT04737278|191645608|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
95838242|NCT04737278|191645609|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95838243|NCT04737278|191645610|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95838244|NCT04737278|191645610|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of neutrophils from baseline to day 28||||0.05
95838245|NCT04737278|191645611|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95838246|NCT04737278|191645612|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of baseline values||||0.47
95838247|NCT04737278|191645612|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison performed on data from day 28||||0.24
95838248|NCT04737278|191645613|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of eosinophil counts at day 28||||0.11
95838249|NCT04737278|191645614|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The day 28 basophil counts on day 28 were compared between the two arms of this study.||||0.98
95838250|NCT04737278|191645615|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This p value is for the treatment source. Visits (p=0.422) and visits x treatments (p=0.153) did not meet the threshold of significance.|ANOVA|||"All other statistical analyses were performed by KGK Synergize. This site was used to determine that the NLR were normally distributed https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/normality-test-calculator.php~Because these data fulfilled the assumptions of ANOVA, the data were analyzed using this site:~http://vassarstats.net/anova2u.html"||||0.025
95838251|NCT04737278|191645616|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of blood glucose in the Cunermuspir arm between enrollment baseline and day 28.||||0.06
95838252|NCT04737278|191645616|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of enrollment baseline blood glucose and day 28 in the placebo arm||||0.04
95838253|NCT04737278|191645616|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
95838254|NCT04737278|191645617|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
95838255|NCT04737278|191645618|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
95838256|NCT04737278|191645619|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95838257|NCT04737278|191645620|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
95838258|NCT04737278|191645620|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95838259|NCT04737278|191645620|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Blood sodium concentration between baseline and day 28 in the Placebo group.||||0.01
95838260|NCT04737278|191645621|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
95838261|NCT04737278|191645621|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentration upon enrollment and day 28 in the Cunermuspir participants||||<0.001
95838262|NCT04737278|191645621|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood potassium concentrations from enrollment to day 28 in participants in the Placebo arm.||||<0.001
95838263|NCT04737278|191645622|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.87
95838264|NCT04737278|191645622|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 chloride concentrations in the Cunermuspir group||||0.003
95838265|NCT04737278|191645622|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of blood chloride concentrations between baseline and day 28 in Placebo Arm participants||||0.003
95838266|NCT04737278|191645623|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Bilirubin concentrations between Placebo and Cunermuspir compared at day 28||||0.36
95838267|NCT04737278|191645623|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||comparison of bilirubin concentrations between baseline and day 28 in the Cunermuspir Arm||||0.72
95838268|NCT04737278|191645623|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||bilirubin concentrations compared between baseline and Day 28 in the Placebo Arm||||0.35
95838269|NCT04737278|191645624|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95838270|NCT04737278|191645624|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values in Cunermuspir group||||0.4
95838271|NCT04737278|191645624|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between baseline and day 28 values for the Placebo Arm||||0.8
95863075|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.99
95863076|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.97
95863077|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.82
95863078|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time||||0.96
95863079|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.55
95863080|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.31
95863081|NCT00955201|191684632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.32
95960929|NCT03459612|191893364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.9590
95838272|NCT04737278|191645625|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison of AST enzyme activity in blood on day 28 between Cunermuspir and Placebo||||0.62
95838273|NCT04737278|191645625|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison||||0.24
95838274|NCT04737278|191645625|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline to day 28 comparison of AST activity in Placebo group||||0.11
95838275|NCT04737278|191645626|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Comparison of GGT activities in blood of two arms: Cunermuspir and Placebo on Day 28|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||comparison between placebo and Cunermuspir at day 28||||0.11
95838276|NCT04737278|191645626|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Comparison of GGT activities in participants' blood at baseline and on day 28||||0.01
95838277|NCT04737278|191645626|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||Comparison of GGT activity in blood between Placebo Arm participants at baseline and on day 28||||0.97
95838278|NCT04737278|191645627|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons were made using ANCOVA||||0.03
95960930|NCT03459612|191893364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.76||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0097
95960931|NCT00143598|191893367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.76|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for centre||||1.76|.73|.58
95838279|NCT04737278|191645627|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline with day 28||||0.10
95838280|NCT04737278|191645627|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between baseline and day 28 serum copper concentrations in the Placebo Arm||||0.89
95838281|NCT03671213|191645628|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
95838282|NCT03688074|191645638|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|0.35||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter : Eosinophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.05, 0.41)|0.35|0.06|<0.001
95838283|NCT03688074|191645638|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.36||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.86||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Neutrophils (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.94, 1.97)|1.86|0.99|0.106
95838284|NCT03688074|191645638|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.12||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD3+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.86, 1.46)|1.40|0.90|0.389
95838285|NCT03688074|191645638|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.18||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.48||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: T cells CD4+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.90, 1.55)|1.48|0.94|0.216
95838286|NCT03688074|191645638|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.83||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.09||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Tryptase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.61, 1.15)|1.09|0.64|0.260
95838287|NCT03688074|191645638|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.19||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.92||Nominal p-values were reported. No adjustment of multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment+log transformed baseline value+stratification factor (screening eos count \[\<150, 150-\<300, \>=300 cells/uL\])|Parameter: Mast cells Chymase+ (cells/mm\^2)||95% CI (0.67, 2.10)|1.92|0.74|0.546
95838288|NCT01362608|191645641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-28.2|<0.0001
95838289|NCT01362608|191645642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.10|0.0043
95838290|NCT01128244|191645669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.20
95838291|NCT01128244|191645670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.62
95838292|NCT01128244|191645671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||<0.001
95838293|NCT01128244|191645672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance, P\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.45
95960932|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||12.9|-30.8|
95960933|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
95960934|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||12.9|-30.8|
95960935|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall redness events||25.5|-16.4|
95960936|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||1.3|-41.7|
95960937|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall tingling events||18.7|-23.3|
96001742|NCT03626415|191981064|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adusted Geometric Means|105.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.38|158.24|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||158.24|70.38|
96001743|NCT03626415|191981065|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|133.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|206.28|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||206.28|86.17|
95838294|NCT01128244|191645673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test of treatment effect.|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.|t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed by paired t-test adjusted for multiple testing by Sidak methods.||||<0.05
95838295|NCT01979952|191645708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.237|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.227|15.579|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.579|-9.227|
95838296|NCT01979952|191645709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.258|15.296|||ANCOVA|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline HRCT QLF score as covariate||15.296|-10.258|
95838297|NCT01979952|191645710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|69.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|146.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||146.75|-8.74|
95838298|NCT01979952|191645711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|As per the Clinical Trial Protocol, this is an exploratory trial hence p-values were not calculated.||MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient. Within-patient errors are modelled by unstructured covariance matrix.||5.00|-0.29|
96001744|NCT03626415|191981065|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Mean|153.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.52|238.25|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||238.25|99.52|
96001745|NCT03626415|191981066|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|75.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.39|100.47|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||100.47|57.39|
95838299|NCT01979952|191645713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||4.79|-4.89|
95838300|NCT01979952|191645714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|50.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||50.09|-14.21|
95838301|NCT01979952|191645715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model included treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit as fixed effects and patient as random effect. Unstructured covariance was assumed for within patient variation||11.25|-1.47|
95838302|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.053||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.104||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.104|0.003|0.040
96001746|NCT03626415|191981066|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.59|111.33|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||111.33|63.59|
96001747|NCT03626415|191981067|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.71|126.08|||ANOVA|||Mild Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||126.08|72.71|
95838303|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.153|0.052|<0.001
95838304|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.192|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.243||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.243|0.141|<0.001
95838305|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.224|0.123|<0.001
95838306|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.170|0.070|<0.001
95838307|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.14||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.140|0.039|<0.001
95838308|NCT01053988|191645733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.071||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.121||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.021|0.006
95838309|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.033||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.088|-0.022|0.241
96001748|NCT03626415|191981067|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|114.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|151.2|||ANOVA|||Moderate Hepatic Impairment (Test) versus Normal Hepatic Function (Reference)||151.20|87.19|
95838310|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.067||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.121|0.012|0.017
95838311|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.184||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.184|0.074|<0.001
95838312|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.169|0.060|<0.001
95838313|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.136||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.136|0.028|0.003
95838314|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.117||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.117|0.008|0.025
95838315|NCT01053988|191645734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.102|-0.006|0.082
95838316|NCT02932748|191645740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A global one-way ANOVA was followed by two pairwise t-tests on the comparisons of interest, i.e., IP vs. EUC, and GP vs IP for weight change across 6 months, evaluated at p ≤ 0.025, using both intent-to-treat and completer only data.|ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95838317|NCT04124705|191645748|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-4.23|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for the primary efficacy endpoint, sustained TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance (equivalent to a two-sided 5% level of significance).||-4.23|-26.10|
95863082|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.81
95863083|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.92
95960938|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||8.3|-35.2|
95960939|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall itching events||32.2|-9.5|
95838318|NCT04124705|191645749|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for stratified response rate difference was greater than the non-inferiority margin, the null hypothesis would be rejected and the noninferiority of Armour Thyroid to levothyroxine would be declared.|Stratified Response Rate Difference|-10.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-2.38|||||The response rate difference (Armour Thyroid group minus Levothyroxine group) and the 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel-weighted method with the age group (age \< 65 years or ≥ 65 years) as a stratification factor.|The null hypothesis was that Armour Thyroid would be inferior to levothyroxine for titration TSH response. The non-inferiority hypothesis test was performed at a 1-sided 2.5% level of significance.||-2.38|-18.65|
95838319|NCT04164732|191645752|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|1.94|||longitudinal mixed effects (MMRM) model|||||1.94|-0.71|0.5506
95838320|NCT02160145|191645760|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.271|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.684||A 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Weighted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with effects of treatment and randomization stratification factors and covariate baseline.||Tolvaptan versus placebo. Treatment difference in the change of eGFR assessed the efficacy of tolvaptan treatment as compared with placebo in subjects with late-stage CKD due to ADPKD who tolerated tolvaptan during an initial run-in period.||1.684|0.859|<0.0001
95838321|NCT02160145|191645761|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|1.403||A two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied when the primary endpoint reached a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference in treatment effect was derived from a linear mixed model with effects of treatment, time, treatment ime interaction, acute haemodynamic effect, pretreatment baseline, and randomization stratification factors. An unstructured variance matrix was assumed for the random intercept and time.||1.403|0.618|<0.0001
95960940|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|12.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||12.9|-30.8|
95960941|NCT01568112|191893373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall warmth events||25.5|-16.4|
95863084|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.93
95863085|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
95863086|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.50
95863087|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.47
95863088|NCT00955201|191684633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.97
95863089|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.83
95863090|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.91
96001749|NCT02433288|191981114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0019
96001750|NCT02433288|191981115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0017
95838322|NCT02540993|191645779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.928||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.03282695.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.928|0.732|= 0.0014
95838323|NCT02540993|191645780|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.989||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.989|0.747|= 0.0339
95838324|NCT02540993|191645781|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.895|||=|0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.075||P-value from stratified log-rank test. Significance was considered to be achieved if p-value ≤ 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.075|0.746|= 0.2348
95838325|NCT02540993|191645782|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.946|||=|0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.022||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.022|0.876|= 0.1623
95838326|NCT02540993|191645783|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|0.715||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups.|ANCOVA|||||0.715|0.662|< 0.0001
95838327|NCT02540993|191645784|SUPERIORITY|If treatment effect on both primary and key secondary endpoint is significant, other secondary efficacy endpoints (i.e. all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and secondary renal composite endpoint) will be tested hierarchically, starting with all-cause mortality. If treatment effect on all-cause mortality was not significant, all other endpoints would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.648|0.9||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.900|0.648|= 0.0012
95838328|NCT02578186|191645785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0312|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0312
95838329|NCT01743040|191645791|NON_INFERIORITY|15% equivalency margin against performance of SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both sensitivity and specificity were measured and the equivalency margin was set the same for both parameters.The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||||0.012|||||||Exact binomial test|||The goal was to test the Sensitivity and specificity of CADence as compared to SPECT nuclear stress test OPC. Both were measured and reported in this study. The Sensitivity of CADence was 78% (95% CI 76.1-90.8%) while the specificity was 36% (95% CI 32-39%).||||0.012
95838330|NCT02713659|191645792|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.85
95863091|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||1.00
95863092|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.95
96001751|NCT02433288|191981116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.91|-13.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-13.57|-26.91|<0.0001
95838331|NCT02713659|191645792|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expressive standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.53
95863093|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.26
95863094|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.42
95863095|NCT00955201|191684634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.95
95863096|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.96
95863097|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.53
95863098|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.79
95863099|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.94
96001752|NCT02433288|191981117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-4.56|0.3939
96001753|NCT02433288|191981118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|4.53|||ANCOVA|linear model including terms for randomized group and baseline LDL-C||||4.53|-3.27|0.7514
95838332|NCT02713659|191645792|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total standard score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the Early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.49
95838333|NCT02713659|191645793|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total read scale score between infants at 6 months and 24 months of age in the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm||||0.57
95838334|NCT02713659|191645794|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child well visits between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.23
95838335|NCT02713659|191645794|EQUIVALENCE|0.05||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of up to date child vaccinations between the early literacy arm and the standard literacy arm at 6 months of age||||0.71
95838336|NCT00766051|191645802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||The P value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons or for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The expected outcome was that infants in the intervention group would exhibit significantly less number of days to attain oral feeding.||11|5|<0.005
95838337|NCT00766051|191645803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.275|||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|This correlation is between the intervention groups' initial level of relaxation and final level of relaxation during the oral feeding period.||Pearson Correlation, 2-tailed||||< 0.01
95838338|NCT00766051|191645804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2|<|0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0||6.7|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means more parent confidence.|"Parent pre-post one sided t test of parents' global confidence, measured parental confidence in feeding, handling, and interacting with their infant."||6.7||< .02
95838339|NCT00766051|191645805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3|<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.54|||t-test, 1 sided||An increase in this test scale score means an increase in the parents' perception of their infants' easiness during caregiving.|Parent pre-post one sided t test on the Easiness Scale of the Mother and Baby Scales in how parents percieve their interactions (alert-responsiveness, mood) with their infant and infant sleep patterns .||4.54||< .03
95838340|NCT03755661|191645810|OTHER|pilot data to estimate effect size f-squared as the parameter as primary outcome||||||0.048||||||provide inferential statistics for data completion. Study is not designed to detect significant differences between groups|Regression, Linear|R-square change = .12; F-change (1, 20) = 4.44||pilot study to calculate effect size, study is not powered to detect significant group differences|"Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of heavy drinking episodes entered in step 1 and condition in step 2~f- squared = .22"|||.048
95838341|NCT03755661|191645811|SUPERIORITY|"The main outcome variable is f-squared as an estimate of differences between conditions controlling for baseline value.~A statistical test is provided only for completeness as this study is not powered to detect significant effects"||||||0.34||||||F-change (1, 20) = 0.97|Regression, Linear|||pilot trial to compute effect size estimate|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.34
95838342|NCT03755661|191645812|SUPERIORITY|This is a pilot trial to estimate effect sizes and not powered to detect significant differences||||||0.2||||||data provided for completeness, not powered to test differences|Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.80|||Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .058|||.20
95960942|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|8.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||8.3|-35.2|
95838343|NCT03755661|191645813|SUPERIORITY|Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences. Data from analyses presented for completeness. Primary outcome is effect size estimates||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|F-change (1, 20) = 1.83||Pilot trial not powered to detect significant group differences|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .09, r-squared change = .048|||.19
95838344|NCT03755661|191645814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||F-change (1, 19) = 1.34|Regression, Linear|||Not powered to test significant differences. provide data on effect size estimate below|Computed f-squared as effect size estimate where baseline value of CAI entered in step 1 and condition in step 2 f- squared = .05, r-squared change = .04|||.26
95960943|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|32.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||32.2|-9.5|
95960944|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|3.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||3.7|-39.6|
95960945|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||27.8|-14.1|
95960946|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||1.3|-41.7|
95960947|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||27.8|-14.1|
95960948|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-10.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-10.6|-52.2|
95960949|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|21.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||21.0|-21.0|
95960950|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||1.3|-41.7|
95960951|NCT01568112|191893374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|38.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||38.8|-2.4|
95960952|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.2|-35.6|
95960953|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||21.7|-24.7|
95838345|NCT02038075|191645815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.87|||Regression, Cox|||To determine the effectiveness of brief CBT compared with treatment as usual, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to analyze time to the first suicide attempt. Time to suicide attempt was measured by calculating the total number of days from enrollment to the first suicide attempt. For participants without a suicide attempt, the total number of days from enrollment to the last assessment was calculated.||.87|.16|.02
95838346|NCT04000581|191645825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change is equal between the groups, while the alternative is that an increased difference is observed in arm 2. The hypotheses are evaluated using a one-sided, two-sample t-test.||||0.329
95838347|NCT02478255|191645839|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95838348|NCT02519595|191645844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
95838349|NCT02519595|191645845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.09
95838350|NCT02519595|191645846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2
95838351|NCT02519595|191645848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events in ED||||0.8
95838352|NCT02519595|191645848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Post discharge Emesis||||0.5
95960954|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||9.2|-35.6|
95960955|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|23.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||23.7|-22.9|
95960956|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||11.9|-33.0|
96001754|NCT00367640|191981119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0006
95838353|NCT02519595|191645849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95838354|NCT00387036|191645850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||||90.0|-1.59|-0.25||||||||-0.25|-1.59|
95838355|NCT00387036|191645851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||||90.0|-0.28|6.61||||||||6.61|-0.28|
95838356|NCT03188510|191645852|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.17||||||||1.17|0.805|
95838357|NCT03188510|191645852|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|1.22||||||||1.22|0.841|
95838358|NCT03188510|191645852|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|1.18||||||||1.18|0.819|
95838359|NCT03188510|191645853|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.18||||||||1.18|0.811|
95838360|NCT03188510|191645853|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|1.21||||||||1.21|0.833|
95838361|NCT03188510|191645853|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.18||||||||1.18|0.817|
95838362|NCT01736618|191645862|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|92.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|91.4|||||||"Ho: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 85.0% Ha: The Type I Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 85.0%.~Ha: p1 \> 85.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 85.0%."|||91.4|
95838363|NCT01736618|191645863|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|98.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.4|||||||"Ho: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 94.0% Ha: Overall Shock Effectiveness in Converting Spontaneous Discrete Episodes of VT/VF through 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 94.0%.~Ha: p1 \>94.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 94.0%."|||97.4|
95838364|NCT01736618|191645864|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||"Ho: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 92.5% Ha: The Electrode-Related Complication Free Rate at 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 92.5%.~Ha: p1 \> 92.5% The null hypothesis will be rejected if the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound of the proportional means model estimate, using the Peto method for standard error, exceeds the performance goal of 92.5%."|||98.8|
95838365|NCT01736618|191645865|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson exact confidence bound|94.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.5|||||||"Ho: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does not exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ho: p1 ≤ 84.0% Ha: The 1st Shock Effectiveness in Converting Induced (Acute) \& Spontaneous Discrete VT/VF Episodes to 60 months (p1) does exceed the performance goal of 84.0%.~Ha: p1 \>84.0% The null hypothesis will be rejected if lower one-sided 95% exact confidence bound of the estimate exceeds the performance goal of 84.0%."|||93.5|
95863100|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.75
95863101|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.51
95960957|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|18.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||18.8|-27.5|
95960958|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|6.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||6.5|-38.1|
95960959|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|12.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||12.2|-34.2|
95960960|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||3.8|-40.6|
96001755|NCT00367640|191981119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.0001
96001756|NCT00367640|191981119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA of the average RTSS, with treatment and pooled sites as factors, and retrospective RTSS, asthma and sensitised status as covariates.|ANCOVA|||A step-down approach is performed to address the multiplicity issue.||||0.4606
96001757|NCT02417233|191981123|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.958||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.62|0.848
95838366|NCT04167137|191645874|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|Because only 1 participant experienced a DLT (Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome in Arm 1 Cohort 6), no MTD could be reached.|||
95838367|NCT02714283|191645920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|Due to the small sample size in the macrolide monotherapy group, for this outcome, the results are considered exploratory/descriptive only.||1.14|0.51|0.19
95838368|NCT02714283|191645921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.57|1.23|<0.0001
95838369|NCT02714283|191645922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.09|0.67|0.21
95838370|NCT02714283|191645923|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||0.82|0.64|<0.0001
95838371|NCT02714283|191645924|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.32|0.80|0.87
95838372|NCT02714283|191645925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.07|0.76|0.23
95838373|NCT02714283|191645926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history.|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|0.96|0.20
95838374|NCT02714283|191645927|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.21|1.08|<0.0001
95838375|NCT02714283|191645928|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.51|0.66|0.99
95838376|NCT02714283|191645929|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.25|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for propensity score decile, oral corticosteroid use, and NTM history|ICS (numerator) compared to macrolide monotherapy (denominator)|||1.25|1.07|0.0005
95838377|NCT02921087|191645934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the primary outcome (change in overall VAS at day 7) mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.07
95838378|NCT02921087|191645936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for accommodative response mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.01
95838379|NCT02921087|191645937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the change in CISS, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.77
95838380|NCT02921087|191645938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for the CLDEQ-8, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.69
95838381|NCT02921087|191645939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Least-squares adjusted means were obtained and compared.||In order to analyze the 2 x 2 crossover design for phoria, mixed model analysis was utilized, allowing the sequences of each subject to be modeled as repeated measures within PROC Mixed.||||0.87
95838382|NCT02697435|191645947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95838383|NCT02964767|191645950|OTHER||||||<|0.049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.049
95855212|NCT04973449|191669972|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-35.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.46|-28.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-28.44|-41.46|
96001758|NCT02417233|191981123|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.492||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.49|0.90|0.125
96001759|NCT02417233|191981124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.866||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.48|0.636
96001760|NCT02417233|191981124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.401||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.26|0.87|0.165
96001761|NCT02417233|191981125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.55|0.86|0.16
95863102|NCT00955201|191684635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.63
96001762|NCT02417233|191981125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.06|0.03
96001763|NCT02417233|191981126|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.45|0.03|0.24
96001764|NCT02417233|191981126|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.16|0.59|0.20
96001765|NCT02417233|191981127|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.943||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.21|0.90|0.093
96001766|NCT02417233|191981127|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.764||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.83|0.81|0.152
95960961|NCT01568112|191893375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|5.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||5.5|-40.2|
95960962|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||-0.9|-3.0|
96001767|NCT00532883|191981139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||This is a global test comparing all four treatment arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||F-test from a longitudinal mixed model (controlling for baseline measurement)testing the hypothesis of no difference in mean percent dense cells between the four treatment groups at Visit 6. The study was originally powered to detect a difference of 20%, but it was stopped early.||||0.93
96001768|NCT02285010|191981173|NON_INFERIORITY|Definition: 50% reduction of morphine consumption Type I error (alpha) 0.05, Type II error (beta) 80%||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
96001769|NCT02285010|191981174|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, Beta 80%||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.10
96001770|NCT02285010|191981175|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at rest||||0.33
96001771|NCT02285010|191981175|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||for NRS at movement||||0.75
96001772|NCT02285010|191981176|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||For pruritus||||0.16
96001773|NCT02285010|191981176|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||For Nausea||||0.66
96001774|NCT02285010|191981176|NON_INFERIORITY|alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||For Vomiting||||0.46
95838384|NCT03058692|191645955|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
95838385|NCT03058692|191645955|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
95838386|NCT03058692|191645956|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
95855213|NCT04973449|191669973|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-24.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-18.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-18.56|-31.06|
95960963|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||2.3|0.2|
96001775|NCT02285010|191981176|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||For Dizziness||||0.54
95960964|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||-1.2|-3.2|
95855214|NCT04973449|191669974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.56|-1.63|
95855215|NCT04973449|191669975|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|-14.98||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-14.98|-23.80|
95855216|NCT04973449|191669976|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|39.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.68|45.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||45.21|32.68|
95960965|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||2.5|0.1|
95960966|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||-0.7|-2.8|
96001776|NCT02285010|191981176|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For visual disturbance||||0.05
96001777|NCT02285010|191981177|NON_INFERIORITY|Alpha 0.05, beta 80%||||||0.05||||||P-Value 0.05 was calculated.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
96001778|NCT01847547|191981178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||||95.0|0.64|1.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.70|0.64|
95960967|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||2.3|0.1|
95960968|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.9|-2.7|
95960969|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||1.6|-0.4|
95960970|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-1.0|-2.8|
95960971|NCT01568112|191893376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||2.2|0.2|
95863103|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.98
95863104|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.99
95863105|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluated within group across time.||||0.89
95863106|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.90
95863107|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.98
95863108|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.94
95863109|NCT00955201|191684636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.91
95863110|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
95863111|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
95863112|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
95863113|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863114|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.96
95863115|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.86
95863116|NCT00955201|191684637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.92
95863117|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.03
95863118|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.29
95863119|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.36
95863120|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Unpaired two-tailed t-test:|t-test, 2 sided|||Evaluate within group pre- and post-test responses across time.||||0.15
95960972|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.8|-1.7|
95863121|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-responses across groups at baseline.||||0.20
95863122|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 12 wks.||||0.51
95863123|NCT00955201|191684638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||Comparison of pre- and post-test responses across groups at 24 wks.||||0.59
95863124|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
95863125|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.01
95863126|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
95863127|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.98
95863128|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.96
95863129|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.06
95863130|NCT00955201|191684639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.14
95960973|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||0.4|-1.8|
95960974|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.6|-2.0|
95960975|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Redness events||0.5|-1.9|
95960976|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.4|-2.0|
95960977|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Warmth events||0.2|-2.1|
95960978|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||0.1|-2.2|
95960979|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Tingling events||-0.0|-2.2|
95960980|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||0.4|-2.1|
95838387|NCT03058692|191645956|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.73
95838388|NCT03058692|191645957|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
95838389|NCT03058692|191645957|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
95838390|NCT03058692|191645958|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
95838391|NCT03058692|191645958|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
95960981|NCT01568112|191893377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Itching events||-0.1|-2.4|
95960982|NCT01568112|191893378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|9.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||9.5|-32.2|
95960983|NCT01568112|191893378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Overall flushing events||27.8|-14.1|
95960984|NCT01568112|191893379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||0.1|-41.0|
95960985|NCT01568112|191893379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
95960986|NCT01568112|191893380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|3.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||3.8|-40.6|
95960987|NCT01568112|191893380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-24.7|
95960988|NCT01568112|191893381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|22.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||22.0|-22.0|
95960989|NCT01568112|191893381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|25.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.5|-16.4|
95960990|NCT01568112|191893382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|19.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||19.7|-24.2|
95960991|NCT01568112|191893382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|18.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.7|-23.3|
95960992|NCT01568112|191893383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|17.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||17.1|-29.4|
95960993|NCT01568112|191893383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|24.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||24.5|-22.1|
95960994|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||1.1|-1.1|
95960995|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.9|-1.1|
95960996|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.8|-1.4|
95960997|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.1|-1.7|
95960998|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.6|-0.5|
95838392|NCT03058692|191645959|OTHER|||||||0.0078||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0078
95838393|NCT03058692|191645959|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
95838394|NCT03058692|191645960|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
95838395|NCT03058692|191645960|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
95838396|NCT03058692|191645961|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
95960999|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||1.3|-0.7|
95961000|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.9|-1.0|
95961001|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.8|-1.1|
95961002|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.7|-0.6|
95961003|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.5|-0.6|
95961004|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.3|-1.0|
95961005|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.8|-0.8|
95855217|NCT04973449|191669977|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.62||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.62|-1.62|
95855218|NCT04973449|191669978|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.59||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.59|0.45|
95855219|NCT04973449|191669979|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.86||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.86|0.68|
95961006|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-1.0|
95961007|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.9|-0.8|
95961008|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Bloating||1.1|-0.7|
95961009|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.9|
95961010|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.9|-0.8|
95961011|NCT01568112|191893384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||1.1|-0.7|
95961012|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-1.0|
95961013|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.8|-0.8|
95961014|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.4|-1.7|
95961015|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||0.2|-1.7|
95961016|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.6|-0.7|
95961017|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||0.8|-0.7|
95863131|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863132|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.36
95863133|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
95863134|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.46
95863135|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.14
95863136|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.05
95863137|NCT00955201|191684640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.01
95863138|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
95863139|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
95863140|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.67
95863141|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.55
95863142|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.40
95863143|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.47
95863144|NCT00955201|191684641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.43
95961018|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||0.7|-0.6|
95863145|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.84
95863146|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
95863147|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
95863148|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.94
95863149|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.88
95863150|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.48
95863151|NCT00955201|191684642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
95863152|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
95863153|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
95863154|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.51
95863155|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.89
95863156|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.46
95863157|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.72
95863158|NCT00955201|191684643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24wks.||||0.22
95863159|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
95863160|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.99
95863161|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
95961019|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||1.3|-0.2|
95961020|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.4|-0.4|
95961021|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||0.2|-0.4|
95961022|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.6|-0.6|
95961023|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||0.5|-0.7|
95961024|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||1.0|-0.1|
95961025|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||0.6|-0.2|
95961026|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.7|-0.8|
95961027|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||0.8|-0.7|
95961028|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||-0.0|-1.6|
95961029|NCT01568112|191893385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||0.5|-1.2|
95863162|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
95961030|NCT01568112|191893386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
95961031|NCT01568112|191893386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|30.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||30.0|-11.8|
95961032|NCT01568112|191893387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.3|-18.8|
95961033|NCT01568112|191893387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|27.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||27.8|-14.1|
95961034|NCT01568112|191893388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|14.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||14.3|-32.1|
95961035|NCT01568112|191893388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|21.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||21.7|-25.0|
95961036|NCT01568112|191893395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|34.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||34.1|-20.9|
95961037|NCT01568112|191893395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|25.7|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||25.7|-14.2|
95961038|NCT01568112|191893396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|70.9|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||70.9|-26.5|
95961039|NCT01568112|191893396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|23.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||23.6|-20.5|
95961040|NCT01568112|191893397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|44.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||44.2|-9.2|
95961041|NCT01568112|191893397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|18.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|||18.0|-17.2|
95961042|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|12.26|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||12.26|-6.34|
95961043|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|0.67|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.67|-8.81|
95961044|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|26.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||26.63|-3.15|
95961045|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.77|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||6.77|-2.67|
95961046|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|25.14|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||25.14|-6.72|
95961047|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||5.63|-11.31|
95961048|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|12.19|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||12.19|-18.36|
95838397|NCT03058692|191645961|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
95838398|NCT03058692|191645962|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
95838399|NCT03058692|191645963|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
95838400|NCT03058692|191645963|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.5
95838401|NCT03058692|191645964|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
95838402|NCT03058692|191645964|OTHER|||||||0.74||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.74
95838403|NCT03058692|191645965|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
95961049|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|8.35|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.35|-20.71|
95863163|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.39
95863164|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.59
95961050|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|6.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||6.49|-22.90|
95961051|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.536|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|11.47|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||11.47|-30.13|
95838404|NCT03058692|191645965|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.90
95838405|NCT03058692|191645966|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.87
95838406|NCT03058692|191645966|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.57
95838407|NCT03058692|191645967|OTHER|||||||0.82||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.82
95838408|NCT03058692|191645967|OTHER|||||||0.076||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.076
95838409|NCT03058692|191645968|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>0.99
95838410|NCT03058692|191645968|OTHER|||||||0.75||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.75
95838411|NCT03058692|191645969|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
95838412|NCT03058692|191645969|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.50
95838413|NCT03058692|191645970|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
95838414|NCT03058692|191645970|OTHER||||||>|0.99||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||>.99
95838415|NCT03058692|191645971|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.81
95838416|NCT03058692|191645971|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.47
95838417|NCT03058692|191645972|OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0061
95838418|NCT03058692|191645972|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.28
95838419|NCT03058692|191645973|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.36
95838420|NCT03058692|191645973|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.32
95838421|NCT03058692|191645974|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.42
95838422|NCT03058692|191645974|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
95855220|NCT04973449|191669980|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|1.79||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.79|1.43|
95961052|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|4.63|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||4.63|-30.02|
95961053|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.654|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|6.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.32|-29.48|
95961054|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|7.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||7.57|-35.44|
95961055|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.369|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.39|18.81|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||18.81|-33.39|
95961056|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|5.93|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||5.93|-20.40|
95961057|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.455|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|131.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||131.4|-10.78|
95961058|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|59.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|191.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||191.2|-71.51|
95838423|NCT03058692|191645975|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
95838424|NCT03058692|191645975|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.56
95838425|NCT03058692|191645976|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.97
95863165|NCT00955201|191684644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.29
95961059|NCT01568112|191893398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|136.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||136.6|-27.09|
95961060|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|14.68|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||14.68|-6.79|
95961061|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.563|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|0.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||0.83|-9.57|
95961062|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|29.86|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||29.86|-2.84|
95961063|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|7.29|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||7.29|-2.41|
95961064|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|27.5|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||27.50|-5.81|
95961065|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|7.09|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||7.09|-12.08|
95961066|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.488|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.03|15.64|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||15.64|-19.03|
95961067|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.93|8.11|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||8.11|-23.93|
95961068|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|17.6|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||17.60|-23.80|
95961069|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|13.0|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Vomiting||13.00|-22.75|
95961070|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.05|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||9.05|-59.20|
95961071|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.89|6.98|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||6.98|-54.89|
95961072|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.847|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|10.39|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||10.39|-35.38|
95961073|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.79|20.13|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||20.13|-32.79|
95961074|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.442|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.87|10.41|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||10.41|-15.87|
95961075|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|185.8|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||185.8|-22.04|
95961076|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.13|93.18|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||93.18|-40.13|
95961077|NCT01568112|191893399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.055|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|135.2|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||135.2|-31.65|
95961078|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|3.99|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||3.99|-7.35|
95863166|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time||||0.97
95863167|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863168|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.09
95863169|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.05
95863170|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.11
95838426|NCT03058692|191645976|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
95961079|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.62|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Nausea||2.62|-6.62|
95838427|NCT03058692|191645977|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.15
95838428|NCT03058692|191645977|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.18
95863171|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.41
95863172|NCT00955201|191684645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.03
95863173|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.95
95863174|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863175|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.87
95863176|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.48
95863177|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.58
95863178|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.50
95863179|NCT00955201|191684646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks.||||0.33
95863180|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
95863181|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863182|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
95863183|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.93
95863184|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.38
95863185|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks.||||0.55
95863186|NCT00955201|191684647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.37
95863187|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
95863188|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
95863189|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time||||1.00
95863190|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test:|Kruskal-Wallis|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863191|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at baseline||||0.81
95863192|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 12-wks||||0.60
95863193|NCT00955201|191684648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison across groups at 24-wks||||0.99
95863194|NCT00955201|191684649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
95863195|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.98
95863196|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863197|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863198|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.72
95961080|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|12.49|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Diarrhea||12.49|-11.64|
95961081|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.597|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|5.14||||||Diarrhea||5.14|-14.11|
95838429|NCT03058692|191645978|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.94
95838430|NCT03058692|191645978|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.|No non-zero results were reported for either group so statistical testing was not performed.|||
95838431|NCT03058692|191645979|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.14
95838432|NCT03058692|191645979|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.26
95855221|NCT04973449|191669981|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.85|0.67|
95863199|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.62
95961082|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.57|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.57|-1.10|
95961083|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.4|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Upper abdominal pain||2.40|-1.17|
95961084|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.79|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||2.79|-5.08|
95961085|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.886|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.19|79.32|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Lower abdominal pain||79.32|-42.19|
95961086|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|8.56|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||8.56|-3.65|
95961087|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Indigestion||1.83|-3.71|
95961088|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.73|60.38|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||60.38|-48.73|
95961089|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.38|33.91|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Constipation||33.91|-28.38|
95961090|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|6.83|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||6.83|-35.56|
95961091|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.88|157.1|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Bloating||157.1|-22.88|
95961092|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01|255.3|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||255.3|-58.01|
95961093|NCT01568112|191893400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.928|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|27.76|||||Reference arm is BG00012 240 mg BID; negative values means reduced side effect.|Flatulence||27.76|-5.22|
95961094|NCT02825251|191893402|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % CI for the true treatment-difference D (faster aspart minus NovoRapid®) was below 0.4 %.|Treatment difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||ANOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model included treatment, strata (use of own continuous glucose monitoring), previous insulin use, and region as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.17|0.01|
95961095|NCT01641653|191893493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a pilot study no power calculation was performed. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess differences in max intraop glucose between placebo and midazolam groups.||||0.87
95961096|NCT01641653|191893494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||percent change in glucose levels from preoperative level to maximum perioperative measurement level||||0.56
95961097|NCT01641653|191893495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square with continuity correction|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.12
95961098|NCT05781750|191893500|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.3||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.3|0.2|
95863200|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.33
95863201|NCT00955201|191684650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.38
95863202|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.88
95863203|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95863204|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||1.00
95961099|NCT05781750|191893500|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.7||||||Time to complete renal response for zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||6.7|0.7|
95961100|NCT05781750|191893500|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0||||||Time to partial renal response for zetomipzomib 30 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||3.0|0.5|
95961101|NCT05781750|191893500|OTHER|Trial was early terminated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.9||||||Time to partial renal response zetomipzomib 60 mg + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care||5.9|1.1|
95961102|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.6||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|1.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||1.0|-6.2|0.887
95961103|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 2||3.2|-2.6|0.431
95961104|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.0||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|3.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||3.4|-5.4|0.647
95863205|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Tukey's multiple comparisons test:|ANOVA|||Evaluate within group across time.||||0.76
95863206|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.82
95863207|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 12 wks.||||0.53
95863208|NCT00955201|191684651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at 24 wks.||||0.68
95863209|NCT00955201|191684652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.70
95961105|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|6.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||6.0|-1.1|0.130
95961106|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|2.0|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||2.0|-6.9|0.818
95961107|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|0.3||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|4.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||4.1|-3.6|0.457
95961108|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-3.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|0.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||0.8|-6.9|0.906
95961109|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-0.4||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|3.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||3.3|-4.1|0.566
95961110|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-1.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|3.1|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||3.1|-5.6|0.686
95961111|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||5.2|-2.5|0.280
95863210|NCT00955201|191684654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.59
95863211|NCT00955201|191684655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.45
95863212|NCT00955201|191684656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.04
95961112|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.4||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|1.4|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.4|-6.3|0.849
95961113|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|1.5||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|5.2|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||5.2|-2.2|0.254
95961114|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|-2.7||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|1.3|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.3|-6.6|0.866
95961115|NCT03927690|191893513|SUPERIORITY||Difference (Test vs Reference)|2.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|5.8|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||5.8|-1.9|0.198
95961116|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.2||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.33|1.08|0.998
95838433|NCT03058692|191645980|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.72
95838434|NCT03058692|191645980|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
95838435|NCT03058692|191645981|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.31
95863213|NCT00955201|191684657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.77
95863214|NCT00955201|191684658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.12
95863215|NCT00955201|191684659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.42
95863216|NCT00955201|191684660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison across groups at baseline.||||0.79
95863217|NCT00635219|191684666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.51||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.51|-3.92|0.1321
95863218|NCT00635219|191684666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|0.72||Since p-value \>0.025, hierarchically testing stopped here.|ANCOVA||To adjust for multiplicity the two doses of vortioxetine were tested separately versus placebo in the primary and key secondary efficacy analyses at a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 0.025.|As soon as an endpoint was non-significant at the 0.025 level of significance, the testing procedure was stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.72|-3.73|0.1847
95863219|NCT00635219|191684666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.82||This dose was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-3.59|0.2187
95863220|NCT00635219|191684666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.2||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-4.27|0.0741
95863221|NCT00635219|191684667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.42||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.42|-4.01|0.1120
95863222|NCT00635219|191684667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.59|-3.85|0.1487
95863223|NCT00635219|191684667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.10|-3.31|0.3246
95863224|NCT00635219|191684667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.24||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||-0.24|-4.70|0.0298
95961117|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.0||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.09|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 8||1.09|0.92|0.527
95863225|NCT00635219|191684668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.23||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.23|0.90|0.1370
95863226|NCT00635219|191684668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.43|0.97|0.0664
95863227|NCT00635219|191684668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.12|0.85|0.2023
95863228|NCT00635219|191684668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||2.40|0.96|0.0765
95863229|NCT00635219|191684669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1436
95863230|NCT00635219|191684669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.10|-0.44|0.2114
95961118|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.33|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates|Day 15||1.33|1.10|0.999
95961119|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.03||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.12|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 15||1.12|0.95|0.716
95863231|NCT00635219|191684669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.07|-0.47|0.1389
95961120|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.31|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.31|1.13|1.000
95961121|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.98||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 29||1.05|0.91|0.281
95838436|NCT03058692|191645981|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.22
95838437|NCT03058692|191645982|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.16
95838438|NCT03058692|191645982|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
95838439|NCT03058692|191645983|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.67
95838440|NCT03058692|191645983|OTHER|||||||0.48||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.48
95838441|NCT03058692|191645984|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
95838442|NCT03058692|191645984|OTHER|||||||0.62||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.62
95838443|NCT03058692|191645985|OTHER|||||||0.0093||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.0093
95863232|NCT00635219|191684669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.06|-0.48|0.1271
95863233|NCT00635219|191684670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.79||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.79|-4.08|0.4421
95863234|NCT00635219|191684670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.77||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.77|-4.07|0.4399
95961122|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.32||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.46|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.46|1.20|1.000
95961123|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.04|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 43||1.04|0.88|0.200
95838444|NCT03058692|191645985|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.51
95838445|NCT03058692|191645986|OTHER|||||||0.54||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.54
95838446|NCT03058692|191645986|OTHER|||||||0.43||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.43
95838447|NCT03058692|191645987|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.44
95838448|NCT03058692|191645987|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.014
95838449|NCT03058692|191645988|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||<0.001
95838450|NCT03058692|191645988|OTHER|||||||0.96||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.96
95838451|NCT03058692|191645989|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.65
95838452|NCT03058692|191645989|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
95838453|NCT03058692|191645990|OTHER|||||||0.35||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.35
95855222|NCT04973449|191669982|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
95863235|NCT00635219|191684670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|3.4||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||3.40|-2.65|0.8093
95838454|NCT03058692|191645990|OTHER|||||||0.66||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD8+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.66
95961124|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|1.18||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.28|1.09|1.000
95838455|NCT03058692|191645991|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.86
95838456|NCT03058692|191645991|OTHER|||||||0.53||||||As this trial was not confirmatory, as common for early phase trials, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons, rather included to aid interpretation of the estimates. A priori threshold for statistical significance was not defined.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This reports the analysis for response in CD4+ T cells at Day 36. The null hypothesis for the non-parametric test assumed both groups are from the same population, i.e., are homogeneous and have the same distribution. The study was not designed/powered to detect differences between groups in the frequencies of marker combinations, considering the issue of multiplicity.||||0.53
95838457|NCT00806988|191646009|OTHER|An intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level was used. This analysis accommodated missing LVESVI outcomes owing to death by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order according to the time of death. In the case of data that were missing for reasons other than death, we used multiple imputation to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no significant between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.61
95838458|NCT00806988|191646010|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95838459|NCT00571974|191646012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||One-sided exact binomial test to compare the observed response rate to the 20% rate envisioned under the original null hypothesis.|One-sided exact binomial test|Because all but one subject responded to treatment, the Fisher's exact test was addedd.||The Simon two-stage minimax design with 9 subjects in the first stage and 8 subjects in the second stage, yielding 17 subjects overall. This design's early termination rule was ≤3/9 responses in the first stage, and its success criterion was ≥7/17 responses overall. This design had 80% power at 5% alpha to distinguish an efficacious 50% response rate from a null-hypothesis 20% response rate.||||0.0001
95838460|NCT04775953|191646013|SUPERIORITY|For participants with the same DOOR, quality-of-life (QoL) was used as a tiebreaker and was calculated as change from baseline QoL to Day 70 QoL score, as assessed by questions from the PROMIS physical function item bank (PROMIS Item Bank v2.0, short form 6b) on the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Bloodstream Infection QoL Measure. Superiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the DOOR probability is greater than 50%.|Pr(Better DOOR in dalbavancin arm)|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.84|55.68|||||The DOOR probability is calculated using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney statistic corrected for ties.|Null Hypothesis: Probability that a participant in the dalbavancin arm has a better DOOR than a participant in the standard of care arm plus one-half the probability of equal DOOR is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR).||55.68|39.84|
95838461|NCT04775953|191646014|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -20%. Non-inferiority of dalbavancin is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical efficacy is greater than -20%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0|||||Difference in proportions of clinical efficacy for dalbavancin compared to standard of care and 95% confidence interval obtained from a linear regression model.|Null Hypothesis: The proportion of clinical efficacy in the dalbavancin arm minus the proportion of clinical efficacy in the standard of care arm is -20%.||14|-12|
95838462|NCT03777059|191646023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.64||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.64|-1.78|<.0001
95838463|NCT03777059|191646023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.94|<.0001
95863236|NCT00635219|191684670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|0.41||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.41|-5.61|0.0897
95961125|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test vs Reference)|0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.01|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 57||1.01|0.87|0.083
95961126|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|1.26||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.38|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.38|1.14|1.000
95838464|NCT03777059|191646023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.288|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.15||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.15|-2.28|<.0001
95838465|NCT03777059|191646024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.81||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.81|-2.03|<.0001
95838466|NCT03777059|191646024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.92|-2.13|<.0001
95838467|NCT03777059|191646024|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.1||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.10|-2.32|<.0001
95838468|NCT03777059|191646025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.82||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.82|-1.81|<.0001
95838469|NCT03777059|191646025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.83||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.83|-1.82|<.0001
95838470|NCT03777059|191646025|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.01|-2.00|<.0001
95838471|NCT03777059|191646026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.56||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.05|<.0001
95838472|NCT03777059|191646026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.26||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.37|<.0001
95838473|NCT03777059|191646026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.71||Odds ratio and p-value was based on logistic regression with treatment group, Baseline value, and prior exposure to a migraine prevention medications with proven efficacy as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.71|2.56|<.0001
95838474|NCT03777059|191646027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|14.36||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.36|5.45|<.0001
95838475|NCT03777059|191646027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|14.46||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||14.46|5.71|<.0001
95863237|NCT00635219|191684671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.52|-2.35|0.6748
95838476|NCT03777059|191646027|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|15.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.18|6.42|<.0001
95838477|NCT03777059|191646028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.17||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.17|-2.56|0.0856
95863238|NCT00635219|191684671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.25||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.25|-3.64|0.0871
95961127|NCT03927690|191893519|SUPERIORITY||Ratio(Test vs Reference)|0.96||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed model repeated measures analysis||Comparison of model-based mean estimates.|Day 85||1.06|0.88|0.254
95863239|NCT00635219|191684671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.96||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.96|-2.94|0.3186
95838478|NCT03777059|191646028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.18||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.18|-3.91|0.0003
95838479|NCT03777059|191646028|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.694|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.96||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.96|-4.68|<.0001
95838480|NCT03777059|191646029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.11||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.11|-2.27|0.0743
95838481|NCT03777059|191646029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.8||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-0.80|-3.18|0.0011
95838482|NCT03777059|191646029|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-1.28||MMRM model included Baseline monthly migraine days as a covariate, treatment group and visit (month) as fixed factors, and treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit as interaction terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||-1.28|-3.65|<.0001
95838483|NCT00555880|191646042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign Statistic|3.0||||0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.1460
95838484|NCT00555880|191646043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Sign statistic|2.5||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test||Sign test was performed per analysis plan.|||||0.2266
95838485|NCT00555880|191646044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|97.9||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0418
95961128|NCT01667406|191893531|OTHER|Fishers exact conditional test was used to confirm significance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||||||Data presented using descriptive statistics. Confidence intervals were derived for the difference between the means of different doses.||||
95961129|NCT01667406|191893531|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Phase 2||||<0.05
95838486|NCT00555880|191646045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|91.1||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a one-way ANOVA model|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCL-Placebo)|||||0.1928
95838487|NCT00555880|191646046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is from a 2-sample t-test for difference in mean|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9479
95863240|NCT00635219|191684671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.19||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.19|-3.79|0.0768
95961130|NCT01667406|191893531|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Estimate of difference in success rates and estimate of odds ratio for success were derived, with P value comparing 2 treatment groups, 95% conﬁdence intervals.|Phase 3||||<0.05
95961131|NCT01667406|191893532|OTHER|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.||||||||||||||||Study data were summarised using standard descriptive methods. Continuous variables following a normal distribution have been summarised using mean and SD.|secondary outcomes were analysed using descriptive statistics.|||
95961132|NCT03539068|191893543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.00001
95838488|NCT00555880|191646047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-5.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment||||0.0590
95838489|NCT00555880|191646048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Dizziness, Lightheadedness, and Feeling Faint-Analysis of treatment||||0.0633
95838490|NCT00555880|191646048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Problems with Vision-Analysis of treatment||||0.0191
95838491|NCT00555880|191646048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Weakness-Analysis of treatment||||0.0727
95863241|NCT00635219|191684672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.81||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.81|0.70|0.6258
95961133|NCT01777334|191893545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus TIO 18 µg.|||0.144|0.081|<0.001
95961134|NCT00424554|191893560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95961135|NCT00364377|191893621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired comparisons (within groups) to examine differences between the baseline study and after 8-weeks of treatment were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for paired samples. Between-group comparisons were made using Student's two-tailed t-test for unpaired samples. Given the previously observed variation in fasting glucose||||>0.05
95961136|NCT04593823|191893623|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.5|||||A win ratio parameter signifies the percentage of wins that a treatment group has achieved when compared against a comparator.|||2.50|0.48|
95838492|NCT00555880|191646048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Fatigue-Analysis of treatment||||0.2820
95838493|NCT00555880|191646048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Trouble Concentrating-Analysis of treatment||||0.0880
95961137|NCT04593823|191893624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|15.9|||Chi-squared|||||15.9|-17.0|>0.999
95838494|NCT00555880|191646048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6439|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Item Head/Neck Discomfort-Analysis of treatment||||0.6439
95838495|NCT00555880|191646051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA|||Final systolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0378
95838496|NCT00555880|191646051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Final diastolic pressure-Analysis of treatment||||0.0108
95863242|NCT00635219|191684672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.76||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.76|0.68|0.7178
95961138|NCT04593823|191893625|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.8||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|13.6|||Chi-squared|||||13.6|-36.4|0.459
95838497|NCT00555880|191646053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|92.4||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value is based on type III sum of squares for treatment group from a mixed effect ANOVA model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.|ANOVA||Least squares mean for treatment difference (Midodrine HCl - Placebo)|Analysis of treatment difference||||0.0296
95838498|NCT00555880|191646058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||Analysis of treatment||||0.0342
95863243|NCT00635219|191684672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.55||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.55|0.59|0.8651
95863244|NCT00635219|191684672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|Adjusting for Baseline||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.69|0.65|0.8563
95863245|NCT00635219|191684673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.57||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.57|-2.82|0.1925
95863246|NCT00635219|191684673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.69||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.69|-2.72|0.2434
95863247|NCT00635219|191684673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.39||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.39|-2.00|0.7246
95863248|NCT00635219|191684673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.27|-3.16|0.0981
95863249|NCT00635219|191684674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2285
95863250|NCT00635219|191684674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1794
95961139|NCT04593823|191893627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.887||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.01|37.784|||ANOVA|Repeated measures analysis||||37.784|-20.010|0.547
95961140|NCT04593823|191893628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
95961141|NCT05178979|191893681|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-Square|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.38
95961142|NCT05178979|191893681|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.84
95838499|NCT03004911|191646067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.740
95838500|NCT03004911|191646068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
95838501|NCT03004911|191646069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.747
95838502|NCT03004911|191646070|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95838503|NCT03004911|191646071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.459
95838504|NCT03223337|191646122|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS) Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1063|3.6057|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6057|1.1063|
95838505|NCT03223337|191646122|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1267|2.4079|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4079|1.1267|
95838506|NCT03223337|191646122|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0744|2.5048|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5048|1.0744|
95838507|NCT03223337|191646122|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4931|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0876|2.0498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0498|1.0876|
95838508|NCT03223337|191646122|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6222|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1594|2.2696|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2696|1.1594|
95838509|NCT03223337|191646122|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3145|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9896|1.7462|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7462|0.9896|
95838510|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.035|2.0523|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0523|1.0350|
95838511|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3919|2.6968|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.6968|1.3919|
95838512|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8312|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3342|2.5133|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5133|1.3342|
95838513|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4654|2.7378|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7378|1.4654|
95838514|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2818|2.2847|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2847|1.2818|
95838515|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.974|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5365|2.536|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5360|1.5365|
95838516|NCT03223337|191646123|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9081|2.3484|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3484|0.9081|
95838517|NCT03223337|191646126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1061|3.6066|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.6066|1.1061|
95838518|NCT03223337|191646126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6509|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1285|2.415|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4150|1.1285|
95838519|NCT03223337|191646126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|2.5125|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5125|1.0732|
95838520|NCT03223337|191646126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.5169|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0994|2.093|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0930|1.0994|
95863251|NCT00635219|191684674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.09||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.09|-0.48|0.1741
95838521|NCT03223337|191646126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.624|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1599|2.2736|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2736|1.1599|
95838522|NCT03223337|191646126|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.747|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7470|0.9887|
95838523|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4566|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0344|2.0513|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.0513|1.0344|
95838524|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3935|2.7224|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7224|1.3935|
95838525|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8392|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|2.534|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5340|1.3350|
95838526|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.0161|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4711|2.763|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.7630|1.4711|
95838527|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2932|2.3151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3151|1.2932|
95838528|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.987|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5426|2.5594|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5594|1.5426|
95838529|NCT03223337|191646127|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.4646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|2.3609|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3609|0.9086|
95838530|NCT03223337|191646128|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.9786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0557|3.7084|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||3.7084|1.0557|
95838531|NCT03223337|191646128|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2791|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9241|1.7705|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7705|0.9241|
95838532|NCT03223337|191646128|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2487|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8675|1.7974|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7974|0.8675|
95838533|NCT03223337|191646128|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9165|1.5197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5197|0.9165|
95961143|NCT05178979|191893681|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, lifetime experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and are adjusted for multiple time points.||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.50
95838534|NCT03223337|191646128|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2726|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.7012|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.7012|0.9520|
95838535|NCT03223337|191646128|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7927|1.3668|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3668|0.7927|
95838536|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7122|1.4316|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4316|0.7122|
95838537|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2498|2.5498|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.5498|1.2498|
95838538|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7337|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2343|2.4353|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4353|1.2343|
95838539|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2898|2.4092|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.4092|1.2898|
95961144|NCT05178979|191893682|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.37
95961145|NCT05178979|191893682|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic||Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.18
95961146|NCT05178979|191893682|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for clinic; this value is the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Model controls for clinic|Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.||||0.19
95961147|NCT05178979|191893683|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|10.84||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
95838540|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.6413|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2055|2.2347|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.2347|1.2055|
95838541|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.8289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3992|2.3904|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3904|1.3992|
95838542|NCT03223337|191646129|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3367|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8288|2.1557|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.1557|0.8288|
95838543|NCT03223337|191646130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1869|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.1869|0.6900|
95838544|NCT03223337|191646130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5617|0.9787|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.9787|0.5617|
95961148|NCT05178979|191893683|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
95961149|NCT05178979|191893683|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.86
95838545|NCT03223337|191646130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.7299|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4387|1.2145|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2145|0.4387|
95838546|NCT03223337|191646130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.1703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.5219|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5219|0.9000|
95838547|NCT03223337|191646130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.9585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6664|1.3786|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.3786|0.6664|
95838548|NCT03223337|191646130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7833|1.2778|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.2778|0.7833|
95838549|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0574|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7876|1.4197|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4197|0.7876|
95838550|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0143|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7332|1.4032|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4032|0.7332|
95838551|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7695|1.4002|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.4002|0.7695|
95838552|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.3427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7635|2.3615|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.3615|0.7635|
95838553|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6996|1.5151|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5151|0.6996|
95838554|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2721|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8409|1.9245|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.9245|0.8409|
95838555|NCT03223337|191646131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.2072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9398|1.5508|||||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean for GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.5508|0.9398|
95838556|NCT03223337|191646132|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6822
95838557|NCT03223337|191646132|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5767
95838558|NCT03223337|191646132|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.50|-1.00|0.5880
95961150|NCT05178979|191893684|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Logistic||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
95961151|NCT05178979|191893684|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||0.81
95838559|NCT03223337|191646132|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5)(Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.7716
95838560|NCT03223337|191646132|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||2.00|-1.00|0.4093
95863252|NCT00635219|191684674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.11||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||0.11|-0.46|0.2247
95961152|NCT05178979|191893684|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||update||||<0.001
95961153|NCT05178979|191893685|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|150.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
95961154|NCT05178979|191893685|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
95838561|NCT03223337|191646132|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Moderate hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.9837
95838562|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK1278863 (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.50|-1.00|0.6224
95838563|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2391220 (M2) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||0.00|-1.00|0.8042
95863253|NCT00635219|191684675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.45||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.45|-1.93|0.7789
95838564|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506104 (M3) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
95838565|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2487818 (M4) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.5207
95838566|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2506102 (M5) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|0.8423
95838567|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531398 (M6) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|-1.00|1.0000
95838568|NCT03223337|191646133|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0||P-value was based on Mann-Whitney U test (exact Wilcoxon rank sum test).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median Difference in GSK2531401 (M13) (Mild hepatic impairment participants versus Healthy participants) has been presented.|||1.00|0.00|0.8042
95863254|NCT00635219|191684675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.5||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.50|-1.91|0.8121
95961155|NCT05178979|191893685|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
95961156|NCT05178979|191893686|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|8.72||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
95961157|NCT05178979|191893686|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.15
95961158|NCT05178979|191893686|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, cadre, and gender and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.008
95838569|NCT03928717|191646164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95838570|NCT03928717|191646165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95838571|NCT02974257|191646169|OTHER|Linear mixed-effects model with an independent variance-covariance matrix to account for the correlation of within-patient repeated measures was used and linear contrasts were used to estimate the mean difference between treatment arms at 48 hours.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.1||Global p-value from the mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis|If patients died before 48 hours lactate levels were imputed by carrying forward the last known value before the event with a 20% increase||||6.1|-3.1|0.9
95838572|NCT02974257|191646170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||AUC-VO2 normally distributed, used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2 between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.56|-1.29|0.42
95838573|NCT02974257|191646171|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between thiamine and placebo groups at 48 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||0.3|-0.9|0.07
95961159|NCT05178979|191893687|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|172.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
95961160|NCT05178979|191893687|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.68
95961161|NCT05178979|191893687|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic and income and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
95838574|NCT01449006|191646172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This pilot study was conducted to generate effect sizes for a potential larger investigation. The study design and small sample size had limited power to detect a statistically significant effect at p\<0.05, so no p-value threshold was strictly set.|Mixed Models Analysis|41 data points included (control n=14; maraviroc: n=27); n=1 control did not attend 12-month visit.||The primary outcome was analysed using a mixed-effect regression model with arm and time as fixed linear effects, arm\*time interaction as a non-linear fixed effect and participant as a random effect to account for participant attrition.||||0.05
95838575|NCT01449006|191646172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.71|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 6-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate.||1.71|-0.19|
95838576|NCT01449006|191646172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.55|||||Positive value reflects improved neurocognitive functioning in maraviroc arm compared to control arm.|Clinical relevance of the effect size observed at 12-months was assessed by generating Cohen's d statistic and 90%CI around the estimate.||1.55|-0.47|
95961162|NCT05178979|191893688|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|25.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
95838577|NCT01449006|191646173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Change in CSF neopterin levels was analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.82
95838578|NCT01449006|191646174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.49
95838579|NCT01449006|191646174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.94
95838580|NCT01449006|191646174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.80
95838581|NCT01449006|191646174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.72
95838582|NCT01449006|191646175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in NAA/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
95838583|NCT01449006|191646175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cr/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.66
95838584|NCT01449006|191646175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Cho/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.56
95838585|NCT01449006|191646175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||Change in mIo/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.29
95838586|NCT01449006|191646175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Change in Glx/H20 levels were analysed using repeated-measures ANOVA with arm, time, and arm\*time interaction as fixed effects.||||0.95
95838587|NCT00394706|191646203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a linear mixed effect model with an identity link and random effects to account for the cluster randomization.||0.7|-1.1|0.59
95838588|NCT00394706|191646203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||To adjust for group sequential monitoring, the point estimate was bias-adjusted (Whitehead 1986) and confidence intervals and P values calculated from the maximum likelihood based ordering of the outcome(Emerson and Fleming, 1990)|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of MRS \<= 3 in the active ITD arm minus the rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of MRS \<=3 in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms, adjusted for sequential monitoring.||0.8|-1.1|0.71
95961163|NCT05178979|191893688|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.10
95961164|NCT05178979|191893688|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, income, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points||||||0.54
95961165|NCT05178979|191893689|SUPERIORITY|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Wald Chi-square|36.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
95838589|NCT00394706|191646204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Two sided test with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for declaring statistical significance.|GEE||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Later arm minus rate in Analyze early arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Analyze Early vs. Analyze Later arms using a generalized estimating equations model with an identity link, grouping on cluster.||1.1|-1.2|0.92
95838590|NCT00394706|191646204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimate of the rate of survival to hospital discharge in the active ITD arm minus rate in the Sham ITD arm.|Comparison of the rates of survival to hospital discharge in Active ITD and Sham treatment arms.||1.1|-1.2|0.99
95838591|NCT00394706|191646205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.34|||||Mean MRS for Analyze Later minus mean MRS for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.34|-0.20|
95838592|NCT00394706|191646205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.44|||||Mean MRS for Active ITD minus mean MRS for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.44|-0.17|
95855223|NCT04973449|191669983|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.07|21.71||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||21.71|7.07|
95838593|NCT00394706|191646206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.83|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Later minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.83|-0.71|
95838594|NCT00394706|191646206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.28|||||Mean ALFI-MMSE for Active ITD minus mean ALFI-MMSE for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.28|-1.61|
95838595|NCT00394706|191646207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Analyze Later minus mean HUI for Analyze Early (i.e. positive values favor Analyze Later).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.06|
95838596|NCT00394706|191646207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||||Mean HUI for Active ITD minus mean HUI for Sham ITD (i.e. positive values favor the active device).|Linear regression was used to assess associations between post-discharge measures and treatment group comparisons with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Site was adjusted for to accommodate clustering of patients within sites. All regression analyses used robust standard errors to accommodate non-constant variances.||0.05|-0.08|
95838597|NCT03369249|191646212|SUPERIORITY||log ratio of rate ratios|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.75||A priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equations||Standard error of the Beta regression coefficient.|||0.75|-0.46|0.635
95838598|NCT02206035|191646257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.95
95838599|NCT02206035|191646257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.26
95838600|NCT02206035|191646257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
95838601|NCT02206035|191646257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.76
95838602|NCT02206035|191646258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.99
95838603|NCT02206035|191646258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.48
95838604|NCT02206035|191646258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95838605|NCT02206035|191646258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.96
95838606|NCT02206035|191646259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||<0.001
95838607|NCT02206035|191646259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.75
95838608|NCT02206035|191646259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.28
95838609|NCT02206035|191646259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.82
95838610|NCT02206035|191646260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.54
95838611|NCT02206035|191646260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.61
95838612|NCT02206035|191646260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.42
95838613|NCT02206035|191646260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.38
95838614|NCT02206035|191646261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||0.10
95838615|NCT02206035|191646261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 28||||0.32
95838616|NCT02206035|191646261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 100||||0.63
95838617|NCT02206035|191646261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Day 180||||0.30
95838618|NCT01934010|191646262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 2 treatment cycles.||||0.128
95838619|NCT01934010|191646262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 1 treatment cycle with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||0.075
95838620|NCT01934010|191646262|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test to assess if there is a difference in deterioration of hearing threshold between subjects that received 2 treatment cycles with AM-101 or others who received 3 treatment cycles.||||1
95838621|NCT01934010|191646263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4403|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4403
95838622|NCT01934010|191646265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2401|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2401
95838623|NCT01934010|191646265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0022
95838624|NCT01934010|191646265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1001
95838625|NCT01934010|191646266|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95838626|NCT04112303|191646268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||The SVR12 rate was compared to the pre-specified efficacy threshold of 78% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95838627|NCT03781414|191646286|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.0759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0729|0.2165||||||||0.2165|-0.0729|
95838628|NCT03781414|191646286|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective would be demonstrated, if the composite efficacy failure rate difference between any of the two CFZ533 arms and the TAC arm is less than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin (0.15) with probability \>80%.|Rate difference|0.1696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0072|0.3276||||||||0.3276|0.0072|
95838629|NCT03368235|191646377|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4569||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|1.431||Based on MMRM model with the baseline DAS28-CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||MMRM = mixed model repeated measures.||1.431|-0.487|0.315
95838630|NCT03368235|191646378|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.807||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|5.34||Logistic regression model with the treatment group, country and baseline DAS28-CRP as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment comparison ACR20: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||5.34|0.12|0.807
95838631|NCT03368235|191646378|OTHER|||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR50: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.198
95838632|NCT03368235|191646378|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment comparison ACR70: AZD9567 Vs prednisolone||||0.183
95838633|NCT03368235|191646379|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.81||The MMRM with the baseline SJC66 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.81|-1.98|0.717
95838634|NCT03368235|191646380|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.115||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|5.46||The MMRM with the baseline TJC68 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||5.46|-7.69|0.724
95838635|NCT03368235|191646381|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|3.32||The MMRM with the baseline TJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||3.32|-3.43|0.973
95838636|NCT03368235|191646382|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.03||The MMRM with the baseline SJC28 score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||2.03|-1.50|0.757
95838637|NCT03368235|191646383|OTHER||LS mean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.67||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|30.1||The MMRM with the baseline GH score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||30.1|-10.5|0.325
95838638|NCT03368235|191646384|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4725||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.514|12.025||The MMRM with the baseline CRP score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||12.025|-2.514|0.187
95838639|NCT03368235|191646385|OTHER||LS mean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.49||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.1||The MMRM with the baseline participant's assessment of pain score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||38.1|-6.0|0.144
95863255|NCT00635219|191684675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.59||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.59|-1.82|0.8918
95961166|NCT05178979|191893689|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.97
95961167|NCT05178979|191893689|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||<0.001
95838640|NCT03368235|191646386|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|16.0||The MMRM with the baseline disease activity score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||16.0|-8.3|0.512
95838641|NCT03368235|191646387|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2381||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.631||The MMRM with the baseline physical function score as a continuous covariate and country, visit and treatment group as categorical fixed effects, as well as visit interaction with treatment group, using unstructured covariance matrix.|MMRM|||||0.631|-0.370|0.589
95838642|NCT03202134|191646563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95838643|NCT03202134|191646564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95838644|NCT03202134|191646565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95838645|NCT03202134|191646566|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95838646|NCT03202134|191646567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
95838647|NCT02669121|191646591|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|99.99|-13.181|0.997|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of confidence interval (CI) for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the Cox proportional hazard (PH) model. The 99.99% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 99.99% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.997|-13.181|
95838648|NCT02669121|191646592|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.01|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95.01% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95.01% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
95863256|NCT00635219|191684675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.75||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA||No correction for multiplicity was made.|||1.75|-1.69|0.9720
95961168|NCT05178979|191893690|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|9.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.01
95838649|NCT02669121|191646593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.816|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.816|0.208|
95838650|NCT02669121|191646594|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.977|||||||The vaccine efficacy was met if lower bound of CI for vaccine efficacy was above 0. Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as 1-(hazard rate for NoV vaccine arm / hazard rate for placebo arm), where the hazard ratio is from the PH model. The 95% CI for the VE was obtained by taking 1 minus the 95% CI of the hazard ratio from the PH model.|0.977|-0.711|
95838651|NCT03216746|191646595|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95838652|NCT01320202|191646599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means between SFP & PBO|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean (SE) and p-value are from ANCOVA model with baseline Hgb as covariate. Model also includes indicator variable for baseline ESA dose stratum.|ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95838653|NCT00635882|191646614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
95838654|NCT00635882|191646614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.003
95838655|NCT00635882|191646614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.018
95838656|NCT00635882|191646615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||<0.001
95838657|NCT00635882|191646615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
95838658|NCT00635882|191646615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eNO as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline eNO as a covariate."||||0.002
95838659|NCT00635882|191646616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.024
95838660|NCT00635882|191646616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.051
95961169|NCT05178979|191893690|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.81
95838661|NCT00635882|191646616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.336|||||||ANCOVA|||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline eosinophils as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline EOS as a covariate."||||0.336
95838662|NCT00635882|191646617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.120
95838663|NCT00635882|191646617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.103
95838664|NCT00635882|191646617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Day 15.||"ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline PD15 as a covariate was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from ANCOVA Model with treatment effect and baseline PD15 as a covariate."||||0.048
95838665|NCT00635882|191646618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.018
95838666|NCT00635882|191646618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.261
95838667|NCT00635882|191646618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.334
95838668|NCT00635882|191646619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.037
95838669|NCT00635882|191646619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.643
95838670|NCT00635882|191646619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.963
95838671|NCT00635882|191646620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
95838672|NCT00635882|191646620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.002
95838673|NCT00635882|191646620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 2-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
95838674|NCT00635882|191646621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||<0.001
95838675|NCT00635882|191646621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.057
95838676|NCT00635882|191646621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Analysis applies to Mean Change from Baseline to Days 1-15.||"One-way ANOVA model with treatment effect was used.~Standard deviation is a Pooled Standard deviation from the one-way ANOVA model with treatment effect."||||0.005
95838677|NCT00986362|191646627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.613||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|4.509|||Fisher Exact|||||4.509|0.070|0.679
95838678|NCT03139344|191646638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95838679|NCT03139344|191646638|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95838680|NCT03139344|191646639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95838681|NCT03139344|191646639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95838682|NCT03139344|191646640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95838683|NCT03139344|191646640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95838684|NCT03139344|191646641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.148
95838685|NCT03139344|191646641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95838686|NCT03139344|191646642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.069
95838687|NCT03139344|191646642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95838688|NCT03139344|191646643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.118
95838689|NCT03139344|191646643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
95838690|NCT03139344|191646644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.059
95838691|NCT03139344|191646644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.015
95838692|NCT03139344|191646645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.010
95838693|NCT03139344|191646645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95838694|NCT03139344|191646646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
95838695|NCT03139344|191646647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.345
95838696|NCT03139344|191646648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.264
95838697|NCT03139344|191646649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
95838698|NCT03139344|191646650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95838699|NCT03139344|191646651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.109
95838700|NCT03139344|191646652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
95838701|NCT03139344|191646653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.573
95838702|NCT03139344|191646654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.858
95838703|NCT03637517|191646655|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.926||||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.771|1.113|||ANOVA|||||1.113|0.771|0.4847
95838704|NCT03637517|191646655|EQUIVALENCE|2 comparisons performed: Reg. B vs. Reg. A, \& Reg.C vs. Reg. B. Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to that of each reference reg. assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model. Bioequivalence between a test reg. and the reference reg. is concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means Log scale|0.79||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|0.95|||ANOVA|||||0.950|0.658|0.0370
95855224|NCT04973449|191669984|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-12.1||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-12.10|-24.13|
95855225|NCT04973449|191669985|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|16.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|23.4||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||23.40|10.15|
95855226|NCT04973449|191669986|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|7.21||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||7.21|-7.21|
95855227|NCT04973449|191669987|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|2.28||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||2.28|1.75|
95855228|NCT04973449|191669988|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.32||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||3.32|2.64|
95838705|NCT03637517|191646656|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.899||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.805|1.004|||ANOVA|||||1.004|0.805|0.1135
95838706|NCT03637517|191646656|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.175||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.312|||ANOVA|||||1.312|1.051|0.0192
95838707|NCT03637517|191646657|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.898||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.787|1.024|||ANOVA||Regimen B to A|||1.024|0.787|0.1759
95838708|NCT03637517|191646657|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.172||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.338|||ANOVA||Regimen C to B|||1.338|1.027|0.0496
95838709|NCT03637517|191646658|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|-0.2857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4313|2.8599||||||||2.8599|-3.4313|
95838710|NCT03637517|191646658|EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability of each test reg. relative to each reference reg will be assessed via 90% CI obtained from the analyses of the natural logs of Cmax and AUC. These CI are obtained by taking the antilog of the upper \& lower CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA model. Bioequivalence between a test reg and the respective reference reg will be concluded if the 90% CI from the analyses of the natural log of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Least Squares Means|9.3571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.866979|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2115|12.5028|||||Regimen C to B|||12.5028|6.2115|
95838711|NCT03637517|191646660|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|0.866||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.727|1.032|||ANOVA|||(ANOVA) will be performed for Tmax, the terminal phase elimination rate constant β, and the natural logarithms of Cmax, AUCt, AUC168, AUCinf, and C168. The model will include the effects for regimen. For the tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares will be the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen will be compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.||1.032|0.727|0.1745
95855229|NCT04973449|191669989|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.69||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.69|1.35|
95855230|NCT04973449|191669990|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.94|0.78|
95855231|NCT04973449|191669991|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-41.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.57|-34.41||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-34.41|-47.57|
95961170|NCT05178979|191893690|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, AUDIT score and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
95961171|NCT05178979|191893691|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|14.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||<0.001
95855232|NCT04973449|191669992|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|13.77||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||13.77|-1.81|
95838712|NCT03637517|191646660|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Sum of squares|1.185||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.411||For tests on regimen effects, the denominator sum of squares is the residual sum of squares for error. Within the ANOVA modeling framework, the test regimen is compared to the respective reference regimen by a test with a significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|||||1.411|0.995|0.1105
95838713|NCT03637517|191646661|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|0.901||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|1.069|||ANOVA|||||1.069|0.759|0.3100
95838714|NCT03637517|191646661|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between a test regimen and the respective reference regimen will be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals from the analyses of the natural logarithms of Cmax and AUC are within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR LOGARITHMS.|1.156||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.371|||ANOVA|||||1.371|0.974|0.1619
95838715|NCT03350815|191646690|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.25||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASDAS inactive disease response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||2.25|0.28|
95838716|NCT03350815|191646691|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.66||No P value as no hypothesis was tested|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of reduction in ASDAS \>= 1.1 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation)||8.66|0.50|
95838717|NCT03350815|191646692|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Least Square Mean of Treatment Differenc|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.75||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of total BASDAI change from Week 16 using MMRM - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||0.75|-0.29|
95838718|NCT03350815|191646693|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.24||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI50 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.24|0.50|
95838719|NCT03350815|191646694|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.73||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of BASDAI20 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||1.73|0.43|
95838720|NCT03350815|191646695|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.46||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status (naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS40 response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||3.46|0.49|
95838721|NCT03350815|191646696|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio are from a logistic regression model with treatment (2 treatment groups), TNF-alpha inhibitor status(naive, inadequate responder) and Week 16 body weight (kg) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ASAS partial remission response by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (nonresponder imputation) (FAS)||2.41|0.44|
95838722|NCT03350815|191646697|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.01||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of change from Week 16 in ASAS-Health Index using MMRM by visit - in Treatment Period 2 (FAS)||1.01|-0.74|
95838723|NCT03350815|191646698|OTHER|Statistical hypothesis tests were not performed for this study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.61||Least squares means (LSMs) of the treatment groups, LSM treatment difference and 95% confidence interval for treatment difference are from mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit and TNF-alpha inhibitor status as factors|Regression, Logistic|||||1.61|-3.62|
95838724|NCT03526146|191646699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.002
95838725|NCT03526146|191646700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.047
95838726|NCT03526146|191646701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
95961172|NCT05178979|191893691|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.45
95961173|NCT05178979|191893691|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.02
95838727|NCT03526146|191646702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.05
95838728|NCT03526146|191646703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.009
95838729|NCT02214290|191646723|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
95838730|NCT02214290|191646724|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
95838731|NCT02214290|191646725|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|post-hoc comparisons were used to determine within-group and between-group differences.||||||<0.001
95838732|NCT00856544|191646750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|36.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||36.13|17.94|<0.0001
95863257|NCT00505076|191684688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusting for baseline scores, was used to compare treatment groups on cognitive and functional measures. The predefined primary cognition outcome measure was the MCCB (MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Research) Consensus Cognitive Battery) composite T-score, tested at overall two-sided alpha=0.05.||||0.21
95838733|NCT00856544|191646750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|30.65||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||30.65|12.39|<0.0001
95838734|NCT00856544|191646751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.26||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.44|<0.0001
95838735|NCT00856544|191646751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.16||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatments, visits and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.16|-0.35|<0.0001
95838736|NCT00856544|191646752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|15.45||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.45|5.80|<0.0001
95838737|NCT00856544|191646752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.42||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.77||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation to the binomial distribution was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.77|2.07|0.0038
95838738|NCT04808141|191646807|EQUIVALENCE|For a power of 80% and a two-sided 0.05 significance level, we calculated that 102 individuals would be necessary to detect a 10-point difference between the two groups. To guarantee that the study was adequately powered to detect equivalence, a posteriori analysis was conducted using the Two One-Sided Test (TOST) methodology (simulation-based power analysis).|Median Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|5.81||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||5.81|-2.42|0.412
95838739|NCT04808141|191646807|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.926||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.05||The threshold for statistical analysis was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.42|0.849
95838740|NCT04808141|191646808|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|robust method on the medians||||1.10|-0.71|0.666
95838741|NCT04808141|191646809|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-2.62||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.87|4.8||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust test on the medians||||4.80|-14.87|0.122
95961174|NCT05178979|191893692|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|11.06||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.004
95961175|NCT05178979|191893692|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.35
95961176|NCT05178979|191893692|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, AUDIT score, food insecurity and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.04
95961177|NCT05178979|191893693|SUPERIORITY||Wald Chi-square|2.84||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points. Models run using generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for dependence in repeated, clustered data.|Regression, Linear||Wald Chi-Square tests the overall arm\*time intervention effect across the timepoints|||||0.24
95961178|NCT05178979|191893693|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 6-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.92
95838742|NCT04808141|191646810|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|5.9||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||5.90|-3.11|0.788
95838743|NCT04808141|191646811|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming analgesics at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.23|0.00|0.081
95838744|NCT04808141|191646811|EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.71||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|LR to assess the odds between groups for consuming opioids at 8 weeks using the CG as a reference.||||1.71|0.00|0.985
95838745|NCT04808141|191646812|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.78||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.78|-2.10|0.871
95863258|NCT00505076|191684689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.47
95961179|NCT05178979|191893693|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons; this value is for the 12-month follow-up.|Regression, Linear|Models control for clinic, gender, years living with HIV, travel time to clinic and are adjusted for multiple time points.||||||0.21
95961180|NCT00817336|191893694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.8||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95961181|NCT00817336|191893695|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|2.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95961182|NCT00817336|191893696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.31
95961183|NCT00817336|191893697|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.41
95961184|NCT00409409|191893718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
95961185|NCT02138253|191893719|SUPERIORITY|For the primary efficacy analysis based on the Month 24 biopsy, subjects with a missing Month 24 biopsy had their Ishak fibrosis score imputed. Imputation of missing Ishak fibrosis scores was conducted using multiple imputation (MI). Results were imputed based on age, gender, baseline Ishak fibrosis score, and the Month 12 Ishak fibrosis score.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|26.4||Stratified by baseline Ishak Fibrosis Score strata (F2, F3+F4+F5, and F6).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||26.4|-20.5|0.73
95961186|NCT02138253|191893720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||28.9|-20.0|0.658
95961187|NCT02138253|191893721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All screening and post-baseline biopsy data collected were used in the primary analysis, irrespective of the defined protocol visit window. Classification of the Ishak fibrosis score was summarized descriptively by treatment group at baseline, Month 12, and Month 24. Response at Months 12 and 24 were summarized descriptively by treatment group, along with exact (Clopper-Pearson) 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The risk difference between groups was also was provided with its 95% CI.||13.1|-28.8|0.421
95838746|NCT04808141|191646813|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||1.59|-0.59|0.360
95961188|NCT02485899|191893731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.33|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||0.33|0.06|<0.0001
95961189|NCT02485899|191893732|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||||||<0.0001
95961190|NCT04706793|191893777|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
95961191|NCT04706793|191893778|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.28|50.86||||||||50.86|6.28|
95961192|NCT04706793|191893779|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|54.71||||||||54.71|9.58|
95961193|NCT04706793|191893780|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|42.92||||||||42.92|-0.07|
95961194|NCT04706793|191893781|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|38.82||||||||38.82|-3.10|
95961195|NCT04706793|191893782|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|16.68||||||||16.68|-2.40|
95961196|NCT02446613|191893790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.43|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1071.|||5.43|-1.41|
95961197|NCT02446613|191893791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.75|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2417.|||3.75|-1.98|
95961198|NCT02446613|191893792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.87|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.2876.|||1.87|-1.08|
95961199|NCT02446613|191893793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.34|||||The posterior probability statement value for change from baseline in post-challenge TNSS ≤0 was 0.1453.|||5.34|-1.86|
95961200|NCT02446613|191893794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|19.71|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2665.|||19.71|-10.70|
95838747|NCT04808141|191646814|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
95838748|NCT04808141|191646815|EQUIVALENCE||Z-score|-1.28||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Ordinal Regression|||||||0.886
95838749|NCT04808141|191646816|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.46||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||2.46|-2.20|0.095
95838750|NCT04808141|191646818|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.8||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
95838751|NCT04808141|191646819|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-1.97||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|3.33|||Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||3.33|-12.69|0.246
95838752|NCT04808141|191646820|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.69||the threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians.||||2.69|-6.50|0.408
95838753|NCT04808141|191646821|EQUIVALENCE||Median Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|9.87||The threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Quantile mixed-effects model|Robust method on the medians||||9.87|-6.22|0.650
95838754|NCT04808141|191646822|EQUIVALENCE||Difference in proportions|18.6||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.019
95838755|NCT05274269|191646836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|11.3|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||11.3|7.2|< 0.0001
95838756|NCT05274269|191646837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-24.5|-32.1|< 0.0001
95838757|NCT05274269|191646838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|23.5|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||23.5|15.5|< 0.0001
95838758|NCT05274269|191646839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.69|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||0.69|0.24|< 0.0001
95961201|NCT02446613|191893795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.97|24.38|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.3266|||24.38|-14.97|
95838759|NCT05274269|191646840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||1.9|0.6|< 0.0001
95961202|NCT02446613|191893796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.47|19.2|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.4528|||19.20|-17.47|
95961203|NCT02446613|191893797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|28.04|||||The posterior probability statement value for percentage reduction in the reductions of PNIF ≤0 was 0.2525|||28.04|-13.69|
95961204|NCT00745498|191893827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||With study power of 80%, a significance level of 0.05, and the assumption that IVB injection will decrease postoperative VH incidence from 35% to 10%, a sample size of 40 patients for each group was calculated.||||<0.05
95838760|NCT00900666|191646843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a priori power calculation suggested N=26 for each group.||||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 threshold|ANOVA|Correlations with walking speed and time since injury were initially performed to determine whether ANCOVA would be be more appropriate.||ANOVA||||0.761
95838761|NCT00900666|191646844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.896
95838762|NCT04759157|191646884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed model|||||||.30
95838763|NCT04759157|191646885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||This estimate is comparing intervention to control from baseline to 3 month for both patients and partners|We conducted multilevel models evaluating sleep disturbance score by assessment, group and patient versus partner status.||1.43|-6.63|.206
95838764|NCT00719355|191646888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A priori level of significance was set at p \<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated-measures ANCOVA using intent-to-treat procedures, was used for the primary outcome variable. Analyses were adjusted for age.||Observed power for our primary analysis was 0.64.||||0.033
95838765|NCT00719355|191646889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.65||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA was used with intent to treat analysis. The co-variant was age.||||||0.109
95838766|NCT04260347|191646897|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.064||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|1.784|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.784|0.345|1.000
95838767|NCT04260347|191646898|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.889||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.08|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.08|0.699|0.254
95838768|NCT04260347|191646899|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.089||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|1.237|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.237|0.942|0.280
95838769|NCT04260347|191646900|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.016||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.128|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in the mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.128|-0.096|0.916
95838770|NCT04260347|191646901|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.066||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.261|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.261|0.872|0.561
95838771|NCT04260347|191646902|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.231||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.756|||Chi-squared||Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||1.756|0.707|0.522
95863259|NCT00505076|191684690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined using the analysis of covariance power formula, n=2\[za+zβ\]2s2 (1-R2)/d2, with za=2.24, zβ=0.842 (corresponding to power=0.80), R=the correlation between baseline and end of study measures of the outcome, d the difference between groups, and s the standard deviation of the outcome. Actual recruitment was only about 20 participants per group, but the observed R≅0.9, suggesting power to detect an effect size of 0.49.||||0.84
95838772|NCT04260347|191646903|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.021||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.091|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.091|-0.133|0.810
95838773|NCT04260347|191646904|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|-0.085||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.03|-0.199|0.179
95838774|NCT04260347|191646905|OTHER||Standardized Mean Difference (SMD)|0.042||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.156|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||SMD = Difference in mean between groups / Standard deviation Actilyse® (alteplase) pre-approval participants were used as reference group.|||0.156|-0.072|0.275
95838775|NCT03422536|191646906|EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified significance criteria were met by exclusion of the historical control PFS of 2.0 months. As confirmation, the one-sample log rank test was computed with expected survival estimated using an exponential distribution of 2.0 months.||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<.05|Log Rank|||||||.04
95838776|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Cox|||c-Met positivity was compared across groups: HPV+ vs HPV-||||.005
95838777|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in cMet positive vs. c-Met negative patients.||0.8|0.1|.02
95961205|NCT04788511|191893834|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.9|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 52 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline KCCQ-CSS as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||10.9|4.8|<0.0001
95961206|NCT04788511|191893835|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment and stratification (BMI\<35.0 kg/m\^2, BMI\>=35.0 kg/m\^2) as factors and baseline body weight (kg) as covariate. The analysis was based on the in-trial period using the FAS population. Missing observations at week 52 were multiple (x1000) imputed from retrieved participants of the same randomized treatment arm.||-9.4|-11.9|<0.0001
95961207|NCT03178045|191893856|OTHER|Multivariable Logistic Regression|Estimated Increase|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6||||||||3.6|-3.1|
95838778|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.8|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||0.8|0.03|0.03
95863260|NCT04093024|191684697|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||0.8|-0.8|0.9858
95838779|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.5|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at cMet positivity in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||17.5|0.6|.20
95838780|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Log Rank|||Post-hoc comparison of progression free survival (PFS) in HGF positive vs. HGF negative patients.||2.0|0.9|.10
95863261|NCT04093024|191684698|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||1.6|-1.7|0.9769
95838781|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.7|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P , .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV- patients in the combination arm.||4.7|0.4|.60
95961208|NCT03178045|191893857|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||||||||1.31|0.69|
95961209|NCT03178045|191893858|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed effects regression|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||||||||1.32|0.60|
96001779|NCT01847547|191981179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.36|0.69|
96001780|NCT01847547|191981180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||||95.0|0.62|2.45|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.45|0.62|
95962372|NCT03607422|191896596|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|59.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||66.2|53.1|<0.001
95838782|NCT03422536|191646911|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.1|||Log Rank|||Post hoc comparison of PFS in the combination arm by HPV subgroup, adjusted for prognostic factors marginally associated with HPV status (P \< .10), was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Here we are looking at HGF expression in HPV+ patients in the combination arm.||13.1|0.9|.07
95838783|NCT01635855|191647009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One-sided binomial|8.5|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.6||Ho (null): Ps \>= 22% versus Ha (alternate): Ps \< 22% where Ps is the proportion of subjects with common severe adverse events in the post-approval study. Ho is rejected if upper limit of the 95% CI of Ps \< 22% and the one-sided p-value \<= 0.025.|One sided binomial distribution|The upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI for a proportion is equivalent to the 97.5% one-sided CI for that proportion for normal approximations.||The analysis was performed by comparing the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the post-market study to that occurred in the pre-market studies. It was pre-specified in the protocol that the proportion of subjects with severe common adverse events in the pre-market studies was 22%.||13.6|3.5|< 0.025
95838784|NCT02828020|191647023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.66||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.66|1.25|0.0023
95838785|NCT02828020|191647023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.95|1.41|0.0003
95838786|NCT02828020|191647024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.28|1.27|0.0023
95838787|NCT02828020|191647024|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.17|1.22|0.0023
95838788|NCT02828020|191647025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.23||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.23|1.28|0.0023
95838789|NCT02828020|191647025|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.21|1.28|0.0023
95838790|NCT02828020|191647026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.07||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.07|1.65|0.0023
95838791|NCT02828020|191647026|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.24||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||3.24|1.77|0.0023
95838792|NCT02828020|191647027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.44||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.44|1.01|0.0577
95838793|NCT02828020|191647027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.97||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.97|1.28|0.0037
95855233|NCT04973449|191669993|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|-26.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-19.94||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||-19.94|-33.10|
95855234|NCT04973449|191669994|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|30.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.94|37.9||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||37.90|22.94|
95855235|NCT04973449|191669995|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI rate difference in seroresponse between the comparator group and reference group was \> or =-10%.|Seroresponse difference|14.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|22.64||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||22.64|6.36|
95855236|NCT04973449|191669996|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||The analyses were derived using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).||0.96|0.74|
95838794|NCT02828020|191647028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.19||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.19|1.22|0.0577
95838795|NCT02828020|191647028|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.42||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.42|1.36|0.0037
95838796|NCT02828020|191647029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.09||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.09|1.16|0.0577
95838797|NCT02828020|191647029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.95||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.95|1.10|0.0577
95838798|NCT02828020|191647030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.79||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.79|0.96|0.0962
95838799|NCT02828020|191647030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.00|0.0962
95838800|NCT00145574|191647038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122|||||||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypotheses were tested sequentially in the following order: 1) no difference between the high-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and 2) no difference between the low-dose colesevelam HCl and placebo for percent change in LDL-C from study baseline to Week 8 endpoint with LOCF. The hypotheses were tested at a 2-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.1122
95838801|NCT00145574|191647038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95838802|NCT00145574|191647039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5260
95838803|NCT00145574|191647039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
95838804|NCT00145574|191647040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95838805|NCT00145574|191647040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
95863262|NCT04093024|191684700|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||4.0|-1.8|0.4442
95838806|NCT00145574|191647041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0155||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0155
95838807|NCT00145574|191647041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95838808|NCT00145574|191647042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3482||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3482
95838809|NCT00145574|191647042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95838810|NCT00145574|191647043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95838811|NCT00145574|191647043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95838812|NCT00145574|191647044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7433
95838813|NCT00145574|191647044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95838814|NCT00825812|191647106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|5.7||||||95.0|4.9|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|The primary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Chinese subjects.||6.6|4.9|
95838815|NCT00825812|191647106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean time to recovery|4.8||||||97.5|3.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA, adjusted for center effects, on log transformed times from start of administration of IMP to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|Ratio of time to recovery of 0.9 T4/T1 ratio (neostigmine time / sugammadex time).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison of the two treatments among Caucasian subjects.||6.0|3.7|
95838816|NCT00825812|191647106|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was considered if the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for median difference in recovery time (T4/T1 ratio to 0.9) was within the pre-specified range of -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|7.0||||||97.5|-5.0|21.0|||||Estimated median difference (Chinese - Caucasian) in seconds for the time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 (after sugammadex).|A key secondary analysis was the comparison for equivalence between Chinese subjects and Caucasian subjects.||21|-5|
95838817|NCT06037408|191647122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.99|-50.27||Sidak's test was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 42.19||||-50.27|-63.99|0.0001
95838818|NCT06037408|191647123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.459|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.26|36.99|||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom, 28.16.||||36.99|13.26|<0.0001
95838819|NCT00524472|191647128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||"P-values for combined sites: significant if P \< 0.0085 for efficacy. Adjusted for interim analysis.~Confidence intervals adjusted for interim analysis."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Hyperinsulinemic-normoglycemic clamp|||0.97|0.39|0.0043
95838820|NCT00524472|191647129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||1.13|0.75|0.29
95838821|NCT00524472|191647130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.91|0.99
95838822|NCT00524472|191647131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.31|||Regression, Cox||HN vs. Standard|||1.31|0.98|0.025
95863263|NCT04093024|191684703|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.8|-1.5|0.8820
95863264|NCT04093024|191684704|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.3|-3.2|0.9652
95961210|NCT00267098|191893879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.889||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study;a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have lower risk of events than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time until death, a HF urgent care event or visit in which the LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality, a heart failure urgent care visit, or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower rate of this composite endpoint than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.889|0.592|0.9990
95961211|NCT00267098|191893880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.142||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, posterior probabilities, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio for death can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.||1.142|0.632|0.865
96001781|NCT01847547|191981181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||||95.0|0.15|0.59|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.59|0.15|
96001782|NCT01847547|191981182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.15|0.67|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||0.67|0.15|
96001783|NCT01847547|191981183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.09|0.84|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.84|0.09|
96001784|NCT01847547|191981184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.78|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.78|
96001785|NCT01847547|191981186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.48|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.14|0.48|
96001786|NCT01847547|191981187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||||95.0|0.47|2.2|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.20|0.47|
96001787|NCT01847547|191981188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||||95.0|0.21|1.98|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.98|0.21|
95838823|NCT00524472|191647132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. standard|||3.11|0.74|0.12
95838824|NCT00524472|191647133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||HN vs. Standard|||1.07|0.72|0.085
95838825|NCT02748070|191647134|OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.819
95838826|NCT02748070|191647134|OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.665
95863265|NCT04093024|191684705|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||4.0|-9.3|0.4084
95838827|NCT02748070|191647134|OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.071
95838828|NCT02748070|191647134|OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.097
95838829|NCT02748070|191647135|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 week||||0.376
95838830|NCT02748070|191647135|OTHER|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 1 month||||0.685
95838831|NCT02748070|191647135|OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 3 months||||0.388
95838832|NCT02748070|191647135|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline and 6 months||||0.233
95838833|NCT01980095|191647173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||One-sample Z-test, RHB-105 subjects only|||||||0.001
95838834|NCT00699608|191647175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.267||95.0|-2.74|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used (fixed effects: adjusted period baseline, participant baseline, age, gender, period and treatment group; random effect: participant).||||0.76|-2.74|0.267
95838835|NCT02588261|191647235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.611||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.391|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.391|1.086|0.992
95838836|NCT02588261|191647237|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||1.000
95838837|NCT02588261|191647238|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.674||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.165|2.406|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.406|1.165|0.998
95838838|NCT02588261|191647239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025.||||0.839
95838839|NCT02588261|191647240|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.298||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|2.548|||Log Rank|||Comparison between ASP8273 and Erlotinib or Gefitinib treatment groups was performed using log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 and 1 vs 2), EGFR mutation type (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R) and TKI chosen by the site (erlotinib or gefitinib) before randomization. Comparison was tested at 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Hazard ratio based on Cox proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of ASP8273 treatment group.||2.548|0.661|0.780
95863266|NCT04093024|191684706|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||1.6|-1.6|0.9928
95863267|NCT04093024|191684707|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||3.6|-2.3|0.6366
95838840|NCT02287467|191647261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is hIVIG vs. placebo. A value greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio of being in a better category, as assessed using a proportional odds model. Multiple imputation techniques were used to impute an outcome for 4 patients for whom the outcome was unknown.||1.97|0.79|.33
95838841|NCT02287467|191647262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better category, from a proportional odds model||1.48|0.61|.84
95838842|NCT02287467|191647263|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs. placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Odds ratio for being in a better group, from a proportional odds model.||1.33|0.57|.52
95838843|NCT02287467|191647264|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio for hIVIG vs placebo. An odds ratio \> 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||2.74|0.81|.20
95863268|NCT04093024|191684708|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|No formal hypotheses were tested||5.9|-5.2|0.8823
95838844|NCT02287467|191647265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|hazard ratio is hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|Deaths during hospitalization are censored after day 7.||1.45|.85|.44
95838845|NCT02287467|191647266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.15|||Regression, Cox|stratified by baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|hazard ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; a hazard ratio \< 1.0 favors the hIVIG group.|||6.15|.48|.40
95838846|NCT02287467|191647267|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo; an odds ratio \> 1.0 favors hIVIG|||1.98|.38|.74
95838847|NCT02287467|191647268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline RNA, geographic region, and influenza subtype|Change is calculated as day 3 - baseline. Difference in changes is hIVIG - placebo.|||.54|-.26|.49
95838848|NCT02287467|191647269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study.|Odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo.|||1.97|0.5|.93
95961212|NCT00267098|191893881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.9785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|0.991||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.991|0.615|0.9785
95863269|NCT04093024|191684709|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2491||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3966|5.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.8070|-3.3966|0.5962
95863270|NCT04093024|191684710|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7733|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1424||0.5776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7015|8.2481|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.2481|-4.7015|0.5776
95863271|NCT04093024|191684711|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.316||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.975|8.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||8.707|-8.975|0.9755
95961213|NCT00267098|191893882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.866||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to death or a visit in which LVESVI endpoint was met. Data beyond missed LVESVI measurements were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used instead of a 95% confidence interval.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or II who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of mortality or significant increase in LVESVI as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of death or significant increase in LVESVI than patients with right ventricular pacing."||0.866|0.558|0.9886
95961214|NCT00267098|191893883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|0.947||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|Because BLOCK HF was a Bayesian study, a 95% credible interval was used in lieu of a 95% confidence interval. This interval reflects the set of values the Hazard Ratio can take with 95% posterior probability.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of first heart failure(HF)-related hospitalization as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of first HF hospitalization than patients with right ventricular pacing.||0.947|0.522|0.9904
95838849|NCT02287467|191647270|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG group vs placebo|||1.82|0.5|.81
95838850|NCT02287467|191647271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) of being in a better category. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Proportional odds for being in a better category||1.95|0.70|.55
95838851|NCT02287467|191647272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is for hIVIG vs placebo|||2.31|.5|.77
95838852|NCT02287467|191647273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio is expressed as hIVIG vs placebo|||2.34|0.7|.34
95838853|NCT02287467|191647274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category. An odds ratio \>1 favors the hIVIG group.|||1.62|.50|.73
95838854|NCT02287467|191647275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in the pilot study.|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) is for being in a better category.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for 3 participants for whom the outcome was partially unknown.||1.59|0.55|.82
95838855|NCT02287467|191647276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for baseline clinical status, region, and participation in pilot study|Odds ratio (hIVIG vs placebo) for a better outcome. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the hIVIG group.|Multiple imputation was used to estimate the outcome for one participant.||8.42|1.21|.02
95838856|NCT02287467|191647277|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal regression with adjustment for baseline titer|Ratio of hIVIG group to placebo group. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers for the hIVIG group.|HAI measurements were log-transformed to compute treatment differences and the model was adjusted for baseline titer.||2.7|0.84|.18
95838857|NCT02287467|191647278|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|1.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|longitudinal analysis of log-transformed titers adjust for baseline titer.|Ratio of geometric means of hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \>1.0 indicates higher titers in the hIVIG group on day 7.|||1.8|0.93|.13
95863272|NCT04093024|191684712|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|3.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.225||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|14.157|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||14.157|-7.250|0.5140
95838858|NCT02287467|191647279|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|log-transformed titers adjusted for baseline titer|ratio of geometric mean for hIVIG vs placebo. A ratio \> 1.0 indicates higher titers at day 7 for the hIVIG group.|||1.5|0.58|.78
95838859|NCT01915173|191647281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Standard Interview groups to the Expanded Interview groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.01
95838860|NCT01915173|191647281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||All 4 arms were combined to compare the Placebo groups to the Supplement groups. We calculated that we had 45-74% power to detect a 30-40% difference in responders between groups in the pre-specified primary outcome measure, the percent of subjects with a 50% or greater improvement in GERD symptom severity.||||0.33
95838861|NCT01456169|191647290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate.||The type I error was controlled using a 2-step hierarchical testing procedure. In the first step, the high dose (40/25 mg) of Azilsartan medoxomil + chlorthalidone was compared to Azilsartan medoxomil alone. If the comparison in step 1 was statistically significant at a significance level of 5%, then step 2 was performed by comparing the low dose (40/12.5 mg) and monotherapy at the 5% significance level.||-11.8|-17.6|<0.001
95838862|NCT01456169|191647290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline trough, sitting, clinic SBP as a covariate||||-6.5|-12.4|<0.001
95838863|NCT00108862|191647314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-2.0|8.0||The analysis was stratified by screening CD4 (\<50 cells/mm3 vs =\>50). Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided|A 2-sided Z-test was used to compare the two percents. The test was weighted by the inverse of the Greenwood's variance in each CD4 stratum.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|Assuming that immediate ART was better than deferred ART and that the combined rate in the deferred ART arm was 25% compared to 15% in the immediate ART arm (a 40% reduction), and assuming 10% loss to follow-up in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level asymptotically-normal test with 400 participants in each arm, there was 90% power. The percents tested were Kaplan-Meier estimators at week 48 with the associated Greenwood's variance.||8|-2|0.45
95838864|NCT00108862|191647315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.08|2.0|21.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an\> O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||21|2|0.02
95855237|NCT04973449|191669997|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|1.8||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||1.80|1.62|
95855238|NCT04973449|191669998|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.56||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.56|0.44|
95855239|NCT04973449|191669999|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the comparator group and reference group was \> 0.67.|GMT ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.44||||||The analyses were derived using ANCOVA.||0.44|0.32|
95838865|NCT00108862|191647316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.08|-7.0|4.0||Interim reviews employed group sequential monitoring using an O'Brien-Fleming use function. At final analysis, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.0492.|Z-test, 2-sided||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent failed in the Deferred ART arm minus the percent failed in the Immediate ART arm.|The study was not powered for this pre-specified subgroup analysis.||4|-7|0.67
95838866|NCT02631551|191647326|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs GSP 301 placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||<0.0001
95838867|NCT02631551|191647326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Olopatadine HCl NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0029
95838868|NCT02631551|191647326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0587|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSP 301 NS vs Mometasone furoate NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0587
95838869|NCT02631551|191647326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0755|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Olopatadine HCl NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0755
95838870|NCT02631551|191647326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mometasone furoate NS vs GSP 301 Placebo NS comparison for rTNSS was tested at 0.05 significance level.||||0.0043
95838871|NCT00377858|191647330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.3% based on prior studies indicating an HbA1c difference of 0.6% in patients treated with lispro and sulfonylurea compared with those treated with sulfonylurea and metformin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.097||95.0|-0.03|0.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c Stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for (Insulin Lispro Mid Mixture minus Insulin Glargine).|Assuming 15% drop-out rate after randomization, remaining 213 patients in each treatment group would allow confirmation of noninferiority with no treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.3% using upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval at significance level of 0.05 with 80% power.||0.37|-0.03|0.097
95838872|NCT00377858|191647331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.047||95.0|0.0|0.33||P-value for 12 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.33|0.00|0.047
95838873|NCT00377858|191647331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.043||95.0|0.01|0.35||P-value for 24 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|0.01|0.043
95961215|NCT00267098|191893884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-1.8||||0.637||||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Difference in Average Ranks|The subjects' individual rates of days hospitalized for HF were ranked, with lower ranks corresponding to fewer days hospitalized for HF.|The posterior probability that the BiV - RV difference in average ranks was below 0 (denoting that the BiV arm had lower ranks than the RV arm, on average) was calculated.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same rate of days hospitalized for heart failure per year as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a lower rate of days hospitalized for HF than patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.637
95962518|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.4||||0.4715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.9|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.9|0.1|0.4715
95863273|NCT04093024|191684713|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.358||0.7613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.848|7.908|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||7.908|-5.848|0.7613
95863274|NCT04093024|191684714|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.049||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.026|10.707|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||10.707|-10.026|0.9468
95838874|NCT00377858|191647331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.343||95.0|-0.1|0.29||P-value for 36 Week Interval.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.10|0.343
95838875|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||95.0||||P-value for Week 12: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.432
95838876|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.602
95838877|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.370
95838878|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.198
95838879|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.636
95838880|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.185
95838881|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.393
95838882|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.739
95838883|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||P-value for 36 Week: HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.396
95838884|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.227
95961216|NCT00267098|191893885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.012||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.591
95961217|NCT00267098|191893885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.126||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.986
95961218|NCT00267098|191893885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.039||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.726
95838885|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c \<7.0%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.482
95961219|NCT00267098|191893885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.035||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in NYHA classification were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in NYHA classification from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.701
95838886|NCT00377858|191647332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint (LOCF): HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c + Country + Sulfonylurea Stratum.||||||0.108
95838887|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.014||95.0|0.12|1.04||P-value for Baseline: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.04|0.12|0.014
95838888|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.735||95.0|-0.51|0.72||P-value for Baseline: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.72|-0.51|0.735
95838889|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54||||0.051||95.0|0.0|1.08||P-value for Baseline: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.08|-0.00|0.051
95863275|NCT04093024|191684715|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|5.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.02|-0.39|0.0908
95838890|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.536||95.0|-0.39|0.75||P-value for Baseline: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.75|-0.39|0.536
95838891|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.793||95.0|-0.48|0.62||P-value for Baseline: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.48|0.793
95838892|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.693||95.0|-0.43|0.64||P-value for Baseline: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.64|-0.43|0.693
95838893|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.499||95.0|-0.38|0.77||P-value for Baseline: 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.77|-0.38|0.499
95838894|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|0.26|0.92||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.92|0.26|<0.001
95863276|NCT04093024|191684716|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||5.25|-0.69|0.1222
95863277|NCT04093024|191684717|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.2||0.8012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|65.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||65.0|-50.7|0.8012
95838895|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.278||95.0|-0.22|0.78||P-value for 12 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.78|-0.22|0.278
95838896|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.009||95.0|0.14|0.93||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.93|0.14|0.009
95838897|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.049||95.0|0.0|0.97||P-value for 12 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.97|0.00|0.049
95863278|NCT04093024|191684718|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested|Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.8||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.1|37.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Fixed categorical effects: (Randomised) treatment, age-group; Fixed continuous effects: Baseline at each visit, random effect for participant.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as 'Randomised Nintedanib - randomised placebo'.|||37.2|-103.1|0.3401
95838898|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.18||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.18|0.35|<0.001
95838899|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.63|-0.7||P-value for 12 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.70|-1.63|<0.001
95838900|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.506||95.0|-0.59|0.29||P-value for 12 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.59|0.506
95838901|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.99||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.99|0.31|<0.001
95838902|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.094||95.0|-0.07|0.91||P-value for 24 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.91|-0.07|0.094
95838903|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.408||95.0|-0.24|0.59||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.59|-0.24|0.408
95838904|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.351||95.0|-0.25|0.71||P-value for 24 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.71|-0.25|0.351
95961220|NCT00267098|191893886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.002||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 6 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 6 month change in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 6 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.534
95961221|NCT00267098|191893886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.026||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 12 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 12 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values reflect better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' change in HF stage from randomization to 12 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.825
95961222|NCT00267098|191893886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|0.01||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 18 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 18 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote that the BiV arm had better outcomes over time than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 18 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.651
95838905|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56||||0.01||95.0|0.13|0.98||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.98|0.13|0.010
95838906|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.029||95.0|-0.92|-0.05||P-value for 24 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.92|0.029
95838907|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.816||95.0|-0.45|0.35||P-value for 24 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.35|-0.45|0.816
95838908|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.008||95.0|0.13|0.85||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.85|0.13|0.008
95838909|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.438||95.0|-0.71|0.31||P-value for 36 Week: Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.31|-0.71|0.438
95838910|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.548||95.0|-0.54|0.29||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.29|-0.54|0.548
95838911|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.964||95.0|-0.5|0.52||P-value for 36 Week: Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.52|-0.50|0.964
95838912|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.453||95.0|-0.27|0.6||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Pre-Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.60|-0.27|0.453
95838913|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.096||95.0|-0.84|0.07||P-value for 36 Week: Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.84|0.096
95838914|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.77||95.0|-0.51|0.37||P-value for 36 Week: 0300 Hours.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.37|-0.51|0.770
95838915|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.01||95.0|0.11|0.8||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.80|0.11|0.010
95838916|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31||||0.201||95.0|-0.8|0.17||P-value for Endpoint: Morning Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.80|0.201
95838917|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.43||95.0|-0.57|0.24||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.24|-0.57|0.430
95838918|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.814||95.0|-0.52|0.41||P-value for Endpoint: Midday Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.41|-0.52|0.814
95961223|NCT00267098|191893886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BiV - RV Difference in Average Rank|-0.006||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; thus p-values were not used. Instead, a posterior probability,representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes at 24 months, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for Average Rank|Subjects' Randomization - 24 month changes in HF Stage were ranked. The BiV - RV difference in average rank was analyzed.|Positive values denote better outcomes over time in the BiV arm than the RV arm.|Subjects' changes in HF stage from randomization to 24 months were determined. The null hypothesis was that the average change among patients with biventricular pacing is equal to that of patients with right ventricular pacing.||||0.425
95838919|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.427||95.0|-0.24|0.57||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Pre-Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.57|-0.24|0.427
95838920|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.009||95.0|-1.0|-0.14||P-value for Endpoint: Evening Postprandial Meal. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.14|-1.00|0.009
95962373|NCT03607422|191896596|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.9|39.9|<0.001
95863279|NCT00647270|191684731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|7.4|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference between adalimumab 80 mg monthly and placebo divided by the difference between adalimumab 40 mg eow and placebo.|Adalimumab 80 mg monthly versus placebo: The null hypothesis associated with this comparison stated that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be inferior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response percentage; the alternative hypothesis was that adalimumab 80 mg monthly would be superior to placebo with respect to ACR20 response.||7.4|-13.3|0.074
95838921|NCT00377858|191647333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.569||95.0|-0.51|0.28||P-value for Endpoint: 0300 Hours. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.28|-0.51|0.569
95838922|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.776||95.0|-0.14|0.19||P-value for Baseline MODD.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.19|-0.14|0.776
95838923|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.737||95.0|-6.14|8.68||P-value for Baseline M-Value.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.68|-6.14|0.737
95838924|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.701||95.0|-0.19|0.13||P-value for 12 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.13|-0.19|0.701
95838925|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.4||95.0|-2.11|5.27||P-value for 12 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||5.27|-2.11|0.400
95838926|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.321||95.0|-0.26|0.09||P-value for 24 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.26|0.321
95863280|NCT00647270|191684731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sensitivity analysis was proposed for the non-inferiority comparison. If the lower confidence limit of θ80 - θ40 was greater than -0.1, then the non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg eow would be claimed||||||0.74||95.0||||Non - inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly compared with 40 mg eow could not be tested because the null hypothesis of the first comparison was not rejected.|Chi-squared|||The non-inferiority of adalimumab 80 mg monthly to adalimumab 40 mg every other week (eow) was to be claimed if at least 50% of the treatment effect of adalimumab 40 mg eow over placebo was to be achieved by adalimumab 80 mg monthly over placebo.||||0.74
95838927|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52||||0.179||95.0|-1.16|6.21||P-value for 24 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||6.21|-1.16|0.179
95838928|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.573||95.0|-0.22|0.12||P-value for 36 Week MODD.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|-0.22|0.573
95961224|NCT00267098|191893890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 6 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9976
95961225|NCT00267098|191893891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 12 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.9641
95838929|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.629||95.0|-4.79|2.9||P-value for 36 Week M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||2.90|-4.79|0.629
95838930|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.25||95.0|-0.26|0.07||P-value for Endpoint MODD. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.07|-0.26|0.250
95863281|NCT00647270|191684732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
95838931|NCT00377858|191647334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.362||95.0|-5.44|1.99||P-value for Endpoint M-Value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||1.99|-5.44|0.362
95838932|NCT00377858|191647335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
95838933|NCT00377858|191647335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95838934|NCT00377858|191647335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.430
95838935|NCT00377858|191647335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95838936|NCT00377858|191647335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95838937|NCT00377858|191647335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.756
95838938|NCT00377858|191647336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.022
95838939|NCT00377858|191647336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Overall Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.218
95961226|NCT00267098|191893892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.8416|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The parameter of interest was the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL change from randomization to 18 months.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.8416
95961227|NCT00267098|191893893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that patients with BiV pacing have better outcomes than those with RV pacing, was calculated. A probability ≥0.95 was significant.|Posterior Probability of Mean QOL Change|The posterior distribution for the BiV - RV difference in mean QOL score improvement from randomization to 24 months was determined.||"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in QOL score from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a greater reduction (and thus improvement) in QOL score at 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||||0.7270
95962374|NCT03607422|191896597|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|53.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||53.7|41.0|<0.001
95838940|NCT00377858|191647336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.311
95838941|NCT00377858|191647336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||P-value for Overall Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.615
95838942|NCT00377858|191647336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Endpoint Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.018
95838943|NCT00377858|191647336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0||||P-value for Overall Non-Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable = Treatment + Sufonylurea Stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c Stratum.||||||0.255
95838944|NCT00377858|191647337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for Overall Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.416
95838945|NCT00377858|191647338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.12|-0.05||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-0.05|-0.12|<0.001
95838946|NCT00377858|191647338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|0.04|0.11||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.11|0.04|<0.001
95838947|NCT00377858|191647338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.017||95.0|0.01|0.12||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.12|0.01|0.017
95838948|NCT00377858|191647339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.65|-4.26||P-value for Daily Basal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||-4.26|-9.65|<0.001
95838949|NCT00377858|191647339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.05|||<|0.001||95.0|3.39|8.71||P-value for Daily Prandial.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||8.71|3.39|<0.001
95838950|NCT00377858|191647339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2||||0.017||95.0|0.93|9.46||P-value for Daily Total.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||9.46|0.93|0.017
95962375|NCT03607422|191896597|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|34.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||40.2|27.8|<0.001
95838951|NCT00377858|191647340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|0.24|0.42||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.42|0.24|<0.001
95838952|NCT00377858|191647340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.36||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.36|0.07|0.003
95838953|NCT00377858|191647340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.002||95.0|0.09|0.4||P-value for Week 30.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Country + Sulfonylurea stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.40|0.09|0.002
95838954|NCT00377858|191647340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.005||95.0|0.07|0.38||P-value for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.38|0.07|0.005
95838955|NCT00377858|191647340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.011||95.0|0.04|0.34||P-value for Endpoint. (last observation carried forward)|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.34|0.04|0.011
95838956|NCT00377858|191647341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.803||95.0|-0.8|0.62||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable=Treatment + Baseline + Sulfonylurea stratum + Country + Baseline HbA1c stratum.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval of the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments is for Insulin Lispro Mid Mix minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.62|-0.80|0.803
95838957|NCT00709618|191647352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.4|||||The estimated value respresents the percentage of participants with a complete response or a partial response.|||55.4|26.4|
95838958|NCT01345188|191647360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.058
95838959|NCT01345188|191647361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.048
95838960|NCT01345188|191647362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||||||>0.05
95838961|NCT00684775|191647368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|25.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||25.0|1.44|=0.002
95863282|NCT00647270|191684733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
95838962|NCT00684775|191647369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0081
95838963|NCT00684775|191647370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.6|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.6|.5|0.56
95838964|NCT00684775|191647371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.53|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.53|.6|=0.41
95838965|NCT00684775|191647372|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.36|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||3.36|.42|0.75
95838966|NCT00684775|191647373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1543|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1543
95838967|NCT00684775|191647374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.1|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||4.1|.81|0.15
95838968|NCT02123823|191647381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.97||||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.65|0.57|0.9057
95838969|NCT02123823|191647384|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement at screening.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||2.32|0.20|0.5598
95838970|NCT02123823|191647385|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.03||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.8|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified for visceral involvement.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified for visceral involvement.|||1.80|0.59|0.9146
95838971|NCT02123823|191647386|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for visceral involvement.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to the xentuzumab arm.|||1.59|0.31|0.4008
95838972|NCT02161757|191647398|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.93||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.72|0.5859
95838973|NCT02161757|191647398|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.9||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.17|0.70|0.4406
95838974|NCT02161757|191647398|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|7.01||||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.76|28.39|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||28.39|-20.76|0.5859
95838975|NCT02161757|191647398|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|9.76||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|30.5|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||30.50|-17.16|0.4406
95838976|NCT02161757|191647399|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|6.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|9.73|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||9.73|2.34|
95838977|NCT02161757|191647399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|5.77|||||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of percent change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis performed on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment."||5.77|-1.58|
95838978|NCT02161757|191647400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.04|-0.23|
95961228|NCT00267098|191893894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.886|4.815||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 6 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||4.815|1.886|
95838979|NCT02161757|191647400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.12|-0.15|
95863283|NCT00647270|191684733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
95863284|NCT00647270|191684734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for the Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.002
95838980|NCT02161757|191647401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.31|-0.01|
95838981|NCT02161757|191647401|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.28|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.28|-0.03|
95838982|NCT02161757|191647402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||-0.02|-0.29|
95838983|NCT02161757|191647402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||0.01|-0.26|
95838984|NCT02161757|191647403|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.54||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||0.96|0.30|0.0369
95838985|NCT02161757|191647403|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.33|0.46|0.3603
95838986|NCT02161757|191647405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.51|
95838987|NCT02161757|191647405|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.24|-0.56|
95838988|NCT02161757|191647406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|16.03|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.03|-3.53|
95838989|NCT02161757|191647406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|11.53|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||11.53|-7.99|
95838990|NCT02161757|191647406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|16.87|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||16.87|-2.60|
95838991|NCT02161757|191647406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|10.35|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||10.35|-9.13|
95838992|NCT02161757|191647407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|1.69|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.69|-5.29|
95838993|NCT02161757|191647407|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.12|||||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis."||1.12|-5.84|
95838994|NCT02161757|191647408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.28|0.71|0.732
95838995|NCT02161757|191647408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from two separate models, from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Tralo 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.||1.19|0.65|0.421
95838996|NCT02106403|191647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.46||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|11.29|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||11.29|-0.37|0.0659
95838997|NCT02106403|191647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.99||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|10.81|||ANCOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.81|-0.84|0.0928
95838998|NCT02106403|191647433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|6.31|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||6.31|-5.35|0.8711
95962376|NCT03607422|191896598|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|57.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.1|43.8|<0.001
95838999|NCT02106403|191647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.43||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|18.42|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.42|4.43|0.0016
95839000|NCT02106403|191647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.69||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.69|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.69|-5.31|0.6323
95839001|NCT02106403|191647434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.73||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|16.73|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||16.73|2.74|0.0069
95839002|NCT02106403|191647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.23|18.04|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||18.04|6.23|<0.0001
95839003|NCT02106403|191647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|3.72|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||3.72|-8.09|0.4645
95839004|NCT02106403|191647435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.41|20.22|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||20.22|8.41|<0.0001
95839005|NCT02106403|191647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.41||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|12.38|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||12.38|0.44|0.0357
95839006|NCT02106403|191647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|8.0|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the reference product minus negative control such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the reference product.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||8.00|-3.95|0.5030
95839007|NCT02106403|191647436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|10.36|||ANOVA|Calculated from mixed effect ANOVA analysis with treatment and assessment site as fixed effects and subject as random effect.|Difference was calculated as the prototype disinfectant spray formulation minus reference product such that a positive difference showed improved cooling in the prototype disinfectant spray formulation.|The null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: product difference was null vs. Ha: product difference was not null.||10.36|-1.59|0.1482
95839008|NCT00874848|191647438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2895
95839009|NCT01496846|191647444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.901
95839010|NCT01496846|191647444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.004
95863285|NCT00647270|191684735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model was adjusted for Baseline Measure.||Using a fixed-sequence multiple-testing approach at an alpha level of 0.05 to test the secondary endpoints, the testing of the null-hypothesis began with the first endpoint and stopped as soon as failure to reject a hypothesis occurred (i.e., P value \> 0.05). Using this procedure, testing stopped after secondary endpoint number 1, change from Baseline in HAQ at Week 12.||||0.005
95863286|NCT03615040|191684736|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||A generalised linear model (assuming neg. binomial distribution) was used. The model includes the number of exacerbations during the 48 week treatment as an outcome with explanatory variables of treatment arm \& number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), and log-time on trial (in weeks) as an offset. The offset, allows for different lengths of time in the trial. Only observed exacerbations were used alongside the corresponding time period in the offset.||1.14|0.53|0.195
95863287|NCT03615040|191684739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||-0.2|-6.4|0.039
95863288|NCT03615040|191684740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Calculated using mixed effect linear model with dependent variable of the outcome at baseline and follow-up time points (Week 4, 12, 24, 36, 48); explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score; an interaction term between treatment and visit as fixed effects; and patient identification as a random effect.||2.00|-0.91|0.469
95839011|NCT01496846|191647445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Chi-squared|We used the Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact test on the raw data depending on the number of data points in the table cells.||||||.437
95839012|NCT05169424|191647446|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of exacerbation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.133||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|1.293|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.293|0.993|0.064
95839013|NCT05169424|191647446|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
95839014|NCT05169424|191647446|OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
95863289|NCT03615040|191684741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 4||||0.90
95863290|NCT03615040|191684741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 12||||0.95
95863291|NCT03615040|191684741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 24||||0.78
95863292|NCT03615040|191684741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 36||||0.88
95863293|NCT03615040|191684741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank sum test of mMRC dyspnoea Week 48||||0.78
95863294|NCT03615040|191684742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|6.2||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS total||6.2|-24.9|0.236
95839015|NCT05169424|191647447|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.372|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.372|0.996|0.057
95839016|NCT05169424|191647448|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.116||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||1.279|0.974|0.114
95863295|NCT03615040|191684742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|0.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Dyspnoea||0.7|-10.6|0.083
95863296|NCT03615040|191684742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|4.7||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Cough||4.7|-8.9|0.546
95863297|NCT03615040|191684742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.0||Using mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||VAS Sputum production||4.0|-7.8|0.527
95863298|NCT03615040|191684743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 12||||0.84
95863299|NCT03615040|191684743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 24||||0.52
95839017|NCT05169424|191647449|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference group) versus Trelegy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.424|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression was for time to first exacerbation and cohort as covariate.||||2.424|0.779|0.273
95839018|NCT05169424|191647450|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.792|||Regression, Cox|||||1.792|0.780|0.429
95839019|NCT05169424|191647450|OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.896
95839020|NCT05169424|191647450|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.932
95839021|NCT05169424|191647451|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.645|||Regression, Cox|||||1.645|0.582|0.935
95839022|NCT05169424|191647452|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.159||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.790|0.750|0.507
95839023|NCT05169424|191647453|OTHER|Comparison of Stiolto (reference) versus Trelegy for incidence rate of pneumonia hospitalization.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.291||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|5.405|||Regression, Cox|||||5.405|0.309|0.726
95839024|NCT05169424|191647454|OTHER|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.874
95839025|NCT05169424|191647454|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.895||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.974|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.974|0.823|0.01
95839026|NCT05169424|191647455|OTHER|||||||0.899|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.899
95863300|NCT03615040|191684743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 36||||0.82
95863301|NCT03615040|191684743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||sputum purulence colour card Week 48||||0.95
95863302|NCT03615040|191684744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.06||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|18.97|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FEV1/FVC ratio: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||18.97|-0.83|0.069
95863303|NCT03615040|191684745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effect linear model with explanatory variables of treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), visit time point (as categorical variable), baseline score and patient identification as a random effect to account for repeated measures over time was fitted for each outcome. Adjusted mean difference between treatment arms with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported. In the modified ITT population.||0.09|-0.01|0.094
95863304|NCT03615040|191684746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.52||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Total Lung Capacity||0.52|-0.46|0.905
95863305|NCT03615040|191684746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.47||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume||0.47|-0.62|0.775
95839027|NCT05169424|191647455|OTHER||Exponential estimate|0.897||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|0.976|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||0.976|0.824|0.012
95839028|NCT05169424|191647456|OTHER|||||||0.974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
95839029|NCT05169424|191647456|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.135||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.812|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.812|0.711|0.595
95839030|NCT05169424|191647457|OTHER|||||||0.622|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.622
95839031|NCT05169424|191647457|OTHER||Exponential estimate|1.008||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094|||ZINB regression with log link|The costs were modeled using Zero Inflated Negative Binomial (ZINB) regression with log link with cohort as the only covariate.|The analysis was for Stiolto versus Trlegy (Trelegy was the reference group).|||1.094|0.928|0.855
95839032|NCT05169424|191647458|OTHER|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
95839033|NCT02024724|191647459|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|10.0|||Chi-squared|||||10.00|-45.00|.196
95839034|NCT02019875|191647460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|18.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.3|-21.2|0.884
95839035|NCT02019875|191647460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|20.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.7|-19.5|0.955
95839036|NCT02019875|191647460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.6|-26.5|0.53
95839037|NCT02019875|191647460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.9|-27.6|0.434
95839038|NCT02019875|191647460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.6|-24.2|0.796
95839039|NCT02019875|191647461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-6.0|0.62
95839040|NCT02019875|191647461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-3.1|0.482
95839041|NCT02019875|191647461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-3.4|0.559
95839042|NCT02019875|191647461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.5|-1.2|0.138
95839043|NCT02019875|191647461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-7.1|0.477
95839044|NCT02019875|191647462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.3|-11.0|0.98
95839045|NCT02019875|191647462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.7|-10.0|0.81
95839046|NCT02019875|191647462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-10.8|0.91
95839047|NCT02019875|191647462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.8|-8.9|0.68
95839048|NCT02019875|191647462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.6|-11.9|0.96
95839049|NCT02019875|191647463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.7|0.17
95839050|NCT02019875|191647463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.0|0.44
95839051|NCT02019875|191647463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-1.7|0.94
95839052|NCT02019875|191647463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.2|2.1|<0.0001
95839053|NCT02019875|191647463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.6|2.2|<0.0001
95839054|NCT02019875|191647464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.012|-0.027|0.43
95839055|NCT02019875|191647464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.003|-0.037|0.09
95839056|NCT02019875|191647464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.009|-0.031|0.29
95839057|NCT02019875|191647464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.015|-0.025|0.61
95839058|NCT02019875|191647464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.014|-0.03|0.46
95839059|NCT02019875|191647465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|26.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.7|-52.0|0.53
95839060|NCT02019875|191647465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|-4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.5|-84.5|0.03
95839061|NCT02019875|191647465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|32.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.8|-47.3|0.72
95839062|NCT02019875|191647465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|42.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.2|-36.6|0.89
95839063|NCT02019875|191647465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|80.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.6|-4.7|0.08
95839064|NCT02019875|191647466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.5|110.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.2|-104.5|0.96
95839065|NCT02019875|191647466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.2|124.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.2|-94.2|0.79
95839066|NCT02019875|191647466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|180.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||180.5|-37.9|0.20
95839067|NCT02019875|191647466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.1|104.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.7|-110.1|0.96
95839068|NCT02019875|191647466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.7|168.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.2|-64.7|0.38
95839069|NCT01128946|191647472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.63|26.48||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||26.48|19.63|<0.0001
95839070|NCT01128946|191647473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|14.17||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.17|7.33|<0.0001
95839071|NCT01128946|191647473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|15.67||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.67|8.74|<0.0001
95839072|NCT01128946|191647473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|15.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.72|8.90|<0.0001
95839073|NCT01128946|191647473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.91||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||4.91|-2.00|0.4070
95839074|NCT01128946|191647473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-7.4||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-7.40|-14.30|<0.0001
95839075|NCT01128946|191647474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|14.96||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.96|11.46|<0.0001
95839076|NCT01128946|191647474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|10.55||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.55|7.04|<0.0001
95839077|NCT01128946|191647474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|9.8||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.80|6.25|<0.0001
95839078|NCT01128946|191647474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|6.16||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||6.16|2.66|<0.0001
95839079|NCT01128946|191647474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.0||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||1.00|-2.54|0.3942
95839080|NCT01128946|191647474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-3.41||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for treatments in comparison, to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-3.41|-6.95|<0.0001
95863306|NCT03615040|191684747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.01||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||White blood cell count||1.07|0.95|0.736
95962377|NCT03607422|191896598|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|25.8|<0.001
95839081|NCT01746225|191647490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||0.12
95839082|NCT01746225|191647490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.03
95839083|NCT01746225|191647490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; One-sided .05 alpha-level test|Log Rank|One-sided test||For each arm separately, PFS was compared to the historic PFS of first-line docetaxel using a one-sample one-sided log-rank test, of the null hypothesis, H0: median PFS≤7 months vs. H1: median PFS\>7 months.||||.20
95839084|NCT02467842|191647511|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.10|0.94|
95839085|NCT02467842|191647511|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (pooled TIV/QIV)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01||||||GMR of A/H3N2 strain (GMTs of pooled TIV/QIV)||1.01|0.87|
95839086|NCT02467842|191647511|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.95||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.95|0.82|
95839087|NCT02467842|191647511|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.5 for each strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.97||||||GMR of A/H1N1 strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.97|0.83|
95839088|NCT02467842|191647512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|4.06||||||Diff. SCR of A/H1N1 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||4.06|-6.07|
95839089|NCT02467842|191647512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|0.04||||||Diff. SCR of A/H3N2 strain (SCR of pooled TIV minus QIV)||0.04|-10.08|
95839090|NCT02467842|191647512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-7.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-1.0||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-1.00|-13.12|
95839091|NCT02467842|191647512|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SCR was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator minus experimental) ≤10% for each strain.|Difference in percentage|-3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|3.09||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||3.09|-9.26|
95839092|NCT02467842|191647516|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||GMR of B/Yamagata strain (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.70|
95839093|NCT02467842|191647516|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for GMR (active comparator/experimental) was ≤1.0 for each B strain.|GMR (TIV/QIV)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||GMR of B/Victoria (GMTs of TIV/QIV)||0.81|0.69|
95839094|NCT02467842|191647517|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-18.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-13.36||||||Diff. SCR of B/Yamaga strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-13.36|-24.61|
95839095|NCT02467842|191647517|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of 95% confidence interval for Diff. SCR (active comparator-experimental) was ≤0% in each B strain.|Difference in percentage|-12.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.45||||||Diff. SCR of B/Victoria strain (SCR of TIV minus QIV)||-6.45|-18.79|
95839096|NCT02708355|191647556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|1.055|||Regression, Logistic|||Association between percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 and relief of 24 -hour heartburn was assessed using logistic regression model with relief of 24- hour heartburn at Day 14 as dependent variable and change in percentage of time with intragastric pH\>4 as the independent variable, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI).||1.055|1.001|0.0442
95839097|NCT03182907|191647558|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 1 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 1 geometric mean (GM) AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||1.18|0.95|
95839098|NCT03182907|191647558|OTHER|The AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in Cohort 2 was compared to the AUC0-inf of bezlotoxumab in adults using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The comparison adult PK dataset used was based on participants from 2 adult trials (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239) as a historical control.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.89|||||GMR was calculated as the Cohort 2 GM AUC0-inf / Adult GM AUC0-inf.|||0.89|0.75|
95839099|NCT03182907|191647559|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|7.7||||||||7.7|-14.5|
95839100|NCT03182907|191647560|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to generate the estimated difference in percentage and associated 95% CIs in bezlotoxumab versus placebo arms.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-9.7|
95839101|NCT03182907|191647561|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|-3.7|||=|0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|8.0|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||8.0|-20.0|= 0.5701
95839102|NCT03182907|191647562|OTHER|Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by age cohort (12 to \<18 years of age, 1 to \<12 years of age) with a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||=|0.9165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.6|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||17.6|-11.8|= 0.9165
95839103|NCT03182907|191647563|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate the treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted Difference|-3.1|||=|0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.0|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.0|-19.9|= 0.6542
95839104|NCT03182907|191647564|OTHER|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method was used to generate treatment difference, associated 95% CIs and a 2-sided p-value.|Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.4|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||17.4|-13.0|= 0.9873
95839105|NCT01211340|191647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.18
95839106|NCT01211340|191647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|No significant difference found between groups||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.18
95839107|NCT01211340|191647595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Spearmans rank|No differences found||To test the effects of the dose of meetings on association with overall Caregiver Perceptions of Pain Medicine Questionaire (CPMQ) change we used Spearman rank correlation coefficient||||.18
95863307|NCT03615040|191684747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil Count||0.69|0.51|<0.001
95839108|NCT01211340|191647596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcxon Rank Sum Test|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.15
95839109|NCT01211340|191647596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.15
95839110|NCT01211340|191647597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The first analysis examined change from baseline to last available measure prior to death or the end of the study. The pre/post change was calculated for each participant and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare usual care and intervention groups with respect to changes. All randomized caregivers with at least 1 post baseline measure were included in the analysis.||||.89
95839111|NCT01211340|191647597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||The secondary analysis used a linear mixed model to test for groups differences over time. To account for repeated- measures nature of the data and the varying duration of participation, both participant specific intercept and slopes were treated as random effects. To minimize the leverage of relatively small number of participants with extremely long follow-up times we limited the number of days followed to 122, which was the 75th percentile of the days in the combined study.||||.89
95839112|NCT04522141|191647598|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.038
95863308|NCT03615040|191684747|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||"Outcome was log transformed~Explanatory variables:~treatment arm, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification factor), log BL value, visit time point (categorical) and patient identification (random effect)."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neutrophil Count||1.13|0.93|0.678
95839113|NCT04522141|191647598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.941
95839114|NCT04522141|191647599|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.003
95839115|NCT04522141|191647599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.027
95839116|NCT04522141|191647600|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||< .001
95839117|NCT04522141|191647600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.411
95839118|NCT04522141|191647601|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect weekly self-control||||< .001
95839119|NCT04522141|191647601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction weekly self-control||||0.176
95839120|NCT04522141|191647602|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
95839121|NCT04522141|191647602|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
95839122|NCT04522141|191647603|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.031
95839123|NCT04522141|191647603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.||Time by condition interaction||||0.260
95839124|NCT04522141|191647604|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.016
95839125|NCT04522141|191647604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.363
95839126|NCT04522141|191647605|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||> .05
95839127|NCT04522141|191647605|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Analyses are controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||> .05
95839128|NCT04522141|191647606|OTHER|||||||0.389||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.389
95839129|NCT04522141|191647606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.516
95839130|NCT04522141|191647607|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.005
95839131|NCT04522141|191647607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.555
95839132|NCT04522141|191647608|OTHER|||||||0.206||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect||||0.206
95839133|NCT04522141|191647608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, race, self-reported functional health, and self-reported health status.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||0.026
95839134|NCT01868477|191647619|OTHER|difference|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|48.16||||||||48.16|-24.0|
95863309|NCT03615040|191684748|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Eosinophil count||0.33|0.19|<0.001
95863310|NCT03615040|191684764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litres): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.35|-0.14|0.362
95839135|NCT04230213|191647632|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (percentage)|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|117.17|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|||117.17|89.78|
95839136|NCT04230213|191647633|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio falls within the 80% to 125% range.|Geometric mean ratio (Percentage)|105.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.16|124.39|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA model.|||124.39|89.16|
95839137|NCT00928694|191647671|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true geometric mean ratios (GMRs) \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||||1.02|0.90|
95839138|NCT00928694|191647672|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) Study Primary Hypothesis: Single 160 mg doses of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate following consumption of a standard breakfast are bioequivalent (the true GMRs \[U.S./UK\] for the AUC(0 to infinity) and Cmax of fenofibric acid after administration of the U.S. and UK formulations of fenofibrate with food are contained in the interval \[0.80, 1.25\]).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98||||||90.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
95839139|NCT01938040|191647699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95839140|NCT02309944|191647703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.27
95839141|NCT02309944|191647703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multivariate Model (adjusted for ascites and previous laparotomy)||Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs. Standard Wound Closure||||0.24
95839142|NCT02848222|191647743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold for significance was p \< 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
95839143|NCT03937713|191647745|OTHER|Calculations were approximated by those of a simple two-sample t-test for mean differences in PSQI in response to BBTI||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size selected for this preliminary trial was based on the analysis of the PSQI as the primary outcome. Assuming a correlation coefficient of 0.7 between pre-and post-treatment, 21 patients per arm were needed to achieve 80% power at a significance level of 5% in order to detect a clinically significant difference of 3 units in PSQI. To compensate for an anticipated attrition rate of 25%, the recruitment target was set at 52 participants.||||0.05
95839144|NCT03951077|191647772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.38|3.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.49|-15.38|0.300
95839145|NCT03951077|191647772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.65|3.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.86|-15.65|0.320
95839146|NCT03951077|191647772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-5.6||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.59|-14.87|0.315
95863311|NCT03615040|191684764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC (litre):Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||0.44|-0.61|0.713
95839147|NCT03951077|191647772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-6.7||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.63|3.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||3.19|-16.63|0.265
95839148|NCT03951077|191647772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-0.8||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.1|11.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across the strata, 90% CI for adjusted difference and p-value were calculated according to the CMH test adjusted for strata (Baseline FG score \[\< 8, ≥ 8\], and baseline normal/obese status \[BMI \< 30, ≥ 30\]) for the comparison of between each elagolix group and placebo. If zero frequency occurred, the zero count was replaced by 0.1 to prevent dividing by zero.||11.48|-13.10|0.914
95839149|NCT03951077|191647773|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-5.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.429||0.087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.628|-0.231|||MMRM|||P-value is from mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.231|-11.628|0.087
95839150|NCT03951077|191647773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.435||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.533|-3.118|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-3.118|-14.533|0.012
95839151|NCT03951077|191647773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.673|-10.519|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-10.519|-21.673|<0.001
95839152|NCT03951077|191647773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.593||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.116|-0.176|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-0.176|-12.116|0.091
95839153|NCT03951077|191647773|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.418|-6.016|||MMRM|||P-value is from MMRM with the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline FG score (\< 8, ≥ 8), and baseline normal/obese status (BMI \< 30, ≥ 30), participant as a random effect, and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline measurement. Model is based on unstructured variance covariance structure.||-6.016|-17.418|< 0.001
95839154|NCT00086047|191647774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|1.57|0.007
95839155|NCT00587158|191647792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
95839156|NCT00587158|191647793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4571
95863312|NCT03615040|191684765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Pre FEV1 predicted: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||12.20|-8.63|0.711
95839157|NCT00587158|191647794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2290
95839158|NCT00587158|191647795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.17
95839159|NCT00587158|191647795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.005
95839160|NCT00587158|191647795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||<0.0001
95839161|NCT00587158|191647795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median PTH level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.0004
95839162|NCT00587158|191647796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at baseline was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.833
95839163|NCT00587158|191647796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 21 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.553
95839164|NCT00587158|191647796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at 90 days was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.035
95839165|NCT00587158|191647796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median BAP level at one year was compared between the two treatment groups.||||0.171
95839166|NCT00587158|191647797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95839167|NCT00587158|191647798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95839168|NCT00587158|191647801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95839169|NCT00587158|191647802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95839170|NCT00587158|191647803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95839171|NCT00587158|191647804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score \> 0 and \< 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||1.0
95863313|NCT03615040|191684765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||Pre BD FVC predicted (%): Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for the baseline value||7.1|-27.9|0.214
95839172|NCT00587158|191647804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The number of subjects with moderate to mild interstitial fibrosis (Banff ci score greater than or equal to 2) at one year was compared between treatment groups.||||0.04
95839173|NCT01510158|191647828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.17|<0.0001
95839174|NCT01510158|191647828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
95839175|NCT01510158|191647829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.61|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.61|0.61|0.9796
95839176|NCT01510158|191647829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.43|0.54|0.6125
95839177|NCT01510158|191647830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.08|-0.51|0.0183
95839178|NCT01510158|191647830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.37|0.5974
95839179|NCT03078556|191647831|OTHER||Ratio|1.271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1894|1.3582|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3582|1.1894|
95839180|NCT03078556|191647831|OTHER||Ratio|1.0341|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0097|1.0591|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0591|1.0097|
95839181|NCT03078556|191647832|OTHER||Ratio|1.155|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0699|1.2468|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2468|1.0699|
95839182|NCT03078556|191647832|OTHER||Ratio|1.0635|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0413|1.0861|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0861|1.0413|
95839183|NCT03078556|191647833|OTHER||Ratio|1.2756|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1919|1.3651|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3651|1.1919|
95839184|NCT03078556|191647833|OTHER||Ratio|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0116|1.0634|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0634|1.0116|
95839185|NCT03078556|191647834|OTHER||Ratio|1.1578|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0718|1.2507|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2507|1.0718|
95839186|NCT03078556|191647834|OTHER||Ratio|1.0702|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0464|1.0946|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0946|1.0464|
95839187|NCT03078556|191647835|OTHER||Ratio|1.2805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.189|1.379|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3790|1.1890|
95839188|NCT03078556|191647835|OTHER||Ratio|1.1956|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1437|1.2498|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.2498|1.1437|
95839189|NCT03078556|191647836|OTHER||Ratio|1.141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0533|1.2361|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2361|1.0533|
95839190|NCT03078556|191647836|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2616|1.376|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.3760|1.2616|
95839191|NCT03078556|191647837|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
95839192|NCT03078556|191647837|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
95839193|NCT03078556|191647838|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.004|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.000|-0.004|
95839194|NCT03078556|191647838|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.000|0.000|
95839195|NCT03078556|191647839|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.248|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.248|-0.500|
95839196|NCT03078556|191647839|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.253|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.253|
95839197|NCT03078556|191647840|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.497|0.132|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.132|-0.497|
95839198|NCT03078556|191647840|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.376|-0.001|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||-0.001|-0.376|
95839199|NCT03078556|191647849|OTHER||Ratio|1.2774|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1931|1.3676|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3676|1.1931|
95839200|NCT03078556|191647849|OTHER||Ratio|1.0475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0185|1.0773|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0773|1.0185|
95839201|NCT03078556|191647850|OTHER||Ratio|1.1599|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0711|1.256|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2560|1.0711|
95839202|NCT03078556|191647850|OTHER||Ratio|1.0807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0539|1.1081|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.1081|1.0539|
95839203|NCT03078556|191647851|OTHER||Ratio|0.7868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7363|0.8408|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8408|0.7363|
95839204|NCT03078556|191647851|OTHER||Ratio|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9442|0.9904|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9904|0.9442|
95839205|NCT03078556|191647852|OTHER||Ratio|0.8658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8021|0.9347|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9347|0.8021|
95839206|NCT03078556|191647852|OTHER||Ratio|0.9403|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9207|0.9604|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9604|0.9207|
95839207|NCT03078556|191647853|OTHER||Ratio|0.7859|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7318|0.844|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.8440|0.7318|
95839208|NCT03078556|191647853|OTHER||Ratio|0.9704|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9157|1.0284|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||1.0284|0.9157|
95839209|NCT03078556|191647854|OTHER||Ratio|0.8571|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7914|0.9282|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||0.9282|0.7914|
95839210|NCT03078556|191647854|OTHER||Ratio|0.9153|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8613|0.9728|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9728|0.8613|
95839211|NCT03078556|191647855|OTHER||Ratio|1.2632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1811|1.3511|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.3511|1.1811|
95863314|NCT03615040|191684766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|1.65||To compare change from baseline to 48 weeks (pre and post treatment measurements), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline value as a covariate was fitted. Adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and p-value were reported.|ANCOVA|||Residual Volume/Total Lung Capacity ratio.||1.65|-7.53|0.201
95863315|NCT03615040|191684767|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.75||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects|Mixed Models Analysis|||Macrophage count||1.07|0.52|0.114
95839212|NCT03078556|191647855|OTHER||Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9268|0.9941|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9941|0.9268|
95839213|NCT03078556|191647856|OTHER||Ratio|1.1425|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0597|1.2317|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma DTG has been presented.|||1.2317|1.0597|
95839214|NCT03078556|191647856|OTHER||Ratio|0.9548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|0.9804|||||Ratio (C/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented.|||0.9804|0.9299|
95839215|NCT03078556|191647857|OTHER||Ratio|1.1839|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0921|1.2834|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2834|1.0921|
95839216|NCT03078556|191647857|OTHER||Ratio|0.8874|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.834|0.9443|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9443|0.8340|
95839217|NCT03078556|191647858|OTHER||Ratio|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9958|1.167|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.1670|0.9958|
95839218|NCT03078556|191647858|OTHER||Ratio|0.9049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8474|0.9663|||||Ratio (B/A) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9663|0.8474|
95839219|NCT03078556|191647859|OTHER||Ratio|1.1545|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0208|1.3058|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3058|1.0208|
95839220|NCT03078556|191647859|OTHER||Ratio|0.9577|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9126|1.0049|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0049|0.9126|
95839221|NCT03078556|191647860|OTHER||Ratio|1.3256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1837|1.4845|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4845|1.1837|
95839222|NCT03078556|191647860|OTHER||Ratio|0.9114|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8658|0.9593|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9593|0.8658|
95839223|NCT03078556|191647861|OTHER||Ratio|1.1481|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0154|1.2982|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2982|1.0154|
95839224|NCT03078556|191647861|OTHER||Ratio|0.9524|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9086|0.9983|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9983|0.9086|
95839225|NCT03078556|191647862|OTHER||Ratio|1.3176|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.175|1.4775|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4775|1.1750|
95839226|NCT03078556|191647862|OTHER||Ratio|0.9048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8592|0.9528|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9528|0.8592|
95839227|NCT03078556|191647863|OTHER||Ratio|1.0808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9527|1.2261|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2261|0.9527|
95839228|NCT03078556|191647863|OTHER||Ratio|0.7097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6474|0.7779|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7779|0.6474|
95839229|NCT03078556|191647864|OTHER||Ratio|1.2096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0521|1.3908|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.3908|1.0521|
95839230|NCT03078556|191647864|OTHER||Ratio|0.6826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5861|0.795|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.7950|0.5861|
95839231|NCT03078556|191647865|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.378|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.378|0.250|
95839232|NCT03078556|191647865|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.127|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.127|0.000|
95839233|NCT03078556|191647866|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.250|0.000|
95839234|NCT03078556|191647866|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.125|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.125|0.000|
95839235|NCT03078556|191647867|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.872|4.496|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||4.496|1.872|
95839236|NCT03078556|191647867|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.751|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.751|1.500|
95839237|NCT03078556|191647868|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.748|3.751|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||3.751|1.748|
95839238|NCT03078556|191647868|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.503|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.998|2.252|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||2.252|0.998|
95839239|NCT03078556|191647877|OTHER||Ratio|1.0849|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9613|1.2245|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.2245|0.9613|
95839240|NCT03078556|191647877|OTHER||Ratio|0.9363|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8913|0.9836|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9836|0.8913|
95839241|NCT03078556|191647878|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1013|1.4136|||||Median Difference of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4136|1.1013|
95839242|NCT03078556|191647878|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.8836|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8351|0.935|||||Median Difference of plasma 3TC has been presented|||0.9350|0.8351|
95839243|NCT03078556|191647879|OTHER||Ratio|0.8661|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7658|0.9796|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9796|0.7658|
95839244|NCT03078556|191647879|OTHER||Ratio|1.0442|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9951|1.0957|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.0957|0.9951|
95839245|NCT03078556|191647880|OTHER||Ratio|0.7544|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6736|0.8448|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8448|0.6736|
95839246|NCT03078556|191647880|OTHER||Ratio|1.0972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0424|1.155|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.1550|1.0424|
95839247|NCT03078556|191647883|OTHER||Ratio|0.8654|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7629|0.9816|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.9816|0.7629|
95839248|NCT03078556|191647883|OTHER||Ratio|1.0841|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9139|1.286|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2860|0.9139|
95839249|NCT03078556|191647884|OTHER||Ratio|0.7657|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6702|0.8749|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||0.8749|0.6702|
95839250|NCT03078556|191647884|OTHER||Ratio|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0869|1.3182|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3182|1.0869|
95839251|NCT03078556|191647885|OTHER||Ratio|1.2929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1281|1.4819|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.4819|1.1281|
95839252|NCT03078556|191647885|OTHER||Ratio|1.2015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1074|1.3036|||||Ratio (Bfed/B) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.3036|1.1074|
95839253|NCT03078556|191647886|OTHER||Ratio|1.469|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3009|1.6588|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma DTG has been presented|||1.6588|1.3009|
95839254|NCT03078556|191647886|OTHER||Ratio|1.1935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1142|1.2785|||||Ratio (Cfed/C) of plasma 3TC has been presented|||1.2785|1.1142|
95839255|NCT01466127|191647906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95839256|NCT02660853|191647960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus during exacerbation.||||0.745
95839257|NCT02660853|191647964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.326
95839258|NCT03594773|191647978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.496|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|df=56, equal variances assumed||||2.63|-3.62|.752
95839259|NCT03594773|191647979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|6.52|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||6.52|-4.01|.633
95839260|NCT03594773|191647980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|df=49, equal variances assumed||||4.44|-2.53|.586
95839261|NCT00479336|191647990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model using change in body weight from baseline at the final timepoint as the criterion variable and dose as the explanatory variable was fitted to the dataset. The null hypothesis of whether the regression coefficient is zero (analysis using t-statistics) was tested at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05, and estimated values for the slope and 95% confidence interval were calculated.||0.020|-0.061|0.3167
95839262|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.86||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs Arm B shift test on Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 2. Wilcoxon rank-sum test p-value.||||0.86
95839263|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.76||||||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Angiopoietin -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.76
95839264|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.14||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie--2 Prior to cycle 2||||0.14
95839265|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tie -- 2 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
95839266|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.19||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF -- A prior to cycle 2||||0.19
95839267|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--A prior to cycle 3||||0.046
95839268|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.029||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF Prior to Cycle 2||||0.029
95839269|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.2||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PIGF prior to cycle 3||||0.20
95839270|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
95839271|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.068||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGFR--3 prior to cycle 3||||0.068
95839272|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 2||||0.61
95839273|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.27||||||Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF--C prior to cycle 3||||0.27
95839274|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.61||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 2||||0.61
95839275|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.49||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IL--8 prior to cycle 3||||0.49
95839276|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.82||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.82
95839277|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.069||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ICAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.069
95839278|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.34||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 2||||0.34
95839279|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.046||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VCAM--1 prior to cycle 3||||0.046
95839280|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.11||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 2||||0.11
95839281|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.23||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a prior threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FGF2 prior to cycle 3||||0.23
95961229|NCT00267098|191893895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.618|4.839||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 12 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.839|1.618|
95962378|NCT03607422|191896599|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|59.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.4|46.7|<0.001
95839282|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.37||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 2||||0.37
95839283|NCT01664182|191648028|OTHER|Two sided hypothesis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing the two arms in terms of the ratio of the post-treatment levels divided by the baseline.||||||0.35||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PDGF--AA prior to cycle 3||||0.35
95839284|NCT03393494|191648029|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.8|112.2|||Fieller's method|||||112.2|97.8|
95839285|NCT03393494|191648030|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|104.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|108.5|||Fieller's method|||||108.5|94.1|0.05
95839286|NCT00555672|191648042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|45.5|||Fisher Exact|Exact Method based on the F Distribution.||||45.5|13.3|
95839287|NCT01147055|191648048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.14|20.54||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.54|16.14|
95839288|NCT01147055|191648049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|31.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.43|37.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||37.51|26.43|
95839289|NCT01147055|191648050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.48|20.02||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||20.02|15.48|
95839290|NCT01147055|191648055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.64|6.49||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.49|4.64|
95839291|NCT01147055|191648056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.86|6.81||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||6.81|4.86|
95839292|NCT01147055|191648058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|11.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.02|13.45||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||13.45|9.02|
95839293|NCT00095173|191648069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.59|||Log Rank||Abatacept over placebo|||0.59|0.16|0.0002
95839294|NCT00095173|191648070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95839295|NCT02343406|191648084|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.02||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.02|0.5|= 0.062
95839296|NCT02343406|191648084|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48||2-sided|Log Rank|||Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||1.48|0.73|= 0.835
95839297|NCT02343406|191648085|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.55|= 0.123
95839298|NCT02343406|191648085|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||=|0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.84||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.84|0.93|= 0.117
95961230|NCT00267098|191893896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|4.066||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF at 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||4.066|0.419|
95962379|NCT03607422|191896599|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.6|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.3|30.6|<0.001
95839299|NCT02343406|191648093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.16||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||16.16|0.6|= 0.06
95839300|NCT02343406|191648093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||=|0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|12.49||2-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with stratification factors. Stratified at randomization by regions of the world (North America, Europe and Australia, Asia/Other Regions), WHO performance status (0, \> 0), timing of relapse (\< 16 weeks, ≥ 16 weeks after first day of last TMZ cycle).||12.49|0.12|= 0.767
95839301|NCT02343406|191648094|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.13||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.13|0.4|= 0.127
95839302|NCT02343406|191648094|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.49||2-sided|Log Rank|||||1.49|0.52|= 0.64
95839303|NCT00595478|191648106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.18|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0 ETG-positive samples for MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.18|0.29|0.66
95839304|NCT00595478|191648106|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.93||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for number of ETG-positive samples, if \>0 ETG-positive samples: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||1.22|0.71|0.61
95961231|NCT00267098|191893897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|3.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.623|5.604||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead, a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in improvement in LVEF through 24 months was used|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEF change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEF from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||5.604|1.623|
95961232|NCT00267098|191893898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-4.214||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 6 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.214|-10.12|
95961233|NCT00267098|191893899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|-3.829||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-3.829|-10.590|
95961234|NCT00267098|191893900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.574||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-4.574|-11.860|
95839305|NCT00595478|191648107|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.62|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Odds ratio for 0% days using alcohol during the 36 week follow-up period: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||2.62|0.26|0.74
95839306|NCT00595478|191648107|SUPERIORITY||mean ratio|0.74||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Poisson regression|Chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom|Mean ratio for percentage of days with alcohol use during the 36 week follow-up period, if alcohol was used: MET/CBT+CM/BPT (numerator) vs. MET/CTB (denominator)|||.92|.59|0.007
95839307|NCT00195663|191648152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment, the second primary analysis of the modified Total Sharp Score was to be performed.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||The study was powered to demonstrate the superiority of adalimumab + MTX combination therapy vs. MTX monotherapy in the proportion of subjects who achieved an ACR50 response at 52 weeks. Power calculations were based on 250 subjects in each group using a chi-squared test with a continuity correction and an alpha = 0.05 significance level. With 250 subjects in each group, a difference of 0.13 in response rates could be detected with 80% power.||||<0.001
95839308|NCT00195663|191648153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical tests were performed in a hierarchical manner. If there was a statistically significant difference in favor of adalimumab + MTX combination treatment on the ACR50 response, the second primary analysis of modified TSS would be performed.||||<0.001
95863316|NCT03615040|191684768|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||A mixed effect linear model of the log outcome with explanatory variables treatment, number of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the trial (stratification), visit time point (as categorical variable) and log baseline score as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Epithelium count||1.15|0.54|0.215
95863317|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.57||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.57|-1.00|
95839309|NCT00195663|191648154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95839310|NCT00195663|191648155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95839311|NCT00195663|191648156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95839312|NCT00195663|191648157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95863318|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.11|-0.53|
95839313|NCT00195663|191648158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95839314|NCT00195663|191648159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95839315|NCT00195663|191648160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5402||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5402
95839316|NCT04677504|191648200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.14|0.51|
95839317|NCT04677504|191648201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.47|||Log Rank|||"Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs.~eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World)."||1.47|0.64|0.8857
95839318|NCT04677504|191648205|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Quality of Life||2.63|0.93|
95839319|NCT04677504|191648205|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||Physical Function Scale||1.36|0.48|
95839320|NCT04677504|191648205|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors are: Location of primary tumor (iCCA vs. eCCA vs. GBC), Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of the World).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||Role Function Scale||1.85|0.68|
95839321|NCT02058563|191648221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 1790.2 (LL=1669.6;UL=1919.5) and 1781.5 (LL=1661.8;UL=1909.7) respectively|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.91|
95839322|NCT02058563|191648222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 113.5 (LL=106.0;UL=121.6) and 107.8 (LL=100.7;UL=115.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed.||1.16|0.96|
95839323|NCT02058563|191648223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for the determination of non-inferiority for measles, mumps, and rubella viruses: Lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on GMC ratio (INV\_MMR over COM\_MMR) was to be equal to or above 0.67 for anti-measles, anti-mumps, and anti rubella antibodies.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Number of subjects in the INV-MMR Group and in the COM-MMR Group considered for calculating the adjusted GMC ratio, are respectively 432 and 435 and adjusted GMCs = 76.1 (LL=71.5;UL=81.0) and 74.6 (LL=70.2;UL=79.4) respectively.|Non-inferiority of INV\_MMR vaccine to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of Geometric Mean Concentration (GMCs) for anti measles, anti mumps and anti rubella antibodies at Day 42.The 95% CI for adjusted geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and the adjusted GMC ratio were obtained using an ANCOVA model on the logarithm-transformed concentrations including the vaccine group (for adjusted GMC ratio) as fixed effect, gender, age and country groups as continuous effects and the pre-vaccination log-transformed||1.11|0.93|
95839324|NCT00483938|191648241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group A versus Group B||||0.510
95839325|NCT00483938|191648242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group C versus Group D||||1.000
95839326|NCT00483938|191648242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||SVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
95839327|NCT00483938|191648243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group A versus Group B||||0.792
95839328|NCT00483938|191648243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group C versus Group D||||0.612
95839329|NCT00483938|191648243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||ETR: Group E versus Group F||||0.490
95839330|NCT00483938|191648243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group C versus Group D||||0.363
95839331|NCT00483938|191648243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Complete EVR: Group E versus Group F||||1.000
95839332|NCT03304873|191648306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0004
95839333|NCT03304873|191648307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
95863319|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.748|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.52||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||1.52|-0.02|
95863320|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.207|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.41||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-0.41|-2.01|
95863321|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.81||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7 , pre-breakfast||1.81|0.18|
95839334|NCT00118430|191648371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95863322|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.34||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.34|0.66|
95839335|NCT00118430|191648372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||This reported p-value was calculated (and does not merely represent the threshold for significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95839336|NCT00118430|191648373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95839337|NCT00118430|191648374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Poisson|||||||<0.001
95839338|NCT00264537|191648376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between golimumab+MTX and placebo+MTX and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at a 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Group 1 vs combined Groups 3 and 4. The sample size of 150 patients per treatment group will provide \>98% power to detect a difference in ACR 50 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of patients with screening C-reactive protein (CRP)\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ACR 50 response of 15-20% in patients with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 20-25% in subjects with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups 1 vs 3 or 4||||0.053
95839339|NCT00264537|191648376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.042
95839340|NCT00264537|191648376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 50 response comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.177
95839341|NCT00264537|191648376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This sample size (150 patients per treatment group) will provide approximately 85% power to claim non-inferiority of golimumab alone (Group 2) compared with MTX alone (Group 1) at alpha= 0.05 using a one-sided equivalence test assuming the proportion of golimumab alone (Group 2) treated patients with ACR 50 response is not less than 10% compared with proportion of patients with ACR 50 response in MTX alone (Group 1) treated group.|Difference in ACR 50 Response Rate(%)|3.3||||0.521||95.0|-6.8||The upper bound of 95% CI was not produced because it was not relevant to the pre-specified analysis||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)|The positive difference indicates in favor of golimumab+placebo compared to placebo+MTX; The upper bound of CI is not applicable.|"Null hypothesis: Group 2 is inferior to Group 1. Noninferiority of golimumab will be demonstrated if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI is above -10%. The 10% non-inferiority margin was chosen because this difference is not clinically admissible. Under the above noted assumed response rates, this corresponds to preservation of at least 70% \[(33% - 10%)/33%\*100\] of the expected MTX benefit."|||-6.8|0.521
95839342|NCT00264537|191648377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.011
95839343|NCT00264537|191648377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
95839344|NCT00264537|191648377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.028
95839345|NCT00264537|191648377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.677
95839346|NCT00264537|191648378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.178
95839347|NCT00264537|191648378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.250
95863323|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.75||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||2.75|1.16|
95839348|NCT00264537|191648378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.240
95863324|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.18||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||0.18|-1.74|
95863325|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.19||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.19|-0.81|
95863326|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.55||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.55|-0.35|
95961235|NCT00267098|191893901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-7.268|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-2.846||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVESVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.846|-11.690|
95839349|NCT00264537|191648378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by screening C-reactive protein (CRP) (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.339
95839350|NCT00264537|191648379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||If this test is significant, a pairwise comparison between Group 3 and Group 1, and between Group 4 and Group 1 will be performed|ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; ≥ 1.5 mg/dL)||Null Hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs Groups 3 and 4 combined. The sample size of 150 subjects in each treatment group (Group 1, Group 3, Group 4) will provide \> 95% power to detect a difference in the vdH-S score between treatment groups using a 2-sided t-test on van der Waerden normal scores of change from baseline in vdH-S score at α = 0.05, assuming a mean change from baseline in vdH-S score of 3.5 for the placebo group and 1 for Groups 3 and 4.||||0.006
95839351|NCT00264537|191648379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 3.||||0.015
95839352|NCT00264537|191648379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANOVA|A 2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores with 1 factor: screening CRP (\< 1.5 mg/dL; \>= 1.5 mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in vdH-S score comparing Groups 1 vs 4.||||0.025
95839353|NCT00264537|191648380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.003
95839354|NCT00264537|191648380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.010
95839355|NCT00264537|191648380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.014
95839356|NCT00264537|191648380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||ANOVA|2-sided ANOVA on the van der Waerden normal scores||||||0.545
95839357|NCT02451943|191648389|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.303|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.303|0.841|0.6945
95839358|NCT02451943|191648390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.312|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.312|0.690|0.7618
95839359|NCT02451943|191648391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.009|1.502|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.502|1.009|0.0422
95839360|NCT02451943|191648397|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.616||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.093|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.093|0.347|0.0934
95839361|NCT02451943|191648398|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.413|||Log Rank|Stratified||||1.413|0.892|0.3347
95839362|NCT02451917|191648406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint(A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.00045||||||The intention-to-treat population consisted of all randomized participants.|ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power to detect a mean difference of 0.7% in the primary endpoint (A1c), considering a 15% dropout rate and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.||||0.00045
95961236|NCT00267098|191893902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.858|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.085|-2.562||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 6 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-2.562|-9.085|
95961237|NCT00267098|191893903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-5.807|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.467|-2.038||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 12 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 12 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-2.038|-9.467|
95961238|NCT00267098|191893904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|-4.681||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 18 months.|"The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing.~This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 18 months than patients with right ventricular pacing."||-4.681|-12.910|
95961239|NCT00267098|191893905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-6.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-1.736||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDVI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDVI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with biventricular pacing have a different change in LVEDVI from randomization to 24 months than patients with right ventricular pacing.||-1.736|-11.370|
96001788|NCT01847547|191981189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||||95.0|0.5|1.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.08|0.50|
96001789|NCT01847547|191981190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||||95.0|0.21|0.76|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||0.76|0.21|
95839363|NCT02451917|191648407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%. Test for data normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics) was performed at baseline for each sequence of the therapy.|number of total events per patient|0.0||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - total hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks||||0.35
95839364|NCT02451917|191648407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.|number of nocturnal events per patient|0.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model - number of nocturnal hypoglycemic events per patient during 24 weeks|ANOVA||The calculated value for the estimation parameter was zero, since the best treatment option for those with diabetes is reach a good glycemic control without hypoglycemia.|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.047
95863327|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.08||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.08|-2.05|
95863328|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.29||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||1.29|-0.71|
95863329|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.29||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.29|0.22|
95839365|NCT02451917|191648408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t-test was applied to compare percentages of the time spent in hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and euglycemia on CGM readings.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||<0.05
95839366|NCT02451917|191648409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.668|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.668
95839367|NCT02451917|191648410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16 randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18r andomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
95839368|NCT02451917|191648411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.999|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.999
95863330|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.65||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||2.65|0.68|
95863331|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.54|-1.65|
95863332|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.89||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.89|-0.40|
95863333|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.711|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.78||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.78|-0.36|
95962380|NCT03607422|191896600|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|57.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|63.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||63.0|50.9|<0.001
95863334|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.09||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||0.09|-2.15|
95863335|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.61||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.61|-0.66|
95863336|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.95|0.60|
95863337|NCT01128621|191684820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.86||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||2.86|0.63|
95863338|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|17.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||17.56|-17.17|
95863339|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|0.98||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||0.98|-34.70|
95863340|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|12.12||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||12.12|-23.04|
95863341|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.89|21.58||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||21.58|-13.89|
95863342|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.39||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||14.39|-21.70|
95863343|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.25|-2.17||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||-2.17|-39.25|
95863344|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|9.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 7, pre-breakfast||9.01|-27.63|
95863345|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|12.14||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||12.14|-19.43|
95863346|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|-0.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-32.72|
95863347|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.34|-6.16||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-6.16|-38.34|
95863348|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|11.51||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||11.51|-20.69|
95863349|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|17.28||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||17.28|-15.40|
95863350|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.82|4.68||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||4.68|-28.82|
95863351|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.662|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-0.6||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, pre-breakfast||-0.60|-34.72|
95863352|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|5.8||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||5.80|-44.00|
95863353|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-2.39||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-2.39|-53.56|
95863354|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.609|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.82|1.6||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||1.60|-48.82|
95839369|NCT02451917|191648412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||||0.994|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 34 participants (16randomized to sequence IGlar/INPH and 18 randomized to sequence INPH/IGlar) provided 90% power and assuming an SD of 0.85%, and a type I error of 5%.||||0.994
95839370|NCT02871635|191648413|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.028|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.028|0.870|
95839371|NCT02871635|191648413|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.044|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 4 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.044|0.856|
95839372|NCT02871635|191648414|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.871|1.148|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.148|0.871|
95839373|NCT02871635|191648414|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.178|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.178|0.848|
95839374|NCT02871635|191648415|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.751|1.078|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.078|0.751|
95839375|NCT02871635|191648415|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.116|||||BI 695501 as numerator Humira EU as denominator|Was to be analyzed using a log-linked binomial model, described as: response to treatment at Week 24 = treatment+prior infliximab exposure+screening Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD)||1.116|0.725|
95839376|NCT01395901|191648463|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the primary efficacy analysis, the confidence interval (CI) was built on the FAS using the stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with correction of continuity. The non-inferiority margin was -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.7||||||"The null hypothesis (H0) was stated as:~• H0 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \<-10%~The alternative hypothesis (H1) was stated as:~• H1 : CR 0-24 hr palonosetron - CR 0-24 hr ondansetron \>-10%~A power of 80% was used for sample size computation."||1.7|-10.5|
95839377|NCT03726489|191648499|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|13.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||13.5|0.8|<0.001
95839378|NCT03726489|191648499|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||13.8|-5.4|<0.001
95839379|NCT03726489|191648499|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|17.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||17.0|-2.2|<0.001
95839380|NCT03726489|191648499|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|36.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||36.6|0.8|<0.001
95839381|NCT03726489|191648499|OTHER|HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.||||||0.347||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.347
95839382|NCT03726489|191648500|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|25.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||25.3|11.8|<0.001
95839383|NCT03726489|191648500|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|31.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||31.5|11.0|<0.001
95863355|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|28.53||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||28.53|-22.34|
95863356|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|3.69||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||3.69|-48.07|
95839384|NCT03726489|191648500|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||26.6|6.4|<0.001
95839385|NCT03726489|191648500|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%. The sample size for this subgroup did not meet our a priori sample size required for 80% power.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|35.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All p-values below 0.001 are reported as \<0.001.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.9|-3.7|0.001
95839386|NCT03726489|191648500|OTHER|||||||0.873||||||HTE was assessed using an omnibus Wald test of all interaction regression parameters in order to minimize multiple testing and consequent alpha inflation.|Regression, Logistic|We fit models for each of the two primary outcomes with skin type, treatment arm, and their interaction as predictors.||Analysis for heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) including all skin phototypes.||||0.873
95839387|NCT03726489|191648501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||10.4|7.1|<0.0001
95839388|NCT03726489|191648501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|11.71||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||11.71|7.05|<0.0001
95839389|NCT03726489|191648501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|11.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||11.14|5.82|<0.0001
95839390|NCT03726489|191648501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.82||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.58||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||12.58|1.06|0.0213
95839391|NCT03726489|191648502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|18.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||18.7|10.4|<0.0001
95839392|NCT03726489|191648502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.93|16.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.01|6.93|<0.0001
95839393|NCT03726489|191648502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|19.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||19.98|7.77|<0.0001
95839394|NCT03726489|191648502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.84||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|58.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||58.35|7.32|0.0127
95863357|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.66|-4.48||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-4.48|-57.66|
95863358|NCT01128621|191684821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.98|-0.42||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Day 14, 24 hours||-0.42|-52.98|
95839395|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.35||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.35|-1.27|0.001
95839396|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.16|-1.51|0.0158
95839397|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.19||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||-0.19|-1.58|0.0130
95839398|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||1.11|-1.94|0.5910
95839399|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes at Week 24||0.82|-0.33|0.395
95839400|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.93||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II at Week 24||0.93|-0.69|0.774
95839401|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV at Week 24||1.41|-0.36|0.242
95839402|NCT03726489|191648503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.83||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI at Week 24||1.83|-2.72|0.692
95863359|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.50|-1.50|
95863360|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.54||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.54|-0.51|
95839403|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.59||||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation||0.68|-5.86|0.1209
95839404|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.13||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation||1.75|-6.0|0.2581
95863361|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|0.05|
95839405|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.65||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation||2.65|-8.73|0.2952
95839406|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.61||||0.6324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|7.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation||7.89|-13.12|0.6324
95839407|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15||||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.85||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation||2.85|-2.56|0.9163
95839408|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31||||0.8551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation||3.66|-3.03|0.8551
95839409|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.48||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation||5.48|-4.05|0.7678
95839410|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.03||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|2.82||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation||2.82|-8.88|0.3446
95839411|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.26||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|3.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Initiation at Week 24||3.11|-5.64|0.5716
95839412|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Initiation at Week 24||5.14|-6.03|0.8756
95839413|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.07||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|5.04||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Initiation at Week 24||5.04|-9.18|0.5686
95839414|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.39||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|14.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Initiation at Week 24||14.7|-17.5|0.8660
95863362|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.07||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||0.07|-1.98|
95863363|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.5||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||1.50|-0.59|
95863364|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.55||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.55|0.39|
95839415|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.8779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|2.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.62|-2.24|0.8779
95839416|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.28||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II - Discontinuation at Week 24||3.28|-2.52|0.7985
95839417|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.69||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV - Discontinuation at Week 24||5.09|-3.71|0.7585
95863365|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.01||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||3.01|0.96|
95863366|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.76|-1.38|
95839418|NCT03726489|191648504|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.78||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|2.59||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI - Discontinuation at Week 24||2.59|-8.15|0.3422
95839419|NCT03726489|191648505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.55||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||0.55|-6.95|0.094
95839420|NCT03726489|191648505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.26||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||-0.26|-10.26|0.0393
95863367|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.394|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.49||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.49|-0.70|
95863368|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.93||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.93|-0.18|
95863369|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.25||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||0.25|-1.95|
95863370|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.66||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||1.66|-0.58|
95839421|NCT03726489|191648505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|1.44||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||1.44|-9.28|0.1505
95839422|NCT03726489|191648505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.42||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|29.84||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||29.84|-9.0|0.2840
95839423|NCT03726489|191648506|OTHER||Mean|19.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
95839424|NCT03726489|191648506|OTHER||Mean|18.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
95839425|NCT03726489|191648506|OTHER||Mean|23.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.71|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
95839426|NCT03726489|191648506|OTHER||Mean|9.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
95839427|NCT03726489|191648507|OTHER||Mean|50.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||||
95863371|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.4||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.40|0.09|
95863372|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.83||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||2.83|0.63|
95863373|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.91||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.91|-1.21|
95863374|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.81||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.81|-0.34|
95863375|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.28|0.21|
95839428|NCT03726489|191648507|OTHER||Mean|53.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||||
95839429|NCT03726489|191648507|OTHER||Mean|49.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.43|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||||
95839430|NCT03726489|191648507|OTHER||Mean|39.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is not applicable.||||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||||
95839431|NCT03726489|191648508|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|17.42||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||17.42|6.52|<0.0001
95839432|NCT03726489|191648508|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|16.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|24.75||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.75|7.54|<0.0001
95839433|NCT03726489|191648508|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|13.46||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||13.46|-2.35|<0.0001
95863376|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.46||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.46|-1.71|
95863377|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.57||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||1.57|-0.62|
95863378|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.49||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.49|0.23|
95863379|NCT01128621|191684824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.869|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.95||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||2.95|0.79|
95863380|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.619|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.25|2.01||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||2.01|-59.25|
95863381|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.23|-16.56||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-16.56|-79.23|
95863382|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|6.2||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||6.20|-55.53|
95863383|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.76|25.89||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||25.89|-36.76|
95863384|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|8.63||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||8.63|-55.00|
95863385|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.18|-9.74||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||-9.74|-75.18|
95863386|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.227|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|13.37||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 7||13.37|-51.83|
95839434|NCT03726489|191648508|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|21.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|35.09||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||35.09|7.65|<0.0001
95839435|NCT03726489|191648509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.68||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|20.08||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||20.08|3.27|0.0065
95839436|NCT03726489|191648509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.31||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|24.49||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||24.49|0.03|0.0478
95839437|NCT03726489|191648509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.25||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.98||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||25.98|0.52|0.0431
95839438|NCT03726489|191648509|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|28.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||28.50|-25.50|0.9133
95839439|NCT03726489|191648510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-0.07||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||-0.07|-15.73|0.048
95839440|NCT03726489|191648510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.67||||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.15|2.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||2.80|-24.15|0.1199
95839441|NCT03726489|191648510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|4.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||4.66|-15.26|0.2953
95863387|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.435|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.15|12.28||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||12.28|-49.15|
95863388|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-58.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.08|-27.24||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-27.24|-90.08|
95863389|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-6.05||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-6.05|-67.96|
95962381|NCT03607422|191896600|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||51.4|38.9|<0.001
95839442|NCT03726489|191648510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.5124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.77|18.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||18.11|-35.77|0.5124
95863390|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.31|21.52||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||21.52|-41.31|
95863391|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.44|23.36||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||23.36|-40.44|
95863392|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.58|-15.95||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||-15.95|-81.58|
95863393|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|5.58||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-12), Day 14||5.58|-59.80|
95839443|NCT03726489|191648511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|19.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||19.87|1.93|0.0173
95839444|NCT03726489|191648511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.06||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|26.94||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||26.94|-0.81|0.0662
95839445|NCT03726489|191648511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.58||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|21.57||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||21.57|-4.42|0.1976
95863394|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.359|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|8.23||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 75 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||8.23|-48.95|
95863395|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.712|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.92|-24.5||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 300 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-24.50|-82.92|
95863396|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.24|-8.86||||||Placebo vs GSK1292263 600 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-8.86|-66.24|
95839446|NCT03726489|191648511|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.04||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|40.69||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||40.69|-14.60|0.3595
95839447|NCT03726489|191648512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.55||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|16.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||16.14|-1.05|0.0853
95961240|NCT00267098|191893906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-3.894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|3.953||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||3.953|-12.130|
95839448|NCT03726489|191648512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.26||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.54|16.06||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||16.06|-11.54|0.7488
95839449|NCT03726489|191648512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.12||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|22.26||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||22.26|-2.03|0.1051
95839450|NCT03726489|191648512|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.39||||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|42.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||42.27|-7.48|0.1792
95839451|NCT03726489|191648513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.07||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for skin phototype||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||7.50|-1.37|0.175
95839452|NCT03726489|191648513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.8904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.51||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||5.51|-6.34|0.8904
95839453|NCT03726489|191648513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.59||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|14.88||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||14.88|0.31|0.0412
95839454|NCT03726489|191648513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|24.38||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||24.38|-13.38|0.5481
95962382|NCT03607422|191896601|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|46.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||46.5|34.2|<0.001
95839455|NCT03726489|191648513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.403|||Regression, Cox|Failure event corresponds to DLQI assessment greater than 5. Model adjusted for skin phototype.|Office phototherapy is the reference group.|Cox proportional hazards model for maintaining treatment response after week 12.||1.403|0.471|0.458
95839456|NCT03726489|191648514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|45.86||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis adjusted for all skin phototypes||45.86|30.34|<0.0001
95839457|NCT03726489|191648514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.39|50.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||50.33|27.39|<0.0001
95839458|NCT03726489|191648514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|42.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.73|53.68||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||53.68|30.73|<0.0001
95839459|NCT03726489|191648514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.74||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|41.11||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||41.11|-9.63|0.2340
95839460|NCT03726489|191648515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|50.66||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||50.66|37.25|<0.0001
95839461|NCT03726489|191648515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|49.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal Standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||49.70|30.0|<0.0001
95839462|NCT03726489|191648515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.09|60.27||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||60.27|40.09|<0.0001
95839463|NCT03726489|191648515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.35|57.87||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||57.87|14.35|<0.0001
95839464|NCT03726489|191648516|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||9.0|-19.4|0.1773
95839465|NCT03726489|191648516|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.88||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|12.33||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||12.33|-26.09|0.4073
95839466|NCT03726489|191648516|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-12.42||||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|10.41||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||10.41|-35.24|0.8247
95839467|NCT03726489|191648516|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|37.88||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|79.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||79.77|-4.01|0.0133
95839468|NCT03726489|191648517|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.52||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|20.14||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Overall analysis including all skin phototypes||20.14|-7.11|0.002
95839469|NCT03726489|191648517|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.77||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|25.89||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes I/II||25.89|-10.35|0.0137
95839470|NCT03726489|191648517|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.61|23.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes III/IV||23.61|-21.61|0.1656
95839471|NCT03726489|191648517|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical inference was based on non-inferiority principles using a non-inferiority margin of 15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|22.73||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.16|70.62||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Marginal standardization|Test statistic is based on risk difference and standard error calculated using marginal standardization from adjusted logistic regression estimates||Analysis for Phototypes V/VI||70.62|-25.16|0.1225
95863397|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|21.27||||||Placebo vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||21.27|-37.20|
95839472|NCT03726489|191648518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.105||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.192|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 16. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.192|0.018|0.0183
95839473|NCT03726489|191648518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.064||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.158|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 20. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.158|-0.029|0.177
95863398|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.397|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|17.3||||||GSK1292263 75 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||17.30|-42.10|
95863399|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.2|-15.3||||||GSK1292263 300 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||-15.30|-76.20|
95863400|NCT01128621|191684825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.82|0.64||||||GSK1292263 600 mg vs Sitagliptin 50 mg: Weighted Mean (0-24), Day 14||0.64|-59.82|
95839474|NCT03726489|191648518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.011||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.079|||Marginal contrast||Positive values indicate higher proportion in the home group.|Difference of proportion at week 24. Calculated using contrasts of predictive margins following logistic regression with robust variance estimators via generalized estimating equations and exchangeable correlation. Missing data for DLQI are imputed using multiple imputation via chained equations (10 imputations), and the estimates are combined using standard rules.||0.079|-0.101|0.815
95839475|NCT00853151|191648519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||90.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 3 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.623
95839476|NCT00853151|191648519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||p-value is for LY2428757 plus TT223 2 mg versus LY2428757 plus TT223 placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, baseline therapy, strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of baseline HbA1c.||||||0.809
95839477|NCT01751984|191648559|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-22.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-22.1|-35.4|<0.0001
95839478|NCT01751984|191648560|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-11.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 2. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-11.8|-24.3|<0.0001
95839479|NCT01751984|191648560|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-24.7|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 4. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-24.7|-35.2|<0.0001
95839480|NCT01751984|191648560|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-20.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 6. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-20.8|-36.9|<0.0001
95839481|NCT01751984|191648560|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-19.8|||ANCOVA||Estimation from Week 8. The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-19.8|-37.2|<0.0001
95839482|NCT01751984|191648561|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8||||0.1892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|2.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||2.9|-14.5|0.1892
95839483|NCT01751984|191648562|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
95839484|NCT01751984|191648563|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.7|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-12.7|-24.2|<0.0001
95839485|NCT01751984|191648564|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|18.7|||=|0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|40.8|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||40.8|-3.5|=0.0962
95839486|NCT01751984|191648565|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.3|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-6.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-6.0|-24.6|=0.0019
95839487|NCT01751984|191648566|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.2|||=|0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.2|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||3.2|-11.7|=0.2555
95839488|NCT01751984|191648567|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|11.7||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|32.1|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.1|-8.8|0.2563
95839489|NCT01751984|191648568|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.7||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|18.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||18.0|-65.4|0.2565
95839490|NCT01751984|191648569|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.0||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|32.0|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||32.0|-24.1|0.7760
95839491|NCT01751984|191648570|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson methodology|61.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.4|78.1||Based on Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study) in the ETC-1002 and placebo groups.|Fisher Exact||ETC-1002 minus placebo for the proportion of participants who achieved LDL-C goal at Week 8 (End of Study). The confidence interval was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||78.1|45.4|<0.0001
95839492|NCT00571038|191648573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2417
95839493|NCT00571038|191648574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8586
95839494|NCT00571038|191648575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
95839495|NCT00571038|191648576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
95839496|NCT00571038|191648577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0438
95839497|NCT00571038|191648578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1418|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1418
95839498|NCT00571038|191648579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Pr \<= P||||||0.0070
95839499|NCT00571038|191648580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8395|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.8395
95839500|NCT00571038|191648581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2194
95839501|NCT00571038|191648582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9191
95839502|NCT00571038|191648583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9633
95839503|NCT00571038|191648584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5901
95839504|NCT00571038|191648585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.982|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9820
95839505|NCT00571038|191648586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.3979
95839506|NCT00571038|191648587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1471
95839507|NCT00571038|191648588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6123|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6123
95839508|NCT00571038|191648589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.5861
95839509|NCT00571038|191648590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4489
95839510|NCT00571038|191648591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2527
95839511|NCT00571038|191648592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7314
95839512|NCT00571038|191648593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9839
95839513|NCT03329092|191648596|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.4|||||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.4|-6.6|
95839514|NCT03329092|191648597|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.2|||||The CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||13.2|-7.0|
95839515|NCT03329092|191648598|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|12.1|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.1|-10.2|
95839516|NCT03329092|191648599|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.7|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.7|-8.4|
95863401|NCT04074161|191684839|SUPERIORITY|Responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.|Treatment difference|-9.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||||-6.80|-11.97|<0.0001
96001790|NCT01847547|191981191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.58|1.55|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||1.55|0.58|
95839517|NCT03329092|191648600|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|13.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.0|-7.4|
95839518|NCT03329092|191648600|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|23.1|||Difference||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.1|-15.5|
95839519|NCT03329092|191648601|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.6|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||16.6|-4.0|
95839520|NCT03329092|191648601|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|17.3|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||17.3|-31.9|
95839521|NCT03329092|191648628|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.5|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.5|-6.2|
95839522|NCT03329092|191648629|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|9.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.4|-10.7|
95839523|NCT03329092|191648630|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||9.9|-8.3|
95839524|NCT03329092|191648631|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.0|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.0|-8.5|
95839525|NCT03329092|191648632|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|11.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||11.9|-6.9|
95839526|NCT03329092|191648632|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|23.4|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||23.4|-15.2|
95839527|NCT03329092|191648633|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|13.2|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|cIAI||13.2|-5.2|
95839528|NCT03329092|191648633|OTHER||Difference in clinical cure rate|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|14.9|||||CI for the difference was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|HAP/VAP||14.9|-32.6|
95839529|NCT02211456|191648712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The data derived from this study was complex multi-level data with errors due to patient-level and intra-patient repeat factors. Accordingly, we used generalized multi-level modelling (GLMM) with random effects.||6.3|1|<0.05
95839530|NCT01371734|191648719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.94|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||3.94|-2.23|0.587
95839531|NCT01371734|191648719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.61|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||4.61|-1.56|0.333
95839532|NCT01371734|191648720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR Low Dose||0.32|-0.29|0.923
95839533|NCT01371734|191648720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.161||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.47|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Hochberg procedure was used to control for multiplicity||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR High Dose||0.47|-0.14|0.302
95839534|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.729
95839535|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.756
95839536|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.765
95839537|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.475
95839538|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||||0.310
95839539|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 3||||0.105
95863402|NCT01024309|191684875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Apriori level of significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum was used||||||.04
95839540|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.254
95839541|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.887
95839542|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.475
95839543|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.407
95839544|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.696
95839545|NCT01371734|191648721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||||0.462
95839546|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.806||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.951|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.951|0.333|0.633
95839547|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.285|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||1.285|0.245|0.172
95839548|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.939||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.644|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.644|0.536|0.826
95839549|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.511|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.511|0.489|0.599
95839550|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.713||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.265|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.265|0.402|0.248
95839551|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.995|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||0.995|0.320|0.048
95839552|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.216|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.216|0.412|0.210
95962383|NCT03607422|191896601|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||35.3|23.5|<0.001
95839553|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.964||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.646|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.646|0.564|0.893
95839554|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|1.235|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.235|0.413|0.228
95839555|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.579|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||1.579|0.531|0.751
95839556|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.974||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.689|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.689|0.561|0.925
95839557|NCT01371734|191648722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.764||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|1.331|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||1.331|0.438|0.342
95839558|NCT00621140|191648723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.85|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
95839559|NCT00621140|191648724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.58|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.34|-0.58|<0.0001
95839560|NCT00621140|191648725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.76|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.47|-0.76|<0.0001
95839561|NCT00621140|191648726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.49|-0.82|<0.0001
95839562|NCT00621140|191648727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.37|-16.26|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-16.26|-30.37|<0.0001
95839563|NCT00621140|191648728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.0001||95.0|-23.11|-12.08|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-12.08|-23.11|<0.0001
95839564|NCT00621140|191648729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.21|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.75|-27.21|<0.0001
95839565|NCT00621140|191648730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.05|-13.68|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-13.68|-27.05|<0.0001
95839566|NCT00621140|191648731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.869||||0.0006||95.0|1.575|5.225|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.225|1.575|0.0006
95839567|NCT00621140|191648733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.436||||0.0323||95.0|1.078|5.507|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.507|1.078|0.0323
95839568|NCT00621140|191648735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.665|6.755|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||6.755|2.665|<0.0001
95839569|NCT00621140|191648736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-82.33|-34.43|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-34.43|-82.33|<0.0001
95839570|NCT03401671|191648737|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|1.0229|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8473|1.2349||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.2349|0.8473|
95839571|NCT03401671|191648739|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8016|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8016|
95839572|NCT03401671|191648740|OTHER|Analysis was performed for estimation of least square means only. Descriptive statistical analysis was the main analysis.|Ratio of Geometric least squares Means|0.9318|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8005|1.0846||||||An analysis of variance was performed with the natural log-transformed PK parameters as the dependent variable and ethnic group as a fixed effect.||1.0846|0.8005|
95839573|NCT04090242|191648755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The p value is for the comparison between interventional and control group on change of DES score between baseline and end of study.|Mixed Models Analysis|||With assumptions made in statistical analysis plan, a sample size of 43 subjects per arm had \>80% power to detect a significant difference between the two arms (based on a 2-sided t-test, 95% CI for DES difference between groups). Adding a 10% buffer, planned enrollment was 96 subjects. However, enrollment ended early with about 25 subjects in each arm (56 subjects total). Thus, power decreased to 56%. The study was not sufficiently powered under these conditions.||0.21|-0.53|0.392
95839574|NCT02305238|191648769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0||||||||3.0|-3.8|
95839575|NCT02305238|191648770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mantel-Haenszel (MH) adjusted difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.0||||||||4.0|-5.7|
95839576|NCT02305238|191648771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|9.8||||||||9.8|-12.7|
95839577|NCT02305238|191648772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|12.7||||||||12.7|-24.3|
95839578|NCT02305238|191648773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||MH adjusted difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|12.7||||||||12.7|-10.6|
95839579|NCT01898013|191648789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95839580|NCT01898013|191648790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.26
95839581|NCT01898013|191648791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95839582|NCT01898013|191648792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
95839583|NCT01898013|191648793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
95839584|NCT01898013|191648794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.62
95863403|NCT01024309|191684876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||||||0.08
95962384|NCT03607422|191896602|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||19.3|10.6|<0.001
95839585|NCT01100775|191648817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.898|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.898
95839586|NCT01100775|191648817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
95839587|NCT01100775|191648817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.16
95839588|NCT01100775|191648817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.701
95839589|NCT01100775|191648818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.161
95839590|NCT01100775|191648818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarm Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.028
95839591|NCT01100775|191648818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.899|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.899
95839592|NCT01100775|191648818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Galantamine and Placebo Arms||||0.521
95839593|NCT01100775|191648819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean total amount offered during the trust game between the galantamine and placebo groups||||0.67
95839594|NCT01100775|191648820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.32
95839595|NCT01100775|191648821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 1 between galantamine and placebo||||0.659
95839596|NCT01100775|191648821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 2 between galantamine and placebo||||0.541
95839597|NCT01100775|191648821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the number of correct response on Trial 3 between galantamine and placebo||||0.838
95839598|NCT01100775|191648822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A comparison the mean correct responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.548
95839599|NCT01100775|191648823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.871
95839600|NCT01100775|191648824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect between galantamine and placebo||||0.626
95839601|NCT01100775|191648824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill between galantamine and placebo||||0.234
95839602|NCT01100775|191648825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Responses between galantamine and placebo||||0.797
95839603|NCT01100775|191648825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total Hits between galantamine and placebo||||0.669
95839604|NCT01100775|191648825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Facial Affect Total False Alarms between galantamine and placebo||||0.668
95863404|NCT01024309|191684877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.04
95863405|NCT01024309|191684878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.22
95839605|NCT02815644|191648832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|55.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.087|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.22|64.33|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean.|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin after food intake compared to while in the fasting state was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||64.33|48.22|
95839606|NCT02815644|191648833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|74.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.27|84.64|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||84.64|66.27|
95839607|NCT02815644|191648834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
95839608|NCT02815644|191648835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|85.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.38|88.68|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||88.68|83.38|
95839609|NCT02815644|191648836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|88.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.89|96.03|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||96.03|80.89|
95839610|NCT02815644|191648837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R ratio|86.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.61|89.13|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of empagliflozin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||89.13|83.61|
95839611|NCT02815644|191648838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||T/R Ratio|82.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|86.18|||||Standard Error of the mean is actually geometric Standard Error of the mean|"Relative bioavailability of linagliptin was assessed using an ANOVA on the basis of the log transformed PK parameters. This model for the evaluation of effect of food on bioavailability included the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment (i.e., feeding status). The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed."||86.18|78.38|
95839612|NCT00588354|191648860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||3.60|-0.52|0.159
95839613|NCT00588354|191648861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.01|-1.79|0.910
95839614|NCT00588354|191648862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|6.96|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.96|-1.04|0.162
95839615|NCT00588354|191648863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.12|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||10.12|1.22|0.022
95839616|NCT00588354|191648864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|12.29|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||12.29|-0.57|0.089
95839617|NCT00588354|191648865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|13.25|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||13.25|0.83|0.038
95839618|NCT00588354|191648866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||2.09|-11.75|0.186
95839619|NCT00588354|191648867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value included as a covariate.||6.26|-6.96|0.918
95839620|NCT00042991|191648872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95839621|NCT00042991|191648873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0546||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||19 patients had Enhancing tumor at both Baseline and Post-RT time points. Thus, the following test was based on these 19 patients.||||0.0546
95839622|NCT00042991|191648874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95839623|NCT00042991|191648875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95839624|NCT03334812|191648893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.51|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB||0.51|-0.15|0.1219
95839625|NCT03334812|191648893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||DTBT/HWB||0.25|-0.28|0.5438
95839626|NCT03334812|191648894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||0.31|-0.19|0.3067
95839627|NCT03334812|191648896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.23||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|56.32|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 4||56.32|-3.86|0.0404
95839628|NCT03334812|191648896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.82||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|82.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Week 12||82.10|-26.5|0.1381
95839629|NCT03334812|191648896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.3|66.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 (EOS)||66.89|-19.3|0.1168
95839630|NCT03334812|191648897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.25|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 12||0.25|-0.26|0.5175
95839631|NCT03334812|191648897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||SCD/HNWB - Week 28||0.60|-0.22|0.1476
95839632|NCT01153724|191648902|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|113.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.893|121.197||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||121.197|105.893|0.0101
95839633|NCT01153724|191648903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|108.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.59|116.487||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||116.487|101.590|0.0009
95839634|NCT01153724|191648903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean|85.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.277|93.253||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||93.253|79.277|0.0711
95839635|NCT01153724|191648906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|114.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.5||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.94|131.932||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol||131.932|99.940|0.1539
95839636|NCT01153724|191648906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.068||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.619|83.266||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol for the category Olodaterol glucuronide||83.266|66.619|0.8574
95839637|NCT01153724|191648907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|74.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.105|79.418||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|Ratio Olodaterol plus Fluconazole and Olodaterol||79.418|69.105|0.9646
95839638|NCT02508428|191648910|EQUIVALENCE|Differences in survivorship among the Marathon and Enduron liners were evaluated with a Log Rank test.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Log Rank|||Survivorship was evaluated using liner revision for wear/osteolysis as an endpoint using a Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||<0.001
95839639|NCT02508428|191648911|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the wear rates were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.17|<0.001
95839640|NCT02508428|191648912|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the incidences of clinically important osteolysis were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||||0.30|0.006|<0.001
95839641|NCT02508428|191648913|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the rate of satisfaction among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.48||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Since there were no patients with Marathon liners who were unsatisfied with the outcome of their hip replacement, a relative risk and the associated confidence interval could not be calculated.||||0.48
95839642|NCT02508428|191648914|EQUIVALENCE|"Since the null hypothesis assumed that the Harris Hip Scores among the groups were not different, Equivalence has been specified for the Type of Statistical Test"||||||0.4||||||A p-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
95839643|NCT01979133|191648915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.012
95839644|NCT01979133|191648916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.005
95839645|NCT01979133|191648917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.017
95839646|NCT01979133|191648918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.038
95839647|NCT01979133|191648919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.034
95839648|NCT01979133|191648920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.231
95839649|NCT01979133|191648921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.066
95839650|NCT00534976|191648930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.65||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.020
95839651|NCT00534976|191648931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-4.33||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.005
95839652|NCT00534976|191648932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-120.86||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.022
95839653|NCT00534976|191648933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-122.82||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.013
95839654|NCT00534976|191648934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-8.27||||0.064||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus placebo|||||0.064
95839655|NCT00534976|191648935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-7.06||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA||Montelukast minus Placebo|||||0.054
95839656|NCT00534976|191648936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-1.6||||1||95.0||||P-value provided is for comparison between the two proportions: Montelukast versus placebo.|McNemar||Montelukast minus placebo|||||1.000
95839657|NCT00534976|191648937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Proportions|-3.2||||||95.0|||||||Montelukast minus placebo|||||
95839658|NCT04412707|191648946|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.849|
95839659|NCT04412707|191648947|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.053|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.053|0.861|
95839660|NCT04412707|191648948|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.058|||||CVC vs. PVC, where CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs. central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.058|0.863|
95839661|NCT04412707|191648950|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.736|1.222|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.222|0.736|
95839662|NCT04412707|191648950|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|[adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)]|0.846|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|0.957|||||CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator and PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|For desmethyl-melflufen: Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.957|0.748|
95863406|NCT01024309|191684879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||.0029
95839663|NCT04412707|191648951|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.126|||||Data above refer to meflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.126|0.684|
95863407|NCT01024309|191684880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.13
95863408|NCT01024309|191684881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum||||||0.29
95863409|NCT01024309|191684882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used||||||0.23
95961241|NCT00267098|191893907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-10.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|-0.857||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.857|-19.330|
95839664|NCT04412707|191648951|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.819|0.982|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence and administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.982|0.819|
95839665|NCT04412707|191648952|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.124|||||Data above refer to melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route (PVC or CVC) as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||1.124|0.684|
95839666|NCT04412707|191648952|EQUIVALENCE|The condition for similarity was if the 90% CI for the GMR was within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25.|adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.989|||||Data above refer to desethyl-melflufen. CVC vs PVC CVC is numerator, PVC is denominator. Linear Mixed Effect Model included terms for period, sequence \& administration route as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.|Based on a geometric mean ratio (GMR) peripheral vs central of 0.95, a 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of geometric means within bioequivalence limits of 0.8 and 1.25, and 80% power, a sample size of 20 patients (10 per sequence) was required assuming a within-patient variability for period differences (in log scale) of 0.29. Approximately 25 patients were to be enrolled to achieve 20 PK- and local tolerance-evaluable patients.||0.989|0.833|
95839667|NCT00412893|191648981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound was smaller than 10%, isavuconazole was declared as non-inferior to voriconazole with respect to the primary outcome measure.|Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|5.683|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Approximately 255 patients per group were to be enrolled to ensure at least 80% power to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for a treatment difference in favor of the comparator was no larger than 10%.||5.683|-7.759|
95839668|NCT00412893|191648982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.336|12.572|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||12.572|-9.336|
95839669|NCT00412893|191648982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.277|10.329|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.329|-11.277|
95839670|NCT00412893|191648982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.993|18.379|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||18.379|-1.993|
95839671|NCT00412893|191648983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|6.34|||||The treatment difference (isavuconazole minus voriconazole) was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. The strata included Geographical Regions, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|||6.340|-9.150|
95839672|NCT00412893|191648985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|11.531|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment Comparison||11.531|-10.640|
95839673|NCT00412893|191648985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.368|5.802|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||5.802|-17.368|
95839674|NCT00412893|191648985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.116|11.758|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||11.758|-11.116|
95863410|NCT01024309|191684883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcox Rank Sum Test||||||0.49
95839675|NCT00412893|191648986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.429|15.087|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||15.087|-7.429|
95839676|NCT00412893|191648986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.917|10.586|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 Comparison||10.586|-11.917|
95863411|NCT02059291|191684887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||<0.0001
95839677|NCT00412893|191648986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.624|19.83|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 Comparison||19.830|-1.624|
95839678|NCT00412893|191648987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.936|16.268|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.268|-4.936|
95863412|NCT02059291|191684887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0020
95839679|NCT00412893|191648987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.338|16.032|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||16.032|-5.338|
95839680|NCT00412893|191648987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|19.186|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||19.186|-1.231|
95839681|NCT00412893|191648988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.043|16.026|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||16.026|-6.043|
95839682|NCT00412893|191648988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.873|11.22|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||11.220|-10.873|
95863413|NCT02059291|191684887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.0050
95961242|NCT00267098|191893908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-8.316|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|1.623||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||1.623|-18.190|
95962385|NCT03607422|191896602|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.0|3.4|<0.001
95839683|NCT00412893|191648988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted treatment Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.533|15.939|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||15.939|-6.533|
95839684|NCT00412893|191648989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.429|17.218|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.218|-8.429|
95839685|NCT00412893|191648989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.071|10.073|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||10.073|-15.071|
95863414|NCT02059291|191684888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|69.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.21|4.15|<0.0001
95863415|NCT02059291|191684888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|65.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||65.59|2.83|0.0006
95863416|NCT02059291|191684888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.79||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|224.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.86|2.52|0.0028
95863417|NCT02059291|191684889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|151.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||151.31|5.86|<0.0001
95863418|NCT02059291|191684889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|63.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||63.89|2.53|0.0010
95863419|NCT02059291|191684889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|36.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.57|1.20|0.0149
95863420|NCT02059291|191684890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.46||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|332.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||332.92|0.92|0.0286
95863421|NCT02059291|191684890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.26||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|51.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.97|0.53|0.0778
95863422|NCT02059291|191684890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.69||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|268.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||268.50|1.04|0.0235
95839686|NCT00412893|191648989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.633|14.499|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||14.499|-8.633|
95839687|NCT00412893|191648990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.145|17.696|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|End of Treatment comparison||17.696|-5.145|
95839688|NCT00412893|191648990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.335|19.356|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 42 comparison||19.356|-3.335|
95839689|NCT00412893|191648990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.187|16.332|||||The adjusted treatment difference (Voriconazole-Isavuconazole) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of Geographical Region, Allogeneic BMT Status and Uncontrolled Malignancy Status.|Day 84 comparison||16.332|-6.187|
95839690|NCT00287222|191649005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage progression free at 27 weeks|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.97||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|53.0|||one-sided exact binomial test|||Estimating the percentage of participants that remain free of disease progression at 27 weeks from the onset of treatment, and testing that proportion against a null-hypothesis proportion of 0.04 using the one-sided exact binomial test at 5% alpha, based upon historical data from the literature.||53|10|0.0006
95839691|NCT02114606|191649007|OTHER|Overall agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa, with endoscopic biopsy as the gold standard.||||||0.0001||||||A p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Cohen's Kappa|||All participants enrolled (EoE Patients) provided both a Cytosponge specimen and endoscopic biopsy. The results of these specimens were compared to examine overall agreement.||||0.0001
95839692|NCT01957202|191649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.895|-1.616|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.616|-2.895|<0.0001
95839693|NCT01957202|191649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.566|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|-1.925|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.925|-3.208|<0.0001
95839694|NCT01957202|191649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.531||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.342|-0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.719|-2.342|0.0003
95839695|NCT01957202|191649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.842|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.654|-1.029|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-1.029|-2.654|<0.0001
95839696|NCT01957202|191649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.857|-3.337|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-3.337|-4.857|<0.0001
95839697|NCT01957202|191649020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.311||||0.3699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.994|0.372|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.372|-0.994|0.3699
95839698|NCT01957202|191649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.364|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.853|-0.874|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.874|-1.853|<0.0001
95839699|NCT01957202|191649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.809|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.809|-0.169|0.1975
95839700|NCT01957202|191649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.252|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.635|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.635|-1.870|<0.0001
95839701|NCT01957202|191649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.432||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|1.042|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||1.042|-0.179|0.1648
95839702|NCT01957202|191649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.506|-0.358|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.358|-1.506|0.0016
95839703|NCT01957202|191649021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.208|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||2.208|1.160|<0.0001
95839704|NCT01957202|191649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.16|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.160|-0.508|0.3052
95839705|NCT01957202|191649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.523|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.523|-0.149|0.2725
95839706|NCT01957202|191649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.536||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.952|-0.12|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.120|-0.952|0.0118
95839707|NCT01957202|191649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.175||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.239|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.239|-0.588|0.4049
95839708|NCT01957202|191649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.349||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.739|0.041|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.041|-0.739|0.0793
95839709|NCT01957202|191649022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.361||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.719|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.719|0.004|0.0478
95839710|NCT01957202|191649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.215||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.509|0.079|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.079|-0.509|0.1502
95839711|NCT01957202|191649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075||||0.6177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.221|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.221|-0.370|0.6177
95839712|NCT01957202|191649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.701||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.322|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.322|-1.080|0.0004
95839713|NCT01957202|191649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.187|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.187|-0.934|0.0035
95839714|NCT01957202|191649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|-0.428|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.428|-1.123|<0.0001
95839715|NCT01957202|191649023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.3807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.456|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||0.456|-0.175|0.3807
95839716|NCT04042909|191649055|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.632|1.013||This is the p-value of the CAA vs AO factor in the model.|Regression, Linear|We used linear regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol consumption (drinks per week) from baseline to 6-months.||1.013|-1.632|.646
95839717|NCT04042909|191649056|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|We used regression, controlling for baseline value of outcome and sex, to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||Our main hypothesis is that, relative to Assessment-Only control, the Counter Attitudinal Advocacy intervention will decrease alcohol problems from baseline to 6-months.||-0.39|-3.41|.014
95839718|NCT01521507|191649057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|z-statistic|p-value was based on z-statistic of the sum of weighted average of difference in scores between groups at each site divided by the sum of the weights.||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total meibomian gland scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Primary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 24 subjects per group with a power of 90% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||<0.0001
95863423|NCT02059291|191684891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.17||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|113.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.44|0.75|0.0513
95863424|NCT02059291|191684891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|366.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||366.24|0.27|0.2168
95839719|NCT01521507|191649057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0020
95839720|NCT01521507|191649058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Stage 2 Primary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Primary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total meibomian gland score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.9098
95839721|NCT01521507|191649059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 1 primary and secondary outcomes were tested in order under a closed form testing method. Secondary outcome was tested only if primary outcome was statistically significant. If both outcomes were significant, overall study alpha was 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: µt ≤ µc vs. Ha: µt \> µc, where µt and µc are the mean changes in total OSDI scores from Baseline to 3 Months for the LipiFlow (test) and Warm Compress and Lid Hygiene (active control) groups, respectively. For the Stage 1 Secondary Outcome, the minimum sample size was 84 per group with a power of 80% and a one-sided alpha of 0.025.||||0.0068
95863425|NCT02059291|191684891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|313.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||313.49|0.15|0.3571
95863426|NCT05408637|191684892|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between stimulation (Active vs Sham).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.75|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|||||
95863427|NCT05408637|191684892|OTHER||Percent Difference|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Active - Sham|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at percent difference between stimulation (Active vs Sham).||||
95863428|NCT05408637|191684892|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between Active and Sham using Cohen's d.||||
95863429|NCT05408637|191684893|OTHER|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we looked at overall patterns and calculated differences between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|224.8392|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|||||
95839722|NCT01521507|191649059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Supportive multivariate mixed model was also performed for this outcome controlling for significant demographic and baseline characteristics.||||0.0419
95863430|NCT05408637|191684893|OTHER||Percent Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Day 5 Active - Day 1 Active|The small sample size did not allow for statistical tests. Therefore, we calculated percent difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5).||||
95863431|NCT05408637|191684893|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We evaluated the effect size of the difference between active stimulation timepoints (Day 1 vs Day 5) using Cohen's d.||||
95863432|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER||rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.767||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the IGT at Baseline vs Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.||||0.15
95863433|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across Baseline, Day 1, and Day 5.||||||0.038|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.038
95863434|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER|The Friedman test was used to assess overall differences in IGT across all timepoints (Baseline, Day 1, Day 5, Follow-Up).||||||0.043|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.043
95863435|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BIS across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.134||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BIS across timepoints||||||0.42
95839723|NCT01521507|191649060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|||||Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was analyzed with a multivariate mixed model with the subgroup as a fixed effect while controlling for other covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null and alternative hypotheses for the Stage 2 Secondary Outcome was: H0: µi= µj for all i and j where i≠j versus Ha: µi ≠ µj for at least one i and j, where µi is the mean total OSDI score at 12 Months for the ith subgroup. The null hypothesis was tested with a two-sided test at alpha=0.05. Since Stage 2 was an observational design, no minimum sample size was calculated for Stage 2.||||0.0237
95839724|NCT04034004|191649065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain ratings were collected while lying in the supine and after each straight leg rasise test (SLR 1; SLR 2). A 2 (group) X 2 (SLR 1-rest vs. SLR 2-meditation) X 2 (supine vs. SLR) X 3 (session) repeated measure mixed model ANOVA was conducted to determine if mindfulness and non-mindfulness meditation attenuate SLR induced pain through endogenous opioids. Simple effects tests tested significant main effects and interactions to test primary study hypotheses and between-group differences.||||.05
95839725|NCT04317040|191649071|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.398||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.918|||Log Rank||Cox-Regression Model|||1.918|1.020|0.0367
95839726|NCT04317040|191649073|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0555||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1665|0.0555|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method|||0.0555|-0.1665|0.3281
95839727|NCT04317040|191649074|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.558||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|0.954|||Log Rank||Cox Regression Model|||0.954|0.327|0.0306
95839728|NCT04317040|191649075|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.027||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.097|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 15|Day 15||0.0970|-0.0430|0.4491
95839729|NCT04317040|191649075|OTHER|Risk difference (RD) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method and p-value was calculated based on Chi-squared test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0146||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1049|0.0756|||Chi-squared||Mantel-Haenszel method used to report all-cause mortality by Day 29|Day 29||0.0756|-0.1049|0.7512
95839730|NCT04317040|191649078|OTHER|Hazard ratio (HR) and the associated 95% CIs were calculated based on Cox Regression model and p-value was calculated based on log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.416||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.945|||Log Rank||Cox Regression model|||1.945|1.031|0.0311
95839731|NCT00799903|191649095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.85|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.85|0.199
95961243|NCT00267098|191893909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-11.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.11|-0.956||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LV Mass through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LV Mass change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in LV Mass through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in LV Mass through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||-0.956|-21.110|
95839732|NCT00799903|191649096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.82|0.045
95839733|NCT00799903|191649097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.84|0.019
95839734|NCT00799903|191649098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.11||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.83|0.594
95839735|NCT00799903|191649099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.77|0.108
95839736|NCT00799903|191649100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.27||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.81|0.920
95839737|NCT00799903|191649101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.88|0.397
95839738|NCT00799903|191649102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Hazard ratio and p-value are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo.|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.90|0.870
95839739|NCT02518971|191649103|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.345
95839740|NCT02518971|191649104|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Student T-Test|||||||.378
95839741|NCT02518971|191649105|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95839742|NCT02518971|191649106|OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.497
95839743|NCT02518971|191649107|OTHER|||||||0.207|||||||Student T-test|||||||.207
95839744|NCT00757237|191649109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-3.86||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, non-inferiority at Day 28 for relative change in FEV1 percent predicted was assessed at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in the mean relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28. With 120 subjects per treatment group there was at least 85% power to declare noninferiority based on relative change from baseline at Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted using the upper bound of a 2-tailed 95% CI for the difference in means with a noninferiority margin of 4, assuming a common standard deviation of 18% and true difference in means \[TIS-AZLI\] of -3.2%.||-3.86|-11.73|0.0001
95839745|NCT00757237|191649110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0023||||||Based on the Benjamini \& Hochberg method, superiority at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 of actual change in FEV1 percent predicted was tested at the 0.05 level, given the significance of the coprimary endpoint (p\<0.05).|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, previous inhaled tobramycin use, treatment, visit, and treatment/visit interaction.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|"Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses among all participants.~With 120 subjects per treatment group, there was at least 90% power at a 5% significance level to detect differences based upon actual change from baseline in FEV1 percent predicted (3.61%, 2.98%, 2.32%) between AZLI and TIS at Weeks 4, 12, and 20 with a common standard deviation of 9%."||||0.0023
95839746|NCT00757237|191649111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment difference (TIS-AZLI) and standard error from the ANCOVA model were used to compute the two-sided 95% confidence interval. If the 95% upper boundary was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 4%, then the null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-5.14||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially by the closed testing procedure initiated by the significance of the primary endpoints. Given the coprimary endpoints were met at the 0.05 level, this non-inferiority endpoint was tested at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment and Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: AZLI was inferior to TIS by more than 4% in terms of the participant means in relative change of FEV1 percent predicted at Day 28 among all participants having \>= 84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||-5.14|-13.86|<0.0001
95839747|NCT00757237|191649112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|MMRM analysis|MMRM analysis included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, visit, treatment, and treatment/visit interaction for all participants.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the mean actual change of FEV1 percent predicted across 3 treatment courses in the stratum of subjects having \>=84 days of inhaled tobramycin use in the previous 12 months.||||0.0002
95839748|NCT00757237|191649113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0025
95839749|NCT00757237|191649114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1114||||||Secondary endpoints were tested sequentially to control the Type I error rate based on the closed testing procedure. Given the significance of the coprimary endpoints and previous secondary endpoint, this endpoint was also tested at the 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to first respiratory hospitalization.||||0.1114
95961244|NCT00267098|191893910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|-0.014||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.014|-0.235|
95839750|NCT00757237|191649115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.61||||0.0048||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in change from baseline in CFQ-R RSS scores at Day 28.||||0.0048
95839751|NCT00757237|191649116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13||||0.0189||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, Day 0 CFQ-R RSS score, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the average actual change in respiratory symptoms at the end of each treatment course (Weeks 4, 12, and 20).||||0.0189
95863436|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the BRIEF-A across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions.||||||0.232|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|BRIEF-A across timepoints||||||0.232
95839752|NCT00757237|191649117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.12||||0.0097||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment, Day 0 FEV1 percent predicted, and previous inhaled tobramycin use.|Treatment difference refers to TIS-AZLI.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the global satisfaction results of the TSQM at Week 20 (Day 140).||||0.0097
95839753|NCT00757237|191649118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory hospitalizations from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.044
95839754|NCT00757237|191649119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||0.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|negative binomial regression method|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups in the total number of respiratory events requiring IV and/or inhaled antipseudomonal antibiotics (other than randomized treatment) from Day 0 to Day 168 (end of study).||||0.004
95839755|NCT00757237|191649120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference between AZLI and TIS treatment groups with respect to time to need for inhaled and/or IV antipseudomonal antibiotics for respiratory events.||||0.0004
95839756|NCT01843023|191649122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.558|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95839757|NCT01843023|191649124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.722|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95863437|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Impulsivity across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.575||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|i7 Impulsivity||||||0.06
95839758|NCT01397461|191649143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"The treatment comparison was done using only the outcomes of Clinical success and Clinical failure. The p value of the chi square test (without continuity correction) and corresponding 95% asymptotic (Wald) CI for the difference in success rates for the ozenoxacin versus placebo were provided. The analysis was performed to test the superiority of ozenoxacin versus placebo.~Text extracted from the statistical analysis plan. No additional data was pre-specified for the statistical comparison"||||0.003
95863438|NCT05408637|191684894|OTHER|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in the i7 Venturesomeness across timepoints due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. Effect sizes were calculated using the rank biserial correlation coefficient (r) to estimate the magnitude of change.|rank biserial correlation coefficient|0.275||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
95839759|NCT00566852|191649173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Significance level was 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: patients on memantine will experience less decline than patients receiving placebo. Based on a one-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test with alpha=0.025, 221 patients per arm would be required to have 80% statistical power to detect a mean difference of 0.87 in the HVLT-R change scores between the two treatment arms. Assuming that 20% of patients may be ineligible, or die prior to the 24 week assessment, the target sample size for randomization was set to 536.||||0.059
95839760|NCT00566852|191649174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0692||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 weeks||||0.0692
95839761|NCT00566852|191649174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4541||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||16 weeks||||0.4541
95839762|NCT00566852|191649174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||One-sided significance level of 0.025|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||52 weeks||||0.3970
95839763|NCT00566852|191649175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.99|||Gray's test|||A one-sided log-rank test with alpha 0.025 accruing 221 patients/arm with 12 months of follow-up would ensure 98% statistical power to detect a 33% relative reduction in the monthly hazard rate with the use of memantine. Gray's test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in the distribution of neurocognitive failure times and Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||0.99|0.62|0.01
95839764|NCT00566852|191649176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Assuming normally distributions, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances would be used to compare the arms at the 0.025 significance level. If normality assumptions were not met, the Wilcoxon rank sum would be used.||||0.77
95863439|NCT05408637|191684895|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Day 5 due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6
95863440|NCT05408637|191684895|OTHER|Non-parametric tests were employed to evaluate changes across MOODS-SR Baseline to Follow Up due to the small sample size and distributional assumptions. The Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for pairwise comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to estimate the magnitude of change.|Cohen's d|0.24||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
95839765|NCT00566852|191649177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.3|0.87|0.27
95839766|NCT00566852|191649178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.31|||Log Rank|||The stratified log-rank test was used to test for a statistically significant difference in survival distributions with a one-sided alpha of 0.025 . In addition, the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the treatment difference.||1.31|0.86|0.025
95839767|NCT04531241|191649180|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||1.1|-6.8|
95839768|NCT04531241|191649181|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0199|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.0|-0.0199|
95839769|NCT04531241|191649181|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 0.05 logMAR unit difference in logMAR visual acuity at LLHC and HLLC lighting conditions at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR units was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0066|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0173|0.0087|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.0087|-0.0173|
95839770|NCT04531241|191649182|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have a 1 hour difference in average daily wear time at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of 1 hour was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1968|0.0933|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.0933|-0.1968|
95839771|NCT04531241|191649183|NON_INFERIORITY|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort and vision at the 1-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05). A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|Least-Square Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.3|-5.5|
95839772|NCT05236257|191649184|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||0.63|0.07|0.0058
95839773|NCT05236257|191649184|OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0023
95839774|NCT05236257|191649185|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.13|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.13|0.05|0.0703
95863441|NCT04975438|191684896|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-33.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-14.84|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis under the hypothetical strategy using an informative prior (robust MAP prior).|||-14.84|-50.96|
95863442|NCT04975438|191684897|OTHER||Posterior Median Difference|-9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-3.6|||||The posterior median of the difference (GSK1070806 - placebo) and 95% credible interval in PCFB in the EASI is presented. Analysis was performed using Bayesian analysis with vague priors and adjusting for baseline EASI.|||-3.60|-15.70|
95863443|NCT02693132|191684910|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95863444|NCT02693132|191684911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95863445|NCT02693132|191684912|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95839775|NCT05236257|191649185|OTHER|||||||0.0486|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0486
95839776|NCT05236257|191649186|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.12|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.12|0.05|0.696
95839777|NCT05236257|191649186|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.0476
95839778|NCT05236257|191649188|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.77|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||1.77|0.36|0.5713
95839779|NCT05236257|191649188|OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.5695
95839780|NCT05236257|191649189|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.06|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Unweighted||||3.06|0.03|0.3200
95839781|NCT05236257|191649189|OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Log Rank|Unweighted||||||0.2940
95839782|NCT05870865|191649191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.28||||0.5483|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5483
95839783|NCT05870865|191649191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89||||0.4123|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4123
95839784|NCT05870865|191649191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.8177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8177
95839785|NCT05870865|191649192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4601
95839786|NCT05870865|191649192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0804|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0804
95863446|NCT02693132|191684913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95839787|NCT05870865|191649192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
95839788|NCT05870865|191649193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.2146|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2146
95839789|NCT05870865|191649193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8851|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8851
95839790|NCT05870865|191649193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1835
95839791|NCT05870865|191649194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7982
95839792|NCT05870865|191649194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5640
95839793|NCT05870865|191649194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2939
95839794|NCT05870865|191649195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3579
95839795|NCT05870865|191649195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3466
95839796|NCT05870865|191649195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9527|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9527
95839797|NCT02324816|191649240|OTHER||success proportion|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.8|90.9||||||||90.9|48.8|
95839798|NCT02218008|191649258|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.3|-2.7|0.018
95839799|NCT02218008|191649259|SUPERIORITY|Hypothesis tests were two-sided with an alpha of 0.05. Control of type 1 error inflation due to multiplicity was achieved by pre-specifying a fixed sequence for statistical tests.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2||ALKS 5461 was compared to pbo using stage-specific MMRM for MADRS-10 Change from Baseline. Model-derived estimates were combined using equal weights.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimates below zero favor ALKS 5461.|Analysis was conducted for each stage separately and overall efficacy was based on combined stage analysis where stage-specific estimates were combined using pre-specified equal weights. Within each stage ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg was compared to placebo (i.e., ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg S2 vs Placebo S2. The pre-specified order of hypothesis tests was ALKS 5461 2/2 compared to placebo followed by ALKS 5461 1/1 compared to placebo.||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
95839800|NCT02218008|191649260|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypotheses were evaluated using a 6-step, fixed sequence approach to adjust for multiple comparisons. Using this method, hypothesis testing (using alpha=0.05) continued through the sequence until statistical significance was not achieved. Steps 1-3 included testing the ALKS 5461 2mg/2mg dose vs placebo for the 3 primary endpoints.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.2||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages, and resulting treatment effects from each stage are combined for a single hypothesis test using equal weights of 0.5 for both stages.|Mixed Models Analysis|||ALKS 5461 is compared to placebo within each of the 2 stages (i.e., ALKS 5461 2/2 S1 vs Placebo S1; and ALKS 5461 2/2 S2 vs Placebo S2). Efficacy was estimated as a weighted average across 2 stages using equal weights.||0.2|-3.6|0.076
95839801|NCT01278797|191649265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.51||||0.005||90.0|91.6|97.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC72 and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.51|91.60|0.005
95839802|NCT01278797|191649266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test/Reference ratio of geometric means|94.1||||0.0093||90.0|90.7|97.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed CMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent since the 90% confidence interval of the test to reference ratio is entirely contained within the 80-125% bioequivalence range.||97.63|90.70|0.0093
95839803|NCT01278797|191649267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.153|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA was applied to TMAX and Included treatment, sequence, period and subject-within-sequence effects.||Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg versus Telmisartan 80 mg + Amlodipine 10 mg||||0.153
95839804|NCT03364309|191649268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.57|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|33.57|<0.0001
95839805|NCT03364309|191649268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.49|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|52.49|<0.001
95839806|NCT03364309|191649269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.76|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|32.76|<0.001
95839807|NCT03364309|191649269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.87|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|64.87|<0.001
95839808|NCT03364309|191649271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.88|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|31.88|<0.001
95839809|NCT03364309|191649271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|99.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.96|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|46.96|<0.001
95839810|NCT03364309|191649273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.68|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|13.68|<0.001
95839811|NCT03364309|191649273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|41.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.09|99.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|15.09|<0.001
95863447|NCT02693132|191684914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95863448|NCT01247272|191684915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|113.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.03|118.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||118.96|108.03|
95863449|NCT01247272|191684916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.18|113.69|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||113.69|102.18|
95839812|NCT03364309|191649274|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.33|-10.71|<0.001
95839813|NCT03364309|191649274|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.59|-10.96|<0.001
95839814|NCT03364309|191649275|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.673|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.79|-13.38|<0.001
95863450|NCT01247272|191684917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|112.12|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.12|102.09|
95863451|NCT01247272|191684918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.54|107.76|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.76|99.54|
95863452|NCT01247272|191684919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.66|110.12|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.12|101.66|
95863453|NCT01247272|191684920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.27|110.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||110.61|101.27|
95863454|NCT04343235|191684927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.21
95863455|NCT04343235|191684928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Main effect for Randomization group|ANOVA|||||||0.70
95839815|NCT03364309|191649275|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.677|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.51|-12.11|<0.001
95839816|NCT03364309|191649276|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-34.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.94|-30.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-30.98|-38.94|<0.001
95839817|NCT03364309|191649276|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-32.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.37|-40.30|<0.001
95839818|NCT03364309|191649277|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.86|-18.62|<0.001
95839819|NCT03364309|191649277|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.954|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-16.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.05|-19.80|<0.001
95839820|NCT03364309|191649278|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6681|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.915|7.541|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.541|4.915|<0.001
95839821|NCT03364309|191649278|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.536|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.225|7.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.847|5.225|<0.001
95839822|NCT03364309|191649279|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9489|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.328|7.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.058|3.328|<0.001
95839823|NCT03364309|191649279|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.946|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.503|7.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.222|3.503|<0.001
95839824|NCT03364309|191649280|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-2.9|<0.001
95839825|NCT03364309|191649280|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.3|-2.9|<0.001
95839826|NCT03364309|191649281|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.15|-5.56|0.003
95863456|NCT04343235|191684929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.77
95863457|NCT04343235|191684930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for randomization group||||||0.54
95863458|NCT04343235|191684931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.1|-1.5|0.47
95839827|NCT03364309|191649281|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.67|-6.90|<0.001
95839828|NCT03364309|191649282|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.07||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-50.5|0.022
95839829|NCT03364309|191649282|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.87||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-47.8|0.031
95839830|NCT03052049|191649290|OTHER|t-test|p value|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.0||||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||P value was calculated with threshold of significance \<0.05.|||||0.05
95839831|NCT03052049|191649291|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95863459|NCT04343235|191684932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
95839832|NCT03052049|191649292|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95839833|NCT03052049|191649293|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95839834|NCT03052049|191649294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||P value was calculated and a value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95839835|NCT00999518|191649295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.35||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.35|-0.40|
95839836|NCT00999518|191649295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.68||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.68|-0.80|
95839837|NCT00999518|191649295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.83||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.83|-1.15|
95839838|NCT00999518|191649295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.47||||||The 3 parameter E max dose-response model, including baseline as a covariate, was fitted to estimate mean difference (tanezumab minus placebo) and associated 95% CI.||0.47|-0.93|
95839839|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.683||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.683|0.259|
95839840|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|2.457||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.457|0.387|
95839841|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
95839842|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|2.398||||||Week 8, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.398|0.392|
95839843|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|1.96||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.960|0.202|
95839844|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|3.376||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.376|0.411|
95863460|NCT04343235|191684933|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95863461|NCT00865280|191684934|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.5|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.5|-12.4|
95863462|NCT00865280|191684935|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|8.3|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.3|-15.5|
95863463|NCT00865280|191684936|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
95863464|NCT00865280|191684937|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
95863465|NCT00865280|191684938|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|26.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||26.6|-11.2|
95961245|NCT00267098|191893911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.035||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.035|-0.287|
95839845|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|3.414||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.414|0.438|
95839846|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.778|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|2.335||||||Week 8, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.335|0.259|
95839847|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.327||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.327|0.370|
95839848|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.749||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.749|0.427|
95839849|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
95839850|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.952||||||Week 16, at least 30% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||1.952|0.295|
95839851|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.682||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.682|0.285|
95839852|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|4.006||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||4.006|0.466|
95839853|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|2.394||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.394|0.235|
95839854|NCT00999518|191649297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|3.168||||||Week 16, at least 50% Reduction: Logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.168|0.356|
95839855|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.848|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.848|0.560|0.5731
95839856|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.656||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||3.980|0.689|0.2592
95839857|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9181||||1.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|2.417|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.417|0.452|1.045
95839858|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|2.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis.||2.997|0.569|0.5289
95839859|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|2.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.074|0.385|0.7930
95839860|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|2.892|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.892|0.471|0.7386
95839861|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||2.460|0.437|0.9354
95839862|NCT00999518|191649300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|1.899|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Proportional odds logistic regression analysis with treatment as independent variable was used for the analysis. For Week 16, data scores were combined into 3 categories: Improved ('slightly improved', 'moderately improved', 'markedly improved'), No Change ('no change') and Worse ('markedly worse', 'moderately worse', 'slightly worse') for comparison.||1.899|0.341|0.6207
95863466|NCT00865280|191684939|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.6|||||The 95% CI was based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution with continuity correction. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||7.6|-8.3|
95863467|NCT01168986|191684941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95863468|NCT01168986|191684942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95863469|NCT01168986|191684943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95839863|NCT04072887|191649338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0235||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.027|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.027|0.628
95839864|NCT04072887|191649338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0144||0.425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.012|0.425
95839865|NCT04072887|191649338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.016|0.463
95839866|NCT04072887|191649338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.008|0.244
95839867|NCT04072887|191649338|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.024|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.024|0.793
95839868|NCT00486824|191649371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95839869|NCT00445770|191649398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline+treatment +pooled study center+prior methotrexate use. If overall treatment effect statistically significant, 3 pairwise comparisons conducted, otherwise no further testing was made.|ANCOVA|||It was estimated that with 180 participants per group, there would be 81% power for the overall test. With this sample size and 0.05 (2-sided) type I error, there was 88% power to detect a 1.33 difference for the change of mTSS from baseline to 52 weeks between the etanercept 25 mg twice weekly group and Methotrexate group, assuming that the common standard deviation of the change of mTSS from baseline was 4.||||<0.0001
95863470|NCT01168986|191684944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.45
95863471|NCT02093819|191684989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.1313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0249|1.2376|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.2376|1.0249|
95839870|NCT00445770|191649398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95839871|NCT00445770|191649398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An outcome showing that etanercept 10 mg was superior to methotrexate and the presence of numerical difference ≤0.5 mTSS units between etanercept 25 mg and etanercept 10 mg would support non-inferiority for the 2 etanercept treatments.||||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2634
95839872|NCT00445770|191649399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95863472|NCT02093819|191684989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|1.1307|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50mg to 600mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis=28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1307|0.7830|
95863473|NCT02093819|191684990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0732|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9946|1.1518|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - all dose groups. Number of subjects included in the analysis=44.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1518|0.9946|
95863474|NCT02093819|191684990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9603|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0838|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8174|1.1032|||||Evaluation of dose proportionality - dose groups 50 mg to 600 mg. Number of subjects included in the analysis 28.|A power model was used to describe functional relationship between dose and Pk parameters. For the evaluation of dose proportionality,slope parameter (B), a two-sided 90% confidence interval of the slope was calculated. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.||1.1032|0.8174|
95863475|NCT01901250|191684996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Permutation test|Adjusted for child's gender, caries burden at study entry, surface-years at risk, and study cohort.||||||0.25
95863476|NCT04530136|191685020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon rank test|||||||0.0346
95863477|NCT04530136|191685021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4441|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.4441
95863478|NCT04530136|191685022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1021|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale for Clin Improvement|||||||0.1021
95863479|NCT04530136|191685023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||WHO Ordinal Scale|||||||0.1615
95863480|NCT02878798|191685027|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were completed|Slope|0.2105|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.4328||||||||||-0.4328|
95863481|NCT02878798|191685028|OTHER|Non-inferiority and superiority tests were done|Slope|-1.5219|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.1933||||||||1.1933||
95863482|NCT02878798|191685029|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6337|0.5872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5872|-0.6337|
95863483|NCT02878798|191685030|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.168||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4612|0.1253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1253|-0.4612|0.261
95961246|NCT00267098|191893912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.03||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.030|-0.293|
95961247|NCT00267098|191893913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.097||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVEDD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVEDD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVEDD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVEDD.||-0.097|-0.390|
95839873|NCT00445770|191649399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95839874|NCT00445770|191649399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2248
95839875|NCT00445770|191649400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839876|NCT00445770|191649400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839877|NCT00445770|191649400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7260
95839878|NCT00445770|191649400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95839879|NCT00445770|191649400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95863484|NCT02878798|191685031|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0213|0.8992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8992|-1.0213|0.9007
95839880|NCT00445770|191649400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.5717
95839881|NCT00445770|191649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839882|NCT00445770|191649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0013
95839883|NCT00445770|191649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0186
95839884|NCT00445770|191649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95839885|NCT00445770|191649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0006
95839886|NCT00445770|191649401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model based on rank transformed data: rank of change = rank baseline + treatment + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1123
95839887|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||<0.0001
95839888|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.0002
95839889|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=0.5||||0.3022
95839890|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0001
95839891|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.0002
95839892|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=3.0||||0.3120
95839893|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0010
95839894|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0285
95839895|NCT00445770|191649402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 for progression \<=SDD||||0.0433
95839896|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0032
95839897|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839898|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.1224
95839899|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95839900|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95839901|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8037|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.8037
95839902|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95839903|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95863485|NCT02878798|191685032|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0106||||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0793|0.1005|||Hurdle model|||||0.1005|-0.0793|0.8174
95863486|NCT02878798|191685033|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.7394||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3775|-0.1013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1013|-1.3775|0.0233
95863487|NCT02878798|191685034|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1328||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.7164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7164|-0.982|0.7586
95839904|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5495
95839905|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95839906|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95839907|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4948
95839908|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95839909|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95839910|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4663
95839911|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95839912|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95839913|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9357|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9357
95839914|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839915|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839916|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.7439
95839917|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95839918|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95839919|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8611
95839920|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95839921|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95839922|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6731|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.6731
95863488|NCT02878798|191685035|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0021||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.0799|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0799|-0.084|0.9604
95863489|NCT02878798|191685036|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0396||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1053|0.0261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0261|-0.1053|0.2365
95863490|NCT02878798|191685037|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.3848||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1336|10.9032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.9032|-6.1336|0.5813
95839923|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95839924|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95839925|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.2616
95839926|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95839927|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
95839928|NCT00445770|191649403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1158
95839929|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839930|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839931|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.4237
95839932|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95839933|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0002
95863491|NCT02878798|191685038|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0547||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5705|1.4611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4611|-3.5705|0.4092
95839934|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5738|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5738
95839935|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95839936|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95839937|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1606
95839938|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95839939|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0016
95839940|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.2412
95839941|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95839942|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95839943|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5882
95839944|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95839945|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0001
95839946|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2257
95839947|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839948|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0003
95839949|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2075
95839950|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95839951|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0050
95839952|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0461
95839953|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0002
95839954|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0101
95863492|NCT00884741|191685053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||1.37|0.93|0.11
95839955|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.2351
95839956|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
95839957|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1179
95839958|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0214
95839959|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95839960|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0790
95839961|NCT00445770|191649404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0168
95839962|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839963|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839964|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6337
95863493|NCT00884741|191685054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).|Log Rank|||The trial was designed to concurrently provide 80% power for the detection of a 25% relative reduction in mortality hazard (hazard ratio .75) and 30% reduction in progression hazard (hazard ratio .70) for the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide and radiation. To control for type I error in testing the co-primary endpoints, the significance criterion for OS was 0.023 (one-sided) and for PFS was 0.002 (one-sided).||0.94|0.66|0.004
95839965|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95839966|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95839967|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.7407
95839968|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95839969|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95839970|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.3473
95839971|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95839972|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95839973|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7529
95839974|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95839975|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95839976|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.5216
95839977|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95839978|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95839979|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1078
95839980|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839981|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95839982|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.1280
95863494|NCT00884741|191685055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
95839983|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95839984|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95839985|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0291
95863495|NCT02762370|191685065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0452
95839986|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95839987|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95839988|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0729
95839989|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95863496|NCT01578850|191685085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).|Participants who took rescue therapy had the final value taken before rescue used for analysis at all ensuing time points.|||35.81|16.78|<0.001
95863497|NCT01578850|191685086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|40.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value from CMH test of general association was stratified by geographic region.||||40.61|6.83|0.019
95863498|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.6||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Baseline||0.57|-1.76|0.371
95863499|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
95961248|NCT00267098|191893914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.055||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 6 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.055|-0.185|
95863500|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.6||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||9.98|-4.76|0.667
95839990|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95839991|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0271
95839992|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95839993|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95839994|NCT00445770|191649405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0453
95839995|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839996|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95839997|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.7488
95839998|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95839999|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840000|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.5680
95840001|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840002|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95863501|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
95863502|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|29.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||29.10|8.81|0.004
95863503|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|40.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||40.83|20.79|<0.001
95840003|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9241
95840004|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840005|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840006|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.7146
95863504|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.89|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.89|<0.001
95863505|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.51|41.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.08|21.51|<0.001
95863506|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.95|40.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.47|19.95|<0.001
95863507|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.78|35.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.81|16.78|<0.001
95863508|NCT01578850|191685088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.47|16.67|<0.001
95863509|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|11.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 24||11.68|-9.03|0.774
95863510|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|21.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||21.69|2.86|0.034
95863511|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|27.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||27.54|6.33|0.020
95840007|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840008|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
95840009|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.6574
95840010|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840011|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0004
95840012|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2936|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.2936
95840013|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840014|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0005
95840015|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2179
95863512|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|14.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.48|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||23.80|5.48|0.007
95961249|NCT00267098|191893915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.029||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 12 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.029|-0.236|
95961250|NCT00267098|191893916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.087||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 18 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||0.087|-0.204|
95840016|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840017|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840018|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.3704
95863513|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|34.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||34.98|14.72|<0.001
95863514|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.16|27.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||27.38|10.16|<0.001
95863515|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.03|40.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||40.76|21.03|<0.001
95863516|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|29.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||29.52|11.78|<0.001
95863517|NCT01578850|191685090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|36.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||36.93|17.38|<0.001
95863518|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 28||-0.20|-0.73|<0.001
95863519|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 28||-0.11|-0.61|0.006
95863520|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 36||-0.39|-0.96|<0.001
95863521|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 36||-0.28|-0.82|<0.001
95863522|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 44||-0.46|-1.03|<0.001
95840019|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840020|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840021|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.8047
95840022|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840023|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95961251|NCT00267098|191893917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|-0.018||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in LVESD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean LVESD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, and NYHA classifications of I, II, or III who receive biventricular pacing have the same average change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months as similar patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a different change in LVESD from randomization to 24 months than patients with RV pacing. Negative values reflect reductions in LVESD.||-0.018|-0.339|
95840024|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5277
95840025|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840026|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840027|NCT00445770|191649406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9371
95840028|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0027
95840029|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0015
95840030|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8875
95840031|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0015
95840032|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0011
95840033|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.9694
95840034|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0020
95863523|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 44||-0.37|-0.92|<0.001
95863524|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-ESR Week 52||-0.40|-0.98|<0.001
95840035|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.0005
95840036|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.7271
95840037|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0235
95840038|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0061
95840039|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.6427
95840040|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0036
95840041|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0029
95840042|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.9713
95840043|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
95840044|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0060
95840045|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.9762
95840046|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0554
95840047|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0181
95840048|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6642
95840049|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0073
95863525|NCT01578850|191685092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.36|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||DAS28-CRP Week 52||-0.36|-0.91|<0.001
95840050|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0290
95840051|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5919|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.5919
95840052|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0371
95840053|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0346
95840054|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9955|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.9955
95840055|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0187
95840056|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0645
95840057|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5920
95840058|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0095
95840059|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.2112
95840060|NCT00445770|191649407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1649
95840061|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840062|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840063|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8972
95840064|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840065|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840066|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.3736
95840067|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840068|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840069|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.9324
95840070|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840071|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840072|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.8982
95840073|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840074|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0007
95840075|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.3180
95840076|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840077|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0011
95840078|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.3302
95840079|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840080|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.0002
95863526|NCT01578850|191685093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95863527|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 24||8.90|-6.13|0.961
95840081|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6563|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.6563
95840082|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840083|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840084|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.8894
95840085|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840086|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840087|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7826
95840088|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840089|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0003
95840090|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5343|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.5343
95961252|NCT00267098|191893918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.828|1.506||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||1.506|-2.828|
95961253|NCT00267098|191893919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.843|1.773||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||1.773|-2.843|
95840091|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840092|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840093|NCT00445770|191649408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.9313
95840094|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840095|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840096|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8044|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.8044
95840097|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840098|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.0003
95840099|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4652
95840100|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840101|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840102|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.5612
95840103|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
95840104|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.0002
95840105|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.9749
95840106|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0001
95840107|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.0004
95840108|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.7290
95840109|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840110|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.0003
95840111|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.5004
95840112|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840113|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840114|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5727|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.5727
95840115|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840116|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840117|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6713|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.6713
95962386|NCT03607422|191896603|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||10.5|3.8|<0.001
95840118|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840119|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.0001
95840120|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.7663
95840121|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840122|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.0002
95840123|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.7073
95840124|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840125|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.0001
95840126|NCT00445770|191649409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.7973
95840127|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840128|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840129|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.1053
95840130|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840131|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840132|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0144
95840133|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840134|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95863528|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|21.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.99|32.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||32.02|10.99|0.001
95840135|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.1851
95840136|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840137|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0001
95840138|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.2883
95840139|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840140|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0007
95840141|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.2221
95840142|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
95863529|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|28.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||28.53|8.08|0.007
95863530|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.42|41.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||41.39|21.42|<0.001
95863531|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.83|37.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||37.54|16.83|<0.001
95840143|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0147
95840144|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0201
95840145|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95863532|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|31.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.53|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||41.02|21.53|<0.001
95840146|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0036
95840147|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0789
95840148|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840149|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0008
95840150|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1903
95840151|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840152|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0048
95840153|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1059|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1059
95840154|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840155|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0018
95840156|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.2589
95840157|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840158|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0040
95840159|NCT00445770|191649410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.2326
95840160|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840161|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840162|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4751
95840163|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840164|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840165|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.4653
95840166|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840167|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840168|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7953|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7953
95840169|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840170|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840171|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0848
95961254|NCT00267098|191893920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|2.425||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||2.425|-2.379|
95840172|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840173|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840174|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.6112
95840175|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840176|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0002
95840177|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.3671
95840178|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840179|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840180|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7618|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7618
95840181|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840182|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840183|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4358
95840184|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0008
95962387|NCT03607422|191896604|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||12.9|4.3|<0.001
95840185|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840186|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.6267
95840187|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840188|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0004
95840189|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.3564
95840190|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0007
95840191|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.0035
95840192|NCT00445770|191649411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.4749
95840193|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840194|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0001
95840195|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.4376
95840196|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840197|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840198|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3947|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.3947
95840199|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840200|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840201|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.7378
95840202|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0001
95840203|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840204|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.5680
95840205|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0003
95840206|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840207|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.3978
95840208|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840209|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0001
95863533|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.54|41.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 44||41.05|20.54|<0.001
95840210|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7229|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.7229
95840211|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840212|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840213|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.7236
95840214|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840215|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840216|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.9719
95840217|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840218|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840219|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.9349
95840220|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840221|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0002
95840222|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7226|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.7226
95840223|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840224|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840225|NCT00445770|191649412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.5512
95840226|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0162
95840227|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.0035
95840228|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 2||||0.8928
95840229|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0009
95840230|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.0007
95840231|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 4||||0.6348
95840232|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.0026
95840233|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840234|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4629|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 8||||0.4629
95840235|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0841
95840236|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.0007
95840237|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 12||||0.1957
95840238|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0093
95840239|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.0326
95840240|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 16||||0.7426
95840241|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0013
95840242|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.0015
95840243|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6552|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 20||||0.6552
95840244|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0005
95840245|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.0004
95840246|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6294|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 24||||0.6294
95840247|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840248|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.0001
95840249|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4652|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 32||||0.4652
95840250|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840251|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.0002
95840252|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2233|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 40||||0.2233
95840253|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840254|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.0003
95840255|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 48||||0.6772
95840256|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840257|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840258|NCT00445770|191649413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study center and prior methotrexate use||Week 52||||0.6160
95840259|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840260|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840261|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||0.4929
95840262|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840263|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840264|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9693|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.9693
95863534|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.82|35.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||35.74|16.82|<0.001
95863535|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|37.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||37.44|16.63|<0.001
95863536|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Good Response: DAS28-ESR Week 24||1.65|-1.69|0.766
95863537|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|8.2||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 28||14.10|2.32|0.091
95961255|NCT00267098|191893921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|2.046||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in MR through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean MR change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Mitral Regurgitation (MR) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Mitral Regurgitation through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||2.046|-3.337|
95840265|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840266|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840267|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.4139
95840268|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840269|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
95863538|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 28||11.75|1.28|0.227
95863539|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 36||16.60|3.27|0.072
95863540|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.8||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 36||15.20|2.43|0.108
95863541|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|18.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||18.72|4.69|0.035
95863542|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 44||17.06|4.20|0.030
95863543|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.1||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-ESR Week 52||18.06|4.15|0.048
95863544|NCT01578850|191685095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|17.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Moderate Response: DAS28-CRP Week 52||17.58|4.92|0.016
95863545|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
95863546|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|9.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 24||9.16|-2.38|0.341
95962388|NCT03607422|191896605|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-17.8|-28.4|<0.001
95961256|NCT00267098|191893922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.195||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.195|-0.031|
95840270|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.8905
95840271|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840272|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840273|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.6877
95840274|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840275|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840276|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4511|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.4511
95840277|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840278|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840279|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.2786
95840280|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840281|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
95863547|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 28||28.27|8.40|0.004
95840282|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.1230
95840283|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840284|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840285|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.5061
95840286|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840287|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840288|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1354
95840289|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840290|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840291|NCT00445770|191649414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1734
95840292|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840293|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840294|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.6417
95840295|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840296|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840297|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||||0.4698
95961257|NCT00267098|191893923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.198||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.198|-0.022|
95840298|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840299|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840300|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||||0.1214
95840301|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840302|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840303|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.4654
95840304|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840305|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840306|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||||0.4006
95840307|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95863548|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.88|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 36||34.40|13.88|<0.001
95863549|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.85|37.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 44||37.35|16.85|<0.001
95840308|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840309|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1636|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||||0.1636
95840310|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840311|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840312|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||||0.2635
95840313|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840314|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840315|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||||0.0965
95840316|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840317|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840318|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4437|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||||0.4437
95840319|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840320|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840321|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.1663
95840322|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840323|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840324|NCT00445770|191649415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||||0.1049
95840325|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840326|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840327|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment||Week 2||||0.0442
95840328|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840329|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840330|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0681
95840331|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840332|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840333|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0966
95863550|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.61|34.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: LDA: Week 52||34.42|13.61|<0.001
95962389|NCT03607422|191896605|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-16.9|-27.8|<0.001
95840334|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840335|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0006
95840336|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.1242
95840337|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840338|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.001
95840339|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.1521
95840340|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840341|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0070
95840342|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0140
95840343|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840344|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840345|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0815
95840346|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840347|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0002
95840348|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0886
95840349|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840350|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0003
95863551|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.3||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 24||10.06|-5.50|0.774
95863552|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.03|-7.15|0.645
95863553|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|8.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|16.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 36||16.35|0.36|0.080
95961258|NCT00267098|191893924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.081|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.218|
95961259|NCT00267098|191893925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.192||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in CI through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean CI change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in Cardiac Index (CI) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in Cardiac Index through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.192|-0.095|
95840351|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.1488
95840352|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840353|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0006
95840354|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0979|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0979
95840355|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
95863554|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.68|1.49|0.025
95863555|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|16.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Remission: Week 52||16.88|1.02|0.088
95863556|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Baseline||1.81|-0.59|0.358
95840356|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0001
95863557|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 24||10.13|-3.57|0.258
95863558|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|27.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 28||27.92|7.49|0.005
95863559|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 36||37.55|16.93|<0.001
95863560|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.83|42.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 44||42.23|21.83|<0.001
95863561|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|38.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: LDA: Week 52||38.69|18.00|<0.001
95961260|NCT00267098|191893926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|29.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|48.64||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||48.640|10.040|
95961261|NCT00267098|191893927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|21.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.841|40.87||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||40.870|2.841|
95961262|NCT00267098|191893928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|26.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.247|47.19||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||47.190|6.247|
95840357|NCT00445770|191649416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.1740
95840358|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior Methotrexate use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840359|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 2||||<0.0001
95840360|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||||0.0274
95840361|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840362|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||<0.0001
95840363|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 4||||0.0344
95961263|NCT00267098|191893929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|23.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.999|44.53||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in IVMD through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean IVMD change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in IVMD through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in IVMD through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value. A positive value reflected reduction in IVMD.||44.530|1.999|
95961264|NCT00267098|191893930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.089||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 6 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 6 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 6 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 6 month value - randomization visit value.||0.089|-0.180|
95962390|NCT03607422|191896606|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|57.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||57.3|42.2|<0.001
95840364|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840365|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||<0.0001
95840366|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 8||||0.0293
95840367|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840368|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||<0.0001
95840369|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 12||||0.0452
95840370|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840371|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||<0.0001
95840372|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 16||||0.0313
95961265|NCT00267098|191893931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.058||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 12 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 12 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 12 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 12 month value - randomization visit value.||0.058|-0.287|
95961266|NCT00267098|191893932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.22||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 18 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 18 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 18 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 18 month value - randomization visit value.||0.220|-0.136|
95840373|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||<0.0001
95840374|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0019
95840375|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 20||||0.0781
95840376|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||<0.0001
95840377|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.0001
95840378|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1279|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 24||||0.1279
95840379|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||<0.0001
95840380|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0004
95840381|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 32||||0.0807
95840382|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||<0.0001
95840383|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.0002
95840384|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.418|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 40||||0.4180
95840385|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||<0.0001
95840386|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.0061
95840387|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1615|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 48||||0.1615
95863562|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|11.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 24||11.51|-5.51|0.672
95840388|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||<0.0001
95840389|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0130
95840390|NCT00445770|191649417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|p-Values from ANCOVA model: change = baseline + pooled study center + prior MTX use + treatment.||Week 52||||0.0948
95840391|NCT03652181|191649477|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean QSM||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.033
95840392|NCT03652181|191649478|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 change in mean DCEQP||||||0.3459|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3459
95840393|NCT03652181|191649479|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the year 1 change is equivalent to year 2 numbers||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95840394|NCT01101035|191649497|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.359 (75% interim) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0||1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23||
95840395|NCT01101035|191649498|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any APTC event was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function status as a stratification factor.|||1.28|0.92|
95840396|NCT01101035|191649499|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.73|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.73|1.03|
95840397|NCT01101035|191649500|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal MI was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.21|0.72|
95840398|NCT01101035|191649501|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.41|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of non-fatal stroke was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.41|0.73|
95840399|NCT01101035|191649502|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.26|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of unstable angina with urgent coronary revascularization was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with factors including treatment and baseline renal function.|||1.26|0.59|
95840400|NCT01101035|191649503|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the upper 1-sided CI for the hazard ratio was less than 1.3. Critical boundary of 2.014 (final analysis) based on the Lan-DeMets-O'Brien-Fleming alpha spending function was used for CI estimation.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.87|1.23|||||Time from randomization to the first occurrence of any MACE was fitted using Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment as a covariate and Baseline renal function as a stratification factor.|Statistical analysis for the primary endpoint was based on 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs), using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%, to assess non-inferiority at each interim analysis and the final analysis.||1.23|0.87|
95840401|NCT00786799|191649522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Aberrant Behavior Checklist Hyperactivity subscale (ABC-H) score is the same for both groups.||||0.40
95863563|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 28||8.00|-8.03|0.556
95840402|NCT02178995|191649539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||||||HRTSD p-value = 0.037; p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, n=31, df=1||||||0.037
95840403|NCT02178995|191649539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||D' p = 0.055. p \< 0.05 considered significant.|ANOVA|Within-subjects contrasts, placebo v 10mg v 20mg.||||||0.055
95840404|NCT02178995|191649539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRTSD 10mg vs 20mg||||0.758
95840405|NCT02178995|191649539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||d' 10mg vs 20mg||||0.499
95840406|NCT02178995|191649540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.008
95840407|NCT02178995|191649540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SDMT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.071
95840408|NCT02178995|191649541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.154
95840409|NCT02178995|191649541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||MCG 10mg vs 20mg||||0.779
95840410|NCT02178995|191649542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||HRTSD P\<0.0001|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD||||<0.0001
95840411|NCT02178995|191649542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||HRTSD p \<0.001 for healthy controls|t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, HRTSD, healthy controls||||0.001
95840412|NCT02178995|191649542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||ANOVA|||Between-group comparisons by 2-way ANOVA, HRTSD||||0.322
95840413|NCT02178995|191649542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group comparison, epilepsy, D'||||<0.0001
95840414|NCT02178995|191649542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intra-group analysis, healthy controls, d'||||0.037
95840415|NCT02178995|191649542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Intra-group analysis by 2-way ANOVA, d'||||0.08
95840416|NCT02178995|191649543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95840417|NCT02178995|191649543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95840418|NCT02178995|191649543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||ANOVA|||Group x time interaction by 2-way ANOVA||||0.443
95840419|NCT02178995|191649544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95840420|NCT02178995|191649544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95840421|NCT02178995|191649544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups analysis by 2-way ANOVA||||0.906
95840422|NCT02178995|191649545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.274
95840423|NCT02178995|191649546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95840424|NCT02178995|191649547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Hits p = 0.04|ANOVA|||||||0.04
95840425|NCT02178995|191649547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Omissions p = 0.038|ANOVA|||||||0.038
95840426|NCT02178995|191649547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329||||||Commissions p = 0.329|ANOVA|||||||0.329
95863564|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 36||18.45|2.07|0.022
95863565|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.0||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|17.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 44||17.25|0.85|0.047
95961267|NCT00267098|191893933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior BiV - RV Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.311||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used since it is a non-Bayesian statistical tool. Instead,a posterior distribution representing the set of possible values for the BiV - RV difference in change in E/A through 24 months was used.|Bayesian Credible Interval||Because Bayesian analyses were employed, a 95% two-sided credible interval was used instead of a confidence interval. This reflects the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of possible values for the BiV-RV difference in mean E/A change through 24 months.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar changes in E:A ratio (E/A) through 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients have different changes in E:A ratio through 24 months with BiV pacing than RV pacing. Change was calculated as 24 month value - randomization visit value.||0.311|-0.085|
95863566|NCT01578850|191685097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Remission: Week 52||20.57|3.70|0.031
95840427|NCT02178995|191649547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits 10mg vs 20mg||||0.876
95840428|NCT02178995|191649547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.932
95840429|NCT02178995|191649547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions 10mg vs 20mg||||0.898
95840430|NCT02178995|191649548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline rate of seizures (expressed as seizures per 28 days) pre-trial against the rate experienced during the double-blind portion of our trial.||||0.7116
95840431|NCT02178995|191649549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Attention/Concentration subscale||||<0.0001
95840432|NCT02178995|191649549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Memory subscale||||<0.0001
95840433|NCT02178995|191649549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Language subscale||||0.002
95840434|NCT02178995|191649549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy/fatigue subscale||||0.001
95840435|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.003
95840436|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hits v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.033
95840437|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANOVA|||2-way ANOVA epilepsy vs healthy hits||||0.079
95840438|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.001
95840439|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Omissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.029
95840440|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Epilepsy v healthy ANOVA Omissions||||0.048
95840441|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
95840442|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Commissions v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.42
95840443|NCT02178995|191649550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||ANOVA|||Healthy vs epilepsy ANOVA (2-way) commissions||||0.019
95840444|NCT02178995|191649551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95840445|NCT02178995|191649552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Note: Stimulant side-effect score \*decreased\* with addition of open-label stimulant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95840446|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BDI epilepsy v1 vs v5||||0.014
95840447|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Healthy controls BDI v1 vs v5||||0.04
95840448|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group comparison 2-way ANOVA BDI||||0.191
95840449|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.42
95840450|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BAI visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.477
95840451|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA BAI||||0.792
95840452|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 epilepsy||||0.045
95840453|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AES visit 1 vs visit 5 healthy controls||||0.646
95863567|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 28||-0.01|-4.19|0.049
95863568|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 36||-1.05|-5.72|0.005
95863569|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.67|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 44||-1.67|-6.37|<0.001
95863570|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CDAI: Week 52||-1.68|-6.36|<0.001
95863571|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 28||-0.03|-4.40|0.047
95863572|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 36||-1.12|-5.97|0.004
95863573|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.88|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 44||-1.88|-6.78|<0.001
95863574|NCT01578850|191685099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.84|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||SDAI: Week 52||-1.84|-6.70|<0.001
95840454|NCT02178995|191649553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||Between-groups comparison 2-way ANOVA AES||||0.222
95840455|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Perceptions||||0.011
95863575|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.2||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 24||3.90|-4.21|0.742
95863576|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|9.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 28||17.06|2.45|0.143
95863577|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|19.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 36||19.51|3.31|0.111
95863578|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|18.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 44||18.49|1.80|0.175
95863579|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 20: Week 52||19.05|2.49|0.088
95863580|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|9.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 24||9.75|-4.78|0.584
95863581|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|11.5||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|21.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 28||21.34|1.59|0.226
95863582|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 36||27.56|6.76|0.012
95863583|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.59|29.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 44||29.35|8.59|0.006
95863584|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|17.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|28.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 50: Week 52||28.16|7.30|0.014
95840456|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall QOL (subjectively rated by participants on the scale)||||0.01
95840457|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Function||||0.164
95840458|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Emotional)||||0.065
95840459|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Role Limitations (Physical)||||0.014
95840460|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain||||0.128
95863585|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-2.7||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|8.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 24||8.11|-13.49|0.702
95863586|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|7.1||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 28||17.50|-3.37|0.378
95863587|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|17.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.12|27.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 36||27.56|7.12|0.004
95840461|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Work/Driving/Social||||0.026
95840462|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Wellbeing||||0.077
95840463|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Health Discouragement||||0.007
95840464|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizure Worry||||0.063
95840465|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Medication Effects||||0.609
95961268|NCT00267098|191893934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1841||||0.9985||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 6 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9985
95961269|NCT00267098|191893935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2503||||0.9999||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 12 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9999
95863588|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|28.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 44||28.55|8.40|0.001
95840466|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Support||||0.626
95840467|NCT02178995|191649554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social Isolation||||0.103
95840468|NCT02178995|191649555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||<0.0001
95840469|NCT02178995|191649555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Variability v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.096
95840470|NCT02178995|191649555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANOVA|||Variability 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.136
95840471|NCT02178995|191649555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.17
95840472|NCT02178995|191649555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perseverations v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.104
95840473|NCT02178995|191649555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations 2-way ANOVA healthy vs epilepsy||||0.661
95840474|NCT02178995|191649556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397|||||||ANOVA|||Variability ANOVA||||0.397
95840475|NCT02178995|191649556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|||Perseverations ANOVA||||0.745
95840476|NCT02178995|191649556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg variability||||0.362
95840477|NCT02178995|191649556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||10mg vs 20mg perseverations||||0.745
95840478|NCT02178995|191649557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||HRT ANOVA||||0.48
95840479|NCT02178995|191649557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT 10mg vs 20mg||||0.793
95840480|NCT02178995|191649558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 epilepsy||||0.5
95840481|NCT02178995|191649558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HRT v1 vs v5 healthy||||0.075
95863589|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|16.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|26.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 70: Week 52||26.02|5.96|0.005
95863590|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.3||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 24||5.67|-6.19|0.921
95863591|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|3.3||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|8.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 28||8.86|-2.19|0.410
95863592|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|12.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 36||12.48|0.41|0.073
95863593|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|10.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 44||10.08|-0.97|0.219
95840482|NCT02178995|191649558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||HRT epilepsy vs healthy ANOVA||||0.2
95840483|NCT01337336|191649563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.002||95.0|1.08|1.56|||Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.56|1.08|0.002
95863594|NCT01578850|191685101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ACR 90: Week 52||12.40|-0.60|0.196
95840484|NCT01337336|191649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.002||95.0|1.02|2.38||COPD-related hospitalization|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.38|1.02|0.002
95840485|NCT01337336|191649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002||95.0|1.14|2.39||COPD-related ER visit|Chi-squared||Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.39|1.14|0.002
95840486|NCT01337336|191649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.503||95.0|0.93|1.4|||Chi-squared|COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.40|0.93|0.503
95840487|NCT01337336|191649564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001||95.0|1.26|2.31|||Chi-squared|COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|Estimated value obtained from logistic regression model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.31|1.26|<0.001
95863595|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.05|-1.84|0.062
95961270|NCT00267098|191893936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1978||||0.9978||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 18 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9978
95863596|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.27|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.27|-2.41|0.015
95840488|NCT01337336|191649566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.46||||0.0004||95.0|1.01|2.09||COPD-related hospitalization|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||2.09|1.01|0.0004
95840489|NCT01337336|191649566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.27||||0.208||95.0|0.89|1.82||COPD-related ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.82|0.89|0.208
95840490|NCT01337336|191649566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.671||95.0|0.9|1.32||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.32|0.90|0.671
95863597|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.57|-2.72|0.003
95863598|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.66|-2.85|0.002
95840491|NCT01337336|191649566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.31||||0.009||95.0|1.05|1.72||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.72|1.05|0.009
95840492|NCT01337336|191649566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.16||||0.052||95.0|0.98|1.37||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician + Rx visit|t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value obtained from zero-inflated negative binomial model controlling for differences between cohorts at baseline on demographic variables, proxy measures of COPD severity, and measures of overall disease burden.|||1.37|0.98|0.052
95863599|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.50|-0.77|0.680
95863600|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.45|-1.04|0.437
95840493|NCT05292131|191649567|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE) was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC.|Geometric Mean Ratio (percentage [%])|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|105.4||||||||105.40|90.20|
95840494|NCT05292131|191649568|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for AUC0-t.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|104.55||||||||104.55|90.10|
95840495|NCT05292131|191649569|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for Cmax.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|104.47||||||||104.47|88.60|
95840496|NCT05292131|191649572|EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the respective comparison are fully included in the acceptance range from 0.8 to 1.25 for t½.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.18|108.59||||||||108.59|94.18|
95840497|NCT05292131|191649573|EQUIVALENCE|The point estimate and the 90% CI for the median treatment differences for tmax was computed according to the Hodges-Lehmann's method.|Hodges-Lehman Estimate|0.4897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0073|0.9567||||||||0.9567|-0.0073|
95840498|NCT01695135|191649599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.740|0.376|0.0002
95863601|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.17|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.17|-1.31|0.131
95840499|NCT00587678|191649645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.32
95840500|NCT00587678|191649645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.01
95840501|NCT00587678|191649646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.31
95840502|NCT00587678|191649646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
95840503|NCT00587678|191649647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.71
95840504|NCT00587678|191649648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.67
95840505|NCT00587678|191649649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.37
95840506|NCT00587678|191649649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||vs. baseline|Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
95840507|NCT00587678|191649650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.78
95840508|NCT00587678|191649651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.68
95840509|NCT00587678|191649652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||<0.05
95840510|NCT00587678|191649653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.67||95.0|||||linear repeated measures model|||||||=0.67
95840511|NCT00587678|191649654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.77
95840512|NCT00587678|191649655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Linear repeated measures model|||||||0.85
95840513|NCT00226811|191649660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR rate (percentage)|7.7||||||95.0|2.9|16.0|||||Clinical benefit response rate: percent of patients with confirmed complete response, confirmed partial response or stable disease for at least 24 wks according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, relative to total treated patients|||16.0|2.9|
95840514|NCT00226811|191649665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||OR rate (percentage)|2.6||||||95.0|0.3|9.0|||||Percentage of patients with confirmed complete response or confirmed partial response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), relative to the total number of treated patients.|||9.0|0.3|
95863602|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.25|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||28 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.25|-1.22|0.199
95863603|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.28|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 28||0.28|-2.60|0.115
95840515|NCT01514201|191649685|OTHER|This was descriptive in nature. Two of the first 5 patients who were escalated to 175 mg/m2 of temozolomide during the maintenance intra-patient dose escalation had dose-modifying toxicities (DMTs). Since the ad hoc stopping rule was met, intra-patient dose escalation was halted and all subsequent patients were to receive 135 mg/m2 of temozolomide during maintenance.|Percentage of patients with DMTs|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Intra-patient dose escalation of temozolomide during maintenance was assessed based on similar rules employed in traditional 3+3 designs. For example intra-patient dose escalation would be halted if at any time 2 out of first 2-6 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level or if 4 out of first 12 patients experienced dose-modifying toxicities at a given dose level.||||
95840516|NCT00676013|191649705|OTHER|ANOVA and all pairwise comparisons using Tukey test.|Multiple pairwise comparisons|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 is a threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||We conducted a multiple four group comparison (all pairwise comparisons were conducted). An Anova was conducted to assess statistical significance.|0.05|||0.05
95840517|NCT04607837|191649730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.35||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|19.94|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common risk difference using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the risk difference being 0.||19.94|-5.24|0.2524
95840518|NCT04607837|191649731|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.61||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|26.91|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.91|4.31|0.0068
95840519|NCT04607837|191649732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.24||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|21.71|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.71|-5.22|0.2302
95840520|NCT04607837|191649733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.12||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|21.55|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.55|-7.32|0.3339
95840521|NCT04607837|191649734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|13.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||13.13|-11.76|0.9141
95840522|NCT04607837|191649735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.56||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|21.25|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.25|-2.13|0.1089
95840523|NCT04607837|191649736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.19||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|19.75|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.75|2.63|0.0104
95840524|NCT04607837|191649737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|19.92|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||19.92|-22.06|0.9203
95840525|NCT04607837|191649738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
95840526|NCT04607837|191649739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.71||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.31|34.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||34.90|-38.31|0.9272
95962519|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|2.2||||0.5969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.6|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||9.6|0.5|0.5969
95840527|NCT04607837|191649740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.49||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|20.68|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||20.68|-3.71|0.1726
95840528|NCT04607837|191649741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.64||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|33.67|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||33.67|3.61|0.0151
95840529|NCT04607837|191649742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.96||||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|21.13|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||21.13|-9.22|0.4419
95840530|NCT04607837|191649743|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.33||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.78|36.89|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.89|9.78|0.0007
95840531|NCT04607837|191649744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.99||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|26.79|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights. The 2-sided p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||26.79|3.19|0.0128
95840532|NCT04607837|191649745|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.24||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|24.14|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.14|-3.67|0.1492
95840533|NCT04607837|191649746|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|12.53|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||12.53|-12.18|0.9774
95840534|NCT04607837|191649747|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|36.49|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||36.49|9.17|0.0011
95840535|NCT04607837|191649748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|25.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||25.56|-3.95|0.1513
95840536|NCT04607837|191649749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.07||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|24.87|||Mantel Haenszel|||Difference (%) for etrasimod minus placebo was based on estimated common RD using the Mantel- Haenszel weights, where only participants with an assessment at Baseline and the corresponding visit are included. The 2-sided Nominal p-value was used to test the hypothesis of the RD being 0.||24.87|-4.73|0.1823
95840537|NCT00367835|191649757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95840538|NCT00367835|191649758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95840539|NCT00367835|191649759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95840540|NCT00367835|191649760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95840541|NCT00367835|191649761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95840542|NCT00367835|191649762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95840543|NCT00367835|191649763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95962520|NCT03635086|191896797|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio Estimate|0.3||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4|||Tukey-Kramer|||GMT ratios were estimated by applying an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including the factor treatment group. This was done using log10 transformed data and taking the anti-log of the resulting point estimates for the least squares means, least squares means differences and the corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-values were also provided to compare GMTs between treatment groups adjusted for multiple comparisons according to Tukey-Kramer.||1.4|0.1|0.2043
95840544|NCT03453489|191649772|OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.837
95840545|NCT04346654|191649775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
95840546|NCT04346654|191649776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5133|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5133
95840547|NCT03838978|191649794|SUPERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. If non-inferiority was met, superiority could be tested. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \> 0.0%.||||||||||||||||For missing data in both Arms/Groups, multiple imputation was performed for the primary CCS analysis.|Device group differences and two-sided 90% and 97.5% confidence interval lower bounds (LB) adjusting for propensity score (PS) subclass based on PS subclass weights (ATT). Noninferiority is demonstrated if the 90% LB \> -10.0%. Superiority is demonstrated if 97.5% LB \>0.0%. Two-sided 97.5% LB is evaluated rather than two-sided 95.0% LB since the superiority type 1 error is split between testing superiority in terms of Month 24 CCS and then separately for a set of superiority secondary endpoints with type 1 error control maintained through the use of Hochberg approach (following demonstration of non-inferiority).|||
95840548|NCT04209205|191649804|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|25.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.61|32.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.43|17.61|<.0001
95840549|NCT04209205|191649805|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|30.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|40.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.05|21.14|<.0001
95840550|NCT04209205|191649806|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|17.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|23.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.85|10.48|<.0001
95840551|NCT04209205|191649807|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|41.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.64|52.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.13|30.64|<.0001
95840552|NCT04209205|191649808|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-1.38|<.0001
95840553|NCT04209205|191649809|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.32|<.0001
95840554|NCT04209205|191649810|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.676|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|2.80|<.0001
95840555|NCT04209205|191649811|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.68|1.01|0.0024
95840556|NCT04209205|191649812|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.447|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.26|-8.96|<.0001
95840557|NCT04209205|191649813|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|27.49||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.43|42.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||42.55|12.43|0.0003
95840558|NCT04209205|191649814|SUPERIORITY||Marginal difference|16.35||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|28.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.82|3.88|0.0102
95863604|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.35|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 36||-0.35|-3.42|0.017
95840559|NCT03828019|191649815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline).|Estimated parameter is the Odds Ratios (ADA/CID). Result greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior in achieving successful corticosteroid sparing|The sample size estimation: Adalimumab was estimated to be successful in 75% of patients. The overall success rate with conventional immunosuppression was estimated to be 51%. A sample size of 222 (111 per treatment group) provided 90% power to detect a difference in cumulative percent of 75% versus 51%||3.25|1.06|0.029
95840560|NCT03828019|191649816|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.86|0.94|0.072
95840561|NCT03828019|191649817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.46|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is ADA/CID where value greater than 1 indicates ADA is superior for corticosteroid (prednisone) discontinuation|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid sparing between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.46|0.67|0.30
95840562|NCT03828019|191649818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.19|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ADA/ Odds CID where value greater than 1 indicate greater corticosteroid sparing success in the ADA group|Generalized estimating equations were used to fit logistic regression models to compare the cumulative proportion of corticosteroid discontinuation between the two treatment groups over time while accounting for correlation between replicate measurements on the same individual with an unstructured covariance matrix. 2 stratification variables (initial prednisone dose and immunosuppression use at baseline) were included||3.19|1.06|0.028
95863605|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.76|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 44||-0.76|-3.91|0.004
95863606|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Tender Joint Count: Week 52||-0.97|-4.19|0.002
95863607|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 28||0.42|-1.13|0.368
95863608|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 36||0.32|-1.46|0.208
95863609|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 44||0.05|-1.73|0.064
95863610|NCT01578850|191685103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||68 Swollen Joint Count: Week 52||0.10|-1.66|0.081
95961271|NCT00267098|191893937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2069||||0.9983||95.0||||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, was calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior probability of mean difference|The posterior probability that the mean difference is greater than 0 was calculated.|This was a one-sided analysis of the BiV arm - RV arm difference in Mean Clinical Composite Scores. Values above 0 suggested better outcomes in the Biventricular arm.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, NYHA I-III, and LVEF of at most 50% who receive RV pacing have similar Clinical Composite Scores after 24 months compared to similar patients who receive BiV pacing. This was tested against the alternative hypothesis that patients had better scores with BiV pacing than RV pacing. The analysis assigned numerical values (Improved=3, Unchanged=2, Worsened=1) and compared the average score between randomization arms using a one-sided analysis.||||0.9983
95863611|NCT01578850|191685105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.16|-0.90|0.005
95863612|NCT01578850|191685105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
95863613|NCT01578850|191685105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.54|-1.35|<0.001
95863614|NCT01578850|191685105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.53|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.53|-1.33|<0.001
95863615|NCT01578850|191685107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-0.01|-1.00|0.048
95863616|NCT01578850|191685107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-0.43|-1.44|<0.001
95863617|NCT01578850|191685107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-0.33|-1.33|0.001
95863618|NCT01578850|191685107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.31|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-0.31|-1.33|0.002
95863619|NCT01578850|191685109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.11||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.16|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 28||-1.16|-27.07|0.033
95863620|NCT01578850|191685109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-3.68|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 36||-3.68|-30.39|0.013
95863621|NCT01578850|191685109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.54||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-2.73|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 44||-2.73|-30.35|0.019
95961272|NCT00267098|191893939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.01||BLOCK HF is a Bayesian study; a p-value was not used. Instead, a posterior probability, representing the probability that subjects with biventricular pacing have better outcomes, were calculated. A probability ≥ 0.95 was significant.|Posterior Distribution for HR|The posterior distribution is the set of values the BiV to RV hazard ratio can take, and its likelihood of taking such values.|The hazard ratio corresponds to the time from randomization to first ventricular arrhythmia occurring post-randomization for each subject. Ventricular arrhythmias occurring prior to randomization were excluded. A 95% credible interval was used.|The null hypothesis is that patients with AV block, ejection fractions of at most 50%, NYHA classifications of I-III, and indicated for defibrillation therapy who receive biventricular (BiV) pacing have the same rate of experiencing their first ventricular arrhythmia as corresponding patients who receive right ventricular pacing. This was tested against the one-side hypothesis that patients with BiV pacing have a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias than subjects with right ventricular pacing.||2.01|0.78|0.189
95840563|NCT03828019|191649819|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rate of steroid (mg/day ADA/CID|0.86||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01|||negative binomial model||Number greater than 1 would indicate rate of steroid use is higher in participants assigned to ADA|||1.01|0.73|0.061
95840564|NCT03828019|191649820|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change from BL|0.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects models were used with a linear link. The fixed effects included initial steroid dose and immunosuppression use at baseline. Additional visit indicators (months 1-12) and corresponding treatment by visit interaction terms. An unstructured correlation was used to model repeated measurements by eye . A person-level random intercept was added to account for between-eye correlations.||3.1|-2.3|0.77
95840565|NCT03828019|191649821|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of odds ratios|0.55||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Regression, Logistic||estimate is the ratio of odds ratios - OR ADA / OR CID. Value less than 1 indicates ADA is better at reducing macular edema.|Mixed effects models with a log link were used to assess treatment differences . The outcome measure was the odds ratio of having macular edema (OCT central subfield thickness \> 300 um) at 12 months compared to baseline (BL). The treatment effect was the ratio of Odds ratios (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values less than one indicate improvement in macular edema for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group. Decrease in subfield thickness is good||0.94|0.31|0.028
95863622|NCT01578850|191685109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.78|-5.54|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Week 52||-5.54|-33.78|0.007
95863623|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 28||0.48|-8.91|0.078
95863624|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-2.59|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 36||-2.59|-12.49|0.003
95863625|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-3.18|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 44||-3.18|-13.20|0.001
95840566|NCT03828019|191649822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||negative binomial model|||||1.98|0.61|0.76
95840567|NCT03828019|191649823|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||. Kaplan Meier techniques and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate time to event outcomes||0.70|0.04|0.014
95840568|NCT03828019|191649824|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.43|0.74
95840569|NCT03828019|191649825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.34|||Ratio of odds ratios||Treatment comparison is the ratio of the odds ratios for each treatment group (ADA/CID) at 12 months. Values greater than one indicate greater improvement in health for the ADA treatment group relative to the CID group.|||1.34|0.43|0.35
95840570|NCT03828019|191649826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.73|-0.95|0.24
95840571|NCT03828019|191649827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-2.43|0.70
95840572|NCT03828019|191649828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.6|-1.4|0.28
95840573|NCT03828019|191649829|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.67|||Regression, Cox|||||0.67|0.07|0.009
95840574|NCT03071393|191649830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95840575|NCT03071393|191649831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95840576|NCT03071393|191649832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95863626|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|-3.55|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||General Health VAS: Week 52||-3.55|-13.64|<0.001
95840577|NCT03071393|191649833|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Uncorrected p values are reported.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95840578|NCT02910102|191649847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|2.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||2.23|-6.04|0.3565
95840579|NCT02910102|191649848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Each co-primary endpoint was tested at two-sided 5% level of significance, with no adjustments for multiplicity.||||3.38|-3.73|0.9220
95840580|NCT04371666|191649868|OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5494||0.8802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.176||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Random coefficient model|||||1.176|-1.010|0.8802
95840581|NCT03228212|191649881|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.09|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 60 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||9.09|1.16|
95840582|NCT03228212|191649882|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logmar was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.00621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 40 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 0.05 difference in LogMAR visual acuity at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||0.03|0.01|
95840583|NCT03228212|191649883|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 90% was used. Lower limit of 95% credible interval was compared to 90%|proportion|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||Bayesian Methods|Bayesian Methods-Jefferys prior for binomial proportion was used to calculate 95% credible interval.||It was calculated that 70 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures. Analysis was only performed on eyes wearing the Tesl lens.||1|0.96|
95840584|NCT03228212|191649884|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was used. Upper limit of the 95% credible interval was compared to 5%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0043|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0237|0.0129|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated binary data|Mean difference calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 120 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods. Sample size for this study was primarily driven by the slit lamp findings.||0.0129|-0.0237|
95840585|NCT03228212|191649885|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|10.74|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||10.74|3.69|
95863627|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-1.06|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 28||-1.06|-10.75|0.017
95840586|NCT03228212|191649886|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|6.29|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Sample size calculations were based on the primary endpoints.||6.29|0.36|
95840587|NCT03152591|191649896|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.88||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline in average fasting free testosterone was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which included treatment as a categorical factor, baseline body weight and log transformed baseline average fasting free testosterone as a covariate.|1.11|0.70|0.353
95840588|NCT03152591|191649897|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.25||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.68|0.92|0.218
95840589|NCT03152591|191649898|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.27||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.78|0.90|0.249
95840590|NCT03152591|191649899|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|1.15||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.36|0.97|0.173
95840591|NCT03152591|191649900|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.82||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.99|0.68|0.089
95840592|NCT03152591|191649901|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.69||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.01|0.48|0.109
95840593|NCT03152591|191649902|OTHER||Ration LIK066/Placebo|0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|0.89|0.65|0.008
95840594|NCT03152591|191649903|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.91||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.07|0.77|0.340
95961273|NCT04069585|191893943|NON_INFERIORITY|To achieve non-inferiority, the observed p-value must be \<= 0.5 taking into account of the non-inferiority margin (i.e., 10mm difference in Pain VAS between the two treatment groups).|||||<|0.0002||||||One-sided paired t-test|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0002
95840595|NCT03152591|191649904|OTHER||Ratio LIK066/Placebo|0.79||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided test at the 0.1 significance level|Values \< LLOQ and values \> ULOQ are imputed as LLOQ/2 and ULOQ respectively.||Log transformed ratio of Day 15 to baseline was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model which will include treatment as a categorical factor and log transformed baseline as a covariate.|1.08|0.58|0.204
95961274|NCT04211389|191893952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.7||Stratification by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||13.70|3.17|<0.0001
95840596|NCT00997594|191649916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Just a comparison of the percentage of hypertension between the 2 patient groups.|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
95961275|NCT04211389|191893953|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.207|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.029|5.844|||Log Rank|Unstratified log-rank test|HR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization.|Time to Achieve PASI-50||5.844|3.029|<0.0001
95840597|NCT00570310|191649993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.003||90.0|-2.25|-0.6||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA||Primary Hypothesis: In 'primary responder population', pregabalin is superior to placebo in maintaining pain control measured by change (3-day average: end of the randomization period versus end of maintenance period) in evening pain intensity.|||-0.60|-2.25|0.003
95840598|NCT00570310|191649994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.67|||<|0.001||95.0|5.26|10.08||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||10.08|5.26|<0.001
95840599|NCT00759161|191650003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||< 0.001
95840600|NCT02562716|191650023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.15
95840601|NCT02562716|191650023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Log Rank|||For each arm, the observed 2-year overall survival (OS) was compared to the null hypothesis of 40%, assuming a 58% alternative hypothesis, 88% power, and a 1-sided significance of 0.05.||||.14
95840602|NCT01775371|191650038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test 2-sided||The direction of the comparison is the Patient Controlled Analgesia minus the standard care group|The rate of change of NRS pain scores per hour was calculated using a mixed effects linear model. Time is represented as a linear spline with knot at 30 minutes to support the separate estimation of early and late phase rates of change. Fixed effects in the analysis includes study-group indicator, early and late phase time, and interactions between study-group and time. The principal hypothesis test was a z-test of the coefficient of the study group late phase interaction term.||1.5|0.6|<0.001
95840603|NCT01775371|191650039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95840604|NCT01775371|191650040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95840605|NCT01775371|191650041|OTHER|Responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||These outcomes are based on the nurses who took care of patients in the study||||<0.001
95840606|NCT01775371|191650042|OTHER|All responses occur with equal probability|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sample chi-squared test of hypothesis that the responses occur with equal probability||This outcome is based on the physicians who took care of the patients in the study||||<0.001
95840607|NCT02868554|191650067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
95840608|NCT02868554|191650068|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95840609|NCT04915729|191650076|NON_INFERIORITY|pre-specified non-inferiority margin for risk ratio = 0.937|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9678|1.0915|||Modified Possion Regression Model|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0915|0.9678|
95840610|NCT04915729|191650077|OTHER|log-binomial regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0671||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9573|1.1895||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.1895|0.9573|0.2412
95840611|NCT04915729|191650078|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0078||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9614|1.0564||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0564|0.9614|0.7480
95840612|NCT04915729|191650079|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline NIHSS, age, time to administration since stroke symptoms onset = linear covariates; treatment = fixed effects|Difference in LSmean tenecteplase vs alteplase|||0.50|-1.40|0.3511
95840613|NCT04915729|191650080|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0418||||0.4806|||||||Regression, Logistic|Assumption-free ordinal analysis|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||||0.4806
95840614|NCT04915729|191650081|OTHER|Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0189||||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9635|1.0774|||Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.0774|0.9635|0.5116
95863628|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|-3.34|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 36||-3.34|-13.85|0.001
95840615|NCT04915729|191650082|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.005||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.701|||Suissa-Shuster test||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||2.701|0.370|1.000
95840616|NCT04915729|191650083|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.795||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.232|||Chi-squared||tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.232|0.513|0.303
95840617|NCT04915729|191650084|OTHER|Modified Poisson regression model|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9215||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6578|1.2908||p-value was for superiority testing|Regression, Linear|treatment = main effect; baseline NHISS, age + time to drug administration since stroke symptoms onset = continuous covariates|tenecteplase versus alteplase|||1.2908|0.6578|0.6345
95840618|NCT05282927|191650184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.98|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans)||0.98|-1.07|0.92
95840619|NCT05282927|191650185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization: site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others) and rurality (high sites serving ≥50% rural/highly rural Veterans vs. low sites serving \<50% rural/highly rural Veterans).||1.90|-0.03|0.056
95840620|NCT01100320|191650244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.4|104.52|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.52|95.40|
95840621|NCT01100320|191650245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.11|95.09|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.09|90.11|
95863629|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-4.26|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 44||-4.26|-14.72|<0.001
95863630|NCT01578850|191685111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.99|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||Pain VAS: Week 52||-3.99|-14.60|<0.001
95863631|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-1.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 28||-1.05|-9.39|0.014
95863632|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.46|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 36||-1.46|-11.09|0.011
95863633|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-3.44|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 44||-3.44|-12.06|<0.001
95840622|NCT01100320|191650246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|95.13|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||95.13|90.13|
95840623|NCT05729568|191650251|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squares means|-56.0||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Difference in least-squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model of change from baseline CD4 cell count with treatment as fixed effect and baseline CD4 cell count as a covariate.|||20|-132|0.1436
95840624|NCT00550953|191650264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.63|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus telmisartan 40 mg monotherapy|||9.63|6.41|<0.0001
95863634|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-2.85|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||CRP: Week 52||-2.85|-11.48|0.001
95863635|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-2.49|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 28||-2.49|-9.23|<0.001
95840625|NCT04181762|191650272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic||Difference from placebo and 95% CI are from a logistic regression model with treatment group, stratification factor (SoC) and race as factors and baseline UPCR as a covariate using marginal standardization method.|Complete Renal Response (CRR) at Week 52||0.9|-26.3|0.0662
95863636|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-5.05|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 36||-5.05|-12.33|<0.001
95863637|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 44||-3.80|-11.38|<0.001
95840626|NCT04181762|191650274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|8.4|||||95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) are constructed using the exact binomial test.|Partial Renal Response (PRR) at Week 52||8.4|-23.7|
95840627|NCT00596752|191650294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2587||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing. The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.2587
95863638|NCT01578850|191685113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-2.6|||ANCOVA|Stratified by geographic region and disease status at randomization (Stratum 1=Remission: DAS28-ESR\<2.6 or Stratum 2=LDA: 2.6\<=DAS28-ESR\<3.2).||ESR: Week 52||-2.60|-10.03|<0.001
95863639|NCT01215097|191685119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.70|<0.0001
95863640|NCT01215097|191685120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|-0.311|||ANCOVA|||||-0.311|-0.555|<0.0001
95863641|NCT01215097|191685121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.752|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.752|<0.0001
95863642|NCT01215097|191685122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-0.70|<0.0001
95863643|NCT01215097|191685123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.71|<0.0001
95863644|NCT01215097|191685124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0233||95.0|-17.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-17.8|0.0233
95863645|NCT01215097|191685125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.7|-15.6|||ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.7|<0.0001
95863646|NCT01215097|191685126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.005||95.0|-17.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||||-3.1|-17.3|0.0050
95863647|NCT01215097|191685127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.0044||95.0|-19.5|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-19.5|0.0044
95840628|NCT00596752|191650294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H01: πhealingPGE1≤ πhealingPlacebo, with πhealing=proportion of subjects with complete ulcer healing.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.3463
95840629|NCT00596752|191650295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0173||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 is given by p1=0.00587.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~The planned information rate for stage 1 of the two-stage group sequential test design with an overall one-sided comparison-wise α=0.0125 for this co-primary endpoint is given by 0.83.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1."||||0.0173
95840630|NCT00596752|191650295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1154||||||For confirmatory hypothesis testing the p-values of the normal approximation test for comparing two rates was used as input for the weighted inverse normal method. The 1-sided boundary p-value for stage 1 and 2 combined is given by p2=0.01085.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2 primary endpoints were tested at one-sided 0.0125 each so that the overall type I error rate of 0.025 was controlled in a strong sense.||"Primary goal was to test the following null hypothesis:~H02: πampPGE1≥ πampPlacebo, with πamp=proportion of subjects with major amputations.~This is the statistical analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 combined."||||0.1154
95840631|NCT02538042|191650312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
95840632|NCT02534909|191650318|OTHER|Bayesian analysis of response rate in serum LDH (period 1 completers only)|Median response rate|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.9|100.0|||||95% Credibility Interval for Response Rate|Up to Week 4||100.0|81.9|
95840633|NCT02534909|191650319|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 1 Day 29 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
95840634|NCT02534909|191650319|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 2 Day 365 serum LDH levels||0.23|0.15|<0.001
95840635|NCT02534909|191650319|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 3 Day 1429 serum LDH levels||0.20|0.14|<0.001
95840636|NCT02534909|191650319|OTHER||Geometric LS mean Ratio to Baseline|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||The longitudinal mixed effects model included timepoint, log baseline as a covariate and the log baseline by timepoint interaction. C5 variant status was included as a categorical covariate.|Period 4 Day 141 serum LDH levels||0.24|0.15|<0.001
95840637|NCT05919888|191650330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.275
95840638|NCT05919888|191650331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
95840639|NCT05919888|191650332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.286
95840640|NCT00362648|191650351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|39.3|||<|0.001||95.0|19.1|54.7||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||54.7|19.1|<0.001
95840641|NCT00362648|191650351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy = 1-Relative Risk|48.3|||<|0.001||95.0|22.3|66.1||Efficacy\>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k), where p is proportion of subjects with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome, and k is ratio of follow-up time; placebo / vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact binomial test||Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group.|The number randomized is different from the number analyzed because some data were excluded from the analysis: subjects were classified as unevaluable due to wildtype rotavirus in stool before 14 days Postdose 3, incomplete clinical and/or laboratory results, or stool samples collected out of day range. Rotavirus gastroenteritis cases are subjects with one or more positive episodes. The most severe positive episode is used for the date of the case.||66.1|22.3|<0.001
95840642|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|78.3||||||95.0|71.7|84.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||84.0|71.7|
95840643|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.5||||||95.0|13.3|24.8||||||Serotype G1||24.8|13.3|
95863648|NCT01215097|191685129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.831|13.769|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>=7.0%||13.769|2.831|<0.0001
95863649|NCT01215097|191685131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0129||95.0|1.404|17.592|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with a baseline HbA1c \>= 6.5%||17.592|1.404|0.0129
95863650|NCT01215097|191685132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.799|5.185|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication||Comparison by odds ratio for the patients with HbA1c at least lowering 0.5% from baseline||5.185|1.799|<0.0001
95863651|NCT01711216|191685149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|||||Test statistic (d.f.) 1.0157 (1) A Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test was used, exact p-value was computed using Monte Carlo estimation.|Mantel Haenszel|||Test of association between the number of regular menstrual cycles during the follow-up period and the number of dydrogesterone therapy cycles received during the treatment period (Follow-up Analysis Set) Follow-up Analysis Set (N=915)||||0.3181
95863652|NCT01253577|191685159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0280
95840644|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.0||||||95.0|5.3|14.0||||||Serotype G2||14.0|5.3|
95840645|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|6.3||||||95.0|3.3|10.8||||||Serotype G3||10.8|3.3|
95840646|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|26.5||||||95.0|20.3|33.3||||||Serotype G4||33.3|20.3|
95840647|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|14.4||||||95.0|9.7|20.2||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||20.2|9.7|
95840648|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|20.1||||||95.0|14.4|27.0||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||27.0|14.4|
95840649|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.2||||||Serotype G1||2.2|0.0|
95840650|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|1.0|6.8||||||Serotype G2||6.8|1.0|
95840651|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G3||5.9|0.6|
95840652|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.4||||||95.0|0.6|5.9||||||Serotype G4||5.9|0.6|
95863653|NCT01253577|191685160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95863654|NCT01253577|191685161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.0023
95863655|NCT00893815|191685162|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.1||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|||1.10|0.27|0.09
95863656|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.61||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of verbal fluency impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.61|0.35|0.45
95840653|NCT00362648|191650352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|4.7||||||95.0|2.1|9.1||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||9.1|2.1|
95840654|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|87.8||||||95.0|80.9|92.9||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||92.9|80.9|
95840655|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|32.1||||||95.0|24.2|40.8||||||Serotype G1||40.8|24.2|
95840656|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|9.9||||||95.0|5.4|16.4||||||Serotype G2||16.4|5.4|
95840657|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|28.2||||||95.0|20.7|36.8||||||Serotype G3||36.8|20.7|
95840658|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.3||||||95.0|12.1|26.0||||||Serotype G4||26.0|12.1|
95840659|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|27.5||||||95.0|20.0|36.0||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||36.0|20.0|
95840660|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|18.2||||||95.0|12.0|25.8||||||Anti-rotavirus IgA||25.8|12.0|
95840661|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|2.3||||||95.0|0.5|6.5||||||Serotype G1||6.5|0.5|
95840662|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|4.1||||||Serotype G2||4.1|0.0|
95840663|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|7.6||||||Serotype G3||7.6|0.8|
95840664|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0||||||95.0|0.0|2.8||||||Serotype G4||2.8|0.0|
95840665|NCT00362648|191650353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|5.3||||||95.0|2.2|10.6||||||Serotype P1A\[8\]||10.6|2.2|
95840666|NCT01702246|191650357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95840667|NCT01702246|191650358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95840668|NCT01702246|191650359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95840669|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.05|0.88|
95863657|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.56||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of abstraction executive functioning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.56|0.35|0.43
95863658|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.17||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of speed of information processing impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||5.17|0.41|0.56
95863659|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.93||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of attention/working memory impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||2.93|0.60|0.49
95840670|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.81||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.81|0.69|
95840671|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.26||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.26|0.96|
95840672|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.69||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.69|1.18|
95840673|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.99|
95840674|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.18|0.98|
95840675|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.81|
95840676|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.83|
95863660|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.84||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of learning impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||0.84|0.22|0.01
95863661|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.34||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of recall impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||3.34|0.58|0.46
95863662|NCT00893815|191685163|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.85||Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05|Regression, Logistic||HIV-positive / HIV-negative|Comparing prevalence of motor speed \& dexterity impairment between HIV-positive and HIV-negative military beneficiaries||1.85|0.43|0.76
95863663|NCT02737891|191685232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.29||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-1.29|-6.36|0.004
95961276|NCT04211389|191893954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|24.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||24.19|4.49|<0.0001
95863664|NCT02737891|191685233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||0.33|-0.23|0.724
95840677|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.92|0.76|
95840678|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.91|
95840679|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.82|
95840680|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||0.80|0.67|
95840681|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2||1.20|0.91|
95840682|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.04|0.74|
95840683|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.83|0.68|
95863665|NCT02737891|191685234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-2.3||Two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was based on a parametric model, i.e. compared between treatment arms by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model (proc MIXED) using change from baseline to the end of treatment as dependent variable, treatment and study site as fixed effects and the value from baseline as covariate. The residual errors were assumed independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and normally distributed.||-2.30|-4.65|<0.0001
95863666|NCT03232333|191685249|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.71
95840684|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.97|0.80|
95840685|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.83|
95863667|NCT03232333|191685250|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.63
95863668|NCT03232333|191685251|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=.01
95863669|NCT01816945|191685252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95863670|NCT01816945|191685255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for PHQ-9 at 12 months||||0.96
95863671|NCT01816945|191685256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample t-test for Social Network Score at 12 month||||0.043
95840686|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.98|0.79|
95840687|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.20|0.97|
95840688|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 24F, Lot 1 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.15|0.92|
95840689|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.01|0.85|
95840690|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 5, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.07||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.07|0.90|
95840691|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.09|0.82|
95840692|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 6B, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.74|0.52|
95840693|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 7F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.76|0.62|
95840694|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 9V, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||0.90|0.74|
95840695|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 14, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.17|0.89|
95840696|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19A, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.06|0.85|
95840697|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 19F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.44||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.44|1.16|
95840698|NCT03197376|191650375|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two sided 95% CIs for the ratio of the GMC of IgG antibody at one month following third vaccination was within this equivalence interval for serotype 23F, Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccine lot|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||The 3 lots were to be considered equivalent if, for each serotype, all 3 CIs for IgG GMC ratios 4 weeks after the primary vaccination series lay within the interval (0.5, 2)||1.13|0.89|
95840699|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10%, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 1|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.0|
95840700|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.2|5.0||||||||5.0|1.2|
95840701|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|9.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||9.5|1.1|
95840702|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.2|6.4||||||||6.4|-2.2|
95840703|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|2.7||||||||2.7|-0.1|
95840704|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.9|
95840705|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 14|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-1.4|
95840706|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.1|22.5||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||22.5|15.1|
95840707|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.9|
95840708|NCT03197376|191650376|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if either the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference in proportions of IgG responders (PNEUMOSIL-Synflorix) exceeded -10% for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.6|21.1||||||||21.1|13.6|
95840709|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.0|2.32||||||||2.32|2.00|
95840710|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.28|1.47||||||||1.47|1.28|
95840711|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.01||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 6A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.01|0.78|
95840712|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.93|1.24||||||||1.24|0.93|
95840713|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.19|1.41||||||||1.41|1.19|
95840714|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.85|1.0||||||||1.00|0.85|
95840715|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.37||||||||1.37|1.10|
95840716|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.3|1.63||||||Synflorix proportion of responders for serotype 19A was operationally defined as the lowest observed proportion of responders among the 8 serotypes in common with PNEUMOSIL||1.63|1.30|
95840717|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.67|0.8||||||||0.80|0.67|
95840718|NCT03197376|191650377|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the GMC ratio (PNEUMOSIL/Synflorix) exceeded 0.5, for 7 or more of the 10 serotypes in PNEUMOSIL|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|2.01||||||||2.01|1.63|
95840719|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for diphtheria|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
95840720|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Tetanus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
95840721|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hepatitis B|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.4|
95840722|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Hib|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2||||||||1.2|-2.5|
95840723|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 1|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.3|
95840724|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 2|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.3||||||||9.3|-3.2|
95840725|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Polio type 3|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8||||||||1.8|-3.0|
95840726|NCT03197376|191650378|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded -10% (for comparisons based on the difference in proportions of antibody responders to EPI vaccines between PNEUMOSIL and Synflorix)|Absolute difference for Rotavirus|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1||||||||7.1|-7.1|
95840727|NCT03197376|191650379|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-pertussis toxoid|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.09||||||||1.09|0.62|
95840728|NCT03197376|191650380|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the GMC ratio exceeded 0.5 (for pertussis antigens).|GMC Ratio for anti-fimbriae 2/3|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.25||||||||1.25|0.77|
95840729|NCT03197376|191650387|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 6A|73.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|69.8|76.3||||||||76.3|69.8|
95961277|NCT04211389|191893955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|28.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PASI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||28.86|2.45|0.0002
95961278|NCT04211389|191893956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|53.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||53.68|2.33|0.0004
95840730|NCT03197376|191650387|SUPERIORITY|Proportions with IgG concentration ≥ 0.35 µg/mL will be compared using a z-test for proportions. The test will be done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, will also be reported|Difference for Type 19A|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|50.3|58.9||||||||58.9|50.3|
95840731|NCT03197376|191650388|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.68|9.43||||||||9.43|7.68|
95840732|NCT03197376|191650388|SUPERIORITY|For each of the two serotypes, GMCs are compared by a two-sample t-test on the difference between means of log10 (antibody). The test was done at the two-sided 2.5% significance level to adjust for the two superiority tests. 97.5% CIs for treatment-group differences in response, are also be reported|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.14|6.18||||||||6.18|5.14|
95840733|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 1|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|23.6||||||||23.6|11.0|
95840734|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 5|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.2||||||||6.2|-0.0|
95840735|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6A|82.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.6||||||||86.6|76.7|
95840736|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 6B|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|14.6||||||||14.6|4.5|
95840737|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 7F|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||||2.2|-1.1|
95840738|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
95961279|NCT04211389|191893957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|75.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common odds ratio stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA with multiple imputation of missing data.|I-IGA Clear at Week 8 Odds Ratio||75.35|3.10|0.0002
95961280|NCT04211389|191893958|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||4.58|1.43|0.0026
95961281|NCT04211389|191893958|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|9.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||9.18|2.65|<0.0001
95840739|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type14|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.2||||||||2.2|-4.0|
95840740|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19A|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.1||||||||60.1|46.0|
95840741|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 19F|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.2||||||||1.2|-4.9|
95840742|NCT03197376|191650389|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
95840743|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.98||||||||3.98|2.40|
95961282|NCT04211389|191893958|SUPERIORITY|WI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Common OR stratified by pooled study site, baseline IGA, and baseline intertriginous involvement per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|||6.23|2.07|<0.0001
95961283|NCT04211389|191893959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-20.0|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 4||-20.0|-31.9|<0.0001
95863672|NCT01087736|191685276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.89||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.98||We tested our Primary hypothesis with a random-intercept repeated subject negative binomial model, modeling week (baseline - week 12) as a continuous variable. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.|negative binomial regression|||Our primary protocol-defined analysis was to examine the within-group efficacy of topiramate to reduce percent drinking days (%DD).||0.98|0.89|0.019
95840744|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.72||||||||1.72|1.12|
95840745|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|186.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.0|241.0||||||||241|144|
95840746|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.69||||||||2.69|1.42|
95840747|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.39||||||||1.39|0.96|
95840748|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.49||||||||0.49|0.29|
95840749|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.27||||||||1.27|0.67|
95840750|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|17.7||||||||17.7|10.2|
95840751|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.81||||||||0.81|0.54|
95863673|NCT01087736|191685276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There were no pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We were only tested change within the topiramate condition.||||0.00
95961284|NCT04211389|191893959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-19.7|||ANCOVA|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|Site, baseline IGA, baseline intertriginous involvement, and baseline PSD scores were independent variables, multiple imputation used for missing data|LS Mean Difference at Week 8||-19.7|-33.2|<0.0001
95961285|NCT01062971|191893964|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95840752|NCT03197376|191650390|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio)|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.09||||||||4.09|2.25|
95840753|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.52||||||||1.52|1.31|
95840754|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.95||||||||0.95|0.81|
95840755|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|4.96||||||||4.96|4.01|
95840756|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|7.26||||||||7.26|5.70|
95840757|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.19||||||||2.19|1.89|
95863674|NCT01087736|191685276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.38||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||"A secondary analysis was powered to detect a Signal or statistical trend (p\<0.10) for a difference between the topiramate and placebo condition. We compared percent drinking days per week between groups averaged over the active phase of the trial (weeks 1-12). The negative binomial model included fixed effect for week, treatment group, and the interaction between treatment group and week. We covaried for baseline %DD averages to control for prestudy and study enrollment effects."||0.94|0.15|0.036
95961286|NCT01062971|191893965|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined if the treatments did not show differences greater than 20%.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95961287|NCT01427738|191893967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion with clinical e|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.077|0.166||||||Repeated confidence intervals (RCIs) were used to control type I error.A interim analysis was conducted by a 99.7% CI. The final analyses use a 95.1% CI, based on the Lan-DeMets error-spending function corresponding to the O'Brien-Fleming boundary.76% of 100 participant in arm GV had cure or improvement of OC after 14 days of treatment, and 71.6% of 102 in arm nystatin had cure or improvement of OC. Difference in clinical efficacy rates between GV and nystatin 95.1% CI is 0.044 (-0.077, 0.166).||0.166|-0.077|
95961288|NCT03505099|191894088|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|76.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.95|92.21|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 19 out of 81 participants (23.46%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved standing alone for at least 3 seconds.|92.21|50.95|<0.0001
95840758|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.5||||||||1.50|1.29|
95840759|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.51||||||||1.51|1.21|
95840760|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|2.91||||||||2.91|2.40|
95840761|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.63||||||||1.63|1.36|
95840762|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|2.72||||||||2.72|2.29|
95863675|NCT01087736|191685277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We planned to explore the efficacy of topiramate in reducing PTSD symptom severity. We used random-intercept linear mixed models to explore the efficacy for topiramate related reduction in PTSD symptomatology. We looked for an effect of week within TOP. Baseline scores for PTSD symptoms were used as covariates in group comparisons. All analyses were intent-to-treat and used all observations from all weeks.||||<0.026
95840763|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28||||||||1.28|1.06|
95840764|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.74||||||||0.74|0.61|
95840765|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|4.11||||||||4.11|2.97|
95961289|NCT03505099|191894089|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|73.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.67|91.61|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 participants (26.09%) with 2 copies of SMN2 were alive and did not require permanent ventilation.|91.61|44.67|<0.0001
95840766|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|4.59||||||||4.59|3.23|
95840767|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82||||||||1.82|1.47|
95840768|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.62||||||||1.62|1.31|
95840769|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.42||||||||1.42|1.03|
95840770|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|4.33||||||||4.33|2.99|
95840771|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.75||||||||1.75|1.38|
95840772|NCT03197376|191650391|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC post-booster to the IgG GMC post-primary series in the Booster Cohort restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.65||||||||2.65|1.98|
95840773|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.71||||||||2.71|2.02|
95840774|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.79||||||||1.79|1.38|
95840775|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.67|14.0||||||||14.0|9.67|
95840776|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.15||||||||2.15|1.65|
95840777|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.8||||||||1.80|1.37|
95840778|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.99||||||||0.99|0.76|
95840779|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.82||||||||1.82|1.21|
95840780|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|5.06||||||||5.06|3.52|
95840781|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73||||||||0.73|0.55|
95840782|NCT03197376|191650392|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.24||||||||2.24|1.63|
95840783|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|4.44||||||||4.44|2.72|
95840784|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|3.13||||||||3.13|2.06|
95840785|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.42||||||||3.42|1.83|
95840786|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|5.69||||||||5.69|2.48|
95840787|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|5.18||||||||5.18|2.92|
95840788|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|6.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.45|10.52||||||||10.52|4.45|
95840789|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.65||||||||3.65|1.64|
95840790|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|5.36||||||||5.36|2.47|
95840791|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.14||||||||3.14|1.80|
95840792|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|7.06||||||||7.06|3.49|
95840793|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|7.96||||||||7.96|4.97|
95840794|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.98||||||||3.98|2.56|
95863676|NCT01087736|191685277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Other|||There was not a pre hoc hypothesis regarding change within placebo group. We only examined within group change in the topiramate condition.||||0.00
95863677|NCT00759564|191685278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|124.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.57|145.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.94|106.57|
95863678|NCT00759564|191685278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|163.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.72|191.34||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||191.34|139.72|
95840795|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|10.84||||||||10.84|3.55|
95840796|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.7||||||||4.70|2.25|
95840797|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.69||||||||3.69|2.13|
95840798|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.04||||||||4.04|2.15|
95840799|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.46||||||||2.46|1.06|
95840800|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|9.21||||||||9.21|3.88|
95840801|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.68||||||||2.68|1.45|
95840802|NCT03197376|191650393|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post primary series and 4 weeks post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort. It was restricted to subjects who contributed relevant data at both time points|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|5.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.63||||||||8.63|3.80|
95840803|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.72||||||||2.72|1.25|
95840804|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64||||||||1.64|0.79|
95840805|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|68.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.07|125.09||||||||125.09|37.07|
95840806|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.46||||||||2.46|1.25|
95840807|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.34||||||||2.34|1.28|
95840808|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||||1.32|0.65|
95840809|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.51||||||||3.51|1.38|
95840810|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|12.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|21.37||||||||21.37|7.36|
95840811|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||||1.46|0.70|
95840812|NCT03197376|191650394|OTHER|The vaccines will be compared using the ratios of the GMT ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs based on log linear random effects models|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|4.45||||||||4.45|2.21|
95840813|NCT03197376|191650395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for measles|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.4||||||||7.4|-3.3|
95840814|NCT03197376|191650395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for rubella|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.0||||||||4.0|-0.9|
95840815|NCT03197376|191650395|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be shown if a two-sided 95% CI for the treatment-group difference in response proportions (proportion with Synflorix co-administration minus proportion with PNEUMOSIL co-administration) has an upper limit of \< 0.10.|Absolute difference for yellow fever|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.9||||||||5.9|0.2|
95840816|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 1|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|23.7||||||||23.7|8.0|
95840817|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 5|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.8||||||||15.8|-1.4|
95863679|NCT00759564|191685278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|58.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.16|70.83||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||70.83|48.16|
95840818|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6A|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|38.1||||||||38.1|21.8|
95840819|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 6B|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|23.6||||||||23.6|10.1|
95840820|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 7F|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.5||||||||24.5|8.4|
95840821|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 9V|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.8|
95840822|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 14|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.3||||||||22.3|7.5|
95840823|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19A|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|22.5||||||||22.5|7.3|
95840824|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 19F|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.0||||||||-8.0|-19.0|
95840825|NCT03197376|191650396|OTHER|Treatment group difference in proportions|Absolute Difference for Type 23F|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|25.4||||||||25.4|8.2|
95840826|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.89||||||||1.89|1.42|
95840827|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.4||||||||1.40|1.03|
95863680|NCT00759564|191685280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|167.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.27|204.61||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||204.61|137.27|
95840828|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.78||||||||2.78|2.01|
95863681|NCT00759564|191685280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|246.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.11|301.27||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||301.27|202.11|
95961290|NCT03505099|191894091|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|90.11|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al, 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 17 out of 81 participants (20.99%) with 3 copies of SMN2 achieved the ability to walk alone.|90.11|44.90|<0.0001
95961291|NCT05093504|191894098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95961292|NCT03151551|191894107|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|8.1||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.8|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||15.8|0.5|0.036
95961293|NCT03151551|191894108|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions of responders on IXE minus ADA is greater than the pre-specified margin -12%, IXE will be deemed non-inferior to ADA.|Rate Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|12.1||||||||12.1|-4.3|
95961294|NCT03151551|191894109|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 24.||21.6|5.3|0.001
95961295|NCT03151551|191894110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-2.46|0.155
95961296|NCT03151551|191894111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.54|0.823
95961297|NCT03151551|191894112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.104||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.47|-4.80|0.752
95840829|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.66||||||||1.66|1.27|
95840830|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.49||||||||1.49|1.12|
95840831|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09||||||||1.09|0.81|
95840832|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72||||||||1.72|1.15|
95840833|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.68||||||||1.68|1.14|
95840834|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||||||||0.74|0.50|
95840835|NCT03197376|191650397|OTHER|The vaccines were compared using the ratios of the GMC ratios for the two treatment groups, i.e., the PNEUMOSIL ratio divided by the Synflorix ratio, and the corresponding 95% CIs|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81||||||||1.81|1.24|
95840836|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.06||||||||0.06|0.05|
95840837|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.33||||||||0.33|0.27|
95840838|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.16||||||||0.16|0.13|
95840839|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.11||||||||0.11|0.10|
95840840|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.11||||||||0.11|0.09|
95840841|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.23||||||||0.23|0.19|
95840842|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.17||||||||0.17|0.13|
95840843|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26||||||||0.26|0.20|
95840844|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.15||||||||0.15|0.12|
95840845|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.12||||||||0.12|0.10|
95840846|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 1 GMC Ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.08||||||||0.08|0.06|
95840847|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 5 GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.45||||||||0.45|0.35|
95863682|NCT00759564|191685280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.06|130.32||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||130.32|88.06|
95840848|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6A GMC Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||||0.86|0.62|
95840849|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 6B GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
95840850|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 7F GMC Ratio|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.13||||||||0.13|0.11|
95840851|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 9V GMC Ratio|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.22||||||||0.22|0.18|
95840852|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 14 GMC Ratio|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19||||||||0.19|0.13|
95840853|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19A GMC Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||||0.78|0.52|
95840854|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 19F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
95840855|NCT03197376|191650398|OTHER|The comparisons were based on the ratio of IgG GMC one year post-booster to the IgG GMC 4 weeks post booster in the Booster Cohort.|Pn IgG type 23F GMC Ratio|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.16||||||||0.16|0.12|
95840856|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 1|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|42.1||||||||42.1|4.5|
95840857|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 5|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.5||||||||25.5|-5.8|
95840858|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6A|65.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|78.0||||||||78.0|48.3|
95863683|NCT00759564|191685281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|168.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|137.4|205.75||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||205.75|137.40|
95863684|NCT00759564|191685281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|248.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.98|303.94||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||303.94|202.98|
95961298|NCT03151551|191894113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-6.83|0.177
95961299|NCT03151551|191894114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|-4.08|0.332
95840859|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 6B|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|39.4||||||||39.4|6.4|
95840860|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 7F|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|10.8||||||||10.8|-5.2|
95840861|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 9V|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
95840862|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type14|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|18.3||||||||18.3|-8.5|
95840863|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19A|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|50.8||||||||50.8|16.5|
95840864|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 19F|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|19.2||||||||19.2|-8.4|
95840865|NCT03197376|191650399|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA titer to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes one year post booster|OPA Type 23F|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||CI could not be computed due to 100% response rate|||||
95840866|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||||||||2.1|0.8|
95863685|NCT00759564|191685281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|110.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.84|134.98||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||134.98|89.84|
95863686|NCT00759564|191685283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|134.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.88|165.52||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||165.52|109.88|
95840867|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.4||||||||2.4|0.7|
95840868|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.1||||||||32.1|6.3|
95840869|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.8||||||||6.8|2.1|
95840870|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|0.6|
95840871|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|0.3|
95840872|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||||||||2.4|0.5|
95840873|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.8||||||||10.8|2.4|
95840874|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||||||||2.3|0.4|
95840875|NCT03197376|191650400|OTHER|Serotype specific functional antibody responses measured by OPA to Pneumosil in comparison with Synflorix for each of the 10 serotypes (GMT Ratio) one year post booster dose|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.4||||||||9.4|2.0|
95840876|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
95840877|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.14||||||||0.14|0.09|
95840878|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.08||||||||0.08|0.03|
95840879|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07||||||||0.07|0.03|
95961300|NCT03151551|191894115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.86|0.592
95840880|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.38||||||||0.38|0.18|
95840881|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.23||||||||0.23|0.06|
95840882|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
95840883|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||||||||0.30|0.09|
95840884|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.18||||||||0.18|0.05|
95840885|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||||||||0.18|0.08|
95863687|NCT00759564|191685283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|226.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|184.36|277.72||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||277.72|184.36|
95863688|NCT00759564|191685283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|285.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|221.8|366.33||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||366.33|221.80|
95863689|NCT00759564|191685285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.81|275.87||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||275.87|158.81|
95961301|NCT03151551|191894116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.15|0.176
95840886|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 1|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|0.03|
95840887|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 5|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.1||||||||0.10|0.05|
95840888|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6A|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.48||||||||0.48|0.09|
95840889|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 6B|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.03||||||||0.03|0.01|
95840890|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 7F|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.65||||||||0.65|0.30|
95840891|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 9V|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.2||||||||0.20|0.06|
95840892|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 14|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22||||||||0.22|0.06|
95840893|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19A|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.49||||||||0.49|0.14|
95840894|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 19F|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||||||||0.14|0.06|
95840895|NCT03197376|191650401|OTHER|The comparisons were based on OPA GMTs 4 weeks post booster and one year post booster for the OPA subset of the booster cohort.|OPA GMT Ratio-Type 23F|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||||||||0.12|0.05|
95840896|NCT00620113|191650420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|6.64||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by Least-Squares means (LS mean) and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.64|4.16|<0.001
95840897|NCT00620113|191650420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|6.35||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.35|3.90|<0.001
95840898|NCT00620113|191650420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.75|2.33|<0.001
95840899|NCT00620113|191650421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.98||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.98|2.14|<0.001
95840900|NCT00620113|191650421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.12||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.12|1.29|<0.001
95840901|NCT00620113|191650421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.57||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||2.57|0.77|<0.001
95840902|NCT00620113|191650424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.31||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||4.31|1.85|<0.001
95840903|NCT00620113|191650424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.08||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.08|0.64|0.003
95840904|NCT00620113|191650424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.43||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.43|1.03|<0.001
95840905|NCT00620113|191650425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|6.14||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||6.14|3.18|<0.001
95855289|NCT01193244|191670186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|||<|0.001||95.0|1.724|2.721|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio greater than (\>)1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.721|1.724|<0.001
95855290|NCT01193244|191670187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.712||||0.001||95.0|1.235|2.373|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model with prognostic factors: region; radiographic disease progression at baseline; age; race; baseline ECOG score; Gleason score at initial diagnosis; baseline PSA, natural log scale; presence of visceral disease; alkaline phosphatase; lactate dehydrogenase; and hemoglobin. Odds ratio \> 1 favored orteronel. P-values tested for odds ratio equal to 1.||2.373|1.235|0.001
95840906|NCT00620113|191650425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.3||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||5.30|2.37|<0.001
95840907|NCT00620113|191650425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.43||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.88||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||Analysis for percent change from baseline to Week 52 in BMD was performed using a stepwise linear contrast test based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center. Treatment effect was assessed by LS mean and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Estimated difference from placebo = odanacatib dose minus placebo dose. Positive mean treatment differences were in favor of odanacatib.||3.88|0.99|0.002
95840908|NCT00620113|191650426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-50.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-34.84||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-34.84|-66.43|<0.001
95863690|NCT00759564|191685285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.83|465.25||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||465.25|267.83|
95961302|NCT03151551|191894117|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|13.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.7|||Regression, Logistic|||After data lock and initial analysis run, a medical inconsistency in baseline PASI data was identified (PASI=0 but BSA≥3%). The scenario was not anticipated or described in protocol or SAP. The inconsistency was resolved using medical judgment. The impacted participants had met baseline criteria for active psoriasis. Therefore, in the primary analysis, participants with baseline PASI=0 \& BSA≥3% were considered PASI100 responders if, and only if, PASI=0 \& BSA=0 achieved at week 52.||20.7|5.4|<0.001
95961303|NCT03151551|191894118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|0.368
95961304|NCT03151551|191894119|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-18 Entheseal Points||14.5|-1.8|0.108
95961305|NCT03151551|191894119|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.5|||Regression, Logistic|||MDA-6 Entheseal Points||13.5|-2.9|0.179
95961306|NCT03151551|191894120|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.1||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.7|-8.9|0.846
95961307|NCT03151551|191894121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.83|0.004
95961308|NCT03151551|191894122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.72|-0.48|0.687
95961309|NCT03151551|191894123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.19|0.507
95961310|NCT03151551|191894124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.951||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.78|25.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.99|-32.78|0.820
95961311|NCT03151551|191894125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-3.09|0.052
95961312|NCT03151551|191894126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.57|0.005
95961313|NCT03151551|191894127|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.68|0.158
95961314|NCT03151551|191894128|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.49|0.711
95961315|NCT03151551|191894129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.85|-0.80|0.439
95961316|NCT03151551|191894130|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.15|-1.23|0.594
95961317|NCT03151551|191894131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.03|0.979
95961318|NCT03151551|191894132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|8.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.28|1.28|0.008
95961319|NCT03151551|191894133|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.78|<0.001
95840909|NCT00620113|191650426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-44.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.42|-28.21||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-28.21|-60.42|<0.001
95840910|NCT00620113|191650426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-35.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.33|-19.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-19.16|-52.33|<0.001
95961320|NCT03151551|191894134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|5.7||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness of Medication||13.7|-2.4|0.165
95840911|NCT00620113|191650427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.7|-35.13||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.13|-85.70|<0.001
95840912|NCT00620113|191650427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-60.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.91|-35.49||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-35.49|-85.91|<0.001
95840913|NCT00620113|191650427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-11.52||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-11.52|-65.94|<0.001
95961321|NCT03151551|191894134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|6.7||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|14.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Effectiveness over Time of Medication||14.8|-1.4|0.098
95961322|NCT03151551|191894134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.6||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Long Term Safety of Medication||12.6|-3.4|0.241
95855291|NCT01193244|191670188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.885||||0.33906||95.0|0.688|1.138|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.138|0.688|0.33906
95961323|NCT03151551|191894134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|4.9||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|13.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Overall Satisfaction with Medication||13.0|-3.1|0.215
95961324|NCT03151551|191894134|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Mostly Satisfied to any Questions||9.7|-5.5|0.561
95961325|NCT05896696|191894157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.26|||Paired sample t-test|||||-1.26|-2.49|<0.0001
95961326|NCT05896696|191894158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.73|||paired sample t-test|||||-0.73|-1.70|<0.0001
95961327|NCT03616964|191894183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.75|0.711
95961328|NCT03616964|191894184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.73|0.789
95961329|NCT03616964|191894185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.68|0.72|0.673
95961330|NCT03616964|191894185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.75|0.75|0.528
95961331|NCT03616964|191894187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.51|0.761
95961332|NCT03616964|191894187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.65|0.611
95961333|NCT03616964|191894188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.47|0.698
95961334|NCT03616964|191894188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.46|0.744
95961335|NCT03616964|191894189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|-2.00|0.665
95840914|NCT00620113|191650428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-42.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-20.27||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-20.27|-65.55|<0.001
95840915|NCT00620113|191650428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-37.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.32|-14.59||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-14.59|-60.32|0.001
95840916|NCT00620113|191650428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.37|-3.16||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-3.16|-50.37|0.017
95840917|NCT00620113|191650429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.11|-5.93||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-5.93|-25.11|<0.001
95855292|NCT01774721|191670207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.739|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.739|0.469|<0.0001
95855293|NCT01774721|191670208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.947|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox Regression model|||0.947|0.591|0.0077
95855294|NCT01774721|191670210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|0.779|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|||0.779|0.497|<0.0001
95855295|NCT01774721|191670213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.529|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on IRC review||0.529|0.307|<0.0001
95855296|NCT01774721|191670213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.711|||1-sided stratified log-rank test||Based on stratified Cox regression model|Comparison of dacomitinib vs gefitinib based on Investigator assessment||0.711|0.418|<0.0001
95855297|NCT01774721|191670214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1942
95855298|NCT01774721|191670215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0924
95855299|NCT01774721|191670222|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.173||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.483|||Unstratified Log-rank Test|||||1.483|0.928|0.1641
95855300|NCT00865566|191670245|OTHER|Score test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84|||Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox proportional hazards model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.63|<0.001
95855301|NCT00865566|191670246|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Cox PH model to assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||1|0.59|0.05
95855302|NCT00865566|191670247|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84||Score test|Regression, Cox||HR is vaccine / placebo|Assess the association between treatment assignment and dropout||0.84|0.60|<0.001
95855303|NCT00865566|191670248|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42||Score test|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, race, and BMI|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.42|0.73|0.903
95855304|NCT00865566|191670249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58||Adjusted for ave, behavioral risk score, square of behavioral risk score, and BMI|Regression, Cox|Score test|HR is vaccine / placebo|||1.58|0.71|0.783
95855305|NCT01383356|191670259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) in percent|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|125.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg versus (vs.) Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the 80 to 125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and on potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||125|111|
95855306|NCT01383356|191670259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|130.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed Cmax and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of drug potency (DP) of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||130|114|
95840918|NCT00620113|191650429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-12.55||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.16|-2.94||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-2.94|-22.16|0.009
95840919|NCT00620113|191650429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.48||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|12.74||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.74|-7.79|0.598
95840920|NCT00620113|191650430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-26.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-10.42||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 50 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-10.42|-43.30|<0.001
95840921|NCT00620113|191650430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-28.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.97|-12.75||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 25 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||-12.75|-44.97|<0.001
95840922|NCT00620113|191650430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-5.61||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|12.56||The stepwise linear trend test adjusted for multiplicity within the family of comparisons of active doses with placebo and preserved the Type I error rate. P-value is for Placebo through Odanacatib 10 mg dose.|ANCOVA|||The log-transformed fraction from baseline in biomarker levels was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and study center, using a stepwise linear contrast test based on the ANCOVA model. The geometric mean percent change from baseline (back-transformation from the mean log-transformed fraction) and the associated 95% confidence intervals were presented.||12.56|-23.79|0.458
95840923|NCT01807299|191650467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|5.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
95840924|NCT00999544|191650468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Area-under-the-curve (AUC) scores were derived from time course data and analyzed using two-factor ANOVA \[aprepitant dose (3 levels)x oxycodone dose (3 levels)\].~All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.1 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and were considered significant when P 0.05."||||<.05
95840925|NCT02936635|191650478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.619||0.2821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.035|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-11.035|0.2821
95863691|NCT00759564|191685285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|742.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|529.59|1041.5||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUClast for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1041.50|529.59|
95840926|NCT02936635|191650479|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.242||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.711|3.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.067|-13.711|0.2118
95840927|NCT02936635|191650480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205||0.6354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.946|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.801|-2.946|0.6354
95840928|NCT02936635|191650481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.509||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.186|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.763|-3.186|0.8887
95840929|NCT06083987|191650545|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|false discovery rate q-value calculated with Yekutieli method in Stata||||||0.86
95840930|NCT06083987|191650546|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.32||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95840931|NCT06083987|191650547|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.1||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95840932|NCT06083987|191650548|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.45||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95840933|NCT06083987|191650549|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.41||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95840934|NCT04473963|191650599|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority between subjects Randomized to Treatment vs subjects Randomized to Control||||||0.277|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.277
95840935|NCT04473963|191650601|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between subjects Randomized to Control and subjects Randomized to Treatment"||||||0.042|||||||Kaplan-Meyer Log Rank|||||||0.042
95840936|NCT04473963|191650606|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence between procedure time of subjects Randomized to Treatment and subjects Randomized to Control. The Not-Randomized group was not included in the analysis."|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95840937|NCT02123849|191650610|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
95840938|NCT02123849|191650611|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95840939|NCT02123849|191650612|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95840940|NCT02123849|191650613|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95840941|NCT02123849|191650614|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95840942|NCT02123849|191650615|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
95840943|NCT02123849|191650616|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
95840944|NCT02123849|191650617|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 10% of the coefficient of variation (i.e., standard deviation divided by mean) which means that the changes in the signature score in the intermittent arm is no less than 90% of the coefficient of variation of the changes in the signature score in the continuous arm.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.06
95840945|NCT01717872|191650630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||MAC blade lifting the tongue versus Miller blade lifting the epiglottis||||>0.05
95840946|NCT01717872|191650631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95840947|NCT01717872|191650632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0004
95840948|NCT03187119|191650643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.41||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|linear mixed model|||The reference group for this model is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan Group.||||0.42
95863692|NCT00759564|191685286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|209.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.72|276.66||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for mild renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||276.66|158.72|
95840949|NCT03187119|191650643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-14.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
95840950|NCT03187119|191650643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.89
95840951|NCT03187119|191650644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.59||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.31
95840952|NCT03187119|191650644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.9||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.73
95840953|NCT03187119|191650644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of group and time.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.92
95840954|NCT03187119|191650645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.06
95840955|NCT03187119|191650645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
95863693|NCT00759564|191685286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|353.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|267.57|466.39||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for moderate renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||466.39|267.57|
95840956|NCT03187119|191650645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effects of group and time.|generalized linear mixed model|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.33
95840957|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2-3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.002
95840958|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effects of time and prescription and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.07
95840959|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.43||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of prescription. Please see Analyses 1-2 for the main effects of time and group and Analyses 4-6 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||.69
95840960|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 5-7 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.37
95840961|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the prescription x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4 and 6 for other interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.12
95840962|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x PAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||The analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference groups for this analysis is the 2x per day group.||||0.006
95840963|NCT03187119|191650646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x WAAP group x prescription interaction. Please see Analyses 1-3 for the main effects of group, time and prescription and Analyses 4-5 for interactions.|generalized linear mixed model||These analyses are modeling lower adherence.|The reference group for this analysis is 2x per day group.||||0.006
95840964|NCT03187119|191650647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.18
95840965|NCT03187119|191650647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.09||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.71
95840966|NCT03187119|191650647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.96
95840967|NCT03187119|191650649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.74
95840968|NCT03187119|191650649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.83
95840969|NCT03187119|191650649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
95840970|NCT03187119|191650650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of time. Please see Analyses 2 and 3 for the main effect of group and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.08
95840971|NCT03187119|191650650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the main effect of group. Please see Analyses 1 and 3 for the main effect of time and the time x group interaction.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.25
95961336|NCT03616964|191894189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-1.95|0.723
95840972|NCT03187119|191650650|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The results listed here are for the time x group interaction. Please see Analyses 1 and 2 for the main effects of time and group.|multiple linear regression.|||The reference for group for this analysis is the Pictorial Asthma Action Plan group.||||0.03
95840973|NCT01910402|191650651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hypothesis was to show that the antiviral effect of the DTG/ABC/3TC FDC administered QD was non-inferior to QD ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates between the two treatment arms was greater than -12%|Adjusted difference in proportion|10.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|17.8||If the primary and PP analyses both demonstrated non-inferiority, then as per pre-specified analysis, superiority of DTG/ABC/3TC FDC versus ATV+RTV+TDF/FTC FDC was tested in the ITT-E population at the 2-sided 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|3.1|0.005
95840974|NCT01910402|191650673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.107|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.107|-0.159|0.7053
95863694|NCT00759564|191685286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Geometric Mean Ratio|735.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|523.56|1034.0||||||A one-way ANOVA model with group as a fixed effect was used to compare the natural log transformed AUCinf for severe renal impairment group (Test) to normal renal function group (Reference). The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||1034.00|523.56|
95840975|NCT01910402|191650674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.106||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.101|||Multiple Imputed Dataset - MAR|||||0.101|-0.313|0.3165
95961337|NCT03616964|191894190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.31|0.372
95961338|NCT03616964|191894190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.34|0.555
95961339|NCT03616964|191894191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.31|0.251
95840976|NCT01910402|191650689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.779|||ANCOVA||BSAP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.779|0.683|<0.001
95840977|NCT01910402|191650689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.693|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|0.741|||ANCOVA||PTP ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.741|0.647|<0.001
95840978|NCT01910402|191650689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.629|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.68|||ANCOVA||Osteocalcin ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.680|0.581|<0.001
95840979|NCT01910402|191650689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.706|||ANCOVA||Type 1 Collagen C-Telopeptide ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.706|0.609|<0.0001
95840980|NCT01910402|191650689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of ratio|0.852|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|0.914|||ANCOVA||Vitamin D ratio of Week 48 result over Baseline|||0.914|0.794|<0.0001
95840981|NCT01910402|191650691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016||95.0||||Week 4|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95840982|NCT01910402|191650691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Week 12|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95840983|NCT01910402|191650691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Week 24|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95840984|NCT01910402|191650691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95840985|NCT03906071|191650706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||The p-value is based on a unstratified log-rank test. (2-Sided)|Log Rank||Based on the unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.05|0.70|0.144
95840986|NCT02152761|191650720|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Group Ratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.057|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|1.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.076|1.037|<.0001
95840987|NCT02152761|191650720|SUPERIORITY||Treatment group rratio (BYM - Placebo)|1.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||Holm-Bonferroni method: Used to adjust the Type I error for two comparisons (BYM338 700 mg/Placebo) at Week 24. No control for multiplicity was made at Week 12.|week 12||1.064|1.024|<.0001
95840988|NCT02152761|191650721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.071||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.034||Treatment Difference (BYM-Placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.034|-0.175|0.1829
95840989|NCT02152761|191650721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|0.011||||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||0.119|-0.096|0.8365
95840990|NCT02152761|191650722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.371||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.311|1.053|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.053|-1.311|0.5802
95840991|NCT02152761|191650722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of the Treatment Difference|0.833||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|1.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||week 24||1.801|-0.135|0.0913
95840992|NCT02152761|191650723|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.08||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||Negative binomial regression|||||2.21|0.53|0.8353
95840993|NCT02152761|191650723|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.58||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.18|||Negative binomial regression|||||3.18|0.78|0.2015
95840994|NCT02152761|191650723|SUPERIORITY||Falls Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.0|||Negative binomial regression|||week 24||3.00|0.52|0.3999
95840995|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was greater than (\>) -0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI).||2.1|-2.2|
95840996|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.1||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||1.1|-5.2|
95840997|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
95840998|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
95840999|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.1|-2.1|
95841000|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.3||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||6.3|-1.1|
95961340|NCT03616964|191894191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.74|0.333
95841001|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.9||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.9|-4.2|
95841002|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
95841003|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
95841004|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.7||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||6.7|-0.2|
95841005|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||5.8|-1.9|
95841006|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.3||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|0.9|
95841007|NCT01200368|191650783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||7.3|1.0|
95841008|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.94||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.94|0.71|
95841009|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.97|0.64|
95841010|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.86|0.64|
95841011|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.70|
95841012|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.85|0.63|
95841013|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.08|0.72|
95841014|NCT01200368|191650784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.66|
95841015|NCT01200368|191650785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
95841016|NCT01200368|191650785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.2||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.2|-2.1|
95863695|NCT02343549|191685316|SUPERIORITY||12-Month Survival Rate|0.333||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701||This p-value is only based on partial enrollment of Stage 1. As enrollment was halted early, this p-value is descriptive in nature and cannot determine the success/failure of the trial.|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|Assuming the true 12-month survival rate is 0.30 under the null hypothesis, then this design will provide 90% power to detect a difference of 0.20 under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha = 0.10 significance level. A Simon optimal 2-stage design with Stage 1 n=22 and a total of n=46 subjects was determined with the following rejection regions: For n = 22, the rejection region in number of subjects alive at 12 months is 0 - 7, and for n = 46 it is 8 - 17.||0.701|0.075|0.537
95863696|NCT02343549|191685317|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|12.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median OS(in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median overall survival.|||12.8|4.8|
95841017|NCT01200368|191650785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
95841018|NCT01200368|191650785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.6|-3.1|
95841019|NCT01200368|191650786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.15||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.15|1.50|
95841020|NCT01200368|191650786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.28|0.92|
95841021|NCT01200368|191650786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.22|0.86|
95841022|NCT01200368|191650786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.25|0.87|
95841023|NCT01200368|191650786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.16||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.16|1.54|
95841024|NCT01200368|191650786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.25||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.25|1.59|
95841025|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 4: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
95841026|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
95841027|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
95841028|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 14: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
95841029|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
95841030|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.4||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-3.9|
95841031|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.4||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI.||2.4|-2.4|
95841032|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 1: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
95841033|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0||||||Serotype 3: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.0|-2.9|
95841034|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 5: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
95841035|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
95841036|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
95841037|NCT01200368|191650787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower confidence interval for the percent difference was \>-0.10.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (\[13vPnC + DTaP\] - \[7vPnC + DTaP\]) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95% CI. Difference in proportions was calculated using the serotype with the lowest proportion among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||3.6|-1.7|
95841038|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15||||||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.15|0.77|
95841039|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53||||||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.53|0.98|
95961341|NCT03616964|191894192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.86|0.284
95841040|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.98||||||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||0.98|0.67|
95841041|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.12|0.81|
95841042|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01||||||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.01|0.67|
95841043|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.21||||||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||2.21|1.39|
95841044|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07||||||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI.||1.07|0.70|
95841045|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.99||||||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.99|1.31|
95841046|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.35||||||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||0.35|0.24|
95841047|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.54||||||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.54|1.07|
95841048|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.12||||||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.12|1.46|
95841049|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.52||||||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||1.52|1.04|
95863697|NCT02343549|191685318|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median PFS (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median progression free survival.|||10.4|4.8|
95961342|NCT03616964|191894192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.08|0.069
95841050|NCT01200368|191650788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided, 95% CI for IgG GMC ratio was \>0.5.|GMC ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.24||||||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs (\[13vPnC + DTaP\]/\[7vPnC + DTaP\]) was calculated along with 2-sided 95% CI. GMC ratio was calculated using the serotype with the lowest GMC among the 7 common serotypes in the 7vPnC + DTaP group as reference.||2.24|1.54|
95841051|NCT01200368|191650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
95841052|NCT01200368|191650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
95841053|NCT01200368|191650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
95841054|NCT01200368|191650789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving predefined antibody levels for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||2.3|-2.4|
95841055|NCT01200368|191650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.24|0.97|
95841056|NCT01200368|191650790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.06|0.77|
95841057|NCT01200368|191650791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.10|0.87|
95841058|NCT01200368|191650791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.05|0.81|
95863698|NCT02343549|191685319|OTHER|Estimation only|Response Rate|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.701|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.701|0.075|
95863699|NCT02343549|191685320|OTHER|Estimation only|Disease Control Rate|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.0||||||||1.000|0.664|
95841059|NCT01200368|191650792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||||||GMC ratio for diphtheria toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.15|0.88|
95841060|NCT01200368|191650792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.19||||||GMC ratio for tetanus toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.19|0.85|
95841061|NCT01200368|191650793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11||||||GMC ratio for pertussis toxoid and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||1.11|0.84|
95841062|NCT01200368|191650793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||GMC ratio for filamentous hemagglutinin and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated.||0.91|0.70|
95841063|NCT01290757|191650802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.082|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
95841064|NCT01290757|191650802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.33||||||90.0|119.45|133.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.60|119.45|
95841065|NCT01290757|191650803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Scaled average BE is rejected, if the calculated upper 95% confidence limit of the linearized criterion is positive.|Upper 95% CI of the linearized criterion|-0.085|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||Linearized regulatory criterion according to Tothfalusi et al (Pharmaceutical Research, 2001). The square of the difference in treatment responses divided by within-subject variance of the reference formulation minus square of ln(1.25)/0.25|Capsugel minus Qualicaps||||
95841066|NCT01290757|191650803|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.49||||||90.0|118.69|132.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.67|118.69|
95863700|NCT02343549|191685321|OTHER|Estimation only.|Median|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|8.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of response (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of response.|||8.6|3.7|
95841067|NCT01290757|191650804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.74||||||90.0|118.32|131.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.51|118.32|
95841068|NCT01290757|191650805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|126.22||||||90.0|119.36|133.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||133.47|119.36|
95841069|NCT01290757|191650806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|125.3||||||90.0|118.42|132.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||132.59|118.42|
95863701|NCT02343549|191685322|OTHER|Estimation Only|Median|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|10.4|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate median duration of disease control (in months). The Greenwood method was used to estimate confidence limits of median duration of disease control.|||10.4|4.8|
95841070|NCT01290757|191650807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE). Bioequivalence is accepted if 90% confidence interval lies within the common BE margins (80% and 125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|124.49||||||90.0|118.11|131.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Capsugel vs Qualicaps||131.21|118.11|
95863702|NCT00244140|191685347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR1|95.8||||||95.0|93.3|97.6||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||97.6|93.3|
95841071|NCT01426958|191650821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|119.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.239|126.811||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||126.811|112.239|0.1009
95841072|NCT01426958|191650821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.9||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.837|117.006||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||117.006|103.837|0.0009
95841073|NCT01426958|191650821|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|91.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.6||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.519|97.614||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||97.614|86.519|0.0004
95841074|NCT01426958|191650822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|104.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.681|112.002||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||112.002|96.681|0.0002
95841075|NCT01426958|191650822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|105.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.425|114.53||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||114.530|96.425|0.0012
95841076|NCT01426958|191650822|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.328|106.61||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||106.610|93.328|0.0000
95841077|NCT01426958|191650823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|118.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.5||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.712|125.822||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||125.822|111.712|0.0702
95841078|NCT01426958|191650823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|110.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.936|116.913||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||116.913|104.936|0.0005
95841079|NCT01426958|191650823|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.928|98.341||P-value for ratio outside interval 0.8-1.25|ANOVA|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|||98.341|86.928|0.0003
95841080|NCT01284517|191650829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.176|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis (H0) assumes equal values between analysis groups in mean change from baseline in MADRS score, alternative hypothesis (HA) assumes unequal values between groups. Sample size determined by two-sample t-test. A mean difference of 3.25 units in change in MADRS score for the Lurasdone 20-120 mg arm over placebo with common standard deviation of 9 units was used. N=162 subjects per arm (total N=324) yields power of 90%. A 5% adjustment for drop-outs gives N=340, or N=170 per arm.||||0.176
95841081|NCT01284517|191650830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.095|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.095
95841082|NCT01284517|191650831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.992
95841083|NCT00040443|191650832|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95841084|NCT05280717|191650844|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9821|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8825|1.093|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with AUC(D1- 29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0930|0.8825|
95841085|NCT05280717|191650845|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0108|1.2539|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.2539|1.0108|
95841086|NCT05280717|191650848|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6391|2.1472|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.1472|1.6391|
95841087|NCT05280717|191650848|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4086|1.8153|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUC(D1-29) as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.8153|1.4086|
95841088|NCT05280717|191650849|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.0798|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8223|2.3737|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||2.3737|1.8223|
95841089|NCT05280717|191650849|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.6955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4913|1.9276|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with Cmax as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.9276|1.4913|
95841090|NCT05280717|191650854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8578|1.0469|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.0469|0.8578|
95841091|NCT05280717|191650854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.5482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.377|1.7407|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.7407|1.3770|
95841092|NCT05280717|191650854|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.4167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2627|1.5894|||||The ratio estimate and 90% confidence interval were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with AUCinf as the dependent variable, and sex, baseline body mass index and treatment as covariates.|||1.5894|1.2627|
95863703|NCT00244140|191685347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR2|96.3||||||95.0|93.9|98.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||98.0|93.9|
95841093|NCT00080301|191650862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0003||95.17|0.64|0.88||Test was stratified by 1) presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung, 2) minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting, and 3) prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. (yes/no)|Log Rank|95.17% confidence interval is adjusted for the interim analysis.||Study required 615 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.77 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log-rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.0483 log-rank test (adjusted for an interim analysis using the O'Brien Fleming spending function) to reject the null hypothesis of equality of progression free survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 events (310 in combination:329 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||0.88|0.64|.0003
95841094|NCT00080301|191650863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.2|4.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The study had 95 percent power to detect a significant difference in ORR if the true response rate was 32 percent in the combination arm and 20 percent in the capecitabine arm.||4.50|2.20|<.0001
95841095|NCT00080301|191650866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1936||95.17|0.77|1.05||Test was stratified by presence of visceral metastases in liver or lung (y/n), minimum of either doxorubicin 420 mg/m2 or epirubicin 360 mg/m2, and relapse \> 6 months in adjuvant setting (y/n), and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease (y/n).|Log Rank|Test was conducted at the α=0.05 level and no adjustments were performed.|Confidence Interval adjusted for interim analysis.|Study required 631 deaths to achieve 80% power to detect a Hazard ratio of 0.8 using a 2-sided α = 0.05 log rank test. The analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided α=0.05 log-rank test to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival. The analysis was conducted when 639 deaths (318 in combination:321 in capecitabine) were observed from the 752 randomized patients.||1.05|0.77|0.1936
95841096|NCT00080301|191650868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||.0002
95841097|NCT00991939|191650869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.708|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value is the proportion of success in the high dose pulse dexamethasone group minus the proportion of success in the standard prednisone group.|Four subjects were not included in this analysis because not enough data was available to assess the primary outcome at the time the study was terminated.||0.708|-0.975|1.00
95841098|NCT00855816|191650883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for significance: p\<.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model based on intent to treat sample.||Null hypothesis: there will be no differences in PTSD hyperarousal symptom changes in individuals who did receive the experimental intervention vs. those who did not .||||.27
95841099|NCT01965704|191650884|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95841100|NCT01965704|191650885|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in overall length of stay.||4.3|-8.0|0.56
95841101|NCT01965704|191650885|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|Difference in length of stay as calculated with maximum length capped at 15 days.||0.2|-4.0|0.07
95863704|NCT00244140|191685347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent: BR3|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||99.4|96.6|
95863705|NCT00244140|191685348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||||100.0|98.6|
95863706|NCT00244140|191685349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Good/Excellent|99.5||||||95.0|98.1|99.9||||||||99.9|98.1|
95863707|NCT00244140|191685350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR1|98.4||||||95.0|96.6|99.4||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 1 (BR1).||99.4|96.6|
95863708|NCT00244140|191685350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR2|100.0||||||95.0|99.0|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 2 (BR2).||100.0|99.0|
95863709|NCT00244140|191685350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Images Rated Yes: BR3|99.7||||||95.0|98.6|100.0||||||Study was uncontrolled - No comparison between groups. The 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated for each of the 3 blinded readers separately. This analysis refers to the assessment of blinded reader 3 (BR3).||100.0|98.6|
95863710|NCT02673541|191685352|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95863711|NCT01960907|191685357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.342
95863712|NCT01960907|191685358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.915
95863713|NCT01960907|191685359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
95863714|NCT00776919|191685369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95863715|NCT00776919|191685369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.016
95841102|NCT01965704|191650886|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.7|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test||The 95% confidence interval between the ondansetron group and the placebo group was calculated with the use of Hodges-Lehmann estimator.|||2.7|-8.8|0.31
95841103|NCT03573323|191650897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841104|NCT03573323|191650898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95863716|NCT00776919|191685369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95863717|NCT00776919|191685370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95863718|NCT00776919|191685370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95961343|NCT01434680|191894195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons, MenC-CRM LIQ and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.82|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10 transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM LIQ to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.00|0.67|<0.05
95961344|NCT01434680|191894195|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval for each of the two coprimary comparisons,MenC-CRM ROS and MenC-CRM EMV would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|1.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.41|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The study would be considered a success if the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the hSBA GMT ratios comparing MenC-CRM ROS to MenC-CRM EMV at 28 days after a single vaccination were both within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||1.41|0.92|<0.05
95961345|NCT01434680|191894196|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin was (0.5, 2.0). If the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at 28 days following vaccination was within this equivalence interval, the two vaccine groups would be declared equivalent with respect to the immune response to the vaccines.|hSBA GMT ratios|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89|||ANOVA|95% CIs for the GMTs ratios was obtained by exponentiating difference of least square means of log10-transformed titers and both the limits of 95% CIs||The secondary objective was to be assessed only if both primary objectives were met. Because of this, no adjustment for multiplicity was required. MenC-CRM liquid would be declared equivalent to MenC-CRM ROS if the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the hSBA GMTs at approximately 28 days following vaccination was within the equivalence interval (0.5, 2.0).||0.89|0.58|<0.05
95961346|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.2|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=11602)||17.3|17.2|
95961347|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.8|17.0||||||IOP 1 year (n=4450)||17.0|16.8|
95961348|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||||95.0|17.1|17.5||||||IOP 1 year (n=357)||17.5|17.1|
95961349|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.4|17.3||||||IOP 1 year (n=220)||17.3|16.4|
95961350|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1||||95.0|17.5|17.8||||||IOP 1 year (n=3277)||17.8|17.5|
95961351|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|17.0|17.1||||||IOP 2 years (n=8051)||17.1|17.0|
95841105|NCT03573323|191650899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841106|NCT03573323|191650900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841107|NCT03573323|191650901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841108|NCT03573323|191650902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841109|NCT03573323|191650903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841110|NCT03573323|191650904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95841111|NCT03573323|191650905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.414
95841112|NCT03710642|191650953|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008096||||0.9904|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9904
95841113|NCT03710642|191650954|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.54||||0.30328|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.30328
95841114|NCT03710642|191650955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31122||||0.21981|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21981
95841115|NCT03710642|191650956|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.36277||||0.6366|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.6366
95961352|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.9||||95.0|16.7|16.9||||||IOP 2 years (n=2808)||16.9|16.7|
95961353|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||||95.0|17.0|17.5||||||IOP 2 years (n=175)||17.5|17.0|
95961354|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=83)||17.2|15.9|
95961355|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||||95.0|16.9|17.2||||||IOP 2 years (n=2002)||17.2|16.9|
95961356|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||||95.0|16.9|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=5469)||17.1|16.9|
95961357|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2||||95.0|16.7|17.0||||||IOP 3 years (n=1932)||17.0|16.7|
95961358|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|17.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||||95.0|16.9|18.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=64)||18.1|16.9|
95961359|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8||||95.0|15.7|17.4||||||IOP 3 years (n=44)||17.4|15.7|
95841116|NCT03710642|191650957|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39602||0.9267|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9267
95841117|NCT03710642|191650958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0694||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2038
95841118|NCT03710642|191650959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.388||||0.54133|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.54133
95841119|NCT04445662|191650963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95841120|NCT04445662|191650964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95841121|NCT00632619|191650996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.106
95841122|NCT00632619|191650997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline which was week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.015
95863719|NCT00776919|191685370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95961360|NCT01012245|191894198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|16.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6||||95.0|16.7|17.1||||||IOP 3 years (n=1251)||17.1|16.7|
95961361|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=11966)||0.47|0.46|
95961362|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=4944)||0.44|0.43|
95841123|NCT00632619|191650998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was conducted to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.38
95841124|NCT00632619|191650999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.016
95841125|NCT00632619|191651000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||A 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis (with time as within-subject factor and group as between-subject factor) was performed to compare the two groups on this measure at two time points (i.e., baseline at week 0 and endpoint at week 12) and infer treatment success accordingly. The null hypothesis signified that there would be no difference between the groups over time, thus, there would be no difference in treatments. Statistical power was calculated as Cohen's d.||||0.095
95841126|NCT04739436|191651035|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.79||Multiple comparisons were not conducted, so no adjustment of the p-value was necessary.|Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fit with outcome change in APHAB score between 3 months and baseline, predictor hearing aid fitting group (reference=bilateral), and covariate clinical site.||8.79|1.80|0.003
95841127|NCT04739436|191651036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, what proportion of the time do you wear your hearing aid?||||0.584
95841128|NCT04739436|191651036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, how much does your hearing aid help you?||||0.233
95961363|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.35|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=88)||0.43|0.35|
95961364|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=241)||0.53|0.47|
95961365|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Vertical C/D ratio 1 year (n=2949)||0.52|0.50|
95961366|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.46|0.47||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=8783)||0.47|0.46|
95961367|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.44||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=3396)||0.44|0.42|
95961368|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||||95.0|0.33|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.33|
95961369|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.54||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=95)||0.54|0.44|
95961370|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 2 years (n=1934)||0.53|0.50|
95961371|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=6344)||0.45|0.44|
95841129|NCT04739436|191651036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: In this situation, with your hearing aid, how much difficulty do you now have?||||0.010
95841130|NCT04739436|191651036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the GHABP question means between the groups at 3 months for the question: For this situation, how satisfied are you with your hearing aid?||||0.129
95841131|NCT04739436|191651037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in the co-located BKB SIN test scores between the groups.||||0.946
95841132|NCT04739436|191651038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recognition scores between the groups.||||0.490
95841133|NCT04739436|191651038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypotheses are there are no differences in the change from baseline to 3 months in WARRM recall scores between the groups.||||0.323
95841134|NCT04739436|191651039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.933||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 3 months.||||0.933
95841135|NCT04739436|191651039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the SADL scores between the groups at 6 months.||||0.929
95841136|NCT04739436|191651041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 3 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.015
95863720|NCT00776919|191685371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95863721|NCT00776919|191685371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.102
95863722|NCT00776919|191685371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95863723|NCT00776919|191685372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95841137|NCT04739436|191651041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change from baseline to 6 months in SSQ scores between the groups.||||0.886
95841138|NCT04739436|191651042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the right ear.||||0.137
95841139|NCT04739436|191651042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the number of hours of hearing aid use between the groups in the left ear.||||0.612
95841140|NCT04739436|191651044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 3 months.||||0.108
95841141|NCT04739436|191651044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the IOI-HA total score between the groups at 6 months.||||0.988
95841142|NCT04739436|191651047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were done.||The null hypothesis is there is no difference in the change in APHAB score from baseline to 6 months between the groups.||||0.264
95841143|NCT00428948|191651048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.708|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.269|-2.147|||Linear mixed model||The variance of the random effect intercept was zero and resulted in a non-positive, definite variance-covariance matrix for the random effects.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage change per year in total kidney volume between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||-2.147|-3.269|<0.0001
95841144|NCT00428948|191651049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.965|||Recurrent event analysis||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the ADPKD clinical progression events/100 follow-up years between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.965|0.775|0.0095
95841145|NCT00428948|191651050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|0.977|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|1.357|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal function per year between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.357|0.597|<0.0001
95863724|NCT00776919|191685372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.032
95863725|NCT00776919|191685372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors of treatment, center, and interaction of treatment-center. If the treatment-center interaction was not significant at the 0.1 level, this interaction was excluded from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95841146|NCT00428948|191651051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slope|-0.246||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|0.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|Derived from testing the time treatment interaction using linear mixed model in which both intercept and slope are fixed and random effects.|Placebo minus tolvaptan.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean arterial blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.566|-1.059|0.5520
95841147|NCT00428948|191651052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline renal pain as a covariate.|Derived from ANCOVA with factors of treatment and baseline stratification factor interaction and covariate renal pain baseline.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change in renal pain between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||0.03|-0.20|0.1604
95841148|NCT00428948|191651053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.233|||Recurrent event analysis||Derived from rate and mean model of time to recurrent event analysis with factor treatment.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the hypertensive events per 100 follow-up years in non-hypertensive participants between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||1.233|0.805|0.9704
95841149|NCT00428948|191651054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.017|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Tolvaptan divided by placebo.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percentage of participants with a clinically sustained decrease of blood pressure leading to a sustained reduction in antihypertensive therapy between the tolvaptan group and the placebo group.||2.017|0.602|0.7532
95841150|NCT00577824|191651057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferroni's method was used to adjustment for multiplicity, and significant level was set to 2.5%(two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline value as the covariate.||||||<0.001
95841151|NCT00577824|191651058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
95841152|NCT00577824|191651059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage|||||||<0.001
95841153|NCT00577824|191651060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.002
95841154|NCT00577824|191651061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity. Significance level was 5% (two-sided).|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
95863726|NCT03116152|191685393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.972|||Log Rank|||||0.972|0.504|0.032
95863727|NCT03116152|191685394|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.722|0.979
95841155|NCT00577824|191651062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
95841156|NCT00577824|191651063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.580
95841157|NCT00577824|191651064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95841158|NCT00577824|191651065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.490
95841159|NCT00577824|191651066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95841160|NCT00577824|191651067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
95841161|NCT00577824|191651069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.708
95841162|NCT00577824|191651070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974
95841163|NCT00577824|191651072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
95841164|NCT00577824|191651073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95841165|NCT03375489|191651074|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported quality of life if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in means was within the margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|3.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment and controlling for baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lung Questionnaire scores.||3.9|0.1|0.04
95841166|NCT03375489|191651075|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient-reported communication with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in proportions was within the margin of ±8%.|Estimated Difference in Proportions|3.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|8.1||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The difference between groups in the proportions of patients reporting that they communicated with their clinicians about their end-of-life care preferences was estimated using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||8.1|-1.8|0.26
95841167|NCT03375489|191651076|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established for patient length of stay in hospice if the 90% confidence interval for the estimated difference in mean days was within the margin of ±6 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|7.4||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean length of stay in hospice between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||7.4|-7.0|0.46
95841168|NCT03375489|191651077|SUPERIORITY||Difference in estimated proportions|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-8.6||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|binomial generalized estimating equation|||The proportion of palliative care visits with caregiver participation was compared using a binomial generalized estimating equation model with robust standard errors, the identity link function, and a main effect for group assignment.||-8.6|-17.6|<0.001
95841169|NCT03375489|191651078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||1.7|-1.0|>0.99
95863728|NCT03116152|191685395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.4||||||||15.4|-2.2|
95863729|NCT03116152|191685396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.345
95961372|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.41|0.43||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=2372)||0.43|0.41|
95841170|NCT03375489|191651079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value|Regression, Linear|||The difference in week-24 means between groups was estimated using a linear regression model with a main effect for group assignment.||2.3|-1.5|>0.99
95841171|NCT00429169|191651091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|-0.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.023||The p-value applies to the interaction term of Treatment X Baseline Suicidal Ideation severity.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized least squares model of Scale for Suicidal Ideation score during 8-week acute treatment of major depressive disorder.||-0.023|-0.57|0.03
95863730|NCT00275340|191685397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was not powered to determine significant group differences; thus trends are reported for p\<0.20.|||||p<|0||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean change scores were computed on domain and summary scores. Mean differences in change scores between groups were computed and t-tests used to detect significant differences.||||p<0.20
95961373|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||||95.0|0.27|0.39||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.39|0.27|
95961374|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||||95.0|0.41|0.53||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=36)||0.53|0.41|
95961375|NCT01012245|191894200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.48|0.51||||||Vertical C/D ratio 3 years (n=1283)||0.51|0.48|
95863731|NCT00862641|191685402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1451||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the Cochran-Mantel Haenszel(CMH) test stratified by investigative site. Sites with \<15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.1451
95863732|NCT00862641|191685402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis of treatment effect was based on the CMH test stratified by investigative site. Sites with less than 15 subjects were pooled.||||||0.5790
95961376|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.46||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=11433)||0.46|0.45|
95961377|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.42|0.43||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=4810)||0.43|0.42|
95961378|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.33|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=87)||0.42|0.33|
95841172|NCT03868254|191651121|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
95841173|NCT03868254|191651121|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
95841174|NCT03868254|191651122|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<.0001
95841175|NCT03868254|191651122|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0001
95841176|NCT03868254|191651123|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0030
95841177|NCT03868254|191651123|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0018
95841178|NCT03868254|191651124|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0053
95841179|NCT03868254|191651124|OTHER|||||||0.0472|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0472
95961379|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.47|0.53||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=232)||0.53|0.47|
95961380|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.5|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 1 year (n=2703)||0.52|0.50|
95961381|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.44|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=8427)||0.45|0.44|
95961382|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||||95.0|0.4|0.42||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=3276)||0.42|0.40|
95961383|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||||95.0|0.31|0.45||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=31)||0.45|0.31|
95961384|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||||95.0|0.45|0.56||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=92)||0.56|0.45|
95961385|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27||||95.0|0.49|0.52||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 2 years (n=1812)||0.52|0.49|
95961386|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24||||95.0|0.43|0.44||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=6102)||0.44|0.43|
95961387|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||||95.0|0.39|0.41||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=2289)||0.41|0.39|
95961388|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||||95.0|0.25|0.38||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=25)||0.38|0.25|
95961389|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||||95.0|0.42|0.57||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=35)||0.57|0.42|
95841180|NCT01525615|191651130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.269||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time), log10 (baseline endurance time) by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the first one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.269|1.020|0.0209
95841181|NCT01525615|191651130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|1.213||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. This treatment comparison is the second one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain. Since the p-value for this treatment comparison is \>0.05, the hierarchical testing chain is broken and all of the following hypothesis tests in this hierarchical chain are considered as descriptive only.||1.213|0.973|0.1419
95841182|NCT01525615|191651130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.166||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.166|0.941|0.3970
95841183|NCT01525615|191651131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Tretament ratio|1.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.467||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Since the hierarchical testing chain has been broken, even though this treatment comparison is included as the 3rd one in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain, this hypothesis test is descriptive only.||1.467|0.996|0.0552
95863733|NCT00862641|191685405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0029
95863734|NCT00862641|191685405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6189||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.6189
95863735|NCT00862641|191685406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0015
95863736|NCT00862641|191685406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.4385
95961390|NCT01012245|191894201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean value|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||||95.0|0.47|0.5||||||Horizontal C/D ratio 3 years (n=1204)||0.50|0.47|
95863737|NCT00862641|191685407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0789
95863738|NCT00862641|191685407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0258||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0258
95863739|NCT00862641|191685408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.2087
95863740|NCT00862641|191685408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'||||0.0289
95961391|NCT05765344|191894222|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.4|154.0|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||154|49.4|
95961392|NCT05765344|191894222|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|197.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.0|281.0|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||281|138|
95961393|NCT05765344|191894222|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|73.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.4|99.2|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||99.2|54.4|
95961394|NCT05765344|191894222|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|95.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.1|126.0|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||126|73.1|
95961395|NCT05765344|191894223|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|117.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.1|205.0|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||205|67.1|
95841184|NCT01525615|191651131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.475||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean, 95% confidence limits transformed from log10 to original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method. This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.475|0.995|0.0562
95841185|NCT01525615|191651131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.9822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|1.205||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. This treatment comparison is not included in the alpha-protected hierarchical testing chain.||1.205|0.826|0.9822
95841186|NCT01525615|191651132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.336||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.|LSMean=Least square mean.|||0.336|0.133|<0.0001
95841187|NCT01525615|191651132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.309||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.309|0.105|<0.0001
95841188|NCT01525615|191651132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.126||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||||0.126|-0.072|0.5892
95841189|NCT01525615|191651133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.248||ANCOVA model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with categorical effects of treatment and (log10-transformed) baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|This hypothesis test is descriptive.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo||1.248|1.015|0.0245
95841190|NCT01525615|191651133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.223|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo||1.223|0.994|0.0655
95841191|NCT01525615|191651133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.132|||ANCOVA|Descriptive||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0||1.132|0.921|0.6912
95863741|NCT00862641|191685409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9904||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.9904
95863742|NCT00862641|191685409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8085||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"P-value applies to 'Change at Hour 2'~P-value based on ranked analysis of covariance with treatment and investigator site as main effects and baseline value as a covariate in the model."||||0.8085
95961396|NCT05765344|191894223|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|401.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|271.0|593.0|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||593|271|
95863743|NCT02365480|191685413|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|36.37|||Fisher Exact|||||36.37|0.10|0.60
95863744|NCT01419197|191685418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.661||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used to compare progression-free survival between the two treatment arms at the overall two-sided significance level of 0.5%.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.661|0.422|<0.0001
95961397|NCT05765344|191894223|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.8|83.3|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||83.3|40.8|
95961398|NCT05765344|191894223|OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%)|114.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.7|161.0|||||ANOVA model with hepatic function as fixed effect was fitted to natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation. Geometric least-squares mean ratio (%) and 90%CI for hepatic impairment versus control were calculated.|||161|80.7|
95961399|NCT02577003|191894242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.57|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-0.57|-0.98|<0.001
95961400|NCT02577003|191894245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-21.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-21.5|-34.8|<0.001
95841192|NCT01525615|191651134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.103|1.37||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive||1.370|1.103|0.0002
95863745|NCT01419197|191685419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.552||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.826||The 2-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this first OS interim analysis was HR\<0.363 (p-value \< 0.0000013).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||0.826|0.369|0.0034
95841193|NCT01525615|191651134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.362||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0 and placebo. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.362|1.095|0.0004
95841194|NCT01525615|191651134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.12||MMRM model for log10 (endurance time \[s\]) with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]), log10 (baseline endurance time \[s\]) by test day interaction, patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mean and 95% confidence limits were transformed from log10 back to the original scale. SE was calculated using the delta method.||Treatment ratio between Tio+Olo 5.0/5.0 and Tio+Olo 2.5/5.0. Hypothesis test is descriptive.||1.12|0.905|0.9062
95841195|NCT01525615|191651135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.279||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.279|0.051|0.0049
95841196|NCT01525615|191651135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.316||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.316|0.088|0.0006
95841197|NCT01525615|191651135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.076||ANCOVA model for inspiratory capacity (liters) with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.076|-0.151|0.5162
95841198|NCT01525615|191651136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.326||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.326|0.124|<0.0001
95841199|NCT01525615|191651136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.288||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.288|0.086|0.0003
95841200|NCT01525615|191651136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.137||MMRM model for inspiratory capacity with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline inspiratory capacity, baseline inspiratory capacity by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.137|-0.061|0.4541
95863746|NCT01419197|191685420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||29.2|16.2|<0.0001
95863747|NCT01419197|191685422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|20.09||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||20.09|5.03|0.0011
95863748|NCT01419197|191685422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.7||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|28.75||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||28.75|-5.41|0.1805
95863749|NCT01419197|191685423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.115||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.517|||Log Rank|||The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease vs no visceral disease).||1.517|0.819|0.4952
95863750|NCT01419197|191685425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.85||The two-sided stratified log-rank test was used at the overall two-sided significance level of 4.5%. The pre-specified O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for this second and final interim analysis was HR\<0.748 (p value \< 0.012).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression.|The analysis was stratified for 1) World region (United States, Western Europe, or Other); 2) Number of prior regimens, excluding single-agent hormones, for treatment of metastatic or unresectable locally advanced/recurrent disease (≤ 3 or \> 3); and 3) Presence of visceral disease (any visceral disease versus no visceral disease).||0.850|0.539|0.0007
95841201|NCT01525615|191651137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.004|0.0468
95841202|NCT01525615|191651137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0180
95841203|NCT01525615|191651137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||ANCOVA model for mean slope of the intensity of breathing discomfort with categorical effect of treatment and baseline as continuous covariate.|ANCOVA|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.6856
95841204|NCT01525615|191651138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0081
95841205|NCT01525615|191651138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.001||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.001|-0.005|0.0099
95841206|NCT01525615|191651138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.002||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.002|-0.002|0.9626
95841207|NCT01525615|191651139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.000|-0.004|0.0598
95841208|NCT01525615|191651139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||-0.000|-0.005|0.0218
95863751|NCT01419197|191685426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|12.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|19.14||The p-value for the difference in survival rate was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||6-month survival||19.14|5.67|0.0003
95961401|NCT02577003|191894246|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-37.5|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-37.5|-59.6|<0.001
95961402|NCT02577003|191894247|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.6|-66.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-66.6|-102.6|<0.001
95961403|NCT02577003|191894248|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.1|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Based on a cLDA model with the terms listed above.||||-1.1|-2.5|<0.001
95961404|NCT01234883|191894254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95961405|NCT02353871|191894288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
95961406|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 8 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
95863752|NCT01419197|191685426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Survival Percentage|11.0||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|19.33||The p-value for the difference in survival rates was derived from the z-test using the standard errors computed using Greenwood's method.|z-test|||1-year survival||19.33|2.58|0.0104
95961407|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 15 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
95961408|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
95961409|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
95961410|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
95961411|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0035
95961412|NCT02353871|191894289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0441||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA at Day 183 (End of Study) - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||0.0441
95961413|NCT02353871|191894290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2422||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 57 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.2422
95961414|NCT02353871|191894290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0917||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 85 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.0917
95961415|NCT02353871|191894290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7064||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 113 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7064
95961416|NCT02353871|191894290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 148 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7010
95961417|NCT02353871|191894290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7894||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of the proportion of responders on Day 29 who remained responders at Day 183 - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||0.7894
95961418|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
95961419|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
95961420|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
95961421|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
95961422|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
95961423|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
95961424|NCT02353871|191894291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0015||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (at rest)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0015
95961425|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
95961426|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
95961427|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
95961428|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
95961429|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||0.0008
95961430|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||0.0065
95961431|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0643||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0643
95961432|NCT02353871|191894292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of ILA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.3670
95841209|NCT01525615|191651139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.6549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.003||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.003|-0.002|0.6549
95961433|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
95961434|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
95961435|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
95961436|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
95961437|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - Dysport 50 U versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
95961438|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
95961439|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||0.0011
95961440|NCT02353871|191894293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0036||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of SSA - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||0.0036
95961441|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 8||||<0.0001
95961442|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 15||||<0.0001
95961443|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 29||||<0.0001
95961444|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 57||||<0.0001
95961445|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 85||||<0.0001
95961446|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 113||||<0.0001
95841210|NCT01525615|191651140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.224||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.224|0.116|<0.0001
95841211|NCT01525615|191651140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.239||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.239|0.129|<0.0001
95863753|NCT00029146|191685438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.7||||0.78||95.0|-10.4|13.8|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference. The 2-sided z-statistic was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.The study was terminated early for futility after 195 of the planned 372 participants were enrolled.||13.8|-10.4|0.78
95863754|NCT00029146|191685439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|3.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|16.1|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors.||16.1|-9.2|0.59
95863755|NCT00029146|191685440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-3.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||2.6|-9.0|0.27
95841212|NCT01525615|191651140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.04||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.040|-0.067|0.6105
95841213|NCT01525615|191651141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.300|0.192|<0.0001
95863756|NCT00029146|191685441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.2|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||5.2|-2.5|0.50
95863757|NCT00029146|191685442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||9.7|-1.2|0.13
95863758|NCT00029146|191685443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|6.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|19.6|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.|Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group|Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||19.6|-6.5|.33
95863759|NCT00029146|191685444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|-6.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Negative indicates lower rate in non-surgical group. In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-1 indicates a good outcome.|||7.3|-20.6|0.41
95863760|NCT00029146|191685445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|4.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9|||Fisher Exact||Positive indicates lower rate in surgical group In this case, lower rate is worse since Rankin 0-2 indicates a good outcome.|||16.9|-8.2|0.70
95863761|NCT00029146|191685446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.85
95863762|NCT00029146|191685447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative indicates lower score in non-surgical group.A higher score indicates better quality of life|||0.07|-0.54|0.13
95841214|NCT01525615|191651141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.328||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.328|0.218|<0.0001
95841215|NCT01525615|191651141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.027||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.027|-0.080|0.3236
95841216|NCT01525615|191651142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.305||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.305|0.196|<0.0001
95863763|NCT00029146|191685448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated 2 yr rates|1.5||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|13.7|||2-sided z-statistic|The difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference was compared to a standard unit normal distribution.||Rates for each group were based on product limit estimates of 2-year rates and their standard errors. The test statistic was calculated as the difference in estimated rates divided by the standard error of that difference.||13.7|-10.7|0.81
95863764|NCT04556383|191685450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||10.2|-15.2|0.6694
95863765|NCT04556383|191685450|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.4719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.8|-9.0|0.4719
95863766|NCT04556383|191685452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|8.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.3|-23.2|0.3263
95863767|NCT04556383|191685452|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.2||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||25.8|-6.1|0.2002
95863768|NCT04556383|191685453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.9|-15.2|0.9472
95863769|NCT04556383|191685453|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.4|-9.3|0.3685
95863770|NCT04556383|191685454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||15.2|-12.7|0.8484
95863771|NCT04556383|191685454|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||22.3|-6.4|0.2392
95863772|NCT04556383|191685455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||12.5|-14.8|0.8493
95863773|NCT04556383|191685455|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||16.5|-11.5|0.6647
95863774|NCT04556383|191685456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.0|-19.1|0.2263
95863775|NCT04556383|191685456|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|12.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.2|-14.8|0.8259
95863776|NCT04556383|191685457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||18.1|-12.7|0.7418
95863777|NCT04556383|191685457|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||24.2|-7.8|0.2758
95863778|NCT04556383|191685458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||8.9|-20.6|0.3504
95863779|NCT04556383|191685458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||17.5|-14.2|0.8009
95863780|NCT04556383|191685459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||13.7|-14.3|0.9474
95863781|NCT04556383|191685459|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.0||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||10.8|-16.6|0.6409
95863782|NCT04556383|191685460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|6.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg QD vs Placebo.|||6.3|-22.4|0.1932
95863783|NCT04556383|191685460|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.3||||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|12.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||PCP GB004 480 mg BID vs Placebo.|||12.9|-17.6|0.7459
95863784|NCT03567343|191685465|EQUIVALENCE|Significance set to 0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.1543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|0.82||The threshold for statistical significance was P\< 0.05.|Paired T-test|||||0.82|-5.03|0.1543
95863785|NCT03567343|191685465|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.24|||Paired T-test|||||1.24|-6.3|0.1827
95863786|NCT03567343|191685466|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.56|||Paired T-test|||||1.56|-1.96|0.8165
95863787|NCT03567343|191685466|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.58||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.94|||Paired T-test|||||3.94|-0.77|0.1821
95863788|NCT03567343|191685467|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.94||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|37.69|||Paired T-test|||||37.69|4.19|0.0156
95863789|NCT03567343|191685467|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|20.08||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|40.8|||Paired T-test|||||40.8|-0.64|0.0572
95863790|NCT03567343|191685468|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.48||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|0.41|||Paired T-test|||||0.41|-9.37|0.0781
95863791|NCT03567343|191685468|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|2.1|||Paired T-test|||||2.1|-8.1|0.242
95863792|NCT03567343|191685469|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|2.91||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.32|||Paired T-test|||||5.32|0.49|0.0195
95863793|NCT03567343|191685469|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|4.66||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.12|||Paired T-test|||||8.12|1.19|0.0097
95863794|NCT03567343|191685470|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.28|||Paired T-test|||||1.28|0.59|<0.0001
95863795|NCT03567343|191685470|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.81|||Paired T-test|||||0.81|0.08|0.0179
95863796|NCT03567343|191685471|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|3.83|||Paired T-test|||||3.83|-3.89|0.9875
95841217|NCT01525615|191651142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.202|0.312||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.312|0.202|<0.0001
95961447|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 148||||<0.0001
95961448|NCT02353871|191894294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical tests were two-sided with a type I error rate at 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Multivariate model, controlling for centre and stratification factors (i.e. gender and baseline ILA (maximum frown)) as fixed effects.||Comparison of subject's level of satisfaction - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo at Day 183||||<0.0001
95961449|NCT02353871|191894295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus Placebo||||<0.0001
95961450|NCT02353871|191894295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|Centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score used as covariates.||Comparison of time to onset of treatment response - BTX-A-HAC NG solution (50 U) versus placebo||||<0.0001
95961451|NCT03779334|191894336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial Test|Performance Criterion = 5%||||||<0.0001
95961452|NCT03912532|191894364|OTHER|The Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling (MCP-Mod) is a 2-stage procedure in which dose-response models are selected at the design stage. These candidate models are used for both dose-response testing (MCP step) and estimation (Mod step). The dose-response testing is performed using a multiple comparison method to account for the multiplicity issue associated with the multiple candidate models. Missing responses were imputed using multiple imputation under the assumption of missing at random.||||||0.5534|||||||Multiple comparison procedure step|||||||0.5534
95961453|NCT03381729|191894371|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|-6.0|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|22.8|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to stand alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 7 (13.7%) participants achieved the ability to stand alone and 44 (86.3%) participants did not achieve the ability to stand alone.|22.8|-21.8|>0.9999
95961454|NCT03381729|191894372|SUPERIORITY||Difference Between Least Squares Mean|5.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|9.0|||Mixed-Model Repeat Measure||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where the least squares mean (95% confidence interval) of the change from baseline in HFMSE scores at 12 months was 0.5 (-2.2 to 3.2).|9.0|1.9|0.0027
95961455|NCT03381729|191894374|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in the percentage of participants who achieved the ability to walk alone.|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 PubMed 25080519) where 5 (9.8%) participants achieved the ability to walk alone and 46 (90.2%) participants did not achieve the ability to walk alone.|27.0|-17.2|>0.9999
95961456|NCT01321073|191894377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sample exact test for Poisson rate|||The rate of catheter-related complications per 1000 patient-days was compared to a pre-specified value of 2.5 / 1000 days. This was calculated based on published complication rates in PAH that included central venous catheter systemic bloodstream infections (0.43-1.13), site infections (0.26-0.87), and complications from catheter thrombosis, mechanical dysfunction, or catheter dislocation in the general central venous catheter population (0.36-0.51). The sum of the upper rates is 2.5.||||<0.0001
95961457|NCT06552871|191894384|SUPERIORITY||Mixed effects GLM Coefficient|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Applied baseline-observation-carried-forward to evaluate change in Knowledge \& Capacity between pre- and post-intervention, accounting for organization membership.||||<0.001
95841218|NCT01525615|191651142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSMean Difference-Final Values|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.047||MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, test day, treatment by test day interaction, baseline, baseline by test day interaction, and patient as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Descriptive||||0.047|-0.060|0.8156
95863797|NCT03567343|191685471|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|5.82|||Paired T-test|||||5.82|-6.23|0.9463
95961458|NCT06552871|191894385|SUPERIORITY|Applied mixed effects GLM to estimate significant improvement in the outcome measure, while accounting for organization membership (nested participants).|Mixed effects GLM Coefficient|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Applied baseline-observation-carried-forward to evaluate change in Actions between pre- and post-intervention, accounting for organization membership.||||<0.01
95961459|NCT04633889|191894395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
95961460|NCT04789174|191894406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value calculated from LSMean|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95961461|NCT03522389|191894407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.003
95961462|NCT03522389|191894407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||<0.001
95961463|NCT03522389|191894407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95961464|NCT03522389|191894407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.006
95961465|NCT03522389|191894407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.793
95961466|NCT03522389|191894408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||<0.001
95961467|NCT03522389|191894408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.039
95961468|NCT03522389|191894408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95961469|NCT03522389|191894408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
95961470|NCT03522389|191894408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.117
95961471|NCT03522389|191894409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.924
95961472|NCT03522389|191894409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.855
95961473|NCT03522389|191894409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.937
95863798|NCT03567343|191685472|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|28.5||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|47.17|||Paired T-test|||||47.17|9.84|0.0037
95863799|NCT03567343|191685472|EQUIVALENCE|p\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|9.84||||0.4395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|35.31|||Paired T-test|||||35.31|-15.63|0.4395
95961474|NCT03522389|191894409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.970
95961475|NCT03522389|191894409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.242
95961476|NCT03522389|191894410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.161
95961477|NCT03522389|191894410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.161
95961478|NCT03522389|191894410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.076
95961479|NCT03522389|191894410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.211
95863800|NCT03567343|191685473|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.53|||Paired T-test|||||0.53|-0.59|0.912
95863801|NCT03567343|191685473|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.83|||Paired T-test|||||0.83|-1.04|.8207
95863802|NCT03567343|191685474|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|0.47|||Paired T-test|||||0.47|-2.26|0.1929
95863803|NCT03567343|191685474|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.8744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.86|||Paired T-test|||||2.86|-3.35|0.8744
95863804|NCT03567343|191685475|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.54|||Paired T-test|||||0.54|-2.45|0.2048
95841219|NCT00330759|191651188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A synthesis approach was used for a non-inferiority test of the hypothesis that denosumab preserves at least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0007||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy||||0.98|0.71|0.0007
95841220|NCT00330759|191651189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.06||95.0|0.71|0.98|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||0.98|0.71|0.060
95863805|NCT03567343|191685475|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.42|||Paired T-test|||||2.42|-0.5|0.1933
95863806|NCT03567343|191685476|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.13|||Paired T-test|||change in mean number of lapses||-0.13|-3.25|0.034
95863807|NCT03567343|191685476|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.5242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.71|||Paired T-test|||Change in number of lapses||1.71|-0.88|0.5242
95863808|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|6.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||6.25|-4.92|0.8106
95863809|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|3.87||||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|9.09|||Paired T-test|||POMS-TMD||9.09|-1.35|0.1427
95863810|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.21|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||1.21|-1.11|0.9344
95863811|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.69|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Tension||2.69|0.40|0.0092
95863812|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|2.12|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||2.12|-1.55|0.755
95863813|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.92|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Depression||1.92|-0.44|0.2131
95863814|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.43|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||2.43|-0.05|0.06
95863815|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.4117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.82|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Anger||0.82|-0.34|0.4117
95961480|NCT03522389|191894410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.573
95961481|NCT03522389|191894411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||After 4 weeks of training - Baseline (T2-T1)||||0.445
95961482|NCT03522389|191894411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANOVA|||1-month follow-up - Baseline (T3-T1)||||0.046
95961483|NCT03522389|191894411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95961484|NCT03522389|191894411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.028
95961485|NCT03522389|191894411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
95961486|NCT02473042|191894435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2787
95961487|NCT02473042|191894438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8252|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8252
95961488|NCT02473042|191894439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8277
95961489|NCT02473042|191894440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3908|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized)||||0.3908
95961490|NCT02473042|191894440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question||||0.6029
95961491|NCT02473042|191894440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7785|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question||||0.7785
95961492|NCT02473042|191894440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8434|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized)||||0.8434
95961493|NCT02473042|191894441|OTHER|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Coping question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2742
95961494|NCT02473042|191894441|OTHER|||||||0.2747|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Nausea question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.2747
95961495|NCT02473042|191894441|OTHER|||||||0.5608|||||||Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Pain question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.5608
95961496|NCT02473042|191894441|OTHER|||||||0.1014||||||There is no statistically significant association between expectancy and complete PONV control.|Chi-squared|||Response to ASES\_Recovery question (Re-categorized) and P6 stimulation outcome||||0.1014
95961497|NCT02242643|191894497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|Seroconversion rate (SCR) Difference (%)|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-2.27|||||For A/California/7/2009 (H1N1) vaccine strain.|||-2.27|-10.34|
95841221|NCT00330759|191651190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.145||95.0|0.77|1.04|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by tumor type, previous skeletal-related event, and systematic anti-cancer therapy|||1.04|0.77|0.145
95841222|NCT00797277|191651191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|There was no previous study comparing these 2 treatments. We hypothesized that the mean difference between the 2 treatments would be small.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||we hypothesized that there would be no statistical significant difference between the 2 groups in the primary outcome.||||<0.05
95841223|NCT04640311|191651214|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9699|1.09|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.090|0.9699|
95841224|NCT04640311|191651214|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9602|1.081|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.081|0.9602|
95841225|NCT04640311|191651215|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.083|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.083|0.9770|
95841226|NCT04640311|191651215|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9496|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8914|1.012|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.012|0.8914|
95841227|NCT04640311|191651215|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9533|1.07|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.070|0.9533|
95841228|NCT04640311|191651215|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9679|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9115|1.028|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.028|0.9115|
95841229|NCT04640311|191651215|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9511|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8948|1.011|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.011|0.8948|
95863816|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.73|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.73|-1.64|0.9548
95841230|NCT04640311|191651216|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.042|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9308|1.166|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 1 has been presented.|||1.166|0.9308|
95841231|NCT04640311|191651216|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9349|1.175|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat Process 1 to Process 2 Dissolution Profile 2 has been presented.|||1.175|0.9349|
95841232|NCT04640311|191651217|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8936|1.056|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 1 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.056|0.8936|
95841233|NCT04640311|191651217|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9006|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|1.0|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 2 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.000|0.8107|
95841234|NCT04640311|191651217|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8665|1.087|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 4 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.087|0.8665|
95841235|NCT04640311|191651217|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8778|1.066|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 6 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||1.066|0.8778|
95841236|NCT04640311|191651217|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% CI of ratio's of geometric means (geometric mean of Process 2/Process 1) falls within a range of 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric mean ratio|0.8606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.777|0.9532|||||Geometric mean ratio of Daprodustat 8 mg Process 2 to Process 1 has been presented.|||0.9532|0.7770|
95863817|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.79|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Fatigue||1.79|-0.83|0.4649
95863818|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.18|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.18|-0.65|0.5656
95863819|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.4307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.15|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Confusion||1.15|-0.5|0.4307
95863820|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|3.25|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||3.25|-0.92|0.2651
95841237|NCT03369418|191651242|SUPERIORITY|One tailed t-tests for independent groups were performed to test the hypothesis that active device will be superior to sham in decreasing the combined HAD score. This was accomplished by Contrast analysis within the framework of a random effects general linear mixed effects (RE GLMM) model.||||||0.013||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||.013
95863821|NCT03567343|191685477|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.5992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.53|||Paired T-test|||POMS-Vigor||1.53|-2.61|0.5992
95863822|NCT03567343|191685478|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.22|||Paired T-test|||||2.22|-1.48|0.6869
95863823|NCT03567343|191685478|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|3.43|||Paired T-test|||||3.43|-0.65|0.1769
95863824|NCT03567343|191685479|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.6422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.72|||Paired T-test|||||2.72|-1.69|0.6422
95841238|NCT03369418|191651243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.33
95841239|NCT02968368|191651244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.93|||ANCOVA|||||0.930|0.102|0.0149
95841240|NCT02968368|191651249|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.097||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.07|60.992|||ANCOVA|||||60.992|17.070|0.0006
95841241|NCT02968368|191651252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.928|7.001|||ANCOVA|||||7.001|1.928|0.0007
95863825|NCT03567343|191685479|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.4106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.16|||Paired T-test|||||2.16|-0.9|0.4106
95863826|NCT03567343|191685480|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.5672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Paired T-test|||||0.58|-1.05|0.5672
95863827|NCT03567343|191685480|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.99|||Paired T-test|||||0.99|-0.77|0.805
95863828|NCT03567343|191685481|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Median Difference (Net)|-43.09||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.43|12.26|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||12.26|-98.43|.1236
95863829|NCT03567343|191685481|EQUIVALENCE|P\<0.05|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.01||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|16.11|||Paired T-test|||Change in lapse time||16.11|-20.13|.8241
95863830|NCT01994889|191685482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||0.0006
95863831|NCT01994889|191685483|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.958|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.958|0.508|0.0259
95841242|NCT02968368|191651253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|3.261|||ANCOVA|||||3.261|0.457|0.0098
95841243|NCT02859246|191651256|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.04
95841244|NCT02859246|191651257|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.2||||||A two tail P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.2
95841245|NCT02524171|191651303|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841246|NCT02524171|191651303|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.88|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95841247|NCT02524171|191651304|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841248|NCT02524171|191651304|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95863832|NCT01994889|191685484|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6761|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5639|0.8107||Poisson regression analysis with treatment, TTR genotype, NYHA baseline classification, treatment-by-TTR genotype interaction, and treatment-by-NYHA baseline classification interaction terms as factors adjusted for treatment duration.|Poisson regression analysis|||||0.8107|0.5639|<0.0001
95863833|NCT01994889|191685485|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|75.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.56|93.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||L.S. means are from an ANCOVA (MMRM) model with an unstructured covariance matrix; center and participant within center as random effects; treatment, visit, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type), and visit by treatment interaction, as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||93.80|57.56|<.0001
95863834|NCT01994889|191685486|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|17.83|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Change at Month 30||17.83|9.48|<.0001
95863835|NCT01994889|191685487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.98|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, TTR genotype (variant and wild-type) and NYHA baseline classification (NYHA Classes I and II combined and NYHA Class III) in the model.|||0.980|0.488|0.0383
95863836|NCT01994889|191685488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95863837|NCT01510769|191685489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.23|-0.03|0.1298
95863838|NCT01510769|191685489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.42|0.17|<0.0001
95863839|NCT01510769|191685490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|-0.07|0.4453
95841249|NCT02524171|191651305|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|10.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841250|NCT02524171|191651305|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|14.64|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95841251|NCT02524171|191651306|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.45|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews||||||>0.05
95841252|NCT02524171|191651306|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|1.22|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95841253|NCT02524171|191651307|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841254|NCT02524171|191651307|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
95841255|NCT02524171|191651308|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6mo.(Beta value)|0.04|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841256|NCT02524171|191651308|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95841257|NCT02524171|191651309|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95863840|NCT01510769|191685490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.02|0.1149
95863841|NCT01510769|191685491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.10|0.6450
95841258|NCT02524171|191651309|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||<0.05
95841259|NCT02524171|191651310|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
95841260|NCT02524171|191651310|SUPERIORITY||Time x Condition at 6 mo.(Beta value)|0.06|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95863842|NCT01510769|191685491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06||||0.4118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4118
95863843|NCT01510769|191685492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.07|-0.24|0.3034
95863844|NCT01510769|191685492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.04|-0.34|0.0210
95961498|NCT02242643|191894497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|-2.8|||||For A/Texas/50/2012 (H3N2) vaccine strain|||-2.80|-10.68|
95841261|NCT02524171|191651311|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta|0.69|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95863845|NCT02874144|191685508|SUPERIORITY|intention-to-treat with participants analyzed according to a randomly assigned treatment group irrespective of compliance.|Slope|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|||We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time compare relative rate of change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) and within the to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only)..|For inflammatory mediator analyses, data were reported as mean (SEM) with statistical significance determined by Kruskal-Wallis test.|||<0.05
95841262|NCT02524171|191651311|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|-0.89|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95841263|NCT02524171|191651312|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841264|NCT02524171|191651312|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63)||||>0.05
95841265|NCT02524171|191651313|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|6.53|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841266|NCT02524171|191651313|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|5.68|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63||||>0.05
95841267|NCT02524171|191651314|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.83|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95863846|NCT02874144|191685508|SUPERIORITY|This was a superiority trial. We used repeated-measures linear regression using the mixed procedure to calculate means for each outcome by visits and treatment status. We used baseline scores to track change to follow-up scores and used a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) statistical approach to compare the change over time between scores within the treatment group (AZD1981 plus INCS) to scores within the placebo group (INCS treatment only).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||No, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|repeated-measures linear regression|We used repeated-measures linear regression using the MIXED procedure to calculate means (SEMS) for each outcome by visits and treatment status.|Our study did not include at relative risk.|The trial design is a continuous outcome superiority trial with primary efficacy outcome measures of change in Total Polyp Score (TPS) comparing AZD to placebo arm from V1 to V5. Total polyp score is a standardized method for assessing nasal polyp size by endoscopy, based on a scale of 1-4 per side. Inclusion criterion for this study is a TPS of ≥4 with a maximum of 8 and a standard deviation ± 2. A clinically meaningful effect is considered to be a decrease in total polyp score of 1.5.||||<0.05
95841268|NCT02524171|191651314|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta v|0.46|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.01
95841269|NCT02524171|191651315|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841270|NCT02524171|191651315|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)|-0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
95841271|NCT02524171|191651316|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841272|NCT02524171|191651316|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
95841273|NCT02524171|191651317|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||>0.05
95841274|NCT02524171|191651317|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|-0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||<0.05
95841275|NCT02524171|191651318|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.07|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||||||<0.05
95841276|NCT02524171|191651318|SUPERIORITY||Other[Time x Condition at 12 mo.(Beta)]|0.08|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for covariates (yielded estimated mean values of the outcome) and non-response weights based on completion of follow-up interviews.||Per protocol analysis, which included all UC participants (n=169) and only those in the MRT condition who had received the minimum recommended dose of the intervention - i.e., Step 3 or higher of MRT (n=63).||||>0.05
95841277|NCT01010971|191651325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.59|<0.0001
95841278|NCT01010971|191651325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.46|0.61|<0.0001
95841279|NCT01010971|191651326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.07|<0.0001
95841280|NCT01010971|191651326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.29|0.08|<0.0001
95863847|NCT01001325|191685527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in incidence of pandemic strain influenza infection for people given seasonal influenza vaccine compared to those given a placebo.~Power to detect a 2-fold difference if attack rate in non-vaccinated participants is 10%: 86%"||||0.685
95863848|NCT05477108|191685528|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.91. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1028 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|104.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.78|113.44|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||113.44|95.78|
95863849|NCT05477108|191685528|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.85. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0831 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.31|103.58|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||103.58|84.31|
95863850|NCT05477108|191685528|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.66. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0971 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.9|109.11|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||109.11|91.90|
95841281|NCT01010971|191651327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.71|-0.03|0.1444
95841282|NCT01010971|191651327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.89||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.89|0.15|0.0124
95841283|NCT01010971|191651328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.94||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.94|0.30|0.0124
95841284|NCT01010971|191651328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.95||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||0.95|0.33|
95841285|NCT02204072|191651399|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.7|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs Enzalutamide|||1.70|0.57|0.9549
95841286|NCT02204072|191651402|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.5425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.06|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzaludamide.|||2.06|0.68|0.5425
95841287|NCT02204072|191651403|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.5534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.9|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.90|0.71|0.5534
95863851|NCT05477108|191685528|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 42.66. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 73.29% to 136.44% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|103.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|112.6|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||112.60|94.44|
95841288|NCT02204072|191651404|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18|||Two-sided log-rank test.||Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio: Comparison vs. Enzalutamide.|||1.18|0.35|0.1514
95841289|NCT02204072|191651408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.579||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|12.515|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.||||12.515|0.269|0.6186
95841290|NCT02204072|191651410|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.891||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|5.059|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio, p-value and confidence interval were obtained from logistic regression model.|||5.059|0.727|0.1920
95841291|NCT02863328|191651449|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.4% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
95841292|NCT02863328|191651449|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.6|< 0.0001
95841293|NCT02863328|191651449|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
95863852|NCT05477108|191685528|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.75. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.24% to 134.70% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|102.26|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||102.26|85.29|
95961499|NCT02242643|191894497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.68|-12.02|||||For B/Massachusetts/2/2012 (Yamagata) vaccine strain|||-12.02|-20.68|
95961500|NCT02242643|191894497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in SCR (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group minus FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 10% for each of the four strains.|SCR Difference (%)|-11.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-8.21|||||For B/Brisbane/60/2008 (Victoria) vaccine strain.|||-8.21|-15.28|
95841294|NCT02863328|191651449|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
95841295|NCT02863328|191651450|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1|||=|0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.7593
95841296|NCT02863328|191651450|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4|||=|0.1358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Empagliflozin 25 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1358
95841297|NCT02863328|191651478|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.20|0.60|0.3552
95841298|NCT02863328|191651479|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Cox proportional hazards model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Empagliflozin 25 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.19|0.47|0.2250
95841299|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||2.12|1.03|
95841300|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.28|0.67|
95841301|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.96|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.96|0.97|
95841302|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.09|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||3.09|1.27|
95841303|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||1.37|0.63|
95841304|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.84|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.84|1.20|
95841305|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.85|0.96|
95841306|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.25|0.70|
95961501|NCT02242643|191894498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.95|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.95|0.77|
96001791|NCT01847547|191981192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|0.32|5.72|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and very few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||5.72|0.32|
95841307|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.72|0.91|
95841308|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.53|0.81|
95841309|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.37|0.49|
95841310|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.06|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||2.06|0.67|
95841311|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.78|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.78|1.33|
95841312|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.17|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.17|0.61|
95841313|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||2.32|1.13|
95841314|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.25|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||12|4.25|
95961502|NCT02242643|191894498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.94|0.77|
95841315|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.50|0.59|
95841316|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||11|4.03|
95841317|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.23|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||1.23|0.30|
95841318|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|10.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||10|2.96|
95841319|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.73|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||6.73|1.70|
95841320|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.54|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||5.54|1.20|
95841321|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.56|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.56|0.66|
95841322|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|7.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||7.11|1.57|
95841323|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.59|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||2.59|0.51|
95841324|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||6.12|1.40|
95841325|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|7.57|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||7.57|1.49|
95841326|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.18|0.23|
95841327|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||12|2.84|
95841328|NCT02451514|191651524|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||6.92|1.38|
95841329|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|16.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||16|4.41|
95841330|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||1.27|0.39|
95841331|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|11.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459.||11|3.14|
95841332|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|197.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|452.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||452|86|
95841333|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||2.07|0.47|
95841334|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.0|442.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364.||442|84|
95841335|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.27|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||6.27|1.96|
95841336|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||1.0|0.37|
95841337|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.85|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, NZ98/254.||3.85|1.23|
95841338|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||6.92|1.84|
95841339|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||1.29|0.40|
95841340|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.89|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, M10713.||4.89|1.33|
95961503|NCT02242643|191894498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.71|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.71|0.59|
95961504|NCT02242643|191894498|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion: The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Fluzone® Quadrivalent Group/FluLaval™ Quadrivalent Group) did not exceed 1.5 for each of the four strains.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.69|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|||0.69|0.56|
95841341|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.18|35.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||35|8.18|
95841342|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||1.53|0.41|
95841343|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|28.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, H44/76.||28|6.59|
95841344|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|160.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||160|34|
95841345|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||1.53|0.38|
95841346|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|121.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup B, 5/99.||121|27|
95841347|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.83|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||4.83|1.46|
95841348|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|6.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||12|3.96|
95863853|NCT05477108|191685528|EQUIVALENCE|For Cmax, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. The intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 40.81. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were within the expanded equivalence limits of 74.21% to 134.75% and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.44|108.71|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||108.71|91.44|
95841349|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|32.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup A.||32|10|
95841350|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.71|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||2.71|0.72|
95841351|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|37.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||37|12|
95841352|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|55.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup C.||55|15|
95841353|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||1.38|0.47|
95841354|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|31.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||31|12|
95841355|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.27|26.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup W.||26|9.27|
95841356|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.28|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||1.28|0.17|
95841357|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|48.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||48|8.20|
95841358|NCT02451514|191651528|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|9.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|22.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group Geometric Mean Ratios (GMRs) Against N. Meningitidis Serogroup Y.||22|3.78|
95841359|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.87|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M14459||0.87|0.28|
95841360|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis Serogroup B, M01-0240364||2.11|0.40|
95841361|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, NZ98/254||1.38|0.50|
95841362|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.44|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, M10713||1.44|0.44|
95841363|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.07|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, H44/76||1.07|0.34|
95841364|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup B, 5/99||1.12|0.52|
95841365|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|4.75|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup A||4.75|1.89|
95841366|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|7.31|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup C||7.31|3.01|
95841367|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|13.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup W||13|5.84|
95841368|NCT02451514|191651541|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|12.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen score method|||Between-group GMT ratios against N. meningitidis serogroup Y||12|3.96|
95841369|NCT01773187|191651550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.0003
95863854|NCT05477108|191685529|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 34.29. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0593 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.35|115.72|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.72|100.35|
95841370|NCT01773187|191651551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pre-specified||||0.2368
95841371|NCT00112125|191651552|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety analysis was a test of the non-inferiority of CCM therapy compared to OMT with respect to the proportion of subjects experiencing death or hospitalization within 50 weeks using the Blackwelder non-inferiority test12 with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.125.||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.31
95841372|NCT00112125|191651553|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority margin was selected to be 12.5% and α was set at .05, which resulted in a sample size of 198 subjects per group. A percentage of subjects (∼7%) were expected to be lost to followup, so that a total sample size of 428 subjects (214 per group) was selected.||||||0.125|||||||Blackwelder|||||||0.125
95841373|NCT00186901|191651558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||Baseline where N=134||||0.86
95841374|NCT00186901|191651558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||12 Month BMD Z-Score Calculation where N=109||||0.99
95841375|NCT00186901|191651558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||24 Month BMD Z-Score calculation where N=91||||0.54
95841376|NCT00186901|191651558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Test|||36 Month (End of Study) BMD Z-Score calculation where N=84||||0.31
95841377|NCT00186901|191651559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95841378|NCT00186901|191651560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0023
95841379|NCT00186901|191651561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0092||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0092
95841380|NCT00186901|191651562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Z-test|||275 received a QCT and 121 received a DXA scan. 121 paired scans were evaluated.||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
95841381|NCT00186901|191651563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Z-test|||218 patients were assessed at 12 months and received a QCT Scan. 94 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 94 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
95841382|NCT00186901|191651564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.66|||Z-test|||188 patients were assessed at baseline and received a QCT Scan. 90 patients were also assessed using the DEXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 90 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.66|0.36|<0.0001
95841383|NCT00186901|191651565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||Z-test|||180 patients were assessed at 36 months and received a QCT Scan. 89 patients were also assessed using the DXA Scan. Comparison of the two methods used 89 paired studies to arrive at a correlation coefficient.||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
95841384|NCT00186901|191651566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.40
95841385|NCT00186901|191651567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Kruskal Wallis|||||||0.21
95841386|NCT01052077|191651579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as convariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
95841387|NCT01052077|191651580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.26||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.26|-0.69|0.3778
95841388|NCT01052077|191651581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.24||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||-0.24|-2.38|0.0162
95841389|NCT01052077|191651581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.65||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||-0.65|-3.15|0.0031
95841390|NCT01052077|191651581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.58||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.58|-3.44|0.0061
95841391|NCT01052077|191651581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.72||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.72|-3.69|0.0038
95841392|NCT01052077|191651581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-0.32||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||-0.32|-3.32|0.0174
95841393|NCT01052077|191651581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.39||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.39|-2.75|0.1416
95841394|NCT01052077|191651582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.03||ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, is used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||0.03|-0.21|0.1481
95841395|NCT01052077|191651582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||0.01|-0.28|0.0691
95841396|NCT01052077|191651582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.0||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||-0.00|-0.35|0.0457
95841397|NCT01052077|191651582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.08||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||-0.08|-0.45|0.0061
95841398|NCT01052077|191651582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||0.01|-0.38|0.0572
95841399|NCT01052077|191651582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.1||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.10|-0.29|0.3318
95841400|NCT01052077|191651583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.6272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.69||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||1.69|-1.02|0.6272
95841401|NCT01052077|191651583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.54||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo||Week 10||1.54|-1.48|0.9697
95841402|NCT01052077|191651583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.44||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||1.44|-2.00|0.7490
95841403|NCT01052077|191651583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.81||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||1.81|-1.94|0.9459
95841404|NCT01052077|191651583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.88||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||1.88|-1.91|0.9893
95841405|NCT01052077|191651583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.17||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.17|-1.89|0.8918
95841406|NCT01052077|191651584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.57||ANCOVA model, with treatment and trial center as main effects and Week 8 value as covariate, was used for change from Week 8 comparisons.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||0.57|-1.71|0.3247
95841407|NCT01052077|191651585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5616||||||Cohran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 9||||0.5616
95841408|NCT01052077|191651585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 10||||0.1900
95841409|NCT01052077|191651585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0501||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 11||||0.0501
95841410|NCT01052077|191651585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 12||||0.0137
95841411|NCT01052077|191651585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0711||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 13||||0.0711
95863855|NCT05477108|191685529|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 86.08. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2925 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Ratio Mean (%)|112.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.27|136.49|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||136.49|92.27|
95863856|NCT05477108|191685529|EQUIVALENCE|For AUCinf, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 47.07. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.1250 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|112.15|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||112.15|91.76|
95863857|NCT05477108|191685530|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 35.68. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.0668 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|106.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.3|115.01|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||115.01|99.30|
95863858|NCT05477108|191685530|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 74.17. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2735 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|116.79|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||116.79|89.12|
95961505|NCT03306277|191894511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||This comparison is made to an assumed rate of zero 0 (or as low as 0.1%). By definition, children with spinal muscular atrophy Type 1 are never able to sit independently.||||<0.0001
95841412|NCT01052077|191651585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3438||||||CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||||0.3438
95863859|NCT05477108|191685530|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the intra-participant CV% in Treatment B (reference arm) was 66.88. An analysis was conducted based on the RSABE method for a partial-replicate 3-way cross-over design. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since criteria bound was -0.2210 (\<0) and point estimate for geometric mean ratio was within 80% and 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.91|122.36|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (US approach)||122.36|94.91|
95863860|NCT05477108|191685530|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean ratio (%)|106.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.39|114.41|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Budesonide Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||114.41|98.39|
95841413|NCT01052077|191651586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response rate|2.79||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||8.81|0.88|0.0679
95841414|NCT01052077|191651586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.78||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||3.14|1.01|0.0360
95841415|NCT01052077|191651586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.53||||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.35|0.99|0.0521
95841416|NCT01052077|191651586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.93||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||2.86|1.31|0.0008
95841417|NCT01052077|191651586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.64||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.38|1.14|0.0074
95841418|NCT01052077|191651586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 14||2.08|1.03|0.0339
95841419|NCT01052077|191651587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.27||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|9.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 9||9.30|0.55|0.2404
95841420|NCT01052077|191651587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.04||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 10||4.98|0.83|0.0983
95863861|NCT05477108|191685530|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.18|111.82|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Glycopyrronium Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||111.82|84.18|
95863862|NCT05477108|191685530|EQUIVALENCE|For AUClast, the analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded since the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|105.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.59|120.75|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as A/B.|Statistical Comparison of Key Formoterol Pharmacokinetic Parameters (EU approach)||120.75|92.59|
95863863|NCT03376295|191685544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model||The hazard ratio (HR) is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for moderate/severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.20|0.90|
95863864|NCT03376295|191685544|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.36|||Cox proportional hazards model||HR presented is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform for severe exacerbation that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.65|
95841421|NCT01052077|191651587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.67||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 11||2.82|0.99|0.0496
95841422|NCT01052077|191651587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|2.12||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 12||3.46|1.31|0.0019
95841423|NCT01052077|191651587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.77||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.||Week 13||2.67|1.17|0.0068
95841424|NCT01052077|191651587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.71||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.57||The CMH general association test controlling for trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||2.57|1.14|0.0089
95863865|NCT03376295|191685545|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.25|||Negative binomial model||The rate ratio (RR) (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Moderate/severe exacerbation||1.25|0.92|
95863866|NCT03376295|191685545|OTHER||Rate ratio (RR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.33|||Negative binomial model||The RR (LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination) is adjusted RR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score.|Severe exacerbation||1.33|0.55|
95863867|NCT03376295|191685546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an as-treated analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||1.05|0.42|
95863868|NCT03376295|191685546|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Cox proportional hazards model||The HR is adjusted HR after matching on high-dimensional propensity scores, sex and calendar time, adjusted further for the deciles of propensity score|The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to perform an on-treatment analysis that assesses the effect of current use of LABA-TIO combination versus the LABA-ICS combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.92|0.48|
95863869|NCT01330017|191685560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4912||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4912
95841425|NCT01052077|191651588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 9||2.18|0.70|0.4605
95863870|NCT01330017|191685560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4519||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4519
95841426|NCT01052077|191651588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.2||||0.3267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 10||1.72|0.83|0.3267
95863871|NCT01330017|191685560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2186||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2186
95841427|NCT01052077|191651588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.37||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 11||1.80|1.05|0.0230
95863872|NCT01330017|191685560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5983||95.0||||The p-value reflects mean change from baseline vs. placebo from an ANCOVA model with adjustments for baseline reflective score value, investigative site, age, and gender.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5983
95841428|NCT01052077|191651588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.36||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 12||1.71|1.08|0.0105
95841429|NCT01052077|191651588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center.||Week 13||1.58|1.01|0.0417
95863873|NCT00281658|191685588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94||Stratified Log-Rank (one-sided)|Log Rank||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Primary OS analysis cut-off date = 18-Jun-2010||0.94|0.58|0.0062
95863874|NCT00281658|191685589|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.98|||||The treatment hazard ratio based on the proportional hazard model stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|Final OS analysis cut-0ff date = 23-Nov-2021||0.98|0.64|
95841430|NCT01052077|191651588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.15||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44||CMH general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: brexpiprazole - placebo.||Week 14||1.44|0.91|0.2345
95841431|NCT02781610|191651592|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The ERR non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population for 93% power assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 155 PP participants per arm. Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||2.0|-3.3|0.0164
95841432|NCT02781610|191651593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.||The NERR superiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the Intent-to-Treat (ITT) population for 91% power to detect a 2.5% difference, assuming 2-sided alpha=0.05 with 285 ITT participants per arm. Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||1.1|-1.3|0.568
95841433|NCT02781610|191651594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||4.6|-2.4|0.546
95863875|NCT00281658|191685590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log rank test stratifying for metastatic disease sites and hormonal status. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with Lapatinib 1500mg + Paclitaxel compared with Placebo + Paclitaxel.|||0.66|0.44|
95863876|NCT00281658|191685591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.47||||||||3.47|1.54|
95863877|NCT00281658|191685592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.58||||||||3.58|1.54|
95841434|NCT02781610|191651595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.||0.5|-3.7|0.140
95841435|NCT02781610|191651596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between ERR treatment duration arms is ERR-10 - ERR-14.||0.77|-0.42|0.563
95863878|NCT00281658|191685597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.57||||||Participants with PIK3CA wild-type||7.57|1.07|
95863879|NCT00281658|191685598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.63||||||Participants with PTEN low||4.63|1.28|
95841436|NCT02781610|191651597|SUPERIORITY|Difference between NERR treatment duration arms is NERR-21 - NERR-14.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.04|0.083
95841437|NCT00870545|191651605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.003
95841438|NCT00870545|191651606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||.20
95841439|NCT00870545|191651607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in scores measured across three time points (baseline, 6 and 12 months)||||<.001
95841440|NCT00870545|191651608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, 12 months)||||.26
95863880|NCT00281658|191685598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|4.82||||||Participants without PTEN low||4.82|1.04|
95863881|NCT00281658|191685600|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|6.49||||||Participants with PTEN low||6.49|1.58|
95863882|NCT00281658|191685600|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.66||||||Participants without PTEN low||5.66|1.13|
95863883|NCT00730028|191685601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||5.1|-7.6|0.7688
95863884|NCT00730028|191685601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.1|-5.4|1.0000
95863885|NCT00730028|191685601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-5.6||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.6|-19.2|<0.0001
95841441|NCT00870545|191651609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in scores over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.04
95841442|NCT00870545|191651610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P values less than or equal to .05 were considered statistically significant, and those between .05 and .10 were considered to document trends that approached, but did not attain, statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was change in score over time (baseline, 6 months, and 12 months)||||.10
95841443|NCT00650845|191651621|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.7||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-7.9%; +6.7%\]||6.7|-7.9|
95841444|NCT00650845|191651622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.291
95841445|NCT00650845|191651623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that in both MRI groups approximately 12% of the patients would have an increase in serum creatinine of at least 25% with respect to baseline values after imaging procedures, 120 evaluable patients (2 x 60) were needed to ensure with 80% power, at 5% one-sided significance level, that the difference between the two MRI procedures was less than 15% which was the non-inferiority clinical limit of the difference established for this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|8.9||||||The clinical non-inferiority limit of (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was fixed at -15%. The exact 95%CI of the difference (non-enhanced - Dotarem®-enhanced) was \[-14.1%; +8.9%\]||8.9|-14.1|
95841446|NCT00650845|191651624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||Serum creatinine level fluctuation in terms of difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the serum creatinine changes from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.040
95841447|NCT00650845|191651625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.301
95841448|NCT00650845|191651626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value for main effect (difference between groups) adjusted on centers.|t-test, 2 sided|||eGFR fluctuation in terms of percentage and mean difference between baseline and 72 ±24hours after imaging procedure values was computed for both MRI procedures and compared between the 2 groups. A linear regression model was used to model the relative or absolute eGFR variation from baseline as a function of the MRI procedure with adjustment on centers.||||0.051
95841449|NCT00896298|191651682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2572
95841450|NCT00896298|191651683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.71
95841451|NCT00896298|191651684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.68
95863886|NCT00730028|191685601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-5.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.4|-19.1|0.0002
95841452|NCT00896298|191651685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
95841453|NCT00824473|191651686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|<|0.001||95.0|-2.12|-0.74|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.74|-2.12|<0.001
95841454|NCT00824473|191651687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1697|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.27|-0.94|<0.001
95841455|NCT00824473|191651688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3391|<|0.001||95.0|-2.06|-0.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Overall change from baseline||-0.73|-2.06|<0.001
95841456|NCT00824473|191651689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2741|<|0.001||95.0|-1.47|-0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||reflective TOSS change in baseline||-0.39|-1.47|<0.001
95841457|NCT00824473|191651690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||change from baseline||||0.010
95841458|NCT00123123|191651739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.675||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed effect model was used to compare overall treatment effects between groups for repeated measures data. The group comparison for each time point was performed using ANOVA.||||0.6750
95863887|NCT00730028|191685604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess at the Test of Cure (TOC) visit.||4.9|-10.2|0.5200
95841459|NCT01526213|191651745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean AUC Ratio (GFJ/mGFJ)|0.96||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||For juice comparisons, fexofenadine + furanocoumarin-free grapefruit juice will be the test agent (numerator) and fexofenadine + grapefruit juice will be the reference standard (denominator).||1.5|0.4|0.78
95841460|NCT04502290|191651746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the number of blocks after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
95841461|NCT04502290|191651747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the motor evoked potnetial after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.02
95841462|NCT04502290|191651748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was used, where null hypothesis stated that the percent change in the force after intervention will be not statistically significant.||||.04
95841463|NCT01290614|191651775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95841464|NCT01290614|191651776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95841465|NCT03259087|191651806|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.47|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.47|1.07|
95841466|NCT03259087|191651806|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|2.02|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.02|1.42|
95841467|NCT03259087|191651806|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|4.04|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.04|2.20|
95841468|NCT03259087|191651807|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.46|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.46|1.06|
95841469|NCT03259087|191651807|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|1.99|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.99|1.41|
95841470|NCT03259087|191651807|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.17|3.9|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.90|2.17|
95841471|NCT03259087|191651808|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.4|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.40|1.04|
95841472|NCT03259087|191651808|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.86|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.86|1.36|
95841473|NCT03259087|191651808|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.97|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||2.97|1.82|
95841474|NCT03259087|191651809|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.84|
95841475|NCT03259087|191651809|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.18|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.18|0.90|
95841476|NCT03259087|191651809|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.29|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.29|0.95|
95841477|NCT03259087|191651811|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.94|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.94|0.68|
95841478|NCT03259087|191651811|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.70|0.49|
95841479|NCT03259087|191651811|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.45|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.45|0.25|
95841480|NCT03259087|191651815|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|4.82|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.82|3.26|
95841481|NCT03259087|191651815|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.92|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.92|1.30|
95841482|NCT03259087|191651816|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.03|4.36|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||4.36|3.03|
95841483|NCT03259087|191651816|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.75|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.75|1.22|
95841484|NCT03259087|191651817|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.23|3.06|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||3.06|2.23|
95841485|NCT03259087|191651817|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.25|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.25|0.95|
95841486|NCT03259087|191651818|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.14|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.14|0.84|
95841487|NCT03259087|191651818|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
95841488|NCT03259087|191651819|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.16|0.85|
95841489|NCT03259087|191651819|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.2|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.20|0.75|
95841490|NCT03259087|191651820|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.31|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.31|0.21|
95841491|NCT03259087|191651820|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.77|0.52|
95841492|NCT03259087|191651824|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
95841493|NCT03259087|191651824|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
95841494|NCT03259087|191651824|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
95841495|NCT03259087|191651825|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.98|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.98|0.57|
95841496|NCT03259087|191651825|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.53|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.53|0.31|
95841497|NCT03259087|191651825|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.22|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.22|0.08|
95841498|NCT03259087|191651826|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||1.11|0.74|
95841499|NCT03259087|191651826|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.88|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.88|0.47|
95841500|NCT03259087|191651826|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.43|||||GMR is ratio of Experimental Group / Healthy Group|||0.43|0.21|
95841501|NCT01379183|191651843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95841502|NCT01379183|191651844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
95841503|NCT01379183|191651845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.96
95841504|NCT01379183|191651846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.71
95841505|NCT01379183|191651847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
95841506|NCT01379183|191651848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
95841507|NCT02888106|191651873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Fisher Exact|||The proportions of negative HDV RNA response at week 72 in each of the MXB treatment groups were compared with the control group of PEG-IFNα by using Fisher's exact test and by presenting exact unconditional 95%-confidence intervals (CI) based on scores for the proportion differences.||||0.0022
95841508|NCT02888106|191651873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0996|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0996
95841509|NCT02888106|191651873|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95841510|NCT02888106|191651873|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95841511|NCT02888106|191651873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0421
95841512|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
95841513|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0052
95841514|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841515|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0017
95841516|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.3295
95841517|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
95841518|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0001
95841519|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841520|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0007
95841521|NCT02888106|191651874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1086|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1086
95841522|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841523|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
95841524|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0002
95841525|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
95841526|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0007
95841527|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841528|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4497|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4497
95841529|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
95841530|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841531|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
95841532|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0743|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0743
95841533|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 72||||0.3449
95841534|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.6036
95841535|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
95841536|NCT02888106|191651875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3408|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.3408
95841537|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841538|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.2241
95841539|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
95841540|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
95841541|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4828
95841542|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
95841543|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1686|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.1686
95841544|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841545|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.5977
95841546|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841547|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.0063
95841548|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
95841549|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
95841550|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
95841551|NCT02888106|191651876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
95841552|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0801
95841553|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841554|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841555|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841556|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841557|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0063
95841558|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.2241
95841559|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841560|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0169|||||||Regression, Cox|||Week 72||||0.0169
95863888|NCT00730028|191685604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.7||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||5.7|-8.4|0.7324
95863889|NCT00730028|191685604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-6.4||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-6.4|-22.0|0.0001
95863890|NCT00730028|191685604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-5.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were made using a Bonferroni correction.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Primary null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess at the TOC visit.||-5.0|-20.8|0.0008
95863891|NCT00730028|191685605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.3||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||5.3|-7.1|0.7707
95841561|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
95841562|NCT02888106|191651877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.4828
95841563|NCT02888106|191651878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4828|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.4828
95841564|NCT02888106|191651878|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95863892|NCT00730028|191685605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.5|-2.0|0.2141
95863893|NCT00730028|191685605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.5||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.5|-12.4|0.0593
95863894|NCT00730028|191685605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.1|-15.3|0.0017
95728605|NCT03294538|191426457|SUPERIORITY|The proportion of participants considered as Treatment Success in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group were each compared to the proportion of Treatment Success in the vehicle vaginal cream group. If both the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group demonstrated a statistically significant greater proportion of Treatment Success than the vehicle vaginal cream group, then superiority was concluded.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.4949|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group to the vehicle vaginal cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the mITT population.||||0.4949
95841565|NCT02888106|191651878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2292|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.2292
95841566|NCT02888106|191651878|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
95841567|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
95863895|NCT00730028|191685606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.8|-13.1|0.1381
95863896|NCT00730028|191685606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||8.2|-6.4|0.8302
95841568|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841569|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||1.0000
95841570|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4621|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.4621
95841571|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24||||0.0253
95841572|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0268
95841573|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.6999
95841574|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||1.0000
95841575|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0656|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0656
95841576|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 48||||0.0005
95841577|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1431|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.1431
95841578|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
95841579|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
95841580|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||1.0000
95841581|NCT02888106|191651879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7104|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 72||||0.7104
95841582|NCT02714569|191651887|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Square Means Percentage|204.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.9|259.0|||||Analysis was the estimate of the ratio fasted versus fed.|Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 Cmax at 30 mg||259.0|161.9|
95841583|NCT02714569|191651889|NON_INFERIORITY|Analyses were based on a pre-defined non-inferiority margin|Least Squares Mean Percentage|193.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.7|258.2||||||Geometric Mean Fed/Fasted Ratio of LY3202328 AUC(0-inf) at 30 mg||258.2|144.7|
95841584|NCT02714569|191651901|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|141.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.9|293.0||||||Part B Placebo||293.0|67.9|
95961506|NCT03306277|191894512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||This comparison is made against the results from the age and gender-matched control participants selected from existing natural history data sets (PNCR) \[Neurol. 2014; 83(9):810-817\].|Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al,2014 - PubMed 25080519) where event-free survival was 6 out of 23 participants (26.1%) at 14 months of age.|||<0.0001
95961507|NCT01871038|191894524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.68|||||Conditional logistic regression was used for matched analyses. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \* 100|||0.68|0.14|
95841585|NCT02714569|191651901|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|70.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|157.1||||||Part B 5 mg LY||157.1|31.9|
95841586|NCT02714569|191651901|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|109.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|119.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||119.5|99.8|
95841587|NCT02714569|191651901|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|107.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|170.4||||||Part B 100 mg LY||170.4|68.1|
95841588|NCT02714569|191651901|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|213.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|200.3|227.1||||||Part B 300 mg LY||227.1|200.3|
95841589|NCT02714569|191651901|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|115.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|146.2||||||Part B Overall||146.2|91.2|
95841590|NCT02714569|191651902|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|155.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|274.2||||||Part B Placebo||274.2|87.6|
95841591|NCT02714569|191651902|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|71.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.7|125.3||||||Part B 5 mg LY||125.3|40.7|
95841592|NCT02714569|191651902|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratios (%)|122.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|165.1||||||Part B 20 mg LY||165.1|90.7|
95841593|NCT02714569|191651902|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|136.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.8|207.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||207.7|89.8|
95841594|NCT02714569|191651902|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|132.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|194.4||||||Part B 300 mg LY||194.4|90.5|
95841595|NCT02714569|191651902|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.2|135.1||||||Part B Overall||135.1|93.2|
95841596|NCT02714569|191651903|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|117.8||||||Part B Placebo||117.8|80.4|
95841597|NCT02714569|191651903|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|57.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.3|106.0||||||||106.0|31.3|
95841598|NCT02714569|191651903|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|138.7||||||Part B 20 mg LY||138.7|66.8|
95841599|NCT02714569|191651903|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.8|142.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||142.7|45.8|
95841600|NCT02714569|191651903|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|108.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.2|291.2||||||Part B 300 mg LY||291.2|40.2|
95841601|NCT02714569|191651903|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|114.7||||||Part B Overall||114.7|67.4|
95841602|NCT02714569|191651904|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|102.1||||||Part B Placebo||102.1|90.2|
95841603|NCT02714569|191651904|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.8|137.6||||||Part B 5 mg LY||137.6|59.8|
95841604|NCT02714569|191651904|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|131.5||||||Part B 20 mg LY||131.5|75.9|
95841605|NCT02714569|191651904|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio (%)|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.5|122.7||||||Part B 100 mg LY||122.7|67.5|
95841606|NCT02714569|191651904|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis testing|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|180.5||||||Part B 300 mg LY||180.5|42.0|
95841607|NCT02714569|191651904|OTHER|Ratio estimate without hypothesis|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|93.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|106.9||||||Part B Overall||106.9|81.8|
95841608|NCT02915978|191651906|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|0.0|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.00|-3.61|0.0505
95841609|NCT02915978|191651906|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.77|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 1 hour||0.77|-2.89|0.2493
95841610|NCT02915978|191651906|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.94|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||-0.94|-4.95|0.0052
95728606|NCT02833415|191426471|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.9398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.0053
95841611|NCT02915978|191651906|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.29|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 16 hours||0.29|-3.62|0.0926
95961508|NCT01871038|191894524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.13|||||Conditional logistic regression was used for matched analyses. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \* 100|||1.13|0.15|
95961509|NCT01871038|191894526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.41|||||Multivariable logistic regression including month and year of birth and month and year of symptom onset as covariates was used for unmatched analyses. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \* 100.|||0.41|0.08|
95961510|NCT01871038|191894526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.87|||||Multivariable logistic regression including month and year of birth and month and year of symptom onset as covariates was used for unmatched analyses. Adjusted VE = (1 - adjusted OR) \* 100.|||0.87|0.06|
95961511|NCT03370393|191894588|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way repeated measures analysis. If the group\*time interaction is positive, then the groups differ with respect to intervention effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.003|||||||Wilk's Lambda|||||||0.003
95841612|NCT02915978|191651906|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||0.26|-3.06|0.0951
95841613|NCT02915978|191651906|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.63|||ANCOVA|||NRS PID at 24 hours||1.63|-1.60|0.9866
95841614|NCT03559933|191651924|SUPERIORITY||Logistic regression model|95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.15|96.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject was accounted for.||The proportion of successful capture was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model accounting for subject and stimulation within subject as random effects with multiple observations per subject. The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the 98.75% two-sided confidence interval for the estimated percent diaphragm capture rate to the performance goal of 80%. If the lower bound was greater than 80%, the null hypothesis was rejected, and the endpoint was considered met.||96.66|93.15|0.0125
95841615|NCT02119663|191651935|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.83||||||||2.830|0.886|
95841616|NCT00892775|191651941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.76||||||||1.76|-2.29|
95841617|NCT00892775|191651941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|5.58||||||||5.58|-6.14|
95841618|NCT00892775|191651941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.08||||||||2.08|-1.78|
95841619|NCT00892775|191651941|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella 42-56 days after vaccination was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|4.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|10.34||||||||10.34|0.72|
95841620|NCT00286429|191651965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.72|<0.001
95855307|NCT01383356|191670260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|The two formulations are shown to be bioequivalent if the 90 percent confidence interval of geometric mean ratio is entirely contained within the 80 to125 percent range both on measured data (statistical analysis 1) and potency corrected data (percent potency of label claim) (statistical analysis 2). ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
95855308|NCT01383356|191670260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs.Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-t and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
95855309|NCT01383356|191670261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence (BE), AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|Geometric mean ratio (percent)|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|108.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction.||108|101|
95855310|NCT01383356|191670261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE, AUC0-inf was no BE criteria|GMR, potency corrected (percent)|108.0||||||90.0|105.0|112.0|||||Lina/Met 2.5mg/500mg vs. Lina 2.5mg plus Met 500mg.|ANOVA was applied to log-transformed AUC0-inf and included study, subject-within-study, period-within-study, treatment and study-by-treatment interaction. Results were potency corrected (GMR multiplied by the quotient of DP of Met in single tablet and DP of Met in combination tablet).||112|105|
95855311|NCT01524796|191670269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95855312|NCT01524796|191670270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95855313|NCT01524796|191670271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95855314|NCT00129402|191670297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95855315|NCT00129402|191670298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95855316|NCT00129402|191670299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95855317|NCT00129402|191670300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48||95.0|||||non-parametric model|||||||.48
95855318|NCT00129402|191670301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95855319|NCT00129402|191670302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.95
95841621|NCT00286429|191651965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26. For comparison of either alogliptin dose vs. placebo (2-sample t test), study sample size \>=390 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming a standard deviation of 0.8%, a 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting the per protocol criteria.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
95841622|NCT00286429|191651966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
95728607|NCT02833415|191426471|OTHER|Differences of Least Squares Means|Differences of Least Squares Means|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2424||0.5394|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Followup||||0.5394
95841623|NCT00286429|191651966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.20|-0.45|<0.001
95841624|NCT00286429|191651967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.31||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.31|-0.65|<0.001
95863897|NCT00730028|191685606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||1.1|-14.3|0.0838
95961512|NCT03370393|191894589|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way repeated measures analysis. If the group\*time interaction is positive, then the groups differ with respect to intervention effects.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.566||||0.45|||||||Wilk's Lambda|||||||0.45
95961513|NCT01867047|191894593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for intraoperative mild hypotension||||0.140
95961514|NCT01867047|191894593|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis for postoperative mild hypotension||||1.000
95961515|NCT01867047|191894595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis for number of participants given vasopressors intraoperatively||||0.102
95961516|NCT01867047|191894598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.700
95961517|NCT01867047|191894599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.702
95961518|NCT05224843|191894690|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.8||||||||88.8|73.7|
95961519|NCT05224843|191894691|OTHER||Percentage of enrolled from eligible|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0||||||||100|95.4|
95961520|NCT05224843|191894693|OTHER||Percentage screened positive for EM|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.4||||||||15.4|3.5|
95961521|NCT05224843|191894695|OTHER||Percentage who changed after BNI|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|69.9||||||||69.9|4.6|
95961522|NCT05224843|191894696|OTHER||Percentage reported APS from EM positive|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|62.4||||||||62.4|3.6|
95961523|NCT03121820|191894700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|93.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|99.77|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||99.77|88.25|0.05
95728608|NCT00449072|191426472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (LS Mean)|-0.45||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|The treatment arm, age group (at Visit 1) and sex were fixed effects, and baseline growth velocity was a covariate in the ANCOVA model||||-0.11|-0.78|0.0096
95961524|NCT03121820|191894701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was conducted using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including fixed effects for treatment, sequence, period and subject within sequence. All pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed prior to analysis. Bioequivalence was concluded, when the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric mean ratios were fully contained within the predefined equivalence limits of 80.00 % to 125.00 %|Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|92.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|98.55|||Test/Ref Geometric mean ratio x 100|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80.00 % -125.00 %.||Memantinol 20 mg Tablets Versus Akatinol Memantine® 20 mg||98.55|86.37|0.05
95841625|NCT00286429|191651967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.39||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.39|-0.73|<0.001
95841626|NCT00286429|191651968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.77|<0.001
95841627|NCT00286429|191651968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.34|-0.75|<0.001
95841628|NCT00286429|191651969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.79|<0.001
95841629|NCT00286429|191651969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.33|-0.75|<0.001
95841630|NCT00286429|191651970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.37|-0.80|<0.001
95841631|NCT00286429|191651970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.35||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and HbA1c).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-0.35|-0.79|<0.001
95841632|NCT00286429|191651971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||3.3|-25.9|0.128
95863898|NCT00730028|191685606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||0.2|-15.2|0.0507
95863899|NCT00730028|191685607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|1.9||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||1.9|-13.3|0.1505
95961525|NCT01245140|191894707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5731||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9738|32.12|||ANCOVA|||||32.1200|-30.9738|0.9705
95961526|NCT01245140|191894708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4564||95.0||||PPPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4564
95961527|NCT01245140|191894708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6595||95.0||||PPPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6595
95841633|NCT00286429|191651971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-1.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 1. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.2|-31.1|0.034
95841634|NCT00286429|191651972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||9.7|-17.9|0.563
95841635|NCT00286429|191651972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 2. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.7|-26.4|0.084
95841636|NCT00286429|191651973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-24.7|0.160
95855320|NCT01436149|191670366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||2.0|-1.7|0.883
95855321|NCT01436149|191670367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0|||Mixed- effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.0|-1.8|0.576
95855322|NCT00894803|191670387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|an exact logistic regression was used due to the number of events|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
95855323|NCT00894803|191670388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.31|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.31|0.70|0.23
95855324|NCT00894803|191670388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS score and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.71|0.51|0.53
95855325|NCT00894803|191670390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||1.40|0.01|0.053
95855326|NCT00894803|191670391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.76||95.0|0.35|8.02|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||8.02|0.35|0.76
95855327|NCT00894803|191670392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to small number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
95855328|NCT00894803|191670393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.92|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.92|0.24|0.99999
95855329|NCT00894803|191670394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.76|||Regression, Logistic|Exact methods used due t number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.76|0.38|0.78
95855330|NCT00894803|191670395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.18|||Regression, Logistic|Exact method used due to number of responses|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.18|0.26|0.99999
95855331|NCT00894803|191670396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.67|0.63|0.35
95855332|NCT00894803|191670396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.02|0.40|0.85
95855333|NCT00894803|191670397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.88|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.88|0.65|0.30
95855334|NCT00894803|191670397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||3.24|0.44|0.73
95855335|NCT00894803|191670398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.99|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.99|0.61|0.31
95863900|NCT00730028|191685607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.2|-10.9|0.1666
95841637|NCT00286429|191651973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-2.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-2.8|-32.1|0.020
95961528|NCT01245140|191894710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||Change in Total Pustule Count: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.51
95841638|NCT00286429|191651974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-4.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.0|-33.7|0.013
95841639|NCT00286429|191651974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.5|-34.5|0.011
95841640|NCT00286429|191651975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|11.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.3|-18.9|0.624
95841641|NCT00286429|191651975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||13.8|-16.7|0.853
95841642|NCT00286429|191651976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.9|-24.7|0.190
95863901|NCT00730028|191685607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-8.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-8.0|-23.0|<0.0001
95863902|NCT00730028|191685607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.2||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-3.2|-19.0|0.0046
95863903|NCT00730028|191685608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: Clindamycin and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of cellulitis/larger abscess.||2.8|-13.6|0.1815
95961529|NCT01245140|191894711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Relative change in mPASI score: BL to Last Visit|Wilcoxon test: Exact Test|||||||0.12
95961530|NCT01245140|191894712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squared estimation|49.4927||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.083|148.07|||ANCOVA|||||148.07|-49.0830|0.2358
95728609|NCT00449072|191426473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|||0.58|-0.83|0.7341
95961531|NCT01245140|191894713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 50 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
95961532|NCT01245140|191894713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667||95.0||||mPASI 75 response|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1667
95841643|NCT00286429|191651976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|4.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 16. The treatment effect was be evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.1|-25.8|0.154
95841644|NCT00286429|191651977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|2.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||2.3|-27.8|0.097
95841645|NCT00286429|191651977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-4.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-4.7|-35.1|0.010
95841646|NCT00286429|191651978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.2|-19.2|0.662
95841647|NCT00286429|191651978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-1.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and FPG).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||-1.7|-33.4|0.030
95841648|NCT00286429|191651979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.551||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.063||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.063|0.286|0.075
95841649|NCT00286429|191651979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.364||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.695||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants with marked hyperglycemia. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.695|0.191|0.002
95841650|NCT00286429|191651980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.619||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo arm. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.619|0.198|<0.001
95855336|NCT00894803|191670399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||4.07|0.47|0.55
95855337|NCT00894803|191670400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.67|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||2.67|0.46|0.82
95855338|NCT00894803|191670401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.64|||Regression, Logistic||Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||6.64|0.90|0.07
95855339|NCT00894803|191670401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and time to IV rt-PA|Arm 2 (rt-PA and Eptifibitide) represents the numerator, Arm 1 (rt-PA only) the denominator|||5.88|0.67|0.22
95855340|NCT00940771|191670408|OTHER|Friedman's Test|Chi Square|12.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom.||||||.006
95728610|NCT00449072|191426474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differerence|-0.15||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in nasal stuffiness||0.08|-0.37|0.1963
95841651|NCT00286429|191651980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.339|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.608||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in number of participants requiring rescue. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.608|0.189|<0.001
95841652|NCT00286429|191651981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.443||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.443|-0.131|0.286
95841653|NCT00286429|191651981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.477||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.765||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 4. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.765|0.188|0.001
95841654|NCT00286429|191651982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.536||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.536|-0.132|0.236
95841655|NCT00286429|191651982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.372||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.712||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-Peptide at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.712|0.032|0.032
95841656|NCT00286429|191651983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.554||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.554|-0.302|0.562
95841657|NCT00286429|191651983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.616||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.616|-0.251|0.407
95855341|NCT00940771|191670408|OTHER|Post Hoc testing Post hoc Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|Z=-2.701||Nul lHypothesis that there is no difference between specific time points.||||.007
95855342|NCT00940771|191670409|OTHER|Friedman's test with 3 df||||||0.356|||||||Friedman's Test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.356
95855343|NCT00940771|191670410|OTHER||Chi-square|1.0||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom|1.0 is the actual calculated Chi-X value, not the p value.|The null hypothesis was that there was a difference. We were looking for no difference between before and after switch.||||.801
95855344|NCT00940771|191670411|OTHER|Friedman's test||||||0.075||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05|Friedman's test|3 degrees of freedom||||||.075
95855345|NCT02667119|191670441|SUPERIORITY||F|4.75||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline scores on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||Compared the two groups at 3 months post-baseline||||.041
95855346|NCT02667119|191670442|SUPERIORITY||F|6.89||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlled for baseline score on the National Stressful Events PTSD Scale||||||.016
95855347|NCT02667119|191670443|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.19||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.04
95855348|NCT02667119|191670444|SUPERIORITY||F|2.25||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale|ANCOVA|||||||.148
95855349|NCT02667119|191670445|SUPERIORITY||F|4.64||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed Mood scale||||||.043
95855350|NCT02667119|191670446|SUPERIORITY||F|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale|ANCOVA|||||||.250
95855351|NCT02667119|191670447|SUPERIORITY||F|0.45||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline score on the Quality of Life Scale||||||.508
95841658|NCT00286429|191651984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.344|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.500|-0.344|0.716
95841659|NCT00286429|191651984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.583||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 16. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.583|-0.272|0.474
95841660|NCT00286429|191651985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.482||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.482|-0.324|0.700
95841661|NCT00286429|191651985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.45||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.450|-0.366|0.839
95841662|NCT00286429|191651986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.610|-0.045|0.091
95841663|NCT00286429|191651986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.457||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and C-peptide).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in C-peptide at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.457|-0.207|0.459
95841664|NCT00286429|191651988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.65||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|100.682||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||100.682|1.589|0.016
95841665|NCT00286429|191651988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.255||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|90.379||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level||90.379|1.401|0.023
95841666|NCT00286429|191651989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.777|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.047|16.305||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||16.305|2.047|<0.001
95863904|NCT00730028|191685608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.1||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of TMP-SMX minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||2.1|-13.2|0.1552
95961533|NCT03118050|191894732|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest.|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95961534|NCT03118050|191894733|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of bed rest|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95863905|NCT00730028|191685608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.8||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus Clindamycin.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-7.8|-24.0|<0.0001
95841667|NCT00286429|191651989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|27.039||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c ≤7.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||27.039|3.540|<0.001
95841668|NCT00286429|191651990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.674|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.579|4.53||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.530|1.579|<0.001
95841669|NCT00286429|191651990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.819|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.653|4.808||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥0.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||4.808|1.653|<0.001
95841670|NCT00286429|191651991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|6.06||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||6.060|1.651|<0.001
95841671|NCT00286429|191651991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.989|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|7.64||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.0%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||7.640|2.083|<0.001
95841672|NCT00286429|191651992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.732|11.953||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||11.953|1.732|0.002
95841673|NCT00286429|191651992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|12.052||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin regimen, baseline insulin dose, and baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|The null hypothesis that there is no treatment effect between alogliptin and placebo arms in incidence of HbA1c decrease from baseline ≥1.5%. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a Wald test at the 0.05 significance level.||12.052|1.740|0.002
95841674|NCT00286429|191651994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.24|-0.81|0.291
95863906|NCT00730028|191685608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-2.0||Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made for secondary efficacy outcome measures.|Fisher Exact||The mean difference is determined by the cure rate of Placebo minus TMP-SMX.|Null hypothesis: After successful surgical drainage, placebo, Clindamycin, and TMP-SMX have equal rates of cure in the treatment of limited abscess.||-2.0|-18.7|0.0145
95728611|NCT00449072|191426474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Discharge||0.17|-0.24|0.7193
95863907|NCT01425463|191685609|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the investigational drug (Ferrous (II) Glycine Sulphate Complex) to the reference drug (Polyferose) was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval was greater than -7.0 g/L.|LS-Mean of ANCOVA|-2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|4.09||||||||4.09|-8.47|
95841675|NCT00286429|191651994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 8. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.32|-0.74|0.439
95841676|NCT00286429|191651995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.55|-0.67|0.841
95841677|NCT00286429|191651995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 12. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.43|-0.80|0.556
95841678|NCT00286429|191651996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.46|-0.81|0.586
95841679|NCT00286429|191651996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.37||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 20. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.37|-0.91|0.404
95863908|NCT02558829|191685637|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome positive; C = MAC outcome negative and ITT positive|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|74.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.84|83.78||||||The estimated percentages of the agreements and the two-sided 95% confidence interval (or one-sided 97.5% confidence interval) of the percent agreement based on Clopper-Pearson are presented. The performance of the MAC (cut-off point 2.8 ng/mL) was considered to be acceptable if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI (or lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% CI) was 75% or higher for 'percent negative agreement', and 70% or higher for the 'percent positive agreement'.||83.78|62.84|
95961535|NCT05274750|191894736|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
95961536|NCT05274750|191894737|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.23||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.46|0.047
95961537|NCT05274750|191894738|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5 percent (%) reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.02|-0.46|0.074
95961538|NCT05274750|191894739|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.19||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.00|-0.39|0.055
95863909|NCT02558829|191685637|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = MAC outcome negative and ITT outcome negative; B = MAC outcome positive and ITT outcome negative|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|93.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.2|98.32||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1.||98.32|85.20|
95863910|NCT02558829|191685638|OTHER|The secondary diagnostic accuracy measure was 'percent overall agreement'.|overall agreement|83.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.38|89.29||||||This variable was analyzed using the same methodology described for the analyses for the primary efficacy variables. in the below, the results for Step 1 (peak GH level among all post baseline samples) are presented.||89.29|76.38|
95863911|NCT02558829|191685640|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Pre/post dose comparison of ECGs was done for both GHSTs. During the GHSTs, ECGs were measured at pre-dose (up to 15 min before) and 60 minutes post-dose. Furthermore, ECGs were measured at screening and at End-of-Study (EOS) Visit.~Calculations were done from two time points: baseline and 60 min post-dose. Baseline is either the screening or pre-dose value."||||
95863912|NCT02558829|191685640|OTHER|Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this secondary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.15|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95863913|NCT02558829|191685641|OTHER|Sensitivity is the probability that the test result is positive given the subject has the disease (for the purpose of this analysis, all group A subjects were assumed to have AGHD, but none of the group D subjects). Sensitivity (SS) was estimated by: SS = TP/(TP+FN). TP=True AGHD positive subject; FN=False AGHD negative subject.|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||Sensitivity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||0.96|0.72|
95863914|NCT02558829|191685641|OTHER|"Specificity is the probability that the test result is negative given the subject does not have the disease.~Specificity (SP) was estimated by: SP = TN/(TN+FP). TN = True AGHD negative Subjects; FP = False AGHD positive subjects."|CI (Clopper Pearson)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||||||Specificity was estimated for the MAC at the pre-defined cut-off point GH: 2.8 ng/mL.||1.00|0.80|
95863915|NCT02558829|191685642|OTHER|Positive percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x A/(A+C). A= test outcome positive for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension; C = test outcome positive for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension.|CI (Clopper Pearson): positive agreement|88.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.29|98.62||||||Please refer to Statistical Analysis 1 for this outcome.||98.62|65.29|
95961539|NCT05274750|191894740|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.8|-3.3|0.002
95961540|NCT05274750|191894741|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||1.6|-15.2|0.113
95961541|NCT05274750|191894742|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.17||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.03|-0.37|0.094
95961542|NCT05274750|191894743|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95863916|NCT02558829|191685642|OTHER|Negative percent agreement \[%\] = 100% x D/(B+D). D = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and negative for MAC repeatability extension; B = test outcome negative for MAC core study part and positive for MAC repeatability extension|CI (Clopper Pearson): negative agreement|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.41|100.0||||||Amendment no 1 had been issued for selected sites in Europe to obtain exploratory data on the repeatability of the MAC in a subset of subjects that had completed the core study.||100.00|79.41|
95863917|NCT00538785|191685674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|1.586|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.586|0.344|
95863918|NCT00538785|191685675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|1.989|||Guess method|Exact conditional binomial method conditioning on the total number of cases with mid-probability adjustment||Relative risk and confidence interval adjusted for the stratification factor of CHD stratum (cyanotic or other) specified on the CRF||1.989|0.101|
95863919|NCT03495856|191685734|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05. That calculated p-value in the statistical hypothesis test was equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.00|-1.55|0.05
95863920|NCT03495856|191685735|OTHER|within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-0.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.71|-6.63|0.017
95728612|NCT00449072|191426474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.29|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Sneezing||0.29|-0.12|0.4020
95863921|NCT03495856|191685736|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.50|-1.39|0.938
95961543|NCT05274750|191894744|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
95961544|NCT05274750|191894745|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
95961545|NCT05274750|191894746|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1, \>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
95961546|NCT05274750|191894747|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses will be performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints will be evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
95961547|NCT02312557|191894748|OTHER||Proportion|0.19|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.29|||One-sample binomial test of proportion|||||0.29|0.09|<0.01
95961548|NCT04486313|191894783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.8786
95961549|NCT04486313|191894784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074||||||Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0740
95961550|NCT04486313|191894785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 4||||0.4479
95961551|NCT04486313|191894785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2814|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of proportion positive for SARS-CoV-2 at Day 10||||0.2814
95961552|NCT04486313|191894786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0665|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 4||||0.0665
95961553|NCT04486313|191894786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change from Baseline to Day 10||||0.4974
95728613|NCT00449072|191426474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-0.02||||0.8854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||ANCOVA||The treatment arm, sex and age group were fixed effects, and baseline value was a covariate in the ANCOVA model.|Change in Nasal Itching||0.20|-0.23|0.8854
95863922|NCT03495856|191685737|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p less than or equal to 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.15|-5.53|0.005
95961554|NCT04486313|191894787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.1771
95961555|NCT04486313|191894788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.2399
95961556|NCT04486313|191894789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.09
95961557|NCT04486313|191894790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon Test|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.0077
95961558|NCT04486313|191894791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
95961559|NCT04486313|191894792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.05
95961560|NCT04486313|191894793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline COVID-19 severity (mild/moderate), time from onset of symptoms to randomization (\<36 hours/≥36 hours), risk of severe illness||||||0.08
95961561|NCT01013961|191894798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.722
95961562|NCT01013961|191894799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95863923|NCT03495856|191685738|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|-5.09|0.124
95863924|NCT03495856|191685739|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.07|-7.30|0.001
95841680|NCT00286429|191651997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.72|-0.62|0.874
95841681|NCT00286429|191651997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.65||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment, geographic region, and baseline metformin regimen as class variables, and baseline covariates (insulin dose and weight).|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in body weight at Week 26. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each active dose versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t test at the 0.05 significance level.||0.65|-0.70|0.948
95841682|NCT00122369|191652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||The impact of knowing or not knowing the diagnosis became so overwhelming and group composition with regard of whether and which result had been communicated changed daily in the post-biopsy follow-up, so that the originally planned analysis of the impact of Self-Hynotic Relaxation or Empathic Attention on cortisol measures became underpowered. Therefore we focused on the analysis of the impact of diagnosis.||||0.014
95841683|NCT00122369|191652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.421
95841684|NCT00122369|191652016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||Bonferoni correction was made so that results with p\<0.0167 are considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
95841685|NCT00122369|191652017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||The null-hypothesis was that there would be no difference among groups.||||0.56
95841686|NCT00122369|191652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
95841687|NCT00122369|191652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||0.45
95841688|NCT00122369|191652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
95841689|NCT00122369|191652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
95841690|NCT00122369|191652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.001
95841691|NCT00122369|191652029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||<0.01
95841692|NCT00122369|191652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
95863925|NCT03495856|191685740|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.24|-2.31|0.018
95863926|NCT03495856|191685741|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.01|0.58|0.016
95863927|NCT03495856|191685742|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.03|-7.88|0.002
95863928|NCT03495856|191685743|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.47|18.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||18.07|8.47|<0.001
95841693|NCT00122369|191652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
95841694|NCT00122369|191652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Ordinal regression|||||||<0.001
95841695|NCT00122369|191652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.024
95841696|NCT00122369|191652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.018
95841697|NCT00122369|191652042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Proportional odds model|||||||0.73
95855352|NCT00795535|191670479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||To avoid overfitting the models, only predictors with p\<0.15 were included in the final models.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare continuous predictors, whereas chi-square tests were used to compare dichotomized predictors between those with and without serious injury. Test characteristics (specificity and positive/negative predictive values) of continuous predictors were reported based on threshold values chosen for a minimum of 80% of sensitivity. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine the marginal effect of each predictor.||||< 0.15
95863929|NCT03495856|191685744|OTHER|Within-group paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|12.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.08|3.92|0.001
95841698|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMC ratio between lots was within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the logarithm (log)10 transformation of the concentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.34|0.81|
95841699|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.49|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of theconcentrations. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.49|0.95|
95841700|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.63|0.98|
95841701|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.85|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concnetration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.85|1.18|
95841702|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|0.94|
95841703|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The first primary objective was reached as the 95% CIs of the GMC ratio between lots were within \[0.5;2\] for the anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.55|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration. The ANOVA model included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency in terms of immunogenicity between the 3 industrial production lots (600L scale) of the Cervarix™ vaccine, one month post dose 3 (Month 7). If consistency was demonstrated the 3 lots would be pooled and non-inferiority of the 600L scale lot vaccine versus the 80L scale would be evaluated as a second primary objective.||1.55|1.00|
95841704|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-16 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.02|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, one month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.02|-3.63|
95841705|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference in seroconversion rates for anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 5%.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.94|||Proc StatXact 5.0|||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.94|-3.18|
95863930|NCT00322621|191685756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|||<|0.001||97.5|0.35|0.79||Significance level 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis is that duloxetine treatment effect on pain reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is not maintained, as indicated by an increase of more than 1.5 point on the BPI 24-hour average pain scale. Null hypothesis is rejected at significance level 0.025 if the upper bound of one-sided 97.5% CI is less than or equal to non-inferiority margin of 1.5 point.||0.79|0.35|<0.001
95863931|NCT00322621|191685759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.269
95863932|NCT00322621|191685760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95961563|NCT02980523|191894804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95863933|NCT00322621|191685761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
95863934|NCT00322621|191685762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95863935|NCT00322621|191685763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.075
95863936|NCT00322621|191685764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95961564|NCT02980523|191894805|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.372|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.372
95863937|NCT00322621|191685765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
95863938|NCT00322621|191685766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95961565|NCT02980523|191894806|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.341|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.341
95961566|NCT02980523|191894807|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.001
95961567|NCT02980523|191894808|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
95961568|NCT02980523|191894809|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.216|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.216
95961569|NCT02980523|191894810|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this study was to find the ideal dose of treatment for bacterial eradication and non-inferiority with the comparative groups.||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.829
95961570|NCT02768597|191894811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552|||||||ANOVA|||||||.552
95961571|NCT02768597|191894812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANOVA|||||||.558
95961572|NCT02768597|191894813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.274
95961573|NCT02768597|191894814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.539
95863939|NCT00322621|191685767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
95961574|NCT02768597|191894815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.478
95863940|NCT00322621|191685768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
95863941|NCT00322621|191685769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.124
95863942|NCT00322621|191685770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
95863943|NCT00322621|191685771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.058
95863944|NCT00322621|191685772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95863945|NCT00322621|191685773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95863946|NCT00322621|191685774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95863947|NCT00322621|191685775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
95863948|NCT00322621|191685776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.752
95863949|NCT00322621|191685777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.713
95863950|NCT00322621|191685778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
95863951|NCT00322621|191685779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.711
95961575|NCT02768597|191894816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||ANOVA|||||||.527
95961576|NCT02768597|191894817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||ANOVA|||||||.823
95961577|NCT02768597|191894818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231|||||||ANOVA|||||||.231
95961578|NCT02768597|191894819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.595
95961579|NCT02768597|191894820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.789
95961580|NCT00443209|191894891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.6|||Miettenen and Nurminen method||Treatment Difference was compared using the Miettinen and Nurminen (MN) method.|||-2.6|-10.4|<0.001
95961581|NCT00443209|191894892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|1.4|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||1.4|-11.7|
95961582|NCT00443209|191894893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||||Treatment Difference was compared using the MN method.|||2.0|-2.0|
95961583|NCT00443209|191894895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||||Based on mixed logistic regression model with a fixed effect term for treatment, baseline pain severity and a random effect term for participant, with the random effect following a normal distribution. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of telcagepant.|||0.75|0.45|
95961584|NCT03563313|191894896|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95961585|NCT03563313|191894897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95961586|NCT03563313|191894898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95961587|NCT03563313|191894899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95961588|NCT03563313|191894900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95961589|NCT03563313|191894901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95961590|NCT02250534|191894949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.26||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.12 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 4.52 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.12 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-3.26|-7.41|<0.0001
95961591|NCT02250534|191894949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-5.57||The p-value is Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons with a priori threshold of significance P \< 0.0167|ANCOVA||Group difference = 0.03 mg nicotine - 0.8 mg nicotine|The statistical analysis method was ANCOVA, in order to test for statistically significant differences between group means, while controlling for covariates of interest. It was calculated that 207 subjects per group would be required to have at least 90% power to detect a mean difference of 6.07 CPD between the 0.8 mg and 0.03 mg groups at week 12, with significance level alpha of 0.0167. The significance level reflects the Bonferroni correction needed for testing of all pairwise comparisons.||-5.57|-9.51|<0.0001
95863952|NCT00322621|191685780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.678
95863953|NCT00322621|191685781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.216||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.216
95863954|NCT00322621|191685782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
95841706|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates for anti-HPV-16 was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-16 antibody|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.08|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||1.08|0.70|
95841707|NCT00250276|191652043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The second primary objective was reached as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the GMC rates anti-HPV-18 antibodies was below 2%.|GMC ratio for anti-HPV-18 antibody|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the concentration, included the vaccine groups as fixed effect (pooled 600L lot versus 80L lot).||To demonstrate that the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 600L manufacturing scale was non-inferior in terms of immunogenicity to the Cervarix™ vaccine produced at 80L scale, on month after the third dose (Month 7).||0.97|0.66|
95841708|NCT00555217|191652059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.12|0.70|0.30
95961592|NCT03042299|191894977|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the least square (LS) means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were provided using a crossover analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters AUC 48 as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1088|-0.0373||||||||-0.0373|-0.1088|
95841709|NCT00555217|191652060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.05|||Log Rank||Combination ARB and ACEI vs. mono therapy ARB|||1.05|0.58|0.10
95863955|NCT00322621|191685785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.368
95863956|NCT00322621|191685786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95863957|NCT00322621|191685787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.666
95863958|NCT00322621|191685788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.138
95841710|NCT03543137|191652068|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.02|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.02|0.88|
95841711|NCT03543137|191652069|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-inf fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.01|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.01|0.88|
95863959|NCT00322621|191685789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.145
95863960|NCT00322621|191685790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
95863961|NCT00835211|191685835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.5||||||90.0|87.8|108.3|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||108.3|87.8|
95841712|NCT03543137|191652074|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.04|0.90|
95863962|NCT00835211|191685836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|95.6||||||90.0|86.9|105.2|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||105.2|86.9|
95863963|NCT00835211|191685837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax. These analyses were performed using the SAS® procedure.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|96.5||||||90.0|87.7|106.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||106.1|87.7|
95863964|NCT02395172|191685853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.71|= 0.0721
95863965|NCT02395172|191685854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||||||||1.05|0.77|
95863966|NCT02395172|191685855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
95863967|NCT02395172|191685856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.41||||||||1.41|0.98|
95863968|NCT02395172|191685859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.13||||||||2.13|0.92|
95863969|NCT02395172|191685860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.86||||||||2.86|1.08|
95863970|NCT00993226|191685870|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.36|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||0.36|-0.79|0.467
95863971|NCT00993226|191685871|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|2.58|||t-test in ANOVA model|||Exploratory comparison between SABER-Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine HCl not analyzed inferentially||2.58|-7.59|0.331
95863972|NCT02663934|191685874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|||||.25|.05|0.31
95863973|NCT02663934|191685875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change in Global CBF in EXS vs. SIS||||.24
95863974|NCT02663934|191685875|OTHER||Slope|0.41||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Strength \& Change in Frontal Brain Volume in EXS||||.02
95863975|NCT02663934|191685875|OTHER||Slope|0.4||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Changes in Brain Volumes associated with changes Memory Performance in EXS||||0.02
95863976|NCT02663934|191685876|OTHER||Slope|0.47||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Increases in Time Spent in MVPA and Increased Learning Performance in EXS||||.005
95863977|NCT00119678|191685884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||||Cox proportional-hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of abatacept versus placebo for SLE disease flare. The 95% two-sided confidence interval was provided for the hazard ratio for treatment.|||1.5|0.7|
95863978|NCT00509145|191685909|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.911|||Over-dispersed Poisson Regression||Laquinimod 0.6 mg vs. placebo|Response variable: number of relapses during 24 months. Offset based on the log of subject's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. In addition to the treatment group, the Poisson regression model included the following covariates: baseline EDSS score, log of prior 2-year number of relapses+1 and Country or Geographical Region (CGR).||0.911|0.650|0.0024
95863979|NCT03508908|191685976|OTHER||US dollars per DALY averted|3098.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)|Cost (in US dollars) per DALY averted (Intervention referenced to Observation)||||
95863980|NCT03698591|191685991|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
95863981|NCT03698591|191685991|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
95863982|NCT03698591|191685991|OTHER||t-statistic|-1.656||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distancing performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distancing performance would not differ by study period.||||.108
95863983|NCT03698591|191685991|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
95863984|NCT03698591|191685992|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distancing self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
95863985|NCT03698591|191685992|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
95863986|NCT03698591|191685992|OTHER||t-statistic|2.694||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test a potential effect of study period on distancing effort.||||.012
95863987|NCT03698591|191685992|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
95863988|NCT03698591|191685992|OTHER||F-statistic|7.162||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distancing effort. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.013
95863989|NCT03698591|191685993|OTHER||F-statistic|6.155||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to 3 way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.019
95863990|NCT03698591|191685993|OTHER||F-statistic|5.911||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to two-way interaction. A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||This analysis evaluated the two-way interaction of task condition and study period. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period. Within-subjects factors included task condition and study period.||||.021
95863991|NCT03698591|191685993|OTHER||t-statistic|1.282||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A dependent-samples t-test was used to compare distraction performance between study periods 1 and 2. The null hypothesis was that distraction performance would not differ by study period.||||.210
95841713|NCT02178696|191652085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.23||A p\<0.001 was established for regions a priori hypothesized (e.g. nucleus accumbens).|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.23|0.016|<0.001
95841714|NCT01099397|191652092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value at baseline|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at baseline; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
95841715|NCT01099397|191652092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value at 9 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 9 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.59
95841716|NCT01099397|191652092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||P-value at 18 weeks|McNemar|McNemar was used at each of three time points to compare prediabetes diagnosis by fasting versus 2-hour OGTT||p\<0.05 was considered significant at 18 week assessment; the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose), the alternative hypothesis was that there was a significant difference between prediabetes diagnosis (by 2-hour glucose or fasting glucose)||||0.41
95841717|NCT02363959|191652093|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95841718|NCT02363959|191652094|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
95841719|NCT02363959|191652095|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95841720|NCT02363959|191652096|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95841721|NCT02363959|191652097|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95841722|NCT02363959|191652098|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95841723|NCT03421106|191652100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.23
95961593|NCT03042299|191894978|EQUIVALENCE|The difference in the LS means between formulations (TAK-536 pediatric formulation \[granules\]-TAK-536 commercial formulation \[tablet\]) and the two-sided 90% CI were provided using a crossover ANOVA model. The ANOVA model included log-transformed (natural log) PK parameters Cmax as dependent variable, and formulation, group, and period as independent variables.|Point estimate|-0.0909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1573|-0.0244||||||||-0.0244|-0.1573|
95961594|NCT01575873|191894990|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -1.1 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margin for lumbar spine of -1.1%.|ANCOVA||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within the glucocorticoid-continuing and glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulations. A fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level within each subpopulation.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
95961595|NCT01575873|191894990|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was shown if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the least-squares means (denosumab minus risedronate) was higher than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.7 percentage points for the glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation.|LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||One-sided p-value based on the prespecified noninferiority margins for lumbar spine of -0.7%.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
95961596|NCT01575873|191894991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.0|< 0.001
95961597|NCT01575873|191894991|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.0||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.0|1.4|< 0.001
95961598|NCT01575873|191894992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||2.1|0.8|< 0.001
95961599|NCT01575873|191894992|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||2.1|1.0|< 0.001
95841724|NCT03857542|191652211|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|22.7||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||22.7|7.7|<.0001
95841725|NCT03857542|191652212|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|6.5||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||13.1|-0.1|0.0548
95841726|NCT03857542|191652213|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|5.9||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|12.2||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using Chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion difference was calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||12.2|-0.5|0.0693
95863992|NCT03698591|191685993|OTHER||F-statistic|0.004||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.948
95863993|NCT03698591|191685994|OTHER||F-statistic|0.031||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the two way interaction of task condition and study arm . A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that distraction self-reported effort would not differ by arm of the study. Within-subjects factors included task condition (distancing vs. distraction) and study arm. Study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor.||||.862
95863994|NCT03698591|191685994|OTHER||F-statistic|4.04||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value corresponds to the main effect of study period. A priori threshold of p \< .05.|ANOVA|||A follow-up ANOVA was run with within-subjects factors of task condition and study period.||||.054
95863995|NCT03698591|191685994|OTHER||t-statistic|0.828||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori significance threshold of p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A follow-up dependent-samples t-test was run to test the effect of study period on distraction effort.||||.415
95961600|NCT01575873|191894993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||5.8|3.2|< 0.001
95961601|NCT01575873|191894993|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.3||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||4.3|2.0|< 0.001
95961602|NCT01575873|191894994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.9||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-initiating subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline BMD value, sex, machine type, and baseline BMD value-by-machine type interaction."||3.9|2.2|< 0.001
95961603|NCT01575873|191894994|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.2||2-sided p-value corresponding to the 2-sided 95% confidence interval|ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference = Denosumab - Risedronate|"Analyses of the primary and secondary endpoints were performed independently within each subpopulation using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to control the experiment-wise type 1 error rate at a two-sided 5% significance level.~The glucocorticoid-continuing subpopulation was analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline BMD, sex, machine type, baseline BMD-by-machine type interaction, and duration of prior glucocorticoid use (\< 12 months vs ≥ 12 months)."||3.2|1.7|< 0.001
95841727|NCT03857542|191652214|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|5.2||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value; Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||5.2|2.9|<.0001
95863996|NCT03698591|191685994|OTHER||F-statistic|3.196||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||Post-hoc analyses were used to explore treatment effects using covariates related to the treatment parameters. For this analysis, study arm and task condition were used as within-subjects factors, study arm order was used as a between-subjects factor, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.085
95863997|NCT03698591|191685994|OTHER||F-statistic|0.396||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold of p \< .05. This value reflects the test of the main effect of study arm.|ANOVA|||This analysis examined the effect of study arm specifically on distraction performance. The within-subjects factor was study arm, between-subjects factor was study arm order, and TMS stimulator intensity and brain-target-to-scalp distance were used as covariates.||||.535
95863998|NCT02660983|191685997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) means|-0.58||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.79|0.3455
95863999|NCT02660983|191685998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.12||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09|||ANCOVA||LS mean of Donepezil group - LS mean of Placebo (when the difference of LS mean scores were less than 0, considered as demonstrated hypothesis), analyzed with ANCOVA model with baseline (CIBIS) as covariate and treatment as main effect.|||0.09|-0.32|0.2570
95841728|NCT03857542|191652215|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|9.9||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||16.3|3.5|0.0141
95841729|NCT03857542|191652216|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
95841730|NCT03857542|191652217|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.4||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||4.4|2.4|<.0001
95841731|NCT03857542|191652218|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|3.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|10.0||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals for the proportion differences were calculated based on the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||10.0|-2.3|0.2200
95841732|NCT03857542|191652219|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||MMRM with study intervention group, visit, visit by study intervention group interaction, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color, emmetrope/non-emmetrope, Baseline value, and Baseline value by visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||3.7|1.5|<.0001
95841733|NCT03857542|191652220|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|12.4||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|19.5||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.|Chi-squared||Analysis was done using chi-square test. The 95% confidence intervals was calculated based on normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||19.5|5.2|0.0141
95841734|NCT03857542|191652221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||1.0|0.5|<.0001
95841735|NCT03857542|191652222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.5|0.0002
95841736|NCT03857542|191652223|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||ANCOVA with study intervention group, age group, Baseline binocular DCNVA severity, iris color (brown/non-brown), emmetrope/non-emmetrope, and Baseline domain score as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity control.||||-0.2|-0.4|0.0002
95841737|NCT02709330|191652234|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||Matched historical controls will be identified from the PatientsLikeMe database.||||0.99
95841738|NCT02709330|191652235|OTHER|||||||0.0748|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0748
95841739|NCT02709330|191652236|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
95841740|NCT02709330|191652240|OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Lin's Concordance|||||||<0.00001
95841741|NCT03776747|191652250|OTHER|Analysis of variance between lung inflation levels|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||We hypothesized that the anisotropic deformation index (ADC) is dependent upon lung inflation level. (Thus, it is important to standardize lung inflation when using this method)||||<0.001
95841742|NCT00997035|191652282|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate the hazard of perforation or need for TPK.||The sample size was determined based on the primary end point: perforation or the need for TPK within 3 months. Simulation-based analyses estimated that a sample sizeof 240 study participants (120 per arm) would provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in the 3-month perforation or need for TPK rate between topical antifungal plus oral voriconazole vs topical antifungal alone,with a 2-tailed α value of .05 and approximately 15%loss to follow-up.||1.18|0.57|0.29
95841743|NCT00997035|191652287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|.49|0.65
95841744|NCT00997035|191652289|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistically significant after Holms-Šidák correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95841745|NCT01072188|191652292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95841746|NCT01072188|191652293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95841747|NCT02107703|191652315|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.553|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.681||This is two sided P value and it is statistically significant.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by endocrine sensitivity and natural of disease by interactive web response system (IWRS).||The final analysis was planned at 378 PFS events, which would provide approximately 90% power assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.703 at a one-sided α of 0.025.||0.681|0.449|<0.0000001
95841748|NCT00790192|191652329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95841749|NCT00790192|191652330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95841750|NCT01359904|191652331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
95841751|NCT01359904|191652332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||post intervention hemoglobin A1c levels||||0.67
95841752|NCT01359904|191652333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.20
95841753|NCT01359904|191652334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95841754|NCT00466440|191652335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.52|12.95|||Chi-squared||The objective response rates and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the qualified participants using unadjusted normal approximation for binomial proportions (z approximation).|||12.95|-12.52|1.0000
95841755|NCT00466440|191652336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6||||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.21|4.95|||Chi-squared|||||4.95|-28.21|0.3606
95841756|NCT00466440|191652337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.55|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.55|-0.02|0.0720
95961604|NCT03461289|191895007|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Proportion|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.87|||Fisher Exact||||Data for the current study were compared to historical control data (Finkel et al 2014 - PubMed 25080519) where 6 out of 23 (26.1%) babies were alive and did not need mechanical ventilation at 14 months of age.|0.87|0.48|<0.0001
95961605|NCT02520544|191895029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4551|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4551
95841757|NCT00466440|191652338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.37|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.37|-0.07|0.1697
95864000|NCT02660983|191685999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.65||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.03|0.0396
95841758|NCT00466440|191652339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.5|0.5240
95841759|NCT00466440|191652340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Log Rank|||||1.6|0.3|0.4407
95841760|NCT00466440|191652341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.4|0.4|0.3449
95841761|NCT03187132|191652348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||.43|-4.15|.111
95841762|NCT03187132|191652349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is for the Digital Pain Reduction Kit arm.|We used a repeated measures linear mixed model featuring fixed effects for time, study arm, and score at week 1, and random effects to account for within subject variation.||3.12|-1.84|.612
95961606|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.52|0.65|
95961607|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.98||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.98|1.5|
95961608|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.06||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.06|0.43|
95961609|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.87|0.58|
95841763|NCT03187132|191652350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|4.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||4.66|-5.51|.87
95841764|NCT03187132|191652350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.54|-.54|.787
95864001|NCT02660983|191686000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-7.73||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.13|4.68|||ANCOVA|||Part A||4.68|-20.13|0.2213
95864002|NCT02660983|191686000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-14.88||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Part B||0.33|-30.10|0.0551
95841765|NCT03187132|191652350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.48|-.88|.569
95841766|NCT03187132|191652351|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||For work productivity measures, self-reported opioid utilization, and post-study measures of satisfaction, we used t-tests for normally distributed data and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests for non-normally distributed data.||.49|-.23|.467
95841767|NCT03187132|191652352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.07|||Regression, Logistic|||We used a multilevel logistic regression with random effects at the individual level and fixed effects for week and study-arm.||9.07|.07|.852
95841768|NCT02707146|191652354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||
95841769|NCT01623115|191652375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-52.6|-63.3|<0.0001
95841770|NCT01623115|191652376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-58.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.5|-52.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-52.7|-63.5|<0.0001
95841771|NCT01623115|191652377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-44.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-44.5|-53.9|<0.0001
95841772|NCT01623115|191652378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-44.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant)||-44.8|-54.2|<0.0001
95841773|NCT01623115|191652379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.8|<0.0001
95841774|NCT01623115|191652380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.9|-41.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.8|-49.9|<0.0001
95841775|NCT01623115|191652381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|-47.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.6|-57.2|<0.0001
95841776|NCT01623115|191652382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-47.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-47.8|-57.5|<0.0001
95841777|NCT01623115|191652383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-35.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35|-42.4|<0.0001
95841778|NCT01623115|191652384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-41.2|<0.0001
95841779|NCT01623115|191652385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-39.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-39.4|-48|<0.0001
95841780|NCT01623115|191652386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-35.7|<0.0001
95841781|NCT01623115|191652387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|-50.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50|-62.4|<0.0001
95864003|NCT04303195|191686225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.23||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|||||0.23|-1.67|0.1350
95841782|NCT01623115|191652388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.9|498.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||498.1|48.9|<0.0001
95841783|NCT01623115|191652389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.7|493.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||493.7|49.7|<0.0001
95841784|NCT01623115|191652390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|244.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|1744.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1744.4|34.4|<0.0001
95841785|NCT01623115|191652391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|240.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|1700.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1700.7|33.9|<0.0001
95841786|NCT01623115|191652392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-12.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-12.9|-22.6|<0.0001
95841787|NCT01623115|191652393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11|5|<0.0001
95841788|NCT01623115|191652394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-10.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-10.6|-21.3|<0.0001
95841789|NCT01623115|191652395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|2.3|= 0.0002
95841790|NCT01623115|191652396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-13.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13|-21.5|<0.0001
95961610|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.08|0.92|
95841791|NCT01623115|191652397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.2|1.5|0.0031
95841792|NCT01623115|191652398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-4.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.4|-15|0.0003
95841793|NCT01623115|191652399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.8||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|0.5|0.0187
95841794|NCT02109640|191652403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute percentage difference|17.1||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|40.7||Absolute % difference 17.1 (95% CI -10.0,40.7)|Fisher Exact|||||40.7|-10.0|0.264
95864004|NCT04303195|191686225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.79|0.0997
95841795|NCT02109640|191652404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
95841796|NCT02109640|191652405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.676
95864005|NCT04303195|191686225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-1.58|0.2195
95841797|NCT02336230|191652408|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value was calculated from the binomial distribution under the assumption of a 0.45 success rate for the null hypothesis.|Binomial Distribution|||||||0.0003
95841798|NCT02336230|191652410|OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline aGVHD grade.|CHM test|||||||0.0032
95864006|NCT04303195|191686226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.11|0.7944
95864007|NCT04303195|191686226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.66||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-1.36|0.4956
95841799|NCT00940901|191652418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there would be no difference in the number of participants who experienced at least a 50% reduction in the frequency of priapic episodes between baseline and 8 weeks post intervention, between the sildenafil and placebo groups||||1
95841800|NCT00940901|191652419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95841801|NCT00740207|191652433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare difference between the investigational product's mean change from predose to postdose||0.9|-1.3|0.7142
95841802|NCT00740207|191652434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-0.8|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare the difference in percentage between the portions of patients who had motion artifacts.||-0.8|-79.2|0.1698
95841803|NCT00740207|191652435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|8.6|||Fisher Exact|||Paired t-test to compare difference in percentage between the number of participants requiring repeat injections||8.6|-28.6|1.000
95961611|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||1.01|0.6|
95841804|NCT01219985|191652516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||We performed a McNemar test to compare the sensitivities obtained for each PET image method||||<0.001
95841805|NCT01219985|191652517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was : lesions' SUVmax are equivalent with our without application of the CT-Based respiratory-gated PET method.||||<0.001
95841806|NCT02905266|191652521|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in incidence rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||0.0|0.0|
95841807|NCT02905266|191652529|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference of ORRs|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|11.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||11.0|-26.1|
95841808|NCT02905266|191652529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.58||||||||1.58|0.35|
95841809|NCT02905266|191652530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.37|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||2.37|0.78|
95841810|NCT02905266|191652531|SUPERIORITY||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.49|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||2.49|0.30|
95841811|NCT02905266|191652531|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference in incidence rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.2|||||Fixed Ratio Combination over Sequential Combination|||12.2|-16.0|
95961612|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.96||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.96|0.83|
95841812|NCT02940496|191652536|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2 sided test)|0.081||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95841813|NCT02940496|191652537|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.88||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95841814|NCT02940496|191652538|SUPERIORITY||Correlation Coefficient (2-sided test)|0.79||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95841815|NCT01895946|191652592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference (LSM)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|0.86|
95841816|NCT01895946|191652592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|0.55|
95841817|NCT01895946|191652593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.77|
95841818|NCT01895946|191652593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square means difference (LSM)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.76|
95841819|NCT01973413|191652615|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level of 0.05, 90% power, required 48 nights of OCL and 48 control nights to detect a 20% improvement.|||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.037
95841820|NCT01973413|191652616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.340
95841821|NCT04186871|191652650|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-27.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|21.9||||||||21.9|-77.5|
95841822|NCT04186871|191652650|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.73|0.04|0.3117
95841823|NCT04186871|191652651|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.8|
95841824|NCT04186871|191652651|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-5.0||||||||-5.0|-11.5|
95841825|NCT04186871|191652651|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 24|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.2||||||||-5.2|-9.3|
95841826|NCT04186871|191652652|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|65.2||||||||65.2|-31.8|
95841827|NCT04186871|191652652|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|18.04||||||||18.04|0.22|
95841828|NCT04186871|191652653|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|33.3||||||||33.3|-57.1|
95961613|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.28|1.13|
95841829|NCT04186871|191652653|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO (95% CI) VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|10.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.02|0.02|0.5930
95961614|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.81||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||0.81|0.33|
95841830|NCT04186871|191652654|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|7.7||||||||7.7|-36.9|
95841831|NCT04186871|191652654|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.39|||Chi-squared|||||1.39|0.15|0.1639
95841832|NCT04186871|191652655|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.11||||||||-1.110|-2.110|
95841833|NCT04186871|191652655|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.855|-1.28||||||||-1.280|-1.855|
95841834|NCT04186871|191652655|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.62||||||||0.620|-0.534|
95841835|NCT04186871|191652656|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.256|-1.226||||||||-1.226|-2.256|
95841836|NCT04186871|191652656|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.698|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.998|-1.399||||||||-1.399|-1.998|
95841837|NCT04186871|191652656|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.639||||||||0.639|-0.553|
95864008|NCT04303195|191686226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.511||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.26||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|-0.76|0.6260
95841838|NCT04186871|191652657|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.495|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.861|-14.128||||||||-14.128|-24.861|
95841839|NCT04186871|191652657|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE AT WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.848|-15.686||||||||-15.686|-21.848|
95841840|NCT04186871|191652657|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.463|6.919||||||||6.919|-5.463|
95841841|NCT04186871|191652658|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-14.1||||||||-14.1|-24.3|
95841842|NCT04186871|191652658|EQUIVALENCE|ADJUSTED MEAN AT DIFFERENCE WEEK 12|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-15.5||||||||-15.5|-21.4|
95841843|NCT04186871|191652658|SUPERIORITY|ADJUSTED MEAN DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.6||||||||6.6|-5.2|
95841844|NCT04186871|191652659|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|19.9||||||||19.9|-28.1|
95841845|NCT04186871|191652659|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.32||||||||2.32|0.31|
95841846|NCT04186871|191652660|SUPERIORITY|RESPONSE DIFFERENCE VS PLACEBO|Response Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|9.9||||||||9.9|-22.8|
95841847|NCT04186871|191652660|SUPERIORITY|ODDS RATIO VS PLACEBO|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.34||||||||2.34|0.11|
95841848|NCT01045967|191652698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|122.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||122|90.7|
95841849|NCT01045967|191652699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.1|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.1|
95841850|NCT01045967|191652700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|86.3|
95864009|NCT04303195|191686227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.00|-1.15|0.8866
95864010|NCT04303195|191686227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-1.19|0.8699
95864011|NCT04303195|191686227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.556||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.91|0.7297
95841851|NCT05736874|191652744|SUPERIORITY|Decision rule based on Bayesian posterior probability of efficacy. The decision threshold was a posterior probability of 0.95. A prespecified skeptical prior for the treatment effect was used to preserve type I error below 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|||1.12|0.91|
95841852|NCT05736874|191652745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||||Descriptive analysis is a maximum partial likelihood proportional hazards regression model. Low event rate precluded covariate adjustment.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||4.68|0.19|
95841853|NCT05736874|191652748|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian proportional hazards regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval. Adjustment variables: randomization, age, sex, duration of symptoms prior to study drug, calendar time, vaccination status, geographic region, call center indicator, and baseline symptom severity.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||3.5|0.8|
95841854|NCT05736874|191652749|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.63|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.63|0.62|
95841855|NCT05736874|191652750|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||1.50|0.42|
95841856|NCT05736874|191652751|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with covariate adjustment and weakly informative priors|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.94|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval on the log relative odds scale. Odds ratio estimate from a Bayesian cumulative probability ordinal regression model with weakly informative priors.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||5.94|0.50|
95841857|NCT05736874|191652752|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.11|0.69|
95864012|NCT04303195|191686228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.86||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.86|-0.76|0.9034
95841858|NCT05736874|191652752|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.34|0.78|
95864013|NCT04303195|191686228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.68|0.9742
95841859|NCT05736874|191652752|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.45|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is highest density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.45|0.78|
95841860|NCT05736874|191652752|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.53|0.79|
95864014|NCT04303195|191686228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||1.33|-0.31|0.2235
95864015|NCT04303195|191686229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.34|0.3567
95864016|NCT04303195|191686229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.43|0.1129
95864017|NCT04303195|191686229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.33|0.4590
95841861|NCT05736874|191652753|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.09|0.72|
95841862|NCT05736874|191652753|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.27|0.84|
95961615|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.78|0.52|
95841863|NCT05736874|191652753|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.20|0.76|
95841864|NCT05736874|191652753|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.32|0.84|
95841865|NCT05736874|191652754|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.58|
95841866|NCT05736874|191652754|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.32|0.76|
95841867|NCT05736874|191652754|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.25|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.25|0.71|
95864018|NCT04303195|191686230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.65|-1.27|0.5250
95841868|NCT05736874|191652754|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.64|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.64|0.89|
95864019|NCT04303195|191686230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.41|0.3991
95864020|NCT04303195|191686230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.9006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.05|0.9006
95961616|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.04||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.04|0.89|
95961617|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.84|0.49|
95961618|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.58||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 1||1.58|0.66|
95961619|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H1N1 at Day 50||2.3|1.14|
95961620|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 1||1.17|0.47|
95961621|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group ratios at Day 50|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain A/H3N2 at Day 50||0.57|0.38|
95841869|NCT05736874|191652755|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.15|0.70|
95841870|NCT05736874|191652755|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.29|0.75|
95841871|NCT05736874|191652755|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.26|0.72|
95841872|NCT05736874|191652755|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.61|0.92|
95841873|NCT05736874|191652756|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.28|0.81|
95841874|NCT05736874|191652756|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||0.99|0.60|
95841875|NCT05736874|191652756|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.23|0.74|
95841876|NCT05736874|191652756|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.50|0.89|
95864021|NCT04303195|191686231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.444||0.6009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.64||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-1.11|0.6009
95728614|NCT00449072|191426475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0951||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.0951
95841877|NCT05736874|191652757|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||1.06|0.69|
95841878|NCT05736874|191652757|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.30|0.82|
95841879|NCT05736874|191652757|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.32|0.80|
95864022|NCT04303195|191686231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-1.23|0.4654
95864023|NCT04303195|191686231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.97|-0.83|0.8842
95864024|NCT01065454|191686327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.71||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.057||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||0.057|-5.99|0.1044
95961622|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 1|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.02||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 1||1.02|0.87|
95841880|NCT05736874|191652757|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.29|0.75|
95841881|NCT05736874|191652758|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 7||0.93|0.62|
95841882|NCT05736874|191652758|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 14||1.18|0.78|
95841883|NCT05736874|191652758|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 28||1.12|0.74|
95841884|NCT05736874|191652758|OTHER|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||||Initially estimated on the log relative odds scale, and then transformed to the odds ratio scale. On the log relative odds scale, the estimated parameter value was the posterior mean. Interval estimate is symmetric density Bayesian credible interval.|Day 90||1.56|1.02|
95841885|NCT05736874|191652759|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimate time unwell|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.26|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.26|-0.45|
95841886|NCT05736874|191652760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in model estimated means|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.58|||||The interval is a highest-density credible interval.|Secondary endpoints were not used for formal decision making; there was no decision threshold. No formal hypothesis test was performed.||0.58|-0.28|
95855364|NCT00541658|191670495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.08||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.16|||Fisher Exact|||||1.16|1.00|0.0524
95961623|NCT02035696|191895034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the vaccine group GMT ratio ≥ 0.67|Vaccine Group Ratios at Day 50|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of a TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of vaccine group GMT ratios against influenza strain B at Day 50||0.75|0.44|
95961624|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||18.9|0|
95961625|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||8|-4|
95961626|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-1.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-High Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1.5|-21.1|
95961627|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|16.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||16.8|-2.5|
95961628|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group differences|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|4.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||4.1|-9.5|
95961629|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-1.0||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc-Full Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-1|-20.5|
95841887|NCT03057496|191652776|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.734||Since the outcome (contacts) represented over-dispersed count data and there were repeated measurements per subject, a generalized mixed effects model with a negative binomial family was used with each subject treated as a random intercept.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors were included in the model to account for factors other than device operating mode that might affect collision rates.|Silent mode is the denominator for the rate ratio.|A within-subject comparison was performed. Each subject included in the analysis used the device in both the active and the silent mode. Comparison was between the two device operating modes. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of contacts between active and silent modes.||0.734|0.536|< 0.001
95841888|NCT05104450|191652789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||1.04|0.25|0.001
95841889|NCT05104450|191652790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.06|-2.05|0.037
95841890|NCT05104450|191652791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.86|-0.12|0.135
95841891|NCT05104450|191652792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.07|-2.01|0.068
95841892|NCT05104450|191652793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.60|-3.83|<0.001
95841893|NCT05104450|191652794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.89|-1.16|0.401
95841894|NCT05104450|191652795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.04|-0.98|0.034
95841895|NCT05104450|191652796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.15|-6.37|0.061
95855365|NCT00541658|191670495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|0.99|0.1207
95841896|NCT05104450|191652797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.78|-1.69|0.469
95841897|NCT05104450|191652798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction||Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|1.13|0.42|<0.001
95841898|NCT05104450|191652799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.89|0.04|0.031
95841899|NCT05104450|191652800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.02|-0.21|0.118
95864025|NCT01065454|191686327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMEANS Difference|-1.38||||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.94||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||2.94|-5.71|0.5292
95841900|NCT05104450|191652801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.93||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.95|0.91|0.011
95864026|NCT01065454|191686327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.51||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.5||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-8.52|0.0278
95864027|NCT01065454|191686327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.8||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|5.84||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||5.84|-2.25|0.3821
95864028|NCT01065454|191686327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|3.13||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|8.02||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||8.02|-1.76|0.2084
95841901|NCT05104450|191652802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.93|-0.04|0.074
95864029|NCT01065454|191686327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.33||||0.5442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.0||Baseline value, treatment group and region were used as fixed effects in the ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||3.00|-5.66|0.5442
95864030|NCT01065454|191686328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.56||||||||4.56|-0.83|
95864031|NCT01065454|191686328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.51||||||||3.51|-3.12|
95864032|NCT01065454|191686328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.77||||||||3.77|-3.31|
95864033|NCT01065454|191686329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-46.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-3.8||||||||-3.8|-89.4|
95864034|NCT01065454|191686329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-32.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.9|20.4||||||||20.4|-84.9|
95864035|NCT01065454|191686329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-26.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|30.0||||||||30.0|-83.0|
95864036|NCT01065454|191686330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.9|5.5||||||||5.5|-172.9|
95864037|NCT01065454|191686330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-58.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.1|45.6||||||||45.6|-162.1|
95864038|NCT01065454|191686330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-43.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.7|67.1||||||||67.1|-153.7|
95864039|NCT01065454|191686331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-239.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-363.4|-115.3||||||||-115.3|-363.4|
95864040|NCT01065454|191686331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-120.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.4|32.6||||||||32.6|-274.4|
95864041|NCT01065454|191686331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-25.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.3|138.2||||||||138.2|-189.3|
95864042|NCT01065454|191686332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-446.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-687.4|-205.6||||||||-205.6|-687.4|
95841902|NCT05104450|191652803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-0.59|-2.82|0.003
95841903|NCT05104450|191652804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.44|-1.84|0.229
95841904|NCT05104450|191652805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
95841905|NCT05104450|191652806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.25|-2.30|0.116
95841906|NCT05104450|191652807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.45|-2.35|0.968
95841907|NCT05104450|191652808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.17|-0.49|0.218
95841908|NCT05104450|191652809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||2.62|-0.58|0.212
95841909|NCT05104450|191652810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.57|-0.44|0.800
95855366|NCT00541658|191670496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.07||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.15|||Fisher Exact|||||1.15|1.00|0.0729
95864043|NCT01065454|191686332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-231.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-530.4|67.2||||||||67.2|-530.4|
95864044|NCT01065454|191686332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-34.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-353.7|283.7||||||||283.7|-353.7|
95864045|NCT01065454|191686333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5||||||||0.5|-3.1|
95864046|NCT01065454|191686333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-3.1|
95864047|NCT01065454|191686333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.5||||||||1.5|-3.2|
95864048|NCT01065454|191686334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSS-MEANS Difference|-2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.0|
95864049|NCT01065454|191686334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.1|
95864050|NCT01065454|191686334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-4.9|
95841910|NCT05104450|191652811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||0.79|-0.26|0.317
95864051|NCT01065454|191686335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14||||||||1.14|-0.58|
95864052|NCT01065454|191686335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||||||||1.87|-0.23|
95864053|NCT01065454|191686335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.06||||||||1.06|-1.11|
95864054|NCT01065454|191686336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|1.09||||||||1.09|-8.76|
95864055|NCT01065454|191686336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANs Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|6.01||||||||6.01|-6.05|
95728615|NCT00449072|191426475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1247||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 240||||0.1247
95864056|NCT01065454|191686336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|4.06||||||||4.06|-8.93|
95864057|NCT01065454|191686337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.21|
95864058|NCT01065454|191686337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.69||||||||1.69|-0.07|
95864059|NCT01065454|191686337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.15||||||||1.15|-0.74|
95864060|NCT01065454|191686338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|7.22||||||||7.22|-17.33|
95864061|NCT01065454|191686338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|15.11||||||||15.11|-14.55|
95864062|NCT01065454|191686338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-5.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|10.69||||||||10.69|-21.05|
95864063|NCT01065454|191686339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS_MEANS Difference|-4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.13|12.6||||||||12.60|-21.13|
95864064|NCT01065454|191686339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|23.16||||||||23.16|-17.59|
95864065|NCT01065454|191686339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.43|17.2||||||||17.20|-26.43|
95864066|NCT01065454|191686340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|17.95||||||||17.95|-7.38|
95864067|NCT01065454|191686340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|6.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|22.73||||||||22.73|-9.79|
95864068|NCT01065454|191686340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|26.84||||||||26.84|-6.14|
95864069|NCT01065454|191686341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.55|
95864070|NCT01065454|191686341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.67||||||||0.67|-0.34|
95864071|NCT01065454|191686341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.45|
95864072|NCT01065454|191686342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|10.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|38.81||||||||38.81|-18.48|
95864073|NCT01065454|191686342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.76|42.59||||||||42.59|-26.76|
95864074|NCT01065454|191686342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.08|31.78||||||||31.78|-44.08|
95864075|NCT01065454|191686344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|14.61||||||||14.61|-13.36|
95864076|NCT01065454|191686344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.32|5.39||||||||5.39|-24.32|
95864077|NCT01065454|191686344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|10.13||||||||10.13|-22.26|
95864078|NCT01065454|191686346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.04|
95864079|NCT01065454|191686346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.07|
95864080|NCT01065454|191686346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.07|
95864081|NCT01065454|191686347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-0.78||||||||-0.78|-12.81|
95864082|NCT01065454|191686347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-6.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|0.35||||||||0.35|-13.96|
95864083|NCT01065454|191686347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.29|0.28||||||||0.28|-15.29|
95864084|NCT01065454|191686348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-24.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.58|68.33||||||||68.33|-117.58|
95864085|NCT01065454|191686348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-53.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.46|55.88||||||||55.88|-162.46|
95864086|NCT01065454|191686348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.78|119.06||||||||119.06|-135.78|
95864087|NCT01065454|191686349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-407.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1055.23|240.54||||||||240.54|-1055.23|
95864088|NCT01065454|191686349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-447.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1212.74|318.22||||||||318.22|-1212.74|
95864089|NCT01065454|191686349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-517.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1369.48|334.53||||||||334.53|-1369.48|
95841911|NCT05104450|191652812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.17|-0.44|<0.001
95841912|NCT05104450|191652813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||0.03|-0.27|0.107
95841913|NCT05104450|191652814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||7.27|0.86|0.013
95841914|NCT05104450|191652815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|treatment-by-time interaction|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including baseline and follow up outcome measures, time, treatment by time interaction, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60). The parameter of interest is treatment by time interaction coefficient, measuring the between group difference for change in outcome.||6.42|-0.20|0.065
95841915|NCT05104450|191652816|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.63||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|one-time measures: Beta Estimates|Standard errors estimated using Kenward-Rogers adjustment for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Linear mixed effects model including each participant's outcome measure, baseline covariates: age, gender, race, charlson comorbidity index, rurality, and randomization stratification variables: BMI (30-34.9 vs. 35-44.9kg/m2), OSA severity (mild vs. moderate to severe), and sleep related impairment T-score (\<60 vs. ≥ 60).||-0.14|-7.11|0.041
95841916|NCT01584232|191652817|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to insulin glargine. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to insulin glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.41||P-value is from the pairwise comparison of LS means using a mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 360 participants were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to LY2189265 or insulin glargine (IG). Assuming no difference in HbA1c change from baseline at Week 26 between LY2189265 and IG, this sample size would provide approximately 90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to IG. This computation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.4% with a standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, and an 11% dropout rate between randomization and Week 26.||-0.41|-0.67|<0.001
95841917|NCT01584232|191652818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95841918|NCT01584232|191652818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7%.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95864090|NCT01065454|191686350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.01|
95841919|NCT01584232|191652819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-1.7|0.183
95841920|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.56||Treatment comparison for pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||9.56|0.76|0.022
95841921|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.28|-4.52||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||-4.52|-22.28|0.003
95841922|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.22||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-1.06||Treatment comparison for pre-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-15.37|0.025
95841923|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.92|-14.51||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-midday meal.|ANCOVA|||||-14.51|-31.92|<0.001
95841924|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.03|-6.24||Treatment comparison for pre-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-6.24|-21.03|<0.001
95864091|NCT01065454|191686350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.02|
95864092|NCT01065454|191686350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.02|
95864093|NCT01065454|191686351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.04|
95864094|NCT01065454|191686351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.04|
95864095|NCT01065454|191686351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.07|
95864096|NCT01065454|191686352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANSA Difference|-14.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.79|2.53||||||||2.53|-30.79|
95864097|NCT01065454|191686352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-12.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.89|7.43||||||||7.43|-32.89|
95841925|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.26|-23.0||Treatment comparison for 2 hours post-evening meal.|ANCOVA|||||-23.00|-39.26|<0.001
95841926|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-15.79||Treatment comparison for bedtime.|ANCOVA|||||-15.79|-31.68|<0.001
95841927|NCT01584232|191652820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.21||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|10.5||Treatment comparison for second pre-morning meal.|ANCOVA|||||10.50|1.92|0.005
95841928|NCT01584232|191652821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.89|<0.001
95841929|NCT01584232|191652822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95841930|NCT01307319|191652823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
95841931|NCT01307319|191652823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95841932|NCT01307319|191652824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||The power calculation assumed the standard deviation (SD) for the change from baseline over two weeks in the average of AM and PM reflective TNSS is assumed to be 2.0. Using this standard deviation, 235 subjects per arm provides 90% power to detect a difference of 0.60 in TNSS change from baseline between treatment groups with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
95841933|NCT01307319|191652824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM treatment difference from placebo|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||a priori statistical significance is \<0.05.|mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95841934|NCT00527735|191652846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.806||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.174|||1-sided log rank|||||1.174|0.553|0.1302
95841935|NCT00527735|191652846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.724||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.059|||1-sided log rank|||||1.059|0.495|0.0473
95841936|NCT00527735|191652847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.2502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.271|||One-sided log rank|||||1.271|0.612|0.2502
95841937|NCT00527735|191652847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.999|||One-sided log rank|||||0.999|0.478|0.0240
95841938|NCT00527735|191652848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.46|||1-sided log rank|||||1.460|0.669|0.4759
95841939|NCT00527735|191652848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.278|||1-sided log rank|||||1.278|0.587|0.2340
95841940|NCT00527735|191652855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.1098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.188|||1-sided log rank|||||1.188|0.475|0.1098
95841941|NCT00527735|191652855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.1016|||1-sided log rank|||||1.1016|0.403|0.0282
95841942|NCT00527735|191652864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.3846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.481|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.481|0.588|0.3846
95841943|NCT00527735|191652864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.453|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.453|0.591|0.3700
95841944|NCT00527735|191652867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.536|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.536|0.585|0.4132
95841945|NCT00527735|191652867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.232|||1-sided Log Rank|||||1.232|0.461|0.1287
95841946|NCT03170661|191652904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||GEEGLM|Effects of GEEGLM covariates: surgeon, p = 0.24; surgery length, p= 0.73 and body mass index, p= 0.22).||||||0.94
95841947|NCT01217463|191652929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.43|0.60|0.4109
95841948|NCT01217463|191652930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|0.78|
95841949|NCT03089580|191652948|SUPERIORITY|Paired, Student's t-test was used to contrast the outcome variable of TBUT in the treated eye versus the sham eye from visit 1 to visit 5. The null hypothesis to be tested is one of no change from pre- to post treatment, with a Type I error probability of 0.05 for the primary outcome assessment. The pattern of change over the 4 treatment visits in these continuous variables will be assessed using mixed, linear regression. SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was used.||||||0.3|||||||paired t test|||The primary study outcome of pre to post change in TBUT within the treated eye and also the untreated, control eye dictated the use of a paired statistical approach to sample size estimation. Clinically relevant pre to post TBUT increase of 3 seconds with a standard deviation of 4.5 seconds was used. Type I and II error estimates used were standard for a non-pivotal study, 0.05 \& 0.20. The estimated the sample size needed detect this difference in TBUT is 27 subjects.||||0.3
95841950|NCT03089580|191652949|SUPERIORITY|The p-value results from a test of the hypothesis that the change in OSDI from visit 1 does not differ from zero. Change distributions that met normal distribution test criteria (Shapiro-Wilk p-value \>0.05) were tested with the paired Student's t-test; non-normal change distributions (at visits 2 \& 4) were tested with the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||||0.2026|||||||paired t test|||||||0.2026
95841951|NCT03087513|191652950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||In all cases of motor evoked potential changes, a P-value of 0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|As the amplitude values were non-normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the two groups.||In total, 40 patients were randomised for the study. Data from 2 patients were excluded as the crossover arm could not be completed due to intraoperative MEP change (n=1) and the equipment malfunction (n=1). The data distributions were tested for normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||||<0.01
95841952|NCT04170543|191652972|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-2.85||||0.8338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.61|21.94||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||21.94|-22.61|0.8338
95864098|NCT01065454|191686352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS-MEANS Difference|-18.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.53|5.0||||||||5.00|-41.53|
95841953|NCT04170543|191652972|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-19.52||||0.1169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.92|1.07||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||1.07|-35.92|0.1169
95841954|NCT04170543|191652972|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.47||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|4.32||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||4.32|-34.71|0.1774
95841955|NCT04170543|191652972|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.22||||0.5379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.05|13.35||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.35|-24.05|0.5379
95841956|NCT04170543|191652973|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.02||||0.1929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.08|3.75||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||3.75|-27.08|0.1929
95841957|NCT04170543|191652973|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-25.71||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.83|-11.22||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-11.22|-37.83|0.0062
95841958|NCT04170543|191652973|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.2||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-1.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-1.81|-31.86|0.0705
95841959|NCT04170543|191652973|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.56||||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.82|-1.21||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||-1.21|-27.82|0.0764
95841960|NCT04170543|191652974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|7.25||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.45|29.88||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||29.88|-11.45|0.5474
95841961|NCT04170543|191652974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|3.11||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.83|24.82||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||24.82|-14.83|0.7920
95841962|NCT04170543|191652974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-3.4||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.59|17.51||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||17.51|-20.59|0.7711
95841963|NCT04170543|191652974|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|5.27||||0.6163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.08|24.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||24.62|-11.08|0.6163
95864099|NCT00982423|191686361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between baseline dose of furosemide (3 weeks) versus reduced dose of furosemide (approximately 6 weeks).||||<0.05
95864100|NCT00982423|191686361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison between GFR taken at baseline dose Furosemide (3 weeks) versus normal GFR||||<0.05
95728616|NCT00449072|191426475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical analysis for Day 360||||0.0207
95841964|NCT04170543|191652976|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|2.43||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.35|26.95||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||26.95|-17.35|0.8537
95841965|NCT04170543|191652976|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-15.63||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.14|4.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||4.89|-32.14|0.1989
95841966|NCT04170543|191652976|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-17.96||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.01|1.99||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||1.99|-34.01|0.1346
95841967|NCT04170543|191652976|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-6.38||||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.59|13.23||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||13.23|-22.59|0.5683
95841968|NCT04170543|191652977|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-7.93||||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.3|9.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 30 mg - Placebo|||9.10|-22.30|0.4226
95841969|NCT04170543|191652977|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-20.61||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.25|-5.58||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 60 mg - Placebo|||-5.58|-33.25|0.0287
95841970|NCT04170543|191652977|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-18.73||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.7|-3.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM||MEDI3506 120 mg - Placebo|||-3.30|-31.70|0.0498
95841971|NCT04170543|191652977|OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Change|-13.27||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.51|0.98||Unadjusted two-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.98|-25.51|0.1236
95841972|NCT01236521|191652990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0385
95841973|NCT01236521|191652991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
95841974|NCT01236521|191652992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0740
95841975|NCT02052752|191653006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA results for the primary endpoint with treatment group as a main effect and average baseline value as a covariate showed no statistically significant differences in the percentage change from baseline in swelling of the target lesions between the 3% BPO group and the vehicle control group at Day 4 for the ITT population||||0.283
95841976|NCT03201419|191653012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.07|-0.54|
95841977|NCT03201419|191653012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.02|-0.46|
95841978|NCT03201419|191653012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.36|
95841979|NCT03201419|191653012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.23|
95841980|NCT03201419|191653012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.14|
95841981|NCT03201419|191653012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||-0.00|-0.07|
95864101|NCT00982423|191686366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between reduced dose Furosemide and baseline dose Furosemide||||0.075
95864102|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.43|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg versus (Vs) Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.43|0.31|
95864103|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.39|0.28|
95864104|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.45|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.45|0.32|
95864105|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.44|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.44|0.31|
95864106|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.54|0.39|
95841982|NCT03201419|191653013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.4214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.201||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.201|-0.480|0.4214
95841983|NCT03201419|191653013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.141||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.141|-1.034|0.0101
95841984|NCT03201419|191653013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.148||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|0.304||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.304|-0.599|0.5203
95841985|NCT03201419|191653013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.055||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.617||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.617|-0.508|0.8483
95961630|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.4||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H1N1||15.4|-4.2|
95841986|NCT03201419|191653013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.147||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.759|0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.464|-0.759|0.6357
95841987|NCT03201419|191653013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.25||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.652||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.652|-0.152|0.2222
95841988|NCT03201419|191653014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.166||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.143||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.143|-0.474|0.2909
95841989|NCT03201419|191653014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.011||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.011|-0.824|0.0440
95841990|NCT03201419|191653014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.128||||0.5438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.545||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.545|-0.288|0.5438
95841991|NCT03201419|191653014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.441||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.962|-0.079|0.0960
95841992|NCT03201419|191653014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.568|0.488||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.488|-0.568|0.8826
95961631|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain A/H3N2||1.3|-13.4|
95841993|NCT03201419|191653014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.394||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.759||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.759|0.029|0.0344
95841994|NCT03201419|191653015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.132||||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.231||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.231|-0.496|0.4732
95841995|NCT03201419|191653015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.224||||0.3394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.237||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.237|-0.685|0.3394
95841996|NCT03201419|191653015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.012||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.463||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.463|-0.488|0.9600
95841997|NCT03201419|191653015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.463||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|1.037||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.037|-0.111|0.1131
95841998|NCT03201419|191653015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.124||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.48||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.480|-0.729|0.6853
95841999|NCT03201419|191653015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.166||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.587||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.587|-0.254|0.4364
95842000|NCT03201419|191653016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.299||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.069|-0.667|0.1106
95842001|NCT03201419|191653016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.163||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.639|0.313||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.313|-0.639|0.5005
95842002|NCT03201419|191653016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.107||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.586||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.586|-0.372|0.6604
95842003|NCT03201419|191653016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.283||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.842||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.842|-0.275|0.3178
95842004|NCT03201419|191653016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.096||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|0.51||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.510|-0.701|0.7561
95842005|NCT03201419|191653016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.037||||0.8614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.378|0.452||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.452|-0.378|0.8614
95842006|NCT03201419|191653017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.759||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|3.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.560|0.869|0.117
95842007|NCT03201419|191653017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.214||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.214|1.010|0.048
95842008|NCT03201419|191653017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.602||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.602|0.560|0.460
95842009|NCT03201419|191653017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.704||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|5.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.427|0.535|0.367
95842010|NCT03201419|191653017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.689||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|5.825||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.825|0.489|0.407
95842011|NCT03201419|191653017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.069||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|2.473||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.473|0.462|0.876
95842012|NCT03201419|191653018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.005||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.005|0.470|0.937
95842013|NCT03201419|191653018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.738||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|18.968||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.968|1.183|0.028
95842014|NCT03201419|191653018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.513||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.318||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.318|0.200|0.166
95842015|NCT03201419|191653018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.433||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.447||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.447|0.129|0.174
95842016|NCT03201419|191653018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|5.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.512|0.369|0.608
95842017|NCT03201419|191653018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.553||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|1.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.292|0.237|0.171
95961632|NCT02035696|191895035|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI on the difference between seroconversion rates ≥ -10%|Vaccine Group Differences|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-7.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses of TIVc- Half Dose to TIVe, assessed in terms of Vaccine Group Differences with seroconversion against influenza strain B||-7.2|-27.8|
95842018|NCT03201419|191653019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.928||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.003|0.430|0.850
95842019|NCT03201419|191653019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.261||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|6.862||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.862|0.745|0.150
95842020|NCT03201419|191653019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.283||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|3.566||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.566|0.462|0.632
95842021|NCT03201419|191653019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.863||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.863|0.183|0.363
95842022|NCT03201419|191653019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.691||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|2.359||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.359|0.203|0.555
95842023|NCT03201419|191653019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|2.405||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.405|0.408|0.984
95842024|NCT03201419|191653020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.462||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|5.961||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.961|1.017|0.046
95842025|NCT03201419|191653020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|3.386||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.386|0.418|0.745
95842026|NCT03201419|191653020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|3.155||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.155|0.417|0.790
95842027|NCT03201419|191653020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.537||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|1.71||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.710|0.169|0.293
95842028|NCT03201419|191653020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.881||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|3.076||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.076|0.252|0.843
95842029|NCT03201419|191653020|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.877||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.375|2.053||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.053|0.375|0.763
95842030|NCT03201419|191653021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|2.597||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.597|0.868|
95728617|NCT00449072|191426476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2445||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 120||||0.2445
95842031|NCT03201419|191653021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|2.45||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.450|0.905|
95842032|NCT03201419|191653021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.264||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.264|0.927|
95842033|NCT03201419|191653021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.896||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.896|0.957|
95842034|NCT03201419|191653021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.638||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.638|0.972|
95842035|NCT03201419|191653021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|1.313||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.313|0.991|
95842036|NCT03201419|191653022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.52||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-4.75|0.8463
95842037|NCT03201419|191653022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.89|-6.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-6.81|-20.89|0.0001
95842038|NCT03201419|191653022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.84||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.32|-9.99|0.4355
95842039|NCT03201419|191653022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|8.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.06|-9.79|0.8483
95842040|NCT03201419|191653022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|7.69||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.69|-10.91|0.7336
95842041|NCT03201419|191653022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|5.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.78|-7.15|0.8347
95842042|NCT03201419|191653023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.59||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.07|-3.90|0.5695
95842043|NCT03201419|191653023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-3.23||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|3.99||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.99|-10.46|0.3784
95842044|NCT03201419|191653023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|7.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.34|-7.67|0.9653
95842045|NCT03201419|191653023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.97||||0.5304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|12.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.29|-6.35|0.5304
95842046|NCT03201419|191653023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.02||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.46|-17.51|0.0968
95842047|NCT03201419|191653023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.91||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|7.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.62|-5.79|0.7885
95842048|NCT03201419|191653024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|4.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.50|-6.89|0.6792
95842049|NCT03201419|191653024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.39||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.93|-15.84|0.0276
95842050|NCT03201419|191653024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-7.97|0.9445
95842051|NCT03201419|191653024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.79||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|12.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||12.28|-6.71|0.5637
95842052|NCT03201419|191653024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|5.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.60|-14.39|0.3870
95842053|NCT03201419|191653024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.72||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|7.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.63|-6.19|0.8373
95842054|NCT03201419|191653025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.53||||0.8646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|6.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||6.59|-5.54|0.8646
95842055|NCT03201419|191653025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.02|-15.00|0.0870
95842056|NCT03201419|191653025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.77||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|11.04||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||11.04|-5.50|0.5100
95842057|NCT03201419|191653025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|7.32||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|17.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.39|-2.75|0.1535
95842058|NCT03201419|191653025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|5.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.38|-15.66|0.3369
95842059|NCT03201419|191653025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.27||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|7.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.59|-7.05|0.9417
95842060|NCT03201419|191653026|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.47||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||5.47|-1.41|
95842061|NCT03201419|191653026|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.19||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||1.19|-0.43|
95842062|NCT03201419|191653026|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.5||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.50|-0.16|
95842063|NCT03201419|191653026|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.15|-0.03|
95842064|NCT03201419|191653026|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.05|-0.01|
95842065|NCT03201419|191653026|SUPERIORITY||Median difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.01|-0.00|
95842066|NCT03201419|191653027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.2||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|15.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||15.7|-5.3|0.3328
95842067|NCT03201419|191653027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.5||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|29.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.2|1.9|0.0255
95842068|NCT03201419|191653027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.5||||0.7296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|16.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.7|-11.7|0.7296
95842069|NCT03201419|191653027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.4586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|11.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||11.1|-24.5|0.4586
95842070|NCT03201419|191653027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|11.2||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|29.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||29.5|-7.2|0.2327
95842071|NCT03201419|191653027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|12.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||12.1|-13.3|0.9240
95842072|NCT03201419|191653028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.9499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.5|-7.9|0.9499
95842073|NCT03201419|191653028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|5.8||||0.2842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|16.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||16.4|-4.8|0.2842
95842074|NCT03201419|191653028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-5.7||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||5.4|-16.8|0.3100
95842075|NCT03201419|191653028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|3.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.7|-23.9|0.1499
95842076|NCT03201419|191653028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.2571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|6.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||6.0|-22.5|0.2571
95842077|NCT03201419|191653028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|8.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||8.3|-11.4|0.7629
95842078|NCT03201419|191653029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.48||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.46|-4.50|0.4846
95842079|NCT03201419|191653029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-16.93||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|-7.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-7.60|-26.26|0.0004
95842080|NCT03201419|191653029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.05||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|7.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.37|-11.47|0.6685
95842081|NCT03201419|191653029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.69||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|13.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.46|-10.07|0.7772
95842082|NCT03201419|191653029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.67||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|23.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||23.00|-1.66|0.0895
95842083|NCT03201419|191653029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.2||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|9.74|||MMRM|||||9.74|-7.34|0.7820
95842084|NCT03201419|191653030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|7.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||7.42|-8.25|0.9175
95842085|NCT03201419|191653030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-4.32||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|5.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.98|-14.62|0.4098
95842086|NCT03201419|191653030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.41||||0.6566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|13.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.06|-8.25|0.6566
95842087|NCT03201419|191653030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.39||||0.6144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.63|-9.85|0.6144
95842088|NCT03201419|191653030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.8||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|17.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||17.31|-9.71|0.5798
95842089|NCT03201419|191653030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.35||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|9.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||9.88|-9.17|0.9417
95842090|NCT03201419|191653031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.81||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|5.68||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.68|-11.31|0.5148
95842091|NCT03201419|191653031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-9.65||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|1.44||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.44|-20.75|0.0879
95864107|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.56|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.56|0.40|
95864108|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.66|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.66|0.47|
95842092|NCT03201419|191653031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.61||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|15.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||15.00|-7.79|0.5335
95842093|NCT03201419|191653031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|6.29||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|20.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||20.34|-7.76|0.3787
95842094|NCT03201419|191653031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.48||||0.8448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.41|16.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.38|-13.41|0.8448
95842095|NCT03201419|191653031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|4.62||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|14.87||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||14.87|-5.63|0.3751
95842096|NCT03201419|191653032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|8.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||8.57|-9.43|0.9245
95842097|NCT03201419|191653032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-6.72||||0.2657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|5.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.15|-18.59|0.2657
95842098|NCT03201419|191653032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|9.2||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|21.38||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||21.38|-2.99|0.1383
95842099|NCT03201419|191653032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.72||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|29.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||29.59|-0.15|0.0523
95842100|NCT03201419|191653032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.14||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|16.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||16.75|-14.47|0.8855
95842101|NCT03201419|191653032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.91||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|13.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||13.72|-7.91|0.5972
95842102|NCT03201419|191653033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|2.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||2.28|-6.09|
95842103|NCT03201419|191653033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.75||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.75|-4.30|
95842104|NCT03201419|191653033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.33||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.33|-2.44|
95842105|NCT03201419|191653033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.07|-0.92|
95842106|NCT03201419|191653033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.02|-0.48|
95842107|NCT03201419|191653033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||0.00|-0.15|
95842108|NCT03201419|191653034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.545|0.006||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.006|-0.545|0.0550
95842109|NCT03201419|191653034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|-0.335||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.335|-1.066|0.0002
95842110|NCT03201419|191653034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.037||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.404|0.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.330|-0.404|0.8440
95842111|NCT03201419|191653034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.041||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.498||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.498|-0.417|0.8610
95842112|NCT03201419|191653034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.036||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.532||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.532|-0.460|0.8871
95842113|NCT03201419|191653034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.013||||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.313|0.338||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.338|-0.313|0.9396
95842114|NCT03201419|191653035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.475||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|-0.145||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.145|-0.806|0.0050
95842115|NCT03201419|191653035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.405||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.028|-0.837|0.0665
95842116|NCT03201419|191653035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.149||||0.5245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.608|0.31||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.310|-0.608|0.5245
95842117|NCT03201419|191653035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.7947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.642|0.492||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.492|-0.642|0.7947
95842118|NCT03201419|191653035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.211||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.777|0.355||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.355|-0.777|0.4625
95842119|NCT03201419|191653035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.014||||0.9465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.385||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.385|-0.412|0.9465
95842120|NCT03201419|191653036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.078|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.383|-1.078|<0.0001
95864109|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.69|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.69|0.49|
95864110|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.75|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.75|0.53|
95864111|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||0.80|0.57|
95864112|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||0.80|0.56|
95864113|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||0.74|0.52|
95864114|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.71|0.51|
95842121|NCT03201419|191653036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.686||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.137|-0.236||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.236|-1.137|0.0030
95842122|NCT03201419|191653036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.045||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.427||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.427|-0.517|0.8520
95842123|NCT03201419|191653036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.287||||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.281||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.281|-0.856|0.3205
95842124|NCT03201419|191653036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.418||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.190|-1.026|0.1769
95842125|NCT03201419|191653036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.118||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.118|-0.717|0.1584
95864115|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.74|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM||0.74|0.52|
95864116|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||0.81|0.58|
95864117|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||0.80|0.57|
95728618|NCT00449072|191426476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4488||95.0|||||Mixed model for repeated measures|The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.||Statistical Analysis for Day 240||||0.4488
95842126|NCT03201419|191653037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.822|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.424||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.424|-1.220|<0.0001
95842127|NCT03201419|191653037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.818||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.331|-0.306||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.306|-1.331|0.0019
95842128|NCT03201419|191653037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.167||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.716||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.716|-0.383|0.5510
95842129|NCT03201419|191653037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.038||||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.610|-0.685|0.9086
95842130|NCT03201419|191653037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.812||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.486|-0.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.138|-1.486|0.0185
95842131|NCT03201419|191653037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.106||||0.6537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.357||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.357|-0.569|0.6537
95842132|NCT03201419|191653038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.146||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.096||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.096|-0.388|0.2350
95842133|NCT03201419|191653038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.377||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.699|-0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.056|-0.699|0.0215
95842134|NCT03201419|191653038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.218||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.103||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.103|-0.540|0.1818
95842135|NCT03201419|191653038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.350|-0.450|0.8063
95842136|NCT03201419|191653038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.176||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.627||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.627|-0.274|0.4414
95842137|NCT03201419|191653038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.126||||0.4179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.180|-0.432|0.4179
95842138|NCT03201419|191653039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.061||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.292||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.292|-0.170|0.6042
95842139|NCT03201419|191653039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.177||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.177|-0.432|0.4114
95842140|NCT03201419|191653039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.099||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.418||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.418|-0.219|0.5394
95842141|NCT03201419|191653039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.149||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.544||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.544|-0.246|0.4590
95842142|NCT03201419|191653039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.242||||0.2397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.647||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.647|-0.163|0.2397
95842143|NCT03201419|191653039|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.039||||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|0.254||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.254|-0.332|0.7954
95842144|NCT03201419|191653040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.332||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.576|-0.089||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.089|-0.576|0.0077
95842145|NCT03201419|191653040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.927|-0.293||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.293|-0.927|0.0002
95842146|NCT03201419|191653040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.301||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.301|-0.352|0.8778
95842147|NCT03201419|191653040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.157||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.549||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.549|-0.235|0.4309
95842148|NCT03201419|191653040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.411||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.411|-0.444|0.9392
95842149|NCT03201419|191653040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.213||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.094||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.094|-0.521|0.1734
95864118|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||0.78|0.56|
95864119|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||0.80|0.57|
95864120|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.78|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||0.78|0.55|
95864121|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||0.81|0.58|
95864122|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||0.86|0.61|
95864123|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||0.86|0.61|
95864124|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||0.85|0.61|
95864125|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||0.84|0.60|
95842150|NCT03201419|191653041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.328||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|-0.069||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.069|-0.587|0.0133
95842151|NCT03201419|191653041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.484||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|-0.15||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.150|-0.819|0.0048
95842152|NCT03201419|191653041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.395|0.314||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.314|-0.395|0.8223
95842153|NCT03201419|191653041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.215||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.630|-0.200|0.3083
95842154|NCT03201419|191653041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.315||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.121||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.121|-0.750|0.1556
95842155|NCT03201419|191653041|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.188||||0.2423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.128||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.128|-0.504|0.2423
95842156|NCT03201419|191653042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.251||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.251|-0.409|0.6381
95842157|NCT03201419|191653042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.502||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|-0.073||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.073|-0.931|0.0221
95842158|NCT03201419|191653042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.177||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.602|0.4112
95842159|NCT03201419|191653042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.112||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.64||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.640|-0.416|0.6761
95842160|NCT03201419|191653042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.224||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.861||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.861|-0.414|0.4898
95842161|NCT03201419|191653042|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.194||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.585||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.585|-0.198|0.3311
95842162|NCT03201419|191653043|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.551|0.09||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.090|-0.551|0.1583
95842163|NCT03201419|191653043|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.275||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.136||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.136|-0.685|0.1884
95842164|NCT03201419|191653043|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.8256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.369||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.369|-0.463|0.8256
95842165|NCT03201419|191653043|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.059||||0.8198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|0.574||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.574|-0.455|0.8198
95842166|NCT03201419|191653043|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.431||||0.1793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.199||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.199|-1.061|0.1793
95842167|NCT03201419|191653043|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.189||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.189|-0.581|0.3155
95842168|NCT03201419|191653044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.241||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|0.114||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.114|-0.596|0.1830
95728619|NCT00449072|191426476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0142||95.0||||The treatment arm, assessment visit, their interaction, sex and age group were fixed effects, and assessment visit was a repeated factor.|Mixed model for repeated measures|||Statistical Analysis for Day 360||||0.0142
95842169|NCT03201419|191653044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.313||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.126||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.126|-0.751|0.1618
95842170|NCT03201419|191653044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|0.186||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.186|-0.706|0.2519
95842171|NCT03201419|191653044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.232||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.781||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.781|-0.316|0.4044
95842172|NCT03201419|191653044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.4348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.986|0.426||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.426|-0.986|0.4348
95842173|NCT03201419|191653044|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.266||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.266|-0.565|0.4786
95842174|NCT03201419|191653045|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.223||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.598|0.151||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.151|-0.598|0.2412
95842175|NCT03201419|191653045|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|0.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.000|-0.959|0.0501
95842176|NCT03201419|191653045|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.069||||0.7788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.556||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.556|-0.417|0.7788
95842177|NCT03201419|191653045|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.111||||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.698|0.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.477|-0.698|0.7111
95842178|NCT03201419|191653045|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.205||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.527|-0.937|0.5816
95842179|NCT03201419|191653045|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.152||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.290|-0.595|0.4981
95842180|NCT03201419|191653046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.313||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|0.582||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.582|-3.207|0.1733
95842181|NCT03201419|191653046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.375||||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.745|0.994||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.994|-3.745|0.2538
95842182|NCT03201419|191653046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.353||||0.7782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.818|2.113||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.113|-2.818|0.7782
95842183|NCT03201419|191653046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.151||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.182|2.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.880|-3.182|0.9218
95842184|NCT03201419|191653046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.767||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|4.457||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.457|-2.923|0.6823
95842185|NCT03201419|191653046|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.095||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|1.179||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.179|-3.369|0.3436
95842186|NCT03201419|191653047|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.235||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|0.676||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.676|-3.146|0.2042
95842187|NCT03201419|191653047|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.683||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.031|0.665||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.665|-4.031|0.1591
95842188|NCT03201419|191653047|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|2.138||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.138|-2.708|0.8168
95864126|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||0.86|0.61|
95864127|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||0.93|0.66|
95842189|NCT03201419|191653047|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.551||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.517|2.416||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||2.416|-3.517|0.7148
95842190|NCT03201419|191653047|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.701||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.066|4.468||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||4.468|-3.066|0.7141
95842191|NCT03201419|191653047|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.759||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.995|1.477||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.477|-2.995|0.5041
95842192|NCT03201419|191653048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.129||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|0.967||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.967|-3.226|0.2896
95842193|NCT03201419|191653048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.652||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.301|-0.003||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.003|-5.301|0.0498
95842194|NCT03201419|191653048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.323||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.409|3.055||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.055|-2.409|0.8159
95842195|NCT03201419|191653048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.485||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.809|3.779||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||3.779|-2.809|0.7719
95842196|NCT03201419|191653048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.676||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.407|5.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||5.760|-2.407|0.4193
95842197|NCT03201419|191653048|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|1.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||1.270|-3.730|0.3333
95842198|NCT03201419|191653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|41.8||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-5.9|0.0853
95842199|NCT03201419|191653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|105.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|168.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||168.4|43.4|0.0010
95842200|NCT03201419|191653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|24.9||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|88.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||88.6|-38.8|0.4418
95842201|NCT03201419|191653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|10.7||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|89.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||89.6|-68.2|0.7902
95842202|NCT03201419|191653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.8||||0.9664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|87.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||87.9|-84.2|0.9664
95842203|NCT03201419|191653049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-29.8||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.9|26.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||26.4|-85.9|0.2977
95842204|NCT03201419|191653050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|14.3||||0.5523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|61.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||61.5|-33.0|0.5523
95842205|NCT03201419|191653050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|60.8||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|123.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||123.0|-1.5|0.0556
95864128|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||0.93|0.66|
95864129|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.79|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||0.79|0.56|
95864130|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||0.93|0.66|
95864131|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||0.94|0.66|
95864132|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.87|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||0.87|0.62|
95864133|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||0.86|0.61|
95864134|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||0.91|0.65|
95842206|NCT03201419|191653050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-17.9||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|46.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||46.3|-82.0|0.5837
95842207|NCT03201419|191653050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-60.7||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.7|19.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||19.3|-140.7|0.1363
95961633|NCT02035696|191895036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
95961634|NCT02035696|191895036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
95961635|NCT02035696|191895036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Desirability Index Score|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Desirability Score: If this difference is negative, then it is defined as non-desirable (D equal to 0), while if the difference is positive, then D will equal to the relative reduction calculated in the following way: D = (TIVe - TIVc Dose )/TIVe.|||||
95961636|NCT00379769|191895046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.2 for the upper limit of the 95 percent confidence interval in time to event analysis comparing RSG to MET/SU stratified by background medication|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||||95.0|0.85|1.16||||||||1.16|0.85|
95961637|NCT00379769|191895070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||||95.0|0.68|1.08||||||||1.08|0.68|
95961638|NCT00379769|191895071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.17||||||||1.17|0.78|
95961639|NCT00379769|191895072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||||95.0|0.79|1.18||||||||1.18|0.79|
95961640|NCT00379769|191895073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
95842208|NCT03201419|191653050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-28.2||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.1|52.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.8|-109.1|0.4938
95842209|NCT03201419|191653050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-54.7||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.2|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.8|-110.2|0.0535
95961641|NCT00379769|191895074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.68|1.21||||||||1.21|0.68|
95961642|NCT00379769|191895075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||95.0|0.8|1.59||||||||1.59|0.80|
95961643|NCT00379769|191895076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||||95.0|0.82|1.62||||||||1.62|0.82|
95961644|NCT00379769|191895077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||||95.0|0.54|1.14||||||||1.14|0.54|
95961645|NCT00379769|191895078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||||95.0|0.57|1.18||||||||1.18|0.57|
95961646|NCT02104505|191895103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparison of change in sputum %PMNs during active treatment vs placebo (crossover design).|||||0.04
95961647|NCT02104505|191895104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95961648|NCT02104505|191895105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6
95961649|NCT02104505|191895106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95961650|NCT01381575|191895107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.78||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.78|-1.08|
95961651|NCT01381575|191895107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference (Cervarix 2 Group minus Cervarix 1 Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.77||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of seroconversion (SCR) rates: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule of 0,6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.77|-1.00|
95842210|NCT03201419|191653051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|60.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||60.9|-62.2|0.9829
95842211|NCT03201419|191653051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|64.4||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|142.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||142.1|-13.3|0.1038
95842212|NCT03201419|191653051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|29.2||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|109.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||109.8|-51.4|0.4764
95961652|NCT01381575|191895108|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.22||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||1.22|0.97|
95961653|NCT01381575|191895108|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs) was demonstrated if, 1 month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18, the upper limit of 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Cervarix 2 Group divided by Cervarix 1 Group) was below 2.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of Geometric Mean Concentrations (GMCs): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months in 9-14 year old females was non-inferior to that administered according to the standard 3-dose schedule of 0,1,6 months in 15-25 year old females, 1 month after the last dose of study vaccine, in initially seronegative subjects.||0.95|0.76|
95864135|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.01|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||1.01|0.65|
95842213|NCT03201419|191653051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-24.2||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.5|72.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.0|-120.5|0.6204
95842214|NCT03201419|191653051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|2.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.1|104.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||104.6|-100.1|0.9660
95842215|NCT03201419|191653051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|73.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||73.9|-67.4|0.9275
95842216|NCT03201419|191653052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|15.7||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|74.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||74.2|-42.7|0.5964
95842217|NCT03201419|191653052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5|72.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||72.9|-78.5|0.9418
95842218|NCT03201419|191653052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|18.0||||0.6452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|94.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||94.7|-58.8|0.6452
95842219|NCT03201419|191653052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-51.3||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.2|37.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||37.6|-140.2|0.2565
95961654|NCT00656201|191895131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This was an equivalence comparison. The study was designed to detect a 14% pregnancy difference between the arms with 80% power and one interim analysis using O'Brien-Fleming parameters and an experiment-wise alpha level of 5%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Crinone is the numerator and IM Progesterone is the denominator.|||1.8|0.8|<0.05
95864136|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||0.96|0.61|
95842220|NCT03201419|191653052|OTHER||Mean Difference|-21.6||||0.6605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.6|75.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||75.4|-118.6|0.6605
95842221|NCT03201419|191653052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.4||||0.9191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|69.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||69.4|-62.6|0.9191
95842222|NCT03201419|191653053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|17.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|62.09||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||62.09|-6.19|
95842223|NCT03201419|191653053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|12.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|55.89||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||55.89|-0.73|
95842224|NCT03201419|191653053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|47.28||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||47.28|-0.14|
95842225|NCT03201419|191653053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|28.07||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||28.07|-0.01|
95842226|NCT03201419|191653053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.9||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||17.90|-0.00|
95842227|NCT03201419|191653053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.55||||||Based on a Bayesian analysis of a sigmoidal dose-response relationship.||7.55|-0.00|
95842228|NCT03201419|191653054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.173||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.028|-0.318|0.0196
95842229|NCT03201419|191653054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.233||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|-0.043||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.043|-0.423|0.0167
95842230|NCT03201419|191653054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.208||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.015||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||-0.015|-0.401|0.0352
95961655|NCT01952847|191895185|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95961656|NCT01952847|191895186|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95961657|NCT01952847|191895189|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95961658|NCT01952847|191895190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95842231|NCT03201419|191653054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.057||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.182||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.182|-0.295|0.6402
95842232|NCT03201419|191653054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.121||||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.139||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.139|-0.381|0.3602
95842233|NCT03201419|191653054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.074||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.247|-0.099|0.4018
95842234|NCT03201419|191653055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.133||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.042||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.042|-0.308|0.1354
95842235|NCT03201419|191653055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.091||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.133||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.133|-0.315|0.4238
95864137|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||1.00|0.59|
95864138|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||1.05|0.63|
95864139|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.0|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||1.00|0.52|
95864140|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.09|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||1.09|0.56|
95864141|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||1.14|0.53|
95864142|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||1.22|0.59|
95864143|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||1.13|0.50|
95842236|NCT03201419|191653055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|0.007||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.007|-0.446|0.0574
95842237|NCT03201419|191653055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|0.058||||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.315||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.315|-0.199|0.6579
95842238|NCT03201419|191653055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.110|-0.450|0.2337
95842239|NCT03201419|191653055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.136||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.056||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.328|0.1639
95842240|NCT03201419|191653056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-87.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-173.2|-1.2|||MMRM|||||-1.2|-173.2|0.0470
95842241|NCT03201419|191653056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-130.2||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.9|-17.6|||MMRM|||||-17.6|-242.9|0.0237
95842242|NCT03201419|191653056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-110.8||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.9|3.3|||MMRM|||||3.3|-224.9|0.0569
95842243|NCT03201419|191653056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-23.9||||0.7383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.8|117.0|||MMRM|||||117.0|-164.8|0.7383
95864144|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, AM|||1.25|0.55|
95864145|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.16|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 22, PM|||1.16|0.51|
95864146|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.49|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, AM|||1.49|0.66|
95961659|NCT01952847|191895191|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
95842244|NCT03201419|191653056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-71.0||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.3|82.3|||MMRM|||||82.3|-224.3|0.3626
95864147|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 23, PM|||1.51|0.29|
95961660|NCT01952847|191895192|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95842245|NCT03201419|191653056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|23.4||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.9|125.7|||MMRM|||||125.7|-78.9|0.6524
95842246|NCT03201419|191653057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-49.5||||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.9|49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||49.9|-148.9|0.3273
95842247|NCT03201419|191653057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-74.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.0|52.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||52.9|-202.0|0.2500
95842248|NCT03201419|191653057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-93.5||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.3|35.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||35.2|-222.3|0.1537
95842249|NCT03201419|191653057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|33.6||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.1|180.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||180.3|-113.1|0.6515
95842250|NCT03201419|191653057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-75.7||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.3|83.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||83.9|-235.3|0.3506
95842251|NCT03201419|191653057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-85.4||||0.1255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.8|24.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||||24.1|-194.8|0.1255
95842252|NCT03691571|191653149|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Esophageal thermal injury was detected in 13/44 (30%) patients.||||>.05
95842253|NCT03691571|191653151|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95842254|NCT03691571|191653152|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95842255|NCT03691571|191653153|OTHER|feasibility/pilot study||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
95961661|NCT01952847|191895193|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95961662|NCT01952847|191895194|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95961663|NCT01952847|191895195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.57
95842256|NCT01657292|191653173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||1-sided, significance level = 0.025|Binomial test|||"All patients received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: s0 ≤0.5 and H1: s0 \>0.5 (with s0=rate of superiority of Oleogel-S10)."||||<0.0001
95842257|NCT00549445|191653184|OTHER|Student t test||||||0.045||||||Threshold for significance is P-Value \< 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.045
95842258|NCT04437485|191653210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.64
95842259|NCT04437485|191653211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.046
95842260|NCT04437485|191653212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models were run on post-treatment outcome level adjusting for baseline somatic depressive symptoms group (a stratification variable).||||||0.09
95842261|NCT03678311|191653213|OTHER|The correlation between the outcome and AHI was tested by Spearman's correlation.|Spearman's correlation|0.13||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.0|||Spearman's correlation|||Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the relationship between the outcome and the apnea hypopnea index.||1.00|-0.75|0.73
95864148|NCT02712047|191686367|OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 24, AM|||1.64|0.32|
95864149|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.69|68.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||68.03|23.69|
95864150|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|67.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||67.55|23.20|
95864151|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|56.21|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||56.21|11.86|
95864152|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.38|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||53.73|9.38|
95864153|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|45.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||45.03|0.68|
95864154|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.77|59.12|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||59.12|14.77|
95864155|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|41.66|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||41.66|-3.00|
95961664|NCT01952847|191895199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95961665|NCT01952847|191895200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95961666|NCT02330094|191895211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95842262|NCT01454791|191653222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95864156|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|43.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||43.03|-1.32|
95864157|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|39.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||39.11|-5.47|
95864158|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|44.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, PM|||44.14|-0.41|
95864159|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|35.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, AM|||35.67|-9.57|
95842263|NCT01454791|191653223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.6059
95842264|NCT01454791|191653224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||not significant|||||0.705
95842265|NCT02719171|191653225|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|38.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use and concurrent methotrexate use.||38.7|9.3|0.007
95842266|NCT02719171|191653226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||23.0|1.0|0.074
95842267|NCT02719171|191653226|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||30.6|7.4|0.007
95864160|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.38|51.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 6, PM|||51.98|5.38|
95842268|NCT02719171|191653227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.1|16.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||16.4|4.1|0.006
95864161|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|39.26|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||39.26|-5.08|
95864162|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|46.94|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, PM|||46.94|0.28|
95864163|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|35.05|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, AM|||35.05|-9.30|
95864164|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|29.68|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 8, PM|||29.68|-14.67|
95864165|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|25.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, AM|||25.74|-19.11|
95864166|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|26.0|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 9, PM|||26.00|-18.34|
95864167|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.11|33.82|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, AM|||33.82|-11.11|
95864168|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|50.03|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 10, PM|||50.03|5.43|
95864169|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|36.98|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, AM|||36.98|-7.57|
95864170|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|15.55|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 11, PM|||15.55|-28.80|
95864171|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|27.11|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, AM|||27.11|-18.39|
95864172|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|30.57|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 12, PM|||30.57|-13.99|
95864173|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.64|22.92|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, AM|||22.92|-21.64|
95961667|NCT02330094|191895212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
95864174|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.96|16.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 13, PM|||16.19|-29.96|
95864175|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|51.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, AM|||51.13|5.76|
95864176|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|34.74|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 14, PM|||34.74|-10.13|
95864177|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|26.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, AM|||26.36|-18.16|
95864178|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|41.63|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 15, PM|||41.63|-3.89|
95842269|NCT02719171|191653227|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.5|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||22.9|8.5|<0.001
95842270|NCT02719171|191653228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|2.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.5|-4.0|0.690
95842271|NCT02719171|191653228|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.0|-5.3|0.260
95842272|NCT02719171|191653229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-2.1|0.791
95842273|NCT02719171|191653229|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|0.7|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.7|-2.8|0.320
95864179|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|28.88|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, AM|||28.88|-16.17|
95864180|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|41.41|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 16, PM|||41.41|-3.27|
95864181|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|52.15|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, AM|||52.15|6.87|
95864182|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.91|37.19|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 17, PM|||37.19|-17.91|
95864183|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|53.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, AM|||53.73|-4.20|
95864184|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.63|79.45|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 18, PM|||79.45|14.63|
95864185|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|52.52|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, AM|||52.52|-12.30|
95864186|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.02|65.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 19, PM|||65.27|-15.02|
95864187|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.04|32.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, AM|||32.25|-48.04|
95864188|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.22|54.25|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 20, PM|||54.25|-37.22|
95864189|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|58.67|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||58.67|-28.50|
95864190|NCT02712047|191686369|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|55.73|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, PM|||55.73|-45.35|
95864191|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.46|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, AM|||0.46|0.26|
95864192|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 1, PM|||0.36|0.16|
95864193|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.44|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, AM|||0.44|0.24|
95864194|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 2, PM|||0.34|0.14|
95961668|NCT02330094|191895213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95728620|NCT02324972|191426550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.25|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 20 subjects per group was assumed to have 80% power to allow detection of a statistically significant difference in change from baseline in TLSS between the 2 groups, if the effect size was approximately less than or equal to 0.9. This is equivalent to detecting a difference of -4.5 between the 2 groups with a common standard deviation of 5. The primary analysis was doing using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputed data.||1.25|-1.30|0.636
95842274|NCT02719171|191653230|OTHER||mixed model repeated measures model|-0.082||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.225|0.06|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.060|-0.225|0.341
95842275|NCT02719171|191653230|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.254|0.027|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.027|-0.254|0.181
95842276|NCT02719171|191653231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.77|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.77|-0.36|0.174
95842277|NCT02719171|191653231|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|3.44|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.44|-0.73|0.284
95842278|NCT02719171|191653232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|3.3|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||3.30|-2.12|0.718
95842279|NCT02719171|191653232|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|4.74|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||4.74|-0.61|0.204
95842280|NCT02719171|191653233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.8|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||2.8|-0.5|0.243
95842281|NCT02719171|191653233|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.1|-1.0|0.906
95842282|NCT02719171|191653234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.5|-1.8|0.325
95842283|NCT02719171|191653234|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.2|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.2|-2.1|0.160
95842284|NCT02719171|191653235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.5|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||1.5|-4.0|0.453
95842285|NCT02719171|191653235|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|0.1|||mixed model repeated measures model|||The 2-sided p-value is calculated using a mixed model repeated measures model with categorical fixed effects of treatment, stratification factors, week, and treatment-by-week interaction and the continuous fixed baseline measurement, with subject as a random effect.||0.1|-5.7|0.111
95842286|NCT02719171|191653236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.9|71.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||71.1|35.9|<0.001
95864195|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, AM|||0.36|0.16|
95961669|NCT01271504|191895232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||||1.50|0.56|
95961670|NCT01271504|191895233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.5||||||||1.50|0.57|
95961671|NCT01271504|191895235|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.62||||||||1.62|0.60|
95961672|NCT02552147|191895237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||.44
95961673|NCT02552147|191895238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.38
95961674|NCT02552147|191895242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
95961675|NCT02552147|191895243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.13
95961676|NCT02552147|191895244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.50
95961677|NCT02552147|191895245|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value was calculated to \>0.99 and thus rounded to 1.0.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||1.0
95961678|NCT02552147|191895246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-tailed||||||0.25
95864196|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 3, PM|||0.28|0.08|
95864197|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.34|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, AM|||0.34|0.14|
95864198|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 4, PM|||0.27|0.07|
95864199|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 5, AM|||0.17|-0.03|
95864200|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 7, AM|||0.14|-0.06|
95864201|NCT02712047|191686370|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13|||||Difference of FF/VI 100/25mcg Vs Placebo for Day 21, AM|||0.13|-0.07|
95864202|NCT03137069|191686376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.02||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.01|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-1.03|-13.01|0.0559
95864203|NCT03137069|191686376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.6|5.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||5.58|-6.60|0.8892
95961679|NCT02552147|191895247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Binomial test|||||||0.69
95961680|NCT00940875|191895249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference of 2 rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.9|-17.5|
95961681|NCT00940875|191895250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4798|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in PFS||||0.4798
95961682|NCT00940875|191895250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|1.3||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.68|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS), disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||2.68|0.63|0.4805
95728621|NCT02324972|191426551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.68|||ANOVA|||||0.68|-0.44|0.677
95728622|NCT02324972|191426552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.983|1.544|||ANOVA|||||1.544|-1.983|0.802
95728623|NCT02324972|191426553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.076|7.292|||ANOVA|||||7.292|-7.076|0.976
95864204|NCT03137069|191686376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.43||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.29|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-0.57|-12.29|0.0717
95864205|NCT03137069|191686376|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.53||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-3.55|-15.50|0.0097
95864206|NCT03137069|191686377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.1087
95864207|NCT03137069|191686377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.3418
95864208|NCT03137069|191686377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0459
95864209|NCT03137069|191686377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by region||||||0.0190
95864210|NCT03137069|191686378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.94|-6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-6.82|-18.94|0.0010
95864211|NCT03137069|191686378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.83||||0.4565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.11|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||3.46|-9.11|0.4565
95864212|NCT03137069|191686378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.03||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||1.03|-11.10|0.1711
95864213|NCT03137069|191686378|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.97|-4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included were region, treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction||||-4.56|-16.97|0.0050
95864214|NCT02043899|191686381|OTHER|"1. Exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≤90%) using α=0.05 on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT SIOPEN consensus scores. If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected, then trial stopped early for futility.~2. If the null hypothesis was rejected, then a one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%) was performed (α=0.025). If this was accepted and the alternative hypothesis rejected then the trial stopped early for efficacy."|||||<|0.001||||||Overall design has 82% power and an α of 0.03. Total minimum sample size of 100 lesions was calculated based on a single stage A'hern design with p0 = 0.90 and p1 = 0.97. The overall power and α was calculated based on exact binomial probabilities.|Exact one-sided binomial test||||"For the primary endpoint, a sensitivity analysis was also performed on patients with \<20 positive lesions on \[124I\]mIBG PET/CT to test if few patients with large numbers of positive lesions were affecting the results. The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the overall analysis.~Secondary efficacy analysis, separate exact one-sided binomial test of the null hypothesis (p≥97%), performed (α=0.025) performed for skeletal and soft tissue lesions."|||<0.001
95864215|NCT00362180|191686384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 26.||||0.7244
95864216|NCT00362180|191686384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||exact Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|||The p-value is a comparison between the placebo group and the mipomersen group in Cohort E as a change from Baseline to Day 99.||||0.0513
95864217|NCT03630770|191686398|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.7||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the control group.||1.7|0.55|0.9
95961683|NCT00940875|191895251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-11.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|17.2|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 8||17.2|-40.3|
95864218|NCT03630770|191686398|OTHER||Rate Ratio|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|25.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the control group.||25|2.6|<0.001
95864219|NCT03630770|191686398|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.15||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.75||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (before v. during supplementation) for the MCT group.||0.75|0.03|0.02
95864220|NCT03630770|191686398|OTHER||Rate Ratio|61.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|533.0||p-values underwent generalized estimating equations adjustment for multiple measures per individuals within time.|Negative binomial regression|||Stool fungal counts (cfu/g) were compared between groups using negative binomial regression within time period (before, during, after). Rate ratio was calculated to reflect the direction and magnitude of change in stool colony counts between time periods (during v. after supplementation) for the MCT group.||533|6.9|<0.001
95864221|NCT03595618|191686434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02465||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00317|0.09345||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value||0.09345|-0.00317|0.165
95864222|NCT03595618|191686434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02585||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03868|0.06267||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.06267|-0.03868|0.939
95864223|NCT03595618|191686434|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02536||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02641|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% confidence interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose minus placebo using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.07300|-0.02641|0.682
95864224|NCT03595618|191686435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||2.58|0.84|0.396
95864225|NCT03595618|191686435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.50|0.53|0.951
95864226|NCT03595618|191686435|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.83||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen||1.83|0.64|0.985
95864227|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-5.6|0.467
95961684|NCT00940875|191895251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|-13.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|9.0|||||The 95% CI for difference of 2 rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Week 16||9.0|-36.0|
95961685|NCT00940875|191895253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Difference between treatment groups in OS||||0.5393
95961686|NCT00940875|191895253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66|||Wald Test||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox regression model and stratified by ECOG PS, disease stage, histology, and smoking status.|||1.66|0.38|0.5399
95728624|NCT02324972|191426554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|6.72|||ANOVA|||||6.72|-1.68|0.233
95728625|NCT02398188|191426566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.397
95842287|NCT02719171|191653236|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.1|64.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The 90% CI for the difference in response rates between the groups and the 2-sided p-value are calculated using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by prior TNFi use and concurrent methotrexate use.||64.5|33.1|<0.001
95842288|NCT01875159|191653237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE gamma regression models|||\>80% probability of detecting at least a 36% reduction in intermittent hypoxia events/hour of recording and in sec/hour \<90% oxygen saturation/hour of recording||||<0.05
95842289|NCT03270943|191653242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
95842290|NCT03270943|191653243|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|3.84|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||3.84|-6.06|
95842291|NCT03270943|191653243|OTHER|within group|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.22|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||-0.22|-8.70|
95842292|NCT03270943|191653244|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|0.2|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.2|-2.72|
95842293|NCT03270943|191653244|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.16|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.16|-3.60|
95842294|NCT03270943|191653245|OTHER|Within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.61|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.61|-0.15|
95842295|NCT03270943|191653245|OTHER|within group change|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.63|||||Difference between score at 8 weeks and score at baseline.|||0.63|0.07|
95842296|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1097|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1097
95842297|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1087
95842298|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1949|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1949
95728626|NCT02398188|191426567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.379
95842299|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1315|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1315
95842300|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1977|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.1977
95842301|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2149|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Bone||||0.2149
95842302|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2582|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2582
95842303|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.0009
95842304|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3588|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.3588
95842305|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.8791
95842306|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9457|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.9457
95842307|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2705|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Visceral/Soft tissue||||0.2705
95728627|NCT00220701|191426570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F statistics|2.82||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.10
95842308|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
95842309|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
95842310|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||<0.0001
95842311|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5933
95842312|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7094|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.7094
95842313|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5424|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Type: Lymph nodes||||0.5424
95842314|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
95842315|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
95842316|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||<0.0001
95842317|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0038
95842318|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0647
95842319|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: Prostate Gland||||0.0021
95842320|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
95842321|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
95842322|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||<0.0001
95842323|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.0815
95842324|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.7507
95842325|NCT02981368|191653259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562|||||||Chi-squared|||Tissue Site: All||||0.5620
95842326|NCT00181363|191653297|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95842327|NCT00181363|191653298|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95842328|NCT00181363|191653299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95842329|NCT00181363|191653300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95842330|NCT00181363|191653301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
96001792|NCT01847547|191981193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||||95.0|0.83|3.08|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.08|0.83|
96001793|NCT01847547|191981194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||||95.0|0.57|3.7|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||3.70|0.57|
95842331|NCT01276639|191653302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.03||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||15.03|4.40|<0.0001
95842332|NCT01276639|191653302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.01|31.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||31.88|9.01|<0.0001
95842333|NCT01276639|191653302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.11|24.47|||Normal approximation|||||24.47|10.11|<0.0001
95842334|NCT01276639|191653303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|21.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||21.84|5.25|<0.0001
95842335|NCT01276639|191653303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|49.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested against placebo at significance level of 0.05 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For primary endpoint, step-down procedure used to preserve Type I error, sequential order of testing: PGA response for CP-690,550 10 mg versus (vs) placebo at Week 16; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response for CP-690,550 10 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PGA response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16; PASI75 response for CP-690,550 5 mg vs placebo at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||49.86|11.90|<0.0001
95842336|NCT01276639|191653303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.37|||Normal approximation|||||26.37|12.07|<0.0001
95842337|NCT01276639|191653304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-53.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.08|-45.04||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-45.04|-62.08|<0.0001
95842338|NCT01276639|191653304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.33|-60.31||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16,PASI90 response at Week 16, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index(DLQI) total score at Week 16,PGA response at Week 4,PASI75 at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in Nail Psoriasis Severity Index(NAPSI) score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-60.31|-77.33|<0.0001
95842339|NCT01276639|191653304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-8.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-8.48|-22.04|<0.0001
95842340|NCT01276639|191653305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|1786.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1786.9|7.46|<0.0001
95842341|NCT01276639|191653305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|98.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|5689.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||5689.8|23.49|<0.0001
95961687|NCT05186311|191895262|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit (CAL).||||||||||||||||One hundred (100) participants (with paired numerical data) per each analyte provide \> 90% power to ensure that mean biases and confidence intervals are within the clinical acceptance limit (CAL), at medically relevant points, assuming no true bias between the tube types, residual standard deviation (SD) or coefficient of variation (CV) = CAL and collected data cover medically relevant points.|"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95842342|NCT01276639|191653305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|19.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|26.11|||Normal approximation|||||26.11|13.10|<0.0001
95842343|NCT01276639|191653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|-3.05||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.05|-4.75|<0.0001
95842344|NCT01276639|191653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-3.86||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.86|-5.56|<0.0001
95842345|NCT01276639|191653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.12|-1.50|0.0212
95842346|NCT01276639|191653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-3.95||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-3.95|-6.02|<0.0001
95842347|NCT01276639|191653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-5.94||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-5.94|-8.00|<0.0001
95842348|NCT01276639|191653307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.17|-2.80|<0.0001
95842349|NCT01276639|191653308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|35.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.12|3.23|<0.0001
95962391|NCT03607422|191896606|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.1|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||45.8|30.1|<0.001
95864228|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.5||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.5|-5.4|0.557
95864229|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Total score: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.6|-5.3|0.593
95842350|NCT01276639|191653308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|54.42||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||54.42|5.06|<0.0001
95842351|NCT01276639|191653308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|11.8|||Normal approximation|||||11.80|0.15|0.0443
95842352|NCT01276639|191653309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|35.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||35.77|2.11|0.0003
95842353|NCT01276639|191653309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|59.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for pooled investigator sites was used for the analysis. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||59.98|3.64|<0.0001
95842354|NCT01276639|191653309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.98|||Normal approximation|||||9.98|0.19|0.0415
95842355|NCT01276639|191653310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.27|-35.13||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-35.13|-104.27|<0.0001
95842356|NCT01276639|191653310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-97.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.35|-62.72||Mixed model analysis with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of 0.025 (2-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|||For key secondary endpoint, family-wise step-down procedure was used to control Type I error. Sequential order of testing: percent change in BSA at Week 16, PASI90 response at Week 16, change in DLQI total score at Week 16, PGA response at Week 4, PASI75 response at Week 4, change in DLQI total score at Week 4, percent change in NAPSI score at Week 16. If comparison at preceding step was significant, then subsequent comparisons were significant.||-62.72|-131.35|<0.0001
95842357|NCT01276639|191653310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.22||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.29|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference was derived from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value and repeated measures for visit. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.37|-53.29|0.0391
95842358|NCT01276639|191653314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842359|NCT01276639|191653314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842360|NCT01276639|191653314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842361|NCT01276639|191653315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842362|NCT01276639|191653315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842363|NCT01276639|191653315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842364|NCT01276639|191653316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842365|NCT01276639|191653316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842366|NCT01276639|191653316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95842367|NCT01507688|191653379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Models adjusted for: VA vs Non Va, admission diagnosis (transient ischemic attack vs stroke), sex (male vs female), white vs nonwhite, and baseline total Stroke Specific Quality of life score.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measurements of change GEE analyses of Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life score change at 6 months from baseline.|The adjusted positive mean (standard error) change at 6 months from baseline was higher in the intervention arm compared to in the control arm. Intervention group had 0.14 (SE 0.17) higher improvement compared to the control group.|"All the sample size calculations were powered at 80% with a 5% Type I error. We estimated based on our pilot study a change difference of 0.25 on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life in the intervention group compared to no change in the control group at 6 months. Our power calculations estimated a sample of 226 (113) per group was needed to detect this effect. We used primary outcome row Mean Change from 0 to 6 months for this analysis."||||0.0500
95842368|NCT01507688|191653379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted least square means (standard errors) adjusted for treatment (Intervention vs control), time of outcome from baseline (3, 6, 12 months), baseline SSQoL, Site (VA vs NonVA), Stroke/TIA diagnosis, sex (m vs f) and race (white vs nonwhite).|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted intervention arm's positive change (regression coefficient with standard error) in Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life was not significantly different at 12 months compared to the control group.|"We evaluated the mean difference on Total Stroke Specific Quality of Life compared to baseline between the intervention and control groups at 12 months using repeated measures ANCOVA models. We used primary outcome row Mean change from 0 to 12 months for this analysis."||||0.26
95842369|NCT01588561|191653411|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Cingulate, Paracingulate, Calcarine cortex, Lingual gyrus, Frontal pole, Fusiform gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal:Thalamus, Temporal gyri, Hippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
95842370|NCT01588561|191653412|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula, Putamen, Pallidum, Cingulate, Thalamus, Operculum, OBF cortex, Lingual gyrus, Cerebellum. Decreased signal: Hippocampus (left), Parahippocampus (left), Caudate, Cerebellum|||
95842371|NCT01588561|191653413|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Increased signal: Insula (bilateral), Cingulate, Pretcentralgyrus, Thalamus (bilateral), Putamen (bilateral), Pallidum (bilateral), Amygdala (bilateral), Ventral tegmental area, Accumbens Nuclei. Decreased signal: Insula (left inferior), OBF cortex, Frontal\&Temporal poles, Hippocampus (bilateral), Parahippocampus (bilateral), Accumbens nuclei, Cerebellum|||
95842372|NCT01818596|191653426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|98.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.71|104.46|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 2, 4, or 8 visit and presented as a geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio with 90% confidence interval (CI). Postbaseline value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||104.46|93.71|
95842373|NCT01818596|191653426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|30 participants with evaluable aGFR (measured by iohexol clearance) in either cohort would provide at least 90% power to show that aGFR change is \< 20% after participants were administered E/C/F/TAF. In this sample size/power computation, it was assumed that the intra-participant variation for aGFR is 0.17 mL/min on natural logarithm scale and a clinical meaningful boundary in aGFR change is 80% to 125%.|Difference in GLSM Ratio|102.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|108.53|||||A parametric analysis of variance model using a mixed-effects model with repeated statement was fitted to the natural logarithm transferred aGFR obtained at postbaseline visits and baseline.|Comparison is made between the baseline value and the value from the Week 24 visit and presented as a GLSM ratio with 90% CI. Week 24 value and baseline value were used as test and reference, respectively.||108.53|97.11|
95842374|NCT02073682|191653446|NON_INFERIORITY|Edoxaban Group was considered non-inferior to the Dalteparin Group if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] Edoxaban Group to Dalteparin Group) was less than 1.5.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.359|||Cox proportional hazard|||||1.359|0.696|0.0056
95842375|NCT02073682|191653446|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR), two-sided confidence interval (CI) and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||||||0.8712|||||||Cox proportional hazard|||||||0.8712
95842376|NCT02073682|191653447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.657|||Regression, Cox|||The HR, 2-sided CI and p-value are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||3.657|1.089|0.0254
95961688|NCT05186311|191895263|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95864230|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.0|0.776
95961689|NCT05186311|191895264|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
96001794|NCT01847547|191981195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||||95.0|0.67|1.35|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible.||1.35|0.67|
96001795|NCT01847547|191981196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||||95.0|0.79|2.01|||Regression, Cox||Cox Proportional Hazard's regression following propensity score matching.|These current feasibility data are limited by a small sample size, short follow up, and few outcome events resulting in wide 95% confidence intervals. At this early stage, no comparative conclusions are possible. Future data with an increased number of patients are planned.||2.01|0.79|
96001796|NCT03303339|191981197|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95842377|NCT02073682|191653448|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.059|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.059|0.476|0.0931
95842378|NCT02073682|191653449|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.56||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.972|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||0.972|0.318|0.0394
95842379|NCT02073682|191653450|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.624|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.624|0.502|0.7324
95842380|NCT02073682|191653451|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.56||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|5.505|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||5.505|0.444|0.4873
95842381|NCT02073682|191653452|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.293|||Cox proportional hazard|||The HR, 2-sided CI, and p-value are based on the Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and the 2 stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized bleeding risk and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor.||1.293|0.898|0.4199
95842382|NCT04152772|191653472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Significant Group (3 levels) by Stimulus (CS- vs CS+ extinguished) interaction. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups (3) on skin conductance reactivity to the previously extinguished stimulus versus never conditioned stimulus during extinction recall||||0.02
95842383|NCT05963022|191653473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.07|||ANCOVA|||||-1.07|-1.76|<0.001
95842384|NCT05963022|191653473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-1.34|<0.001
95842385|NCT05963022|191653473|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-1.61|<0.001
95842386|NCT05963022|191653474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|51.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.73|5.62|<0.001
95842387|NCT05963022|191653474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.37|2.77|<0.001
95842388|NCT05963022|191653474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|19.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.14|2.74|<0.001
95842389|NCT05963022|191653475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-16.3|||ANCOVA|||||-16.3|-33.3|<0.001
95842390|NCT05963022|191653475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||||-15.9|-33.2|<0.001
95842391|NCT05963022|191653475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.7|-33.7|<0.001
95842392|NCT05963022|191653476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|75.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.36|8.70|<0.001
95842393|NCT05963022|191653476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|18.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.25|2.88|<0.001
95842394|NCT05963022|191653476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|28.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.34|4.23|<0.001
95961690|NCT05186311|191895265|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
96001797|NCT01832961|191981212|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|Friedman's test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect of size used to calculate responsiveness and classified as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8).|||<0.05
95842395|NCT05963022|191653477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-6.7|<0.001
95842396|NCT05963022|191653477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.2|<0.001
95842397|NCT05963022|191653477|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-5.4|||ANCOVA|||||-5.4|-9.3|<0.001
95842398|NCT05963022|191653478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|1333.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1333.29|4.40|0.003
95842399|NCT05963022|191653478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|868.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||868.67|2.80|<0.001
95842400|NCT05963022|191653478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|2055.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2055.04|6.80|<0.001
95842401|NCT05963022|191653479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-57.5|<0.001
95842402|NCT05963022|191653479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|-31.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.1|-57.6|<0.001
95842403|NCT05963022|191653479|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.7|-60.1|<0.001
95842404|NCT05963022|191653480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|62.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.73|5.27|<0.001
95842405|NCT05963022|191653480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.87|108.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||108.05|8.87|<0.001
95842406|NCT05963022|191653480|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.36|278.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||278.40|19.36|<0.001
95842407|NCT05963022|191653481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.04||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|664.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||664.36|2.29|0.011
96001798|NCT01832961|191981213|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
95842408|NCT05963022|191653481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.34||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|949.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||949.59|3.34|0.005
95842409|NCT05963022|191653481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|127.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.58|2145.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2145.42|7.58|<0.001
95842410|NCT05963022|191653482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.86||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|254.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||254.78|0.75|0.077
95842411|NCT05963022|191653482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|281.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||281.74|0.87|0.062
95842412|NCT05963022|191653482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.69||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|1140.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1140.13|3.90|0.004
95842413|NCT02501590|191653483|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95842414|NCT00945282|191653505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.932||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.812|-0.053|||ANCOVA|||||-0.053|-1.812|0.042
95842415|NCT00945282|191653506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.413||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|0.347|||ANCOVA|||||0.347|-1.173|0.221
95842416|NCT00945282|191653507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value is the value for GSK2248761 30 mg, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||||<0.0001
95842417|NCT00945282|191653507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6922||||||The p-value is the value for placebo, at Day 1 to Day 8|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo, Day 1 to Day 8||||0.6922
95842418|NCT01825187|191653656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.523
95842419|NCT01825187|191653657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasa Mental Demand||||0.371
95842420|NCT01825187|191653657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Physical Demand||||0.122
95842421|NCT01825187|191653657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Temporal Demand||||0.325
95842422|NCT01825187|191653657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||NASA Peformance||||0.0451
95842423|NCT01702558|191653671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|20.9|||Fisher Exact||90% CI was estimated using Hauck-Anderson approach.|||20.9|-4.5|0.336
95842424|NCT04950465|191653709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.12|0.2639
95842425|NCT04950465|191653710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.6978
95842426|NCT04950465|191653710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.8130
95842427|NCT04950465|191653711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.26|0.7645
95842428|NCT04950465|191653712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.22|-0.23|0.9728
95842429|NCT04950465|191653712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.42|-0.13|0.2968
95842430|NCT04950465|191653713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 4||||0.1682
95842431|NCT04950465|191653713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3937|||||||Van Elteren Test|Due to non-normal residual analyses from ANCOVA a Van Elteren Test was performed.||Week 8||||0.3937
95842432|NCT01425801|191653715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean DIfference|0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|0.458|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.458|0.353|<0.0001
95842433|NCT01425801|191653715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.371|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.424|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.424|0.318|<0.0001
95842434|NCT01425801|191653715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.375|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.375|0.269|<0.0001
95842435|NCT01425801|191653715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.327|||ANCOVA|Sequence, treatment and period as fixed effect factors, patient within sequence as random effect and baseline peak FEV1 at each period as a covariate||||0.327|0.221|<0.0001
95842436|NCT00216671|191653731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of early initiation was inferred if the upper 95% confidence boundary for the difference of change in PANSS total score from baseline in favor of the routine approach is less than 6.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.24|6.99||An ANCOVA model with treatment as factor was used. The comparison between the 2 treatment groups was performed based on the least-squares means obtained from the ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a difference of 3 points in favor of early initiation of treatment with Risperdal Consta, a sample size of 87 subjects per treatment arm has a power of 80% to demonstrate non-inferiority at the 0.025-level (1-sided). It was expected that about 20% of randomized subjects had to be excluded from the per-protocol (PP) analysis. Therefore, 220 subjects were to be included.||6.99|-9.24|0.784
95842437|NCT00216671|191653734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.800
95842438|NCT00216671|191653734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
95842439|NCT00216671|191653734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in CGI-S from baseline to endpoint was analyzed as is with no derived calculations. CGI-S scores were coded as follows: 0=normal, not at all ill, 1=borderline, etc. and 6=among the most extremely ill patients.||||<0.001
95842440|NCT00216671|191653735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.798
95842441|NCT00216671|191653735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
95842442|NCT00216671|191653735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in GAF from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
95842443|NCT00216671|191653736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.519||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.519
95842444|NCT00216671|191653736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
95842445|NCT00216671|191653736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 PCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
95842446|NCT00216671|191653736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.721||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon two sample test|||Between-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||0.721
95961691|NCT05186311|191895266|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95962392|NCT03607422|191896607|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||59.1|44.4|<0.001
95842447|NCT00216671|191653736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
95842448|NCT00216671|191653736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon-signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change in SF-12 MCS score from baseline to endpoint. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.001
95842449|NCT03066596|191653737|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with logit link function was used to compare the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken and GEE method was used to account for within-clinic correlation. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the the percentage of participants with corrected actions taken. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has greater than 80% power to detect a difference of 15 percentage points.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.08||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.08|1.98|<.001
95842450|NCT03066596|191653737|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to analysis 1, however, the model adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom free days (at baseline), nurse screening results, clinic characteristics, visit type, caregiver education, and smoking exposure (at baseline).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.82||The p-values reported above represented the calculated value rather than predetermined thresholds for significance. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.|GLM with GEE|||||6.82|1.97|<.001
95842451|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.95|0.174
95842452|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.85|0.741
95842453|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.724
95842454|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear model (GLM) with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to compare changes over time between the two groups in symptom-free days (SFDs) during the past two weeks, accounting for within-subject correlation. The null hypothesis at each time point was that there is no difference between groups in the change in SFDs. With 530 participants at baseline, ≤10% attrition at 12 months, the study has 80% power to detect a standardized effect size \>0.29.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.12||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.34|0.93|0.229
95842455|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 1, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.13||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34|||GLM with GEE|||3 month follow up||1.34|0.94|0.186
95842456|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 2, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.04||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||GLM with GEE|||6 month follow up||1.27|0.84|0.744
95842457|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 3, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.03||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25|||GLM with GEE|||9 month follow up||1.25|0.85|0.765
95842458|NCT03066596|191653738|SUPERIORITY|This analysis is similar to Analysis 4, with adjustment for baseline outcome (symptom-free days) and seasonality.|Ratio of Rate Ratios|1.11||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.33|||GLM with GEE|||12 month follow up||1.33|0.93|0.241
95842459|NCT00773513|191653742|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The pre-specified upper non-inferiority limit was 95% CI \<1.20.|||1.15|0.93|0.0039
95842460|NCT00773513|191653743|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.94|0.0166
95842461|NCT00773513|191653744|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.76|0.0219
95842462|NCT00773513|191653745|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.70|0.0459
95842463|NCT00773513|191653746|NON_INFERIORITY|The critical alpha level for the non-inferiority test was 0.025|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.74|0.0048
95842464|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842465|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842466|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .99
95842467|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842468|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .20
95842469|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
95842470|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
95842471|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842472|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .03
95842473|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842474|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842475|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842476|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
95842477|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842478|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95842479|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842480|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95842481|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95842482|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95842483|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95842484|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842485|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842486|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842487|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842488|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842489|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842490|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842491|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842492|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842493|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
95842494|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842495|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842496|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
95842497|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842498|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842499|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842500|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
95842501|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
95842502|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
95842503|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842504|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842505|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
95842506|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842507|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842508|NCT01128426|191653753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842509|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842510|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842511|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842512|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842513|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842514|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95961692|NCT05186311|191895267|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95961693|NCT05186311|191895268|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95842515|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
95842516|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
95842517|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842518|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
95842519|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
95842520|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
95842521|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
95842522|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842523|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842524|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842525|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
95842526|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95842527|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95842528|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842529|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842530|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842531|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
95842532|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842533|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95864231|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.3|-1.2|0.446
95962393|NCT03607422|191896607|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.2|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||43.5|28.2|<0.001
95842534|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842535|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95842536|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842537|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
95842538|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
95842539|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
95864232|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Pain subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.4|-1.1|0.649
95842540|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
95842541|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.83
95842542|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842543|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842544|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95842545|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842546|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842547|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
95842548|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
95842549|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842550|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842551|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
95842552|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
95842553|NCT01128426|191653754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
95842554|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
95842555|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842556|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842557|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842558|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
95842559|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842560|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
95842561|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
95842562|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842563|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842564|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
95842565|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95842566|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842567|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
95842568|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842569|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842570|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
96001799|NCT01832961|191981214|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman's Test|||The statistical analysis compared the results: immediately after to baseline values, after 20 minutes of rest to baseline values and after 20 minutes of rest to values immediately after using Friedman's Test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test|The effect size was used to calculate responsiveness and classifed as small (0.2), moderate (0.5) and large (0.8)|||<0.05
95842571|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842572|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842573|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842574|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842575|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
95842576|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842577|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842578|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842579|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842580|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842581|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95961694|NCT05186311|191895269|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95864233|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.9|-4.1|0.452
95864234|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.3|-3.7|0.665
95842582|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
95842583|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842584|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842585|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842586|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842587|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
95842588|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842589|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842590|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
96001800|NCT01832961|191981215|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|T-test was used to comparisons before and after FeNO results||||||<0.05
96001801|NCT01832961|191981216|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||T-test|||||||<0.05
95842591|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842592|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95842593|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
95842594|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
95842595|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842596|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
95842597|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842598|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842599|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842600|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
95961695|NCT05186311|191895270|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95961696|NCT05186311|191895271|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95842601|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842602|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842603|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842604|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
95842605|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842606|NCT01128426|191653755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
95842607|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842608|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842609|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842610|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
95842611|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
95842612|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842613|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842614|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
95842615|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842616|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842617|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842618|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842619|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
95842620|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842621|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
95842622|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
95842623|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
95842624|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95842625|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842626|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842627|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
95842628|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842629|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95864235|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Physical Function subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||1.2|-3.9|0.598
95842630|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
95842631|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
96001802|NCT01096667|191981221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.97||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.89|-5.05|0.034
95842632|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842633|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95842634|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
95842635|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842636|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842637|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.88
95842638|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842639|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
95842640|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842641|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842642|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95842643|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
95842644|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
95842645|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95842646|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
95842647|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
95842648|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
95842649|NCT01128426|191653756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842650|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
95842651|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
95864236|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.400
95842652|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842653|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842654|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842655|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842656|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
95842657|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842658|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95842659|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842660|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842661|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
95842662|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95842663|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95842664|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842665|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
95842666|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95842667|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
96001803|NCT01096667|191981221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.17|-1.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.82|-6.17|0.010
95842668|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842669|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842670|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
95842671|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
95842672|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842673|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842674|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
95842675|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95842676|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842677|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842678|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
95842679|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
95842680|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.09
95842681|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
95842682|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842683|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842684|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95962394|NCT03607422|191896608|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.0|60.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||60.6|46.0|<0.001
95842685|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842686|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842687|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
95842688|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842689|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842690|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842691|NCT01128426|191653757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842692|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
95842693|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842694|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842695|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842696|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.86
96001804|NCT01096667|191981221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.78|-1.6||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.60|-5.78|0.012
95842697|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842698|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95842699|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
95842700|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95842701|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
96001805|NCT01096667|191981221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.21||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.3|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.13|-5.30|0.024
96001806|NCT01096667|191981223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.94|-1.46||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.46|-5.94|0.018
95864237|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.1|-0.6|0.393
95864238|NCT03595618|191686436|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment|Stiffness subscore: Estimate (Standard Error) of adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose using MMRM including fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by multiple imputation step for participants without post baseline value.||0.2|-0.5|0.858
95864239|NCT03595618|191686437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.7||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.7|-7.1|0.705
95864240|NCT03595618|191686437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.8|-9.0|0.243
95961697|NCT05186311|191895272|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95961698|NCT05186311|191895273|EQUIVALENCE|The estimated regression equation was then used to estimate the bias (with two one-sided 95% confidence intervals, referred to as 95% limits in the text) between the evaluation tube and the comparator tube at all prespecified medical decision levels. The biases and 95% limit were compared to the clinical acceptance limit|||||||||||||||||"No p-value were established. Rather a bias between tube types at pre-determined medical decision points were estimated with 95% intervals. The mean biases and 95% limit were compared to the CAL. For equivalence testing the initial alpha level is set at 10%. This corresponds to obtaining 90% confidence intervals (associated with 95% two 1-sided confidence limits). Since the clinical equivalence includes two comparisons, the actual alpha used for each comparison was set to 5%, using a Bonferroni correction. No other adjustment for multiplicity will be made on any other comparisons.~Note that for the confidence intervals (CI) calculated for the intercept and slope of the regression parameters, no multiplicity adjustments on the a level are performed (alpha = 0.05)."|||
95961699|NCT00632021|191895320|EQUIVALENCE|In the primary analysis we compared the number of clinically important medication errors by treatment group using unadjusted negative binomial regression.|Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09||||||||1.09|0.77|
95961700|NCT00632021|191895321|EQUIVALENCE|The association between intervention and time to first unplanned health care event (hospital readmission) was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28||||||||1.28|0.63|
95961701|NCT03738397|191895344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|16.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||16.7|2.6|0.007
96001807|NCT01096667|191981223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.43||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.78|-2.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.09|-6.78|0.008
96001808|NCT01096667|191981223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.24|-2.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-2.74|-7.24|0.002
96001809|NCT01096667|191981223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.16|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-6.16|0.013
96001810|NCT01096667|191981224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.93|0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.54|-4.93|0.152
95842702|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
95961702|NCT03738397|191895345|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-18.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.753|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.61|-12.8||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-12.80|-23.61|<0.001
95961703|NCT03738397|191895346|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|26.0||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||26.0|14.8|<0.001
95961704|NCT03738397|191895347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.6||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||28.6|13.8|<0.001
95961705|NCT03738397|191895348|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.25|-21.78||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-21.78|-34.25|<0.001
95961706|NCT03738397|191895349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|32.7||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||32.7|19.3|<0.001
95961707|NCT03738397|191895350|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.03|-18.02||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|Mixed-effect model repeat measurement with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline vIGA-AD categories in the model.|Difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||-18.02|-28.03|<0.001
95961708|NCT03738397|191895351|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.3||A multiple testing procedure was used to provide a strong control of the type I error rate at alpha = 0.05 (2-sided) across analyses comparing upadacitinib versus dupilumab with respect to the primary and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for vIGA-AD categories (moderate \[3\] versus severe \[4\]).|Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Dupilumab|||27.3|12.4|<0.001
95961709|NCT01536197|191895357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVAs with group (gastric bypass and lap banding) as the between-subjects factor and time (before after surgery).||||||0.19
95961710|NCT04952532|191895384|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA, F(2,7)=7.6, p\<0.05|||||<|0.05||||||This is reported in our peer-reviewed publication: Goldstein et al 2025, Military Psychology|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95842703|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
95842704|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95842705|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
95961711|NCT01385748|191895422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.677||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.186|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.186|0.387|0.165
95961712|NCT01385748|191895422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.35|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.35|0.495|0.421
95864241|NCT03595618|191686437|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.9||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.9|-6.1|0.949
95864242|NCT03595618|191686438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.3||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||6.3|-3.4|0.890
95864243|NCT03595618|191686438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.6||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||2.6|-7.1|0.682
95864244|NCT03595618|191686438|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.0||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||5.0|-4.8|1.000
95864245|NCT03595618|191686439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.58||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.58|0.70|0.991
95864246|NCT03595618|191686439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.43||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.43|0.64|0.992
95864247|NCT03595618|191686439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Logistic Model||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error of log \[estimate\]) of the adjusted odds ratio between GLPG1972 dose regimen and placebo: between the proportions of participants with response: placebo versus GLPG1972 dose regimen.||1.23|0.55|0.653
95864248|NCT03595618|191686440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03779|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02156||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00448|0.08005||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08005|-0.00448|0.193
95864249|NCT03595618|191686440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02235||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00801|0.07962||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.07962|-0.00801|0.256
95961713|NCT01385748|191895422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.175|||Log Rank|The log rank test at 5% significance level was used.||||1.175|0.484|0.211
95961714|NCT01385748|191895425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
95961715|NCT01385748|191895425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
95842706|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95864250|NCT03595618|191686440|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02243||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00514|0.08281||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||0.08281|-0.00514|0.201
95864251|NCT03595618|191686441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.12394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13671||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02464|9.27252||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||9.27252|-3.02464|0.627
95864252|NCT03595618|191686441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.46842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21111||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82659|6.76343||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||6.76343|-5.82659|0.998
95842707|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
95864253|NCT03595618|191686441|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.11756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2759||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.30536|10.54049||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: Placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||10.54049|-2.30536|0.449
95961716|NCT01385748|191895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.698||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.223||Significance threshold = 5%|Log Rank|||||1.223|0.398|0.199
95961717|NCT01385748|191895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.817||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.353|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.353|0.493|0.424
95961718|NCT01385748|191895427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.193|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.193|0.489|0.235
95961719|NCT01385748|191895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.176
95842708|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
95842709|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
95842710|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||1.00
95842711|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842712|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
95961720|NCT01385748|191895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.61
95961721|NCT01385748|191895428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.295
95842713|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
95842714|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95961722|NCT01385748|191895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Significance threshold = 5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.063
95961723|NCT01385748|191895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.169
95961724|NCT01385748|191895429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared|Significance threshold = 5%||||||0.064
95961725|NCT01385748|191895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.824||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.401|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.401|0.484|0.388
95961726|NCT01385748|191895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.012|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.012|0.357|0.054
95961727|NCT01385748|191895430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|1.078|||Log Rank|Significance threshold = 5%||||1.078|0.444|0.102
95864254|NCT03595618|191686442|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.84781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75674||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51643|10.21205||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||10.21205|-4.51643|0.789
95842715|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
95842716|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842717|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842718|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842719|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842720|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
95842721|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95961728|NCT00581893|191895458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||||||0.50
95961729|NCT00159263|191895459|OTHER|Friedman ANOVA followed Dunn's pairwise comparisons||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95842722|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842723|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95961730|NCT00159263|191895460|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95842724|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95842725|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842726|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842727|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842728|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95842729|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842730|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842731|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842732|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842733|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842734|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
95842735|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95961731|NCT00159263|191895461|OTHER|Friedman Anova||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95961732|NCT04546217|191895464|SUPERIORITY|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
96001811|NCT01096667|191981224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.18||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.06|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.30|-6.06|0.078
96001812|NCT01096667|191981224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.02||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.79|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.79|0.174
95842736|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
95842737|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95842738|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95842739|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842740|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
95842741|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842742|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842743|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842744|NCT01128426|191653758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95961733|NCT04546217|191895465|OTHER|Since this is a descriptive analysis, no power calculation was conducted.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
95842745|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842746|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
95961734|NCT04546217|191895466|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.||||||||||||||||Considering the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits.|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
95961735|NCT04546217|191895467|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
96001813|NCT01096667|191981224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.77|0.74||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.74|-4.77|0.174
95842747|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842748|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842749|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842750|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842751|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842752|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
95842753|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842754|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
95842755|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842756|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842757|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95961736|NCT04546217|191895468|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
95961737|NCT04546217|191895469|OTHER|A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessments visits. Changes in scores post-treatment vs. pre-treatment, and 3 and 6-month follow up vs. post-treatment were calculated.|||||||||||||||||A descriptive analysis of means and standard deviations was conducted comparing scores obtained on pre-, post-treatment, at the 3- and 6-month follow up assessment visits. Changes in the scores obtained on all time points compared to pre-treatment were also identified.|||
95842758|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842759|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95842760|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
95842761|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842762|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95961738|NCT00420784|191895510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|16.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.36|4.14|<0.001
95961739|NCT00420784|191895510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|19.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.20|4.72|<0.001
95961740|NCT00420784|191895510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|1.12|0.024
95842763|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
95842764|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
95842765|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.91
95842766|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842767|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842768|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842769|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842770|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842771|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842772|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
95961741|NCT00420784|191895512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|12.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.96|3.41|<0.001
95961742|NCT00420784|191895512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.27|2.91|<0.001
95961743|NCT00420784|191895512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|0.95|0.067
95961744|NCT02402322|191895550|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the preliminary analysis, we studied the possible group differences in demographic data and pretreatment measures with chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The participants' pre- and posttreatment scores were studied with repeated measures ANOVA. Within- and between-group effect sizes were calculated using the pooled standard deviation, Cohen's d.||||0.05
95842773|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95842774|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95842775|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
95842776|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842777|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842778|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842779|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
95842780|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842781|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842782|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842783|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95961745|NCT02818998|191895559|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.47||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.47|-1.46|<0.0001
95961746|NCT02818998|191895559|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.42||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the p-value (adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure) was \< 0.025|ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.42|-0.52|<0.0001
95842784|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842785|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842786|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.80
95842787|NCT01128426|191653759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842788|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842789|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842790|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95842791|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842792|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842793|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
95842794|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842795|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
95842796|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
95961747|NCT02818998|191895560|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|14.38||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|25.37|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||25.37|3.39|0.0105
95842797|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
95842798|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
95842799|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842800|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95842801|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95842802|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842803|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95961748|NCT02818998|191895560|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|21.22||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|34.8|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||34.80|7.65|0.0023
95961749|NCT02818998|191895561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|4.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.49|-3.14|
95842804|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95842805|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842806|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842807|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842808|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.90
95842809|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842810|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842811|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95842812|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842813|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842814|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842815|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95842816|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
95961750|NCT02818998|191895561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||8.73|-3.40|
95961751|NCT02818998|191895561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.63|-1.94|
95961752|NCT02818998|191895561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|3.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.41|-3.68|
95961753|NCT02818998|191895561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||7.54|-4.10|
95961754|NCT02818998|191895561|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||0.65|-2.00|
95961755|NCT02818998|191895562|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.52|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||1.52|-2.13|<0.0001
95961756|NCT02818998|191895562|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 4 letters|Least Squares mean difference|1.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||3.19|-0.40|<0.0001
95842817|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
95961757|NCT02818998|191895563|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|16.14||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|31.66|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||31.66|0.62|0.0416
95961758|NCT02818998|191895563|OTHER||Least Square mean difference|4.12||||0.5524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|17.77|||ANCOVA|||Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||17.77|-9.52|0.5524
95961759|NCT02818998|191895564|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|4.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥ 15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||4.05|-2.72|
95961760|NCT02818998|191895564|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|10.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||10.98|-1.73|
95842818|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842819|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842820|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95961761|NCT02818998|191895564|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.87|-1.56|
95842821|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95961762|NCT02818998|191895564|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|5.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥15 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||5.69|-1.89|
95961763|NCT02818998|191895564|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥10 letter gain: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||14.28|0.81|
95961764|NCT02818998|191895564|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||≥30 letter loss: Aflibercept 2 mg fixed was regarded as the reference arm||2.88|-1.61|
95961765|NCT02472145|191895566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8|||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis 1||2.8|0.8|0.4747
95961766|NCT02472145|191895567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1||1.37|0.79|0.7817
95961767|NCT01587118|191895585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||<.0001
95961768|NCT01587118|191895586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\</= 0.05|ANOVA|Change from baseline analyses were conducted using simple one-way analysis of variance; and were recalculated using the Kruskal Wallis procedure.||||||.0006
95842822|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842823|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
95842824|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95842825|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842826|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842827|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842828|NCT01128426|191653760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95961769|NCT00537329|191895587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.1||||||95.0|70.5|95.3||||||Sample size enrollment of 100 subjects was planned. Assuming an overall response rate of 75 percent (%), a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects responding to treatment would have ranged from 66.3% to 83.7% allowing for 5% nonevaluability. This would have provided a level of precision considered acceptable for this Asian regional study.||95.3|70.5|
95961770|NCT00537329|191895588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.2||||||95.0|74.6|97.0||||||EOIT||97.0|74.6|
95961771|NCT00537329|191895588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|82.8||||||95.0|64.2|94.2||||||2 Wks post EOT||94.2|64.2|
95961772|NCT00537329|191895588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7||||||6 Wks post EOT||98.7|66.9|
95961773|NCT00537329|191895588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.7||||||95.0|49.8|89.3||||||12 Wks post baseline||89.3|49.8|
95961774|NCT00537329|191895589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOIT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|85.1|
95842829|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842830|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
95842831|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842832|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95842833|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842834|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842835|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842836|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95842837|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842838|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
95961775|NCT00537329|191895589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.1||||||95.0|80.3|99.3||||||EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.3|80.3|
95961776|NCT00537329|191895589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|92.9||||||95.0|76.5|99.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.1|76.5|
95842839|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
95842840|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.39
95842841|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
95842842|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95961777|NCT00537329|191895589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (cure/improvement)||99.9|72.7|
95961778|NCT00537329|191895589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|85.0||||||95.0|62.1|96.8||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (cure/improvement)||96.8|62.1|
95961779|NCT00537329|191895590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.3||||||95.0|85.8|99.9||||||EOIT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.8|
95961780|NCT00537329|191895590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|97.1||||||95.0|85.1|99.9||||||EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|85.1|
95842843|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95842844|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842845|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
95842846|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95842847|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842848|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
95842849|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.71
95842850|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
95842851|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
95842852|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.58
95961781|NCT00537329|191895590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|86.2||||||95.0|68.3|96.1||||||2 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.1|68.3|
95961782|NCT00537329|191895590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|94.4||||||95.0|72.7|99.9||||||6 Wks post EOT: success (erad/presumed erad)||99.9|72.7|
95961783|NCT00537329|191895590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.2||||||95.0|60.4|96.6||||||12 Wks post baseline: success (erad/presumed erad)||96.6|60.4|
95961784|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|50.0||||||95.0|1.3|98.7||||||Neutropenic status: ANC ≤ 500/cmm||98.7|1.3|
95961785|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|75.7||||||95.0|58.8|88.2||||||Neutropenic status: ANC \> 500/cmm||88.2|58.8|
95842853|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
95842854|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842855|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842856|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842857|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842858|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842859|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95842860|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842861|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842862|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95842863|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95842864|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.35
95842865|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842866|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.30
95842867|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.34
95842868|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842869|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95842870|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842871|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842872|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95842873|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842874|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842875|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95842876|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.76
95842877|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
95961786|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|41.9|91.6||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida albicans||91.6|41.9|
95961787|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|66.7||||||95.0|22.3|95.7||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida glabrata||95.7|22.3|
95961788|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|39.8|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida parapsilosis||100.0|39.8|
95961789|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|100.0||||||95.0|2.5|100.0||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida rugosa||100.0|2.5|
95842878|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842879|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842880|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842881|NCT01128426|191653761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95842882|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0 .63
95842883|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95842884|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842885|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.60
95842886|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95842887|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842888|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842889|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842890|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842891|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.11
95842892|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
95842893|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842894|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842895|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842896|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
95842897|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95961790|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|72.2||||||95.0|46.5|90.3||||||Baseline pathogen: Candida tropicalis||90.3|46.5|
95961791|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|84.6||||||95.0|54.6|98.1||||||Previous surgery: Any surgery||98.1|54.6|
95961792|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|87.5||||||95.0|47.3|99.7||||||Previous surgery: Abdominal surgery||99.7|47.3|
95961793|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|58.8||||||95.0|32.9|81.6||||||Elderly: Age ≥ 65 years||81.6|32.9|
95961794|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|54.5||||||95.0|23.4|83.3||||||Renal insufficiency (CCC \< 30 mL/min)||83.3|23.4|
95961795|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|81.0||||||95.0|58.1|94.6||||||Use of Central venous catheter = Yes||94.6|58.1|
95961796|NCT00537329|191895597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||2-sided exact Clopper-Pearson (percent)|71.4||||||95.0|29.0|96.3||||||Receiving chemotherapy = Yes||96.3|29.0|
95961797|NCT00243022|191895606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95842898|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.36
95842899|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95961798|NCT00243022|191895607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95961799|NCT00243022|191895608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95842900|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95842901|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
95842902|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.75
95842903|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842904|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842905|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842906|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842907|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
95842908|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
95842909|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842910|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842911|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842912|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
95842913|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.84
95842914|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
95842915|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842916|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95842917|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842918|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842919|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842920|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842921|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842922|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842923|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95842924|NCT01128426|191653762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95842925|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842926|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.77
95842927|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842928|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
95842929|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842930|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
95842931|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842932|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842933|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842934|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
95842935|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
95842936|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
95842937|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842938|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95842939|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95961800|NCT03636373|191895651|NON_INFERIORITY|On a 10 point Likert Pain Scale, non-inferiority margin for the difference is 1.04. Using a Student t-test, there was 80% power for the difference in pain levels to exceed -1.04.||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Outcome measure Etanercept arm { ( 8 + 0 + 7)/3 = 5} Triamcinolone Arm { (3+0) /2 = 1.5 }||||1.00
95961801|NCT03636373|191895652|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95961802|NCT03636373|191895653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95842940|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
95842941|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842942|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95842943|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842944|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842945|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842946|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95842947|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95842948|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95842949|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
95842950|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842951|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842952|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842953|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
95961803|NCT03636373|191895654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95961804|NCT03636373|191895655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95961805|NCT03636373|191895656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95961806|NCT00513747|191895657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1521
95961807|NCT00513747|191895658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0097
95961808|NCT00513747|191895659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4645|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4645
95961809|NCT03332784|191895710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95961810|NCT03332784|191895710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95864255|NCT03595618|191686442|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-3.64759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84747||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19071|3.89553||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||3.89553|-11.19071|0.661
95961811|NCT03332784|191895710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The p-value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95961812|NCT01827046|191895712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.7|||Chi-squared|||||10.7|-6.8|0.73
95961813|NCT01827046|191895712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.0|||Multivariate logit model|||Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||12|-4|0.33
95961814|NCT01827046|191895713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.06|0.55
95961815|NCT01827046|191895713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability ICH volume, stability IVH volume and ICH deep location||||1.97|0.82|0.27
95842954|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842955|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.55
95842956|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
95842957|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95842958|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
95842959|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95961816|NCT01827046|191895714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
95842960|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95961817|NCT01827046|191895714|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Adjusted Cox proportional Hazard|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and race.||||0.98|0.45|0.037
95842961|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842962|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842963|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.64
95842964|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
95842965|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
95961818|NCT01827046|191895715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.8|||Logit model|||||0.80|0.62|<0.001
95961819|NCT01827046|191895715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.78|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, stability IVH volume, and ICH deep location||||0.78|0.59|<0.001
95961820|NCT01827046|191895716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95961821|NCT01827046|191895717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.11|||Chi-squared|||||0.11|-0.04|0.34
95961822|NCT01827046|191895718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.07|||Chi-squared|||||0.07|-0.10|0.76
95961823|NCT01827046|191895718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.94|0.81|0.31
95961824|NCT01827046|191895719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.09|||Chi-squared|||||0.09|-0.07|0.79
95961825|NCT01827046|191895719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.97|||Multivariate logit model|Adjusted for age, GCS, Stability ICH volume, Stability IVH volume, ICH deep location||||1.97|0.79|0.35
95961826|NCT01827046|191895720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Median test|||||||0.46
95961827|NCT01827046|191895721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Median test|||||||0.75
95961828|NCT01827046|191895722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95961829|NCT01827046|191895723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95961830|NCT01827046|191895724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95961831|NCT01827046|191895725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95961832|NCT01827046|191895726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95961833|NCT01827046|191895727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95961834|NCT01827046|191895728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95961835|NCT02357264|191895733|OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.162
95961836|NCT00087555|191895740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
95961837|NCT00087555|191895740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
95961838|NCT00087555|191895740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95842966|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842967|NCT01128426|191653763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95842968|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95842969|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
95842970|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method.The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842971|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95842972|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95842973|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
95842974|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842975|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842976|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95842977|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95842978|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.15
95842979|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842980|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842981|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95842982|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842983|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
95842984|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95842985|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95842986|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
95842987|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95842988|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.62
95842989|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95842990|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
95842991|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95961839|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.1|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.1|1.39|
95961840|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.2|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.2|0.42|
95961841|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.9|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.9|0.98|
95961842|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.91|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.91|0.59|
95961843|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|11|
95961844|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|69.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||69|14|
95842992|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
95842993|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95842994|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95842995|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95842996|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
95842997|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.12
95842998|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95842999|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95843000|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
95843001|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.38
95843002|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.78
95961845|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.42|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.42|0.7|
95961846|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|10.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||10|3.01|
95843003|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.65
95843004|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
95843005|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
95843006|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.81
95843007|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95843008|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95843009|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95843010|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95843011|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.99
95843012|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95843013|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95843014|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.97
95843015|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.19
95961847|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|13.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men A, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||13|3.86|
95961848|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.99|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.99|1.4|
95961849|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.97|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.97|0.56|
95961850|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.27|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.27|1.47|
95961851|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.13|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.13|0.23|
95961852|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||97|21|
95961853|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|51.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||51|10|
95961854|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.82|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.82|0.2|
95843016|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.25
95843017|NCT01128426|191653764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95843018|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95843019|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95843020|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95843021|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95843022|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.26
95843023|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95843024|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
95843025|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.20
95843026|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95843027|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
95843028|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.10
95843029|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95843030|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95843031|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95843032|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
95843033|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
95843034|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.79
95843035|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
95843036|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.92
95843037|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95843038|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95843039|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.40
95961855|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|48.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||48|12|
95961856|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|9.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|20.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men C, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||20|4.69|
95843040|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
95843041|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.82
95843042|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95843043|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95843044|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
95843045|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
95843046|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
95843047|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843048|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95843049|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95961857|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.21|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||2.21|0.55|
95961858|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.96|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||4.96|1.27|
95961859|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.57|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||5.57|1.38|
95961860|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.28|
95843050|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95843051|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
95843052|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95843053|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||mid-p exact binomial method]|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.33
95843054|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.59
95843055|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843056|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95843057|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
95843058|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95961861|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|94.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||94|26|
95843059|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95843060|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95843061|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95843062|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95843063|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95961862|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|52.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||52|14|
95961863|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.04|0.34|
95961864|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|20|
95961865|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|36.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men W-135, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||36|12|
95961866|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.69|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.69|0.48|
95961867|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.74||||||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.74|1.94|
95961868|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|6.13|||ANOVA|||Day 1, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||6.13|1.71|
95843064|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95843065|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95843066|NCT01128426|191653765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.94
95843067|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.56
95843068|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
95843069|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95843070|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95843071|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95961869|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.66|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||0.66|0.16|
95961870|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|241.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||241|61|
95843072|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
95843073|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95843074|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.32
95843075|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95843076|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.41
95843077|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95843078|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
95843079|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.43
95843080|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.50
95843081|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.51
95843082|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.48
95843083|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.44
95843084|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.70
95843085|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
95843086|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95961871|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||Day 8, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||80|20|
95961872|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.05|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||1.05|0.32|
95961873|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|60.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||60|18|
95961874|NCT01018732|191895772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of titer|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||ANOVA|||Day 29, Men Y, Pairwise comparison of geometric mean titer||35|10|
95961875|NCT02165826|191895780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.93||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.47|0.017
95961876|NCT02165826|191895780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.92|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.92|0.51|
95961877|NCT02165826|191895780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.07||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.07|0.55|0.114
95961878|NCT02165826|191895780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.02|||||Cox proportional hazards model with study treatment and country as class effects, and baseline FEV1 as a continuous variable.|Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.02|0.58|
95961879|NCT02165826|191895781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.83||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.47|0.001
95961880|NCT02165826|191895781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.04||Study treatment, country and baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Analyses were performed using a hierarchical testing procedure.||1.04|0.59|0.091
96001814|NCT01096667|191981226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.01||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.09|-0.94||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-0.94|-7.09|0.047
96001815|NCT01096667|191981226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.16||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.25|-4.07||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-4.07|-10.25|0.002
95843087|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95843088|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95843089|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95843090|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.37
95843091|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
95843092|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.85
95843093|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95843094|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
95843095|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95843096|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95843097|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
95843098|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.31
95843099|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
95843100|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.96
95843101|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95843102|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95843103|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.14
95843104|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843105|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.74
95843106|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
95843107|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.01
95843108|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.72
95961881|NCT04887506|191895816|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||||The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) were not evaluable.|Primary analysis of equivalence of TAVT 45 and R AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10).||||
95843109|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843110|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95843111|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843112|NCT01128426|191653766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.73
95843113|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Abnormal involuntary movements: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95843114|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute bronchiolitis due to RSV: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95843115|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.27
95843116|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute otitis media: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95843117|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Acute pyelonephritis without RMN lesion: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
95843118|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Adverse drug reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.93
95843119|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Alkalosis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95843120|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.52
95843121|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Apparent life threatening event infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
95843122|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma with acute exacerbation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95843123|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Asthma, unspecified, unspecified status: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.05
95843124|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchiolitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.63
95843125|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.46
95843126|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Bronchospasm: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.42
95843127|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Candidiasis of mouth: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.49
95843128|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Cellulitis and abscess of trunk: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
95843129|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Constipation: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.28
95843130|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Croup: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
95843131|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dehydration: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.95
95843132|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dermatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.13
95843133|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Dyspnea: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.57
95961882|NCT04887506|191895817|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.007||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the CS-ITT population.||1.007|0.944|
95961883|NCT04887506|191895818|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI fell within the recommended 0.800-1.250 limits of equivalence when analyzed on a natural log scale, then treatments were therapeutically equivalent based on rounded-up average Days 9 and 10 testosterone levels.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.002||||||Supplementary analysis of equivalence of TAVT-45 and R-AA based on average serum testosterone (ng/dL) (rounded up values of Days 9 and 10) in the mITT population.||1.002|0.978|
95843134|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Failure to thrive: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.18
95843135|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fever: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.03
95843136|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Fussy infant: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.45
95843137|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Gastroenteritis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95843138|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hand, foot and mouth disease: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.66
95843139|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hematoma: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.67
95843140|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Hypopotassemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95843141|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Lipoma of other specified sites: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.69
95961884|NCT04887506|191895819|EQUIVALENCE|Odds ratio generated using the Wald method.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|4.979|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.979|0.574|0.3408
95843142|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.53
95843143|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Nausea and vomiting: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.16
95843144|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal bradycardia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843145|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Neonatal candida infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.08
95843146|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other diseases of nasal cavity and sinuses: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.98
95843147|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Other specified cardiac dysrhythmias: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95843148|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pilonidal cyst without mention of abscess: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95843149|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.22
95843150|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Primary apnea of newborn: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.02
95843151|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Rash: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.17
95843152|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Respiratory syncytial virus: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.87
95843153|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Retinopathy of prematurity stage 2: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843154|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Single seizure: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.54
95843155|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stomatitis: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.23
95961885|NCT01963169|191895820|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for Knowledge outcome using the revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test.|At 8 week, both intervention groups received the same Bone Power Program intervention. Thus, the analysis for the 8-week outcomes was completed as a two-armed RCT.||||< 0.001
95843156|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Stridor: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95843157|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Subconjunctival hemorrhage: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.24
95843158|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Umbilical hernia without obstruction/gangrene: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95843159|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified bacterial pneumonia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.21
95843160|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Unspecified septicemia: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.29
95843161|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urinary tract infection: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.06
95843162|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Urticaria: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.61
95864256|NCT03595618|191686442|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.55176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81987||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04053|4.93701||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: placebo minus GLPG1972 dose regimen using a MMRM including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, region (Asia and Rest of the World), time and treatment-by-time interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and time-by-baseline interaction preceded by a Multiple Imputation step for participants without post-baseline measurement.||4.93701|-10.04053|0.843
95961886|NCT01963169|191895820|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for the exercise behavior variable assessed by the 9-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||<0.001
95961887|NCT01963169|191895820|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for calcium outcome expectation..|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.009
95961888|NCT01963169|191895820|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise self-efficacy.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.002
95961889|NCT01963169|191895820|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||\<0.05 (Threshold)|Mixed Models Analysis||The above values are for exercise outcome expectation.|At 8 weeks both intervention groups received the same BonePower intervention. Thus the analysis of 8-week outcome was completed as 2-armed RCT.||||0.032
96001816|NCT01096667|191981226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.28|-3.11||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-3.11|-9.28|0.005
95843163|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Vaccines adverse reaction: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.07
95843164|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Viral syndrome: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||<0.01
95843165|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Weakness: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.04
95843166|NCT01128426|191653767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||mid-p exact binomial method|||Wheezing: p-value was estimated using the mid-p exact binomial method. The null hypothesis was relative risk = 1.||||0.68
95843167|NCT00666406|191653773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.173|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.089|1.262||||||||1.262|1.089|
95843168|NCT00666406|191653774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.043|1.243||||||||1.243|1.043|
95843169|NCT00666406|191653775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.866|1.297||||||||1.297|0.866|
95843170|NCT00666406|191653776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.179||||||||1.179|0.972|
95843171|NCT00666406|191653777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.171|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.247||||||||1.247|1.099|
95843172|NCT00666406|191653778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.18||||||||1.180|1.092|
95843173|NCT00666406|191653779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|1.253||||||||1.253|0.857|
95843174|NCT00666406|191653780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.007|1.186||||||||1.186|1.007|
95843175|NCT00666406|191653781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|0.913||||||||0.913|0.798|
95843176|NCT00666406|191653782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.847|0.916||||||||0.916|0.847|
96001817|NCT01096667|191981226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-4.37||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.41|-1.33||P-value is one-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|With terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, participant as random effect and baseline as the covariate.||||-1.33|-7.41|0.033
96001818|NCT01096667|191981228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.66||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.03|-1.29||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.29|-4.03|0.007
95864257|NCT03595618|191686443|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0499||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.1929||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1929|-0.0028|0.141
95843177|NCT00666406|191653783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.164||||||||1.164|0.799|
95843178|NCT00666406|191653784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|0.995||||||||0.995|0.841|
95843179|NCT00666406|191653785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.104|1.256||||||||1.256|1.104|
95843180|NCT00666406|191653786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.039|1.277||||||||1.277|1.039|
95843181|NCT00666406|191653787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.029|1.359||||||||1.359|1.029|
95843182|NCT00666406|191653788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.27||||||||1.270|1.010|
95843183|NCT00666406|191653789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.05||||||||1.050|0.969|
95843184|NCT00666406|191653790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.102||||||||1.102|0.843|
95843185|NCT00666406|191653791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.163||||||||1.163|0.926|
95843186|NCT00666406|191653792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.015|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|1.144||||||||1.144|0.901|
95843187|NCT00666406|191653793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.106|1.254||||||||1.254|1.106|
95843188|NCT00666406|191653794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.038|1.279||||||||1.279|1.038|
95843189|NCT00666406|191653795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.362||||||||1.362|1.027|
95843190|NCT00666406|191653796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.133|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.012|1.27||||||||1.270|1.012|
95843191|NCT00666406|191653797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.056||||||||1.056|0.964|
95843192|NCT00666406|191653798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|1.112||||||||1.112|0.849|
95843193|NCT00666406|191653799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.109||||||||1.109|0.938|
95843194|NCT00666406|191653800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.111||||||||1.111|0.894|
95843195|NCT00666406|191653801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.0||||||||1.000|1.000|
95843196|NCT00666406|191653802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.841|2.02||||||||2.020|0.841|
95843197|NCT00666406|191653803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.724|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.304|1.728||||||||1.728|0.304|
95843198|NCT00666406|191653804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.442|2.539||||||||2.539|0.442|
95843199|NCT00666406|191653805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.92||||||||0.920|0.807|
95843200|NCT00666406|191653806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.002||||||||1.002|0.730|
95843201|NCT00666406|191653807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.788|1.228||||||||1.228|0.788|
95843202|NCT00666406|191653808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the geometric means|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.039||||||||1.039|0.800|
95843203|NCT01369784|191653866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.812
95843204|NCT01369784|191653867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.612
95843205|NCT01369784|191653868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.402
95843206|NCT01369784|191653869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.557
95843207|NCT01369784|191653870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.234
95843208|NCT01369784|191653871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.057
95843209|NCT01369784|191653872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.117
95843210|NCT01332994|191653896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|||||Exact one-sided binomial test on single proportions with a significance level of alpha equals (=) 0.025. Null hypothesis: Proportion of participants reaching DAS28 remission (\<2.6) at Week 16 is ≤45 percent (%).|Exact one-sided binomial test|||||||0.1648
95843211|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7559
95843212|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Transitional B-cells||||0.8961
95843213|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7915|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Naive B-cells||||0.7915
95843214|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Memory B-cells||||0.8081
96001819|NCT01096667|191981228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|-1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.67|-4.55|0.003
96001820|NCT01096667|191981228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.27||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.65|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.88|-3.65|0.018
95843215|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.6574
95843216|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4553|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4553
95843217|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2215
95843218|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8860
95843219|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8693|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Double-negative B-cells||||0.8693
95843220|NCT01332994|191653932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Plasmablasts||||0.9564
95843221|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.9993
95843222|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.3596
95961890|NCT04590404|191895845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 6 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.82|0.76|0.461
95961891|NCT04590404|191895846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54||Adjusted for arm, randomization strata (cigarettes/day (CPD), insurance category, cardiac admission, NMR category), \& plan to quit after discharge|Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcome was biochemically-verified self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence (7dPPA) at 12 months. We modeled outcomes using logistic regression adjusted for randomization stratification factors and plan to quit (stay quit vs. try).||1.54|0.64|0.99
95961892|NCT03698019|191895849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
95961893|NCT05739994|191895864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95961894|NCT05739994|191895864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95961895|NCT05739994|191895865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95961896|NCT05739994|191895865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise p-values were calculated using independent-samples t-tests on final values because model-based pairwise contrasts were not available. These values do not reflect the full repeated-measures mixed-model structure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
96001821|NCT01096667|191981228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|-0.82||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-0.82|-3.56|0.021
95843223|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.7435
95843224|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.7671
95843225|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.7912
95843226|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.5595
95843227|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3817
96001822|NCT01096667|191981229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.99||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-1.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.55|-4.43|0.004
96001823|NCT01096667|191981229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.26|-1.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.24|-4.26|0.010
95843228|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3623
95843229|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7108|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7108
95843230|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.0639
95843231|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0186
95843232|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Transitional B-cells||||0.0050
95843233|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Naive B-cells||||0.0463
95843234|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Memory B-cells||||0.1919
95843235|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.3071
95843236|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.1714
95843237|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1746|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1746
95843238|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1626|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.1626
95961897|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0245|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 20% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0245
95962395|NCT03607422|191896608|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|48.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||48.0|32.7|<0.001
95843239|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Double-negative B-cells||||0.6304
95843240|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3449|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 24, Plasmablasts||||0.3449
95843241|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.0919
95843242|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Transitional B-cells||||0.2189
95843243|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Naive B-cells||||0.1386
95843244|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Memory B-cells||||0.6199
95843245|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.1019
95843246|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.4353
95843247|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3934
95843248|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4196|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.4196
95843249|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5546|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Double-negative B-cells||||0.5546
95843250|NCT01332994|191653933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 32, Plasmablasts||||0.7695
95843251|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6551
95843252|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Transitional B-cells||||0.6905
95843253|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Naive B-cells||||0.9678
95843254|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Memory B-cells||||0.2080
95843255|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.4778
95843256|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.8526
95843257|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7266|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7266
95843258|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.2011
96001824|NCT01096667|191981229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.09|-1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.19|-4.09|0.010
95843259|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Double-negative B-cells||||0.7872
95843260|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5377|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 16, Plasmablasts||||0.5377
95843261|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.6238
95843262|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Transitional B-cells||||0.2848
95843263|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Naive B-cells||||0.6238
95843264|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.2848
95843265|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.7471
95843266|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7471|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7471
95843267|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.3910
95843268|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8729|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 48, Plasmablasts||||0.8729
95843269|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cell compartment||||0.7261
95843270|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Transitional B-cells||||0.9338
95843271|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Naive B-cells||||0.9074
95843272|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Memory B-cells||||<0.0001
95843273|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Pre-switch memory B-cells||||0.9338
95843274|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6515|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Post-switch memory B-cells||||0.6515
95843275|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgG-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.8413
95843276|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7244|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, IgA-positive class-switched B-cells||||0.7244
95843277|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Double-negative B-cells||||<0.0001
95843278|NCT01332994|191653934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3848|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Rank-Order Correlation|Probability values for the Spearman correlation were calculated as \[square root of (n minus 2) x \[square root of (r\^2 divided by 1 minus r\^2)\].||Week 66, Plasmablasts||||0.3848
95843279|NCT00731679|191653958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.01
95843280|NCT00731679|191653959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value was obtained from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment arm and analysis center.||||||0.005
95961898|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0294|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: No assumption was needed.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0294
95962396|NCT03607422|191896609|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 30 mg was strongly controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure at the two-sided 0.05 level following a pre-specified α transfer path which includes downstream transfer along the endpoints sequence within each dose as well as cross-dose transfer.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|54.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline vIGA-AD categories and age \[adolescent vs. adult\])|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||62.3|47.2|<0.001
95843281|NCT02663622|191653976|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the matched sets||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade III-IV AGFS in days was 135.8 with an SD of 64.66.||0.62|0.01|0.0274
95843282|NCT02663622|191653977|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.08|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean grade II-IV AGFS in days was 104.7 with an SD of 72.28.||1.08|0.30|0.0988
95843283|NCT02663622|191653983|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.88|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean OS in days was 319.3 with an SD of 93.83.||2.88|0.43|0.9088
95843284|NCT02663622|191653985|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27||||0.6131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.46|||Log Rank|||A hazard ratio was calculated based on a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment as a factor using the robust sandwich covariance estimator, comparing the CD24Fc 960 mg arm to a matched control group consisting of 92 participants from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational databases of clinical information on HCT, whose mean RFS in days was 296.0 with an SD of 115.32.||2.46|0.66|0.6131
95843285|NCT00857857|191653986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.449||||||||0.449|0.031|
95843286|NCT00857857|191653986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1048|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.477||||||||0.477|0.053|
95843287|NCT00857857|191653986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.657||||||||0.657|0.255|
95843288|NCT00857857|191653986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.733||||||||0.733|0.319|
95864258|NCT03595618|191686443|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0861|0.1177||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1177|-0.0861|0.981
95961899|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER|A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||||0.0468||||||MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.|MCP-Mod quadratic model fit|Model assumption: 50 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||||||0.0468
95843289|NCT00857857|191653987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.407||||||||0.407|0.013|
95843290|NCT00857857|191653987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.354||||||||0.354|-0.046|
95843291|NCT00857857|191653987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.492||||||||0.492|0.113|
95843292|NCT00857857|191653987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0966|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.599||||||||0.599|0.209|
95843293|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.253|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.302|
95843294|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.387|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.387|-0.176|
95843295|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.506|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.506|-0.028|
96001825|NCT01096667|191981229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-1.13||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate. p-value is one-sided.||||-1.13|-4.00|0.011
95843296|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1359|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.809|||||Comparison of Minimum FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.809|0.260|
95843297|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.253|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg.|||0.253|-0.145|
95843298|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 1 mg.|||0.228|-0.176|
95843299|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.371|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and GW870086 3 mg.|||0.371|-0.011|
95843300|NCT00857857|191653988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.548|||||Comparison of Weighted Mean FEV1 between Placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID.|||0.548|0.153|
95843301|NCT00857857|191653989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.9||||||||0.90|0.56|
95843302|NCT00857857|191653989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||||0.82|0.53|
95864259|NCT03595618|191686443|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0753|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0286|0.1792||Two-sided adjusted p-value taking into account Dunnett adjustment (to be compared to 0.05).|ANCOVA||Two-sided 95% Confidence Interval of the estimate without Dunnett adjustment.|Estimate (Standard Error) of the adjusted difference from baseline to last post baseline value between treatment groups means: GLPG1972 dose regimen minus placebo using an ANCOVA including the factors treatment and region with baseline as covariate and no interaction, after a Multiple Imputation for missing data.||0.1792|-0.0286|0.349
96001826|NCT01096667|191981230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.5||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.43|-0.57||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.57|-4.43|0.048
95843303|NCT00857857|191653989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74||||||||0.74|0.47|
95843304|NCT00857857|191653989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.55||||||||0.55|0.36|
96001827|NCT01096667|191981230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.54||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.58|-1.51||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.51|-5.58|0.013
95843305|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1086|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.24|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.240|-0.199|
95843306|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.424|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.424|-0.096|
95843307|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1526|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.333|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.333|-0.285|
95843308|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1471|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.366|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.366|-0.229|
95843309|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.254|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.254|-0.277|
95843310|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.302|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.302|-0.269|
95843311|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.301|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.301|-0.210|
95961900|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0586|||||||MCP-Mod Emax model fit|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0586
95961901|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER|MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit as well as random effects of patient.||||||0.0659|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid emax model fit|Model assumption: 30 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 3 mg. 90 % of the maximum effect is achieved at a dose of 6 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 685509 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, quadratic, Emax and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.050). The total daily dose was considered for MCP-Mod analysis (placebo, active BI 685509 3 mg, 6 mg, and 9 mg).||||0.0659
95961902|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.103||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.102|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean ofPlacebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.102|-0.309|0.3224
95961903|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.15|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.150|-0.275|0.5616
95961904|NCT04750577|191895870|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.251||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|-0.043|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measurement||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.043|-0.459|0.0183
95961905|NCT04750577|191895871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.211||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.413|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 1 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.010|-0.413|0.0396
95961906|NCT04750577|191895871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.327|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 2 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||0.088|-0.327|0.2568
95961907|NCT04750577|191895871|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|0.95|-0.56|-0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 685509 TID- Least Squares Mean of Placebo"|Least Square Means difference and 95% confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood based Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures ((REML)-based MMRM) including the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit (baseline, Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20), and the continuous effect of baseline at each visit (Week 6, Week 12 and Week 20) as well as random effects of patient.||-0.154|-0.560|0.0006
95961908|NCT04750577|191895872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.1|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||5.10|0.99|0.0519
95961909|NCT04750577|191895872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.36|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.36|0.61|0.4159
95843312|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.268|-0.178|
95843313|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.295|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.295|-0.103|
95843314|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0826|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.212|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.212|-0.121|
95864260|NCT03890666|191686449|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||||||||||||The statistical model is a logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor, pooled study sites as a random factor, and baseline ACT score as a covariate.||||
95864261|NCT01105065|191686466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||There would be no change in retinal vascular dysregulation after treatment with brimonidine||||<0.0001
95864262|NCT01105065|191686467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||paired t-test|||A paired t-test was used to determine if their was a statistically significant difference between the mean deviation of the frequency doubling perimetry in the RVD patients pre and post brimonidine treatment.||||0.28
95864263|NCT03996369|191686468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.69|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|18.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.23|1.14|=0.026
95843315|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0832|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.196|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.196|-0.141|
95843316|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0888|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.221|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.221|-0.138|
95843317|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.162|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.162|-0.215|
95843318|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.354|-0.076|
95843319|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0955|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.342|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.342|-0.044|
95843320|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.288|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.288|-0.119|
95864264|NCT03996369|191686469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.11|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.23|3.00|=0.009
95864265|NCT03996369|191686470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.48|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.81|28.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.15|6.81|=0.001
95864266|NCT03996369|191686471|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.44|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||14.39|0.50|=0.036
95843321|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.438|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.438|-0.015|
95843322|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.374|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.374|-0.051|
95843323|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1181|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.461|-0.017|
95843324|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.458|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.458|-0.089|
95843325|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.487|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.487|0.007|
95843326|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.509|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.509|-0.021|
95843327|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.394|-0.086|
95843328|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.394|-0.044|
95843329|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.292|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.292|-0.122|
95843330|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.3|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.300|-0.155|
95864267|NCT03996369|191686472|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.18|32.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.29|10.18|<0.001
95864268|NCT03996369|191686473|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.24|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.20|2.27|=0.009
95864269|NCT03996369|191686474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.85|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||13.13|-1.42|=0.115
95864270|NCT03996369|191686474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.83|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|20.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||20.47|3.19|=0.007
95864271|NCT03996369|191686474|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.84|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.98|24.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||24.69|4.98|=0.003
95864272|NCT03996369|191686475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||6.48|-0.81|=0.128
95864273|NCT03996369|191686475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.32|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|13.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.64|3.01|=0.002
95864274|NCT03996369|191686475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.06|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||13.49|0.62|=0.032
95864275|NCT03996369|191686475|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.18|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|16.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.54|1.82|=0.014
95843331|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.314|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.314|-0.213|
95843332|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1572|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.461|-0.176|
95843333|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1494|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.396|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.396|-0.208|
95843334|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.327|-0.212|
95843335|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.354|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.354|-0.224|
95843336|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.243|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.243|-0.276|
95843337|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.244|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.244|-0.209|
95843338|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0998|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.053|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.053|-0.350|
95843339|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.082|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.082|-0.253|
95843340|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|0.13|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.130|-0.211|
95843341|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.202|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 3.5 hours|||0.202|-0.161|
95843342|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.186|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4 hour|||0.186|-0.196|
95843343|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.33|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.330|-0.105|
95961910|NCT04750577|191895872|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|6.55|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.55|1.28|0.0106
95961911|NCT04750577|191895873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.53|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||6.53|1.20|0.0176
95961912|NCT04750577|191895873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.29|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||3.29|0.53|0.5467
95843344|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0968|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.326|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.326|-0.065|
95843345|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.199|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.199|-0.213|
95843346|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.407|-0.052|
95843347|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1065|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.351|-0.080|
95843348|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.421|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.421|-0.062|
95843349|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1373|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.423|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.423|-0.131|
95843350|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.411|-0.075|
95843351|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.490|-0.047|
95843352|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.387|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.387|-0.100|
95843353|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.41|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.410|-0.035|
95843354|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.378|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.378|-0.042|
95843355|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.431|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 minutes|||0.431|0.011|
95843356|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.494|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 minutes|||0.494|-0.006|
95843357|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1445|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.548|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 15 minutes|||0.548|-0.038|
95843358|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1436|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.524|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 20 minutes|||0.524|-0.057|
95843359|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 30 minutes|||0.474|-0.036|
95843360|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 45 minutes|||0.568|0.019|
95843361|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.473|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1 hour|||0.473|-0.019|
95843362|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 1.5 hours|||0.418|-0.010|
95843363|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.308|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2 hours|||0.308|-0.075|
95843364|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0805|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.19|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 2.5 hours|||0.190|-0.136|
95843365|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.208|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3 hours|||0.208|-0.116|
95843366|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.247|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 3.5 hour|||0.247|-0.099|
95843367|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.313|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4 hours|||0.313|-0.051|
95843368|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1025|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.411|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 4.5 hours|||0.411|-0.004|
95864276|NCT03996369|191686476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.55|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|25.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.46|5.65|=0.002
95843369|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.367|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5 hours|||0.367|-0.004|
95843370|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.373|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 5.5 hours|||0.373|-0.018|
95843371|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6 hours|||0.506|0.070|
95843372|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.488|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 6.5 hours|||0.488|0.079|
95843373|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1137|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.616|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7 hour|||0.616|0.157|
95843374|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.636|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 7.5 hours|||0.636|0.108|
95843375|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.458|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.688|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8 hours|||0.688|0.227|
95843376|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|0.765|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 8.5 hours|||0.765|0.254|
95843377|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1144|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.723|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9 hours|||0.723|0.261|
95843378|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.625|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 9.5 hours|||0.625|0.203|
95843379|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0984|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.241|0.639|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at 10 hours|||0.639|0.241|
95843380|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|0.562|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 minutes|||0.562|0.135|
95843381|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.494|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1273|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.237|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 minutes|||0.751|0.237|
95843382|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.8|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 15 minutes|||0.800|0.199|
95843383|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.872|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 20 minutes|||0.872|0.274|
95843384|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|0.751|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 30 minutes|||0.751|0.225|
95843385|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.663|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 45 minutes|||0.663|0.098|
95864277|NCT03996369|191686476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.98|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.91|4.05|=0.007
95864278|NCT03996369|191686476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|33.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||33.25|11.95|<0.001
95843386|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.596|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1 hour|||0.596|0.089|
95843387|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1094|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.439|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 1.5 hours|||0.439|-0.003|
95843388|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||||95.0|-0.07|0.323|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2 hours|||0.323|-0.070|
95843389|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0818|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.223|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 2.5 hours|||0.223|-0.107|
95843390|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0821|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.139|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3 hours|||0.139|-0.192|
95843391|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.268|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 3.5 hours|||0.268|-0.085|
95843392|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.269|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4 hour|||0.269|-0.102|
95843393|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.461|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 4.5 hours|||0.461|0.038|
95843394|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0945|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5 hours|||0.429|0.047|
95843395|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0995|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.516|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 5.5 hours|||0.516|0.114|
95843396|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6 hours|||0.591|0.143|
95843397|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.571|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 6.5 hours|||0.571|0.151|
95843398|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.602|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7 hour|||0.602|0.131|
95843399|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.694|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 7.5 hours|||0.694|0.155|
95961913|NCT04750577|191895873|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|10.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 685509/ Placebo.|Treatment, sodium-Glucose co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor (SGLT2i) use at baseline, and type of diabetes were used as covariates in the logistic regression model.||10.39|1.91|0.0005
95843400|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|0.793|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8 hours|||0.793|0.319|
95843401|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1297||||95.0|0.331|0.854|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 8.5 hours|||0.854|0.331|
95843402|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|0.797|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9 hours|||0.797|0.322|
95843403|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1076||||95.0|0.304|0.739|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 9.5 hours|||0.739|0.304|
95843404|NCT00857857|191653995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1017||||95.0|0.308|0.719|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at 10 hours|||0.719|0.308|
95843405|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||||95.0|0.086|0.503|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 7|||0.503|0.086|
95843406|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.363|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 13|||0.363|0.007|
95843407|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.351|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 0.25 mg OD at Day 14|||0.351|-0.062|
95843408|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.527|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 7|||0.527|0.133|
95843409|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.253|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 13|||0.253|-0.092|
95843410|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.327|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 1 mg OD at Day 14|||0.327|-0.076|
95843411|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.493|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 7|||0.493|0.100|
95843412|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.429|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 13|||0.429|0.083|
95843413|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|0.662|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and GW870086 3 mg OD at Day 14|||0.662|0.262|
95843414|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0982|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.52|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 7|||0.520|0.125|
95843415|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 13|||0.402|0.057|
95864279|NCT03996369|191686476|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.58|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|28.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.47|6.70|=0.002
95843416|NCT00857857|191653997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0991|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.572|||||Comparison of FEV1 between placebo and fluticasone propionate 0.25 mg BID at Day 14|||0.572|0.172|
95843417|NCT00857857|191654007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.66|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||0.66|-1.30|
95843418|NCT00857857|191654007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.28|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||1.28|-0.73|
95843419|NCT00857857|191654007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.19|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.19|0.36|
95843420|NCT00857857|191654007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.75|||||Doubling dose differences, that is a treatment doubling dose difference of 1 indicates that the concentration of methacholine required to cause a 20% fall in FEV1 in one treatment is twice that in the other (log2\[2\] = 1).|||2.75|0.84|
95843752|NCT03629886|191655182|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=1917). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.05|0.73|
95843753|NCT03629886|191655182|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2356). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.05|
95843754|NCT03629886|191655182|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2357). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.56|0.35|
95843755|NCT03629886|191655182|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2534). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.27|0.14|
95843756|NCT03629886|191655182|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100 Person-years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2547). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative and seronegative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
95843757|NCT03629886|191655183|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T), and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of HPV-16/18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2818). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.19|
95864280|NCT03996369|191686477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.99|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|25.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.91|6.07|=0.002
95961914|NCT02647645|191895874|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.02||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = 1.78).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Analysis results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, cluster of differentiation (CD4) cell count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.02
95843421|NCT05298202|191654054|SUPERIORITY|time x treatment ANOVA||||||0.284||||||difference between treatment and control|ANOVA|||||||0.284
95843422|NCT05298202|191654055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.177
95843423|NCT05298202|191654056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.122
95864281|NCT03996369|191686477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.45|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.54|26.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||26.36|4.54|=0.006
95961915|NCT02647645|191895875|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on similar studies of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).||||||0.34||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .71).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.34
95961916|NCT02647645|191895876|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was based on the investigators' estimate of the impact of cognitive training with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on subjective cognitive problems, as similar studies were not available to develop effect size estimates.||||||0.33||||||Probability associated with the test of the interaction between participants' performance and session number in repeated measures analysis of covariance. In light of small sample size, estimated effect size was also calculated (d = .63).|ANCOVA|Test was adjusted for age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load.||Results are overall estimated marginal means from repeated measures analysis of covariance with treatment group as a fixed factor and age, gender, race, education, CD4 count, and log viral load as covariates.||||0.33
95961917|NCT00349466|191895913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.027
95961918|NCT00349466|191895914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.083
95961919|NCT00349466|191895915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.028
95961920|NCT00349466|191895916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.655
95961921|NCT00349466|191895917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.387
95961922|NCT00349466|191895918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.203
95843424|NCT05298202|191654057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|time x treatment anova||||||.038
95843425|NCT05298202|191654058|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976|||||||ANOVA|||||||.976
95843426|NCT05298202|191654059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||ANOVA|||||||.747
95843427|NCT01389882|191654060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.015||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|1.978|||Paired t-test|||||1.978|0.036|0.043
95843428|NCT01389882|191654061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.232|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.841||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.174|||Paired t-test|||||0.174|-0.637|0.245
95843429|NCT01389882|191654062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.095||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.714|||Paired t-test|||||0.714|-0.020|0.257
95843430|NCT01389882|191654063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.541||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|0.931|||Paired t-test|||||0.931|-0.554|0.601
95843431|NCT01389882|191654064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.355||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.023|||Paired t-test|||||0.023|-0.320|0.085
95843432|NCT01389882|191654065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.516|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.786||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.799|11.232|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||11.232|1.799|0.002
95864282|NCT03996369|191686477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|32.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.85|11.43|<0.001
95864283|NCT03996369|191686477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|29.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||29.33|7.65|<0.001
95961923|NCT00349466|191895919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.807
95961924|NCT02358668|191895920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.46||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|11.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.20|-6.28|0.57
95961925|NCT02358668|191895920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.57||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.11||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||7.11|-10.3|0.72
95961926|NCT02358668|191895921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.42||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-0.91|0.66
95961927|NCT02358668|191895921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-1.03|0.90
95843433|NCT01389882|191654066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.516||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|2.904|||Paired t-test, 2-sided|||||2.904|0.478|0.009
95961928|NCT02358668|191895922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.59||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.50|0.86
95961929|NCT02358668|191895922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.38||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.66|0.59
95843434|NCT01389882|191654067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.692|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.192||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.749|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||1.749|-0.364|0.314
95843435|NCT01389882|191654068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.047||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.016|||Paired t-test|||||0.016|-0.030|0.515
95843436|NCT01389882|191654069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1105|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.501||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.505|3.726|||Paired t-test|||||3.726|-3.505|0.949
95843437|NCT01389882|191654070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.081||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|6.875|||Paired t-test|||||6.875|-4.770|0.709
95843438|NCT01389882|191654071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.274|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.233||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.802|||Paired t-test|||||0.802|-1.350|0.600
95843439|NCT01116401|191654085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
95843440|NCT01116401|191654086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
95843441|NCT04057807|191654110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||unpaired t-tests (continuous variables)|||||||0.14
95843442|NCT04057807|191654111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||univariate linear regression analysis|two-tailed P value was obtained from a univariate linear regression analysis||||||0.82
95961930|NCT02358668|191895923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.44|0.62
95961931|NCT02358668|191895923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.55||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.52|0.97
95961932|NCT02358668|191895924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-0.20|0.40
95864284|NCT01565343|191686498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9893||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
95843443|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||||||6 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
95843444|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||||||6 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.064
95843445|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|12 hour pain at rest||||||0.139
95843446|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||12 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.350
95843447|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||18 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.021
95843448|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||18 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
95843449|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour pain at rest||||||0.806
95843450|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||||||24 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.228
95843451|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||36 hour pain at rest|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
95843452|NCT02271698|191654123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||||||36 hour pain with movement|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.394
95843453|NCT02271698|191654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||||||6 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.181
95843454|NCT02271698|191654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||||||12 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.364
95843455|NCT02271698|191654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|18 hours||||||0.605
95843456|NCT02271698|191654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hours||||||0.733
95843457|NCT02271698|191654124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||36 hours|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.600
95843458|NCT00964496|191654130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.677||||1.3e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.807||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants whose rebleeds decreased from baseline by ≥ 50% at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.807|0.547|0.00000013
95843459|NCT00964496|191654131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-2.13||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in hemoglobin level at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||-2.13|-4.02|<0.001
95864285|NCT01565343|191686498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ICC|0.9574||||||95.0|||||ICC|||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient of Control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
95864286|NCT01565343|191686498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.413||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of AD subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
96001828|NCT01096667|191981230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.82|0.09||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as a covariate.||||0.09|-3.82|0.111
95843460|NCT00964496|191654132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.95|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.9||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding episodes at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||9.90|6.00|<0.01
95843461|NCT00964496|191654133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.0002474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|6.64||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in bleeding duration at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||6.64|2.15|0.00024740
95843462|NCT00964496|191654134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|-0.374||||0.00298881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.563|-0.185||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the participants dependent on blood transfusions.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||-0.185|-0.563|0.00298881
95843463|NCT00964496|191654135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1557.14|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1294.53|1819.76||P\<0.05 was considered as statistical different, while P\>0.05 was considered as no statistical significance between two groups. All reported P values are two-sided.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the change from baseline in total transfused red cell requirements at 12 months.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the independent-samples t test."||1819.76|1294.53|<0.01
95843464|NCT00964496|191654136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in proportions|0.464||||3.962e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.649|||Fisher Exact|||"Null hypothesis (H0): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is equivalence to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Alternative hypothesis (Ha): Thalidomide 100 mg per day is non-equivalent to iron 400 mg per day with regard to the cessation of bleeding.~Comparisons were performed with the use of the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test."||0.649|0.28|0.00003962
95843465|NCT03367858|191654150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173||||||At 12 month follow up.|ANCOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANCOVA of Time (Post-Treatment: 3, 6, 12 months) × Treatment (MI, BAM) with the covariate of pre-treatment problem drinking.||||.0173
95843466|NCT01450761|191654157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.085|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.085|0.807|0.3775
95843467|NCT01450761|191654158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961||||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|1.102|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||1.102|0.838|0.5678
95843468|NCT01450761|191654159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.851||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|0.971|||Log Rank||HR = ipilimumab over placebo|||0.971|0.747|0.0161
95843469|NCT03801174|191654160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|.804
95961933|NCT02358668|191895924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.21|0.49
95843470|NCT03801174|191654161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.0|233.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||233|-132|.590
95961934|NCT02358668|191895925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-2.88|0.41
95961935|NCT02358668|191895925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.51||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-3.18|0.15
95961936|NCT02358668|191895926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.18||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.29|0.64
95843471|NCT03801174|191654162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|806.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|443.0||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|1675.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1675|-64|.069
95843472|NCT04435366|191654197|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.096||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol). Mixed Model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used to compare the treatment groups.||0.096|0.016|0.0064
95843473|NCT04435366|191654198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.657||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||0.657|0.066|0.0165
95843474|NCT04435366|191654198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.788||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol and sham versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol and sham).||0.788|0.189|0.0015
95961937|NCT02358668|191895926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
95843475|NCT04435366|191654199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.12||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||2.12|-3.79|0.58
95843476|NCT04435366|191654200|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|1.81||Nominal p-value was used for the comparison between avacincaptad pegol versus sham.|MMRM|||Difference in least squares mean between groups calculated as (sham) minus (avacincaptad pegol).||1.81|-4.79|0.38
95843477|NCT04435366|191654202|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.326|1.903|||MMRM|||||1.903|-3.326|0.5929
95843478|NCT04435366|191654204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.57|0.6424
95843479|NCT00413218|191654205|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was compared to the protocol prespecified noninferiority margin (NIM) value of -15%. If the lower bound were greater than -15%, isavuconazole would be declared as noninferior to caspofungin.|Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.8|-19.9|
95961938|NCT02358668|191895927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.19||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.05|-4.43|0.46
95843480|NCT00413218|191654206|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|6.8|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||6.8|-12.2|
95843481|NCT00413218|191654207|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-19.9|
95843482|NCT00413218|191654207|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference %|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.2|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.2|-15.00|
95843483|NCT00413218|191654208|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.9|-15.4|
95843484|NCT00413218|191654208|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-1.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.5|-15.8|
95843485|NCT00413218|191654208|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|8.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||8.3|-9.1|
95843486|NCT00413218|191654208|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|3.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||3.6|-15.3|
95961939|NCT02358668|191895927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.21||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-4.72|0.24
95961940|NCT02358668|191895928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-0.13|0.83
95843487|NCT00413218|191654209|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.0|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOIV (Days 11-56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-7.0|-22.7|
95843488|NCT00413218|191654209|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-8.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-8.4|-23.5|
95843489|NCT00413218|191654209|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|9.6|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU1 (2 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||9.6|-8.1|
95864287|NCT01565343|191686498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean % difference|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.839||||95.0||||||||Intra-subject variability (% difference) of control subjects 50-70 min test vs. retest values||||
95864288|NCT01433289|191686509|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study hypothesis tested whether Polyphenon E given twice daily for 14 days at the specified doses has an effect on antiviral activity compared with placebo, measured by differences from baseline to day 14 in plasma HIV-1 RNA level (log10 copies/mL). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test the null hypothesis that there was no change at Day 14 versus baseline.||||>0.05
95843490|NCT00413218|191654209|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at FU2 (6 weeks after end of treatment).The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||4.3|-14.7|
95843491|NCT00413218|191654210|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-2.5|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-2.5|-20.4|
95843492|NCT00413218|191654210|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-0.4|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-0.4|-16.5|
95843493|NCT00413218|191654211|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.9|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at Day 7. The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||-1.9|-20.3|
95843494|NCT00413218|191654211|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|0.1|||||The 95% CI for the adjusted treatment difference was calculated based on a normal approximation.|Statistical analysis of adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) at EOT (Day 56). The adjusted treatment difference (ISA-CAS) was calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical region and baseline neutropenic status.||0.1|-16.3|
95843495|NCT00413218|191654212|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 14. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||8.9|-3.8|
95843496|NCT00413218|191654212|OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|10.0||||||Statistical analysis of all-cause mortality on Day 56. Adjusted treatment difference (Isavuconazole-Caspofungin) is calculated by a stratified CMH method with the strata of geographical regions, and baseline neutropenic status.||10.0|-7.1|
95843497|NCT01687296|191654228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.76|||ANCOVA|||250 par were to be enrolled to achieve 200 total evaluable par or 100 evaluable par per group. Sample size was based on the primary efficacy endpoint (AM PEF) and had 80% power to reject the null hypothesis: nebulized FP (1 mg BID) was inferior to oral prednisone with regard to AM PEF using one-side t test at significance level 2.5%, and assuming true treatment difference (FP minus predisone) was 3.6 L/min, noninferiority margin was -12L/min, and common standard deviation was 39 L/min.||10.76|-9.85|0.931
95843498|NCT01687296|191654229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (5%, 2-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (FP minus prednisone) in the mean morning PEF on diary card over the treatment assessment period was greater than -12L/min.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|10.65|||ANCOVA|||||10.65|-9.64|0.922
95961941|NCT02358668|191895928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.16|0.48
95843499|NCT01687296|191654230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|11.34|||ANCOVA|||||11.34|-9.02|0.822
95843500|NCT01687296|191654231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for day-time symptom score||||0.717
95961942|NCT02358668|191895929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|11.45||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||11.45|-9.17|0.83
95961943|NCT02358668|191895929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|9.27||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||9.27|-11.1|0.86
95864289|NCT01433289|191686509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Analysis was stratified by treatment group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the change of log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml between treatment groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.74
95843501|NCT01687296|191654231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for night-time symptom score||||0.683
95843502|NCT01687296|191654232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.996
95843503|NCT01687296|191654233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.048|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 5||0.048|-0.135|0.348
95864290|NCT00600119|191686513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7781|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7781
95864291|NCT00600119|191686513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0020
95864292|NCT00600119|191686513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95864293|NCT00600119|191686514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5118
95864294|NCT00600119|191686514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0022
95843504|NCT01687296|191654233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.083|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FEV1 on Day 8||0.083|-0.074|0.914
95843505|NCT01687296|191654233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.054|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 5||0.054|-0.187|0.276
95843506|NCT01687296|191654233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.049|||ANCOVA|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for FVC on Day 8||0.049|-0.126|0.384
95843507|NCT01687296|191654234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 5||||0.507
95843508|NCT01687296|191654234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for clinical scoring index on Day 8||||0.700
95843509|NCT01687296|191654235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for participant/parent global evaluation||||0.633
95843510|NCT01687296|191654235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Fluticasone propionate versus Prednisone for investigator global evaluation||||0.323
95843511|NCT03246789|191654236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|6.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||6.39|-2.09|0.31
95843512|NCT03246789|191654237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.28|-4.22|0.28
95843513|NCT03246789|191654237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.74|-3.48|0.50
95843514|NCT03246789|191654237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||-0.28|-2.88|0.02
95843515|NCT03246789|191654237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain 4, Week 12||3.53|-3.63|0.98
95843516|NCT03246789|191654238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||0.58|-0.64|0.92
95843517|NCT03246789|191654238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||0.33|-0.69|0.48
95843518|NCT03246789|191654238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.69|-0.33|0.48
95843519|NCT00101686|191654239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.0152||95.0|1.09|1.89||p-value corresponds to the log-rank test for comparing Kaplan-Meier survival curves.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio \[mIRI:FOLFIRI\] is from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model using treatment (FOLFIRI, mIRI, CapeIRI), age (\<=70 vs \>70), performance status (0 vs 1), aspirin (Yes vs No), celecoxib (Yes or No) as the covariates.|||1.89|1.09|0.0152
95843520|NCT00101686|191654240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.0042||95.0|1.16|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.16|0.0042
95843521|NCT00101686|191654240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.368||||0.0156||95.0|1.04|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|1.04|0.0156
95843522|NCT00101686|191654240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.057||||0.4659||95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.81|0.4659
95843523|NCT00101686|191654241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|47.2||||||95.0|38.85|55.71|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||55.71|38.85|
95843524|NCT00101686|191654241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|43.3||||||95.0|34.95|51.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||51.86|34.95|
95843525|NCT00101686|191654241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|38.6||||||95.0|30.66|47.06|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||47.06|30.66|
95843526|NCT00101686|191654241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4751|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4751
95843527|NCT00101686|191654241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1591|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1591
95843528|NCT00101686|191654241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4395
95843529|NCT00101686|191654242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.268||||0.0879||95.0|0.96|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.96|0.0879
95843530|NCT00101686|191654242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.2765||95.0|0.9|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.90|0.2765
95843531|NCT00101686|191654242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.049||||0.9364||95.0|0.8|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.80|0.9364
95843532|NCT00101686|191654244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.068||||0.7163||95.0|0.86|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.86|0.7163
95843533|NCT00101686|191654245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|39.4||||||95.0|32.83|46.34|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||46.34|32.83|
95843534|NCT00101686|191654245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|46.5||||||95.0|39.76|53.42|||||confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||53.42|39.76|
95843535|NCT00101686|191654245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1559|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1559
95843536|NCT00101686|191654246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.5316||95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.86|0.5316
95843537|NCT00101686|191654247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.269||||0.2835||95.0|0.75|2.15|||Log Rank|||||2.15|0.75|0.2835
95843538|NCT00101686|191654248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|57.9||||||95.0|44.08|70.86|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||70.86|44.08|
95843539|NCT00101686|191654248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-distribution method|53.3||||||95.0|40.0|66.33|||||Exact confidence interval for binomial proportion using the F-distribution method (unit: %)|||66.33|40.00|
95843540|NCT00101686|191654248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7388|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7388
95843541|NCT00101686|191654250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.794||||0.037||95.0|1.12|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|1.12|0.0370
95843542|NCT01618669|191654262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in the proportion of participants with majority reader self-agreement exceeded -0.075, non-inferiority would be demonstrated.|Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||-0.00|-0.06|
95864295|NCT00600119|191686514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95843543|NCT01618669|191654264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.10 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||||Difference equals Regadenoson After Peak Exercise minus Regadenoson Alone|||0.11|-0.14|
95843544|NCT01618669|191654265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower confidence bound of the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025 of the difference in agreement rates must exceed -0.133 in order to demonstrate non-inferiority. Non-inferiority could not be assessed because of insufficient data in the Regadenoson Alone group.|Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.07|
95843545|NCT01618669|191654266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.03|
95843546|NCT00430716|191654288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.15||||0.011|ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.37||||ANOVA|||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||3.37|0.011
95843547|NCT00430716|191654288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17||||0.545|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-21.48||||ANOVA|||ANOVA model followed by the Williams trend test (one-sided, at the 2.5% level of significance) was used. The Williams trend test firstly determined if there was a significant downward trend in response for the descending doses, and then subsequently determined the highest dose that was statistically inferior to 20 mg (known to be an effective dose of sildenafil). A corresponding 97.5% lower confidence limit for the difference was presented.|||-21.48|0.545
95843548|NCT00430716|191654289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.51||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||2.05|-7.07|0.278
95843549|NCT00430716|191654289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.09|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of change from baseline in week 12 mean PAP used ANCOVA, with etiology and baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||4.09|-4.98|0.846
95843550|NCT00430716|191654291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||4.78|0.50|0.448
95961944|NCT02358668|191895930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|72.3||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||72.3|-99.6|0.75
95961945|NCT02358668|191895930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|123.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||123.9|-43.9|0.34
95961946|NCT02358668|191895931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-980.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2604.0|643.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||643.8|-2604|0.23
95843551|NCT00430716|191654291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis of the week 12 PAH functional class was done with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates.The odds ratio and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the odds ratio for the treatment comparisons was presented along with the p-value for the tests.||3.32|0.35|0.897
95961947|NCT02358668|191895931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|323.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1269.0|1916.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1916.6|-1269|0.68
95961948|NCT02358668|191895932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|129.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||129.6|-99.6|0.79
95961949|NCT02358668|191895932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|172.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||172.6|-52.5|0.29
95843552|NCT00430716|191654292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.44|-32.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-32.16|-177.44|0.005
95843553|NCT00430716|191654292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|47.5|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||47.50|-97.50|0.496
95961950|NCT02358668|191895933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-385.3|144.9||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||144.9|-385.3|0.37
95961951|NCT02358668|191895933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.1|296.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||296.2|-198.1|0.69
95961952|NCT02358668|191895935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||5.5|-9.8|0.57
95843554|NCT00430716|191654293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-462.12||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-807.53|-116.71|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||-116.71|-807.53|0.009
95843555|NCT00430716|191654293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-141.45||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.48|200.58|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||200.58|-483.48|0.414
95843556|NCT00430716|191654294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (1 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.15|-0.17|0.890
95843557|NCT00430716|191654294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA method was used with etiology, baseline walking distance category (\<325m or \>=325m) and baseline score as the covariates. The mean difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI for the comparisons of sildenafil 20 mg against the lower sildenafil dose (5 mg) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.04|-0.29|0.124
95843558|NCT00430716|191654295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||0.00|-1.00|0.382
95843559|NCT00430716|191654295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Van-Elteren)|||A stratified Wilcoxon test (Van-Elteren) was used. The stratified median difference and corresponding two-sided 95% CI (calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator) was presented along with the p-value for the test.||1.00|0.00|0.141
95843560|NCT03901144|191654301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.562|-5.489|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.489|-12.562|<0.001
95843561|NCT03901144|191654301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.194||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-0.629|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.629|-7.760|0.021
95843562|NCT03901144|191654301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.602|-5.44|||ANCOVA|||Summary of TEWL (g/m2h) change from day 29 to day 31||-5.440|-12.602|<0.001
95843563|NCT03901144|191654302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.538|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.114|-1.962|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-1.962|-5.114|<0.001
95843564|NCT03901144|191654302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.748||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.332|-0.164|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-0.164|-3.332|0.031
95843565|NCT03901144|191654302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.332|-3.156|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Objective Erythema (2D Skin Imaging) change from day 29 to day 31||-3.156|-6.332|<0.001
95843566|NCT03901144|191654303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.077||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.325|-6.829|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness-Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-6.829|-31.325|0.002
95961953|NCT02358668|191895935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.6||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||8.6|-6.6|0.79
95961954|NCT02358668|191895936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.8||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.4|0.54
95843567|NCT03901144|191654303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.493||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.787|7.801|||ANCOVA|||||7.801|-16.787|0.471
95843568|NCT03901144|191654303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.035|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.372|-14.698|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Redness - Mexameter change from day 29 to day 31||-14.698|-39.372|<0.001
95843569|NCT03901144|191654305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.150|-0.558|<0.001
95843570|NCT03901144|191654305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.115|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||0.115|-0.292|0.392
95843571|NCT03901144|191654305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.447|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.652|-0.242|||ANCOVA|||Summary of Visual Redness at day 31||-0.242|-0.652|<0.001
95843572|NCT02021565|191654312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||alpha = 0.025|ANOVA|Repeated measures||Analysis 1 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks with assistance from the informal caregiver.||||0.973
95961955|NCT02358668|191895936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-2.0|0.68
95843573|NCT02021565|191654312|SUPERIORITY|Alpha = .025||||||0.223|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the caregiver reported confidence that Veteran care recipient can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.223
95843574|NCT02021565|191654313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 1 is for the Veteran care recipient reported task efficacy||||0.547
95843575|NCT02021565|191654313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis 2 is for the Veteran reported confidence that he/she can perform 10 transfer tasks independently.||||0.891
95843576|NCT02021565|191654314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.729
95843577|NCT03324802|191654316|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
95843578|NCT03324802|191654317|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Log Rank|||||||1.0
95843579|NCT03324802|191654319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
95843580|NCT03324802|191654320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.163
95843581|NCT03324802|191654321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.97
95843582|NCT03324802|191654322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Gray Test P-value|||||||0.5
95843583|NCT03324802|191654323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
95843584|NCT02927392|191654354|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95843585|NCT01708317|191654364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||<|0.001||||||We used a cutoff of P\<0.05 as statistically significant.|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom to compare 4 time periods.||We compared testing in the 4 time frames described, including the time frame in which we enrolled patients in the ACASI.||||<.001
95843586|NCT03890588|191654405|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|.91|.21
95843587|NCT03890588|191654406|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.18|.76|.61
95843588|NCT03890588|191654407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.84|.84
95843589|NCT03890588|191654408|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|.8|.99
95843590|NCT03890588|191654409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|.79|.86
95961956|NCT02358668|191895937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-3.2|0.03
95961957|NCT02358668|191895937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.4||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.7|0.86
95961958|NCT02358668|191895938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.44||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.44|-0.39|0.90
95961959|NCT02358668|191895938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.63|0.30
95961960|NCT02358668|191895939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.57||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||2.57|-1.32|0.52
95843591|NCT04551066|191654417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.26||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.71|0.4224
95843592|NCT04551066|191654418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.53||calculated from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 x 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 x 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.46|0.5728
95843593|NCT04551066|191654420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.9490
95843594|NCT04551066|191654424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1085||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.1085
95843595|NCT04551066|191654425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6127||||||calculated from log-rank test stratified by Baseline platelet count ≥100 × 10\^9/Liters versus 50 to \<100 × 10\^9/Liters inclusive|Log Rank|||||||0.6127
95843596|NCT00369577|191654426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0880
95843597|NCT00369577|191654426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||p-values (adjusted) using Dunnett's t-test in main effects ANCOVA model|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95843598|NCT00369577|191654427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0583
95843599|NCT00369577|191654427|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95843600|NCT00369577|191654428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
95843601|NCT00369577|191654428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
95843602|NCT00369577|191654429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0076
95843603|NCT00369577|191654429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95961961|NCT02358668|191895939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.05||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||3.05|-0.75|0.24
95843604|NCT00699660|191654430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Comparison of CAPS/WHODAS vs Nonstructured Interview study arms: linear and logistic mixed effects regression with clinical examiner stratified by study group as a random effect and study group as a fixed effect.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included experience, use of template,tests,reviewing records,age,education, study site,reviewer, and expert reviewer by group interaction.||Our sample size calculation yielded 466 for a power of 0.80 to detect a 10% absolute difference in sensitivity and adjusted for intraclass correlation. The number of covariates in regression models was limited to ensure the effective sample size remained ten times greater than the degrees of freedom in the model.||||<.001
95843605|NCT00699660|191654431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<.01
95843606|NCT00699660|191654432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics on mean and standard deviation.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95843607|NCT00699660|191654433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.86||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||0.05 level based on a two tailed test.|Regression, Linear|Covariates included years of experience, use of template, use of tests, age, education, study site.||Estimates of the influence on total time and tests of statistical significance were derived from multilevel mixed-effects linear regression (xtmixed in Stata)||||.012
95843608|NCT03160898|191654434|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean treatment difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||"The statistical null hypothesis was as follows: there was no assumed dose-response relationship in percent predicted SVC change from baseline to Week 12 among all three active doses and placebo, expressed as:~H0: -5 x µ placebo - 1 x µ 150 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 300 mg twice daily + 3 x µ 450 mg twice daily = 0 where µ was the mean of the efficacy endpoint for the designated group."||3.58|-0.36|0.1095
95843609|NCT03160898|191654434|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291||0.2501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.03|-1.05|0.2501
95843610|NCT03160898|191654434|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.7|0.1549
95843611|NCT03160898|191654434|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.274||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.38|-0.63|0.1417
95961962|NCT02358668|191895940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.038||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.038|-0.035|0.93
95961963|NCT02358668|191895940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.051||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.051|-0.021|0.40
95843612|NCT03160898|191654434|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.05|-0.33|0.0964
95843613|NCT03160898|191654435|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||1.22|-0.09|0.0930
95843614|NCT03160898|191654435|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.29|0.0087
95843615|NCT03160898|191654435|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.75|0.06|0.0351
95843616|NCT03160898|191654435|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-0.24|0.1642
95843617|NCT03160898|191654435|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.0435
95843618|NCT03160898|191654436|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|0.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02734||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0261|0.0813|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by an MMRM with contrast (-5, -1, 3, 3) to reflect the assumed relationship for the 4 groups: placebo, 150, 300, and 450 mg twice daily.||||0.0813|-0.0261|0.3134
95843619|NCT03160898|191654436|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0246||||0.4824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0442|0.0935|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0935|-0.0442|0.4824
95843620|NCT03160898|191654436|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0146||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0544|0.0835|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0835|-0.0544|0.6787
95843621|NCT03160898|191654436|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0488||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0194|0.1171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1171|-0.0194|0.1604
95961964|NCT02358668|191895941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.2|0.36
95961965|NCT02358668|191895941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||The p-value of treatment effects relative to placebo was obtained by ANCOVA analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted for age, gender and baseline measurements.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.4|0.36
95961966|NCT02358668|191895942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95843622|NCT03160898|191654436|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0317||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0279|0.0913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0913|-0.0279|0.2966
95843623|NCT00754377|191654549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95843624|NCT00754377|191654550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95843625|NCT03985761|191654579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||ANOVA|||||||.182
95843626|NCT03985761|191654580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||||||.296
95843627|NCT03985761|191654581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANOVA|||||||.483
95843628|NCT03985761|191654582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|||||||.995
95864296|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5522
95864297|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0589
95864298|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1691||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Physical Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1691
95864299|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6293||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6293
95961967|NCT02358668|191895942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95843629|NCT03985761|191654583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||.220
95843630|NCT03985761|191654584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||.538
95843631|NCT03985761|191654587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||ANOVA|||||||.121
95843632|NCT01292187|191654628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0265
95864300|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0836||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0836
95961968|NCT02358668|191895943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95864301|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1155||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Worries/Concerns domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1155
95864302|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9938||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9938
95864303|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2101||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2101
95961969|NCT02358668|191895943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95843633|NCT01292187|191654629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0340
95843634|NCT04308941|191654644|OTHER|The mean and standard deviation was analyzed.||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95843635|NCT02230566|191654645|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-64.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.66|-59.98||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||-59.98|-69.66|< 0.0001
95843636|NCT02230566|191654646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0527|||||||t-test|"P value from t-test of no change (0 change) from baseline"||||||0.0527
95961970|NCT02358668|191895944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95843637|NCT02230566|191654647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|20.8||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|53.7||P-values are from GEE model including baseline value, and the post UX003 Treatment Week as a categorical variable. The covariance structure within participants was assumed to be exchangeable.|GEE|||||53.7|-12.0|0.2137
95843638|NCT02230566|191654650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|3.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Left||3.0|-16.1|0.1778
95843639|NCT02230566|191654650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.5||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.0|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Left||8.0|-10.9|0.7632
95843640|NCT02230566|191654650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.8||||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.1|||GEE|||Shoulder Flexion - Right||5.1|-8.8|0.6034
95864304|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4597||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Psychosocial Discomfort domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4597
95864305|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4822||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4822
95864306|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0171
95864307|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Satisfaction domain from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0160
95864308|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6857||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6857
95864309|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0253
95864310|NCT00600119|191686515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0772||||||Analysis for change in PAC-QOL Total Score from Baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0772
95961971|NCT02358668|191895944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||||||The univariate p-value of treatment group was obtained by t-tests comparing the changes to that of placebo group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95961972|NCT02358668|191895945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.48|<0.01
95961973|NCT02358668|191895945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.04||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-0.32|0.13
95961974|NCT02358668|191895946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-1.01|0.01
95843641|NCT02230566|191654650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.4||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|3.4|||GEE|||Shoulder Extension - Right||3.4|-10.2|0.3332
95843642|NCT02230566|191654650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.4||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-0.4|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Flexion||-0.4|-18.4|0.0415
95843643|NCT02230566|191654650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.7||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|0.2|||GEE|||Tighter Shoulder Extension||0.2|-13.6|0.0563
95843644|NCT02230566|191654651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.0||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.2|||GEE|||for the left eye||2.2|-0.2|0.1140
95843645|NCT02230566|191654651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.9||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8|||GEE|||for the right eye||1.8|-0.1|0.0906
95843646|NCT02230566|191654652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.7|||GEE|||Scale-BALANCE||1.7|-0.1|0.0883
95864311|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5008||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5008
95843647|NCT02230566|191654652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.2||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||GEE|||Scale: FINE MOTOR PRECISION||0.2|-0.7|0.3528
95843648|NCT02230566|191654652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||GEE|||Scale-MANUAL DEXTERITY||0.6|-0.2|0.4094
95843649|NCT02230566|191654652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||GEE|||Scale-RUNNING SPEED AND AGILITY||0.4|0.0|0.1020
95843650|NCT02230566|191654653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.6|||GEE|||||8.6|-1.8|0.1953
95961975|NCT02358668|191895946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.57|0.42
95961976|NCT02358668|191895947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.35|0.02
95843651|NCT02230566|191654655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||GEE|||||0.6|-3.0|0.2022
95843652|NCT00113841|191654656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95843653|NCT02366195|191654657|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.387
95843654|NCT02366195|191654658|OTHER|Primary completion data.||||||0.056|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.056
95843655|NCT02366195|191654658|OTHER|Final analysis data.||||||0.222|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.222
95864312|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1823||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1823
95843656|NCT02366195|191654659|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.335|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.335
95843657|NCT02366195|191654659|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.597|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.597
95843658|NCT02366195|191654660|OTHER|Primary completion||||||0.82|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.82
95843659|NCT02366195|191654660|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.9|||||||Fisher's Z transformation|||||||0.90
95843660|NCT02366195|191654661|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.660
95843661|NCT02366195|191654661|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.881|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.881
95843662|NCT02366195|191654662|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.974|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.974
95843663|NCT02366195|191654662|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.612|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.612
95843664|NCT02366195|191654663|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.626|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.626
95843665|NCT02366195|191654663|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.579|||||||Cox proportional hazards|||||||0.579
95843666|NCT02366195|191654664|OTHER|Primary completion data||||||0.18|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.18
95843667|NCT02366195|191654664|OTHER|Final analysis data||||||0.14|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.14
95843668|NCT03507036|191654686|OTHER||||||||||||||||||A paired t-test was performed for skin lab measurement and biopsies.|||
95843669|NCT00721396|191654689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence interval of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 44/76-SL strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
95843670|NCT00721396|191654689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference %(B+R246 minus B246_R357)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against 5/99 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||1|-1|
95864313|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7045||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Abdominal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7045
95864314|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7088||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7088
95864315|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5828||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5828
95864316|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Rectal Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
95961977|NCT02358668|191895947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42||The p-value of treatment effects (reference to placebo) were obtained by mixed effect model analysis comparing the outcome values adjusted with repeated measures, ages and gender.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.75|0.57
95843671|NCT00721396|191654689|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R246 was considered non-inferior to response of Group B246\_R357, if at one month after the third rMenB+OMV NZ injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the difference in the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥5 was greater than -10% for each of the 3 strains.|Difference % (B+R246 minus B246_R357)|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against NZ98/254 strain when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine was administered concomitantly with routine infant vaccines as compared to when rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine and routine vaccines were given separately.||-4|-12|
95843672|NCT00721396|191654690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for diphtheria (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Diphtheria antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-1|
95843673|NCT00721396|191654690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Immune response of Group B+R234 was considered non-inferior to response of Group R234, if at one month after the third injection the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response greater than the pre-specified cut off of for tetanus toxoid (≥0.1 IU/mL) was \>-10%.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of immune response to Tetanus antigens when routine vaccines are administered concomitantly with rMen+OMV NZ vaccine.||2|-1|
95843674|NCT00721396|191654695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen FHA when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||4|-5|
95843675|NCT00721396|191654695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen pertactin antigen when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-7|
95843676|NCT00721396|191654695|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Group B+R234 was to be considered non-inferior to Group R234 if the 2-sided 95% lower confidence limit of this difference at 30 days after the last injection was greater than -10% for each of the antigens of the routine vaccinations.|Difference %(B+R234 minus R234)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||Non-inferiority of immune responses against Pertussis antigen PT when routine vaccine was administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine to when only routine vaccines were administered.||2|-4|
95843677|NCT01126723|191654721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95843678|NCT04797780|191654740|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CR Rate|5.06||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.2|-7.1|0.2084
95843679|NCT00279916|191654754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95843680|NCT00279916|191654755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95843681|NCT04532034|191654807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.95
95843682|NCT04184297|191654846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||0.96|0.76|
95843683|NCT04184297|191654847|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|This method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of a hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia for overall population.||1.07|0.64|
95843684|NCT04184297|191654848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Regression, Cox|The method was used to calculate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard ratio of Tiotropium+Olodaterol versus LABA/LAMA/ICS.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/LAMA/ICS) therapy combination on the risk of first COPD exacerbation for overall population.||1.19|0.91|
95843685|NCT02412098|191654849|OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean (GLSM) Ratio|73.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.92|129.01|||||A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf in the hepatic impairment group versus matched control.|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fit to the natural logarithmic transformation of eleclazine AUCinf.||129.01|41.92|
95864317|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7848||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7848
95864318|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0335||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0335
95864319|NCT00600119|191686516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591||||||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM Stool Symptoms domain from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 4).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0591
95864523|NCT01808092|191686868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test of NI for the primary efficacy analysis will be performed at the 2.5% 1 sided significance level. This test will be based on the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Consistent with the protocol, NI will be concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -12.5%.|percentage: units for RD are %|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|6.39||P-value for 1-sided test at test of cure (TOC) with a -12.5% non-inferiority margin, i.e. H0: diff \<= -12.5%.|% Risk Difference (RD)|RD is CAZ-AVI clinical cure rate minus Meropenem clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.||Statistical analysis for the proportion of patients with clinical cure at TOC in CE at TOC analysis set||6.39|-7.86|<0.001
95864524|NCT04219085|191686916|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95864525|NCT04219085|191686917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95864526|NCT04219085|191686918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95864527|NCT01909011|191686919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95864528|NCT01909011|191686920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
95864529|NCT01909011|191686921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.016
95864530|NCT03425253|191686925|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
95864531|NCT03425253|191686925|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
95864532|NCT03425253|191686925|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Investigator: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||<0.001
95864533|NCT03425253|191686925|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Both Sides of Face, Last Treatment||||0.018
95864534|NCT03425253|191686925|OTHER|||||||0.301||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Right Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.301
95864535|NCT03425253|191686925|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Independent Reviewer: Left Side of Face, Last Treatment||||0.011
95864536|NCT03425253|191686926|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95864537|NCT03425253|191686927|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.597
95864538|NCT03425253|191686928|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95864539|NCT03425253|191686929|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95864540|NCT03425253|191686930|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95864541|NCT03425253|191686931|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||||||0.003
95864542|NCT03425253|191686932|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Both Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
95864543|NCT03425253|191686932|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Right Side of the Face, End of study||||<0.001
95864544|NCT03425253|191686932|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was based on paired t-test for the mean difference.|Paired t-test|||Left Side of the Face, End of Study||||<0.001
95864545|NCT00695097|191686933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline)compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.25
95864546|NCT00695097|191686933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (Baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD3 cell density||||0.46
95864547|NCT00695097|191686933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) biopsy CD20 cell density||||0.054
95864548|NCT00695097|191686933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P \< 0.05 threshold of significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Pretreatment (baseline) compared to post-treatment (follow-up) CD20 cell density||||0.62
95864549|NCT04174365|191686934|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.22||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|2.05|||Mixed model repeated measures(MMRM)|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||2.05|-4.49|0.4597
95864550|NCT04174365|191686935|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||MMRM|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, trial site, baseline body weight stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction. Significance test was based on least-square means using a two-sided 0.05 level.|||0.32|-0.46|0.7315
95864551|NCT02434471|191686960|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95864552|NCT02434471|191686961|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95864553|NCT02979977|191686962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|38.0|||Regression, Cox|||||38.0|12.3|
95864554|NCT03040999|191686977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.15|0.71|0.1997
95864555|NCT03040999|191686980|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-4.24||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-1.63|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||-1.63|-6.85|0.0015
95864556|NCT03040999|191686981|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.51||||0.7719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.96|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.96|-3.98|0.7719
95864557|NCT03040999|191686982|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-1.29||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.06|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||2.06|-4.64|0.4500
95864558|NCT03040999|191686983|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|1.29||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.02|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||4.02|-1.43|0.3524
95864559|NCT03040999|191686984|OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-2.05||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.37|||cLDA||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors of HPV status and overall cancer stage.|Difference in Least Squares Mean||0.37|-4.47|0.0963
95864560|NCT03040999|191686985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||P-value crossing boundary of 0.0242 required for statistical significance.|Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by human papilloma virus (HPV) status and overall cancer stage.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by HPV status and overall cancer stage.|||1.03|0.68|0.0429
95864561|NCT02908490|191687000|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline FMD within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|-1.42||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.68||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-3.54|0.185
95864562|NCT02908490|191687001|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline EndoPAT within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.331||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.331|0.069|0.003
95864563|NCT02908490|191687007|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|7.63||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|15.63||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.63|-0.36|0.061
95864564|NCT02908490|191687008|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|55.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|97.81||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.81|12.79|0.011
95864565|NCT02908490|191687009|SUPERIORITY|Given the cross-over design, analyses included a random effects model for within-subject comparisons of sildenafil versus placebo periods, adjusting for the baseline biomarker within that period and a term for treatment order.|Slope|74.93||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|157.84||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||157.84|-7.98|0.077
95864566|NCT00594425|191687031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|5.53||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|19.04||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||19.04|-7.97|0.5288
95864567|NCT00594425|191687031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% success rate|3.95||||0.7539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|16.69||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||16.69|-8.79|0.7539
95864568|NCT00594425|191687032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.64||||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|2.63||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||2.63|-7.91|0.3236
95864569|NCT00594425|191687032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.19||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|4.26||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||4.26|-6.64|0.6657
95864570|NCT00594425|191687060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||%success rate|3.09||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|17.33||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||17.33|-11.16|0.7889
95864571|NCT00594425|191687060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent success|5.48||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|21.11||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||21.11|-10.15|0.8880
95864572|NCT00594425|191687061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.33||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.86||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.86|-6.53|0.9151
95843760|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2722). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.99|0.72|
95843761|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.15|0.06|
95843762|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.47||||||95.0|0.38|0.58||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-18 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2781). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.58|0.38|
95843763|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2786). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
95843764|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.59||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2782). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.59|0.39|
95864573|NCT00594425|191687061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.18||||0.7233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|5.45||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||5.45|-7.81|0.7233
95864574|NCT01122264|191687063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.51|0.85||P-value: Tadalafil Once a Day versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
95864575|NCT01122264|191687063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.37|0.65||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Sildenafil Citrate On Demand treatment groups. Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||0.65|0.37|<0.001
95864576|NCT01122264|191687063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.32||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71||P-value: Tadalafil On Demand versus Tadalafil Once a Day treatment groups using Cox's proportional hazards model with factors for randomized treatment group, baseline International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function score, and country.|Regression, Cox|||||1.71|1.02|0.033
95864577|NCT00097981|191687109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.49
95864578|NCT00097981|191687110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI) stage 1,2 and 3||||||0.42
95864579|NCT00097981|191687111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.42
95864580|NCT00097981|191687112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5162
95864581|NCT00097981|191687113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.797|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test||||1.797|0.529|0.93
95843765|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.33|0.18|
95843766|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.51||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-33 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2784). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.51|0.33|
95843767|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2806). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.39|0.23|
95843768|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.46||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-35 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2803). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.46|0.28|
95843769|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.88||||||95.0|0.75|1.02||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2759). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.02|0.75|
95843770|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-39 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2773). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.93|0.67|
95843771|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.16||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2794). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.16|0.07|
95864582|NCT00412373|191687120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.774||95.0|-2.7|3.7|||ANOVA|P-value based on the actual value and was from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Actual Score.|||3.7|-2.7|0.774
95864583|NCT00412373|191687121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001||95.0|-13.8|-4.9|||ANCOVA|P-values are from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-4.9|-13.8|<0.001
95864584|NCT00412373|191687122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.2|-4.4|<0.001
96002341|NCT00859898|191981874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-7.0||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-7.0|-20.9|<0.0001
95843772|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.28||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N= 2802). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.28|0.15|
95843773|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2753). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.18|0.88|
95843774|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-51 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2756). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.34|1.03|
95843775|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|1.87||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2666). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.87|1.48|
95843776|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.0||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-52 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2663). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.00|1.61|
95843777|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.73||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2783). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.73|0.50|
95843778|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-56 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.76|0.53|
95843779|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2772). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.62|0.42|
95843780|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.65||||||95.0|0.55|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-58 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2768). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.55|
95843781|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.4||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2814). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.40|0.24|
95843782|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-59 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2797). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.45|0.28|
95843783|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.74||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2779). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.74|0.51|
95843784|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.77||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-66 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2763). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.77|0.54|
95853726|NCT00412984|191666317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"||1.00|0.80|0.0465
95864585|NCT00412373|191687123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.8|-3.1|<0.001
95864586|NCT00412373|191687124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.3|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.3|-6.8|<0.001
95843785|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.56||||||95.0|0.46|0.68||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2775). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.68|0.46|
95843786|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.71||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-68 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2785). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.71|0.49|
95843787|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.61||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.61|0.41|
95843788|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-31/33/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2824). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||1.12|0.84|
95843789|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||0.88|0.63|
95864587|NCT00412373|191687125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.1|-4.2|<0.001
95864588|NCT00412373|191687126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001||95.0|-3.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-3.3|<0.001
95864589|NCT00412373|191687127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001||95.0|-2.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.9|-2.9|<0.001
95864590|NCT00412373|191687128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.001||95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.6|-2.6|0.001
95864591|NCT00412373|191687129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016||95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
95864592|NCT00412373|191687131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.002||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-0.2|-0.7|0.002
95864593|NCT00412373|191687132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANOVA|P-value is from an ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
95864594|NCT00412373|191687133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test with modified ridit scores, stratified by concomitant medication stratum, and country.||||||0.046
95843790|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.33||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HPV-16/18/33/31/45 incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||2.33|1.91|
95843791|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|5.49||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.49|4.79|
95843792|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|6.1||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HRW-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.10|5.36|
95843793|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.94|5.65||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received HPV vaccine in that study (N=2823). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||5.65|4.94|
95843794|NCT03629886|191655184|OTHER|The IR (n/T) of incident cervical infection with any oncogenic HPV type or combination of oncogenic HPV types (per 100 Person-years rate) was calculated as the number of subjects reporting at least one event (n) in a group (assessed by detecting HPV DNA using PCR), over the sum of follow-up period expressed in years (T) in the same group, and multiplied by 100 and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were used for calculation.|Incidence rate per 100-Person years|6.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.91|6.69||||||Analysis was performed to assess the protective effect of HPV Vaccine in terms of incidence rate of oncogenic HR-HPV incident cervical infection, in subjects who participated in the HPV-039 study and who received placebo in that study (N=2825). Those subjects were or were not enrolled in the current study, were HPV DNA negative subjects at baseline and had cervical samples collected data.||6.69|5.91|
95843795|NCT01790594|191655185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.067|15.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The p-value compares Investigational arm and control arm.||15.242|-11.067|0.750
95843796|NCT00496015|191655284|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criteria: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups (Synflorix PRE Group minus Synflorix I Group) was above 0%.|Difference in percentages|22.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.78|32.11||||||||32.11|11.78|
95864595|NCT00412373|191687135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-1.7|-6.4|<0.001
95843797|NCT00669214|191655321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.163||||0.1054||95.0|-0.063|0.393|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.393|-0.063|0.1054
95843798|NCT00669214|191655323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.155||||0.2404||95.0|-0.072|0.388|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.388|-0.072|0.2404
95843799|NCT00669214|191655325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|0.228||||0.0366||95.0|0.003|0.452|||Fisher Exact|The p-value was based on the Fisher exact test for a 2x2 contingency table.||||0.452|0.003|0.0366
95843800|NCT00669214|191655327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|3.33||||0.1816||95.0|-2.811|9.471|||Student T-test|||||9.471|-2.811|0.1816
95864596|NCT00412373|191687137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.0|||ANCOVA|P-value is from an ANCOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, concomitant medication stratum, and country, and with baseline value as a covariate.|Paliperidone Extended Release (ER) - Placebo on the Change Scores.|||-2.0|-7.7|0.001
95843801|NCT00669214|191655329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from Day 0|1.19||||0.0435||95.0|-0.161|2.532|||Student T-test|||||2.532|-0.161|0.0435
95843802|NCT00669214|191655331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.0224
95864597|NCT05051644|191687158|OTHER|The estimated mean changes from baseline to post-treatment, mean differences and 95% CI between groups at post-treatment.|Mean change|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.63||||||||1.63|-0.94|
95864598|NCT05051644|191687159|OTHER|The estimated mean changes from baseline to 3-months, mean differences and 95% CI between groups at 3-months.|mean change|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.05|
95864599|NCT05051644|191687159|OTHER|The estimated mean changes from baseline to 6-months, mean differences and 95% CI between groups at 6-months.|mean change|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.4||||||||1.4|-1.6|
95864600|NCT01478048|191687164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06||Log Rank test was stratified by prior proteasome inhibitor use (Yes versus No), presence of at least 1 FcγRIIIa V allele (Yes versus No) and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3) at randomization|Log Rank|Adjusted alpha level= 0.30||||1.06|0.49|0.0923
95864601|NCT01478048|191687167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference using Chan-Zhang method|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.8||||||||17.8|-13.2|
95864602|NCT01369329|191687176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
95864603|NCT01369329|191687176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
95864604|NCT01369329|191687177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.003
95864605|NCT01369329|191687177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
95864606|NCT01369329|191687178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
95864607|NCT01369329|191687178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
95864608|NCT01369329|191687179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||< 0.001
95864609|NCT01369329|191687179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.002
95864610|NCT01369329|191687180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.009
95864611|NCT01369329|191687180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by study region, CDAI score, and initial response to TNF antagonist therapy.||||||0.001
95864612|NCT05344443|191687198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.3|76.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||"This linear mixed model included condition, time, and condition\*time as fixed effect and a random intercept. It included number of entries as a random effect due to the fact that participants differed in number of diaries contributing to data"|We carried out linear mixed models to test the effect of condition on change in daytime sleep minutes from baseline to post-treatment. This analysis was powered based on prior literature (Zeitzer et al., 2020), which detected an effect size (Cohen's d) of 1.39 in a sample size of 19 participants.||76.4|-88.3|0.884
95864613|NCT05344443|191687199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.2||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.2|78.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-values were obtained from a linear mixed-effects model using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Includes random intercept.|"This linear mixed model included condition, time, and condition\*time as fixed effect and a random intercept. It included number of entries as a random effect due to the fact that participants differed in number of diaries contributing to data"|||78.7|-159.2|0.494
95864614|NCT03635567|191687226|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (hazard ratio \[HR\]) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.71|0.47|<0.0001
95864615|NCT03635567|191687227|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.50|<0.0001
95962623|NCT01667549|191896849|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).||||||0.02||||||Bonferroni adjustment was made and only planned pairwise comparisons with calculated p values of 0.02 or lower significant.|planned comparison|Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned pair-wise comparisons with calculated p value 0.02 or lower were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||0.02
95962624|NCT01667549|191896850|OTHER||||||<|0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted on maternal gLMS ratings with type of juice and time as the within-subject factors and experimental group as the grouping factor||||<0.02
95962625|NCT01667549|191896851|OTHER|Repeated Measures ANOVA were done with type of cereal as within-subjects and experimental group as grouping factors. When significant, planned comparisons were carried out. ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month exposure differed from the no-exposure control (timing hypothesis). ANOVAs with a priori contrasts specified determined whether 1-month differed from 3-months exposure and whether these groups differed from no-exposure control (duration hypothesis).|||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified were conducted: 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
95962626|NCT01667549|191896852|OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||Because three comparisons were made for each outcome measure, a Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P\<0.02 were considered significant.|planned comparison|A Bonferroni adjustment was calculated and only planned comparison with P's\<0.02 were considered significant.||Separate analyses of variance with a priori contrasts specified 1) to determine whether the 1-month exposure groups (1M0.5, 1M1.5, and 1M2.5) differed from the no-exposure control group to test the hypothesis that the timing of exposure affected acceptance; and 2) to determine whether 1 month of exposure differed from 3 months (1M0.5, 3M0.5 groups) and whether these groups differed from the no-exposure control group (duration hypothesis).||||<0.02
95962627|NCT01667549|191896853|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||General linear models were conducted on WLZ scores with time as the within-subjects factor and Group as the between-subjects factor to determine there were differences in growth of the infants over time. This was not done to test hypothesis but to monitor growth of infants during course of trial.||||<0.05
95962628|NCT00150618|191896854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
95962629|NCT00150618|191896854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0176
95962630|NCT00150618|191896854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0016
95962631|NCT00150618|191896854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95962632|NCT00150618|191896855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
95962633|NCT00150618|191896855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0468
95962634|NCT00150618|191896855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
95962635|NCT00150618|191896855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0237||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0237
95962636|NCT00150618|191896856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0074
95962637|NCT00150618|191896856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1404||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1404
95962638|NCT00150618|191896856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0055||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
95962639|NCT00150618|191896856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
95962640|NCT00150618|191896857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0303||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0303
95962641|NCT00150618|191896857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4982||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4982
95962642|NCT00150618|191896857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0017
95962643|NCT00150618|191896857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
95962644|NCT00150618|191896858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.0383
95962645|NCT00150618|191896858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5859||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.5859
95962646|NCT00150618|191896858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2136||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.2136
95962647|NCT00150618|191896858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1483||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial category||||0.1483
95962648|NCT00763451|191896863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|-0.232||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.232|-0.583|<0.0001
95843803|NCT01794000|191655384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.05|||Andersen-Gill model||The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|The time to a recurrent episode of VOC was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model. A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.||1.05|0.66|.117
95843804|NCT01794000|191655385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.564|4.079||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square (LS) Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.079|-4.564|.912
95843805|NCT01794000|191655386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0968||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1132|0.3068||MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline value of the pain-diary outcome measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||0.3068|-0.1132|.365
95843806|NCT01794000|191655387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.82||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||The time to a recurrent episode of painful crisis was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill Model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.04|0.65|.109
95864616|NCT03635567|191687228|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
95864617|NCT03635567|191687229|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
95864618|NCT03635567|191687230|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.77||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value based on log-rank test provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.77|0.52|<0.0001
95864619|NCT03635567|191687231|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.78||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.78|0.44|<0.0001
95864620|NCT03635567|191687232|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|22.3||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Treatment comparison was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||22.3|7.4|0.0001
95864621|NCT03635567|191687235|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.74||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison|Stratified Log-Rank|Nominal p-value based on log-rank test stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB), bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 status.||Treatment comparison (HR) was based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by metastatic at initial diagnosis (FIGO \[2009\] stage IVB) (yes or no), bevacizumab use (yes or no), and PD-L1 status (CPS\<1, CPS 1 to \<10, or CPS ≥10).||0.74|0.49|<0.0001
95864622|NCT00796445|191687262|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.013||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.169|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.169|0.879|0.8566
95864623|NCT00796445|191687262|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.491|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.491|0.828|0.4821
95864624|NCT00796445|191687262|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.5375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.212|||Regression, Cox|||At Final analysis (Month 30)||1.212|0.691|0.5375
95843807|NCT01794000|191655388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37||The time to a recurrent episode of hospitalization was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.37|0.65|.759
95864625|NCT00796445|191687263|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) of recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the overall study population of patients with completely resected stage III cutaneous melanoma with macroscopic lymph node involvement|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.023||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.175|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.175|0.890|0.7534
95864626|NCT00796445|191687263|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population presenting the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.457|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.457|0.821|0.5385
95864627|NCT00796445|191687263|NON_INFERIORITY|The aim of this analysis was to demonstrate the clinical efficacy in terms of DFS of the recMAGE-A3 + AS15 ASCI compared to placebo in the population without the potentially favorable gene expression signature.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.207|||Regression, Cox|||At Follow-up analysis (up to Year 5)||1.207|0.698|0.5419
95864628|NCT00913458|191687279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.5||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||12.5|2.7|<0.0001
95864629|NCT00913458|191687279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.3||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Logistic|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.3|1.3|0.0085
95843808|NCT01794000|191655389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.93||The time to a recurrent episode of acute chest syndrome was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.93|0.48|.916
95843809|NCT01794000|191655390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|1.17||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.91||The time to a recurrent episode of RBC transfusion was analyzed using Andersen-Gill model.|Andersen-Gill model|A robust variance estimate was used, with treatment, hydroxyurea use at baseline and age group included as factors in the model.|The rate ratio and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the Andersen-Gill model.|||1.91|0.71|.544
95843810|NCT01794000|191655391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.513||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.186|7.213||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The Least Square Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||7.213|-4.186|.602
95843811|NCT01794000|191655392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.272||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.109|4.652||The MMRM model included the fixed effects of treatment, the baseline value of the pain-diary measure, hydroxyurea use, age group, time and treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the MMRM model.|||4.652|-2.109|.459
95843812|NCT01794000|191655394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.94||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|5.19||The ANCOVA model included the factors of treatment, hydroxyurea use, age group, and length of follow-up.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference of prasugrel minus placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||5.19|-3.31|.662
95864630|NCT00913458|191687279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.8||The rate of sustained remission was analyzed using a logistic regression model with a 2-sided significance level of 5%.|Regression, Linear|Values are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|1.0|0.0397
95864631|NCT00913458|191687280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~End of Phase 1"||||<0.0001
95864632|NCT00913458|191687281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.1183
95864633|NCT00913458|191687281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0286
95864634|NCT00913458|191687282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95864635|NCT00913458|191687283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95864636|NCT00913458|191687284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13"||||0.0063
95864637|NCT00913458|191687284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 26"||||0.0053
95864638|NCT00913458|191687284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 39"||||0.0027
95864639|NCT00913458|191687284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 52"||||0.0002
95864640|NCT00913458|191687284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Final on therapy"||||0.0005
95843813|NCT01794000|191655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.317|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the First VOC||||.317
95843814|NCT01794000|191655395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||Log Rank|A stratified log-rank test were performed with hydroxyurea use and age group as the stratification factors.||Time from Randomization to the Second VOC||||.133
95843815|NCT01794000|191655396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.638|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.638
95843816|NCT00255190|191655397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
95843817|NCT00255190|191655398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.006
95864641|NCT00913458|191687285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95962649|NCT00763451|191896863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.317||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: Lixisenatide (2-step titration) was compared with Placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then Lixisenatide (1-step titration) arm compared with Placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0,05 level||"To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo (combined), 150 patients per group would provide a power of 91% (or 75%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance level.~Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0,\>=8.0%) and screening BMI (\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.317|-0.670|<0.0001
95843818|NCT00255190|191655399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.204
95843819|NCT00255190|191655400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.109
95843820|NCT00255190|191655401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95843821|NCT00255190|191655402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.494
95843822|NCT00255190|191655403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.026
95843823|NCT00255190|191655404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.220
95843824|NCT00255190|191655405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
95843825|NCT00255190|191655406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.923
95864642|NCT00913458|191687286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95843826|NCT00255190|191655407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95843827|NCT00255190|191655408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.758
95843828|NCT00255190|191655409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.737
95843829|NCT00255190|191655410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.673
95843830|NCT00255190|191655411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.817
95843831|NCT00255190|191655412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.601
95843832|NCT00255190|191655413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.065
95843833|NCT00255190|191655414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.319
95843834|NCT00255190|191655415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.011
95843835|NCT00255190|191655416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||0.207
95843836|NCT00255190|191655417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.286||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.286
95843837|NCT00255190|191655418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.102
95843838|NCT00255190|191655419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.656
95843839|NCT00255190|191655420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.176
95843840|NCT00255190|191655421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.030
95843841|NCT00255190|191655422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.243
95843842|NCT00255190|191655423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.005
95843843|NCT00255190|191655424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.469||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level. All statistical tests were two-sided and the p-values were rounded to 3 decimal places prior to determining statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Comparisons were made using an ANCOVA model with treatment as the factor and baseline score as the covariate.||||||0.469
95864643|NCT00913458|191687287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95843844|NCT04378270|191655445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3687|6.2287|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||6.2287|-0.3687|0.0796
95843845|NCT04378270|191655446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5014|0.1014|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||0.1014|-3.5014|0.0634
95843846|NCT04378270|191655447|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.492||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4498|29.9502|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of Freedom (DF)- 28||This procedure calculates the difference between the observed means in two independent samples (two collected assessment timepoints, screening and 4 week follow up visits). A significance value (P-value) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference is reported. The P value is the probability of obtaining the observed difference between the samples if the null hypothesis were true. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that the difference is 0.||29.9502|7.4498|0.0020
95864644|NCT00913458|191687288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95864645|NCT00913458|191687289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95843847|NCT04378270|191655448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.327||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8069|25.5331|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 28||||25.5331|7.8069|0.0006
95843848|NCT04378270|191655451|OTHER||Mean pain scale|17.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5465|19.1935|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom (DF)- 14||This procedure calculates the difference of an observed mean (from the assessment collected at the 4 week visit) with a hypothesized mean value (10, a mid level scale score). A significance value (P-value) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the observed mean is reported. The P-value is the probability of obtaining the observed mean in the sample if the null hypothesis value were the true value.||19.1935|16.5465|0.0001
95843849|NCT00141102|191655519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
95843850|NCT00141102|191655520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||<0.0001
95864646|NCT00913458|191687290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95843851|NCT00141102|191655521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4146
95843852|NCT00141102|191655522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.1132
95843853|NCT00141102|191655524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0495
95843854|NCT00141102|191655525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||||0.0006
95843855|NCT00141102|191655526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.45|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.45|0.36|<0.0001
95843856|NCT00141102|191655527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||1.25|0.98|<0.0001
95843857|NCT00141102|191655528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.748|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by history of GD ulceration and by region.||||3.84|1.96|<0.0001
95843858|NCT00141102|191655529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|3.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.156|5.141|||Fisher Exact|||GGT||5.141|2.156|<0.0001
95843859|NCT00141102|191655529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|1.509||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|3.684|||Fisher Exact|||AST||3.684|0.618|0.3809
95843860|NCT00141102|191655529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Risk|2.089||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.081|4.038|||Fisher Exact|||ALT||4.038|1.081|0.0264
95843861|NCT00141102|191655530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-8.78|||ANCOVA|||GGT||-8.78|-11.51|<0.0001
95843862|NCT00141102|191655530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.84|||ANCOVA|||AST||-1.84|-2.94|<0.0001
95843863|NCT00141102|191655530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||ALT||-5.52|-7.20|<0.0001
95843864|NCT00141102|191655531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.6795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.24|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.24|-2.11|0.6795
95843865|NCT00141102|191655532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.624||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.74|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||3.74|-6.55|0.5920
95843866|NCT00141102|191655533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.6819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of region and history of GD ulceration with Baseline covariate.||||0.06|-0.09|0.6819
95843867|NCT02784171|191655542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0372|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0372
95843868|NCT02701283|191655608|NON_INFERIORITY|Absolute non-inferiority margin was 0.06|Posterior Median of the Difference|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data at the interim analysis using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-4.4%, 0.4%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR system is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months for the Randomized Controlled Trial||||
95843869|NCT03932760|191655648|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.228|3.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of EPDS between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum controlling for screening EPDS score. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher EPDS scores signify worsened symptoms of depression. Time uses start of study as reference controlling for screen EPDS.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.260, p=0.612~Time (Baseline as reference): F=9.021, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.537, p=0.748~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=0.913 (SE=1.085) \[CI LB=-1.228, UB=3.055\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-2.766 (0.853) \[-4.445, -1.087\]~2 months: estimate=-1.517 (0.862) \[-3.214, 0.180\]~4 months: estimate=-3.186 (0.862) \[-4.883, -1.489\]~6 months: estimate=-2.781 (0.872) \[-4.498, -1.065\]~8 months: estimate=-3.103 (0.872) \[-4.819, -1.386\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|3.055|-1.228|0.612
95853727|NCT00412984|191666318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.13||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke||1.13|0.74|0.4220
95853728|NCT00412984|191666318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Hemorrhagic Stroke||0.75|0.35|0.0006
95853729|NCT00412984|191666318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Systemic Embolism||1.75|0.44|0.7020
95853730|NCT00412984|191666318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Myocardial Infarction||1.17|0.66|0.3720
95843870|NCT03932760|191655649|OTHER|Mean differences at the tested timepoints between VCI and AC. Models were also examined with the covariates of medication use and pregnant/post-partum status.|Mean estimates by time|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.709|1.677|||Mixed Models Analysis||Time was treated as a categorical variable to allow for non-linear change over time. We present group, time, and group\*time estimates and their associated SE and CIs below. AC group and baseline timepoint are the reference categories.|We used multilevel generalized mixed modeling under an intent-to-treat approach to compare the outcome measures of GAD-7 between group 1 (VCI) and Group 2 (AC) at 6 time points during pregnancy and postpartum. We powered for the fixed effect of Intervention X Time using RMANOVA with alpha = 0.5, 6 time points, 0.3 for correlation between repeated measures, and a sample size of 192 total participants gives greater than 90% power to detect an effect size of 0.1.|"Overall test of significance for Fixed Effects. Higher GAD-7 scores signify worsened symptoms of depression.~Group VCI (AC reference): F=0.347, p=0.558~Time (Baseline as reference): F=4.973, p\<0.001~Group\*Time: F=0.417, p=0.837~Estimates for group, time, and group\*time interactions~Group:~Estimate=-0.0160 (SE=0.859) \[CI LB=-1.709, UB=1.677\]~Time:~Post: estimate=-1.780 (0.708) \[-3.173, -0.387\]~2 months: estimate=-0.615 (0.715) \[-2.023, 0.792\]~4 months: estimate=-1.416 (0.715) \[-2.824, -0.008\]~6 months: estimate=-1.625 (0.723) \[-3.049, -0.201\]~8 months: estimate=-1.542 (0.723) \[-2.966, -0.118\]~Group\*Time:~Post: estimate=-1.157 (1.214) \[-3.547, 1.232\]~2 months: estimate=-1.361 (1.210) \[-3.742, 1.019\]~4 months: estimate= 0.183 (1.209) \[-2.196, 2.562\]~6 months: estimate=-0.508 (1.223) \[-2.914, 1.898\]~8 months: estimate=-0.127 (1.220) \[-2.529, 2.275\]"|1.677|-1.709|0.558
95843871|NCT02831764|191655664|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 48 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.9|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 copies per milliliter) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells per cubic millimeter \[cells/mm\^3\]).|||2.9|-4.3|
95843872|NCT02831764|191655665|NON_INFERIORITY|Treatment with DTG+ 3TC was to be declared non-inferior to treatment with DTG+TDF/FTC if the lower end of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups in response rates at Week 24 was greater than -10%.|Adjusted difference in proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||||Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||3.6|-3.4|
95843873|NCT02831764|191655666|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.7|||||Week 96. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||2.7|-6.4|
95843874|NCT02831764|191655667|OTHER||Adjusted difference in proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|5.3|||||Week 144. Difference in proportion was based on CMH stratified analysis adjusting for Baseline stratification factors: Plasma HIV-1 RNA (\<= vs. \>100,000 c/mL) and CD4+ cell count (\<= vs. \>200 cells/mm\^3).|||5.3|-5.3|
95843875|NCT02831764|191655668|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.19||The generalised Wilcoxon procedure was used to estimate a p-value for detecting a difference in cumulative incidence curves between treatment groups.|Generalised Wilcoxon procedure||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard regression model.|||1.19|0.88|0.797
95843876|NCT02831764|191655672|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|50.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 24. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||50.4|0.8|0.043
95843877|NCT02831764|191655672|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|34.8|||MMRM||Week 48. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||34.8|-17.7|0.523
95864647|NCT00913458|191687291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95864648|NCT00913458|191687292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"Significance tests were based on paired t-tests using a 2-sided α=0.05.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95843878|NCT02831764|191655673|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.4||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|38.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Week 96. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||38.0|-23.2|0.635
95843879|NCT02831764|191655674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|40.0|||MMRM||Week 144.Following covariates/factors were adjusted: treatment, visit, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, treatment and visit interaction and Baseline CD4+ cell count and visit interaction with visit as the repeated factor.|||40.0|-29.9|0.777
95864649|NCT00913458|191687293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95864650|NCT00913458|191687294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|||"Binomial test-value tests the null hypothesis that the proportion is significantly different from 0.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95864651|NCT00913458|191687295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"P-value is from McNemar's test for no change from baseline in response rate.~Week 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, 52 week and final on therapy"||||<0.0001
95843880|NCT02831764|191655685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.02|-0.05|<0.001
95843881|NCT02831764|191655685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.022
95843882|NCT02831764|191655685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum RBP|||1.1|-1.4|0.797
95843883|NCT02831764|191655685|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum RBP|||1.9|-0.5|0.258
95843884|NCT02831764|191655686|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum Cystatin C.|||0.00|-0.03|0.034
95843885|NCT02831764|191655687|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.01|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum Cystatin C.|||-0.01|-0.04|0.006
95843886|NCT02831764|191655690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.4|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||5.4|1.8|<0.001
95864652|NCT00913458|191687296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.6|0.4|0.4075
95864653|NCT00913458|191687296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.88||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|33.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||33.1|2.4|0.0011
95864654|NCT00913458|191687296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||13.9|1.7|0.0031
95864655|NCT00913458|191687297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|0.3|0.5951
95843887|NCT02831764|191655690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.5|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR Cystatin C adjusted.|||3.5|0.0|0.056
95864656|NCT00913458|191687297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.5|0.9|0.0934
95864657|NCT00913458|191687297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.4|1.1|0.0314
95962650|NCT01255761|191896871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -10 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing response to Certolizumab Pegol therapy at 12 weeks.|Difference in proportion|-0.119|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|-0.053||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -10 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||-0.053|-0.184|
95962651|NCT01255761|191896872|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95 % CI was greater than -15 %, the null hypothesis was rejected and RAPID3 was deemed comparable to CDAI in assessing percent of Week 12 responders achieving LDA at Week 52.|Difference in proportion|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.066||Study was intended to show the comparability of RAPID3 with CDAI. Assessment of whether the study objective was met was based on CIs rather than p-values. Both variables need to be significant to claim comparability between the two assessment tools.|ANCOVA|Difference in proportions from ANCOVA with tool as factor \& Baseline DAS28(ESR), gender, age, prior anti-TNF use \& disease duration as covariates.||"The null hypothesis was: (Proportion of Rapid 3 responders)-(Proportion of CDAI responders) ≤ delta with a delta of -15 %.~A 2-sided 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportion of responders was computed."||0.066|-0.093|
95962652|NCT00658606|191896910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
95962653|NCT00658606|191896911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||No adjustments were made to multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
95843888|NCT02831764|191655690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.2|||MMRM||Week 24. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.2|1.7|<0.001
95843889|NCT02831764|191655690|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.0|||MMRM||Week 48. GFR creatinine adjusted.|||5.0|1.6|<0.001
95843890|NCT02831764|191655693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.55|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum or Plasma Creatinine|||-1.55|-4.49|<0.001
95843891|NCT02831764|191655693|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.65|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.65|-4.59|<0.001
95843892|NCT02831764|191655694|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 96. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.53|-4.56|<0.001
95843893|NCT02831764|191655695|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-1.19|||MMRM||Week 144. Serum or Plasma creatinine|||-1.19|-4.52|<0.001
95843894|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.917|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|0.941|||MMRM||Week 24. Serum B2M.|||0.941|0.893|<0.001
95864658|NCT00913458|191687298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.8|0.5|0.6152
95843895|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.914|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.939|||MMRM||Week 48. Serum B2M.|||0.939|0.890|<0.001
95843896|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.901|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M.|||0.901|0.621|0.002
95843897|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.693||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.892|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M.|||0.892|0.538|0.005
95843898|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.889||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|0.992|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||0.992|0.796|0.036
95843899|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.938||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.061|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.061|0.830|0.308
95843900|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.781||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|0.934|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.934|0.654|0.007
95864659|NCT00913458|191687298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.4|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.4|1.0|0.0432
95864660|NCT00913458|191687298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.3|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.3|0.8|0.1189
95864661|NCT00913458|191687299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|1.0|0.0535
95864662|NCT00913458|191687299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.5|1.4|0.0064
95843901|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.742||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.935|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.935|0.588|0.012
95864663|NCT00913458|191687299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.6|0.6|0.3696
95864664|NCT00913458|191687300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||5.2|0.9|0.0788
95843902|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.979||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.104|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Phosphate.|||1.104|0.868|0.728
95843903|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.062||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|1.194|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Phosphate.|||1.194|0.945|0.311
95843904|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.887|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.887|0.769|<0.001
95843905|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|0.93|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.930|0.795|<0.001
95843906|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.796||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|0.927|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4|||0.927|0.683|0.003
95843907|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.903||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.056|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4|||1.056|0.773|0.200
95843908|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.826||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|0.936|||MMRM||Week 24. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.936|0.728|0.003
95843909|NCT02831764|191655696|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.888||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|1.001|||MMRM||Week 48. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||1.001|0.787|0.052
95843910|NCT02831764|191655697|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.942||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.065|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.065|0.833|0.338
95843911|NCT02831764|191655697|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.671|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.826|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.826|0.545|<0.001
95843912|NCT02831764|191655697|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.082||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|1.213|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Phosphate.|||1.213|0.966|0.174
95843913|NCT02831764|191655697|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.873|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.946|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.946|0.806|<0.001
95843914|NCT02831764|191655697|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.894|||MMRM||Week 96. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.894|0.716|<0.001
95843915|NCT02831764|191655698|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.852|1.107|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Albumin/Creatinine.|||1.107|0.852|0.658
95843916|NCT02831764|191655698|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.584|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|0.706|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine B2M/Urine Creatinine.|||0.706|0.483|<0.001
95843917|NCT02831764|191655698|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.12|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Phosphate.|||1.120|0.892|0.993
95864665|NCT00913458|191687300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.0|1.9|0.0007
95864666|NCT00913458|191687300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.7|0.9|0.0676
95843918|NCT02831764|191655698|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.847|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.913|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine Protein/Creatinine.|||0.913|0.785|<0.001
95843919|NCT02831764|191655698|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.819|||MMRM||Week 144. Urine RBP 4/Urine Creatinine|||0.819|0.667|<0.001
95843920|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-2.08|||MMRM||Week 24, Bone ALP|||-2.08|-3.25|<0.001
95843921|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-2.44|||MMRM||Week 48, Bone ALP|||-2.44|-3.75|<0.001
95843922|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.71|||MMRM||Week 28, Serum Osteocalcin|||-3.71|-5.63|<0.001
95843923|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|-4.91|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum Osteocalcin|||-4.91|-6.89|<0.001
95864667|NCT00913458|191687301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.56||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||59.5|1.0|0.0548
95864668|NCT00913458|191687301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|94.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||94.2|1.6|0.0166
95864669|NCT00913458|191687301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.3619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Odds ratios and p-values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.5|0.6|0.3619
95843924|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-10.6|||MMRM||Week 24, Serum PINP|||-10.6|-16.4|<0.001
95843925|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-10.2|||MMRM||Week 48, Serum PINP|||-10.2|-15.4|<0.001
95843926|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.09|||MMRM||Week 24, CTX-1|||-0.0900|-0.1640|<0.001
95962654|NCT00658606|191896912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.001
95843927|NCT02831764|191655699|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2043|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2532|-0.1554|||MMRM||Week 48, CTX-1|||-0.1554|-0.2532|<0.001
95843928|NCT02831764|191655700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.54|||MMRM||Week 96, Bone ALP|||-1.54|-2.72|<0.001
95843929|NCT02831764|191655700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-2.85|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.85|-4.69|<0.001
95843930|NCT02831764|191655700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-8.3|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum PINP|||-8.3|-16.8|<0.001
95843931|NCT02831764|191655700|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1529|-0.0838|||MMRM||Week 96, CTX-1|||-0.0838|-0.1529|<0.001
95843932|NCT02831764|191655701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-1.53|||MMRM||Week 144, Bone ALP|||-1.53|-2.74|<0.001
95843933|NCT02831764|191655701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.91|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Osteocalcin|||-2.91|-4.87|<0.001
95843934|NCT02831764|191655701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.2|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum PINP|||-6.2|-12.8|<0.001
95843935|NCT02831764|191655701|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1739|-0.0988|||MMRM||Week 144, CTX-1|||-0.0988|-0.1739|<0.001
95843936|NCT02831764|191655702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.8|||MMRM||Week 24|||-0.8|-7.5|0.015
95843937|NCT02831764|191655702|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.6|||MMRM||Week 48|||2.6|-2.8|0.960
95843938|NCT02831764|191655703|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.0|||MMRM||Week 96, Serum Vitamin D|||0.0|-5.9|0.048
95843939|NCT02831764|191655704|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.1|||MMRM||Week 144, Serum Vitamin D|||3.1|-3.6|0.887
95843940|NCT02831764|191655711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||Fisher Exact||Week 24|||5.6|1.5|<0.001
95843941|NCT02831764|191655711|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.4|||Fisher Exact||Week 48|||5.4|0.2|0.037
95843942|NCT02831764|191655712|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||Fisher Exact||Week 96|||6.1|0.2|0.045
95843943|NCT02831764|191655713|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.0|||Fisher Exact||Week 144|||6.0|-0.8|0.160
95843944|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.98|65.62|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.62|9.98|
95843945|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.72|29.1|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||29.10|-82.72|
95843946|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.94|150.39|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||150.39|-26.94|
95864670|NCT00913458|191687302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.7|1.6|0.0017
95962655|NCT00658606|191896913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.382
95843947|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|48.55|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||48.55|-3.42|
95843948|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|72.09|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||72.09|5.88|
95843949|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|33.3|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||33.30|-53.10|
95843950|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.43|145.5|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||145.50|-14.43|
95843951|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|127.94|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||127.94|-8.62|
95843952|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|46.1|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.10|-7.65|
95843953|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|49.13|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||49.13|-11.06|
95843954|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.59|117.09|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||117.09|-30.59|
95843955|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.14|97.73|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||97.73|-72.14|
95864671|NCT00913458|191687302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.0|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||28.0|4.4|<0.0001
95843956|NCT02831764|191655718|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|62.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|140.12|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||140.12|-16.09|
95843957|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|36.6|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||36.6|-22.7|
95843958|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.8|73.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||73.2|-46.8|
95843959|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|152.5|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||152.5|-37.2|
95843960|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|31.7|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||31.7|-23.5|
95843961|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|67.7|||||Age Group-1,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||67.7|-2.7|
95843962|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.1|14.2|||||Age Group-1,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||14.2|-77.1|
95843963|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.4|91.8|||||Age Group-1,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.8|-81.4|
95843964|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|36.5|||||Age Group-2, \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||36.5|-19.4|
95843965|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.3|91.3|||||Age Group-2, \>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||91.3|-82.3|
95843966|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.8|46.1|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.1|-100.8|
95843967|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|41.2|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||41.2|-15.7|
95843968|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.1|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||43.1|-20.4|
95843969|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.6|44.0|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||44.0|-119.6|
95962656|NCT00658606|191896914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.052
95864672|NCT00913458|191687302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.8|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, p-values, and 95% CIs are based on a logistic regression model with treatment as the only factor.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||8.8|1.3|0.0111
95864673|NCT00913458|191687303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.7|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.7|-16.6|0.0328
95864674|NCT00913458|191687303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-13.2|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-13.2|-30.1|<0.0001
95864675|NCT00913458|191687303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-4.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-4.5|-21.5|0.0035
95864676|NCT00913458|191687304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.36||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||3.1|-11.8|0.2473
95864677|NCT00913458|191687304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-5.1|-21.3|0.0016
95864678|NCT00913458|191687304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-0.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.6|-17.0|0.0348
95864679|NCT00913458|191687305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.51||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|1.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.6|-12.6|0.1248
95962657|NCT00658606|191896915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Clear or Almost Clear = Yes'||||0.026
95864680|NCT00913458|191687305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.14||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-6.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.5|-21.8|0.0004
95864681|NCT00913458|191687305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.63||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-0.8|-16.4|0.0306
95864682|NCT00913458|191687306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.6|0.5|0.4717
95864683|NCT00913458|191687306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||7.8|1.0|0.0551
95864684|NCT00913458|191687306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a longitudinal statistical model with factors for treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||4.8|0.7|0.2141
95864685|NCT00913458|191687308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.4|-0.5|0.9652
95864686|NCT00913458|191687308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.2168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2168
95864687|NCT00913458|191687308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|P-values for between-treatment comparisons are based on ANCOVA on ranks of change in score with ranks of Week 52 value as covariate.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.0|-1.0|0.2131
95864688|NCT00913458|191687310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.9|||ANCOVA||Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.|Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hyothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.9|-10.0|0.9338
95962658|NCT00658606|191896916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'PASI 90 = Yes'||||0.147
95843970|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|105.7|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||105.7|-74.4|
95843971|NCT02831764|191655719|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|120.5|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||120.5|-45.4|
95843972|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|35.0|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||35.0|-34.1|
95843973|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|84.9|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||84.9|-55.6|
95843974|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|140.3|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||140.3|-87.3|
95843975|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|35.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||35.1|-29.4|
95843976|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|49.1|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||49.1|-32.5|
95843977|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|41.1|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||41.1|-67.6|
95843978|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|133.9|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||133.9|-68.5|
95843979|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|90.8|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||90.8|-80.7|
95843980|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|35.3|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||35.3|-31.1|
95864689|NCT00913458|191687310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||11.2|-16.4|0.7130
95864690|NCT00913458|191687310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.6|||ANCOVA|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||10.6|-16.6|0.6628
95962659|NCT00658606|191896917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.566
95962660|NCT00658606|191896918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.001
95843981|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|50.6|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||50.6|-23.2|
95843982|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.3|40.4|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||40.4|-155.3|
95843983|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.2|64.0|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||64.0|-144.2|
95843984|NCT02831764|191655720|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|129.6|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||129.6|-63.3|
95843985|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|49.2|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\<=100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and relevant Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||49.2|-31.1|
95843986|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.9|65.8|||||Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA,\>100000. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, and treatment and Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA interaction.|||65.8|-98.9|
95843987|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|189.1|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\<=200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||189.1|-77.2|
95843988|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|39.9|||||Baseline CD4+ cell count,\>200. Following covariates were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, and treatment and Baseline CD4+ cell count interaction.|||39.9|-35.2|
95962661|NCT00658606|191896919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
95962662|NCT00658606|191896920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||Results were adjusted for use of concomitant psoriasis treatment.|ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change from Baseline'||||0.539
95864691|NCT00913458|191687312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.74||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||2.0|-15.5|0.1303
95864692|NCT00913458|191687312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.59||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|-6.0|||Longitudinal statisitical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-6.0|-27.1|0.0024
95864693|NCT00913458|191687312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.5|||Longitudinal statistical model|||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||0.5|-20.2|0.0621
95864694|NCT00913458|191687314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.4664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|6.9|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||6.9|-15.0|0.4664
95864695|NCT00913458|191687314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.57||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-2.6|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.6|-30.6|0.0210
95864696|NCT00913458|191687314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.56||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||1.1|-26.2|0.0713
95864697|NCT00913458|191687316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-1.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-1.1|-17.1|0.0256
95864698|NCT00913458|191687316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-11.1|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-11.1|-28.1|<0.0001
95864699|NCT00913458|191687316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Longitudinal statistical model|Values are based on a model with factors for Week 52 value, treatment, visit, and interaction of treatment and Week 52 value and treatment and visit.||Change from Week 52 to Week 91. The hypothesis of primary interest was the superiority of E25+MTX compared with PBO.||-2.0|-19.0|0.0161
95864700|NCT05194579|191687323|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays Cmax statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|117.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.07|132.93|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||132.93|103.07|
95864701|NCT05194579|191687324|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUClast statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|122.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|138.22|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||138.22|107.90|
95864702|NCT05194579|191687325|EQUIVALENCE|Pharmacokinetic equivalence were assessed by constructing the 90% CIs for the GMR (test/reference) for Cmax, AUClast and AUCinf. This table displays AUCinf statistical analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Mean|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.75|140.82|||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was PF-06881894 OBI was not equivalent to PF-06881894 PFS.||140.82|108.75|
95864703|NCT02279407|191687329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.83||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||Hypotheses tested using Dunnett's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons versus a single control (placebo).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|0.70|0.046
95864704|NCT02279407|191687330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the 3 hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.75|0.502
95962663|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.049367|TWO_SIDED|||||Alternative hypothesis: can be changed of speech, language, communication skills for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups in 2-month Threshold \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.049367
95864705|NCT02279407|191687330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.91||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.13||Conditional upon rejection of at least 1 of the hypotheses for the primary analysis, secondary hypotheses are tested using Tukey's multiple testing procedure with a family-wise error rate of 5%, adjusting for 3 pairwise comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.73|0.562
95864706|NCT01782469|191687355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95843989|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|74.0|||||Age Group,\<35. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||74.0|-22.3|
95843990|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.6|25.8|||||Age Group,35 to \<50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||25.8|-98.6|
95843991|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.0|137.2|||||Age Group,\>=50. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, age, and treatment and age interaction.|||137.2|-89.0|
95843992|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.9|72.2|||||Female. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||72.2|-125.9|
95843993|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|46.5|||||Male. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, gender, and treatment and gender interaction.|||46.5|-30.3|
95843994|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|46.3|||||Race group-white. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||46.3|-39.4|
95843995|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.2|-5.1|||||Race group-African Am/African H. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||-5.1|-237.2|
95843996|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.4|132.6|||||Race group-Asian. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||132.6|-106.4|
95843997|NCT02831764|191655721|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|114.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|224.0|||||Race group-Other. Following covariates/factors were adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA (factor), Baseline CD4+ cell count, race, and treatment and race interaction.|||224.0|4.6|
95843998|NCT02831764|191655722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0137|0.01|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0100|-0.0137|0.759
95843999|NCT02831764|191655722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0003||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0088|0.0095|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0095|-0.0088|0.943
95844000|NCT02831764|191655722|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0019||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0117|0.0079|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA , Baseline CD4+ cell count , and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0079|-0.0117|0.703
95844001|NCT02831764|191655723|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.0104|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0104|-0.0110|0.957
95844002|NCT02831764|191655724|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0079||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0032|0.0189|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0189|-0.0032|0.162
95844003|NCT02831764|191655725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||MMRM||Week 4. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.0|-2.6|0.045
95844004|NCT02831764|191655725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||MMRM||Week 24. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-1.9|0.358
95844005|NCT02831764|191655725|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 48. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count, and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-1.9|0.328
95844006|NCT02831764|191655726|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||MMRM||Week 96. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
95844007|NCT02831764|191655727|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||MMRM||Week 144. Covariates adjusted: Treatment, Baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, Baseline CD4+ cell count and Baseline EQ-5D utility, treatment\*visit and Baseline EQ-5D utility\*visit as factors and covariate, with visit as the repeated factor.|||1.6|-1.0|0.674
95844008|NCT02796677|191655730|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.117|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.117|0.051|<0.0001
95864707|NCT01782469|191687355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95864708|NCT01782469|191687355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95864709|NCT01782469|191687355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean percent reduction in ultrasonography assessment score at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95864710|NCT01782469|191687356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 2 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||.130
95864711|NCT01782469|191687356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 3 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.031
95864712|NCT01782469|191687356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 4 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.006
96002342|NCT00859898|191981874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-18.5||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-18.5|-32.6|<0.0001
95864713|NCT01782469|191687356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Mean number of joints with erosions at Vist 5 as compared to Baseline (Visit 1)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.003
95864714|NCT04854122|191687416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.660
95864715|NCT04854122|191687417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
95864716|NCT04854122|191687418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256
95864717|NCT04854122|191687420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
95864718|NCT04854122|191687421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
95864719|NCT04854122|191687422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.174|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.174
95864720|NCT04854122|191687423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.707
95864721|NCT04854122|191687424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
95864722|NCT04854122|191687425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559
95864723|NCT04854122|191687426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.306
95864724|NCT04854122|191687427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.287
95864725|NCT04854122|191687428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.725|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.725
95864726|NCT04854122|191687429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.163
95864727|NCT04854122|191687430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95864728|NCT04854122|191687431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95864729|NCT04854122|191687432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.750
95864730|NCT04854122|191687433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
95864731|NCT04854122|191687434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95864732|NCT04854122|191687435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
95864733|NCT04854122|191687436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
95864734|NCT04854122|191687437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.162
95864735|NCT00612105|191687438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.171|0.312|||ANCOVA|||||0.312|-1.171|0.2537
95864736|NCT04525885|191687501|SUPERIORITY|Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|8.7||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.51|70.03|||ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||70.03|-30.51|0.713
95864737|NCT04525885|191687504|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Relative Reduction (%)|11.58||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|74.57||Comparison based on a longitudinal ANCOVA model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, log-transformed baseline value, and log-transformed baseline value-by-visit as covariates.|ANCOVA||Estimated relative reduction (ERR) relative to placebo was calculated by 100 (e\*\*DIFF -1), where e\*\*DIFF=exponent of difference; and DIFF= treatment difference in change from baseline at Week 24 based on log transformed data.|||74.57|-28.68|0.628
95864738|NCT04525885|191687505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.13||Comparison based on logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline LCQ total score, and the interaction of baseline LCQ total score by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.43|0.917
95864739|NCT04525885|191687506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.88||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline 24-hour coughs per hour and the interaction of baseline 24-hour coughs per hour by visit as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.38|0.687
95864740|NCT04525885|191687507|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates.||2.49|0.49|
95864741|NCT04525885|191687508|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.64||||||Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly CSD total score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly CSD total score by visit as covariates||4.64|0.80|
95864742|NCT04525885|191687509|OTHER|Comparison based on a logistic regression model that included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, baseline mean weekly VAS score, and the interaction of baseline mean weekly VAS score by visit as covariates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||||||||2.72|0.45|
95864743|NCT00796926|191687510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95864744|NCT01181986|191687538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence, group (diabetes duration) and time.||||||<0.0001
95864745|NCT01181986|191687538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.006
95864746|NCT01181986|191687538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence.||||||0.003
95864747|NCT01181986|191687539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for treatment sequence and diabetes duration group.||||||<0.0001
95864748|NCT01181986|191687540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95864749|NCT02043808|191687549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.92|0.52|
96002343|NCT00859898|191981874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority of dapagliflozin 10 mg versus metformin XR was demonstrated when the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change FPG from baseline to Week 24 (LOCF) between dapagliflozin 10 mg and metformin XR was less than 15 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||||-4.6|-18.6|
95844009|NCT02796677|191655731|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.055||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.088|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.088|0.023|0.0009
95844010|NCT02796677|191655732|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established by showing that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for change from baseline in morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 at week 24 when compared AB 400 μg versus TIO 18 μg was higher than -50 mL (non-inferiority limit).|LS mean difference|0.007||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.035|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.035|-0.021|0.6377
95864750|NCT02043808|191687550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.98|0.71|
95864751|NCT02043808|191687551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.59|
95844011|NCT02796677|191655733|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.107|0.043|<0.0001
95864752|NCT02043808|191687552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.7|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.70|0.13|
95864753|NCT02043808|191687553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.77|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.77|0.30|
95864754|NCT02043808|191687554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.07|0.76|
95864755|NCT02043808|191687555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.30|0.89|
95864756|NCT02043808|191687556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.03|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.03|0.50|
95864757|NCT02043808|191687557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.54|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.54|0.99|
95864758|NCT02043808|191687558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.72|0.17|
95864759|NCT02043808|191687559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.64|0.22|
95864760|NCT02043808|191687560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.26|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.26|0.55|
95864761|NCT02043808|191687561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.95|0.45|
95844012|NCT02796677|191655733|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.122|0.052|<0.0001
95844013|NCT02796677|191655734|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.96||||0.8714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.51|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.51|0.61|0.8714
95844014|NCT02796677|191655734|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.97||||0.8873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.58|||Logistic random-effect model|||||1.58|0.59|0.8873
95844015|NCT00346216|191655767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 95% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the ITT population and of 1.40 or lower in the MITT population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.13|0.76|0.0002
95864762|NCT02043808|191687562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.31|0.31|
95864763|NCT02043808|191687563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.21|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||1.21|0.16|
95864764|NCT02043808|191687564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.81|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||2.81|0.34|
95864765|NCT02043808|191687565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Crude event rate ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||Crude event rate ratio for dabigatran with warfarin as the reference group|||0.69|0.52|
95864766|NCT02871882|191687579|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95864767|NCT01323855|191687580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.62|||||Severe CRI/Healthy|||2.62|0.54|
95864768|NCT01323855|191687581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|2.87|||||Moderate CRI/Healthy|||2.87|0.59|
95864769|NCT01323855|191687582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMR is contained within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\]|GMR|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|5.04|||||Mild CRI/Healthy|||5.04|1.38|
95864770|NCT05052996|191687663|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||11.6|-6.8|
95864771|NCT05052996|191687664|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.6|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||8.6|-12.4|
95864772|NCT05052996|191687665|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.4|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95% CI were calculated based on unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||12.4|-8.6|
95962664|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.004072|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Control groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.004072
95844016|NCT00346216|191655767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.14|0.72|0.0001
95844017|NCT00346216|191655767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Non inferiority P value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.04|0.70|<0.0001
95844018|NCT00346216|191655767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.02|0.64|<0.0001
95844019|NCT00346216|191655767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.33|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.31|0.89|0.0182
95844020|NCT00346216|191655767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority requires the hazard ratio does not exceed 1.12, and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) estimate does not exceed 1.40|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4||Non-inferiority P-value, α=0.025|Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.40|0.89|0.0250
95844021|NCT00346216|191655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.12|0.83|0.6427
95844022|NCT00346216|191655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.01|0.75|0.0597
95844023|NCT00346216|191655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.29|0.96|0.1481
95844024|NCT00346216|191655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.13|0.80|0.5758
95844025|NCT00346216|191655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.97|0.69|0.0204
95844026|NCT00346216|191655768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.38|0.98|0.0751
95844027|NCT00346216|191655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.40|0.67|0.8576
95844028|NCT00346216|191655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.08|0.53|0.1202
95844029|NCT00346216|191655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81|||Regression, Cox|||ITT Population||1.81|0.90|0.1734
95844030|NCT00346216|191655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.81|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.81|0.32|0.0041
95844031|NCT00346216|191655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||0.68|0.27|0.0003
95844032|NCT00346216|191655769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||MITT Population||1.69|0.80|0.4243
95844033|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||2.53|1.01|<0.0001
95844034|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.56|0.05|0.0373
95844035|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 1 (ITT)||1.72|0.20|0.0129
95844036|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.29|-0.25|0.1830
95844037|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||0.66|-0.88|0.7777
95844038|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (ITT)||1.40|-0.14|0.1072
95844039|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.46|-0.12|0.8237
95844040|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||0.70|-0.88|0.8237
95844041|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (ITT)||1.55|-0.03|0.0587
95844042|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.23|-0.39|0.3129
95844043|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.00|-0.63|0.6526
95844044|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (ITT)||1.05|-0.58|0.5774
95844045|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.62|-0.04|0.0632
95864773|NCT05052996|191687666|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-68.0||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-226.0|91.0|||ANOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||91|-226|0.3859
95864774|NCT05052996|191687666|OTHER||difference in least squares means|13.0||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|82.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||82|-56|0.7085
95844046|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.15|-0.52|0.4540
95844047|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (ITT)||1.30|-0.37|0.2705
95864775|NCT05052996|191687667|OTHER||difference in least squares means|33.0||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|103.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||103|-37|0.3477
95864776|NCT05052996|191687668|OTHER||difference in least squares means|-5.0||||0.8849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|66.0|||ANCOVA||P-value, difference in least squares means (Diff in LSM), and its 95% CI were from ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a fixed effect in the model.|||66|-76|0.8849
95962665|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.017258|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Health/Physical Development/Behaviour for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0 and MS Office Excel 2007. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile.||||0.017258
95962666|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 1-month of total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
95844048|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.14|-0.58|0.5225
95844049|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||0.63|-1.10|0.5996
95844050|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (ITT)||1.38|-0.35|0.2461
95844051|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.00|-0.79|0.8127
95844052|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||0.87|-0.92|0.9641
95844053|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.7784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (ITT)||1.03|-0.77|0.7784
95844054|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.56|-0.34|0.2105
95844055|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.46|-0.44|0.2909
95844056|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (ITT)||1.05|-0.86|0.8459
95844057|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.80|-0.19|0.1116
95864777|NCT04385303|191687680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.46|0.703
95844058|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.01|-0.98|0.9751
95844059|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (ITT)||1.79|-0.21|0.1202
95844060|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||1.48|-0.56|0.3767
95844061|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||0.19|-1.85|0.1123
95844062|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (ITT)||2.31|0.26|0.0137
95844063|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||2.47|1.07|<0.0001
95844064|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.54|0.13|0.0197
95864778|NCT04385303|191687681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.43|-0.34|0.813
95864779|NCT04385303|191687682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|5.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.71|-2.28|0.398
95844065|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline to Month 1 (MITT)||1.64|0.23|0.0094
95844066|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.31|-0.16|0.1247
95844067|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||0.65|-0.81|0.8278
95844068|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 2 (MITT)||1.39|-0.08|0.0802
95864780|NCT04385303|191687683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.57|-2.94|0.544
95864781|NCT04385303|191687684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.46|-5.12|0.704
95864782|NCT04385303|191687685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.38|-5.89|0.594
95844069|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.46|-0.09|0.0822
95844070|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||0.69|-0.86|0.8314
95844071|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 4 (MITT)||1.54|-0.01|0.0516
95844072|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.24|-0.40|0.3202
95844073|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.05|-0.60|0.5893
95844074|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 8 (MITT)||1.01|-0.63|0.6510
95844075|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.62|-0.09|0.0796
95844076|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.15|-0.57|0.5061
95844077|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 12 (MITT)||1.33|-0.38|0.2796
95864783|NCT04385303|191687686|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-1.20|0.115
95864784|NCT04385303|191687687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-1.38|0.075
95864785|NCT04385303|191687688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.90|-11.40|0.094
95864786|NCT04385303|191687689|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.51|||ANCOVA|||||2.51|-10.20|0.234
95864787|NCT04385303|191687690|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-13.57|0.038
95864788|NCT04385303|191687691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-1.38|||ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-15.40|0.019
95844078|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.08|-0.69|0.6725
95844079|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||0.67|-1.10|0.6381
95844080|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 18 (MITT)||1.29|-0.49|0.3737
95844081|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.97|-0.87|0.9139
95844082|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.92|-0.92|0.9998
95844083|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 24 (MITT)||0.98|-0.88|0.9144
95844084|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.61|-0.38|0.2250
95844085|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.55|-0.44|0.2758
95844086|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 30 (MITT)||1.06|-0.94|0.9030
95844087|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.94|-0.14|0.0910
95844088|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.20|-0.88|0.7668
95864789|NCT00146848|191687694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|3.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||The changes in quality of life were compared between groups using two-sided t-tests.||3.74|-3.14|0.86
95844089|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 36 (MITT)||1.78|-0.31|0.1653
95844090|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||1.52|-0.65|0.4323
95844091|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||0.28|-1.89|0.1439
95844092|NCT00346216|191655770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Month 42 (MITT)||2.33|0.16|0.0251
95844093|NCT02163824|191655779|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|16.1||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|26.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||26.4|5.9|.0024
95844094|NCT02163824|191655779|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|32.6|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||32.6|11.7|<.0001
95844095|NCT02163824|191655780|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|19.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|31.5|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||31.5|7.4|.0019
95844096|NCT02163824|191655780|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of responders|22.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|34.4|||Chi-squared||Estimated Value is the between-group difference for % of responders and is expressed as a percentage.|"All statistical tests of hypotheses performed for the pairwise comparison of means were two-sided.~All statistical tests employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05."||34.4|10.6|.0003
95844097|NCT02163824|191655781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 8.|||||0.0007
95844098|NCT02163824|191655781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean grade AC at Day 8.|||||0.0440
95844099|NCT02163824|191655782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.0391
95844100|NCT02163824|191655782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean AC grade at Day 15.|||||0.1811
95844101|NCT02163824|191655783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1953|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.1953
95844102|NCT02163824|191655783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between group difference of mean ocular pain grade at Day 8.|||||0.0307
95844103|NCT02163824|191655784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference on mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2589
95844104|NCT02163824|191655784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the between-group difference in mean ocular pain score at Day 15.|||||0.2132
95844105|NCT05552027|191655785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||At the completion of scenario A (a full child safety seat installation), the participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95844106|NCT05552027|191655785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario B (loose harness straps), participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
95844107|NCT05552027|191655785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||At the end of scenario C (loose attachment at the base), like the other two scenarios, participants using the CCS app had significantly fewer errors present compared to the control group.|Chi-squared|||||||<.01
95844108|NCT01272232|191655786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.84|-3.11||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-3.11|-4.84|<0.0001
95844109|NCT01272232|191655786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-1.62||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.62|-3.63|<0.0001
95844110|NCT01272232|191655786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.35||||0.0024||95.0|-2.23|-0.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.48|-2.23|0.0024
95844111|NCT01272232|191655787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.34|10.68||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||10.68|4.34|<0.0001
95844112|NCT01272232|191655787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.24|6.09||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||6.09|2.24|<0.0001
95844113|NCT01272232|191655787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.29|2.64||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.64|1.29|0.0008
95853731|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding||0.86|0.69|<.0001
95853732|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.81|0.0192
95853733|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.92||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / Major Bleeding / All-Cause Death||0.92|0.78|0.0002
95853734|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Stroke / Systemic Embolism / MI / All-Cause Death||0.97|0.80|0.0107
95853735|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.82|0.0432
95853736|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Hemorrhagic Stroke / All-Cause Death||0.98|0.79|0.0167
95853737|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Systemic Embolism / All-Cause Death||1.00|0.80|0.0464
95853738|NCT00412984|191666319|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite of Myocardial Infarction / All-Cause Death||0.99|0.80|0.0253
95853739|NCT00412984|191666321|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||apixaban / warfarin|Composite Stroke/Systemic Embolism/Major Bleeding in Warfarin/Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) Naive Participants||0.95|0.67|0.0098
95853740|NCT00412984|191666324|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.61|<.0001
95844114|NCT01272232|191655788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.48|14.48||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||14.48|3.48|<0.0001
95844115|NCT01272232|191655788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0008||95.0|1.75|8.41||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||8.41|1.75|0.0008
95844116|NCT01272232|191655788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0099||95.0|1.16|2.95||Superiority was established only if all preceding hypotheses had been rejected. p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||The 3 co-primary endpoints (Outcome Measures 1, 2 and 3) were ranked (#1, 2, 3); hypotheses of no difference were tested in a hierarchical manner. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.95|1.16|0.0099
95844117|NCT01272232|191655789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.08|-0.78||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.78|-1.08|<0.0001
95844118|NCT01272232|191655789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.91|-0.57||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.57|-0.91|<0.0001
95844119|NCT01272232|191655789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.19||||0.0125||95.0|-0.34|-0.04||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.04|-0.34|0.0125
95844120|NCT01272232|191655790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.74|13.4||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||13.4|5.74|<0.0001
95844121|NCT01272232|191655790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.76|12.51||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||12.51|4.76|<0.0001
95844122|NCT01272232|191655790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5319||95.0|0.76|1.71||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||1.71|0.76|0.5319
95844123|NCT01272232|191655791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.05|15.26||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||15.26|6.05|<0.0001
95844124|NCT01272232|191655791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.59|9.97||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||9.97|3.59|<0.0001
95844125|NCT01272232|191655791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0142||95.0|1.1|2.34||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||2.34|1.10|0.0142
95844126|NCT01272232|191655792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-3.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.2|-2.23||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-2.23|-4.20|<0.0001
95844127|NCT01272232|191655792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.06||||0.0004||95.0|-3.2|-0.92||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.92|-3.20|0.0004
95853741|NCT00412984|191666326|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.75||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.75|0.68|<.0001
95853742|NCT00412984|191666327|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.6||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe GUSTO bleeding events||0.60|0.35|<.0001
95853743|NCT00412984|191666327|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Severe or Moderate GUSTO bleeding events||0.71|0.50|<.0001
95853744|NCT00412984|191666328|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major TIMI bleeding event||0.70|0.46|<.0001
95853745|NCT00412984|191666328|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|Major or Minor TIMI bleeding criteria||0.75|0.54|<.0001
95864790|NCT00146848|191687694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference in changes in quality of life between groups were compared using a t-test.||5.16|-2.18|0.43
95864791|NCT00146848|191687695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||One sided test testing for shift towards improvement in either atrial support pacing treatment arm compared to the DDD-40 arm.||||0.55
95864792|NCT00146848|191687695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||0.80
95864793|NCT00146848|191687696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.||2.30|-22.65|0.11
96002344|NCT00859898|191981874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.6||two-sided significance level at α=0.05.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||When testing for superiority, significance is claimed only if dapagliflozin 10 mg is superior to metformin XR||-4.6|-18.6|0.0012
96002345|NCT00859898|191981875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.598||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.9||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.9|5.9|0.0012
95844128|NCT01272232|191655792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.16||||0.0224||95.0|-2.16|-0.16||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.16|-2.16|0.0224
95844129|NCT01272232|191655793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.17||||0.0002||95.0|-3.32|-1.02||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.02|-3.32|0.0002
95844130|NCT01272232|191655793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.2||||0.0725||95.0|-2.51|0.11||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.11|-2.51|0.0725
95844131|NCT01272232|191655793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-0.97||||0.0717||95.0|-2.02|0.09||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.09|-2.02|0.0717
95844132|NCT01272232|191655795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-2.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.75|-1.24||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-1.24|-3.75|<0.0001
95844133|NCT01272232|191655795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.47||||0.0457||95.0|-2.92|-0.03||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||-0.03|-2.92|0.0457
95844134|NCT01272232|191655795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment contrast|-1.02||||0.0961||95.0|-2.22|0.18||p values are 2-sided; 5% pre-defined significance level.|ANCOVA|||Test of no difference. Fixed factors: treatment, country, sex, background treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum, background treatment/HbA1c-stratum-interaction; covariate: baseline value.||0.18|-2.22|0.0961
95844135|NCT00796666|191655842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8616||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.233|||Log Rank|||||1.233|0.602|0.5416
95864794|NCT00146848|191687696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.11|-0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Compare the difference in the changes in physical activity scores between groups using a t-test.~To adjust for multiple comparisons, an alpha level of 0.025 should be used to deem significance."||-0.37|-26.11|0.04
95864795|NCT00475982|191687697|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.965||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.965
95864796|NCT00475982|191687698|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
95864797|NCT00475982|191687699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.294
95864798|NCT00475982|191687699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.440
95864799|NCT00475982|191687699|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.49||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|21.3|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||21.3|-4.31|0.186
95864800|NCT00475982|191687700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.162
95864801|NCT00475982|191687700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.986
95864802|NCT00475982|191687700|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.22||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.02|||paired t-test|||analysis between the weight loss and control arms||7.02|-2.58|0.353
95864803|NCT00475982|191687701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.283
95864804|NCT00475982|191687701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.701
95844136|NCT00796666|191655843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was based on the analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO Functional Class (FC) as fixed effects and baseline 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0049
95844137|NCT00796666|191655844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|||||Missing values at Week 12 and Week 24 were imputed with the last non-missing WHO FC based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test used modified ridit scores and the p-value corresponding to the ANCOVA (row mean scores) statistic was reported.||Baseline to Week 12||||0.8223
95844138|NCT00796666|191655845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|1.2|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.13|
95844139|NCT00796666|191655845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.36|||||Least squared (LS) mean and p-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.36|0.31|
95844140|NCT00796666|191655845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Physical Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0094
95844141|NCT00796666|191655846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|1.2|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.20|-3.92|
95844142|NCT00796666|191655846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.35|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.35|-0.38|
95844143|NCT00796666|191655846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitations Due to Physical Health Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0244
95844144|NCT00796666|191655847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.04|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.04|-3.78|
95844145|NCT00796666|191655847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|4.9|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.90|-0.41|
95844146|NCT00796666|191655847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Bodily Pain Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0624
95844147|NCT00796666|191655848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.06|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FCvas fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.06|-2.57|
95844148|NCT00796666|191655848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.82|0.48|
95844149|NCT00796666|191655848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline General Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0324
95844150|NCT00796666|191655849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.97|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||2.97|-2.10|
95844151|NCT00796666|191655849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.45|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.45|1.74|
95853746|NCT00412984|191666330|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.83||nominal two-sided p-value was associated with a test of H0: RR=1 vs H1: RR ≠ 1|Cox Proportional Hazard Model||apixaban / warfarin|||0.83|0.65|<.0001
95853747|NCT02435212|191666340|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.803||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|8.15|||ANCOVA|||||8.15|-2.99|0.3598
95853748|NCT02435212|191666341|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|176.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|153.933||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|481.72|||ANCOVA|||||481.72|-129.00|0.2546
95853749|NCT02893293|191666392|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.002
95844152|NCT00796666|191655849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Vitality Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0136
95864805|NCT00475982|191687701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.24|||paired t-test|||analysis between the intervention and control arms||8.24|-6.70|0.835
96002346|NCT00859898|191981875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|20.6||Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||20.6|2.1|0.0165
95844153|NCT00796666|191655850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.23|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.23|-2.33|
95844154|NCT00796666|191655850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.32|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.32|0.14|
95844155|NCT00796666|191655850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Social Functioning Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.1582
95844156|NCT00796666|191655851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.18|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.18|-3.09|
95844157|NCT00796666|191655851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|5.16|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.16|-0.62|
95844158|NCT00796666|191655851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2161
95844159|NCT00796666|191655852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||4.50|-1.61|
95844160|NCT00796666|191655852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.5|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||6.50|0.82|
95844161|NCT00796666|191655852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2087
95844162|NCT00796666|191655853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.58|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.58|-1.21|
95844163|NCT00796666|191655853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.05|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||5.05|0.37|
95844164|NCT00796666|191655853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Mental Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.2897
95844165|NCT00796666|191655854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.38|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||1.38|-2.05|
95844166|NCT00796666|191655854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.82|||||LS mean based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|Baseline to Week 12||3.82|0.46|
95844167|NCT00796666|191655854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on analysis of covariance on change from baseline with B1321003 treatment, B1321001 (NCT00795639) treatment, B1321003 Baseline WHO FC as fixed effects and baseline Composite Physical Health Score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 12||||0.0179
95864806|NCT00475982|191687702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.00
95844168|NCT02748863|191655855|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|717.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|7569.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||7569.56|68.00|< 0.0001
95844169|NCT02748863|191655856|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|168.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|1337.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||1337.22|21.20|< 0.0001
95844170|NCT02748863|191655857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|38.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.41|50.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||50.09|27.41|< 0.0001
95844171|NCT02748863|191655857|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|36.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.19|47.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||47.76|25.19|< 0.0001
95844172|NCT02748863|191655859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|400.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.48|3379.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||3379.99|47.48|< 0.0001
95844173|NCT02485561|191655909|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.019||||0.362|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.362
95844174|NCT02485561|191655910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
95844175|NCT02485561|191655910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
95844176|NCT02485561|191655911|SUPERIORITY||F-value|6.482||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.002
95844177|NCT02485561|191655911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.91
95844178|NCT02485561|191655911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95844179|NCT02485561|191655912|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.608||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
95844180|NCT02485561|191655913|SUPERIORITY||F-value|16.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95844181|NCT02485561|191655913|SUPERIORITY||F-value|2.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95844182|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.68||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.19
95844183|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.021||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.98
95864807|NCT00475982|191687702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.009
95844184|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.312||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.73
95844185|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.702||||0.496|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.496
95844186|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.88||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.154
95844187|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.667||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
95844188|NCT02485561|191655914|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.666||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.514
95844189|NCT02485561|191655915|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.59||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.56
95844190|NCT02485561|191655916|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.84
95844191|NCT02485561|191655917|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.16||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
95844192|NCT02485561|191655918|SUPERIORITY||F-value|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.31
95844193|NCT02485561|191655918|SUPERIORITY||F-value|0.056||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.95
95844194|NCT02741245|191656028|OTHER||Difference in M-estimates|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-32.0|||Shapiro-Wilk test|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach||||-32.0|-39.9|<0.001
95844195|NCT02741245|191656028|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.6|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-11.6|-18.0|<0.001
95864808|NCT00475982|191687702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.59|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||3.59|0.64|0.007
95844196|NCT02741245|191656028|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Difference in M-estimates|-41.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-37.9|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-37.9|-45.8|<0.001
95844197|NCT02741245|191656028|OTHER|Robust regression model with terms for treatment, risk category and baseline, after imputing missing values by a multiple imputation approach|Differecne in M-estimates|-13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-10.1|||Shapiro-Wilk test|||||-10.1|-16.6|<0.001
95844198|NCT01787461|191656055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.14||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24: Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.44|-0.16|0.358
95844199|NCT01787461|191656056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.037||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau classification of photoaging and site.||0.27|-0.19|0.568
95844200|NCT01787461|191656057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-0.25|0.797
95844201|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.29|0.965
95844202|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles (Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.20|0.674
95844203|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.35|0.916
95864809|NCT00475982|191687703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the weight loss arm||||0.073
95844204|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.35|-0.39|0.915
95844205|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.26|-0.40|0.672
95844206|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.27|0.655
95864810|NCT00475982|191687703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||paired t-test|||intra-analysis within the control arm||||0.207
95864811|NCT00475982|191687703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.75|||paired t-test|||analysis between the two arms||2.75|-0.08|0.063
95864812|NCT00743106|191687706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The mean decrease in GFR was an estimated 11% less for fenoldopam than for placebo (interim-adjusted 95% confidence interval 9% more, 31% less).|||9|-31|0.15
95864813|NCT00743106|191687707|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric mean|0.98||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We assessed the effect of fenoldopam on creatinine over time (immediately postoperatively and on PODs 1-4). A linear mixed effects model was used to assess the main effect of fenoldopam on the postoperative log-transformed (base 2) serum creatinine, adjusting for baseline serum creatinine.||1.19|0.79|0.78
95864814|NCT00783198|191687731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.57|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.57|-2.95|0.0039
95864815|NCT00783198|191687731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.07|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-1.07|-3.41|0.0002
95844207|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Periocular area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.23|0.561
95844208|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.4|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles(Perioral area): Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.40|-0.14|0.356
95844209|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.08||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.43|-0.28|0.669
95844210|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Mottled hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.34|-0.32|0.954
95844211|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Sallowness/yellowing: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.22|-0.34|0.684
95844212|NCT01787461|191656058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Roughness/texture: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.30|-0.35|0.886
95864816|NCT00783198|191687732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.09|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.09|-2.08|0.0320
95864817|NCT00783198|191687732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.82|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.82|-2.78|0.0003
95864818|NCT00783198|191687733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.01|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.01|-1.54|0.0472
95864819|NCT00783198|191687733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.19|-1.70|0.0144
95864820|NCT00783198|191687734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.19|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||0.19|-1.11|0.1686
95864821|NCT00783198|191687734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.18|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.18|-1.46|0.0125
95864822|NCT00783198|191687735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.32|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.32|-1.65|0.0039
95864823|NCT00783198|191687735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.64|||ANOVA||ANOVA model with baseline asthmatic condition, pollen region and treatment group as fixed effects|||-0.64|-1.95|0.0001
95864824|NCT01134705|191687736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures Analysis of covariance|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.2|<0.001
95844213|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.37|-0.33|0.901
95844214|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.47|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.47|-0.19|0.399
95844215|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.32|-0.38|0.875
95844216|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Back of Hands-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.73|0.13|0.005
95844217|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.33|0.876
95844218|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Decolletage-Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.29|0.789
95844219|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.38|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands- Crepyness: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.38|-0.31|0.901
95844220|NCT01787461|191656059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.72|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Back of Hands - Mottled Hyperpigmentation: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau cassification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.72|0.04|0.027
95844221|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.083||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.27|-0.10|0.688
95844222|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.121||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.33|-0.08|0.445
95844223|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.01|0.318
95844224|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.012||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.15|0.633
95844225|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.018||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.23|0.996
95844226|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.059||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.13|0.432
95844227|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Overall appearance of facial skin: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.19|-0.13|0.833
95844228|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.226||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.06|0.171
95844229|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.02||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Under eye dark circles or bags: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.16|0.796
95844230|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.033||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.23|0.942
95844231|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.118||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Complexion/Glow: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.28|-0.05|0.405
95864825|NCT01134705|191687737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|Repeated measures ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.4|-1.1|<0.001
95844232|NCT01787461|191656060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Smoothness: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.26|-0.14|0.687
95844233|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.384||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.54|0.23|0.017
95844234|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.248||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.40|0.09|0.073
95844235|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.057||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.11|0.117
95844236|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.096||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.31|0.662
95844237|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.1||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.25|-0.05|0.373
95844238|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.031||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.12|-0.19|0.294
95844239|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.035||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 12, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.20|0.857
95844240|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.206||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.39|0.02|0.088
95844241|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.193||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Wrinkling/crinkling: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.41|-0.02|0.110
95844242|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.205||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Decolletage-Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.34|0.07|0.112
95844243|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.003||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands-Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.13|0.614
95844244|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.011||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Fine lines/wrinkles: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.16|-0.18|0.693
95844245|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.079||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Back of Hands - Discoloration: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.22|-0.06|0.762
95844246|NCT01787461|191656061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.013||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Improvement Week 24, Body - Dryness Overall: Analysis was performed using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for Glogau Classification of Photoaging, site, and baseline.||0.13|-0.16|0.662
95844247|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.93||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.18|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||18.18|-10.32|0.587
95844248|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|12.32|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||12.32|-14.49|0.814
95844249|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|8.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||8.99|-16.14|0.453
95864826|NCT01134705|191687738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
95864827|NCT04784442|191687739|SUPERIORITY|The overall Type I error rate will be controlled by performing comparison versus the placebo group starting from the highest ETC 1002 dose group by a closed testing procedure at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-19.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-13.88|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 180 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-13.88|-24.81|<0.001
95864828|NCT04784442|191687739|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-14.41|||ANCOVA||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 120 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||-14.41|-25.45|<0.001
95864829|NCT04784442|191687739|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-3.12|||ANCOVA||||The least squares mean difference was calculated as the value for the ETC-1002 60 mg arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|-3.12|-14.22|0.002
95864830|NCT04619225|191687751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.199
95864831|NCT04619225|191687752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.431
95864832|NCT05119569|191687775|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.313||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.658|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.658|0.149|0.0022
95864833|NCT05119569|191687776|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.265||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.55|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.550|0.128|0.0004
95864834|NCT05119569|191687777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.005||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.317|13.078|||Logistic Regression Model|||||13.078|1.317|0.0117
96002347|NCT00859898|191981876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1807||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|: treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.09|-0.81|0.0133
95844250|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.16||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.92|4.61|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.61|-22.92|0.191
95844251|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.28|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.28|-10.07|0.685
95844252|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.74||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|23.15|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||23.15|-11.67|0.480
95844253|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.98||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|5.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||5.34|-17.29|0.299
95844254|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.07||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.04|1.9|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.90|-20.04|0.107
95844255|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|10.76|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||10.76|-14.39|0.776
95844256|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|9.29|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||9.29|-15.96|0.603
95864835|NCT05119569|191687782|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.316|1.922|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.922|0.316|0.5889
95864836|NCT05119569|191687783|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.076||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.355|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.355|0.016|0.0011
95864837|NCT05119569|191687784|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.104||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.481|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.481|0.022|0.0038
95864838|NCT05119569|191687785|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.512||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|1.126|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||1.126|0.233|0.0958
95864839|NCT05119569|191687786|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.283|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.283|0.039|<0.0001
95864840|NCT05119569|191687787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.053||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.233|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||||0.233|0.012|0.0001
95864841|NCT05104866|191687788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.49|0.8|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd vs ICC|"95% Confidence Interval 2-Sided~0.52 to 0.76"|0.80|0.49|<0.0001
95864842|NCT05104866|191687789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.97|0.83|1.23||p-value adjusted for multiple testing|Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd vs ICC|"95% Confidence Interval 2-Sided~0.83 to 1.22"|1.23|0.83|0.9445
95864843|NCT05104866|191687790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Performed using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and the stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours Dato-DXd|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by BICR assessment based on IA1 data cut-off||2.71|1.41|<0.0001
95864844|NCT05104866|191687790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|Performed using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and the stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours Dato-DXd|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by investigator assessment based on FA data cut-off||2.87|1.49|<0.0001
96002348|NCT00859898|191981876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1817||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.18||two-sided significance level at α=0.05. Dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR treatment group had to be superior to both monotherapy treatment groups to be considered significant.|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.18|-0.89|0.0036
95844257|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.82||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|7.6|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||7.60|-15.23|0.510
95844258|NCT01787461|191656062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|4.2|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.20|-17.70|0.225
95844259|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.02|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.02|-0.46|0.214
95844260|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.09|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.09|0.12|0.027
95844261|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.96|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.96|0.01|0.049
95844262|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.14|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.14|0.20|0.019
95844263|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.36|0.449
95844264|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.80|-0.07|0.105
95844265|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.68|-0.14|0.205
95844266|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.77|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.77|-0.06|0.100
95844267|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.66|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.66|-0.17|0.244
95844268|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.56|-0.32|0.594
95844269|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.63|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.63|-0.20|0.317
95844270|NCT01787461|191656063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.64|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.64|-0.17|0.264
95844271|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.16||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|19.31|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||19.31|-69.63|0.266
95844272|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.79||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.99|16.41|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||16.41|-73.99|0.210
95844273|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.78||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.55|40.99|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.99|-56.55|0.753
95864845|NCT05104866|191687790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in raw response rate|13.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.96|20.05|||||A positive difference in response rates favours Dato-DXd. Calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by BICR assessment based on IA1 data cut-off||20.05|6.96|
95844274|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.32|46.51|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||46.51|-76.32|0.632
95844275|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.54||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|29.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.01|-19.94|0.715
95844276|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.35||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.04|33.75|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||33.75|-21.04|0.648
95864846|NCT05104866|191687790|SUPERIORITY||Difference in raw response rate|14.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.08|21.11|||||A positive difference in response rates favours Dato-DXd. Calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by investigator assessment based on FA data cut-off||21.11|8.08|
95864847|NCT05104866|191687793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.76|||Log Rank|Adjusted for the stratification factors|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||0.76|0.55|<0.0001
95864848|NCT05104866|191687794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|Performed using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and the stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours Dato-DXd|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by BICR assessment based on IA1 data cut-off||2.42|1.27|0.0006
95864849|NCT05104866|191687794|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|Performed using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment and the stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours Dato-DXd|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by Investigator assessment based on FA data cut-off||3.00|1.51|<0.0001
95844277|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.49||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.81|15.83|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||15.83|-48.81|0.315
95864850|NCT05104866|191687794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in raw disease control rate|11.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|18.16|||||A positive difference in response rates favours Dato-DXd. Calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by BICR assessment based on IA1 data cut-off||18.16|4.93|
95864851|NCT05104866|191687794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in raw disease control rate|14.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.74|20.33|||||A positive difference in response rates favours Dato-DXd. Calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method.|Dato-DXd versus ICC based on confirmed response by Investigator assessment based on FA data cut-off||20.33|7.74|
95864852|NCT05104866|191687795|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.68|||||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||0.68|0.50|
95844278|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.42||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|48.34|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||48.34|-19.50|0.402
95864853|NCT05104866|191687796|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98|||||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||0.98|0.70|
95864854|NCT05104866|191687797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.93|||||Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||0.93|0.63|
95844279|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.43||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|40.35|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||40.35|-15.49|0.381
95844280|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.44|29.43|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||29.43|-26.44|0.916
95844281|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.88||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.81|24.05|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||24.05|-43.81|0.566
95864855|NCT05104866|191687798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||1.06|0.67|0.1519
95864856|NCT05104866|191687799|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.01|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||1.01|0.62|0.0596
95864857|NCT05104866|191687800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors|Stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model. A hazard ratio \< 1 favours Dato-DXd.|Dato-DXd versus ICC||1.04|0.67|0.1155
95864858|NCT00789074|191687856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95864859|NCT00789074|191687857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
95864860|NCT00789074|191687858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||F=16.60|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.001
95864861|NCT00789074|191687859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04||95.0||||F=2.92|ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||<0.04
95864862|NCT00789074|191687860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.02
95844282|NCT01787461|191656064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.58||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.78|47.94|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||47.94|-30.78|0.667
95844283|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.0|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.00|-2.21|0.458
95844284|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.01|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.01|-2.07|0.497
95844285|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.33|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.33|-3.05|0.113
95844286|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.44|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Cheek: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.44|-2.11|0.708
95844287|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.82|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||4.82|-2.34|0.495
95844288|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||1.27|-4.96|0.243
95864863|NCT00789074|191687861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||ANOVA|Changes were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance||||||0.97
95844289|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.23|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.23|-4.96|0.453
95844290|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|3.89|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Inner Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.89|-2.79|0.745
95844291|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.48|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 6, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.48|-2.44|0.987
95844292|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.85|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 12, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||0.85|-3.69|0.218
95864864|NCT02744040|191687937|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Total HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.048
95864865|NCT02744040|191687938|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95844293|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.08|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 18, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||2.08|-3.41|0.630
95844294|NCT01787461|191656065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.68|||ANOVA|||Change at Week 24, Left Outer Arm: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, Glogau classification of photoaging, site, baseline and treatment-by-baseline interaction (if applicable) terms.||3.68|-2.06|0.576
95844295|NCT00607087|191656075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.039
95844296|NCT00607087|191656075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025.|McNemar|||||||0.031
95844297|NCT00607087|191656076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95844298|NCT00607087|191656076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95844299|NCT00607087|191656077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.080
96002349|NCT00859898|191981877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3401|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.3||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate.||A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the familywise type I error rate related to this endpoint at the two-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing was only performed if the dapagliflozin 10 mg plus metformin XR group was statistically significantly superior to both control groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. Tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-1.30|-2.64|<0.0001
95844300|NCT00607087|191656077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.107
95844301|NCT00607087|191656078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95844302|NCT00607087|191656078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||<0.001
95844303|NCT00607087|191656079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.079
95844304|NCT00607087|191656079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.063
95844305|NCT00607087|191656080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
95844306|NCT00607087|191656080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.073
95844307|NCT00607087|191656081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.017
95844308|NCT00607087|191656081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.032
95844309|NCT00607087|191656082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95844310|NCT00607087|191656082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
95844311|NCT00607087|191656083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
96002350|NCT00859898|191981877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.71||two-sided significance level at α=0.05|ANCOVA|treatment group as an effect and the baseline value as a covariate||Statistical tests were only performed for a given secondary endpoint if all previous sequential tests versus that treatment group were also significant.||-0.71|-2.03|<0.0001
96002351|NCT02145156|191981885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.36
96002352|NCT02145156|191981885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.18
95844312|NCT00607087|191656083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95844313|NCT00607087|191656084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.563
95844314|NCT00607087|191656084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
95844315|NCT00607087|191656085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95844316|NCT00607087|191656085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95844317|NCT00607087|191656086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||1.000
95864866|NCT02744040|191687938|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864867|NCT02744040|191687938|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864868|NCT02744040|191687938|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864869|NCT02744040|191687938|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
96002353|NCT02145156|191981885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.22
96002354|NCT02145156|191981885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.88
96002355|NCT02145156|191981886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
96002356|NCT02145156|191981886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
96002357|NCT02145156|191981886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
95844318|NCT00607087|191656086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|McNemar|||||||0.701
95844319|NCT00607087|191656089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c value at the start of the first period||||||0.078
95844320|NCT00607087|191656089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||97.5||||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Each comparison is performed at the alpha level=2.5% (instead of 5%). Consequently a difference between 2 treatments is statistically significant if the corresponding p-value is \<0.025|ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusted on HbA1c level at the start of the first period||||||0.938
95844321|NCT01598922|191656094|OTHER|Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses following multiple imputation. Generalized Linear Models (GENLIN) predicting post-treatment HRSD scores in the imputed dataset. Covarying for pre-treatment HRSD scores, age and sex.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.814|9.403|||GENLIN|||||9.403|2.814|<0.0001
95844322|NCT01598922|191656095|OTHER||Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.79||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to PHQ-9 data, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of PHQ-9 scores.|hierarchical linear modeling|Age and sex were covariates. Cohen's d effect sizes are reported.||||-0.32|-1.25|.024
95844323|NCT01598922|191656096|OTHER|Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was applied to K-10 data, adjusting for baseline K-10 score. Group x Time interactions tested for between-group differences in slope of improvement of K-10 scores.|Cohen's d measure of effect size|-0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48|||HLM|||The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10) is a 10-item scale with total scores that can range from 0 to 50. Higher scores represent worse (more severe) psychological distress.||-0.48|-1.42|.003
95844324|NCT00965250|191656284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
95844325|NCT00965250|191656285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||||||<0.0001
95844326|NCT02777827|191656314|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean|0.2221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1324|0.3118|||ANCOVA|||||0.3118|0.1324|<0.0001
95844327|NCT02777827|191656314|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3146|0.4938|||ANCOVA|||||0.4938|0.3146|<0.0001
95844328|NCT02777827|191656314|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0164|0.1949|||ANCOVA|||||0.1949|0.0164|0.0207
95844329|NCT02777827|191656314|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.1701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.2592|||ANCOVA|||||0.2592|0.0810|0.0002
95844330|NCT02777827|191656314|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|0.4062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.4955|||ANCOVA|||||0.4955|0.3170|<0.0001
95844331|NCT00064792|191656338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome variable will be the serum cholesterol/total sterol ratio.||||0.002
95844332|NCT00064792|191656339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95853750|NCT02893293|191666393|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model including a random effect term accounting for correlation among the measures with a same patient.||||||0.02
95853751|NCT00214045|191666402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.39
95853752|NCT00214045|191666402|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sums and Fisher exact tests with Statistical Analysis System (SAS) statistical software version 9.||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95844333|NCT01025830|191656369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.87|1.38||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.38|0.87|
95844334|NCT01025830|191656369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.31||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||1.31|0.95|
95864870|NCT02744040|191687938|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in total HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for Total HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864871|NCT02744040|191687939|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||Integrated HIV DNA at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||>0.05
95864872|NCT02744040|191687940|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864873|NCT02744040|191687940|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864874|NCT02744040|191687940|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||<0.0001
95864875|NCT02744040|191687940|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
95864876|NCT02744040|191687940|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
95864877|NCT02744040|191687940|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in integrated HIV DNA was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for integrated HIV DNA.||||>0.05
95864878|NCT02744040|191687941|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Multiple hypothesis testing was performed using Tukey's HSD procedure.|Mixed Effects Models|||TILDA stimulation reservoir measure at the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups||||0.057
96002358|NCT02145156|191981886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
96002359|NCT02145156|191981887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
96002360|NCT02145156|191981887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
96002361|NCT02145156|191981887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
96002362|NCT02145156|191981887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
96002363|NCT02145156|191981888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
96002364|NCT02145156|191981888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.52
95844335|NCT01025830|191656369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratio between 0.8 and 1.25. Differences between treatments with respect to the outcome and intra- and inter-subject variances were assessed using the mixed effects model. Bootstrapped random errors were used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.99||p value not required for this analysis. What counts is the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio between the two formulation parameters.|Non-compartmental model|Mixed random effects model was used to assess difference between treatments and intra- and inter-subject variances.|the generic is the numerator while the brand is the denominator|The null hypothesis was that there is a difference in the relative bioavailability of Triomune and brand-name stavudine/lamivudine/nevirapine in HIV-infected Africans. 18 participants were required to provide 80% power to detect approximately a 20% difference on a log scale in AUC0-12h between the brand formulation and the generic formulation. Alpha level of 0.05.||0.99|0.65|
95844336|NCT01025830|191656370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same as for AUC|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||90.0|0.99|1.71||same as for AUC|Non-compartmental model|same as for AUC|same as AUC|Same as for AUC||1.71|0.99|
95844337|NCT01025830|191656370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||||90.0|0.95|1.23||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||1.23|0.95|
95844338|NCT01025830|191656370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same for all three drugs.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.63|0.98||Same for all three drugs.|Non-compartmental model|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.|Same for all three drugs.||0.98|0.63|
95844339|NCT02267538|191656371|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.23|0.341
95844340|NCT02267538|191656372|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||MMSE|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.830
95844341|NCT02267538|191656372|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|||||m-TICS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.405
95844342|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of total non-delirium complications within 30 days after surgery||1.19|0.47|0.214
95844343|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER|stroke|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Incidence of stroke within 30 days after surgery||5.08|0.20|0.993
95844344|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER|New onset arrythmia|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.46|0.274
95864879|NCT02744040|191687942|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.01||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.010
95844345|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER|Pulmonary complications|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.26|0.050
95844346|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.75||Upper gastrointestinal bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.09|0.423
95864880|NCT02744040|191687942|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||<|0.0001||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||<0.0001
95864881|NCT02744040|191687942|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 1|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
95864882|NCT02744040|191687942|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
96002365|NCT02145156|191981888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.71
96002366|NCT02145156|191981888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
95844347|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.08||Surgical bleeding|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|0.20|0.993
95864883|NCT02744040|191687942|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test||||||0.052||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||0.052
96002367|NCT02145156|191981889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
96002368|NCT02145156|191981889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.15
96002369|NCT02145156|191981889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.98
96002370|NCT02145156|191981889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
96002371|NCT02145156|191981890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
96002372|NCT02145156|191981890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.23
96002373|NCT02145156|191981890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.25
95844348|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.34||Wound dehiscence or infection|Regression, Logistic|||||4.34|0.61|0.326
95844349|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.33||Acute kidney injur|Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.47|0.378
95844350|NCT02267538|191656373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.32||IABP assistance|Regression, Logistic|||||1.32|0.18|0.156
95844351|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.596
95844352|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.743
95844353|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.282
95844354|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.368
95844355|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, at rest between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.397
95844356|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the sixth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 1 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.486
95844357|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the seventh row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 2 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.414
95844358|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the eighth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 3 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.187
95844359|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the ninth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 4 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|-1|0.127
95844360|NCT02267538|191656374|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the tenth row in Outcome 4, i.e., Pain score in Day 5 after surgery, with coughing between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.378
95844361|NCT02267538|191656375|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the first row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 1 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.777
95844362|NCT02267538|191656375|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the second row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 2 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||1|-1|0.919
95844363|NCT02267538|191656375|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the third row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 3 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.835
96002374|NCT02145156|191981890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
95844364|NCT02267538|191656375|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fourth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 4 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.321
95844365|NCT02267538|191656375|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||this statistical analysis applies to the fifth row in Outcome 5, i.e., subjective sleep quality in Day 5 after surgery, between DEX Group and CTRL group||0|0|0.174
95844366|NCT02267538|191656376|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.82|0.788
95844367|NCT02267538|191656377|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.77|0.826
95844368|NCT03096834|191656378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response (NRI).||||5.19|1.43|0.002
95844369|NCT03096834|191656379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3||-0.51|-2.67|0.004
95844370|NCT03096834|191656380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical impairment domain||-1.23|-5.70|0.003
95844371|NCT03096834|191656380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Everyday activities domain||-1.70|-6.12|<0.001
95844372|NCT03096834|191656381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.001
95844373|NCT03096834|191656382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factor (4-7 vs. 8-14) migraine days at Baseline after missing data are imputed as non-response||||9.01|1.11|0.025
95844374|NCT00833040|191656389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||difference between the active and placebo groups||||<0.001
95844375|NCT04233008|191656393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95844376|NCT04233008|191656394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95844377|NCT04233008|191656395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95844378|NCT04233008|191656396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
96002375|NCT02145156|191981891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95844379|NCT04233008|191656397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95844380|NCT04233008|191656399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
95844381|NCT00416624|191656405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.41
95844382|NCT00416624|191656407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 80 patients per arm will provide\> 80% power to detect differences between average hemoglobin levels in the\> reference arm and another treatment of 50% of the standard deviation. Note that\> typically one would expect the estimates for the standard deviation at a single time\> point to differ from the standard deviation for the difference from baseline.|||||>|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.13
95844383|NCT00416624|191656409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the\> above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as\> 25%.|||||>|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be\> about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two\> treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a\> hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in\> the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.49
96002376|NCT02145156|191981891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
96002377|NCT02145156|191981891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.81
96002378|NCT02145156|191981891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
96002379|NCT02145156|191981892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.70
96002380|NCT02145156|191981892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
96002381|NCT02145156|191981892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
96002382|NCT02145156|191981892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.74
96002383|NCT02145156|191981893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
96002384|NCT02145156|191981893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
96002385|NCT02145156|191981893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
96002386|NCT02145156|191981893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
96002387|NCT02145156|191981894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95864884|NCT02744040|191687942|OTHER|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test|||||>|0.05||||||Pair-Wise comparison of Slope 2|Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (H|||The decay in TILDA stimulation was modeled from the time of ART initiation in each of the three EDDI groups until the end of follow-up. The decay was analyzed on the log10 scale with a mixed-effects model to account for correlation between measurements from the same individual. We used a piecewise linear function to model the decay, where the number of linear segments was fixed at 2 (two-phase segmentation model) for TILDA Stimulation.||||>0.05
95864885|NCT02140593|191687954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95864886|NCT02140593|191687955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95864887|NCT00006289|191687988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B, without knowing which drug is Neurotropin or Placebo) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
95864888|NCT00006289|191687989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
95864889|NCT00006289|191687990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Data from 16 patients is analyzed using one-sided paired t-test without breaking treatment code (Drug A or B) to determine if (1) the study should be terminated (if 0.0058 ≤ p), (2) the study should be terminated with rejection of the null hypothesis that there are no differences between Drug A and Drug B (p ≥ 0.9), or (3) the study will be continued to obtain the total of 42 patients (0.0058 ≤ p ≤ 0.9).||||0.0058
95864890|NCT05089084|191687991|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-58.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.6|-27.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-27.9|-89.6|< 0.0001
95864891|NCT05089084|191687991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<0.0001
95864892|NCT05089084|191687991|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-52.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|-21.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-21.9|-83.1|0.0002
95864893|NCT05089084|191687991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||0.0002
96002388|NCT02145156|191981894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95864894|NCT05089084|191687992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-59.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.6|-27.5|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% CI for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-27.5|-91.6|<0.0001
95864895|NCT05089084|191687992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<0.0001
95864896|NCT05089084|191687992|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-50.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.5|-18.1|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% CI for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-18.1|-83.5|0.0007
96002389|NCT02145156|191981894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
96002390|NCT02145156|191981894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
96002391|NCT02145156|191981895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
96002392|NCT02145156|191981895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
96002393|NCT02145156|191981895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
96002394|NCT02145156|191981895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
96002395|NCT02145156|191981896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.38
96002396|NCT02145156|191981896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.17
96002397|NCT02145156|191981896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
96002398|NCT02145156|191981896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95864897|NCT05089084|191687992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||0.0007
95864898|NCT05089084|191687993|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-90.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.29|-72.67|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% CI for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-72.67|-108.29|<0.0001
95864899|NCT05089084|191687993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<0.0001
95864900|NCT05089084|191687993|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-93.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.38|-77.42|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% CI for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-77.42|-109.38|<0.0001
95864901|NCT05089084|191687993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<0.0001
95864902|NCT05089084|191687994|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-86.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.93|-60.96|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% CI for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-60.96|-112.93|<0.0001
95864903|NCT05089084|191687994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<0.0001
95864904|NCT05089084|191687994|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-87.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.42|-62.54|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Hodges-Lehmann method was used to estimate the median difference (location shift) and its corresponding 95% CI for percent changes between plozasiran doses and placebo (pooled).|||-62.54|-112.42|<0.0001
95864905|NCT05089084|191687994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The adjusted p-value was calculated using the Holm method for multiplicity adjustment.|Holm method|||||||<0.0001
95864906|NCT05089084|191687995|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.169||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.942||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-value were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline triglyceride category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.942|0.030|0.0292
95864907|NCT05089084|191687997|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-42.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.412||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.7|-18.01||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||-18.01|-66.70|0.0007
95864908|NCT05089084|191687997|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.706||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.72|-14.87||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||-14.87|-64.72|0.0018
95864909|NCT05089084|191687998|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-44.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.86|-20.89||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||-20.89|-68.86|0.0003
95864910|NCT05089084|191687998|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-32.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.713||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.13|-7.25||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||-7.25|-57.13|0.0114
95864911|NCT05089084|191687999|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|62.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.796||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.68|95.52||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||95.52|29.68|0.0002
95864912|NCT05089084|191687999|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|69.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.492|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.85|103.42||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||103.42|34.85|<0.0001
95864913|NCT05089084|191688000|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|41.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.52||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|85.44||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||85.44|-2.88|0.0669
95864914|NCT05089084|191688000|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|53.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.119||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|101.21||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||101.21|6.60|0.0256
95864915|NCT05089084|191688001|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.356||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.11|-20.32||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||-20.32|-104.11|0.0036
95864916|NCT05089084|191688001|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.693||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.65|-3.54||ANCOVA with Pattern-mixture Model|ANCOVA|||||-3.54|-88.65|0.0338
95864917|NCT05089084|191688002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.12||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.343|190.405||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<500 mg/dL (\<5.6 mmol/L)||190.405|2.343|0.0066
95864918|NCT05089084|191688002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.953||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|164.414||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<500 mg/dL (\<5.6 mmol/L)||164.414|1.960|0.0106
95864919|NCT05089084|191688002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.448||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|72.762||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<880 mg/dL (\<9.9 mmol/L)||72.762|3.280|0.0005
95864920|NCT05089084|191688002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.708||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.325|24.596||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<880 mg/dL (\<9.9 mmol/L)||24.596|1.325|0.0194
95864921|NCT05089084|191688002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.838||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.737|116.182||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<1000 mg/dL (\<11.3 mmol/L)||116.182|3.737|0.0005
95864922|NCT05089084|191688002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.64||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.676|34.83||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<1000 mg/dL (\<11.3 mmol/L)||34.830|1.676|0.0086
96002399|NCT00858702|191981905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0158
96002400|NCT00858702|191981906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0566
96002401|NCT00858702|191981907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No consideration for multiplicity|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95864923|NCT05089084|191688003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.097||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|52.074||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<500 mg/dL (\<5.6 mmol/L)||52.074|1.589|0.0131
95864924|NCT05089084|191688003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.435||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.275|43.36||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<500 mg/dL (\<5.6 mmol/L)||43.360|1.275|0.0257
95864925|NCT05089084|191688003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.195||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.553|49.096||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<880 mg/dL (\<9.9 mmol/L)||49.096|2.553|0.0014
96002402|NCT02544984|191981929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||The numbers of unscheduled clinic visits due to respiratory symptoms are compared.||||0.473
96002403|NCT02544984|191981929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Unscheduled clinic visits due to symptoms other than respiratory symptoms are compared||||0.505
96002404|NCT02544984|191981929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of emergency room visits are compared||||0.047
96002405|NCT02544984|191981929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||Numbers of hospital admissions are compared||||0.675
96002406|NCT02544984|191981930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||negative binomial model|negative binomial model adjusting for use of Synagis and tracheostomy||||||0.435
96002407|NCT03245814|191981937|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.42|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline score \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.42|0.12|<.001
96002408|NCT03245814|191981938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.40|0.11|<.001
96002409|NCT03245814|191981939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.86|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.86|0.23|.02
96002410|NCT03245814|191981940|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.5|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.50|0.13|<.001
96002411|NCT03245814|191981941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.64|0.18|.001
96002412|NCT03245814|191981942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.45|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||5.45|1.47|.003
96002413|NCT03245814|191981943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.48|0.12|<.001
96002414|NCT03245814|191981944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.38|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.38|2.00|<.001
96002415|NCT03245814|191981945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|8.83|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||8.83|2.28|<.001
96002416|NCT03245814|191981946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.4|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||7.40|1.88|<.001
96002417|NCT03245814|191981947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|4.47|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||4.47|1.22|.02
96002418|NCT03245814|191981948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.75|||Ordinal cumulative probability model|Covariates included baseline scores \& demographic/clinical characteristics. Multiple imputation was used to account for uncertainty (missingness).||||0.75|0.20|.009
96002419|NCT03245814|191981949|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects regression models to account for repeated measures (multiple assessments per day) within individuals.||||||0.002
96002420|NCT01164501|191981975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.39||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild or moderate renal impaired patients was the first step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication, renal impairment and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.39|-0.62|<0.0001
96002421|NCT01164501|191981976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.32||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 25 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the second step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|||-0.32|-0.72|<0.0001
95962667|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.00194|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 2-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.001940
95962668|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.03121|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 6-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.031210
95962669|NCT03786744|191896925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.01133|TWO_SIDED|||||"Alternative hypothesis: can be changed average of 12-month of Total score for Cord Blood versus Placebo groups.~Threshold \<0.05"|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study results were statistically processed using parametric and non-parametric methods using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of therapy and after 1, 2, 6, 12 months were compared using the Wilcoxon criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using non-parametric method, Mann-Whitney test was used (data are presented in Me - median format with an indication of 25% and 75% quartile||||0.011330
96002422|NCT01164501|191981976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.49||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in mild renal impaired patients was the third step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.49|-0.88|<0.0001
96002423|NCT01164501|191981977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28||Hierarchical testing to adjust for multiple comparisons, no adjustment in p-values. Empa 10 mg versus placebo in moderate renal impaired patients was the fourth step in the hierarchical sequence.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, background antidiabetic medication and baseline HbA1c.|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
96002424|NCT02116972|191981980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.07|||Logitudinal mixed effects model|||The step-down testing procedure to control for multiplicity would be voided if the primary endpoint is not met and analyses proceeded for exploratory purposes.||0.07|-1.22|0.0821
96002425|NCT00784784|191981994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||That in a year with mismatch between influenza vaccine antigen and infecting H3N2 strain, seasonal (10-13 weeks) antiviral prophylaxis in adults will provide better protection from symptomatic influenza infection than trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine.||4.8|0.01|0.25
96002426|NCT00872898|191981996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.2||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-4.9|0.1197
96002427|NCT00872898|191981997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|7.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||7.0|-7.2|0.9781
96002428|NCT00872898|191981998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.5|-3.2|0.1459
96002429|NCT00872898|191981999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-1.9|0.1344
96002430|NCT00872898|191982000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.0|-1.5|0.7000
96002431|NCT00872898|191982001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.3|0.9069
96002432|NCT00872898|191982002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.4679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.6|-1.2|0.4679
96002433|NCT00872898|191982003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9598
96002434|NCT00872898|191982004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.3|-1.3|0.9898
96002435|NCT00872898|191982005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.5||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.7|0.4228
96002436|NCT00872898|191982006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.4||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||2.5|0.2|0.0201
96002437|NCT00872898|191982007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2||||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.3|0.6889
96002438|NCT00872898|191982008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.7481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.2|-0.9|0.7481
96002439|NCT00872898|191982009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||1.1|-1.2|0.9500
96002440|NCT04172831|191982028|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.1|-0.7|0.010
96002441|NCT04172831|191982029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.10|0.99|0.058
96002442|NCT04172831|191982030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.2|-7.5|0.007
96002443|NCT04172831|191982031|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.1|-7.7|0.009
95864926|NCT05089084|191688003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.166||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|21.131||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<880 mg/dL (\<9.9 mmol/L)||21.131|1.263|0.0223
96002444|NCT04172831|191982032|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-1.3|-4.5|<0.001
96002445|NCT04172831|191982033|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-3.3|0.018
96002446|NCT04172831|191982034|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Treatment Difference = TNX-102 - Placebo|||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
96002447|NCT01520922|191982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.53|99.44|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 90 mg/m\^2.|||99.44|84.53|
96002448|NCT01520922|191982035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.67|84.74|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR (CR+CRi+nPR+PR) while receiving ofatumumab + bendamustine 70 mg/m\^2.|||84.74|59.67|
96002449|NCT01855789|191982067|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of TCZ + PBO was claimed if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference was below 0.6.|Estimated Mean Difference|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.592||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included Week 24 DAS28 as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>/=100 kg qw), participant anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure (Yes/No).||0.592|0.045|
96002450|NCT01855789|191982068|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-10.2||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.2|-20.2|0.0746
96002451|NCT01855789|191982068|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.8||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|1.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.6|-19.3|0.1159
96002452|NCT01855789|191982068|SUPERIORITY||ACR 20 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-0.6|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.6|-15.8|
96002453|NCT01855789|191982069|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-2.4|-24.8|0.0377
96002454|NCT01855789|191982069|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-15.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.7|-26.2|0.0130
96002455|NCT01855789|191982069|SUPERIORITY||ACR 50 Response Rate Difference|-10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-0.4|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||-0.4|-21.4|
96002456|NCT01855789|191982070|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2||||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||2.9|-19.2|0.3599
95844384|NCT00416624|191656412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the hematopoietic response rate in the standard therapy group is far from 50% (\<25% or \>75%), the above sample size will provide an 80% power to detect a difference as small as 25%.|||||>|0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||With 80 patients per treatment arm, there will be about 80% power to detect a difference through Fisher's exact test across two treatment arms of 25% in the true percentage of patients that experience a hematopoietic response as defined previously, if that percentage is at least 30% in the superior group, again with a 1.7% type I error rate.||||>0.56
95853753|NCT00771914|191666403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from baseline compared to four hours after placebo.||||0.00
95853754|NCT00771914|191666403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Aspirin compared to Placebo.||||0.31
96002457|NCT01855789|191982070|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-11.6||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-0.3|-22.8|0.0663
95844385|NCT00904813|191656421|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|2.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (90% CI) was 1.22 with lower limit: 0.33, and upper limit: 3.45.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the three-armed group comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.56|0.06|0.52
95844386|NCT00904813|191656421|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.35||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank|An overall p-value was calculated.|SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay. For LRT-delay HR (95% CI) was 0.99 with lower limit: 0.68, and upper limit: 1.42.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the three armed randomisation comparison (n = 385) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.35|0.64|0.92
95844387|NCT00904813|191656421|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|2.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group (1.00). Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on local recurrence as first event in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||2.27|0.36|0.59
95844388|NCT00904813|191656421|NON_INFERIORITY|In the initial protocol treatment groups were deemed non-inferior if the upper limit of a two-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.7. With a cumulative incidence of local recurrence at 15%, a sample size of 840 participants were determined to provide a power of 80%. However, due to lower recurrence rate, the trial was re-powered in the amendment 1999 to deem non-inferiority at an HR not exceeding 2.5 or 3.6 depending on the frequency of local recurrence.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Log Rank||SRT was used as reference group. Estimation described above is for SRT-delay.|The effect of treatment regimen on recurrence-free survival in the pooled short-course RT comparison (n = 712) was estimated with proportional hazards regression, stratified by participating centre.||1.18|0.69|0.39
95844389|NCT00904813|191656422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.32||The threshold of statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||1.32|0.40|0.289
95844390|NCT00904813|191656422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.84|0.30|0.009
95844391|NCT00904813|191656422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.65||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group B was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and short-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||0.65|0.23|<0.001
95844392|NCT00904813|191656422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p-value = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model was adjusted for sex, age over 75 years, type of surgery and ASA fitness grade.|Group E was used as the reference group.|The association between postoperative complications and long-course RT by overall treatment time was assessed using logistic regression analysis.||6.37|0.39|0.521
95844393|NCT00904813|191656423|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Cox|Model adjusted for age, sex and type of surgery.|No pCR was used as reference group.|The association between pathological complete response (pCR), eg no signs of viable tumour or metastatic nodes (T0N0) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox-regression model.||0.99|0.26|0.046
95864927|NCT05089084|191688003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.623||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.612|51.726||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<1000 mg/dL (\<11.3 mmol/L)||51.726|2.612|0.0013
95864928|NCT05089084|191688003|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.64||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.568|28.119||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Number of participants with triglycerides \<1000 mg/dL (\<11.3 mmol/L)||28.119|1.568|0.0102
95844394|NCT01173016|191656435|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Impact of anti-laronidase antibody status on the change in 6MWT outcome was tested||||0.038
95844395|NCT02341235|191656446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.35
95844396|NCT02341235|191656447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||0.22
95844397|NCT02341235|191656448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.97
95844398|NCT02341235|191656449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.98
95844399|NCT02341235|191656450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.83
95844400|NCT02341235|191656451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.055
95844401|NCT02341235|191656452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.71
95844402|NCT02341235|191656453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.33
95844403|NCT02341235|191656454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.94
95864929|NCT05089084|191688004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.02||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.791|622.535||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving ≥40% reduction from baseline fasting triglycerides||622.535|6.791|0.0003
95844404|NCT02341235|191656455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.57
95844405|NCT02341235|191656456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.30
95864930|NCT05089084|191688004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.44||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.518|86.446||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving ≥40% reduction from baseline fasting triglycerides||86.446|3.518|0.0005
95844406|NCT02341235|191656457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.44
95844407|NCT02341235|191656458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.62
95844408|NCT02341235|191656459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.70
95844409|NCT02341235|191656460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.41
95844410|NCT02341235|191656461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANCOVA|||All analyses were adjusted for baseline values, age, race, ethnicity, and time since diagnosis.||||.72
95844411|NCT02341235|191656468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.084
95844412|NCT02341235|191656470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.580
95844413|NCT02341235|191656478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.461
95844414|NCT02341235|191656480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.934
95844415|NCT03609177|191656518|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.8|||binomial regression with identity link|||||10.8|2.8|<0.05
95844416|NCT03609177|191656519|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||binomial regression with identity link|||||0.6|-0.7|<0.05
95844417|NCT03609177|191656520|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.90|-0.5|<0.05
95844418|NCT03609177|191656521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||binomial regression with identity link|||||1.0|-0.4|<0.05
95844419|NCT03259555|191656552|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.14|||=|0.8797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|2.03|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure|"An unstructured covariance was used."|"Comparison between treatment groups was carried out using MMRM, with study center, treatment group, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factor and baseline-by-visit interaction as a covariate. An unstructured covariance was used."|||2.03|-1.74|=0.8797
95844420|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
95844421|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|7.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||7|1|
95844422|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs up to week 4, Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
95844423|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
95844424|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs after week 4, Step 1|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|5|0|
95844425|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with grade 4+ AEs, after week 4 Step 1|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|8.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||8|1|
95844426|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
95844427|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
95844428|NCT02717494|191656554|OTHER||% with Grade 3+ related to treatment|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||4|0|
95844429|NCT02717494|191656555|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
95844430|NCT02717494|191656555|OTHER||% with grade 3+ AEs, up to week 4 Step 2|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||5|0|
96002458|NCT01855789|191982070|SUPERIORITY||ACR 70 Response Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|3.1|||||Observed difference in percentages (TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX) and the asymptotic Wald 95% CI is presented.|Week 24||3.1|-19.4|
96002459|NCT01855789|191982071|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|7.5||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||17.3|-2.4|0.2371
96002460|NCT01855789|191982071|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Worsening Rate Difference|3.4||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and worsening in DAS28, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||13.7|-6.9|0.4811
96002461|NCT01855789|191982072|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-9.5||||0.1062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||1.8|-20.9|0.1062
96002462|NCT01855789|191982072|SUPERIORITY||DAS28 Remission Rate Difference|-6.8||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||4.6|-18.2|0.3611
96002463|NCT01855789|191982073|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-13.6||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 40: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||-3.3|-24.0|0.0228
96002464|NCT01855789|191982073|SUPERIORITY||Low DAS28 Rate Difference|-5.4||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|Week 52: Analysis of association between treatment group and response, stratified by the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>=2.6 to \<=3.2), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, \<80 kg qw, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No).||5.4|-16.3|0.3665
96002465|NCT01855789|191982074|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.68|||||TCZ + PBO minus TCZ + MTX|ANCOVA model included Week 24 bone erosion as a covariate, treatment group, and the randomization stratification factors: DAS28 remission status at Week 24 (\<2.6, \>/=2.6 to \</=3.2), participant anti-TNF exposure (Yes/No), baseline weight-by-dosing group (\<80 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg q2w, 80-\<100 kg qw, \>=100 kg qw).||0.68|-0.21|
96002466|NCT01863758|191982078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of bleeding episodes|3.13|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|3.8|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 49.36.|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||3.80|2.56|<0.05
95844431|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|28.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||28|14|
95864931|NCT05089084|191688004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.262||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.302|100.991||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving ≥70% reduction from baseline fasting triglycerides||100.991|3.302|0.0009
95864932|NCT05089084|191688004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.109||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.015|61.235||The odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression model with treatment group, and baseline triglyceride level as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving ≥70% reduction from baseline fasting triglycerides||61.235|2.015|0.0057
96002467|NCT01863758|191982079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized number of spontaneous BEs|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.43|||2-sided, 1-sample Poisson test||The annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes in study GENA-01 was 32.23|This study was considered as showing efficacy if the annualized number of spontaneous bleeding episodes (BE) was reduced by 50% compared to the number of spontaneous BEs observed in study GENA-01 (NCT00989196).||2.43|1.46|<0.05
96002468|NCT03551522|191982094|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|11.02||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|23.67|||ANCOVA|||||23.67|-1.63|0.0874
96002469|NCT03551522|191982094|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|6.54||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|19.37|||ANCOVA|||||19.37|-6.28|0.3151
95844432|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|27|14|
95844433|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with grade 3+ AEs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|27.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||27|14|
95844434|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.0|24.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|24|11|
95864933|NCT04538664|191688018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.528|||Log Rank|||||0.528|0.296|<0.0001
95864934|NCT06457204|191688040|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.4|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 6.9."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.4|
95864935|NCT06457204|191688041|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.6|105.5|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 15.0."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.5|91.6|
95864936|NCT06457204|191688042|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means [%]|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|105.0|||||"Ratio of adjusted geometric means \[%\] calculated as: test/reference\*100.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\] = 7.1."|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale included effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed. confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t-distribution. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale to provide the point estimate and 90% CIs.||105.0|98.2|
95864937|NCT00678743|191688073|SUPERIORITY|All statistical significance were completed at the 5% level, two-tailed. Comparability of baseline characteristics between those who did and did not opt to enter the extension study was assessed with the chi square test and analysis of variance.||||||0.0008||||||Threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
95864938|NCT01221272|191688102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.67||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on PDS would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the PDS p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.6|0.29
95864939|NCT01221272|191688103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed Models Analysis|0.65||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.7||The null hypothesis that ranolazine treatment had no effect on TPD would be rejected if the PDS and TPD p-values were less than 0.05 or the TPD p-value was less than 0.05/2 = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-0.4|0.22
95864940|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
95864941|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from study Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Central memory T cells||||0.0493
95864942|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD4+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
96002470|NCT03551522|191982094|OTHER|The LS Means, confidence intervals, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with relative (percent) change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment and stratification groups (diabetic status and fibrosis stage) as factors and baseline as a covariate.|LS Mean of Difference|7.78||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|20.58|||ANCOVA|||||20.58|-5.01|0.2313
95864943|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Naïve T cells||||< 0.0001
95864944|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Central memory T cells||||< 0.0001
95864945|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||CD8+ Effector memory T cells||||< 0.0001
95864946|NCT02720107|191688116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The ANCOVA model included the covariates center, baseline of corresponding cell counts from Core study, sex and duration of disease until start of Core study|ANCOVA|||TH17 central memory cells||||< 0.0001
95864947|NCT02522624|191688120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95864948|NCT02522624|191688120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.16
95864949|NCT02522624|191688120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||<.001
95864950|NCT02522624|191688121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
96002471|NCT04882098|191982112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.2|14.4|<0.001
96002472|NCT04882098|191982112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|12.1|<0.001
95864951|NCT02522624|191688121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.30
95864952|NCT02522624|191688121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.82
95864953|NCT02522624|191688122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95864954|NCT02522624|191688122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.82
95864955|NCT02522624|191688122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.15
95864956|NCT02522624|191688123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.36||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.36|0.92|0.10
95844435|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|29.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|29|15|
95844436|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with congenital anomalies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.0|19.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||19|8|
95864957|NCT02522624|191688123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.26
95864958|NCT02522624|191688123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.58
95864959|NCT02522624|191688124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.01||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|1.58|<.001
95864960|NCT02522624|191688124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.39
95864961|NCT02522624|191688124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for Numeracy.||||0.57
95864962|NCT02522624|191688125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|17.95||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||||17.95|5.94|<.001
95864963|NCT02522624|191688125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori sample size estimates yielded an estimate of 183 per group needed to detect an effect size of 0.34 with 90% power at a 0.05 level of significance and 137 per group with 80% power.|Regression, Logistic|||Examined the relation between group and categorical outcomes, controlling for % Federal Poverty Level (400 or greater, 250-399, 100-249, less than 100).||||0.001
95844437|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|3|0|
95844438|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||3|0|
95844439|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% infants with HIV infection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||2|0|
95844440|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|9.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||9|2|
95844441|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
95844442|NCT02717494|191656556|OTHER||% with pneumonia, meningitis or IPD|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
95864964|NCT02522624|191688125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||Controlling for numeracy.||||0.46
95864965|NCT02600871|191688129|SUPERIORITY|The significance of variation in proportions with treatment (Provodine®, Control) was assessed with Fisher's Exact tests and variation in the mean with treatment was assessed with T-tests.||||||0.71|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
95864966|NCT01347580|191688152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.327||pvalue at 0.025 , adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.327|0.799|0.8214
95864967|NCT01347580|191688153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.074||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.441||P value at 0.025 adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||||1.441|0.801|0.6322
95864968|NCT01347580|191688154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.027||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.595|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.595|0.661|0.9056
95864969|NCT01347580|191688155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.4168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.942|0.760|0.4168
95864970|NCT01347580|191688156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.189||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.856|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.856|0.042|0.0307
95864971|NCT01347580|191688157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.132||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.462|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.462|0.876|0.344
95864972|NCT01347580|191688158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.996|1.506|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.506|0.996|0.0547
95864973|NCT01347580|191688159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.803||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|1.096|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.096|0.588|0.1660
95864974|NCT00528970|191688175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.944||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.944
95864975|NCT00528970|191688175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.208||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using log-rank test stratified by surgery type and region for comparisons of survival distributions for active MOA versus Placebo group.||||0.208
95844443|NCT02717494|191656557|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at day 28.||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.44
95844444|NCT02717494|191656557|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with values \>=0.35ug/mL at day 28.||||||0.49||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.49
95844445|NCT02717494|191656557|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
95864976|NCT00797966|191688180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.81|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.81|-2.87|0.6551
95864977|NCT00797966|191688180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.55|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||1.55|-2.30|0.7037
95864978|NCT00797966|191688180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||The planned sample size of 120 participants per arm will yield 80% power to detect the treatment effects at a 2-tailed significance level of 0.025. The 0.025 significance level corresponds to the second level of Hochberg's procedure for handling the two primary efficacy comparisons.||-0.21|-4.08|0.0303
95962670|NCT00569127|191896949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18||Central-review based progression-free survival was analyzed using the stratified log rank test (which is the score test from the stratified Cox-model) using stratification factors as defined in Section 6.0.|Regression, Cox||The reported hazard ratio estimate is for the comparison of the Octreotide, Bevacizumab arm to the Octreotide, Interferon Alpha-2b arm.|According to the intent-to-treat principle, all eligible patients were included in the analysis according to the randomized treatment assignment, regardless of actual treatments received.||1.18|0.73|0.55
95962671|NCT02037256|191896957|OTHER||percentage|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5||||||Median time to engraftment||0.50|0.07|
95962672|NCT01527162|191896958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95962673|NCT01527162|191896959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.14
95844446|NCT02717494|191656557|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|94|
95844447|NCT02717494|191656557|OTHER||% with >=2 fold increase|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|12.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||12|3|
95844448|NCT02717494|191656557|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
95844449|NCT02717494|191656557|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|97|
95844450|NCT02717494|191656557|OTHER||% with >=0.35ug/mL at day 28|94.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|97.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||97|88|
96002473|NCT04882098|191982113|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.28|<0.001
95844451|NCT02717494|191656558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95844452|NCT02717494|191656559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95844453|NCT02717494|191656560|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at labor and delivery.||||||0.37||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95844454|NCT02717494|191656560|SUPERIORITY|This is the test to compare the two vaccine arms with respect to proportion of participants with \>=2 fold increase at 24 weeks post partum.||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used because 50% of the cells had expected counts less than 5.||||||0.21
95864979|NCT00797966|191688181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.4166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo|||0.18|-0.43|0.4166
95864980|NCT00797966|191688181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.4193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.15|-0.35|0.4193
95864981|NCT00797966|191688181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.10|-0.60|0.0064
95864982|NCT00797966|191688182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||6.02|-2.67|0.4490
96002474|NCT04882098|191982113|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||||-0.28|-1.31|=0.002
95962674|NCT01527162|191896960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired Wilcoxon Sign Rank TEst||||>.54
95962675|NCT01527162|191896960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.20
95962676|NCT01310699|191896986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95962677|NCT01310699|191896987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95962678|NCT01431950|191897037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||||95.0|-0.039|0.192||||||||0.192|-0.039|
95844455|NCT02717494|191656561|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||99|91|
95844456|NCT02717494|191656561|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|89|
95844457|NCT02717494|191656562|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|100|94|
95844458|NCT02717494|191656562|OTHER||% vaccinees with >=2fold increase|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
95844459|NCT02717494|191656563|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
95844460|NCT02717494|191656563|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
95844461|NCT02717494|191656563|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 16|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|99.0|||||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|99|91|
95844462|NCT02717494|191656563|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|96|
95864983|NCT00797966|191688182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|4.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||4.24|-3.02|0.7412
95864984|NCT00797966|191688182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||5.17|-2.10|0.4070
95864985|NCT00797966|191688183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.42|-0.86|0.4954
95844463|NCT02717494|191656563|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|95|
95844464|NCT02717494|191656563|OTHER||% infants with >=0.35ug/mL at week 24|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0|||||Confidence intervals were Exact Clopper-Pearson.|||100|93|
95844465|NCT01774799|191656566|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||||||||1.69|0.69|
95844466|NCT01774799|191656567|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.2||||||||2.20|0.66|
95844467|NCT01774799|191656568|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.58||||||||1.58|0.58|
95844468|NCT01774799|191656569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.82||||||||2.82|1.13|
95864986|NCT00797966|191688183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.35|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.35|-0.73|0.4902
95864987|NCT00797966|191688183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.12|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||-0.12|-1.20|0.0161
95864988|NCT00797966|191688189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.46|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.46|-2.54|0.5953
95864989|NCT00797966|191688189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||1.55|-1.66|0.9479
95864990|NCT00797966|191688189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|0.22|||ANCOVA||Treatment difference = difference in adjusted mean change: OPC-34712 - placebo.|||0.22|-2.95|0.0919
95864991|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3998||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.3998
95844469|NCT01774799|191656570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
95844470|NCT02586623|191656571|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.62|||Log Rank||Droxidopa / Placebo|||1.62|0.67|0.803
95844471|NCT05051579|191656625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-8.9|<0.001
95844472|NCT05051579|191656625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
95844473|NCT05051579|191656625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.0|-12.4|<0.001
95844474|NCT05051579|191656625|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-12.7|<0.001
95844475|NCT05051579|191656626|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.2|-9.9|<0.001
95844476|NCT05051579|191656626|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-12.9|<0.001
95864992|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8838||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.8838
95864993|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4012||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||||0.4012
95864994|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.6131
95864995|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5964||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.5964
95864996|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||||0.2540
95864997|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8524||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.8524
95844477|NCT05051579|191656626|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.4|-13.8|<0.001
95844478|NCT05051579|191656626|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-15.0|<0.001
95844479|NCT05051579|191656627|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-9.3|<0.001
95844480|NCT05051579|191656627|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.8|-12.5|<0.001
95844481|NCT05051579|191656627|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-13.1|<0.001
95844482|NCT05051579|191656627|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-13.5|<0.001
95844483|NCT05051579|191656628|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-10.4|<0.001
95844484|NCT05051579|191656628|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-14.2|<0.001
95844485|NCT05051579|191656628|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.0|-14.7|<0.001
95844486|NCT05051579|191656628|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.2|-15.8|<0.001
95844487|NCT05051579|191656629|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-7.2|0.002
95844488|NCT05051579|191656629|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.0|<0.001
95864998|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6969||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.6969
95864999|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3108||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||||0.3108
95865000|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8719||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.8719
95844489|NCT05051579|191656629|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.8|-9.2|<0.001
95844490|NCT05051579|191656629|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-11.3|<0.001
95844491|NCT05051579|191656630|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.4|-8.8|<0.001
95844492|NCT05051579|191656630|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-10.3|<0.001
95844493|NCT05051579|191656630|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-9.7|<0.001
95865001|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6105||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.6105
95844494|NCT05051579|191656630|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.6|-12.7|<0.001
95844495|NCT05051579|191656631|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.6|-3.2|<0.001
95844496|NCT05051579|191656631|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-4.3|<0.001
95844497|NCT05051579|191656631|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.6|<0.001
95844498|NCT05051579|191656631|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.7|<0.001
95844499|NCT05051579|191656632|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.6|<0.001
95844500|NCT05051579|191656632|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.8|-4.8|<0.001
95844501|NCT05051579|191656632|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.2|<0.001
95844502|NCT05051579|191656632|OTHER||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.6|-5.6|<0.001
95844503|NCT05051579|191656633|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.44|3.61|<0.001
95844504|NCT05051579|191656633|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.01|8.15|<0.001
95865002|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0709||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||||0.0709
95865003|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.9574
95865004|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.2310
95865005|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0672||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||||0.0672
95865006|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8441||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.8441
95865007|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6741||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.6741
95865008|NCT00797966|191688190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||||0.0183
96002475|NCT03106740|191982124|SUPERIORITY|Because relevant \[11C\]PBR28 PET imaging data were unavailable at the time of trial initiation to inform a power analysis of a treatment effect, we ran a power analysis of the treatment effect on the expected change in pain ratings based on a recent clinical trial using minocycline in subjects with back pain. We computed the sample size required for mixed effects between-subject and within-subject (Time: Pretest/Posttest) repeated measures ANOVA design. Alpha was set at 0.05 (two-tailed test).|Restricted maximum likelihood|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||The p-value corresponds to the group-by-time interaction analysis of the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimation parameter: Unstandardized partial regression coefficient (beta)|||0.02|-0.02|0.956
96002476|NCT03899961|191982254|SUPERIORITY|Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.09||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval|Median regression model for the change f|||Median regression model for the change from baseline, model was adjusted for treatment, bootstrap was used for the confidence interval||1.09|-1.09|0.05
96002477|NCT00400946|191982258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.60
96002478|NCT03928184|191982270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-0.12|0.185
95865009|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.49||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.12|0.3007
95865010|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.94||||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||2.10|0.42|0.8812
95865011|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.32||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.07||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.07|0.10|0.0553
95865012|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.78||||0.6051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.05|0.30|0.6051
95865013|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.92||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.85||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.85|0.46|0.8264
95865014|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.10|0.54|0.8690
95865015|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.35||||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.44|0.74|0.3441
95865016|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.14||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.94||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.94|0.67|0.6375
95865017|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.31||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.21||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.21|0.78|0.3135
95865018|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.35||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||4.18|1.32|0.0035
95865019|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.31||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||2.31|0.70|0.4358
95865020|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|2.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.41||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.41|1.20|0.0063
95865021|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.23||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.23|0.72|0.3968
95865022|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.27||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.00|0.81|0.2990
95865023|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.39||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.25||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.25|0.86|0.1614
96002479|NCT03928184|191982271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-0.23|0.464
96002480|NCT03928184|191982272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|-0.22|0.402
95865024|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.29||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.12||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.12|0.79|0.3254
96002481|NCT03928184|191982273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.53|-1.92|0.343
96002482|NCT03928184|191982274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.80|-3.07|0.666
95865025|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.02||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.62||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.62|0.64|0.9463
95865026|NCT00797966|191688191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.74||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.65||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.65|1.14|0.0080
95865027|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.59||||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||3.90|0.09|0.5791
95865028|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.43||||0.2653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.93|0.10|0.2653
95865029|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.39||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.87||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.87|0.08|0.2259
95865030|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.83||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.18||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.18|0.32|0.6986
95865031|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.61||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.35||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.35|0.28|0.2339
95865032|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.07||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.15||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||2.15|0.53|0.8615
95865033|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.06||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.20|0.51|0.8807
95865034|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.77||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.77|0.52|0.9035
95865035|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.19||||0.5898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||2.24|0.64|0.5898
95865036|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.58||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.58|0.93|0.0840
95865037|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.96||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.88|0.49|0.9115
95865038|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.77||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.17||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||3.17|0.98|0.0522
95865039|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.24||||0.4997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.34||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||2.34|0.65|0.4997
95865040|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.16||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.93|0.69|0.5846
95865041|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|0.99||||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.76|0.55|0.9602
95865042|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.62||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.02||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||3.02|0.87|0.1254
95865043|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.13||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.99||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.99|0.65|0.6670
95865044|NCT00797966|191688192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.7||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.93||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||2.93|0.98|0.0525
95865045|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.84||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.84|0.52|0.9462
95865046|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.8||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.49|0.43|0.4971
95865047|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.93||||0.8118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9 values presented here.||1.63|0.53|0.8118
95865048|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.95||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.53||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.53|0.59|0.8323
95865049|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.08||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.08|0.43|0.0930
95865050|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.88||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.32||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10 values presented here.||1.32|0.59|0.5530
95962679|NCT03494985|191897053|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
95962680|NCT03494985|191897053|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||1.2|0.6|<0.0001
95865051|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.61|0.69|0.8007
95865052|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.03||||0.8945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.49||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.49|0.71|0.8945
95865053|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.17||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11 values presented here.||1.64|0.83|0.3837
95865054|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.63|0.72|0.7064
95865055|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.06||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.52||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.52|0.74|0.7469
95865056|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.34||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.86||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 values presented here.||1.86|0.97|0.0832
95962681|NCT03494985|191897053|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9||p-value was adjusted using Dunnett's method for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA model with factors for treatment, study site and DMI stratification (mild, moderate, severe).|First named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive value favours the first named treatment.|||0.9|0.3|<0.0001
95962682|NCT02272244|191897069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|7.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage||||7.58|3.08|<0.001
96002483|NCT03928184|191982275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.99|-3.25|0.679
96002484|NCT03928184|191982276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|4.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.66|-3.39|0.758
95865057|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.61||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.61|0.74|0.6611
95865058|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.13||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.56|0.83|0.4435
95865059|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.98||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13 values presented here.||1.98|1.09|0.0118
95865060|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.89||||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.26||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.26|0.63|0.5111
95865061|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|0.9||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.22|0.66|0.4903
95865062|NCT00797966|191688193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Response Rate|1.28||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel general association test controlling for study center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14 values presented here.||1.67|0.98|0.0662
95865063|NCT01733212|191688202|EQUIVALENCE|Considering the null hypothesis that the number of participants who will have vomiting will be equal in the two arms, we performed this study with a significance level of 0.05% and power of 80% to prove that there is a difference in the number.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Number of participants who had vomiting in each group is compared to the other. Two sided Chi square test was conducted, Type I error of 0.05% and power of 80% are considered.||||0.07
95962683|NCT02272244|191897070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model compares Forward Change to No Change or Backwards Change and is adjusted for all baseline covariates.||||9.47|2.55|<0.001
95962684|NCT02272244|191897071|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Multinomial|Model compared rates of SBT, CX and none; model is adjusted for age, sex, practice, baseline preferred test and baseline overall decision stage|||Reference for the outcome is No Screening; reference for the study group is the Standard Intervention group.|||<0.001
95962685|NCT02272244|191897071|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|6.7|||Odds Ratio (OR)|Stool Blood Test vs None||||6.70|2.63|0.001
95962686|NCT02272244|191897071|SUPERIORITY|Colonscopy vs None|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|18.74|||Odds Ratio (OR)|||||18.74|4.13|0.001
95962687|NCT02272244|191897072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Model of difference in Preventive Health Model (PHM) total score adjusts for all baseline covariates.|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||0.13|-0.15|0.862
96002485|NCT03928184|191982277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|5.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.06|-3.27|0.673
96002486|NCT03928184|191982278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|5.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.49|-3.56|0.675
96002487|NCT03928184|191982279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.13|0.533
95865064|NCT03032380|191688243|NON_INFERIORITY|The study hypothesis was that the all-cause mortality rate at Day 14 in participants who received cefiderocol would be non-inferior to that in participants who received high-dose meropenem. The margin of non-inferiority was 12.5%. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in mortality at Day 14 between the 2 treatment groups (cefiderocol - meropenem) was smaller than 12.5%.|Treatment Difference|0.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 14 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||8.2|-6.6|0.0020
95962688|NCT02272244|191897072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model of knowledge test score adjusts for all baseline covariates|Model compares DSNI to SI.|||.55|-.47|0.880
95962689|NCT02660112|191897073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.336
95962690|NCT03733899|191897088|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||12.4|-7.3|
95962691|NCT03733899|191897088|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|11.5|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||11.5|-9.6|
95962692|NCT03733899|191897088|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|9.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||9.8|-8.2|
95962693|NCT03733899|191897088|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|12.2|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||12.2|-6.5|
95962694|NCT03733899|191897088|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.7|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||11.7|-5.7|
95962695|NCT03733899|191897088|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||16.8|-1.4|
95962696|NCT03733899|191897089|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|14.4|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.4|-10.3|
95962697|NCT03733899|191897089|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|12.9|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo|10-Minutes Post Treatment||12.9|-12.1|
95962698|NCT03733899|191897089|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.1|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Minutes Post Treatment||12.1|-11.4|
95962699|NCT03733899|191897089|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||14.0|-9.2|
95962700|NCT03733899|191897089|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-square Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.3|||Linear Mixed Model||Difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|5-Mintues Post Treatment||14.3|-8.5|
96002488|NCT04231669|191982280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Linear Mixed-effects regression|||||||0.05
95962701|NCT03733899|191897089|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Least-sqaure Mean Difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|18.8|||Linear Mixed Model||difference was calculated as Test - Placebo.|10-Mintues Post Treatment||18.8|-3.7|
95962702|NCT03733899|191897090|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.1|-13.2|
95865065|NCT03032380|191688244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|10.7|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the eradication rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.7|-13.5|
95865066|NCT03032380|191688245|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|8.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.5|-12.5|
95865067|NCT03032380|191688246|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.2|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||8.2|-8.8|
95865068|NCT03032380|191688247|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|5.1|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||5.1|-12.8|
95865069|NCT03032380|191688248|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|10.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||10.8|-10.9|
95865070|NCT03032380|191688249|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-0.5|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||-0.5|-24.4|
95865071|NCT03032380|191688250|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|7.9|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||7.9|-15.5|
95844505|NCT05051579|191656633|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.71|85.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||85.91|8.71|<0.001
95865072|NCT03032380|191688251|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the cure rate calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights based on infection diagnosis (HABP/VABP/HCABP), and APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16).|||15.8|-7.9|
95844506|NCT05051579|191656633|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.65|72.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.77|7.65|<0.001
95844507|NCT05051579|191656634|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|114.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||114.40|3.47|<0.001
95844508|NCT05051579|191656634|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.95|224.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||224.83|6.95|<0.001
95844509|NCT05051579|191656634|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.16|427.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||427.18|13.16|<0.001
95865073|NCT03032380|191688252|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.8|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at Day 28 based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||9.8|-8.7|
95865074|NCT03032380|191688253|OTHER||Treatment Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.4|||||Treatment difference (cefiderocol - meropenem) was the adjusted estimate of the difference in the ACM rate at EOS based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel weights using APACHE II score (≤ 15 and ≥ 16) as the stratification factor.|||13.4|-6.3|
95865075|NCT03032380|191688254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Hospitalization time at test of cure||||0.9382
95865076|NCT03032380|191688254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of hospitalization time at follow-up||||0.6552
95865077|NCT02937584|191688264|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.11||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.22|1.02|0.0187
95865078|NCT02937584|191688264|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.33||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.33|1.14|<0.0001
95865079|NCT02937584|191688265|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.75||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.95||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.95|0.59|0.0219
95865080|NCT02937584|191688265|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.71||Statistical significance assessed using Hochberg's procedure applied across primary endpoints within each treatment|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.71|0.44|<0.0001
95865081|NCT02937584|191688266|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.24|1.01|0.0283
95865082|NCT02937584|191688266|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.31|1.12|<0.0001
95844510|NCT05051579|191656634|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.62|413.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||413.21|12.62|<0.001
95844511|NCT05051579|191656635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.92|2.90|<0.001
95844512|NCT05051579|191656635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.49|83.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.91|7.49|<0.001
95844513|NCT05051579|191656635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|147.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||147.86|8.17|<0.001
95844514|NCT05051579|191656635|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|96.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||96.29|8.15|<0.001
95844515|NCT05051579|191656636|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|26.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.45|2.59|<0.001
95844516|NCT05051579|191656636|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|50.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.68|4.83|<0.001
95844517|NCT05051579|191656636|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|88.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.38|8.39|<0.001
95844518|NCT05051579|191656636|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|66.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.17|6.59|<0.001
95844519|NCT01116648|191656641|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cediranib|||||
95865083|NCT02937584|191688267|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.76||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.97|0.59|0.0304
95865084|NCT02937584|191688267|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.72|0.41|0.0003
95844520|NCT01116648|191656641|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg BID)|200.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Olaparib|||||
95844521|NCT01116648|191656643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.83|||Kaplan-Meier Plot|||||0.83|0.30|0.006
95844522|NCT04037891|191656663|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.57|72.99||||||||72.99|-53.57|
95844523|NCT04037891|191656663|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage of participants|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|78.39||||||Comparison of incidence of ocular TEAE in all patients receiving rVA576 (part 1 and 2) vs placebo||78.39|-25.45|
95844524|NCT04194944|191656672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.465||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.309|0.0002
95844525|NCT04194944|191656673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.482||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.700|0.331|0.0001
95844526|NCT04194944|191656674|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|0.7|0.3996
95844527|NCT04194944|191656675|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|0.9|0.1390
95844528|NCT04194944|191656678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|1.4|0.0028
95844529|NCT04194944|191656679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.2|1.6|0.0003
95844530|NCT04194944|191656680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.377||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.633|||Log Rank|||||0.633|0.224|0.0001
95865085|NCT02937584|191688268|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.065||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.158|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.158|-0.028|0.1582
95865086|NCT02937584|191688268|OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|0.151||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.292|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||0.292|0.010|0.0375
95865087|NCT02937584|191688269|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.978||||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.073|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.073|0.891|0.6176
95844531|NCT04194944|191656681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.684|||Log Rank|||||0.684|0.256|0.0004
95844532|NCT04194944|191656684|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|0.8|0.1809
95844533|NCT04194944|191656685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|19.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|1.4|0.0167
95844534|NCT05274958|191656697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient measures for both groups were first summarized descriptively with means and standard deviations. To compare the two groups, a t-test was used.||||<0.05
95844535|NCT03400475|191656702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.088||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95844536|NCT03400475|191656703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95844537|NCT03400475|191656704|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.596||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95844538|NCT03400475|191656705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95844539|NCT03400475|191656706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.581||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95844540|NCT03400475|191656707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95844541|NCT03400475|191656708|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.696||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95844542|NCT03400475|191656709|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95844543|NCT03400475|191656710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|213.314||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95844544|NCT03400475|191656711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.356||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95844545|NCT03400475|191656712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6537||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95844546|NCT03400475|191656713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.552||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95844547|NCT03400475|191656714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
95844548|NCT03400475|191656715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.071
95844549|NCT03400475|191656716|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95844550|NCT03400475|191656717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.062
95844551|NCT03400475|191656718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
95844552|NCT03400475|191656719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95844553|NCT00291486|191656762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of CL between initial infusion and therapy infusion||||0.144
95844554|NCT00291486|191656763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.361
95844555|NCT03628976|191656793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0096|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0096
95844556|NCT03628976|191656794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.764
95844557|NCT03628976|191656795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.446
95865088|NCT02937584|191688269|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio to baseline|0.938||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.056|||t-test, 2 sided|Within-group comparison to baseline using paired test||||1.056|0.833|0.2699
95844558|NCT00851786|191656797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69||The p-value was adjusted for baseline gpELISA titer, measurement time (week 6 vs. week 12), CD4 stratum and age.|Linear mixed effect model|Natural log transformed gpELISA titers after one or two doses of vaccine was modeled.||Null hypothesis: VZV antibody titer measured by gpELISA, after 1 or 2 doses of ZOSTAVAX/placebo is the same between ZOSTAVAX arm and the placebo arm||0.69|0.45|<.001
95844559|NCT01223183|191656806|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing DTPA absorption after hypertonic saline inhalation to DTPA absorption after isotonic saline inhalation||||<0.001
95865089|NCT00422084|191688288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 5% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the CI for the difference \>-5%.|ACPR percent difference|0.3||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.8||If non-inferiority of PA is demonstrated, the p-value associated with a superiority test was calculated based on a 2-sided Chi-square test. If the calculated p-value is \<5%, then the superiority of PA compared to AL is statistically demonstrated.|Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than 5%.~Was tested versus the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the PA group is not inferior to the PCR-corrected ACPR response rate at Day 28 for the comparator group (AL) by more than -5%."||1.8|-0.7|0.578
95865090|NCT00653432|191688296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1450
95962703|NCT03733899|191897090|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|5.3|-13.9|
95962704|NCT03733899|191897090|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-8.3|-24.4|
95962705|NCT03733899|191897090|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-1.4|-17.8|
95962706|NCT03733899|191897090|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (5-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|-4.1|-20.6|
95962707|NCT03733899|191897090|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0 for at least one of the three ocular regions (upper lid margin, lower lid margin, or cornea).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean difference was calculated as (10-min Post-Treatment MINUS Immediate Post-insertion).|0.2|-16.7|
95962708|NCT03733899|191897091|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|11.6|-8.7|
95962709|NCT03733899|191897091|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin|18.0|-1.0|
95844560|NCT01223183|191656808|EQUIVALENCE|alpha=0.05||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing mucociliary clearance after isotonic saline inhalation to mucociliary clearance after hypertonic saline inhalation||||0.003
95844561|NCT04177212|191656809|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50 percent (%).|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||< 0.0001
95844562|NCT04177212|191656810|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||P-value for testing null-hypothesis that response of Pooled Group was less or equal to 50%.|One-sided binomial test|||Between Groups calculation were not done because comparing Groups A and B was not part of the objective of this investigation.||||0.0003
95844563|NCT00865345|191656831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA model|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|100.0|||ANCOVA|null model ANOVA is used to calculate 95% CI around accuracy rate. Intercept was fit in the abscence of other predictors.||||100|60|<0.05
95844564|NCT01600326|191656866|OTHER|Pair-wise comparison at Time point 1 compared to baseline|||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|See comments on P value||||||<0.0001
95865091|NCT00653432|191688297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5824|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.5824
95865092|NCT00653432|191688298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9136|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9136
95962710|NCT03733899|191897091|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|17.0|-3.5|
95962711|NCT03733899|191897091|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin|20.8|1.6|
95844565|NCT01600326|191656866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison|Tukey|||One way repeated measure analysis of variance for outcome of total pain score over time adjusted for treatment with post hoc Tukey correction to adjust for multiple comparison||||<0.0001
95844566|NCT01600326|191656867|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
95844567|NCT00599872|191656892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.418|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.48|-1.15|<0.05
95844568|NCT00599872|191656893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-1.72|<0.05
95844569|NCT00387881|191656898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.0|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|25.0||Endpoints were co-primary and both needed to have p-value of \<0.05 to be considered indicative of efficacy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Migraine Pain-Free at 2 hours Post-Dose|Pain-Free (2 hours)||25|10|<0.001
95865093|NCT00653432|191688299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1699|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.1699
95865094|NCT00653432|191688300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3238|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3238
95865095|NCT00653432|191688301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0427
95865096|NCT00653432|191688302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.8206
95865097|NCT00653432|191688303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.9818
95865098|NCT00653432|191688304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0542|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.0542
95865099|NCT00653432|191688305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Ordinal GEE Model|||||||0.3230
95865100|NCT04740905|191688317|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in adjusted means of the two treatments (faricimab minus aflibercept) is greater than -4 letters (the non-inferiority margin), then faricimab is considered non-inferior to aflibercept.|Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The null hypothesis, H0: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) ≤-4 letters; the alternative hypothesis, Ha: μ(faricimab) - μ(aflibercept) \>-4 letters. The final sample size provided \>90% power for the non-inferiority assessment (at a one-sided 0.02485 significance level).||1.1|-2.2|
95844570|NCT00387881|191656898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.0|||<|0.001||95.0|8.0|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Analysis for Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 hours Post-dose|Sustained Pain-Free (2-24 hours)||22|8|<0.001
95844571|NCT02250326|191656907|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.94||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||1.94|0.90|
95844572|NCT02250326|191656908|SUPERIORITY||Disease Control Rate Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.207|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Disease Control Rate Ratio is DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over DCR of Nab-Paclitaxel Alone|1.207|0.778|
95865101|NCT04740905|191688317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1||Tested at a two-sided 0.0497 significance level.|Mixed Model of Repeated Measures||The treatment difference in adjusted means of change from baseline BCVA is the calculated difference of Arm A: Faricimab and Arm B: Aflibercept. MMRM adjustments are listed in the outcome measure description.|The final sample size provided \>80% power for a 3.5-letter superiority assessment of faricimab over aflibercept.||1.1|-2.2|0.4978
95865102|NCT04740905|191688319|OTHER||Difference in CMH Weighted Percentage|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-12.3|
95865103|NCT04740905|191688335|OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.9|
95865104|NCT00441116|191688372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.37||0.0319||95.0|0.75|14.33|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference = Drug A minus Drug B|Month 6 - Baseline||14.33|0.75|0.0319
95865105|NCT00791817|191688403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3897|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1998|1.6097||||Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|Confidence Interval is on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted|values are Geometric Means and Confidence Intervals are on the Ratio of Fed to Fasted||1.6097|1.1998|
95865106|NCT03158285|191688408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|39.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.5|22.9|< 0.001
95865107|NCT03158285|191688408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.1|22.4|< 0.001
95865108|NCT03158285|191688409|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.2372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.1534|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1534|-0.3210|< 0.001
95865109|NCT03158285|191688409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3544|-0.1864|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1864|-0.3544|< 0.001
95865110|NCT03158285|191688410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.001||95.0|10.0|24.4||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.4|10.0|< 0.001
95865111|NCT03158285|191688410|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.1||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|11.5|< 0.001
95865112|NCT03158285|191688411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
95865113|NCT03158285|191688411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|58.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.4|41.2|< 0.001
95844573|NCT02250326|191656909|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.754|||||95% CI was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.||Direction of Overall Response Rate Ratio is ORR of Nab-Paclitaxel + CC-486 Combination Arm over ORR of nab-Paclitaxel Alone.|1.754|0.398|
95844574|NCT02250326|191656910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.57||||Based on stratification factors of ECOG performance status (0 or 1), sex (male or female), and current smoker status (yes or no).||Based on stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.57|1.08|
95962712|NCT03733899|191897092|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|12.9|-11.4|
95962713|NCT03733899|191897092|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Lower Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.9|-4.9|
95962714|NCT03733899|191897092|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||10-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 10-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|15.2|-9.3|
95844575|NCT04245111|191656921|OTHER|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section||||||||||||||||No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|No other statistical analysis completed other than percentage of patients completed as reported in the data table section|||
95844576|NCT03956550|191656922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2978|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2978
95844577|NCT03956550|191656922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6890
95844578|NCT03956550|191656923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1973|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1973
95844579|NCT03956550|191656923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9420
95844580|NCT03956550|191656924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1597
95865114|NCT03158285|191688412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|30.0||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.0|13.1|< 0.001
95844581|NCT03956550|191656924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9719
95844582|NCT03956550|191656925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1365|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1365
95844583|NCT03956550|191656925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0604|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0604
95844584|NCT03956550|191656926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0989
95844585|NCT03956550|191656926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5487
95844586|NCT03956550|191656927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3572|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3572
95844587|NCT03956550|191656927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5747|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5747
95844588|NCT00861705|191656943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0018
95844589|NCT00861705|191656944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0089|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||The study was designed to detect an increase in the incidence of pCR from 35% in the control arm to 55% in the experimental arm using a 1-sided chi square test of proportions. With a target sample of 362 patients and assuming a 10% dropout rate, an overall assessable sample size of 326 patients resulted in \> 95% power.||||0.0089
95844590|NCT00861705|191656945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0029|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.0029
95844591|NCT00861705|191656946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|Reported p-values are unadjusted and 1-sided||||||0.057
95844592|NCT00861705|191656950|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.1||||||||2.10|0.67|
95844593|NCT00861705|191656950|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.47||||||||2.47|0.82|
95844594|NCT00861705|191656950|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
95844595|NCT00861705|191656951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.75||||||||1.75|0.66|
95844596|NCT00861705|191656951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92||||||||1.92|0.74|
95844597|NCT00861705|191656951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.37||||||||1.37|0.49|
95844598|NCT00861705|191656952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.03||||||||2.03|0.66|
95844599|NCT00861705|191656952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.16||||||||2.16|0.72|
95844600|NCT00861705|191656952|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.7||||||||1.70|0.53|
95844601|NCT04864249|191656968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95865115|NCT03158285|191688412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|13.7|< 0.001
95865116|NCT03158285|191688413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.90|0.072
95844602|NCT04864249|191656969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95844603|NCT04864249|191656970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95844604|NCT04864249|191656971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95844605|NCT04864249|191656972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95865117|NCT03158285|191688413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.66||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.13|0.011
95962715|NCT03733899|191897092|SUPERIORITY|Subjective comfort was analyzed using linear mixed model. Statistical inference was made based on the 95% confidence interval constructed for the least square mean difference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5-Minutes Post Treatment|Mean Difference was cacluated as Corneal - Upper Lid Margin: 5-mintues post treatment - Pre Treatment.|19.6|-4.9|
95844606|NCT04864249|191656973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
95844607|NCT04864249|191656974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95844608|NCT04864249|191656975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95844609|NCT04864249|191656976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95844610|NCT04864249|191656977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95844611|NCT04864249|191656978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95865118|NCT03158285|191688414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|11.8|0.030
95865119|NCT03158285|191688414|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|6.4|0.030
95865120|NCT03158285|191688415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|28.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.6|7.4|0.030
95865121|NCT03158285|191688415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.5|0.011
95865122|NCT03158285|191688416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.23||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.77|< 0.001
95962716|NCT03733899|191897093|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of 95% confidence interval was greater than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||||mean difference was calculated as postremoval minus pre-insertion with Test and corneal region.|-3.9|-20.9|
95844612|NCT04864249|191656979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
95844613|NCT04864249|191656980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95844614|NCT04864249|191656981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95844615|NCT04864249|191656982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95844616|NCT04864249|191656983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95865123|NCT03158285|191688416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.83|< 0.001
95865124|NCT03158285|191688417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.79||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.99|< 0.001
95865125|NCT03158285|191688417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.66||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-2.87|0.002
95865126|NCT03158285|191688418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.97||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.20|2.75|0.011
95844617|NCT04864249|191656984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95844618|NCT04864249|191656985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95844619|NCT04864249|191656986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95844620|NCT04864249|191656987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95844621|NCT04864249|191656988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95844622|NCT04864249|191656989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95844623|NCT04864249|191656990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95844624|NCT04864249|191656991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95844625|NCT04864249|191656992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95844626|NCT04864249|191656993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95844627|NCT04864249|191656994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95844628|NCT04864249|191656995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95844629|NCT04864249|191656996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95844630|NCT04864249|191656997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95844631|NCT04864249|191656998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95844632|NCT04864249|191656999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95844633|NCT04864249|191657000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95844634|NCT04864249|191657001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95844635|NCT04864249|191657002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95844636|NCT04864249|191657003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95865127|NCT03158285|191688418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.62||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.85|||ANCOVA|||||4.85|2.39|0.011
95865128|NCT03158285|191688419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.43||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.80|< 0.001
95865129|NCT03158285|191688419|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.47||Nominal|ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.83|< 0.001
95865130|NCT03158285|191688420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.02||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.49|||ANCOVA|||||3.49|0.56|0.072
95865131|NCT03158285|191688420|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.07||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.54|||ANCOVA|||||3.54|0.60|0.072
95865132|NCT03158285|191688421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|12.6|< 0.001
95865133|NCT03158285|191688421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|17.7||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|5.2|< 0.001
95865134|NCT03158285|191688422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.9||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.9|9.1|< 0.001
95865135|NCT03158285|191688422|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|13.8||Nominal|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.8|4.1|< 0.001
95865136|NCT01675167|191688642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.64||P value was adjusted using weighted z-test (CHW).|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-1.32|<.00001
95865137|NCT01675167|191688643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||<.0001
95865138|NCT01675167|191688643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Stratum (Dose Level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||<.0001
95962717|NCT03178344|191897141|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.7||||||P value threshold is 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.70
95962718|NCT03178344|191897142|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.71||||||P value threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.71
95962719|NCT00607672|191897167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
95865139|NCT05601544|191688652|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.25||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.25|0.19|<.0001
95865140|NCT05601544|191688652|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.18||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.025|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-squares mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 41 (for the Multifocal strata) and 6 (for the Sphere strata) participants in each vision group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least a power of 90% (for the Multifocal strata) and a power of 94% (for the Sphere strata) to detect a statistical superiority with respect to visual range.||0.18|0.14|<.0001
95865141|NCT05601544|191688655|SUPERIORITY||Median Ratio|0.83||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.64|1.09||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083.|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Median Ratio was calculated as test over control|It was calculated that 16 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 92% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||1.09|0.64|0.0465
95865142|NCT05601544|191688656|SUPERIORITY||Least-square Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.112|0.17||1-sided p-value was calculated using one-sided type 1 error of 0.0083|Mixed Model Analysis|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 29 participants in each group randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 91% power to detect a statistical superiority with respect to motion detection.||0.170|0.112|<.0001
95865143|NCT01457352|191688666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2062
95844637|NCT03101566|191657005|OTHER||||||||||||||||||PFS at 6 months was estimated for this trial using the product-limit method of Kaplan and Meier with 95% confidence intervals calculated using Greenwood's formula. All statistical analyses were completed using the SAS System, v9.4 \[Cary, NC, USA\].|||
95844638|NCT02119871|191657016|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95844639|NCT02119871|191657017|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.656
95844640|NCT02119871|191657018|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95844641|NCT03865446|191657080|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|130.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.03|199.22|||||The model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|||199.22|86.03|
95844642|NCT03865446|191657081|OTHER||Geometric Means Ratio|104.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.12|151.16|||||The model was an ANOVA model with unequal variance assumption and hepatic impairment group as fixed effect. Values are back-transformed from the log scale.|||151.16|72.12|
95844643|NCT00287716|191657108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||0.95|0.44|0.023
95844644|NCT00287716|191657114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.42|||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no treatment difference between the pirfenidone 2403-mg/d treatment group and the placebo treatment group.||1.42|0.50|0.515
95844645|NCT02673918|191657157|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95844646|NCT02673918|191657158|EQUIVALENCE|Differences (the number of participants in each of the three categories) between baseline and follow-up was calculated using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This was a feasibility test and no power calculation was performed.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95865144|NCT01457352|191688667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0485|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0485
95865145|NCT03952039|191688668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||39.4|19.9|<0.0001
95865146|NCT03952039|191688669|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis (based on CRF)|Difference in Proportion|17.1||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||||29.4|4.8|0.0033
95962720|NCT00607672|191897168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95844647|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.132|0.003|0.037
95844648|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.181|0.051|<0.001
95844649|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.216|0.086|<0.001
95844650|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis for was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure.~Adjusted for multiplicity based on the parametric simulation method by Edwards and Berry."||0.209|0.081|<0.001
95844651|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.263|0.159|<0.001
95844652|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|-0.003|0.066
95844653|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.135|0.031|0.002
95865147|NCT03952039|191688670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|33.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|45.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the Greenland and Robins method to adjust for stratification factors: spleen size by palpation and platelet counts.||Stratified analysis (based on CRF)||45.1|21.9|<0.0001
95844654|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.128|0.026|0.003
95844655|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.087|-0.017|0.189
95844656|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.080|-0.023|0.273
95865148|NCT03952039|191688673|SUPERIORITY||Greenland and Robins method|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.7|||Greenland and Robins method|||||29.7|10.0|
95865149|NCT04487080|191688691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank||HR and its 95% CI was estimated based on a stratified Cox's regression model with treatment as the sole explanatory variable.|||0.85|0.58|0.0002
95844657|NCT03084796|191657166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West) and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.045|-0.058|0.813
95844658|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.095|0.022|0.002
95844659|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.113|0.040|<0.001
95865150|NCT05141448|191688707|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A C3 (EMO-118) minus omafilcon A|||0.06|0.02|
95865151|NCT00576420|191688712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||90.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.1564
95844660|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.163|0.089|<0.001
95844661|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.177|0.104|<0.001
95865152|NCT00576420|191688714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.060
95844662|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.220|0.147|<0.001
95844663|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.055|-0.018|0.322
95844664|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.104|0.031|<0.001
95844665|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.118|0.045|<0.001
95844666|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.086|0.013|0.008
95865153|NCT00576420|191688714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.005
95865154|NCT00576420|191688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.123
95865155|NCT00576420|191688715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.026
95962721|NCT00607672|191897169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
95962722|NCT00607672|191897170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.73
95962723|NCT00607672|191897171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||For plasma transfusion comparison. Ramipril and Candesartan versus placebo|Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95844667|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.100|0.027|<0.001
95844668|NCT03084796|191657167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 for this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.022|0.443
95844669|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
95865156|NCT00576420|191688716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.929
95865157|NCT00576420|191688716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.228||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.228
95865158|NCT00576420|191688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.234
95865159|NCT00576420|191688718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.955
95865160|NCT00576420|191688719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.106
95865161|NCT00576420|191688719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.243
95865162|NCT00576420|191688719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
95865163|NCT00576420|191688720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.257
95962724|NCT00607672|191897172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||Comparison for norepinephrine use|Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95962725|NCT00607672|191897173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95962726|NCT00607672|191897174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95962727|NCT00607672|191897175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95962728|NCT00607672|191897176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
95962729|NCT00607672|191897177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95962730|NCT00607672|191897178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95962731|NCT00607672|191897179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95962732|NCT02869867|191897180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|2.09|<0.001
95844670|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.119|0.052|<0.001
95844671|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.177|0.109|<0.001
95844672|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.194|0.127|<0.001
95844673|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.198|0.131|<0.001
95844674|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.048|-0.020|0.418
95844675|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.105|0.038|<0.001
95844676|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.122|0.055|<0.001
95844677|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|0.024|<0.001
95865164|NCT00576420|191688720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.096
95865165|NCT00576420|191688720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.127
95962733|NCT01407276|191897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|GMR of Panel A:Panel B||||1.11|0.80|
95962734|NCT01407276|191897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.61|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.61|1.12|
95844678|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|0.041|<0.001
95865166|NCT01502332|191688741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95844679|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.051|-0.016|0.308
95844680|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.147|0.038|<0.001
95844681|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.188|0.079|<0.001
95865167|NCT01502332|191688742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
95865168|NCT01502332|191688743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.037
95865169|NCT01502332|191688745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.267
95865170|NCT03039621|191688746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance equals 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95865171|NCT03039621|191688747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95865172|NCT03039621|191688748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95865173|NCT03039621|191688749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95962735|NCT01407276|191897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.32|1.85|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.85|1.32|
95962736|NCT01407276|191897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR or Panel G:Panel H|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.55|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.55|1.40|
95962737|NCT01407276|191897197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.66|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.66|1.46|
95962738|NCT01407276|191897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.79|
95844682|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.229|0.120|<0.001
95844683|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.127|<0.001
95844684|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.284|0.175|<0.001
95844685|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.013|0.141
95844686|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.137|0.028|0.003
95844687|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.142|0.035|0.001
95844688|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.013|0.137
95844689|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.006|0.082
95962739|NCT01407276|191897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.41|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.41|0.91|
95844690|NCT03084796|191657168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.060|-0.048|0.823
95844691|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.100|0.022|0.002
95844692|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|0.036|<0.001
95844693|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.085|<0.001
95844694|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|0.113|<0.001
95844695|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|0.202|||MMRM|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.202|0.124|<0.001
95844696|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.052|-0.025|0.485
95844697|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.102|0.025|0.001
95962740|NCT01407276|191897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.23|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.23|0.66|
95962741|NCT01407276|191897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.96|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.96|0.57|
95962742|NCT01407276|191897198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.95|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.95|0.56|
95844698|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|0.053|<0.001
95844699|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.088|0.011|0.012
95844700|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|0.039|<0.001
95844701|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.066|-0.011|0.157
95844702|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.011|0.021
95844703|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.053|<0.001
95844704|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.220|0.103|<0.001
95844705|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.215|0.099|<0.001
95844706|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.271|0.154|<0.001
95865174|NCT03039621|191688750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 2 to Day 3, 4, 5 and 6 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0201
95865175|NCT03039621|191688751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
95865176|NCT03039621|191688752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0025
95865177|NCT03039621|191688752|OTHER|Test for assessing the homogeneity of the odds ratio in several 2 × 2 contingency tables.||||||0.22|||||||Breslow-Day test|||||||0.22
95865178|NCT03039621|191688753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0037||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of total severity index of the disease from Day 1 to Day 2, 3 and 4 endpoint between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0037
95844707|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.101|-0.015|0.149
95844708|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.151|0.034|0.002
95844709|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.031|0.003
95865179|NCT03039621|191688754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95865180|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix™/Hib vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
95962743|NCT01407276|191897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.05|0.81|
95962744|NCT01407276|191897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.33||||||90.0|1.07|1.65|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.65|1.07|
95962745|NCT01407276|191897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.65|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||1.65|1.13|
95844710|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.108|-0.009|0.096
95844711|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.103|-0.012|0.122
95844712|NCT03084796|191657169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.054|-0.062|0.886
95844713|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.141|0.008|0.029
95844714|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.188|0.055|<0.001
95844715|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.250|0.117|<0.001
95844716|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.142|<0.001
95844717|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.360|0.227|<0.001
95844718|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.113|-0.019|0.161
95865181|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
95962746|NCT01407276|191897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.79|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.79|1.06|
95962747|NCT01407276|191897199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.68|1.00|
95844719|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.043|0.001
95844720|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.201|0.068|<0.001
95844721|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.004|0.066
95844722|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|0.021|0.010
95962748|NCT01407276|191897200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.12|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.12|0.75|
95962749|NCT01407276|191897200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|1.76|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.76|1.19|
95962750|NCT01407276|191897200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|2.24|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||2.24|1.49|
95962751|NCT01407276|191897200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|2.54|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.54|1.41|
95844723|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.042|0.465
95962752|NCT01407276|191897200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.52|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||2.52|1.40|
95962753|NCT01407276|191897201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.42|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.42|0.87|
95962754|NCT01407276|191897201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.07|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.07|0.53|
95962755|NCT01407276|191897201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.92|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.92|0.51|
95962756|NCT01407276|191897201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.98|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.98|0.50|
95844724|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.030|0.008
95844725|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.256|0.091|<0.001
95844726|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.136|<0.001
95865182|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 1 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 1 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
95962757|NCT01407276|191897201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.12|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||1.12|0.57|
95962758|NCT01407276|191897202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.25|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.25|0.90|
95962759|NCT01407276|191897202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.89|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.89|0.62|
95962760|NCT01407276|191897202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.76|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.76|0.54|
95962761|NCT01407276|191897202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.71|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.71|0.39|
95962762|NCT01407276|191897202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.68|||GMR of Panel G:Panel H|||||0.68|0.38|
95962763|NCT01407276|191897203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.18|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.18|0.74|
95962764|NCT01407276|191897203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.96|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||0.96|0.55|
95962765|NCT01407276|191897203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|0.54|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.54|0.33|
95962766|NCT01407276|191897204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
95962767|NCT01407276|191897204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
95962768|NCT01407276|191897204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
95962769|NCT01407276|191897205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.07|||GMR of Panel A:Panel B|||||1.07|0.69|
95962770|NCT01407276|191897205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.15|||GMR of Panel C:Panel D|||||1.15|0.70|
95962771|NCT01407276|191897205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.67|||GMR of Panel E:Panel F|||||0.67|0.37|
95962772|NCT02844777|191897224|OTHER|||||||0.9518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9518
95962773|NCT02844777|191897224|OTHER|||||||0.2458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2458
95962774|NCT02844777|191897225|OTHER|||||||0.6201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6201
95962775|NCT02844777|191897225|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95962776|NCT02844777|191897226|OTHER|||||||0.2912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2912
95962777|NCT02844777|191897226|OTHER|||||||0.4168|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4168
95962778|NCT02844777|191897227|OTHER|||||||0.6458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6458
95962779|NCT02844777|191897227|OTHER|||||||0.0721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0721
95962780|NCT02844777|191897228|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4200
95962781|NCT02844777|191897228|OTHER|||||||0.0241|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0241
95962782|NCT04092452|191897239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.69||0.4696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|16.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||16.7|-15.2|0.4696
95962783|NCT04092452|191897239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|34.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||34.6|2.7|0.0298
95844727|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.295|0.131|<0.001
95844728|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.409|||McNemar|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.409|0.244|<0.001
95865183|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.78||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.78|-4.78|
95865184|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
95865185|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 2 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 2 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
95962784|NCT04092452|191897239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.3606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.6|19.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||The null hypothesis for primary efficacy analysis was that the percentage of participants achieving HiSCR response at Week 16 was the same for the active treatment (PF-06650833, PF-06700841 or PF-06826647) and placebo. The treatment was considered superior to control if the difference was statistically significant at the overall 1-sided 0.1 level.||19.6|-12.6|0.3606
95962785|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|8.0||||||Week 1||8.0|-15.6|
95844729|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.021|0.144
95962786|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.1||||||Week 1||11.1|-12.9|
95962787|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|17.8||||||Week 1||17.8|-8.5|
95844730|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.024|0.011
95844731|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.182|0.019|0.016
95962788|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|22.8||||||Week 2||22.8|-6.9|
95962789|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|22.2||||||Week 2||22.2|-7.1|
95962790|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|18.3||||||Week 2||18.3|-11.3|
95962791|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|25.1||||||Week 4||25.1|-7.1|
95962792|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|23.5||||||Week 4||23.5|-8.0|
95962793|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|11.4||||||Week 4||11.4|-19.4|
95844732|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|-0.037|0.280
95844733|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|-0.042|0.342
95844734|NCT03084796|191657170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.076|-0.088|0.886
95844735|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.163|0.032|0.003
95844736|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.221|0.091|<0.001
95844737|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.273|0.143|<0.001
95844738|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.302|0.172|<0.001
95844739|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.276|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.341|0.211|<0.001
95844740|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.124|-0.006|0.076
95844741|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.176|0.046|<0.001
95962794|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|17.2||||||Week 6||17.2|-15.6|
95844742|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.205|0.075|<0.001
95844743|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.117|-0.013|0.116
95844744|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.146|0.016|0.014
95844745|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.094|-0.036|0.384
95844746|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.236|0.064|<0.001
95962795|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|22.9||||||Week 6||22.9|-9.4|
95962796|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.8|20.2||||||Week 6||20.2|-12.8|
95962797|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.7798|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.2|8.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||8.7|-24.2|0.7798
95962798|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.92||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|16.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||16.8|-15.9|0.4819
95844747|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.290|0.118|<0.001
95844748|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.335|0.162|<0.001
95844749|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.339|0.168|<0.001
95844750|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.354|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.268|<0.001
95844751|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.140|-0.031|0.214
95844752|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|0.012|0.025
95844753|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.189|0.019|0.016
95844754|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.130|-0.042|0.313
95865186|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 1\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 1) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
95865187|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 2\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|6.94||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 2) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||6.94|-3.53|
95962799|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.19||0.5933|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.2|14.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||14.4|-19.2|0.5933
95962800|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.81||0.8421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||6.2|-26.1|0.8421
95962801|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|24.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||24.2|-8.2|0.2090
95962802|NCT04092452|191897240|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.12||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|16.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.2|-17.1|0.5183
95844755|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.135|-0.035|0.250
95844756|NCT03084796|191657171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.091|-0.080|0.898
95844757|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.153|0.006|0.035
95844758|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.085|<0.001
95844759|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.275|0.127|<0.001
95844760|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.315|0.168|<0.001
95844761|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.351|0.204|<0.001
95844762|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.152|0.005|0.035
95844763|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.048|0.001
95844764|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.235|0.088|<0.001
95844765|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.116|-0.031|0.256
95844766|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.156|0.010|0.027
95844767|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Day 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.114|-0.033|0.281
95844768|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.232|0.050|0.003
95844769|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.288|0.106|<0.001
95844770|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.340|0.157|<0.001
95844771|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.336|0.155|<0.001
95865188|NCT01106092|191688760|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group \[Zilbrix/Hib/Poliorix Group - GSK2036874A Group 3\] difference in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%. The lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI on the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-poliovirus type 3 is ≥ 2.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|4.72||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GSK2036874A vaccine (Formulation 3) compared to Poliorix™ vaccine co-administered with Zilbrix/Hib™ vaccine, in terms of seroprotection rates to the three poliovirus types and to demonstrate that the formulation induces at least a two-fold increase in the geometric mean of the individual ratios (post- over pre-booster titres) for anti-polio type 3 antibodies, one month after vaccination.||4.72|-4.78|
95865189|NCT03930264|191688778|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of Cmax for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.3008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.35|||ANOVA|||||1.35|0.93|0.3008
95865190|NCT03930264|191688779|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-τ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.06||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||ANOVA|||||1.13|1.00|0.1061
95865191|NCT03930264|191688780|EQUIVALENCE|For bioequivalence, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio of AUC0-∞ for tablet and suspension were required to be within the 80 to 125% range.|Ratio|1.02||||0.5696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09|||ANOVA|||||1.09|0.96|0.5696
95865192|NCT01473368|191688782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95865193|NCT01473368|191688786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95865194|NCT04839562|191688789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1|-7.7|=.0106
95865195|NCT04839562|191688790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.002
95865196|NCT04839562|191688791|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
95865197|NCT04839562|191688792|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
95865198|NCT04839562|191688793|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0348
95865199|NCT04839562|191688794|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1
95865200|NCT04839562|191688795|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0173
95865201|NCT04839562|191688796|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1864|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1864
95865202|NCT04839562|191688797|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.4173
95865203|NCT04839562|191688798|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0343|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0343
95865204|NCT04839562|191688799|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0636|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.0636
95865205|NCT04839562|191688800|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.065|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.065
95865206|NCT04839562|191688801|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1144|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.1144
95865207|NCT04839562|191688802|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2829|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=.2829
95865208|NCT04966910|191688803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||This p-value applies to the time x condition interaction variable in a repeated-measure ANOVA for client data.|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA including a time x condition interaction term to test for differences in slopes by condition for client data.||||0.036
95865209|NCT04966910|191688804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||.226
95865210|NCT04966910|191688805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.674
95865211|NCT04966910|191688806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.317
95865212|NCT04966910|191688807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.741
95865213|NCT04966910|191688808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737||||||This p-value refers to a time x condition interaction term in a repeated measures ANOVA to test for differences in slopes over time.|ANOVA|||||||.737
95865214|NCT01949337|191688842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.80|0.33
95865215|NCT01350544|191688858|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.91||a priori threshold for significance for p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used generalized linear mixed models predicting adherence at baseline and 1.5-, 3-, 4.5-, and 6-months post-baseline, with intervention , time, interaction between intervention and time, medical and socio-demographic covariates, and baseline viral load. Sample size was determined with a power analysis assuming .80 power and an alpha level of .05 that would allow for detection of a small-to-medium effect size in adherence between arms.||0.91|0.69|.005
95865216|NCT01437995|191688865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.3|0.69|1.65||||||||1.65|0.69|
95865217|NCT01437995|191688866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.43
95865218|NCT01437995|191688866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.022
95865219|NCT01437995|191688866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.002
95865220|NCT01437995|191688867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.41||||||||1.41|0.63|
95865221|NCT01437995|191688867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.73||||||||1.73|0.80|
95962803|NCT04092452|191897241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.7|12.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||12.1|-12.7|0.5150
95962804|NCT04092452|191897241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|25.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||25.8|-1.4|0.0737
95844772|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.439|0.258|<0.001
95844773|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.147|-0.034|0.222
95844774|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.108||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.199|0.017|0.020
95844775|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.195|0.015|0.022
95844776|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.143|-0.039|0.262
95865222|NCT01437995|191688867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81||||||||1.81|0.83|
95962805|NCT04092452|191897241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.2081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|20.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0 or 1||20.0|-6.7|0.2081
95962806|NCT04092452|191897241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|19.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||19.4|-9.9|0.2957
95844777|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.041|0.290
95844778|NCT03084796|191657172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.087|-0.094|0.938
95844779|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.24|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, including treatment, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 value as covariate."||2.24|1.21|0.002
95844780|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.94|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.94|1.61|<0.001
95844781|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.78|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.78|2.07|<0.001
95865223|NCT01437995|191688868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.15
95865224|NCT01437995|191688868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||<0.001
95962807|NCT04092452|191897241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|30.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||30.5|0.7|0.0456
95962808|NCT04092452|191897241|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.05||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|24.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Total AN Count of 0, 1 or 2||24.1|-5.7|0.1558
95865225|NCT01437995|191688868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing change in pre-bronchodilator FEV1||||0.027
95865226|NCT01437995|191688868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.40
95865227|NCT01437995|191688868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.032
95865228|NCT01437995|191688868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in pre-bronchodilator FVC||||0.21
95865229|NCT01437995|191688869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.14
95962809|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.622|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.16|2.2||||||Week 1||2.20|-26.16|
95865230|NCT01437995|191688869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||<0.001
95844782|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.15|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.15|2.27|<0.001
95844783|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.17|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.17|2.30|<0.001
95844784|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.76|1.00|0.052
95844785|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.26|1.28|<0.001
95844786|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.48|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.48|1.41|<0.001
95844787|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.69|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.69|0.98|0.074
95844788|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.85|1.08|0.013
95844789|NCT03084796|191657173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||"Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.44|0.84|0.494
95865231|NCT01437995|191688869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of change in FEV1/FVC ratio||||0.031
95844790|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.107|0.011|0.017
95844791|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.128|0.032|0.001
95844792|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
95844793|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.159|0.063|<0.001
95844794|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.170|0.074|<0.001
95844795|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.069|-0.026|0.377
95865232|NCT03859973|191688879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.866||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.605|0.833|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.833|-2.605|0.3101
95962810|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.09|-1.04||||||Week 1||-1.04|-29.09|
95962811|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.86|-3.05||||||Week 1||-3.05|-31.86|
95962812|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.465|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.09|3.05||||||Week 2||3.05|-28.09|
95962813|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.338|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|12.5||||||Week 2||12.50|-18.22|
95962814|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.438|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.02|10.03||||||Week 2||10.03|-21.02|
95865233|NCT03859973|191688880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.051||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.778|0.676|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (screening, baseline, week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group, and continuous covariate of change from screening to baseline value.||0.676|-2.778|0.2309
95865234|NCT03859973|191688881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.577||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|2.362|||ANCOVA||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, continuous covariate of baseline value, categorical factor of age group.||2.362|-1.207|0.5237
95844796|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.111|0.015|0.010
95844797|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.100|0.005|0.031
95844798|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.089|-0.006|0.085
95844799|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.079|-0.016|0.199
95844800|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.037|-0.058|0.657
95844801|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.086|-0.022|0.246
95844802|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.154|0.046|<0.001
95844803|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.173|0.064|<0.001
95844804|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.196|0.088|<0.001
95844805|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.178|0.070|<0.001
95844806|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.121|0.014|0.014
95844807|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.141|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.141|0.032|0.002
95844808|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.163|0.057|<0.001
95962815|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.214|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.96|13.93||||||Week 4||13.93|-22.96|
95962816|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.84|0.77||||||Week 4||0.77|-35.84|
95962817|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|15.0||||||Week 4||15.00|-22.85|
95962818|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.452|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.04|29.22||||||Week 6||29.22|-15.04|
95962819|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.688|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.08|7.95||||||Week 6||7.95|-37.08|
95962820|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.808|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.66|13.76||||||Week 6||13.76|-31.66|
95865235|NCT03859973|191688882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.669||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||Least Square Mean of (BI 425809 10 mg + Computerized Cognitive Training) - Least Square Mean of (Placebo + Computerized Cognitive Training)|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) which included the following fixed effects: categorical factor of planned treatment, visit (baseline, Week 6 and Week 12), planned treatment by visit interaction, continuous covariate of baseline value, baseline by visit interaction, categorical factor of age group.||2.172|-3.510|0.6420
95865236|NCT00917644|191688898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.79||||||90.0|94.57|103.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||103.20|94.57|
95865237|NCT00917644|191688900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUClast calculated value.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.72||||||90.0|94.41|103.23|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||103.23|94.41|
95865238|NCT00917644|191688901|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%)|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.66||||||90.0|95.73|114.42|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Observed directly from data.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||114.42|95.73|
95865239|NCT02012582|191688941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Mixed model analysis for TIL with the patient as random effect and study day, cohort, treatment, and interaction between study day and treatment as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Groups||||<0.04
95865240|NCT02012582|191688942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Placebo versus pooled VAS203 Arms/Group||||<0.01
95865241|NCT00470834|191688948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.79
95865242|NCT00470834|191688948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46|||||The hazard ratio is based on the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.46|0.61|
95865243|NCT00470834|191688948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|5.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|39.05|||||Relative Risk Reduction = 100 \* (1 - Relative Risk).|||39.05|-46.14|
95865244|NCT00561977|191688958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|time measurement, treatment group, interaction between time and group term as fixed effect, subject as random effect.||Mean dietary quality score by visit and study group was estimated using SAS PROC MIXED. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.13 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).||||0.14
95865245|NCT00977080|191688992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the IV stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.016
95865246|NCT00977080|191688992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons between treatment groups since the study was designed to evaluate the primary outcome measure by testing a single hypothesis within each stratum independently.|Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 49 participants in each treatment group in the oral stratum, a Fisher's exact test with a 0.050 2-sided significance level will have 81% power to detect a 30% difference in the percentage of participants who achieve iPTH between 150 and 300 pg/mL, assuming the cinacalcet percentage is 36% and the paricalcitol percentage is 66%.||||0.260
95865247|NCT00977080|191688993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95865248|NCT00977080|191688993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.239
95962821|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.057||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.98|32.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||32.98|-9.98|0.8108
95962822|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.845||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.28|4.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||4.98|-37.28|0.1043
95962823|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.355||0.1296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.04|6.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.90|-37.04|0.1296
95962824|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.384||0.345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.49|20.42||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||20.42|-33.49|0.3450
95962825|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.116||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|6.04||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||6.04|-40.40|0.1119
95844809|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.073|-0.035|0.493
95844810|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.096|-0.011|0.119
95844811|NCT03084796|191657175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.030|0.392
95844812|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by visit interaction as covariates."||0.203|0.015|0.023
95844813|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.184|-0.003|0.058
95844814|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.153|-0.035|0.215
95844815|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.187|-0.001|0.051
95844816|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.138|-0.051|0.364
95844817|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.074|-0.112|0.694
95844818|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.044|-0.143|0.297
95865249|NCT00977080|191688994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95865250|NCT00977080|191688994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.704
95865251|NCT00977080|191688995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
95865252|NCT00977080|191688996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95865253|NCT00977080|191688996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95865254|NCT00977080|191688997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
95865255|NCT00977080|191688997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95865256|NCT01332461|191689050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.926|||Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.926|0.455|0.05
95865257|NCT01332461|191689051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.109||COPD-related hospitalization|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.109|0.326|<0.05
95865258|NCT01332461|191689051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.977||COPD-related ER visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.977|0.434|<0.05
95865259|NCT01332461|191689051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.008||COPD-related physician + Rx visit|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||1.008|0.658|<0.05
95865260|NCT01332461|191689051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.785|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.948||COPD-related hospitalization/ER visit/physician+Rx|Log Rank||Covariates for risk models included Charlson Comorbidity Index, presence of asthma, number and quantity of rescue and controller medications, oxygen, and number of COPD healthcare resource use.|||0.948|0.649|<0.05
95844819|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.077|-0.109|0.734
95844820|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.062|-0.124|0.514
95844821|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.095|-0.090|0.957
95844822|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.127|-0.060|0.479
95844823|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.120|-0.079|0.687
95844824|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.165|-0.034|0.195
95844825|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.212|0.011|0.030
95844826|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.179|-0.019|0.112
95844827|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.174|-0.026|0.147
95844828|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.144|-0.054|0.370
95844829|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.190|-0.009|0.074
95844830|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.158|-0.039|0.233
95865261|NCT00750152|191689106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||one-sided p-value from CMH test|0.001||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test after stratification by site compared the proportion of complete cure in NAFT-500 to that of placebo to evaluate its superiority.||"In order to compare complete cure rate in the NAFT-500 group with that in the placebo group, the following one-sided null and alternate hypotheses will be tested:~* H0: p1 \<= p0~* Ha: p1 \> p0 where p0 and p1 denote the proportion of subjects with complete cure in the placebo and NAFT-500 groups, respectively."||||0.025
95865262|NCT00096356|191689110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.64||The a priori significance level was 0.05 for the primary outcome; there is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimate of the difference in arms (Co-Q10 minus placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained such that baseline fatigue was the same in both groups and unadjusted for any baseline covariates.||0.64|-3.39|0.1815
95865263|NCT00096356|191689111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|6.53||0.05 significance level; no multiple comparison adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Higher is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance - constrained to have equal means at baseline, unadjusted for other covariates||6.53|-2.56|.3903
95844831|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.145|-0.054|0.369
95844832|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.112|-0.084|0.773
95844833|NCT03084796|191657176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.068|-0.130|0.536
95844834|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||1.77|0.62|0.848
95844835|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.28|0.80|0.264
95844836|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.76|0.343
95844837|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.98|1.02|0.042
95844838|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.02|0.71|0.503
95844839|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.16|0.76|0.354
95844840|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.07|0.73|0.447
95844841|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.83|0.97|0.064
95844842|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.62|0.57|0.867
95844843|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.22|0.76|0.347
95844844|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.32|0.79|0.269
95844845|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure.~Analysis based on logistic regression model - multiple logistic regression model, with treatment, US regions, smoking status at screening, and BDI as covariates."||3.30|1.12|0.018
95844846|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.49|1.50|<0.001
95844847|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.44|1.75|<0.001
95962826|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.806||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.34|4.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.37|-44.34|0.0885
95962827|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.14||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|43.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||43.98|-22.28|0.7050
95962828|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.519||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.73|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-49.73|0.1833
95962829|NCT04092452|191897242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.277||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.76|23.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||23.94|-42.76|0.3213
95962830|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
95865264|NCT00096356|191689112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.88||0.05 significance level, unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference between treatment groups at 24 weeks (Co-Q10 minus Placebo). Lower is better for this outcome.|Constrained repeated measures analysis of variance, constrained such that the baseline means are equal, unadjusted of other covariates||1.88|-3.25|.6014
95865265|NCT01008423|191689113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||<0.0001
95865266|NCT03602560|191689140|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95865267|NCT03602560|191689140|OTHER|The primary endpoint was analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 2:350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 2:4).|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95865268|NCT03602560|191689141|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison was based on the CMH test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \<350 U/L and 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \<4 and 4). Breslow-Day test was used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95865269|NCT03602560|191689141|OTHER|Two-sided p-value for each pair-wise comparison is based on the Cochran Mantel Haenszel test adjusted for both randomization stratification variables (ALP level: \< 350 U/L and \>= 350 U/L; pruritus NRS: \< 4 and \>= 4). Breslow-Day test is used to check the homogeneity of treatment effects across stratum.||||||0.0839|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0839
95865270|NCT03602560|191689142|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.87|0.0164
95865271|NCT03602560|191689142|OTHER|"Change from baseline is estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (including 3 levels:~Placebo, Initial Dose 5mg, and Initial Dose 10 mg) and randomization ALP stratification as factors, and baseline as a covariate.~The p-value for the interaction between treatment and stratum is 0.7595, hence the interaction is dropped from the model."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.77|0.4781
95865272|NCT00833664|191689187|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|88.1|109.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||109.5|88.1|
95865273|NCT00833664|191689188|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|107.6||||||90.0|104.7|110.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||110.6|104.7|
95865274|NCT00833664|191689189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|98.2||||||90.0|92.7|104.0|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||104.0|92.7|
95865275|NCT01340872|191689190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.81||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA for primary endpoint, Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 12 in double-blind phase, FAS|||1.81|< 0.0001
95865276|NCT01340872|191689194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of the change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 4 of the double-blind phase - Full Analysis Set, multiple imputation|||0.82|< 0.0001
95865277|NCT01340872|191689195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.43||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA analysis of Change in Hb concentration from Baseline to Week 8 of double-blind phase - FAS, multiple imputation|||1.43|< 0.0001
95865278|NCT01340872|191689206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.87||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the PPAS|||1.87|< 0.0001
95865279|NCT01340872|191689207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|1.82||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA sensitivity analysis of the Primary efficacy endpoint analysis on the FAS LOCF - Change in Haemoglobin Concentration from Baseline to Week 12|||1.82|< 0.0001
95865280|NCT04531462|191689216|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: Mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with empagliflozin 10 mg = mean change from baseline in HbA1c after 52 weeks of treatment with placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.36||Threshold level for statistical significance: α = 0.05 .|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed classification effects for treatment, gender, baseline renal function, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction, and a linear covariate for baseline HbA1c and age. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within patient errors. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.36|-0.78|<0.0001
95865281|NCT04531462|191689217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.39|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline muscle mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.39|-1.61|0.2310
95865282|NCT04531462|191689218|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline body fat measurement, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-1.04|-2.65|<0.0001
95865283|NCT04531462|191689219|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.22|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline lean body mass, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.22|-1.28|0.1632
95865284|NCT04531462|191689220|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline total body water, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0384
95865285|NCT04531462|191689221|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline bone mineral content, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.1975
95865286|NCT04531462|191689222|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.081||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.098|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) which included baseline skeletal muscle index, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.098|-0.259|0.3725
95865287|NCT04531462|191689223|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline grip strength, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.5|-1.1|0.4208
95865288|NCT04531462|191689224|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9|||ANCOVA||Empagliflozin 10 mg- Placebo|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) included baseline 5-time chair stand test, age, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), baseline body mass index (BMI) as linear covariates and sex, treatment as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.0|0.9267
95844848|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.02|1.94|<0.001
95844849|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||4.26|1.41|0.001
95844850|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.35|0.78|0.284
95844851|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.84|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.84|0.91|0.103
95844852|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||3.14|1.01|0.045
95865289|NCT04175509|191689225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.378|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.378
95865290|NCT04175509|191689226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.753
95865291|NCT04175509|191689227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95865292|NCT04175509|191689228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95865293|NCT04175509|191689229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95865294|NCT04175509|191689230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95865295|NCT04175509|191689231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95865296|NCT04175509|191689232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95865297|NCT02564432|191689233|EQUIVALENCE|This is not a randomized clinical trial but is an observational study, each patient's thigh skin site served as the control.|Base mean abundance|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value was calculated.|Unweighted UniFrac (qualitative)|Both weighted and unweighted UniFrac were calculated; weighted UniFrac is calculated to be p = 0.398 while unweighted UniFrac was P\<0.03|Differential abundance of Staphylococcus aureus in the stoma calculated by Log2 fold change (y-axis) versus base mean abundance (x-axis)|Sample similarity was calculated using the statistical comparisons of community composition.||||<0.05
95865298|NCT02564432|191689233|OTHER|"In this study, dissimilarities between the stomal and healthy thigh skins were tested.~Observational study. Used only for visualizing trends in the data."|PERMANOVA|0.001|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Each stomal community type was distinguished by both its diversity and taxonomic composition|Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities|||Loess Regression was used to visualize temporal trends in the Shannnon Diversity and relative abundance of microbes (Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Corynebacterium, and obligate anaerobes).|||<0.005
95865299|NCT00039871|191689237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.217||||||99.0|0.195|0.239||||||||0.239|0.195|
95844853|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.12|0.67|0.557
95844854|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.34|0.74|0.345
95844855|NCT03084796|191657177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.00|0.61|0.732
95844856|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the BDI, BDI by visit interaction as covariates."||0.81|-0.52|0.666
95844857|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.07|-0.25|0.224
95844858|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.27|0.239
95865300|NCT00039871|191689238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.563||||||95.0|0.529|0.596||||||||0.596|0.529|
95865301|NCT00039871|191689239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Approximation|0.122||||||95.0|0.076|0.169||||||||0.169|0.076|
95865302|NCT01205581|191689270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.78
95865303|NCT01205581|191689273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95962831|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|2.2||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-6.3|
95844859|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.46|0.13|0.019
95844860|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.14|0.124
95844861|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.92|-0.39|0.432
95865304|NCT01205581|191689274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.51
95865305|NCT01205581|191689275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95865306|NCT01205581|191689276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
95865307|NCT01205581|191689277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95865308|NCT04456673|191689290|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.435||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|-0.188|||Negative binomial model||Derived using delta method|Derived using negative binomial model with the total number of the events occurring during the 52-week treatment period as the response variable, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, baseline disease severity, and number of moderate or severe COPD exacerbation events within one year prior to the study as covariates, and log-transformed treatment duration as an offset variable.||-0.188|-0.682|0.0002
95865309|NCT04456673|191689291|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.082||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.124|||MMRM model|||Derived from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 12 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.124|0.040|0.0001
95962832|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|2.9||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.9|-5.9|
95962833|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-5.2|
95962834|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.1||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.1|-4.3|
95962835|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|4.3||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.3|-4.3|
95962836|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|3.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.8|-4.5|
95962837|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|2.8||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.8|-5.4|
95865310|NCT04456673|191689292|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-3.371||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.811|-0.931|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in SGRQ total score up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline SGRQ total score, and SGRQ baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.931|-5.811|0.0068
95865311|NCT04456673|191689293|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.164||||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|1.581|||Regression, Logistic|||Derived from logistic regression model which includes treatment group, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, and baseline SGRQ total score as covariates.||1.581|0.856|0.3329
95865312|NCT04456673|191689294|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 4 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|0.062||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.113|||MMRM model|||Derived from MMRM model with the change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 up to Week 52 as response variables, and treatment group, age, sex, height, region (pooled country), ICS dose, smoking status at screening, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, and FEV1 baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.113|0.011|0.0182
95844862|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.91|-0.41|0.454
95844863|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.31|-0.01|0.053
95865313|NCT00159822|191689394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|31.7||||||95.0|18.08|48.09|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|For sample size calculation, null hypothesis (p\<p0) is defined as response rate \<15% (ie, weak drug efficacy). Alternative hypothesis (p\>pA) defined as response rate \>30%. To reduce the chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis to 5% (α=5%) and incorrectly rejecting the alternate hypothesis to 20% (β=20%) it was calculated that a sample size of 48 subjects was required. Null hypothesis was rejected (assessing efficacy of study drug) if the number of eligible success was ≥ than n=12.||48.09|18.08|
95865314|NCT00159822|191689395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|33.3||||||95.0|18.6|51.0|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|Month 3 success=yes||51.0|18.6|
95865315|NCT00159822|191689395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with success|43.9||||||95.0|28.5|60.3|||||Number of subjects with successful global outcomes were summarized and 95% two-sided confidence intervals based on the exact Clopper-Pearson method for the binomial distribution provided.|EOT success=yes||60.3|28.5|
95865316|NCT00159822|191689401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier estimate overall survival|0.85||||||95.0|0.725|0.976|||||Global survival rate calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival.|||0.976|0.725|
95865317|NCT00864916|191689416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.52|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.52
95865318|NCT02788279|191689430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.38|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.73|0.9871
95865319|NCT02788279|191689430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.71|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.71|0.83|0.3360
95865320|NCT02788279|191689430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.38|0.74|0.9686
95962838|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|-0.3||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.3|-8.8|
95865321|NCT02788279|191689430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.69|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.69|0.83|0.3553
95865322|NCT02788279|191689431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.65|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.65|0.94|0.1208
95865323|NCT02788279|191689431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.94|||Stratified Log-Rank|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|Hazard ratio was estimated using stratified Cox regression.|||1.94|1.00|0.0509
95962839|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.3||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.3|-6.5|
95962840|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|0.1||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.1|-9.5|
95962841|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|-0.4||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||-0.4|-10.5|
95962842|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|5.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||5.6|-3.6|0.6393
95962843|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|4.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||4.6|-4.4|0.5178
95844864|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.65|-0.67|0.973
95844865|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.04|-0.27|0.247
95844866|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 3~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
95844867|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.28|-0.05|0.071
95844868|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.64|0.32|0.004
95844869|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.68|0.35|0.003
95844870|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||2.18|0.86|<0.001
95844871|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.75|0.41|0.002
95844872|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.03|-0.29|0.271
95844873|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.06|-0.26|0.235
95853755|NCT00771914|191666403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.49
95853756|NCT00771914|191666403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to determine significant differences between the closure time effect (clotting)in seconds from both Aspirin and Lovaza compared to Placebo.||||0.03
95853757|NCT01743469|191666404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.142
95853758|NCT01743469|191666404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>35%).||||1.000
95853759|NCT01743469|191666404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.800
95853760|NCT01743469|191666404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with the prespecified threshold (\>15%).||||0.630
95853761|NCT01743469|191666405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||One-sided alpha of 0.1.|Exact binomial test|||The PFS rate was compared with a prespecified threshold (\>20%).||||0.500
95853762|NCT03253796|191666420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|63.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||63.6|34.1|<0.001
95853763|NCT03253796|191666420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|49.7|||Meittinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||49.7|17.0|<0.001
95853764|NCT03253796|191666423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|19.4|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||19.4|3.3|
95853765|NCT03253796|191666423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.9|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||10.9|-2.8|
95853766|NCT03253796|191666425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
95844874|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.56|0.25|0.007
95844875|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.69|-0.63|0.923
95844876|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.19|-0.12|0.108
95844877|NCT03084796|191657178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 6~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.16|-0.16|0.134
95844878|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|14.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||14.63|1.13|0.022
95844879|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.78||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.48|0.07|0.048
95844880|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.65||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.40|-0.09|0.053
95844881|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.29||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|16.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.04|2.55|0.007
95865324|NCT02788279|191689431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.60|0.92|0.1726
95865325|NCT02788279|191689431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.91|||Unstratified Log-Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated using unstratified Cox regression.|||1.91|1.00|0.0467
95865326|NCT02788279|191689432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.51||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.94|||Stratified Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.94|-3.92|1.0000
95865327|NCT02788279|191689432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|4.89|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors included extended RAS mutation status and time since diagnosis of first metastasis.|95% CI for difference in response rates was constructed using Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.89|-4.89|1.0000
95844882|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.61||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.53|-2.31|0.191
95844883|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.60|-7.80|0.747
95865328|NCT02683746|191689476|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis tested was that the liquid drug product would provide glycemic control non-inferior to the lyophilized drug product for a period of 26 weeks of treatment in participants with T2DM. Non-inferiority testing was performed at a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 0.4.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model|||||0.24|-0.13|0.0002
95865329|NCT02683746|191689484|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14||||||||0.14|-0.83|
95865330|NCT02683746|191689485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.13||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.13|-0.07|<0.0001
95865331|NCT02683746|191689485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.20|-0.07|<0.0001
95844884|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.50|-7.96|0.720
95844885|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.14|-5.31|0.680
95844886|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.57|-6.82|0.971
95844887|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.21|-4.17|0.460
95844888|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.37|-4.09|0.441
95844889|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.76||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|14.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.08|-0.55|0.070
95844890|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.44||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|15.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||15.72|1.16|0.023
95844891|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.96||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.31|-0.40|0.064
95844892|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.08||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|18.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||18.38|3.79|0.003
95844893|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|11.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.72|-3.32|0.274
95844894|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|8.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||8.93|-5.57|0.649
95844895|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||7.51|-7.12|0.958
95844896|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|11.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.58|-2.93|0.242
95844897|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.81|-8.77|0.690
95844898|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|9.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.87|-4.58|0.473
95844899|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.13||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-Visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.43|-3.17|0.267
95844900|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|13.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.99|0.65|0.032
95844901|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.61||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||14.24|0.97|0.025
95844902|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|13.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||13.49|0.12|0.046
95844903|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|16.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||16.85|3.52|0.003
95844904|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||11.25|-2.45|0.207
95844905|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.91|-6.33|0.932
95844906|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||6.14|-7.17|0.879
95844907|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.50|-3.77|0.396
95844908|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||5.83|-7.44|0.812
95865332|NCT02683746|191689485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.24|-0.08|<0.0001
95865333|NCT02683746|191689485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.20|-0.16|<0.0001
95865334|NCT02683746|191689485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.19|-0.15|<0.0001
95865335|NCT02683746|191689485|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||Calculated P-value from a one-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide liquid - Albiglutide lyophilized) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.4%.|MMRM model||Difference in HbA1c levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.20|-0.17|<0.0001
95865336|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.65|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 1 are presented.|||0.65|-0.15|
95865337|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.69|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 2 are presented.|||0.69|-0.20|
95865338|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 3 are presented.|||0.40|-0.42|
95865339|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 4 are presented.|||0.36|-0.42|
95865340|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 5 are presented.|||0.57|-0.19|
95865341|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.55|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 6 are presented.|||0.55|-0.26|
95865342|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.71|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 7 are presented.|||0.71|-0.16|
95865343|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.6|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 8 are presented.|||0.60|-0.22|
95865344|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.47|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 9 are presented.|||0.47|-0.41|
95865345|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 10 are presented.|||0.57|-0.28|
95865346|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 11 are presented.|||0.56|-0.34|
95865347|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 12 are presented.|||0.46|-0.41|
95865348|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 13 are presented.|||0.57|-0.47|
95844909|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||9.19|-4.03|0.444
95844910|NCT03084796|191657179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|10.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||10.04|-3.27|0.319
95844911|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed, using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.18|-0.67|<0.001
95844912|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
95844913|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.02|-0.47|0.067
95844914|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.66|<0.001
95844915|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.47|0.084
95844916|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.39|-0.10|0.243
95844917|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.44|-0.05|0.112
95844918|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.23|0.929
95844919|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.30|-0.19|0.668
95865349|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 16 are presented.|||0.54|-0.41|
95865350|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.53|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 20 are presented.|||0.53|-0.47|
95865351|NCT02683746|191689486|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.14|||||Difference in FPG levels between albiglutide liquid and lyophilized product at Week 26 are presented.|||0.14|-0.83|
95865352|NCT04987944|191689490|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|5.0||||||||5.0|-24.5|
95865353|NCT04987944|191689491|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|11.5||||||||11.5|-19.4|
95865354|NCT04987944|191689492|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.972||||||||0.972|-0.125|
95865355|NCT02614469|191689495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|108.0|||||Fed/Fasting Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||108|98.0|
95865356|NCT02614469|191689496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|99.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.9|102.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||102|96.9|
95962844|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.8|-8.5|0.0864
95962845|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|3.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||3.1|-5.5|0.3172
95962846|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.1384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|1.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.4|-6.8|0.1384
95962847|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|1.5||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||1.5|-7.2|0.1427
95844920|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.11|-0.38|0.281
95844921|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.43|0.134
95844922|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.14|-0.70|0.003
95844923|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.05|-0.61|0.020
95844924|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.62|0.017
95844925|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.24|-0.80|<0.001
95844926|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.06|-0.52|0.115
95844927|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.19|0.532
95962848|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|2.4||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.4|-7.5|0.1975
95962849|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|0.6||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||0.6|-8.5|0.0755
95844928|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.35|-0.21|0.603
95844929|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.17|-0.38|0.460
95962850|NCT04092452|191897243|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|2.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Absolute Score||2.2|-7.3|0.1869
95962851|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.659|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.9|10.59||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||10.59|-17.90|
95962852|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.749|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.16|0.62||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.62|-28.16|
95962853|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.752|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-3.12||||||Week 1 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||-3.12|-31.91|
95962854|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.103|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.91|12.33||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.33|-20.91|
95962855|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.904|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.34|14.24||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||14.24|-18.34|
95962856|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.039|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.34|16.68||||||Week 2 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.68|-16.34|
95962857|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.227|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.29|16.36||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.36|-17.29|
95962858|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.77|8.63||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.63|-24.77|
95962859|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.35|11.22||||||Week 4 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.22|-23.35|
95844930|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD.~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.26|-0.29|0.921
95844931|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.47|0.172
95844932|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.10|-0.46|0.210
95844933|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.17|-0.67|<0.001
95844934|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.06|-0.55|0.016
95844935|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.04|-0.54|0.025
95844936|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
95844937|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.03|-0.48|0.083
95844938|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.36|-0.13|0.355
95844939|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.38|-0.11|0.283
95844940|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.20|-0.29|0.712
95844941|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.27|-0.23|0.877
95853767|NCT03253796|191666425|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.8|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||5.8|-5.9|
95853768|NCT03253796|191666427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.0|0.2|
95962860|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.71|16.63||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.63|-23.71|
95962861|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.84|4.32||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||4.32|-36.84|
95962862|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.27|8.22||||||Week 6 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||8.22|-33.27|
95962863|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.045||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.38|23.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||23.96|-12.38|0.7000
95844942|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.08|-0.41|0.195
95844943|NCT03084796|191657180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.07|-0.43|0.150
95844944|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.967||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.753|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Analyzed using linear mixed model repeated for measurements (MMRM), including treatment, inter-visit period, treatment by inter-visit period interaction, US regions (Midwest, Northeast, South and West), and smoking status at screening as fixed effects, and the baseline value, and baseline by inter-visit period interaction as covariates."||-0.181|-1.753|0.016
95844945|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.606|-0.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.043|-1.606|0.039
95844946|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.227||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.012|-0.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.441|-2.012|0.002
95844947|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.949||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|-0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.164|-1.733|0.018
95844948|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.566||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.242|-1.374|0.169
95844949|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.923|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.923|-0.638|0.720
95844950|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|0.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.523|-1.043|0.515
95844951|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.764|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.800|-0.764|0.963
95844952|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.377|-1.182|0.311
95844953|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.903|0.654|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.654|-0.903|0.754
95865357|NCT02614469|191689500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|118.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||118|90.9|
95962864|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.876||0.2965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|12.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||12.08|-23.70|0.2965
95844954|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.060|-0.503|0.485
95844955|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.349||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|-0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.403|-2.294|0.005
95962865|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.247||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.83|7.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.17|-29.83|0.1568
95962866|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.912||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|11.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||11.17|-24.73|0.2672
95844956|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.159||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.218|-2.100|0.016
95844957|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.466||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-0.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.516|-2.416|0.003
95844958|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.396||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.337|-0.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.454|-2.337|0.004
95844959|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.824||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.797|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.150|-1.797|0.097
95844960|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.126|-0.746|0.690
95844961|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.827|-1.061|0.808
95844962|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.983|0.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.889|-0.983|0.922
95844963|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.307||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|0.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.634|-1.248|0.522
95844964|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.237||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.696|-1.170|0.618
95844965|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|1.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||1.012|-0.871|0.884
95844966|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.158||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.978|-0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.337|-1.978|0.006
95853769|NCT03253796|191666427|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|29.1|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||29.1|0.2|
95853770|NCT03253796|191666429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|40.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||40.3|8.5|
95853771|NCT03253796|191666429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|21.3|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||21.3|-9.9|
95853772|NCT03253796|191666431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|39.0|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||39.0|9.1|
95853773|NCT03253796|191666431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|37.7|||||Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor|||37.7|7.3|
95844967|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.992||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.808|-0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.175|-1.808|0.017
95844968|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.346||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|-0.524|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.524|-2.168|0.001
95844969|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.172||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.991|-0.353|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||-0.353|-1.991|0.005
95844970|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment F (Tiotropium 18 μg TDD) versus Treatment E (Placebo).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.149|-1.539|0.107
95844971|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.980|-0.648|0.689
95844972|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.630|-1.007|0.651
95844973|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.801|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment A (CHF 5259 pMDI 12.5 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.801|-0.830|0.973
95844974|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.355||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.461|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.461|-1.170|0.393
95844975|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.181||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment B (CHF 5259 pMDI 25 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.632|-0.993|0.663
95844976|NCT03084796|191657181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.643|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups for this analysis were:~Treatment D (CHF 5259 pMDI 100 μg TDD) versus Treatment C (CHF 5259 pMDI 50 μg TDD).~Statistical analysis was performed as described for the statistical analysis 1 of this outcome measure."||0.991|-0.643|0.676
95962867|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.517||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.87|0.73||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||0.73|-33.87|0.0576
95844977|NCT05579977|191657254|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.20|<.0001
95844978|NCT05579977|191657254|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.04|-1.55|<.0001
95844979|NCT05579977|191657254|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.62|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.62|<.0001
95844980|NCT05579977|191657254|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.01|-1.52|<.0001
95844981|NCT05579977|191657254|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001||90.0|-1.55|-1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.03|-1.55|<.0001
95844982|NCT05579977|191657254|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
95844983|NCT05579977|191657255|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.44||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.00|-3.88|0.0055
95844984|NCT05579977|191657255|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.84|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.89|-5.84|<.0001
95844985|NCT05579977|191657255|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.07|-4.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.18|-7.07|<.0001
95844986|NCT05579977|191657255|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.58|-6.50|<.0001
95844987|NCT05579977|191657255|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.91|-3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.93|-6.91|<.0001
95844988|NCT05579977|191657258|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.12|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.12|<.0001
95962868|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.603||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.74|5.44||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||5.44|-32.74|0.1197
95962869|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.545||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.91|16.65||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||16.65|-27.91|0.3388
95962870|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.567||0.1376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|7.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 - Statistical Analysis (MI) - Percent Change from Baseline||7.51|-37.12|0.1376
95962871|NCT04092452|191897244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.86||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.12|14.48||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.48|-31.12|0.2741
95962872|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|10.3||||||Week 4||10.3|-13.0|
95844989|NCT02679287|191657282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in percentage of time \<70 mg/dL in SAP vs. evening-overnight CLC session. Change in HbA1c during study sessions was used as a covariate of the model.||2.4|1.2|<0.0001
95844990|NCT01928927|191657291|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.73|0.26|0.97
95844991|NCT01928927|191657292|SUPERIORITY||Theta statistic|0.57||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Theta statistic; DeLong & Clarke-Pearson||The theta statistic estimates the probability that a randomly selected outcome from the telmisartan arm is \<= a randomly selected outcome from the control arm.|Null hypothesis: theta = 0.50||0.83|0.31|0.61
95844992|NCT01420926|191657359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Stratified 1-sided log-rank|||||||0.30
95844993|NCT00932321|191657365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary hypothesis tested was the independence (lack of association) of mean number of IB days in Cycles 2-6 across treatment groups.||||||0.311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by investigational site.||||||0.311
95865358|NCT02614469|191689501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.1|112.0|||||Fed/Fasted Ratio|To assess the effect of food on the PK of urate, analyses of variance (ANOVA) using a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters of urate. The linear mixed-effects model will include subject as a random effect, and treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects. The 90% confidence intervals were constructed for the ratio of geometric means of PK parameters between fed and fasted treatments, based on log-transformed data.||112|62.1|
95865359|NCT04121078|191689507|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for Cmax based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed Cmax with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for Cmax. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|6.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.62|8.42||||||||8.42|4.62|
95865360|NCT04121078|191689508|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUC∞ based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUC∞ with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUC∞. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.25|6.25||||||||6.25|4.25|
95865361|NCT04121078|191689509|EQUIVALENCE|Point estimate and its 90% CI were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A ratio of geometric means for AUClast based on the mixed-effect model of log-transformed AUClast with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of geometric means is entirely contained within 80% to 125% for AUClast. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.29|6.32||||||||6.32|4.29|
95865362|NCT03222492|191689514|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
95844994|NCT02849418|191657376|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-0.19|||||The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, Baseline value, Baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|||-0.19|-5.85|
95844995|NCT01405768|191657456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
95844996|NCT01405768|191657458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.13
95844997|NCT03692208|191657460|OTHER|Quantitative outcomes from chart and survey data were summarized by basic descriptive statistics.|||||<|0.01||||||P-values were calculated. Only P values of \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests, Fisher's Exact tests, two-sample t-tests, and paired two-sample t-tests were utilized to assess the outcomes between study arms.||||||<0.01
95844998|NCT02792231|191657517|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.56|||negative binomial regression model|||Obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression model with log-link to the number of relapses, adjusted for treatment and region as factors, number of relapses in previous year, baseline EDSS, baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesions and the patient's age at baseline as covariates. The natural log of the time-in-study was used as offset to annualize the relapse rate.||0.560|0.309|<0.001
95844999|NCT02792231|191657518|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.863|||Regression, Cox|||Pooled data - this study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.863|0.500|0.003
95865363|NCT03222492|191689514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.444
95865364|NCT03222492|191689515|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
95865365|NCT03222492|191689515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.400
95865366|NCT03222492|191689516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
95865367|NCT03222492|191689516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
95845000|NCT02792231|191657519|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.662||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.977|0.449|0.038
95845001|NCT02792231|191657520|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.676||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.917|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.917|0.498|0.012
95845002|NCT02792231|191657521|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.759||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.174|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.174|0.490|0.215
95845003|NCT02792231|191657522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.928|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||1.928|0.952|0.092
95845004|NCT02792231|191657523|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.523||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|2.477|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||2.477|0.936|0.090
95845005|NCT02792231|191657524|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.061|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.101|||negative binomial regression model|||||0.101|0.037|<.001
95845006|NCT02792231|191657525|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.27|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 12||0.27|0.17|<.001
95865368|NCT03222492|191689516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
95845007|NCT02792231|191657525|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||negative binomial regression model|||Month 24||0.31|0.12|<.001
95845008|NCT02792231|191657525|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.19|||negative binomial regression model|||End of Study||0.19|0.13|<.001
95845009|NCT02792231|191657526|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 3||0.93|0.85|<.001
95845010|NCT02792231|191657526|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 12||0.79|0.70|<.001
95845011|NCT02792231|191657526|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Month 24||0.81|0.71|<.001
95845012|NCT02792231|191657527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15|||random coefficient model|||||0.15|-0.02|0.128
95845013|NCT02792231|191657530|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.486|0.847|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.847|0.486|0.002
95845014|NCT02792231|191657531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.898|||Regression, Cox|||This study was not powered for the analysis of this endpoint individually. It was pre-specified in the study protocol to combine the data from this study with study COMB157G2301 to address this endpoint.||0.898|0.481|0.008
95845015|NCT00558246|191657558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|Differences in proportion of successes|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||5.9|-5.9|1.0000
95845016|NCT00558246|191657559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95845017|NCT00558246|191657560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95845018|NCT00558246|191657561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2266|||||||McNemar|||||||0.2266
95845019|NCT00558246|191657562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5078||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.5078
95845020|NCT04244253|191657583|SUPERIORITY||Difference of score|-1.1||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Mixed-model repeated measures|MMRM included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction using an unstructured covariance matrix.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||1.0|-3.3|0.288
95845021|NCT04244253|191657584|OTHER||Difference in response rate|5.6||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|16.8|||χ2 test|The MADRS response rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and the placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||16.8|-5.6|0.329
95845022|NCT04244253|191657585|OTHER||Difference of Proportion|1.5||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.3|||χ2 test|The MADRS remission rate in the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group were compared using the χ2 test in the LOCF dataset.||The statistical analysis was performed at Week 6 to compare the OPC-64005 20-mg group and placebo group.||10.3|-7.2|0.731
95865369|NCT03222492|191689516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
95865370|NCT03222492|191689516|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
95865371|NCT03222492|191689516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.500
95865372|NCT03222492|191689517|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
95865373|NCT03222492|191689517|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
95845023|NCT01544920|191657594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in SVR24 % exceeded -10%.|Difference in SVR24% in Arm 2 vs. Arm 1|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5||||||Difference in percentage of participants achieving SVR24||6.5|-3.2|
95845024|NCT01544920|191657595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The observed lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was 2.5% (which exceeds 0) for BOC added to peg-IFN + RBV in contrast to peg-IFN + RBV alone.|Difference in SVR24%|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1||||||||18.1|2.5|
95845025|NCT00411749|191657610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95845026|NCT00411749|191657611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95845027|NCT00411749|191657612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95845028|NCT00411749|191657613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95845029|NCT00411749|191657614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|155.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.2|190.9||||||||190.9|126.2|
95865374|NCT03222492|191689518|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||1.000
95845030|NCT00411749|191657614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|198.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.9|244.2||||||||244.2|160.9|
95845031|NCT00411749|191657614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|617.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|491.7|774.5||||||||774.5|491.7|
95845032|NCT00411749|191657614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|117.8||||||||117.8|68.8|
95845033|NCT03001557|191657638|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|3.177||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|7.096||Based on a mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM) analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.096|-0.741|0.1099
95845034|NCT03001557|191657638|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.802||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|6.723||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.723|-1.119|0.1576
95845035|NCT03001557|191657638|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.96||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.777|2.857||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.857|-4.777|0.6160
95845036|NCT03001557|191657638|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.713||||0.7135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|4.585||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||4.585|-3.160|0.7135
95845037|NCT03001557|191657642|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.098||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|2.045||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.045|-12.240|0.1582
95845038|NCT03001557|191657642|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-6.105||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.332|1.122||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.122|-13.332|0.0961
95845039|NCT03001557|191657642|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.68||||0.8449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.262|7.623||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.623|-6.262|0.8449
95845040|NCT03001557|191657642|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.14||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.178|3.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.897|-10.178|0.3747
95845041|NCT03001557|191657646|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.932||||0.3966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.601|6.465||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.465|-2.601|0.3966
95845042|NCT03001557|191657646|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.386||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|7.897||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||7.897|-1.125|0.1381
95845043|NCT03001557|191657646|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.337||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.104|5.778||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||5.778|-3.104|0.5487
95845044|NCT03001557|191657646|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.32||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|8.793||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||8.793|-0.153|0.0581
95865375|NCT03222492|191689518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.467
95865376|NCT03222492|191689519|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||1.000
95865377|NCT03222492|191689519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.400
95865378|NCT03222492|191689520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.464
95865379|NCT03222492|191689520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.500
95865380|NCT03222492|191689520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.250
95865381|NCT03222492|191689520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.167
95865382|NCT03222492|191689520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.083
95962873|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.7|1.8||||||Week 4||1.8|-18.7|
95845045|NCT03001557|191657650|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.437||||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.481|1.608||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.608|-8.481|0.1777
95845046|NCT03001557|191657650|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.458||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.564|6.479||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||6.479|-3.564|0.5630
95865383|NCT03222492|191689520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.083
95865384|NCT03222492|191689521|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||1.000
95865385|NCT03222492|191689521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 12||||0.429
95865386|NCT03222492|191689522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.286
95865387|NCT03222492|191689522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 24||||0.067
95865388|NCT03222492|191689523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 36||||0.100
95865389|NCT03222492|191689524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||0.100
95865390|NCT03222492|191689535|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
95865391|NCT03222492|191689535|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
95865392|NCT03222492|191689536|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95962874|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|14.1||||||Week 4||14.1|-10.7|
95962875|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|17.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||17.7|-4.6|0.8372
95962876|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||1.3|-14.1|0.0819
95962877|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|-0.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||-0.9|-15.2|0.0242
95865393|NCT03222492|191689536|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-value is from comparing the number of participants with the AEs of interest between the two treatment groups using Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||Treatment start to Week 48||||1.000
95865394|NCT03512457|191689556|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square||||||0.12||||||P-value of \<0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance. The hypothesis was that more women randomized to the intensive intervention would perform skin self-examination.|Chi-squared|Chi-Squared is equal to 1.58, with a P-Value of 0.12.||change from baseline to 3 months in performance of skin self-examination Parallel: response rate||||0.12
95962878|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.1|-2.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-2.3|-23.1|0.0264
95865395|NCT03512457|191689557|SUPERIORITY|Types of lesions in the following categories: Benign nevus, seborrheic keratosis, lentigo, dermatofibroma, atypical nevus. melanoma|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||results of skin clinical examination and biopsy of clinically suspicious moles||||<0.05
95865396|NCT03073733|191689569|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|5.8|||linear model for repeated measures|||||5.8|-10.3|0.582
95865397|NCT03073733|191689569|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.0|||linear model for repeated measures|||||8.0|-8.2|0.984
95865398|NCT03073733|191689570|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|1.2986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8744||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1341|3.7313|||linear model for repeated measures|||||3.7313|-1.1341|0.290
95865399|NCT03073733|191689570|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7793||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6516|1.9433|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1.9433|-2.6516|0.759
95865400|NCT03073733|191689571|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-278.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|305.192||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1126.21|568.75|||linear model for repeated measures|||||568.75|-1126.21|0.515
95865401|NCT03073733|191689571|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|292.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|308.659||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-562.87|1147.23|||linear model for repeated measures|||||1147.23|-562.87|0.499
95865402|NCT03073733|191689572|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.3|-2.1|0.160
95865403|NCT03073733|191689572|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.9|-1.5|0.622
95865404|NCT03073733|191689573|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.176|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.176|-0.399|0.442
95962879|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.1|-3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-3.9|-25.1|0.0127
95845047|NCT03001557|191657650|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-4.994||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|-0.041||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-0.041|-9.946|0.0482
95845048|NCT03001557|191657650|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-2.593||||0.3036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|2.413||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.413|-7.599|0.3036
95845049|NCT03001557|191657654|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.845||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|12.313||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||12.313|-2.624|0.1991
95845050|NCT03001557|191657654|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-3.872||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.263|3.518||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||3.518|-11.263|0.2982
95845051|NCT03001557|191657654|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.776||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|14.025||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||14.025|-0.474|0.0664
95962880|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|-6.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||-6.2|-27.0|0.0059
95845052|NCT03001557|191657654|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.017||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.344|10.379||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||10.379|-4.344|0.4148
95845053|NCT03001557|191657658|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.063||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.452|2.579||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.579|-2.452|0.9599
95845054|NCT03001557|191657658|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.238||||0.8541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.817|2.342||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, Visit and treatment by Visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.342|-2.817|0.8541
95845055|NCT03001557|191657658|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.293||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.745|2.16||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2.160|-2.745|0.8117
95845056|NCT03001557|191657658|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.557||||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|1.0||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1.000|-4.113|0.2274
95845057|NCT03001557|191657662|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.086||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.232||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.232|-0.060|0.2421
95845058|NCT03001557|191657662|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.012||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.131||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.131|-0.155|0.8661
95845059|NCT03001557|191657662|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.199||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.199|-0.085|0.4251
95845060|NCT03001557|191657662|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.025||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.166||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.166|-0.116|0.7248
95845061|NCT03001557|191657666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.032||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.029||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.029|-0.094|0.2991
95845062|NCT03001557|191657666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.033||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.095||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.095|-0.028|0.2861
95865405|NCT03073733|191689573|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1037||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.409|||linear model for repeated measures|||||0.409|-0.165|0.401
95845063|NCT03001557|191657666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.052||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.009||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.009|-0.113|0.0938
95845064|NCT03001557|191657666|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.005||||0.8618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.066||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.066|-0.055|0.8618
95845065|NCT03001557|191657670|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-389.873||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.177|-40.569||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-40.569|-739.177|0.0294
95845066|NCT03001557|191657670|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-402.994||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.67|-54.319||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-54.319|-751.670|0.0243
95845067|NCT03001557|191657670|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-141.026||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.805|207.752||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||207.752|-489.805|0.4209
95845068|NCT03001557|191657670|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-367.845||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-717.87|-17.82||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||-17.820|-717.870|0.0398
95845069|NCT03001557|191657674|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1276.18||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2878.587|326.226||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||326.226|-2878.587|0.1162
95845070|NCT03001557|191657674|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|227.464||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1382.85|1837.777||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1837.777|-1382.850|0.7781
95845071|NCT03001557|191657674|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-620.581||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2170.342|929.179||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||929.179|-2170.342|0.4255
95845072|NCT03001557|191657674|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-577.82||||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2160.337|1004.697||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1004.697|-2160.337|0.4672
95962881|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.97||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|3.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||3.5|-22.7|0.1185
95962882|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.6|-5.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-5.6|-26.6|0.0040
95962883|NCT04092452|191897245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|-1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||-1.1|-24.5|0.0418
95962884|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||24.8|-0.7|0.0559
95962885|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|21.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||21.4|-1.9|0.0758
95962886|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|23.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Pain at its Worst)||23.2|-0.6|0.0637
95962887|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.84||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|18.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||18.8|-10.3|0.3179
95845073|NCT03001557|191657678|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-839.088||||0.2984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2440.854|762.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||762.678|-2440.854|0.2984
95845074|NCT03001557|191657678|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|651.922||||0.4218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.835|2266.678||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||2266.678|-962.835|0.4218
95865406|NCT03073733|191689575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.205
95865407|NCT03073733|191689576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.157
95865408|NCT03073733|191689577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
95962888|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|25.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||25.5|-3.5|0.1078
95962889|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|22.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Pain at its Worst)||22.2|-7.0|0.1976
95845075|NCT03001557|191657678|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-447.245||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1998.44|1103.95||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1103.950|-1998.440|0.5655
95845076|NCT03001557|191657678|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-130.603||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1706.478|1445.272||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||1445.272|-1706.478|0.8686
95865409|NCT03073733|191689578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
95865410|NCT03073733|191689579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.2)||||||0.099
95865411|NCT03073733|191689579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9)||||||0.130
95865412|NCT03073733|191689580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0959|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0959
95865413|NCT03073733|191689581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1868|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1868
95865414|NCT03073733|191689582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
95865415|NCT03073733|191689583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.264
95865416|NCT03073733|191689583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.9)||||||0.139
95865417|NCT03073733|191689584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 7.9)||||||0.261
95865418|NCT03073733|191689584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.3)||||||0.139
95865419|NCT03073733|191689585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.8).||||||0.350
95865420|NCT03073733|191689585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.500
95962890|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.3|-3.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||-3.6|-34.3|0.9738
95962891|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.3|22.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||22.9|-11.3|0.2925
95962892|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|13.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Pain at its Worst)||13.7|-19.8|0.6178
95845077|NCT03001557|191657682|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.02||||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.074||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.074|-0.034|0.4638
95845078|NCT03001557|191657682|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.115||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.115|0.005|0.0322
95845079|NCT03001557|191657682|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.003||||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.056||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM|||||0.056|-0.051|0.9144
95845080|NCT03001557|191657682|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.057||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.11||Based on a MMRM analysis adjusted for baseline value, country, visit and treatment by visit interaction|MMRM|||||0.110|0.004|0.0364
95845081|NCT00718510|191657689|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||General Psychopathology Subscale Score|ANOVA|F(1,11)=5.03||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PANSS between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time). A sample size of 14 patients was needed to give 90% power to detect a 4 point difference on the PANSS. This included a drop-out rate of about 10%.||||<0.05
95845082|NCT00718510|191657690|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CGI ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.46
95845083|NCT00718510|191657691|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CDSS ratings between L-arginine and Placebo. A two-factor ANOVA was used across all subjects with the within-subject factor being the treatment phase (L-arginine first/Placebo second or Placebo first/L-arginine second) and the between-subject factor being the day of treatment (time).||||0.55
95845084|NCT01147666|191657692|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95845085|NCT01147666|191657692|OTHER|||||||0.0698||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0698
95845086|NCT01147666|191657692|OTHER|||||||0.1534||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1534
95845087|NCT01147666|191657692|OTHER|||||||0.2657||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2657
95845088|NCT01147666|191657693|OTHER|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95845089|NCT00423657|191657711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure between ceftaroline and vancomycin plus aztreonam was calculated. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95%CI was higher than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Vancomycin plus Aztreonam clinical cure rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in clinical cure rate of ceftaroline in comparison with vancomycin plus aztreonam in adult subjects with cSSSI.||5.0|-5.8|
95845090|NCT01135134|191657719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95865421|NCT03073733|191689586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.9).||||||0.220
95865422|NCT03073733|191689586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 1.9).||||||0.119
95865423|NCT03073733|191689587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.7)||||||0.006
95865424|NCT03073733|191689588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.009
95865425|NCT03073733|191689589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.029
95865426|NCT03073733|191689590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.010
95845091|NCT01135134|191657720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95845092|NCT02653326|191657733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95845093|NCT02653326|191657734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95845094|NCT00628030|191657746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.008
95845095|NCT00628030|191657747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.041
95845096|NCT00628030|191657748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.61
95845097|NCT00628030|191657749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95845098|NCT00628030|191657750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.024
95845099|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.288|0.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 1||0.190|-0.288|0.7239
95845100|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.163|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 2||0.163|-0.127|0.8351
95845101|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.287|0.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 3||0.110|-0.287|0.4541
95845102|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.272|0.093|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 4||0.093|-0.272|0.4148
95845103|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.086||||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.082|0.254|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 5||0.254|-0.082|0.3887
95845104|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.195||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.093|0.484|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 6||0.484|-0.093|0.2594
95845105|NCT01009060|191657762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.139|0.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Week 7||0.344|-0.139|0.4778
95845106|NCT01009060|191657763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.737||||0.6947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.884|2.409|||ANCOVA|||||2.409|-3.884|0.6947
95845107|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.252||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.535|0.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Speed of Processing/Simple Reaction Time|||0.030|-0.535|0.1399
95865427|NCT03073733|191689591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.072
95865428|NCT03073733|191689592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.9)||||||0.019
95865429|NCT03073733|191689592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.019
95865430|NCT03073733|191689593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95865431|NCT03073733|191689594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95865432|NCT03073733|191689595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
95865433|NCT03073733|191689596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 56.3)||||||0.075
95865434|NCT03073733|191689596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 25.2)||||||0.062
95865435|NCT03073733|191689597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.9)||||||0.255
95865436|NCT03073733|191689597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.7)||||||0.109
95865437|NCT03073733|191689598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 0.7).||||||0.488
95865438|NCT03073733|191689598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 2.5)||||||0.273
95865439|NCT03073733|191689599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95865440|NCT03073733|191689600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95865441|NCT03073733|191689601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
95865442|NCT03073733|191689602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
95865443|NCT03073733|191689603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 8.2)||||||0.019
95865444|NCT03073733|191689603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.7)||||||0.011
95962893|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.4|-4.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||-4.4|-37.4|0.9769
95962894|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.6|13.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||13.2|-21.6|0.6529
95865445|NCT03073733|191689604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
95865446|NCT03073733|191689605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.096
95865447|NCT03073733|191689606|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
95865448|NCT03073733|191689607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 51.5)||||||0.076
95865449|NCT03073733|191689607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 26.1)||||||0.057
95865450|NCT03073733|191689608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 29.0)||||||0.117
95865451|NCT03073733|191689608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 9.5)||||||0.083
95865452|NCT03073733|191689609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 6.7)||||||0.172
95865453|NCT03073733|191689609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.98)||||||0.140
95865454|NCT03073733|191689610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 5.4).||||||0.011
95865455|NCT03073733|191689611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0406
95865456|NCT03073733|191689612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95865457|NCT03073733|191689613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.026
95865458|NCT03073733|191689614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
95865459|NCT03073733|191689615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 22.2)||||||0.030
95865460|NCT03073733|191689615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Pooled t-test (variance ratio of 3.3)||||||0.033
95865461|NCT03073733|191689616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
95865462|NCT03073733|191689617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.200
95865463|NCT03073733|191689618|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95865464|NCT03073733|191689619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 606.4)||||||0.080
95865465|NCT03073733|191689619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 52.3)||||||0.050
95865466|NCT03073733|191689620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 35.7)||||||0.099
95865467|NCT03073733|191689620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 17.6)||||||0.076
95865468|NCT03073733|191689621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1099|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 4.5)||||||0.1099
95865469|NCT03073733|191689621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Unpooled t-test (variance ratio of 14.3)||||||0.012
95865470|NCT03050775|191689643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.807
95865471|NCT03050775|191689643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.085|0.358
95865472|NCT03050775|191689644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~30 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.3|0.823
95865473|NCT03050775|191689644|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~60 minutes post-induction. Data was obtained from 33 subjects in the treatment group.||0.3|-0.2|0.853
95865474|NCT03050775|191689644|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||\~120 minutes post-induction||0.2|-0.2|0.986
95865475|NCT03050775|191689645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||Post-operative shivering observed||5.9|0.5|0.540
95865476|NCT03050775|191689646|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.672
95865477|NCT03050775|191689647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Data was obtained from 32 subjects in the treatment group.||0.1|-0.2|0.571
95865478|NCT03050775|191689648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.7|||Fisher Exact|||||3.7|0.5|0.619
95865479|NCT03050775|191689649|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|75.0||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|250.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||250|-100|0.404
95845108|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179||||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.176|0.534|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Attention/Vigilance|||0.534|-0.176|0.3992
95845109|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.391||||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.845|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory|||0.845|-0.063|0.1547
95845110|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.279||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.127|0.685|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Visual Learning|||0.685|-0.127|0.2531
95845111|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.398||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.167|0.963|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Verbal Learning|||0.963|-0.167|0.2417
95865480|NCT01727700|191689650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-6.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.34||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard deviation \[SD\] of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-2.34|-10.18|0.0020
95865481|NCT01727700|191689650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|-5.86||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||Assuming 5% of participants may drop out of the trial without a postbaseline efficacy evaluation, a total of 126 participants were required to provide at least 80% power to detect a treatment difference of -5 (common standard SD of 8.5) between at least 1 of 2 aripiprazole dose levels and placebo in the primary outcome.||-5.86|-13.84|<0.0001
95865482|NCT01727700|191689651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.03||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.52||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.52|-1.54|0.0001
95865483|NCT01727700|191689651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.49||The Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.||||-0.49|-1.54|0.0002
95865484|NCT01727700|191689652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-13.26||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|-5.08||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.08|-21.43|0.0017
95865485|NCT01727700|191689652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-19.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-11.04||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.04|-27.70|<0.0001
95962895|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.36||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|4.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Pain at its Worst)||4.3|-29.8|0.8878
95962896|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|10.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||10.4|-22.9|0.7259
95962897|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.24||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|31.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||31.6|-2.1|0.0826
95962898|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.1|8.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Pain at its Worst)||8.0|-24.1|0.7884
95962899|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.43||0.9326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|1.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||1.1|-33.2|0.9326
95845112|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.055|0.409|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Reasoning/Problem Solving|||0.409|-0.055|0.2069
95845113|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.262|0.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Social Cognition|||0.322|-0.262|0.8645
95845114|NCT01009060|191657764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.7873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.364|0.503|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure||For Working Memory (Two-Back Memory)|||0.503|-0.364|0.7873
95845115|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.024||||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.872|-1.175|||ANCOVA||For Speed of Processing|||-1.175|-6.872|0.0225
95845116|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24||||0.3317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|1.605|||ANCOVA||For Attention/Vigilance|||1.605|-6.085|0.3317
95845117|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.038||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.482|1.406|||ANCOVA||For Working Memory|||1.406|-5.482|0.3243
95845118|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.746||||0.7497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.667|3.175|||ANCOVA||For Visual Learning|||3.175|-4.667|0.7497
95845119|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.112||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.537|6.761|||ANCOVA||For Verbal Learning|||6.761|-0.537|0.1585
95845120|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.972||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.709|4.654|||ANCOVA||For Reasoning and Problem Solving|||4.654|-2.709|0.6582
95845121|NCT01009060|191657765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.338||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.316|4.639|||ANCOVA||For Social Cognition|||4.639|-5.316|0.9092
95865486|NCT01727700|191689653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.33||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-1.27|0.0010
95865487|NCT01727700|191689653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.44||Treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, region, and weight group were fixed categorical effects; baseline value as a fixed covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.41|0.0002
95865488|NCT01727700|191689654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.36||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.88||P-value derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||1.88|0.98|0.0835
95865489|NCT01727700|191689654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response ratio|1.61||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.16||P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Response ratio \> 1 favors aripiprazole.||||2.16|1.20|0.0014
95865490|NCT01727700|191689655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|1.16||||0.9187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|7.05||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.05|0.19|0.9187
95865491|NCT01727700|191689655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9576||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.9576
95865492|NCT01727700|191689655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Discontinuation ratio|4.06||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|14.95||Discontinuation ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from CMH General Association Test adjusting for region and weight group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.95|1.10|0.0132
95865493|NCT01727700|191689655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.51||||0.0278||||||Hazard ratio \< 1 favors aripiprazole. P-value derived from Cox proportional hazard regression adjusting for region and weight group.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.0278
95865494|NCT03493815|191689676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.9|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||1.90|0.28|0.51
95845122|NCT01009060|191657766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.024||||0.4406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.237|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||1.190|-3.237|0.4406
95845123|NCT01009060|191657767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.876||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.743|2.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||2.990|-6.743|0.5197
95845124|NCT01009060|191657768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.824||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.334|5.982|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||||5.982|-2.334|0.4637
95845125|NCT00657046|191657780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.693
95845126|NCT00657046|191657780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.807
95845127|NCT00657046|191657781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.212
95865495|NCT03493815|191689677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.18|||binary regression w/ comp log-log link||Ultrasound guided is the numerator and traditional is the denominator.|||2.18|0.15|0.41
95865496|NCT03493815|191689678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95865497|NCT03493815|191689679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
95865498|NCT03811093|191689680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.036|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.828||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. Change in Body Fat Percentage.||2.828|1.243|<0.01
95865499|NCT03811093|191689680|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Percent of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -.83 and standard deviation 1.50218."||||0.20
95865500|NCT03811093|191689680|OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.075
95962900|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.1|12.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||12.2|-22.1|0.6810
95845128|NCT00657046|191657781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.230
95845129|NCT00657046|191657782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.712
95845130|NCT00657046|191657782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.607|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.607
95845131|NCT00657046|191657783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.4602
95845132|NCT00657046|191657783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.940
95845133|NCT00657046|191657784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.376
95845134|NCT00657046|191657784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.903
95845135|NCT00657046|191657785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.319
95845136|NCT00657046|191657785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.408
95845137|NCT00657046|191657786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.004
95845138|NCT00657046|191657786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.030
95845139|NCT00657046|191657787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate||||||0.025
95845140|NCT00657046|191657787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|GLM model with baseline as a covariate.||||||0.022
95845141|NCT00657046|191657788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.082
95865501|NCT03811093|191689681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.063|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.829|10.296||p-value is calculated using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change over time in measured body circumference. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. measured body circumference.||10.296|3.829|<0.01
95865502|NCT03811093|191689681|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of Total Inches Lost or Gained is normal with mean -7.136 and standard deviation 5.796."||||0.20
95962901|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.52||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Pain at its Worst)||7.0|-27.6|0.8308
95845142|NCT00657046|191657788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95845143|NCT00300755|191657792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||<0.001
95845144|NCT00300755|191657792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.063
95845145|NCT00300755|191657792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||< 0.001
95845146|NCT00300755|191657792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.004
95845147|NCT00300755|191657792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.082
95845148|NCT00300755|191657792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis with treatment group and baseline age as fixed effects, and baseline GERD symptom score and baseline antacid use as covariates||Between group analysis of final week change from baseline.||||0.217
95845149|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.002
95845150|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Vomiting/regurgitation.||||0.033
95845151|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||<0.001
95845152|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Choking/gagging.||||0.002
95845153|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Refusal to eat.||||0.009
95845154|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.004
95845155|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Difficulty swallowing.||||0.044
95845156|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.002
95845157|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
95845158|NCT00300755|191657793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for symptom Abdominal/belly pain.||||0.026
95845159|NCT00300755|191657794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Cough without cold.||||0.004
95845160|NCT00300755|191657794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group analysis of final week change from baseline for Noisy breathing.||||0.047
95845161|NCT01506271|191657796|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|MK-7655 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-6.2|< 0.001
95845162|NCT01506271|191657796|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.8|-2.0|< 0.001
95845163|NCT01506271|191657797|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.5|-4.7|0.979
95845164|NCT01506271|191657797|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||1.5|-6.2|0.153
95845165|NCT01506271|191657798|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference.|Percentage Difference|0.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||4.7|-2.4|0.324
95845166|NCT01506271|191657798|OTHER|Test for a non-zero difference|Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.2|-3.3|> 0.999
95845167|NCT01506271|191657799|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|20.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||20.1|-5.4|
95845168|NCT01506271|191657799|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|18.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||18.8|-6.7|
95845169|NCT01506271|191657800|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-10.3|
95845170|NCT01506271|191657800|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||10.1|-5.0|
95845171|NCT01506271|191657801|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|12.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.7|-4.5|
95845172|NCT01506271|191657801|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|12.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||12.8|-4.4|
95845173|NCT01506271|191657802|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||3.9|-4.0|
95845174|NCT01506271|191657802|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-4.8|
95845175|NCT01506271|191657803|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.3|-6.7|
95845176|NCT01506271|191657803|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-3.7|
95845177|NCT01506271|191657804|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0.6|-7.5|
95845178|NCT01506271|191657804|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|2.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||2.4|-6.7|
95865503|NCT03811093|191689681|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||0.44
95865504|NCT03811093|191689682|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4703|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3372|6.6034||p-value is computed using SPSS.|t-test, 2 sided|||Designed as a superiority trial with the aim of establishing whether the intervention was superior or inferior to a placebo in effectiveness as a therapy for change in body fat, measured in pounds. The null hypothesis states that in the population from where the sample was obtained there was no difference between the intervention (invisa-RED Elite) and placebo groups in the mean change in the primary outcome variable, i.e. change in pounds of body fat.||6.6034|2.3372|<0.01
95845179|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.1|-4.7|
95845180|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|8.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Diarrhoea||8.2|-4.6|
95845181|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.9|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||6.9|-7.3|
95845182|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nausea||8.0|-6.5|
95845183|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||9.6|-2.3|
95845184|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vomiting||11.8|-0.7|
95845185|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||3.5|-7.6|
95845186|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Postoperative Infection||2.2|-8.4|
95845187|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||4.7|-2.4|
95845188|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Seroma||9.7|1.0|
95845189|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.6|-5.0|
95845190|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - ALT increased||6.7|-4.9|
95845191|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.3|-3.7|
95845192|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - AST increased||7.4|-3.7|
95845193|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||4.2|-6.5|
95845194|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Lipase increased||3.0|-7.2|
95845195|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-0.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||-0.3|-8.7|
95845196|NCT01506271|191657805|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Hypertension||4.3|-6.4|
95845197|NCT01506271|191657806|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
95845198|NCT01506271|191657806|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Fisher Exact||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||0|0|> 0.999
95845199|NCT01506271|191657807|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.0|-9.1|0.001
95845200|NCT01506271|191657807|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|5.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||5.3|-9.7|0.002
95845201|NCT01506271|191657808|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.2|-6.3|< 0.001
95962902|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.71||0.8063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.5|7.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||7.4|-24.5|0.8063
95865505|NCT03811093|191689682|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||The significance value has been Lilliefors corrected and represents the lower bound of the true significance.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test|||"A single sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was used to examine if variables are normally distributed for the population from which the trial groups are drawn.~The null hypothesis is that the distribution of the Weight of Body Fat Lost or Gained is normal with mean -2.49 and standard deviation 3.71209."||||.200
95845202|NCT01506271|191657808|NON_INFERIORITY|Two participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.3|-2.0|< 0.001
95845203|NCT01506271|191657809|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.4|-6.7|< 0.001
95845204|NCT01506271|191657809|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.5|-6.3|< 0.001
95845205|NCT01506271|191657810|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test based on Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||6.9|-9.6|0.002
95845206|NCT01506271|191657810|NON_INFERIORITY|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.2|-7.2|< 0.001
95845207|NCT01506271|191657811|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||7.4|-7.4|< 0.001
95845208|NCT01506271|191657811|NON_INFERIORITY|Eight participants with indeterminate or missing response were excluded from the analysis.|Percentage Difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference||8.6|-5.2|< 0.001
95845209|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||5.1|-7.3|
95845210|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Blood, lymphatic||0.1|-10.3|
95845211|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||5.0|-5.2|
95845212|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Cardiac disorder||6.3|-4.5|
95845213|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|15.3|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||15.3|-3.9|
95845214|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - GI disorders||13.6|-5.4|
95845215|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||11.0|-2.0|
95845216|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Gen. dis \& admin.||7.8|-4.2|
95845217|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||12.0|-3.6|
95845218|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|8.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Infect. \& Infest.||8.0|-6.5|
95845219|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|5.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||5.1|-7.3|
95845220|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 1250mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Injury, poison.||8.5|-5.0|
95845221|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|7.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||7.4|-9.8|
95845222|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Investigations||6.5|-10.5|
95845223|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
95962903|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.27||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|23.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||23.4|-10.4|0.2649
95962904|NCT04092452|191897246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35||0.3029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|22.4||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Pain at its Worst)||22.4|-11.7|0.3029
95962905|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||21.2|-5.7|0.1687
95962906|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||27.0|0.6|0.0376
95845224|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Nervous System||2.2|-8.4|
95845225|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.4|-5.7|
95845226|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Psychiatric disorders||5.5|-5.7|
95845227|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
95845228|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Renal \& Urinary||3.0|-7.2|
95845229|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.7|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||0.7|-10.7|
95845230|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Resp. \& chest||4.4|-8.4|
95845231|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.1|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||8.1|-2.4|
95845232|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Skin \& subcutan.||4.5|-4.7|
95962907|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.5883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|9.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 1 (Average Pain)||9.8|-12.9|0.5883
95845233|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.0|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 250 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||2.0|-9.9|
95845234|NCT01506271|191657813|OTHER|Unconditional asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification|Percentage Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.6|||||Relebactam minus Placebo|Relebactam 125 mg - Placebo: Percentage Difference - Vascular disorders||6.6|-6.9|
95845235|NCT02294058|191657820|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.663||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age, number of gadolinium enhancing (GdE) lesions and included the natural log transformation of time as an offset term.||||0.663|0.405|<0.0001
95845236|NCT02294058|191657820|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.688||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|0.864||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.025 level.|Poisson Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and the number of GdE lesions, and included the natural log transformation of time on study as an offset term.||||0.864|0.547|0.0013
95845237|NCT02294058|191657821|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.517|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.625||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.625|0.427|<0.0001
95845238|NCT02294058|191657821|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.754||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|0.91||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans over 12 months as an offset term.|Rate Ratio = Ozanimod / IFN β-1a|||0.910|0.625|0.0032
95845239|NCT02294058|191657822|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.536||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.536|0.256|<0.0001
95845240|NCT02294058|191657822|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.662||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.932||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model|Adjusted for region, Baseline age and GdE lesions; included the natural log transformation of available MRI scans as an offset term.||||0.932|0.471|0.0182
95845241|NCT02294058|191657823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.402|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age, and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.402|0.340|0.3055
95845242|NCT02294058|191657823|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.886||||0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.705|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||1.705|0.460|0.7163
95962908|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.2|17.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||17.6|-12.2|0.3829
95962909|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|33.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||33.9|2.5|0.0316
95962910|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.3072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|19.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 2 (Average Pain)||19.7|-10.5|0.3072
95962911|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.18||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|3.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||3.7|-29.8|0.8952
95962912|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.76||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|30.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||30.8|-4.6|0.1157
95845243|NCT02294058|191657824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.238||||0.6725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.337|||Cox proportional hazards model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.337|0.460|0.6725
95845244|NCT02294058|191657824|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.535||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|3.963|||Cox proportional hazard model|Based on the Cox proportional hazard model with factors for treatment group, adjusted for region, Baseline age and Baseline EDSS score|Hazard Ratio (Ozanimod / IFN β-1a)|||3.963|0.595|0.3755
95845245|NCT02294058|191657825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|10.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|16.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||16.92|4.84|0.0006
95845246|NCT02294058|191657825|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|5.12||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS category per IVRS.||||11.32|-1.07|0.1130
95865506|NCT03811093|191689682|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Levene's Test for Equality of Variance|||To test that the trial participant's population variances are equal (or exhibit homogeneity of variance), a Levene's Test for Equality of Variance was conducted. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal (called homogeneity of variance or homoscedasticity). For this test if the resulting p-value of Levene's test is less than .05, the obtained differences in sample variances are unlikely to have occurred based on random sampling from a population with equal variances.||||.438
95865507|NCT02882152|191689710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
95865508|NCT02882152|191689711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Results were compared by means of the ANOVA of repeated measures followed by Bonferroni test.~Comparing: all four moments, from zero to 72hs within femoral blockade group, all four moments within morphine group, and all four moments between the groups"||||<0.05
95865509|NCT03086967|191689731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95865510|NCT03086967|191689732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
95865511|NCT03086967|191689733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95865512|NCT03086967|191689734|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95865513|NCT03086967|191689735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
95865514|NCT03086967|191689736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95865515|NCT03086967|191689737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
95865516|NCT03086967|191689738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95865517|NCT03086967|191689739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95865518|NCT03086967|191689740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95865519|NCT03086967|191689741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95865520|NCT02478398|191689745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.0|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-2.00|-3.45|< 0.001
95865521|NCT02478398|191689746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.27|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.27|-2.46|< 0.001
95865522|NCT02478398|191689747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.99|||ANOVA|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma status, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-0.99|-1.81|< 0.001
95865523|NCT02478398|191689748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.08|||Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|Model included fixed effects of treatment, baseline asthma, age group, pollen season, and pollen region nested within pollen season||||-1.08|-2.60|< 0.001
95865524|NCT02478398|191689749|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|37.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.82|43.12|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||43.12|31.82|< 0.001
95865525|NCT02478398|191689750|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.39|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.53|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.53|-0.57|= 0.320
95865526|NCT02478398|191689751|OTHER||Difference in % estimates|0.0|||=|0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.92|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.92|-0.92|= 0.996
95865527|NCT01475071|191689787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non inferiority margin of -10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.6||0.0345|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.8||||paired Student's t statistic|||The primary purpose of this study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Metvix and daylight compared to Metvix and the lamp in terms of lesion complete response rate.|||-6.8|0.0345
95865528|NCT01475071|191689788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided Wilcoxon rank signed||superiority of Metvix adaylight and Metvix Lamp in term of pain||||<0.001
95865529|NCT03874429|191689831|NON_INFERIORITY|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI was no higher than 2 points for the the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To assess the non inferiority of T2259 compared to Vismed Multi, two-sided 95% confidence interval from ANCOVA model was computed of the difference of T2259 minus Vismed Multi. The model was adjusted for the main effects of investigation product and baseline score.||1.05|-0.42|
95865530|NCT00992589|191689926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.449||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in daily average frequency of regurgitation from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.190|-1.087|0.168
95865531|NCT00992589|191689927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.108|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Double-blind (DB) Baseline as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weight-for-Age Z-Score from DB Baseline to DB Endpoint between Rabeprazole Sodium Total and Placebo.||0.108|-0.047|0.440
95865532|NCT00992589|191689929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.632|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Regurgitation Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.632|-0.619|0.984
95845247|NCT02294058|191657826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|4.53||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|10.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||10.24|-1.19|0.1180
95845248|NCT02294058|191657826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.95||||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on the CMH test stratified by region and EDSS Scale category per IVRS.||||8.60|-2.70|0.3023
95845249|NCT02294058|191657827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS category per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||<0.0001
95845250|NCT02294058|191657827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0615|||||||Rank ANCOVA|Adjusted for region and EDSS Scale per IVRS||Due to the non-normal distribution of the data for brain volume loss, the analyses for percent change from baseline in normalized brain volume were compared using rank-ANCOVA, adjusted for region (Eastern Europe vs Rest of World), and EDSS category per IVRS, with the dependent variable as the residual of the rank of brain volume at Baseline regressed on rank of percent change.||||0.0615
95845251|NCT02294058|191657828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.034||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.077|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score.||||0.077|-0.010|0.1290
95845252|NCT02294058|191657828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.015||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.059|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS and the Baseline MSFC score||||0.059|-0.028|0.4942
95845253|NCT02294058|191657829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.642||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|3.18|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||3.180|0.104|0.0364
95845254|NCT02294058|191657829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.024||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.559|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Physical Health Composite Summary||2.559|-0.510|0.1905
95845255|NCT02294058|191657829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.356||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.523|2.234|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||2.234|-1.523|0.7104
95845256|NCT02294058|191657829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.8587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.045|1.705|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for region, EDSS category per IVRS, and the Baseline summary score.||Analysis of Mental Health Composite Summary||1.705|-2.045|0.8587
95845257|NCT03515824|191657831|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
95845258|NCT03515824|191657831|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|33.1||||||||33.1|0.0|
95845259|NCT03515824|191657831|OTHER|Bayesian posterior credible interval|Pooled-adjacent-violator algorithm|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.8|30.2||||||||30.2|5.8|
95845260|NCT03515824|191657834|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
95845261|NCT03515824|191657834|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.2||||||||60.2|0.0|
95845262|NCT03515824|191657834|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|21.8||||||||21.8|0.0|
95865533|NCT00992589|191689930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.325|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Discomfort Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.325|-0.690|0.479
95845263|NCT03515824|191657835|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|84.2||||||||84.2|0.0|
95845264|NCT03515824|191657835|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate (ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.8||||||||70.8|0.0|
95845265|NCT03515824|191657835|OTHER|Clopper Pearson confidence interval method for binomial data|Objective Response Rate )ORR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.5||||||||28.5|0.0|
95845266|NCT06172348|191657845|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|21.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.31|24.8|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90 percent (%) confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||24.80|19.31|
95845267|NCT06172348|191657845|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|12.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.21|14.27|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||14.27|11.21|
95845268|NCT06172348|191657846|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|86.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|94.54|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||94.54|79.11|
95845269|NCT06172348|191657846|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|76.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.65|83.9|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule; Reference = Oral solution.|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||83.90|70.65|
95845270|NCT06172348|191657847|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|123.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.16|146.02|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||146.02|105.16|
95845271|NCT06172348|191657847|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|129.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.51|151.06|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||151.06|111.51|
95845272|NCT06172348|191657848|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|119.76|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR1 capsule (fed); Reference = MR1 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||119.76|96.46|
95845273|NCT06172348|191657848|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.19|121.17|||||Ratios (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals were expressed as percentages. Test = MR2 capsule (fed); Reference = MR2 capsule (fasted).|A mixed effect model was used with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant with sequence as a random effect.||121.17|99.19|
95845274|NCT03799341|191657854|OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.177
95845275|NCT03799341|191657855|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.033
95845276|NCT03799341|191657856|OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.126
95845277|NCT03799341|191657857|OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.384
95845278|NCT03799341|191657858|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
95845279|NCT03799341|191657859|OTHER|||||||0.976|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.976
95845280|NCT03799341|191657860|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.920
95845281|NCT03799341|191657861|OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.873
95845282|NCT03799341|191657862|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
95845283|NCT03799341|191657862|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), stimulus condition (3 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||<0.001
95845284|NCT03799341|191657862|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.022
95845285|NCT03799341|191657862|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 4 factors: time (2 levels), response accuracy (2 levels), electrode pair (4 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.024
95845286|NCT03799341|191657863|OTHER|||||||0.973|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.973
95845287|NCT03799341|191657863|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||No violations of normality assumptions were identified. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. To maintain consistency with other outcome measures, a median split approach was used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during the 12-week treatment interval. The design included two factors: time (2 levels) and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time and median split group.||||0.662
95845288|NCT03799341|191657864|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of Contingency Management session attendance. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.878
95845289|NCT03799341|191657864|OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||ANOVA|||Due to violations of normality assumptions, a non-parametric Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA was conducted, which does not permit inclusion of covariates. A median split approach was therefore used to examine the potential influence of self-reported cocaine abstinence during treatment. The design included 3 factors: time (2 levels), condition (2 levels), and median split group membership (2 levels). Reported results reflect the interaction between time, condition, and median split group.||||0.645
95853774|NCT03253796|191666435|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|44.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||44.5|19.2|<0.001
95962913|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.93||0.4672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.1|18.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 4 (Average Pain)||18.9|-17.1|0.4672
95962914|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.9287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|1.6||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||1.6|-35.5|0.9287
95845290|NCT04564846|191657870|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.974||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.011|||Analysis of Covariance||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points. Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Comparison to Placebo Across All Time Points||1.011|0.938|0.1628
95845291|NCT04564846|191657872|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.784||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.017|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|1.017|0.605|0.0674
95845292|NCT04564846|191657873|OTHER|Log transformed values analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment and time point as effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.067||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.167|||Analysis of Covariance|||Estimated Difference from Placebo Across All Time Points.||1.167|0.976|0.8182
95845293|NCT04564846|191657874|OTHER|AUC Parameters analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance model with treatment as the main effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Risk Ratio, log|1.007||||0.8182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.066|||Analysis of Covariance|||||1.066|0.951|0.8182
95845294|NCT04564846|191657875|OTHER||Analysis of Variance|0.4628|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Parameter analyzed using an Analysis of Variance model with treatment as the main effect.||||||||
95865534|NCT00992589|191689931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.192||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.366|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in weekly average I-GERQ-DD Eating Behavior Subscale Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||0.366|-0.751|0.498
95962915|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.85||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.8|17.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||17.9|-17.8|0.4984
95962916|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|3.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 6 (Average Pain)||3.9|-33.2|0.9001
95962917|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.53||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6|7.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||7.0|-27.6|0.8319
95962918|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|37.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||37.0|2.3|0.0340
95845295|NCT00179621|191657876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 5 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
95845296|NCT00179621|191657876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||To compare the response rates of Lenalidomide 10 mg QD vs. placebo, the Hochberg procedure was used to control the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
95845297|NCT00179621|191657877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
95845298|NCT00179621|191657877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) score (IPSS combined score =0 versus \>0) to compare lenalidomide treatment with placebo.||||||<0.001
95845299|NCT00179621|191657887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95845300|NCT00179621|191657887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95845301|NCT00179621|191657888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.054
95845302|NCT00179621|191657888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.080
95845303|NCT00179621|191657889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.062
95845304|NCT00179621|191657889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.113
95845305|NCT02722564|191657891|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p value associated with the change between estimated and actual BrAC when the participants BrAC was ascending to 0.1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95845306|NCT02722564|191657891|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p value associated with change between estimated and actual BrAC as participants BrAC descended to 0.08.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95845307|NCT00960622|191657892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-tests for inter-group differences between baseline and end-of-study measurements.Regression analysis, physiological correlates of statistically significant between-group changes.~P\<0.05 chosen for statistical significance"||11.3|-6.3|<0.05
95845308|NCT01419236|191657904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|1.91|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.91|-0.59|0.380
95845309|NCT01419236|191657905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.08|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.08|-0.96|0.164
95865535|NCT00992589|191689932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.042||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.615|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in I-GERQ-R Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.700|-1.615|0.960
95865536|NCT00992589|191689933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.024||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.167|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance with Treatment as fixed effect, Region and Age as stratification factors and Change from Open-label (OL) Baseline to OL Endpoint as covariate to test the hypothesis of no difference in change in Weekly Average I-GERQ-DD Total Score from Double-blind (DB) Baseline to DB Endpoint between rabeprazole sodium total and placebo.||1.214|-1.167|0.968
95865537|NCT00345332|191689949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95865538|NCT00345332|191689950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95865539|NCT02108262|191689959|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|1.0|||=|0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||2.5|-0.1|= 0.1241
95865540|NCT02108262|191689959|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.7|-0.5|= 0.4994
95845310|NCT01419236|191657906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.15|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.15|-0.31|0.342
95865541|NCT02108262|191689960|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|-0.2|||=|0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||0.7|-1.4|= 0.4988
95865542|NCT02108262|191689960|NON_INFERIORITY|The calculation used a non-inferiority argument powering the test of the alternative hypothesis of no difference in the rates. Within each co-primary endpoint, the two active treatment groups are assumed to have the same endpoint rates. Total alpha is 0.05 with 0.025 allocated to each co-primary endpoint, which in turn involves comparisons of two active treatment groups to placebo without further alpha control.|Difference in event rates (%)|0.5|||=|0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Newcombe-Wilson score method|||||1.9|-0.7|= 0.6241
95865543|NCT02108262|191689961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||2.05|0.67|= 0.5733
95865544|NCT02108262|191689961|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||=|0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.8||Stratified log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||||1.80|0.57|= 0.9717
95865545|NCT01054183|191690078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.57||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of successful 1st intubation attempt is the same for both groups||||0.57
95865546|NCT01054183|191690079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|powered for 62 patients||||||0.002||95.0|||||z test, two-sided|||Null hypothesis: overall successful intubation rate is the same for both groups.||||0.002
95865547|NCT02189954|191690081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95865548|NCT02189954|191690081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney U|||||||<0.05
95865549|NCT02112045|191690085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
95845311|NCT01419236|191657907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.57|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.57|0.05|0.079
95845312|NCT01419236|191657908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.10|-0.50|0.535
95845313|NCT01419236|191657909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.03||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|-0.22|0.172
95845314|NCT01419236|191657910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|1.04|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||1.04|-0.41|0.473
95865550|NCT02112045|191690086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
95865551|NCT02775240|191690105|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.248|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.378|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Digoxin||1.378|1.130|
95865552|NCT02775240|191690106|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.778|1.144|||Linear mixed effects model|||Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextromethorphan||1.144|0.778|
95845315|NCT01419236|191657911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.87|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.87|-1.03|0.885
95845316|NCT01419236|191657912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.55|||Mixed Models Repeated Measure Analysis|||||0.55|-0.61|0.938
95845317|NCT00762359|191657916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0989|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0425|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.2300|0.0425|<0.0001
95845318|NCT00762359|191657917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95845319|NCT00762359|191657918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95845320|NCT00762359|191657919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
95845321|NCT00762359|191657920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
95962919|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.7359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|10.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8 (Average Pain)||10.8|-24.4|0.7359
95962920|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.9291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.3|1.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||1.3|-33.3|0.9291
95962921|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|16.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||16.9|-17.4|0.5087
95962922|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.8098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.2|8.1||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12 (Average Pain)||8.1|-27.2|0.8098
95845322|NCT00762359|191657922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95845323|NCT00762359|191657923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
95845324|NCT00762359|191657924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0025
95845325|NCT00762359|191657925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
95845326|NCT00762359|191657927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95845327|NCT00762359|191657928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6148||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6148
95845328|NCT00762359|191657929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8050
95845329|NCT00762359|191657930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8678||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
95845330|NCT00762359|191657931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2688||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2688
95845331|NCT00762359|191657933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7054||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7054
95845332|NCT00762359|191657934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3400
95845333|NCT00762359|191657935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8813
95845334|NCT00762359|191657936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1862||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1862
95845335|NCT00762359|191657938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8604
95845336|NCT00762359|191657939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5485||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5485
95845337|NCT00762359|191657940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7382||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7382
95845338|NCT00762359|191657941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7619
95845339|NCT00762359|191657943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0204||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0204
95845340|NCT00762359|191657944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0046
95845341|NCT00762359|191657945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
95845342|NCT00762359|191657946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1229
95845343|NCT00762359|191657948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2694||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2694
95845344|NCT00762359|191657949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0141
95845345|NCT00762359|191657950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3128||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3128
95845346|NCT00762359|191657951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1450
95845347|NCT00762359|191657953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6175||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6175
95845348|NCT00762359|191657954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4496
95845349|NCT00762359|191657955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4718||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4718
95845350|NCT00762359|191657956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4484||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4484
95845351|NCT00762359|191657958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2604||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2604
95845352|NCT00762359|191657959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6818||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6818
95845353|NCT00762359|191657960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9015||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9015
95845354|NCT00762359|191657961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4497||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4497
95845355|NCT03112681|191657968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0001
95845356|NCT03112681|191657968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0002
95845357|NCT02891174|191657969|EQUIVALENCE|margin=10 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.7|||||The adjusted mean difference between ibuprofen and acetaminophen is presented here. The adjusted mean difference was calculated using a linear mixed model adjusting for time period by intention-to-treat principles.|||5.7|-3.7|
95845358|NCT02891174|191657970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Abdominal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in abdominal pain||||0.59
95845359|NCT02891174|191657970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Perineal pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in perineal pain||||0.91
95962923|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.8114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.8|7.2||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||7.2|-24.8|0.8114
95845360|NCT02891174|191657970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Overall pain|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in overall pain||||0.88
95845361|NCT02891174|191657971|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95845362|NCT02891174|191657972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||First intervention (24 hours)||||0.02
95845363|NCT02891174|191657972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Second intervention (24 hours)||||0.06
95845364|NCT02891174|191657972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall satisfaction with pain control during study period||||0.04
95845365|NCT01693029|191657976|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence margin (-0.5, 0.5) g/dL. Results from ANCOVA with factors treatment group and covariates mean baseline Hb and mean weekly dose during the evaluation period (Week 21-28)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2264|0.0413|||||||95% confidence interval for the difference is (-0.2522, 0.0670).|0.0413|-0.2264|
95845366|NCT01169103|191657984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that mean decrease in visceral fat in our population would be 0.85\*standard deviation score (SDS). Therefore, 18 subjects in each group would be required in order for us to have an 81.7% chance of detecting a significant difference in the mean 6-month changes in visceral adiposity between the groups at a 5% significance level by rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference in change in visceral fat following administration of rhGH or placebo in obese adolescent girls.||||0.70
95962924|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.44||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|28.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||28.0|-6.4|0.1531
95845367|NCT01169103|191657984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SAT p-value||||0.30
95845368|NCT01169103|191657985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95845369|NCT01169103|191657986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total Cholesterol p-value||||0.03
95845370|NCT01169103|191657986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Triglyceride p-value||||0.57
95845371|NCT01169103|191657986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Low-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.062
95845372|NCT01169103|191657986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in High-density lipoprotein p-value||||0.0396
95845373|NCT01169103|191657987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95845374|NCT01169103|191657988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95845375|NCT00141453|191657989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79||95.0|0.75|1.24|||Regression, Cox|The covariates were urinary albumin:creatinine ratio and serum creatinine at baseline \& regions (Japan/Hong Kong) for the renal composite event rate.||We planned to collect 400 patients to detect 35% risk reduction for renal outcome in olmesartan group with 80% power at 2-sided .05 alpha level. The Cox regression model was applied to estimate the hazard ratios (HR)between treatment groups with 95% confidence intervals for the renal and cardiovascular composite event rate.||1.24|0.75|0.79
95845376|NCT00141453|191657990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.039||95.0|0.43|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Covariates baseline urinary albumin:creatinine ratio, age and history of cardiovascular disease for cardiovascular composite event rate.||||0.98|0.43|0.039
95845377|NCT02656017|191658004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GSRS score as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||0.26|-0.13|0.50
95845378|NCT02656017|191658005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Gray's test|||The Gray's test of homogeneity for competing risks was used to compare cumulative incidence of tolerating the drug between study arms.||||0.12
95845379|NCT02656017|191658006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Cumulative incidence between study arms and logistic regression was used to assess the association between study arms.||||0.98
95845380|NCT02656017|191658007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 PCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.60|-1.81|0.72
95845381|NCT02656017|191658008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in SF-36 MCS as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||4.25|-2.02|0.49
95845382|NCT02656017|191658009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare back pain frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.44
95845383|NCT02656017|191658010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.73||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|6.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in eGFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||6.87|-1.40|0.20
95845384|NCT02656017|191658011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||5.62|-2.11|0.38
95962925|NCT04092452|191897247|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|20.7||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16 (Average Pain)||20.7|-14.1|0.3784
95845385|NCT02656017|191658012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|11.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htTKCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||11.65|-3.48|0.31
95845386|NCT02656017|191658013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||2.61|-1.78|0.72
95845387|NCT02656017|191658014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|14.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept and slope was used to compare the annual percent change of ln(htLCV) as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||14.76|-10.05|0.80
95845388|NCT02656017|191658015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare abdominal fullness interfered as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.83
95845389|NCT02656017|191658016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with sleep frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.72
95845390|NCT02656017|191658017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept and slope was used to compare interference of pain with strenuous physical activity frequency as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinical site.||||0.28
95865553|NCT02775240|191690107|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.883|1.007|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed Cmax values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Cmax of Dextrorphan||1.007|0.883|
95962926|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.661||0.1321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.39|3.52||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||3.52|-18.39|0.1321
95962927|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.308||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|-0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-0.14|-20.90|0.0477
95962928|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.379||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.62|-3.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||-3.63|-24.62|0.0134
95845391|NCT03192826|191658041|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
95845392|NCT03192826|191658042|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
95845393|NCT03192826|191658043|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
95845394|NCT03192826|191658044|EQUIVALENCE|The SPSS statistical package version 23.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 23.0, SSPS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare parametric values with Bonferroni post hoc test for within group comparisons.|the reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|||||<0.05
95845395|NCT02694744|191658045|OTHER||||||||||||||||||If the 95% confidence interval for the w/out food Arm overlapped the confidence interval for the w/ food Arm, the study will conclude that there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference between treatment arms.|||
95845396|NCT02694744|191658046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Baseline to week 4.||0.22|-0.17|0.7893
95845397|NCT00883779|191658047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.46|<0.0001
95845398|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in adenocarcinoma subgroup||0.64|0.39|<0.0001
95845399|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33|||Log Rank|||PFS in non-adenocarcinoma subgroup||1.33|0.60|=0.579
95845400|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.53|||Log Rank|||PFS in never smoked subgroup||0.53|0.28|<0.0001
95845401|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Log Rank|||PFS in former/current smoker subgroup||1.10|0.64|=0.2067
95845402|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR mutation||0.35|0.12|<0.0001
95962929|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.45|8.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||8.12|-19.45|0.2496
95962930|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.972||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.03|1.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.20|-25.03|0.0675
95962931|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.054||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.96|1.54||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||1.54|-24.96|0.0730
95845403|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.34|0.67|=0.7511
95845404|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.58|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.58|0.25|=0.3169
95845405|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.7|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||0.70|0.37|<0.0001
95845406|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.86|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC positive||0.86|0.31|=0.0091
95845407|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||=|0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||0.88|0.18|=0.0179
95845408|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.64|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.64|0.11|=0.0017
95865554|NCT02775240|191690113|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.099|1.324|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Digoxin||1.324|1.099|
95962932|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.892||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.38|17.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||17.88|-11.38|0.6426
95962933|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.457||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.73|6.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||6.09|-21.73|0.1776
95962934|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.579||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.28|12.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||12.94|-15.28|0.4458
95962935|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.566||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.79|23.68||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||23.68|-7.79|0.7969
95962936|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.12||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.09|3.91||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||3.91|-26.09|0.1120
95845409|NCT00883779|191658049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||=|0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.22|||Log Rank|||PFS in subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.22|0.37|=0.1880
95845410|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Log Rank|||OS in overall participants (FAS population)||1.04|0.70|=0.1213
95845411|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup adenocarcinoma||0.98|0.62|=0.0356
95845412|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||=|0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.03|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup non-adenocarcinoma||2.03|0.92|=0.1157
95845413|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup never smoked||0.89|0.49|=0.0056
95845414|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup current/former smoker||1.50|0.87|=0.3473
95845415|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR mutation||1.14|0.45|=0.1614
95845416|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR wild-type||1.11|0.55|=0.1691
95845417|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS mutation||1.28|0.19|=0.1415
95845418|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup KRAS wild-type||1.08|0.59|=0.1447
95845419|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Log Rank|||OS in EGFR IHC positive||0.96|0.35|=0.0310
95845420|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||=|0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.05|||Log Rank|||OS in subgroup EGFR IHC negative||1.05|0.21|=0.0581
95845421|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.75|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH positive||0.75|0.14|=0.0063
95845422|NCT00883779|191658050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.36|||Log Rank|||OS of subgroup EGFR FISH negative||1.36|0.40|=0.3268
95845423|NCT00883779|191658052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81|||=|0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.8|||Chi-squared|||Difference in non-progression response rates||11.8|-6.2|=0.5289
95845424|NCT00883779|191658053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|33.5|||Chi-squared|||Difference in objective response rates||33.5|16.7|<0.0001
95845425|NCT00883779|191658054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.5|||Log Rank|||||0.50|0.21|<0.0001
95845426|NCT00883779|191658055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.45|<0.0001
95845427|NCT00883779|191658057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.63|=0.0364
95845428|NCT00883779|191658059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.61|=0.0181
95845429|NCT00883779|191658061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.73|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.59|=0.0035
95845430|NCT00883779|191658062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.60|0.9130
95962937|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.188||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.06|15.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||15.16|-15.06|0.5021
95962938|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.296||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.46|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||18.12|-12.46|0.6197
95962939|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.825||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.81|3.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||3.22|-25.81|0.1003
95845431|NCT03748823|191658103|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was determined based on the 90% Confidence interval calculated from the combination z-score that accounts for the interim analysis.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.257|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|1.361||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed Ctrough and included treatment and stratified weight group as fixed effects.|ANOVA||Geometric least squares mean are the least squares mean from the mixed model after back transformation to the original scale. The 90% confidence interval is presented after back transformation to the original scale.|||1.361|1.160|<0.0001
95845432|NCT00867165|191658123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-22.69|||ANCOVA|||||-22.69|-30.80|<0.001
95845433|NCT00867165|191658124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-17.65|||ANCOVA|||||-17.65|-24.20|<0.001
95845434|NCT00867165|191658125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|-16.45|||ANCOVA|||||-16.45|-24.02|<0.001
95845435|NCT00867165|191658126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|-4.97|0.807
95865555|NCT02775240|191690115|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|0.999|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUC0-infinity values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUC0-infinity of Dextrorphan||0.999|0.943|
95865556|NCT02775240|191690116|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.287|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Digoxin||1.287|1.080|
95865557|NCT02775240|191690117|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.696|1.118|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast of Dextromethorphan||1.118|0.696|
95865558|NCT02775240|191690118|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|0.998|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for AUClast for Dextrorphan||0.998|0.949|
95865559|NCT02775240|191690119|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.138|||Linear mixed effects model||Log-transformed AUClast ratio values were compared between treatment regimens using a linear mixed effects model with treatment regimen as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|Comparison of Treatment B over Treatment A for Dextromethorphan/Dextrorphan (Parent/Metabolite) AUClast ratio||1.138|0.721|
95865560|NCT03554486|191690138|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.051
95865561|NCT03554486|191690139|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95962940|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|14.81||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||14.81|-14.50|0.5070
95962941|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.368||0.5283|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.74|16.08||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||16.08|-14.74|0.5283
95845436|NCT00867165|191658127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Differrence in least-squares means|-25.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-21.91|||ANCOVA|||||-21.91|-29.59|<0.001
95845437|NCT00867165|191658128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-14.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.35|-2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.00|-27.35|0.021
95845438|NCT00867165|191658129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.95|-20.99|||ANCOVA|||||-20.99|-28.95|<0.001
95845439|NCT00867165|191658130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-23.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.49|-20.39|||ANCOVA|||||-20.39|-27.49|<0.001
95845440|NCT00867165|191658131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-27.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-23.73|||ANCOVA|||||-23.73|-31.70|<0.001
95845441|NCT00867165|191658132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.89|||ANCOVA|||||-16.89|-23.30|<0.001
95845442|NCT00867165|191658133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.15|||ANCOVA|||||-17.15|-23.39|<0.001
95845443|NCT00867165|191658134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-21.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.67|-18.08|||ANCOVA|||||-18.08|-24.67|<0.001
95845444|NCT00867165|191658135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-0.95||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.55|||ANCOVA|||||4.55|-6.46|0.733
95845445|NCT00867165|191658136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.53||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|6.66|||ANCOVA|||||6.66|-5.59|0.863
95845446|NCT00867165|191658137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.92||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|-3.71|0.501
95845447|NCT00867165|191658138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-20.58|||ANCOVA|||||-20.58|-27.78|<0.001
95845448|NCT00867165|191658139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|-21.16|||ANCOVA|||||-21.16|-28.06|<0.001
95845449|NCT00867165|191658140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-26.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|-22.75|||ANCOVA|||||-22.75|-30.35|<0.001
95845450|NCT00867165|191658141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-9.73||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.73|3.27|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.27|-22.73|0.137
95845451|NCT00867165|191658142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-15.19||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.34|-26.05|0.005
95865562|NCT03554486|191690140|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95865563|NCT01616693|191690141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.4|13.2||||||||13.2|-4.4|
95962942|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.98|-0.63||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||-0.63|-29.98|0.0431
95845452|NCT00867165|191658143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-8.61||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.44|3.23|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||3.23|-20.44|0.149
95845453|NCT00867165|191658144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-1.91||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.32|||ANCOVA|||||2.32|-6.15|0.373
95845454|NCT00867165|191658145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|-19.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-14.82|||ANCOVA|||||-14.82|-24.70|<0.001
95845455|NCT00867165|191658146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-20.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.59|-16.07|||ANCOVA|||||-16.07|-25.59|<0.001
95845456|NCT00867165|191658147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-23.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-17.97|||ANCOVA|||||-17.97|-29.00|<0.001
95845457|NCT00867165|191658148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-22.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.25|-17.34|||ANCOVA|||||-17.34|-27.25|<0.001
95845458|NCT00867165|191658149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.88|-19.12|||ANCOVA|||||-19.12|-29.88|<0.001
95865564|NCT01616693|191690141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.2||||||||16.2|-1.4|
95962943|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.22|8.45||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||8.45|-21.22|0.2395
95845459|NCT00867165|191658150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.69|-19.62|||ANCOVA|||||-19.62|-30.69|<0.001
95845460|NCT00867165|191658151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.71|-22.91|||ANCOVA|||||-22.91|-35.71|<0.001
95845461|NCT00867165|191658152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.41|-22.29|||ANCOVA|||||-22.29|-34.41|<0.001
95845462|NCT00867165|191658153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-19.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.87|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.70|-23.87|<0.001
95845463|NCT00867165|191658154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-46.11||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.14|15.92|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||15.92|-108.14|0.116
95845464|NCT00867165|191658155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|17.27||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|55.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||55.00|-20.46|0.382
95845465|NCT00867165|191658156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.36|-43.87|||ANCOVA|||||-43.87|-55.36|<0.001
95845466|NCT00867165|191658157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-58.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.67|-53.38|||ANCOVA|||||-53.38|-63.67|<0.001
95845467|NCT00867165|191658158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-61.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.51|-54.53|||ANCOVA|||||-54.53|-67.51|<0.001
95845468|NCT00867165|191658159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.22|-52.26|||ANCOVA|||||-52.26|-73.22|0.001
95845469|NCT00867165|191658160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-49.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.14|||ANCOVA|||||-44.14|-54.83|<0.001
95845470|NCT00867165|191658161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-57.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.87|-53.11|||ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-62.87|<0.001
95845471|NCT00867165|191658162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-62.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.54|-56.66|||ANCOVA|||||-56.66|-68.54|<0.001
95845472|NCT00867165|191658163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-64.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.11|-55.23|||ANCOVA|||||-55.23|-74.11|<0.001
95845473|NCT00867165|191658164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-18.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||||-11.99|-24.70|<0.001
95845474|NCT00867165|191658165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-25.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-20.02|||ANCOVA|||||-20.02|-31.20|<0.001
95845475|NCT00867165|191658166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-28.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.89|-22.59|||ANCOVA|||||-22.59|-34.89|<0.001
95845476|NCT00867165|191658167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|-32.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.38|-23.9|||ANCOVA|||||-23.90|-40.38|<0.001
95845477|NCT00867165|191658168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|20.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|31.91|||ANCOVA|||||31.91|8.10|0.001
95845478|NCT00867165|191658169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|26.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|38.58|||ANCOVA|||||38.58|13.99|<0.001
95845479|NCT00867165|191658170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|36.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.12|49.28|||ANCOVA|||||49.28|24.12|<0.001
95845480|NCT00867165|191658171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|24.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.43|37.67|||ANCOVA|||||37.67|10.43|<0.001
95845481|NCT04678115|191658172|OTHER|Power Calculation: Sample size was estimated based on the treatment condition (three-level factor) effect size on the spontaneous blink IPF measurements (0.55) after eight participants had completed the crossover using one-way analysis of variance power calculation. This led to a sample size of 12 participants with power of 0.80 and type II error of alpha 0.05. To account for possible attrition, 16 were enrolled, with 15 completing the crossover.|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects regression was used to determine the effect of treatment condition on the spontaneous blink and resting state open IPF, with participant as random intercept. Covariates of age, gender, blink sequence, and crossover order were investigated alone, and significant (P \< 0.05) covariates were included in the final model, from which the estimated marginal means and their 95% confidence interval were reported. Hypothesis: MLP allows a more complete spontaneous blink.||||<0.001
95865565|NCT01616693|191690141|SUPERIORITY||Difference in seroconversion proportion|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.8||||||||22.8|.8|
95865566|NCT01616693|191690143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||||||||6.6|-4.3|
95865567|NCT01616693|191690143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.3||||||||2.3|-8.6|
95962944|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.617||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.25|18.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||18.39|-13.25|0.6054
95845482|NCT04678115|191658173|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis was that both devices (MLP and KFTS) would open the eye equally well, and that both would be better than sham treatment.||||0.001
95845483|NCT04678115|191658174|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||test of proportionality|||A test of proportionality was performed to determine the effect of the three treatments on the probability of the eyelid not fully closing.||||0.001
95845484|NCT01363700|191658181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.11|-1.52|<0.001
95845485|NCT01363700|191658182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-1.71|<0.001
95845486|NCT01363700|191658183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular itching score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.08||||||||0.08|-0.21|
95845487|NCT01363700|191658184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority in Mean Ocular hyperemia score compared to Olopatadine was assessed on the non-inferiority margin (0.5) with the upper limit of the confidence interval of the difference between the Epinastine (DE-114) and Olopatadine treatment groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.81|
95865568|NCT01616693|191690143|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||||||||5.7|-9.8|
95845488|NCT03827655|191658185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||=|0.649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo were obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.33|0.63|=0.649
95845489|NCT03827655|191658185|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.43||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.43|0.69|=0.505
95845490|NCT03827655|191658186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.71|=0.449
95845491|NCT03827655|191658186|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.44||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.44|0.69|=0.507
95845492|NCT03827655|191658187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.52||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.52|0.73|=0.406
95845493|NCT03827655|191658187|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.88|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.11||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.11|0.54|=0.880
95853775|NCT03253796|191666436|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|30.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Derived based on the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with CRP level (\>6 mg/L or ≤ 6 mg/L) as a stratification factor||||30.5|0.9|0.037
95853776|NCT00528112|191666437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.017||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.017|0.005|
95853777|NCT00528112|191666437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01||||||95.0|0.005|0.018||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 3 years||0.018|0.005|
95853778|NCT00528112|191666459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||failure rate|0.01445|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00823|0.02531||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) at 5 years||0.02531|0.00823|
95853779|NCT02718898|191666475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|92.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||92.23|12.39|<0.001
95853780|NCT02718898|191666476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.79|461.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||461.43|22.79|<0.001
95853781|NCT02718898|191666477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|46.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.40|5.71|<0.001
95853782|NCT02718898|191666478|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|40.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||40.29|4.57|<0.001
95853783|NCT02718898|191666479|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|31.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.40|3.08|<0.001
95853784|NCT02718898|191666480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.7|-10.1|<0.001
95853785|NCT02718898|191666481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-15.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.8|-24.3|<0.001
95853786|NCT02718898|191666482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.12|31.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.80|6.12|<0.001
95853787|NCT02718898|191666483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1339|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.264|6.748|||ANCOVA|||||6.748|2.264|<0.001
95853788|NCT02718898|191666484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|3.847|||ANCOVA|||||3.847|-0.253|0.085
95853789|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.015|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-22.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||-22.78|-34.72|<0.001
95853790|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Itch||-3.02|-4.60|<0.001
95845494|NCT03827655|191658188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.48||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.48|0.72|=0.446
95845495|NCT03827655|191658188|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.09||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.09|0.53|=0.892
95845496|NCT03827655|191658189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.23||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.23|0.60|=0.760
95845497|NCT03827655|191658189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.18||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-squared test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.18|0.58|=0.810
95845498|NCT03827655|191658190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.64||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.64|0.78|=0.288
95845499|NCT03827655|191658190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||=|0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.47||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.47|0.72|=0.453
95845500|NCT03827655|191658191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.0||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.00|-0.17|=0.046
95845501|NCT03827655|191658191|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.11||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.11|-0.11|=0.516
95845502|NCT03827655|191658192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||=|0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.06||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.06|-0.12|=0.296
95962945|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.344||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.91|-6.17||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-6.17|-36.91|0.0106
95962946|NCT04092452|191897248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305||0.089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.84|2.77||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||2.77|-27.84|0.0890
95962947|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.963||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.98|3.64||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.64|-15.98|0.1505
95962948|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.555||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.19|-1.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||-1.92|-20.19|0.0233
95845503|NCT03827655|191658192|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||=|0.677|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.13||P-value was derived using a one-sided test with Ha: Risk Difference\<0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||The p-values, risk differences and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained using a stratified Miettinen and Nurminen approach with strata weighting by sample size.|||0.13|-0.07|=0.677
95845504|NCT03827655|191658193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.57||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.57|0.76|=0.338
95845505|NCT03827655|191658193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.49||P-values were derived using a one-sided test with alternative hypothesis (Ha): Hazard Ratio\>1.|Wald chi-square test||Hazard ratios, 90% CIs and associated Wald Chi-square p-values between TAK-954 dose levels and placebo are obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the only independent variable.|||1.49|0.73|=0.422
95845506|NCT03649217|191658197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
95845507|NCT03649217|191658198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0001
95845508|NCT03649217|191658199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95962949|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.1423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.09|3.41||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||3.41|-16.09|0.1423
95962950|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.202||0.3827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|9.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.70|-14.00|0.3827
95962951|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.741||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.44|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.74|-21.44|0.0624
95845509|NCT03649217|191658200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0002
95845510|NCT03649217|191658201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||||||.006
95845511|NCT02552966|191658222|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This t-test was applied to determine if the mean salivary pepsin concentration changed between baseline and 2 week post UESAD measurements.||||||0.61
95845512|NCT02552966|191658223|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95845513|NCT02552966|191658224|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95845514|NCT02552966|191658225|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95845515|NCT01721161|191658230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.48||||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|3.65|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||3.65|-10.61|0.3337
95845516|NCT01721161|191658231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.89||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.92|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||1.92|-9.70|0.1868
95845517|NCT01721161|191658232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.76||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-11.26|0.1488
95845518|NCT01721161|191658233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.15||||0.4975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.21|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|||2.21|-4.51|0.4975
95845519|NCT01721161|191658234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.76||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-5.50|0.3505
95845520|NCT01721161|191658235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6||||0.5371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.6|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 1.25% chart||3.6|-6.9|0.5371
95845521|NCT01721161|191658235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.9|||ANCOVA||Difference is calculated as BIIB033 100 mg/kg - placebo.|LCLA 2.5% chart||4.9|-6.5|0.7741
95845522|NCT01721161|191658236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.2||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 1.25% chart||4.3|-6.6|0.6645
95845523|NCT01721161|191658236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||DIfference|-0.8||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|5.2|||ANCOVA|||LCLA 2.5%||5.2|-6.7|0.8015
95845524|NCT01721161|191658237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-7.55||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-15.12|0.0504
95845525|NCT01216202|191658240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||The association between change in serum testosterone levels and cumulative mean testicular radiation dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE). No preoperative RT contributed with baseline values.||||0.014
95845526|NCT01216202|191658241|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean change|-4.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for time between preoperative radiotherapy (RT) and surgery.||The association between change in total number of sperms per ejaculate and relative mean testicular dose was assessed using longitudinal regression analysis (GEE).||-1.0|-6.9|0.008
95845527|NCT00614380|191658256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||||95.0|0.22|0.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.53|0.22|
95845528|NCT00614380|191658256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||||95.0|0.12|0.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.81|0.12|
95845529|NCT00614380|191658256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.08||||||95.0|0.06|0.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.13|0.06|
95845530|NCT00614380|191658256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||||95.0|0.34|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|0.34|
95845531|NCT00614380|191658256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||||95.0|0.16|0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.39|0.16|
95845532|NCT00614380|191658256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.1|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.72|0.10|
95845533|NCT02365649|191658270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|20.1||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-0.3|0.056
95845534|NCT02365649|191658270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|16.4||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.4|-1.6|0.108
95845535|NCT02365649|191658270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
95845536|NCT02365649|191658270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|21.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|35.2||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.2|6.8|0.004
95845537|NCT02365649|191658270|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|25.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.5|1.8|0.025
95845538|NCT02365649|191658271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.5||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|17.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-12.3|0.74
95845539|NCT02365649|191658271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|34.3||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|-2.0|0.082
95845540|NCT02365649|191658271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|0.5||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|15.0||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.0|-14.1|0.952
95845541|NCT02365649|191658271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.2||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|28.5||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|-6.1|0.205
95845542|NCT02365649|191658271|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.1||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.6||Statistical significance was prespecified at α = 0.1. Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.6|-11.5|0.607
95845543|NCT02365649|191658272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|22.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.9|-12.5|0.564
95962952|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.171||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.04|9.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||9.55|-14.04|0.3771
95845544|NCT02365649|191658272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|31.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|-7.2|0.221
95845545|NCT02365649|191658272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|43.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43|1.4|0.036
95845546|NCT02365649|191658272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.2|0.179
95845547|NCT02365649|191658272|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|22.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22|-14.3|0.677
95845548|NCT02365649|191658273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-12|0.363
95845549|NCT02365649|191658273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.3||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|40.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40|-5.5|0.137
95845550|NCT02365649|191658273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.5||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|29.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|-14.9|0.512
95845551|NCT02365649|191658273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|48.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.2|-1.8|0.035
95845552|NCT02365649|191658273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|35.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.6|-10.7|0.29
95845553|NCT02365649|191658274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-0.9||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|13.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.1|-15.0|0.896
95845554|NCT02365649|191658274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|37.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.3|0.0|0.05
95845555|NCT02365649|191658274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|18.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-12.4|0.702
95845556|NCT02365649|191658274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.3||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|32.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.2|-3.6|0.117
95845557|NCT02365649|191658274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|-2.4||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.6|-16.4|0.736
95845558|NCT02365649|191658275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.9||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|8.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-2.3|0.276
95845559|NCT02365649|191658275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|4.9||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-2.5|0.195
95845560|NCT02365649|191658275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.6||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.0|-2.9|0.355
95845561|NCT02365649|191658275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.8|-1.5|0.099
95845562|NCT02365649|191658275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|12.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.9|-2.5|0.185
95845563|NCT02365649|191658276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|0.0|0.05
95845564|NCT02365649|191658276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|47.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.1|11.9|0.001
95845565|NCT02365649|191658276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|25.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|42.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.0|8.5|0.003
95845566|NCT02365649|191658276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|55.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.4|17.6|< 0.001
95845567|NCT02365649|191658276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|50.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.2|13.9|< 0.001
95845568|NCT02365649|191658277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|28.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.2|-7.2|0.243
95845569|NCT02365649|191658277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|29.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|49.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.9|8.3|0.006
95962953|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.614||0.8247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|22.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||22.21|-6.13|0.8247
95962954|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.28|4.33||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||4.33|-22.28|0.1337
95962955|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.523||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|19.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||19.39|-8.65|0.7357
95845570|NCT02365649|191658277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|44.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.1|4.4|0.017
95845571|NCT02365649|191658277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|58.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.1|14.8|< 0.001
95845572|NCT02365649|191658277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|36.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|58.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.3|15.2|< 0.001
95845573|NCT02365649|191658278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.5||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|32.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.7|-11.7|0.353
95845574|NCT02365649|191658278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.5|0.0|0.05
95845575|NCT02365649|191658278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.5||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|34.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.6|-9.6|0.268
95845576|NCT02365649|191658278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|28.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|51.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|4.8|0.018
95962956|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.977||0.9377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|28.55||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||28.55|-0.98|0.9377
95962957|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.29|4.51||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||4.51|-23.29|0.1332
95962958|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.907||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|20.7||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||20.70|-8.60|0.7514
95962959|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.902||0.8433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.67|23.62||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.62|-5.67|0.8433
95845577|NCT02365649|191658278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|14.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|37.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.8|-8.1|0.204
95845578|NCT02365649|191658279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|10.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|34.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.4|-14.4|0.421
95845579|NCT02365649|191658279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|11.5||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|36.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|-13.8|0.371
95845580|NCT02365649|191658279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-14.4|0.445
95845581|NCT02365649|191658279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|19.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|49.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.3|-10.2|0.198
95845582|NCT02365649|191658279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|27.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.0|-17.0|0.654
95845583|NCT02365649|191658280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|18.7||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|40.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.5|-3.1|0.093
95845584|NCT02365649|191658280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.5||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|33.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.1|-6.1|0.176
95845585|NCT02365649|191658280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|35.9||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|65.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.5|6.3|0.017
95845586|NCT02365649|191658280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|26.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.5|0.7|0.044
95845587|NCT02365649|191658280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
95845588|NCT02365649|191658281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|14.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|-8.1|0.564
95845589|NCT02365649|191658281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
95845590|NCT02365649|191658281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|8.7||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|26.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.1|-8.7|0.326
95845591|NCT02365649|191658282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|30.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.7|-6.2|0.195
95845592|NCT02365649|191658282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|40.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.1|-4.4|0.116
95845593|NCT02365649|191658282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|31.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|-5.8|0.178
95845594|NCT02365649|191658282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|30.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|58.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.0|2.8|0.031
95962960|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.392||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.64|4.96||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||4.96|-22.64|0.1461
95845595|NCT02365649|191658282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.1||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|29.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|-3.5|0.121
95845596|NCT02365649|191658283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.8||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|22.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|-8.7|0.392
95845597|NCT02365649|191658283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.4||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|15.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.7|-8.8|0.584
95845598|NCT02365649|191658283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.0||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|32.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.9|-6.8|0.199
95845599|NCT02365649|191658283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|6.9||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|24.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|-10.6|0.439
95845600|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-103.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-865.69|657.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||657.87|-865.69|0.788
95962961|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.818||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.86|23.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||23.15|-5.86|0.8364
95962962|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.527||0.6085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.68|16.37||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||16.37|-11.68|0.6085
95962963|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.022||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.58|-1.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||-1.19|-27.58|0.0365
95962964|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.469||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.5|14.36||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||14.36|-13.50|0.5201
95962965|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.564||0.6813|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.05|18.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||18.12|-10.05|0.6813
95845601|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1092.83|364.29||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||364.29|-1092.83|0.325
95845602|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-926.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.78|-179.63||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-179.63|-1672.78|0.015
95845603|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-763.1||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1534.52|8.39||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||8.39|-1534.52|0.053
95845604|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-359.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1119.52|400.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 4||400.56|-1119.52|0.352
95845605|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-396.2||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1565.39|772.9||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||772.90|-1565.39|0.503
95845606|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-364.3||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1531.04|802.44||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||802.44|-1531.04|0.537
95845607|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-483.2||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1677.87|711.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||711.52|-1677.87|0.425
95845608|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1025.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2373.24|322.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||322.08|-2373.24|0.134
95845609|NCT02365649|191658284|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-637.9||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1833.82|557.96||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||557.96|-1833.82|0.293
95845610|NCT02365649|191658285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|9.97||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||9.97|-9.02|0.921
95845611|NCT02365649|191658285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|8.08||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.08|-11.19|0.75
95962966|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.91|-4.84||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-4.84|-31.91|0.0128
95962967|NCT04092452|191897249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.639||0.3181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|10.12||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||10.12|-18.30|0.3181
95845612|NCT02365649|191658285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.87||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||7.87|-11.7|0.7
95845613|NCT02365649|191658285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.38|-1.51||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-1.51|-21.38|0.024
95845614|NCT02365649|191658285|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|8.79||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||8.79|-10.72|0.845
95845615|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|16.92||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||16.92|-13.60|0.830
95845616|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|33.0||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||33.00|2.03|0.027
95845617|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.9||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|24.47||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.47|-6.72|0.263
95865569|NCT02034409|191690156|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week OMERACT-OARSI response the minimally clinically significant difference is an absolute rate difference of 10% between sham and PLIUS groups. With a total sample size of 144 the probability of correctly selecting the group with the greatest OORR is at least 0.885 assuming (δ=10%) that the sham group is drawn from a population with a 50% response rate and the PLIUS group is drawn from a population with response rate of at least 60% or at most 40%.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
95845618|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|21.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|37.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||37.52|5.68|0.008
95845619|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.8||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|24.53||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 8||24.53|-6.88|0.269
95845620|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.3||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|27.25||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||27.25|-6.63|0.231
95845621|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|45.15||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||45.15|10.68|0.002
95845622|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|34.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||34.72|-0.51|0.057
95845623|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|28.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|46.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||Week 16||46.56|11.12|0.002
95845624|NCT02365649|191658286|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|29.72||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||29.72|-5.12|0.165
95845625|NCT02365649|191658287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
95845626|NCT02365649|191658287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|16.7||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|43.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|-10.0|0.221
95845627|NCT02365649|191658287|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|20.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|49.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.2|-9.2|0.18
95845628|NCT02365649|191658287|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.0||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|48.4||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||48.4|-8.4|0.167
95845629|NCT02365649|191658288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|5.5||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|26.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.5|-15.5|0.607
95845630|NCT02365649|191658288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|12.2||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.9|-9.6|0.272
95845631|NCT02365649|191658288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.9||||-0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|37.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|-6.1|-0.157
95845632|NCT02365649|191658288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|27.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|50.6||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.6|4.9|0.017
95845633|NCT02365649|191658288|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|2.8||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|23.9||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|-18.4|0.798
95962968|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.19||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.19|-0.80|0.1536
95962969|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.02|-0.93|0.0581
95962970|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.01||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Pain at its Worst||0.01|-0.98|0.0532
95845634|NCT02365649|191658289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|9.8||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|22.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.1|-2.5|0.119
95845635|NCT02365649|191658289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|15.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|29.7||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.7|1.1|0.034
95845636|NCT02365649|191658289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|23.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|7.3|0.004
95845637|NCT02365649|191658289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|50.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.5|14.2|< 0.001
95845638|NCT02365649|191658289|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|22.9|||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|39.2||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.2|6.6|< 0.006
95845639|NCT02365649|191658290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|3.9||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|20.5||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.5|-12.7|0.647
95845640|NCT02365649|191658290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|17.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|37.1||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.1|-2.9|0.093
95845641|NCT02365649|191658290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|13.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|32.8||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|-5.6|0.165
95845642|NCT02365649|191658290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|24.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|46.3||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.3|3.4|0.023
95845643|NCT02365649|191658290|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference from placebo|7.0||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|25.0||Based on CMH test stratified by baseline SES-CD (SES-CD \<15 and SES-CD \>=15).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|-11.0|0.448
95845644|NCT02365649|191658291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.62|0.412
95845645|NCT02365649|191658291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.34||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.34|-2.47|0.01
95845646|NCT02365649|191658291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.13||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.13|-2.13|0.082
95845647|NCT02365649|191658291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.52|-2.73|0.004
95845648|NCT02365649|191658291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.26||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||1.26|-0.93|0.766
95962971|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.31||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.31|-0.95|0.2007
95962972|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.06||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.06|-1.16|0.0694
95845649|NCT02365649|191658292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.56||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.56|-1.75|0.314
95845650|NCT02365649|191658292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.68||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.68|-3.01|0.002
95845651|NCT02365649|191658292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.52||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.52|-1.94|0.255
95845652|NCT02365649|191658292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.2||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.2|-2.61|0.022
95845653|NCT02365649|191658292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.48||P value for test of difference using the repeated measure model including treatment, Baseline disease severity (SES-CD \< 15 and ≥ 15), week, Baseline, interaction of treatment and week.|mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.48|-1.92|0.239
95845654|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|21.4||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||21.4|-36.4|1.000
95845655|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|32.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||32.5|-22.5|1.000
95845656|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.272
95845657|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||8.6|-2.7|1.000
95845658|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|26.8||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||26.8|-0.7|0.068
95845659|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|12.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||12.3|-23.1|1.0000
95845660|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|18.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.7|1.000
95845661|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|23.3||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||23.3|-16.7|1.000
95845662|NCT02365649|191658293|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
95845663|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|35.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||35.5|-35.5|1.000
95853791|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||-2.70|-4.30|<0.001
95853792|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Discomfort||-3.04|-4.66|<0.001
95845664|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||42.9|-17.9|0.483
95845665|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|11.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||11.6|-41.6|0.633
95845666|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|26.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||26.4|-12.7|0.424
95845667|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
95845668|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.9|-2.4|0.149
95845669|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|30.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||30.7|-19.1|0.684
95845670|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.5|-11.5|0.404
95845671|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|34.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.1|-12.8|0.470
95845672|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845673|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
95845674|NCT02365649|191658294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845675|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.9||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||14.6|-48.4|0.624
95845676|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|36.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||36.1|-28.3|1.000
95845677|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|9.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||9.1|-48.0|0.363
95845678|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.2|-2.1|0.495
95845679|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||30.6|-0.6|0.066
95845680|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||8.9|-30.3|0.645
95845681|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||25.5|-16.8|0.686
95845682|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|28.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.2|-19.5|0.721
95845683|NCT02365649|191658295|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.9|-4.3|1.000
95845684|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.5|-47.5|1.000
95845685|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||37.8|-27.8|0.765
95865570|NCT02034409|191690157|NON_INFERIORITY|For the 48-week cartilage change outcome measure the minimally clinically significant difference is 33 μm. With a difference of 33 μm, σ=152 μm standard deviation, k=2 groups, and P=0.90 probability to obtain τ=1.8124, which we use to estimate the per-group sample size: n=σ2(τ/δ\*)2=72 or a total of 144.||||||||||||||||Sample size has been calculated with ranking and selection methodology, a procedure used for Phase II trials. The purpose of the procedure as applied to this study is to identify whether PLIUS has a high probability of being more effective than sham. This is accomplished by obtaining sample estimates of the outcome for the PLIUS and sham groups and determining whether the PLIUS group outcome is better by the pre-specified margin of difference.|Since the ranking and selection procedures are fundamentally different from traditional hypothesis testing, concepts of statistical significance and power have no direct analogue.|||
95962973|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.382||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.02|0.1509
95962974|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|0.78||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.78|-0.64|0.5663
95962975|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.23||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.23|-1.13|0.1396
95962976|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.69|0.5227
95845686|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||32.4|-42.4|1.000
95845687|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||32.5|-47.5|1.000
95845688|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||43.9|-21.4|0.502
95845689|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|42.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||42.9|-32.9|1.000
95845690|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||37.3|-42.3|1.000
95845691|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||54.5|-9.5|0.180
95845692|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||25.6|-45.6|0.702
95845693|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||3.9|-58.9|0.214
95845694|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.0|-2.5|0.086
95845695|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||37.2|-37.2|1.000
95845696|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||46.6|-31.6|1.000
95845697|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|63.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.6|1.4|0.051
95845698|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||34.8|-34.8|1.000
95845699|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||60.0|-5.0|0.075
95845700|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.2|-18.6|0.705
95845701|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.4|-20.0|1.000
95845702|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.0|-5.0|0.075
95845703|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.2|-18.6|0.705
95845704|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|18.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||18.5|-17.4|1.000
95853793|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Stinging||-2.42|-4.04|<0.001
95845705|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.8|-20.5|1.000
95845706|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||5.2|-18.0|0.348
95845707|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||20.7|-13.4|0.686
95845708|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||34.8|-19.8|0.616
95845709|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.3|-20.5|0.420
95845710|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||12.4|-20.0|1.000
95845711|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||21.8|-20.5|1.000
95845712|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-14.4|1.000
95845713|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
95845714|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.6|-21.9|0.555
95845715|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.7||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||21.8|-27.2|0.830
95845716|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-36.0|0.518
95845717|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|43.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||43.6|-18.6|0.428
95853794|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Burning||-2.41|-3.99|<0.001
95853795|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Redness||-3.03|-4.59|<0.001
95845718|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|28.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||28.4|-20.7|0.757
95845719|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||32.4|-23.2|0.745
95845720|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.0|-34.6|1.000
95845721|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||27.7|-20.6|0.773
95845722|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-29.4|0.838
95845723|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|14.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||14.1|-40.0|0.497
95845724|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||34.9|-14.0|0.404
95853796|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scaling||-3.03|-4.53|<0.001
95853797|NCT02718898|191666485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cracking||-2.79|-4.31|<0.001
95853798|NCT02559622|191666489|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|1.17||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.06|||ANCOVA|||||3.06|-0.72|0.2230
95853799|NCT02163538|191666507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95853800|NCT02163538|191666508|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95853801|NCT02163538|191666509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.582
95853802|NCT02163538|191666510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0031
95853803|NCT02163538|191666511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0281
95853804|NCT02163538|191666512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0821
95853805|NCT01710345|191666518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.742|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.742
95853806|NCT01710345|191666518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.003|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95853807|NCT03431259|191666683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0574
95853808|NCT03431259|191666683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.570
95853809|NCT00784563|191666690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Because all treatment arms were designed to deliver a similar average aerobic intensity, we planned to pool a priori all completers from the Continuous and Interval Training Arms for analysis.|Regression, Linear|||Sample size was estimated using 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.66 SD in VO2max (estimated improvement=10% /estimated SD of change=15%) within each arm at alpha=0.05 and an attrition rate of 25%.||||<0.001
95853810|NCT00784563|191666691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95853811|NCT00784563|191666692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
95853812|NCT00784563|191666693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.271
95853813|NCT00784563|191666694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||unadjusted p-value=0.009|Regression, Linear|||||||0.070
95853814|NCT00784563|191666695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95853815|NCT00784563|191666696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
95853816|NCT00784563|191666697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
95845725|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.8|-29.4|0.838
95845726|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||31.6|-24.4|1.000
95845727|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.8|-7.0|0.174
95845728|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|32.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||32.3|-19.1|0.611
95845729|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845730|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|0.488
95845731|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845732|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845733|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|0.488
95845734|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845735|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845736|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.0|-13.4|1.000
95845737|NCT02365649|191658296|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845738|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||45.5|-72.2|1.000
95853817|NCT00784563|191666698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for change in total daily equivalent levodopa dose||||||0.003
95853818|NCT00784563|191666699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.146
95853819|NCT00784563|191666700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.037
95853820|NCT00784563|191666701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.057
95853821|NCT00321789|191666702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||8.3|-3.6|0.44
95845739|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.1|-50.2|1.000
95845740|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||44.8|-4.8|1.000
95845741|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||33.2|-79.8|0.423
95845742|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|8.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||8.2|-74.0|0.250
95845743|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|28.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.6|-8.6|1.000
95845744|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.8|-4.8|1.000
95845745|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||33.1|-50.2|1.000
95845746|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||45.5|-72.2|1.000
95845747|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|12.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||12.2|-100.0|0.203
95845748|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|33.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||33.1|-50.2|1.000
95845749|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|45.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||45.5|-72.2|1.000
95845750|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
95845751|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||56.6|-33.8|1.000
95845752|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|68.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||68.0|-54.7|1.000
95845753|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845754|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845755|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845756|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845757|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845758|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845759|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|42.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||42.1|-100.0|1.000
95865571|NCT02270944|191690168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||To demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ia when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.32|0.79|
95865572|NCT02270944|191690169|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes III when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.30|0.76|
95865573|NCT02270944|191690170|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the vaccine formulations equivalence, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMCs at Day 31 after vaccination must be \> 0.5 and the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI must be \< 2.0 (the entire two-sided 95% CI must be contained in the 0.5, 2.0 interval).|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with vaccine group and center as fixed effects and log10-prevaccination antibody concentration as a covariate||to demonstrate the equivalence of the liquid GBS trivalent vaccine formulation to the lyophilized GBS trivalent vaccine formulation for serotypes Ib when administered to healthy non-pregnant women, as measured by geometric mean concentrations (GMC).||1.22|0.72|
95865574|NCT00183729|191690174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null: the two groups would not differ in depressive symptoms over time (ie both groups would improve equally in terms of their depressive symptoms) Power calculation: none; this was a pilot study||||0.42
95865575|NCT00183729|191690176|SUPERIORITY|(no comments)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: functional recovery would be the same in both groups. Power calculation: none. This was a pilot study.||||0.06
95962977|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.24||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||1.24|-0.24|0.8656
95962978|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.29||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.29|-1.13|0.1671
95962979|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.86||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Pain at its Worst||0.86|-0.62|0.6063
95962980|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.92||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.92|-0.59|0.6402
95962981|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.34|-1.11|0.1916
95845760|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845761|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845762|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||75.4|-75.4|1.000
95845763|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845764|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845765|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|75.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||75.4|-75.4|1.000
95845766|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.7|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.0|-86.7|1.000
95845767|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
95845768|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||44.0|-31.2|1.000
95845769|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-48.6|0.655
95845770|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.0|0.2|0.541
95845771|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|34.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||34.4|-37.0|1.000
95865576|NCT01375075|191690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|92.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.65|107.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||107.57|77.65|<0.001
95845772|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-29.1||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.0|8.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||8.9|-67.0|0.178
95845773|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.0|-4.2|1.000
95845774|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|33.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||33.9|-54.4|1.000
95845775|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-48.6|0.655
95845776|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||46.3|-50.1|1.000
95845777|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|19.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||19.2|-73.0|0.320
95845778|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||28.1|-48.6|0.655
95845779|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|46.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.3|-50.1|1.000
95845780|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|44.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.5|-52.2|1.000
95845781|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||44.0|-40.6|1.000
95845782|NCT02365649|191658297|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|71.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||71.5|-29.2|0.603
95845783|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|56.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||56.5|-25.6|0.673
95865577|NCT01375075|191690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|106.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.47|123.87||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||123.87|88.47|<0.001
95865578|NCT01375075|191690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|122.17||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||122.17|85.14|<0.001
95865579|NCT01375075|191690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.73|-10.19||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 2.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-10.19|-24.73|<0.001
95865580|NCT01375075|191690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.67|-3.11||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-3.11|-17.67|0.019
95962982|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.88||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Pain at its Worst||0.88|-0.62|0.6119
95962983|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.8||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.80|-0.68|0.5568
95845784|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|53.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||53.3|-14.0|0.265
95845785|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||51.5|-25.6|0.695
95845786|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.6||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||20.3|-61.4|0.394
95865581|NCT01375075|191690177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.17|-4.36||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-4.36|-20.17|0.011
95865582|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|7.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||7.88|-0.39|0.136
95962984|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.15||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.15|-1.27|0.0976
95962985|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.5001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Pain at its Worst||0.74|-0.74|0.5001
95962986|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451||0.581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.83||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.83|-0.65|0.5810
95845787|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|28.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||28.3|-36.1|1.000
95845788|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|26.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||26.7|-47.9|0.683
95845789|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.7||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||61.4|-4.1|0.205
95845790|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|46.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||46.9|-17.9|0.388
95845791|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-28.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||8.0|-65.6|0.236
95845792|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-50.6|1.000
95845793|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-6.3|0.131
95962987|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.442||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||-0.34|-1.80|0.0079
95962988|NCT04092452|191897250|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.455||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.18||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Pain at its Worst||0.18|-1.31|0.1068
95845794|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.5|-45.6|1.000
95845795|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|62.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||62.2|-19.6|0.411
95853822|NCT00321789|191666703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.01|-0.23|0.03
95853823|NCT00321789|191666704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.02|-0.29|0.02
95853824|NCT00321789|191666705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||-0.03|-0.29|0.02
95853825|NCT00321789|191666706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.03|-0.30|0.11
95853826|NCT00321789|191666707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||0.20|-0.06|0.26
95853827|NCT00321789|191666708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5|||generalized estimating equations|Based on log-transformed values. Model was adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk level strata.||||1.5|1.0|0.06
95853828|NCT00321789|191666709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|1.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||generalized estimating equations|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.4|0.9|0.37
95865583|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|6.94||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||6.94|-1.28|0.257
95962989|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.22||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.22|-0.72|0.1898
95962990|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.02||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.02|-0.88|0.0562
95962991|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.16||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 1 Average Pain||0.16|-0.78|0.1382
95962992|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.28||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.28|-0.85|0.2039
95845796|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.2||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|64.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.5|-0.2|0.067
95845797|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|37.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||37.2|-39.5|1.000
95845798|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|62.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||62.0|-8.8|0.178
95845799|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|12.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||12.3|-23.8|0.720
95845800|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-27.2|0.683
95853829|NCT00321789|191666710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||-0.09|-4.13|0.04
95853830|NCT00321789|191666711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||0.10|-1.38|0.09
95853831|NCT00321789|191666712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for a priori race and cardiovascular disease risk category.||||1.7|0.6|0.87
95853832|NCT05712460|191666738|OTHER||Ratio|126.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|150.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||150.10|106.87|
95853833|NCT05712460|191666739|OTHER||Ratio|142.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.2|174.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with sequence, and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||174.32|117.20|
95853834|NCT05560425|191666753|EQUIVALENCE|"The equivalence margin is a range of the compliance score for which the independent training of skills in each group is close enough to be considered equivalent."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|8.79|||t-test, 1 sided|degrees of freedom = 12||Null hypothesis: Compliance with independent training of skills is not equivalent between groups.||8.79|-6.22|<0.05
95853835|NCT02485691|191666758|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73||P-value from 2-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
95853836|NCT02485691|191666759|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.89||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.89|0.46|0.0078
95845801|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.0||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||58.9|-12.8|0.215
95845802|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|5.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||5.8|-30.4|0.279
95845803|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.4||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||15.4|-28.2|0.716
95845804|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.1|-27.5|1.000
95845805|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||7.1|-23.5|0.400
95845806|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||21.0|-19.6|1.000
95845807|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||38.0|-22.2|0.620
95845808|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.1|-23.5|0.400
95845809|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|14.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.2|-22.7|1.000
95845810|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|26.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.6|-18.7|1.000
95865584|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|10.1||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||10.10|1.70|0.021
95845811|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.6|-9.7|0.678
95845812|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|26.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||26.2|-10.5|0.636
95845813|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|52.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||52.5|-9.7|0.190
95845814|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.3|-17.3|0.504
95865585|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.71|3.62||The P-value is for change from baseline in SBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.62|-4.71|0.829
95962993|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.09||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.09|-1.00|0.0855
95865586|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.24||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.24|-1.69|0.603
95865587|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|1.78||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.78|-3.11|0.656
95865588|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.34||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.34|-0.67|0.228
95865589|NCT01375075|191690180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|1.51||The P-value is for change from baseline in DBP at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.51|-3.47|0.516
95865590|NCT01375075|191690181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.513|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.57|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.11|-2.57|0.513
95865591|NCT01375075|191690181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.90|-1.82|0.970
95865592|NCT01375075|191690181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.824|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.17|-1.66|0.824
95865593|NCT01375075|191690181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.769|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.52|-2.18|0.769
95865594|NCT01375075|191690182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.43|-0.65|0.735
95865595|NCT01375075|191690182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.503|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.76|-0.32|0.503
95865596|NCT01375075|191690182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.54|-0.53|0.988
95865597|NCT01375075|191690182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.13|-0.95|0.207
95865598|NCT01375075|191690183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.756|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.84|-0.57|0.756
95865599|NCT01375075|191690183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.99|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.70|-0.71|0.990
95865600|NCT01375075|191690183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.565|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.97|-0.47|0.565
95865601|NCT01375075|191690183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||0.89|-0.53|0.678
95865602|NCT01375075|191690184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.12|-0.90|0.856
95865603|NCT01375075|191690184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.10|-0.90|0.869
95865604|NCT01375075|191690184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.869|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.13|-0.92|0.869
95865605|NCT01375075|191690184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||1.63|-0.40|0.317
95865606|NCT01375075|191690186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.888|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.20|-0.24|0.888
95865607|NCT01375075|191690186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.23|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.23|-0.21|0.939
95865608|NCT01375075|191690186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.36|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.36|-0.08|0.296
95845815|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||31.0|-27.8|0.916
95845816|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|31.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||31.7|-31.7|1.000
95845817|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-35.3|0.504
95845818|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.1||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|22.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||22.3|-36.6|0.635
95865609|NCT01375075|191690186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was included in the model as fixed effects, baseline hsCRP as covariate.||||0.40|-0.04|0.181
95865610|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.16|-33.41||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-33.41|-53.16|<0.001
95865611|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-76.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.89|-66.97||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-66.97|-86.89|<0.001
95865612|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-90.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.87|-80.75||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-80.75|-100.87|<0.001
95865613|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.12|-57.39||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-57.39|-77.12|<0.001
95865614|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.88|-32.33||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-32.33|-52.88|<0.001
95865615|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-78.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.15|-68.71||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-68.71|-89.15|<0.001
95865616|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-93.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.08|-83.26||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-83.26|-104.08|<0.001
95865617|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-85.46|-64.57||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-64.57|-85.46|<0.001
95865618|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.53|-42.04||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-42.04|-58.53|<0.001
95865619|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-83.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.32|-74.83||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-74.83|-91.32|<0.001
95962994|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.39||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 2 Average Pain||0.39|-0.74|0.3089
95845819|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|42.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.5|-21.1|0.513
95845820|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||28.1|-24.7|0.898
95845821|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|15.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||15.5|-41.7|0.379
95845822|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.4|-34.5|0.822
95845823|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|35.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||35.0|-17.3|0.508
95845824|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||22.4|-34.3|0.683
95845825|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|45.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||45.1|-16.6|0.490
95845826|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.5|-1.9|0.078
95845827|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|38.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||38.4|-17.7|0.466
95865620|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-94.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-102.92|-86.1||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-86.10|-102.92|<0.001
95962995|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.79||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.79|-0.55|0.6124
95962996|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.14||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.14|-1.15|0.1003
95962997|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.6875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.87||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 4 Average Pain||0.87|-0.47|0.6875
95962998|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|1.21||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||1.21|-0.19|0.8833
95962999|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.25||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.25|-1.11|0.1502
95963000|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.6788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.9||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 6 Average Pain||0.90|-0.50|0.6788
95963001|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|0.94||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.94|-0.51|0.6835
95963002|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.38||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.38|-1.02|0.2237
95845828|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845829|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|0.447
95865621|NCT01375075|191690187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-67.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.2|-59.16||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in plasma CETP activity at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-59.16|-76.20|<0.001
95963003|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.98||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 8 Average Pain||0.98|-0.46|0.7234
95963004|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.4773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.67||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.67|-0.72|0.4773
95845830|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845831|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|1.000
95845832|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.193
95845833|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|3.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.6|-27.1|0.498
95845834|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845835|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|0.447
95845836|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95865622|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.21||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.21|1.38|<0.001
95865623|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|3.48||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.48|2.65|<0.001
95865624|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.04|3.88||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.88|3.04|<0.001
95865625|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 4.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.81|<0.001
95865626|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.36||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.36|1.40|<0.001
95963005|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.1||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.10|-1.25|0.0818
95963006|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.85||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 12 Average Pain||0.85|-0.55|0.6397
95963007|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|0.74||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.74|-0.67|0.5321
95845837|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845838|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|0.447
95963008|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.2||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||-0.20|-1.59|0.0167
95963009|NCT04092452|191897251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|0.34||One-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Week 16 Average Pain||0.34|-1.09|0.1963
95963010|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|6.0||||||Week 1||6.0|-10.3|
95845839|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845840|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845841|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||13.3|-15.5|1.000
95845842|NCT02365649|191658298|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.3|-17.1|1.000
95845843|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|43.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||43.9|-57.2|1.000
95845844|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||55.8|-9.2|0.323
95845845|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||60.0|6.7|0.516
95845846|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|14.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||14.0|-77.4|0.191
95845847|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||22.6|-26.0|1.000
95865627|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.47||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.47|2.51|<0.001
95845848|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||24.0|-7.3|1.000
95963011|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|11.3||||||Week 1||11.3|-7.3|
95963012|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|17.4||||||Week 1||17.4|-3.9|
95845849|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||60.0|6.7|0.261
95963013|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|23.4||||||Week 2||23.4|-2.0|
95963014|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|19.7||||||Week 2||19.7|-4.5|
95963015|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.6||||||Week 2||19.6|-4.6|
95963016|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.95|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|20.5||||||Week 4||20.5|-5.7|
95963017|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|28.7||||||Week 4||28.7|1.4|
95963018|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.0|17.5||||||Week 4||17.5|-8.0|
95963019|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|28.0||||||Week 6||28.0|0.7|
95963020|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|24.0||||||Week 6||24.0|-2.2|
95963021|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|23.9||||||Week 6||23.9|-2.6|
95845850|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||55.8|-9.2|0.323
95845851|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||58.5|-41.8|1.000
95845852|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||23.9|-77.2|0.593
95845853|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|55.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.8|-9.2|0.323
95845854|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|58.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||58.5|-41.8|1.000
95845855|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|66.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||66.5|-23.1|0.600
95845856|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|65.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||65.2|-1.9|0.162
95865628|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.42|4.41||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||4.41|3.42|<0.001
95845857|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|67.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||67.4|-34.1|1.000
95845858|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|77.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.2|-50.5|1.000
95845859|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845860|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845861|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||2.9|-82.9|0.464
95845862|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||19.3|-100.0|0.400
95865629|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|2.52||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.52|1.56|<0.001
95845863|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-46.7||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||17.2|-100.0|0.464
95865630|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|2.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.31|1.34|<0.001
95865631|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.34|3.31||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.31|2.34|<0.001
95865632|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.74|3.73||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||3.73|2.74|<0.001
95865633|NCT01375075|191690188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.65|2.63||The P-value is for change from baseline in plasma CETP mass at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||2.63|1.65|<0.001
95865634|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|74.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.38|95.07||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||95.07|53.38|<0.001
95865635|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|136.14||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||136.14|94.58|<0.001
95865636|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|135.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.5|156.63||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||156.63|114.50|<0.001
95865637|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.5|-7.43||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-7.43|-23.50|0.002
95865638|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-23.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.37|-15.38||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-15.38|-31.37|<0.001
95865639|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.32|-14.06||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||Comparisons between LY2484595 and Placebo were the primary focus for this endpoint.||-14.06|-30.32|<0.001
95865640|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.32|124.18||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||124.18|82.32|<0.001
95865641|NCT01375075|191690189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.72|-6.55||The P-value is for percent change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate.||||-6.55|-22.72|0.003
95865642|NCT01379508|191690191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.5||||||Missing DNA data at Wk 52=failure: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||2.5|-10.5|
95865643|NCT01379508|191690191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1||||||Imputing +/- 7 days DNA for Wk 52: To evaluate the primary objective, Mantel-Haenszel weighted estimates approach (stratified by HBV DNA level (\< 7 log10 copies/mL or ≥ 7 log10 copies/mL) and ALT (\< 3×ULN or ≥ 3×ULN) at baseline) was employed to assess the proportion of patients (response rate) who achieve HBV DNA \< 300 copies/mL after 52 weeks treatment in each treatment arm, as well as the difference in proportions (telbivudine - tenofovir arm) and the 95% CI of the difference.||3.1|-9.4|
95963022|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|23.9||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||23.9|-3.6|0.1162
95963023|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|27.0||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||27.0|-0.8|0.0642
95845864|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845865|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845866|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|41.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||41.8|-95.1|1.000
95845867|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||70.8|-100.0|1.000
95845868|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||86.7|-20.0|1.000
95845869|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-77.2|1.000
95845870|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|-70.8|1.000
95845871|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||100.0|13.3|1.000
95845872|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|40.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.4|-33.8|1.000
95845873|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.5|-15.2|0.408
95845874|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.2|9.5|0.266
95845875|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.2|-0.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||-0.5|-66.2|0.121
95845876|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||-10|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||14.6|-34.6|-10.0
95845877|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.3|-6.0|1.000
95865644|NCT01379508|191690191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4||||||Imputing LOCF DNA for wk 52: d/c for non response prior to Wk 52: Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with LOCF for other patients||0.4|-7.9|
95845878|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.9|-45.3|1.000
95845879|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||48.5|-15.2|0.408
95845880|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||55.7|-29.1|1.000
95845881|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-26.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|11.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||11.9|-65.3|0.241
95845882|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|48.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||48.5|-15.2|0.408
95845883|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|55.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||55.7|-29.1|1.000
95845884|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|36.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.6|-43.3|1.000
95865645|NCT01379508|191690191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was derived if the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the difference lied above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||Imputing within +28d DNA for wk52: d/c for non response \<28 days from Wk 52:Treating missing as failure for patients who discontinued prior to Week 52 due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect and imputing missing with the earliest available assessment within the 28-day window starting from the scheduled Week 52 date for other patients (if no such assessment is available, treated as failure)||3.8|-8.3|
95845885|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|62.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||62.9|-2.9|0.217
95845886|NCT02365649|191658299|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|69.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.9|-16.5|0.603
95845887|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||52.6|-27.6|0.686
95845888|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
95845889|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||27.4|-47.4|0.709
95845890|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.1|-16.6|1.000
95845891|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|23.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.0|-6.1|0.428
95845892|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||22.9|-9.3|0.639
95845893|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|39.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.2|-22.2|0.583
95845894|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.9|-7.2|0.171
95845895|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
95845896|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845897|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||13.0|-13.4|1.000
95845898|NCT02365649|191658300|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845899|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
95845900|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
95845901|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
95845902|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.1|-14.6|1.000
95845903|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.3|-10.1|1.000
95845904|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|16.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||16.7|-11.8|1.000
95845905|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
95845906|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
95845907|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|20.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||20.4|-11.9|0.623
95845908|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95845909|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.7|-18.7|1.000
95845910|NCT02365649|191658301|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||3.1|-23.1|0.501
95845911|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|28.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||28.9|-23.9|1.000
95845912|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||47.5|-5.0|0.204
95845913|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||3.1|-23.1|0.540
95845914|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||2.9|-9.2|1.000
95845915|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||17.0|-5.6|0.614
95845916|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||11.5|-9.1|1.000
95845917|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|16.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||16.8|-15.0|1.000
95845918|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-2.5|0.135
95845919|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||12.1|-14.1|1.000
95845920|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95865646|NCT03603509|191690198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad = HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone Alternative Hypothesis: HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluad NE HAI Day 28 - HAI Day 0 for Fluzone||||0.062
95865647|NCT03603509|191690207|SUPERIORITY|null hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index = CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline alternate hypothesis: CMV Fluad sample index not equal to CMV Fluzone sample index at Baseline||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95865648|NCT00830791|191690238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.26|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.322.|||1.26|0.43|0.325
95865649|NCT00830791|191690239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.061 for this comparison.|||1.20|0.76|0.718
95845921|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||20.3|-11.3|1.000
95845922|NCT02365649|191658302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95845923|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|51.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||51.9|-21.9|0.669
95845924|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||45.2|-15.2|0.343
95845925|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||17.2|-57.2|0.442
95845926|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|32.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||32.2|-23.4|1.000
95865650|NCT00830791|191690240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.2|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale was 0.104 for this comparison.|||2.20|1.21|0.014
95845927|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|23.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||23.5|-13.6|0.601
95963024|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.36||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|21.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 8||21.8|-5.7|0.1664
95845928|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.7|-18.2|1.000
95865651|NCT00830791|191690242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.6|||ANCOVA||The mean square error on a log scale for this comparison was 0.133.|||1.60|0.81|0.505
95865652|NCT00830791|191690244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
95865653|NCT00830791|191690245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|0.00|
95963025|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.1882|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|20.5||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||20.5|-6.1|0.1882
95865654|NCT02446171|191690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|105.84|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.84|92.40|
95865655|NCT02446171|191690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.17|107.43|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.43|93.17|
95865656|NCT02446171|191690259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.7|100.4|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.40|88.70|
95865657|NCT02446171|191690260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.24|105.8|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||105.80|92.24|
95865658|NCT02446171|191690260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.65|107.72|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||107.72|93.65|
95845929|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|47.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||47.5|-14.5|0.301
95845930|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||39.4|-10.3|0.256
95845931|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|29.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.5|-26.5|0.917
95845932|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|1.000
95845933|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||17.3|-28.8|0.697
95845934|NCT02365649|191658303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||-2.5|-37.5|0.126
95845935|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.8|-30.8|0.691
95845936|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.8||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|60.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||60.0|-2.5|0.086
95845937|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||25.6|-45.6|0.702
95845938|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||-1.0|-24.0|0.557
95963026|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|28.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||28.8|1.1|0.0423
95845939|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
95845940|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||24.2|-14.4|0.707
95845941|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|28.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||28.8|-27.9|1.000
95845942|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|40.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||40.6|-7.2|0.175
95845943|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.4|-18.0|0.517
95845944|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
95845945|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
95845946|NCT02365649|191658304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
95845947|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|41.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||41.0|-41.0|1.000
95845948|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||50.3|-12.8|0.257
95845949|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
95845950|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||19.3|-24.3|1.000
95845951|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|15.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.0|-16.5|1.000
95845952|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|15.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||15.9|-55.9|0.440
95845953|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|31.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||31.4|-28.7|1.000
95845954|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||34.9|-14.0|0.404
95845955|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|29.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||29.7|-24.8|0.859
95845956|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
95865659|NCT02446171|191690260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|94.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.2|100.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||100.82|89.20|
95865660|NCT02446171|191690261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|97.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.09|106.92|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||106.92|88.09|
95865661|NCT02446171|191690261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|100.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|110.16|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||110.16|91.80|
95865662|NCT02446171|191690261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio#|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.13|111.82|||ANOVA|The results are based on ANOVA of log transformed PK parameters with sequence, period, treatment, and subject nested within sequence as fixed effects.||||111.82|93.13|
95963027|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|16.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 12||16.3|-9.7|0.3396
95963028|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|14.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||14.8|-9.4|0.3584
95845957|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
95845958|NCT02365649|191658305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
95845959|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|43.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||43.8|-23.8|0.606
95845960|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||64.1|5.9|0.034
95845961|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||0.6|-30.6|0.532
95845962|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|21.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||21.8|-20.5|1.000
95845963|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||13.3|-14.4|1.000
95845964|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||14.6|-16.0|1.000
95845965|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.8|-11.7|0.350
95845966|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significant at the 0.5 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||41.3|2.0|0.034
95845967|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|18.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||18.3|-15.9|1.000
95845968|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|1.000
95865663|NCT02484859|191690289|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Median intraoperative bleeding scores were compared with Wilcoxon test. In this pilot study the power analysis showed that a sample size of 44 patients in each group was sufficient to detect a difference of 0.2 in the mean (standard deviation of 0.4) with an 80% power with an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 20%. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the distribution of data.||||>0.69
95865664|NCT02484859|191690290|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95865665|NCT02484859|191690291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
95865666|NCT02484859|191690292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at arrrival to post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.05
95963029|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|28.3||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||28.3|1.5|0.0367
95963030|NCT04092452|191897252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|17.8||One-sided p-value|MR weighting strategy|P-value method for risk difference (RD) was minimum risk (MR) weighting strategy by Mehrotra and Railkar (2000).||Week 16||17.8|-7.4|0.2486
95845969|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||14.6|-25.5|0.663
95845970|NCT02365649|191658306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders||0.6|-30.6|0.251
95845971|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.536
95845972|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||30.6|-0.6|0.238
95845973|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||24.3|-34.3|1.000
95845974|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||23.8|-43.8|0.606
95845975|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.5|1.000
95845976|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
95845977|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
95845978|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
95845979|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
95845980|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||69.2|5.8|0.099
95845981|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.3||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|60.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.3|2.2|0.052
95845982|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
95865667|NCT02484859|191690292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that the visual analog pain scores (VAS) of patients at discharge from post anesthetic care unit (PACU) were similar.||||0.55
95865668|NCT02484859|191690293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95845983|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|64.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||64.1|0.9|0.194
95845984|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
95845985|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|32.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||32.9|-42.9|1.000
95845986|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|51.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||51.1|-18.6|0.477
95845987|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|21.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.3|-26.4|0.833
95845988|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|21.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||21.7|-30.9|0.732
95845989|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|54.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.2|-15.4|0.468
95845990|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|11.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||11.7|-34.1|0.339
95845991|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.3|0.263
95845992|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
95845993|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
95845994|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
95845995|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
95845996|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|22.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.6|-19.6|0.891
95865669|NCT02054481|191690294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|53.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||53.8|19.0|<0.0001
95865670|NCT02054481|191690295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 12||28.2|1.0|0.0355
95963031|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
95845997|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.3|-25.8|0.779
95845998|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
95845999|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
95846000|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
95846001|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|36.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||36.2|7.6|0.083
95846002|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|32.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.0|-2.1|0.151
95846003|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|24.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||24.1|-22.4|1.000
95846004|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|26.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||26.3|-25.4|1.000
95846005|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.2||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.9|-31.3|0.417
95846006|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|6.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||6.2|-46.7|0.125
95846007|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
95846008|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
95846009|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-18.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|9.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||9.6|-46.1|0.200
95865671|NCT02054481|191690295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|Week 24||36.2|6.0|0.0062
95865672|NCT02054481|191690296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.1||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||42.9|11.3|0.0008
95865673|NCT02054481|191690297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.1||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|21.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||21.1|-0.8|0.0706
95963032|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
95865674|NCT02054481|191690298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||37.7|1.9|0.0300
95865675|NCT02054481|191690300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for weight (=\<100kg vs \>100kg) \& prior exposure to 2 or more tumour necrosis factor antagonists with discontinuation due to lack of efficacy|Difference calculated as BI 90+180 mg minus Stelara|||36.6|5.7|0.0072
95865676|NCT02054481|191690301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Log Rank|||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
95865677|NCT02320903|191690313|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was 0.16.|||
95865678|NCT02320903|191690313|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.22.|||
95865679|NCT02320903|191690314|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
95865680|NCT02320903|191690314|OTHER|What was the within-group change over time effect size?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for teen report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
95865681|NCT02320903|191690315|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.10.|||
95865682|NCT02320903|191690315|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.28.|||
95865683|NCT02320903|191690316|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.16.|||
95865684|NCT02320903|191690316|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size? (Cohen's d)||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.21.|||
95963033|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
95963034|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
95963035|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
95865685|NCT02320903|191690317|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?|||||||||||||Paired samples T test (change over time)|||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.62.|||
95865686|NCT02320903|191690317|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.23.|||
95865687|NCT02320903|191690318|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.22.|||
95963036|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
95865688|NCT02320903|191690318|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired samples T tests were used to measure within-groups change over time for teens.|Cohen's d for youth report was d = 0.26.|||
95865689|NCT02320903|191690319|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d =.12.|||
95865690|NCT02320903|191690320|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.81.|||
95865691|NCT02320903|191690321|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for parents over time.|Cohen's d for parent report on this measure was d = 0.43.|||
95865692|NCT02320903|191690322|EQUIVALENCE|What was the within-group change over time effect size (Cohen's d)?||||||||||||||||Paired sample T tests were used to measure change for teens over time.|Cohen's d for youth report on this measure was d = 24.|||
95865693|NCT01012219|191690323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||||1.56|0.96|
95865694|NCT02415842|191690474|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.72|0.73|
95865695|NCT02415842|191690474|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.81|0.83|
95963037|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
95963038|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
95963039|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
95963040|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
95963041|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
95963042|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
95963043|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
95963044|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
95846010|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||50.8|-7.9|0.177
95846011|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|46.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.2|-1.4|0.074
95846012|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
95846013|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.8|-7.9|0.177
95846014|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.8|-12.7|0.343
95846015|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.3|-36.1|0.585
95846016|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-9.9|-50.1|0.539
95846017|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|9.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||9.3|-40.8|0.277
95846018|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|11.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||11.5|-42.9|0.422
95846019|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
95846020|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
95846021|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||5.4|-41.1|0.364
95846022|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
95963045|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
95963046|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
95963047|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
95963048|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
95963049|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
95846023|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
95846024|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
95846025|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95846026|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|10.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.8|-21.2|0.606
95846027|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|16.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||16.0|-21.7|1.000
95846028|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95846029|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
95846030|NCT02365649|191658307|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
95846031|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|48.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||48.0|-13.0|0.633
95846032|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.0024
95846033|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|34.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||34.8|-34.8|1.000
95963050|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
95963051|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
95963052|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
95846034|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.8|-39.8|1.000
95846035|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
95963053|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
95963054|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
95846036|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||15.1|-55.1|0.384
95846037|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
95846038|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
95846039|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-35.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8|0.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||0.8|-70.8|0.108
95846040|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|52.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||52.6|-27.6|0.686
95846041|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
95846042|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|27.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||27.4|-47.4|0.709
95846043|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.2|5.8|0.099
95846044|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
95846045|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||38.0|-38.0|1.000
95846046|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|50.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||50.7|-19.5|0.465
95865696|NCT02415842|191690474|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H1N1\_AS over H1N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.24|0.63|
95963055|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
95963056|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
95963057|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
95963058|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
95963059|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
95963060|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
95963061|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
95963062|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
95963063|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
95963064|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
95846047|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.9||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||27.0|-19.3|0.745
96002489|NCT05132322|191982296|SUPERIORITY|We included dichotomous continuous pulse oximetry use as the outcome, and study arm, phase, and arm-by-phase interaction as fixed effects. We incorporated random intercepts to account for repeated pulse oximetry observations clustered within patients, and patients clustered within hospitals. We adjusted for: age, preterm birth, time since weaning from oxygen, presence of an enteral feeding tube, neurologic impairment, and an indicator of observation during overnight hours (11PM-7AM).|Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.8||P\<.05 was considered the threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Logistic|We adjusted for: patient age, preterm birth, time since oxygen, feeding tube, neurologic impairment, and an indicator of overnight observation.|The adjusted difference in differences across the unlearning + substitution versus unlearning arms between the baseline and sustainment phases was 3.1 (95% CI, -2.7 to +8.8, P=.29) percentage points.|"Researchers hypothesized that the unlearning + substitution arm would result in superior sustainment of deimplementation. This was tested by evaluating the difference in the proportion of overuse between arms, contrasted between phases (difference in differences) shown in the data table above. The null hypothesis was that the difference would not be significantly different from 0. We conducted mixed-effects regression with logit link melogit in Stata 18."||8.8|-2.7|.29
96002490|NCT04013555|191982304|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|-12.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
96002491|NCT04013555|191982305|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|-1766.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|550.7|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
96002492|NCT04013555|191982306|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
96002493|NCT05405725|191982307|OTHER|Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, age strata, previous treatment with bisphosphonate and baseline BMD value as covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9167|0.5259||||||Comparison between Study Treatment Groups||0.5259|-0.9167|
96002494|NCT05405725|191982308|OTHER|"ANCOVA is performed on log-transformed data of AUEC0-6m of sCTX with treatment group as fixed effect, and baseline sCTX value as a covariate.~Equivalence is established if 90% CIs of geometric mean ratio lies between 0.8 and 1.25."|Geometric mean ratio|1.004|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9795|1.0299||||||Comparison between Study Treatment Groups||1.0299|0.9795|
96002495|NCT04539964|191982318|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|23.1||The study is considered successful if there is a statistically significant improvement in the proportion of subjects with ACR20 response in favor of the SetPoint System at the one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.1|0.6|0.0209
96002496|NCT04539964|191982319|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|31.7||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|7.3|0.0048
95846048|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||16.1|-32.6|0.512
95865697|NCT02415842|191690475|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 21 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.47|1.12|
96002497|NCT04539964|191982320|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.3||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.3|1.1|0.0528
96002498|NCT04539964|191982321|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.4|-3.3|0.0797
96002499|NCT04539964|191982322|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|19.0||Adjusted p-value. Hochberg's step-up procedure was used to control the family wise type 1 error rate at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.0|-3.1|0.0797
96002500|NCT04539964|191982323|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.2476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-14.4|0.2476
95963065|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
95963066|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
95963067|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
95963068|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
95963069|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
96002501|NCT04539964|191982324|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-20.2||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.2|-38.1|0.0156
96002502|NCT04539964|191982325|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that control group response rate exceeds the treatment group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-18.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|-2.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-2.6|-34.7|0.0099
96002503|NCT04539964|191982326|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.8|0.0618
96002504|NCT04539964|191982327|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-1.8|0.0308
95846049|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-12.2|0.281
95846050|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.1||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||14.6|-30.8|0.486
95846051|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.8||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|8.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||8.0|-39.5|0.212
95963070|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
95963071|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
95963072|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
95963073|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
95963074|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
95963075|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
95963076|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
95963077|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
95963078|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
95963079|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
95963080|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
96002505|NCT04539964|191982328|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.7|0.0441
96002506|NCT04539964|191982329|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.2871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|0.2871
95846052|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|46.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||46.0|-22.3|0.697
95963081|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
95963082|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
96002507|NCT04539964|191982330|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.9|0.4345
96002508|NCT04539964|191982331|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.1|0.0900
96002509|NCT04539964|191982332|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.7|0.0662
95846053|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
95846054|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
95846055|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||39.9|-23.7|0.678
95846056|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|21.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||21.9|-18.6|0.873
95846057|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|22.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||22.0|-22.3|0.990
95846058|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||39.9|-23.7|0.678
95846059|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|25.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||25.2|-16.0|0.663
95846060|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|11.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||11.0|-28.7|0.494
95846061|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|48.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||48.1|-1.6|0.169
95846062|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.7|11.5|0.005
95846063|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||28.1|-26.8|0.963
95846064|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||33.2|-19.8|0.729
96002510|NCT04539964|191982333|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-3.9|0.0450
96002511|NCT04539964|191982334|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that the control group mean change exceeds the treatment group mean change.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-3.2|0.0350
95846065|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-25.8|0.804
95846066|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|13.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||13.1|-41.1|0.306
95846067|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||40.0|-14.1|0.497
95846068|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|23.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||23.8|-24.0|0.993
95846069|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
95846070|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.3|-24.0|0.655
95846071|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||40.0|-9.0|0.221
95846072|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|20.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||20.3|-36.1|0.585
95846073|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
95846074|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
95846075|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|23.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||23.4|-32.9|0.741
95846076|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||-6.0|-44.0|0.544
95846077|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.5||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-38.2|0.238
95865698|NCT02415842|191690475|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||3.03|1.54|
95865699|NCT02415842|191690475|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.54|1.49|
95963083|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
95963084|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
95846078|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.9||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|5.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||5.4|-41.1|0.364
95846079|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|46.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||46.5|-46.5|1.000
95846080|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|13.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||13.5|-34.9|0.454
95846081|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||-6.0|-44.0|0.063
95846082|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
95846083|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||14.6|-25.5|0.663
95846084|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||0.6|-30.6|0.251
95846085|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||4.6|-14.6|1.000
95846086|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|13.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||13.0|-13.4|1.000
95846087|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|18.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||18.7|-14.4|1.000
95846088|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95846089|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||17.7|-18.7|1.000
95846090|NCT02365649|191658308|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||3.1|-23.1|0.501
95846091|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.155
95846092|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||50.1|9.9|0.024
95846093|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|33.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||33.4|-40.1|1.000
95846094|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.6||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|29.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||29.2|-46.4|0.633
95846095|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|27.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||27.2|-24.7|1.000
95846096|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|12.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||12.5|-61.3|0.209
95846097|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.283
95846098|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
95846099|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-41.7||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.8|-5.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-5.5|-77.8|0.048
95846100|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|61.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||61.4|-18.6|0.408
95846101|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|55.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||55.5|-5.5|0.126
95846102|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|21.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||21.1|-54.5|0.454
95846103|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.7||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|69.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||69.7|1.8|0.183
95846104|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.8||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|50.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||50.3|-12.8|0.257
95846105|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|33.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.6|-44.7|1.000
95846106|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|76.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||76.3|-9.7|0.307
95846107|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||70.8|-4.1|0.172
95865700|NCT02415842|191690475|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H5N1\_AS over H5N1\_NAS) at Day 385 . Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||2.01|1.32|
95865701|NCT02415842|191690476|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 21. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.69|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.69|1.14|
95963085|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
95846108|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||55.1|-40.9|1.000
95846109|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|54.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||54.5|-27.8|1.000
95846110|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.7||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.1|-51.5|0.675
95846111|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.9||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|33.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||33.5|-59.2|0.644
95846112|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-50.6|1.000
95846113|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.0|-33.4|1.000
95846114|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||55.1|-40.9|1.000
95846115|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.6|-50.6|1.000
95846116|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||50.0|-33.4|1.000
95846117|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||55.1|-40.9|1.000
95846118|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.2|-40.2|1.000
95865702|NCT02415842|191690476|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 42. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.73|1.28|
95865703|NCT02415842|191690476|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted GMC ratios of anti-H1 HA stalk ELISA antibody concentration between groups (H9N2\_AS over H9N2\_NAS) at Day 182. Adjusted GMC = GMC adjusted for baseline concentration.|Adjusted GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.44|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on logarithm10 transformation of concentration, with vaccine group as fixed effect and anti- H1 stalk ELISA result at Day 0 as covariates||||1.44|1.00|
95963086|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
95963087|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
95963088|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
95963089|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
95963090|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
95963091|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
95963092|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
95963093|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
95865704|NCT02415842|191690477|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|10.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|36.83|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.83|-16.50|
95865705|NCT02415842|191690477|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|36.98|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||36.98|-14.45|
95865706|NCT02415842|191690477|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H1N1\_AS minus H1N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|-6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.56|18.65|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||18.65|-30.56|
95865707|NCT02415842|191690478|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|47.01|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||47.01|5.96|
95865708|NCT02415842|191690478|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|36.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.41|57.53|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||57.53|11.41|
95865709|NCT02415842|191690478|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|24.71|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||24.71|-11.91|
95865710|NCT02415842|191690478|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H5N1\_AS minus H5N1\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 365.|Difference in percentage of subjects|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|22.15|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||22.15|-6.19|
95865711|NCT02415842|191690479|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 21.|Difference in percentage of subjects|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|20.24|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||20.24|-13.06|
95865712|NCT02415842|191690479|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 42.|Difference in percentage of subjects|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|34.76|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||34.76|0.35|
95865713|NCT02415842|191690479|EQUIVALENCE|Difference between groups (H9N2\_AS minus H9N2\_NAS) in percentage of subjects with at least 4-fold increase of anti-H1 stalk ELISA at Day 182.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.76|15.0|||Asymptotic standardized 95% CI|||||15.00|-13.76|
95963094|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
95963095|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
95865714|NCT00178503|191690484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear trend P value|0.0|||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC repeated measures one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with MPH dosing regimen as the within-subjects variable.||||=.001
95865715|NCT00178503|191690485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.005||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
95865716|NCT00178503|191690486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Linear p|0.0|||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95963096|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
95963097|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
95963098|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
95963099|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
95963100|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
95865717|NCT00791973|191690548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.33
95865718|NCT00791973|191690549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.14
95865719|NCT03860935|191690550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Finkelstein-Schoenfeld Method|||||||<0.0001
95865720|NCT03860935|191690551|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.477|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|20.18|59.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||59.10|20.18|<0.0001
95963101|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
95963102|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
95963103|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
95963104|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
95846119|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|59.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||59.6|-22.9|0.392
95846120|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|50.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.5|-44.7|1.000
95865721|NCT03860935|191690552|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.79|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||14.10|5.79|<0.0001
95846121|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|51.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||51.5|6.5|0.070
95846122|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|49.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||49.2|9.8|0.007
95846123|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|32.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||32.8|-26.1|0.826
95865722|NCT03860935|191690553|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|5.73|8.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS means are from a MMRM model with treatment group, visit, randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level (as recorded in IXRS) and treatment group-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate. Missing measurements due to early discontinuation of study treatment and due to death were imputed using the Jump to Reference (J2R) method and sampling with replacement from the worst 5% of observed values, respectively, as specified in study SAP.||8.46|5.73|<0.0001
95865723|NCT03860935|191690554|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|25.0||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test is stratified by randomization stratification factors of genotype, NT-proBNP level and eGFR level as recorded in IXRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0569
95865724|NCT03739242|191690561|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-39.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.57|-29.75|||ANCOVA|||||-29.75|-48.57|<0.0001
95865725|NCT03739242|191690562|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-30.74|||ANCOVA|||||-30.74|-51.73|0.0001
95846124|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|27.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||27.7|-27.2|1.000
95846125|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.3|-27.8|0.649
95865726|NCT03739242|191690563|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.09||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-2.87|0.9510
95865727|NCT03739242|191690564|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.58|-31.82|||ANCOVA|||||-31.82|-51.58|<0.0001
95865728|NCT03739242|191690565|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-7.0||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-17.59|0.1924
95865729|NCT03739242|191690566|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-17.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.54|-10.98|||ANCOVA|||||-10.98|-23.54|<0.0001
95865730|NCT03739242|191690567|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.19|<0.0001
95865731|NCT03739242|191690568|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
95865732|NCT03739242|191690569|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-3.47||||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.7|-12.64|0.4535
95865733|NCT03739242|191690570|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.74||||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-1.76|0.5594
95963105|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
95963106|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
95963107|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
95963108|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
95963109|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
95846126|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|12.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||12.4|-45.7|0.304
95846127|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|38.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||38.7|-18.2|0.720
95846128|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|25.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||25.4|-23.0|0.923
95846129|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.4|-50.4|0.197
95846130|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|43.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||43.5|-20.4|0.486
95846131|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||42.7|-7.0|0.168
95846132|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|27.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||27.6|-34.3|0.833
95846133|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|53.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.4|-8.2|0.173
95846134|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||42.8|-7.6|0.178
95865734|NCT03739242|191690571|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.07||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-1.63|0.9266
95865735|NCT03739242|191690572|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|6.02||||0.2654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|16.69|||ANCOVA|||||16.69|-4.66|0.2654
95865736|NCT03739242|191690573|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-5.95||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.37|4.47|||ANCOVA|||||4.47|-16.37|0.2595
95865737|NCT03739242|191690574|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|0.003||||0.8476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.039|0.8476
95865738|NCT03739242|191690575|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|-0.21||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.49|0.1499
95865739|NCT03739242|191690576|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean difference|1.71||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|11.25|||ANCOVA|||||11.25|-7.83|0.7224
95865740|NCT01122394|191690577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||robust regression|controlling for provider clustering||Robust regressions were performed||||0.29
95865741|NCT01122394|191690578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|This analysis includes participants in pre-action and action/maintenance||||||0.25
95865742|NCT01122394|191690579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95865743|NCT01122394|191690580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
95963110|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
95865744|NCT01122394|191690581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
95865745|NCT02446743|191690582|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine Group Difference|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.1|84.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||84.1|68.1|
95865746|NCT02446743|191690582|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.9|69.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||69.2|49.9|
95963111|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
95963112|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
95846135|NCT02365649|191658309|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|30.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANCOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||30.9|-30.9|1.000
95846136|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||16.3|-71.9|0.580
95846137|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||39.7|-53.6|1.000
95846138|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||23.3|-72.2|0.580
95846139|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-38.9||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|5.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||5.2|-83.0|0.287
95846140|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|41.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||41.9|-53.0|1.000
95846141|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|38.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||38.3|-69.4|1.000
95846142|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|16.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||16.3|-71.9|0.580
95846143|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||53.0|-41.9|1.000
95846144|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.4||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||23.3|-72.2|0.580
95846145|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-44.4||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-12.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-12.0|-76.9|0.103
95846146|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|53.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||53.0|-41.9|1.000
95846147|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|49.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||49.4|-58.3|1.000
95846148|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.7|48.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||48.7|-48.7|1.000
95963113|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
95846149|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|63.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||63.0|-29.7|0.637
95963114|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
95963115|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
95846150|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||33.3|-60.0|1.000
95846151|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||66.6|-29.4|0.570
95846152|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||10.2|-39.7|0.330
95846153|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||19.4|-40.0|1.000
95846154|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|66.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||66.6|-29.4|0.570
95846155|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|10.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||10.2|-39.7|0.330
95846156|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||35.4|-33.8|1.000
95846157|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|39.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||39.7|-42.6|1.000
95846158|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||0.1|-42.9|0.100
95865747|NCT02446743|191690582|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.5|73.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||73.5|60.5|
95865748|NCT02446743|191690582|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|14.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.8|5.3|
95865749|NCT02446743|191690582|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10 vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|4.9|
95963116|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
95963117|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
95963118|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
95963119|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
95963120|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
95963121|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
95846159|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|35.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||35.4|-33.8|1.000
95963122|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
95865750|NCT02446743|191690582|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||15.9|4.3|
95865751|NCT02446743|191690583|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||31.4|18.2|
95865752|NCT02446743|191690583|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[(Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine groups difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||30.1|13.2|
95865753|NCT02446743|191690583|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||39.6|20.0|
95865754|NCT02446743|191690583|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.9|-3.4|
95865755|NCT02446743|191690583|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41)\]|vaccine group differences|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|24.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.2|0.33|
95865756|NCT02446743|191690583|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1(V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.5|-10.0|
95865757|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.6|16.5|
95865758|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|28.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||28.9|14.6|
95865759|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|35.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain H44/76and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||35.3|16.4|
95865760|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|60.8|
95963123|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
96002512|NCT04539964|191982335|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|-2.1|0.0648
95865761|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.3|81.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||81.3|65.3|
95865762|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|72.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||72.3|53.6|
95963124|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
95963125|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
95963126|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
95846160|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|45.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||45.3|-33.8|1.000
95846161|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.6||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|14.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.6|-29.9|0.598
95846162|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.7|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.3|-30.7|1.000
95846163|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52|Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|50.4|-24.7|0.468
95846164|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-15.7|1.000
95846165|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.4|-15.2|0.538
95846166|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|25.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||25.6|-48.0|0.692
95846167|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.9|-46.9|0.388
95846168|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|16.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||16.9|-54.8|0.418
95846169|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||20.0|-54.1|0.448
95846170|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.9|-47.4|0.430
95846171|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||37.6|-42.8|1.000
95963127|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
95963128|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
95963129|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
95963130|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
95963131|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
95963132|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
95963133|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
95865763|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|14.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.0|3.7|
95846172|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.2||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|12.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||12.9|-55.3|0.406
95846173|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.9|0.388
95846174|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|30.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||30.8|-46.5|1.000
95846175|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.3||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||4.1|-54.7|0.204
95865764|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.3|3.3|
95865765|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|22.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.0|4.5|
95963134|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
95963135|NCT04092452|191897258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
95963136|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.29||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.29|-0.69|
95963137|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|-0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.01|-0.96|
95963138|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.06||||||Week 1-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.06|-0.91|
95963139|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.35|-0.95|
95963140|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.08|-1.33|
95963141|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.08||||||Week 2-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.08|-1.21|
95963142|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.481|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.05||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.05|-0.54|
95963143|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.37||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.37|-1.15|
95963144|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.73||||||Week 4-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.73|-0.85|
95963145|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|1.49||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.49|-0.24|
96002513|NCT04539964|191982336|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.6|1.2|0.0154
96002514|NCT04539964|191982380|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|25.2||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|43.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.3|7.1|0.0054
96002515|NCT04539964|191982381|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|42.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.9|-2.2|0.0437
95963146|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.64||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.64|-1.03|
95963147|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.08|-0.66|
95963148|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.558|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|1.16||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.16|-0.69|
95963149|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.57||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.57|-1.21|
95963150|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.49|1.38||||||Week 8-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.38|-0.49|
95846176|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-34.9|0.907
95846177|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|36.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||36.3|-40.2|1.000
95846178|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|41.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||41.3|-28.4|1.000
95846179|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|48.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||48.4|-15.5|0.450
95846180|NCT02365649|191658310|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.6|-27.0|0.661
95846181|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
95846182|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||70.8|-20.8|0.608
95846183|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
95846184|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||77.5|-77.5|1.000
95846185|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||49.0|-49.0|1.000
95846186|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|19.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|ANOVA||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||19.3|-79.3|0.565
95846187|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||84.6|15.4|0.467
95846188|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||49.0|-49.0|1.000
95846189|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
95846190|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||89.5|-64.5|1.000
95846191|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||60.7|-35.7|1.000
95963151|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.578|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|1.12||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.12|-0.79|
95846192|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
95846193|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|84.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||84.6|15.4|0.467
95846194|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||60.7|-35.7|1.000
95846195|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
95846196|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
95846197|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||18.2|-28.2|1.000
95846198|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
95846199|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
95846200|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
95846201|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
95846202|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||72.9|-19.6|0.249
95846203|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||18.2|-28.2|1.000
95846204|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||24.6|-29.0|1.000
95846205|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|61.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||61.8|-35.1|0.613
95865766|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|12.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.8|-3.4|
95963152|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|0.23||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.23|-1.59|
95963153|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.576|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.03|-0.88|
95846206|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|31.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||31.5|-34.8|1.000
95846207|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.6||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|14.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||14.8|-45.9|0.615
95846208|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||67.5|-27.5|0.560
95846209|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|36.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared|||Non-responders, Week 52||36.8|-26.8|1.000
95846210|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||19.9|-37.7|1.000
95846211|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
95846212|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||46.1|-26.1|0.588
95846213|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
95846214|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|63.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||63.2|-29.9|0.631
95846215|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|44.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||44.8|-25.7|0.597
95846216|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|30.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||30.0|-46.7|1.000
95846217|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|71.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||71.8|-18.5|0.361
95963154|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||1.13|-0.96|
95963155|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|-0.25||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||-0.25|-2.24|
95963156|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0101-Pain At It's Worst||0.13|-1.95|
95963157|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|0.48||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.48|-0.47|
95963158|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.18||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.75|
95963159|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|0.17||||||Week 1-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.17|-0.78|
95963160|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.38||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-0.81|
95963161|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.347|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.18||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.18|-0.97|
95963162|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.14||||||Week 2-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.14|-1.05|
95846218|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||31.0|-39.6|0.812
95846219|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.5||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|6.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||6.3|-61.3|0.345
95846220|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||57.1|-37.1|1.000
95846221|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|46.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||46.1|-26.1|0.588
95963163|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.471|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.00|-0.56|
95846222|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
95846223|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|65.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||65.4|-25.4|0.635
95846224|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||46.7|-25.7|0.573
95846225|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-34.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3|-0.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||-0.1|-68.3|0.176
95846226|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
95846227|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
95963164|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.49||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.49|-0.99|
95963165|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|0.67||||||Week 4-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.67|-0.88|
95846228|NCT02365649|191658311|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|10.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||10.4|-35.4|1.000
95846229|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
95963166|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.34||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.34|-0.38|
95963167|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.6||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.60|-1.06|
95963168|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.87||||||Week 6-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.87|-0.86|
95963169|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.99||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.99|-0.81|
95963170|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.62||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.62|-1.11|
95963171|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.25||||||Week 8-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.25|-0.56|
95846230|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|57.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||57.5|-32.5|1.000
95846231|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
95846232|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ|Non-respoonders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
95846233|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||3.9|-30.5|1.000
95846234|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|35.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||35.6|-19.4|0.651
95846235|NCT02365649|191658312|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
95846236|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|77.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||77.5|-77.5|1.000
95846237|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|49.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||49.0|-49.0|1.000
95846238|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-15.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 20||-15.4|-84.6|0.105
95963172|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.554|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.97||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.97|-0.87|
95846239|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|89.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||89.5|-64.5|1.000
95963173|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|0.38||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.38|-1.36|
95963174|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.552|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.93||||||Week 12-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||0.93|-0.90|
95963175|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|1.04||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||1.04|-0.96|
95846240|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|60.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||60.7|-35.7|1.000
95846241|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 28||31.0|-66.0|1.000
95963176|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|-0.29||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.29|-2.19|
95963177|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.11||||||Week 16-HSS0102-Tenderness At It's Worst||-0.11|-2.11|
95963178|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.37||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-0.57|
95963179|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.22||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.22|-0.69|
95963180|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.01||||||Week 1-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.01|-0.94|
95963181|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.35||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.35|-0.83|
95963182|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.11||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.11|-1.03|
95846242|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|62.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|96.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||96.0|29.0|0.444
95963183|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.19|-0.99|
96002516|NCT04539964|191982382|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-17.6||||0.1643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.0|-51.1|0.1643
95846243|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||72.4|-22.4|0.619
95846244|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 36||-4.0|-71.0|0.231
95846245|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-37.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-4.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||-4.0|-71.0|1.000
95846246|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|72.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||72.4|-22.4|0.619
95846247|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 44||31.0|-66.0|1.000
95846248|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|75.0||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|45.0|0.133
95846249|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.5||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|82.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||82.5|-7.5|0.315
95846250|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders, Week 52||5.0|-55.0|0.487
95846251|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.7||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|72.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||72.9|-19.6|0.249
95846252|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.487
95846253|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 20||3.9|-30.5|0.511
95846254|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|78.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||78.1|-11.4|0.140
95846255|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||34.6|-14.6|0.569
95963184|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.446|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|0.9||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.90|-0.58|
95963185|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.53||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.53|-0.87|
95963186|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.82||||||Week 4-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.82|-0.65|
95846256|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 28||28.5|-19.7|1.000
95846257|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|50.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.6|-23.9|0.447
95846258|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|6.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||6.0|-19.3|1.000
95846259|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 36||28.5|-19.7|1.000
95846260|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|67.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||67.5|-27.5|0.560
95846261|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|0.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||0.2|-40.2|0.231
95846262|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 44||19.9|-37.7|1.000
95846263|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|45.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||45.7|-32.4|1.000
95865767|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|21.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.4|-3.3|
95865768|NCT02446743|191690585|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis group B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.5|-6.4|
95865769|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|10.1|
95865770|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|18.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.1|7.5|
95865771|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|29.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.9|12.3|
95963187|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|1.54||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.54|-0.15|
95963188|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.493|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.8||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.80|-0.83|
95963189|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|1.08||||||Week 6-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.08|-0.62|
95963190|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|1.13||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.13|-0.55|
95846264|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|18.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||18.2|-28.2|1.000
95846265|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|24.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.6|-29.0|1.000
95846266|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||57.1|-37.1|1.000
95846267|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.4||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|22.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||22.8|-45.7|0.700
95846268|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-15.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5). Prespecified statistical significance at the 0.1 level.|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 20||-15.2|-64.8|0.058
95846269|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||69.2|-22.5|0.354
95846270|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||50.4|-18.1|0.450
95846271|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 28||35.8|-39.1|1.000
95846272|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||69.2|-22.5|0.354
95865772|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|66.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|72.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||72.4|59.6|
95865773|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.8|77.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||77.0|60.8|
95865774|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|73.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||73.7|55.2|
95963191|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.489|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.81||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.81|-0.81|
95963192|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.514|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|1.35||||||Week 8-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.35|-0.35|
95963193|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.95|-0.81|
95963194|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.37||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.37|-1.30|
95963195|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.84||||||Week 12-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||0.84|-0.92|
95963196|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.2||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||1.20|-0.75|
95963197|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.13||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.13|-1.99|
95963198|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|-0.05||||||Week 16-HSS0103-Swelling At It's Worst||-0.05|-1.99|
95963199|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.59||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.59|-0.27|
95963200|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|-0.15||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.15|-0.99|
95963201|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.52||||||Week 1-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.52|-0.35|
95963202|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.65||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.65|-0.54|
95963203|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.13||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.13|-1.01|
95963204|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.85||||||Week 2-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.85|-0.33|
95963205|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.6||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.60|-0.83|
95846273|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||42.7|-24.6|0.700
95846274|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 36||17.9|-46.2|0.621
95846275|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|38.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||38.5|-51.8|1.000
95846276|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|31.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||31.0|-39.6|0.812
95846277|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|23.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 44||23.9|-53.9|0.657
95846278|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|69.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||69.2|-22.5|0.354
95846279|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||50.4|-18.1|0.450
95963206|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|-0.12||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||-0.12|-1.49|
95963207|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.57||||||Week 4-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.57|-0.86|
95963208|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.84||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.84|-0.76|
95963209|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|0.26||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.26|-1.29|
95963210|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.92||||||Week 6-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.68|
95963211|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.63||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.63|-0.96|
95963212|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|0.24||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.24|-1.31|
95963213|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|0.92||||||Week 8-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.92|-0.69|
95963214|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.53||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.53|-1.21|
95963215|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|0.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.02|-1.64|
95963216|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|1.02||||||Week 12-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.02|-0.72|
95963217|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.15||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.15|-0.70|
95963218|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.44|0.32||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||0.32|-1.44|
95963219|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.01||||||Week 16-HSS0104-Tiredness At It's Worst||1.01|-0.83|
95963220|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.49||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.49|-0.39|
95865775|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.6|4.9|
95865776|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.7|1.2|
95865777|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|22.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||22.6|7.5|
95865778|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|10.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.0|-6.8|
95865779|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|-9.8|
95865780|NCT02446743|191690586|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Persistence at 4/7.5 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|-7.8|
95865781|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|3.12|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.12|2.07|
95865782|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.72|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.72|1.66|
95865783|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|2.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|4.07|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.07|2.15|
96002517|NCT04539964|191982383|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference between the treatment and control groups versus the alternative hypothesis (H1) that treatment group response rate exceeds the control group response rate.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-24.1|0.415
96002518|NCT04001829|191982384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.27
95865784|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||21|12|
95865785|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|28.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||28|14|
95865786|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.05|20.0|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||20|9.05|
96002519|NCT04001829|191982385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
96002520|NCT04001829|191982386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
96002521|NCT04001829|191982387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
96002522|NCT04001829|191982388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
96002523|NCT04001829|191982389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
96002524|NCT05223868|191982395|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose versus (vs) placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.002
96002525|NCT05223868|191982395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95846280|NCT02365649|191658313|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.2||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.9|-46.2|0.621
95846281|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20%of the cells have expected cell count \<5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||95.6|-62.2|1.000
95846282|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||79.6|-21.3|0.592
95846283|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||38.2|-64.8|1.000
95846284|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|80.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||80.0|-80.0|1.000
95846285|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||64.7|-39.7|1.000
95846286|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.0||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.2|23.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||23.2|-83.2|0.545
95846287|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||90.0|10.0|0.464
95846288|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||64.7|-39.7|1.000
95846289|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-10.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-10.0|-90.0|0.182
95846290|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||95.6|-62.2|1.000
95865787|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|1.26|
95865788|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.51|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.51|1.11|
95865789|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.28|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.28|1.27|
95865790|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.68|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.68|0.94|
95963221|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.1||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.10|-0.75|
95865791|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.05|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.05|0.85|
95865792|NCT02446743|191690587|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison at Persistence at 4 years/Baseline in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|vaccine group ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.78|||ANOVA|Adjusted by vaccine group and country||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.78|0.81|
95865793|NCT02446743|191690592|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||21.6|8.0|
95865794|NCT02446743|191690592|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|23.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||23.1|10.8|
95865795|NCT02446743|191690592|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|11.0|
95865796|NCT02446743|191690592|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|63.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||63.3|43.0|
95865797|NCT02446743|191690592|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|40.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.1|22.0|
95865798|NCT02446743|191690592|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|47.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.2|33.6|
95865799|NCT02446743|191690593|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||25.4|15.0|
95865800|NCT02446743|191690593|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|27.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.0|10.7|
95865801|NCT02446743|191690593|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|28.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.8|15.6|
95865802|NCT02446743|191690593|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|16.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.8|8.0|
95865803|NCT02446743|191690593|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.6|12.8|
95963222|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.42||||||Week 1-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.42|-0.46|
95963223|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.45||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.45|-0.65|
95963224|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|-0.27||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.27|-1.33|
95963225|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|0.19||||||Week 2-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.19|-0.91|
95963226|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.0||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.00|-0.36|
95846291|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||79.6|-21.3|0.592
95846292|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|38.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||38.2|-64.8|1.000
95846293|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|100.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||100.0|28.9|0.429
95846294|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|79.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||79.6|-21.3|0.592
95846295|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||4.4|-71.1|0.455
95846296|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.7||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|77.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||77.4|-14.0|0.191
95846297|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||22.1|-22.1|1.000
95846298|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||7.3|-24.0|1.000
95846299|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||71.2|-24.5|0.538
95846300|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|29.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||29.8|-29.8|1.000
95846301|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||27.0|-35.3|1.000
95846302|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||50.1|-26.7|0.515
95846303|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-22.1|1.000
95865804|NCT02446743|191690593|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.2|1.5|
95963227|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.29||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.29|-1.59|
95963228|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|0.39||||||Week 4-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.39|-0.97|
95963229|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.30|-0.20|
95963230|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.04||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.04|-1.41|
95846304|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||31.9|-23.6|1.000
95846305|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|71.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||71.2|-24.5|0.538
95846306|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.7||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||4.4|-37.8|0.478
95846307|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|27.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||27.0|-35.3|1.000
95846308|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|50.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.1|-26.7|0.515
95846309|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|34.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||34.6|-17.9|1.000
95846310|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|31.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||31.9|-23.6|1.000
95846311|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||71.9|-21.9|0.344
95846312|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|53.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||53.5|-17.8|0.429
95846313|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 20||25.0|-46.4|1.000
95846314|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||57.1|-40.4|1.000
95846315|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|46.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||46.6|-29.9|0.671
95846316|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|30.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 28||30.5|-56.7|0.656
95846317|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||64.7|-31.4|0.627
95846318|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|46.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||46.7|-27.7|0.701
95963231|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.66||||||Week 6-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.85|
95963232|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.96|0.66||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.66|-0.96|
95846319|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.0||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|18.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 36||18.1|-56.2|0.603
95846320|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|64.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||64.7|-31.4|0.627
95846321|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|39.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||39.0|-34.2|1.000
95846322|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|38.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 44||38.0|-47.6|1.000
95846323|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|71.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||71.9|-21.9|0.344
95846324|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|60.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||60.9|-10.9|0.248
95846325|NCT02365649|191658314|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|25.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical Responders, Week 52||25.0|-46.4|1.000
95846326|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
95846327|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|70.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||70.8|-20.8|0.608
95846328|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders||5.0|-55.0|0.487
95865805|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|33.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.3|21.9|
95865806|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.3|21.8|
95865807|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.1|19.2|
95963233|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.473|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.89|-0.33||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.33|-1.89|
95963234|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.52||||||Week 8-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.52|-1.13|
95963235|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.95||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.95|-0.86|
95963236|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|-0.01||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||-0.01|-1.73|
95963237|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.78|1.03||||||Week 12-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.03|-0.78|
95963238|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.39||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||1.39|-0.60|
95963239|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.574|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|0.0||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.00|-1.90|
95846329|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|55.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||55.1|-15.1|0.250
95846330|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||24.0|-7.3|0.444
95846331|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|31.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders||31.6|-9.4|0.375
95846332|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|37.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||37.8|-31.1|1.000
95846333|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|52.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||52.8|-8.0|0.215
95846334|NCT02365649|191658315|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|27.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders||27.8|-29.5|1.000
95846335|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|25.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||25.5|-55.5|0.671
95846336|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||39.8|-19.8|0.718
95846337|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||22.4|-52.4|0.461
95846338|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.5|-14.5||Statistically significant at 0.05 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||-14.5|-85.5|0.030
95963240|NCT04092452|191897259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.99||||||Week 16-HSS0105-Bothered By Appearance HS Lesion||0.99|-1.00|
95963241|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
95963242|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
95963243|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
95963244|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
96002526|NCT05223868|191982395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95963245|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
95963246|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
95963247|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
95963248|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
95963249|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
95963250|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
95963251|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
95963252|NCT04092452|191897260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
95963253|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.6||||||Week 4||2.6|-1.7|
95865808|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|24.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.3|14.3|
95846339|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|17.9|||Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||17.9|-42.9|0.483
95846340|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||20.8|-50.8|0.431
95846341|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|41.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||41.1|-31.1|1.000
95846342|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|23.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||23.6|-38.6|0.635
95846343|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-40.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-5.2||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||-5.2|-74.8|0.056
95846344|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|32.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.5|-47.5|1.000
95846345|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|49.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||49.7|-14.7|0.296
95846346|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|32.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||32.4|-42.4|1.000
95846347|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|35.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||35.9|-45.9|1.000
95846348|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|45.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||45.2|-17.7|0.400
95846349|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
95846350|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.6|-12.8|0.259
95846351|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.5||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||9.7|-30.6|0.310
96002527|NCT05223868|191982395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95865809|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|27.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.5|12.1|
96002528|NCT05223868|191982395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95846352|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-19.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-0.1||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||-0.1|-38.8|0.097
95846353|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.4||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|57.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||57.2|-8.5|0.181
95846354|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|20.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||20.0|-15.9|0.826
95846355|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||16.1|-21.2|1.000
95846356|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|45.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||45.4|-16.7|0.369
95846357|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|16.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.4|-18.2|1.000
95846358|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|16.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||16.1|-21.2|1.000
95846359|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|42.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||42.7|-20.2|0.660
95846360|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||17.5|-19.7|0.908
95846361|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.1||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|7.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||7.7|-27.8|0.446
95846362|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|50.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||50.8|-9.5|0.135
95846363|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|28.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||28.1|-5.7|0.306
95846364|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|20.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||20.7|-13.4|0.686
95846365|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||35.2|-25.4|0.754
95846366|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|17.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||17.3|-32.6|0.548
95963254|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7||||||Week 4||1.7|-2.7|
95963255|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.2||||||Week 4||3.2|-1.4|
95963256|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.6||||||Week 8||1.6|-2.7|
95963257|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.0||||||Week 8||1.0|-3.3|
95963258|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2||||||Week 8||2.2|-2.2|
95846367|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||5.0|-50.1|0.120
95963259|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6||||||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|
95963260|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|0.3||||||Week 12||0.3|-4.3|
95963261|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|2.2||||||Week 12||2.2|-2.6|
95963262|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.2||||||Week 16||4.2|-0.7|
95963263|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|1.2||||||Week 16||1.2|-3.6|
95846368|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.4||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.7|-44.5|0.403
95963264|NCT04092452|191897261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.6||||||Week 16||2.6|-2.4|
95963265|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-9.1|
95963266|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|9.8||||||Week 4||9.8|-7.4|
95963267|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|3.4||||||Week 4||3.4|-11.4|
95963268|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|11.8||||||Week 8||11.8|-3.3|
95963269|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|14.2||||||Week 8||14.2|-1.8|
95963270|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|9.8||||||Week 8||9.8|-4.8|
95963271|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|16.5||||||Week 12||16.5|-1.3|
95963272|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|15.7||||||Week 12||15.7|-2.0|
95963273|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|11.3||||||Week 12||11.3|-5.5|
96002529|NCT05223868|191982396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
95963274|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|6.4||||||Week 16||6.4|-6.3|
95963275|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|15.7||||||Week 16||15.7|-2.8|
95963276|NCT04092452|191897262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|16.9||||||Week 16||16.9|-1.6|
95963277|NCT02127125|191897268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.025||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||<0.025
95963278|NCT02127125|191897268|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
95963279|NCT02127125|191897269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
95963280|NCT02127125|191897269|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
95963281|NCT02127125|191897270|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Sevelamer treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
95963282|NCT02127125|191897270|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparison, a priori threshold for significance set at p\<0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equation|||Null hypothesis is that Synbiotic treated Obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance will show no post-treatment change in Lactulose:Mannitol ratio compared to placebo treated subjects.||||>0.05
96002530|NCT05223868|191982396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002531|NCT05223868|191982396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
95846369|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.0||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|17.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||17.0|-33.0|0.533
95846370|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|19.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||19.4|-37.2|0.539
95846371|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||35.2|-25.4|0.754
95846372|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|10.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||10.3|-39.4|0.256
95846373|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-27.8||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.7|-0.8||Statistically significant at 0.1 level.|Chi-squared|P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||-0.8|-54.7|0.055
95865810|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||26.4|13.3|
95865811|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|49.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||49.9|35.2|
95865812|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.6|67.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||67.3|46.6|
95865813|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|42.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.5|23.0|
95865814|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|18.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.3|8.8|
95846374|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|33.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||33.2|-28.8|0.887
95865815|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|29.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||29.0|12.6|
95865816|NCT02446743|191690594|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|14.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference were calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||14.7|2.7|
95865817|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|46.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.3|33.9|
95865818|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.9|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|38.9|
96002532|NCT05223868|191982396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
95846375|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|39.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.4|-10.3|0.256
95846376|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.0||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|17.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||17.9|-36.0|0.518
95846377|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|37.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||37.6|-25.1|0.695
95846378|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|36.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||36.4|-13.5|0.373
95846379|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.9||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|20.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||20.8|-34.6|0.628
95846380|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|1.000
95846381|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||20.9|-22.4|1.000
95846382|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|0.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||0.6|-30.6|0.251
95846383|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95846384|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||17.7|-18.7|1.000
95846385|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||3.1|-23.1|0.501
95846386|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||22.1|-3.0|0.488
95846387|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95846388|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.232
95846389|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|0.501
96002533|NCT05223868|191982396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002534|NCT05223868|191982397|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.002
96002535|NCT05223868|191982397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002536|NCT05223868|191982397|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.001
96002537|NCT05223868|191982397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002538|NCT05223868|191982397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002539|NCT05223868|191982398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.021
96002540|NCT05223868|191982398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002541|NCT05223868|191982398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.038
96002542|NCT05223868|191982398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002543|NCT05223868|191982398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95865819|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|42.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||42.2|26.6|
96002544|NCT05223868|191982399|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.003
96002545|NCT05223868|191982399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002546|NCT05223868|191982399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002547|NCT05223868|191982399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002548|NCT05223868|191982399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95846390|NCT02365649|191658316|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|22.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||22.1|-3.0|0.488
95846391|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|37.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||37.5|2.5|0.295
96002549|NCT05223868|191982400|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
96002550|NCT05223868|191982400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002551|NCT05223868|191982400|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.009
96002552|NCT05223868|191982400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002553|NCT05223868|191982400|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002554|NCT05223868|191982401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002555|NCT05223868|191982401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002556|NCT05223868|191982401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002557|NCT05223868|191982401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002558|NCT05223868|191982401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002559|NCT05223868|191982402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002560|NCT05223868|191982402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002561|NCT05223868|191982402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
95846392|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|34.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||34.9|-7.4|0.355
95846393|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|15.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 20||15.1|-55.1|0.384
95846394|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-22.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||14.5|-59.5|0.311
95846395|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||11.3|-43.8|0.422
95846396|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.2|9.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 28||9.2|-59.2|0.181
95846397|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|44.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||44.0|6.0|0.281
95846398|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|28.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||28.5|-28.5|1.000
95846399|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|11.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 36||11.3|-61.3|0.231
95846400|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|58.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||58.9|-3.9|0.214
95846401|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|50.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||50.0|-7.5|0.277
95846402|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.0||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|17.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 44||17.2|-57.2|0.442
95846403|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|57.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||57.1|-17.1|0.419
95846404|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|50.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||50.4|-10.4|0.214
95846405|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|22.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Responders, Week 52||22.4|-52.4|0.439
96002562|NCT05223868|191982402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002563|NCT05223868|191982402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002564|NCT05223868|191982403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002565|NCT05223868|191982403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
95846406|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|56.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||56.4|-10.1|0.284
95846407|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|24.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||24.3|-23.9|0.988
95846408|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 20||13.9|-38.1|0.370
95846409|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|60.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||60.2|-8.9|0.268
95846410|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|17.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||17.5|-27.4|0.665
95846411|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|21.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 28||21.0|-28.9|0.759
95846412|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||56.6|-12.8|0.259
95846413|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|19.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||19.9|-23.2|0.880
95846414|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|11.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 36||11.2|-32.7|0.355
95846415|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|37.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||37.1|-27.1|1.000
95846416|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|25.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||25.9|-17.0|0.688
95846417|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|24.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 44||24.5|-22.3|0.927
95846418|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|60.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||60.0|-5.0|0.075
96002566|NCT05223868|191982403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002567|NCT05223868|191982403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002568|NCT05223868|191982403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||||<0.001
96002569|NCT05223868|191982404|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
96002570|NCT05223868|191982404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95963283|NCT00855413|191897331|OTHER|one sided ANOVA.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The degrees of freedom (df) for the within factor (number of visits - 1) was 2, and the second df is the error df of 17.|ANOVA|||An overall summary score of neurocognitive functioning was created by averaging all tests. Best available demographically corrected normative data were utilized to create z scores and then deficit scores for impairment ratings.Change in neurocognitive functioning was analyzed using a one sided repeated measures ANOVA with neurocognitive performance as the dependent variable (total z score) and time (visit) as the independent variable. Degrees of freedom were 2,17.||||0.03
95963284|NCT00855413|191897333|OTHER|Spearman correlation|spearman correlation|-0.82|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||R = -0.82|Spearman correlation|||Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|Correlation between time (days) to HIV RNA suppression \<200 copies/mL and total z score (mean) was assessed by Spearman correlation|||<.005
95963285|NCT00825305|191897335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 14 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/Essen) on day 14|||0.4|-0.81|
95846419|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|32.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||32.7|-4.8|0.154
95846420|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|24.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Non-responders, Week 52||24.2|-14.4|0.707
95846421|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|40.0||Statistically significant at 0.1 level. P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||40.0|10.0|0.085
95846422|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|33.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||33.3|-4.0|0.137
95846423|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|14.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 20||14.5|-38.2|0.370
95846424|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|24.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||24.4|-31.6|1.000
95846425|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-16.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|7.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||7.0|-39.8|0.174
95846426|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-17.1||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|9.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 28||9.7|-43.9|0.203
95846427|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.1||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|44.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||44.7|-4.5|0.286
95846428|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.6||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||20.6|-27.7|0.773
95846429|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.2|4.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 36||4.1|-51.2|0.101
95846430|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|44.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||44.4|-14.1|0.332
96002571|NCT05223868|191982404|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.005
96002572|NCT05223868|191982404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002573|NCT05223868|191982404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95846431|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|39.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||39.8|-7.5|0.189
95846432|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-14.1||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|13.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 44||13.9|-42.2|0.329
95846433|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.6||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||53.9|-4.8|0.124
95846434|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|39.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||39.9|-9.5|0.234
95846435|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical responders, Week 52||17.7|-37.8|0.484
95846436|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|37.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||37.3|-57.3|1.000
95846437|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|16.5||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||16.5|-38.9|0.431
95846438|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-20.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|7.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.1|-48.5|0.250
95846439|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|50.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||50.9|-40.9|1.000
95846440|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|23.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||23.3|-25.2|1.000
95846441|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|19.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 28||19.6|-31.1|1.000
96002574|NCT05223868|191982405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.317||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.317
96002575|NCT05223868|191982405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.012||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.012
96002576|NCT05223868|191982405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.038
95846442|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|55.2||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||55.2|-35.2|0.544
95963286|NCT00825305|191897336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 7 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day7)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.35|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 means (Zagreb/Essen) on day 7|||0.35|-0.77|
95963287|NCT00825305|191897336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis states that the Zagreb schedule is inferior to the Essen schedule in terms of day 42 antibody titers assuming no difference between the two schedules and the equivalence limit of 1.5 titer levels (log2).|ratio of log2 mean (day 42)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.58|||ANOVA||Ratio of log2 mean (Zagreb/(Essen) on day 42|||0.58|-0.72|
95846443|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|20.9||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||20.9|-22.4|1.000
95846444|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|12.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 36||12.8|-28.5|0.627
95846445|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.1||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||3.1|-23.1|1.000
95846446|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|17.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||17.7|-18.7|1.000
95846447|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|26.8||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 44||26.8|-18.3|1.000
95846448|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|29.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||29.3|-0.7|0.232
95846449|NCT02365649|191658317|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|20.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells have expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib lower dose. 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc freq.|Clinical non-responders, Week 52||20.6|-6.3|0.412
95846450|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-745.7||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2369.73|878.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||878.37|-2369.73|0.356
95846451|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.5||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2698.52|459.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||459.50|-2698.52|0.158
95846452|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1166.0||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3531.3|1199.32||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||1199.32|-3531.30|0.322
95846453|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-828.2||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2387.16|730.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||730.75|-2387.16|0.287
95846454|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1286.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2772.59|200.43||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Responders, Week 52||200.43|-2772.59|0.088
95846455|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-502.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2505.74|1501.38||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||1501.38|-2505.74|0.613
95963288|NCT03617289|191897339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.771||||||Threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.771
95963289|NCT03617289|191897340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046||||||Threshold for statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.046
95846456|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.4||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-823.64|1390.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1390.49|-823.64|0.609
95846457|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-78.2||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-930.47|774.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||774.16|-930.47|0.855
95846458|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|283.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-751.66|1318.57||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||1318.57|-751.66|0.584
95846459|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|356.6||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1095.03|1808.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1808.19|-1095.03|0.624
95846460|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-135.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1233.48|963.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||963.25|-1233.48|0.806
95846461|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|186.2||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1229.59|1602.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||1602.06|-1229.59|0.793
95846462|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-304.8||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1350.04|740.44||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||740.44|-1350.04|0.561
95846463|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1119.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2083.81|-154.11||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 28||-154.11|-2083.81|0.024
95846464|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-819.3||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1959.79|321.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||321.21|-1959.79|0.156
95846465|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-346.6||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1592.66|899.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||899.45|-1592.66|0.580
95846466|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1275.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2415.88|-135.92||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders, Week 52||-135.92|-2415.88|0.029
95846467|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-534.9||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1883.23|813.5||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||813.50|-1883.23|0.431
95846468|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.4||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1200.67|1149.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1149.95|-1200.67|0.965
95846469|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|623.6||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.52|1430.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1430.64|-183.52|0.123
95846470|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|368.2||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1031.23|1767.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||1767.60|-1031.23|0.591
95846471|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|192.2||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-648.22|1032.68||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1032.68|-648.22|0.642
95963290|NCT05594589|191897380|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Geometric Mean(LSGM) Ratio|0.377||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.175|0.81|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg/Placebo.|||0.810|0.175|0.0133
95963291|NCT05594589|191897381|SUPERIORITY||LSGM Ratio|0.48||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|1.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSGM ratio was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg/Placebo.|||1.038|0.222|0.0619
96002577|NCT05223868|191982405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.006
95846472|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|455.8||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.37|992.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||992.95|-81.37|0.093
95846473|NCT02365649|191658318|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|463.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-428.99|1356.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||1356.20|-428.99|0.296
95846474|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|15.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||15.83|-19.83|0.822
95846475|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.4||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|8.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||8.25|-20.97|0.386
95846476|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.9||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|29.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 20||29.95|-4.22|0.136
95846477|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|19.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||19.97|-17.87|0.912
95846478|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.77|3.25||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||3.25|-27.77|0.118
95846479|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|30.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 28||30.65|-5.61|0.171
95846480|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.9||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||12.63|-26.50|0.479
95846481|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-17.1||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|-1.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders, Week 36||-1.04|-33.12|0.037
95846482|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.9||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|25.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 36||25.65|-11.86|0.463
95846483|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.6||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|14.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||14.37|-23.59|0.627
95846484|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|3.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||3.37|-27.75|0.122
95963292|NCT05594589|191897382|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|7.38||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|15.35|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 5 mg - Placebo.|||15.35|-0.59|0.0689
95846485|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.7||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|28.89||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 44||28.89|-7.49|0.243
95846486|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.2||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|14.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||14.63|-22.95|0.658
95846487|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.3||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.69|3.12||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||3.12|-27.69|0.115
95963293|NCT05594589|191897383|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|8.16||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|16.09|||ANCOVA|P-value was based on ANCOVA model with log transformation of baseline LPS and treatment arms as fixed effects.|LSM difference was calculated as Lemborexant 10 mg - Placebo.|||16.09|0.23|0.0439
95963294|NCT00715117|191897401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95963295|NCT00715117|191897401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95963296|NCT00715117|191897402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bowel symptoms||||>0.05
95846488|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|28.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders, Week 52||28.06|-7.96|0.267
95846489|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|10.06||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||10.06|-9.74|0.974
95846490|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.55||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||6.55|-7.61|0.882
95846491|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 20||7.75|-7.92|0.982
95846492|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|12.51||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||12.51|-8.11|0.673
95865820|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|21.6|
95963297|NCT00715117|191897402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social well-being||||0.035
95963298|NCT00715117|191897402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional well-being||||>0.05
95963299|NCT00715117|191897402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Systemic symptoms|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95963300|NCT00715117|191897402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Image||||>0.05
95963301|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sleep disturbance||||1.0
95963302|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Unusual dreams||||0.45
95963303|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Twitching||||1.0
95963304|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headaches||||1.0
95963305|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Decreased appetite||||1.0
95963306|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Nausea||||1.0
95963307|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Hair loss||||1.0
95963308|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fatigue||||1.0
95963309|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flushed ears||||1.0
95963310|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Papules, rash||||1.0
95963311|NCT00715117|191897403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Double vision||||1.0
95963312|NCT01936467|191897435|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95963313|NCT01936467|191897435|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95963314|NCT01936467|191897436|OTHER||Sensitivity|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95963315|NCT01936467|191897436|OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95963316|NCT01936467|191897437|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95963317|NCT01936467|191897438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95963318|NCT01936467|191897439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95963319|NCT01936467|191897440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
96002578|NCT05223868|191982405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.011
96002579|NCT05223868|191982406|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||=0.001
96002580|NCT05223868|191982406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002581|NCT05223868|191982406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002582|NCT05223868|191982406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002583|NCT05223868|191982406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
96002584|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||=0.002
96002585|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
96002586|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||=0.002
96002587|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
96002588|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Physical Function||||<0.001
95865821|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.0|15.5|
96002589|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.251||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.251
95865822|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|38.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.1|22.9|
95865823|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|50.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.6|35.1|
95865824|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.3|60.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||60.9|39.3|
95865825|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||50.2|29.9|
95865826|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1)|vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||24.6|12.9|
95846493|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.7||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|10.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.04|-4.64|0.467
95846494|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|10.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 28||10.23|-5.79|0.583
95846495|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|24.31||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||24.31|-13.33|0.564
95846496|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.4||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|11.04||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||11.04|-15.74|0.728
95846497|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|20.08||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 36||20.08|-9.16|0.460
96002590|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.087||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.087
95865827|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|37.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.8|17.9|
95865828|NCT02446743|191690595|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at 1 month after booster /1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Vaccine group difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|20.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.1|6.4|
95865829|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.20|2.11|
96002591|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.205||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.205
96002592|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.082||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.082
95963320|NCT01999777|191897441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||Wald asymptotic|P-value based on a standard Wald asymptotic test for equality without a continuity correction.||Assumptions included that the proportion of seizures occurring within 6 hours after placebo administration was \~65% and a relative reduction of 50% would result in a reduction of ≥ 32.5 percentage points. Based on a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences in proportions, a sample size of 62 analyzable subjects was chosen to detect a 0.35 difference between group. Sample size estimations were based on nQuery Version 7.0 using the table for CIs for differences in 2 proportions.||||0.1972
95846498|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|12.0||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|32.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||32.75|-8.72|0.253
95846499|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|15.84||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||15.84|-13.67|0.884
95846500|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|21.95||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 44||21.95|-10.28|0.474
95846501|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.6||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|24.3||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||24.30|-17.03|0.727
95846502|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|16.78||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||16.78|-12.63|0.780
95846503|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|22.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders, Week 52||22.54|-9.57|0.424
95846504|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.3||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|11.62||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||11.62|-14.23|0.841
95846505|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|8.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||8.75|-12.94|0.702
95846506|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.7||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.43|17.83||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 20||17.83|-6.43|0.353
95846507|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.1||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.89|16.0||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||16.00|-11.89|0.770
95846508|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.3||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|6.37||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||6.37|-17.04|0.367
95846509|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|20.07||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 28||20.07|-6.09|0.291
95846510|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.7||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|19.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||19.40|-20.87|0.942
95846511|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|4.91||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||4.91|-28.89|0.162
95846512|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|10.9||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|29.82||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 36||29.82|-7.96|0.253
95846513|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|27.21||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||27.21|-16.25|0.617
95963321|NCT01999777|191897442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1388|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1388
95846514|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.0||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|12.24||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||12.24|-24.22|0.515
95846515|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|13.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|34.23||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 44||34.23|-6.53|0.180
95846516|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|21.09||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||21.09|-21.86|0.972
95846517|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.94|13.1||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||13.10|-22.94|0.589
95846518|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|14.1||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|34.22||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders, Week 52||34.22|-6.07|0.168
95846519|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||12.36|-8.50|0.712
95846520|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||3.90|-8.41|0.465
95846521|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.52||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 20||7.52|-6.83|0.924
95865830|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.85|15.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||15|8.85|
96002593|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Anxiety||||=0.010
96002594|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.357||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.357
96002595|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.222
95846522|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|9.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||9.60|-8.88|0.938
95846523|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|7.64||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||7.64|-3.17|0.410
95846524|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|6.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 28||6.35|-5.89|0.941
95846525|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|9.67||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||9.67|-8.23|0.872
95846526|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|4.2||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||4.20|-6.27|0.692
95865831|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.79|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.79|1.70|
96002596|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.987||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.987
96002597|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.39||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.390
95963322|NCT01262092|191897443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2887||||0.035||95.0||||p values \<0.05 considered statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|Used proc GLIMMIX to model group by time (6 study visits)||"test null hypothesis that gbp and pla did not differ in terms of opioid-positive urines during the buprenorphine detox.~For the analysis, data from 2 participants in the GBP groups were excluded due to evidence of medication diversion (N=1) and not being maintained on the 1600 mg/day dose of GBP (N=1)."||||0.035
95963323|NCT03784820|191897444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.27||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.27|0.04|0.36
95963324|NCT03784820|191897444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.6||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.60|0.02|0.38
95963325|NCT03784820|191897444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|27.39||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4) \[CBT-E is the reference\]|Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.39|0.18|0.54
95963326|NCT03784820|191897445|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.09||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.09|-1.06|0.52
95963327|NCT03784820|191897445|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|2.07||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.07|-1.99|0.97
95963328|NCT03784820|191897445|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.89||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.89|-1.66|0.59
95963329|NCT03784820|191897446|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.54||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-0.45|0.86
95963330|NCT03784820|191897446|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.06||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|-0.46|0.44
95963331|NCT03784820|191897446|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.98||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.98|-0.36|0.36
95963332|NCT03784820|191897447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.47||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.49||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.49|-2.54|0.33
95963333|NCT03784820|191897447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|7.95||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-3.59|0.46
95963334|NCT03784820|191897447|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|10.6||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.60|-2.94|0.27
95963335|NCT03784820|191897448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.25||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|-3.14|0.62
95963336|NCT03784820|191897448|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.83||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|7.73||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.73|-4.07|0.54
95963337|NCT03784820|191897449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.8||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|10.51||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.51|-0.91|0.10
95963338|NCT03784820|191897449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|8.13||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.13|-5.97|0.76
95963339|NCT03784820|191897449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|8.55||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.55|-2.03|0.23
95963340|NCT03784820|191897449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|6.14||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.14|-6.63|0.94
95963341|NCT03784820|191897449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|5.46||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-8.38|0.68
95963342|NCT03784820|191897449|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|7.84||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.84|-9.06|0.89
95963343|NCT03784820|191897450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|6.79||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-7.61|0.91
95963344|NCT03784820|191897450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|11.93||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.93|-2.49|0.20
95963345|NCT03784820|191897450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|11.2||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.20|-1.63|0.14
95963346|NCT03784820|191897450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.86||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|10.49||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.49|-2.76|0.25
95963347|NCT03784820|191897450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.22||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|9.89||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.89|-1.45|0.14
95963348|NCT03784820|191897450|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|8.87||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.87|-2.58|0.28
95963349|NCT03784820|191897451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.73||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|20.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.19|-16.73|0.85
95963350|NCT03784820|191897451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.94||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|29.48||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.48|-13.59|0.47
95963351|NCT03784820|191897451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.79||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|31.08||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.08|-11.50|0.37
95963352|NCT03784820|191897451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|20.03||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.03|-19.31|0.97
95963353|NCT03784820|191897451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.88||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.85|12.09||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.09|-23.85|0.52
95846527|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.54||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 36||5.54|-6.32|0.896
95846528|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|9.87||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||9.87|-7.92|0.826
95846529|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.58||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.58|-4.82|0.885
95846530|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|5.76||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 44||5.76|-6.03|0.964
95846531|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|9.72||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||9.72|-7.59|0.806
95846532|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.47|-4.65|0.871
95846533|NCT02365649|191658319|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|5.19||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders, Week 52||5.19|-6.28|0.850
95846534|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.9||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.73|25.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||25.90|-33.73|0.792
95846535|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|18.1||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|44.75||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||44.75|-8.62|0.179
95846536|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.87|12.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||12.63|-50.87|0.230
95846537|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|16.4||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.54|50.4||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||50.40|-17.54|0.337
95846538|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|23.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.93|-21.75|0.924
95846539|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-11.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|14.35||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||14.35|-37.69|0.373
95846540|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.1||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.94|22.79||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||22.79|-28.94|0.813
95846541|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|28.65||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||28.65|-18.02|0.651
95846542|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.12|1.49||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||1.49|-49.12|0.065
95846543|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.3||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.61|48.28||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||48.28|-37.61|0.802
95846544|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.6||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|21.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.63|-20.46|0.955
95963354|NCT03784820|191897451|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.55||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|13.23||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.23|-20.33|0.68
96002598|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Depression||||=0.380
95846545|NCT02365649|191658320|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.6||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|14.47||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||14.47|-35.73|0.395
95846546|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0082||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1299|0.1136||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1136|-0.1299|0.893
95846547|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0685||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.1705||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||0.1705|-0.0334|0.182
95846548|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1323||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2552|-0.0093||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||-0.0093|-0.2552|0.036
95963355|NCT03784820|191897452|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.47||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.47|-5.02|0.91
95963356|NCT03784820|191897452|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.81||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.81|-0.36|0.07
95963357|NCT03784820|191897452|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|9.23||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-5.73|0.65
95963358|NCT03784820|191897452|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||4.12|-8.21|0.52
95963359|NCT03784820|191897452|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-13.74|0.07
95963360|NCT03784820|191897452|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-0.56||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-12.73|0.03
95963361|NCT03784820|191897453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.88||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|15.19||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.19|-13.43|0.90
95963362|NCT03784820|191897453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|17.66||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.66|-18.95|0.95
95963363|NCT03784820|191897453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.17|19.9||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.90|-17.17|0.89
95963364|NCT03784820|191897453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.81||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|18.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)||18.98|-7.37|0.39
95963365|NCT03784820|191897453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.29||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|19.84||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.84|-7.26|0.36
95963366|NCT03784820|191897453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.55||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.91||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.91|-20.00|0.87
95963367|NCT03784820|191897454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.83||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-2.29|0.84
95963368|NCT03784820|191897454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.82||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|2.01||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-3.66|0.57
95963369|NCT03784820|191897454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|3.35||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.35|-2.15|0.67
95963370|NCT03784820|191897454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.46||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.35||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.35|-1.43|0.63
95963371|NCT03784820|191897454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.7||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.70|-0.82|0.21
95963372|NCT03784820|191897454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.07||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.28||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.28|-1.14|0.34
95963373|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.42||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.36|6.52||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.52|-13.36|0.50
95963374|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|6.54||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.54|-7.49|0.89
95963375|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.3||Demand/Withdraw Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.30|-7.56|0.86
95963376|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.55||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|6.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.93|-1.83|0.25
95963377|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|8.92||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.92|-4.83|0.56
95963378|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|9.54||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.54|-3.27|0.34
95963379|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.05|-1.42||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-19.05|0.02
95963380|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|7.95||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.95|-8.18|0.98
96002599|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.349||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.349
95846549|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0768||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0749|0.2286||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.2286|-0.0749|0.316
95846550|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0573||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0471|0.1617||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1617|-0.0471|0.277
95865832|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison-post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|17.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||17|8.22|
95963381|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.7||Demand/Withdraw score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.70|-10.10|0.59
95963382|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.82||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.82|-0.99|0.16
95963383|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|8.93||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-1.05|0.12
95963384|NCT03784820|191897455|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.26||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.87||Constructive Communication Score: Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.87|-2.35|0.34
95963385|NCT03784820|191897456|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.53||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.70
95963386|NCT03784820|191897456|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.48|0.90
95963387|NCT03784820|191897456|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.82||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.31|0.38
95963388|NCT03784820|191897457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|4.43||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.43|-5.10|0.89
95963389|NCT03784820|191897457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|5.04||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.04|-4.14|0.85
95963390|NCT03784820|191897457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.85||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.85||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.85|-5.54|0.72
95963391|NCT03784820|191897457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.05||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|2.63||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.63|-8.73|0.29
95963392|NCT03784820|191897457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.51||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.51|-9.90|0.08
95963393|NCT03784820|191897457|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.29||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|1.65||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.65|-8.23|0.19
95865833|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.20|2.20|
95963394|NCT03784820|191897458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.67||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-4.08|0.41
95963395|NCT03784820|191897458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|3.54||Comparison of Patients at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.54|-2.87|0.84
95963396|NCT03784820|191897458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|2.34||Comparison of Patients at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.34|-4.76|0.50
95963397|NCT03784820|191897458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|2.24||Comparison of Partners at Post (T2)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-4.43|0.52
95963398|NCT03784820|191897458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.38||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|1.21||Comparison of Partners at 3 Month Fup (T3)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-3.96|0.30
95963399|NCT03784820|191897458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.25||Comparison of Partners at 6 Month Fup (T4)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-4.78|0.03
95963400|NCT03784820|191897459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|4.72||Comparison of Patients at Post (T2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.72|-3.66|0.79
95963401|NCT01056263|191897480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Five year survival probability|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|32.38||||||Five year survival probability was the probability of survival at 5 year after the date of the start of the study treatment based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate.||32.38|10.94|
95963402|NCT06314438|191897490|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95963403|NCT06314438|191897491|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance level at 0.05||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95963404|NCT06314438|191897492|EQUIVALENCE|paired samples t test with significance set at 0.05 p value|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95963405|NCT00356811|191897530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.3|64.4|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or PR.|||64.4|37.3|
95963406|NCT02201901|191897556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 12 weeks (Group 1) over prespecified rate of 1% .||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
95846551|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0428||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0741|0.1597||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||0.1597|-0.0741|0.467
95865834|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.75|16.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||16|7.75|
95846552|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.036||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1336|0.0616||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.0616|-0.1336|0.464
95846553|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0404||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0444|0.1252||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||0.1252|-0.0444|0.345
95846554|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.0873||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1822|0.0076||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||0.0076|-0.1822|0.071
95846555|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1109||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1109|0.3326||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.3326|-0.1109|0.317
95865835|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||21|12|
95865836|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|68.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||90|51|
95846556|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0848||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0248|0.1945||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1945|-0.0248|0.125
95846557|NCT02365649|191658321|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0559||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0745|0.1864||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||0.1864|-0.0745|0.390
95846558|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.7||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|24.16||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||24.16|-6.79|0.263
95846559|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|15.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|28.93||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Responders||28.93|1.47|0.031
95846560|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-12.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.93|3.9||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Responders||3.90|-27.93|0.135
95846561|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.61|23.27||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||23.27|-10.61|0.458
95846562|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|13.45||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||13.45|-9.59|0.738
95846563|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.4||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|7.6||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Non-responders||7.60|-18.32|0.412
95846564|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.9||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|16.36||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical responders||16.36|-8.56|0.534
95963407|NCT02201901|191897556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 weeks (Group 2) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
95846565|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.0||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|22.01||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.1 level.||Clinical responders||22.01|-0.10|0.052
95865837|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||26|13|
95865838|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||107|51|
95963408|NCT02201901|191897556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL 24 weeks (Group 3) over prespecified rate of 1%.||A sample size of 75 participants per treatment group would provide over 99% power to detect 40% improvement in SVR12 rate from the assumed spontaneous rate of 1% or less using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at significance level of 0.0167.||||<0.001
95963409|NCT02559310|191897570|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 12.5%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||Difference in percentage of Responders for ECR (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||2.8|-8.5|
95846566|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-1.63||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Prespecified statistically significant at 0.05 level.||Clinical responders||-1.63|-26.15|0.027
95846567|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.02|21.97||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||21.97|-24.02|0.928
95846568|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|8.77||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||8.77|-13.72|0.658
95846569|NCT02365649|191658322|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.5||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|9.96||P-value for test of difference between each upadacitinib higher dose and upadacitinib lower dose for mean change from induction baseline using analysis of covariance with treatment as factor and induction baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Clinical non-responders||9.96|-16.96|0.601
95846570|NCT02365649|191658324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.0|-1.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-1.0|-99.0|1.000
95846571|NCT02365649|191658324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
95846572|NCT02365649|191658324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
95846573|NCT02365649|191658324|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|5.0||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical Responders||5.0|-55.0|1.000
95846574|NCT02365649|191658325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-66.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.3||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Responders||-13.3|-100.0|1.000
95846575|NCT02365649|191658325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|86.7||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Non-responders||86.7|-20.0|0.250
95846576|NCT02365649|191658325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|95.6||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||95.6|-62.2|1.000
95846577|NCT02365649|191658325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|0.500
95846578|NCT02365649|191658325|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|4.4||P-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if \>= 20% of the cells had expected cell count \< 5).|Chi-squared||Risk difference = (upadacitinib higher dose - upadacitinib 3 mg BID). 95% confidence intervals for risk difference were calculated based on normal approximation using proc FREQ.|Clinical responders||4.4|-71.1|1.000
95846579|NCT01329978|191658326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|9.4||The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in proportions and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL). Only participants with genotype 1 were included in the comparison due to the fact that participants with genotype 4 and 6 were only enrolled in the SOF+PEG+RBV 24 weeks group.||9.4|-12.2|0.77
95846580|NCT01329978|191658326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|9.9||The p-value is based on the CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The difference in proportions and its 95% CI were calculated based on stratum-adjusted MH proportions.||The analyses was stratified by IL28B (CC versus any T allele) and plasma HCV RNA (\< 800,000 IU/mL versus ≥ 800,000 IU/mL).||9.9|-10.8|0.93
95846581|NCT00104650|191658348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.28|||<|0.001||95.0|3.35|45.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||45.03|3.35|<0.001
95846582|NCT00104650|191658348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.002||95.0|1.74|16.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor||||16.36|1.74|0.002
95846583|NCT00104650|191658348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|77.8||||||95.0|60.8|89.9||||||||89.9|60.8|
95865839|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|22.0|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||22|8.99|
95865840|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|63.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||95|41|
95963410|NCT02559310|191897571|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.9|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.9|-8.9|
95846584|NCT00104650|191658348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
95963411|NCT02559310|191897571|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.1|||||Difference in percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit. CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic.|||4.1|-9.2|
95846585|NCT00104650|191658348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.6||||||95.0|14.6|46.3||||||||46.3|14.6|
95846586|NCT00104650|191658349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.9||||||95.0|46.2|79.2||||||||79.2|46.2|
95846587|NCT00104650|191658349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|63.6||||||95.0|45.1|79.6||||||||79.6|45.1|
95846588|NCT00104650|191658349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|37.1||||||95.0|21.5|55.1||||||||55.1|21.5|
95846589|NCT00104650|191658350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.388
95846590|NCT00104650|191658351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.79|||<|0.001||95.0|2.01|7.15|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||7.15|2.01|<0.001
95846591|NCT00104650|191658351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.32|||<|0.001||95.0|2.23|8.36|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by cancer type and screening uNTx level||||8.36|2.23|<0.001
95846592|NCT00104650|191658352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.274||||0.006||95.0|0.11|0.687|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.687|0.110|0.006
95846593|NCT00104650|191658352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.199||||0.001||95.0|0.076|0.523|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for cancer type stratification factor and screening uNTx level||||0.523|0.076|0.001
95846594|NCT00104650|191658353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for the stratum to which participants were originally assigned by the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS)||||||0.056
95846595|NCT00104650|191658354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.162||||0.105||95.0|0.018|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||||1.465|0.018|0.105
95846596|NCT00104650|191658354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.43||95.0|0.143|2.289|||Regression, Cox|||||2.289|0.143|0.430
95846597|NCT00104650|191658355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|1.44||||||||1.44|0.05|
95846598|NCT00104650|191658355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||||95.0|0.08|1.76||||||||1.76|0.08|
95846599|NCT00871871|191658370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.1||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.01||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.22|0.067
95846600|NCT00871871|191658371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.1|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.86|>0.500
95846601|NCT00871871|191658372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.016||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.044||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.044|-0.012|0.130
95963412|NCT02559310|191897572|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%.|Treatment Difference|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||||Difference in percentage of success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed via Miettinen-Nurminen method, adjusted for prior antibiotic use \[Y vs. N\] and PORT risk class \[III vs. IV/V\], using CMH stratum weights.|||3.4|-8.4|
95846602|NCT00871871|191658373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.54|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.67|||ANCOVA|||||0.67|0.40|>0.500
95846603|NCT00871871|191658374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.004||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.014||one-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||||0.014|-0.023|0.342
95846604|NCT00871871|191658375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.0016|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.008|0.011|||ANOVA|||||0.011|-0.008|>0.500
95846605|NCT00871871|191658376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.003|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.003|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.010|-0.003|>0.500
95846606|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.483
95846607|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.698
95846608|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.782
95846609|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95865841|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|1.24|
95846610|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.729||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.729
95846611|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Induration-Severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846612|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Any within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.819
95846613|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.904
95846614|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95846615|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846616|NCT00452790|191658423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration and erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.690
95846617|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.933
95846618|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.776
95846619|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.596
95846620|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.909
95846621|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.683
95963413|NCT02559310|191897572|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Margin = 10%|Treatment Difference (Lef - Mox)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.7|||||Difference in Percentage of Success for IACR at test of cure visit (Lefamulin - Moxifloxacin). CI computed using continuity-corrected Z-statistic|||3.7|-8.7|
95963414|NCT04596540|191897573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.48|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.48|0.10|0.0008
96002600|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.553
95846622|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846623|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.203
95846624|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Erythema-Mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.399
95846625|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.382
95846626|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846627|NCT00452790|191658424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.738
95846628|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.918
95846629|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.906
95846630|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.404
95846631|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.305
95846632|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.771
95846633|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95963415|NCT04596540|191897573|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.14|0.56|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.56|0.14|0.0002
96002601|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.318||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.318
96002602|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.207||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.207
95846634|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.867
95846635|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.735
95963416|NCT04596540|191897574|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||||-1.55|-5.07|<0.001
95963417|NCT04596540|191897574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.24|-2.66|||ANCOVA|||||-2.66|-6.24|<0.001
95963418|NCT04596540|191897575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-60.96|-19.27|||ANCOVA|||||-19.27|-60.96|<.001
95963419|NCT04596540|191897575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.49|-32.66|||ANCOVA|||||-32.66|-74.49|<.001
96002603|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.117||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Fatigue||||=0.117
96002604|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.156
95846636|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95846637|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846638|NCT00452790|191658425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any Local Reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.842
95846639|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.908
95846640|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of tenderness-significant within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4(12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.772
95846641|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.681
95963420|NCT04596540|191897576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.52|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.66|2.52|<.001
95846642|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.881
95963421|NCT04596540|191897576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.54|8.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.59|0.54|0.011
95963422|NCT04596540|191897577|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.3||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.02|0.62|||Chi-squared|||||0.62|-0.02|0.0470
95963423|NCT04596540|191897577|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.39||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.12|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.12|0.0022
95963424|NCT04596540|191897578|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.28||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.05|0.51|||Chi-squared|||||0.51|0.05|0.0096
95846643|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.509
95846644|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of induration-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846645|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-any within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.880
95963425|NCT04596540|191897578|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.35||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||||0.60|0.10|0.0028
95963426|NCT04596540|191897579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.55|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-7.55|<.001
95963427|NCT04596540|191897579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-6.42|0.003
95963428|NCT04596540|191897580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.46|0.018
95963429|NCT04596540|191897580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.785|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.25|0.785
95963430|NCT04596540|191897581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.15|0.500
95963431|NCT04596540|191897581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.15|0.07|||ANOVA|||||0.07|-0.15|0.421
95846646|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-mild within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.739
95846647|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-moderate within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95963432|NCT04596540|191897582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.634|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.14|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Months 1-3)||0.14|-0.22|0.634
95963433|NCT04596540|191897582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.907|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.19|||ANOVA|||Treatment Periods 1-3 (Month 1-3)||0.19|-0.17|0.907
95963434|NCT01901419|191897673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.618
95963435|NCT01901419|191897674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.410
95963436|NCT01901419|191897675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
95963437|NCT01901419|191897676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.320
95963438|NCT01901419|191897677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
95963439|NCT01901419|191897678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
95963440|NCT01901419|191897679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.338
95963441|NCT01901419|191897680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.356
95846648|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of erythema-severe within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846649|NCT00452790|191658426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any local reaction (tenderness, induration, erythema) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.446
95846650|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.625
95846651|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.375
95846652|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.624
95846653|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95846654|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.282
95846655|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.307
95846656|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.939
95846657|NCT00452790|191658427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 1 (6 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
95846658|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.111
95846659|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95846660|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.488
95846661|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.736
95846662|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.856
95846663|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.098
95846664|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.034
95963442|NCT01901419|191897681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
95963443|NCT01901419|191897682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.515
95963444|NCT01901419|191897683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95963445|NCT01901419|191897684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.227
95963446|NCT01901419|191897685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
95963447|NCT01901419|191897686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95963448|NCT01901419|191897687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
95963449|NCT01901419|191897688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.948
95963450|NCT01901419|191897689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.682
95963451|NCT01901419|191897690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.928
95963452|NCT01901419|191897691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
95963453|NCT01901419|191897692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.894
95963454|NCT01901419|191897693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.135
95963455|NCT01901419|191897694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95963456|NCT01901419|191897695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.852
95963457|NCT01901419|191897696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
95963458|NCT01901419|191897697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.663
95963459|NCT01901419|191897698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.872
95963460|NCT01901419|191897699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.318
95846665|NCT00452790|191658428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of Any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 2 (10 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95865842|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|7.76|||ANOVA|||Post booster dose/ post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||7.76|4.49|
95865843|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.54|1.13|
95865844|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|8.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.83|12.0|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||12|5.83|
95865845|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.20|1.22|
95963461|NCT01901419|191897700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.365
95963462|NCT01901419|191897701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.077
95846666|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.085
95963463|NCT01901419|191897702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.640
95963464|NCT01888874|191897716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|11.9||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|26.9|||Regression, Logistic|P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||26.9|-3.1|0.1236
95963465|NCT01888874|191897716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|19.3||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.0||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||34|4.7|0.0435
95963466|NCT01888874|191897716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|24.4||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|38.8||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||38.8|10.1|0.0068
95963467|NCT01888874|191897716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|12.8||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||27.6|-2|0.1236
95963468|NCT01888874|191897716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|15.8||||0.1056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.6||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||30.6|1|0.1056
95963469|NCT01888874|191897716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage rates|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|48.1||P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method.|Regression, Logistic|||Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics.||48.1|20.7|< 0.0001
95963470|NCT03258723|191897748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
95963471|NCT03258723|191897749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0005
95963472|NCT03258723|191897750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1809|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.1809
95963473|NCT03258723|191897751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.0973
95963474|NCT03258723|191897753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1992|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.1992
95963475|NCT03258723|191897754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within subject change on matched cases.||||0.7017
95963476|NCT03258723|191897755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in low activity group at baseline.||||0.1573
95963477|NCT03258723|191897755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4328|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in medium activity group at baseline.||||0.4328
95865846|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.58|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||6.58|2.88|
95865847|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.75|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||1.75|0.97|
95865848|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|"Vaccine comparison Post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 (Group 3B vs. Group B~\_0\_1)"|Ratio of GMTs|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|3.25|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.25|2.08|
95865849|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.18|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.18|0.90|
96002605|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.019
95846667|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846668|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.489
95846669|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.840
95846670|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.605
95865850|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.81|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.81|2.04|
96002606|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.004
96002607|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.228||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.228
96002608|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.034
96002609|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.197||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.197
95846671|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
95846672|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.265
95846673|NCT00452790|191658429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event (fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the infant series dose 3 (14 weeks of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.422
95846674|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>= 38 but \<= 39 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.815
95846675|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>39 but \<= 40 degrees within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||>0.99
96002610|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.107||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.107
95846676|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of fever \>40 degrees C within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||
95846677|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased appetite within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.401
95846678|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.511||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of irritability within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.511
95846679|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of increased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.487
95865851|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- Pre-booster or pre-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.82|||ANOVA|||Pre booster/Pre first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||1.82|0.82|
95865852|NCT02446743|191690596|OTHER|Vaccine comparison- post-booster or post-1st dose in V72\_75 \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\]|Ratio of GMTs|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.36|||ANOVA|||Post booster/Post first dose-Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.79|
95865853|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|33.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.0|20.7|
95865854|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|38.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||38.7|19.3|
95865855|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|33.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||33.9|18.3|
95865856|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|27.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval or the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.9|15.9|
95865857|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|28.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.5|11.5|
96002611|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.606||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.606
96002612|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.004
95846680|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of decreased sleep within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.388
95846681|NCT00452790|191658430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence rates of any systemic event fever, decrease in appetite, irritability, increased or decreased sleep) within 4 days of the toddler dose, dose 4 (12 months of age) reported in the 13vPnC group relative to the incidence rates in the 7vPnC group. No hypothesis testing was performed. The analysis is descriptive.||||0.753
95846682|NCT02775916|191658450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.332|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.343|1.937||||||||1.937|-3.343|
96002613|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.005
95846683|NCT02775916|191658451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.55||||||||3.55|-2.52|
95846684|NCT02775916|191658452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.119|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|6.89||||||||6.89|-6.08|
95846685|NCT02775916|191658452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.615|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|13.93||||||||13.93|-5.27|
95846686|NCT02775916|191658453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.76|8.66||||||||8.66|-21.76|
95846687|NCT02775916|191658454|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.94|9.0||||||||9.00|-30.94|
95963478|NCT03258723|191897755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6698|||||||McNemar|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases in high activity group at baseline.||||0.6698
95865858|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|31.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.9|14.6|
95865859|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.8|45.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.4|29.8|
95865860|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||64.7|43.5|
95865861|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|35.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.1|12.9|
95865862|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||30.8|14.7|
95865863|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) Difference|Vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|35.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||35.5|12.2|
95865864|NCT02446743|191690598|OTHER|1 month post booster/first dose of vaccination: Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) Difference|Vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|32.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.9|10.6|
95865865|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|4.5||Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4.5|-15.0|
95865866|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|11.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.4|-17.0|
95865867|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||7.3|-20.0|
95865868|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||6.2|-0.9|
95963479|NCT03258723|191897756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||0.5271
95963480|NCT03258723|191897757|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change from baseline assessed on matched cases.||||<0.0001
95963481|NCT04024462|191897758|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.15|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of pertuzumab (Arm B) relative to the pertuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the pertuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the pertuzumab Arm A IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of pertuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.15|0.99|
95963482|NCT04024462|191897759|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis could be rejected and non-inferiority concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio was ≥0.8. Non-inferiority was tested in hierarchical order after the primary outcome measure, to adjust for multiple statistical testing and control the type I error at one sided 5% significance level.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.67|||||The CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio was calculated as the SC dose of trastuzumab (Arm B) relative to the trastuzumab IV dose (Arm A).|The null hypothesis was that the trastuzumab Arm B SC dose is inferior to the Arm A trastuzumab IV dose (i.e., the CtroughSC/CtroughIV geometric mean ratio of the SC dose of trastuzumab relative to the IV dose is not greater than 0.8).||1.67|1.44|
95963483|NCT04024462|191897760|OTHER|Descriptive analysis only. tpCR was analyzed outside of a hypothesis-testing framework and according to the methodology outlined in the outcome measure description.|Difference in tpCR Rate|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|13.45|||||Difference in tpCR rate was calculated as Arm B: PH FDC SC minus Arm A: P+H IV.|||13.45|-15.21|
95963484|NCT01351805|191897770|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|8.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.31||IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 8.19% (95%CI 1.52-15.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||15.31|1.52|0.02
96002614|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
95846688|NCT02775916|191658455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.75|14.37||||||||14.37|-29.75|
95846689|NCT01908426|191658456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geo. region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.92|0.63|0.0049
95846690|NCT01908426|191658457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52|||Log Rank|The Log Rank Test was stratified by etiology of disease, geographic region, presence of extrahepatic spread of disease and/or macrovascular invasion.||||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
95846691|NCT01908426|191658458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0086
95846692|NCT02973100|191658459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.53|-1.07|<.001
95846693|NCT02973100|191658459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-1.14|<0.001
95846694|NCT02973100|191658459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.24|<.001
95846695|NCT02973100|191658460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.489|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.368|71.667|||Regression, Logistic|||||71.667|8.368|<.001
95846696|NCT02973100|191658460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.906|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.238|84.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||84.300|9.238|<.001
95846697|NCT02973100|191658460|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.852|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.672|62.242|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.242|7.672|<.001
95846698|NCT02973100|191658461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.62|-2.02|<0.001
95846699|NCT02973100|191658461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.91|<0.001
95846700|NCT02973100|191658461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.72|-2.12|<0.001
95846701|NCT02973100|191658462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-2.3|0.025
95846702|NCT02973100|191658462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.4|<0.001
95846703|NCT02973100|191658462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.5|-3.7|<0.001
95846704|NCT02413918|191658478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.0|<|0.0094|TWO_SIDED|||||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons (see above). A priori threshold for significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in depression and mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0094
95846705|NCT02413918|191658478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||BISS Outcomes: Mean changes in mania for study completers were measured. The a priori hypothesis was a mean change of 50%.||||<0.0001
95846706|NCT04755816|191658541|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
95846707|NCT04755816|191658542|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Win Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.54||||||"Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in group A and B. By the unmatched pairs win ratio method, each participant receiving the intervention will be compared to each participant not receiving the intervention. For each comparison, winners will be determined according to the hierarchy described above. The win ratio is the number winners divided by the number of losers associated with the intervention."||1.54|1.08|
95846708|NCT04755816|191658544|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|3.743||||||Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C.||3.743|0.321|
95846709|NCT04755816|191658545|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|6.76|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group B and D. No Dietary Sodium Intervention includes those in treatment group A and C. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||6.76|-37.5|
95846710|NCT04755816|191658546|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.556|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|1.901||||||Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B.||1.901|0.163|
96002615|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
95865869|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
95865870|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
95865871|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
95865872|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
95865873|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
95963485|NCT01351805|191897770|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-0.73||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|5.81||4\. IL-6 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -0.73% (95%CI -6.87 to 5.81).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||5.81|-6.87|0.97
95963486|NCT01351805|191897770|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1,p for interaction between strata.||||||0.12||||||Test of multiplicative interaction between the effects of the two supplements|p for interaction|||Test for interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3 fatty acids on IL-6 change from baseline to 1 year||||0.12
95963487|NCT01351805|191897771|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|7.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|16.87||3\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= 7.12% (95%CI -1.81-16.78).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||16.87|-1.81|0.16
95963488|NCT01351805|191897771|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-3.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|4.86||6\. HsCRP from baseline to one year: overall % change= -3.89% (95%CI -11.92-4.86).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||4.86|-11.92|0.44
95963489|NCT01351805|191897771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.38
96002616|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.005||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||=0.005
96002617|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||=0.010
96002618|NCT05223868|191982407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
95963490|NCT01351805|191897772|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|0.63||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.31||2\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= 0.63% (95%CI -1.03 to 2.31).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and n-3 fatty acid randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||2.31|-1.03|0.57
96002619|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.16||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.160
96002620|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.001
95963491|NCT01351805|191897772|OTHER|Test of change from baseline as above.|Percent change in geometric means|-1.27||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.39||5\. TNFR2 from baseline to one year: overall % change= -1.27% (95%CI -2.89 to 0.39).|as above|p above adjusted for age, sex, race and vitamin D randomized treatment group.||Geometric means of biomarker concentrations with 95% CIs were calculated for baseline and 1 year biomarkers (IL-6, TNFR2 and CRP) by treatment group (active vs. placebo vitamin D). Linear repeated measures models calculated the % change in means for each biomarker from baseline to year one and the overall effects of randomized treatments with 95% CIs.||0.39|-2.89|0.13
95846711|NCT04755816|191658547|OTHER|Estimates and confidence intervals are provided|Slope|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.67|7.72|||||"The total score for the MLHFQ ranges from 0 to 105, with higher scores indicating more significant impairment in health-related quality of life. The change in MLHFQ is defined as MLHFQ at Week 12 minus MLHFQ at Week 0."|Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group C and D. No Clinical Worsening Intervention includes those in treatment group A and B. Simple linear regression models will be used to assess the outcome of change in MLHFQ over 12 weeks as a function of treatment group assignment. Beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals will be reported.||7.72|-33.67|
95846712|NCT01755234|191658552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95846713|NCT01755234|191658553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95846714|NCT01755234|191658554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.96
95846715|NCT01755234|191658555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.84
95846716|NCT04663321|191658568|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-1.4|0.168
95846717|NCT04663321|191658568|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-6.9|0.697
95846718|NCT04663321|191658569|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-0.8|0.124
95865874|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|-7.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-7.5|-35.2|
95963492|NCT01351805|191897772|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicative interaction between strata based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1 with p for interaction between strata.||||||0.74|||||||P for interaction|||Test for multiplicative interaction between effect of vitamin D and effect of omega-3. based on linear models of ln biomarker from baseline to year 1.||||0.74
95846719|NCT04663321|191658569|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||||6.4|-2.7|0.417
95846720|NCT04663321|191658572|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-1.0|0.187
95846721|NCT04663321|191658572|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||ANCOVA|||||3.1|-4.3|0.738
95846722|NCT04663321|191658573|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS means|LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-0.8|0.182
95865875|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.7|-46.5|
95846723|NCT04663321|191658574|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.630
95846724|NCT04663321|191658574|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.549
95846725|NCT04663321|191658575|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.0|0.062
95846726|NCT04663321|191658575|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.5|0.878
95846727|NCT05108246|191658577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.001
95846728|NCT05108246|191658577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value is calculated.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in balance was assessed by calculating a change score between pre-test and end point scores for balance. Change scores were then compared using Mann-Whitney U test and reported as Median (Interquartile range).||||.003
95846729|NCT02201524|191658637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.15|-1.01||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: Longitudinal analysis of covariance (LANCOVA) model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.01|-9.15|
95846730|NCT02201524|191658637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.61|-1.62||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.62|-9.61|
95846731|NCT02201524|191658637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.19|-5.77||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.77|-14.19|
95846732|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.291|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.19|4.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||4.56|-23.19|
95846733|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.87|2.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.50|-24.87|
95846734|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.504|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.45|-4.99||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.99|-33.45|
95846735|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.71|13.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||13.11|-21.71|
95846736|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.273|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.25|-0.82||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.82|-35.25|
95963493|NCT01351805|191897773|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.61|0.05
96002621|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.008
96002622|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.006
95846737|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.646|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-9.23||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-9.23|-44.90|
95846738|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.013|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.53|8.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.39|-28.53|
95846739|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.793|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.33|-11.13||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.13|-47.33|
95963494|NCT01351805|191897773|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.67|0.19
95963495|NCT01351805|191897773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||P for interaction|p multiplicative interaction between effects of vitamin D and n-3 fa supplements||Test for multiplicative interaction between the effects of randomized treatment groups, vitamin D and n-3 fa on incidence of autoimmune disease.||||0.20
96002623|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Physical Function||||=0.003
96002624|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.818||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.818
95846740|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.299|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.92|-31.05||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-31.05|-68.92|
95846741|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.26|-5.24||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.24|-43.26|
95846742|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.155|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.18|-8.75||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.75|-46.18|
95846743|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-52.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.697|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.24|-33.02||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-33.02|-72.24|
95846744|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.605|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.8|-0.15|||LANCOVA|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.15|-35.80|
96002625|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.179||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.179
96002626|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.030
96002627|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.267||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.267
95846745|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.513|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.44|2.88||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-32.44|
95846746|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.125|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.61|-29.27||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-29.27|-66.61|
96002628|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Anxiety||||=0.022
96002629|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.620
96002630|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.240
96002631|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.71||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.710
96002632|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.341||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.341
95846747|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-21.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.459|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.0|-2.49||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.49|-41.00|
95846748|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-17.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.416|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.92|1.42||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-36.92|
95846749|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.893|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.85|-15.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-15.90|-55.85|
95846750|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.985|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.57|11.07||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||11.07|-32.57|
95846751|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.902|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.71|8.64||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||8.64|-34.71|
95846752|NCT02201524|191658638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.44|-11.48||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-11.48|-57.44|
95846753|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.626|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|0.72||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-4.73|
95846754|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.99|0.38||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.38|-4.99|
95865876|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-17.1|-38.4|
96002633|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Depression||||=0.204
95846755|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.668|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|-0.86||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.86|-6.45|
95846756|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.032|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|2.32||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-4.49|
95846757|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.011|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|-0.49||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.49|-7.23|
95846758|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.65|-1.67||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.67|-8.65|
95846759|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|1.39||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.39|-6.07|
95846760|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.177|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.78|-2.47||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.47|-9.78|
95846761|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.286|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.22|-5.56||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.56|-13.22|
95846762|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.71|0.21||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.21|-6.71|
95846763|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|0.45||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.45|-6.40|
96002634|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.786||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.786
96002635|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.597
95846764|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.167|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.24|-4.95||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.95|-12.24|
95846765|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.321|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.89|-0.08||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.08|-7.89|
95846766|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.304|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.68|0.07||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||0.07|-7.68|
95846767|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|-2.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.89|-11.00|
95846768|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.607|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.65|3.11||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||3.11|-5.65|
96002636|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.023
95846769|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.18|1.51||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||1.51|-7.18|
95846770|NCT02201524|191658639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.758|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.15|-1.89||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: LANCOVA model contains fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline value and unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.89|-11.15|
95846771|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.5|19.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||19.6|-21.5|
95846772|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|40.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.3|-5.9|
95846773|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|38.0|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||38.0|-9.3|
95846774|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.0|9.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.3|-38.0|
95846775|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.4|29.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||29.1|-25.4|
95846776|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|48.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.3|-10.2|
95846777|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|31.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||31.0|-26.7|
95846778|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|23.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|49.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.8|-6.9|
95846779|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|67.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.4|85.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||85.3|36.4|
95846780|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
95846781|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.6|67.1||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||67.1|7.6|
95846782|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|77.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||77.6|19.7|
95846783|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|43.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.4|-21.4|
95846784|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-29.4|
96002637|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.438||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.438
95846785|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.1|69.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.0|17.1|
95846786|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|63.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||63.4|1.9|
95846787|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|47.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||47.0|-21.4|
95846788|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|24.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-11.8|
95846789|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.4|32.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.3|-40.4|
95846790|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.7|48.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.2|-23.7|
95846791|NCT02201524|191658640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.0|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|-28.0|
95846792|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
96002638|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fatigue||||=0.017
95846793|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
95846794|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|32.2||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.2|-14.4|
95846795|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.7|43.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||43.6|-6.7|
95846796|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.8|12.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||12.1|-28.8|
95846797|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.4|55.4||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.4|5.4|
95865877|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.2|-19.2|
95846798|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|55.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.3|0.8|
95865878|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||12.3|-14.1|
96002639|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.419||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.419
96002640|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.080
95846799|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|27.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.3|-27.3|
95846800|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|59.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.8|1.0|
95846801|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.8|69.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||69.3|8.8|
95846802|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
95846803|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.4|71.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||71.8|25.4|
95846804|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.2|86.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||86.1|39.2|
95846805|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.3|18.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||18.3|-36.3|
95846806|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|68.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||68.5|6.2|
95846807|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|60.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||60.5|-2.9|
95846808|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.8|13.7||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||13.7|-47.8|
95846809|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|24.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-40.6|
96002641|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.006
95846810|NCT02201524|191658641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.4|36.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.4|-36.4|
95846811|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
95846812|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.0|10.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||10.2|-27.0|
95846813|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.7|22.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||22.8|-20.7|
95846814|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.3|24.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||24.8|-20.3|
95846815|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|33.8||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-5.6|
95846816|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.3|61.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||61.1|15.3|
95846817|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.3|11.3|
95846818|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|80.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||80.9|34.7|
95846819|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|49.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||49.3|2.1|
95846820|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.4|70.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||70.2|19.4|
95846821|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|46.6||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.6|-2.7|
95865879|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||5.6|-13.6|
95865880|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|21.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||21.6|3.6|
95963496|NCT01351805|191897774|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to omega-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acid placebo, regardless of vitamin D randomization status.||||||0.77||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures model with censoring for total knee replacement.||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.||||0.77
95846822|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.4|56.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||56.4|6.4|
95846823|NCT02201524|191658642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|54.9||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||54.9|-4.9|
95846824|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|33.8||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||33.8|-4.4|
95846825|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|32.0||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||32.0|-5.2|
95846826|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|27.0||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 1: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||27.0|-10.2|
95846827|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-3.2|
95846828|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|40.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||40.7|-8.1|
95846829|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.3|59.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 2: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||59.4|7.3|
95846830|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|45.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||45.5|-11.2|
95846831|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|55.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||55.7|1.7|
95846832|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|57.4|||Difference in Percentage Analysed using|||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 3: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||57.4|-1.2|
95846833|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|52.5||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||52.5|-6.4|
96002642|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.421
96002643|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sleep Disturbance||||=0.025
96002644|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.470
96002645|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.023
95846834|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.7|66.7||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||66.7|8.7|
95846835|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|53.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.5|76.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 4: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||76.6|18.5|
96002646|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.002
95846836|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.1|36.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||36.6|-26.1|
95846837|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.9|44.5||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||44.5|-18.9|
95846838|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.9|75.3||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 5: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||75.3|12.9|
95846839|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.2|41.4||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||41.4|-25.2|
95846840|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|37.3||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||37.3|-30.5|
95846841|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|46.2||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 6: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||46.2|-21.9|
95846842|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.2|34.6||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||34.6|-33.2|
95865881|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|24.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||24.6|6.4|
95865882|NCT02446743|191690599|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||20.3|7.6|
96002647|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.04||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.040
95846843|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|51.9||||||PF-04965842 400 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||51.9|-17.6|
95846844|NCT02201524|191658643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.4|48.1||||||PF-04965842 200 mg vs Placebo at Week 8: Analysed using Asymptotic Miettinen and Nurminen method.||48.1|-26.4|
95846845|NCT02646826|191658656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0017
95846846|NCT02646826|191658657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.44
95846847|NCT00474123|191658677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.3
95846848|NCT00474123|191658678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.65
95846849|NCT00474123|191658679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.02
95846850|NCT00474123|191658680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The sample size was determined as 78 patients. Continuous data were presented as means ± SD, or median (interquartile range) when the distribution was non-normal. For qualitative variables, we presented counts and relative frequencies. For between-group comparison we used multiple regression with adjustment for baseline values of the outcome variable (ANCOVA), or Wilcoxon rank-sum test when the variable had a non-normal distribution.||||0.85
95846851|NCT00702468|191658687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.335||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.162|0.691|||Chi-squared|||||0.691|0.162|0.013
95846852|NCT00702468|191658688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.21||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.79|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.79|-1.22|0.720
95846853|NCT00702468|191658689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.53||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.68|5.74|||ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.68|0.86
95846854|NCT00702468|191658691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.78||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.52|10.96|||ANCOVA||Negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|It is important to emphasise that only four placebo subjects were included in the analysis and 11 of the Sativex subjects - this sample size is too small for a meaningful comparison between treatments. The reason for not including some of the data in this analysis is that a number of the subjects who withdrew early from the study restarted their own Sativex before the assessment was done.||10.96|-14.52|0.81
95846855|NCT00702468|191658692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.33|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates the comparison is in favour of Sativex|||0.33|-1.60|0.271
96002648|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Social Roles and Activities||||=0.001
95846856|NCT00702468|191658693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.562||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|13.997|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.997|1.585|0.017
95846857|NCT00702468|191658694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.55||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.942|118.773|||Regression, Logistic|||||118.773|3.942|0.0011
95846858|NCT00702468|191658695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.444||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|13.718|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.718|0.948|0.1151
95846859|NCT00119847|191658701|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||p\<0.05 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||The planned sample size of 300 subjects was chosen to provide 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 0.1 in the change in α1 from baseline to 1 year between the 2 treatment groups on the basis of data from prior studies that indicated that baseline levels of α1 would be 1.0 with a common SD of 0.2.||0.04|-0.12|0.34
95846860|NCT00119847|191658702|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||10.7|-4.8|0.45
95846861|NCT00119847|191658703|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9||p\<0.01 required for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.23
95846862|NCT04201431|191658705|OTHER|Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1 and 2 volunteers who completed primary CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls undergoing primary CHMI from VAC069 study running in parallel (NCT03797989).||||||0.01||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing infectivity controls with vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of parasite multiplication rate in vaccinated subjects compared to infectivity controls in a blood-stage controlled human malaria infection model||||0.01
95846863|NCT02374164|191658819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.612|0.847|||||Ratio Fed/Fasted. Point estimate and 90% CI were obtained from the exponentiated results of analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data. Bioequivalence was reached if the value was 0.80 to 1.25.|Relative bioavailability of a single dose of Febuxostat XR 80 mg in the fasted and fed (high-fat meal) states.||0.847|0.612|
96002649|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.013||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.013
95846864|NCT00890825|191658825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.14||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure - Overall survival.|Regression, Cox|Analysis adjusted for the following covariates; WHO PS, gender, histology and smoking status|A Hazard Ratio less than 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||1.14|0.56|0.2069
96002650|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
96002651|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.004
95846865|NCT00890825|191658826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.79||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Regression, Cox|The model allowed for the effect of treatment and included terms for WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|A Hazard Ratio (HR) \< 1 favoured AZD6244 + Docetaxel|||0.79|0.42|0.0138
95846866|NCT00890825|191658827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|53.0||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||53|23|< 0.0001
95846867|NCT00890825|191658829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmeans difference|-17.03||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-25.2|-8.86||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status.|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-8.86|-25.2|0.004
95846868|NCT00890825|191658830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-38.34|-13.7||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel on the outcome measure.|ANCOVA|LS means were adjusted for baseline tumour size, time from baseline scan to randomisation, WHO PS, gender, histology, and smoking status|(AZD6244 + Docetaxel) - (Placebo + Docetaxel)|||-13.7|-38.34|0.004
95846869|NCT00890825|191658831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|0.78||One-sided p-value. The p-value is associated with the point estimate (e.g. HR comparing AZD6244 + Docetaxel vs Placebo + Docetaxel) on the outcome measure.|Log Rank|Confidence interval (CI) used Greenwood's formula for the standard error of a survival estimate|A hazard ratio (HR) \<1 favours AZD6244 75 mg bd+Docetaxel|||0.78|0.37|0.0158
95846870|NCT02920892|191658832|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.22|0.1587
95846871|NCT02920892|191658833|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.66||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-3.34|0.1054
95846872|NCT02920892|191658834|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.45|-1.79|0.32
95846873|NCT02920892|191658835|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.98|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-1.98|0.78
95846874|NCT02920892|191658836|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.05|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.24|-2.05|0.94
95846875|NCT02920892|191658837|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.81|0.1428
95846876|NCT02920892|191658838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9462||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8764|1.0215|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0215|0.8764|0.24
95846877|NCT02920892|191658839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.27|0.4|0.92
95846878|NCT03483896|191658872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95846879|NCT03483896|191658873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
96002652|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.038||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||=0.038
95846880|NCT03318549|191658913|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95865883|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|-33.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-33.1|-52.7|
95865884|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.6|-3.9|
95865885|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.4|-2.7|
95865886|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-29.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-29.8|-58.4|
95865887|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.1|-7.7|
95865888|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
95865889|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|Vaccine group difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-25.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.4|-51.8|
95865890|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.0|-3.3|
95865891|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-2.4|
95865892|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.8|-12.4|
95865893|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.7|-2.2|
95865894|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|10.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.5|2.8|
95846881|NCT03318549|191658913|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95846882|NCT03318549|191658914|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
95846883|NCT03318549|191658917|OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.132
95846884|NCT03318549|191658917|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
95846885|NCT00462306|191658921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||4000 parturients and 500 non-pregnant achieves 90% power to detect a difference of 3% positive Berlin Questionnaire rates between pregnant and non-pregnant women using a two sided chi squared test at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||We hypothesized that the rate of positive Berlin questionnaires would be higher in pregnant women compared to age matched controls undergoing surgery.||||0.001
95846886|NCT00462306|191658922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
95846887|NCT00539994|191658927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95846888|NCT00539994|191658927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95846889|NCT04612725|191658936|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.01||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.26||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.26|-3.28|0.3824
95846890|NCT04612725|191658936|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.5||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.50|-4.09|0.1244
95846891|NCT04612725|191658937|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.07||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|2.8||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.80|-6.95|0.4016
95846892|NCT04612725|191658937|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|0.56||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.56|-9.28|0.0819
95846893|NCT04612725|191658937|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.63||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.63|-7.74|0.3314
95846894|NCT04612725|191658937|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.74||||0.1582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|1.47||Change from baseline in UAS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UAS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.47|-8.95|0.1582
96002653|NCT05223868|191982408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Dose response assessment was adjusted for multiplicity. Pairwise comparisons between each dose vs placebo were not.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Pain Interference||||<0.001
95846895|NCT04612725|191658938|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.86||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.86|-4.10|0.1995
95846896|NCT04612725|191658938|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.76||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.73||Change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline ISS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.73|-4.25|0.1654
95846897|NCT04612725|191658939|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|11.72||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|25.82||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.82|-2.37|0.1373
95846898|NCT04612725|191658939|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|10.73||||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|24.88||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.88|-3.42|0.1697
95846899|NCT04612725|191658939|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|1.03||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|18.96||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.96|-16.90|0.9105
95846900|NCT04612725|191658939|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|9.27||||0.3389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.37|27.9||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||27.90|-9.37|0.3389
95846901|NCT04612725|191658940|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.4203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.68||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.68|-4.00|0.4203
95846902|NCT04612725|191658940|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|0.27||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 12= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.27|-5.46|0.0754
95846903|NCT04612725|191658940|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.89||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.89|-4.01|0.4772
95846904|NCT04612725|191658940|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.1851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|0.97||Change from baseline in HSS7 at Week 24= Treatment + baseline HSS7 + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||0.97|-4.96|0.1851
95846905|NCT04612725|191658942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9678||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9678
95846906|NCT04612725|191658942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3689||||||Week 12: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3689
95846907|NCT04612725|191658942|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|-3.43||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|12.11||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.11|-18.96|0.6624
95846908|NCT04612725|191658942|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|0.28||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.84|16.4||Week 24: Estimates included treatment group, region (Europe, North America, Asia) and baseline UAS7.|Regression, Logistic|||||16.40|-15.84|0.9726
95846909|NCT04612725|191658944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.32||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.32|-1.90|0.7256
95846910|NCT04612725|191658944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.09||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.72||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 12= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.72|-0.54|0.1890
95846911|NCT04612725|191658944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.24||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.24|-2.51|0.5048
95865895|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-17.8|
95865896|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.0|-3.2|
96002654|NCT04127786|191982410|SUPERIORITY|If the non-inferiority for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines was reached at Day 42, then superiority was demonstrated if the overall observed percentage of participants with an RVNA titer \>= 0.5 IU/mL at Day 42 was at least 99% in the VRVg-2 Group, with the lower limit of the 95% CI at least 97%.|Percentage Difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.3|100.0||||||The secondary immunogenicity outcome measures were evaluated sequentially following a fixed-sequence method.||100|99.3|
95846912|NCT04612725|191658944|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.99||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|2.88||Change from baseline in UCT at Week 24= Treatment + baseline UCT + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.88|-0.89|0.2991
95846913|NCT04612725|191658945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|7.32||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||7.32|-4.05|0.5704
95846914|NCT04612725|191658945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24||||0.4416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|3.5||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 12= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.50|-7.98|0.4416
95865897|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.5|3.7|
95865898|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||11.0|-11.8|
95865899|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-4.6|
95865900|NCT02446743|191690600|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-0.8|
95865901|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-34.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-34.3|-54.4|
96002655|NCT04127786|191982411|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
96002656|NCT04127786|191982411|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.7||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 2 and 5: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||2.7|-1.9|
95846915|NCT04612725|191658945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.47||||0.6591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.02||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||8.02|-5.09|0.6591
95846916|NCT04612725|191658945|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.04||||0.3624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|3.54||Change from baseline in CU-Q2oL at Week 24= Treatment + baseline CU-Q2oL + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.54|-9.62|0.3624
95846917|NCT04612725|191658946|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.98||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||2.98|-2.02|0.7037
95846918|NCT04612725|191658946|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.29||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 12= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.29|-3.78|0.3320
95846919|NCT04612725|191658946|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.24||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|3.9||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||3.90|-1.42|0.3590
95846920|NCT04612725|191658946|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.8||Change from baseline in DLQI at Week 24= Treatment + baseline DLQI + region (Europe, North America, Asia) + visit + treatment by visit.|Mixed-effect model for repeated measures|||||1.80|-3.56|0.5175
95846921|NCT02360228|191658953|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups.H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.47
95846922|NCT02360228|191658955|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the PANSS score from day 5 to baseline. H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)||||0.37
95846923|NCT02360228|191658956|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|Difference from day 5 to baseline was compared between the tACS, tDCS, and sham groups using a one way ANOVA. Degrees of freedom: df=19||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the BACS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1=μ2=μ3 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tACS group (n=8) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=7) μ3: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=7)"||||0.11
95846924|NCT01604291|191658974|OTHER|||||||0.9109||||||The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|Chi-squared|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Gender||||0.9109
95846925|NCT01604291|191658974|OTHER|||||||0.1163||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Age||||0.1163
95846926|NCT01604291|191658974|OTHER|||||||0.9269||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Height||||0.9269
95846927|NCT01604291|191658974|OTHER|||||||0.3376||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Weight||||0.3376
95846928|NCT01604291|191658974|OTHER|||||||0.4618||||||A t-test was done to compare SVR participants to non-SVR.|t-test, 1 sided|||Correlation between SVR 24 and Body mass index.||||0.4618
95865902|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|5.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.2|-4.5|
95846929|NCT01604291|191658987|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.0835||||0.0463|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables|Correlation with dose modification for Peginterferon alfa-2a.||||0.0463
95846930|NCT01604291|191658987|OTHER||phi-coefficient|0.0666||||0.2052|||||||Chi-squared|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Ribavirin.||||0.2052
95846931|NCT01604291|191658987|OTHER||phi-coefficient|-0.1672||||0.0033|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value from chi-square is the difference between SVR achieved (yes/no) and dose modifications.|phi-coefficient is a measure of the degree of association between two binary variables.|Correlation with dose modification for Telaprevir/boceprevir.||||0.0033
95846932|NCT03349723|191659012|OTHER||Slope|0.9806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9155|1.0457|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0457|0.9155|
95846933|NCT03349723|191659013|OTHER||Slope|0.9892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9207|1.0577|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The model consisted of a regression model applied to log-transformed data. The corresponding ANCOVA model included the logarithm of the dose as a covariate.||1.0577|0.9207|
95846934|NCT03409796|191659018|OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdBaseline (B) and Vh:Cd15.||||0.385
95846935|NCT03409796|191659018|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. Change in Vh:Cd follows a normal distribution. A 1-sided paired t-test was used to compare Baseline and follow-up Vh:Cd measures. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If the data was not normal at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare Vh:CdB and Vh:Cd15.||||0.003
95846936|NCT03409796|191659019|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 3 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.010
95846937|NCT03409796|191659019|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Poisson distribution|||Gluten 10 gram: Baseline versus Day 15. The Poisson distribution assumption was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Poisson GLMM was fitted to data, where IEL measurements were grouped by participant (the random effect) and the change in IEL counts was the fixed effect. If the data was found to not be Poisson at alpha=0.05, a 1-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used instead to compare IELB and IEL15.||||0.006
95865903|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.9|-1.9|
95846938|NCT00770653|191659037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (H0) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group ≤ the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. Alternate hypothesis (H1) = mean increase of HDL after 24 weeks of treatment of Pio/Met group \> the mean increase in the Gli/Met group. The relevant clinical effect size to detect with adequate power was 0.35. With this assumption, a one sided t-test with a type I error rate had 80% power to reject the H0 for the H1 when the sample size was 130 patients per group.||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
95846939|NCT00770653|191659038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.267||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2264|5.3076|||ANCOVA||Deviation from the normal distribution assumption was detected for original and rank-transformed data for all time-points due to p-value of Shapiro-Wilk test, indicating the normal distribution assumption might be distrusted for HDL-cholesterol data.|||5.3076|1.2264|0.0018
95846940|NCT00770653|191659039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1311||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2951|0.0329|||ANCOVA|||||0.0329|-0.2951|0.1167
95846941|NCT00770653|191659040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9479||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4331|3.5373|||ANCOVA|||||3.5373|-39.4331|0.1012
95846942|NCT00770653|191659041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1292||||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0109|23.2693|||ANCOVA|||||23.2693|-17.0109|0.7486
95846943|NCT00770653|191659042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2355||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1253|6.6543|||ANCOVA|||||6.6543|-7.1253|0.9464
95846944|NCT00770653|191659043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1574||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0193|0.3341|||ANCOVA|||||0.3341|-0.0193|0.0807
95846945|NCT00770653|191659044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4222|-2.5855|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5855|-6.4222|<.0001
95846946|NCT00770653|191659045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0707||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4665|8.6079|||ANCOVA|||||8.6079|-6.4665|0.7799
95846947|NCT00770653|191659046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3161|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0994|7.5329|||ANCOVA|||||7.5329|5.0994|<.0001
95846948|NCT00770653|191659047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8323||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8312|1.1665|||ANCOVA|||||1.1665|-2.8312|0.4131
95846949|NCT00770653|191659048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8847|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3067|-0.4627|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4627|-1.3067|<.0001
95846950|NCT00770653|191659049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4903||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3979|0.4172|||ANCOVA|||||0.4172|-5.3979|0.0929
95846951|NCT00770653|191659050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8832||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6571|0.8906|||ANCOVA|||||0.8906|-2.6571|0.3279
95846952|NCT00770653|191659051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher Exact|-3.33||||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|8.39|||Fisher Exact|||The number and percentage of participants with a calculated compliance \>80% and \<120% are presented for both treatment groups. In addition, the p-values of Fisher's exact test, the two-sided 95% confidence intervals for the percentage of patients per treatment group and for the difference between the treatment groups are provided.||8.39|-14.83|0.2895
95846953|NCT00770653|191659052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9516||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.1999|34.2967|||ANCOVA|||||34.2967|-94.1999|0.3517
95846954|NCT00770653|191659053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-151.4477||||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.2256|83.3302|||ANCOVA|||||83.3302|-386.2256|0.1979
95846955|NCT00770653|191659054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8589||||0.7186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.3229|113.6052|||ANCOVA|||||113.6052|-163.3229|0.7186
95846956|NCT00770653|191659055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9728||||0.5058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9915|20.0459|||ANCOVA|||||20.0459|-39.9915|0.5058
95846957|NCT00770653|191659056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3988||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.7193|117.5169|||ANCOVA|||||117.5169|-60.7193|0.5230
95846958|NCT00770653|191659057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-367.2639||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-964.3923|229.8646|||ANCOVA|||||229.8646|-964.3923|0.2203
95846959|NCT00770653|191659058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0794||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6468|151.8057|||ANCOVA|||||151.8057|-95.6468|0.5850
95846960|NCT00770653|191659059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4205||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3207|-0.5202|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5202|-4.3207|0.0138
95846961|NCT00770653|191659060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0009||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1139|1.8578|||ANCOVA|||||1.8578|-30.1139|0.0817
95846962|NCT00770653|191659061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9935||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4843|2.4712|||ANCOVA|||||2.4712|-0.4843|0.1761
95846963|NCT00770653|191659062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5263||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3832|3.6695|||ANCOVA|||||3.6695|1.3832|0.0002
95846964|NCT00770653|191659063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2345||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0675|5.4016|||ANCOVA|||||5.4016|1.0675|0.0055
95846965|NCT00770653|191659064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9712||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3863|5.5562|||ANCOVA|||||5.5562|0.3863|0.0264
95846966|NCT00770653|191659065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5394||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|5.0901|||ANCOVA|||||5.0901|-0.0114|0.0509
95846967|NCT00770653|191659066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1718||||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|4.8097|||ANCOVA|||||4.8097|-0.4660|0.1013
95846968|NCT00770653|191659067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1346||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7338|5.0031|||ANCOVA|||||5.0031|-0.7338|0.1363
95846969|NCT00770653|191659068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4181||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6561|5.4922|||ANCOVA|||||5.4922|-0.6561|0.1165
95846970|NCT04906499|191659076|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.68|
95846971|NCT04906499|191659078|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.24||||||||1.24|-0.44|
95846972|NCT04906499|191659080|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.77||||||||1.77|-0.13|
95846973|NCT04906499|191659082|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.93||||||||1.93|-0.05|
95846974|NCT04906499|191659084|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.67|
95846975|NCT04906499|191659085|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.48|
95846976|NCT04906499|191659086|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.71||||||||0.71|-0.88|
95846977|NCT04906499|191659087|OTHER||Pearson's r Correlation Coefficient|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.73||||||||0.73|-0.87|
95963497|NCT01351805|191897774|OTHER|We assessed the main effects of the treatment arms comparing all those randomized to vitamin D or vitamin D placebo, regardless of omega-3 fatty acid randomization status.||||||0.41||||||Repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess effect of treatment on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and other treatment. Linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time in treatment vs placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear time by treatment interaction (comparing change in WOMAC pain over time in two randomized groups)||Intention to treat analysis using a repeated measures model with unstructured variance to assess the effect of treatment arm on WOMAC Pain adjusting for age, sex, and the other treatment arm. The linear time by treatment interaction term assessed change in WOMAC Pain over time between participants randomized to treatment versus placebo.|We assessed for effect modification between vitamin D and N-3 FA and tested for other pre-specified interactions. We again used a repeated measures model with censoring for TKR. We adjusted for age, sex and N-3 FA treatment arm (in analyses in which N-3 FA treatment arm was not investigated as a potential modifier).|||0.41
95963498|NCT01351805|191897774|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Active n3fa vs placebo n3fa among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.42
96002657|NCT04127786|191982411|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.5||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.5|-1.4|
95846978|NCT04906499|191659089|OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.44||||||||0.44|-1.24|
95846979|NCT01782898|191659116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.82
95846980|NCT01782898|191659117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
95846981|NCT01782898|191659118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
95846982|NCT00383552|191659130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95846983|NCT00383552|191659131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95963499|NCT01351805|191897774|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Differences in WOMAC pain scores in stratified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitamin D vs. vitamin D placebo among those on placebo omega-3 fatty acids- stratified analyses.||||0.18
96002658|NCT04127786|191982411|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the test groups (Groups 1+4) and control groups (Groups 2+5, Groups 3+6) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3||||||Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 versus Pooled Groups 3 and 6: Imovax Rabies®: Adult (\>= 18 years)||5.3|-0.5|
95846984|NCT00383552|191659133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95846985|NCT00383552|191659134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95846986|NCT00383552|191659135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Longitudinal Model|||||||0.073
95846987|NCT00383552|191659136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||BMI 25 to \<30|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95846988|NCT00383552|191659136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||BMI less than 25 and for BMI 30 or more|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95846989|NCT03270436|191659138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3599||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3599
95846990|NCT03270436|191659138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3207||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3207
95846991|NCT03270436|191659139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5698||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5698
95846992|NCT03270436|191659139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4106||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4106
95846993|NCT03270436|191659140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0293||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0293
95846994|NCT03270436|191659140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4686||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4686
96002659|NCT04127786|191982412|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
95865904|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-32.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-32.0|-60.8|
95865905|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.1|-7.3|
95865906|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.7|-5.7|
95865907|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.3|-25.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-25.5|-53.3|
95865908|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.1|-4.8|
95865909|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score methodx|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-0.6|
96002660|NCT04127786|191982412|NON_INFERIORITY|If the non-inferiority objective for VRVg-2 versus comparator vaccines at Day 28 was demonstrated, the overall non-inferiority of 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the non-inferiority between pooled Groups 1+4 and Group 3 were both demonstrated in each age group.|Percentage Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between 2-dose VRVg-2 at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Pooled Groups 1 and 4: VRVg-2 at Day 28 versus Primary Series: Cohort-1 Group 3: Imovax Rabies® at Day 42: Adult (\>= 18 years)||3.0|-3.1|
96002661|NCT04127786|191982414|NON_INFERIORITY|If the superiority objective of VRVg-2 was reached at Day 28, the non-inferiority of 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentage between the 2-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 and 3-dose Imovax Rabies® at Day 42 was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.3||||||Imovax Rabies® at Day 28 versus Imovax Rabies® at Day 42||1.3|-4.4|
96002662|NCT04127786|191982444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.3||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.3|-1.4|
95865910|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.6|-15.9|
95865911|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
95865912|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.1|-0.9|
95963500|NCT01351805|191897774|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on active vitamin D.||||0.84
95963501|NCT01351805|191897774|OTHER|Linear regression - WOMAC pain over time mean (Standard error - SE). Report only in final year. Differences in WOMAC pain scores in cross-classified groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Omega-3 fatty acids vs. omega-3 fatty acids placebo among those on placebo vitamin D.||||0.76
95963502|NCT01351805|191897775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||HR with 95%CI|Regression, Cox|||HR for incident autoimmune disease in intervention groups vs. placebo (ref=1.0) using Cox models with 95% confidence intervals||||<0.05
96002663|NCT04127786|191982444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 2: Verorab®: Adult (\>=18 years)||6.4|-0.6|
95846995|NCT03270436|191659141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0068||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.0068
95846996|NCT03270436|191659141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9181||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9181
95846997|NCT03270436|191659142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.5984
95846998|NCT03270436|191659142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3376||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in sugar-sweetened beverages consumed per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.3376
95846999|NCT03270436|191659143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.2960
95847000|NCT03270436|191659143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1519||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in fruit \& vegetable consumption scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1519
95847001|NCT03270436|191659144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2824||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.2824
95847002|NCT03270436|191659144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7547||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|Mantel Haenszel|The model includes only the study arm and time interaction.||Adjusted repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) model.||||0.7547
95847003|NCT03270436|191659145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6928||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.6928
95847004|NCT03270436|191659145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4947||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in eating self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4947
95847005|NCT03270436|191659146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1539
95847006|NCT03270436|191659146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1878||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in physical activity self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.1878
95963503|NCT00433511|191897776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|The primary objective of this trial was to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab improved IDFS. A two-step hierarchical approach was used. In the 1st step, Arm C was to be compared to Arm A. If Arm C significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then in the 2nd step, a comparison of Arm B to Arm A was to be performed. If the treatment in both Arm C and Arm B significantly improved IDFS relative to Arm A, then a comparison of Arm C to Arm B was to be performed with respect to IDFS.||1.06|0.71|0.17
95963504|NCT00433511|191897777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm A|||1.17|0.68|0.41
95847007|NCT03270436|191659147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4322||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to immediate post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.4322
95847008|NCT03270436|191659147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9529||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of mean change in family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Analyses do not include imputed values.|linear mixed effects regression|Model includes group, time, g x t interaction, state, age, gender, marital status, employment, education, and accounts for clustering within churches.||Repeated measures regression model used all available participant data (no listwise deletion).||||0.9529
95847009|NCT04233801|191659165|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.71|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.71|-1.28|< 0.0001
95847010|NCT04233801|191659165|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.7|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.70|-1.26|< 0.0001
95847011|NCT04233801|191659166|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.83|0.77|0.1375
95847012|NCT04233801|191659166|OTHER|Logistic regression including treatment, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), background therapy, and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.01||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|17.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.10|2.11|0.0008
95847013|NCT04233801|191659167|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.34|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-1.34|-2.66|< 0.0001
95963505|NCT00433511|191897777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.33||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization.|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.33|0.77|0.92
95963506|NCT00433511|191897777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.13||Two-sided; based on stratified test using stratification factors at randomization|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio: Arm C/Arm B|||1.13|0.72|0.36
95963507|NCT05878873|191897815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44.|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.007
95847014|NCT04233801|191659167|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.67|-1.96|< 0.0001
95847015|NCT04233801|191659168|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-3.6||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.40|-7.61|0.0774
95847016|NCT04233801|191659168|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.01||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.96|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.96|-4.98|0.6160
95847017|NCT04233801|191659169|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-1.78||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.48|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||0.48|-4.05|0.1222
95847018|NCT04233801|191659169|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|0.65||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|2.89|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||2.89|-1.59|0.5687
95847019|NCT04233801|191659170|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-20.05||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.73|-9.38|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-9.38|-30.73|0.0003
95847020|NCT04233801|191659170|OTHER|"A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was applied.The model included baseline value for the corresponding endpoint and its interaction with visit as additional covariates."|Adjusted mean|-24.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-13.54|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||-13.54|-34.72|<0.0001
95847021|NCT04233801|191659171|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-56.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.22|-34.41|||ANCOVA|||||-34.41|-78.22|<0.0001
96002664|NCT04127786|191982444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Pediatric (\< 18 years)||4.4|-1.4|
96002665|NCT04127786|191982444|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control groups (Group 2, Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 42.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.6||||||Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 1: VRVg-2 versus Primary Series: Cohort-I Group 3: Imovax Rabies: Adult (\>= 18 years)||4.6|-1.5|
95847022|NCT04233801|191659171|OTHER|The Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and background therapy as classification effects, baseline PPG and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as the linear covariates.|Adjusted mean|-60.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.31|-39.11|||ANCOVA|||||-39.11|-82.31|<0.0001
95847023|NCT04233801|191659172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||4.55|0.68|0.2422
95847024|NCT04233801|191659172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression including treatment and continuous baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).|Odds ratio used Placebo as the reference group.|||2.50|0.29|0.7661
95847025|NCT00683878|191659181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.17||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.63|0.0007
95847026|NCT00683878|191659181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1175|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.31||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-0.78|<0.0001
95847027|NCT00683878|191659182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|-33.2||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-33.2|-68.7|<0.0001
95865913|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.3|-19.2|
96002666|NCT01932697|191982473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.01
95847028|NCT00683878|191659182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.1|-35.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-71.1|<0.0001
95847029|NCT00683878|191659183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.79||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-2.32|<0.0001
95847030|NCT00683878|191659183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.02||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.55|<0.0001
95847031|NCT00683878|191659184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-27.5|<0.0001
95847032|NCT00683878|191659184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.082|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-16.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-16.1|-32.2|<0.0001
95847033|NCT00683878|191659185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.119||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.1||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||20.1|0.0|0.0496
95847034|NCT00683878|191659185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|26.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|Modified logistic regression|||||26.7|6.1|0.0018
95847035|NCT00683878|191659186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6006||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.33||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-2.03|0.1566
95847036|NCT00683878|191659186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5995||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.37||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-2.73|0.0101
95847037|NCT00683878|191659187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4838|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.62||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. The comparison was stopped due to the preceding test (PLACEBO + Pio vs Dapa 5MG + Pio) not statistically significant P value = 0.1566.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-2.53|
95847038|NCT00683878|191659187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4688|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.98||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-2.83|<0.0001
96002667|NCT01932697|191982474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96002668|NCT01932697|191982475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96002669|NCT01932697|191982476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
96002670|NCT02000622|191982604|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.8||A priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) is 0.05.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Study is sized to provide 90% power to detect a true treatment effect of PFS hazard ratio 0.653.||0.80|0.43|0.0009
95865914|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
95865915|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
95865916|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.4|
95847039|NCT03287791|191659192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|-5.73|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-5.73|-16.80|<.0001
95865917|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
95865918|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.8|-2.3|
95865919|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-26.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||-15.7|-36.6|
95847040|NCT03287791|191659192|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.28|-4.14|||ANOVA|||Analyses was performed using an ANOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the lesion count as outcome and treatment, center and treatment-by-center interaction as factors.||-4.14|-15.28|0.0007
95847041|NCT05482308|191659196|OTHER||Mean differences(Test-Reference)|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|104.1|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||104.10|92.92|
95847042|NCT05482308|191659197|OTHER||Mean difference (Test-Reference)|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.5|102.9|||Mixed effect model|"Mixed effect model was fitted to obtain:~1.Adjusted mean differences 2.90% Confidence intervals(CI)"||||102.90|81.50|
95847043|NCT02764385|191659205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.01||||||||2.01|1.73|
95963508|NCT05878873|191897815|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF.|Statistical analysis comparing cortical activation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.008
95847044|NCT02764385|191659205|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|We adjust for clustering of visit within clinician and clinical site and the stepped wedge study design using generalized estimating equation methods.||||1.02|.45|.05
95847045|NCT02764385|191659206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.1||||||||2.10|1.73|
95847046|NCT04607668|191659217|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||Two-sided p-value for treatment effect was generated from a nonparametric ANCOVA controlling for stratification factors of Region and Prior chemotherapy with study baseline ANC value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.7|<0.001
95847047|NCT04607668|191659218|OTHER||aRR|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.19|||modified Poisson model|||||0.19|0.01|<0.001
95847048|NCT03016312|191659239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.184||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|1.445|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.445|0.971|0.0940
95847049|NCT03016312|191659239|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|1.37|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.370|0.913|0.2786
95847050|NCT03016312|191659240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.2||||0.9391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.97|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||4.97|-5.38|0.9391
95847051|NCT03016312|191659240|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-4.03||||0.2706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|3.14|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||3.14|-11.21|0.2706
95847052|NCT03016312|191659242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.086|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.086|0.775|0.3157
95847053|NCT03016312|191659242|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.072|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.072|0.754|0.2366
95847054|NCT03016312|191659243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|2.21||||0.5959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|10.37|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 6 months||10.37|-5.95|0.5959
95847055|NCT03016312|191659243|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|1.44||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|7.23|||z-test|||Difference in Event Free Rate - 12 months||7.23|-4.35|0.6262
95847056|NCT03016312|191659244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 50% Decrease Response Rate|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-4.5|7.8|||||||Odds Ratio: 1.1 95%CI: 0.8, 1.5|7.8|-4.5|
95847057|NCT03016312|191659245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.5359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.251|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.251|0.890|0.5359
95963509|NCT05878873|191897816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was adjusted using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|This estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2.|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.014
95963510|NCT05878873|191897816|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.878|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected with false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF at Visit 2|Statistical analysis comparing savings between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.878
95847058|NCT03016312|191659245|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.238|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.238|0.869|0.6857
95847059|NCT02210000|191659261|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3716|-0.0448||Posterior probability of the treatment difference in response rate at Week 12 being greater than 0%.|Bayesian method|||||-0.0448|-0.3716|0.017
95847060|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2353|0.6553|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6553|-0.2353|
95847061|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2275|1.2705|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Feeling full after meals at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.2705|0.2275|
95847062|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.489|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0592|1.0374|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||1.0374|-0.0592|
95847063|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.497|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0396|0.955|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Not able to finish meal at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9550|0.0396|
95847064|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3386|0.4395|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Retching at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.4395|-0.3386|
95865920|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-13.3|
95963511|NCT05878873|191897817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.898|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in people with multiple sclerosis.||||0.898
95847065|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3242|0.2492|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Vomiting at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.2492|-0.3242|
95847066|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0483|0.9978|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach visibly larger at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9978|-0.0483|
95847067|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0519|0.9748|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Stomach fullness at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9748|-0.0519|
95847068|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0967|0.9745|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Loss of appetite at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9745|0.0967|
95847069|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2746|0.6671|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal pain at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.6671|-0.2746|
95847070|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.314|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2013|0.8292|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Upper abdominal discomfort at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.8292|-0.2013|
95865921|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|28.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.3|12.8|
95865922|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-5.8|-32.5|
95865923|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|9.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.5|-22.3|
95865924|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|31.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||31.3|8.4|
95963512|NCT05878873|191897817|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.698|TWO_SIDED|||||This value was corrected using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom = 44|The estimate calculation is TENS ON - TENS OFF|Statistical analysis comparing rate of adaptation between TENS ON and TENS OFF conditions in healthy controls.||||0.698
95963513|NCT00559377|191897902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO Hypoxic Volume to overall survival||||.42
95847071|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0323|0.7997|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Overall severity of your GP symptoms at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7997|-0.0323|
95865925|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-15.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-15.5|-46.0|
95865926|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|18.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||18.8|-10.8|
95963514|NCT00559377|191897902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparing FMISO T:Bmax to overall survival||||.87
95963515|NCT00559377|191897903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comparison of FMISO Hypoxic Volume to disease-free survival||||.58
95963516|NCT00559377|191897903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||This outcome is for comarison of FMISO T:Bmax to progression-free survival||||.98
95963517|NCT00559377|191897904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.004|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation|||The correlation between IHC values and FMISO uptake were analyzed using Spearman correlation where p values less than 0.05 were considered significant.||||<0.05
95963518|NCT00203047|191897913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11820976||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.26|0.8023
95963519|NCT02229227|191897917|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the confidence interval is less than or equal to 0.3%, non-inferiority will be concluded.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17||Non-inferiority p-value. P-value from testing the null hypothesis that the difference in change from baseline least squares means (albiglutide-insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance.|t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean of albiglutide + insulin glargine from insulin lispro + insulin glargine has been presented.|||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
95963520|NCT02229227|191897919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||0.60|0.31|<0.0001
95847072|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2366|0.3723|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Nausea/Vomiting Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.3723|-0.2366|
95963521|NCT02229227|191897920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
95963522|NCT02229227|191897921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 4 has been presented.|Week 4||-1.00|-1.43|
95963523|NCT02229227|191897921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-1.55|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 5 has been presented.|Week 5||-1.55|-2.05|
95963524|NCT02229227|191897921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.82|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 10 has been presented.|Week 10||-2.82|-3.51|
95963525|NCT02229227|191897921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-3.54|||||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 18 has been presented.|Week 18||-3.54|-4.48|
95963526|NCT02229227|191897921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-3.82|||t-test, 2 sided||Least Square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) at Week 26 has been presented.|Week 26||-3.82|-4.93|<0.0001
95963527|NCT02229227|191897922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-55.10|-66.57|<0.0001
95963528|NCT02229227|191897923|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.07|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.07|-0.18|<0.0001
95963529|NCT02229227|191897923|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.02|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||-0.02|-0.15|<0.0001
95847073|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1333|0.9628|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Fullness/Early Satiety Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9628|0.1333|
95865927|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|32.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||32.8|12.1|
95963530|NCT02229227|191897923|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.17|-0.01|<0.0001
95963531|NCT02229227|191897923|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||0.21|0.01|<0.0001
95963532|NCT02229227|191897923|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in change from Baseline least squares means (albiglutide - insulin lispro) is greater than 0.30% based on one-sided t-test with 0.025 level of significance|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.17|||t-test, 1 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||0.17|-0.05|<0.0001
95963533|NCT02229227|191897924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
95963534|NCT02229227|191897925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.24|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-0.24|-0.84|
95963535|NCT02229227|191897925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||0.13|-0.51|
95963536|NCT02229227|191897925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.22|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-0.22|-0.85|
95963537|NCT02229227|191897925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||-0.25|-0.86|0.0004
95963538|NCT02229227|191897926|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for Baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.31|0.71|0.7026
95963539|NCT02229227|191897927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.64||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4|Week 4||1.64|0.84|0.2883
95865928|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.1|-13.4|
95865929|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|8.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.5|-3.2|
95865930|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|13.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.2|4.2|
95865931|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||16.1|-15.1|
95865932|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|13.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.9|-4.7|
95865933|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||20.9|5.9|
95865934|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||8.6|-16.7|
95865935|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-5.7|
95865936|NCT02446743|191690601|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|11.1||||||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.1|-0.7|
95865937|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-19.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-19.0|-40.4|
95865938|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.3|-2.6|
95865939|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|12.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.5|3.9|
95963540|NCT02229227|191897927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.15||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.15|0.59|0.3034
95865940|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-12.9|-41.8|
95865941|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.2|-6.0|
96002671|NCT02000622|191982605|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.83||PFS2 tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 157 PFS2 events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.008.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.83|0.40|0.0033
95847074|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.479|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0386|0.9966|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Bloating Subscale at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.9966|-0.0386|
95865942|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|15.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.2|1.4|
96002672|NCT02000622|191982606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.29||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 140 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance (2-sided) was 0.018.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.29|0.63|0.5665
96002673|NCT02000622|191982608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Variables for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, adjusted for baseline global health status/QoL score, baseline score-visit interaction.|Mean difference \>0 favours olaparib.|||12.4|2.5|0.0035
96002674|NCT02000622|191982609|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.78|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||0.78|0.41|0.0005
95847075|NCT02210000|191659262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0049|0.7179|||||A negative difference indicated greater improvement in the Camicinal group compared to Placebo.|Total GCSI-DD at Week 12. The least square means were the adjusted means which had been estimated with a mixed model using Baseline weekly average value, diabetes type, treatment, week and the interaction between treatment and week as fixed effects, participants as random effect and week as repeated effect.||0.7179|-0.0049|
95847076|NCT00657540|191659326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of treatment failures was compared between groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.0185
95847077|NCT00657540|191659327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2302|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared tests at the 0.025 level of significance were used to test for a difference in proportions between the treatment groups.||||||0.2302
95847078|NCT00657540|191659328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with at least one drug-related adverse event by treatment groups using a two-sided test at the 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.8213
95847079|NCT00657540|191659329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|The proportion of subjects with decreased pain at any time point between treatment groups using a one-sided test at the 0.025 level of significance.||||||0.2765
95847080|NCT00807911|191659331|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.657||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.994|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.994|0.434|0.047
95847081|NCT00807911|191659332|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.602||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|0.977|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.977|0.371|0.040
95847082|NCT00807911|191659333|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.744||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|1.657|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.657|0.334|0.47
95847083|NCT00807911|191659334|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.97|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.970|0.215|0.036
95847084|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.25||LS Means(LSM), standard errors(SE), confidence intervals(CI), \& p-values come from an ANCOVA model with CFB as the dependent variable \& treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-3.56|0.0240
95847085|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.38||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-4.68|0.0004
95847086|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.14||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.44|0.0010
95847087|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.89||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.89|-5.20|<0.0001
95847088|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0058||95.0|-4.0|-0.68||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.00|0.0058
95847089|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.41||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-4.65|0.0003
96002675|NCT02000622|191982610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.47|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.47|0.24|<0.0001
96002676|NCT02000622|191982611|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.74|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.74|0.38|0.0002
95865943|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-14.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-14.6|-45.1|
95847090|NCT03192176|191659344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.76||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.76|-4.06|0.0042
95963541|NCT02229227|191897927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.98||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||0.98|0.52|0.0151
95963542|NCT02229227|191897927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.03|0.54|0.0518
95865944|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||13.5|1.9|
95865945|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|15.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.0|4.4|
95865946|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.5|-16.0|
95865947|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.2|-0.9|
95865948|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-0.33|
95865949|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|10.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||10.6|-20.5|
95865950|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.8|-3.6|
95865951|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.4|-3.6|
95963543|NCT02229227|191897927|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.31|0.71|0.7026
95963544|NCT02229227|191897928|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||1.17|0.63|0.2298
95963545|NCT02229227|191897929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.23||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||2.23|0.78|0.2143
95847091|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.35||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-3.30|0.0154
95865952|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|13.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||13.0|-19.4|
95865953|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.0|-2.5|
95865954|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||9.4|-1.2|
95865955|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-11.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.1|-30.0|
95865956|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-7.6|
95865957|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|40.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||40.2|23.2|
95865958|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-3.0|-25.9|
95865959|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|15.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.9|-17.1|
95865960|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|45.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||45.3|20.5|
95865961|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.1|-11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||-11.2|-40.1|
96002677|NCT02000622|191982612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23||OS tested using a multiple testing procedure with a recycling strategy. With 192 OS events, a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.045.|Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.23|0.66|0.5131
95865962|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|28.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||28.1|-3.9|
95865963|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|44.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||44.1|22.0|
95865964|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.0|-16.0|
96002678|NCT02000622|191982613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.18|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|||1.18|0.67|0.4167
95847092|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.67||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.60|0.0043
95847093|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.83||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-3.76|0.0023
96002679|NCT02000622|191982614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.5|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS.||0.50|0.27|<0.0001
96002680|NCT02000622|191982615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72|||Log Rank|Stratified by received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (yes/no) and receptor status.|Hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib.|Supportive analysis to PFS2.||0.72|0.40|<0.0001
95847094|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
95865965|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||8.9|-6.8|
95865966|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|16.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||16.9|5.3|
95865967|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|14.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||14.1|-18.0|
95865968|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||15.7|-9.7|
95865969|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|27.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||27.8|8.2|
95865970|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 4 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 34 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (3 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||9.1|-19.1|
95865971|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 8 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 38 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (7 days after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||11.8|-8.4|
96002681|NCT04162210|191982616|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.47|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, ISS staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|HR was estimated using the Cox Proportional Hazards. HR stratified log-rank test were adjusted for previous treatment with anti-CD38, international staging system (ISS) staging and number of prior lines of therapy.|||1.47|0.72|0.558
95847095|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.58||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.52|0.0064
95847096|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||-2.6|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.04|0.0005
95847097|NCT03192176|191659345|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-3.52|0.0063
95847098|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.07||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.84|0.0215
96002682|NCT02226276|191982703|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95847099|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.01|0.0017
95847100|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.44||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.21|<0.0001
95847101|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.59||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.37|<0.0001
95847102|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.81|0.0322
95847103|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.0017
95847104|NCT03192176|191659346|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.31||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.31|-1.08|0.0004
95847105|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.67|0.2324
95847106|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.04||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.80|0.0736
95865972|NCT02446743|191690602|OTHER|Vaccine comparison at Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|vaccine group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|12.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||12.6|-0.47|
95865973|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.29|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||4.29|2.85|
95963546|NCT02229227|191897929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 5.|Week 5||1.91|0.80|0.4703
95847107|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.15||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.98|0.0080
95847108|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.22||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.07|0.0028
95847109|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.58|0.4647
95847110|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.1||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.92|0.0160
95847111|NCT03192176|191659347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||LS Means, SE, CI, and p-values come from an ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the dependent variable and treatment group, pooled center, smoking status as factors and baseline measurement, baseline weight as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.78|0.0901
95847112|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||0.20|-2.92|0.0865
95847113|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.10|-4.22|0.0009
96002683|NCT02226276|191982704|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95865974|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|3.69|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.69|2.02|
95865975|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|4.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|5.88|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for H44/76 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||5.88|3.38|
95865976|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|8.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|10.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||10|6.51|
95865977|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|9.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.17|13.0|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||13|7.17|
95865978|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|9.87|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for 5/99 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||9.87|4.82|
95865979|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||3.36|1.98|
95865980|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.73|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.73|1.89|
95865981|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|3.78|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for NZ98/254 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||3.78|1.67|
95865982|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1(1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.36|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country||2.36|1.52|
95865983|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72\_41) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.59|1.37|
95847114|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|-1.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.94|-5.06|<0.00001
95847115|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.47|-5.63|<0.00001
95865984|NCT02446743|191690603|OTHER|Vaccine Comparison Day 31 Group 3B (V72P10) vs Day 61 Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10) (1 month after booster or 2nd dose)|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.58|||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean titers for M10713 indicator strain were obtained by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means and the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence intervals of the log-transformed titers obtained from an ANOVA estimation adjusting for vaccine group and country.||2.58|1.41|
95865985|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||1.8|-7.5|
95847116|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.63|-2.55|0.2360
95963547|NCT02229227|191897929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.14||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||1.14|0.58|0.2139
95963548|NCT02229227|191897929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||1.11|0.59|0.0790
95847117|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.4||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.80|-3.92|0.0032
95847118|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.19|-4.29|0.0006
95847119|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.38|-2.86|0.1318
95847120|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.04|-4.30|0.0014
95847121|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.58|-4.82|0.0001
95847122|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.00|-5.30|<0.0001
95847123|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.15|-3.15|0.0752
95865986|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|62.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||62.5|42.1|
95963549|NCT02229227|191897929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.17||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||1.17|0.63|0.2298
95847124|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-3.38|0.0343
95847125|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.71|-3.95|0.0049
95847126|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.20|-3.50|0.0285
95847127|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.37|-4.69|0.0004
95847128|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-5.14|<0.0001
95847129|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||-2.28|-5.65|<0.0001
95865987|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|64.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||64.7|50.5|
95865988|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||2.0|-14.1|
95847130|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.37|-3.74|0.0169
95847131|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.73|-4.04|0.0049
95847132|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.18|-4.48|0.0008
95847133|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-3.36|0.0428
95847134|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.34|-4.65|0.0004
95847135|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.84||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.58|-4.88|0.00001
95847136|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.37|-5.73|<0.0001
95865989|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|58.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.5|28.1|
95847137|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.28|-3.64|0.0225
95847138|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.19|-4.49|0.0008
95847139|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
95847140|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.31|-2.80|0.1168
95847141|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.03|-4.15|0.0012
95847142|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.42|-4.54|0.0002
95865990|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.1|32.7|
95865991|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||4.8|-8.0|
95865992|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|71.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||71.5|45.0|
95865993|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|78.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain H44/76 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||78.5|61.2|
95865994|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||4|-9.1|
95865995|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|48.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||48.1|27.0|
95865996|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|40.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||40.4|25.2|
95865997|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||10.2|-8.7|
95865998|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|58.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||58.6|27.7|
95865999|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|53.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||53.0|31.1|
95866000|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||0.9|-19.2|
95866001|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|18.2|
95866002|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|34.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain 5/99 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||34.4|13.2|
95866003|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||3.4|-4.7|
95963550|NCT02229227|191897930|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.77||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.77|0.24|0.8292
96002684|NCT03901963|191982710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|8.57||Tested at 2-sided 0.05 significance level through stratified CMH method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator'|stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)||Odds ratio and 95% CI were estimated by Mantel-Haenszel method. Stratification factor included baseline cytogenetic risk per investigator's assessment (high risk versus standard/unknown risk) as used for randomization of the study.|||8.57|2.37|<0.0001
96002685|NCT05197049|191982721|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|44.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||44.6|25.1|< 0.001
96002686|NCT05197049|191982722|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|29.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||29.6|10.2|< 0.001
96002687|NCT05197049|191982723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|37.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|48.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||48.4|25.6|< 0.001
96002688|NCT05197049|191982723|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|28.0|< 0.001
95847143|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.28|-5.44|<0.0001
95847144|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.42|-3.58|0.0134
95847145|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-3.76|0.0057
95847146|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.96|-4.06|0.0016
96002689|NCT05197049|191982724|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|41.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||41.2|22.9|< 0.001
96002690|NCT05197049|191982725|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference:percentage|40.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|50.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.||||50.7|29.9|< 0.001
96002691|NCT05488847|191982729|EQUIVALENCE|Mean scores between the two treatment groups will be compared using the Mann Whitney U test|Mann-Whitney|0.52||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95847147|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.19|-2.94|0.0843
95847148|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.77|-3.90|0.0035
95847149|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
95847150|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|-2.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.10|-5.28|<0.0001
95847151|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.16|-3.33|0.0315
95847152|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.75|0.0063
96002692|NCT05488847|191982734|EQUIVALENCE|Mean scores will be compared between the groups using the Mann Whitney U test|Mann-Whitney|0.001|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
96002693|NCT05488847|191982736|EQUIVALENCE|mann-whitney U|Mann-Whitney|0.06||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the distribution of the number of days participants were affected by each side effect||||0.06
96002694|NCT05488847|191982736|EQUIVALENCE|mann-whitney U|Mann-Whitney|0.73||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the distribution of the number of days participants were affected by each side effect||||0.73
96002695|NCT05488847|191982736|EQUIVALENCE|mann-whitney|Mann-Whitney|0.61||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the distribution of the number of days participants were affected by each side effect||||0.61
96002696|NCT05488847|191982736|EQUIVALENCE|mann-whitney|Mann-Whitney|0.47||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the distribution of the number of days participants were affected by each side effect||||0.47
95866004|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|Vaccine group difference|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|45.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||45.7|25.6|
95866005|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||61.1|45.2|
95866006|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.0|-8.4|
95866007|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|43.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||43.0|12.1|
95866008|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|57.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/154 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||57.1|33.6|
95847153|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.25|0.0007
95847154|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.29|-2.89|0.1090
95847155|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-0.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.95|-4.14|0.0018
95847156|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.34|-4.54|0.0004
95866009|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-8.0|
95866010|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|54.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||54.5|27.8|
95866011|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|vaccine group difference|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|69.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain NZ98/254 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||69.6|47.9|
95847157|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.15|-5.40|<0.0001
95847158|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-3.50|0.0231
95847159|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.67|-3.86|0.0056
95847160|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.17|-4.35|0.0007
95963551|NCT02229227|191897932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.19|-53.57|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.57|-59.19|
95847161|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.85|-2.35|0.3568
95847162|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-3.65|0.0129
95847163|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.97|-4.19|0.0018
95847164|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.42|-4.70|0.0003
95847165|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.27|-3.00|0.1004
95847166|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.35|-3.57|0.0173
95847167|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.77|-3.97|0.0038
95847168|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.48|-2.57|0.1767
95847169|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.16|-3.20|0.0308
95847170|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.00|-4.07|0.0013
95847171|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.36|-4.47|0.0003
95847172|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.2109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.56|-2.55|0.2109
95847173|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.37|-3.44|0.0152
95847174|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.56|-3.61|0.0075
95847175|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.20|-2.96|0.0869
95847176|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.01|-3.14|0.0520
95847177|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.12|-4.30|0.0009
95847178|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-1.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.46|-4.68|0.0002
95847179|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-0.03|-3.25|0.0456
95847180|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.59|-3.76|0.0073
95847181|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.86|-4.01|0.0026
95847182|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.20|-2.87|0.0878
95847183|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.32|-3.39|0.0182
95847184|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.44|-4.55|0.0002
95847185|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.40|-4.53|0.0002
95866012|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||5.4|-1.1|
95847186|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.09|-3.22|0.0387
95847187|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.80|-3.89|0.0031
95847188|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.81|-3.88|0.0029
95847189|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.09|-2.90|0.0653
95847190|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.47|-3.46|0.0102
95847191|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.36|-4.38|0.0002
95847192|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.67|-4.72|<0.0001
95866013|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.||34.9|19.1|
96002697|NCT05488847|191982736|EQUIVALENCE|mann-whitney|mann-whitney|0.47||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the distribution of the number of days participants were affected by each side effect||||0.47
95847193|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.25|-3.30|0.0231
95847194|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
95847195|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.87|-3.88|0.0021
95847196|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.97|-3.96|0.0013
95847197|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.43|-2.89|0.1460
95847198|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.23|-2.10|0.6066
95847199|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.54|-1.88|0.8422
95847200|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.67|-2.74|0.2346
95847201|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.33|-3.11|0.1128
95963552|NCT02229227|191897932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.78|-59.62|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-59.62|-67.78|
95847202|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.55|-2.89|0.1811
95847203|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.87|-2.45|0.3521
95847204|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.44|0.3570
95847205|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.57|-1.73|0.9227
95847206|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.60|-1.84|0.8894
95847207|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.13|-2.29|0.5074
95847208|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.53|-2.91|0.1753
95963553|NCT02229227|191897932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.29|-56.7|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-56.70|-67.29|
95963554|NCT02229227|191897933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.3|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||0.30|-2.25|
95866014|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 Month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase (Group 3B vs. Group B\_0\_1) Difference|vaccine group difference|39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|46.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||46.6|31.6|
95866015|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||6.7|-4.9|
95866016|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|37.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||37.1|9.7|
95866017|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72\_41) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72\_41)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|47.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||47.0|25.1|
95866018|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|3 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||3 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||7.6|-3.9|
95847209|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.36|-3.09|0.1212
95847210|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.90|-2.41|0.3702
95866019|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|7 Days Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||7 days post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||36.6|20.2|
95866020|NCT02446743|191690605|OTHER|1 month Post Booster/Second Vaccination. Four-fold Increase \[Group 3B (V72P10) vs. Group B\_0\_1 (V72P10)\] Difference|Vaccine group difference|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|51.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||1 month post vaccination-The group difference in percentages of subjects with response against N. meningitidis serogroup B indicator strain M10713 and the associated confidence interval for the difference was calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen||51.9|31.0|
95866021|NCT05508074|191690656|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.6|||ANCOVA|adjusted on baseline ALSFRS-R and treatment.||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||6.60|-7.27|0.923
95963555|NCT02229227|191897933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.33|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||2.33|-1.64|
95963556|NCT02229227|191897933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.69|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||2.69|-2.21|
95963557|NCT02229227|191897933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.04|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|Week 26||3.04|-2.25|0.7699
95963558|NCT02229227|191897934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.17|-53.94|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 4.|Week 4||-53.94|-58.17|
95963559|NCT02229227|191897934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.68|-61.85|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 10.|Week 10||-61.85|-67.68|
95963560|NCT02229227|191897934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.69|-59.15|||||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 18.|Week 18||-59.15|-66.69|
95847211|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.96|-1.22|0.6459
95847212|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.75|-1.40|0.8248
95847213|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.33|-0.98|0.4226
95847214|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.01|-1.25|0.6469
95847215|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.91|-1.41|0.7642
95847216|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.966||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.966|-2.36|0.4068
95847217|NCT03192176|191659348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.37|0.7974
95847218|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.17|-3.23|0.0297
95847219|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.58|-4.66|<0.0001
95847220|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.02|-5.10|<0.00001
95847221|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|-2.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.66|-5.78|<0.0001
95963561|NCT02229227|191897934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.85|-57.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Least square mean difference (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented for Week 26.|week 26||-57.81|-65.85|<0.0001
95847222|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.36|-2.76|0.1318
95847223|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.05|-4.13|0.0010
95847224|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.04|-4.10|0.0011
95847225|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.07|-3.20|0.0405
95847226|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.55|-4.70|0.0001
95847227|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.52|-4.66|0.0001
95847228|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.07|-5.26|<0.0001
95847229|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.15|-3.34|0.0325
95963562|NCT02229227|191897936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|4.86||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||4.86|2.52|<0.0001
95847230|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.78|-3.92|0.0035
95847231|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.49|-3.61|0.0102
95866022|NCT05508074|191690656|OTHER|FAS post hoc|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.2||post hoc analysis on the FAS population, adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters|ANCOVA|||post hoc analysis adjusted on baseline NfL on top of previous parameters||8.2|-5.1|0.65
95866023|NCT05508074|191690657|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.186|||binomial exact method|||primary analysis results based on estimand 1 (see attached SAP)||0.186|-0.408|0.398
95866024|NCT05508074|191690658|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.271|||binomial exact method|||calculation based on estimand 1 (see SAP)||0.271|-0.326|0.835
95963563|NCT02229227|191897937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.6||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||3.60|1.54|<0.0001
95963564|NCT02229227|191897938|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|6.48||Analysis was performed using non-parametric Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after adjusting for baseline HbA1c category, age category, region and current use of metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (albiglutide + insulin glargine minus insulin lispro + insulin glargine) has been presented.|||6.48|2.21|<0.0001
95963565|NCT00340704|191897973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1725||||95.0|0.6499|1.3579|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error (SE) of the mean is actually SE of the slope.|Dose proportionality for Cmax,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3579|0.6499|
95963566|NCT00340704|191897977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1884||||95.0|0.5934|1.3666|||||Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope.|Dose proportionality for AUCτ,ss was explored based on the regression model.||1.3666|0.5934|
95963567|NCT01732549|191897985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0315||||||Log-rank test adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). Two-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.0315
95963568|NCT01732549|191897985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.0344|||||||Log Rank|||Unstratified\[b\]||||=0.0344
95963569|NCT01732549|191897986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.443|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.4430
95963570|NCT01732549|191897987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5219|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||0.5219
95963571|NCT01732549|191897988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.5442|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.5442
95963572|NCT01732549|191897989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use and region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.1120
95963573|NCT01732549|191897990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.2491|||||||Log Rank|Adjusting for presence (or absence) of visceral metastases, opioid analgesic use (or not) \& region (Eastern Europe, Western Europe). One-sided p-value||Stratified\[a\]||||=0.2491
95963574|NCT00121667|191897993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.53||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.53|-0.92|<.0001
95847232|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.51|-3.69|0.0098
95866025|NCT05508074|191690659|OTHER|the primary endpoint was safety hence the study was not powered to show efficacy. statistical analysis was performed to detect signal of efficacy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|20.34|||ANCOVA|||based on estimand 1 (see SAP). change of SVC percentage from baseline to 6 months||20.34|-9.72|0.481
95866026|NCT05508074|191690669|OTHER||adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.21|||ANCOVA|||based on available data at V4||1.21|0.89|0.609
95847233|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.98|-5.18|<0.0001
95847234|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.70|-4.89|<0.0001
95847235|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|-2.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.37|-5.61|<0.0001
95847236|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.17|0.0021
95847237|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.52|-4.71|0.0001
95847238|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|-0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.93|-4.11|0.0020
95847239|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.27|-3.27|0.0210
95847240|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-4.59|<0.0001
95866027|NCT00329849|191690676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup A, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup A one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||47|29|
95866028|NCT00329849|191690676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup C, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|40.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup C one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||40|19|
95847241|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-1.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.33|-4.34|0.0003
95847242|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.23|-5.29|<0.0001
95847243|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.86|-3.91|0.0023
95847244|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.24|-4.25|0.0004
95866029|NCT00329849|191690676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup W, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|39.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup W one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||39|17|
95866030|NCT00329849|191690676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that for the serogroup Y, the seroresponse percentage in the MenACWY-CRM group would be at least 10% lower than that in the MenACWY-PS group at one month postvaccination, i.e. the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in response rates (MenACWY-CRM minus MenACWY-PS) ≤-10%.|Group difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|28.0|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of hSBA seroresponse for the serogroup Y one month after vaccination of MenACWY-CRM and MenACWY-PS||28|8|
96002698|NCT05488847|191982736|EQUIVALENCE|mann-whitney|Mann-Whitney|0.74||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the distribution of the number of days participants were affected by each side effect||||0.74
96002699|NCT06352840|191982743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95866031|NCT00329849|191690677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety of MenACWY-CRM vaccination was considered non-inferior to the safety of MenACWY-PS vaccination if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio (MenACWY-CRM group divided by MenACWY-PS group) of the percentage of subjects experiencing at least one severe systemic reaction during 1 to 7 days after vaccination was less than 3.|Group Ratio|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|49.2|||Risk ratio(MenACWY-CRM/MenACWY-PS)|||||49.2|0.82|
95866032|NCT01101308|191690685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.51|107.27|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||107.27|97.51|
95866033|NCT01101308|191690686|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|103.0|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||103.00|97.19|
95866034|NCT01101308|191690687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.14|102.99|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||102.99|97.14|
95866035|NCT04575597|191690692|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated confidence intervals (CIs) were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|2.5||||||||2.5|-12.2|
95866036|NCT04575597|191690692|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|6.2||||||||6.2|-9.9|
95866037|NCT04575597|191690692|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Differences in Rates %|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.6|
95866038|NCT04575597|191690692|SUPERIORITY|Difference in rates %, associated CIs, and p-value were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-6.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-2.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||-2.4|-11.3|0.0012
96002700|NCT06352840|191982744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
95866039|NCT04575597|191690695|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13||||||||1.13|0.48|
95866040|NCT04575597|191690695|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||||1.08|0.46|
95866041|NCT04575597|191690695|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.11||||||||1.11|0.47|
95866042|NCT04575597|191690695|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18||||||||1.18|0.92|
95866043|NCT04575597|191690696|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.76||||||||2.76|0.80|
95866044|NCT04575597|191690696|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.09||||||||2.09|0.69|
95866045|NCT04575597|191690696|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.62||||||||1.62|0.54|
95866046|NCT04575597|191690696|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33||||||||1.33|0.95|
95866047|NCT04575597|191690697|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46||||||||1.46|0.62|
95866048|NCT04575597|191690697|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79||||||||1.79|0.75|
95866049|NCT04575597|191690697|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.07||||||||1.07|0.45|
95866050|NCT04575597|191690697|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.23||||||||1.23|0.93|
95866051|NCT04575597|191690698|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.83||||||||1.83|0.62|
95866052|NCT04575597|191690698|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||||||||1.26|0.40|
95866053|NCT04575597|191690698|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.85||||||||0.85|0.20|
96002701|NCT06352840|191982745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.294
96002702|NCT06352840|191982746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.682
95847245|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.74|-3.73|0.0036
95847246|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.29|-3.33|0.0195
95866054|NCT04575597|191690698|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18||||||||1.18|0.86|
95866055|NCT04575597|191690699|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.34||||||||1.34|0.32|
95866056|NCT04575597|191690699|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.71||||||||2.71|0.76|
95866057|NCT04575597|191690699|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42||||||||1.42|0.39|
95866058|NCT04575597|191690699|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
95866059|NCT04575597|191690700|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.61||||||||1.61|0.66|
95866060|NCT04575597|191690700|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.09||||||||2.09|0.83|
95866061|NCT04575597|191690700|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.23||||||||1.23|0.47|
95866062|NCT04575597|191690700|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16||||||||1.16|0.88|
95866063|NCT04575597|191690701|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41||||||||1.41|0.62|
95866064|NCT04575597|191690701|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69||||||||1.69|0.70|
95866065|NCT04575597|191690701|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
95866066|NCT04575597|191690701|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.31||||||||1.31|1.01|
95847247|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.17|-4.21|0.0006
95847248|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.27|-4.32|0.0004
95866067|NCT04575597|191690702|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.69||||||||1.69|0.54|
95866068|NCT04575597|191690702|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.0||||||||2.00|0.61|
95866069|NCT04575597|191690702|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.38||||||||1.38|0.50|
95866070|NCT04575597|191690702|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||||1.21|0.90|
95866071|NCT04575597|191690703|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.76||||||||2.76|0.77|
95866072|NCT04575597|191690703|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.38||||||||3.38|0.92|
95866073|NCT04575597|191690703|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.86||||||||2.86|0.81|
96002703|NCT06352840|191982747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.597
95866074|NCT04575597|191690703|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24||||||||1.24|0.89|
95866075|NCT04575597|191690704|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.2||||||||2.20|0.81|
95866076|NCT04575597|191690704|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31||||||||2.31|0.85|
95866077|NCT04575597|191690704|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.65||||||||1.65|0.57|
95866078|NCT04575597|191690704|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18||||||||1.18|0.89|
95866079|NCT04575597|191690705|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.91||||||||1.91|0.36|
95866080|NCT04575597|191690705|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.97||||||||2.97|0.64|
95866081|NCT04575597|191690705|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.02||||||||2.02|0.37|
95866082|NCT04575597|191690705|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.14||||||||1.14|0.74|
95866083|NCT04575597|191690706|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||||||||1.06|0.44|
95963575|NCT00121667|191897993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.63||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.63|-1.02|<.0001
95847249|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.92|-5.01|<0.0001
95866084|NCT04575597|191690707|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||||||||0.67|0.06|
95866085|NCT04575597|191690707|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.83||||||||0.83|0.13|
95866086|NCT04575597|191690707|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.79||||||||0.79|0.09|
95963576|NCT00121667|191897993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.52||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.019, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-0.52|-0.91|<.0001
95963577|NCT00121667|191897994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-8.55||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-8.55|-22.55|<.0001
95963578|NCT00121667|191897994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.29|-16.27||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-16.27|-30.29|<.0001
95847250|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.62|-3.71|0.0061
95866087|NCT04575597|191690707|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.36||||||||1.36|0.87|
95866088|NCT04575597|191690708|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.23||||||||2.23|0.74|
95866089|NCT04575597|191690708|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.8||||||||1.80|0.45|
96002704|NCT06352840|191982748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.836
96002705|NCT02143726|191982757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.33|||Log Rank|Stratified 1-sided log-rank test (stratified by ECOG performance status, prior systemic treatment for hürthle thyroid cancer, and treating site).||||1.33|0.23|0.0918
96002706|NCT02143726|191982759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.96|||Log Rank|||||4.96|0.53|0.3976
96002707|NCT04530552|191982802|OTHER||See above|0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 50%||||
96002708|NCT04530552|191982802|OTHER||See above|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Posterior probability of observing a response rate ≥ 25%||||
95847251|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|-1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.14|-4.19|0.0006
95847252|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.78|-3.81|0.0030
95847253|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.09|-3.17|0.0383
95847254|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.24|-4.33|0.0004
95847255|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.04|-4.14|0.0011
95847256|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|-1.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.93|-5.07|<0.0001
96002709|NCT04530552|191982803|OTHER|Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)||||||0.034||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.034
96002710|NCT04530552|191982803|OTHER|||||||0.252||||||Two-sided paired t-test at 2.5% significance level (Bonferroni correction)|paired t-test|||||||0.252
95847257|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.66|-3.80|0.0055
95847258|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-4.09|0.0014
95847259|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.73|-3.80|0.0040
95847260|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.41|-2.68|0.1502
95866090|NCT04575597|191690708|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.89||||||||1.89|0.55|
95866091|NCT04575597|191690708|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.37||||||||1.37|0.94|
96002711|NCT04530552|191982804|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
96002712|NCT04530552|191982804|OTHER|||||||1||||||Significance level of 2.5% (Bonferroni correction)|Pearson correlation|||Correlation with % change PSA at end-of-intervention||||1.0
96002713|NCT04530552|191982805|OTHER|||||||0.658||||||two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.658
96002714|NCT04530552|191982805|OTHER|||||||0.167||||||Two-sided paired t-test (no Bonferroni adjustment)|paired t-test|||||||0.167
96002715|NCT04033445|191982809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|46.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||46.3|20.9|< 0.001
96002716|NCT04033445|191982809|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|45.4|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||45.4|20.8|< 0.001
96002717|NCT04033445|191982810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|19.9|||CMH chi-square test||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||19.9|9.9|< 0.001
96002718|NCT04033445|191982811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|33.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||33.9|16.4|< 0.001
96002719|NCT04033445|191982811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|||38.1|20.9|< 0.001
96002720|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.966||||0.6539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.414||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing the fixed effect of marital status (unmarried) vs reference group (married), controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss. Corresponds to H2 in Protocol: Older adults with adequate social support will demonstrate a greater likelihood to complete decision-making for aging-in-place.||1.414|.66|.6539
96002721|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.859||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.271||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing the effect of Limited Health Literacy (vs adequate), as measured by the Newest Vital Sign index, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss. Test corresponds to H4 in protocol: Older adults who have lower health literacy will be less likely to complete decision-making for aging-in-place.||1.271|.58|.4178
96002722|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704||||0.7504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|1.224||Alpha for significance=0.05 for all tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||GLMM (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing the effect of Limited Health Literacy (vs adequate), as measured by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine index, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.Test corresponds to H4 in protocol: Older adults who have lower health literacy will be less likely to complete decision-making for aging-in-place.||1.224|.405|.7504
96002723|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005||||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.53||alpha for significance p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing the effect of former tobacco use (vs never used) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.53|.66|.9367
96002724|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.745||||0.4337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.914|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing the effect of current tobacco use (vs never used) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.914|.29|.4337
96002725|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.757||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.149||alpha =0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||GLMM (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing level of Tangible Social Support (Adequate, vs ref no perceived need) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss. Test corresponds to H2. Older adults with adequate levels of social support will demonstrate a greater likelihood to complete decision-making for aging-in-place.||3.149|.98|.0230
96002726|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.361||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|2.371||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing level of Tangible Social Support (more support needed, vs ref no perceived need) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||2.371|.782|.6664
95847261|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.64|-3.74|0.0057
95866092|NCT04575597|191690709|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.33||||||||2.33|0.83|
95866093|NCT04575597|191690709|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.48||||||||1.48|0.50|
95866094|NCT04575597|191690709|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.72||||||||1.72|0.56|
96002727|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.975||||0.6755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.297||alpha=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing affirmative use of the web-based intervention (Plan Your Lifespan tool, or PYL) in prior 12 months as a binary (yes/no) fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss. Corresponds to Protocol H3.||1.297|.732|.6755
95847262|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
95866095|NCT04575597|191690709|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.43||||||||1.43|1.01|
96002728|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.028||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing for the effect of presence of cognitive impairment (any cognitive impairment=yes, vs reference group no) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||2.028|.827|.1228
95847263|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.22|-4.38|0.0006
95847264|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.07|-3.21|0.0412
95847265|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.66|-3.76|0.0054
95847266|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.34|-3.43|0.0167
95847267|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.02|-2.94|0.0533
95847268|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.58|-3.54|0.0065
95847269|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.82|-3.80|0.0025
95847270|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|-1.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.20|-4.22|0.0005
95847271|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.03|-2.99|0.0541
95866096|NCT04575597|191690710|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.19||||||||2.19|0.29|
95847272|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.71|-3.69|0.0039
95847273|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.22|-3.18|0.0245
95847274|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.31|-3.36|0.0187
95847275|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.62|-3.68|0.0060
95847276|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.98|-4.06|0.0014
95847277|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.37|-4.49|0.0003
96002729|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.779||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.802||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Consumer Health Activation- Low Activation (vs ref moderate activation) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||.802|.510|.0438
95866097|NCT04575597|191690710|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.44||||||||2.44|0.34|
95866098|NCT04575597|191690710|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.23||||||||4.23|0.74|
95866099|NCT04575597|191690710|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||||||||1.04|0.67|
95866100|NCT04575597|191690711|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.53||||||||6.53|0.98|
95866101|NCT04575597|191690711|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.52||||||||2.52|0.23|
95866102|NCT04575597|191690711|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||||1.84|0.11|
95866103|NCT04575597|191690711|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16||||||||1.16|0.66|
95866104|NCT04575597|191690712|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.32||||||||3.32|0.46|
95866105|NCT04575597|191690712|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.74||||||||3.74|0.54|
95866106|NCT04575597|191690712|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.76||||||||2.76|0.34|
95866107|NCT04575597|191690712|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1||||||||1.10|0.66|
95866108|NCT04575597|191690713|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.52||||||||2.52|0.41|
95866109|NCT04575597|191690713|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.9||||||||1.90|0.26|
95866110|NCT04575597|191690713|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0||||||||3.00|0.51|
95866111|NCT04575597|191690713|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
95866112|NCT04575597|191690714|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.75||||||||1.75|0.36|
95866113|NCT04575597|191690714|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.64||||||||1.64|0.33|
95866114|NCT04575597|191690714|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||||||||1.62|0.31|
95866115|NCT04575597|191690714|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16||||||||1.16|0.76|
95866116|NCT04575597|191690715|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
95866117|NCT04575597|191690715|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.78||||||||1.78|0.38|
95866118|NCT04575597|191690715|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.39||||||||1.39|0.25|
95866119|NCT04575597|191690715|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
96002730|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.364||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|2.32||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Consumer Health Activation- high Activation (vs ref moderate activation) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||2.320|.802|.5072
95866120|NCT04575597|191690716|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.34||||||||1.34|0.26|
95866121|NCT04575597|191690716|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.37||||||||1.37|0.28|
95866122|NCT04575597|191690716|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.74||||||||1.74|0.38|
95866123|NCT04575597|191690716|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||||||||1.21|0.79|
95866124|NCT04575597|191690717|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.02||||||||3.02|0.47|
95866125|NCT04575597|191690717|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.2||||||||2.20|0.29|
95847278|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-3.61|0.0100
95847279|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.91|-3.98|0.0019
95866126|NCT04575597|191690717|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.45||||||||2.45|0.32|
95866127|NCT04575597|191690717|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||||1.11|0.62|
95866128|NCT04575597|191690718|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.27||||||||2.27|0.30|
95866129|NCT04575597|191690718|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.0||||||||1.00|0.04|
95866130|NCT04575597|191690718|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.91||||||||1.91|0.23|
95963579|NCT00121667|191897994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.81|-14.68||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF) .Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-14.68|-28.81|<.0001
95847280|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.67|-3.73|0.0049
95866131|NCT04575597|191690718|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.23||||||||1.23|0.62|
95866132|NCT04575597|191690719|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.2||||||||1.20|0.28|
95866133|NCT04575597|191690719|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.95||||||||0.95|0.20|
95866134|NCT04575597|191690719|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.59||||||||1.59|0.43|
95866135|NCT04575597|191690719|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||||||||1.19|0.73|
95866136|NCT04575597|191690720|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.11||||||||2.11|0.35|
95866137|NCT04575597|191690720|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.34||||||||1.34|0.16|
95866138|NCT04575597|191690720|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79||||||||2.79|0.50|
95866139|NCT04575597|191690720|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.32||||||||1.32|0.74|
96002731|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.288||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Advance Care Planning- absence of a Living Will (vs ref level has living will) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.288|.652|.4130
95847281|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.30|-3.25|0.0186
95847282|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|-0.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.82|-3.77|0.0024
95847283|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.30|-4.28|0.0003
95847284|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.29|-4.30|0.0003
95847285|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-3.63|0.0058
95847286|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.7|-4.04|0.0008
95847287|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.64|-3.59|0.0050
95847288|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.31|-3.63|0.0205
95847289|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.75|-2.58|0.2818
95847290|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-2.60|0.3102
95847291|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.43|-2.99|0.1422
95847292|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.68|-4.12|0.0064
95847293|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.16|-3.28|0.0752
95847294|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.89|-2.43|0.3632
95847295|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-3.32|0.0625
95847296|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.32|-2.07|0.6613
95866140|NCT04575597|191690721|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.54||||||||15.54|0.06|
96002732|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.827||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.153||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Advance Care Planning- does not have Power of Attorney (vs ref level has PoA) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.153|.594|.9268
96002733|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.828||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Event and Goal Concordance- No Hospitalization in past 6 months (vs ref level hospitalization prior 6 months) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.828|.817|.6247
96002734|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.052||||0.9052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.628||Alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Event and Goal Concordance- New or Worsening Memory Loss in past 6 months (vs ref level no new/worsening Memory Loss, prior 6 months) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.628|.68|.9052
95847297|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.04|-2.48|0.4209
95847298|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.88|-2.63|0.3288
95847299|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.33|-3.86|0.0202
95847300|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-3.42|0.0682
95847301|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.96|-2.44|0.3912
95847302|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.4964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.09|-2.25|0.4964
95847303|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.68|-1.64|0.9830
95847304|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.78|-1.71|0.9715
95847305|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.8715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.86|-1.58|0.8715
95847306|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.66|-2.83|0.2233
95847307|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.2882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.80|-2.69|0.2882
95847308|NCT03192176|191659349|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.8643||95.0|-1.52|1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.80|-1.52|0.8643
95847309|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0104
95847310|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.09|-0.56|0.0060
95847311|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.24|-0.71|<0.0001
95847312|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.38|-0.85|<0.0001
95847313|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.19|-0.28|0.6977
95847314|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.07|-0.53|0.0121
95847315|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.54|0.0086
95847316|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.08|-0.66|0.0138
95847317|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.19|-0.78|0.0014
95866141|NCT04575597|191690721|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA = Upper limit not reached as no events were recorded||||||||0.00|
95866142|NCT04575597|191690721|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.99||||||||15.99|0.06|
95847318|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.43|-1.02|<0.0001
95847319|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-1.19|<0.0001
95847320|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.14|-0.46|0.2831
95847321|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.13|-0.72|0.0051
95847322|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.22|-0.81|0.0006
95847323|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.14|-0.83|0.0058
95847324|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.28|-0.97|0.0004
95866143|NCT04575597|191690721|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.25||||||||1.25|0.46|
95866144|NCT04575597|191690722|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.83||||||||3.83|0.58|
96002735|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.344||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"GLMM in SAS 9.4 testing experiences with others- Hospitalization in past 6 months (vs ref level no experiences with others- hospitalization prior 6 months) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss. Participants were asked In the past 6 months, have you had any personal experience with someone else who has been hospitalized?"||1.344|.836|.3663
96002736|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.041||||0.8735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.373||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"GLMM in SAS 9.4 testing experiences with others- additional living support in past 6 months (vs ref level no experiences with others- additional living support) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for LTC in the event of ADML. Participants were asked In the past 6 months, have you had any experiences with someone else requiring additional support in their home/needing to move into assisted living?"||1.373|.788|.8735
95847325|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.46|-1.14|<0.0001
95847326|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.57|-1.27|<0.0001
95847327|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.04|-0.66|0.0807
95847328|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.22|-0.91|0.0014
95847329|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.34|-1.02|0.0001
95847330|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.16|-0.85|0.0046
95847331|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.29|-0.99|0.0003
95866145|NCT04575597|191690722|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.05||||||||3.05|0.42|
96002737|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.495||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.143|1.954||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||"GLMM in SAS 9.4 testing experiences with others- any prior ADML experiences (vs ref level no prior ADML experiences with others) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for LTC in the event of ADML. Participants were asked Have you had any prior experiences with someone else who has/ has had Alzheimer's disease and/or memory loss?"||1.954|1.143|.1302
95847332|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.45|-1.14|<0.0001
95847333|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.70|-1.14|<0.0001
95847334|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.77|0.0209
95847335|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.24|-0.93|0.0011
95847336|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
95963580|NCT00121667|191897995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.5||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||30.5|10.6|<.0001
95963581|NCT00121667|191897995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|36.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||36.7|17.0|<.0001
95963582|NCT00121667|191897995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|37.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|Fisher Exact|The exact 95% CIs is based on the standardized statistic and inverting the one 2-sided test.||||37.7|17.7|<.0001
95847337|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.67|0.0956
95847338|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0050
95847339|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.45|-1.18|<0.0001
95866146|NCT04575597|191690722|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.93||||||||3.93|0.57|
95963583|NCT00121667|191897996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5599.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1168.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7894.0|-3305.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3305|-7894|<.0001
95963584|NCT00121667|191897996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6294.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1176.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8606.0|-3983.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-3983|-8606|<.0001
95847340|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.65|-1.40|<0.0001
95963585|NCT00121667|191897996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4845.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1175.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7153.0|-2537.0||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment|||-2537|-7153|<.0001
95963586|NCT01453023|191898028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|0.4|||||Day 1 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||0.4|-8.8|
95963587|NCT01453023|191898028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.5|||||Day 14 HR. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||8.5|-1.1|
95963588|NCT01453023|191898029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7|||||Day 1 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||6.7|-4.4|
96002738|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013||||0.9337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.052||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing age at baseline in years, continuous, as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.052|.976|.9337
95847341|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.69|0.0915
95847342|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.02|-0.75|0.0378
95847343|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.89|0.0053
95866147|NCT04575597|191690722|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||||1.10|0.61|
95963589|NCT01453023|191898029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.5|||||Day 14 QTcF. The estimated value represents the treatment difference: FF/VI 100/25 µg minus FF 100 µg.|||5.5|-6.0|
95866148|NCT04575597|191690723|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.21||||||||1.21|0.11|
95866149|NCT04575597|191690723|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.36||||||||1.36|0.20|
95866150|NCT04575597|191690723|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.89||||||||1.89|0.29|
95866151|NCT04575597|191690723|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2||||||||1.20|0.68|
95866152|NCT04575597|191690724|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33||||||||1.33|0.09|
95866153|NCT04575597|191690724|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.15||||||||2.15|0.30|
95866154|NCT04575597|191690724|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.48||||||||1.48|0.18|
95866155|NCT04575597|191690724|OTHER|Hazard ratio and associated CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
95866156|NCT04575597|191690725|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|15.59||||||||15.59|0.59|
96002739|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.047||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.057||alpha for significance=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Months since Baseline, continuous, as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.057|1.038|.0008
96002740|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.026||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Physical Function (measured by PROMIS Physical Function - Short Form 10a T score) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.026|.982|.0977
95847344|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.08|-0.83|0.0614
95866157|NCT04575597|191690725|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|6.16||||||||6.16|0.29|
95866158|NCT04575597|191690725|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.44||||||||1.44|0.09|
96002741|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.981||||0.8662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|1.029||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Inductive Reasoning (measured by ETS Letter Sets score, ETS, 1976) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.029|.935|.8662
95847345|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.18|-0.92|0.0040
95866159|NCT04575597|191690725|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.3||||||||2.30|0.62|
95866160|NCT04575597|191690726|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|11.88||||||||11.88|1.14|
95866161|NCT04575597|191690726|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.98||||||||3.98|0.34|
95866162|NCT04575597|191690726|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||||2.68|0.27|
95866163|NCT04575597|191690726|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.39||||||||2.39|0.96|
95847346|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.58|-1.33|<0.0001
95847347|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.47|<0.0001
95847348|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.06|-0.70|0.0967
95847349|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
95847350|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.38|-1.13|<0.0001
95847351|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.02|-0.75|0.0632
95847352|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.23|-1.00|0.0020
95866164|NCT04575597|191690727|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.45||||||||3.45|0.82|
95866165|NCT04575597|191690727|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.33||||||||2.33|0.55|
95866166|NCT04575597|191690727|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.29||||||||1.29|0.27|
95866167|NCT04575597|191690727|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.2||||||||2.20|1.14|
95866168|NCT04575597|191690728|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.73||||||||2.73|0.73|
95847353|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.51|-1.29|<0.0001
95847354|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.69|-1.48|<0.0001
95847355|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.04|-0.82|0.0308
95847356|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.12|-0.89|0.0105
95847357|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.26|-1.03|0.0010
95847358|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.69|0.1469
96002742|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Physical Function (measured by PROMIS Anxiety - Short Form 7a T score) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.|.979|.6234
95847359|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.04|-0.84|0.0315
95847360|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.38|-1.18|0.0002
95847361|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
95847362|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.25|-0.56|0.4494
95847363|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.02|-0.79|0.0595
95847364|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-0.96|0.0065
95847365|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.04|-0.77|0.0745
96002743|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.8307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.184||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Working Memory (as measured by size judgment span index, cherry 1993) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.184|.833|.8307
95847366|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
95847367|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.41|-1.22|0.0001
95847368|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.43|-1.26|<0.0001
95847369|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.54|0.5317
95847370|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.01|-0.83|0.0424
95847371|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.11|-0.91|0.0134
95847372|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0300
95847373|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||0.02|-0.78|0.0605
95847374|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.40|-1.20|0.0001
95847375|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
95847376|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.13|-0.68|0.1848
95847377|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.04|-0.84|0.0321
95847378|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.22|-1.01|0.0025
95847379|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.81|0.0441
95847380|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.01|-0.82|0.0422
95847381|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.45|-1.27|<0.0001
95866169|NCT04575597|191690728|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.94||||||||1.94|0.52|
95847382|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.62|-1.44|<0.0001
95847383|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.11|-0.71|0.1464
95847384|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.10|-0.91|0.0144
95847385|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.26|-1.06|0.0013
95847386|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.02|-0.80|0.0596
95847387|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.85|0.0360
95847388|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.32|-1.15|0.0006
95847389|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.39|-1.23|0.0002
95963590|NCT03994731|191898052|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in proportions|32.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|48.3||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tophi presence at baseline: yes, no) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||48.3|16.3|< 0.0001
95847390|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.21|-0.62|0.3227
95847391|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.89|0.0220
95963591|NCT03994731|191898053|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|29.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.084||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|44.9||The 2-sided p-value was calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||response rate difference (Peg+MTX - Peg+Placebo)|||44.9|13.2|0.0003
95847392|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.02|-0.84|0.0380
95847393|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.10|-0.60|0.0067
95847394|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.05|-0.45|0.1227
95847395|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.05|-0.57|0.0208
95963592|NCT03994731|191898054|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.8||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|44.4||The comparison of complete response between groups is performed using an unstratified chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||44.4|1.2|0.0482
95847396|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.10|-0.41|0.2396
95847397|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.15|-0.67|0.0022
95847398|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.53|0.0479
95847399|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.15|-0.35|0.4152
95847400|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.03|-0.52|0.0262
95847401|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.05|-0.43|0.1210
95847402|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.02|-0.52|0.0369
96002744|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.988||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.003||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing subject processing speed (measured by digit comparison test, salthouse 1992) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.003|.974|.7311
96002745|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.073||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Long Term Memory (measured by New York Paragraph Test, Kruger 1999) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.073|.951|.634
96002746|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.027||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Depression (measured by PROMIS Depression- Short Form 8b T score) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.027|.983|.4889
96002747|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.998||||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.016||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing subject Verbal Ability (measured by AM-NART score, Grober 1991) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.016|.98|.7556
95847403|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.18|-0.32|0.5855
95847404|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.12|-0.62|0.0041
95847405|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.01|-0.50|0.0614
95847406|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.12|-0.36|0.3391
96002748|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.018||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.066||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Number of prescription medications, continuous, as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.066|.972|.8583
96002749|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.066||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.185||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Number of chronic conditions, continuous, as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.185|.960|.2647
95847407|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.00|-0.49|0.0515
95847408|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.02|-0.47|0.0667
95847409|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.63|0.0047
95847410|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.34|0.5130
95847411|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.23|-0.75|0.0002
95847412|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.07|-0.60|0.0126
95847413|NCT03192176|191659350|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.13|-0.36|0.3507
95866170|NCT04575597|191690728|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.32||||||||1.32|0.34|
95866171|NCT04575597|191690728|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.78||||||||1.78|1.03|
95866172|NCT04575597|191690729|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.66||||||||1.66|0.35|
95866173|NCT04575597|191690729|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.79||||||||1.79|0.38|
95866174|NCT04575597|191690729|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.81||||||||1.81|0.37|
95847414|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.08|-0.60|0.0098
95847415|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.11|-0.63|0.0048
95847416|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.28|-0.80|<0.0001
95847417|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.47|-1.00|<0.0001
95866175|NCT04575597|191690729|OTHER|Odds ratio was based on the proportional odds model with WHO-11 score categories as the response variable. Due to sparse data, the final model includes only treatment as covariate. CIs are based on Wald Chi-Square Test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
95847418|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.21|-0.32|0.6761
95847419|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.05|-0.57|0.0188
95847420|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.10|-0.61|0.0067
95847421|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.03|-0.68|0.0335
95866176|NCT04575597|191690730|OTHER|Difference in rates % and associated CIs were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by randomization strata. Unknown survival status at Day 29 was treated as failure.|Difference in Rates %|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-5.9|
95866177|NCT01512667|191690788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.23||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||2.23|1.15|
95866178|NCT01512667|191690789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.18|1.81||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (severe renal insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (severe renal insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.81|1.18|
95963593|NCT03994731|191898055|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.6287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||0.13|-0.21|0.6287
95963594|NCT03994731|191898056|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.766||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.88|-0.97||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-0.97|-15.88|0.0272
95963595|NCT03994731|191898057|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-10.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.84|-1.48||Based on mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including the following terms: baseline value, tophi presence (Y/N), treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, and visit-by-baseline value interaction.|MMRM ANCOVA||Difference (Pegloticase+MTX - Pegloticase+Placebo)|||-1.48|-18.84|0.0222
96002750|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.14||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing subject Routinism levels, measured by the busyness and Routine Scale (Martin, 2003)as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.14|1|.1253
95847422|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.25|-0.91|0.0007
95847423|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.48|-1.14|<0.0001
95847424|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.74|-1.41|<0.0001
95847425|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.17|-0.50|0.3227
95847426|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.11|-0.77|0.0085
95963596|NCT03170518|191898088|SUPERIORITY|Imputed datasets were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with terms for treatment, stratification factors (antihyperglycemic agent background and age group), and baseline HbA1c.|Least square mean difference|-0.76|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-1.25|= 0.002
95963597|NCT01948076|191898106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95963598|NCT01948076|191898107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.043
95963599|NCT00310180|191898142|SUPERIORITY|Since the noninferiority comparison is formulated using a conventional superiority null hypothesis described as above, a type II error corresponds to concluding that Arm B is not inferior when in fact it is. The design therefore uses a one-sided type I error of 10% and is planned to have 95% power (5% type II error). If the null hypothesis is rejected (at the one-sided 10% level), then it will be concluded that endocrine therapy alone is inferior to chemoendocrine therapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24||One-sided p value for stratified Cox proportional hazard analysis, stratified on recurrence score, tumor size and menopausal status.|Regression, Cox|||This study uses a noninferiority design, but the noninferiority question is formulated using the conventional superiority null hypothesis of equal DFS on the two arms (that is, the null hypothesis is that Arm B is not inferior to Arm C). The alternative hypothesis is that Arm B has substantially worse DFS than Arm C, specified by a hazard ratio for B vs. C of 1.322.||1.24|0.94|0.13
95847427|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.30|-0.95|0.0002
95847428|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.12|-0.87|0.0102
95847429|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.39|-1.15|<0.0001
95847430|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.54|-1.29|<0.0001
95847431|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.68|-1.46|<0.0001
95847432|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||0.03|-0.73|0.0740
95847433|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.21|-0.97|0.0024
95847434|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-0.41|-1.17|<0.0001
95847435|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.08|-0.72|0.1197
95847436|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.18|-0.98|0.0046
95847437|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.47|-1.28|<0.0001
95847438|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.69|-1.51|<0.0001
95847439|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.01|-0.80|0.0553
95847440|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||0.05|-0.76|0.0823
95847441|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-0.16|-0.96|0.0060
95847442|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.0374
95847443|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.19|-1.00|0.0042
95847444|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.56|-1.38|<0.0001
95847445|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.71|-1.54|<0.0001
95847446|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||0.03|-0.79|0.0710
95847447|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.09|-0.91|0.0160
95847448|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-0.34|-1.15|0.0003
95847449|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||0.07|-0.76|0.1013
95847450|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.28|-1.11|0.0011
95847451|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.53|-1.36|<0.0001
95847452|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.72|-1.57|<0.0001
95847453|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.00|-0.85|0.0476
95847454|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.07|-0.90|0.0220
95847455|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.24|-1.07|0.0019
95847456|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.11|-0.74|0.1457
95847457|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.91|0.0284
95866179|NCT00445588|191690800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||cox regression model was used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control with same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, and surgical procedure|Regression, Cox|cox regression model used to estimate the HR of death compared to NABTT historical control same histology, adjusted for age, KPS, surgical procedure||The overall failure rate will be estimated by dividing the number of events (death) with the total exposure time in the study cohort. 95% confidence intervals and median time of survival will be calculated using standard methods.||1.3|0.6|0.4
95866180|NCT03192358|191690815|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study. The statistical test explores whether there were significant differences in tongue pressure between the two cohorts. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower maximum anterior isometric tongue pressures compared to the people with PD.||||< 0.001
95866181|NCT03192358|191690816|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Cohen's d values \> 0.8 are considered large|This was an observational study rather than a trial. The hypothesis was that individuals with ALS would display significantly lower regular effort saliva swallow pressures than the individuals with PD.||||< 0.001
95866182|NCT03467685|191690823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95866183|NCT02342418|191690851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
95866184|NCT02342418|191690852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test||||0.214
95866185|NCT01551420|191690859|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis of no change after home use|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28||Two way comparison between scores at baseline and after 9-12 weeks of Prosthetic use. Alpha=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-tests||||0.28|-0.27|.9358
95866186|NCT01551420|191690859|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression of QOL measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-1.47|0.08
95866187|NCT01551420|191690860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analyses was 44 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with UEFS data at both time points).||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
95866188|NCT01551420|191690860|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.4|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS use measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.40|-0.73|<0.0001
95963600|NCT00310180|191898146|OTHER|Treatment-by-Age and RS subset was performed via Cox proportional hazard analysis||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Cox|||Treatment interaction test was performed for the 9 age by RS subsets (3 groups for each, age groups \<=50 vs. 51-65 vs. 66-75; RS groups 0-10 vs. 11-25 vs. \>25) in patients randomized to arms B and C||||0.004
95847458|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.39|-1.26|0.0002
95847459|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.48|-1.36|<0.0001
95847460|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.26|-0.61|0.4223
95847461|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.01|-0.87|0.0442
95847462|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.16|-1.02|0.0071
95847463|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.05|-0.80|0.0823
95847464|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.04|-0.89|0.0336
95847465|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.46|-1.32|<0.0001
95847466|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.47|-1.34|<0.0001
95847467|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.28|-0.59|0.4819
95847468|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.03|-0.88|0.0371
95847469|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.12|-0.97|0.0121
95847470|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.05|-0.89|0.0281
95847471|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.01|-0.86|0.0436
95847472|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.49|-1.34|<0.0001
95847473|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.60|-1.47|<0.0001
95847474|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||0.11|-0.75|0.1488
95847475|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.06|-0.91|0.0251
95847476|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-0.23|-1.08|0.0027
95866189|NCT01551420|191690861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this analysis was 34 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with TAPES data at both time points).||0.11|-0.55|0.186
95866190|NCT01551420|191690861|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for TAPES at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from TAPES measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.23|-2.06|0.0168
95963601|NCT03931746|191898149|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-3.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||-0.5|-8.0|0.04
95963602|NCT03931746|191898150|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|-2.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft minus No Porcine Xenograft.|||12|-9|0.75
95847477|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.07|-0.77|0.1053
95847478|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.04|-0.90|0.0304
95866191|NCT01551420|191690862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.61||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||1.05|-2.99|0.3367
95963603|NCT03931746|191898151|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||20.0|-19.0|1
95963604|NCT03931746|191898152|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft vs. No Porcine Xenograft.|||0.33|-0.26|1
95963605|NCT03931746|191898153|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||4|-6|1
95847479|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.43|-1.33|<0.0001
95866192|NCT01551420|191690862|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|2.39|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from AM-ULA measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.39|-3.84|0.6339
95866193|NCT01551420|191690863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with SF-36V Role Physical data at both time points).||4.05|-7.53|0.5465
95866194|NCT01551420|191690863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.37||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Social Functioning data at both time points).||1.57|-9.12|0.1610
95866195|NCT01551420|191690863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.9||0.7765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.68|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline to End of A (with SF-36V Physical Functioning data at both time points).||3.68|-4.90|0.7765
95866196|NCT01551420|191690863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-13.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.72|1.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V; Role Physical measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.02|-27.72|0.0669
95866197|NCT01551420|191690863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|6.54|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Social Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||6.54|-23.01|0.2592
95866198|NCT01551420|191690863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-30.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-17.23|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for SF-36 at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of SF-36V: Physical Functioning measure at 9-12 weeks, comparing groups by control type, controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-17.23|-43.23|<0.0001
95866199|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Writing data at both time points).||0.07|-0.05|0.6691
95866200|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Page turning data at both time points).||0.00|-0.05|0.0511
95866201|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Lifting Small Items data at both time points).||0.04|-0.02|0.5942
95866202|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Checkers data at both time points).||-0.01|-0.07|0.0101
95866203|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.1063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Feeding data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.1063
95866204|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Light Cans data at both time points).||0.01|-0.06|0.2474
95866205|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 31 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with JTHFT: Heavy Cans data at both time points).||0.02|-0.09|0.1604
95866206|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.09|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Writing measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.09|-0.12|0.4208
95866207|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Page Turning measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.02|-0.09|0.1959
95963606|NCT03931746|191898154|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median difference|0.5||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|An exact Wilcoxon two-sample test was performed owing to the small sample size and number of tied observations.|Median difference is for Porcine Xenograft group minus No Porcine Xenograft group.|||2|-1|0.54
95963607|NCT03931746|191898155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|13.3|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||13.3|0.03|1
95963608|NCT03931746|191898156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.167||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.185|||Fisher Exact||"The risk difference is calculated as the outcome risk in the Porcine Xenograft group minus the outcome risk in the No Porcine Xenograft group. The confidence interval for the risk difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method."|||0.185|-0.564|0.43
95963609|NCT03931746|191898157|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|55.9|||Fisher Exact||"The No Porcine Xenograft group is the reference group."|||55.9|0.006|1
95866208|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Lifting Small Items measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.03|-0.09|0.3328
95866209|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Checkers measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
95866210|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Feeding measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.|Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|||0.00|-0.12|0.0552
95866211|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Light Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0319
95866212|NCT01551420|191690864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.04|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for JTHFT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from JTHFT: Heavy Cans measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||-0.04|-0.24|0.0073
95963610|NCT02980042|191898168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6616||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3666|1.1942|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was necessary because there are repeated measures on subjects.|This is comparing the Switching group to the Comparator group|||1.1942|.3666|0.1996
95963611|NCT02980042|191898169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5299|1.8872|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects|Comparing Switching group Day 1 to combined Comparator group|||1.8872|.5299|1.0000
95963612|NCT02980042|191898169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|0.8114|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.|Switching group Day 15 was compared to combined Comparator group.|||.8114|.1006|0.0053
95847480|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.61|-1.49|<0.0001
95847481|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||0.06|-0.81|0.0873
95847482|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.12|-0.97|0.0124
95847483|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-0.27|-1.12|0.0014
95847484|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.00|-0.68|0.0479
95847485|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.13|-0.54|0.2342
95847486|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.84|0.0070
95847487|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.21|-0.49|0.4291
95866213|NCT01551420|191690865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||0.6529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Spontaneity data at both time points).||0.15|-0.24|0.6529
95866214|NCT01551420|191690865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 30 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UNB: Skill data at both time points).||0.22|-0.26|0.8490
95866215|NCT01551420|191690865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.48|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Spontaneity at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Spontaneity measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.48|-0.22|0.4589
95866216|NCT01551420|191690865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.44|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 23 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UNB: Skill at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UNB: Skill measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||0.44|-0.31|0.7110
95866217|NCT01551420|191690866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|253.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|325.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|146.7|360.5|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 38 participants.||Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with T-MAP data at both time points).|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|360.5|146.7|<0.0001
95866218|NCT01551420|191690866|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-183.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|186.9||0.3397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-574.3|208.2|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 22 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for T-MAP at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from T-MAP measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||208.2|-574.3|0.3397
95963613|NCT02980042|191898169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.6474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4385|1.6753|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.6753|.4385|0.6474
95866219|NCT01551420|191690867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.53|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 24 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with UEFS data at both time points).||8.53|0.07|0.0465
95866220|NCT01551420|191690867|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.82|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 19participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for UEFS at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from UEFS measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||2.82|-7.60|0.3450
95866221|NCT01551420|191690868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.54||0.6881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.79|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data for participants at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e participants with CRIS: Extent of Limitations data at both time points).||2.79|-1.86|0.6881
95866222|NCT01551420|191690868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.95||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Perceived Limitations data at both time points).||3.67|-5.01|0.7363
96002751|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.047||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing busyness, measured by the busyness and Routine Scale (Martin, 2003)as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.047|.969|.5368
96002752|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.049||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Subject Social Network Strength, measured by the Lubben Social Network Index ( Lubben 2006) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.049|.979|.4018
95963614|NCT02980042|191898173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2857||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1072|0.7613|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||.7613|.1072|0.0075
95963615|NCT02980042|191898173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8571||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4868|1.5093|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||1.5093|.4868|0.5930
96002753|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.016||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing General Self Efficacy (measured by PROMIS Self Efficacy T score) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.016|.984|.9930
95963616|NCT02980042|191898173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.126|7.9932|||Generalized estimating equations|GEE was used because there are repeated measures on subjects.||||7.9932|1.1260|0.0209
96002754|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.005||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.988|1.022||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Self Efficacy in Social Interactions (measured by PROMIS Self Efficacy in Social Interactions- Short Form 4a T score) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.022|.988|.934
96002755|NCT03960476|191982835|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.013||alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (all models evaluated in SAS 9.4) testing Subject Self- Management skills (measured by Curtis Comprehensive Health Activities Scale, Curtis 2015) as fixed effect, controlling for repeated assessments within-subjects, for the effect on the outcome of probability (OR) of planning for Long Term Care in the event of Alzheimer's Dementia/Memory Loss.||1.013|.987|.9396
96002756|NCT06544707|191982867|OTHER|Single-arm study|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value one-sided significance level = 5%|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
96002757|NCT06544707|191982868|OTHER|Single arm study|||||<|0.0001||||||P-value one-sided significance level = 5%|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95847488|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.13|-0.83|0.0076
95847489|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.10|-0.62|0.1506
95847490|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||0.24|-0.44|0.5479
95847491|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.57|0.1427
95866223|NCT01551420|191690868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.12||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|The sample for this paired t-test was 43 participants.|Mean difference is the change in scores from Baseline to End of A.|Pairwise t-test for data from prosthesis users at baseline and completers at End of A (i.e. participants with CRIS: Satisfaction data at both time points).||1.01|-3.99|0.2361
95866224|NCT01551420|191690868|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|1.29|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Extent of Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.29|-15.43|0.0932
95866225|NCT01551420|191690868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.99|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Perceived Limitations measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||1.99|-22.9|0.0951
96002758|NCT03748641|191982869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.729||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.956|||Log Rank|||||0.956|0.556|0.0217
96002759|NCT03748641|191982870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.789|||Log Rank|||||0.789|0.361|0.0014
96002760|NCT04654468|191982898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired McNemar|||Percentage of participants who achieved TA from baseline through Week 25 were compared with the percentage of participants who reported TA within 24 weeks prior to screening.||||<.0001
96002761|NCT04767373|191982927|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|60.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.1|71.9|||Exact method|One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- Relative Risk \[RR\]) \& 95% confidence interval (CI). The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.9|44.1|<0.001
96002762|NCT04767373|191982928|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||||Estimated percentage difference beteween Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||1.8|-2.6|
95847492|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.09|-0.56|0.1498
95847493|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0103
95847494|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.32|-0.36|0.8984
95847495|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.11|-0.79|0.0095
95847496|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.08|-0.60|0.1370
96002763|NCT04767373|191982929|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-0.0|-1.4|
95847497|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.19|-0.46|0.4223
95847498|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.17|-0.50|0.3265
95847499|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.04|-0.62|0.0852
95847500|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.21|-0.91|0.0021
95847501|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.25|-0.45|0.5717
95847502|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.12|-0.82|0.0084
95847503|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||-0.04|-0.75|0.0277
95847504|NCT03192176|191659351|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.4627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.21|-0.46|0.4627
95847505|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|-0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-0.97|-8.62|0.0142
95847506|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.05|-11.73|<0.0001
95847507|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-5.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.31|-12.98|<0.0001
95847508|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|-6.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.61|-14.39|<0.0001
95847509|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.44|-7.36|0.0819
96002764|NCT04767373|191982930|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.1|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.1|-4.3|
96002765|NCT04767373|191982931|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-0.3|
96002766|NCT04767373|191982932|OTHER||Estimated Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Estimated percentage difference between Clesrovimab 105 mg arm and placebo arm and associated 95% CI were calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.5|-0.4|
95963617|NCT02980042|191898178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.01||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.01|-27.05|0.005
95963618|NCT02980042|191898179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.56||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||3.56|1.54|<0.0001
95963619|NCT02980042|191898180|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|10.82||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||10.82|6.33|<0.0001
95963620|NCT02980042|191898181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.55||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.55|-10.19|<0.0001
95963621|NCT02980042|191898182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|59.05||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||59.05|29.59|<0.0001
95963622|NCT02980042|191898183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|353.35||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|175.23|531.46||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||531.46|175.23|0.0002
95963623|NCT02980042|191898184|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|176.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|124.5|229.31||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||229.31|124.50|<0.0001
95963624|NCT02980042|191898185|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.32||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.32|0.07|0.0020
95847510|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.09|-10.78|0.0004
95847511|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.05|-10.69|0.0005
95847512|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.23|-8.01|0.0380
95963625|NCT02980042|191898186|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.77|0.32|<0.0001
95963626|NCT02980042|191898187|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.16||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.61|-11.72||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-11.72|-80.61|0.0091
95963627|NCT02980042|191898188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|55.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|83.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||83.52|27.00|0.0002
95963628|NCT02980042|191898189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.24||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.96|-5.51||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.51|-28.96|0.0044
95847513|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-3.64|-11.46|0.0002
95847514|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.17|-11.96|<0.0001
95963629|NCT02980042|191898190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|22.28||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||22.28|9.75|<0.0001
95847515|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.25|-13.17|<0.0001
95847516|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.59|-8.52|0.0245
95847517|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.01|-9.83|0.0031
95847518|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-1.75|-9.53|0.0046
95847519|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-1.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.59|-9.61|0.0064
95847520|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-4.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.65|-12.72|<0.0001
95847521|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.78|-4.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.75|-12.78|<0.0001
95963630|NCT02980042|191898191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|429.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|296.07|562.1||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||562.10|296.07|<0.0001
95963631|NCT02980042|191898192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.16||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.16|0.30|0.0101
95963632|NCT02980042|191898193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|12.52||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||12.52|4.87|<0.0001
95847522|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|-6.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.09|-14.27|<0.0001
95847523|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.36|-10.54|0.0021
95847524|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-3.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-3.66|-11.71|0.0002
95847525|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-2.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.95|-10.96|0.0007
95847526|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.47|-9.46|0.0075
95847527|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.42|-12.44|<0.0001
95847528|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.16|-12.15|<0.0001
95847529|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-6.16|-14.30|<0.0001
95847530|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.34|-10.46|0.0021
95847531|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.25|-12.25|<0.0001
95847532|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-3.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.62|-11.58|0.0002
95963633|NCT02980042|191898194|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.03||Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 1 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 99.|Mean of post minus pre.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.03|1.04|<0.0001
95963634|NCT02980042|191898195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.91|-27.44||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-27.44|-38.91|<0.0001
95963635|NCT02980042|191898196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.26|-0.98|0.0008
95963636|NCT02980042|191898197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.79||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||2.79|1.23|<0.0001
95963637|NCT02980042|191898198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|-5.81||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.81|-9.87|<0.0001
95963638|NCT02980042|191898199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.15|-5.25||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-5.25|-23.15|0.0022
95963639|NCT02980042|191898200|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.43|0.17|<0.0001
95847533|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.05|-8.60|0.0123
95847534|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-4.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.07|-11.63|<0.0001
95847535|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.23|-11.80|<0.0001
95847536|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-6.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-6.03|-13.73|<0.0001
95847537|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.47|-10.13|0.0013
95847538|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.41|-10.97|0.0002
95847539|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.89|-10.41|0.0006
95847540|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.07|-8.54|0.0119
95847541|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|-3.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.09|-10.58|0.0004
95847542|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-4.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-4.06|-11.57|<0.0001
95963640|NCT02980042|191898201|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.61||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||0.61|0.22|<0.0001
95847543|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-5.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.27|-12.89|<0.0001
95847544|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.58|-9.18|0.0057
95847545|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.90|-10.40|0.0006
95847546|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.81|-10.27|0.0006
95847547|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.27|-0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.68|-8.27|0.0210
95847548|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|-3.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.38|-10.98|0.0002
95847549|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.49|-11.12|0.0002
95847550|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.99|-5.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-5.25|-12.99|<0.0001
95847551|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-1.73|-9.45|0.0047
95847552|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-2.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.67|-10.29|0.0009
95847553|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.71|-10.28|0.0008
95847554|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.51|-7.10|0.0889
96002767|NCT04767373|191982935|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|84.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.6|92.6||One-sided p-value was estimated using an exact method.|Exact method||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||92.6|66.6|<0.001
95847555|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.13|-9.76|0.0023
95847556|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.71|-10.36|0.0009
95847557|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|-3.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.58|-11.36|0.0002
95847558|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-8.30|0.0255
95847559|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|-1.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.98|-9.63|0.0031
95847560|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-1.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.85|-9.45|0.0037
95847561|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.35|-7.59|0.0316
95847562|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-1.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.78|-9.02|0.0036
95963641|NCT02980042|191898202|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.5||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.50|-0.95|<0.0001
96002768|NCT04767373|191982936|OTHER||Efficacy estimate|59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.3|71.1|||||A modified Poisson regression with robust variance method was used to generate efficacy estimate (1- RR) \& 95% CI. The model included region, gestational age, and age at randomization as covariates.|||71.1|43.3|
95847563|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.94|-10.23|0.0004
95847564|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|-3.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.54|-10.93|0.0001
95847565|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||0.00|-7.37|0.0502
95847566|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.99|-9.28|0.0025
95847567|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.44|-8.67|0.0063
95847568|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-1.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.08|-8.58|0.0117
95847569|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-1.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.67|-9.17|0.0047
95866226|NCT01551420|191690868|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.43|||Regression, Linear|The sample for this analysis was 24 participants with TR or TH amputation level who completed data collection for CRIS-CAT at End of Part B.|Effect of EMG-PR (compared to IMU group)|Linear regression of scores from CRIS-CAT: Satisfaction measure at 9-12 weeks (End of B), comparing groups by control type, and controlling for amputation level (transhumeral or transradial). Persons with shoulder level devices are excluded from this analysis.||3.43|-13.3|0.2346
95866227|NCT02656680|191690872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U Test||||0.72
95866228|NCT02656680|191690873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test comparing proportion retained in each condition.||||0.31
95866229|NCT02656680|191690874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.69
95866230|NCT02656680|191690875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.218|||||||ANOVA|||We compared mean percent weight loss from baseline across groups with a one-way ANOVA. One participant became pregnant and thus removed from the analysis. This analysis is exploratory given that this pilot study was not powered to detect weight loss differences between groups.||||0.218
95866231|NCT02656680|191690876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.421
95866232|NCT03386253|191690880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Group x time p value|ANOVA|||||||0.77
95866233|NCT00464490|191690884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value \<0.05 was considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Ventilator time (DG) = Ventilator time (CG)||||0.02
95866234|NCT04896229|191690885|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.022
95866235|NCT04896229|191690886|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.800
95866236|NCT04896229|191690887|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.235|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.235
95963642|NCT02980042|191898203|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-15.98||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-15.98|-22.64|<0.0001
95963643|NCT02980042|191898204|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-4.08||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.08|-9.85|<0.0001
95866237|NCT04896229|191690888|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.325
95963644|NCT02980042|191898205|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.22||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-6.78||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-6.78|-39.66|0.0061
95866238|NCT04896229|191690889|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.502
95866239|NCT04896229|191690890|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.005
95866240|NCT04896229|191690891|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.712
95866241|NCT04896229|191690892|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.245|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.245
95866242|NCT04896229|191690893|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.282
95866243|NCT04896229|191690894|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.289
95866244|NCT04896229|191690895|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The results show the condition x time interaction from the growth model, and the parameter estimate describes the relative change of the intervention condition to the treatment-as-usual condition, for a unit change in time.||||.296
95866245|NCT02984943|191690896|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
95866246|NCT02984943|191690897|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.10
95866247|NCT02984943|191690898|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
95866248|NCT02984943|191690899|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.02
95866249|NCT02984943|191690900|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
95847570|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.23|-10.80|0.0003
95847571|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-3.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.86|-11.51|<0.0001
95847572|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|-1.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.34|-8.97|0.0083
95847573|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.56|-10.10|0.0011
95847574|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.29|-9.77|0.0017
95847575|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.05|-8.37|0.0119
95847576|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
95847577|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|-3.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.99|-11.38|<0.0001
95847578|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.87|-11.33|<0.0001
95847579|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.62|-9.07|0.0051
95847580|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-2.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.96|-10.33|0.0004
95847581|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.34|-9.64|0.0014
95847582|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|-1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.51|-8.67|0.0054
95847583|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.55|-9.71|0.0008
95847584|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-3.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.97|-11.20|<0.0001
95847585|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-4.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.59|-11.88|<0.0001
95866250|NCT02984943|191690901|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.004
95866251|NCT02984943|191690902|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
95847586|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.99|-9.27|0.0026
95847587|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|-3.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.16|-10.35|0.0003
95847588|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.75|-9.88|0.0006
95847589|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.15|-9.48|0.0126
95847590|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||1.27|-7.06|0.1724
95847591|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|2.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||2.27|-6.31|0.3548
95847592|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.53|-8.04|0.0860
95847593|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.28|-9.89|0.0111
95866252|NCT02984943|191690903|OTHER|||||||0.2938|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.2938
95963645|NCT02980042|191898206|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-4.14||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-4.14|-7.24|<0.0001
95847594|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.33|-8.94|0.0349
95847595|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|1.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.57|-6.77|0.2205
95847596|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.29|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||0.24|-8.29|0.0645
95847597|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|2.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.80|-5.69|0.5031
95847598|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|2.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.99|-5.84|0.5263
95847599|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.2782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|1.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.97|-6.83|0.2782
95866253|NCT02984943|191690904|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
95866254|NCT02984943|191690905|OTHER|||||||0.0608|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0608
95866255|NCT02984943|191690906|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
95866256|NCT02984943|191690907|OTHER|||||||0.1496|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.1496
95866257|NCT02984943|191690908|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
95866258|NCT02984943|191690909|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.36
95866259|NCT02984943|191690910|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
95847600|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.84|-9.67|0.0198
95963646|NCT02980042|191898207|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.23||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.23|-1.45|0.0077
95963647|NCT02980042|191898208|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.27||99 patients with non-missing change scores used. Controlled for the false discovery rate (alpha = 0.05) for all cytokines on day 15 using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired T-test. Degrees of freedom = 98.|Mean of post minus pre. 99 usable change scores.|Paired T-test for change in means. Null hypothesis: no pre-post difference.||-0.27|-0.37|<0.0001
95963648|NCT02179177|191898213|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95963649|NCT06193967|191898217|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963650|NCT06193967|191898217|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM frequency (number of days with tracking). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963651|NCT06193967|191898218|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM frequency.~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.001
95963652|NCT06193967|191898219|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963653|NCT06193967|191898219|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (proportion of items tracked on day of intake). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
96002769|NCT00646906|191982976|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The primary hypothesis is that acetaminophen given two hours before aspirin will antagonize the effects of aspirin, while reversing the order of administration will not. Percent change from start (8:00 am on day 1) to finish (8:00 am on day 7) of period in serum thromboxane B2 for each order of drug administration will be primary endpoint of interest.||||>0.05
95847601|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.18|-9.05|0.0417
95847602|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|2.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.00|-6.52|0.2963
95847603|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.83|-5.39|0.5408
95866260|NCT02984943|191690911|OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0012
95866261|NCT02984943|191690912|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
95866262|NCT02984943|191690913|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.90
95963654|NCT06193967|191898220|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (Proportion of Items Tracked on Day of Intake).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||0.01
95963655|NCT06193967|191898221|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963656|NCT06193967|191898221|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on DSM behavior, a 2x2 factorial ANOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of logging sessions). A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95866263|NCT02984943|191690914|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
95963657|NCT06193967|191898222|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|"Linear mixed-factor ANOVA was used with between-subject factors of praise and gamification status, a within-subject factor of time (week), and a dependent variable of DSM timing (number of loging sessions).~Results reflect outcomes for main effect of time."|||<0.0001
95963658|NCT06193967|191898223|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963659|NCT06193967|191898223|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of intrinsic motivation at follow-up, and a covariate of intrinsic motivation at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963660|NCT06193967|191898224|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963661|NCT06193967|191898224|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on motivation, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dependent variable of scores for child motivation to change eating behaviors at follow-up, and a covariate of baseline scores. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
96002770|NCT00646906|191982977|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance, appropriate for a three factor experiment with cohort and dose as non-repeated factors and repeated measure order arranged in a two period cross-over design, was performed.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
96002771|NCT03656926|191982978|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1 with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1, region (North America vs all other countries together), age (\<55 versus \>=55 years), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.|least square mean difference|-0.028||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.104||This is a 1-side p value.|Mixed Models Analysis|||V9 - week 48||0.104|-0.160|0.6639
95847604|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|3.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.41|-4.74|0.7473
95847605|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.50|-4.07|0.9214
95847606|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.9876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.26|-4.19|0.9876
95847607|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.71|-6.86|0.2379
95847608|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|1.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.14|-7.45|0.1491
95866264|NCT02984943|191690915|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0068
95866265|NCT02984943|191690916|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
95866266|NCT02984943|191690917|OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.0183
95866267|NCT02984943|191690918|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
95866268|NCT02984943|191690919|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Skillings-Mack test|||||||0.08
95866269|NCT02984943|191690920|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866270|NCT02984943|191690921|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866271|NCT02984943|191690922|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866272|NCT02984943|191690923|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866273|NCT02984943|191690924|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866274|NCT02984943|191690925|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95963662|NCT06193967|191898225|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963663|NCT06193967|191898225|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
96002772|NCT03656926|191982979|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.016||||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimates were from a Linear Mixed Model on the response variable change from baseline in FEV1/FVC with factors for time splines, treatment, the interactions of time splines by treatment, baseline FEV1/FVC, the interactions of time splines with baseline FEV1/FVC, region (North America versus all other countries together), age (\<55 versus \> or = 55), use of azithromycin at randomization, and time as random effect.||0.025|-0.057|0.7792
95847609|NCT03192176|191659352|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|4.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.19|-3.96|0.9560
95847610|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-1.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-1.30|-9.01|0.0089
95847611|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-4.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-4.48|-12.22|<0.0001
95847612|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.06|-5.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-5.34|-13.06|<0.0001
95847613|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-6.75|-14.58|<0.0001
95847614|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||0.20|-7.65|0.0630
95847615|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-3.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-3.30|-11.04|0.0003
95847616|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||-2.84|-10.53|0.0007
95847617|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-0.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.63|-8.43|0.0231
95847618|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.09|-11.94|<0.0001
95847619|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.87|-4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-4.05|-11.87|<0.0001
95847620|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-5.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-5.26|-13.21|<0.0001
95847621|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-0.84|-8.80|0.0177
95847622|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.60|-10.45|0.0012
95847623|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||-2.64|-9.26|0.0072
95847624|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-1.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-1.84|-9.86|0.0044
95866275|NCT02984943|191690926|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866276|NCT02984943|191690928|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866277|NCT02984943|191690929|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866278|NCT02984943|191690930|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866279|NCT02984943|191690932|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866280|NCT02984943|191690933|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866281|NCT02984943|191690934|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95866282|NCT02984943|191690935|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive statistics only were used|||
95963664|NCT06193967|191898226|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||A standard alpha level of ≥ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963665|NCT06193967|191898226|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.03
95866283|NCT01029405|191690953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided sign test|||||||<0.001
95866284|NCT01860846|191690963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004||||||Baseline vs. 12 months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||=0.004
95866285|NCT01860846|191690964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.022
95866286|NCT01860846|191690965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.006
95866287|NCT01860846|191690966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866288|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Physical Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866289|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Physical Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866290|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Role-Emotional Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.001
95866291|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Vitality Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.019
95866292|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Mental Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.017
95866293|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Functioning Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.007
95866294|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bodily Pain Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866295|NCT01860846|191690967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||General Health Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||= 0.005
95866296|NCT01860846|191690968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Bowel-related Symptoms Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866297|NCT01860846|191690968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Systemic Symptoms Scores:The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866298|NCT01860846|191690968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Emotional Function Scores: the null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866299|NCT01860846|191690968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 12 Months|Wilcoxon signed-ranked test|||Social Function Scores: The null hypothesis was set as no difference.||||< 0.001
95866300|NCT01976988|191690971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
95866301|NCT01976988|191690972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
95866302|NCT01976988|191690973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95866303|NCT01976988|191690974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95866304|NCT01976988|191690975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95866305|NCT01976988|191690976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95866306|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|26.5||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|78.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||78.9|-25.9|0.321
95866307|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|13.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|65.1||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||65.1|-38.9|0.620
95866308|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|35.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||35.4|-55.5|0.665
95866309|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.6||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.6|48.4||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||48.4|-57.6|0.865
95866310|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|31.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|77.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||77.9|-14.1|0.174
96002773|NCT03656926|191982980|SUPERIORITY||adjusted hazard ratio|1.19|||=|0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|2.42||1-sided p value. The adjusted hazard ratio was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model, with covariates of treatment, age (\< 55 vs \> or= 55 years) with Efron's method of tie handling.|Regression, Cox|||For the statistical analysis, the estimand was the log hazard ratio of the L-CsA + SoC group relative to the SoC alone group. The treatment policy strategy was adopted for handling the IEs of treatment discontinuation. Dropouts due to other reasons and death from respiratory failure were to be treated as non-informative censoring.||2.420|0.589|=0.3110
96002774|NCT04723719|191982983|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.17
95847625|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-5.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-5.21|-13.27|<0.0001
95847626|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|-4.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.55|-12.57|<0.0001
95847627|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-6.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-6.11|-14.29|<0.0001
95847628|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-2.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.87|-11.04|0.0009
95847629|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|-4.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-4.39|-12.44|<0.0001
95847630|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|-2.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||-2.64|-10.65|0.0012
96002775|NCT04723719|191982984|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.3
95847631|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-1.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.71|-9.72|0.0053
95847632|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.77|-4.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.73|-12.77|<0.0001
95847633|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-3.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.84|-11.84|0.0001
95847634|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|-5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-5.96|-14.12|<0.0001
95847635|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-2.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-2.78|-10.92|0.0010
95847636|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-4.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-4.46|-12.49|<0.0001
95847637|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-3.13|-11.12|0.0005
96002776|NCT04723719|191982985|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.33
96002777|NCT04723719|191982986|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.92
96002778|NCT04723719|191982987|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.74
95847638|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-1.58|-9.15|0.0057
95847639|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-4.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.56|-12.15|<0.0001
95847640|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|-4.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-4.08|-11.68|<0.0001
95847641|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.66|-5.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-5.93|-13.66|<0.0001
95847642|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-2.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.85|-10.54|0.0007
95847643|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|-3.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-3.95|-11.55|<0.0001
95847644|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|-2.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||-2.60|-10.16|0.0010
95847645|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|-1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.48|-8.99|0.0064
95866311|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|19.3||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|71.9||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||71.9|-33.4|0.472
96002779|NCT04723719|191982988|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.65
95847646|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-3.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.42|-10.94|0.0002
95847647|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.75|-11.29|0.0001
95847648|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-5.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-5.03|-12.69|<0.0001
95847649|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.62|-1.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-1.99|-9.62|0.0030
95847650|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-3.37|-10.92|0.0002
95847651|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-2.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||-2.42|-9.91|0.0013
95847652|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-0.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-0.99|-8.61|0.0137
95866312|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|42.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|88.7||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||88.7|-3.8|0.072
96002780|NCT04723719|191982989|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.79
95847653|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-3.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.60|-11.24|0.0002
95963666|NCT06193967|191898227|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963667|NCT06193967|191898227|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||0.02
95963668|NCT06193967|191898228|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
96002781|NCT04723719|191982990|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.81
96002782|NCT04723719|191982991|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.22
95847654|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|-3.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-3.13|-10.79|0.0004
95847655|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-4.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-4.97|-12.74|<0.0001
95847656|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.07|-9.82|0.0028
95847657|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-2.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.94|-10.60|0.0006
95847658|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-2.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||-2.21|-9.82|0.0020
95847659|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-7.46|0.0588
95847660|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.14|-9.90|0.0018
95847661|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-2.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.34|-9.98|0.0017
95847662|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-3.32|-11.09|0.0003
95963669|NCT06193967|191898228|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95963670|NCT06193967|191898229|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
96002783|NCT04723719|191982992|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.09
96002784|NCT04723719|191982993|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.07
95847663|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.81|-8.55|0.0810
95847664|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|-2.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-2.23|-9.88|0.0020
95847665|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-1.39|-8.98|0.0076
95847666|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|-0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.75|-8.01|0.0182
95847667|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-2.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.16|-9.42|0.0019
95847668|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|-2.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.71|-10.02|0.0007
95847669|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-3.35|-10.76|0.0002
95847670|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-0.50|-7.89|0.0263
95866313|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|21.9||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|58.0||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||58.0|-14.2|0.234
95866314|NCT01328444|191690977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|32.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|68.8||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||68.8|-3.9|0.080
95847671|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-2.29|-9.61|0.0015
95847672|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||-1.07|-8.32|0.0113
95847673|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|-1.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-1.54|-9.04|0.0059
95847674|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|-2.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.25|-9.76|0.0018
95847675|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-3.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.05|-10.62|0.0004
95847676|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|-3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-3.73|-11.39|0.0001
95847677|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||-1.75|-9.40|0.0044
95866315|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.087||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.143||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.143|0.030|0.003
95847678|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-2.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.84|-10.40|0.0006
95847679|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.57|-2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||-2.07|-9.57|0.0025
95847680|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.81|-1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-1.49|-8.81|0.0059
95847681|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.74|-10.06|0.0007
95847682|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.79|-11.18|<0.0001
95847683|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.72|-11.18|0.0001
95847684|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-2.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.11|-9.56|0.0022
95866316|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.196||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.196|0.084|<0.001
95866317|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.099|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.148||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.148|0.050|<0.001
95963671|NCT06193967|191898229|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA||||To determine the main effects of positive reinforcement on dietary intake, a 2x2 factorial ANCOVA was conducted with gamification and caregiver praise status as the independent variables, a dietary intake at follow-up, and a covariate of dietary intake at baseline. A gamification\*caregiver praise interaction term was also included in the model to test for interactive effects.|||>0.05
95847685|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|-3.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-3.19|-10.56|0.0003
95847686|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|-2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||-2.13|-9.44|0.0020
95847687|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-2.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.01|-9.18|0.0023
95847688|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-2.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.89|-10.06|0.0004
95847689|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-3.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.81|-11.05|<0.0001
95847690|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-4.49|-11.80|<0.0001
95866318|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.181||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.181|0.067|<0.001
95866319|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.161||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.161|0.062|<0.001
96002785|NCT04723719|191982994|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.61
95963672|NCT02349152|191898231|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.0|||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference in the percentage of patients with two or more blood glucose values greater than 180mg/dl between the two groups. Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%.||3.0|1.3|0.001
95963673|NCT02349152|191898232|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95963674|NCT02349152|191898233|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG\>180 mg/dl) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha= 0.05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow for dropouts.||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95963675|NCT02349152|191898234|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0001
95963676|NCT02349152|191898234|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.0003
96002786|NCT04723719|191982995|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.82
95847691|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|-2.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.47|-9.77|0.0011
95847692|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-3.32|-10.54|0.0002
95847693|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-2.56|-9.71|0.0008
95847694|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-1.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-1.80|-10.26|0.0054
95847695|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||0.83|-7.63|0.1145
95847696|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|1.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.58|-7.13|0.2106
95963677|NCT02349152|191898234|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Lowest Intraoperative Blood Glucose||||0.98
95963678|NCT02349152|191898235|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean post-operative glucose||||0.14
95963679|NCT02349152|191898235|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Peak Postoperative Blood Glucose||||0.25
96002787|NCT04723719|191982996|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.23
96002788|NCT04723719|191982997|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.37
95847697|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||0.31|-8.39|0.0685
95847698|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-2.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-2.29|-11.02|0.0029
95847699|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.42|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||-0.67|-9.42|0.0239
95847700|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||1.60|-6.86|0.2224
95847701|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|-0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.45|-9.17|0.0308
95847702|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.4194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|2.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.56|-6.13|0.4194
95847703|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.48|-6.55|0.3759
95847704|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||1.74|-7.26|0.2285
95847705|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-1.70|-10.71|0.0072
95847706|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||-0.38|-9.46|0.0338
95847707|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.3026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||2.07|-6.64|0.3026
95847708|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|2.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||2.07|-6.45|0.3120
95847709|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|3.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.34|-5.11|0.6816
95847710|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|4.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.05|-4.85|0.8599
95847711|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.13|-4.64|0.9093
95847712|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.46|-8.43|0.0788
95847713|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.00|-7.92|0.1278
96002789|NCT04723719|191982998|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.14
96002790|NCT04723719|191982999|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.04
95847714|NCT03192176|191659353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.9848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19|4.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||4.27|-4.19|0.9848
95847715|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|28.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||28.49|0.76|0.0388
95847716|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|37.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||37.02|9.17|0.0012
95847717|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|51.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||51.22|23.41|<0.0001
95847718|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|55.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||55.05|26.88|<0.0001
95847719|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||22.32|-5.98|0.2569
95847720|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|39.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||39.47|11.65|0.0003
95847721|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|44.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||44.06|16.39|<0.0001
95847722|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|29.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||29.71|2.11|0.0240
95847723|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|38.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.37|10.62|0.0006
95847724|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.87|47.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.52|19.87|<0.0001
95847725|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.93|52.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||52.04|23.93|<0.0001
95847726|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|28.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||28.53|0.38|0.0441
95847727|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|33.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.28|5.58|0.0061
95847728|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.96|39.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||39.53|11.96|0.0003
95847729|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|35.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||35.07|5.36|0.0078
95847730|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.36|43.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.22|13.36|0.0002
95847731|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.07|51.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||51.77|22.07|<0.0001
95847732|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.41|55.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRm|||Week 3||55.67|25.41|<0.0001
95847733|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|34.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||34.88|4.59|0.0108
95847734|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|39.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||39.84|10.09|0.0011
95847735|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.03|45.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.67|16.03|<0.0001
95847736|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|35.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||35.23|5.84|0.0063
95847737|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.98|43.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.46|13.98|0.0002
95847738|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.66|48.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||48.00|18.66|<0.0001
95847739|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.52|56.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.41|26.52|<0.0001
95847740|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|34.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||34.66|4.78|0.0098
95847741|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.26|44.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||44.61|15.26|<0.0001
95847742|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|47.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||47.73|18.50|<0.0001
95847743|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|29.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||29.40|1.48|0.0303
95847744|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|38.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.74|10.77|0.0006
95847745|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.77|44.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.75|16.77|<0.0001
95847746|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.55|53.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||53.00|24.55|<0.0001
95963680|NCT02349152|191898236|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95847747|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|33.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||33.23|4.88|0.0086
95847748|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.33|36.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||36.24|8.33|0.0018
95847749|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.24|39.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||39.05|11.24|0.0004
95847750|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|27.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.60|1.56|0.0282
95847751|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.85|32.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.92|6.85|0.0029
95847752|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|42.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||42.73|16.58|<0.0001
95847753|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.42|48.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.99|22.42|<0.0001
95847754|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|27.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||27.90|1.40|0.0304
95847755|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|33.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.50|7.38|0.0022
95847756|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.56|39.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||39.50|13.56|<0.0001
95847757|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|27.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||27.95|0.93|0.0362
95847758|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.41|36.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.47|9.41|0.0009
95847759|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||42.46|15.27|<0.0001
95847760|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.99|50.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||50.57|22.99|<0.0001
95847761|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|29.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||29.34|1.83|0.0265
95963681|NCT02349152|191898238|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.401|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prebypass||||0.401
95847762|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.71|7.60|0.0023
95847763|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.64|40.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||40.59|13.64|<0.0001
95847764|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|22.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||22.99|-3.75|0.1580
95847765|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|31.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.50|4.72|0.0082
95847766|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|38.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||38.71|11.77|0.0003
95847767|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.93|44.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||44.31|16.93|<0.0001
95847768|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|24.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||24.84|-2.45|0.1074
95847769|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.87|31.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||31.76|4.87|0.0077
95866320|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.086||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.086|-0.028|0.320
95847770|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.29|37.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||37.01|10.29|0.0006
95847771|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|24.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||24.53|-0.92|0.0689
95847772|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|27.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||27.27|1.84|0.0250
95847773|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.51||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.54|37.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||37.17|11.54|0.0002
95847774|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|42.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.57|16.60|<0.0001
95847775|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|21.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||21.36|-4.58|0.2041
95847776|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|31.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||31.20|5.62|0.0049
95866321|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.12||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus VI 25 µg.|||0.120|0.019|0.007
95866322|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.211|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.249||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.249|0.172|<0.001
95847777|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||33.37|8.00|0.0015
95866323|NCT01328444|191690978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.169|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.209||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least square mean change difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.209|0.129|<0.001
95866324|NCT03207438|191690983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
95866325|NCT03207438|191690983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.18
95963682|NCT02349152|191898238|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes after the start of CPB||||<0.0001
95963683|NCT02349152|191898238|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of CPB||||<0.0001
95963684|NCT02349152|191898238|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Surgery||||<0.0001
95847778|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||28.89|2.68|0.0184
95866326|NCT03207438|191690983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
95963685|NCT02349152|191898238|NON_INFERIORITY|Power calculation was performed based on the assumption that continuous remifentanil infusion would reduce the percentage of patients with unacceptable blood glucose values (more than one BG \> 180 mg) to an absolute value of 20%. Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Postoperative (8 hours)||||0.021
95847779|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|25.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||25.93|-0.28|0.0551
95866327|NCT03207438|191690983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.14
95963686|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b Pre bypass||||0.580
95963687|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b CPB-30||||0.815
95963688|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.715|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.715
95866328|NCT03207438|191690984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
95866329|NCT03207438|191690984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||Interaction - treatment condition x melancholia||||.17
95866330|NCT03207438|191690984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Main effect of quetiapine vs. placebo||||<.001
95866331|NCT03207438|191690984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for baseline depression severity, Study number (1-4), and melancholic-by-time interaction.||Interaction - treatment condition by melancholia||||.13
95866332|NCT03207438|191690985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher's exact test|||Day 4 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup|An exact OR could not be estimated by R; the 95% confidence interval was 0.31 to infinity, p = .33.|||.33
95866333|NCT03207438|191690985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's exact test||The exact limits of 95% confidence interval could not be estimated, it was reported as 0.40 to infinity.|Week 1 - Fisher's exact test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.44
95866334|NCT03207438|191690985|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.38||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.73
95866335|NCT03207438|191690985|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|1.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.11
95866336|NCT03207438|191690985|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The actual estimated Chi-squared statistic was 6.35(10\^-31)|Week 6 - Chi-squared test comparing the proportion of quetiapine responders in each sleep subgroup||||.50
95866337|NCT03207438|191690986|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.001||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||Estimated chi-squared statistic was 1.88(10\^-29).|Day 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.5
95866338|NCT03207438|191690986|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 1 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.03
95866339|NCT03207438|191690986|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|3.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 2 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.02
95866340|NCT03207438|191690986|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 4 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.22
95847780|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|39.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||39.00|12.51|0.0002
95847781|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.17|44.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||44.93|18.17|<0.0001
95847782|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|27.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||27.62|0.89|0.0367
95847783|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|34.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||34.34|7.99|0.0017
95847784|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|37.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.44|11.29|0.0003
95866341|NCT03207438|191690986|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared|2.45||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Week 6 - chi-squared test comparing response rates between groups.||||.059
95866342|NCT03241368|191690987|OTHER|Comparative - This purpose of this study is to evaluate performance of the PillCam Crohn's capsule \[referred to as capsule endoscopy (CE)\] as compared to IC with MRE.||||||0.125|||||||McNemar|Exact McNemar's test||This was a 1-arm, non-powered study. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) was estimated for each treatment group, along with the 95% confidence interval. The difference between treatment groups in Sensitivity and Specificity was compared.||||0.125
95866343|NCT01270802|191690991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.37||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||We assumed that the declines in FMD seen with TDF/FTC/EFV in our previous study would fully reverse. Thus, the clinically relevant effect size to be detected for FMD change was +3.12% (SD 4%) in those switching from EFV to RAL. Using a two-sample, independent, two-tailed t-test with 5% type I error and 20% type II error, a sample size of 13 per group would be needed to find a difference in FMD between groups. Allowing for a 10% dropout rate, we planned to recruit 15 subjects per group.||2.37|-0.75|0.67
95866344|NCT01270802|191690992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|9.77||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||9.77|-13.04|0.40
95866345|NCT04620798|191690996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.07|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.07|0.96|
95866346|NCT04620798|191690996|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.44|0.77|
95963689|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b post-bypass||||0.330
95963690|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-1b 8 HR||||0.651
95963691|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.439|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 Pre bypass||||0.439
95963692|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 CPB-30||||0.284
95963693|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the CPB-END||||0.779
95866347|NCT04620798|191690997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.10|0.89|
95866348|NCT04620798|191690997|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.62|0.50|
95866349|NCT04620798|191690998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.96|
95866350|NCT04620798|191690998|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.31|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.31|0.74|
95866351|NCT04620798|191690999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.09|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.09|0.84|
95866352|NCT04620798|191690999|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.72|0.33|
95866353|NCT04620798|191691000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.74|
95866354|NCT04620798|191691000|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.25|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||3.25|0.60|
95866355|NCT04620798|191691001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.03|0.99|
95866356|NCT04620798|191691001|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.21|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.21|0.77|
95866357|NCT04620798|191691002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.06|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.06|0.97|
95866358|NCT04620798|191691002|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.11|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.11|0.60|
95866359|NCT04620798|191691003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.04|||||"This analysis compares the probability of responding Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.04|0.97|
95866360|NCT04620798|191691003|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||||"This analysis compares the probability of a response of Very Often/Always vs. all other response categories. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group."|This analysis uses only those participants with a positive antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and behavioral outcomes. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.12|0.74|
95866361|NCT04620798|191691004|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71|||||This analysis compares the probability of seroconverting during the study period. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.|This analysis includes only those participants with a negative antibody test result at baseline to test the association between the treatment condition (immediate vs. delayed test results) and seroconversion. The reference group for this analysis was the control (delayed results) group.||1.71|0.52|
95866362|NCT02312882|191691049|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95866363|NCT02486627|191691052|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.1||||||||3.1|-10|
95866364|NCT02486627|191691053|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CIs for the difference in cure rates were calculated using the Newcombe method with continuity correction.|Difference|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.3||||||||20.3|2.7|
96002791|NCT04723719|191983000|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was determined based on power analysis; a CBT sleep study in adolescents without ADHD showed a large effect on sleep and medium effect on ADHD symptoms; therefore a moderate to large effect size was anticipated. Using G\*power, at least 40 participants per condition were necessary (power .8/alpha .05); to account for potential drop-outs an additional 15% was recruited, resulting in 92 participants (Keuppens et al., 2023).|Fixed-effects coefficients|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Benjamini, Krieger, and Yekutieli (BKY) correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat approach Imputation for missing items: predictive mean matching, five donor pools In case of missingness larger than 30%: completer analyses Test significant differences between groups: linear mixed effects model (pre-test included as fixed effect) Effect sizes: partial eta squared (.01: small effect, .06: medium effect, .14: large effect)||||<.001
96002792|NCT04723719|191983001|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.07
96002793|NCT04723719|191983002|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.29
96002794|NCT04723719|191983003|SUPERIORITY|Idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.11
96002795|NCT04723719|191983004|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.39|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.39
96002796|NCT04723719|191983005|SUPERIORITY|Idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Idem CSRQ pre- to post||||<.001
96002797|NCT04723719|191983006|SUPERIORITY|Idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.005
96002798|NCT04723719|191983007|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.97
96002799|NCT04723719|191983008|SUPERIORITY|idem to CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem to CSRQ pre- to post||||.61
95866365|NCT00247611|191691080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance were 0.05 alpha two tailed.|HLM|||For the ITT sample, the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from was associated with a p-value of 0.12, two-tailed alpha 0.05.||||0.12
95866366|NCT00247611|191691080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and thresholds for significance was 0.05 alpha, two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample, study arm was associated with perfect ACTG-assessed 3-day ARV adherence at p = 0.024, alpha two-tailed.||||0.024
95866367|NCT00247611|191691081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||For the ITT or OP samples, the significance threshold between groups over time for differential increases in proportion with suppressed (undetectable) viral load was p \> 0.50. The study was underpowered to detect differences in Viral load.||||>0.50
95866368|NCT00247611|191691082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||0.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed|HLM|||For the ITT sample (t=586) the observed pattern of an increasing proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
95866369|NCT00247611|191691082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and is reported as 0.12 at alpha 0.05 two tailed.|HLM|||For the on protocol sample the pattern of increased proportion of participants in the intervention arm reporting perfect adherence as time progressed from baseline was associated with a p-value of 0.12, alpha 0.05 two-tailed.||||0.12
95866370|NCT00247611|191691083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference in unemployment rate between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.001
95866371|NCT00247611|191691083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||P-value for difference of participants on disability between On Protocol (OP) sample, and participants excluded from on protocol analysis.||||<0.01
95847785|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|27.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.15|1.78|0.0255
95847786|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|27.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||27.94|2.57|0.0186
95847787|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.71|39.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||39.36|13.71|<0.0001
95847788|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.94|42.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.81|16.94|<0.0001
95847789|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|26.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||26.85|1.01|0.0347
95847790|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|34.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.65|9.16|0.0008
95847791|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.75|36.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||36.04|10.75|0.0003
95847792|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|27.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.43|2.13|0.0221
95866372|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5888|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Hgb||||0.5888
95963694|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 post-bypass||||0.274
95847793|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|29.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||29.62|4.32|0.0087
95847794|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|39.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||39.23|13.65|<0.0001
95847795|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.13|43.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||43.94|18.13|<0.0001
95847796|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|27.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||27.70|1.92|0.0244
95847797|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|34.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.62|9.21|0.0008
95866373|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline Weight||||0.6600
95866374|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7999|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Subgroup: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)||||0.7999
95847798|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|35.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.83|10.63|0.0003
95847799|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|24.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||24.30|-4.77|0.1871
95963695|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the IL-6 8HR||||0.601
95866375|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2092|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Ethnicity||||0.2092
95866376|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9996||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Geographic Ancestry||||0.9996
95866377|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7002|||||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Sex||||0.7002
95866378|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Age||||0.5536
95866379|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Co-administration with food||||0.0085
95866380|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Diabetic||||0.0021
95866381|NCT01587898|191691089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2194||95.0|||||Mixed effects linear regression model|The modeled Hgb change from baseline over 4 weeks was derived using a random coefficient mixed effects linear regression model.||Covariate: Region||||0.2194
95866382|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0642|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-61.95|-55.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-55.08|-61.95|<0.0001
95866383|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-68.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-70.66|-65.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-65.16|-70.66|<0.0001
95866384|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.26|-84.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta 1-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-84.95|-87.26|<0.0001
95866385|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.7|-36.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-36.10|-44.70|<0.0001
95866386|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.78|-47.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-47.70|-54.78|<0.0001
95866387|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0558|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.4|-56.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta x-40: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.56|-62.40|<0.0001
95866388|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1007|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-45.06|-28.62|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-28.62|-45.06|<0.0001
95866389|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.72|-37.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-37.38|-51.72|<0.0001
95866390|NCT02509117|191691202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.51|-56.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||ABeta Total: General linear model with intervention, as the fixed effect and loge(baseline) as covariate.||-56.42|-66.51|<0.0001
95866391|NCT02199717|191691247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All statistical analyses were completed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics such as mean (± SD) and range were calculated and provided for demographic variables, accelerometry variables and questionnaire outcomes. Differences between the two groups (mild/moderate versus severe haemophilia) were examined in exploratory analyses.||||0.32
95866392|NCT02199717|191691248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|306.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|254.8|358.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||358|254.8|<0.01
95866393|NCT04345367|191691257|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|22.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.5|15.8|<0.0001
95866394|NCT04345367|191691258|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.0||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|8.2|<0.0001
95866395|NCT04345367|191691259|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of difference|12.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|19.7||CMH method adjusted by baseline disease severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.7|5.3|0.0008
95866396|NCT04345367|191691260|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||8.7|0.2|
95866397|NCT04345367|191691260|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|26.9|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|13.2|
95866398|NCT04345367|191691260|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|21.1|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.1|6.9|
95866399|NCT04345367|191691260|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|20.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.0|5.5|
95866400|NCT04345367|191691260|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.3|-0.4|
95866401|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.4|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||14.4|1.8|
95866402|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|28.0|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.0|13.8|
95866403|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|25.3|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||25.3|11.4|
95866404|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|21.5|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||21.5|8.2|
95866405|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.0|3.0|
96002800|NCT04723719|191983009|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.94
96002801|NCT04723719|191983010|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.91
96002802|NCT04723719|191983011|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.17
96002803|NCT04723719|191983012|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.75
95866406|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.5|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.5|-1.4|
95866407|NCT04345367|191691261|OTHER||Estimate of difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.2|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||7.2|-5.9|
95866408|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.7|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.7|2.8|
95866409|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|26.9|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.9|14.3|
95866410|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|26.4|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.4|12.5|
95866411|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|23.0|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||23.0|8.7|
95866412|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.2|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.2|5.9|
95866413|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|16.4|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.4|2.0|
95866414|NCT04345367|191691262|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|11.8|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.8|-2.8|
95866415|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.1|||||Day 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.1|3.1|
95866416|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.3|||||Day 3. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.3|1.7|
95866417|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|16.8|||||Day 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||16.8|6.0|
95866418|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|20.3|||||Day 5. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.3|8.8|
95866419|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.0|||||Day 6. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||19.0|6.9|
96002804|NCT04723719|191983013|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.62
95847800|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.7552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|16.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||16.83|-12.23|0.7552
95847801|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|16.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||16.50|-13.44|0.8407
95847802|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|22.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||22.14|-7.77|0.3450
95847803|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.34|20.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||20.80|-9.34|0.4550
95847804|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|25.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||25.44|-4.64|0.1747
95847805|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.5476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|18.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||18.97|-10.08|0.5476
95847806|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.01||0.7954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|17.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.84|-13.69|0.7954
95847807|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|16.95||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.95|-14.41|0.8731
95866420|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.0|||||Day 7. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.0|13.8|
96002805|NCT04723719|191983014|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.77
95847808|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.31||0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.68|16.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||16.03|-16.68|0.9689
95847809|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|20.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.21|-12.40|0.6378
95847810|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.33||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|17.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||17.97|-14.82|0.8503
95866421|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|28.3|||||Day 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.3|15.9|
95866422|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|28.1|||||Day 9. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||28.1|15.2|
95866423|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of other|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|27.9|||||Day 10. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.7|
95847811|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|29.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||29.44|-3.51|0.1224
95847812|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|22.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.85|-8.62|0.3743
95847813|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.89||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.44|7.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||7.63|-23.44|0.3173
95847814|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|13.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.32|-17.48|0.7905
96002806|NCT04723719|191983015|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.47
95847815|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|8.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||8.98|-23.46|0.3804
95847816|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|10.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||10.38|-21.58|0.4905
95847817|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.83|3.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||3.68|-28.83|0.1289
95847818|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.24||0.4398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|22.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||22.61|-9.86|0.4398
95847819|NCT03192176|191659354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.45|13.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.33|-17.45|0.7921
95847820|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|33.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|MMRM: Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Week 1||33.46|4.82|0.0090
95847821|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.61|41.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||41.39|12.61|0.0003
95847822|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.14|53.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||53.90|25.14|<0.0001
95847823|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|44.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.27|59.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||59.39|30.27|<0.0001
95847824|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|26.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||26.79|-2.43|0.1019
95847825|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|42.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||42.22|13.45|0.0002
95847826|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.21|43.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 1||43.82|15.21|<0.0001
95847827|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||33.76|6.10|0.0049
95847828|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.64|42.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||42.46|14.64|<0.0001
95847829|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.96|47.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||47.69|19.96|<0.0001
95847830|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|53.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||53.58|25.40|<0.0001
95847831|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|31.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||31.70|3.50|0.0146
95847832|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|38.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||38.00|10.21|0.0007
95847833|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|37.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 2||37.70|10.05|0.0008
95847834|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.56|37.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||37.90|8.56|0.0020
95847835|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|49.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||49.11|19.60|<0.0001
95847836|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|50.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||50.32|20.96|<0.0001
95847837|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.03|57.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||57.93|28.03|<0.0001
95847838|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|40.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||40.37|10.48|0.0009
95847839|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.49|45.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||45.90|16.49|<0.0001
95847840|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.24|43.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 3||43.52|14.24|0.0001
95847841|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.46|37.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||37.66|8.46|0.0021
95847842|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|46.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||46.71|17.42|<0.0001
95847843|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.73|45.91||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.91|16.73|<0.0001
95847844|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.95|56.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||56.68|26.95|<0.0001
95847845|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|40.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||40.43|10.77|0.0008
95847846|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.75|45.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||45.94|16.75|<0.0001
95847847|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.91|43.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||43.97|14.91|<0.0001
95847848|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.31|34.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||34.06|6.31|0.0045
95847849|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.68|44.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||44.49|16.68|<0.0001
95847850|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.14|42.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||42.98|15.14|<0.0001
95847851|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.96|54.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||54.26|25.96|<0.0001
95847852|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.28|38.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||38.42|10.28|0.0007
95847853|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|40.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||40.55|1.78|0.0002
95847854|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.55|37.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 5||37.22|9.55|0.0010
95847855|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.13|32.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||32.11|6.13|0.0040
95847856|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|36.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.83|10.80|0.0004
95847857|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|40.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||40.24|14.10|<0.0001
95847858|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.34|48.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||48.88|22.34|<0.0001
95847859|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.76|33.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||33.19|6.76|0.0032
95847860|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|37.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||37.13|11.02|0.0003
95847861|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.59||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.17|36.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 6||36.08|10.17|0.0005
95847862|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|31.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||31.04|4.20|0.0102
95847863|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.42|39.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.29|12.42|0.0002
95847864|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|39.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||39.33|12.29|0.0002
95847865|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.58|49.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||49.98|22.58|<0.0001
95847866|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||34.29|7.00|0.0031
95847867|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|36.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.38|9.43|0.0009
95847868|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|36.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 7||36.19|9.42|0.0009
96002807|NCT04723719|191983016|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.06
95866424|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.6|||||Day 11. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||26.6|13.3|
95866425|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.9|||||Day 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||27.9|14.6|
95866426|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|29.2|||||Day 13. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.8|
95866427|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|29.2|||||Day 14. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.2|15.6|
95866428|NCT04345367|191691263|OTHER||Estimate of difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|29.9|||||Day 15. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||29.9|16.0|
95866429|NCT04345367|191691264|OTHER||Estimate of difference|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|24.5|||||Week 4. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||24.5|10.1|
95866430|NCT04345367|191691264|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|20.1|||||Week 8. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|6.0|
95963696|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.315|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa Pre-bypass||||0.315
95963697|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-30||||0.062
95866431|NCT04345367|191691264|OTHER||Estimate of difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.4|-2.5|
95866432|NCT04345367|191691264|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.5|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||10.5|-3.4|
95866433|NCT04345367|191691264|OTHER||Estimate of difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|9.0|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.0|-4.9|
95866434|NCT04345367|191691264|OTHER||Estimate of difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||11.9|-1.9|
95866435|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-4.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.6|-14.0|
95866436|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-7.6|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-17.4|
95866437|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|-6.6|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.6|-15.6|
95866438|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-5.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-5.1|-13.7|
95866439|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-2.9|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-2.9|-10.9|
95866440|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-9.0|
95963698|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa CPB-END||||0.090
95963699|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa- post-bypass||||0.004
95963700|NCT02349152|191898239|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the TNFa-8HR||||0.074
95963701|NCT02349152|191898240|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH Pre-bypass group||||0.740
95963702|NCT02349152|191898240|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-30 group.||||<0.0001
95866441|NCT04345367|191691266|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-7.1|
95866442|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-7.6|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-7.6|-14.5|
95866443|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-9.5|||||Week 4. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-9.5|-16.0|
95866444|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-6.8|||||Week 8. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-6.8|-13.6|
95866445|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-4.1|-10.5|
95866446|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.0|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-3.0|-9.3|
95963703|NCT02349152|191898240|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH CPB-END||||<0.0001
95963704|NCT02349152|191898240|NON_INFERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH post-bypass||||<0.0001
95963705|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the ACTH 8-hr||||0.014
95963706|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH- Pre-bypass||||0.100
95963707|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-CPB-30||||<0.0001
96002808|NCT04723719|191983017|SUPERIORITY|Idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.007
96002809|NCT04723719|191983018|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.05
96002810|NCT04723719|191983019|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.59
96002811|NCT04723719|191983020|SUPERIORITY|idem CSRQ pre- to post|Fixed-effects coefficients|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||BKY correction|Mixed Models Analysis|||idem CSRQ pre- to post||||.62
95866447|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.7|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.7|-8.2|
95866448|NCT04345367|191691267|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-6.6|
95866449|NCT04345367|191691268|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.4|
95866450|NCT04345367|191691268|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.3|
95866451|NCT04345367|191691268|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.3|
95866452|NCT04345367|191691269|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.3|-0.3|
95866453|NCT04345367|191691269|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-0.2|
95866454|NCT04345367|191691269|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
95866455|NCT04345367|191691270|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-2.6|
95866456|NCT04345367|191691270|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.4|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-1.6|
95963708|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-CPB-END||||0.009
95847869|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|26.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||26.97|0.58|0.0408
95847870|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|33.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||33.21|6.77|0.0031
95847871|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|35.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||35.40|8.80|0.0012
95847872|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.39|43.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||43.42|16.39|<0.0001
95847873|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|28.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||28.32|1.42|0.0303
95847874|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|32.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.87|6.30|0.0040
95847875|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.34|32.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||32.73|6.34|0.0038
95847876|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|28.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||28.68|3.29|0.0137
95847877|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|30.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.82|5.44|0.0052
95847878|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.81|35.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||35.39|9.81|0.0006
95847879|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|42.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||42.32|16.41|<0.0001
95847880|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.57||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|26.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||26.63|0.78|0.0378
95847881|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|32.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||32.85|7.31|0.002
95847882|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.77|30.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 9||30.09|4.77|0.0071
95847883|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||33.71|7.61|0.0020
95847884|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.68|31.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||31.79|5.68|0.0050
95847885|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|24.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|37.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||37.60|11.20|0.0003
95963709|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||GH-Post-bypass||||0.046
95866457|NCT04345367|191691270|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.2|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.2|-1.4|
95866458|NCT04345367|191691270|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-1.2|
95847886|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.77|45.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||45.42|18.77|<0.0001
95847887|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|32.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Wek 10||32.38|5.79|0.0050
95866459|NCT04345367|191691270|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-1.0|
95963710|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.695|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the GH-8-hr||||0.695
95847888|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|36.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||36.22|9.95|0.0006
95847889|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.79|35.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 10||35.85|9.79|0.0006
95847890|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.11|30.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||30.98|6.11|0.0036
95847891|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|32.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.65|7.77|0.0015
95847892|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|37.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||37.57|12.41|0.0001
95847893|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|29.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.12|42.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||42.49|17.12|<0.0001
95866460|NCT04345367|191691271|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.818|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.856|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.856|-1.220|
95866461|NCT04345367|191691271|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.267|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||4.267|-0.081|
95866462|NCT04345367|191691271|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|1.281|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.281|-2.914|
95866463|NCT04345367|191691272|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.7|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.7|-2.5|
95963711|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Pre Bypass||||0.455
95963712|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-30||||0.059
95963713|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon CPB-END||||0.175
95963714|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon Post-bypass||||0.062
95963715|NCT02349152|191898240|SUPERIORITY|Under these conditions, 52 patients per group would have 90% power to detect a significant difference (alpha = .05) between the groups. A total of 116 patients were recruited to allow dropouts.||||||0.261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analyzing the Glucagon 8-hr||||0.261
95963716|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day mortality||||0.06
95963717|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||30-day readmission||||0.03
95847894|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|32.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||32.21|6.90|0.0026
95847895|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|23.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|35.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||35.94|10.92|0.0003
95847896|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.34|34.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 11||34.14|9.34|0.0006
95847897|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|31.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||31.83|6.78|0.0026
95847898|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.29|33.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||33.33|8.29|0.0012
95847899|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.48|37.82||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||37.82|12.48|0.0001
95847900|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|44.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||44.67|19.11|<0.0001
95847901|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|32.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||32.81|7.32|0.0021
95847902|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|35.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||35.29|10.10|0.0004
95963718|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||Cerebral Vascular Accident||||0.24
95847903|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||34.38|9.42|0.0006
95847904|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|32.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.40|1.62|0.0304
95847905|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMMRM|||Week 13||22.19|-8.60|0.3857
95847906|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|23.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||23.40|-8.31|0.3497
95847907|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.05||0.1771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|26.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 13||26.75|-4.95|0.1771
95847908|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|32.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||32.29|0.41|0.0444
95847909|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|27.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||27.63|-4.25|0.1500
95847910|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|19.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 13||19.29|-11.51|0.6196
95963719|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation||||0.93
95963720|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Failure||||1
95963721|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Atrial Fibrillation||||0.10
95963722|NCT02349152|191898241|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||cardiac arrest||||1
95847911|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|26.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||26.15|-7.25|0.2664
95847912|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|20.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||20.59|-12.66|0.6388
95847913|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79||0.5797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|22.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||22.19|-12.43|0.5797
95847914|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.4817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|23.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.47|-11.10|0.4817
95847915|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|27.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||27.79|-6.87|0.2358
95847916|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|31.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||31.77|-3.11|0.1070
95847917|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.4268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|23.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 14||23.43|-9.94|0.4268
95847918|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|16.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.08|-17.81|0.9197
95847919|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|16.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||16.87|-16.77|0.9954
95847920|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.9607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|18.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||18.17|-17.28|0.9607
95847921|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.33|13.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||13.59|-21.33|0.6625
95847922|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|17.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||17.70|-17.81|0.9952
95847923|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.4001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|25.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& BM as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||25.36|-10.16|0.4001
95847924|NCT03192176|191659355|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|14.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with PR from baseline as dependent variable \& TG, visit and smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||14.10|-19.52|0.7510
95847925|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|18.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.64|1.95|0.0018
95847926|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|25.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.42|2.70|0.0002
95847927|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|33.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.74|3.53|<0.0001
95963723|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 0-6||||0.205
95963724|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 7-12||||0.339
95963725|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 13-18||||0.006
95963726|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 19-24||||0.747
95963727|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 25-30||||0.568
95963728|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 31-36||||0.924
95847928|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|37.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.89|3.91|<0.0001
95847929|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.92|0.64|0.2244
95847930|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.58||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|26.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.53|2.77|0.0002
95847931|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.13|2.71|0.0002
95847932|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.45|1.24|0.0149
95847933|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|11.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.73|1.85|0.0011
95847934|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|16.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.45|2.46|0.0001
95847935|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.56|0.0001
95847936|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.34|0.89|0.0897
95847937|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.53|1.42|0.0070
95847938|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.23|1.52|0.0041
95847939|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|6.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.78|1.13|0.0254
95866464|NCT04345367|191691272|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-2.2|
95963729|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 37-42||||0.501
95847940|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.04|1.59|0.0032
95963730|NCT02349152|191898242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hrs 43-48||||0.977
95847941|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|16.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.51|2.37|0.0002
95866465|NCT04345367|191691272|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-1.3|
95963731|NCT02349152|191898246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
95963732|NCT01124097|191898286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9321|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.9321
95963733|NCT01124097|191898286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.2610
95963734|NCT01124097|191898286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4764|||||||Dunnett's test|||||||0.4764
95963735|NCT01189110|191898324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.83|||Chi-squared|||A two-proportion z-test was used to compare the proportion of self-reported abstinence at 3 weeks between groups.||2.83|0.23|0.74
95847942|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|25.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.70|3.00|<0.0001
95847943|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.18|1.17|0.0214
95847944|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.09|1.48|0.0049
95847945|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.22|1.38|0.0078
95847946|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.63|0.93|0.0727
95847947|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.29|1.19|0.0199
95847948|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|11.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.01|1.61|0.0034
95847949|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.26|2.16|0.0007
95847950|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.92|0.83|0.1206
95847951|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.03|1.42|0.0070
95847952|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|8.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.54|1.36|0.0088
95963736|NCT01516749|191898325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||||||significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of decrease in modified Sartorius score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.024
95847953|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.40|0.58|0.4485
95847954|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.47|1.14|0.0255
95866466|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.6|-0.1|
95963737|NCT01516749|191898326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Physican Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.006
95963738|NCT01516749|191898326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Significance was accepted at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Significance of reductions in Patient Global Assessment mean values between baseline and 8 weeks of therapy||||0.019
95963739|NCT00447590|191898362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided Exact Binomial Test|||p-Value is from a 2-sided exact binomial test to test the null hypothesis that 30% of subjects have at least 30% EWL.||||<0.0001
95963740|NCT04937920|191898393|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-29620.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.2
95963741|NCT04937920|191898393|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|127195.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between DBI-002 probiotic gel (active) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
95847955|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|11.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.75|1.49|0.0066
95847956|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|13.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.01|1.53|0.0061
95847957|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.57|0.89|0.0879
95847958|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.83|1.05|0.0389
95847959|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.73|1.02|0.0446
95847960|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.72|0.45|0.8196
95847961|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.10|0.79|0.1450
95847962|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.11|1.37|0.0114
95847963|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.71|1.12|0.0307
95847964|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.24|0.51|0.5921
95847965|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.26|1.00|0.0502
96002812|NCT06244316|191983021|SUPERIORITY||adjusted means difference|-4.1|||=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|1.5||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis is based on a MMRM on the change from baseline. The model includes the change from baseline in SANDE global score as the dependent variable; the fixed effects of treatment arm (3 levels: rhNGF 10 mcg/mL, rhNGF 5 mcg/mL, and vehicle), visit (2 levels: Week 4, Week 8), baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. If the model failed to converge by using unstructured covariance matrix, compound symmetry matrix was used instead.||1.5|-9.6|=0.076
95847966|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|9.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.25|1.18|0.0224
95847967|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||2.93|0.47|0.7225
95847968|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.48|0.91|0.0762
95847969|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.53|1.17|0.0252
95847970|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.87|1.00|0.0490
95847971|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.30|0.74|0.1773
95847972|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.16|0.96|0.0609
95866467|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
95866468|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Quantity of hours slept: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-0.2|
95866469|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-0.9|
95866470|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.2|-2.0|
95963742|NCT04937920|191898393|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-41659.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 5 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||0.6
95963743|NCT04937920|191898393|OTHER||Mean Paired Change from Baseline|-483.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The analysis compared the differences at Day 14 between aqueous gel (control) and vehicle gel (active Cohort 4 only) in abundance of Malassezia based on molecular diagnostic qPCR using a 2-sided Wilcoxon sign rank test, alpha = 0.05, with a null hypothesis of median difference equal to zero.||||1.0
95847973|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.61|0.79|0.1364
95847974|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.51|0.53|0.5268
95847975|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.46|0.75|0.1645
95847976|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||12.57|1.22|0.0215
95847977|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|0.95|0.0600
95866471|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||||Short of Breath or Headache score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||2.6|-1.5|
95866472|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||||Snoring score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.5|-4.2|
95866473|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Snoring score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.5|-3.3|
95866474|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.4|||||Snoring score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.7|
95866475|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.6|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.6|-6.6|
95866476|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-1.4|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.4|-6.2|
95866477|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.7|||||Sleep disturbance score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-4.1|
95963744|NCT03274895|191898446|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 0.20|difference in proportion of resolution r|-0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.154|0.081||||||||0.081|-0.154|
95963745|NCT03274895|191898447|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.042
95847978|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.47|0.6503
95847979|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.93|0.0683
95847980|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.44|0.95|0.0618
95847981|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.63|0.50|0.5621
95847982|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.40|0.68|0.2182
95847983|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.15|0.95|0.0600
95847984|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.12|1.17|0.0290
95847985|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.04|0.40|0.8485
95847986|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.42|0.73|0.1652
95847987|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.65|0.67|0.2244
95847988|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.84|0.71|0.2097
95847989|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.92|0.60|0.3708
95847990|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.66|0.92|0.0704
95847991|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|27.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.73|1.88|0.0040
95847992|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.55|0.75|0.1625
95963746|NCT03274895|191898448|OTHER|||||||0.577|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.577
95963747|NCT03434028|191898457|SUPERIORITY||difference in mortality rate|-0.9||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||Z-test|||||2.6|-4.4|0.61
95963748|NCT03434028|191898458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2|||||The mean values is an estimate from the Kaplan-Meier curve, thus it is correct as reported.|||1.2|-0.5|
95963749|NCT03434028|191898459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.4|
95963750|NCT03434028|191898460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||||||||1.2|-0.8|
95963751|NCT03434028|191898461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.3||||||||1.3|-0.5|
95963752|NCT03434028|191898462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||||||||1.0|-0.8|
95963753|NCT03434028|191898463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-0.3|
95847993|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.50|1.46|0.0093
95866478|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.6|-1.6|
95963754|NCT03434028|191898464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.7||||||||1.7|-5.1|
95847994|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|13.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.87|1.42|0.0103
95866479|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||5.4|0.4|
95963755|NCT03434028|191898465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
95963756|NCT03434028|191898466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
95963757|NCT03434028|191898467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||||||||0.4|-0.3|
95963758|NCT03434028|191898468|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.5||||||||1.5|-1.7|
95963759|NCT03434028|191898469|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||||||||1.7|-3.7|
95963760|NCT03434028|191898470|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.7||||||||4.7|-3.6|
95963761|NCT02037776|191898471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between groups in Rikkunshito Placebo and Rikkunshito, based on the count of participants categorized in 1 (Significantly improved) through 7 (Much worse), using the Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney).||||0.038
95963762|NCT02037776|191898472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in all symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.027
95963763|NCT02037776|191898472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in GERD symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.089
95963764|NCT02037776|191898472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in dyspeptic symptoms of modified FSSG||||0.148
95963765|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in total score of PAGI-SYM||||0.051
95963766|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Heartburn/Regurgitation of PAGI-SYM||||0.947
95866480|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.4|||||Sleep adequacy score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||3.4|-1.9|
95963767|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Nausea/Vomiting of PAGI-SYM||||0.157
95963768|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Postprandial Fullness/Early satiety of PAGI-SYM||||0.004
95963769|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Bloating of PAGI-SYM||||0.011
95963770|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Upper Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.245
95963771|NCT02037776|191898473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in Lower Abdominal Pain of PAGI-SYM||||0.387
95963772|NCT02037776|191898474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.034
95963773|NCT02037776|191898475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in PCS of SF-8||||0.270
95963774|NCT02037776|191898475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in MCS of SF-8||||0.342
95963775|NCT02037776|191898476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in overall point score of HAD||||0.036
95963776|NCT02037776|191898476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in depression point score of HAD||||0.084
95963777|NCT02037776|191898476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from baseline in anxiety point score of HAD||||0.022
95963778|NCT02296892|191898477|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.7588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6903|0.8274|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.8274|0.6903|<0.0001
95963779|NCT04121897|191898597|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.024
95963780|NCT03375320|191898616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95963781|NCT03375320|191898616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided unstratified log-rank|||||||<0.0001
95963782|NCT03375320|191898617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2438|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.2438
95963783|NCT03375320|191898617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||One-sided stratified log-rank|||||||0.4426
95963784|NCT03375320|191898619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95963785|NCT03375320|191898619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95963786|NCT03660826|191898620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|Log Rank||||Comparing Arm II vs Arm I (reference group)|2.30|0.91|0.93
95963787|NCT03660826|191898620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm III vs Arm I||1.14|0.43|0.06
95963788|NCT03660826|191898620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm IV vs Arm VII||1.70|0.67|0.62
95963789|NCT03660826|191898620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.46|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm V vs Arm VII||1.46|0.58|0.36
95963790|NCT03660826|191898620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.25|||Log Rank|||Comparing Arm VI vs VII||1.25|0.49|0.14
95963791|NCT00233480|191898626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||paired t test|||||||0.025
95866481|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.3|-2.8|
95866482|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.4|-4.4|
95866483|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.3|||||Sleep somnolence score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.3|
95866484|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.7|-3.0|
95866485|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.5|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.5|-4.0|
95866486|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.9|||||Sleep Problems Index I score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.9|-2.5|
95866487|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.3|-4.0|
95866488|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.1|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.1|-4.8|
95866489|NCT04345367|191691273|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||||Sleep Problems Index II score: Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.4|-3.2|
95866490|NCT04345367|191691274|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||||Week 2. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.8|-1.5|
95866491|NCT04345367|191691274|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||||Week 12. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-0.8|
95866492|NCT04345367|191691274|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Week 16. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.6|
95866493|NCT04345367|191691274|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||||Week 20. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.0|-0.6|
95866494|NCT04345367|191691274|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Week 26. Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.|||0.1|-0.5|
95866495|NCT04345367|191691275|OTHER||Least square mean difference|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.7||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment as a main effect and baseline disease severity as covariates.||25.7|10.5|
95866496|NCT04345367|191691276|OTHER||Estimate of difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|20.1|||||Week 2. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||20.1|7.3|
95866497|NCT04345367|191691276|OTHER||Estimate of difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.4|||||Week 12. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||9.4|-1.6|
95866498|NCT04345367|191691276|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.0|||||Week 16. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||4.0|-7.1|
95866499|NCT04345367|191691276|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|3.6|||||Week 20. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||3.6|-7.6|
95866500|NCT04345367|191691276|OTHER||Estimate of difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.9|||||Week 26. The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.|||1.9|-10.3|
95963792|NCT00965497|191898646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||There were 13 people that completed so there truly was no power to detect true differences; therefore only trends can be discussed.||||0.01
95963793|NCT01055704|191898662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.835|0.739|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.739|-0.835|0.902
95963794|NCT01055704|191898662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.841|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.841|-0.578|0.709
95866501|NCT01227824|191691298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority could be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (DTG - RAL) in percentages between the two treatment arms was \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.1|||||Analysis was based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel stratified analysis adjusted for the following Baseline stratification factors: baseline HIV-1 RNA and background dual NRTI.|||7.1|-2.2|
95866502|NCT02184624|191691338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical comparison for categories Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866503|NCT02184624|191691338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866504|NCT02184624|191691338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866505|NCT02184624|191691338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866506|NCT02184624|191691338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866507|NCT02184624|191691339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866508|NCT02184624|191691339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866509|NCT02184624|191691339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866510|NCT02184624|191691339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866511|NCT02184624|191691339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866512|NCT02184624|191691340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.480
95866513|NCT02184624|191691340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.044
95963795|NCT01055704|191898663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.971|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.669||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.415|7.472|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||7.472|-11.415|0.675
95866514|NCT02184624|191691340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
95866515|NCT02184624|191691340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866516|NCT02184624|191691340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.014
95963796|NCT01055704|191898663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.208||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.792|6.233|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||6.233|-10.792|0.591
95866517|NCT02184624|191691341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using DISKUS/ACCUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866518|NCT02184624|191691341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using MDI|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866519|NCT02184624|191691341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using TURBUHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95866520|NCT02184624|191691341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using HANDIHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95866521|NCT02184624|191691341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||Statistical comparison for categories: Error while using only ELLIPTA inhaler Vs Error while using BREEZHALER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95866522|NCT02184624|191691342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for DISKUS/ACCUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95866523|NCT02184624|191691342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for MDI inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95866524|NCT02184624|191691342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for TURBUHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95866525|NCT02184624|191691342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for HANDIHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95866526|NCT02184624|191691342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants requiring instructions from the HCP (maximum three times) to demonstrate adequate inhalation technique of ELLIPTA inhaler versus those for BREEZHALER inhaler|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.001
95866527|NCT02184624|191691343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866528|NCT02184624|191691343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866529|NCT02184624|191691343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866530|NCT02184624|191691343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866531|NCT02184624|191691343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device as assessed by the 'preference' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866532|NCT02184624|191691344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring DISKUS/ACCUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866533|NCT02184624|191691344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring MDI device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866534|NCT02184624|191691344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring TURBUHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866535|NCT02184624|191691344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring HANDIHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866536|NCT02184624|191691344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Number of participants preferring ELLIPTA device versus number of participants preferring BREEZHALER device by the 'ease of use' questionnaire|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95866537|NCT00827931|191691365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|131.99||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.4|171.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||171.5|-371.4|0.460
95866538|NCT00827931|191691366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.61||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-386.5|219.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||219.3|-386.5|0.579
95866539|NCT00827931|191691367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|239.19||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-672.6|305.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||305.5|-672.6|0.452
95866540|NCT00827931|191691368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-417.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|152.51||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-729.4|-106.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis applicable to the efficacy analyses was that there was no difference between tranexamic acid plus standard care compared to standard care alone. The alternative hypothesis was that there was a difference.||-106.1|-729.4|0.010
95866541|NCT00827931|191691369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used at 5% level of significance.||||0.701
95866542|NCT02285062|191691372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.849||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.14|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors|||1.140|0.632|0.2864
95963797|NCT01055704|191898664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-34.425|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.67||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.097|-4.753|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||-4.753|-64.097|0.024
95866543|NCT02285062|191691373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.038||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.344|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.344|0.802|0.7294
95866544|NCT02285062|191691374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.3|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by 3 factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65).|Hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors.|||1.300|0.716|0.8760
95866545|NCT02285062|191691375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2933||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2933
95866546|NCT02285062|191691376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9964||||||Obtained from CMH test adjusting for stratification factors: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence of bulky disease (bulky or nonbulky), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9964
95866547|NCT02285062|191691377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR was derived from COX model adjusting for the 3 stratification factors mentioned above.|||1.157|0.521|0.2143
95963798|NCT01055704|191898664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.24||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.962|26.598|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||26.598|-26.962|0.989
95866548|NCT02285062|191691378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.167||||0.315||95.0|0.856|1.59|||Log Rank|Stratified by: IPI score (2 or ≥ 3), presence or absence of bulky disease (diameter of the lesion ≥ 7 cm or \< 7 cm), and age (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).|HR is derived from Cox model|||1.590|0.856|0.3150
95866549|NCT04389970|191691411|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no conclusion of significance can be made.||||.39
95866550|NCT04389970|191691412|OTHER|Single group, within subject pre/post change.||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.3
95866551|NCT04389970|191691413|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.77
95866552|NCT04389970|191691414|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test.||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.66
95866553|NCT04389970|191691415|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.88
95866554|NCT04389970|191691416|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.03
95866555|NCT04389970|191691417|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change.||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.06
95866556|NCT04389970|191691418|OTHER|Single group, within subjects pre/post change||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||.04
96002813|NCT06244316|191983021|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-5.2|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.4||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis is based on a MMRM on the change from baseline. The model includes the change from baseline in SANDE global score as the dependent variable; the fixed effects of treatment arm (3 levels: rhNGF 10 mcg/mL, rhNGF 5 mcg/mL, and vehicle), visit (2 levels: Week 4, Week 8), baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used. If the model failed to converge by using unstructured covariance matrix, compound symmetry matrix was used instead.||0.4|-10.7|=0.034
95866557|NCT04389970|191691419|OTHER|Single group, within subjects analysis.||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired sample t-test||This was a feasibility study and was not powered to detect statistical significance. Significance values are presented but no evaluation of significance can be concluded.||||0
95866558|NCT02142387|191691425|OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
95866559|NCT02142387|191691426|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95866560|NCT02142387|191691427|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95866561|NCT00711516|191691443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-241.8||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2470.0|2102.3||The hierarchical testing procedure was employed to control the studywise error rate at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The assumption of normality was violated (p-value ≤0.05), therefore the treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||Using the standardized difference of 1.10, 28 evaluable patients (14 per treatment group) were required to provide 80% power while controlling the 2-sided, Type 1 error rate at 0.05. With an estimated 25% attrition rate, a total of 38 patients (19 per group) were planned. First analyzed using ANCOVA,the residuals were used to test for normality using Shapiro-Wilk; normality was violated therefore treatment comparison used the Wilcoxon rank sum.||2102.3|-2470.0|0.7382
95866562|NCT00711516|191691444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|53.2||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|136.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical hypothesis for this key secondary efficacy variable was to be tested using the same model as specified for the primary objective efficacy variable (ANCOVA, ANOVA, and Wilcoxon as appropriate). All statistical tests were 2 tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.||136.1|-17.8|0.1661
95866563|NCT00711516|191691445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|78.9||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.8|311.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||311.3|-157.8|0.5774
95866564|NCT00711516|191691446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|90.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-806.7|707.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||707.0|-806.7|0.8610
95866565|NCT00711516|191691447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|252.8||||0.6907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1066.5|1523.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1523.8|-1066.5|0.6907
95866566|NCT00711516|191691448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-8.0|0.2456
95866567|NCT00711516|191691449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||9.0|-8.0|0.7115
95866568|NCT00711516|191691450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.0|-13.0|0.6103
95866569|NCT00711516|191691451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||17.0|-18.0|0.9619
95866570|NCT00711516|191691452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-335.5||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1270.7|723.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||723.3|-1270.7|0.4544
95866571|NCT00711516|191691453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6410.3||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1064.7|12087.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12087.3|1064.7|0.0193
95866572|NCT00711516|191691454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.1|0.1704
95866573|NCT00711516|191691455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|-0.3|0.0609
95847995|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.72|0.1965
95963799|NCT01055704|191898665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.827|0.025|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.025|-0.827|0.064
95847996|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.42|0.98|0.0549
95847997|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|9.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.09|1.00|0.0503
95847998|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||27.10|1.82|0.0046
95847999|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.88|0.88|0.0866
95848000|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.40|1.74|0.0045
95848001|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.62|1.22|0.0207
95848002|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.91|0.70|0.2127
95848003|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.43|0.77|0.1521
95963800|NCT01055704|191898665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.482|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.482|-0.287|0.610
95963801|NCT01055704|191898666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|1.734|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.734|-0.278|0.151
96002814|NCT06244316|191983022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted proportions difference|-0.4|||=|0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|8.4||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on a Logistic Model on the improvement at week 4. The model included the binary variable for Improvement at week 4 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test (continuous) in the study eye as covariates.||8.4|-9.1|=0.534
95848004|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|17.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.70|1.48|0.0098
95848005|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|27.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||27.50|1.82|0.0047
95848006|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.51|0.72|0.1817
95848007|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|20.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.95|1.77|0.0042
95848008|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|20.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.74|1.78|0.0039
95866574|NCT00711516|191691456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.0||Nominal P-value for treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the studywise error rate at 0.05. If treatment was statistically significant on the primary variable, the key secondary variable would be claimed as significant if p-value was \<= 0.05. If primary and key secondary variables were significant subsequent secondary variables following the order presented here would be claimed as significant if their p-values were \<= 0.05. If any were \>0.05 subsequent p-values would be reported as nominal p-values.||-0.0|-5.8|0.0499
96002815|NCT06244316|191983022|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted proportions difference|-4.7|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on a Logistic Model on the improvement at week 4. The model included the binary variable for Improvement at week 4 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test (continuous) in the study eye as covariates.||3.3|-12.8|=0.876
96002816|NCT06244316|191983023|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.6|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in Schirmer-I test in the study eye at week 4.~The model included the change at week 4 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test in the study eye as covariates."||2.3|-1.2|=0.260
95848009|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.42|0.7025
95848010|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.97|0.36|0.9599
95848011|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.10|0.34|0.9671
95848012|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.83|0.42|0.6810
95848013|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.04|0.43|0.6346
95848014|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.57|0.38|0.7929
95848015|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.28|0.39|0.8188
95866575|NCT00711516|191691457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7343||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7343
95866576|NCT00711516|191691458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.3||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||14.3|-1.8|0.1246
95866577|NCT00711516|191691459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.026||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.684|19.98|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.980|-21.684|0.7382
95866578|NCT00711516|191691460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.195|25.043|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.043|-19.195|1.000
95866579|NCT00711516|191691461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.282||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|14.77|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.770|-11.460|0.8861
95866580|NCT00711516|191691462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|11.825||||0.4738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.601|37.987|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||37.987|-12.601|0.4738
95848016|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.60|0.30|0.8226
95848017|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.72|0.32|0.9088
95866581|NCT00711516|191691463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0573||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between fMRI variable and performance on the 2-back working memory test||||0.0573
95866582|NCT00711516|191691463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.0754
95963802|NCT01055704|191898666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.795|1.017|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||1.017|-0.795|0.806
95963803|NCT01055704|191898667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.583||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.678|27.223|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI as covariates||27.223|-23.678|0.889
96002817|NCT06244316|191983023|SUPERIORITY||adjusted means difference|-0.1|||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||"Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in Schirmer-I test in the study eye at week 4.~The model included the change at week 4 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test in the study eye as covariates."||1.7|-1.8|=0.526
95848018|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.24|0.6189
95848019|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.03|0.42|0.6463
95848020|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.54|0.47|0.5060
95848021|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.31|0.53|0.3842
95848022|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.23|0.49|0.5021
95848023|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.31|0.14|0.1349
95848024|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.19|0.3191
95848025|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.06|0.09|0.0623
95963804|NCT01055704|191898667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.356||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.362|35.577|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||35.577|-10.362|0.274
95848026|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.48|0.15|0.1958
95848027|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.19|0.4353
95848028|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.31|0.31|0.9729
95848029|NCT03192176|191659356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.89|0.22|0.4211
95848030|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.35|0.57|0.1938
95866583|NCT00711516|191691464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2727||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2727
95866584|NCT00711516|191691464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5671||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||.5671
95963805|NCT01055704|191898668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.145|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.145|-0.572|0.236
95963806|NCT01055704|191898668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.357|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.357|-0.412|0.885
95963807|NCT01055704|191898669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.255|0.261|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.261|-1.255|0.192
95963808|NCT01055704|191898669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.756|0.63|||ANCOVA|Error degrees of freedom adjusted for number of missing values imputed.||Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with gender and/or BMI included as covariates.||0.630|-0.756|0.855
95963809|NCT01281839|191898676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||53.0|34.6|<0.001
95963810|NCT01281839|191898677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR72|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR72 between the treatment groups.||52.5|34.1|<0.001
95963811|NCT01281839|191898678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|44.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|53.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||53.2|34.9|<0.001
95963812|NCT01281839|191898679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||49.9|32.1|<0.001
96002818|NCT06244316|191983024|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.4|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye at week 4. The model included the change at week 4 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for total corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye as covariates.||0.3|-1.0|=0.120
95848031|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|33.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.91|1.43|0.0162
95963813|NCT01814072|191898740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95963814|NCT01814072|191898741|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1244||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3026|0.5513|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5513|-.3026|0.567
95963815|NCT01814072|191898741|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.0226||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4495|0.4044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.4044|-.4495|0.917
95963816|NCT01814072|191898741|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.084||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3429|0.5109|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5109|-.3429|0.699
96002819|NCT06244316|191983024|SUPERIORITY||adjusted means difference|-0.3|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.||Analysis was based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye at week 4. The model included the change at week 4 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for total corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye as covariates||0.4|-0.9|=0.199
95963817|NCT01814072|191898741|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|0.1081||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3188|0.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5350|-.3188|0.619
95963818|NCT01814072|191898741|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Change|-0.4353||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8622|-0.0084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-.0084|-.8622|0.046
95848032|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|67.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||67.96|3.04|0.0008
95848033|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.02||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||75.68|3.39|0.0005
95848034|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|16.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.17|0.56|0.1971
95963819|NCT01814072|191898742|OTHER||Estimated Change|0.424||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Using the results from primary aim 1, an intervention with only active treatment components with the largest treatment effect that can be obtained for implementation costs of $500 or less was identified and built.||0.850|-0.002|0.051
95963820|NCT02781311|191898757|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|9.23||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age and baseline TAHC value, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||9.23|-8.38|0.9239
95963821|NCT02781311|191898758|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.37||P-values were from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including fixed effects of treatment, and covariates of age, with the Type III sum of squares.|ANCOVA|||||0.37|-0.42|0.9101
95963822|NCT00250432|191898796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety with caspofungin 150 mg daily will be non-inferior to that of caspofungin 70/50 mg. Non-inferiority was defined as upper limit of the 2-sided, 95% confidence interval for the difference (150-mg group - 70/50-mg group) must be less than 0.15 (15 percentage points).|Rate Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||||95.0|-4.1|6.8|||||The confidence interval computation was based on the method by Miettinen and Nurminen.|A significant drug-related adverse event was defined as either a drug-related serious adverse event or a drug-related adverse event leading to discontinuation of caspofungin therapy. Comparison between the 2 caspofungin groups was based on upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference.||6.8|-4.1|
95963823|NCT00250432|191898797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.1||||95.0|-5.9|18.4|||||The 95% confidence interval on the difference will be based on the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|There was no formal hypothesis testing for efficacy in this study. The main efficacy analysis was the number (percentage) of patients with a favorable overall response at the end of caspofungin study therapy, together with the within treatment 95% exact binomial confidence intervals, and the estimated treatment difference, and its 95% confidence interval.||18.4|-5.9|
95963824|NCT01011868|191898798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.78|-0.33||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,1: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo~* H1,1: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-0.33|-0.78|<0.0001
95963825|NCT01011868|191898798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.93|-0.47||Hypotheses were tested at significance level of 0.025, which is half of overall alpha of 0.05, split equally between 2 treatment comparisons. This maintained the overall type-I (alpha) at 5%. There was no a priori assumption on testing order.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA that included treatment group and geographic region as fixed effects along with baseline HbA1c as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of the pair-wise comparisons between each dose of empagliflozin versus placebo using the adjusted means from the model.|"The null and alternative hypotheses to be tested:~* H0,2: No difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo~* H1,2: A difference in change from baseline to Week 18 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.47|-0.93|<0.0001
95963826|NCT01011868|191898799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.518|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.262|9.334|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.334|3.262|<0.0001
95866585|NCT00711516|191691465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1169||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1169
95963827|NCT01011868|191898799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.859|8.338|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||8.338|2.859|<0.0001
95963828|NCT01011868|191898799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|5.802|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||5.802|2.077|<0.0001
95963829|NCT01011868|191898799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.825|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.268|6.451|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||6.451|2.268|<0.0001
95963830|NCT01011868|191898799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.802||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|4.789|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.789|1.639|0.0002
95963831|NCT01011868|191898799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.051|6.066|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.066|2.051|<0.0001
95963832|NCT01011868|191898800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|-19.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-19.27|-37.54|<0.0001
95963833|NCT01011868|191898800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.67|-24.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-24.76|-43.67|<0.0001
95963834|NCT01011868|191898800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|-0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||-0.89|-20.62|0.0328
95963835|NCT01011868|191898800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.31|-9.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-9.01|-29.31|0.0002
95963836|NCT01011868|191898800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||4.94|-15.01|0.3216
95848035|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|22.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.27|0.83|0.0811
95848036|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.44||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|53.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||53.94|2.43|0.0021
95848037|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.64|0.79|0.1370
95848038|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.40|1.22|0.0181
95848039|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|17.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.05|2.43|0.0002
95848040|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.31|2.26|0.0003
95848041|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.49|0.61|0.3241
95848042|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.03|0.68|0.2249
95848043|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.18|1.36|0.0096
95848044|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.05|0.91|0.0768
95848045|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.00251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.39|1.14|0.00251
95848046|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.57|2.30|0.0002
95848047|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||19.71|2.70|<0.0001
95848048|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.50|0.83|0.1144
95848049|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.30|0.80|0.1341
95963837|NCT01011868|191898800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|-1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.67|-22.24|0.0229
95963838|NCT01011868|191898801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.38|-14.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-14.86|-35.38|<0.0001
95848050|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.22|1.75|0.0017
95848051|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.50|0.77|0.1488
95848052|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|10.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.30|1.54|0.0043
95848053|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.57|2.10|0.0005
95848054|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|43.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.58|4.85|<0.0001
95848055|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.68|1.14|0.0262
95848056|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|13.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.19|1.95|0.0009
95848057|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.80|2.06|0.0006
95848058|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.75|0.61|0.3673
95848059|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.91|0.83|0.1207
95848060|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.21|1.90|0.0011
95866586|NCT00711516|191691465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1634
95866587|NCT00711516|191691466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0692||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.0692
95963839|NCT01011868|191898801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-20.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-20.39|-41.62|<0.0001
96002820|NCT06244316|191983025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.5|||=|0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets|ANCOVA|||"Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in Schirmer-I test in the study eye at week 8.~The model included the change at Week 8 in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test in the study eye as covariates."||1.0|-2.0|=0.749
95848061|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|27.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||27.38|3.08|<0.0001
95866588|NCT00711516|191691466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8876||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.8876
95866589|NCT00711516|191691467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.6030
95866590|NCT00711516|191691467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||<.0001
95866591|NCT00711516|191691468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's Z-transformation.||||||0.9170
95963840|NCT01011868|191898801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.07|-20.33|<0.0484
95866592|NCT00711516|191691468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9642||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||.9642
95866593|NCT00711516|191691469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7813||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.7813
95866594|NCT00711516|191691469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.1560
95866595|NCT00711516|191691470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.9010
95866596|NCT00711516|191691470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|The SAS CORR procedure was used to analyze the activation performance relationships. All estimations are based on Fisher's z-transformation.||||||0.0135
95866597|NCT00711516|191691479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.841||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.778|19.313|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||19.313|-27.778|0.7053
95848062|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.86|0.97|0.0594
95848063|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.09|1.00|0.0500
95848064|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.03|1.29|0.0123
95963841|NCT01011868|191898801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.84|-8.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-8.99|-29.84|0.0003
95848065|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.37|0.71|0.2243
95848066|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.24|0.87|0.0976
95866598|NCT00711516|191691480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|4.792||||0.5163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.631|16.19|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.190|-30.631|0.5163
95866599|NCT00711516|191691481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.108||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.341|5.498|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.498|-14.341|0.8711
95866600|NCT00711516|191691482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|13.855||||0.1825||95.0|-15.357|25.714|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||25.714|-15.357|0.1825
95866601|NCT00711516|191691483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-323.5||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9311.0|2375.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2375.5|-9311.0|0.9282
95866602|NCT00711516|191691484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1069.0|426.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||426.0|-1069.0|1.0000
95866603|NCT00711516|191691485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-82.8||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-788.0|165.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||165.5|-788.0|0.5284
95866604|NCT00711516|191691486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-145.8||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3151.0|1006.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1006.5|-3151.0|0.8997
95866605|NCT00711516|191691487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.1||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|8.0|||ANCOVA|||||8.0|-58.2|0.1305
95963842|NCT01011868|191898801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.3517||95.0|-14.71|5.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||5.25|-14.71|0.3517
95866606|NCT01653132|191691495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.194|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.32|||||negative values correspond to a reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A.|Based on the primary outcome measure of mean reduction in saliva weight at 1 month post Inco-A /placebo as compared to baseline, using paired t-test with a two-sided nominal significance (alpha) of 0.05, assuming a correlation of 0.5 between observations, a sample size of 10 pairs has a power of 0.803 to detect a 50% difference in salivary weight.||0.32|-0.71|
95866607|NCT01653132|191691496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|6.2|||||negative numbers represent reduction in saliva weight with Inco-A|||6.2|-50.8|
95866608|NCT01653132|191691497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.69|||||negative values represent reduction in scores (improvement in drooling) with Inco-A|||0.69|-1.16|
95866609|NCT01653132|191691498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.071||||||||0.071|-0.633|
95866610|NCT01653132|191691499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28||||||||0.28|-0.46|
95866611|NCT02692651|191691526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.195
95866612|NCT02692651|191691527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.99
95866613|NCT02692651|191691528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.999
95963843|NCT01011868|191898801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline FPG, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-2.10|-22.69|0.0185
95848067|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|16.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.44|2.25|0.0004
95848068|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.40|3.04|<0.0001
95848069|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.17|0.82|0.1237
95848070|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.41|1.16|0.0226
95848071|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|8.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.91|1.42|0.0069
95848072|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.75|0.76|0.1666
95848073|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|1.09|0.0317
95848074|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.39|1.94|0.0011
95848075|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||25.46|2.81|0.0001
95848076|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.27|0.84|0.1142
95848077|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.39|1.14|0.0250
95848078|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.75|1.23|0.0166
95848079|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.11|0.52|0.6033
95848080|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.02|0.84|0.1170
95848081|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.91|1.05|0.0400
95963844|NCT01011868|191898802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects.|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 54 weeks||-0.84|-10.32|0.0213
95963845|NCT01011868|191898802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Week 54 model includes, baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 54 weeks||-0.77|-10.62|0.0237
95866614|NCT03490981|191691529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
95866615|NCT03490981|191691530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.342
95866616|NCT03490981|191691531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.646
95866617|NCT03490981|191691532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.205
95866618|NCT03490981|191691533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.492
95866619|NCT03490981|191691534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.272
95963846|NCT01011868|191898802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.56|-1.77||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 10 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo"||-1.77|-11.56|0.0024
95848082|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.72|1.88|0.0020
95848083|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.54|0.5177
95848084|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.48|0.72|0.2117
95848085|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.67|1.03|0.0426
95848086|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.82|0.62|0.3508
95866620|NCT03490981|191691535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.870
95866621|NCT03490981|191691536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.570
95866622|NCT02239120|191691555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.69|0.1028
95866623|NCT02239120|191691556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.97|0.94|0.1076
95866624|NCT02239120|191691557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.03|0.68|0.0892
95866625|NCT02239120|191691558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.06|0.73|0.1911
95866626|NCT02239120|191691559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.96|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||0.96|0.36|0.0354
95866627|NCT02239120|191691560|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.38|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.38|0.66|0.8074
95866628|NCT02239120|191691561|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.83|0.58|0.9064
95866629|NCT02239120|191691563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.36|0.49|0.4352
95866630|NCT02239120|191691564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Covariates in model are age(\<or\>= 75years), creatinine clearance \< or \>= 50mL/min and stroke or transient ischaemic attack(TIA) prior to index stroke.||||1.47|1.12|0.0003
95866631|NCT00420641|191691572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.05|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS total score at Week 10.||1.05|-2.60|0.485
95848087|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.45|0.58|0.4431
95848088|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.78|1.55|0.0050
95848089|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||16.30|1.84|0.0023
95848090|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.32|0.52|0.5663
95848091|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.83|1.02|0.0461
95848092|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.38|0.98|0.0552
95848093|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.88|0.78|0.1536
95848094|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.20|0.68|0.2575
95848095|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.11|1.38|0.0096
95848096|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|26.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||26.76|2.69|0.0003
95848097|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.1047
95866632|NCT00420641|191691572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.75|-2.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-2.22|-5.75|0.000
95866633|NCT00420641|191691573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|0.23|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in Bech score at Week 10.||0.23|-1.28|0.252
95866634|NCT00420641|191691573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.49|-1.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS total score at Week 10.||-1.05|-2.49|0.000
95848098|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.35|1.48|0.0060
95848099|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.71|1.04|0.0414
95848100|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.89|0.90|0.0809
95848101|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.34|0.69|0.2377
95848102|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.21||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.34|1.44|0.0087
95848103|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||18.94|1.90|0.0022
96002821|NCT06244316|191983025|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-1.3|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets|ANCOVA|||"Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in Schirmer-I test in the study eye at week 8.~The model included the change at Week 8 in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test in the study eye as covariates."||0.2|-2.8|=0.956
96002822|NCT06244316|191983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted proportions difference|-2.6|||=|0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|5.5||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on a Logistic Model on the improvement at week 8. The model included the binary variable for Improvement at week 8 in the study eye as dependent variable, with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test (continuous) in the study eye as covariates.||5.5|-10.6|=0.734
95848104|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.55|0.55|0.4788
95848105|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.94|1.45|0.0074
95848106|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.75|1.22|0.0187
95848107|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.00|0.62|0.3443
95848108|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.22|0.65|0.2867
95848109|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.78|1.66|0.0044
95848110|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|17.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.87|1.74|0.0038
95848111|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.60|0.78|0.1424
95848112|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.07|1.22|0.0191
95848113|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.56|1.16|0.0244
95848114|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.67|0.71|0.1462
95848115|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.97|0.32|0.7403
95848116|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.07|0.61|0.2144
95848117|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.96|0.44|0.4321
95848118|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.75|0.66|0.1778
95848119|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.20|0.28|0.8016
95848120|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.71|0.1486
95848121|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.77|0.15|0.2881
95848122|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.31|0.10|0.1217
95848123|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.28|0.07|0.1027
95848124|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||0.94|0.03|0.0428
95848125|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.21|0.5943
95848126|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.27|0.9280
95848127|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.94|0.30|0.9160
95848128|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.11|0.2262
95848129|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.75|0.13|0.2682
95848130|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.81|0.09|0.2344
95848131|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.22|0.04|0.0835
95848132|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.72|0.19|0.6322
95848133|NCT03192176|191659357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.4845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.17|0.20|0.4845
95848134|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.98|0.06|0.9587
95866635|NCT00420641|191691574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.19|0.87|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||0.87|-4.19|0.279
95963847|NCT01011868|191898802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.0|-0.85||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA|Model for Week 78 includes baseline basal insulin, baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s) and geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s)||"Empagliflozin versus Placebo 25 mg at 78 weeks~H0,1a: No difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo H1,1a: A difference in change from baseline to Week 78 in basal insulin dose between Empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo"||-0.85|-11.00|0.0090
95963848|NCT01011868|191898803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-3.90|0.0320
95963849|NCT01011868|191898803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 18 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||1.08|-2.81|0.3818
95963850|NCT01011868|191898803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-2.89|<0.0001
95848135|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.89|0.06|0.9895
95963851|NCT01011868|191898803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-1.22|-3.13|<0.0001
95963852|NCT01011868|191898803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-1.45|-5.81|0.0012
95963853|NCT01011868|191898803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes, baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, geographic region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as linear covariates, geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects|Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.85|-5.39|0.0073
95963854|NCT01011868|191898805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-0.68|<0.0001
95963855|NCT01011868|191898805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effect(s).|Change from BL at week 54 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo||-0.52|-0.95|<0.0001
96002823|NCT06244316|191983026|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted proportions difference|-4.2|||=|0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on a Logistic Model on the improvement at week 8. The model included the binary variable for Improvement at week 8 in the study eye as dependent variable with treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for Schirmer-I Test (continuous) in the study eye as covariates.||3.4|-11.9|=0.859
95848136|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||63.32|0.83|0.0736
95866636|NCT00420641|191691574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.55|-2.68|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR total score at Week 10.||-2.68|-7.55|0.001
95866637|NCT00420641|191691575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.23|1.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||1.12|-5.23|0.287
96002824|NCT06244316|191983027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.1|||=|0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4. Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in fluorescein tear break-up time in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates.||0.5|-0.7|=0.636
95848137|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.08||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|61.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||61.78|0.81|0.0767
95866638|NCT00420641|191691575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-3.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR total score at Week 10.||-3.25|-9.21|0.001
95848138|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.49|0.35|0.2880
95848139|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.47|0.17|0.5894
95848140|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.3093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.78|0.44|0.3093
95848141|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|17.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.58|0.62|0.1606
95848142|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|56.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||56.87|2.50|0.0019
95848143|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|68.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||68.73|3.02|0.0008
95866639|NCT00420641|191691576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|0.41|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||0.41|-1.47|0.352
95963856|NCT01011868|191898805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.19||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 10 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.19|-0.73|0.0001
96002825|NCT06244316|191983027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.3|||=|0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4. Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in fluorescein tear break-up time in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates.||0.2|-0.9|=0.870
95848144|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.55|0.11|0.8803
95848145|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.2096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.46|0.54|0.2096
95848146|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|37.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||37.11|1.60|0.0110
95848147|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.11|0.86|0.0845
95848148|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.13|0.79|0.1094
95848149|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.97||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|30.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||30.07|2.68|0.0004
95848150|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.09|2.10|0.0016
95848151|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.64|0.44|0.4375
95848152|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|0.84|0.0898
95848153|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|21.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.06|1.90|0.0027
95848154|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.64|0.78|0.1242
95848155|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.03|0.88|0.0815
95848156|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.27|2.11|0.0009
95848157|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|15.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.64|1.78|0.0027
95848158|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.46|0.41|0.6267
95848159|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.38|0.92|0.0709
95848160|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.62||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||13.59|1.59|0.0049
95848161|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.98|0.45|0.5107
95848162|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.22|0.78|0.1297
95848163|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|21.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.22|2.34|0.0005
95848164|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|25.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||25.63|2.82|0.0001
95848165|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.58|0.2990
95848166|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.76|0.1355
95848167|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.14|1.76|0.0028
95848168|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.47|0.41|0.7422
95848169|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.52|0.91|0.0750
95848170|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|16.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.67|2.16|0.0006
95848171|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.63||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.65|2.69|0.0001
95848172|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.23|0.38|0.8405
95848173|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.79|0.45|0.6257
95848174|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.36|1.48|0.0060
95848175|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.68|0.54|0.3556
95848176|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.90|1.24|0.0190
95848177|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|30.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||30.68|3.20|<0.0001
95848178|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||47.05|4.67|<0.0001
95848179|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.68|0.1936
95848180|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.47|1.10|0.0335
95848181|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.17|2.10|0.0009
95848182|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.39|0.34|0.8330
95848183|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.62|0.3410
95848184|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.69|1.42|0.0075
95848185|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.26|1.78|0.0020
95848186|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.10|0.29|0.6216
95866640|NCT00420641|191691576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|-0.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-CR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.81|-2.62|0.002
95866641|NCT00420641|191691577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.2|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||0.20|-2.27|0.168
95866642|NCT00420641|191691577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.27|-0.97|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in QIDS-SR16 total score at Week 10.||-0.97|-3.27|0.002
95866643|NCT00420641|191691578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.09|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||0.09|-0.46|0.257
95866644|NCT00420641|191691578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.25|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS Item 2 score at Week 10.||-0.25|-0.77|0.001
95866645|NCT00420641|191691579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.0|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR Item 5 score at Week 10.||-0.00|-0.33|0.096
95866646|NCT00420641|191691579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|-0.22|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR Item 5 at Week 10.||-0.22|-0.53|0.000
96002826|NCT06244316|191983027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.3|||=|0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8. Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in fluorescein tear break-up time in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates.||0.3|-0.9|=0.843
96002827|NCT06244316|191983027|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.2|||=|0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||1-sided p value.Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8. Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in fluorescein tear break-up time in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates.||0.4|-0.8|=0.728
95866647|NCT00420641|191691580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.84|0.91|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||0.91|-1.84|0.576
95866648|NCT00420641|191691580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|-1.64|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 total score at Week 10.||-1.64|-4.28|0.000
95866649|NCT00420641|191691581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||0.05|-0.38|0.209
95866650|NCT00420641|191691581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|-0.19|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 Item 1 score at Week 10.||-0.19|-0.60|0.002
95866651|NCT00420641|191691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.23|0.12|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||0.12|-1.23|0.175
95866652|NCT00420641|191691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|-0.5|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.50|-1.79|0.003
95866653|NCT00420641|191691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.92|-0.05|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.05|-1.92|0.082
95866654|NCT00420641|191691582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.9|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-SR 5 Item subscale total score at Week 10.||-0.90|-2.64|0.001
95866655|NCT00420641|191691583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CGI-S score at Week 10.||0.06|-0.45|0.208
95866656|NCT00420641|191691583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.28|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CGI-S score at Week 10.||-0.28|-0.76|0.000
95866657|NCT00420641|191691584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.76||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.71|6.24|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in MEI total score at Week 10.||6.24|-2.71|0.516
95866658|NCT00420641|191691584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.22||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|10.48|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in MEI total score at Week 10.||10.48|1.97|0.016
95866659|NCT00420641|191691585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|3.57|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and GSK372475.|Placebo versus GSK372475 in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||3.57|-0.13|0.126
95866660|NCT00420641|191691585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|1.81|||MMRM||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final value) of placebo and Paroxetine.|Placebo versus Paroxetine in CSFQ-14SF total score at Week 10.||1.81|-1.69|0.957
95866661|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 1.||1.93|0.21|0.5061
95866662|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|3.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 1.||3.25|0.46|0.7398
96002828|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|0.1|||=|0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates.||Ocular pain - Week 4 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline for ocular pain score.||1.1|-0.8|=0.605
96002829|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|adjusted means difference|0.0|||=|0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||1-sided p value - Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Ocular pain - Week 4 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline for ocular pain.||0.9|-0.9|=0.522
95848187|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.71|0.55|0.4615
95848188|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.19|1.12|0.0281
95848189|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.8028
95848190|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.07|0.48|0.6846
95848191|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|1.26|0.0149
95848192|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.65|2.03|0.0009
95848193|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.15|0.29|0.6434
95848194|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.69|0.54|0.4784
95848195|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.55|0.87|0.0955
95848196|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.79|0.40|0.9082
95848197|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.21|0.48|0.6478
95848198|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|9.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.82|1.35|0.0104
95848199|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|18.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.94|2.34|0.0004
95848200|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.45|0.34|0.8560
95848201|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.17|0.62|0.3319
95848202|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.95|0.92|0.0747
95848203|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.76|0.41|0.8986
95848204|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.53|0.38|0.9712
95848205|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.98|1.22|0.0910
95848206|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|16.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.06|2.01|0.0011
95848207|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.39|0.35|0.8466
95848208|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.21|0.79|0.1409
95848209|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.25|0.82|0.1212
95848210|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.88|0.56|0.4269
95848211|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.49|0.52|0.5454
95848212|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.15|0.96|0.0595
95848213|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.98|1.62|0.0041
95866663|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 2.||2.08|0.52|0.9209
95866664|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 2.||3.13|0.78|0.2908
95866665|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.72|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 3.||0.72|0.23|0.0086
95848214|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.13|0.28|0.6121
95866666|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.83|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 3.||1.83|0.64|0.8087
95963857|NCT01011868|191898805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For non-inferiority, a one-sided test at the significance level of 0.0125 was performed using a chosen margin of 0.3% difference between each dose of empagliflozin and placebo.~If the non-inferiority of empagliflozin to placebo with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c after 78 weeks of treatment could be concluded for a specific dose, subsequent testing of superiority was performed at the significance level of 0.025 for the relevant empagliflozin dose versus placebo comparison."|Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.9|-0.34||Hierarchical testing approach was applied to Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo. If null hypothesis is rejected for the primary endpoint, at 0.025 (2-sided), testing of the key secondary endpoints continued in a hierarchical fashion for the same dose.|ANCOVA||Model includes baseline HbA1c as linear covariate(s), geographical region, treatment as fixed effect(s).|"Change from BL at week 78 - Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo~H0,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo ≥0.3% H1,1b: The change from baseline to Week 78 in HbA1c between empagliflozin 25 mg and placebo \<0.3%"||-0.34|-0.90|<0.0001
95963858|NCT01011868|191898807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.096||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|9.088|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||9.088|1.846|0.0005
95963859|NCT01011868|191898807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.636||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.083|10.321|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 18 weeks||10.321|2.083|0.0002
95963860|NCT01011868|191898807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.856|3.575|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||3.575|0.856|0.1248
95963861|NCT01011868|191898807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.423||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.203|4.879|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 54 weeks||4.879|1.203|0.0132
95848215|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.75|0.68|0.2329
95848216|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.90|0.88|0.0891
95848217|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.97|0.03|0.6857
95848218|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|19.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.71|0.12|0.7291
95848219|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.8951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.41|0.05|0.8951
95848220|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|19.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.74|0.14|0.6865
95848221|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|20.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.24|0.07|0.9132
95848222|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.7982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|16.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.59|0.12|0.7982
95848223|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|15.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||15.57|0.09|0.9029
95963862|NCT01011868|191898807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.939||||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|4.256|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 10 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||4.256|0.884|0.0986
96002830|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|0.0|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Ocular pain - Week 8 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline for ocular pain.||0.9|-0.9|=0.477
95963863|NCT01011868|191898807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.239||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.518|6.911|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression includes treatment, geographical region and baseline HbA1c||Empagliflozin 25 mg vs Placebo at 78 weeks||6.911|1.518|0.0024
95963864|NCT04147858|191898808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
95963865|NCT04147858|191898808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.425
95963866|NCT04147858|191898809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.824
95963867|NCT04147858|191898809|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
96002831|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|0.0|||=|0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Ocular Pain - Week 8 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in each domain score for ocular pain.||0.9|-0.8|=0.519
95848224|NCT03192176|191659358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.94|0.04|0.7971
95848225|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.34|0.04|0.7899
95848226|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.9186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.73|0.05|0.9186
95848227|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.5303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||25.46|0.19|0.5303
95848228|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|52.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||52.66|0.65|0.1149
95848229|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|77.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||77.71|1.06|0.0442
95848230|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||35.68|0.35|0.2851
95848231|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|39.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||39.48|0.45|0.2073
95848232|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||37.16|0.36|0.2700
95848233|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.41||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|34.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||34.27|0.34|0.2982
95848234|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.3||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|102.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||102.6|1.47|0.0204
95848235|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|93.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||93.74|1.31|0.0270
95848236|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.68|0.19|0.5224
95848237|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|46.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||46.35|0.52|0.1635
95963868|NCT04147858|191898810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
95963869|NCT04147858|191898810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.603
95963870|NCT04147858|191898811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.871
95963871|NCT04147858|191898811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.352
95963872|NCT04147858|191898812|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95963873|NCT04147858|191898812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.626
95963874|NCT04147858|191898813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.059
95963875|NCT04147858|191898813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726
95963876|NCT04147858|191898814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
95963877|NCT04147858|191898814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.832
95848238|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.97||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|91.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||91.15|1.32|0.0266
95848239|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|31.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||31.21|0.23|0.4299
95848240|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|45.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||45.84|0.52|0.1667
95848241|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.35|0.92|0.0592
95848242|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|151.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||151.2|2.21|0.0070
95848243|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|38.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||38.32|0.37|0.2594
95848244|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.14||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|71.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||71.67|0.92|0.0589
95848245|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||85.20|1.19|0.0338
95848246|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.88|0.12|0.7756
95848247|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.74|0.20|0.9246
95848248|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.93|1.34|0.0177
95848249|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|21.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||21.65|1.34|0.0178
95848250|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.8564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|6.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.20|0.22|0.8564
95848251|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.2202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|11.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.00|0.58|0.2202
95848252|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|10.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.25|0.55|0.2498
95848253|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|72.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.29|0.93|0.0576
95848254|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.59|0.33|0.3065
95848255|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.9||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|165.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||165.1|2.40|0.0056
95866667|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 4.||0.52|0.18|0.0002
95963878|NCT04147858|191898815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.536
95848256|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.05||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|205.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||205.5|3.05|0.0027
95848257|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|36.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||36.51|0.36|0.2762
95848258|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|62.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||62.69|0.77|0.0851
95848259|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|138.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||138.7|2.09|0.0081
95848260|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|57.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||57.62|0.70|0.0995
95848261|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|51.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||51.80|0.64|0.1184
95848262|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.54||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|218.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||218.3|3.23|0.0023
95848263|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.09||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|157.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||157.9|2.31|0.0062
95848264|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.49||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|65.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||65.87|0.85|0.0695
95848265|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.64||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|75.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||75.98|0.98|0.0520
95848266|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|180.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||180.6|2.75|0.0036
95963879|NCT04147858|191898815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
95848267|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||24.23|0.89|0.0676
95848268|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.38|0.80|0.0903
95848269|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.46||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|75.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||75.14|3.18|0.0007
95848270|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.94||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|53.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.77|2.22|0.0032
95848271|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|16.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||16.85|0.55|0.2031
95963880|NCT04147858|191898816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
95963881|NCT04147858|191898816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.764
95963882|NCT04147858|191898817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.097
95963883|NCT04147858|191898817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.849
95963884|NCT02615938|191898818|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1
95848272|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||22.10|0.77|0.0972
95848273|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.04||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|53.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.06|2.30|0.0027
95848274|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|13.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.02|0.72|0.1306
95848275|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|19.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.10|1.22|0.0248
95848276|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||28.53|1.79|0.0054
95848277|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|39.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||39.36|2.55|0.0010
95848278|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.45|0.23|0.8271
95848279|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.95|0.77|0.1089
95848280|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.58||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||21.93|1.42|0.0138
95848281|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.15|0.63|0.1987
95848282|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.02|0.46|0.3984
95866668|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.94|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 4.||1.94|0.78|0.4606
95866669|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 5.||1.05|0.40|0.1399
95848283|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|14.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||14.45|1.06|0.0402
95848284|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|27.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||27.95|2.32|0.0010
95848285|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.08|0.17|0.8287
95848286|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.92|0.79|0.1083
95848287|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|20.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.66|1.76|0.0043
95866670|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 5.||2.73|1.10|0.0461
95848288|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|13.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.79|0.76|0.1126
95848289|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.30|0.69|0.1479
95848290|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|42.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.46|2.59|0.0010
95848291|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|51.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.14|3.31|0.0002
95848292|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.41|0.68|0.1483
95848293|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.03||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||16.84|0.97|0.0557
95848294|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.47||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|25.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.28|1.66|0.0072
95848295|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.24|0.32|0.9715
95963885|NCT02615938|191898818|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
95848296|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.39|0.50|0.4720
95848297|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.05|0.79|0.1262
95848298|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.92|1.05|0.0396
95848299|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.29|0.19|0.5137
95848300|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.58|0.77|0.1370
95848301|NCT03192176|191659359|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.07|0.47|0.5526
95848302|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|16.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.62|1.99|0.0012
95848303|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|25.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.68|3.06|<0.0001
95866671|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 6.||1.05|0.41|0.1400
95963886|NCT02615938|191898818|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||1.0
95848304|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|33.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.85|3.94|<0.0001
95848305|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.55|40.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||40.38|4.55|<0.0001
95848306|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.61|0.98|0.0555
95848307|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|23.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.18|2.75|0.0001
95848308|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|23.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.19|2.81|0.0001
95848309|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.39|1.82|0.0012
95848310|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.43|2.06|0.0005
95848311|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.39|2.20|0.0003
95848312|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|23.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.74|2.99|<0.0001
95848313|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.12|0.0277
95848314|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|10.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.32|1.66|0.0022
95848315|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.41|1.26|0.0314
95848316|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|9.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.97|1.54|0.0041
95963887|NCT02615938|191898818|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
96002832|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|0.1|||=|0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||1-sided p value - Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Quality of Life - Week 4 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in each domain score for quality of life.||1.1|-1.0|=0.539
95848317|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.74|1.64|0.0028
95963888|NCT02615938|191898819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|1.1|0.079|15.16|||Fisher Exact|||||15.16|0.079|1.0
95963889|NCT02615938|191898819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.008|||McNemar|||||0.008|-0.340|1.0
95963890|NCT02615938|191898819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|No estimated value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups)||||||0.196
95848318|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.98|1.90|0.0011
95848319|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|26.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||26.99|2.86|0.0001
95848320|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.57|1.59|0.0036
95848321|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|11.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.67|1.75|0.0018
95848322|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.68|1.14|0.0243
95866672|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|4.21|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 6.||4.21|1.74|0.0002
95866673|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 8.||1.64|0.59|0.9596
95866674|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 8.||5.23|2.01|0.0000
95866675|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS responders at Week 10.||1.93|0.69|0.6530
95866676|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|5.73|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS responders at Week 10.||5.73|2.11|0.0000
95866677|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|3.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||3.48|0.23|0.8844
95866678|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|4.68|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 1.||4.68|0.36|0.7425
95866679|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.07|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||2.07|0.39|0.8355
95848323|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.96|0.91|0.0770
95848324|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.69|1.02|0.0451
95866680|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|4.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 2.||4.32|0.86|0.1786
95866681|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||0.97|0.26|0.0835
95866682|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 3.||1.98|0.58|0.8558
95866683|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||0.67|0.20|0.0067
95866684|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 4.||1.98|0.67|0.6647
95866685|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.74|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||1.74|0.55|0.9553
95866686|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.004||90.0|1.5|4.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 5.||4.42|1.50|0.0040
95866687|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||1.43|0.52|0.6327
95866688|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 6.||3.79|1.47|0.0027
95866689|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.29|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||1.29|0.45|0.3961
95963891|NCT02615938|191898819|OTHER|McNemar test for paired samples was not calculated as in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no discordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups).|||||||||||||||||No estimated OR value can be calculated if in any group no responder exists (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups) and no P values can be calculated as in any group no responder existed (i.e. no odds exists for independent groups or no disconcordant pairs could be determined for dependent groups)|||
95848325|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|9.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.04|1.25|0.0165
95848326|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||16.23|1.72|0.0037
95848327|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.90|0.0812
95848328|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.22|0.97|0.0577
95848329|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.85|0.93|0.0706
95848330|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.00|1.04|0.0404
95848331|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|11.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.99|1.54|0.0054
95848332|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.27|1.22|0.0186
95848333|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.58||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|22.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||22.14|1.96|0.0023
95848334|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.93|1.33|0.0118
95848335|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.53|1.88|0.0020
95848336|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.14|1.03|0.0430
95848337|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.66|0.70|0.2197
95866690|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|3.06|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 8.||3.06|1.17|0.0298
95866691|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.61|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||1.61|0.56|0.8826
95866692|NCT00420641|191691589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|4.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in MADRS remitters at Week 10.||4.05|1.52|0.0022
95866693|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.89|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||1.89|0.22|0.5072
95866694|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6886|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.93|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 1.||2.93|0.52|0.6886
95866695|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.04|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.04|0.56|0.8664
95963892|NCT02615938|191898820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.757
95963893|NCT02615938|191898820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.2|0.229
95848338|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.42|0.80|0.1341
95866696|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2897|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 2.||2.79|0.80|0.2897
95866697|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||1.18|0.39|0.2474
95866698|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.47|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 3.||2.47|0.89|0.2007
95866699|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.29|0.82|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||0.82|0.29|0.0214
95963894|NCT02615938|191898820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-2.7|0.097
95963895|NCT02615938|191898820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-2.5|0.427
95963896|NCT02615938|191898821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8|-1.2|0.543
95963897|NCT02615938|191898821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-1.2|0.421
95963898|NCT02615938|191898821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-1.8|0.553
95963899|NCT02615938|191898821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.5|-5|0.1020
95963900|NCT02615938|191898822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.178
95848339|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.05|1.23|0.0196
95848340|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|16.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.26|1.41|0.0121
95866700|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.23|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 4.||2.23|0.88|0.2368
95866701|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.59|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||1.59|0.63|0.9870
95866702|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 5.||3.00|1.21|0.0193
95866703|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||1.50|0.59|0.8351
95963901|NCT02615938|191898822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-2.6|0.110
95963902|NCT02615938|191898822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.9|-0.6|0.338
95963903|NCT02615938|191898822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3|0.3979
95963904|NCT02615938|191898823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-1.6|0.965
95963905|NCT02615938|191898823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-0.4|0.374
95963906|NCT02615938|191898823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-5.2|0.149
95963907|NCT02615938|191898823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|0|0.2963
95963908|NCT02615938|191898824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-1.9|0.024
95963909|NCT02615938|191898824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.1|-1.7|0.045
95963910|NCT02615938|191898824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.0|-0.9|0.458
95963911|NCT02615938|191898824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.8|0.4216
95963912|NCT02615938|191898825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|0.1|0.063
95963913|NCT02615938|191898825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.3|0.410
95963914|NCT02615938|191898825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-2.3|0.574
95963915|NCT02615938|191898826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.9|0.730
95963916|NCT02615938|191898826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.3|0.170
95963917|NCT02615938|191898826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.1|0.724
95963918|NCT02615938|191898826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.2|0.487
95963919|NCT02615938|191898827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1|0.850
95848341|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.56|0.77|0.1511
95848342|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|15.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.68|1.55|0.0068
95848343|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.79|0.91|0.0741
95848344|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.43|0.65|0.2772
95848345|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|0.92|0.0705
95848346|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|12.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.39|1.22|0.0220
95866704|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 6.||4.77|1.90|0.0001
95866705|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||1.80|0.67|0.7510
95866706|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|3.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 8.||3.80|1.47|0.0029
95866707|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|2.55|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||2.55|0.92|0.1707
95866708|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|5.36|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR responders at Week 10.||5.36|1.99|0.0001
95866709|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.48|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.48|0.05|0.2050
95866710|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.1735|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.24|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 1.||1.24|0.11|0.1735
95866711|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|4.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.75|0.78|0.2305
95866712|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 2.||4.50|0.77|0.2507
95848347|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.82|1.27|0.0196
95866713|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||1.64|0.35|0.5608
95866714|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|2.42|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 3.||2.42|0.60|0.6526
95866715|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||0.77|0.21|0.0208
95866716|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2859|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.22|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 4.||1.22|0.39|0.2859
95866717|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||1.66|0.49|0.7921
95866718|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.31|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 5.||2.31|0.79|0.3620
95866719|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||1.34|0.44|0.4331
95866720|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|3.75|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 6.||3.75|1.42|0.0047
95866721|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.32|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||1.32|0.46|0.4431
95866722|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 8.||2.44|0.90|0.1901
95866723|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.66|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||1.66|0.56|0.9222
95848348|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.24|1.03|0.0433
95848349|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.20|1.08|0.0355
95848350|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.28|0.62|0.3238
95848351|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.68|0.60|0.3208
95848352|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.40|0.67|0.2281
95848353|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|10.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.46|0.97|0.0566
95866724|NCT00420641|191691590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in IDS-CR remitters at Week 10.||2.43|0.93|0.1665
95866725|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|1.98|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||1.98|0.20|0.5057
95866726|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|3.3|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 1.||3.30|0.38|0.8633
95866727|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|2.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.16|0.55|0.8428
95866728|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.84|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 2.||2.84|0.76|0.3416
95866729|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.26|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||1.26|0.40|0.3287
95866730|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.57|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 3.||2.57|0.88|0.2112
95866731|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||0.76|0.26|0.0134
95866732|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 4.||2.17|0.81|0.3412
95866733|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.54|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||1.54|0.58|0.8434
95866734|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 5.||2.63|1.03|0.0819
95866735|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|1.19|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||1.19|0.44|0.2832
95848354|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.73|0.1491
95848355|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.23|0.74|0.1477
95866736|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|3.97|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 6.||3.97|1.54|0.0016
95866737|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.63|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||1.63|0.60|0.9727
95866738|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|4.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 8.||4.13|1.60|0.0010
95963920|NCT02615938|191898827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.6|-0.4|0.258
95963921|NCT02615938|191898827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.862
95963922|NCT02615938|191898827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4|-1.8|0.840
95963923|NCT02615938|191898828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0|-2.6|0.010
95963924|NCT02615938|191898828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-1.5|0.533
96002833|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|-0.1|||=|0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Quality of Life - Week 4 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in each domain score for quality of life.||0.9|-1.1|=0.433
96002834|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|0.0|||=|0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Quality of Life - Week 8 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in each domain score for quality of life.||1.0|-0.9|=0.521
96002835|NCT06244316|191983028|SUPERIORITY|Missing data for each domain score were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Four separate imputation models were used for each domain score and for each timepoint.|Adjusted means difference|0.0|||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|Each model includes the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline value as covariates||Quality of Life - Week 8 - Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in each domain score for quality of life.||0.8|-0.9|=0.470
95848356|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.64|0.98|0.0532
95848357|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.76|0.73|0.1616
95866739|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||1.80|0.64|0.8312
95866740|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|5.02|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 responders at Week 10.||5.02|1.86|0.0002
95866741|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.6|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||2.60|0.13|0.5530
95866742|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.41|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 1.||3.41|0.28|0.9780
95866743|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||3.03|0.43|0.8312
95866744|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|5.25|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 2.||5.25|0.83|0.1881
95963925|NCT02615938|191898828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|-1.6|0.858
95963926|NCT02615938|191898828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-1.4|0.661
95963927|NCT02615938|191898829|SUPERIORITY|Due to missing values no statistical test resulting in a P was calculated|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-14|
95963928|NCT02615938|191898829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2|-0.9|0.576
95963929|NCT02615938|191898829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.9|0.884
95963930|NCT02615938|191898829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.4|0.563
95963931|NCT01637077|191898843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.56
95963932|NCT01637077|191898844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
95963933|NCT01637077|191898845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Worst pain over the past 24 hours||||0.62
95963934|NCT01637077|191898845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average pain over the past 24 hours||||0.22
95963935|NCT01637077|191898845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Least pain over the past 24 hours||||0.07
95963936|NCT01637077|191898847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95963937|NCT01637077|191898848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
95963938|NCT01637077|191898849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95963939|NCT01637077|191898850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.12
95963940|NCT01637077|191898851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.78
95963941|NCT01637077|191898852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95963942|NCT01637077|191898853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sensory neuropathy||||0.46
95963943|NCT01637077|191898853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Autonomic neuropathy||||0.86
95963944|NCT01637077|191898853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Motor neuropathy||||0.40
95963945|NCT04683510|191898868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.2345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|3.746|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.746|0.724|0.2345
95963946|NCT04683510|191898868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|0.839|0.124
95963947|NCT04683510|191898869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.067|0.768|0.2352
95848358|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.11|0.55|0.4320
95848359|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.35|0.68|0.2231
95848360|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.64|1.10|0.0347
95848361|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|18.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||18.07|1.17|0.0291
95848362|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.38|0.61|0.2805
95848363|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|10.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.11|0.95|0.0602
95848364|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.88|0.51|0.5087
95848365|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.38|0.80|0.1224
95848366|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.02|0.68|0.2280
95866745|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||1.69|0.39|0.6384
95848367|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.02|0.71|0.1835
95848368|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|22.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.69|1.51|0.0107
95848369|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.96|0.97|0.0576
95848370|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.68||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.77|2.00|0.0047
95848371|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.64|0.97|0.0569
95848372|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.68|0.83|0.1078
95848373|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.47|0.90|0.0772
95866746|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|3.37|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 3.||3.37|0.84|0.2160
95866747|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.79|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||0.79|0.20|0.0259
95963948|NCT04683510|191898869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.924||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.088|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.088|0.785|0.3418
95963949|NCT04683510|191898870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.615|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.615|0.921|0.1653
95963950|NCT04683510|191898870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.213||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.609|0.914|0.181
95848374|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.22|0.77|0.1311
95848375|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|21.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||21.96|1.45|0.01255
95848376|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.97||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|17.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.54|1.41|0.0128
95848377|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|24.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||24.63|1.62|0.0079
95848378|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.67|0.97|0.0572
95848379|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.79|1.14|0.0284
95848380|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.22|0.92|0.0705
95848381|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|16.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.77|1.38|0.0136
95848382|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.96||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|48.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||48.29|2.06|0.0043
95848383|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.83|0.90|0.0760
95848384|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.75||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|20.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.00|1.65|0.0059
95848385|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.35|1.33|0.0143
95848386|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.35|0.62|0.2779
95848387|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.41|0.41|0.7559
95848388|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.23|0.35|0.9050
95848389|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.38|0.66|0.2163
95848390|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.14|0.70|0.1713
95848391|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.09|0.52|0.3981
95866748|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.3959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.35|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 4.||1.35|0.39|0.3959
95848392|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.96|0.35|0.9692
95848393|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.22|0.60|0.2978
95848394|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.38|0.8525
95848395|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.13|0.21|0.5028
95848396|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.73|0.50|0.4594
95848397|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||8.17|0.80|0.1124
95848398|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.58|0.55|0.3415
95848399|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.83|0.56|0.3635
95848400|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.24|0.5716
95848401|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.05|0.23|0.5028
96002836|NCT06244316|191983029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.3|||=|0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in total corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye at week 8. The model included the change at week 8 in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for total corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR.||0.3|-1.0|=0.159
95848402|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.98|0.18|0.3982
95848403|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.87|0.30|0.93
95848404|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.2364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|7.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.32|0.61|0.2364
95848405|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.04|0.39|0.7095
95848406|NCT03192176|191659360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.20|0.26|0.6011
95866749|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|1.34|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||1.34|0.39|0.3857
95848407|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.78||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|33.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.10|1.39|0.0181
95866750|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|2.52|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 5.||2.52|0.80|0.3126
95848408|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.97||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|47.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.48|2.10|0.0039
95848409|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|99.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||99.65|4.51|0.0001
95848410|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||112.9|5.09|<0.0001
95848411|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|16.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.87|0.59|0.1766
95848412|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|37.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||37.43|1.58|0.0116
95848413|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.74||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|59.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||59.81|2.71|0.0013
95848414|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.43|1.07|0.0359
95848415|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.33|2.20|0.0004
95866751|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||1.03|0.36|0.1182
95866752|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.43|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 6.||3.43|1.29|0.0125
95866753|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||1.13|0.42|0.2147
95866754|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.69|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 8.||2.69|1.03|0.0783
95866755|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9067||90.0|0.57|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||1.64|0.57|0.9067
95848416|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|18.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.98|2.68|<0.0001
95848417|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|18.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.46|2.53|0.0001
95866756|NCT00420641|191691591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.92|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in HAMD-17 remitters at Week 10.||2.92|1.15|0.0328
95866757|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6928|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|3.76|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||3.76|0.44|0.6928
95866758|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|5.01|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 1.||5.01|0.69|0.3039
95866759|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||2.70|0.89|0.1938
95866760|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.16|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 2.||3.16|1.08|0.0600
95866761|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.53|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||1.53|0.61|0.8989
95866762|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|3.05|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 3.||3.05|1.25|0.0136
95866763|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.18|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||1.18|0.50|0.3099
95963951|NCT03771638|191898871|SUPERIORITY|Minimum detectable effects: Under assumptions of the adherence of DBS TFV-DP levels \>=700 fmol/punch in the control condition as 60% and intraclass correlation of repeated binary measures of DBS TFV-DP of 0.69, and retention of 80% of participants at 24 weeks, we will have 80% power in 2-sided tests with a type-1 error rate of 5% to detect average between-group differences in adherence of 23 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36||GEE poisson models with robust standard errors were used to assess DBS adherence rates, averaged across visits.|GEE Poisson models|||Null hypothesis: no difference in PrEP adherence levels between DOT Diary Intervention and Control arms||1.36|0.75|0.94
95963952|NCT03771638|191898872|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.62|||Kappa|||Kappa statistic to assess concordance between DBS measurement and self-reported PrEP use||0.62|0.36|
95963953|NCT04556305|191898888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.409
95963954|NCT04556305|191898888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.456
95848418|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.47|0.76|0.1540
95848419|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.12|1.46|0.0065
95848420|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.14|1.50|0.0052
95848421|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.39|1.44|0.0064
95848422|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|15.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.21|2.26|0.0003
95848423|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.69|2.47|0.0001
95848424|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|22.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||22.42|3.01|<0.0001
95848425|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.97|1.22|0.0171
95848426|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.18|1.71|0.0020
95848427|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|9.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.99|1.58|0.0034
95848428|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.59|1.05|0.0399
95866764|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.27|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 4.||2.27|0.98|0.1137
95963955|NCT04556305|191898888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.692
95963956|NCT04556305|191898889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.179
95963957|NCT04556305|191898889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.910
95963958|NCT04556305|191898889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.159
95963959|NCT04556305|191898890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
95848429|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.84|2.23|0.0003
95848430|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.23|1.60|0.0031
95848431|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|28.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.28|3.41|<0.0001
95848432|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.01|1.57|0.0036
95848433|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.11|1.89|0.0009
95848434|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.21|1.35|0.0091
95848435|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.34|0.73|0.2043
95848436|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|12.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.01|1.84|0.0012
95848437|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.70|1.47|0.0058
95848438|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|23.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||23.83|2.73|0.0002
95848439|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.12|1.16|0.0221
95866765|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8682||90.0|0.67|1.64|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||1.64|0.67|0.8682
95963960|NCT04556305|191898890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
95963961|NCT04556305|191898890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
96002837|NCT06244316|191983029|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.0|||=|0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Analysis is based on an ANCOVA Model on the change from baseline in total corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye at week 8. The model included the change at week 8 in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment (3 levels: rhNGF 10 μg/mL, rhNGF 5 μg/mL, and vehicle) and baseline value for total corneal fluorescein staining (NEI scale) in the study eye as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR.||0.6|-0.7|=0.480
95848440|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.13|1.58|0.0034
95963962|NCT04556305|191898891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.772
95963963|NCT04556305|191898891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.107
95963964|NCT04556305|191898891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.915
95963965|NCT04556305|191898892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.078
95848441|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|8.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.04|1.29|0.0123
95848442|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.78|0.64|0.3291
95848443|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.21|1.30|0.0118
95848444|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.40|1.49|0.0058
95848445|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.98||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||17.65|2.03|0.0012
95848446|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.32|0.85|0.1043
95848447|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|13.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||13.54|1.85|0.0015
95848448|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.73|0.95|0.0658
95848449|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.98|0.82|0.1253
95866766|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|4.03|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 5.||4.03|1.63|0.0006
95866767|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.51|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||1.51|0.62|0.8992
95866768|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|4.09|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 6.||4.09|1.67|0.0004
95866769|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.23|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage o|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||2.23|0.85|0.2800
95866770|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.24|6.08|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 8.||6.08|2.24|0.0000
95866771|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.13|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||3.13|1.10|0.0507
95866772|NCT00420641|191691592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|4.88|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants with CGI-I at Week 10.||4.88|1.81|0.0003
95866773|NCT00420641|191691593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus GSK372475 in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||1.50|0.62|0.8782
95866774|NCT00420641|191691593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Placebo versus Paroxetine in percentage of participants Satisfied with Study Medication at Week 10.||3.86|1.56|0.0011
95866775|NCT00603642|191691608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95866776|NCT00603642|191691609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95866777|NCT00603642|191691610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95866778|NCT00603642|191691611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95866779|NCT00603642|191691612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6015
95866780|NCT02700334|191691618|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95866781|NCT02700334|191691619|OTHER|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
95866782|NCT02700334|191691620|OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.878
95866783|NCT02700334|191691621|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.959
95866784|NCT02700334|191691622|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95866785|NCT02700334|191691623|OTHER|||||||0.331|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.331
95866786|NCT02700334|191691624|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95866787|NCT02700334|191691625|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95866788|NCT02700334|191691626|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
95848450|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|13.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.34|1.88|0.0013
95848451|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.75|1.37|0.0096
95848452|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|17.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||17.96|2.04|0.0012
95848453|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.02|1.08|0.0344
95866789|NCT02700334|191691627|OTHER|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
95866790|NCT02700334|191691628|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.721
95866791|NCT02700334|191691629|OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
95963966|NCT04556305|191898892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.130
95963967|NCT04556305|191898892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.430
95848454|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.72|1.55|0.0045
95848455|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.55|0.91|0.0810
95866792|NCT02700334|191691630|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
95866793|NCT02700334|191691631|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
95866794|NCT02700334|191691632|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95866795|NCT02700334|191691633|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.919
95866796|NCT02700334|191691634|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
95866797|NCT00853996|191691641|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons since this was primary endpoint. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95866798|NCT00853996|191691642|OTHER|||||||0.067||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.067
95866799|NCT00853996|191691643|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95866800|NCT00853996|191691644|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95866801|NCT00853996|191691645|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95866802|NCT00609362|191691652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is un-adjusted. A priori threshold for significance: 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The minimum number of participants was determined by power calculations to be 44 (22 in each group), assuming a difference in change in BMD of 1.7%, a standard deviation of 2%, a power of 80%, and a level of significance of 5%.||||0.055
95866803|NCT00609362|191691653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.056
95866804|NCT00609362|191691654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95866805|NCT00548405|191691656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model with robust variance estimation using treatment group and geographic region as covariate was used.||0.87|0.38|0.0084
95866806|NCT00548405|191691657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||Hochberg method was used to adjust for the two co-primary outcomes.|Proportional means regression|||Proportional means regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
95866807|NCT00548405|191691658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|||Cox PH regression model with robust variance estimation and covariate adjustment for geographic region was used.||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
95866808|NCT00548405|191691659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wei-Lachin|||The analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||<0.0001
95963968|NCT04556305|191898893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.487
95963969|NCT04556305|191898893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.827
95963970|NCT04556305|191898893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.908
95866809|NCT00548405|191691660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Wei-Lachin|||Change at Year 2: the analysis was performed using Wei-Lachin method for non-parametric analysis of repeated measures.||||0.0022
95866810|NCT00548405|191691661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED||||||Ranked ANCOVA|||Ranked ANCOVA models with covariate adjustment for geographic region and Baseline T2 lesion volume was used.||||0.1371
95866811|NCT05027971|191691664|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.07||||||||.07|.002|
95848456|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.70|0.92|0.0761
95848457|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.51|1.41|0.0078
95848458|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|7.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.82|1.15|0.0253
95848459|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.23||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|19.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.55|1.99|0.0017
95848460|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.87|0.62|0.3512
95848461|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.13|1.07|0.0352
95848462|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.97|0.93|0.0704
95848463|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.76|0.1651
95848464|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.62|0.87|0.0964
95848465|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.59|1.13|0.0276
95848466|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.70|1.58|0.0060
95848467|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.39|0.76|0.1556
95848468|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.18|1.21|0.0202
95848469|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.67|0.72|0.2063
95848470|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.92|1.06|0.0383
95866812|NCT05027971|191691665|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.084||||||||.084|.006|
95866813|NCT05027971|191691666|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.768||||||||.768|.553|
95866814|NCT05027971|191691667|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-14.2||||||||-14.2|-17.4|
95866815|NCT05027971|191691670|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
95866816|NCT05027971|191691671|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
95866817|NCT05027971|191691672|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
95866818|NCT05027971|191691673|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.943||||||||.943|.810|
95866819|NCT05027971|191691674|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|18.6||||||||18.6|11.3|
95866820|NCT05027971|191691675|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.9||||||||-2.9|-3.9|
95866821|NCT05027971|191691676|OTHER||Proportion by cohort|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.0||||||||1|.963|
95866822|NCT02025556|191691677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.55|-4.07|< .0001
95866823|NCT02025556|191691677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.38|-3.9|< .0001
95866824|NCT02582684|191691681|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.95|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.95|0.83|
95866825|NCT02582684|191691682|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|Proportion|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.94|0.82|
95866826|NCT02582684|191691683|OTHER|Binomial Proportion of Participants with Virologic Success and 95% Confidence Interval|proportion|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||||Confidence interval was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.91|0.77|
95866827|NCT01431300|191691704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
95866828|NCT01431300|191691704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.0|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios of the central veins in the 0.01 mmol/kg and 0.03mmol/kg dose groups were compared.||||<0.01
95866829|NCT06054269|191691709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.004
95866830|NCT06054269|191691709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.066
95866831|NCT06054269|191691709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.694
95866832|NCT06054269|191691709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.408
95866833|NCT06054269|191691710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.164
95866834|NCT06054269|191691710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.113
95866835|NCT06054269|191691710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.404
95866836|NCT06054269|191691710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For comparison of post-vaccination geometric mean antibody titers to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.879
95866837|NCT06054269|191691711|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||<0.001
95866838|NCT06054269|191691711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.002
95866839|NCT06054269|191691711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.468
95866840|NCT06054269|191691711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.057
95866841|NCT06054269|191691712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.112
95866842|NCT06054269|191691712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.149
95866843|NCT06054269|191691712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.101
95866844|NCT06054269|191691712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroconversion rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.259
95866845|NCT06054269|191691713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.097
95866846|NCT06054269|191691713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.733
95866847|NCT06054269|191691713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.477
95866848|NCT06054269|191691713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.312
95866849|NCT06054269|191691714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.220
95866850|NCT06054269|191691714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza A(H3N2) vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.003
95866851|NCT06054269|191691714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Victoria vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.897
95866852|NCT06054269|191691714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||Chi-squared|||For comparison of post-vaccination seroprotection rate to the influenza B/Yamagata vaccine virus between recipients of FLUAD Quadrivalent and FluQuadri.||||0.931
95866853|NCT01738477|191691715|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-diphtheria. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than, or equal to -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to diphtheria.||9.95|-3.25|
95866854|NCT01738477|191691715|NON_INFERIORITY|To assess the non-inferiority of the second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 2 Group) minus first dose of Boostrix (Boostrix 1 Group) for anti-tetanus. Objective of non-inferiority was considered to be met if the LL of the 95% CI was above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|-3.25|9.95||||||Non-inferiority in terms of seroprotection rates to tetanus.||9.95|-3.25|
95866855|NCT00796991|191691728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log(Cmax) using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1)||1.168|0.794|
95866856|NCT00796991|191691728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|1.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.243|0.848|
95866857|NCT00796991|191691728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|study day was used as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AIC Cmax. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.150|0.974|
95848471|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.10|1.32|0.0118
95848472|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.97|1.10|0.0314
95848473|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|21.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.34|2.17|0.0010
95866858|NCT00796991|191691728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934||||||90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
95963971|NCT04556305|191898894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.371
95848474|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.80|0.87|0.0956
95866859|NCT00796991|191691728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab Cmax: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(Cmax) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.798|
95963972|NCT04556305|191898894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.633
95963973|NCT04556305|191898894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.230
95963974|NCT04556305|191898895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.798
95963975|NCT04556305|191898895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.461
95848475|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|13.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.40|1.72|0.0027
95848476|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.14|0.94|0.0660
95848477|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.05|0.89|0.0853
95848478|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|9.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.62|1.26|0.0159
95848479|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.53|1.12|0.0303
95848480|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|15.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||15.28|1.54|0.0071
95848481|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.95|0.0621
95848482|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|12.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.15|1.45|0.0081
95848483|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.09|0.99|0.0533
95848484|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.42|0.66|0.2666
95848485|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.52|0.91|0.0754
95848486|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.64|1.11|0.0313
95848487|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|19.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||19.88|1.67|0.0056
95848488|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|7.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.28|0.91|0.0736
95848489|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||10.00|1.24|0.0184
95848490|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.81|0.82|0.1187
95848491|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|12.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.69|1.14|0.0299
95963976|NCT04556305|191898895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.419
95848492|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.89|0.40|0.5989
95848493|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.14|0.74|0.1337
95848494|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.89|0.45|0.4605
95848495|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|15.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||15.65|1.28|0.0188
95848496|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.39|0.5854
95848497|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|7.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.86|0.68|0.1768
95848498|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.78|0.29|0.8426
95848499|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.73|0.17|0.3017
95848500|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.43|0.21|0.5958
95848501|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.01|0.05|0.0515
95963977|NCT04556305|191898896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.619
95963978|NCT04556305|191898896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.468
95963979|NCT04556305|191898896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.387
95963980|NCT04556305|191898897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.380
95963981|NCT04556305|191898897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.759
95963982|NCT04556305|191898897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.219
95963983|NCT04556305|191898898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.995
95963984|NCT04556305|191898898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.946
95963985|NCT04556305|191898898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.593
95963986|NCT04556305|191898899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.092
95963987|NCT04556305|191898899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.245
95963988|NCT04556305|191898899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.107
95963989|NCT04556305|191898900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.244
95963990|NCT04556305|191898900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.085
95963991|NCT04556305|191898900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.710
95848502|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.11|0.31|0.9734
95848503|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.93|0.25|0.7969
95848504|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.40|0.25|0.6637
95848505|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.4921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.15|0.45|0.4921
95848506|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.64|0.33|0.8910
95848507|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.78|0.16|0.5881
95848508|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.02|0.01|0.0523
95848509|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.61|0.46|0.4646
95848510|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.14|0.40|0.5806
95848511|NCT03192176|191659361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.12|0.28|0.9220
95848512|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.45||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|42.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||42.25|0.47|0.1933
95848513|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.61||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|50.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||50.44|0.62|0.1240
95848514|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.16||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|117.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||117.2|1.71|0.0140
95963992|NCT04556305|191898901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 1: Main effect of Mind (MindMoves + Mind vs. Move + Usual Care) for change over time||||.491
95963993|NCT04556305|191898901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 2: Main effect of Move (MindMoves + Move vs. Mind + Usual Care) for change over time||||.444
95963994|NCT04556305|191898901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Test 3: Interaction effect of Mind x Move (MindMoves + Usual Care vs. Mind + Move) for change over time||||.279
95963995|NCT03023423|191898954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.92||||||||1.92|0.03|
95963996|NCT03512197|191898964|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.31||||||||1.31|0.8|
95963997|NCT03512197|191898965|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.29||||||||1.29|0.59|
95963998|NCT03512197|191898970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.63||||||||1.63|0.60|
95963999|NCT03512197|191898971|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.87||||||||2.87|0.88|
95964000|NCT03512197|191898972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.54||||||||1.54|0.41|
95964001|NCT03512197|191898974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||||||partial neutrophil recovery||1.16|0.75|
95964002|NCT03512197|191898974|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||||||full neutrophil recovery||1.14|0.72|
95964003|NCT03512197|191898975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.52||||||partial platelet recovery||1.52|0.87|
95964004|NCT03512197|191898975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.0||||||full platelet recovery||1.00|0.67|
96002838|NCT06244316|191983030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.7|||=|0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 - Severity - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for severity. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||6.3|-4.9|=0.597
96002839|NCT06244316|191983030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.1|||=|0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|5.6||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 - Severity - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for severity. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||5.6|-5.7|=0.493
96002840|NCT06244316|191983030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-4.1|||=|0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.6||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Severity - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for severity. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||1.6|-9.7|=0.077
96002841|NCT06244316|191983030|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-6.0|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Severity - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for severity. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||-0.3|-11.7|=0.020
95866860|NCT00796991|191691732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to paclitaxel log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on paclitaxel AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the paclitaxel/carboplatin/ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (Day 1).||1.196|0.954|
95866861|NCT00796991|191691732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to dacarbazine log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on dacarbazine AUC(INF). Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.099|0.757|
95866862|NCT00796991|191691732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|1.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|A general linear mixed model was applied to active metabolite AIC log\[AUC(INF)\] using study day as a fixed effect.||Estimated effect of ipilimumab on AUC(INF) for AIC. Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination (Day 43) relative to dacarbazine alone (Day 1).||1.056|0.891|
95866863|NCT00796991|191691732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|1.136|||linear model|treatment arm as fixed effect||Estimated effect of paclitaxel/carboplatin on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in first and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the 3 drug combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.136|0.768|
95866864|NCT00796991|191691732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7981|1.208|||linear model|treatment arm as a fixed effect||Estimated effect of dacarbazine on ipilimumab AUC: linear model was applied to ipilimumab log(AUC(0-21d)) data from Week 7 (Day 43) PK measurements in second and third arms with treatment arm as a fixed effect. Point estimates and 90% CIs for means and differences between means on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates for geometric means and ratio of geometric means on the original scale for the dacarbazine, ipilimumab combination relative to ipilimumab alone.||1.208|0.7981|
96002842|NCT06244316|191983031|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.4|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.0||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 - Frequency - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||6.0|-5.2|=0.558
96002843|NCT06244316|191983031|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.5|||=|0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.1||1-sided p-value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 - Frequency - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||6.1|-5.1|=0.569
95964005|NCT01151423|191898987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.78||Caplacizumab was compared to placebo using a one-sided log-rank test in order to assess superiority at 2.5% significance level.|Stratified log-rank test||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model with presence (yes) / absence (no) of 1 PE session prior to randomization as covariate.|The primary analysis consisted of a Kaplan-Meier analysis with time-to-response as endpoint and treatment group as the independent variable and stratified for absence/presence of one PE session prior to randomization.||3.78|1.28|= 0.005
95848515|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.5||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|142.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||142.7|2.15|0.0075
95848516|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|22.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||22.96|0.17|0.5853
95848517|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|47.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||47.05|0.53|0.1596
95848518|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.48||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|56.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||56.51|0.74|0.0908
95848519|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|12.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.19|0.72|0.1318
95848520|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||23.04|1.56|0.0093
95848521|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|38.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||38.22|2.69|0.0006
95848522|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|59.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||59.40|4.11|<0.0001
95848523|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.64|0.60|0.2054
95848524|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.72|0.67|0.1592
95848525|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.31||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||24.07|1.66|0.0070
95848526|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.85|1.06|0.0392
95848527|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|13.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.96|1.44|0.0096
95848528|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|31.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||31.16|3.28|<0.0001
95848529|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|36.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.90|3.75|<0.0001
95848530|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.2217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.03|0.64|0.2217
95964006|NCT01227616|191899045|NON_INFERIORITY|The study protocol defined the margin for non-inferiority as 0.5 g/dL meaning non-inferiority would be established in a TP if the lower limit of the 95% confidence limit for the difference between ferumoxytol and iron sucrose mean change was ≥0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Stats. of primary endpoint performed only for TP1 and TP2. 240 subjects retreated should yield 90% power to detect non-inferiority during TP2.||||||<0.05
95964007|NCT03358238|191899048|OTHER||Proportion|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|0.557|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|||0.557|0.264|
95848531|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|13.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.38|1.36|0.0131
95848532|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.46|1.76|0.0031
95848533|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.10|0.76|0.1485
95848534|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|9.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.56|1.31|0.0128
95848535|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.81|2.37|0.0003
95848536|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|17.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||17.77|2.32|0.0003
95848537|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.2354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.26|0.67|0.2354
95964008|NCT03358238|191899049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Average Proportions|0.0017||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1774|0.1807||Statistical significance was an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 45.|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates of self-reporting between arms was zero.||0.1807|-0.1774|0.99
95848538|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.65|0.87|0.0894
95848539|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.67|1.20|0.0201
95848540|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.94|0.74|0.1614
95848541|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.66|1.32|0.0123
95848542|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|17.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.03|2.17|0.0006
95848543|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||28.36|3.40|<0.0001
95848544|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.81|0.75|0.1609
95964009|NCT03358238|191899050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0189||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2215|0.1837||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 45|Two-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that the difference in average adherence rates to activity tracking between arms was zero.||0.1837|-0.2215|0.85
95964010|NCT03358238|191899051|OTHER||Proportion|0.5385|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||||Type of confidence interval = Clopper-Pearson|Estimating proportion of individuals with higher adherence rates for self-report over activity tracking among individuals with unequal adherence rates||0.6991|0.3718|
95848545|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|6.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.79|0.86|0.0930
95848546|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.91|1.48|0.0063
95848547|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.74|0.65|0.2621
95848548|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|9.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.21|1.37|0.0092
95848549|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.69||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.48|2.09|0.0007
95848550|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|25.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||25.43|3.08|<0.0001
95848551|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.08|0.55|0.4259
95866865|NCT00796991|191691738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||p-value was not corrected for multiple testing. F-statistic = 1.86.|conditional F test|15 degrees freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in any treatment group. Conditional F-tests were used to test for mean ALC changes over time in each treatment arm and the difference between treatment arms in the pattern of change in ALC over time.||||0.027
95848552|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.74|0.79|0.1334
95848553|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.77|1.31|0.0120
95848554|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.10|0.66|0.2443
95964011|NCT03358238|191899051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0828|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 1||Null hypothesis is that among individuals with unequal adherence rates, the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the Review Arm is equal to the proportion of individuals with greater adherence to self-report over activity tracking in the No Review Arm.||||0.0828
95964012|NCT03358238|191899052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.99||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t-test. Degrees of freedom = 46.|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~One-sample t confidence intervals."|"One participant had a single item missing on the Young Mania Rating Scale administered at study start. A zero was imputed for the missing item to recover a total score.~Null hypothesis was that the average change in total scores was zero."||1.99|-0.42|0.20
95964013|NCT03358238|191899053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.89||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.7||Statistical significance was considered an alpha level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One-sample t test. Degrees of freedom = 46|One-sample t confidence intervals|Null hypothesis was that average change in scores on the structured interview guide for the Hamilton rating scale for depression is zero.||2.70|-0.91|0.32
95964014|NCT01210651|191899079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Regression, Generalized Least Squares|||A random-effects, generalized least squares (GLS) regression model for depression severity was used to analyze participant BDI scores measured just before 1st assigned session at 0 wks, and just after assigned sessions at 2 wks, 4 wks, 6 wks and 8 wks. BDI Scores were modeled as correlated within participants but independent between participants. The GLS regression model tested the null hypothesis that no significant effects on BDI scores would be found by intervention and intervention-by-time.||||0.034
95964015|NCT01210651|191899080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on BDI, using two sample t-test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Total Change Score on BDI for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.02
96002844|NCT06244316|191983031|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-4.5|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Frequency - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||1.3|-10.3|=0.063
95964016|NCT01210651|191899081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1. Alpha was 2-tailed. P-value was calculated, with a p-value \< 0.05 required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test evaluated null hypothesis that the proportion of study completers with remitted depression would be statistically comparable in the 2 intervention groups.||||0.018
96002845|NCT06244316|191983031|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-4.4|||=|0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.4||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Frequency - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint as dependent variable with treatment and baseline value as covariates. Missing data were imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used, one for each timepoint.||1.4|-10.3|=0.069
95848555|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.25|1.73|0.0022
95848556|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|18.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||18.58|2.35|0.0004
95848557|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|36.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||36.63|4.05|<0.0001
95848558|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.71|0.61|0.3101
95848559|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|10.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.00|1.34|0.0116
95848560|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|11.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.05|1.56|0.0045
95964017|NCT01210651|191899082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on GSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on GSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.50
95848561|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.88|0.62|0.3505
95848562|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.62|0.92|0.0739
95848563|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.20|1.24|0.0163
95848564|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|25.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||25.64|2.81|0.0001
95848565|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||2.35|0.35|0.8358
95848566|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.52|0.86|0.1006
95964018|NCT01210651|191899083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||||||Analysis performed via Stata v14.1, with P-value calculated using a t-distribution and assuming unequal variances in the two samples. Alpha was two-tailed. P-value \< 0.05 was required a priori to reject the null hypothesis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis examined Total Change Scores on RSES, using an independent samples t-test to evaluate null hypothesis that Total Change Score on RSES for each intervention group would be statistically comparable.||||0.053
95866866|NCT00796991|191691738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.94|Omnibus conditional F-test|10 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in all treatment groups. Test of overall time-by-treatment interaction used an omnibus conditional F-test.||||0.5
95866867|NCT00796991|191691738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =1.08|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.37
95866868|NCT00796991|191691738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic =0.39|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.85
95866869|NCT00796991|191691738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P-values were not corrected for multiple testing. F Statistic = 1.41|conditional F-test|5 Degrees Freedom (DF) in numerator and 335 DF in denominator.||null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same in the given pair of treatment groups.||||0.22
95866870|NCT02650921|191691781|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|76.1|||McNemar|||||76.1|53.3|<0.0001
95866871|NCT02650921|191691782|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|72.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.9|82.7|||McNemar|||||82.7|61.9|<0.0001
95866872|NCT02650921|191691783|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|57.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|69.8|||McNemar|||||69.8|44.8|<0.0001
95866873|NCT02650921|191691784|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|45.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|59.3|||McNemar|||||59.3|32.3|<0.0001
95866874|NCT01087788|191691815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|44.6||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||44.6|22.8|<0.001
95866875|NCT01087788|191691815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|38.7||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||38.7|16.5|<0.001
95866876|NCT01087788|191691816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35|=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|5.77||Diff. of CZP 200mg+400mg versus PBO (and corresponding 95% Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor(TNF)-antagonist exposure as factors \& BL mTSS score as a covariate|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the pre-defined primary analysis.||5.77|-27.05|=0.203
95964019|NCT02633397|191899087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.19
95964020|NCT02633397|191899088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.42
95964021|NCT02633397|191899089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Regression, Logistic|||P- Value was the exact logistic regression adjusted for clinical site.||||0.52
95964022|NCT02633397|191899091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.42|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.42|-0.70|0.69
95964023|NCT02633397|191899092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.51||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-117.05|38.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||38.02|-117.05|0.40
95964024|NCT02633397|191899093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.73|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||0.73|-0.11|0.23
95964025|NCT02633397|191899094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||-0.8|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.46|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.46|-0.62|-0.80
95964026|NCT02633397|191899095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.22|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in MAP as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-3.69|-10.22|<0.001
95964027|NCT02633397|191899096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||0.02|-0.31|0.15
95964028|NCT02633397|191899097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.28|-3.12|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||-3.12|-10.28|0.003
95964029|NCT02633397|191899098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|5.04|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model adjusted for clinic site||5.04|2.00|<0.001
95964030|NCT02633397|191899099|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|286.56||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-429.86|1002.99|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||1002.99|-429.86|0.51
95964031|NCT02633397|191899100|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-82.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-173.69|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||9.32|-173.69|0.14
95964032|NCT02633397|191899101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare microalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.78
95964033|NCT02633397|191899102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare macroalbuminuria frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.30
95964034|NCT02633397|191899103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.21|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in GFR as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||-0.62|-9.21|0.06
95964035|NCT02633397|191899104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed model (logit link) with random intercept was used to compare CKD stage frequency as a function of time and the interaction between time and study arm.||||0.56
95964036|NCT02633397|191899105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in hemoglobin as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.03|-0.52|0.15
95964037|NCT02633397|191899106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in reticulocyte count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||2.72|0.22|0.05
95964038|NCT02633397|191899107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||0.63|-0.93|0.75
95866877|NCT01087788|191691816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||Difference of CZP 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||-0.04|-0.38|=0.017
95964039|NCT02633397|191899108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.28||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.63|6.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare the change in WBC count as a function of time, the interaction between time and study arm, and clinic site.||6.08|-64.63|0.17
95848567|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.34|1.01|0.0484
95848568|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.08|0.50|0.6492
95848569|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.27|0.71|0.2230
95964040|NCT02633397|191899109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|-0.15|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model adjusted for clinic site||-0.15|-3.13|0.07
95848570|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.02|1.30|0.0126
95848571|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|15.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.98|1.94|0.0014
95848572|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||1.83|0.27|0.4713
95964041|NCT03036124|191899118|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
95964042|NCT03036124|191899119|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.85|0.65|<0.0001
95964043|NCT03036124|191899120|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.0002||95.0|0.65|0.88|||LWYY proportional rates model|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including the history of hospitalizations due to Heart failure as a factor.||||0.88|0.65|0.0002
95964044|NCT03036124|191899121|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio (WR)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.11|1.26||The p-value is obtained from a rank ANCOVA adjusted for baseline KCCQ score and stratified by T2DM status at randomization.|Win Ratio|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline score as a covariate.|The composite of change from baseline in total symptom score at 8 months, or death before 8 months.|||1.26|1.11|<0.0001
95964045|NCT03036124|191899122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1681||95.0|0.44|1.16|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization and including baseline eGFR as a covariate.||||1.16|0.44|0.1681
95964046|NCT03036124|191899123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0217||95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by Type 2 Diabetes status at randomization.||||0.97|0.71|0.0217
95866878|NCT01087788|191691816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07||Difference of CZP 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints.Conditional on the 1st test being significant, the 2nd hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5%. Stat. testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected Re-analysis approach, restricted to subjects in the RS who have at least 2 x-ray values at scheduled visits (at least 8 wks apart)||0.07|-0.27|=0.261
95866879|NCT01087788|191691817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|51.0||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||51.0|29.5|<0.001
95866880|NCT01087788|191691817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|43.8||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||43.8|21.8|<0.001
95964047|NCT01124838|191899129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.84|||Log Rank|||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was performed on Main Study data, excluding the Japanese sub-study. The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.||0.84|0.39|0.004
95964048|NCT01124838|191899129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank|||An additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed using the Integrated Study data (Main Study + Japan sub-study). The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||0.74|0.37|<0.001
95964049|NCT01124838|191899130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations (i.e., observations from each of the participant's eyes).|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.08|-0.37|0.218
95964050|NCT01124838|191899130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.06|-0.36|0.164
95964051|NCT01124838|191899131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.28|0.070
95964052|NCT01124838|191899131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.03|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||-0.03|-0.31|0.016
95964053|NCT01124838|191899132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as factor adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.01|-0.08|0.096
95964054|NCT01124838|191899132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.0|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||0.00|-0.09|0.044
95964055|NCT01124838|191899133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.69|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment as factor.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.69|0.34|0.491
95866881|NCT01087788|191691818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg vs. Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline HAQ-DI score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||-0.20|-0.42|<0.001
95866882|NCT01087788|191691819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|46.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|56.9||Difference of Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using a standard two-sided Wald asymptotic test with a 5 % alpha level.|Wald-test, 2-sided|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected.||56.9|35.7|<0.001
95866883|NCT01087788|191691820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.05||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the predefined analysis.||0.05|-0.43|=0.127
95866884|NCT01087788|191691820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.01||Difference of CZP 200 mg + 400 mg versus Placebo (and corresponding 95 % Confidence Interval and p-value) were estimated using an ANCOVA model with treatment, region and prior TNF-antagonist exposure as factors and Baseline mTSS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical test procedure was applied to protect the overall significance level for the multiplicity of dose groups and endpoints. Conditional on the first test being significant, the second hypothesis was tested with the same alpha level of 5 %. Statistical testing for the following hypotheses was performed only if the previous null hypothesis in the hierarchy was rejected. This is the post-hoc analysis for the subgroup 'Baseline mTSS \> 6'.||-0.01|-1.04|=0.048
95866885|NCT01779219|191691821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Fisher's exact test (two-tailed)|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95848573|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.12|0.79|0.1397
95848574|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.34|0.71|0.2272
95848575|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.64|0.72|0.2024
95866886|NCT01779219|191691822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95866887|NCT01779219|191691823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total length of hospital stay||||0.16
95866888|NCT01779219|191691823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the preoperative hospital stay||||0.73
95866889|NCT01779219|191691823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Length of the postoperative hospital stay||||1.0
95866890|NCT01779219|191691824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total OR time||||<0.001
95866891|NCT01779219|191691824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time of preoperative preparations||||0.004
95866892|NCT01779219|191691824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Time of the operation (skin-to-skin)"||||0.024
95866893|NCT00428584|191691825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.524||||||P value refers to mean change to 30 minute post injection|ANOVA|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by using a two-way ANOVA model on ranked data including treatment group and site as fixed effect.||||0.524
95866894|NCT00428584|191691826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.484
95866895|NCT00428584|191691827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.838
95866896|NCT00428584|191691828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||||||No pain is defined as a VAS = 0 for all 21 full dose injections.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.451
95866897|NCT00428584|191691829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.338
95848576|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.79|0.76|0.1716
95848577|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.51|1.20|0.0199
95848578|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.54|2.80|0.0002
95964056|NCT01124838|191899133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio of adalimumab versus placebo was calculated using proportional hazards regression with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.28|0.28|0.185
95848579|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.77|0.57|0.4243
95848580|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.78|0.1507
95848581|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.60|1.02|0.0449
95848582|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.24|0.66|0.2759
95848583|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.78|0.76|0.1700
95848584|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|9.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.51|1.27|0.0153
95848585|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|17.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||17.53|2.08|0.0009
95866898|NCT00043550|191691865|SUPERIORITY|The proposed sample size had at least 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.36 between the two active treatment conditions and placebo during the active phase. These power calculations were based on a priori values of within-subject correlation of 0.50, 10% attrition, and 6 assessment points.|Slope|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall significant effect for treatment, as well as the two moderating effects, used a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167 (0.05/3).|HLM|||Comparison of conditions||||.95
95866899|NCT00043550|191691865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||HLM|||effects of conditions over time||||<.0001
95866900|NCT00043550|191691865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.41||||||||.41|-.35|
96002846|NCT06244316|191983032|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|1.1|||=|0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.6||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 - Analysis is based on a MMRM on the change from baseline. The model includes the change from baseline in SANDE global score as the dependent variable; the fixed effects of treatment arm (3 levels: rhNGF 10 mcg/mL, rhNGF 5 mcg/mL, and vehicle), visit (2 levels: Week 4, Week 8), baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction. Missing data for SANDE Global Score are imputed employing Multiple Imputation based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR.||6.6|-4.3|=0.656
95848586|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.23|0.50|0.6228
95848587|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.76|1.02|0.0460
95848588|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.23|0.82|0.1215
95848589|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.48|0.68|0.2470
95848590|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.66|0.72|0.2072
95848591|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.95|0.0621
95866901|NCT00043550|191691865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45||||||||.45|-.33|
95866902|NCT03259620|191691866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2587
95866903|NCT04355728|191691902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in the number of subjects experiencing serious adverse events in the UC-MSC vs control group."||||.04
95866904|NCT04355728|191691911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.289||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.948|||Log Rank||Censoring was limited to dropout from study, and the event of interest was recovery. In the case of death, the patient's time to recovery was censored at the end of study observation; thus the patient remained in the risk set for all KM estimations.|"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no difference in Time to Recovery up to 31 days post infusion between the UC-MSC group and control group. Time to recovery was estimated in each group with Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Log-rank tests were used to compare hazards between groups."||0.948|0.088|0.0307
95866905|NCT04355728|191691912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
95866906|NCT04355728|191691913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: The center of the distributions of ventilator free days are equal in the UC-MSC and control group.||||.0563
95866907|NCT04355728|191691944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0356
95964057|NCT01124838|191899134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.8|-8.5|0.451
95964058|NCT01124838|191899134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with treatment, race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) and OCT machine as factors adjusted for clustered observations.|The mean difference between treatment groups with its 95% confidence interval is based on individual data from all eyes adjusted for correlated measurements within a subject in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.|The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||1.8|-9.7|0.174
95964059|NCT01124838|191899135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.12||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.08|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.08|-0.84|0.160
95964060|NCT01124838|191899135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.77||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.52|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.52|-0.97|0.205
95964061|NCT01124838|191899136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|1.88||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|6.29|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.29|-2.53|0.401
95848592|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|16.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.69|1.93|0.0016
95848593|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.84|0.56|0.4372
95866908|NCT04355728|191691945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0215
95866909|NCT04355728|191691946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3498.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3078.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6404.7|-591.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-591.2|-6404.7|0.0210
95848594|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.66|0.84|0.1100
95848595|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.59|0.99|0.0533
95848596|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|44.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||44.00|0.50|0.1769
95866910|NCT04355728|191691948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.48
95866911|NCT04355728|191691948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 3 days post first infusion."||||0.41
95866912|NCT04355728|191691949|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
95866913|NCT04355728|191691949|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (Class II) status and treatment group at 6 days post first infusion."||||1.00
95964062|NCT01124838|191899136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|2.36||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.45|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||6.45|-1.73|0.256
95848597|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|23.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||23.53|0.22|0.4942
95866914|NCT04355728|191691950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class I) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.44
95866915|NCT04355728|191691950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5238|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is the following: There is no association between PRA (class II) status and treatment group at 14 days post first infusion."||||0.5238
95866916|NCT02390791|191691952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||generalized linear model|assuming a Poisson distribution with a log link function||||||0.04
95964063|NCT01124838|191899137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mena Difference|-0.1||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|4.61|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.61|-4.81|0.967
95964064|NCT01124838|191899137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|3.79|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese versus non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||3.79|-5.53|0.714
95964065|NCT01124838|191899138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|0.56||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|5.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment as a factor.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||5.68|-4.56|0.830
95964066|NCT01124838|191899138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|4.34|||ANOVA|From ANOVA of change from baseline to final/early termination visit with treatment and race (Japanese vs. non-Japanese) as factors.||The statistical test for the ranked secondary variables was carried out in hierarchical order at the significance level of 5%.||4.34|-5.32|0.842
95848598|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.82||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|112.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||112.7|1.46|0.0214
95866917|NCT02390791|191691953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95866918|NCT02390791|191691954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
95964067|NCT04991753|191899173|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-1.17|=0.224
95964068|NCT01475305|191899185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|||2.05|0.00|
95964069|NCT01475305|191899186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by quantitative real-time RT-PCR||6.24|0.16|
95964070|NCT01475305|191899186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.05|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by DFA||2.05|0.00|
95964071|NCT01475305|191899186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|6.24|||||Relative risk was calculated as the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the MEDI-557 arm divided by the proportion of participants with RSV infection in the placebo arm.|RSV infection by Any Method||6.24|0.16|
95848599|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.99|0.16|0.6013
95848600|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|76.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||76.58|0.97|0.0537
95866919|NCT02390791|191691955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95866920|NCT02390791|191691956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95866921|NCT02390791|191691957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95866922|NCT02390791|191691958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95866923|NCT02390791|191691959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95866924|NCT02390791|191691960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.48
95866925|NCT02390791|191691961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||generalized linear model|||||||0.71
95866926|NCT03011892|191691975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-59.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.85|-41.47|||MMRM|||||-41.47|-77.85|< 0.0001
95866927|NCT03011892|191691976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.01||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.27|-14.76|||MMRM|||DB: Vehicle BID, Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||-14.76|-51.27|0.0004
95866928|NCT03011892|191691976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.23|-22.57|||MMRM|||||-22.57|-59.23|< 0.0001
95848601|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|39.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||39.91|0.36|0.2662
95848602|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||17.84|0.13|0.7431
95848603|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.2829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|35.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||35.22|0.35|0.2829
95848604|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|22.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||22.29|0.20|0.5311
95848605|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|46.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.83|0.47|0.1857
95848606|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|17.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.50|0.06|0.9879
95848607|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|43.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||43.19|0.48|0.1853
95848608|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|46.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||46.93|0.42|0.2170
95848609|NCT03192176|191659362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|12.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||12.62|0.04|0.8354
95848610|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.04|0.06|0.9671
95848611|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|31.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.87|0.31|0.3289
95848612|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|32.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||32.71|0.32|0.3157
95848613|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|16.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.83|0.06|0.991
95848614|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|26.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||26.12|0.20|0.5139
95848615|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.3079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|33.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||33.45|0.33|0.3079
95848616|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.83||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|75.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||75.68|1.03|0.0469
95848617|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|119.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||119.1|1.74|0.0134
95866929|NCT03011892|191691976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-54.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.93|-36.7|||MMRM|||||-36.70|-72.93|< 0.0001
95866930|NCT03011892|191691977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|14.63||||0.1127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|32.73|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.15% QD||32.73|-3.47|0.1127
95848618|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|46.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||46.90|0.53|0.1606
95848619|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.69||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|58.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||58.35|0.77|0.0854
95848620|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.07||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|54.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||54.72|0.67|0.1082
95848621|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|63.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||63.04|0.83|0.0737
95848622|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.98||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|99.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||99.74|1.44|0.0217
95848623|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.24||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|157.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||157.1|2.36|0.0058
95848624|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.44||||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|41.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||41.87|0.47|0.1924
95848625|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.54||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|66.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||66.00|0.86|0.0680
95848626|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|129.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||129.4|1.97|0.0095
95848627|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|37.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||37.21|0.36|0.2690
95848628|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.28||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|86.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||86.53|1.22|0.0321
95848629|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.48||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|119.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||119.7|1.75|0.0131
95964072|NCT01251770|191899219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium difference at the beginning||||0.030
95848630|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.22||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|204.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||204.6|3.11|0.0025
95848631|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|43.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||43.72|0.49|0.1788
95848632|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.33||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|87.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||87.31|1.22|0.0320
95964073|NCT01251770|191899219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.871||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Serum Sodium at the end of the study||||0.871
95964074|NCT01251770|191899220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.895
95964075|NCT03299049|191899235|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Cochran-Mantel Haenzel (CMH) adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \>=50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W - Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||2.2|-0.6|
95964076|NCT03299049|191899236|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the CMH adjusted treatment difference (Q8W minus Q4W) is greater than -10%|Adjusted difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.7|||||Adjusted CMH estimate of the difference in the percentage of participants with Plasma HIV-1 \<50 c/mL between each treatment group (Q8W-Q4W) and corresponding 95% CI is presented.|||3.7|-2.1|
95964077|NCT00475644|191899287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.86||||||||0.860|0.001|
95848633|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.24||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|93.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||93.33|1.35|0.0251
95848634|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.83|0.35|0.6154
95848635|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|8.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.63|0.65|0.1906
95848636|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.07|1.03|0.0450
95848637|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||24.66|2.10|0.0017
95848638|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.97|0.47|0.3939
95848639|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.74|0.55|0.2869
95848640|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.80|0.66|0.1817
95848641|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.41||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|96.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||96.77|1.35|0.0256
95848642|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||112.8|1.65|0.0153
95848643|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.76||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|179.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||179.2|2.64|0.0042
95848644|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.75||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|291.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||291.5|4.39|0.0008
95866931|NCT03011892|191691977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.74||||0.4659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|24.92|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 0.5% QD||24.92|-11.44|0.4659
95964078|NCT04486625|191899288|OTHER|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|79.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.52|94.96||||||||94.96|66.52|
95848645|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.45||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|58.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||58.21|0.71|0.0967
95848646|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|72.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||72.95|0.94|0.0564
95866932|NCT03011892|191691977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.18||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.13|10.77|||MMRM|||Triamcinolone 0.1% BID/Vehicle Cream BID, DB: Ruxolitinib 1.5% QD||10.77|-25.13|0.4320
95866933|NCT03011892|191691977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.02||||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.05|6.0|||MMRM|||||6.00|-30.05|0.1903
95866934|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.12||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-10.41|||MMRM|||Week 2||-10.41|-39.84|0.0009
95866935|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-47.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.64|-33.06|||MMRM|||Week 2||-33.06|-62.64|< 0.0001
95866936|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-41.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-26.08|||MMRM|||Week 2||-26.08|-56.00|< 0.0001
95866937|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.69|-30.4|||MMRM|||Week 2||-30.40|-59.69|< 0.0001
95866938|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.99||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|24.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||24.63|-4.66|0.1806
95848647|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|190.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||190.5|2.93|0.0030
95848648|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|83.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||83.68|1.13|0.0384
95848649|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.65||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|112.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||112.9|1.65|0.0153
95848650|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.55||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.72|250.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||250.6|3.72|0.0015
95848651|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.99||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|293.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||293.5|4.41|0.0008
95848652|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.67||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|106.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.1|1.51|0.0192
95848653|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.92||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|141.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||141.0|2.03|0.0089
95848654|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.96||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|201.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||201.6|3.09|0.0025
95848655|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.94|0.84|0.0910
95848656|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.67|1.15|0.0296
95848657|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.23||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|28.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||28.44|2.38|0.0009
95848658|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|29.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||29.63|2.46|0.0007
95866939|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|8.95|||MMRM|||Week 2||8.95|-20.82|0.4333
95848659|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.86|0.45|0.4152
95848660|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|11.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.93|0.91|0.0700
95848661|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.83||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|19.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||19.84|1.71|0.0048
95848662|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.23|0.72|0.1497
95848663|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||9.77|0.95|0.0608
95866940|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.94||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.51|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 2||4.63|-24.51|0.1805
95866941|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-12.74||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.45|1.98|||MMRM|||Week 2||1.98|-27.45|0.0895
95866942|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.74|-9.02|||MMRM|||Week 8||-9.02|-47.74|0.0042
95866943|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-36.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.03|-17.01|||MMRM|||Week 8||-17.01|-56.03|0.0003
95848664|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.99||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|19.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||19.34|1.85|0.0028
95848665|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.84||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|25.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.13|2.45|0.0005
95848666|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.39|0.30|0.8393
95848667|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|13.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.10|1.23|0.0215
95866944|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-45.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||MMRM|||Week 8||||< 0.0001
95866945|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-57.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.53|-37.77|||MMRM|||Week 8||-37.77|-76.53|< 0.0001
95866946|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.78||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|26.93|||MMRM|||Week 8||26.93|-11.37|0.4243
95866947|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.65|18.95|||MMRM|||Week 8||18.95|-19.65|0.9715
95866948|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-9.03||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|9.99|||MMRM|||Week 8||9.99|-28.05|0.3507
96002847|NCT06244316|191983032|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.4|||=|0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.1||1-sided p value. Rubin's method is used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 -Analysis is based on a MMRM on the change from baseline. The model includes the change from baseline in SANDE global score as the dependent variable; the fixed effects of treatment arm (3 levels: rhNGF 10 mcg/mL, rhNGF 5 mcg/mL, and vehicle), visit (2 levels: Week 4, Week 8), baseline value, and treatment by visit interaction. Missing data for SANDE Global Score are imputed employing Multiple Imputation based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR.||5.1|-5.9|=0.445
95848668|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.94|1.40|0.0112
95866949|NCT03011892|191691978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.98||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|-1.82|||MMRM|||Week 8||-1.82|-40.15|0.0320
95866950|NCT00608569|191691985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Results were considered to be statistically significant if p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test (unstratified)||||0.133
95866951|NCT03758755|191691993|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in IKDC score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.0219
95866952|NCT03758755|191691994|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is no difference between groups in VAS score at 12 weeks post-op.||||0.008
95866953|NCT03758755|191691995|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in quadriceps tendon strength between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in quadriceps tendon strength over time.||||0.011
95866954|NCT03758755|191691996|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.223|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in thigh circumference between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis as the percent difference of the operated knee compared to the contralateral side. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in thigh circumference over time.||||0.223
95866955|NCT03758755|191691997|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee flexion between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee flexion over time.||||0.242
95866956|NCT03758755|191691998|EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis compares the change over time in degrees of knee extension between the BFR Therapy group and the No BFR Group from 2 weeks post-op to 12 weeks post-op. Underlying data was collected on a biweekly basis. This statistical test utilized the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between groups in the change in degrees of knee extension over time.||||0.049
95866957|NCT00821509|191692000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|1.03||||0.004|||||||proportion test|The test was carried out using the proportions calculated from the number of sick-leave episodes over the number o total follow-up weeks in each arm||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of days-off period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.004
95866958|NCT00821509|191692001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of proportions|0.933||||0.04|||||||proportion test|||According to the null hypothesis the proportion of weeks with an onset of an infectious disease period in neither of the intervention arms was different from that of control. No in advance power calculations were done.||||0.04
95866959|NCT02296138|191692085|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Ratio of rates vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.93||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.85|1.02|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.02|0.85|0.0498
95866960|NCT02296138|191692085|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on SPARK/FLAME- Covariates: Smoking status, baseline inhaled corticosteroid, Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage, region, COPD Assessment Test score (replacing baseline symptom score), exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids history in previous year (replacing 1-year history of exacerbations)||0.96|0.84|0.0010
95866961|NCT02296138|191692085|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on HERMES- Covariates: age, sex, smoking status, baseline Long-acting Beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid, region and percent predicted post-bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in One Second||0.98|0.85|0.0080
95866962|NCT02296138|191692085|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of rates|0.89||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.96|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of rates Tiotropium (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) is provided.|Model was based on TRINITY/TRILOGY- Covariates: Treatment, region, severity of airflow limitation, and smoking status as effects, and exacerbations treated with antibiotics/steroids in previous year.||0.96|0.84|0.0011
95866963|NCT02296138|191692086|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis testing strategy ensures that the overall type I error is protected at 2-sided 0.01 level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1188|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.03|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.03|0.87|0.1188
95866964|NCT02296138|191692087|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of events vs. Tiotropium 5 μg|0.89||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.03|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of events Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg) is provided.|Annualised rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalization was analysed using a negative binomial model including the fixed, categorical effect of treatment as well as the logarithm of the treatment exposure as an offset.||1.03|0.76|0.1265
95866965|NCT02296138|191692088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.06|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.06|0.82|0.2773
95848669|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.29|0.55|0.3498
95848670|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.08|0.69|0.1981
95848671|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.78|1.76|0.0029
95848672|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.95||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|17.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.40|2.03|0.0011
95848673|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.29|0.9511
95866966|NCT02296138|191692089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.75|||Log Rank||Tiotropium (5 μg) + Olodaterol (5 μg) versus Tiotropium (5 μg)|A Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding Confidence Interval. A log-rank test was used to obtain the p-value||1.75|0.67|0.7357
95866967|NCT04369924|191692090|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.25
95866968|NCT04369924|191692091|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.12
95866969|NCT04369924|191692092|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|0.7||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.70
95866970|NCT04369924|191692093|SUPERIORITY||F test for time by condition interaction|3.67||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.07
95866971|NCT04369924|191692094|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.16||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
95866972|NCT04369924|191692095|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.41||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.59
95848674|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.45|0.57|0.3241
95866973|NCT01895361|191692096|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.01|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crisis history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-2.00|= 0.010
95866974|NCT01895361|191692096|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.69|||=|0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.02|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.02|-1.84|= 0.180
95848675|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||11.16|1.36|0.0111
95848676|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.48|0.74|0.1375
95848677|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.83|0.93|0.0670
95848678|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||25.04|2.29|0.0009
95848679|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.42||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|30.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||30.49|2.91|0.0002
95848680|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.14|0.83|0.0982
95866975|NCT01895361|191692097|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-45.3|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
95866976|NCT01895361|191692097|OTHER||Change vs placebo (%)|-32.6|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||||||
95848681|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.80|0.77|0.1233
95848682|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|14.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.64|1.46|0.0091
95866977|NCT01895361|191692098|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|-4.36|= 0.450
95848683|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.10|0.34|0.9620
95848684|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.59|0.58|0.3527
95866978|NCT01895361|191692098|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.61|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||2.61|-3.90|= 0.837
95866979|NCT01895361|191692099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.741|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.741|0.331|= 0.001
95866980|NCT01895361|191692099|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752|||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.097|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.097|0.515|= 0.136
95866981|NCT01895361|191692100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.866|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||0.866|0.329|= 0.022
95866982|NCT01895361|191692100|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.092|||Log Rank||Calculated based on Cox regression analysis with HU therapy (yes, no), categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10), and treatment as covariates|||1.092|0.440|= 0.100
95866983|NCT01895361|191692101|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-1.0|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.98|= 0.015
95866984|NCT01895361|191692101|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|-0.87|||=|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|-1.77|= 0.120
95866985|NCT01895361|191692102|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata||||0.00|0.00|= 0.780
95866986|NCT01895361|191692102|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann median absolute diff.|0.0|||=|0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|with HU therapy (yes, no) and categorized crises history (2 to 4, 5 to 10) as recorded in the IXRS system as the strata.||||0.00|0.00|= 0.868
95848685|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.76|1.06|0.0394
95848686|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.53|1.19|0.0224
95848687|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.44|0.39|0.7891
95848688|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.99|0.88|0.0851
95848689|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.83|0.63|0.2885
95848690|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||13.30|0.05|0.8611
95848691|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|17.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||17.42|0.13|0.7549
95848692|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|24.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||24.66|0.17|0.5658
95848693|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||21.86|0.15|0.6319
95848694|NCT03192176|191659363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.9526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||18.96|0.06|0.9526
95848695|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.26|0.71|0.2251
95848696|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.39|0.0084
95848697|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|15.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.62|2.09|0.0007
95848698|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.00|1.87|0.0015
95848699|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||2.95|0.48|0.6976
95848700|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.57||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.05|1.73|0.0021
95866987|NCT03312751|191692104|SUPERIORITY||Overall response rate|62.9||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|78.5|||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||78.5|44.9|0.0053
95866988|NCT03312751|191692104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.2839
95866989|NCT03312751|191692104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Exact binomial|||The primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed with an exact binomial test to evaluate the null hypothesis that the Overall Response Rate was, at most, 40%. This test was performed at the one sided 0.025 significance level.||||0.0031
95866990|NCT02815280|191692139|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.35|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion count and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.||5.35|0.95|0.0051
95866991|NCT02815280|191692140|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0.|Risk ratio|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.46|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.46|1.02|0.0424
95866992|NCT02815280|191692141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|23.23||Percent change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline non-inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor. For the superiority comparison between FMX101 4% and vehicle.|ANCOVA|||||23.23|2.44|0.0155
95866993|NCT02815280|191692142|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 6 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.90|1.88|0.0001
95866994|NCT02815280|191692142|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline in inflammatory lesion count for Week 9 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, baseline inflammatory lesion counts and pooled investigational site as a blocking factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.95|||ANCOVA|||||5.95|1.60|0.0007
95866995|NCT02815280|191692143|SUPERIORITY|P-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined log (Risk Ratio) equals 0. Percentage of participants achieving IGA treatment success at Week 6.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.69|1.06|0.0071
95866996|NCT02815280|191692143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.5143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.58|-3.30|0.5143
95866997|NCT00770146|191692145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With at least 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 groups.||||<0.001
95866998|NCT00770146|191692147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95866999|NCT00770146|191692149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867000|NCT00770146|191692151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95867001|NCT00770146|191692153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95867002|NCT00770146|191692155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977
95867003|NCT00770146|191692157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867004|NCT00770146|191692159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95867005|NCT00770146|191692161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867006|NCT00770146|191692163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.032
95867007|NCT01607203|191692167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|t -test||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95867008|NCT00924170|191692177|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan Meier|||Published response duration of 15 patients with leukemic adult T cell leukemia treated with Alemtuzumab.||||<0.0001
95867009|NCT03735238|191692216|OTHER|Not applicable. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.||||||||||||||||This is a single arm implementation trial with no comparison group. This outcome represents the reach/penetration of the implementation at each site over the trial duration. We did not perform power calculation. There was no null hypothesis stated. Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|Our aim was to enroll at least 28 patients per site in this implementation trial during regular outpatient rheumatology clinic visits. No statistical test was performed for this outcome.|||
95867010|NCT03836001|191692248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95867011|NCT03836001|191692249|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95867012|NCT03836001|191692250|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95867013|NCT03836001|191692251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95867014|NCT03836001|191692252|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95867015|NCT03836001|191692253|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.02|-0.24|0.09
95867016|NCT03836001|191692254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.03||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||0.03|-0.19|0.16
95848701|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.68|1.22|0.0171
95848702|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.04|0.69|0.2224
95848703|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.69|0.65|0.2716
95848704|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|14.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.32|1.41|0.0112
95848705|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.31|1.02|0.0461
95848706|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.47|0.59|0.3463
95848707|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|8.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.92|1.04|0.0419
95848708|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.46|0.63|0.2977
95867017|NCT03836001|191692256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of change from baseline through week 8 including all time points. For this analysis, data were censored at the time of participant discontinuation.||-0.09|-0.41|0.002
95867018|NCT01755026|191692258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|191.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|166.01|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95867019|NCT00392379|191692259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Based upon previous research, we hypothesized that the end-of-treatment abstinence rate for subjects receiving placebo would be 35% and the abstinence rate for subjects receiving the 4-mg nicotine lozenge would be 53%. A resulting power calculation indicated that 270 subjects (135 per group) were required in order to have 85% power to detect a significant difference (two-sided, α = 0.05 level test).||||<0.05
95848709|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.21|0.67|0.2300
95848710|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|8.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.58|0.94|0.0655
95848711|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|12.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.11|1.19|0.0245
95867020|NCT00308581|191692263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.696||95.0|0.7|1.7||Logistic regression model including terms for treatment arm and geographical region (North America versus Europe).|Regression, Logistic||Direction of comparison is Q4W regimen (active 1) versus Q2W regimen (active 2).|With a sample size of 165 patients per treatment arm, assuming a percentage of responders of 45% with the Q4W regimen, the study had 80% power to show a statistically significant difference in percentage of responders at Week 26 between the two treatment groups, when there is a true difference of 16% in percentage of responders in favor of the Q2W regimen, and using a 2-sided chi-square at the 5% significance level.||1.7|0.7|0.696
95867021|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||11.2|-5.0|0.78
95848712|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|21.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.93|1.44|0.0129
95848713|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.15|0.79|0.1259
95848714|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.82|0.84|0.1015
95964079|NCT04486625|191899289|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|75.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.1|86.43||||||||86.43|66.10|
95964080|NCT04486625|191899290|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed AUC0-24,ss between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of of adjusted geometric means|124.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.18|153.97||||||||153.97|100.18|
95964081|NCT04486625|191899291|OTHER|ANOVA was used to compare the natural log transformed Cmax between the normal renal function group (Reference) and the severe renal impairment group (Test). The geometric least squares mean point estimate and the associated 90% CIs for the difference of each comparison was estimated.|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|119.83||||||||119.83|87.55|
96002848|NCT06244316|191983033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.7|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in BCDVA score (ETDRS letter score) in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates. Missing data for BCDVA score for study eye are imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used for each timepoint.||1.9|-0.6|=0.137
96002849|NCT06244316|191983033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|-0.5|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 4 - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in BCDVA score (ETDRS letter score) in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates. Missing data for BCDVA score for study eye are imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used for each timepoint.||0.7|-1.8|=0.801
95848715|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|15.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.33|1.31|0.0167
95848716|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.95|0.50|0.5232
95848717|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.82|0.68|0.2055
95848718|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.64|0.93|0.0658
95848719|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|35.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||35.75|1.51|0.0136
95848720|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.00|0.59|0.3238
95848721|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|23.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||23.21|1.48|0.0118
95964082|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-diphtheria. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
95964083|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.07||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-tetanus. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.07|-1.14|
95964084|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.08||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 1. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.08|-1.14|
95964085|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 2. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
95964086|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.09||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-polio 3. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.09|-1.15|
95964087|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.4||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PRP. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||1.40|-1.48|
95848722|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.29||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||20.62|1.36|0.0163
95848723|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.18|0.42|0.6363
95867022|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||10.7|-4.6|0.75
95848724|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.68||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.25|0.89|0.0722
95848725|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|8.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.73|0.63|0.2019
95848726|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|86.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||86.09|1.20|0.0337
95848727|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.24|0.61|0.2207
95848728|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.57|0.84|0.0849
95848729|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.24|0.84|0.0844
95848730|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.65|0.60|0.2383
95848731|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|9.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.58|0.68|0.1653
95848732|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.48|0.65|0.1836
95848733|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|70.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||70.80|0.97|0.0529
95867023|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|13.7|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.7|-0.6|0.08
95848734|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.27|0.52|0.3197
95848735|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|31.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||31.25|1.11|0.0376
95848736|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.08||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|85.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||85.64|1.19|0.0343
95848737|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.09|0.49|0.4435
95848738|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|8.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.13|0.67|0.1805
95848739|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|14.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||14.95|0.84|0.0857
95848740|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|89.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||89.63|1.23|0.0316
95848741|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.27|0.52|0.3471
95848742|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|32.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||32.09|1.18|0.0313
95867024|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on global response."||13.2|-1.6|0.17
95867025|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|17.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||17.2|-6.5|0.61
95867026|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|16.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||16.8|-4.1|0.32
95867027|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|22.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||22.3|1.6|0.03
95867028|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|21.8|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on High Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||21.8|0.5|0.04
95867029|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.2|-1.5|1.00
95867030|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||2.3|-3.5|0.88
95848743|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.49||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|106.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||106.3|1.47|0.0208
95848744|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.97|0.31|0.8669
95848745|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.89|0.37|0.6592
95848746|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.98|0.50|0.2923
95848747|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.78||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|51.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||51.04|0.65|0.1145
95867031|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||1.0|-0.8|0.98
95867032|NCT00899353|191692328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.3|||ANOVA|Games-Howell Correction was applied to adjust for unequal variances, unequal sample size and for non-parametric distribution.||"Omnibus analysis. Statistical significance was determined by Games Howell Multiple Comparison test. Significance was determined as α\< 0.05.~Analysis based on Low Initial NFkB Activation Expressers."||5.3|-6.6|0.98
95867033|NCT01247298|191692341|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Estimate|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Kaplan Meier Estimates of Progression Free Survival (PFS)|||||
95867034|NCT02365233|191692353|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||IRB withheld the data due to inadequate supporting documentation|||
95867035|NCT01978938|191692354|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI test was based on the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), using the method proposed without stratification by Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in Responder (clinical cure and microbiologic success) rates in the micro-ITT population exceeded -10%, then the null hypothesis was rejected and the NI of eravacycline to levofloxacin was declared.|Treatment Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.2||||||For the FDA, an NI margin of 10% was used, which was based on historical data regarding the treatment effect of antibiotics. A 10% NI margin for the Responder outcome is robust and can sufficiently confirm a clinically meaningful treatment effect of eravacycline in the treatment of cUTI.||1.2|-14.1|
95867036|NCT01816451|191692411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre-post training variables data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. Heart Rate and Blood Lactate, were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables absolute and relative VO2, tVO2, Body Fat, Body Mass, RPE, were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used.||||< 0.05
95867037|NCT01816451|191692411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For pre; during (retest I 0-6weeks; retest II 0-10 weeks) and post training data were expressed as mean and standard deviation. HR and \[La\], were by three-way ANOVA (Measure x Group x Time) with repeated measures for the factors Measure and Time. The variables RPE, Velocity were made two-way ANOVAs (Group x Measure) with repeated measures on the factor Measure. Where the ANOVA was significant, the Tukey-Kramer as post-hoc was used. Control didn't do submaximal test for training intensities.||||<0.05
95867038|NCT02282293|191692445|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61||Calculated p-value|Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
95867039|NCT02282293|191692447|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.96||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.61|||Chi-squared|||||7.61|0.50|0.50
95867040|NCT02282293|191692449|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.45||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.48||Calculated p-value|GEE|||||1.48|0.13|0.19
95848748|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.78|0.40|0.4470
95848749|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.31||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||65.41|0.82|0.0753
95848750|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|60.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||60.24|0.78|0.0829
95848751|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.59|0.28|0.9978
95867041|NCT02282293|191692450|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.45|||Chi-squared|||||2.45|0.72|0.35
95867042|NCT04456153|191692464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||GLMM|||||||0.170
95867043|NCT04456153|191692465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||GLMM|||||||0.051
95848752|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.65|0.43|0.4571
95848753|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.94|0.44|0.3681
95848754|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|54.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||54.38|0.69|0.1038
95848755|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.72|0.39|0.4639
95848756|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.15||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|63.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||63.27|0.81|0.0770
95848757|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.01|0.26|0.9838
95848758|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.86|0.21|0.6995
95848759|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.71|0.26|0.8808
95848760|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||45.13|0.54|0.1570
95848761|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.26|0.39|0.3742
95848762|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|48.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||48.26|0.57|0.1436
95848763|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.57||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||50.77|0.61|0.1277
95848764|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||2.81|0.20|0.6689
95848765|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.95|0.29|0.8019
95848766|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.05|0.23|0.9591
95848767|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|13.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.06|0.42|0.3364
95848768|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|12.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.32|0.39|0.3698
95867044|NCT04456153|191692468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95867045|NCT04456153|191692469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||trapezoidal method|||||||0.76
95848769|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.01|0.54|0.1587
95848770|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|50.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.06|0.61|0.1300
95867046|NCT02312687|191692507|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88||The generalized estimation equation (GEE) model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|generalized estimation equation (GEE)|||Change at Week 24||0.88|0.48|< 0.0001
95848771|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.53|0.43|0.4152
95848772|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.50|0.27|0.9645
95848773|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.96|0.43|0.3884
95848774|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|14.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.41|0.48|0.2670
95848775|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|62.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||62.90|0.76|0.0861
95848776|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.21||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|64.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||64.66|0.80|0.0774
95964088|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|2.69||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-PT. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||2.69|-3.93|
95848777|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||20.65|1.08|0.0389
95848778|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.57|0.50|0.3695
95848779|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.89|0.48|0.3501
95964089|NCT01411241|191899317|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of all the 95% CI of the difference is greater than -10% for all antigens. Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI was used for the difference of seroprotection/booster rates.|Difference in percentage|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|4.06||||||Non-inferiority (Group 1 - Group 2); Anti-FHA. Non-inferiority of Pentaxim booster dose based on seroprotection/booster response was assessed 28 days after injection.||4.06|-4.87|
95848780|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.2021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.14|0.61|0.2021
95848781|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.6201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.62|0.36|0.6201
95848782|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|132.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||132.0|1.42|0.0235
95867047|NCT02312687|191692507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||0.79|0.57|< 0.0001
95964090|NCT00725270|191899329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures ANOVA was run on the Positive Symptom Scale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, using Baseline and Day 9 ratings. Below is the medication \* time interaction.||||.812
95964091|NCT00725270|191899330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||eta sq|0.157||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.203
95964092|NCT02493946|191899335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|80.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.7|88.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders.||88.0|73.7|<0.0001
95964093|NCT02493946|191899336|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|75.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|82.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||82.8|67.1|<0.0001
95964094|NCT02493946|191899336|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|82.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||82.1|66.2|<0.0001
95964095|NCT02493946|191899336|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|53.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|63.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||63.1|44.2|<0.0001
95964096|NCT02493946|191899338|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|71.6||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||71.6|44.5|<0.0001
95848783|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|14.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||14.48|0.81|0.0929
95848784|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.33|0.29|0.9820
95964097|NCT02493946|191899338|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|56.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.5|69.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||69.0|44.5|<0.0001
95964098|NCT02493946|191899338|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|62.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|72.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||72.9|52.1|<0.0001
95964099|NCT02493946|191899338|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|55.7||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||55.7|29.5|<0.0001
95964100|NCT02493946|191899339|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|61.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|70.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||70.3|51.9|<0.0001
95964101|NCT02493946|191899339|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|74.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||74.8|56.8|<0.0001
95964102|NCT02493946|191899339|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|70.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|78.8||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||78.8|62.2|<0.0001
95964103|NCT02493946|191899339|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.0||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||42.0|24.0|<0.0001
95964104|NCT02493946|191899340|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|68.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.2|78.3||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Linear|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 8 Cycle 1.||78.3|58.2|<0.0001
95964105|NCT02493946|191899340|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.6|86.2||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 29 Cycle 1.||86.2|68.6|<0.0001
95848785|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.41|0.44|0.4956
95848786|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.44|0.20|0.5708
95848787|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.61|0.61|0.1985
95848788|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.32|0.31|0.8368
95848789|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|14.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.76|0.68|0.1397
95848790|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.85|0.52|0.0366
95848791|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.05|0.23|0.7968
95848792|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.81|0.30|0.9074
95848793|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.1987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.60|0.10|0.1987
95848794|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|11.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.18|0.60|0.2040
95848795|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.99|0.13|0.3318
95848796|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.10|0.31|0.7437
95848797|NCT03192176|191659364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.71|0.36|0.6848
95848798|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.32|0.84|0.1114
95867048|NCT02312687|191692507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||0.75|0.44|< 0.0001
95867049|NCT02312687|191692507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.63||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||0.63|0.31|< 0.0001
95867050|NCT02312687|191692507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.73||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||0.73|0.41|< 0.0001
95867051|NCT02312687|191692507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.76||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||0.76|0.43|< 0.0001
95964106|NCT02493946|191899340|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|83.1||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 57 Cycle 1.||83.1|65.7|<0.0001
95848799|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.04|1.83|0.0013
95848800|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.54|2.65|<0.0001
95848801|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|12.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.89|1.91|0.0010
95848802|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||3.22|0.49|0.6384
95848803|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|14.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.93|2.23|0.0003
95848804|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.45|1.65|0.0025
95848805|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.12|1.12|0.0279
95848806|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.61|1.31|0.0114
95848807|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.55||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|21.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||21.45|2.66|0.0001
95848808|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|18.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||18.26|2.25|0.0005
95848809|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.02|0.93|0.0695
95848810|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|12.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.77|1.83|0.0015
95848811|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.28|1.30|0.0120
95848812|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.57|0.94|0.662
95848813|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.80|0.85|0.1019
95848814|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|16.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.18|1.83|0.0023
95848815|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|25.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||25.02|2.15|0.0015
95964107|NCT02493946|191899340|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.9||The treatment difference and p-value were obtained from a logistic regression on responders with treatment group, gender, baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown and centre as fixed variables.|Regression, Logistic|||Treatment difference against placebo in the adjusted percentage of responders at Day 85 Cycle 1.||59.9|42.0|<0.0001
95848816|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.66|0.68|0.2380
95848817|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|9.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.81|1.33|0.0120
95848818|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.77|0.88|0.0910
95848819|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.1926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.18|0.72|0.1926
95848820|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.15|0.85|0.1017
95848821|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|11.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.45|1.29|0.0153
95848822|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.52||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|28.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||28.98|1.95|0.0034
95848823|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.76|0.55|0.4539
95848824|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.40|1.10|0.0327
95867052|NCT02312687|191692508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.75||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|3.09||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 24||3.09|-22.59|0.1366
95848825|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.30|0.98|0.0555
95848826|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.67|0.58|0.3505
95848827|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|13.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.11|1.17|0.0265
95848828|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|17.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.32|1.32|0.0174
95848829|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.95||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||44.61|1.80|0.0075
95867053|NCT02312687|191692508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-11.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.76|3.42||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 48||3.42|-25.76|0.1334
95867054|NCT02312687|191692508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-9.17||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 72||-9.17|-27.07|< 0.0001
95867055|NCT02312687|191692508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 96||-14.35|-36.21|< 0.0001
95867056|NCT02312687|191692508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.51|-13.26||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 120||-13.26|-31.51|< 0.0001
95848830|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.68|0.78|0.1228
95848831|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.38|1.04|0.0431
95848832|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.35|0.87|0.0851
95848833|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.99|0.53|0.4726
95848834|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.67|0.79|0.1289
95848835|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.84|1.06|0.0400
95848836|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|40.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||40.55|1.67|0.0097
95848837|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.94|0.66|0.2260
95848838|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.63||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|35.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||35.96|2.07|0.0031
95848839|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|49.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||49.90|2.07|0.0043
95848840|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.04|0.47|0.5571
95848841|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.59|0.69|0.1911
95848842|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.41|0.80|0.1101
95848843|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.86||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|34.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||34.74|1.36|0.0199
95867057|NCT02312687|191692508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.11|-16.56||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE estimate|||Change at Week 144||-16.56|-40.11|< 0.0001
95867058|NCT02312687|191692509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|215493.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|194650.78|236335.97||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||236335.97|194650.78|< 0.0001
95867059|NCT02312687|191692509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|202525.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|168364.92|236685.83||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||236685.83|168364.92|< 0.0001
95867060|NCT02312687|191692509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221481.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|179628.07|263333.98||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||263333.98|179628.07|< 0.0001
95964108|NCT02493946|191899341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|15.296|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox proportional hazard model|The cox proportional hazard model used centre, gender and ILA baseline severity score as covariates.||Treatment difference in median time to onset of treatment response.||||<0.0001
95848844|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.33|0.61|0.2600
95848845|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.93||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|46.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||46.19|1.73|0.0090
95848846|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.22||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|145.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||145.2|2.04|0.0089
95848847|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.19|0.36|0.8966
95848848|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.51|0.48|0.5031
95848849|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.92|0.59|0.2603
95848850|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.2447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.88|0.59|0.2447
95848851|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.55|0.49|0.4239
95848852|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|99.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||99.35|1.38|0.0240
95848853|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|9.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.41|0.72|0.1457
95848854|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.38|0.34|0.9000
95848855|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.64|0.39|0.7644
95848856|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.2245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.67|0.60|0.2245
95848857|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||27.40|1.02|0.0475
95848858|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|8.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.07|0.57|0.2569
95848859|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.32||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|79.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||79.44|1.09|0.0412
95848860|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.61|0.76|0.1201
95964109|NCT02493946|191899342|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|12.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference ( BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||12.0|5.2|<0.0001
95867061|NCT02312687|191692509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|221674.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|181313.34|262034.81||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||262034.81|181313.34|< 0.0001
95867062|NCT02312687|191692509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|208270.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|167217.98|249322.06||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||249322.06|167217.98|< 0.0001
95867063|NCT02312687|191692509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|235953.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166110.59|305796.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||305796.52|166110.59|< 0.0001
95848861|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.23|0.53|0.3814
95848862|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.23|0.38|0.8549
95848863|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|10.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.24|0.75|0.1274
95848864|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|15.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.01|0.90|0.0703
95848865|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.76|0.66|0.1821
95848866|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.96||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||109.5|1.53|0.0187
95848867|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|17.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||17.00|1.03|0.0458
95848868|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.89|0.41|0.6806
95964110|NCT02493946|191899342|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||14.8|7.4|<0.0001
95848869|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.45|0.38|0.8090
95848870|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.26|0.60|0.2352
95848871|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.50|0.74|0.1231
95848872|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||11.76|0.70|0.1445
95867064|NCT02312687|191692510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1277.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1202.34|1353.34||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||1353.34|1202.34|< 0.0001
95867065|NCT02312687|191692510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1244.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1166.1|1323.88||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1323.88|1166.10|< 0.0001
95964111|NCT02493946|191899342|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||14.0|6.8|<0.0001
95848873|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.03||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|102.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||102.7|1.41|0.0230
95848874|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|14.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||14.36|0.86|0.0801
95848875|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.4152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.32|0.50|0.4152
95848876|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.65|0.51|0.3845
95848877|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.39|0.65|0.1864
95848878|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.01268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.86|0.73|0.01268
95848879|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.76|0.67|0.1600
95867066|NCT02312687|191692510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.56|1363.43||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||1363.43|1233.56|< 0.0001
95964112|NCT02493946|191899342|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|13.3||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariates.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||13.3|5.9|<0.0001
95964113|NCT02493946|191899343|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|13.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||13.6|5.0|<0.0001
95964114|NCT02493946|191899343|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||16.0|6.7|<0.0001
95964115|NCT02493946|191899343|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|15.9||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||15.9|6.4|<0.0001
95964116|NCT02493946|191899343|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|12.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||12.6|3.7|0.0004
95964117|NCT02493946|191899344|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.6||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 8 Cycle 1.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0174
95964118|NCT02493946|191899344|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.6||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 29 Cycle 1.||-0.6|-1.7|<0.0001
95964119|NCT02493946|191899344|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.7||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 57 Cycle 1.||-0.7|-2.0|0.0001
95964120|NCT02493946|191899344|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.8||The general linear model included mean change from baseline as a dependent variable and treatment group, gender and centre as fixed effects, and baseline severity score on ILA at maximum frown as covariate.|General linear model|||Treatment difference (BTX-A-HAC Solution - Placebo) at Day 85 Cycle 1.||-0.8|-2.1|<0.0001
95964121|NCT03392168|191899372|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-12.4|-44.6|0.0007
95848880|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|32.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||32.11|1.17|0.0317
95848881|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||15.53|0.89|0.0709
95848882|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.41|0.47|0.4533
95848883|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||2.60|0.24|0.7053
95848884|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.99|0.49|0.3677
95848885|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||4.40|0.35|0.7350
95848886|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.15|0.36|0.6443
95848887|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.43|0.4865
95848888|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|9.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.27|0.69|0.1628
95848889|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.57|0.24|0.6935
95848890|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.28|0.32|0.9753
95848891|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.81|0.23|0.7407
95848892|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.49|0.44|0.4929
95848893|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.15|0.25|0.8496
95848894|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.05|0.52|0.3248
95848895|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.92|0.59|0.2589
95848896|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.87|0.16|0.3318
95848897|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.01|0.26|0.8536
95848898|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.84|0.12|0.2817
95867067|NCT02312687|191692510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1311.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1238.3|1383.8||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||1383.80|1238.30|< 0.0001
95867068|NCT02312687|191692510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1368.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1327.4|1409.96||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||1409.96|1327.40|< 0.0001
95867069|NCT02312687|191692510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1298.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1208.31|1388.51||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||1388.51|1208.31|< 0.0001
95964122|NCT03392168|191899372|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-27.8||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-11.5|-44.2|0.0011
95848899|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.07|0.17|0.4091
95848900|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.3147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.93|0.13|0.3147
95848901|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.24|0.8547
95848902|NCT03192176|191659365|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.19|0.20|0.5023
95848903|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|11.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.35|1.41|0.0093
95848904|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.09|1.66|0.0035
95964123|NCT03392168|191899373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.2||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.3|-13.7|0.5493
95964124|NCT03392168|191899373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.9|-15.7|0.3650
95848905|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|23.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.90|3.01|<0.0001
95848906|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|21.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.59|2.65|0.0002
95848907|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.1664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.22|0.73|0.1664
95867070|NCT02312687|191692511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|7.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|12.58||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||12.58|3.16|0.0011
95867071|NCT02312687|191692511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.7||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|7.9||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||7.90|-2.50|0.3092
95867072|NCT02312687|191692511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.62||||0.2958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|7.53||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||7.53|-2.29|0.2958
95867073|NCT02312687|191692511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.31||||0.8796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|4.33||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||4.33|-3.71|0.8796
95867074|NCT02312687|191692511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.48||||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|4.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||4.16|-5.11|0.8396
95867075|NCT02312687|191692511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.43||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|2.15||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||2.15|-9.00|0.2284
95964125|NCT03392168|191899373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.3||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-5.3|-31.3|0.0064
95848908|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|14.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.96|1.94|0.0012
95848909|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|27.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||27.86|3.49|<0.0001
95848910|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.89|1.08|0.0334
95848911|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.62|1.60|0.0034
95848912|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||17.47|2.45|0.0002
95848913|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|12.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.98|1.85|0.0014
95848914|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.74|0.89|0.0872
95848915|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.98|1.28|0.0131
95867076|NCT02312687|191692512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.83||||||Change at Week 24||0.83|0.32|
95867077|NCT02312687|191692512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.56||||||Change at Week 48||0.56|0.37|
95867078|NCT02312687|191692512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.56||||||Change at Week 72||0.56|0.28|
95964126|NCT03392168|191899373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.8||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.5|-33.0|0.0039
95867079|NCT02312687|191692512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.6||||||Change at Week 96||0.60|0.27|
95867080|NCT02312687|191692512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.48||||||Change at Week 120||0.48|0.23|
95867081|NCT02312687|191692512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.62||||||Change at Week 144||0.62|0.32|
95867082|NCT02312687|191692513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.07||||||Change at Week 24||0.07|0.01|
95867083|NCT02312687|191692513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 48||0.03|-0.01|
95867084|NCT02312687|191692513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 72||0.04|-0.01|
95867085|NCT02312687|191692513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.07||||||Change at Week 96||0.07|0.02|
95867086|NCT02312687|191692513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
95867087|NCT02312687|191692513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||||||Change at Week 144||0.05|-0.01|
95867088|NCT02312687|191692514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.01||||||Change at Week 24||-0.01|-0.07|
95867089|NCT02312687|191692514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||||||Change at Week 48||0.01|-0.03|
95867090|NCT02312687|191692514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||||||Change at Week 72||0.01|-0.04|
95867091|NCT02312687|191692514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02||||||Change at Week 96||-0.02|-0.07|
95867092|NCT02312687|191692514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02||||||Change at Week 120||0.02|-0.03|
95867093|NCT02312687|191692514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||||||Change at Week 144||0.01|-0.05|
95867094|NCT02312687|191692515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||||||Change at Week 24||0.08|-0.10|
95867095|NCT02312687|191692515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.1||||||Change at Week 48||0.10|-0.07|
95867096|NCT02312687|191692515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16||||||Change at Week 72||0.16|-0.01|
95867097|NCT02312687|191692515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06||||||Change at Week 96||0.06|-0.09|
95964127|NCT03392168|191899373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.9|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-14.8|-42.9|0.0001
95867098|NCT02312687|191692515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||||||Change at Week 120||0.10|-0.12|
95867099|NCT02312687|191692515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||||||Change at Week 144||0.06|-0.16|
95867100|NCT02312687|191692516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|22.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|47.6||||||Change at Week 24||47.60|-1.81|
95867101|NCT02312687|191692516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|32.62||||||Change at Week 48||32.62|-2.32|
95867102|NCT02312687|191692516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.33|36.53||||||Change at Week 72||36.53|-14.33|
95867103|NCT02312687|191692516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|4.2||||||Change at Week 96||4.20|-37.50|
95867104|NCT02312687|191692516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.53|39.49||||||Change at Week 120||39.49|-32.53|
95867105|NCT02312687|191692516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|68.22||||||Change at Week 144||68.22|-11.12|
95867106|NCT02312687|191692517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-14.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.62|58.08||||||Change at Week 24||58.08|-87.62|
95867107|NCT02312687|191692517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-70.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.31|19.74||||||Change at Week 48||19.74|-161.31|
95867108|NCT02312687|191692517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-16.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.96|78.73||||||Change at Week 72||78.73|-110.96|
95867109|NCT02312687|191692517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-41.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.61|67.13||||||Change at Week 96||67.13|-150.61|
95867110|NCT02312687|191692517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-76.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.29|85.08||||||Change at Week 120||85.08|-237.29|
95867111|NCT02312687|191692517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-96.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.59|14.46||||||Change at Week 144||14.46|-206.59|
95867112|NCT02312687|191692518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||||||Change at Week 24||0.03|-0.01|
95867113|NCT02312687|191692518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||||||Change at Week 48||0.04|-0.01|
95867114|NCT02312687|191692518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02||||||Change at Week 72||0.02|-0.02|
95867115|NCT02312687|191692518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||||||Change at Week 96||0.02|-0.04|
95867116|NCT02312687|191692518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03||||||Change at Week 120||0.03|-0.02|
95867117|NCT02312687|191692518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||||||Change at Week 144||0.08|-0.01|
95867118|NCT02312687|191692519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.92||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|28.52||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||28.52|1.33|0.0314
95867119|NCT02312687|191692519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.73||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.55||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||9.55|-13.00|0.7640
95867120|NCT02312687|191692519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-22.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-14.35||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-14.35|-30.20|< 0.0001
95867121|NCT02312687|191692519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-20.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-13.94||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-13.94|-27.92|< 0.0001
95867122|NCT02312687|191692519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-18.77||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|-4.6||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-4.60|-32.93|0.0094
95867123|NCT02312687|191692519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.89|-14.54||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-14.54|-36.89|< 0.0001
95867124|NCT02312687|191692520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|4.68||||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|11.32||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||11.32|-1.96|0.1673
95867125|NCT02312687|191692520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.68||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.72||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||1.72|-7.09|0.2330
95964128|NCT03392168|191899373|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-23.0||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-8.7|-37.3|0.0019
95964129|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.3||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.0|-13.6|0.3626
95964130|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-8.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.6|-17.8|0.1011
95964131|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-15.5||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-6.0|-25.1|0.0017
95964132|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.4|-29.1|0.0002
95964133|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.2|-32.4|0.0003
95964134|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.4|-33.2|0.0003
95964135|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-7.8|-29.5|0.0010
95964136|NCT03392168|191899374|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.8||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-10.6|-32.9|0.0002
95964137|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.67||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.99|-2.65|0.3209
95964138|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.6||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|9.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 1; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||9.08|-1.88|0.1947
95964139|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.58||||0.3561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.24|-14.40|0.3561
95964140|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.82||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.79|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.16|-15.79|0.2490
95867126|NCT02312687|191692520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-5.36||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||-5.36|-9.54|< 0.0001
95867127|NCT02312687|191692520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|-6.29||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||-6.29|-9.86|< 0.0001
95867128|NCT02312687|191692520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|-6.95||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||-6.95|-13.07|< 0.0001
95867129|NCT02312687|191692520|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-10.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.77|-7.02||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||-7.02|-14.77|< 0.0001
95867130|NCT02312687|191692521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|343.38||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.66|609.11||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||609.11|77.66|0.0113
95867131|NCT02312687|191692521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|41.45||||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.23|161.13||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||161.13|-78.23|0.4972
95867132|NCT02312687|191692521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-61.96||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.34|62.41||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||62.41|-186.34|0.3288
95867133|NCT02312687|191692521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-68.62||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.39|55.16||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||55.16|-192.39|0.2772
95867134|NCT02312687|191692521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-53.41||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.47|45.66||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||45.66|-152.47|0.2907
95964141|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-12.68||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.992|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.44|-23.992|0.0276
95867135|NCT02312687|191692521|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-97.46||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.57|11.65||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||11.65|-206.57|0.0800
95867136|NCT02312687|191692522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|72.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.21|105.7||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 24||105.70|39.21|< 0.0001
95867137|NCT02312687|191692522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|44.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|58.47||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 48||58.47|30.34|< 0.0001
95867138|NCT02312687|191692522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.24|43.37||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 72||43.37|13.24|0.0002
95867139|NCT02312687|191692522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|27.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|40.22||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 96||40.22|13.81|< 0.0001
95867140|NCT02312687|191692522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|13.02||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|29.4||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 120||29.40|-3.37|0.1195
95867141|NCT02312687|191692522|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|43.12||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.96|109.2||The GEE model includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable and adjusted for baseline measurement, with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE|||Change at Week 144||109.20|-22.96|0.2009
95867142|NCT00906971|191692523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of defecations was recorded.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||<0.05
95867143|NCT00906971|191692524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis to compare the two groups at the end of the follow-up period with regard to the primary outcome measures was blind, by intention-to-treat, considering loss of follow-up as treatment failure. In such cases, at the end of the follow-up period, the frequency of fecal incontinence was recorded reported at the beginning of the study|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The Mann-Whitney test was used for numerical variables with non-normal distribution.||||||>0.05
95867144|NCT00545129|191692529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. Least squares (LS) mean difference, and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.18|0.569
95867145|NCT00545129|191692530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.34|-0.60|0.581
95867146|NCT00545129|191692530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-0.56|0.795
95867147|NCT00545129|191692530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.93|-0.76|0.843
95867148|NCT00545129|191692530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.42|-1.34|0.292
95867149|NCT00545129|191692531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
95867150|NCT00545129|191692531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
95867151|NCT00545129|191692531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.98|-0.74|0.776
95867152|NCT00545129|191692531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.93|0.978
95867153|NCT00545129|191692531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.73|-1.10|0.689
95867154|NCT00545129|191692532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.72|0.299
95867155|NCT00545129|191692532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.91|-0.47|0.519
95867156|NCT00545129|191692532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.13|-0.68|0.618
95867157|NCT00545129|191692532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.85|0.818
95867158|NCT00545129|191692532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.09|-0.87|0.819
95964142|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.04||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 3; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.36|-18.44|0.2223
95964143|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.27||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.72|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.82|-35.72|0.0108
95867159|NCT00545129|191692533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.74|-0.66|0.906
95867160|NCT00545129|191692533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.85|-0.95|0.906
95867161|NCT00545129|191692533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.29|-0.78|0.613
96002850|NCT06244316|191983033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.1|||=|0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.4||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in BCDVA score (ETDRS letter score) in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates. Missing data for BCDVA score for study eye are imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used for each timepoint.||1.4|-1.3|=0.457
95867162|NCT00545129|191692533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.95|0.988
95867163|NCT00545129|191692533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.92|-1.01|0.922
95867164|NCT00545129|191692534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.66|-1.03|0.655
95867165|NCT00545129|191692534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.96|-0.85|0.897
95867166|NCT00545129|191692534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.20|-0.93|0.798
95867167|NCT00545129|191692534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.27|-0.83|0.672
95867168|NCT00545129|191692534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.56|0.243
95867169|NCT00545129|191692535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.52|-1.16|0.445
95867170|NCT00545129|191692535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.00|0.992
95867171|NCT00545129|191692535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.34|0.655
95867172|NCT00545129|191692535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.30|-1.09|0.860
95867173|NCT00545129|191692535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.89|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.89|-1.52|0.595
95867174|NCT00545129|191692536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.35|-1.76|0.179
95867175|NCT00545129|191692536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.02|0.938
95867176|NCT00545129|191692536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.41|0.621
95867177|NCT00545129|191692536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||1.21|-1.44|0.863
95867178|NCT00545129|191692536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate and study site as random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from ANCOVA model.||0.51|-1.95|0.237
95848916|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.43|1.05|0.0386
95848917|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.05|1.20|0.0191
95848918|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.26|1.11|0.0291
95848919|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|16.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||16.58|2.23|0.0004
95848920|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|21.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||21.02|2.49|0.0003
95848921|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||5.72|0.86|0.0992
95848922|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|15.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.16|2.11|0.0006
95848923|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.59|1.46|0.0060
95867179|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
95867180|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
95867181|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
95867182|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.53|0.44|0.601
95867183|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
95867184|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
95848924|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.14|0.78|0.1472
95867185|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.66|0.43|0.596
95867186|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.24|0.39|0.552
95867187|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
95867188|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
95867189|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|14.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||14.32|1.04|0.029
95867190|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|11.36|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||11.36|0.67|0.143
95867191|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
95867192|NCT00545129|191692537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
95867193|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.94|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.94|0.10|1.000
95867194|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.32|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.32|0.23|1.000
95867195|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.35|||Fisher Exact|||Week 2 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.35|0.05|1.000
95867196|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=30%) reduction: odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.88|0.38|0.795
95867197|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.51|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.51|0.46|0.360
95867198|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|10.24|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||10.24|0.01|1.000
95867199|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.39|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.39|0.33|1.000
95867200|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.83|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||4.83|0.33|0.771
95867201|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|131.03|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||131.03|0.10|0.612
95867202|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|19.66|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||19.66|0.00|1.000
95848925|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.15|0.81|0.1284
95848926|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.50|1.32|0.0117
95848927|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|12.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||12.03|1.49|0.0067
95867203|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.3|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=30%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.30|0.66|0.187
95867204|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|6.43|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=50%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||6.43|0.48|0.399
95867205|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|15.25|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=70%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||15.25|0.07|1.000
95867206|NCT00545129|191692538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.57|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8 (\>=90%) reduction: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||3.57|0.00|0.492
95867207|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.73|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 1: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.73|0.77|0.188
95867208|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.54|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 2: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.54|0.72|0.207
95867209|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.93|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 3: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||4.93|0.60|0.317
95867210|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 4: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||3.71|0.50|0.554
95867211|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.89|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 5: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.89|0.32|0.581
95848928|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||3.71|0.59|0.4088
95848929|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.96|1.20|0.0194
95848930|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.73|1.03|0.0423
95848931|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.99|0.70|0.2151
95848932|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.42|0.99|0.0531
95848933|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|12.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||12.34|1.37|0.0118
95848934|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|80.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||80.46|3.29|0.0006
95848935|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.22|0.59|0.3698
95848936|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|13.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.53|1.55|0.0059
95848937|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|9.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.44|1.17|0.0241
95848938|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.77|0.50|0.5308
95848939|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||2.90|0.41|0.8603
95848940|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|11.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.95|1.17|0.0264
95848941|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|16.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.42|1.29|0.0188
95848942|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.27|0.42|0.7642
95848943|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.91||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.53|1.46|0.0101
95867212|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.43|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 6: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.43|0.26|0.252
95867213|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.64|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 7: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.64|0.26|0.365
95867214|NCT00545129|191692540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.36|||Negative binomial regression|||Week 8: Negative binomial regression model with model terms for treatment as a main effect. P-value was based on negative binomial regression model from pairwise comparisons. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding negative binomial regression model.||1.36|0.25|0.212
95867215|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.13|0.215
95848944|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.97|0.0572
95867216|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.42|-0.45|0.947
95867217|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Fatigue MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.20|-0.56|0.341
96002851|NCT06244316|191983033|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.1|||=|0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.5||1-sided p value. Rubin's method was used to pool results across the 50 multiply imputed datasets.|ANCOVA|||Week 8 - Analysis was based on an ANCOVA model on the change from baseline in BCDVA score (ETDRS letter score) in the study eye. Each model included the change from baseline at the specific timepoint in the study eye as dependent variable while treatment and baseline value in the study eye as covariates. Missing data for BCDVA score for study eye are imputed employing an MI based on copy-reference approach assuming MNAR. Two separate imputation models were used for each timepoint.||1.5|-1.3|=0.449
95848945|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.20|0.44|0.7348
95848946|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.25|0.77|0.1397
95848947|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||13.64|1.21|0.0231
95848948|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.54||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|16.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.15|1.27|0.0196
95848949|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||3.24|0.42|0.7703
95848950|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|12.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.12|1.21|0.0222
95848951|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.21|0.93|0.0668
95867218|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.17|-0.83|0.180
95867219|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.84|-0.43|0.509
95867220|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Drowsiness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.82|-0.62|0.767
95848952|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.22|0.43|0.7533
95848953|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.73|0.59|0.3325
95867221|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.95|-0.11|0.108
95848954|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||8.57|0.86|0.0899
95848955|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.79||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.79|0.93|0.0642
95848956|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.89|0.46|0.5964
95848957|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|15.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||15.91|1.23|0.0224
95848958|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.96|0.60|0.3139
95848959|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.76|0.45|0.6343
95867222|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.41|-1.26|0.280
95867223|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Inability to Concentrate MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.53|0.747
95867224|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.88|-0.87|0.991
95848960|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.61|0.45|0.6557
95848961|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.51|0.99|0.0516
95867225|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.99|-0.41|0.335
95867226|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Nausea MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.48|-4.57|0.159
96002852|NCT05042362|191983046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-2.1||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-2.10|-4.47|< 0.0001
96002853|NCT05042362|191983047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|-1.63||one-sided|MMRM|||||-1.63|-4.81|< 0.0001
95867227|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.94|-0.16|0.136
95867228|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Dizziness MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||5.90|-3.46|0.186
95848962|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|17.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||17.91|1.07|0.0400
95848963|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.24|0.44|0.5825
95848964|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.46||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|37.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||37.83|1.47|0.0152
95848965|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.30|0.73|0.1565
95848966|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.25|0.50|0.4932
95848967|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.12|0.39|0.8504
95848968|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.61|0.89|0.0759
95848969|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|13.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||13.46|1.01|0.0477
95848970|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|8.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.36|0.73|0.1448
95848971|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.54||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||22.71|1.35|0.0173
95848972|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.17|0.81|0.1101
95848973|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.78|0.46|0.6022
95848974|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.73|0.46|0.6128
95848975|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|9.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.68|0.82|0.1001
95848976|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|20.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||20.12|1.22|0.0255
95848977|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||8.10|0.72|0.1521
95848978|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|47.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||47.69|1.84|0.0071
95867229|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.49|-1.52|0.292
95867230|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.30|-0.34|0.225
95867231|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Constipation MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.07|-0.58|0.517
96002854|NCT05042362|191983048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.23||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.23|-0.44|< 0.0001
96002855|NCT05042362|191983049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.25||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.25|-0.54|< 0.0001
95848979|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.93|0.80|0.1150
95848980|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.22|0.40|0.8101
95848981|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.33|0.51|0.4663
95848982|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.8||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|14.01||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.01|1.03|0.0453
95848983|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|12.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.21|0.92|0.0659
95848984|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||5.86|0.57|0.3117
95848985|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|24.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.73|1.46|0.0129
95848986|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.83|1.14|0.0303
95848987|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.42|0.59|0.2772
95848988|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.16|0.29|0.9432
96002856|NCT05042362|191983050|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-2.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|-1.55||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-1.55|-3.36|< 0.0001
96002857|NCT05042362|191983052|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-5.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-3.98||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-3.98|-7.18|< 0.0001
96002858|NCT05042362|191983053|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS-means|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.2||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.20|-0.64|< 0.0001
95848989|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.36|0.59|0.2577
95848990|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.12|0.71|0.1496
95848991|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.55|0.2874
95848992|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.78|0.65|0.1981
96002859|NCT05214729|191983056|SUPERIORITY||AUROC|0.74||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88|||Delong's test|||Assuming a prevalence of 50% of preload-dependence (vs. preload-independence) identified by the postural maneuver performed after the UFNET challenge, 34 challenges (irrespective of their duration - slow or fast) were to be performed to identify an AUROC of 0.80 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.65 to 0.95. This number was increased by 15% in order to take into account enrolled patients who underwent a single challenge, resulting in a total number of 40 UFNET challenges in 20 patients.||0.88|0.58|0.02
95848993|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|11.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.43|0.98|0.0531
95848994|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.35|0.22|0.5858
95848995|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.16|0.21|0.5122
95848996|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.89|0.16|0.3415
95848997|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.98|0.25|0.8263
95848998|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.03|0.24|0.8085
95848999|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.6745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.43|0.38|0.6745
95849000|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.45|0.34|0.9019
95849001|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.10|0.18|0.4425
95849002|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.17|0.3106
95849003|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.20|0.08|0.0912
95849004|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.20|0.5681
95849005|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.21|0.15|0.4261
95849006|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.82|0.24|0.7514
95849007|NCT03192176|191659366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.67|0.16|0.2712
96002860|NCT04722250|191983082|NON_INFERIORITY|The endpoint is designed to test whether the Medtronic SE TAV is non-inferior to Edwards BE TAV in the composite event rate of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke or heart failure rehospitalization at 12 months post-procedure with an absolute non-inferiority margin of 8.0%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.8|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||2.8|-4.7|<0.001
96002861|NCT04722250|191983083|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|-26.3|||z-test on Kaplan-Meier percentages|||||-26.3|-39.4|<0.001
95867232|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||2.48|-2.48|1.000
95849008|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|16.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.40|1.46|0.0103
95849009|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|23.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.48|2.20|0.0011
95849010|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|35.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||35.86|3.41|<0.0001
95849011|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|34.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||34.55|3.18|0.0001
95849012|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.55|0.71|0.1571
95849013|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|23.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.04|2.21|0.0010
95849014|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.35||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|23.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||23.61|2.29|0.0008
95849015|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|7.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.18|1.08|0.0342
95849016|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.66|1.16|0.0231
95849017|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|10.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.55|1.60|0.0032
96002862|NCT03504397|191983110|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.734||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|0.91||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.910|0.591|0.0024
95849018|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.22|1.48|0.0059
95849019|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.2471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.59|0.68|0.2471
95849020|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.70|1.05|0.0381
95849021|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|8.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.48|1.31|0.0113
95867233|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Itching MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.99|-1.01|<0.001
95867234|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||1.63|-0.75|0.362
96002863|NCT03504397|191983111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.954||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||0.954|0.644|0.0075
96002864|NCT03504397|191983112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.687||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.687|0.994|0.0280
95849022|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|6.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.52|1.01|0.0486
95867235|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|51.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Difficulty with Urination MDA): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||51.87|-51.87|1.000
95867236|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Retching/Vomiting MDR): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||-0.76|-3.30|0.031
95867237|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.32|-0.28|0.886
95867238|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.33|-0.52|0.660
95867239|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Frequency Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.14|-0.54|0.238
96002865|NCT03504397|191983113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.071||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|Log Rank|||||1.071|0.475|0.0508
96002866|NCT03504397|191983114|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.492|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.492|0.874|0.1685
95849023|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.87|1.07|0.0350
95849024|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|10.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.90|1.65|0.0027
95867240|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.42|0.360
95867241|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.54|-0.16|0.278
95867242|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Severity Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.27|-0.34|0.809
96002867|NCT03504397|191983115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.||||||0.4536
96002868|NCT03504397|191983116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.087|||Log Rank||"Log-rank test stratified by:~* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia)~* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs ≥ 3)~* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)"|||1.087|0.573|0.0721
96002869|NCT02542293|191983170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|1.045||The 2-sided p-value was calculated using an unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||The HR and confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab versus (Vs) Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.045|0.485|0.0808
95867243|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.38|-0.35|0.944
95867244|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.55|-0.48|0.892
95867245|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Bother Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.39|0.884
95867246|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.26|0.919
95867247|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.33|0.752
95867248|NCT00545129|191692541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (MDA Composite Score): LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding repeated measures ANCOVA model.||0.24|-0.34|0.715
95964144|NCT03392168|191899375|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-16.67||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|-1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4; LS mean difference from vehicle; Estimates for LS means and accompanying 95% confidence intervals and P values are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with center within country, treatment, study visit, and treatment-by-study visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.01|-32.34|0.0372
95964145|NCT03519204|191899376|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|84.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|94.2||P-value was based on 2-sided Fisher's exact test comparing responder rate between treatment group and no-treated control group.|Fisher Exact|||||94.2|68.2|<0.0001
95964146|NCT03519204|191899378|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|0.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109492|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3447|0.7739||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||0.77390|0.34470|<0.0001
95964147|NCT03519204|191899379|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference|13.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.861|17.18||P-value was computed using Wilcoxon test with normal approximation.|Wilcoxon Rank-sum Test||The median difference (the location shift) and its 95% CI were computed using Hodges-Lehmann estimation associated with Wilcoxon statistics.|||17.180|8.861|<0.0001
95849025|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|12.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||12.47|1.76|0.0020
95849026|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|6.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.19|0.94|0.0686
95849027|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.21|1.58|0.0034
95849028|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.22|1.16|0.0222
95849029|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.0876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.84|0.89|0.0876
95849030|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|6.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.88|1.08|0.0345
95849031|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.99|1.09|0.0319
95849032|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.27||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.47|1.92|0.0013
95849033|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.75|0.1751
95849034|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|11.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||11.50|1.73|0.0019
95849035|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.97|1.11|0.0284
95849036|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.45|0.66|0.2650
95964148|NCT00762476|191899404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
95964149|NCT00762476|191899405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||>0.5000
95964150|NCT00762476|191899406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Poisson regression|||||||0.3451
95964151|NCT01727505|191899411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.44
95964152|NCT01727505|191899412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.75
95964153|NCT01727505|191899413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2
95964154|NCT01727505|191899414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
95964155|NCT01727505|191899415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.049
95849037|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.38|0.82|0.1238
95849038|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.74|1.18|0.0219
95867249|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.77|0.666
95867250|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.18|-0.86|0.745
95867251|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.83|-1.14|0.749
95867252|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.90|-1.16|0.794
95867253|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.33|0.772
95849039|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.46||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|16.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.16|1.84|0.0022
95849040|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.77|0.69|0.2230
95867254|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.34|-0.73|0.547
95867255|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-1.43|0.650
95867256|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.27|0.808
95867257|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.07|-1.19|0.915
95867258|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.54|0.757
95867259|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.17|-1.19|0.987
95867260|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.14|0.781
95867261|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.38|-1.13|0.834
95849041|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||13.97|1.83|0.0018
95849042|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.42|1.19|0.0205
95867262|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.10|-1.32|0.851
95849043|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.81|0.54|0.4628
95849044|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.4015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.92|0.58|0.4015
95849045|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.39||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|16.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||16.47|1.76|0.0031
95849046|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|12.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.50|1.38|0.0115
95867263|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.15|-1.68|0.701
95867264|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.68|0.453
95849047|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.98|0.66|0.2513
95849048|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|11.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.14|1.39|0.0099
95867265|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.60|-2.15|0.258
95867266|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.09|-1.53|0.736
95964156|NCT01727505|191899416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
95964157|NCT01441635|191899417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-205.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|45.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.77|-116.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-116.01|-295.77|< 0.001
95964158|NCT01441635|191899417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-189.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-278.33|-101.53|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-101.53|-278.33|< 0.001
95964159|NCT01441635|191899417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.18|-55.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-55.76|-220.18|0.001
95964160|NCT01441635|191899417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.7|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-54.60|-206.70|0.001
95964161|NCT01441635|191899418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.93|-48.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-48.28|-102.93|< 0.001
95964162|NCT01441635|191899418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-64.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.14|-37.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-37.39|-91.14|< 0.001
95964163|NCT01441635|191899418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.73||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.39|-21.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-21.96|-113.39|0.005
95964164|NCT01441635|191899418|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-56.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.24|-40.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-40.45|-73.24|< 0.001
95849049|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.74|1.16|0.0242
95849050|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.60|0.77|0.1518
95849051|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.17|0.73|0.1811
95849052|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.88||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.55|1.30|0.0150
95849053|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|16.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.68|1.67|0.0046
95849054|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.34|0.57|0.3788
95849055|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.70|1.04|0.0424
95849056|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.69||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||10.43|1.30|0.0139
95849057|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.63|0.3057
95964165|NCT01441635|191899419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95849058|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.02|0.59|0.3717
95849059|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||9.50|1.16|0.0252
95849060|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.69|1.19|0.0235
95849061|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.39|0.46|0.6580
95964166|NCT01441635|191899419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964167|NCT01441635|191899419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95849062|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|13.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||13.62|1.54|0.0061
95849063|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.61|1.29|0.0149
95964168|NCT01441635|191899419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964169|NCT01441635|191899420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964170|NCT01441635|191899420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964171|NCT01441635|191899420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964172|NCT01441635|191899420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964173|NCT01441635|191899421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964174|NCT01441635|191899421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964175|NCT01441635|191899421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964176|NCT01441635|191899421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95964177|NCT01441635|191899423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|0.97|< 0.001
95849064|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.62|0.35|0.9282
95849065|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.35|0.33|0.7902
95849066|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.74|0.73|0.1603
95849067|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||8.14|0.80|0.1144
95849068|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||2.13|0.26|0.5903
95849069|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|13.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||13.16|1.15|0.0290
95849070|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.26|0.72|0.1721
95849071|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.09|0.66|0.2439
95849072|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.19|0.44|0.7402
95849073|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.63|1.04|0.0422
95849074|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|18.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.27|1.62|0.0061
95849075|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.92|0.59|0.3191
95849076|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.91||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|19.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.66|1.78|0.0037
95849077|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.20|1.33|0.0139
95849078|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.42|0.57|0.3757
95849079|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.28|0.45|0.7087
95849080|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.88|0.81|0.1083
95964178|NCT01441635|191899423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||2.56|1.00|< 0.001
95964179|NCT01441635|191899423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.75|0.13|0.024
95964180|NCT01441635|191899423|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.51|0.28|0.005
96002870|NCT02542293|191983171|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.322|1.109|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.109|0.322|
95849081|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|10.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.14|1.01|0.0473
95849082|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.64|0.2481
95849083|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.84||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|20.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||20.89|1.64|0.0066
95849084|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.18|1.02|0.0466
95849085|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||2.53|0.34|0.8769
95849086|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.82|0.49|0.5448
95849087|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.64|0.53|0.4125
95849088|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.30|1.00|0.0500
95849089|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.87|0.45|0.6167
95849090|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||13.26|1.21|0.0233
95849091|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.09|0.89|0.0803
95849092|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.18|0.76|0.1274
95849093|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.71|0.29|0.9445
95849094|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.03|0.47|0.4204
95849095|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.49|0.74|0.1315
95849096|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|12.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.87|0.82|0.0944
95849097|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.89||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||6.89|0.57|0.2801
95849098|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|8.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.30|0.72|0.1524
95849099|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.6129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.75|0.40|0.6129
95849100|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.18|0.18|0.4617
95867267|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.87|-1.76|0.491
95867268|NCT00545129|191692542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.04|-1.53|0.695
95867269|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.19|-1.34|0.897
95867270|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.43|-0.90|0.643
95867271|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.68|-1.45|0.464
95867272|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.86|-1.46|0.593
95867273|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Composite Score): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.77|-1.77|0.423
95867274|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.54|-1.21|0.805
95964181|NCT01441635|191899424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.08|-0.63|0.011
95867275|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.51|-1.30|0.882
95867276|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.81|-1.79|0.446
95867277|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.05|-1.77|0.604
95867278|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (General Activity): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.91|-2.24|0.393
95867279|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.97|-2.33|0.399
95964182|NCT01441635|191899424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.030
95964183|NCT01441635|191899424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||0.06|-0.59|0.109
95849101|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.70|0.20|0.6519
95867280|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.66|-1.43|0.876
95964184|NCT01441635|191899424|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-0.80|0.002
95849102|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.18|0.22|0.8011
95849103|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.41|0.51|0.3254
95849104|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.94|0.58|0.2730
95849105|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.41|0.39|0.6601
95849106|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.76|0.20|0.6588
95964185|NCT01441635|191899425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.67|-18.90|0.020
95849107|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.92|0.14|0.3257
95849108|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.69|0.10|0.2229
95849109|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.77|0.10|0.2425
95849110|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.11|0.23|0.9672
95849111|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.09|0.40|0.5838
95849112|NCT03192176|191659367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.24|0.28|0.9361
95849113|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.55|1.03|0.0429
95964186|NCT01441635|191899425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.13|-16.36|0.087
95964187|NCT01441635|191899425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|-0.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-0.19|-17.43|0.045
95964188|NCT01441635|191899425|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.06|-5.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-5.32|-22.06|0.002
95964189|NCT01441635|191899426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|-1.47|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-1.47|-9.56|0.008
95964190|NCT01441635|191899426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||||-0.80|-9.11|0.020
95964191|NCT01441635|191899426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|1.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||1.91|-9.18|0.194
95849114|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.12|1.11|0.0296
95849115|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|12.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.13|1.65|0.0032
95849116|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|21.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||21.90|2.31|0.0006
95849117|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||4.47|0.72|0.2073
95849118|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||9.20|1.36|0.0096
95849119|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.27||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.27|1.02|0.0462
95849120|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.63|0.77|0.1387
95849121|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||4.84|0.60|0.3130
95849122|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|10.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.40|1.06|0.0392
95849123|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|22.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.71|1.43|0.0135
95849124|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||9.36|0.87|0.0840
95849125|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|15.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||15.17|1.32|0.0163
95849126|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.84|0.52|0.5056
95849127|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.90|0.58|0.3358
95849128|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.18||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.18|0.91|0.0696
95849129|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|8.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.82|0.89|0.0794
95849130|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.32||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.28|1.48|0.0149
95849131|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.59|1.09|0.0377
95964192|NCT01441635|191899426|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-3.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.||||-3.07|-11.33|0.001
95867281|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.14|-1.58|0.740
95867282|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.31|-1.56|0.854
95867283|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Walking Ability): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-2.24|0.436
95964193|NCT01441635|191899429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
95964194|NCT01441635|191899429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
95964195|NCT01441635|191899429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.052
95964196|NCT01441635|191899429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||< 0.001
95964197|NCT01441635|191899430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
96002871|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.201|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.201|0.629|
95964198|NCT01441635|191899430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
95964199|NCT01441635|191899430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95964200|NCT01441635|191899430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
96002872|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.213|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.213|0.726|
95867284|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.21|-2.81|0.087
95867285|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.72|-2.40|0.278
95867286|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||1.00|-1.84|0.548
96002873|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.464|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.464|0.786|
95964201|NCT01441635|191899431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor||||||0.161
95964202|NCT01441635|191899431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.173
95964203|NCT01441635|191899431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.072
95964204|NCT01441635|191899431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|One-way Kruskal-Wallis test with treatment as a factor.||||||0.003
95964205|NCT01441635|191899432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.203
95964206|NCT01441635|191899432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
95964207|NCT01441635|191899432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
95964208|NCT01441635|191899432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.111
95964209|NCT00358644|191899460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|23.6||||||95.0|13.2|37.0||||||||37.0|13.2|
95964210|NCT02269423|191899469|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
95964211|NCT02269423|191899469|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
95964212|NCT02269423|191899469|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
95964213|NCT02269423|191899469|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.161
95849132|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|10.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.77|1.03|0.0454
95964214|NCT02269423|191899469|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.008
95849133|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|13.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||13.26|1.07|0.0390
95849134|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.64|0.68|0.1947
95849135|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.2913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.25|0.61|0.2913
95964215|NCT02269423|191899469|OTHER|||||||0.173||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.173
95964216|NCT02269423|191899470|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
95964217|NCT02269423|191899470|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
96002874|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.302|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB \<20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.302|0.835|
95849136|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.82|0.72|0.1665
96002875|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.353|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB non-evaluable analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.353|0.758|
95849137|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.41||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|110.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||110.3|1.63|0.0157
95849138|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.49|0.86|0.0846
95849139|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|21.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||21.75|1.35|0.0171
95849140|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||18.49|1.20|0.0262
95849141|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.95|0.59|0.2858
95849142|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|39.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||39.72|1.47|0.0155
95964218|NCT02269423|191899470|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||<0.001
95964219|NCT02269423|191899470|OTHER|||||||0.102||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.102
95867287|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.79|-2.33|0.318
95867288|NCT00545129|191692543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8 (Normal Work): ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.99|-2.02|0.484
95867289|NCT00545129|191692544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1: P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH test) stratified by center.||||0.399
95867290|NCT00545129|191692544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.779
95964220|NCT02269423|191899470|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.124
95964221|NCT02269423|191899470|OTHER|||||||0.918||||||p-values are pairwise comparisons of log-transformed titers between each V920 dose, between each V920 dose and placebo, between all V920 dose levels combined and placebo and are from an ANOVA model.|ANOVA|Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not performed.||Day 28||||0.918
95964222|NCT02353312|191899478|EQUIVALENCE|Pairwise comparisons of VO2 max means with equal variances between participant on and off treatment.||||||0.823|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.823
95964223|NCT05723263|191899496|OTHER||Proportional difference|94.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.2|94.8||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was calculated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||94.8|94.2|<0.001
95964224|NCT05723263|191899496|OTHER||Proportional difference|87.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.5|88.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Generalized Estimating Equations|||It was estimated that 12 clinic sites with 1200 participants randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio between the three arms would have at least 90% power to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control group participants, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test (α=0.05), assuming a 0.25\~0.31 cluster coefficient of variation, a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate, and an intra-class correlation of 0.016.||88.0|86.5|<0.001
95964225|NCT05723263|191899496|OTHER||Proportional difference|7.3|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|7.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Using a binary outcome and cluster RCT design, we estimated that 12 clinic clusters (two per city) and 1200 participants (100 per cluster) were needed to achieve a 90% power and allow for a 0.05 type-I error to detect a 10% difference in the proportion of test uptake between the pay-it-forward and control arm participants and a \<5% lost-to-follow-up rate. We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in control.||7.9|6.6|>0.05
95964226|NCT05723263|191899497|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95964227|NCT05723263|191899498|OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0059
95867291|NCT00545129|191692544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.922
95867292|NCT00545129|191692544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.811
95867293|NCT00545129|191692544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by center.||||0.237
95964228|NCT05723263|191899499|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95867294|NCT00545129|191692545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
95867295|NCT00545129|191692545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.16|-0.70|0.202
95867296|NCT00545129|191692545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.30|-0.54|0.571
95867297|NCT00545129|191692545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.43|-0.55|0.808
95867298|NCT00545129|191692545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.51|-0.57|0.913
95964229|NCT05723263|191899501|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95964230|NCT05723263|191899502|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95964231|NCT05723263|191899503|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95964232|NCT05723263|191899504|OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.727
95867299|NCT00545129|191692546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.82|0.108
95867300|NCT00545129|191692546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.23|-0.65|0.339
95867301|NCT00545129|191692546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.28|-0.67|0.408
95867302|NCT00545129|191692546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.45|-0.67|0.686
95867303|NCT00545129|191692546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model included treatment and cancer type as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate and study site as a random effect. LS mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model.||0.40|-0.81|0.493
95867304|NCT00545129|191692547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
95849143|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||9.31|0.76|0.1249
95849144|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|15.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||15.82|0.94|0.0616
95849145|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.32||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|43.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||43.90|1.58|0.0126
95849146|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|11.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.23|0.85|0.0853
95867305|NCT00545129|191692547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.947|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract method.||||0.947
95867306|NCT00545129|191692547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
95867307|NCT00545129|191692547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
95867308|NCT00545129|191692547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|18.86|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||18.86|0.12|0.759
95867309|NCT00545129|191692548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.27|||Fisher Exact|||Week 1: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||12.27|0.03|0.724
95867310|NCT00545129|191692548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 2: P-value was calculated using Fisher Extract test.||||0.950
95867311|NCT00545129|191692548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.71|||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||8.71|0.03|0.634
95964233|NCT05723263|191899505|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.047||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.014|||Generalized Estimating Equations||Absolute proportional difference in gonorrhea and chlamydia test uptake rate among community-led clinic participants across the three intervention arms|We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control between community-led and public STI clinic participants.||-0.014|-0.080|0.005
95867312|NCT00545129|191692548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.74|||Fisher Exact|||Week 6: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||7.74|0.14|0.975
95867313|NCT00545129|191692548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|23.89|||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: The odds ratio with 95% 2-sided CI for the treatment contrast was given.||23.89|0.17|0.578
95867314|NCT01842633|191692626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.36|
95867315|NCT02093351|191692652|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.22|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.22|1.06|
95867316|NCT02093351|191692653|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|0.9|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.90|0.71|
95849147|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|9.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.35|0.70|0.1562
95849148|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||10.91|0.74|0.1297
95849149|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||8.55|0.64|0.2001
95849150|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||73.70|1.00|0.0495
95849151|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|12.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||12.20|0.67|0.1553
95849152|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.67||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|42.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||42.67|1.38|0.0199
95849153|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||27.34|1.02|0.0472
95849154|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.98|0.51|0.3736
95849155|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.26|0.58|0.2628
95849156|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|9.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.39|0.63|0.1998
95849157|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.1507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.28|0.68|0.1507
95849158|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.92||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||31.94|1.10|0.0385
95849159|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.85||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|93.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||93.28|1.26|0.0299
95849160|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.74|0.30|0.8034
95849161|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.42|0.29|0.8532
95849162|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.41|0.28|0.8823
95849163|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.79||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|43.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||43.76|0.52|0.1651
95849164|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.36||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|59.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||59.55|0.68|0.1048
95849165|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|53.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||53.53|0.64|0.1168
95849166|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.95|0.35|0.6936
95849167|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.4315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.90|0.44|0.4315
95849168|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.53|0.31|0.7936
95849169|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|56.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||56.03|0.71|0.0990
95849170|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|52.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||52.21|0.66|0.1128
95849171|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|65.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||65.38|0.83|0.0732
95849172|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.6559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.91|0.33|0.6559
95849173|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||2.96|0.21|0.7333
95849174|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.74|0.24|0.9266
95849175|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|46.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||46.13|0.55|0.1518
95849176|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||42.91|0.51|0.1714
95849177|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||51.95|0.60|0.1299
95867317|NCT02093351|191692654|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|Geometric Least Squares (GLS) Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|0.97|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.97|0.84|
96002876|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.008|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.008|0.309|
95849178|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.2495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|15.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||15.44|0.49|0.2495
95849179|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.60|0.31|0.7065
95849180|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.7504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.24|0.30|0.7504
95867318|NCT02093351|191692655|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.04|0.84|
95867319|NCT02093351|191692656|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.98|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.98|0.91|
95867320|NCT02093351|191692657|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.21|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters||1.21|0.99|
95867321|NCT02093351|191692658|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the tamoxifen treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, olaparib can be considered to have had an effect on tamoxifen exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.21|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. tamoxifen|Analysis of tamoxifen PK parameters.||1.21|1.11|
95849181|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.29|0.21|0.7862
95849182|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|45.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||45.59|0.54|0.1550
95849183|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|42.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||42.96|0.51|0.1706
95867322|NCT02093351|191692659|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, tamoxifen can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.84|||||olaparib + tamoxifen vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||0.84|0.63|
95867323|NCT02093351|191692660|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the anastrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on anastrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. anastrozole|Analysis of anastrozole PK parameters.||0.93|0.80|
95867324|NCT02093351|191692661|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, anastrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.05|||||olaparib + anastrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.05|0.76|
95849184|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|49.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||49.11|0.57|0.1415
95849185|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.67||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|51.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||51.74|0.62|0.1241
95867325|NCT02093351|191692662|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the letrozole treatment ratio falls within 0.8 to 1.25, olaparib can be considered to have had little or no effect on letrozole exposure.|GLS Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.99|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. letrozole|Analysis of letrozole PK parameters.||0.99|0.91|
95867326|NCT02093351|191692663|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the olaparib treatment ratio falls within 0.7 to 1.43, letrozole can be considered to have had an effect on olaparib exposure that is unlikely to be clinically relevant.|GLS Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.25|||||olaparib + letrozole vs. olaparib|Analysis of olaparib PK parameters.||1.25|1.07|
95867327|NCT03718299|191692664|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 52||||<0.001
95849186|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|12.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.29|0.57|0.2169
95849187|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.60|0.28|0.9982
95867328|NCT03718299|191692665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95867329|NCT03718299|191692666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867330|NCT03718299|191692667|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|76.2||||||||76.2|46.5|
95867331|NCT03718299|191692668|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|98.6||||||||98.6|81.7|
95867332|NCT03718299|191692669|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.7|90.4||||||||90.4|62.7|
95867333|NCT03718299|191692670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867334|NCT03718299|191692671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867335|NCT03718299|191692672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867336|NCT03718299|191692673|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867337|NCT03718299|191692674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867338|NCT03718299|191692675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867339|NCT03718299|191692676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867340|NCT03718299|191692677|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|24.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|39.5||||||||39.5|12.9|
95867341|NCT03718299|191692678|SUPERIORITY||Mean (Clopper-Pearson)|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.1||||||||32.1|8.0|
95867342|NCT03718299|191692679|SUPERIORITY||Clopper-Pearson|48.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|64.2||||||||64.2|33.7|
95867343|NCT03718299|191692680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Activity Impairment||||<0.001
95849188|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.54|0.38|0.5364
95867344|NCT03718299|191692680|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total Work Productivity Impairment||||<0.001
95849189|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.68||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|51.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||51.07|0.63|0.1210
95849190|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.65||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|70.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||70.58|0.83|0.0726
95849191|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|65.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||65.81|0.82|0.0749
95849192|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.01||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|16.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.35|0.98|0.0530
95849193|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|8.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.72|0.62|0.2134
95849194|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.41|0.48|0.3688
95849195|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|22.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||22.11|0.96|0.0563
95849196|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||19.52|0.79|0.0935
95849197|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|16.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||16.93|0.81|0.0901
95849198|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.26|0.72|0.1366
95849199|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.7876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.08|0.34|0.7876
95849200|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.59|0.45|0.4658
95849201|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.20|0.25|0.8707
95849202|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.3584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.36|0.49|0.3584
95849203|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|14.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||14.57|0.67|0.1455
95849204|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|28.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||28.66|0.90|0.0661
95867345|NCT03718299|191692681|SUPERIORITY||Mean|79.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.06|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time- Effectiveness||||
95867346|NCT03718299|191692681|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact binomial test|||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time-Side Effects||||<0.001
95867347|NCT03718299|191692681|SUPERIORITY||Mean|82.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Convenience||||
95849205|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.17|0.54|0.3034
95849206|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.60|0.28|0.9901
95849207|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|5.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.68|0.42|0.5070
95849208|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.26|0.21|0.7927
95849209|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|6.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.69|0.44|0.4426
95849210|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.56|0.23|0.8925
95849211|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.52|0.42|0.4285
95849212|NCT03192176|191659368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.72|0.31|0.9000
95849213|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||6.06|0.96|0.0602
95867348|NCT03718299|191692681|SUPERIORITY||Mean|81.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication over time - Global Satisfaction||||
95867349|NCT03718299|191692682|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Improvement in Symptoms||||
95867350|NCT03718299|191692682|SUPERIORITY||Mean|8.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Speed of Symptom Improvement||||
95867351|NCT03718299|191692682|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Frequency of Taking Medication||||
95964234|NCT05723263|191899506|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|-0.04||||0.015||95.0|-0.073|-0.008|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among MSM and non-MSM participants.||-0.008|-0.073|0.015
95849214|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|12.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||12.57|1.89|0.0010
95849215|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|13.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||13.51|2.03|0.0006
95849216|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|25.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||25.45|3.23|<0.0001
95849217|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.22|0.82|0.1259
95849218|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|18.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||18.71|2.65|<0.0001
95867352|NCT03718299|191692682|SUPERIORITY||Mean|9.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Side Effects||||
95867353|NCT03718299|191692683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95867354|NCT01545843|191692686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.202|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.202
95867355|NCT05204381|191692734|OTHER|||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.077||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.783
95867356|NCT05204381|191692735|OTHER|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 0.002||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.965
95867357|NCT05204381|191692736|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||ANOVA|F-statistic is 3.046||Mixed-factors ANOVA for the interaction between stimulation frequency (theta or alpha) and synchrony (in-phase or anti-phase).||||0.089
95849219|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|8.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.76|1.41|0.0070
95964235|NCT05723263|191899507|OTHER||Difference in Probability Difference|0.015||||0.384||95.0|-0.019|0.049|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||We anticipated a test uptake of 65% in the community-engaged pay-it-forward arm, 45% in the standard pay-it-forward arm, and 20% in the control among participants 30 years and below and those above 30 years.||0.049|-0.019|0.384
95964236|NCT03811002|191899508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34|||Log Rank|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). 1-sided significance level 0.025.|Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|Assuming exponentially distributed survival times, 480 eligible patients accrued uniformly over 48 months months) with 26 months additional follow-up after the last accrued patient would provide at least 85% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.71 (median survival times of 38 months \[Arm I\] vs. 27 months \[Arm II\]) at a one-sided significance level of 0.025, after adjusting for type 1 error using group sequential methods for two interim analyses.||1.34|0.82|0.5819
95964237|NCT03811002|191899509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.21|0.80|
95964238|NCT03811002|191899512|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.41|||||Cause-specific hazard ratio stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm 1.|||1.41|0.52|
95849220|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.23|1.20|0.0193
95849221|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.81|1.27|0.0148
95849222|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|13.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||13.94|1.83|0.0018
95849223|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.27||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|22.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||22.78|2.32|0.0007
95849224|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|8.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.35|1.16|0.0246
95964239|NCT03811002|191899513|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||||Stratified by radiation schedule (BID vs daily), chemotherapy (cisplatin vs carboplatin), and sex (male vs female). Reference level = Arm I.|||1.20|0.76|
95964240|NCT05101993|191899760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95964241|NCT02065882|191899820|OTHER|Confirmatory t-test testing of the MCF difference (1 h post-dose minus pre-dose)|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95849225|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||14.60|1.87|0.0016
95849226|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||5.62|0.90|0.0825
95849227|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.20|0.98|0.0542
95849228|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.33||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.33|0.89|0.0837
95964242|NCT01020877|191899844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test\[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
96002877|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.35|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.350|0.560|
95849229|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|10.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.26|1.31|0.0131
95849230|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.34||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|36.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||36.19|2.41|0.0012
95849231|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|8.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.93|1.08|0.0359
95849232|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.86||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|17.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||17.92|1.91|0.0019
95867358|NCT00713310|191692742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|-1.1||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||20.5|-22.7|0.9240
95849233|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|0.93|0.0715
95867359|NCT00713310|191692743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||High-Low Dose Difference Success Rates|1.4||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A total of about 100 subjects were to be enrolled in the study with the expectation that about 80 subjects (40/dose level) would complete. Minimum of 9 subjects in 5-8 year old range were to be enrolled, 4-5 per dose level (high/low). A 2-sided α=0.05 Fisher's Exact test has an estimated power of P=0.50 with 40 subjects per dose level.||23.0|-20.2|0.8193
95849234|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.20|1.02|0.0465
95849235|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.53|0.89|0.0839
95849236|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.28|1.23|0.0191
95849237|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|58.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||58.22|2.52|0.0019
95867360|NCT01993836|191692744|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.18|-0.23|
95964243|NCT01020877|191899845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.2|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|98.2|
96002878|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.251|0.614|
95849238|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.90|0.96|0.0593
95849239|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||15.04|1.63|0.0048
95867361|NCT01993836|191692744|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Abeta and continuous cognitive index||0.13|-0.29|
95867362|NCT01993836|191692744|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau and continuous cognitive index||0.32|-0.08|
95867363|NCT01993836|191692745|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||||||Correlation between 6-week change in Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.22|-0.19|
96002879|NCT02542293|191983172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.08|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.080|0.564|
95849240|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.57|1.00|0.0494
95849241|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.70|0.69|0.1887
95849242|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||10.7|0.91|0.0717
95849243|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.92|0.74|0.1419
95849244|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY|0.0141|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.37||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|120.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||120.6|1.71|0.0141
95849245|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.54|0.88|0.0775
95849246|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||16.19|1.17|0.0283
95849247|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.96|0.70|0.1767
95849248|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.72|0.72|0.1675
95849249|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|5.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.49|0.62|0.2717
95849250|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.64|0.76|0.1367
95849251|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.53||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|113.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||113.0|1.62|0.0162
95849252|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.78||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||11.78|0.88|0.0765
95849253|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.8||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|33.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||33.87|1.79|0.0061
95849254|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|21.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||21.85|1.33|0.0181
95849255|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||4.99|0.53|0.3925
95849256|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||5.12|0.54|0.3740
95867364|NCT01993836|191692745|OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.34||||||Correlation between 6-week change in P-Tau/Abeta ratio and continuous cognitive index||0.34|-0.05|
95867365|NCT01993836|191692746|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.360
95867366|NCT01993836|191692747|OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.532
96002880|NCT02542293|191983173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.186|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.186|0.871|
95849257|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.93|0.69|0.1753
95849258|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.85||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|109.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||109.5|1.51|0.0195
95849259|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.02||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.02|0.66|0.1932
95849260|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||12.86|0.98|0.0537
95849261|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.72||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|39.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||39.66|1.50|0.0144
95849262|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.09|0.41|0.6660
95849263|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.62|0.37|0.7923
95849264|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.90|0.51|0.3796
95849265|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|21.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||21.73|0.81|0.0874
95849266|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||10.96|0.62|0.1925
95849267|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99||||0.0651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.38|0.92|0.0651
95849268|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.81|0.44|0.5361
95849269|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.17|0.42|0.6258
95849270|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.06|0.43|0.6275
95867367|NCT01993836|191692747|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.565
95849271|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.90|0.62|0.2212
95849272|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|95.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||95.49|1.30|0.0280
95867368|NCT01993836|191692747|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau Change between anesthetic groups||||0.110
95867369|NCT01993836|191692748|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week Tau/Abeta ratio Change between anesthetic groups||||0.439
95849273|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||25.32|0.94|0.0589
95849274|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|15.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||15.39|0.86|0.0799
95867370|NCT01993836|191692748|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in 6-week P-Tau/Abeta Change between anesthetic groups||||0.082
95849275|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|10.87||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.87|0.78|0.1112
95849276|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.11|0.84|0.0959
95849277|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||4.85|0.54|0.3886
95849278|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|10.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.52|0.85|0.0864
95849279|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.22||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|119.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||119.5|1.69|0.0145
95849280|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|110.0||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||110.0|1.56|0.0180
95849281|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.53||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|160.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||160.6|2.14|0.0080
95849282|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|20.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||20.65|1.24|0.0236
95849283|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4303|TWO_SIDED|0.4303|0.5|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||5.07|0.50|0.4303
95849284|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.39|0.45|0.5529
95849285|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.55|0.53|0.3268
95849286|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.02||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|84.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||84.66|1.19|0.0343
95867371|NCT01993836|191692749|OTHER|||||||0.801|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.801
95867372|NCT03828370|191692760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||.04
95867373|NCT03828370|191692761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.034
95867374|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0056
95867375|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0866
95867376|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0568||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0568
95849287|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.45||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|79.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||79.82|1.12|0.0391
95964244|NCT01020877|191899846|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|115.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||115|97.6|
95849288|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.31||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|115.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||115.1|1.54|0.0187
95849289|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.1475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.47|0.71|0.1475
95849290|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||7.55|0.63|0.2161
95849291|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.04|0.53|0.3478
95849292|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.14|0.61|0.2269
95849293|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|24.35||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||24.35|0.89|0.0683
95849294|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.11||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|38.49||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||38.49|1.31|0.0228
95849295|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|16.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||16.72|0.93|0.0620
95849296|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.2251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.67|0.62|0.2251
95849297|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.99|0.35|0.7908
95849298|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|7.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.06|0.48|0.3735
95849299|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|9.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.64|0.64|0.1856
95849300|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.01798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.2||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.20|0.64|0.01798
95849301|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||13.22|0.77|0.1101
95849302|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|11.31||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.31|0.79|0.1060
95849303|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.5258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.86|0.45|0.5258
95867377|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0130
95849304|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.50|0.34|0.8746
95849305|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.77|0.24|0.7434
95867378|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0188||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0188
95867379|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6394||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.6394
95867380|NCT00282464|191692774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7707||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.7707
95867381|NCT00282464|191692775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2185||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.2185
95849306|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||6.80|0.53|0.3211
95867382|NCT00282464|191692775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4124||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.4124
95867383|NCT00282464|191692775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6098||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.6098
95867384|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 1||||0.0005
95867385|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 2||||0.0099
95867386|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0423||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.0423
95867387|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0618||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 4||||0.0618
95867388|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0451||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 5||||0.0451
95867389|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2633||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.2633
95849307|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.48|0.41|0.5330
95849308|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|11.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||11.64|0.77|0.1119
95849309|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.85|0.53|0.3540
95867390|NCT00282464|191692776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2206||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.2206
95964245|NCT00790400|191899847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||<0.0001
95867391|NCT00282464|191692777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9863||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 3||||0.9863
95867392|NCT00282464|191692777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1017||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Week 6||||0.1017
95849310|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.29|0.19|0.5076
95849311|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.41|0.21|0.5801
95849312|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.82|0.13|0.2785
95867393|NCT00282464|191692777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4033||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by study center and rapid cycling strata was used to compare remission and response rates between ziprasidone and placebo groups||Endpoint||||0.4033
95867394|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||No multiple comparison adjustment is applicable. Statistical significance level was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.002
95867395|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.019
95867396|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.038
95867397|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.069
95867398|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.053
95867399|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6 An estimated sample size of 180 was needed per treatment arm in order to achieve 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 3.5 in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score with a two-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level. The common standard deviation was estimated as 11.0. The null hypotheses is equality of mean change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score between ziprasidone and placebo groups.||||0.154
95849313|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.45|0.19|0.5656
95849314|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.81|0.19|0.6445
95849315|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.99|0.32|0.7363
95867400|NCT00282464|191692778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.007
95867401|NCT00282464|191692779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.112
95867402|NCT00282464|191692779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.352
95867403|NCT00282464|191692779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.873
95867404|NCT00282464|191692780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.305
95964246|NCT00078338|191899883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.21|0.74|0.643
95849316|NCT03192176|191659369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.86|0.17|0.3455
95849317|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.54|1.60|0.0037
95849318|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||10.48|1.49|0.0057
95867405|NCT00282464|191692780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.510
95867406|NCT00282464|191692780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.710
95867407|NCT00282464|191692781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.026
95867408|NCT00282464|191692781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.223
95867409|NCT00282464|191692781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.848||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.848
95867410|NCT00282464|191692782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.381
95867411|NCT00282464|191692782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.676||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.676
95867412|NCT00282464|191692782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.295
95867413|NCT00282464|191692783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.068||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.068
95867414|NCT00282464|191692783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.043
95849319|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|16.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.13|2.26|0.0003
95849320|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|17.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.39|2.37|0.0003
95849321|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.73|0.78|0.1410
95849322|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.85||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|15.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||15.55|2.20|0.0004
95867415|NCT00282464|191692783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.404||||||For all efficacy analyses, no multiple comparisons adjustments were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.404
95867416|NCT00282464|191692784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.899||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 3||||0.899
95867417|NCT00282464|191692784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate||Week 6||||0.739
95867418|NCT00282464|191692784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.797||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.797
95867419|NCT00282464|191692785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 3||||0.434
95867420|NCT00282464|191692785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.777||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Week 6||||0.777
95964247|NCT01483144|191899892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and sulindac plus eflornithine placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.3|0.4|0.1210
95964248|NCT01483144|191899892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine plus sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine plus sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Intent to treat population with all FAP-related events||1.2|0.4|0.1076
95849323|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|14.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||14.54|2.08|0.0006
95849324|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|10.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||10.57|1.58|0.0037
95849325|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|11.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.16|1.67|0.0026
95849326|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|16.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||16.60|2.63|0.0002
95849327|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|27.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||27.34|3.23|<0.0001
95849328|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.76|1.03|0.0431
95849329|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||11.29|1.72|0.0020
95867421|NCT00282464|191692785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.820
95867422|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.468||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.468
95964249|NCT01483144|191899892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and sulindac and eflornithine placebo is the denominator. Reduction in relative risk for FAP-related events with the combination.|Lower GI population||0.8|0.0|0.0201
95849330|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||6.86|1.11|0.0291
95849331|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.96||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|10.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.61|1.48|0.0063
95867423|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.110
95964250|NCT01483144|191899892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||Threshold of significance was p=0.05|stratified Cox proportional (Score)||Eflornithine and sulindac is the numerator and eflornithine and sulindac placebo is the denominator.|Lower GI population||0.7|0|0.0101
95964251|NCT01483144|191899893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8127||||||The threshold of significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8127
95964252|NCT01483144|191899893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8133
95849332|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|8.11||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.11|1.19|0.0202
95849333|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|10.84||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||10.84|1.55|0.0044
95849334|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||29.38|2.89|0.0002
95964253|NCT01483144|191899894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.999
95964254|NCT01483144|191899894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2152||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2152
95964255|NCT00592293|191899956|OTHER||Cumulative incidence|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|27.6||||||||27.6|9.1|
95964256|NCT00592293|191899957|OTHER||Percent Survival, Local Control|87.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.1|93.7||||||||93.7|78.1|
95867424|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.738
95964257|NCT01606319|191899959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.28|.69|0.67
95964258|NCT01606319|191899960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.0019|||ANCOVA|||||.0019|-0.039|0.5
95964259|NCT01606319|191899961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.9|0.69
95964260|NCT01606319|191899962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative rate|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||log-linear model|log-linear model in which the number of exacerbations was assumed to follow a negative binomial distribution|relative rate with acetaminophen in the numerator and ibuprofen in the denominator|||1.37|0.72|.94
95964261|NCT01270828|191899963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
95964262|NCT01270828|191899964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier method was used for the analysis.||||<0.0001
95964263|NCT01270828|191899965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
95964264|NCT01270828|191899966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test was used for analysis.||||<0.0001
95964265|NCT01270828|191899967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.62|-1.26|<0.0001
95964266|NCT01270828|191899967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.61|-1.21|<0.0001
95849335|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.37|0.93|0.0706
95867425|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.617
95964267|NCT01270828|191899968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.0001
95964268|NCT01270828|191899968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.65|-1.34|<0.0001
95964269|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-6.1|0.0324
95964270|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index I-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.5|-6.1|0.0223
95964271|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-0.9|-6.6|0.0098
95964272|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Problem Index II-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-1.4|-6.7|0.0033
95964273|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.5|-11.1|0.0002
95964274|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep Disturbance-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-5.2|-12.2|<0.0001
95964275|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.6|-2.8|0.5264
95849336|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|24.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||24.08|2.79|0.0001
95849337|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|8.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.32|1.26|0.0146
95849338|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||6.24|0.90|0.0816
95849339|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.81|0.87|0.0930
95849340|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.39|1.07|0.365
95849341|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|14.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.73|1.65|0.0042
95849342|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.41|1.01|0.0488
95849343|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|10.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.36|1.43|0.0075
95849344|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.59|0.86|0.0984
95849345|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.29|0.68|0.2226
95849346|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||6.08|0.76|0.1467
95849347|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|8.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.19|0.92|0.0705
95849348|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|223.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||223.9|3.16|0.0025
95849349|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.4||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.40|0.90|0.0757
95849350|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|18.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||18.74|1.71|0.0045
95867426|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.642||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.642
95867427|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.644
95867428|NCT00282464|191692786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.789||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.789
95867429|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 1||||0.042
95867430|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 2||||0.088
95867431|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.651||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 3||||0.651
95867432|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.665||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 4||||0.665
95867433|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.349||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 5||||0.349
95867434|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Week 6||||0.685
95867435|NCT00282464|191692787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.257||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction \& fixed continuous effect of baseline value||Overall||||0.257
95867436|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0099||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 1||||0.0099
95867437|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0654||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 2||||0.0654
95867438|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1807||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 3||||0.1807
95867439|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0957||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 4||||0.0957
95867440|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0752||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 5||||0.0752
95867441|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3964||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Week 6||||0.3964
95867442|NCT00282464|191692788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0287||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effect: treatment, rapid cycling, center, visit, prior hosp \& treatment-by-visit interaction.||Overall||||0.0287
95867443|NCT00282464|191692789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.965||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.965
95867444|NCT00282464|191692790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.860
95867445|NCT00282464|191692791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Baseline to endpoint||||0.428
95867446|NCT00282464|191692792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.708||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status||Change from baseline to endpoint||||0.708
95867447|NCT00282464|191692793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.898||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANCOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center, prior hospitalization status, as well as baseline value as a covariate.||Endpoint||||0.898
95867448|NCT00282464|191692794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.559||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple comparison adjustment were made|ANOVA|ANOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.559
95849351|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.0771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.67|0.90|0.0771
95849352|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.81|0.71|0.1856
95849353|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||3.54|0.48|0.5973
95849354|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.77|0.85|0.0935
95849355|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|22.1||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||22.10|1.38|0.0157
95849356|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.32|0.68|0.1963
95849357|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|18.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||18.43|1.53|0.0085
95867449|NCT00282464|191692795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458||||||For all secondary efficacy analyses, no multiple adjustments were made|ANOVA|ANVOVA model included effects of treatment, rapid cycling, center and prior hospitalization status.||Endpoint||||0.458
95849358|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.38|0.76|0.1433
95867450|NCT00046891|191692820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total HSCS Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores between the two treatment arms.||||0.84
95867451|NCT05072470|191692836|SUPERIORITY|When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at 0 dB SNR||||<0.01
95964276|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Snoring-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.3|-5.2|0.4520
95849359|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.37|0.74|0.1577
95867452|NCT05072470|191692836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||When p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be better with hearing aids plus Roger device, than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at -5 dB SNR||||.031
95964277|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||1.8|-4.7|0.3714
95849360|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|6.34||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.34|0.74|0.1608
95849361|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|9.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.53|0.92|0.0693
95867453|NCT05072470|191692836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||When p-values are adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= .01666667 (.05/3)|t-test, 2 sided|||Speech intelligibility will be equal or better with hearing aids plus Roger device than with hearing aids alone when tested using standardized speech test at +5 dB SNR.||||.046
95867454|NCT01203852|191692860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test of mean change in blood pressure before and after treatment with metoprolol and chlorthalidone were \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95867455|NCT01203852|191692861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with chlorthalidone was \<0.0001.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with chlorthalidone||||<0.0001
95867456|NCT01203852|191692861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for one sided t-test for mean glucose change before and after treatment with metoprolol was 0.049.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean glucose change after treatment with metoprolol||||0.049
95849362|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.57||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|48.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||48.39|1.89|0.0063
95849363|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.05||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||7.05|0.72|0.1637
95849364|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|11.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||11.47|1.11|0.0326
95849365|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|6.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.67|0.76|0.1455
95849366|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.32|0.69|0.1951
95867457|NCT02720094|191692876|SUPERIORITY||A bias-adjusted hazard ratio|0.34||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.62|||Regression, Cox||The bias-adjusted hazard ratio, CI, and p-value account for the group-sequential trial design and the early stopping time.|||0.62|0.18|0.0005
95867458|NCT02720094|191692876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.328||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.61|||Regression, Cox||The unadjusted hazard ratio is based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by region.|||0.61|0.18|0.0005
95849367|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.4097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.53|0.54|0.4097
95849368|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.22|0.73|0.1554
95849369|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.22||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|17.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.14|1.04|0.0440
95849370|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.47|0.67|0.1928
95867459|NCT02720094|191692878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||The P-Values are two-sided.|Regression, Cox|||The analysis population Injection Step 2 Efficacy consists of the subset of the mITT population who received at least one injection and had at least one HIV test result after the week 5 injection visit.||0.45|0.10|<0.001
95867460|NCT00899392|191692890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Student's t test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95849371|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|17.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||17.47|1.25|0.0222
95849372|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.65|0.54|0.4075
95867461|NCT00899392|191692891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann Whitney Test-non parametric||||>0.05
95867462|NCT00899392|191692892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||>0.05
95867463|NCT00899392|191692893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
95867464|NCT00934843|191692909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.33|||Multivariate risk computation|||The current study was designed with an anticipated enrollment of 87 patients per treatment arm to achieve a statistical power of 80% (1- β) while controlling type I error at 0.05 (α) using a more conservative estimate of LCOS rate in the Single Dose MP group of 33%, and an incidence of LCOS in the Two Dose MP group of 15%.||1.33|0.45|0.35
95867465|NCT00934843|191692910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||A repeated measures analysis of variance framework was used for longitudinal analysis of inotrope score. In order to identify potential confounding variables, a variable was considered a relevant covariate and added into the model with a p ≤ 0.15.|ANCOVA|||||||0.43
95867466|NCT00934843|191692912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052||95.0||||Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
95867467|NCT00934843|191692913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance/covariance models were used to test both unadjusted and multivariable relationships between treatment groups for diuresis.||||||0.047
95867468|NCT03400956|191692914|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Number of subjects per treatment: 63 (Vilaprisan) / 33 (Placebo).|Vilaprisan (A1) and Vilaprisan+Placebo (B2) combined vs. Placebo+Vilaprisan (B1) in treatment period 1||0.93|0.72|<.0001
95867469|NCT00160667|191692921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||=|0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|13.41|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||13.41|-12.82|=0.965
95867470|NCT00160667|191692921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||=|0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|14.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|||14.65|-11.69|=0.825
95867471|NCT02589600|191692936|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.22|||Negative binomial regression||Placebo group is the reference group||Negative binomial regression implemented in the SAS®️ GENMOD procedure with fracture outcome as the dependent variable; duration of follow-up as an offset to account for each participant's exposure; treatment arm as the main independent factor of interest.|1.22|.90|0.7251
95849373|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|4.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.93|0.56|0.3659
95849374|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||3.24|0.41|0.7878
95849375|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||11.38|0.94|0.0635
95849376|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.62||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|123.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||123.3|1.73|0.0137
95849377|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||10.62|0.79|0.1069
95849378|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|23.47||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||23.47|1.33|0.0186
95849379|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|7.56||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||7.56|0.75|0.1434
95849380|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.75|0.72|0.1670
95849381|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||3.28|0.41|0.7810
95867472|NCT01143701|191692948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Utilizing the full sample (n=577), an intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||-1.19|-5.89|<.05
95867473|NCT01143701|191692949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An intent-to-treat analyses was conducted comparing patient outcomes across intervention and control groups using a three-level mixed model. Baseline ratings were entered as a covariate. Post-baseline ratings collected closest to 12-months post-baseline were entered as dependent variables.||1.75|-4.71|<0.05
95867474|NCT01402427|191692956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.033|||Fisher Exact|||||0.033|-0.011|0.28
95867475|NCT01402427|191692957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95867476|NCT01402427|191692958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95849382|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||7.26|0.71|0.1682
95849383|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|21.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||21.39|1.28|0.0215
95867477|NCT01402427|191692959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95867478|NCT01402427|191692960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95867479|NCT01402427|191692961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95867480|NCT01402427|191692962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95849384|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.75||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||19.52|1.16|0.0306
95849385|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.1||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|52.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||52.29|1.92|0.0059
95867481|NCT01007253|191693000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean eye symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
95964278|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Awaken Short of Breath or with a Headache-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||2.3|-4.2|0.5639
95964279|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.3|-2.4|0.3223
95964280|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.6|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Sleep adequacy-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.6|-2.2|0.2742
95964281|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.1|-3.2|0.9816
95964282|NCT01270828|191899969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Somnolence-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.2|-2.9|0.9282
95964283|NCT01270828|191899970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.4|-0.1|0.1635
95964284|NCT01270828|191899970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0363||95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||0.5|0.0|0.0363
95964285|NCT01270828|191899971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 6||||0.432
95964286|NCT01270828|191899971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is for Week 19||||0.987
95964287|NCT01270828|191899972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the original score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||2.65|1.30|0.0007
95964288|NCT01270828|191899972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin DB relative to the event occurring in Placebo DB.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin DB."|This analysis is for the categorized score. Proportional odds Logistic regression with a term for treatment in the model.||3.81|1.41|0.0009
95964289|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.5|3.4|0.0003
95964290|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Bodily pain-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||11.3|4.0|<0.0001
95964291|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||6.0|0.4|0.0275
96002881|NCT02542293|191983173|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.018|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25 and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.018|0.480|
96002882|NCT02542293|191983173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.078|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.078|0.654|
96002883|NCT02542293|191983173|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.289|1.065|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.065|0.289|
95849386|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|8.43||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||8.43|0.83|0.1004
95849387|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.36|0.70|0.1837
95849388|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||3.75|0.47|0.5929
95849389|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.07|0.62|0.2588
95849390|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|38.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||38.41|1.54|0.0129
95849391|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|35.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||35.61|1.42|0.0168
95867482|NCT01007253|191693001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean nasal symptoms score difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.05
95867483|NCT01007253|191693002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean sneeze difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.001
95964292|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.0|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for General Health Perceptions-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||8.0|2.8|<0.0001
95964293|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.3|0.0735
95964294|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Vitality-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.2|-0.2|0.0684
95849392|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.95||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|50.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||50.97|1.94|0.0058
95849393|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|6.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.26|0.69|0.1934
95849394|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.2181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.12||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.12|0.66|0.2181
95867484|NCT01007253|191693003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean histamine level difference among the four treatment groups.||||0.11
95867485|NCT01007253|191693004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Friedman ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis of no mean tryptase level difference among the four treatment groups.||||<0.001
95867486|NCT01227629|191693043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to last available value||||0.0357
95867487|NCT01227629|191693044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26711||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison of differences from baseline to week 12||||0.26711
95867488|NCT03207035|191693067|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95867489|NCT03207035|191693068|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95867490|NCT03207035|191693069|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.70
95867491|NCT03207035|191693070|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95849395|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.71|0.53|0.4116
95849396|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||9.66|0.84|0.0938
95867492|NCT03207035|191693071|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95867493|NCT03207035|191693072|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95867494|NCT03207035|191693073|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.53
95867495|NCT03207035|191693074|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.48
95867496|NCT01588470|191693077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95867497|NCT01588470|191693079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95964295|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.4|-0.7|0.1197
95964296|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Social Functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.5|-1.3|0.2210
95849397|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|41.08||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||41.08|1.57|0.0125
96002884|NCT02542293|191983173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.081|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||1.081|0.587|
95867498|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.291|0.409||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.291|0.740
95867499|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867500|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.187||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.187|-0.504|0.367
95867501|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867502|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.389||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.389|-0.318|0.843
95867503|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867504|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.52||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.520|-0.351|0.703
95867505|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867506|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.413||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.413|-0.442|0.947
95867507|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867508|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.361||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.361|-0.514|0.732
95867509|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964297|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.1|-0.5|0.0847
95849398|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|12.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||12.23|0.88|0.0761
95849399|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|14.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||14.16|1.14|0.0305
95849400|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.68|1.00|0.0501
95849401|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|8.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.77|0.78|0.1212
95849402|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.68||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||3.68|0.35|0.8332
95849403|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.76|0.48|0.4285
95849404|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||10.74|0.83|0.0954
95867510|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.576||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.576|-0.623|0.939
95849405|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|11.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||11.38|0.78|0.1110
95849406|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|8.55||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||8.55|0.69|0.1642
95849407|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|7.24||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.24|0.66|0.1976
95849408|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.58||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.58|0.43|0.5761
95849409|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.04|0.20|0.4540
95867511|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867512|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.299||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|0.54||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.540|-0.637|0.872
95867513|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95964298|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|7.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role-Emotional-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||7.8|0.3|0.0365
95867514|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|0.512||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.512|-0.688|0.773
95867515|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867516|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|0.686||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.686|-0.834|0.848
95867517|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867518|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.684||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.684|-0.810|0.869
95867519|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867520|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.925||The statistical model: CDR change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.603|0.679
95867521|NCT02880956|191693085|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867522|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|0.96||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.960|-1.764|0.562
95964299|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.2749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||4.3|-1.2|0.2749
95867523|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867524|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.682||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.602|0.081||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.081|-2.602|0.066
95867525|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867526|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.343|1.41||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.410|-1.343|0.962
95867527|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867528|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.734|0.755||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.755|-2.734|0.265
95867529|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964300|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.2|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental Health-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||5.2|-0.3|0.0806
95964301|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.4|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.4|0.5|0.0082
95964302|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||3.7|1.0|0.0008
95867530|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.775|0.618||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.618|-2.775|0.212
95867531|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.29|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95849410|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||1.96|0.17|0.3732
95849411|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.50|0.46|0.4665
95849412|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.5634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|5.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.25|0.41|0.5634
95867532|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.223|1.29||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.290|-2.223|0.602
95867533|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867534|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.489|1.519||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.519|-2.489|0.635
95867535|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867536|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.233|1.712||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.712|-2.233|0.795
95867537|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867538|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|3.128||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.128|-0.910|0.281
95964303|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.5|-0.8|0.2097
95849413|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||5.70|0.48|0.4297
95849414|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.14|0.31|0.9789
95849415|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.70|0.24|0.7357
95867539|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867540|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.043||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.043|-2.918|0.729
95867541|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867542|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.047|1.863||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.863|-3.047|0.636
95867543|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867544|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.294||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.515|3.575||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.575|-1.515|0.427
95964304|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.8|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Mental component-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||2.8|-0.5|0.1669
95964305|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|-1.0|0.1466
95964306|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Physical functioning-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||6.7|0.1|0.0439
95964307|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|9.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.3|0.6|0.0250
95964308|NCT01270828|191899973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|9.5|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Role Physical-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||9.5|1.3|0.0107
95964309|NCT01270828|191899974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for SB Baseline to Week 19.Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.64|-1.23|<0.0001
95849416|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.50|0.14|0.1977
95849417|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.88||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.88|0.14|0.3203
95849418|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.44|0.30|0.9739
95849419|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||4.97|0.36|0.6714
95849420|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.52||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.52|0.22|0.6375
95849421|NCT03192176|191659370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.71||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||1.71|0.17|0.2980
95849422|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.35||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|16.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||16.96|1.69|0.0044
95849423|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|26.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||26.83|2.79|0.0002
95849424|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|33.54||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||33.54|3.49|<0.0001
95849425|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|31.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||31.29|3.20|<0.0001
95849426|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.15||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||8.15|0.77|0.1266
95964310|NCT01270828|191899974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with baseline value, pooled center decided before unblinding, and treatment in the model.||-0.58|-1.12|<0.0001
95849427|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.72||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|17.66||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||17.66|1.85|0.0024
95867545|NCT02880956|191693094|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95849428|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|24.26||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||24.26|2.59|0.0003
95849429|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|8.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.17|1.18|0.0217
95849430|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|12.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.25|1.75|0.0021
95849431|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.37|1.80|0.0016
95849432|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.86|1.79|0.0018
95849433|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|7.14||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.14|1.01|0.0467
95849434|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.28||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||12.28|1.80|0.0016
95849435|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.98||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.65||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||7.65|1.16|0.0234
95849436|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|7.46||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||7.46|1.11|0.0294
95849437|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.74||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.73||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.73|1.44|0.0068
95849438|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|11.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||11.29|1.68|0.0025
95849439|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|15.92||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.92|2.13|0.0006
95849440|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|6.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.61|0.97|0.0572
95849441|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|15.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||15.97|2.28|0.0003
95849442|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|6.38||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||6.38|1.02|0.0460
95867546|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.083|0.690
95849443|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.23||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.23|0.79|0.1406
95849444|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|7.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.63|1.16|0.0234
95964311|NCT01270828|191899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0154
95849445|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||7.22|1.10|0.0302
95849446|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|14.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||14.63|1.87|0.0016
95849447|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.64|0.71|0.2105
95849448|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.17||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.81||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||10.81|1.61|0.0033
95964312|NCT01270828|191899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Anxiety-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.3|-1.3|0.0027
95849449|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.21||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||5.21|0.85|0.1087
95849450|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.03||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||4.03|0.60|0.3600
95849451|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.1394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.32|0.79|0.1394
95849452|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||7.36|0.99|0.0522
95849453|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|11.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||11.61|1.63|0.0119
95849454|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.53||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.53|0.77|0.1474
95849455|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|14.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.67|1.76|0.0026
95849456|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||5.51|0.81|0.1263
95964313|NCT01270828|191899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.2|0.0166
95964314|NCT01270828|191899975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for HADS-Depression-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-0.1|-1.1|0.0217
96002885|NCT02542293|191983173|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.955|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer OS than SoC."||0.955|0.222|
95849457|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||4.95|0.68|0.2327
95849458|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||5.70|0.79|0.1359
95849459|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|9.69||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||9.69|1.16|0.0258
95849460|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|15.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||15.04|1.51|0.0076
95849461|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||6.75|0.83|0.1088
95849462|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|14.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||14.62|1.64|0.0045
95849463|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 6||7.50|1.00|0.0493
95849464|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|8.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.41|1.06|0.0376
95849465|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.94|0.92|0.0723
95849466|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|9.17||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||9.17|1.06|0.0396
95849467|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|20.67||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||20.67|1.85|0.0031
95849468|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.96||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||6.96|0.83|0.1044
95849469|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|16.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||16.75|1.78|0.0029
95849470|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|8.45||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 7||8.45|1.07|0.0364
95849471|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.37|0.47|0.6396
95849472|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.91||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.91|0.55|0.4378
96002886|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.146|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.146|0.514|
95867547|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95849473|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.2045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.44||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||5.44|0.70|0.2045
95849474|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|7.62||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||7.62|0.85|0.0958
95849475|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||4.85|0.60|0.3210
95849476|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||11.39|1.23|0.0199
95849477|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.36||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||6.36|0.80|0.1219
95849478|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.76||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.76|0.62|0.2975
95867548|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.131||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.131|-0.075|0.595
95867549|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95849479|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||4.80|0.64|0.2763
95849480|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.82||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.82|0.79|0.1235
95849481|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|14.19||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||14.19|1.27|0.0190
95849482|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||5.93|0.66|0.2213
95849483|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|20.25||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||20.25|1.71|0.0050
95849484|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 9||6.85|0.83|0.1053
95867550|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.175||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.175|0.037|0.201
95867551|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867552|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.184||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.184|-0.067|0.361
95867553|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964315|NCT01270828|191899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-SB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-3.0|-5.5|<0.0001
96002887|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.189|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.189|0.623|
96002888|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|1.193|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.193|0.714|
96002889|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|0.818|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||0.818|0.258|
96002890|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.228|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.228|0.524|
95849485|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.72||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||6.72|0.85|0.0991
95849486|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.32||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||5.32|0.70|0.2056
95849487|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.57||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||9.57|1.05|0.0407
95849488|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.47||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|18.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||18.30|1.63|0.0059
95849489|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|12.3||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||12.30|1.20|0.0230
95849490|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.36||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|25.29||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||25.29|2.14|0.0015
95849491|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.16||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 10||10.16|1.17|0.0248
95849492|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||6.83|0.82|0.1091
95849493|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.75||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||4.75|0.61|0.3054
95849494|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.61||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||7.61|0.81|0.1129
95849495|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|10.37||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||10.37|1.04|0.0432
95849496|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|12.6||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||12.60|1.13|0.0315
95849497|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.26||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|13.64||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||13.64|1.33|0.0147
95849498|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 11||9.59|1.05|0.0405
95849499|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.93|0.50|0.5238
95849500|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.97||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.97|0.60|0.3060
95849501|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.86||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||4.86|0.55|0.3747
95849502|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|11.8||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||11.80|1.03|0.0443
95849503|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|8.06||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||8.06|0.77|0.1269
95849504|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.15||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||17.13|1.49|0.0095
95867554|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.162||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|Week 48||0.162|-0.082|0.522
95867555|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867556|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.219||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.219|-0.033|0.147
95849505|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.94||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||6.94|0.79|0.1254
95849506|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|12.63||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||12.63|1.06|0.0402
95867557|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95849507|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|5.42||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.42|0.47|0.4547
95849508|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.99||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||5.99|0.49|0.4008
95849509|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|9.22||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||9.22|0.71|0.1535
95867558|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.117||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.117|-0.243|0.492
95867559|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867560|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.141||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.141|-0.213|0.691
95867561|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95849510|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.19||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|28.95||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||28.95|1.79|0.0055
95849511|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.5||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.50|0.64|0.2116
95867562|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.317||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.317|-0.043|0.135
95867563|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867564|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.187||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.187|-0.273|0.713
95867565|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867566|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.111||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.111|-0.341|0.318
95867567|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867568|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.222||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.222|-0.244|0.927
95867569|NCT02880956|191693095|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95849512|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.83||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 13||7.83|0.70|0.1668
95849513|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.98||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.98|0.67|0.1824
95867570|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.098||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.098|-0.219|0.456
95867571|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964316|NCT01270828|191899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Severity Index-DB Baseline to Week 19. Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-5.0|<0.0001
95849514|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.9||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.90|0.25|0.7970
95867572|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.023||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.023|-0.290|0.093
95867573|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867574|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.135||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.135|-0.187|0.750
95867575|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867576|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.366||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.366|-0.049|0.134
95849515|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.85||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||2.85|0.21|0.7065
95849516|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.93||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||3.93|0.29|0.9126
95849517|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|10.7||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||10.70|0.74|0.1282
95849518|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.04||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||7.04|0.58|0.2661
95867577|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867578|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.305||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.305|-0.099|0.316
95867579|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867580|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.339||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.339|-0.078|0.218
95867581|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867582|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|0.169||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.169|-0.219|0.799
95867583|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867584|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.111||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.111|-0.273|0.406
95964317|NCT01270828|191899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-SB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.7|-6.5|<0.0001
95849519|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.09||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 14||4.09|0.36|0.7457
95849520|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|6.41||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||6.41|0.47|0.4095
95867585|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867586|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.105||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.105|-0.285|0.363
95867587|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867588|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.093||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.093|-0.400|0.220
95964318|NCT01270828|191899976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||"This ANCOVA model analysis is for Pain Interference Index-DB Baseline to Week 19.~Estimates and p-values are from an analysis of covariance main effects model with SB baseline value, center, and treatment in the model."||-2.4|-6.0|<0.0001
95849521|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.77||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.77|0.28|0.9571
95849522|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.59||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||3.59|0.23|0.8827
96002891|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.177|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.177|0.585|
95849523|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.74||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||2.74|0.17|0.5944
95849524|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|11.39||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||11.39|0.66|0.1647
95849525|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.48||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||7.48|0.57|0.2684
95849526|NCT03192176|191659371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.07||Odds ratio, corresponding 95% CI and p-value are based on a logistic regression with responder as the dependent variable and treatment group and smoking status as factors and baseline measurement (mean frequency of vasomotor symptoms) as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 15||5.07|0.43|0.5338
96002892|NCT02542293|191983174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.017|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.017|0.534|
95849527|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Week 4||-0.18|-1.95|0.0179
95849528|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.47|-2.25|0.0027
95849529|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.73|-2.50|0.0004
95849530|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.64|-2.43|0.0009
95849531|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.64|-1.14|0.5806
95849532|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.27|-2.03|0.0105
95849533|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.39|-2.16|0.0048
95849534|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.29|-1.52|0.1801
95849535|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.04|-1.76|0.0609
95849536|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.49|-2.33|0.0028
96002893|NCT02542293|191983175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.517|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.517|0.810|
95849537|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.55|-2.40|0.0018
95849538|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.64|-1.19|0.5519
95849539|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.31|-1.51|0.1922
95867589|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867590|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.099||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.099|-0.386|0.245
95867591|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867592|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.178|-0.323|0.569
95867593|NCT02880956|191693096|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867594|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.19||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.190|-0.177|0.945
95867595|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867596|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.178||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.178|-0.184|0.974
95867597|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867598|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.181||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||||0.181|-0.190|0.963
95964319|NCT01270828|191899977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|17.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Benefit from treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||17.00|1.34|0.0161
95964320|NCT01270828|191899977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Satisfaction with treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||5.85|1.05|0.0378
95867599|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867600|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.154||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.154|-0.255|0.625
95867601|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867602|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.125||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.125|-0.272|0.468
95849540|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8||-0.02|-1.82|0.0463
95964321|NCT01270828|191899977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was the probability of the event occurring in pregabalin CR DB relative to the event occurring in placebo DB. Odds ratio \> 1 was in favor of pregabalin CR.|This analysis is for 'Willingness to continue treatment'. Proportional odds logistic regression was used with a term for treatment in the model.||2.81|0.93|0.0901
95964322|NCT00709228|191899988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||simple proportion|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.15||||||||0.15|0.06|
96002894|NCT02542293|191983175|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.141|||||The HR and CI interval were calculated using an stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||2.141|0.592|
95849541|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.19|-1.53|0.1288
95849542|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.03|-1.72|0.0577
95849543|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.48|-2.26|0.0027
95849544|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||-1.3|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.41|-2.20|0.0043
95849545|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.52|-1.27|0.4089
95849546|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.31|-1.44|0.2050
95849547|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.11|-1.84|0.0265
95849548|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.88|-1.20|0.7617
95849549|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.32|-0.77|0.6061
95867603|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964323|NCT02870972|191899994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.458|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.703|-0.214|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.214|-0.703|<0.001
95964324|NCT02870972|191899994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.433||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.127|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.127|-0.740|0.006
95849550|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.21|-0.93|0.7997
95849551|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.6||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.60|-0.55|0.3391
95849552|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.61|-1.55|0.3934
96002895|NCT02542293|191983175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.924|1.253|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.253|0.924|
95849553|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||1.04|-1.08|0.9750
95849554|NCT03192176|191659372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors and baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15||0.97|-1.13|0.8830
95849555|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.5872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|10.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.73|-6.09|0.5872
95849556|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.35|-4.70|0.3779
95849557|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|4.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||4.49|-12.61|0.3506
95849558|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.8236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|9.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.62|-7.66|0.8236
95867604|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.254||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.254|-0.155|0.636
95867605|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95849559|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|10.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||10.87|-6.24|0.5949
95849560|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|7.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.85|-8.65|0.9237
95849561|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|12.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.46|-4.54|0.3599
95849562|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|11.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||11.68|-8.33|0.7422
95849563|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|7.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||7.37|-12.67|0.6030
95849564|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|4.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||4.17|-16.07|0.2478
95867606|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.236||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.236|-0.204|0.887
95849565|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.5295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|13.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.47|-6.94|0.5295
95849566|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.6938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||8.13|-12.20|0.6938
95849567|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|9.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||9.63|-9.93|0.9765
95849568|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|13.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||13.76|-6.45|0.4771
95849569|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|12.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.27|-5.19|0.4256
95867607|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867608|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.486||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.486|0.051|0.016
95867609|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867610|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.342||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.342|-0.097|0.272
95867611|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867612|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.347||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.347|-0.223|0.671
95867613|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867614|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.378|-0.183|0.493
95867615|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867616|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.387||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.387|-0.190|0.501
95964325|NCT02870972|191899994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.425||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.755|0.012
95964326|NCT02870972|191899994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.703|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.033|0.373|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.373|-1.033|<0.001
95849570|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.9559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|9.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.01|-8.52|0.9559
95849571|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|3.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||3.07|-14.60|0.2003
95849572|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|6.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.98|-10.86|0.6692
95867617|NCT02880956|191693097|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867618|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.431||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.431|-0.307|0.742
95867619|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867620|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|0.218||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.218|-0.511|0.431
95867621|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867622|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.574|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.574|0.290
95867623|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867624|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.258||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.258|-0.492|0.541
95867625|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867626|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.459|0.272||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.272|-0.459|0.617
95867627|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867628|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.517|0.233||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.233|-0.517|0.457
95964327|NCT02870972|191899994|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.32|-0.52|0.639
95867629|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867630|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.59||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.590|-0.151|0.245
95867631|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867632|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.238|0.496||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.496|-0.238|0.491
95867633|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95964328|NCT02870972|191899995|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|17.7||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|38.8|||Fisher Exact|||||38.8|-3.4|0.155
95964329|NCT02870972|191899995|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|16.9||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|40.1|||Fisher Exact|||||40.1|-6.3|0.277
95867634|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.652||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.652|-0.085|0.132
95867635|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867636|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.313||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.313|-0.434|0.751
95867637|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867638|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.103|-0.635|0.157
95867639|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867640|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.585|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.172|-0.585|0.283
95867641|NCT02880956|191693098|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867642|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.231||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.231|-0.085|0.363
95867643|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867644|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.124||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.124|-0.188|0.688
95867645|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964330|NCT02870972|191899995|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|24.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|49.2|||Fisher Exact|||||49.2|-1.2|0.064
95964331|NCT02870972|191899995|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|4.2|||Fisher Exact|||||4.2|-13.2|1.000
95964332|NCT02870972|191899995|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs placebo (%)|-16.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||-2.2|-30.2|0.097
95964333|NCT02870972|191899996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.061||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.094|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.094|-0.216|0.439
95867646|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.281||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.281|-0.039|0.137
95867647|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867648|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.122||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.122|-0.300|0.408
95964334|NCT02870972|191899996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.004||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.19|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.190|-0.198|0.968
95964335|NCT02870972|191899996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.045||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.164|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.164|-0.254|0.667
95964336|NCT02870972|191899996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.197||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.012|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.012|-0.406|0.065
95964337|NCT02870972|191899996|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.035||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.301|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.301|-0.232|0.797
95867649|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867650|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|0.085||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.085|-0.325|0.249
95867651|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867652|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.157||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.157|-0.265|0.616
95867653|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867654|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.304|-0.163|0.555
95867655|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867656|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.258||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.258|-0.203|0.815
95867657|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867658|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.409||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.409|-0.057|0.138
95867659|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867660|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.220|-0.397|0.573
95867661|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867662|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.365||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.365|-0.241|0.689
95867663|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867664|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.382||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.382|-0.243|0.662
95867665|NCT02880956|191693099|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867666|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.167||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-0.555|0.291
95867667|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964338|NCT02870972|191899997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.364|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.181|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.181|-0.547|<0.001
95964339|NCT02870972|191899997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.384||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.613|0.001
95964340|NCT02870972|191899997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.401||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.647|-0.154|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.154|-0.647|0.002
95964341|NCT02870972|191899997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.445|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|-0.198|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.198|-0.692|<0.001
95849573|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.68|7.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.08|-10.68|0.6894
95849574|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|2.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||2.48|-14.66|0.1627
95849575|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.47|-9.18|0.9371
95849576|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|9.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.77|-8.07|0.8521
95849577|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.35|-8.62|0.9367
95849578|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||0.19|-17.82|0.0551
95849579|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||5.96|-12.32|0.4936
95849580|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||11.17|-6.89|0.6404
95849581|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|9.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.34|-8.17|0.8955
95849582|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|9.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Integrity of Behavior following Awaking||9.17|-8.91|0.9776
95849583|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|7.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||7.01|-9.27|0.7852
95849584|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|9.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.33|-7.02|0.7812
95849585|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|3.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||3.61|-13.07|0.2648
95849586|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|6.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||6.32|-10.41|0.6312
95849587|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|9.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||9.67|-6.89|0.7416
95964342|NCT02870972|191899997|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.08||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.234|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.234|-0.394|0.614
95964343|NCT02870972|191899998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.326||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.095|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.095|-0.557|0.006
95867668|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.001||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.001|-0.713|0.051
95867669|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867670|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|0.383||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.383|-0.346|0.921
95867671|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867672|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.12||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.120|-0.711|0.163
95867673|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867674|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.239||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.239|-0.567|0.424
95867675|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867676|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.326||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.326|-0.510|0.664
95964344|NCT02870972|191899998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.293||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.004|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.004|-0.582|0.047
95964345|NCT02870972|191899998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.327||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.016|-0.638|0.040
95964346|NCT02870972|191899998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.247|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-0.247|-0.870|<0.001
95849588|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|11.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.41|-4.83|0.4254
95849589|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|11.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.54|-4.66|0.4038
95849590|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|4.85||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||4.85|-14.49|0.3270
95849591|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|7.9||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.90|-11.21|0.7333
95849592|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|2.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||2.28|-17.36|0.1319
95849593|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|7.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||7.32|-12.38|0.6132
95849594|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|5.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||5.63|-13.98|0.4024
95849595|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.4904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|6.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.23|-12.97|0.4904
95849596|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|6.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||6.69|-12.48|0.5521
95849597|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|7.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||7.35|-10.38|0.7370
95867677|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867678|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.265||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.265|-0.638|0.417
95867679|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867680|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.166||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.166|-0.727|0.217
95867681|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867682|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.526||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.526|-0.381|0.753
95867683|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867684|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.270|-0.740|0.362
95867685|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867686|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.575||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.575|-0.432|0.780
95964347|NCT02870972|191899998|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.057||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.454|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.454|-0.339|0.775
95867687|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867688|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.509||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.509|-0.526|0.974
95867689|NCT02880956|191693100|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867690|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.278||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.278|-0.269|0.976
95867691|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 24||||
95867692|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.244|0.296||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.296|-0.244|0.850
95867693|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964348|NCT02870972|191899999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-4.449||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.453|2.555|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.555|-11.453|0.209
95849598|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|5.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.96|-11.62|0.5269
95849599|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|5.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||5.11|-12.93|0.3937
95849600|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.94||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.94|-8.15|0.8460
95849601|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||6.38|-11.62|0.5673
95849602|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|12.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||12.79|-4.88|0.3791
95849603|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|9.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.73|-7.86|0.8340
95867694|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.275||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.275|-0.281|0.981
95867695|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867696|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.318||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.318|-0.323|0.989
95867697|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867698|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.319|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.307|-0.319|0.970
95867699|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867700|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.526|0.215
95867701|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867702|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.25||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.250|-0.392|0.665
95867703|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867704|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|0.012||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.012|-0.625|0.059
95867705|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867706|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.251||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.251|-0.394|0.663
95964349|NCT02870972|191899999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.103||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.639|-1.567|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-1.567|-16.639|0.019
95849604|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.88||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.88|-9.51|0.9457
95849605|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|7.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||7.09|-11.22|0.6570
95849606|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||3.64|-15.00|0.2310
95849607|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.9066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|9.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.96|-8.84|0.9066
95849608|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.71||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|4.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||4.30|-14.26|0.2914
95849609|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|9.57||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||9.57|-8.73|0.9277
95849610|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.9367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|8.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||8.77|-9.51|0.9367
95849611|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.69|-3.46|0.2407
95849612|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|15.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.89|-2.06|0.1305
95849613|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|14.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.75|-3.34|0.2152
95849614|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|16.89||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.89|-1.73|0.1099
95867707|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867708|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.348||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.348|-0.413|0.866
95849615|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|16.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||16.75|-1.99|0.1219
95849616|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|18.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||18.36|0.85|0.0316
95867709|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867710|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.238||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.238|-0.514|0.471
95867711|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867712|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.287||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.287|-0.493|0.604
95849617|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|15.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Getting to Sleep||15.16|-2.44|0.1557
95849618|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|10.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.67|-8.91|0.8592
95849619|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.6891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|12.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||12.20|-8.08|0.6891
95849620|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|9.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||9.92|-10.59|0.9481
95849621|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|8.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||8.68|-12.46|0.7246
95849622|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|11.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.53|-9.94|0.8842
95849623|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|11.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||11.17|-8.74|0.8103
95849624|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.9631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|10.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||10.28|-9.81|0.9631
95849625|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.9788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|9.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||9.47|-9.73|0.9788
95849626|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|8.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||8.54|-11.26|0.7875
95849627|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.08||0.9746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|10.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.17|-9.85|0.9746
95849628|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.9092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|10.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.86|-9.67|0.9092
95849629|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|10.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||10.21|-10.55|0.9745
95849630|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|14.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.44|-5.08|0.3458
95849631|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|13.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.45|-6.17|0.4657
95867713|NCT02880956|191693101|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95849632|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.07||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.76|-7.20|0.5838
95849633|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.22||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|11.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||11.39|-9.18|0.8322
95849634|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|12.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||12.13|-8.59|0.7366
95849635|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|16.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.28|-4.99|0.2971
95849636|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.9562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|10.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||10.37|-10.96|0.9562
95849637|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||0.28|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|18.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||18.76|-1.44|0.0926
95867714|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.202||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.202|-0.067|0.325
95867715|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867716|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.088||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.088|-0.177|0.510
95849638|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.70|-6.70|0.4996
95849639|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.99|8.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.75|-9.99|0.8960
95849640|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|12.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||12.58|-6.68|0.5471
95867717|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95849641|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|11.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||11.36|-8.06|0.7380
95849642|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|19.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||19.69|-0.58|0.0644
95867718|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.172||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.172|-0.100|0.601
95867719|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964350|NCT02870972|191899999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.263||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.808|-3.718|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-3.718|-18.808|0.004
95964351|NCT02870972|191899999|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|4.04||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.586|13.665|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||13.665|-5.586|0.405
95964352|NCT02870972|191900000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.12||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.826|2.584|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.584|-18.826|0.135
95964353|NCT02870972|191900000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.92||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|2.41|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.410|-20.260|0.121
95964354|NCT02870972|191900000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-24.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.834|-13.137|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-13.137|-35.834|<0.001
95964355|NCT02870972|191900000|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.84||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.316|6.64|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||6.640|-22.316|0.284
95964356|NCT02870972|191900001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-8.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.132|0.592|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||0.592|-17.132|0.067
95964357|NCT02870972|191900001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-7.073||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.432|2.287|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.287|-16.432|0.136
95964358|NCT02870972|191900001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-11.484||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.642|-2.325|||ANOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||-2.325|-20.642|0.015
95964359|NCT02870972|191900001|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-9.785||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.001|2.431|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of treatment-effect was performed using an ANCOVA with the terms of treatment and adjusted qualifying attack rate as the covariate.||2.431|-22.001|0.114
95964360|NCT03322540|191900010|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|8.7|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Point estimate was assessed based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by predominant tumor histology (squamous vs non-squamous).|||8.7|-21.5|0.8000
95964361|NCT01634269|191900016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion of IF implanted subjects|87.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.7|98.4|||Exact binomial|||||98.4|61.7|0.002
95964362|NCT04052425|191900059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.341|11.903||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||11.903|2.341|< 0.0001
95964363|NCT04052425|191900060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.831|9.482||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.482|2.831|< 0.0001
95964364|NCT04052425|191900061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.49||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.997|36.048||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||36.048|1.997|0.0038
95964365|NCT04052425|191900062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|13.566||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||13.566|1.795|0.0020
95964366|NCT04052425|191900063|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.29||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||31.290|2.900|0.0002
95964367|NCT04052425|191900064|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-11.64||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-11.64|-27.05|< 0.0001
95964368|NCT04052425|191900067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.226|9.578||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.578|3.226|< 0.0001
95964369|NCT04052425|191900069|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|-22.19|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-22.19|-39.03|<0.0001
95964370|NCT04052425|191900072|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-16.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.28|-10.68|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-10.68|-23.28|<0.0001
95964371|NCT04052425|191900074|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-9.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|-4.18|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-4.18|-13.96|0.0003
95964372|NCT04052425|191900076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|5.307||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||5.307|1.746|< 0.0001
95849643|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|8.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||8.96|-10.90|0.8475
95867720|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.119||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.119|-0.157|0.783
95849644|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.3044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|14.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||14.59|-4.57|0.3044
95849645|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.3895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|13.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Getting to Sleep||13.86|-5.42|0.3895
95849646|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|7.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||7.42|-16.50|0.4551
95849647|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1||0.7182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.21|9.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.81|-14.21|0.7182
95849648|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|9.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||9.20|-15.26|0.6259
95849649|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|19.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||19.40|-6.22|0.3120
95849650|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.89|6.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||6.37|-18.89|0.3297
95849651|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||15.26|-9.02|0.6130
95849652|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|14.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Quality of Sleep||14.40|-10.09|0.7292
95867721|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95849653|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.8695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|11.96||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||11.96|-1.11|0.8695
95849654|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|14.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||14.25|-7.99|0.5800
95849655|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.7024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|13.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.50|-9.11|0.7024
95849656|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|23.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||23.23|-0.35|0.0572
95849657|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.93||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|13.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||13.31|-10.04|0.7830
95849658|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||0.1|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.19|26.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||26.67|4.19|0.0074
95849659|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|22.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Ease of Awaking From Sleep||22.32|-0.24|0.0551
95849660|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.63|5.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||5.08|-16.63|0.2959
95849661|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.2976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|16.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||16.74|-5.14|0.2976
95867722|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.103||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.103|-0.165|0.646
95867723|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867724|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.05||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.050|-0.226|0.209
95867725|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867726|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.11||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.110|-0.246|0.454
95867727|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867728|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.043||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.043|-0.306|0.141
95867729|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867730|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.031|-0.323|0.107
95867731|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
95867732|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.232||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.232|-0.243|0.961
95867733|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867734|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.173||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.173|-0.290|0.618
95867735|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867736|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.092||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.092|-0.385|0.227
95867737|NCT02880956|191693102|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95849662|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|13.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.05|-9.07|0.7236
95849663|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.63||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||21.63|-1.52|0.0884
95964373|NCT04052425|191900076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.2921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|10.823||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||10.823|0.489|0.2921
95964374|NCT04052425|191900076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
95964375|NCT04052425|191900079|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.62|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.62|-1.26|0.4970
96002896|NCT02542293|191983175|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.362|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥ 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.362|0.655|
96002897|NCT02542293|191983175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.024|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.024|0.621|
95849664|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.35|6.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||6.38|-16.35|0.3887
95849665|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|17.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||17.24|-4.80|0.2671
95849666|NCT03192176|191659373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.6076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|13.99||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with domain score as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement (BM) as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of BM by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Integrity of Behavior Following Awaking||13.99|-8.20|0.6076
95849667|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.67|-2.93|0.2159
95849668|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.08|-3.70|0.0405
95849669|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.53|-4.18|0.0115
95849670|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.04|-3.62|0.0553
95964376|NCT01677299|191900090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-22.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment A.||||-8|-37|<0.05
95964377|NCT01677299|191900090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment B.||||-9|-30|<0.05
95964378|NCT01677299|191900090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-16.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment C.||||-8|-24|<0.05
95849671|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.80|-2.82|0.2753
95849672|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.20|0.5140
95849673|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Symptoms Score||-0.38|-4.03|0.0178
95849674|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.98|-1.02|0.9675
95849675|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.49|-1.52|0.3122
95849676|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.00|-1.00|0.9977
95849677|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.9312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.97||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.97|-1.05|0.9312
95849678|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.27|0.6005
95849679|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||1.32|-0.68|0.5284
95849680|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Symptoms Score||0.19|-1.82|0.1111
95849681|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.16|0.1764
95849682|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms||-0.34|-1.73|0.0037
95964379|NCT01677299|191900090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean diff (Day 5 - Baseline)|-21.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in fasting plasma glucose from Baseline to Day 5 (end of treatment) for treatment D.||||-11|-31|<0.05
95964380|NCT01677299|191900091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS mean ration|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|1.4|<0.05
95964381|NCT01677299|191900091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio of (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
95964382|NCT01677299|191900091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|1.4|<0.05
95964383|NCT01677299|191900091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|1.5|<0.05
95964384|NCT01677299|191900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|1.4|<0.05
95964385|NCT01677299|191900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.2|<0.05
95964386|NCT01677299|191900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.3|<0.05
95964387|NCT01677299|191900092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geo LSmean ratio (Day 5/Baseline)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|1.4|<0.05
95849683|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.92|-2.30|<0.0001
95849684|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.81|-2.21|<0.0001
95849685|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.18|-1.21|0.1444
95849686|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.23|-1.60|0.0088
95867738|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.697||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.697|-0.009|0.056
95867739|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867740|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.349||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.349|-0.348|0.997
95867741|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964388|NCT01150461|191900107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.02
95964389|NCT01150461|191900108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test||||0.06
95964390|NCT01681992|191900109|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.65|-3.43|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-3.43|-7.65|
95964391|NCT01681992|191900109|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.96|-0.27|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to measles virus at Day 42.||-0.27|-3.96|
95964392|NCT01681992|191900110|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.91|1.04|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||1.04|-1.91|
95964393|NCT01681992|191900110|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.11|0.91|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||0.91|-2.11|
95964394|NCT01681992|191900111|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-9.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.2|-5.62|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-5.62|-13.20|
95849687|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.54||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.54|-1.93|0.0005
95849688|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.01|-0.69|0.0416
95849689|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.03|-0.71|0.0353
95849690|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.16|-0.84|0.0040
95867742|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.772||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.772|0.056|0.023
95867743|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867744|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.558||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.558|-0.274|0.502
95964395|NCT01681992|191900111|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -10% for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.94|-3.49|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to mumps virus at Day 42.||-3.49|-10.94|
95849691|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.0||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.00|-0.69|0.0495
95849692|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.37|-0.31|0.8665
95849693|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.32|-0.35|0.9303
95849694|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.06|-0.62|0.1039
95849695|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|1.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.27|-4.78|0.2547
95849696|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.50|-6.60|0.0225
95849697|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-1.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.26|-7.38|0.0058
95867745|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964396|NCT01681992|191900112|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Min minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.11|-0.42|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||-0.42|-3.11|
95867746|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.587|0.224||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.224|-0.587|0.379
95867747|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867748|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.394||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.394|-0.439|0.916
95849698|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|-0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-0.33|-6.48|0.0301
95849699|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.51||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||1.51|-4.59|0.3220
95849700|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.8782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.27||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||3.27|-2.80|0.8782
95849701|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Total Score||-1.17|-7.27|0.0069
95849702|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.25|-3.49|0.0890
96002898|NCT02542293|191983175|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|1.317|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.317|0.389|
95849703|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.48|-3.25|0.1444
95849704|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.32|-3.51|0.1022
95849705|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.75||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.75|-3.07|0.2342
95849706|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.9906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.87|-1.89|0.9906
95849707|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.40|-1.34|0.5770
95849708|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.61|-3.14|0.1865
95867749|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867750|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|0.302||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.302|-0.633|0.487
96002899|NCT02542293|191983175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.01|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.010|0.542|
95849709|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.65|-1.45|0.4575
95849710|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.77|-1.33|0.6016
95867751|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867752|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|0.473||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.473|-0.451|0.963
95867753|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867754|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|0.51||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.510|-0.424|0.856
95867755|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867756|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.748||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.748|-0.341|0.463
95849711|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.86|0.7026
95849712|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.64|0.2971
95849713|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.5491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.74|-1.38|0.5491
95849714|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.7142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||1.25|-0.86|0.7142
95849715|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.21||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.21|-1.89|0.1157
95849716|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.14|-1.30|0.1114
95849717|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.83|0.0025
95849718|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Scre||-0.74|-2.20|<0.0001
95849719|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.48|||MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.48|-0.96|0.5093
95849720|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.86|-2.33|<0.0001
96002900|NCT02542293|191983175|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.251|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer PFS than SoC."||1.251|0.335|
95849721|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.24|-1.67|0.0090
95849722|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 4: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.40|-1.84|0.0024
95849723|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.25|-0.47|0.5497
95849724|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.76|0.0276
95867757|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
96002901|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|1.03||||||"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.030|0.236|
96002902|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.968||||||"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.968|0.288|
95964397|NCT01681992|191900112|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group difference (Inv\_MMR\_Med minus Com\_MMR) in seroresponse rate should be ≥ -5% for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Difference in seroresponse rate|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.5|0.05|||||Asymptotic standardized 97.5% CI for the difference in seroresponse rate.|Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to Com\_MMR vaccine in terms of seroresponse rate to rubella virus at Day 42.||0.05|-2.50|
95964398|NCT01681992|191900113|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.88|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||0.88|0.72|
95964399|NCT01681992|191900113|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to measles virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-measles antibodies at Day 42.||1.01|0.83|
95964400|NCT01681992|191900114|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|0.89|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.89|0.76|
95964401|NCT01681992|191900114|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|0.91|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.91|0.78|
95849725|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.08|-0.65|0.1274
95849726|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|LSMean difference|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1865
95849727|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.12|-0.61|0.1857
95849728|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.39|-0.33|0.8631
95849729|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.04|-0.75|0.0304
95849730|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.70|-5.71|0.1246
95849731|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.22|-6.19|0.0680
95849732|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.28|-6.28|0.0729
95849733|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||0.06|-6.49|0.0541
95849734|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|2.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||2.59|-3.87|0.6960
95849735|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|3.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||3.15|-3.27|0.9725
95867758|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.518|0.557||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.557|-0.518|0.943
95867759|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867760|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|1.295||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.295|0.191|0.009
95867761|NCT02880956|191693103|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867762|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|0.136||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.136|-0.408|0.325
95867763|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867764|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.274|0.263||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.263|-0.274|0.966
95867765|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867766|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.220|-0.330|0.695
95867767|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867768|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.221||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.221|-0.348|0.662
95867769|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867770|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.304||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.304|-0.250|0.849
95867771|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867772|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.284||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.284|-0.286|0.995
95867773|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867774|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.378||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.378|-0.256|0.707
95867775|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867776|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.333||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.333|-0.294|0.901
95867777|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867778|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.439||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.439|-0.195|0.451
95867779|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95849736|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Total Score||-0.12|-6.53|0.0419
95849737|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.0794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.20|-3.57|0.0794
95849738|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.38|-3.47|0.1153
95849739|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||-1.5|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.46|-3.47|0.1334
95867780|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.298||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.298|-0.429|0.722
95964402|NCT01681992|191900115|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.53|0.68|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.68|0.53|
95849740|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|1.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.03|-2.93|0.3457
95849741|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|0.83||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.83|-3.07|0.2607
95867781|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867782|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.21||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.503|0.420
95964403|NCT01681992|191900115|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to mumps virus when tested with PRNT.|Adjusted GMT ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|0.74|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed titers with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-mumps antibodies at Day 42.||0.74|0.57|
95964404|NCT01681992|191900116|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Min over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Min vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
95964405|NCT01681992|191900116|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI on the group ratio of GMCs (Inv\_MMR\_Med over pooled Com\_MMR) should to be ≥ 0.67 for antibodies to rubella virus when tested with ELISA.|Adjusted GMC ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|0.95|||ANOVA|97.5% CI for GMC ratio was computed using ANOVA model on the log-transformed concentrations with vaccine group and the country as fixed effects.||Non-inferiority of Inv\_MMR\_Med vaccine compared to COM\_MMR vaccine in terms of GMCs for anti-rubella antibodies at Day 42.||0.95|0.83|
95964406|NCT00755417|191900150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.81|-0.11||Based on F test of type III analysis for pairwise comparison at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4||-0.11|-1.81|0.0117
95964407|NCT00755417|191900150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-0.66||Based on F test of type III analysis|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.66|-2.35|<0.0001
95964408|NCT00755417|191900151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.183|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.49|0.38||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12||0.38|-1.49|0.1830
95867783|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867784|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.241||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.241|-0.495|0.498
95867785|NCT02880956|191693104|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867786|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.142||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.142|-0.138|0.975
95867787|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867788|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.261||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.261|-0.014|0.078
95867789|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964409|NCT00755417|191900151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.46|0.4||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.40|-1.46|0.1975
95867790|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.094||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.094|-0.188|0.514
95867791|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867792|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.036||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.036|-0.367|0.107
95867793|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867794|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.116|-0.275|0.425
95867795|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867796|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.011||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.011|-0.413|0.039
95867797|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964410|NCT00755417|191900152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|-0.08||Based on F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.08|-0.44|0.0016
96002903|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.908||||||"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.908|0.336|
95867798|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.212||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.212|-0.302|0.729
96002904|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|5.234||||||"tTMB ≥14 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.234|0.752|
96002905|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|2.214||||||"tTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||2.214|0.482|
95867799|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867800|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.307||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.307|-0.198|0.671
95849742|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||1.64|-2.18|0.7816
95849743|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.29|-3.54|0.0955
95849744|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.57|0.2582
95849745|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.52|-0.53|0.3448
95849746|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.28|-0.81|0.6587
95849747|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.93||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.93|-1.16|0.8299
95849748|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.92|-1.17|0.8129
95849749|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||1.66|-0.37|0.2130
95849750|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.59||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Symptoms Score||0.59|-1.42|0.4131
95849751|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.15|-1.20|0.1273
95849752|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.31|-1.69|0.0046
95849753|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.80|-2.19|<0.0001
95849754|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.78||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.78|-2.19|<0.0001
95867801|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867802|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.276||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.276|-0.235|0.876
95867803|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95849755|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.06|-1.45|0.0333
95849756|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.02|-1.39|0.0423
95849757|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||-0.12|-1.49|0.0208
95849758|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.55|0.3435
95849759|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.22|-0.98|0.0021
95849760|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||-0.02|-0.79|0.0408
95849761|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.05|-0.73|0.0911
95849762|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.33|-0.44|0.7891
95849763|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.38|-0.38|0.9973
95849764|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||-0.1|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.29|-0.47|0.6377
95849765|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.40|-5.95|0.0862
95867804|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.362||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.362|-0.266|0.763
95964411|NCT00755417|191900152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.51|-0.14||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 4.||-0.14|-0.51|<0.0001
95849766|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.1305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.74|-5.74|0.1305
95849767|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.26|-6.34|0.0707
95849768|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.71|-5.92|0.1232
95867805|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964412|NCT00755417|191900153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|0.02||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.02|-0.43|0.0433
95964413|NCT00755417|191900153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.42|0.03||Based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|Included treatment and center factors and baseline value as a covariate, tested at the pairwise 0.025 level.||Null hypothesis was that there were no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate or severe hot flashes at stable dosing Week 12.||0.03|-0.42|0.0468
95964414|NCT02362503|191900156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.441||Hypothesis test:µfostemsavir=µPlacebo where µ is a common intercept.|ANCOVA||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||-0.441|-0.810|<0.0001
95964415|NCT02362503|191900157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.95|55.45|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>0.5 log10 c/mL.|||55.45|32.95|
96002906|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.548||||||"tTMB ≥10 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.548|0.430|
95849769|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|1.37||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||1.37|-5.18|0.2530
95849770|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||3.04|-3.40|0.9133
95849771|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Total Score||0.58|-5.85|0.1078
95849772|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.18|-4.07|0.0719
95849773|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.49|-3.80|0.1298
95867806|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.185||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.185|-0.434|0.429
95964416|NCT02362503|191900157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.16|44.25|||||Difference between treatment groups (fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) and 95% confidence interval using Newcombe method is presented for \>1.0 log10 c/mL.|||44.25|24.16|
95867807|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867808|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.381||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.381|-0.256|0.701
95867809|NCT02880956|191693105|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964417|NCT02362503|191900163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.0|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||16.0|-16.8|
95964418|NCT02362503|191900164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|1.151|||||Difference in covariate-adjusted least squares means between treatment groups (Fostemsavir 600 mg BID-Placebo) is presented.|||1.151|0.082|
95964419|NCT01080300|191900181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.09||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Eltereen|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-1.09|-2.31|0.0003
96002907|NCT02542293|191983176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.486||||||"tTMB ≥8 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.486|0.456|
95867810|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.137||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.137|-0.115|0.867
95867811|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867812|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.116||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.116|-0.132|0.898
95867813|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867814|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.168||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.168|-0.088|0.537
95867815|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867816|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.045||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.245|0.176
95867817|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867818|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.031||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.031|-0.251|0.125
96002908|NCT02542293|191983177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.869|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.869|0.245|
95867819|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
96002909|NCT02542293|191983177|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.124|1.337|||Binomial exact test|||"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.337|0.124|
95867820|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.114||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||week 48||0.114|-0.176|0.676
95867821|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867822|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.071||"The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit~\+ baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured."|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.071|-0.301|0.226
95867823|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867824|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.145||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.145|-0.222|0.683
95867825|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867826|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.204||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.204|-0.168|0.848
95867827|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867828|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.192||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.192|-0.305|0.656
95849774|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.13|-2.26|0.9532
95849775|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.55|-1.84|0.7510
95849776|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.42|-3.95|0.1120
95849777|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|2.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||2.19|-2.13|0.9781
95849778|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Symptoms Score||0.77|-3.57|0.2060
95867829|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867830|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.209||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.209|-0.279|0.777
95867831|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964420|NCT01080300|191900181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.48||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.48|-1.80|0.1000
95849779|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.76|-1.46|0.5332
95849780|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.70|-1.54|0.4599
95849781|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.55|-0.72|0.4752
95849782|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.07|-1.21|0.9051
95849783|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.15|-1.14|0.9937
95867832|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.397||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.397|-0.106|0.256
95867833|NCT02880956|191693106|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867834|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.126||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.126|-0.269|0.479
95867835|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964421|NCT01080300|191900182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 4:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 4."||-0.10|-0.31|<0.0001
95964422|NCT01080300|191900182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||P-value for the test of difference of the least square mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800 mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 12:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 12."||-0.04|-0.33|0.0004
95849784|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||1.35|-0.91|0.6956
95849785|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Symptoms Score||0.44|-1.81|0.2302
95849786|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.25||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.25|-1.55|0.1544
95849787|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.72|-1.10|0.6847
95849788|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.64||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.64|-1.20|0.5520
95849789|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.50|-1.36|0.3632
95849790|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.42|-1.43|0.2828
95849791|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.58|-1.24|0.4702
95849792|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.81||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Symptoms Score||0.81|-1.02|0.8262
95849793|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.19|-0.60|0.3152
95849794|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.56|0.4399
95964423|NCT01080300|191900183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||Based on Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Frequency at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily number of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.19|-1.98|0.1510
95964424|NCT01080300|191900184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.0|||Van Elteren|Multiplicity addressed by requiring significance for all primary endpoints.|Based on ANCOVA|"Baseline LOCF Average Daily Severity Score at Week 24:~Null hypothesis: no treatment differences relative to placebo in mean change from baseline in observed average daily severity score of moderate to severe hot flashes at Week 24."||-0.00|-0.44|0.0004
95867836|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.091|-0.299|0.295
95867837|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867838|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.215|-0.186|0.884
95867839|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867840|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.155||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.155|-0.281|0.569
95867841|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867842|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.171||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.171|-0.254|0.702
95964425|NCT01080300|191900185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.6|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the PGIC score at week 12.."||21.6|5.7|0.0008
95964426|NCT01080300|191900185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|21.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in PGIC at Week 24."||21.3|5.5|0.0009
95964427|NCT01080300|191900186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|24.3|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|"Proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in CGIC at Week 12.~Null Hypotheses: no treatment differences, relative to placebo in the proportion of patients who were categorized as very much or much improved in the CGIC score at week 12."||24.3|8.4|<0.0001
95867843|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867844|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.283||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.283|-0.155|0.566
95867845|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867846|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|0.065||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.065|-0.458|0.141
95867847|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867848|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.23||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.230|-0.285|0.834
95867849|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867850|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.215||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.215|-0.309|0.724
95867851|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867852|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.095||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.095|-0.559|0.163
95964428|NCT01080300|191900186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0|||2-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||19.0|3.0|0.0070
96002910|NCT02542293|191983177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.647|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for PD-L1 status (≥25% Vs \<25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||0.647|0.356|
96002911|NCT02542293|191983177|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.660|0.450|
96002912|NCT02542293|191983177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.079|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥25% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.079|0.443|
95964429|NCT01080300|191900187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|15.2|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||15.2|-0.3|0.0609
95964430|NCT01080300|191900187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|15.3|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||15.3|-0.7|0.0720
95964431|NCT01080300|191900188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.1825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|9.4|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 12||9.4|-1.8|0.1825
95964432|NCT01080300|191900188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.7|||two-sample Z test|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes|Risk difference defined as treatment difference in proportion of responders.|Week 24||10.7|-1.8|0.1662
95964433|NCT01080300|191900189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.97||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.97|-1.75|<0.0001
95964434|NCT01080300|191900189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.47||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.47|-1.36|<0.0001
95964435|NCT01080300|191900189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily sleep interference rating.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.0001
95964436|NCT01080300|191900190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.56||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 4: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-1.56|-3.67|<0.0001
95964437|NCT01080300|191900190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.78||The P value (versus placebo) for the pairwise test of difference of the LS mean change from Baseline between the G-ER 1800-mg and placebo-treatment groups was based on the F test of type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 12: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.78|-2.92|0.0007
95964438|NCT01080300|191900190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.69|||ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||Change from Baseline to Week 24: LOCF daily insomnia severity index (ISI) rating.||-0.69|-2.84|0.0014
95964439|NCT01080300|191900191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 4||-0.04|-0.37|0.0137
95964440|NCT01080300|191900191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.02||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 12||0.02|-0.31|0.0872
96002913|NCT02542293|191983177|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|4.919|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥ 25% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||4.919|0.658|
96002914|NCT02542293|191983177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|1.291|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||1.291|0.449|
95849795|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.13|-0.67|0.1898
95849796|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.41|-0.40|0.9791
95849797|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.20|-0.61|0.3178
95849798|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.24|-0.57|0.4174
95849799|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Dysfunction Score||0.16|-0.63|0.2490
95849800|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||0.79|-6.57|0.1233
95849801|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.70|-5.76|0.2858
95849802|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|3.73||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.73|-3.87|0.9716
95849803|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||4.03|-3.58|0.9072
95849804|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|1.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.49|-6.07|0.2334
95849805|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|3.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||3.72|-3.79|0.9859
95849806|NCT03192176|191659374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \&TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& an interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Total Score||1.72|-5.77|0.2870
95849807|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.24||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.24|-1.41|0.1632
95867853|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867854|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.21||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.210|-0.432|0.497
95849808|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.38|-2.03|0.0045
95849809|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.77||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.77|-2.43|0.0002
95849810|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.02|-2.70|<0.0001
95849811|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.76||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.76|-0.91|0.8569
95849812|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.15|-1.49|0.1110
95849813|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.83|0.0187
95849814|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.73|0.4972
95849815|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2568
95849816|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.23|-0.86|0.2609
95849817|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.32|-0.78|0.4148
95849818|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.38|0.5575
95849819|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.92||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.92|-0.16|0.1671
95849820|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.57|0.9462
95849821|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.04|-0.91|0.0699
95849822|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.20|-1.15|0.0056
95849823|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1117
95964441|NCT01080300|191900191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.13||The p-value (vs. Placebo) for the test of difference of the LS mean change from baseline between Gabapentin ER 1800mg and placebo group is based on the F-test of Type III analysis.|ANCOVA|No multiplicity adjustments were made for secondary efficacy outcomes||MENQOL score at Week 24||0.13|-0.23|0.5607
95964442|NCT00422734|191900199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95964443|NCT00422734|191900200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Subject. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
96002915|NCT02542293|191983177|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|5.27|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Va ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|"PD-L1 TC ≥50% analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~An odds ratio \>1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy over SoC."||5.270|0.585|
95849824|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.06|-1.02|0.0265
95849825|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.09|-0.86|0.1119
95849826|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||0.40|-0.54|0.7607
95849827|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Physical Mean Score||-0.01|-0.97|0.0437
95849828|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.12|-1.51|0.0211
95849829|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.42||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||-0.42|-1.82|0.0017
95849830|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.03|-1.37|0.0598
95849831|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.20|-1.21|0.1573
95849832|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.7257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.58|-0.83|0.7257
95849833|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.72|0.9324
95849834|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.14|0.2172
95849835|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.88|0.0742
95849836|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Score||-0.23|-1.16|0.0035
95849837|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0266
95849838|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.13||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-0.13|-1.06|0.0124
95849839|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.28||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.28|-0.65|0.4367
95849840|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.48|0.9318
95849841|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||0.04|-0.89|0.0714
95849842|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.29|-1.35|0.2027
95849843|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.53|-2.16|0.0013
95849844|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-0.87||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.87|-2.53|<0.0001
95849845|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.16|-2.83|<0.0001
95849846|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.45|-1.19|0.3791
95849847|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.15|-1.78|0.0211
95849848|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.47||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.47|-2.10|0.0021
95849849|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.48|-0.55|0.8890
95867855|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
96002916|NCT02542293|191983178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.532|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.532|0.113|
95867856|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.349||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.349|-0.314|0.919
95867857|NCT02880956|191693107|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867858|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.974|0.409||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.409|-0.974|0.423
95849850|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.36|-0.67|0.5568
95849851|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.30|-0.75|0.3989
95849852|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.39||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.39|-0.66|0.6094
95849853|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.69|-0.35|0.5229
95849854|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.72|-0.31|0.4409
95849855|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.58||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Psychological Mean Score||0.58|-0.45|0.8062
95849856|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.26|-0.71|0.3663
95849857|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||-0.02|-0.99|0.0424
95867859|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95849858|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.14||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.14|-0.85|0.1597
95849859|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.02||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.02|-0.97|0.0595
95867860|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.408|-0.047||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.047|-1.408|0.036
95867861|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867862|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.355||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.147||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.147|-1.250|0.121
95867863|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867864|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.163|0.296||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.296|-1.163|0.244
95849860|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.18||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Symptoms Score||0.18|-0.80|0.2162
95849861|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.48|-0.49|0.9833
95849862|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.81|0.2034
95849863|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.67|-0.70|0.9576
95849864|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.03||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||-0.03|-1.40|0.0410
95849865|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.40|-1.00|0.3961
95849866|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.46||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.46|-0.94|0.5012
95849867|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.30|-1.10|0.2592
95849868|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.86||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.86|-0.51|0.6141
95849869|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Sexual Mean Score||0.41|-0.95|0.4390
95849870|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.64|0.4521
95849871|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.06||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.06|-0.99|0.0257
95849872|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.01|-0.93|0.0564
95849873|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Wek 8: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.99|0.0293
95849874|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.26|-0.68|0.3742
95849875|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||0.44|-0.49|0.9106
95867865|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95849876|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 8: Overall Mean SCore||0.15|-0.78|0.1844
95849877|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.09|-1.69|0.0287
95849878|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.43||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.43|-2.05|0.0028
95849879|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.67|-2.32|0.0004
95849880|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-1.22||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-1.22|-2.87|<0.0001
95849881|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.26|-1.38|0.1826
95849882|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.17|-1.79|0.0178
95849883|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differnce|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||-0.44|-2.06|0.0025
95867866|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.086||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.086|-1.330|0.085
95867867|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
96002917|NCT02542293|191983178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.639|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.639|0.196|
95849884|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.55|0.9163
95849885|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.15|-0.92|0.1597
95849886|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.35|-0.74|0.4871
95849887|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.38||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.38|-0.72|0.5401
95867868|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.177||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.177|-1.280|0.137
95867869|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867870|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|1.091||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.091|-0.294|0.258
95849888|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.79|-0.30|0.3788
95849889|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||0.28|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.74|-0.33|0.4541
95849890|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.56||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Psychological Mean Score||0.56|-0.51|0.9233
95849891|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.35|-0.61|0.6043
95849892|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.15|-0.82|0.1781
95849893|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.34|-0.66|0.5221
95849894|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.32||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.32|-0.68|0.4744
95849895|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.66|0.5167
95849896|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.72||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.72|-0.25|0.3441
95849897|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.33||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Physical Mean Score||0.33|-0.64|0.5362
95849898|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.71|-0.78|0.9349
95849899|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||-0.26|-1.78|0.0084
95849900|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.38|0.1212
95849901|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.66||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.66|-0.89|0.7709
95867871|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867872|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.555|0.814||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.814|-0.555|0.711
95849902|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.23|-1.33|0.1667
95849903|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.79|-0.72|0.9213
95849904|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.2315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Sexual Mean Score||0.29|-1.21|0.2315
95849905|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.29|-0.63|0.4731
95849906|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.05||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-0.05|-0.98|0.0310
95849907|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.11|-0.84|0.1320
95849908|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.10|-0.85|0.1212
95849909|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.34||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.34|-0.62|0.5689
95849910|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||0.1|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.55||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.55|-0.39|0.7340
95849911|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.2||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||0.20|-0.73|0.2704
95849912|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.67||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.67|-1.24|0.5610
95849913|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.09|-0.83|0.7966
95849914|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.4||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.40|-0.56|0.3965
95849915|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.1||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.10|-0.87|0.8189
95849916|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.7||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 12: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.70|-1.27|0.5693
95849917|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.65||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||0.65|-1.29|0.5217
95849918|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.48||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Vasomotor Mean Score||1.48|-0.46|0.2988
95849919|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.69|0.7957
96002918|NCT02542293|191983178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.611|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.611|0.233|
95849920|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.26|-0.97|0.2540
95849921|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.50|-0.75|0.6956
95849922|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.68||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.68|-0.57|0.8694
95849923|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.41||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.41|-0.84|0.5047
95849924|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.71||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.71|-0.52|0.7515
95849925|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.7818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.53||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Psychological Mean Score||0.53|-0.70|0.7818
95849926|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5770
96002919|NCT02542293|191983179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.787|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.787|0.199|
95849927|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.17|-0.85|0.1893
95849928|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.79||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.79|-0.25|0.2997
95849929|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.44||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.44|-0.60|0.7529
95849930|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.31|-0.73|0.4173
95849931|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.69||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.69|-0.34|0.4944
95849932|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Physical Mean Score||0.49|-0.54|0.9231
95849933|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean differencce|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.52||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.52|-1.04|0.5112
95849934|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.09||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||-0.09|-1.66|0.0300
95849935|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.04||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.04|-1.57|0.0634
95849936|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.84||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.84|-0.78|0.9406
95849937|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.16|-1.46|0.1168
95849938|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.80|-0.79|0.9937
95849939|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.26||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Sexual Mean Score||0.26|-1.32|0.1858
95849940|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.36||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.36|-0.65|0.5765
95849941|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.17|-0.86|0.1848
95849942|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.61|-0.43|0.7299
95849943|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.54|0.9415
95849944|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.23||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.23|-0.82|0.2742
95849945|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.62||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.62|-0.41|0.6946
95849946|NCT03192176|191659375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.5||LSM, SE, CI, \& p-values come from an MMRM model with CFB as dependent variable \& TG, visit \& smoking status as factors \& baseline measurement as a covariate, as well as interaction of treatment by week \& interaction of baseline measurement by week.|MMRM|||Week 15: Overall Mean Score||0.50|-0.53|0.9442
95849947|NCT01890343|191659416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The effect of diagnostic group on mean cortical florbetapir binding relative to cerebellar cortex was determined.||||0.002
95849948|NCT00097500|191659417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95849949|NCT00097500|191659418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4185||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4185
95849950|NCT00097500|191659419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
95849951|NCT00097500|191659419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1188||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1188
95849952|NCT00097500|191659420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 52.||||<0.0001
95849953|NCT00097500|191659420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at week 56.||||0.1996
95849954|NCT00097500|191659421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5522
95849955|NCT00097500|191659422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95849956|NCT00097500|191659424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95853837|NCT02485691|191666760|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.68||P-value from two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Log Rank||Cabazitaxel vs Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR- targeted agent initiation progression, timing of AR targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization.||0.68|0.40|<0.0001
95849957|NCT01751061|191659467|SUPERIORITY|To test the primary hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.|||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated. A two-sided type-I error rate of 0.05 was set for all tests; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. All participants were included in analyses as per their group randomization.|GEE|||We estimated that 210 patients (315 surrogates, assuming \~1.5 per patient) would provide a power of 80% to detect a between-groups mean CSCS score difference of 9 percentage points between Interviews 1 and 2, assuming a baseline mean of 50, SD=24, a type-I error=5%, a correlation between interviews of 0.5, an expectation that 50% of patients would have multiple surrogates, an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.8 for multiple surrogates for a patient, and 5% dropout before Interview 2.||||<0.05
95849958|NCT01751061|191659468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||Generalized linear model.||||<0.05
95849959|NCT01751061|191659469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear model|||||||<0.05
95849960|NCT01751061|191659470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
95849961|NCT01751061|191659471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
95849962|NCT01751061|191659472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|generalized linear models|||||||<0.05
95849963|NCT01751061|191659473|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P values were calculated.|GEE|||To test the hypothesis, we used a general linear model fit with generalized estimating equations, a linear link, and an exchangeable correlation (PROC GENMOD). Model parameters included indictor variables for intervention, Interview 2, the interaction between intervention and Interview 2, and a 4-level site variable. The mean CSCS between-groups difference, corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and p value were derived from the intervention-by-Interview 2 interaction term.||||<0.05
95849964|NCT03583099|191659613|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|15.0|||generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-6.9|0.47
95849965|NCT03583099|191659614|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|20.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||20.7|0.1|0.05
95849966|NCT03583099|191659615|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.2|-6.7|0.75
95849967|NCT03583099|191659616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||6.1|-11.5|0.54
95849968|NCT03583099|191659617|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|12.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.3|-2.1|0.16
95849969|NCT03583099|191659618|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.1|-6.4|0.82
95849970|NCT03583099|191659619|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-13.0|0.06
95849971|NCT03583099|191659620|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.5||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|9.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||9.5|-14.5|0.68
95867873|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95849972|NCT03583099|191659621|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|13.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|33.38|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||33.38|-6.72|0.19
95867874|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.924||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.924|-0.454|0.503
95849973|NCT03583099|191659622|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.85||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.82|19.52|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||19.52|-17.82|0.93
95849974|NCT03583099|191659623|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.83||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|24.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||24.50|-10.84|0.45
95867875|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867876|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.806|0.784||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.784|-0.806|0.978
95867877|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867878|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|0.342||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.342|-1.239|0.265
95867879|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867880|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.704|0.925||The statistical model: ADAS-Cog change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.925|-0.704|0.789
95867881|NCT02880956|191693108|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.||||
95867882|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.395||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.395|-0.965|0.720
95867883|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867884|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.607|0.722||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.722|-1.607|0.455
95867885|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867886|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.605||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|1.625||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.625|-0.755|0.473
95964444|NCT00422734|191900200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Partner. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. To adjust for multiplicity, statistical significance at 0.025 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95964445|NCT00422734|191900201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95867887|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867888|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.187|1.512||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.512|-1.187|0.813
95867889|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
95867890|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.672||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.863|0.78||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.780|-1.863|0.421
95867891|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867892|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|1.564||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.564|-1.139|0.758
95867893|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964446|NCT00422734|191900202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95849975|NCT03583099|191659624|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|25.78|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.78|-10.58|0.41
95849976|NCT03583099|191659625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.85||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|16.88|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.88|-13.17|0.81
95849977|NCT03583099|191659626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.01||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.38|31.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||31.40|-15.38|0.51
95849978|NCT03583099|191659627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-10.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.78|14.09|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.09|-34.78|0.41
95849979|NCT03583099|191659628|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.94||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|23.16|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.16|-31.03|0.76
95849980|NCT03583099|191659629|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.76||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|23.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||23.83|-25.36|0.95
95849981|NCT03583099|191659630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.32||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.36||The p-value is adjusted for baseline CAT score.|Mixed Models Analysis||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.36|-2.01|0.55
95849982|NCT03583099|191659631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|8.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.4|-0.1|0.05
95849983|NCT03583099|191659632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.81||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|25.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.08|-21.47|0.88
95849984|NCT03583099|191659633|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.62||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|11.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.97|-23.21|0.53
95849985|NCT03583099|191659634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.68||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|28.63|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education|||28.63|-7.27|0.24
95849986|NCT03583099|191659635|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.65|6.55|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.55|-33.65|0.19
95849987|NCT03583099|191659636|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.38||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|13.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.27|-12.50|0.95
95849988|NCT03583099|191659637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.97||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|2.17|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.17|-16.12|0.14
96002920|NCT02542293|191983179|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|2.86|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||2.860|0.183|
96002921|NCT02542293|191983179|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.588|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.588|0.324|
95849989|NCT03583099|191659638|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|11.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.27|-13.39|0.87
95849990|NCT03583099|191659639|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-15.9|0.81
95849991|NCT03583099|191659640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-7.2|0.63
95867894|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.815||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.066||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-2.140|0.511
95867895|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867896|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.623|0.527||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.527|-2.623|0.192
95867897|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867898|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.816||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.914|2.294||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.294|-0.914|0.398
95867899|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867900|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|2.784||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.784|-0.851|0.296
95964447|NCT00422734|191900203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for subject scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
95849992|NCT03583099|191659641|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-2.5|0.17
95849993|NCT03583099|191659642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|7.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.3|-13.0|0.58
95849994|NCT03583099|191659643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.6||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-8.3|0.89
95867901|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867902|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.126|1.442||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.442|-2.126|0.706
95867903|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867904|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|3.617||The statistical model: FAQ change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.617|-0.036|0.055
95867905|NCT02880956|191693109|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867906|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.166||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.166|-0.266|0.651
95867907|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867908|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|0.104||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.104|-0.318|0.320
95867909|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867910|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.182||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.182|-0.250|0.757
95867911|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867912|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.236||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.236|-0.241|0.984
95849995|NCT03583099|191659644|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.5|-9.2|0.16
95849996|NCT03583099|191659645|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-10.9|0.62
95849997|NCT03583099|191659646|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.64||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.27|13.99|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.99|-17.27|0.84
95849998|NCT03583099|191659647|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|6.09||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|16.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.80|-4.63|0.27
95849999|NCT03583099|191659648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|12.41|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.41|-6.59|0.55
95850000|NCT03583099|191659649|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.37||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|13.83|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.83|-9.09|0.69
95850001|NCT03583099|191659650|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.36||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|8.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.85|-8.13|0.93
95850002|NCT03583099|191659651|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.01||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|2.95|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.95|-10.97|0.26
95850003|NCT03583099|191659652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.04||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|10.21|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.21|-14.28|0.74
95850004|NCT03583099|191659653|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
95850005|NCT03583099|191659654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.6||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|9.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.6|-4.3|0.46
95850006|NCT03583099|191659655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.1|-3.0|0.50
95867913|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867914|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.17||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.170|-0.296|0.595
95867915|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850007|NCT03583099|191659656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|6.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.5|-6.8|0.96
95850008|NCT03583099|191659657|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.5|-3.0|0.40
95867916|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.291||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.291|-0.187|0.670
95867917|NCT02880956|191693110|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867918|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.260|0.722
95850009|NCT03583099|191659658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.1||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.0|-4.3|0.96
95850010|NCT03583099|191659659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.1|-7.9|0.98
95850011|NCT03583099|191659660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.2||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-15.2|0.46
95850012|NCT03583099|191659661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|12.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.4|-4.7|0.37
95850013|NCT03583099|191659662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.8||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.4|-6.0|0.75
95850014|NCT03583099|191659663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|0.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.9|-18.3|0.08
95850015|NCT03583099|191659664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.1|-10.6|0.11
95850016|NCT03583099|191659665|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.9|-5.1|0.89
95850017|NCT03583099|191659666|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.0|-17.5|0.05
95850018|NCT03583099|191659667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|16.76||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|36.42|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||36.42|-2.89|0.09
95850019|NCT03583099|191659668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|15.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.9|-8.6|0.56
95850020|NCT03583099|191659669|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.39|40.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||40.20|-19.39|0.49
95850021|NCT03583099|191659670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|10.8||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||22.1|-0.5|0.06
95867919|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95850022|NCT03583099|191659671|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.41||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|11.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.79|-10.97|0.94
95850023|NCT03583099|191659672|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|11.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.8|-6.5|0.57
95850024|NCT03583099|191659673|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|20.73|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||20.73|-18.01|0.89
95850025|NCT03583099|191659674|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-12.1|0.65
95850026|NCT03583099|191659675|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|29.96|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||29.96|-5.00|0.16
95964448|NCT00422734|191900203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for partner scores|ANCOVA|ANCOVA included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
95850027|NCT03583099|191659676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-3.6|0.29
95850028|NCT03583099|191659677|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|5.28||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|18.62|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.62|-8.07|0.44
95964449|NCT00422734|191900204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 2. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95850029|NCT03583099|191659678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.5|-7.6|0.62
95850030|NCT03583099|191659679|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-23.18|0.39
95850031|NCT03583099|191659680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.8|-13.9|0.08
95850032|NCT03583099|191659681|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-11.3||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.06|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.00|-29.06|0.23
95850033|NCT03583099|191659682|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.14||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|4.13||The p-value adjusts for baseline CAT score.|Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.13|-6.42|0.97
95850034|NCT03583099|191659683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-0.003||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.85|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.85|-1.86|0.47
95850035|NCT03583099|191659684|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|17.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|33.34|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||33.34|2.34|0.02
95850036|NCT03583099|191659685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.6|-2.0|0.12
95850037|NCT03583099|191659686|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test. This test is appropriate since only one outcome per practice was seen.||||||1.0
95850038|NCT03583099|191659687|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.06||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.67|26.79|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||26.79|-22.67|0.87
95964450|NCT00422734|191900204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for SEP Question 3. Hypotheses were tested in a sequential fashion using a gatekeeping strategy and adjusted for multiplicity. Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required for this variable.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||The null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to IIEF EF domain or SEP2 or SEP3) were each tested at a specified level of 0.05. In order to pass a serial gatekeeper, it was necessary to reject all three hypotheses. The two null hypotheses (no treatment effect with respect to subject SLQQ-SQoL domain and no treatment effect with respect to partner SLQQ-SQoL domain) were then each tested at a significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95850039|NCT03583099|191659688|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
95867920|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.198||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.198|-0.232|0.878
95850040|NCT03583099|191659689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.53||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.33|13.28|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.28|-24.33|0.56
95867921|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95850041|NCT03583099|191659690|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
95850042|NCT03583099|191659691|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|12.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|32.37|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||32.37|-7.05|0.21
95850043|NCT03583099|191659692|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
95850044|NCT03583099|191659693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-18.29||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.66|2.08|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.08|-38.66|0.08
95850045|NCT03583099|191659694|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|The p-value is calculated from a two-sided Fisher's exact test.||||||1.0
95850046|NCT03583099|191659695|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.67||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.06|12.71|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.71|-14.06|0.92
95850047|NCT03583099|191659697|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-5.47||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|4.77|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||4.77|-15.72|0.29
95850048|NCT03583099|191659699|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.87||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|11.39|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||11.39|-17.14|0.69
95850049|NCT03583099|191659700|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-13.15||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|12.76|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.76|-39.06|0.32
95850050|NCT03583099|191659701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.0|-15.5|0.98
95850051|NCT03583099|191659703|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.1|-7.0|0.55
95850052|NCT03583099|191659704|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.61||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.19|12.97|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.97|-30.19|0.43
95850053|NCT03583099|191659705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|16.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||16.5|-1.4|0.10
95850054|NCT03583099|191659706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.82||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|21.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||21.92|-20.92|0.94
95850055|NCT03583099|191659707|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|7.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.6|-14.4|0.55
95850056|NCT03583099|191659709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.1|-9.3|0.80
95850057|NCT03583099|191659711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.8|-9.7|0.18
95850058|NCT03583099|191659712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.17||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.06|25.72|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||25.72|-26.06|0.99
95850059|NCT03583099|191659713|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.6||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.8|-12.0|0.59
95850060|NCT03583099|191659715|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|1.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||18.4|-14.5|0.82
95964451|NCT00422734|191900205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 4|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95850061|NCT03583099|191659717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|7.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|19.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.3|-4.1|0.20
95850062|NCT03583099|191659719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||15.3|-5.5|0.36
95850063|NCT03583099|191659721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|4.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|17.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||17.1|-7.9|0.47
95850064|NCT03583099|191659723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.0|-7.8|0.88
95850065|NCT03583099|191659725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-12.0|0.27
95850066|NCT03583099|191659726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-4.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.92|38.04|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||38.04|-47.92|0.82
95850067|NCT03583099|191659727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||12.2|-14.5|0.87
95850068|NCT03583099|191659728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-37.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.8|-3.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-3.5|-71.8|0.03
95850069|NCT03583099|191659729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.3||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|10.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.3|-5.6|0.56
95850070|NCT03583099|191659730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-23.07||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|1.27|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||1.27|-47.40|0.06
95867922|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.29||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.290|-0.151|0.535
95867923|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964452|NCT00422734|191900205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for SEP Question 5|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964453|NCT00422734|191900206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964454|NCT00422734|191900207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964455|NCT00422734|191900208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
95850071|NCT03583099|191659731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||10.4|-4.0|0.39
95850072|NCT03583099|191659732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.72||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.24|14.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.80|-18.24|0.84
95850073|NCT03583099|191659733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.9|-2.9|0.42
95850074|NCT03583099|191659734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-42.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.27|-9.92|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-9.92|-74.27|0.01
95850075|NCT03583099|191659735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||9.1|-4.2|0.47
95850076|NCT03583099|191659736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.27||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|13.18|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.18|-37.72|0.34
95964456|NCT00422734|191900208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
95867924|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.239||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.239|-0.266|0.916
95850077|NCT03583099|191659737|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|2.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-3.1|0.39
95850078|NCT03583099|191659739|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.1|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.1|-5.5|0.59
95850079|NCT03583099|191659741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.3||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.8|-8.2|0.94
95850080|NCT03583099|191659742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||13.4|-12.2|0.93
95850081|NCT03583099|191659743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-8.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|5.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||5.7|-22.0|0.25
95850082|NCT03583099|191659744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-3.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|6.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||6.0|-12.7|0.48
95850083|NCT03583099|191659745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|3.9||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|14.2|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||14.2|-6.3|0.45
95867925|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867926|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.165||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.165|-0.330|0.511
95867927|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964457|NCT00422734|191900209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 1|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
95850084|NCT03583099|191659747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.9|-8.4|0.48
95850085|NCT03583099|191659748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.4||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|19.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||19.5|-20.4|0.97
95850086|NCT03583099|191659749|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-0.6|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||-0.6|-23.5|0.04
95850087|NCT03583099|191659750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.3|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.3|-5.8|0.39
95850088|NCT03583099|191659751|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||0.4|-14.9|0.06
95850089|NCT03583099|191659752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.0|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.0|-8.8|0.82
95850090|NCT03583099|191659753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.9|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||7.9|-6.6|0.86
95867928|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.292||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.292|-0.217|0.771
95964458|NCT00422734|191900209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for GAQ Question 2|Regression, Logistic|Model included:treatment, baseline value of IIEF EF Domain, pooled site. Baseline-value-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10||||||<0.001
95867929|NCT02880956|191693111|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95964459|NCT00422734|191900210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 1|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964460|NCT00422734|191900210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEP Question 2|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964461|NCT00422734|191900211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Total Score|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964462|NCT00422734|191900211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Sexual Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964463|NCT00422734|191900211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Confidence|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964464|NCT00422734|191900212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Self-Esteem|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964465|NCT00422734|191900212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for SEAR Overall Relationship|ANCOVA|Change from baseline ANCOVA model: treatment group, baseline value, pooled site. Baseline-by-treatment interaction included if interaction at p\<0.10.||||||<0.001
95964466|NCT00848484|191900213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.277
95964467|NCT00848484|191900214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
95964468|NCT00848484|191900215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.933
95964469|NCT00848484|191900216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
95964470|NCT00848484|191900217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among five secondary cognition endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
95964471|NCT00848484|191900218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.1 was used to adjust p-Values among 5 secondary cognition endpoints.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The repeated measures model included the terms site and sequence \* time with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment sequences.||||||0.686
95964472|NCT02567708|191900222|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0468||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.102||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.102|-0.083|0.57
95964473|NCT02567708|191900223|OTHER||Posterior median difference.|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0501||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.113||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model.|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.084|0.61
95964474|NCT02567708|191900224|OTHER|The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Posterior median difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0818||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.21|||Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.210|-0.111|0.731
95964475|NCT02567708|191900225|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0712||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.131||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.131|-0.151|0.44
95964476|NCT02567708|191900225|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.024|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.057||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.137||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.137|-0.087|0.66
95964477|NCT02567708|191900226|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0609||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.099||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.099|-0.140|0.35
95850091|NCT03583099|191659754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-7.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|2.5|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||2.5|-17.3|0.14
95850092|NCT03583099|191659756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-14.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.54|8.22|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||8.22|-37.54|0.21
95850093|NCT03583099|191659757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.4||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.7|||Generalized estimating equation contrast|||||2.7|-2.0|0.76
95850094|NCT03583099|191659760|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.6||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.4|||Generalized estimating equation contrast||The direction of the difference is Intervention: COPD education plus CAPTURE education and patient-level CAPTURE screening results minus the Enhanced Usual Care: COPD education.|||3.4|-2.1|0.66
95850095|NCT04073186|191659773|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the First wearing Cycle was concluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean as greater than 32.|Least-square Mean|59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.6|64.0|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||64.0|54.6|
95850096|NCT04073186|191659774|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.10 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|-0.044||Distance (4 Meter)|Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom.||||-0.044|-0.124|
95850097|NCT04073186|191659774|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR.|Least-square Mean|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Intermediate (64 CM)||0.012|-0.068|
95850098|NCT04073186|191659774|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper confidence limit of least-square mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.17 logMAR|Least-square Means|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.077|||Linear Mixed Model|The Kenward and Roger Method was used for the demoninator degrees of freedom||Near (40 CM)||0.077|-0.003|
95850099|NCT04073186|191659775|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens at 4-week followup compared to it at 2-week follow-up will beconcluded if the lower confidence limit of leastsquare mean difference is greater than 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|the Kenward and Roger method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Second Wearing Cycle minus First Wearing Cycle|||-0.1|-8.1|
95850100|NCT02648204|191659860|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.4|Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
95850101|NCT02648204|191659860|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.55|<0.0001
95850102|NCT02648204|191659860|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin: 0.04|Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
95850103|NCT02648204|191659860|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.25|-0.57|<0.0001
95850104|NCT02648204|191659861|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.51|-3.02|<0.0001
95850105|NCT02648204|191659861|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-4.32|<0.0001
95850106|NCT05757648|191659888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95850107|NCT05757648|191659889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.775
95850108|NCT05757648|191659890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.682
95850109|NCT04862065|191659902|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
95850110|NCT04862065|191659903|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
95850111|NCT04862065|191659904|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
95850112|NCT00117637|191659905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.27||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.27|0.61|0.50
95850113|NCT00117637|191659906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.239||The log rank test is stratified by region (western Europe, Eastern Europe, USA) and by Motzer risk category (low, intermediate).|Log Rank|||The study was planned to show a 80% improvement in PFS for the group treated with Sorafenib compared to the group treated with Interferon, with a 80% power and a 2-sided type I error of 5%||1.239|0.628|0.469
95850114|NCT00117637|191659907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
95850115|NCT00117637|191659908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics was stratified by region and Motzer risk category.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
95850116|NCT00117637|191659910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.022
95850117|NCT00117637|191659912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline) and using the baseline respiratory score as covariate.||||0.015
95850118|NCT00117637|191659914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.073
95867930|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.18||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.180|-0.159|0.903
95867931|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867932|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.145||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.145|-0.185|0.811
95867933|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867934|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.194||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.194|-0.145|0.775
95867935|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867936|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.096||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.096|-0.337|0.273
95964478|NCT02567708|191900226|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0578||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.156||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.156|-0.071|0.76
95850119|NCT00117637|191659916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.067
95850120|NCT00117637|191659917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.005
95850121|NCT00117637|191659918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.001
95850122|NCT00117637|191659919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The least square (LS) means have been adjusted according to the stratification factors (geographical region, Motzer score at baseline).||||0.019
95850123|NCT00117637|191659928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.014
95850124|NCT00614575|191659942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95850125|NCT00614575|191659943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-4.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.8|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95850126|NCT00614575|191659944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95850127|NCT00614575|191659945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean change from baseline|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95850128|NCT04664153|191659949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.74||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.76|-20.12|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-20.12|-58.76|0.0004
95850129|NCT04664153|191659950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.02|-2.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-2.77|-7.02|<0.0001
95850130|NCT01553084|191660002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Combination NRT will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.7|0.8|.3623
95850131|NCT01553084|191660002|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Varenicline will be compared statististically versus Nicotine patch only (the reference or control group).||1.2|0.6|.1947
95850132|NCT01553084|191660003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.107|||Regression, Cox|||||1.107|.756|.3613
95850133|NCT01553084|191660003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.943||||0.5503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.142|||Regression, Cox|||||1.142|.779|.5503
95850134|NCT01553084|191660004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.1|.03
95850135|NCT01553084|191660004|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.6|.19
95850136|NCT01553084|191660005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00625||0.3282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=710||||||.3282
95867937|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850137|NCT03882021|191660020|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|62.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from recurrence after removal from AAD at one year.|||62.8|51.2|
95850138|NCT03882021|191660021|OTHER|Kaplan Meier Estimate of freedom from symptomatic recurrence.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|61.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.8|67.1|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT recurrence after removal from AAD|||67.1|55.8|
95867938|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.176||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.176|-0.248|0.740
95867939|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867940|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.155||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.155|-0.282|0.567
95867941|NCT02880956|191693112|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867942|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.187||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.187|-0.204|0.931
95867943|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867944|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.063||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.063|-0.320|0.187
95867945|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867946|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.201||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.201|-0.191|0.961
95867947|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867948|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.227||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.227|-0.260|0.894
95964479|NCT02567708|191900226|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.038|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0559||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.148||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||0.148|-0.073|0.76
95964480|NCT02567708|191900227|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.083|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6175||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|1.346||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.346|-1.102|0.56
95964481|NCT02567708|191900227|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.014|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6672||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.341||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.341|-1.271|0.51
95964482|NCT02567708|191900227|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-0.113|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5148||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.908||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo..|||0.908|-1.125|0.41
95964483|NCT02567708|191900228|OTHER||Posterior median difference|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment difference is greater than zero.|Bayesian model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median difference is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg minus Placebo.|||1.7|-0.6|0.81
95964484|NCT02567708|191900231|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.063||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 7. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.00|0.78|0.97
96002922|NCT02542293|191983179|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.761|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab combination therapy to be associated with a longer DoR than SoC."||0.761|0.193|
96002923|NCT02542293|191983182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.058|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥20 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.058|0.494|
95850139|NCT03882021|191660022|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of single procedure clinical success.|Kaplan-Meier Survival Estimate|79.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.2|83.6|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from symptomatic AF/AFL/AT without new or increased dose of Class I/III AAD at one year.|||83.6|74.2|
95850140|NCT03882021|191660023|OTHER|Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT|Kaplan Meier Survival Estimate|75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.9|80.1|||||Kaplan Meier estimate of freedom from AF/AFL/AT at 12 months.|||80.1|69.9|
95850141|NCT00286442|191660029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.32||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at wk 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.32|-0.68|<0.001
95850142|NCT00286442|191660029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.3||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 participants had 95% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided test at 0.05 significance level and \>=80% of participants meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.30|-0.67|<0.001
95850143|NCT00286442|191660030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.16|-0.37|<0.001
95850144|NCT00286442|191660030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.40|<0.001
95850145|NCT00286442|191660031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
95850146|NCT00286442|191660031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.24|-0.52|<0.001
95850147|NCT00286442|191660032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
95850148|NCT00286442|191660032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.66|<0.001
95867949|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
96002924|NCT02542293|191983182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.151|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥16 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.151|0.607|
96002925|NCT02542293|191983182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.146|||||The HR and CI were calculated using an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model, with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"bTMB ≥12 mut/Mb analysis set: Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.146|0.689|
96002926|NCT02542293|191983183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.388|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.388|0.748|
96002927|NCT02542293|191983183|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.219|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"PD-L1-negative analysis set:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.219|0.360|
96002928|NCT02542293|191983183|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.147|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for PD-L1 status (\>= 25% Vs \< 25%), smoking status (never smoker Vs ever smoker) and histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by Efron approach.|"FAS:~Global: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs Global: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.147|0.845|
96002929|NCT02542293|191983183|OTHER|The study was not designed or powered to show statistical significance for efficacy endpoints in the China cohort, so all statistical analyses for the China cohort were considered exploratory.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.03|||||The HR and CI were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for histology (squamous Vs non-squamous), with ties handled by the Efron approach.|"FAS:~China: Durvalumab + Tremelimumab Vs China: SoC Chemotherapy~A HR \<1 favors Durvalumab + Tremelimumab to be associated with a longer time to second progression than SoC."||1.030|0.492|
96002930|NCT04662281|191983197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.21|||MMRM|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model was used to assess the difference between LX9211 and placebo in the primary endpoint and it includes fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.21|-1.82|0.120
96002931|NCT04662281|191983198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.62||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.29|||MMRM|||The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.29|-1.53|0.181
96002932|NCT04662281|191983199|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|8.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.42|29.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test blocked by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe) was used.||29.34|-13.42|0.504
96002933|NCT04662281|191983200|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.99|22.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test blocked by the different levels of the randomization stratification factors of Baseline severity score (moderate, severe) was used.||22.33|-13.99|0.671
96002934|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.23||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.17|||MMRM|||General Activity: The change from baseline to Week 6 in general activity was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||-0.17|-2.30|0.024
96002935|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.84||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.27|||MMRM|||Mood: The change from baseline to Week 6 in mood was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.27|-1.95|0.138
96002936|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.58|||MMRM|||Walking Ability: The change from baseline to Week 6 in walking ability was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.58|-1.45|0.397
96002937|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.67||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.34|||MMRM|||Normal Work: The change from baseline to Week 6 in normal work was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.34|-1.69|0.192
96002938|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.38||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.65|||MMRM|||Relations With Other People: The change from baseline to Week 6 in relation with other people was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.65|-1.41|0.463
95850149|NCT00286442|191660033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
95850150|NCT00286442|191660033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
95867950|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.251||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.251|-0.226|0.917
95867951|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867952|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.303||The statistical model: ADCS-CGIC-MCI change from baseline = treatment + site + visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.303|-0.186|0.639
95867953|NCT02880956|191693113|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (placebo - 8E12) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867954|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.175||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.851|2.703||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.703|-5.851|0.470
95867955|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.44|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95850151|NCT00286442|191660034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
95867956|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.127||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.819|4.548||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||4.548|-3.819|0.864
95867957|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867958|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.206||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.826|-0.15||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||-0.150|-8.826|0.043
95867959|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867960|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.874||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.041|6.27||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||6.270|-5.041|0.831
95867961|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964485|NCT02567708|191900231|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|0.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.071||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than 1.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 14. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.09|0.83|0.76
95964486|NCT02567708|191900231|OTHER||Posterior median ratio|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.085||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||The data entered for the p-value represents the posterior probability that the true treatment ratio is less than one.|Bayesian repeated measures model|Non-informative priors used for all modelling parameters. Unstructured covariance matrix fitted.|Day 28. The data entered as the 95% confidence interval represents the 95% equi-tailed credible interval. The posterior median ratio is calculated as GSK2269557 1000 μg/ Placebo.|||1.18|0.84|0.51
96002939|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.06||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.93|||MMRM|||Sleep: The change from baseline to Week 6 in relations with sleep was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.93|-1.05|0.908
95867962|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.843||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.784|7.404||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||7.404|-3.784|0.525
95867963|NCT02880956|191693114|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.47|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
96002940|NCT04662281|191983201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.79||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.31|||MMRM|||Enjoyment of Life: The change from baseline to Week 6 in enjoyment of life was analyzed using the MMRM model. The MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, the randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe), and the Baseline ADPS score as a covariate.||0.31|-1.90|0.158
96002941|NCT04662281|191983203|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.22|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used with treatment and randomization strata of Baseline pain severity (moderate, severe) as independent variables.||0.22|-1.05|0.192
96002942|NCT01674140|191983206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.77|0.52
95850152|NCT00286442|191660034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline with treatment and geographic region as class variables and baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.69|<0.001
95850153|NCT00286442|191660035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-6.8|-20.7|<0.001
95850154|NCT00286442|191660035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-4.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the metformin arm.|||-4.9|-18.9|<0.001
95850155|NCT00286442|191660036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.5|-23.9|<0.001
95850156|NCT00286442|191660036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-9.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates. Missing data imputed with LOCF.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.6|-24.1|<0.001
95850157|NCT00286442|191660037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-11.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-11.0|-24.6|<0.001
95850158|NCT00286442|191660037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-24.3|<0.001
95867964|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.921||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.239|4.255||The statistical model: UPSA-Brief change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||4.255|-7.239|0.610
95867965|NCT02880956|191693114|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
96002943|NCT01674140|191983207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.75|0.84
95850159|NCT00286442|191660038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.2|-28.0|<0.001
95850160|NCT00286442|191660038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-9.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.7|-25.6|<0.001
95867966|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.798|1.214||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.214|-2.798|0.438
96002944|NCT01674140|191983209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.74|0.32
96002945|NCT03466411|191983210|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|124.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.8|158.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||158.7|89.8|<0.001
96002946|NCT03466411|191983210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|102.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.5|136.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||136.9|68.5|<0.001
96002947|NCT03466411|191983210|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|108.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|143.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure||LS Mean difference between the treatment groups and p-values for the comparisons of each guselkumab treatment group with the placebo group were based on MMRM analysis.|||143.5|73.9|<0.001
95867967|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867968|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.164|2.788||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.788|-1.164|0.419
95867969|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867970|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.959|2.092||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.092|-1.959|0.948
95867971|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867972|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|2.101||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.101|-4.180|0.516
95867973|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867974|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.582||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.055|3.168||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||3.168|-3.055|0.971
95867975|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95964487|NCT00706654|191900240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The test of non-inferiority of was performed using a 95% confidence interval (CI, 2-sided) for the difference in the estimated percentage of patients meeting exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse criteria by the end of Week 26. Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was below the predefined margin, 11.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|3.99|||z-statistics||The 95% CI of the difference in proportions of subjects with impending relapse events between aripiprazole IM depot 300 or 400 mg mg and oral aripiprazole were provided using the pooled SE with assumption of normality of the estimated difference.|Sample sizes were estimated to achieve 93% power for the primary non-inferiority 2-sided comparison at 0.05 significance using large sample normal approximations for the distribution of the difference in binomial proportions. The assumed proportion of impending relapse at or before Week 26 for the oral aripiprazole 10-30 mg arm was 18% and the predefined non-inferiority margin was 11.5%. The sample size was projected to be 260 each for the IM depot 300 or 400 mg and oral 10-30 mg arms.||3.99|-5.26|0.7871
95964488|NCT00706654|191900240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-6.27||Once non-inferiority was declared, superiority of depot 300/400 mg over depot 25/50 mg was tested by the difference between the proportion of subjects experiencing impending relapse by the end of Week 26 (2-sided 0.05 significance level z-statistic).|z-statistics|The same method was used to compare IM depot 300 or 400 mg with IM depot 25 or 50 mg in the estimated proportion of subjects with impending relapse.||For the superiority comparison (assay sensitivity analysis) of IM depot 300 or 400 mg to IM depot 25 or 50 mg, on a 2:1 randomization, sample sizes of 260 and 130, respectively, were calculated to provide about 95% power at the 0.05 significance level (2-sided). A superiority margin of 17% was assumed.||-6.27|-23.09|0.0006
95964489|NCT00706654|191900242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.8750
95964490|NCT00706654|191900242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.0001
95964491|NCT00706654|191900243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.3700
95867976|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|1.8||The statistical model: ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; var-covar structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.800|-4.577|0.392
95867977|NCT02880956|191693115|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95867978|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.465||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.465|-3.080|0.148
95867979|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867980|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|0.246||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.246|-3.278|0.092
95867981|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850161|NCT00286442|191660039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.9|-25.6|<0.001
95850162|NCT00286442|191660039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.6|-25.4|<0.001
95850163|NCT00286442|191660040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-10.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.8|-27.4|<0.001
95850164|NCT00286442|191660040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-8.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.3|-25.0|<0.001
95850165|NCT00286442|191660041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-9.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.4|-26.7|<0.001
95850166|NCT00286442|191660041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.8|-24.2|<0.001
95867982|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.915||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.446|0.152||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.152|-3.446|0.073
95867983|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95867984|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|2.599||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.599|-1.652|0.662
95867985|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867986|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|2.068||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.068|-2.089|0.992
95964492|NCT00706654|191900243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1097||95.0|||||z-statistics|||||||0.1097
95964493|NCT02097303|191900246|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||Comparison of ALP levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.00001
95850167|NCT00286442|191660042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-10.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.2|-27.3|<0.001
95964494|NCT02097303|191900246|OTHER|||||||0.487||||||Comparison of PSA levels before and after treatment|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4870
95964495|NCT00594022|191900251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1275
95850168|NCT00286442|191660042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-8.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.8|-25.9|<0.001
95850169|NCT00286442|191660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|0.65||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.650|0.213|<0.001
95867987|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.38|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867988|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.088||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|1.32||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.320|-2.961|0.451
95964496|NCT02627118|191900288|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95964497|NCT01154140|191900300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.596||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS),race,brain metastases. 1-sided log-rank test at 0.0247 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 arms.|Log Rank|||||0.596|0.346|<0.0001
95867989|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95867990|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.088|1.739||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.739|-3.088|0.583
95867991|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867992|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.213||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.975|0.795||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.795|-3.975|0.191
95867993|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.37|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95867994|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|1.329|||repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.329|-3.541|0.372
95867995|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.96|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
95867996|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.303||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.553|1.571||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.571|-3.553|0.447
95964498|NCT01154140|191900301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.053||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by ECOG PS, race group and brain metastases.|Log Rank||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, race group, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio (less than)\<1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.053|0.548|0.0489
95964499|NCT01154140|191900303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|39.3||P-value was obtained from a Pearson chi-square test.|Pearson chi-square test||95% CI was calculated based on normal distribution.|If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if the 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was (less than or equal to)\<= 0.0494.||39.3|19.5|<0.0001
95867997|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95867998|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.334|2.719||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.719|-2.334|0.881
95867999|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.68|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868000|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.881|2.383||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.383|-2.881|0.853
95964500|NCT01154140|191900306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.067||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.4|||Pearson chi-square test|||The confidence interval for the difference in percentage was based on normal distribution.||19.4|0.8|0.0381
95964501|NCT01154140|191900307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.441|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.582||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR \<1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.582|0.335|<0.0001
95964502|NCT01154140|191900308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.048||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||1.048|0.338|0.0347
95964503|NCT01154140|191900309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.387|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.524||P-value was obtained from 1-sided unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||Analysis was based on the Cox Proportional hazards model assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Crizotinib.||0.524|0.286|<0.0001
96002948|NCT03466411|191983211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|48.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||48.9|27.3|<0.001
96002949|NCT03466411|191983211|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|53.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||53.9|31.6|<0.001
95868001|NCT02880956|191693116|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.54|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868002|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.567|0.762||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.762|-2.567|0.287
95868003|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850170|NCT00286442|191660043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.405||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.708||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.708|0.231|0.002
95850171|NCT00286442|191660044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.302||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.635||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.635|0.143|0.002
95850172|NCT00286442|191660044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.236|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.510|0.109|<0.001
95850173|NCT00286442|191660045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.5|-7.4|0.634
95850174|NCT00286442|191660045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.4|-10.5|0.136
95850175|NCT00286442|191660046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|2.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.0|-6.9|0.274
95850176|NCT00286442|191660046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-0.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA||Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.1|-9.1|0.046
95868004|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.838||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.661|0.633||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.633|-2.661|0.227
95868005|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868006|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.698|0.681||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.681|-2.698|0.241
95868007|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868008|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.073|2.696||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.696|-1.073|0.397
95964504|NCT01154140|191900316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.773||Two-sided p-value from the unstratified log rank test was used.|Log Rank|||HR was calculated based on the Cox Proportional hazards model. Assuming proportional hazards, a HR less than 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.||0.773|0.452|0.0002
95850177|NCT00286442|191660047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.655
95850178|NCT00286442|191660047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-7.4|0.645
95850179|NCT00286442|191660048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-6.3|0.748
95868009|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868010|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.443||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.443|-2.239|0.671
95964505|NCT01154140|191900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.8303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|16.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 Global QoL: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.92|10.74|<0.0001
95964506|NCT01154140|191900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3532||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.11|0.60|0.0170
95964507|NCT01154140|191900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.57|10.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 emotional functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||10.46|4.57|<0.0001
96002950|NCT03466411|191983212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|43.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||43.2|24.1|<0.001
95850180|NCT00286442|191660048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.7|0.432
95850181|NCT00286442|191660049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.3|-7.8|0.427
95850182|NCT00286442|191660049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.5|-4.6|0.746
95850183|NCT00286442|191660050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.2|-5.0|0.727
95850184|NCT00286442|191660050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.601||||1.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-4.5|1.6
95850185|NCT00286442|191660051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-0.15|0.066
95850186|NCT00286442|191660051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-0.74|0.180
95850187|NCT00286442|191660052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.68|-5.02|0.944
95850188|NCT00286442|191660052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.40|-7.40|0.316
95850189|NCT00286442|191660053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|4.77||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.77|-5.42|0.901
95964508|NCT01154140|191900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.4035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|13.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 physical functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||13.32|7.48|<0.0001
96002951|NCT03466411|191983212|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|42.4|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||42.4|23.5|<0.001
95850190|NCT00286442|191660053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|3.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.68|-6.59|0.578
95850191|NCT00286442|191660054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.93||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.93|-2.67|0.708
95868011|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.59|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95964509|NCT01154140|191900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.5513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.29|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 role functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||19.81|11.29|<0.0001
95850192|NCT00286442|191660054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.21||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.21|-2.44|0.601
95850193|NCT00286442|191660055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.72||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.72|-1.48|0.398
95850194|NCT00286442|191660055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.69||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.69|-1.56|0.425
95850195|NCT00286442|191660056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.23||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.23|0.50|0.018
95850196|NCT00286442|191660056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline insulin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.60|-0.15|0.067
95850197|NCT00286442|191660057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|-0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.009|-0.064|0.011
95850198|NCT00286442|191660057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|-0.019||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.019|-0.075|<0.001
95850199|NCT00286442|191660058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.021||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.021|-0.070|<0.001
95850200|NCT00286442|191660058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.012|-0.062|0.004
95850201|NCT00286442|191660059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|-0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.011|-0.068|0.007
95850202|NCT00286442|191660059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|-0.008||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm|||-0.008|-0.066|0.011
95850203|NCT00286442|191660060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.024||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.024|-0.080|<0.001
95850204|NCT00286442|191660060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.015||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.015|-0.072|0.003
95964510|NCT01154140|191900317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|12.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 social functioning: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||12.84|4.69|<0.0001
96002952|NCT03466411|191983213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|34.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|45.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||45.3|23.2|<0.001
95850205|NCT00286442|191660061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.005||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.005|-0.097|0.078
95964511|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.4976|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 appetite loss: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-8.97|-18.03|<0.0001
95964512|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4336||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 constipation: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.13|-9.00|0.0570
96002953|NCT03466411|191983213|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|35.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|46.5|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||46.5|23.5|<0.001
95850206|NCT00286442|191660061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.047||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.047|-0.056|0.860
95850207|NCT00286442|191660062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|-0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.001|-0.106|0.048
95850208|NCT00286442|191660062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.05||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline proinsulin/insulin ratio as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.050|-0.057|0.889
95850209|NCT00286442|191660063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.336||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.642||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.642|0.030|0.031
95850210|NCT00286442|191660063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.611||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.611|-0.002|0.051
95850211|NCT00286442|191660064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.384||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.384|-0.209|0.563
95850212|NCT00286442|191660064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.41||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.410|-0.188|0.467
95850213|NCT00286442|191660065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.501||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.501|-0.127|0.243
95850214|NCT00286442|191660065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.279||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.595||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.595|-0.037|0.083
95964513|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.4906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 diarrhea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||16.00|8.98|<0.0001
95964514|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-13.4622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-9.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 dysponea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-9.73|-17.20|<0.0001
96002954|NCT03466411|191983214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|37.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||37.1|18.7|<0.001
96002955|NCT03466411|191983214|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|40.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||40.3|21.3|<0.001
95964515|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.9987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-11.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 fatigue: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-11.48|-18.52|<0.0001
95964516|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8186||||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 financial difficulties: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||2.92|-4.56|0.6681
95964517|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.043|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 insomnia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-5.87|-14.22|<0.0001
95964518|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4446||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-0.05|-6.84|0.0468
95964519|NCT01154140|191900318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.9277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-6.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-C30 pain: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.62|-13.23|<0.0001
95964520|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8149||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 alopecia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-1.11|-8.52|0.0108
95964521|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 coughing: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.72|-12.06|<0.0001
95964522|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6651||||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dysphagia: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||3.11|-1.78|0.5938
95850215|NCT00286442|191660066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.463||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.463|-0.152|0.321
95964523|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.008|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-6.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-6.06|-11.96|<0.0001
95964524|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8828||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.06|-1.82|0.0656
95964525|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0475||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|-2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-2.88|-9.22|0.0002
95964526|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0959|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in chest: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-4.84|-11.35|<0.0001
95964527|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7717||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.24|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||-3.31|-10.24|0.0001
95964528|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3521||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||6.59|0.11|0.0427
95964529|NCT01154140|191900319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1521||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||QLQ-LC13 sore mouth: Analysis was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EORTC QLQ-LC13 subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose are included as random effects).||0.69|-5.00|0.1382
95964530|NCT01154140|191900320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9908||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was based on a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale baseline score (intercept and time from first dose were included as random effects).||7.17|0.81|0.0139
95850216|NCT00286442|191660066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.577||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.577|-0.041|0.089
95850217|NCT00286442|191660067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.42||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.420|-0.132|0.305
95964531|NCT01782690|191900329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2361|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of Rash=Yes versus Rash=No within Erlotinib plus Gemcitabine arm||||0.2361
95850218|NCT00286442|191660067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.468||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.468|-0.086|0.177
95850219|NCT00286442|191660068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.394||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.68||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.680|0.107|0.007
95850220|NCT00286442|191660068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline C-peptide as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.550|-0.025|0.074
95850221|NCT00286442|191660069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.117|17.864||no multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||17.864|2.117|<0.001
95850222|NCT00286442|191660069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.322||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.564||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) is alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||15.564|1.820|0.002
95850223|NCT00286442|191660070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.271|11.345||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||11.345|3.271|<0.001
95868012|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.052|0.738||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.738|-3.052|0.231
95868013|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868014|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.137||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.701||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||4.701|0.230|0.031
95868015|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95964532|NCT00217737|191900370|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.11|||||Hazard ratio: Arm B/Arm A|||1.11|0.63|
95850224|NCT00286442|191660070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.451|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.388|8.296||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.296|2.388|<0.001
95850225|NCT00286442|191660071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.327|7.717||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.717|2.327|<0.001
95868016|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.532|2.888||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.888|-1.532|0.547
95964533|NCT04057573|191900374|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|6.835||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.835|1.737|0.0004
95868017|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95964534|NCT04057573|191900375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|6.949||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.949|2.296|< 0.0001
95850226|NCT00286442|191660071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.293|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.814|5.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.979|1.814|<0.001
95868018|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.521|2.984||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.984|-1.521|0.524
95868019|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95850227|NCT00286442|191660072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.428|6.934||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.934|2.428|<0.001
95850228|NCT00286442|191660072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.545|7.312||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||7.312|2.545|<0.001
95850229|NCT00286442|191660073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.601|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.554|12.282||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.282|2.554|<0.001
95850230|NCT00286442|191660073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.793|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.645|12.684||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||12.684|2.645|<0.001
95850231|NCT00286442|191660074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.449||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|6.797||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||6.797|0.883|0.085
95850232|NCT00286442|191660074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|8.046||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||8.046|1.087|0.034
95850233|NCT00286442|191660075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.404||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|5.803||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||5.803|0.340|0.639
95850234|NCT00286442|191660075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|4.223||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \>1.0 indicates higher incidence of response compared to placebo.|||4.223|0.218|0.956
95850235|NCT00286442|191660076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.27||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.27|-0.63|0.439
95868020|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.499|1.836||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.836|-3.499|0.540
95868021|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868022|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.208|2.046||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.046|-3.208|0.664
95868023|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868024|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.923|1.546||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.546|-3.923|0.393
95868025|NCT02880956|191693117|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868026|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.498||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.498|-0.534|0.946
95964535|NCT04057573|191900376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.29||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|108.739||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||108.739|2.150|0.0065
95868027|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964536|NCT04057573|191900377|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.865|9.853||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||9.853|1.865|0.0006
95964537|NCT04057573|191900378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|12.755||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||12.755|1.851|0.0013
95868028|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.813|0.206||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.206|-0.813|0.242
95868029|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964538|NCT04057573|191900379|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.46|-10.45||Response Variable = Treatment + Stratification Factors (Skin Type Fitzpatrick scale Type I, II versus Type III, IV, V, and VI, Region North America/Europe) + Baseline|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-28.46|< 0.0001
95964539|NCT04057573|191900382|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.267|6.246||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||||6.246|2.267|< 0.0001
96002956|NCT03466411|191983215|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.2|14.1|<0.001
95868030|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.685|0.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.360|-0.685|0.541
95868031|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868032|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.691||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.691|-0.481|0.724
95964540|NCT04057573|191900384|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-18.86|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-18.86|-38.33|<0.0001
95964541|NCT04057573|191900387|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-19.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-13.16|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-13.16|-26.55|<0.0001
95964542|NCT04057573|191900389|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-11.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.23|-6.67|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||-6.67|-17.23|<0.0001
95964543|NCT04057573|191900391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.121|6.63||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI25||6.630|2.121|< 0.0001
95964544|NCT04057573|191900391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|20.192||The model included the treatment group (1.5% BID and vehicle) and stratification factors (skin type and region).|exact logistic regression|||T-VASI75||20.192|1.045|0.0436
95964545|NCT04057573|191900391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||||||||The p value was not evaluable because the response rate in the vehicle group was too low.||||T-VASI90||||
95964546|NCT04057573|191900394|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.39|||mixed-effect model; repeated measurement|||||0.39|-1.60|0.2350
95964547|NCT04944290|191900398|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.71|
95964548|NCT04944290|191900398|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.26||||||10AM Day 14||0.26|-0.86|
95964549|NCT04944290|191900398|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58||||||||0.58|-0.58|
95964550|NCT04944290|191900398|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.47||||||||0.47|-0.70|
95964551|NCT00770029|191900453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference response rate|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.68|||Fisher Exact|||The efficacy of the treatment was confirmed if H0 was rejected at a given α of 5%, that means if the two sided p-value was ≤0.05. Power of 90%||0.68|0.52|<0.0001
95964552|NCT04307940|191900464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|23.51||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||23.51|6.10|0.001
95964553|NCT04307940|191900464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.08|50.18||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||50.18|29.08|<0.001
95964554|NCT04307940|191900464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.26|35.39||All p-values were presented using two-sided test with alpha 0.05 and were considered statistically significant.|ANCOVA|||||35.39|14.26|<0.001
95964555|NCT02356705|191900498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95964556|NCT02356705|191900499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
96002957|NCT03466411|191983216|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|36.1|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||36.1|19.3|<0.001
95868033|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.36|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868034|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.913||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.913|-0.226|0.236
95868035|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868036|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.695||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.695|-0.477|0.714
95868037|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868038|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.593|-0.496|0.860
96002958|NCT03466411|191983217|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|41.3|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||41.3|21.1|<0.001
95868039|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868040|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|0.343||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.343|-0.733|0.476
95868041|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868042|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.393|0.694||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.694|-0.393|0.586
95868043|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868044|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.903||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.903|-0.371|0.412
96002959|NCT03466411|191983218|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|22.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel||Treatment difference between combined guselkumab group and placebo group was based on the common risk difference by use of Mantel- Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator.|||31.9|12.2|<0.001
96002960|NCT04251533|191983252|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.41|||Regression, Cox|||||2.41|0.92|
95868045|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
96002961|NCT03462719|191983266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.357|||Log Rank|||||0.357|0.131|<0.0001
96002962|NCT05079334|191983281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||Paired Pre vs Post MeTree||||<0.001
95868046|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.868|-0.386|0.450
95964557|NCT02356705|191900500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.88
95964558|NCT02356705|191900502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95964559|NCT02356705|191900503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
95964560|NCT03445533|191900528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9394||||||p-value was calculated for percentage difference (B-A) using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses and were tested for statistical significance.||The ORR was defined as a percentage of subjects meeting criteria of CR and PR to calculate the p-value.||||0.9394
96002963|NCT05079334|191983282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95964561|NCT03445533|191900529|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.955||||0.6775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.186||The p-value was calculated using the log rank test stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|Log Rank|ORR and OS comprise a primary endpoint family; both have a priori hypotheses. ORR will be tested first followed by OS.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI (B/A) are estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by metastasis stage and BRAF mutation.|||1.186|0.770|0.6775
96002964|NCT05079334|191983283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.435
96002965|NCT04108208|191983299|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.233|||=|0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.705|||Log Rank|||||0.705|0.077|=0.0052
95850236|NCT00286442|191660076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.04|-0.86|0.075
95964562|NCT03334253|191900530|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15|||||Atropine - Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.15|-0.19|
95964563|NCT03334253|191900531|SUPERIORITY|"The following assumptions were used in the power calculation:~* 2:1 randomization~* treatment group difference of 0.50D~* standard deviation of 0.80D~* type 1 error of 5% (2-sided)~* up to 10% loss to follow up"|Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||||Atropine-Placebo Adjusted mean difference, adjusting for baseline refractive error, age, iris color (brown vs. not brown), and race (East Asian vs. non-East Asian).|Null Hypothesis: no difference in mean change in SER from baseline to 24 months between the atropine and placebo groups||0.17|-0.25|
95964564|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.959||0.9779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.49|6.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.71|-6.49|0.9779
95850237|NCT00286442|191660077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.83||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.83|-0.26|0.305
95850238|NCT00286442|191660077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.47||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.47|-0.63|0.788
95850239|NCT00286442|191660078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.63|-0.58|0.930
95850240|NCT00286442|191660078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.43||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.43|-0.79|0.559
95868047|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964565|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.815||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.79|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.94|-5.79|0.8801
95964566|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.70|-6.13|0.9412
95964567|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223||0.7486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.38|5.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||5.66|-8.38|0.7486
95964568|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|15.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.12|1.24|0.0534
96002966|NCT04689828|191983325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||1e-08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.56|||Log Rank|Stratified||||0.56|0.29|0.00000001
96002967|NCT04689828|191983326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||stratified Cox PH model|||||1.14|0.72|0.20
96002968|NCT05923099|191983371|SUPERIORITY|"Data following rescue treatment and permanent IMP discontinuations due to lack of effect or an AE related to worsening of AD will be considered missing not at random and imputed using LOCF.~Data following other intercurrent events will also be set to missing, and will, together with other naturally occurring missing data, be imputed from a linear model assuming missing at random."|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.96|-4.84||Imputed datasets are analyzed using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA-AD score, baseline value, region, prior use of biologics or systemic JAKis for AD. Estimates are combined across the imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|ANCOVA|||Study uses a hierarchical testing procedure to control the familywise error rate at 5% significance level. Null hypotheses are tested sequentially according to decreasing dose. Sequential testing procedure continues if the null hypothesis is rejected. For the primary estimand for the primary endpoint, initiation of rescue treatment and permanent discontinuation of IMP are considered intercurrent events.||-4.84|-33.96|0.0090
95850241|NCT00286442|191660079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.66||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.66|-0.66|0.996
95850242|NCT00286442|191660079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.38||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline metformin dose and baseline weight as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.38|-0.94|0.407
95850243|NCT02174731|191660106|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean changes.|||0.18|0.01|<0.001
95850244|NCT02174731|191660107|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.25|||MMRM||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean change.|||0.25|0.03|<0.001
95850245|NCT02174731|191660108|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|0.00|<0.001
95850246|NCT02174731|191660109|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.15. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.05|-0.01|<0.001
95850247|NCT02174731|191660110|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was also declared as the lower bound of the 95% CI exceeded 0 and p-value was lower than 0.05.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||-0.27|-0.39|<0.001
95868048|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|0.816||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.816|-0.481|0.612
95850248|NCT02174731|191660111|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa exceeded -0.75. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.36|||ANCOVA|MAR-based multiple imputation.|Difference between groups (roxadustat minus Epoetin alfa) in LS mean.|||0.36|0.04|<0.001
95850249|NCT02174731|191660112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
95850250|NCT02174731|191660113|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus epoetin alfa was declared if the upper bound of the HR 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa was less than or equal to 1.8. Non-inferiority p-value is 1-sided. The CIs were from Wald and ties were calculated using the Efron method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.64|<0.001
95850251|NCT01210716|191660114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower 97.5% confidence limit on the mean of the paired differences is greater than -15% of the Control group mean (i.e., p-value \<=0.05), then the Test group will be considered non-inferior in the primary efficacy parameter to Control at the margin of 15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.97|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.0||||paired t-test|||A one-sample t-test on the mean of paired differences was used to evaluate the primary objective. Sample size was determined using historical data and the 95% chi-square upper confidence limit on the observed standard deviation of the paired differences. A minimum sample of 27 pairs was required to demonstrate the AMICUS procedure to be non-inferior to Spectra with a mean efficiency of plasma removal with a non-inferiority margin of 15% with at least 97.5% (one-sided) confidence and 90% power.|||4.0|<0.001
95850252|NCT00079040|191660118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|63.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.4|73.6||||||||73.6|52.4|
95850253|NCT00844376|191660146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.77||||||90.0|85.82|106.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUC48 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUC48; restricted (residual) maximum likelihood (REML) method of estimation.||106.88|85.82|
95868049|NCT02880956|191693118|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964569|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.31|-6.29|0.9980
95964570|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958||0.4004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|9.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||9.94|-3.25|0.4004
95964571|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.214||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 9: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||8.82|-5.20|0.6685
95850254|NCT00844376|191660147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.04||||||90.0|84.99|106.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUCinf||106.27|84.99|
95850255|NCT00844376|191660148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.86||||||90.0|83.86|107.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for AUClast||107.29|83.86|
95850256|NCT00844376|191660149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of adjusted geometric means|117.9||||||90.0|98.22|141.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed effects model was implemented using SAS Proc Mixed, with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as a fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.|Ratio of adjusted means (test/reference), and 90% CI for ratio--for Cmax||141.53|98.22|
95850257|NCT00549640|191660154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.973||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1-tailed||||||0.973
95850258|NCT00549640|191660155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|1 tailed test||||||0.500
95850259|NCT00549640|191660156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|For each subject, the average daily withdrawal score for the 14 days following target quit date was calculated and expressed as a change from baseline||||||0.65
95850260|NCT00549640|191660156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|analysis performed using daily scores||||||0.79
95850261|NCT03550378|191660157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.384|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.27|-19.498|||ANCOVA|||||-19.498|-41.270|<0.001
95850262|NCT04999839|191660192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.727|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|14.885||P-value was calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method.|||14.885|0.933|=0.052
95850263|NCT04999839|191660192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.733|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.525|45.994||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||45.994|3.525|<0.001
95868050|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|0.535||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.535|-1.058|0.520
95868051|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.52|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868052|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.201|0.374||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.374|-1.201|0.303
96002969|NCT05923099|191983371|SUPERIORITY|"Data following rescue treatment and permanent IMP discontinuations due to lack of effect or an AE related to worsening of AD will be considered missing not at random and imputed using LOCF.~Data following other intercurrent events will also be set to missing, and will, together with other naturally occurring missing data, be imputed from a linear model assuming missing at random."|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.3||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.85|-0.75||Imputed datasets are analyzed using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA-AD score, baseline value, region, prior use of biologics or systemic JAKis for AD. Estimates are combined across the imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|ANCOVA|||Study uses a hierarchical testing procedure to control the familywise error rate at 5% significance level. Null hypotheses are tested sequentially according to decreasing dose. Sequential testing procedure continues if the null hypothesis is rejected. For the primary estimand for the primary endpoint, initiation of rescue treatment and permanent discontinuation of IMP are considered intercurrent events.||-0.75|-29.85|0.0393
95850264|NCT04999839|191660192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.526|98.735||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||98.735|8.526|<0.001
95850265|NCT04999839|191660192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.111|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.277|156.548||P-value was calculated using a CMH test, with prior treatment with biologics included as a stratification factor, comparing the percentage of participants in each dose of NDI-034858 vs placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio for achievement of PASI-75 was calculated using the MH method.|||156.548|10.277|<0.001
95850266|NCT00647296|191660257|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.1385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.19|-1.41|0.1385
95850267|NCT00647296|191660257|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||0.88|-0.65|0.7718
95868053|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850268|NCT00647296|191660257|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.401|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||1.18|-0.38|0.3146
95850269|NCT00647296|191660258|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.40|-2.61|0.7973
95850270|NCT00647296|191660258|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents better outcome.|||4.89|-0.87|0.1732
95850271|NCT00647296|191660258|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||placebo minus active treatment arm, positive direction represents a better outcome.|||3.39|-2.48|0.7635
95850272|NCT00647296|191660269|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 150 mg/day arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.64|-0.12|0.1772
95850273|NCT00647296|191660270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||50 mg/day minus 300 mg/day treatment arm, negative direction represents worse outcome.|||0.83|-2.06|0.4025
95964572|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.522||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|12.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.25|-2.77|0.2968
95850274|NCT02588599|191660272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=8.0; df=53||||||<0.0001
95850275|NCT00402168|191660280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 6, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection (number with acute rejection/number randomized) using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
95964573|NCT00945672|191900582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||L S Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.494||0.772|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.77|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||6.16|-8.77|0.7720
95964574|NCT00945672|191900583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.68|16.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||16.69|-12.68|0.8205
95964575|NCT00945672|191900583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|11.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.789||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|26.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||26.06|-3.31|0.2007
95964576|NCT00945672|191900583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8789||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.78|23.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||23.59|-5.78|0.3152
95850276|NCT00402168|191660280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|14.9||||||At Month 12, difference in percentage of participants with acute rejection using exact method.||14.9|2.1|
95850277|NCT00402168|191660281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 6: For 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
95850278|NCT00402168|191660281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.1||||||Participants surviving with a functioning graft by Month 12: For 95% CI of difference, exact method was used.||6.1|-3.3|
95850279|NCT00402168|191660284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.8||||||||13.8|-0.1|
95850280|NCT00402168|191660289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Scales (MCS)||3.9|-1.7|0.4491
95850281|NCT00402168|191660289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Scales (PCS)||1.9|-2.5|0.7892
95850282|NCT00402168|191660291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.0252||||||Difference in Symptom Occurrence between treatment groups.||.0252|-.010|
95850283|NCT00402168|191660291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Difference|0.0148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0321||||||Difference in Symptom Distress between treatment groups.||.0321|-.002|
95850284|NCT01300234|191660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|58.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|45.8|71.3||HBeAg-positive participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach is used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||71.3|45.8|<0.0001
95850285|NCT01300234|191660306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.7|34.3||HBeAg-negative participants|Roche COBAS Taqman HBV test||"A non-completers equal failures approach was used for the primary analysis. The estimated value represents the difference between the percentage of participants achieving HBV DNA \<400 copies/mL at Week 48 in the TDF group and the ADV group."|||34.3|16.7|<0.0001
95850286|NCT01602224|191660333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.401
95850287|NCT01602224|191660333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only tabalumab odds ratio compared to placebo.||||0.455
95868054|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.307|0.315||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.315|-1.307|0.230
95868055|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868056|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5222||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.698|0.356||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.356|-1.698|0.200
95868057|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868058|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.917||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.917|-1.080|0.873
95868059|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868060|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.482|0.576||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.576|-1.482|0.388
95868061|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868062|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.355|0.955||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.955|-1.355|0.734
95868063|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.91|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868064|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.579||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|0.668||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.668|-1.608|0.417
95868065|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868066|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.836|0.482||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.482|-1.836|0.252
95868067|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868068|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.669||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.462||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.462|-1.170|0.827
95868069|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.69|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868070|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.962|1.624||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.624|-0.962|0.615
96002970|NCT05923099|191983371|SUPERIORITY|"Data following rescue treatment and permanent IMP discontinuations due to lack of effect or an AE related to worsening of AD will be considered missing not at random and imputed using LOCF.~Data following other intercurrent events will also be set to missing, and will, together with other naturally occurring missing data, be imputed from a linear model assuming missing at random."|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.52||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.18|-7.87||Imputed datasets are analyzed using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA-AD score, baseline value, region, prior use of biologics or systemic JAKis for AD. Estimates are combined across the imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|ANCOVA|||Study uses a hierarchical testing procedure to control the familywise error rate at 5% significance level. Null hypotheses are tested sequentially according to decreasing dose. Sequential testing procedure continues if the null hypothesis is rejected. For the primary estimand for the primary endpoint, initiation of rescue treatment and permanent discontinuation of IMP are considered intercurrent events.||-7.87|-37.18|0.0026
96002971|NCT05923099|191983371|SUPERIORITY|"Data following rescue treatment and permanent IMP discontinuations due to lack of effect or an AE related to worsening of AD will be considered missing not at random and imputed using LOCF.~Data following other intercurrent events will also be set to missing, and will, together with other naturally occurring missing data, be imputed from a linear model assuming missing at random."|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.67||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.44|5.1||Imputed datasets are analyzed using ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA-AD score, baseline value, region, prior use of biologics or systemic JAKis for AD. Estimates are combined across the imputed datasets using Rubin's rule.|ANCOVA|||Study uses a hierarchical testing procedure to control the familywise error rate at 5% significance level. Null hypotheses are tested sequentially according to decreasing dose. Sequential testing procedure continues if the null hypothesis is rejected. For the primary estimand for the primary endpoint, initiation of rescue treatment and permanent discontinuation of IMP are considered intercurrent events.||5.10|-24.44|0.1993
95850288|NCT01602224|191660333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||100 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib and 300 mg Tabalumab+Dexamethasone+Bortezomib compared with Placebo Comparator: Placebo + Dexamethasone + Bortezombib, only compared to placebo.||||0.419
95868071|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.61|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95868072|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.653|1.014||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.014|-1.653|0.637
95868073|NCT02880956|191693119|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850289|NCT01352117|191660335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911||||||The critical value for the final analysis was adjusted for the three interim analyses conducted for the Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) review using the Haybittle-Peto guidelines, at the p-value cutoff of 0.0487.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (asymptotic method) known as van Elteren test, stratification by screening CD4 (\<200 vs. \>=200 cells/mm\^3).||||||0.911
95850290|NCT03346434|191660377|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|34.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.37|13.27|< 0.0001
95850291|NCT03346434|191660378|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.47|55.16||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.16|29.47|< 0.0001
95850292|NCT03346434|191660387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-50.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.38|-38.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-38.40|-62.38|< 0.0001
95850293|NCT03346434|191660388|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.47|-34.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-34.79|-59.47|< 0.0001
95850294|NCT03346434|191660389|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.18|52.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.27|26.18|< 0.0001
95850295|NCT03346434|191660390|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|43.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.03|56.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.67|30.03|< 0.0001
95868074|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|0.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.308|-1.135|0.261
95850296|NCT03346434|191660391|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|62.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.00|35.03|< 0.0001
95850297|NCT03346434|191660392|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|22.5|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.37|32.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.60|12.37|= 0.0001
95850298|NCT03346434|191660393|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.204|-17.329||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-17.329|-31.204|< 0.0001
95868075|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850299|NCT03346434|191660394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|-6.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.89|-11.26|< 0.0001
95850300|NCT03346434|191660395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-30.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-30.21|-46.65|< 0.0001
95850301|NCT03346434|191660396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.317||Threshold significance was at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.317|1.093|< 0.0001
95850302|NCT03346434|191660397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.029|-2.6||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-2.600|-4.029|< 0.0001
95868076|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.001||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.001|-0.420|0.423
95850303|NCT03346434|191660398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.789|-5.814||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-5.814|-9.789|< 0.0001
95850304|NCT03346434|191660399|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-4.75||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-4.75|-10.29|< 0.0001
95850305|NCT03346434|191660400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.711|-6.202||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||-6.202|-11.711|< 0.0001
95850306|NCT03346434|191660401|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0015||||||Threshold significance is at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||||= 0.0015
95850307|NCT03346434|191660402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|0.56||Threshold significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-6.35|= 0.0997
95850308|NCT03525444|191660405|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|15.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||The data presented for Primary endpoint was based on interim analysis at Week 4.||15.4|12.1|<0.0001
95850309|NCT03525444|191660406|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|15.8|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||15.8|12.7|<0.0001
95850310|NCT03525444|191660407|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.55|0.25|<0.0001
95850311|NCT03525444|191660408|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-39.3|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-39.3|-44.4|<0.0001
95850312|NCT03525444|191660409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|17.5|<0.0001
95850313|NCT03525444|191660410|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.23|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||1.23|0.85|<0.0001
95850314|NCT03525444|191660411|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-38.5|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-38.5|-44.0|<0.0001
95850315|NCT03525444|191660412|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|23.2|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.2|16.9|<0.0001
95868077|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868078|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|0.361||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.361|-1.097|0.322
95850316|NCT03525444|191660414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.43||||||||0.43|0.17|
95850317|NCT03525444|191660415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.4||||||||3.4|2.3|
95850318|NCT01959503|191660474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
95850319|NCT01959503|191660475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|19.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.89|4.07|<0.0001
95850320|NCT01959503|191660476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|18.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.11|3.27|<0.0001
95850321|NCT03137654|191660521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Linear Mixed Model|||||||.0078
95850322|NCT03137654|191660525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.393
95850323|NCT03137654|191660527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
95868079|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868080|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|1.049||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.049|-0.511|0.498
95850324|NCT03137654|191660528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0344
95850325|NCT03137654|191660529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0365
95850326|NCT03137654|191660530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|||||||.212
95850327|NCT03137654|191660531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.001
95850328|NCT03137654|191660532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||ANOVA|||||||.445
95850329|NCT03137654|191660533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||ANOVA|||||||.245
95850330|NCT03631940|191660549|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||Hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|Hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||||5.37|-6.36|.87
95850331|NCT00265564|191660569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We investigated treatment condition differences in change of drug and alcohol use over four time-points using generalized linear mixed modeling analyses. A trajectory for each participant was modeled yielding estimates of baseline scores (intercept), slope, and error. Four between-person parameters were estimated: average baseline score for all participants, average slope over time in TAU condition, effect of being in SS on average intercept, effect of being in SS on average slope.||||> .05
95850332|NCT00265564|191660570|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95850333|NCT00265564|191660571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Generalized linear mixed modeling analysis||||>.05
95850334|NCT04571944|191660572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.6|-20.1|0.129
95850335|NCT04571944|191660573|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|11.0||||||||11.0|-9.3|
95850336|NCT04571944|191660574|OTHER||Difference in % vs. Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.2||||||||5.2|-5.1|
95850337|NCT04571944|191660575|SUPERIORITY||Difference vs. Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||Based on aligned rank test.|Hodges-Lehmann method|||||1.0|-2.0|0.485
95868081|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868082|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|1.51||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.510|-0.006|0.052
95850338|NCT04571944|191660576|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs. Placebo|-8.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|Analysis was stratified by hospitalization reason (acute disease, elective surgery) and age category (\<75 years, ≥75 years).||||2.8|-20.2|0.136
95868083|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868084|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|0.572||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.572|-0.993|0.597
95868085|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868086|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.788||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.788|-0.689|0.896
95868087|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
95868088|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.258||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.258|-0.192|0.149
95868089|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868090|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.499||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.499|-0.980|0.522
95850339|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 6||1.08|0.88|<0.001
95850340|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 11||1.07|0.87|<0.001
95850341|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 16||1.09|0.89|<0.001
95850342|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 18||1.12|0.88|<0.001
95850343|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 31||1.17|0.93|<0.001
95850344|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 33||1.11|0.89|<0.001
95850345|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 45||1.25|0.97|<0.001
95868091|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868092|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.567||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.567|-1.103|0.528
95868093|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868094|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|1.116||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.116|-0.519|0.474
95868095|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964577|NCT00945672|191900583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.964||0.8071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.18|12.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.79|-17.18|0.8071
95868096|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.176|0.513||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.513|-1.176|0.441
95868097|NCT02880956|191693120|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850346|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 52||1.10|0.88|<0.001
95850347|NCT00988884|191660605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.5|Fold difference in GMT|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV 58||1.10|0.88|<0.001
95850348|NCT00988884|191660606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup A||9.3|-1.7|<0.001
95850349|NCT00988884|191660606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup C||1.1|-5.4|<0.001
95850350|NCT00988884|191660606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.8|6.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup Y||6.1|-1.8|<0.001
95850351|NCT00988884|191660606|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.7|0.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Serogroup W-135||0.3|-4.7|<0.001
95850352|NCT00988884|191660607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|0.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-diphtheria titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.9|-0.8|<0.001
95850353|NCT00988884|191660607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage difference is greater than -10|Difference in percentage|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Anti-tetanus titer \>=0.1 IU/mL||0.7|-1.2|<0.001
95850354|NCT00988884|191660608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.69|0.92|||ANOVA|||Anti-PT||0.92|0.69|0.003
95850355|NCT00988884|191660608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|1.01|||ANOVA|||Anti-FHA||1.01|0.83|<0.001
95850356|NCT00988884|191660608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.08|||ANOVA|||Anti-PRN||1.08|0.84|<0.001
95850357|NCT00988884|191660608|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of concomitant versus non-concomitant vaccination is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval for the fold difference is \>0.67|Fold difference in GMT|0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.21|||ANOVA|||Anti-FIM 2/3||1.21|0.76|<0.001
95850358|NCT00988884|191660611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.4||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.7|-3.5|0.806
95850359|NCT04621448|191660624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|4.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference estimate of 2.2 was confirmed. It is slightly different than the difference of the raw change values \[+.7 - (-1.7) = 2.4\] because it comes from the mixed effects model.|||4.39|0.01|0.048
95850360|NCT04621448|191660625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.40|-4.12|0.603
95850361|NCT04621448|191660626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.92|-2.75|0.734
95850362|NCT04621448|191660627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.74|-0.62|0.159
95850363|NCT04621448|191660628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.56|-1.97|0.818
95868098|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.082||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.082|-1.383|0.027
96002972|NCT05775289|191983425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.63|0.9705
96002973|NCT05775289|191983426|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.43|0.42|0.4056
96002974|NCT04665856|191983453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.97||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||0.97|0.43|0.0348
95850364|NCT04621448|191660629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.51|-0.26|0.089
95868099|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850365|NCT04621448|191660630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.58|-0.96|0.631
95850366|NCT04621448|191660631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.49|-0.71|0.484
95850367|NCT04621448|191660632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|-2.36|0.81
95850368|NCT04621448|191660633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|-0.77|0.384
95850369|NCT04621448|191660634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-1.65|0.509
95850370|NCT04621448|191660635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.01|0.24|0.021
95850371|NCT04621448|191660636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.94|0.156
95850372|NCT04621448|191660637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|-0.62|0.582
95850373|NCT04621448|191660638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-1.21|0.271
95868100|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.328||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.123|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.167|-1.123|0.146
96002975|NCT04665856|191983454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4||This study is a bridging study without formal testing, the p value here is descriptive.|Log Rank|||||1.40|0.56|0.6105
95850374|NCT04621448|191660639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.88|-1.52|0.834
95850375|NCT04621448|191660640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.15|-1.62|0.529
96002976|NCT04665856|191983455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.49|0.1044
95850376|NCT04621448|191660641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.377
95850377|NCT04621448|191660642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.043
95850378|NCT01983228|191660655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.77||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.77|0.94|0.09
95850379|NCT01983228|191660656|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.62|0.34
95850380|NCT01983228|191660657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.65||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.65|-1.69|0.38
95850381|NCT01983228|191660658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.49||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.49|-1.68|0.28
95850382|NCT01983228|191660659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.77||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.77|-0.00|0.05
95850383|NCT01983228|191660660|SUPERIORITY|Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|193.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-454.93|842.73||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||842.73|-454.93|0.56
95850384|NCT01983228|191660661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.62||Multiple logistic regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||measured change as a responder yes/no (30% or greater improvement from baseline).||2.62|0.85|0.16
95850385|NCT01983228|191660662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.23||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.23|-0.99|0.002
95850386|NCT01983228|191660663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.51||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.51|-0.79|0.54
95850387|NCT01983228|191660664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.62||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.62|-0.66|0.41
95850388|NCT01983228|191660665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.38||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||-0.38|-1.07|<0.0001
95868101|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
96002977|NCT04665856|191983456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.64|0.9363
96002978|NCT04665856|191983457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|22.55||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|39.03|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||39.03|4.12|0.0136
95850389|NCT01983228|191660666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|540.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.77|1110.33||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1110.33|-28.77|0.06
95850390|NCT01983228|191660667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|5.86||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||5.86|-0.01|0.05
95850391|NCT01983228|191660668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.36||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|0.15|0.01
95850392|NCT01983228|191660669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.39||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.39|-2.53|0.15
95850393|NCT01983228|191660670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||1.47|-0.80|0.56
95850394|NCT01983228|191660671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.46||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.46|-0.17|0.38
95850395|NCT01983228|191660672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.19||Logistic regression modeling the odds of yes to using opioids for pain treatment adjusting for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.66|0.56
95850396|NCT01983228|191660673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.84||Multiple linear regression adjusted for use of walking aids and opioids (both significantly difference between arms at baseline).|Regression, Linear|||||0.84|-0.18|0.21
95850397|NCT02960217|191660694|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|1.46||||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.36||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% confidence interval (CI) and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Participants completing both UX007 treatment period and placebo period (n=42). Per protocol, when the normality assumption is not met (p value for Wilk-Shapiro test \< 0.05), Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be considered as the primary analysis to assess treatment difference in movement disorder event frequency.||4.36|-1.12|0.2684
95850398|NCT02960217|191660694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilk-Shapiro test for normality|||||||< 0.0001
95850399|NCT02960217|191660697|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|25.0||||0.6419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|91.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=34).||91.5|-62.5|0.6419
95850400|NCT02960217|191660697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
95850401|NCT02960217|191660698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-2.0|0.9513
95964578|NCT00945672|191900583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.354||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.72|15.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 13: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||15.52|-15.72|0.9918
95850402|NCT02960217|191660698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8214|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8214
95850403|NCT02960217|191660699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.7||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.7|-0.8|0.1572
95850404|NCT02960217|191660699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8451|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8451
95850405|NCT02960217|191660700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.1|-3.8|0.8345
95850406|NCT02960217|191660700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2894|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2894
95850407|NCT02960217|191660701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0005
95850408|NCT02960217|191660701|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.2||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=21).||5.8|-5.4|0.4898
95850409|NCT02960217|191660702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.8||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||3.8|-2.2|0.5853
95850410|NCT02960217|191660702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1066|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1066
95850411|NCT02960217|191660703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.0||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||1.0|-4.6|0.1875
95850412|NCT02960217|191660703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2034|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2034
95964579|NCT00945672|191900583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.415||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.73|12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18: Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with cohort, treatment by time interaction as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||12.70|-18.73|0.7498
95964580|NCT00945672|191900584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||4.60|-1.90|0.4855
95868102|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.537|-0.22||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.220|-1.537|0.009
95964581|NCT00945672|191900584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|5.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 13: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with cohort by treatment interaction as fixed effect and baseline scores as covariate.||5.16|-2.27|0.5132
95850413|NCT02960217|191660704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.9||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.7|0.1138
95868103|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850414|NCT02960217|191660704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1478
95850415|NCT02960217|191660705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-4.6|0.5505
95850416|NCT02960217|191660705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4459|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.4459
95850417|NCT02960217|191660706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.5544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.6|-8.1|0.5544
95850418|NCT02960217|191660706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1104|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.1104
95850419|NCT02960217|191660707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|6.1|||ANCOVA|||||6.1|-8.5|0.7145
95850420|NCT02960217|191660707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8255|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.8255
95850421|NCT02960217|191660708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.6||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||5.6|-2.5|0.4176
95850422|NCT02960217|191660708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6557
95850423|NCT02960217|191660709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for participant within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||4.5|-0.4|0.0935
95850424|NCT02960217|191660709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7267
95964582|NCT00584077|191900622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Each subject served as their own control as a comparison of the airway innervated (contralateral native lung) with the denervated airway (allograft)||||<0.01
95964583|NCT00584077|191900623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni test|ANOVA|||For the cross-sectional and longitudinal groups, a comparison of cough frequency after airway irritation of the main carina, and the proximal and distal anastomotic sites was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test. In the longitudinal cohort, a comparison of the cough frequencies at different airway sites at 1.5 and 12 months was performed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni test.||||<0.01
95850425|NCT02960217|191660710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for study baseline CGI-S score, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8329
95850426|NCT02960217|191660710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.2348
95850427|NCT02960217|191660712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0315|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0315
95850428|NCT02960217|191660712|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|-0.5||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||0.5|-1.5|0.2425
95850429|NCT02960217|191660713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0072
95850430|NCT02960217|191660713|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|13.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=12).||13.5|-14.5|1.0000
95850431|NCT02960217|191660714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.3|0.1076
95850432|NCT02960217|191660714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.7698
95850433|NCT02960217|191660715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0138|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.0138
95850434|NCT02960217|191660715|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate (Median Diff.)|2.0||||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|20.5||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift with 95% CI and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test p-value are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||Number of participants in this analysis completed both UX007 treatment period and placebo treatment period (n=13).||20.5|-3.5|0.3907
95868104|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.674|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.634|-0.674|0.952
95850435|NCT02960217|191660716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Based on an ANCOVA model including covariate for period baseline value, fixed effects for treatment sequence, treatment group, period, and a random effect for subject within the sequence.|ANCOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|0.5233
96002979|NCT04665856|191983458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|17.37||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|33.6|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||||33.60|-0.22|0.0493
95850436|NCT02960217|191660716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6918|||||||Wilk-Shapiro Test for Normality|||||||0.6918
95850437|NCT01069484|191660720|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the study by Mørkved and Bø (1997), showing 67% prevalence reduction of UI in the PFMT group and 34% reduction in the control group. Assuming a similar effect, two-sided significance of \<0.05, and a power of 0.90, required a total of 62 women. Stratified analysis on major levator ani (LA) muscle defects was planned, but the effect of PFMT in women with such defects was unknown. The statistical advice was to aim for 80 women with- and 80 women without such defects.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.32|0.60|0.57
95850438|NCT01069484|191660721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42||P-values \< 0.05 were considered significant.|Mantel Haenszel||"Pelvic floor muscle training arm represents the numerator for relative risk and usual care arm represents the denominator for relative risk"|"Intention to treat was the principal analysis. Missing values for categorical data (self-reported UI) the approach of last observation carried forward was used."||1.42|0.49|0.51
95850439|NCT03111875|191660747|SUPERIORITY|common effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.87|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|0.87|0.69
95850440|NCT03111875|191660747|SUPERIORITY|average relative effect|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.43|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.43|0.10
95850441|NCT03111875|191660748|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.47|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk).||||1.47|0.87|0.25
95850442|NCT03111875|191660749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.87|1.33|||log-binomial models|The relative risk was estimated using a GEE model to adjust for within-patient correlation across components and log link (to estimate relative risk)||||1.33|0.87|0.41
95850443|NCT01611792|191660752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95850444|NCT01611792|191660753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.86||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0038
95850445|NCT01611792|191660754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
95850446|NCT01611792|191660755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
95850447|NCT01611792|191660756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95850448|NCT01611792|191660757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.12||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95850449|NCT02051764|191660760|OTHER|||||||0.2837||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Overall change from baseline between groups. Test compared slopes of cognitively impaired (CI) vs healthy volunteers (HV). As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were the different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.2837
95850450|NCT02051764|191660760|OTHER|||||||0.9276||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid negative only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.9276
95850451|NCT02051764|191660760|OTHER|||||||0.6324||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was selected.|ANCOVA|Adjustments included baseline tau deposition, age, time (in years) between imaging, and included an interaction of time and enrolling diagnosis.||Change from baseline between groups for amyloid positive only. Test compared slopes of CI vs HV. As the time between scans varied across subjects, an ANCOVA model was used to estimate slopes in each diagnosis group and test whether they were different at 1 year. The flortaucipir change from baseline was used as the dependent variable in the model.||||0.6324
95850452|NCT04879628|191660811|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.56|0.08|
95850453|NCT04879628|191660811|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38||||||Negative binomial regression model adjusting for the categorical baseline GdE T1 lesion count (presence/absence) as covariate, treatment as factor, with offset equal to the log of the duration (in months) between the Week 12 MRI and previous MRI at Week 8.||0.38|0.03|
95850454|NCT03863509|191660825|OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 384) = 0.707, p = .494||||||.494
95850455|NCT03863509|191660826|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference F(2, 381) = 7.409, p = .001||||||0.001
95850456|NCT03863509|191660826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|3.24|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried.||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||3.240|-4.080|0.822
96002980|NCT04665856|191983461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.09||||0.3968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|26.81|||Z-test|||6 Months||26.81|-10.62|0.3968
95868105|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868106|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.734||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.734|-0.540|0.764
95868107|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
95868108|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.191|0.109||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.109|-1.191|0.103
95868109|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868110|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.028||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.028|-1.396|0.060
95868111|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868112|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.316|0.098||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.098|-1.316|0.091
95868113|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
95868114|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|0.147||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.147|-1.274|0.120
95868115|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
96002981|NCT04665856|191983461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 12|17.45||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|32.21|||Z-test|||12 Months||32.21|2.69|0.0205
95868116|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.464||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.464|-1.090|0.429
95868117|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95868118|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.559|0.97||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.970|-0.559|0.597
95868119|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868120|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.717|0.858||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.858|-0.717|0.860
95868121|NCT02880956|191693121|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868122|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|0.885||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.885|-1.069|0.854
95868123|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.02|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868124|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|0.562||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.562|-1.368|0.412
95868125|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.08|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868126|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.554|0.424||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.424|-1.554|0.262
95868127|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.82|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
96002982|NCT04665856|191983462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month 6|8.18||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|25.82|||Z-test|||6 Months||25.82|-9.46|0.3633
95868128|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.571||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|2.036||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.036|-0.209|0.110
95850457|NCT03863509|191660826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.267||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.974|11.559|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||these are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.559|2.974|0.001
95850458|NCT03863509|191660826|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.485|11.889|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||These are pairwise follow-up tests probing a larger omnibus group difference involving three groups.||11.889|3.485|<0.001
95850459|NCT03863509|191660827|OTHER|||||||0.074||||||Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 2.616, p = .074|ANCOVA|||||||.074
95964584|NCT01294397|191900633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.08|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed AUC0-168 was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.08|0.85|
95964585|NCT01294397|191900634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Ratio of Day 22/Day 1|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.05|||||Two one-sided tests|Log-transformed Cmax was analyzed with a mixed-effects model with treatment as the fixed effect and subject as the random effect. The mean difference between day 22 and day 1 was expressed as a percentage of the reference (day 1). The mean differences and the 90% CIs were back transformed to produce the ratio (day 22 vs. day 1) of the geometric means and the 90% CIs. If the CI for the ratio was within the standard acceptance range of 0.80 to 1.25, absence of an interaction was concluded.||1.05|0.81|
95964586|NCT00874731|191900647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.76|-2.80|
95850460|NCT03863509|191660828|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|6.609||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002. Age, race, and sex were covaried.|F (2, 378.467) = 6.609, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.002
95850461|NCT03863509|191660828|OTHER||interaction estimate|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||5.24|1.36|0.001
95868129|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868130|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|0.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.469|-1.713|0.263
95868131|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868132|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.217||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.217|-1.026|0.868
95868133|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868134|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|1.029||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.029|-1.298|0.820
95964587|NCT00874731|191900650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.74|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.74|-3.83|
95964588|NCT00874731|191900651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.14|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|2.14|-4.50|
95850462|NCT03863509|191660828|OTHER||interaction term estimate|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in systolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive cigarette smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||5.38|1.20|0.002
95868135|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868136|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.984|1.308||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.308|-0.984|0.781
95850463|NCT03863509|191660828|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.948||0.992|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.992
95850464|NCT03863509|191660829|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time ef|5.843||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|F (2, 378.999) = 5.843, p = .003|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.003
95850465|NCT03863509|191660829|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.002
95850466|NCT03863509|191660829|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Here presented the Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||0.05|0.01|.003
95850467|NCT03863509|191660829|OTHER||Interaction term Coefficient|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in diastolic blood pressure, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||||.917
95850468|NCT03863509|191660830|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|49.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|F (2, 376.099) = 49.420, p \< .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||< .001
95850469|NCT03863509|191660830|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||7.3|4.83|<0.001
95850470|NCT03863509|191660830|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.76|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||6.42|3.76|<0.001
95850471|NCT03863509|191660830|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Heart Rate, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.107
95850472|NCT03863509|191660831|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.194||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|F (2,372.971) = 6.194, p = .002|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.002
95850473|NCT03863509|191660831|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.002|-0.01|0.003
95868137|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
96002983|NCT04665856|191983462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR at Month12|13.36||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.51|||Z-test|||12 Months||27.51|-0.79|0.0642
96002984|NCT04665856|191983463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|20.47||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|38.5|||Z-test|||12 Months||38.50|2.43|0.0261
96002985|NCT04665856|191983463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-0.5||||0.9572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|17.79|||Z-test|||24 Months||17.79|-18.79|0.9572
95850474|NCT03863509|191660831|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.002|-0.01|0.001
95850475|NCT03863509|191660831|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Diameter, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.582
96002986|NCT04665856|191983464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|13.88||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|31.12|||Z-test|||12 Months||31.12|-3.36|0.1145
96002987|NCT04665856|191983464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFR|-2.54||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.83|14.75|||Z-test|||24 Months||14.75|-19.83|0.7734
95850476|NCT03863509|191660832|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time E|1.753||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried.|FMD responses in e-cigarette users, cigarette users, and never-users controls after adjusting for changes in brachial artery diameter.|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.175
95850477|NCT03863509|191660832|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||1.56|-0.05|0.067
95964589|NCT00874731|191900652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.79|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|3.79|-2.85|
95964590|NCT00874731|191900653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.47|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|4.47|-2.10|
95964591|NCT00874731|191900654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|5.78|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.78|-0.79|
95964592|NCT00874731|191900655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.76|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|5.76|-0.80|
95850478|NCT03863509|191660832|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in Brachial Artery Flow Mediated Dilation, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.20|-0.55|0.464
95850479|NCT03863509|191660832|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing effects of group, time, and group x time in FMD, age, sex, race adjusted, for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.284
95868138|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|1.238||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.238|-1.082|0.895
95868139|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868140|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|1.991||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.991|-0.724|0.359
95868141|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964593|NCT00874731|191900656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|7.17|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|7.17|0.60|
95964594|NCT00874731|191900657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|1.86|||||Mean Difference in CFB = Ridaforolimus - Placebo||Mean difference and 90% confidence interval generated using a repeated measures mixed model that included treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed factors and subject as random factor.|1.86|-4.85|
95964595|NCT04079634|191900678|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95964596|NCT04148989|191900679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.0|||Regression, gamma||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||-7.0|-18.6|<0.001
96002988|NCT05027074|191983477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.26|0.60|0.470
95850480|NCT03863509|191660833|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|8.323|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|F (2,342.847) = 8.323, p = \<.001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||<0.001
95868142|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.675||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.985|1.67||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.670|-0.985|0.612
95850481|NCT03863509|191660833|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-3.20|-9.89|<0.001
95850482|NCT03863509|191660833|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|-2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-2.52|-9.71|0.001
95850483|NCT03863509|191660833|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.787|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in PNN50, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.787
95850484|NCT03863509|191660834|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|F (2,345.918) = 7.260, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
95850485|NCT03863509|191660834|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.08|-0.31|0.001
95850486|NCT03863509|191660834|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.09|-0.33|0.001
95850487|NCT03863509|191660834|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in RMSSD, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.847
95850488|NCT03863509|191660835|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|1.712||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|F (2, 312.081) = 1.712, p = .182|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||.182
95850489|NCT03863509|191660835|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.004|-0.09|0.07
95850490|NCT03863509|191660835|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.02|-0.09|0.196
95868143|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868144|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.872|1.867||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.867|-0.872|0.475
96002989|NCT05027074|191983477|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.19|||||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||1.19|0.57|
96002990|NCT05027074|191983478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.21|0.68|
95850491|NCT03863509|191660835|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in HRV-Standing Ratio adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.69
95850492|NCT03863509|191660836|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.096||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|F (2, 373.239) = 4.096, p = .017|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.017
95850493|NCT03863509|191660836|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-0.91|-5.18|0.005
95850494|NCT03863509|191660836|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.03|-3.61|0.274
95850495|NCT03863509|191660836|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.098
95850496|NCT03863509|191660837|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|0.26||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|F (2, 373.434) = 0.260, p = .771|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||.771
95850497|NCT03863509|191660837|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||2.12|-2.35|0.918
95850498|NCT03863509|191660837|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.63|-3.22|0.518
95850499|NCT03863509|191660837|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.539
95850500|NCT03863509|191660838|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|7.157||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|F (2, 375.412) = 7.157, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use.||||0.001
95850501|NCT03863509|191660838|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|||-1.35|-5.43|0.001
95850502|NCT03863509|191660838|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||1.89|-2.53|0.778
95850503|NCT03863509|191660838|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEV1/FVC, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.002
95850504|NCT03863509|191660839|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|4.317||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|F (2, 373.170) = 4.317, p = .014|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and between-group responses following product use||||0.014
95850505|NCT03863509|191660839|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.95|-9.21|0.016
95850506|NCT03863509|191660839|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||4.48|-4.47|0.998
95850507|NCT03863509|191660839|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FEF 25-75, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.013
95850508|NCT03863509|191660840|OTHER||Type III F-test of Fixed Group x Time Ef|6.694||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||False Discovery Rate correction (Benjamini and Hochberg procedure) applied to a set of 13 Group x Time interaction tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|Age, race, and sex were covaried. Omnibus Group x Time (pre-post) interaction test: F (2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|F ((2,376.779) = 6.694, p = .001|Linear mixed models adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity compared the within-and-between-group responses following product use Outcome measure ln transformed for analysis.||||0.001
95850509|NCT03863509|191660840|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs never users x time as reference|Fixed effects from mixed models of measures before and after nicotine-containing product challenge (covariate-adjusted)||-0.04|-0.14|0.001
95850510|NCT03863509|191660840|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive Smokers x Time vs never users x time as reference|||0.04|-0.08|0.555
95868145|NCT02880956|191693122|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868146|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.427||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|0.878||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.878|-0.799|0.926
95850511|NCT03863509|191660840|OTHER||interaction term coefficient|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||fixed effects from re-parameterized linear mixed model testing for effects of group, time, and group x time in FeNO, adjusting for age, sex, and race for Exclusive E-cigarette users x Time vs Exclusive Smokers x time as reference|||||0.007
95850512|NCT03863509|191660841|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||ANCOVA for group differences|ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 12.869, p \< .001||||||< .001
95850513|NCT03863509|191660841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.352||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|3.752|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||3.752|-1.048|0.269
95850514|NCT03863509|191660841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.575|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.78|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.780|-8.37|<0.001
95850515|NCT03863509|191660841|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.927|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.672|-4.183|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried.||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-4.183|-9.672|<0.001
95850516|NCT03863509|191660842|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 3.392, p = .035|||Group difference did not survive correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore not followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.035
95850517|NCT03863509|191660843|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 0.601, p = .549||||||.549
95850518|NCT03863509|191660844|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 3.877, p = .022|||Group difference tested after correction for false discovery rate at .05, therefore we followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||.022
95850519|NCT03863509|191660844|OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||||0.952
95850520|NCT03863509|191660844|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||post hoc pairwise group comparisons.. Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.014
95868147|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95850521|NCT03863509|191660844|OTHER|||||||0.011||||||Age, sex, and race were covaried|ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||||0.011
95964597|NCT04148989|191900680|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.19|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 30-day mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.19|0.68|0.45
95964598|NCT04148989|191900681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04|||Regression, Logistic||Change in all-cause 1-year mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.04|0.67|0.10
95850522|NCT03863509|191660845|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Outcome variable log-transformed for analysis. Test for group difference: F (2, 381) = 33.442, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05 and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
95850523|NCT03863509|191660845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.322|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users:||0.322|0.039|0.013
95850524|NCT03863509|191660845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.679|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.844|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried|Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)|Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.844|0.514|<0.001
95850525|NCT03863509|191660845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.498|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|0.66|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried|"Estimated marginal mean differences (log-transformed scale)"|Exclusive E-Cig users minus Exclusive Smokers||0.660|0.336|<0.001
95850526|NCT03863509|191660846|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 361) = 1.904, p = .150||||||.150
95850527|NCT03863509|191660847|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 385) = 17.872, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||< .001
95850528|NCT03863509|191660847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.632||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.019|-1.245|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||-1.245|-6.019|0.003
95850529|NCT03863509|191660847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-5.62|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-5.62|-11.14|<0.001
95850530|NCT03863509|191660847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.748||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.456|-2.04|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||-2.040|-7.456|0.001
95850531|NCT03863509|191660848|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||< .001
95850532|NCT03863509|191660848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
95850533|NCT03863509|191660848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
95850534|NCT03863509|191660848|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
95850535|NCT03863509|191660849|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 386) = 1.621, p = .199||||||.199
95850536|NCT03863509|191660850|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
95850537|NCT03863509|191660850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
95850538|NCT03863509|191660850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|age, sex, race covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
95850539|NCT03863509|191660850|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
95850540|NCT03863509|191660851|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 343) = 17.056, p\< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons.|||<0.001
95850541|NCT03863509|191660851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.824|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex, race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive E-Cig Users||1.824|0.733|<0.001
95850542|NCT03863509|191660851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.739|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.395|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Never Users minus Exclusive Smokers||2.395|1.083|<0.001
95850543|NCT03863509|191660851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.11|||ANCOVA post-hoc pairwise group compariso|Age, sex and race were covaried||Exclusive E-Cig Users minus Exclusive Smokers||1.110|-0.190|0.165
95850544|NCT03863509|191660852|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covaried. Test for group difference: F (2, 344) = 10.075, p \< .001|||Group difference tested for false discovery rate at .05, and followed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Estimated marginal mean differences:|||<0.001
95850545|NCT03069352|191660853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|1.071|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||1.071|0.524|0.114
95850546|NCT03069352|191660853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.061|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.061|0.521|0.103
95850547|NCT03069352|191660854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
95850548|NCT03069352|191660854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95850549|NCT03069352|191660855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
95850550|NCT03069352|191660855|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95850551|NCT03069352|191660856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
95850552|NCT03069352|191660856|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95850553|NCT03069352|191660857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
95850554|NCT03069352|191660857|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95850555|NCT03069352|191660858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||<0.001
95850556|NCT03069352|191660858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95850557|NCT03069352|191660859|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.41|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3, Day 1||-0.41|-8.60|
95850558|NCT03069352|191660859|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.923|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|0.19|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||0.19|-10.03|
95850559|NCT03069352|191660859|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|4.36|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||4.36|-5.98|
95850560|NCT03069352|191660859|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.176|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.64|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 day 1||4.64|-7.94|
96002991|NCT05027074|191983478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||||HR based on Andersen-Gill model with stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG, and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline as fixed effect.|||1.23|0.70|
95850561|NCT03069352|191660859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.126
95850562|NCT03069352|191660860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|12.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 3 Day 1||12.06|-6.23|
95850563|NCT03069352|191660860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|24.59|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 5 Day 1||24.59|2.18|
95850564|NCT03069352|191660860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.031|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.06|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 7 Day 1||19.06|-4.83|
95850565|NCT03069352|191660860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.511|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|21.26|||||A linear mixed-effects regression model with a covariance structure including baseline score, stratification factors (age and AML status) treatment arm, visit, and treatment arm by visit interaction.|Cycle 9 Day 1||21.26|-8.49|
95868148|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.082|0.58||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.580|-1.082|0.553
95868149|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.96|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868150|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.021|0.677||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.677|-1.021|0.690
95868151|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868152|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|1.879||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.879|-0.085|0.073
95868153|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868154|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|1.273||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.273|-0.641|0.517
95868155|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868156|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|1.36||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.360|-0.609|0.454
95868157|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.45|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
95868158|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|1.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.596|-0.456|0.276
95868159|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868160|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.516||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|1.058||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.058|-0.973|0.935
96002992|NCT05027074|191983480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.62||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.62|1.07|0.022
95850566|NCT03069352|191660860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Linear Mixed Effects Regression Model|Model included AML status (de novo vs. secondary), age (18-\< 75 vs. ≥ 75), treatment arm, time, and treatment arm by time interaction as fixed factors||A linear mixed effects regression model with a variable covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal data (considering all time points) to test for differences between treatment arms.||||0.085
96002993|NCT05027074|191983480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0||From log-rank test stratified by region (US, Non-US), previous thrombosis of active AVG (yes, no) and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline (yes, no).|Log Rank||HR based on stratified Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling and with a single treatment covariate, controlling for stratification factors of region, previous thrombosis of active AVG and regular aspirin use up to 150 mg daily at baseline.|||2.00|0.800|0.311
96002994|NCT04954313|191983501|SUPERIORITY||difference in difference of LSM|-0.00419||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.149||p values are presented without adjustment for multiple hypotheses.|Generalized Estimating Equations||Change from T1 to T4 in the control group compared to the treatment group|Difference in change from T1 to T4 between the control and treatment groups was quantified using a difference-in-difference estimate.||0.149|-0.157|0.957
96002995|NCT04954313|191983502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0378|||||||Regression, Linear|||This outcome used linear regression to test the hypothesis of a correlation between change in probing depth and change in HbA1c in diabetic/prediabetic participants between timepoints T4 and T0||||0.0378
96002996|NCT04954313|191983503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4735|||||||Regression, Linear|||This outcome used linear regression to test the hypothesis of a correlation between change in probing depth and change in flow mediated dilation between timepoints T4 and T0||||0.4735
95850567|NCT03069352|191660861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.817|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.817|0.416|0.002
95850568|NCT03069352|191660861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.601||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.839|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.839|0.430|0.003
95850569|NCT03069352|191660862|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|35.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||35.0|10.8|0.001
95850570|NCT03069352|191660862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95850571|NCT03069352|191660863|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|15.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).|Treatment difference = Venetoclax - Placebo|||29.0|1.4|0.040
95850572|NCT03069352|191660863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
95868161|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95850573|NCT03069352|191660864|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|22.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|35.8||||||||35.8|9.0|
95850574|NCT03069352|191660865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|35.8||||||||35.8|-0.4|
95850575|NCT03069352|191660866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
95850576|NCT03069352|191660866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
95850577|NCT03069352|191660867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and AML status (de novo, secondary).||||||0.162
95850578|NCT03069352|191660867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.277
95850579|NCT03069352|191660871|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.985|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by AML status (de novo, secondary) and age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75).|||0.985|0.503|0.040
95850580|NCT03069352|191660871|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.0|||Log Rank|Unstratified analysis|The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.000|0.514|0.049
95850581|NCT02099864|191660891|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|108.8|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact test was used rather than simple logistic regression.||||108.8|0.9|0.055
95850582|NCT02099864|191660892|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.3|||Fisher Exact|Due to sample size, Fisher's exact was used rather than regression.||||5.3|0.1|1.000
95850583|NCT02099864|191660893|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17.0|0.0|1.000
96002997|NCT04954313|191983504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for change of emotional wellbeing as measured by positive affect subscore from PANAS survey, from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (PANAS@T4 - PANAS@T0) for each participant who completed the survey at T0 and T4.||||0.469
96002998|NCT04954313|191983505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for beliefs about periodontal care as measured by PMT survey from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (PMT\_sum@T4 - PMT\_sum@T0) for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.220
96002999|NCT04954313|191983506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for bleeding on dental probing of the gingival sulcus from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (BOP@T4 - BOP@T0) as scored by index (bleeding = 1 and no bleeding = 0), and averaged across the mouth for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.014
96003000|NCT04954313|191983507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for change of gingival index from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (GI@T4 - GI@T0) mean across all teeth for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.025
96003001|NCT04954313|191983508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of clinical attachment level (gingival margin relative to crown margin) from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (CAL@T4 - CAL@T0)/CAL@T0 (mean across teeth) for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.79
95868162|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.066||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.066|-0.990|0.942
95868163|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868164|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|1.436||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.436|-0.802|0.578
95868165|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868166|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.762|1.441||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.441|-0.762|0.545
95868167|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868168|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|0.597||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.597|-1.697|0.346
95868169|NCT02880956|191693123|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.81|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868170|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.1||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.100|-0.473|0.202
96003002|NCT04954313|191983509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for dental plaque as assessed by plaque index (scored from 0 to 3) from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (PI@T4 - PI@T0) for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.394
95868171|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868172|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.239||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.239|-0.327|0.760
95868173|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868174|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.409|0.17||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.170|-0.409|0.419
95868175|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868176|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.317||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.317|-0.363|0.893
95868177|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
95868178|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.306|0.354||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.354|-0.306|0.886
95868179|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
96003003|NCT04954313|191983510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for difference in flow-mediated dilation (FMD) from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (FMD@T4 - FMD@T0) for each participant with measurement data in each group. FMD is percent change and the comparison of FMD at two timepoints is accomplished by subtraction.||||0.323
95850584|NCT02099864|191660894|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.84
95868180|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|0.162||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.162|-0.515|0.306
95850585|NCT02099864|191660895|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for responders minus the median for non-responders.|||||0.14
95850586|NCT02099864|191660896|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|0.1|1.00
95850587|NCT02099864|191660898|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Difference is the median for the responders minus the median for the non-responders.|||||0.01
95850588|NCT02099864|191660901|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
95850589|NCT02099864|191660902|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.56|||Regression, Cox|||||0.56|0.08|0.002
95850590|NCT02099864|191660903|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.02|0.23
95850591|NCT02099864|191660904|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45|||Regression, Cox|||||0.45|0.07|<0.001
95850592|NCT02099864|191660909|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|11.82|||Regression, Cox|||||11.82|2.03|<0.001
95850593|NCT03861273|191660910|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.81|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.81|-5.44|0.0081
95850594|NCT03861273|191660911|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measure negative binomial regression model was used to do the hypothesis test on non-inferiority with one-sided test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.96|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.||||-0.96|-4.27|0.0019
95850595|NCT03861273|191660912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.64|-45.1|||Paired t-test|||The treatment difference (PF-06838435 - FIX Prophylaxis) estimate (95% CI) and p-value were obtained from paired t-test.||-45.10|-63.64|<.0001
95850596|NCT03861273|191660913|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value from one-sided t-statistic testing the log transformation of the steady state FIX:C \> log(5). Cumulative for 3 assays.|One-sided t-statistic testing|||Week 12 to Month 15||||<.0001
95850597|NCT03861273|191660915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2935.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3403.1|-2468.3|||Paired t-test|||||-2468.30|-3403.10|<.0001
95850598|NCT03861273|191660916|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-0.42|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||-0.42|-4.67|0.0191
95850599|NCT03861273|191660917|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.21|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.21|-1.35|0.1528
95850600|NCT03861273|191660918|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment difference and P-value were obtained from a repeated measures GLM with negative binomial distribution and identity link function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.61|||Generalized linear model (GLM)|||||0.61|-1.63|0.3738
95850601|NCT03861273|191660921|OTHER|||||||0.0117|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0117
95850602|NCT03861273|191660922|OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0052
95850603|NCT03861273|191660923|OTHER|||||||0.0237|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0237
95850604|NCT01650194|191660949|OTHER|||||||0.615|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.6150
95850605|NCT01650194|191660951|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850606|NCT01650194|191660952|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850607|NCT01650194|191660953|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850608|NCT01650194|191660954|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone biomarker results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850609|NCT01650194|191660955|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Testosterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850610|NCT01650194|191660957|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Cortisol blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850611|NCT01650194|191660958|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Androstenedione blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850612|NCT01650194|191660959|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Progesterone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||0.0002
95850613|NCT01650194|191660960|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pregnenolone blood results collected at baseline and at Week 9 were compared using the paired t-test to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide.||||<.0001
95850614|NCT01690052|191660992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The p-value is calculated from the ANOVA||||||0.05
95850615|NCT01342913|191660994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.022||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.018|0.282
95850616|NCT01841281|191660997|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||||||0.78
96003004|NCT04954313|191983511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of HbA1c from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (HbA1c@T4 - HbA1c@T0) / HbA1c@T0 for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.464
96003005|NCT04954313|191983512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of IMT thickness from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (IMT@T4 - IMT@T0) / IMT@T0 for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.838
95850617|NCT01841281|191660998|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value is for the interaction term|testing for interaction term|||The treatment effect was tested as an interaction term between treatment and FeNO. The null hypothesis is the effect of treatment is stratified by the FeNO status. We used a regression model instead of t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test in order to control period and carry-over effect which is common in a cross-over study design||||0.09
95850618|NCT04024891|191661004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
95850619|NCT00308139|191661046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide LAR and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.12|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide long-acting release (LAR) once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (LAR minus BYETTA) is less than 0; non-inferiority if this upper limit is less than 0.4%. Power:Assuming 20% dropout rate with 246 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in LAR and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.12|-0.54|0.0023
95850620|NCT00308139|191661049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0003
95850621|NCT00308139|191661051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<=6.5% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.2042
95850622|NCT00308139|191661053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.0% at Week 30 were compared between treatments using CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1513
95850623|NCT00308139|191661055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|30.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.458||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.88|53.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in 2h postprandial glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 14 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the 2h postprandial glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline 2h postprandial glucose.||53.28|6.88|0.0124
95868181|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868182|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.079||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.079|-0.535|0.008
95868183|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868184|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.023||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.023|-0.474|0.031
96003006|NCT04954313|191983513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of C-reactive protein from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (CRP@T4 - CRP@T0) / CRP@T0 for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.242
95868185|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
96003007|NCT04954313|191983514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of total cholesterol from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (tchol@T4 - tchol@T0) / tchol@T0 for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.847
96003008|NCT04954313|191983515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of LDL from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (LDL@T4 - LDL@T0) / LDL@T0 for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.666
95868186|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|-0.059||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||-0.059|-0.514|0.014
95868187|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|||||
95868188|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.016||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.016|-0.514|0.065
95868189|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850624|NCT00308139|191661057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.12|-1.29|0.8916
95850625|NCT00308139|191661059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-9.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.4|-24.4|<.0001
95850626|NCT00308139|191661063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-2.2|-14.1|0.0077
95850627|NCT00308139|191661065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.5613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL-C from baseline (Day -3) to Week 30 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.9|-1.0|0.5613
95850628|NCT00308139|191661068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day -3), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2915
95850629|NCT01194830|191661074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005||95.0|-0.91|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.91|0.0005
95850630|NCT01194830|191661075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.62|-0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.22|-0.62|<0.0001
95850631|NCT01194830|191661076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0002||95.0|-0.84|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.84|0.0002
95850632|NCT01194830|191661077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003||95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
95850633|NCT01194830|191661078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.063||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|9.358|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.358|1.764|0.0010
95868190|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.055||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.055|-0.465|0.121
95868191|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850634|NCT01194830|191661079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.433||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124|26.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.260|1.124|0.0352
95850635|NCT01194830|191661080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.951||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.651|5.274|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.274|1.651|0.0003
95850636|NCT01194830|191661081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.0972||95.0|-26.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline FPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||2.2|-26.1|0.0972
95850637|NCT01194830|191661082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.45||0.9368||95.0|-53.8|49.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included terms for treatment, baseline HbA1c, baseline 2-hour PPG, and number of other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs||||49.86|-53.80|0.9368
96003009|NCT04954313|191983516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analysis tests the hypothesis that there will be a difference between control and treatment groups for percent change of triglycerides from baseline (T0) to day 360 (T4) and is calculated as (trig@T4 - trig@T0) / trig@T0 for each participant with measurement data in each group.||||0.758
95868192|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|0.097||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.097|-0.438|0.210
95868193|NCT02880956|191693124|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95850638|NCT00435409|191661107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2239||||0.9409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9487|1.5789||Stratification factors included metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] more than \[\>\] 2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1), from interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.5789|0.9487|0.9409
95850639|NCT00435409|191661107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1084||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8817|1.3935||Stratification factors include metastatic organ sites (2 or less versus \[vs\] 2 or more sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR-) vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs more than 1), from IVRS.|Log Rank|||A stratified log-rank test (1-sided, α=0.025) based on randomization stratification factors||1.3935|0.8817|0.8120
95850640|NCT00435409|191661108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.97||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare objective response rate (ORR) between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||1.97|0.69|0.3143
95850641|NCT00435409|191661108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.13||A stratified CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors was used to compare ORR between two treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.13|0.83|0.1269
95850642|NCT00435409|191661110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0372||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8322|1.2927||Stratification factors (all from IVRS) included number of metastatic organ sites (\<=2 vs \>2 sites), hormone receptor status (HER2-/ER-/PR- vs all others), and prior chemotherapy regimens (1 vs \>1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib + capecitabine versus capecitabine.|||1.2927|0.8322|0.6275
95850643|NCT01706458|191661138|OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9060
95868194|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.564|0.176||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.176|-0.564|0.303
95868195|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868196|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.536|0.194||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.194|-0.536|0.358
95868197|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868198|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.195||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.195|-0.553|0.347
95868199|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.21|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
96003010|NCT03775486|191983551|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.57|0.074
96003011|NCT03775486|191983551|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|7.9||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||7.9|5.3|
96003012|NCT03775486|191983551|OTHER||Median|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.8||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||5.8|3.7|
95850644|NCT02766023|191661144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.04||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.10|0.467
96003013|NCT03775486|191983552|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.59|0.604
96003014|NCT03775486|191983552|OTHER||Median|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median overall survival (months)|||14.1|
95850645|NCT02766023|191661145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||Chi-squared|||||0.95|0.30|0.031
95850646|NCT02766023|191661146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for self-reported compliance||0.15|-0.08|0.643
95850647|NCT02766023|191661146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is for compliance assessed by staining.||0.17|-0.07|0.446
95850648|NCT02766023|191661155|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.02|218.57|||Chi-squared|||||218.57|29.02|<0.001
95850649|NCT02766023|191661163|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.07|188.66|||Chi-squared|||||188.66|28.07|<0.001
95850650|NCT02766023|191661164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.94|||Chi-squared|||||0.94|0.31|0.030
95868200|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.205|0.494
95868201|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95850651|NCT00286468|191661166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for glycosylated hemoglobin as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per-protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level, and \>=80% of subjects meeting per protocol criteria.||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
95850652|NCT00286468|191661166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.33||A step-down strategy was used for the primary analysis. First, the 25mg dose was compared to placebo at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The 12.5 mg dose was compared to placebo only if the comparison of the 25mg dose to placebo was significant.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|Null Hypothesis: No difference between treatment and placebo arms in change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin at week 26. Sample size calculated based on normally distributed means. For comparison of either dose vs. placebo (2-sample t-test), study sample size \>=500 subjects had 94% power to detect a treatment difference as small as 0.4% in the supportive per protocol analysis set assuming SD=0.8%, 2-sided \>0.05 significance level and \>=80% of subjects meeting per-protocol criteria.||-0.33|-0.73|<0.001
95850653|NCT00286468|191661167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.13||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.13|-0.33|<0.001
95850654|NCT00286468|191661167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
95850655|NCT00286468|191661168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.26||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.26|-0.53|<0.001
95850656|NCT00286468|191661168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.61|<0.001
95868202|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.423||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.423|-0.189|0.454
95868203|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868204|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.388||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.388|-0.240|0.644
95868205|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868206|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.551||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.551|-0.363|0.685
95868207|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868208|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.73||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.730|-0.168|0.219
95868209|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868210|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.61||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.610|-0.302|0.507
95868211|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868212|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|0.167||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.167|-0.683|0.233
95868213|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868214|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.446||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.446|-0.383|0.881
95868215|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868216|NCT02880956|191693125|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.335||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.335|-0.520|0.671
95868217|NCT02880956|191693125|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868218|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.232|0.377||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.377|-1.232|0.297
95868219|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868220|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|0.786||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.786|-0.808|0.979
96003015|NCT03775486|191983552|OTHER||Median overall survival (months)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value|Median overall survival (months)|||11.8|
95868221|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.63|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868222|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.996|0.634||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.634|-0.996|0.663
95868223|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.71|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868224|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.282||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.282|-1.220|0.961
96003016|NCT03775486|191983554|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||6.5|
96003017|NCT03775486|191983554|OTHER|Median duration of response (months)|Median duration of response|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8||NA = insufficient number of participants with events||||The CI lower limit is included as the estimated value as there was an insufficient number of participants with events to calculate a median value||||3.8|
96003018|NCT03775486|191983555|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.0||||||||2.00|0.07|
95850657|NCT00286468|191661169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
95850658|NCT00286468|191661169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.36||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.36|-0.68|<0.001
95850659|NCT00286468|191661170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
95850660|NCT00286468|191661170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.33||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.33|-0.68|<0.001
95850661|NCT00286468|191661171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
95850662|NCT00286468|191661171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.34||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.34|-0.71|<0.001
95850663|NCT00286468|191661172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-3.4|-20.8|0.006
95850664|NCT00286468|191661172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-10.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-10.6|-28.0|<0.001
95850665|NCT00286468|191661173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-7.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-7.2|-22.5|<0.001
95850666|NCT00286468|191661173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-12.4||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-12.4|-27.7|<0.001
95850667|NCT00286468|191661174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.6|-19.3|0.010
95850668|NCT00286468|191661174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-9.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-9.1|-25.8|<0.001
95850669|NCT00286468|191661175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-8.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-8.2|-25.2|<0.001
95868225|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.88|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
96003019|NCT03775486|191983555|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7||NA = insufficient number of participants with events|||||Median progression-free survival (months)|||1.7|
96003020|NCT03775486|191983555|OTHER||Median (months)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|16.6||||||Median progression-free survival (months)||16.6|1.2|
96003021|NCT03775486|191983557|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|3.46||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Dyspnoea Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||3.46|-4.47|
96003022|NCT03775486|191983557|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|6.71||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Coughing Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||6.71|-4.81|
95850670|NCT00286468|191661175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-6.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-6.9|-23.9|<0.001
95850671|NCT00286468|191661176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-1.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-1.0|-19.2|0.030
95850672|NCT00286468|191661176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-2.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.5|-20.8|0.012
95850673|NCT00286468|191661177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|7.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.8|-11.6|0.701
95850674|NCT00286468|191661177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|3.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.7|-15.7|0.228
95850675|NCT00286468|191661178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|1.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.6|-19.6|0.097
95850676|NCT00286468|191661178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-2.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-2.7|-23.9|0.014
95850677|NCT00286468|191661179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|4.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.6|-18.3|0.241
95850678|NCT00286468|191661179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|0.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.9|-22.0|0.072
95850679|NCT00286468|191661180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.775||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||1.306|0.460|0.338
95850680|NCT00286468|191661180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.887||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline metformin dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.887|0.306|0.016
95850681|NCT00286468|191661181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.374||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.72||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.720|0.194|0.003
95850682|NCT00286468|191661181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.372||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.718||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||0.718|0.193|0.003
95850683|NCT00286468|191661182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.7||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.7|-6.1|0.923
95850684|NCT00286468|191661182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.1||No multiplicity adjustments.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||10.1|-2.7|0.259
95868226|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.083|1.344||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.344|-1.083|0.833
96003023|NCT03775486|191983557|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|-2.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|1.88||||||EORTC QLQ-LC13: Pain in chest Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||1.88|-6.39|
95868227|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.06|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868228|NCT02880956|191693126|OTHER||LS Mean of Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.017|1.484||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.484|-1.017|0.714
95868229|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868230|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.663||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.733|0.876||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.876|-1.733|0.518
95868231|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.17|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868232|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.598|0.973||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.973|-1.598|0.633
95868233|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868234|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|1.112||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.112|-1.488|0.776
95964599|NCT04148989|191900682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Change in all-cause in-hospital mortality risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|1.10|0.53|0.15
95868235|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.93|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868236|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.558||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.558|-1.723|0.316
95868237|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868238|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.569||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.569|-1.660|0.336
95868239|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868240|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.587||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.647|0.663||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.663|-1.647|0.403
95868241|NCT02880956|191693126|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.92|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868242|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.856|0.716||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.716|-0.856|0.861
95868243|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868244|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.648|0.905||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.905|-0.648|0.746
95868245|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.46|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868246|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.868||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.868|-0.724|0.859
95868247|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.64|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868248|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|1.469||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.469|-0.369|0.240
95868249|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
96003024|NCT03775486|191983559|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.47||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Fatigue Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||5.47|-2.20|
95868250|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|1.087||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.087|0.023|0.044
95868251|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
95964600|NCT04148989|191900683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital charges ($1000s) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.1|-1.4|0.71
96003025|NCT03775486|191983559|OTHER||Estimated difference in adjusted mean|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|7.9||||||EORTC QLQ-C30: Appetite loss Estimated difference in adjusted mean change from baseline.||7.90|-1.46|
96003026|NCT05550532|191983568|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|1.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures Model|||||1.90|-2.95|=0.670
96003027|NCT05550532|191983573|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.71||||||||1.71|-1.13|
95868252|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.467||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|1.524||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||1.524|-0.312|0.195
95868253|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
95868254|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.921|1.229||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.229|-0.921|0.778
95868255|NCT02880956|191693127|OTHER||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
95868256|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|1.376||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.376|-0.743|0.558
95868257|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
96003028|NCT06250101|191983615|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesized a larger change in performance on treated than untreated grammatical forms|Bayesian Mann-Whitney U Bayes Factor|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|1.1|0.05|1.6||Bayesian statistics do not use p values|||This is the effect size corresponding to a Bayes Factor of 195.4.|This analysis tests for the overall effectiveness in the study. Groups are collapsed for analysis||1.6|.05|
95868258|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.025|1.124||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.124|-1.025|0.928
95868259|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 72||||
95868260|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|1.704||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.704|-0.425|0.238
96003029|NCT06250101|191983615|SUPERIORITY|We tested for superiority of either condition.|effect size of Bayes Factor|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|0.02|0.05|0.07||Bayesian analyses do not use p values|||This effect size is associated with a Bayes Factor of 2.5.|This is a test for differences in the treatment condition (Semantic support vs. No semantic support).||.07|.05|
96003030|NCT06250101|191983616|EQUIVALENCE|1/BF is used to test for equivalence of two conditions|effect size of Bayes Factor|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|-0.03|-0.4|0.4||Bayesian analysis does not use p values|||This effect is associate with a Bayes factor 0f 4.4.|This tests to determine whether untreated grammatical forms changed over the period of treatment||.4|-.4|
96003031|NCT06250101|191983617|SUPERIORITY|We tested for superiority of either condition.|effect size of Bayes Factor|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|1.3|-0.1|1.5||Bayesian statistics do not use p values|||This effect size is associated with a Bayes Factor of 1.4 .|This analysis tests for differences between the two condition for retention of trained grammatical forms over time||1.5|-.1|
96003032|NCT06250101|191983618|EQUIVALENCE|1/BF tests for equivalence|effect size of Bayes Factor|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|0.4|-0.1|0.7||Bayesian analyses do not use p values|||This is associated with a Bayes Factor of 1.5.|Test for retention of untreated grammatical forms after a period of no treatment||.7|-.1|
96003033|NCT04865770|191983647|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.98||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.01|0.96|0.1333
96003034|NCT04865770|191983647|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Right cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.01|0.96|0.2487
96003035|NCT04865770|191983647|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Left cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate, on log scale.||1.00|0.94|0.0907
95850685|NCT00286468|191661183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.9|-6.6|0.916
95850686|NCT00286468|191661183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||9.5|-3.0|0.305
95850687|NCT00286468|191661184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.953
96003036|NCT04865770|191983648|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.03|0.94|0.5619
96003037|NCT04865770|191983648|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.97||||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Right medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.93|0.2774
96003038|NCT04865770|191983648|OTHER||Treatment ratio|0.99||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Left medulla: The responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.04|0.94|0.7924
96003039|NCT04865770|191983649|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.1||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.24|0.98|0.0958
96003040|NCT04865770|191983649|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.17||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||ANCOVA|||Right kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.33|1.03|0.0145
96003041|NCT04865770|191983649|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.06||||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||ANCOVA|||Left kidney: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.21|0.94|0.3311
96003042|NCT04865770|191983650|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.8651
96003043|NCT04865770|191983650|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Right cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.7240
96003044|NCT04865770|191983650|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Left cortex: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.7195
96003045|NCT04865770|191983651|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Bilateral medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.9335
96003046|NCT04865770|191983651|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Right medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.01|0.98|0.6517
96003047|NCT04865770|191983651|OTHER||Treatment ratio|1.0||||0.9017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||ANCOVA|||Left medulla: Responses are analysed using an ANCOVA with actual treatment, region and the stratification factors as categorical effects and the baseline value as a covariate.||1.02|0.98|0.9017
96003048|NCT03362177|191983661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.44|23.72||P-value was from the stratified exact test of null hypothesis: common treatment odds ratio=1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio (romiplostim/placebo) was calculated by using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests considering stratification factors (tumor type and baseline platelet count).|||23.72|4.44|< 0.001
96003049|NCT03362177|191983662|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|26.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|44.4|||General linear model|General linear model included treatment, stratification factors, and the interaction between treatment and the stratification factors.|Romiplostim - placebo|||44.4|7.9|0.005
96003050|NCT03362177|191983663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.673|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.808|3.952|||Cox proportional hazards|Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by randomization factors (tumor type and baseline platelet count).|Hazard ratio is romiplostim vs. placebo. A value \> 1.0 indicates a higher average event rate and shorter time to response for romiplostim relative to placebo.|||3.952|1.808|< 0.001
96003051|NCT03362177|191983664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|6.77|||Andersen-Gill model|Andersen-Gill model was stratified by randomization factors (tumor type and baseline platelet count).|Romiplostim/Placebo|||6.77|0.04|0.63
95868261|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.61|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868262|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.898||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.898|-0.186|0.107
95868263|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.41|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868264|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|1.942||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.942|-0.214|0.116
95868265|NCT02880956|191693127|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868266|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.29||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.290|-0.442|0.683
96003052|NCT03362177|191983667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|88.85||||||||88.85|4.38|
96003053|NCT05821413|191983724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
96003054|NCT05821413|191983725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.50
96003055|NCT05821413|191983726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
96003056|NCT05821413|191983727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.73
95868267|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.98|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
96003057|NCT05821413|191983728|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
96003058|NCT05821413|191983729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.34
96003059|NCT05821413|191983730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
96003060|NCT05821413|191983731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.57
96003061|NCT05821413|191983732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.64
96003062|NCT06401551|191983868|NON_INFERIORITY|Study success will be concluded if the upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence interval does not exceed the noninferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR.|Difference in Means|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|||ONE_SIDED|95.1||-0.0055||The upper boundary of the confidence interval is reported instead of a p-value.|t-test, 1 sided|The upper bound of the one-sided 95.1% confidence limit will be compared to the margin, 0.10 logMAR.|Difference in Means = CPO Pro IOL minus CPO|||-0.0055||
96003063|NCT02445391|191983869|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis for testing non-inferiority of platinum was defined as that the hazard ratio (HR) for platinum/capecitabine ≥ 1.154 (ie, HR of 1.154 was used as the non-inferiority margin). The alternative hypothesis was HR=0.754 for platinum/ capecitabine. The 4-year IDFS rate was expected to be 67% on capecitabine arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.81|||||The 95% confidence interval provided above was the Jennison and Turnbull repeated confidence interval.|||1.81|0.62|
96003064|NCT07041333|191983927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test||||||0.014
96003065|NCT07041333|191983928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.018
96003066|NCT07041333|191983929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
96003067|NCT03404245|191983972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Turner et al. reported that patients with chronic diseases who completed a 7-week self-management program would have their mean PAM score improve from 52.2 to 60.2 at 6 months (standardized effect size = 0.65). Based on a difference of 8 points, an estimated standard deviation of 12.4, and a two-tailed analysis of variance (ANOVA), a total of 102 participants (51 per group) would be needed (90% power and α level of 0.05).||11.1|1.3|0.05
96003068|NCT03404245|191983973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.05
96003069|NCT03404245|191983974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-3.2|0.05
96003070|NCT03404245|191983975|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.7|0.05
96003071|NCT03404245|191983976|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-3.3|0.05
96003072|NCT03404245|191983977|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.5|0.05
96003073|NCT03404245|191983978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.05
96003074|NCT03404245|191983979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.1|0.05
96003075|NCT03404245|191983980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.1|-10.1|0.05
96003076|NCT03404245|191983981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.0|-112.9|0.05
96003077|NCT06874361|191983982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7|||Chi-squared|||||2.7|0.5|0.7194
96003078|NCT06874361|191983983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.4|0.5214
96003079|NCT06874361|191983984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||Chi-squared|||||2.0|0.3|0.5002
95868268|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.368||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.368|-0.356|0.973
95868269|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868270|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.352||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.352|-0.389|0.921
96003080|NCT06874361|191983985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.9|0.5|0.8202
96003081|NCT06874361|191983986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.5||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||Chi-squared|||||1.0|0.2|0.0471
96003082|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 1 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.9|1.23|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.23|0.90|
95850688|NCT00286468|191661184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|5.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||5.8|-6.1|0.957
95850689|NCT00286468|191661185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.6|-5.9|0.908
95850690|NCT00286468|191661185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.0||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||7.0|-5.6|0.826
96003083|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 3 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.77|1.06|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.06|0.77|
96003084|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 4 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.84|1.15|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.15|0.84|
96003085|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 5 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.86|1.22|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.22|0.86|
96003086|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 6 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.81|1.11|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.11|0.81|
95868271|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868272|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.751|0.257||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.257|-0.751|0.335
95868273|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868274|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.596||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.596|-0.383|0.670
95868275|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868276|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.519||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.519|-0.486|0.950
95868277|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868278|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|0.281||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.281|-0.729|0.383
95868279|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868280|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.494||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.494|-0.504|0.985
95868281|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868282|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|0.027||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.027|-0.982|0.064
95868283|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868284|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.729||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.729|-0.374|0.527
95868285|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868286|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|0.854||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.854|-0.226|0.254
95868287|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95964601|NCT04148989|191900684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Regression, gamma||Change in hospital length of stay (days) associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable gamma regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.1|-0.4|0.19
96003087|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 6B antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.63|1.02|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.02|0.63|
95868288|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.488||The statistical model: RBANS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.488|-0.628|0.805
96003088|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 7F antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.85|1.12|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.12|0.85|
96003089|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 9V antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.8|1.12|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.12|0.80|
96003090|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 14 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.82|1.24|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.24|0.82|
96003091|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 18C antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.85|1.18|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.18|0.85|
96003092|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 19A antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.77|1.06|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.06|0.77|
96003093|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 19F antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.86|1.14|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.14|0.86|
96003094|NCT03621670|191984022|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 98.3% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMC is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 23F antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.73|1.05|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.05|0.73|
95868289|NCT02880956|191693128|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868290|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.935|0.485||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.485|-0.935|0.534
95868291|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
96003095|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 1 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.11|0.82|
96003096|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 3 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.03|0.79|
95868292|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.821||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.821|-0.580|0.735
95868293|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964602|NCT04148989|191900685|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic||Change in antimicrobial treatment risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.17|1.03|0.005
96003097|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 4 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.07|0.77|
96003098|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 5 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.12|0.83|
96003099|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 6 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||0.99|0.74|
95850691|NCT00286468|191661186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|6.8||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.8|-5.9|0.894
95850692|NCT00286468|191661186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.9||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||8.9|-3.8|0.432
95850693|NCT00286468|191661187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.3|-8.1|0.548
95850694|NCT00286468|191661187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.2||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.2|-6.3|0.986
95850695|NCT00286468|191661188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|4.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.30|-1.78|0.415
95868294|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|-0.24||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||-0.240|-1.673|0.009
95868295|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.75|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
96003100|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 6B antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.02|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.02|0.73|
96003101|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 7F antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.93|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||0.93|0.70|
95868296|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.854|0.806||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.806|-0.854|0.954
95868297|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868298|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.622|0.997||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.997|-0.622|0.649
95868299|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.95|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868300|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.443||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.443|-1.220|0.358
95868301|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868302|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|0.963||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.963|-1.155|0.859
95868303|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.74|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868304|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.529||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|1.437||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||1.437|-0.644|0.455
95868305|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868306|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|0.539||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.539|-1.578|0.335
95868307|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868308|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|1.233||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.233|-1.447|0.875
95868309|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868310|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.561||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.561|-1.068|0.712
95868311|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.62|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868312|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.687||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.112|0.59||The statistical model: MMSE change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.590|-2.112|0.269
95868313|NCT02880956|191693129|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868314|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.785||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.509|1.577||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.577|-1.509|0.966
95868315|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868316|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.646|1.4||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||1.400|-1.646|0.874
95868317|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.89|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95964603|NCT04148989|191900686|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||1.75|0.68|0.73
95850696|NCT00286468|191661188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|4.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.55|-1.54|0.332
95850697|NCT00286468|191661189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|2.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||2.85|-2.47|0.890
95850698|NCT00286468|191661189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.86||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.86|-1.48|0.380
95850699|NCT00286468|191661190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|4.85||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.85|-2.14|0.448
95850700|NCT00286468|191661190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.52||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.52|-2.48|0.568
95850701|NCT00286468|191661191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.95||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|6.22||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||6.22|-0.32|0.077
95850702|NCT00286468|191661191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|4.99||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.99|-1.55|0.303
95850703|NCT00286468|191661192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|4.57||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.57|-2.08|0.461
95850704|NCT00286468|191661192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.32|-2.34|0.559
95850705|NCT00286468|191661193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.62||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||3.62|-1.54|0.430
95868318|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|2.551||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||2.551|-0.572|0.213
95868319|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.67|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868320|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.242||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.242|-0.490|0.208
95868321|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.26|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868322|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|2.365||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.365|-0.307|0.131
95868323|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.57|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868324|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|2.719||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||2.719|-0.014|0.052
95868325|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.55|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868326|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.908|2.268||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.268|-1.908|0.866
95868327|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.15|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868328|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.048||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.523||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||2.523|-1.599|0.660
95868329|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.94|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868330|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|3.995||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||3.995|-0.184|0.074
95868331|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868332|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.828||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||1.828|-2.545|0.747
95868333|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.99|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 96||||
95868334|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|2.304||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.304|-2.004|0.891
95868335|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868336|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|2.759||The statistical model: NPI change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||2.759|-1.650|0.621
96003102|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 9V antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.06|0.77|
95868337|NCT02880956|191693130|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868338|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.064|-0.010|0.147
95868339|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.14|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868340|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.031||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.031|-0.041|0.795
96003103|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 14 antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.17|0.83|
95850706|NCT00286468|191661193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||4.61|-0.56|0.124
95850707|NCT00286468|191661194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.013||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.013|-0.099|0.011
95850708|NCT00286468|191661194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.078|0.116
95850709|NCT00286468|191661195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.006||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.006|-0.081|0.024
95868341|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.147|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868342|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.069||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 24||0.069|-0.006|0.095
95868343|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 24||||
95868344|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.072||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.072|-0.028|0.390
95868345|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95850710|NCT00286468|191661195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.074|0.059
95868346|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.045|-0.052|0.898
95868347|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 48||||
95868348|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.057||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 48||0.057|-0.044|0.800
95868349|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Week 48||||
95868350|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.066|0.977
95850711|NCT00286468|191661196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.011||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.011|-0.067|0.159
95850712|NCT00286468|191661196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.001||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.001|-0.077|0.055
95850713|NCT00286468|191661197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.002|-0.080|0.062
95850714|NCT00286468|191661197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||-0.002|-0.084|0.041
95850715|NCT00286468|191661198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.010|-0.069|0.148
95850716|NCT00286468|191661198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.009||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.009|-0.071|0.135
95850717|NCT00286468|191661199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
95850718|NCT00286468|191661199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.012||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.012|-0.065|0.177
95850719|NCT00286468|191661200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.486||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.486|-0.161|0.324
95868351|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868352|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.064||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.064|-0.063|0.990
95850720|NCT00286468|191661200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.5||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.500|-0.147|0.284
96003104|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 18C antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.04|0.76|
95850721|NCT00286468|191661201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.540|-0.004|0.053
95868353|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.24|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868354|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.067||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 72||0.067|-0.063|0.944
95850722|NCT00286468|191661201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.349||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.621||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.621|0.077|0.012
95850723|NCT00286468|191661202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.458||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.458|-0.094|0.196
95850724|NCT00286468|191661202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.502||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.502|-0.051|0.110
95850725|NCT00286468|191661203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.228||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.517||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.517|-0.060|0.121
95850726|NCT00286468|191661203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.448||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.448|-0.130|0.280
95868355|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 72||||
95868356|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.085||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.085|-0.079|0.942
95868357|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868358|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.074||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.074|-0.087|0.876
95868359|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.27|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868360|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.143||The statistical model: ADCOMS change from baseline = baseline + treatment + site + visit + baseline\*visit + treatment\*visit; variance-covariance structure = Unstructured.|repeated measures model|||Week 96||0.143|-0.024|0.163
95964604|NCT04148989|191900687|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33||Model adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.|Regression, Logistic|||Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.|Change in risk for possible antimicrobial-associated adverse event associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|1.33|0.78|0.90
95868361|NCT02880956|191693131|SUPERIORITY||Effect size/pooled SD|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Effect size at a specific visit is calculated as LS mean difference (8E12 - placebo) divided by pooled standard deviation of change scores for a ABBV-8E12 dose and placebo at that visit.|Week 96||||
95868362|NCT01206387|191693154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95868363|NCT01206387|191693155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868364|NCT01206387|191693156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868365|NCT01206387|191693157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868366|NCT01206387|191693158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
95868367|NCT02616601|191693159|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval on the percentage difference between generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream lesion clearance were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these percentages was greater than and statistically different (p\<0.05) from the vehicle cream percentage, then generic fluorouracil cream and Carac (fluorouracil) cream were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.03|11.11|||||90% Wald's confidence interval with a continuity correction for the difference (Generic Fluorouracil Cream - Carac \[Fluorouracil\] Cream) in complete clearance rates.|||11.11|-11.03|
95868368|NCT02616601|191693159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95868369|NCT02616601|191693159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
96003105|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 19A antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.95|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||0.95|0.71|
96003106|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 19F antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.12|0.83|
96003107|NCT03621670|191984023|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group ratio of ECL assay GMCs is \>0.5 for the PCV13 Serotype 23F antigen.|Group GMC Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.16|0.82|
96003108|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 1 antigen.|Difference in percentage|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.87|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||4.87|-0.38|
96003109|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 1 antigen.|Difference in percentage|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.74|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||4.74|-1.28|
95850727|NCT00286468|191661204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.320|-0.290|0.924
96003110|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 3 antigen.|Difference in percentage|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|6.7|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||6.70|-10.07|
96003111|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 3 antigen.|Difference in percentage|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|2.69|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV, compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||2.69|-14.45|
96003112|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 4 antigen.|Difference in percentage|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|1.97|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.97|-5.87|
96003113|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 4 antigen.|Difference in percentage|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|4.51|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||4.51|-2.17|
96003114|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 5 antigen.|Difference in percentage|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|8.96|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||8.96|-1.86|
96003115|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 5 antigen.|Difference in percentage|-2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|0.16|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||0.16|-6.33|
95850728|NCT00286468|191661204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.444||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.444|-0.168|0.376
95850729|NCT00286468|191661205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.393||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.393|-0.242|0.642
95850730|NCT00286468|191661205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.381||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||0.381|-0.255|0.698
95850731|NCT00286468|191661206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|3.306||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.306|0.503|0.596
95850732|NCT00286468|191661206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.787|4.885||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.885|0.787|0.148
95850733|NCT00286468|191661207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.925||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.011|3.666||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.666|1.011|0.046
95850734|NCT00286468|191661207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.505||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.313|4.78||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||4.780|1.313|0.005
95850735|NCT00286468|191661208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|3.519||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.519|1.086|0.025
95850736|NCT00286468|191661208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.707|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.012|6.831||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.831|2.012|<0.001
95850737|NCT00286468|191661209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.994|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.213||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.213|1.720|<0.001
95850738|NCT00286468|191661209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.933||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.933|1.950|<0.001
95850739|NCT00286468|191661210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.776||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.627||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||3.627|0.870|0.115
95850740|NCT00286468|191661210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|6.851||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||6.851|1.703|<0.001
95850741|NCT00286468|191661211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.991||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|2.689||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||2.689|0.365|0.986
95850742|NCT00286468|191661211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|5.203||no multiplicity adjustments|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes effects for treatment, geographic region, baseline glyburide dose and baseline HbA1c.|Odd's Ratio (OR) compares alogliptin arm versus placebo. OR \<1.0 indicates lower incidence compared to placebo.|||5.203|0.808|0.131
95850743|NCT00286468|191661212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.626
95868370|NCT03702244|191693177|SUPERIORITY|Statistical testing for recurrent events was performed using the negative binomial methods for recurrent events.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, sex, and coronary artery disease equivalent (diabetes, history of peripheral artery disease or cerebrovascular disease), and intended first test strata (invasive or noninvasive).|Sample size and power calculations for this study are based on the hypothesis that the precision evaluation arm is superior to the usual care arm on the time-to-first event of the composite 3-component endpoint: all-cause death, non-fatal MI, or invasive cardiac catheterization without obstructive CAD over a 12-month of follow-up. Time to event analysis will use the date of the event, including the date of catheterization at which the absence of obstructive CAD is demonstrated.||0.41|0.20|<.001
95850744|NCT00286468|191661212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||||||no multiplicity adjustments|Mantel Haenszel|OR and 95% CI not estimable using logistic regression model. Tested using extended Mantel-Haenszel test.||||||0.178
95850745|NCT00286468|191661213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.16||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.16|0.32|<0.001
95850746|NCT00286468|191661213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.02||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.02|0.17|0.006
95850747|NCT00286468|191661214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.18||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.18|0.20|0.006
95850748|NCT00286468|191661214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.01||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.01|0.02|0.040
95850749|NCT00286468|191661215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.73|0.47|<0.001
95850750|NCT00286468|191661215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.55||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.55|0.28|0.005
95850751|NCT00286468|191661216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.46||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.46|0.14|0.018
95850752|NCT00286468|191661216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.54||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and geographic region as class variables; baseline glyburide dose and baseline value for the endpoint parameter as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|||1.54|0.21|0.010
95850753|NCT00072462|191661217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.14|0.67|0.33
95850754|NCT00072462|191661217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.15|0.66|0.33
95850755|NCT00072462|191661218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.01|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.01|0.52|0.06
95850756|NCT00072462|191661218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.05|0.52|0.09
95850757|NCT00072462|191661219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||2.84|0.75|0.13
96003116|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 6 antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.27|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.27|-2.62|
96003117|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 6 antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.33|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||2.33|-1.27|
96003118|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 6B antigen.|Difference in percentage|-2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.86|2.21|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||2.21|-7.86|
95850758|NCT00072462|191661219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||2.84|0.75|0.26
95850759|NCT00072462|191661220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.11|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||5.11|0.21|0.97
95850760|NCT00072462|191661220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.36|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||5.36|0.22|0.93
95850761|NCT00072462|191661221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Univariate||||1.32|0.65|0.67
95850762|NCT00072462|191661221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.22|||Regression, Cox|Covariates included in model: Hormone Replacement Therapy use, Age, BMI, Use of radiotherapy, Extent of margins, Grade(categorical: low, medium, high)||||1.22|0.59|0.38
95850763|NCT04386291|191661233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.071
95850764|NCT04386291|191661233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.46
95850765|NCT04386291|191661234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
95850766|NCT04386291|191661234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.04
95850767|NCT04386291|191661235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
95850768|NCT04386291|191661235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5
95850769|NCT04386291|191661236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
95850770|NCT04386291|191661236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
95850771|NCT04386291|191661237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.88
95850772|NCT04386291|191661237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
95850773|NCT04386291|191661238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.038
95850774|NCT04386291|191661238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.059
95850775|NCT04386291|191661239|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.9
95850776|NCT04386291|191661239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Subpression subscale analysis||||0.23
95850777|NCT04386291|191661239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reappraisal subscale analysis||||0.7
95850778|NCT04386291|191661239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Suppression subscale analysis||||0.5
95850779|NCT04386291|191661240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
95850780|NCT04386291|191661241|SUPERIORITY||mean rank difference|79.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Witney was used because assumption of normality of variance was violated||||||0.076
95850781|NCT04386291|191661241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.8
95850782|NCT00836589|191661243|NON_INFERIORITY|"Estimated SAEFR at 5 years is 92.5% with a 5% non-inferiority margin (87.5%).~Type I error (alpha) is 0.05 (one-sided for non-inferiority).~Statistical power is 80%."||||||0.002|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||0.0020
95850783|NCT03324607|191661253|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.006
95850784|NCT00189098|191661276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-6.0|||risk differences (RD)||Risk difference and 95% confidence intervals reported for 6 weeks follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||-6|-44|
95850785|NCT00189098|191661276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|4.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 12 week follow-up|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||4|-34|
95850786|NCT00189098|191661276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|22.0|||risk difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for 1 year follow-up.|"Assuming a spontaneous recovery of 25% and a treatment effect of TMP-SMX of 50% (based on a retrospective study of children treated with TMP-SMX for COM at our hospital), and taking α=0.05 and a power of 0.80, we calculated that each group should consist of 50 children.~Rate differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the three control visits to compare both groups for the outcome measures."||22|-12|
95850787|NCT00189098|191661277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|10.0|||rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 6 and 12 weeks follow-up.|||10|-34|
95850788|NCT00189098|191661278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|14.0|||rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for eardrop usage between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||14|-22|
95850789|NCT00189098|191661279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|9.0|||Rate differences (95%CI interval)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 6 to 12 weeks follow-up.|||9|-23|
95850790|NCT00189098|191661280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|37.0|||Rate difference (RD)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for the use of additional systemic antibiotics other than the study medication between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||37|-7|
95850791|NCT00189098|191661281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||Rate differences (95%CI intervals)||Risk difference and confidence interval reported for participants who underwent Ear Nose and Throat Surgery between 12 weeks and 1 year follow-up.|||24|-12|
95850792|NCT00189540|191661294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 3.||||0.35
95850793|NCT00189540|191661294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison made is the difference from baseline at Month 6.||||0.17
95850794|NCT00189540|191661295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 3||||0.55
95850795|NCT00189540|191661295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The comparison of groups at Month 6.||||0.28
95850796|NCT00189540|191661296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 3||||0.2
95850797|NCT00189540|191661296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups at Month 6||||0.04
95850798|NCT00189540|191661297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95850799|NCT00189540|191661298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.77||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 3||||0.77
95850800|NCT00189540|191661298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison at Month 6||||0.45
95850801|NCT00189540|191661299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 3 versus baseline.||||0.06
95964605|NCT04148989|191900688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.17|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||2.17|0.49|0.94
95964606|NCT04148989|191900689|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.6% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Change in new-onset Clostridium difficile colitis risk associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis.|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||2.14|0.93|0.10
95964607|NCT04148989|191900690|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 3.1% of eligible patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.93|||Regression, Logistic||Change in risk for antimicrobial administration in the ED associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable logistic regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||1.93|0.69|0.59
96003119|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 6B antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.33|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||2.33|-1.27|
95850802|NCT00189540|191661299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between groups for mean TBI at Month 6 versus baseline.||||0.05
95850803|NCT04529083|191661308|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.625||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.19|-1.06|0.011
95850804|NCT04529083|191661310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.26|0.63|0.006
95850805|NCT04196686|191661311|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.51|||Cox mixed effects model|||||0.51|0.25|<0.001
95850806|NCT04196686|191661312|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.455||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Linear mixed effects model|||Analysis was controlled for dominant hand treatment assignment, dominant hand order, and gender. Overall mean difference calculated from regression model.||0.59|0.32|0.200
95850807|NCT04196686|191661313|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00368|||Linear mixed effects model|||The variables in the physiologic model were SCRD change over time and the SCRD change between groups, defined as those with and without VR.||0.00368|0.00007|0.047
95850808|NCT02546609|191661314|OTHER|||||||0.0572|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0572
95850809|NCT02546609|191661314|OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model: with treatment group as the factor. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3770
95850810|NCT02546609|191661315|OTHER|||||||0.3811|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3811
95850811|NCT02546609|191661315|OTHER|||||||0.8479|||||||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8479
95850812|NCT02546609|191661316|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.7742
95850813|NCT02546609|191661316|OTHER|||||||0.6666|||||||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6666
95850814|NCT02546609|191661317|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0020
95850815|NCT02546609|191661317|OTHER|||||||0.0164|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0164
95868371|NCT00329901|191693186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-diphtheria immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM as compared to Tdap given with placebo saline||14|5|
95868372|NCT00329901|191693186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus(Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-tetanus immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY-CRM compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||2|-1|
95868373|NCT00329901|191693186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PT antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||1|-12|
95868374|NCT00329901|191693186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-FHA antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||3|-9|
95868375|NCT00329901|191693186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response to Tdap + MenACWY-CRM was considered non-inferior to that of Tdap+saline if for all five antigens (diphtheria, tetanus, PT, FHA, PRN) the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference \[(Tdap + MenACWY-CRM) minus (Tdap + saline)\] was greater than -10, at 1 month (Day 29) after vaccination|Vaccine Group Difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0||||||Non-inferiority of anti-PRN antigen immune response following concomitant administration of Tdap with MenACWY as compared to Tdap given concomitantly with saline placebo||-2|-13|
95868376|NCT03485495|191693203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.007
95868377|NCT03485495|191693204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is split evenly between primary and secondary endpoints. α=0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
95868378|NCT03485495|191693205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.8762
96003120|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 7F antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.96|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||0.96|-2.29|
95868379|NCT03485495|191693206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2082|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis applies to ∆ between baseline and after 12 weeks row.||||0.2082
95868380|NCT03485495|191693207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-3 data.||||0.0038
95868381|NCT03485495|191693207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO-2 data.||||0.0018
95850816|NCT02546609|191661318|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4099
95850817|NCT02546609|191661318|OTHER|||||||0.1455|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.1455
95850818|NCT02546609|191661319|OTHER|||||||0.2559|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2559
96003121|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 7F antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|1.14|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.14|-2.48|
95850819|NCT02546609|191661319|OTHER|||||||0.9776|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.9776
96003122|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 9V antigen.|Difference in percentage|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.12|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||6.12|-2.30|
95850820|NCT02546609|191661320|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.2265
95850821|NCT02546609|191661320|OTHER|||||||0.8366|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8366
95850822|NCT02546609|191661321|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
95850823|NCT02546609|191661321|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
95850824|NCT02546609|191661322|OTHER|||||||0.347|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3470
95850825|NCT02546609|191661322|OTHER|||||||0.6221|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.6221
95850826|NCT02546609|191661323|OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.0129
95850827|NCT02546609|191661323|OTHER|||||||0.4316|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4316
95850828|NCT02546609|191661324|OTHER|MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||||0.1946|||||||MMRM|||||||0.1946
95850829|NCT02546609|191661324|OTHER|||||||0.4697|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.4697
95850830|NCT02546609|191661325|OTHER|||||||0.3474|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.3474
95850831|NCT02546609|191661325|OTHER|||||||0.8832|||||||MMRM|||MMRM model: with treatment group, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, the baseline value of the response variable as a covariate, and subject as a random effect. Placebo is used as the reference group.||||0.8832
95850832|NCT02212015|191661326|OTHER||Rate|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Question is, if 6 months progression free survival rate (PFS-R) denoted by pPFS is higher than 35%. Test hypothesis is thus formulated as: H0: pPFS ≤0.35 versus H1: pPFS ≥0.35. This hypothesis is tested at the one-side significance level of 0.05. A 6 months PFS-R of 0.55 of cases or more is considered as clinically relevant success rate. The design is chosen such that rates of 0.55 or higher can be detected with a power of at least 0.8.||||
95850833|NCT02212015|191661327|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95850834|NCT02212015|191661328|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95850835|NCT02212015|191661329|OTHER||Median|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||
95850836|NCT02212015|191661330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 1 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.752
95850837|NCT02212015|191661331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Log Rank|||"The analysis of secondary endpoints is of descriptive nature and generally consists of summary statistics and interval estimation.~Overall survival (OS) for subgroup 2 was defined as the time of start of treatment until death (event status=1) or last contact (censoring, event status=0). OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Median survival time is provided alonsgside two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), if possible."||||0.621
95850838|NCT02212015|191661332|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Frequency of each category is given|||
95868382|NCT03485495|191693207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to NO data.||||0.46
95868383|NCT03485495|191693208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADP-PA data.||||0.88
95868384|NCT03485495|191693208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction between Divaza and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes cuff test status, treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis applies to ADR-PA data.||||0.93
95868385|NCT02660138|191693257|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-10.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.31|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.31|-16.36|0.0001
95868386|NCT02660138|191693257|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025.|LS Mean Difference|-12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|-6.73|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-6.73|-17.65|<0.0001
95868387|NCT02660138|191693258|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|160.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.9|211.9|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||211.9|109.9|<0.0001
95868388|NCT02660138|191693258|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|189.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.1|238.2|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||238.2|140.1|<0.0001
95868389|NCT02660138|191693259|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-16.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-16.4|-32.3|<0.0001
95868390|NCT02660138|191693259|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-21.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-21.1|-36.2|<0.0001
95868391|NCT02660138|191693260|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|155.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.5|210.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||210.4|100.5|<0.0001
95868392|NCT02660138|191693260|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|181.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.2|234.3|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||234.3|129.2|<0.0001
96003123|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 9V antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.44|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||2.44|-2.76|
96003124|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 14 antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.87|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||1.87|-3.43|
95868393|NCT02660138|191693261|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|35.6|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||35.60|2.72|0.0006
96003125|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 14 antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.58|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.58|-1.68|
95868394|NCT02660138|191693261|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.99||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|39.61|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||39.61|3.05|0.0003
95850839|NCT02212015|191661333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE)|Response Rate (RR) is given as Best Overall Response (BOR) and given be absolute and relative frequencies applied to the total of 26 enrolled subjects.. Categories of BOR are CR, PR, SD, PD and NE).|||0.349
95850840|NCT02212015|191661334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi squared test, exact|||||||0.385
95850841|NCT01292486|191661341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 2 days.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Hodges-Lehman estimation|||The null hypothesis was that the median day to neutrophil recovery in this study was more than two days longer than historical controls.||0.0|0.0|<0.025
95850842|NCT01791244|191661367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.48||||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.25|||linear mixed model|||Linear mixed model, with baseline value, time, Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) at baseline and sex as fixed factors was used for the analysis.||9.25|-8.30|0.9148
95850843|NCT01856270|191661389|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.114||||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 71 of 205 participants (at 3 Mo post) in the Natural History study endorsed having a headache more than once per week.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening.|||-0.017|.101
95850844|NCT01856270|191661390|SUPERIORITY|The data from this study was compared with the data from the Natural History of Headache after Mild TBI which was previously published (Lucas, Hoffman, Bell, Dikmen. (2014), A prospective study of prevalence and characterization of headache following mild traumatic brain injury. Cephalalgia (34) 93-102).|Difference of proportions|0.194||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.057|||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997). 56 of 148 participants (at 3 mo post) in the Natural History study reported pain \>=6.|A positive difference of proportions would indicate an improvement in the Amitriptyline sample, while a negative difference would indicate a worsening|||.057|.017
95850845|NCT01856270|191661391|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportions|0.093||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286||A priori significance threshold α=.05|Fisher Exact||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed). Confidence interval estimation method from Wallenstein (1997).|||.286|-.106|.456
95850846|NCT01856270|191661392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.4||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||3.4|-5.1|.684
95850847|NCT01856270|191661393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||2.9|-1.0|.306
95850848|NCT01856270|191661394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||1.6|-0.9|.583
95850849|NCT01856270|191661395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||8.8|-4.0|.444
95850850|NCT01856270|191661396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.3||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|53.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||53.3|1.2|.041
95850851|NCT01856270|191661397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3||A priori significance threshold α=.05|t-test, 2 sided||Estimate is the effect observed in the Immediate group (i.e. Immediate - Delayed)|||0.3|-3.8|.089
95850852|NCT00467740|191661483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0754||95.0|-0.008|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.167|-0.008|0.0754
95850853|NCT00467740|191661483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0571||95.0|-0.003|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.174|-0.003|0.0571
95850854|NCT00467740|191661483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0906||95.0|-0.012|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.012|0.0906
95850855|NCT00467740|191661483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0011||95.0|0.059|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.059|0.0011
96003126|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 18C antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.91|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||3.91|-2.40|
96003127|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 18C antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|2.2|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||2.20|-2.44|
95850856|NCT00467740|191661484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.843||0.0393||95.0|0.801|31.675|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||31.675|0.801|0.0393
95850857|NCT00467740|191661484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.875||0.0005||95.0|12.379|43.378|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||43.378|12.379|0.0005
95850858|NCT00467740|191661484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.906|<|0.0001||95.0|20.512|51.633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||51.633|20.512|<0.0001
95850859|NCT00467740|191661484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.848|<|0.0001||95.0|27.498|58.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||58.389|27.498|<0.0001
95850860|NCT00467740|191661485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.1264||95.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.154|-0.019|0.1264
95850861|NCT00467740|191661485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0232||95.0|0.014|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.014|0.0232
95850862|NCT00467740|191661485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0106||95.0|0.027|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.027|0.0106
95850863|NCT00467740|191661485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.087|0.0001
95850864|NCT00467740|191661486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0329||95.0|0.008|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|0.008|0.0329
95850865|NCT00467740|191661486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0666||95.0|-0.006|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.006|0.0666
95850866|NCT00467740|191661486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3738||95.0|-0.052|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|-0.052|0.3738
95868395|NCT02660138|191693262|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||16.24|2.02|0.0010
95868396|NCT02660138|191693262|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|16.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|44.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group, and recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO, previous BTX-A usage) and study baseline (prior intradetrusor BTX-A usage for UI) as explanatory variables.||44.43|5.82|<0.0001
95868397|NCT02660138|191693263|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|13.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.22|20.37|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||20.37|6.22|0.0003
95850867|NCT00467740|191661486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0037||95.0|0.046|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.234|0.046|0.0037
95850868|NCT00467740|191661487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2646||95.0|-0.039|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.039|0.2646
95850869|NCT00467740|191661487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3527||95.0|-0.048|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|-0.048|0.3527
95850870|NCT00467740|191661487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.1369||95.0|-0.022|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.160|-0.022|0.1369
95850871|NCT00467740|191661487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0051||95.0|0.039|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.039|0.0051
95850872|NCT00467740|191661488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.017||95.0|0.023|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.232|0.023|0.0170
95850873|NCT00467740|191661488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0646||95.0|-0.006|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.006|0.0646
95868398|NCT02660138|191693263|SUPERIORITY|The secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|LS Mean Difference|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|24.15|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (I-QoL summary total score) as fixed variables, and subject as a random effect.||24.15|10.36|<0.0001
95964608|NCT04148989|191900691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable ??? regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for subjects' age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, ED arrival via ambulance, English language preference, temperature, systolic blood pressure, Acute Physiology Score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ED-diagnosed source of infection.||0.58|0.06|0.02
95964609|NCT04148989|191900692|SUPERIORITY|Multiple imputation was employed to account for missing covariate data affecting 2.0% of eligible patients.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Change in total spectrum score of antibiotics administered within 24 hours of ED arrival associated with Code Sepsis implementation derived from adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable linear regression to estimate the change in outcome after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed at control sites and for prespecified covariates.||0.31|0.03|0.02
95964610|NCT03812029|191900693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0015
95964611|NCT03812029|191900693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0121
95964612|NCT03812029|191900693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0371||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0371
95964613|NCT03812029|191900694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95964614|NCT03812029|191900694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95850874|NCT00467740|191661488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.602||95.0|-0.077|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.132|-0.077|0.6020
95850875|NCT00467740|191661488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0147||95.0|0.026|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.026|0.0147
95850876|NCT00467740|191661489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.4902||95.0|-0.068|0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.142|-0.068|0.4902
95850877|NCT00467740|191661489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.2832||95.0|-0.048|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|-0.048|0.2832
95850878|NCT00467740|191661489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6516||95.0|-0.081|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|-0.081|0.6516
95850879|NCT00467740|191661489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.006||95.0|0.042|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.252|0.042|0.0060
95850880|NCT00467740|191661490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0005||95.0|0.079|0.277|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.277|0.079|0.0005
95850881|NCT00467740|191661490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.007||95.0|0.038|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.038|0.0070
95850882|NCT00467740|191661490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0512||95.0|-0.001|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.198|-0.001|0.0512
95850883|NCT00467740|191661490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.331|0.133|<0.0001
95850884|NCT00467740|191661491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.1811||95.0|-0.039|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|-0.039|0.1811
95850885|NCT00467740|191661491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2118||95.0|-0.044|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|-0.044|0.2118
95850886|NCT00467740|191661491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.5504||95.0|-0.085|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|-0.085|0.5504
95850887|NCT00467740|191661491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.0022||95.0|0.069|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.069|0.0022
95850888|NCT00467740|191661492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.102|<0.0001
95850889|NCT00467740|191661492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.260|0.106|<0.0001
95850890|NCT00467740|191661492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.096|<0.0001
95850891|NCT00467740|191661492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.367|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.367|0.214|<0.0001
95850892|NCT00467740|191661493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.101|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.101|<0.0001
95850893|NCT00467740|191661493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.286|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.286|0.107|<0.0001
95850894|NCT00467740|191661493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0007||95.0|0.067|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.067|0.0007
95850895|NCT00467740|191661493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.352|0.174|<0.0001
95850896|NCT00467740|191661494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.313|0.115|<0.0001
95964615|NCT03812029|191900695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
95964616|NCT03812029|191900695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95964617|NCT03812029|191900695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95964618|NCT03812029|191900696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95964619|NCT03812029|191900696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95964620|NCT03812029|191900696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95964621|NCT03812029|191900697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95964622|NCT03812029|191900697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95964623|NCT03812029|191900697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
95964624|NCT03812029|191900698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95868399|NCT02660138|191693264|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||8.86|1.80|0.0007
95850897|NCT00467740|191661494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0021||95.0|0.057|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.057|0.0021
95850898|NCT00467740|191661494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0795||95.0|-0.01|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.010|0.0795
95850899|NCT00467740|191661494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.129|0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.326|0.129|<0.0001
95850900|NCT00467740|191661495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0003||95.0|0.082|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.276|0.082|0.0003
95850901|NCT00467740|191661495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0077||95.0|0.035|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.035|0.0077
95850902|NCT00467740|191661495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0427||95.0|0.003|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.003|0.0427
95850903|NCT00467740|191661495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001||95.0|0.143|0.336|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.336|0.143|<0.0001
95850904|NCT00467740|191661496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0005||95.0|0.074|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.263|0.074|0.0005
95868400|NCT02660138|191693264|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|7.86||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||7.86|1.68|0.0012
95868401|NCT02660138|191693264|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|18.09||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||18.09|3.56|<0.0001
95868402|NCT02660138|191693264|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.66|18.47||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||18.47|3.66|<0.0001
95868403|NCT02660138|191693264|OTHER|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.59|24.95||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||24.95|4.59|<0.0001
95964625|NCT03812029|191900698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95964626|NCT03812029|191900698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95850905|NCT00467740|191661496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0003||95.0|0.08|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.080|0.0003
95964627|NCT03812029|191900699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
95964628|NCT03812029|191900699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0006
95964629|NCT03812029|191900699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95964630|NCT03812029|191900700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95964631|NCT03812029|191900700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95868404|NCT02660138|191693264|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|12.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|29.56||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo.||29.56|5.40|<0.0001
95868405|NCT02660138|191693265|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|84.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.73|125.89|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||125.89|43.73|<0.0001
95868406|NCT02660138|191693265|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|110.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.17|150.98|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 2, Week 6 and Week 12), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||150.98|70.17|<0.0001
95964632|NCT03812029|191900700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
95850906|NCT00467740|191661496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
95850907|NCT00467740|191661496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.390|0.202|<0.0001
95850908|NCT00467740|191661497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0004||95.0|0.078|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.268|0.078|0.0004
95850909|NCT00467740|191661497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0002||95.0|0.09|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.090|0.0002
95850910|NCT00467740|191661497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0047||95.0|0.043|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.043|0.0047
95850911|NCT00467740|191661497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.142|<0.0001
95850912|NCT00467740|191661498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0002||95.0|0.096|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.312|0.096|0.0002
95850913|NCT00467740|191661498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0057||95.0|0.045|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.261|0.045|0.0057
95850914|NCT00467740|191661498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1513||95.0|-0.029|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|-0.029|0.1513
95850915|NCT00467740|191661498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001||95.0|0.114|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.114|<0.0001
95850916|NCT00467740|191661499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0022||95.0|0.06|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.060|0.0022
95964633|NCT03812029|191900701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0017
95964634|NCT03812029|191900701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance : \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0093
95964635|NCT00479882|191900703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least squares mean|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||3.4|1.3|
95850917|NCT00467740|191661499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0307||95.0|0.011|0.223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.223|0.011|0.0307
95850918|NCT00467740|191661499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.132||95.0|-0.025|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|-0.025|0.1320
95868407|NCT00095147|191693270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was the comparison of abatacept versus placebo for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.67|-1.42|<0.001
95868408|NCT00095147|191693271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean change from baseline|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Infliximab versus placebo were compared for changes from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) in the DAS28. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.39|-1.14|<0.001
95868409|NCT00095147|191693273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|33.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between ABA and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||33.6|7.7|0.001
95868410|NCT00095147|191693273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of difference from placebo|17.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|30.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparisons were made between INF and PLA at Day 197 using a continuity corrected Chi-square test. All tests and confidence intervals for treatment comparison were two-sided.||30.7|5.1|0.005
95964636|NCT00479882|191900703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence LDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±3%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.4|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||2.4|0.4|
95964637|NCT00479882|191900704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||1.0|-1.4|
95850919|NCT00467740|191661499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.337|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.337|0.127|<0.0001
95850920|NCT00467740|191661500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1585||95.0|-0.031|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|-0.031|0.1585
95850921|NCT00467740|191661500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0848||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0848
95850922|NCT00467740|191661500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0838||95.0|-0.013|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|-0.013|0.0838
95850923|NCT00467740|191661500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0014||95.0|0.07|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis||Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.070|0.0014
95868411|NCT00095147|191693275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.23|-0.53|<0.001
95868412|NCT00095147|191693275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in HAQ-DI from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||-0.15|-0.45|<0.001
95868413|NCT00095147|191693277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|4.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.12|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||6.12|1.92|<0.001
96003128|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 19A antigen.|Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|0.83|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||0.83|-5.06|
95964638|NCT00479882|191900704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence HDL-C reduction was established if the 95% CI for the difference between these two treatments in percent change from baseline in LDL-C fell within ±4%.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||ANOVA|Factors for sequence, participant within sequence, period and treatment||||0.2|-1.9|
95850924|NCT00467740|191661501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0959||95.0|-0.018|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.018|0.0959
95850925|NCT00467740|191661501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.047||95.0|0.002|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.237|0.002|0.0470
95850926|NCT00467740|191661501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.196||95.0|-0.04|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|-0.040|0.1960
95850927|NCT00467740|191661501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.002||95.0|0.068|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.068|0.0020
95964639|NCT00479882|191900705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.8|-1.2|0.685
95964640|NCT00479882|191900705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.1|-1.8|
95964641|NCT00479882|191900705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-1.6|0.753
95964642|NCT00479882|191900705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.4|-0.8|
95964643|NCT00479882|191900706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
95964644|NCT00479882|191900706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.5|-0.5|
95964645|NCT00479882|191900706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||1.1|-0.6|0.617
95964646|NCT00479882|191900706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
95964647|NCT00479882|191900707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
95964648|NCT00479882|191900707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
95964649|NCT00479882|191900707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
95964650|NCT00479882|191900707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
95964651|NCT00479882|191900708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.7|
95964652|NCT00479882|191900708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.8|-0.9|
95964653|NCT00479882|191900708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.7|-0.6|
95964654|NCT00479882|191900708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-0.8|
95964655|NCT00479882|191900709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Fisher Exact|||Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|0.497
95964656|NCT00479882|191900710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-1.4|0.449
95964657|NCT00479882|191900710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
95964658|NCT00479882|191900710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Period I/II||1.2|-0.8|0.685
95964659|NCT00479882|191900710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.6|-1.0|
95964660|NCT00479882|191900711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.2||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||-0.2|-2.4|0.020
95964661|NCT00479882|191900711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||0.9|-1.6|
96003129|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 19A antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.33|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||2.33|-1.27|
96003130|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 19F antigen.|Difference in percentage|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.96|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||0.96|-2.29|
95964662|NCT00479882|191900711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.5||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Fisher Exact||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-1.6|0.452
95964663|NCT00479882|191900711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.0|-1.9|
95964664|NCT00479882|191900712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.6|-0.6|
95964665|NCT00479882|191900712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.2|-0.7|
95964666|NCT00479882|191900712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
95964667|NCT00479882|191900712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||||Wilson's Method|Period III||1.3|-0.6|
95850928|NCT00467740|191661502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.027||95.0|0.016|0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.269|0.016|0.0270
95850929|NCT00467740|191661502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1031||95.0|-0.021|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|-0.021|0.1031
95850930|NCT00467740|191661502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.4378||95.0|-0.077|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|-0.077|0.4378
95850931|NCT00467740|191661502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0064||95.0|0.05|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.303|0.050|0.0064
95868414|NCT00095147|191693277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|3.51||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.91|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between ABA and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.91|1.10|0.004
95868415|NCT00095147|191693277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (PCS)|3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 physical component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.40|1.25|0.002
95868416|NCT00095147|191693277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from placebo (MCS)|2.68||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean change in SF-36 mental component summary from baseline to 6 months (Day 197) was compared between INF and PLA. This comparison was done using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the effect and baseline value as the covariate. A 95% confidence interval was computed for the treatment difference within the framework of the ANCOVA model.||5.05|0.31|0.027
95868417|NCT00534313|191693389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|22.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.8||The p-value (two-sided) was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method (CMH) with stratification of baseline body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||41.8|4.0|0.022
95868418|NCT00534313|191693389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|28.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|48.0||p-value (two-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||48.0|9.4|0.006
95964668|NCT00479882|191900713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.8|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||3.8|-6.6|
95850932|NCT00467740|191661503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.2781||95.0|-0.061|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.210|-0.061|0.2781
95850933|NCT00467740|191661503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.3284||95.0|-0.068|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|-0.068|0.3284
95850934|NCT00467740|191661503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.602||95.0|-0.1|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.100|0.6020
95868419|NCT00534313|191693389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.6||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|32.6||p-value (2-sided) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||32.6|-3.5|0.121
95868420|NCT00534313|191693396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||11.0|-23.0|
95850935|NCT00467740|191661503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0006||95.0|0.104|0.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.375|0.104|0.0006
95850936|NCT00467740|191661504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.4331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.184|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.184|-0.079|0.4331
95868421|NCT00534313|191693396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||17.1|-18.0|
95868422|NCT00534313|191693396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||28.5|-7.6|
95868423|NCT00534313|191693397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|44.56|||ANCOVA|||||44.56|-7.02|
95868424|NCT00534313|191693397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|48.6|||ANCOVA|||||48.60|-3.93|
95868425|NCT00534313|191693397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|56.15|||ANCOVA|||||56.15|4.82|
95964669|NCT00479882|191900713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||4.3|-8.1|
95964670|NCT00479882|191900713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.3|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||5.3|-5.2|
95850937|NCT00467740|191661504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.089|0.5150
95850938|NCT00467740|191661504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.5714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|-0.095|0.5714
95850939|NCT00467740|191661504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.028|0.0177
95850940|NCT00467740|191661505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.665||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.883|38.057|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||38.057|7.883|0.0030
95850941|NCT00467740|191661505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.446|39.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||39.754|9.446|0.0016
95850942|NCT00467740|191661505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.598|52.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||52.015|21.598|<.0001
95850943|NCT00467740|191661505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.675|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.399|57.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||57.611|27.399|<.0001
95850944|NCT00467740|191661506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.055||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.194|0.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.957|-3.194|0.2898
95850945|NCT00467740|191661506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.432|-0.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.269|-4.432|0.0270
95868426|NCT00534313|191693399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.08||||||95.0|-4.79|8.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.96|-4.79|
95964671|NCT00479882|191900713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.4|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||3.4|-8.9|
95850946|NCT00467740|191661506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.138|-0.952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.952|-5.138|0.0045
95850947|NCT00467740|191661506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect model with terms baseline, treatment, test day, baseline-by-test-day, treatment-by-test-day, and center as random effect|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.865|-5.010|0.0056
95850948|NCT00467740|191661507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.218|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|-0.793|0.2645
95964672|NCT00479882|191900714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.1|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||2.1|-2.5|
95850949|NCT00467740|191661507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.034|-0.018|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.018|-1.034|0.0423
95850950|NCT00467740|191661507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.842|0.178|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.178|-0.842|0.2008
95850951|NCT00467740|191661507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|-0.087|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.087|-1.098|0.0218
95850952|NCT00467740|191661516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.2156||95.0|-0.368|0.083|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 2 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.083|-0.368|0.2156
95850953|NCT00467740|191661516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0869||95.0|-0.422|0.029|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.029|-0.422|0.0869
95868427|NCT00534313|191693399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.95|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||8.95|-4.94|
95964673|NCT00479882|191900714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.2|-0.5|
95964674|NCT00479882|191900714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.2|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||4.2|-1.0|
95964675|NCT00479882|191900714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.0|||||Wilson's Score Method|Period III||5.0|-0.8|
95964676|NCT00479882|191900717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.9|-0.5|
96003131|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 19F antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.58|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||1.58|-1.68|
96003132|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 23F antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|6.07|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the third vaccination.||6.07|-5.62|
96003133|NCT03621670|191984024|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with IgG ≥ 0.35 µg/mL is \>-10% for the PCV13 Serotype 23F antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|3.58|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of PCV13 when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and other RIV compared to PCV13 and other RIV alone, at one month after the fourth vaccination.||3.58|-3.13|
96003134|NCT03621670|191984025|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \>0.67 for the antigen PT.|Group GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.94|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of PT, FHA and PRN, at one month after the third vaccination.||0.94|0.76|
96003135|NCT03621670|191984025|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \>0.67 for the antigen FHA.|Group GMC Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of PT, FHA and PRN, at one month after the third vaccination.||0.88|0.73|
96003136|NCT03621670|191984025|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \>0.67 for the antigen PRN.|Group GMC Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.73|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of PT, FHA and PRN, at one month after the third vaccination.||0.73|0.55|
95868428|NCT00534313|191693399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|7.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||7.58|-6.08|
95868429|NCT00534313|191693403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|12.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||12.33|1.97|
96003137|NCT03621670|191984026|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10 mIU/mL is \>-10% for the HBs antigen.|Difference in percentage|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.0|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of Hep B, at one month after the third vaccination.||4.00|-2.83|
95868430|NCT00534313|191693403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|14.41|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis||||14.41|3.83|
95868431|NCT00534313|191693403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|11.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate was used for the analysis.||||11.32|1.01|
96003138|NCT03621670|191984027|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with anti-diphtheria toxoid concentrations \>=0.1 IU/mL is \>-10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.62|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of D, at one month after the third vaccination.||2.62|-1.69|
95868432|NCT00534313|191693404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.5|-2.5|
95868433|NCT00534313|191693404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.1||||||95.0|6.8|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||45.5|6.8|
95868434|NCT00534313|191693404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|16.6||||||95.0|-1.8|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and 95% CI was based on CMH with stratification of baseline BSA affected by psoriasis.|||34.9|-1.8|
95850954|NCT00467740|191661516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.0044||95.0|-0.552|-0.103|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.103|-0.552|0.0044
95868435|NCT00402233|191693405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.53|-2.26|||ANCOVA|||||-2.26|-6.53|<0.0001
95850955|NCT00467740|191661516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0158||95.0|-0.499|-0.052|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline, treatment, centre (centre random, all other effects fixed)|Olo 20 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.052|-0.499|0.0158
95850956|NCT03546621|191661606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||For each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups, a null hypothesis of no clinically significant difference in proportion of responders compared to the control group (Tenofovir only), at week 24, were tested using the one-sided Wald test for superiority, at a one-sided overall significance level of 0.05 adjusted for multiple testing according to Bonferroni-Holm, with the superiority limit (test margin) set to 5%.||||<.0001
95850957|NCT03546621|191661607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9818||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.9818
95850958|NCT03546621|191661607|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value as smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||1.0000
95850959|NCT03546621|191661607|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7132||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to test null hypothesis of no difference in the proportion of responders compared to the Tenofovir only group. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.7132
95850960|NCT03546621|191661608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0232||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.~This analysis, and presentation of descriptive statistics, was repeated for the subgroups of patients with normal/abnormal baseline ALT values."||||0.0232
95868436|NCT00402233|191693405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.54|-2.28|||ANCOVA|||||-2.28|-6.54|<0.0001
95850961|NCT03546621|191661608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0047
95850962|NCT03546621|191661608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computered using the Bonferroni-Holm method.||||0.0010
95868437|NCT00402233|191693405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-6.91|-2.52|||ANCOVA|||||-2.52|-6.91|<0.0001
95868438|NCT00402233|191693406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||||95.0|0.431|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.849|0.431|
95868439|NCT00402233|191693406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||||95.0|0.424|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.845|0.424|
95868440|NCT00402233|191693406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||||95.0|0.317|1.492|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.492|0.317|
95868441|NCT00402233|191693407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.014||95.0|0.23|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|0.23|0.014
95868442|NCT00402233|191693407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03||95.0|0.094|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|0.094|0.03
95868443|NCT00402233|191693407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49||||0.0019||95.0|0.56|2.43|||ANCOVA|||||2.43|0.56|0.0019
95868444|NCT00402233|191693408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.39||95.0|-1.82|0.71|||ANCOVA|||||0.71|-1.82|0.39
95868445|NCT00402233|191693408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.37||95.0|-1.84|0.69|||ANCOVA|||||0.69|-1.84|0.37
95868446|NCT00402233|191693408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.48||95.0|-1.78|0.84|||ANCOVA|||||0.84|-1.78|0.48
95964677|NCT00479882|191900717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||||Wilson's Score Method|Periods I/II||0.5|-0.9|
95964678|NCT00479882|191900718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||3.1|-1.1|0.341
95964679|NCT00479882|191900718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.1|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender.||||6.1|1.2|0.004
95964680|NCT00479882|191900719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||1.5|-2.3|0.690
95964681|NCT00479882|191900719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.2||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Factors for treatment, country and gender||||2.3|-1.9|0.879
95850963|NCT03546621|191661609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to week 24 and week 48 in ALT levels was performed using van Elteren tests.~Fisher's exact test was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference in proportions (of patients with normal ALT values) against a two-sided alternative hypothesis. Separate tests were performed for each of the three Myrcludex B treatment groups against the control group, at week 24 and week 48, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.1642
95850964|NCT03546621|191661609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
95850965|NCT03546621|191661609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428||||||A test is considered statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.0428
95850966|NCT03546621|191661609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Boferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
95850967|NCT03546621|191661609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7157||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.7157
95850968|NCT03546621|191661609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2388||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.2388
95850969|NCT03546621|191661610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.7416
95850970|NCT03546621|191661610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.4434
95850971|NCT03546621|191661610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7371||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||0.7371
95850972|NCT03546621|191661610|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850973|NCT03546621|191661610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9441||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||0.9441
95850974|NCT03546621|191661610|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850975|NCT03546621|191661611|SUPERIORITY||Bonferroni-Holm|||||0.5984||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. The change from baseline to Week 24 in HBsAg was performed using van Elteren tests. Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data.~Separare comparisons were made for each of the three Myrcludex B groups versus the control group, and the adjusted values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||0.5984
95850976|NCT03546621|191661611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7529||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.7529
95850977|NCT03546621|191661611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3305||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||0.3305
95850978|NCT03546621|191661611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850979|NCT03546621|191661611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850980|NCT03546621|191661611|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850981|NCT03546621|191661612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||"Week 24. Two-sided van Elteren tests, stratified by presence of cirrhosis, were used to test for differences compared to the control group.~Tests were performed on log-10 transformed data. Separate comparisons were made for each of the three MXB groups versus the control group, and adjusted p-values were computed using the Bonferroni-Holm method."||||1.0000
95850982|NCT03546621|191661612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24.||||1.0000
95850983|NCT03546621|191661612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 24||||1.0000
95850984|NCT03546621|191661612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850985|NCT03546621|191661612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850986|NCT03546621|191661612|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A test is considered as statistically significant if the adjusted p-value is smaller than 0.05.|Bonferroni-Holm|||Week 48||||1.0000
95850987|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.07||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.36|0.85|0.009
95850988|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.91||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|0.91|0.71|1.15||Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.15|0.71|0.009
95850989|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||ANOVA|Threshold for significance of p value was 0.05.||A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.07|0.67|0.009
96003139|NCT03621670|191984027|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with anti-tetanus toxoid concentrations \>=0.1 IU/mL is \>-5%.|Difference in percentage|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.3|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to DTaP-HBV-IPV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of T, at one month after the third vaccination.||2.30|-2.53|
96003140|NCT03621670|191984028|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with anti-PRP concentration \>=0.15 µg/mL is \>-5%.|Difference in percentage|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|3.32|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of Hib vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to Hib vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of Hib, at one month after the third vaccination.||3.32|-1.79|
96003141|NCT03621670|191984028|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the group differences in percentage of participants with anti-PRP concentration \>=1 µg/mL is \>-10%.|Difference in percentage|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|8.78|||||The 95% CI of the between MenB+PCV and Placebo+PCV group-difference has been derived using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of Hib vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to Hib vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13 without rMenB+OMV NZ, in terms of Hib, at one month after the third vaccination.||8.78|-2.63|
96003142|NCT03621670|191984029|NON_INFERIORITY|"The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \> 0.67 for the antigen Measles."|Group GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of MMR vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to MMR vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13, without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after fourth vaccination.||1.17|0.86|
96003143|NCT03621670|191984030|NON_INFERIORITY|"The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \> 0.67 for the antigen Mumps."|Group GMC Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of MMR vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ and PCV13 compared to MMR vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13, without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after fourth vaccination.||1.02|0.74|
95850990|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|2.03||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.64||Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.|ANOVA|||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||2.64|1.56|0.065
95868447|NCT01894568|191693427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|0.4% is the margin of Non-inferiority|LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.41|0.005
95850991|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|1.63||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.11|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||2.11|1.26|0.065
96003144|NCT03621670|191984031|NON_INFERIORITY|"The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \> 0.67 for the antigen Rubella."|Group GMC Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of MMR vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ, VV and PCV13 compared to MMR vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13, without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after fourth vaccination.||1.22|0.93|
95850992|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.04|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.04|0.62|0.065
95850993|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. B falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.88||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot B||1.13|0.69|0.011
96003145|NCT03621670|191984032|NON_INFERIORITY|"The NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the between-group GMC ratio is \> 0.67 for the antigen VZV gE."|Group GMC Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||GMCs and alpha-adjusted CIs were derived by exponentiating (base 10) the least squares means and 95% CI of log10-transformed antibody concentrations from a two-way ANOVA, accounting for vaccine-group and center effects.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of VV vaccine when administered concomitantly with rMenB+OMV NZ, MMR and PCV13 compared to VV vaccine concomitantly administered with PCV13, without rMenB+OMV NZ, at one month after fourth vaccination.||1.19|0.95|
96003146|NCT02513394|191984046|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Log Rank||This two sided p value was stratified by (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs no) and age (\<=50 vs \>50).|||1.14|0.81|0.65
96003147|NCT02513394|191984047|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||||||||1.19|0.82|
96003148|NCT02513394|191984048|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.28||||||||1.28|0.87|
96003149|NCT02513394|191984049|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78||||||||1.78|0.98|
96003150|NCT02513394|191984050|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.23||||||||1.23|0.57|
96003151|NCT04779697|191984051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
96003152|NCT04779697|191984052|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.27
96003153|NCT04779697|191984053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.043|||||||ANOVA|Model includes a gender interaction term.||||||< 0.043
96003154|NCT04779697|191984054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.015|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.015
96003155|NCT04779697|191984055|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.53
96003156|NCT04779697|191984056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
96003157|NCT03365882|191984057|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.43|0.44
96003158|NCT03365882|191984059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
96003159|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Age covariate effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.2|-0.1|0.74
95850994|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot A vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.09|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.09|0.65|0.011
95850995|NCT00539981|191661623|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between 2 lots for each strain was concluded if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs for Lot B vs. C falls within 0.67 to 1.5.|GMT ratio|0.96||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|Threshold of significance for p value was 0.05.||B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot C||1.23|0.75|0.011
95850996|NCT00539981|191661624|SUPERIORITY|Relative protective efficacy is equivalent to absolute efficacy which is defined as the reduction in the influenza rate for Flublok relative to placebo.|Relative protective efficacy|75.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|99.5||||||FluBlok versus Placebo||99.5|-148.0|
95850997|NCT00591006|191661646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95868448|NCT04545944|191693451|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|192.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|152.8|242.4||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||242.4|152.8|
95868449|NCT04545944|191693452|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|188.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.6|236.9||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||236.9|150.6|
96003160|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||P value: For the categorical variable with more than 2 levels, this is the p value from the overall test of the null hypothesis that all estimates are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Baseline COST effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||-0.3|-0.6|<0.001
96003161|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.002||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all cancer types (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"Cancer type (Colon cancer, Rectal cancer and Rectosigmoid) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.002
95850998|NCT00591006|191661646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.12
96003162|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||"FACT-G7 effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||0.6|0.0|0.03
96003163|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|1.6||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Gender effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||3.7|-0.5|0.13
96003164|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence||||||0.91||||||This is the p value of the null hypothesis that COST estimates for all RACES (White, Black, other) are equal against the alternative that at least one is different.|Regression, Linear|||"RACE (White. Black Other) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Null: All estimates are equal"||||0.91
96003165|NCT03516942|191984064|EQUIVALENCE|No margin of equivalence|Slope|0.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||"Neighborhood Deprivation (NDI) effect on change in COST The linear (non-longitudinal) model of \[change in COST from baseline to 12-month follow-up\] included covariates for: age, Baseline COST score, cancer stage, cancer type, chemotherapy, comorbidities, education, FACT-G7, gender, income, marital status, insurance status, race, safety-net hospital, self-efficacy, NDI.~Higher NDI = greater neighborhood deprivation"||0.3|-0.3|>0.99
96003166|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.4142||||||alpha=0.05|McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.4142
96003167|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.1797|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.1797
96003168|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.8415|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.8415
95850999|NCT00591006|191661646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.15
95851000|NCT00591006|191661646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.10
95851001|NCT00591006|191661647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
95851002|NCT00591006|191661647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
95964682|NCT00790205|191900770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.09|0.88|<0.001
95851003|NCT00591006|191661647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
95851004|NCT00591006|191661647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
95851005|NCT00591006|191661648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
95851006|NCT00591006|191661648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.01
95851007|NCT00591006|191661648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.11
95851008|NCT00591006|191661648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
95851009|NCT02898454|191661649|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.03|<0.0001
95851010|NCT02898454|191661650|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.51|||ANCOVA|||Data was analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.51|-2.10|<0.0001
95868450|NCT04545944|191693453|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|193.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|233.1||||||A linear mixed model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed values to assess the effect of vonoprazan on the PK of midazolam.||233.1|160.5|
95964683|NCT00790205|191900771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.08|0.89|<0.001
95851011|NCT02898454|191661651|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 52 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-4.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-4.46|-5.80|<0.0001
95868451|NCT00223236|191693466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4637|||||||Chi-squared|df=1 n=34||Null hypothsis is no group association in cocaine use.||||.4637
95868452|NCT03036800|191693472|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|12.88|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.88|2.09|<0.001
95964684|NCT00790205|191900772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.11|0.89|<0.001
95964685|NCT00790205|191900773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: the between-treatment difference in time to the first primary composite CV outcome measure was assessed by the hazard ratio between the sitagliptin and placebo groups. The confidence interval for the hazard ratio was computed and compared to 1.30, the non-inferiority margin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||1.10|0.89|<0.001
95964686|NCT00790205|191900774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.24|0.91|0.435
95964687|NCT00790205|191900775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in mortality due to all causes was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.14|0.90|0.875
95964688|NCT00790205|191900776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.19|0.81|0.858
95964689|NCT00790205|191900777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group and history of CHF at baseline as explanatory variables.||Hazard Ratio of Sitagliptin/Placebo: The between-treatment difference in CHF cases requiring hospitalization was assessed by the hazard ratio between the Sitagliptin and Placebo groups.||1.20|0.83|0.983
95868453|NCT03036800|191693473|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|14.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.4|2.45|<0.001
95868454|NCT03036800|191693474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|14.01|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.01|1.81|0.002
95868455|NCT03036800|191693475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|14.64|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.64|1.88|0.002
95868456|NCT03036800|191693492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|19.48|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||19.48|5.26|<0.001
95868457|NCT03036800|191693493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|9.36|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||9.36|2.86|<0.001
95868458|NCT03036800|191693494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.22|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||7.22|2.39|<0.001
95868459|NCT03036800|191693495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.84|1.23|0.010
95964690|NCT00790205|191900784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.61|<0.001
95964691|NCT00790205|191900785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.79|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.79|0.63|<0.001
95964692|NCT00790205|191900786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.75|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.75|0.65|<0.001
95964693|NCT00790205|191900787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.77|||Cox proportional hazards model|Model stratified by region with treatment group only as explanatory variable.||||0.77|0.68|<0.001
95868460|NCT03036800|191693496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|12.39|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.39|2.14|<0.001
95868461|NCT03036800|191693497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|12.86|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||12.86|3.32|<0.001
95868462|NCT03036800|191693498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|17.16|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 52 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||17.16|3.80|<0.001
95868463|NCT03036800|191693499|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||5.47|0.95|0.065
95964694|NCT01993849|191900791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.59||The p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.59|-3.81|0.69
95964695|NCT03443414|191900796|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.21|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.210|0.069|<0.001
95964696|NCT03443414|191900796|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.27|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.270|0.131|<0.001
96003169|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.6831|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 6 Months||||0.6831
96003170|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
96003171|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0455|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0455
96003172|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 12 Months||||<.0001
96003173|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0164|||||||McNemar|||3 Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 12 Months||||0.0164
96003174|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|nomargin||||||0.0027|||||||McNemar|||Work Time Missed from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0027
96003175|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0124|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities at Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0124
96003176|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin|||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Overall Work Impairment from Baseline to 24 Months||||<.0001
96003177|NCT03516942|191984066|EQUIVALENCE|no margin||||||0.0011|||||||McNemar|||Impairment of Activities Outside of Work from Baseline to 24 Months||||0.0011
95868464|NCT03036800|191693500|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|14.34|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||14.34|0.56|0.206
96003178|NCT03516942|191984072|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was assumed||||||0.017|||||||McNemar|||the McNemar test was used to compare the results assuming a null of no difference.||||0.017
96003179|NCT05099159|191984073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) means|-3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.68||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-1.68|-4.40|< 0.0001
96003180|NCT05099159|191984074|SUPERIORITY||LS-means|-3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.88||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-1.88|-4.60|< 0.0001
96003181|NCT05099159|191984075|SUPERIORITY||LS-means|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.09||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.09|-0.34|0.0003
96003182|NCT05099159|191984076|SUPERIORITY||LS-means|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.14||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.14|-0.44|<0.0001
96003183|NCT05099159|191984077|SUPERIORITY||LS-means|-1.66||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.58||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.58|-2.73|0.0013
96003184|NCT05099159|191984079|SUPERIORITY||LS-means|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-2.86||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-2.86|-5.77|<0.0001
96003185|NCT05099159|191984080|SUPERIORITY||LS-means|-0.3|||=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.07||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the graphical approach, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.53|=0.0059
96003186|NCT04497844|191984083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.717||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||0.717|0.370|<0.0001
96003187|NCT04497844|191984084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|0.774||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Log Rank|||||0.774|0.421|=0.0003
96003188|NCT04497844|191984085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.625|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.799||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.02475.|Log Rank|||||0.799|0.490|=0.0001
96003189|NCT04497844|191984086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.681||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.03426.|Log Rank|||||0.681|0.290|=0.0001
96003190|NCT04497844|191984087|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.495|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.738||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.02977.|Log Rank|||||0.738|0.332|=0.0004
96003191|NCT04497844|191984088|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.695||The priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.03207.|Log Rank|||||0.695|0.364|<0.0001
96003192|NCT03451851|191984093|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|69.4|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||69.4|25.9|<0.001
96003193|NCT03451851|191984094|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|74.0|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||74.0|32.1|<0.001
96003194|NCT03451851|191984095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.1|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|61.3|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||61.3|15.6|=0.003
96003195|NCT03451851|191984096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|56.8|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.8|10.5|=0.004
96003196|NCT03451851|191984097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|25.0|9.7|56.1|||Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||56.1|9.7|=0.002
96003197|NCT03451851|191984098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-3.06|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-3.06|-7.33|<0.001
96003198|NCT03451851|191984104|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|77.6||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||77.6|36.9|<0.001
96003199|NCT03451851|191984112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|67.3||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||||67.3|21.9|=0.002
96003200|NCT03451851|191984114|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|23.1|||=|0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|47.0||p-value is nominal|Fisher Exact|P-values represented the comparisons with placebo and were based on the Fisher's exact test stratified by age group and region (pooled).||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||47.0|-3.4|=0.139
96003201|NCT03451851|191984116|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.87||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-2.87|-8.00|<0.001
96003202|NCT03451851|191984118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|-9.28||p-value is nominal|MMRM model|||Guselkumab Vs Placebo||-9.28|-20.28|<0.001
96003203|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.100
96003204|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.032
96003205|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to assessment of 10 pairwise differences for each load."||||0.024
95868465|NCT03036800|191693501|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥32% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||8.90|1.17|0.023
96003206|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to assessment of 10 pairwise differences for each load."||||.046
96003207|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.180
96003208|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with prosthetic side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.076
96003209|NCT07159490|191984153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with intact side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.210
96003210|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.011
96003211|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.048
96003212|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.027
96003213|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.036
96003214|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.044
96003215|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.020
96003216|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||0.0085
96003217|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with prosthetic side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.062
96003218|NCT07159490|191984154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with intact side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.045
95851012|NCT02898454|191661652|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-2.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.02|-2.87|<0.0001
95868466|NCT03036800|191693502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|18.93|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||18.93|0.89|0.070
95964697|NCT03443414|191900796|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.222|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.222|0.083|<0.001
95964698|NCT03443414|191900796|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.216|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.216|0.075|<0.001
95964699|NCT03443414|191900797|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.002|||=|0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo).||0.065|-0.061|=0.953
95964700|NCT03443414|191900797|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.068|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.13|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo).||0.130|0.006|=0.032
95964701|NCT03443414|191900797|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.009|||=|0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.072|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo).||0.072|-0.053|=0.773
95964702|NCT03443414|191900797|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.035|||=|0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.099|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo).||0.099|-0.028|=0.272
95964703|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.087|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.129|0.045|<0.001
95964704|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.137|0.053|<0.001
95964705|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.07|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.112|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.112|0.028|=0.001
95964706|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.122|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Day 1.||0.122|0.038|<0.001
95964707|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.065|||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.129|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 6.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.129|0.001|=0.048
95964708|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.119|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.183|||LS mean difference|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 3.0 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.183|0.055|<0.001
95964709|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.085|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.149|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 1.5 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.149|0.022|=0.008
95868467|NCT03036800|191693503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
95868468|NCT03036800|191693504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|-3.4|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.4|-5.85|<0.001
95868469|NCT03036800|191693505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-4.02|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.02|-7.76|<0.001
95868470|NCT03036800|191693506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-4.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.71|-9.03|<0.001
95868471|NCT03036800|191693507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|-2.53|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute weight change (kg) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.53|-8.34|<0.001
95868472|NCT03036800|191693508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.80|-4.63|<0.001
95868473|NCT03036800|191693509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-3.25|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.25|-6.14|<0.001
95868474|NCT03036800|191693510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-3.71|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-3.71|-7.02|<0.001
95868475|NCT03036800|191693511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.77|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.77|-6.42|0.001
95868476|NCT03036800|191693512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.91|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.91|-3.5|<0.001
96003219|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||<0.010
96003220|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.0075
95868477|NCT03036800|191693513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.86|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.86|-2.91|<0.001
95868478|NCT03036800|191693514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.28||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|-0.8|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-0.80|-5.77|0.01
96003221|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||7e-05|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.00007
95868479|NCT03036800|191693515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|-1.94|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-1.94|-9.09|0.003
96003222|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.032
96003223|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no added load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.044
96003224|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.690
96003225|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with prosthetic side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.036
95868480|NCT03036800|191693535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|28.97|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥5% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||28.97|3.83|<0.001
95868481|NCT03036800|191693536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.55|70.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||70.67|7.55|<0.001
95868482|NCT03036800|191693539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|21.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥10% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||21.60|2.75|<0.001
95851013|NCT02898454|191661653|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.98|12.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.07|8.98|<0.0001
95851014|NCT02898454|191661654|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.81||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.81|-1.15|<0.0001
95851015|NCT02898454|191661655|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.87|-13.85||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline value, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-13.85|-20.87|<0.0001
95851016|NCT02898454|191661656|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-1.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.83|-2.59|<0.0001
95851017|NCT02898454|191661656|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-2.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.03|-2.78|<0.0001
95851018|NCT02898454|191661657|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.92|-1.30|<0.0001
95868483|NCT03036800|191693540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|32.32|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 16 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||32.32|1.16|0.032
95868484|NCT03036800|191693541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|34.67|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 32 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||34.67|3.80|<0.001
95868485|NCT03036800|191693543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.63||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|75.09|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of weight loss of ≥15% from baseline at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||75.09|2.47|0.003
96003226|NCT07159490|191984155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with intact side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||0.400
96003227|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with no load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.079
96003228|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||<0.010
95851019|NCT02898454|191661657|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.80|-1.18|<0.0001
95851020|NCT02898454|191661658|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.45|-17.27||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w then q4w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.27|-25.45|<0.0001
95851021|NCT02898454|191661658|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|-16.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs. Placebo|Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-16.65|-24.81|<0.0001
95868486|NCT03036800|191693544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression with a binary outcome of maintenance of weight loss of ≥15% at 104 weeks was fitted. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||4.24|0.08|0.601
95868487|NCT03036800|191693545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-5.29|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 16 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.29|-7.81|<0.001
95964710|NCT03443414|191900798|OTHER|A fixed-sequence testing approach was used, starting with the highest dose versus placebo. If a statistically significant difference was found at the 2-sided alpha level of 5%, the testing proceeded to the next highest dose.|LS mean difference|0.072|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.137|||MMRM|||Placebo-corrected treatment effect: LS mean difference (RPL554 0.75 mg - Placebo) at Week 4.||0.137|0.008|=0.028
95964711|NCT02103114|191900804|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.982|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
95964712|NCT02103114|191900804|EQUIVALENCE|T2 (30 minutes after study drug)|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95964713|NCT02103114|191900804|EQUIVALENCE|T3 (30 minutes on CPB)||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95964714|NCT02103114|191900804|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95964715|NCT02103114|191900804|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.840
95964716|NCT02103114|191900804|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.475|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.475
95964717|NCT02103114|191900805|EQUIVALENCE|T4 (just prior to coming off of CPB)||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
95964718|NCT02103114|191900806|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline)||||||0.855|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.855
95964719|NCT02103114|191900806|EQUIVALENCE|T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
95964720|NCT02103114|191900806|EQUIVALENCE|T6 (POD 2)||||||0.313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
95964721|NCT02103114|191900806|EQUIVALENCE|T7 (POD 4)||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95964722|NCT02103114|191900809|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
95964723|NCT02103114|191900810|EQUIVALENCE|T1 (Baseline) to T5 (Arrival in ICU)||||||0.545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.545
95964724|NCT02103114|191900812|EQUIVALENCE|Baseline (intraoperatively) (Time 1) to before termination of bypass (Time 4)||||||0.757|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.757
95964725|NCT02103114|191900815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Fresh Frozen Plasma exposures||||||0.2741
95964726|NCT02103114|191900815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0351|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Platelet exposures||||||0.0351
95964727|NCT02103114|191900815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Cryoprecipitate exposures||||||0.073
95964728|NCT02103114|191900815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|24 hour postop Red Blood Cell exposures||||||0.0196
95964729|NCT02103114|191900816|EQUIVALENCE|protamine time plus 24 hours||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95964730|NCT02103114|191900818|EQUIVALENCE|24 Hours Post-Operatively||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
95964731|NCT02103114|191900819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.927
95964732|NCT02103114|191900820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.738
95964733|NCT02103114|191900821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.231
95964734|NCT02103114|191900822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.661|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.661
95964735|NCT02103114|191900824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95964736|NCT02103114|191900825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.342|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.342
95964737|NCT02103114|191900826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.961
95964738|NCT03933462|191900827|SUPERIORITY|"Categorical preference endpoints that answered at the final visit (e.g., Which device do you prefer?) were analyzed with a One-sample Binomial Test that compared the observed proportion to a 50/50 split."|||||<|0.001|||||||One Sample Binomial|||||||<0.001
95964739|NCT04547023|191900849|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|30.1|||Fisher Exact|||||30.1|7.2|0.002
95851022|NCT03062358|191661721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.99|0.63|0.0180
95851023|NCT03062358|191661722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.92|0.60|0.0032
95851024|NCT03062358|191661723|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|16.0|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. \>= 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|16.0|6.7|0.00004
95851025|NCT03062358|191661725|OTHER||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.13281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Difference in % vs Placebo|Difference in % vs Placebo|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|14.8|-4.1|0.13281
95851026|NCT03062358|191661726|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||Log-rank test|One-sided p-value|Stratified by macrovascular invasion, α-Fetoprotein and region with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||Stratified by macrovascular invasion (Yes vs. No), α-Fetoprotein (ng/mL) (\< 200 vs. ≥ 200) and region (China vs. ex-China) with all cells that correspond to macrovascular invasion=Yes combined.|0.90|0.58|0.0019
95851027|NCT02649556|191661729|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|3.65||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of HDL-C levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|3.65|-0.160|
95851028|NCT02649556|191661730|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.413|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.694|-0.131||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of White Blood Cell counts between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|-0.131|-0.694|
95851029|NCT02649556|191661731|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|2.17||||||"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of LS Mean difference of FEV1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on original values with visit, baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|2.17|-0.339|
95964740|NCT05032066|191900962|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|1.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||1.29|-3.56|0.4388
95964741|NCT05032066|191900962|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.493||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|2.09|||MMRM|||The primary analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using observed change in FVC % predicted values from all planned post-baseline assessments (Weeks 4, 16, 28, 40 and 52) with covariates of treatment group (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), prior use of IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\], visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||2.09|-2.86|0.7959
96003229|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||0.012
96003230|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with posterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.028
96003231|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||<0.010
96003232|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.0094
95851030|NCT02649556|191661732|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0231|6.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of sICAM-1 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|6.10|0.0231|
95853838|NCT02485691|191666761|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0003||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
96003233|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.0025
96003234|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with anterior load:~Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was carried out using Tukey's method to account for the inflation of the Type 1 error due to multiple testing."||||.018
96003235|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with prosthetic side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.300
96003236|NCT07159490|191984156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Walking with intact side load:~Hypothesis testing for the overall association between outcome and foot type was carried out using conditional F-tests for each load type."||||.130
96003237|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for the overall association between foot and outcome variables was performed using conditional F-tests for each load.||||.0033
95853839|NCT02485691|191666762|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.||||||0.0004||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by ECOG performance status, time from AR-targeted agent initiation to progression, timing of AR-targeted agent as specified at the time of randomization. Significance threshold = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
96003238|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||.0001
95853840|NCT05737069|191666813|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9698|1.0327||||||||1.0327|0.9698|
95853841|NCT05737069|191666814|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.0346||||||||1.0346|0.9710|
95853842|NCT05737069|191666815|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9383|1.0288||||||||1.0288|0.9383|
95853843|NCT05737069|191666816|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC(0-t) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9755|1.0081||||||||1.0081|0.9755|
95853844|NCT05737069|191666817|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for AUC (0-inf) were contained within the acceptance interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9432|1.0133||||||||1.0133|0.9432|
95853845|NCT05737069|191666818|EQUIVALENCE|The two products were considered to be bioequivalent if 90% CIs for the GMR (Test/Reference) for Cmax were contained within the interval of 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9431|1.0567||||||||1.0567|0.9431|
95853846|NCT04314284|191666875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.15
95853847|NCT04314284|191666876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.35
95853848|NCT04314284|191666877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
95853849|NCT04314284|191666881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
95853850|NCT04314284|191666882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.52
95853851|NCT04314284|191666883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95853852|NCT04314284|191666886|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95853853|NCT04314284|191666887|OTHER|2-sided||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95853854|NCT04314284|191666889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
95853855|NCT04966013|191666899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.005||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.408|||Regression, Cox|||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified||1.408|0.717|0.9784
95853856|NCT04966013|191666900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.388||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.887|2.172||Log Rank Test and Cox PH Regression analyses were performed unstratified|Regression, Cox|||||2.172|0.887|0.1512
95853857|NCT02711891|191666928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||0.8
95851031|NCT02649556|191661733|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|14.3|||||Derived as 100 x (1-Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 11-DTXB2 levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|14.3|-8.74|
95851032|NCT02649556|191661734|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|7.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|14.7|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of 8-epi-PGF2α levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|14.7|-1.03|
95851033|NCT02649556|191661735|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|54.8|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of Total NNAL levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect|54.8|36.2|
95851034|NCT02649556|191661736|OTHER||% Relative Reduction|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|39.1|||||Derived as 100 x (1 - Geometric LS Mean Ratio)|"The analysis will determine the effect of THS 2.2 compared to CC at Month 12 on the components of the smokers' health profile. This study has no formal pre-specified hypotheses associated with the study objectives. Estimates of THS 2.2 effect will be presented by mean of relative reduction of COHb levels between CC and THS 2.2 and related 95% CI."|Mixed model conducted on log-transformed values with visit, log-transformed baseline value and its interaction with visit, sex, Caucasian origin, product use pattern category and its interaction with visit, and other baseline covariates relevant for the specific clinical risk endpoint as fixed effect factors and site as a random effect.|39.1|23.3|
95851035|NCT02994108|191661737|SUPERIORITY||Chi-Square|0.415||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.601
95851036|NCT02994108|191661738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.249
95851037|NCT02994108|191661739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.675
95851038|NCT02994108|191661740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|10.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.08|1.17|.025
95851039|NCT02994108|191661741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|16.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.95|0.08|.923
95851040|NCT02994108|191661742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.174
95851041|NCT02994108|191661743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
95851042|NCT02994108|191661744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.964
95868488|NCT03036800|191693546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-7.88|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 32 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-7.88|-11.30|<0.001
95868489|NCT03036800|191693547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-11.51|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-11.51|-15.51|<0.001
95851043|NCT02994108|191661745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
95851044|NCT02994108|191661746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.183
95868490|NCT03036800|191693548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|-6.26|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of relative weight change (%) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-6.26|-12.35|<0.001
95851045|NCT02994108|191661747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.064
95851046|NCT02994108|191661748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.147
95851047|NCT02994108|191661749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.096
95851048|NCT02994108|191661750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
95851049|NCT01183689|191661751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.41||No interim analyses were conducted. Pairwise differences among the three arms were assessed with a 2 degree of freedom Wald Test.|Mixed Models Analysis||Above is provided the mean difference between Arms 1 and 2.|Mean changes from random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences among groups over time.||1.41|0.23|<0.05
95851050|NCT01183689|191661751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|This was fitted with Proc Mixed in SAS.|95% confidence interval excludes 0|Mean changes from a random effects model applied to repeated measures to compute the average differences between groups over time. This entry is for the comparison between groups 1 and 3.||3.22|2.05|<0.05
96003239|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
96003240|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||.012
96003241|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||.0036
96003242|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||.03
96003243|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with no added load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||.022
96003244|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for the overall association between foot and outcome variables was performed using conditional F-tests for each load.||||0.0009
96003245|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
95853858|NCT02711891|191666928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Paired Sample T-test|||||||.003
95853859|NCT02711891|191666928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95853860|NCT02711891|191666930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
95853861|NCT02711891|191666930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
95853862|NCT02711891|191666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.876||||||Comparison of mean BPM during lance procedure for L1 vs L2 Loperamide.|t-test, 1 sided|||The population BPM lance one = population BPM mean lance two. Loperamide 1= Loperamide 2. Placebo 1=Placebo 2.||||.876
95853863|NCT02711891|191666932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.085||||||Comparison of the mean between HR one and HR two during the procedure for lance one will equal the mean HR lance two following loperamide gel application.|ANOVA|df 16.||Mean HR during the procedure for lance one will equal mean HR lance two following loperamide gel applciation||||.085
95853864|NCT02121535|191666992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|101.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.94|105.08|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||105.08|98.94|
95853865|NCT02121535|191666993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|103.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|110.99|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||110.99|97.03|
95853866|NCT02121535|191666994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|103.8|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||103.80|96.80|
95853867|NCT02121535|191666995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|100.93|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.93|97.94|
95853868|NCT02121535|191666996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.08|100.94|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||100.94|98.08|
95853869|NCT02121535|191666997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|100.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.45|101.72|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||101.72|98.45|
95853870|NCT02121535|191666998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the Cmax were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|110.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.87|113.54|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of Cmax was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||113.54|106.87|
95853871|NCT02121535|191666999|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-tz were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.53|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0-tz was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.53|
95853872|NCT02121535|191667000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To determine whether the 2-sided 90% CI for the intra-subject ratio of the AUC0-∞ were contained in the acceptance range of 80% to 125% for bioequivalence.|Adjusted Mean Ratio|104.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.68|106.1|||||Adjusted Mean Ratio (Test/Reference)|The statistical model used for the analysis of AUC0--∞ was a mixed effect model on the logarithmic scale.||106.10|102.68|
95851051|NCT01183689|191661752|OTHER|Generalized Estimating Equations|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the average percent of weight gainers over time among the three groups. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in these average percentages. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 at each visit depending on their weight gain status. The percentages were summarized with odds ratios for weight gain over time.||1.90|1.02|<0.05
95851052|NCT01183689|191661752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|3.19|||generalized estimating equations|||This is a parallel analysis, comparing groups 1 and 3, using generalized estimating equations to summarize the odds ratio for weight gain in group 1 versus group 3,||3.19|1.64|<0.05
95851053|NCT01183689|191661753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on a 2 degree of freedom Wald test within the mixed effect model to test for pairwise differences among the 3 arms.|Listed above is the mean difference between arms 1 and 2|Mean differences at 2 years are calculated from a linear contrast within a mixed effects model. Note that this comparison is between Groups 1 and 2.||2.24|0.39|<0.05
95851054|NCT01183689|191661753|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|A linear contrast was used to compare groups 1 and 3 at 24 months.||A linear contrast from a mixed effects model was used to compare mean differences at 24 months between groups 1 and 3.||2.98|1.11|<0.05
95851055|NCT01183689|191661754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.99||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.92||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for pairwise difference among the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to assess mean differences in changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure. This analysis compares groups 1 and 2.||3.92|0.06|0.13
95851056|NCT01183689|191661754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.93||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|2.84|||ANOVA|||Mean differences in systolic blood pressure between groups 1 and 3 over time.||2.84|-0.98|0.13
95851057|NCT01183689|191661755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to compare mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean differences from baseline to 2 years were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.14|0.32|0.06
95851058|NCT01183689|191661755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.33||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom omnibus test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years in diastolic blood pressure.||2.33|-0.49|0.06
95851059|NCT01183689|191661756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|3.52||The p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years were compared between Groups 1 and 2.||3.52|-6.12|0.73
95851060|NCT01183689|191661756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|0.58||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in total cholesterol changes from baseline among groups.||0.58|-4.36|0.73
95851061|NCT01183689|191661757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.52||The p-value is a 2 degree of freedom test from the generalized estimating equations analysis applied to the longitudinal binary data among the 3 study arms.|generalized estimating equations|||The average percentage of participants who were obese across follow-up were compared among the 3 arms using a generalized estimating equations approach for repeated binary measures. Participants were assigned values of 0 or 1 depending on their obesity status at each exam. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.52|1.23|<0.001
95964742|NCT05032066|191900964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.417|1.75|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||1.750|0.417|0.7179
95964743|NCT05032066|191900964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.236|0.934|||Stratified logistic regression|||The percentage of participants with a decrease in FVC% predicted ≥10% from baseline at Week 52 were analyzed with observed data using a stratified logistic regression model. Baseline value and treatment were considered as factors in the model and prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\], FVC% predicted at baseline \[≥ 70, \<70\] were considered as stratification factors.||0.934|0.236|0.0706
96003246|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
96003247|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
95851062|NCT01183689|191661757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.1||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|generalized estimating equations|||Generalized estimating equations were used. Differences were summarized with odds ratios.||4.10|1.12|0.008
95851063|NCT01183689|191661758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.45||the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|the p-value results from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to assess pairwise differences among the 3 groups||Mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups were assessed using a 2 degree of freedom F-test||0.45|-0.61|0.002
95851064|NCT01183689|191661758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among all 3 groups|ANOVA|||Differences among the 3 groups were based on analyses of variance.||1.08|0.02|0.002
95964744|NCT05032066|191900965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|16.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.109||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|46.73|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||46.73|-13.30|0.3579
96003248|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
95851065|NCT01183689|191661759|SUPERIORITY|A 2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA was used to compare mean differences in changes among the 3 arms of the study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.38||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.|ANOVA|The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test to assess differences among the 3 arms of the study.||Changes in units of the scale from baseline to 2 years||-0.38|-1.32|<0.001
95851066|NCT01183689|191661759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||0.37|-0.57|<0.001
95851067|NCT01183689|191661760|SUPERIORITY|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.71||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study, not adjusted for multiple comparisons among endpoints|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences from baseline among the 3 arms of the study||0.71|-0.31|<0.001
95851068|NCT01183689|191661760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.39||This p-value is from a 2 degree freedom test of differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 groups.||1.39|0.37|0.002
95851069|NCT01183689|191661761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.45||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare mean differences among arms||2 degree F-test from analysis of variance applied to 2 year changes in scores from baseline||0.45|-0.71|<0.001
95851070|NCT01183689|191661761|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.98||This p-value is from the omnibus 2 degree of freedom test for mean differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||1.98|0.82|<0.001
95851071|NCT01183689|191661762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|2 degree of freedom test from analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare 2 year differences in general health index values among the 3 arms||0.09|-0.24|0.24
95851072|NCT01183689|191661762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02||This p-value is from the 2 degree of freedom test of differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the three arms.||0.02|-0.32|0.24
95868491|NCT03036800|191693549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-5.28|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.28|-7.03|<0.001
95851073|NCT01183689|191661763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.81||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms using analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean differences between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||3.81|-0.77|0.16
95851074|NCT01183689|191661763|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.51||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F test.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compared mean differences among the 3 groups.||4.51|-0.09|0.16
95851075|NCT01183689|191661764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.23||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance.|ANOVA|||Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||4.23|-3.89|0.75
95868492|NCT03036800|191693550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.89|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute BMI change (kg/m2) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-2.89|-5.56|<0.001
95964745|NCT05032066|191900965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.173||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.35|28.88|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\], as used in IRT randomization), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||28.88|-31.35|0.9460
95964746|NCT05032066|191900966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.6091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|2.6|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.6|-5.0|0.6091
96003249|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.03
96003250|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with anterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.015
95851076|NCT01183689|191661764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|5.49||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test.|ANOVA||No significant differences between groups 1 and 3.|Analysis of variance was used to compare mean changes among the 3 groups.||5.49|-2.61|0.75
95851077|NCT01183689|191661765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.28||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare the 3 arms within an analysis of variance.|ANOVA||No significant difference between groups 1 and 2.|Mean changes from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were compared using analysis of variance.||0.28|-2.44|0.05
95851078|NCT01183689|191661765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.32||This p-value is from an F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.32|-3.00|0.05
95851079|NCT01183689|191661766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.45||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA|||Mean changes between baseline and year 2 were compared among the 3 arms using analysis of variance.||0.45|-1.37|0.03
95851080|NCT01183689|191661766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.3||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.30|-2.11|0.03
95851081|NCT01183689|191661767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test from an analysis of variance to assess mean differences among the 3 arms.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 2 includes 0.|Mean differences from baseline to year 2 among the 3 arms were assessed using analysis of variance.||3.00|-0.84|0.20
95851082|NCT01183689|191661767|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.35||This p-value is from an analysis of variance comparing all 3 groups.|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 includes 0.|Analysis of variance was used to compare differences among the 3 groups.||1.35|-1.45|0.20
95851083|NCT01183689|191661768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.1||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance, with no adjustment for multiple outcomes|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean 2 year differences among 3 arms||0.10|-0.34|0.02
95851084|NCT01183689|191661768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.08||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom test for differences among the 3 groups.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to compare mean differences in changes from baseline to 2 years among the 3 groups.||-0.08|-0.52|0.02
95851085|NCT01183689|191661769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|60.0||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare 3 arms with respect to 2-year changes in kilocalories|ANOVA|||2 degree of freedom F-test to compare mean differences among 3 arms in changes in kilocalories from baseline to year 2||60|-164|0.58
95851086|NCT01183689|191661769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.0|61.0||This p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test to compare differences among the 3 groups|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance was used to assess mean differences in 2 year changes in kilocalories intake among the 3 groups.||61|-162|0.58
95851087|NCT01183689|191661770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.02||2 degree of freedom F-test from analysis of variance to compare changes in waist circumference from baseline among the three arms|ANOVA|No adjustment to degrees of freedom|Difference between groups 1 and 2: 95% confidence interval includes 0|2 degree of freedom F-test from ANOVA to compare differences among 3 arms||0.02|-2.55|0.001
95964747|NCT05032066|191900966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9|2.7|||MMRM|||Estimated from a MMRM with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included treatment group, time point, treatment by timepoint interaction, and stratification factors as covariates.||2.7|-4.9|0.6374
95851088|NCT01183689|191661770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-1.14||The p-value is from a 2 degree of freedom F-test for differences among the 3 arms|ANOVA||The 95% confidence interval for differences between groups 1 and 3 does not include 0.|Mean change in waist girth from baseline to year 2||-1.14|-3.69|0.001
95851089|NCT01183689|191661771|SUPERIORITY|Chi-squared test to compare the percentage of participants reporting self-weighing more than once per week among the 3 arms.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.02||This is based on a 2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio test to compare differences among the 3 arms.|Regression, Logistic||The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing the rates of self-weighing at year 2 between groups 1 and 2 excludes 0.|Logistic regression to compare differences among the 3 groups||3.02|1.04|0.004
95851090|NCT01183689|191661771|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.94||2 degree of freedom likelihood ratio statistic to compare differences among the 3 arms|Regression, Logistic|No adjustments|The 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio comparing groups 1 and 3 excludes 0.|Logistic regression analysis was used to compare the rates of daily self-weighing at 2 years among the 3 groups.||3.94|1.40|0.004
95851091|NCT03224130|191661776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.21
95851092|NCT03224130|191661777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.31
95851093|NCT03224130|191661778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.24
95851094|NCT03224130|191661779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
95851095|NCT03224130|191661780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.50
95851096|NCT03224130|191661781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
95851097|NCT03224130|191661782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.92
95851098|NCT02535481|191661828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||At 6 weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.366
95964748|NCT05032066|191900967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|8.3|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||8.3|-0.6|0.1526
95851099|NCT02535481|191661828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||At 3 months|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95851100|NCT02535481|191661829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier analysis of cumulative wound healing followed by a log rank test||||||<0.0001
95851101|NCT02535481|191661830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
95851102|NCT02535481|191661831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95851103|NCT02535481|191661832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 6 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95851104|NCT02535481|191661832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||At 3 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
96003251|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for the overall association between foot and outcome variables was performed using conditional F-tests for each load.||||0.0021
95868493|NCT03036800|191693551|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|-5.64|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 52 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-5.64|-11.96|<0.001
95868494|NCT03036800|191693552|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-9.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|-4.27|||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression model was fitted for the continuous outcome of absolute waist circumference change (cm) from baseline at 104 weeks. The main covariate was randomised arm, with the model also being adjusted for the stratification variables: site and baseline body mass index (≥45kg/m2; \<45kg/m2).||-4.27|-14.91|0.001
95868495|NCT01077154|191693553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.14|0.82|0.70
95868496|NCT01077154|191693554|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hzard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.19|0.91|0.57
95868497|NCT01077154|191693555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.36|0.92|0.26
95868498|NCT01077154|191693556|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.22|0.83|0.94
96003252|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0002
96003253|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0018
95868499|NCT01077154|191693557|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by breast cancer therapy/LN status, hormone receptor status, HER-2 status, age, and geographic region.|Based on a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the randomization stratification factors; a hazard ratio \< 1 favors denosumab.|||1.21|0.92|0.41
95868500|NCT01634191|191693566|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.2|
95868501|NCT01634191|191693568|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|128.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.0|154.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-t. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||154|107|
95868502|NCT01634191|191693569|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|113.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|135.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||135|94.1|
95868503|NCT01634191|191693570|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.0|157.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed AUC0-∞. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||157|109|
95868504|NCT01634191|191693571|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|123.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Elderly/Young) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of age on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way analysis of ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||123|90.5|
96003254|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.03
96003255|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0004
96003256|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0026
96003257|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.028
95868505|NCT01634191|191693572|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|126.0|||||Geometric mean ratio (Female/Male) and 90% CI of the ratio calculated from a 2-way ANOVA model, and presented as percentages.|To assess the effect of sex on the PK of apremilast after a single 30 mg dose, a 2-way ANOVA model was performed on the log-transformed Cmax. The ANOVA model included age group (elderly and young), sex (male and female), and age group by sex as a fixed effect.||126|92.3|
95868506|NCT01634191|191693573|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Elderly - Young) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.153
95868507|NCT01634191|191693574|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median difference (Female - Male) and 90% CI of the difference calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.000|0.169
95868508|NCT03645434|191693582|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.253|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.253|0.151|<0.0001
95868509|NCT03645434|191693587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2||0.146|0.051|<0.0001
95868510|NCT03645434|191693587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.242|0.148|<0.0001
95868511|NCT03645434|191693588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1||0.346|0.266|<0.0001
95868512|NCT03645434|191693588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8||0.425|0.324|<0.0001
95868513|NCT03645434|191693588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.329|<0.0001
95868514|NCT03645434|191693589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.551||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.876|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.226|-0.876|0.0010
95868515|NCT03645434|191693589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.486|-1.248|<0.0001
95964749|NCT05032066|191900967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.4421|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|6.6|||MMRM|||Impact Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|-2.4|0.4421
95964750|NCT05032066|191900967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|6.6|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||6.6|0.1|0.0936
95964751|NCT05032066|191900967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.3|||MMRM|||Symptoms Total Score Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||5.3|-1.3|0.3129
95868516|NCT03645434|191693589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.047|-0.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.397|-1.047|<0.0001
95868517|NCT03645434|191693590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.571||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.563|-0.579|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.579|-2.563|0.0022
95868518|NCT03645434|191693590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.386|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.541|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-1.230|-3.541|<0.0001
95868519|NCT03645434|191693590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.912||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.923|-0.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 14||-0.901|-2.923|0.0003
95868520|NCT03645434|191693601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.741|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1 to Day 8||-0.794|-1.741|<0.0001
95868521|NCT03645434|191693601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.302|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9 to Day 14||-0.800|-1.804|<0.0001
95868522|NCT06372782|191693605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Within-Subject Difference in VAS Score at the End of Injection (FAS)||||<0.0001
95868523|NCT00167778|191693606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
95868524|NCT00167778|191693607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
95868525|NCT00167778|191693608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.09||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.09
95868526|NCT00167778|191693609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
95868527|NCT00167778|191693610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.99
95868528|NCT00167778|191693612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.8
95868529|NCT00167778|191693613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.7||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.7
95868530|NCT00167778|191693614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.4
95868531|NCT00167778|191693615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
95868532|NCT00167778|191693616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
95868533|NCT00167778|191693617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
95868534|NCT00167778|191693618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
95868535|NCT00167778|191693619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
95868536|NCT00167778|191693620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.15||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05. Values of p\>0.15 were considered not significant (NS) statistically.|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of study prosthesis was analyzed using repeated measures one-way analyses of variance.||||||>0.15
95868537|NCT00167778|191693621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.13||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons||||||=0.13
96003258|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0099
95868538|NCT00167778|191693622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.92||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.92
95868539|NCT00167778|191693623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.37||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.37
95868540|NCT00167778|191693624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.27||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.27
95868541|NCT00167778|191693625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.2||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.20
95868542|NCT00167778|191693626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.59||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.59
95868543|NCT00167778|191693627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.057||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.057
95868544|NCT00167778|191693628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.78||95.0||||Statistical significance was set a-prior at p\<0.1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired signed rank test for the differences between the Rigid and Torsion Adapter pylons.||||||=0.78
95868545|NCT01252732|191693651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.0||||||||2.0|-7.5|
95868546|NCT01252732|191693652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.0||||||||7.0|-2.6|
95868547|NCT01252732|191693653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test is a one sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population is greater than -10% the NI of oritavancin to vancomycin is concluded.|Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|5.0||||||||5.0|-3.7|
95868548|NCT01527357|191693654|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95868549|NCT01527357|191693655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95868550|NCT01527357|191693656|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95868551|NCT01527357|191693657|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95868552|NCT02519855|191693697|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported a conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Longitudinal regression model|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||0.95|0.80|<0.001
95868553|NCT02519855|191693698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR from Baseline|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.05||A lower bound of the 95% CI on the GMFR \> 1.4 indicated that the Concomitant Group induces an acceptable VZV antibody response. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported this conclusion.|Longitudinal regression||Estimated GMFR, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age.|||2.05|1.76|<0.001
95868554|NCT02519855|191693699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.18|0.88|<0.001
95851105|NCT02670811|191661834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851106|NCT02670811|191661834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary outcome, systolic blood pressure (mmHg), was analyzed using a paired student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
96003259|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with posterior load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0085
95851107|NCT02670811|191661835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851108|NCT02670811|191661836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, total cholesterol (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851109|NCT02670811|191661837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, low density lipoprotein (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851110|NCT02670811|191661838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, high density lipoproteins (mg/dL), between groups were analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851111|NCT02670811|191661839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||||||The secondary outcome, triglycerides (mg/dL), between groups was analyzed using an independent sample student t test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851112|NCT04673214|191661901|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis for the modification in the clinical evolution of the conjunctivitis sign in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call is rejected.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms|Chi-squared|||Null Hypothesis: There will be no modification in the clinical evolution ≥ 25% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under an early intervention treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol for 14 days followed by video call from U.M.F 13 and U.M.F 20 from I.M.S.S., during the period of December 2020- February 2021, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%.||||0.05
95851113|NCT04673214|191661901|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical evolution (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID -19 in early intervention treatment. vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference of 2 days in the modification of the clinical course (symptoms of fever, cough, headache, myalgia, odynophagia, anosmia, rhinorrhea, arthralgia, chest pain, dyspnea, conjunctivitis) of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in early intervention treatment vs. therapeutic failure, for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of the twenty%||||0.05
96003260|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for the overall association between foot and outcome variables was performed using conditional F-tests for each load.||||0.0021
96003261|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
95851114|NCT04673214|191661902|SUPERIORITY|Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with the outcome of improvement in the Modification of the clinical evolution of the symptoms of patients with COVID-19 using double therapy was reported 95.7% (n = 44) Vs. triple therapy 90.8% (n = 59) and therapeutic failure 4.3% (n = 2) vs. 9.2% (n = 6), respectively.||||||0.05||||||Presence of a p \<0.05 as significant in the comparison of treatment with clinical symptoms the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19|Chi-squared|||Assuming a difference in the percentage of effectiveness in the clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 under treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, a type I error rate of 1% and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
95853873|NCT01084655|191667051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Means|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.666||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.666|0.870|
95853874|NCT01084655|191667052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.074|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.455||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.455|0.793|
95853875|NCT01084655|191667055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.417||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.417|0.802|
95853876|NCT01084655|191667056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.195||||||ANOVA with dose level as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.||1.195|0.955|
95853877|NCT00335777|191667070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who were pain free when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||0.289
95853878|NCT00335777|191667071|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|2 sided McNemar test||||||1|||||||McNemar|2 sided McNemar test||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in the proportion of subjects who had pain relief when treating early, as compared to treating late.||||1.000
95853879|NCT03821402|191667072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7645|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7645
95853880|NCT03821402|191667072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5509|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5509
95853881|NCT03821402|191667072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0488|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0488
95853882|NCT03821402|191667073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3698|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3698
95853883|NCT03821402|191667073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1972|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1972
95853884|NCT03821402|191667073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2037
95853885|NCT03821402|191667078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4324|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4324
96003262|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0003
96003263|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.033
96003264|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0018
96003265|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0043
96003266|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.027
95853886|NCT03821402|191667078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3893|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3893
95853887|NCT03821402|191667078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95853888|NCT03821402|191667079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0562|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0562
95853889|NCT03821402|191667079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
95853890|NCT03821402|191667079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0092
95853891|NCT02345070|191667083|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|=|0.6339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.56||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg qw versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was done sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported. Analyzed using Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements (MMRM) with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||1.56|-2.56|= 0.6339
95853892|NCT02345070|191667083|SUPERIORITY|The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.|LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.5874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||SAR156597 200mg q2w versus Placebo qw|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. Testing was performed sequentially in the order outcome measures were reported (q2w dose group compared to placebo). Analysis was performed using MMRM with fixed categorical effects of treatment arm, stratification factor (with/without background therapy), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, stratification factor-by-treatment-by-time point interaction, and continuous fixed covariate of percent predicted FVC baseline.||2.6|-1.47|= 0.5874
95853893|NCT02151058|191667086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0999|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8559|-0.4622||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4622|-0.8559|<0.001
95853894|NCT02151058|191667086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1909|-0.7946||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.7946|-1.1909|<0.001
95853895|NCT02151058|191667086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0812|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4937|-0.1737||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). Hypotheses were tested according to a hierarchical strategy.|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1737|-0.4937|<0.001
95853896|NCT02151058|191667087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.445|-0.1263||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1263|-0.4450|<0.001
95853897|NCT02151058|191667087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0811|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4877|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.4877|<0.001
95853898|NCT02151058|191667087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0653||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1709|0.0866||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0866|-0.1709|0.520
96003267|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0095
96003268|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0086
96003269|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for the overall association between foot and outcome variables was performed using conditional F-tests for each load.||||0.0016
95851115|NCT04673214|191661903|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is rejected with a mean duration of 2 days with clinical symptoms of COVID-19 in early intervention treatment as a result of improving the modification of the clinical evolution of symptoms vs therapeutic failure.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming a difference in days of effectiveness in clinical modification and therapeutic failure of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in treatment with Azithromycin / Ivermectin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol vs. Azithromycin / Ribaroxaban / Paracetamol followed for 14 days followed by video call, with a potency 90%, a Type I error rate of 1%, and a loss to follow-up of 20%||||0.05
95851116|NCT04673214|191661904|SUPERIORITY|A total of 62 patients was calculated, however due to the availability of medication, it was recalculated to 111 patients, that is, 65 cases in the triple therapy group and 46 in the double therapy group would be necessary for the analysis.||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Gehan) statistical test|||Assuming a 25% efficacy in modifying the clinical course (COVID-19 mild phase symptoms) of patients with COVID-19 under a comparative treatment for 14 days followed by video call, with a power of 90%, type I error rate 1% and loss to follow-up 20%||||0.05
95851117|NCT05546476|191661911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||2.34|0.49|
95851118|NCT05546476|191661911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|3.15||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||3.15|1.08|
96003270|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0007
95851119|NCT05546476|191661911|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Posterior Median|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.68|4.34||||||Bayesian Emax model was used for statistical calculation. The posterior medians and 90% credible intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of the relevant posterior distribution) were reported for differences relative to placebo). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||4.34|1.68|
95851120|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|53.36|||=|0.826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.89|147.6|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||147.60|-40.89|=0.8260
95851121|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-37.9|||=|0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.94|57.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||57.14|-132.94|=0.2540
95851122|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.95|||=|0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.63|97.73|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||97.73|-101.63|=0.4870
95851123|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|37.76|||=|0.0497|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|75.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||75.46|0.07|=0.0497
95851124|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.36|||=|0.5745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.94|34.22|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||34.22|-42.94|=0.5745
96003271|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
96003272|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.0004
96003273|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||<0.0001
96003274|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.02
96003275|NCT07159490|191984157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Linear|||Walking with intact side load: Hypothesis testing for pairwise differences across feet was performed using Tukey method to account for the inflation of the Type-1 error due to multiple testing.||||0.012
96003276|NCT05534984|191984158|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.98||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|98.09|0.74|1.31||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.01907. Significance level used adjusts for interim looks according to the Lan and DeMets spending function analog of the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries.|Fine and Gray||Subdistribution hazard ratio expressed as tecovirimat relative to placebo. Nominal 98.09% confidence interval presented adjusts for interim looks according to the Lan and DeMets spending function analog of the O'Brien-Fleming boundaries.|||1.31|0.74|0.89
96003277|NCT05534984|191984159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. Confidence interval estimation assumed equal variances.|||1.0|-0.8|
96003278|NCT05534984|191984160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8|||||Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. Confidence interval estimation assumed equal variances.|||0.8|-1.1|
96003279|NCT05534984|191984162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|25.5|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||25.5|-2.3|0.10
96003280|NCT05534984|191984162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|12.9|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||12.9|-10.4|0.84
96003281|NCT05534984|191984163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.9|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||8.9|-6.1|0.71
96003282|NCT05534984|191984163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.7|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||8.7|-3.5|0.61
95851125|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|49.85|||=|0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.62|89.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Non-Sedentary Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||89.08|10.62|=0.0189
95851126|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.51|||=|0.1302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|21.03|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.03|-4.00|=0.1302
95851127|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.49|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.18|17.16|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||17.16|-8.18|=0.2780
95851128|NCT05546476|191661912|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.11|||=|0.1529|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.01|21.23|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity Time: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||21.23|-5.01|=0.1529
95851129|NCT05546476|191661913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-130.27|||=|0.5762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1257.31|996.77|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||996.77|-1257.31|=0.5762
95851130|NCT05546476|191661913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|724.14|||=|0.1486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-425.81|1874.09|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1874.09|-425.81|=0.1486
95851131|NCT05546476|191661913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|185.62|||=|0.3972|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-997.94|1369.18|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1369.18|-997.94|=0.3972
95851132|NCT05546476|191661914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1587.26|||=|0.0985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-443.79|3618.31|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3618.31|-443.79|=0.0985
95851133|NCT05546476|191661914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-98.54|||=|0.5315|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2169.67|1972.58|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1972.58|-2169.67|=0.5315
95851134|NCT05546476|191661914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2203.18|||=|0.0437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.51|4321.85|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||4321.85|84.51|=0.0437
95851135|NCT05546476|191661915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.046|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.046|=0.5052
95851136|NCT05546476|191661915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.004|||=|0.5599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.042|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.042|-0.050|=0.5599
95851137|NCT05546476|191661915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.017|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.064|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.064|-0.030|=0.2770
95853899|NCT02151058|191667088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0971|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7043|-0.3217||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3217|-0.7043|<0.001
96003283|NCT05534984|191984164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|19.4|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||19.4|-6.6|0.34
96003284|NCT05534984|191984164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|14.2|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||14.2|-1.6|0.12
96003285|NCT05534984|191984165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.3|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||10.3|-6.7|0.68
96003286|NCT05534984|191984165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|14.0|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||14.0|-1.6|0.12
96003287|NCT05534984|191984167|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.97||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.26|||Fine and Gray||Subdistribution hazard ratio expressed as tecovirimat relative to placebo.|||1.26|0.75|0.82
96003288|NCT05534984|191984169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment group difference at Day 8.||||0.98
96003289|NCT05534984|191984169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment group difference at Day 15.||||0.57
96003290|NCT05534984|191984169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment group difference at Day 29.||||0.73
96003291|NCT05534984|191984170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.085|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||0.085|-0.043|0.52
96003292|NCT05534984|191984170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.061|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||0.061|-0.030|0.43
96003293|NCT05534984|191984170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.071|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 29.||0.071|-0.044|0.51
95851138|NCT05546476|191661915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.5047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.071|0.07|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.070|-0.071|=0.5047
96003294|NCT05534984|191984171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.003||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.061|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||0.061|-0.055|0.93
96003295|NCT05534984|191984171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.047|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||0.047|-0.061|1.00
96003296|NCT05534984|191984171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.042|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 29.||0.042|-0.063|1.00
96003297|NCT05534984|191984172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.046||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.136|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||0.136|-0.044|0.32
96003298|NCT05534984|191984172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.017||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.072|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||0.072|-0.052|0.78
96003299|NCT05534984|191984172|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.002||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.049|||Fisher Exact|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 29.||0.049|-0.071|1.00
96003300|NCT05534984|191984173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.011||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.126|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||0.126|-0.105|0.86
95851139|NCT05546476|191661915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.026|||=|0.7316|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.097|0.045|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.045|-0.097|=0.7316
96003301|NCT05534984|191984173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.035||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.128|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||0.128|-0.058|0.46
95851140|NCT05546476|191661915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.4145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.063|0.082|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||95th Percentile of Gait Speed: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.082|-0.063|=0.4145
95851141|NCT05546476|191661916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.24|||=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|7.28|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.28|1.19|=0.0114
95851142|NCT05546476|191661916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.57|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.57|-2.30|=0.3600
95851143|NCT05546476|191661916|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.11|||=|0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|7.17|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||7.17|1.06|=0.0138
95851144|NCT05546476|191661917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.35|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|3.97|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.97|0.72|=0.0090
95851145|NCT05546476|191661917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.0|||=|0.4987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|1.56|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.56|-1.55|=0.4987
95851146|NCT05546476|191661917|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.3|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|3.92|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||3.92|0.68|=0.0100
95851147|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.43|||=|0.1912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|1.24|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.24|-0.38|=0.1912
95851148|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.46|||=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|1.3|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.30|-0.39|=0.1866
95851149|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.92|||=|0.0349|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.75|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Appetite: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.75|0.09|=0.0349
95851150|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||=|0.8754|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.14|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.14|-0.20|=0.8754
95851151|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38|||=|0.8205|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.08|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.08|-0.31|=0.8205
95851152|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||=|0.3375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.51|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Nausea: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||0.51|-0.86|=0.3375
95868555|NCT02519855|191693700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.29|0.94|<0.001
95868556|NCT02519855|191693701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.14|0.88|<0.001
95868557|NCT02519855|191693702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A lower bound of the 95% CI on the fold difference (GMT ratio \[Concomitant / Nonconcomitant\] at 4 weeks postvaccination) \>0.67 implied that the difference is statistically significantly noninferior to the prespecified clinically relevant decrease of 1.5-fold. A p-value ≤0.025 also supported the conclusion of noninferiority.|GMT Ratio at 4 weeks postvaccination|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.13|||Longitudinal regression|GMT ratio, 95% CI and p-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevaccination titers and age.||||1.13|0.87|<0.001
95868558|NCT02057042|191693717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95868559|NCT02057042|191693718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95851153|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||=|0.9138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.45|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.45|-0.14|=0.9138
95851154|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||=|0.9011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|1.46|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.46|-0.18|=0.9011
95851155|NCT05546476|191661918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||=|0.6618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|1.02|||MMRM analysis; 1-sided|||Physical Fatigue: MMRM model included participant as a random term, and baseline, time (as a factor), baseline-by-time interaction, treatment and treatment-by-time interaction, type of therapy \[platinum or not at randomization +/- 28 days\], and type of cancer as fixed terms, with an unstructured covariance matrix and Kenwood-Roger degrees of freedom.||1.02|-0.61|=0.6618
96003302|NCT05534984|191984173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.122|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 29.||0.122|-0.015|0.12
96003303|NCT05534984|191984174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.117|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 8.||0.117|-0.114|0.98
96003304|NCT05534984|191984174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.074||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.186|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 15.||0.186|-0.038|0.19
96003305|NCT05534984|191984174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.011||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.098|||Z-test|If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, comparisons used Fisher's exact test. Otherwise, comparisons used a two-sample Z-test.|Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. If there were \<5 events in at least one arm, melded confidence intervals are presented. Otherwise, Wald confidence intervals are presented.|Treatment group difference at Day 29.||0.098|-0.120|0.85
96003306|NCT05534984|191984175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.042|||Z-test||Treatment group difference calculated as tecovirimat minus placebo. Wald confidence intervals are presented.|||0.042|-0.043|0.98
96003307|NCT05383755|191984188|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
96003308|NCT05383755|191984189|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
96003309|NCT05383755|191984190|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
96003310|NCT05383755|191984191|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
96003311|NCT05383755|191984192|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
95851156|NCT03585660|191661945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference in accuracy was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the accuracy of HM-MRI is greater than the accuracy of mp-MRI.||||0.02
95868560|NCT02057042|191693719|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95868561|NCT02057042|191693720|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95868562|NCT02057042|191693721|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
96003312|NCT05383755|191984193|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
96003313|NCT05383755|191984194|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Estimated value is the mean change value calculated between baseline and two weeks post-intervention.|||||
96003314|NCT04938687|191984228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
96003315|NCT04938687|191984228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
96003316|NCT04938687|191984228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
96003317|NCT04938687|191984229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
96003318|NCT04938687|191984229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
96003319|NCT04938687|191984229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
95851157|NCT03585660|191661946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||bootstrap z-test|The standard error of the difference of AUCs was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap, with B=9999 resamples.||The null hypothesis is that the AUCs of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the AUC of HM-MRI is greater than the AUC of mp-MRI.||||0.08
95868563|NCT02057042|191693722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95868564|NCT01099709|191693723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference).|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||||Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval fell within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
95868565|NCT01099709|191693723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|108.51|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||108.51|101.06|
96003320|NCT04938687|191984230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.92
96003321|NCT04938687|191984230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
96003322|NCT04938687|191984230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
96003323|NCT04938687|191984231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
96003324|NCT04938687|191984231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
96003325|NCT04938687|191984231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.073
95868566|NCT01099709|191693724|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.73|97.53|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.53|93.73|
95868567|NCT01099709|191693725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric test/Ref Ratio x 100|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.85|97.68|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||97.68|93.85|
95868568|NCT00706849|191693726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was concluded if p ≤ 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based upon prior clinical study experience with mipomersen, it was estimated that the standard deviation of the percent change in LDL-C is approximately 22%. With 20 patients in the control group and 40 patients in the mipomersen-treated group, this study would have at least 90% power to detect a 20% difference between the 2 treatment groups.||||<0.001
95868569|NCT00706849|191693728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95868570|NCT00706849|191693730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95868571|NCT00706849|191693732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Inflation of type 1 error was controlled by specifying a small number of secondary parameters and a sequential inferential approach in which inferential conclusions about each successive parameter required statistical significance of the prior one.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95868572|NCT00706849|191693734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95868573|NCT00706849|191693736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95868574|NCT00706849|191693738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.023
95964752|NCT05032066|191900968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.644||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.71|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.71|-1.42|0.5832
95964753|NCT05032066|191900968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.06|0.09|||MMRM|||Estimated from a mixed effect repeated measurement analysis with unstructured variance-covariance matrix, that included factors baseline FVC% predicted, treatment (300 mg HZN-825 QD, 300 mg HZN-825 BID, placebo), the Baseline factors used for stratifying randomization as covariates (prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes/no\] and Baseline FVC% Predicted \[\>=70, \<70\]), visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction.||0.09|-2.06|0.1297
95868575|NCT00706849|191693740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95868576|NCT00706849|191693742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95868577|NCT00706849|191693744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||||||No adjustments were made for tertiary parameters.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.207
95868578|NCT00920907|191693755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.916|1.114|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%.||1.114|0.916|
95868579|NCT00920907|191693759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.156|||Least squared linear regression|||Biocomparability of ipilimumab Process C to ipilimumab Process B was to be concluded if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of geometric means for ipilimumab Cmax were contained within 80% to 125%. Point estimates and 90% CIs were constructed for the ratio of geometric means (Process C/Process B) for ipilimumab Cmax.||1.156|0.922|
95868580|NCT00920907|191693764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||omnibus conditional F-test|0.4||||0.85||||||Not corrected for multiple testing|F-test|numerator 5 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Time-by-process interaction. Null hypothesis that the pattern of mean ALC values over time is the same for both processes.||||0.85
95868581|NCT00920907|191693764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F-statistic|4.35|||<|0.0001|||||||F-test|numerator 10 degrees freedom, denominator 782 degrees freedom||Overall time effect. Null hypothesis of no mean ALC changes over time in either process group (treatment arm).||||<0.0001
96003326|NCT04938687|191984232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
96003327|NCT04938687|191984232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
96003328|NCT04938687|191984232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
96003329|NCT04938687|191984233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
96003330|NCT04938687|191984233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
96003331|NCT04938687|191984233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
96003332|NCT04938687|191984234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
96003333|NCT04938687|191984234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
96003334|NCT04938687|191984234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
96003335|NCT04938687|191984237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
96003336|NCT04938687|191984237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
96003337|NCT04938687|191984237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95868582|NCT03123185|191693791|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|158.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.679|188.195|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||188.195|133.679|
95964754|NCT05032066|191900969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|2.9|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||2.90|0.34|0.9996
95851158|NCT03585660|191661947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the sensitivity of HM-MRI is greater than the sensitivity of mp-MRI.||||0.97
95851159|NCT03585660|191661948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||bootstrap z-test|||The null hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the specificity of HM-MRI is greater than the specificity of mp-MRI.||||<0.01
95964755|NCT05032066|191900969|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|4.48|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||4.48|0.66|0.3721
95964756|NCT05032066|191900970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.32|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||3.32|0.63|0.4778
95851160|NCT03585660|191661949|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the PPV of HM-MRI is greater than the PPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.06|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.06
95851161|NCT03585660|191661950|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI and mp-MRI are the same and the alternative hypothesis is that the NPV of HM-MRI is greater than the NPV of mp-MRI.||||||0.97|||||||bootstrap z-test|||||||0.97
95851162|NCT05635461|191661952|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
95851163|NCT05635461|191661953|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.12|64.42|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||64.42|56.12|
95964757|NCT05032066|191900970|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.52||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|5.61|||Regression, Cox|||Estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by prior use of approved IPF therapy \[yes or no\] and FVC% predicted at baseline \[= 70, \<70\] and treatment group as factor. Placebo group is the reference group for the analysis.||5.61|1.22|0.0438
95964758|NCT02473965|191900977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.868|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.787||The statistical inference was tested as 2-sided with alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||An unstratified analysis using Fisher's exact test was used for treatment comparison without adjustment for stratified baseline prednisone equivalent dose level due to the small cell size. The odds ratio and confidence intervals are calculated overall (i.e. all mITT subjects).||2.787|0.270|=1.00
95964759|NCT02473965|191900978|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.536|=|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|26.68|||ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison of percent change in daily CS dose from baseline to Week 39. The Analysis of Covariance model included the percent change from baseline in daily CS dose as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect and baseline daily CS dose as covariate.||26.68|-23.52|=0.900
95964760|NCT01183390|191900980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|102.28|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.28|95.10|
95964761|NCT01183390|191900981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.99|101.8|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.80|96.99|
95964762|NCT00474526|191901009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|6.74|||ANOVA||A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||6.74|3.04|
95964763|NCT00474526|191901009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|9.79|||ANOVA||C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||9.79|4.16|
95851164|NCT05635461|191661954|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|27.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.09|31.13|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet fasted) and reference (CVN424 suspension fasted).|||31.13|25.09|
95851165|NCT05635461|191661955|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9265|2.247|||ANOVA|||||2.2470|0.9265|<0.0001
95851166|NCT05635461|191661955|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4475|3.0035|||ANOVA|||||3.0035|2.4475|<0.0001
95851167|NCT05635461|191661956|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
95851168|NCT05635461|191661956|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0010
95851169|NCT05635461|191661957|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.96|172.92|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.92|150.96|
95851170|NCT05635461|191661958|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|161.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|150.98|172.95|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||172.95|150.98|
95851171|NCT05635461|191661959|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|304.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.51|338.31|||||Geometric mean ratio was obtained by multiplying 100 with ratio of test (CVN424 tablet Fed) and reference (CVN424 tablet fasted).|||338.31|273.51|
95851172|NCT05635461|191661960|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|1.537|||ANOVA|||||1.5370|0.0060|0.0662
95851173|NCT05635461|191661961|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.251|||ANOVA|||||0.2510|0.0000|0.0039
95851174|NCT00910104|191661991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|8.6|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.3||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Crude (unadjusted) hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression. Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||37.3|2.0|=0.001
95964764|NCT00474526|191901009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|58.0|||ANOVA||W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.||58|24|
95851175|NCT00910104|191661991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|17.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|83.0||All P-values were 2-sided. Analyses were performed in SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, USA) and S-plus 8 (Insightful, USA). P\<0.05 was established as an a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox|||The primary efficacy end-point was time to reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \[DB\]\<=2 mg/dL). Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazard regression adjusted for baseline covariates (including duration of parenteral nutrition (PN) and baseline DB). Subjects who died, were transplanted, or still on PN at the end of follow-up were censored (Ref: PMID 19661785).||83|3.7|0.001
95851176|NCT00910104|191661991|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of proportion with reversal of cholestasis (direct bilirubin \<=2.0 mg/dL).||||<0.0001
95851177|NCT04890652|191661992|OTHER|single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
95851178|NCT04890652|191661993|OTHER|Single group. The power-related information was estimated by calculating the effect size, specifically partial eta squared.|||||<|0.001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.001
95851179|NCT05543265|191662001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|28.8|||Chi-squared|||||28.8|6.4|<0.001
95851180|NCT05316597|191662029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.914
95851181|NCT05316597|191662030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||.554
95851182|NCT05316597|191662031|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.905
95851183|NCT05316597|191662032|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.076
95851184|NCT05316597|191662032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.02
95964765|NCT00474526|191901009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|60.0|||ANOVA||Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1A:US2)|"Using the MenACWY GMTs, immunogenicity of the fourth dose at 1 month after the 12-month vaccination in those subjects receiving MenACWY at 2, 4, and 6 months was considered superior to the immune response of a single dose given at 12-months of age if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of the two GMTs was \>= 2.0.~Ratio of GMTs"||60|24|
95964766|NCT00474526|191901018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||0.95|0.55|
95964767|NCT00474526|191901018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.31|0.81|
95851185|NCT05316597|191662033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.210
95964768|NCT00474526|191901018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.72|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.72|1.18|
95851186|NCT05316597|191662033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||Exploratory ANOVA results comparing full and reduced models to test the effect of terpene exposure on pattern of outcome over time.||||0.57
95851187|NCT05316597|191662034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.921
95851188|NCT05316597|191662034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.82
95851189|NCT05316597|191662035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.265
95851190|NCT05316597|191662035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Threshold of P \< 0.05 for significance. ANCOVA results of comparing reduced vs. full model over time.|ANOVA|||||||0.63
95851191|NCT05316597|191662036|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.724
95851192|NCT05316597|191662037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.716
95851193|NCT05316597|191662038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.852
95851194|NCT05316597|191662039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.166
95851195|NCT05316597|191662040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Control for that session's baseline included in the mixed model.||||||0.046
95851196|NCT03547518|191662068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.111
95851197|NCT03547518|191662069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
95851198|NCT03547518|191662070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0393
95964769|NCT00474526|191901018|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (GMTLA1/GMTLA3) must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.58|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA3)||1.58|1.02|
95964770|NCT00474526|191901021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-8.5|||ANOVA|||Serogroup A (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||-8.5|-21.2|
95851199|NCT03547518|191662071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.242
95851200|NCT03547518|191662072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.855
95851201|NCT03535974|191662112|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.122||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95851202|NCT02913482|191662154|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95851203|NCT02913482|191662155|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95851204|NCT02913482|191662156|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 17% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95851205|NCT02913482|191662162|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 12% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95851206|NCT02913482|191662164|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95851207|NCT02913482|191662165|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||<0.0001
95851208|NCT02913482|191662166|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
95851209|NCT02913482|191662167|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 5% derived from natural history data.||||||1|||||||One-sided Exact Binomial Test|||||||1.0000
95851210|NCT02913482|191662171|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 42% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.|||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||<0.0001
95851211|NCT02913482|191662172|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 60% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.0005|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.0005
95851212|NCT02913482|191662173|SUPERIORITY|Result compared to a performance criterion of 89% derived from natural history data. Statistical analysis was only performed for Month 12 data.||||||0.2595|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.2595
95851213|NCT02675907|191662194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0034
95851214|NCT02675907|191662195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (SPID6)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95851215|NCT02675907|191662195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (SPID12)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95964771|NCT00474526|191901021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.3|||ANOVA|||Serogroup C (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||0.3|-7|
95851216|NCT02675907|191662195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (SPID24)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95851217|NCT02675907|191662195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 4 (SPID12-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95851218|NCT02675907|191662195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 5 (SPID24-48)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95851219|NCT02675907|191662196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0076
95851220|NCT02675907|191662197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95851221|NCT02675907|191662197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
95851222|NCT02675907|191662197|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.01
95851223|NCT02675907|191662198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 1 (Hour 0-24)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
95868583|NCT03123185|191693792|OTHER|No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified.|gMean ratio (%)|194.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.912|237.267|||||gMean ratio = 10 mg BI 705564 fed/10 mg BI 705564 fast. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect subjects within sequences will be considered as random, the other effects as fixed."||237.267|158.912|
95851224|NCT02675907|191662198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 2 (Hour 24-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
95851225|NCT02675907|191662198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Row 3 (Hour 0-48)|ANCOVA|P-values were derived from ANCOVA models with fixed effects of treatment, baseline PI score, and investigational site||||||<0.05
95851226|NCT02675907|191662199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1228|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1228
95851227|NCT02675907|191662200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1048
95851228|NCT02675907|191662201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0451|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0451
95851229|NCT02675907|191662202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0107
95851230|NCT02675907|191662203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0781|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0781
95851231|NCT02675907|191662204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0430
95851232|NCT02675907|191662205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.1070
95851233|NCT02675907|191662206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived from comparisons between N1539 and Placebo via General Association of CMH Test controlling for investigational site||||||0.0046
95851234|NCT03040141|191662207|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|13.55|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||13.55|1.03|0.181
95851235|NCT03040141|191662207|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.13|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||12.13|0.90|0.073
95851236|NCT03040141|191662207|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|11.48|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||11.48|1.08|0.037
95851237|NCT03040141|191662207|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||3.25|0.40|0.814
95851238|NCT03040141|191662209|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.748||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level. The goal will be used to assess the strength of evidence to select the endpoints for a Phase 3 trial.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.748
95851239|NCT03040141|191662209|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||0.940
95851240|NCT03040141|191662209|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.902||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The total VIS410 high-dose group (high-dose + low-dose) was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.902
95851241|NCT03040141|191662209|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.283||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.283
95851242|NCT03040141|191662210|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.919||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.919
95851243|NCT03040141|191662210|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.9||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, which were performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 low-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.900
95851244|NCT03040141|191662210|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.99||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level||The combined VIS410 high- and low-dose groups was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.990
95851245|NCT03040141|191662210|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.521||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the VIS410 low-dose group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.521
95851246|NCT03040141|191662211|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The VIS410 high-dose group was compared against the placebo group. The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.360
95851247|NCT03040141|191662212|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
95851248|NCT03040141|191662212|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.259|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.259
95851249|NCT03040141|191662212|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.644||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.644
95851250|NCT03040141|191662212|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.146|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.146
95851251|NCT03040141|191662213|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.624||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.624
95851252|NCT03040141|191662213|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.399||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||||||0.399
95851253|NCT03040141|191662213|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.837|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.837
95851254|NCT03040141|191662213|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.183|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.183
95851255|NCT03040141|191662214|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.880
95851256|NCT03040141|191662214|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference||||||0.778|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.778
95851257|NCT03040141|191662214|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.940
95851258|NCT03040141|191662214|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.662|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.662
95851259|NCT03040141|191662215|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.640
95851260|NCT03040141|191662215|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.775
95868584|NCT03123185|191693793|OTHER||Slope|0.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3767|0.599|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.5990|0.3767|
95868585|NCT03123185|191693793|OTHER||Slope|0.7553|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0876|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5736|0.937|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9370|0.5736|
95868586|NCT03123185|191693794|OTHER||Slope|0.4651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1935|0.7368|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fasted condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.7368|0.1935|
95868587|NCT03123185|191693794|OTHER||Slope|0.6651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1385|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3679|0.9622|||Power model||Based on the estimate for slope parameter, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality for fed condition was a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints.||0.9622|0.3679|
95868588|NCT01555957|191693796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||we hypothesized that among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs, infants receiving 1g/kg/day S-ILE (lipid minimizing strategy) would have decreased incidence of IFALD compared to those receiving 2g/kg/day S-ILE. We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of DB would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.94
95868589|NCT01555957|191693797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We also hypothesized that the rate of rise of direct bilirubin would be lower among ≥ 34 weeks GA infants with GISDs receiving 1g/kg/day versus 2g/kg/day of S-ILE.||||0.0005
95868590|NCT01931670|191693809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95868591|NCT01931670|191693809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95868592|NCT01931670|191693810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95868593|NCT01931670|191693810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||An elagolix dose group was to be considered more efficacious than placebo for the co-primary endpoints if and only if both co-primary endpoints (DYS and NMPP) were statistically significant for the elagolix dose group at the 0.025 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||||||< 0.001
95868594|NCT01931670|191693811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||<0.001
95868595|NCT01931670|191693811|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 1 of 7.||||< 0.001
95868596|NCT01931670|191693812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
95868597|NCT01931670|191693812|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 2 of 7.||||< 0.001
95868598|NCT01931670|191693813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||0.009
95868599|NCT01931670|191693813|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 3 of 7.||||< 0.001
95868600|NCT01931670|191693814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||0.26
95868601|NCT01931670|191693814|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 4 of 7.||||< 0.001
95964772|NCT00474526|191901021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.1|||ANOVA|||Serogroup W (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||3.1|-1.3|
95964773|NCT00474526|191901021|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|LA1 was noninferior to LA3, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:8 and ≥1:4 between the 2 dose and the 3 dose schedule (PLA1 - PLA3) must be greater than -10%.|Percentage (hSBA titers >=8) difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||Serogroup Y (post-vaccination percentage of subjects with hSBA titer \>=8, group difference (PLA1 - PLA3))||1.7|-4|
95964774|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.04|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.74|
95851261|NCT03040141|191662215|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.701
95851262|NCT03040141|191662215|OTHER|||||||0.638|||||||Chi-squared|A Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model was used for comparisons of treatment groups||||||0.638
95851263|NCT03040141|191662216|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
95851264|NCT03040141|191662216|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||1.000
95868602|NCT01931670|191693815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||0.088
95868603|NCT01931670|191693815|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 5 of 7.||||< 0.001
95868604|NCT01931670|191693816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.172|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||0.172
95964775|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.28|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.28|0.92|
95964776|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.26|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.79|
95964777|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||FHA (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.25|0.85|
95964778|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2||1.32|0.83|
95964779|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.23|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.23|0.75|
95851265|NCT03040141|191662216|OTHER|||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
95851266|NCT03040141|191662216|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.127
95851267|NCT03040141|191662217|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
95851268|NCT03040141|191662217|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.735|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.735
95851269|NCT03040141|191662217|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.476
95964780|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.55|0.93|
95851270|NCT03040141|191662217|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.581|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.581
95851271|NCT03040141|191662218|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.980
95851272|NCT03040141|191662218|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
95851273|NCT03040141|191662218|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
95851274|NCT03040141|191662218|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.955
95851275|NCT03040141|191662219|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.695|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.695
95851276|NCT03040141|191662219|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.542|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.542
95851277|NCT03040141|191662219|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.899|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.899
95851278|NCT03040141|191662219|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.321
95851279|NCT03040141|191662220|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.663
95851280|NCT03040141|191662220|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.540
95851281|NCT03040141|191662220|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.918|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.918
95851282|NCT03040141|191662220|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.294
95851283|NCT03040141|191662222|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.250
95851284|NCT03040141|191662222|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.133|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.133
95851285|NCT03040141|191662222|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.177
95851286|NCT03040141|191662222|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.360
95851287|NCT03040141|191662223|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.636
95851288|NCT03040141|191662223|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.446|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.446
95851289|NCT03040141|191662223|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.530
95851290|NCT03040141|191662223|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.463|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.463
95851291|NCT03040141|191662224|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.152|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.152
95851292|NCT03040141|191662224|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.176|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.176
95851293|NCT03040141|191662224|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.157
95851294|NCT03040141|191662224|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.844|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||||||0.844
95851295|NCT03040141|191662225|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.531
95851296|NCT03040141|191662225|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.582|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.582
95851297|NCT03040141|191662225|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|Wald Chi-square statistic from a Cox proportional model is used for comparisons of treatment groups.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.550
95851298|NCT03040141|191662225|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|P-value determined based on Cox proportional hazards model Wald Chi-Square Statistic.||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.840
95851299|NCT03040141|191662226|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.3534|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.3534
95851300|NCT03040141|191662226|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7839|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7839
95851301|NCT03040141|191662226|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.4893|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.4893
95851302|NCT03040141|191662226|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5101|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5101
95851303|NCT03040141|191662227|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.5436|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.5436
95851304|NCT03040141|191662227|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.8215|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.8215
95851305|NCT03040141|191662227|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.6319|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.6319
95851306|NCT03040141|191662227|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.7011|||||||ANCOVA|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.7011
95851307|NCT03040141|191662228|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.478|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.478
95851308|NCT03040141|191662228|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.468|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.||||0.468
95851309|NCT03040141|191662228|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.412|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.412
95851310|NCT03040141|191662228|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||||0.982|||||||Regression, Logistic|||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons||||0.982
95851311|NCT03071263|191662269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||α-level 0.05. Stratified by baseline potassium category (4.3-\<4.7 mEq/L or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L) and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as randomized|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A sample size of 280 subjects has 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 20% or more in the proportion of subjects remaining on spironolactone at Week 12, at α = 0.05.||||<0.0001
95851312|NCT03071263|191662270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5757||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (Yes or No) as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||0.5757
95851313|NCT03071263|191662271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Baseline AOBP SBP as a covariate and treatment group, baseline serum potassium (K+ 4.3-\<4.7 or 4.7-5.1 mEq/L), and history of Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus as factors in the model.|ANCOVA|||The p-value is from a test comparing the difference between two groups in the mean change in AOBP SBP from baseline.||||0.6367
95851314|NCT00550407|191662286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
95868605|NCT01931670|191693816|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 6 of 7.||||< 0.001
95868606|NCT01931670|191693817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.968|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.968
95868607|NCT01931670|191693817|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean Change|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For an elagolix dose group to be considered statistically significantly better than placebo on a secondary endpoint, the P value must have been ≤ 0.025 for that endpoint, for all higher-ranking secondary endpoints, and for the co-primary endpoints.|mixed-effects model|||Ranked secondary efficacy endpoint 7 of 7.||||0.007
95868608|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.361|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.507|3.697|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||3.697|1.507|< 0.001
95868609|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.707|6.469|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||6.469|2.707|< 0.001
95851315|NCT03883581|191662302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95851316|NCT03883581|191662303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.647
95851317|NCT03883581|191662304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
95851318|NCT03883581|191662305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95851319|NCT03883581|191662306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Paired t test|||||||0.103
95851320|NCT01766050|191662315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
95851321|NCT01766050|191662315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
95851322|NCT01766050|191662315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
95851323|NCT01766050|191662333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.976|
95851324|NCT01766050|191662333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049||||||AUC (0-T)||1.049|0.889|
95851325|NCT01766050|191662333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.123||||||AUC (0-T)||1.123|0.950|
95851326|NCT01766050|191662333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.049|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.127||||||AUC (INF)||1.127|0.975|
95851327|NCT01766050|191662333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.892|1.049||||||AUC (INF)||1.049|0.892|
95851328|NCT01766050|191662333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.121||||||AUC(INF)||1.121|0.948|
95851329|NCT01766050|191662334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.093||||||||1.093|0.898|
95851330|NCT01766050|191662334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||||1.000|0.830|
95851331|NCT01766050|191662334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.116||||||||1.116|0.885|
95851332|NCT01766050|191662335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.088||||||AUC (0-T)||1.088|0.944|
95851333|NCT01766050|191662335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.103||||||AUC (0-T)||1.103|0.936|
95851334|NCT01766050|191662335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.121||||||AUC (0-T)||1.121|0.893|
95851335|NCT01766050|191662335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.011|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.085||||||AUC (INF)||1.085|0.942|
95851336|NCT01766050|191662335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.101||||||AUC (INF)||1.101|0.938|
95851337|NCT01766050|191662335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.121||||||AUC (INF)||1.121|0.896|
95851338|NCT01766050|191662336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.118|1.421||||||||1.421|1.118|
95851339|NCT01766050|191662336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.531||||||||1.531|1.090|
95868610|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.811|4.312|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||4.312|1.811|< 0.001
95868611|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.378|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.615|16.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||16.282|6.615|< 0.001
95868612|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.178|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.084|4.845|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.845|2.084|< 0.001
95964781|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.56|0.85|
95851340|NCT01766050|191662336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.429||||||||1.429|0.971|
95851341|NCT01766050|191662337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.056|1.272||||||AUC (0-T)||1.272|1.056|
95851342|NCT01766050|191662337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.228|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.092|1.381||||||AUC (0-T)||1.381|1.092|
95851343|NCT01766050|191662337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.047|1.41||||||AUC (0-T)||1.410|1.047|
95851344|NCT01766050|191662337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.193|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.091|1.304||||||AUC (INF)||1.304|1.091|
95851345|NCT01766050|191662337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.093|1.379||||||AUC (INF)||1.379|1.093|
95851346|NCT01766050|191662337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.141|1.482||||||AUC (INF)||1.482|1.141|
95851347|NCT01766050|191662338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.746|0.997||||||||0.997|0.746|
95964782|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.88||||||95.0|0.65|1.2|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.2|0.65|
95851348|NCT01766050|191662338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.793|1.071||||||||1.071|0.793|
95851349|NCT01766050|191662338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.709|1.034||||||||1.034|0.709|
95851350|NCT01766050|191662339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.024||||||AUC (0-T)||1.024|0.817|
95851351|NCT01766050|191662339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|1.175||||||AUC (0-T)||1.175|0.856|
95851352|NCT01766050|191662339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.821|1.13||||||AUC (0-T)||1.130|0.821|
95851353|NCT01766050|191662339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.783|0.982||||||AUC (INF)||0.982|0.783|
95851354|NCT01766050|191662339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.031|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.2||||||AUC (INF)||1.200|0.885|
95851355|NCT01766050|191662339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.839|1.245||||||AUC (INF)||1.245|0.839|
95851356|NCT01766050|191662340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.021||||||||1.021|0.880|
95851357|NCT01766050|191662340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.993||||||||0.993|0.857|
95851358|NCT01766050|191662340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.954|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|1.028||||||||1.028|0.885|
95851359|NCT01766050|191662341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.013||||||AUC (0-T)||1.013|0.874|
95851360|NCT01766050|191662341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.902|1.076||||||AUC (0-T)||1.076|0.902|
95851361|NCT01766050|191662341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.942|1.12||||||AUC (0-T)||1.120|0.942|
95851362|NCT01766050|191662341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.017||||||AUC (INF)||1.017|0.868|
95851363|NCT01766050|191662341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.914|1.098||||||||1.098|0.914|
95851364|NCT01766050|191662341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.142||||||AUC (INF)||1.142|0.940|
95851365|NCT01097668|191662392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'ITT population' MRI data with week 16 data.||||<0.001
95851366|NCT01097668|191662392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||negative binomial model|||Comparison of the baseline 'MRI population' data with data from week 16.||||0.030
95851367|NCT01295814|191662446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.99 (99%) for the improvement in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.~The study had acceptable sensitivity with a statistical power of 0.92 (92%) for the improvement in the placebo group from baseline to week 12."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|11.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in OSPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||11.8|4.0|0.75
95851368|NCT01295814|191662447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICSI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||6.3|1.7|0.99
95868613|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.216|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.429|24.554|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||24.554|9.429|< 0.001
95964783|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.77|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.77|0.97|
95868614|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.548|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.683|3.859|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.859|1.683|< 0.001
95868615|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.055|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|8.716|22.664|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||22.664|8.716|< 0.001
95851369|NCT01295814|191662448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.8||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in ICPI in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||5.8|2.1|0.76
95851370|NCT01295814|191662449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.0||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided||Confidence interval was improvement in PUF in the adalimumab group from baseline to week 12.|Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||10.0|2.6|0.76
95851371|NCT01295814|191662450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0||||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical improvement in the adalimumab group compared to the placebo group from baseline to week 12.||||0.67
95851372|NCT03414983|191662451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.07||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.07|0.61|0.3022
95851373|NCT03414983|191662451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.23||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.23|0.53|0.3022
95851374|NCT03414983|191662452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.19|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.19|0.54|
95851375|NCT03414983|191662467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.15||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.15|0.67|0.5041
95851376|NCT03414983|191662467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.32||Stratified regular log-rank test|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|Hazard Ratio is Arm A: NIV+mFOLFOX+BEV over Arm B: mFOLFOX+BEV||1.32|0.58|0.5041
95851377|NCT01972217|191662488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.969|||Log Rank|||The 1-sided p-value provides a test for rejecting the null hypothesis of no treatment effect versus the superiority alternative that patients on olaparib have a lower risk of progression compared with placebo.||0.969|0.438|0.017
95851378|NCT01972217|191662501|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.813||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|2.261||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.261|0.285|0.309
95851379|NCT01972217|191662502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.13||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olapatib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TFST||1.130|0.540|0.095
95851380|NCT01972217|191662502|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.201||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||Olaparib + abiraterone versus placebo + abiraterone: TSST||1.201|0.545|0.147
95851381|NCT01972217|191662503|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.911||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.384||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.384|0.600|0.331
95851382|NCT01972217|191662504|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.215||The p value was calculated with a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Log Rank|||||1.215|0.511|0.140
95851383|NCT00313014|191662523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effects.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.35|-0.99|<.001
95851384|NCT00313014|191662523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.44||P value was 2-sided and performed at the 5% error level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures mixed linear model with treatment, time, and time by treatment interaction as fixed effect.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.44|-1.07|<.001
95851385|NCT00313014|191662524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.13||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.13|-0.90|.006
95853900|NCT02151058|191667088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.685|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.877|-0.4925||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.4925|-0.8770|<0.001
95851386|NCT00313014|191662524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.09||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|ANCOVA||The analysis was based on the number of subjects who took \> 1 tablet of supplemental analgesia.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.09|-0.70|.158
95851387|NCT00313014|191662525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.11||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.11|-3.55|.065
95964784|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1|0.7|
95851388|NCT00313014|191662525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.031||95.0|-3.79|-0.18||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-0.18|-3.79|.031
95851389|NCT00313014|191662526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|-2.82||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed linear model: treatment, time as fixed effects, screening, prerandomization sleep disturbance subscale as covariates; subject as a random effect||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that the BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||-2.82|-9.64|<.001
95851390|NCT00313014|191662526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709||0.121||95.0|-6.01|0.7||To address the issue of multiplicity and control the family-wise error rate, a gate-keeping strategy and a stepwise approach (Holm's methodology) were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the secondary efficacy analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between BTDS 20 or oxycodone HCl immediate-release 40 mg with respect to BTDS 5. The alternative hypothesis was that BTDS 20 arm was different from the BTDS 5 arm.||0.70|-6.01|.121
95851391|NCT04516746|191662533|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.34|80.47|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.47|65.34|<0.001
95851392|NCT04516746|191662537|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|64.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.05|71.03|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||71.03|56.05|<0.001
95964785|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.03|0.56|
95851393|NCT04516746|191662538|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.68|76.57|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||76.57|60.68|<0.001
95851394|NCT04516746|191662539|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.62|77.64|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||77.64|61.62|<0.001
95868616|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.536|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.685|3.816|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.816|1.685|< 0.001
95964786|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.85||||||95.0|0.7|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.04|0.7|
95851395|NCT04516746|191662540|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|73.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.13|80.13|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||80.13|65.13|<0.001
95851396|NCT04516746|191662541|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|71.62||||Poisson regression exact conditional|||The exact 1-sided 97.5% CI and p-value were estimated based on stratified Poisson regression with exact conditional method (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as strata factor and log of total number of participants for each combination of study arm and strata as an offset).|||71.62|<0.001
95868617|NCT01931670|191693818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.434|15.874|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||15.874|6.434|< 0.001
95868618|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.765|1.855|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.855|0.765|0.376
95868619|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.376||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.89|2.127|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||2.127|0.890|0.101
95868620|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.358||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|2.029|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.029|0.909|0.088
95868621|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.488|3.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||3.278|1.488|< 0.001
95964787|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.26|0.84|
95964788|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.93|0.64|
95964789|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.97|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||0.97|0.69|
95964790|NCT00474526|191901023|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCUS1 /GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCUS1 / GMCUS2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio US1:US2)||1.02|0.62|
95964791|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
95851397|NCT04516746|191662542|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|84.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.97|94.5|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||94.50|58.97|<0.001
95851398|NCT04516746|191662543|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|94.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.98|99.34|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The 95% CI and p-value were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and stratification factor \[age group at informed consent\] as covariates, and log of the follow up time as an offset).||99.34|58.98|0.005
95868622|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.678||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.136|2.477|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||2.477|1.136|0.003
95868623|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.832|4.044|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||4.044|1.832|< 0.001
95868624|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.537||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.042|2.267|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.267|1.042|0.013
95868625|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.598|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.75|3.857|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.857|1.750|< 0.001
95868626|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.062|2.306|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||2.306|1.062|0.01
95868627|NCT01931670|191693819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.412|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.63|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.570|1.630|< 0.001
95868628|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.028||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.624|1.693|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.693|0.624|0.901
95868629|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.68|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 1||1.789|0.680|0.65
95868630|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.351||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.841|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.170|0.841|0.154
95868631|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.871||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.175|2.979|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 2||2.979|1.175|0.003
95964792|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
95964793|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.0|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||12|-7|
95851399|NCT04516746|191662550|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|54.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.48|61.26||||||The 95% CI were estimated based on Poisson regression with robust variance (including study arm and age group at screening (18-65 years, ≥ 65 years) as covariates and log of the follow-up time as an offset).||61.26|46.48|
95868632|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.776|2.013|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.013|0.776|0.294
95851400|NCT03489863|191662551|NON_INFERIORITY|see above|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|2.0|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint is non-inferiority in PRU, at 24 hours of prasugrel versus ticagrelor. Under the assumption of 0 difference at 24 hours in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel and a common standard deviation of 50 PRU, a sample size of 22 patients per group allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU with a 90% power and alpha = 0.05.||2|-38|<0.05
95851401|NCT04742556|191662611|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.0051||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95851402|NCT04742556|191662611|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.03105||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95851403|NCT04742556|191662611|OTHER||Probability of true DLT rate in [0.33-1]|0.27405||||||||||||||Probability of true DLT rate was determined using a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model with overdose control.||||
95851404|NCT03562195|191662655|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probablity|0.9999|||||||||||Bayesian Dynamic Borrowing|A BDB approach was used in the estimation of primary endpoint in the Chinese participants of this study, with information borrowed from MEA115588.|"Pr (rate ratio \<1 \| data)\>0.999. The 'positive result' is defined as if the posterior probability that the rate ratio is less than 1 is at least 0.95"|||||
95851405|NCT03562195|191662655|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is defined as the rate ratio of events between Mepolizumab 100mg SC versus placebo is less than 1.|Rate Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.5|||Negative binomial model|||||0.50|0.24|<0.001
95851406|NCT02218372|191662674|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|23.9||||||Adjusted difference of CCR at EOT + 2 Days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method. Newcombe 95% confidence intervals (CIs) presented for adjusted treatment difference.||23.9|-7.4|
95851407|NCT02218372|191662675|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.2||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.2|1.8|
95851408|NCT02218372|191662676|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|37.7||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||37.7|4.5|
95851409|NCT02218372|191662677|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-1.8||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOT +9 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.8|-34.2|
95851410|NCT02218372|191662678|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|35.6||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.6|1.9|
95851411|NCT02218372|191662679|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|35.9||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.9|2.3|
95851412|NCT02218372|191662680|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-1.9||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +16 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||-1.9|-35.6|
95851413|NCT02218372|191662681|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
95851414|NCT02218372|191662682|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
95851415|NCT02218372|191662683|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD Recurrence at EOT +23 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
95851416|NCT02218372|191662684|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|34.5||||||Adjusted difference of SCR at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||34.5|-0.5|
95851417|NCT02218372|191662685|OTHER||adjusted treatment difference|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.3||||||Adjusted difference of GC at EOS (EOT +30 days). Adjusted treatment difference of rates was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||35.3|1.5|
95851418|NCT02218372|191662686|OTHER|Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.|adjusted treatment difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|0.5||||||Adjusted difference of CDAD recurrence at EOS/EOT +30 days. Adjusted treatment difference of proportions was calculated using a stratified CMH method. Newcombe 95% CIs presented for adjusted treatment difference.||0.5|-34.5|
95851419|NCT02218372|191662687|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||Log Rank|||Time to resolution of diarrhea.||||0.579
95868633|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.865||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.163|2.989|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||2.989|1.163|0.003
95868634|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.145||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.713|1.839|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||1.839|0.713|0.521
95868635|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.544|3.963|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 4||3.963|1.544|< 0.001
95851420|NCT02218372|191662688|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Time to recurrence of CDAD.||||0.023
95851421|NCT03448406|191662704|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|4.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodge-Lehman (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||13.0|-5.0|0.3660
95851422|NCT03448406|191662705|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|2.08||||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|6.25|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||6.25|-2.08|0.2783
95851423|NCT03448406|191662706|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (HL-estimate)|-0.07||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||0.20|-0.35|0.5512
95851424|NCT03448406|191662707|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (HL-estimate)|3.0||||0.3657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||Wilcoxon rank test, normal approximation||Empagliflozin vs. Placebo. For estimation of effect, the non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimate for the median difference was calculated.|H0: There is no difference between the effect of Placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.||11.0|-4.0|0.3657
95851425|NCT03448406|191662708|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: visit-by-treatment interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure was used to model within-patient errors.||||0.14|-0.31|0.4440
95851426|NCT03448406|191662709|OTHER|||||||0.3924|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.3924
95851427|NCT03448406|191662710|OTHER|||||||0.4435|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.4435
95851428|NCT03448406|191662711|OTHER|||||||0.5124|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5124
95851429|NCT03448406|191662712|OTHER|||||||0.5713|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Test on difference in mean treatment scores, based on modified ridit scores.||||||0.5713
95851430|NCT03448406|191662713|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.95||||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Mixed model repeated Measure (MMRM)|Covariates: Visit-by-treatment interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Unstructured covariance structure to model within-patient errors.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio \[Empagliflozin/Placebo\] of relative change to baseline.|||1.07|0.85|0.4032
95851431|NCT04369404|191662714|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesize that participants who received the decision aid will have higher knowledge. This is pilot study, thus we did not have a power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||24.6|0.7|0.06
95868636|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.787|2.023|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||2.023|0.787|0.27
95868637|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.5|3.891|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 5||3.891|1.500|< 0.001
95868638|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.631|1.624|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||1.624|0.631|0.953
95868639|NCT01931670|191693820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.997|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.253|3.183|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||3.183|1.253|< 0.001
95868640|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.69|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.37|-0.69|< 0.001
95868641|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.94|-0.62|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.62|-0.94|< 0.001
95851432|NCT04369404|191662715|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|2.97||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"a chisquare test was conducted to determine if the proportion of treatment unsure responses were different between the usual care and intervention arms."||||0.085
95851433|NCT04369404|191662716|OTHER||Pearson Chi-Square|1.524||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.47
95851434|NCT03186209|191662727|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.36||Multiplicity protected by hierarchy testing procedure. First in line hypothesis testing, requiring p-value \<0.05.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.36|0.19|<0.0001
95851435|NCT03186209|191662728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.34||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.34|0.17|<0.0001
95868642|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.29|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.29|-0.6|< 0.001
95868643|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.43|-1.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-1.12|-1.43|< 0.001
95868644|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.37|-0.68|< 0.001
95868645|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.4|-1.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-1.09|-1.4|< 0.001
95868646|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.73|-0.42|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.42|-0.73|< 0.001
95868647|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-1.11|-1.42|< 0.001
95868648|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.65|-0.33|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.33|-0.65|< 0.001
95868649|NCT01931670|191693821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.42|-1.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.10|-1.42|< 0.001
95851436|NCT03186209|191662729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05||Test after significant primary endpoint. Two secondary endpoints (change in FEV1 and total asthma symptom score) using Holm's procedure; smaller p-value to be \<0.025, and larger p-value to be \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.05|-0.45|0.0126
95851437|NCT03186209|191662730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, treatment\*visit||||0.08|-0.42|0.1835
95851438|NCT03186209|191662731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.24|53.07||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||53.07|24.24|<0.0001
95851439|NCT03186209|191662732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.52|50.18||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||50.18|21.52|<0.0001
95868650|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.55|-17.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-17.07|-33.55|< 0.001
95868651|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-39.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.53|-31.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-31.11|-47.53|< 0.001
95868652|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.355|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.44|-14.36|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-14.36|-29.44|< 0.001
95868653|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-63.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.365|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.87|-55.76|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-55.76|-70.87|< 0.001
95868654|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.43|-17.88|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-17.88|-32.43|< 0.001
95868655|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-61.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.2|-54.68|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-54.68|-69.20|< 0.001
95868656|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-26.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-34.48|-19.46|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-19.46|-34.48|< 0.001
95868657|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.346|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-69.89|-54.86|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-54.86|-69.89|< 0.001
95868658|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-31.06|-15.66|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-15.66|-31.06|< 0.001
95868659|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-62.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-70.58|-55.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-55.22|-70.58|< 0.001
95851440|NCT03186209|191662733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline proportion of nights awakening, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.01|-0.03|0.3385
95851441|NCT03186209|191662734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.28||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-0.28|-0.58|<0.0001
95851442|NCT03186209|191662735|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.43||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Regression, Cox|model including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.43|0.23|<0.0001
95851443|NCT03186209|191662736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.42||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year (2, \>=3), use of OCS||||0.42|0.19|<0.0001
95851444|NCT03186209|191662737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-5.6||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model with covariates: treatment group, baseline SGRQ total score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-5.60|-12.79|<0.0001
95851445|NCT03186209|191662738|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.46||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model includes Treatment, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, categorical variable of ER/UC or hospitalization exacerbations during previous year||||0.90|0.24|0.0222
95851446|NCT03186209|191662742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-119.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.78|-68.84||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|model includes treatment , baseline eosinophil count, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||-68.84|-169.78|<0.0001
95851447|NCT03186209|191662743|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Negative binomial|Model with covariates: treatment group, region (China/Non-China), number of exacerbations in previous year, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||1.35|0.51|0.4519
95964794|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|17.0|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||17|-4|
95964795|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||10|-12|
95851448|NCT03186209|191662744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.22|0.02|0.0214
95851449|NCT03186209|191662745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08||Nominal p-value. Not multiplicity protected by testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes Treatment, baseline total asthma symptom score, region, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.08|-0.51|0.1589
95851450|NCT02734693|191662788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|-2.802|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol.||-2.802|-7.565|<0.001
95851451|NCT02734693|191662791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.395||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.987|38.346|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.346|8.987|0.002
95851452|NCT02734693|191662791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.389||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.381|38.714|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, effect sizes, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), PERMP at baseline, and site as fixed effects. The dasotraline 6 mg/day treatment arm was discontinued in Version 3.00 of the protocol||38.714|9.381|0.002
95851453|NCT03309020|191662862|OTHER|||||||0.802||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses one month after cataract surgery||||0.802
95851454|NCT03309020|191662863|OTHER|||||||0.713||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||Null hypothesis is no difference in grade between survivor statuses three months after cataract surgery||||.713
95851455|NCT03309020|191662864|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.69|||||Odds of eye with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) 12 months after cataract surgery for controls vs. EVD survivors|Null hypothesis is no difference in the proportion of participants with at least 20/40 best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between survivor statuses||0.69|0.01|
95964796|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
95851456|NCT03309020|191662865|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.832
95851457|NCT03309020|191662866|OTHER|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||.995
95851458|NCT03309020|191662867|OTHER|||||||0.441||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment and gender (male or female) were included as covariates in the model||||||0.441
95851459|NCT03309020|191662868|OTHER|||||||0.892||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.892
95851460|NCT03309020|191662869|OTHER|||||||0.913||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Age at enrollment, survivor status (EVD survivor/control) included as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.913
95851461|NCT03309020|191662870|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||.106
95851462|NCT03309020|191662871|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Gender (male/female), survivor status (EVD survivor/control) as covariates; within-subject measurement of distinct eyes treated as independent||||||0.09
95868660|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.528|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.81|-17.97|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-17.97|-33.81|< 0.001
95868661|NCT01931670|191693822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-64.53|-48.7|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-48.70|-64.53|< 0.001
95868662|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.549|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.07|-0.11|0.549
95868663|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.02
95868664|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.03|-0.17|0.11
95868665|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.11|-0.30|< 0.001
95868666|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.01|-0.22|0.041
95868667|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.41|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-0.18|-0.41|< 0.001
95868668|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.03|-0.21|0.081
95851463|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.4|11.04|||t-test, 1 sided|||||11.04|7.40|<0.0001
95851464|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|8.44||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.31|10.56|||t-test, 1 sided|||||10.56|6.31|0.0141
95851465|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.85|12.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||12.74|8.85|<0.0001
95851466|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference Week 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.43||||0.1045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.96|8.91|||t-test, 1 sided|||||8.91|3.96|0.1045
95851467|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.66|8.38||||||||8.38|4.66|
95851468|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.33||||||90.0|4.74|9.93||||||||9.93|4.74|
95851469|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|6.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.95|8.88||||||||8.88|3.95|
95851470|NCT05893862|191662895|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|4.76||||||||4.76|0.81|
95851471|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 0.5 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.11|
95851472|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.98||||||||1.98|-1.26|
95851473|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|3.66||||||||3.66|-1.04|
95851474|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 hr|LS Mean Difference|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9|6.64||||||||6.64|1.90|
95851475|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
95851476|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 6 Hr|LS Mean Difference|7.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.35|9.64||||||||9.64|4.35|
95851477|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|11.8||||||||11.80|6.71|
95851478|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 12 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.27|7.35||||||||7.35|2.27|
95851479|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|6.23||||||||6.23|0.91|
95851480|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.18|6.85||||||||6.85|3.18|
95851481|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 1 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.56|6.34||||||||6.34|1.56|
95851482|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 2 Hr|LS Mean Difference|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.49|6.35||||||||6.35|1.49|
95851483|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 3 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|7.03||||||||7.03|2.33|
95851484|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 4 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.45|7.12||||||||7.12|2.45|
95851485|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 8 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|7.71||||||||7.71|1.93|
95851486|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 11 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|8.09||||||||8.09|2.51|
95851487|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 14 Hr|LS Mean Difference|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|8.74||||||||8.74|2.97|
95851488|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 16 Hr|LS Mean Difference|4.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.79|6.45||||||||6.45|1.79|
95851489|NCT05893862|191662898|OTHER|LS Mean Difference 24 Hr|LS Mean Difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.69|3.26||||||||3.26|-1.69|
95851490|NCT00248625|191662935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.19
95851491|NCT00248625|191662936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
95851492|NCT00248625|191662937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Pepe and Mori test of CIF difference|||||||0.21
95851493|NCT00248625|191662938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.053
95851494|NCT00248625|191662939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.29
95851495|NCT00248625|191662940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend|||||||0.74
95868669|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.45|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.22|-0.45|<0.001
95868670|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.062|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.22|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.02|-0.22|0.062
95964797|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||4|-2|
95964798|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
95964799|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
95964800|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-3|
95964801|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||14|-3|
95964802|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||2|-5|
95964803|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||-1|-14|
95964804|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-4|
95964805|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage di|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-1|
95964806|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||1|-6|
95964807|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|(Seroconversion percentage difference (P|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||3|-4|
95851496|NCT00248625|191662941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage tren|||||||0.54
95851497|NCT00248625|191662942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.86
95868671|NCT01931670|191693823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.46|-0.22|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.22|-0.46|< 0.001
95964808|NCT00474526|191901024|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1 over US2, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PUS1 - PUS2) must be greater than -5% for polio and -10% for all others.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PUS1 - PUS2))||5|-8|
95964809|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.96|
95964810|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.96|
95868672|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.64|3.56|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||3.56|-9.64|0.301
95868673|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.99|0.13|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.13|-12.99|0.028
95868674|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.964||0.082|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|1.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||1.49|-11.82|0.082
95868675|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-13.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.956|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.83|-6.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-6.55|-19.83|< 0.001
95868676|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.379||0.043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.43|0.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||0.75|-14.43|0.043
95868677|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-19.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-26.61|-11.49|||mixed-effects model|||Month 3||-11.49|-26.61|< 0.001
95868678|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473||0.072|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.05|1.55|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||1.55|-14.05|0.072
95868679|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.35|-13.81|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-13.81|-29.35|< 0.001
95868680|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.536||0.08|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.15|1.73|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||1.73|-14.15|0.08
95868681|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.56|-13.75|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-13.75|-29.56|< 0.001
95868682|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.744||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-19.24|-2.43|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-2.43|-19.24|0.004
95868683|NCT01931670|191693824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.729|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.54|-12.79|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-12.79|-29.54|< 0.001
95964811|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.25|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.25|0.87|
95868684|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.688|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.11|0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.16|-0.11|0.688
95868685|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.431|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.08|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.08|-0.18|0.431
95964812|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.23|0.89|
95964813|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.21|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.21|0.81|
95964814|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.17|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.17|0.68|
95964815|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.28|0.73|
95868686|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.277|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.07|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.07|-0.20|0.277
95868687|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.37|-0.1|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.10|-0.37|< 0.001
95868688|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.494|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.21|0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.11|-0.21|0.494
95868689|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.43|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.11|-0.43|< 0.001
95868690|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.765|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.14|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.14|-0.18|0.765
95868691|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.47|-0.15|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.15|-0.47|< 0.001
95868692|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.076||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||0.12|-0.23|0.468
95868693|NCT01931670|191693825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|-0.16|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.16|-0.50|< 0.001
95868694|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.18|0.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||0.00|-0.18|0.029
95868695|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|-0.03|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.03|-0.20|0.004
95964816|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95||||||95.0|0.69|1.31|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.31|0.69|
95851498|NCT03085095|191662947|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups was calculated with a noninferiority margin of -10%.|Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|11.8|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of non-inferiority was conducted.||11.8|4.1|
95868696|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.076|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.17|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||0.02|-0.17|0.076
95868697|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.28|-0.09|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.09|-0.28|< 0.001
95868698|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.058|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.02|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||0.02|-0.19|0.058
95868699|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.32|-0.12|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.12|-0.32|< 0.001
95868700|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.284|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.06|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||0.06|-0.16|0.284
95868701|NCT01931670|191693826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.11|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.11|-0.33|< 0.001
95851499|NCT03085095|191662947|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated, superiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in the cumulative probability of sustained profound castration rate between the 2 treatment groups also excluded 0%. The p value was calculated post hoc.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error of 0.05.||Following statistical analysis of the lower bound of the 95% CI ≥ 90% for the relugolix group, secondary statistical analysis of superiority was conducted.||||< 0.0001
95964817|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.4|0.88|
95964818|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.65|0.98|
95964819|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.09|0.78|
95964820|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.27|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.27|0.74|
95964821|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.04|0.71|
95964822|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.14|0.72|
95964823|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.08|0.74|
95964824|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||1.1|0.74|
95964825|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of all other GMCs (GMCLA1 / GMCLA2) must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1:LA2)||0.99|0.6|
95964826|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.99|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.99|0.69|
95964827|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.09|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.83|
95851500|NCT03085095|191662948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
95851501|NCT03085095|191662949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
95851502|NCT03085095|191662950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
95851503|NCT03085095|191662951|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|77.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.98|80.83||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.|Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||80.83|73.98|< 0.0001
95851504|NCT03085095|191662952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistically significance was met if p-value \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided type I error rate of 0.05.||Alpha-protected statistical analysis.||||< 0.0001
95868702|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.56|< 0.001
95868703|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.46|||ANOVA|||Month 1||-0.46|-0.84|< 0.001
95868704|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.42|-0.82|< 0.001
95868705|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.89|||ANOVA|||Month 2||-0.89|-1.29|< 0.001
95868706|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.42|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.42|-0.84|< 0.001
95868707|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.93|||ANOVA|||Month 3||-0.93|-1.35|< 0.001
95868708|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.41|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-0.41|-0.84|< 0.001
95868709|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-1.0|||ANOVA|||Month 4||-1.00|-1.43|< 0.001
95868710|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.57|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-0.57|-1.01|< 0.001
95868711|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.02|||ANOVA|||Month 5||-1.02|-1.47|< 0.001
95868712|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.49|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-0.49|-0.95|< 0.001
95964828|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.78|
95964829|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.03|0.75|
95964830|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4||0.97|0.66|
95964831|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.02|0.6|
95964832|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.09|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.09|0.63|
95851505|NCT03085095|191662956|OTHER||Treatment difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.1|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||19.1|6.9|
95851506|NCT03085095|191662958|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.0|||||Treatment difference= Relugolix - Leuprolide acetate|||2.0|-7.8|
95851507|NCT04026113|191663059|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.689||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.689|0.651|< 0.0001
95868713|NCT01931670|191693827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.04|||ANOVA|||Month 6||-1.04|-1.50|< 0.001
95868714|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.55|-0.01|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.01|-0.55|0.02
95868715|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.72|-0.18|||mixed-effects model|||Month 1||-0.18|-0.72|< 0.001
95868716|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.85|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.23|-0.85|< 0.001
95868717|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.27|-0.65|||mixed-effects model|||Month 2||-0.65|-1.27|< 0.001
95868718|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|-0.21|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.21|-0.95|< 0.001
95868719|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.72|-0.99|||mixed-effects model|||Month 4||-0.99|-1.72|< 0.001
95851508|NCT04026113|191663059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4323||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4323
95851509|NCT04026113|191663061|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.423|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.638||ANCOVA model estimates/t-tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for age group and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.638|0.208|0.0001
95851510|NCT04026113|191663061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4381||||||Treatment-by-Age Group Interaction P-value: Interaction P-value base on ANCOVA model with treatment, age group, treatment-by-age group interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4381
95851511|NCT02927301|191663067|SUPERIORITY||Other/Percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.9||||binomial test||||||14.900|<.0001
95851512|NCT02927301|191663068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.41||||0.0358|ONE_SIDED|80.0|5.279||||Fisher Exact||||||5.279|0.0358
95851513|NCT02927301|191663069|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.363||||0.0395|ONE_SIDED|80.0|6.509||||Chi-squared||||||6.509|0.0395
95851514|NCT02923726|191663075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.9|0.57|0.92|||Log Rank||Shock only was the reference group. Confidence interval adjusted for interim analyses.|||0.92|0.57|0.005
95851515|NCT02923726|191663076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.07|||Log Rank||Shock Only was the reference group.|||1.07|0.78|0.284
95851516|NCT02923726|191663077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95|||Log Rank||Shock Only arm is reference group.|||0.95|0.56|0.020
95851517|NCT02923726|191663078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||0.97|0.44|0.033
95868720|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|-0.23|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-0.23|-0.99|< 0.001
95851518|NCT02923726|191663079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.41|||Log Rank||Shock Only is the reference group.|||1.41|0.94|0.184
95851519|NCT02753283|191663081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.007
95851520|NCT02753283|191663081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.018
95851521|NCT02753283|191663082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.014
95851522|NCT02753283|191663082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.002
95851523|NCT02753283|191663083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.060
95851524|NCT02753283|191663083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.055
95851525|NCT02753283|191663084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.112
95851526|NCT02753283|191663084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.070
95851527|NCT02753283|191663085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.904
95851528|NCT02753283|191663085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.616
95851529|NCT02753283|191663086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||<.001
95851530|NCT02753283|191663086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.005
95851531|NCT02753283|191663087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.001
95851532|NCT02753283|191663087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Using multiple imputation for missing data||||||.038
95851533|NCT04090203|191663103|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|75.0||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|40.0|||The test was performed at a one-sided significance level of 0.05.|Exact binomial test|The null hypothesis of the exact binomial test was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%.|The percentage of successfully desensitized participants is presented with a one-sided 95% CI, obtained from the lower bound of the two-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson exact confidence interval.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of patients who were successfully desensitized was less than or equal to 20%, and the alternative hypothesis was that this percentage was greater than 20%. Assuming 80% of study participants would be successfully desensitized, a sample size of 10 patients would provide greater than 90% power to reject the null hypothesis using a one-sided exact binomial test with a significance level of 0.05.|||40.0|0.001
95851534|NCT01488045|191663110|EQUIVALENCE|We compared patient satisfaction for those receiving the 2 sedation regimens using the Schuirmann 2 one-sided t test procedure.15 The groups were declared to be equivalent in terms of patient satisfaction if the 90% CI for the difference in mean satisfaction had outer boundaries indicating \<5% difference on the 100-point VAS. Nonequivalence was declared if the lower 90% CI boundary for the difference was less than -5.0, or if the upper 90% CI boundary for the difference was \>5.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0741|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-9.6||||||To calculate the required sample size for this study, the equivalence limit was set at 5 units difference on the VAS, with an expected mean difference of 0. The common SD of 16.2 was estimated based on the range of expected scores for the VAS from Ulmer et al. Using these inputs, a total sample size of 262 patients was estimated to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the test and standard were not equivalent and conclude that they were equivalent.||-9.6|-18.5|
95851535|NCT02795117|191663116|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.0|105.4||No p-value was calculated for bioequivalence, only a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|ANOVA|||||105.4|91.0|
95851536|NCT02795117|191663117|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence difference|-6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|1.85|||Wald's method|||||1.85|-18.31|
95851537|NCT01018030|191663118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.386||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.10|-0.67|0.008
95851538|NCT01018030|191663118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.357||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.07|||ANCOVA||The estimation for least squares mean was adjusted for baseline value, country, allergic rhinitis status, age, and gender.|||-0.07|-0.64|0.014
95851539|NCT00772538|191663150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.011||95.0|0.02|0.152||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.152|0.020|0.0110
95851540|NCT00772538|191663151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.005||95.0|0.027|0.149||Step-wise testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.027|0.0050
95851541|NCT00772538|191663152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0343||||||Confirmatory only if previous hypotheses for each of the 2 twin studies had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.05 (2-sided). A pre-specified interim analysis was performed. Cui et al (Biometrics,1999) was used to calculate the p-value.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regression regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||||0.0343
95851542|NCT00772538|191663153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0362||95.0|0.006|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.006|0.0362
95851543|NCT00772538|191663154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0007||95.0|0.058|0.214||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.214|0.058|0.0007
95851544|NCT00772538|191663155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0067||95.0|0.024|0.149||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.149|0.024|0.0067
95851545|NCT00772538|191663156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0139||95.0|0.02|0.176||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.176|0.020|0.0139
95851546|NCT00772538|191663157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0347||95.0|0.005|0.14||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|0.005|0.0347
95851547|NCT00772538|191663158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.1896||95.0|-0.021|0.104||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.104|-0.021|0.1896
95851548|NCT00772538|191663159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.0247||95.0|0.009|0.136||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.136|0.009|0.0247
95851549|NCT00772538|191663160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0039||95.0|0.04|0.21||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.210|0.040|0.0039
95851550|NCT00772538|191663161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0063||95.0|0.031|0.19||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.190|0.031|0.0063
95851551|NCT00772538|191663162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0027||95.0|0.042|0.201||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.201|0.042|0.0027
95964833|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.11|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.11|0.59|
95851552|NCT00772538|191663163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.584|<|0.0001||95.0|13.279|31.308||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||31.308|13.279|<0.0001
95851553|NCT00772538|191663164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.699|<|0.0001||95.0|14.027|32.507||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||32.507|14.027|<0.0001
95851554|NCT00772538|191663165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.173||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.173|0.061|<0.0001
95851555|NCT00772538|191663166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.181||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.181|0.068|<0.0001
95851556|NCT00772538|191663167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||0.7012||95.0|-1.165|1.731||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||1.731|-1.165|0.7012
95851557|NCT00772538|191663168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0499||95.0|0.49|1.0||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|||1.00|0.49|0.0499
95851558|NCT00772538|191663169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0102||95.0|0.55|0.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.92|0.55|0.0102
95851559|NCT00772538|191663170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062||95.0|0.46|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||0.88|0.46|0.0062
95851560|NCT00772538|191663171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0065||95.0|0.4|0.88||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||0.88|0.40|0.0065
95851561|NCT00772538|191663172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0561||95.0|0.42|1.01||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||1.01|0.42|0.0561
95851562|NCT00772538|191663173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5604||95.0|0.3|1.92||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium|||1.92|0.30|0.5604
95851563|NCT00772538|191663174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5538||95.0|0.54|1.39||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Poisson Regression|Parameter estimates of Poisson regression model. Log exposure was used as offset and adjusted for overdispersion.|Tio R5 - Placebo|||1.39|0.54|0.5538
95851564|NCT00772538|191663175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.633||95.0|0.25|2.13||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|Exact 95percent confidence interval by Clopper and Pearson.|Tio R5 vs Placebo|||2.13|0.25|0.6330
95964834|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.19|0.76|
95851565|NCT00772538|191663176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5714||95.0|-0.103|0.186||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.186|-0.103|0.5714
95851566|NCT00772538|191663177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.6099||95.0|-0.109|0.185||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.185|-0.109|0.6099
95964835|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.37|||ANOVA|||HIb (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.37|0.83|
95851567|NCT00772538|191663178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0586||95.0|-0.256|0.005||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.005|-0.256|0.0586
95851568|NCT00772538|191663179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0727||95.0|-0.253|0.011||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.011|-0.253|0.0727
95868721|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.75|-1.0|||mixed-effects model|||Month 5||-1.00|-1.75|< 0.001
95851569|NCT00772538|191663180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9807||95.0|-0.048|0.047||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.047|-0.048|0.9807
95851570|NCT00772538|191663181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.5927||95.0|-0.43|0.246||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.246|-0.430|0.5927
95851571|NCT00772538|191663182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 24 weeks||1.73|1.01|0.0427
95851572|NCT00772538|191663182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.21||Calculated as 2\*one-sided-p-value in the direction corresponding to testing the null hypothesis|Fisher Exact||Tio R5 / Placebo|Comparison at 48 weeks||2.21|1.28|0.0001
95851573|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.692
95851574|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.467
95851575|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.281
95851576|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.075
95851577|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95964836|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMT; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.95|0.68|
95964837|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.14|0.67|
95851578|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851579|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.803
95868722|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.08|-0.3|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.30|-1.08|< 0.001
95964838|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1|0.69|
95851580|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.175
95851581|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.552
95851582|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851583|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95851584|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.618
95851585|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.149
95851586|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.255
95851587|NCT00713609|191663191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851588|NCT00713609|191663192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.922
95851589|NCT00713609|191663192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.132
95851590|NCT00713609|191663192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
95851591|NCT00713609|191663192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.706
95851592|NCT00713609|191663192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.009
95851593|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
95851594|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.504
95851595|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.177
95851596|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.084
95851597|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For ILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851598|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851599|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.776||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.776
95851600|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.465
95851601|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||0.288
95868723|NCT01931670|191693828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.67|-0.89|||mixed-effects model|||Month 6||-0.89|-1.67|< 0.001
95868724|NCT01931670|191693829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.16|-7.25|0.007
95868725|NCT01931670|191693829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-4.50|-10.6|< 0.001
95851602|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For NILC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851603|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95851604|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.620
95851605|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.291
95851606|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
95868726|NCT01931670|191693829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|-3.91|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-3.91|-10.75|< 0.001
95868727|NCT01931670|191693829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-11.99|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-11.99|-18.87|< 0.001
95964839|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.84||||||95.0|0.67|1.05|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.05|0.67|
95964840|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||0.9|0.62|
95964841|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.1|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.1|0.75|
95964842|NCT00474526|191901025|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pertussis GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) must be greater than 0.67; the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3 / GMCLA4) or GMTs (poliovirus antigens) for the other antigens must be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.12|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3:LA4)||1.12|0.69|
95964843|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||4.4|-2.2|
95964844|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.6|-1.9|
95851607|NCT00713609|191663193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||For TC|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95851608|NCT00713609|191663194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.652
95851609|NCT00713609|191663194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.279
95851610|NCT00713609|191663194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.312
95851611|NCT00713609|191663194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
95851612|NCT00713609|191663194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
95851613|NCT03305666|191663200|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95851614|NCT03305666|191663201|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #1.||||0.41
95851615|NCT03305666|191663201|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #2.||||0.25
95851616|NCT03305666|191663201|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #3.||||0.12
95868728|NCT01931670|191693829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-4.60|-12.81|< 0.001
95868729|NCT01931670|191693829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|-12.86|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-12.86|-20.98|< 0.001
95868730|NCT01931670|191693830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.26|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||3.26|-4.40|0.77
95868731|NCT01931670|191693830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.61|-8.19|0.023
95851617|NCT03305666|191663201|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #4.||||0.04
95868732|NCT01931670|191693830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||2.01|-7.50|0.257
95868733|NCT01931670|191693830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-10.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-6.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-6.01|-15.37|< 0.001
95868734|NCT01931670|191693830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.80|-8.66|0.315
95964845|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|7.1|||ANOVA|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.1|-7.7|
95964846|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.8|-9.2|
95964847|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-6.0||||||95.0|-12.9|2.2|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.2|-12.9|
95964848|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.0|-4.8|
95964849|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.3|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.3|-4.6|
95964850|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.1|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5.1|-3.2|
95964851|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.5|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.5|-1.5|
95851618|NCT03305666|191663201|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||This is the P-Value for between groups comparison of Postoperative Day #5.||||0.32
95964852|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||5|-1.1|
95964853|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0||||||95.0|-2.8|7.7|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||7.7|-2.8|
95964854|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 4(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.3|-3|
95964855|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||12.3|-2.2|
95964856|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||3.6|-3.9|
95851619|NCT03305666|191663202|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analyses were conduced using SAS version 9.4. This non-inferiority test was conducted via a one-way ANOVA test, with statistical significance set at p \< 0.05.||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
95868735|NCT01931670|191693830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-8.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-8.55|-19.64|< 0.001
95868736|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.17|-1.86|0.019
95868737|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.10|-1.80|0.028
95868738|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.20|-1.76|0.014
95868739|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.65|-2.22|< 0.001
95868740|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.18|-1.52|0.121
95868741|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.56|-2.25|0.001
95868742|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.15|-2.35|0.026
95868743|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.39|-2.57|0.008
95868744|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.08|-1.37|0.027
95868745|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.47|-1.75|< 0.001
95868746|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.20|-1.34|0.143
95868747|NCT01931670|191693831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.15|-1.67|0.019
95868748|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.19|-1.44|0.131
95868749|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-0.05|-1.65|0.037
95868750|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.29|-1.96|0.008
95868751|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.60|-2.27|< 0.001
95868752|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.036
95868753|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.431||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.06|-1.76|0.035
95868754|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.55|-1.23|0.452
95868755|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.432||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-2.18|0.002
95868756|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.25|-1.99|0.012
95868757|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.78|-2.5|< 0.001
95868758|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.21|-1.67|0.13
95868759|NCT01931670|191693832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.56|-2.34|0.001
95868760|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.65|-3.32|0.186
95868761|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.013||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.10|-5.08|0.002
95868762|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.005||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.67|-3.28|0.195
95868763|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-1.67|-5.63|< 0.001
95868764|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.02|-4.03|0.047
95868765|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|-1.19|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-1.19|-5.21|0.002
95868766|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||0.33|-3.59|0.103
95868767|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-2.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-2.83|-6.72|< 0.001
95868768|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.38|-4.20|0.019
95868769|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-3.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.22|-7.06|< 0.001
95868770|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.22|-3.16|0.383
95868771|NCT01931670|191693833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.87|-5.17|0.006
95868772|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.422||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.84|-0.81|0.975
95868773|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.80|-0.83|0.969
95868774|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.389||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.54|-0.99|0.569
95868775|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.393||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.37|-1.17|0.311
95868776|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.42|-0.56|0.398
95868777|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.84|-1.15|0.761
95868778|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.04|-0.89|0.874
95868779|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.01|-1.85|0.048
95851620|NCT03988400|191663273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95851621|NCT03988400|191663274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.017
95851622|NCT03988400|191663275|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95851623|NCT03988400|191663276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95851624|NCT03988400|191663277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95851625|NCT03988400|191663278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95851626|NCT03988400|191663279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95851627|NCT03988400|191663280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95851628|NCT03988400|191663281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95851629|NCT03988400|191663282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95851630|NCT01168349|191663315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.71||||||||0.71|0.42|
95851631|NCT01168349|191663318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95851632|NCT01650558|191663346|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.82||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.82|0.89|<=0.05
95851633|NCT01650558|191663346|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83||P-Value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.83|0.89|<=0.05
95851634|NCT01650558|191663347|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.30|0.83|<=0.05
95851635|NCT01650558|191663347|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Fisher Exact|||||2.49|0.91|<=0.05
95851636|NCT01650558|191663348|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.93||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.93|0.66|<=0.05
95853901|NCT02151058|191667088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0786||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3268|-0.0168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0168|-0.3268|0.030
95853902|NCT02151058|191667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0369||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1556|-0.0102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0102|-0.1556|0.026
95853903|NCT02151058|191667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1917|-0.0451||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0451|-0.1917|0.002
95851637|NCT01650558|191663348|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Fisher Exact|||||1.68|0.55|<=0.05
95851638|NCT01650558|191663349|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||2.00|1.07|<=0.05
95851639|NCT01650558|191663349|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.96||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.96|1.04|<=0.05
95851640|NCT01650558|191663350|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.55||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.55|1.11|<=0.05
95851641|NCT01650558|191663350|NON_INFERIORITY|Will assess performance of each experimental group relative to TS with a noninferiority margin for 1-HR of 0.35 to test the null (1-HR ≥ 0.35) and alternative (1-HR \< 0.35) hypotheses. Each experimental group will be declared noninferior to TS if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of 1-HR is below 0.35. For ease of interpretation, the HRs have been recast with TS as the reference group, such that HRs greater than 1 indicate an increase in the experimental hazard rate relative to TS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||<=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Poisson|Rate ratio confidence intervals and p-values were adjusted for overdispersion using the Pearson's chi-square scale.||||1.58|1.14|<=0.05
95851642|NCT00660192|191663357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0347
95851643|NCT00660192|191663358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0300
95851644|NCT00960375|191663374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Smoking reduction outcomes were examined in the randomized sample using data from baseline and post-treatment assessments. The variable examined was self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day during the last 7 days. This variable was skewed so a natural log transformation was applied before linear mixed model analysis.||||0.489
95851645|NCT00960375|191663375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This outcome was examined in the randomized sample. Abstinence was defined as self-reported no smoking in the last 7 days + expired CO ≤ 10 PPM. To assess difference in change between conditions, we tested the significance of the condition-by-time interaction using repeated measured mixed models with a random participant effect. Time was binary: post-treatment versus baseline. We used a logistic model for binary outcomes.||||0.685
95851646|NCT00083889|191663376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4316|0.643||p-value from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio les than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α). Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed in each treatment arm using the Kaplan-Meier method.||0.6430|0.4316|<0.0001
95964857|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||6.2|-1.1|
95964858|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
95964859|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||2.9|-4.8|
95964860|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1 to LA2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA1 - PLA2) must be greater than -5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.9|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA1 - PLA2))||1.9|-8|
95964861|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.8|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.8|-2.3|
95964862|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-1.3|
95964863|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|10.7|||Seroconversion Percentage difference|||PT (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||10.7|-4.8|
95851647|NCT00083889|191663376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5136|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4196|0.6288||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a).||0.6288|0.4196|<.00001
95851648|NCT00083889|191663377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|30.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.31|36.56|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||36.56|25.31|<0.001
95851649|NCT00083889|191663378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||treatment difference|33.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.62|39.69|||Chi-squared||95% confidence interval was calculated based on a normal distribution.|||39.69|27.62|<0.001
95851650|NCT00083889|191663379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0510
95851651|NCT00083889|191663379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8209||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.0013||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified tests.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||1.0013|0.6730|0.0128
95851652|NCT00083889|191663379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8179||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6692|0.9995||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified tests. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.9995|0.6692|0.0490
95851653|NCT00083889|191663380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4345|0.6544||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6544|0.4345|<0.0001
95853904|NCT02151058|191667089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0297||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.0231||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0231|-0.0940|0.234
95853905|NCT02151058|191667090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0568||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2882|-0.0644||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0644|-0.2882|0.002
95853906|NCT02151058|191667090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0573|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4638|-0.2378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2378|-0.4638|<0.001
95853907|NCT02151058|191667090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0458|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2648|-0.0841||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0841|-0.2648|<0.001
95853908|NCT02151058|191667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0631|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|-0.1226||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||-0.1226|-0.3713|<0.001
95853909|NCT02151058|191667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0638|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6236|-0.3722||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3722|-0.6236|<0.001
95851654|NCT00083889|191663380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.516|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.6352||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-a)||0.6352|0.4191|<.00001
95851655|NCT00083889|191663381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5454|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4558|0.6526||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio \> 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6526|0.4558|<0.0001
95851656|NCT00083889|191663381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5417|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4519|0.6492||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors were: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248; a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified Analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α)||0.6492|0.4519|<.00001
95851657|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.376|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index-Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.450|1.376|<.0001
95851658|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.449|1.421|<.0001
95851659|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.443|2.452|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Difference in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.452|1.443|<.0001
95851660|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.476|2.464|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.464|1.476|<.0001
95851661|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.491|2.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.475|1.491|<.0001
95851662|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|1.510|<.0001
95851663|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|2.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.519|1.517|<.0001
95851664|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|1.522|<.0001
95851665|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.522|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.584|1.522|<.0001
95851666|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.515|2.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.635|1.515|<.0001
95868780|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.35|-2.14|0.16
95964864|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|8.8|||ANOVA|||FHA(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||8.8|-7.1|
95964865|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|5.7|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||5.7|-8|
95851667|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.509|2.667|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.667|1.509|<.0001
95851668|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.494|2.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.727|1.494|<.0001
95851669|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.123|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.483|2.763|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.763|1.483|<.0001
95851670|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.830|1.461|<.0001
95851671|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.158|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.447|2.869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.869|1.447|<.0001
95851672|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.941|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.941|1.420|<.0001
95851673|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|2.983|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.983|1.404|<.0001
95868781|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||0.33|-2.14|0.152
95868782|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.15|-1.81|0.095
95964866|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.7|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 1 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.7|-2|
95964867|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.8|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 2 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.8|-3|
95964868|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.5|||ANOVA|||Polio Type 3 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||4.5|-4.4|
95964869|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7|||ANOVA|||Hepatitis B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||2.7|-2.3|
95868783|NCT01931670|191693834|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.474||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.07|-1.79|0.071
95964870|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||1|-5.3|
95851674|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.373|3.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.059|1.373|<.0001
95851675|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.355|3.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.102|1.355|<.0001
95851676|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.251|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.321|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.180|1.321|<.0001
95851677|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.263|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.302|3.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.225|1.302|<.0001
95851678|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.286|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.266|3.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.305|1.266|<.0001
95851679|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.246|3.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.351|1.246|<.0001
95851680|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.321|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|3.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.433|1.209|<.0001
95851681|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.333|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.188|3.479|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.479|1.188|<.0001
95851682|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.356||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.562|1.150|0.0001
95851683|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.369||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.128|3.609|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.609|1.128|0.0002
95851684|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.391||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.693|1.089|0.0003
95851685|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.067|3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.740|1.067|0.0004
95851686|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.426||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|3.825|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.825|1.027|0.0007
95851687|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.439||||0.0009||95.0|1.005|3.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.872|1.005|0.0009
95868784|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.106||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.34|-4.01|0.098
95868785|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||-1.54|-5.91|< 0.001
95868786|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||0.13|-4.16|0.065
95868787|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.089|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|-2.96|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-2.96|-7.24|< 0.001
95868788|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-0.41|-4.89|0.02
95868789|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||-2.41|-6.87|< 0.001
95868790|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.48|-4.95|0.017
95868791|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|-4.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-4.06|-8.48|< 0.001
95868792|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.34|-4.64|0.023
95868793|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-3.68|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-3.68|-7.98|< 0.001
95868794|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.264||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.20|-3.77|0.311
95868795|NCT01931670|191693835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.241||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|-1.53|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-1.53|-6.42|0.001
95868796|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.62|-1.81|0.335
95868797|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 1||0.48|-1.91|0.242
95868798|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.652||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.05|-2.61|0.042
95868799|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Month 2||-0.48|-3.06|0.007
95868800|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.92|-1.87|0.503
95868801|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.41|-2.36|0.169
95868802|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||1.14|-1.76|0.675
95868803|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.703||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Month 4||-0.79|-3.55|0.002
95868804|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.36|-3.72|0.017
95868805|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.848||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Month 5||-0.87|-4.21|0.003
95868806|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.06|-3.12|0.042
95868807|NCT01931670|191693836|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||-0.83|-3.73|0.002
95868808|NCT01992159|191693861|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.5|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||6.5|< 0.0001
95868809|NCT01992159|191693861|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|12.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|11.1|||P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||11.1|< 0.0001
95868810|NCT01992159|191693861|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|16.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|14.6|||One-sided p-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a combination of a sequential test procedure and Hochberg's method to control type 1 error for the primary endpoint.|Repeated Measures Model|||The primary analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||14.6|< 0.0001
95964871|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-2.0||||||95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL)(Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-6.6|
95964872|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3|-4.2|
95964873|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||9|-4|
95964874|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||6|-2.8|
95851688|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.461||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.964|3.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.958|0.964|0.0013
95851689|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.474||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.942|4.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.006|0.942|0.0016
95851690|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.496||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|0.901|0.0022
95851691|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.509||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.140|0.878|0.0026
95851692|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.531||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|4.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.226|0.836|0.0034
95851693|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.544||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|4.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.274|0.813|0.0040
95868811|NCT01992159|191693862|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|5.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|4.4||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||4.4|< 0.0001
95964875|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||3.4|-3.7|
95964876|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.8|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||0.8|-7.2|
95964877|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|7.5|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7.5|-0.8|
95964878|NCT00474526|191901026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3 over LA4, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in seroresponse rates (PLA3 - PLA4) must be greater than 5% for poliovirus and greater than -10% for all other antigens.|Seroconversion Percentage difference|1.0||||||95.0|-3.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Seroconversion percentage difference (PLA3 - PLA4))||7|-3.7|
95964879|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
95964880|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.02|0.62|
95964881|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.2|0.67|
95964882|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.03|0.63|
95851694|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.566||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|4.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.361|0.772|0.0051
95851695|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.579||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.410|0.748|0.0058
95851696|NCT00083889|191663384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.602||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|4.497|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FKSI-DRS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.497|0.706|0.0071
95851697|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.234|4.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.095|2.234|<.0001
95851698|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.318|4.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.092|2.318|<.0001
95964883|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.78|
95851699|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.358|4.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.097|2.358|<.0001
95964884|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|1.04||||||95.0|0.81|1.34|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.34|0.81|
95851700|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.268|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.418|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.119|2.418|<.0001
95851701|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.443|4.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.139|2.443|<.0001
95851702|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|4.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.189|2.474|<.0001
95851703|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.354|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.484|4.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.224|2.484|<.0001
95851704|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.489|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.300|2.489|<.0001
95851705|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|4.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.348|2.486|<.0001
95851706|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.458|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|4.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.446|2.469|<.0001
95851707|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.455|4.505|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.505|2.455|<.0001
95851708|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.521|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.422|4.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.620|2.422|<.0001
95851709|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.543|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.399|4.687|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.687|2.399|<.0001
95851710|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.584|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.354|4.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.814|2.354|<.0001
95851711|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.326|4.887|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||4.887|2.326|<.0001
95851712|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.272|5.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.022|2.272|<.0001
95964885|NCT00474526|191901041|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCUS1A / GMCUS1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.29|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio US1A:US1B)||1.29|0.69|
95964886|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|-8|
95964887|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||10|0|
95851713|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|5.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.099|2.240|<.0001
95851714|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.240|2.180|<.0001
95851715|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.145|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.320|2.145|<.0001
95851716|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|5.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.466|2.080|<.0001
95851717|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.796|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.043|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.548|2.043|<.0001
95851718|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.836|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.975|5.698|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.698|1.975|<.0001
95851719|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|5.781|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.781|1.936|<.0001
95851720|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.899||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.866|5.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.933|1.866|0.0002
95851721|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.922||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.826|6.018|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.018|1.826|0.0002
95851722|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.962||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|6.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.172|1.753|0.0004
95851723|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.985||||0.0006||95.0|1.712|6.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.258|1.712|0.0006
95851724|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.638|6.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.413|1.638|0.0010
95868812|NCT01992159|191693862|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|9.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|8.0||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||8.0|< 0.0001
95868813|NCT01992159|191693862|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|10.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the lumbar spine as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||10.6|< 0.0001
95851725|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.048||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.597|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.500|1.597|0.0012
95851726|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.089||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.521|6.656|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.656|1.521|0.0018
95851727|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.111||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.479|6.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.743|1.479|0.0022
95868814|NCT01992159|191693863|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.6||||0.125|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.3|0.1250
95868815|NCT01992159|191693863|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.9||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.9|0.0002
95851728|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.152||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.403|6.901|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.901|1.403|0.0031
95851729|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.174||||0.0037||95.0|1.36|6.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||6.988|1.360|0.0037
95964888|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||5|-13|
95964889|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (US1A - US1B))||3|-6|
95964890|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|3.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||3|-15|
95964891|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||11|-4|
95964892|NCT00474526|191901042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of US1A over US1B, the lower limit of 95% CI for the difference in rates (PUS1A - PUS1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 239F (percentage difference (US1A:US1B))||5|-10|
95964893|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.02|0.61|
95964894|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.2|0.54|
95964895|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.94|0.58|
95964896|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.82|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||0.82|0.51|
95964897|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.6|
95964898|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.04|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.04|0.56|
95964899|NCT00474526|191901043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of pneumococcal GMCs (GMCLA1A / GMCLA1B) had to be greater than 0.50.|Ratio of GMCs|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA1A:LA1B)||1.01|0.54|
95964900|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 4 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-9.6|
95964901|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|7.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 6B (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7.3|-11.9|
95964902|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|4.3|||ANOVA|||PnC 9V (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||4.3|-10.9|
95964903|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7|||ANOVA|||PnC 14 (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||2.7|-5.6|
95964904|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-5.6|||ANOVA|||PnC 18C (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||-5.6|-24.1|
95964905|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.2|||ANOVA|||PnC 19F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||5.2|-11.6|
95964906|NCT00474526|191901044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA1A over LA1B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates (PLA1A - PLA1B) had to be greater than -10%.|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0|||ANOVA|||PnC 23F (percentage difference (LA1A - LA1B))||7|-7|
95964907|NCT00474526|191901045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A/GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.27|0.86|
95964908|NCT00474526|191901045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.18|0.75|
95964909|NCT00474526|191901045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||ANOVA|||PT (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.4|0.88|
95964910|NCT00474526|191901045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||ANOVA|||FHA (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.44|0.9|
95964911|NCT00474526|191901045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.59|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B||1.59|0.92|
95964912|NCT00474526|191901045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMCLA3A / GMCLA3B) had to be greater than 0.67 for PT, FHA and pertactin and greater than 0.50 for Hib, diphtheria and tetanus.|Ratio of GMCs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||ANOVA|||Hib (Post-vaccination GMC; group ratio LA3A:LA3B)||1.16|0.63|
95964913|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0||||||95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Diphtheria (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
95964914|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4|||ANOVA|||Tetanus (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.4|-4.2|
95964915|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|6.0||||||95.0|-3.6|15.2|||ANOVA|||PT (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||15.2|-3.6|
95964916|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.2|||ANOVA|||FHA (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||8.2|-10.2|
95964917|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANOVA|||Pertactin (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||10.6|-7.2|
95851730|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.215||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|7.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.147|1.283|0.0048
95851731|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.237||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|7.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.235|1.240|0.0056
95851732|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.278||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|7.394|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.394|1.162|0.0071
95964918|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.6|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥ 0.15 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||3.6|-3.1|
95868816|NCT01992159|191693863|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.7|< 0.0001
95851733|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|7.482|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.482|1.119|0.0081
95851734|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.341||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.642|1.041|0.0099
95851735|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.364||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.730|0.997|0.0111
95851736|NCT00083889|191663385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.404||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.890|0.918|0.0133
95851737|NCT00083889|191663386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5404|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4532|0.6444||p-value is from 2-sided, unstratified test.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Unstratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6444|0.4532|<0.0001
95851738|NCT00083889|191663386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5418|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4536|0.6473||p-value is from 2-sided, stratified test. Stratification factors are: Lactic Dehydrogenase (LDH) \> or \<= 1.5 x upper limit of normal, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, and absence or presence of prior nephrectomy.|Log Rank||Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of SU011248: a hazard ratio greater than 1 indicates a reduction in favor of IFN-a.|Stratified analysis: Hazard Ratio (SU011248 vs IFN-α).||0.6473|0.4536|<.00001
95851739|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|7.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.119|3.852|<.0001
95851740|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.535|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.955|7.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.115|3.955|<.0001
95851741|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|7.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.124|4.000|<.0001
95851742|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.061|7.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.162|4.061|<.0001
95868817|NCT01992159|191693864|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.5||||0.0012|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.7||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.7|0.0012
95964919|NCT00474526|191901046|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To assess non-inferiority of LA3A over LA3B, The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference (PLA3A-PLA3B) in percentages of subjects with seroresponse against diphtheria, tetanus, Hib and pertussis antigens (except FHA for ≥4 fold rise) was greater than -10%|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.3|||ANOVA|||Hib (≥1.0 μg/mL) (percentage difference (LA3A - LA3B))||5.3|-2.2|
95964920|NCT00132678|191901049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|0.27|0.59|||Log Rank|Adjusting for country|RISPERDAL CONSTA hazard in numerator, placebo hazard in denominator.|||0.59|0.27|<0.001
95964921|NCT00132678|191901050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001||95.0|-8.08|-3.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-3.79|-8.08|<0.001
95868818|NCT01992159|191693864|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.8||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.8|< 0.0001
95868819|NCT01992159|191693864|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|4.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|3.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the total hip as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||3.3|< 0.0001
95868820|NCT01992159|191693865|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.2846|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||-0.6|0.2846
95868821|NCT01992159|191693865|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.3||||0.0151|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.3|0.0151
95868822|NCT01992159|191693865|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.5|0.0001
95868823|NCT01992159|191693866|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.6||||0.0067|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.5||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||0.5|0.0067
95868824|NCT01992159|191693866|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|1.6||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||1.6|< 0.0001
95868825|NCT01992159|191693866|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|2.3||||Repeated Measures Model|||The analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the percent change from baseline at months 6 and 12 in BMD of the femoral neck as the dependent variable, and baseline BMD, machine type, interaction of baseline BMD and machine type, visit (categorical), treatment (categorical), and interaction of treatment and visit as the independent variables; using an unstructured variance covariance structure.|||2.3|< 0.0001
95868826|NCT01992159|191693871|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-15.3||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|30.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||30.2|-60.8|0.5084
95868827|NCT01992159|191693871|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|84.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|128.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at month 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||128.0|40.1|0.0002
95851743|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.083|7.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.195|4.083|<.0001
95851744|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|7.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.276|4.100|<.0001
95851745|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.098|7.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.333|4.098|<.0001
95868828|NCT01992159|191693871|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|153.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.2|198.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with the AUC of P1NP at months 12 as the dependent variable, and baseline P1NP and treatment (categorical) as the independent variables.||||198.4|109.2|< 0.0001
95868829|NCT01198158|191693872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Log Rank|OS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors.||||||0.739
95868830|NCT01198158|191693873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Log Rank|PFS was analyzed based on an intent-to-treat approach using the stratified log-rank statistic adjusting on the stratification factors||||||0.832
95868831|NCT05478174|191693881|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0411|0.0255||P-Value for non inferiority test|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.0255|-0.0411|<0.001
95868832|NCT05478174|191693882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0716||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1742|0.031|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.0310|-0.1742|0.171
95868833|NCT05478174|191693883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-1.31|||ANOVA|||||-1.31|-2.22|<0.001
95868834|NCT01249118|191693891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|8.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.08|10.08|||||The 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI) of test group (oral dose) means relative to reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking antilog of corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|Least squares (LS) mean was calculated from analysis of variance (ANOVA). Data for dose-normalized Cmax were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||10.08|7.08|
95964922|NCT00132678|191901051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.02||95.0|-3.75|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and double-blind baseline value as covariate.|Change in RISPERDAL CONSTA arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.32|-3.75|0.020
95964923|NCT00953147|191901052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.04|0.35|<0.0001
95964924|NCT00953147|191901052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.84||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in iTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||0.84|0.24|0.0005
95868835|NCT01249118|191693895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.43|56.94|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS means was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - t) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||56.94|41.43|
95964925|NCT00953147|191901053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.92|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.92|0.25|0.0014
95964926|NCT00953147|191901053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.72|0.12|0.0122
95964927|NCT03838731|191901068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||=|0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.77|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.77|0.17|= 0.0083
95964928|NCT03838731|191901069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 29||0.48|0.12|< 0.0001
95964929|NCT03838731|191901069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||=|0.0222||95.0|0.22|0.89|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 57||0.89|0.22|= 0.0222
95868836|NCT01249118|191693897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS Means|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.74|53.06|||||The 90% CI of the test group (oral dose) means relative to the reference group (IV dose) means were obtained by taking the antilog of the corresponding 90% CI for the differences between the means on the log scale.|LS mean was calculated from ANOVA. Data for dose-normalized AUC (0 - ∞) were natural log-transformed prior to analysis.||53.06|39.74|
95868837|NCT01063712|191693927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|||It is not a analysis of two groups. Only one group of patients was analyzed.||||<0.01
95868838|NCT01063712|191693928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||percentage|The analysis was made on the basis of the percentage of patients with completely regressed dilation.||It is a one arm clinical study. No comparison between groups was made.||||<0.01
95868839|NCT00095238|191693942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||Comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 6 (first 2 columns)||1.3|-0.8|
95868840|NCT00095238|191693942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|baseline score used as covariate; treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, \& baseline angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors used as predictors||comparison of 2 treatment arms at Month 14 (columns 3 and 4)||1.7|-0.5|
95868841|NCT05033002|191693974|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
95964930|NCT03838731|191901069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||=|0.0003||95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cox Hazard Model|||Day 85||0.56|0.13|= 0.0003
95868842|NCT05033002|191693974|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||<.0001
95868843|NCT05033002|191693975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.002
95868844|NCT05033002|191693975|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.010
95868845|NCT05033002|191693976|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.001
95868846|NCT05033002|191693976|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0002||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.032
95868847|NCT05033002|191693977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.506|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.506
95868848|NCT05033002|191693978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of linear (TimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis|The estimated value is for the slope of linear (TimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.||||||.441
95868849|NCT05033002|191693978|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0002||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is for the t-test of the coefficient of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value is for the slope of quadratic (TimeXTimeXGroup) trends. Controlled for significant covariates.|||||.734
95868850|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1217|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Sex||||=0.1217
95868851|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8241|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA=Analysis of variance||PCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.8241
95868852|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3471|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.3471
95868853|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9951|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.9951
95868854|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0631|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.0631
95868855|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7473|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.7473
95868856|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4422|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.4422
95868857|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1796|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.1796
95868858|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3535|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.3535
95868859|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1508|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1508
95868860|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2671|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.2671
95868861|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0594|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.0594
95868862|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5484|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.5484
95868863|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5387|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.5387
95868864|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.527|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5270
95868865|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3863|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.3863
95868866|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4206|||||||ANOVA|||PCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4206
95868867|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0538|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.0538
95868868|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9572|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.9572
95868869|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4742|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.4742
95868870|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5735|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.5735
95868871|NCT04876690|191694022|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||PCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3760
95868872|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4814|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Sex||||=0.4814
95868873|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3136|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||MCS-12: Employment Status||||=0.3136
95868874|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5808|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Smoking Status||||=0.5808
95868875|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2965|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Age at Onset||||=0.2965
95868876|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2874|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Location||||=0.2874
95868877|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4269|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: Disease Behavior||||=0.4269
95868878|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8931|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of any Extraintestinal Manifestation of CD||||=0.8931
95851746|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.764|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.075|7.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.454|4.075|<.0001
95851747|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.053|7.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.531|4.053|<.0001
95851748|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.998|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.684|3.998|<.0001
95851749|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.868|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.777|3.960|<.0001
95851750|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|7.955|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||7.955|3.880|<.0001
95851751|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.060|3.830|<.0001
95851752|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.731|8.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.257|3.731|<.0001
95851753|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.672|8.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.370|3.672|<.0001
95851754|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.071|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.56|8.581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.581|3.560|<.0001
95851755|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.495|8.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.701|3.495|<.0001
95851756|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|8.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||8.921|3.373|<.0001
95851757|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.303|9.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.045|3.303|<.0001
95868879|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9384|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Intersphincteric Type||||=0.9384
95868880|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8286|||||||Mann-Whitney|||MCS-12: Fistula With High Transsphincteric Type||||=0.8286
95868881|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1919|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Suprasphincteric Type||||=0.1919
95868882|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6452|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula with Extrasphincteric Type||||=0.6452
95868883|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7218|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Intersphincteric Type||||=0.7218
95868884|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9738|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Low Transsphincteric Type||||=0.9738
95868885|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2419|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Midline Position||||=0.2419
95868886|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5524|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Lateral Position||||=0.5524
95868887|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4443|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Fistula With Seton||||=0.4443
95868888|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4106|||||||ANOVA|||MCS-12: HBI Categories (Remission, Mild and Moderate Activity)||||=0.4106
95868889|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7795|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery-naïve||||=0.7795
95868890|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2964|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Fistulotomy||||=0.2964
95868891|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3287|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Loose Seton||||=0.3287
95868892|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0091|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Surgery - Other||||=0.0091
95868893|NCT04876690|191694023|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3889|||||||t-test for Independent Samples|||MCS-12: Presence of Perianal Abscess||||=0.3889
95868894|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8001|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Age||||=0.8001
95868895|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4532|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: BMI||||=0.4532
95868896|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9597|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9597
95868897|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3304|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.3304
95868898|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6333|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Since Seton Replacement||||=0.6333
95868899|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8003|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.8003
95868900|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0032|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.0032
95868901|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0923|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0923
95868902|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0994|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.0994
95868903|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0444|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.0444
95868904|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.0860
95868905|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9415|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9415
95868906|NCT04876690|191694024|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3709|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||PCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.3709
95868907|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0674|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Age||||=0.0674
95868908|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9392|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: BMI||||=0.9392
95868909|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6387|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between CD Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.6387
95868910|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7846|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Total Number of CPFs per Participant||||=0.7846
95868911|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3972|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Since Seton Placement||||=0.3972
95868912|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9496|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Time Between First CPF Diagnosis Date and Date of Study Visit||||=0.9496
95868913|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.813|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: PDAI Score||||=0.8130
95868914|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4588|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of Internal Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.4588
95868915|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8663|||||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Number of External Fistula Openings per Participant||||=0.8663
95868916|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1349|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SIBDQ Score||||=0.1349
95868917|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5647|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-M Score||||=0.5647
95851758|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.174|9.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.273|3.174|<.0001
95851759|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.251||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.101|9.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.401|3.101|0.0001
95851760|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.966|9.634|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.634|2.966|0.0002
95851761|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.327||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|9.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||9.765|2.890|0.0003
95851762|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.377||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.751|10.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.002|2.751|0.0006
95851763|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.404||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|10.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.135|2.673|0.0008
95851764|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.453||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|10.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.376|2.530|0.0013
95851765|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|10.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.510|2.451|0.0016
95851766|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.306|10.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.754|2.306|0.0025
95851767|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.557||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.224|10.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||10.889|2.224|0.0030
95868918|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.9509|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: SQoL-F Score||||=0.9509
95851768|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.606||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|11.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.135|2.077|0.0043
95851769|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.634||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.995|11.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.272|1.995|0.0051
95851770|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.683||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|11.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.519|1.847|0.0068
95868919|NCT04876690|191694025|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5328|||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||MCS- 12: Wexner Score||||=0.5328
95868920|NCT00492063|191694028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
95964931|NCT03838731|191901070|SUPERIORITY|Day 8|LS Mean Difference|13.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|20.77|||MMRM|||||20.77|6.35|<0.001
95964932|NCT03838731|191901070|SUPERIORITY|Day 29|LS Mean Difference|16.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|26.24|||MMRM|||||26.24|6.18|= 0.002
95851771|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.71||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|11.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.657|1.764|0.0079
95851772|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.759||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.613|11.905|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||11.905|1.613|0.0100
95851773|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.787||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|12.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.043|1.530|0.0114
95851774|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.836||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.378|12.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.293|1.378|0.0141
95851775|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.863||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.294|12.432|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.432|1.294|0.0157
95851776|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.912||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|12.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.683|1.142|0.0189
95851777|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.94||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|12.822|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||12.822|1.057|0.0208
95851778|NCT00083889|191663387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.989||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|13.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||13.074|0.904|0.0244
95964933|NCT03838731|191901070|SUPERIORITY|Day 57|LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.2|||MMRM|||||22.20|2.40|= 0.016
95851779|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Physical Well Being (PWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.114|0.805|<.0001
95851780|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|2.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.079|0.827|<.0001
95851781|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.063|0.837|<.0001
95964934|NCT03838731|191901070|SUPERIORITY|Day 85|LS Mean Difference|12.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|21.65|||MMRM|||||21.65|3.43|= 0.008
95964935|NCT03838731|191901071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.53|0.21|< 0.001
95964936|NCT03838731|191901071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.68|0.23|<0.001
95964937|NCT03838731|191901071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.55|0.13|= 0.002
95964938|NCT03838731|191901071|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.47|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.47|0.15|= 0.002
95964939|NCT03838731|191901072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|=|0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.29|||MMRM|||Day 8||1.29|-0.85|= 0.675
95964940|NCT03838731|191901072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.33|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.33|-1.70|= 0.182
95964941|NCT03838731|191901072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|=|0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.32|||MMRM|||Day 57||1.32|-1.12|= 0.866
95964942|NCT03838731|191901072|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.32|-2.08|= 0.146
95851782|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.847|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.041|0.847|<.0001
95851783|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|2.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.032|0.848|<.0001
95851784|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|2.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.024|0.844|<.0001
95851785|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|2.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.023|0.838|<.0001
95851786|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|2.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.029|0.819|<.0001
95851787|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|2.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.037|0.805|<.0001
95851788|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|2.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.056|0.774|<.0001
95851789|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.411|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.069|0.753|<.0001
95851790|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.405|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|2.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.099|0.711|<.0001
95851791|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.402||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|2.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.119|0.685|0.0001
95851792|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.396||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|2.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.157|0.634|0.0003
95851793|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.392||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.180|0.604|0.0005
95851794|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.386||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.225|0.547|0.0012
95964943|NCT03838731|191901073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|=|0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.63|||MMRM|||Day 8||0.63|-0.35|= 0.572
95964944|NCT03838731|191901073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.41|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.41|-0.41|= 0.997
95964945|NCT03838731|191901073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|=|0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.49|-0.36|= 0.756
95964946|NCT03838731|191901073|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.16|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.16|-0.46|= 0.333
95868921|NCT00492063|191694028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in adults.||2|-1|
95868922|NCT00492063|191694028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in adults.||3|-3|
95868923|NCT00492063|191694028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||3|-4|
95851795|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.383||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.252|0.514|0.0018
95851796|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.376||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|2.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.301|0.451|0.0035
95851797|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.373||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.330|0.416|0.0049
95851798|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.367||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.383|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.383|0.350|0.0084
95868924|NCT00492063|191694028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 after one vaccination in the elderly population.||1|-2|
95851799|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.363||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|2.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.414|0.313|0.0110
95851800|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.357||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.470|0.245|0.0168
95868925|NCT00492063|191694028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with HI titer ≥40 in the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%)|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (HI titer ≥40) of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B after one vaccination in the elderly population.||4|-2|
95851801|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.354||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|2.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.501|0.206|0.0208
95964947|NCT03838731|191901074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|64.65|||MMRM|||Day 8||64.65|14.36|= 0.003
95964948|NCT03838731|191901074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|54.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.01|78.12|||MMRM|||Day 29||78.12|30.01|< 0.001
95964949|NCT03838731|191901074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|33.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.28|=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|62.08|||MMRM|||Day 57||62.08|4.79|= 0.023
95964950|NCT03838731|191901074|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|67.09|||MMRM|||Day 85||67.09|15.10|= 0.003
95964951|NCT03838731|191901075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|205.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.09|=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|410.17|||MMRM|||Day 8||410.17|0.69|= 0.049
95964952|NCT03838731|191901075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|244.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.05|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.6|443.59|||MMRM|||Day 29||443.59|45.60|= 0.017
95851802|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.348||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.559|0.136|0.0293
95851803|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.344||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|2.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.592|0.096|0.0348
95851804|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.338||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.652|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.652|0.024|0.0459
95851805|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.335||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|2.685|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.685|-0.016|0.0528
95851806|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.328||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.746|-0.090|0.0663
95851807|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.325||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.780|-0.131|0.0744
95851808|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.319||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|2.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.842|-0.205|0.0898
95851809|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.315||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|2.877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.877|-0.246|0.0988
95853910|NCT02151058|191667091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0511|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3516|-0.1503||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1503|-0.3516|<0.001
95964953|NCT03838731|191901075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|183.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.91|=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|377.35|||MMRM|||Day 57||377.35|-11.29|= 0.064
95964954|NCT03838731|191901075|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|241.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.0|=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.44|469.57|||MMRM|||Day 85||469.57|12.44|= 0.039
95964955|NCT02412735|191901077|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2072.|||
95964956|NCT02412735|191901077|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.6427.|||
95964957|NCT02412735|191901078|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2754.|||
95964958|NCT02412735|191901078|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.9087.|||
95964959|NCT02412735|191901079|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2835.|||
95964960|NCT02412735|191901079|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.4739.|||
95964961|NCT02412735|191901080|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2650.|||
95964962|NCT02412735|191901080|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.7004.|||
95964963|NCT02412735|191901081|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1945.|||
95964964|NCT02412735|191901081|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.8093.|||
95964965|NCT02412735|191901082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.46|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.46|0.50|0.7842
95964966|NCT02412735|191901082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Cox|P-value was calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from a Cox regression model with treatment, pooled site, and opioid/non opioid use at Baseline as covariates.|||2.14|0.41|0.8754
95964967|NCT02412735|191901083|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.2309.|||
95964968|NCT02412735|191901083|SUPERIORITY|The superiority threshold was 0.9875.|||||||||||||||||The posterior probability of superiority to placebo was 0.1241.|||
95851810|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.309||||0.1156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.940|-0.321|0.1156
95851811|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.306||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|2.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.975|-0.363|0.1252
95851812|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|3.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.038|-0.439|0.1429
95851813|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.296||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|3.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.074|-0.481|0.1529
95851814|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.138|-0.558|0.1711
95868926|NCT00492063|191694029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|7.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||7|-3|
95868927|NCT00492063|191694029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||4|-6|
95868928|NCT00492063|191694029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||8|0|
95868929|NCT00492063|191694029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||5|-6|
95868930|NCT00492063|191694029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||8|-2|
95851815|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.1813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.173|-0.600|0.1813
95851816|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|3.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.238|-0.677|0.1998
95851817|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.277||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|3.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.273|-0.720|0.2100
95851818|NCT00083889|191663388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|3.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G PWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.338|-0.797|0.2283
95851819|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.214|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Social/Family Well Being (SWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.708|0.719|<.0001
95851820|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.216|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.703|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.703|0.729|<.0001
95851821|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.217|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.731|1.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.704|0.731|<.0001
95851822|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.710|0.730|<.0001
95851823|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.716|0.727|<.0001
95851824|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.732|0.716|<.0001
95851825|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.225|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.744|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.744|0.707|<.0001
95851826|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.769|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.769|0.687|<.0001
95868931|NCT00492063|191694029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer in the cTIV group is \>10% lower than in the TIV group (i.e., the percentage of subjects with seroconversion or significant in HI titer of cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference in the percentages is greater than -10%).|Group difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.0||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (seroconversion or significant increase in HI titer) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||11|2|
95868932|NCT00492063|191694030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in adults.||1.28|0.9|
95964969|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|6.43|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||6.43|-5.71|0.9072
95851827|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.785|0.673|<.0001
95851828|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.232|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.818|0.646|<.0001
95851829|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.233|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.838|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.838|0.629|<.0001
95851830|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.236||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.876|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.876|0.595|0.0002
95851831|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.237||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|1.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.899|0.575|0.0003
95851832|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.942|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.942|0.537|0.0005
95851833|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.241||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.967|0.515|0.0008
95851834|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.244||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|2.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.013|0.474|0.0015
95851835|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.245||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.040|0.450|0.0021
95851836|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.248||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|2.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.089|0.406|0.0037
95851837|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.116|0.382|0.0048
95868933|NCT00492063|191694030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in adults.||0.99|0.72|
95868934|NCT00492063|191694030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.3||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in adults.||1.3|0.99|
95868935|NCT00492063|191694030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H1N1, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 in the elderly population.||1.12|0.82|
95851838|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.251||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.336|2.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.167|0.336|0.0074
95851839|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.253||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.196|0.310|0.0092
95851840|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.248|0.262|0.0132
95851841|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.257||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|2.278|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.278|0.236|0.0159
95851842|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.259||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|2.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.332|0.187|0.0213
95851843|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.261||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.362|0.160|0.0248
95964970|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|2.83|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 1||2.83|-9.51|0.2883
95851844|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.263||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.416|0.110|0.0318
95851845|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.265||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|2.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.447|0.083|0.0360
95964971|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.6314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.8|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||4.80|-7.90|0.6314
95964972|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|1.56|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 3||1.56|-11.37|0.1366
95964973|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.2497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.72|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||2.72|-10.43|0.2497
95964974|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.43|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 6||0.43|-13.00|0.0666
95964975|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.2147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|2.46|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||2.46|-10.91|0.2147
95964976|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.19|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 12||-1.55|-15.19|0.0162
95964977|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|2.74|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||2.74|-11.69|0.2230
95964978|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|1.45|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 18||1.45|-13.27|0.1152
95851846|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.267||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|2.502|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.502|0.032|0.0443
95851847|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.269||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|0.004|0.0493
95868936|NCT00492063|191694030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain A/H3N2, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 in the elderly population.||1.02|0.74|
95868937|NCT00492063|191694030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The value of GMR ratio of cTIV to TIV is \>0.5 (i.e., the GMR of the cTIV group is non-inferior to that of the TIV group if, for strain B, the lower limit of the 95% CI for ratio of GMRs at day 22 is greater than 0.5).|Ratio of GMRs|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.4||||||Non-inferiority testing in immune response (GMR) after one vaccination of cTIV to that of TIV vaccine for strain B in the elderly population.||1.4|1.11|
95868938|NCT01947855|191694041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-104.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.77|-64.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 25 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-64.97|-144.77|<0.0001
95868939|NCT01947855|191694041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-85.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.01|-44.97|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, number of previous antidiabetic medication, baseline renal function, baseline HbA1c and baseline AUC1-4h for plasma glucose.||Difference calculated as empa 10 mg minus placebo. The analyses will be performed sequentially compared with placebo from high dose of empagliflozin and the full significance level (5%) will be maintained by the hierarchical procedure.||-44.97|-126.01|<0.0001
95868940|NCT00481507|191694080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.43||Reply: Only one test was performed for the primary outcome. No covariates were entered into this model and p-value is unadjusted.|Chi-squared|The results obtained from the logistic regression are equivalent to the chi-square test with one degree of freedom.||Reply: The null hypothesis was the rates of diarrhea for Kefir vs. Placebo are not different. Post power calculation was not performed because the difference observed (21.9% vs. 18%) was less than a difference that which would be considered clinically important.||1.43|0.54|>.05
95868941|NCT04157673|191694082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||This is the overall treatment effect from the mixed model. p-value threshold set at p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||0.0002
95868942|NCT04157673|191694083|OTHER|Effect size of mean differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.78|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size = 0.73|Statistical analysis to support visual inspection of the multiple-baseline graphs included the phase changes from baseline to Episodic future thinking treatment. Phase changes were assessed using mixed model with fixed effects of level and trend for baseline phase and random effects for level and trend for treatment phase.||||
95868943|NCT04157673|191694084|OTHER|Effect size of mean pre-post differences|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.355|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.295|||TWO_SIDED||||||||cohen's d effect size for mean differences pre to post-treatment = 1.20|||||
95868944|NCT03445156|191694085|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16, p = .044, partial c\^2 = .023||||||0.04
95868945|NCT03445156|191694085|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||||||.0001
95868946|NCT03445156|191694086|OTHER|ANCOVA|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F(1, 36) = 44.42||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to have more hits to targets with heads or faces than were participants who played a nonviolent shooting game.||||<.001
95868947|NCT03445156|191694086|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|F(2, 273) = 3.16||Hypothesis: Participants who played a violent FPS game were expected to hit the mannequin's head more often than were participants who played either the nonviolent shooting game or the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.044
95868948|NCT03445156|191694086|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = 2.40||"Hypothesis: Because the nonviolent shooting game rewards other shots, participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||0.17
95868949|NCT03445156|191694086|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(274) = -0.76||Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's head less often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun.||||.449
95851848|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.271||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|2.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.589|-0.047|0.0587
95851849|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.273||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.620|-0.075|0.0642
95868950|NCT03445156|191694086|OTHER|ANCOVA||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t(273) = -0.46||"Hypothesis: participants who played a nonviolent shooting game were expected to hit the mannequin's torso more often than were participants who played the nonviolent non-shooting game.~Covariates: participant gender, number of guns owned over their lifetime, attitudes toward guns, and number of times they had fired a gun."||||.645
95868951|NCT03445156|191694086|OTHER|Zero-order correlation||||||0.032|||||||Zero-order correlation|||Hypothesis: A positive correlation was expected between the number of violent shooting games participants listed among their three favorite video games and hits to the mannequin's head.||||.032
95868952|NCT01150474|191694113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95868953|NCT01150474|191694114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95868954|NCT01150474|191694115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95868955|NCT01150474|191694116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95868956|NCT01150474|191694117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95868957|NCT01150474|191694118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95868958|NCT01150474|191694119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95868959|NCT01150474|191694120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95868960|NCT01150474|191694121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95868961|NCT02889562|191694122|OTHER|Pearson chi-squared tests or Fisher exact tests||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95868962|NCT02889562|191694125|OTHER|t-test and Wilcoxon analysis||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.17
95868963|NCT01943474|191694127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95868964|NCT01943474|191694128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95868965|NCT01943474|191694129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95868966|NCT01943474|191694130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868967|NCT01943474|191694131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868968|NCT01943474|191694134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868969|NCT01943474|191694135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95868970|NCT01514370|191694136|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.271
95868971|NCT03720652|191694200|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.18
95868972|NCT03720652|191694200|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
95868973|NCT03720652|191694200|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.13|||||||McNemar|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.13
95868974|NCT03720652|191694201|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.70
95868975|NCT03720652|191694201|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.66
95851850|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.275||||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|2.677|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.677|-0.127|0.0746
95851851|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.276||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|2.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.708|-0.155|0.0806
95851852|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.279||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|2.765|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.765|-0.207|0.0917
95851853|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.797|-0.236|0.0980
95851854|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.283||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.854|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.854|-0.288|0.1095
95851855|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.284||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|2.886|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.886|-0.318|0.1161
95851856|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.287||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|2.944|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.944|-0.370|0.1280
95851857|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.288||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|2.976|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.976|-0.399|0.1346
95868976|NCT03720652|191694201|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.84
95964979|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|4.67|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||4.67|-9.75|0.4884
95868977|NCT03720652|191694202|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.015
95868978|NCT03720652|191694202|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.34
95868979|NCT03720652|191694202|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Program Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.002
95868980|NCT03720652|191694203|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.022
95964980|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.25|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 24||-0.25|-14.98|0.0426
95964981|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||3.54|-11.27|0.3056
95964982|NCT02412735|191901084|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|1.54|||MMRM|MMRM was used with fixed effects of pooled site,baseline use of opioids,treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit interaction\&continuous covariate baseline.||Mean Change from Baseline in Low Back Pain VAS Score at Month 36||1.54|-13.59|0.1184
95868981|NCT03720652|191694203|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
95868982|NCT03720652|191694203|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.090
95868983|NCT03720652|191694204|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.051
95851858|NCT00083889|191663389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.291||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|3.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G SWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||3.034|-0.452|0.1466
95851859|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.929||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.398|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Emotional Well Being (EWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||1.398|0.460|0.0001
95851860|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.922|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.375|0.469|<.0001
95851861|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.918|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.471|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.365|0.471|<.0001
95851862|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.911|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.469|1.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.352|0.469|<.0001
95851863|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.907|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.466|1.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.348|0.466|<.0001
95851864|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.899|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.453|1.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.345|0.453|<.0001
95851865|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.895||||0.0001||95.0|0.444|1.347|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.347|0.444|0.0001
95851866|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.888||||0.0002||95.0|0.421|1.355|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.355|0.421|0.0002
95851867|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||0.0003||95.0|0.406|1.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.362|0.406|0.0003
95851868|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.877||||0.0006||95.0|0.375|1.379|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.379|0.375|0.0006
95851869|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.873||||0.0009||95.0|0.356|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.390|0.356|0.0009
95868984|NCT03720652|191694204|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.044
95868985|NCT03720652|191694204|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||1.00
95868986|NCT03720652|191694205|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.023
95868987|NCT03720652|191694205|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.56
95851870|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.866||||0.002||95.0|0.318|1.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.414|0.318|0.0020
95851871|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.862||||0.0029||95.0|0.295|1.428|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.428|0.295|0.0029
95851872|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.854||||0.0055||95.0|0.251|1.457|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.457|0.251|0.0055
95851873|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0076||95.0|0.226|1.475|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.475|0.226|0.0076
95851874|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.843||||0.0129||95.0|0.179|1.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.508|0.179|0.0129
95851875|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.839||||0.0168||95.0|0.151|1.527|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.527|0.151|0.0168
95868988|NCT03720652|191694205|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.16
95868989|NCT03720652|191694206|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.15
95868990|NCT03720652|191694206|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.12
95868991|NCT03720652|191694206|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.018
95868992|NCT03720652|191694207|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.33
95868993|NCT03720652|191694207|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.88
95868994|NCT03720652|191694207|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.67
95868995|NCT03720652|191694208|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95868996|NCT03720652|191694208|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95868997|NCT03720652|191694208|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95868998|NCT03720652|191694209|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.17
95868999|NCT03720652|191694209|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.020
95869000|NCT03720652|191694209|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.062
95869001|NCT03720652|191694210|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.013
95851876|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.832||||0.0257||95.0|0.101|1.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.563|0.101|0.0257
95851877|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.828||||0.0318||95.0|0.072|1.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.583|0.072|0.0318
95851878|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.821||||0.0447||95.0|0.019|1.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.622|0.019|0.0447
95851879|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.817||||0.0529||95.0|-0.01|1.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.643|-0.010|0.0529
95964983|NCT01006980|191901085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.55|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio for death for vemurafenib relative to dacarbazine and the associated 95% confidence interval were computed using an unstratified Cox regression model.|The trial had a power of 80% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.65 for overall survival with an alpha level of 0.045 (an increase in median survival from 8 months for dacarbazine to 12.3 months for vemurafenib), one interim analysis for overall survival at 50% information.||0.55|0.26|<0.0001
95851880|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.809||||0.0696||95.0|-0.065|1.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.683|-0.065|0.0696
95851881|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.805||||0.0797||95.0|-0.095|1.706|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.706|-0.095|0.0797
95851882|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.798||||0.0994||95.0|-0.151|1.747|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.747|-0.151|0.0994
95869002|NCT03720652|191694210|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
95964984|NCT01006980|191901086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.33|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios for treatment with vemurafenib, as compared with dacarbazine, were estimated with the use of unstratified Cox regression.|The trial had a power of 90% to detect a hazard ratio of 0.55 for progression-free survival with an alpha level of 0.005 (an increase in median survival from 2.5 months for dacarbazine to 4.5 months for vemurafenib).||0.33|0.20|<.0001
95851883|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.794||||0.111||95.0|-0.182|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.770|-0.182|0.1110
95851884|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.787||||0.1328||95.0|-0.239|1.813|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.813|-0.239|0.1328
95851885|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.783||||0.1454||95.0|-0.271|1.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.836|-0.271|0.1454
95851886|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.776||||0.1686||95.0|-0.329|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.880|-0.329|0.1686
95851887|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.771||||0.1817||95.0|-0.361|1.904|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.904|-0.361|0.1817
95851888|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764||||0.2055||95.0|-0.419|1.948|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.948|-0.419|0.2055
95851889|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.2188||95.0|-0.452|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||1.972|-0.452|0.2188
95851890|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.753||||0.2427||95.0|-0.51|2.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.016|-0.510|0.2427
95851891|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.749||||0.2559||95.0|-0.543|2.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.041|-0.543|0.2559
95851892|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.742||||0.2794||95.0|-0.602|2.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.086|-0.602|0.2794
95869003|NCT03720652|191694210|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.003
95964985|NCT05620108|191901119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95964986|NCT05602727|191901125|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.6|5.8|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||5.8|-1.6|0.186
95964987|NCT05602727|191901125|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means (MK-1942 - Placebo)|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.2|2.4|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.4|-5.2|0.400
95964988|NCT05602727|191901129|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.0|2.2|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||2.2|-8.0|0.196
95964989|NCT05602727|191901129|SUPERIORITY|Difference in LS Means|LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.6|1.3|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|||||1.3|-9.6|0.081
95964990|NCT04896008|191901130|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% confidence interval were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.43|0.13|<0.0001
95964991|NCT04896008|191901131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.07||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.07|0.17|0.0313
95851893|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.738||||0.2923||95.0|-0.635|2.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.111|-0.635|0.2923
95851894|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.3152||95.0|-0.695|2.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.156|-0.695|0.3152
95869004|NCT03720652|191694211|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.001
95869005|NCT03720652|191694211|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.010
95869006|NCT03720652|191694211|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.085
95869007|NCT03720652|191694212|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95869008|NCT03720652|191694212|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95869009|NCT03720652|191694212|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95869010|NCT03720652|191694213|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.046
95869011|NCT03720652|191694213|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.14
95869012|NCT03720652|191694213|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||0.058
95869013|NCT03720652|191694214|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the End-of-Intervention Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95869014|NCT03720652|191694214|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 3-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95869015|NCT03720652|191694214|OTHER|The statistical test is a paired test assessing change at the 6-Month Follow Up Interview relative to baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||As the study design is quasi-experimental, there is no comparison group - both arms were analyzed jointly for each pre- and post- time interval.||||<0.001
95869016|NCT02216812|191694221|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Regression, Linear|||We tested the null hypothesis that there is no difference in DPC six weeks after fracture of the distal radius between patients taking vitamin C and placebo.||||0.63
95869017|NCT02081859|191694247|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.41
95869018|NCT02081859|191694248|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95869019|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.156||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.156
95851895|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.726||||0.3276||95.0|-0.728|2.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.181|-0.728|0.3276
95851896|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719||||0.3497||95.0|-0.788|2.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.227|-0.788|0.3497
95851897|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.715||||0.3616||95.0|-0.822|2.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.252|-0.822|0.3616
95851898|NCT00083889|191663390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.708||||0.3827||95.0|-0.882|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G EWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.298|-0.882|0.3827
95869020|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.395
95851899|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.897|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.261|2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Functional Well Being (FWB) subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||2.533|1.261|<.0001
95851900|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.924|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.309|2.539|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.539|1.309|<.0001
95851901|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.939|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.331|2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.546|1.331|<.0001
95851902|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.965|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.363|2.568|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.568|1.363|<.0001
95851903|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.376|2.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.584|1.376|<.0001
95851904|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.007|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.392|2.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.622|1.392|<.0001
95869021|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.114
95851905|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.022|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.396|2.647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.647|1.396|<.0001
95869022|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.211
95869023|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.332
95869024|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
95869025|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.375
95869026|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.352
95851906|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.397|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.700|1.397|<.0001
95869027|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.312
95964992|NCT04896008|191901132|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.78||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||0.78|0.15|0.0039
95964993|NCT04896008|191901133|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-7.29||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.65|2.41||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|||2.41|-17.65|0.135
95964994|NCT04896008|191901134|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-1.88||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|||-1.88|-4.25|<0.001
95964995|NCT04896008|191901135|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|33.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|46.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by a randomization stratification factor (PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by a randomization stratification factors (PAH subtype).|||46.98|18.41|<0.001
95964996|NCT04896008|191901136|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2339.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3378.74|-1299.44||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-1299.44|-3378.74|<0.001
95851907|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.063|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.394|2.732|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.732|1.394|<.0001
95851908|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.383|2.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.797|1.383|<.0001
95851909|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.374|2.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.836|1.374|<.0001
95851910|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.132|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.353|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.910|1.353|<.0001
95851911|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.146|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.339|2.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||2.954|1.339|<.0001
95851912|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.173|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.311|3.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.036|1.311|<.0001
95851913|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.188|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.294|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.082|1.294|<.0001
95851914|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.215|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.26|3.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.169|1.260|<.0001
95964997|NCT04896008|191901137|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.78|-14.59||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-14.59|-27.78|<0.001
95851915|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.241|3.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.219|1.241|<.0001
95851916|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.256|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.203|3.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.309|1.203|<.0001
95851917|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.271|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.182|3.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.361|1.182|<.0001
95851918|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.298|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.142|3.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.454|1.142|<.0001
95851919|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.313||||0.0001||95.0|1.119|3.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.507|1.119|0.0001
95851920|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.0003||95.0|1.076|3.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.603|1.076|0.0003
95851921|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.354||||0.0004||95.0|1.052|3.657|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.657|1.052|0.0004
95851922|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.381||||0.0007||95.0|1.008|3.754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.754|1.008|0.0007
95851923|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.396||||0.0009||95.0|0.983|3.809|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.809|0.983|0.0009
95851924|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.423||||0.0014||95.0|0.938|3.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.908|0.938|0.0014
95851925|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.438||||0.0017||95.0|0.912|3.963|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||3.963|0.912|0.0017
95851926|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.464||||0.0025||95.0|0.866|4.063|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.063|0.866|0.0025
95851927|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.479||||0.003||95.0|0.84|4.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.119|0.840|0.0030
95964998|NCT04896008|191901138|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-339.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-511.09|-168.06||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||-168.06|-511.09|<0.001
95851928|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.0042||95.0|0.792|4.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.219|0.792|0.0042
95851929|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.521||||0.0049||95.0|0.766|4.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.275|0.766|0.0049
95851930|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.547||||0.0064||95.0|0.718|4.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.377|0.718|0.0064
95851931|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.562||||0.0073||95.0|0.691|4.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.433|0.691|0.0073
95851932|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.589||||0.0091||95.0|0.643|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.535|0.643|0.0091
95851933|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.604||||0.0103||95.0|0.616|4.592|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.592|0.616|0.0103
95851934|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.631||||0.0125||95.0|0.567|4.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.695|0.567|0.0125
95851935|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.645||||0.0138||95.0|0.539|4.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.752|0.539|0.0138
95851936|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.672||||0.0164||95.0|0.49|4.855|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.855|0.490|0.0164
95851937|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.687||||0.0179||95.0|0.462|4.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||4.912|0.462|0.0179
95869028|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.134
95964999|NCT04896008|191901139|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.85|40.98||Two-sided p-value is calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by the randomization stratification factors (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||40.98|12.85|<0.001
95965000|NCT04896008|191901140|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|102.73||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||102.73|23.22|<0.001
95965001|NCT04896008|191901141|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||Two-sided p-value is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype)|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon||Hodges-Lehmann location shift estimate with 95% CI is provided using aligned rank stratified Wilcoxon test stratified by randomization stratification factor (REVEAL Lite 2.0 risk score and PAH subtype).|||1.16|-0.18|0.119
95965002|NCT02038842|191901162|OTHER|The co-primary immunogenicity endpoint is analysed per arm, in a frequentist framework, in all randomised participants having received at least one vaccine administration and still HIV-negative at W30.|||||=|0.02||||||One-sided test for the observed proportion being superior to the theoretical decision threshold of 50%.|Binomial|||Trial was designed to compare the observed proportion of responders at week 30 within each group to a predefined minimum immunogenicity level of 50%.||||=0.02
95851938|NCT00083889|191663391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.714||||0.0208||95.0|0.413|5.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline FACT-G FWB subscale baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||5.015|0.413|0.0208
95851939|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EuroQoL Five Dimension (EQ-5D): Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||0.076|0.022|0.0004
95851940|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|0.022|0.0003
95851941|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048||||0.0003||95.0|0.022|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.022|0.0003
95851942|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0003||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0003
95851943|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.0004||95.0|0.021|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.021|0.0004
95851944|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0005||95.0|0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.020|0.0005
95851945|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045||||0.0007||95.0|0.019|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.019|0.0007
95851946|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.0011||95.0|0.017|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.017|0.0011
95869029|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.315
95965003|NCT05504954|191901165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.26||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.04|0.15
95965004|NCT05504954|191901167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.89|0.81|0.10
95965005|NCT05504954|191901168|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|5.0||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.78|27.78|||Regression, Linear|||||27.78|-17.78|0.65
95965006|NCT05504954|191901169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.70
95965007|NCT05504954|191901170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
95965008|NCT05504954|191901171|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95965009|NCT05504954|191901172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
95965010|NCT02838979|191901209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.15
95965011|NCT02838979|191901210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.18||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.86
95965012|NCT02838979|191901211|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.44
95965013|NCT02838979|191901212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.36
95965014|NCT02838979|191901213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value for the interaction of treatment and sequence|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups||||||0.60
95851947|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.0016||95.0|0.016|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.016|0.0016
95851948|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0029||95.0|0.014|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.014|0.0029
95851949|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.0041||95.0|0.013|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.070|0.013|0.0041
95851950|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.0076||95.0|0.011|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.011|0.0076
95851951|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.0105||95.0|0.009|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.071|0.009|0.0105
95851952|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0179||95.0|0.007|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.007|0.0179
95851953|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.0236||95.0|0.005|0.072|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.072|0.005|0.0236
95851954|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.037||95.0|0.002|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.073|0.002|0.0370
95869030|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.071
95869031|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.260
95965015|NCT01028677|191901214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of fear emotion||||.61
95965016|NCT01028677|191901215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.008
95965017|NCT01028677|191901215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.002
95965018|NCT01028677|191901215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.04
95965019|NCT01028677|191901215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Positive Symptoms||||0.05
95965020|NCT01028677|191901215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Symptoms||||0.08
95965021|NCT01028677|191901215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||General Symptoms||||0.025
95965022|NCT01028677|191901217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
95965023|NCT01028677|191901219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||IRI-total||||.784
95965024|NCT01028677|191901219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
95965025|NCT01028677|191901219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perspective-Taking||||.03
95965026|NCT01028677|191901219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional empathy analysis||||.135
95965027|NCT01028677|191901219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.681|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fantasy Analysis||||.681
95965028|NCT01028677|191901219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distress analysis||||1.00
95851955|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0464||95.0|0.001|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.074|0.001|0.0464
95851956|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.0667||95.0|-0.002|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.075|-0.002|0.0667
95851957|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.08||95.0|-0.004|0.076|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.076|-0.004|0.0800
95851958|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035||||0.107||95.0|-0.007|0.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.077|-0.007|0.1070
95851959|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.1237||95.0|-0.009|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.078|-0.009|0.1237
95851960|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1561||95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.079|-0.013|0.1561
95851961|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.1752||95.0|-0.015|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.080|-0.015|0.1752
95851962|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.2112||95.0|-0.018|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.081|-0.018|0.2112
95869032|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.264
95869033|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.381
95869034|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.249||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.249
95869035|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.451
95869036|NCT03274999|191694249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.393
95869037|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Eye-opening, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.006
95869038|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||Eye-opening, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.063
95869039|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Eye-opening, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.005
95869040|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||Eye-opening, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.089
95869041|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Eye-opening, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.112
95851963|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.2319||95.0|-0.02|0.082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.082|-0.020|0.2319
95851964|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.2698||95.0|-0.023|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.084|-0.023|0.2698
95851965|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.291||95.0|-0.025|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.085|-0.025|0.2910
95851966|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.3293||95.0|-0.029|0.086|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.086|-0.029|0.3293
95851967|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.3504||95.0|-0.031|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.087|-0.031|0.3504
95851968|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.3881||95.0|-0.034|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.089|-0.034|0.3881
95851969|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.4086||95.0|-0.036|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.090|-0.036|0.4086
95851970|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4449||95.0|-0.04|0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.091|-0.040|0.4449
95869042|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Eye-opening, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.16
95869043|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Eye-opening, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.077
95869044|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157||||||Eye-opening, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.157
95869045|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Eye-opening, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.111
95869046|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Pre-blink, T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.040
95869047|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Pre-blink, T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.241
95869048|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||Pre-blink, T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.284
95869049|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Pre-blink, T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.313
95869050|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433||||||Pre-blink, T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.433
95965029|NCT00609947|191901234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"The null and alternative hypotheses were:~H0: µSVS ≥µM H1: µSVS \< µM where µSVS was the mean in-segment 8-month percent diameter stenosis for the SVS study and µM was the mean in-segment 6-month percent diameter stenosis for Micro-Driver."|t-test, 2 sided|The sample size was not reduced below 158 evaluable subjects in order to support the analysis of the primary safety endpoint.||The 8-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Endeavor SVS subjects was compared to the 6-month in-segment percent diameter stenosis from Micro Driver subjects. This study assessed the superiority of SVS against the Micro-Driver regarding in-segment percent diameter stenosis at 8 months post procedure.||||<0.001
95965030|NCT00609947|191901235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.0041|ONE_SIDED|95.0||20.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||"The null and alternative hypotheses of interest are:~H0: xSVS \>= 20% vs. H1: xSVS \< 20%, where x is the true SVS 12-month MACE rate.~The assessment of the null hypothesis will be carried out at the one-sided 0.05 level of significance. Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the SVS 12-month MACE rate is significantly below 20%."||20||0.0041
95965031|NCT01266161|191901331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.45|31.07||p-Value from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with treatment, baseline PSR, gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||31.07|16.45|<0.001
95965032|NCT01266161|191901332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.71||p-Value from ANOVA model, with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms. To protect type I error at 5% significance, 2 primary parameters tested sequentially: SPRID 8-12 not declared significant unless SPRID 0-12 was significant.|ANOVA|||||12.71|4.13|<0.001
95851971|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4646||95.0|-0.042|0.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.092|-0.042|0.4646
95851972|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.499||95.0|-0.046|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.094|-0.046|0.4990
95851973|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.5176||95.0|-0.048|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.095|-0.048|0.5176
95851974|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.5501||95.0|-0.051|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.097|-0.051|0.5501
95851975|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.5675||95.0|-0.054|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.098|-0.054|0.5675
95851976|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.5979||95.0|-0.057|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.099|-0.057|0.5979
95851977|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.6141||95.0|-0.059|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.100|-0.059|0.6141
95965033|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|8.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.94|11.95||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-12.||11.95|5.94|<0.001
95965034|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.85||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 8-12.||4.85|1.45|<0.001
95965035|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|10.27||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 12-24.||10.27|2.84|<0.001
95965036|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.02||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.37||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 20-24.||4.37|-0.33|0.091
95965037|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|14.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.12|20.79||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 0-24.||20.79|9.12|<0.001
95965038|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|5.87||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|10.33||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-36.||10.33|1.42|0.010
95965039|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|3.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.83||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 32-36.||5.83|1.13|0.004
95965040|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|6.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.36||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 36-48.||10.36|1.82|0.006
95965041|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|2.41||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.73||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 44-48.||4.73|0.09|0.042
95869051|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||Pre-blink, T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.406
95869052|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||Pre-blink, T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.318
95869053|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||Pre-blink, T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.499
95869054|NCT03274999|191694250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Pre-blink, T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.390
95869055|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.053
95869056|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.206
95851978|NCT00083889|191663392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6424||95.0|-0.063|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-5D Health state index baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||0.102|-0.063|0.6424
95851979|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|5.965|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline Euro-QoL Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects).||5.965|2.088|<.0001
95851980|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.165|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.269|6.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 1 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.061|2.269|<.0001
95851981|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.243|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.358|6.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.128|2.358|<.0001
95851982|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.382|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.494|6.269|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 2 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.269|2.494|<.0001
95869057|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.221
95869058|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.126
95869059|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.124
95869060|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.167
95869061|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.377
95869062|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.397
95869063|NCT03274999|191694251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.441
95869064|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.034
95965042|NCT01266161|191901333|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares means|10.97||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|18.45||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||For SPID 24-48.||18.45|3.49|0.004
95851983|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.459|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.558|6.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.361|2.558|<.0001
95851984|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.598|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.65|6.547|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 3 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.547|2.650|<.0001
95851985|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.676|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.689|6.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.662|2.689|<.0001
95851986|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.815|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|6.889|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 4 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||6.889|2.741|<.0001
95851987|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.892|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|7.024|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.024|2.760|<.0001
95851988|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.031|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|7.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 5 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.283|2.780|<.0001
95851989|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.783|7.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.435|2.783|<.0001
95869065|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.143||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.143
95965043|NCT01266161|191901334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.34|||proportional hazards model|||||0.34|0.10|<0.001
95965044|NCT01266161|191901335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.46|-31.56||p-Values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the first dosing interval (0 to 12 hours).||-31.56|-64.46|<0.001
95965045|NCT01266161|191901335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-25.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-39.78|-11.28||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the second dosing interval (12 to 24 hours).||-11.28|-39.78|<0.001
95851990|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.248|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.776|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 6 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.720|2.776|<.0001
95869066|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
95869067|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.250
95869068|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
95965046|NCT01266161|191901335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-24.05||||0.002||95.0|-38.93|-9.18||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the third dosing interval (24 to 36 hours).||-9.18|-38.93|0.002
95965047|NCT01266161|191901335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-13.6||||0.035||95.0|-26.41|-0.79||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the fourth dosing interval (36 to 48 hours).||-0.79|-26.41|0.035
95965048|NCT01266161|191901335|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-48.01|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.42|-31.6||p-Values from the CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||During the study overall (0 to 48 hours).||-31.60|-64.42|<0.001
95965049|NCT01266161|191901335|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard models|0.086||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.57|||Andersen-Gill (AG)|||Time to First Dose Rescue Medication Over Entire Study Period (0-48 Hours)||0.57|0.01|0.011
95965050|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|0.5|1.19||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.19|0.50|<0.001
95869069|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
95869070|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
95869071|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
95869072|NCT03274999|191694252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.233
95869073|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||T0: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T0) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.072
95869074|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||T15: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T15) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.297
95851991|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.767|7.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||7.884|2.767|<.0001
95869075|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T30: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T30) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
95869076|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||T60: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T60) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.447
95869077|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||T120: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T120) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.328
95869078|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T180: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T180) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
95869079|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||T240: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T240) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.055
95869080|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||T300: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T300) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.090
95965051|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|1.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.94|1.11|<0.001
95965052|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|2.44||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||2.44|1.56|<0.001
95869081|NCT03274999|191694253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||T360: P-value was calculated using 1-sided paired t-test.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis for the outcome measure is the difference in the change from the pre-application value at post-application time (T360) between the intranasal (test) and extranasal (control) applications are zero.||||0.500
95869082|NCT02233946|191694254|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.02|0.47|
95869083|NCT02233946|191694254|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.31||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.31|0.57|
95869084|NCT02233946|191694255|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1||||||Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.10|0.40|
95869085|NCT02233946|191694256|SUPERIORITY|Participants who reported past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94||||||||0.94|0.41|
95869086|NCT02233946|191694256|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32||||||Participants who reported no past-12-month use of alcohol or other drugs at baseline||1.32|0.44|
95869087|NCT02233946|191694257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.34||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.34|0.50|
95965053|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.29|||<|0.001||95.0|1.86|2.73||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||2.73|1.86|<0.001
95965054|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.18|||<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.68||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||2.68|1.69|<0.001
95869088|NCT02233946|191694257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.19|0.44|
95869089|NCT02233946|191694257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.91||||||"Participants with riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||0.91|0.37|
95869090|NCT02233946|191694257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 6 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.23|0.43|
95869091|NCT02233946|191694257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.66||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 9 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||2.66|0.67|
95869092|NCT02233946|191694257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.99||||||"Participants with no riding risk at baseline:~Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (ARRR) of past-3-month riding risk at 12 months follow-up, cSBI vs. TAU."||1.99|0.50|
95869093|NCT02927067|191694258|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) margin of primary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If lower limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) was greater than -7%, NI was assumed. Power calculation: Assuming 68% (maribavir), 60% (valganciclovir) participants achieve confirmed viremia clearance,494 participants (247 per group) would yield \>90% power to declare NI based on 2-group test of equivalence in proportions. Considering 10% dropout,550 participants (275 per group) were planned to be enrolled and randomized.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.98|-0.36|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), 95% CI, and p-value.|||-0.36|-14.98|
95965055|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.92|||<|0.001||95.0|0.46|1.38||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model.|Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||1.38|0.46|<0.001
95965056|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|0.54|1.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||1.54|0.54|<0.001
95869094|NCT02927067|191694259|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of the key secondary efficacy endpoint was 7%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -7%, then noninferiority (NI) was assumed. Because the NI of the primary efficacy endpoint was not established, the NI hypothesis of the key secondary endpoint was not tested formally.|Difference in Percentage of Responders|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|12.76|||||CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|||12.76|-3.91|
95869095|NCT02927067|191694260|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
95869096|NCT02927067|191694261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|8.0|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|16.3||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.30|-0.38|=0.061
95869097|NCT02927067|191694261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.4|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.23|21.62||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||21.62|5.23|=0.001
95869098|NCT02927067|191694261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.87||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.87|5.80|<0.001
95869099|NCT02927067|191694261|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|9.7|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|17.5||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||17.50|1.98|=0.014
95869100|NCT02927067|191694262|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|-7.3|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|0.02||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||0.02|-14.64|=0.051
95869101|NCT02927067|191694262|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|2.2|||=|0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|10.37||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.37|-6.05|=0.606
95965057|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.1|||<|0.001||95.0|0.59|1.6||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||1.60|0.59|<0.001
95965058|NCT01266161|191901336|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.5||||0.052||95.0|0.0|1.01||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.01|-0.00|0.052
95965059|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.16|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||0.59|0.16|<0.001
95869102|NCT02927067|191694262|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Responders|1.0|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|9.31||The CMH weighted average approach (stratified for baseline plasma CMV DNA concentration and acute GVHD status) was used for the adjusted difference in percentage of responders (Maribavir-Valganciclovir), the corresponding 95% CI, and the p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.31|-7.27|=0.809
95869103|NCT00718081|191694299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95869104|NCT00718081|191694299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95869105|NCT05171816|191694362|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.48||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.48|0.83|0.2592
95869106|NCT05171816|191694363|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.29||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.29|0.57|0.7251
95965060|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.9|||<|0.001||95.0|0.63|1.18||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||1.18|0.63|<0.001
95869107|NCT05171816|191694364|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||1.64|0.60|0.9715
95965061|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.91|1.52||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||1.52|0.91|<0.001
95869108|NCT05171816|191694365|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.06||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||2.06|0.20|0.4937
95965062|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.4|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|1.71||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||1.71|1.10|<0.001
95965063|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.32|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|1.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||1.67|0.97|<0.001
95965064|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.61|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.91||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||0.91|0.30|<0.001
95965065|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.31|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||0.97|0.31|<0.001
95869109|NCT05171816|191694366|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.87||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||4.87|0.61|0.4923
95869110|NCT05171816|191694368|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.3407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|The 2-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by metastases.|HR and CI calculated using Cox Proportional Hazards model, where a HR \< 1 favours olaparib+abiraterone. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||3.39|0.63|0.3407
95869111|NCT03390842|191694375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % of subjects|24.9|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|38.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects Who Met Endpoint (≥ 4 mEq/L Change from Baseline Serum Bicarbonate or Serum Bicarbonate in the Normal Range \[22 - 29 mEq/L\]): TRC101-Placebo||38.7|10.2|= 0.0015
95869112|NCT03390842|191694375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|24.4|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with ≥ 4mEq/L Change from Baseline in Serum Bicarbonate: TRC101-Placebo||38.2|9.7|= 0.0015
95965066|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|0.36|0.97||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||0.97|0.36|<0.001
95965067|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.27||||0.089||95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||0.59|-0.04|0.089
95965068|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|0.7|1.29||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 16 hours.||1.29|0.70|<0.001
95965069|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.47||||0.004||95.0|0.15|0.78||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 20 hours.||0.78|0.15|0.004
95965070|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.04||||0.821||95.0|-0.28|0.35||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours.||0.35|-0.28|0.821
95965071|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.56||||0.001||95.0|0.23|0.9||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 28 hours.||0.90|0.23|0.001
95965072|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.62|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.94||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 32 hours.||0.94|0.30|<0.001
95965073|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.25||||0.127||95.0|-0.07|0.57||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 36 hours.||0.57|-0.07|0.127
95869113|NCT03390842|191694375|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in % of subjects|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|43.7|||Fisher Exact|||% Subjects with Serum Bicarbonate in Normal Range (22 - 29 mEq/L): TRC101-Placebo||43.7|15.6|< 0.0001
95869114|NCT03390842|191694376|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference in LS means|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.03|||Mixed-effect repeated measures model||Standard error presented above is for the LS mean.|Least Squares Mean Change from Baseline: TRC101-Placebo||3.03|0.96|= 0.0002
95869115|NCT03390842|191694377|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value based on analysis of covariance model with rank of change from baseline in total score as dependent variable; treatment (PBO or TRC101) as a fixed effect; and baseline total score, Baseline eGFR, Baseline Bicarbonate as continuous covariates.|ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in KDQOL-PFD: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
95869116|NCT03390842|191694378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline for Repeated Chair Stand Test: TRC101-Placebo||||< 0.0001
95869117|NCT05028361|191694379|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided non-inferiority test with the alpha level set at 0.025 and non-inferiority margin of 10%, stratified by site.|Difference in proportions|-5.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|4.0||The upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference was 4% with a noninferiority margin of 10%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The upper bound of a site-stratified Newcombe binomial confidence interval with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting was used.||The null hypothesis is the Simultaneous group is inferior (i.e., Simultaneous group will have a higher proportion) to the Sequential group in regards to the proportion of participants with at least one moderate or severe fever, chills, myalgia, or arthralgia event after visits 1 and 2 using 10% non-inferiority margin.||4.0|-15.2|0.0007
95869118|NCT05028361|191694380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3851
95869119|NCT05028361|191694381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2886|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2886
95869120|NCT05028361|191694383|OTHER||Comparison of Frequencies|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.64||The comparison in number of participants with reported SAEs regardless of relationship to study product were made using a difference in proportions along with a 95% confidence interval of the difference.||||||1.64|-1.66|
95869121|NCT00461331|191694411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5||0.52||95.0|87.9|100.0|||Regression, Linear|7 patients underwent early termination of either one or both of their test period due to loss of glycemic control||Glucose levels for patients when they were on each insulin were analyzed. All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables. This was a pilot study.||100.0|87.9|0.52
95869122|NCT00461331|191694412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.165||0.15||95.0|0.97|9.23|||Regression, Linear||This was between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change using Insulin Aspart and Insulin Lispro. Adequate samples were not available to do the analysis for day 2.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.23|0.97|0.15
95869123|NCT00461331|191694413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.35||0.55||95.0|4.4|9.4|||Regression, Linear||This was for test period 1 between days 3 and 5 after the last pump infusion line change.|All data was analyzed on an intention to treat basis. Repeated measures, paired t-test and Pearson's correlation on SPSS 14.0 for windows and statistical R-package were used to compare the various variables.||9.4|4.4|0.55
95869124|NCT01155479|191694414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||4.30|0.86|0.0033
95869125|NCT01155479|191694414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|1.3||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.94|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.94|-0.41|0.1382
95965074|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.35|1.0||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 40 hours.||1.00|0.35|<0.001
95965075|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.34||||0.036||95.0|0.02|0.67||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 44 hours.||0.67|0.02|0.036
95965076|NCT01266161|191901337|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.26||||0.091||95.0|-0.04|0.56||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours.||0.56|-0.04|0.091
95965077|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.22|||<|0.001||95.0|0.69|1.74||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0.5 hours.||1.74|0.69|<0.001
95965078|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|2.43|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|3.09||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1 hour.||3.09|1.77|<0.001
95869126|NCT01155479|191694414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.4||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.11|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.11|-1.29|0.6378
95869127|NCT01155479|191694414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.3||||0.6923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.03|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||2.03|-1.35|0.6923
95965079|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.22|||<|0.001||95.0|2.49|3.95||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 1.5 hours.||3.95|2.49|<0.001
95965080|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|2.98|4.42||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 2 hours.||4.42|2.98|<0.001
95965081|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|3.5|||<|0.001||95.0|2.67|4.33||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 4 hours.||4.33|2.67|<0.001
95965082|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.53|||<|0.001||95.0|0.79|2.27||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 6 hours.||2.27|0.79|<0.001
95965083|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.67|||<|0.001||95.0|0.87|2.48||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 8 hours.||2.48|0.87|<0.001
95869128|NCT01155479|191694415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-9.7||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|1.82||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.82|-21.0|0.0785
95869129|NCT01155479|191694415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-6.3||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|5.05||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||5.05|-17.6|0.2735
95869130|NCT01155479|191694415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-3.7||||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|7.99||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||7.99|-15.2|0.4823
95869131|NCT01155479|191694415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference vs Placebo (%)|-2.3||||0.6827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|9.24||p-value is for the estimated Odds Ratio based on a generalized linear mixed model with baseline UPDRS2+3 as a covariate and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effect and participant as random effect.|generalized linear mixed model|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||9.24|-13.9|0.6827
95869132|NCT01155479|191694416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.7||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.27|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 2 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.27|0.09|0.0235
95869133|NCT01155479|191694416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.04|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 5 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||1.04|-0.11|0.1093
95965084|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|1.76|||<|0.001||95.0|0.97|2.54||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 10 hours.||2.54|0.97|<0.001
95965085|NCT01266161|191901338|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.78||||0.056||95.0|-0.02|1.58||p-Values from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 12 hours.||1.58|-0.02|0.056
95965086|NCT01266161|191901339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|14.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.38|19.25||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 0 to 12 hours.||19.25|10.38|<0.001
95869134|NCT01155479|191694416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.2||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.75|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Preladenant 10 mg (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.75|-0.42|0.5756
95869135|NCT01155479|191694416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Estimated Means|0.1||||0.6657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||constrained longitudinal analysis|||Rasagiline (Part 1) vs Placebo (Part 1)||0.70|-0.45|0.6657
95869136|NCT02360605|191694421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||FIT completion rates were defined as the percentage of FIT tests returned. Screening ratios were defined as the PC to AC ratio of FIT completion rates. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between literacy level and study arm were assessed.||||0.61
95965087|NCT01266161|191901339|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|5.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|7.98||p-Value from ANOVA model with treatment, baseline pain severity, and gender terms.|ANOVA|||Ibuprofen versus placebo from 8 to 12 hours.||7.98|2.57|<0.001
95869137|NCT02360605|191694422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.30
95869138|NCT02360605|191694423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||p-values control for age (in years), race (African American vs Caucasian and Hispanic), gender, and literacy (2 categories) The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multivariate analyses adjusting for age, race, gender, and health literacy level were done using generalized linear models. A test for interaction between study arm and each of literacy level, age, gender and race was performed to determine whether treatment effect differed by levels of these factors. An unadjusted test for the main effect of each of health literacy level, age, gender, race and study arm was performed to determine whether screening rates differed by levels of these factors.||||0.97
95869139|NCT00998764|191694425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 13||2.23|-0.74|0.324
95869140|NCT00998764|191694425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 26||1.92|-1.33|0.723
95869141|NCT00998764|191694425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 39||1.89|-1.81|0.966
95965088|NCT01266161|191901340|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.55||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the first dosing interval.||-0.55|-0.91|<0.001
95965089|NCT01266161|191901340|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.4||Treatment difference (ibuprofen minus placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on CMH-adjusted proportions and corresponding standard errors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the second dosing interval.||-0.40|-1.05|<0.001
95869142|NCT00998764|191694425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 52||1.92|-1.93|0.996
95869143|NCT00998764|191694425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assesment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) at week 78||1.26|-3.67|0.336
95869144|NCT00998764|191694426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 13||0.79|-1.11|0.737
95869145|NCT00998764|191694426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 26||0.40|-1.76|0.213
95869146|NCT00998764|191694426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 39||0.38|-2.19|0.168
95869147|NCT00998764|191694426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 52||0.48|-2.30|0.197
95869148|NCT00998764|191694426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog at week 78||0.06|-4.21|0.044
95965090|NCT01266161|191901340|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportions|-0.48||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the third dosing interval.||-0.06|-0.90|0.002
95965091|NCT01266161|191901340|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.68||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.35||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the fourth dosing interval.||-0.35|-1.02|0.021
95965092|NCT01266161|191901340|SUPERIORITY||CMH-adjusted proportion|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.51||p-Values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For the overall study duration.||-0.51|-0.89|<0.001
95869149|NCT00998764|191694427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||0.33|-6.30|0.077
95869150|NCT00998764|191694427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||0.67|-6.02|0.117
95869151|NCT00998764|191694427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||0.19|-7.38|0.063
95869152|NCT00998764|191694427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||2.44|-5.95|0.412
95869153|NCT00998764|191694427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||2.73|-8.28|0.321
95869154|NCT00998764|191694428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13||1.09|-3.24|0.329
95869155|NCT00998764|191694428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26||1.92|-3.31|0.601
95869156|NCT00998764|191694428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39||1.56|-4.67|0.328
95869157|NCT00998764|191694428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52||4.13|-2.70|0.680
95869158|NCT00998764|191694428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78||4.77|-5.05|0.954
95965093|NCT01266161|191901343|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95||p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 24 hours||0.95|0.74|<0.001
95869159|NCT00998764|191694429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||2.62|-2.40|0.931
95869160|NCT00998764|191694429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||1.67|-3.26|0.524
95869161|NCT00998764|191694429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||2.27|-6.32|0.353
95869162|NCT00998764|191694430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 26.||1.51|-2.92|0.531
95869163|NCT00998764|191694430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 52.||0.59|-4.28|0.137
95869164|NCT00998764|191694430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at week 78.||0.96|-7.60|0.128
95965094|NCT01266161|191901343|SUPERIORITY||Gamma statistic|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-Value from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR score and gender.||Ibuprofen versus placebo at 48 hours||0.92|0.66|<0.001
95851992|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.464|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.741|8.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 7 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.188|2.741|<.0001
95851993|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.542||||0.0001||95.0|2.723|8.361|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.361|2.723|0.0001
95851994|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.681||||0.0002||95.0|2.683|8.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 8 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.679|2.683|0.0002
95851995|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.758||||0.0003||95.0|2.657|8.859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||8.859|2.657|0.0003
95851996|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.898||||0.0004||95.0|2.607|9.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 9 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.188|2.607|0.0004
95851997|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975||||0.0006||95.0|2.576|9.374|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.374|2.576|0.0006
95851998|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.114||||0.0009||95.0|2.517|9.711|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 10 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.711|2.517|0.0009
95851999|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.191||||0.0011||95.0|2.482|9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||9.900|2.482|0.0011
95852000|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.331||||0.0015||95.0|2.417|10.244|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 11 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.244|2.417|0.0015
95852001|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.408||||0.0018||95.0|2.379|10.436|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.436|2.379|0.0018
95965095|NCT02975102|191901398|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 33 evaluable patients per treatment group was calculated to provide at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of CBL-101 to Vismed Multi. Assumptions included a non-inferiority margin of 2 grades and a standard deviation of 2.5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Treatment difference : CBL-101 - Vismed Multi|||0.3|-1.2|
95852002|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.547||||0.0025||95.0|2.309|10.785|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 12 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.785|2.309|0.0025
95852003|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.624||||0.0029||95.0|2.269|10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||10.980|2.269|0.0029
95965096|NCT02975102|191901399|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95852004|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.764||||0.0037||95.0|2.195|11.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 13 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.332|2.195|0.0037
95869165|NCT00998764|191694431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.63|-0.49|0.811
95869166|NCT00998764|191694431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||0.69|-0.45|0.681
95965097|NCT02975102|191901400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0002
95965098|NCT02975102|191901401|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95965099|NCT02975102|191901402|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95852005|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.841||||0.0042||95.0|2.153|11.529|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.529|2.153|0.0042
95852006|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.98||||0.0053||95.0|2.076|11.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 14 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||11.884|2.076|0.0053
95852007|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.057||||0.0059||95.0|2.032|12.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.083|2.032|0.0059
95852008|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.197||||0.0072||95.0|1.953|12.441|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 15 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.441|1.953|0.0072
95852009|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.274||||0.0079||95.0|1.908|12.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||12.640|1.908|0.0079
95852010|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.413||||0.0093||95.0|1.826|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 16 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.000|1.826|0.0093
95852011|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.491||||0.0101||95.0|1.78|13.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.201|1.780|0.0101
95852012|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.63||||0.0117||95.0|1.697|13.562|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 17 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.562|1.697|0.0117
95852013|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.707||||0.0126||95.0|1.65|13.764|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||13.764|1.650|0.0126
95852014|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.846||||0.0144||95.0|1.565|14.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 18 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.127|1.565|0.0144
95852015|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.924||||0.0153||95.0|1.518|14.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.329|1.518|0.0153
95852016|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.063||||0.0172||95.0|1.432|14.693|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 19 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.693|1.432|0.0172
95852017|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.14||||0.0182||95.0|1.384|14.896|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 1: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||14.896|1.384|0.0182
95852018|NCT00083889|191663393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.279||||0.0201||95.0|1.297|15.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle 20 Day 28: Differences in effect estimates between treatment arms. Repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time since randomization, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline EQ-VAS baseline score (intercept and time since randomization are included as random effects)||15.261|1.297|0.0201
95852019|NCT00168844|191663400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95852020|NCT00168844|191663400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95965100|NCT02975102|191901403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0186
95965101|NCT02975102|191901404|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95965102|NCT02975102|191901405|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95852021|NCT00168844|191663401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.0011||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||0.0011
95852022|NCT00168844|191663401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95852023|NCT00168844|191663402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||||<0.0001
95852024|NCT00168844|191663402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|The means are adjusted for centre, smoking status at entry and baseline value.||||||<0.0001
95852025|NCT00168844|191663403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.782||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.89|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|||0.890|0.687|0.0002
95852026|NCT00168844|191663403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|0.828|||Poisson regression||Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|||0.828|0.635|<0.0001
95852027|NCT00168844|191663447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852028|NCT00168844|191663447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry,centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852029|NCT00168844|191663448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95965103|NCT02975102|191901406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0011
95965104|NCT02975102|191901407|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95965105|NCT02975102|191901408|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||> 0.05
95965106|NCT02975102|191901409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.005
95965107|NCT02975102|191901410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0008
95965108|NCT02975102|191901411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0026
95852030|NCT00168844|191663448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852031|NCT00168844|191663449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852032|NCT00168844|191663449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.419|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, smoking status at entry, centre and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852033|NCT00168844|191663450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852034|NCT00168844|191663450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852035|NCT00168844|191663451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95965109|NCT02975102|191901412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||Significance level of 0.05 . P-Value result provided only for Global Question|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.077
95965110|NCT02975102|191901413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6097||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.6097
95965111|NCT02975102|191901414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.231
95965112|NCT02975102|191901415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.0135
95965113|NCT02975102|191901416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline||||||0.575
95965114|NCT05262751|191901417|OTHER||gMean Ratio|16.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.28|38.24|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.24|7.28|
95965115|NCT05262751|191901417|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.1|22.64|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 34.1|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||22.64|8.10|
95965116|NCT05262751|191901417|OTHER||gMean Ratio|41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.24|51.04|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||51.04|34.24|
95965117|NCT05262751|191901417|OTHER||gMean Ratio|42.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|52.76|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 28.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||52.76|34.90|
95852036|NCT00168844|191663451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852037|NCT00168844|191663452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 5mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95852038|NCT00168844|191663452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre,smoking status at entry and baseline value.|Tiotropium Respimat 10mcg - Placebo|Analysis for week 48||||<0.0001
95965118|NCT05262751|191901418|OTHER||gMean Ratio|9.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.91|14.8|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||14.80|5.91|
95852039|NCT00988832|191663465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95852040|NCT00988832|191663466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95852041|NCT00988832|191663467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0041
95965119|NCT05262751|191901418|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.93|19.43|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 44.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||19.43|7.93|
95852042|NCT00988832|191663468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0423||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
95852043|NCT00988832|191663469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
95852044|NCT00988832|191663470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
95852045|NCT00988832|191663472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95852046|NCT02958917|191663473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852047|NCT02958917|191663474|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.264|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
95852048|NCT02958917|191663475|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852049|NCT02958917|191663476|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852050|NCT02958917|191663477|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.364|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95852051|NCT02958917|191663478|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.05
95852052|NCT02958917|191663479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852053|NCT02958917|191663480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852054|NCT02958917|191663481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852055|NCT02958917|191663482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95869167|NCT00998764|191694431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||0.72|-0.51|0.742
95869168|NCT00998764|191694431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||0.83|-0.48|0.598
95869169|NCT00998764|191694431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||0.77|-0.85|0.922
95869170|NCT00998764|191694432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.||0.90|-0.08|0.099
95869171|NCT00998764|191694432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.||1.01|-0.07|0.089
95869172|NCT00998764|191694432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.||1.08|-0.17|0.152
95869173|NCT00998764|191694432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.||1.25|-0.21|0.160
95869174|NCT00998764|191694432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.||1.26|-0.73|0.603
95869175|NCT01856764|191694437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5542|0.4574||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: SCORAD change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline SCORAD score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4574|-1.5542|0.276
95869176|NCT01856764|191694438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.454||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9134|1.0835||MMRM model: TEWL change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline TEWL score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0835|-12.9134|0.095
95869177|NCT01856764|191694439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7656|-0.3492||MMRM model: Assessment of Pruritus change from baseline = treatment + visit + treatment by visit interaction + baseline Assessment of Pruritus score|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3492|-2.7656|0.013
95869178|NCT01634178|191694442|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric least squares (LS) mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|106.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||106.6|90.7|
95869179|NCT01634178|191694444|OTHER||Median Difference|0.75||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Fed - Fasted) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.25|0.25|0.0077
95869180|NCT01634178|191694445|OTHER|Food was considered to have no effect on the PK of apremilast if the 90% CI of the geometric LS mean ratios for AUC0-t and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|112.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.3|115.6|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||115.6|109.3|
95869181|NCT01634178|191694446|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|112.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.9|115.1|||||Ratio of the geometric LS means (Fed/Fasted), reported as percentages.|To assess the food effect, an ANOVA with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||115.1|108.9|
95869182|NCT01933789|191694451|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.145|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.446||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.446|0.844|<0.001
95869183|NCT01933789|191694452|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.251|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.583||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.583|0.920|<0.001
95965120|NCT05262751|191901418|OTHER||gMean Ratio|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.25|49.11|||||gMean Ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||49.11|29.25|
95965121|NCT05262751|191901418|OTHER||gMean Ratio|35.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.66|46.55|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 40.4|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||46.55|27.66|
95965122|NCT05262751|191901419|OTHER||gMean Ratio|12.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.73|21.71|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||21.71|6.73|
95965123|NCT05262751|191901419|OTHER||gMean Ratio|23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.51|42.42|||||gMean Ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 58.8|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||42.42|13.51|
95852056|NCT02958917|191663483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95852057|NCT02318706|191663530|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.03||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.30|-0.35|0.8773
95852058|NCT02318706|191663530|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.15||||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||0.17|-0.48|0.3494
95852059|NCT02318706|191663530|SUPERIORITY|DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg are tested against placebo at significance level of 0.025, respectively. If both arms are statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm will be tested at level of 0.05. If neither of the arms is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is no longer tested. If either DS-5565 20 mg or DS-5565 30 mg is statistically significant, DS-5565 15 mg arm is tested at level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|-0.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 change from baseline||-0.17|-0.82|0.0027
95852060|NCT04328077|191663533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||0.7755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|21.5|||ANCOVA|||||21.5|-16.1|0.7755
95852061|NCT04328077|191663533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.369||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-31.3|0.1798
95852062|NCT04328077|191663533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.807||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|11.6|||ANCOVA|||||11.6|-27.4|0.4229
95852063|NCT01456039|191663539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Based on one sample binomial test for dichotomized response proportion against the null hypothesis ( H0 p≤0.1)|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||||<0.0001
95852064|NCT02798627|191663577|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=0.97
95852065|NCT00744497|191663599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.53|0.87|1.13||An interim analysis on survival was performed and the final test was corrected for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||Confidence intervals for median overall survival calculated using Brookmeyer and Crowley method. Compared survival in arms by 2-sided, alpha=0.0447 level, log-rank test, stratified by bisphosphonate intake (yes/no) and urinary N-telopeptide category (\<60 vs ≥60 nmol/mmol creatinine) defined at randomization. Null hypothesis was survival equal in both arms. Power calculations were that ≥858 deaths would lead to ≥90% power at 5% level for rejecting null hypothesis, given true hazard ratio of 0.8.||1.13|0.87|0.9009
95852066|NCT00744497|191663600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|1.271||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.271|0.688|
95852067|NCT00744497|191663601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.02|0.64|
95852068|NCT00744497|191663602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.763||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.763|0.930|
95852069|NCT00744497|191663603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.05|0.82|
95852070|NCT00744497|191663604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The hazard ratio is presented for experimental to control group.||1.01|0.79|
95852071|NCT00744497|191663605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.052||||||Since superiority of the dasatinib treatment group was not demonstrated for Overall Survival, secondary endpoints were not tested. The odds ratio is presented for of experimental to control group.||1.052|0.594|
95869184|NCT01933789|191694453|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|1.381|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.715||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Bivariate model; there were no confounders.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.715|1.046|<0.001
95852072|NCT01968447|191663614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95852073|NCT01903356|191663629|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of % of HbA1c before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment.|The difference considered in the analysis is HbA1c values after drug administration minus HbA1c values before drug administration|||<0.0001
95852074|NCT01903356|191663632|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test has been used for this analysis.||Comparison of FPG before and 24 weeks after administration of TrajentaDuo® Tablet treatment|The difference considered in the analysis is FPG values after drug administration minus FPG values before drug administration|||<0.0001
95852075|NCT02542865|191663656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Analysis of variance(ANCOVA):cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group (fortified malt based food plus dietary counselling) minus Control Group (dietary counselling only).|||0.8|-12.7|0.0628
95853911|NCT02151058|191667092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0372||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.0504||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0504|-0.1970|0.001
95852076|NCT02542865|191663656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.039|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA:cluster/school=random effect,product group and gender=fixed effects,baseline Individual Dietary Diversity Score=covariate|Difference is difference in back-transformed adjusted means for Test Group minus Control Group. The corresponding CI is not presented as there is no direct back-transformation.|Since the distribution of the data was found to be more skewed with more zero counts than was anticipated at the time the trial was designed, an additional analysis of log (+1)-transformed data was performed.||||0.0390
95852077|NCT04913610|191663711|OTHER||||||=|0.036|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.036
95852078|NCT04913610|191663711|OTHER||||||=|0.53||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.530
95852079|NCT04913610|191663711|OTHER||||||=|0.852||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.852
95852080|NCT04913610|191663711|OTHER||||||=|0.366||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.366
95852081|NCT04913610|191663712|OTHER||||||=|0.869||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.869
95852082|NCT04913610|191663712|OTHER||||||=|0.973||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.973
95852083|NCT04913610|191663712|OTHER||||||=|0.744||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.744
95852084|NCT04913610|191663712|OTHER||||||=|0.794||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the percentage per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.794
95852085|NCT04913610|191663713|OTHER||||||=|0.559||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.559
95852086|NCT04913610|191663713|OTHER||||||=|0.786||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.786
95869185|NCT01933789|191694455|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.334||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.699||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Occurrence of goal-concordant care||0.699|-0.031|0.073
95965124|NCT05262751|191901419|OTHER||gMean Ratio|68.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.07|93.86|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||93.86|50.07|
95852087|NCT04913610|191663713|OTHER||||||=|0.423||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.423
95965125|NCT05262751|191901419|OTHER||gMean Ratio|66.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.77|91.64|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 50.0|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||91.64|48.77|
95965126|NCT05262751|191901420|OTHER||gMean Ratio|11.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.88|16.11|||||gMean ratio: MR1-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||16.11|8.88|
95965127|NCT05262751|191901420|OTHER||gMean Ratio|13.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.59|18.46|||||gMean ratio: MR1-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 23.5|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||18.46|10.59|
95965128|NCT05262751|191901420|OTHER||gMean Ratio|32.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|26.46|39.01|||||gMean ratio: MR2-1/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||39.01|26.46|
95965129|NCT05262751|191901420|OTHER||gMean Ratio|31.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.71|38.3|||||gMean ratio: MR2-2/R. Intra-individual Geometric coefficient of variation \[%\] = 29.3.|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model (logarithmic scale) with the effects: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||38.30|25.71|
95965130|NCT01151215|191901425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Statistical significance threshold at this interim analysis was 5%|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.60, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||1.75|0.77|0.485
95852088|NCT04913610|191663713|OTHER||||||=|0.92||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.920
95852089|NCT04913610|191663714|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
95852090|NCT04913610|191663714|OTHER||||||=|0.981||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.981
95852091|NCT04913610|191663714|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
95852092|NCT04913610|191663714|OTHER||||||=|0.96||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.960
95852093|NCT04913610|191663715|OTHER||||||=|0.157||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.157
95852094|NCT04913610|191663715|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
95852095|NCT04913610|191663715|OTHER||||||=|0.15||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.150
95852096|NCT04913610|191663715|OTHER||||||=|0.173||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the using the Chi-square test for the binary response per participant.|Chi-square test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.173
95852097|NCT04913610|191663716|OTHER||||||=|0.619||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.619
95852098|NCT04913610|191663716|OTHER||||||=|0.194||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.194
95852099|NCT04913610|191663716|OTHER||||||=|0.518||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.518
95852100|NCT04913610|191663716|OTHER||||||=|0.652||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.652
95965131|NCT01151215|191901425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.06|||Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified for the IVRS stratification factor of disease classification (locally advanced / metastatic disease)|The Hazard ratio is for AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg / Placebo + anastrozole 1mg, ie a hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD8931 20mg + anastrozole 1mg|345 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 233 progression events, based on HR=0.6, 90% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 9 months for the placebo arm. An interim analysis with futility boundary was introduced based on an IDMC recommendation.||2.06|0.91|0.135
95965132|NCT00401258|191901464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95965133|NCT00401258|191901465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain severity statistical analysis||||<.001
95965134|NCT00401258|191901465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average pain interference statistical analysis||||<.001
95852101|NCT04913610|191663717|OTHER||||||=|0.386||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm A to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm A) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.386
95965135|NCT00401258|191901466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95852102|NCT04913610|191663717|OTHER||||||=|0.279||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm B to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole pbo for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 400 mg for 7 days (Arm B) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.279
95852103|NCT04913610|191663717|OTHER||||||=|0.385||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm C to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083 400 mg + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm C) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.385
95852104|NCT04913610|191663717|OTHER||||||=|0.755||||||The p-value is for the pairwise comparison of Arm D to Arm E using the Mann-Whitney U test for the change from baseline in skin microfilarial density per participant.|Mann-Whitney U test|||Part 1: ABBV-4083/albendazole 400 mg 3 d; ABBV-4083 400 mg/albendazole pbo 4 d; ABBV-4083 pbo 7 d (Arm D) versus Part 1: ABBV-4083 pbo + albendazole 400 mg for 7 days, then ABBV-4083 pbo for 7 days (Arm E)||||=0.755
95852105|NCT00659061|191663719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||at baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95852106|NCT00659061|191663719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||at endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95852107|NCT00659061|191663721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||95.0|||||ANOVA|adjusted for baseline, child age, sex, number of sprinkles sachets consumed, number of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement)||||||<0.000
95852108|NCT00659061|191663722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.34
95852109|NCT00659061|191663722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95852110|NCT00659061|191663723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||endline|ANOVA|adjusted for baseline child age, sex, # of sprinkle sachet consumed, # of mths between enrollment and endline Hb measurement||||||0.000
95852111|NCT00659061|191663724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95852112|NCT00659061|191663724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95852113|NCT00659061|191663725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95852114|NCT00659061|191663725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.89
95852115|NCT00659061|191663726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0||||baseline|Chi-squared|||||||0.93
95965136|NCT00401258|191901467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95965137|NCT00401258|191901469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
95965138|NCT00401258|191901470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95965139|NCT00401258|191901471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Refers to work/school sub-scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95965140|NCT00401258|191901471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||||||Refers to social sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.087
95965141|NCT00401258|191901471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Refers to family sub scale|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95852116|NCT00659061|191663726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||endline|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95852117|NCT03164668|191663727|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.72|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||0.72|0.13|
95852118|NCT03164668|191663727|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||1.22|0.78|
95852119|NCT03164668|191663728|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.61|||||Model estimated mean ratio in puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those randomized to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which participants can continue smoking usual cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which menthol cigarettes are avoided relative to conditions in which can continue smoking usual cigarettes||6.61|1.39|
95965142|NCT00760747|191901483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-4.0|0.692
95965143|NCT00760747|191901484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.456
95965144|NCT00760747|191901485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|0.517
95869186|NCT01933789|191694456|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.481||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.877||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the patient's treatment preference (focus on life extension vs. comfort care).|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.877|0.085|0.017
95965145|NCT00760747|191901486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.3|0.526
95869187|NCT01933789|191694457|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|2.022||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|3.569||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the latent variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.569|0.476|0.010
95869188|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.209||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|3.479||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's feelings about getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.479|0.939|0.001
95869189|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.237||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.804||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about details of getting sicker.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||2.804|-0.330|0.122
95869190|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.329||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.426|5.083||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about how long the patient might have to live.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.083|-0.426|0.098
95869191|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|1.573||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|4.887||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for outcome variable as measured at baseline: pt. minority status, education, income; clinician type \& specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about what dying might be like.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||4.887|-1.742|0.352
95869192|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|4.625|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.19||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's involvement in end-of-life treatment decisions.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||7.190|2.060|<0.001
95869193|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.404||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|3.909||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about things in life that are important to the patient.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||3.909|0.898|0.002
95965146|NCT00760747|191901487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 10|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.898
95869194|NCT01933789|191694458|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|2.455||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|5.159||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for the outcome variable as measured at baseline and clinician type.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|"Patient rating of clinician's quality of communication about patient's religious/spiritual beliefs.~Variable with range 0-11, defined as censored from below because of strong floor effect."||5.159|-0.250|0.075
95965147|NCT00760747|191901492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean differences at week 2|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-2.9|0.927
95965148|NCT03321253|191901500|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95965149|NCT00402051|191901523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|65.3||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||65.3|40.3|
95965150|NCT00402051|191901523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||6-Month PFS Rate|39.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|50.8||||||Hypothesis testing was done independently for each treatment arm (no direct treatment group comparison).||50.8|27.8|
95965151|NCT00402051|191901525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|32.3||||||95.0|21.2|45.1||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||45.1|21.2|
95965152|NCT00402051|191901525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Best Overall Response Rate (%)|20.0||||||95.0|11.1|31.8||||||Response rates were evaluated separately for each treatment arm||31.8|11.1|
95965153|NCT00630734|191901532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||Threshold of significance was P\<0.05.|ANOVA|||Relative change data were compared between SLCO1B1 diplotype groups using one-way ANOVA (with post-hoc Bonferroni tests).||||0.43
95965154|NCT00630734|191901533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
95965155|NCT00630734|191901534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95965156|NCT00630734|191901535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
95965157|NCT00630734|191901536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
95965158|NCT00630734|191901537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.15
95965159|NCT00630734|191901538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.22
95965160|NCT00630734|191901539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.67
95965161|NCT00630734|191901540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.006
95852120|NCT03164668|191663728|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||||Estimated mean ratio of number of puffs of e-cigarettes used per day among those in conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes|Comparison of those assigned to conditions in which they receive tobacco flavored e-cigarettes relative to conditions in which they receive menthol flavored e-cigarettes||0.92|0.59|
95852121|NCT04739982|191663746|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.27||An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the change in baseline and follow-up scores of treatment and treatment as usual participants.|t-test, 1 sided|Degrees of freedom=274 Significance level=.05||||.27|-.21|.41
95852122|NCT04739982|191663747|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.39|-.08|.095
95852123|NCT04739982|191663749|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.47|-.09|.09
95852124|NCT02005016|191663783|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment PNT scores (range: 1-175; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.005
95852125|NCT02005016|191663784|OTHER|This was a single-group study. A t-test was administered comparing pre- and post-treatment CAT modality mean T-scores (range: 30-70, mean: 50; higher scores are better).|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95852126|NCT02732600|191663785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||1.68|-0.66|0.39
95852127|NCT02732600|191663785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.06|-0.75|0.35
95852128|NCT02732600|191663785|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis 1 is Comparison Across Conditions at BASELINE Analysis 2 is Comparison Across Conditions at 6 Months Analysis 3 is Comparison Across Conditions at 1 year||2.60|-0.57|0.21
95852129|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test used to compare group differences in Cohesiveness at BASELINE||13.48|-2.2|0.156
95852130|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|19.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group means on Communication at BASELINE||19.8|-3.85|0.182
95852131|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|22.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group differences on Role Clarity at BASELINE||22.57|-5.74|0.234
95852132|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|33.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test to compare group values on Goals at Baseline||33.5|-5.22|0.149
95852133|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of differences between groups on Cohesiveness at 6-Months||13.8|-14.7|0.947
95852134|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|18.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of groups differences on Communication at 6 Months||18.4|-15.6|0.870
95965162|NCT00630734|191901541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95965163|NCT01123070|191901580|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.93||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|1.084|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|||1.084|0.797|0.4265
95965164|NCT01123070|191901581|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the back transformed 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.862||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.768|0.968|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|||0.968|0.768|0.0368
95852135|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.26|23.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 6 months||23.63|-11.26|0.478
95852136|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.35|17.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 6 Months||17.83|-13.35|0.773
95965165|NCT01123070|191901583|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.909||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.814|1.014|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax1||1.014|0.814|0.1484
95852137|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.8||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|38.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Cohesiveness at 1year||38.6|-20.4|0.498
95965166|NCT01123070|191901583|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.766||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|0.927|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|Cmax2||0.927|0.633|0.0241
95965167|NCT01123070|191901584|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.969||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.863|1.088|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011 arm is the numerator, MabThera arm is the denominator|AUC1||1.088|0.863|0.6520
95869195|NCT01933789|191694459|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.103||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|0.122||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression variable and for the patient racial/ethnic minority status.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression - Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time.||0.122|-0.327|0.369
95869196|NCT01933789|191694460|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.263||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|1.097||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: standard PHQ-8 composite score.||1.097|-0.571|0.536
95869197|NCT01933789|191694461|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.208||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.461||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent depression var; pt age, minority status, education, health status; clin specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.461|-0.044|0.106
95869198|NCT01933789|191694462|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|0.446||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|1.368||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered robust linear regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the PHQ-8 composite score and clinician specialty.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of depression: Standard PHQ-8 composite score||1.368|-0.476|0.343
95869199|NCT01933789|191694463|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.034||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.232|0.734
95869200|NCT01933789|191694464|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|0.041||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|1.028||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered Tobit regression|Pts clustered under clins. Clustered Tobit regression because strong floor effect on composite score. Adjusted for baseline level of composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Standard GAD-7 composite score||1.028|-0.946|0.935
95965168|NCT01123070|191901584|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence declared if the 90% CI of geometric mean ratio is within the predefined limits of 0.75 to 1.33|Geometric mean ratio|0.961||||0.7835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|1.222|||ANCOVA|PK parameters were calculated using a logarithmic transformation. Covariates included body weight at screening, gender and treatment.|TL011/MabThera|AUC2||1.222|0.757|0.7835
95965169|NCT02271984|191901594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|39.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.7|46.0|||||Percentage of Geometric Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment B) is reported.|||46.0|34.7|
95965170|NCT02271984|191901594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.5|33.2|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C1/Treatment A) is reported.|||33.2|22.5|
95965171|NCT02271984|191901594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|260.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|214.0|316.4|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment C2/Treatment A) is reported.|||316.4|214.0|
95965172|NCT02271984|191901594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|167.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.9|194.0|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment A/Treatment D) is reported.|||194.0|143.9|
95965173|NCT02271984|191901594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|115.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.8|134.1|||||Percentage of Geometric LS Mean Ratio (Treatment E/Treatment A) is reported.|||134.1|99.8|
95965174|NCT01088984|191901609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||1-sided p-value is calculated against the null hypothesis of a response rate of 5%.|binomial parameter exact method|||||||1.0000
95965175|NCT01182441|191901618|SUPERIORITY|Success for this endpoint was achieved if the probability of experiencing an event was statistically less than the performance goal, defined as 2.67%, with an upper bound of the one-sided 95% credible interval less than the performance goal.|probability of experiencing an event|2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.652||||||Bayesian calculations were used to incorporate the data from PROTECT AF CAP Registry through a conjugate beta-binomial model. A one-sided upper 95% credible interval for the event rate was calculated based off this posterior distribution.||2.652||
95965176|NCT01182441|191901619|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if the 95% Credible Interval for the rate ratio of WATCHMAN versus Warfarin is entirely less than 1.75.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval model were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately by treatment group and event type. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||1.89|0.57|
95965177|NCT01182441|191901620|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.0273||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||0.0273|-0.0190|
95965178|NCT01182441|191901620|NON_INFERIORITY|This endpoint is met if either the 95% Credible Interval for the risk ratio \< 2.0 or the 95% Credible Interval for the risk difference is \< 0.0275.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.2||||||A Bayesian piecewise exponential model was used to model the 18-month event rates. Historical priors for each interval were based on PROTECT AF. Hazards were modeled for 0-7 day, 7-60 day, 60-182 day, and 182+ day intervals. Event rates were estimated separately for the WATCHMAN and Warfarin groups. The posterior distribution for the 18-month event rate ratio (WATCHMAN vs. Warfarin), and the corresponding equitailed 95% credible interval, were determined via Monte Carlo simulations.||4.2|0.5|
95965179|NCT02304705|191901621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
95869201|NCT01933789|191694465|SUPERIORITY||Probit regression coefficient|-0.042||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.163||No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Clustered probit regression|Patients clustered under clinicians. Adjusted for baseline level of the latent anxiety variable.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|Symptoms of anxiety: Two-indicator latent variable with measurement invariance imposed between groups and over time||0.163|-0.247|0.689
95869202|NCT01933789|191694466|SUPERIORITY||Tobit regression coefficient|-0.105||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|0.995||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians. Clustered Tobit regression because of strong floor effect on composite score."|Clustered Tobit regression|Adjusted for baseline level of the GAD-7 composite score.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.995|-1.204|0.852
95869203|NCT01933789|191694467|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.221||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.923|0.482||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient race and health status and by clinician type and specialty|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.482|-0.923|0.418
95869204|NCT01933789|191694468|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.175||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.962||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.962|-0.613|0.568
95869205|NCT01933789|191694469|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.14||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|0.815||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.815|-0.534|0.592
95869206|NCT01933789|191694472|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.179||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.398|1.04||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||1.040|-1.398|0.705
95869207|NCT01933789|191694473|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|0.123||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.805||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.805|-0.560|0.644
95869208|NCT01933789|191694474|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.165||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.833|3.503||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|Adjusted for confounding by patient education and health status and by clinician gender.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||3.503|-3.833|0.908
95869209|NCT01933789|191694475|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.121||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|0.403||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.403|-0.646|0.552
95869210|NCT01933789|191694476|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.293||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.553||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.553|-1.139|0.372
95869211|NCT01933789|191694477|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.13||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.369||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.369|-0.630|0.501
95869212|NCT01933789|191694478|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.39||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.38||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.380|-1.160|0.192
95965180|NCT03412773|191901685|NON_INFERIORITY|"Overall survival (OS) was compared between the tislelizumab group (Arm A) and the sorafenib group (Arm B) by testing the null hypothesis of noninferiority: the null hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio (HR) for tislelizumab versus sorafenib is greater than or equal to 1.08, while the alternative hypothesis assumes the hazard ratio is less than 1.08.~Noninferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95.003% confidence interval (CI) for the HR was less than 1.08"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.003|0.712|1.019|||||The hazard ratio is based on a Cox regression model with treatment, geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG (0 vs. 1) as covariates.|||1.019|0.712|
95965181|NCT03412773|191901685|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of tislelizumab over sorafenib was tested for OS using a stratified log-rank test in the ITT analysis set only when noninferiority was demonstrated. Superiority was declared if the one-sided p-value crosses the boundary of 0.0223 (1-sided p-value \< 0.0223) in favor of Arm A in the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.019||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.019|0.712|0.0398
95869213|NCT01933789|191694479|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.014||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|0.461||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.461|-0.489|0.940
95869214|NCT01933789|191694480|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.229||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.044|0.587||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.587|-1.044|0.470
95852138|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|26.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Communication at 1 year||26.7|-20.3|0.780
95852139|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.54||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.19|46.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Role Clarity at 1 year||46.11|-23.19|0.474
95852140|NCT02732600|191663786|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|28.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test of group differences on Goals at 1 year||28.21|-8.21|0.267
95852141|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 6 months||1.00|-0.09|0.098
95852142|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on COLLABORATION at 6 months||1.43|-0.43|0.282
95852143|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PEER SPECIALIST AS LIAISON at 6 months||2.29|-0.05|0.06
95852144|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on PROVIDES INFO ON SERVICES at 6 months||1.59|0.07|0.34
95852145|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Symptoms and Medication at 6-months||2.62|-0.94|0.34
95852146|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 6-months||1.50|-1.03|0.66
95852147|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 6 Months||2.16|-0.36|0.15
95852148|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 6-months||0.59|-1.01|0.59
95852149|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 6 months||1.68|-1.77|0.95
95869215|NCT01933789|191694481|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.454||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.454|-0.474|0.955
95852150|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 6 months||1.68|-0.58|0.32
95852151|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across both groups on Resources at 6 months||2.04|-0.60|0.27
95869216|NCT01933789|191694482|SUPERIORITY||probit regression coefficient|-0.287||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|0.431||"No adjustment for multiple tests. A priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.~Patients clustered under clinicians."|clustered probit regression|No covariate adjustment.|Control group coded 0; intervention group coded 1.|||0.431|-1.005|0.303
95965182|NCT03412773|191901686|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|8.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|12.7||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis assumed that ORR is equal in both groups, while the alternative hypothesis assumed ORR is higher in the tislelizumab group (Arm A).||12.70|3.85|0.0003
95852152|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Performance Reviews at 6 months||1.85|-1.71|0.93
95852153|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on CORE PEER at 1 year||-0.005|-1.45|0.15
95852154|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Collaboration at 1 year||0.32|-1.7|0.04
95852155|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Peer Specialists as Liaison at 1 year||0.17|-2.07|0.08
95852156|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Provides Info on Services at 1 year||0.18|-0.58|0.26
95852157|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison between groups on Symptoms and Medication at 1 year||2.83|-4.53|0.61
95852158|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Training and Preparation at 1 year||1.01|-2.87|0.30
95852159|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Team Integration and Relationships at 1 year||-0.52|-2.08|0.004
95852160|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Leadership at 1 year||-0.60|-4.20|0.01
95852161|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|23.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Fits to Experience at 1 year||23.5|-24.1|0.90
95965183|NCT03412773|191901687|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel ORR difference|9.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|13.78||The nominal P-value from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, conducted at a 0.05 significance level, was stratified by geography, macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread, etiology, and ECOG.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.78|4.71|<0.0001
95965184|NCT03412773|191901688|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.33||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.33|0.92|0.1364
95965185|NCT03412773|191901689|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.26||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.26|0.90|0.2622
95965186|NCT03412773|191901692|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.38||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.38|0.94|0.0859
95852162|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Role Clarity at 1 year||0.12|-3.02|0.06
95852163|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison across groups on Resources at 1 year||1.37|-0.97|0.71
95852164|NCT02732600|191663787|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||t-test comparison on Performance Reviews at 1 year||2.23|-5.03|0.41
95852165|NCT02732600|191663788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.88||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at Baseline||5.88|1.29|0.002
95852166|NCT02732600|191663788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 6 Months||5.78|-0.54|0.10
95852167|NCT02732600|191663788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|4.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Group Comparison at 1 year||4.14|-3.06|0.77
95852168|NCT02732600|191663789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|6.38||p value for 1st year only|t-test, 2 sided|||||6.38|0.56|0.02
95852169|NCT02732600|191663789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.04|-4.67|0.93
95852170|NCT02732600|191663790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p value for 1st year||||1.37|0.68|0.0001
95852171|NCT02732600|191663791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|9.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.96|1.46|0.02
95965187|NCT03412773|191901693|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.34||One sided Log-Rank Test stratified by geography (Asia vs EU/US), macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. Other) and ECOG (0 vs. 1).|One-sided log-rank test||The hazard ratio was derived from a Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and stratified by geography (Asia vs. EU/US), macrovascular invasion/extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent), etiology (HCV vs. other), and ECOG score (0 vs. 1).|||1.34|0.94|0.1182
95852172|NCT02732600|191663791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|8.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.54|-3.14|0.38
95852173|NCT02732600|191663792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.73||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-186.2|-12.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-12.66|-186.2|0.027
95852174|NCT02732600|191663793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.92|0.28|0.001
95852175|NCT00528957|191663795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for participants switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for participants continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|4.5|||Normal approximation|The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|Difference is for tenofovir DF minus stavudine or zidovudine (randomized phase)|"The statistical hypotheses for the primary endpoint was as follows:~* Null Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA concentrations \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.~* Alternate Hypothesis: tenofovir DF group is no more than 15% worse than the stavudine or zidovudine group with respect to the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48."||4.5|-21.5|
95852176|NCT00528957|191663796|NON_INFERIORITY|In the randomized phase, it was assumed that the respective proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL was 92% for subjects switching to tenofovir DF and 90% for subjects continuing stavudine or zidovudine, as estimated from previous GSI studies. The equivalence limit was set at -15% for the lower boundary of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 400 copies/mL at Week 48.|Difference in percentages between groups|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.8|||||The difference between the two proportions and its CI were based on normal approximation methods.|||11.8|-13.7|
95869217|NCT02757950|191694491|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.548||||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.157||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.157|0.259|0.1147
95869218|NCT02757950|191694492|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.428||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.851||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.851|0.215|0.0155
95869219|NCT02757950|191694493|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.254||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.746||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.746|0.086|0.0127
95869220|NCT02757950|191694494|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|0.638||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.863||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||0.863|0.471|0.0036
95869221|NCT02757950|191694495|OTHER|The comparison of the relative risk with its two sided 95% CI of each primary endpoint between the Exposed cohort and the Unexposed cohort was obtained by means of logistic regression model, using the exposure status as a binary independent variable in the model. Absence of increased relative risk was concluded if the respective 95% CI contained 1.|Incidence rate ratio|1.342||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.89||A multiple logistic regression model was fitted with a backward selection to identify the possible confounding factors for each of the primary safety event using an alpha level of 0.1.|Regression, Logistic|||The analysis contained only the subjects with vaccination date in the Exposed cohort and subjects from the Unexposed cohort.||1.890|0.952|0.0931
95869222|NCT02514473|191694523|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.75|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect with adjustments for baseline, weight (less than \[\<\] 25 kilogram \[kg\] versus greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 25 kg) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity (\<90 versus \>=90) at screening.||-0.75|-1.43|< 0.0001
95869223|NCT02106923|191694544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.505|105.514|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.514|100.505|<0.0001
95869224|NCT02106923|191694544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.809|103.823|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.823|96.809|<0.0001
95869225|NCT02106923|191694544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.507|98.721|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||98.721|93.507|<0.0001
95869226|NCT02106923|191694545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|112.81|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||112.81|92.30|0.0011
95869227|NCT02106923|191694545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|102.53|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.53|95.45|<0.0001
95869228|NCT02106923|191694545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.59|110.52|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.52|93.59|0.0002
95965188|NCT03412773|191901699|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.8||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.8|-3.8|0.0033
95852177|NCT01323582|191663846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|28.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite corrected t-test was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||28.6|-21.5|0.76
95852178|NCT01323582|191663847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65||95.0|-4.8|7.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Correction used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Study planned to accrue 50 subjects, but due to difficult recruitment was not able to meet its objective.||7.5|-4.8|0.65
95852179|NCT01323582|191663848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|5.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite correction for unequal standard deviations was used|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|Half of the period 2 minus period 1 differences were used, since the difference between these two derived means is an unbiased estimate of the effect size.||5.19|-4.58|0.88
95852180|NCT01323582|191663849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|10.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite Corrected t-test|A positive (negative) value would suggest AZI values would tend to be larger (smaller) than EZ values.|||10.9|-13.9|0.80
95852181|NCT01323582|191663850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||7.3|-30.9|0.21
95852182|NCT01323582|191663851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-1.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values suggest shorter emptying time post-treatment.|||-1.26|-28.7|0.034
95852183|NCT01323582|191663852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.16|-9.48|0.015
95852184|NCT01323582|191663853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|-1.83|||t-test, 2 sided||Lower scores are favorable.|||-1.83|-10.97|0.0083
95852185|NCT01446159|191663894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.429|||Log Rank|||||1.429|0.689|0.86
95852186|NCT03174184|191663914|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence tests will be conducted to examine whether the EBA0-14CFU of Arm A is different from the EBA0-14CFU of Arm B. A similar comparison will be done comparing Arm C to Arm D, Arm A to Arm C, Arm D to Arm E, Arm D to Arm F, and Arm E to Arm F.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95852187|NCT00525512|191663973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.13||||0.1062||95.0|0.97|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|0.97|0.1062
95852188|NCT00525512|191663974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.008||95.0|1.03|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.23|1.03|0.008
95852189|NCT00525512|191663975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.1||||0.0597||95.0|1.0|1.21||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|1.00|0.0597
95852190|NCT00525512|191663976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.15||||0.0131||95.0|1.03|1.29||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|1.03|0.0131
95852191|NCT00525512|191663977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.18||||0.0041||95.0|1.05|1.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|1.05|0.0041
95852192|NCT00525512|191663978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.11||||0.0945||95.0|0.98|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|0.98|0.0945
95852193|NCT00525512|191663979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.12||||0.0899||95.0|0.98|1.28||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.28|0.98|0.0899
95852194|NCT00525512|191663980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.16||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.160|0.073|<0.0001
95852195|NCT00525512|191663981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.082||||0.0005||95.0|0.036|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.036|0.0005
95852196|NCT00525512|191663982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089||||0.0003||95.0|0.041|0.137||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.137|0.041|0.0003
95852197|NCT00525512|191663983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.058|0.153||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|0.058|<0.0001
95852198|NCT00525512|191663984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0005||95.0|0.04|0.141||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.141|0.040|0.0005
95852199|NCT00525512|191663985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.094||||0.0002||95.0|0.045|0.144||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.144|0.045|0.0002
95852200|NCT00525512|191663986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0059||95.0|0.022|0.128||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.128|0.022|0.0059
95852201|NCT00525512|191663987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.198||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.198|0.110|<0.0001
95869229|NCT02106923|191694546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.446|105.373|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||105.373|100.446|<0.0001
95965189|NCT03412773|191901700|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||-0.7|-4.7|0.0096
95965190|NCT03412773|191901701|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.3||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||7.3|1.4|0.0037
95965191|NCT03412773|191901702|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.2||Reported p-values are nominal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm differences in the change from Baseline were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. The model included Baseline scores, stratification factors, treatment arms, visits, and treatment arm by visit interaction as fixed effects and visit as a repeated measure with an unstructured covariance matrix based on the missing at random assumption.||8.2|1.8|0.0022
95965192|NCT01810939|191901709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||||||||0.81|0.7|
95965193|NCT01810939|191901710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.5 mEq/L||||<0.001
95965194|NCT01810939|191901711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mantel Haenszel|||Test for difference between treatment groups in proportion with serum potassium ≥ 5.1 mEq/L||||<0.001
95965195|NCT01810939|191901712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Longitudinal mixed models|Test that the mean change is significantly different from zero.||Estimation of mean change in serum potassium from Part A Baseline to Part A Week 4 and test mean change different from zero.||||<0.001
95965196|NCT01810939|191901713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Test for difference between treatment groups in serum potassium change in Part B||||< 0.001
95852202|NCT00525512|191663988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.208||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.208|0.117|<0.0001
95852203|NCT00525512|191663989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.145|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.099|0.192||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.192|0.099|<0.0001
95852204|NCT00525512|191663990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.176||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.176|0.077|<0.0001
95852205|NCT00525512|191663991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.185||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.185|0.083|<0.0001
95852206|NCT00525512|191663992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.202||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.202|0.097|<0.0001
95852207|NCT00525512|191663993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.183||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.183|0.077|<0.0001
95852208|NCT00525512|191663994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.307||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.307|0.127|<0.0001
95852209|NCT00525512|191663995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.0019||95.0|0.058|0.255||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.255|0.058|0.0019
95852210|NCT00525512|191663996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182||||0.0006||95.0|0.078|0.286||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.286|0.078|0.0006
95852211|NCT00525512|191663997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.234|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.339||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.339|0.130|<0.0001
95852212|NCT00525512|191663998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161||||0.009||95.0|0.04|0.281||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.281|0.040|0.009
95852213|NCT00525512|191663999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.212||||0.0002||95.0|0.102|0.322||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.322|0.102|0.0002
95852214|NCT00525512|191664000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.355||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.355|0.128|<0.0001
95852215|NCT00525512|191664001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.277|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.375||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.375|0.179|<0.0001
95852216|NCT00525512|191664002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.425||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.425|0.226|<0.0001
95852217|NCT00525512|191664003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.245|0.461||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.461|0.245|<0.0001
95869230|NCT02106923|191694546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.448|103.738|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||103.738|96.448|<0.0001
95869231|NCT02106923|191694546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.758|99.311|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||99.311|93.758|<0.0001
95869232|NCT02106923|191694547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.522|110.412|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||110.412|99.522|<0.0001
95869233|NCT02106923|191694547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.03|109.134|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||109.134|95.030|<0.0001
95869234|NCT02106923|191694547|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.217|102.211|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||102.211|90.217|<0.0001
95869235|NCT02106923|191694548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.071||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.925|111.329|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||111.329|87.925|0.0027
95869236|NCT02106923|191694548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.792|113.859|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||113.859|102.792|<0.0001
95869237|NCT02106923|191694548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.071||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.116|116.559|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||116.559|92.116|0.0060
95869238|NCT02106923|191694549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.13|108.47|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||108.47|89.13|0.0008
95869239|NCT02106923|191694549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|102.8|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1000 mg Met FDC (Fed) divided by Empa/1000 mg Glumetza ® (Fed)|||102.80|94.77|<0.0001
95869240|NCT02106923|191694549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Model includes effects for sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.09|114.74|||ANOVA|P-value for ratio outside interval 80%-125%|Ratio calculated as Empa/ 1500 mg Met FDC (Fasted) divided by Empa/ 1500 mg Glumetza® (Fasted)|||114.74|94.09|0.0021
95869241|NCT01986933|191694632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-7.53||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-7.53|-35.25|0.0027
95869242|NCT01986933|191694632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|-27.15||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-27.15|-55.17|<0.0001
95869243|NCT01986933|191694632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.11|-26.67||Since a hierarchical decision procedure can be regarded as a closed testing procedure, no inflation of the alpha level due to multiple comparisons was necessary, and the global 1-sided significance alpha level of 0.025 was maintained.|ANCOVA|||||-26.67|-54.11|<0.0001
95869244|NCT00075270|191694654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.87||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on the log-rank test.|||1.05|0.72|0.142
95869245|NCT00075270|191694655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.82||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04||P-value from stratified log-rank test, stratifying for stage of disease and site of disease at screening|Log Rank||The estimate of the treatment hazard ratio was based on the log-rank test.|||1.04|0.65|0.094
95869246|NCT00246571|191694674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8889|1.628||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from the interactive voice response system (IVRS).|Log Rank|||For core radiology laboratory assessment||1.6280|0.8889|0.8885
95965197|NCT00789360|191901720|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|0.0917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.212|||||Maximum difference occurred at 10 hours|The largest treatment difference (Loxapine - Placebo) in change in FEV1 from baseline by spirometry||0.212|-0.028|
95852218|NCT00525512|191664004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.259|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.365||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.365|0.154|<0.0001
95852219|NCT00525512|191664005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.194|0.406||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.406|0.194|<0.0001
95852220|NCT00525512|191664006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.364||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.364|0.144|<0.0001
95852221|NCT00525512|191664007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.209|0.456||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.456|0.209|<0.0001
95852222|NCT00525512|191664008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.1131||95.0|-0.72|0.08||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.72|0.1131
95852223|NCT00525512|191664009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9071||95.0|-0.38|0.33||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.38|0.9071
95852224|NCT00525512|191664010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.6878||95.0|-0.35|0.53||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.35|0.6878
95852225|NCT00525512|191664011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||||95.0|-2.39|3.11||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.11|-2.39|
95852226|NCT00525512|191664012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||||95.0|-2.66|3.31||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.31|-2.66|
95852227|NCT00525512|191664013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||||95.0|-2.91|3.58||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.58|-2.91|
95852228|NCT00525512|191664014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-2.97|3.43||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.43|-2.97|
95852229|NCT00525512|191664015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||||95.0|-3.02|3.46||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.46|-3.02|
95852230|NCT00525512|191664016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||||95.0|-3.1|3.41||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.41|-3.10|
95852231|NCT00525512|191664017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||||95.0|-3.22|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.22|
95852232|NCT00525512|191664018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||||95.0|-2.78|3.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.52|-2.78|
95869247|NCT00246571|191694674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1598||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8703|1.5457||One-sided log-rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regiments (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank|||For investigator's assessment||1.5457|0.8703|0.8472
95852233|NCT00525512|191664019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||||95.0|-3.05|3.51||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.51|-3.05|
95852234|NCT00525512|191664020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||||95.0|-3.4|3.55||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.55|-3.40|
95852235|NCT00525512|191664021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||||95.0|-3.61|3.92||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.92|-3.61|
95852236|NCT00525512|191664022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.53|3.9||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.90|-3.53|
95852237|NCT00525512|191664023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||||95.0|-3.36|3.71||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.71|-3.36|
95852238|NCT00525512|191664024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||||95.0|-3.82|3.96||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.||||||3.96|-3.82|
95852239|NCT00525512|191664025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03||||0.0072||95.0|-6.97|-1.1||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-6.97|0.0072
95852240|NCT00525512|191664026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33||||0.2029||95.0|-5.91|1.26||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-5.91|0.2029
95852241|NCT00525512|191664027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.0313||95.0|-6.84|-0.32||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-6.84|0.0313
95852242|NCT00525512|191664028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.94||||0.0001||95.0|-13.37|-4.52||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.52|-13.37|0.0001
95852243|NCT00525512|191664029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.6541||95.0|0.719|1.23||Based on a MMRM analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|Regression, Cox|||||1.230|0.719|0.6541
95852244|NCT00525512|191664030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean ratio|1.06||||0.4443||95.0|0.91|1.25||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|0.91|0.4443
95852245|NCT00525512|191664031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.8644||95.0|-0.05|0.06||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.05|0.8644
95852246|NCT00525512|191664032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.4277||95.0|-0.07|0.17||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.4277
95852247|NCT00525512|191664033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.7071||95.0|-3.81|2.59||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||2.59|-3.81|0.7071
95852248|NCT00525512|191664034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.6556||95.0|-3.03|4.81||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||4.81|-3.03|0.6556
95852249|NCT00525512|191664035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.9896||95.0|-3.44|3.48||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-3.44|0.9896
95965198|NCT00789360|191901721|OTHER||Maximum LS mean change difference|-0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.019|||||Greatest difference occurred at 9 hours after Dose 1|||-0.019|-0.290|
95852250|NCT00525512|191664036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.0807||95.0|-9.19|0.53||Based on a ANCOVA analysis with terms for treatment, centre and baseline.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-9.19|0.0807
95852251|NCT01601535|191664050|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||MYCN Amplified vs. MYCN not Amplified|Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
95852252|NCT01601535|191664050|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Fisher Exact|MYCN Amplified or Myc Positive vs. MYCN Non-amplified and Myc Negative||||||0.21
95852253|NCT01601535|191664050|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Aurora A protein Positive vs. Aurora A protein Negative||||||1.0
95852254|NCT01601535|191664051|OTHER|||||||0.094||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.094
95852255|NCT01601535|191664051|OTHER|||||||0.63||||||UGT1A1 6\\6 vs. UGT1A1 6\\7 vs. UGT1A1 7\\7|Fisher Exact|||||||0.63
95852256|NCT01601535|191664052|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||AurkA Codon 31 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary V vs. AurkA Codon 31 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
95852257|NCT01601535|191664052|OTHER|||||||1||||||AurkA Codon 57 Summary H vs. AurkA Codon 57 Summary W|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95852258|NCT00534365|191664054|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We chose a non-inferiority margin of 12% based on previously published multicenter trial of mid-urethral slings. Assuming subjective cure rate for TVT of 82%, 127 individuals in each group will provide 80% to reject the null hypothesis that the true difference in cure rates between the two procedures is less than or equal to 2% using a two group large sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one sided 0.05 significance level.||||||0.43|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.43
95869248|NCT00246571|191694675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.9624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.71||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Core radiology laboratory assessment||1.71|0.06|0.9624
95869249|NCT00246571|191694675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98||The stratified analysis was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factor, the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||1.98|0.27|0.8140
95869250|NCT00246571|191694678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1599||||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8648|1.5558||One-sided log rank test stratified for the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus more than 1), which is from IVRS.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for sunitinib versus standard of care.|||1.5558|0.8648|0.8394
95852259|NCT00534365|191664057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95852260|NCT00534365|191664058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95852261|NCT03577275|191664059|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.~Assay sensitivity was evaluated by concentration-QTc analysis of the effect on delta delta QTcF of moxifloxacin using a similar model as for the primary analysis."|The primary analysis was based on concentration-QTc modeling of the relationship between icosabutate and delta delta QTcF, with the intent to exclude an effect \> 10 msec at clinically relevant icosabutate plasma concentrations.|||
95869251|NCT00775203|191694694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and study center as categorical factors and HAMD-17 baseline as covariate.||The primary null hypothesis for the HAMD-17 total score is that there is no difference between the Trazodone Contramid® OAD group and the placebo group at Week 8. A sample size of 133 in each group will have 90% power to detect a difference in the absolute mean Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) change from baseline of 3.0 units assuming that the common standard deviation is 7.5 using a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.0119
95852262|NCT02458313|191664064|SUPERIORITY|DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.647
95852263|NCT02458313|191664064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.679
95852264|NCT02458313|191664065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared at baseline||||0.951
95852265|NCT02458313|191664065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||DMXB-A vs. Placebo groups compared post-intervention||||0.884
95852266|NCT02421172|191664075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior probablility|0.9729||||||||||||||||||
95852267|NCT05024032|191664081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.3|-14.8|<0.001
95852268|NCT05024032|191664081|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-20.3|<0.001
95852269|NCT05024032|191664082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|60.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.69|8.80|<0.001
95852270|NCT05024032|191664082|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.61|73.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||73.24|9.61|<0.001
95852271|NCT05024032|191664083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.5|-8.8|<0.001
95852272|NCT05024032|191664083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-10.9|<0.001
95852273|NCT05024032|191664084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|30.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.89|5.63|<0.001
95852274|NCT05024032|191664084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|72.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.71|11.23|<0.001
95852275|NCT05024032|191664085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|98.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.49|6.68|<0.001
95852276|NCT05024032|191664085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.69|275.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||275.37|17.69|<0.001
95869252|NCT04214288|191694712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0167||90.0|0.42|0.82|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.82|0.42|0.0167
95869253|NCT04214288|191694712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.009||90.0|0.46|0.89|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model.|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD9833 to be associated with a longer progression-free survival than fulvestrant.|||0.89|0.46|0.0090
95965199|NCT03559062|191901722|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95965200|NCT03559062|191901723|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0001
95965201|NCT03559062|191901724|OTHER|||||||0.0546|||||||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||0.0546
95965202|NCT00955708|191901744|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|95.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.0||||||The lower one-sided 95% confidence bound was pre-specified to be greater than 92.5%.|The endpoint data reflected here is a modified primary endpoint analysis requested by the Food and Drug Administration early in the registry to include data that is related to the left ventricular lead function in a chronic setting.|||94.0|
95852277|NCT05024032|191664086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.9|-11.5|<0.001
95852278|NCT05024032|191664086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.3|-16.0|<0.001
95852279|NCT05024032|191664087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-13.5|<0.001
95852280|NCT05024032|191664087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-18.6|<0.001
95852281|NCT05024032|191664088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-4.8|<0.001
95852282|NCT05024032|191664088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-6.4|<0.001
95852283|NCT05024032|191664089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-0.46|<0.001
95852284|NCT05024032|191664089|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.48|<0.001
95852285|NCT05024032|191664090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.61|<0.001
95852286|NCT05024032|191664090|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.69|<0.001
95852287|NCT05024032|191664091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.044
95852288|NCT05024032|191664091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|0.0|0.050
95852289|NCT05024032|191664092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.8|||ANCOVA|||||11.8|3.7|<0.001
95852290|NCT05024032|191664092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|4.4|<0.001
95852291|NCT05024032|191664093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-6.9|<0.001
95852292|NCT05024032|191664094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.1|-9.1|<0.001
95852293|NCT05024032|191664095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.11||||||||-0.11|-0.51|
95852294|NCT05024032|191664096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.14||||||||0.14|0.03|
95852295|NCT05024032|191664097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.13||||||||0.13|-0.25|
95852296|NCT05024032|191664098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.16||||||||-0.16|-0.34|
95852297|NCT05024032|191664099|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.37||||||||-0.37|-0.79|
95852298|NCT05024032|191664100|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-0.12|
95852299|NCT05024032|191664101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-4.0||||||||-4.0|-8.6|
95869254|NCT04214288|191694713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4828||90.0|0.63|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.31|0.63|0.4828
95852300|NCT01709721|191664119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Chi-squared|Pearson's chi-square test||Superiority of intrathecal hydromorphone hydrochloride as compared to a control arm.||||0.147
95852301|NCT01709721|191664120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0342|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0342
95852302|NCT01709721|191664121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1642|||||||ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.1642
95852303|NCT01709721|191664122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0160
95852304|NCT01709721|191664123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0007
95852305|NCT01709721|191664124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||"P-value by ANCOVA, with randomization group as the factor and initial parameter value as covariate.~Note: For subjects with missing endpoint on Day 119, value is imputed using the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF).~Note: Baseline for this analysis is the Day 84 visit."||||0.0088
95852306|NCT01709721|191664125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test for Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Time to Rescue (days).|Log Rank|||||||0.011
95852307|NCT01709721|191664126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test (using equally spaced scores).||||0.0335
95852308|NCT01709721|191664128|SUPERIORITY|Pearson's chi-square test||||||0.01||||||Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95852309|NCT02587221|191664137|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.45|-5.27|38.91|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||38.91|-5.27|
95852310|NCT02587221|191664142|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as the presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|32.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.23|48.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||48.67|10.23|
95852311|NCT02587221|191664143|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (eg. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|79.79|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||The efficacy of aQIV would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided multiplicity adjusted 95%CI for the vaccine efficacy is \>40%||79.79|-24.03|
95852312|NCT02587221|191664144|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|86.28|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||86.28|-7.98|
95852313|NCT02587221|191664145|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any vaccine strain regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|28.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|49.08|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||49.08|0.05|
95852314|NCT02587221|191664146|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|33.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|54.57|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||54.57|2.56|
95852315|NCT02587221|191664147|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the vaccine strains.~An ILI is the presence of ≥1 respiratory symptom (e.g. sore throat, cough, sputum production, wheezing, or difficulty breathing) concurrently with ≥1 systemic symptom (temp \>37.2°C/99°F, chills, tiredness, headache, or myalgia) (protocol defined ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|23.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.69|47.05|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||47.05|-9.69|
95852316|NCT02587221|191664148|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature \>37.2°C) with cough or sore throat (modified CDC ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|26.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|51.13|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||51.13|-11.71|
95852317|NCT02587221|191664153|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR confirmed due to any strain.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|51.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.21|66.67|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||66.67|28.21|
95852318|NCT02587221|191664154|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically matched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)"|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|74.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.93|94.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||94.68|-17.93|
95852319|NCT02587221|191664155|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza regardless of antigenic match.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|60.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.19|76.94|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.94|31.19|
95965203|NCT00955708|191901744|OTHER|Primary endpoint was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In addition, Greenwood's formula was used to calculate the lower one-sided 95% confidence bound.|Kaplan-Meier Rate|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|100.0|||||||The non-modified primary endpoint analysis initially included confirmed chronic LV lead related complications that result in permanent loss of therapy, invasive intervention, injury or death, and are deemed attributable to a structural lead failure by an independent Clinical Events Committee (CEC). These results are represented here.|||100|
95965204|NCT03738475|191901757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0056
95965205|NCT03738475|191901761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0799||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.0799
95965206|NCT03738475|191901763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||Based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for the change from baseline between treatment groups.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.2890
95852320|NCT02587221|191664156|OTHER|"VE=1-HR, where HR is the hazard ratio estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model for time to first occurrence of culture confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza antigenically unmatched to the strains selected for the seasonal vaccine.~An ILI was defined as presence of fever (temperature ≥38°C) with cough (WHO ILI definition)."|Vaccine efficacy (VE)|57.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.73|76.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for covariates||||76.09|22.73|
95852321|NCT00333775|191664190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0318
95852322|NCT00333775|191664190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.72||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.57|0.0036
95852323|NCT00333775|191664193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.69|0.1105
95852324|NCT00333775|191664193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.65|0.0241
95852325|NCT00333775|191664194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.37|||Log Rank|||||1.37|0.62|0.6962
95852326|NCT00333775|191664194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.45|0.0765
95852327|NCT03486912|191664195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.773
95852328|NCT03486912|191664195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.23|0.23|0.544
95852329|NCT03486912|191664195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.62|0.30|0.811
95852330|NCT03486912|191664196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.09|0.40|0.836
95852331|NCT03486912|191664196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.46|0.30|0.763
95852332|NCT03486912|191664196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.51|0.32|0.821
95852333|NCT03486912|191664197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.25|0.39|0.837
95869255|NCT04214288|191694713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.3691||90.0|0.69|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||3.67|0.69|0.3691
95852334|NCT03486912|191664197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.40|0.54|0.359
95852335|NCT03486912|191664197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.61|0.44|0.627
95852336|NCT03486912|191664198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.16|0.40|0.864
95852337|NCT03486912|191664198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.49|0.29|0.743
95852338|NCT03486912|191664198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.27|0.630
95852339|NCT03486912|191664199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.48|0.477
95852340|NCT03486912|191664199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.44|0.32|0.814
95852341|NCT03486912|191664199|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.21|0.367
95852342|NCT03486912|191664200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.309
95852343|NCT03486912|191664200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.146
95852344|NCT03486912|191664200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.317
95852345|NCT03486912|191664201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|325.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||325.97|0.76|0.054
95852346|NCT03486912|191664201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|549.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||549.08|1.50|0.004
95852347|NCT03486912|191664201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|271.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||271.11|0.57|0.087
95852348|NCT04218240|191664207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||A nonparametric (Kruskal-Wallis) comparison of the two groups (p=0.049)||||.05
95852349|NCT04218240|191664208|OTHER|Chi-square analysis||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||hypothesis: more people in active PGB/LFX will complete withdrawal CI = 95% P = 0.5||||0.27
95852350|NCT01451606|191664228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Note that sample size was well below our target, making this test very low power.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95852351|NCT01451606|191664229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95852352|NCT04576988|191664263|OTHER||Treatment difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.53|54.14||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Aligned Rank Stratified Wilcoxon (ARSW)|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||54.14|27.53|<0.001
95852353|NCT04576988|191664266|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
95852354|NCT04576988|191664267|OTHER||Treatment difference|-234.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.37|-180.75||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-180.75|-288.37|<0.001
95852355|NCT04576988|191664268|OTHER||Treatment difference|-441.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-573.54|-309.61||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-309.61|-573.54|<.001
95852356|NCT04576988|191664269|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using CMH method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95852357|NCT04576988|191664270|OTHER|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Log rank test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.347|||Log Rank||Cox proportional hazard model was used to generate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI was reported with treatment group as the covariate stratified by the WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy.|||0.347|0.076|<0.001
95965207|NCT01370655|191901782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI; equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) is~≤0 mmHg"|Difference in Least square (LS) means|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.6|-4.1|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-4.1|-10.6|
95852358|NCT04576988|191664271|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A 2-sided p-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.||||||<0.001
95852359|NCT04576988|191664272|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.040|-0.490|0.010
95852360|NCT04576988|191664273|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|-0.014||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||-0.014|-0.256|0.028
95852361|NCT04576988|191664274|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.16||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.084||A 2-sided p-value was calculated using ARSW test with WHO FC II/III and background PAH therapy as strata.|ARSW test|Participants who died were assigned the worst rank and who had missing data due to non-fatal clinical worsening event were assigned next worst-rank.|Hodges-Lehmann location-shift estimate of the overall treatment difference with 95% CI was reported.|||0.084|-0.399|0.156
95852362|NCT03980730|191664299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2057
95852363|NCT03125226|191664341|OTHER|Single group mean and standard deviation||||||||||||||||Coordinates in x/y/z planes were assigned to each hydrogel marker on the planning CT and daily CBCT to calculate interfraction motion.|Single group mean and standard deviation|||
95852364|NCT03125226|191664346|OTHER|The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||||||||||||||||The Van Herk (VH) margin equation for the planning target volume margin, as a function of systemic and random errors, was calculated such that the CTV receives at least 95%-prescription dose in 90% of patients.|||
95852365|NCT02787564|191664347|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95852366|NCT02787564|191664348|OTHER|||||||0.038||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.038
95852367|NCT02787564|191664349|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95852368|NCT02787564|191664350|OTHER|||||||0.443||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
95852369|NCT02787564|191664351|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable variety between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.006
95852370|NCT02787564|191664352|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||Comparison of difference of fruit and vegetable amount between intervention group and control group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95852371|NCT03919773|191664364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Intention-to-treat analysis||||0.629
95852372|NCT03919773|191664365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison of proportion with positive treatment response (as defined) in IVIG group compared to albumin||||0.718
95869256|NCT04214288|191694717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.64|0.84|0.2554
95965208|NCT01370655|191901782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the upper bound of the two-sided 90% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the difference ≤ 3.8 mmHg.|Difference in LS means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.2|-1.6|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.05 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||-1.6|-9.2|
95965209|NCT01370655|191901782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.0|-0.5|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.5|-9.0|
95965210|NCT01370655|191901782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-2.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-2.2|-11.2|
95852373|NCT02919761|191664368|OTHER||||||=|0.242||||||At Week 4|One-sample binomial test|||||||=0.242
95869257|NCT04214288|191694717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1658||90.0|0.91|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression model adjusting for prior use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and presence of lung and/or liver metastasis.|An odds ratio \> 1 favours AZD9833.|||2.89|0.91|0.1658
95869258|NCT02397564|191694724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
95965211|NCT01370655|191901782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.3|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.3|-6.2|
95965212|NCT01370655|191901783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.1|-0.3|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.3|-6.1|
95852374|NCT02919761|191664368|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||At Week 8|One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95852375|NCT02919761|191664368|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||One-sample binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95852376|NCT02919761|191664369|OTHER||||||=|0.313||||||Comparison at Week 12|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.313
95852377|NCT02919761|191664369|OTHER||||||=|0.439||||||Comparison at Week 16|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.439
95852378|NCT02919761|191664369|OTHER||||||=|0.028||||||Comparison at Week 20|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.028
95852379|NCT02919761|191664369|OTHER||||||=|0.019||||||Comparison at Week 24|Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||=0.019
95852380|NCT00385671|191664397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between pregabalin \& duloxetine treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||1.04|-0.05|0.076
95965213|NCT01370655|191901783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.2|-5.5|
95853912|NCT02151058|191667092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0373|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2413|-0.0941||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0941|-0.2413|<0.001
95853913|NCT02151058|191667092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0301||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1034|0.0152||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.0152|-0.1034|0.145
95965214|NCT01370655|191901783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|-0.1|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-0.1|-6.0|
95965215|NCT01370655|191901783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-0.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||-0.2|-6.5|
95965216|NCT01370655|191901783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|2.7|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||2.7|-3.3|
95965217|NCT01370655|191901784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis supported if the lower bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided lower 90% CI) is \> 89.0 mmol/day.|Difference in LS means|76.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|49.2|103.8|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|Type I error rate of alpha=0.10 (1-sided) is specified for testing of the hypothesis.||103.8|49.2|
95965218|NCT01370655|191901784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-63.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-100.8|-26.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||-26.7|-100.8|
95965219|NCT01370655|191901784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|12.9|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||12.9|-49.1|
95965220|NCT01370655|191901784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|30.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|68.7|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||68.7|-7.0|
95965221|NCT01370655|191901784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|94.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.8|130.4|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||130.4|58.8|
95965222|NCT01370655|191901788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|18.2|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||18.2|-2.3|
95965223|NCT01370655|191901788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the two-sided 80% CI (equivalent to a one-sided upper 90% CI) for the difference is \<13 mmol/day the hypothesis will be supported for the 3-mg dose and testing will continue with construction of a two-sided 80% CI for the 6-mg dose (6 mg MK-7145 - placebo). The hypothesis will be supported if one or both doses meet the test criterion.|Difference in LS means|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.5|10.7|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||10.7|-8.5|
95965224|NCT01370655|191901788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|15.6|||||MK-7145 3 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||15.6|-9.6|
95852381|NCT00385671|191664398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Basis of non-inferiority margin (maximum disadvantage for duloxetine compared to pregabalin not considered meaningful): In 3 previous placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine in DPNP, in the subgroup of patients that had been treated with gabapentin prior to entry, the estimated mean change in pain at Week 12 was -2.74 for duloxetine and -1.09 for placebo, an advantage of about 1.65. The non-inferiority margin represents about half of this previous treatment effect in a similar population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.78||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week, Kenward-Roger approximation was used.||Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in weekly mean of daily 24 hour average pain score between duloxetine \& duloxetine+gabapentin treatments. Sample size: 125 participants/treatment, 6% increase for 400 planned enrollees. 92% power with 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval; mean change in duloxetine group, -2.7; in pregabalin group, -2.5; standard deviation, 2.3; margin of non-inferiority: -0.8.||0.78|-0.32|0.417
95852382|NCT00385671|191664399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
95852383|NCT00385671|191664399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.520
95852384|NCT00385671|191664399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||||0.463
95852385|NCT00385671|191664400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.389
95869259|NCT01857310|191694749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.7|
95869260|NCT01857310|191694749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Live birth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.88|
95869261|NCT01857310|191694750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.2|
95965225|NCT01370655|191901788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|7.2|||||MK-7145 6 mg LS mean minus HCTZ 25 mg LS mean|||7.2|-15.0|
95965226|NCT01370655|191901788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|17.6|||||HCTZ 25 mg LS mean minus Placebo LS mean|||17.6|-7.7|
95965227|NCT01735175|191901791|EQUIVALENCE|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|The difference between LA-EP2006 and reference pegfilgrastim was 0.07 days (95% CI \[-0.12, 0.26\]). 95% CIs were within the predefined margin of ±1 day confirming equivalence.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
95852386|NCT00385671|191664400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.126
95852387|NCT00385671|191664400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in weekly mean of the daily worst pain severity score.||||0.489
95852388|NCT00385671|191664401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests: Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.35|-0.20|0.602
95852389|NCT00385671|191664401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.37|-0.17|0.469
95869262|NCT01857310|191694750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Semen volume will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.2|-0.1|
95869263|NCT01857310|191694751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-12.5|3.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.9|-12.5|
95852390|NCT00385671|191664401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in CGI severity.||0.30|-0.24|0.841
95852391|NCT00385671|191664402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.55|-0.16|0.276
95852392|NCT00385671|191664402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.37||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.37|-0.33|0.929
95869264|NCT01857310|191694751|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-13.6|3.1|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm concentration represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||3.1|-13.6|
95965228|NCT01735175|191901791|NON_INFERIORITY|The testing procedure was set up in a hierarchical structure, where first equivalence between LA-EP2006 and Neulasta was assessed (margin ±1 day) and only if this was successfully established, non-inferiority between the two products was tested using a tighter margin of -0.6 days.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.26|||ANCOVA|The primary endpoints was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® because the lower bound of the 95% CI is entirely above the non-inferiority margin of -0.6 days.|"The hierarchical test procedure aimed to show that~1. LA-EP2006 and Neulasta® are equivalent with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin±1 day), and, if so~2. LA-EP2006 is non-inferior to Neulasta® with respect to DSN duration in Cycle 1 (margin of -0.6 days)."||0.26|-0.12|0.05
95965229|NCT01621776|191901837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.04||0.971||95.0|129.73|160.47|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||160.47|129.73|.971
95965230|NCT01621776|191901838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|161.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.67||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|144.91|177.28|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||177.28|144.91|.698
95965231|NCT01621776|191901839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|220.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.97||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|197.22|243.71|||ANOVA||This is a three arm study that is not seeking to engage in comparison between individual arms, therefore the mean difference across the study arms is reported.|||243.71|197.22|.806
95965232|NCT01430468|191901840|EQUIVALENCE|With use of previously established criteria for a malpositioned glenoid, deviations of greater than 10 degrees of version from the planned placement were considered relevant.||||||0.11||||||P-value was calculated. Threshold for statistical significance (p\<0.05)|t-test, 2 sided|||The absolute difference between the actual outcome and the planned outcome was compared between the standard surgical group and the glenoid positioning system group with use of a Student t test. Results were considered to be significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.11
95965233|NCT04916730|191901873|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95852393|NCT00385671|191664402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.17||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Variance model and t-tests:~Endpoint = InvestigatorGroup + Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in PGI-Improvement at 12 weeks.||0.17|-0.53|0.313
95852394|NCT00385671|191664403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.04|-0.06|0.078
95852395|NCT00385671|191664403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||1.20|0.08|0.025
95852396|NCT00385671|191664403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.7||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: 24-hour average pain.||0.70|-0.41|0.602
95852397|NCT00385671|191664404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||0.94|-0.34|0.353
95852398|NCT00385671|191664404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.34||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: worst pain.||1.34|0.03|0.039
95852399|NCT00385671|191664404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.04||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Worst Pain.||1.04|-0.27|0.244
95853914|NCT02151058|191667093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3282|-0.1321||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1321|-0.3282|<0.001
95852400|NCT00385671|191664405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.8||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.80|-0.25|0.298
95852401|NCT00385671|191664405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.81||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-Severity: Least Pain.||0.81|-0.25|0.304
95852402|NCT00385671|191664405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.54||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: least pain.||0.54|-0.53|0.989
95852403|NCT00385671|191664406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||0.97|-0.14|0.145
95852404|NCT00385671|191664406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.03||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-severity: pain right now.||1.03|-0.11|0.112
95852405|NCT00385671|191664406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean of nighttime pain severity.||0.62|-0.52|0.865
95852406|NCT00385671|191664407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.95||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||0.95|-0.26|0.263
95852407|NCT00385671|191664407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.49||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.49|0.24|0.007
95852408|NCT00385671|191664407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with general activity.||1.13|-0.10|0.102
95853915|NCT02151058|191667093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4113|-0.2141||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.2141|-0.4113|<0.001
95852409|NCT00385671|191664408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.55||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.55|-0.61|0.922
95852410|NCT00385671|191664408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.99||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||0.99|-0.20|0.195
95852411|NCT00385671|191664408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.02||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with mood.||1.02|-0.17|0.162
95852412|NCT00385671|191664409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||0.87|-0.46|0.541
95852413|NCT00385671|191664409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.36||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.36|-0.00|0.051
95852414|NCT00385671|191664409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.15||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with walking ability.||1.15|-0.21|0.173
95852415|NCT00385671|191664410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.40|0.451
95853916|NCT02151058|191667093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1621|-0.0031||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.0031|-0.1621|0.042
95853917|NCT02151058|191667094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0543|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.382|-0.1679||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1679|-0.3820|<0.001
95853918|NCT02151058|191667094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0548|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5724|-0.3565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.3565|-0.5724|<0.001
95853919|NCT02151058|191667094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0442|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2767|-0.1023||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment and baseline value as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.1023|-0.2767|<0.001
95853920|NCT00804908|191667095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.071|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.071
95853921|NCT00804908|191667095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.233|||||||Stratified log-rank|||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a log-rank test stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) status (0 to 1 ULN; \>1 to ≤ 2 ULN) and history of previously treated brain metastases (with, without). Hochberg testing procedure for multiplicity adjustment.||||=0.233
95853922|NCT01280903|191667103|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95853923|NCT01280903|191667104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||p=0.130 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.130
95852416|NCT00385671|191664410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.90|-0.43|0.485
95852417|NCT00385671|191664410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with normal work.||0.65|-0.68|0.969
95852418|NCT00385671|191664411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.76||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.76|-0.36|0.479
95852419|NCT00385671|191664411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.87|-0.27|0.301
95852420|NCT00385671|191664411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with relations with other people.||0.67|-0.47|0.731
95852421|NCT00385671|191664412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.87||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.87|-0.45|0.528
95852422|NCT00385671|191664412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.51||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.51|-0.84|0.626
95852423|NCT00385671|191664412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with sleep.||0.30|-1.06|0.270
95852424|NCT00385671|191664413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||1.13|-0.10|0.098
95852425|NCT00385671|191664413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.90|-0.35|0.383
95852426|NCT00385671|191664413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.39||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI-interference with enjoyment of life.||0.39|-0.86|0.452
95852427|NCT00385671|191664414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.82|-0.26|0.309
95852428|NCT00385671|191664414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.93||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.93|-0.17|0.174
95852429|NCT00385671|191664414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.65||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BPI mean interference score.||0.65|-0.45|0.717
95852430|NCT00385671|191664415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.975||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.975
95965234|NCT02078492|191901880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We assumed a minimal clinically significant difference (MCSD) of 1.3 between the three ketorolac groups at the 30-minute pain assessment and a standard deviation of 3.0. A power analysis determined that a sample of 78 subjects per group provided at least 80% power to detect an MCSD of at least 1.3 at 30 minutes with α=0.05.||||||0.783|||||||ANOVA|2 degrees of freedom||The main hypothesis was that there would be equivalence of dose effect across the three groups at every time point, and the primary comparison consisted of the pain assessment at 30 minutes.||||.783
95965235|NCT05672771|191901881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.355|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.355
95965236|NCT05672771|191901882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This is the difference between the Different Mixed and Placebo Control conditions.|||||<.02
95965237|NCT05672771|191901883|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||for contrasts of DM, DS, and ST groups relative to the PC group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95965238|NCT05239598|191901910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.0|-4.0|0.287
95965239|NCT05239598|191901911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||5 minutes post intervention||8.6|-5.2|0.625
95965240|NCT05239598|191901911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|10.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||30 minutes post intervention||10.5|-5.5|0.526
95853924|NCT01280903|191667104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||p=0.573 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.573
95965241|NCT05239598|191901912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.1|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 5 minutes Post-Intervention||8.1|-4.2|0.511
95965242|NCT05239598|191901912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|18.6|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 30 minutes post-intervention||18.6|-10.7|0.408
95965243|NCT05239598|191901912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.5|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine: 60 minutes post-intervention||17.5|-15.2|0.907
95965244|NCT05239598|191901912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 5 minutes post intervention||-0.9|-6.5|0.008
95965245|NCT05239598|191901912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-2.2|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 30 minutes post-intervention||-2.2|-10.1|0.080
95965246|NCT05239598|191901912|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-3.9|||Signed Rank|||Placebo: 60 minutes post-intervention||-3.9|-22.3|0.001
95965247|NCT05239598|191901913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 5 minutes post-intervention||5.8|-2.2|0.212
95965248|NCT05239598|191901913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|6.9|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 30 minutes post-intervention||6.9|-2.3|0.334
95965249|NCT05239598|191901913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|6.8|||Signed Rank|||Povidone-iodine 60 minutes post-intervention||6.8|-3.1|0.269
95965250|NCT05239598|191901913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.7|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 5 minutes post-intervention||-0.7|-7.1|0.026
95965251|NCT05239598|191901913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 30 minutes post-intervention||2.0|-9.4|0.182
95852431|NCT00385671|191664415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.448
95852432|NCT00385671|191664415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with ≥ 30% reduction in the weekly mean 24 hour average pain score at 12 weeks.||||0.280
95852433|NCT00385671|191664416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.548
95852434|NCT00385671|191664416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.599||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||0.599
95852435|NCT00385671|191664416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference in the number of patients with a reduction of ≥ 50% in Weekly mean of 24 hour average pain score.||||1.00
95852436|NCT00385671|191664417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.905||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.905
95852437|NCT00385671|191664417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.368||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.368
95852438|NCT00385671|191664417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Mantel Haenszel|Treatments were compared with stratification defined by InvestigatorGroup. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of Participants with a ≥ 2-points reduction on the weekly average of the daily 24-hour average pain scale at 12 Weeks.||||0.200
95853925|NCT01280903|191667104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||p=0.197 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.197
95853926|NCT01280903|191667105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.461
95853927|NCT01280903|191667106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.180
95853928|NCT01280903|191667107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.258
95853929|NCT01280903|191667108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.416
95853930|NCT01280903|191667109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95853931|NCT01280903|191667110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||p=0.272 for None to very low|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.272
95853932|NCT01280903|191667110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823||||||p=0.823 for Light|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.823
95852439|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.572
95852440|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.345
95852441|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||P-value is for GTS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ GTS scores.||||0.699
95852442|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.954
95852443|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS scores.||||0.734
95852444|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for QOS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ QOS.||||0.693
95853933|NCT01280903|191667110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p=0.076 for Moderate-to-vigorous|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.076
95965252|NCT05239598|191901913|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.0|||Signed Rank|||Placebo 60 minutes post-intervention||4.0|-7.7|0.353
95965253|NCT05472740|191901944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95965254|NCT04855734|191901954|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.962||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.396||Threshold for significance was \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.396|0.661|0.835
95965255|NCT04855734|191901955|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.826||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.986||\<0.05 was threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning/Peace subscale which was a primary outcome.||0.986|0.75|0.032
95965256|NCT04855734|191901961|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.052||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.157||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver strain subscale scores at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||1.157|0.959|0.284
95853934|NCT01280903|191667111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.561
95965257|NCT04855734|191901961|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratioj|0.931||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.048||\<0.05 threshold for significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Caregiver distress subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.048|0.827|0.228
95853935|NCT01280903|191667112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.856|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.856
95853936|NCT01280903|191667113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.292
95853937|NCT01280903|191667114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.396
95853938|NCT01280903|191667115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.424
95853939|NCT01280903|191667116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.586
95853940|NCT01280903|191667117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.596
95853941|NCT01280903|191667118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
95853942|NCT01280903|191667119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
95853943|NCT01280903|191667120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||p=0.322 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.322
95853944|NCT01280903|191667120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||p=0.979 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.979
95853945|NCT01280903|191667121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||p=0.710 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.710
95853946|NCT01280903|191667121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||p=0.133 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.133
95853947|NCT01280903|191667122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p=0.005 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95853948|NCT01280903|191667122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948||||||p=0.948 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.948
95853949|NCT01280903|191667122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||p=0.663 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.663
95853950|NCT01280903|191667123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p=0.001 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95853951|NCT01280903|191667123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||p=0.031 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
95853952|NCT01280903|191667124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.816
95965258|NCT04855734|191901961|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.984||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.032||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family well-being subscale controlling for baseline levels.||1.032|0.94|0.504
95965259|NCT04855734|191901961|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.995||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|1.024||\<0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Positive Caregiving Appraisals subscale at 3 month follow up, controlling for baseline levels.||1.024|0.967|0.741
95965260|NCT03832595|191901969|EQUIVALENCE|We determined that 1,653 patients provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.64, or a 5% absolute risk reduction in intervention arm, assuming a primary end-point rate of 15% in the usual care group at 24 months, 20% loss to follow-up, α = 0.05, and within-practice intra-class correlation of 0.01|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.38|0.67|0.82
95965261|NCT03832595|191901970|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Slope difference|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.029||||||||0.029|-0.008|
95965262|NCT03832595|191901971|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||||||||1.43|1.02|
95965263|NCT03832595|191901972|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.25||||||||1.25|0.51|
95965264|NCT03832595|191901973|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|53.78||||||||53.78|0.03|
95965265|NCT03832595|191901974|EQUIVALENCE|α = 0.05|Rate ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|9.96||||||||9.96|0.12|
95965266|NCT05131477|191902007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-20.3|-43.9|<0.0001
95853953|NCT01280903|191667125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.895
95965267|NCT05131477|191902007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-15.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-15.6|-39.1|<0.0001
95965268|NCT05131477|191902007|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-10.4|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-10.4|-34.0|0.0002
95965269|NCT05131477|191902007|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||||-18.5|-41.9|<0.0001
95965270|NCT05131477|191902008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-23.8|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-23.8|-49.8|<0.0001
95965271|NCT05131477|191902008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-11.6|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-11.6|-37.7|0.0002
95965272|NCT05131477|191902008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-13.1|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.1|-39.2|<0.0001
95965273|NCT05131477|191902008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-13.9|||ANCOVA||LS Mean Difference|||-13.9|-39.7|<0.0001
95965274|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|< 0.0001
95965275|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.40|0.14|< 0.0001
95965276|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.44|0.18|<0.0001
95965277|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.42|0.16|<0.0001
95965278|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.5|0.23|<0.0001
95965279|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.07|0.0040
95965280|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.45|0.17|<0.0001
95965281|NCT05131477|191902009|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.36|0.09|0.0016
95965282|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.06|0.0022
95965283|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.09||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.18|0|0.0562
95965284|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0054
95965285|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.31|0.1|0.0003
95852445|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.720
95852446|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.722
95852447|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for AFS. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ AFS scores.||||0.480
95852448|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.498
95852449|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.865
95852450|NCT00385671|191664418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408||95.0||||P-value is for BFW. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in LSEQ BFW scores.||||0.408
95852451|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.33||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||1.33|-2.18|0.635
95852452|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.24||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.24|-3.24|0.092
95965286|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.47|0.21|<0.0001
95852453|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.65||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS total score.||0.65|-2.80|0.221
95869265|NCT01857310|191694752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.5|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.5|-2.5|
95965287|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.22||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.34|0.1|0.0008
95965288|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.41|0.16|<0.0001
95965289|NCT05131477|191902010|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.3|0.06|0.0046
95965290|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.19||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.3|0.09|0.0006
95965291|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.14||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.04|0.0057
95852454|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.85||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.85|-0.88|0.974
95852455|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.13||P-value is for Item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.13|-1.63|0.093
95852456|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.12||P-value is for item 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 1 score.||0.12|-1.59|0.091
95852457|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.52||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS Item 2 score.||0.52|-0.75|0.733
95852458|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.11||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.11|-1.15|0.102
95852459|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.21||P-value is for item 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 2 score.||0.21|-1.04|0.193
95852460|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.43||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.43|-0.76|0.584
95965292|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.16||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.26|0.05|0.0038
95965293|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.18||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||0.28|0.07|0.0011
95965294|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.35|0.11|0.0002
95853954|NCT01280903|191667126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.260
95853955|NCT01280903|191667127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
95853956|NCT01280903|191667128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.947|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.947
95853957|NCT01280903|191667129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406||||||p=0.406 for Short Form-36v2 Mental Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.406
95853958|NCT01280903|191667129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||p=0.826 for Short Form-36v2 Physical Component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.826
95853959|NCT01280903|191667130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p=0.950 for Exercise Barriers Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.950
95853960|NCT01280903|191667130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||p=0.365 for Exercise Self-Efficacy|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.365
95853961|NCT01280903|191667131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||p=0.219 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.219
95853962|NCT01280903|191667131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p=0.340 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Function|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.340
95853963|NCT01280903|191667131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||p=0.806 for Arthritis Self Efficacy Other Symptoms|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.806
95965295|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.17||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.28|0.06|0.0038
95965296|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.21||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||0.32|0.09|0.0006
95965297|NCT05131477|191902011|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||32|9|0.0008
95965298|NCT04297618|191902068|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95965299|NCT04297618|191902069|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95853964|NCT01280903|191667132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||p=0.008 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Arthritis|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95853965|NCT01280903|191667132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||p=0.120 for Perceived Therapeutic Efficacy of Exercise and Hypertension|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.120
95853966|NCT02266888|191667146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.248|1.826|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio estimated for Rituximab vs. Placebo|||1.826|0.248|0.514
95853967|NCT02266888|191667150|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95853968|NCT02266888|191667151|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95853969|NCT02266888|191667152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
95853970|NCT02266888|191667155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.62||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|-0.6|||Paired t-Test|||This is not a comparison between treatment groups, but rather a comparison between timepoints.The Rituximab and Placebo groups were combined for purposes of testing the hypothesis that there would be no change in SD between pre-enrollment and 180 days post-enrollment into the TVI.||-0.60|-2.64|0.015
95853971|NCT02266888|191667157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.502
95853972|NCT02266888|191667158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.448
95853973|NCT02177695|191667159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to pT0, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the GC treatment group.||8.36|0.82|0.1
95853974|NCT02177695|191667159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to pT0, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT0 within the ddMVAC treatment group.||2.95|0.42|0.82
95853975|NCT02177695|191667160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|4.89|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of GC COXEN scores to \<= pT1, GC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the GC treatment group.||4.89|1.11|0.02
95853976|NCT02177695|191667160|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||To determine the relationship of ddMVAC COXEN scores to \<=pT1, ddMVAC COXEN score (dichotomous, favorable vs. unfavorable) was tested in a logistic regression model predicting the outcome of pT1 or better within the ddMVAC treatment group.||1.75|0.46|0.76
95853977|NCT03181932|191667167|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint was tested sequentially at Week 4 (end of Cycle 1), Week 12 (end of Cycle 2) and at Week 20 (end of Cycle 3). If a statistically significant difference was observed in favor of vancomycin inhalation powder compared to placebo after Cycle 1, then the mean change in the FEV1 percent predicted during Cycle 2 was to be tested. Similarly, if the effect after Cycle 2 was statistically significant, then the analysis of Baseline to end of Cycle 3 was to be tested.|Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Based on previous experience, a sample size of 45 participants per arm would provide 89% power to detect a statistically significant difference at alpha level of 0.05. To account for potential dropouts and/or smaller effect size in a 3-cycle trial, a sample size of 75 participants per arm was to be enrolled in the primary analysis population, which if all completed would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 3.4% at 20 weeks assuming the same standard deviation of 6.3%.||4.1|-1.4|0.325
95853978|NCT01887327|191667179|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-31.64|||=|2.1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-19.283|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-19.283|-44.000|=0.0000021
95853979|NCT01887327|191667179|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-27.4|||=|2.6e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.657|-15.142|||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|||||-15.142|-39.657|=0.0000260
95853980|NCT02443688|191667200|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% confidence interval (CI)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-1.34|
95853981|NCT02443688|191667200|OTHER|Single Group Difference from Placebo Mean Change from Baseline with 95% CI|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|1.64|||ANOVA|||||1.64|-3.78|
95853982|NCT02443688|191667200|SUPERIORITY|Difference from placebo of pooled arms (100mg CTX-4430 and 50mg CTX-4430) in change from baseline in ppFEV1 at Week 48.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5||0.1 alpha level (2-sided) prespecified|ANOVA|||||2.50|-2.20|0.45
95853983|NCT02443688|191667201|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.02|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.02|1.22|
95853984|NCT02443688|191667201|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.89|1.13|
95853985|NCT02443688|191667201|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.01|1.21|
95853986|NCT02443688|191667201|OTHER|Pooled Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.81|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.81|1.26|
95853987|NCT02443688|191667202|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.58|
95852461|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.06||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.06|-1.12|0.077
95852462|NCT00385671|191664419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.22||P-value is for item 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in SDS item 3 score.||0.22|-0.95|0.221
95852463|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|0.32||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||0.32|-3.96|0.096
95852464|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.13||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.13|-3.16|0.353
95852465|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.88||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||2.88|-1.27|0.444
95852466|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.48||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||3.48|-2.29|0.682
95852467|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|1.82||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.82|-4.08|0.450
95852468|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|1.04||P-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score.||1.04|-4.49|0.218
95869266|NCT01857310|191694752|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm motility represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||1.4|-2.7|
95869267|NCT01857310|191694753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.8|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0.1|-0.8|
95869268|NCT01857310|191694753|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.9|0.0|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. The confidence interval for sperm morphology represents 95.1% coverage to properly account for the alpha spent in the interim analysis."||0|-0.9|
95965300|NCT02614183|191902078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.37|-2.48|<.001
95965301|NCT02614183|191902078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.20|-2.31|<.001
95965302|NCT02614183|191902079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.37||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.37|2.05|
95965303|NCT02614183|191902079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.18||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||3.18|1.94|
95965304|NCT02614183|191902079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.45||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.45|2.04|
95965305|NCT02614183|191902079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|3.41||||||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||3.41|2.01|
95853988|NCT02443688|191667202|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.56|
95853989|NCT02443688|191667202|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.61|
95853990|NCT02443688|191667208|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.44|0.49|
95853991|NCT02443688|191667208|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.96|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.96|0.84|
95853992|NCT02443688|191667208|OTHER|Single Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.42|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||2.42|1.07|
95853993|NCT02443688|191667208|OTHER|Group Rate with 95% CI|see Estimation Comment below|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.46|||||Estimated using negative binomial distribution by treatment group unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|||1.46|0.74|
95853994|NCT02443688|191667209|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.25|
95853995|NCT02443688|191667209|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.27|||Regression, Cox|||||1.27|0.30|
95853996|NCT02443688|191667209|OTHER|95% 2-sided confidence interval for the Hazard Ratio Relative to Placebo unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.31|
95853997|NCT01116986|191667215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.954||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.045|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.045|.871|.312
95853998|NCT01116986|191667215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.074|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.074|.894|.664
95853999|NCT01116986|191667215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.989||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.903|1.084|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.084|.903|.814
95854000|NCT01116986|191667215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.925||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.013|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.013|.844|.093
95854001|NCT01116986|191667215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.077|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.077|.898|.716
95854002|NCT01116986|191667215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.031||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox regression model effects consisted of six treatment effects, 15 two-way treatment interactions, and three covariates : gender and two items from the Fagerstrom Test of Nicotine Dependence (Item 1: time to first cigarette; Item 4: cigarettes per day).||1.130|.941|.511
95854003|NCT01116986|191667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.087||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Patch) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.290|.916|.341
95852469|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.26|-0.36|0.747
95852470|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.45||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.45|-0.18|0.390
95852471|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.49||P-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.49|-0.12|0.228
95852472|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.67||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.67|-0.18|0.260
95852473|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.11||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||0.11|-0.76|0.141
95852474|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.16||P-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) pleasure subscore.||-0.16|-0.98|0.007
95965306|NCT02614183|191902079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.01||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||4.01|1.96|
95965307|NCT02614183|191902079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|3.75||||||Reduction from Baseline = 100%||3.75|1.81|
95852475|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.25||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.25|-0.61|0.409
95854004|NCT01116986|191667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.325|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum vs. Pre-Quit Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.325|.941|.207
95854005|NCT01116986|191667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.196||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.008|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., No Counseling Before the Quit Attempt vs. Counseling Before the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.420|1.008|.041
95965308|NCT02614183|191902080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.28|5.20|<.001
95965309|NCT02614183|191902080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.97|4.83|<.001
95965310|NCT02614183|191902081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.33|-2.28|<.001
95965311|NCT02614183|191902081|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.14|-2.09|<.001
95965312|NCT02614183|191902082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.52|<.001
95852476|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.35||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.35|-0.51|0.715
95852477|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52||P-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.32|0.641
95852478|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.47|-0.64|0.767
95852479|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.52||P-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.52|-0.61|0.881
95852480|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.59||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/frequency subscore.||0.59|-0.51|0.885
95852481|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.32||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.32|-0.96|0.325
95852482|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.56||P-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.56|-0.73|0.798
95852483|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.87||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.87|-0.39|0.461
95852484|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.66||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.66|-1.02|0.670
95869269|NCT01857310|191694754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.4|0.5|
95965313|NCT02614183|191902082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-0.48|<.001
95852485|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.35||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.35|-1.37|0.243
95852486|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.48||P-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) desire/interest subscore.||0.48|-1.14|0.423
95852487|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.35||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.35|-1.04|0.333
95852488|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.36||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.36|-1.05|0.334
95852489|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.68||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.68|-0.69|0.990
95852490|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.09||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||1.09|-0.70|0.665
95965314|NCT02614183|191902083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-8.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.97|-18.99|<.001
95965315|NCT02614183|191902083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.60|-18.68|<.001
95965316|NCT02614183|191902084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|-3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.13|-9.45|<.001
95965317|NCT02614183|191902084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.98|-8.39|<.001
95965318|NCT02614183|191902085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||<.160
95965319|NCT02614183|191902085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive.||||.020
95965320|NCT02614183|191902085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.131
95965321|NCT02614183|191902085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Neutralizing Antibodies.||||.009
95965322|NCT03939689|191902090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with adjustment for stratification factor (prostate cancer risk factor at Screening) was carried out by using complete cases for the FAS population (missing data were not imputed for this analysis). Intermediate risk at Screening: hemoglobin (Hgb) ≥11 g/dL and LDH \<262 IU/L and ALP \<414 IU/L. High-risk at Screening: Hgb \<11 g/dL or LDH ≥262 IU/L or ALP ≥414 IU/L.||||0.0025
95965323|NCT03939689|191902091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.806||||||The p-value is based on the chi-squared test of the difference in proportions between treatment groups if expected cell frequencies are all greater than 5; otherwise, the p-value is from the Fisher's exact test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8060
95965324|NCT03939689|191902092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||.5924
95965325|NCT03939689|191902093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5924||||||Log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk groups.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis and Greenwood formula used for estimating event-free rates and 95% confidence intervals.||||0.5924
95965326|NCT03939689|191902094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199||||||P value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.6199
95965327|NCT03939689|191902095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||.1823
95852491|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.74||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.74|-1.10|0.700
95852492|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.48||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) arousal subscore.||0.48|-1.23|0.386
95852493|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.27|0.120
95852494|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.15||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.15|-1.29|0.119
95852495|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.69||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in male participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.69|-0.71|0.976
95852496|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.2||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||2.20|0.14|0.026
95852497|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.42||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||1.42|-0.69|0.497
95852498|NCT00385671|191664421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.19||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|"Analysis of Covariance model and t-tests:~Change=InvestigatorGroup+Baseline+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was used."||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in female participants in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) orgasm subscore.||0.19|-1.80|0.112
95869270|NCT01857310|191694754|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.3|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. DNA fragmentation will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||4.3|0.3|
95869271|NCT01857310|191694755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|22.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||22.5|-19.7|
95869272|NCT01857310|191694755|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|21.4|||||Weighted for loss to follow-up and adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Total motile sperm count will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.4|-20.9|
95852499|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.486
95852500|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.983
95852501|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.411||95.0||||p-value is for male, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.411
95852502|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.554
95852503|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.128
95852504|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||95.0||||p-value is for female, total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in total score from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.488
95852505|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.226
95852506|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.710
95965328|NCT03939689|191902096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||P-value from the log-rank test of no difference between treatment groups, stratified by prostate cancer risk group at Screening.|Log Rank|||Event-free rates and 95% CI were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier method and Greenwood formula.||||0.0006
95852507|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||p-value is for male, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.133
95852508|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.257
95869273|NCT01857310|191694756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.0|-4.7|
95965329|NCT01681277|191902159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9354|1.5062|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for Cmax,ss was analysed.||1.5062|0.9354|
95852509|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.412
95852510|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||p-value is for female, pleasure. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in pleasure subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.030
95965330|NCT01681277|191902161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.3135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0652|1.5618|||||"Dose proportionality was explored using the power model (ANCOVA). The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1.~PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale. Standard Error of the mean is actually the Standard Error of the slope"|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of BI 113608 for AUCt,ss was analysed.||1.5618|1.0652|
95852511|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.024
95852512|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.250
95852513|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.489
95852514|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.682
95852515|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.953
95852516|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.803||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/frequency. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/frequency subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.803
95852517|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.694
95965331|NCT03317990|191902193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.75|||Regression, Linear|||Normal linear regression model adjusted for recruitment site, participant's age, and IIEF-5 at baseline, in participants with available data||4.75|1.62|<0.0001
95869274|NCT01857310|191694756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. hCG detected pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.09|0.91|
95965332|NCT03317990|191902194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
95965333|NCT01757197|191902225|OTHER|Not evaluable.|Other|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Not evaluable.||||Not evaluable.|Not evaluable.|||
95965334|NCT05646719|191902229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.20|1.23|<0.01
95965335|NCT05646719|191902229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95852518|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.835
95852519|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||p-value is for male, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.435
95852520|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.379||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.379
95852521|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.247
95852522|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||p-value is for female, desire/interest. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in desire/interest subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.784
95852523|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||p-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.696
95852524|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.725
95852525|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.899||95.0||||P-value is for male, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.899
95852526|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.782
95869275|NCT01857310|191694757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.8|-4.9|
95869276|NCT01857310|191694757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Clinical intrauterine pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.08|0.89|
95869277|NCT01857310|191694758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-0.5|
95869278|NCT01857310|191694758|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.97|||||Adjusted for fertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Ectopic pregnancy will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.97|0.37|
95852527|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.307
95869279|NCT01857310|191694759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.5|-3.7|
95869280|NCT01857310|191694759|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Early pregnancy loss will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.15|0.75|
95852528|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value is for female, arousal. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in arousal subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.457
95869281|NCT01857310|191694760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-1.9|
95869282|NCT01857310|191694760|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.36|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preeclampsia/gestational hypertension will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.36|0.63|
95869283|NCT01857310|191694761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.6|-1.9|
95869284|NCT01857310|191694761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.27|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational diabetes will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.27|0.47|
95965336|NCT03926195|191902261|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|19.2|||||Difference in percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on a stratified Mantel-Haenszel test.|||19.2|-7.5|
95869285|NCT01857310|191694762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.8|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.8|-1.4|
95965337|NCT03926195|191902263|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.5|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||3.5|-6.4|
95965338|NCT03926195|191902265|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|36.8|||||Difference in medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||36.8|-37.1|
95965339|NCT03926195|191902267|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.8|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||20.8|-6.0|
95965340|NCT03926195|191902269|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||0.1|-0.6|
95965341|NCT03926195|191902271|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0|||||Difference in Medians and 95% CI for change from baseline at Week 13 was based on quantile regression.|||1|-3|
95965342|NCT03054337|191902273|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||1.51|0.29|0.0045
95965343|NCT03054337|191902273|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.21|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.21|0.98|<0.0001
95965344|NCT03054337|191902273|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.7|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||||2.70|1.49|<0.0001
95965345|NCT03054337|191902279|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.55|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.55|0.13|0.0018
95965346|NCT03054337|191902279|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.72|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.72|0.30|<0.0001
95965347|NCT03054337|191902279|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||RBC Count||0.86|0.45|<0.0001
95965348|NCT03054337|191902279|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.01|-0.01|0.7804
95965349|NCT03054337|191902279|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.0986
95965350|NCT03054337|191902279|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.02|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Absolute Reticulocyte Count||0.02|-0.00|0.1661
95965351|NCT03054337|191902281|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.942||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.2|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||5.20|1.40|0.0010
95965352|NCT03054337|191902281|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.38|7.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||7.22|3.38|<0.0001
95965353|NCT03054337|191902281|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|7.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|9.11|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Hematocrit||9.11|5.37|<0.0001
95869286|NCT01857310|191694762|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.39|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Cesarean delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.39|0.89|
95965354|NCT03054337|191902281|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.22|-0.39|0.5889
95965355|NCT03054337|191902281|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.34|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.34|-0.27|0.8074
95965356|NCT03054337|191902281|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model will include treatment assignment (3 dosed groups; 1 placebo group) and pre-treatment Hb value as a covariate.||Reticulocytes||0.24|-0.36|0.6952
95965357|NCT03054337|191902283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.3702
95852529|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.712
95869287|NCT01857310|191694763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.6|0.2|
95869288|NCT01857310|191694763|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.16|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Preterm delivery will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.16|1.04|
95869289|NCT01857310|191694764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.0|-1.5|
95869290|NCT01857310|191694764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.49|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Small for gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.49|0.75|
95869291|NCT01857310|191694765|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Gestational age will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.5|
95869292|NCT01857310|191694766|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|26.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Birth weight will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||26.4|-156|
95869293|NCT01857310|191694767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.1|-0.6|
95965358|NCT03054337|191902283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5524|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.5524
95869294|NCT01857310|191694767|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.24|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Stillbirth will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.24|0.03|
95965359|NCT03054337|191902283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1589|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Iron||||0.1589
95965360|NCT03054337|191902283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||0.0092
95965361|NCT03054337|191902283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
95965362|NCT03054337|191902283|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||TIBC||||<0.0001
95965363|NCT03054337|191902285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9092|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.9092
95965364|NCT03054337|191902285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1484|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1484
95965365|NCT03054337|191902285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1313|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||||||0.1313
95965366|NCT03054337|191902287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.1080
95965367|NCT03054337|191902287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||0.0002
95965368|NCT03054337|191902287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Ferritin||||<0.0001
95965369|NCT03054337|191902287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0672|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0672
95965370|NCT03054337|191902287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||0.0004
95965371|NCT03054337|191902287|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|test of treatment group difference based on ANCOVA model||Hepcidin||||<0.0001
95965372|NCT03054337|191902294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0895
95965373|NCT03054337|191902294|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95965374|NCT03054337|191902294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3845|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3845
95965375|NCT01762904|191902312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95852530|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.403
95852531|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.713||95.0||||P-value is for male, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of male participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.713
95852532|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.498
95852533|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.963
95852534|NCT00385671|191664422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||95.0||||P-value is for female, orgasm. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of female participants with a categorical change in orgasm subscore from baseline to 12 weeks in the Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ).||||0.338
95852535|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.645
95852536|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.248||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.248
95852537|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Total Score.||||0.470
95869295|NCT01857310|191694768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.5|-0.3|
95869296|NCT01857310|191694768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.95|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Neonatal mortality will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||8.95|0.25|
95869297|NCT01857310|191694769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||0.4|-0.2|
95869298|NCT01857310|191694769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|21.9|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Major neonatal complications will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||21.9|0.18|
95965376|NCT01762904|191902313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95965377|NCT01762904|191902314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95852538|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.914
95852539|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.505
95852540|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Cognitive Toxicity Score.||||0.570
95852541|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.430
95852542|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.090
95852543|NCT00385671|191664423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Portland Neurotoxicity Scale Somatomotor Toxicity Score.||||0.341
95852544|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.130
95852545|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.192
95852546|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936||95.0||||P-value is for total. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale total score.||||0.936
95852547|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.480
95869299|NCT01857310|191694770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.0|-0.8|
95852548|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.690
95852549|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.923||95.0||||P-value is for cognitive toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale cognitive toxicity score.||||0.923
95852550|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.202
95852551|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.114
95852552|NCT00385671|191664424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||P-value is for somatomotor toxicity. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Chi-squared|Pairwise p-values come from the Likelihood-Ratio Chi-squared test.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with a categorial change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Portland Neurotoxicity Scale somatomotor toxicity score.||||0.954
95852553|NCT00385671|191664425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||P-value for Direct Treatment Effect. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for tests of direct and indirect effects.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.107
95852554|NCT00385671|191664426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.968
95852555|NCT00385671|191664426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.492
95852556|NCT00385671|191664426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in BDI-II total score.||||0.463
95852557|NCT00385671|191664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.103
95852558|NCT00385671|191664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.167
95869300|NCT01857310|191694770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.21|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Structural malformations will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||2.21|0.53|
95965378|NCT01128270|191902317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean of one group (2A)|1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.97||||Analysis applies only to Arm 2A. (Period 3)|Only arm 2A is relevant to this variable. There is no intended statistical comparison, but the point estimate for the mean level and 95% confidence interval are provided.|No comparison is relevant. The statistical method is how we obtained the point estimate and confidence interval. No test was intended.||1.97|1.31|
95965379|NCT01128270|191902318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2432.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1403.0||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1260.0|3606.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Only relevant to Arm 2B.||3606|1260|0.0017
95965380|NCT01128270|191902319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean|0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.51||||||Only relevant for arm 2B||0.51|0.24|
95852559|NCT00385671|191664429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.919||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 30% reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.919
95852560|NCT00385671|191664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.008
95852561|NCT00385671|191664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.033
95852562|NCT00385671|191664432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Log Rank|Pairwise p-values come from the log-rank test comparing treatment-specific time-to-event curves constructed using the Kaplan-Meier technique.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in time to first ≥ 2 points reduction in weekly mean 24 hour average pain score.||||0.688
95852563|NCT00385671|191664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.9||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.90|-0.33|0.365
95852564|NCT00385671|191664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.13||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||1.13|-0.20|0.172
95852565|NCT00385671|191664434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.85||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week with participant is as a random effect, Kenward-Roger approximation.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in Weekly mean change from baseline to 12 weeks in 24 hour average pain severity score when analyzing only treatment-compliant participants.||0.85|-0.49|0.594
95852566|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.8||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.80|-0.48|0.622
95852567|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.16||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.16|-0.18|0.153
95854006|NCT01116986|191667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.254|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive In-person Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.254|.889|.536
95965381|NCT01304498|191902337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 16||1.11|0.85|<0.001
95965382|NCT01304498|191902337|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.29|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|HPV Type 18||1.29|0.91|<0.001
95965383|NCT03325777|191902382|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.27||a priori threshold is p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models||||1.27|.14|=.014
95852568|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.0||P-value is for de novo, week 1. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.00|-0.35|0.344
95852569|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.45||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.45|-0.02|0.058
95852570|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.59||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.59|0.07|0.032
95852571|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.9||P-value is for de novo, week 2. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.90|-0.66|0.762
95852572|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.73||P-value is for de novo, week 3. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.73|0.09|0.029
95852573|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.97||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.97|0.27|0.010
95869301|NCT01857310|191694771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||1.3|-0.4|
95852574|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.06||P-value is for de nove, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.06|-0.63|0.619
95965384|NCT03325777|191902383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|172.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.0|238.0||a priori threshold for significance was p\<.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||238|106|<.001
95869302|NCT01857310|191694771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.32|||||Adjusted for infertility treatment stratum and study site.|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Severe maternal morbidity will be compared using two sided tests conducted at the 0.05 level."||3.32|0.68|
95869303|NCT01857310|191694772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|3.23||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Fertilization rate will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||3.23|-7.90|
95869304|NCT01857310|191694773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of good quality embryos will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.11|-0.33|
95852575|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.69||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||1.69|-0.03|0.058
95852576|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.41||P-value is for de novo, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||2.41|0.61|0.001
95852577|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.58||P-value is for de nove, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.58|-0.23|0.142
95852578|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.76||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.76|-0.05|0.065
95852579|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||2.65|0.75|<0.001
95852580|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.79||P-value is for de novo, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||1.79|-0.10|0.079
95852581|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 6 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.71|-0.13|0.093
95852582|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.53||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||2.53|0.59|0.002
95852583|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.74||P-value is for de novo, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||1.74|-0.20|0.119
95852584|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.91||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.91|0.06|0.036
95854007|NCT01116986|191667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.246|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Minimal Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt vs. Intensive Phone Counseling During the Quit Attempt) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.246|.883|.587
95852585|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.61||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.61|0.68|<0.001
95852586|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.63||P-value is for de novo, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||1.63|-0.30|0.178
95852587|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.75||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.75|-0.14|0.093
95852588|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||2.51|0.53|0.003
95852589|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.71||P-value is for de novo, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||1.71|-0.28|0.157
95852590|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.82||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.82|-0.05|0.063
95852591|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.66||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||2.66|0.70|<0.001
95852592|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.77||P-value is for de novo, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||1.77|-0.19|0.114
95852593|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.46||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.46|-0.44|0.295
95852594|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.44||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||2.44|0.45|0.005
95852595|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.94||P-value is for de novo, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||1.94|-0.06|0.066
95852596|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.58||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.58|-0.35|0.208
95852597|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||2.51|0.49|0.004
95852598|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.89||P-value is for de novo, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||1.89|-0.13|0.086
95852599|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.45||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.45|-0.49|0.328
95965385|NCT03004404|191902386|OTHER||Slope|0.748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5959|0.9001|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1.|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for AUC0-inf was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.9001|0.5959|
95852600|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||2.47|0.44|0.005
95852601|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.99||P-value is for de novo, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin de novo group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||1.99|-0.04|0.059
95852602|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.79|-0.09|0.117
95852603|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.62|-0.25|0.412
95852604|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26||P-value is for prior use, 1 week. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 1.||0.26|-0.60|0.445
95852605|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.09||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||1.09|0.07|0.025
95852606|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.79|-0.21|0.257
95852607|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.21||P-value is for prior use, 2 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 2.||0.21|-0.79|0.257
95852608|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.04||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||1.04|-0.05|0.075
95852609|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.68|-0.42|0.634
95852610|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.19||P-value is for prior use, 3 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 3.||0.19|-0.91|0.193
95852611|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.70|-0.46|0.688
95869305|NCT01857310|191694774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.05||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Proportion of good quality embryos on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||4.05|-6.66|
95852612|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.56||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.56|-0.60|0.944
95965386|NCT03004404|191902386|OTHER||Ratio T/R|118.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.57|149.03|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.||149.03|94.57|
95965387|NCT03004404|191902386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|124.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.858|133.255|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Auc0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|133.255|116.858|
95965388|NCT03004404|191902386|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|125.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.89|138.8|||||Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of AUC0-inf was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fed (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of AUC0-inf and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|138.80|112.89|
95965389|NCT03004404|191902387|OTHER||Slope|0.7065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5863|0.8267|||||Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of the slope. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter, a two sided 95% confidence interval for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1|In the SRD part of the trial, dose proportionality for Cmax was assessed in the 25 mg to 400 mg dose groups (BI 730357 tablets administered under fasted conditions) using a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data).||0.8267|0.5863|
95965390|NCT03004404|191902387|OTHER||Ratio T/R|151.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.107|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.781|186.248|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet 400mg fed1 (T)/400mg fed2(R), T/R.|Relative bioavailability of the Cmax for the SRD part was performed to test the effect of food intake on the PK of 400 mg BI 730357 tablets. The intra-individual comparison of fed conditions was done using an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale.||186.248|122.781|
95852613|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45||P-value is for prior use, 4 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 4.||0.45|-0.73|0.640
95965391|NCT03004404|191902387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T1/R (%)|293.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|259.044|331.891|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: oral solution in fasted state (test treatment T1)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T1/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for Oral solution (PfOS) fasted (T1) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|331.891|259.044|
95852614|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.37|0.439
95852615|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.84||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.84|-0.38|0.461
95852616|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.6||P-value is for prior use, 5 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 5.||0.60|-0.62|0.976
95852617|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.68||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.68|-0.55|0.829
95852618|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.74||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.74|-0.50|0.713
95852619|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.67||P-value is for prior use, 6 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 6.||0.67|-0.58|0.878
95852620|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.85||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.85|-0.38|0.447
95852621|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.83|-0.41|0.511
95852622|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 7 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 7.||0.59|-0.65|0.924
95852623|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.06||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||1.06|-0.20|0.185
95852624|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.91||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.91|-0.37|0.403
95869306|NCT01857310|191694775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos transferred will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.10|-0.11|
95852625|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.49||P-value is for prior use, 8 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 8.||0.49|-0.79|0.636
95852626|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
95852627|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.97||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.97|-0.29|0.295
95852628|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.64||P-value is for prior use, 9 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 9.||0.64|-0.62|0.975
95852629|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.93|-0.33|0.349
95852630|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.94||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.94|-0.34|0.351
95852631|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.65||P-value is for prior use, 10 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 10.||0.65|-0.64|0.992
95852632|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.77||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.77|-0.50|0.681
95869307|NCT01857310|191694776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of embryos cryopreserved will be compared using Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||0.18|-0.23|
95852633|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.83||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.83|-0.46|0.569
95852634|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||P-value is for prior use, 11 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 11.||0.70|-0.60|0.871
95852635|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.78||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.78|-0.50|0.675
95852636|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.72||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.72|-0.57|0.823
95852637|NCT00385671|191664435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.59||P-value is for prior use, 12 weeks. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model Change=Investigator+ Treatment+Week+Subgroup+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+ Baseline\*Week+Subgroup\*Week+Subgroup\*Treatment+Subgroup\*Treatment\*Week||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the gabapentin prior use group in change in 24 hour average pain severity at Week 12.||0.59|-0.72|0.850
95852638|NCT00385671|191664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.448
95852639|NCT00385671|191664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.118
95852640|NCT00385671|191664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in diastolic blood pressure.||||0.021
95852641|NCT00385671|191664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.537
95852642|NCT00385671|191664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.911
95852643|NCT00385671|191664437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in systolic blood pressure.||||0.627
95869308|NCT01857310|191694777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|21.2||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Sperm penetration percentage will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||21.2|-45.4|
95852644|NCT00385671|191664438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.078
95852645|NCT00385671|191664438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.130
95852646|NCT00385671|191664438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in heart rate.||||0.850
95852647|NCT00385671|191664439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
95852648|NCT00385671|191664439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||<0.001
95852649|NCT00385671|191664439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori significance level was set to 0.05 for treatment comparisons and 0.10 for tests of interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change=Treatment+InvestigatorGroup+Week+Baseline+Treatment\*Week+Baseline\*Week; denominator degrees of freedom, Kenward-Rogers approximation||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in body weight.||||0.011
95852650|NCT00385671|191664440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||0.830
95852651|NCT00385671|191664440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
95852652|NCT00385671|191664440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated diastolic blood pressure.||||1.00
95852653|NCT00385671|191664440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.060
95852654|NCT00385671|191664440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.502
95852655|NCT00385671|191664440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376||95.0||||P-value is for systolic. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in the number of participants with elevated systolic blood pressure.||||0.376
95852656|NCT00385671|191664441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.281
95852657|NCT00385671|191664441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.060
95965392|NCT03004404|191902387|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio T2/R (%)|180.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.369|200.732|||||Standard error of the mean is the geometric standard error of the mean. The geometric mean ratio was calculated as: tablet in fed state (test treatment T2)/tablet in fasted state (reference treatment R), T2/R.|Estimation of relative bioavailability of Cmax was based on ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale, included effects: 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed and 'subjects within sequences' as random|Relative bioavailability of BI 730357 for tablet fasted (T2) vs. tablet fasted (R) was assessed by the point estimators (geometric means) of the intra-subject ratio of Cmax and their two-sided 90% confidence intervals . No hypothesis was tested.|200.732|162.369|
95965393|NCT01937975|191902388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.09|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.09|0.87|
95965394|NCT01937975|191902388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.25|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.25|0.58|
95965395|NCT01937975|191902388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.22|0.56|
95965396|NCT01937975|191902388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|2.49|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.49|1.09|
95965397|NCT01937975|191902389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.19|0.81|
95965398|NCT01937975|191902389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.16|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.16|0.54|
95965399|NCT01937975|191902389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.53|
95965400|NCT01937975|191902389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|2.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.42|1.06|
95965401|NCT01937975|191902390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.22|0.75|
95965402|NCT01937975|191902390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.48|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.48|0.57|
95965403|NCT01937975|191902390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.42|0.54|
95965404|NCT01937975|191902390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|2.77|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.77|0.99|
95965405|NCT01937975|191902393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.15|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.15|0.92|
95965406|NCT01937975|191902393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.73|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.73|0.80|
95965407|NCT01937975|191902393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.78|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.78|0.82|
95965408|NCT01937975|191902393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.92|0.40|
95965409|NCT01937975|191902394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.42|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.42|0.63|
95965410|NCT01937975|191902394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.94|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.94|0.39|
95965411|NCT01937975|191902395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.21|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.21|1.08|
95965412|NCT01937975|191902395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.14|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.14|0.65|
95965413|NCT01937975|191902395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.30|0.75|
95852658|NCT00385671|191664441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.596||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated heart rate.||||0.596
95852659|NCT00385671|191664442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.332
95852660|NCT00385671|191664442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.065
95852661|NCT00385671|191664442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0||||P-value is for high. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent high body weight.||||0.622
95852662|NCT00385671|191664442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.103
95852663|NCT00385671|191664442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.034
95852664|NCT00385671|191664442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0||||P-value is for low. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of patients with treatment-emergent low body weight.||||0.808
95852665|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.055
95852666|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.051
95869309|NCT01857310|191694778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03||||||"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared with Poisson regression using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||0.03|-0.16|
95869310|NCT01857310|191694779|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61|||||Fewer than 4 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.61|0.88|
95869311|NCT01857310|191694780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.43|||||Fewer than 8 cells|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Number of cells on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.43|0.77|
95965414|NCT01937975|191902395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.51|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.51|1.38|
95852667|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AST.||||0.993
95852668|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.928
95869312|NCT01857310|191694781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 3 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.87|
95965415|NCT01937975|191902396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.32|1.17|
95965416|NCT01937975|191902396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.06|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.06|0.56|
95965417|NCT01937975|191902396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.32|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.32|0.69|
95965418|NCT01937975|191902396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.46|2.93|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.93|1.46|
95852669|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.609
95852670|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in ALT.||||0.675
95852671|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.985
95869313|NCT01857310|191694782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06|||||Excellent or good morphology|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Embryo morphology on day 5 will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.06|0.63|
95965419|NCT01937975|191902397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.26|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||1.26|1.00|
95965420|NCT01937975|191902397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.13|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.13|0.62|
95965421|NCT01937975|191902397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.27|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.27|0.70|
95965422|NCT01937975|191902397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.28|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||2.28|1.21|
95965423|NCT01937975|191902400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.92|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / ESRD Non-HD Day 9|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus ESRD HD Day 10||0.92|0.83|
95965424|NCT01937975|191902400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.53|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD Non-HD Day 9 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD Non-HD Day 9 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.53|0.88|
95965425|NCT01937975|191902400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.34|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|ESRD HD Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||1.34|0.77|
95965426|NCT01937975|191902400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.72|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|SRI Participants Day 10 versus Healthy Participants Day 10||0.72|0.40|
95965427|NCT01937975|191902401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.3|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = ESRD HD Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||1.30|0.70|
95965428|NCT01937975|191902401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.89|||||Geometric Mean Ratio = SRI Day 10 / Healthy Day 10|||0.89|0.45|
95965429|NCT04692467|191902420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference reflects the difference in mean change (i.e., mean change = 12 months minus baseline for each arm) between the intervention arm and SOC arm (direction = intervention arm minus SOC arm).|||-3.01|-8.77|<0.0001
95965430|NCT01721954|191902451|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis tested for the primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival (months) of SIRT/FOLFOX treatment versus FOLFOX is equal for both groups. The two-sided alternative hypothesis tested with 95% confidence is OS time for SIRT/FOLFOX treatment lower to that of FOLFOX.||||0.43
95965431|NCT01721954|191902452|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||A sample size of at least 209 patients for the SIRFLOX study was estimated to be needed to detect an increase in the median PFS at any site from 9.4 months to 14.5 months with 80% power and 95% confidence. Taking into account the number of patients who might receive the alternative treatment or lack of imaging data, the sample size was increased to 209. The Null hypothesis is no difference between the treatment arms with respect to PFS.||||<0.05
95965432|NCT01825577|191902453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.55
95965433|NCT01825577|191902454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.67
95965434|NCT02209181|191902501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.42|21.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.35|11.42|<0.001
95965435|NCT02209181|191902501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|9.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||9.51|-0.35|0.068
95965436|NCT02209181|191902501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|21.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||21.18|11.21|<0.001
95869314|NCT01857310|191694783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||ICSI|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Method of fertilization will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.09|0.80|
95965437|NCT02209181|191902501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.503|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.73|-6.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-6.88|-16.73|<0.001
95965438|NCT02209181|191902501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.531||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|4.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.80|-5.17|0.941
95965439|NCT02209181|191902502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.42|-0.19|0.448
95965440|NCT02209181|191902502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.22|-0.38|0.618
95965441|NCT02209181|191902502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.23|0.621
95965442|NCT02209181|191902502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.11|-0.49|0.207
95965443|NCT02209181|191902502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.26|-0.34|0.794
95965444|NCT02209181|191902503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.86|0.82|<0.001
95965445|NCT02209181|191902503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.72||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.72|-0.30|0.420
95965446|NCT02209181|191902503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.06|0.083
95965447|NCT02209181|191902503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.62|-1.64|<0.001
95965448|NCT02209181|191902503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.37||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.37|-1.40|<0.001
95852672|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.847
95852673|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in GGT.||||0.832
95852674|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.169
95852675|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.910
95852676|NCT00385671|191664443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in AlkPhos.||||0.134
95869315|NCT01857310|191694784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Excellent or good quality|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Quality of embryos transferred will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple embryos per cycle and multiple cycles per couple."||1.21|0.88|
95869316|NCT01857310|191694785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|7.43|||||Abnormal|"The primary analysis plan is based on an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach comparing the two treatment arms based on the randomized assignment. The common null hypothesis states that the effect of folic acid/zinc on the outcomes is null compared to the placebo. Chromosomal complement will be compared using generalized estimating equations accounting for multiple cycles per couple."||7.43|0.74|
95869317|NCT05867342|191694801|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95965449|NCT02209181|191902504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|3.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.59|2.28|<0.001
95965450|NCT02209181|191902504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.29|-0.02|0.058
95965451|NCT02209181|191902504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.89|0.57|<0.001
95965452|NCT02209181|191902504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-1.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.65|-2.96|<0.001
95965453|NCT02209181|191902504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.04|-2.37|<0.001
95869318|NCT05867342|191694802|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95869319|NCT05867342|191694803|OTHER|||||||0.126||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.126
95869320|NCT05867342|191694805|OTHER|||||||0.213||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
95869321|NCT05867342|191694806|OTHER|||||||0.418||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.418
95965454|NCT02209181|191902505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|3.01|<0.001
95965455|NCT02209181|191902505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|0.06|0.035
95852677|NCT00385671|191664444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 total bilirubin.||||0.285
95852678|NCT00385671|191664444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.505
95852679|NCT00385671|191664444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 in total bilirubin.||||0.679
95852680|NCT00385671|191664445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.047
95852681|NCT00385671|191664445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.232
95965456|NCT02209181|191902505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.67|1.21|<0.001
95965457|NCT02209181|191902505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.24|-3.68|<0.001
95965458|NCT02209181|191902505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.07|-2.52|<0.001
95965459|NCT02209181|191902506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|4.77||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.77|3.21|<0.001
95852682|NCT00385671|191664445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in fasting blood glucose.||||0.424
95852683|NCT00385671|191664446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.298
95852684|NCT00385671|191664446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.987
95852685|NCT00385671|191664446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|Analysis of Variance model \& t-test: Rank-transformed Change=InvestigatorGroup+Treatment. Last-observation-carried-forward imputation was implemented.||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in mean change from baseline to 12 Weeks in hemoglobin A1C.||||0.297
95852686|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||1.00
95852687|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.749
95965460|NCT02209181|191902506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.64||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.64|0.09|0.028
95965461|NCT02209181|191902506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|1.70|<0.001
95965462|NCT02209181|191902506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.35|-3.90|<0.001
95965463|NCT02209181|191902506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.73|-2.29|<0.001
95852688|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||P-value is for AST. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AST values.||||0.750
95852689|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.050
95965464|NCT02209181|191902507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.92|<0.001
95965465|NCT02209181|191902507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|0.16|0.021
95965466|NCT02209181|191902507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|2.19|<0.001
95869322|NCT05867342|191694807|OTHER|||||||0.756||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
95869323|NCT01277081|191694808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86|||Repeated Measure Analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over the first 15 minutes compared to baseline.||0.86|0.58|<0.0001
95965467|NCT02209181|191902507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.91|-3.63|<0.001
95965468|NCT02209181|191902507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.15|-1.59|0.104
95965469|NCT02209181|191902508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.07|2.18|<0.001
95965470|NCT02209181|191902508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.92|0.04|0.041
95965471|NCT02209181|191902508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|2.19|<0.001
95965472|NCT02209181|191902508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.21||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.21|-3.09|<0.001
95965473|NCT02209181|191902508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-0.93|0.973
95965474|NCT02209181|191902509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.87|1.87|<0.001
95965475|NCT02209181|191902509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.88||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.88|-0.10|0.079
95965476|NCT02209181|191902509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|4.27||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.27|2.27|<0.001
95965477|NCT02209181|191902509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.00|-2.98|<0.001
95965478|NCT02209181|191902509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.40|-0.61|0.440
95965479|NCT02209181|191902510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.57|1.52|<0.001
95852690|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.320
95965480|NCT02209181|191902510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.83|-0.21|0.118
95965481|NCT02209181|191902510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.16|2.10|<0.001
95965482|NCT02209181|191902510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.71|-2.75|<0.001
95965483|NCT02209181|191902510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.62|-0.44|0.262
95965484|NCT02209181|191902511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.96|0.88|<0.001
95965485|NCT02209181|191902511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.61|-0.45|0.271
95965486|NCT02209181|191902511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.99|1.91|<0.001
95852691|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0||||P-value is for ALT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated ALT values.||||0.440
95852692|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.498
95852693|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value is for TBili. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated TBili values.||||0.245
95852694|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.160
95852695|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||0.280
95852696|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for GGT. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated GGT values.||||1.00
95852697|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.023
95852698|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.264
95869324|NCT01277081|191694809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for breathing score over 60 minutes.||0.72|0.44|<0.0001
95869325|NCT01277081|191694810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.65|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null Hypothesis considered no difference in treatments being compared for cold symptoms score after 60 minutes.||0.65|0.36|<0.0001
95869326|NCT01277081|191694811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with factors for time and treatment\*time interaction. Baseline score was adjusted as part of the repeated measures series.|Difference was first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered two treatments being compared to be equal for cold symptom score after 60 minutes.||0.67|0.38|<0.0001
95965487|NCT02209181|191902511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.32|-2.37|0.011
95852699|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||P-value is for FPG. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated FPG values.||||0.325
95965488|NCT02209181|191902511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.07|-0.01|0.052
95852700|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||1.00
95852701|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.121
95965489|NCT02209181|191902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.29|0.21|0.018
95965490|NCT02209181|191902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.50|0.310
95965491|NCT02209181|191902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.85||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.85|1.76|<0.001
95965492|NCT02209181|191902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.31|-1.75|0.172
95965493|NCT02209181|191902512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.60|0.51|0.004
95965494|NCT02209181|191902513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.84|-0.17|0.102
95965495|NCT02209181|191902513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.64|0.479
95965496|NCT02209181|191902513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.85|<0.001
95965497|NCT02209181|191902513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.52|-1.47|0.345
95869327|NCT03102190|191694857|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The analysis of the safety endpoints will be presented with means and standard deviations of their occurrence within the study population. The safety of the drug will be determined by analyzing the rate of adverse events in both phases of the trial. An occurrence of 10% within the study population will be considered significant.|||
95869328|NCT00579436|191694858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95869329|NCT00579436|191694859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95965498|NCT02209181|191902513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.02||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.02|1.01|<0.001
95965499|NCT02209181|191902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.51|-0.52|0.338
95965500|NCT02209181|191902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.54|-0.47|0.299
95965501|NCT02209181|191902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.73|1.70|<0.001
95869330|NCT00579436|191694860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95869331|NCT00579436|191694861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95965502|NCT02209181|191902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.04|-0.97|0.942
95965503|NCT02209181|191902514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.24|1.21|<0.001
95965504|NCT02209181|191902515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.48|0.306
95965505|NCT02209181|191902515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.49|-0.51|0.335
95965506|NCT02209181|191902515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.80|1.78|<0.001
95965507|NCT02209181|191902515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.97|-1.03|0.946
95965508|NCT02209181|191902515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.28|1.25|<0.001
95965509|NCT02209181|191902516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.56|-0.45|0.279
95869332|NCT04973137|191694862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|1.649|||Log Rank|||||1.649|.508|0.7680
95965510|NCT02209181|191902516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.53||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.53|-0.46|0.292
95965511|NCT02209181|191902516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.68|1.66|<0.001
95965512|NCT02209181|191902516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.98|-1.02|0.971
95965513|NCT02209181|191902516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.12|1.11|<0.001
95965514|NCT02209181|191902517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-0.50|0.329
95965515|NCT02209181|191902517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.31|-0.68|0.531
95965516|NCT02209181|191902517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.54||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.54|1.53|<0.001
95965517|NCT02209181|191902517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.81|-1.17|0.722
95965518|NCT02209181|191902517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.04|1.03|<0.001
95852702|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||P-value is for HbA1C. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated HbA1C values.||||0.095
95852703|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||1.00
95852704|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between pregabalin and duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.720
95869333|NCT04973137|191694863|SUPERIORITY||Hodge-Lehmann Median Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|18.46|||Rank ANCOVA|||||18.46|-35.47|0.5288
95869334|NCT04973137|191694864|SUPERIORITY||Hodge-Lehmann Median Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|3.37|||Rank ANCOVA|||||3.37|-2.68|0.9597
95869335|NCT01903252|191694865|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority, pre-defined non-inferiority margin 10% A two-sided 95% confidence interval about the difference in proportions was constructed. If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|3.8|||Non-inferiority|||If the lower limit of the confidence interval was no less than -10% it would be concluded that the test product is non-inferior to the comparator.||3.8|-8.1|0.005
95869336|NCT01903252|191694866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentag|75.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.4|80.6||||||||80.6|69.4|
95869337|NCT01903252|191694868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|2.2|||Non-inferiority|||||2.2|-6.5|<0.001
95869338|NCT01903252|191694869|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.9|||Non-inferiority|||||3.9|-10.1|0.026
95869339|NCT01903252|191694870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.4|||Non-inferiority|||||1.4|-10.9|0.048
95869340|NCT01903252|191694871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.1|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.1|-10.8|0.042
95869341|NCT01903252|191694872|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.7|||Non-inferiority|||||2.7|-11.0|0.048
95869342|NCT01903252|191694873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.9|||Non-inferiority|||||0.9|-11.5|0.068
95869343|NCT01903252|191694874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.0|||Non-inferiortiy|||||4.0|-9.8|0.021
95869344|NCT01903252|191694875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Non-inferiortiy|||||3.7|-10.3|0.031
95869345|NCT01903252|191694876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.8|||Non-inferiority|||||1.8|-9.2|0.013
95965519|NCT02209181|191902518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.42|-0.54|0.380
95965520|NCT02209181|191902518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.12||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.12|-0.83|0.767
95869346|NCT01903252|191694877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.0|||Non-inferiority|||||3.0|-10.8|0.042
95869347|NCT01903252|191694878|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.5|0.557
95869348|NCT01903252|191694879|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-0.3|0.987
95869349|NCT01903252|191694880|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||The result of the mean difference is not corresponding to the values in the table due to rounding as specified in the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP).|||0.2|-0.1|0.455
95869350|NCT01903252|191694881|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||The apparent difference between the values in the table and the mean difference is due to rounding as defined in the SAP.|||0.1|-0.1|0.937
95869351|NCT01903252|191694882|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.357
95869352|NCT01903252|191694883|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0|-0.2|0.099
95869353|NCT01903252|191694884|OTHER||Percentage|21.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|27.5||||||||27.5|16.8|
95869354|NCT01903252|191694885|OTHER||Percentage|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|66.3||||||||66.3|53.6|
95869355|NCT01903252|191694886|OTHER||Percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|32.3||||||||32.3|20.9|
95869356|NCT01903252|191694887|OTHER||Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.5|51.3||||||||51.3|38.5|
95869357|NCT01903252|191694888|OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||||||||1.5|0.0|
95852705|NCT00385671|191664447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value is for AlkPhos. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori level of significance was specified to be 0.05 for between-treatment-group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null-hypothesis that there would be no difference between duloxetine and gabapentin+duloxetine in the number of participants with treatment-emergent elevated AlkPhos values.||||0.722
95852706|NCT03714672|191664468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.4|-4.8|<0.0001
95852707|NCT03714672|191664468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results.||-3.8|-5.2|<0.0001
95852708|NCT03714672|191664468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.5|-3.9|<0.0001
95852709|NCT03714672|191664468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline pain intensity, and site as covariates.|LS means, 95% CIs, and pairwise CIs and p-values comparing the combination treatment arm to the monotherapy arm.|Bonferroni-Holm procedure used for determining the statistical significance of the results. The planned test was a test for non-inferiority.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.0001
95852710|NCT02364700|191664478|EQUIVALENCE|Group means from baseline to discharge were compared to determine if 6-week and training on the Hand of Hope device elicited changes in outcome measures.|||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|||||||<.05
95869358|NCT00997113|191694916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the change in serum catecholamines from one minute before the procedure to one minute after. In order to detect a 20% difference in mean catecholamine values between groups, assuming a 30% standard deviation, with an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 (80% power), power analysis indicated that 10 patients per group were required.||||0.940
95965521|NCT02209181|191902518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.49|1.52|<0.001
95965522|NCT02209181|191902518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.68|-1.27|0.557
95852711|NCT03829228|191664511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment Difference= Visit5-Baseline|||2.01|0.62|<0.0001
95852712|NCT03829228|191664512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95852713|NCT03829228|191664513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.01|ANOVA||Treatment difference=Visit5-Baseline|||1.98|0.64|<0.0001
95852714|NCT03829228|191664514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significant was p=0.01.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95852715|NCT01428258|191664515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-147.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.0||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0008
95869359|NCT00645788|191694932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||ANCOVA|||"Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 mg - matching placebo\|=0 and \|Cipro 48.75 mg - matching placebo\|=0"||||0.076
95852716|NCT01428258|191664515|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.136
95852717|NCT01428258|191664515|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
95852718|NCT01428258|191664516|OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.576
95852719|NCT01428258|191664517|OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.902
95852720|NCT01428258|191664518|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.797
95852721|NCT01428258|191664519|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95852722|NCT02844569|191664528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95852723|NCT02844569|191664529|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95852724|NCT02844569|191664530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95852725|NCT03284710|191664534|OTHER|||||||0.358||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.358
95852726|NCT03284710|191664534|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||1.000
95852727|NCT03284710|191664534|OTHER|||||||0.361||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.361
95852728|NCT03284710|191664535|OTHER|||||||0.238||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.238
95852729|NCT03284710|191664535|OTHER|||||||0.893||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.893
95869360|NCT00645788|191694934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||ANCOVA|||"At visit 7 (End of treatment) Ho: \|Cipro 32.5 - matching placebo\| =0 and~\|Cipro 48.75 - matching placebo\| =0"||||0.068
95852730|NCT03284710|191664535|OTHER|||||||0.411||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgGAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 2||||0.411
95852731|NCT03284710|191664536|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||1.000
95852732|NCT03284710|191664536|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.044
95869361|NCT04711837|191694974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.042||Non-inferiority margin equals to -8%: 95% CI; (-5.4%, 4.2%)|Farrington-Manning method|||||0.042|-0.054|
95869362|NCT02581943|191694983|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.366
95869363|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for CD4+FoxP3||||||0.327
95965523|NCT02209181|191902518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.05|1.08|<0.001
95869364|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|test for MDSC||||||0.142
95869365|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.462||||||test for CD4+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
95869366|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.87||||||test for CD8+ICOS+|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.870
95965524|NCT02209181|191902519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.35||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.35|-0.83|0.640
95965525|NCT02209181|191902519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-0.94|0.798
95965526|NCT02209181|191902519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.42|1.23|<0.001
95965527|NCT02209181|191902519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-1.20|0.829
95965528|NCT02209181|191902519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.16|0.97|<0.001
95965529|NCT02209181|191902520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.57|-0.06|0.117
95869367|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.414||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.414
95869368|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.121||||||test for Monocytes|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.121
95852733|NCT03284710|191664536|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Barnard's test|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.045
95852734|NCT03284710|191664537|OTHER|||||||0.215||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.215
95852735|NCT03284710|191664537|OTHER|||||||0.683||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.683
95852736|NCT03284710|191664537|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IgAAb binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F in Group 1 versus Group 3||||0.322
95869369|NCT02581943|191694984|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the post-pre difference in cell counts.||||||0.624||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.624
95869370|NCT02581943|191694985|OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.348
95869371|NCT02581943|191694986|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.63
95869372|NCT02581943|191694987|OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.692
95869373|NCT02581943|191694988|OTHER|||||||0.345|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.345
95869374|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Test for CD8+ICOS||||||0.917
95869375|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for MDSC||||||0.746
95869376|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.302||||||test for CD4+ICOS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.302
95869377|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|test for CD8+ICOS+||||||0.130
95869378|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.628||||||test for Plamacytoid DC|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.628
95869379|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||test for Monocytes|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.567
95869380|NCT02581943|191694989|OTHER|||||||0.311||||||test for T cells (CD3+)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.311
95852737|NCT05106894|191664583|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.5||||||||5.5|-7.4|
95852738|NCT05106894|191664584|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.6||||||||3.6|-8.3|
95852739|NCT05106894|191664585|EQUIVALENCE|Adjusted difference between groups in composite scores calculated using an ordinary least squares linear regression model (with adjustments for sex of child, caregiver educational level, poverty score, birth weight and change in length for age Z score from 0 to 6 months).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.1||||||||2.1|-5.6|
95852740|NCT01231984|191664600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 8mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm versus 8mm PN on HbA1c|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.058|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.058|-0.209|
95852741|NCT01231984|191664601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4 mm PN and the longer PNs (pooled) was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1c were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units.|Effect of 4mm PN vs. longer PN on HbA1c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.051|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limits|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||0.051|-0.23|
95852742|NCT01231984|191664602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.36|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.37|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study|t-test, 1 sided|||"Subjects rated the level of pain experienced when using the PN assigned for use during Study Period 2 compared to the PN assigned for use in Study Period 1. By placing a mark on a line, whose midpoint(anchor) was designated as 0, and represented equivalent pain with assigned PNs, ratings on the continuum represented the degree to which the PN used in the second Study Period was less than or greater than the PN used during the first Study Period."|||0.37|<0.05
95852743|NCT01231984|191664603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.83|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|18.54|||p\< 0.05 was considered statistically significant in this study.|t-test, 1 sided||||||18.54|<0.05
95869381|NCT02119676|191695021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) and geographical region.|Estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by mGPS score and geographical region|||1.49|0.73|0.588
95852744|NCT01231984|191664605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two one-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in HbA1c between the 4mm PN and the 12.7mm PN was calculated. Equivalence limits for HbA1C were defined a-priori as +/- 0.4% units|Effect of 4 mm vs.12.7mm PN on HbA1c|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.0|||Two one-sided 95% confidence limit|For equivalence testing, a 95% test is the same as two one-sided 95% confidence limits.||General linear models with baseline as a covariate, needle type, period, and randomization sequence as fixed effects, and subject as random effect were fit to the data.||-0.000|-0.190|
95852745|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2600|0.0600|0.0029
95869382|NCT02119676|191695021|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||1-sided|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by geographical region.|Estimated using Cox regression model with Efron's method used for ties, stratified by geographical region|||1.23|0.48|0.136
95852746|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1825||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0855|0.2795||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2795|0.0855|0.0007
95869383|NCT00814801|191695063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.34|||Least Square Means|||||-0.34|-2.64|0.0113
95852747|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1565||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0419|0.2711||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2711|0.0419|0.0093
95852748|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1764||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0823|0.2704||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2704|0.0823|0.0007
95852749|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1999||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0894|0.3103||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3103|0.0894|0.0010
95852750|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0276|0.2443||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2443|0.0276|0.0159
95852751|NCT02135861|191664613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0535|0.2961||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2961|0.0535|0.0064
95852752|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0137||||0.7381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0968|0.0695||estimates of total lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0695|-0.0968|0.7381
95852753|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0136||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.0852||estimates of left lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0852|-0.0580|0.6992
95852754|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0258||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1201|0.0684||estimates of right lung|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0684|-0.1201|0.5778
95852755|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0005||||0.9899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0738|0.0747||estimates of left lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0747|-0.0738|0.9899
95852756|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0396||||0.2912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.1153||estimates of left lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1153|-0.0360|0.2912
95852757|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0362||||0.4592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1355|0.0631||estimates of right lung apical|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0631|-0.1355|0.4592
95852758|NCT02135861|191664614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0118||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1036|0.08||estimates of right lung basal|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0800|-0.1036|0.7936
95852759|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1148||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0236|0.2061||estimates of total lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2061|0.0236|0.0156
95852760|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0523|0.2209||estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA|estimates of left lung- Pre-exercise|||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2209|0.0523|0.0026
95852761|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1067||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0094|0.204||estimates of right lung- Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2040|0.0094|0.0328
95852762|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1145||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0235|0.2056||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2056|0.0235|0.0158
95852763|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0917|0.2635||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2635|0.0917|0.0002
95852764|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0956||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0067|0.1979||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.1979|-0.0067|0.0658
95852765|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1194||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0251|0.2137||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2137|0.0251|0.0150
95869384|NCT00814801|191695063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.44|||Least Square Means|||||-1.44|-3.74|<0.0001
95869385|NCT00814801|191695065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||Least Square Means|||||3.7|-0.2|0.0774
95869386|NCT00814801|191695065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4|||Least Square Means|||||2.4|-1.5|0.6207
95869387|NCT00814801|191695066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-0.6|0.8419
95869388|NCT00814801|191695066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||Least Square Means|||||0.6|-0.8|0.7942
95965530|NCT02209181|191902520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.38|-0.25|0.687
95852766|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1428||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0598|0.2259||estimates of total lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2259|0.0598|0.0015
95852767|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1776|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1057|0.2496||estimates of left lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2496|0.1057|<.0001
95869389|NCT00814801|191695067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Least Square Means|||||0.5|-1.6|0.3141
95869390|NCT00814801|191695067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.6089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Least Square Means|||||0.8|-1.3|0.6089
95869391|NCT04090411|191695086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.9||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|27.65||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||27.65|-0.20|0.0545
95869392|NCT04090411|191695086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.71||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|24.09||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||24.09|-1.70|0.0823
95869393|NCT04090411|191695086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.24||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|22.91||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||22.91|-0.64|0.0642
95965531|NCT02209181|191902520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.43|-0.21|0.497
95965532|NCT02209181|191902520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.13|-0.51|0.239
95852768|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0308|0.2212||estimates of right lung-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2212|0.0308|0.0114
95869394|NCT04090411|191695093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.92||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.62|20.04||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||20.04|-3.62|0.1398
95869395|NCT04090411|191695093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.36||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.88|17.06||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||17.06|-4.88|0.2038
95869396|NCT04090411|191695093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|17.06||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||17.06|-3.70|0.1498
95869397|NCT04090411|191695094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.16||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.25|32.23||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||32.23|3.25|0.0189
95869398|NCT04090411|191695094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.37||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.24|36.28||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||36.28|6.24|0.0045
95869399|NCT04090411|191695094|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.19||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|31.31||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||31.31|3.22|0.0117
95869400|NCT04090411|191695095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.82||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.14|37.3||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||37.30|4.14|0.0146
95869401|NCT04090411|191695095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.73||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|34.05||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||34.05|2.76|0.0167
95869402|NCT04090411|191695095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.22|34.95||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||34.95|3.22|0.0094
95869403|NCT04090411|191695096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.17||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|25.25||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||25.25|0.05|0.0489
95869404|NCT04090411|191695096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.02||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.66|12.88||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||12.88|-7.66|0.3396
95869405|NCT04090411|191695096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.25||||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|11.58||One-sided P-value|Chan and Zhang Method|||||11.58|-7.42|0.3995
95852769|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1464||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0774|0.2153||estimates of left lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2153|0.0774|0.0002
95852770|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1266|0.3008||estimates of left lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.3008|0.1266|<.0001
95852771|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1111||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0151|0.2071||estimates of right lung apical-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2071|0.0151|0.0250
95852772|NCT02135861|191664615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1458||||0.0052||95.0|0.0475|0.2442||estimates of right lung basal-Post-exercise|ANOVA||||Ve was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.2442|0.0475|0.0052
95852773|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0524||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1292|0.0244||estimates of total lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0244|-0.1292|0.1730
95852774|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1196|0.0349||estimates of left lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0349|-0.1196|0.2704
95852775|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0515||||0.2072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1334|0.0303||estimates of right lung-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0303|-0.1334|0.2072
95852776|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0603||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.0191||estimates of left lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0191|-0.1398|0.1307
95869406|NCT02081248|191695120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t-test comparing mean QuIC-A scores performed using 150 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-A, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Mean QuIC-A scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.37
95852777|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0078||||0.8427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0879|0.0722||estimates of left lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0722|-0.0879|0.8427
95965533|NCT02209181|191902520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.18|-0.46|0.376
95965534|NCT02209181|191902521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|1.14|<0.001
95965535|NCT02209181|191902521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.94|-0.33|0.350
95852778|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0506||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1269|0.0257||estimates of right lung apical-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0257|-0.1269|0.1848
95852779|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0413||||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1286|0.0461||estimates of right lung basal-Pre-exercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0461|-0.1286|0.3408
95852780|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0267||||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0866|0.0332||estimates of total lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0332|-0.0866|0.3682
95852781|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0201||||0.4531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.0342||estimates of left lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0342|-0.0744|0.4531
95852782|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0188||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0909|0.0533||estimates of right lung-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0533|-0.0909|0.5970
95852783|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0159||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0693|0.0375||estimates of left lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0375|-0.0693|0.5472
95852784|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0125||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0742|0.0491||estimates of left lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0491|-0.0742|0.6793
95852785|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0249||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.0466||estimates of right lung apical-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0466|-0.0964|0.4806
95852786|NCT02135861|191664616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0029||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0789|0.0731||estimates of right lung basal-Post-excercise|ANOVA||||Ktrans was fitted using a repeat measure ANOVA model with terms including participant population (HF or HV), visit (i.e. sessions), interaction of participant population and visit, with participant ID as block of the repeat factor|0.0731|-0.0789|0.9379
95852787|NCT03165617|191664621|SUPERIORITY|Success criterion were met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI was above 20%.|Absolute Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical Analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy Any Strain. Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 20% (primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (2 to \<18 years of age).||62.12|45.67|
95852788|NCT03165617|191664622|SUPERIORITY|Success criteria was met as the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the VE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint)|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|61.71||||||Statistical analysis title - Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain Adjusted aVE for QIVc vs. comparator. Success criteria for the primary efficacy endpoint was met if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the aVE estimate was greater than 30% (co-primary endpoint) using the protocol definition of ILI for the entire age range (≥ 3 to \<18 years of age).||61.71|44.8|
95852789|NCT03165617|191664623|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
95852790|NCT03165617|191664623|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|50.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.43|60.22||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||60.22|38.43|
95852791|NCT03165617|191664623|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.38|61.54||||||Statistical analysis title: Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||61.54|43.38|
95852792|NCT03165617|191664623|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.37|72.34||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||72.34|47.37|
95852793|NCT03165617|191664624|SUPERIORITY|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|54.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|62.12||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||62.12|45.67|
95852794|NCT03165617|191664624|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
95852795|NCT03165617|191664624|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
95852796|NCT03165617|191664624|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
95852797|NCT03165617|191664625|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|68.46||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||68.46|51.3|
95852798|NCT03165617|191664625|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.01|69.83||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||69.83|49.01|
95852799|NCT03165617|191664625|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.08|68.05||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||68.05|49.08|
95852800|NCT03165617|191664625|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|60.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.14|73.33||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||73.33|42.14|
95852801|NCT03165617|191664626|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<18 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.64|71.48||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<18yrs||71.48|53.64|
95869407|NCT02081248|191695121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Testing performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' perception of their comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the QuIC-B, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median QuIC-B scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.39
95869408|NCT02081248|191695122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' comprehension of the parent clinical trial, as measured by the DICCT, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median DICCT scores were compared between arms, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.17
95869409|NCT02081248|191695125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' state anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median state anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.21
95869410|NCT02081248|191695125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in participants' trait anxiety, as measured by the STAI, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median trait anxiety subscores of the STAI were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.25
95869411|NCT02081248|191695126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction with the consent process, as measured by a study-specific questionnaire, between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median participant satisfaction scores were compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.80
95869412|NCT02081248|191695127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the main goal of the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the main goal of the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.73
95869413|NCT02081248|191695127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find who to contact for questions between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find who to contact for questions was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
95869414|NCT02081248|191695127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find the risks and benefits section between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find the risks and benefits section was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.74
95869415|NCT02081248|191695127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find how to leave the study between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find how to leave the study was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.56
95852802|NCT03165617|191664626|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 2 to \<9 Years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|63.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.66|72.32||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 2 to \<9yrs||72.32|50.66|
95852803|NCT03165617|191664626|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 4 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|61.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.25|70.53||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 4 to \<18yrs||70.53|50.25|
95852804|NCT03165617|191664626|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical analysis description:~Absolute Vaccine Efficacy (aVE) for 9 to \<18 years. Note that no prespecified criteria for success were defined for the secondary efficacy endpoints"|Absolute Vaccine Efficacy|64.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.84|77.51||||||Statistical analysis title Absolute Vaccine Efficacy, Any Strain, 9 to \<18yrs||77.51|44.84|
95869416|NCT02081248|191695127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the time required to find study procedures between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Median time required to find study procedures was compared between arms, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.79
95869417|NCT02081248|191695128|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 0901 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be equal under the null hypothesis.||||1.00
95869418|NCT02081248|191695128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1101 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.77
95852805|NCT00135226|191664653|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.79|0.01
95869419|NCT02081248|191695128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1203 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.69
95852806|NCT00135226|191664653|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.87|0.55
95852807|NCT00135226|191664654|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|1.09|0.003
95852808|NCT00135226|191664655|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
95869420|NCT02081248|191695128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the consent rates to BMT CTN 1301 between participants reviewing a standard consent and easy-to-read informed consent (ETRIC) forms. Consent rates to BMT CTN 1501 were compared between arms in participants considering enrollment, which should be approximately equal under the null hypothesis.||||0.26
95869421|NCT01037088|191695130|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 1 after Administration of Cannabis||||>.05
95869422|NCT01037088|191695130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 2 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0002
95869423|NCT01037088|191695130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 3 after Administration of Cannabis (after the second inhalation of cannabis)||||<.0001
95869424|NCT01037088|191695130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 4 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0004
95869425|NCT01037088|191695130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hour 5 after Administration of Cannabis||||=.0018
95869426|NCT04030026|191695141|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|< 0.0001
95869427|NCT04030026|191695143|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.431||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.431|0.208|<0.0001
95869428|NCT04030026|191695144|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.47||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.717||Mixed-effects model: unstructured, heterogeneous toeplitz and autoregressive covariance matrices. Dependent variable: change from baseline in log-transformed scale of Daytime Cough Frequency. Fixed effects: sequence (arm), period and treatment.|Mixed-effects model|||||0.717|0.230|0.0087
95852809|NCT00135226|191664655|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.09||||||||1.09|0.91|
95852810|NCT00135226|191664656|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.24||||||||1.24|0.80|
95852811|NCT00135226|191664657|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||||||||1.04|0.85|
95852812|NCT00135226|191664657|OTHER||Risk Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.05||||||||1.05|0.86|
95852813|NCT00135226|191664658|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.12||||||||1.12|0.66|
95852814|NCT00135226|191664658|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||||||||1.02|0.61|
95852815|NCT00135226|191664659|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.77||||||||1.77|0.7|
95852816|NCT00135226|191664659|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||||||||1.50|0.59|
95852817|NCT00135226|191664660|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||||||||1.34|0.68|
95852818|NCT00135226|191664660|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12||||||||1.12|0.57|
95852819|NCT00135226|191664661|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.15||||||||1.15|0.84|
95852820|NCT00135226|191664661|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.12||||||||1.12|0.82|
95852821|NCT00135226|191664662|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63||||||||1.63|0.86|
95852822|NCT00135226|191664662|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
95852823|NCT00135226|191664663|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.01||||||||1.01|0.64|
95852824|NCT00135226|191664663|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59||||||||1.59|1.00|
95852825|NCT00135226|191664664|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.6||||||||1.60|0.46|
95852826|NCT00135226|191664664|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.45||||||||1.45|0.41|
95852827|NCT00135226|191664665|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.3||||||||3.30|0.17|
95852828|NCT00135226|191664665|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.31||||||||3.31|0.17|
95852829|NCT00135226|191664666|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||||||||1.11|0.92|
95869429|NCT04030026|191695145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0014
95869430|NCT04030026|191695145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0001
95869431|NCT04030026|191695145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.001
95869432|NCT04030026|191695146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0198||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0198
95869433|NCT04030026|191695146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0374||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 16||||0.0374
95869434|NCT04030026|191695146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2982||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.2982
95869435|NCT04030026|191695147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo)|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 8||||0.0054
95869436|NCT04030026|191695147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 15||||<0.0001
95869437|NCT04030026|191695147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 21||||0.0001
95869438|NCT04030026|191695148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 9||||0.0107
95869439|NCT04030026|191695148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change for baseline at Day 16||||0.0051
95869440|NCT04030026|191695148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1513||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||Change from baseline at Day 22||||0.1513
95869441|NCT04030026|191695149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3601||||||Student's T-test was used to evaluate if the difference in mean change from baseline is different between planned treatments (NAL ER vs placebo).|Student's T-test|||||||0.3601
95869442|NCT01879579|191695203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95869443|NCT01879579|191695204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Interval-censoring survival analysis|||||||0.007
95869444|NCT01879579|191695205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.99
95852830|NCT00135226|191664666|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1||||||||1.10|0.91|
95852831|NCT00135226|191664667|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.43||||||||1.43|0.78|
95852832|NCT00135226|191664668|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||||1.29|0.74|
95852833|NCT00135226|191664668|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||||||||1.37|0.79|
95852834|NCT00135226|191664669|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.32||||||||1.32|0.97|
95852835|NCT00135226|191664669|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25||||||||1.25|0.91|
95852836|NCT00135226|191664670|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38||||||||1.38|0.76|
95852837|NCT00135226|191664670|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.58||||||||1.58|0.87|
95852838|NCT00135226|191664671|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.34||||||||1.34|0.76|
95852839|NCT00135226|191664671|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.52||||||||1.52|0.86|
95852840|NCT00135226|191664672|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23||||||||1.23|0.58|
95852841|NCT00135226|191664672|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.48||||||||1.48|0.70|
95852842|NCT00135226|191664673|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.41||||||||1.41|0.49|
95852843|NCT00135226|191664673|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.22||||||||1.22|0.42|
95852844|NCT00135226|191664674|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.41||||||||1.41|0.50|
95852845|NCT00135226|191664674|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
95869445|NCT01879579|191695206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.78
95869446|NCT01879579|191695207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.04
95869447|NCT01879579|191695208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.13
95869448|NCT01879579|191695213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equation modeling|||||||0.008
95869449|NCT01879579|191695214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.003
95869450|NCT00562627|191695218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95869451|NCT00562627|191695219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95869452|NCT00562627|191695220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95869453|NCT05710185|191695228|OTHER||||||||||||||||||It was a descriptive study|||
95965536|NCT02209181|191902521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.08|-0.21|0.183
95852846|NCT00135226|191664675|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.54||||||||1.54|0.98|
95852847|NCT00135226|191664676|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||||||||1.12|0.63|
95852848|NCT00537394|191664696|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin defined as 15 percentage points. If the confidence interval for the difference in regimen failure between omitting versus adding NRTIs was fully below 15 percentage points, then omitting NRTIs would be concluded to be not inferior to adding NRTIs for this outcome.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|12.5|||||Endpoint rates with standard errors calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and stratum. Differences in week 48 failure proportions by treatment calculated weighted by the inverse of the variance in each stratum.|Null Hypothesis was that omitting NRTIs is inferior to adding NRTIs for the outcome of regimen failure through 48 weeks.||12.5|-6.1|
95852849|NCT00310765|191664800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measure analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the pain score change that occurred across each of the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-10). To conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality, the pain scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on exact rates from reference articles cited in the paper. Patients were randomly assigned to active drug (pregabalin) or look alike placebo.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
95852850|NCT00310765|191664801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|The group-by-time interaction result from repeated-measures analysis of variance modeling was used to evaluate whether the two study groups differed regarding the sleep score change that occurred during the two study phases (weeks 0-7 and weeks 7-11. to conform to the analysis of variance assumption of distributional normality the sleep scores were square root transformed before the analysis.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|||The number of patients required per treatment group to achieve a \>80% power with an alpha=0.05 were based on the exact rates from the reference articles cited in the paper.||4.0|0.0|<0.05
95852851|NCT01247324|191664827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.536|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.719|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.719|0.4|<0.0001
95852852|NCT01247324|191664828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 12||0.90|0.37|= 0.0139
95852853|NCT01247324|191664829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.032|0.104|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.104|0.032|< 0.0001
95852854|NCT01247324|191664830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.229|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.3|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.300|0.174|< 0.0001
95852855|NCT01247324|191664831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.61|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) Chi-Squared test Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and Baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0)||||2.33|1.11|= 0.0106
95852856|NCT01247324|191664832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||=|0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Log Rank|||Time to onset CDP at week 24||0.95|0.34|= 0.0278
95852857|NCT01247324|191664833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.428|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.328|0.557|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.557|0.328|< 0.0001
95852858|NCT01247324|191664834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|=|0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.116|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.116|-0.039|= 0.3261
95965537|NCT02209181|191902521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.84|-2.11|<0.001
95852859|NCT01247324|191664835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.283|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 22.8%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.283|0.053|= 0.0042
95852860|NCT01247324|191664836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|1.8|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||1.800|-0.414|= 0.2193
95852861|NCT01247324|191664837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.17|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.17|1.39|< 0.0001
95852862|NCT02392806|191664841|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95852863|NCT00301808|191664845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier product limit|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1423|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84||||||||0.84|0.48|
95852864|NCT03474588|191664849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Presented is the p value for the interaction between time and treatment.|Regression, Linear|Random Effects Regression Models (RERM), time was log transformed to account for expectation of greater change closer to baseline||||||0.30
95869454|NCT06460493|191695238|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 12, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|67.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|100.0|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||100.0|38.0|
95869455|NCT06460493|191695239|OTHER|The proportion of subjects classified as responders at week 6, standard errors, and corresponding 95% CI was estimated by negative binomial regression with background therapy (LABA/LAMA or LABA/LAMA/ICS) included as a fixed effect, and with baseline CAT score included as a covariate. The scale parameter in the negative binomial model was held fixed by specifying a noscale option.|Negative binomial regression|44.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|89.5|||||A two-sided unadjusted 95% confidence interval for the proportion was used to determine study success with the lower bound of the CI \> 0 indicating success.|||89.5|22.0|
95869456|NCT02278341|191695266|NON_INFERIORITY|Non Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|0.339||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb and baseline Hb by visit as continuous variable.||0.339|0.132|<0.001
95869457|NCT02278341|191695267|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority, Margin = -0.75|LSM Difference|0.171|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.261||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable. Statistical analysis used was ANCOVA model with multiple imputations (MI). Missing hemoglobin data was imputed for each treatment relying on non-missing data from all participants within each treatment group using the MCMC imputation model.||0.261|0.082|<0.001
95869458|NCT02278341|191695268|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of roxadustat versus ESA (the non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups is -15%).|Difference of Percentages|2.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.6||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||7.6|-2.9|<0.05
95869459|NCT02278341|191695269|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.451|-0.304||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline LDL, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||-0.304|-0.451|<0.001
95869460|NCT02278341|191695270|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-31.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-22.4||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-22.4|-41.4|<0.001
95869461|NCT02278341|191695271|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.205|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|1.059||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 PF, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.059|-0.649|<0.05
95869462|NCT02278341|191695272|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was -3.|LSM Difference|0.856|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|1.828|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits (week 8, week 12, week 28) and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline SF-36 VT, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||1.828|-0.115|<0.05
95869463|NCT02278341|191695273|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin for non-inferiority was 1.|LSM Difference|-0.849|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.971|0.273||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.273|-1.971|<0.05
95869464|NCT02278341|191695274|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (hazard ratio margin of 1.3).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.276||p-value for non-inferiority test based on 1-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.3.||1.276|0.669|<0.05
95869465|NCT02278341|191695275|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.579|||=|0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|0.536||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables, and baseline MAP, baseline Hb as continuous variables.||0.536|-1.694|=0.308
95869466|NCT02278341|191695276|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.254||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI is lower than 1.||1.254|0.668|=0.582
95869467|NCT02278341|191695277|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Percentages|1.4|||=|0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.5||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Miettinen and Nurminen method|||A generalized linear model was used to estimate the difference in response rates between the arms, as an approximation for the Miettinen and Nurminen method, adjusting for following covariates: region, previous ESA treatment, cardiovascular history and baseline Hb as categorical variables.||6.5|-3.8|=0.609
95869468|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.256||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.256|0.072|<0.001
95869469|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|0.546||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.546|0.339|<0.001
95869470|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.561|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.672||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.672|0.451|<0.001
95869471|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.708|||<|0.001||95.0|0.588|0.828||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.828|0.588|<0.001
95869472|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.768|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|0.89||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 5 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.890|0.645|<0.001
95869473|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.855||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.855|0.604|<0.001
95869474|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.729|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.856||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 7 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.856|0.603|<0.001
95869475|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.826||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.826|0.574|<0.001
95869476|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.659|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.788||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 10 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.788|0.530|<0.001
95869477|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.593|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459|0.727||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.727|0.459|<0.001
95869478|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.64||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 14 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.640|0.366|<0.001
95869479|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.369|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|0.51||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.510|0.229|<0.001
95869480|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.363|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.496||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 18 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.496|0.230|<0.001
95869481|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.284|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|0.414||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 20 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.414|0.154|<0.001
95869482|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.197|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.329||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 22 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.329|0.065|=0.003
95869483|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.187|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.316||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.316|0.059|=0.004
95869484|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.243|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.373||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.373|0.113|<0.001
95869485|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.207|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.34||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.340|0.074|=0.002
95869486|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.227|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.358||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 30 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.358|0.096|<0.001
95869487|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.||Week 32 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.334|0.064|=0.004
95869488|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.279|||<|0.001||95.0|0.15|0.409||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 34 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.409|0.150|<0.001
95869489|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.391||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36- The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.391|0.121|<0.001
95869490|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.136|||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.277||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.277|-0.006|=0.060
95869491|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.082|||=|0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.236||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 44 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.236|-0.071|=0.293
95869492|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.027|||=|0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.177||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.177|-0.123|=0.723
95965538|NCT02209181|191902521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.70|-1.98|<0.001
95965539|NCT02209181|191902522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|4.61||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.61|2.94|<0.001
95869493|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.199|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.348||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.348|0.049|=0.009
95869494|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.147|||=|0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.298||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 56 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.298|-0.004|=0.056
95869495|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.196|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.346||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.346|0.047|=0.010
95869496|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.275|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.427||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 64 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.427|0.123|<0.001
95869497|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.206|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.353||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 68 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.353|0.059|=0.006
95869498|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.118|||=|0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.269||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.269|-0.033|=0.127
95869499|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.211|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.371||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 76 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.371|0.051|=0.010
95869500|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.102|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.255||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 80 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.255|-0.051|=0.191
95869501|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.192|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.351||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.351|0.033|=0.018
95869502|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.044|||=|0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.2||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 88 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.200|-0.111|=0.576
95869503|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.203|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.369||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 92 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.369|0.037|=0.017
95869504|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.184|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.338||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.338|0.031|=0.019
95869505|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.164|||=|0.056||95.0|-0.004|0.333||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 100 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.333|-0.004|=0.056
95869506|NCT02278341|191695278|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.099|||=|0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.273||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 104 - The model included treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline Hb as continuous covariates.||0.273|-0.076|=0.267
95869507|NCT02278341|191695279|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.237|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.347||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.347|0.127|<0.001
95869508|NCT02278341|191695279|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.105|||=|0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.225||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.225|-0.015|=0.086
95869509|NCT02278341|191695279|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.284||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.284|0.014|=0.031
95869510|NCT02278341|191695280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.235|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 28-36 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.346|0.125|<0.001
95869511|NCT02278341|191695280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.104|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 44-52 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.232|-0.024|=0.110
95869512|NCT02278341|191695280|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.149|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 96-104 - The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment, visits and visit by treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.288|0.010|=0.036
95869513|NCT02278341|191695285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.154|||=|0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.411||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.411|0.943|=0.164
95869514|NCT02278341|191695286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979|||=|0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.462|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.462|0.656|=0.917
95869515|NCT02278341|191695287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.867|||=|0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|1.313||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment, and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||1.313|0.573|=0.501
95869516|NCT02278341|191695288|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.006|||=|0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||0.01|-0.02|=0.507
95869517|NCT02278341|191695289|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.132|||=|0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|4.16|||ANCOVA|||The model included treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||4.16|-3.90|=0.949
95869518|NCT02278341|191695290|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.368|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|0.465|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard Ratio was calculated using stratified Cox Proportional Hazards regression stratifying on region, CV history, previous ESA treatment and adjusting on Hb at baseline as continuous covariate. Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI was below 1.0.||0.465|0.291|<0.001
95869519|NCT02278341|191695291|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-18.4|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 37-52 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-18.4|-51.8|<0.001
95869520|NCT02278341|191695291|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.3|-27.0|||ANCOVA|||Weeks 53-104 - Participants with no or missing medication records of IV Iron had their monthly IV Iron use set to 0 mg. The model includes treatment arm, region, CV History, previous ESA treatment as categorical variables and baseline Hb as continuous variable.||-27.0|-70.3|<0.001
95869521|NCT02278341|191695301|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.521|||=|0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.25||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline SF-36 PCS, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.250|-0.208|=0.161
95869522|NCT02278341|191695302|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.126|||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.135|1.387||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||1.387|-1.135|=0.845
95869523|NCT02278341|191695303|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.128|||=|0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.703|2.447||p-value for superiority test based on 2-sided significance level|Mixed Models Analysis|||The model includes treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Previous ESA Treatment, region and history of CV disease as fixed class factors and baseline FACT-An Ans, baseline Hb, as continuous covariates.||2.447|-2.703|=0.922
95869524|NCT04902326|191695311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.78
95869525|NCT04902326|191695312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of HbA1c of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.64
95869526|NCT04902326|191695313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
95869527|NCT04902326|191695314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean decrease of weight of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||0.87
95869528|NCT04902326|191695315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Compare the mean months engaged (with DPP or metformin) of the Combo Arm, Financial Incentives arm, and the Tailored Messages arm each with the EUC arm.||||<0.0001
95869529|NCT01848782|191695320|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.5
95869530|NCT01848782|191695321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8
95869531|NCT01848782|191695322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.4|0.6
95869532|NCT01848782|191695323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.8
95869533|NCT01848782|191695324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.2
95869534|NCT02047318|191695328|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-94.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.915||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-145.26|-43.55||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-43.55|-145.26|0.0012
95869535|NCT02047318|191695329|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-141.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|117.992||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.77|-18.12||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-18.12|-265.77|0.032
95869536|NCT02047318|191695330|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.095|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.464|-0.726||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.726|-1.464|< 0.0001
95869537|NCT02047318|191695331|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores from baseline over time (to Week 158) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.958|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7868||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.784|-0.132||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 158 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) scores was observed over time (with Week 158 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||-0.132|-1.784|0.0307
95869538|NCT02047318|191695334|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|210.32||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.7|115.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||115.6|-100.7|0.8863
95869539|NCT02047318|191695335|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-184.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|322.22||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.5|153.8||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||153.8|-522.5|0.22
95869540|NCT02047318|191695336|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|51.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.77||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|97.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||97.7|5.4|0.0307
95965540|NCT02209181|191902522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.71|0.05|0.037
95965541|NCT02209181|191902522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.30|0.63|<0.001
95869541|NCT02047318|191695337|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|42.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|140.41||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|189.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point, as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||189.7|-105|0.4934
95869542|NCT02047318|191695338|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant|Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.98||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|51.6||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||51.6|-9.1|0.1571
95869543|NCT02047318|191695339|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in AST levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.84||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.7|119.0||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in AST levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||119|-94.7|0.7815
95869544|NCT02047318|191695340|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|257.78||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.4|128.7||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||128.7|-136.4|0.9513
95869545|NCT02047318|191695341|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in GGT levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|356.88||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-431.2|317.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in GGT levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||317.9|-431.2|0.7133
95869546|NCT02047318|191695342|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.348||0.7839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.37||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.37|-1.05|0.7839
95869547|NCT02047318|191695342|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between MRX baseline and Week 48 was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.982||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 17 of those participants contributed Week 48 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed when comparing MRX baseline to Week 48. The analysis was based on the safety population.||0.35|-0.66|0.5298
95965542|NCT02209181|191902522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-2.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.07|-3.73|<0.001
95965543|NCT02209181|191902522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.47|-3.15|<0.001
95965544|NCT02209181|191902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|5.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.25|3.43|<0.001
95965545|NCT02209181|191902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.75|-0.06|0.067
95965546|NCT02209181|191902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.17|1.34|<0.001
95965547|NCT02209181|191902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.59||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.59|-4.40|<0.001
95965548|NCT02209181|191902523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.17|-3.00|<0.001
95869548|NCT02047318|191695343|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505||0.8218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.24||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in total bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||5.24|-6.31|0.8218
95869549|NCT02047318|191695343|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels from baseline over time (to Week 252) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.001||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.58||Data for this analysis were obtained from 19 participants at MRX baseline; 6 of those participants contributed Week 252 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in direct bilirubin levels was observed over time (with Week 252 chosen as the end point as the last analysis visit with at least 6 participants). The analysis was based on the safety population.||1.58|-2.62|0.5549
95869550|NCT02032823|191695344|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||7.3e-06|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.409|0.816||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.816|0.409|0.0000073
95869551|NCT02032823|191695345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||2.57e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.5|0.392|0.831||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.831|0.392|0.0000257
95869552|NCT02032823|191695346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|98.5|0.468|0.973||A multiple testing procedure is employed across the primary and all key secondary endpoints to strongly control overall type I error at 5% (2 sided) accounting for all analysis timepoints.|Log Rank|Log rank test is stratified by chemotherapy type, hormone receptor status, and prior platinum therapy using a pre-specified pooling strategy.|Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's Proportional Hazards Model, \<1 indicates a lower risk with olaparib compared with placebo arm. Stratification factors are the same as those used in the stratified log-rank test.|||0.973|0.468|0.0091
95965549|NCT02209181|191902524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.84||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.84|3.90|<0.001
95965550|NCT02209181|191902524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.09|0.16|0.023
95869553|NCT04641221|191695352|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.1||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.18||main effect for one-on-one sessions.|zero-inflated negative-binomial (ZINB)|We specified a multilevel (week nested within participant) model which included terms for each main effect and each interaction effect and covariates.|Main effect for One-one sessions.|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.18|1.02|0.028
95869554|NCT04641221|191695352|SUPERIORITY|Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|incidence rate ratio|1.09||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.17|||zero-inflated negative binomial||Interaction effect for one-on-one sessions and incentives for participation|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||1.17|1.02|0.039
95869555|NCT04641221|191695352|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.93||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|Zero-inflated negative binomial||3-way interaction: study videos X one-on-one X incentives for class attendance|There were four potential intervention components. This study used a 2x2x2x2 factorial design. Thus, we analyzed main and interaction effects for the four potential intervention components.||0.93|0.80|0.001
95869556|NCT02411448|191695353|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.461|<0.0001
95869557|NCT02411448|191695355|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.832||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|1.303|||Log Rank|||||1.303|0.532|0.4209
95869558|NCT02411448|191695356|OTHER|||||||0.7413|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7413
95869559|NCT02411448|191695357|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.0000
95869560|NCT02411448|191695358|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.805|||Log Rank|||||0.805|0.477|0.0003
95869561|NCT03044574|191695385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95869562|NCT03044574|191695386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95869563|NCT03044574|191695387|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95869564|NCT03044574|191695388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95869565|NCT03044574|191695389|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95869566|NCT03044574|191695390|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95869567|NCT03044574|191695391|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95869568|NCT03044574|191695393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95869569|NCT04779216|191695396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95869570|NCT00219544|191695427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0018||95.0|-1.27|-0.3|||ANCOVA||Difference = pregabalin minus placebo|The study is powered to detect clinically significant difference of 1.2 between treatment groups in mean pain score at end of treatment. The statistical sample size calculation requires a total of 144 subjects to complete the Double-Blind phase of the study: a sample size of 72 in each treatment group will have 90% power to detect a difference in treatment mean pain scores of 1.2 assuming that the common standard deviation is 2.2 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||-0.30|-1.27|0.0018
95869571|NCT00219544|191695430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.001||95.0|-1.15|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.30|-1.15|0.0010
95869572|NCT00219544|191695430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.41|-0.53|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.53|-1.41|<.0001
95869573|NCT00219544|191695430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
95869574|NCT00219544|191695430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.47|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.47|-1.39|<.0001
95869575|NCT00219544|191695430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0022||95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.25|-1.14|0.0022
95869576|NCT00219544|191695436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0031||95.0|-1.18|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-1.18|0.0031
95869577|NCT00219544|191695439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0177||95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 5||-0.09|-0.94|0.0177
95869578|NCT00219544|191695439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 6||-0.44|-1.31|<.0001
95869579|NCT00219544|191695439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005||95.0|-1.28|-0.36|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 7||-0.36|-1.28|0.0005
95869580|NCT00219544|191695439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003||95.0|-1.31|-0.39|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 8||-0.39|-1.31|0.0003
95869581|NCT00219544|191695439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0011||95.0|-1.18|-0.3|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Week 9||-0.30|-1.18|0.0011
95869582|NCT00219544|191695440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0069||95.0|-15.5|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-15.5|0.0069
95869583|NCT00219544|191695441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0023||95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-A||-0.5|-2.1|0.0023
95869584|NCT00219544|191695441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0013||95.0|-1.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|HADS-D||-0.5|-1.9|0.0013
95869585|NCT00219544|191695442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42||0.0828||95.0|-0.79|12.75|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Impact||12.75|-0.79|0.0828
95869586|NCT00219544|191695442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.0197||95.0|1.05|11.94|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Satisfaction||11.94|1.05|0.0197
95869587|NCT00219544|191695443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||The distribution of the responses to the PGIC at EOT was compared between the 2 treatment groups using the 7 categories of the PGIC.||||0.0278
95869588|NCT00219544|191695444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0049||95.0|-1.28|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Pain interference||-0.23|-1.28|0.0049
95869589|NCT00219544|191695444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0037||95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Pain severity||-0.25|-1.29|0.0037
95869590|NCT00219544|191695445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0719||95.0|0.0|0.11|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Health State Profile||0.11|-0.00|0.0719
95869591|NCT00219544|191695445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.418||95.0|-2.96|7.1|||ANCOVA||pregabalin minus placebo|Visual Analog Scale||7.10|-2.96|0.4180
95869592|NCT05038904|191695450|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that 10 subjects allowed for 80% power to detect a 3-fold increase (1.1 natural log units; i.e. 1 food dose escalation) in the threshold food dose using a paired t test with p\<0.05. For this sample size determination, the primary endpoint was assumed to be normally distributed with a standard deviation of 1.1 natural log units.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95869593|NCT05038904|191695451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0014
95869594|NCT05038904|191695452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95869595|NCT05038904|191695453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Participants' ex vivo basophil activation during acalabrutinib treatment was compared to their own baseline level.||||0.002
95869596|NCT02233478|191695477|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of ellagic acid concentration 0 to 24 hours post-dose area under the curve was made to PJ alone vs. PJ with soy protein after intervention.~Due to the quality issue of soybean flour, data from this intervention group was not analyzed."||||0.82
95869597|NCT00873873|191695478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Is there a difference in airway wall thickness among the 4 groups?||||0.2
95869598|NCT00604214|191695506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.088||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.283||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The study was planned to have 80% power to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in drotrecogin alpha (activated) compared to placebo. The final power was 75% because of the lower than anticipated placebo mortality.||1.283|0.923|0.313
95869599|NCT00604214|191695507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.173|0.737|0.540
95869600|NCT00604214|191695508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.181
95869601|NCT00604214|191695509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.733
95869602|NCT00604214|191695510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.122
95869603|NCT00604214|191695511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.042||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.193||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.193|0.909|0.556
95869604|NCT00604214|191695512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.16||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.898|0.758
95869605|NCT00604214|191695514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.788
95869606|NCT00604214|191695514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.730
95869607|NCT00604214|191695514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.662
95869608|NCT00604214|191695514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.846
95869609|NCT00604214|191695515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.697
95869610|NCT00604214|191695515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value is for Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.306
95869611|NCT00604214|191695515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||P-value is for Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.645
95869612|NCT00604214|191695515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||P-value is for Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.690
95869613|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.482
95869614|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.584||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.584
95869615|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.164
95869616|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||P-value is for physical component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.666
95869617|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Baseline, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.786
95869618|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 28, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.160
95869619|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 90, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.696
95869620|NCT00604214|191695516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966||95.0||||P-value is for mental component at Day 180, unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Analysis on ranked data.||||0.966
95869621|NCT00604214|191695517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758||95.0||||P-value is for participants with ≥1 event. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
95869622|NCT00604214|191695518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.154
95869623|NCT02207946|191695537|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site included as fixed factors and baseline included as covariate.||0.16|-1.02|0.144
95869624|NCT03764033|191695554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|5.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.24|-3.66|0.729
95965551|NCT02209181|191902524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.93|1.98|<0.001
95965552|NCT02209181|191902524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-2.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.78|-4.71|<0.001
95965553|NCT02209181|191902524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.94||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.94|-2.89|<0.001
95965554|NCT02209181|191902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.78|3.64|<0.001
95965555|NCT02209181|191902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.42|0.30|0.012
95965556|NCT02209181|191902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.81||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.81|2.66|<0.001
95965557|NCT02209181|191902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|-2.29||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-2.29|-4.41|<0.001
95965558|NCT02209181|191902525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.09|-2.05|0.074
95965559|NCT02209181|191902526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.63|4.97||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.97|2.63|<0.001
95965560|NCT02209181|191902526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.48||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.48|0.16|0.026
95965561|NCT02209181|191902526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|4.99||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.99|2.64|<0.001
95965562|NCT02209181|191902526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.32|-3.64|<0.001
95965563|NCT02209181|191902526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.19||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.19|-1.16|0.978
95965564|NCT02209181|191902527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.62||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.62|2.18|<0.001
95965565|NCT02209181|191902527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.28|-0.13|0.081
95965566|NCT02209181|191902527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|5.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||5.14|2.69|<0.001
95965567|NCT02209181|191902527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-1.11|-3.53|<0.001
95869625|NCT03764033|191695555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|4.61||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|-4.46|0.975
95869626|NCT03764033|191695556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.24||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-5.27|0.831
95869627|NCT03764033|191695557|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-1.87||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.87|-11.31|0.006
95869628|NCT03764033|191695558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-1.74||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-11.34|0.008
95869629|NCT03764033|191695559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.37|0.066
95869630|NCT03764033|191695560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.043
95869631|NCT03764033|191695561|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
95869632|NCT03764033|191695562|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.04||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.74|0.028
95869633|NCT04594369|191695563|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.789|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.916||Adjusted p-value = 0.0038. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the primary endpoint was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.01.|Negative binomial regression|||Model treatment \& randomization stratification factor=geographic region, sputum sample (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) at start \& PE last 12 months, age group (fixed effects) \& time at risk (log scale) as offset variable. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.916|0.680|=0.0019
95869634|NCT04594369|191695563|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.806|||=|0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.694|0.936||Adjusted p-value = 0.0048. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the primary endpoint was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.01.|Negative binomial regression|||Model treatment \& randomization stratification factor=geographic region, sputum sample (Pseudomonas aeruginosa) at start \& PE last 12 months, age group (fixed effects) \& time at risk (log scale) as offset variable. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.936|0.694|=0.0046
95869635|NCT04594369|191695564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|0.952||Adjusted p-value = 0.0200. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazard|||Estimate of Cox proportional hazard model=effect for treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening and PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in last 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.952|0.695|=0.01
95869636|NCT04594369|191695564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825|||=|0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.968||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Cox proportional hazard|||Estimate of Cox proportional hazard model=effect for treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening and PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in last 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.968|0.703|=0.0182
95869637|NCT04594369|191695565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412|||=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|1.806||Adjusted p-value = 0.0200. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Logistic Regression|||Missing responder status was imputed 100 times. Dataset was analyzed via logistic regression with treatment group, sputum P. aeruginosa status, prior PEs (\<3/≥3), region, and age group as fixed effects. Results were then combined using Rubin's rules.||1.806|1.105|=0.0059
95869638|NCT04594369|191695565|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|1.792||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value for the secondary endpoints were tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Logistic Regression|||Missing responder status was imputed 100 times. Dataset was analyzed via logistic regression with treatment group, sputum P. aeruginosa status, prior PEs (\<3/≥3), region, and age group as fixed effects. Results were then combined using Rubin's rules.||1.792|1.095|=0.0074
95869639|NCT04594369|191695566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square (LS) Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.037||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Linear repeated measures model|||Analysis on linear repeated measure model=treatment visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at start, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] last 12 months, stratification region, age group (fixed effect) \& baseline (covariate). Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.037|-0.014|=0.3841
95869640|NCT04594369|191695566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.065||Adjusted p-value = 0.0364. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Linear repeated measures model|||Analysis on linear repeated measure model=treatment visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at start, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] last 12 months, stratification region, age group (fixed effect) \& baseline (covariate). Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||0.065|0.011|=0.0054
95869641|NCT04594369|191695567|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.742|||=|0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.089||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysis based on a negative binomial model including treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||1.089|0.505|=0.1277
95869642|NCT04594369|191695567|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.74|||=|0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.062||Adjusted p-value = 0.2050. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||Analysis based on a negative binomial model including treatment, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, PE \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region and age group. Robust sandwich covariance estimator used.||1.062|0.515|=0.1025
95869643|NCT04594369|191695568|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0775|=|0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|4.143||Adjusted p-value = 0.3841. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|linear repeated measures model|||Analysis based on a linear repeated measures model with treatment group, visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, pulmonary exacerbations \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region fixed effect, baseline as covariate.||4.143|-0.081|=0.0594
95869644|NCT04594369|191695568|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0642|=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.852||Adjusted p-value = 0.2050. The enhanced mixture-based gatekeeping procedure was used to control the overall type I error rate. Multiplicity adjusted p-value was tested at two-sided alpha = 0.05.|linear repeated measures model|||Analysis based on a linear repeated measures model with treatment group, visit, sputum sample for Pseudomonas aeruginosa at screening, pulmonary exacerbations \[\<3 or ≥3\] in previous 12 months, stratification region fixed effect, baseline as covariate.||5.852|1.680|=0.0004
95869645|NCT04035486|191695578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.79|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.79|0.49|<0.0001
95869646|NCT04035486|191695579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.8|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.80|0.48|0.0002
95869647|NCT04035486|191695584|OTHER||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.43|100.0|||Clopper-Pearson|||A 95% CI was calculated on the percentage of participants with a Response or Stable Disease using the exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.||100.00|88.43|
95869648|NCT04035486|191695585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.24|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio of less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).|An adjusted CI of (0.54, 1.51) was computed at the 2-sided 99.84% level, considering a 2-sided significance level of 0.00158 for the overall survival interim analysis, based on the O'Brien and Fleming spending function, assuming 334 deaths for the final overall survival analysis.|1.24|0.65|0.5238
95869649|NCT04035486|191695587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.44|||Regression, Logistic||And odds ratio of greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.44|1.06|0.0261
95869650|NCT04035486|191695589|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.36||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|0.72|||ANCOVA||A difference in least square means less than 0 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using analysis of covariance with baseline tumor size and time from baseline scan to randomization as covariates and with factors race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.72|-7.44|0.1067
95869651|NCT04035486|191695590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.81|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio greater than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||2.81|0.63|0.4483
95869652|NCT04035486|191695591|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.52|0.0132
95869653|NCT04035486|191695592|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.94|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.94|0.56|0.0159
95869654|NCT04035486|191695593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.93|||Log Rank||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|The analysis was performed using a log rank test stratified by race (Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Chinese/Asian vs. Non-Asian), WHO performance status (0 vs. 1), and method used for tissue testing (central vs. local).||0.93|0.51|0.0157
95869655|NCT04035486|191695600|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.83|0.44|
95869656|NCT04035486|191695601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.9|||||A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the Osimertinib (AZD9291) + Chemo treatment arm.|Subgroup analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, subgroup and a treatment-by subgroup interaction term.||0.90|0.44|
95965568|NCT02209181|191902527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.71|0.407
95869657|NCT06661954|191695609|OTHER|paired t-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences|||||<|0.05||||||Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction was used to control type 1 error.|t-test, 2 sided|||Peak sacral pressure (mmHg) was collected for every minute of the 10 minute recording. Two averages for each test condition were analyzed (Minutes 1-3 (Min1-3) and 6-8 (Min6-8)). These averages capture pressure during two different 5 minute cycles, when conceivably, sacral pressure would differ. Paired t-tests compared pressure of Bed A and Bed B at each time at each head of bed position (4 tests, two-tailed test, alpha=0.05). A Holm-Bonferroni correction controlled type 1 error.||||<0.05
95869658|NCT04268823|191695616|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938||0.298|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.524|0.119|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.119|-0.524|0.298
95869659|NCT04268823|191695617|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.5|-0.9|0.651
95869660|NCT04268823|191695618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|0.78|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.78|-3.55|0.288
95869661|NCT04268823|191695619|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.338|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.09|11.48|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||11.48|-3.09|0.338
95869662|NCT04268823|191695620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.795|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|4.42|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Total score||4.42|-6.05|0.795
95869663|NCT04268823|191695620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|5.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.155||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.16|12.66|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Symptoms score||12.66|-1.16|0.170
95869664|NCT04268823|191695620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.259||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.02|4.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Activity score||4.80|-6.02|0.851
95869665|NCT04268823|191695620|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.035||0.61|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.78|4.65|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Impact score||4.65|-8.78|0.610
95869666|NCT04268823|191695621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.557||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.8|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough symptom score||7.80|-7.30|0.956
95869667|NCT04268823|191695621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671||0.369|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|11.99|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum symptom score||11.99|-3.55|0.369
95869668|NCT04268823|191695621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.001||0.613|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|8.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Cough impact score||8.68|-4.61|0.613
95869669|NCT04268823|191695621|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.518||0.835|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.58|8.47|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|Sputum impact score||8.47|-6.58|0.835
95869670|NCT04268823|191695623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|0.0|0.335
95869671|NCT04268823|191695624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||0.1|-0.1|0.645
95869672|NCT04268823|191695625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|3.4|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (QBW251-placebo)|||3.4|0.8|0.010
95869673|NCT04948866|191695661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.522
95869674|NCT04948866|191695662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95869675|NCT04948866|191695663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.402
95869676|NCT04948866|191695664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.803
95869677|NCT04948866|191695665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.045
95869678|NCT04948866|191695666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.977
95869679|NCT04948866|191695667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95869680|NCT04948866|191695668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.935
95869681|NCT04948866|191695669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95869682|NCT04948866|191695670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95869683|NCT04948866|191695671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.417
95869684|NCT04948866|191695672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.531
95869685|NCT04948866|191695673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95869686|NCT04948866|191695674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
95965569|NCT02209181|191902528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.10|1.56|<0.001
95965570|NCT02209181|191902528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.14||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.14|-0.38|0.170
95965571|NCT02209181|191902528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|4.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.87|2.33|<0.001
95869687|NCT02186301|191695697|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|274.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated||||||||109|
95869688|NCT02186301|191695697|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier Median|207.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.0|260.0||||||||260.0|112.0|
95869689|NCT02186301|191695697|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|390.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|499.0||||||||499.0|282.0|
95869690|NCT02186301|191695698|OTHER||Percentage|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|49.1||||||||49.1|8.7|
95869691|NCT02186301|191695698|OTHER||Percentage|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|59.4||||||||59.4|22.7|
95869692|NCT02186301|191695698|OTHER||Percentage|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|88.5||||||||88.5|64.0|
95869693|NCT02186301|191695699|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|225.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0||Upper Confidence Limit is not available because it cannot be calculated.||||||||113|
95869694|NCT02186301|191695699|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|195.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.0|617.0||||||||617.0|143.0|
95869695|NCT02186301|191695699|OTHER||Kaplan Meier Median|335.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|282.0|480.0||||||||480.0|282.0|
95869696|NCT03505671|191695706|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.61
95869697|NCT03505671|191695706|OTHER||Correlation Coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (overall, N=20)|||||
95869698|NCT03505671|191695706|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (intervention, N=9)|||||
95869699|NCT03505671|191695706|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Correlation between EORTC Sensory Subscale baseline and 12 weeks (Usual Care, N=11)|||||
95869700|NCT03505671|191695707|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||P value for the motor subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.91
95869701|NCT03505671|191695707|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||P value for autonomic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.55
95869702|NCT03505671|191695708|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
95869703|NCT03505671|191695708|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95869704|NCT03505671|191695708|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Week 12 p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
95869705|NCT03505671|191695708|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||P value for Week 12 numbness or tingling interference data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95869706|NCT03505671|191695708|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling severity data|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
95869707|NCT03505671|191695708|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||Week 12 - Baseline p value for numbness or tingling interference|Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95869708|NCT03505671|191695709|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for baseline numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95869709|NCT03505671|191695709|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for 12 weeks numbness or tingling severity Grade 1-3|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95869710|NCT03505671|191695709|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P value for week 12 - baseline change in numbness or tingling severity|Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95869711|NCT03505671|191695710|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95869712|NCT03505671|191695711|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95869713|NCT03505671|191695712|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for cross sectional area sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
95869714|NCT03505671|191695712|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||P value for cross sectional area for median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.22
95869715|NCT03505671|191695713|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for amplitude - sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
95869716|NCT03505671|191695713|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||P value for amplitude - tibial, ankle|ANCOVA|||||||0.28
95869717|NCT03505671|191695713|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||P value for amplitude tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95869718|NCT03505671|191695713|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||P value for amplitude median, wrist|ANCOVA|||||||0.71
95869719|NCT03505671|191695713|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P value for amplitude, median, elbow|ANCOVA|||||||0.46
95869720|NCT03505671|191695714|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for latency sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
95869721|NCT03505671|191695714|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||P value for latency tibial, ankle data|ANCOVA|||||||0.76
95869722|NCT03505671|191695714|OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P value for latency tibial, pop fossa|ANCOVA|||||||0.24
95869723|NCT03505671|191695714|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||P value for latency median wrist data|ANCOVA|||||||0.20
95869724|NCT03505671|191695714|OTHER|||||||0.51||||||P value for latency median elbow data|ANCOVA|||||||0.51
95869725|NCT03505671|191695715|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P value for velocity sural data|ANCOVA|||||||0.98
95869726|NCT03505671|191695715|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P value for velocity tibial data|ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95869727|NCT03505671|191695715|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||P value for velocity median data|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
95869728|NCT02038829|191695717|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0318|0.0569||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0569|-0.0318|0.9730
95869729|NCT02038829|191695717|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.1264||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1264|0.0380|0.0014
95869730|NCT02038829|191695717|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1532||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1532|0.0644|<0.0001
95965572|NCT02209181|191902528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-0.69||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.69|-3.21|0.002
95965573|NCT02209181|191902528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.04||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.04|-0.50|0.235
95965574|NCT02209181|191902529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.39|0.82|0.001
95965575|NCT02209181|191902529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.87||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.87|-0.68|0.355
95908901|NCT02570126|191775732|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for the Varilrix HSA-free vaccine as compared to Varilrix™ vaccine, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (VAR\_HSA\_F minus VAR) in incidence of fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 0-14 days after Dose 1 was to be equal to or below 5%|Difference in percentage between groups|-1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.08|||||Power obtained using PASS 2005 (Likelihood Score \[Miettinen and Nurminen approach\]), one-sided non-inferiority test for the difference of two independent proportions, under the alternative associated to the reference value \& alpha=2.5%|Non-inferiority of Varilrix HSA-free vaccine to Varilrix™ vaccine in terms of percentage of subjects reporting fever \> 39.0°C (\> 102.2°F) within 15-days (Days 0-14) after Dose 1 (VAR\_HSA\_F Group minus VAR Group)||1.08|-3.72|
95869731|NCT02038829|191695717|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0931|0.1818||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation||0.1818|0.0931|<0.0001
95869732|NCT02038829|191695717|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 66 subjects (rounding to 72 for using Williams squares and 96 with dropouts) provides \~90% power to detect a 100 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 176 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1121|0.2012||P-values were adjusted using Dunnett's method for comparing the multiple treatments to placebo. The comparison of aclidinium to placebo was performed at the 0.05 significance level to establish assay sensitivity.|LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2012|0.1121|<0.0001
95869733|NCT02038829|191695718|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0163|0.0888|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.0888|0.0163|0.0046
95965576|NCT02209181|191902529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|4.65||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.65|2.07|<0.001
95965577|NCT02209181|191902529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.23||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.23|-2.78|0.021
95965578|NCT02209181|191902529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.55|-0.03|0.056
95965579|NCT02209181|191902530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||2.50|-0.09|0.067
95965580|NCT02209181|191902530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.68|-0.89|0.547
95965581|NCT02209181|191902530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.46||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.46|1.86|<0.001
95965582|NCT02209181|191902530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.47|-2.10|0.214
95965583|NCT02209181|191902530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.26|0.66|0.003
95965584|NCT02209181|191902531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.95||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.95|-0.57|0.281
95965585|NCT02209181|191902531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.47|-1.03|0.729
95869734|NCT02038829|191695718|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0478|0.1206|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1206|0.0478|<0.0001
95869735|NCT02038829|191695718|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.1621|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.1621|0.0890|<0.0001
95869736|NCT02038829|191695718|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1601|0.2325|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2325|0.1601|<0.0001
95965586|NCT02209181|191902531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.47|1.95|<0.001
95965587|NCT02209181|191902531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.78|-1.72|0.459
95965588|NCT02209181|191902531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|3.78||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.78|1.26|<0.001
95965589|NCT02209181|191902532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.55|-1.00|0.674
95965590|NCT02209181|191902532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.74|0.417
95965591|NCT02209181|191902532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.33|1.77|<0.001
95965592|NCT02209181|191902532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.52||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.52|-1.02|0.698
95869737|NCT02038829|191695718|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 78 subjects (rounding to 84 for using Williams squares) provides \~80% power to detect a 55 mL treatment difference in mean change trough FEV1 between SUN-101 and placebo at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0125 using a 2-tailed paired t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in AUC(0-12) of 143 and a within-subject correlation of 0.3.|LS Mean (SE)|0.1902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1537|0.2268|||LS Mean (SE)|||An mixed effects model was used with standardized FEV1 AUC(0-12) on Day 7 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline FEV1 as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. The Kenward and Roger correction to the degrees of freedom was used. An unstructured covariance model was used to model intrasubject correlation.||0.2268|0.1537|<0.0001
95869738|NCT00749580|191695721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.935
95869739|NCT04972630|191695752|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline control vs. intervention||||
95869740|NCT04972630|191695752|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4 control vs. intervention||||
95869741|NCT04972630|191695752|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
95869742|NCT04972630|191695752|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
95869743|NCT04972630|191695753|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869744|NCT04972630|191695754|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869745|NCT04972630|191695755|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869746|NCT04972630|191695756|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869747|NCT04972630|191695757|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869748|NCT04972630|191695758|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869749|NCT04972630|191695759|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869750|NCT04972630|191695760|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869751|NCT04972630|191695761|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869752|NCT04972630|191695762|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869753|NCT04972630|191695763|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869754|NCT04972630|191695764|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95869755|NCT04972630|191695765|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
95869756|NCT04972630|191695765|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
95869757|NCT04972630|191695765|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
95869758|NCT04972630|191695765|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
95869759|NCT04972630|191695766|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Baseline, control vs. intervention||||
95869760|NCT04972630|191695766|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 4, control vs. intervention||||
95869761|NCT04972630|191695766|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 12, control vs. intervention||||
95869762|NCT04972630|191695766|OTHER|Comparison via 95% confidence interval|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||Week 24, control vs. intervention||||
95869763|NCT03553836|191695785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.00046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by melanoma T Stage (T3b, T4a, T4b).|||0.82|0.45|0.00046
95869764|NCT03553836|191695788|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.3||||||||7.3|1.0|
95869765|NCT03553836|191695789|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|16.9||||||||16.9|9.1|
95869766|NCT01315236|191695807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||Conducted in the mITT population using a stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test, to compare the treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, adjusting for the randomization strata (presence/absence of CF and MAC versus Mycobacterium abscessus).|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||"The primary efficacy analysis tested the following hypotheses:~* H0: There is no difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~* Ha: There is a difference at Day 84 between the LAI arm and the placebo arm~Statistical analysis applies to all day 84 rows."||||0.072
95869767|NCT01315236|191695808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||||0.003
95869768|NCT01315236|191695809|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.68||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|25.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazard model||25.79|1.25|0.0129
95869769|NCT01315236|191695810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Ordinal Logistic Regressions Model||||0.077
95869770|NCT01315236|191695811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4545|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified Wilcoxon-rank sum||||0.4545
95869771|NCT01315236|191695813|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.69||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.64|||Regression, Cox|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model||5.64|1.28|0.0076
95869772|NCT04761627|191695815|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.9325|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8874|0.9799|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||0.9799|0.8874|
95869773|NCT04761627|191695816|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9483|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8977|1.0018|||||Switching group vs Continued-use group.|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CIs were estimated using the ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors if prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region, and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0018|0.8977|
95869774|NCT04761627|191695818|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9617|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8319|1.1119|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 28: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of Geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 28 were estimated based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for the actual stratification factors of prior biologic use for psoriasis, baseline body weight group, and geographic region.||1.1119|0.8319|
95869775|NCT04761627|191695818|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geometric LS Means Ratio|0.9662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8879|1.0515|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 40: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 40 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0515|0.8879|
95869776|NCT04761627|191695818|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Geomtric LS Means Ratio|0.9806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0785|||||Ctrough,ss at Week 52: Switching group vs Continued-use group|The ratio of geometric LS means, and 90% CI for Ctrough,ss at week 52 between the 2 treatment groups were estimated using an ANCOVA model adjusting for stratification factors and PK trough concentration at week 28.||1.0785|0.8916|
95869777|NCT04761627|191695819|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.77|||||Mean difference in PASI percent improvement from baseline at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Multiple imputation was applied for the point estimate and CI of the mean difference between the switching and continued-use groups. Missing PASI scores at the week 64 visit were imputed by MI.||2.77|-2.62|
95869778|NCT04761627|191695820|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|6.2|||||Response difference in PASI 75 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||6.2|-5.7|
95869779|NCT04761627|191695821|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Response difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|7.8|||||Response difference in PASI 100 Response at Week 64: Switching group - Continued-use group|Response difference was estimated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate, and the 90% CIs were estimated by the stratified Newcombe confidence limits, adjusting for the prior biologic use of psoriasis, baseline body weight group, geographic region. Missing post-baseline binary response data were imputed by NRI.||7.8|-7.4|
95869780|NCT04761627|191695823|EQUIVALENCE|The prespecified similarity margin was 0.8 to 1.25.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.17|3.1|||||Switching group - continued-use group|Risk difference for any EOI: risk difference and CIs were estimated by Wald asymptotic confidence limits, or exact confidence limits if n \< 25 for either treatment.||3.10|-4.17|
95869781|NCT02524977|191695843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95869782|NCT03935399|191695854|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures one factor ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.83
95869783|NCT03935399|191695855|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.92
95965593|NCT02209181|191902532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.05||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.05|1.49|<0.001
95869784|NCT03935399|191695856|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.79
95869785|NCT03935399|191695857|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.93||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|One factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.93
95869786|NCT03935399|191695858|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.89||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two factor repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.89
95869787|NCT03935399|191695859|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.83||||||Exploratory analysis without power calculation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.83
95869788|NCT03935399|191695860|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power caclulation||||||0.57||||||Exploratory analysis without power caclulation|ANOVA|Two way repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.57
95869789|NCT01112683|191695861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|ONE_SIDED|90.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||20 subjects per group were expected to provide 60% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 correct patterns (change from baseline to week 16) on the Paired Associates Learning and to provide 40% power to detect a between-group mean difference of 1.2 patterns recognized on the Pattern Recognition Memory. A two-sided test at type I error rate of 5% was used. Sample size incorporated an inflation factor of 20% to account for ineligibility of 10% of randomized participants.||||0.403
95869790|NCT01112683|191695862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371|ONE_SIDED|90.0||||This P-Value refers to the SIB-R Broad independence score.|Mixed Models Analysis|An alpha level of 0.05 or lower represents statistical significance, no correction was made for multiple comparisons to minimize type II errors.||No power calculations were performed for the secondary measures.||||0.371
95852865|NCT03474588|191664850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24||presented is the p value for the interaction of treatment and time in the model.|Regression, Linear|||Random Effects Regression Model (RERM), included in the model were treatment, time and the interaction of time and treatment.||3.24|-0.46|0.14
95852866|NCT03474588|191664851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.097
95852867|NCT03474588|191664852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.802
95852868|NCT01607957|191664859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.81|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.81|0.58|<0.0001
95852869|NCT01607957|191664860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.57|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.57|0.41|<0.0001
95852870|NCT00844844|191664871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols:C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (Adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
95852871|NCT00844844|191664872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
95852872|NCT00844844|191664873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
95852873|NCT00844844|191664874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
95852874|NCT00844844|191664875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95852875|NCT00844844|191664876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline was analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
95852876|NCT00844844|191664877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
95852877|NCT00844844|191664878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
95869791|NCT02129777|191695864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.008||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.179|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.179|-0.162|0.925
95869792|NCT02129777|191695864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.162
95869793|NCT02129777|191695864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.034||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.118|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.118|-0.187|0.671
95869794|NCT02129777|191695864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.028|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.028|-0.202|0.182
95869795|NCT02129777|191695866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||4.9|-2.1|0.435
95852878|NCT00844844|191664879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
95869796|NCT02129777|191695866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||5.4|-1.6|0.279
95869797|NCT02129777|191695866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.5|-0.4|0.085
95869798|NCT02129777|191695866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure.||6.3|-0.7|0.110
95869799|NCT02129777|191695867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.211|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.211|-0.265|0.827
95869800|NCT02129777|191695867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.269|0.198|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.198|-0.269|0.768
95869801|NCT02129777|191695867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.112||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.106|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.106|-0.330|0.338
95869802|NCT02129777|191695867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.017||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|0.226|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.226|-0.261|0.890
95869803|NCT02129777|191695868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.048||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.139|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12:CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and responder status controlling for visit.||0.139|-0.043|0.295
95869804|NCT02129777|191695869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.216|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.216|-0.191|0.906
95869805|NCT02129777|191695869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.143|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.143|-0.222|0.677
95869806|NCT02129777|191695869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.007|-0.268|0.107
95869807|NCT02129777|191695869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.087|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.087|-0.248|0.371
95869808|NCT02129777|191695870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.095||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.221|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: CMH P-values are from a CMH Chi-Square test using a 2\*2 contingency table of treatment and sPGA response category controlling for visit.||0.221|-0.030|0.134
95869809|NCT02129777|191695871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.6|0.258
95869810|NCT02129777|191695871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.2|-0.5|0.365
95869811|NCT02129777|191695871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.4|-0.3|0.757
95869812|NCT02129777|191695871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.3|-0.4|0.825
95869813|NCT02129777|191695872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.163||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|4.1|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.10|-4.48|0.931
95869814|NCT02129777|191695872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.143||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.84|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.84|-2.65|0.459
95869815|NCT02129777|191695872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|7.93|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.93|-0.63|0.094
95869816|NCT02129777|191695872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|7.09|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.09|-1.52|0.203
95908902|NCT04020341|191775742|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for non-inferiority is if the Z-statistic for non-inferiority is greater than the Z-statistic boundary (2.065).|Adjusted Difference in Percent|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||||||Observed Z statistic value for Noninferiority was 3.5554.|12.1|-3.6|
95908903|NCT04020341|191775742|SUPERIORITY|The difference in success rate between treatment groups (gepotidacin - nitrofurantoin) was calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for age group and acute cystitis recurrence strata combinations. Criteria for superiority is if the one-sided p-value is less than the 0.019 p-value boundary.|Adjusted difference of Percent|4.3||||0.1445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.1|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||12.1|-3.6|0.1445
95908904|NCT04109703|191775777|OTHER|The hypothesis is that the high level pulsed heat group will show statistically more pain relief than the low level steady heat group.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level.||Demographic and clinical characteristics were tabulated by randomization group. The primary outcome was change in pain score from baseline to 30 minutes after treatment ended. Linear regression was used to compare differences in primary outcome between treatment and control groups adjusting for initial pain level. Unadjusted comparisons are also presented. Change in pain scores at each other post baseline time point were similarly analyzed.||||<0.05
95908905|NCT01984684|191775786|NON_INFERIORITY|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for noninferiority testing was computed based on the difference in responder rates for vancomycin + aztreonam and delafloxacin at the primary endpoint. If the upper limit (UL) of the CI was less than 0.10, delafloxacin would be considered noninferior to vancomycin + aztreonam.|Difference in Responder Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.3||||||||8.3|-2.0|
95908906|NCT01984684|191775787|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response of signs and symptoms of infection (cure only) was performed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification for the ITT analysis set.|Difference in Cure Rates|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.6||||||||4.6|-8.6|
95908907|NCT01984684|191775788|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the investigator's assessment of response (cure only) at the Late Follow-up Visit was assessed using the Miettinen-Nurminen method without stratification.|Difference in Cure Rates|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|3.1||||||||3.1|-9.3|
95908908|NCT03492281|191775826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-0.8|<0.001
95869817|NCT02129777|191695873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.86|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.86|-1.92|0.448
95869818|NCT02129777|191695873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.22|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.22|-2.53|0.099
95869819|NCT02129777|191695873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.78|-1.96|0.396
95869820|NCT02129777|191695873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.23|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.23|-2.54|0.102
95869821|NCT02129777|191695874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.20|-2.29|0.099
95869822|NCT02129777|191695874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.03|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||-0.03|-2.49|0.045
95869823|NCT02129777|191695874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.25|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.25|-2.21|0.118
95869824|NCT02129777|191695874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.0|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.00|-2.44|0.050
95869825|NCT02129777|191695875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.503||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.36|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.36|-1.63|0.211
95965594|NCT02209181|191902533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.66|-0.87|0.541
95965595|NCT02209181|191902533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.79||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.79|-0.73|0.409
95965596|NCT02209181|191902533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.39|1.85|<0.001
95869826|NCT02129777|191695875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.13|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.13|-1.85|0.087
95869827|NCT02129777|191695875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.71|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.71|-1.26|0.580
95869828|NCT02129777|191695875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.496||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.90|-1.06|0.873
95869829|NCT02129777|191695876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||11.8|-15.2|0.803
95869830|NCT02129777|191695876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|21.4|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||21.4|-5.7|0.248
95869831|NCT02129777|191695876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.2|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.2|-12.7|0.914
95869832|NCT02129777|191695876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.9|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site, treatment, visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects, baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||17.9|-9.2|0.523
95869833|NCT02129777|191695877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||2.8|-2.7|0.978
95869834|NCT02129777|191695877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.5|-3.9|0.389
95908909|NCT03492281|191775826|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|=|0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.6|=0.0988
95908910|NCT03492281|191775827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
95908911|NCT03492281|191775827|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|=|0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.7|=0.0123
95965597|NCT02209181|191902533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.12|0.834
95965598|NCT02209181|191902533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.0||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.00|1.45|<0.001
95965599|NCT02209181|191902534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.63||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.63|-0.90|0.573
95869835|NCT02129777|191695877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-4.2|0.316
95965600|NCT02209181|191902534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.74||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.74|-0.77|0.448
95965601|NCT02209181|191902534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.25|1.71|<0.001
95965602|NCT02209181|191902534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.38|-1.13|0.848
95965603|NCT02209181|191902534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.89||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.89|1.35|<0.001
95965604|NCT02209181|191902535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.04|0.720
95965605|NCT02209181|191902535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.45|-1.07|0.763
95965606|NCT02209181|191902535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.09|1.55|<0.001
95965607|NCT02209181|191902535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.30|0.952
95965608|NCT02209181|191902535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.86||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.86|1.31|<0.001
95965609|NCT02209181|191902536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.39||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.39|-1.10|0.821
95965610|NCT02209181|191902536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|1.22||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.22|-1.25|0.978
95965611|NCT02209181|191902536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|4.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.13|1.63|<0.001
95965612|NCT02209181|191902536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.07||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.07|-1.39|0.799
95965613|NCT02209181|191902536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.98|1.49|<0.001
95965614|NCT02209181|191902537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.13|-1.62|0.726
95965615|NCT02209181|191902537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.25|-1.48|0.869
95869836|NCT02129777|191695877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.7|-4.9|0.142
95869837|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||1.4|-5.6|0.229
95869838|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||3.0|-3.6|0.863
95869839|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.7|-1.9|0.403
95869840|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Physical Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.4|-2.5|0.597
95869841|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||6.5|-2.7|0.416
95869842|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.1|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.1|-3.8|0.770
95869843|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|5.2|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.2|-4.0|0.798
95869844|NCT02129777|191695878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Mental Health Summary Score: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.5|-4.1|0.767
95869845|NCT02129777|191695879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.11|0.570
95869846|NCT02129777|191695879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.06|-0.10|0.619
95908912|NCT03492281|191775828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-1.1|=0.0020
95869847|NCT02129777|191695879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.11|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.11|-0.06|0.597
95869848|NCT02129777|191695879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.12|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||0.12|-0.06|0.509
95869849|NCT02129777|191695880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|9.6|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||9.6|-11.7|0.845
95869850|NCT02129777|191695880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|14.4|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||14.4|-4.8|0.323
95869851|NCT02129777|191695880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|7.8|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.8|-11.7|0.697
95869852|NCT02129777|191695880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.7|||ANCOVA||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with main effect of study site and treatment with baseline value as a covariate. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.7|-12.6|0.633
95869853|NCT02129777|191695881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||4.3|-2.2|0.537
95869854|NCT02129777|191695881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.6|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.6|-0.8|0.142
95869855|NCT02129777|191695881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.3|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||7.3|0.8|0.015
95869856|NCT02129777|191695881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.8|||MMRM||LS mean difference (namilumab - placebo) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were reported.|Week 12: Post-baseline least squares means and p-values were from a MMRM model with main effect of study site,treatment,visit and interaction between visit and treatment as fixed effects,baseline value as a covariate with an unstructured covariance structure. Baseline least squares means and p-values were obtained using an ANOVA model with terms for treatment and study site.||5.8|-0.7|0.121
95869857|NCT04391569|191695916|OTHER|||||||0||||||P-value from logistic regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.0000
95869858|NCT04391569|191695917|OTHER|||||||0.1619||||||P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|P-value is derive by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test.||||||0.1619
95869859|NCT04391569|191695919|OTHER|||||||0.2097|||||||fixed weight combination test|||||||0.2097
95869860|NCT04391569|191695920|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0000
95869861|NCT04391569|191695921|OTHER|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is derived by fixed weight (2/3 for interim and 1/3 for post interim) combination test. P-value from logistics regression is used for interim data, and Boschloo's test p-value is used for post interim data.|fixed weight combination test|||||||0.0075
95869862|NCT01101191|191695957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.67|106.66|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||106.66|98.67|
95965616|NCT02209181|191902537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||3.90|1.13|<0.001
95965617|NCT02209181|191902537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.5||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.50|-1.24|0.851
95965618|NCT02209181|191902537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.15||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||4.15|1.38|<0.001
95869863|NCT01101191|191695958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.2|99.81|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.81|94.20|
95869864|NCT01101191|191695959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.41|99.94|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||99.94|94.41|
95869865|NCT00829985|191695976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 1.12) vs. the extract group (numerator = 2.16).|||2.45|1.51|<0.0001
95869866|NCT00829985|191695977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio, log|1.13||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the ratio of baseline-to-post-baseline change in the placebo group (denominator = 0.93) vs. the extract group (numerator = 1.06).|||1.32|0.98|0.088
95869867|NCT00829985|191695978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.37||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.7) minus change in the placebo group (0.7).|||12.99|-4.89|0.37
95869868|NCT00829985|191695979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|5.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated confidence interval represent the treatment effect: change in the extract group (4.0) minus change in the placebo group (-1.3).|||11.51|-0.77|0.09
95869869|NCT02197234|191695981|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|77.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.41|93.7|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||93.70|63.41|
95869870|NCT02197234|191695982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|91.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.16|108.41|||||Simvastatin + AZD9291 / Simvastatin alone. Based on linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect and patient as a random effect.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AUC9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 45%. No change in exposure was also assumed.||108.41|77.16|
95869871|NCT03326206|191695989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression||Mixed linear regression models were performed to assess differences over time for continuous variables, comparing COPE versus control groups. The models included a random effect for patients to account for within-patient correlation over time in the outcome measures and a random effect for the primary health facility, to account for within-site correlation. In the sensitivity analyses we also adjusted the models for the random effect of matching groups.||||<0.0001
95869872|NCT03326206|191695990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression as described in primary endpoint||||||0.004
95869873|NCT03326206|191695991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for significant p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression as described in primary endpoint||||||0.02
95869874|NCT03326206|191695992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|Mixed linear regression model as described for primary endpoint||||||0.93
95965619|NCT02209181|191902538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.042
95965620|NCT02209181|191902538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.779
95869875|NCT03326206|191695993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Primary result is coefficient on post intervention change in visits by COPE pts relative to controls: if significant and \>0, COPE visits have increased relative to controls; if significant and \<0, COPE visits have decreased relative to controls.|Regression, Linear|||Generalized linear mixed regression models were used for count outcomes (SAS 9.3: PROC GLIMMIX) to estimate change in health care visits by COPE pts relative to non-COPE pts. Random effects accounted for within-site correlation at service units. Adjusted for covariates: age, gender, language, primary care physician, and diagnoses: essential hypertension, major depression disorder, alcohol abuse, major cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia.||||0.0091
95869876|NCT03326206|191695994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||As described for primary outpatient services||||0.0003
95869877|NCT03326206|191695995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4296|||||||Regression, Linear|||as described for primary outpatient services||||0.4296
95869878|NCT03326206|191695996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||As described for primary outpatient services||||<0.0001
95869879|NCT03326206|191695997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0431
95869880|NCT03326206|191695998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0516
95869881|NCT03326206|191695999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3582|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3582
95869882|NCT03326206|191696000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2461
95869883|NCT03326206|191696001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0613|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0613
95869884|NCT03326206|191696002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
95869885|NCT03326206|191696003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.54
95869886|NCT03326206|191696004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value corresponds to patient-reported health compared to a year ago and compared to others their age|Chi-squared|||||||0.19
95965621|NCT02209181|191902538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||<0.001
95965622|NCT02209181|191902538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.196
95869887|NCT03326206|191696005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028||||||P value corresponds with Ability to cope with negative life events|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
95869888|NCT03070444|191696012|OTHER|GEE analysis|GEE analysis|0.99||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.51|||GEE analysis|||||1.51|0.48|0.0002
95869889|NCT03070444|191696013|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95869890|NCT01373489|191696014|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95869891|NCT01709578|191696015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.711|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.247||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||4.247|1.730|<0.0001
95869892|NCT01709578|191696015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.108|5.115||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.115|2.108|<0.0001
95869893|NCT01709578|191696016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.202||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.086||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.086|-0.318|0.0007
95869894|NCT01709578|191696016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.325|-0.095||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.095|-0.325|0.0004
95869895|NCT01709578|191696017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.658||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.658|-1.283|<0.0001
95869896|NCT01709578|191696017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.752|-1.135||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.135|-1.752|<0.0001
95869897|NCT01709578|191696018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.764|4.959||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.959|1.764|<0.0001
95869898|NCT01709578|191696018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|5.566||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.566|2.045|<0.0001
95869899|NCT01709578|191696019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.607||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.774|7.332||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.332|1.774|0.0002
95869900|NCT01709578|191696019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|5.383||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.383|1.308|0.0056
95869901|NCT01709578|191696020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.339|9.132||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.132|2.339|<0.0001
95965623|NCT02209181|191902538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided). P-Value is from Log-rank test comparing survival curves.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups. Subjects who withdrew from the study before 24 hours, but did not use rescue therapy, were censored at the time of discontinuation. Subjects who did not rescue medication during the 24-hour study period had their time to rescue set to 24 hours and were censored at 24 hours.||||0.006
95965624|NCT02209181|191902539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.9|1.1|<0.001
95965625|NCT02209181|191902539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.8|-0.0|0.077
95965626|NCT02209181|191902539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.6|0.8|<0.001
95965627|NCT02209181|191902539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||-0.7|-1.6|<0.001
95965628|NCT02209181|191902539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANOVA|Treatment and baseline pain categorical score were factors.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.1|-0.7|0.148
95965629|NCT01040169|191902593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95965630|NCT01040169|191902594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95965631|NCT04535544|191902635|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|23.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|43.96|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||43.96|3.52|0.011
95965632|NCT04535544|191902636|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|26.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|46.21|||Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratum-adjusted MH test was used to assess the difference of percentage based on stratification factor: HBeAg status at screening (positive vs negative).||46.21|7.38|0.003
95965633|NCT00288639|191902692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.232||||95.0|-34.16|-11.28|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-11.28|-34.16|
95965634|NCT00288639|191902693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-17.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.797||||95.0|-27.36|-7.15|||||Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-7.15|-27.36|
95965635|NCT00288639|191902694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.615||||95.0|-34.16|-10.71|||||1-28 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts.Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.71|-34.16|
95965636|NCT00288639|191902694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.543||||95.0|-34.74|-10.91|||||29-56 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-10.91|-34.74|
95965637|NCT00288639|191902694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-27.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.323||||95.0|-39.9|-14.46|||||57-84 Days. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency. .|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-14.46|-39.90|
95869902|NCT01709578|191696020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.801|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.948|11.413||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mantel Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.413|2.948|<0.0001
95869903|NCT01709578|191696021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.306|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.444|-4.167||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-4.167|-10.444|<0.0001
95869904|NCT01709578|191696021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.727|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.833|-6.622||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-6.622|-12.833|<0.0001
95869905|NCT01709578|191696022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.183||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.318|-0.048||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.048|-0.318|0.0078
95869906|NCT01709578|191696022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.242||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.109||Threshold for significance was 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.109|-0.376|0.0004
95869907|NCT01709578|191696023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.049||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.049|1.450|0.0004
95869908|NCT01709578|191696023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.305|5.846||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.846|2.305|<0.0001
95869909|NCT01709578|191696024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.515||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.818|3.848||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 150 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3.848|-0.818|0.2026
95869910|NCT01709578|191696024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.013||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|4.309||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo q2w|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.309|-0.282|0.0854
95869911|NCT05281510|191696078|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The comparison was between plasma viral HIV-1 RNA data at set-point and at pre-ART within the same treatment group.||||0.0020
95869912|NCT05128929|191696163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.614||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||"Null: There is no significant difference in the mean primary endpoint (PVR) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.~The following analysis utilizes PVR determined by TD."||2.79|-1.47|0.541
95869913|NCT05128929|191696165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (mPAP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.27|-4.34|0.599
95965638|NCT00288639|191902694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-30.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.11||||95.0|-43.44|-18.06|||||85-112 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-18.06|-43.44|
95965639|NCT00288639|191902694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-38.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.368||||95.0|-51.79|-25.7|||||113-140 Days. Response ratio=100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-25.70|-51.79|
95965640|NCT00288639|191902694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-44.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.703||||95.0|-58.47|-30.01|||||\>140 Days. Response ratio= 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t= 4 wk interval seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study.Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power,true change from baseline approximately 25%.Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-30.01|-58.47|
95869914|NCT05128929|191696166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.26||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|115.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (6MWT distance) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||115.95|-21.43|0.166
95869915|NCT05128929|191696167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (emPHasis-10 score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||7.98|-8.22|0.975
95869916|NCT05128929|191696168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (SGRQ Score) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||1.4|-19.40|0.086
95852879|NCT00844844|191664880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95869917|NCT05128929|191696169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.92||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|193.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratum of PAH Group.||Null: There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (serum HA) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||193.46|-45.61|0.215
95869918|NCT05128929|191696170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.47||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-377.26|840.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||There is no significant difference in the mean secondary endpoint (NT-proBNP) at 24 weeks between the treatment (H01) and placebo group.||840.20|-377.26|0.442
95869919|NCT06415305|191696195|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||<0.008
95869920|NCT06415305|191696196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
95869921|NCT06415305|191696197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.008
95869922|NCT06415305|191696198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank tests|||||||0.009
95869923|NCT02604017|191696205|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 12-week treatment group as compared with the historical rate was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with SVR12 must exceed 91% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.1|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 12-week arm, 270 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 12-week arm to the historical control rate for HCV GT1 subjects who are treatment-naïve or treated with pegIFN/RBV (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|99.1|
95869924|NCT02604017|191696206|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 (8-week group minus 12-week group) must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an -5% noninferiority margin and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||1.1|-1.1|
95869925|NCT02604017|191696207|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of SVR12 for the 8-week treatment group as compared with the 12-week treatment group was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in percentage of participants with SVR12 must be above -5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and a -5% noninferiority margin, and an underlying rate of ≥97% in the 8-week arm (270 participants) and ≥97% in the 12-week arm (270 participants) provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the 8-week arm to the 12-week arm.||0.6|-1.8|
95869926|NCT02554279|191696246|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power, to demonstrate the non-inferiority of menotropin to recombinant FSH at 1-sided significance level of 0.025 with a -12% non-inferiority margin.|Absolute difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1||||||Null hypothesis was defined as the difference between ongoing pregnancy rate of participants randomized and treated with menotropin and recombinant FSH, as ≤-12%.||12.1|-2.7|
95869927|NCT02554279|191696247|OTHER||Absolute difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.9||||||||8.9|-6.6|
95869928|NCT02554279|191696248|OTHER||Absolute difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|11.3||||||||11.3|-3.8|
95869929|NCT02554279|191696249|OTHER||Absolute difference|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-19.2|
95869930|NCT01673282|191696258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Based on an ANCOVA model for absolute change in ratio of dose and DDD with group as a fixed effect and the ratio of dose and DDD at Baseline as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.36|=0.0003
95869931|NCT03470441|191696283|OTHER||||||||||||||descriptive||||As little data exists on the incidence of arrhythmias that occur over an extended period of time following AMI, descriptive analysis of the primary endpoints (Arrhythmias of Interest at 48 hours and 14 days for overall and anterior infarcts) was appropriate in this study due to the absence of an externally validated benchmark which would normally serve as the basis for hypothesis testing of FDY-5301's effect on arrhythmias.|||
95869932|NCT03470441|191696288|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.15|-10.8|3.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||3.1|-10.8|0.32
95869933|NCT03470441|191696290|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-20.2|12.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test Comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (low, intermediate, and high) combined into one group.||12.10|-20.2|0.46
95869934|NCT03470441|191696296|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.11|-3.6|10.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||10.6|-3.6|0.25
95869935|NCT03470441|191696298|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.16|-7.0|16.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Test comparing placebo to anterior infarcts FDY-5301 treated subjects (combined low dose, intermediate dose, and high dose).||16.9|-7|0.31
95869936|NCT05411367|191696311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.38|||ANCOVA|||||0.38|-0.62|0.315
95869937|NCT05411367|191696312|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.11|0.487
95869938|NCT03160859|191696313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square||||0.62
95965641|NCT00288639|191902695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|7.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.425||||95.0|-17.6|31.98|||||Simple Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||31.98|-17.60|
95965642|NCT00288639|191902695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-22.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.058||||95.0|-37.8|-6.69|||||Complex Partial Seizures. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.69|-37.80|
95965643|NCT00288639|191902695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-23.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.313||||95.0|-55.33|7.64|||||Evolved to Generalized. Response ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||7.64|-55.33|
95965644|NCT00288639|191902699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-24.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.867||||95.0|-43.66|-6.2|||||Seizure freq. ≤3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.20|-43.66|
95965645|NCT00288639|191902699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Response Ratio|-20.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.334||||95.0|-35.24|-6.33|||||Seizure freq. \>3 / 28 d. Resp. ratio = 100 x \[(t - b)/(t + b)\] where t=treatment seizure frequency and b=baseline seizure frequency.|Noncomparative study. Summary stats, 2 sided 95% CI to est. effect size. No adjustments made to alpha levels to acct for multiple 2o endpts. Sample size=83 patients (pts) sufficient to detect statistically significant difference in % change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate with 80% power, true change from baseline approximately 25%. Allowing for dropouts assume 85% pts analyzed.||-6.33|-35.24|
95965646|NCT04020185|191902719|OTHER||maximum tolerated dose (monotherapy)|1200.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95965647|NCT02783027|191902721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test on the change in sleep quality from baseline to 4 months.||||||0.76
95965648|NCT02783027|191902722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Test for group\*time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95965649|NCT02783027|191902723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
95965650|NCT02783027|191902724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test for group\*time interaction.||||||<0.0001
95965651|NCT02783027|191902725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test for change in Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery (OFER) inter-shift recovery between groups||||||0.91
95965652|NCT05332912|191902726|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.066|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.066
95965653|NCT05332912|191902726|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.056
95965654|NCT05332912|191902726|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.65
95965655|NCT05332912|191902727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.039|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in number of correct items in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.039
95965656|NCT05332912|191902727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention condition and received 16 weeks of experiential training in Mental Rotation will exhibit a similar change in performance as Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received only 8 weeks of experiential training.||||= .32
95965657|NCT05332912|191902727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.73||||||df = 55|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation performance following 16 weeks of experiential training will not differ for Typically Developing Children Immediate Intervention and Down Syndrome Participants Immediate intervention.||||=.73
95965658|NCT05332912|191902728|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.023|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training.||||=.023
95965659|NCT05332912|191902728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking performance following 8 weeks of experiential training will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention who had not received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.23
95965660|NCT05332912|191902728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Mental Rotation will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received 8 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 8 weeks of intervention.||||.42
95869939|NCT02674854|191696317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. netarsudil||||||<0.0001
95869940|NCT02674854|191696317|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
95869941|NCT02635646|191696318|OTHER|T test for mean comparisons between independent groups||||||0.844||||||Significant p value less than 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.844
95869942|NCT02635646|191696319|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.624
95869943|NCT02635646|191696320|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95869944|NCT02635646|191696321|OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.516
95869945|NCT02635646|191696322|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95869946|NCT02751931|191696336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.28|98.89||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||98.89|45.28|<0.001
95869947|NCT02751931|191696336|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|113.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.95|147.47||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||147.47|78.95|<0.001
95908913|NCT03492281|191775828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|=|0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.9|=0.0648
95869948|NCT02751931|191696337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.09||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|12.38||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||12.38|-20.55|0.618
95869949|NCT02751931|191696337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.16||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.22||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||25.22|5.10|0.005
95869950|NCT02751931|191696337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.62||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|29.54||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||29.54|-0.31|0.055
95869951|NCT02751931|191696337|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|20.42||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||20.42|6.75|<0.001
95869952|NCT02751931|191696338|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.75|63.97||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at week 4 - Children.||63.97|18.75|<0.001
95869953|NCT02751931|191696338|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|122.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||122.36|39.20|<0.001
95869954|NCT02751931|191696339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.28||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||2.28|-1.40|0.632
95869955|NCT02751931|191696339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.67|-1.94|0.321
95869956|NCT02751931|191696339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.86||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.45||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-0.45|-3.27|0.011
95869957|NCT02751931|191696339|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.94||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.94|-2.49|0.359
95869958|NCT02751931|191696340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.56|-6.21||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||-6.21|-18.56|<0.001
95869959|NCT02751931|191696340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.48||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.09|7.13||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||7.13|-20.09|0.334
95965661|NCT05332912|191902729|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|df = 26||Null Hypothesis: Participants with Down Syndrome will exhibit no change in Perspective Taking performance following 16 weeks of experiential training.||||=.01
95869960|NCT02751931|191696340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.87|-11.35||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||-11.35|-24.87|<0.001
95869961|NCT02751931|191696340|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.19||||0.005||95.0|-22.02|-4.36||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||-4.36|-22.02|0.005
95869962|NCT02751931|191696341|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
95869963|NCT02751931|191696341|OTHER|||||||0.148||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.148
95869964|NCT02751931|191696341|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.002
95869965|NCT02751931|191696341|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.039
95869966|NCT02751931|191696342|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
95869967|NCT02751931|191696342|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 4 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.007
95869968|NCT02751931|191696342|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
95869969|NCT02751931|191696342|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, testing the null hypothesis that week 24 median is equal to baseline median.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
95869970|NCT02751931|191696343|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||<0.001
95869971|NCT02751931|191696343|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.006
95869972|NCT02751931|191696343|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||< 0.001
95869973|NCT02751931|191696343|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline was equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||0.001
95965662|NCT05332912|191902729|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 48||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Delayed Intervention condition who received 8 weeks of intervention.||||=.28
95869974|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.58||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|28.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||28.1|1.0|0.035
95869975|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|58.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||58.9|13.1|0.003
95869976|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||45.5|14.7|<0.001
95869977|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|79.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||79.3|24.6|<0.001
95869978|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|51.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||51.1|22.7|<0.001
95869979|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|68.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||68.9|21.3|<0.001
95869980|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|46.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||46.3|18.2|<0.001
95869981|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.94||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|19.2|0.001
95869982|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|60.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||60.0|23.3|<0.001
95869983|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|94.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||94.9|23.8|0.002
95869984|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|83.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||83.2|24.5|<0.001
95869985|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|52.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|83.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||83.8|20.5|0.002
95869986|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|63.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||63.7|22.0|<0.001
95869987|NCT02751931|191696344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|72.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||72.3|12.5|0.008
95869988|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|40.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.1|-5.1|0.126
95869989|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|75.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||75.4|9.3|0.014
95869990|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|46.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|71.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||71.7|21.7|<0.001
95869991|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|73.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|117.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||117.2|29.3|0.002
95869992|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER|Pre-Specified|Mean Difference (Net)|45.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|68.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||68.4|22.1|<0.001
95869993|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|78.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.3|7.4|0.020
95869994|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|54.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||54.3|12.2|0.003
95869995|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|76.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||76.8|17.8|0.003
95869996|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.88||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|82.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||82.6|17.1|0.004
95965663|NCT05332912|191902729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 55||Null Hypothesis: Amount of change in Perspective Taking will not differ for participants with Down Syndrome in the Immediate Intervention Condition who received16 weeks of experiential intervention and Typically Developing Children in the Immediate Intervention who also received 16 weeks of intervention.||||.23
95965664|NCT03301155|191902751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|Comparison performed on the regression parameters scale. Estimates for mean time obtained under assumption of exponentially distributed time-to-event.||||||0.001
95965665|NCT03301155|191902751|SUPERIORITY|superiority margin for hazard ratio was prespecified as 0.846. Lower hazard is better thus the upper confidence limit of HR expected to be lesser than margin|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.645||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.839|||Regression, Cox||Lower HR is better|||0.839|0.496|0.0218
95965666|NCT03301155|191902752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 4||||0.0003
95965667|NCT03301155|191902752|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted with Holm method for multiple comparrisons||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 8||||0.0003
95965668|NCT03301155|191902752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between groups on week 12||||0.0021
95965669|NCT03301155|191902753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1372|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1372
95965670|NCT03301155|191902754|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95869997|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|84.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|137.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||137.1|31.6|0.003
95869998|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|99.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||99.0|21.2|0.003
95869999|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.78||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|98.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||98.9|10.6|0.017
95965671|NCT03301155|191902755|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95965672|NCT00384189|191902765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|18.3|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||18.3|1.4|0.0116
95965673|NCT00384189|191902765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.8|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||17.8|0.9|0.0148
95965674|NCT00384189|191902765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.4|||ANCOVA|Baseline value and age as covariates. One-sided p-value, significance level 2.5%.||||20.4|3.5|0.0028
95965675|NCT00384189|191902766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1362||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1362
95965676|NCT00384189|191902766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0891||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.0891
95965677|NCT00384189|191902766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574||||||Two-sided p-value, significance level 5%.|Log Rank|||||||0.1574
95965678|NCT00384189|191902767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
95965679|NCT00384189|191902767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0006
95965680|NCT00384189|191902767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||One-sided p-value for superiority, significance level 2.5%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95965681|NCT02942004|191902778|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.2|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.20|-8.80|0.0013
95870000|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|84.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||84.4|22.6|0.001
95870001|NCT02751931|191696345|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|99.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.6|9.0|0.021
95870002|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.13||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|40.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.7|-4.5|0.113
95870003|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.58||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|72.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||72.2|-1.1|0.056
95870004|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|63.7|||t-test, 2 sided|From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||63.7|11.7|0.005
95870005|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|70.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|118.5||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||118.5|22.2|0.006
95870006|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|66.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||66.8|21.0|<0.001
95870007|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.11||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|78.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||78.4|-2.2|0.063
95870008|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.05||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||49.9|8.2|0.008
95870009|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|74.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||74.2|11.9|0.009
95870010|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|75.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||75.2|13.2|0.006
95965682|NCT02942004|191902778|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-0.47|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.47|-6.90|0.0252
95870011|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|132.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||132.3|30.4|0.003
95870012|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.49||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|97.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||97.2|19.8|0.004
95870013|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|50.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|99.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||99.1|2.7|0.039
95870014|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|53.76||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|85.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||85.8|21.7|0.002
95870015|NCT02751931|191696346|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.13||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|99.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||99.8|-1.6|0.057
95870016|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.98||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|40.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||40.0|-24.0|0.617
95870017|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.52||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|76.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||76.0|3.0|0.035
95870018|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.81||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|48.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||48.3|-8.7|0.167
95870019|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|124.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||124.7|25.8|0.005
95870020|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.01||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|62.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||62.3|5.7|0.020
95870021|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.43||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|84.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||84.9|3.9|0.033
95870022|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.68||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|34.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||34.7|-17.3|0.503
95870023|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|68.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||68.6|7.8|0.016
95870024|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.76||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|80.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||80.2|1.4|0.043
95870025|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|86.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|131.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||131.8|41.5|<0.001
95870026|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.08||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|79.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||79.6|-17.5|0.203
95870027|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|68.47||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|124.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||124.2|12.7|0.019
95870028|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.83||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|62.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||62.4|1.3|0.042
95870029|NCT02751931|191696347|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|87.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||87.3|-11.0|0.121
95965683|NCT02942004|191902779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.936||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.79|-9.46|0.0044
95965684|NCT02942004|191902779|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.899||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-7.56|0.0481
95965685|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.951||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.93|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.93|-1.83|0.9591
95965686|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.917||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-1.66|0.8677
95965687|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.208||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-4.51|0.0827
95965688|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.02|-2.62|0.7968
95965689|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|0.61|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.61|-4.69|0.1292
95965690|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|2.21|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.21|-2.94|0.7801
95965691|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.59|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.59|-4.10|0.3840
95870030|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||3.4|-2.7|0.818
95870031|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.2|0.114
95870032|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||0.0|-2.3|0.052
95870033|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.8|0.066
95870034|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.7||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||6.7|-4.4|0.674
95870035|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||0.6|-1.9|0.278
95870036|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||5.0|-4.2|0.871
95870037|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||0.3|-1.6|0.153
95870038|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.9||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||3.9|-3.5|0.922
95870039|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||0.0|-1.5|0.047
95870040|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||-0.4|-3.6|0.018
95870041|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||0.1|-1.7|0.070
95965692|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.395||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|0.71|-2.05|3.48|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.48|-2.05|0.6097
95870042|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.1|-2.0|0.083
95870043|NCT02751931|191696348|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.1|-2.3|0.064
95870044|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.692||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||||0.692
95965693|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.07|-7.50|0.0094
95965694|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|0.8|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.80|-5.45|0.1440
95870045|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||||0.018
95870046|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.061||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||||0.061
95870047|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||||0.008
95870048|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.612||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||||0.612
95870049|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.018||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||||0.018
95870050|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.858||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||||0.858
95870051|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||||0.004
95870052|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||||0.003
95870053|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||||< 0.001
95870054|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.045||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||||0.045
95870055|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||||0.002
95870056|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||||0.006
95870057|NCT02751931|191696349|OTHER|||||||0.007||||||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||||0.007
95870058|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Children||0.6|0.1|0.018
95965695|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-1.91|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.91|-8.33|0.0020
95870059|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.82||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescents||1.6|0.0|0.045
95870060|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Children||1.2|0.1|0.013
95870061|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescents||2.2|0.6|0.002
95870062|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Children||1.8|0.5|0.001
95870063|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescents||3.3|1.2|<0.001
95870064|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.001
95870065|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescents||3.0|0.9|<0.001
95870066|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||2.0|0.7|<0.001
95870067|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||3.2|1.2|<0.001
95870068|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Children||2.1|0.5|0.002
95870069|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.8||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescents||2.8|1.0|<0.001
95870070|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||2.2|0.5|0.002
95870071|NCT02751931|191696350|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||3.2|1.1|<0.001
95870072|NCT02751931|191696351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.04||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.49||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||6.49|-2.40|0.352
95870073|NCT02751931|191696351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|1.53||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.53|-11.34|0.127
95870074|NCT02751931|191696351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|6.57||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||6.57|-3.96|0.613
95870075|NCT02751931|191696351|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.79||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|0.2||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||0.20|-13.78|0.056
95870076|NCT02751931|191696352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.86||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Children||0.86|-0.14|0.153
95870077|NCT02751931|191696352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.08||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescents||1.08|0.19|0.007
95870078|NCT02751931|191696352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.93||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Children||0.93|-0.10|0.106
95870079|NCT02751931|191696352|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51||From a 2-sided paired t-test, testing the null hypothesis that change from baseline is equal to 0.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescents||1.51|0.38|0.003
95870080|NCT03875235|191696380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99||The analysis was performed using a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.03 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for OS at the second interim analysis was 3%.|95% CI 0.66 to 0.97|0.99|0.64|0.021
95870081|NCT03875235|191696383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.19|0.63|0.89||The p-value is based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for disease status (initially unresectable versus recurrent) and primary tumor location (IHCC versus EHCC versus GBC), and tested at 0.0481 significance level.|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|The 2-sided significance level for PFS at the second interim analysis was 4.81%.|95% CI 0.63 to 0.89|0.89|0.63|0.001
95870082|NCT03875235|191696386|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR and CI were estimated from a stratified CMH test adjusting for disease status and primary tumor location.|||2.31|1.11|0.011
95870083|NCT05772702|191696407|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to FU2). Null hypothesis: D1 == FU2||||<0.0005
95870084|NCT05772702|191696408|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HDRS-17 change score were submitted to a t-test to estimate the group difference from 0 (i.e., no change in depression symptoms from D1 to D5). Note: D5 HDRS-17 were determined prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 == D5||||<0.0005
95870085|NCT05772702|191696410|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||QIDS change score were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870086|NCT05772702|191696411|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||ASRM scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 ASRM surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870087|NCT05772702|191696412|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||SHAPS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 SHAPS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95908914|NCT03492281|191775829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||23.4|9.7|<0.0001
95908915|NCT03492281|191775829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.4|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||16.7|2.1|=0.0120
95908916|NCT03492281|191775830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.3|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.1|0.4|=0.0360
95908917|NCT03492281|191775830|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.9|||=|0.5447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||7.8|-4.1|=0.5447
95908918|NCT03492281|191775831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.8|||=|0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.7|0.9|=0.0235
95908919|NCT03492281|191775831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex and OAB type (wet/dry), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||10.0|-2.5|=0.2400
95908920|NCT03492281|191775832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
95870088|NCT05772702|191696413|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 OVERALL scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870089|NCT05772702|191696413|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|This subscale did not require sphericity corrections.||DASS-42 DEPRESSION SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870090|NCT05772702|191696413|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 ANXIETY SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95965696|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.572||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.76|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.76|-4.47|0.3906
95965697|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.735||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.05|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.05|-7.93|0.0110
95965698|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|0.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-6.68|0.0511
95965699|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.738||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-1.58|||MMRM|||Change at hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.58|-8.47|0.0046
95965700|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.88|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-5.88|0.1389
95965701|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.837||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|-0.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.43|-7.71|0.0288
95965702|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.797||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|1.98|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.98|-5.15|0.3799
95965703|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.139||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|1.32|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.32|-7.16|0.1747
95965704|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|3.12|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.12|-5.13|0.6310
95908921|NCT03492281|191775832|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|=|0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.8|=0.0074
95870091|NCT05772702|191696413|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||DASS-42 STRESS SUBSCORES were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 DASS-42 surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870092|NCT05772702|191696414|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Mauchly's test of sphericity determined the sphericity assumption was violated, so Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied.||STAI scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 STAI surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||0.021
95870093|NCT05772702|191696415|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||QIDS scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 QIDS surveys were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU1 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870094|NCT05772702|191696416|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.|||||<|0.0005|||||||ANOVA|||CGI severity scores were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA to measure change from baseline over time. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D1 = D5 = FU2||||<0.0005
95870095|NCT05772702|191696416|OTHER|This was a single-arm, open-label trial. Reported statistics reflect changes from baseline levels.||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||CGI improvement scores were submitted to a paired t-test to measure difference between the improvement assessment on D5 and the assessment at FU2. Note: D5 CGI assessments were completed prior to receiving the final treatment on D5. Null hypothesis: D5 = FU2||||0.006
95870096|NCT02582255|191696425|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
95870097|NCT02582255|191696426|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
95870098|NCT02582255|191696427|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.025
95870099|NCT02582255|191696428|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Clopper-Pearson|||||||0.05
95870100|NCT03052764|191696429|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.46|||ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-3.68|<.0001
95870101|NCT03052764|191696430|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.37|||||Values obtained were from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes)at each scheduled visit.|||50.37|0.75|
95870102|NCT03052764|191696431|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.534|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-3.30|<.0001
95870103|NCT03052764|191696432|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-3.73|<.0001
95870104|NCT03052764|191696433|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-1.09|0.0004
95870105|NCT03052764|191696434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|52.57|||||Values were obtained from a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the number of UUI episodes reported at Baseline (\<= 9 versus \> 9 daily episodes) at each scheduled visit.|||52.57|3.23|
95870106|NCT01314911|191696435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z-test, 2-sided|Comparison of randomized arms was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent detectable in the Placebo arm.|Assuming that pooled percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR at Day 3 is 50%, assuming that the Oseltamivir arm was better than the placebo arm and that the detectable rate in the Oseltamivir arm was 42.5% compared to 57.5% in the placebo arm (a 15% reduction), and assuming 10% subjects with missing qPCR at Day 3, in a two-sided, two-sample 0.05-level t- test with 546 participants combined across both arms, there was 90% power.||-3.0|-21.4|0.0097
95870107|NCT01314911|191696438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0243||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0243
95870108|NCT01314911|191696439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.41
95870109|NCT01314911|191696440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.88
95870110|NCT01314911|191696441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7461||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.7461
95870111|NCT01314911|191696442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1501||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.1501
95870112|NCT01314911|191696443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.3025
95870113|NCT01314911|191696444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5466||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Log Rank|||||||0.5466
95870114|NCT01314911|191696446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|two-sample binomial exact test|The two-sample binomial exact test was performed in PROC STATXACT.|The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|||3.0|-1.4|0.5311
95870115|NCT01314911|191696447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent in the placebo arm.|This test compared the difference in percentages of participants with at least one complication between two randomized arms.||4.7|-3.8|0.8498
95870116|NCT01314911|191696449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-5.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Z test||||The difference in percents was calculated as the percent with detectable in the Oseltamivir arm minus the percent with detectable in the placebo arm.|-5.1|-22.2|0.0021
95870117|NCT01314911|191696452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95870118|NCT00472459|191696470|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.514||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.911|||t-test, 2 sided||The 95 % confidence intervals for the lesion complete response rates and lesion recurrence rates were estimated using the method of Clopper and Pearson.|||0.911|0.116|0.0120
95870119|NCT00472459|191696471|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.413||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.016|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.016|-0.190|0.1761
95870120|NCT00472459|191696472|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|1.357|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.357|-0.156|0.1183
95870121|NCT00472459|191696473|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|1.309|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.309|-0.323|0.2322
95870122|NCT00472459|191696474|NON_INFERIORITY|Participant's number of new skin lesions between treated and contralateral control area were evaluated using a paired t-test for lesions of any type as well as stratified by lesion type.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|1.562|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.562|-0.202|0.1286
95870123|NCT04103346|191696486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.588|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.588
95870124|NCT04103346|191696487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.748
95870125|NCT04103346|191696488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
95870126|NCT04103346|191696489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||0.0764
95870127|NCT04103346|191696490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Effects Model|||||||<0.001
95908922|NCT03492281|191775833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||6.0|1.2|=0.0039
95870128|NCT05380180|191696495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
95870129|NCT05380180|191696496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
95870130|NCT05380180|191696497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
95870131|NCT05380180|191696498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
95870132|NCT05380180|191696499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We implemented an intent-to-treat analysis, including all participants who were randomized in the analysis, regardless of their participation status. To analyze the main effects of the intervention, we conducted linear mixed-effects model. Fixed factors included time of assessment (baseline/Week 4/Week 8) and group (intervention/waitlist control). Participant was included as a random intercept to account for individual variability at baseline.||||<.05
95870133|NCT04831216|191696503|OTHER|||||||0.0107||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HbA1c from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0107
95870134|NCT04831216|191696504|OTHER|||||||0.7927||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in skin carotenoid levels from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.7927
95870135|NCT04831216|191696505|OTHER|||||||0.4651||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in HEI score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.4651
95870136|NCT04831216|191696506|OTHER|||||||0.2439||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in BMI from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2439
95870137|NCT04831216|191696508|OTHER|||||||0.6794||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in DMSES scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.6794
95908923|NCT03492281|191775833|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||5.7|0.5|=0.0210
95908924|NCT03492281|191775834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||28.1|14.3|<0.0001
95870138|NCT04831216|191696509|OTHER|||||||0.1043||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in oral health behavior from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Cumulative logit mixed effects model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Cumulative logit mixed effects model (using PROC GLIMMIX) for repeated measures used all available participant data. This model is specifically designed for ordinal outcomes. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.1043
95870139|NCT04831216|191696510|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in PAID-5 scale score from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
95870140|NCT04831216|191696512|OTHER|||||||0.5332||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in number of visits to food pantries in the past 30 days from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.5332
95870141|NCT04831216|191696513|OTHER|||||||0.0468||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in ARMS-D scale scores from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0468
95870142|NCT04831216|191696516|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following general healthful diet from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||<0.0001
95870143|NCT04831216|191696517|OTHER|||||||0.0649||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week following specific diet recommendations from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0649
95870144|NCT04831216|191696518|OTHER|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week engaging in exercise from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0049
95870145|NCT04831216|191696519|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducted blood glucose testing from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0086
95870146|NCT04831216|191696520|OTHER|||||||0.0243||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week conducting food checks from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.0243
95870147|NCT04831216|191696521|OTHER|||||||0.2861||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in smoking status (yes/no) from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.2861
95870148|NCT04831216|191696522|OTHER|||||||0.9933||||||The p-value reflects results of analysis of change in days per week adhering to prescribed medications from baseline to post-intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects regression model included time, age, household size, gender, race, education, and employment.||Linear mixed effects regression model for repeated measures used all available participant data. Analyses do not include imputed missing values.||||0.9933
95870149|NCT00708201|191696530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|2.311|||Wald's Chi-Square|||||2.311|1.359|<0.0001
95870150|NCT00708201|191696531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-11.5|||Log Rank|||||-11.5|-37.8|<0.001
95870151|NCT00708201|191696532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-9.9|||Log Rank|||||-9.9|-35.0|<0.001
95870152|NCT00708201|191696533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95870153|NCT00708201|191696534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.71|||Fisher Exact||This is the relative risk for being a responder (alvimopan/placebo).|||1.71|1.12|<0.01
95870154|NCT00708201|191696535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-20.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for overall POM is presented.||||<0.001
95870155|NCT00708201|191696536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|27.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
95870156|NCT00708201|191696537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo|Statistical analysis for day of surgery (Day 0) through PSD 7 is presented.||||<0.0001
95870157|NCT00708201|191696538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-6.94||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|0.62|||Fisher Exact||Percent difference = alvimopan - placebo.|||0.62|-14.5|0.0946
95870158|NCT02915874|191696549|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95870159|NCT02915874|191696550|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95870160|NCT02915874|191696551|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95870161|NCT02915874|191696552|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95870162|NCT02915874|191696553|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95870163|NCT02915874|191696554|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
95870164|NCT02915874|191696555|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95870165|NCT01293799|191696591|SUPERIORITY|Patients who stopped PD treatment due to causes other than peritonitis were managed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients were censored when the PD treatment was stopped.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|Log-rank follow-up was used to compare the peritonitis-free survival curves in the two arms.|Hazard ratio was the ratio between the hazard rate of the retraining group (nominator) and the hazard rate of the control group (denominator).|Time to the first peritonitis episode was analyzed as the cumulative time without peritonitis (peritonitis-free survival) using the Cox proportional hazards regression model from which unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Actuarial survival curves showing proportions of of peritonitis-free participants over time in the two groups were estimated by means of the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank follow-up was used to compare the two peritonitis-free survival curves.||1.19|0.71|0.51
95870166|NCT01293799|191696592|OTHER|The number of peritonitis events between the two groups was tested by assuming a Poisson distribution of the number of events per follow-up time, log (follow-up time) as offset time, by using generalized linear models.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Generalized linear methods||In calculation of the Risk Ratio, data for the Retraining group represents the nominator and data for the Control group represents the denominator.|||1.19|0.70|0.51
95870167|NCT01293799|191696593|OTHER|The number of recurrent peritonitis events between the two groups was tested by assuming a Poisson distribution of the number of events per follow-up time, log (follow-up time) as offset time, by using generalized linear models.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value \<0.05 was significant.|Generalized linear methods|The analysis includes all peritonitis events in the study.|In the calculation of the relative risk, data for the retraining group represents the nominator and data for the control group represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.75|0.54
95870168|NCT01293799|191696594|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using the backward elimination procedure, stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.27||Unit of measure: Age (hazard ratio per 10 years). The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Regression, Cox|The association of a age (HR per 10 years) and time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression.||The association of age and time to first peritonitis episode is analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.27|1.04|0.0052
95870169|NCT01293799|191696594|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.29||Unit of measure: Age (hazard ratio per 10 years) and time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable Cox regression. The threshold for statistical significance was P = 005.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode (see statistical analysis 1). Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.29|1.05|0.0041
95870170|NCT01293799|191696595|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using the backward elimination procedure, stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.66||Unit of measure: Gender (male vs. female). P \<0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression was used.||The association of gender (male vs. female) and time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression.||1.66|0.93|0.13
95870171|NCT01293799|191696596|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.21||Unit of measure: Body weight (hazard ratio per 10 kg). The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression was used.||The association of body weight (HR per 10 kg) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 1) and multivariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 2)||1.21|1.03|0.0068
95870172|NCT01293799|191696596|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.19||Unit of measure: Body weight (hazard ratio per 10 kg). P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||The association of body weight (HR per 10 kg) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 1) and multivariable Cox regression (Statistical analysis 2)||1.19|1.01|0.03
95870173|NCT01293799|191696597|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.38||Unit of measure: Body mass index (hazard ratio per 5 kg/m2). P \< 0,05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression.||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.38|1.04|0.012
95870174|NCT01293799|191696598|OTHER|The association of factors associated with time to first peritonitis was analysed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model. Subjects were censored for various reasons to leave the study. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with with time to first peritonitis episode.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||Unit of measure: Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.25|0.66|0.56
95870175|NCT01293799|191696599|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.42||Unit of measure: Glomerulonephritis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Glomerulonephritis as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.42|0.78|0.74
95870176|NCT01293799|191696600|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15||Unit of measure: Tubulointerstitial nephritis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Tubulointerstitial Nephritis as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.15|0.73|0.42
95870177|NCT01293799|191696601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.97||Unit of measure: Polycystic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox regression||"The association of Diabetic nephropathy as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||0.97|0.33|0.038
95870178|NCT01293799|191696602|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|13.68||Unit of measure: Ischemic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Ischemic kidney disease as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||13.68|0.27|0.52
95870179|NCT01293799|191696603|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.71||Unit of measure: Nephrosclerosis/Hypertension as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Nephrosclerosis/Hypertension as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.71|0.93|0.13
95870180|NCT01293799|191696604|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45||"Unit of measure: Other Diagnosis as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Other Diagnosis as primary cause of kidney failure (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.45|0.58|0.71
95870181|NCT01293799|191696605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.91||Unit of measure: Unknown cause as primary cause of kidney failure vs. all other causes. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Unknown Primary Cause of Kidney Failure as primary cause of kidney failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.91|0.57|0.89
95870182|NCT01293799|191696606|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||Unit of measure: Comorbidity at PD start according to Stoke comorbidity score (1-2 vs. 0) i.e. 1-2 comorbidities vs. no comorbidity. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Comorbidity according to Stoke comorbidity score with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.53|0.88|0.28
95908925|NCT03492281|191775834|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|20.7||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||20.7|5.9|<0.001
95870183|NCT01293799|191696606|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.45||Unit of measure: Comorbidity at PD start according to Stoke comorbidity score (\>2 vs. 0) i.e. more than 2 comorbidities vs. no comorbidity. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Comorbidity according to Stoke comorbidity score with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.45|0.68|0.44
95870184|NCT01293799|191696607|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.87||Unit of measure: Ischemic heart disease as comorbidity at baseline (yes vs. no). P \< 0.5 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Ischemic Heart Disease as Comorbidity with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.87|0.97|0.07
95870185|NCT01293799|191696608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.63||"Unit of measure: Peripheral vascular disease or stroke as comorbidity at PD start (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Peripheral Vascular Disease or Stroke as Comorbidity with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.63|0.69|0.80
95870186|NCT01293799|191696609|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77||"Unit of measure: Left ventricular dysfunction as comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 is significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Left ventricular dysfunction as comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.77|0.75|0.53
95870187|NCT01293799|191696610|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.22||"Unit of measure: Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.22|0.93|0.099
95870188|NCT01293799|191696611|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.32||"Unit of measure: System Collagen Vascular Disease as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of System Collagen Vascular Disease as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.32|0.29|0.22
95870189|NCT01293799|191696612|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.46||"Unit of measure: Other Significant Pathology as Comorbidity (yes vs. no). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Other Significant Pathology as Comorbidity (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.46|0.61|0.79
95870190|NCT01293799|191696613|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||"Unit of measure: Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity or Main Cause of Kidney Failure (yes vs. no. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significantly significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Diabetes Mellitus as Comorbidity or Main Cause of Kidney Failure with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.40|0.80|0.69
95870191|NCT01293799|191696614|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||"Unit of measure: Previous Kidney Replacement Therapy (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Previous Kidney Replacement Therapy (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.42|0.74|0.86
95870192|NCT01293799|191696615|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Scores from 100 (Normal, no complaints) to 0 = (dead). 90 = Able to carry on normal activity. 80 = Normal activity with effort.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.01|0.98|0.60
95870193|NCT01293799|191696615|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.57||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score 80 - 90 vs. 100). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale (see Statistical analysis 1). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score 80 - 90 vs. 100) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.57|0.81|0.48
95870194|NCT01293799|191696615|OTHER|Univariable Cox regression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85||Unit of measure: Functional status (Karnofsky score \< 80 vs. 100). Functional status was estimated by the Karnofsky Performance Scale (see Statistical analysis 1). P \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||"The association of Functional status (Karnofsky score \< 80 vs. 100) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.85|0.69|0.63
95870195|NCT01293799|191696616|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.53||Unit of measure: Visual impairment (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||"The association of the Social Factor Visual Impairment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.53|0.54|0.71
95870196|NCT01293799|191696617|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.06||"Unit of measure: Impaired Hand Function (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Impaired Hand Function (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||2.06|0.80|0.29
95870197|NCT01293799|191696618|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93||"Units of measure: Working full or part time (yes vs no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Working Full or Part Time (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||0.93|0.50|0.016
95870198|NCT01293799|191696619|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.73||"Unit of measure: Retired (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of being retired (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found."||1.73|1.01|0.041
95870199|NCT01293799|191696620|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76||"Unit of measure: Living alone (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Living alone (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.76|0.98|0.064
95870200|NCT01293799|191696621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.29||"Unit of measure: Need for translation/interpreter (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Need for translation/interpreter with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.29|0.18|0.14
95870201|NCT01293799|191696622|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||"Unit of measure: Current smoking (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Current smoking (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.65|0.75|0.60
95870202|NCT01293799|191696623|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02||"Unit of measure: Serum creatinine (HR per 100 micromol/L. P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Serum creatinine (Hazard ratio per 100 micromol/L with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.02|0.90|0.18
95908926|NCT03492281|191775835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
95870203|NCT01293799|191696624|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||Unit of measure: Serum urea (Hazard ratio per 5 mmol/L). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Serum urea (Hazard ratio per 5 mmol/l) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.04|0.90|0.34
95870204|NCT01293799|191696625|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (Hazard ratio per 5g/L). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||The association of Serum albumin (Hazard ratio per 5 g/L) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||0.98|0.79|0.019
95870205|NCT01293799|191696626|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.82||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/L or more). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||Analysis of the association of serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/l or more) with time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.82|1.08|0.013
95870206|NCT01293799|191696626|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.82||Unit of measure: Serum albumin (\<35 g/l vs. 35 g/l or more). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable Cox regression||Analysis of the association of serum albumin (\<35 g/L vs. 35 g/L or more) with time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable Cox regression.||1.82|1.06|0.015
95965705|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.045||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.87|-8.98|0.0178
95965706|NCT02942004|191902780|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|0.41|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-7.43|0.0786
95965707|NCT02942004|191902781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|17.4|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.4|1.7|0.0052
95965708|NCT02942004|191902781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.9|1.0|0.0493
95965709|NCT02942004|191902781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.5|1.0|0.0572
95965710|NCT02942004|191902781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.0|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.0|0.5|0.6768
95965711|NCT02942004|191902781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|16.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||16.8|1.7|0.0035
95965712|NCT02942004|191902781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.8|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.8|1.1|0.0347
95965713|NCT02942004|191902782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|17.8|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||17.8|2.1|0.0011
95965714|NCT02942004|191902782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||7.6|0.9|0.0828
95870207|NCT01293799|191696627|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17||Unit of measure: Haemoglobin (HR per 10 g/L). P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||The association of Haemoglobin (Hazard ratio per 10 g/L) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression.||2.17|0.27|0.61
95870208|NCT01293799|191696628|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.23||"Unit of measure. The time-dependent variable Corticosteroid treatment (yes vs. no). Time-updated data were used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant."|Regression, Cox|Time-dependent univariable Cox regression||"The association of the time-dependent variable Corticosteroid treatment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by time-dependent univariable Cox regression."||1.23|0.54|0.33
95965715|NCT02942004|191902782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.1|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||3.1|0.4|0.7749
95965716|NCT02942004|191902782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||1.7|0.2|0.3401
95965717|NCT02942004|191902782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||6.0|0.8|0.1052
95965718|NCT02942004|191902782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.3507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.2|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||4.2|0.6|0.3507
95965719|NCT02942004|191902783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.58|-3.56|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-3.56|-20.58|0.0058
95965720|NCT02942004|191902783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.188||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.19|2.41|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||2.41|-14.19|0.1622
95965721|NCT02942004|191902783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|-0.16|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-18.02|0.0462
95965722|NCT02942004|191902783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.49|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||6.49|-10.97|0.6124
95965723|NCT02942004|191902783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.556||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.71|-2.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||-2.66|-20.71|0.0116
95870209|NCT01293799|191696629|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.84||Unit of measure: Cytotoxic treatment (yes vs. no). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Time-updated univariable Cox regression||"The association of the time-dependent variable Cytotoxic treatment (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable time-dependent Cox regression."||1.84|0.70|0.60
95870210|NCT01293799|191696630|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.57||Unit of measure: Type of PD start (planned vs. acute). P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Type of PD start with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.57|0.73|0.72
95870211|NCT01293799|191696631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.76||Unit of measure: Antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion (yes vs. no). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Antibiotics prior to PD catheter insertion (yes vs. no) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.76|0.66|0.77
95870212|NCT01293799|191696632|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||Unit of measure: Type of PD-catheter (straight vs. coiled). P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable Cox regression||"The association of Type of PD catheter used (straight vs. coiled) with time to first peritonitis episode was analysed by univariable Cox regression."||1.28|0.68|0.68
95870213|NCT01293799|191696633|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.66||Unit of measure: PD modality (CAPD, continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis vs. APD, automated peritoneal dialysis). Time-updated data were used. P-value \< 0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||The PD modality (CAPD or APD) may vary with time and is thus time-dependent. Data were included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the procedure was found.||1.66|0.96|0.10
95870214|NCT01293799|191696634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.57||Unit of measure: Number of PD bags used/24h. Time-updated data was used. P-value \<0.05 was regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression. (The result of multivariable Cox regression is presented in Statistical analysis 2)||The data regarding the number of PD bags used/24h were included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported.||1.57|1.17|< 0.0001
95870215|NCT01293799|191696634|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.54||Unit of measure: Number of PD bags used /24h. Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|Multivariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Analysis of the association of Number of PD bags used per 24 hours with time to first peritonitis episode by multivariable time-dependent Cox regression. The multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity among the factors affecting the backward elimination procedure was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported."||1.54|1.13|<0.0005
95870216|NCT01293799|191696635|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08||Unit of measure: Volume of dialysis fluid/24h (L). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Data regarding Volume of dialysis fluid used/24h was included as time-varying covariates in a time-dependent Cox regression. Univariable Cox regression was used to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. Multivariable Cox regression was performed using a backward elimination procedure stopping when all remaining factors were significant at p \< 0.05. No collinearity was found. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported."||1.08|0.99|0.13
95870217|NCT01293799|191696636|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||Unit of measure: Help needed with exit-site care (yes vs. no). Time-updated data was used. P-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Univariable time-dependent Cox regression||"Data regarding the variable Help needed with exit-site care (yes vs. no) were included as time-varying covariates in a univariable time-dependent Cox regression in order to identify variables significantly associated with time to first peritonitis episode. The risk (hazard ratio) associated with the studied variable is reported.."||1.41|0.77|0.79
95965724|NCT02942004|191902783|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.464||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit as the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables are included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center are treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-17.10|0.0667
95870218|NCT01293799|191696637|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.19||Unit of measure: Study group (retraining group vs. control group). P-value \<0.05 is regarded as significant.|Regression, Cox|||Association ot the Retraining group vs. the Control group with time to first peritonitis episode by univariable Cox regression||1.19|0.71|0.52
95870219|NCT01076075|191696650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
95870220|NCT01076075|191696651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-21.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, difference in the Least Squares Means.||-21.7|-45.3|<0.001
95870221|NCT01076075|191696652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|-10.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model controlling for treatment, stratum (type of sulfonylurea) and baseline value.||Pairwise comparison - Sitagliptin vs. Placebo, using the difference in the Least Squares Means.||-10.7|-26.4|<0.001
95870222|NCT06596005|191696674|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-4.64||The LSM, SE, and difference from placebo with 95% CI and nominal P-value are estimated using MMRM, with baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III scores and L-Dopa use as covariates, and treatment group, visit, and group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||-4.64|-8.09|<0.0001
95870223|NCT06596005|191696674|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.95||The LSM, SE, and difference from placebo with 95% CI and nominal P-value are estimated using MMRM, with baseline MDS-UPDRS Part III scores and L-Dopa use as covariates, and treatment group, visit, and group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|MMRM|||||-4.95|-8.45|<0.0001
95870224|NCT04193410|191696704|OTHER|Linear mixed model analyses assessed longitudinal intervention effects on children's BMI z-score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at T0 (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's weight status at T0 (underweight/normal weight/overweight). This analyses reports T1-T0.||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.210
95870225|NCT04193410|191696704|OTHER|||||||0.793|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses assessed longitudinal intervention effects on children's BMI z-score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at T0 (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's weight status at T0 (underweight/normal weight/overweight). This analyses reports T2-T0.||||0.793
95870226|NCT04193410|191696705|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.444
95870227|NCT04193410|191696705|OTHER|||||||0.863|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.863
95870228|NCT04193410|191696706|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's PA score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.053
95870229|NCT04193410|191696706|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's PA score. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.209
95965725|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.9681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.39|0.9681
95965726|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.28|0.6337
95870230|NCT04193410|191696707|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's waist circumference. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.003
95870231|NCT04193410|191696707|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's waist circumference. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||<0.001
95870232|NCT04193410|191696708|OTHER|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.815
95870233|NCT04193410|191696708|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.418
95870234|NCT04193410|191696709|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.307
95870235|NCT04193410|191696709|OTHER|||||||0.263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. This analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.263
95870236|NCT04193410|191696710|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.249
95870237|NCT04193410|191696710|OTHER|||||||0.803|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.803
95870238|NCT04193410|191696711|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.073
95870239|NCT04193410|191696711|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.658
95870240|NCT04193410|191696712|OTHER|||||||0.742|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.742
95908927|NCT03492281|191775835|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|=|0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1|||MMRM|||||5.1|0.6|=0.0114
95908928|NCT03492281|191775836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.6||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-4.6|-9.2|<0.0001
95908929|NCT03492281|191775836|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.2||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-2.2|-7.1|<0.001
95908930|NCT03492281|191775837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|18.1||CMH=Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.1|6.7|<0.0001
95870241|NCT04193410|191696712|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.370
95870242|NCT04193410|191696713|OTHER|||||||0.483|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.483
95870243|NCT04193410|191696713|OTHER|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.626
95870244|NCT04193410|191696714|OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.771
95870245|NCT04193410|191696714|OTHER|||||||0.861|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.861
95870246|NCT04193410|191696715|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.766
95870247|NCT04193410|191696715|OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T2-T0.||||0.995
95870248|NCT04193410|191696716|OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.437
95870249|NCT04193410|191696716|OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Logistic mixed model analyses were used to assess longitudinal intervention effects on children's binary dietary behaviours. A two-level model with measurements as first level and participants as second level was used. The model's fixed part consisted of group (medium/low implementers), time (T0/T1/T2), interaction term of group with time, and covariates sex (boy/girl), study year at baseline (four/five/six), SES (low/middle/high), and children's BMI z-score at baseline. Analysis reports T1-T0.||||0.798
95870250|NCT02387476|191696727|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.9||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean AHI is rounded to a single decimal point in the text of the report (3.0 and 2.4, respectively), in order to be consistent with standard reporting of AHI.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||2.9|-1.7|<0.001
95965727|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.64|0.4690
95870251|NCT02387476|191696728|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||The p-value to test non-inferiority of FRESCA Mask compared with CPAP Mask (FRESCA-CPAP\<5 units) assumes a 1-sided test using a level of significance of 2.5% and NI margin of 5 units.|t-test, 1 sided||The mean ODI values are rounded to a single decimal point value in the text of the table (1.4 and 1.1, respectively) to ensure consistency with ODI reporting standards.|This analysis was planned to assume a non-inferiority (NI) margin of 5 units and a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was also planned to be provided around the difference between treatments, where non-inferiority would also be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 95% CI is less than or equal to the NI margin of 5 units. In this scenario, the 2-sided 95% CI equates to testing the 1-sided non-inferiority hypothesis.||1.0|-0.4|<0.001
95870252|NCT02616562|191696745|OTHER||Estimated Treatment difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.76||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.04 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||-1.76|-5.57|
95870253|NCT02616562|191696745|OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.32||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.08 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||1.32|-2.41|
95870254|NCT02616562|191696745|OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.56||||||The primary analysis tested the estimated treatment difference in HV after 26 weeks of treatment between once-weekly somapacitan 0.16 mg/kg and daily dosing of norditropin 0.034 mg/kg. It was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements, with treatment, age group, sex, region and sex by age group interaction as factors and height at baseline as a covariate, all nested within week as a factor.||3.56|-0.22|
95870255|NCT05169567|191696816|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.57|0.02
95870256|NCT04576455|191696838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.10|0.60|0.1757
95870257|NCT04576455|191696839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.6|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.60|0.85|0.3446
95870258|NCT04576455|191696840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||4.07|0.86|0.1126
95870259|NCT04576455|191696840|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|12.78|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||12.78|-1.97|
95870260|NCT04576455|191696842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||3.04|1.06|0.0289
95870261|NCT04576455|191696842|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rates|10.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|20.86|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||20.86|0.33|
95870262|NCT04576455|191696843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 mutation detected at baseline||1.03|0.35|0.0610
95870263|NCT04576455|191696843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.5947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis (strata are: site of disease, prior CDK4/6i treatment, and prior fulvestrant treatment).|Giredestrant vs. PCET|This statistical analysis is done for PFS by ESR1 Mutation not detected at baseline||1.42|0.54|0.5947
95870264|NCT04576455|191696844|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.40|0.58|
95870265|NCT04576455|191696845|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.12|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.12|0.49|
95870266|NCT04576455|191696846|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.35|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.35|0.53|
95870267|NCT04576455|191696847|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.69|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.69|0.72|
95870268|NCT04576455|191696848|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||||Giredestrant vs. PCET|||1.18|0.47|
95870269|NCT04449055|191696854|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|1.8311||||0.176|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test||||0.1760
95870270|NCT04449055|191696855|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|0.8||||0.3711|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank||Median and mean survival times were not estimable due to the small number of dropouts. Thus, we reported the proportion remaining in treatment at 18 days as the descriptive summary measure.|The null hypothesis is that time to discontinuation of psychosocial treatment is not different between groups.||||0.3711
95870271|NCT04449055|191696855|SUPERIORITY||chi-square|0.8||||0.3711|||||||Log Rank|||This test compared time to discontinuation of psychosocial treatment between groups||||0.3711
95870272|NCT04449055|191696856|SUPERIORITY|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing changes in temporal correlations between intervention groups.|Difference in median change|-0.711789||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first group minus the median change from baseline to 4-weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.1333
95870273|NCT04449055|191696857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in median change|0.2729394||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test of comparing changes in correlations between intervention groups.|Reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first group minus median change for from baseline to 4-weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.1333
95870274|NCT04449055|191696858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in median change|0.2676718||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank-sum test comparing changes in functional connectivity from baseline to 4 weeks between intervention groups.|Reported as difference in median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the MPFC first minus the median change from baseline to 4 weeks for the DPFC first group.|||||0.2667
95870275|NCT04449055|191696859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0972||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction, with time as second measure date|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the adjusted difference in mean for mPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.6829
95870276|NCT04449055|191696860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1018||0.7654|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction p-value, with time as second (last) measure date|Mixed Models Analysis||This is the adjusted difference in mean for MPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.7654
95870277|NCT04449055|191696861|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.007388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06256||0.907|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in slope for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9070
95870278|NCT04449055|191696862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747||0.1427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.2559||Based on group x continuous time interaction in generalized estimating equation logistic regression model clustered on subject. This is like a mixed model but uses empirical standard error estimates that are independent of covariance structure.|GEE logistic regression clustered on ID||Difference in change in log odds of positive UA for stimulant for MPFC first versus DPFC first. Estimated change in log odds per day in the study.|||0.2559|-0.0369|0.1427
95870279|NCT04449055|191696863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02964||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the difference in slope for MPFC first relative to DPFC first.|||||0.3917
95870280|NCT04449055|191696864|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01948||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.3829
95870281|NCT04449055|191696865|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7595|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.7595
95870282|NCT04449055|191696866|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.04356|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04804||0.3839|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.3839
95870283|NCT04449055|191696867|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.005445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01642||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in slope of change per day for MPFC first vs. DLPFC first|||||0.7455
95870284|NCT04449055|191696868|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1159||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.0823
95870285|NCT04449055|191696869|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04735|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07382||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.5289
95870286|NCT04449055|191696870|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06359||0.9714|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated difference in change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9714
95870287|NCT04449055|191696871|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1153||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DLPFC first|||||0.2914
95870288|NCT04449055|191696872|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1609|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.0573
95870289|NCT04449055|191696873|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.008267|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08675||0.925|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9250
95870290|NCT04449055|191696874|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02679||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9775
95870291|NCT04449055|191696875|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.002498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02518||0.9211|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.9211
95870292|NCT04449055|191696876|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.2995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4196||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|||||Group by continuous time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in estimated change per day for MPFC first versus DPFC first|||||0.5269
95870293|NCT02477696|191696877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of acalabrutinib was demonstrated if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio was below 1.429.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||||Cox Proportional Hazards model stratified by 17p deletion status (yes versus no) and number of prior therapies (1-3 versus \>=4).|||1.27|0.79|
95870294|NCT06837116|191696896|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test||Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test||||< 0.01
95870295|NCT00076024|191696929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.819|1.867|||Log Rank|One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.||P-value was calculated using one-sided Log rank test, stratified for estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-positive or ER-negative/unknown), prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes or no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.867|0.819|0.156
95870296|NCT00076024|191696930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|17.4||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|31.9|||Fisher Exact|||||31.9|3.0|0.038
95870297|NCT00988325|191696946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median time to cessation of viral sheddi|119.0|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.0|230.0||p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (treatment groups)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Test was used for testing homogeneity of survival curves|Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||230|113|=0.166
95870298|NCT00988325|191696948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Time to Resolution of Fever in Patients|14.5|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.0||The p-value is for the comparison of the age cohorts (not including Total)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Median time was estimated from the Kaplan-Meier curve (unstratified)|||20|12|=0.059
95870299|NCT01155219|191696952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95870300|NCT03150485|191696953|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was established is the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 50%.|Estimated Proportion|77.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.15|90.29|||Agresti-Coull|||The Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions of subjects with less than 2 lens modifications.||90.29|56.15|
95870301|NCT01362595|191697003|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Due to the small sample size, the statistical approach is primarily descriptive in nature.|||
95870302|NCT05803603|191697053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.92|||McNemar|||We recruited 8 homeless individuals and followed them for 12 months. 4 individuals (50%) were housed at 6 months and 3 (37.5) were housed at 12 months.|See results above|10.92|.37|.125
95870303|NCT01850602|191697073|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-Inferiority margin: 1.0 mg/dL~Non-Inferiority was considerd to be confirmed if the upper limit of two-sided confidence interval became 1.0 mg/dL or less."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.63|0.020
95870304|NCT00740051|191697098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.86|-0.29||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-0.29|-0.86|<0.0001
95870305|NCT00740051|191697099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.88|-0.32||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo. The primary analysis performed at the interim was re-run at the end of the study to accommodate changes made to the final study database.||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
95870306|NCT00740051|191697100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0002||95.0|-31.1|-9.9||No adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||-9.9|-31.1|0.0002
95870307|NCT00740051|191697101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.576||||0.0374||95.0|1.057|6.279||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||6.279|1.057|0.0374
95870308|NCT00740051|191697102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.285||||0.1281||95.0|0.71|15.196||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||15.196|0.710|0.1281
95870309|NCT00740051|191697103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.801||||0.0046||95.0|1.374|5.711||No adjustment of p-values|Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin versus Placebo||5.711|1.374|0.0046
95870310|NCT00773838|191697129|OTHER|||||||0.419|||||||Exact Test for Binomial Parameter|||||||0.419
95870311|NCT02502006|191697145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95870312|NCT02502006|191697146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95870313|NCT02502006|191697147|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95870314|NCT02502006|191697148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2217
95870315|NCT02502006|191697149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.77
95870316|NCT02502006|191697149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.18
95870317|NCT02502006|191697150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.57
95870318|NCT02502006|191697150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.07
95870319|NCT02502006|191697151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||0.88
95870320|NCT02502006|191697151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95870321|NCT02522871|191697153|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.132|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.049|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.049||<0.0001
95870322|NCT02522871|191697153|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.145|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.062|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||-0.062||<0.0001
95870323|NCT02522871|191697154|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 1.0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.025|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.025|-0.084|<0.0001
95870324|NCT02522871|191697155|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
95870325|NCT02522871|191697155|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|0.0||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.036|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.036||0.0004
95870326|NCT02522871|191697156|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
95870327|NCT02522871|191697156|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 0.075|Difference of Proportion|-0.001||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.038|||one-sided Farrington and Manning|||||0.038||0.0006
95870328|NCT02398227|191697159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.968
95870329|NCT02398227|191697160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANCOVA|p value reported for overall effect across all-time points between treatment arms||||||.560
95870330|NCT04777331|191697189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.01|0.69|0.0657
95870331|NCT04777331|191697190|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.03|0.66|0.0914
95870332|NCT04777331|191697191|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.05|0.73|0.1574
95870333|NCT04777331|191697192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.01|0.69|0.0622
95870334|NCT04777331|191697193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.17|||Cox-regression adjusted|||||1.17|0.75|0.5515
95870335|NCT04777331|191697194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.05|||Mixed-model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.05|-1.84|0.5944
95870336|NCT04777331|191697195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.08||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.24|||MMRM|||||1.24|-1.08|0.8955
95870337|NCT03149848|191697212|OTHER||Ratio|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.743|0.831||||||||0.831|0.743|
95870338|NCT03149848|191697213|OTHER||Ratio|0.825|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.761|0.895||||||||0.895|0.761|
95870339|NCT03149848|191697214|OTHER||Ratio|0.738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.776||||||||0.776|0.702|
95870340|NCT03149848|191697217|OTHER||Ratio|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.204|1.345||||||||1.345|1.204|
95870341|NCT01892722|191697247|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression model|||||||<0.001
95870342|NCT04445792|191697268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7195
95870343|NCT04445792|191697268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8054
95870344|NCT04445792|191697268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.861
95870345|NCT04445792|191697269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4385
95870346|NCT04445792|191697269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7185
95870347|NCT04445792|191697269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.431
95870348|NCT04445792|191697270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9222
95870349|NCT04445792|191697270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1918
95870350|NCT04445792|191697270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0119
95870351|NCT04445792|191697271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6971
95870352|NCT04445792|191697271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
95870353|NCT04445792|191697271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0441
95870354|NCT04445792|191697272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7988|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7988
95870355|NCT04445792|191697272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0483
95870356|NCT04445792|191697272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0104
95870357|NCT04445792|191697273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
95870358|NCT04445792|191697273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2348
95870359|NCT04445792|191697273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0517
95870360|NCT04445792|191697274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6835|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6835
95870361|NCT04445792|191697274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0205
95870362|NCT04445792|191697274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0036
95870363|NCT04445792|191697275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5878|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5878
95870364|NCT04445792|191697275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1051
95870365|NCT04445792|191697275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0292|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0292
95870366|NCT04445792|191697276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95870367|NCT04445792|191697276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5973
95870368|NCT04445792|191697276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
95870369|NCT02104739|191697278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.27
95870370|NCT02104739|191697278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Saxagliptin at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.59
95870371|NCT02104739|191697278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Placebo at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.51
95870372|NCT02104739|191697278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Non-parametric Wilcoxon paired rank sum|||Exenatide extended-release (ER) at baseline and 2 hours after ingestion of meal is compared.||||0.31
95870373|NCT02104739|191697280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95870374|NCT02104739|191697282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
95870375|NCT02104739|191697282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
95870376|NCT02104739|191697284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
95870377|NCT02104739|191697286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
95870378|NCT02104739|191697286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (2 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours).||||<0.05
95870379|NCT02104739|191697288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
95870380|NCT02104739|191697289|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and saxagliptin over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
95870381|NCT02104739|191697289|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The reported p-value compares exenatide and placebo over all time points (3 hours, 6 hours).||||>0.05
95965728|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.46|0.9905
95965729|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.27|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.68|0.3984
95965730|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.37|0.7042
95965731|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.32|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.66|0.4941
95870382|NCT05217927|191697290|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) Difference|-0.6|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.22|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy), month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.01|-1.22|=0.0220
95965732|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.4572
95965733|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.9866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.47|0.9866
95965734|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.53|0.7490
95965735|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-1.06|0.0235
95870383|NCT05217927|191697290|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.35|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy), month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-1.19|-2.35|<0.0001
95870384|NCT05217927|191697291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.4|||=|0.0966|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.6|17.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation was used.||17.4|-2.6|=0.0966
95870385|NCT05217927|191697291|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.6|34.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation was used.||34.8|14.6|<0.0001
95870386|NCT05217927|191697292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.5314|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.95|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.95|=0.5314
95870387|NCT05217927|191697292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.12|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.71|-2.12|<0.0001
95965736|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.50|0.9286
95870388|NCT05217927|191697293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.84|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.47|-1.84|=0.0002
95870389|NCT05217927|191697293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.78|-1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with the number of total migraine days per month in the OP as a covariate; treatment group, randomization stratum (use of previous prophylactic migraine medication generally considered to have efficacy) month and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-1.46|-2.78|<0.0001
95870390|NCT05217927|191697294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures has treatment group, randomization stratum, month, and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||0.25|-1.20|=0.1440
95870391|NCT05217927|191697294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.97|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures has treatment group, randomization stratum, month, and month-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||-0.65|-1.97|<0.0001
95870392|NCT05217927|191697295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|||=|0.2029|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.84|6.66|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model with treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate for participants with non-missing domain scores at both baseline and Week 12.||6.66|-1.84|=0.2029
95870393|NCT05217927|191697295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.71|14.52|||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression model with treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate for participants with non-missing domain scores at both baseline and Week 12.||14.52|5.71|<0.0001
95870394|NCT00902161|191697317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Treatment Difference|32.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|49.0||There was only 1 primary hypothesis, so no multiplicity adjustment was required.|A linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis that the difference on Rt(65) between the \[MK-0893 1g + Propranolol\] vs. \[PBO + Propranolol\] \>=60 min. If p-value \< 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected at the significance level of 0.05, thus supporting the primary hypothesis that the treatment difference is less than 60 minutes.||49|15|0.005
95870395|NCT04243421|191697332|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
95870396|NCT04243421|191697333|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95870397|NCT04243421|191697333|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0034
95870398|NCT04243421|191697334|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95870399|NCT04123665|191697339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment group and gender, and the baseline whole mouth mean BI and whole mouth MGI as covariates.|Difference is first named treatment (experimental) minus second named treatment (control).|||-0.04|-0.11|<0.0001
95870400|NCT03228420|191697363|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided alpha level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95965737|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.01|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.99|0.0544
95965738|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.74|0.2903
95870401|NCT01083173|191697376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 24 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
95870402|NCT01083173|191697376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks as compared to baseline||||< 0.0001
95870403|NCT05454657|191697406|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs control on negative affect, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean negative affect that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of negative affect. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily negative affect.||-.008|-.015|<.05
95870404|NCT05454657|191697407|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|0.857|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on positive affect, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean positive affect that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of positive affect. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily positive affect.||.857|-.677|<.05
95870405|NCT05454657|191697408|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis||Cross-level interaction effect of Study Day X Treatment Group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on craving, a multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted mean craving that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of craving. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily craving.||-.014|-.026|<.05
95870406|NCT05454657|191697409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|0.543||95% Bayesian Credible Intervals Intervals are used to determine significance, and significance is represented by credible intervals that do not include 0 or 1.00 when odds ratios are calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis||Main effect of treatment group|To test the effect of HRVB vs. control on AOD use A Bayesian logistic multilevel model was estimated where study day predicted AOD use that same day (L1; within-person), while controlling for day-of-the-week. At Level 2 (between-person), treatment condition and sex were included as predictors of AOD use. The focal effects were the main effect of treatment condition (L2) and cross-level interactions between study day (L1) and treatment condition (L2) predicting daily AOD use.||0.543|0.245|<0.05
95870407|NCT05454657|191697410|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sample t test with unequal variances|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.07|5.13|||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances were specified as part of the model.||Two-sample t test with unequal variances||5.13|-8.07|.660
95870408|NCT04190680|191697415|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after the evaluation lesson).||||0.001
95870409|NCT04190680|191697415|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after the evaluation lesson).||||0.31
95870410|NCT04190680|191697416|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.55
95870411|NCT04190680|191697416|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.33
95870412|NCT04190680|191697417|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.004
95870413|NCT04190680|191697417|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.84
95870414|NCT04190680|191697418|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.002
95870415|NCT04190680|191697418|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.16
95870416|NCT04190680|191697419|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T1 (directly after evaluation lesson).||||0.01
95870417|NCT04190680|191697419|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Linear|A three-level linear mixed model analysis, with classes as third level, participants as second level, and measurements as first level, was used.||Statistical analysis at T2 (three months after evaluation lesson).||||0.19
95870418|NCT04626310|191697425|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.8
95870419|NCT04626310|191697425|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.544
95965739|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.19|0.0044
95965740|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.83|0.1339
95965741|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-1.04|0.0149
95870420|NCT04626310|191697425|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.442
95870421|NCT04626310|191697426|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.09
95870422|NCT04626310|191697426|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
95870423|NCT04626310|191697426|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|1.851|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Linear Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
95870424|NCT04626310|191697426|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
95870425|NCT04626310|191697426|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
95870426|NCT04626310|191697426|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
95870427|NCT04626310|191697427|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.475
95965742|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3213
95870428|NCT04626310|191697427|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.654
95870429|NCT04626310|191697427|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The slopes of the difference between neutral and negative-maintain were regressed on time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) and calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.791
95870430|NCT04626310|191697428|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.001
95870431|NCT04626310|191697428|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.078
95870432|NCT04626310|191697428|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. We examined the effect of Negative Decrease vs. Negative Maintain over time per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.080
95870433|NCT04626310|191697429|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff DBT-ER-IP|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.13
95870434|NCT04626310|191697429|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.046
95870435|NCT04626310|191697429|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. The Negative x Novel x time (weeks, centered around the start of treatment) slopes were calculated per condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.617
95870436|NCT04626310|191697430|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.005
95870437|NCT04626310|191697430|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.281
95870438|NCT04626310|191697430|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of change in this interaction effect were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.066
95870439|NCT04626310|191697431|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-IP|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.108
95870440|NCT04626310|191697431|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.014
95870441|NCT04626310|191697431|SUPERIORITY||Linear slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.631||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. neutral images on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.001
95870442|NCT04626310|191697432|OTHER||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-IP|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.211|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.211
95870443|NCT04626310|191697432|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.148|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.148
95870444|NCT04626310|191697432|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.857|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of the effect of negative maintain vs. negative decrease on weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.857
95870445|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-ER-IP|-0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.794||0.693|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.693
95870446|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DSS DBT-IE-IP|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.998|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.998
95870447|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DSS DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DSS over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.680
95870448|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Difference in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-ER to IP.||||.333
95870449|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to IP.||||.632
95870450|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared DBT-IE to DBT-ER.||||.178
95870451|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-IP|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to IP.||||.689
95870452|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-IE-IP|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.917|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-IE to IP.||||.917
95870453|NCT04626310|191697433|SUPERIORITY||Linear Slope Diff in DC2 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC2 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the slope differences DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.603
95870454|NCT04626310|191697434|SUPERIORITY||Other[Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-IP]|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.762|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.762
95870455|NCT04626310|191697434|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-IE-IP|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.478
95870456|NCT04626310|191697434|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.705|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. DBT-IE) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.705
95870457|NCT04626310|191697435|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-IP|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-ER vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.93
95870458|NCT04626310|191697435|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-IE-IP|-0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.836
95870459|NCT04626310|191697435|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope difference DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of Quadratic Slopes (DBT-IE vs. IP) in latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) with quadratic effects.||||.994
95870460|NCT04626310|191697436|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-IP|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to IP.||||.313
95870461|NCT04626310|191697436|SUPERIORITY||Quad Slope in DC1 DBT-IE-IP|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-IE to IP.||||.747
95870462|NCT04626310|191697436|SUPERIORITY||Quad slope diff in DC1 DBT-ER-DBT-IE|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Latent growth curve models (in multilevel/mixed effects framework, Mplus v8.1) were estimated with maximum likelihood. Simple slopes of DC1 over weeks were calculated for each condition. Models tested whether these slopes differed by condition. This test compared the quadratic effects differed DBT-ER to DBT-IE.||||.444
95870463|NCT03780400|191697437|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.5145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5145
95870464|NCT03780400|191697438|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.3683|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3683
95870465|NCT03780400|191697439|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up||||||0.9858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9858
95870466|NCT03780400|191697440|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95870467|NCT03780400|191697441|OTHER|test for within group change from baseline to 4 month follow-up|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95870468|NCT03977454|191697446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary endpoint was a comparison between groups at 24 hours.||||0.69
95870469|NCT03977454|191697447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 days post operation.||||0.92
95870470|NCT03977454|191697448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95870471|NCT03977454|191697450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores were compared at 2 weeks.||||0.85
95870472|NCT00930982|191697451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least square means|-2.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.674|<|0.001||||||p-value should be \< 0.023 (one-sided) for a significant result as an interim analysis was performed. Results based on the no-interaction model which was defined as primary analysis.|ANCOVA|Baseline cfu was covariate, treatment and pooled centers factors. As the p-value for interaction was 0.214, the no-interaction model is appropriate.|Least square mean Ciprofloxacin minus placebo|"Ho: CFU(EOT\|Cipro) - CFU(baseline\|Cipro) \> CFU(EOT\|Placebo) - CFU(baseline\|Placebo) CFU = colony forming units EOT=End of treatment (Day 29) Sample size was based a difference of 1.2 log10 CFU/g between placebo and Ciprofloxacin and a standard deviation of 2 log10 CFU/g"||||< 0.001
95870473|NCT00518973|191697466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||t = 2.8|t-test, 2 sided|Hours occupied by preoccupations.||||||.15
95870474|NCT00518973|191697466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .56|t-test, 2 sided|Hours of rituals||||||.40
95870475|NCT00518973|191697467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||t = .13|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.72
95870476|NCT00518973|191697468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||t = .52|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for Trait||||||.48
95870477|NCT00518973|191697468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||t = .09|t-test, 2 sided|Reporting for State||||||.77
95870478|NCT00518973|191697469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||t = .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.83
95870479|NCT00518973|191697470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||t = .78|t-test, 2 sided|Positive Scale||||||.40
95870480|NCT00518973|191697470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||t=3.0|t-test, 2 sided|Negative Scale||||||.11
95870481|NCT00518973|191697470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||t = .02|t-test, 2 sided|General Scale||||||.90
95870482|NCT01923168|191697489|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|1.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||1.7|-4.5|0.282
95870483|NCT01923168|191697490|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.9|4.2|||Posterior mean difference|Posterior mean difference||||4.2|-1.9|0.697
95870484|NCT01923168|191697491|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.5|9.7|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||9.7|-12.5|0.435
95870485|NCT01923168|191697492|OTHER|Bayesian double criteria|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|13.2|||Posterior mean diff. & credible interval|||||13.2|-8.4|0.611
95870486|NCT05494632|191697578|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||the threshold for statistical significance was \<=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95870487|NCT00403403|191697646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0097||95.0|0.323|0.862|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.862|0.323|0.0097
95965743|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.04|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.94|0.0703
95870488|NCT00403403|191697647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.039|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||2.039|0.660|0.6054
95965744|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.42|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.53|0.8152
95965745|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.07|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-1.13|0.0805
95870489|NCT00403403|191697648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.3269||95.0|-9.6|29.0|||Chi-squared|||||29.0|-9.6|0.3269
95870490|NCT00403403|191697650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.305||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|0.644|||Log Rank||HR estimated from a stratified Cox regression model, stratified for ECOG performance (0-1 vs. 2) and chemotherapy type (cisplatin vs. carboplatin)|||0.644|0.144|0.0011
95870491|NCT01966692|191697700|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|106.0||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.0|114.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||114|99|0.4132
95870492|NCT01966692|191697700|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|109.0||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|116.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||116|102|0.1295
95965746|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.6964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.46|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.69|0.6964
95870493|NCT01966692|191697700|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for AUC0-last fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|114.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.0|122.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed AUC0-last: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||122|106|0.0078
95870494|NCT01966692|191697701|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|208.0||The threshold for statistical significane was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 2 (B-3.8 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||208|159|<0.001
95965747|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.29|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.92|0.2998
95965748|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.85|0.3448
95965749|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.17|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.15|0.0089
95965750|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.92|0.0772
95965751|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.46|0.6809
95965752|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.43|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.30|0.7297
95965753|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.87|0.0626
95965754|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.58|0.5196
95870495|NCT01966692|191697701|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|190.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.0|217.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm); Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||217|166|<0.001
95870496|NCT01966692|191697701|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means for Cmax fell completely within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of geometric means|213.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|186.0|244.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Test: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 3 (C-3.7 µm)\*; Reference: Fluticasone Propionate Formulation 1 (A-4.5 µm); Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect.~All reported p-values are Bonferroni adjusted p-values."||244|186|<0.001
95870497|NCT03560739|191697707|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|Geo-mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||1.25|.8|
95870498|NCT03560739|191697707|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.3131|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of AUCtau||0||
95870499|NCT03560739|191697708|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 1.|geo-mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.25|||||The confidence interval reported in the Point Estimate section below is the one from the criterion, not the estimated confidence interval.|Criteria 1 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||1.25|.8|
95870500|NCT03560739|191697708|EQUIVALENCE|For reference-scaled average bioequivalence testing, both criteria have to be met: 1) geo-mean ratio needs to fall in \[0.8, 1.25\]; 2) 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion needs to be \<= 0. This part is regarding criterion 2.|95% upper bound of the linearized criter|-0.2446|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||||The upper limit reported in the Point Estimate section below is the limit on the 95% upper bound from the criterion, not the estimated upper limit of the 95% upper bound of the linearized criterion.|Criteria 2 for bioequivalence testing of Cmax||0||
95870501|NCT02284178|191697758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.432
95870502|NCT02284178|191697759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||GEE|||||||0.684
95870503|NCT02284178|191697760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.858
95870504|NCT02284178|191697762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||GEE analysis|||||||0.460
95870505|NCT02284178|191697763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.214
95870506|NCT02284178|191697764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
95870507|NCT02284178|191697765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.050
95870508|NCT00958789|191697780|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy hypothesis, H0, the total KSS change from preoperative to 2 years postoperative will be less than or equal to delta. The alternative hypothesis, Ha, will be that the total KSS change from preop to 2 years postoperative is greater than delta. When delta=63, the hypothesis will test for non-inferiority. When delta=70, the hypothesis will test for superiority.~H0: mean 2-year - mean preop less than or equal to delta. Ha: mean 2-year - mean preop greater than delta."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.43||||||||||64.43|
95870509|NCT00478881|191697818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.045||||0.5293||95.0|-33.194|17.104||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P\<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo-Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||17.104|-33.194|0.5293
95870510|NCT00478881|191697819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.668||||0.0575||95.0|-0.021|1.358||Bladder volume (mL) at first detrusor contraction tested first. If significant, the change in the average number of daily micturitions was to be tested using a P \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Placebo - Vardenafil|Countries were pooled into 2 clusters, which allowed for testing of Treatment by Center interaction. An ANCOVA including Baseline (Visit 2) as a covariate with main effects for treatment and country (see pooling above) was used to test treatment difference for the primary variable and co-primary variable.||1.358|-0.021|0.0575
95870511|NCT00478881|191697820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.657||||0.8533||95.0|-6.335|7.65||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||7.650|-6.335|0.8533
95908931|NCT03492281|191775837|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.9|||=|0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH risk difference estimate was stratified by OAB type (wet/dry) and sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||12.8|0.9|=0.0236
95870512|NCT00478881|191697821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59||||0.1539||95.0|-37.057|5.876||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||Placebo- Vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||5.876|-37.057|0.1539
95870513|NCT00478881|191697822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.374||||0.2348||95.0|-32.834|8.087||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.087|-32.834|0.2348
95870514|NCT00478881|191697823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.195||||0.3289||95.0|-24.692|8.303||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||8.303|-24.692|0.3289
95870515|NCT00478881|191697824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.721||||0.0609||95.0|-0.033|1.476||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||1.476|-0.033|0.0609
95870516|NCT00478881|191697825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.4928||95.0|-0.22|0.456||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.456|-0.220|0.4928
95870517|NCT00478881|191697826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823||||0.3248||95.0|-2.476|0.829||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA||placebo - vardenafil|ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||0.829|-2.476|0.3248
95870518|NCT00478881|191697827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.095||||0.5312||95.0|-4.533|2.342||P-values were reported as nominal values and without any adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA models used for the secondary efficacy variables were the models determined for the primary efficacy variable or co-primary efficacy variable depending on the type of variable.||2.342|-4.533|0.5312
95870519|NCT01885871|191697857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95870520|NCT00509392|191697862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95870521|NCT00509392|191697863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95870522|NCT00509392|191697864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95870523|NCT00509392|191697865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2962||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2962
95870524|NCT00509392|191697866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0048
95965755|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.88|0.0772
95965756|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.35|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.55|0.6610
95965757|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.27|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.67|0.4007
95870525|NCT00509392|191697867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0036
95870526|NCT00509392|191697868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0005
95870527|NCT00509392|191697869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5761||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5761
95870528|NCT00509392|191697870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95870529|NCT00509392|191697871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95870530|NCT00509392|191697872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95870531|NCT00509392|191697873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0050
95870532|NCT00509392|191697875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0009
95870533|NCT00509392|191697876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95870534|NCT00509392|191697877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
95870535|NCT00509392|191697878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2825||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2825
95870536|NCT00509392|191697879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0854
95870537|NCT00509392|191697880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0044
95870538|NCT00509392|191697881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0457||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0457
95965758|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.74|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.74|-0.18|0.2292
95965759|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.92|0.0540
95965760|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.9590
95965761|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.79|0.1048
95965762|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.44|0.8979
95965763|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.82|0.0819
95965764|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.08|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.77|0.1099
95965765|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.88|0.0373
95965766|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.01|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.81|0.0577
95965767|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.69|0.2023
95965768|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.56|0.4444
95870539|NCT00509392|191697882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9463||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9463
95870540|NCT01896479|191697907|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin used was 1.58.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7||Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.90|0.1916
95870541|NCT01896479|191697908|OTHER|Descriptive statistical analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0195||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors comprised RET M918T mutational status (positive, negative, and unknown).||||1.7|0.6|0.9437
95870542|NCT00509262|191697923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus glipizide) to be less than 0.4%.|Difference in least squares mean|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||ANCOVA||Based on analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate, or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|||0.06|-0.29|
95870543|NCT00509262|191697924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-4.8|||Miettirnen& Nurminen method||Miettirnen \& Nurminen method stratified by renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe) \& prior diabetes pharmacotherapy|||-4.8|-17.1|0.001
95870544|NCT00509262|191697925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|7.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|16.1|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose.|||16.1|-1.9|
95870545|NCT00509262|191697926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance with terms of treatment, renal insufficiency stratum at Visit 4/Week -2 (moderate or severe), prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (on or not on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline body weight.|||-1.0|-2.6|<0.001
95870546|NCT00400153|191697950|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liter|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.7135||95.0|-0.0222|0.0152|||ANCOVA|||||0.0152|-0.0222|0.7135
95870547|NCT00400153|191697951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.028|0.066|||ANCOVA|||||0.066|0.028|< 0.0001
95870548|NCT00400153|191697952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 0.05 liters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.1389||95.0|-0.039|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.039|0.1389
95870549|NCT00400153|191697953|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.124||95.0|-0.036|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.036|0.124
95870550|NCT00400153|191697954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4888||95.0|-0.026|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.026|0.4888
95870551|NCT00400153|191697955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established for this comparison.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.1433||95.0|-0.033|0.005|||ANCOVA|||||0.005|-0.033|0.1433
95870552|NCT00400153|191697956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.083|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.083|0.04|< 0.0001
95870553|NCT00400153|191697957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.024|0.065|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.065|0.024|< 0.0001
95870554|NCT00400153|191697958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001||95.0|0.027|0.067|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.067|0.027|< 0.0001
95965769|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.64|0.3645
95870555|NCT00400153|191697959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0258||95.0|0.003|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|0.003|0.0258
95870556|NCT00400153|191697960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3749||95.0|-0.032|0.012|||ANCOVA|||||0.012|-0.032|0.3749
95870557|NCT00400153|191697961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.3355||95.0|-0.033|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.033|0.3355
95870558|NCT00400153|191697962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0743||95.0|-0.042|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.042|0.0743
95870559|NCT00400153|191697963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.5711||95.0|-0.015|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.015|0.5711
95870560|NCT00400153|191697964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.2274||95.0|-0.033|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.033|0.2274
95870561|NCT00400153|191697965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.8065||95.0|-0.018|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.018|0.8065
95870562|NCT00400153|191697966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.043|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.043|< 0.0001
95870563|NCT00400153|191697967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.044|0.087|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.087|0.044|< 0.0001
95870564|NCT00400153|191697968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.081|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.081|0.04|< 0.0001
95870565|NCT00400153|191697969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.089|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.089|0.047|< 0.0001
95870566|NCT00400153|191697982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.417||95.0|-0.058|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.024|-0.058|0.417
95870567|NCT00400153|191697983|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3505||95.0|-0.059|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.059|0.3505
95870568|NCT00400153|191697984|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3499||95.0|-0.058|0.021|||ANCOVA|||||0.021|-0.058|0.3499
95870569|NCT00400153|191697985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.8288||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||ANCOVA|||||0.035|-0.044|0.8288
95870570|NCT00400153|191697986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.154|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.154|0.069|< 0.0001
95870571|NCT00400153|191697987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.132|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.132|0.049|< 0.0001
95870572|NCT00400153|191697988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.138|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.138|0.056|< 0.0001
95870573|NCT00400153|191697989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.135|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.135|0.054|< 0.0001
95870574|NCT00400153|191697990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0688||95.0|-0.003|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.003|0.0688
95870575|NCT00400153|191697991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.3895||95.0|-0.064|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.064|0.3895
95870576|NCT00400153|191697992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.959||95.0|-0.045|0.042|||ANCOVA|||||0.042|-0.045|0.959
95870577|NCT00400153|191697993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7652||95.0|-0.053|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.053|0.7652
95870578|NCT00400153|191697994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.6244||95.0|-0.057|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.057|0.6244
95870579|NCT00400153|191697995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.873||95.0|-0.041|0.049|||ANCOVA|||||0.049|-0.041|0.873
95870580|NCT00400153|191697996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.5294||95.0|-0.06|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.06|0.5294
95870581|NCT00400153|191697997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.563||95.0|-0.032|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.032|0.563
95870582|NCT00400153|191697998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.167|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.167|0.075|< 0.0001
95870583|NCT00400153|191697999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.174|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.174|0.084|< 0.0001
95870584|NCT00400153|191698000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.163|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.163|0.072|< 0.0001
95870585|NCT00400153|191698001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.171|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.171|0.081|< 0.0001
95870586|NCT00400153|191698006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06396||0.9943||95.0|-0.1259|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.1259|0.9943
95870587|NCT00400153|191698006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01995|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06441||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1463|0.1064|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1064|-0.1463|0.7569
95870588|NCT00400153|191698007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1206||0.3659||95.0|-0.1276|0.3458|||ANCOVA|||||0.3458|-0.1276|0.3659
95870589|NCT00400153|191698007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3947|0.08395|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.08395|-0.3947|0.203
95870590|NCT00400153|191698008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03199||0.809||95.0|-0.05503|0.0705|||ANCOVA|||||0.0705|-0.05503|0.809
95870591|NCT00400153|191698008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03225||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001746|0.1283|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.1283|0.001746|0.044
95870592|NCT00400153|191698009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03002||0.6674||95.0|-0.04598|0.07179|||ANCOVA|||||0.07179|-0.04598|0.6674
95870593|NCT00400153|191698009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03033||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04376|0.07523|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.07523|-0.04376|0.604
95870594|NCT00400153|191698010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0653||0.4238||95.0|-2.3995|5.7047|||ANCOVA|||||5.7047|-2.3995|0.4238
95870595|NCT00400153|191698010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0874||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6578|6.533|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||6.533|-1.6578|0.2431
95870596|NCT00400153|191698011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.173||95.0|-0.034|0.187|||ANCOVA|||||0.187|-0.034|0.173
95870597|NCT00400153|191698011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.056|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.056|-0.165|0.336
95870598|NCT00400153|191698012|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.924||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||ANCOVA|||||0.127|-0.115|0.924
95870599|NCT00400153|191698012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.053|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.053|-0.19|0.266
95870600|NCT00400153|191698013|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is purely exploratory. Non-inferiority margin is not established.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.139||95.0|-0.031|0.225|||ANCOVA|||||0.225|-0.031|0.139
95870601|NCT00400153|191698013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.146|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is purely exploratory.||0.146|-0.111|0.788
95870602|NCT00400153|191698018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870603|NCT00400153|191698019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
95870604|NCT00400153|191698020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
95870605|NCT00400153|191698021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||<0.0001
95870606|NCT00400153|191698022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.421|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870607|NCT00400153|191698023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870608|NCT00400153|191698024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870609|NCT00400153|191698025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870610|NCT00400153|191698026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870611|NCT00400153|191698027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Difference: Respimat - MDI||||< 0.0001
95870612|NCT03954041|191698082|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.62|||=|0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|14.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, interactive response technology (IRT) stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read, imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||14.98|-5.74|= 0.3752
95870613|NCT03954041|191698083|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.36||||||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.36|0.40|
95870614|NCT03954041|191698084|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47|||=|0.4306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.86||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression on mRS adjusting for covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline mRS score, and baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||3.86|0.56|=0.4306
95870615|NCT03954041|191698086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.53|||=|0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|5.13||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline total contusion volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||5.13|-8.19|= 0.6478
95870616|NCT03954041|191698087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||=|0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.02||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) based on eCRF, and baseline absolute hematoma volume based on central read.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||2.02|-2.20|=0.9314
95870617|NCT03954041|191698088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.18|||=|0.6569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|11.98||P-value was analyzed by ANCOVA model with covariates: treatment, IRT stratification factors at randomization, baseline absolute edema volume based on central read, baseline GCS based on eCRF, and imaging modality at Hour 96 (MRI vs NCCT).|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of combined BIIB093 vs placebo||11.98|-7.61|= 0.6569
95870618|NCT01041495|191698090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.869||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.869
95870619|NCT01041495|191698091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAPS). The final visit VAPS at 8th week will be compared against baseline VAPS scores for both treatment groups||||.486
95870620|NCT01041495|191698091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.486
95870621|NCT01041495|191698092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||As above- this was the difference between the groups on mean avg, it was used here|||||.869
95870622|NCT01041495|191698092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.275
95870623|NCT03584373|191698095|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.60|-0.89|0.70
95870624|NCT03584373|191698096|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-1.08|0.58
95870625|NCT03584373|191698097|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.56|-3.25|0.006
95870626|NCT03584373|191698098|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06|-2.26|0.04
95870627|NCT03584373|191698099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.56|-1.67|0.33
95870628|NCT03584373|191698100|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 1.3|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.10|0.47
95870629|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.6|-2.5|
95870630|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-3.3|-16.0|
95870631|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.2||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||5.2|-0.4|
95870632|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.1|-0.9|
95870633|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-4.2|
95870634|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.3||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-3.8|
95870635|NCT00366340|191698112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.5||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.5|-6.0|
95870636|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.84||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.84|0.63|
95870637|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.82|0.52|
95870638|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.74|
95870639|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.07|0.76|
95870640|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.49||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||2.49|2.04|
95870641|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.71||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.71|0.51|
95870642|NCT00366340|191698113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
95870643|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|8.3||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||8.3|-3.0|
95870644|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|13.0||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||13.0|-4.1|
95870645|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.5||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups(13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.4|
95870646|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-9.3|0.3||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.3|-9.3|
95870647|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Haemophilus Influenzae Type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 µg/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
95870648|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.0|2.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.0|
95870649|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.4||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 µg/mL threshold was calculated||4.4|-0.4|
95870650|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95870651|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For diphtheria toxoid the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95870652|NCT00366340|191698116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-1.3|3.3||||||For hepatitis B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 10.0 mIU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-1.3|
95870653|NCT00366340|191698117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.58||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.58|0.96|
95870654|NCT00366340|191698117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||||||For Haemophilus influenzae type b µg/mL the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.39|0.95|
95965770|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.24|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.60|0.4035
95870655|NCT00366340|191698118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.8||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.80|0.57|
95870656|NCT00366340|191698118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.01||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.01|0.75|
95870657|NCT00366340|191698119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated.||1.11|0.69|
95870658|NCT00366340|191698119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for the concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||||||For hepatitis B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.22|0.71|
95870659|NCT02011893|191698224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 7.5 points, where the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores were measured on a scale of 0 to 100. Testing was carried out at a 5% significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for non-inferiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||<0.001
95870660|NCT02011893|191698225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||||||Superiority analysis performed|McNemar|||||||0.083
95870661|NCT02011893|191698227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Superiority analysis performed|t-distribution|95% UCB and p-value for superiority are based on t-distribution with n1 + n2-2 degrees of freedom where n1 and n2 are number of subjects per arm.||||||0.017
95870662|NCT04543409|191698228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|117.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.17|361.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The OR estimate and p-value was obtained from the CMH test controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. Odds ratio values \>1 favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|Analysis completed at Week 24.||361.64|38.17|<0.0001
95965771|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.3|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.62|0.4877
95965772|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.68|0.3134
95965773|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.89|0.0922
95965774|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.04|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.87|0.0761
95965775|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.22|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.64|0.3275
95965776|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Feelings of Guilt, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3041
95965777|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0450
95965778|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.19|0.5351
95965779|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.56|0.0525
95965780|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.24|0.7932
95870663|NCT04543409|191698229|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the DSQ scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula.|Difference in Least Squares Means|2.999||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.35|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in DSQ = Treatment + baseline DSQ + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||7.35|-1.36|0.1770
95870664|NCT04543409|191698230|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil (eos) counts after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-96.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.53|-77.85|||ANCOVA|Model: Percent change from baseline in Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts = Treatment + baseline Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eos counts.||Analysis completed at Week 24.||-77.85|-114.53|<0.0001
95870665|NCT04543409|191698231|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total grade score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TGS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS grade score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.14|-0.21|<0.0001
95870666|NCT04543409|191698232|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total stage score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.122|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in EoE-HSS TSS = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS stage score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||||-0.09|-0.16|<0.0001
95870667|NCT04543409|191698233|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the centrally-read EREFS total score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1||||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline in EREFS TS = Treatment + baseline EREFS TS + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Analysis completed at Week 24.||0.32|-0.52|0.7322
95870668|NCT04543409|191698234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.79|43.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline. OR values \>1 would favor Benra 30 mg treatment group.|||43.47|5.79|<0.0001
95870669|NCT04543409|191698238|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related pain.||0.42|-0.50|0.8656
95870670|NCT04543409|191698238|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.181||||0.3926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Dysphagia-related discomfort.||0.23|-0.60|0.3926
95870671|NCT04543409|191698238|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.344||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Overall episode severity.||0.05|-0.74|0.0867
95870672|NCT04543409|191698240|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.267||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Abdominal pain severity||0.70|-0.16|0.2248
95870673|NCT04543409|191698240|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.296||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Nausea severity.||0.71|-0.11|0.1575
95870674|NCT04543409|191698243|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.202||||0.8239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Eating/Diet Impact||1.98|-1.57|0.8239
95908932|NCT03492281|191775838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.6|4.7|<0.001
95908933|NCT03492281|191775838|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference estimate was stratified by sex (female/male), with weights proposed by Greenland and Robins.||||18.9|4.2|=0.0022
95908934|NCT03492281|191775839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.0001
95908935|NCT03492281|191775839|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||0.0|-0.2|=0.0055
95908936|NCT03492281|191775840|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Hypothesis testing was performed for vibegron minus placebo.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
95908937|NCT03492281|191775840|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1||Comparisons between tolterodine ER and placebo are considered descriptive.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
95870675|NCT04543409|191698243|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.147||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social Impact||1.10|-0.80|0.7623
95870676|NCT04543409|191698243|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference of Least Squares Means|0.01||||0.9898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.49|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Emotional Impact||1.49|-1.47|0.9898
95870677|NCT04543409|191698243|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.386||||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.41|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Disease Anxiety||1.41|-0.64|0.4603
95870678|NCT04543409|191698243|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.162||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.56|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Swallowing Anxiety||0.56|-0.89|0.6613
95870679|NCT04543409|191698243|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.017||||0.6965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.13|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Total Score||6.13|-4.09|0.6965
95870680|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|1.27|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Physical functioning (PF)||1.27|-1.93|0.6852
95870681|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.2685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to physical health (RP)||0.72|-2.57|0.2685
95870682|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.71|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Bodily pain (BP)||1.71|-3.27|0.5380
95870683|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.75|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||General health perceptions (GH)||1.75|-1.81|0.9734
95965781|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.45|0.1300
95965782|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.42|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.07|0.1631
95965783|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.23|0.8215
95965784|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|0.01|0.0380
95870684|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.0||||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.19|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Vitality (VT)||2.19|-2.09|0.9653
95870685|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.98|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Social functioning (SF)||0.98|-4.04|0.2326
95870686|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|2.08|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Role limitations due to emotional problems (RE)||2.08|-3.44|0.6274
95870687|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.9||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.42|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Mental health (MH)||1.42|-3.14|0.4599
95870688|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.28|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline||Psychometrically-based physical summary score (PCS)||1.28|-2.07|0.6456
95870689|NCT04543409|191698245|SUPERIORITY|For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR).|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|1.84|||ANCOVA|Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.||Mental health component summary scores (MCS)||1.84|-3.08|0.6206
95870690|NCT01052844|191698257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Complete protection from nausea and vomiting (CP) was defined as the absence of any episode of nausea or vomiting and no use of rescue medication. CP was further defined as either acute (ACP), when occurring during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy; delayed (DCP), when occurring during the period from days 2 through 5 after chemotherapy; or overall, when occurring over the entire period of the study (first 120 hours).||||0.04
95870691|NCT01052844|191698258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We evaluated associations between categorical variables using the Chi-Square test||||0.06
95870692|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0081||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0081
95870693|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0243||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0243
95870694|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.071||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0710
95870695|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0008||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to post intervention||||0.0008
95870696|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1094||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.1094
95870697|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2029||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.2029
95870698|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8599||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.8599
95870699|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0007||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from baseline to one-month follow-up||||0.0007
95870700|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0246||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing total knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0246
95870701|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.078||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing zoster knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0780
95870702|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0167||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing pneumonia knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.0167
95870703|NCT03239665|191698279|EQUIVALENCE|Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.9417||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing influenza knowledge score change between groups from post-intervention to one-month follow-up||||0.9417
95870704|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0011||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0011
95870705|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
95870706|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0028||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0028
95870707|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||<0.0001
95870708|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||1||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||1.0
95870709|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.643||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations is important to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.6430
95965785|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.33|0.5070
95870710|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1193||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1193
95870711|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|||||<|0.0001||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to post-intervention"||||<0.0001
95870712|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4861||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.4861
95870713|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0002||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0002
95870714|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3247||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3247
95870715|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4627||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement Getting vaccinations can be harmful to my health from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.4627
95870716|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1244||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.1244
95870717|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0575||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0575
95870718|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7489||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.7489
95870719|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0098||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0098
95870720|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1797||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1797
95870721|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.3613||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my doctor to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.3613
95870722|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.5972||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.5972
95870723|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.024||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.0240
95870724|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2437||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.2437
95870725|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0631||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0631
95870726|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.054||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.0540
95870727|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7298||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust my pharmacist to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7298
95870728|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.4218||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.4218
95870729|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.2282||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to post-intervention"||||0.2282
95870730|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.8711||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.8711
95870731|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.0027||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from baseline to one-month follow-up"||||0.0027
95965786|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.43|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.04|0.1094
95965787|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.30|0.3112
95965788|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.33|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.05|0.1345
95965789|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.24|0.5148
95965790|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.1|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.25|0.3863
95870732|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.7579||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.7579
95870733|NCT03239665|191698280|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)||||||0.1299||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test with a Bonferroni-corrected significance threshold of alpha = 0.0167 (3 comparisons)|Sign test|||"Testing within-group changes in beliefs for the statement I trust a peer educator to give me information about vaccines and the diseases they prevent from post-intervention to one-month follow-up"||||0.1299
95870734|NCT03239665|191698282|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
95870735|NCT03239665|191698282|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6806||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous engagement in the program at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.6806
95870736|NCT03239665|191698282|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||1||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content immediately post-intervention via Fisher's Exact test||||1.0
95870737|NCT03239665|191698282|EQUIVALENCE|Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4908||||||Fisher's Exact test was used (2 x 2) with a significance threshold of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Testing between-group differences in dichotomous satisfaction with the program's content at the one-month follow-up via Fisher's Exact test||||0.4908
95870738|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7728|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.7728
95870739|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6871|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6871
95870740|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8259|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8259
95870741|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8868|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.8868
95870742|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8069|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8069
95870743|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8489|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8489
95870744|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3985|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3985
95870745|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1722|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1722
95870746|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7318|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7318
95870747|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6309|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6309
95870748|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7881|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7881
95870749|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6798|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6798
95870750|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8548|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.8548
95870751|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3182|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.3182
95870752|NCT03239665|191698283|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.7986|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to receive pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.7986
95870753|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0163|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0163
95870754|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0028|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.0028
95870755|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0433|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0433
95870756|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0592|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.0592
95870757|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.1843|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.1843
95870758|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.5933|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.5933
95870759|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3942|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3942
95870760|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9062|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.9062
95870761|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9618|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.9618
95870762|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.114|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of zoster vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.1140
95870763|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0141|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of influenza vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0141
95870764|NCT03239665|191698284|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0457|||||||Chi-squared|||Among those without positive vaccination history at post-test, testing between-group differences in number of participants reporting positive history of pneumonia vaccine at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0457
95870765|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6153|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.6153
95870766|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.8299|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.8299
95870767|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0405|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0405
95870768|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.3776|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.3776
95870769|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.2856|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.2856
95870770|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0016|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0016
95870771|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.9449|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at baseline via Chi-squared test||||0.9449
95870772|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.6143|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends post-intervention via Chi-squared test||||0.6143
95870773|NCT03239665|191698285|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants planning to discuss vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0036
95870774|NCT03239665|191698286|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their doctor at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||<0.0001
95870775|NCT03239665|191698286|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their pharmacist at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0012
95870776|NCT03239665|191698286|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-squared test was used with a significance threshold of 0.05.||||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared|||Testing between-group differences in number of participants having discussed vaccines with their family/friends at one-month follow-up via Chi-squared test||||0.0034
95870777|NCT00450112|191698314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
95870778|NCT00450112|191698315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870779|NCT00450112|191698315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870780|NCT00450112|191698316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870781|NCT00450112|191698316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870782|NCT00450112|191698317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870783|NCT00450112|191698317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870784|NCT00450112|191698318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed..||||<0.0001
95870785|NCT00450112|191698318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870786|NCT00450112|191698320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870787|NCT00450112|191698320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870788|NCT00450112|191698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 2Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95965791|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.0209
95965792|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS men difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.01|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.35|0.0616
95965793|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.33|0.1860
95965794|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.22|0.7730
95965795|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.44|0.1593
95870789|NCT00450112|191698321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||One-sample 2 sided t-test of change from baseline within 1PBS1Gel-200 group; no between-group test was performed.||||<0.0001
95870790|NCT01255787|191698323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|2.035||Adjustment for multiplicity for the comparisons was based on the Dunnett-Hsu procedure.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance.||2.035|-3.258|0.9070
95870791|NCT01255787|191698323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.114||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|0.938|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.938|-4.310|0.3006
95870792|NCT01255787|191698323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.436|0.794|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment as a fixed factors and baseline MADRS as a covariate.||||0.794|-4.436|0.2399
95870793|NCT02325791|191698365|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|1.15||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.898|5.201|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||5.201|-2.898|0.5773
95870794|NCT02325791|191698365|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.318|3.438||Analysis performed using CMH statistics with randomization stratum adjusted using Mantel-Haenzel (MH) method to assess pairwise treatment difference (i.e. absolute risk reduction of each suptavumab arm compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each Suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.438|-4.318|
95870795|NCT02325791|191698369|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.291|3.959|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||3.959|-5.291|
95870796|NCT02325791|191698369|SUPERIORITY||percentage treatment difference|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.836|6.867|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical inferential approach was used to control Type-1 error at 0.05 for pairwise comparisons of each suptavumab dose regimen to placebo. Missing values were imputed to KM estimate from the placebo group. Randomization strata adjusted in CMH test include region (North America vs. Rest of World) \& gestational age category (\<= 31 weeks 6 days GA vs \>= 32 weeks 0 days and \<= 35 weeks 6 days GA). Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||6.867|-2.836|
95870797|NCT01423604|191698375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.733||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.061||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||||1.061|0.506|0.0494
95870798|NCT01423604|191698375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.888||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank|||Cox Regression Analysis of Overall Survival: C-reactive protein (CRP) \> 13 μg/ml; Statistical analysis plan (SAP) specified subgroup analysis||0.888|0.281|0.0081
95870799|NCT01423604|191698376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efron approximation of hazard ratio|0.75||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|1.094||Two-sided p-value.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.094|0.513|0.1340
95870800|NCT01423604|191698378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236|||||||Pearson's chi-square test|||||||0.0236
95870801|NCT06374394|191698388|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 61) versus Co-Ad Group (at Day 31) for RSV-A neutralizing titers 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose was less than or equal to (≤) 1.5.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone.||1.28|0.97|
95870802|NCT06374394|191698389|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 61) versus Co-Ad Group (at Day 31) for RSV-B neutralizing titers 1-month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose was ≤1.5.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared to RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone.||1.23|0.94|
95870803|NCT06374394|191698390|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio between the Control Group (at Day 31) versus Co-Ad group (at Day 31) for SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers 1-month after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose was ≤1.5.|GMR|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included the treatment group and age category at vaccination as fixed effects and the pre-dose log10 titer as covariate.|The GMR is based on the back transformation of the group comparisons in the ANCOVA model applied to the logarithmically-transformed titers.|To demonstrate non-inferiority of humoral immune response to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine administered alone.||1.51|1.13|
95870804|NCT03437512|191698424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||familywise error rate (FWE) corrected to .05 with cluster threshold of 80 voxels.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95870805|NCT03437512|191698425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||Analyses conduced with a mixed ANOVA, with between-subjects factor of group (active, sham) and two within-subjects factors: time (post, follow up) and speech task (reading, conversation).||||.936
95870806|NCT03437512|191698426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||Interaction between visit and group.|ANOVA|||||||.619
95870807|NCT01865084|191698452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.307||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
95870808|NCT01865084|191698452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.538||||||The p-value is based on the treatment difference LS Mean changes from baseline between tadalafil and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.538
95870809|NCT01754909|191698476|SUPERIORITY|Occurrence rates, comparison by t test||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95870810|NCT01466595|191698491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no other adjustments||"Null hypothesis:~There is no difference between the two arms in the change in T-cell activation from baseline to week 4"||||0.028
95870811|NCT02313454|191698534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.19|||Paired t-test||Intranasal Application relative to the Extranasal Application|||-0.19|-1.0|0.008
95870812|NCT02313454|191698535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.4|||Paired t-test||Intranasal application relative to Extranasal application|||-3.4|-19.0|0.004
95870813|NCT03595774|191698536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0833||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0833
95870814|NCT03595774|191698537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0131||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.0131
95870815|NCT03595774|191698538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012728||||||a prior threshold for significant of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measured followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.012728
95870816|NCT03595774|191698539|SUPERIORITY|||||||2e-08||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.00000002
95870817|NCT03595774|191698540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017215||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of P\<0.05|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by Holm-Šídák's multiple comparisons test||||||0.017215
95870818|NCT01262352|191698562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.069||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a mixed effect model. The model included the absolute change from the baseline in each period as the dependent variable, sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects, study baseline LCI as the covariate, and subject nested within sequence as the random effect.||-1.15|-2.98|0.0004
95870819|NCT01262352|191698563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.007||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|12.21||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for this efficacy variable was performed in a similar way as the analysis for the primary efficacy variable.||12.21|1.80|0.0117
95870820|NCT01262352|191698564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.848|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.54|-38.16||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for change from baseline in average sweat chloride was similar to the analysis of the primary efficacy variable.||-38.16|-53.54|<0.0001
95870821|NCT01262352|191698565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.991||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|13.39||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The raw scores in CFQ-R were summarized into different domains of health (12 domains for adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older, 8 domains for children ages 12 and 13 years, 8 domains for children ages 6 to 11 years, and 11 domains for parents/caregivers). Each domain was analyzed in a similar way as for the primary efficacy variable. The primary analytical focus was the respiratory health domain which was analyzed by combining all self-response questionnaire versions.||13.39|-5.40|0.3796
95870822|NCT02925793|191698578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1% and 5% groups (statistical analysis 2) produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0106
95870823|NCT02925793|191698578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||SAS Proc Mixed||For each subject, change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 was calculated as Week 8 NRS value minus Baseline NRS value. Mean change in NRS score from baseline to week 8 for each group was then calculated using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model.|Both 1%(statistical analysis 1) and 5% groups produced the same estimated value (-2.9)||||0.0483
95870824|NCT01244490|191698586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||||-5.8|-11.9|<0.001
95870825|NCT01244490|191698586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-6.8|0.017
95870826|NCT01244490|191698587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|23.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.4|11.1|<0.001
95870827|NCT01244490|191698587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage Improvement|12.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|-0.9|0.024
95870828|NCT01244490|191698588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.217||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.076|||ANCOVA|||||-0.076|-0.358|0.003
95870829|NCT01244490|191698588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.162||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||||-0.019|-0.305|0.026
95870830|NCT01244490|191698589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.209||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.358|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||||-0.059|-0.358|0.006
95870831|NCT01244490|191698589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.09||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.241|0.242
95870832|NCT01244490|191698590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95870833|NCT01244490|191698590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196||||||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.196
95870834|NCT01244490|191698592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.165||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.064||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.064|-0.266|0.001
95870835|NCT01244490|191698592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.104||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|-0.001||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.001|-0.207|0.048
95870836|NCT01244490|191698593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.211||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|-0.007||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.007|-0.416|0.043
95870837|NCT01244490|191698593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.125||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.08||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.080|-0.331|0.231
95870838|NCT01244490|191698594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diiference in Least Squares Mean|-0.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.094|-0.364|<0.001
95870839|NCT01244490|191698594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.181||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|-0.045||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.045|-0.317|0.009
95870840|NCT01244490|191698595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.094||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.017||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.204|0.096
95870841|NCT01244490|191698595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.067||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.046||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.180|0.242
95870842|NCT01244490|191698596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.049||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.094||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.191|0.500
95870843|NCT01244490|191698596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.078||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.066||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.066|-0.222|0.288
95870844|NCT01244490|191698597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.233||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|-0.092||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.092|-0.374|0.001
95870845|NCT01244490|191698597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.111||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.031||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.253|0.124
95870846|NCT01244490|191698598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.056||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.018||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.131|0.139
95870847|NCT01244490|191698598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.039||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.037||Nominal p-value uncorrected for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.115|0.315
95870848|NCT00971620|191698603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|0.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||4.00|-2.00|.70
95870849|NCT00971620|191698605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.06
95870850|NCT00971620|191698606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||WIlcoxon rank sum test|||||||.007
95870851|NCT00971620|191698607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.48
95870852|NCT00971620|191698608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.04
95870853|NCT00971620|191698610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.07
95870854|NCT03475875|191698621|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||-0.9|-7.7|
95870855|NCT03475875|191698622|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.0|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the Degrees of Freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|It was calculated that 80 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two sequences would have at least 90% power to detect a 5 points difference in mean overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||1.0|-4.7|
95870856|NCT04644783|191698698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
95870857|NCT04644783|191698699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, non-linear mixed effects|||||||<0.0001
95870858|NCT03324581|191698700|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.81|||=|0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.92||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||5.92|-4.30|=0.7554
95870859|NCT03324581|191698700|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.61|||=|0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-1.6||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-1.60|-11.6|=0.0101
95870860|NCT03324581|191698700|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.42|||=|0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.5||The change from baseline in CAARS-O:SV was analyzed using a MMRM methodology with the unstructured variance covariance matrix.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures|It included fixed class-effect terms: treatment,trial site,visit week, interaction term: treatment by visit week, Baseline CAARS-O:SV as a covariate.||||-2.50|-12.3|=0.0033
95870861|NCT04473482|191698711|SUPERIORITY|Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals and conversion to odds ratios||Generalized estimating equations with robust sandwich estimators used with Wald 95% confidence intervals|||
95870862|NCT04473482|191698712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||GEEs with robust sandwich estimators and Wald 95% CIs with conversion to Odds Ratios|||||
95870863|NCT02380690|191698723|SUPERIORITY|ECLIPSE was powered to detect an effect size of 0.45.||||||0.981||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.981
95870864|NCT02380690|191698724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.774
95870865|NCT02380690|191698725|SUPERIORITY|Power was based on primary outcome.||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.546.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870866|NCT02380690|191698726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.403.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870867|NCT02380690|191698727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.452.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870868|NCT02380690|191698728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.243.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
95870869|NCT02380690|191698729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.133.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.864
95870870|NCT02380690|191698730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.102.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.780
95870871|NCT02380690|191698731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.536.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870872|NCT02380690|191698732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.340.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.997
95870873|NCT02380690|191698733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.384.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870874|NCT02380690|191698734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.730.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870875|NCT02380690|191698735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.161.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.914
95870876|NCT02380690|191698736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.930.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870877|NCT02380690|191698737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.379.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870878|NCT02380690|191698738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. A Sidak adjustment was used to account for multiple comparisons. Unadjusted p-value = 0.969.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.999
95870879|NCT03687970|191698739|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression was applied to predict binary outcome while controlling for other potential confounding factors (age, cumulative chemotherapy dose, chemotherapy group).|Slope|-0.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||threshold for p value is 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.05
95870880|NCT03687970|191698740|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.22||||0.7525|TWO_SIDED|||||The thrshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.7525
95870881|NCT03687970|191698740|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for Control group patients without painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.32||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficien|||||||0.1876
95870882|NCT03687970|191698740|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber pain threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|0.13||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.61
95870883|NCT03687970|191698740|OTHER|Spearman correlation coefficient between the Aδ:C fiber detection threshold ratio and the severity of painful CIPN on NPSI scale for patients with painful CIPN was calculated.|rho coefficient|-0.2812205||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for p value is 0.05.|Spearman's correlation coefficient|||||||0.2914
95870884|NCT00491556|191698742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-7.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-7.97|-12.20|<0.0001
95870885|NCT00491556|191698743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||0.26|-3.87|0.0834
95870886|NCT00491556|191698744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-317.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-390.04|-244.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-244.68|-390.04|<0.0001
95870887|NCT00491556|191698745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|242.38||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.25|75.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||75.85|-124.25|0.6222
95870888|NCT00491556|191698746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|152.57||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.77|7.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.18|-124.77|0.0781
95870889|NCT00491556|191698747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-103.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.61||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.9|-27.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-27.16|-179.90|0.0102
95870890|NCT00491556|191698748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.72||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||7.40|-41.66|0.1616
95965796|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6371
95965797|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.32|0.5655
95965798|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.36|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.12|0.3326
95965799|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.59|0.3577
95870891|NCT00491556|191698749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.17||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.59|-10.58|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-10.58|-75.59|0.0117
95965800|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.66|0.1646
95870892|NCT00491556|191698750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.27|-52.57|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||-52.57|-101.27|< 0.0001
95870893|NCT00491556|191698751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|68.75||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|46.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152||46.60|-12.86|0.2519
95870894|NCT00491556|191698752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|105.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.46|-81.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-81.12|-172.46|< 0.0001
95870895|NCT00491556|191698753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.71||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.39|129.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||129.90|45.39|0.0003
95870896|NCT00491556|191698754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|213.77||0.3739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.98|132.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||132.90|-51.98|0.3739
95870897|NCT00491556|191698755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|166.4||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.82|-19.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-19.90|-163.82|0.0147
95870898|NCT00491556|191698756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.92|112.71|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||112.71|46.92|< 0.0001
95870899|NCT00491556|191698757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.18||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.56|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||4.76|-45.56|0.1067
95870900|NCT00491556|191698758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.8||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.2|137.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||137.43|44.20|0.0005
95870901|NCT00491556|191698759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.41||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|61.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||61.34|5.64|0.0207
95870902|NCT00491556|191698760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|145.62||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.34|23.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||23.60|-102.34|0.2082
95870903|NCT00491556|191698761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|139.33||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.73|147.23|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||147.23|26.73|0.0067
95870904|NCT00491556|191698762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.78|-12.36|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-12.36|-23.78|< 0.0001
95870905|NCT00491556|191698763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|7.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||7.80|-4.48|0.5815
95870906|NCT00491556|191698764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|14.62|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||14.62|7.85|< 0.0001
95870907|NCT00491556|191698765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.12|-5.87|0.0594
95870908|NCT00491556|191698766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.15|17.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.01|8.15|0.0001
95870909|NCT00491556|191698767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|8.66|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||8.66|-0.81|0.0995
95870910|NCT00491556|191698768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||2.84|1.05|0.0002
95870911|NCT00491556|191698769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.68|-0.61|0.9150
95870912|NCT00491556|191698770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.48|-17.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.55|-29.48|< 0.0001
95870913|NCT00491556|191698771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.96||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.28|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||9.28|-5.38|0.5864
95870914|NCT00491556|191698772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.31|25.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||25.65|18.31|< 0.0001
95965801|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.46|0.0545
95965802|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.11|||MMRM|||Suicide, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.35|0.2903
95965803|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|0.01|0.0395
95870915|NCT00491556|191698773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.25||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.93|-5.34|0.1592
95870916|NCT00491556|191698774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.04||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.74|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||9.74|0.20|0.0420
95870917|NCT00491556|191698775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.39||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.16|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||3.16|-7.56|0.4029
95870918|NCT00491556|191698776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.99|17.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.21|11.99|< 0.0001
95870919|NCT00491556|191698777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.46|-5.81|0.0239
95870920|NCT00491556|191698778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.79|-14.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-14.91|-23.79|< 0.0001
95870921|NCT00491556|191698779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||2.43|-9.33|0.2363
95870922|NCT00491556|191698780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|23.45|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||23.45|15.93|< 0.0001
95870923|NCT00491556|191698781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.37|-4.43|0.0929
95870924|NCT00491556|191698782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.94||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||1.34|-6.40|0.1886
95870925|NCT00491556|191698783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.13||0.2831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|5.38|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.38|-1.65|0.2831
95870926|NCT00491556|191698784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|13.94|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||13.94|9.10|< 0.0001
95870927|NCT00491556|191698785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.88||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.67|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.67|-5.75|0.0157
95870928|NCT00491556|191698786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.24|-17.06|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||-17.06|-28.24|< 0.0001
95870929|NCT00491556|191698787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.37||0.1999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|10.88|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||10.88|-2.41|0.1999
95870930|NCT00491556|191698788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.52|15.41|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||15.41|9.52|< 0.0001
95870931|NCT00491556|191698789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.12||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||0.26|-4.17|0.0808
95870932|NCT00491556|191698790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|17.69|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||17.69|5.72|0.0005
95870933|NCT00491556|191698791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12||0.9198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||5.81|-6.41|0.9198
95870934|NCT00491556|191698792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Baseline minus Week 48.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Baseline and Week 48.||4.97|2.40|< 0.0001
95870935|NCT00491556|191698793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.54||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference was calculated as Week 48 minus Week 152.|Null hypothesis is no changes between Week 48 and Week 152.||-0.21|-2.41|0.0215
95870936|NCT00734747|191698796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
95870937|NCT04233034|191698872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.10|-0.11|0.89
95870938|NCT04233034|191698872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.27|0.01|0.04
95870939|NCT04233034|191698873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.08||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.08|-0.10|0.80
95870940|NCT04233034|191698873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.08|0.80
95870941|NCT04233034|191698873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.09||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and drug group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.09|-0.13|0.80
95870942|NCT04233034|191698873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 13 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.13|-0.09|0.69
95870943|NCT04233034|191698873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.25||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 26 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.25|-0.02|0.08
95870944|NCT04233034|191698873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28||P-value adjusted for multiplicity using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, and Intensive group as fixed effects and clinical site as a random effect.|Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 39 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.28|-0.01|0.08
95870945|NCT04233034|191698876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-14|-37|<0.001
95870946|NCT04233034|191698876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||16|-25|0.74
95870947|NCT04233034|191698877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
95870948|NCT04233034|191698877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||13|-9|0.74
95870949|NCT04233034|191698878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|22.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||22|10|<0.001
95870950|NCT04233034|191698878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||14|-8|0.95
95870951|NCT04233034|191698879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
95870952|NCT04233034|191698879|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.26|0.79
95965804|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.14|0.4690
95965805|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.20|0.6066
95965806|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.26|0.9737
95965807|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.42|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.17|0.4030
95965808|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.36|0.6357
95965809|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.29|0.8605
95965810|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.30|0.7534
95965811|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-1.03|0.0021
95965812|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0394
95870953|NCT04233034|191698881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-9|-22|<0.001
95870954|NCT04233034|191698881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference at 52 weeks (verapamil - placebo) adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||9|-13|0.74
95870955|NCT04233034|191698882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-1|-7|0.003
95870956|NCT04233034|191698882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (verapamil - placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||4|-6|0.74
95870957|NCT04233034|191698883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.17|-0.04|0.23
95870958|NCT04233034|191698883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.79
95870959|NCT04233034|191698884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.7|-0.3|0.39
95870960|NCT04233034|191698884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.6|-1.0|0.74
95870961|NCT04233034|191698886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||-0.3|-1.1|<0.001
95870962|NCT04233034|191698886|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.4|-1.0|0.65
95870963|NCT04233034|191698889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (HCL - Non-HCL) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT drug group, and clinical site.|||0.20|-0.01|0.07
95870964|NCT04233034|191698889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (Verapamil - Placebo) at 52 weeks adjusted for age, days from T1D diagnosis to randomization, RCT intensive/standard care group, and clinical site.|||0.05|-0.30|0.52
95870965|NCT04854642|191698893|OTHER||Least square mean difference|71.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.13|75.29|||ANOVA|||||75.29|68.13|<0.0001
95870966|NCT04854642|191698894|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|96.93|||ANOVA|||||96.93|85.30|0.0170
95965813|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.03|0.0039
95870967|NCT04854642|191698895|OTHER||Least square mean difference|90.9||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|97.16|||ANOVA|||||97.16|85.04|0.0213
95870968|NCT04854642|191698896|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95870969|NCT02417844|191698911|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.19|107.74|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||107.74|92.19|
95870970|NCT02417844|191698912|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|105.24|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.24|94.23|
95870971|NCT02417844|191698913|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|99.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.39|||||"The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation.~Ratio calculated as test divided by reference."|||105.39|93.90|
95870972|NCT03332771|191698948|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.3306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.357|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.357|-0.120|0.3306
95965814|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.69|0.1591
95965815|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.73|0.1402
95870973|NCT03332771|191698948|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis was declared significant if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the adjusted mean difference is \<0.3.|Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.181|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.181|-0.265|0.7112
95870974|NCT03332771|191698949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.027|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.027|-0.440|0.0827
95870975|NCT03332771|191698949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.571|-0.167|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.167|-0.571|0.0003
95870976|NCT03332771|191698950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-0.803|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups (placebo, sotagliflozin 200 mg, sotagliflozin 400 mg, glimepiride), randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130,≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.803|-2.173|<0.0001
95870977|NCT03332771|191698950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.651|-2.517|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 52 is analyzed using analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-2.517|-4.651|< 0.0001
95870978|NCT03332771|191698951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.288||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.701|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-1.650|-6.701|0.0012
95870979|NCT03332771|191698951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.491|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.491|-5.890|0.0973
95870980|NCT03332771|191698952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-2.319|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, and country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-2.319|-5.730|<0.0001
95870981|NCT03332771|191698953|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-15.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Weighted average of percentage difference between treatment groups from each stratum \[randomization strata of HbA1c \[≤8.5%, \>8.5%\] at screening, randomization strata of mean SBP \[\<130, ≥130 mmHg\] at screening using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.||-11.12|-19.67|<0.0001
95870982|NCT03693170|191698960|OTHER|||||||||||||||||"The null hypothesis that the true response rate is 30% will be tested against a one-sided alternative.~The cORR will be provided with a corresponding Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI for the Efficacy Set.~This design yields a 1-sided type I error rate equal to 1.6% and power of 80% when the true response rate is 45%."|If 37 or more confirmed responses were observed in the 90 treated subjects with a centrally confirmed BRAFV600E mutation, corresponding to a lower limit of Clopper-Pearson (exact) binomial 95% CI exceeding 30%, the study was considered to have met its primary endpoint. If more than 90 subjects were enrolled, the lower limit of Clopper-Pearson was to be used for decision.|||
95870983|NCT05523323|191698995|OTHER||Estimate difference|29.5||||0.0002014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|43.9|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value was calculated using the unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|The exact binomial method by Clopper and Pearson was used to generate the estimate difference and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs).|||43.9|14.0|0.0002014
95870984|NCT05523323|191698996|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||3.7e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.55|||unstratified Log-rank test.|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||0.55|0.21|0.0000037
95870985|NCT05523323|191698997|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.30933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.54|||Unstratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value was calculated using unstratified Log-rank test.|The unstratified Cox-Regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as covariate was used to generate Hazard Ratio (HR) and the associated 95%CI.|||1.54|0.49|0.30933
95870986|NCT00920829|191699037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model with unstructured variance/covariance matrices was used to evaluate the primary outcome measure.||||0.724
95870987|NCT00920829|191699037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a test of the main effect of medication, with a null hypothesis of no difference between Naltrexone and Placebo groups.||||0.023
95870988|NCT02237911|191699038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.9|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.7|-4.9|0.071
95870989|NCT02237911|191699038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-5.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||0.7|-5.0|0.074
95870990|NCT02237911|191699038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted by baseline age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion.||2.9|-2.7|0.930
95870991|NCT02237911|191699038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||2.0|-3.7|0.491
95870992|NCT02237911|191699038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-4.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.1|-4.5|0.021
95870993|NCT02237911|191699038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-3.6|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||1.0|-3.6|0.179
95870994|NCT02237911|191699039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
95870995|NCT02237911|191699039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.01|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.4|0.01|0.012
95870996|NCT02237911|191699039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.005
95870997|NCT02237911|191699039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.052
95870998|NCT02237911|191699039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.02|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|0.02|0.015
95870999|NCT02237911|191699039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.003|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||0.3|-0.003|0.489
95871000|NCT02237911|191699040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|114.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||114|-106|0.943
95871001|NCT02237911|191699040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.0|142.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||142|-112|0.814
95871002|NCT02237911|191699040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.0|95.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||95|-125|0.787
95871003|NCT02237911|191699040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.0|92.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||92|-164|0.581
95871004|NCT02237911|191699040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|109.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 3 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||109|-71|0.676
95871005|NCT02237911|191699040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.0||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|154.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Contrasts from a linear mixed models analysis at 6 months adjusted for randomization factors (age, gender, BMI, WOMAC-PF, knee flexion).||||154|-52|0.330
95871006|NCT03718871|191699063|SUPERIORITY||intracluster correlation coefficient|0.086|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.363||The threshold for significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Given that the intervention arm showed 100% uptake, a multi-level regression model could not be created with a zero in the denominator in the intervention group. We therefore used Fisher's exact test to assess for significant differences in proportion of HIV testing between study arms.||0.363|0.015|<0.001
95871007|NCT03718871|191699064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95871008|NCT03718871|191699065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.015
95965816|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.91|0.0143
95965817|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.65|0.2293
95965818|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.74|0.0884
95965819|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.80|0.0622
95965820|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.74|0.0955
95965821|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.92|0.0173
95965822|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1687
95965823|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.74|0.3861
95965824|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.59|0.7060
95965825|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-1.05|0.0112
95965826|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.86|0.0570
95871009|NCT03718871|191699066|OTHER|No comparison between study arm groups was made in this analysis, as it was limited to control arm only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.06||Significance threshold two-sided alpha = 0.05|Regression, Linear|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.06|1.02|<0.01
95871010|NCT03718871|191699067|OTHER|No comparison was made with the intervention arm|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.04||Univariate analysis|Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.04|0.30|0.07
95871011|NCT03718871|191699068|OTHER|Comparison between study arms was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||Fisher Exact|||We considered variables that predicted the primary outcome of receiving an HIV test among control arm only, as uptake was 100% in the intervention. First we identified variables that were significant (two-sided p-value\<0.05) in univariate analysis and creating multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression model accounting for covariates and intercorrelation between participants from the same healer by including healers as random effects.||1.18|0.16|0.09
95871012|NCT00737464|191699070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95871013|NCT00905827|191699087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||<0.01
95871014|NCT00905827|191699087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons (ANOVA simple effect comparisons) adjusted for baseline scores||||0.01
95871015|NCT03347188|191699091|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.67|-0.73|0.1876
95871016|NCT02742246|191699106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Group by Time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
95871017|NCT02742246|191699107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Group by time interaction.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
95871018|NCT03577171|191699112|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.154||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-0.322|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 12||-0.322|-1.986|0.0077
95871019|NCT03577171|191699112|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.141||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|-0.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||Least Squares Mean Difference ABI-H0731 + SOC ETV minus Placebo + SOC ETV at Week 24||-0.309|-1.973|0.0084
95871020|NCT03190369|191699126|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures ANCOVA.||Least-square (LS) means, standard errors (SE) were analyzed from repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The model included treatment groups (Hylan G-F 20 and placebo), site, visit and visit by treatment interaction, as well as the baseline WOMAC A1 score as a covariate).||0.395|-0.144|0.3610
95871021|NCT00559754|191699162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4915|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4915
95871022|NCT00559754|191699163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4864
95871023|NCT00559754|191699164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3613|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3613
95965827|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-1.08|0.0018
95965828|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Early, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.83|0.0443
95965829|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.04|0.1197
95871024|NCT00559754|191699165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6605
95871025|NCT00559754|191699166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8311|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8311
95871026|NCT00559754|191699167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.223|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2230
95871027|NCT00559754|191699168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8696|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8696
95871028|NCT00559754|191699169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0074
95871029|NCT00559754|191699170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3235|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3235
95871030|NCT00559754|191699171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0693|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0693
95871031|NCT00559754|191699173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4254|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4254
95871032|NCT00559754|191699175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871033|NCT00559754|191699176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871034|NCT00559754|191699178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871035|NCT00591578|191699209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|-1.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-5.59|<0.001
95871036|NCT00591578|191699209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.06||Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.06|-6.01|<0.001
95871037|NCT00591578|191699210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.27||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-5.90|0.015
95871038|NCT00591578|191699210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-2.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.68|-8.00|<0.001
95871039|NCT00591578|191699211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-3.44|<0.001
95871040|NCT00591578|191699211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-3.99|<0.001
95871041|NCT00591578|191699212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.98||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-4.06|0.001
95871042|NCT00591578|191699212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-1.21||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.21|-4.32|<0.001
95871043|NCT00591578|191699213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-1.44||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.44|-5.53|<0.001
95871044|NCT00591578|191699213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-5.96|<0.001
95871045|NCT00591578|191699214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-3.54|0.002
95871046|NCT00591578|191699214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-4.06|<0.001
95871047|NCT00591578|191699215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-5.96|<0.001
95871048|NCT00591578|191699215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-2.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.24|-6.63|<0.001
95965830|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.24|0.7171
95965831|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7151
95965832|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.35|0.5210
95965833|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.7332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.23|0.7332
95965834|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.4163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.39|0.4163
95871049|NCT00591578|191699216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-0.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-3.48|0.008
95871050|NCT00591578|191699216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-4.33|<0.001
95871051|NCT00591578|191699217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-1.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.30|-5.57|0.002
95871052|NCT00591578|191699217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.85||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.85|-6.16|<0.001
95871053|NCT00591578|191699218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.72|-3.63|0.003
95871054|NCT00591578|191699218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-4.20|<0.001
95871055|NCT00591578|191699219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.38||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|-1.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.76|0.005
95871056|NCT00591578|191699219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-1.06||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-5.87|0.005
95871057|NCT00591578|191699220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-4.04|0.009
95871058|NCT00591578|191699220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). The unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-4.34|0.004
95871059|NCT00591578|191699221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.00|1.07|0.016
95871060|NCT00591578|191699221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.23||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.23|1.19|0.002
95871061|NCT00591578|191699222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.10|1.02|0.041
95871062|NCT00591578|191699222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.28||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.28|1.09|0.015
95871063|NCT00591578|191699223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.99||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||1.99|1.07|0.018
95871064|NCT00591578|191699223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.33||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|Includes only those participants with a baseline and at least one post-baseline value.||||2.33|1.24|<0.001
95965835|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.28|0.8625
95871065|NCT02290431|191699233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||single-sample binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
95871066|NCT01306877|191699276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The objective is to reject H0 at the 0.05 significance level. A one-sided 95% confidence upper limit for PC - PE will be constructed by Newcombe's generalized Wilson score method (Newcombe 1998). H0 will be rejected at the 0.05 significance level if this upper limit is \<7%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.314||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.18||P-value calculated from per protocol analysis set|Chi-squared|||||-0.18||0.0001
95871067|NCT01306877|191699280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1844
95871068|NCT01306877|191699281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5647
95871069|NCT01306877|191699282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9062
95871070|NCT01827358|191699301|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|315.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|49.6|2698.8|||Fisher Exact|||||2698.8|49.6|<0.001
95965836|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.32|0.6196
95871071|NCT01827358|191699302|OTHER|For strong control of the family-wise error rate at the 0.05 confidence level, the Holm procedure (Holm 1979) is used. Under this procedure, the p-values from the two tests are sorted as p\_((1)) (smaller p-value) and p\_((2)) (larger p-value). If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))=0.05, then the null hypotheses for both tests are rejected. If p\_((1))=0.025 and p\_((2))\>0.05, then only the null hypothesis associated with the smaller p-value is rejected. In any other case, neither null hypothesis is rejected|Odds Ratio (OR)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|1666.3|||Fisher Exact|||||1666.3|5.5|<0.001
95871072|NCT01827358|191699303|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.28|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||3.28|0.30|0.997
95871073|NCT01827358|191699304|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The association between mupirocin treatment and non-clinical SA Infection on or before Day 85 was assessed via a Cox Proportional Hazards Model. Onset time was defined as the first day of non-SA infection. Infants were right-censored at the time of discharge from the hospital or at Day 85, whichever came first.||4.76|0.37|0.656
95871074|NCT01827358|191699306|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Cox proportional hazards models|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.01|0.03|0.182
95871075|NCT01827358|191699307|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The time to clinical infection with SA on or prior to Day 22 was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival curve and Cox proportional hazards models (with treatment as the only independent variable). Infants were censored at Day 22 or completion or early termination from the study. Estimates of the hazard ratio (values less than one indicating a treatment benefit) with Wald 95% confidence intervals and accompanying p-values were calculated.||2.12|0.03|0.198
95871076|NCT00266864|191699312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in lean tissue mass across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||<0.01
95871077|NCT00266864|191699313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|103.0||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sample t -tests were performed on the percent change from baseline to month 12 \[(month 12- baseline)/baseline\*100\] for comparison to the null hypothesis. An a priori level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.|ANOVA|||Separate 2 factor (group: treatment, control) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on visit (baseline, month 12) were performed to identify changes in resting energy expenditure across time. To further characterize significant main and interaction effects, post-hoc paired t -tests were performed within group.||||0.051
95871078|NCT00829933|191699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||For the incidence of bleeding events, paired comparison between the DU-176b groups was performed using the χ2 test.||||0.429
95871079|NCT00829933|191699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.077
95871080|NCT00829933|191699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|8.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.1|-11.2|
95871081|NCT00829933|191699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.320
95871082|NCT00829933|191699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.3|-7.6|
95871083|NCT00829933|191699314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|18.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||18.1|-2.7|
95965837|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.80|0.0373
95965838|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.74|0.0644
95965839|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.66|0.1347
95965840|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.65|0.1269
95871084|NCT04480424|191699428|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference|-4.0||||0.8275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|14.5||p-value was calculated using Fisher's exact method with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in mortality rate between the two treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||14.5|-22.3|0.8275
95871085|NCT04480424|191699429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8599||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the Cumulative Incidence Function (CIF) between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.8599
95871086|NCT04480424|191699430|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean (LSM) Difference|2.58||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.12||p-value was calculated using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model, including the number of days on mechanical ventilation as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||7.12|-1.96|0.2626
95871087|NCT04480424|191699431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6854||||||p-value was calculated using Gray's test for equality of the CIF between treatment groups.|Gray's test|||||||0.6854
95871088|NCT04480424|191699432|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.02||||0.9917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|3.78||95% CI for difference in least square mean (LSM) between treatment groups and the associated p-value were calculated using an ANOVA model, including the number of days on oxygen as a dependent variable and treatment group as a fixed effect.|ANOVA|||||3.78|-3.82|0.9917
95871089|NCT04480424|191699433|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.05||||0.7557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.4|||Kenward-Roger|p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.40|-0.29|0.7557
95965841|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1650
95871090|NCT04480424|191699434|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.4||||0.0922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86||p-value were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Kenward-Roger|||||0.86|-0.07|0.0922
95871091|NCT04480424|191699438|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.4||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.28|-0.47|0.3611
95965842|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1291
95965843|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.02|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.77|0.0402
95965844|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.76|0.0342
95965845|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1269
95965846|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3945
95871092|NCT04480424|191699438|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|-0.1||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.94||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.94|-2.13|0.9238
95871093|NCT04480424|191699438|SUPERIORITY||Kenward-Roger|0.08||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.73||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||2.73|-2.58|0.9541
95871094|NCT04480424|191699439|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|0.06||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM Difference|||||1.53|-1.42|0.9366
95871095|NCT04894916|191699442|OTHER|single group|mean|81.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"One-sample t-test comparing the sample mean to the threshold value of 71 indicative of good usability. The null hypothesis: true mean is equal to 71."||||<0.001
95871096|NCT04894916|191699445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95871097|NCT04894916|191699446|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95871098|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of A1C||||0.68
95871099|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for hemoglobin A1c.||||0.18
95871100|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of definition of systolic blood pressure||||0.18
95871101|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for systolic blood pressure||||0.17
95871102|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of LDL cholesterol||||0.33
95871103|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||McNemar|||Analysis for pre-post change in knowledge of goal range for LDL cholesterol||||0.40
95871104|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of definition of flu vaccine||||1.00
95965847|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.47|0.5828
95965848|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.6625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6625
95965849|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.07|0.0041
95965850|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.67|0.2222
95965851|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.93|0.0245
95965852|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.55|0.5119
95871105|NCT04894916|191699447|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in knowledge of recommended frequency of flu vaccination||||0.37
95871106|NCT04894916|191699448|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95871107|NCT04894916|191699449|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me (i.e., social comparison information)||||0.03
95871108|NCT04894916|191699449|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in interest in information about how their diabetes health data compares to the goal range (i.e., goal-based comparison information)||||0.45
95965853|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.82|0.0299
95965854|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Middle, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.60|0.2824
95871109|NCT04894916|191699449|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to other patients like me \[social comparison information\] is useful.||||0.17
95871110|NCT04894916|191699449|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||McNemar|||Analysis of pre-post change in agreement with statement: 'Information about how my diabetes health data compares to the goals range \[goal-based comparison information\] is useful.||||0.62
95871111|NCT04894916|191699451|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95871112|NCT04894916|191699452|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95871113|NCT04894916|191699453|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95871114|NCT04894916|191699454|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95871115|NCT04894916|191699455|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95871116|NCT05654441|191699462|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95871117|NCT05654441|191699463|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95871118|NCT05654441|191699464|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95965855|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.08|0.1768
95965856|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6498
95871119|NCT05654441|191699465|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95871120|NCT05654441|191699466|OTHER|||||||0.886|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.886
95871121|NCT05654441|191699467|OTHER|||||||0.666|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.666
95871122|NCT05654441|191699468|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.522
95871123|NCT05654441|191699469|OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.438
95871124|NCT05654441|191699470|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.181
95871125|NCT05654441|191699471|OTHER|||||||0.833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.833
95871126|NCT05654441|191699472|OTHER|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.455
95871127|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|-0.5||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.50|-1.99|
95871128|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.52||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.52|-1.88|
95871129|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.69|-0.76|
95871130|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.01||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.01|-0.37|
95871131|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.91||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.91|-0.59|
95965857|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.25|0.7689
95965858|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.47|0.2236
95871132|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.71||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.71|-0.77|
95871133|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.36||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.36|-1.84|
95871134|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.45||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||-0.45|-1.81|
95871135|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.06||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.06|-0.39|
95871136|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.93||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||0.93|-0.46|
95871137|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.28|-0.23|
95871138|NCT03868124|191699502|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.29||Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group 1 to timolol||||"Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and Timolol~Note: Multiple imputation techniques were used to account for missing data such that the sample size at each visit /timepoint was the same for purposes of statistical analyses"||1.29|-0.19|
95871139|NCT03981822|191699511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
95871140|NCT03981822|191699511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
95871141|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
95871142|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
95871143|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0648||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0648
95871144|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
95965859|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.6952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.35|0.6952
95965860|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.51|0.1184
95965861|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.45|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.14|0.3031
95965862|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.44|0.3091
95965863|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.61|0.1525
95965864|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.62|0.1214
95871145|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0190
95871146|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
95871147|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0048
95871148|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0075
95965865|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3811
95965866|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3851
95871149|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0539||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0539
95871150|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112 - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1638
95871151|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4766||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4766
95871152|NCT03981822|191699512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1588||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS - Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1588
95871153|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3642||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.3642
95871154|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
95871155|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0118
95871156|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day84 EOT Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0026
95871157|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0174
95871158|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1311|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1311
95871159|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0967|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0967
95871160|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1357|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1357
95871161|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0184|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0184
95871162|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 EOT Visit Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0024
95871163|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 112 Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1034
95871164|NCT03981822|191699513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1029
95871165|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0356|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0356
95871166|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1477|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1477
95871167|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0062
95871168|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0046
95871169|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0177
95871170|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0054
95871171|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0013
95871172|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Study Day 84 (EOT) Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0034
95871173|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0156
95871174|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0367|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0367
95871175|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1746|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.1746
95871176|NCT03981822|191699514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0123
95871177|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.96||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.24||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, Tx by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.24|-5.41|0.0021
95871178|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.72||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.66|-5.95|0.0150
95871179|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-1.69||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.69|-6.54|0.0011
95871180|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|-2.32||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.32|-8.25|0.0007
95871181|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.91||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.91|-7.50|0.0012
95871182|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.02||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.26||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up visit day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.26|-6.78|0.0349
95871183|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-2.85||P-value is based on MMRM mode|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.85|-7.47|<0.0001
95871184|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-2.43||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Degrees of freedom associated with the error term were computed using Kenward-Rogers method.||-2.43|-8.37|0.0005
95871185|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.12||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-4.12|-9.65|<0.0001
95871186|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.67|-2.92||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.92|-9.67|0.0004
95965867|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.63|0.1373
95965868|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.62|0.1360
95871187|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|-3.57||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-3.57|-9.89|<0.0001
95871188|NCT03981822|191699515|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.94||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-2.94|-10.20|0.0005
95965869|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.08|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.62|0.1264
95965870|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.67|0.0567
95965871|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.41|0.7447
95965872|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.7727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.39|0.7727
95871189|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.31|-20.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-20.87|-51.31|<0.0001
95871190|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-50.95||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.18|-19.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-19.56|-66.18|0.0004
95871191|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.15|-35.87||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.87|-88.15|<0.0001
95871192|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-79.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.44|-49.77||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-49.77|-111.44|<0.0001
95871193|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.79||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.17|-35.25||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-35.25|-103.17|0.0001
95871194|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-41.22||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.61|8.56||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||8.56|-90.61|0.1033
95871195|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.26|-39.39||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-39.39|-73.26|<0.0001
95871196|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.61|-28.8||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-28.80|-81.61|<0.0001
95871197|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-76.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.19|-45.61||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-45.61|-107.19|<0.0001
95871198|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-102.96|-31.55||P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-31.55|-102.96|0.0003
95871199|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.1||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.32|-32.78||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-32.78|-110.32|0.0004
95965873|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.28|0.6590
95965874|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.51|0.3951
95965875|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.28|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.63|0.4576
95871200|NCT03981822|191699516|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-77.52||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|-11.88||P-value is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-11.88|-120.82|0.0178
95871201|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0004
95871202|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 2: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0005
95871203|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0698||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0698
95871204|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 3: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0100
95871205|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0101
95871206|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment Visit 4: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0077
95871207|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT Visit: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0640
95871208|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0045||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Study Day 84 EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0045
95871209|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.284||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.2840
95871210|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0132
95871211|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4668||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.4668
95871212|NCT03981822|191699517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0064
95871213|NCT03981822|191699518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0364|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0364
95871214|NCT03981822|191699518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by gender||Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||||0.0215
95871215|NCT03981822|191699519|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-59.63||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.1|9.23||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||9.23|-76.10|0.1222
95871216|NCT03981822|191699519|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-69.51||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-1.9||Analysis based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 112 (EOT: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.90|-81.30|0.0403
95871217|NCT03981822|191699519|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-58.88||||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.79|5.33||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||5.33|-77.79|0.0863
95871218|NCT03981822|191699519|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-62.13||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.76|-1.73||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-1.73|-100.76|0.0428
95871219|NCT03981822|191699519|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-71.93||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.46|-17.0||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-17.00|-110.46|0.0084
95871220|NCT03981822|191699519|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-63.11||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.08|-6.35||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-6.35|-103.08|0.0273
95871221|NCT03981822|191699520|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on MMRM model|LS mean difference|-44.65||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.96|22.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.47|-69.96|0.3083
95871222|NCT03981822|191699520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-55.8||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|15.56||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||15.56|-86.93|0.1686
95871223|NCT03981822|191699520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-38.06||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.04|22.1||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||22.10|-87.04|0.2384
95871224|NCT03981822|191699520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-61.96||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.37|2.27||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Study Day 84 (EOT): Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||2.27|-103.37|0.0603
95871225|NCT03981822|191699520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-74.87||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.71|-18.83||Analysis is based on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 112: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-18.83|-138.71|0.0109
95871226|NCT03981822|191699520|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-66.62||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-127.64|-0.99||Analysis is base on MMRM model|Mixed Models Analysis|"MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors.~An unstructured covariance model was used."||Follow-up Visit Day 147 End of Study: Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.||-0.99|-127.64|0.0467
95871227|NCT00054717|191699566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871228|NCT00054717|191699567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95871229|NCT00054717|191699568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871230|NCT00054717|191699569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871231|NCT00054717|191699570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871232|NCT00054717|191699571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871233|NCT00054717|191699572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871234|NCT00054717|191699573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871235|NCT00054717|191699574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871236|NCT00054717|191699575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871237|NCT00054717|191699576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871238|NCT00054717|191699577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871239|NCT00054717|191699578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871240|NCT00054717|191699579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871241|NCT00054717|191699580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871242|NCT00054717|191699581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871243|NCT00054717|191699582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Weighted by the size of enfuvirtide and protease inhibitor strata||||||0.0001
95871244|NCT00054717|191699583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95871245|NCT00054717|191699584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95871246|NCT00054717|191699585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95871247|NCT00054717|191699625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9894||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9894
95871248|NCT02821910|191699669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.89|100.66|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.66|92.89|
95871249|NCT02821910|191699669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.99|103.7|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.70|97.99|
95871250|NCT02821910|191699669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.96|103.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.85|95.96|
95871251|NCT02821910|191699670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|103.42|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.42|90.65|
95871252|NCT02821910|191699670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.44|104.68|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.68|87.44|
95871253|NCT02821910|191699670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.12|105.25|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.25|92.12|
95871254|NCT02821910|191699671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.6|104.08|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.08|86.60|
95871255|NCT02821910|191699671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|106.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.65|112.96|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.96|100.65|
95871256|NCT02821910|191699671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|106.64|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.64|94.54|
95871257|NCT02821910|191699672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.46|104.94|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.94|91.46|
95871258|NCT02821910|191699672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.23|110.91|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.91|90.23|
95965876|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.37|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.51|0.7609
95965877|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.58|0.6220
95871259|NCT02821910|191699672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.58|108.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||108.38|94.58|
95871260|NCT02821910|191699673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|97.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.94|105.71|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.71|89.94|
95871261|NCT02821910|191699673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|117.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.41|133.07|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||133.07|103.41|
95871262|NCT02821910|191699673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|102.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.56|107.1|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||107.10|98.56|
95871263|NCT02821910|191699674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.13|100.75|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.75|92.13|
95871264|NCT02821910|191699674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.95|110.45|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.45|99.95|
95871265|NCT02821910|191699674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.41|104.38|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.38|96.41|
95871266|NCT02821910|191699675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.86|100.54|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||100.54|92.86|
95871267|NCT02821910|191699675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|100.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|97.96|
95871268|NCT02821910|191699675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|99.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|103.86|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.86|95.81|
95965878|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.42|0.9081
95871269|NCT02821910|191699676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|96.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.94|102.56|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.56|90.94|
95871270|NCT02821910|191699676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.5|104.01|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.01|87.50|
95871271|NCT02821910|191699676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|98.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.44|104.85|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||104.85|92.44|
95871272|NCT02821910|191699677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|95.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.36|103.48|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T1 divided by R1. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.48|87.36|
95871273|NCT02821910|191699677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|105.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.78|113.15|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T2 divided by R2. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||113.15|98.78|
95871274|NCT02821910|191699677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio (%)|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|112.22|||||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the adjusted gMean ratio of T3 divided by R3. Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV).|The statistical model used was an Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||112.22|92.00|
95871275|NCT04218123|191699678|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95965879|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.65|0.1668
95965880|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05|||MMRM|||Insomnia - Late, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.69|0.0935
95871276|NCT04218123|191699678|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
95871277|NCT04218123|191699678|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||<0.05
95871278|NCT04218123|191699678|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Anova Post Hoc Analysis||||||>0.05
95871279|NCT04218123|191699680|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.31|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Physical Functioning||||=0.31
95871280|NCT04218123|191699680|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.633|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Role Functioning||||0.633
95871281|NCT04218123|191699680|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.424|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Mental Health||||0.424
95871282|NCT04218123|191699680|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.057|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Social Functioning||||0.057
95871283|NCT04218123|191699680|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.296|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Health Perceptions||||0.296
95871284|NCT04218123|191699680|EQUIVALENCE|p value of \<0.05 required for result to be considered nonequivalent||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||SF20 Pain||||0.872
95871285|NCT04218123|191699681|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.538
95871286|NCT04218123|191699682|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.686|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.686
95871287|NCT04218123|191699683|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.167|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.167
95871288|NCT04218123|191699684|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.8
95871289|NCT04218123|191699685|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent|||||=|0.425|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.425
95871290|NCT04218123|191699686|EQUIVALENCE|p value \<0.05 required to be considered nonequivalent.|||||=|0.054|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.054
95871291|NCT00423670|191699687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|16.7||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|30.0|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||30|3.5|0.0126
95871292|NCT00423670|191699687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|18.8||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||32.2|5.5|0.0048
95871293|NCT00423670|191699687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||42.5|16.5|<0.0001
95871294|NCT00423670|191699687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|49.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non-black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||49.8|24.7|<0.0001
95871295|NCT00423670|191699688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|5.1||||0.2864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||14.3|-4.2|0.2864
95965881|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.4038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.17|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.42|0.4038
95871296|NCT00423670|191699689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference in SVR rates|15.6||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test|Adjusted for the baseline stratification factors: black versus non black, and cirrhosis versus no cirrhosis.||||24.8|6.5|0.0009
95871297|NCT01082640|191699700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.37|0.459
95871298|NCT01082640|191699700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.3||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||All statistical tests were two sided and conducted at the 0.05 significance level.||0.30|-0.23|0.789
95871299|NCT01082640|191699701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.687||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|5.73||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||5.73|-0.97|0.162
95871300|NCT01082640|191699701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.698||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.57||No adjustment for multiplicity was made.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a factor, and the baseline value and prior use of an ARB or an ACEi or none as covariates.||||4.57|-2.18|0.485
95871301|NCT01082640|191699702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
95871302|NCT01082640|191699702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||<0.001
95871303|NCT01082640|191699702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Prior use of an ARB, ACEi, or none was a stratification variable.||||||0.062
95871304|NCT03463031|191699741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
95871305|NCT03463031|191699742|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-1.0|<0.001
95871306|NCT03463031|191699743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|< 0.001
95871307|NCT03463031|191699744|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.233
95871308|NCT02131532|191699745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.321||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.398|17.102|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in fatigue scores between baseline and three-month assessments||17.102|1.398|0.03
95871309|NCT02131532|191699746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|5.937|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in depression scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.937|-0.687|0.10
95871310|NCT02131532|191699747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.991|0.491|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in independence scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.491|-0.991|0.45
95871311|NCT02131532|191699748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.769|-1.981|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in scores of general rating of recovery between baseline and three-month assessments||-1.981|-25.769|0.03
95871312|NCT02131532|191699749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.594||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|12.448|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in physical strength scores between baseline and three-month assessments||12.448|-14.010|0.89
95965882|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.33|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.24|0.7559
95965883|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.59|0.2006
95965884|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.6334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.43|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.26|0.6334
95965885|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.60|0.5431
95965886|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.5278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-0.30|0.5278
95965887|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4312
95965888|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.64|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.64|-0.25|0.3947
95965889|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.6081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.36|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.61|0.6081
95965890|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.44|0.8949
95965891|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.84|0.1120
95965892|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.76|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.15|0.1842
95871313|NCT02131532|191699750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.729|3.519|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in memory and thinking scores between baseline and three-month assessments||3.519|-7.729|0.009
95871314|NCT02131532|191699751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.624|-6.183|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in emotion scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-6.183|-30.624|0.009
95871315|NCT02131532|191699752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.883|1.598|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in communication scores between baseline and three-month assessments||1.598|-15.883|0.10
95965893|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.81|0.2646
95965894|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.8101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.44|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.56|0.8101
95965895|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.09|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-1.07|0.0215
95965896|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.24|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.72|0.3226
95965897|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.98|0.0339
95965898|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.47|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.46|0.9824
95965899|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.08|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.93|0.0950
95965900|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.32|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.67|0.4865
95965901|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.9861
95871316|NCT02131532|191699753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.455|0.455|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in daily activities scores between baseline and three-month assessments||0.455|-5.455|0.09
95871317|NCT02131532|191699754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.382||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.091|-0.551|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in mobility scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-0.551|-7.091|0.03
95871318|NCT02131532|191699755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.875|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.264||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.594|5.844||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in hand function scores between baseline and three-month assessments||5.844|-9.594|0.58
95871319|NCT02131532|191699756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.691||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.304|-5.847||The critical level was adjusted for the multiple comparisons for the eight subscales of the Stroke Impact Scale|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test|P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|Null hypothesis: there was no difference in social activity scores between baseline and three-month assessments||-5.847|-23.304|0.006
95871320|NCT00718237|191699835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|80.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|94.1||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||94.1|47.4|<0.001
95871321|NCT00718237|191699836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|90.6||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||90.6|39.9|<0.001
95871322|NCT00718237|191699837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (1-Relative Risk [RR])|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.4|100.0||Hypothesis: Efficacy \>0%. Based on p\< 1/(1+k); p = proportion of participants with outcome in vaccine group relative to total number of subjects with outcome; k = ratio of follow-up time; placebo/vaccine. Based on conditional binomial approach.|Exact Conditional Test|Exact Conditional Test based on Binomial Distribution|Efficacy = 1-RR, expressed as a percentage; the RR is the incidence in the vaccine group / the incidence in the placebo group, adjusted for the ratio of the follow-up period in each group.|||100.0|55.4|<0.001
95871323|NCT00107952|191699847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||||95.0|-8.6|5.5||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.|||"Statistical analysis applies to cure"|||5.5|-8.6|
95965902|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.54|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.54|-0.59|0.9266
95871324|NCT01723696|191699899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|30.3||P-value adjusted for design factors of site, gestational age at randomization and covariates of length, race, and sex of infant.|ANCOVA|||Our targeted sample size of 218 infants with successful FEFs at 3 months of age was determined to detect with 90% power, at a significance level of 0.05, increases of 15% in mean FEF75 in the vitamin C group compared to the placebo group.||30.3|-6.1|0.19
95871325|NCT04721067|191699906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline values||||10.60|-15.14|0.607
95871326|NCT04721067|191699907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.99||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-10.74|0.766
95871327|NCT04721067|191699908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|145.54||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.05|555.14|||ANCOVA|||||555.14|-264.05|0.465
95871328|NCT04721067|191699909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|137.79||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.71|344.3|||ANCOVA|||||344.30|-68.71|0.178
95871329|NCT04721067|191699910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.87||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|8.31|||ANCOVA|||||8.31|-4.58|0.548
95871330|NCT04721067|191699911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.80|-3.14|0.579
95871331|NCT04721067|191699912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.74|||ANCOVA|||||3.74|-5.00|0.766
95871332|NCT04721067|191699913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|1.93|||ANCOVA|||||1.93|-4.39|0.42
95871333|NCT04721067|191699914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.20|-1.34|0.91
95871334|NCT04721067|191699915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.79||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.6|||ANCOVA|||||5.60|-4.03|0.73
95871335|NCT04721067|191699916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.30|0.42
95871336|NCT04721067|191699917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.48|||ANCOVA|||||4.48|-0.90|0.18
95871337|NCT04721067|191699918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.90|-7.97|0.48
95871338|NCT04721067|191699919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|3.08|||ANCOVA|||||3.08|-0.24|0.08
95871339|NCT04721067|191699920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|14.52|||ANCOVA|||||14.52|-13.50|0.94
95965903|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0360
95965904|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-1.06|0.0583
95871340|NCT04721067|191699923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.32|-0.45|0.32
95871341|NCT04721067|191699924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.25|-0.75|0.61
95871342|NCT04721067|191699925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|-4.42|0.52
95871343|NCT04721067|191699926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.61
95871344|NCT04721067|191699927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|8.97|||ANCOVA|||||8.97|-1.61|0.16
95871345|NCT04721067|191699928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.00|-0.13|0.13
95871346|NCT04721067|191699929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|7.41|||ANCOVA|||||7.41|0.35|0.03
95871347|NCT04721067|191699930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|-11.07|0.41
95871348|NCT04721067|191699931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.22|||ANCOVA|||||4.22|-0.83|0.17
95871349|NCT04721067|191699932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|16.55|||ANCOVA|||||16.55|-9.58|0.58
95965905|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.02|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-1.03|0.0404
95871350|NCT04721067|191699933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|-0.79|0.74
95871351|NCT04721067|191699934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|129.077||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.78|315.92|||ANCOVA|||||315.92|-57.78|0.17
95871352|NCT04721067|191699935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|109.71||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.37|327.78|||ANCOVA|||||327.78|-108.37|0.31
95871353|NCT04721067|191699936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.00|-4.52|0.92
95871354|NCT04721067|191699937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|4.06|||ANCOVA|||||4.06|-6.28|0.66
95871355|NCT03139604|191700003|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|2.204||Not adjusted for multiplicity with interim and final analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||binomial distribution||2.204|0.959|0.0782
95871356|NCT01617148|191700066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95871357|NCT01617148|191700067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95871358|NCT01617148|191700068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95871359|NCT01617148|191700069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95871360|NCT01289782|191700081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR12|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in proportions of SVR12 between the treatment groups.||38.6|20.1|<0.001
95871361|NCT01289782|191700082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVRW72|28.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVRW72 between the treatment groups.||38.2|19.6|<0.001
95871362|NCT01289782|191700083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR24|30.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR24 between the treatment groups.||39.3|20.8|<0.001
95871363|NCT01289782|191700084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions of SVR4|25.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|34.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||There is no difference in proportions of SVR4 between the treatment groups.||34.8|16.8|<0.001
95871364|NCT01289782|191700111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-20.679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6399|-8.7181|||Piecewise-Linear Model Approach|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC60||-8.7181|-32.6399|<0.001
95871365|NCT01289782|191700111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2358|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9931|-9.6064|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Fatigue Severity Score AUC72||-9.6064|-37.9931|<0.001
95871366|NCT01289782|191700112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-230.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.9203||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-438.2662|-22.6626|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC60||-22.6626|-438.2662|0.030
95871367|NCT01289782|191700112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-248.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.6753||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.8253|-3.5916|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Work Productivity AUC72||-3.5916|-492.8253|0.047
95871368|NCT01289782|191700113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Differences|-278.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.6088||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-485.2529|-70.8668|||Piecewise linear model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC60||-70.8668|-485.2529|0.009
95871369|NCT01289782|191700113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|-307.722|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|124.1956||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-551.4006|-64.0429|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Impairment in Daily Activities AUC72||-64.0429|-551.4006|0.013
95871370|NCT01289782|191700114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|46.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|99.7966||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-149.6374|242.436|||Piecewise linear model|||Time Missed from Work AUC60||242.4360|-149.6374|0.642
95871371|NCT01289782|191700114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean differences|57.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|115.1548||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.1143|283.4414|||Piecewise Linear Model|||Time Missed from Work AUC72||283.4414|-169.1143|0.620
95871372|NCT01068652|191700166|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The treatment comparison was based on a non-inferiority criterion and the following hypotheses were tested: H0: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 ≥0.4% against the alternative hypothesis (Detemir non-inferior to BIAsp 30) HA: μDetemir - μBIAsp 30 \<0.4% where μBIAsp 30 and μDetemir are the mean HbA1c after 50 weeks of treatment with the two treatment regimens.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.3406||95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To investigate the effect of different treatments, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse HbA1c at week 50 with treatment group (2 categories: insulin detemir and aspart; BIAsp 30), country and pre-trial OAD(s) treatment (one OAD vs. more OADs) as factors and HbA1c at baseline (week 0) as a covariate. The treatment difference was estimated and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference was calculated.||0.34|-0.12|0.3406
95871373|NCT02117414|191700204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.75|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|one-proportion binomial exact test|||The alternative hypothesis is that the MRI-related event-free rate between the MRI procedure and one month post-MRI is greater than 90%. The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 97.5% lower confidence bound is greater than 90% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.025. Assuming type I error rate 0.025, even-free rate under null hypothesis 90% and true even-free rate 0.995, the minimum required sample size is 54 MRI scanned subjects in order to obtain 90% power.|||97.75|<0.0001
95965906|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.87|0.1352
95965907|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.10|0.0056
95871374|NCT02117414|191700205|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience a VPCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-3.8|<0.0001
95871375|NCT02117414|191700206|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 8%.|Difference in percentages|0.6||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a significant decrease in ventricular sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 8%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 8% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 8%"|||-4.1|0.0001
95871376|NCT02117414|191700207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be rejected if the one-sided 95% log-log transformed lower confidence bound at 120 days post-implant calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method is greater than 80%.|Complication-free rate|95.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.0|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||"The system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and the one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than 80%.~H0: p ≤ 0.80 HA: p \> 0.80 where p is the system-related complication-free rate between the implant procedure and 120 days (the approximate time of the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit)."|||93.0|<0.0001
95965908|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.4|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.06|0.1537
95965909|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|0.07|0.0142
95871377|NCT02117414|191700208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.2|||<|1e-05|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."|||-3.1|<0.00001
95871378|NCT02117414|191700209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Because the success rate was 100% in each group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who have a SVC defibrillation impedance between 20 and 100 ohms at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10% Where % successes means the % of subjects whose SVC defibrillation impedance at the one month post-MRI/waiting period visit is between 20 and 100 ohms."||||
95871379|NCT02117414|191700210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.006|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-7.0||||Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who experience an APCT increase less than or equal to 0.5V from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period in the MRI group is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-7.0|0.006
95871380|NCT02117414|191700211|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.3||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Farrington-Manning non-inferiority test|||"The percentage of subjects who do not experience a 50% decrease in atrial sensing amplitude from the pre-MRI/waiting period to one month post-MRI/waiting period is greater than that in the Control group minus 10%.~H0: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10% HA: % successes MRI group \> % successes Control group - 10%"|||-6.2|0.005
95871381|NCT00701376|191700212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-15.6|2.94|||paired t-test|||||2.94|-15.6|0.03
95871382|NCT00701376|191700213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-22.0|6.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.83|-22.0|0.08
95871383|NCT00701376|191700214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-7.55|19.2|||paired t-test|||||19.2|-7.55|0.14
95871384|NCT00701376|191700216|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.38|-0.02|||paired t-test|||||-0.02|-0.38|<0.001
95871385|NCT00701376|191700217|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-0.68|0.23|||paired t-test|||||0.23|-0.68|0.10
95871386|NCT00701376|191700218|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|99.8|-8.68|5.25|||paired t-test|||||5.25|-8.68|0.21
95871387|NCT00701376|191700220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.002
95871388|NCT00701376|191700221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.04
95965910|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.56|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.56|0.06|0.0159
95965911|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.2255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.10|0.2255
95965912|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.46|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.05|0.1069
95965913|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.39|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.19|0.4932
95871389|NCT00701376|191700222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.005
95871390|NCT00701376|191700223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95871391|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.13||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.13|-1.45|
95871392|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.56||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.56|-1.92|
95871393|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.51||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.51|-0.86|
95871394|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.11||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||-0.11|-1.43|
95965914|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.12|0.2634
95965915|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.9284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.25|0.9284
95965916|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.26|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.25|0.9459
95965917|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2908
95965918|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.23|0.6834
95965919|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.15|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.41|0.3579
95965920|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.30|0.8270
95965921|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.34|0.5292
95965922|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.23|0.8790
95871395|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.82||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.82|-0.63|
95871396|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 2 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.57||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 2 and timolol||0.57|-0.89|
95871397|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.06||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.06|-1.38|
95965923|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.46|0.1347
95965924|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2874
95965925|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.61|0.0086
95965926|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.29|0.7864
95965927|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.4383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.48|0.4383
95965928|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.8767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.36|0.8767
95965929|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0341
95965930|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.21|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.38|0.5629
95965931|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.16|-0.67|0.0016
95965932|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||MMRM|||Retardation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.50|0.0495
95965933|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.25|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.36|0.7177
95965934|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9401
95871398|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Day 10, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol||-0.48|-1.83|
95871399|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.43||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.43|-0.93|
95871400|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Week 6, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||-0.08|-1.40|
95871401|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs. Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.83||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 8AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.83|-0.62|
95871402|NCT03519386|191700253|NON_INFERIORITY|criteria for statistical and clinical non-inferiority: upper limit of the 95% CI of the difference between the implant group and the timolol group was \< 1.5 mmHg and also \< 1 mmHg for all 6 timepoints for Implant Group 1 vs Timolol|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.69||"Fixed sequence hierarchical testing procedure was used, first testing for non-inferiority of Implant Group 2 to timolol at all 6 timepoints before testing non-inferiority of Implant Group~1 to timolol"||||Month 3, 10AM Difference between Implant Group 1 and timolol||0.69|-0.77|
95871403|NCT03583073|191700255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|DF = 1||||||.053
95871404|NCT03583073|191700256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|4.06|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.06|-0.18|.072
95871405|NCT05714644|191700257|SUPERIORITY|FIT-DNA hypothesized to be higher than FIT|Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering of data within CHCs, adjusting for age and race/ethnicity||||8.7|0.8|0.05
95871406|NCT05714644|191700258|SUPERIORITY|FIT-DNA greater than FIT|Risk Difference (RD)|4.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.5|0.4|<0.05
95871407|NCT01582854|191700261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.9|0.005
95871408|NCT01582854|191700262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.3|-2.6|0.122
95965935|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.44|0.3201
95871409|NCT01582854|191700262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-1.9|-5.5|<0.001
95871410|NCT01582854|191700263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.7|-0.1|0.111
95871411|NCT01582854|191700263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.2|0.1|0.016
95871412|NCT01582854|191700263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.3|0.2|0.013
95871413|NCT01582854|191700263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.7|0.3|0.003
95871414|NCT01582854|191700264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 3||19.5|0.9|0.032
95871415|NCT01582854|191700264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.5|||Chi-squared|||Month 6||19.5|0.8|0.034
95871416|NCT01582854|191700264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.3|||Chi-squared|||Month 12||19.3|0.8|0.035
95871417|NCT01582854|191700265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.1|||Fisher Exact|||Month 6||2.1|-8.5|0.251
95871418|NCT01582854|191700265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-4.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|1.7|||Fisher Exact|||Month 12||1.7|-9.7|0.221
95871419|NCT01582854|191700266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||End of Infusion Period||0.1|-0.4|0.239
95871420|NCT01582854|191700266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||0.1|-0.5|0.136
95871421|NCT01582854|191700266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||0.2|-0.3|0.890
95871422|NCT01582854|191700266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||0.2|-0.4|0.455
95871423|NCT03101267|191700273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.69|-0.52|0.777
95871424|NCT03101267|191700273|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01||||0.983||95.0|-0.61|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||3TNSS treatment comparison||0.59|-0.61|0.983
95871425|NCT03101267|191700274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.1|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.10|-0.75|0.710
95871426|NCT03101267|191700274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.99|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.99|-0.84|0.872
95871427|NCT03101267|191700274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.18||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.08|-0.73|0.701
95871428|NCT03101267|191700274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.925||95.0|-0.95|0.86|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.86|-0.95|0.925
95871429|NCT03101267|191700274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.97|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.97|-0.64|0.690
95871430|NCT03101267|191700274|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.87|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||4TNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.87|-0.73|0.868
95871431|NCT03101267|191700275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.29|-0.14|0.502
95871432|NCT03101267|191700275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 127||0.20|-0.23|0.879
95871433|NCT03101267|191700275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.22|-0.10|0.444
95871434|NCT03101267|191700275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 155||0.16|-0.16|0.987
95871435|NCT03101267|191700275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.18|-0.12|0.645
95871436|NCT03101267|191700275|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.08|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Sneezing score treatment comparison at day 183||0.08|-0.22|0.357
95871437|NCT03101267|191700276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.44|-0.20|0.472
95871438|NCT03101267|191700276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 127||0.21|-0.43|0.497
95871439|NCT03101267|191700276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.04||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.36|-0.28|0.821
95871440|NCT03101267|191700276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.13||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 155||0.19|-0.45|0.414
95965936|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.8286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.32|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.25|0.8286
95965937|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.49|0.3022
95871441|NCT03101267|191700276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.17|0.414
95871442|NCT03101267|191700276|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal discharge score treatment comparison at day 183||0.37|-0.20|0.566
95871443|NCT03101267|191700277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.822||95.0|-0.37|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.30|-0.37|0.822
95871444|NCT03101267|191700277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 127||0.42|-0.24|0.587
95965938|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.35|0.8022
95965939|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.5665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.42|0.5665
95871445|NCT03101267|191700277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.30|0.975
95871446|NCT03101267|191700277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 155||0.31|-0.31|0.980
95871447|NCT03101267|191700277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.21|-0.35|0.621
95871448|NCT03101267|191700277|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.03||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Nasal congestion score treatment comparison at day 183||0.25|-0.31|0.831
95871449|NCT03101267|191700278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.29|0.864
95871450|NCT03101267|191700278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.21|0.502
95871451|NCT03101267|191700278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.4|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.40|-0.25|0.652
95871452|NCT03101267|191700278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 155||0.41|-0.25|0.633
95871453|NCT03101267|191700278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.35|-0.20|0.596
95871454|NCT03101267|191700278|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy nose score treatment comparison at day 183||0.34|-0.21|0.621
95871455|NCT03101267|191700279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.65|-0.22|0.336
95871456|NCT03101267|191700279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 127||0.80|-0.07|0.102
95871457|NCT03101267|191700279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.11||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.56|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.56|-0.34|0.625
95871458|NCT03101267|191700279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.78|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 155||0.78|-0.12|0.145
95871459|NCT03101267|191700279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.19||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.59|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.59|-0.22|0.364
95871460|NCT03101267|191700279|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.76|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||TNNSS treatment comparison at day 183||0.76|-0.05|0.082
95871461|NCT03101267|191700280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.07||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.21|0.623
95871462|NCT03101267|191700280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.43|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.43|-0.13|0.288
95871463|NCT03101267|191700280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.24|0.830
95871464|NCT03101267|191700280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.17||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.44|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.44|-0.10|0.208
95871465|NCT03101267|191700280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.06||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.19|0.616
95871466|NCT03101267|191700280|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Itchy eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.41|-0.09|0.207
95871467|NCT03101267|191700281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.15||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.35|-0.06|0.157
95871468|NCT03101267|191700281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 127||0.41|0.01|0.039
95871469|NCT03101267|191700281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.08||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.3|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.30|-0.14|0.459
95871470|NCT03101267|191700281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.16||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 155||0.38|-0.06|0.153
95871471|NCT03101267|191700281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.12||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.31|-0.06|0.195
95871472|NCT03101267|191700281|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||Watery eyes treatment comparison at day 183||0.38|0.01|0.038
95871473|NCT03101267|191700282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.37||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.29|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.29|-0.56|0.433
95871474|NCT03101267|191700282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.33||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.24|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.24|-0.59|0.479
95871475|NCT03101267|191700282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.71|0.648
95871476|NCT03101267|191700282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.21||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.14|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.14|-0.72|0.654
95871477|NCT03101267|191700282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.09|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.09|-0.55|0.514
95871478|NCT03101267|191700282|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.35||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.17|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||5TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.17|-0.47|0.400
95871479|NCT03101267|191700283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.39||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.54||The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.|MMRM|||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.54|-0.76|0.505
95871480|NCT03101267|191700283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.44||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.58|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 127||1.58|-0.71|0.451
95871481|NCT03101267|191700283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.88|0.623
95871482|NCT03101267|191700283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.46|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 155||1.46|-0.87|0.620
95871483|NCT03101267|191700283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.35||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.37|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.37|-0.68|0.504
95871484|NCT03101267|191700283|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference,|0.42||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.45|||MMRM|The MMRM model included treatment group, stratification factors, analysis visit and interaction of treatment group and analysis visit.||6TSS treatment comparison at day 183||1.45|-0.60|0.414
95871485|NCT01856023|191700366|SUPERIORITY|one -sample binomial test - 1-year estimated OS for these 28 patients was 75% (95%CI: 51%, 88%)||||||0.001||||||compared to the historical control rate of 46% one year survival|Log Rank|||OS rates of the Evaluable population in entire cohort was compared with the historical control rate of 46% (Hodi, et al NEJM 2010) using a one-sample binomial test due to early termination of enrollment without reaching target accrual; planned analysis to be the difference between treatment arms using log-rank test. One year OS along with 95% CI estimated for entire population and each treatment arm separately.||||.001
95871486|NCT00424255|191700368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2251||95.0||||The one-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.2251
95871487|NCT00424255|191700368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4502||95.0||||The two-sided p-value is unstratified as there are too few events per stratum to perform a stratified test.|Non-stratified log-rank test|||||||0.4502
95871488|NCT00424255|191700368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.43|||||Hazard Ratios were estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.43|0.85|
95871489|NCT02431247|191700391|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided p-value for non-inferiority of Test versus Control arm. The non-|Difference in percentage|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.1||inferiority margin is 10%.|Mantel Haenszel|||||7.1|-1.6|< 0.001
95871490|NCT02431247|191700394|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|=|0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.074|||ANCOVA|||||0.074|-0.171|= 0.437
95871491|NCT02431247|191700395|OTHER||LS mean difference|18.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.808|=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.595|47.55|||ANCOVA|||||47.550|-10.595|= 0.213
95871492|NCT02431247|191700396|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.05|< 0.001
95871493|NCT02431247|191700397|OTHER||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|1.57|< 0.001
95965940|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.36|0.8170
95965941|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.63|0.0404
95965942|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3128
95965943|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.51|0.2400
95965944|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4840
95965945|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.32|0.7768
95965946|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.23|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.31|0.7713
95965947|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0716
95965948|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.41|0.4317
95965949|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.12|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.52|0.2115
95965950|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.48|0.2818
95965951|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.46|0.2018
95965952|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.33|0.6554
95871494|NCT02431247|191700398|OTHER||LS mean difference|6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.25|||ANCOVA|||||8.25|3.83|< 0.001
95871495|NCT02431247|191700399|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.747|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.87|||ANCOVA|||||3.87|0.93|= 0.001
95871496|NCT02431247|191700401|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
95871497|NCT02431247|191700402|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.033
95871498|NCT02431247|191700403|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
95871499|NCT02431247|191700404|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||< 0.001
95871500|NCT02431247|191700405|OTHER||||||=|0.147|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||= 0.147
95965953|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.46|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.21|0.4754
95965954|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.37|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.28|0.7776
95965955|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.50|0.7172
95871501|NCT02431247|191700410|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.678|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 24)||2.678|1.227|< 0.001
95871502|NCT02431247|191700410|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.934|3.791|||ANCOVA|||Hip region BMD (Week 48)||3.791|1.934|< 0.001
95871503|NCT02431247|191700410|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|2.919|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 24)||2.919|1.259|< 0.001
95871504|NCT02431247|191700410|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.858|||ANCOVA|||Spine region BMD (Week 48)||2.858|0.539|= 0.004
95965956|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.26|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.55|0.4791
95871505|NCT00322153|191700446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.2|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-0.4 in placebo and 2.2 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for SIB baseline value.||The co-primary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline to Week 24 in SIB total score. Missing SIB total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||4.2|1.0|0.001
95871506|NCT00322153|191700447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The co-primary efficacy parameter was CIBIC-Plus total score at week 24. Missing CIBIC-Plus total scores at Week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||||0.008
95871507|NCT00322153|191700448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|Least-squares mean (-1.7 in placebo and -1.0 in memantine ER) are controlled for center and adjusted for ADCS-ADL19 baseline value.||The secondary efficacy parameter was change from Baseline at Week 24 in the total score of the 19-Item Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL19). Missing scores at week 24 were imputed using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach.||1.8|-0.3|0.177
95871508|NCT01369485|191700458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3636|||||||Chi-squared|||The sample size calculation was determined using the 2-sided Chi-square test with a significance level of 5% and 80% power based upon the following assumptions: (1) proportion of responders at end of 12 weeks of treatment would be 50% in the active (test) group and 25% in the inactive (control) group; (2) a responder was defined as a subject who experienced decrease of ≥50% in mean urgency urinary incontinence episodes (leaks) between baseline and Week 12 of the study; (3) 20 % dropout rate.||||0.3636
95871509|NCT01369485|191700458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4849
95871510|NCT01369485|191700459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2893
95871511|NCT01369485|191700459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3223
95871512|NCT01369485|191700460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3387|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3387
95871513|NCT01369485|191700461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6557|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6557
95871514|NCT01369485|191700462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4354
95871515|NCT01369485|191700463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9918|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9918
95871516|NCT01369485|191700463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3770
95871517|NCT01369485|191700464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4147|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4147
95871518|NCT01369485|191700464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0877|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0877
95871519|NCT01369485|191700465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2032
95871520|NCT01369485|191700466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4151||||||Calculated for only those patients who had prior OAB treatment only.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4151
95871521|NCT01369485|191700467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Endpoint defined as percentage of patients that much improved or very much improved following treatment."||||0.9814
95871522|NCT01369485|191700467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7305|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7305
95871523|NCT01369485|191700468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2191
95871524|NCT01369485|191700468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5357|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5357
95871525|NCT00586196|191700488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||GEE|||||2.3|0.4|
95871526|NCT00586196|191700489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2|||GEE|||||1.2|-1.5|
95871527|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871528|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871529|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871530|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871531|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871532|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871533|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871534|NCT00245219|191700519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871535|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871536|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95965957|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.17|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.48|0.3562
95965958|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.34|||MMRM|||Agitation, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.30|0.8859
95871537|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871538|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95965959|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.28|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.49|0.5888
95871539|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871540|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871541|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871542|NCT00245219|191700520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871543|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871544|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 2. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871545|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871546|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the education condition and the control condition at Time 3. The full regression model included 2 dummy coded variables, 1 contrasting the education and control condition, and 1 contrasting the peer support and control condition. The baseline measure of the outcome variable was included, in order to examine changes in the outcomes over time. This model tested the main effects of the conditions among patients with early stage cancer, late stage patients were excluded.||||>0.05
95871547|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 2, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95965960|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.3992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3992
95965961|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.80|0.1212
95871548|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 2. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871549|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The comparison between the peer support condition and control condition at Time 3, among both late and early stage patients. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871550|NCT00245219|191700521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The interaction between the peer support condition and breast cancer stage at Time 3. The full regression model consisted of 3 steps: The 1st step contained the baseline measure of the dependent variable. The 2nd step contained two dummy coded variables contrasting each condition with control. The 3rd step contained the interaction between the peer support condition and cancer stage. Patients in the education condition were excluded from this analysis.||||>0.05
95871551|NCT02021656|191700532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial Exact Test|||A sample size of 100 Chinese participants in the treatment naive group provided at least 90% power to detect a 17% improvement in SVR12 rate from the historical control rate of 57% using 2-sided exact one-sample binomial test at significant level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95871552|NCT02247531|191700538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.157||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.313|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.313|0.001|0.0479
95965962|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.66|0.3185
95871553|NCT02247531|191700538|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.087||||0.2739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.243|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.243|-0.069|0.2739
95871554|NCT02247531|191700539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||3.9|-4.8|0.8400
95871555|NCT02247531|191700539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.7|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.7|-3.1|0.5587
95871556|NCT02247531|191700540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.8358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.09|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.09|-0.88|0.8358
95871557|NCT02247531|191700540|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.26||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.74|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.74|-1.25|0.6117
95871558|NCT02247531|191700541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.7||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.5|-1.2|0.4651
95871559|NCT02247531|191700541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.1|-1.6|0.7885
95871560|NCT02247531|191700542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.7|0.6892
95871561|NCT02247531|191700542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.9104
95871562|NCT02247531|191700543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.1||||0.8931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.5|-1.8|0.8931
95871563|NCT02247531|191700543|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.1||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||0.5|-2.8|0.1754
95871564|NCT02247531|191700544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|0.7|0.3707
95871565|NCT02247531|191700544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.6|0.8382
95871566|NCT02247531|191700545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.35||||0.6841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|7.85|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.85|-5.16|0.6841
95871567|NCT02247531|191700545|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.07||||0.7443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||7.52|-5.37|0.7443
95871568|NCT02247531|191700546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.52|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||6.52|-6.28|0.9713
95871569|NCT02247531|191700546|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.72||||0.5945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.08|4.63|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA, and sex.||4.63|-8.08|0.5945
95871570|NCT02247531|191700547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.22||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.27|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.27|-0.83|0.2438
95871571|NCT02247531|191700547|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.03||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.07|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.07|-1.01|0.3202
95871572|NCT02247531|191700548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.64||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.14|0.14|0.0388
95871573|NCT02247531|191700548|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|2.2||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|4.68|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||4.68|-0.29|0.0833
95965963|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.62|0.4809
95871574|NCT02247531|191700549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.04||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.91|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.91|-1.84|0.4795
95871575|NCT02247531|191700549|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.6822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.45|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.45|-2.26|0.6822
95871576|NCT02247531|191700550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.04||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.14|-0.07|0.5227
95871577|NCT02247531|191700550|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.02||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.13|-0.09|0.7475
95871578|NCT02247531|191700551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.049||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.252|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.252|-0.153|0.6333
95871579|NCT02247531|191700551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.025||||0.8105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.230|-0.180|0.8105
95871580|NCT02247531|191700551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.584|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.584|0.097|0.0063
95871581|NCT02247531|191700551|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.182||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.422|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.422|-0.058|0.1359
95871582|NCT05007717|191700552|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever missing a visit during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.20|0.89|0.631
95871583|NCT05007717|191700553|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ever being virally unsuppressed during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.16|0.54|0.237
95871584|NCT05007717|191700554|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for always having \>80% coverage during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.02|0.94|0.386
95871585|NCT05007717|191700555|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.41|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.41|0.71|0.991
95965964|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.8953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.48|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.48|-0.42|0.8953
95965965|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.57|0.5616
95965966|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.47|-0.39|0.8571
95965967|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.21|-1.05|0.0037
95965968|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.84|0.0386
95965969|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0044
95965970|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.8308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.46|0.8308
95965971|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.02|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.87|0.0388
95965972|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.71|0.1622
95871586|NCT05007717|191700556|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given fast track visits during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.46|1.01|0.037
95871587|NCT05007717|191700557|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for having been given long intervals during a 6 months pre-enrollment period and always coming to clinic by yourself.||||1.12|0.97|0.276
95871588|NCT02882074|191700573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.64|||Regression, Linear|||||0.64|-0.11|0.158
95871589|NCT02882074|191700574|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|0.86||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.57|1.28||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Syndecan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.28|0.57|0.388
95871590|NCT02882074|191700575|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.19||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.68||The significance criterion is p-value \< 0.025 (i.e. 0.05/2), corrected for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Endocan values were all log-transformed to meet the linearity requirement. Thus the treatment effect was presented as the ratio of geometric means.|||1.68|0.84|0.257
95871591|NCT02882074|191700576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Regression, Linear|||||1.01|0.23|0.003
95871592|NCT01117051|191700582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.305
95871593|NCT03355664|191700614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|0.2|0.38
95871594|NCT03170232|191700672|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.7||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.6|266.2|||Repeated measures random coefficient|||||266.2|-400.6|0.679
95871595|NCT02537574|191700703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.61|0.940
95965973|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.89|0.0179
95871596|NCT02537574|191700703|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.48|0.383
95965974|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.4283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.55|0.4283
95965975|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.15|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.72|0.1899
95965976|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.37|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.48|0.8022
95965977|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3780
95871597|NCT04025710|191700742|OTHER|single arm design|SADE-free rate|0.97||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary hypothesis evaluates the SADE free rate (pSADE\_free) at 3 months. Ho: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant ≤ 90.0% Ha: SADE-free rate through 3 months post-implant \> 90.0%||1|0.9|0.05
95871598|NCT02797054|191700779|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.069
95871599|NCT02797054|191700780|OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.303
95871600|NCT02797054|191700781|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95871601|NCT02797054|191700782|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.895
95871602|NCT02797054|191700783|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.58
95871603|NCT02797054|191700784|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0015
95871604|NCT02797054|191700785|OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0056
95871605|NCT02797054|191700786|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95871606|NCT02398409|191700802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8407|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to Baseline (BL)||||.8407
95871607|NCT02398409|191700802|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At 6 months compared to BL||||.0150
95871608|NCT02398409|191700802|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared BL||||.8373
95871609|NCT02398409|191700803|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.6445
95871610|NCT02398409|191700803|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.5247
95871611|NCT02398409|191700803|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.9974
95871612|NCT02398409|191700804|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1918
95965978|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-0.47|0.8110
95965979|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.8908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.5|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.50|-0.58|0.8908
95965980|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.76|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.76|-0.28|0.3596
95965981|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.49|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.67|0.7617
95965982|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.73|0.5498
95965983|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.76|0.2066
95965984|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.73|0.2321
95965985|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.27|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.49|0.5582
95965986|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.56|0.2945
95965987|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.2684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.64|0.2684
95965988|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.9396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.39|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.42|0.9396
95871613|NCT02398409|191700804|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.9212
95871614|NCT02398409|191700804|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.2358
95871615|NCT02398409|191700805|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.1107|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 weeks compared to BL||||.1107
95871616|NCT02398409|191700805|SUPERIORITY|adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Median Difference (Net)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.0562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months compared to BL||||.0562
95871617|NCT02398409|191700805|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusting for the covariates of diagnosis and baseline mean value in caregivers' depression|Mixed Models Analysis|||1 year compared to BL||||.8579
95871618|NCT02140775|191700820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||Chi-squared|degrees of freedom = 1||A Chi-Square test was conducted between the treatment groups and the dichotomous outcome of successful achievement of employment goal.||||.602
95871619|NCT02140775|191700821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-7.75|.066
95871620|NCT02140775|191700822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|12.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.09|-18.59|.674
95871621|NCT00945854|191700823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95871622|NCT02376283|191700842|OTHER|A p value \< 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||Continuous variables expressed as mean ± SD (standard deviation) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).Continuous variables analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test.||||<0.05
95871623|NCT02376283|191700842|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,36) = 12.282||STEMI- clop vs prasl vs tic||||< 0.0001
95871624|NCT02376283|191700842|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups assessed using ANOVA allowing comparison of more than 2 means and enabled assessment made of the relationship between different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic,rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points.P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,40) = 29.097||NSTEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor||||< 0.0001
95871625|NCT02376283|191700843|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SEM (Standard Error of Measurement) and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
95871626|NCT02376283|191700843|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||=|0.123|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA F(6,56)=1.707||STEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||=0.123
95871627|NCT02376283|191700843|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel active metabolite vs prasugrel active metabolite vs ticagrelor parent compound and active metabolite), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA (Unstable angina)) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|ANOVA F(4,62)=18.932||NSTEMI- different drugs (as stated above)||||<0.0001
95965989|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.05|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.82|0.0283
95965990|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.12|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.63|0.1794
95965991|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.68|0.1091
95965992|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.41|0.7921
95965993|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.80|0.0055
95965994|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.67|0.0300
95965995|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.84|0.0118
95965996|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.14|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.57|0.2266
95965997|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.20|-0.92|0.0025
95965998|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.69|0.0555
95965999|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.23|-0.93|0.0013
95966000|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.64|0.0775
95966001|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.30|-1.05|0.0006
95966002|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0415
95966003|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.75|0.0581
95966004|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.3|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.45|0.6826
95966005|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.83|0.0912
95966006|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.62|0.3988
95871628|NCT02376283|191700844|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.05||||||Assessment made of relationship between groups-clop vs pras vs tic, rows of STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA and different time points. P-values reported are calculated values based on data collated during sample collection and review of clinical characteristics.|ANOVA|||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||<0.05
95966007|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.0|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.91|0.0504
95871629|NCT02376283|191700844|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||=|0.81||||||STEMI- clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor|ANOVA|ANOVA F(3,17) = 0.321||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||=0.810
95871630|NCT02376283|191700844|OTHER|Comparison of means between groups was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA allowed for a comparison of more than two means and enabled an assessment to be made of the relationship between, different drugs (clopidogrel vs prasugrel vs ticagrelor), different clinical states (STEMI vs NSTEMI/UA) and different time points.|||||<|0.0001||||||NSTEMI- clopi vs pras vs tic|ANOVA|ANOVA F(2,25) = 14.103||"Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD and categorical variables as frequencies (%).~Continuous variables were analysed individually using student's independent sample t-tests. Categorical variables were assessed using separate Fisher's exact (Chi-square) test."||||< 0.0001
95871631|NCT00633867|191700852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
95871632|NCT05308290|191700854|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95871633|NCT05308290|191700855|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95871634|NCT05308290|191700856|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95871635|NCT05308290|191700857|OTHER|||||||1||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95871636|NCT05308290|191700858|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
95966008|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.32|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.55|0.6019
95966009|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-1.05|0.0070
95966010|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.62|0.3785
95966011|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.9609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.32|0.9609
95871637|NCT02730208|191700917|OTHER|Treatment effect outcomes are estimates.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|4.52||||||||4.52|-7.47|
95871638|NCT01226043|191700919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|2.44|||ANOVA|The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied to impute missing Week 4 overall patient preference values for ANOVA analysis.||The hypothesis was to determine whether patients have higher preference score for Lantus® SoloSTAR® pen compared to Lantus® vial/syringe. Differences of patient preference score greater than 0.5 were considered clinically meaningful. The power for detecting a true difference of 0.5 considering a standard deviation from 1.6 to 2.5, assuming 130 evaluable patients per arm and a two-sided test at 0.05 significance level ranged from 89% to more than 99%.||2.44|2.15|<0.0001
95871639|NCT00510952|191700943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin was 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.551||95.0|-0.21|0.11||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Basal analog insulin lispro protamine suspension, injected once or twice daily is noninferior to basal analog insulin glargine, injected once a day, with regard to glycemic control as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 week endpoint (last observation carried forward).||0.11|-0.21|0.551
95871640|NCT00510952|191700944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
95871641|NCT00510952|191700944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.427||95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.09|-0.21|0.427
95966012|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9183
95966013|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.02|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.57|0.0710
95966014|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.2607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.45|0.2607
95966015|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.50|0.2466
95966016|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3461
95966017|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.60|0.0919
95966018|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.36|0.7554
95966019|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.74|0.0150
95966020|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.64|0.0482
95966021|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.28|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.28|-0.93|0.0003
95966022|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.56|0.1182
95966023|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.24|-0.87|0.0008
95966024|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.54|0.1379
95966025|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-0.71|0.0040
95871642|NCT00510952|191700944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 HbA1c.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
95871643|NCT00510952|191700944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.254||95.0|-0.25|0.07||P-value for Week 24 Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sides 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|||0.07|-0.25|0.254
95871644|NCT00510952|191700945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.634
95871645|NCT00510952|191700945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for HbA1c ≤6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.504
95871646|NCT00510952|191700946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 0.8 millimoles per liter (mmol/L).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.323||95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatment groups (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: Insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine at actual morning pre-meal at endpoint.||0.19|-0.06|0.323
95871647|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.302
95871648|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||P-value for Actual Morning Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.144
95871649|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.279
95871650|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0||||P-value for Actual Midday Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.928
95871651|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.918
95871652|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value for Actual Evening Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.875
95871653|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Actual 0300 Hours.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.316
95871654|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean 7-Point SMBG.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.389
95871655|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.836
95871656|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.394||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Postprandial Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.394
95871657|NCT00510952|191700947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0||||P-value for Daily Mean Morning+Evening Pre-Meal.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.||||||0.609
95871658|NCT00510952|191700948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0||||P-value for All Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.468
95871659|NCT00510952|191700948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95871660|NCT00510952|191700948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Episodes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
95871661|NCT00510952|191700949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.316||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.316
95871662|NCT00510952|191700949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Nocturnal Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||<0.001
95871663|NCT00510952|191700949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for Severe Hypoglycemic Rate.|ANOVA|Nonparametric ANOVA Model: Rank of Variable=Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group. Hypoglycemic Rate (1 year) was used.||||||0.102
95871664|NCT00510952|191700951|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin of 1.5 kilograms (kg).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.975||95.0|-0.61|0.59||P-value for Change from Baseline.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group.|The two-sided 95% confidence interval is for the Least Squares Mean difference between the two treatments (Insulin Lispro Protamine Suspension minus Glargine).|Hypothesis: insulin lispro protamine suspension is noninferior to glargine with regard to change in absolute body weight from baseline to endpoint.||0.59|-0.61|0.975
95871665|NCT00510952|191700952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.031
95871666|NCT00510952|191700953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Variable = Treatment + Country + Baseline HbA1c + Baseline Sulfonylurea Group + Change in HbA1c from Baseline.||||||0.015
95871667|NCT02338336|191700954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95871668|NCT05985980|191700959|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is true that the ST/HR index (μV/bpm) ıs similar between the early and late follicular phases||||||0.521|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
95966026|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.42|0.3100
95871669|NCT05985980|191700960|EQUIVALENCE|High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||High-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) levels before and after ETT at the early and late follicular phases are compared.||||0.109
95871670|NCT05985980|191700961|EQUIVALENCE|ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT maximal exercise capacity (METs score) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.111
95871671|NCT05985980|191700962|EQUIVALENCE|ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||ETT ST/HR slope (μV/bpm) is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.414
95871672|NCT05985980|191700963|EQUIVALENCE|Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Maximal horizontal or down slope ST segment depression (mm) during exercise treadmill test is compared between the early and late follicular phases of menstrual cycle||||0.062
95871673|NCT05985980|191700964|EQUIVALENCE|Estrogen levels increase at the late follicular phase.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95871674|NCT00282347|191700996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.5538
95871675|NCT02101112|191701005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.054|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.994|1.118||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.118|0.994|
95871676|NCT02101112|191701005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.788|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.741|0.839||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.839|0.741|
95871677|NCT02101112|191701006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.076||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.076|0.981|
95871678|NCT02101112|191701006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.835|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.797|0.875||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.875|0.797|
95871679|NCT02101112|191701007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|1.027|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.981|1.075||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and suspended in water) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||1.075|0.981|
95871680|NCT02101112|191701007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|0.871||||||Apixaban, 10 mg (crushed and mixed with applesauce) vs. Apixaban, 10 mg (whole tablets)||0.871|0.794|
95871681|NCT04340063|191701012|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.55||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant was used and fixed effects were time (assessment order) and a time by group interaction (Treadmill or Movement Amplification). A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.55|0.25|<0.001
95871682|NCT04340063|191701012|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.03||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.16||Interaction effect for time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.22|0.8
95871683|NCT04340063|191701012|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.09||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.36||Effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.36|-0.18|0.5
95871684|NCT04340063|191701012|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.17||Interaction effect of time (post-training and follow-up assessments) by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used. A binomial distribution was used for this model.||0.17|-0.31|0.6
95871685|NCT04340063|191701013|OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.62||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used||0.62|-0.50|0.8
95871686|NCT04340063|191701013|OTHER||Slope|-0.7||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.16||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||-0.16|-1.2|0.012
95871687|NCT04340063|191701013|OTHER||Slope|0.26||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75||Effect of time (post-training to follow-up)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.75|-0.22|0.3
95871688|NCT04340063|191701013|OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29||Interaction effect of time (post-training to follow-up) by group|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the post-training and follow-up assessments if an effect was found during training. Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||0.29|-0.69|0.4
95871689|NCT04340063|191701014|OTHER||Slope|-52.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-651.0|456.0||Effect of time (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||456|-651|0.9
95871690|NCT04340063|191701014|OTHER||Slope|79.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-622.0|780.0||Interaction effect of time by group (Movement Amplification)|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) evaluated the effect of training (pre-, mid-, and post- assessments). Random effect of participant and fixed effects of time (assessment order) and the time by group (Treadmill or Movement Amplification) interaction were used.||780|-622|0.8
95871691|NCT05063318|191701088|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|272.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|213.22|348.86|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||348.86|213.22|
95871692|NCT05063318|191701089|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|236.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.35|316.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||316.00|177.35|
95871693|NCT05063318|191701090|SUPERIORITY||least-squares geometric mean ratio.|115.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|133.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||133.33|100.07|
95871694|NCT05063318|191701091|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio.|217.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.81|311.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence (TR or RT) as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect.||||311.82|151.81|
95871695|NCT05063318|191701092|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|28.66|46.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||46.9|28.66|
95871696|NCT05063318|191701093|SUPERIORITY||Least-squares geometric mean ratio|99.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.76|151.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA mixed-effects model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and patient (sequence) as a random effect||||151.74|65.76|
95871697|NCT00396032|191701097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0044
95871698|NCT00396032|191701097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0035
95871699|NCT00396032|191701099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0396||95.0||||Stratified by baseline BFR: 0-199 mL/min, 200-274 mL/min, and 275-299 mL/min.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0396
95871700|NCT04090957|191701111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.42||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 4; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.20|-16.64|0.0436
95871701|NCT04090957|191701111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.21||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|-1.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 4; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.98|-18.44|0.0117
95871702|NCT04090957|191701111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-12.2||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.69|-3.71|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 12; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-3.71|-20.69|0.0029
95871703|NCT04090957|191701111|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|-6.94|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 12; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.94|-24.04|0.0001
95871704|NCT04090957|191701112|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.7786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 4; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.20|0.7786
95966027|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.26|-0.85|0.0003
95966028|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.61|0.0223
95966029|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.70|0.0276
95966030|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.29|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.35|0.8516
95966031|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.63|0.1669
95966032|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.48|0.4935
95966033|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.86|0.0202
95871705|NCT04090957|191701112|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.01|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 4; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.01|-0.33|0.0310
95966034|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.58|0.2683
95966035|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.65|0.0531
95966036|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms GI, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.41|0.5609
95871706|NCT04090957|191701112|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.7941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 12; E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.21|0.7941
95871707|NCT04090957|191701112|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 12; E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.18|-0.51|<.0001
95871708|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.7|||Chi-squared|||1\_Week 1, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||7.7|-8.0|0.9666
95871709|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|11.7|||Chi-squared|||2\_Week 1, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||11.7|-4.4|0.3759
95871710|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.6|||Chi-squared|||3\_Week 1, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||5.6|-3.9|0.7164
95871711|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.7859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||4\_Week 1, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||3.7|-4.9|0.7859
95966037|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.30|0.6779
95966038|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.15|0.4559
95966039|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.2254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.1|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.43|0.2254
95966040|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6437
95871712|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|11.6|||Chi-squared|||5\_Week 2, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||11.6|-7.5|0.6744
95871713|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.0|||Chi-squared|||6\_Week 2, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||12.0|-6.9|0.5931
95871714|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||Chi-squared|||7\_Week 2, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||7.1|-7.5|0.9640
95871715|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|5.9|||Chi-squared|||8\_Week 2, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||5.9|-8.2|0.7449
95871716|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||9\_Week 3, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.4|-5.1|0.3271
95871717|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|17.0|||Chi-squared|||10\_Week 3, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||17.0|-3.2|0.1842
95871718|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.9|||Chi-squared|||11\_Week 3, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||6.9|-9.4|0.7716
95871719|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.6||||0.2934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|13.0|||Chi-squared|||12\_Week 3, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||13.0|-3.9|0.2934
95871720|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|17.8|||Chi-squared|||13\_Week 4, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||17.8|-3.1|0.1701
95966041|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6678
95966042|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.24|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.27|0.9321
95871721|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|19.8|||Chi-squared|||14\_Week 4, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||19.8|-0.8|0.0723
95871722|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.7||||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|15.2|||Chi-squared|||15\_Week 4, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.2|-1.9|0.1258
95871723|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.2||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|19.9|||Chi-squared|||16\_Week 4, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||19.9|2.5|0.0126
95871724|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|21.5|||Chi-squared|||17\_Week 5, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||21.5|0.4|0.0436
95871725|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.8|||Chi-squared|||18\_Week 5, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.8|7.3|0.0010
95871726|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.9|||Chi-squared|||19\_Week 5, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.9|-2.7|0.1623
95966043|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.32|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.31|0.9778
95966044|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.29|0.9307
95966045|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.41|0.6791
95966046|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.38|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|-0.28|0.7769
95871727|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.1|||Chi-squared|||20\_Week 5, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||26.1|7.0|0.0009
95871728|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.4|||Chi-squared|||21\_Week 6, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||20.4|-0.7|0.0677
95871729|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.7|||Chi-squared|||22\_Week 6, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||28.7|8.2|0.0005
95871730|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|9.0|||Chi-squared|||23\_Week 6, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||9.0|-11.0|0.8432
95871731|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.6|||Chi-squared|||24\_Week 6, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||24.6|4.0|0.0073
95871732|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|17.7|||Chi-squared|||25\_Week 7, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||17.7|-3.5|0.1894
95871733|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|26.1|||Chi-squared|||26\_Week 7, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||26.1|5.6|0.0028
95871734|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.4844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.8|||Chi-squared|||27\_Week 7, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||13.8|-6.5|0.4844
95871735|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|28.4|||Chi-squared|||28\_Week 7, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||28.4|7.6|0.0009
95871736|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|18.9|||Chi-squared|||29\_Week 8, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||18.9|-2.2|0.1220
95871737|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|25.0|||Chi-squared|||30\_Week 8, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.0|4.4|0.0058
95871738|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.2||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|14.4|||Chi-squared|||31\_Week 8, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||14.4|-5.9|0.4151
95871739|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|31.2|||Chi-squared|||32\_Week 8, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||31.2|10.3|0.0001
95871740|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.9|||Chi-squared|||33\_Week 9, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||26.9|6.6|0.0015
95966047|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.7206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.38|0.7206
95871741|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.3||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|25.5|||Chi-squared|||34\_Week 9, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.5|5.1|0.0036
95871742|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.9|||Chi-squared|||35\_Week 9, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||15.9|-5.4|0.3330
95871743|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||Chi-squared|||36\_Week 9, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.5|6.2|0.0023
95871744|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|22.7|||Chi-squared|||37\_Week 10, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||22.7|2.6|0.0146
95871745|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.1|||Chi-squared|||38\_Week 10, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||24.1|4.3|0.0055
95871746|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.1635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|18.8|||Chi-squared|||39\_Week 10, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||18.8|-3.1|0.1635
95871747|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|25.2|||Chi-squared|||40\_Week 10, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||25.2|3.3|0.0119
95871748|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|26.5|||Chi-squared|||41\_Week 11, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||26.5|6.5|0.0014
95871749|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|27.6|||Chi-squared|||42\_Week 11, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||27.6|7.8|0.0006
95871750|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|25.8|||Chi-squared|||43\_Week 11, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||25.8|4.1|0.0075
95871751|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.3|||Chi-squared|||44\_Week 11, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||29.30|7.6|0.0010
95871752|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|29.9|||Chi-squared|||45\_Week 12, ≥50% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||29.9|10.0|0.0001
95871753|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|30.3|||Chi-squared|||46\_Week 12, ≥50% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||30.3|10.5|<0.0001
95871754|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|22.7|||Chi-squared|||47\_Week 12, ≥75% reduction, E4 15 mg vs placebo||22.7|0.7|0.0392
95871755|NCT04090957|191701116|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.6|||Chi-squared|||48\_Week 12, ≥75% reduction, E4 20 mg vs placebo||30.6|8.5|0.0007
95871756|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||1\_Week 4, CID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||12.0|-8.4|0.7283
95871757|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|27.0|||Chi-squared|||2\_Week 4, CID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||27.0|6.4|0.0017
95871758|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.3|||Chi-squared|||3\_Week 4, MCID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||19.3|-1.5|0.0950
95871759|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.9||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|2.0|||Chi-squared|||4\_Week 4, MCID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||2.0|-17.8|0.1208
95871760|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.7||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||5\_Week 4, Worsen/No change, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-2.1|-19.3|0.0154
95871761|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.9||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-0.2|||Chi-squared|||6\_Week 4, Worsen/No change, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-17.6|0.0461
95871762|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|22.0|||Chi-squared|||7\_Week 12, CID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||22.0|-0.5|0.0629
95871763|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.6||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|29.6|||Chi-squared|||8\_Week 12, CID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||29.6|7.5|0.0012
95966048|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.45|0.3549
95966049|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.05|-0.70|0.0231
95966050|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.55|0.1450
95871764|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.9||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|5.5|||Chi-squared|||9\_Week 12, MCID, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||5.5|-15.3|0.3552
95871765|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-3.2|||Chi-squared|||10\_Week 12, MCID, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-3.2|-22.9|0.0103
95871766|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.8||||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|1.9|||Chi-squared|||11\_Week 12, Worsen/No change, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||1.9|-13.5|0.1383
95966051|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0855
95871767|NCT04090957|191701117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.1706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.3|||Chi-squared|||12\_Week 12, Worsen/No change, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||2.3|-13.3|0.1706
95871768|NCT04090957|191701118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.15||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.34|0.1565
95871769|NCT04090957|191701118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.33|0.1823
95871770|NCT04090957|191701118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.00|-0.46|0.0460
95871771|NCT04090957|191701118|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.24||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.01|-0.47|0.0417
95871772|NCT04090957|191701120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.09|-0.24|0.4616
95871773|NCT04090957|191701120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.37|0.0112
95871774|NCT04090957|191701120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.07|-0.32|0.2773
95871775|NCT04090957|191701120|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.4881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.4881
95871776|NCT04090957|191701122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.040|-0.08|0.7875
95871777|NCT04090957|191701122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.1|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.10|-0.02|0.3092
95871778|NCT04090957|191701122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-0.08|0.9129
95871779|NCT04090957|191701122|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.8023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-0.09|0.8023
95871780|NCT04090957|191701124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.05|-0.41|0.0084
95871781|NCT04090957|191701124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.39|0.0146
95871782|NCT04090957|191701124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.09|-0.51|0.0029
95871783|NCT04090957|191701124|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.51|0.0045
95871784|NCT04090957|191701126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-1.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-1.05|-5.63|0.0026
95871785|NCT04090957|191701126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.03||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-1.75|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.75|-6.31|0.0002
95871786|NCT04090957|191701126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.01||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|-0.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.26|-5.75|0.0295
95871787|NCT04090957|191701126|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.73||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|0.06|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.06|-5.53|0.0564
95871788|NCT04090957|191701128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.42|0.06|0.0051
95871789|NCT04090957|191701128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.22||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.40|0.04|0.0126
95871790|NCT04090957|191701128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.14||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.35|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.35|-0.07|0.2372
95871791|NCT04090957|191701128|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.2||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.42|-0.01|0.0644
95871792|NCT04090957|191701130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.5631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.12|0.5631
95871793|NCT04090957|191701130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.11||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.02|-0.20|0.0174
95871794|NCT04090957|191701130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.10|-0.10|0.9992
95871795|NCT04090957|191701130|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.17|0.2941
95871796|NCT04090957|191701132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.06||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.12|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.12|-0.24|0.7112
95871797|NCT04090957|191701132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.3618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.28|0.3618
95871798|NCT04090957|191701132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.23|0.9933
95871799|NCT04090957|191701132|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.099||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.26|-0.18|0.9024
95871800|NCT04090957|191701134|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.16||||0.8961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.74|-1.05|0.8961
95871801|NCT04090957|191701134|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.09||||0.9619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.81|-0.99|0.9619
95871802|NCT04090957|191701134|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.92|-1.33|0.8920
95871803|NCT04090957|191701134|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.73||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.89|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||1.89|-0.43|0.2826
95871804|NCT04090957|191701136|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.87||||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|19.12|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||19.12|-26.86|0.9039
95871805|NCT04090957|191701136|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.24||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.12|20.63|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||20.63|-25.12|0.9660
95871806|NCT04090957|191701136|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.73||||0.8708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.55|23.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||23.08|-34.55|0.8708
95871807|NCT04090957|191701136|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.15||||0.3357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|46.77|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||46.77|-12.48|0.3357
95871808|NCT04090957|191701138|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.76|21.96|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||21.96|12.76|< 0.0001
95871809|NCT04090957|191701138|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|23.98|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||23.98|14.80|<0.0001
95871810|NCT04090957|191701138|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.05|22.83|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||22.83|12.05|<0.0001
95871811|NCT04090957|191701138|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|25.89|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||25.89|14.50|<0.0001
95871812|NCT04090957|191701139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|-4.7|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-4.70|-11.86|<0.0001
95871813|NCT04090957|191701139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-4.61|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-4.61|-11.90|< 0.0001
95871814|NCT04090957|191701139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-7.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-3.29|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-3.29|-12.07|0.0002
95871815|NCT04090957|191701139|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.51||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-0.82|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.82|-10.21|0.0181
95871816|NCT04090957|191701140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.08|0.8862
95871817|NCT04090957|191701140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02||||0.6013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.09|0.6013
95871818|NCT04090957|191701140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.01||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.07|-0.08|0.9723
95871819|NCT04090957|191701140|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.11|0.5778
95871820|NCT04090957|191701141|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.86||||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|101.23|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||101.23|-89.50|0.9865
95871821|NCT04090957|191701141|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-7.05||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.73|90.63|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||90.63|-104.73|0.9814
95871822|NCT04090957|191701141|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-46.46||||0.6049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-167.23|74.3|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||74.30|-167.23|0.6049
95871823|NCT04090957|191701141|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-71.64||||0.3717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.08|58.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||58.81|-202.08|0.3717
95871824|NCT04090957|191701142|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.93||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|10.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||10.74|-6.89|0.8439
95871825|NCT04090957|191701142|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.66||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|14.61|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||14.61|-3.28|0.2727
95871826|NCT04090957|191701142|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.86||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|6.81|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||6.81|-14.53|0.6389
95871827|NCT04090957|191701142|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|5.52||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|16.88|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||16.88|-5.84|0.4544
95871828|NCT04090957|191701143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||1.02|0.13|0.0084
95871829|NCT04090957|191701143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.77||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.2|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||1.20|0.33|0.0002
95871830|NCT04090957|191701143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.19||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.72|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.72|-0.33|0.6337
95871831|NCT04090957|191701143|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.44||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.98|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.98|-0.10|0.1287
95871832|NCT04090957|191701144|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.45||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|1.86|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||1.86|-6.76|0.3445
95871833|NCT04090957|191701144|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.03||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.4|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||4.40|-4.33|0.9998
95871834|NCT04090957|191701144|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.38||||0.4874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|2.76|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||2.76|-7.51|0.4874
95871835|NCT04090957|191701144|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.61|5.26|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||5.26|-5.61|0.9964
95871836|NCT04090957|191701145|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.94||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-0.76|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.76|-7.12|0.0119
95871837|NCT04090957|191701145|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.77||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-1.62|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-1.62|-7.93|0.0017
95871838|NCT04090957|191701145|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.56||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-0.66|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.66|-8.46|0.0186
95871839|NCT04090957|191701145|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.79||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|0.24|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||0.24|-7.81|0.0687
95871840|NCT04090957|191701146|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|39.41|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||39.41|16.40|<0.0001
95871841|NCT04090957|191701146|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|44.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.53|56.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||56.44|33.53|<0.0001
95871842|NCT04090957|191701146|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|42.71|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||42.71|17.13|<0.0001
95871843|NCT04090957|191701146|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|49.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.92|62.37|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||62.37|35.92|<0.0001
95871844|NCT04090957|191701147|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.02|-0.07|0.0004
95871845|NCT04090957|191701147|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
95966052|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.15|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.47|0.3068
95871846|NCT04090957|191701147|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.03||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.0|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||0.00|-0.06|0.0898
95871847|NCT04090957|191701147|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.04|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.04|-0.10|<0.0001
95871848|NCT04090957|191701148|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.18|<0.0001
95871849|NCT04090957|191701148|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.09|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.09|-0.18|<0.0001
95871850|NCT04090957|191701148|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.11|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.11|-0.23|<0.0001
95871851|NCT04090957|191701148|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.08|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.08|-0.20|<0.0001
95871852|NCT04090957|191701149|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.22||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.78|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.78|-11.67|0.0220
95871853|NCT04090957|191701149|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-6.21|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.21|-17.02|<0.0001
95871854|NCT04090957|191701149|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-9.17|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||-9.17|-22.70|<0.0001
95871855|NCT04090957|191701149|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.63|-6.74|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||-6.74|-20.63|<0.0001
95871856|NCT04090957|191701150|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.86||||0.7531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|8.42|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||8.42|-4.69|0.7531
95871857|NCT04090957|191701150|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.7||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|3.79|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||3.79|-9.18|0.5548
95871858|NCT04090957|191701150|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.81||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|14.99|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52 Estetrol 15 mg vs Placebo||14.99|-1.36|0.1170
95871859|NCT04090957|191701150|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.55||||0.8885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|6.87|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52 Estetrol 20 mg vs Placebo||6.87|-9.97|0.8885
95871860|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.45||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||1\_Week 12, Vasomotor Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.04|-0.95|0.0781
95871861|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.78||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||2\_Week 12, Vasomotor Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.28|-1.27|0.0011
95871862|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.17|||Linear Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||3\_Week 52, Vasomotor Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.17|-1.35|0.0085
95871863|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.75||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||4\_Week 52, Vasomotor Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||-0.14|-1.35|0.0127
95871864|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.6211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||5\_Week 12, Psychosocial Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.21|-0.46|0.6211
95871865|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.16||||0.4544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||6\_Week 12, Psychosocial Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.17|-0.50|0.4544
95871866|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.32||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.08|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||7\_Week 52, Psychosocial Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.72|0.1349
95871867|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.08||||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||8\_Week 52, Psychosocial Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.49|-0.33|0.8875
95871868|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.08||||0.8109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||9\_Week 12, Physical Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.24|-0.40|0.8109
95871869|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.12||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||10\_Week 12, Physical Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.44|-0.20|0.6184
95871870|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.25||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.13|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||11\_Week 52, Physical Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.13|-0.63|0.2548
95871871|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.09||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||12\_Week 52, Physical Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.48|-0.30|0.8282
95871872|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||13\_Week 12, Sexual Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.20|-0.75|0.3299
95871873|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||14\_Week 12, Sexual Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.25|-0.69|0.4800
95871874|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.39||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.17|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||15\_Week 52, Sexual Domain, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.17|-0.96|0.2133
95871875|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.14||||0.8116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.73|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||16\_Week 52, Sexual Domain, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.73|-0.44|0.8116
95871876|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.23||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.08|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||17\_Week 12, Total MENQOL, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||0.08|-0.53|0.1853
95871877|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.26||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||18\_Week 12, Total MENQOL, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.05|-0.57|0.1176
95871878|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.43||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||19\_Week 52, Total MENQOL, E4 15 mg vs Placebo||-0.06|-0.79|0.0176
95871879|NCT04090957|191701151|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.12||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||20\_Week 52, Total MENQOL, E4 20 mg vs Placebo||0.25|-0.49|0.6909
95871880|NCT01557894|191701184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
95966053|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.13|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.77|0.0069
95966054|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.51|0.2174
95966055|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.06|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.63|0.1020
95966056|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9587
95966057|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.69|0.1690
95966058|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.44|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.34|0.7919
95871881|NCT01557894|191701185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05|ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor||||||<0.01
95966059|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.89|0.0192
95966060|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.3887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.56|0.3887
95871882|NCT01557894|191701186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Changes in primary outcome measures were evaluated using univariate ANCOVA, with pre-intervention scores as covariates, and group as a fixed factor.||||||<0.01
95871883|NCT01557894|191701187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95871884|NCT01557894|191701188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95871885|NCT03402659|191701189|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105548||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26973|0.14777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.14777|-0.26973|0.564
95871886|NCT03402659|191701190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||4.8|-6.0|0.823
95871887|NCT03402659|191701191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.6|-0.4|0.806
95871888|NCT03402659|191701192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.5|-1.0|0.489
95871889|NCT03402659|191701193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-1.8|-35.8|0.031
95871890|NCT03402659|191701194|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||-0.5|-3.6|0.012
95871891|NCT03402659|191701195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.0||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-738.9|504.2|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||504.2|-738.9|0.709
95871892|NCT03402659|191701196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.03||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.7|10.7|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||10.7|-52.7|0.192
95871893|NCT03402659|191701197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||1.6|-43.6|0.068
95871894|NCT03402659|191701198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.11||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-262.7|42.4|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||42.4|-262.7|0.156
95871895|NCT03402659|191701199|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline neflamapimod vs placebo||0.0|-0.0|0.590
95871896|NCT00090051|191701201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.96|||Log Rank|non-stratified|The hazard ratio was estimated using Cox regression. The hazard ratio is relative to the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide(FC) group.|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the 2 treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was that progression-free survival was longer in the fludarabine+cyclophosphamide+rituximab (FCR) group.||0.96|0.60|0.0218
95871897|NCT00090051|191701202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.2874
95871898|NCT00090051|191701204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.0002
95871899|NCT00090051|191701207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8842||95.0|||||Log Rank|non-stratified||||||0.8842
95871900|NCT00090051|191701209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.54|<.0001
95871901|NCT00090051|191701210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.74|0.5976
95871902|NCT00090051|191701211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.54|<.0001
95871903|NCT00090051|191701212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.35|||Chi-squared|||||3.35|1.39|0.0005
95871904|NCT00090051|191701213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.46|0.3085
95871905|NCT00090051|191701214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.51|0.0007
95871906|NCT00090051|191701215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.55|0.0002
95871907|NCT00417482|191701284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.94||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.45|||Stratified Cox analysis|||The primary hypothesis of a difference in survival functions between the initial Phase B placebo (Arm 3) and risperidone continuation (Arms 1+2) conditions was tested in the primary analysis using the stratified Cox analysis. For descriptive purposes, the overall rate of relapse was assessed as the number of follow-up or for secondary interpretative support, as a simple proportion of patients entering a 16-week period.||3.45|1.09|0.02
95871908|NCT00417482|191701285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|21.98|||stratified cox analyses|||Similar analyses were used to test the secondary hypothesis in the relapse risk in weeks 17 to 32 of Phase B between the patients who continued to receive risperidone (Arm 1) \& the patients who discontinued risperidone at week 16 \& were switched to placebo (Arm 2). Patients who died \& those in whom a relapse was considered to be imminent before they were dropped out in Phase B were classified as having relapse.||21.98|1.08|0.02
95871909|NCT00417482|191701286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in MMSE.||1.35|-0.08|0.08
95871910|NCT00417482|191701287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.94||95.0|-1.01|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the risperidone and placebo groups over the 16 week period post randomization, with respect to change in TESS.||0.93|-1.01|0.94
95871911|NCT00417482|191701288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in EPS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.41|-1.50|0.26
95871912|NCT00417482|191701289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in AIMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.07|-0.50|0.13
95871913|NCT00417482|191701290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in PSMS, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||0.23|-1.47|0.149
95871914|NCT00417482|191701291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the difference between placebo and risperidone groups in terms of mean change in weight, between randomization and week 16, is zero.||2.95|-3.77|0.81
95871915|NCT01593722|191701292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95871916|NCT02788474|191701354|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00282||0.8146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00621|0.00488||random coefficient regression (random slopes and intercepts) model including sex, age and height as covariates (Due to the low number of measurements per patient, baseline CRPM was included as a response rather than as a covariate in the analysis)|random coefficient regression|The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo|"The rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment. The intercepts and slopes were assumed to be normally distributed with arbitrary covariance matrix.~Since the distribution of the data was not normal, a log10 transformation was performed before conducting the statistical analyses.~Significance tests were based on least-square means using 2-sided 95% confidence intervals (2-sided α=0.05)."||0.00488|-0.00621|0.8146
95871917|NCT02788474|191701355|OTHER||slope estimate|22.001||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.83|57.58|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in the Extracellular matrix (ECM) biomarker CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks as covariates was applied for placebo-treated patients only to evaluate the potential of CRPM as a prognostic biomarker.||57.58|-11.83|0.2084
95871918|NCT02788474|191701355|OTHER||slope estimate|-45.566||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.55|16.37|||Regression, Logistic||Slope estimate is the monthly rate of change in CRPM up to week 12|To assess how nintedanib treatment affected the association between disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death) and the change in CRPM in the first 12 weeks, a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM up to Week 12, treatment and treatment-CRPM slope interaction as covariates was applied.||16.37|-109.55|0.1537
95871919|NCT02788474|191701355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.769||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the overall treatment regimen affected disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3116
95871920|NCT02788474|191701355|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.27|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess whether the monthly rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks could explain the effect of treatment on disease progression (as defined by absolute forced vital capacity (FVC) decline \>=10% or death), a logistic regression analysis including baseline blood CRPM, the rate of change (slope) in blood CRPM in the first 12 weeks and randomised treatment as covariates was applied.||1.27|0.46|0.3175
95871921|NCT02788474|191701356|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.00121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00273|0.00515||random coefficient regression model (C1M (negative reciprocal root-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C1M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00515|-0.00273|0.5469
95871922|NCT02788474|191701357|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.00307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00262||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00823|0.00209||random coefficient regression model (C3M (log10-transformed)) with fixed effects for gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.|random coefficient regression||Difference calculated as Nintedanib minus Placebo. Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix.|"The rate of change (slope) in blood C3M was assumed to be linear in each subject over the 12 weeks of treatment.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||0.00209|-0.00823|0.2429
95871923|NCT00048061|191701358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 50/50 mg monthly) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.615||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|1.216|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 50/50) and the active-control.|||1.216|0.013|0.045
95871924|NCT00048061|191701358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 100 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.297||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.906|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 100 mg) and the active-control|||0.906|-0.312|0.338
95871925|NCT00048061|191701358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The monthly dosing regimen (Ibandronate 150 mg) was considered non-inferior to the 2.5 mg daily regimen if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference in mean percent change in BMD was greater or equal to -1 percentage point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.605|||ANOVA||Treatment effect is the difference in the mean values of the monthly oral dose regimens (Ibandronate 150 mg) and the active-control.|||1.605|0.395|0.001
95871926|NCT00251004|191701387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||7.3|-2.9|0.001
95871927|NCT00251004|191701387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.2||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in combined graft loss, death or loss to follow-up rates is \<10%.||5.2|-4.6|<0.001
95871928|NCT00251004|191701388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|1.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z - test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to mycophenolic acid (MPA) if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants composite efficacy failure is \<10%.||9.1|-5.5|0.014
95871929|NCT00251004|191701388|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|Z-test|||Everolimus is non-inferior to MPA if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in composite efficacy failure rates is \<10%.||3.3|-10.8|<0.001
95871930|NCT00251004|191701389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.5||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||6.5|-1.6|<0.001
95871931|NCT00251004|191701389|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was set at -8 mL/min/1.73m\^2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||To control for multiple comparisons, the two-sided significance level was set at 0.025.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis: the mean GFR of the everolimus arm is lower (worse) than that of the MPA arm by 8 mL/min/1.73m\^2 or more.||3.3|-4.9|<0.001
95871932|NCT01569464|191701390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.42||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||2.42|-2.96|0.8451
95871933|NCT01569464|191701391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.75||A hierarchical test procedure was done for the primary efficacy variables at an α-level of 5 %. If a test was statistically significant, a test for the next variable was performed. If a test was not statistically significant the procedure stopped.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used for analysis with fixed effects for treatment assignment (main factor) and the subject's investigational center (stratifying factor) and a covariate for the Baseline Visit value of the IRLS sum score.||0.75|-0.61|0.8336
95871934|NCT02220998|191701406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 120 per treatment group provided 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the SOF/VEL group and the SOF+RBV group. It was based on the assumptions that the non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 94%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|10.3|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||10.3|0.2|
95966061|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0719
95966062|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.66|0.1195
95871935|NCT02220998|191701406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||P-value was stratified by cirrhosis status and prior treatment experience.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The superiority of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks over SOF+RBV for 12 weeks was to be tested if the efficacy of SOF/VEL for 12 weeks was demonstrated to be statistically noninferior to SOF+RBV for 12 weeks (ie, if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the strata-adjusted difference in the proportions between groups was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -10%).||||0.018
95871936|NCT00873860|191701415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on analysis of variance (ANOVA).|ANOVA|||||||0.573
95871937|NCT00873860|191701415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.640
95871938|NCT00873860|191701415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||||||Change at Day 92: p-value was based on ANOVA.|ANOVA|||||||0.224
95871939|NCT00873860|191701416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4686||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.4686
95871940|NCT00873860|191701416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3170
95871941|NCT00873860|191701416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1664||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.1664
95871942|NCT00873860|191701416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3234||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3234
95871943|NCT00873860|191701416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.3133
95871944|NCT00873860|191701416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2108||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||P-value were calculated with log-rank test, which was constructed by computing the observed and expected number of events (defined as achieving improvement from baseline in mean ACQ-6 score \>= 0.5) at each observed event time and added to obtain an overall summary across all-time points where there was an event. Number of events was different for data through Day 92 comparing with data through Day 169. Therefore, the p-values were different for data through Day 92 and Day 169.||||0.2108
95871945|NCT00873860|191701423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 92: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.934
95871946|NCT00873860|191701423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592||||||ACQ score \<=0.75, Day 169: Fisher exact test was used to compare all arms.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
95871947|NCT00873860|191701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871948|NCT00873860|191701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6022||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6022
95871949|NCT00873860|191701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 92: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871950|NCT00873860|191701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871951|NCT00873860|191701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871952|NCT00873860|191701428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Day 169: Fisher exact test was used for the analysis.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95871953|NCT00873860|191701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.551
95871954|NCT00873860|191701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.492
95871955|NCT00873860|191701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.983
95871956|NCT00873860|191701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.991||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.991
95871957|NCT00873860|191701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.900
95871958|NCT00873860|191701429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.673||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from Van Elteren Test.|Van Elteren Test|||||||0.673
95966063|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.16|0.9552
95871959|NCT00873860|191701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.546
95871960|NCT00873860|191701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.534
95871961|NCT00873860|191701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847||||||Day 1 to 92: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.847
95871962|NCT00873860|191701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.987||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.987
95871963|NCT00873860|191701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.992
95871964|NCT00873860|191701430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||Day 1 to 169: P-value was calculated against placebo group from a stratified log-rank test with atopic asthma status and tertile of baseline mean ACQ score as the stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||||0.688
95871965|NCT01858636|191701460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% upper confidence bound of 5.5%||Ho: Pt ≥ 8% Ha: Pt \< 8%, where Pt is the proportion of deployed subjects with a protocol-defined vascular complication.||||0.0029
95871966|NCT01858636|191701461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|A one-sided Fisher's exact test was performed with a 95% lower confidence bound of 96.4%||Ho: St ≤ 90% Ha: St \> 90%, where St is the proportion of deployed subjects achieving hemostasis within 5 minutes.||||<0.0001
95871967|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.071|-0.075|0.9538
95871968|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.081||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.081|-0.070|0.8787
95966064|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0384
95966065|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.08|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.30|0.2582
95871969|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.9544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.066|-0.062|0.9544
95871970|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.112||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.112|-0.106|0.9550
95871971|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.8874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.105||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.105|-0.121|0.8874
95871972|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.095||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.095|-0.099|0.9595
95871973|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.064||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.064|-0.164|0.3826
95871974|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.3912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.065||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 10 µg+QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.065|-0.164|0.3912
95871975|NCT01227564|191701466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed-effect model repeated measures was used, with the baseline measure of average SUVRs over ROIs and Apo E4 Status (Carrier or Non-carrier) as covariates, time, treatment, and treatment\*time as fixed effects. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (test-reference) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were obtained from the model. ACC 3 µg or ACC 10 µg + QS-21 50 µg was the test treatment and placebo was the reference treatment. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.050|-0.149|0.3221
95966066|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.32|0.1511
95871976|NCT01227564|191701467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.18||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1197.07|1293.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1293.42|-1197.07|0.9384
95871977|NCT01227564|191701467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|581.98||||0.3945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-778.17|1942.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1942.13|-778.17|0.3945
95871978|NCT01227564|191701467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|315.08||||0.5773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-812.15|1442.3||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1442.30|-812.15|0.5773
95871979|NCT01227564|191701468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.16||||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.31|111.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||111.62|-63.31|0.5818
95871980|NCT01227564|191701468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.42||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|174.21||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||174.21|-5.37|0.0648
95871981|NCT01227564|191701468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.29||||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.47|132.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||132.05|-23.47|0.1672
95966067|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.34|0.4631
95966068|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.15|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.33|0.4628
95966069|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.23|0.9005
95966070|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.38|0.1121
95966071|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4167
95966072|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4071
95871982|NCT01227564|191701469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.3106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|3.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||3.22|-9.94|0.3106
95966073|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.53|0.1278
95966074|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.01|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.57|0.0573
95871983|NCT01227564|191701469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|2.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||2.27|-11.28|0.1876
95871984|NCT01227564|191701469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||1.79|-9.66|0.1742
95871985|NCT01227564|191701470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.36||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.52|42.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||42.81|-103.52|0.4089
95871986|NCT01227564|191701470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.4||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-159.69|-7.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||-7.11|-159.69|0.0327
95871987|NCT01227564|191701470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.88||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.82|7.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used with baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, in addition to treatment included in the ANCOVA model.||7.06|-120.82|0.0801
95871988|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.78||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.15|76.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||76.71|-37.15|0.4892
95871989|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.06||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|110.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||110.63|-8.51|0.0915
95871990|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.42||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|85.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 12.||85.72|-14.88|0.1638
95966075|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.42|0.4842
95966076|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.58|0.0692
95871991|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.29||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|252.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||252.86|-54.28|0.2006
95871992|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|225.63||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.18|386.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||386.09|65.18|0.0067
95871993|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|162.46||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.05|298.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||298.87|26.05|0.0204
95871994|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|114.13||||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|240.89||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||240.89|-12.63|0.0766
95871995|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
95871996|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
95871997|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.84||||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.29|284.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||284.97|-69.29|0.2277
95871998|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|226.82||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.23|413.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||413.41|40.23|0.0181
95966077|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.44|0.4028
95966078|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.02|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.02|-0.63|0.0354
95871999|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|167.33||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.03|325.63||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||325.63|9.03|0.0387
95872000|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.92||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.62|298.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||298.45|-14.62|0.0747
95966079|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.07|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.55|0.1228
95966080|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.70|0.0099
95966081|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.12|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.53|0.2174
95966082|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.60|0.0820
95872001|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.4||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.02|367.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||367.79|41.02|0.0151
95872002|NCT01227564|191701471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|173.16||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.25|313.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||313.07|33.25|0.0161
95872003|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.652||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|1.267||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.267|-6.570|0.1807
95966083|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.60|0.2642
95872004|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.497||||0.8051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.515|4.508||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||4.508|-3.515|0.8051
95872005|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.078||||0.5331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.364||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||2.364|-4.519|0.5331
95872006|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.641||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||3.641|-3.990|0.9274
95872007|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.549||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.458||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||7.458|-0.360|0.0743
95872008|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.687||||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|5.031||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||5.031|-1.656|0.3163
95966084|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.72|0.0718
95966085|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.2|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.64|0.3055
95966086|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.59|0.3533
95966087|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.4514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.53|0.4514
95966088|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.51|0.4907
95966089|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.24|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.36|0.6949
95872009|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.645||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.721|3.43||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||3.430|-6.721|0.5190
95872010|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.758||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|9.991||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||9.991|-0.476|0.0740
95872011|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.937|6.049||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||6.049|-2.937|0.4909
95872012|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.383||||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.549|6.783||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||6.783|-7.549|0.9151
95872013|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.394||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|12.857||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||12.857|-2.069|0.1533
95872014|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.506||||0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.904|8.915||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||8.915|-3.904|0.4371
95872015|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21||||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.999|6.579||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.579|-10.999|0.6167
95966090|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.18|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.40|0.4670
95966091|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.39|0.6556
95966092|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.29|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.32|0.9272
95872016|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.11||||0.1844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.993|15.212||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||15.212|-2.993|0.1844
95872017|NCT01227564|191701472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.888|9.878||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline total brain volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.878|-5.888|0.6205
95872018|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|1.018||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||1.018|-0.183|0.1695
95872019|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.759||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.759|-0.465|0.6331
95872020|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.282||||0.2907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.247|0.812||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.812|-0.247|0.2907
95872021|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.675|0.688||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.688|-0.675|0.9846
95872022|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.304||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.392||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.392|-1.000|0.3845
95966093|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.57|0.1395
95966094|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.50|0.2601
95966095|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.5626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.40|0.5626
95872023|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.748|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.450|-0.748|0.6204
95966096|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.42|0.4622
95966097|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.14|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.46|0.2858
95872024|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.221|1.192||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||1.192|-1.221|0.9810
95872025|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.796||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.034|0.443||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.443|-2.034|0.2034
95872026|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.405||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.469|0.659||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.659|-1.469|0.4491
95872027|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.255||||0.8074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.827|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||2.337|-1.827|0.8074
95872028|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.029||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.189|1.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.131|-3.189|0.3444
95872029|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.239|1.464||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||1.464|-2.239|0.6772
95966098|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.2|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.38|0.5369
95872030|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.652||||0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.063|3.367||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.367|-2.063|0.6325
95872031|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.5706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.606|2.007||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.007|-3.606|0.5706
95872032|NCT01227564|191701473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.074||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.485|2.337||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline ventricular volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.337|-2.485|0.9513
95872033|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.043||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.043|-0.074|0.6054
95872034|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.084||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.084|-0.035|0.4087
95872035|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.056||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.056|-0.046|0.8518
95872036|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.036|-0.085|0.4216
95872037|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.097||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.097|-0.028|0.2730
95966099|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.52|0.1510
95872038|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.058|-0.048|0.8549
95872039|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.068||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.068|-0.120|0.5847
95872040|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.163||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.163|-0.030|0.1740
95966100|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.38|0.5107
95966101|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.45|0.3301
95966102|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.19|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.39|0.5139
95872041|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.103||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.103|-0.063|0.6255
95872042|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.131||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.131|-0.177|0.7658
95872043|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.240|-0.082|0.3309
95872044|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028||||0.6872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.166||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.166|-0.110|0.6872
95872045|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.202||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.202|-0.196|0.9752
95872046|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.349||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.349|-0.064|0.1715
95872047|NCT01227564|191701474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073||||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.250|-0.105|0.4145
95872048|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011||||0.5134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.022|-0.043|0.5134
95872049|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.041|-0.024|0.6083
95872050|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.027||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.027|-0.029|0.9401
95966103|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.40|0.4073
95966104|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.4649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.38|0.4649
95966105|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.6926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.34|0.6926
95966106|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.32|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.22|0.7260
95966107|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.47|0.1486
95966108|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.36|0.4800
95966109|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.40|0.7792
95966110|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.37|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.31|0.8644
95966111|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.27|0.7994
95966112|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.57|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.57|-0.03|0.0811
95966113|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.34|0.6978
95872051|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.016||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.016|-0.051|0.2950
95966114|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.28|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.28|0.9749
95872052|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.037|-0.031|0.8817
95872053|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.022||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.022|-0.037|0.6072
95872054|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.6259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.036||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.036|-0.060|0.6259
95872055|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.076||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.076|-0.023|0.2807
95872056|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.7224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.050|-0.035|0.7224
95966115|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.08|0.3158
95872057|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.067||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.067|-0.080|0.8532
95966116|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.05|0.1901
95966117|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.12|0.7229
95966118|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.2715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.06|0.2715
95966119|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.5421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.12|0.5421
95872058|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039||||0.3116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.116||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.116|-0.038|0.3116
95872059|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.6246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.082||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.082|-0.049|0.6246
95872060|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.8697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.108||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.108|-0.092|0.8697
95872061|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.176||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.176|-0.032|0.1707
95872062|NCT01227564|191701475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.129||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline left hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.129|-0.049|0.3732
95966120|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.7215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.14|0.7215
95872063|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.028||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.028|-0.040|0.7259
95872064|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.3517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.051||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.051|-0.018|0.3517
95872065|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.035||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 10.||0.035|-0.024|0.7311
95872066|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.008||||0.6446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.026||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.026|-0.041|0.6446
95966121|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.07|0.2246
95966122|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.19|0.9671
95966123|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.29|0.6527
95966124|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.40|0.1647
95966125|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.18|0.7093
95966126|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.6333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.26|0.6333
95872067|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.066||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.066|-0.002|0.0640
95872068|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.4057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.041||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 24.||0.041|-0.017|0.4057
95872069|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.037||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.037|-0.066|0.5742
95872070|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.093||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.093|-0.013|0.1336
95966127|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.31|0.5238
95966128|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.02|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.44|0.0782
95966129|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.44|0.2346
95966130|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.01|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.52|0.0631
95966131|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.32|0.6274
95966132|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.37|0.3589
95966133|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.43|0.7604
95966134|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.66|0.1106
95872071|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.5734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.058||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 50.||0.058|-0.033|0.5734
95872072|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.071||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.071|-0.104|0.7067
95872073|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.132||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.132|-0.049|0.3600
95872074|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 76.||0.090|-0.065|0.7454
95872075|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.100|-0.113|0.9037
95872076|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.181||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.181|-0.040|0.2082
95966135|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.9776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.45|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-0.43|0.9776
95966136|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.22|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.65|0.3239
95966137|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.6736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.37|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.37|-0.57|0.6736
95872077|NCT01227564|191701476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.127||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with baseline right hippocampal volume and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.127|-0.063|0.5044
95872078|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.17|-0.23|0.7687
95872079|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.24|-0.16|0.6804
95872080|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.18|-0.17|0.9452
95872081|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.23|-0.27|0.8825
95872082|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.24|-0.28|0.8791
95872083|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.20|-0.24|0.8628
95872084|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.26|-0.35|0.7843
95966138|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.58|0.6136
95966139|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.70|0.1141
95966140|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.14|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.62|0.2185
95966141|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.6191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6191
95966142|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6169
95966143|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9911
95966144|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3360
95966145|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9638
95966146|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.03|0.1610
95966147|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.14|0.5763
95966148|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|0.00|0.0599
95966149|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.15|0.3916
95966150|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.10|0.9602
95966151|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.11|0.9676
95872085|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.60|-0.04|0.0857
95872086|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.39|-0.15|0.3878
95872087|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.45|-0.39|0.8918
95872088|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.76||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.76|-0.09|0.1233
95872089|NCT01227564|191701477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||0.55|-0.19|0.3302
95872090|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.97|-0.67|0.1597
95872091|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|0.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.91|-4.01|0.2130
95966152|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6397
95966153|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.05|0.3400
95872092|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||2.16|-2.06|0.9616
95872093|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.62||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||4.62|-1.06|0.2143
95872094|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.2151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.12|-4.87|0.2151
95872095|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.9704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.51||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.51|-2.61|0.9704
95872096|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.95||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||3.95|-3.00|0.7857
95872097|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-6.45|0.1323
95872098|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.97|-4.29|0.4618
95872099|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|6.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||6.22|-1.74|0.2622
95872100|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.4499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|2.55||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.55|-5.64|0.4499
95872101|NCT01227564|191701478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.91|-3.21|0.8454
95872102|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.96|-0.18|0.1796
95872103|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.69|-0.49|0.7281
95872104|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.75|-0.26|0.3347
95872105|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.20|-0.43|0.3425
95872106|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.52||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.52|-1.16|0.4501
95872107|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.9227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.75|-0.68|0.9227
95966154|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.05|0.3472
95966155|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9160
95872108|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.45|-0.51|0.3450
95872109|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.45||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.45|-1.58|0.2740
95872110|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.82|-0.92|0.9140
95872111|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.24|-0.18|0.0923
95872112|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.8482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.35|-1.11|0.8482
95872113|NCT01227564|191701479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.64|-0.49|0.2840
95872114|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.92|-4.90|0.1767
95872115|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-1.29|-7.23|0.0057
95966156|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.13|0.5948
95966157|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.06|0.3755
95872116|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.57||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||-0.57|-5.69|0.0176
95872117|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|2.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.61|-3.98|0.6790
95872118|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|3.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||3.20|-3.62|0.9028
95872119|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.47||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||2.47|-3.36|0.7600
95872120|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.86||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.86|-4.51|0.4089
95872121|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|1.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.15|-5.49|0.1964
95872122|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|1.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.09|-4.58|0.2234
95966158|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9752
95966159|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.11|0.9188
95966160|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.08|0.6379
95966161|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.16|0.4967
95966162|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.17|0.3492
95966163|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.10|0.7136
95872123|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.12|-3.52|0.6186
95872124|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.5853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.06||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.06|-3.60|0.5853
95872125|NCT01227564|191701480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|1.75||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.75|-3.23|0.5541
95872126|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.93||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.93|-2.09|0.9370
95966164|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.10|0.8163
95872127|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|0.88||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||0.88|-3.19|0.2597
95872128|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.14|-2.38|0.4852
95872129|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.22|-2.69|0.4542
95872130|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|0.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.97|-3.04|0.3061
95872131|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.84|-2.61|0.3082
95872132|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.87|-3.09|0.2672
95872133|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11||||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.07|-4.15|0.0427
95872134|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|0.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||0.15|-3.37|0.0716
95872135|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.7184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.00|-2.09|0.7184
95872136|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|3.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||3.03|-2.06|0.7004
95966165|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.17|0.2825
95872137|NCT01227564|191701481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.6723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.71||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.71|-1.77|0.6723
95872138|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.9535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.68|-1.58|0.9535
95872139|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.65|-1.63|0.9914
95872140|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.44||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||1.44|-1.39|0.9682
95872141|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.64|-2.96|0.2008
95872142|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||1.60|-2.07|0.7988
95872143|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.87||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||0.87|-2.27|0.3764
95872144|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|1.25||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.25|-2.98|0.4177
95872145|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.68||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.68|-2.67|0.6494
95872146|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.18||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||1.18|-2.54|0.4674
95966166|NCT02942004|191902784|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.18|0.1603
95966167|NCT02942004|191902785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.414||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.64|-2.07|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.07|-11.64|0.0054
95872147|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|1.81||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||1.81|-3.85|0.4709
95872148|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||4.07|-1.70|0.4128
95872149|NCT01227564|191701482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.9478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||2.58|-2.41|0.9478
95872150|NCT01227564|191701483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||2.35|-3.40|0.7146
95872151|NCT01227564|191701483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.33||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.33|-4.60|0.2733
95872152|NCT01227564|191701483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.3969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|1.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 54.||1.46|-3.62|0.3969
95872153|NCT01227564|191701483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.8566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|2.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||2.92|-2.43|0.8566
95872154|NCT01227564|191701483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.42||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.42|-3.98|0.3460
95872155|NCT01227564|191701483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.6582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.82||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 86.||1.82|-2.86|0.6582
95872156|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|13.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||13.36|-18.36|0.7537
95966168|NCT02942004|191902785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|0.45|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.45|-8.86|0.0763
95872157|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.51||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.86|3.65||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||3.65|-28.86|0.1266
95872158|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.96||||0.6724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|18.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||18.41|-28.34|0.6724
95872159|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.89|-5.5||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||-5.50|-53.89|0.0170
95872160|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.94||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.67|30.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||30.78|-92.67|0.3196
95872161|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-64.97||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.64|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||-0.31|-129.64|0.0490
95966169|NCT02942004|191902785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.673||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.99|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.99|-9.60|0.1101
95872162|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.04||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|46.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||46.79|-14.70|0.2969
95872163|NCT01227564|191701485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.2||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.42|5.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||5.03|-57.42|0.0973
95966170|NCT02942004|191902785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.618||0.6167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.87|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.87|-6.50|0.6167
95966171|NCT02942004|191902785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.14|-0.14|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.14|-11.14|0.0447
95872164|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|5.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||5.10|-7.94|0.6653
95872165|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|9.15||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 26.||9.15|-4.20|0.4613
95872166|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|5.61||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||5.61|-4.18|0.7710
95872167|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.02||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|8.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 52.||8.04|-1.99|0.2328
95872168|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.58||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.58|-0.97|0.3693
95872169|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.56||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 78.||2.56|-1.09|0.4220
95872170|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.25|9.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||9.23|-24.25|0.3728
95872171|NCT01227564|191701486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.07||||0.3452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.05|8.91||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiplicity adjustments due to multiple endpoints or multiple assessments were applied. Nominal p-values were reported in the analysis.|Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||A mixed effects model for repeated measures analysis was used, with the baseline assessment and ApoE4 status as covariates, and visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects, with variance-covariance structure set to unstructured. Statistical analysis presented above for Week 104.||8.91|-25.05|0.3452
95872172|NCT00744471|191701519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.69||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.69|-1.87|<0.001
95872173|NCT00744471|191701519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.1||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.10|-2.28|<0.001
95872174|NCT00744471|191701519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.16||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.34|<0.001
95872175|NCT00744471|191701520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.61||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-1.74|<0.001
95872176|NCT00744471|191701520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.06|<0.001
95872177|NCT00744471|191701520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.04||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.04|-2.17|<0.001
95872178|NCT00744471|191701521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.51|0.001
95872179|NCT00744471|191701521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
95872180|NCT00744471|191701521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effect, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.66|<0.001
95872181|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
95872182|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
95872183|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model includes treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
95872184|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.11|<0.001
95872185|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.57|<0.001
95872186|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.41||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.41|-2.50|<0.001
95872187|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.53||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.53|-1.65|<0.001
95872188|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.20|<0.001
95872189|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.45|-2.56|<0.001
95872190|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-2.10|<0.001
95872191|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.25|-2.46|<0.001
95872192|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.57|<0.001
95872193|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.56||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-1.75|<0.001
95872194|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.92||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.92|-2.12|<0.001
95872195|NCT00744471|191701522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.20|<0.001
95872196|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.88||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.88|-1.93|<0.001
95872197|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.2||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.20|-2.26|<0.001
95872198|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.85|<0.001
95872199|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.08|<0.001
95872200|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.52|<0.001
95872201|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-1.48||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.48|-2.54|<0.001
95872202|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.63||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.63|-1.71|<0.001
95966172|NCT02942004|191902785|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.726||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.99|1.81|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.81|-8.99|0.1908
95966173|NCT02942004|191902786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|11.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.7|1.3|0.0131
95966174|NCT02942004|191902786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.6|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||11.6|1.4|0.0095
95966175|NCT02942004|191902786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.5|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.5|1.1|0.0323
95966176|NCT02942004|191902786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||5.3|0.9|0.0931
95966177|NCT02942004|191902786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||10.0|1.3|0.0139
95966178|NCT02942004|191902786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.9|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||6.9|1.0|0.0460
95966179|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.454||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.75|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.75|-4.01|0.4389
95872203|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-1.12||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.12|-2.21|<0.001
95872204|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.52||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.52|-2.60|<0.001
95872205|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-0.99||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.99|-2.11|<0.001
95872206|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.45|<0.001
95872207|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-1.7||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.70|-2.82|<0.001
95872208|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.71||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-1.82|<0.001
95872209|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.03|-2.15|<0.001
95872210|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.40|-2.51|<0.001
95872211|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.72|-1.85|<0.001
95872212|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.01||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.01|-2.15|<0.001
95872213|NCT00744471|191701523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effects, baseline value as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.27|-2.40|<0.001
95872214|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
95872215|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
95872216|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
95872217|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.08||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.12|<0.001
95966180|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|1.78|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.78|-3.88|0.4645
95872218|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.6||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.60|-2.64|<0.001
95872219|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.43||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.43|-2.46|<0.001
95872220|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.64||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.64|-1.72|<0.001
95872221|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.09||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.09|-2.18|<0.001
95872222|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.35||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.35|-2.43|<0.001
95872223|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.77||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.77|-1.93|<0.001
95872224|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.15|-2.31|<0.001
95872225|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.32|-2.47|<0.001
95872226|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 : ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-1.52|<0.001
95966181|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-5.24|0.0622
95966182|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.338||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.91|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.91|-2.40|0.8495
95872227|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.78||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-1.91|<0.001
95872228|NCT00744471|191701524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.97||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24 :Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.09|<0.001
95872229|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
95872230|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.23|<0.001
95872231|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.8||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.80|-1.83|<0.001
95872232|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.08|-2.10|<0.001
95872233|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.59||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.59|-2.61|<0.001
95872234|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-1.49||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.49|-2.51|<0.001
95872235|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.76||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.76|-1.83|<0.001
95872236|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-1.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.19|-2.26|<0.001
95872237|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-1.46||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.46|-2.53|<0.001
95872238|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.00|-2.11|<0.001
95872239|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-1.37||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.37|-2.49|<0.001
95872240|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.72||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.72|-2.83|<0.001
95966183|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.55|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.55|-3.75|0.7063
95966184|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.552||0.9434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.97|-3.19|0.9434
95966185|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.13|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.13|-3.25|0.9701
95872241|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.75||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.75|-1.87|<0.001
95872242|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-1.02||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.02|-2.14|<0.001
95872243|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
95872244|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.74||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.74|-1.86|<0.001
95872245|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.05|-2.17|<0.001
95872246|NCT00744471|191701525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-1.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-1.36|-2.47|<0.001
95872247|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
95872248|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
95872249|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
95872250|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
95872251|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.88|<0.001
95872252|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.36||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.36|-0.73|<0.001
95872253|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.39|0.054
95872254|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.29||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.68|<0.001
95872255|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
95872256|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.15||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.55|<0.001
95872257|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.4||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.40|-0.81|<0.001
95872258|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.73|<0.001
95872259|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.45|0.008
95872260|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
95872261|NCT00744471|191701526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.43|0.012
95872262|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
95872263|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.45||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.45|-0.83|<0.001
95872264|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.22||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.60|<0.001
95872265|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.001
95872266|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.5||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-0.87|<0.001
95872267|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.76|<0.001
95872268|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.43|0.022
95872269|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
95872270|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.26||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.26|-0.65|<0.001
95872271|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.19||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.60|<0.001
95872272|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.47||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.47|-0.88|<0.001
95872273|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.39||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.79|<0.001
95872274|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
95872275|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.28||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.68|<0.001
95872276|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
95872277|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.06||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.47|0.010
95872278|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.25||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.66|<0.001
95872279|NCT00744471|191701527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.13||P-value is based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA was performed with treatment as main effect, baseline value, as a covariate, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.53|0.001
95872280|NCT04706416|191701549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.48|||Fisher Exact|||||1.48|0.26|0.297
95872281|NCT04706416|191701549|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.19|0.541
95872282|NCT04706416|191701550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.91|||Fisher Exact|||||0.91|0.15|0.039
95966186|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.566||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|2.35|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.35|-3.86|0.6307
95966187|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.488||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|0.93|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.93|-4.97|0.1767
95872283|NCT04706416|191701550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.09|0.081
95872284|NCT04706416|191701551|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.0|-1.0|0.643
95872285|NCT04706416|191701551|SUPERIORITY||β-coefficient|-4.27||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.87|-5.67|0.001
95872286|NCT04706416|191701552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.19|||Fisher Exact|||||1.19|0.25|0.133
95872287|NCT04706416|191701553|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.0||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12.0|-1.0|0.092
95872288|NCT04706416|191701554|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|-2.0|0.834
95872289|NCT04706416|191701555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.001||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.52|||Fisher Exact|||||1.52|0|0.149
95872290|NCT04706416|191701556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Fisher Exact|||||0.80|0.12|0.015
95872291|NCT00410202|191701608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.9|||Hochberg procedure|||||19.9|-2.0|0.1336
95966188|NCT02942004|191902787|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.468||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|1.45|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.45|-4.37|0.3236
95872292|NCT00410202|191701608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7||||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|15.5|||Hochberg procedure|||||15.5|-4.2|0.2619
95872293|NCT00410202|191701609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|15.0||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|26.4|||Hochberg procedure|||||26.4|3.7|0.0095
95872294|NCT00410202|191701610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|21.1||||||||21.1|2.5|
95872295|NCT00410202|191701610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|18.2||||||||18.2|-1.1|
95872296|NCT00410202|191701611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|23.9||||||||23.9|1.8|
95872297|NCT00410202|191701612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.4||||||||17.4|0.3|
95872298|NCT00410202|191701612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|17.3||||||||17.3|-0.1|
95872299|NCT00410202|191701613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference estimate|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|23.4||||||||23.4|2.4|
95872300|NCT00410202|191701616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|-0.994|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.994|-1.534|
95872301|NCT00410202|191701616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.824|-0.281|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.281|-0.824|
95872302|NCT00410202|191701618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7||||||||10.7|-15.5|
95872303|NCT00410202|191701618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|12.6||||||||12.6|-15.0|
95872304|NCT00410202|191701619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|10.6||||||||10.6|-16.2|
95872305|NCT00410202|191701620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7||||||||6.7|-5.2|
95872306|NCT00410202|191701620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.2||||||||7.2|-4.6|
95872307|NCT00410202|191701621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.4||||||||6.4|-9.5|
95872308|NCT00410202|191701622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.8||||||||6.8|-2.4|
95872309|NCT00410202|191701622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2||||||||6.2|-3.5|
95872310|NCT00410202|191701623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.8||||||||7.8|-3.6|
95872311|NCT00410202|191701624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
95872312|NCT00410202|191701624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-2.0|
95872313|NCT00410202|191701626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
95872314|NCT00410202|191701626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.1||||||||2.1|-0.7|
95872315|NCT01352468|191701633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.35
95872316|NCT01352468|191701634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.68
95872317|NCT01352468|191701635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||ANCOVA|Controlling for baseline scores||||||.57
95872318|NCT01178073|191701636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.502||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.724|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.724|0.348|0.0002
95872319|NCT01178073|191701636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.477||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.723|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.723|0.314|0.0004
95872320|NCT01178073|191701636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.528||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.827|||Stratified Log Rank||Analysis of time to first adjudicated clinical failure event through FAV. HR is calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. HR is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.827|0.338|0.0045
95872321|NCT01178073|191701637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-33.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.78|-20.66|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||-20.66|-44.78|<0.0001
95872322|NCT01178073|191701637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-25.09||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.04|-6.4|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||-6.40|-40.04|0.0111
95872323|NCT01178073|191701637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|-41.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.16|-26.97|||ANCOVA||Mean percent difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||-26.97|-53.16|<0.0001
95872324|NCT01178073|191701638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|2.319|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||2.319|1.054|0.0264
95872325|NCT01178073|191701638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.424||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|2.308|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||2.308|0.878|0.1518
95872326|NCT01178073|191701638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.723||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.833|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil / Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||2.833|1.047|0.0321
95872327|NCT01178073|191701639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|22.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|33.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||33.50|12.00|<0.0001
95872328|NCT01178073|191701639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|24.75||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|38.5|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||38.50|11.00|0.0005
95872329|NCT01178073|191701639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|20.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||33.70|8.00|0.0030
95872330|NCT01178073|191701640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.0|0.0|0.2287
95872331|NCT01178073|191701640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
95872332|NCT01178073|191701640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This comparison was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.0|0.0|
95872333|NCT01178073|191701641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Monotherapy Pooled: Ambrisentan or Tadalafil.|||0.00|-0.75|
95872334|NCT01178073|191701641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Ambrisentan Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
95872335|NCT01178073|191701641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|This endpoint was not formally tested according to the pre-defined hierarchical testing procedure.|Median difference is for Combination Therapy: Ambrisentan + Tadalafil - Tadalafil Monotherapy.|||0.00|-1.00|
95872336|NCT04533685|191701642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received reminder letters to the arm receiving no reminder letter (control)|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
95872337|NCT04533685|191701642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received direct appointment scheduling to the arms not receiving direct appointment scheduling.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
95872338|NCT04533685|191701642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-commitment reminders to the arms not receiving pre-commitment reminders.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|1.00|
95872339|NCT04533685|191701642|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder to the arms not receiving pre-appointment reminder.|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
95872340|NCT03496571|191701643|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|-68.0|||ANCOVA|||||-68|-122|<0.001
95872341|NCT03496571|191701643|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-102.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-128|<0.001
95872342|NCT03496571|191701643|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-76.0|||ANCOVA|||||-76|-121|<0.001
95872343|NCT03496571|191701644|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|76.0|||Fisher Exact|||||76|27|<0.001
95872344|NCT03496571|191701644|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|62.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|82.0|||Fisher Exact|||||82|34|<0.001
95872345|NCT03496571|191701644|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|74.0|||Fisher Exact|||||74|36|<0.001
95872346|NCT03496571|191701645|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-20.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-40|0.05
95872347|NCT03496571|191701645|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-33.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA|||||-13|-53|0.002
95872348|NCT03496571|191701645|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-26.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA|||||-9|-44|0.004
95872349|NCT04221230|191701676|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.8|0.121
95872350|NCT00674973|191701720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||Log Rank|||Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the Hazard Ratio (erlotinib compared with placebo), including 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs).||1.10|0.63|0.1909
95872351|NCT00518687|191701730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|18.5||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|55.8||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significantly greater than 20%|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||55.8|-48.6|0.584
95872352|NCT00518687|191701731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated rate difference|0.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||0.1|-0.1|0.997
95872353|NCT00518687|191701732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|12.9||||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|50.0||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||50.0|-50.8|0.347
95872354|NCT00518687|191701733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|29.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|51.2||A 1-sided p-value \<0.025 implies that the V710 vaccine efficacy is statistically significant|Exact 1-sided binomial test||VE = 1 - Relative Risk of V710 compared with placebo|||51.2|-1.8|0.032
95872355|NCT05323656|191701789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.077||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.98|22.0|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group|Null hypothesis: the mean best percentage change in the tumour size between the treatment groups are the same. With 25 patients per treatment group, using a 2-sided t-test, there will be 85% power to detect a 20% mean difference between the treatment groups in best percentage change in tumour size, with an estimated standard deviation of 30% and a 2 sided alpha of 20%.||22.0|-11.98|0.7008
95872356|NCT05323656|191701790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis: The risk for progression, as defined by RECIST v1.1, is the same between treatment groups. If the true hazard ratio is 0.5, approximately 38 progression events as defined by RECIST v1.1 will be required to have \> 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in PFS with 2-sided p\<0.2||0.89|0.38|.1023
95872357|NCT05323656|191701791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.89||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.3|21.3||a priori threshold for significance (0.2) not met.|ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CAF levels does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CAFs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||21.3|-2.3|0.2986
95872358|NCT05323656|191701792|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.86|23.52|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline CD8+ TILs does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline CD8+ TILs level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||23.52|-9.86|0.5918
95872359|NCT05323656|191701793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.2135|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|22.02|||ANCOVA||The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.|Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline number of regulatory T-cells in tumour tissue level with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline.||22.02|-0.34|0.2135
95872360|NCT05323656|191701797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.448|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|0.85||||||No formal test of significance undertaken.||0.85|0.24|
95872361|NCT05323656|191701800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.4||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|80.0|5.17|30.36|||ANCOVA|The LS Mean difference is for the Setanaxib Group minus the Placebo Group.||Null Hypothesis: Mean difference in postbaseline PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) does not differ between treatment groups. ANCOVA model is on postbaseline PD-L1 CPS with a fixed factor for treatment and a covariate for baseline. Threshold for statistical significance = 0.2.||30.36|5.17|0.0782
95872362|NCT05323656|191701801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.578||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.22
95872363|NCT05323656|191701801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.395||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.20
95872364|NCT05323656|191701802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.069||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.037
95872365|NCT05323656|191701802|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.123
95872366|NCT05323656|191701803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.017||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.41
95966189|NCT01016262|191902878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between MAX-002 and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was the single pre-specified primary analysis, and the null hypothesis was that the percentages were equal between the two groups.||||0.0047
95966190|NCT01016262|191902878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0346||||||Statistical significance was assessed at the two-sided 5% level. As there was only a single pre-specified primary analysis, there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between Canasa® and placebo during the DB phase with respect to the primary outcome measure was a pre-specified tertiary analysis only.||||0.0346
95966191|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference :|-13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.7|||||2-Sided 95% CIs were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1||-8.7|-18.3|
95966192|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|-12.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-12.4|-23.2|
95966193|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-5.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-5.9|-16.0|
95966194|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||-7.2|-17.8|
95872367|NCT05323656|191701803|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.023||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within group test of hypothesis that screening and week 9 values are equal.||||0.11
95872368|NCT03880461|191701810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95872369|NCT03880461|191701811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95872370|NCT03880461|191701812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.108
95872371|NCT02017171|191701840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|linear model for correlated errors||Treatment difference = Allopurinol-Placebo|||1.9|-1.9|0.999
95966195|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-8.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||-8.6|-19.5|
95872372|NCT02017171|191701841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.2|-1.6|
95872373|NCT02017171|191701842|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values. The confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo|||2.3|-1.7|
95966196|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-10.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||-10.6|-21.0|
95966197|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||1.1|-6.3|
95872374|NCT02017171|191701843|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.4|-1.5|
95872375|NCT02017171|191701844|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Treatment difference = Allopurinol - Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||0.5|-1.0|
95872376|NCT02017171|191701845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||2.9|0.5|
95872377|NCT02017171|191701846|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||1.8|1.0|
95872378|NCT02017171|191701847|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||||Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|1.6|1.0|
95872379|NCT02017171|191701848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.5||For secondary outcomes, 95% confidence intervals are reported, without P values.|||Hazard Ratio = Allopurinol / Placebo. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity and should not be used to infer treatment effects.|||4.5|0.8|
95872380|NCT00708071|191701906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25||||0.143||95.0|-0.04|0.49|||McNemar||Difference in Proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.49|-0.04|0.143
95872381|NCT00708071|191701907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.48|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.48|0.12|
95872382|NCT00708071|191701908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.32|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.32|-0.11|
95872383|NCT00708071|191701909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.18|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.18|-0.24|
95966198|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-8.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||-8.9|-19.7|
95872384|NCT00708071|191701910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.21|-0.21|
95872385|NCT00708071|191701911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.24|||||Difference in proportions = SoC - FS VH S/D 4|||0.24|-0.17|
95872386|NCT00708071|191701912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645|||||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.645
95872387|NCT00708071|191701913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.103
95872388|NCT00708071|191701914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.833
95872389|NCT00708071|191701915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.501
95872390|NCT00708071|191701916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.247
95872391|NCT00708071|191701917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.715
95872392|NCT00708071|191701919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.754
95872393|NCT00708071|191701920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.388||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.388
95872394|NCT00708071|191701921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.234
95872395|NCT00708071|191701922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
95872396|NCT00708071|191701923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.625
95872397|NCT00708071|191701924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.688
95872398|NCT00708071|191701925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
95872399|NCT00708071|191701926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.521
95872400|NCT00708071|191701927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||90.0||||alpha = 10%|Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|||||||0.324
95872401|NCT00708071|191701928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.661
95872402|NCT00708071|191701929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||1.000
95872403|NCT00708071|191701930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||90.0|||||Two-sided Wilcoxon paired sample tests|alpha = 10%||||||0.699
95872404|NCT00708071|191701933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||two-sided paired t-test|alpha = 5%||||||0.0010
95872405|NCT00708071|191701935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.182||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.34|||McNemar's test of paired proportions|Alpha = 5%|Difference in Proportions = (Number of SoC Participants with Hematoma/Seroma) - (Number of FS VH S/D 4 Participants with Hematoma/Seroma)|||0.34|0.04|0.014
95872406|NCT02378025|191701989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.25
95872407|NCT02378025|191701990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.08
95872408|NCT02378025|191701991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95872409|NCT02378025|191701992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.25
95872410|NCT02378025|191701993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.22
95872411|NCT02378025|191701994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.41
95872412|NCT01484054|191702042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Quality of Lens Vision at 7-9 days of follow-up.||5.20|-3.20|
95966199|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||1.4|-7.9|
95966200|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-0.4|-10.6|
95966201|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.3|-4.8|
95966202|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.2|-4.0|
95966203|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent Difference|-18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-12.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||-12.9|-23.6|
95966204|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|59.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|64.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||64.1|55.6|
95966205|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||-2.1|-13.1|
95966206|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|61.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||61.9|53.1|
95966207|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||-0.7|-11.7|
95966208|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||62.1|53.3|
95966209|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|62.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||62.1|53.3|
95966210|NCT04546425|191902893|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|16.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Percent difference for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||16.0|4.5|
95966211|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.69|0.54|
95966212|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.79|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.79|0.64|
95966213|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.69|0.52|
95872413|NCT01484054|191702043|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|10.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The alternative hypothesis is that etafilcon A with PVP lenses is non-inferior to etafilcon A control lenses for the Overall Lens Comfort at 7-9 days of follow-up.||10.19|-0.79|
95872414|NCT01484054|191702044|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points(CLUE) was used.|Least square mean difference|9.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|13.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Ho: The test lens is non-inferior to the active comparator lens for Handling at 7-9 days follow-up.||13.07|5.81|
95872415|NCT00591266|191702083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.29|-9.09||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-9.09|-13.29|<0.001
95872416|NCT00591266|191702083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-8.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.81|-13.00|<0.001
95872417|NCT00591266|191702084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-8.1||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-8.10|-13.93|<0.001
95872418|NCT00591266|191702084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-6.63||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.63|-12.48|<0.001
95872419|NCT00591266|191702085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|-6.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.11|-8.84|<0.001
95872420|NCT00591266|191702085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|-6.28||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-9.01|<0.001
95872421|NCT00591266|191702086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.23|-6.62|<0.001
95872422|NCT00591266|191702086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.88|-7.28|<0.001
95872423|NCT00591266|191702087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-9.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.41|-13.86|<0.001
95872424|NCT00591266|191702087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|-8.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.95|-13.39|<0.001
95872425|NCT00591266|191702088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-6.5||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.50|-9.47|<0.001
95872426|NCT00591266|191702088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-6.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.55|-9.52|<0.001
95872427|NCT00591266|191702089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-7.34||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-12.07|<0.001
95872428|NCT00591266|191702089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-7.31||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.31|-12.03|<0.001
95872429|NCT00591266|191702090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-4.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.57|-7.94|<0.001
95872430|NCT00591266|191702090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|-4.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.60|-7.96|<0.001
95872431|NCT00591266|191702091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-9.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.92|-14.63|<0.001
95872432|NCT00591266|191702091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-9.23||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.23|-13.93|<0.001
95872433|NCT00591266|191702092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-6.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-9.98|<0.001
95872434|NCT00591266|191702092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-6.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-9.82|<0.001
95872435|NCT00591266|191702093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-6.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-11.45|<0.001
95872436|NCT00591266|191702093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-6.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.30|-11.51|<0.001
95872437|NCT00591266|191702094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-4.0||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.00|-7.88|<0.001
95872438|NCT00591266|191702094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-4.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.61|-8.47|<0.001
95872439|NCT00591266|191702095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|5.26||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.26|2.15|<0.001
95872440|NCT00591266|191702095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.03|2.05|<0.001
95872441|NCT00591266|191702096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|6.02||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.08|<0.001
95872442|NCT00591266|191702096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|6.75||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.75|2.25|<0.001
95872443|NCT00591266|191702097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|1.71|<0.001
95872444|NCT00591266|191702097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.82||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.82|2.01|<0.001
95872445|NCT03737851|191702109|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.559|2.584||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||2.584|0.559|
95872446|NCT03737851|191702109|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|1.421||||||Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||1.421|0.266|
95966214|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.7|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.70|0.52|
95966215|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.65|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.65|0.45|
95966216|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.61|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.61|0.43|
95872447|NCT00191646|191702185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Using a two-sided log-rank test with a Type I error of 0.05, 636 events for PFS out of the 919 patients would give an 80% statistical power under the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio of the G/C arm versus the P/C arm was 0.08.||||0.199
95872448|NCT00191646|191702186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.771
95872449|NCT00191646|191702186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.784
95872450|NCT00191646|191702187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.621||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.621
95872451|NCT00191646|191702188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.013
95872452|NCT00252629|191702213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of fatigue complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0002
95872453|NCT00252629|191702214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of pain symptom from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.0008
95872454|NCT00252629|191702215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change of cognitive dysfunction complaint from baseline (before treatment) to post treatment ( after 3 weeks treatment) on either therapeutic CPAP or sham CPAP was compared with student t-test.||||0.004
95872455|NCT00252629|191702216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p value was based on t-test||||0.0001
95872456|NCT02043379|191702249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We used alpha level of 0.05 and power of 0.8 to calculate the sample size necessary to detect a meaningful clinical difference for our primary endpoint.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
95872457|NCT02043379|191702250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
95872458|NCT02043379|191702251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.38
95872459|NCT02043379|191702252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.26||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95966217|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.64|
95966218|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.69|0.50|
95872460|NCT02043379|191702253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-CPB albumin||||0.42
95872461|NCT02043379|191702253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for test signficance|t-test, 2 sided|||48 hour post CPB albumin||||0.06
95872462|NCT02043379|191702254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95872463|NCT02043379|191702255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.81||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Admit Inotrope Score||||0.81
95872464|NCT02043379|191702255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.82
95872465|NCT02043379|191702255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||a p value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.9
95872466|NCT02043379|191702255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.23||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative inotrope score||||0.23
95872467|NCT02043379|191702256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.49||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95872468|NCT02043379|191702257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95966219|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.96|0.70|
95966220|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.92|0.67|
95966221|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.69|0.51|
95872469|NCT02043379|191702258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.32||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative IgG level||||0.32
95872470|NCT02043379|191702258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||a p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative IgG level||||0.36
95872471|NCT02043379|191702258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical signficance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 3 (72 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
95872472|NCT02043379|191702258|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation|||||<|0.01||||||p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||post-operative day 5 (120 hours) IgG level||||<0.01
95872473|NCT02043379|191702259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.6||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.60
95872474|NCT02043379|191702259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.06
95872475|NCT02043379|191702259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.06||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.06
95872476|NCT02043379|191702259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.33||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hours post-operative||||0.33
95872477|NCT02043379|191702259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.05||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hours post-operative||||0.05
95966222|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.82|0.64|
95872478|NCT02043379|191702259|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.83||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hours post-operative||||0.83
95872479|NCT02043379|191702260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour levels||||0.27
95872480|NCT02043379|191702260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.34
95872481|NCT02043379|191702260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.14
95872482|NCT02043379|191702260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.13||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.13
95966223|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.62|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.62|0.44|
95872483|NCT02043379|191702260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.02
95872484|NCT02043379|191702261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||1
95872485|NCT02043379|191702262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95966224|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|30.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||30.67|22.98|
95872486|NCT02043379|191702263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.09||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-48 hours post-CPB||||0.09
95872487|NCT02043379|191702263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.52||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0-24 hours post CPB||||0.52
95872488|NCT02043379|191702264|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.72||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95872489|NCT02043379|191702265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.63||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95872490|NCT02043379|191702266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.41||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.41
95872491|NCT02043379|191702266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.34
95872492|NCT02043379|191702266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.47
95872493|NCT02043379|191702266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.42
95872494|NCT02043379|191702266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.82
95872495|NCT02043379|191702266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.44
95872496|NCT02043379|191702267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.28
95872497|NCT02043379|191702267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.37
95872498|NCT02043379|191702267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.42||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.42
95966225|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|3.17|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||3.17|2.25|
95872499|NCT02043379|191702267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.31||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.31
95872500|NCT02043379|191702267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.38
95872501|NCT02043379|191702267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.4||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.4
95872502|NCT02043379|191702268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
95872503|NCT02043379|191702268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.12||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.12
95872504|NCT02043379|191702268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.51||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.51
95872505|NCT02043379|191702268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.27||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.27
95872506|NCT02043379|191702268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.88||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.88
95872507|NCT02043379|191702268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
95872508|NCT02043379|191702269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.35
95872509|NCT02043379|191702269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.39||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.39
95872510|NCT02043379|191702269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.58||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.58
95872511|NCT02043379|191702269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.36||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.36
95872512|NCT02043379|191702269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.61||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.61
95872513|NCT02043379|191702269|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.38||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.38
95872514|NCT02043379|191702270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.1
95872515|NCT02043379|191702270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.02||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.02
95872516|NCT02043379|191702270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.34||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.34
95872517|NCT02043379|191702270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.35||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.35
95872518|NCT02043379|191702270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.67||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.67
95872519|NCT02043379|191702270|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.47
95872520|NCT02043379|191702271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.46||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||pre-operative||||0.46
95872521|NCT02043379|191702271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour post-operative||||0.04
95872522|NCT02043379|191702271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.14||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour post-operative||||0.14
95872523|NCT02043379|191702271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.82||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour post-operative||||0.82
95872524|NCT02043379|191702271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.9||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour post-operative||||0.9
95872525|NCT02043379|191702271|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.78||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||48 hour post-operative||||0.78
95872526|NCT02043379|191702272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.37||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||0 hour level||||0.37
95872527|NCT02043379|191702272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||4 hour level||||0.47
95872528|NCT02043379|191702272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.47||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||8 hour level||||0.47
95872529|NCT02043379|191702272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12 hour level||||0.79
95872530|NCT02043379|191702272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.04||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24 hour level||||0.04
95872531|NCT02043379|191702273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.43||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.43
95872532|NCT02043379|191702273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.68||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||max||||0.68
95872533|NCT02043379|191702274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation.||||||0.87||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||pre-operative||||0.87
95872534|NCT02043379|191702274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were not performed on this statistical calculation||||||0.79||||||A p-value of \<0.05 represents the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||24 hour post-operative max||||0.79
95872535|NCT05419908|191702362|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-7.79||Least square (LS) mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)||||-7.79|-16.89|<0.001
95872536|NCT05419908|191702363|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.134|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.466|-0.802||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.802|-1.466|<0.001
95872537|NCT05419908|191702363|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.948|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.362|-0.535||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.535|-1.362|<0.001
95966226|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.95|30.82|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||30.82|22.95|
95872538|NCT05419908|191702363|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.122|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.504|-0.741||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.741|-1.504|<0.001
95872539|NCT05419908|191702364|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.02|-9.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.54|-17.02|<0.001
95872540|NCT05419908|191702364|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-7.27||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-7.27|-16.30|<0.001
95872541|NCT05419908|191702364|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-7.83||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hot flash score as covariate. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-7.83|-17.00|<0.001
95872542|NCT05419908|191702365|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-29.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-29.1|-50.5|<0.001
95872543|NCT05419908|191702365|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-23.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-23.0|-47.9|<0.001
95872544|NCT05419908|191702365|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.9|-22.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as factor. P-value of the t-statistic testing whether there is a treatment difference.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-22.1|-47.9|<0.001
95872545|NCT05419908|191702366|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|81.0||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||81.00|49.15|<0.001
95872546|NCT05419908|191702366|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|30.37|66.59||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||66.59|30.37|<0.001
95872547|NCT05419908|191702366|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.76|69.24||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||69.24|35.76|<0.001
95872548|NCT05419908|191702367|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|84.21||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||84.21|53.70|<0.001
95872549|NCT05419908|191702367|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|50.7|||<|0.001||95.0|31.93|69.42||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||69.42|31.93|<0.001
95872550|NCT05419908|191702367|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.99|75.01||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||75.01|39.99|<0.001
95872551|NCT05419908|191702368|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|54.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.47|70.84||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||70.84|37.47|<0.001
95872552|NCT05419908|191702368|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.8|||<|0.001||95.0|29.62|65.99||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||65.99|29.62|<0.001
95872553|NCT05419908|191702368|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|47.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.86|66.14||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||66.14|28.86|<0.001
95872554|NCT05419908|191702369|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|49.7|||<|0.001||95.0|33.54|65.79||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||65.79|33.54|<0.001
95872555|NCT05419908|191702369|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.83|59.85||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||59.85|27.83|<0.001
95872556|NCT05419908|191702369|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|42.5|||<|0.001||95.0|26.34|58.66||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||58.66|26.34|<0.001
95872557|NCT05419908|191702370|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|62.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.56|79.05||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||79.05|46.56|<0.001
95872558|NCT05419908|191702370|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|63.47||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||63.47|28.85|<0.001
95872559|NCT05419908|191702370|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|57.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.57|73.43||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||73.43|41.57|<0.001
95872560|NCT05419908|191702371|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|61.5|||<|0.001||95.0|45.4|77.55||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 4||77.55|45.40|<0.001
95872561|NCT05419908|191702371|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|43.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.53|62.69||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 8||62.69|23.53|<0.001
95872562|NCT05419908|191702371|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|52.5|||<|0.001||95.0|33.92|71.08||Likelihood-ratio test based 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference.|Likelihood-Ratio Chi-Square Test|||Week 12||71.08|33.92|<0.001
95966227|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.97|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||2.97|2.08|
95872563|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-1.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work||-1.60|-3.45|<0.001
95872564|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.42||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work||-1.42|-3.15|<0.001
95872565|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work||-1.20|-3.03|<0.001
95872566|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Activities||-1.46|-3.19|<0.001
95872567|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.47||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Activties||-1.47|-3.21|<0.001
95872568|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.29||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Activties||-1.29|-3.09|<0.001
95872569|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.31||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Leisure Activities||-1.31|-2.99|<0.001
95966228|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.35|64.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||64.30|46.35|
95872570|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|-1.55||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Leisure Activties||-1.55|-3.19|<0.001
95872571|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.62||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Leisure Activties||-0.62|-2.66|0.002
95872572|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-1.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sleep||-1.78|-4.08|<0.001
95872573|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-1.57||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sleep||-1.57|-3.86|<0.001
95872574|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.54||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sleep||-1.54|-3.67|<0.001
95872575|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.81||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mood||-0.81|-2.67|<0.001
95872576|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.16||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Mood||-1.16|-3.09|<0.001
95872577|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Mood||-0.88|-2.69|<0.001
95872578|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Concentration||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
95872579|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-3.21|-1.25||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Concentration||-1.25|-3.21|<0.001
95872580|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|-0.88||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Concentration||-0.88|-2.91|<0.001
95872581|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.46||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Relations With Others||-0.46|-2.20|0.003
95872582|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Relations With others||-0.90|-2.80|<0.001
95966229|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.57|42.89|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||42.89|31.57|
95872583|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.77||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Relations With Others||-0.77|-2.66|<0.001
95872584|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|0.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Sexuality||0.13|-2.25|0.081
95872585|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Sexuality||0.00|-2.80|0.050
95872586|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.51||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.19||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Sexuality||-0.19|-2.84|0.026
95872587|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.79||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Enjoyment of Life||-0.79|-2.51|<0.001
95872588|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-1.18||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Enjoyment of Life||-1.18|-2.97|<0.001
95966230|NCT04546425|191902894|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 6B (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|5.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||5.92|4.27|
95966231|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 1||0.75|0.60|
95966232|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.73|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 3||0.73|0.59|
95872589|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.78||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Enjoyment of Life||-0.78|-2.88|<0.001
95872590|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.97||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week4: Overall Quality of Life||-0.97|-2.86|<0.001
95872591|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.61||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Quality of Life||-1.61|-3.41|<0.001
95872592|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.41||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Quality of Life||-1.41|-3.31|<0.001
95872593|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.23||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Overall Mean Score||-1.23|-2.73|<0.001
95872594|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Overall Mean Score||-1.40|-3.02|<0.001
95872595|NCT05419908|191702372|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.13||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline weekly hfrdis as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Overall Mean Score||-1.13|-2.83|<0.001
95872596|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|2.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Getting to Sleep||2.100|0.651|<0.001
95872597|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.827||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Getting to Sleep||1.827|0.505|<0.001
95872598|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.895||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.599||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Getting to Sleep||1.599|0.190|0.014
95872599|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.423|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|3.539||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Quality of Sleep||3.539|1.308|<0.001
95872600|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.291|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|3.251||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Quality of Sleep||3.251|1.31|<0.001
95872601|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.433|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.334|3.532||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Quality of Sleep||3.532|1.334|<0.001
95872602|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.877||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|1.789||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Awake Following Sleep||1.789|-0.034|0.059
95872603|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.457||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|2.335||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Awake Following Sleep||2.335|0.579|0.001
95872604|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.113||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|2.12||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Awake Following Sleep||2.120|0.107|0.031
95872605|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.203||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|2.088||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.088|0.317|0.008
95872606|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.597||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.556||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Behaviour Following Wakening||2.556|0.639|0.001
95872607|NCT05419908|191702373|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.842||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|1.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline LSEQ as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Behaviour Following Sleep||1.800|-0.116|0.084
95872608|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.0||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.3|-0.3|0.881
95872609|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.383
95872610|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Loss of Interest in Sex||0.2|-0.6|0.301
95872611|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Psychological||-0.4|-4.5|0.020
95872612|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.2||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Psychological||-1.2|-5.4|0.003
95872613|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Psychological||-1.0|-5.2|0.005
95872614|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Physical||0.9|-1.2|0.732
95872615|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.7||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Physical||0.6|-1.9|0.282
95872616|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Physical||0.5|-1.7|0.254
95872617|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Vasomotor||-1.4|-2.7|<0.001
95872618|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Vasomotor||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
95872619|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Vasomotor||-1.3|-2.6|<0.001
95872620|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-1.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Total Symptom Score||-1.0|-8.2|0.013
95872621|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-3.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Total Symptom Score||-3.1|-10.7|<0.001
95872622|NCT05419908|191702374|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline GCS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Total Symptom Score||-2.8|-9.9|<0.001
95872623|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Work/School||-0.8|-2.7|<0.001
95872624|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.3||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Work/School||-1.3|-2.8|<0.001
95872625|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Work/School||-0.8|-2.5|<0.001
95872626|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Social Life||-0.6|-2.2|<0.001
95872627|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Social Life||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
95872628|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Social Life||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
95872629|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.4|-2.2|0.005
95872630|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.9||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.9|-2.5|<0.001
95872631|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.7||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Family Life/Home Responsibilities||-0.7|-2.4|<0.001
95872632|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Global Functional Impairment||-2.0|-6.9|<0.001
95872633|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Global Functional Impairment||-3.6|-8.0|<0.001
95872634|NCT05419908|191702375|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.8||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Global Functional Impairment||-2.8|-7.8|<0.001
95872635|NCT05419908|191702376|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Lost||0.6|-0.5|0.936
95872636|NCT05419908|191702376|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|0.0||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Lost||0.1|-0.1|0.884
95872637|NCT05419908|191702376|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.2||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Lost||0.1|-0.4|0.124
95872638|NCT05419908|191702376|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.8|0.052
95872639|NCT05419908|191702376|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.9||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.060
95872640|NCT05419908|191702376|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-0.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0||Least square mean difference versus placebo, obtained from an ANCOVA model with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline SDS as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: Days Unproductive||0.0|-1.7|0.049
95872641|NCT01711372|191702393|OTHER||||||||||||||Chi-squared|||AUC or ROC for Groundskeeper Game|AUC of ROC is 0.78|||
95872642|NCT01711372|191702394|OTHER||||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnoses is 0.76|||
95966233|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 4||0.87|0.68|
95966234|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 5||0.81|0.64|
95966235|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6A||0.75|0.57|
95966236|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 6B||0.67|0.48|
95872643|NCT01711372|191702395|OTHER|AUC of ROC|||||||||||||||||AUC of ROC. Proportion of accurate ADHD diagnosis is 0.62|||
95872644|NCT00085709|191702430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|The interim analysis only reported a p-value for testing whether the hazard ratio was not equal to 1.5.||Interim futility analysis of the alternative hypothesis for disease-free survival. The design specified a hazard ratio of (observation: GO) of 1.5.||||<0.001
95872645|NCT00085709|191702431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0025||95.0|||||Test of difference of proportions|||Interim futility analysis alternative hypothesis based on the design specification that the 7+3+GO arm would have a 12% increase in CR rate.||||<0.0025
95966237|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 7F||0.80|0.67|
95966238|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.81|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 9V||0.81|0.66|
95966239|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 14||0.92|0.69|
95966240|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.84|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 18C||0.84|0.67|
95966241|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.93|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19A||0.93|0.72|
95966242|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 19F||0.87|0.68|
95966243|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.69|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 23F||0.69|0.52|
95966244|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.66|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 8||1.66|1.32|
95966245|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.3|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 10A||2.30|1.77|
95966246|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.75|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 11A||1.75|1.37|
95966247|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 12F||0.87|0.68|
95966248|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|6.1|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 15B||6.10|4.82|
95966249|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|4.34|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 22F||4.34|3.40|
95872646|NCT03646643|191702433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.97||A priori threshold \<0.05. Multiple comparisons adjustments: not needed.|Log Rank||The distal CS to LA connection elimination group had fewer recurrences (6.7%) compared with the standard group (46.7%), which translated to an 88% lower hazard of recurrence compared with the standard group.|Power calculation: assuming alpha 0.05, power 0.8, 1:1 randomization, and estimated relative risk of 14.4 for AF susceptibility with rate-dependent CS-LA conduction block, we anticipated a minimum sample size of 6 patients per group would be necessary to detect a difference using the log-rank test. Additional patients were recruited to account for potential losses to follow-up and a smaller detectable difference.||0.97|0.02|0.047
95966250|NCT04546425|191902895|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 5 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.99|||||2-sided 95% CI was calculated by exponentiating the CI (based on the Student's t distribution) for the mean difference of the logarithm of the concentrations.|Serotype 33F||2.99|2.33|
95872647|NCT04824365|191702443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3379|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1438||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6213|-0.0545|||ANOVA|two-way ANOVA||||-0.0545|-0.6213|0.0197
95872648|NCT04824365|191702444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1843|0.2605|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.2605|-0.1843|0.736
95872649|NCT04824365|191702445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1049||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1069|0.5193|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.5193|0.1069|0.0030
95872650|NCT04824365|191702446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|2.302|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.302|1.105|<0.0001
95872651|NCT04824365|191702447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.633|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3362|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9672|2.298|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.298|0.9672|<0.0001
95872652|NCT04824365|191702448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.964|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.477|2.452|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||2.452|1.477|<0.0001
95872653|NCT04824365|191702449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9521|-0.01413|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.01413|-0.9521|0.0435
95872654|NCT04824365|191702450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2711||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5862|0.4841|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.4841|-0.5862|0.8509
95872655|NCT04824365|191702451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3177||0.6738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4921|0.76|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.7600|-0.4921|0.6738
95872656|NCT04824365|191702452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2832||0.2753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2478|0.8669|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||0.8669|-0.2478|0.2753
95872657|NCT04824365|191702453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.9043|||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA||||-0.9043|-1.948|<0.0001
95872658|NCT02545075|191702460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5059|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided p-value based on unstratified chi-square test||||||0.5059
95872659|NCT02545075|191702461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided unstratified chi-square||||||0.6202
95872660|NCT02545075|191702462|SUPERIORITY||Stratified cox proportional hazard model|1.13||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.87|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c)||||1.45|0.87|0.7267
95872661|NCT02545075|191702463|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|0.9||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.71|1.15|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value from Log-rank Test stratified by M substage (M1a+M1b vs. M1c) and BRAF mutation status as entered into the IVRS||||1.15|0.71|0.2503
95872662|NCT02545075|191702464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.55|0.64|0.9932
95872663|NCT02545075|191702465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9738|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.03|0.48|0.9738
95872664|NCT00736879|191702471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment|ANCOVA|||||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
95872665|NCT00736879|191702471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1679|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.41|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.41|-1.07|<0.0001
95872666|NCT00736879|191702471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Tested at alpha=0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment.||||-0.50|-1.17|<0.0001
95872667|NCT00736879|191702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5481||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.65||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the primary endpoint was significant.||-0.65|-2.81|0.0018
95872668|NCT00736879|191702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5474||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-2.76|0.0024
95872669|NCT00736879|191702472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5598||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.63||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-2.83|0.0022
95872670|NCT00736879|191702473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.859||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-3.6||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-26.7|0.0103
95872671|NCT00736879|191702473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.816|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-14.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-14.3|-37.2|<0.0001
95872672|NCT00736879|191702473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.962|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-20.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.8|-44.3|<0.0001
95872673|NCT00736879|191702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8681|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.56|-24.61||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-24.61|-59.56|<0.0001
95872674|NCT00736879|191702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1963|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.27|-30.03||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.03|-66.27|<0.0001
95872675|NCT00736879|191702474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.67|-42.5||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-42.50|-78.67|<0.0001
95872676|NCT00736879|191702475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|34.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c.||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||34.3|3.6|0.0157
95872677|NCT00736879|191702475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|23.8||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||23.8|-6.2|0.2512
95872678|NCT00736879|191702475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.069||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|30.3||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression based on the methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis and Davidian and Tsiatis, Davidian, Zhang and Lu, with adjustment for baseline HbA1c||The probability of response was modeled using a logistic regression model with baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment group estimates of response rate were then obtained by integrating each group's modeled probability of response over the observed distribution of baseline covariate (combined across groups).||30.3|-1.3|0.0726
95872679|NCT00736879|191702476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7954||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.77||Test was performed at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.37|0.3163
95872680|NCT00736879|191702476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8154|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.99|-2.22|
95872681|NCT00736879|191702476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Following a sequential testing procedure, this comparison was not statistically tested, ie, the previous comparison did not meet the criterion for statistical significance.||0.16|-3.09|
95872682|NCT03739840|191702527|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|-5.6|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|19.2||Adjusted p-values are from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||19.2|-38.1|=0.687
95872683|NCT03739840|191702527|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.5|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|28.7||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.7|-22.7|=0.687
95872684|NCT03739840|191702527|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|6.3|||=|0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.6||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||28.6|-22.9|=0.687
95872685|NCT03739840|191702531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||=|0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.38||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.38|0.39|=0.803
95872686|NCT03739840|191702531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||=|0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.65||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||2.65|0.27|=0.772
95872687|NCT03739840|191702531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||=|0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.08||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.08|0.33|=0.989
95966251|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||0.8|-1.3|
95966252|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.2|-1.8|
95966253|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PT||0.7|-5.3|
95966254|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|FHA||2.9|-2.6|
95966255|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|PRN||4.2|-0.9|
95966256|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hepatitis B||4.0|-1.1|
95966257|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC -13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||4.2|-4.6|
95966258|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||4.2|-4.6|
95966259|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||4.2|-4.6|
95966260|NCT04546425|191902896|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the percentage differences (20vPnC-13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnc - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.2|-2.0|
95966261|NCT04546425|191902897|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Measles||1.42|0.79|
95966262|NCT04546425|191902898|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.44|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Mumps||1.44|0.76|
95872688|NCT03739840|191702532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.18||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.18|0.61|=0.425
95872689|NCT03739840|191702532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||=|0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.85||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||2.85|0.53|=0.625
95872690|NCT03739840|191702532|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.34||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), Region (Europe, non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (Yes, No) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate||4.34|0.84|=0.125
95872691|NCT03739840|191702533|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||=|0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|20.36||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||20.36|-17.08|=0.737
95872692|NCT03739840|191702533|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.17|||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.91||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||21.91|-10.00|=0.458
95966263|NCT04546425|191902899|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.1|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Rubella||1.10|0.63|
95966264|NCT04546425|191902900|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.57|||||GMR and 2-sided 95% CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the concentrations (20vPnC - 13vPnC) and the corresponding CIs (based on the Student's t distribution).|Varicella||1.57|0.98|
95966265|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||||2-Sided 95% CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 1 \\||0.9|-3.1|
95966266|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-6.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 3||-6.7|-14.7|
95966267|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||1.3|-1.4|
95966268|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 5||2.2|-1.4|
95966269|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6A||1.5|-1.6|
95966270|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||2.7|-1.1|
95966271|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 7F||0.4|-1.5|
95966272|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||1.9|-1.0|
95966273|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||0.6|-3.7|
95966274|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||2.7|-0.5|
95966275|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19A||1.1|-1.1|
95966276|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||1.4|-0.9|
95872693|NCT03739840|191702533|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.31|||=|0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|28.21||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value are based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. Hodges Lehmann nonparametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% asymptotic confidence intervals are provided for the effect difference between each PSL dose and placebo.||28.21|-10.92|=0.341
95872694|NCT02694523|191702550|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||32.4|17.5|<0.001
95872695|NCT02694523|191702551|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||30.1|16.6|<0.001
95872696|NCT02694523|191702552|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.9|61.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||61.1|28.9|<0.001
95966277|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||1.4|-3.2|
95966278|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 8||3.9|0.4|
95966279|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 10A||2.7|-1.5|
95966280|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 11A||3.2|-0.7|
95966281|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 12F||1.6|-2.9|
95966282|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 15B||4.1|0.7|
95966283|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F(13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 22F||3.9|0.4|
95966284|NCT04546425|191902914|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group.|Percent difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 33F||3.4|-0.4|
95966285|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Diphtheria||2.1|-11.2|
95966286|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.4|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Tetanus||0.4|-7.0|
95966287|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.1|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT||4.1|-5.2|
95966288|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA||3.3|-6.4|
95966289|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.3|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN||3.3|-6.4|
95966290|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.2|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 1||2.2|-10.0|
95966291|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.8|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 2||5.8|-11.8|
95872697|NCT02694523|191702553|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||24.9|13.0|<0.001
95872698|NCT02694523|191702554|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||23.9|9.5|<0.001
95872699|NCT02694523|191702555|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
95872700|NCT02694523|191702556|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|46.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||46.9|18.8|<0.001
95872701|NCT02694523|191702557|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|55.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||55.8|22.0|<0.001
95872702|NCT01058265|191702570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in PCS between two groups.||||0.487
95872703|NCT01058265|191702571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MCS between two groups.||||0.817
95872704|NCT02169284|191702609|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
95872705|NCT02169284|191702609|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.208
95872706|NCT02169284|191702609|OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.272
95872707|NCT02169284|191702609|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in benign tissue between erlotinib and placebo||||0.220
95872708|NCT02169284|191702610|OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Nucleus P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.361
95872709|NCT02169284|191702610|OTHER|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Cytoplasm P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.383
95872710|NCT02169284|191702610|OTHER|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Membrane P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.427
95872711|NCT02169284|191702610|OTHER|||||||0.416|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Entire Cell P-EGFR in Tumor Tissue, p-value between placebo and Erlotinib||||0.416
95872712|NCT02169284|191702611|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
95966292|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-0.5|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Poliovirus Type 3||-0.5|-10.2|
95966293|NCT04546425|191902918|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||||2-Sided 95% CI based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions (20vPnC - 13vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Hib||2.0|-1.8|
95872713|NCT02169284|191702611|OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.199
95872714|NCT02169284|191702611|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
95872715|NCT02169284|191702612|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Baseline visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||1.000
95872716|NCT02169284|191702612|OTHER|||||||0.288|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8 - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||0.288
95966294|NCT01146600|191902951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA, comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.47
95966295|NCT01146600|191902952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.63
95966296|NCT01146600|191902953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.64
95966297|NCT01146600|191902954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
95966298|NCT01146600|191902955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.002
95966299|NCT01146600|191902956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.01
95966300|NCT01146600|191902957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA comparing baseline, clarithromycin, and placebo||||||0.76
95966301|NCT02579135|191902959|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Third, to assess the effectiveness of the HEART intervention from pretest to immediate posttest, we used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||.32
95872717|NCT02169284|191702612|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Surgery visit - p-value between erlotinib and placebo arms||||<0.001
95872718|NCT02169284|191702613|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at Baseline||||0.792
95872719|NCT02169284|191702613|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||P-value between groups at surgery visit||||0.261
95872720|NCT02169284|191702614|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.721
95872721|NCT02169284|191702614|OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of e-cadherin in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.108
95872722|NCT02169284|191702615|OTHER|||||||0.444|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Benign Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.444
95872723|NCT02169284|191702615|OTHER|||||||0.663|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Expression of KI-67 in Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.663
95872724|NCT02169284|191702616|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||1.000
95872725|NCT02169284|191702616|OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Cytoplasm p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, P-Value between arms||||0.792
95966302|NCT02579135|191902960|SUPERIORITY|Before the onset of the study, we conducted a power calculation to determine the appropriate sample size. We designed the study to have 80% power at a .05 significance level to detect differences in primary outcomes, assuming an effect size of 0.5 and a correlation of 0.4 between assessments. Final enrollment (n= 222) exceeded our target sample size (n= 150).|beta|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression analyses to compute adjusted means and mean differences between intervention and control groups. We included an indicator for school to adjust for clustering by school. For each outcome, the corresponding pretest measure was included as a covariate.||||<.001
95872726|NCT02169284|191702616|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Difference in Entire Cell p-ERK between Normal and Tumor Tissue, p-value between arms||||1.000
95966303|NCT00659880|191902965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
95966304|NCT02278484|191902979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95966305|NCT01346072|191902987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.853
95966306|NCT01346072|191902988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon Two-Sample Test|Wilcoxon Two Sample Test was used with Exact Test two sided p value reported||||||0.035
95966307|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966308|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966309|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966310|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966311|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966312|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95872727|NCT02169284|191702617|OTHER|||||||0.772|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.772
95872728|NCT01680887|191702619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.403
95872729|NCT03119701|191702730|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|8.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.19|0.21|0.78
95872730|NCT03119701|191702731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.52|0.28|0.57
95872731|NCT03119701|191702732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95872732|NCT03119701|191702734|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.999
95872733|NCT03119701|191702737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Exact Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square Test||||||0.3620
95872734|NCT03119701|191702740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5, and Day 6.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||<.0001
95872735|NCT03119701|191702740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Baseline visit|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.13
95872736|NCT03119701|191702740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Day 1|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.0035
95872737|NCT03119701|191702740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Day 9|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.009
95872738|NCT03119701|191702740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Day 13|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) is equal 5 ng/ml. Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2.5 ng/ml. Values over the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) were set to 320 ng/ml.||||0.10
95872739|NCT03119701|191702741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Patients with an observation below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) value at baseline for CD73 were set to have the LLOQ value (LLOQ = 4 ng/ml) at baseline for subgroup determination purposes (2-fold increase in CD73 from baseline). Values below the LLOQ were set to LLOQ/2 = 2 ng/mL.||||0.66
95872740|NCT03119701|191702742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||Observations of zero were imputed as 1 pg/ml before logarithmic transformation.||||0.3
95872741|NCT00395538|191702747|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.015||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, 2 \& 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariate for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate was included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.015
95872742|NCT00395538|191702747|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BV/TV at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included because it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
95966313|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966314|NCT01299480|191903051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966315|NCT01299480|191903053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB80 \[A22\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966316|NCT01299480|191903053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2001 \[A56\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966317|NCT01299480|191903053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2948 \[B24\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966318|NCT01299480|191903053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial Distribution|||PMB2707 \[B44\]: Response rate was compared with 50%, using 1-sided exact test based on binomial distribution. p-Value \<0.0125 was considered significant.||||<0.001
95966319|NCT03518567|191903090|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.78||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"hits purchased on the MPT predicting hits actually purchased and smoked in the laboratory.~covariate: baseline total individual income"||||||.00000004
95872743|NCT00395538|191702747|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the cn.BV/TV between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.649||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Cn.BV/TV change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Cn.BV/TV, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.649
95872744|NCT00395538|191702748|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.N values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.371||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, because the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.371
95872745|NCT00395538|191702748|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.129||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Po.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Po.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.129
95872746|NCT00395538|191702748|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.538||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.N at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.538
95966320|NCT03518567|191903091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.09||9e-09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000000009
95966321|NCT03518567|191903092|SUPERIORITY||correlation|0.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||correlation|Correlation between puffs on the topography device and grams of cannabis used per week.||||||.87
95966322|NCT05479734|191903110|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of activities while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is the number of positive activities engaged in with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean activity counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
95872747|NCT00395538|191702749|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|A baseline covariate not added to model since it would over-parameterize the model.||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
95872748|NCT00395538|191702749|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872749|NCT00395538|191702749|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.374||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.374
95872750|NCT00395538|191702750|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
95872751|NCT00395538|191702750|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872752|NCT00395538|191702750|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.168||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.168
95966323|NCT05479734|191903111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean positive parenting subscale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean subscale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator. A randomization group difference over time was evaluated. This interaction effect was not included in the final statistical model unless statistically significant.||||<1.00
95872753|NCT00395538|191702751|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.083||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.083
95872754|NCT00395538|191702751|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872755|NCT00395538|191702751|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.164||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.164
95872756|NCT00395538|191702752|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.031||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.031
95872757|NCT00395538|191702752|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872758|NCT00395538|191702752|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.178||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.178
95872759|NCT00395538|191702753|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.BFR/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872760|NCT00395538|191702753|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
95872761|NCT00395538|191702753|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.BFR/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.172||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.BFR/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.172
95872762|NCT00395538|191702754|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872763|NCT00395538|191702754|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.018||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.018
95872764|NCT00395538|191702754|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.155||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.155
95872765|NCT00395538|191702755|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.72||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.720
95872766|NCT00395538|191702755|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.944||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.944
95872767|NCT00395538|191702755|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.73||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.730
95872768|NCT00395538|191702756|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.019||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.019
95872769|NCT00395538|191702756|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.017||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.017
95872770|NCT00395538|191702756|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.N between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.843||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Tb.N change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Tb.N, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.843
95872771|NCT00395538|191702757|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.013||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.013
95872772|NCT00395538|191702757|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.025||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.025
95872773|NCT00395538|191702757|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Tb.Sp between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.608||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Tb.Sp at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.608
95966324|NCT05479734|191903112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported when significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of hours spent with the child will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean number of hours on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.14
95966325|NCT05479734|191903113|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of app helpfulness.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the app was only slightly helpful (scored 0). A Wilcoxon signed rank test was first performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
95966326|NCT05479734|191903114|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect endorsement of future app use.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there would only be slight interest (scored 0) in using the app in the future. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
95966327|NCT05479734|191903115|OTHER|The model tested the significance of a non-zero location of the data. Effects significantly greater than zero reflect a desire to recommend the app.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that the participant was neither likely nor unlikely (scored 0) to recommend the app to friends. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was, first, performed to evaluate potential differences across randomization groups (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips). When the test of a randomization group difference was not significant, the analysis continued with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||<0.01
95966328|NCT05479734|191903116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.54||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. A randomization group difference over time is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the mean general development scale score would not change from the baseline to the post-intervention assessment. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean scale scores on a timeframe (baseline vs post) indicator and a randomization group (early vs late app-delivered parenting tips) indicator.||||<0.54
95966329|NCT05479734|191903117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the number of challenging child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
95872774|NCT00395538|191702758|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.043||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.043
95872775|NCT00395538|191702758|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.334||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.334
95872776|NCT00395538|191702758|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.269||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with: Ct.Th change from baseline at biopsy year 1 or years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year, and baseline Ct.Th, as model covariates; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay of 30 to 31 months from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered to stabilize variance) was added as a covariate to the model for Cohort 2 only (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable).||||0.269
95872777|NCT00395538|191702759|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.358||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.358
95872778|NCT00395538|191702759|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.76||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.760
95872779|NCT00395538|191702759|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.57||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.570
95872780|NCT00395538|191702760|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ct.Po.Ar values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.166||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.166
95966330|NCT05479734|191903118|SUPERIORITY|Expected Outcomes: greater number of behaviors while receiving parenting tips.|||||<|0.01||||||Test performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model coefficient t-test uses Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom. An intervention effect difference by sequence is reported if significant.||Null hypothesis is that the daily number of positive child behaviors will not differ during the periods with and without app-delivered parenting tips. Mixed effects models were performed regressing mean behavior counts on a 'Tips Active' indicator and a measurement-period (1st two weeks vs last two weeks) indicator.||||<0.01
95872781|NCT00395538|191702760|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.895||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.895
95872782|NCT00395538|191702760|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ct.Po.Ar between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.282||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ct.Po.Ar at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.282
95872783|NCT00395538|191702761|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
95872784|NCT00395538|191702761|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872785|NCT00395538|191702761|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.680
95872786|NCT00395538|191702762|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
95872787|NCT00395538|191702762|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
95872788|NCT00395538|191702762|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.904||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.904
95966331|NCT00203268|191903122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025|||||||clustered survival analysis|||||||.3025
95872789|NCT00395538|191702763|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
95872790|NCT00395538|191702763|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872791|NCT00395538|191702763|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.010
95872792|NCT00395538|191702764|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872793|NCT00395538|191702764|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872794|NCT00395538|191702764|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
95872795|NCT00395538|191702765|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
95872796|NCT00395538|191702765|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.022||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.022
95872797|NCT00395538|191702765|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cn.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.228||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Cn.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.228
95872798|NCT00395538|191702766|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
95872799|NCT00395538|191702766|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.006
95872800|NCT00395538|191702766|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.670
95872801|NCT00395538|191702767|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
95966332|NCT02514551|191903137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.853|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model comparing Ramucirumab I4T-MC-JVCZ and I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663)|"This analysis were comparison of PFS for participants treated with ramucirumab 12 mg/kg plus paclitaxel in Study I4T-MC-JVCZ versus placebo plus paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE (NCT01170663) using meta-analysis.~Placebo + 80 mg/m² Paclitaxel in I4T-IE-JVBE Number of participants: 335, Median (95% CI), months: 2.86 (2.79 to 3.02)"||0.853|0.447|
95966333|NCT02514551|191903138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.274|||||Unstratified cox proportional hazards model.|||1.274|0.727|
95966334|NCT03197766|191903143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analysis for the primary endpoint.|ANCOVA|Two subjects in the BMN 111 group discontinued from the study before Week 52. The values for these 2 subjects were imputed for this analysis.||||||< 0.0001
95966335|NCT03197766|191903144|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||< 0.0001
95966336|NCT03197766|191903145|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.506||||||Confirmatory statistical testing controlling for the Type I error rate was performed on the primary analyses for the two key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|Missing assessments at Week 52 were imputed||||||= 0.506
95966337|NCT01460225|191903156|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 2 hours post meal||||0.003
95966338|NCT01460225|191903156|EQUIVALENCE|Based on the results of Camilleri et al, this should be adequate to detect up to a 30% difference in gastric emptying scan times with a p-value of 0.05 and 80% power.||||||0.122|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of meal retention between pre-treatment and post treatment at 4 hours post meal||||0.122
95966339|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
95966340|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
95966341|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
95966342|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
95966343|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|38.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||38.6|12.5|
95872802|NCT00395538|191702767|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872803|NCT00395538|191702767|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.712||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.712
95872804|NCT00395538|191702768|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.029||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.029
95872805|NCT00395538|191702768|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872806|NCT00395538|191702768|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.104||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.104
95872807|NCT00395538|191702769|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ec.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.088||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.088
95872808|NCT00395538|191702769|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.009
95872809|NCT00395538|191702769|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.325||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.325
95872810|NCT00395538|191702770|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 3 participants with non-missing Ec.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872811|NCT00395538|191702770|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872812|NCT00395538|191702770|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ec.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.974||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ec.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.974
95872813|NCT00395538|191702771|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.O.Th values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.004||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.004
95872814|NCT00395538|191702771|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.023||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.023
95872815|NCT00395538|191702771|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.O.Th between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.288||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.O.Th at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.288
95872816|NCT00395538|191702772|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.MAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.202||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.202
95872817|NCT00395538|191702772|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.486||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.486
95872818|NCT00395538|191702772|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.MAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.535||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.MAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.535
95872819|NCT00395538|191702773|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.OS/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.001
95872820|NCT00395538|191702773|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
95872821|NCT00395538|191702773|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.OS/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.328||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.OS/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.328
95966344|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|36.7|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.7|10.9|
95872822|NCT00395538|191702774|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.ES/BS values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
95872823|NCT00395538|191702774|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||<0.001
95872824|NCT00395538|191702774|EQUIVALENCE|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.ES/BS between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.789||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.ES/BS at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.789
95872825|NCT00395538|191702775|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy. P-value interpretation is questionable since there were only 4 participants with non-missing Ic.AjAR values for both their baseline and year 1 biopsies.||||||0.651||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.651
95872826|NCT00395538|191702775|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.58||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.580
95966345|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0004
95966346|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0012||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0012
95966347|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0008||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0008
95872827|NCT00395538|191702775|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Ic.AjAR between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.338||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis: Ic.AjAR at biopsy baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined as the dependent variable; biopsy year as the independent variable, model covariates for Cohort; and a random effect for participant. Since Cohort 2 had a time delay from the baseline biopsy to start of HPTH therapy, this time delay (centered) was added as a covariate for Cohort 2 (using a Cohort 2 indicator variable). No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.338
95872828|NCT00395538|191702776|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.020
95872829|NCT00395538|191702776|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.110
95872830|NCT00395538|191702776|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.764||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Mean as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.764
95872831|NCT00395538|191702777|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.227||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.227
95872832|NCT00395538|191702777|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.194||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.194
95872833|NCT00395538|191702777|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.434||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Peak as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.434
95872834|NCT00395538|191702778|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.003
95872835|NCT00395538|191702778|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.002
95872836|NCT00395538|191702778|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.787||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Width as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.787
95872837|NCT00395538|191702779|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.082||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.082
95872838|NCT00395538|191702779|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the baseline and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.057||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.057
95966348|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0217||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0217
95966349|NCT03635099|191903169|OTHER|First the response rate of PASI 75 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline PASI score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
95966350|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
95966351|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
95966352|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
95966353|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
95966354|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0007||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Linear model fit.|||||||0.0007
95966355|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0023||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Logistic model fit.|Model assumption: 10% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg and 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 100 mg.||||||0.0023
95966356|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0018||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax1 model fit.|Model assumption: 30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0018
95966357|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0386||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Emax2 model fit.|Model assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 50 mg.||||||0.0386
95966358|NCT03635099|191903170|OTHER|First the response rate of sPGA 0/1 at week 12 for each dosage group was estimated by a logistic regression model including the fixed effect of treatment (categorical dose) and baseline sPGA score as covariate was performed. The dose-response relationships were then tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedures and Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach based on the estimates from logistic regression.||||||0.0004||||||The multiple comparison procedure was implemented using optimal contrast tests which control the family-wise type I error rate at one-sided α = 0.05.|MCPMod Exponential model fit.|Model assumption: 5% of the maximum effect is achieved at 25 mg.||||||0.0004
95966359|NCT03635099|191903171|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.7|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.7|-11.7|1.0000
95966360|NCT03635099|191903171|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||37.3|3.9|0.0540
95966361|NCT03635099|191903171|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.5||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|31.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||31.4|-0.4|0.1167
95966362|NCT03635099|191903171|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|63.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||63.2|26.8|0.0006
95872839|NCT00395538|191702779|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.547||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium Low as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.547
95872840|NCT00395538|191702780|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the baseline and the year 1 biopsy.||||||0.922||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.922
95966363|NCT03635099|191903171|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|69.6|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||69.6|22.0|
95966364|NCT03635099|191903171|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|59.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||59.2|11.3|
95966365|NCT03635099|191903172|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
95872841|NCT00395538|191702780|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.342||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.342
95872842|NCT00395538|191702780|OTHER|A contrast statement within the mixed models analysis tested for differences in the Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High between the year 1 biopsy and the years 2 and 4 (combined) biopsy.||||||0.449||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, since the study was terminated early resulting in only 5, 5, and 2 participants having their biopsies at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was performed with Cortex 1 Spectral Calcium High as the dependent variable; biopsy year (baseline, year 1, and years 2 and 4 combined) as the independent variable; study cohort as a covariate; and a random effect for participant. No bone biopsy baseline covariate included since it would over-parameterize the model.||||0.449
95872843|NCT01074047|191702814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|The p-value is two-sided from an unstratified log-rank test|The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.02|0.69|0.0829
95872844|NCT01074047|191702814|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.03|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG performance status and cytogenetic risk status.|||1.03|0.69|0.1009
95872845|NCT01074047|191702815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|21.0|||||Estimates of the 1-year (365 day) survival probabilities and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented by treatment group. The CI for the difference in the 1-year survival probabilities was derived using Greenwoods variance estimate.|||21.0|3.5|
95872846|NCT01074047|191702816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of EFS||1.05|0.72|0.1495
95872847|NCT01074047|191702817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.66|||Log Rank|2 sided unstratified|The hazard ratio is from an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Median is estimated from a Kaplan-Meier distribution of RFS||1.66|0.75|0.5832
95872848|NCT01074047|191702818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5384|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.5384
95872849|NCT01074047|191702820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0376|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fishers exact test||||||0.0376
95966366|NCT03635099|191903172|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
95872850|NCT01074047|191702844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Ratio|0.79||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.02|||negative binomial regression analysis|||||1.02|0.62|0.0721
95872851|NCT00729924|191702849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis was that the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the partial plasma area-under-the-curve 0-4h value would differ between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
95872852|NCT00729924|191702850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We explored post-hoc whether the ratio of the 4-hour CSF concentration value to the 2-hour plasma concentration differs between participants with ABCB1 C/C and T/T genotypes.||||0.43
95872853|NCT01659658|191702860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||=|0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01||P-value was calculated from the unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test to compare hematologic response rate between the treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|Statistical analysis was planned to be collected and analyzed in a combined manner for the non-ixazomib arm groups versus ixazomib group in this outcome measure.||2.01|0.60|=0.7623
95872854|NCT01659658|191702861|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||=|0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to make comparisons between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was derived from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||1.38|0.41|=0.3510
95872855|NCT01659658|191702863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.29|0.52|=0.389
95872856|NCT01659658|191702864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.09|0.52|=0.135
95872857|NCT01659658|191702865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|1.21|0.48|0.2421
95872858|NCT01659658|191702866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.97||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by the stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.97|0.39|=0.036
95872859|NCT01659658|191702867|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.99||P-value was calculated from the unstratified CMH test to compare vital organ response rate between the 2 treatment arms.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and 95% CI for the odds ratio was based on the Wald approximation.|||3.99|0.72|=0.2260
95872860|NCT01659658|191702868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.12||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|||1.12|0.52|=0.163
95872861|NCT01659658|191702871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.96|0.49|=0.025
95872862|NCT01659658|191702872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.88||P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test with stratification factors.|Log Rank||||Unadjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and its 95% CIs for the treatment effect using the stratification factors.|0.88|0.38|=0.010
95872863|NCT00413400|191702881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||treatment effect (etanercept vs. placebo) using ANCOVA including baseline CRP, age, and race||||0.20
95872864|NCT00413400|191702882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated for each timepoint and repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.92
95872865|NCT00413400|191702883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes were calculated for each time point, then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||0.02
95872866|NCT00413400|191702884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||repeated measures ANCOVA|||percent change calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.02
95872867|NCT00413400|191702885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.46
95872868|NCT00413400|191702886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95966367|NCT03635099|191903172|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||29.3|5.7|0.0465
95872869|NCT00413400|191702887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95872870|NCT00413400|191702888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, race||||0.59
95872871|NCT00413400|191702889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA controlling for age and race performed||||<0.0001
95872872|NCT00413400|191702890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||within subject percent changes calculated then repeated measures ANCOVA performed controlling for age and race||||0.08
95872873|NCT00413400|191702891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA controlling for baseline value, age, and race||||0.55
95872874|NCT00891462|191702916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|0.05|<0.0001
95872875|NCT00891462|191702916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|0.08|<0.0001
95872876|NCT02128828|191702949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
95872877|NCT01298531|191702953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.27||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.17|-10.38|||ANCOVA|Not specifed.||The primary analysis of the primary endpoint was an Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)with Baseline NSAID score and treatment as explanatory variables. The hypothesis tested for the primary endpoint was as follows: H0: ΔETN = ΔPlacebo; H1: ΔETN ≠ ΔPlacebo.||-10.38|-44.17|0.0019
95872878|NCT01298531|191702954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.78||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.99|-4.57|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||-4.57|-34.99|0.0115
95872879|NCT01298531|191702955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 4.||-0.18|-1.68|0.0153
95872880|NCT01298531|191702956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||The analysis of secondary endpoints was an ANCOVA using linear regression with Baseline NSAID score and MMRM was run using the model as detailed for the primary endpoint and using the repeated measures for the changes from Baseline in each outcome at Week 8.||0.00|-1.76|0.0510
95872881|NCT01298531|191702958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.209||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||0.65|0.07|0.0066
95872882|NCT01298531|191702959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.7||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.01|-16.38|||ANCOVA|||The changes from baseline in the continuous endpoints of mini BASDAI was analyzed using ANCOVA. The total NSAID score for the first 8 weeks of randomized treatment was calculated as an AUC using the linear trapezoidal rule.||-16.38|-91.01|0.0053
95872883|NCT01298531|191702960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.963||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.01|1.10|0.0324
95872884|NCT01298531|191702963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.696||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||7.27|1.00|0.0501
95872885|NCT01298531|191702965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.103||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||8.54|1.13|0.0284
95872886|NCT01298531|191702967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|9.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect. Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates.||9.72|0.47|0.3291
95872887|NCT01298531|191702968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.44|-1.11|<0.0001
95872888|NCT01298531|191702969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS CRP score fitting baseline ASDAS CRP score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.28|-1.09|0.0011
95966368|NCT03635099|191903172|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||18.0|0.6|
95966369|NCT03635099|191903172|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.2|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||11.2|-1.7|
95872889|NCT01298531|191702971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0011
95872890|NCT01298531|191702972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline ASDAS ESR score fitting baseline ASDAS ESR score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0037
95872891|NCT01298531|191702976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.40|-2.20|0.0050
95872892|NCT01298531|191702977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BAS-G score fitting baseline BAS-G score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.33|0.0256
95872893|NCT01298531|191702979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.01|-2.00|0.0474
95872894|NCT01298531|191702980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline total back pain fitting baseline total back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.20|-2.36|0.0212
95872895|NCT01298531|191702982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.21|-2.40|0.0198
95872896|NCT01298531|191702983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline nocturnal back pain fitting baseline nocturnal back pain as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.32|-2.69|0.0132
95872897|NCT01298531|191702985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.11|-1.50|0.0237
95872898|NCT01298531|191702986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASFI score fitting baseline BASFI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-1.74|0.0297
95872899|NCT01298531|191702987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.23|-2.09|0.0152
95872900|NCT01298531|191702988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from each baseline BASDAI component score fitting each baseline component score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.09|-2.22|0.0344
95872901|NCT01298531|191702990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||-0.52|-2.16|0.0017
95872902|NCT01298531|191702991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline PGA score fitting baseline PGA score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||-0.16|-2.07|0.0233
95872903|NCT01298531|191703000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|4.901|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 was analyzed using logistic regression with baseline score and treatment group included as covariates.||4.901|0.822|0.1260
95872904|NCT01298531|191703003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with baseline morning stiffness score and treatment group included as covariates. Week 8 was analyzed using a logistic regression to assess treatment effect.||6.08|1.00|0.0498
95872905|NCT01298531|191703005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.15|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.15|-0.87|0.1601
95966370|NCT03635099|191903173|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
95966371|NCT03635099|191903173|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
95872906|NCT01298531|191703006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.27|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline BASMI score fitting baseline BASMI score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor||0.27|-0.86|0.2967
95872907|NCT01298531|191703012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.75|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||6.75|-1.94|0.2735
95872908|NCT01298531|191703013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.34|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model on change from baseline in chest expansion mobility score fitting baseline chest expansion mobility score as a covariate, plus treatment as a factor.||1.34|0.02|0.0422
95872909|NCT02840240|191703015|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|-1.07|0.003
95872910|NCT02840240|191703016|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|2.12||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|18.54|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic main campus.||18.54|0.21|0.77
95872911|NCT02840240|191703016|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority deltas were defined a priori as 1.1 for the ratio in geometric means of opioid consumption converted to IV morphine equivalents (ie, no more than 10% difference between group's median doses) and 1 point for pain score (ie, no more than 1 point worse).|Ratio of geometric means|0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.16|||Regression, Linear|||Comparisons of opioid consumption were conducted independently for each study site. This analysis is for patients at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview hospital.||3.16|0.03|0.09
95872912|NCT02840240|191703017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.5|24.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.3|0.5|0.11
95872913|NCT02840240|191703018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.2|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|0.2|0.60
95872914|NCT00145600|191703045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.953||||||||0.953|0.820|
95872915|NCT00145600|191703045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
95872916|NCT00145600|191703045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
95872917|NCT00145600|191703045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.86||||||||0.860|0.726|
95872918|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3097
95872919|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872920|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872921|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872922|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872923|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872924|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0197||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0197
95872925|NCT00145600|191703046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872926|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872927|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872928|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95872929|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872930|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872931|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872932|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3624||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3624
95872933|NCT00145600|191703047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872934|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0254
95872935|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872936|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0004
95872937|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.32||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
95872938|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872939|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872940|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
95872941|NCT00145600|191703048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0061||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0061
95872942|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0687
95872943|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficient|||||||<0.0001
95872944|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9478
95872945|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872946|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2999||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2999
95872947|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872948|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.3121
95872949|NCT00145600|191703049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.52|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872950|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
95872951|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872952|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0282||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0282
95872953|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.35||||0.0002||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0002
95872954|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0038||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0038
95872955|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872956|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1474
95872957|NCT00145600|191703050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872958|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0281||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0281
95872959|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872960|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0050
95872961|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872962|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0005
95872963|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0001
95872964|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0552
95872965|NCT00145600|191703051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872966|NCT00145600|191703052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872967|NCT00145600|191703052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.53|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872968|NCT00145600|191703052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxan signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872969|NCT00145600|191703052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95966372|NCT03635099|191903173|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.8|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||6.8|-2.2|
95872970|NCT00145600|191703052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0017
95872971|NCT00145600|191703052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872972|NCT00145600|191703053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2758||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2758
95872973|NCT00145600|191703053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872974|NCT00145600|191703053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1731||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1731
95872975|NCT00145600|191703053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872976|NCT00145600|191703053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0846
95872977|NCT00145600|191703053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.46|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872978|NCT00145600|191703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4263
95872979|NCT00145600|191703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872980|NCT00145600|191703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872981|NCT00145600|191703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872982|NCT00145600|191703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0468||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0468
95872983|NCT00145600|191703054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872984|NCT00145600|191703055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872985|NCT00145600|191703055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.26||||0.0019||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0019
95872986|NCT00145600|191703055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95872987|NCT00145600|191703055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0704||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0704
95872988|NCT00145600|191703055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0200
95872989|NCT00145600|191703055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872990|NCT00145600|191703056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7192
95872991|NCT00145600|191703056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.42|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872992|NCT00145600|191703056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8663||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8663
95872993|NCT00145600|191703056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872994|NCT00145600|191703056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7626||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.7626
95872995|NCT00145600|191703056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872996|NCT00145600|191703057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4807||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4807
95872997|NCT00145600|191703057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95872998|NCT00145600|191703057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0824||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0824
95872999|NCT00145600|191703057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873000|NCT00145600|191703057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0496||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0496
95873001|NCT00145600|191703057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873002|NCT00145600|191703058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0157
95873003|NCT00145600|191703058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.37|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873004|NCT00145600|191703058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0014
95873005|NCT00145600|191703058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873006|NCT00145600|191703058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1478||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1478
95873007|NCT00145600|191703058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873008|NCT00145600|191703059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0831||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0831
95873009|NCT00145600|191703059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.25||||0.0027||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0027
95873010|NCT00145600|191703059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0135||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0135
95873011|NCT00145600|191703059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.27||||0.0024||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0024
95873012|NCT00145600|191703059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9848||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.9848
95873013|NCT00145600|191703059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.16||||0.0974||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||0.0974
95873014|NCT00145600|191703060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0040
95873015|NCT00145600|191703060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873016|NCT00145600|191703060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0012
95873017|NCT00145600|191703060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.54|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873018|NCT00145600|191703060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8108||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.8108
95873019|NCT00145600|191703060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman Correlation Coefficients|||||||<0.0001
95873020|NCT00145600|191703061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM Event-free survival estimate|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|0.944||||||||0.944|0.805|
95873021|NCT00145600|191703061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.95||||||||0.950|0.739|
95873022|NCT00145600|191703061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.933||||||||0.933|0.400|
95873023|NCT00145600|191703061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||KM event-free survival estimate|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.853||||||||0.853|0.716|
95873024|NCT02600351|191703098|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 90 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 98% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-18.8||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.2|-40.7|0.065
95873025|NCT02600351|191703098|NON_INFERIORITY|With a 10% non-inferiority margin, a sample size of 125 participants per treatment group was required to provide at least 90% power to establish non-inferiority at the 1-sided 0.025 level, assuming the SVR12 rates were 95% for both groups.|Difference in percentages|-11.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-32.1|0.25
95873026|NCT00567593|191703109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||||||.01
95873027|NCT02476422|191703128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|8.3|||ANCOVA|||||8.3|-1.8|0.211
95873028|NCT00994318|191703153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.95|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||0.95|0.44|0.026
95873029|NCT00994318|191703153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.05|||Log Rank|||"FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400-600mcg/L) compared with FCM targeting low ferritin level (100 - 200 mcg/L).~Three primary comparisons using a hierarchical step-down procedure on the log-rank test to preserve the overall alpha level of 0.05, performed in the following order:~1. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with oral iron.~2. FCM (high ferritin target) compared with FCM (low ferritin target).~3. FCM (low ferritin target) compared with oral iron."||1.05|0.45|0.082
95873030|NCT00994318|191703153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.93|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management without taking into account the Hb trigger.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.93|0.39|0.020
95873031|NCT00994318|191703153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.88|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on local laboratory data, instead of central laboratory data.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)."||0.88|0.43|0.008
95873032|NCT00994318|191703153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.1|||Log Rank|||"Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint. Time to initiation of additional or alternative anaemia management taking into account the Hb trigger based on subjects with a complete set of Hb values from central laboratory.~FCM (Ferinject / Injectafer) targeting high ferritin level (400 - 600 mcg/L) compared with Oral Iron (Ferrous sulphate 100 mg iron twice daily)"||1.10|0.45|0.12
95873033|NCT02869438|191703228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.161|-0.007|0.0707
95873034|NCT02869438|191703228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.104|-0.077|0.7747
95873035|NCT02869438|191703228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.173|-0.014|0.0969
95873036|NCT02869438|191703228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average over Day 28, 56, and 84|||0.135|-0.022|0.1558
95873037|NCT02869438|191703229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176||||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline RV, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||0.153|-0.505|0.2847
95873038|NCT02869438|191703230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-101.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.9|-83.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline eosinophils counts, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||-83.06|-118.9|<0.0001
95966373|NCT03635099|191903173|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.0|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||7.0|-2.2|
95966374|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
95966375|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
95873039|NCT02869438|191703231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.6384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.08|-0.049|0.6384
95873040|NCT02869438|191703231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.109|-0.016|0.148
95873041|NCT02869438|191703231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.101|-0.049|0.4959
95873042|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||0.073|-0.062|0.8667
95873043|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||0.115|-0.033|0.2734
95873044|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.7252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||0.098|-0.068|0.7252
95873045|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||0.164|-0.014|0.0976
95873046|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||0.122|-0.077|0.6536
95873047|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||0.188|-0.004|0.0595
95873048|NCT02869438|191703232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FVC, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||0.147|-0.02|0.1377
95873049|NCT02869438|191703233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 3|||2.58|0.85|0.1604
95873050|NCT02869438|191703233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 7|||2.19|0.76|0.3400
95873051|NCT02869438|191703233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||2.70|0.93|0.0924
95966376|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|23.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||23.3|2.3|0.0942
95966377|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|41.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||41.3|13.7|0.0095
95873052|NCT02869438|191703233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||2.71|0.91|0.1052
95873053|NCT02869438|191703233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||2.21|0.77|0.3271
95873054|NCT02869438|191703233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||2.29|0.77|0.3017
95873055|NCT02869438|191703234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.293||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 14|||-0.105|-0.481|0.0024
95873056|NCT02869438|191703234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|-0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-0.195|-0.609|0.0002
95873057|NCT02869438|191703234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.312||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.554|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-0.07|-0.554|0.0117
95873058|NCT02869438|191703234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.472||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.213|-0.731|0.0004
95873059|NCT02869438|191703234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.395||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|-0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-0.188|-0.603|0.0002
95873060|NCT02869438|191703235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.229||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.832|-3.626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 28|||-3.626|-10.832|0.0001
95966378|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
95966379|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
95966380|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
95966381|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
95966382|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
95966383|NCT03635099|191903174|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|49.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||49.8|20.2|0.0025
95966384|NCT03635099|191903175|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.4701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|7.5|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.5|-2.4|0.4701
95966385|NCT03635099|191903175|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||11.8|-1.8|0.3091
95966386|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||7.3|-2.3|0.4758
95966387|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
95966388|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
95966389|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|44.2|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||44.2|15.8|0.0062
95966390|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
95873061|NCT02869438|191703235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.942||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.538|-1.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 56|||-1.346|-10.538|0.0115
95966391|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.1||||0.3028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||12.1|-1.8|0.3028
95966392|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|38.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||38.4|11.6|0.0143
95966393|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||16.1|-0.7|0.2030
95966394|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|19.8|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||19.8|0.7|0.1380
95966395|NCT03635099|191903176|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|47.0|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||47.0|18.0|0.0040
95966396|NCT03635099|191903177|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||2.8|-1.9|0.7008
95966397|NCT03635099|191903177|OTHER||Adjusted mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||3.0|-1.8|0.6268
95966398|NCT03635099|191903177|OTHER||Adjusted mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.1|0.3|0.0266
95966399|NCT03635099|191903177|OTHER||Adjusted mean|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||6.3|1.7|0.0009
95966400|NCT03635099|191903177|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
95873062|NCT02869438|191703235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.599||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.898|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-3.898|-13.3|0.0004
95966401|NCT03635099|191903177|OTHER||Adjusted mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.8|||||MMRM model included treatment, visit and treatment by visit as fixed effects, baseline PSS score and baseline PSS by visit as covariates, patient as a random effect, and an unstructured covariance structure for within patient variation.|||5.8|0.4|
95966402|NCT03635099|191903178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|15.1|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.1|-10.1|0.7144
95966403|NCT03635099|191903178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
95966404|NCT03635099|191903178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.4|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||15.4|-10.0|0.6970
95966405|NCT03635099|191903178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|30.6|||Chi-squared||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|||30.6|-0.6|0.1250
95966406|NCT03635099|191903178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|36.1|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||36.1|-20.3|
95966407|NCT03635099|191903178|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|34.3|||||Statistics for the difference were calculated using unadjusted risk differences (BI dose group - Placebo).|The 95% confidence interval for the unadjusted absolute difference in proportion (%) between active group and placebo group was estimated by Chi-square method. As pre-specified, no hypothesis testing was carried out for Part 2 of this trial and no p-values were provided.||34.3|-21.9|
95966408|NCT02755129|191903179|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"To assess the similarity between the Reveal LINQ measures and those from the reference system, correlation coefficients were used.~The correlation coefficient was calculated over windows of 4 seconds and averaged for each exercise. Then, the average correlation coefficient over all patients and exercise was calculated."|||
95966409|NCT04854850|191903228|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95966410|NCT05718466|191903233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95966411|NCT05718466|191903234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
95966412|NCT04092530|191903235|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; clustering by clinical site accounted for with random intercept||Please note that there were only 7 units (community health clinics) analyzed at Level 2 of this multilevel study, but due to the crossover design of the study, they were each observed under both the Control and Intervention conditions. Therefore, the Units Analyzed entered above reflect the 7 clinics under both conditions and should not be summed to 14.||1.05|0.64|0.12
95966413|NCT04092530|191903236|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||1.13|0.70|0.33
95966414|NCT04092530|191903237|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for time; random intercept for clinical site||||3.73|0.33|0.88
95966415|NCT00918879|191903302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0011||95.0|-0.73|-0.18|||ANCOVA|\* adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.18|-0.73|0.0011
95966416|NCT00918879|191903303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.438||0.0623||95.0|-20.91|0.53|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.53|-20.91|0.0623
95966417|NCT00918879|191903304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.0623||95.0|-1.17|0.02|||ANCOVA|\* Adjusted for baseline FPG||||0.02|-1.17|0.0623
95966418|NCT00918879|191903305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-1.7|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-1.7|
95966419|NCT00384774|191903309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||1.0000
95966420|NCT00384774|191903309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0991|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.0991
95966421|NCT00384774|191903309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4851|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.4851
95966422|NCT00384774|191903309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1178
95966423|NCT00384774|191903309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1093|||||||Chi-squared|||Headache Response||||0.1093
95966424|NCT00384774|191903309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3364|||||||Fisher Exact|||Headache Response||||0.3364
95966425|NCT03296800|191903338|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|118.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.12|126.72|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||126.72|111.12|
95966426|NCT03296800|191903338|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|119.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|151.59||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|151.59|94.39|
95966427|NCT03296800|191903338|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.81|126.65||||||Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters|Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|126.65|88.81|
95966428|NCT03296800|191903341|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|140.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.39|151.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||151.26|131.39|
95873063|NCT02869438|191703235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.257||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.133|-3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline SGRQ score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For average of Day 28, 56, 84.|||-3.38|-11.133|0.0003
95873064|NCT02869438|191703236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.414||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|15.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline FeNO value, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.||||15.321|-4.492|0.2825
95873065|NCT02869438|191703246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.365||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes covariates of treatment, baseline PGI-S score, region, visit, treatment by visit interaction.|For Day 84|||-0.081|-0.649|0.0120
95873066|NCT02869438|191703247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.97||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.88|1.50|0.0018
95873067|NCT02869438|191703248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes covariates of treatment, region.|For Day 84|Responder analysis: responder is defined as Very much improved, improved, and minimally improved.||5.09|1.24|0.0107
95873068|NCT02343081|191703251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the ratio of the mean for Cmax for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|Cmax|94.37|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|107.69|||ANOVA|Primary parameters were analyzed using ANOVA. A linear, mixed model for crossover designs (two-period, two-sequence, two-treatment) was used.|Cmax Test/Reference Ratio|Bioequivalence assessment was made for the 90% CI for the ratio of log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters μT / μR and with the two one-sided Schuirmann T-test procedure under the null hypothesis||107.69|82.69|<0.05
95873069|NCT02343081|191703255|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-t for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-t|100.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|104.28|||ANOVA||AUC0-t Test/Reference Ratio|||104.28|97.81|<0.05
95873070|NCT02343081|191703256|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming an intrasubject CV of 15%, an enrollment of 16 subjects was selected to provide a minimum of 80% power for the 90% CI of the means ratio for AUC0-inf for Temozolomide reference and test to fall within the 80-125% confidence range.|AUC0-inf|101.53|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|104.54|||ANOVA||AUC0-inf Test/Reference Ratio|||104.54|98.60|<0.05
95873071|NCT00277446|191703273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||<0.03
95873072|NCT00277446|191703274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.02
95873073|NCT00277446|191703275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The two groups tested were baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment with the soy isoflavone supplement."||||0.88
95873074|NCT00573248|191703276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
95873075|NCT00573248|191703277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smoker versus nonsmoker) ANOVA||||<0.025
95873076|NCT00573248|191703278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
95873077|NCT00573248|191703279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|||2 (nicotine versus placebo) x 2 (smokers versus nonsmokers) ANOVA for each diary item||||<0.025
95873078|NCT01367119|191703280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.171
95873079|NCT01367119|191703281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-values take into account variability across treatments and within subject.||||0.258
95873080|NCT01367119|191703282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for nausea||||0.091
95873081|NCT01367119|191703282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for headache||||0.763
95873082|NCT01367119|191703282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for myalgia||||0.356
95873083|NCT01367119|191703282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for visual disturbance||||0.093
95873084|NCT01367119|191703282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for confusion||||0.003
95873085|NCT01367119|191703282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for recovery room agitation||||0.860
95873086|NCT02675231|191703284|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.0506|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.0506
95966429|NCT03296800|191903341|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|86.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.24|105.59|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||105.59|70.24|
95966430|NCT03296800|191903341|EQUIVALENCE|The acceptance range for bioequivalence is 80.0 - 125.00%.|Point Estimate (%)|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|106.26|||||Point Estimate is the estimated ratio of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA. Confidence interval is obtained from ANOVA with treatment as a fixed effect, and subject as a random effect.|Geometric LS Mean was used as PK parameters||106.26|90.26|
95873087|NCT02675231|191703284|SUPERIORITY|The abemaciclib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm will be compared to the standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm first, and the abemaciclib doublet arm will be compared to the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm only if the test for the triplet vs the SOC chemotherapy plus trastuzumab arm is significant.||||||0.7695|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior systemic regimens for advanced breast cancer (2 to 3 versus(vs) \>3) and status of disease(measurable vs non-measurable).||PFS analysis was planned after approximately 165 PFS events occurred in the enrolled population, yielding greater than or equal to (≥) 80% power assuming a Hazard ration (HR) of 0·667 at an experiment-wise 2-sided alpha level of 0·2.||||0.7695
95873088|NCT02675231|191703285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.30|0.36|0.241
95873089|NCT02675231|191703285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.36|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.36|0.38|0.313
95873090|NCT02675231|191703286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.08|0.42|0.104
95873091|NCT02675231|191703286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.10|0.43|0.120
95873092|NCT02675231|191703287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.0|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.00|0.42|0.049
95873093|NCT02675231|191703287|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratified by the number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent endocrine therapy) for advanced breast cancer and the status of disease (measurable vs. non-measurable).|||1.12|0.48|0.153
95873094|NCT02675231|191703292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.232
95873095|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Global health status||||0.689
95873096|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.141|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scales: Physical functioning||||0.141
95873097|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Role functioning||||0.095
95873098|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.591|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Emotional functioning||||0.591
95873099|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.935|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Cognitive functioning||||0.935
95873100|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.578|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Functional scale: Social functioning||||0.578
95873101|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.308|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Fatigue||||0.308
95873102|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Nausea and vomiting||||0.043
95873103|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Pain||||0.026
95873104|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.276|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Dyspnoea||||0.276
95873105|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.041|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Insomnia||||0.041
95873106|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.262|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Appetite loss||||0.262
95873107|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.285|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Constipation||||0.285
95873108|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Diarrhoea||||< 0.001
95873109|NCT02675231|191703293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model (MMRM): Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||Symptom scale: Financial difficulties||||0.180
95873110|NCT02675231|191703294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.033
95873111|NCT02675231|191703294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed models repeated measures model: Change from baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.|MMRM Model|||||||0.275
95873112|NCT02675231|191703295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.546
95873113|NCT02675231|191703295|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM Model|||||||0.620
95873114|NCT05014490|191703297|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|110.37|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||110.37|94.54|
95873115|NCT05014490|191703298|EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. The level of significance was set to the standard value of 5% (0.05) for all statistical tests.|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.97|101.54|||||The ratio of geometric LSmeans with corresponding 90% CI calculated from the exponential of the difference between the test and reference products for the ln-transformed parameters should be within the acceptance interval of 80.00 - 125.00%.|||101.54|96.97|
95873116|NCT02520661|191703324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 14 days||1.22|0.62|
95873117|NCT02520661|191703324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||||||treatment relevant change in number of ED visits by 30 days||1.30|0.72|
95873118|NCT02750943|191703334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-25.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.682|-19.998||From ANCOVA analysis with treatment group, gender and baseline MGI stratification as factors baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-19.998|-30.682|<0.0001
95873119|NCT00760214|191703438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-11.04|<.001
95873120|NCT00760214|191703438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|-6.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-6.39|-11.66|<.001
95873121|NCT00760214|191703439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|-3.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.78|-6.85|<.001
95873122|NCT00760214|191703439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-4.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.12|-7.21|<.001
95873123|NCT00760214|191703440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|-2.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-7.64|<.001
95873124|NCT00760214|191703440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|-1.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.66|-7.27|0.002
95873125|NCT00760214|191703441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-0.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.94|-4.61|0.003
95873126|NCT00760214|191703441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|-1.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-4.89|0.001
95873127|NCT00760214|191703442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-6.87|0.017
95966431|NCT03119233|191903461|OTHER||Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|68.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|60.9|||||||"The primary effectiveness endpoint is defined as primary patency at 12 months as evidenced by a peak systolic velocity ratio (PSVR)~≤2.5 from DUS and no clinically-driven re-intervention within the stented segment. The primary effectiveness endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System ≤60.4%~* HA: 12-month success rate of the PQ Bypass System \>60.4%"|||60.9|
95966432|NCT03119233|191903462|OTHER|The rate of freedom from 30-day MAE is expected to be no less than 92%. Based on a PG of 84% and an estimated 30-day freedom from MAE rate of 92% for the PQ Bypass System, a sample size of 169 evaluable subjects provides 88% power to test the primary safety hypothesis at the one-sided alpha level of 0.025. The Exact Test Method and Commercial software PASS14 was used to determine the sample size.|Lower 97.5% Exact Confidence Limit|93.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.5|||||||"The primary safety endpoint hypotheses are:~* H0: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System~  ≤84%~* HA: 30-day Freedom from MAE rate of the PQ Bypass System \>84%"|||88.5|
95966433|NCT02224703|191903472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.743||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.971|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.971|0.568|0.0299
95873128|NCT00760214|191703442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-6.50|0.029
95873129|NCT00760214|191703443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|0.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-4.15|0.052
95873130|NCT00760214|191703443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-0.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.35|-4.49|0.022
95873131|NCT00760214|191703444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-1.59||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.59|-7.46|0.003
95873132|NCT00760214|191703444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-1.35||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-7.18|0.004
95873133|NCT00760214|191703445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.68||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-4.60|0.008
95873134|NCT00760214|191703445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-1.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-4.93|0.003
95873135|NCT00760214|191703446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.77|-9.12|<.001
95873136|NCT00760214|191703446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-2.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.67|-8.96|<.001
95873137|NCT00760214|191703447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-0.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.88|-5.15|0.006
95873138|NCT00760214|191703447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.65||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-5.89|<.001
95873139|NCT00760214|191703448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-5.6||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.60|-12.15|<.001
95873140|NCT00760214|191703448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-4.95||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.95|-11.46|<.001
95873141|NCT00760214|191703449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-3.17||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-8.19|<.001
95873142|NCT00760214|191703449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-2.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.82|-7.81|<.001
95873143|NCT00700570|191703452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1341
95966434|NCT02224703|191903472|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.702||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.916|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset. Null hypothesis was that the ratio of GWP42003-P to placebo would be 1.||0.916|0.538|0.0095
95966435|NCT02224703|191903473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.749||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.965|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.965|0.581|0.0255
95873144|NCT00700570|191703454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0010
95966436|NCT02224703|191903473|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.799|||Negative binomial regression|||Model includes total number of seizures as a response variable and age group, time (baseline and treatment period), treatment, and treatment by time interaction as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. Log-transformed number of days in which seizures were reported by period is included as an offset.||0.799|0.481|0.0003
95966437|NCT02224703|191903474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||5.70|1.32|0.0069
95966438|NCT02224703|191903474|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value calculated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-12, and 13-18 years).||||4.62|1.06|0.0332
95966439|NCT02224703|191903475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.78|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||3.78|1.08|0.0279
95966440|NCT02224703|191903475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|5.53|||Regression, Logistic||Proportional odds modelling was carried out by including treatment group as a fixed factor. The estimated OR tested the null hypothesis that OR was equal to 1.|||5.53|1.56|0.0009
95966441|NCT02057575|191903476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.01% vs netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95966442|NCT02057575|191903476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PG324 0.02% vs. netarsudil|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95966443|NCT02057575|191903476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.01% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
95966444|NCT02057575|191903476|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|PG324 0.02% vs. latanoprost||||||<0.0001
95966445|NCT01254552|191903513|OTHER||rate|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.1||||||||0.100|0.043|
95966446|NCT03596762|191903531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.52|||=|0.1946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|0.78|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.78|-3.83|= 0.1946
95966447|NCT03596762|191903531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|1.29|||=|0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.53|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.53|-4.11|= 0.3682
95966448|NCT03596762|191903531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-3.93|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|-1.92|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-1.92|-5.94|= 0.0002
95966449|NCT03596762|191903531|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.63|||=|0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|-0.6|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-0.6|-4.66|= 0.0115
95873145|NCT03875768|191703464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.72||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size is 0.5. The investigators hypothesize that the intervention will lead to an increase in average DASH score of 2 units. The investigators used a standard deviation for 2 units for both intervention and attention control groups since higher variability may be observed with a bigger sample size than the pilot study.||0.50|-0.44|0.89
95873146|NCT03875768|191703465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) between intervention and control group is 0.6 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.4|-5.3|0.26
95873147|NCT03875768|191703466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.3||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Results presented are unadjusted.||The expected effect size for change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between intervention and control group is 0.75 based on the pilot study. With a 90% power and a type I error rate (alpha) of .01, the investigators can detect the expected effect size with the proposed sample size of 121 per study arm.||1.2|-3.1|0.39
95873148|NCT01925274|191703469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.71||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.4|12.0|||Chi-squared|||||12.0|-83.4|0.164
95873149|NCT05402020|191703533|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.15|0.87|
95873150|NCT05402020|191703534|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (triple therapy escalation) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||0.85|0.53|
95873151|NCT05402020|191703535|OTHER||Incidence difference|-37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-15.8|||||Incidence difference calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]-\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||-15.8|-60.1|
95966450|NCT03596762|191903532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.67|||=|0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-0.95|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.95|-4.28|= 0.2097
95966451|NCT03596762|191903532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.77|||=|0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.44|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||2.44|-3.97|= 0.6369
95966452|NCT03596762|191903532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-2.95|||=|0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-0.67|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||-0.67|-5.22|= 0.0116
95966453|NCT03596762|191903532|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.78|||=|0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|0.56|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.56|-4.12|= 0.1346
95966454|NCT03596762|191903533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.05|||=|0.7033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.2|-0.3|= 0.7033
95966455|NCT03596762|191903533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.14|||=|0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.17|-0.45|= 0.3724
95966456|NCT03596762|191903533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.0896
95966457|NCT03596762|191903533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.19|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.03|-0.41|= 0.09
95966458|NCT03596762|191903534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.09|||=|0.5511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.21|-0.39|= 0.5511
95966459|NCT03596762|191903534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|0.16|||=|0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.52|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.52|-0.2|= 0.3822
95966460|NCT03596762|191903534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.15|||=|0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.11|-0.41|= 0.2606
95966461|NCT03596762|191903534|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-0.27|||=|0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0|-0.53|= 0.0479
95873152|NCT05402020|191703535|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||||Ratio calculated as \[incidence rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[incidence rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||0.85|0.51|
95873153|NCT05402020|191703536|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93|||||Ratio calculated as \[Tio/Olo\]/\[ICS/LABA\]|Univariate proportional hazards regression was used to compare the time to event (first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia after initiation of study drug) between the two treatment groups. In the event that there were baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) were included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or ICS/LABA).||1.93|0.36|
95873154|NCT05402020|191703537|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.03|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.03|0.81|
95873155|NCT05402020|191703538|OTHER||Annualized rate ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||||Annualized rate ratio calculated as \[annualized rate of Tio/Olo\]/\[annualized rate of ICS/LABA\].|The rate ratio of Tio+Olo - exposed group relative to LABA/ICS group, along with 95% CIs were derived using a univariate negative binomial model. In the event that there are baseline covariates with unequal distribution between the treatment groups, defined as absolute standardized difference larger than 0.1, the covariate(s) will be included in a multiple regression model in addition to the exposure status (Tio/Olo or LABA/ICS).||1.18|0.87|
95873156|NCT06400979|191703539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95873157|NCT06400979|191703540|SUPERIORITY|To assess the reduction of nausea following aromatherapy, pre- and post- aromatherapy scores were compared using paired t-tests||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95873158|NCT06400979|191703541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95873159|NCT06400979|191703542|OTHER|Perceived effectiveness of aromatherapy for patient satisfaction were compared with respect to post-aromatherapy scores and pre-post changes in scores using two-sample t-tests||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|73.4|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95873160|NCT06400979|191703543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95873161|NCT06400979|191703544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95873162|NCT01272284|191703545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion successful|85.4|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.81|78.1||||Fisher Exact|||The final significance level is 0.04191 accounting for one interim analysis conducted at 80% of final information, thus a 95.81% Confidence Limit (CL) was used.|||78.1|<0.0001
95873163|NCT01086423|191703571|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The upper limit (UL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|3.76||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™ -IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-D, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.76|-1.88|
95873164|NCT01086423|191703571|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-T, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.56|
95966462|NCT03355209|191903618|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-19.88||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.02|-8.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||-8.74|-31.02|0.0008
95966463|NCT03355209|191903621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (A-P)|-10.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|3.99|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) method|||3.99|-24.99|0.1460
95966464|NCT03355209|191903622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|7.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.59|1.43|0.0051
95966465|NCT03355209|191903622|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.70|1.23|0.0150
95966466|NCT03355209|191903623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||2.97|0.84|0.1565
95966467|NCT03355209|191903623|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Visit 12||3.52|0.98|0.0567
95966468|NCT01602510|191903672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.438
95873165|NCT01086423|191703572|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-7.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-2.13||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRP antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-2.13|-14.44|
95873166|NCT01086423|191703573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 1 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
95873167|NCT01086423|191703573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 2 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
95873168|NCT01086423|191703573|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.56||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-Polio type 3 antibodies, one month after the third vaccine dose.||2.56|-2.51|
95873169|NCT01086423|191703574|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|1.89||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PT antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||1.89|-3.74|
95873170|NCT01086423|191703574|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-0.11||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-FHA antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||-0.11|-6.75|
95873171|NCT01086423|191703574|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of Non-inferiority: The UL of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix-Hib + Poliorix Group minus Infanrix-IPV+Hib 1 Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.04||||||To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™-IPV+Hib vaccine administered at 2, 3 and 4 months of age was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™-Hib and Poliorix™ vaccines at the same age, in terms of immune response to anti-PRN antigens, one month after the third vaccine dose.||3.04|-4.6|
95873172|NCT03180684|191703641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0071|||||||Clopper Pearson|A 1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%. Superiority of VGX-3100 alone was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0071
95873173|NCT03180684|191703641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Clopper Pearson|1-sided p-value was calculated to prove superiority over historical control of 2%.Superiority of VGX-3100+imiquimod was declared if p-value is \<0.025.||||||0.0004
95873174|NCT02652767|191703673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.158|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.158|-0.182|0.8890
95873175|NCT04718103|191703707|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) and offset of log (total time in the study in years).|Rate Ratio|0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.73|||Negative Binomial Distribution|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||0.73|0.36|<0.001
95873176|NCT04718103|191703708|SUPERIORITY||Least-square (LS) means|-2.31||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.23|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||To demonstrate the superiority of GSK3511294 100 mg SC + SoC following two doses (at Week 0 and at Week 26) compared with placebo + SoC, assessed by SGRQ Total Score measured over the study intervention period of 52 weeks.||1.23|-5.84|0.200
95966469|NCT01602510|191903672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.212
95966470|NCT01602510|191903672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.86|||=|0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.25|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.25|0.59|=0.724
95966471|NCT01602510|191903673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.869
95873177|NCT04718103|191703709|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Mean|-0.11||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.11|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ACQ-5 score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ACQ-5 score and visit by treatment group.||0.11|-0.33|0.333
95873178|NCT04718103|191703710|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least-Square Means|0.056||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.154|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1, visit, visit by baseline pre-bronchodilator FEV1 and visit by treatment group.||0.154|-0.043|0.267
95966472|NCT01602510|191903673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.061
95966473|NCT01602510|191903673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.95|||=|0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.66|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.66|0.55|=0.505
95966474|NCT01602510|191903674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.369
95966475|NCT01602510|191903674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.955
95873179|NCT04718103|191703711|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ANSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ANSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.09|-0.52|0.173
95873180|NCT04718103|191703712|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least square means|-0.21||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.07|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region, baseline ADSD weekly mean score, baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1, visit, visit by baseline ADSD weekly mean score and visit by treatment group.||0.07|-0.48|0.138
95873181|NCT04718103|191703713|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution and covariates of treatment group, baseline ICS dose (medium or high), exacerbation history (2, 3, 4+), geographical region and baseline pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1.|Rate Ratio|0.42||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.13|||Negative binomial distribution|||||1.13|0.16|0.087
95873182|NCT02536833|191703714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|3.65|||ANCOVA|||||3.65|-6.57|0.575
95873183|NCT02536833|191703714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|4.09|||ANCOVA|||||4.09|-6.63|0.643
95873184|NCT02536833|191703714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.75|||ANCOVA|||||5.75|-5.07|0.901
95873185|NCT02536833|191703715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-8.31|0.271
95873186|NCT02536833|191703715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|5.32|||ANCOVA|||||5.32|-6.06|0.898
95873187|NCT02536833|191703715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|-4.74|0.795
95873188|NCT02536833|191703716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|2.26|||ANCOVA|||||2.26|-7.74|0.283
95873189|NCT02536833|191703716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|3.86|||ANCOVA|||||3.86|-6.82|0.588
95873190|NCT02536833|191703716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|4.76|||ANCOVA|||||4.76|-5.76|0.853
95873191|NCT02536833|191703717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|2.49|||ANCOVA|||||2.49|-8.26|0.292
95873192|NCT02536833|191703717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|5.83|||ANCOVA|||||5.83|-5.34|0.931
95873193|NCT02536833|191703717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|5.76|||ANCOVA|||||5.76|-4.92|0.878
95966476|NCT01602510|191903674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|0.79|||=|0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.32|0.48|=0.874
95966477|NCT01602510|191903675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Treatment Group as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.927
95966478|NCT01602510|191903675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with Site as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.036
95966479|NCT01602510|191903675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Hazard Ratio|1.02|||=|0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.4|||Regression, Cox||p value with CGI-S Baseline Score as covariate|||1.40|0.73|=0.509
95966480|NCT01602510|191903676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|=0.833
95966481|NCT01602510|191903677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.245
95966482|NCT01602510|191903678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|=0.155
95966483|NCT01602510|191903679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-1.4|= 0.661
95966484|NCT01602510|191903680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||=|0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.7|= 0.945
95873194|NCT02536833|191703718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|6.16|||ANCOVA|||||6.16|-3.83|0.648
95873195|NCT02536833|191703718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.14||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|1.75|||ANCOVA|||||1.75|-8.02|0.209
95873196|NCT02536833|191703718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|5.33|||ANCOVA|||||5.33|-4.78|0.915
95873197|NCT02536833|191703719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.36|||ANCOVA|||||5.36|-5.16|0.969
95873198|NCT02536833|191703719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|1.61|||ANCOVA|||||1.61|-8.89|0.174
95873199|NCT02536833|191703719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|5.59|||ANCOVA|||||5.59|-4.97|0.908
95873200|NCT02536833|191703720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||ANCOVA|||||0.29|-0.10|0.334
95873201|NCT02536833|191703720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.30|-0.04|0.124
95873202|NCT02536833|191703720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|0.02|0.032
95873203|NCT02536833|191703721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.24|||ANCOVA|||||3.24|-8.00|0.405
95873204|NCT02536833|191703721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|8.16|||ANCOVA|||||8.16|-4.37|0.552
95873205|NCT02536833|191703721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.68|||ANCOVA|||||6.68|-4.91|0.763
95873206|NCT02536833|191703722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.71|||ANCOVA|||||1.71|-9.50|0.173
95873207|NCT02536833|191703722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|7.36|||ANCOVA|||||7.36|-5.12|0.724
95873208|NCT02536833|191703722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|5.53|||ANCOVA|||||5.53|-6.17|0.914
95873209|NCT02536833|191703723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.12|0.529
95873210|NCT02536833|191703723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.08|0.259
95873211|NCT02536833|191703723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.21|0.807
95873212|NCT02536833|191703724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.73||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-17.44|0.049
95873213|NCT02536833|191703724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|3.43|||ANCOVA|||||3.43|-15.49|0.211
95873214|NCT02536833|191703724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.24|3.78|||ANCOVA|||||3.78|-14.24|0.254
95873215|NCT02536833|191703725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.26||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.82|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||||-0.69|-19.82|0.036
95873216|NCT02536833|191703725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|3.05|||ANCOVA|||||3.05|-17.18|0.170
95873217|NCT02536833|191703725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|-15.33|0.171
95873218|NCT02536833|191703726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.72|||ANCOVA|||||0.72|0.06|0.021
95873219|NCT02536833|191703726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.07|0.131
95873220|NCT02536833|191703726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.35|0.789
95873221|NCT01476644|191703748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
95873222|NCT00495131|191703750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no difference between 2 groups SVR estimation: 24 weeks (60%), 48 weeks (75%) alfa erros: 0.05, power: 0.80||||< 0.001
95873223|NCT01539317|191703802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase II: During Blinded 4 weeks||||0.0149
95873224|NCT01539317|191703802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phase III||||0.412
95966485|NCT01602510|191903681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-1.66|=0.047
95966486|NCT00895895|191903682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change=Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Japan baseline baseline times(\*)visit visit treatment treatment\*visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.3|-1.0|0.424
95873225|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Desire||||0.66
95873226|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (S)||||0.11
95873227|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (L)||||0.15
95873228|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arousal (C)||||0.28
95873229|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Orgasm||||0.07
95873230|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pain||||0.004
95873231|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Enjoyment||||0.54
95873232|NCT01539317|191703803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Partner||||0.92
95873233|NCT01539317|191703804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Each of 8 site comparisons had its own P-value and a value of \<0.001 was the difference at the most tender sites|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95873234|NCT04105543|191703815|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.22||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|4.24|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for MDADI Composite Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.24|-12.64|0.173
95873235|NCT04105543|191703815|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.998||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.43|7.39|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for MDADI Composite Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||7.39|-28.43|0.225
95873236|NCT04105543|191703816|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.037||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.09|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 3 months (n=8)||0.09|-0.246|0.779
95873237|NCT04105543|191703816|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.12|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Stimulated Saliva Flow Baseline to 6 months (n=4)||0.12|-0.218|0.465
95873238|NCT04105543|191703817|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.444||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.4|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||4.4|-14.4|0.213
95873239|NCT04105543|191703817|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.667||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|20.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Functional Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||20|-17.8|0.686
95873240|NCT04105543|191703817|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.846||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|12.82|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||12.82|-0.769|0.498
95873241|NCT04105543|191703817|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|10.256||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|35.89|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||35.89|-15.39|0.416
95873242|NCT04105543|191703817|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.33||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.84|16.67|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Score Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||16.67|-20.84|0.778
95873243|NCT04105543|191703817|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status Scores Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||25|-25|0.89
95966487|NCT00895895|191903682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change equals (=) MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-1.8|0.849
95966488|NCT00895895|191903682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.2|0.520
95873244|NCT04105543|191703818|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for XeQOL Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||9.5|-2|0.138
95873245|NCT04105543|191703818|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for XeQOL Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||16|-10|0.225
95873246|NCT04105543|191703819|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 3 months (n=9)||5|-3|0.674
95873247|NCT04105543|191703819|OTHER|nonparametric rank test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Xerostomia Inventory Baseline to 6 months (n=5)||6|-6|0.892
95873248|NCT02393690|191703826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
95966489|NCT00895895|191903682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-2.6|0.258
95966490|NCT00895895|191903683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.9|-5.2|0.367
95873249|NCT02393690|191703827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0787|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0787
95873250|NCT02393690|191703828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1764
95873251|NCT02393690|191703829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0756
95873252|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.52||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.25 hours||0.52|-1.02|0.5196
95873253|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.44||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change in VAS score from baseline at 0.5 hours||0.44|-1.09|0.3983
95873254|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 0.75 hours||0.5|-1.03|0.4890
95873255|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo|Change from baseline VAS score at 1 hour||0.56|-0.97|0.5903
95873256|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.64||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 1.5 hours||0.64|-0.90|0.7352
95873257|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2 hours||0.61|-0.92|0.6892
95966491|NCT00895895|191903683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.7|-3.3|0.910
95966492|NCT00895895|191903683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.0|-1.0|0.160
95873258|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 2.5 hours||0.76|-0.78|0.9767
95873259|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Median Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3 hours||1.09|-0.44|0.3964
95873260|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22||||0.5669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 3.5 hours||0.98|-0.55|0.5669
95873261|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.62||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 4 hours||0.62|-0.91|0.7006
95873262|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.67||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|Change from baseline VAS score at 5 hours||0.67|-0.87|0.7940
95873263|NCT05298306|191703833|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Analysis was based a mixed model repeated measures model, with fixed-effects including treatment, time point and period factors. Baseline was included as a covariate. Random effects for participants and participant by period were also included.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.6892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made due to the exploratory nature of the study.||Change from baseline VAS score at 6 hours|Difference is LAT8881 minus placebo.|0.61|-0.92|0.6892
95873264|NCT00471146|191703841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.309||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.309|0.786|0.5436
95873265|NCT00471146|191703842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.298||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.025 significance level was used.The p-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||1.298|0.779|0.5203
95873266|NCT00471146|191703843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.2||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Differences in OR between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for extent of disease (locally advanced cancer versus metastatic cancer).||10.1|1.0|0.038
95873267|NCT02047227|191703875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.235||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4741|0.003|||Poisson Regression Model|||||0.003|-0.4741|0.054
95873268|NCT01977937|191703881|OTHER|Differences in average pre-operative \& total post-operative average VAS scores were compared between groups using an unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Hospitalization outcomes including number of days to transition off PCA, number of days with Foley catheter, \& episodes of nausea, emesis, or POSS \> 3 were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05 for all unpaired parametric and non-parametric comparisons.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test was used to assess for normal distribution. Experimental \& control groups were assessed for significant differences in age, hospital days, \& spinal levels fused using unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test. Differences in weight \& BMI were assessed using unpaired Mann-Whitney rank sum test. Differences in average VAS scores on the operative day, each post-operative day, and average total daily opioid were compared using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test.||||0.07
95873269|NCT01977937|191703882|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in the average total daily opioid were compared between groups using an unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test||||0.02
95873270|NCT02001181|191703889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-62.8|-40.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model for repeated measures analysis included all the participants in FAS.||||-40.8|-62.8|<0.0001
95873271|NCT03911843|191703896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||the p-value of significance was calculated using the analysis system|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95873272|NCT03911843|191703896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95873273|NCT03911843|191703897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95873274|NCT03911843|191703898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95873275|NCT02819518|191703901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy (taxane versus \[vs\] gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs. no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.98|0.70|0.0120
95873276|NCT02819518|191703902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.91|0.62|0.0016
95873277|NCT02819518|191703903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.88|0.50|0.0018
95873278|NCT02819518|191703904|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, tumor PD-L1 status, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.05|0.76|0.0797
95873279|NCT02819518|191703905|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||1.04|0.72|0.0563
95873280|NCT02819518|191703906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy on study, and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting.|||0.95|0.55|0.0093
95873281|NCT02819518|191703907|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|3.8||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||10.6|-3.2|0.1413
95873282|NCT02819518|191703908|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR (%) vs. Control|6.1||||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||14.0|-2.1|0.0725
95873283|NCT02819518|191703909|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR(%) vs. Control|12.1||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|23.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||23.4|0.4|0.0213
95873284|NCT02819518|191703913|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. control|4.7||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin), tumor PD-L1 status (CPS ≥1 vs CPS \<1) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||11.8|-2.4|0.0966
95873285|NCT02819518|191703914|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|5.0||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||13.1|-3.2|0.1164
95873286|NCT02819518|191703915|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DCR (%) vs. Control|10.8||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by chemotherapy on study (taxane vs gemcitabine/carboplatin) and prior treatment with same class of chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting (yes vs no).|||22.3|-0.7|0.0327
95873287|NCT02766465|191703925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||<0.001
95873288|NCT02766465|191703925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing significant cerebrovascular event between two biologically assigned arms during the first year after biologic assignment. Significant cerebrovascular event includes stroke, transient ischemic attack, and seizure. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the first year after assignment.||||0.027
95873289|NCT02766465|191703925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing severe Vaso-occlusive pain (VOC) with hospitalization or parenteral opioid drugs in outpatient setting between two biologically assigned arms during the second year after biologic assignment. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in biologically assigned arms during the second year after assignment.||||< 0.001
95873290|NCT02766465|191703926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 6MWD from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.869
95873291|NCT02766465|191703927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TRJV from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.636
95873292|NCT02766465|191703929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Physical Function changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.242
95873293|NCT02766465|191703930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Anxiety changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.343
95873294|NCT02766465|191703931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Depression changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.491
95873295|NCT02766465|191703932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing fatigue score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
95873296|NCT02766465|191703933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Sleep Disturbance changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.594
95873297|NCT02766465|191703934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing social roles score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.003
95873298|NCT02766465|191703935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing pain interference score changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.071
95873299|NCT02766465|191703936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.146
95873300|NCT02766465|191703937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing 28-Day Pain Diary Average Pain Intensity changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.649
95873301|NCT02766465|191703938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ASCQ-Me Stiffness changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.207
95873302|NCT02766465|191703939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1 changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.596
95873303|NCT02766465|191703940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.684
95873304|NCT02766465|191703941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FEV1/FVC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.863
95873305|NCT02766465|191703942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing VC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.455
95873306|NCT02766465|191703943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing TLC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.767
95873307|NCT02766465|191703944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing RV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.241
95873308|NCT02766465|191703945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing ERV changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.268
95873309|NCT02766465|191703946|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing IC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||>0.999
95873310|NCT02766465|191703947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing FRC changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.832
95966493|NCT00895895|191903683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.9|-0.1|0.060
95966494|NCT00895895|191903684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||3.1|-2.8|0.931
95966495|NCT00895895|191903684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-5.8|0.054
95966496|NCT00895895|191903684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.6|0.246
95966497|NCT00895895|191903684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-4.1|0.426
95966498|NCT00895895|191903685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.265
95966499|NCT00895895|191903685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.682|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.682
95966500|NCT00895895|191903685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.532
95966501|NCT00895895|191903685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.087
95966502|NCT00895895|191903685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.751
95966503|NCT00895895|191903686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.3|-3.9|0.553
95966504|NCT00895895|191903686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||5.2|-6.0|0.886
95966505|NCT00895895|191903686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||4.5|-6.6|0.712
95966506|NCT00895895|191903686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||6.4|-4.8|0.785
95966507|NCT00895895|191903687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.1|-0.5|0.251
95966508|NCT00895895|191903687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-0.3|0.993
95966509|NCT00895895|191903687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.553
95966510|NCT00895895|191903687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-0.4|0.611
95966511|NCT00895895|191903688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-1.5|0.340
95966512|NCT00895895|191903688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.630
95966513|NCT00895895|191903688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-0.8|0.678
95966514|NCT00895895|191903688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.3|0.518
95966515|NCT00895895|191903689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-0.7|0.953
95966516|NCT00895895|191903689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.6|-0.7|0.956
95873311|NCT02766465|191703948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing DLCO changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.370
95873312|NCT02766465|191703949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05;|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is the result comparing oxygen saturation changes from 2 years after biologic assignment to baseline between two biologically assigned arms. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between biologically assigned arms||||0.094
95873313|NCT02766465|191703951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.313
95873314|NCT02766465|191703952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD in patients who received different donor type at transplant||||0.233
95873315|NCT01505647|191703954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMT induced by ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is statistically non-inferior to that induced by the current process vaccine if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.2||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|Longitudinal regression model|The analyzed GMT ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P-value were based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for age and vaccination group||The hypothesis tested is that the GMT at Week 6 postvaccination with ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) vaccine is non-inferior to that with the current process vaccine||1.20|0.98|<0.001
95873316|NCT01505647|191703955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided). The P-value was not adjusted.|t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis tested was that ZOSTAVAX™ (AMP) induces an acceptable GMFR in VZV antibody titer from prevaccination to 6 weeks postvaccination||||<0.001
95873317|NCT01907100|191703959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.555||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.907|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II Part||0.907|0.340|0.0174
95873318|NCT01907100|191703959|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III part:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.30|0.79|0.5430
95873319|NCT01907100|191703960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.782||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.412|||Proportional hazards mode||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from proportional hazards model stratified by tumour histology (epithelioid vs. biphasic).|Phase II||1.412|0.433|0.4132
95873320|NCT01907100|191703960|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||one-sided p-value|Proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, confidence interval and p-value obtained from a non-stratified proportional hazards model.|"Phase III:~A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the comparison of treatment arms (Nintedanib vs Placebo).~If the hazard ratio is below 1 then it favours nintedanib."||1.58|0.79|0.7306
95873321|NCT01907100|191703961|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.||Exact 95% CI by Clopper and Pearson.|1.58|0.76|0.3189
95873322|NCT01907100|191703962|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.55||one-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and one-sided p-value are obtained from an un-adjusted logistic regression model (Nintedanib vs Placebo).|Odds ratio above 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.55|0.40|0.7512
95873323|NCT02301988|191703975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.77||||0.519||95.0|-8.99|16.54|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||16.54|-8.99|0.519
95873324|NCT02301988|191703976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.29||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|32.1|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||32.10|-25.52|0.7817
95873325|NCT02301988|191703977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.7||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|21.35|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||21.35|-5.95|0.2234
95873326|NCT02301988|191703978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.96||||0.8169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.91|27.99|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.99|-33.91|0.8169
95966517|NCT00895895|191903689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.1|0.216
95873327|NCT02301988|191703979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|11.11||||0.1607||95.0|-5.64|27.85|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified analysis||27.85|-5.64|0.1607
95873328|NCT02301988|191703980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|23.68||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|60.94|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction.|Unstratified Analysis||60.94|-13.57|0.1486
95873329|NCT02301988|191703981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.09||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|27.2|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||27.20|-15.01|0.4980
95873330|NCT02301988|191703982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|9.66||||0.3032||95.0|-12.25|31.58|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||31.58|-12.25|0.3032
95873331|NCT02301988|191703984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.2||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.76|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||22.76|-14.37|0.6280
95873332|NCT02301988|191703985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.33||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.04|49.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using normal approximation (Wald) with continuity correction method.|||49.71|-33.04|0.6291
95873333|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 4||0.94|0.48|
95873334|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 6B||1.04|0.64|
95873335|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 9V||1.23|0.74|
95873336|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 14||1.01|0.45|
95873337|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 18C||1.31|0.70|
95873338|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.77|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 19F||0.77|0.40|
95873339|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 2-Group 1).|Serotype 23F||1.05|0.64|
95873340|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 4||2.80|1.39|
95873341|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|3.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.84|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 6B||3.84|2.41|
95873342|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 9V||1.62|0.98|
95873343|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|6.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|9.79|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 14||9.79|4.53|
95873344|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.24|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 18C||3.24|1.68|
95873345|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|6.07|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 19F||6.07|3.29|
95873346|NCT01298544|191704016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.63|||||Calculated by back transforming the ratio difference between vaccine groups on logarithmic scale. Back transformations of CIs based on Student t distribution for ratio difference of the logarithms of the measures (Groups 1 and 2 combined-Group 3).|Serotype 23F||2.63|1.65|
95873347|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||-7.3|-29.4|
95966518|NCT00895895|191903689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.5|-0.8|0.665
95966519|NCT00895895|191903690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.6|0.373
95966520|NCT00895895|191903690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.3|-1.0|0.781
95966521|NCT00895895|191903690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.6|-0.7|0.417
95966522|NCT00895895|191903690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.0|-1.3|0.853
95966523|NCT00895895|191903691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-2.6|0.428
95966524|NCT00895895|191903691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.5|-2.1|0.763
95966525|NCT00895895|191903691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.9|-2.7|0.312
95966526|NCT00895895|191903691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-3.0|0.215
95966527|NCT00895895|191903692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.7|0.956
95966528|NCT00895895|191903692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.5|-2.6|0.988
95966529|NCT00895895|191903692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||2.4|-2.7|0.890
95966530|NCT00895895|191903692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.2|-4.0|0.280
95966531|NCT00895895|191903693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.2|-1.5|0.154
95966532|NCT00895895|191903693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.7|-1.0|0.740
95966533|NCT00895895|191903693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||0.3|-1.4|0.179
95873348|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||3.0|-3.1|
95873349|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||7.3|-5.9|
95873350|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.1|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||3.1|-10.3|
95873351|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-1.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||-1.0|-22.7|
95873352|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||0.6|-7.1|
95873353|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 2-Group 1), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||2.3|-4.5|
95873354|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 4||37.0|12.7|
95873355|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|7.715|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 6B||7.715|-0.011|
95873356|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.6|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 9V||19.6|1.9|
95873357|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|40.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 14||40.5|19.4|
95873358|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|41.5|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 18C||41.5|17.9|
95873359|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|13.9|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 19F||13.9|1.2|
95873360|NCT01298544|191704017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.0|||||Difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage. Exact 2 sided CI for the difference in proportions (Group 1 and 2 combined-Group 3), expressed as a percentage.|Serotype 23F||13.0|1.8|
95873361|NCT00859027|191704018|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in femoral neck BMD from baseline||||0.004
95873362|NCT00859027|191704018|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in total hip BMD from baseline||||0.001
95873363|NCT00859027|191704018|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||One way ANOVA|||Percent change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline||||0.04
95873364|NCT00859027|191704018|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for the femoral neck BMD||||<0.01
95873365|NCT00859027|191704018|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for total hip BMD||||<0.01
95873366|NCT00859027|191704019|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for NTX||||0.015
95873367|NCT00859027|191704019|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Between group difference of percent change for CTX||||0.01
95873368|NCT02160782|191704033|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group least squares (LS) means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in sBA levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-117.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.828||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.38|-2.18|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in fasting sBA levels was evaluated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 sBA as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the MITT population, which included all participants who were enrolled, received study drug through Week 18, and had a reduction from baseline in sBA of ≥50% at the Week 12 or Week 18 measurement.||-2.18|-232.38|0.0464
95873369|NCT02160782|191704034|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in sBA levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-87.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|119.979||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.37|-42.09||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in sBA levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||-42.09|-133.37|0.0005
95873370|NCT02160782|191704035|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Obs) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.704|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.051|-1.357|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Obs) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.357|-2.051|< 0.0001
95873371|NCT02160782|191704036|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ItchRO(Pt) scores between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.072|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9931|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.645|-1.498|||Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ItchRO(Pt) score was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population. ItchRO scores range from 0 to 4; the higher score indicates increasing itch severity.||-1.498|-2.645|< 0.0001
95966534|NCT00895895|191903693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-0.6|0.543
95873372|NCT02160782|191704037|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Obs) between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3103|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|-0.844|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO(Obs) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Obs) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.844|-2.122|< 0.0001
95873373|NCT02160782|191704038|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ItchRO(Pt) between the treatment groups was statistically significant. While the number of participants included in analysis for the end point indicates 28, there were only 14; n = 5 for ItchRO(Pt): MRX and n = 9 for ItchRO(Pt): placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4641||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.009|-0.967|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ItchRO (Pt) was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ItchRO(Pt) as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||-0.967|-3.009|0.0013
95873374|NCT02160782|191704039|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALP levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|118.33||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|17.2||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALP levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||17.2|-72.8|0.2163
95873375|NCT02160782|191704040|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALP levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.44||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|72.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALP levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALP as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||72.6|-52.6|0.7455
95873376|NCT02160782|191704041|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in ALT levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.54||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|30.9||Data for this analysis were obtained from 31 participants at baseline; 29 of those participants contributed Week 18 data.|Student's t-test|||This analysis investigated whether a statistically significant change in ALT levels was observed when comparing baseline to Week 18 (the open-label period, during which all participants received MRX). The analysis was based on the ITT population.||30.9|-33.4|0.9358
95873377|NCT02160782|191704042|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in ALT levels between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.53||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|55.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in ALT levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 ALT as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||55.2|-25.1|0.4472
95873378|NCT02160782|191704043|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in total bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.424||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.08|||Student's t-test|||||0.08|-1.01|0.0893
95873379|NCT02160782|191704044|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in total bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in total bilirubin was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 total bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.6|-0.88|0.7
95873380|NCT02160782|191704045|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis that the mean change was equal to zero was tested using the Student's t-test to determine if the mean change in direct bilirubin levels between baseline and Week 18 (the open-label period) was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.012||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||Student's t-test|||||-0.11|-0.9|0.0139
95873381|NCT02160782|191704046|EQUIVALENCE|The P-value for testing if the treatment group LS means were equal was calculated to determine if the change in direct bilirubin between the treatment groups was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.53|||ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Week 18 to Week 22 in direct bilirubin levels was evaluated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor, and Week 18 direct bilirubin as a covariate. The analysis used a tabulation of fitted summary statistics from ANCOVA in the intent-to-treat population, which included all participants who were enrolled, and received at least one dose of study drug.||0.53|-0.56|0.9517
95873382|NCT01083485|191704059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||A P value was not part of the analysis plan. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin was -1.0 meaning that OXN PR can be one unit inferior to OXY PR and still be considered non-inferior.|ANCOVA|The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed on the PP data using a mixed-model repeat measure analysis of covariance RMANCOVA.||The sample size was calculated for a significance level of 2.5% (1 sided) with 90% power. A within SD 1.7, and expected treatment difference of 0 and a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 were assumed.||0.3|-0.5|
95873383|NCT00763048|191704061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95873384|NCT00763048|191704062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95873385|NCT00763048|191704063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95873386|NCT00763048|191704064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95873387|NCT00763048|191704065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95873388|NCT00763048|191704066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95873389|NCT00763048|191704067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95873390|NCT00763048|191704068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95873391|NCT00763048|191704069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95873392|NCT01854658|191704130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
95873393|NCT01854658|191704130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
95873394|NCT01854658|191704130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
95873395|NCT01854658|191704130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
95873396|NCT01854658|191704130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 5 min post dose||||<0.0001
95873397|NCT01854658|191704130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||At 15 min post dose||||<0.0001
95873398|NCT01442038|191704152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.099||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): acute coronary syndrome (ACS) versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.099|0.818|0.48
95873399|NCT01442038|191704153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.691||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.691|0.244|0.40
95873400|NCT01442038|191704154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.994||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.994|0.579|0.82
95873401|NCT01442038|191704155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.256||The p-value and hazard ratio are from Cox proportional hazards model stratifying by reason for qualifying PCI: ACS versus non-ACS indication, and history of diabetes (yes versus no).|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.256|0.745|0.81
95873402|NCT02360995|191704182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.652|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.652
95873403|NCT02360995|191704183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95873404|NCT02360995|191704184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95873405|NCT02360995|191704185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.533
95873406|NCT02360995|191704186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95873407|NCT02360995|191704187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95873408|NCT00137631|191704206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.58|||<|0.05||95.0|0.33|1.01|||negative binomial regression|||||1.01|0.33|< 0.05
95873409|NCT00137631|191704207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||<|0.05||95.0|1.05|1.68|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.68|1.05|< 0.05
95873410|NCT00137631|191704208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05||95.0|0.69|1.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.98|0.69|< 0.05
95873411|NCT00137631|191704209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.49|||<|0.05||95.0|0.28|0.87|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||0.87|0.28|< 0.05
95873412|NCT00137631|191704210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.8|||<|0.05||95.0|0.42|1.53|||generalized estimating equations|Tests intervention efficacy over all study periods (baseline, 3-months, and 6-months)||||1.53|0.42|< 0.05
95873413|NCT00942448|191704234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||||< 0.001
95873414|NCT00942448|191704234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|18.4|0.001
95873415|NCT00942448|191704247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|30.8|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||30.8|17.6|< 0.001
95873416|NCT00942448|191704247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.7|||ANCOVA|||"The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesis of superiority of diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25mg/ml and 50 mg/ml compared to Placebo with regard to the primary efficacy variable (PID at 1.5 hours following drug administration).~A sample size of 60 in each group had 95% power to detect a difference between diclofenac HPBCD s.c. 25 mg/ml and placebo in means of 15 mm, assuming that the common standard deviation was 22.5 and using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level."||31.7|18.4|<0.001
95873417|NCT04131556|191704248|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least square means|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.5|77.16|||ANOVA|||||77.16|59.50|
95873418|NCT04131556|191704248|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|62.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.73|70.9|||ANOVA|||||70.90|54.73|
95873419|NCT04131556|191704249|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.75|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.75|0.75|<.001
95873420|NCT04131556|191704249|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of tmax was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of tmax between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||1.25|0.75|<.001
95873421|NCT04131556|191704250|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|81.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.88|89.4|||ANOVA|||||89.40|73.88|
95873422|NCT04131556|191704250|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.92|85.79|||ANOVA|||||85.79|70.92|
95873423|NCT04131556|191704251|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|83.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.12|91.64|||ANOVA|||||91.64|76.12|
95873424|NCT04131556|191704251|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis based on confidence intervals (CIs). If the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios were within (0.8, 1.25), bioequivalence between the two formulations (test powder for oral suspension versus reference tablet) was to be claimed. A linear mixed effect ANOVA model with treatment, period, sequence as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect was used to fit to ln-transformed PK parameters.|% Ratio of Geometric least squares means|80.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.26|88.16|||ANOVA|||||88.16|73.26|
95873425|NCT04131556|191704254|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.006
95873426|NCT04131556|191704254|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Statistical analysis of Tlag was performed using a nonparametric test. The median difference of Tlag between treatments and 90% CIs of the median differences were calculated from Hodges-Lehman estimate, and p-value was produced from Wilcoxon signed rank test.||0.25|0.13|0.011
95873427|NCT04622735|191704274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0031
95873428|NCT04622735|191704274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6787|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6787
95873429|NCT05015530|191704297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||α-diversity assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.908
95873430|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.28|<0.001
95873431|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
95873432|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.94|0.001
95873433|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.015
95873434|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.453
95873435|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.61|0.177
95873436|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.70|0.062
95873437|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.59|0.212
95873438|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.54|-1.34|<0.001
95873439|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.35|-1.15|<0.001
95873440|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.98|0.004
95873441|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.95|0.007
95873442|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.37|-0.43|0.879
95873443|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.60|0.330
95873444|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.75|0.083
95873445|NCT00809354|191704340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.59|0.360
95873446|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.23|<0.001
95873447|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.13|<0.001
95873448|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.87|0.003
95873449|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.83|0.007
95873450|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.39|0.824
95873451|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.64|0.100
95873452|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.70|0.044
95873453|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.45|0.565
95873454|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.40|<0.001
95873455|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
95873456|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
95873457|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-1.02|0.002
95873458|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.40|-0.39|0.980
95873459|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.56|0.383
95873460|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.77|0.057
95873461|NCT00809354|191704341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.59|0.312
95966535|NCT00895895|191903694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-739.7|618.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||618.8|-739.7|0.861
95966536|NCT00895895|191903694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-926.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1596.9|-256.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-256.3|-1596.9|0.007
95966537|NCT00895895|191903694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|141.3||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.1|804.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||804.6|-522.1|0.676
95873462|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
95966538|NCT00895895|191903694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|230.6||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-449.7|910.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||910.9|-449.7|0.505
95873463|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
95873464|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.22|0.251
95873465|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.14|0.961
95873466|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.272
95873467|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.271
95873468|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.128
95873469|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.133
95873470|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.002
95873471|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.34|0.004
95873472|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.20|0.414
95873473|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.057
95873474|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.06|0.277
95873475|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.328
95873476|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.30|0.026
95873477|NCT00809354|191704342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.864
95873478|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
95873479|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
95873480|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
95873481|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
95873482|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
95873483|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
95873484|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
95873485|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
95873486|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
95873487|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
95873488|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
95873489|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
95873490|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
95873491|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
95873492|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
95873493|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
95873494|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.50|-1.17|<0.001
95873495|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.22|<0.001
95873496|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.01|<0.001
95873497|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.85|0.003
95873498|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.50|0.341
95873499|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.71|0.031
95873500|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.49|0.349
95873501|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.29|0.780
95873502|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.31|<0.001
95873503|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.29|<0.001
95873504|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.99|<0.001
95873505|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.88|0.005
95873506|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.26|-0.47|0.562
95873507|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.77|0.028
95873508|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.68|0.084
95873509|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.38|0.910
95873510|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.40|<0.001
95873511|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.27|<0.001
95873512|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.25|<0.001
95873513|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.88|0.003
95873514|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.72|0.039
95873515|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.74|0.032
95873516|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.50|0.409
95873517|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.49|0.461
95873518|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.59|<0.001
95873519|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.40|<0.001
95873520|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.17|<0.001
95873521|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.97|0.002
95873522|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.58|0.281
95873523|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.81|0.023
95873524|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.79|0.031
95873525|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.56|0.331
95873526|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.47|<0.001
95873527|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.33|<0.001
95873528|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.03|<0.001
95873529|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-0.98|<0.001
95873530|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.781
95873531|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.71|0.057
95873532|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.80|0.016
95873533|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.50|0.450
95873534|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.47|<0.001
95873535|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.20|<0.001
95873536|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.12|<0.001
95873537|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.26|-1.04|0.001
95873538|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.47|0.699
95873539|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.408
95873540|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.74|0.077
95873541|NCT00809354|191704343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.65|0.182
95873542|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.36|0.798
95873543|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.37|0.779
95873544|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.64|0.057
95873545|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.31|0.927
95873546|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.980
95873547|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.60|0.098
95873548|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.26|0.709
95873549|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.65|0.01|0.045
95873550|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.36|0.919
95873551|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.58|-0.11|0.183
95873552|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.46|0.504
95873553|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.710
95873554|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.59|-0.09|0.152
95873555|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.24|-0.44|0.572
95873556|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.51|0.337
95873557|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.52|-0.16|0.299
95873558|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.82|0.005
95873559|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.05|<0.001
95873560|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.25|<0.001
95873561|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.23|<0.001
95873562|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.177
95873563|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.76|0.014
95873564|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.52|0.286
95873565|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.33|0.952
95873566|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
95873567|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.94|0.003
95873568|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.52|-1.26|<0.001
95873569|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.55|-1.29|<0.001
95873570|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.38|-0.36|0.972
95873571|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.69|0.096
95873572|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.72|0.069
95873573|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.39|0.902
95873574|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.22|-0.93|0.002
95873575|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.61|-1.33|<0.001
95873576|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.66|-1.38|<0.001
95873577|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.84|-1.55|<0.001
95873578|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.75|0.028
95873579|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.81|0.013
95873580|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.58|0.217
95873581|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.53|0.351
95873582|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.28|-1.05|<0.001
95873583|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.45|-1.22|<0.001
95873584|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.62|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.62|-1.38|<0.001
95873585|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.80|-1.57|<0.001
95873586|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.55|0.389
95966539|NCT00895895|191903695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.8|-2.2|0.267
95966540|NCT00895895|191903695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.3|0.145
95966541|NCT00895895|191903695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||8.6|-1.2|0.139
95966542|NCT00895895|191903695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||7.2|-2.8|0.386
95966543|NCT00895895|191903696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||-0.1|-2.3|0.032
95966544|NCT00895895|191903696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.7|-0.5|0.264
95966545|NCT00895895|191903696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.1|-1.0|0.893
95966546|NCT00895895|191903696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||1.4|-0.7|0.525
95966547|NCT00895895|191903697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|123.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||123.5|-1.6|0.056
95966548|NCT00895895|191903697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.0|83.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||83.5|-40.0|0.488
95966549|NCT00895895|191903697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|69.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||69.8|-52.6|0.783
95966550|NCT00895895|191903697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|79.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||79.8|-44.6|0.578
95966551|NCT00895895|191903698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||76.1|-13.9|0.175
95966552|NCT00895895|191903698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.4|-23.3|0.352
95873587|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.72|0.087
95873588|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.74|0.072
95873589|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.20|-0.57|0.340
95873590|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
95873591|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.39|-1.11|<0.001
95873592|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.69|-1.42|<0.001
95873593|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.87|-1.59|<0.001
95873594|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.42|0.762
95873595|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.056
95873596|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.84|0.010
95873597|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.54|0.335
95873598|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.38|-1.18|<0.001
95873599|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.24|<0.001
95873600|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.46|-1.25|<0.001
95873601|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.52|<0.001
95873602|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.34|-0.46|0.782
95873603|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.47|0.719
95873604|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.69|0.158
95873605|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.67|0.183
95873606|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.90|0.004
95873607|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
95873608|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.48|-1.20|<0.001
95873609|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.76|-1.48|<0.001
95873610|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.21|-0.51|0.408
95873611|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.67|0.097
95873612|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.79|0.018
95873613|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.64|0.132
95873614|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.26|-1.08|0.001
95873615|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.25|-1.07|0.002
95873616|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.37|-1.19|<0.001
95873617|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.55|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||-0.55|-1.37|<0.001
95873618|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.42|-0.40|0.959
95873619|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.31|-0.51|0.618
95873620|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.11|-0.71|0.149
95873621|NCT00809354|191704344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates||0.22|-0.60|0.370
95873622|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
95873623|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
95873624|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
95873625|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
95873626|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
95873627|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
95873628|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
95966553|NCT00895895|191903698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||49.6|-38.1|0.797
95966554|NCT00895895|191903698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.6|33.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||33.9|-55.6|0.633
95966555|NCT00895895|191903699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.2||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|147.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||147.0|-4.7|0.066
95873629|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.49|-0.18|0.371
95873630|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.40|0.647
95873631|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.62|0.073
95873632|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.55|0.161
95873633|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.33|0.961
95873634|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.42|0.697
95873635|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.62|0.139
95873636|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.64|0.120
95873637|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.44|0.637
95873638|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.72|0.028
95873639|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.74|0.024
95873640|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.51|0.339
95873641|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.50|0.381
95873642|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.51|0.438
95873643|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.66|0.111
95873644|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.72|0.059
95873645|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.57|0.282
95873646|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.33|-0.37|0.927
95873647|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.65|0.094
95873648|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.80|0.012
95873649|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.51|0.363
95873650|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.45|-0.32|0.742
95873651|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.53|0.436
95873652|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.79|0.038
95873653|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.57|0.332
95873654|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
95873655|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
95873656|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
95873657|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
95873658|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
95873659|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
95873660|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
95873661|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
95873662|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-0.99|<0.001
95873663|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.42|-1.06|<0.001
95873664|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.29|<0.001
95873665|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.29|<0.001
95873666|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.25|-0.95|<0.001
95873667|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.32|-1.02|<0.001
95873668|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.22|<0.001
95873669|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.60|-1.31|<0.001
95873670|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.86|0.003
95873671|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.24|<0.001
95873672|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.26|<0.001
95873673|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.73|-1.41|<0.001
95873674|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.33|-1.06|<0.001
95873675|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.47|-1.21|<0.001
95873676|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.36|<0.001
95873677|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.83|-1.56|<0.001
95873678|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.93|0.001
95873679|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
95873680|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.24|<0.001
95873681|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.40|<0.001
95873682|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.40|-1.17|<0.001
95873683|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.34|-1.11|<0.001
95873684|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.56|-1.32|<0.001
95873685|NCT00809354|191704345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.75|-1.51|<0.001
95873686|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.33|0.887
95873687|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.62|0.046
95873688|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.35|-0.26|0.771
95873689|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.64|0.03|0.032
95873690|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.54|-0.13|0.223
95873691|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.39|0.718
95873692|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.45|0.495
95873693|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.47|0.389
95873694|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.68|0.035
95873695|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.56|0.155
95873696|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.30|-0.35|0.876
95873697|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.33|0.864
95873698|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.54|0.338
95873699|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.66|0.101
95873700|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.27|-0.46|0.605
95873701|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.78|0.013
95873702|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.84|0.005
95873703|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.57|0.199
95873704|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.363
95873705|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.28|-0.47|0.613
95873706|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.22|-0.53|0.416
95873707|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.66|0.143
95873708|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.60|0.245
95873709|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|-0.41|0.745
95873710|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.69|0.062
95873711|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.80|0.014
95873712|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.52|0.367
95873713|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.39|-0.39|0.995
95873714|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.32|-0.46|0.735
95873715|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.67|0.169
95873716|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.18|-0.60|0.295
95873717|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.47|0.284
95873718|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.50|0.224
95873719|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.17|-0.79|0.002
95873720|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.16|-0.45|0.355
95873721|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.57|0.172
95873722|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.31|-0.36|0.882
95873723|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.63|0.084
95873724|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.47|0.405
95873725|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-0.94|<0.001
95873726|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.44|-1.09|<0.001
95873727|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.64|-1.30|<0.001
95873728|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.67|-1.32|<0.001
95873729|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.30|-1.02|<0.001
95873730|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.99|<0.001
95873731|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.48|-1.19|<0.001
95873732|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.57|-1.29|<0.001
95873733|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.20|-0.89|0.002
95873734|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.63|-1.32|<0.001
95873735|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.70|-1.39|<0.001
95873736|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.86|-1.55|<0.001
95873737|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.43|-1.18|<0.001
95873738|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.53|-1.28|<0.001
95873739|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.33|<0.001
95873740|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.56|<0.001
95873741|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.31|-1.02|<0.001
95873742|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.37|-1.08|<0.001
95873743|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.65|-1.36|<0.001
95873744|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.81|-1.52|<0.001
95873745|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.29|<0.001
95873746|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.51|-1.30|<0.001
95873747|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.58|-1.36|<0.001
95873748|NCT00809354|191704346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.79|-1.57|<0.01
95873749|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
95873750|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
95873751|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
95873752|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
95873753|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
95873754|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
95873755|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
95873756|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
95873757|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.20|0.207
95873758|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.27|0.020
95873759|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.13|0.941
95873760|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.18|0.494
95873761|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
95873762|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.18|0.467
95873763|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.774
95873764|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.19|-0.06|0.315
95873765|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.088
95873766|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.084
95873767|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.066
95873768|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.073
95873769|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.682
95873770|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.014
95873771|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.02|-0.28|0.027
95873772|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.14|0.871
95873773|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.301
95873774|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.23|0.181
95873775|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.30|0.013
95873776|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.031
95873777|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.15|0.874
95873778|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.447
95873779|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.27|0.059
95873780|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.23|0.196
95873781|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
95873782|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.845
95873783|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
95873784|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
95873785|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
95873786|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
95873787|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
95873788|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
95873789|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.28|0.011
95873790|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.36|<0.001
95873791|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.18|-0.43|<0.001
95873792|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.36|<0.001
95873793|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.043
95873794|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.31|0.007
95873795|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.38|<0.001
95873796|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
95873797|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.074
95873798|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
95873799|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.10|-0.37|<0.001
95873800|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.23|-0.49|<0.001
95873801|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.21|0.236
95873802|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.112
95966556|NCT00895895|191903699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||94.7|-54.6|0.598
95873803|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.38|<0.001
95873804|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.12|-0.39|<0.001
95873805|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.059
95873806|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.33|0.003
95873807|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.09|-0.36|0.001
95873808|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.51|<0.001
95966557|NCT00895895|191903699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|85.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.3|-62.9|0.766
95873809|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
95873810|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.28|0.038
95873811|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.33|0.007
95873812|NCT00809354|191704347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
95873813|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.469
95873814|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.18|0.387
95873815|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.13|-0.11|0.887
95873816|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.01|0.084
95873817|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.018
95873818|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.783
95966558|NCT00895895|191903699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.8||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|109.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||109.1|-41.5|0.378
95966559|NCT00895895|191903700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|85.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||85.2|-40.2|0.481
95966560|NCT00895895|191903700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|65.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||65.9|-57.5|0.894
95966561|NCT00895895|191903700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|60.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||60.8|-61.5|0.991
95873819|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.15|-0.11|0.762
95873820|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.29|0.03|0.017
95873821|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.23|0.091
95873822|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.04|-0.29|0.009
95873823|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.835
95873824|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.17|-0.08|0.463
95873825|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.16|0.713
95966562|NCT00895895|191903700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|36.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model with repeated measures: change = MMSE Japan baseline baseline \* visit visit treatment treatment \* visit.||Analysis of adjusted difference in change from baseline.||36.9|-87.9|0.422
95966563|NCT00895895|191903701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.22|0.24|0.581
95966564|NCT00895895|191903701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.42|0.770
95966565|NCT00895895|191903701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.55|0.71|0.216
95966566|NCT00895895|191903701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.06|0.037
95873826|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.21|0.267
95873827|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.552
95873828|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.885
95873829|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.26|0.47
95873830|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.26|0.056
95873831|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.117
95873832|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.24|0.106
95873833|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.16|0.673
95873834|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.089
95873835|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.26|0.065
95873836|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.567
95873837|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.03|-0.24|0.135
95873838|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.094
95873839|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.00|-0.27|0.055
95873840|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.02|-0.25|0.087
95873841|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.10|-0.18|0.542
95873842|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.17|0.643
95873843|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.07|-0.21|0.301
95873844|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.05|-0.22|0.237
95873845|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.06|-0.18|0.360
95873846|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.11|-0.13|0.854
95873847|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.23|0.076
95873848|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.12|-0.12|0.957
95873849|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.08|-0.19|0.404
95873850|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.23|-0.03|0.128
95873851|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.09|-0.17|0.577
95873852|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.25|-0.01|0.068
95873853|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.27|0.016
95873854|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.38|<0.001
95873855|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.19|-0.44|<0.001
95873856|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.39|<0.001
95873857|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.27|0.037
95873858|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.015
95873859|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||0.07|-0.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.08|-0.35|0.001
95873860|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
95873861|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.00|-0.27|0.042
95873862|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.14|-0.40|<0.001
95873863|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
95873864|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.24|-0.50|<0.001
95873865|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.04|-0.22|0.182
95873866|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||0.01|-0.25|0.080
95873867|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.07|-0.34|0.002
95873868|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.11|-0.37|<0.001
95873869|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.03|-0.30|0.016
95873870|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.40|<0.001
95966567|NCT00137969|191903718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4875||||||One-sided p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4875
95873871|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.15|-0.42|<0.001
95873872|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.27|-0.53|<0.001
95873873|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.01|-0.29|0.032
95873874|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.06|-0.33|0.006
95873875|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.05|-0.32|0.009
95873876|NCT00809354|191704348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline value, index joint (knee or hip) as covariates.||-0.13|-0.41|<0.001
95873877|NCT01130103|191704458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||caps total score at weeks 5 and 10||.85|.30|.01
95873878|NCT01130103|191704458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change in CAPS total from week 5 to week 10||.74|.43|<.001
95873879|NCT01130103|191704462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|129.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||treatment group effect: remission rate at weeks 5 and 10||129|1.23|.03
95873880|NCT01130103|191704462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|176.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||rate of change over time in remission rate from week 5 to 10||176|2.44|0.007
95873881|NCT03091777|191704492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95873882|NCT03091777|191704492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95873883|NCT00089674|191704493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.2|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|6.2|<0.0001
95966568|NCT00137969|191903719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8230
95966569|NCT00137969|191903720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4318|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.4318
95873884|NCT00089674|191704494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.5|4.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||4.4|3.5|<0.0001
95873885|NCT00089674|191704495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.1|4.4|<0.0001
95873886|NCT00089674|191704496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.4|8.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||8.4|7.4|<0.0001
95873887|NCT00089674|191704497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.4|5.4||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||5.4|4.4|<0.0001
95873888|NCT00089674|191704498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.4|6.1||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|ANCOVA|||||6.1|5.4|<0.0001
95873889|NCT00089674|191704499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.1048||95.0|0.46|1.08||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.46|0.1048
95873890|NCT00089674|191704500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0125||95.0|0.18|0.78||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.18|0.0125
95873891|NCT00089674|191704501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7961||95.0|0.57|1.55||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Cox|||||1.55|0.57|0.7961
95966570|NCT00137969|191903721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9069|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.9069
95873892|NCT00089674|191704502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.7961||95.0|0.44|1.11||Adjusted for multiplicity using the prespecified hierarchical analysis strategy and Hochberg procedure|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.44|0.7961
95873893|NCT03963401|191704503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.51||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.94|38.52|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's method|||||38.52|3.94|0.1172
95873894|NCT03963401|191704503|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.26|37.5|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||37.50|9.26|0.0197
95873895|NCT03963401|191704503|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.65|44.93|||Normal approximation, Dunnett's Method|||||44.93|17.65|0.0006
95873896|NCT03963401|191704504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|39.19|||Normal approximation method|||||39.19|2.72|0.0588
95873897|NCT03963401|191704504|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|26.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.72|40.9|||Normal approximation method|||||40.90|11.72|0.0030
95873898|NCT03963401|191704504|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|31.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.93|45.5|||Normal approximation method|||||45.50|16.93|0.0003
95873899|NCT00337350|191704533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
95873900|NCT00337350|191704534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.05
95873901|NCT00337350|191704535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
95873902|NCT00144027|191704546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|47.53|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression predicting 6-month adherence, controling for baseline depression, extrapyramidal side effects, and baseline adherence.||||47.53|1.21|0.03
95873903|NCT05080660|191704560|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.73|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.73|-0.26|
95873904|NCT05080660|191704561|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.76|-0.39|
95873905|NCT05080660|191704562|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.47|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.47|-0.23|
95873906|NCT05080660|191704563|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.34|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.34|-0.67|
95873907|NCT05080660|191704564|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.35|
95873908|NCT05080660|191704565|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.55|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.55|-0.35|
95873909|NCT05080660|191704566|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|4.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||4.88|-0.88|
95873910|NCT05080660|191704567|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|6.38|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||6.38|-0.29|
95873911|NCT05080660|191704568|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.50|-0.23|
95873912|NCT05080660|191704569|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.37|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.37|-0.39|
95873913|NCT05080660|191704570|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.81|-0.21|
95873914|NCT05080660|191704571|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.9|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.90|-0.31|
95873915|NCT05080660|191704572|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|12.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.52|-0.24|
95873916|NCT05080660|191704573|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|12.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||12.18|-1.90|
95873917|NCT05080660|191704574|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.27|-0.32|
95873918|NCT05080660|191704575|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.52|
95873919|NCT05080660|191704576|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|98.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.95|250.88|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||250.88|-51.95|
95873920|NCT05080660|191704577|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|123.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.51|293.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||293.69|-46.51|
95873921|NCT05080660|191704578|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.06|
95873922|NCT05080660|191704579|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.07|
95873923|NCT01535664|191704580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.2||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment.||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall gait. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall gait was the average of WA, TW, and SQT; a higher score is indicative of better performance.||7.20|0.87|0.015
95873924|NCT01535664|191704581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||2.8|0.7|0.003
95873925|NCT01535664|191704582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|7.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.507|12.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||12.950|2.507|0.006
95873926|NCT01535664|191704583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||||0.54|0.19|<.001
95873927|NCT01535664|191704584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|3.84||A step-down procedure using the primary statistical analysis was followed. If the p-value for the overall gait was less than 0.05, then overall balance was tested in the same manner. Otherwise, the testing procedure was stopped.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is based on a mixed model ANOVA with a fixed effect for treatment||The co-primary efficacy variable was overall balance. This novel composite score was created from standardized individual NeuroCom test results (Z-scores). Overall balance was a weighted average of SOT, LOS, and ADT.||3.84|-8.60|0.434
95873928|NCT01857583|191704585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|33.6|||ANCOVA|||||33.6|-10.0|
95873929|NCT01857583|191704585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|17.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.1|||ANCOVA|||||42.1|-10.2|
95873930|NCT02775903|191704629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1838|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.1838
95873931|NCT02775903|191704630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.6180
95873932|NCT02775903|191704631|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.7016|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor)||||||0.7016
95873933|NCT02775903|191704632|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.6076|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.6076
95873934|NCT02775903|191704633|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.384|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.3840
95873935|NCT02775903|191704634|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8961|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8961
95873936|NCT02775903|191704635|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.3591|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.3591
95873937|NCT02775903|191704636|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.9031|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.9031
95873938|NCT02775903|191704638|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.2409|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very intermediate vs poor).||||||0.2409
95873939|NCT02775903|191704639|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0688|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0688
95873940|NCT02775903|191704640|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.4894|||||||Wald asymptotic two-sided test|||||||0.4894
95873941|NCT02775903|191704642|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0381|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0381
95873942|NCT02775903|191704644|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.8973|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (very good, good and intermediate vs poor and very poor).||||||0.8973
95873943|NCT02775903|191704644|OTHER|P-values were not part of the formal testing.||||||0.0691|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified according to the cytogenetic risk at time of randomization (intermediate vs poor).||||||0.0691
95873944|NCT05098938|191704673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.716
95873945|NCT05098938|191704674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.102
95873946|NCT05098938|191704675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.712
95873947|NCT05098938|191704676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.575
95873948|NCT05108922|191704681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, Apolipoprotein (ApoE) ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|5.30|<0.001
95873949|NCT05108922|191704682|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|100.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with treatment, ApoE ε4 Carrier Status, baseline amyloid Level, baseline age as factors.||100.0|2.04|0.008
95873950|NCT05108922|191704683|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6132|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.84|-36.54||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for endpoint measures: Change (CHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-36.54|-54.84|<0.001
95873951|NCT05108922|191704684|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-48.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9276|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.99|-38.44||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: Percent change (PCHG) = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-38.44|-57.99|<0.001
95873952|NCT05108922|191704685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.551|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.87|-18.64||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using ANCOVA model for endpoint measures: CHG = Baseline + ApoE ε4 Carrier Status + Baseline Age + Treatment|ANCOVA|||||-18.64|-61.87|<0.001
95873953|NCT05108922|191704686|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-23.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.231|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|-15.6||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.60|-32.35|<0.001
95873954|NCT05108922|191704687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-25.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.381|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-17.15||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.15|-34.49|<0.001
95873955|NCT05108922|191704688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.37|20.81||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured|Regression, Logistic|||||20.81|3.37|<0.001
95966571|NCT00137969|191903722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5602|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.5602
95873956|NCT05108922|191704689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|99.99||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Regression, Logistic|||||99.99|5.71|<.001
95873957|NCT05108922|191704690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-26.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.78|-13.73||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.73|-39.78|<0.001
95873958|NCT05108922|191704691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|0.0558
95873959|NCT05108922|191704692|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1187|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.06|0.199||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.199|-16.060|
95873960|NCT05108922|191704693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-3.88||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.88|-20.19|0.004
95873961|NCT05108922|191704694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95873962|NCT05108922|191704695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.96|-4.93||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.93|-21.96|0.002
95873963|NCT05108922|191704696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|11.34||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.34|1.93|<0.001
95873964|NCT05108922|191704697|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.34||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|30.54||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with 1 (Screening) value, ApoE4 Status, Age, Treatment, Time, and Treatment-by-time interaction as factors. Variance-Covariance structure = Unstructured.|Regression, Logistic|||||30.54|1.32|0.022
95873965|NCT05108922|191704698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.333||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.07|-1.59||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.59|-27.07|0.028
95873966|NCT05108922|191704699|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of interest: 5 Centiloids.|LS Mean difference (Final Values)|7.831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|15.889||Analysis between treatment group comparison p-value using MMRM model for Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + ApoE4 Carrier Status + Baseline Brain Amyloid Level + Baseline Age.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.889|-0.226|
95873967|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|-0.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.43|-5.93|0.14
95873968|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.49||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.49|-3.75|0.79
95873969|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.79|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|-2.24||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-2.24|-7.35|<0.01
95873970|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|-1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-1.15|-6.37|0.04
95873971|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|0.95||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.95|-5.04|0.72
95966572|NCT00137969|191903723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.8979
95873972|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.46||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.46|-3.18|0.80
95873973|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|-0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.44|-5.97|0.14
95873974|NCT01920555|191704712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.96||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.96|-4.65|0.72
95873975|NCT01920555|191704713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.15||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|2.14||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.14|-12.44|0.33
95873976|NCT01920555|191704713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|4.72||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||4.72|-9.03|0.53
95873977|NCT01920555|191704713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|-3.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-3.15|-16.56|0.02
95873978|NCT01920555|191704713|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.72||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|-0.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were four pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-4), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.93|-14.52|0.08
95873979|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.22|-1.83|0.08
95873980|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-1.02|0.82
95966573|NCT00137969|191903724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1277|||||||ANCOVA|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.1277
95966574|NCT00137969|191903725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6202|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by randomization factors (race and initial prednisone dose)||||0.6202
95966575|NCT01646177|191903726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966576|NCT01646177|191903726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966577|NCT01646177|191903726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966578|NCT01646177|191903727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966579|NCT01646177|191903727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966580|NCT01646177|191903727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95873981|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.54||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.54|-2.02|0.00720
95873982|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.04884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.29|-1.81|0.04884
95873983|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.28||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.28|-1.70|0.48
95873984|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.55||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.55|-1.32|0.82
95873985|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.09||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.09|-1.91|0.16
95873986|NCT01920555|191704714|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.07||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.07|-1.78|0.27
95873987|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.17||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.17|-1.25|0.54
95873988|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.58|-0.78|1.00
95873989|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.31||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.31|-1.64|0.03
95966581|NCT01646177|191903728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966582|NCT01646177|191903728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966583|NCT01646177|191903728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966584|NCT01646177|191903729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966585|NCT01646177|191903729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966586|NCT01646177|191903729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966587|NCT01646177|191903730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966588|NCT01646177|191903730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95873990|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.11||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.11|-1.24|0.54
95873991|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.57||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.57|-0.96|1.00
95873992|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.51||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.51|-0.93|1.00
95873993|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.06||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.06|-1.35|0.52
95873994|NCT01920555|191704715|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-1.33|0.54
95873995|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.08||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.08|-0.79|0.74
95873996|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.45||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.45|-0.37|1.00
95873997|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.21||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.21|-1.01|0.02
95873998|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.1||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.10|-0.72|0.80
95873999|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.18|-0.83|0.88
95874000|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.44|-0.53|1.00
95874001|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.15||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.15|-0.79|0.88
95874002|NCT01920555|191704716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||0.19|-0.76|0.88
95874003|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|23.29||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||23.29|-0.94|0.49
95874004|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|12.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||12.93|-10.19|1.00
95874005|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.31|27.77||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||27.77|5.31|0.03
95874006|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.68||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|20.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.16|-2.81|0.82
95874007|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.83|19.05||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||19.05|-8.83|1.00
95966589|NCT01646177|191903730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966590|NCT01646177|191903731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966591|NCT01646177|191903731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966592|NCT01646177|191903731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966593|NCT01646177|191903732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966594|NCT01646177|191903732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966595|NCT01646177|191903732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966596|NCT01646177|191903733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95874008|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|6.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||6.59|-19.87|1.00
95874009|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|20.53||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||20.53|-5.26|1.00
95874010|NCT01920555|191704717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|17.91||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||17.91|-8.31|1.00
95874011|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.56||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.56|-3.99|1.00
95874012|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.43||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||3.43|-1.90|0.17
95874013|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|-0.16||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||-0.16|-5.32|0.30
95874014|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.93||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 1:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.93|-3.35|1.00
95874015|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.66||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.1 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.66|-3.25|1.00
95966597|NCT01646177|191903733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966598|NCT01646177|191903733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966599|NCT01646177|191903734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966600|NCT01646177|191903734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966601|NCT01646177|191903734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966602|NCT01646177|191903735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966603|NCT01646177|191903735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966604|NCT01646177|191903735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966605|NCT01646177|191903736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.473
95966606|NCT01646177|191903736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95966607|NCT01646177|191903736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95966608|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.006
95874016|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|5.59||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.2 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||5.59|-0.06|0.39
95874017|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|1.58||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 0.5 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||1.58|-3.91|1.00
95874018|NCT01920555|191704718|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.35||Holm's method was applied to the model-produced differences of least squares for the eight a priori identified contrasts of interest, that is, the difference between each ketamine group vs. placebo at Days 1 and 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ketamine 1.0 mg/kg vs. midazolam at Day 3:~As estimated by the repeated measures fixed effects model with DAY (0, 1, 3), GROUP (5 groups as specified above), and the DAY\*GROUP interaction effect. Because there were eight pairwise comparisons of interest (see Analysis 1-8), we used Holm's method to protect family-wise error rate in the presence of multiple testing."||2.35|-3.22|1.00
95874019|NCT01948310|191704722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874020|NCT01948310|191704722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.03
95874021|NCT01948310|191704722|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874022|NCT01948310|191704722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.005
95874023|NCT01948310|191704723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874024|NCT01948310|191704723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874025|NCT01948310|191704723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||0.03
95874026|NCT01948310|191704723|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874027|NCT01948310|191704724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874028|NCT01948310|191704724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||0-14 weeks||||0.13
95874029|NCT01948310|191704724|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-0 weeks||||>0.05
95874030|NCT01948310|191704724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||14-0 weeks||||0.013
95874031|NCT01193660|191704737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.59|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874032|NCT01193660|191704738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|3.94|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MENTAL Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874033|NCT01193660|191704739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that in terms of K-BSID-II MOTOR Scale, the effects of 3 groups are same, and the alternative one is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874034|NCT01193660|191704741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||The baseline and post-therapy data of each group were compared using paired t-test statistics.|t-test, 2 sided|Voxels with an uncorrected p-value of \<0.05 were considered significant, and an extent threshold Ke of 100 voxels was set by SPM implanted in Matlab.||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of three experimental groups are same each other, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) has much higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation Group or Rehabilitation Group. This study is a pilot study and therefore, power calculation was not applicable in our study. The sample size of each group is more than 30.||||0.05
95874035|NCT01193660|191704743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||interaction of group and visit|0.9|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874036|NCT01193660|191704744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|1.279|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874037|NCT01193660|191704745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.996|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874038|NCT01193660|191704746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wilks' Lambda (group*visit effect)|0.56|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||In our analysis, the null hypothesis is that the effects of 3 experimental groups are same, and the alternative hypothesis is that the therapeutic effect of combination intervention Group (Umbilical Cord Blood + Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation) is higher than that of either Erythropoietin + Rehabilitation or Rehabilitation Group. This is a pilot study and power calculation was not applicable. The sample size of each group is over 30 and is considered to follow approximately normal distribution.||||<0.05
95874039|NCT01193660|191704747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|We compared the ratio of participants with a certain adverse event (AE) and without the AE between three groups using Fisher Exact test.||||||<0.05
95874040|NCT00195273|191704748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||||||Calculated for 12 month analysis|ANOVA|Analysis of variance with treatment group and center as factors||||||0.6081
95874041|NCT00195273|191704751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4662|||||||ANOVA|Calculated for 3 month analysis||||||0.4662
95874042|NCT01051466|191704765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||The significance level was 0.05 for a 2-sided test.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.457
95874043|NCT01051466|191704766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.627
95874044|NCT01051466|191704766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the left amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.338
95874045|NCT01051466|191704766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||||||The p-value is for change from baseline activation (BOLD response) in the right amygdala.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
95874046|NCT01051466|191704767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the subgenual anterior cingulate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.030
95874047|NCT01051466|191704767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.208
95874048|NCT01051466|191704767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right amygdalae.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
95874049|NCT01051466|191704767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the left hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.350
95874050|NCT01051466|191704767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||The p-value is for change from baseline volume in the right hippocampus.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.191
95874051|NCT01051466|191704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.174
95874052|NCT01051466|191704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.488||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.488
95874053|NCT01051466|191704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in RBCs at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.480
95874054|NCT01051466|191704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
95874055|NCT01051466|191704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 8.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.697
95874056|NCT01051466|191704768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||||||The p-value is for Gsα translocation in platelets at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
95874057|NCT01051466|191704770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||||||The p-value is for change from baseline BDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.904
95874058|NCT01051466|191704770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819||||||The p-value is for change from baseline proBDNF.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.819
95966609|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.045
95874059|NCT01051466|191704771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||The p-value is for change from baseline trkB.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.273
95874060|NCT01051466|191704772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine TNFα.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.797
95874061|NCT01051466|191704772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-1.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.269
95874062|NCT01051466|191704772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925||||||The p-value is for change from baseline cytokine IL-6.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.925
95874063|NCT02611960|191704800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.19||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.19|0.67|0.2262
95874064|NCT02611960|191704801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis.|Stratified Log-Rank Test|||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||1.75|0.94|0.9419
95874065|NCT02611960|191704802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.9||||0.63479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentage = 0 versus H1: difference in percentage \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis.||8.9|-12.7|0.63479
95874066|NCT00351000|191704817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.956
95874067|NCT00351000|191704818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
95874068|NCT03793556|191704819|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.27||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|2.04|||Unpaired t test|||||2.04|-7.03|0.276
95874069|NCT03793556|191704820|OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||ANOVA|The ANOVA model examined the entire curve profile.||||||0.0157
95874070|NCT03793556|191704830|OTHER|||||||0.0496|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0496
95874071|NCT03793556|191704832|OTHER|||||||0.0065|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0065
95874072|NCT02007512|191704838|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.257|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.257|0.535|0.3631
95874073|NCT02007512|191704838|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.586|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.586|0.659|0.9212
95874074|NCT02007512|191704839|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.442||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.205|0.955|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.955|0.205|0.0335
95874075|NCT02007512|191704839|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.554||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|1.363|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.363|0.225|0.1936
95874076|NCT02007512|191704856|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.7378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.438|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.438|0.599|0.7378
95874077|NCT02007512|191704856|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.483|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.483|0.632|0.8817
95874078|NCT02007512|191704857|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.522||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|1.217|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||1.217|0.224|0.1270
95874079|NCT02007512|191704857|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.961|||Stratified log-rank|||Hazard ratio was based on stratified Cox regression model.||0.961|0.143|0.0359
95874080|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.375
95874081|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.156
95874082|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 months||||>0.999
95874083|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.906
95874084|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
95874085|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.906
95874086|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||<0.001
95874087|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||0.106
95874088|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.012
95874089|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.008
95874090|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.009
95874091|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.029
95874092|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
95874093|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
95874094|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||0.500
95874095|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.500
95874096|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.188
95874097|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
95874098|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to EMU Discharge||||0.500
95874099|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 3 Months||||>0.999
95966610|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Absenteeism Score.||||0.012
95966611|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
95966612|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
95966613|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Activity Impairment Score.||||<0.001
95966614|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
95966615|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
95966616|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Presenteeism Score.||||<0.001
95966617|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
95966618|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
95966619|NCT01646177|191903737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from Work Productively Loss Score.||||<0.001
95966620|NCT01646177|191903738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
95966621|NCT01646177|191903738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
95966622|NCT01646177|191903738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from PCS.||||<0.001
95966623|NCT01646177|191903738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||0.031
95966624|NCT01646177|191903738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
95966625|NCT01646177|191903738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Includes analysis only from MCS.||||<0.001
95966626|NCT01646177|191903739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966627|NCT01646177|191903739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966628|NCT01646177|191903739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95966629|NCT01646177|191903740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966630|NCT01646177|191903740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966631|NCT01646177|191903740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966632|NCT01646177|191903741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966633|NCT01646177|191903741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966634|NCT01646177|191903741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966635|NCT01646177|191903742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966636|NCT01646177|191903742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966637|NCT01646177|191903742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95966638|NCT01711853|191903762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR (Glomerular filtration rate), 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.5186
95966639|NCT01711853|191903762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9883
95966640|NCT01711853|191903762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.7853
95966641|NCT01711853|191903763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median GFR, 2: \> median GFR).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.4692
95966642|NCT01711853|191903763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||"Patients were classified into groups for renal function based on the median values for renal function (1: ≤ median age, 2: \> median age).~Median is calculated based on trial data of treated set"||||0.9734
95966643|NCT01711853|191903763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale; effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'gender', 'age group', and 'renal function group'.||Patients were classified based on the gender distribution.||||0.9201
95966644|NCT01791972|191903875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.982|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|-12.14||Significance level is 0.05.|mixed-effect analysis of covariance|Fixed effects of sequence, trt group, period, and center, within period baseline FEV1 as a covariate, and random effect for patient within sequence.||||-12.14|-20.19|<0.0001
95874100|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 6 Months||||>0.999
95874101|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 12 Months||||0.125
95874102|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 18 Months||||0.500
95874103|NCT01325623|191704866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero||Baseline to 24 Months||||0.500
95874104|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.1529
95874105|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0942
95874106|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2831|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2831
95874107|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.3639
95874108|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.4470
95874109|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED||||||s|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1311
95874110|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3898|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.3898
95874111|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0511
95874112|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0019
95874113|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.1106
95966645|NCT01791972|191903876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84||Terms for treatment and period, computed with the generalized estimating equations (GEE) algorithm, which adjusts for potential correlation between measurements on the same patient. Significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
95966646|NCT02367040|191903902|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.393|0.688||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.688|0.393|0.000002
95874114|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1273|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1273
95874115|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1305|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.1305
95874116|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.1123
95874117|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.2309
95874118|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3191
95874119|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0679
95874120|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.2082
95874121|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.1790
95874122|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.6869
95874123|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6094|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.6094
95874124|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.1530
95874125|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.3339
95874126|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.1473
95874127|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5035
95874128|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.6653
95874129|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.8622
95874130|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4456|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.4456
95874131|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.6876
95874132|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||SSQ Total Score||||0.0328
95966647|NCT02367040|191903902|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.557||||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.722||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.722|0.431|0.000003
95874133|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Activity During Seizures Score||||0.0067
95874134|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5928|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Recovery Score||||0.5928
95874135|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7179|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Severity Score||||0.7179
95874136|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5014|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Emotional Recovery Score||||0.5014
95874137|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Physical Recovery Score||||0.9640
95966648|NCT02367040|191903902|SUPERIORITY|PFS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.643||||0.000199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.823||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At final analysis||0.823|0.502|0.000199
95874138|NCT01325623|191704867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Postictal Cognitive Recovery Score||||0.8537
95874139|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total||||0.2079
95874140|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.6562
95874141|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9376|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.9376
95874142|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0100
95874143|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.8532
95874144|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4954|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.4954
95874145|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.1877
95874146|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.4189
95874147|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2365|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.2365
95966649|NCT02367040|191903903|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|32.99|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.95|42.03||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||42.03|23.95|<0.000001
95874148|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4138
95874149|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8701|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.8701
95874150|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0527
95874151|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1353
95874152|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6927|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.6927
95874153|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4964|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.4964
95874154|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0238
95874155|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0139
95874156|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2822
95874157|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.1363
95874158|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0019
95874159|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive functioning Final Score||||0.1293
95966650|NCT02367040|191903903|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in ORR|30.67|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|39.72||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||39.72|21.63|<0.000001
95966651|NCT02367040|191903904|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|19.27|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.57|26.96||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||26.96|11.57|<0.000001
95966652|NCT02367040|191903904|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in CRR|18.92||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|26.73||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||26.73|11.11|0.000001
95966653|NCT02367040|191903905|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Kaplan-Meier estimates|0.7||||0.030371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.018||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.018|0.481|0.030371
95874160|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5252|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.5252
95874161|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0642
95874162|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0025
95874163|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0024
95874164|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4464|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.4464
95874165|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0511
95874166|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.0002
95874167|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.0296
95874168|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Medication Effects Final Score||||0.3115
95874169|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0270
95874170|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0008
95874171|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||QOLIE Overall Total Score||||0.0683
95874172|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Energy/Fatigue Final Score||||0.2226
95874173|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Emotional well being Final Score||||0.0823
95874174|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1459|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Social Functioning Final Score||||0.1459
95874175|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Cognitive Functioning Final Score||||0.2610
95874176|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||||||0.9119
95874177|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Seizure Worry Final Score||||0.0826
95874178|NCT01325623|191704871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|Null hypothesis: change from the baseline is equal to zero. The alternative hypothesis: change from the baseline is not equal to zero.||Overall Quality of Life Final Score||||0.0036
95874179|NCT01288027|191704875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||one sample t-test|||Statistical significance for change from Baseline was measured using one sample t-test||||0.1860
95874180|NCT02413372|191704882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.09|-5.26|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-5.26|-9.09|
95874181|NCT02413372|191704882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.14|-3.25|||||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 57||-3.25|-7.14|
95966654|NCT02367040|191903905|SUPERIORITY|DOR was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on stratified Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761||||0.051976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|1.059||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.059|0.547|0.051976
95966655|NCT02367040|191903906|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At primary completion date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
95966656|NCT02367040|191903906|SUPERIORITY|P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified|Difference in DCR|4.43||||0.097339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|11.12||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||11.12|-2.26|0.097339
95966657|NCT02367040|191903907|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.635||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||0.635|0.357|<.000001
95966658|NCT02367040|191903907|SUPERIORITY|TTP was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.659||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||0.659|0.387|<.000001
95966659|NCT02367040|191903908|SUPERIORITY|OS was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.436458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.368||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.368|0.691|0.436458
95966660|NCT02367040|191903909|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.69261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.331||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.331|0.843|0.692610
95966661|NCT02367040|191903909|SUPERIORITY|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.661145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.302||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.302|0.841|0.661145
95966662|NCT02367040|191903910|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.510038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.355||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At primary completion date||1.355|0.732|0.510038
95966663|NCT02367040|191903910|SUPERIORITY|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with the stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.40597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.398||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|||At 2-year follow-up cut-off date||1.398|0.768|0.405970
95966664|NCT05262517|191903969|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.48||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||1.48|-1.78|
95874182|NCT02413372|191704882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-2.84|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-2.84|-8.01|0.0004
95874183|NCT02413372|191704882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.85||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.47|-1.23|||t-test, 1 sided||mean difference in adjusted change from baseline vs placebo|Day 112||-1.23|-6.47|0.0084
95874184|NCT02556203|191704898|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided Confidence interval|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2089302|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.7040824||||||"H0: HR(t)\>=1.20 for all time points t\>=0, (i.e. the hazard for the primary efficacy endpoint in the rivaroxaban-based treatment group is more than 20% larger than that in the antiplatelet-based control group)"||1.7040824||
95874185|NCT02556203|191704899|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||=|0.04223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.81|||Log Rank|||||1.81|1.01|= 0.04223
95874186|NCT02556203|191704900|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.07745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.37|0.95|= 0.07745
95874187|NCT02556203|191704901|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39|||=|0.01156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.80|1.08|= 0.01156
95874188|NCT02556203|191704902|SUPERIORITY|2-sided Log Rank test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||=|0.21595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||1.69|0.89|= 0.21595
95874189|NCT02556203|191704903|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||=|0.02216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.94|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.94|1.08|= 0.02216
95874190|NCT02556203|191704904|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.02702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.62|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.62|1.05|= 0.02702
95874191|NCT02556203|191704905|OTHER|Descriptive. 2-sided Log Rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.84|||=|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.41|||Log Rank||Estimates for HRs are based on Cox proportional hazards model. HRs \>1 indicate a higher hazard rate in the rivaroxaban arm compared with the antiplatelet arm.|||2.41|1.41|= 0.00001
95874192|NCT00369122|191704921|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on a report by Laciano, et al. an SAE rate of 5% and AE rate of 35% were considered tolerable and an SAE rate \>=20% and AE rate \>=55% excessive. If there were \>=6 pts with SAES or \>=22 pts with AEs then the treatment would be rejected. This study design provides alpha of 0.05 and power of 90%.|||
95874193|NCT03614975|191704979|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A/H1N1|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95966665|NCT05262517|191903970|OTHER||LS mean difference|5.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|31.59||||||LS means and CIs were estimated by an analysis of covariance model using REML with baseline NRS value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms) as the main effects.||31.59|-21.35|
95874194|NCT03614975|191704979|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||A/H3N2|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95874195|NCT03614975|191704979|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.64
95874196|NCT03614975|191704979|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.23
95874197|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1:Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
95874198|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.16
95874199|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.42
95874200|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.94
95874201|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado :Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.87
95874202|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado : Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.77
95874203|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95874204|NCT03614975|191704980|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95874205|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.49
95874206|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H1N1: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.23
95874207|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
95874208|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Vaccine Strain: A/H3N2: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.86
95874209|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.73
95874210|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.67||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Colorado: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
95874211|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 0|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.36
95874212|NCT03614975|191704981|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Vaccine Strain: B/Phuket: Day 21|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.65
95874213|NCT01390220|191704982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0109
95874214|NCT01390220|191704983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided||||||0.0043
95874215|NCT01390220|191704984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0124
95874216|NCT01390220|191704985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier estimates.||||0.0124
95874217|NCT02448810|191704986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.1||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.1|0.5|0.246
95874218|NCT02448810|191704986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|70.0|0.5|1.4||P-value is based on a one-sided log-rank test.|Log Rank||||Hazard Ratio and 70% CI are based on a Cox proportional hazards model with a covariate for treatment (imalumab vs SoC).|1.4|0.5|0.354
95874219|NCT04795622|191704998|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3545|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|2.4365||||||||2.4365|0.7530|
95874220|NCT04795622|191704999|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.0856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2395|0.0683||||||X-axis||0.0683|-0.2395|
95874221|NCT04795622|191704999|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2268|0.1608||||||Y-axis||0.1608|-0.2268|
95874222|NCT04795622|191704999|SUPERIORITY||Point Estimate|0.1791|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1551|0.5133||||||Z-axis||0.5133|-0.1551|
95874223|NCT01610271|191705022|SUPERIORITY|ABS was expected to be superior to Control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.05||a priori threshold was 0.05|Regression, Logistic|penalized maximum likelihood (Firth) logistic regression, because infection rate was very low (\<3%), as expected|The dispersion is the SE of the OR. ABS was the numerator group, Control was the denominator.|A sample size of 150 per group provided a power of 80% to detect a statistically significant (α≤0.05) 3% difference in SSI rate based on a historical infection rate of 6% in the facility where operations were performed.||2.05|0.01|0.067
95874224|NCT00364130|191705026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.38
95874225|NCT00364130|191705027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
95874226|NCT00364130|191705028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95874227|NCT00364130|191705029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||The outcome was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
95874228|NCT00364130|191705030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.84
95874229|NCT00364130|191705031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
95874230|NCT00364130|191705032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.70
95874231|NCT00364130|191705033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Outcome is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Linear|||||||0.98
95874232|NCT04616027|191705034|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|99.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.15|141.6||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.60|70.15|
95874233|NCT04616027|191705034|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.51|145.63||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.63|70.51|
95874234|NCT04616027|191705034|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|146.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.16|208.22||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||208.22|103.16|
95874235|NCT04616027|191705034|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.31|143.92||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||143.92|71.31|
95874236|NCT04616027|191705035|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|156.93||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||156.93|79.52|
95874237|NCT04616027|191705035|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.49|173.38||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||173.38|83.49|
95874238|NCT04616027|191705035|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|190.62||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||190.62|94.46|
95874239|NCT04616027|191705035|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|100.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.89|141.87||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.87|71.89|
95874240|NCT04616027|191705036|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|111.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.6|154.86||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||154.86|79.60|
95874241|NCT04616027|191705036|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|116.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.76|164.56||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||164.56|82.76|
95874242|NCT04616027|191705036|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|134.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.56|187.85||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||187.85|96.56|
95874243|NCT04616027|191705036|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.63|141.3||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||141.30|72.63|
95874244|NCT04616027|191705037|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|101.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|115.94||||||"T2DM Normal Renal Function was test, Healthy and Normal Renal Function was reference."||115.94|88.89|
95874245|NCT04616027|191705037|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|110.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.05|126.37||||||"T2DM Mild Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||126.37|96.05|
95874246|NCT04616027|191705037|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|120.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.63|137.77||||||"T2DM Moderate Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||137.77|105.63|
95874247|NCT04616027|191705037|OTHER|ANOVA|Ratio (Test/Reference) of Adjusted Means|127.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.26|145.12||||||"T2DM Severe Renal Impairment was test, T2DM Normal Renal Function was reference."||145.12|111.26|
95874248|NCT01460368|191705056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|2.63|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||2.63|-1.38|
95874249|NCT01460368|191705056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|5.71|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||5.71|1.67|
95874250|NCT01460368|191705056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.12|11.16|||||Treatment comparison at 6 hours.|||11.16|7.12|
95874251|NCT01460368|191705056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|9.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.1|11.07|||||Treatment comparison at 8 hours.|||11.07|7.10|
95874252|NCT01460368|191705056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.14|1.85|||||Treatment comparison at 12 hours.|||1.85|-2.14|
95874253|NCT01460368|191705056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Means Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.63|5.63|||||Treatment comparison at 24 hours.|||5.63|1.63|
95874254|NCT01460368|191705057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.21|10.94|||||Treatment comparison at 2 hours.|||10.94|5.21|
95874255|NCT01460368|191705057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.69|13.43|||||Treatment comparison at 4 hours.|||13.43|7.69|
95874256|NCT00910988|191705058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the two way interaction between time and order and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is alpha equal to 0.05. There was no 3 way interaction.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with time as the repeated measure, drug assignment as a fixed factor, and order as a fixed factor.||The hypothesis being tested is whether there is a significant effect of one or both antipsychotics on whole body insulin sensitivity. Sample size was calculated using power calculations to detect significant effects of treatment on insulin sensitivity. Drug assignment is a 2-level fixed factor (olanzapine vs ziprasidone) as is order (drug first vs placebo first). Baseline of the dependent variable as well as baseline DEXA total fat were entered into the model as covariates.||||0.001
95874257|NCT00910988|191705061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||This p-value corresponds to the 3 way interaction between time, drug (olanzapine vs ziprasidone), and order (drug first vs placebo first) and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that olanzapine and ziprasidone would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue, which was measured by evaluating the rate of appearance of labeled glycerol. The alternative hypothesis is that olanzapine, but not ziprasidone, would result in acute decreases in insulin sensitivity compared to placebo at adipose tissue.||||0.57
95874258|NCT01385371|191705067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.4|-1.2|<0.001
95874259|NCT01385371|191705068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.7|0.001
95874260|NCT01385371|191705069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.5|-1.4|<0.001
95874261|NCT01385371|191705070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.027||95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0|-0.2|0.027
95874262|NCT01385371|191705071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.22||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.22|-0.73|0.0003
95874263|NCT01385371|191705072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||-0.2|-0.9|<0.001
95966666|NCT05262517|191903971|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.41||||||LS means, and CIs were based on a generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMEM) that included the baseline value as a covariate and fixed effects for treatment group, stratification factor (use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms; yes or no), scheduled time point, and time point by-treatment group interaction.||1.41|-0.99|
95874264|NCT01385371|191705073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.31||A zero-inflated log-normal mixed distribution model was used with treatment, baseline asthma status, age category (\<18 or \>=18 years) and pollen region as covariates.|Zero-Inflated Log-Normal Model|||||-0.31|-0.94|0.0001
95874265|NCT01385371|191705074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.6|-0.4|0.644
95874266|NCT03635788|191705087|SUPERIORITY|The study had approximately 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of regimen failure|Cumulative probability difference|-18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-32.4|-4.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC. 98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of regimen failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-4.3|-32.4|
95874267|NCT03635788|191705088|SUPERIORITY|The study had at least 80% power to show superiority of the LA ART compared to daily SOC with respect to the Step 2, week 48, cumulative probability of virologic failure|cumulative probability difference|-21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-33.5|-9.3|||||Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of virologic failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||-9.3|-33.5|
95874268|NCT03635788|191705089|SUPERIORITY||cumulative probability diffeence|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-31.6|-6.9||||||Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of treatment-related failure in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.|Treatment difference was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|-6.9|-31.6|
95874269|NCT03635788|191705090|SUPERIORITY|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-8.1|||Fisher Exact||||Treatment difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|-8.1|-35.6|<0.001
95874270|NCT03635788|191705091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-12.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference in the proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.|The proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 200 copies/ml was compared by Fisher's Exact Test.||-12.8|-36.1|<0.001
95874271|NCT03635788|191705096|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative probability difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|-21.3|4.5|||||Treatment difference in cumulative of permanent treatment discontinuation was calculated as LA-ART minus SOC.98.4% is nominal confidence interval.|Treatment comparison was conducted by cumulative probability of permanent treatment discontinuation in Step 2 up to Step 2 Week 48 visit by treatment arm. The treatment difference was assessed using the 95% repeated confidence interval adjusted for interim efficacy analyses, i.e., a nominal 98.4% confidence interval.||4.5|-21.3|
95966667|NCT05262517|191903972|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|10.9||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/ oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenzsel weighting.||10.9|-21.3|
95966668|NCT05262517|191903975|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.6||||||Stratified by use of daily medications/oral devices to reduce the intensity of TMD symptoms at randomization with Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||16.6|-8.7|
95874272|NCT01876810|191705107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results are considered significant at p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95874273|NCT01876810|191705107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95874274|NCT01876810|191705108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95874275|NCT01876810|191705108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9
95874276|NCT01876810|191705109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.7||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used|participants self-reportd VAS craving at the time of neutral cue presentation|||||0.4
95874277|NCT01876810|191705109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For all analyses, results were considered significant at p\< 0.05|ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA on Drug X Cue X Time were used||||||0.4
95874278|NCT00866788|191705110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1601
95874279|NCT00866788|191705110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
95874280|NCT00866788|191705110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0473||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0473
95874281|NCT00866788|191705111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1640
95874282|NCT00866788|191705111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
95874283|NCT00866788|191705111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0558||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0558
95874284|NCT00866788|191705112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1411||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1411
95874285|NCT00866788|191705112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0003
95874286|NCT00866788|191705112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0248
95874287|NCT00866788|191705113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.5507
95874288|NCT00866788|191705113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.1525
95874289|NCT00866788|191705113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0449||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.0449
95874290|NCT00866788|191705114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7261||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.7261
95874291|NCT00866788|191705114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.162
95874292|NCT00866788|191705114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6504||||||The p-value was based on the van Elteren test (stratified by baseline weight ≥ 80 or \< 80 kg).|van Elteren test|||||||0.6504
95874293|NCT02349061|191705121|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|7.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.63|1.41|0.0057
95874294|NCT02349061|191705122|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|0.23|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.23|-2.94|0.0929
95874295|NCT02349061|191705123|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.383||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|0.506|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.506|-1.271|0.3944
95874296|NCT02349061|191705124|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.34|0.43|0.9939
95874297|NCT02349061|191705125|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-2.17||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|0.45|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||||0.45|-4.78|0.1032
95874298|NCT01859143|191705135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence criterion for fever within 7 days of vaccination mentioned that the upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for difference in percentage of participants with fever \>=101 degrees F should be less than 5 percentage points.|Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||A two-sided 95% CI was constructed using the exact method based on the score statistic proposed by Chan and Zhang.|||2.6|-5.3|
95874299|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|23.9|||||Any symptom within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||23.9|-1.9|
95874300|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
95874301|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
95874302|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
95874303|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|17.7|||||Runny nose within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||17.7|-2.6|
95874304|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|11.6|||||Sore throat within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.6|-2.2|
95874305|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Cough within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.7|-9.3|
95874306|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Vomiting within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
95874307|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.3|||||Muscle aches within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.3|-8.0|
95874308|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.4|||||Chills within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.4|-4.1|
95874309|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||9.8|-6.5|
95874310|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|11.9|||||Headache within 7 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.9|-7.8|
95874311|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|24.4|||||Any symptom within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||24.4|-1.6|
95874312|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.9|||||Fever \>100 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.9|-4.5|
95874313|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3|||||Fever \>=101 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||3.3|-4.9|
95874314|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>102 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
95874315|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.8|||||Fever \>103 degrees F within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||1.8|-6.1|
95874316|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|18.6|||||Runny nose within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||18.6|-1.8|
95874317|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Sore throat within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
95874318|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.7|||||Cough within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.7|-8.6|
95874319|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.6|||||Vomiting within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||2.6|-5.3|
95874320|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|4.8|||||Muscle aches within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||4.8|-7.8|
95874321|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.5|||||Chills within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||5.5|-3.3|
95874322|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.2|||||Decreased activity (tiredness) within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||11.2|-5.3|
95874323|NCT01859143|191705136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.0|||||Headache within 14 days of vaccination: Difference in percentage of participants and 95% CI were constructed based on Chan and Zhang's method.|||12.0|-8.7|
95874324|NCT00438451|191705140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0201
95874325|NCT00438451|191705140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1536||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1536
95874326|NCT00438451|191705140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3615||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3615
95874327|NCT00438451|191705140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0478
95874328|NCT00438451|191705140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.838||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|3.093|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for treatment (p=0.0578), country (p=0.4649), pooled sites (p=0.4420) and number of concurrent diseases (p=0.0192)|"Odds ratio given here is for comparison LEV vs CBZ: OR=1.838 KI=(1.092-3.093) LEV vs LTG: OR=1.169 KI=(0.689-1.984) CBZ vs LTG: OR=0.636 KI=(0.377-1.073) Number of concurrent diseases: OR=0.921 KI=(0.859-0.987)"|||3.093|1.092|0.0578
95874329|NCT00438451|191705141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0596||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0596
95874330|NCT00438451|191705142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2517||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2517
95874331|NCT00438451|191705143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3303||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3303
95874332|NCT00438451|191705144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5022||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5022
95874333|NCT00739999|191705160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Atorvastatin CL/F based on 70 kg BW|699.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|570.0|881.0|||non-linear mixed-effects model|Measures of parameter estimation uncertainty (95% CI) were determined by non-parametric bootstrap analysis.||Atorvastatin apparent clearance (CL/F) was described as a function of body weight using an allometric equation. The estimated parameter given is an extrapolation of the model for participants who weigh 70 kg.||881|570|
95874334|NCT03633617|191705187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.58|71.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||71.04|39.58|<0.0001
95874335|NCT03633617|191705187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.44|68.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||68.54|43.44|<0.0001
95874336|NCT03633617|191705187|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|65.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is dupilumab minus placebo|||65.79|41.20|<0.0001
95874337|NCT03633617|191705188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.32||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.107|-5.537|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.537|-19.107|0.0004
95966669|NCT00527787|191903979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjetcs developing gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of study treatment. A summary, including cumulative frequency and percentage with associated 95% confidence intervals was produced for the observational incidences of gastric ulcers at 6 months. The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by use of low-dose aspirin (Yes/No) at randomization.||7.7|1.9|0.001
95966670|NCT00527787|191903980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95874338|NCT03633617|191705188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.8393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.423|4.406|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||4.406|-5.423|0.8393
95874339|NCT03633617|191705188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.811|-5.022|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-5.022|-14.811|<0.0001
95874340|NCT03633617|191705189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-68.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.896|-49.615|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-49.615|-86.896|<0.0001
95874341|NCT03633617|191705189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-79.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.098|-55.338|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-55.338|-103.098|<0.0001
95874342|NCT03633617|191705189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.194|-65.046|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-65.046|-112.194|<0.0001
95874343|NCT03633617|191705190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.222|-17.745|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-17.745|-57.222|0.0002
95874344|NCT03633617|191705190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.35||||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.734|9.038|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||9.038|-17.734|0.5243
95874345|NCT03633617|191705190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.89||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.272|-9.513|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-9.513|-36.272|0.0008
95874346|NCT03633617|191705191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.759|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9061|-0.6127|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.6127|-0.9061|<0.0001
95874347|NCT03633617|191705191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.666|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7773|-0.5538|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5538|-0.7773|<0.0001
95874348|NCT03633617|191705191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.682|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7929|-0.5707|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5707|-0.7929|<0.0001
95874349|NCT03633617|191705192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.741|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8842|-0.5978|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5978|-0.8842|<0.0001
95874350|NCT03633617|191705192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7674|-0.554|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-0.5540|-0.7674|<0.0001
95874351|NCT03633617|191705192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7778|-0.5655|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-0.5655|-0.7778|<0.0001
95874352|NCT03633617|191705193|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.84|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-1.84|-3.91|<0.0001
95874353|NCT03633617|191705193|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|-3.02|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W vs Placebo|||-3.02|-4.86|<0.0001
95874354|NCT03633617|191705193|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|-2.93|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg QW vs Placebo|||-2.93|-4.77|<0.0001
95874355|NCT03633617|191705194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|57.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.69|73.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||73.33|41.69|<0.0001
95874356|NCT03633617|191705194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|72.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.05|83.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||83.70|61.05|<0.0001
95874357|NCT03633617|191705194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.25|85.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||85.50|64.25|<0.0001
95966671|NCT00527787|191903981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95966672|NCT00527787|191903982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.003
95966673|NCT00527787|191903983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95966674|NCT00847626|191904040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-9.5|-15.8|<0.001
95874358|NCT03633617|191705195|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-1.73|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.7300|-2.7200|<0.0001
95874359|NCT03633617|191705195|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.11|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1100|-2.4200|<0.0001
95874360|NCT03633617|191705195|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.15|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.1500|-2.4400|<0.0001
95874361|NCT03633617|191705196|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.27|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.2700|-1.7400|<0.0001
95874362|NCT03633617|191705196|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.255|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.05|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0500|-1.7300|<0.0001
95874363|NCT03633617|191705196|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.07|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-1.0700|-1.8200|<0.0001
95874364|NCT03633617|191705197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|21.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.42|34.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||34.38|9.42|0.0017
95874365|NCT03633617|191705197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||38.09|17.20|<0.0001
95874366|NCT03633617|191705197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|39.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||39.46|18.36|<0.0001
95874367|NCT03633617|191705198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.368||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6388|-0.0975|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs Placebo|||-0.0975|-0.6388|0.0077
95874368|NCT03633617|191705198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1782|0.1485|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.1485|-0.1782|0.8586
95874369|NCT03633617|191705198|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4703|-0.1471|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.1471|-0.4703|0.0002
95874370|NCT03633617|191705199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.03|-3.87|0.0467
95874371|NCT03633617|191705199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.5469||95.0|-2.03|1.08|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||1.08|-2.03|0.5469
95874372|NCT03633617|191705199|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.13|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.13|-3.0|0.0718
95874373|NCT03633617|191705200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||-0.52|-2.93|0.0051
95874374|NCT03633617|191705200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.44|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.44|-1.38|0.3152
95874375|NCT03633617|191705200|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.45|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab group vs. Placebo|||0.45|-2.30|0.0037
95874376|NCT03633617|191705201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-12.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.21|-2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||-2.26|-23.21|0.0170
95874377|NCT03633617|191705201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-1.3||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||2.93|-5.51|0.5493
95874378|NCT03633617|191705201|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|0.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Dupilumab minus Placebo|||5.02|-4.9|0.9887
95874379|NCT01480089|191705240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.214|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 2 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.214|-2.830|.098
95874380|NCT01480089|191705241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|0.973|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean VAS score 12 hours post surgery is equivalent for individuals randomized to Intraperitoneal Ropivacaine(AIR) and those randomized to Atomized Intraperitoneal Saline (AIS).||0.973|-1.103|.90
95874381|NCT02439879|191705255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t test|||All data were analyzed using the SPSS v16 statistical package software. To compare categorical variables, the chi2 test was used, and, for continuous variables,the T-test for independent or paired samples was applied.Data are expressed as percent values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean ± SD or mean ± SEM||||< 0.05
95874382|NCT03789214|191705262|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||.950
95874383|NCT03789214|191705263|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
95874384|NCT03789214|191705264|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||.691
95874385|NCT03789214|191705265|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.62|||||||ANOVA|||||||.620
95874386|NCT03789214|191705266|OTHER|One-way ANOVA||||||0.067|||||||ANOVA|||||||.067
95874387|NCT02992132|191705269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|15.0||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||15.0|-4.8|
95874388|NCT02992132|191705269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.5||||||Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM), with the dependent variable being the change from Baseline in CMAI total score.||10.5|-8.5|
95874389|NCT00568685|191705273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-S score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0048
95874390|NCT00568685|191705274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153||95.0||||This is the p value for CGI-ADHD-I score change at endpoint|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0153
95874391|NCT00568685|191705275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0||||P-value relates to the sum of adverse events leading to discontinuation.|Fisher Exact|||||||.4500
95874392|NCT00568685|191705276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0240
95874393|NCT00568685|191705278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8005||95.0||||This is the p value for heart rate change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.8005
95874394|NCT00568685|191705279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4128||95.0||||This is the p value for temperature change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.4128
95874395|NCT00568685|191705280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9761||95.0||||This is the p value for systolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.9761
95874396|NCT00568685|191705280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6419||95.0||||This is the p value for diastolic change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.6419
95874397|NCT00568685|191705281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2213||95.0||||This is the p value for weight change at endpoint|ANOVA|||||||0.2213
95874398|NCT01231230|191705282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||< 0.001
95874399|NCT01231230|191705282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||<0.001
95874400|NCT01231230|191705282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||mean difference from baseline relative to placebo||||>0.05
95874401|NCT02038452|191705283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.16|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.16|-0.48|<0.001
95874402|NCT02038452|191705284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.17|-0.53|<0.001
95874403|NCT02038452|191705285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.09|-0.43|0.003
95874404|NCT02038452|191705286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.3|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||-0.30|-1.64|0.005
95874405|NCT02038452|191705287|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.87|0.22|0.018
95874406|NCT02038452|191705290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.23|-0.11|0.500
95874407|NCT02038452|191705291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.33|-0.07|0.21
95874408|NCT02038452|191705292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|0.166|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||0.166|-0.175|0.96
95874409|NCT02038452|191705293|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||1.59|-0.02|0.055
95874410|NCT02038452|191705294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||2.20|0.55|0.76
95874411|NCT02038452|191705295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.77|0.73|0.23
95874412|NCT02038452|191705296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.98|0.41|0.66
95874413|NCT02038452|191705297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|7.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||7.34|0.28|0.66
95874414|NCT02038452|191705298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||3.18|0.63|0.40
95874415|NCT02038452|191705299|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation for missing data was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||The main treatment analyses were based on intention to treat approach||5.66|0.70|0.20
95874416|NCT02038452|191705300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.53|0.001
95874417|NCT02038452|191705301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.17|0.74
95874418|NCT02038452|191705302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.12||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.30|0.41
95874419|NCT02038452|191705303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.16|0.58
95874420|NCT02038452|191705304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.24||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-1.72|0.009
95874421|NCT02038452|191705305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.54||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.54|-0.02|0.058
95874422|NCT02038452|191705306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.85||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.85|-0.79|0.95
95966675|NCT00847626|191904040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.9|-16.7|<0.001
95966676|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.2||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.2|-16.2|<0.001
95874423|NCT02038452|191705307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.26||Participants with relevant outcomes reported on at least one follow-up time point were included in the analyses. Adjustment was made for baseline score, age, duration of symptoms, interaction term between treatment and follow-up.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.26|-0.45|0.35
95874424|NCT02038452|191705308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.54|<0.001
95874425|NCT02038452|191705309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.21|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.21|-0.59|<0.001
95966677|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-6.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-6.4|-13.4|<0.001
95966678|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-12.1||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.1|-19.2|<0.001
95966679|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-8.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.9|-15.8|<0.001
95874426|NCT02038452|191705310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.08|-0.44|0.005
95874427|NCT02038452|191705311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.38|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.38|-1.72|0.002
95874428|NCT02038452|191705312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.17|0.006
95874429|NCT02038452|191705313|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.24|-0.13|0.58
95874430|NCT02038452|191705314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.09|0.25
95874431|NCT02038452|191705315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.18|-0.17|0.93
95874432|NCT02038452|191705316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.61|||Regression, Linear|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.61|-0.01|0.052
95874433|NCT02038452|191705317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.88|0.58|0.53
95874434|NCT02038452|191705318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.34|0.61|0.41
95874435|NCT02038452|191705320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.06|0.57|0.52
95874436|NCT02038452|191705321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|Complete case analysis as a sensitivity analysis was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||5.78|0.72|0.18
95874437|NCT02038452|191705322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.18|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.18|-0.55|<0.001
95874438|NCT02038452|191705323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.19|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.19|-0.59|<0.001
95874439|NCT02038452|191705324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.09|-0.46|0.003
95874440|NCT02038452|191705325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.48|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.48|-1.85|0.001
95874441|NCT02038452|191705326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.74|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.74|0.16|0.007
95874442|NCT02038452|191705327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.25|-0.15|0.63
95874443|NCT02038452|191705328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.35|-0.10|0.28
95874444|NCT02038452|191705329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.2|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.20|-0.18|0.900
95874445|NCT02038452|191705330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.59|||Regression, Linear|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||1.59|-0.11|0.09
95874446|NCT02038452|191705331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.85|0.56|0.58
95874447|NCT02038452|191705332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||3.01|0.57|0.52
95874448|NCT02038452|191705334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||2.95|0.53|0.61
95874449|NCT02038452|191705335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.58|||Regression, Logistic|Per protocol analysis on complete date was performed. Logistic regression adjusted for sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||6.58|0.77|0.14
95874450|NCT02038452|191705336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.12|-0.93|0.014
95874451|NCT02038452|191705337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.26|-0.50|0.53
95874452|NCT02038452|191705338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.05|-0.44|0.015
95874453|NCT02038452|191705339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.23|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||-0.23|-0.97|0.002
95874454|NCT02038452|191705340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Sub group analysis on complete data was performed. Linear regression adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, and duration of symptoms.||||0.16|-0.60|0.25
95874455|NCT02038452|191705341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.57|145.59|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups performed on multiply imputed data||||145.59|-94.57|
95874456|NCT02038452|191705342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.84|187.31|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups on complete data.||||187.31|-104.84|
95874457|NCT02038452|191705343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|279.21|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||279.21|-37.09|
95874458|NCT02038452|191705344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.84|291.24|||Regression, Linear|Comparison of outcome between treatment groups||||291.24|-120.84|
95874459|NCT02038452|191705345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||||0.02|-0.01|
95874460|NCT02038452|191705346|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.027|||Regression, Linear|||||0.027|-0.034|
95874461|NCT02038452|191705347|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.045|||Regression, Linear|||||0.045|-0.093|
95874462|NCT02337738|191705359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.364|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 1mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 1mg - Placebo).|||-0.364|-1.320|0.0006
95874463|NCT02337738|191705359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.122|||ANCOVA||Estimated Value was reported for the difference between TVP-1012 0.5mg and Placebo (TVP-1012 0.5mg - Placebo).|||-0.122|-1.070|0.0140
95874464|NCT02035475|191705385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||McNemar|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the incidence of detected lymphoceles whether the EndoWrist 1 Vessel Sealer or the Fenestrated Maryland BiPolar Instrument were used.||||0.412
95874465|NCT01302379|191705391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|97.5||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||97.5|-97.5|<0.05
95874466|NCT02080637|191705393|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline versus 2 hours post-ambrisentan||||0.01
95874467|NCT02080637|191705394|OTHER||Slope|-27.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-775.0|723.0|||Regression, Linear|||||723|-775|0.94
95874468|NCT02080637|191705395|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.3|||Regression, Linear|||||6.3|-3.9|0.61
95874469|NCT02436681|191705403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95874470|NCT02436681|191705405|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.0468
95874471|NCT02436681|191705407|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.014|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.014
95874472|NCT02436681|191705408|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||= 0.018
95874473|NCT02103218|191705412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.62
95874474|NCT02103218|191705413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.15
95874475|NCT02103218|191705414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.47
95874476|NCT02103218|191705415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||logistic GEE|||Results from logistic GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares predicted probabilities converted to %, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
95874477|NCT02103218|191705416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||<0.001
95874478|NCT02103218|191705417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.77.|linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.02
95874479|NCT02103218|191705418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.67
95874480|NCT02103218|191705419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.45
95874481|NCT02103218|191705420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
95874482|NCT02103218|191705421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.42
95966680|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-12.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.3|-19.3|<0.001
95966681|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.5|-16.5|<0.001
95966682|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-10.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.5|-17.5|<0.001
95966683|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-13.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.7|-20.6|<0.001
95966684|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-9.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.9|-17.0|<0.001
95966685|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-12.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.7|-19.7|<0.001
95966686|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-9.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.3|-16.3|<0.001
95874483|NCT02103218|191705422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.63
95874484|NCT02103218|191705423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Omnibus overall test for any group x time interaction was p = 0.78.|count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.05
95874485|NCT02103218|191705424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.50
95966687|NCT00847626|191904041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-12.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-12.6|-19.4|<0.001
95966688|NCT00847626|191904042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.5||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||3.5|-13.0|0.255
95966689|NCT00847626|191904042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed. Results for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and Azilsartan Medoxomil 80mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD pool were obtained using contrast with coefficients of 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 40 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD and 0.5 for Azilsartan Medoxomil 80 mg/Chlorthalidone 25 mg QD from the ANCOVA model.||-10.6|-25.9|<0.001
95966690|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.6|< 0.001
95966691|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-7.0||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.0|-13.7|<0.001
95966692|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-8.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.4|-15.1|<0.001
95966693|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-10.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.6|-17.3|<0.001
95874486|NCT02103218|191705426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.86
95874487|NCT02103218|191705427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||count GEE|||Results from count GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.46
95874488|NCT02103218|191705428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.70
95966694|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.3|-17.1|<0.001
95874489|NCT02103218|191705429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.29
95966695|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-8.7||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.7|-15.4|<0.001
95874490|NCT02103218|191705430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||linear GEE|||Results from linear GEE models for outcome with IPW propensity score adjustment and multiple imputation for missing data. Numbers presented above are model-based least-squares means, (SE). Overall p-values from omnibus test (group by time interaction) for any differences in change over time between groups as well as p-values from testing difference in least-square mean estimates in post-hoc pairwise comparisons with pre-intervention were estimated.||||0.43
95874491|NCT00667602|191705431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage Difference|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10% .||-1|-15|
95874492|NCT00667602|191705432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Percentage difference|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between one dose of MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥ 1:4 for serogroup C at 1 month following the 12 months vaccination was greater than -10%.||-2|-13|
95874493|NCT00667602|191705433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|79.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||79|64|
95874494|NCT00667602|191705433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|13.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||13|3|
95874495|NCT00667602|191705433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|86.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, prevaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||86|73|
95874496|NCT00667602|191705433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PMenACWY - PMenC \> -10%).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.0|||Percentage difference|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Comparisons to MenC were based on the percentages of subjects with response (hSBA ≥1:4, one month postvaccination) to serogroup C. MenACWY was determined to be noninferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response towards serogroup C was greater than -10%.||5|-2|
95874497|NCT00667602|191705435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, prevaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.12|0.76|
95874498|NCT00667602|191705435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenC \> 0.5).|Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers, one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||0.93|0.57|
95874499|NCT00667602|191705437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|13.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (prevaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5 .||13|8.43|
95874500|NCT00667602|191705437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMTMenACWY/GMTMenjugate \> 0.5).|Ratio|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|10.0|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the GMTs (one month postvaccination), MenACWY was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY to MenC GMTs for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||10|6.35|
95966696|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-7.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.6|-14.2|<0.001
95966697|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-10.9||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-10.9|-17.6|<0.001
95966698|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.3||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-8.3|-15.0|<0.001
95966699|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-13.6||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-13.6|-20.4|<0.001
95966700|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-7.8||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-7.8|-14.7|<0.001
95874501|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
95874502|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
95874503|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||5|-3|
95874504|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Diptheria Toxin ≥1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-3|
95874505|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
95874506|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 0.1 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, for any of the antigens, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
95874507|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
95874508|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti-Tetanus Toxin ≥ 1.0 IU/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-6|
95966701|NCT00847626|191904055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-9.4||Tested at 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA using treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a covariate was performed.||-9.4|-16.2|<0.001
95966702|NCT04421950|191904111|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95966703|NCT02964325|191904143|NON_INFERIORITY|An NI analysis was carried out to assess the primary efficacy endpoint with the null hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is inferior to the CONTROL group and the alternative hypothesis being the MIRASOL group is non-inferior to the CONTROL group. In this study, the NI margin was 1.6.|Relative Rate|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|4.67|||||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative rate. For days during off-protocol intervals, bleeding data were simulated using an estimate of the individual-specific bleeding rate.|The MIRASOL and CONTROL groups were compared with respect to the number of days of WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleeding. This was carried out by fitting a negative binomial regression model with an offset defined as the natural logarithm (LN) of the number of days that bleeding was assessed in order to account for the fact that subjects had different numbers of bleeding assessment days.||4.67|1.67|
95966704|NCT02964325|191904145|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 1.2 was used to evaluated this endpoint.|Relative Risk|1.32||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.81|||Wald Non-inferiority Test||The MIRASOL group represents the numerator and the CONTROL group represents the denominator for the relative risk.|The null hypothesis was H0: pt/pc \> 1.2 (ie, MIRASOL had more than a 20% higher probability of a patient experiencing at least one WHO ≥ Grade 2 bleed compared to CONTROL).||1.81|0.97|0.7274
95966705|NCT02964325|191904146|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Log-rank test|||||||0.07
95966706|NCT02964325|191904147|OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1649
95966707|NCT02964325|191904148|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.15||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.49|||Fisher Exact|||||3.49|1.32|0.0015
95966708|NCT01712061|191904172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric mean changes|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||ANCOVA|Bayesian ANCOVA with covariates for baseline UACR and systolic blood pressure (SBP).||||1.09|0.75|
95966709|NCT01572740|191904270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.47|-1.13|||ANCOVA|||||-1.13|-1.47|<0.0001
95966710|NCT01572740|191904271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.63|||ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.99|<0.0001
95966711|NCT01572740|191904272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0006||95.0|-1.3|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||||-0.36|-1.30|<0.0006
95966712|NCT01572740|191904273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.26||||0.2511||95.0|-0.7|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.70|0.2511
95966713|NCT01572740|191904274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.87|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.37|-1.38|||ANCOVA|||||-1.38|-2.37|<0.0001
95966714|NCT01572740|191904275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.73|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||||-0.83|-1.73|<0.0001
95966715|NCT01572740|191904276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.73||||0.0023||95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.20|0.0023
95966716|NCT01572740|191904277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.39||||0.1787||95.0|-0.97|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.97|0.1787
95966717|NCT01572740|191904278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.14||||0.4806||95.0|-0.54|0.25|||ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.54|0.4806
95966718|NCT01572740|191904279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.35||||0.2074||95.0|-0.91|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.20|-0.91|0.2074
95966719|NCT00478192|191904282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.028
95966720|NCT00478192|191904282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||0.019
95966721|NCT00478192|191904282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Values are not adjusted on the basis of multiple comparrisons|ANCOVA|||"Statistical Analysis applies to Change from Baseline."||||<0.001
95966722|NCT00478192|191904287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.079
95966723|NCT00477490|191904291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.221|0.242||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.242|-0.221|0.9303
95966724|NCT00477490|191904291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.112||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||0.112|-0.353|0.3104
95966725|NCT00477490|191904291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.277||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.511|-0.042||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.042|-0.511|0.0207
95874509|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
95966726|NCT00477490|191904291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.848|-0.378||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||-0.378|-0.848|<0.0001
95966727|NCT00477490|191904292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.017||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.598||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids||||1.598|0.647|0.9420
95966728|NCT00477490|191904292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.147||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.807||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||||1.807|0.729|0.5527
95966729|NCT00477490|191904292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.296||||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|2.05||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||2.050|0.821|0.2662
95966730|NCT00477490|191904292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.893|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.795|4.715||The a priori statistically significant difference versus placebo is p≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment difference and 95% CI were adjusted for age, absence/presence of nocturnal polyuria, and baseline number of nocturnal voids.||The trial was to be declared positive only if in the 100 μg group, a statistically significant positive effect as compared to placebo on both co-primaries was demonstrated. And only then, the next higher dose group (i.e., 50 μg) could be claimed superior to placebo, if it showed a statistically significant improvement over placebo on both co-primaries.||4.715|1.795|<0.0001
95966731|NCT01465763|191904303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||16.3|4.3|0.0070
95966732|NCT01465763|191904304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|15.7||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.4|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.4|8.1|0.0005
95966733|NCT01465763|191904305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|27.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.5|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||36.5|17.7|<0.0001
95966734|NCT01465763|191904306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|5.1||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.3|1.9|0.0345
95966735|NCT01465763|191904307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|16.3|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.3|4.3|0.0070
95966736|NCT01465763|191904308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.0||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|11.1|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.1|1.0|0.0601
95966737|NCT01465763|191904309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|8.7|||CMH Chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||8.7|4.3|0.0043
95966738|NCT01465763|191904311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 2: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
95874510|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 1, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
95874511|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
95874512|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 2, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-3|
95874513|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
95874514|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Polio 3, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-2|
95966739|NCT01465763|191904311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 4: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-0.7|-1.5|<0.0001
95966740|NCT01465763|191904311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model|||At Week 8: The change from baseline was analyzed using mixed effect model with treatment group, prior treatment with antiTNF, steroid use at baseline, geographic region, visit and visit by treatment group all as fixed effects, and participants as a random effect.||-1.1|-1.9|<0.0001
95966741|NCT01465763|191904312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline at Week 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group, prior treatment with anti-TNF, steroid use at baseline and geographic region as factors and baseline as a covariate based on the observed-case data.||-1.4|-2.5|<0.0001
95966742|NCT00588692|191904313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||For 25-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
95966743|NCT00588692|191904313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||35-49% Ejection Fraction Subgroup||||<0.05
95966744|NCT00588692|191904315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95966745|NCT00588692|191904316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
95966746|NCT00588692|191904316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966747|NCT00588692|191904316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966748|NCT00588692|191904317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95966749|NCT00588692|191904317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966750|NCT00588692|191904317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966751|NCT00588692|191904318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
95966752|NCT00588692|191904319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95966753|NCT00588692|191904319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966754|NCT00588692|191904319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966755|NCT00588692|191904320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95966756|NCT00588692|191904321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95966757|NCT00588692|191904322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3
95966758|NCT00588692|191904323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95966759|NCT00588692|191904323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966760|NCT00588692|191904323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95874515|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
95874516|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 0.15 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-2|
95874517|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0||Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Miettinen and Nurminen|||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
95874518|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Anti- PRP ≥ 1.0 μg/mL, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||2|-4|
95874519|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
95874520|NCT00667602|191705438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC)|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib (Hep B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to DTPa-IPV-HepB-Hib given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
95874521|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination)given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-13|
95874522|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PNC 6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-12|
95874523|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7(PnC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 or MenC was considered non-inferior, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than -10%.||2|-11|
95966761|NCT00588692|191904324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6
95966762|NCT00588692|191904325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95966763|NCT00588692|191904325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966764|NCT00588692|191904325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966765|NCT00588692|191904326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.11
95966766|NCT00588692|191904326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966767|NCT00588692|191904326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95966768|NCT00588692|191904327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
95966769|NCT00588692|191904327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966770|NCT00588692|191904327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966771|NCT00588692|191904328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95966772|NCT00588692|191904328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966773|NCT00588692|191904328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change compared to baseline||||<0.05
95966774|NCT00755105|191904345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
95966775|NCT03995316|191904346|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.003
95966776|NCT03995316|191904347|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.283|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.283
95966777|NCT03995316|191904348|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.019
95966778|NCT03995316|191904349|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.440
95966779|NCT03995316|191904350|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.055
95966780|NCT03995316|191904351|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The slope value reflects the mean difference between conditions in the linear slope from the pretest to posttest assessment.|||||.041
95966781|NCT03168542|191904465|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded if the lower 95% of the confidence limit of the proportion of subjects who require no more than one modification was greater than 50%.|Proportion|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.0|||Agresti-Coull confidence interval|Agresti-Coull method was used to estimate the confidence interval of the binomial proportions.||||1.000|0.756|
95966782|NCT00664534|191904480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority margin is defined as 0.4%. If the upper 95%CI for difference in LSMeans is below 0.4% then MIX arm will be declared noninferior to GLAR arm|Least squares mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro -Glargine)|||0.13|-0.42|
95966783|NCT00664534|191904482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 16 weeks|||0.29|-0.18|
95966784|NCT00664534|191904482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.29|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 32 weeks|||0.29|-0.22|
95966785|NCT00664534|191904482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||||Least squares mean difference = (Premix insulin Lispro - Glargine). 48 weeks|||0.18|-0.33|
95874524|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-3|
95874525|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7( PNC 18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-19|
95874526|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 19F, one month postvaccination), given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-2|-17|
95874527|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with one dose of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||1|-12|
95966786|NCT00664534|191904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2127||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=7.0%.|Chi-squared|||||||0.2127
95966787|NCT00664534|191904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3281||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.3281
95966788|NCT00664534|191904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2812
95966789|NCT00664534|191904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0||||P-value is for Week 32 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.6963
95966790|NCT00664534|191904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0643||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.0643
95966791|NCT00664534|191904483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2524||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48 HbA1c \<=6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.2524
95966792|NCT00664534|191904485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6615||95.0||||P-value for Baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6615
95966793|NCT00664534|191904485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9798||95.0||||P-value is for Week 16|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9798
95874528|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC4, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||4|-12|
95874529|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC6B, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-11|
95874530|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC 9V, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-10|
95874531|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC14, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||3|-4|
95874532|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC18C, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-6|-24|
95874533|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC19F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||-1|-17|
95966794|NCT00664534|191904485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6169||95.0||||P-value for Week 32|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6169
95966795|NCT00664534|191904485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7834||95.0||||P-value for Week 48|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7834
95966796|NCT00664534|191904487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.7|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Premix Insulin Lispro minus Glargine.|||0.70|-0.89|
95966797|NCT00664534|191904488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4935||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4935
95966798|NCT00935532|191904508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of exenatide QW to insulin glargine with respect to change in HbA1c was to be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was less than 0.4%. Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<8.5%, \>=8.5%), background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.26||No adjustments for multiplicity will be performed|ANCOVA|||The expected changes in HbA1c from baseline were considered to be the same between the groups, and the common standard deviation assumed to be 1.2%. Assuming a type I error of 0.025 (one-sided), a power of 0.9 and a noninferiority margin of 0.4%, 191 subjects per group would be necessary to confirm the noninferiority by the two-sample t-test. When the proportion of the subjects missing post-baseline data was assumed to be 10%, the target number of subjects were 420 in total (210 subjects/group).||-0.26|-0.59|<.001
95874534|NCT00667602|191705439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY - PConcomitant Vaccine+MenC).|Percentage difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||Immunogenicity of PCV7 (PNC23F, one month postvaccination) given concomitantly with two doses of MenACWY was considered non-inferior to PCV7 given concomitantly with one dose of MenC, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than the cut-off level specified for that antigen was greater than -10%.||0|-13|
95874535|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|71.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.0|78.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||78|63|
95874536|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|6.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||6|-3|
95874537|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||7|-2|
95874538|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:8, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
95874539|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|39.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||39|24|
95966799|NCT00935532|191904509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=7% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
95966800|NCT00935532|191904510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c\<=6.5% at endpoint were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which background OAD and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
95966801|NCT00935532|191904511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|1.07|||ANCOVA|||Change in FSG from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline FSG as a covariate.||1.07|-11.62|0.103
95966802|NCT00935532|191904512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.56|||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.56|-2.46|<.001
95966803|NCT00935532|191904513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|-3.45|||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline total cholesterol as a covariate.||-3.45|-12.33|<.001
95966804|NCT00935532|191904514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.09|||ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to endpoint was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pre-treatment with SU as factors and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||1.09|-1.64|0.689
95874540|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||4|-2|
95966805|NCT00935532|191904515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at endpoint to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a LOCF ANCOVA model with treatment, background OAD, and presence/absence of pretreatment with SU as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.06|0.94|0.990
95874541|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, prevaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||11|-3|
95874542|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|-5.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (rSBA ≥1:128, one month postvaccination), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-5|-22|
95874543|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||-4|-17|
95874544|NCT00667602|191705444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC).|Percentage Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Difference between the two groups and the associated 95% CIs were computed using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||For the comparisons to MenC based on percentages of subjects with response (four-fold rise in titers), MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between MenACWY-CRM197 and MenC in the percentage of subjects with response against serogroup C was greater than -10%.||1|-11|
95874545|NCT00667602|191705446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(PConcomitant Vaccine + MenACWY-CRM - PConcomitant Vaccine + MenC)|Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.83|||ANOVA|||For comparison of the Geometric Mean Titers at one month postvaccination at 12 months of age, MenACWY-CRM197 was determined to be non-inferior to MenC if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of the MenACWY-CRM197 to MenC Geometric Mean Titers for serogroup C was greater than 0.5.||1.83|0.96|
95874546|NCT02443519|191705451|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.6||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.9||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to adjust for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in the proportino of people with Severe MIDAS scores (Score \>=21) in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||3.9|-0.7|.027
95966806|NCT00305344|191904535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference between AUC C-peptide at baseline and 1 or 2 years post cord blood infusion||||>0.05
95966807|NCT00672737|191904536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0025|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0009|0.0041|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0025 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0041|0.0009|<0.05
95874547|NCT02443519|191705452|SUPERIORITY||Slope|14.1|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|21.8||Significance threshold set a priori at .025 to account for two co-primary outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|Positive slope indicated larger reductions in HDI in the MBCT-M group compared to the WL/TAU group.|||21.8|0.8|<.004
95874548|NCT02443519|191705453|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.8||Threshold for statistical significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with Treatment and Time in the model|A positive slope indicates greater reduction in headache days in the MBCT-M group vs. the WL/TAU group.|||2.8|-3.7|.773
95874549|NCT02443519|191705454|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in headache attack pain intensity in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||0.16|-0.14|.888
95966808|NCT00672737|191904536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9694||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9127|-0.0261|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2 the cold pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.9694 seconds for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0261|-1.9127|0.05
95874550|NCT02443519|191705455|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.45||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|12.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Pain Catastrophizing Scale in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||12.42|2.48|.035
95874551|NCT02443519|191705456|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.05||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Chronic Pain Acceptance in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||4.74|-10.83|.572
95874552|NCT02443519|191705457|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.65||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|6.46||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a smaller decrease in the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.46|-11.76|.609
95966809|NCT00672737|191904537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0001|-0.0001|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for IGFBP-1: for every 1-pg/mL increase in its serum level, the heat pain threshold will additionally decrease by 0.0001 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||-0.0001|-0.0001|<0.05
95966810|NCT00672737|191904537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0172|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.0556|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for body mass index, age of the volunteers, and a binary variable indicating the type (home-based vs. in-laboratory).|Mixed linear regression|Beta for SaO2: for every 1-%-absolute decrease in the nadir SaO2, the heat pain threshold will additionally increase by 0.0172 'C for every 1-mcg/mL increase in the plasma level of remifentanil.||0.0556|-0.018|<0.05
95966811|NCT01310231|191904553|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.31||One-sided p-value for group-effect obtained from Cox model. The prespecified threshold was 0.20 (one-sided).|Regression, Cox|Cox model for PFS with metf/plac and the two randomization stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.|Ratio of hazard of progression in the Metformin group relative to hazard in the Placebo group|Power: Final study plan called for 40 progression events, giving 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 for PFS with a one-sided type I error of 20%, where the relatively high type I error reflects the Phase II status of the trial||2.31|0.63|0.71
95966812|NCT01310231|191904554|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.99||Two-side p-value from a logistic regression model.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included metf/plac and the two stratification variables line of chemotherapy and hormone receptor status.||||6.99|0.45|0.41
95966813|NCT03083665|191904566|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|24.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.5||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||35.5|11.7|0.0005
95966814|NCT03083665|191904566|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|43.1||Statistical testing with control of Type I error rate were based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA||Based on ANCOVA with log-transformed \[log(x+1)\] Treatment Period 28-day adjusted partial seizure frequency.|||43.1|21.9|<0.0001
95966815|NCT03008005|191904586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
95966816|NCT03008005|191904587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
95966817|NCT05292586|191904588|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.104|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.148|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.148|0.061|<0.001
95966818|NCT05292586|191904589|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.173|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.173|0.076|<0.001
95966819|NCT05292586|191904590|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.139|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.139|0.063|<0.001
95966820|NCT05292586|191904591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.154|0.071|<0.001
95966821|NCT05292586|191904592|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.069||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.115|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.115|0.023|0.003
95966822|NCT05292586|191904593|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.044||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.088|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change from baseline -- Week 4~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.088|0.000|0.050
95966823|NCT05292586|191904593|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.041||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.089|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline -- Week 8~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.089|-0.007|0.098
95966824|NCT05292586|191904593|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.043||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.086|||ANCOVA|||"3\_Change from baseline -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.086|-0.001|0.056
95966825|NCT05292586|191904594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.855|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 4||1.855|0.949|0.098
95966826|NCT05292586|191904594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.772|||Logistic regression model|||2\_Responders at Week 8||1.772|0.898|0.180
95966827|NCT05292586|191904594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.117|2.203|||Logistic regression model|||3\_Responders at Week 12||2.203|1.117|0.009
95966828|NCT05292586|191904595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.284|2.587|||Logistic regression model|||1\_Responders at Week 12||2.587|1.284|<0.001
95966829|NCT05292586|191904596|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.78||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|14.27|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.27|3.30|0.002
95966830|NCT05292586|191904597|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.14|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline; Week 0 -- Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||14.14|3.32|0.002
95874553|NCT02443519|191705458|SUPERIORITY||Slope|8.45||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|13.91||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in Headache Specific Locus of Control Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||13.91|2.99|.022
95874554|NCT02443519|191705459|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|3.53||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicates a greater improvement in Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||3.53|-7.56|.124
95874555|NCT02443519|191705460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.48||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.33||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Depression score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||6.33|0.63|.017
95874556|NCT02443519|191705461|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.82||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|5.68||Threshold for significance set a priori at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL.TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A positive slope indicates a greater reduction in PROMIS-Anxiety score in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU.|||5.68|-0.03|.259
95874557|NCT02443519|191705462|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|The key test was the Treatment (MBCT-M vs. WL/TAU) X Time (Month 1 vs. 4) interaction with both Treatment and Time in the model.|A negative slope indicated a larger decrease in MIDI scores in the MBCT-M group vs. WL/TAU|||-0.3|-1.6|.007
95874558|NCT01436162|191705474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||1.3|-2.3|0.583
95874559|NCT01436162|191705475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeat Measures|||||0.7|-1.9|0.354
95874560|NCT02567552|191705497|OTHER|||||||0.3395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3395
95874561|NCT02567552|191705498|OTHER|||||||0.1523|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1523
95874562|NCT02567552|191705499|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison between groups||||0.1189
95874563|NCT02567552|191705501|OTHER|||||||0.2042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2042
95874564|NCT02567552|191705502|OTHER|||||||0.6262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6262
95874565|NCT02567552|191705503|OTHER|||||||0.2301|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2301
95874566|NCT02567552|191705504|OTHER|||||||0.5118|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5118
95874567|NCT02567552|191705505|OTHER|||||||0.8371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8371
95874568|NCT02567552|191705506|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95874569|NCT02567552|191705507|OTHER|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
95874570|NCT02567552|191705508|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95874571|NCT01532973|191705510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.77|4.74||||||||4.74|3.77|
95874572|NCT01532973|191705510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.92|4.9||||||||4.90|3.92|
95874573|NCT01532973|191705510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.08|4.05||||||||4.05|3.08|
95874574|NCT01532973|191705511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.69||||||||1.69|0.34|
95874575|NCT01532973|191705511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.74||||||||2.74|1.39|
95874576|NCT01532973|191705511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.05|3.39||||||||3.39|2.05|
95874577|NCT01532973|191705512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.68|3.72||||||||3.72|2.68|
95874578|NCT01532973|191705512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.44|4.47||||||||4.47|3.44|
95874579|NCT01532973|191705513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|4.58||||||||4.58|3.20|
95874580|NCT01532973|191705513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.98|5.36||||||||5.36|3.98|
95874581|NCT01532973|191705513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.92|4.3||||||||4.30|2.92|
95966831|NCT05292586|191904598|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.112||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline in ACQ-7 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||-0.013|-0.211|0.026
95966832|NCT05292586|191904598|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.02||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.118|||ANCOVA|||"2\_Change from baseline in ACQ-5 at Week 12~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||0.118|-0.077|0.686
95966833|NCT05292586|191904599|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.82||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.33|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.330|0.310|0.033
95966834|NCT05292586|191904600|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.78||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|7.985|||ANCOVA|||"1\_Change From Baseline~Statistical analysis used all available data and imputed missing data (i.e., whether due to missed visits, unperformed or unevaluable assessments at intermediate timepoints, or early study discontinuation) in ITT population (overall population N=283 in CHF 1535 pMDI 800/24 μg study group; N=280 in the CHF 718 pMDI 800 μg study group)."||7.985|-0.425|0.078
95966835|NCT02726945|191904610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.023
95966836|NCT02726945|191904610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Data from the groups showed a strong non-normal distribution, thus non-parametric methods were used with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison .~Statistical significance was defined as either of the treatment groups to be superior to the placebo group."||||0.043
95966837|NCT03843554|191904611|SUPERIORITY|Primary hypothesis. Null hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome of WHO OM severity grades 0-2 at the post study evaluation will not differ between the two randomized intervention groups. The estimated proportion of successes from our pilot trial is 0.30 with SOC. The alternative hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with a successful outcome differs between the two groups from the SOC proportion of 0.30 by +/-0.265 or more.||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|OM WHO grading scale (less or equal to 2) severity employed a two-sided Fisher's exact test to compare the two arms at Visit 9.||||||0.999
95966838|NCT03843554|191904612|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|174.6||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The above t-test p-value is for IL1a.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t-test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.6336
95966839|NCT03843554|191904612|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.1||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL1b|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
95966840|NCT03843554|191904612|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.8||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||IL2|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.3510
95966841|NCT03843554|191904612|SUPERIORITY|IL4|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.0||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.8371
95966842|NCT03843554|191904612|SUPERIORITY|IL5|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The change in the inflammatory marker from baseline to the final intervention visit was analyzed using 95% confidence intervals and presented by treatment group. The two-sided t- test was used to compare the change in inflammatory markers between the two groups.||||0.2991
95966843|NCT03843554|191904613|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8555||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.906|1.4475|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.4475|-1.9060|0.2373
95966844|NCT03843554|191904614|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1755|0.2893||A Week 8 general linear mixed effects model (GLM) was used to compare the change in saliva flow rate from Baseline (day 0) to week 8 (day 56) between the two groups. The change was calculated by subtracting week 8 saliva flow rate from the Baseline.|ANCOVA||Estimation of the difference in least-square means for the change from Baseline to FIV in saliva flow rate.|||0.2893|-0.1755|0.6263
95966845|NCT03843554|191904615|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94||||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|A Week 8 (Day 56) GLM analyzing the pain change Week 8 relative to Baseline (Day 0) was used with treatment and Baseline pain as covariates.|Difference in least-square mean change from baseline to Visit 9 in pain score.|||||0.6956
95966846|NCT03843554|191904616|SUPERIORITY|OMDP-STANDARD|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4095|0.0334|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA via generalized linear mixed repeated measures model (GLMER)||The statistical analysis comprised an ANCOVA for a longitudinal response based on a generalized linear mixed effects repeated measures model (GLMER). The response variable is the mean change from Baseline to Visit 9 in EORTC QLQ-C30 Questions 31-48 (total).||0.0334|-0.4095|0.1153
95874582|NCT01532973|191705514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.54||||||||1.54|-0.09|
95874583|NCT01532973|191705514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.75|3.39||||||||3.39|1.75|
95966847|NCT00264303|191904630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.005||95.0|0.08|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate.||||0.43|0.08|0.005
95874584|NCT01532973|191705514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.66||||||||3.66|2.02|
95874585|NCT01532973|191705515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.55|3.8||||||||3.80|2.55|
95874586|NCT01532973|191705515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|4.26||||||||4.26|3.00|
95874587|NCT05032859|191705526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||3.32|1.54|<0.0001
95874588|NCT05032859|191705527|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.53|<0.0001
95874589|NCT05032859|191705528|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-5.02|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-5.02|-8.17|<0.0001
95874590|NCT05032859|191705529|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.34||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.||Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|3.94|1.39|0.0013
95966848|NCT00264303|191904631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.041||95.0|0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline CIU composite score as covariate||||0.34|0.01|0.041
95874591|NCT05032859|191705530|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.50|1.34|0.0015
95874592|NCT03552965|191705534|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.14, SD=0.378, Range=1, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=7 Robust: Mean=1.17, SD=0.577, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=1, 75th percentile=1, n=12"|||
95874593|NCT03552965|191705535|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.894, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.91, SD=1.136, Range=3, 25th percentile=2, Median=3, 75th percentile=4, n=11"|||
95874594|NCT03552965|191705536|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2.5, SD=0.577, Range=1, 25th percentile=2, Median=2.5, 75th percentile=3, n=4 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1.225, Range=3, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.5, n=9"|||
95874595|NCT03552965|191705537|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=1.83, SD=0.753, Range=2, 25th percentile=1, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=2.33, SD=1, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=3, n=9"|||
95874596|NCT03552965|191705538|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=2, SD=0.707, Range=2, 25th percentile=1.5, Median=2, 75th percentile=2.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=2.38, SD=1.188, Range=3, 25th percentile=1.25, Median=2, 75th percentile=3.75, n=8"|||
95874597|NCT03552965|191705539|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=15.5, SD=23.76242, Range=75, 25th percentile=0, Median=5, 75th percentile=21.25, n=10 Robust: Mean=14.1346, SD=17.87095, Range=52.5, 25th percentile=0, Median=6.25, 75th percentile=27.5, n=13"|||
95874598|NCT03552965|191705540|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=45.625, SD=30.68744, Range=71.25, 25th percentile=11.25, Median=58.125, 75th percentile=71.25, n=6 Robust: Mean=64.3182, SD=15.0142, Range=48.75, 25th percentile=66.25, Median=70, 75th percentile=71.25, n=11"|||
95874599|NCT03552965|191705541|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=60, SD=23.68412, Range=60, 25th percentile=38.125, Median=68.75, 75th percentile=77.5, n=5 Robust: Mean=54.8611, SD=29.91815, Range=80, 25th percentile=24.375, Median=66.25, 75th percentile=80, n=9"|||
95874600|NCT03552965|191705542|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=31.67, SD=31.38139, Range=85, 25th percentile=5.625, Median=25, 75th percentile=56.875, n=6 Robust: Mean=54.0278, SD=24.57274, Range=67.5, 25th percentile=33.75, Median=62.5, 75th percentile=72.5, n=9"|||
95874601|NCT03552965|191705543|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence and grade of xerostomia over time.~Margin-based: Mean=50.75, SD=30.29284, Range=72.5, 25th percentile=21.875, Median=48.75, 75th percentile=80.625, n=5 Robust: Mean=38.4375, SD=26.69897, Range=66.25, 25th percentile=15, Median=29.375, 75th percentile=68.75, n=8"|||
95966849|NCT00264303|191904632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.004||95.0|0.04|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus severity score as covariate.||||0.22|0.04|0.004
95966850|NCT00264303|191904633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.002||95.0|0.06|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline pruritus duration as covariate.||||0.26|0.06|0.002
95874602|NCT05595382|191705544|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measures of likelihood to enroll (on a 1 to 7 scale with higher numbers indicating a greater likelihood) pre/post intervention||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 359)||||||.001
95874603|NCT05595382|191705545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom (1, 358)||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing mood (rated on a 1-10 scale with higher scores indicating better mood) given to participants before and after the study manipulation by group||||.357
95874604|NCT05595382|191705546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||ANOVA|||||||.102
95874605|NCT03722173|191705547|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|141.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.64|154.71|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the geometric means (gMeans) (T/R) for AUC0-tz and their 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||154.71|129.64|
95874606|NCT03722173|191705548|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|113.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.47|125.32|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for Cmax and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||125.32|102.47|
95874607|NCT03722173|191705549|OTHER|Since the main focus was on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range was not specified; no hypothesis was tested.|gMeans ratio (T/R) %|142.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.3|155.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment' was used.|Standard error of the mean is actually an intra-individual coefficient variation (CV). Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA and quantiles from the t distribution.|Point estimates for the ratios of the gMeans (T/R) for AUC0-∞ and their 2-sided 90% CIs were provided. The difference between the expected means for log(T) - log(R) were estimated by the difference in the corresponding adjusted means (Least Squares Means).||155.93|130.30|
95874608|NCT04571515|191705550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|46.6|||Emax|||||46.6|9.9|0.003
95966851|NCT00264303|191904634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.009||95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled centers as factors and baseline pruritus duration score as covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.009
95966852|NCT00264303|191904635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||<|0.001||95.0|0.07|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline severity as covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested in this study was that the clinical efficacy of Levocetirizine 5 mg is superior to that of Desloratidine 5 mg||0.26|0.07|<0.001
95966853|NCT02389452|191904636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95874609|NCT04571515|191705550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|45.3|||Emax|||||45.3|13.8|<0.001
95874610|NCT04571515|191705550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|46.2|||Emax|||||46.2|14.4|<0.001
95874611|NCT04571515|191705550|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|48.6|||Emax|||||48.6|13.5|<0.001
95874612|NCT04571515|191705551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.4|
95966854|NCT01006252|191904650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.121||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.121
95966855|NCT01006252|191904651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.048||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|Analysis adjusted for Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH); Disease Stage; Sex; Previous Single Agent Immunotherapy Treatment; Age Group||||||0.048
95966856|NCT01006252|191904652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates||||||0.396
95966857|NCT01006252|191904654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Unadjusted normal distribution|Unadjusted normal-distribution approximation for the difference in rates.||||||0.483
95966858|NCT01006252|191904655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.505||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Stratified log rank|||||||0.505
95874613|NCT04571515|191705551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.5|
95966859|NCT01006252|191904656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
95966860|NCT01006252|191904656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
95874614|NCT04571515|191705551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-1.8|
95966861|NCT01006252|191904658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.902
95966862|NCT01006252|191904658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||P-value given for Overall Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.970
95966863|NCT01006252|191904659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
95966864|NCT01006252|191904659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
95966865|NCT01006252|191904661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547||95.0||||P-value given for Main Treatment Effect from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.547
95966866|NCT01006252|191904661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||P-value given for Treatment-By-Cycle Interaction from the repeated measure model where time was a class variable. Statistical significance was assessed at an alpha level of 0.05.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM analyses limited to first 4 cycles due to sparse data; data from 30-day follow-up visit coded to first cycle after last on-treatment cycle.||||||0.414
95966867|NCT02683772|191904671|NON_INFERIORITY|The method proposed for this analysis was a one-sided paired t-test using a significance level of 0.05 and a non-inferiority margin of 2 events/hour|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.23||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0134
95966868|NCT01498887|191904680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3118
95966869|NCT02993406|191904695|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.79|0.004
95874615|NCT04571515|191705551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-1.1|
95966870|NCT02993406|191904696|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.76|0.0058
95966871|NCT02993406|191904697|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.66|0.0016
95966872|NCT02993406|191904698|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.72|0.0013
95966873|NCT02993406|191904699|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.67|0.1593
95966874|NCT02993406|191904700|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.88|0.6227
95966875|NCT02993406|191904701|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.90|0.6608
95966876|NCT02187159|191904725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.25|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.25|-0.97|0.0008
95966877|NCT02187159|191904725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0392
95966878|NCT02187159|191904725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.2192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.13|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.13|-0.58|0.2192
95966879|NCT02187159|191904725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.59|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.59|-0.13|0.2095
95966880|NCT02187159|191904725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.75|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.75|0.02|0.0381
95966881|NCT02187159|191904727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-4.44|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-4.44|-10.71|<0.0001
95966882|NCT02187159|191904727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.36|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||-0.36|-6.68|0.0289
95966883|NCT02187159|191904727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|0.62|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||0.62|-5.75|0.1148
95874616|NCT04571515|191705552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|23.1|||Emax|||||23.1|7.3|<0.001
95874617|NCT04571515|191705552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|22.9|||Emax|||||22.9|9.3|<0.001
95966884|NCT02187159|191904727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|7.23|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||7.23|0.87|0.0125
95874618|NCT04571515|191705552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.4|||Emax|||||23.4|9.7|<0.001
95874619|NCT04571515|191705552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|24.7|||Emax|||||24.7|9.4|<0.001
95874620|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.208
95874621|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.005
95874622|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.192
95874623|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Perceptible Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.067
95874624|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.059
95874625|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||<0.001
95966885|NCT02187159|191904727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.647||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|8.24|||Difference of means|||Analysis was based on multiple imputation and pattern mixture model with delta shifting.||8.24|1.78|0.0023
95874626|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.017
95874627|NCT04571515|191705553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Meaningful Pain Relief Subjects are censored at 24 hours if they do not report relief.||||0.002
95874628|NCT04571515|191705554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.051
95966886|NCT02187159|191904729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
95874629|NCT04571515|191705554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.035
95874630|NCT04571515|191705554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.016
95874631|NCT04571515|191705554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.180
95874632|NCT04571515|191705555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.022
95874633|NCT04571515|191705555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.028
95874634|NCT04571515|191705555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.007
95874635|NCT04571515|191705555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.005
95874636|NCT06624449|191705559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95874637|NCT01828320|191705584|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.08||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.34
95966887|NCT02187159|191904729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0247
95966888|NCT02187159|191904729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.1|0.0411
95966889|NCT02187159|191904729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.0|0.0352
95874638|NCT01828320|191705585|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.93
95874639|NCT01828320|191705586|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.01
95874640|NCT01828320|191705587|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.17
95874641|NCT01828320|191705588|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.31
95874642|NCT01828320|191705589|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.001||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.80
95874643|NCT01828320|191705590|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.96
95874644|NCT01828320|191705591|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
95874645|NCT01828320|191705592|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
95874646|NCT01828320|191705593|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
95874647|NCT01828320|191705594|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.04
95966890|NCT02187159|191904729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.1|0.0214
95966891|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.5|0.0003
95966892|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.7|0.5066
95874648|NCT01828320|191705595|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.03
95874649|NCT01828320|191705596|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.71
95874650|NCT01828320|191705597|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.83
95874651|NCT01828320|191705598|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.11||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.85
95966893|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.9|0.1462
95966894|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.3|0.3|0.0035
95966895|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.1|0.0|0.0338
95966896|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-1.3|0.0116
95966897|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.7|0.7085
95966898|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.5|0.9392
95966899|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.2|0.1|0.0311
95966900|NCT02187159|191904730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.3|0.2|0.0094
95874652|NCT01828320|191705599|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
95874653|NCT01828320|191705600|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.05
95966901|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.439|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||2.439|0.074|0.0373
95966902|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|1.545|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.545|-0.817|0.5458
95874654|NCT01828320|191705601|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.88
95874655|NCT01828320|191705602|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.04||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.97
95874656|NCT01828320|191705603|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: Alone"||||0.88
95966903|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6038||0.6968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.420|-0.949|0.6968
95966904|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6014||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.073|0.287|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.287|-2.073|0.1379
95966905|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6033||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.205|0.163|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.163|-2.205|0.0908
95966906|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6965||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|3.256|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin||3.256|0.523|0.0068
95874657|NCT01828320|191705603|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|-0.18||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a family member"||||0.43
95874658|NCT01828320|191705603|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||"Composite Risk Score of Functioning in Social Domain measured via Ecological Momentary Assessment: With a peer"||||0.37
95874659|NCT01828320|191705604|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.29||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.02
95874660|NCT01828320|191705605|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.07||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.49
95874661|NCT01828320|191705606|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.60
95966907|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.406|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6956||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.959|1.771|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.771|-0.959|0.5594
95966908|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6979||0.9736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.346|1.392|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.392|-1.346|0.9736
95966909|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.484|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6953||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.848|-0.119|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.119|-2.848|0.0331
95966910|NCT02187159|191904731|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6976||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.235|-0.498|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.498|-3.235|0.0076
95966911|NCT02187159|191904732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01328||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0048|0.057|||ANCOVA|||||0.0570|0.0048|0.0201
95966912|NCT02187159|191904732|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01324||0.1798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0082|0.0438|||ANCOVA|||||0.0438|-0.0082|0.1798
95966913|NCT02187159|191904732|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0189|0.0332|||ANCOVA|||||0.0332|-0.0189|0.5922
95966914|NCT02187159|191904732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0392|0.0129|||ANCOVA|||||0.0129|-0.0392|0.3221
95966915|NCT02187159|191904732|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0133||0.0739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0499|0.0023|||ANCOVA|||||0.0023|-0.0499|0.0739
95966916|NCT02187159|191904733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.79|0.0015
95966917|NCT02187159|191904733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.26|-0.86|0.0003
95966918|NCT02187159|191904733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.81|0.0008
95966919|NCT02187159|191904733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.37|0.6464
95966920|NCT02187159|191904733|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.33|0.8543
95966921|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-1.0|0.0014
95966922|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1285
95966923|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.6595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6595
95966924|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0938
95966925|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0061
95966926|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.8|0.0235
95874662|NCT01828320|191705607|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random was used to examine continuous outcomes.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.42
95874663|NCT01828320|191705608|SUPERIORITY||d (effect size)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|Using intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling with maximum likelihood estimation with the assumption of missing at random, to examine continuous outcomes||||||0.01
95874664|NCT02053051|191705656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95874665|NCT01886716|191705701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .71|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training."||||=.40
95874666|NCT01886716|191705701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|=|0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .08|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training."||||=.78
95874667|NCT01886716|191705702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = .18|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares alcohol vs. control training"||||=.67
95874668|NCT01886716|191705702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|=|0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||F(1,517) = 1.01|"The analyses used multilevel modeling to capture both the trajectories of symptoms within individuals (i.e., level 1) and the hypothesized between-subject moderators of these trajectories, alcohol and anxiety attention training (i.e., level 2) across all 7 time points.~Note, although all 4 groups are included in this analysis, this analysis specifically compares anxiety vs. control training"||||=.32
95874669|NCT00810108|191705790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The geometric mean and 90% confidence interval assessed whether the crushed and whole tablet administration AUCs were equivalent.|Ratio of Crushed/Whole Tablet AUC|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Lopinavir AUC was compared between whole tablet and crushed tablet administration by using a ratio of crushed/whole AUC.||0.69|0.45|<0.05
95874670|NCT04806503|191705798|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.056|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.056|-0.045|0.817
95874671|NCT04806503|191705798|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0262||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.053|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.053|-0.050|0.946
95874672|NCT04806503|191705798|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.029|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.029|-0.077|0.380
95874673|NCT04806503|191705798|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.062|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.062|-0.039|0.667
95874674|NCT04806503|191705799|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0304||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.081|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.081|-0.038|0.474
95874675|NCT04806503|191705799|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.086|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.086|-0.036|0.419
95874676|NCT04806503|191705799|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0322||0.914||95.0|-0.06|0.067|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.067|-0.060|0.914
95874677|NCT04806503|191705799|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0305||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.094|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.094|-0.026|0.263
95874678|NCT04806503|191705800|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.083|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.083|-0.024|0.284
95874679|NCT04806503|191705800|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0278||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.065|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.065|-0.044|0.711
95874680|NCT04806503|191705800|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.06|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.060|-0.051|0.871
95874681|NCT04806503|191705800|OTHER|Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures model-based two-sided t-test|Least Squares Mean|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.08|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.080|-0.027|0.329
95874682|NCT04806503|191705801|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|10.847|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||10.847|0.083|0.516
95874683|NCT04806503|191705801|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|16.398|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||16.398|0.367|0.177
95874684|NCT04806503|191705801|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|22.094|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||22.094|0.604|0.079
95874685|NCT04806503|191705801|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|8.381|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||8.381|0.136|0.476
95966927|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3652
95874686|NCT04806503|191705802|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|3.726|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.726|0.201|0.577
95874687|NCT04806503|191705802|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|2.353|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.353|0.113|0.804
95874688|NCT04806503|191705802|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|2.602|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||2.602|0.045|0.850
95874689|NCT04806503|191705802|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|3.08|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.080|0.157|0.684
95874690|NCT04806503|191705803|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|3.593|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.593|0.089|0.728
95874691|NCT04806503|191705803|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|5.529|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||5.529|0.242|0.428
95874692|NCT04806503|191705803|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0||NA when n = 1.||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression||||||0.000|0.500
95874693|NCT04806503|191705803|OTHER|Logistic model-based one-sided t-test|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|3.07|||Multiple Imputation, Logistic Regression|||||3.070|0.026|0.851
95874694|NCT03914326|191705865|SUPERIORITY|Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.77|0.0028
95874695|NCT05027464|191705890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|1.759||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was P \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Patient demographics were fixed effects, and randomization units with clinics nested within randomization units were random effects.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Generalized linear mixed model to account for patient demographics and hierarchical levels for clinics nested within VAHCS. Null hypothesis is that both arms perform equivalently in vaccine uptake after a year. Power was based on recruited VAHCSs and at least 1,000 Veterans per clinic. Using two-sided 0.05 type I error rate, 5-20% outcome rate in UC, we have 90% power to detect between a 9.6% and 14.6% difference with a total sample size of 90,000 to 100,000.||1.759|0.888|0.202
95874696|NCT05027464|191705890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.228||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.738|0.867|0.247
95966928|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.4|0.6885
95874697|NCT05027464|191705890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.263||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|2.334|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity analysis; same model and null hypothesis but reassigning small clinics to their parent VAHCS facility, small meaning \< 100 participants. This data set uses the primary analysis data set with the primary visit constraint.||2.334|0.684|0.455
95874698|NCT05027464|191705890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|2.075|||Regression, Logistic|||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||2.075|0.765|0.364
95874699|NCT05027464|191705890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.268||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.778|||Regression, Logistic|||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.778|0.904|0.168
95966929|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1726
95966930|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.0|0.0627
95966931|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.2|-0.8|0.0026
95966932|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.6|0.1362
95966933|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.4|0.4344
95966934|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.1|0.1264
95966935|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|0.0|0.0260
95966936|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.1|0.0002
95966937|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0597
95966938|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1198
95966939|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.240|-0.885|0.0006
95966940|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.583|0.061|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.061|-0.583|0.1118
95966941|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1646||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.180|-0.465|0.3870
95966942|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1642||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.624|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.624|-0.020|0.0633
95966943|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.744|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.744|0.097|0.0108
95966944|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||12.2|2.7|0.0020
95966945|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|7.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||7.7|-1.8|0.2188
95966946|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||8.7|-0.8|0.0991
95966947|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-9.2|0.0611
95966948|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.2|-8.2|0.1489
95966949|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-6.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.751||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-2.60|-9.47|0.0006
95966950|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.747||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.67|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.67|-7.52|0.0193
95966951|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.80|-5.07|0.3506
95966952|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.37|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.37|-1.48|0.2660
95966953|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.754||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.84|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||7.84|0.96|0.0122
95966954|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0119
95966955|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0659
95966956|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5104
95966957|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.4934
95966958|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0634
95966959|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.3|-1.1|0.0007
95966960|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.8|0.0837
95966961|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2379
95966962|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.0980
95966963|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0283
95966964|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2179
95966965|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6683
95966966|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.2|0.2247
95966967|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.2|0.4198
95966968|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0146
95966969|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0662
95966970|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.7|0.2282
95966971|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.7336
95966972|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.5240
95966973|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1349
95966974|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0464
95966975|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.0975
95966976|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.3|0.6088
95966977|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.7341
95966978|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.1|0.0125
95966979|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.5|-1.4|<0.0001
95966980|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.4|-1.3|0.0003
95966981|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.2|-1.1|0.0040
95966982|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5801
95966983|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1869
95966984|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.4|-1.3|0.0002
95966985|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||-0.1|-0.9|0.0271
95966986|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.1123
95966987|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1183
95966988|NCT02187159|191904735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|0.0|0.0299
95966989|NCT02187159|191904736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.034|||ANCOVA|||||0.034|-0.063|0.5578
95966990|NCT02187159|191904736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0248||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.039|||ANCOVA|||||0.039|-0.058|0.7034
95966991|NCT02187159|191904736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.028|||ANCOVA|||||0.028|-0.069|0.4143
95966992|NCT02187159|191904736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.054|||ANCOVA|||||0.054|-0.044|0.8365
95966993|NCT02187159|191904736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0249||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.043|||ANCOVA|||||0.043|-0.055|0.8189
95966994|NCT01174446|191904761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence will be established if 90% C.I. of ratio is contained completely in the margins of equivalence of 0.8 to 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.09||||||||1.09|1.03|
95966995|NCT01174446|191904788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.779||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.7790
95966996|NCT01174446|191904788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8999||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8999
95874700|NCT05027464|191705891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.535||P \< 0.05 and no multiple comparison adjustment|Regression, Logistic|We adjusted for patient demographics as fixed effects and randomization units and associated clinics as a three-level random effect.|An odds ratio above one indicates favoring the intervention arm over the usual care arm.|Power calculation is similar to the calculation for the primary outcome. Null hypothesis is described in the outcome comparison related to this statistical analysis plan.||1.535|0.643|.976
95966997|NCT01174446|191904789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0056
95874701|NCT05027464|191705891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.978||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.361|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity analysis, same null hypothesis and model as primary analysis but different pool of patients: Not constrained to Veterans with at least one primary care visit||1.361|0.702|0.893
95874702|NCT05027464|191705891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.961||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary outcome but the source of vaccination records omits Medicare claims data. The primary data source had included Medicare claims data on vaccination records as a supplement to the VA data.||1.507|0.613|0.863
95874703|NCT05027464|191705891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.011||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.607|||Regression, Logistic|GLMM||"Sensitivity Analysis: same model and null hypothesis as primary analysis model but the source of data is supplemented by state level registries, named IZ Gateway, which was deployed summer of 2023 where Veteran records of vaccination could be updated at the VA from external vaccination facilities if the Veteran entered the VA in the same state as that vaccination facility. The primary analysis data contains Medicare claims data in this analysis, too."||1.607|0.636|0.963
95874704|NCT05027464|191705892|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.191||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.781||Threshold: P \< 0.05; not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed modeling adjusted for baseline covariates and hierarchical levels for randomization units and clinics within them.|Odds ratio in favor of intervention arm (MI) has values higher than 1.|No power calculation for this exploratory outcome. Null hypothesis is that both arms will have equal uptake rates of the COVID-19 Booster vaccination during the study period.||1.781|0.796|0.395
95874705|NCT05027464|191705893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.311||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the p-value threshold was \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized linear mixed model adjusting for baseline covariates and flu vaccine in prior year, with hierarchical random effects for ran. unit/site|Odds ratio in favor of novel intervention arm has values higher than 1|Null hypothesis is that both study arms will have equal rates of flu vaccination uptake during the study period. No power calculation since this outcome is exploratory.||1.311|0.97|0.119
95874706|NCT03053271|191705894|OTHER|No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||||||||||||||||No statistical test was done as only 4 subjects could be enrolled, none met criteria for randomization, and the study was discontinued by the Sponsor.|||
95874707|NCT00580970|191705899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9138||||||Considering all late rectal toxicities, 38% (20/53) of participants developed physician reported Grade 2 or higher GI toxicity during 2 year follow up. The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|A one sided t-test, with 5% level of significance, and 83% power was used which required 53 subjects.||||||0.9138
95874708|NCT00570765|191705904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||Hierarchical testing strategy was proposed to account for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was evaluated as follows: if statistical significance at alpha=0.05 is shown for the 10 mg OCA versus placebo, then the statistical significance at alpha=0.05 for the 50 mg OCA versus placebo was evaluated. If no statistical significance was shown at alpha=0.05 at the first step, then the subsequent comparison was not considered statistically significant.||||<0.0001
95874709|NCT00570765|191705905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Treatment arms compared using 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level. Treatment groups were pairwise compared versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95874710|NCT00570765|191705906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Tx arms will be compared using the 2-sided Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, at 5% significance level. Tx groups will be pairwise compared vs. placebo.||||||<0.01
95874711|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12||||||Serotype 1: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.12|0.74|
95874712|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.98||||||Serotype 3: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.98|0.70|
95874713|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.91||||||Serotype 4: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.91|0.55|
95966998|NCT01174446|191904789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4130
95966999|NCT01174446|191904790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9059||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9059
95967000|NCT01174446|191904790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4098||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4098
95967001|NCT01174446|191904791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0189||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0189
95967002|NCT01174446|191904791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2974||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2974
95874714|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18||||||Serotype 5: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.78|
95874715|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.85|0.53|
95874716|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||||||Serotype 6B: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.08|0.64|
95874717|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||||||Serotype 7F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.83|
95967003|NCT01174446|191904792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2009||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2009
95967004|NCT01174446|191904792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3552||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3552
95967005|NCT01174446|191904793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5143||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5143
95967006|NCT01174446|191904793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9223||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9223
95967007|NCT01174446|191904794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0162||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0162
95967008|NCT01174446|191904794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3176||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3176
95967009|NCT01174446|191904795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.821||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.8210
95967010|NCT01174446|191904795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5565||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5565
95874718|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||||||Serotype 9V: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.0|0.69|
95874719|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92||||||Serotype 14: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||0.92|0.62|
95874720|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06||||||Serotype 18C: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.06|0.64|
95967011|NCT01174446|191904796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0146||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0146
95967012|NCT01174446|191904796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4048
95967013|NCT01174446|191904797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1258||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1258
95967014|NCT01174446|191904797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2567||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2567
95967015|NCT01174446|191904798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1048||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.1048
95967016|NCT01174446|191904798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6410
95967017|NCT01174446|191904799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0663
95967018|NCT01174446|191904799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.489||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4890
95967019|NCT01174446|191904800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0562||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0562
95967020|NCT01174446|191904800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3864||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.3864
95967021|NCT01174446|191904801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5792||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5792
95967022|NCT01174446|191904802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4208||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.4208
95967023|NCT01174446|191904803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.5000
95967024|NCT01174446|191904804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0633||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.0633
95967025|NCT01174446|191904804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||0.9363
95967026|NCT00186017|191904853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
95967027|NCT00186017|191904854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
95967028|NCT00186017|191904855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>.1
95967029|NCT01512797|191904871|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||P-value refers to paired t-test comparing pre-intervention and post-intervention timepoints in Sitagliptin group.|t-test, 2 sided|||Power analysis. Based on the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors in non-operated subjects with type 2 diabetes, showing a significant decrease in 120' post-prandial glucose by 1.67 mmol/L ± 0.98 mmol/L after a MMT, we estimated that a sample size of 16 subjects per group will show post-prandial glucose differences between placebo and sitagliptin group with α = 0.05 for a power \> 90%.||||0.028
95967030|NCT00504777|191904903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95967031|NCT00504777|191904906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0054
95967032|NCT01038427|191904922|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence intervals were contained within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%, then the two products were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Ratio Test/Ref. Least Squares (LS) Means|106.644|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.86|123.997||||||||123.997|91.860|
95967033|NCT01038427|191904923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967034|NCT01038427|191904923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95967035|NCT01038427|191904924|EQUIVALENCE|90% confidence intervals within the interval 80.0% to 125.0%.|Ratio Test/Ref. LS Means|109.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.316|129.159||||||||129.159|93.316|
95967036|NCT01038427|191904925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967037|NCT01038427|191904925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967038|NCT01038427|191904926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2655|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2655
95967039|NCT01038427|191904926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
95967040|NCT01038427|191904926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1093|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1093
95967041|NCT01038427|191904927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9915
95967042|NCT01038427|191904927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
95967043|NCT01038427|191904927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
95967044|NCT02992691|191904928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.6674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||From ANCOVA analysis for change from pre-brushing with treatment and period as fixed effect, participant as random effect, participant-level baseline and period level minus participant-level baseline as covariates.|ANCOVA|||This comparison was tested under a null hypothesis of no difference against alternative hypothesis of a difference between treatments||0.04|-0.06|0.6674
95967045|NCT03651700|191904931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95967046|NCT03651700|191904932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95967047|NCT00455741|191904939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||effect of age on estrogen negative feedback ( nadir LH as % of baseline LH)||||0.90
95967048|NCT00455741|191904939|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||a priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05|ANOVA|||positive feedback||||<0.03
95967049|NCT00455741|191904940|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.03||||||a priori significance level p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||=0.03
95967050|NCT00455741|191904941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95967051|NCT00455741|191904942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||a priori threshold for significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.02
95967052|NCT00455741|191904943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
95967053|NCT00455741|191904944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||a priori significance set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95967054|NCT01840410|191904945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|12.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.91|6.97|<0.001
95967055|NCT03041792|191904959|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-235.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.13||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.25|-149.25||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-149.25|-322.25|0.0000
95967056|NCT03041792|191904959|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-243.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.6||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.1|-148.15||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-148.15|-339.10|0.0000
95967057|NCT03041792|191904964|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-859.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|167.76||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1196.1|-523.1||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||-523.10|-1196.1|0.0000
95967058|NCT03041792|191904964|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-928.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|193.8||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.3|-539.86||The p-value was calculated and was rounded to 4th decimal presenting as 0.0000, which was smaller than the required threshold of \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||-539.86|-1317.3|0.0000
95967059|NCT03041792|191904965|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|9.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 4||9.29|0.61|0.0263
95967060|NCT03041792|191904965|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Visit 5||9.48|1.22|0.0121
95967061|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|9.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 4)||9.82|-1.85|0.1768
95967062|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Satiety (Visit 5)||7.70|-0.85|0.1137
95967063|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 4)||7.11|-1.41|0.1858
95967064|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fullness (Visit 5)||5.86|-3.05|0.5288
95967065|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 4)||-2.61|-14.30|0.0054
95967066|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|-2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Prospective food consumption (Visit 5)||-2.27|-17.29|0.0117
95967067|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 4)||-1.69|-11.48|0.0093
95967068|NCT03041792|191904966|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger (Visit 5)||-0.66|-12.12|0.0296
95874721|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||||||Serotype 19A: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.04|0.72|
95874722|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.14||||||Serotype 19F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.14|0.71|
95967069|NCT03041792|191904967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|35.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.46||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.64|140.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 4)||140.76|-69.64|0.5008
95874723|NCT02124161|191705919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.03||||||Serotype 23F: Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.03|0.56|
95967070|NCT03041792|191904967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|106.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.95||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|204.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-60min (Visit 5)||204.44|7.86|0.0348
95874724|NCT02124161|191705920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||Strain A/H1N1: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.18|0.88|
95874725|NCT02124161|191705920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.32||||||Strain A/H3N2: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.32|1.01|
95874726|NCT02124161|191705920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||||||Strain B/Brisbane: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.24|0.95|
95874727|NCT02124161|191705920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21||||||Strain B/Massachusetts: CIs for the ratio were back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC).||1.21|0.90|
95874728|NCT02124161|191705923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.4||||||AE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||7.4|-1.9|
95874729|NCT02124161|191705923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||SAE: Exact 2-sided confidence interval (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, 13vPnC+QIV /placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.8|
95874730|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.8||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|2.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.8|-8.3|0.333
95874731|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-4.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|0.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 3: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.9|-9.6|0.105
95874732|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 4: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-7.6|0.090
95874733|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|1.8||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|7.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 5: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||7.8|-4.2|0.590
95874734|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.1|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-7.5|0.044
95874735|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.4||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 6B: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-6.2|0.574
95967071|NCT03041792|191904967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|214.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|129.48||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.59|474.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 4)||474.07|-45.59|0.1040
95967072|NCT03041792|191904967|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|348.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|138.29||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|626.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC0-300min (Visit 5)||626.66|70.20|0.0152
95967073|NCT02206061|191904971|OTHER|Repeated measure analyses testing the overall treatment effect were performed by fitting the Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) with SFD at the three follow-up time points (3, 5, 7 months) as the dependent variable and treatment as independent variable. Normal error and identity link was specified and standard error was calculated using Sandwich estimator. Baseline SFDs, poverty level, and the presence of smokers in the home were controlled in the regression model.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
95967074|NCT05140915|191905056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.77
95967075|NCT04103892|191905084|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.09|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM|||||2.09|-4.60|0.46
95967076|NCT04103892|191905085|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|-0.65|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.65|-9.91|0.03
95967077|NCT05576662|191905086|OTHER||Pooled treatment coefficient|0.026||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|||||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Nonparametric permutation test||Weighted average of treatment coefficients. A pooled treatment coefficient \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a pooled treatment coefficient \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|A proportional odds logistic regression model was fit for severity of each core symptom at week 10, adjusting for baseline severity of the corresponding symptom and fit using only those who experienced the symptom at baseline. A test statistic for overall efficacy was calculated as the weighted average of the treatment coefficient in the proportional odds model for each symptom with inverse variance weighting. The p-value was obtained by a nonparametric permutation test.||||0.903
95874736|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.2||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.9|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 7F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-6.3|0.648
95967078|NCT05576662|191905087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of fatigue score at day 15||2.94|0.82|0.174
95967079|NCT05576662|191905087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.25||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of brain fog score at day 15||2.25|0.65|0.548
95967080|NCT05576662|191905087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.16||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of dyspnea score at day 15||1.16|0.33|0.134
95967081|NCT05576662|191905087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.69||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of body aches score at day 15||2.69|0.78|0.241
95967082|NCT05576662|191905087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms score at day 15||1.92|0.55|0.922
95967083|NCT05576662|191905087|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.94||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of cardiovascular symptoms score at day 15||0.94|0.26|0.032
95967084|NCT05576662|191905088|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.09||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||1.09|0.27|0.09
95874737|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-6.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.2|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 9V: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.2|-12.5|0.057
95967085|NCT05576662|191905089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.44||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||2.44|0.21|.60
95967086|NCT05576662|191905090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 5||3.15|0.83|0.156
95874738|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 14: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||-0.3|-7.3|0.030
95967087|NCT05576662|191905090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.72||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 10||3.72|1.06|0.03
95967088|NCT05576662|191905090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.6||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, odds|Proportional odds regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of severity at week 15||4.60|1.27|0.01
95967089|NCT05576662|191905091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - fatigue"||1.77|0.45|0.744
95967090|NCT05576662|191905091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.37||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - brain fog"||1.37|0.32|0.259
95967091|NCT05576662|191905091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.99||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - body aches"||3.99|0.65|0.286
95967092|NCT05576662|191905091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.24||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - cardiovascular symptoms"||2.24|0.38|0.846
95967093|NCT05576662|191905091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.73||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test|A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.||"Analysis of data for Time to relief - shortness of breath"||4.73|0.51|0.410
95967094|NCT05576662|191905091|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|"Analysis of data for Time to relief - gastrointestinal symptoms"||2.11|0.42|0.880
95967095|NCT05576662|191905092|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Cox PH coefficient Wald test||A hazard ratio \< 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a hazard ratio \> 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||1.38|0.40|0.33
95967096|NCT05576662|191905093|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|3.1||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.10|-1.96|.66
95967097|NCT05576662|191905094|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.15||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.15|-2.40|0.79
95967098|NCT05576662|191905095|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|3.75||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||3.75|-2.55|.70
95967099|NCT05576662|191905096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.28|-3.21|.98
95874739|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.6|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 18C: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.6|-6.6|0.233
95874740|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-1.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.7|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19A: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||0.7|-4.5|0.152
95874741|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.3||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.8|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 19F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||5.8|-5.1|0.926
95874742|NCT02124161|191705925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|-3.9||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|1.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Serotype 23F: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-9.1|0.143
95874743|NCT02124161|191705928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|5.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H1N1: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||11.0|-0.9|0.094
95874744|NCT02124161|191705928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-3.8||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|2.4|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain A/H3N2: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||2.4|-9.9|0.232
95874745|NCT02124161|191705928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.0||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Brisbane: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.5|-6.6|0.734
95874746|NCT02124161|191705928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The criterion for noninferiority was the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratio was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Percentage Difference|-1.5||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.3|||Chan and Zhang method|||Strain B/Massachusetts: Exact 2-sided CI and corresponding p-value (based on Chan and Zhang) for the difference in proportions, (13vPnC+QIV/placebo - placebo+QIV/13vPnC), expressed as a percentage.||4.3|-7.2|0.627
95874747|NCT02437383|191705984|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.6||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates for site, baseline value, sex, race, treatment, visit, a treatment\*visit interaction, and an unstructured covariance structure.||||2.6|-6.2|0.414
95874748|NCT02617888|191706019|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95967100|NCT05576662|191905097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.53||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of systolic blood pressure||7.53|-4.06|0.555
95874749|NCT05896748|191706063|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.901|0.998|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.998|0.901|
95874750|NCT05896748|191706063|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.877|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||0.995|0.877|
95967101|NCT05576662|191905097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|3.79||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of data for change of diastolic blood pressure||3.79|-5.15|0.764
95967102|NCT05576662|191905098|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|5.12||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|||5.12|-6.15|0.856
95967103|NCT05576662|191905099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|3.42||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|||3.42|-4.24|0.833
95967104|NCT05576662|191905100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.7||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.70|-0.06|0.096
95967105|NCT05576662|191905100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.64||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.64|-0.20|0.293
95874751|NCT05896748|191706063|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.0|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within CAB||1.000|0.872|
95874752|NCT05896748|191706063|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.943|1.059|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within CAB||1.059|0.943|
95874753|NCT05896748|191706064|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.056|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.056|0.952|
95874754|NCT05896748|191706064|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||1.002|0.921|
95967106|NCT05576662|191905100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.62||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.62|-0.25|0.396
95874755|NCT05896748|191706064|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.885|0.973|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Ctau within RPV||0.973|0.885|
95874756|NCT05896748|191706064|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.955|1.053|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Ctau within RPV||1.053|0.955|
95874757|NCT05896748|191706065|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.99|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.990|0.897|
95874758|NCT05896748|191706065|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.965|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.965|0.860|
95874759|NCT05896748|191706065|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.857|0.966|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within CAB||0.966|0.857|
95874760|NCT05896748|191706065|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.003|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.074|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within CAB||1.074|0.938|
95874761|NCT05896748|191706066|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.982|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.982|0.895|
95874762|NCT05896748|191706066|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.963|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.963|0.876|
95874763|NCT05896748|191706066|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|0.952|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for Cmax within RPV||0.952|0.861|
95874764|NCT05896748|191706066|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.986|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for Cmax within RPV||0.986|0.891|
95874765|NCT05896748|191706067|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.906|0.983|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.983|0.906|
95874766|NCT05896748|191706067|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|0.995|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.995|0.895|
95967107|NCT05576662|191905100|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.77||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.77|-0.02|0.064
95967108|NCT05576662|191905101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of day 15 data||0.67|-0.30|0.444
95874767|NCT05896748|191706067|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|0.994|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||0.994|0.876|
95874768|NCT05896748|191706067|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.105|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within CAB||1.105|0.979|
95874769|NCT05896748|191706068|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.002|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.002|0.932|
95874770|NCT05896748|191706068|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|0.989|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.989|0.922|
95874771|NCT05896748|191706068|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|0.991|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the abdominal SC injection with gluteal IM injection for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||0.991|0.907|
95874772|NCT05896748|191706068|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.058|||Mixed effect analysisofcovariance(ANCOVA|||To compare the IM gluteal injections for AUC\[0-tau\] within RPV||1.058|0.972|
95874773|NCT06138145|191706113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95874774|NCT06138145|191706113|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann-Whitney U test|||||||<0.05
95874775|NCT06138145|191706113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95874776|NCT00943124|191706147|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.14||||||90.0|1.09|1.2||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.20|1.09|
95874777|NCT00943124|191706148|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.11||||||90.0|1.05|1.16||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.16|1.05|
95874778|NCT00943124|191706149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.93|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.00|0.93|
95874779|NCT00943124|191706150|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.87|0.97||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.97|0.87|
95874780|NCT00943124|191706151|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.99|1.04||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.04|0.99|
95874781|NCT00943124|191706152|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|1.08||||||90.0|1.02|1.14||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||1.14|1.02|
95874782|NCT00943124|191706153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.77||||||90.0|0.72|0.82||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.82|0.72|
95874783|NCT00943124|191706154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR MK0524B/Simvastatin + MK0524A) is 1.00 for all the eight primary endpoints, then a sample size of N=220 subjects provides this study with greater than 99.2% probability of observing the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of all the eight endpoints to be contained within \[0.80, 1.25\], assuming nonnegative associations among the 8 endpoints.|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.89|0.94||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio (Fixed Dose Combination (FDC)/Co-administration)||0.94|0.89|
95874784|NCT04010539|191706155|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above -10.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5||||||||5.5|-5.6|
95874785|NCT04010539|191706155|SUPERIORITY|The difference in microbiological success rates between treatment groups (Gepotidacin - Ceftriaxone plus azithromycin) was calculated using the Miettinen-Nurminen Summary Score Method adjusted for sex and sexual orientation combination. Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was above 0.0%.|Adjusted Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.5|||1-sided p-value for Test of Superiority|||||5.5|-5.6|0.5072
95874786|NCT00136604|191706175|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in the percentage of subjects with SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128 between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the TRITANRIX-HEPB+Mencevax + Meningitec control group was above -10%.|Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus a fourth dose of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix and Meningitec vaccine given concomitantly in terms of the percentage of subjects with an SBA-MenC titre ≥ 1:128.||3.05|-1.53|
95874787|NCT00136604|191706177|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The lower limit (LL) of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference in seroprotection (anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL) between the Tritanrix-Hepb/Hib-MenAC-TT Group and (minus) the Tritanrix-Hepb/Mencevax+Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix Group was above -10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|3.05||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT vaccine versus the Tritanrix-HepB/Hiberix vaccine when used as a booster vaccine in Tritanrix-HepB/Hib-MenAC-TT primed subjects in terms of the percentage of subjects with an anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL.||3.05|-1.53|
95908938|NCT03565887|191775841|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoints were tested sequentially. The Day 1 Hour 6 time point was tested first and if P\<0.05, the Day 14 Hour 2 time point was tested at a significance level of 0.05. If the Day 1 Hour 6 endpoint is statistically significant (at the 0.05 level) but Day 14 Hour 2 was not statistically significant (at the 0.05 level), the study will still be considered positive.|||||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|ANCOVA|2 sided t-test with treatment as fixed factor and baseline as covariate.||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0001
95908939|NCT03565887|191775842|SUPERIORITY|If both primary endpoints (LPFT) are significant at 0.05 significance level, then the secondary efficacy endpoints (MRD) were also tested sequentially. Testing stopped if a P≥ 0.05 for a comparison.|||||<|0.0151|||||||ANCOVA|||A two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level had 90% power to detect a difference in LPFT means of 3.50 assuming that the common standard deviation was 6.0, when the sample sizes in the 2 groups were 94 and 47, respectively (a total sample size of 141).||||<0.0151
95908940|NCT00689221|191775843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.021||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.291||P-value is not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||||1.291|0.808|0.8623
95874788|NCT02791399|191706317|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.20|-2.45|<0.05
95967109|NCT05576662|191905101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.28||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||0.28|-0.78|0.346
95967110|NCT05576662|191905101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.67||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.67|-0.48|0.738
95967111|NCT05576662|191905101|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.76||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||0.76|-0.43|0.578
95967112|NCT05576662|191905102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.03||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 5 data||1.03|-1.41|0.758
95967113|NCT05576662|191905102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 10 data||0.97|-1.46|0.693
95967114|NCT05576662|191905102|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.61||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression coefficient Wald test|A mean difference \< 0 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir; a mean difference \> 0 favors placebo plus ritonavir.|Analysis of week 15 data||1.61|-0.87|0.558
95967115|NCT05576662|191905103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.92||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of fatigue data||0.92|0.33|0.02
95967116|NCT05576662|191905103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.82||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of brain fog data||0.82|0.31|0.01
95967117|NCT05576662|191905103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.33||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of body aches data||2.33|0.74|0.34
95967118|NCT05576662|191905103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.48||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular symptoms data||2.48|0.76|0.29
95967119|NCT05576662|191905103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.38||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of shortness of breath data||2.38|0.73|0.35
95967120|NCT05576662|191905103|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.47||Uncorrected p-value. A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression coefficient Wald test|An odds ratio \< 1 favors placebo plus ritonavir; an odds ratio \> 1 favors nirmatrelvir plus ritonavir.|Post-hoc analysis of gastrointestinal symptoms data||2.47|0.79|0.25
95967121|NCT03548220|191905127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||2-sided p-value|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95967122|NCT03548220|191905128|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|18.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|24.01|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 2.913|||24.01|12.41|<0.0001
95967123|NCT03548220|191905131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.82|-14.7|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 5.788|||-14.70|-37.82|<0.0001
95967124|NCT03548220|191905132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-70.81||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.88|-25.74|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 22.488|||-25.74|-115.88|0.0027
95967125|NCT03548220|191905133|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.158||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.273|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.0578|||0.273|0.043|0.0079
95967126|NCT03548220|191905134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1011|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1391|-0.0632|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 0.01904|||-0.0632|-0.1391|<0.0001
95967127|NCT03548220|191905135|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.41|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.352|||-0.41|-5.80|0.0247
95967128|NCT03548220|191905136|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.12|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measure||Standard error = 1.574|||-0.12|-6.39|0.0421
95967129|NCT02477618|191905147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.056||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|2.118|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.118|0.527|0.878
95967130|NCT02477618|191905148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|2.507|||Regression, Cox|||||2.507|0.222|0.636
95874789|NCT02791399|191706318|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||0.06|-0.15|<0.05
95967131|NCT02477618|191905149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.623||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.282|0.303|0.199
95967132|NCT02477618|191905150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|1.466|||Regression, Cox|||||1.466|0.318|0.328
95967133|NCT02477618|191905152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.763|||Regression, Cox|||||1.763|0.193|0.339
95967134|NCT02477618|191905153|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.086||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||||2.189|0.539|0.817
95967135|NCT02477618|191905154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.9|0.567
95967136|NCT01882543|191905237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||A sample size of 28 subjects per group had 80% power to detect a 1.5-point difference in the change from baseline pain score between AQX-1125 and placebo assuming a between-subject SD of 2.0 and a 2-sided 5% significance level. Average daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the primary efficacy end point of average daily pain score||0.0|-2.1|0.061
95967137|NCT01882543|191905238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||E-diary maximum daily pain scores were calculated using an average of up to the last 7 recordings within 9 days before each visit. Missing data, including premature discontinuation, was imputed using the LOCF approach for the secondary efficacy variable of maximum daily pain score||-0.1|-2.5|0.030
95967138|NCT01882543|191905239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-2.8|0.008
95967139|NCT01882543|191905240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.2|-3.0|0.028
95967140|NCT01882543|191905241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.3|-9.5|0.011
95967141|NCT01882543|191905242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.4||ICSI/PI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-1.4|-8.8|0.007
95967142|NCT01882543|191905242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.9||ICSI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.9|-4.6|0.005
95967143|NCT01882543|191905242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.5||ICPI|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.5|-4.5|0.014
95967144|NCT01882543|191905243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.6||Mental Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||3.6|-6.3|0.592
95967145|NCT01882543|191905243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.7||Physical Component|ANCOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||6.7|-1.6|0.221
95967146|NCT01882543|191905244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analyses of the secondary variable was based on observed data without imputation.||-0.1|-5.5|0.040
95874790|NCT02791399|191706319|NON_INFERIORITY|Pain intensity and pain-related function were tested in non-inferiority analyses, as we hypothesized that the ISOT intervention would not negatively impact pain or function. One-half SD difference in change was considered the appropriate non-inferiority limit.|Non-inferiority analysis|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95874791|NCT02791399|191706320|EQUIVALENCE|This analysis is comparing estimated averages and probabilities for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||1.85|-5.83|<0.05
95967147|NCT01253135|191905252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|0.84|||Prentice-Wilcoxon test||The Confidence Interval was based on a t-distribution|||0.84|-3.08|.3393
95967148|NCT01253135|191905253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4771|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Testing was by a Log Rank test with significance being at P \< 0.05||||||.4771
95967149|NCT00215137|191905265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed on the difference between the open label endpoint and baseline YBOCS scores.||||0.0002
95967150|NCT00215137|191905265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||A Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was performed on the difference in the pre and post randomization YBOCS scores, using grouping to either escitalopram or placebo as a grouping variable.||||.0417
95967151|NCT03333876|191905266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Each group was compared to baseline.||||<.001
95967152|NCT00095498|191905278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.264|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.264
95874792|NCT02791399|191706321|EQUIVALENCE|Our analysis examined the estimated averages for each group at each time point after accounting for covariates.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models controlled for age, gender, depression severity, pain intensity, clinician type, and proportion of clinician panel prescribed opioids.||||8.80|-6.73|<0.05
95874793|NCT01896050|191706322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare difference in change in body mass index between baseline and 12 months between aromatase inhibitor- and tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.03
95874794|NCT01896050|191706322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||BMI squared|-0.01845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02308||0.4262|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Examine association between change in body mass index and change in grip strength with aromatase inhibitor therapy. For the primary outcome, linear regression was used for analysis with change of grip strength as response variable. In the original statistical analysis plan only aromatase inhibitor-treated patients were to be included in this analysis. This analysis was not performed on the tamoxifen group because it isn't clinically relevant.||||0.4262
95874795|NCT01896050|191706323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of change in maximum grip strength between baseline and 12 months for aromatase inhibitor-treated versus tamoxifen-treated patients||||0.032
95874796|NCT01896050|191706324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04||||||Association between baseline body mass index and discontinuation of aromatase inhibitor therapy. The original statistical analysis plan only called for analyzing the aromatase inhibitor-treated patients, not the tamoxifen-treated patients.||1.04|0.92|
95967153|NCT00095498|191905278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||0.018
95967154|NCT00095498|191905279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.032
95967155|NCT00095498|191905279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.180
95967156|NCT00095498|191905280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.602|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.602
95967157|NCT00095498|191905280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.181
95967158|NCT00095498|191905281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.012
95967159|NCT00095498|191905281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.007
95967160|NCT00095498|191905282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.277
95967161|NCT00095498|191905282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.019|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.019
95967162|NCT00095498|191905283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.382|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.382
95967163|NCT00095498|191905283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.488|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.488
95967164|NCT00095498|191905284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.236|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.236
95967165|NCT00095498|191905284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.712|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.712
95967166|NCT00095498|191905285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.026||95.0|0.11|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.74|0.11|0.026
95967167|NCT00095498|191905285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.155||95.0|-0.23|1.41|||Repeated measures model|||||1.41|-0.23|0.155
95967168|NCT00095498|191905286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|0.62|2.72|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.72|0.62|0.002
95967169|NCT00095498|191905286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89|||<|0.001||95.0|0.84|2.94|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.94|0.84|<0.001
95967170|NCT00095498|191905287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.001||95.0|1.1|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|1.1|<0.001
95967171|NCT00095498|191905287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29|||<|0.001||95.0|2.18|4.39|||Repeated Measures Model|||||4.39|2.18|<0.001
95967172|NCT00095498|191905288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.986||95.0|-1.06|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.08|-1.06|0.986
95967173|NCT00095498|191905288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.141||95.0|-0.27|1.86|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.86|-0.27|0.141
95967174|NCT00095498|191905289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.073||95.0|-0.09|1.99|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.99|-0.09|0.073
95967175|NCT00095498|191905289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.09||95.0|-0.14|1.93|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.93|-0.14|0.09
95967176|NCT00095498|191905290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.007||95.0|0.51|3.12|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.12|0.51|0.007
95967177|NCT00095498|191905290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.003||95.0|0.67|3.29|||Repeated Measures Model|||||3.29|0.67|0.003
95967178|NCT00095498|191905291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.938||95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.63|-0.58|0.938
95967179|NCT00095498|191905291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.787||95.0|-0.53|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|||||0.69|-0.53|0.787
95967180|NCT00095498|191905292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004||95.0|0.33|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.67|0.33|0.004
95967181|NCT00095498|191905292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.51|1.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||1.85|0.51|<0.001
95967182|NCT00095498|191905293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|||<|0.001||95.0|1.02|2.85|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.85|1.02|<0.001
95967183|NCT00095498|191905293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.04|||<|0.001||95.0|1.13|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|||||2.96|1.13|<0.001
95967184|NCT00095498|191905294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967185|NCT00095498|191905294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967186|NCT00095498|191905295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967187|NCT00095498|191905295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967188|NCT00095498|191905296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967189|NCT00095498|191905296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967190|NCT00095498|191905297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967191|NCT00095498|191905297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967192|NCT00095498|191905298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967193|NCT00095498|191905298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967194|NCT00095498|191905299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.016|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.016
95967195|NCT00095498|191905299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967196|NCT00095498|191905300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967197|NCT00095498|191905300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95967198|NCT00095498|191905301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.673
95967199|NCT00095498|191905301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.589|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.589
95967200|NCT00095498|191905302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.175
95967201|NCT00095498|191905302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.133|||||||van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||0.133
95967202|NCT00128102|191905476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.83|0.858
95967203|NCT00128102|191905480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Likelihood Based Score Test|||||0.88|0.63|<0.001
95967204|NCT00128102|191905481|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|-1.18|0.621
95967205|NCT00128102|191905482|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-52.4||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.5|38.6|||Longitudinal Model|||||38.6|-143.5|0.259
95967206|NCT00128102|191905483|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.53|||Fisher Exact|||||4.53|-7.20|0.736
95967207|NCT00128102|191905484|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent Change|-0.06||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|4.49|||Longitudinal Model|||||4.49|-4.61|0.979
95967208|NCT00128102|191905485|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|11.17|||Fisher Exact|||||11.17|-4.97|0.488
95967209|NCT00515671|191905492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8868
95967210|NCT00515671|191905493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.3328
95967211|NCT02815579|191905495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators produced a difference-in-difference estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.84|-1.0|0.86
95967212|NCT02815579|191905496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.92|-0.28|0.23
95967213|NCT02815579|191905497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||3.78|-1.01|0.26
95967214|NCT02815579|191905498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|0.84||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||2.47|-0.79|0.31
95967215|NCT02815579|191905499|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.34||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||0.53|-1.22|0.44
95967216|NCT02815579|191905500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-2.92|-4.16|<0.001
95874797|NCT02339285|191706345|OTHER|F-test; Treatment effect|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2, 29)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||>0.10
95874798|NCT02339285|191706345|OTHER|F-test; Session effect|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(1, 31)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference baseline and the 4 week follow up in MADRS score between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference between baseline and the 4 week follow up MADRS score between treatment groups."||||<0.001
95874799|NCT02339285|191706345|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (session x treatment)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(2,29)||||||>0.10
95874800|NCT02339285|191706346|OTHER|F-test; Condition effect|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|F(2,21.595)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.05
95874801|NCT02339285|191706346|OTHER|F-test; Region effect (region defined as region of brain - frontal, parietal, occipital temporal)|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|F(3, 79.358)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||<0.001
95874802|NCT02339285|191706346|OTHER|F-test; Interaction effect (region x condition)|||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|F(6, 68.284)||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG on Day 5 of Stimulation between treatment groups."||||>0.10
95874803|NCT02339285|191706347|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: There is a difference in changes of alpha frequency power between baseline EEG and EEG 4 weeks after completion of the intervention between treatment groups."||||>0.10
95874804|NCT02203071|191706366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95874805|NCT02203071|191706367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95874806|NCT02203071|191706368|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.11
95874807|NCT02203071|191706369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.007
95874808|NCT02203071|191706370|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95874809|NCT02203071|191706371|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95874810|NCT02160990|191706383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95874811|NCT02160990|191706384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95874812|NCT02160990|191706385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
95874813|NCT01675427|191706401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0018
95967217|NCT02815579|191905501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.04|-0.39|0.02
95967218|NCT02815579|191905502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||0.84|-0.82|0.98
95874814|NCT01675427|191706401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2289
95874815|NCT01675427|191706401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1112
95874816|NCT01675427|191706401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.4681
95874817|NCT01675427|191706401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4828|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4828
95874818|NCT01675427|191706401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2702
95874819|NCT01675427|191706402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.4133
95874820|NCT01675427|191706402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.4400
95874821|NCT01675427|191706402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8597|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.8597
95874822|NCT01675427|191706402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3975|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.3975
95874823|NCT01675427|191706402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1781
95874824|NCT01675427|191706402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3159
95967219|NCT02815579|191905503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2.||-0.15|-0.59|0.001
95967220|NCT02815579|191905504|SUPERIORITY||Difference in log odds|-0.83||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The investigators analyzed longitudinal data measured every 6 months to assess trends in the two study arms and produced a difference-in-differences estimate between baseline and year 2 using multi-level logistic regression. Units are in log odds.||-0.20|-1.45|0.001
95967221|NCT02815579|191905505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.52|<0.001
95967222|NCT02311673|191905510|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-3.1|0.420
95967223|NCT02311673|191905510|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.348
95967224|NCT02311673|191905510|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-1.3|0.779
95967225|NCT02311673|191905512|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.5||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|54.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.8|-11.8|0.901
95967226|NCT02311673|191905512|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|18.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.5|-26.3|0.362
95967227|NCT02311673|191905512|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|20.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||20.5|-28.0|0.378
95874825|NCT01675427|191706403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0126
95874826|NCT01675427|191706403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7174
95874827|NCT01675427|191706403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.1380
95874828|NCT01675427|191706403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.6258
95874829|NCT01675427|191706403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5751
95874830|NCT01675427|191706403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1681|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1681
95874831|NCT01675427|191706404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.2693
95874832|NCT01675427|191706404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.3240
95874833|NCT01675427|191706404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7006
95874834|NCT01675427|191706404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0403
95874835|NCT01675427|191706404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1075
95874836|NCT01675427|191706404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3295
95874837|NCT01675427|191706405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9859
95874838|NCT01675427|191706405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7055|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.7055
95874839|NCT01675427|191706405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0920
95874840|NCT01675427|191706405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0781
95874841|NCT01675427|191706405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4795
95874842|NCT01675427|191706405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3069
95874843|NCT01675427|191706406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5216
95874844|NCT01675427|191706406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3419
95874845|NCT01675427|191706406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7586|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.7586
95874846|NCT01675427|191706406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1351
95874847|NCT01675427|191706406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
95874848|NCT01675427|191706406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3921|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.3921
95967228|NCT02311673|191905513|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.6||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|62.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||62.2|-20.9|0.840
95967229|NCT02311673|191905513|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|18.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||18.4|-38.7|0.236
95874849|NCT01675427|191706407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8537
95874850|NCT01675427|191706407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0763
95874851|NCT01675427|191706407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2432
95874852|NCT01675427|191706407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4247
95874853|NCT01675427|191706407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4884
95874854|NCT01675427|191706407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6119|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6119
95967230|NCT02311673|191905513|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|17.4|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One sided p-value.||||17.4|-44.2|0.191
95874855|NCT01675427|191706408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2416
95967231|NCT02311673|191905514|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|19.5||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|63.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|63.8|-24.8|0.812
95874856|NCT01675427|191706408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2671
95874857|NCT01675427|191706408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.4619
95874858|NCT01675427|191706408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.8364
95874859|NCT01675427|191706408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2386
95874860|NCT01675427|191706408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2887
95874861|NCT01675427|191706409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0049
95874862|NCT01675427|191706410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.5651
95874863|NCT01675427|191706411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.0420
95874864|NCT01675427|191706412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4545|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||||||0.4545
95874865|NCT01675427|191706413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95967232|NCT02311673|191905514|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|27.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.4|-29.9|0.464
95874866|NCT01675427|191706414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874867|NCT01675427|191706415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874868|NCT01675427|191706416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874869|NCT01675427|191706417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.5468
95874870|NCT01675427|191706418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0020
95874871|NCT01675427|191706419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.1623
95967233|NCT02311673|191905514|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|28.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||28.4|-33.6|0.432
95874872|NCT01675427|191706420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0663
95874873|NCT01675427|191706421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.2617
95874874|NCT01675427|191706422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0526
95874875|NCT01675427|191706423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.7918
95874876|NCT01675427|191706424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.0842
95874877|NCT01675427|191706425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874878|NCT01675427|191706426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874879|NCT01675427|191706427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874880|NCT01675427|191706428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95874881|NCT01675427|191706429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95874882|NCT01675427|191706429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2887
95874883|NCT01675427|191706429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
95874884|NCT01675427|191706429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1634
95874885|NCT01675427|191706429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8956
95874886|NCT01675427|191706429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95874887|NCT01675427|191706430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95874888|NCT01675427|191706430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0145
95967234|NCT02311673|191905515|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|49.9||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|93.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||93.2|6.7|0.988
95967235|NCT02311673|191905515|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.0||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|45.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||45.6|-13.7|0.859
95967236|NCT02311673|191905515|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.2||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|54.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||54.3|-9.8|0.916
95967237|NCT02311673|191905516|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.7||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|73.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||73.8|-8.4|0.943
95967238|NCT02311673|191905516|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|16.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||16.1|-24.4|0.339
95967239|NCT02311673|191905516|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|27.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||27.2|-25.0|0.533
95967240|NCT02311673|191905524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.6|-3.0|0.439
95967241|NCT02311673|191905524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.6|-2.3|0.366
95967242|NCT02311673|191905524|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-1.4|0.744
95967243|NCT02311673|191905525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.8|-0.7|0.883
95967244|NCT02311673|191905525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||0.9|-1.3|0.338
95967245|NCT02311673|191905525|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.2|-1.6|0.381
95967246|NCT02311673|191905527|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|7.0||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||7.0|-4.5|0.679
95967247|NCT02311673|191905527|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.7||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||4.7|-3.3|0.641
95967248|NCT02311673|191905527|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.9||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.4||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|Statistical analysis is provided for percent change from baseline at Day 56.||6.4|-2.6|0.809
95967249|NCT02311673|191905528|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.6|-2.6|0.633
95967250|NCT02311673|191905528|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.3|-2.1|0.528
95967251|NCT02311673|191905528|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.9|-2.0|0.648
95967252|NCT02311673|191905530|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||3.1|-1.8|0.712
95967253|NCT02311673|191905530|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||1.5|-1.9|0.414
95967254|NCT02311673|191905530|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5||One sided p-value|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, treatment-by-baseline weight interaction, baseline weight as covariate and participant as random effect was used.|||2.5|-1.3|0.732
95967255|NCT02385240|191905532|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.52|10.72|||Wald's method|||||10.72|-7.52|
95967256|NCT02385240|191905533|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.94|11.33|||Wald's method|||||11.33|-6.94|
95967257|NCT02385240|191905534|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|Equivalence ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.77|15.46|||Wald's method|||||15.46|-1.77|
95874889|NCT01675427|191706430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1027
95874890|NCT01675427|191706430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5998
95874891|NCT01675427|191706430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2935
95874892|NCT01675427|191706430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0039
95874893|NCT01675427|191706431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1981
95874894|NCT01675427|191706431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1616|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1616
95874895|NCT01675427|191706431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1192
95874896|NCT01675427|191706431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4485
95874897|NCT01675427|191706431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1525
95874898|NCT01675427|191706431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7262|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7262
95874899|NCT01675427|191706432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0911
95874900|NCT01675427|191706432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4674
95874901|NCT01675427|191706432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1604|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1604
95874902|NCT01675427|191706432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5937|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5937
95874903|NCT01675427|191706432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3830
95874904|NCT01675427|191706432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0507
95874905|NCT01675427|191706433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8686|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8686
95874906|NCT01675427|191706433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.3135
95874907|NCT01675427|191706433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0578
95874908|NCT01675427|191706433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5833
95874909|NCT01675427|191706433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1610
95874910|NCT01675427|191706433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2925
95874911|NCT01675427|191706434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3709
95874912|NCT01675427|191706434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2054
95874913|NCT01675427|191706434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8457|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.8457
95874914|NCT01675427|191706434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3492
95874915|NCT01675427|191706434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2846
95874916|NCT01675427|191706434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.2646
95874917|NCT01675427|191706435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.5348
95874918|NCT01675427|191706435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5469
95874919|NCT01675427|191706435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0463
95874920|NCT01675427|191706435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.9393
95967258|NCT01014208|191905535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-rank test||The Pike estimator was the statistical method used to estimate the hazard ratio.|||1.42|0.89|0.333
95967259|NCT01014208|191905536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||1.24|0.56|0.4053
95967260|NCT01014208|191905536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.1||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||1.10|0.39|0.1167
95967261|NCT01014208|191905537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed OR|||2.43|0.55|0.8209
95967262|NCT01014208|191905537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.43||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For Category title- Independent reviewer-assessed CR|||2.43|0.62|0.6313
95967263|NCT01014208|191905538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.36||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.36|0.90|0.346
95967264|NCT01014208|191905539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified log-rank test||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.15|0.70|0.377
95874921|NCT01675427|191706435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3404|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3404
95967265|NCT01014208|191905540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.1161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.5||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.50|0.83|0.1161
95967266|NCT01014208|191905541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.27||p-value for the test of Odds Ratio being 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Statistics are presented for Completion rate|||1.27|0.56|0.4481
95967267|NCT01014208|191905542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.17|||ANCOVA|||||2.170|-2.110|0.978
95967268|NCT01014208|191905543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.129||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|3.691|||ANCOVA|||||3.691|-1.434|0.387
95967269|NCT01014208|191905544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.16|0.74|0.479
95967270|NCT01014208|191905544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.02|0.64|0.059
95874922|NCT01675427|191706435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4237|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4237
95967271|NCT01014208|191905544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Neutrophils, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.48|0.83|0.451
95967272|NCT01014208|191905544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.29||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 1. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.29|0.86|0.597
95967273|NCT01014208|191905544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 2. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.10|0.70|0.199
95967274|NCT01014208|191905544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.59||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank|||Statistics are presented for Category-Platelets, Cycle 3. Confidence Interval (CI) estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.||1.59|0.93|0.102
95967275|NCT01014208|191905545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||p-value from stratified log-rank test are adjusted for stratification factors.|Stratified Log-Rank||Confidence Interval estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. HR are estimated using Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower probability of recovery with Ofatumumab compared to Rituximab. HR was adjusted for stratification factors.|||1.00|0.36|0.035
95967276|NCT00414908|191905549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||<0.0001
95967277|NCT00414908|191905550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Non parametric ANCOVA|||The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means respectively in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules are equal). The hypothesis corresponded to the primary objective to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. A non-parametric ANCOVA was used because the necessary assumptions were not met for the parametric ANCOVA.||||0.0002
95967278|NCT00414908|191905551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-112.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.04|-77.87|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool fat at baseline as a covariate."||-77.87|-147.04|<0.0001
95967279|NCT00414908|191905552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-11.68|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.3|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal).~The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase delayed release capsules over placebo. For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool nitrogen at baseline as a covariate."||-6.06|-17.30|<0.0001
95967280|NCT00414908|191905553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-0.76||||0.005||95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||"The following null hypothesis was tested (μ0 and μ1 denote the treatment group means in the placebo and pancrelipase delayed release capsules group): H0: μ0 = μ1 (i.e., placebo and pancrelipase capsules are equal). The hypothesis was to show superior efficacy of pancrelipase capsules over placebo.~For this secondary efficacy variable, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was assumed with the treatment group as a fixed factor and the Stool frequency at baseline as a covariate."||-0.24|-1.27|0.005
95967281|NCT00414908|191905557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Paired t-test|Mean difference based on all subjects combined using the paired t-test between baseline and visit 8 or early termination||||||<0.001
95874923|NCT01675427|191706436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.2510
95967282|NCT00225017|191905569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|25 subjects per arm will have 80% power to detect a difference between groups in mean FMD change of 2.9%, and 90% power to detect a mean FMD change of 3.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.312|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.312|-2.080|0.601
95967283|NCT00225017|191905570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.009
95967284|NCT00225017|191905571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.141
95967285|NCT01008410|191905588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0324||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression test was used to test for a difference in the percentages between the 2 treatment arms after adjusting for analysis center (country).||||0.0324
95967286|NCT00297427|191905598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95967287|NCT00297427|191905599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95874924|NCT01675427|191706436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2943|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2943
95874925|NCT01675427|191706436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0478
95874926|NCT01675427|191706436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5387
95874927|NCT01675427|191706436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3878
95874928|NCT01675427|191706436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0748
95967288|NCT00297427|191905600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95874929|NCT01675427|191706437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.9887
95874930|NCT01675427|191706437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5507|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.5507
95874931|NCT01675427|191706437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0175
95874932|NCT01675427|191706437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2246
95874933|NCT01675427|191706437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3519
95874934|NCT01675427|191706437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.7140
95874935|NCT01675427|191706438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.8622
95967289|NCT00297427|191905601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95967290|NCT00297427|191905603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95874936|NCT01675427|191706438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1622
95874937|NCT01675427|191706438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2566
95874938|NCT01675427|191706438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1574
95874939|NCT01675427|191706438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5784
95874940|NCT01675427|191706438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.6603
95874941|NCT01675427|191706439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0605
95874942|NCT01675427|191706439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0899
95874943|NCT01675427|191706439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0634
95874944|NCT01675427|191706439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.6165
95874945|NCT01675427|191706439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.1649
95874946|NCT01675427|191706439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9159|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9159
95967291|NCT00297427|191905604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95967292|NCT00297427|191905605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95967293|NCT00297427|191905607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.04
95967294|NCT00297427|191905608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.01
95967295|NCT00297427|191905609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Repeated measures using GEE|||||||0.41
95967296|NCT00297427|191905610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Bivariate (unadjusted) analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95967297|NCT00297427|191905610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.208||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|1.405|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results of a multivariate logistic regression.|||1.405|1.039|0.014
95967298|NCT00297427|191905611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||||||This is the result from the bivariate (unadjusted) analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95967299|NCT00297427|191905611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|0.994|||Regression, Logistic||These are the adjusted results from a multivariate logistic regression analysis.|||0.994|0.881|0.030
95967300|NCT00297427|191905612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95967301|NCT00297427|191905613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95967302|NCT00297427|191905615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.001
95967303|NCT00297427|191905616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95874947|NCT01675427|191706440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.7454
95874948|NCT01675427|191706440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0016
95874949|NCT01675427|191706440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5261
95874950|NCT01675427|191706440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3422|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3422
95874951|NCT01675427|191706440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9026|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.9026
95874952|NCT01675427|191706441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0017
95874953|NCT01675427|191706441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.8864
95874954|NCT01675427|191706441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0291
95874955|NCT01675427|191706441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5472|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5472
95874956|NCT01675427|191706441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||1.000
95874957|NCT01675427|191706441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.1148
95967304|NCT00297427|191905617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95967305|NCT03079297|191905618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.56|-3.56|0.4128
95967306|NCT03079297|191905619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4286|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4286
95967307|NCT03079297|191905620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
95967308|NCT03079297|191905621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
95967309|NCT03079297|191905621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9932||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9932
95874958|NCT01675427|191706442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4207|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.4207
95874959|NCT01675427|191706442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0566
95874960|NCT01675427|191706442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1211
95874961|NCT01675427|191706442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3772
95874962|NCT01675427|191706442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.4023
95874963|NCT01675427|191706443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95874964|NCT01675427|191706443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2132
95874965|NCT01675427|191706443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
95874966|NCT01675427|191706443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3031
95874967|NCT01675427|191706443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9550
95874968|NCT01675427|191706443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95874969|NCT01675427|191706444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95874970|NCT01675427|191706444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1890
95874971|NCT01675427|191706444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5793
95874972|NCT01675427|191706444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0847
95874973|NCT01675427|191706444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5506
95874974|NCT01675427|191706444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0020
95874975|NCT01675427|191706445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
95874976|NCT01675427|191706445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0061
95874977|NCT01675427|191706445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
95874978|NCT01675427|191706445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3885
95874979|NCT01675427|191706445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3597
95874980|NCT01675427|191706445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95874981|NCT01675427|191706446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95874982|NCT01675427|191706446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0005
95874983|NCT01675427|191706446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0110
95874984|NCT01675427|191706446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0980
95874985|NCT01675427|191706446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2264
95874986|NCT01675427|191706446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95874987|NCT01675427|191706447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0098
95874988|NCT01675427|191706447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.6291
95874989|NCT01675427|191706447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
95874990|NCT01675427|191706447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5588
95874991|NCT01675427|191706447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9932
95874992|NCT01675427|191706447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95874993|NCT01675427|191706448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0007
95874994|NCT01675427|191706448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0020
95874995|NCT01675427|191706448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0013
95874996|NCT01675427|191706448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7166
95874997|NCT01675427|191706448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3217
95874998|NCT01675427|191706448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95874999|NCT01675427|191706449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.1894
95875000|NCT01675427|191706449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0054
95875001|NCT01675427|191706449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
95875002|NCT01675427|191706449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.5360
95875003|NCT01675427|191706449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2185
95875004|NCT01675427|191706449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95967310|NCT03079297|191905621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242||||||P-value for Adverse effect burden 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2242
95967311|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7282||||||P-value for General fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7282
95967312|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8781||||||P-value for General fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.8781
95967313|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||P-value for General fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.226
95967314|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2158
95967315|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0081
95967316|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6768||||||P-value for Mental fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6768
95967317|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0076||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0076
95967318|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0858
95967319|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065||||||P-value for Physical fatigue 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2065
95967320|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9712||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9712
95967321|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7572||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7572
95967322|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0588||||||P-value for Reduced motivation 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0588
95967323|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857||||||P-value for Reduced activity 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.1857
95967324|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||P-value for Reduced activity 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.9225
95967325|NCT03079297|191905622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0414||||||P-value for Reduced activity 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0414
95967326|NCT03079297|191905623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4603||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.4603
95967327|NCT03079297|191905623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2521||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.2521
95967328|NCT03079297|191905623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6635||||||P-value for Psychosocial function 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.6635
95967329|NCT03079297|191905624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7839||||||P-value for Anhedonia 3 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.7839
95967330|NCT03079297|191905624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248||||||P-value for Anhedonia function 7 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0248
95967331|NCT03079297|191905624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||P-value for Anhedonia 14 days Change. Model: Change from baseline=Baseline, Visit, Treatment, Treatment\*Visit|MMRM|||||||0.0199
95967332|NCT03151993|191905682|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis would be declared if the lower limit of the 95% CI for an mRS score of 0-1 on day 90 did not cross the margin of noninferiority of 16%. The non-inferiority hypothesis was tested using Welch's t-test for the primary outcome only.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.7|||Welch's t-test|||||20.7|-1.7|<0.01
95967333|NCT02193490|191905777|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95967334|NCT02193490|191905778|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.078
95967335|NCT02193490|191905779|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95967336|NCT02299414|191905780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92|||Chi-squared|||||.92|.73|<0.001
95967337|NCT02299414|191905780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.9||||||||.90|.70|
95967338|NCT02299414|191905780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.89||||||||.89|.60|
95967339|NCT02299414|191905780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64||||||||1.64|.49|
95967340|NCT02299414|191905780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21||||||||1.21|.54|
95967341|NCT02299414|191905781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.85|0.56
95967342|NCT02299414|191905782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.26||||||||1.26|.45|
95967343|NCT02299414|191905783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91||||||||0.91|0.77|
95967344|NCT02299414|191905784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||||||||.99|.77|
95967345|NCT02299414|191905785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.3||||||||1.3|.45|
95967346|NCT02299414|191905786|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18||||||||1.18|.98|
95967347|NCT02299414|191905787|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.89||||||||.89|.69|
95967348|NCT02299414|191905788|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04||||||||1.04|0.68|
95967349|NCT02299414|191905789|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9||||||||.90|.74|
95967350|NCT02299414|191905790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.1||||||||1.10|.93|
95967351|NCT02299414|191905791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.27||||||||1.27|.59|
95967352|NCT02299414|191905792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02||||||||1.02|.81|
95967353|NCT02299414|191905793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97||||||||.97|.71|
95967354|NCT02299414|191905794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||||||||0.43|-0.11|
95967355|NCT02299414|191905795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56||||||||0.56|0.05|
95875005|NCT01675427|191706450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
95875006|NCT01675427|191706450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0003
95875007|NCT01675427|191706450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0106
95875008|NCT01675427|191706450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7821
95875009|NCT01675427|191706450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2372
95875010|NCT01675427|191706450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875011|NCT01675427|191706451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0688
95875012|NCT01675427|191706451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.4367
95875013|NCT01675427|191706451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||< 0.0001
95967356|NCT02299414|191905796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|20.9||||||||20.9|-17.6|
95875014|NCT01675427|191706451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1951|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1951
95875015|NCT01675427|191706451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2927
95875016|NCT01675427|191706451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0013
95875017|NCT01675427|191706452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0247
95875018|NCT01675427|191706452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0034
95875019|NCT01675427|191706452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0017
95875020|NCT01675427|191706452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3346|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.3346
95875021|NCT01675427|191706452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3215
95875022|NCT01675427|191706452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0003
95875023|NCT01675427|191706453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.3609
95875024|NCT01675427|191706453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0018
95875025|NCT01675427|191706453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0356
95875026|NCT01675427|191706453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7044|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.7044
95875027|NCT01675427|191706453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8578|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.8578
95875028|NCT01675427|191706453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0076
95875029|NCT01675427|191706454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0002
95875030|NCT01675427|191706454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2017
95875031|NCT01675427|191706454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.5878
95875032|NCT01675427|191706454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4144|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4144
95875033|NCT01675427|191706454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4492
95875034|NCT01675427|191706454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95967357|NCT02299414|191905797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||||||||1.17|.81|
95967358|NCT02299414|191905798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.42||||||||1.42|.55|
95967359|NCT02299414|191905799|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.05||||||||1.05|.18|
95967360|NCT02299414|191905800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06||||||||1.06|.71|
95875035|NCT01675427|191706455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0671
95967361|NCT02299414|191905801|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.35||||||||1.35|.24|
95967362|NCT02299414|191905802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||||||||1.12|.85|
95967363|NCT02299414|191905803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.37||||||||1.37|0.30|
95967364|NCT02299414|191905804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.06||||||||7.06|.14|
95967365|NCT02299414|191905805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08||||||||1.08|.81|
95967366|NCT02299414|191905806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.16||||||||1.16|0.62|
95967367|NCT02299414|191905807|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05||||||||1.05|.36|
95967368|NCT02299414|191905808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.2|
95967369|NCT02299414|191905809|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
95967370|NCT02299414|191905810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.002||||||||0.002|-0.12|
95967371|NCT02299414|191905811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.02|
95967372|NCT02299414|191905812|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.06||||||||1.06|0.90|
95967373|NCT04954326|191905813|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for AUCinf should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|102.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.4|115.6|||ANOVA|||AUCinf was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||115.6|91.4|0.05
95967374|NCT04954326|191905814|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cmax should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.9|105.5|||ANOVA|||Cmax was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||105.5|82.9|0.05
95967375|NCT04954326|191905815|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% Confidence Interval of the geometric mean ratios of the Lyophilisate compared to the Liquid formulations for Cday14 should be completely contained within the predefined \[80.00%-125.00%\] equivalence interval.|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.7|149.6|||ANOVA|||Cday14 was natural log-transformed and analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fixed effect for formulation. The two one-sided tests procedures were performed on the geometric mean ratio (GMR) between test (S95014 lyophilizate) and reference (S95014 liquid formulation) treatments. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio was obtained within the framework of the ANOVA.||149.6|98.7|0.05
95967376|NCT04662060|191905818|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
95967377|NCT04662060|191905819|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
95967378|NCT04662060|191905821|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
95967379|NCT04662060|191905822|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
95967380|NCT04662060|191905823|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
95967381|NCT00475228|191905867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95967382|NCT07025837|191905888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to the baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
95967383|NCT07025837|191905888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
95967384|NCT07025837|191905888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6342||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6342
95967385|NCT07025837|191905888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0231||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0231
95967386|NCT07025837|191905888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0862||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0862
95967387|NCT07025837|191905888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0033
95967388|NCT07025837|191905889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1176||||||Week 2 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1176
95967389|NCT07025837|191905889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0030
95967390|NCT07025837|191905889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95967391|NCT07025837|191905889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967392|NCT07025837|191905889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875036|NCT01675427|191706455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.1009
95875037|NCT01675427|191706455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0635
95875038|NCT01675427|191706455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.4162
95875039|NCT01675427|191706455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9305|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.9305
95875040|NCT01675427|191706455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0041
95875041|NCT01675427|191706456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||0.0059
95875042|NCT01675427|191706456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.2808
95875043|NCT01675427|191706456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2401|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.2401
95875044|NCT01675427|191706456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.2993
95875045|NCT01675427|191706456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Other genotypes||||0.5529
95967393|NCT07025837|191905890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9751||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.9751
95967394|NCT07025837|191905890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0078
95967395|NCT07025837|191905890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95967396|NCT07025837|191905890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875046|NCT01675427|191706456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of a continuous variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
95875047|NCT01675427|191706457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875048|NCT01675427|191706457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3572
95967397|NCT07025837|191905890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967398|NCT07025837|191905890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967399|NCT07025837|191905891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0544||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0544
95967400|NCT07025837|191905891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0036
95875049|NCT01675427|191706457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2041
95875050|NCT01675427|191706457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0467
95875051|NCT01675427|191706457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0525
95875052|NCT01675427|191706457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875053|NCT01675427|191706458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875054|NCT01675427|191706458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
95967401|NCT07025837|191905891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95967402|NCT07025837|191905891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967403|NCT07025837|191905891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967404|NCT07025837|191905891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to Baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967405|NCT07025837|191905892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95967406|NCT07025837|191905892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967407|NCT07025837|191905892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967408|NCT07025837|191905892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967409|NCT07025837|191905892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967410|NCT07025837|191905892|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967411|NCT07025837|191905893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1438
95967412|NCT07025837|191905893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0092
95967413|NCT07025837|191905893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95967414|NCT07025837|191905893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0015
95967415|NCT07025837|191905893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95967416|NCT07025837|191905893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967417|NCT07025837|191905894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0041
95967418|NCT07025837|191905894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95875055|NCT01675427|191706458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5275
95875056|NCT01675427|191706458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6593
95875057|NCT01675427|191706458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0372
95875058|NCT01675427|191706458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875059|NCT01675427|191706459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875060|NCT01675427|191706459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.3857
95967419|NCT07025837|191905894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875061|NCT01675427|191706459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.2356
95875062|NCT01675427|191706459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.7993
95875063|NCT01675427|191706459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2164|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2164
95875064|NCT01675427|191706459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95967420|NCT07025837|191905894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875065|NCT01675427|191706460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875066|NCT01675427|191706460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0001
95875067|NCT01675427|191706460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4820
95875068|NCT01675427|191706460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8668|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.8668
95875069|NCT01675427|191706460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.2032
95875070|NCT01675427|191706460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95967421|NCT07025837|191905894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875071|NCT01675427|191706461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0103
95875072|NCT01675427|191706461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8373
95875073|NCT01675427|191706461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3672
95875074|NCT01675427|191706462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0637
95875075|NCT01675427|191706462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.0474
95875076|NCT01675427|191706462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875077|NCT01675427|191706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875078|NCT01675427|191706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
95875079|NCT01675427|191706463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5522
95875080|NCT01675427|191706464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5117|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.5117
95875081|NCT01675427|191706464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3437|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3437
95875082|NCT01675427|191706464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95967422|NCT07025837|191905894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967423|NCT07025837|191905895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0249
95967424|NCT07025837|191905895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967425|NCT07025837|191905895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967426|NCT07025837|191905895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967427|NCT07025837|191905895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967428|NCT07025837|191905895|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875083|NCT01675427|191706465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0381
95967429|NCT07025837|191905896|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
95967430|NCT07025837|191905896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7453||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.7453
95967431|NCT07025837|191905896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.2118
95967432|NCT07025837|191905896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0111
95967433|NCT07025837|191905896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0150
95967434|NCT07025837|191905896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95967435|NCT07025837|191905897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0199
95967436|NCT07025837|191905897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967437|NCT07025837|191905897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967438|NCT07025837|191905897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967439|NCT07025837|191905897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967440|NCT07025837|191905897|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967441|NCT07025837|191905898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4438||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.4438
95967442|NCT07025837|191905898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0412||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0412
95967443|NCT07025837|191905898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0943||||||Week 6 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.0943
95967444|NCT07025837|191905898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0017
95967445|NCT07025837|191905898|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875084|NCT01675427|191706465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6852|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.6852
95967446|NCT07025837|191905898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0007
95967447|NCT07025837|191905899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.6148
95967448|NCT07025837|191905899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7953||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.7953
95967449|NCT07025837|191905899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0019
95967450|NCT07025837|191905899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0008
95967451|NCT07025837|191905899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967452|NCT07025837|191905899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95967453|NCT07025837|191905900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0067
95967454|NCT07025837|191905900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0055
95967455|NCT07025837|191905900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967456|NCT07025837|191905900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967457|NCT07025837|191905900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967458|NCT07025837|191905900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967459|NCT07025837|191905901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.1476
95967460|NCT07025837|191905901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0106
95967461|NCT07025837|191905901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95967462|NCT07025837|191905901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967463|NCT07025837|191905901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967464|NCT07025837|191905901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967465|NCT07025837|191905902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3224||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3224
95967466|NCT07025837|191905902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0426||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0426
95967467|NCT07025837|191905902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0039
95967468|NCT07025837|191905902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0040
95967469|NCT07025837|191905902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0013
95967470|NCT07025837|191905902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95967471|NCT07025837|191905903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3032||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.3032
95967472|NCT07025837|191905903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0237
95967473|NCT07025837|191905903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0010
95967474|NCT07025837|191905903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967475|NCT07025837|191905903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95967476|NCT07025837|191905903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967477|NCT07025837|191905904|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||>0.9999
95967478|NCT07025837|191905904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||Week 4 compared to baseline|ANOVA|||||||0.1147
95967479|NCT07025837|191905904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0016
95967480|NCT07025837|191905904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
95967481|NCT07025837|191905904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967482|NCT07025837|191905904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95967483|NCT07025837|191905905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0461||||||Week 2 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0461
95967484|NCT07025837|191905905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Week 4 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.002
95967485|NCT07025837|191905905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Week 6 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95967486|NCT07025837|191905905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 8 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95875085|NCT01675427|191706465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1185
95875086|NCT01675427|191706466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2611
95875087|NCT01675427|191706466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.6059
95875088|NCT01675427|191706466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
95875089|NCT01675427|191706467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875090|NCT01675427|191706467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0048
95875091|NCT01675427|191706467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5127|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.5127
95875092|NCT01675427|191706468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3465
95875093|NCT01675427|191706468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7358|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7358
95875094|NCT01675427|191706468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the IL28B distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875095|NCT01675427|191706469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95875096|NCT01675427|191706470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95875097|NCT01675427|191706471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95875098|NCT01675427|191706472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Tests for association between the two variables|Chi-squared|||||||0.0066
95875099|NCT01675427|191706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0018
95875100|NCT01675427|191706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0425
95875101|NCT01675427|191706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9829
95875102|NCT01675427|191706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6700
95875103|NCT01675427|191706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7672
95875104|NCT01675427|191706473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0067
95875105|NCT01675427|191706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0003
95875106|NCT01675427|191706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1637
95875107|NCT01675427|191706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8579|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.8579
95967487|NCT07025837|191905905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 10 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967488|NCT07025837|191905905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 12 compared to baseline.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95967489|NCT01424813|191905919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.08||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed-model repeated-measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.08|0.57|<0.0001
95967490|NCT01424813|191905920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.46||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.46|0.68|<0.0001
95967491|NCT01424813|191905935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.06||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||1.06|0.41|<0.0001
95967492|NCT01424813|191905936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99||To adjust for multiplicity, so that the overall alpha level for all tests was controlled at the 0.05 level, tests were done sequentially \[day 1, then day 8, then day 85\] and terminated if individual results were not significant at the 0.05 level.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|Fixed effects- pooled center, treatment group, study day, and study day by drug interaction, with baseline measured at each study day as covariate.||||0.99|0.38|<0.0001
95967493|NCT00926497|191905947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The trial was designed to obtain a power of 90% to detect a 30% difference between the two groups in the duration of antibiotic therapy with an estimated standard deviation of 50%.||||0.002
95967494|NCT00926497|191905948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95967495|NCT00926497|191905948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95967496|NCT01008553|191905950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0003
95967497|NCT01262677|191905963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.9076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|17.11||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||17.11|-16.28|0.9076
95967498|NCT01262677|191905963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|-13.05||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.07|2.25||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). 88 participants in each group (264 total) should have provided approximately 90% power.||2.25|-26.07|0.0907
95967499|NCT01262677|191905964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.752
95967500|NCT01262677|191905964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) was used to calculate the p-value. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||||0.125
95967501|NCT01262677|191905965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.16|20.56||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||20.56|-39.16|0.5404
95967502|NCT01262677|191905965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.84||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.64|2.97||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model was used to calculate the p-value.||2.97|-54.64|0.0786
95967503|NCT01262677|191905966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.31||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Generalized linear model (GLM)|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.31|-0.53|0.6073
95967504|NCT01262677|191905966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.22||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|GLM|||A generalized linear model accounting for treatment and geographical region as fixed effects and baseline seizure frequency as a covariate was used to calculate the p-value. This generalized linear model assumed that the SGTC seizure frequency was from a Poisson distribution with a canonical log link function.||0.22|-0.53|0.4109
95967505|NCT01262677|191905967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.97|11.75||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||11.75|-12.97|0.8268
95967506|NCT01262677|191905967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75||||0.9024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|13.66||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||13.66|-10.69|0.9024
95967507|NCT01262677|191905968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.670
95967508|NCT01262677|191905968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by geographical region (U.S., Europe, Asia, or Rest of the World) wtih percentage of responders summarized by treatment group was used to calculate the p-value.||||0.927
95967509|NCT01262677|191905969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.28||||0.8034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|22.15||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||22.15|-14.37|0.8034
95967510|NCT01262677|191905969|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.78||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.81|5.87||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA||Value is percent reduction in seizures relative to placebo.|ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: loge (baseline 28-day seizure rate + 1) as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.87|-24.81|0.1905
95967511|NCT01262677|191905970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.5|-1.1|0.4650
95967512|NCT01262677|191905970|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-A baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.8|-0.8|0.9692
95967513|NCT01262677|191905971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.2693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.4|-1.3|0.2693
95967514|NCT01262677|191905971|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3||Statistical testing was done at 95% confidence intervals, two-sided, least square means and their standard errors.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: HADS-D baseline score as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR). No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||0.3|-1.4|0.1893
95967515|NCT01262677|191905972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-5.2|0.7347
95967516|NCT01262677|191905972|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep disturbance score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.6|-4.0|0.8971
95967517|NCT01262677|191905973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.6|-9.1|0.3972
95967518|NCT01262677|191905973|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.7||||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: snoring score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||12.9|0.6|0.0319
95967519|NCT01262677|191905974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.9||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.9|-4.4|0.7708
95875108|NCT01675427|191706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6935|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.6935
95875109|NCT01675427|191706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8124
95875110|NCT01675427|191706474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875111|NCT01675427|191706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1834
95967520|NCT01262677|191905974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: awaken short of breath or with headache score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||7.4|-2.7|0.3560
95967521|NCT01262677|191905975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.5|-0.1|0.1129
95967522|NCT01262677|191905975|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: quantity of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||0.3|-0.3|0.9388
95967523|NCT01262677|191905976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.6||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||6.6|-7.5|0.9053
95967524|NCT01262677|191905976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.6371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.2||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep adequacy score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||5.2|-8.5|0.6371
95967525|NCT01262677|191905977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.4||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||-1.4|-11.4|0.0119
95967526|NCT01262677|191905977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep somnolence score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.8|-4.9|0.9909
95967527|NCT01262677|191905978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||2.8|-5.0|0.5903
95875112|NCT01675427|191706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8543|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.8543
95875113|NCT01675427|191706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.1485
95875114|NCT01675427|191706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0260
95875115|NCT01675427|191706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5317
95875116|NCT01675427|191706475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0005
95875117|NCT01675427|191706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875118|NCT01675427|191706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
95875119|NCT01675427|191706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.4423
95875120|NCT01675427|191706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3824|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.3824
95875121|NCT01675427|191706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.5246
95967528|NCT01262677|191905978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index I score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||4.5|-3.1|0.7126
95967529|NCT01262677|191905979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||1.5|-5.8|0.2431
95967530|NCT01262677|191905979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.8||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with the following fixed terms was used to calculate the p-value: sleep problems index II score at baseline as a coninuous covariate, sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg CR, pregabalin 330 mg CR).||3.8|-3.2|0.8654
95967531|NCT01262677|191905980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.5||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||2.50|0.74|0.3241
95967532|NCT01262677|191905980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.71||Statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05 level, two-sided.|Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model was used to calculate the p-value, with the fixed effects for sites pooled by geographic region (ie, U.S., Europe, Asia, rest of the world), and treatment group (placebo, pregabalin 165 mg controlled-release (CR), pregabalin 330 mg CR), average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a coninuous covariate, and optimal sleep at Week 14 as dependent variable. No adjustments for multiplicity were taken.||1.71|0.54|0.8932
95967533|NCT00574873|191905991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.667
95967534|NCT00574873|191905992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value was based on a Cochran Mantel Haenszel test for general association between treatment and responder stratification by Sokal risk group (low, intermediate, high) and region (1 to 3) as determined at time of randomization.|Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95967535|NCT00574873|191905993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.31|0.31|
95967536|NCT00574873|191905994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.08|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||1.08|0.32|
95967537|NCT00574873|191905995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.72|||||Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) based on the treatment effect (bosutinib compared with imatinib) in a stratified (by Sokal risk group and region at randomization) Cox model for the hazard of the respective event.|||11.72|0.90|
95967538|NCT00574873|191905996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.29|||||The hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is obtained from a Cox model for cause-specific hazard as a function of the covariate treatment (bosutinib compared with imatinib) with stratification by region and Sokal risk group at randomization.|||1.29|0.13|
95967539|NCT04143945|191906009|OTHER|Comparison|Estimated treatment difference|2.6||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.1|||ANOVA|||The intensity of pain was analysed by a fixed analysis of variance model with VAS pain score as the dependent variable, and product, injection side (right side, left side), injection number (first injection, second injection), and participant as fixed effects.||5.1|0.1|0.0395
95967540|NCT00581555|191906010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|14.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 8.||14.7|-14.7|0.999
95875122|NCT01675427|191706476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95967541|NCT00581555|191906010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|16.7||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 10.||16.7|-12.8|0.795
95967542|NCT00581555|191906010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|17.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 12.||17.1|-12.5|0.758
95967543|NCT00581555|191906010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|21.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 16.||21.6|-8.3|0.381
95967544|NCT00581555|191906010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|31.4||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 20.||31.4|0.8|0.041
95875123|NCT01675427|191706477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||< 0.0001
95967545|NCT00581555|191906010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|46.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was covariate.||Analysis at randomization to Week 24.||46.3|14.8|<0.001
95875124|NCT01675427|191706477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.1947
95875125|NCT01675427|191706477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.0226
95875126|NCT01675427|191706478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.1158
95967546|NCT00581555|191906011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||1.2|0.0|0.049
95967547|NCT00581555|191906012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||||0.002
95967548|NCT00581555|191906013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Log Rank|Time to first relapse was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier's, and comparisons between groups was performed using log rank tests.||||||0.0003
95967549|NCT00581555|191906014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.3||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||7.3|2.1|<0.001
95967550|NCT00581555|191906015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|218.1||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||218.1|52.3|0.001
95967551|NCT00581555|191906016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.139||95.0|-0.8|5.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from randomization to Week 24.||5.5|-0.8|0.139
95967552|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 2.||2.5|-2.3|0.956
95967553|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 4.||1.5|-3.6|0.41
95967554|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.9||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 6.||3.9|-4.8|0.844
95967555|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 8.||1.8|-1.8|0.968
95967556|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 10.||2.5|-1.1|0.441
95967557|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 12.||2.8|-0.9|0.3
95967558|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 16.||4.5|0.7|0.008
95967559|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 20.||5.0|0.9|0.005
95967560|NCT00581555|191906017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.6||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|mixed model of ANCOVA|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors, participant was a random factor and baseline was a covariate.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||4.6|0.2|0.031
95967561|NCT00581555|191906018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1196||95.0||||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity and the priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Pearson chi-square or Fisher exact test|Treatment groups and visits were fixed factors with a logit link, a binomial distribution and an auto-regressive correlation structure.||Analysis from baseline to Week 24.||||0.1196
95967562|NCT04325282|191906035|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after active rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.04
95967563|NCT04325282|191906035|OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change after sham rTMS (post-rTMS compared to pre-rTMS).||||0.46
95967564|NCT04325282|191906035|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change induced by active rTMS versus sham rTMS||||0.12
95967565|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
95967566|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
95967567|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
95967568|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||<0.0001
95967569|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.43||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.43
95967570|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.|||||<|0.0001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||<0.0001
95967571|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
95967572|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.54||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.54
95967573|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.007||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.007
95875127|NCT01675427|191706478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.3675
95875128|NCT01675427|191706478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0948
95875129|NCT01675427|191706479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.1236
95875130|NCT01675427|191706479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.0119
95875131|NCT01675427|191706479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.7472
95875132|NCT01675427|191706480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.9734
95875133|NCT01675427|191706480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8303|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.8303
95875134|NCT01675427|191706480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0006
95875135|NCT01675427|191706481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0065
95875136|NCT01675427|191706481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||0.9999
95967574|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.002
95967575|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.32||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.32
95967576|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.01
95875137|NCT01675427|191706481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3472|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.3472
95875138|NCT01675427|191706482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.2564
95967577|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
95967578|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.29||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.29
95875139|NCT01675427|191706482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7361|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.7361
95875140|NCT01675427|191706482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875141|NCT01675427|191706483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G1||||0.0097
95875142|NCT01675427|191706483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G2||||< 0.0001
95875143|NCT01675427|191706483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G3||||0.9778
95875144|NCT01675427|191706484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||G4||||0.0151
95875145|NCT01675427|191706484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Other genotypes||||0.1052
95875146|NCT01675427|191706484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Pearson Chi-Square Test for differences in the ITPA distribution between the nominal categories of interest|Chi-squared|||Total genotypes||||0.0007
95875147|NCT01675427|191706485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875148|NCT01675427|191706485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0012
95875149|NCT01675427|191706485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1717|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1717
95875150|NCT01675427|191706485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0253
95875151|NCT01675427|191706486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875152|NCT01675427|191706486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0330
95875153|NCT01675427|191706486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.1595
95875154|NCT01675427|191706486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0412
95967579|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cF connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
95967580|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.003
95967581|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.66
95875155|NCT01675427|191706487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875156|NCT01675427|191706487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0421
95875157|NCT01675427|191706487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7658
95875158|NCT01675427|191706487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2950
95875159|NCT01675427|191706488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875160|NCT01675427|191706488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0827
95875161|NCT01675427|191706488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.7817
95875162|NCT01675427|191706488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three IL28B genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.1986
95875163|NCT01675427|191706489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875164|NCT01675427|191706489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0002
95875165|NCT01675427|191706489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.0394
95875166|NCT01675427|191706489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.0493
95875167|NCT01675427|191706490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G1||||< 0.0001
95875168|NCT01675427|191706490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G2||||0.0196
95875169|NCT01675427|191706490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3268|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G3||||0.3268
95875170|NCT01675427|191706490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for a trend of an ordinal variable across the three IL28B genotype categories|Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||G4||||0.1667
95875171|NCT01675427|191706491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0021
95875172|NCT01675427|191706491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5319|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.5319
95875173|NCT01675427|191706491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.0114
95875174|NCT01675427|191706491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2293
95875175|NCT01675427|191706491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2857
95875176|NCT01675427|191706491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0001
95875177|NCT01675427|191706492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0081
95875178|NCT01675427|191706492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.0563
95875179|NCT01675427|191706492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3516
95875180|NCT01675427|191706492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.0064
95875181|NCT01675427|191706492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.2707
95875182|NCT01675427|191706492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||< 0.0001
95875183|NCT01675427|191706493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.0634
95875184|NCT01675427|191706493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.7176
95875185|NCT01675427|191706493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.3944
95875186|NCT01675427|191706493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.8610
95875187|NCT01675427|191706493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.4543
95875188|NCT01675427|191706493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.0406
95875189|NCT01675427|191706494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G1||||0.8234
95967582|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.008||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.008
95967583|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.005||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.005
95967584|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.87||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.87
95967585|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.11||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.11
95967586|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.012||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.012
95967587|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.46||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.46
95967588|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.02||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.02
95967589|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
95967590|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.99||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.99
95967591|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iT-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
95967592|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.01
95875190|NCT01675427|191706494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G2||||0.2427
95875191|NCT01675427|191706494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G3||||0.4805
95875192|NCT01675427|191706494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2901|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||G4||||0.2901
95875193|NCT01675427|191706494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3927|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Other genotypes||||0.3927
95875194|NCT01675427|191706494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5769|TWO_SIDED|||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test for a trend in binomial proportions across the three ITPA genotype categories|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||Total genotypes||||0.5769
95875195|NCT05021081|191706496|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of photopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.21|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean photopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.21|-0.70|
95875196|NCT05021081|191706497|OTHER|The least-square means (i.e., adjusted means) of mesopic contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd was estimated separately under conditions with glare source and without glare source. This endpoint was not statistically tested, and consequentially statistical interferences was not made.|Least-square Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as With glare minus Without glare|The sample size was chosen based on resources in conjunction, subject matter experts, and any available literature. To help ensure the glare source intensity, a small pilot investigation per the ANSI Z80.12-2007 standard was interpreted to be about 20 subjects to complete Phase 1, which should be sufficient to evaluate the mean mesopic contrast sensitivity with and without the glare source.||-0.36|-0.81|
95875197|NCT05021081|191706498|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the mean difference was below 0.|Least-square Mean Difference|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.068|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Least-square Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Given no historical data is available, the sample size was not determined based on any empirical sample size calculation. A power analysis was conducted using a paired sample t-test (exact method) with a 2-sided type I error rate 0.05 to estimate statistical power based on different assumptions. The power analysis showed that the statistical power for testing superiority would be approximately 80% or higher with the effect size of -0.05 (mean difference: Test minus Control).||0.068|-0.029|
95875198|NCT01461980|191706501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03||||||Diphtheria: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Diphtheria antigens).||1.03|0.86|
95875199|NCT01461980|191706501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99||||||Tetanus: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Tetanus antigens).||0.99|0.85|
95875200|NCT01461980|191706502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02||||||Pertussis toxoid: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Pertussis toxoid).||1.02|0.85|
95967593|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.31||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.31
95967594|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.05
95908941|NCT01292239|191775881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|40.56||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||40.56|14.38|<0.0001
95908942|NCT01292239|191775882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||(see comment)|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.75|45.4||The p-value was based on the asymptomatic distribution of the generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic controlling for stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was adjusted for stratification factors (age and IL28B genotype).|The parameter estimated was the difference of stratum adjusted proportion between groups.|||45.40|19.75|<0.0001
95908943|NCT03923933|191775905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|anova repeated measures||||||<0.001
95908944|NCT03923933|191775906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures||||||0.006
95908945|NCT03923933|191775907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.371
95908946|NCT03923933|191775908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95908947|NCT03923933|191775910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
95908948|NCT03923933|191775911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
95908949|NCT01995461|191775921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0252
95908950|NCT01995461|191775922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.0154
95908951|NCT01995461|191775923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||0.1349
95908952|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.59|||ANCOVA|||||0.59|-0.18|0.2968
95908953|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.64|0.1860
95908954|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.03|0.0027
95908955|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.2766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-0.62|0.2766
95908956|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
95908957|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.96|0.0032
95908958|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.72|0.0786
95908959|NCT00518115|191775932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.99|0.0022
95908960|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Burden was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0007
95908961|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Physical was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
95908962|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Mental was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
95908963|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fear was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
95908964|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0973|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Desire was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0973
95908965|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1772|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Eating Duration was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.1772
95908966|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Food Selection was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0062
95908967|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Sleep was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
95908968|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Fatigue was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0002
95908969|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Social was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.2125
95908970|NCT00205348|191776021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The statistical significance of the difference between pre-and post-operative scores for Communication was tested with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.0332
95908971|NCT01565707|191776022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||"The following hypotheses were tested at the 2-sided significance level 0.05:~* H0: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension~* H1: Change from baseline to EoT in mean MVV per micturition is not the same for placebo and solifenacin succinate oral suspension"||24.0|0.2|0.046
95908972|NCT01565707|191776022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|27.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||27.4|-36.7|
95875201|NCT01461980|191706502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98||||||Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin antigens).||0.98|0.84|
95875202|NCT01461980|191706502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.98||||||Pertussis pertactin: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis pertactin antigens).||0.98|0.80|
95875203|NCT01461980|191706502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMC ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.08||||||Pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3: CIs for GMC ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for pertussis fimbriae agglutinogens types 2 + 3 antigens).||1.08|0.74|
95908973|NCT01565707|191776023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.9||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|59.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||59.5|4.3|0.024
95875204|NCT01461980|191706503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67|GMT Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.01||||||Serogroup A: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup A antigens).||1.01|0.82|
95875205|NCT01461980|191706503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15||||||Serogroup C: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup C antigens).||1.15|0.90|
95875206|NCT01461980|191706503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09||||||Serogroup Y: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup Y antigens).||1.09|0.89|
95875207|NCT01461980|191706503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04||||||Serogroup W-135: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for Serogroup W-135 antigens).||1.04|0.83|
95875208|NCT01461980|191706504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.02|0.84|
95875209|NCT01461980|191706504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold and statistical inference was based on the CIs of the GMT ratios. Non-inferiority was achieved when the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMT ratios after vaccination 1 was greater than 0.67.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.0||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: CIs for GMT ratio were back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (Group 1 - Group 2 for hSBA strain titers).||1.00|0.82|
95875210|NCT03161093|191706533|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.028|-0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.324|-1.028|0.0002
95875211|NCT03161093|191706534|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|-0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.346|-1.046|<0.0001
95875212|NCT03161093|191706535|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.7036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.401|-0.594|0.7036
95875213|NCT03161093|191706536|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.297|-0.657|0.4605
95875214|NCT03387683|191706602|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.31121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46184||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|1.24141||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo-Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||1.24141|-0.61900|0.504
95875215|NCT03387683|191706603|OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.74969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18363||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64837|6.14775||Statistical significance was inferred at a (2-sided) 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|The LSM estimate and corresponding p-value were obtained from a linear model with treatment and baseline value of the endpoint as covariates.||Difference in LSM (Placebo - Dapagliflozin 10 mg)||6.14775|-2.64837|0.427
95875216|NCT02758171|191706625|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.818|103.644|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.644|99.818|<0.0001
95875217|NCT02758171|191706626|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|99.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|103.672|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.672|95.290|<0.0001
95908974|NCT01565707|191776023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|41.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||41.9|-76.5|
95908975|NCT01565707|191776024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-0.3|0.763
95875218|NCT02758171|191706627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|102.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.945|106.91|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.910|97.945|<0.0001
95875219|NCT02758171|191706628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence acceptable range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|107.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.4||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.561|117.282|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||117.282|98.561|0.0027
95875220|NCT02758171|191706629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|101.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.574|103.336|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.336|99.574|
95875221|NCT02758171|191706630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio|98.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.456|103.082|||ANOVA||"The ratio \[%\] calculated as T \[FDC (10 mg Empagliflozin and 5 mg Linagliptin)\]/R \[Empagliflozin (10 mg) + Linagliptin (5 mg) Single Tablets\].~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|The statistical model used was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: Sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect subjects within sequences was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||103.082|93.456|
95875222|NCT03840174|191706649|OTHER||GMT Ratio|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|252.4|||||Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio and 95% CI were estimated using an ANOVA model.|||252.4|23.9|
95875223|NCT00178633|191706704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95875224|NCT00857415|191706723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||A one-sided test (rho \> 0) was performed with a significance level of alpha=0.05 to assess a significant correlation.|Spearman's Rank Correlation test||Asymptotic standard error and 95 percent CI used Fisher z-transformation.|Spearman's Rank Order Correlation of the median semiquantitative read (three readers) and the quantitative IHC measurement of cortical amyloid plaque density averaged across six brain regions.||0.89|0.58|<0.0001
95875225|NCT00857415|191706724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.0|100.0|||||95% CI calculated by Wilson score method|Proportion of subjects who had a negative scan based on majority of 3 blinded readers||100|91|
95875226|NCT02314143|191706728|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|4.459|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for dabrafenib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||4.459|0.224|1.0000
95875227|NCT02314143|191706728|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|10.166|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio for trametinib followed by combination therapy versus combination therapy has been presented.|||10.166|0.382|0.4216
95875228|NCT04231318|191706744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0406
95875229|NCT04231318|191706744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0795|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0795
95875230|NCT04231318|191706744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7601|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7601
95875231|NCT04231318|191706745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1942|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1942
95875232|NCT04231318|191706745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0957|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0957
95875233|NCT04231318|191706745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4526|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4526
95875234|NCT04231318|191706746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1309
95875235|NCT04231318|191706746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1700
95875236|NCT04231318|191706746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7609|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7609
95875237|NCT04231318|191706747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1000
95875238|NCT04231318|191706747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0423|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0423
95875239|NCT04231318|191706747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3830
95875240|NCT04231318|191706748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0298|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0298
95875241|NCT04231318|191706748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0217|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0217
95875242|NCT04231318|191706748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4451|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4451
95875243|NCT04231318|191706749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1197
95875244|NCT04231318|191706749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
95875245|NCT04231318|191706749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0223
95875246|NCT04231318|191706750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1067|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1067
95875247|NCT04231318|191706751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1715|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1715
95875248|NCT04231318|191706751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0736
95875249|NCT04231318|191706751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4098|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4098
95875250|NCT04231318|191706752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2718|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2718
95875251|NCT04231318|191706752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0182|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0182
95875252|NCT04231318|191706752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1131
95875253|NCT04231318|191706753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2143|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2143
95875254|NCT04231318|191706753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1628|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1628
95875255|NCT04231318|191706753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6036
95875256|NCT04231318|191706754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2220
95875257|NCT04231318|191706754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1410
95875258|NCT04231318|191706754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5418|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5418
95875259|NCT04231318|191706755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1619
95875260|NCT04231318|191706755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1683
95875261|NCT04231318|191706755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6969|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6969
95875262|NCT04231318|191706756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0701|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0701
95875263|NCT04231318|191706756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0925|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0925
95875264|NCT04231318|191706756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6981
95875265|NCT04231318|191706757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0275
95875266|NCT04231318|191706757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1738|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1738
95875267|NCT04231318|191706757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8364|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8364
95875268|NCT04231318|191706758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2227|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2227
95875269|NCT04231318|191706758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1114|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1114
95875270|NCT04231318|191706758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4635|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4635
95875271|NCT01916967|191706759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.65|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in least squares (LS) means of Desloratadine 5 mg and Placebo||-0.65|-1.69|<0.001
95875272|NCT01916967|191706759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-1.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.61|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model with terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, visit-by-age strata, visit-by-severity interactions; visit treated as a categorical variable||Difference in LS means of Desloratadine 10 mg and Placebo||-0.61|-1.66|<0.001
95875273|NCT00406354|191706779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-1.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.5|-5.0|<.001
95875274|NCT00406354|191706780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|-3.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-3.8|-11.0|<.001
95875275|NCT00406354|191706781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.8|-5.3|<.001
95875276|NCT00406354|191706782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-2.0|-5.8|<.001
95875277|NCT00406354|191706783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.2|-0.6|<.001
95875278|NCT00406354|191706784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
95875279|NCT00406354|191706785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-0.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.9|-6.2|0.010
95875280|NCT00406354|191706786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-3.2|0.010
95875281|NCT00406354|191706787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||2.0|-4.9|0.406
95875282|NCT00406354|191706788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
95875283|NCT00406354|191706789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
95875284|NCT00406354|191706790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-0.4|-1.1|<.001
95875285|NCT00406354|191706791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.3||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||9.3|0.8|0.021
95875286|NCT00406354|191706792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||-1.4|-13.8|0.017
95875287|NCT00406354|191706793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||10.9|-0.0|0.050
95875288|NCT00406354|191706794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||16.4|4.9|<.001
95875289|NCT00406354|191706795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|14.6||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.6|1.6|0.015
95875290|NCT00406354|191706796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|14.7||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive results are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||14.7|1.4|0.018
95875291|NCT00406354|191706797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.5||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|ANCOVA||Positive values are in favor of the atomoxetine arms.|||11.5|-1.6|0.138
95875292|NCT00406354|191706798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.193||||0.016||95.0|1.16|4.146||p-value is from comparison of combined atomoxetine fast group plus atomoxetine slow group versus placebo group at Week 9.|Log Rank|||||4.146|1.160|0.016
95967595|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.03
95875293|NCT00406354|191706799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the initial three weeks of study treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.102
95875294|NCT00406354|191706800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101||95.0||||p-value is from comparison of atomoxetine fast group versus atomoxetine slow group for any clinically relevant categories of adverse events during the nine-week study treatment period.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.101
95908976|NCT01565707|191776024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.0|-0.8|
95908977|NCT01565707|191776025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.5|0.402
95908978|NCT01565707|191776025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.5|
95967596|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.2||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.20
95875295|NCT01224665|191706803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4||Using an intention-to-treat analysis, we specified a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Log Rank|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|3-year DFS estimates of 55% among participants undergoing SLND and 65% undergoing ELND were used to estimate the target HR. Assuming exponential DFS distribution, 5 years of enrollment, 3 years of follow-up, and 564 eligible participants, the trial would have 85% power to detect a 28% lower risk of recurrence or death with ELND than SLND.||1.40|0.86|0.45
95875296|NCT01224665|191706804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||||Adjustments were made for the following stratification factors: neoadjuvant chemotherapy, clinical T stage, and Zubrod performance score.|We assumed that the standard lymphadenectomy arm has 5-year survival of 55%, so we had 83% statistical power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.72 (55% vs. 65% survival at 5 years).||1.45|0.88|
95875297|NCT01842815|191706813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0077
95875298|NCT01842815|191706814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00012||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.00012
95875299|NCT01842815|191706815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||The value looked at for statistical significance is if p\<.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t-tailed, paired t-test||This t-test is to test the statistical significance of the right side of the tattoo clearance vs. the left side of the tattoo clearance. It tests if there is a difference between the tattoo being treated twice per visit (right side) vs. being treated once per visit (left side).||||.0034
95875300|NCT01483807|191706838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.254|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of performance (change in articulation accuracy) with SPT-R versus SPT-B items. Based on the existing literature, it was predicted that the mean effect size associated with SPT-R would be greater than that for SPT-B.||||.254
95875301|NCT01483807|191706839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25||||0.043|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||On the basis of existing literature. SPT-R was predicted to be associated with greater increase in articulatory accuracy over baseline levels than SPT-B.||||.043
95875302|NCT01483807|191706840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of change in accuracy of articulation of untreated items: SPT-R versus SPT-B items. It was predicted that there would be a greater increase in accuracy for SPT-R items.||||.396
95967597|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
95875303|NCT01483807|191706841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparison of effect sizes obtained for untreated SPT-R versus untreated SPT-B items. It was predicted that effect sizes would be greater for SPT-R untreated items.||||.212
95967598|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.05
95875304|NCT02979197|191706845|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-sample t-test was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib (arm 1) was non-inferior to half of the effect achieved with Amlodipine+Placebo (arm 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was considered met if the lower limits of the 97.5% one-side confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SBPday change in arm 1 and 50% of the mean change in arm 2 was less than 0.||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF method was used. Primary efficacy analysis was based on the difference between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo (arms 1 and 2, respectively) in the mean change in SBPday from Baseline to final (Day 13), where a subject completed the 14-day treatment plan, or to Day 6, where a subject was withdrawn from treatment before the Day 13 dose but after the Day 6 dose, or to baseline, where a subject was withdrawn before the Day 6 dose.||||0.024
95875305|NCT02979197|191706846|OTHER|ANOVA F-test was used to compare the mean changes in body weight from baseline to end of treatment among the three treatment arms. The omni-bus test was to conclude if any differences existed.||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in body weight was the 1st of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.006
95875306|NCT02979197|191706847|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered SBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.826|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in SBP24h was the 2nd of the four secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.826
95908979|NCT01565707|191776026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2|0.0|0.630
95908980|NCT01565707|191776026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate..|||0.2|-0.2|
95908981|NCT01565707|191776027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-1.0|0.563
95908982|NCT01565707|191776027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.9|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.9|-1.6|
95908983|NCT01565707|191776028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.9|0.770
95875307|NCT02979197|191706848|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib lowered DBP24h to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in DBP24h was the 3rd of the 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.500
95875308|NCT02979197|191706849|SUPERIORITY|A two-sample t-test for superiority was used to test the one-sided hypothesis that treatment with Amlodipine+Celecoxib improved creatinine clearance to a greater degree than Amlodipine+Placebo.||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A serial gatekeeping strategy was used for secondary efficacy analyses. If, and only if, statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (SBPday), a secondary hierarchical analysis was to be used to evaluate secondary efficacy endpoints and was only to proceed from one to the next if the alpha was met for the prior; if the alpha was not met, analysis was performed for informational purposes only. Mean change in creatinine clearance was the 4th of 4 secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.668
95875309|NCT02979197|191706850|SUPERIORITY|Differences in the occurrence of TEAEs between treatment arms were evaluated using Chi-square test.||||||0.675|||||||Chi-squared|Computed on the number of subjects who had at least one TEAE.||||||0.675
95967599|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.59||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.59
95967600|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cF-iM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.12
95967601|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.10
95967602|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.57||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.57
95967603|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.06||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-iT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.06
95967604|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
95967605|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.69||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.69
95967606|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in cM-cT connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.14
95967607|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.12||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during active rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.12
95875310|NCT02979197|191706850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.555|||||||Regression, Logistic|TEAE (1=at least one TEAE occurred for the subject; 0=otherwise) as dependent variable and treatment as fixed effect.||||||0.555
95967608|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.6||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0076.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Within-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity during sham rTMS (post-rTMS versus pre-rTMS).||||0.60
95967609|NCT04325282|191906036|OTHER|Given the multiple ROIs investigated, we adjusted significance thresholds using principal component analysis, which accounts for the effective number of independent tests. This method is suitable when data in each comparison are not completely independent, as is the case with EEG where signal represents summated activity from multiple regions.||||||0.04||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0071.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Between-group analysis of change in iM-cM connectivity induced by active versus sham rTMS.||||0.04
95967610|NCT00567567|191906054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Log Rank Test Statistic|6.9883||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event-free survival distributions of patients randomized to Regimen A - Single HST (CEM) and randomized to Regimen B - Tandem HST (CEM) were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0082
95967611|NCT00567567|191906055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-squared test statistic|8.5751||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test of proportions in all patients to compare the proportion of responders (complete response \[CR\]+ very good partial response \[VGPR\]) at the end of induction therapy in this study to an analogous cohort of responders in A3973.||||0.0034
95967612|NCT00567567|191906056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Gray's test statistic|0.33709||||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Gray's test for competing risks|||The cumulative incidence rates of local recurrence between patients from ANBL0532 randomized or assigned to receive single CEM transplant and boost radiation and A3973 patients who were transplanted and received boost radiation were compared using Gray's test.||||0.5615
95967613|NCT00567567|191906057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.0557||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0939
95967614|NCT00567567|191906058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.0543||||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3277
95967615|NCT00567567|191906059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4328||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4105|5.001|||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used instead of chi-square test due to small expected cell counts.||Null Hypothesis: The response rate after two cycles of induction therapy and the presence of a polymorphism are independent in the study population||5.001|0.4105|0.7598
95967616|NCT00567567|191906063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.015||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The relationship between the peak serum isotretinoin concentration level with event-free survival was explored with a Cox proportional hazards model. Eligible patients treated with isotretinoin on A3973, ANBL0032, ANBL0532, or ANBL0931 with peak serum concentration level data were included in the analysis.||||0.6853
95967617|NCT03433677|191906071|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||0.00|0.00|0.375
95967618|NCT03433677|191906072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Prescott's Exact test|||||||0.468
95967619|NCT03433677|191906073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95967620|NCT03433677|191906074|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.8||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-5.3|0.304
95967621|NCT03433677|191906075|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.4||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.8|0.057
95967622|NCT03433677|191906076|SUPERIORITY||LSMeans|0.11||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSMean Difference|||0.27|-0.05|0.177
95967623|NCT04833127|191906123|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: no difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.8||generalized linear models (GLM) and generalized estimating equations (GEE) for clustering within recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|||||1.80|0.56|1.0
95967624|NCT04833127|191906123|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.07||GLM with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.|GLM (logit link) with GEE|Adjusted for age, education, if has a main male partner, which differed between the two groups at baseline.||||2.07|0.62|0.69
95967625|NCT04833127|191906124|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.85|||GLM with GEE|GLM with GEE accounting for clustering by recruitment chain||||2.85|0.35|1.00
95967626|NCT04833127|191906124|EQUIVALENCE|Null H: No difference between the 2 groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.9||GLM (logit link) with GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain|GLM (logit link) with GEE|adjusted for baseline differences in age, educational status, and whether has a primary male partner.||||2.90|0.31|0.927
95967627|NCT04833127|191906125|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.04|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|Used GEE to account for clustering by recruitment chain.||||4.04|0.73|0.215
95967628|NCT04833127|191906125|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.13|||GLM (logit link) with GEE|GEE used to account for clustering by recruitment chain|adjusted for baseline differences in age, education, and whether has a main male partner.|||4.13|0.65|0.295
95967629|NCT02175641|191906147|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a logistic link|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.62|>0.05
95967630|NCT02175641|191906148|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time by treatment interaction coefficien|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.804
95967631|NCT02175641|191906149|OTHER||Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95967632|NCT02175641|191906150|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|time*treatment interaction coefficient|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95875311|NCT02979197|191706851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification were treated as 0.||||0.226
95875312|NCT02979197|191706852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For this analysis, all values below the limit of quantification (BLQ) were treated as 0.04 ng/mL. Assignment of BLQ values to a nonzero number allowed computation of the log transformation. The selection of 0.04 ng/mL was based on the lower limit of quantification of the validated bioanalytical method (0.05 ng/mL) and selecting the next lowest number at the hundredth decimal place.||||0.215
95875313|NCT02979197|191706853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -3.48 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -5.4 to -1.6||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Celecoxib arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0005
95875314|NCT02979197|191706853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.72 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -3.6 to 0.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Amlodipine+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.0750
95967633|NCT02175641|191906151|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
95875315|NCT02979197|191706853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.92 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 2.8||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the Placebo+Placebo arm from baseline to Day 14.||||0.4184
95875316|NCT02979197|191706853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2022|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.76 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.5 to 1.0||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Amlodipine+Placebo arms.||||0.2022
95875317|NCT02979197|191706853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = -1.56 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -6.6 to 3.5||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Celecoxib and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.5410
95875318|NCT02979197|191706853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9397|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean = 0.19 μmol/L; 95% confidence interval = -4.9 to 5.2||Renal function was analyzed by evaluating the decreases in serum creatinine from baseline to Day 14 for each treatment arm and between treatment arms by ANCOVA. This analysis was for the comparison between the Amlodipine+Placebo and Placebo+Placebo arms.||||0.9397
95875319|NCT05597020|191706868|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference vs placebo|20.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|33.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period, week within period, and interaction of treatment and week were factors; baseline sTST assessment was covariate.||||33.7|8.0|0.002
95875320|NCT01015131|191706871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1521|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0932|0.2111|||paired t-test|||||0.2111|0.0932|<0.01
95875321|NCT03029702|191706882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95875322|NCT03029702|191706883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95875323|NCT03029702|191706884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95967634|NCT02175641|191906152|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.39
95967635|NCT02175641|191906153|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.52
95875324|NCT03029702|191706885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95875325|NCT03029702|191706886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95875326|NCT03029702|191706887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95875327|NCT03029702|191706888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8
95875328|NCT03029702|191706889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95875329|NCT04246372|191706894|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.84||||6.21e-06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.||||||0.00000621
95875330|NCT04246372|191706895|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.91||||6.1e-07||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000061
95875331|NCT04246372|191706896|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.03||||4e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000004
95875332|NCT04246372|191706898|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.14||||3.93e-05||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0000393
95875333|NCT04246372|191706899|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-0.67||||0.00399||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00399
95875334|NCT04246372|191706900|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-3.04||||0.146||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
95875335|NCT04246372|191706902|OTHER||Effect size (Cohen's d)|-1.05||||9e-08||||||Two-sided paired Student t test comparing the values for each participant at Baseline and 16 weeks.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.00000009
95875336|NCT00257608|191706904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.708||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.580|0.0006
95875337|NCT00257608|191706910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.5341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.205|||Log Rank|||||1.205|0.698|0.5341
95875338|NCT02742441|191706915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Treatment groups were compared with respect to the proportions of subjects with treatment success at Day 15 using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by analysis center."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||||||<0.001
95967636|NCT02175641|191906154|OTHER|Mixed effect models controlling for study site.|Time*treatment interaction coefficient|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95967637|NCT01399697|191906183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.700
95967638|NCT01399697|191906184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.328
95967639|NCT01399697|191906185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.518
95967640|NCT01399697|191906186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.358
95875339|NCT02742441|191706916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was achieved for each of the clinical signs of psoriasis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Missing data was imputed as treatment failure.||Treatment groups were compared with respect to each of the clinical signs of psoriasis (plaque elevation, scaling, and erythema).||||<0.001
95875340|NCT02742441|191706917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.012
95875341|NCT02595970|191706921|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for multiplicity using the Hochberg procedure.|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|20.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.59|-24.52|<0.0001
95875342|NCT02595970|191706931|SUPERIORITY|adjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|19.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.58|-23.52|<0.0001
95875343|NCT03789396|191707010|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Comparison of patient odds of being hyperoxic and not on room air pre- versus post-intervention||0.97|0.57|0.03
95875344|NCT03089320|191707043|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|9.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|31.68|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||31.68|0.08|
95875345|NCT03089320|191707044|SUPERIORITY||posterior mean proportion of abstinence|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|18.23|||||The lower and upper limits are credible intervals.|Bayesian analysis was performed, therefore p value is not reported. Bayes factor has been reported instead.||18.23|0.17|
95875346|NCT03089320|191707045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||mixed effects model||1.34|-9.97|.05
95875347|NCT02899299|191707059|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|96.6|0.6|0.91||Boundary for statistical significance was a p-value \< 0.0345|Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.91|0.60|0.0020
95875348|NCT02899299|191707062|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.13|0.77|
95875349|NCT02899299|191707063|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||\<1% PD-L1||1.32|0.64|
95875350|NCT02899299|191707063|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.88||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.88|0.59|
95875351|NCT02899299|191707064|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63||||||\< 1% PD-L1||2.63|1.22|
95875352|NCT02899299|191707064|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A vs Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||||||≥1% PD-L1||0.96|0.61|
95875353|NCT02899299|191707066|SUPERIORITY|Treatment A over Treatment B|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|This is 2 sided p-value from log-rank test stratified by histology and sex as entered in the IRT|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||0.88|0.62|0.0008
95875354|NCT00313300|191707069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.4|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||5.4|-1.0|
95875355|NCT00313300|191707069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||7.3|0.4|
95875356|NCT00313300|191707070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||||||||1.19|0.44|
95875357|NCT00313300|191707070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||||||||1.04|0.35|
95875358|NCT00313300|191707071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||11.3|1.8|
95875359|NCT00313300|191707071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|15.2|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||15.2|4.8|
95875360|NCT00313300|191707072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.17||||||||1.17|0.44|
95875361|NCT00313300|191707072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.07||||||||1.07|0.37|
95875362|NCT00313300|191707073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted rate difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.0|-1.3|
95875363|NCT00313300|191707073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||||adjusted difference of event rates takes into consideration stratification factors.|||2.7|-1.1|
95875364|NCT00313300|191707074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
95875365|NCT00313300|191707074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
95875366|NCT00313300|191707074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
95875367|NCT00313300|191707074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
95875368|NCT00313300|191707075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.1||||||||8.1|0.0|
95875369|NCT00313300|191707075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.3||||||||9.3|0.0|
95875370|NCT00313300|191707075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.5||||||||10.5|3.4|
95875371|NCT00313300|191707075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0||||||||8.0|1.4|
95875372|NCT00313300|191707076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.9||||||||14.9|1.8|
95875373|NCT00313300|191707076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|18.4||||||||18.4|3.4|
95875374|NCT00313300|191707076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|23.2||||||||23.2|11.6|
95875375|NCT00313300|191707076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|15.1||||||||15.1|5.6|
95967641|NCT01399697|191906187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.032||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.184|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and DAS28 value at Week 16 as covariate.|||0.184|-0.119|0.674
95875376|NCT00313300|191707077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.88||||||||2.88|0.44|
95875377|NCT00313300|191707077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.57||||||||2.57|0.29|
95875378|NCT00313300|191707077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.66||||||||1.66|0.30|
95875379|NCT00313300|191707077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.74||||||||1.74|0.30|
95875380|NCT00313300|191707078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.6||||||||2.6|-0.9|
95875381|NCT00313300|191707078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.1||||||||5.1|0.6|
95875382|NCT00313300|191707078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Rate Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||||||||6.9|1.3|
95875383|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Diphtheria Toxin \>=0.1 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95967642|NCT01399697|191906188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.873||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.775|1.03|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and mental component score (MCS) as covariate.|||1.030|-4.775|0.204
95967643|NCT01399697|191906189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|3.376||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|6.076|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and physical component score (PCS) as covariate.|||6.076|0.676|0.015
95967644|NCT01399697|191906190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.969||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.526|7.464|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the participant at Week 16 as a covariate.|||7.464|-5.526|0.769
95967645|NCT01399697|191906191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.216||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.573|4.141|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and VAS performed by the investigator at Week 16 as covariate.|||4.141|-6.573|0.655
95875384|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Tetanus Toxin \>=0.01 IU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95875385|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis Toxin \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95875386|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Pertussis FHA \>=10 EU/mL||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95875387|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 1 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95875388|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 2 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95875389|NCT01926015|191707142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the percentage difference, excluding a difference \>=10%, is \>=-0.10|Difference in percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.95|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Poliovirus Type 3 NA \>=8||3.95|-3.99|<0.001
95875390|NCT01364649|191707155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measurements|The primary analysis was performed by using observed case data only.||||4.02|0.48|0.013
95875391|NCT04540497|191707170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.28|||||Inebilizumab versus placebo|||0.28|0.06|
95875392|NCT04540497|191707177|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.26|||||Inebilizumab vs placebo|||0.26|0.05|
95875393|NCT04612790|191707182|OTHER||Difference in percentage of responders|6.7||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|24.29|||Logistic regression model with Firth adj|||Estimates were from a logistic regression model using the Firth adjustment (adj) that included treatment group, baseline disease severity (moderate, severe) and time of BP diagnosis (participants with newly diagnosed BP, participants with a previous diagnosis of BP who have relapsed) as categorical covariates.||24.29|-10.90|0.509
95875394|NCT00785928|191707188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||95.0||||This is p-value for the fitted ACR50 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.059
95875395|NCT00785928|191707188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|119.0||||0.042||95.0||||This is the p-value for the estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is ED95 in mg.||||||0.042
95875396|NCT00785928|191707189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||This is the p-value for the fitted ACR20 response rate and is based on the dose-response regression model and comes from the joint test of linear and quadratic dose response (response=dose+dose\^2) from the likelihood ratio test.|Linear-quadratic regression model|||||||0.044
95967646|NCT01145898|191906200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||There will be (as shown) differences in the number of subjects based upon the time of analysis due to patient loss, data of insufficient quality at visit, or change in the drug use during period of study (patient switched off treatment by their doctor) so the number of data points varies throughout the analysis by availability.||||.6261
95967647|NCT01145898|191906201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.6081
95967648|NCT01145898|191906202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1822||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1822
95967649|NCT01145898|191906203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
95967650|NCT01145898|191906204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2383
95875397|NCT00785928|191707189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED95|118.5||||0.005||95.0||||This p-value is for estimated dose level of the smallest dose, in milligrams (mg), that achieves at least 95% of the maximal efficacy (ED95) of the ACR20 and is based on the comparisons that the ED95 yields a higher fitted response rate than placebo.|Linear-quadratic regression model|This is the ED95 in mg.||||||0.005
95875398|NCT00785928|191707190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.623
95875399|NCT00785928|191707190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.160
95875400|NCT00785928|191707190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.568
95875401|NCT00785928|191707190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.633
95875402|NCT00785928|191707190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.754
95875403|NCT00785928|191707190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.289
95875404|NCT00785928|191707191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
95875405|NCT00785928|191707191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
95875406|NCT00785928|191707191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.367
95875407|NCT00785928|191707191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.645
95875408|NCT00785928|191707191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
95875409|NCT00785928|191707191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.133
95875410|NCT00785928|191707192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
95875411|NCT00785928|191707192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.874
95875412|NCT00785928|191707192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.278
95875413|NCT00785928|191707192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.357||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.357
95875414|NCT00785928|191707192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.271
95875415|NCT00785928|191707192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (1-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.048
95875416|NCT00785928|191707193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.875
95875417|NCT00785928|191707193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95875418|NCT00785928|191707193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||This p-value is from 2-sided comparison of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using Fisher's exact test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95875419|NCT00785928|191707193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.304
95875420|NCT00785928|191707193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.489
95875421|NCT00785928|191707193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||This p-value is from a 2-sided comparison of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using a Chi-square test for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good, moderate, no).|Chi-squared|||||||0.091
95875422|NCT00785928|191707194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.746
95875423|NCT00785928|191707194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.393
95875424|NCT00785928|191707194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.549
95875425|NCT00785928|191707194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.619
95875426|NCT00785928|191707194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.893
95875427|NCT00785928|191707194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.066
95875428|NCT00785928|191707195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.583
95967651|NCT01145898|191906205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1564||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1564
95967652|NCT01145898|191906206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2265||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2265
95967653|NCT01145898|191906207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4645||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.4645
95967654|NCT01145898|191906208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5998||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.5998
95967655|NCT01145898|191906209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.8119
95967656|NCT01145898|191906210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.1319
95875429|NCT00785928|191707195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.311
95875430|NCT00785928|191707195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.752
95967657|NCT01145898|191906211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0199||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.0199
95967658|NCT01145898|191906212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7597||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.7597
95967659|NCT01145898|191906213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2528||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.2528
95967660|NCT01401153|191906219|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation based on parallel group design --\> revealed that 68 children are needed to detect a difference of 45ms in the mean reaction time between the groups, with α=.05 and a power of 0.8.||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||Power calculation had been performed.||||0.79
95967661|NCT01401153|191906220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.07
95967662|NCT01401153|191906221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.61
95967663|NCT01401153|191906222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been perfomed based on this measure||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.03
95967664|NCT01401153|191906223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.25|||||||Generalized linear models|The fixed statement considered treatment, test day and the interaction between treatment and test day||||||0.25
95967665|NCT01401153|191906224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.7|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.70
95967666|NCT01401153|191906225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.33|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.33
95875431|NCT00785928|191707195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.737
95875432|NCT00785928|191707195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.522||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.522
95875433|NCT00785928|191707195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
95875434|NCT00785928|191707196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.969
95875435|NCT00785928|191707196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.352
95875436|NCT00785928|191707196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.406
95875437|NCT00785928|191707196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.266
95875438|NCT00785928|191707196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.708
95875439|NCT00785928|191707196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95875440|NCT00785928|191707197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.880
95875441|NCT00785928|191707197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.575
95875442|NCT00785928|191707197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.992||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.992
95875443|NCT00785928|191707197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.646
95875444|NCT00785928|191707197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
95875445|NCT00785928|191707197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.472
95875446|NCT00785928|191707198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.952
95875447|NCT00785928|191707198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.085
95875448|NCT00785928|191707198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
95875449|NCT00785928|191707198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.242
95875450|NCT00785928|191707198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
95875451|NCT00785928|191707198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.456
95875452|NCT00785928|191707199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.833
95875453|NCT00785928|191707199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.826
95875454|NCT00785928|191707199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.091
95875455|NCT00785928|191707199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.127
95967667|NCT01401153|191906226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.63|||||||Generalized linear models|||||||0.63
95967668|NCT01401153|191906227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.62
95967669|NCT01401153|191906228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.11
95967670|NCT01401153|191906229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.45
95967671|NCT01401153|191906230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.13
95967672|NCT01401153|191906231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.68
95967673|NCT01401153|191906232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No power calculation had been performed based on this measure||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Individual differences of both test days compared on group level (having lunch/skipping lunch vs. skipping lunch/having lunch)||||||0.67
95967674|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 0||||0.89
95967675|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.00082||||||This is the calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 7||||0.00082
95967676|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||7.6e-05||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H1N1 Day 45||||0.000076
95967677|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 0||||0.63
95967678|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.0186||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 7||||0.0186
95967679|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||This is the calculated p-value|t-test, 2 sided|||A/H3N2 Day 45||||0.0052
95967680|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 0||||0.25
95967681|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 7||||0.061
95967682|NCT03101462|191906233|OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Influenza B Day 45||||0.0025
95967683|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.24
95967684|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
95967685|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
95967686|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.56
95875456|NCT00785928|191707199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
95967687|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
95967688|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
95967689|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
95967690|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and 2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.94
95967691|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.002
95967692|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.16
95967693|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
95967694|NCT03101462|191906234|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.98
95967695|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.04
95967696|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
95967697|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.95
95967698|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.17
95967699|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.06
95967700|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.14
95967701|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.02
95967702|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.09
95967703|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.01
95967704|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.08
95967705|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.16
95967706|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.76
95967707|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.84
95967708|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.04
95967709|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.07
95967710|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Peptide Pool 1 and Peptide Pool 2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.27
95875457|NCT00785928|191707199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and the baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.037
95875458|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.562
95875459|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.539||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.539
95875460|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.304
95875461|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.832
95967711|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.11
95967712|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Live H3N2 CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.46
95967713|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 7||||0.006
95967714|NCT03101462|191906235|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flumist CD4+/CFSE(low)/IFN-gamma+, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.41
95967715|NCT03101462|191906236|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.72
95967716|NCT03101462|191906236|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and 45||||0.06
95967717|NCT03101462|191906236|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.75
95967718|NCT03101462|191906236|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H1N1 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.05
95967719|NCT03101462|191906236|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza A/H3N2 HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.0004
95967720|NCT03101462|191906236|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Influenza B HA, Day 0 and Day 45||||0.02
95967721|NCT03101462|191906237|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H1N1 HA, Day 7||||0.02
95967722|NCT03101462|191906237|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-H3N2, Day 7||||0.67
95967723|NCT03101462|191906237|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fold increase IgA anti-influenza B HA, Day 7||||0.30
95967724|NCT04145700|191906254|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Hazard Ratio|2.62||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|4.46|||Bayesian hierarchical model|||To conclude success for the intervention, the Bayesian analysis must yield a minimum of 99% posterior probability for PFS Hazard ratio less than 1 \[i.e., Pr(HR \< 1) \> 99%\]. The Bayesian analyses below include posterior mean of Hazard ratio, posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and credible intervals instead of confidence intervals.||4.46|1.19|0.051
95967725|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H11: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 300 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.99|0.75|0.0648
95967726|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H21: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 150 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group||0.98|0.74|0.0241
95967727|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE|H31: The hazard rate of first adjudication committee confirmed MACE in the canakinumab 50 mg dose group is greater than or equal to the hazard rate of the placebo group.||1.07|0.80|0.1895
95875462|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
95875463|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P-value for physical health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.980
95875464|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.569
95875465|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.953
95967728|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.16|0.77|0.572
95875466|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.647||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.647
95875467|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.507
95875468|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.821
95875469|NCT00785928|191707200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P-value for mental health component. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2123799 versus placebo using contrast statements within an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.045
95875470|NCT00785928|191707203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.236
95875471|NCT00785928|191707203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.038
95875472|NCT00785928|191707203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95875473|NCT00785928|191707203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95875474|NCT00785928|191707203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.734||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.734
95875475|NCT00785928|191707203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||Pairwise (2-sided) comparisons of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the standardized rank outcome variable treatment as the fixed factor and the standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.035
95875476|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.901
95875477|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.840
95875478|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.882
95875479|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.225
95875480|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.340
95875481|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||P-value for IgG. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.850
95875482|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.447
95875483|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.909
95875484|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.152
95875485|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.023
95875486|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95875487|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for IgM. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95875488|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 1 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.944
95875489|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 3 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.677
95875490|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 10 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.053
95875491|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 30 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
95875492|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 60 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as the fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95875493|NCT00785928|191707204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value for IgA. Pairwise comparison (2-sided) of 120 mg LY2127399 versus placebo using ranked analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with standardized rank outcome variable, treatment as fixed factor, and standardized rank baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95875494|NCT03323502|191707207|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.3313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.06|||Poisson Regression|||||1.06|0.84|0.3313
95875495|NCT03323502|191707208|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.3327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.78|0.3327
95875496|NCT03323502|191707209|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.85|0.3946
95875497|NCT03615326|191707210|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.87|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|PFS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.87|0.61|0.0002
95908984|NCT01565707|191776028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.3|-0.4|
95908985|NCT01565707|191776029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.8|0.303
95908986|NCT01565707|191776029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.1|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.1|-0.9|
95908987|NCT01565707|191776030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-0.8|0.640
95908988|NCT01565707|191776030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.4|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||1.4|-0.9|
95908989|NCT01565707|191776031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||P-value is from a rank ANCOVA analysis stratified by geographic region.|ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-0.3|0.846
95908990|NCT01565707|191776031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.5|-1.0|
95908991|NCT01565707|191776032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||||From an ANCOVA model including treatment, geographic region \& gender as fixed effects \& the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.8|-1.4|
95908992|NCT01311674|191776042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95908993|NCT01311674|191776043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95908994|NCT01311674|191776044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
95908995|NCT01311674|191776045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
95908996|NCT01311674|191776046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.27
95908997|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
95908998|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-2.0||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1: 30 days post-injection 2||-2.00|-28.4|
95875498|NCT03615326|191707211|SUPERIORITY|The hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a stratified Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|OS in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||0.94|0.67|0.0040
95875499|NCT03615326|191707212|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) at baseline, and chemotherapy regimen (FP or CAPOX).|Difference in Percentage|12.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|19.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||ORR in all participants of the Global Pembrolizumab + SOC First Course was compared to PFS in all participants of the Global Standard of Care to address the hypothesis (pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is superior to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy alone).||19.4|5.6|0.00020
95875500|NCT01539642|191707219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.89|80.14|||ANCOVA|||||80.14|19.89|0.001
95875501|NCT02651467|191707220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.181|-0.584||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the Placebo Control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.584|-1.181|<0.0001
95875502|NCT02651467|191707220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.738||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|For the Week 8 comparisons of the two Treatments against the control, Dunnett's multiplicity adjustment is applied.||-0.738|-1.333|<0.0001
95875503|NCT02651467|191707221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2478||95.0|-0.107|0.413||From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.413|-0.107|0.2478
95908999|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|2.84||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.84|-7.44|
95875504|NCT00408629|191707226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.019
95875505|NCT00408629|191707227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Testing for ranked co-primary endpoints occurred in hierarchical order to control for multiple testing. Week 8 remission rate was tested first. If a significant difference in group rates was found at alpha=0.05, Week 52 rate was tested at alpha=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||Assuming that 5% of the subjects in the placebo group achieve clinical remission at Week 52 or Week 8, a sample size of 250 in each treatment group will be adequate to detect a difference of at least 7 percentage points from the adalimumab group using Chi squared test with 80% power at a 0.05 two-sided significance level.||||0.004
95875506|NCT00408629|191707228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.047
95875507|NCT00408629|191707229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95875508|NCT00408629|191707230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
95875509|NCT00408629|191707231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95875510|NCT00408629|191707232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure were needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.032
95875511|NCT00408629|191707233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.009
95875512|NCT00408629|191707234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.013
95875513|NCT00408629|191707235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
95909000|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.75||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2: 30 days post-injection 2||8.75|-15.0|
95909001|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|11.1||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||11.1|-9.09|
95909002|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.81||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3: 30 days post-injection 2||3.81|-15.6|
95909003|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.49||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: Pre-injection 1 (Day 0)||2.49|-10.9|
95967729|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.10|0.73|0.296
95967730|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||CV death|||1.12|0.73|0.369
95909004|NCT00617344|191776047|OTHER|The associated 95% CIs for the point estimates and the differences were calculated using normal approximation.|Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|43.2||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4: 30 days post-injection 2||43.2|18.2|
95909005|NCT00450411|191776066|OTHER|||||||||||||||||It was projected that ≤10% of patients would experience late treatment-related GI/GU AEs under the protocol treatment (alternative hypothesis). A rate of ≥20% was considered unacceptable (null hypothesis). With a one-sided significance level of 0.05, it was estimated that 87 analyzable patients were required to detect the above-mentioned effect size with an 85% statistical power using Fleming's multiple testing procedure with two interim analyses and one final analysis.|Stopping Rules for a Late GI/GU Adverse Event: For 44 patients, if ≤2 then reject H0, if ≥8 then reject HA; for 73 patients, if ≤7 then reject H0, if ≥10 then reject HA; for 87 patients, if ≤10 then reject H0, if ≥11 then reject HA.|||
95909006|NCT01212770|191776076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use and and ≥ 3% body surface area (BSA) psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|The percentage of participants with an ACR20 response was compared using a Cochran-Mantel- Haenszel (CMH) test. The Hochberg procedure was used to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level. The results were considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||31.6|13.0|<0.0001
95909007|NCT01212770|191776076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||18.6|1.1|0.0295
95909008|NCT01212770|191776077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.034|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.034|-0.220|0.0073
95909009|NCT01212770|191776077|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.066||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||0.027|-0.158|0.1619
95909010|NCT01212770|191776078|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|24.3||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.3|6.7|0.0007
95909011|NCT01212770|191776078|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.5||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.5|2.7|0.0110
95909012|NCT01212770|191776079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.139||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.042|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-0.042|-0.236|0.0050
95909013|NCT01212770|191776079|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.084||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.012|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||0.012|-0.181|0.0860
95875514|NCT00408629|191707236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.058
95875515|NCT00408629|191707237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.028
95875516|NCT00408629|191707238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
95875517|NCT00408629|191707239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.035
95875518|NCT00408629|191707240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.002
95875519|NCT00408629|191707241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.007
95875520|NCT00408629|191707242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Testing of ranked secondary measures was only started if significant group differences existed for both co-primary measures. Significant results for higher-ranked measure was needed to test next lower-ranked measure to control for multiple testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification levels for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel = prior anti-TNF versus anti-TNF-naive.||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference between adalimumab and placebo. Treatment differences were deemed statistically significant at a significance level of 0.05.||||0.006
95875521|NCT01890746|191707266|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|114.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|132.7||||||||132.7|99.5|
95875522|NCT01890746|191707267|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|114.0||||||||114.0|97.1|
95875523|NCT01890746|191707268|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.8|110.2||||||||110.2|76.8|
95875524|NCT01890746|191707269|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|111.7||||||||111.7|92.9|
95875525|NCT01890746|191707270|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|121.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.5|142.8||||||||142.8|102.5|
95967731|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.01|0.69|0.067
95875526|NCT01890746|191707271|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|119.4||||||||119.4|95.0|
95967732|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||0.92|0.63|0.006
95875527|NCT01890746|191707272|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|110.0||||||||110.0|76.5|
95967733|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||MI (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|0.542
95967734|NCT01327846|191906261|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.0|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.00|0.68|
95967735|NCT01327846|191906261|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||||MI (non-fatal)|||0.92|0.62|
95967736|NCT01327846|191906261|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14|||||MI (non-fatal)|||1.14|0.78|
95967737|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.12|0.56|0.190
95967738|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.35||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.35|0.71|0.912
95967739|NCT01327846|191906261|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||Stroke (fatal and non-fatal)|||1.43|0.74|0.871
95875528|NCT01890746|191707273|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|111.2||||||||111.2|92.4|
95875529|NCT01890746|191707274|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|120.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.7|142.6||||||||142.6|100.7|
95967740|NCT01327846|191906261|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.13|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.13|0.57|
95967741|NCT01327846|191906261|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.37|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.37|0.72|
95967742|NCT01327846|191906261|OTHER|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45|||||Stroke (nonfatal)|||1.45|0.75|
95967743|NCT01327846|191906264|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.94||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.94|0.72|0.0648
95967744|NCT01327846|191906264|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||0.95|0.73|0.0241
95967745|NCT01327846|191906264|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank||MACE or unstable angina|||1.03|0.79|0.1895
95967746|NCT01327846|191906264|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.86||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.86|0.39|0.007
95967747|NCT01327846|191906264|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||0.94|0.44|0.022
95967748|NCT01327846|191906264|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.05||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||unstable angina|||1.05|0.48|0.086
95875530|NCT01890746|191707275|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|118.3||||||||118.3|93.6|
95875531|NCT01890746|191707276|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.2|113.0||||||||113.0|57.2|
95967749|NCT01327846|191906265|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.83|0.8456
95967750|NCT01327846|191906265|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.29|0.87|0.8456
95967751|NCT01327846|191906265|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.6541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2||1-sided adjusted for multiplicity using weighted Dunnett test. \[significance level 0.0245\]|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.80|0.6541
95967752|NCT01327846|191906266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.99|0.77|0.028
95967753|NCT01327846|191906266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||0.96|0.75|0.011
95875532|NCT01890746|191707277|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|106.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.6|129.0||||||||129.0|87.6|
95875533|NCT01890746|191707278|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|127.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|191.9||||||||191.9|84.2|
95875534|NCT01890746|191707279|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|110.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.9|145.7||||||||145.7|83.9|
95875535|NCT01890746|191707280|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|286.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|910.7||||||||910.7|90.1|
95967754|NCT01327846|191906266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.07||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality or MI or Stroke|||1.07|0.83|0.377
95967755|NCT01327846|191906267|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.10|0.79|0.406
95967756|NCT01327846|191906267|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.09|0.78|0.329
95967757|NCT01327846|191906267|SUPERIORITY|A HR \< 1 favors Canakinumab|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Regression, Cox||All-cause mortality|||1.13|0.81|0.597
95967758|NCT01495598|191906302|OTHER|Other = Kaplan Meier||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
95967759|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.19||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.19
95967760|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.72||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.72
95967761|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IFNƴ among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
95875536|NCT01890746|191707281|OTHER|Bioequivalence|Ratio of geometric means (%)|202.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.3|311.8||||||||311.8|131.3|
95875537|NCT01890746|191707283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.48|||Log Rank|||||2.48|0.28|0.7461
95967762|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95875538|NCT01890746|191707284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.63|||Log Rank|||||1.63|0.74|0.6175
95875539|NCT01890746|191707285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5281||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1084|2.2086|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2086|0.1084|0.3224
95875540|NCT01890746|191707287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6942
95875541|NCT01890746|191707288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1151||||0.7397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5585|2.229|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.2290|0.5585|0.7397
95875542|NCT01890746|191707289|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|6.38|||Log Rank|||||6.38|0.95|0.0781
95875543|NCT01890746|191707293|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8749||||0.7122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4023|1.8943|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.8943|0.4023|0.7122
95875544|NCT01890746|191707294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.47|||Log Rank|||||2.47|0.96|0.0688
95967763|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95967764|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL4 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95967765|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
95967766|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
95875545|NCT00631696|191707300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A non-inferiority margin of 20% was used to test the hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the difference (PGB - PBO) in the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is ≥20% and the alternative hypothesis is that the difference in proportion of participant with ≥50% reduction in sperm concentration is \<20%.|percentage difference|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|14.3|||Confidence Interval Approach||The confidence interval was based on asymptotic normal distribution.|Study powered to show non-inferiority (NI) of pregabalin (PGB) to placebo (PBO) on the percentage of participants (N) with a ≥50% reduction in MSC from Bsl to end of washout (Week (Wk) 26, or last assessment on or after Wk 12 if Wk 26 not done). NI to be declared if upper bound of 95% CI for difference between PGB and PBO not \>20%. Assuming proportion of N with 50% reduction to be 6% for both groups, sample size N=65 per group would provide \>90% power to show NI of PGB to PBO.||14.30|-2.29|
95875546|NCT00631696|191707301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.136||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.136|-0.385|0.3462
95875547|NCT00631696|191707302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.156||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.156|-0.420|0.3652
95967767|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
95967768|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0003||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
95967769|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
95967770|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.01||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL8 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.01
95967771|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL6 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
95967772|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.91||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.91
95967773|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.64||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.64
95967774|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.7||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.70
95967775|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.59||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.59
95967776|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.26||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL12 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.26
95967777|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0008
95967778|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95967779|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IL13 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
95967780|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.005||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.005
95967781|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
95967782|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of TNFα among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
95967783|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.42||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.42
95967784|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.85||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.85
95967785|NCT01495598|191906312|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.16||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of IP-10 among all participants. Two tailed Wilcoxon signed rank test without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.16
95967786|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.07||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.07
95967787|NCT01495598|191906313|NON_INFERIORITY|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
95967788|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.15
95967789|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
95967790|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
95875548|NCT00631696|191707303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.054||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||0.054|-0.464|0.1204
95875549|NCT00631696|191707304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|24.65||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.999|70.302||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||70.302|-20.999|0.2875
95875550|NCT00631696|191707305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|32.93||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.292|80.158||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||80.158|-14.292|0.1699
95875551|NCT00631696|191707306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-6.12||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.804|40.558||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||40.558|-52.804|0.7958
95875552|NCT00631696|191707307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.08||||0.4094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.645|1.494||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.494|-3.645|0.4094
95875553|NCT00631696|191707308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.649|2.352||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||2.352|-2.649|0.9064
95875554|NCT00631696|191707309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86||||0.4666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.207|1.477||p-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean (LS Mean) and 95% CI from ANCOVA with treatment and center as main effects and baseline value as covariate in the model. LS Mean Difference calculated as (Pregabalin - Placebo).|||1.477|-3.207|0.4666
95875555|NCT03198078|191707310|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.33||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|-1.1||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-1.10|-9.55|0.0136
95875556|NCT03198078|191707310|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.53||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-2.21||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||-2.21|-10.8|0.0032
95875557|NCT03198078|191707311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.22|-2.65|0.0205
95875558|NCT03198078|191707311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.15||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.91||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Positive Sub-scale Score||-0.91|-3.40|0.0008
95967791|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.79||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD4+cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.79
95967792|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.03||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.03
95967793|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.008||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.008
95967794|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.12||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.12
95967795|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
95967796|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.02
95875559|NCT03198078|191707311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.28||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.28|-2.04|0.1360
95875560|NCT03198078|191707311|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.95||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.24||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline to Week 6 in PANSS Negative Sub-scale Score||0.24|-2.14|0.1158
95875561|NCT03198078|191707312|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.55||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.20|1.09|0.0111
95875562|NCT03198078|191707312|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.51||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.06|0.0224
95875563|NCT03198078|191707313|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.18||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||1.81|0.77|0.4415
95875564|NCT03198078|191707313|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Remission Rate|1.48||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH general association test controlling for (pooled) centers.||||2.16|1.01|0.0472
95875565|NCT03198078|191707314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.48||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.31||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||5.31|-0.35|0.0854
95875566|NCT03198078|191707314|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.99||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.88||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||6.88|1.09|0.0072
95875567|NCT03198078|191707315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.3589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.13|-0.36|0.3589
95875568|NCT03198078|191707315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05||P-value was analyzed by MMRM method with fixed effect of treatment, (pooled) clinical center visit, treatment visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline visit interaction as a covariate, and with an unstructured covariance.|MMRM|||||0.05|-0.45|0.1118
95875569|NCT03198078|191707316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.03|-0.56|0.0287
95967797|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.36||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD8+ cells/µL among HIV+ participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.36
95967798|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.002
95967799|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.0002||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0002
95967800|NCT01495598|191906313|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.|||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the changes in levels of CD19+ cells/µL among all participants.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||<0.0001
95875570|NCT03198078|191707316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was analyzed by CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center.||||-0.06|-0.62|0.0184
95875571|NCT03198078|191707327|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.39|-0.24|
95875572|NCT03198078|191707327|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.51|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.51|-0.14|
95875573|NCT03198078|191707328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.18|-0.30|
95875574|NCT03198078|191707328|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.36|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.36|-0.13|
95967801|NCT01495598|191906314|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.13
95967802|NCT01495598|191906314|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
95967803|NCT01495598|191906314|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.32
95967804|NCT01495598|191906314|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.06
95967805|NCT01495598|191906314|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.007
95875575|NCT03198078|191707329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.09|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.09|-0.08|
95875576|NCT03198078|191707329|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.14|||||LS mean difference was analyzed by ANCOVA model, with treatment and study center as main effects and baseline value as covariate.|||0.14|-0.04|
95875577|NCT03711266|191707343|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|44.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Thirty patients were included in the final analysis. The analysis strategy was intent-to-treat, and multiple imputation was used to impute missing follow-up data. We included auxiliary variables that were correlated with the missing variables at r \> 0.4 (Enders, 2010).||44.3|18.5|<.001
95875578|NCT00057876|191707347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test is conducted for OS to see whether the two treatment arms are different in their overall survival probabilities.||||0.017
95875579|NCT00057876|191707348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.25
95875580|NCT00057876|191707349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare objective response rate (CR+PR) between two treatment groups||||0.99
95875581|NCT03194503|191707366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows in the post-intervention column. ITT analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||0.92|0.47|0.015
95875582|NCT03194503|191707367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis applies to all three rows and is a per-protocol analysis: Multivariable analysis for Any TIAEs, Severe TIAEs, and Severe desaturation(\>20%)||1.20|0.50|0.250
95875583|NCT00457366|191707368|OTHER|We used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as the covariate to analyze the PANSS-EC at hour 2.|||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95875584|NCT02787551|191707390|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, visits, treatment-by-visit interaction, world region as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Analysis included all scheduled measurements obtained during 26-week randomized treatment period, including those obtained after IMP discontinuation/introduction of rescue medication.||-0.508|-0.770|<0.0001
95875585|NCT02787551|191707392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.11|43.99||Threshold for significance \<=0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||HbA1c \<7.0%: Insulin Glargine/Lixisenatide FRC vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonist. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method method stratified on randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), and randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype at screening. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially per pre-specified order (only HbA1c \< 7% was part of testing).||43.99|28.11|<.0001
95875586|NCT02787551|191707394|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.001|-1.341||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and and baseline FPG value-by visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-1.341|-2.001|<0.0001
95875587|NCT02787551|191707396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-0.708||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype at screening, scheduled visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and world region as fixed effects, and baseline average SMPG value-by-visit interaction as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).||-0.708|-1.325|<0.0001
95967806|NCT01495598|191906315|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
95875588|NCT02787551|191707398|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-2.279||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 RA subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-2.279|-3.420|<0.0001
95875589|NCT02787551|191707400|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.468|-0.508||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -2 HbA1c (\<8.0%, \>=8.0%), randomization strata of GLP-1 receptor agonist subtype (once/twice daily formulations, once weekly formulations) at screening, and world region as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour plasma glucose excursion value as a covariate. Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-0.508|-1.468|<0.0001
95909014|NCT01212770|191776080|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.95|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||3.95|0.69|0.0053
95909015|NCT01212770|191776080|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|1.15||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.77|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||2.77|-0.48|0.1658
95967807|NCT01495598|191906315|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.65
95967808|NCT01495598|191906315|OTHER|P\<0.005 was considered statistically significant while 0.005 \<P\<0.05 was considered evidence of a strong trend.||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.56
95967809|NCT03238963|191906344|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.192|||Chan and Zhang method|95% confidence interval was calculating using the Chan and Zhang method.|Risk difference of BI 1467335 10 milligram (mg) group minus Placebo group.|||0.192|-0.053|
95967810|NCT01325311|191906405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Using the Student t-test. If the normality assumption is tenuous, an appropriate transformation of the data such as logarithm will be considered for Student t-test or a nonparametric test such as Wilcoxon rank-sum test will be used for comparison.||||0.922
95967811|NCT03439254|191906420|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.13||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.79|0.71|0.6172
95967812|NCT03439254|191906420|OTHER||Response ratio(Mantel-Haenszel estimate)|1.2||||0.4184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment / Placebo Response Ratio = Percentage of Responders in Active Treatment Arm / Percentage of Responders in Placebo, stratified by Baseline diabetes status (yes/no).|||1.89|0.77|0.4184
95967813|NCT04552899|191906432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Change from Baseline|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.11||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.94|46.29|||RCRM|Random Coefficient Regression Model (RCRM)||||46.29|-87.94|0.54
95967814|NCT04552899|191906435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.91|0.2512
95967815|NCT04552899|191906436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.51|0.9833
95967816|NCT04552899|191906439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.7005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.40|0.7005
95967817|NCT00461981|191906455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.6||||||95.0|-79.7|-31.7||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-31.7|-79.7|
95967818|NCT00461981|191906456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-60.9||||||95.0|-83.8|-26.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-26.0|-83.8|
95967819|NCT00461981|191906457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|44.2||||||95.0|12.0|67.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||67.8|12.0|
95967820|NCT00461981|191906458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|16.2||||||95.0|-17.6|45.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||45.4|-17.6|
95967821|NCT00461981|191906459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-18.2||||||95.0|-40.0|4.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.9|-40.0|
95967822|NCT00461981|191906460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.6||||||95.0|-27.4|13.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||13.3|-27.4|
95967823|NCT00461981|191906461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|35.7||||||95.0|9.5|57.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||57.1|9.5|
95967824|NCT00461981|191906462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-5.0||||||95.0|-27.7|16.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||16.0|-27.7|
95967825|NCT00461981|191906463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|14.7||||||95.0|-6.5|38.4||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||38.4|-6.5|
95967826|NCT00461981|191906464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|38.1||||||95.0|0.9|65.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||65.9|0.9|
95875590|NCT02435069|191707428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069751||||||significance level set at \<0.05 a priori|two-sample pooled variance t-test|Two-tailed||"Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.~Power analysis conducted using data from this study with α = 0.5, power of .80, correlation between two means of .598, and effect size of 1.554 estimated a sample size of 11 would be needed to minimize the risk of a Type II error to (20%)."||||0.069751
95875591|NCT02435069|191707429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.172
95875592|NCT02435069|191707432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8028|||||||two-sample pooled variance t-test|two-sided||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the difference in calprotectin levels between samples obtained at baseline and samples obtained following the completion of the NS and USP Glycerin flush in the dosing phase of the study.||||0.8028
95875593|NCT02435069|191707433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346594|||||||two-sample pooled variance t test|two tailed||Inferential statistical analysis was accomplished using a two-tailed, two-sample pooled variance t test with a significance level set at 0.05. and calculated on the data from the last day of the completed NS and USP Glycerin phases of the study.||||0.346594
95875594|NCT00543543|191707436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|99.8|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.8|80.9|<0.0001
95875595|NCT00543543|191707437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|99.9|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||99.9|85.0|
95875596|NCT00543543|191707438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.06|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 6||1.06|0.99|<0.001
95875597|NCT00543543|191707438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.83|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 11||0.83|0.77|<0.001
95875598|NCT00543543|191707438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.03|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 16||1.03|0.96|<0.001
95875599|NCT00543543|191707438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the two-sided CI of the GMT ratio was \>0.67|GMT ratio|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.23|||ANOVA||GMT ratio = GMT (V503) / GMT (Gardasil)|Anti-HPV Type 18||1.23|1.14|<0.001
95875600|NCT00543543|191707445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.6|97.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V503 / incidence rate with Gardasil)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of observed efficacy of \>25%.|||97.1|94.6|
95875601|NCT02130024|191707489|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.21|-0.05|0.236
95967827|NCT00461981|191906465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|11.7||||||95.0|-13.0|34.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||34.9|-13.0|
95967828|NCT00461981|191906466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-15.8||||||95.0|-40.7|8.0||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||8.0|-40.7|
95875602|NCT02130024|191707490|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.02||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline GA area, treatment, visit, treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject||||0.15|-0.11|0.769
95875603|NCT02130024|191707491|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||1.59|0.44|0.586
95875604|NCT02130024|191707491|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of 'Newly Developed GA (Yes)' at between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 to Month 24 Analysis||6.22|0.83|0.110
95875605|NCT02130024|191707491|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment||Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.09|0.67|0.554
95875606|NCT02130024|191707492|OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.04|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to \<Month 12 Analysis||1.04|0.95|0.733
95875607|NCT02130024|191707492|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.01||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.08|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|Log (number of injections) = treatment + log (year of follow-up) (offset)|Treatment effect: Injection frequency (rate) ratio of Ranibizumab vs. Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||1.08|0.95|0.745
95875608|NCT02130024|191707493|OTHER||Treatment Effect|2.32||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||4.92|-0.27|0.079
95875609|NCT02130024|191707493|OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.95||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline BCVA, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in BCVA|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||4.61|-0.71|0.151
95967829|NCT00461981|191906467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|0.43||||||95.0|0.24|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.24|
95967830|NCT00461981|191906468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.2||||||95.0|0.09|0.48||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.48|0.09|
95967831|NCT00461981|191906469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.36||||||95.0|1.54|7.13||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||7.13|1.54|
95967832|NCT00461981|191906470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT ratio|3.26||||||95.0|1.44|7.19||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.19|1.44|
95967833|NCT00461981|191906471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.06||||||95.0|0.56|1.96||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.96|0.56|
95967834|NCT00461981|191906472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.58||||||95.0|0.31|1.12||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.12|0.31|
95967835|NCT00461981|191906473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.4||||||95.0|1.48|3.97||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.97|1.48|
95967836|NCT00461981|191906474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.48||||||95.0|0.27|0.87||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.87|0.27|
95967837|NCT00461981|191906475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.8|2.66||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.66|0.80|
95875610|NCT02130024|191707494|OTHER||Treatment Effect|10.12||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|29.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||29.06|-8.82|0.294
95875611|NCT02130024|191707494|OTHER||Treatment Effect|11.86||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|31.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects: Baseline CSFT, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from baseline in CSFT|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||31.07|-7.35|0.225
95875612|NCT02130024|191707495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 2 Analysis||1.35|0.51|0.461
95875613|NCT02130024|191707495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.21|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 12 Analysis||1.21|0.44|0.215
95875614|NCT02130024|191707495|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of no IRF/SRF present between the two treatment groups at study visit|Month 24 Analysis||1.48|0.51|0.616
95875615|NCT02130024|191707496|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||2.08|0.53|0.891
95875616|NCT02130024|191707496|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||3.35|0.77|0.206
95875617|NCT02130024|191707497|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 12 Analysis||5.93|0.45|0.460
95875618|NCT02130024|191707497|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment as factor and baseline BCVA as covariate. Model: log(p/1-p) =Treatment|Odds ratio of BCVA change from baseline ≥ -15 letters between the two treatment groups at study visit|Baseline to Month 24 Analysis||2.90|0.30|0.913
95875619|NCT02130024|191707499|OTHER||Treatment Effect|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.44|32.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 5 Analysis||32.95|21.44|<0.001
95875620|NCT02130024|191707499|OTHER||Treatment Effect|28.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.08|34.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed: BL Plasma VEGF, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit. Random effect: Subject. Response variable: Change from BL in Plasma VEGF|Treatment Effect: Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept|Baseline to Week 9 Analysis||34.68|23.08|<0.001
95875621|NCT05736224|191707515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No sunscreen compared to test sunscreen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95875622|NCT02452697|191707521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
95875623|NCT03673046|191707532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5705|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2532|-6.9978||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-eeek waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BDD-YBOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-6.9978|-13.2532|<.0001
95875624|NCT03673046|191707533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0346||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3275|-1.2022||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in QIDS-SR total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-1.2022|-5.3275|0.0023
95875625|NCT03673046|191707534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0698|-2.6126||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in BABS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.6126|-7.0698|<.0001
95967838|NCT00461981|191906476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.75||||||95.0|0.88|3.39||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.39|0.88|
95875626|NCT03673046|191707535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2237|-2.5458||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an auto-correlation with heterogeneous variance (ARH(1)) covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in SDS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||-2.5458|-9.2237|.0008
95875627|NCT03673046|191707536|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4553||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|18.6428||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was a pre-specified secondary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a compound symmetry with heterogeneous variance covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the Smartphone-delivered CBT for BDD group outcome compared to the 12-week waitlist control group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Q-LESQ-SF total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||18.6428|4.8630|.0011
95875628|NCT00704912|191707545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||Log-binomial model|||||6.6|1.0|0.06
95875629|NCT00704912|191707545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.1|||Log-binomial model|||||6.1|0.9|0.08
95875630|NCT00704912|191707545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1|||Log-binomial model|||||2.1|0.5|0.82
95875631|NCT00704912|191707546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log-binomial model|||||1.7|1.0|0.06
95875632|NCT00704912|191707546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Log-binomial model|||||1.9|1.1|0.002
95875633|NCT00704912|191707546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||Log-binomial model|||||1.1|0.7|0.28
95875634|NCT00704912|191707547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. OCP|||-3.8|-6.3|<.0001
95875635|NCT00704912|191707547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Combined vs. OCP|||-3.7|-6.2|<.0001
95875636|NCT00704912|191707547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Mean Change|-0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Lifestyle vs. Combined|||1.2|-1.3|0.92
95967839|NCT00461981|191906477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.49||||||95.0|0.8|2.69||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||2.69|0.80|
95967840|NCT00461981|191906478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.62||||||95.0|0.33|1.16||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.16|0.33|
95967841|NCT00461981|191906479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate differences|-45.9||||||95.0|-71.7|-11.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-11.6|-71.7|
95875637|NCT00704912|191707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline.|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||2.2|0.6|0.60
95875638|NCT00704912|191707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.3|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||4.3|1.4|0.001
95875639|NCT00704912|191707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||GEE||End of intervention compared to baseline|Comparing change in prevalence of metabolic syndrome from baseline to the end of intervention.||1.2|0.4|0.18
95875640|NCT00704912|191707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.08
95875641|NCT00704912|191707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.001
95875642|NCT00704912|191707548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||GEE|||||||0.22
95875643|NCT03693300|191707549|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.24|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||12.24|2.50|
95875644|NCT03693300|191707549|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||70.76|0.00|
95875645|NCT03693300|191707549|OTHER||Proportion (%)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|11.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related adverse events of CTCAE Grade 3 or Grade 4||11.94|2.44|
95875646|NCT03693300|191707549|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.94|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.94|1.44|
95875647|NCT03693300|191707549|OTHER||Proportion (%)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|70.76|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||70.76|0.00|
95875648|NCT03693300|191707549|OTHER||Proportion (%)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.69|||||95% CI were based on the Clopper-Pearson method.|Any possibly related AEs of Grade 3 or Grade 4 with onset date within 6 months of the first dose||9.69|1.40|
95875649|NCT04063384|191707558|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||||Group (bipolar, healthy)-by-condition (alcohol, placebo)-by-time of subjective response interactions on subjective response to alcohol were modeled, covarying beverage condition order, biological sex, and age, with SEAS and DEQ subscale scores as the dependent variables. Time of subjective response (pre- and post-scan) and beverage condition (alcohol, placebo) were within-subject factors and group was an independent between-subject factor.|||<0.05
95875650|NCT04063384|191707559|OTHER||||||<|0.004||||||Results of primary models were considered significant at p ≤ 0.004 (Bonferroni correction for twelve ROI-to-ROI connections).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power analysis suggests this sample size (n = 23 with bipolar disorder, n = 24 healthy comparison participants), at an alpha = 0.05, provides \> 80% statistical power to detect a within subject effect size (ES) d ≥ 0.6 in both subgroups and a between group ES d ≥ 0.8 in this fMRI analysis.|We used a mixed model to examine group by condition by hemisphere (left, right) interactions on ROI-to-ROI FC response to emotional stimuli (contrast: emotional stimuli - squares). Group was an independent between-subject factor, condition and hemisphere were within-subject factors, and ROI-to-ROI FC was the dependent variable.|||<0.004
95875651|NCT00537238|191707562|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the difference in proportion (Pregabalin - Levetiracetam) was greater than -0.12.|Difference in Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.08|
95875652|NCT00537238|191707563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference|4.1||||0.3571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.9|||Ranked ANCOVA|||Rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to derive p-value with treatment as main effect and cluster as cofactor, percent change in 28-day seizure counts between baseline and treatment periods as dependent variable. Median differences and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation.||10.9|-2.6|0.3571
95875653|NCT00537238|191707565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||All partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0822
95875654|NCT00537238|191707565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Simple partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.9175
95875655|NCT00537238|191707565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Complex partial seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.0483
95875656|NCT00537238|191707565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||SGTC seizure: p-value was calculated from the 2-sided Fisher's exact test.||||0.7139
95875657|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.69|-0.36|0.1334
95875658|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.52|-0.19|0.3551
95967842|NCT00461981|191906480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-25.0||||||95.0|-57.2|4.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||4.8|-57.2|
95967843|NCT00461981|191906481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|65.0||||||95.0|34.4|85.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||85.3|34.4|
95967844|NCT00461981|191906482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-30.4|30.3||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||30.3|-30.4|
95967845|NCT00461981|191906483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-37.0||||||95.0|-57.8|-17.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||-17.5|-57.8|
95875659|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.3638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.53|-1.45|0.3638
95875660|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.34|0.2457
95875661|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.81|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.81|-1.26|0.6640
95875662|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.17|-0.30|0.5950
95875663|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.76|-1.38|0.5701
95875664|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.08|-0.33|0.2452
95875665|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.33|-1.88|0.1697
95875666|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.09|-0.36|0.2283
95875667|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, total BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||-0.16|-2.54|0.0262
95875668|NCT00537238|191707566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Follow-up, core BPRS score: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.00|-0.52|0.0495
95967846|NCT00461981|191906484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-8.3||||||95.0|-38.5|14.5||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||14.5|-38.5|
95875669|NCT00537238|191707567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.64|-0.82|0.8084
95875670|NCT00537238|191707567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Baseline, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.91|-0.47|0.5263
95875671|NCT00537238|191707567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.85|-0.34|0.4008
95875672|NCT00537238|191707567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.59|-0.61|0.9749
95875673|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|3.01|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.01|-5.08|0.6161
95875674|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|1.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.56|-4.83|0.3154
95875675|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|4.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.54|-7.94|0.5930
95875676|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|10.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.27|14.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 snoring: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||14.76|5.27|<0.0001
95875677|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|2.75|||ANCOVA|||Baseline awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.75|-5.83|0.4807
95875678|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|4.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 awaken short of breath: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||4.94|-3.18|0.6708
95875679|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Baseline quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.7574
95967847|NCT00461981|191906485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|21.9||||||95.0|-6.7|48.1||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||48.1|-6.7|
95967848|NCT00461981|191906486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-22.4||||||95.0|-54.4|12.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||12.2|-54.4|
95967849|NCT00461981|191906487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|33.3||||||95.0|-81.1|90.6||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||90.6|-81.1|
95967850|NCT00461981|191906488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|0.0||||||95.0|-97.5|84.2||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||84.2|-97.5|
95967851|NCT00461981|191906489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-9.5||||||95.0|-65.2|58.8||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||58.8|-65.2|
95967852|NCT00461981|191906490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate difference|-20.0||||||95.0|-71.6|33.9||||||The seroconversion rates (the proportions of baseline seronegative subjects achieving a 4 or more fold increase in titer from baseline) were summarized for baseline seronegative subjects by treatment group and by dose number. A two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed on the rate differences using the unconditional exact method proposed by Chan and Zhang (Chan, 1999).||33.9|-71.6|
95875680|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 quantity of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||0.38|-0.10|0.2615
95875681|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|3.54|||ANCOVA|||Baseline adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.54|-6.42|0.5703
95875682|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 adequacy of sleep: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.75|-7.74|0.2160
95875683|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.5952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|5.03|||ANCOVA|||Baseline somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||5.03|-2.89|0.5952
95875684|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.95|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 somnolence: ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.95|-4.40|0.6984
95875685|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.9389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.34|-3.09|0.9389
95967853|NCT00461981|191906491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.23||||||95.0|0.15|0.35||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.35|0.15|
95967854|NCT00461981|191906492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.11||||||95.0|0.05|0.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||0.22|0.05|
95875686|NCT00537238|191707568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean differences|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.27|||ANCOVA|||Week 16 sleep problem index (9): ANCOVA model was used to calculate LS mean estimates of the treatment difference along with 95% CI, with main effects of treatment and combined center, for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||3.27|-2.00|0.6344
95967855|NCT00461981|191906493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.85||||||95.0|2.51|9.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||9.22|2.51|
95967856|NCT00461981|191906494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|3.31||||||95.0|1.46|7.54||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||7.54|1.46|
95875687|NCT00537238|191707569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.016||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|1.444|||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||1.444|0.715|0.9285
95875688|NCT00537238|191707569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.432||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI of treatment difference, with treatment as fixed effect and for post-baseline assessments baseline was included as a covariate.||2.110|0.972|0.0696
95875689|NCT00546104|191707580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|9.0||The p-value is from a paired t-test to test the null hypothesis the mean relative change in Src from baseline to 4 weeks is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||The median change in SRC from baseline to 4 weeks was estimated.||9|-30|0.3
95875690|NCT00546104|191707581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||.10|-.30|0.3
95875691|NCT00734474|191707605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying gatekeeping strategies.|LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
95875692|NCT00734474|191707605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||"Power was estimated at approximately 89% based on a simulation study using the most likely pharmacodynamic model, assuming a 20% drop out rate (missing completely at random) at 52 weeks and enrollment of 5 participants per week. A predictive power calculation was planned to select either 263 or 333 as the minimum total sample size needed (sum of Stage 1 and 2) per arm. If the predictive power of the higher LY2189265 dose based on 263 participants in total exceeded 85%, then 263 would be used."||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
95875693|NCT00734474|191707605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.55||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.55|-0.87|<0.001
95875694|NCT00734474|191707605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.31||P-value is adjusted for multiplicity, based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.31|-0.63|<0.001
95875695|NCT00734474|191707607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-1.09||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-1.09|-1.42|<0.001
95875696|NCT00734474|191707607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.88||Comparison at 26 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.88|-1.21|<0.001
95875697|NCT00734474|191707607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.48||Comparison at 26 weeks. One-sided raw p-value with no adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.001
95875698|NCT00734474|191707607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying a gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
95967857|NCT00461981|191906495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|1.35||||||95.0|0.58|3.04||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.04|0.58|
95967858|NCT00461981|191906496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.44||||||95.0|0.16|1.07||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.07|0.16|
95967859|NCT00461981|191906497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|2.46||||||95.0|1.26|5.06||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||5.06|1.26|
95967860|NCT00461981|191906498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.7|1.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.00|0.70|
95967861|NCT00461981|191906499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.51||||||95.0|0.23|1.22||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.22|0.23|
95875699|NCT00734474|191707607|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Family-wise Type I error rate controlled by applying gatekeeping strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
95875700|NCT00734474|191707607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.5||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.50|-0.84|<0.001
95967862|NCT00461981|191906500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|4.0||||||95.0|4.0|4.0||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||4.00|4.00|
95875701|NCT00734474|191707607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.22||Comparison at 104 weeks. P-value adjusted for multiplicity based on tree-gatekeeping strategy. To determine significance, p-value is compared to the family-wise 1-sided Type I error of 0.025. The confidence interval is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis||-0.22|-0.56|<0.001
95875702|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison at 26 weeks.||||-1.51|-2.27|<0.001
95875703|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.1||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.85|<0.001
95875704|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.11||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.86|0.012
95875705|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-1.13||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.13|-1.82|<0.001
95875706|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
95875707|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-1.1||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.10|-1.93|<0.001
95875708|NCT00734474|191707609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
95875709|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|18.51||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|40.28||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||40.28|-3.25|0.095
95875710|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.08||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|38.69||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.69|-4.54|0.121
95967863|NCT00461981|191906501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.22|3.63||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||3.63|0.22|
95875711|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|15.41||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|37.29||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.29|-6.47|0.167
95875712|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|22.26||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||22.26|-9.49|0.430
95875713|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.77||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.94|24.47||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.47|-6.94|0.273
95875714|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.07||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|31.64||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.64|-9.49|0.291
95967864|NCT00461981|191906502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMT Ratio|0.66||||||95.0|0.25|1.73||||||Corresponding two-sided 95% CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap data sets for the ratios of strain-specific GMTs (FluMist/TIV) were constructed by drawing replicates with replacement from each of the 2 cells (2 treatment groups) of observed data. The number of replicates drawn from each cell in this fashion was equal to the observed sample size within each cell. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap data sets, the overall GMT ratio was calculated.||1.73|0.25|
95967865|NCT00461981|191906507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95875715|NCT00734474|191707610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|21.28||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|41.53||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.53|1.03|0.039
95875716|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.14||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-2.27|<0.001
95875717|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.6||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.60|-1.73|<0.001
95875718|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58||Comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.54|0.953
95875719|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.92||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-2.08|<0.001
95875720|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.48||Comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.65|<0.001
95875721|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.49||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.78|<0.001
95875722|NCT00734474|191707612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.01||Comparison at 104 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.29|0.054
95875723|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.93||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.93|-2.45|<0.001
95875724|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.18||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-1.34|0.133
95875725|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.5||Comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-1.01|0.512
95875726|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.69||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-2.23|<0.001
95875727|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17||Comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-1.36|0.128
95875728|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.36||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.42||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-2.30|0.005
95875729|NCT00734474|191707614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.4||Comparison at 104 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.40|-1.48|0.256
95875730|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||18.8|6.8|<0.001
95875731|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|14.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.3|5.2|<0.001
95875732|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|4.8||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.8|1.8|<0.001
95875733|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.9|2.7|<0.001
95875734|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.9||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9|1.8|<0.001
95875735|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|5.0||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.0|2.4|<0.001
95875736|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.3||Comparison of HbA1c \<7.0% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.6|<0.001
95875737|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.4||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||20.4|6.5|<0.001
95875738|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|8.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.8|2.8|<0.001
95875739|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.1||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5 at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.1|1.3|0.005
95875740|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.8||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||6.8|2.9|<0.001
95875741|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.5||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.5|1.5|<0.001
95967866|NCT02383940|191906514|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.06||Threshold for significance = 0.05|MMRM||Difference is sotagliflozin - placebo|Between-group comparison was based on MMRM model with treatment, randomization strata of insulin delivery (MDI, CSII) and Week-4 A1C (\<=10%, \>10%), time (study week), and a treatment-by-time interaction as fixed categorical effects, and baseline A1C-by-time interaction as a covariate.||0.06|-0.76|0.10
95967867|NCT02672852|191906532|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.7|76.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||76.0|65.7|< 0.001
95967868|NCT02672852|191906533|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|76.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.4|82.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||82.5|70.4|< 0.001
95875742|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.9||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.9|3.4|<0.001
95875743|NCT00734474|191707615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.7||Comparison of HbA1c ≤6.5% at 104 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.7|1.5|<0.001
95875744|NCT02468232|191707639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0881||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6501|1.8212|||Regression, Cox|||For Primary Composite||1.8212|0.6501|0.6260
95875745|NCT02468232|191707639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||For CV Death||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
95875746|NCT02468232|191707639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2673||||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7039|2.2818|||Regression, Cox|||For 1st HF Hospitalization||2.2818|0.7039|0.7851
95875747|NCT02468232|191707640|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8657||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7585|0.988||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 4 analysis||0.9880|0.7585|0.0326
95875748|NCT02468232|191707640|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8538||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7509|0.9708||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||0.9708|0.7509|0.0161
95875749|NCT02468232|191707640|SUPERIORITY||LSM of ratio|0.8112||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6916|0.9514||Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) with an alpha level of 0.05|ANCOVA|Repeated measure of ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||0.9514|0.6916|0.0104
95875750|NCT02468232|191707642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6492|1.6152|||Regression, Cox|||First triple composite endpoint||1.6152|0.6492|0.5406
95875751|NCT02468232|191707642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1701||||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5242|2.6122|||Regression, Cox|||CV health||2.6122|0.5242|0.6493
95875752|NCT02468232|191707642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8546||||0.3448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3952|1.8479|||Regression, Cox|||First worsening of HF in outpatient||1.8479|0.3952|0.3448
95875753|NCT02468232|191707643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7115|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 4 analysis||||0.7115
95875754|NCT02468232|191707643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Week 8 analysis||||0.1752
95875755|NCT02468232|191707643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2688|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|based on modified ridit scores||Month 6 analysis||||0.2688
95875756|NCT02468232|191707644|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|2.5455||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2306|6.3216|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Week 8 analysis||6.3216|-1.2306|0.1854
95875757|NCT02468232|191707644|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference|1.2695||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1715|5.7104|||ANCOVA|Repeated measure ANCOVA model||Month 6 analysis||5.7104|-3.1715|0.5737
95875758|NCT02468232|191707645|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.8699||||0.6501||95.0|0.4763|1.5887|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.5887|0.4763|0.6501
95875759|NCT02468232|191707646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6211
95875760|NCT02468232|191707648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1895||||0.6955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6116|2.3134|||Regression, Cox|||||2.3134|0.6116|0.6955
95875761|NCT02468232|191707650|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0192||||0.9233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6925|1.4999|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.4999|0.6925|0.9233
95875762|NCT02468232|191707651|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0754||||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2264|5.1067|||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||5.1067|0.2264|0.9272
95875763|NCT02468232|191707653|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4504||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|1.0665||Negative binomial (NB) regression model|Negative binomial (NB) regression model|adjusted for treatment and stratification of screening NT-proBNP||||1.0665|0.1902|0.0697
95875764|NCT01973569|191707665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||The hierarchical testing procedure was applied for multiple comparisons of the primary endpoint. First, comparison between AMG 162 60mg Q3M vs placebo is tested. Only if it is rejected, comparison of AMG 162 60mg Q6M vs placebo is formally tested.|van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0235
95875765|NCT01973569|191707666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0360
95875766|NCT01973569|191707667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1323|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.1323
95875767|NCT01973569|191707668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0448|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0448
95875768|NCT01973569|191707669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.0104
95875769|NCT01973569|191707670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.257|||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|van Elteren stratified rank test adjusting for baseline use of glucocorticoid was used.||||||0.2570
95875770|NCT01973569|191707671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|5.63|||Regression, Cox|ANCOVA model adjusting for treatment, baseline (BL) value, machine type, BL value-by-machine type interaction, and BL use of glucocorticoid was used.||||5.63|4.41|<0.0001
95875771|NCT03423641|191707711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.2|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||2.20|0.30|.68
95875772|NCT03423641|191707712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.91|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.91|0.56|0.01
95967869|NCT02672852|191906534|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||34.6|17.3|< 0.001
95875773|NCT03423641|191707713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.12|0.75|0.39
95875774|NCT03423641|191707714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.90|0.49|0.01
95875775|NCT03423641|191707715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.59|0.30|<0.01
95875776|NCT03423641|191707716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.1|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.10|0.42|0.12
95875777|NCT03423641|191707717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.7|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.70|0.22|0.34
95875778|NCT03423641|191707718|SUPERIORITY||Marginal Structural Model|0.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.76|0.49|<0.01
95875779|NCT03423641|191707719|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.71|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.84|0.60|<0.01
95875780|NCT03423641|191707720|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.82|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.87|||Poisson Regression||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the rate ratio.|||0.87|0.77|<0.01
95875781|NCT03423641|191707721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.88|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||0.88|0.25|0.02
95875782|NCT03423641|191707722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.03|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.03|0.37|0.07
95875783|NCT03423641|191707723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.05|||Marginal Structural Model||The numerator represents the DAA group while the denominator represents the comparison group for the odds ratio.|||1.05|0.63|0.11
95875784|NCT04066647|191707790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93928821||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 tailed, unpaired t test with Bonferroni correction||||||0.9
95875785|NCT01914757|191707791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.85|0.49|0.002
95875786|NCT01914757|191707791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.95|0.54|0.019
95875787|NCT01914757|191707792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids||||0.92|0.45|0.015
95875788|NCT01914757|191707792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.86|||Negative Binomial|Model includes covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, and use of maintenance oral corticosteroids.||||0.86|0.42|0.005
95875789|NCT01914757|191707793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.213|0.037|0.005
95875790|NCT01914757|191707793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.204|0.028|0.01
95875791|NCT01914757|191707794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.176|-0.049|0.268
95875792|NCT01914757|191707794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline pre-BD FEV1, region, use of OCS, visit, and treatment by visit||||0.096|-0.127|0.786
95875793|NCT01914757|191707795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.07|-0.32|0.224
95875794|NCT01914757|191707795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.04|-0.43|0.019
95875795|NCT01914757|191707796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.13|-0.44|0.287
95875796|NCT01914757|191707796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma symptom score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.29|-0.28|0.966
95875797|NCT01914757|191707797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma rescue medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.99|-0.58|0.603
95875798|NCT01914757|191707797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline Asthma medication use, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.28|-1.29|0.209
95875799|NCT01914757|191707798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.86||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||30.12|1.59|0.029
95875800|NCT01914757|191707798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.27||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|29.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline morning PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Morning PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||29.64|0.9|0.037
95967870|NCT02672852|191906535|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.5|86.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||86.6|74.5|< 0.001
95967871|NCT02672852|191906536|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|45.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.3|50.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.8|40.3|< 0.001
95967872|NCT02672852|191906537|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|50.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||50.0|39.5|< 0.001
95875801|NCT01914757|191707798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.54||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||32|3.07|0.018
95875802|NCT01914757|191707798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline evening PEF, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||Evening PEF Change from Baseline to Week 56||35.79|6.65|0.004
95875803|NCT01914757|191707799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.06|0.4
95875804|NCT01914757|191707799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline prop of nights with nocturnal wakening, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.01|-0.08|0.146
95875805|NCT01914757|191707800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.01|-0.38|0.043
95875806|NCT01914757|191707800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||-0.07|-0.44|0.008
95967873|NCT02672852|191906538|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|67.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||67.9|56.4|< 0.001
95875807|NCT01914757|191707801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.03|-0.51|0.078
95967874|NCT02672852|191906539|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|81.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||81.9|66.0|< 0.001
95967875|NCT02672852|191906540|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||28.7|13.7|< 0.001
95967876|NCT02672852|191906541|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||42.2|24.0|< 0.001
95967877|NCT02672852|191906542|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|44.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Across strata, P value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata. Within each stratum, P value was calculated based on the chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test if ≥25% of the cells had expected cell count \<5).||44.2|23.2|< 0.001
95967878|NCT01725126|191906599|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||1.75|-1.38|
95967879|NCT01725126|191906599|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.36|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in body weight.||2.36|-0.20|
95967880|NCT01725126|191906600|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|1.87|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||1.87|-1.64|
95967881|NCT01725126|191906600|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.75|||ANCOVA|Repeated measures analysis of variance was used with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and Baseline.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 percent change from Baseline in body weight.||2.75|-0.24|
95967882|NCT01725126|191906601|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.694|1.331|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||1.331|-1.694|
95967883|NCT01725126|191906601|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.356|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|0.698|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.698|-1.409|
95967884|NCT01725126|191906601|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.232|0.526|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-4 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.526|-2.232|
95967885|NCT01725126|191906601|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.009|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in AUC (0-24 hour) weighted mean glucose.||0.009|-2.447|
95967886|NCT01725126|191906602|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.277|1.587|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B -Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||1.587|-1.277|
95875808|NCT01914757|191707801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, use of OCS, visit, and visit by treatment.||||0.16|-0.37|0.449
95875809|NCT01914757|191707802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.69|0.31|<0.001
95875810|NCT01914757|191707802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Proportion of patients with \>=1 asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.45|0.023
95875811|NCT01914757|191707803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.8|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first Exacerbation||0.80|0.46|<0.001
95875812|NCT01914757|191707803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.95|||Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year, use of OCS||Time to first asthma exacerbation||0.95|0.55|0.018
95875813|NCT01914757|191707804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.82|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||1.82|0.48|0.837
95875814|NCT01914757|191707804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.23||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.35|||negative binomial|Model includes treatment, region, any prior exacerbation resulting ER/Hospitalization, use of OCS||||2.35|0.64|0.538
95875815|NCT01914757|191707808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.37|-0.04|0.119
95875816|NCT01914757|191707808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment, baseline AQLQ score, region, use of OCS, visit, visit by treatment.||||0.45|0.04|0.019
95875817|NCT03109847|191707893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.29|-1.26|0.404
95875818|NCT00620464|191707911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||90.0||||Applies to all parameters.|Bioequivalence Testing|||||||0.05
95875819|NCT00620464|191707912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.05||95.0|||||Bioequivalence Testing|||||||<=0.05
95875820|NCT03911154|191707913|OTHER|We used linear mixed effect models (in SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC) with random subject intercept to account for the clustered nature of the data. The model included factors for stimulus modality (4 levels), sleep restriction night (4 levels), and their interaction.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.403|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention were averaged across assessments within each day and the statistical analysis adjusted for baseline.||1.060|-0.403|0.36
95875821|NCT03911154|191707913|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number of lapses of attention upon emergent awakening||0.608|-1.222|0.49
95875822|NCT03911154|191707914|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.455|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.797||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.310|-5.400|0.87
95875823|NCT03911154|191707915|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|1.543|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DSST was averaged across DSST administrations within each day and was adjusted for baseline performance.||1.543|-1.767|0.89
95875824|NCT03911154|191707916|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.919|0.678|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Number correct on the DST was averaged across DST administrations within each day and adjusted for baseline.||0.678|-0.919|0.76
95875825|NCT03911154|191707917|OTHER|Linear mixed effects model with a random subject intercept.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The mean weighted score on the ROBoT was adjusted for baseline.||0.456|-0.286|0.64
95875826|NCT01278160|191707942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-0.24|0.22|||ANCOVA|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||The null hypothesis is H0: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) = 0 against the alternative hypothesis HA: μBIAsp 30 (2:1) - μBIAsp 30 (1:1) ≠ 0. This trial is an extension to BIAsp-3756 (NCT01123980), hence no particular sample size calculation was made.||0.22|-0.24|
95875827|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.2||||0.2569||95.0|-0.15|0.56||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.56|-0.15|0.2569
95875828|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed models analysis|0.09||||0.812||95.0|-0.63|0.8||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after breakfast profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.80|-0.63|0.8120
95875829|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.35||||0.2843||95.0|-0.29|0.99||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.99|-0.29|0.2843
95875830|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.4614||95.0|-0.5|1.11||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after lunch profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.11|-0.50|0.4614
95875831|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.44||||0.1591||95.0|-0.17|1.04||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||1.04|-0.17|0.1591
95875832|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.03||||0.9327||95.0|-0.63|0.69||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is two hours after dinner profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.69|-0.63|0.9327
95875833|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.25||||0.4063||95.0|-0.84|0.34||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is bedtime profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.34|-0.84|0.4063
95875834|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|0.3||||0.2198||95.0|-0.18|0.79||P-value for parallelism was overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups, i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is 2.00 - 4.00 a.m. profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.79|-0.18|0.2198
95875835|NCT01278160|191707943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mixed model analysis|-0.04||||0.8424||95.0|-0.47|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Confidence interval is before breakfast the following day profile|A mixed effect model was fitted to the 9-point SMPG profile data. The model included treatment, time, interaction between treatment and time and previous therapy (BIAsp-30 once daily (OD)/insulin glargine OD) as factors and subject as random effect. From the model, mean profile by treatment and relevant treatment differences was estimated and explored.||0.38|-0.47|0.8424
95875836|NCT01278160|191707944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7312||95.0|0.36|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below 7% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||2.06|0.36|0.7312
95875837|NCT01278160|191707945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1257||95.0|0.05|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|The estimates were from a normal linear regression model with treatment and previous insulin as factors, and baseline value as a covariate|The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|Responder analyses were based on logistics regression model using treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD or insulin glargine OD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.44|0.05|0.1257
95875838|NCT01278160|191707946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.72||||0.1911||95.0|0.43|1.18|||Negative binomial regression model||For all episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.18|0.43|0.1911
95875839|NCT01278160|191707946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.61||||0.2949||95.0|0.66|3.92|||Negative binomial regression model||For nocturnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||3.92|0.66|0.2949
95875840|NCT01278160|191707946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.63||||0.077||95.0|0.38|1.05|||Negative binomial regression model||For diurnal episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.05|0.38|0.0770
95875841|NCT01278160|191707946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.56||||0.1687||95.0|0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression model||For minor episodes.|The number of hypos was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the time period in which a hypo is considered emergent as offset. The model included treatment and previous therapy (BIAsp 30 OD/insulin glargine OD) as factors. The rate ratio was estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated accordingly.||1.27|0.25|0.1687
95875842|NCT03438383|191707956|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.88
95875843|NCT03438383|191707956|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.23
95875844|NCT03438383|191707956|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 hours post-operatively||||0.008
95875845|NCT03438383|191707956|SUPERIORITY|We checked for equivalence of the pre-op (baseline) values between the two groups. We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.001
95875846|NCT03438383|191707957|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.75||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.75
95875847|NCT03438383|191707957|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.09||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.09
95875848|NCT03438383|191707957|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.008||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.008
95875849|NCT03438383|191707957|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.013
95967887|NCT01725126|191906602|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.524|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.939|0.892|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in fasting glucose.||0.892|-1.939|
95967888|NCT01725126|191906604|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.495|0.365|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide minus Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide.|Part B-Placebo+Liraglutide versus Part B-GSK2890457+Liraglutide for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.365|-0.495|
95967889|NCT01725126|191906604|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.472|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and Baseline were included in the model.|Point estimate was calculated as difference in least squares means: Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin minus Part Part C-Placebo+Metformin.|Part C-Placebo+Metformin versus Part C-GSK2890457+Metformin for Day 42 change from Baseline in HbA1c.||0.472|-0.910|
95875850|NCT03438383|191707958|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.05
95875851|NCT03438383|191707958|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.55||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.55
95967890|NCT01725126|191906608|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.729|1.5008|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.5008|0.7290|
95967891|NCT01725126|191906609|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|1.0334|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.781|1.3673|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day -1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day -1 in GSK2890457+Liraglutide treated participants in the Liraglutide PK Population.||1.3673|0.7810|
95967892|NCT01725126|191906611|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.675|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.585|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.779|0.585|
95967893|NCT01725126|191906612|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|0.662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.578|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|The PK parameter was log-transformed prior to analysis.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 42/ Day 1) and confidence interval.|Comparison of Day 42 to Day 1 in GSK2890457 treated participants in the PK Population.||0.757|0.578|
95967894|NCT03031496|191906621|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|91.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|95.43|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||95.43|87.77|
95967895|NCT03031496|191906621|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|102.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.12|106.91|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||106.91|98.12|
95967896|NCT03031496|191906622|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|82.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.37|88.74|||||Comparison of Cmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||88.74|77.37|
95967897|NCT03031496|191906622|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|103.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.42|110.86|||||Comparison of Cmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||110.86|97.42|
95967898|NCT03031496|191906623|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride hydrochloride was determined.|Least square mean ratio|92.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.75|96.12|||||Comparison of Tmax of hydrochlorothiazide for test and reference product has been presented.|||96.12|88.75|
95967899|NCT03031496|191906623|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|101.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.84|105.23|||||Comparison of Tmax of amiloride for test and reference product has been presented.|||105.23|97.84|
95967900|NCT01240915|191906637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.69||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.69|0.12|0.96
95967901|NCT01240915|191906638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.22||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.22|-0.19|0.54
95967902|NCT01240915|191906639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 8||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.30|-0.15|0.67
95967903|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.73|1.42||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.42|0.73|0.53
95967904|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.48||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.02|2.14||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.14|1.02|0.91
95967905|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.86|2.23||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.23|0.86|0.81
95967906|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.51|0.59|0.44
95967907|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.72|1.94||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.94|0.72|0.67
95967908|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.84|0.68|0.62
95967909|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|1.57||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.57|0.58|0.95
95967910|NCT01240915|191906646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.49|1.36||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.36|0.49|0.30
95967911|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.17||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.91|1.51||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||1.51|0.91|0.79
95967912|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.21||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.63|0.90|0.80
95967913|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.75||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.63|4.64||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||4.64|1.63|0.99
95875852|NCT03438383|191707958|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.13||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48h post-operatively||||0.13
95875853|NCT03438383|191707958|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.011
95875854|NCT03438383|191707959|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) quantitative research sample size calculator (available online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h before surgery (pre-operative or baseline values)||||0.83
95875855|NCT03438383|191707959|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.37||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||24 h post-operatively||||0.37
95875856|NCT03438383|191707959|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||0.0035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||48 h post-operatively||||0.0035
95875857|NCT03438383|191707959|SUPERIORITY|We computed (post-hoc) the observed power of the performed tests (ANOVA for repeated measures). We confirmed that the specific sample size, as calculated using the Do-it-Yourself (DiY) sample size calculator (online at: https://blog.exmr.net/ sample-size-calculator) by considering a confidence level of 95% and a 10% margin of error, yielded adequate statistical power (\> 80%) for each of the examined variables.||||||1.5e-05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at \<0.05|ANOVA|||72 h post-operatively||||0.000015
95875858|NCT01599832|191707989|OTHER|||||||0.083||||||P-value was from test of significance of log-transformed baseline K\^trans.|Regression, Cox|Multivariate model with adjustment for prior treatment, and clinical prognostic index (good/intermediate/poor) (n=16 had complete data)||||||0.083
95875859|NCT04308304|191708008|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
95875860|NCT04308304|191708008|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
95875861|NCT04308304|191708008|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
95967914|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.19|3.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.25|1.19|0.96
95967915|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.15|3.41||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.41|1.15|0.95
95967916|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.3||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.52|3.48||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.48|1.52|0.99
95875862|NCT04308304|191708008|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
95875863|NCT04308304|191708009|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.86|0.55|
95875864|NCT04308304|191708009|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.82||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.82|0.53|
95875865|NCT04308304|191708009|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.0||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.00|0.55|
95875866|NCT04308304|191708009|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.05|0.56|
95875867|NCT04308304|191708010|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
95875868|NCT04308304|191708010|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.87||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.87|0.52|
95875869|NCT04308304|191708010|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.06||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.06|0.59|
95875870|NCT04308304|191708010|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||1.08|0.51|
95967917|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|0.74|0.62
95875871|NCT04308304|191708011|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.8||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.80|0.48|
95875872|NCT04308304|191708011|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.81||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.81|0.55|
95875873|NCT04308304|191708011|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 Alone PK|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.93||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.93|0.49|
95875874|NCT04308304|191708011|OTHER|MK-1942 + Donepezil PK / MK-1942 PK Alone|GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||||||'MK-1942 Alone PK' are unpublished data from MK-1942-004||0.98|0.54|
95875875|NCT04308304|191708016|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
95875876|NCT04308304|191708017|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.4||||||||||||||||
95875877|NCT04308304|191708018|OTHER|Donepezil Accumulation Ratio (Day 28/Day -1)|Geometric mean|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.8||||||||||||||||
95875878|NCT01881373|191708030|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|-0.47|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model.|Intervention vs control communities comparing 24 months to baseline|||-0.47|-7.29|0.02
95875879|NCT01881373|191708030|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|3.32||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.32|-8.58|0.28
95875880|NCT01881373|191708031|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.41||Intervention vs control communities comparing 78 months to baseline.|Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.41|-2.87|0.009
95875881|NCT01881373|191708031|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.35||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|17.24|||Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal comparing 78 months to baseline.||17.24|-8.5|0.49
95875882|NCT01881373|191708032|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical logistic model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Difference in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||<0.01
95875883|NCT01881373|191708033|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|change in prevalence between communities|-12.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|-4.28||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-4.28|-20.92|0.003
95875884|NCT01881373|191708033|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.36|3.5||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Temporal communities. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||3.50|-10.36|0.33
95967918|NCT01240915|191906647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.98|2.32||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.32|0.98|0.89
95967919|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.66|2.19||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||2.19|0.66|0.34
95967920|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|2.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||2.23|0.68|0.33
95967921|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.99|5.67||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||5.67|0.99|0.10
95967922|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.28|1.55||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.55|0.28|0.74
95967923|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|2.64||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.64|0.41|0.48
95967924|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|2.03||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.03|0.38|0.58
95875885|NCT01881373|191708034|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.05||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||-0.05|-1.37|0.02
95875886|NCT01881373|191708034|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.49||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||0.49|-1.79|0.13
95875887|NCT01881373|191708035|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.86
95875888|NCT01881373|191708036|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.68
95875889|NCT01881373|191708037|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.55
95875890|NCT01881373|191708038|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.11
95875891|NCT01881373|191708039|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||mixed model adjusting for age and sex and cluster of community and strata of jurisdiction; intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline||||0.08
95875892|NCT01881373|191708040|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
95875893|NCT01881373|191708041|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Hierarchical model.||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.54
95875894|NCT01881373|191708042|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.90
95875895|NCT01881373|191708043|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.71
95875896|NCT01881373|191708044|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical linear model accounting for randomization of communities and clustering of children within communities in strata of jurisdictions weighted for number of children less than age 10 in communities. Chi-square test accounts for degrees of freedom based on number of communities.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||intervention vs control communities|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs control comparing 24 months to baseline.||||0.48
95875897|NCT01881373|191708045|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|differences in prevalence|-3.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical model||intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||<0.01
95875898|NCT01881373|191708046|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.44
95967925|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|1.66||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.66|0.33|0.68
95967926|NCT01240915|191906648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.21|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.23|0.21|0.84
95967927|NCT01240915|191906649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|3.07||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||3.07|0.22|0.57
95967928|NCT01240915|191906650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|1.23||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.23|0.12|0.85
95967929|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.21|4.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||4.24|1.21|0.05
95967930|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.61|1.95||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||1.95|0.61|0.43
95967931|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.76||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||2.76|0.45|0.44
95967932|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|3.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||3.04|0.50|0.38
95967933|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|1.04||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.04|0.14|0.89
95967934|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|2.42||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.42|0.45|0.47
95967935|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7|3.57||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||3.57|0.70|0.24
95967936|NCT01240915|191906651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|1.32||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.32|0.22|0.81
95967937|NCT01240915|191906652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|1.24||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|0.20|0.84
95967938|NCT01240915|191906653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.12|0.73||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||0.73|0.12|0.96
95967939|NCT01240915|191906654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.87|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.24||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.24|-0.08|0.87
95967940|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.8|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.74||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.74|-0.15|0.80
95967941|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||0.77|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.84||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.84|-0.23|0.77
95967942|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.42|1.3||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.30|-0.42|0.74
95967943|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.88|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|1.59||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.59|-0.08|0.88
95967944|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.72|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.33||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||1.33|-0.50|0.72
95967945|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.656||0.97|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|2.06||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||2.06|0.37|0.97
95967946|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|1.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.25|-0.39|0.75
95967947|NCT01240915|191906655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.85|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|1.63||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||1.63|-0.16|0.85
95967948|NCT01240915|191906656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.75|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|1.49||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo||1.49|-0.46|0.75
95967949|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.19||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 4)||0.19|-0.18|0.51
95967950|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.25||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Pooled MultiStem versus Pooled Placebo (Week 8)||0.25|-0.16|0.62
95967951|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.29|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|0.16||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.16|-0.39|0.29
95967952|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.74|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|0.4||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.40|-0.14|0.74
95967953|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.36|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.21||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 12)||0.21|-0.37|0.36
95967954|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.56|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.34||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.34|-0.26|0.56
95967955|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.09||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 MP versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.09|-0.51|0.18
95967956|NCT01240915|191906657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.31|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|0.2||1-sided p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM using data up to Week 16||Cohort 3 PM versus Cohort 3 PP (Week 16)||0.20|-0.45|0.31
95967957|NCT00392925|191906732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Based on an Analysis of Covariance model including factors for treatment group, sex, enrollment body mass index (BMI) category, lead-in body weight loss category, and baseline (Day 1) weight as a covariate. The p-value is for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between treatments. Analysis performed two-sided at a 5% significance level to compare treatment groups.||||0.0004
95967958|NCT01669577|191906871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE(Generalyzed Estimation Equation)|0.989214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982855|0.995613||arterial hemoglobin Oxygen saturation|ANOVA|Non parametric(NPar) ANOVA|GEE model (dichotomous response variable)with logit link function. The NPar ANOVA (p\<0.1 for death) was the test used for inclusion in the model variables for the final models - backward method, with alpha equal to 0.05.|"significance level of 0.05, power of 0.80, moderate correlation of 0.5 between time periods and assumption that the variability is equal within each factor (non-sphericity). Due to the effect size between 0.1 and 0.5, there was no need for samples larger than 140 patients. A total of 200 patients was defined conservatively, with a margin for possible deaths. The software G\*Power 3.1.7 was used for sample size calculation.~Fischer's test, Mann-Whitney, t-test; Non parametric ANOVA and GEE"||0.995613|0.982855|< 0.001
95967959|NCT01669577|191906871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.99728|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995791|0.998772|||ANOVA|||diastolic arterial blood pressure||0.998772|0.995791|< 0.001
95967960|NCT01669577|191906871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.046961|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012521|1.082572|||ANOVA|||lactate||1.082572|1.012521|< 0.004
95967961|NCT01669577|191906871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|0.973987|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965308|0.982744|||ANOVA|||Glasgow coma score||0.982744|0.965308|<0.001
95967962|NCT01669577|191906871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.000013|||<|0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.000025|||ANOVA|||amount of Infused crystalloids||1.000025|1.000000|<0.023
95967963|NCT02917603|191906872|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is that there would be no mean difference between baseline and last measure between intervention and control groups with p\<.05|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||<|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean differences between baseline and last measure in the PHQ- 9 score will not differ between groups. Study is powered a two-tailed test of significance, allowing the detection of a significant difference in either direction and the following assumptions: expected difference in PHQ-9 is 5 points, the documented clinically significant effect;78 (2) the variance of scores is 5.33; (3) error protection: α =.10, β = .20 and, (4) anticipated attrition of 15%||||<.009
95967964|NCT02917603|191906873|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.21
95967965|NCT02917603|191906874|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||<|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.06
95967966|NCT02917603|191906875|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis is there will be the mean differences between baseline scores will be the same between groups. Study powered after primary outcome measure.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||<|0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.73
95967967|NCT00316017|191906922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to day 28 day between the three groups.||||0.91
95967968|NCT00316017|191906923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in ARDS-free survival through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.94
95967969|NCT00316017|191906924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in average Worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scores (MODS) through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.73
95967970|NCT00316017|191906925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients with the Presence of Nosocomial Infection through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.8
95967971|NCT00316017|191906926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of PRBC units given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.69
95967972|NCT00316017|191906927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average amount of Total fluids given within the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.57
95967973|NCT00316017|191906928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Ventilator-free days through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.66
95967974|NCT00316017|191906929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the ICU through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.82
95967975|NCT00316017|191906930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the average number of Days alive out of the hospital through day 28 between the three groups.||||0.98
95967976|NCT00316017|191906931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who survived to hospital discharge between the three groups.||||0.85
95967977|NCT00316017|191906932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received zero units of PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.48
95967978|NCT00316017|191906933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
95967979|NCT00316017|191906934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.02
95967980|NCT00316017|191906935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received zero units of PRBC.||||<0.01
95967981|NCT00316017|191906936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received 1-9 units PRBC in the first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.51
95967982|NCT00316017|191906937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died in Field or ED between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.73
95967983|NCT00316017|191906938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.83
95967984|NCT00316017|191906939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received 1-9 units of PRBC.||||0.31
95967985|NCT00316017|191906940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC in first 24 hours between the three groups.||||0.97
95967986|NCT00316017|191906942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 6 hours of admission to the hospital between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.35
95967987|NCT00316017|191906943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||The Statistical Analysis applies to the 7.5% hypertonic saline/6% Dextran-70 (HSD),7.5% hypertonic saline (HS), and 0.9% normal saline groups.|test for proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there are no differences in the percent of patients who died within 28 days from the time of the 911 call between the three groups among the patients who received greater than 10 units of PRBC.||||0.34
95967988|NCT04157400|191906944|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95967989|NCT04157400|191906945|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95967990|NCT04157400|191906946|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Segments of EMG recorded during walking at self-selected walking speed were used to investigate complexity of muscle synergies using a nonnegative matrix factorization (NNMF) algorithm (MATLAB®, Mathworks, Natick, MA). The approach involves calculation of an mxt matrix of the original EMG data (EMG0), where m represents the number of muscles being measured and t represents a time base normalized to percentage of gait cycle. The algorithm also calculates two surrogate matrices, mxn and nxt, where n is the amplitude of muscle activation. The product of the surrogate matrices are considered a reconstruction of EMG (EMGr). EMGr for each module is then compared to EMG0 by finding the variability accounted for (VAF). A threshold necessary for module classification was chosen to be 90% for all conditions (8 muscles + 6 phases of gait) based on similar studies in the literature. Classifications were not increased unless the higher module VAF was at least 5% higher than the preceding module.|||
95875899|NCT01881373|191708047|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs. Control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.81
95875900|NCT01881373|191708048|SUPERIORITY|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.68
95875901|NCT01881373|191708049|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.69
95875902|NCT01881373|191708050|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.11
95875903|NCT01881373|191708051|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|||Intervention vs. control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.40
95875904|NCT01881373|191708052|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs control. The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.37
95875905|NCT01881373|191708052|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical model.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.|Regression, Linear|The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||Intervention vs temporal.The children from each community recruited each time were NOT the same children. The number of communities is consistent across time.||||0.51
95875906|NCT01366417|191708053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|2.48|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will meet or exceed the 1.0 log reduction in colony forming units/cm\^2 at 30 seconds after application.||2.48|1.95|< 0.05
95875907|NCT01366417|191708053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.51|||ANOVA|||hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 1.0 log 10 colony forming units / cm\^2 at 30 seconds after treatment||2.51|1.99|<0.05
95875908|NCT01366417|191708054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|2.91|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: ChloraPrep One Step will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment.||2.91|2.39|<0.05
95875909|NCT01366417|191708054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|2.86|||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: 70% Isopropyl Alcohol will meet or exceed 2.0 log 10 reduction at 10 minutes after treatment||2.86|2.33|<0.05
95875910|NCT06350474|191708086|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is -3.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||One-sided test for non-inferiority.|ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|The non-inferiority test was a priori designed to be conducted on the per-protocol (PP) population.||1.1|-0.5|<0.0001
95875911|NCT06350474|191708087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.2|-0.4|0.414
95875912|NCT06350474|191708088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||2.9|-1.0|0.241
95875913|NCT06350474|191708089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.6|||ANOVA|Adjusted for four dichotomous randomization strata.|Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.6|-2.5|0.233
95875914|NCT06350474|191708090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.97|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.97|-0.4|0.42
95875915|NCT06350474|191708091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||0.61|-0.92|0.69
95875916|NCT06350474|191708092|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.5||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.5|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||6.5|-1.5|0.275
95875917|NCT06350474|191708094|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|0.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.4|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|||3.4|-1.6|0.686
95875918|NCT06350474|191708095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|13.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.8|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with at least one AE is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||21.8|5.6|0.0010
95967991|NCT03852719|191906963|OTHER||Difference in percentages|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|30.5|61.4||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||61.4|30.5|<0.0001
95875919|NCT06350474|191708096|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.53|||Poisson Regression|||Rate ratio, confidence interval, and p-value calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the DA-discontinue and DA-continue arms are 1486.3 and 1471.4 weeks, respectively. Ratio is Discontinue / Continue.||2.53|1.51|<0.0001
95875920|NCT06350474|191708097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % Participants|2.03||||0.1758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.0|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction. Direction of difference is Discontinue - Continue.|Null hypothesis: proportion of participants changing assigned regimen is the same in Discontinue and Continue arms.||5.0|-0.6|0.1758
95875921|NCT03894046|191708104|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than +20%.~Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was less than 0."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|3.5||||||The non-inferiority assessment was based on the 2-sided 95% CIs computed using a continuity-corrected Z-statistic for the difference (\[sulbactam-durlobactam + imipenem/cilastatin\] - \[colistin + imipenem/cilastatin\]) in 28-day all-cause mortality rates between the treatment groups.||3.5|-30|
95875922|NCT03894046|191708105|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value was obtained based on a Chi-Square test for treatment group differences.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of patients with nephrotoxicity as measured by RIFLE criteria at any post-baseline visit based on the Investigator's opinion for the Safety Population for Part A, excluding patients with chronic hemodialysis at baseline baseline.||||0.0002
95875923|NCT00100178|191708106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.47
95875924|NCT02477839|191708107|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Difference ratio in LS Mean was calculated as the exp \[LSMLCM-LSMplacebo\].||1.14|0.83|
95875925|NCT02477839|191708107|OTHER||Percent reduction|3.19|||=|0.6895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|17.5|||ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was estimated as 100 x (1-exp \[LSMLCM-LSMPBO\]).||17.50|-13.59|=0.6895
95875926|NCT01439568|191708125|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0608||||0.8072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6598|1.7055|||Logrank Test|||||1.7055|0.6598|0.8072
95875927|NCT02664610|191708208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95875928|NCT02664610|191708209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95875929|NCT02083081|191708228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.38
95875930|NCT02083081|191708229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.45
95875931|NCT02083081|191708230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||generalized estimating equations (GEE)|||||||0.96
95875932|NCT02905149|191708250|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|14.5||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Generalized Hodges-Lehmann median difference is used. These are robust to the possibility that the population distributions in the two groups are different in ways other than location. It may not represent the raw median difference.|||14.5|4|< 0.05
95875933|NCT02907268|191708254|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95875934|NCT02907268|191708255|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95875935|NCT02907268|191708256|EQUIVALENCE|"Each variable compared with the no change score. The no change score is 0 for wrinkles-related variables."|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95875936|NCT01104155|191708272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|||||||1-sided exact binomial|Based on a one-sided exact binomial test compared to 9%.||||||0.204
95875937|NCT01104155|191708272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041|||||||1-sided exact binomial|||||||0.041
95875938|NCT01484132|191708277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline to 6 months was different from 0.||||0.58
95875939|NCT01484132|191708277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.061||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.084||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.084|-0.206|0.406
95875940|NCT01484132|191708277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.017||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.067||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.067|-0.101|0.693
95875941|NCT01484132|191708277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.123||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.05||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 6 months, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.050|-0.296|0.160
95875942|NCT01484132|191708277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.029||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.073||P-value is to test the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA after adjusting for covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the longitudinal association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline, the repeated measure model was used with all available follow-up BPA data. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.073|-0.131|0.574
95875943|NCT01484132|191708278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.11
95875944|NCT01484132|191708278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.299||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.494||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.494|0.105|0.003
95875945|NCT01484132|191708278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.365||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.585||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.585|0.145|0.002
95967992|NCT03852719|191906963|OTHER||Difference in percentages|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.0|27.0|58.5||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed Treatment using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||58.5|27.0|<0.0001
95967993|NCT03852719|191906964|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8||||0.4139|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-8.5|24.3||Fisher's exact test was used for the comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus bulevirtide 2 mg using a significance level of 0.04 at Week 48.|Fisher Exact|||||24.3|-8.5|0.4139
95967994|NCT03852719|191906965|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|55.8||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 2 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.0|<0.0001
95967995|NCT03852719|191906965|OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|59.9||Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of bulevirtide 10 mg versus Delayed treatment using a significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||59.9|25.8|<0.0001
95967996|NCT03852719|191906966|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-1.65|||ANCOVA|||||-1.65|-6.39|0.0010
95967997|NCT03852719|191906966|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.93||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-1.63|||ANCOVA|||||-1.63|-6.23|0.0009
95875946|NCT01484132|191708279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.27
95967998|NCT03852719|191906967|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|0.57||||0.5156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|2.3|||MMRM|||||2.30|-1.16|0.5156
95967999|NCT03852719|191906968|OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.21||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.08|||MMRM|||||1.08|-3.50|0.2977
95968000|NCT03852719|191906969|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean of Diffrence|-0.04||||0.9719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.15||P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||2.15|-2.23|0.9719
95968001|NCT03852719|191906970|SUPERIORITY|P-value was based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model.|LS-Mean of Difference|2.11||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|5.63|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) means, standard errors (SE), 95% CIs and p-values were based on the mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model for change from baseline.|||5.63|-1.41|0.2369
95968002|NCT03852719|191906971|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.6||||0.4695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|24.4||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||24.4|-9.6|0.4695
95968003|NCT03852719|191906971|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||15.5|-16.3|1.0000
95968004|NCT03852719|191906972|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|7.7||||0.4539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|24.0||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented|||24.0|-8.8|0.4539
95968005|NCT03852719|191906972|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.5||P-value was based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||For response rate difference, the 95% exact unconditional confidence interval (CI) based on the score statistic was presented.|||15.5|-15.6|1.0000
95968006|NCT03746392|191906974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
95875947|NCT01484132|191708279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.068||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.123||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.123|-0.258|0.480
95875948|NCT01484132|191708279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|0.145||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the first treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.145|-0.293|0.501
95875949|NCT01484132|191708280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.41
95875950|NCT01484132|191708280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.082||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.254||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.254|-0.418|0.612
95875951|NCT01484132|191708280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.078||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.495||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 1 day after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.495|-0.339|0.696
95875952|NCT01484132|191708281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||One sample t-test was used to test whether the mean change from baseline was different from 0.||||0.76
95875953|NCT01484132|191708281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.018||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.061|1.025||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor and baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on all surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on all surfaces was used as the main predictor.||1.025|-1.061|0.968
95875954|NCT01484132|191708281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.941|0.775||P-value is to test the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment after adjusting for covariates.|Regression, Linear|Baseline BPA, season, household income, and canned food were used as covariates.||To see the association between composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces and change in BPA from baseline to 14 days after the second treatment, the linear model was used with the change in BPA outcome. Log-transformed BPA was used for the analysis. Composite exposure on posterior occlusal surfaces was used as the main predictor.||0.775|-0.941|0.822
95875955|NCT02927262|191708338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.336|||Log Rank||HR \& 95% CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors:age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.336|0.407|0.163
95875956|NCT02927262|191708339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.627||95.0|0.54|2.364|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||2.364|0.540|0.627
95875957|NCT02927262|191708340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.862||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.455|||Log Rank||HR \& 95%CI are based on CHM. Assuming proportional hazards, HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of gilteritinib arm. Stratification factors: age, geographic region, presence of MRD at screening, use of FLT3 inhibiting agents per IRT.|||1.455|0.510|0.296
95968007|NCT04201262|191906975|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.103|||Log Rank||HR based on a Cox proportional hazards model, with Firth's adjustment. Confidence interval (CI)= Wald CI or Profile Likelihood CI Limits. HR for ravulizumab compared with placebo presented a 98.6% reduction in risk of relapse, 95% CI (89.7%, 100.0%).|||0.103|0.000|< 0.0001
95968008|NCT04201262|191906977|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||Proportional Odds p-value|Univariate models|||The test of proportional odds was determined from a score test. The proportional odds was evaluated in univariate models.||||0.0122
95968009|NCT02819024|191906990|OTHER|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.087
95875958|NCT02927262|191708341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||2-sided P-value from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 3||||0.970
95875959|NCT02927262|191708341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 6||||0.415
95875960|NCT02927262|191708341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 12||||0.271
95875961|NCT02927262|191708341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||2-sided P-value from ANCOVA including treatment, age group, geographic region and use of FLT3-inhibiting agents per IRT as fixed factors and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Month 24/EoT||||0.179
95875962|NCT02963935|191708387|SUPERIORITY|The treatment policy estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) at week 56 for all randomised subjects regardless of premature discontinuation of trial product.|Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-1.59|||ANCOVA|Missing observations were imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference (x100) multiple imputation approach.|Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatrment policy estimand. The hypothesis and the alternative are: H: μliraglutide ≥ μplacebo against the alternative HA: μliraglutide \< μplacebo. μliraglutide and μplacebo denote the true mean of % weight change for liraglutide 3.0 mg and placebo group, respectively. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.59|-5.31|0.0003
95875963|NCT02963935|191708387|OTHER|The hypothetical estimand evaluated the treatment effect (liraglutide 3.0 mg vs placebo) for all randomised subjects assuming that all subjects remained on trial product (on-treatment principle)|Treatment difference|-4.59||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.64|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug data before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.64|-6.54|0.0000
95875964|NCT02963935|191708388|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.14|1.53|0.0003
95875965|NCT02963935|191708388|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.61|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||4.61|1.75|0.0000
95875966|NCT02963935|191708389|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.14|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x10000) imputation approach.||3.14|1.01|0.0469
95875967|NCT02963935|191708389|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.69|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||3.69|1.24|0.0063
95968010|NCT02284009|191907005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.24|||||Analysis was performed using a Bayesian model incorporating historical placebo data using a robust mixture prior. Values above are 95% credible intervals. Probability of treatment difference (Albiglutide - Placebo) \>= 0.2 nmol/L = 0.097.|||0.24|0.00|
95875968|NCT02963935|191708390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|4.74|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/Placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Week 56 responses were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach.||4.74|1.08|0.0311
95968011|NCT03841526|191907039|OTHER|Parameters that did not meet normality criterion were analyzed non-parametrically. Overall treatment effect was assessed using Friedman's test.||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||The primary efficacy analysis was analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the mean incidence rates among the 3 treatment groups in the Outpatient Phase. If the performed Friedman's test yielded an overall p-value less than 0.05, post-hoc analysis of groups means were conducted to statistically determine which group means differed.||||0.0002
95875969|NCT02963935|191708390|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|5.62|||Mixed models repeated measurement (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate, all nested within visit. The MMRM was used to classify responders and analysed with a logistic regression with treatment as the only factor.||5.62|1.33|0.0060
95875970|NCT02963935|191708391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|5.72|||Regression, Logistic||Liraglutide 3.0 mg/placebo|"Treatment policy estimand. Week 16 responders were analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline body weight as covariate.~Missing values are considered as non-responders."||5.72|1.93|<0.0001
95875971|NCT02963935|191708392|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-2.72||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.77|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||-0.77|-4.68|0.0063
95875972|NCT02963935|191708392|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-1.28|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.28|-5.62|0.0020
95875973|NCT02963935|191708393|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.52|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||1.52|-1.19|0.8137
95875974|NCT02963935|191708393|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg- placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||1.43|-1.12|0.8053
95875975|NCT02963935|191708394|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|0.87||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|5.14|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||5.14|-3.41|0.6916
95875976|NCT02963935|191708394|OTHER||treatment difference|1.25||||0.5572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|5.45|||Mixed models repeated measurements (MMRM||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||5.45|-2.95|0.5572
95875977|NCT02963935|191708395|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was not tested as part of confirmatory testing strategy.|Treatment difference|3.12||||0.6986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|18.92|||ANCOVA||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Treatment policy estimand. Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations imputed from the placebo arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x100) imputation approach. Week 56 responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate.||18.92|-12.68|0.6986
95968012|NCT03841526|191907039|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||<0.0001
95968013|NCT03841526|191907039|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.0032
95875978|NCT02963935|191708395|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.66||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|24.48|||Mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM)||Liraglutide 3.0 mg - placebo|Hypothetical estimand. Analysis of on-drug before first drug discontinuation date using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, BMI groups, and sex as factors and baseline measurement of endpoint as covariate, all nested within visit.||24.48|-9.15|0.3700
95968014|NCT03841526|191907039|OTHER|||||||0.2072|||||||Tukey Test/Kruskal-Wallis Test|Tukey Test (if the difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed) or Kruskal-Wallis Test (if not normally distributed).||If the overall treatment effect was significant, pairwise treatment comparisons were assessed using: If a difference between 2 treatments was normally distributed, the Tukey Test was used or if not normally distributed and the distribution was highly skewed, the sign test/Kruskal-Allis test was used.||||0.2072
95968015|NCT03841526|191907042|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95875979|NCT00464269|191708438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|12.8|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.6|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to a 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam (BRV) dose and Placebo (PBO) is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using the 95 % confidence intervals.||22.6|1.7|=0.025
95968016|NCT03841526|191907043|OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8590
95968017|NCT02314780|191907083|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
95968018|NCT02314780|191907084|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
95968019|NCT02314780|191907085|OTHER||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.002
95968020|NCT02314780|191907086|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95968021|NCT02314780|191907087|OTHER||||||=|0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.138
95968022|NCT02314780|191907088|OTHER||||||=|0.696|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.696
95968023|NCT00568178|191907109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio in Geometric Mean|0.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.74|0.54|0.001
95968024|NCT00568178|191907110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||||95.0|-9.9|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-9.9|
95968025|NCT00568178|191907111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||||95.0|-9.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-9.2|
95875980|NCT00464269|191708438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall significance level was controlled at 5 %. The 3 doses of Brivaracetam were tested at the 5 % level against Placebo starting from the 50 mg dose then the 20 mg dose and finally the 5 mg dose, only moving to the next test if the previous one is significant at the 5 % level.|% reduction over Placebo|4.1|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|15.0|||ANCOVA|Baseline and Treatment Period Partial Onset Seizure (POS) frequencies are standardized to 7-day duration.|The log-transformed (log(x+1)) POS seizure frequency was analyzed using an ANCOVA model, including terms for treatment, stratification factors, and log-transformed Baseline POS seizure frequency per week as a covariate.|The treatment difference between each Brivaracetam dose an Placebo is reported as a percent reduction over Placebo. The treatment effect was estimated using 95 % confidence intervals.||15.0|-8.1|=0.492
95875981|NCT02913612|191708468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.65||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.26|||Fisher Exact|||||6.26|1.12|0.0205
95875982|NCT02913612|191708468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|5.14|||Fisher Exact|||||5.14|0.91|0.0619
95875983|NCT02913612|191708468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.23||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.82|||Fisher Exact|||||2.82|0.53|0.6281
95875984|NCT05535972|191708503|OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-6.33|||||CFB in CAT score was analyzed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures(MMRM) model with covariates of smoking status, CAT score at Baseline, visit, interaction of CAT score at Baseline\*visit. Estimates derived from inverse probability weighted MMRM model.|||-6.33|-7.28|
95875985|NCT04502979|191708512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.73||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.73|-0.11|0.07
95875986|NCT04502979|191708513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-121.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-252.73|10.41||One-sided p-value for directional hypothesis. The threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.41|-252.73|0.04
95875987|NCT00932737|191708517|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||-0.1|-1.3|0.0156
95875988|NCT00932737|191708518|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.0|||Mixed effect model||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|A model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment group, episode, interval and center, as well as the treatment-by-episode interaction, with the covariate of baseline intensity of Abdominal pain associated with cramping . An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient errors.||0.0|-1.2|0.0512
95875989|NCT00932737|191708519|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide minus Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.0|-1.3|0.0351
95968026|NCT00568178|191907112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.6||No P Value was calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|An unstructured variance-covariance was used.||||1.60|0.86|
95875990|NCT00932737|191708520|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference between Hyoscine butylbromide and Placebo was calculated.|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the change from baseline to the last recorded rating of intensity for each treated episode of Abdominal pain associated with cramping (APC). The statistical model included the main effects of treatment, episode, and center as well as terms for the treatment-by-episode interaction, with baseline intensity of APC for the respective episode as a covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.3557
95875991|NCT00932737|191708521|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.572|2.004|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.004|0.572|0.831
95968027|NCT00568178|191907113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-3.8||||||95.0|-15.2|7.6||A P-Value was not calculated for this outcome.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.6|-15.2|
95968028|NCT01638429|191907184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.16
95875992|NCT00932737|191708522|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|2.387|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.387|0.626|0.557
95875993|NCT00932737|191708523|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.737||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||1.490|0.365|0.396
95875994|NCT00932737|191708524|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.336||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|2.827|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||2.827|0.632|0.448
95875995|NCT00932737|191708525|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.474||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|5.604|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||5.604|1.093|0.030
95968029|NCT01638429|191907186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.028
95968030|NCT01638429|191907187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is comparing change in methane eradiacators before and after treatment to change in methane non-eradiacators before and after treatment||||0.01
95968031|NCT01638429|191907188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.97
95968032|NCT01638429|191907188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.85
95968033|NCT01638429|191907189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.61
95875996|NCT00932737|191708526|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.378|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression included the main effects of treatment group, episode, and center.||||3.378|0.810|0.167
95875997|NCT00932737|191708527|OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.2560
95875998|NCT00932737|191708528|OTHER|||||||0.5179|||||||Log Rank|Log rank test was used for comparison of Hyoscine butylbromide (Buscopan®) 20 mg group versus Placebo group.||||||0.5179
95875999|NCT01686828|191708564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||||||The a prior threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.164
95876000|NCT01686828|191708565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||RM-ANOVA|||Time-by-group interaction for fat mass||||0.003
95876001|NCT01686828|191708565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Time-by-group interaction for lean mass|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.03
95876002|NCT01686828|191708566|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that short-term testosterone deprivation would not affect lipoprotein lipase expression in adipose tissue. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if a time-by-group effect was apparent for lipoprotein lipase expression.||||>0.1
95876003|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|1.603|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.603|0.998|
95876004|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.262|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.262|0.791|
95876005|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|0.897|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.897|0.558|
95876006|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.089|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.089|0.681|
95876007|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.956|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.956|0.596|
95876008|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|0.693|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.693|0.434|
95876009|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.817|0.510|
95876010|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.0|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.000|0.625|
95876011|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|0.71|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.710|0.441|
95876012|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.862|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.862|0.538|
95876013|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at 43|0.597|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.757|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.757|0.470|
95876014|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.549|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.549|0.342|
95876015|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.511|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.647|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.647|0.403|
95968034|NCT01638429|191907189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.45
95968035|NCT01638429|191907190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.018
95968036|NCT01638429|191907190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.14
95968037|NCT01638429|191907191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.43
95968038|NCT01638429|191907191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.44
95968039|NCT01638429|191907192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.13
95968040|NCT01638429|191907192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.25
95968041|NCT01638429|191907193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.29
95968042|NCT01638429|191907193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.27
95968043|NCT01638429|191907194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.22
95968044|NCT01638429|191907194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.059
95968045|NCT01638429|191907195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in total study population pre- and post-treatment||||0.33
95968046|NCT01638429|191907195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Values compared in methane eradicators only pre- and post-treatment||||0.075
95968047|NCT02040584|191907199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9423|||||||Fisher Exact|Week 52||"Null hypothesis (H0): there were no differences in kidney function between the two groups, in contrast with the alternative hypothesis (H1), in which there were differences:~HO: CBS = CBC versus H1: CBS ≠ CBC, where CBS and CBC were percentages of patients who showed clinical benefit at Week 52 for the study group and control group, respectively."||||0.9423
95968048|NCT02574845|191907275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|116.15|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||116.15|89.49|
95968049|NCT02574845|191907275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.12|117.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.11|96.12|
95968050|NCT02574845|191907275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.12|171.41|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||171.41|135.12|
95968051|NCT02574845|191907275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|121.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.30|94.34|
95968052|NCT02574845|191907275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|115.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.93|131.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||131.82|101.93|
95968053|NCT02574845|191907276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|102.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|120.42|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||120.42|87.19|
95968054|NCT02574845|191907276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|106.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|123.69|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||123.69|92.54|
95968055|NCT02574845|191907276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|154.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.7|180.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||180.24|131.70|
95968056|NCT02574845|191907276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|106.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.78|124.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||124.30|91.78|
95968057|NCT02574845|191907276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|117.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.27|141.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||141.65|98.27|
95968058|NCT02574845|191907277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T1/REF (%)|101.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.23|114.82|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 10 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||114.82|89.23|
95968059|NCT02574845|191907277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T2/REF (%)|107.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|117.81|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 50 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||117.81|97.65|
95968060|NCT02574845|191907277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T3/REF (%)|146.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.21|158.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 500 mg metformin hydrochloride on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||158.62|135.21|
95968061|NCT02574845|191907277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T4/REF (%)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|121.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 1 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||121.00|92.20|
95968062|NCT02574845|191907277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted geometric mean ratio T5/REF (%)|118.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.75|130.67|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including the effects: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequence', 'period' and 'treatment'.||This statistical analysis assess the effect of coadministration of 5 mg furosemide on the primary outcome measure of the REF treatment.||130.67|106.75|
95968063|NCT02406677|191907404|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073||||0.3503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.246|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model accounting for within hospital clustering using robust standard errors|Usual Care arm is the reference group|||1.246|0.925|0.3503
95968064|NCT02406677|191907405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with parameters estimated using GEE to account for within hospital clustering for selected patient characteristics||||0.979|0.717|0.0260
95968065|NCT02406677|191907406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.564|2.649|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with GEE to account for within hospital clustering||||2.649|1.564|<0.0001
95968066|NCT02833077|191907409|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|28.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.16|45.6||If the 2-sided p-value is \< 0.05, the responder rate is greater for treatment than for control group, and point estimate of the responder rater for treatment group is greater than 50%, then treatment will be considered superior to control group.|Fisher's exact test|||Superiority of treatment group was established if responder rate at month 6 was statistically greater than that for the control group at month 6 and the observed responder rate at month 6 for the treatment group was greater than 50%.||45.60|11.16|0.0019
95968067|NCT02833077|191907410|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on a 2-sided paired t-test at the 5% level to demonstrate that the mean overall satisfaction score at month 6 visit is statistically greater than that at the baseline for the treatment group.|Two sided paired t-test|||||||<.0001
95968068|NCT04608773|191907413|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of Dry mouth score between Refresh and Biotene. ANCOVA model was performed by regressing the difference in after-treatment measurement between Refresh and Biotene over the difference of baseline between Refresh and Biotene. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two- sided)||||<0.501
95968069|NCT04608773|191907414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.109
95968070|NCT04608773|191907415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.107|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.107
95968071|NCT04608773|191907416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.489
95968072|NCT04608773|191907417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.213
95968073|NCT04608773|191907418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.486
95968074|NCT01077518|191907420|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.82||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.07|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.07|0.62|0.1390
95968075|NCT01077518|191907421|OTHER||Stratified Cox propor.hazards regression|0.76||||0.1076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||1.06|0.55|0.1076
95968076|NCT01077518|191907422|OTHER|||||||0.8003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for All participants||||0.8003
95968077|NCT01077518|191907423|OTHER|||||||0.613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusted for stratum||for Follicular Lymphoma (FL) participants||||0.6130
95968078|NCT01077518|191907424|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|||for All patients||1.21|0.62|0.4046
95968079|NCT01077518|191907425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Stratified Log Rank|||for FL participants||1.25|0.55|0.3768
95968080|NCT00972322|191907448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.87|-0.82|||Least Squares Means Difference||Placebo - MK-8245 on Day 28|||-0.82|-29.87|0.083
95968081|NCT02628028|191907460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.473
95968082|NCT02628028|191907460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.670
95968083|NCT02628028|191907460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.823|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.823
95876016|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.896|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.896|0.560|
95968084|NCT02628028|191907461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.743
95876017|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.683|1.088|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.088|0.683|
95968085|NCT02628028|191907461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.124|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.124
95968086|NCT02628028|191907461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.858
95968087|NCT02628028|191907462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.199
95968088|NCT02628028|191907462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
95968089|NCT02628028|191907462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.863
95968090|NCT02628028|191907463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.44|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.44|-0.53|0.863
95968091|NCT02628028|191907463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.65|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.65|-0.32|0.503
95968092|NCT02628028|191907463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.23|-0.77|0.289
95968093|NCT02628028|191907464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.626
95968094|NCT02628028|191907464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.418
95968095|NCT02628028|191907464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.951
95968096|NCT02628028|191907465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.905|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.905
95968097|NCT02628028|191907465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.069
95876018|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.954|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.954|0.597|
95876019|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.692|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.692|0.435|
95876020|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|0.817|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.817|0.511|
95876021|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.961|1.541|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.541|0.961|
95876022|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.352|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.352|0.841|
95876023|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.981|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.981|0.612|
95876024|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.912|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.157|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.157|0.719|
95876025|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.109|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.109|0.692|
95876026|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.504|0.804|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.804|0.504|
95876027|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|0.949|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||0.949|0.593|
95876028|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.919|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||0.919|0.574|
95876029|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.084|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint||1.084|0.675|
95876030|NCT00973349|191708568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2-sided CIs were examined against a non-inferiority margin of 0.67|Geometric mean ratio at day 43|1.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|1.489|||||Pairwise Comparisons of GMTs (95% CI) Between Vaccination Groups at Day 43, on the pooled age groups.|Two-sided 95% CI around the point estimates were to be presented for each endpoint.||1.489|0.931|
95876031|NCT04941456|191708594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.08||||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|22.63|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||22.63|-74.80|0.2795
95876032|NCT04941456|191708597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6957||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.179|0.7877|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||0.7877|-2.179|0.3416
95876033|NCT00749515|191708667|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95876034|NCT00749515|191708668|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
95876035|NCT00749515|191708669|OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
95876036|NCT00749515|191708670|OTHER|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.062
95876037|NCT00749515|191708671|OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
95876038|NCT01950169|191708679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
95968098|NCT02628028|191907465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.547|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.547
95968099|NCT02145468|191907467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.47|0.91|0.238
95968100|NCT02145468|191907468|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.38|||Log Rank||"Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk.~with the treatment compared with placebo."|||1.38|0.90|0.329
95968101|NCT02145468|191907469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.88|0.338
95876039|NCT01950169|191708680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates used were age, sex, total mass, and baseline BMD. Data were reported using complete-cases analysis and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.||||||0.05
95876040|NCT01950169|191708681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|The analyses included exposure measures treatment groups and sex as fixed factors. Age and baseline values for FFMI, FMI were included as covariates.||||||0.05
95876041|NCT02038881|191708728|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.258|2.8||||||||2.800|0.258|
95876042|NCT02038881|191708728|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.653|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.333||||||||1.333|0.319|
95876043|NCT02038881|191708728|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.291|4.352||||||||4.352|0.291|
95876044|NCT02038881|191708728|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.819||||||||3.819|0.220|
95876045|NCT02038881|191708728|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|3.741||||||||3.741|0.292|
95876046|NCT02038881|191708728|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|2.892||||||||2.892|0.598|
95876047|NCT02038881|191708729|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.507||||||||1.507|0.385|
95876048|NCT02038881|191708730|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.603||||||||0.603|0.200|
95968102|NCT02145468|191907469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.88|0.410
95876049|NCT02038881|191708730|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.992||||||||0.992|0.285|
95876050|NCT02038881|191708731|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|4.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|13.793||||||||13.793|1.241|
95876051|NCT02038881|191708731|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|4.608|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.365|15.558||||||||15.558|1.365|
95876052|NCT02038881|191708731|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.699||||||||0.699|0.066|
95876053|NCT02038881|191708731|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.782||||||||0.782|0.072|
95876054|NCT02038881|191708732|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 4|0.823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|2.038||||||||2.038|0.333|
95876055|NCT02038881|191708732|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 6|0.787|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.508||||||||1.508|0.410|
95876056|NCT02038881|191708732|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 30|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.536||||||||1.536|0.187|
95876057|NCT02038881|191708732|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1 / Group 2) at Week 56|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.716||||||||1.716|0.203|
95876058|NCT02038881|191708732|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 4|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|6.731||||||||6.731|0.972|
95876059|NCT02038881|191708732|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 / Group 1) at Week 6|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|2.412||||||||2.412|0.612|
95876060|NCT02038881|191708733|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 1+3 [pooled] / Group 2)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.606||||||||1.606|0.480|
95876061|NCT02038881|191708734|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 1 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|0.542||||||||0.542|0.146|
95876062|NCT02038881|191708734|OTHER||GMT ratio (Group 2 [W6]/ Group 3 [W14])|0.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.718||||||||0.718|0.178|
95876063|NCT02038881|191708735|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W38]/ Group 1 [W30])|6.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.493|18.15||||||||18.150|2.493|
95876064|NCT02038881|191708735|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 3 [W64]/ Group 1 [W56])|7.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.693|19.649||||||||19.649|2.693|
95876065|NCT02038881|191708735|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W30]/ Group 3 [W38])|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.115|0.672||||||||0.672|0.115|
95876066|NCT02038881|191708735|OTHER||GMT Ratio (Group 2 [W56]/ Group 3 [W64])|0.233|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.541||||||||0.541|0.100|
95876067|NCT02038881|191708736|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|17.9||||||||17.9|-34.1|
95876068|NCT02038881|191708736|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
95876069|NCT02038881|191708736|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|32.6||||||||32.6|-24.5|
95876070|NCT02038881|191708736|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|29.2||||||||29.2|-31.5|
95876071|NCT02038881|191708736|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|22.2||||||||22.2|-32.8|
95876072|NCT02038881|191708736|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|10.1||||||||10.1|-25.1|
95876073|NCT02038881|191708737|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|11.6||||||||11.6|-15.2|
95876074|NCT02038881|191708738|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
95876075|NCT02038881|191708738|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
95876076|NCT02038881|191708739|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|33.0||||||||33.0|-19.6|
95876077|NCT02038881|191708739|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|44.4||||||||44.4|-11.0|
95876078|NCT02038881|191708739|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|14.3||||||||14.3|-35.6|
95876079|NCT02038881|191708739|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|10.5||||||||10.5|-40.5|
95876080|NCT02038881|191708740|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 4|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|20.3||||||||20.3|-38.4|
95876081|NCT02038881|191708740|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 6|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|16.3||||||||16.3|-16.8|
95876082|NCT02038881|191708740|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 30|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|17.6||||||||17.6|-38.4|
95876083|NCT02038881|191708740|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 - Gr 2) at Week 56|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|23.7||||||||23.7|-35.6|
95876084|NCT02038881|191708740|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 4|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|47.8||||||||47.8|-7.7|
95876085|NCT02038881|191708740|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 3 - Gr 1) at Week 6|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|13.4||||||||13.4|-20.5|
95876086|NCT02038881|191708741|OTHER||Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|13.2||||||||13.2|-12.0|
95876087|NCT02038881|191708742|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 1 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|13.4||||||||13.4|-17.1|
95968103|NCT02145468|191907470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death, MI or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.38|0.86|0.472
95968104|NCT02145468|191907471|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of arterial CV events (CV death, MI, SRI-UR or stroke), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.91|
95968105|NCT02145468|191907472|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.36|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of coronary events (CHD death, MI, SRI-UR or any unplanned coronary artery revascularization), Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.36|0.86|0.505
95968106|NCT02145468|191907473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.26|0.64|0.536
95968107|NCT02145468|191907473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.24|0.69|0.6
95968108|NCT02145468|191907474|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI or stroke, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.88|0.356
95968109|NCT02145468|191907475|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, MI, SRI-UR, stroke or hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.39|0.9|0.329
95968110|NCT02145468|191907476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death, MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.47|0.89|0.285
95968111|NCT02145468|191907477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CHD death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.46|0.86|0.401
95968112|NCT02145468|191907478|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.44|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death, MI or SRI-UR,Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.44|0.89|0.295
95968113|NCT02145468|191907479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of all-cause death or MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.43|0.86|0.412
95968114|NCT02145468|191907480|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death, type I (spontaneous) MI or SRI-UR, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.49|0.83|0.469
95876088|NCT02038881|191708742|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr 2 [W6] - Gr 3 [W14])|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.4||||||||13.4|-16.2|
95876089|NCT02038881|191708743|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W38] - Gr1 [W30])|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|45.8||||||||45.8|-4.5|
95876090|NCT02038881|191708743|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr3 [W64] - Gr1 [W56])|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|55.4||||||||55.4|5.8|
95876091|NCT02038881|191708743|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W30] - Gr3 [W38])|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|11.7||||||||11.7|-33.0|
95876092|NCT02038881|191708743|OTHER||Diff in SC rate (Gr2 [W56] - Gr3 [W64])|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-1.0||||||||-1.0|-46.7|
95876093|NCT05055453|191708761|OTHER|A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.|||||<|0.001||||||"Result for comparison between automatic only and preferred app settings."|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||||||<0.001
95876094|NCT05055453|191708761|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"Result of comparison between preferred app setting and extreme app setting"|Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||< 0.001
95876095|NCT05055453|191708761|OTHER|"Result of comparison between automatic only and extreme app setting."||||||0.002|||||||Durbin-Conover Pairwise Comparison|||A Shapiro Wilks test was used to test for normal distribution of the data.||||0.002
95876096|NCT05055453|191708762|OTHER|Analysis of first home trial|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95876097|NCT05055453|191708762|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of second home trial||||<.001
95876098|NCT01209923|191708776|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test||Children BIA was compared to hydrostatic weighing; adults were compared to DEXA.||||0.001
95968115|NCT02145468|191907481|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Composite of CV death or type I (spontaneous) MI, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.48|0.78|0.664
95968116|NCT02145468|191907482|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.19|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with first occurrence of definite or probable stent thrombosis, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.19|0.27|0.130
95968117|NCT02145468|191907483|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27|||Wald chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated using a logistic regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. An odds ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|||1.27|0.84|0.744
95876099|NCT02955797|191708787|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was greater than (\>) -10%.|Percentage difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|1.78||||||Serogroup A||1.78|-5.84|
95876100|NCT02955797|191708787|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.16|16.1||||||Serogroup C||16.1|8.16|
95876101|NCT02955797|191708787|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|6.19||||||Serogroup Y||6.19|-1.34|
95876102|NCT02955797|191708787|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI was stratified on the priming status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination during infancy) and calculated using the Wald method (normal approximation). Weighted average of the difference over strata was calculated using the Minimal Risk weights with the null variance method. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.458|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|5.28||||||Serogroup W||5.28|-4.37|
95876103|NCT02955797|191708788|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.2||||||Serogroup A||6.2|-3.6|
95876104|NCT02955797|191708788|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|22.8||||||Serogroup C||22.8|13.6|
95876105|NCT02955797|191708788|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|6.03||||||Serogroup Y||6.03|-2.76|
95876106|NCT02955797|191708788|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference in percentages was computed using the Wilson Score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.18||||||Serogroup W||6.18|-5.85|
95876107|NCT02955797|191708789|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|0.819|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|0.963||||||Serogroup A||0.963|0.697|
95876108|NCT02955797|191708789|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|9.52||||||Serogroup C||9.52|6.05|
95876109|NCT02955797|191708789|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.51||||||Serogroup Y||1.51|1.09|
95876110|NCT02955797|191708789|OTHER|95% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was stratified on the priming vaccination status (meningococcal vaccine naïve or primed monovalent MenC vaccination) and calculated using an ANOVA model of log10-transformed titers.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.56||||||Serogroup W||1.56|1.12|
95876111|NCT02955797|191708790|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||||||Serogroup A||1.24|0.85|
95876112|NCT02955797|191708790|OTHER||GMT Ratio|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|20.4||||||Serogroup C||20.4|13.4|
95876113|NCT02955797|191708790|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.44||||||Serogroup Y||1.44|0.97|
95876114|NCT02955797|191708790|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.63||||||Serogroup W||1.63|1.1|
95876115|NCT02955797|191708791|OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.496|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|0.672||||||Serogroup A||0.672|0.367|
95876116|NCT02955797|191708791|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|2.19||||||Serogroup C||2.19|0.814|
95876117|NCT02955797|191708791|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.04||||||Serogroup Y||2.04|1.15|
95876118|NCT02955797|191708791|OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.75||||||Serogroup W||1.75|0.944|
95876119|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For Vancomycin, all patients||||0.92
95876120|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, organisms not requiring vancomycin.||||0.032
95968118|NCT02145468|191907484|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Participants with all-cause mortality, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.53|0.309
95876121|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin-susceptible enterococci||||0.037
95876122|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For vancomycin, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus.||||0.2
95876123|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For nafcillin, oxacillin, or cefazolin.||||0.035
95876124|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For piperacillin-tazobactam.||||0.012
95876125|NCT01898208|191708816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For cefepime.||||0.56
95968119|NCT02145468|191907485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.28|0.53|0.398
95876126|NCT01898208|191708817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.55
95876127|NCT01898208|191708818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate de-escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||<0.0001
95876128|NCT01898208|191708818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For time to first appropriate escalation comparing the 3 groups.||||0.04
95876129|NCT01898208|191708819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis compares the 3 groups.||||0.015
95876130|NCT01898208|191708820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the FilmArray test to control arm.||||<0.0001
95876131|NCT01898208|191708820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares FilmArray plus antimicrobial stewardship to the control arm.||||<0.0001
95876132|NCT01898208|191708821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis is to compare the three groups.||||0.79
95876133|NCT01898208|191708822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.90
95876134|NCT01898208|191708823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis is a comparison of the 3 groups.||||0.62
95876135|NCT01898208|191708824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||This analysis compares the three groups.||||0.60
95876136|NCT01898208|191708825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for all-cause mortality.||||0.74
95876137|NCT01898208|191708825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the 3 groups for attributable mortality.||||0.42
95876138|NCT01898208|191708826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This analysis is a comparison across all three groups.||||0.82
95876139|NCT01898208|191708828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for total hospitalization costs.||||0.7789
95876140|NCT01898208|191708828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for laboratory test cost.||||0.0006
95876141|NCT01898208|191708828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison between the 3 arms for antimicrobials costs.||||0.6540
95876142|NCT02586064|191708837|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.28
95876143|NCT02586064|191708837|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95876144|NCT02586064|191708837|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.87
95876145|NCT02586064|191708837|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95876146|NCT02586064|191708837|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence hypothesis was assessed using the confidence intervals for the mean differences compared to margins of equivalence (-7,7). The equivalence hypothesis was examined based on the difference between the amount of change from the baseline to the end of treatment on the CAPS between the two conditions. Confidence interval is -7.0 to 1.9.||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change||||0.26
95876147|NCT02586064|191708837|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95876148|NCT02586064|191708837|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.68
95968120|NCT02145468|191907485|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CV death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.18|0.55|0.264
95968121|NCT02145468|191907486|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.22|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|CHD death events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.22|0.47|0.251
95968122|NCT02145468|191907487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.67|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.67|0.91|0.182
95968123|NCT02145468|191907487|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.58|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.58|0.93|0.158
95968124|NCT02145468|191907488|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Type I (spontaneous) MI events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.12|0.85|0.21
95968125|NCT02145468|191907489|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.24|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|SRI-UR events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||2.24|0.58|0.697
95968126|NCT02145468|191907490|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.96|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Stroke (fatal and non-fatal) events, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.96|0.46|0.883
95968127|NCT02145468|191907491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.32|0.54|0.457
95968128|NCT02145468|191907491|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.38|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Hospitalization for HF, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 24||1.38|0.63|0.736
95968129|NCT02145468|191907492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by baseline STEMI/NSTEMI status with treatment as the only covariate. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with the treatment compared with placebo.|Any unplanned coronary revascularization, Placebo Vs Losmapimod 7.5 mg BID at Week 12||1.59|0.77|0.581
95968130|NCT01732822|191907570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.650
95968131|NCT01732822|191907571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.738
95968132|NCT01732822|191907572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.92|0.400
95968133|NCT01732822|191907573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.91|0.482
95968134|NCT01732822|191907574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.89|0.913
95968135|NCT01732822|191907575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.92|0.724
95968136|NCT01732822|191907576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.79|0.846
95968137|NCT01732822|191907577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.87|0.298
95968138|NCT01732822|191907578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The hypothesis will be tested at the 4.94% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence will be used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.90|0.462
95968139|NCT01732822|191907579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.92|0.793
95968140|NCT01732822|191907580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.92|1.000
95876149|NCT02586064|191708837|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95968141|NCT01732822|191907581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.91|0.829
95968142|NCT01732822|191907582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.92|0.949
95876150|NCT02586064|191708837|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Follow Up||||0.84
95876151|NCT02586064|191708837|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval 95%, equivalence margin \[-7,7\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95876152|NCT02586064|191708838|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Baseline||||0.36
95876153|NCT02586064|191708838|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||4-Week||||0.34
95876154|NCT02586064|191708838|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||8-Week||||0.43
95876155|NCT02586064|191708838|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.09
95876156|NCT02586064|191708838|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||End of Treatment||||0.41
95968143|NCT01732822|191907583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.78|0.377
95876157|NCT02586064|191708838|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypotheses were assessed using the confidence interval for the mean differences (-0.33 to 0.20) compared to margin of superiority (-.05).||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||Change||||0.64
95876158|NCT02586064|191708838|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One sided 97.5% confidence interval, superiority margin was 0.5||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
95876159|NCT02586064|191708839|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.40
95876160|NCT02586064|191708839|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.65
95968144|NCT01732822|191907587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.71|0.164
95968145|NCT01732822|191907588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.67|0.306
95968146|NCT01732822|191907589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.887
95876161|NCT02586064|191708839|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.64
95968147|NCT01732822|191907590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.84|0.489
95968148|NCT01732822|191907591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.95|0.138
95876162|NCT02586064|191708839|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.64
95876163|NCT02586064|191708839|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.76
95876164|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.11
95876165|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||4-Week||||0.48
95876166|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||8-Week||||0.74
95876167|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.34
95876168|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.65
95876169|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.14
95876170|NCT02586064|191708840|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.18
95876171|NCT02586064|191708841|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.08
95876172|NCT02586064|191708841|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.07
95876173|NCT02586064|191708841|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
95876174|NCT02586064|191708841|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.003
95876175|NCT02586064|191708841|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
95876176|NCT02586064|191708842|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.05
95876177|NCT02586064|191708842|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.04
95876178|NCT02586064|191708842|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.86
95876179|NCT02586064|191708842|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||<0.001
95876180|NCT02586064|191708842|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
95876181|NCT02586064|191708843|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.45
95876182|NCT02586064|191708843|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.71
95876183|NCT02586064|191708843|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.60
95876184|NCT02586064|191708843|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.13
95876185|NCT02586064|191708843|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.80
95876186|NCT02586064|191708844|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.35
95876187|NCT02586064|191708844|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
95876188|NCT02586064|191708844|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.74
95876189|NCT02586064|191708844|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.03
95876190|NCT02586064|191708844|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.22
95876191|NCT02586064|191708845|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.39
95876192|NCT02586064|191708845|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.15
95876193|NCT02586064|191708845|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.72
95876194|NCT02586064|191708845|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.04
95876195|NCT02586064|191708845|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.19
95876196|NCT02586064|191708846|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.33
95968149|NCT01732822|191907592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.95|0.139
95968150|NCT01732822|191907593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||||2.00|1.24|<0.001
95968151|NCT02055781|191907667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0011
95968152|NCT02055781|191907667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0173
95968153|NCT02055781|191907667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0007
95968154|NCT02055781|191907668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0791|||||||Fisher Exact|||BAT arm compared to pooled pacritinib arms (QD + BID - ITT Efficacy)||||0.0791
95968155|NCT02055781|191907668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6524
95968156|NCT02055781|191907668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0106
95968157|NCT00201643|191907678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.75||Analysis were also conducted in all randomized women with a known outcome \& in randomized treatment group(modified intent to treat). Analysis of the primary outcome used a repeated measures approach where each baby was considered a repeated measure|Fisher Exact|||Our Hypothesis was that administration of a rescue ACS would show a 40% reduction in incidence of composite neonatal morbity in patients delivering \< 34 weeks. Sample size estimates based on composite morbidity of 28%. Each arm required 217 subjects to have 80% power to detect a 40% reduction to 16.8%(2-tailed,alpha =0.05)using comparison for proportions/groups(Fisher exact test) OR,95% CI \& P values were determined using a repeated measure model where each twin is considered a repeat measure.||0.75|0.27|0.002
95876197|NCT02586064|191708846|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.11
95876198|NCT02586064|191708846|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.88
95876199|NCT02586064|191708846|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.06
95968158|NCT02898077|191907703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.765||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|0.955|||Log Rank|||||0.955|0.613|0.0184
95876200|NCT02586064|191708846|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.56
95968159|NCT02898077|191907704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.203||||||||1.203|0.771|
95968160|NCT02898077|191907705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.968||||||||0.968|0.598|
95968161|NCT02898077|191907706|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
95968162|NCT02898077|191907707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.421||||||||1.421|0.577|
95968163|NCT00731133|191907718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.6466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9016||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7858|4.5073|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open-label study testing for change in side-effects ratings over time (i.e., slope).||4.5073|.7858|0.05
95968164|NCT00731133|191907719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2196||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8075|0.0615|||Mixed Models Analysis|7,24||Open label study testing changes in amphetamine use over time (i.e., slope).||0.06150|-0.8075|0.05
95968165|NCT00943852|191907720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
95968166|NCT00943852|191907721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|Fixed effects model with terms for subject, treatment and period||||||<0.001
95968167|NCT03098563|191907722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|||||||.021
95968168|NCT00734591|191907723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|28.46|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||28.46|0.50|
95968169|NCT00734591|191907724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|24.01|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||24.01|0.37|
95876201|NCT02586064|191708847|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.16
95876202|NCT02586064|191708847|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.06
95968170|NCT00734591|191907725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||||||||1.10|0.60|
95968171|NCT00734591|191907726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact method|3.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|20.68|||||Incidence density ratio confidence interval derived from exact methods utilizing exact binomial limits and ratio of exposures.|||20.68|1.01|
95968172|NCT03248882|191907749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.4|-1.1||||||||-1.1|-19.4|
95876203|NCT02586064|191708847|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.46
95968173|NCT03248882|191907749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-51.3|-40.1||||||||-40.1|-51.3|
95968174|NCT03248882|191907749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-57.2|-47.1||||||||-47.1|-57.2|
95968175|NCT03248882|191907749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-66.0|-57.8||||||||-57.8|-66.0|
95968176|NCT03248882|191907750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.0|6.3||||||||6.3|-14.0|
95968177|NCT03248882|191907750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.0|-12.2||||||||-12.2|-29.0|
95968178|NCT03248882|191907750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.8|-16.1||||||||-16.1|-32.8|
95968179|NCT03248882|191907750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.9|-35.0||||||||-35.0|-47.9|
95968180|NCT02236988|191907755|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.0|77.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||77.6|55.0|
95876204|NCT02586064|191708847|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Post Treatment||||0.001
95876205|NCT02586064|191708847|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.002
95876206|NCT02586064|191708848|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.24
95876207|NCT02586064|191708848|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.81
95876208|NCT02586064|191708848|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.24
95876209|NCT02586064|191708849|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.41
95876210|NCT02586064|191708849|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.21
95876211|NCT02586064|191708849|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.50
95876212|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline||||0.70
95876213|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 4||||0.96
95876214|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Week 8||||0.59
95876215|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||End of Treatment||||0.61
95876216|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change||||0.84
95876217|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||3 Month Follow Up||||0.30
95876218|NCT02586064|191708850|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||6 Month Post Treatment||||0.16
95876219|NCT00165984|191708860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9|||Regression, Cox|||||13.9|1.7|0.003
95876220|NCT04916769|191708900|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of ajusted geometric means|106.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.76|115.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.53|97.76|
95876221|NCT04916769|191708900|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.97|110.56||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.56|93.97|
95876222|NCT04916769|191708901|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|108.53||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||108.53|86.37|
95876223|NCT04916769|191708901|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|106.61||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||106.61|85.34|
95876224|NCT04916769|191708902|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|115.68||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + applesauce 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||115.68|97.54|
95876225|NCT04916769|191708902|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. The ratio of adjusted geometric means and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.95|110.91||||||Natural logarithm-transformed bosutinib AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Bosutinib 500 mg capsule contents + yogurt 45 mL \[Test\] - Bosutinib 500 mg intact capsule \[Reference\]) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model.||110.91|93.95|
95876226|NCT03950791|191708984|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|3864.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.0||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, p \< .05 used as threshold for statistical significance|Independent-samples Mann-Whitney U|No adjustments for multiple comparisons|Standardized Test Statistic = .139|Morphine equivalent dosage outcome variables were not normally distributed (skewness values between 4.5 and 4.8, kurtosis values between 25.7 and 30.0), which necessitated non-parametric analysis using independent-samples Mann-Whitney U Test||||.89
95968181|NCT02236988|191907755|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|95.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||95.5|67.8|
95968182|NCT02236988|191907755|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|99.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||99.9|70.9|
95968183|NCT02236988|191907757|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.7|73.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||73.9|51.7|
95968184|NCT02236988|191907757|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.6|85.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.1|59.6|
95968185|NCT02236988|191907757|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.7|88.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.2|61.7|
95876227|NCT03924869|191708986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.24||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|||"Hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.24|0.69|0.29320
95968186|NCT02236988|191907758|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|62.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.1|74.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 1 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.4|52.1|
95876228|NCT03924869|191708987|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.93971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.9||1-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by Disease Stage, ECOG Performance Status, Geographic Region of Enrollment Site, and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery.|Log Rank|Per protocol, since the EFS null hypothesis was not rejected, the OS hypothesis was not formally tested and the p-value should be considered nominal.||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.90|0.93|0.93971
95876229|NCT03924869|191708988|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||Per protocol, there was no hypothesis pre-specified for TDDM to be formally tested.||||"Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate, stratified by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason for Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||1.42|0.74|
95876230|NCT03924869|191708991|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.5187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.48|||cLDA model|||"Stats:~LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery)."||2.48|-4.90|0.5187
95876231|NCT03924869|191708992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|0.69|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||0.69|-9.38|0.0906
95876232|NCT03924869|191708993|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.5482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|5.31|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-LC13 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||5.31|-2.83|0.5482
95876233|NCT03924869|191708994|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.53|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||4.53|-6.50|0.7253
95876234|NCT03924869|191708995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.9055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.28|||cLDA model|||LS Mean change and 95% CIs were based on a cLDA model with the EORTC QLQ-C30 scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by Disease Stage (Stage I versus Stage II), ECOG Performance Status (0 or 1 versus 2), Geographic Region of Enrollment Site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Reason For Not Receiving Surgery (medically inoperable versus refused surgery).||3.28|-3.70|0.9055
95876235|NCT01470859|191708996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed on the changes of PDRP Z score between levodopa and pramipexole groups.||||||0.84
95876236|NCT01470859|191708996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V1||||||0.93
95876237|NCT01470859|191708996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|t-test, 2 sided|independent sample t-test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDRP Z scores between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.31
95876238|NCT01470859|191708997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.691
95876239|NCT01470859|191708997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.706
95876240|NCT01470859|191708997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS II scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.635
95876241|NCT01470859|191708997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V1 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.341
95876242|NCT01470859|191708997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V2 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.049
95876243|NCT01470859|191708997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the UPDRS III scores at V5 scores between the levodopa and pramipexole groups||||||0.874
95876244|NCT01470859|191708998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.720
95876245|NCT01470859|191708998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the PDQ39 scores between levodopa and pramipexole group at V5||||||0.867
95876246|NCT01470859|191708999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|indenpendent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole group at V1||||||0.793
95876247|NCT01470859|191708999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|independent U test|independent U test The statistical analysis was performed to compare the H\&Y stages between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.430
95876248|NCT01470859|191709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V2||||||0.345
95876249|NCT01470859|191709000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||"p\<0.05 is indicating the threshold for statistical significance for this comparison"|Chi-squared|The statistical analysis was performed to compare the clinical improvement between levodopa and pramipexole groups at V5||||||0.410
95876250|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|-0.16|
95876251|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.10|
95876252|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|-0.05|
95876253|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.33|
95876254|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.65|
95876255|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.16|
95876256|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
95876257|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
95876258|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|-0.04|
95876259|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|-0.17|
95876260|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.77|-0.16|
95876261|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.74|-0.07|
95876262|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.854|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.58|
95876263|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.85|-0.13|
95968187|NCT02236988|191907758|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.7|85.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 2 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.2|59.7|
95968188|NCT02236988|191907758|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.0|88.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 3 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.4|62.0|
95968189|NCT02236988|191907759|OTHER||Median Difference|1.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 1 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.5|0.0090
95968190|NCT02236988|191907759|OTHER||Median Difference|1.26||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 2 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|0.50|0.0073
95968191|NCT02236988|191907759|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 3 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|<0.0001
95968192|NCT02236988|191907765|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|101.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||101.1|81.8|
95968193|NCT02236988|191907765|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|73.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|82.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||82.0|66.3|
95968194|NCT02236988|191907765|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.2|89.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.2|72.2|
95876264|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|-0.15|
95876265|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.527|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|-0.10|
95876266|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.574|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|-0.10|
95876267|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.454|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.85|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.85|-0.05|
95876268|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.54|
95876269|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.27|
95876270|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|-0.18|
95876271|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.09|
95968195|NCT02236988|191907766|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|84.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.5|93.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.0|77.5|
95876272|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.69|-0.19|
95876273|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.81|
95876274|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|0.42|
95876275|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|0.19|
95876276|NCT04823650|191709004|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.871|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|-0.09|
95876277|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.548|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.84|0.02|
95876278|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|0.35|
95876279|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.623|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.14|
95876280|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.11|
95876281|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.136|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.52|-0.01|
95968196|NCT02236988|191907766|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.8|78.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.9|65.8|
95968197|NCT02236988|191907766|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|85.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.5|71.2|
95876282|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.157|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.04|
95876283|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.649|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.88|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.88|0.17|
95876284|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.259|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.71|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.71|-0.04|
95876285|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.242|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.04|
95876286|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
95876287|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.481|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
95968198|NCT02236988|191907767|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|93.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 4 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||93.6|78.1|
95968199|NCT02236988|191907767|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.3|79.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 5 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||79.5|66.3|
95968200|NCT02236988|191907767|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|86.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 6 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.4|72.0|
95876288|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
95876289|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
95876290|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
95876291|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
95876292|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
95876293|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
95876294|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
95876295|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.34|-0.25|
95876296|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.27|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.27|-0.13|
95876297|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.21|-0.21|
95876298|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.077|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.50|
95876299|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.50|-0.31|
95876300|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.29|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.29|-0.62|
95876301|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.331|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|-0.02|
95876302|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
95876303|NCT04823650|191709005|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.169|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.07|
95876304|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.93|0.45|
95876305|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
95876306|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
95876307|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.13|
95876308|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.658|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
95876309|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.82|-0.05|
95876310|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.776|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
95876311|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.681|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
95876312|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
95876313|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.56|-0.48|
95968201|NCT02236988|191907768|OTHER||Median Difference|2.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 4 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0002
95968202|NCT02236988|191907768|OTHER||Median Difference|1.02||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 5 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|0.50|0.0049
95968203|NCT02236988|191907768|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 6 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||2.00|1.00|0.0010
95876314|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.82|
95876315|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.58|
95876316|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.83|-0.14|
95876317|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
95876318|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
95876319|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.56|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.56|-0.07|
95876320|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.04|
95876321|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.04|
95968204|NCT02236988|191907774|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.4|103.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||103.0|80.4|
95968205|NCT02236988|191907774|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.1|100.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||100.0|78.1|
95876322|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.733|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|-0.18|
95968206|NCT02236988|191907775|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|80.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.8|88.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.0|73.8|
95968207|NCT02236988|191907775|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.9|85.7|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.7|71.9|
95876323|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.594|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.89|-0.21|
95876324|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.392|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.79|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.79|-0.21|
95876325|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.71|
95876326|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.862|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.62|
95876327|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.26|
95876328|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.786|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.07|
95876329|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.694|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.02|
95876330|NCT04823650|191709006|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.505|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.06|
95876331|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.71|
95876332|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.90|
95876333|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.88|
95876334|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|0.58|
95876335|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.731|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
95876336|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.04|
95876337|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.36|
95876338|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
95876339|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.04|
95876340|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.66|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.66|-0.18|
95876341|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.21|
95876342|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.72|-0.19|
95876343|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.46|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.46|-0.07|
95876344|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.44|-0.01|
95876345|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.35|-0.02|
95876346|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
95876347|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.70|-0.05|
95876348|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.127|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.03|
95876349|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.75|-0.15|
95876350|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.81|-0.21|
95876351|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.50|-0.23|
95876352|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.76|-0.12|
95968208|NCT02236988|191907776|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.3|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 8 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|74.3|
95876353|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.04|
95876354|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.59|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.59|-0.34|
95968209|NCT02236988|191907776|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.3|86.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 9 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||86.3|72.3|
95968210|NCT02236988|191907777|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 8 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.02|0.0374
95968211|NCT02236988|191907777|OTHER||Median Difference|0.51||||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 9 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.00|0.1907
95968212|NCT02236988|191907783|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|121.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||121.3|98.6|
95968213|NCT02236988|191907783|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|119.2|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||119.2|96.4|
95876355|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.639|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.25|
95876356|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.01|
95876357|NCT04823650|191709007|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.346|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.69|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.69|0.00|
95968214|NCT02236988|191907783|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.5|80.8|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.8|65.5|
95876358|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.827|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.53|
95968215|NCT02236988|191907783|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|103.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.1|114.9|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||114.9|93.1|
95876359|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.66|
95876360|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.94|0.17|
95876361|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.97|-0.14|
95876362|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
95876363|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
95876364|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.95|-0.02|
95876365|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|-0.06|
95968216|NCT02236988|191907784|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.2|88.3|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.3|75.2|
95876366|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.83|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.83|-0.05|
95876367|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.69|-0.32|
95876368|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.96|0.69|
95876369|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.837|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.47|
95876370|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.80|-0.13|
95876371|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|-0.05|
95876372|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.264|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.71|-0.03|
95876373|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.66|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.66|-0.08|
95876374|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.05|
95876375|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.379|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.03|
95876376|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.86|0.11|
95876377|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.29|
95968217|NCT02236988|191907784|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|82.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|89.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||89.5|75.9|
95876378|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.78|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.78|-0.20|
95876379|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.23|
95876380|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.00|
95876381|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.84|0.03|
95876382|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|0.20|
95876383|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
95876384|NCT04823650|191709008|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.459|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.79|-0.02|
95876385|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.19|
95876386|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.91|-0.11|
95968218|NCT02236988|191907784|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.9|74.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.0|62.9|
95876387|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|-0.06|
95876388|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.254|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.70|-0.35|
95876389|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.66|
95876390|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.793|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.95|0.02|
95876391|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.78|0.08|
95876392|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|-0.08|
95876393|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.585|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.05|
95876394|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.558|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|-0.15|
95876395|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|-0.15|
95876396|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.222|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.68|-0.04|
95876397|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.31|
95876398|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.727|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.20|
95876399|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.592|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|-0.19|
95876400|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.10|
95968219|NCT02236988|191907784|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.3|84.0|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.0|71.3|
95968220|NCT02236988|191907785|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|88.6|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 11 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||88.6|75.6|
95876401|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.669|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.92|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.92|-0.10|
95876402|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.81|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.81|-0.04|
95876403|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.92|0.26|
95876404|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.87|0.05|
95876405|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.424|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.83|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.83|-0.18|
95876406|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.89|0.06|
95876407|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.586|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.86|-0.07|
95876408|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.759|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.92|0.38|
95876409|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.91|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.91|0.01|
95876410|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|-0.08|
95876411|NCT04823650|191709009|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.605|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.9|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.90|-0.11|
95876412|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.94|
95876413|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.72|
95876414|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.01|
95876415|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
95876416|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.75|
95876417|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.16|
95876418|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
95876419|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
95876420|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.47|
95876421|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.45|-0.39|
95876422|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.07|
95876423|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|-0.21|
95876424|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.93|0.42|
95876425|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.962|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.48|
95876426|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.20|
95876427|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.58|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.58|-0.07|
95876428|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
95876429|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.12|
95876430|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.95|0.58|
95876431|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.52|
95876432|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.94|
95876433|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.42|
95876434|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.96|0.53|
95968221|NCT02236988|191907785|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|90.1|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 12 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||90.1|76.5|
95968222|NCT02236988|191907785|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|68.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.4|74.5|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 13 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||74.5|63.4|
95968223|NCT02236988|191907785|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.8|84.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (Apremilast Modified Release 14 / Apremilast Immediate Release) expressed as a percentage.|To compare each test formulation with the reference formulation in each group, an ANOVA was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ value. The ANOVA model included treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||84.4|71.8|
95876435|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.94|
95876436|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.96|0.73|
95876437|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.77|
95876438|NCT04823650|191709010|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
95876439|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.74|
95968224|NCT02236988|191907786|OTHER||Median Difference|0.98||||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.5|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 11 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.50|0.03|0.0523
95968225|NCT02236988|191907786|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 12 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.2598
95968226|NCT02236988|191907786|OTHER||Median Difference|1.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 13 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||3.00|1.00|0.0053
95876440|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
95876441|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.899|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.66|
95876442|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.92|
95876443|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.80|
95876444|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.19|
95876445|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.89|
95876446|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
95876447|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.50|
95876448|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.42|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.42|-0.64|
95968227|NCT02236988|191907786|OTHER||Median Difference|0.5||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Median difference (Apremilast Modified Release 14 - Apremilast Immediate Release) calculated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|Tmax was analyzed by nonparametric methods. The median difference and 90% CI of the median difference were calculated from the Hodges-Lehrmann estimate.||1.00|0.00|0.1093
95968228|NCT04308590|191907795|EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis will determine whether there is a difference between treatment groups in terms of change from Baseline to Week 22 in 24-hour average SBP. This was performed using a linear mixed-model-for-repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis using a placebo wash-out multiple imputation for treatment discontinuation and for patients that use rescue medication.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.096|3.766|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.766|-9.096|0.4160
95876449|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.891|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|0.64|
95876450|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.85|0.00|
95876451|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.94|0.49|
95876452|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.68|
95876453|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.885|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|-0.11|
95876454|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.53|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.53|-0.17|
95876455|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.896|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.97|0.65|
95876456|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.87|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.87|0.04|
95876457|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.849|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.97|-0.09|
95876458|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.98|0.34|
95876459|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.92|
95876460|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.63|
95876461|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.98|0.76|
95876462|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
95876463|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.61|
95876464|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.98|0.79|
95876465|NCT04823650|191709011|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.96|
95876466|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.95|
95876467|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.09|
95876468|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|0.96|
95876469|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.95|
95876470|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.90|
95876471|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||1.00|0.28|
95876472|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.96|
95876473|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.97|
95876474|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.0|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Natural Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||1.00|0.94|
95876475|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.39|-0.44|
95876476|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.99|0.53|
95968229|NCT01072630|191907818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.6||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.60|-4.67|0.1302
95876477|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.0|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||1.00|-0.06|
95876478|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.725|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.91|0.30|
95876479|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|0.44|
95876480|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.99|-0.12|
95876481|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.52|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.52|-0.11|
95876482|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|0.84|
95876483|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.99|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Fast Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.99|-0.04|
95876484|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.709|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.90|0.26|
95876485|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.80|-0.07|
95876486|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite||0.88|0.15|
95876487|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.90|0.18|
95876488|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.81|-0.05|
95876489|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
95968230|NCT01072630|191907818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.61||All statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||0.61|-4.51|0.1350
95968231|NCT00338962|191907842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferonni adjustments were applied. Mixed effects models were used to assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time.|Mixed Models Analysis|F=49.633||||||0.00
95968232|NCT00338962|191907844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Gastrointestinal symptoms compared||||0.007
95876490|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.94|0.57|
95876491|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
95876492|NCT04823650|191709012|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.93|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Walk at Slow Speed: ActiGraph vs GAITRite vs APDM||0.93|0.53|
95876493|NCT04823650|191709013|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.40|-0.20|
95876494|NCT04823650|191709013|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.5|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.50|-0.22|
95876495|NCT04823650|191709013|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.64|-0.05|
95876496|NCT04823650|191709013|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.026|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.39|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.39|-0.18|
95876497|NCT04823650|191709013|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.30|-0.07|
95876498|NCT04823650|191709013|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.57|-0.04|
95876499|NCT04823650|191709014|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.51|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.51|-0.16|
95876500|NCT04823650|191709014|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|-0.04|
95876501|NCT04823650|191709014|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.03|
95876502|NCT04823650|191709014|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.277|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.15|
95968233|NCT02683785|191907845|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value,Treatment Group,Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used.p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented.|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
95968234|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.01||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||-0.01|-0.90|0.046
95968235|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.29||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.29|-1.05|0.257
95876503|NCT04823650|191709014|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.04|
95876504|NCT04823650|191709014|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.279|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.03|
95876505|NCT04823650|191709015|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.31|
95876506|NCT04823650|191709015|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.89|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.89|0.30|
95876507|NCT04823650|191709015|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.631|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.92|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.92|-0.09|
95876508|NCT04823650|191709015|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.69|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.69|-0.18|
95968236|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.31||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.31|-1.31|0.220
95968237|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.11||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.11|-1.59|0.085
95968238|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.58||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.58|-1.31|0.442
95968239|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.28|-1.93|0.139
95968240|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.19||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||0.19|-2.00|0.103
95968241|NCT02683785|191907846|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.28||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.28|-2.06|0.132
95968242|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented.|||0.06|-0.97|0.082
95968243|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.41||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||0.41|-0.96|0.426
95968244|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.18||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 3 is presented|||0.18|-1.38|0.129
95968245|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.06||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented.|||0.06|-1.63|0.067
95968246|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.63||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||0.63|-1.28|0.494
95968247|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|0.21||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented.|||0.21|-2.08|0.107
95876509|NCT04823650|191709015|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.82|-0.07|
95876510|NCT04823650|191709015|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.9|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.90|-0.04|
95876511|NCT04823650|191709016|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.132|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.52|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.52|-0.16|
95968248|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.17||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented.|||0.17|-2.13|0.092
95968249|NCT02683785|191907847|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented.|||0.20|-2.22|0.098
95968250|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 1|||0.1|-5.6|0.061
95968251|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 2|||1.7|-5.6|0.282
95968252|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component Week 4|||0.9|-8.4|0.113
95968253|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 6|||4.0|-5.9|0.695
95968254|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 8|||1.8|-9.4|0.176
95968255|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 10|||-0.2|-10.8|0.041
95968256|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Pain component, Week 12|||0.6|-10.1|0.082
95968257|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 1|||0.6|-1.1|0.587
95968258|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 2|||0.6|-1.3|0.457
95968259|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 4|||0.6|-1.8|0.298
95968260|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 6|||0.9|-1.3|0.726
95968261|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 8|||0.4|-1.9|0.213
95968262|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 10|||0.7|-1.9|0.331
95968263|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Stiffness component, Week 12|||0.6|-2.1|0.248
95968264|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 1|||3.3|-9.0|0.350
95968265|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 2|||3.8|-9.8|0.383
95968266|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 4|||3.9|-13.5|0.271
95968267|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|6.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 6|||6.7|-12.1|0.565
95968268|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 8|||5.4|-15.2|0.343
95968269|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|4.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 10|||4.9|-17.3|0.266
95968270|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Physical Function component, Week 12|||2.7|-19.1|0.136
95968271|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|3.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 1|||3.6|-14.5|0.230
95968272|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|5.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 2|||5.9|-15.2|0.381
95968273|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 4|||5.0|-22.4|0.207
95968274|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|11.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 6|||11.6|-18.4|0.648
95968275|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|7.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 8|||7.5|-25.4|0.278
95968276|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|5.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 10|||5.0|-29.1|0.160
95968277|NCT02683785|191907852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|3.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||For Total of all component scores, Week 12|||3.9|-30.5|0.127
95968278|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||1.8|-1.9|0.957
95968279|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.8|-2.1|0.775
95968280|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||1.7|-2.7|0.624
95968281|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.8|-1.0|0.243
95968282|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.9|-2.5|0.875
95968283|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||2.8|-3.4|0.848
95968284|NCT02683785|191907853|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||2.4|-2.8|0.883
95968285|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 1 is presented|||2.0|-4.4|0.463
95968286|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||2.9|-3.7|0.809
95968287|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.0||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||2.0|-5.8|0.324
95968288|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 6 is presented|||3.2|-4.2|0.783
95968289|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||2.5|-5.4|0.464
95968290|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 10 is presented|||3.5|-4.9|0.736
95968291|NCT02683785|191907854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.7||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||3.7|-4.8|0.806
95968292|NCT02683785|191907855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented|||1.6|-0.9|0.586
95968293|NCT02683785|191907855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.8|-1.9|0.416
95968294|NCT02683785|191907855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.3|-2.8|0.120
95968295|NCT02683785|191907855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||1.4|-2.1|0.687
95968296|NCT02683785|191907856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 2 is presented.|||0.8|-1.3|0.651
95968297|NCT02683785|191907856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 4 is presented|||0.5|-1.9|0.271
95968298|NCT02683785|191907856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 8 is presented|||0.4|-2.2|0.186
95968299|NCT02683785|191907856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||MMRM model with fixed effects of Baseline Value, Treatment Group, Visit and Treatment Group by Visit Interaction was used. Unstructured covariance structure was used. p-value corresponds to the difference over placebo measure and confidence interval.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Difference from placebo for Week 12 is presented|||0.2|-2.4|0.109
95968300|NCT01305408|191907867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|1.06||Statistical tests were 2-tailed at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, concurrent mood-stabilizing medication, and region of the world used as fixed factors.||||1.06|-3.76|0.2717
95968301|NCT04978493|191907936|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|4.84|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||4.84|-0.99|
95968302|NCT04978493|191907937|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|13.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|36.14|||||(Adjusted mean BI 706321 and ustekinumab) - (adjusted mean Placebo and ustekinumab)|The analysis was a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). For the ANCOVA model, absolute change in SES-CD score was the dependent variable, treatment group and baseline corticosteroid use (yes/no) were fixed effects and baseline SES-CD score was a continuous covariate.||36.14|-9.46|
95968303|NCT04978493|191907938|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-2.64|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||-2.64|-48.42|
95968304|NCT04978493|191907939|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.49|22.12|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||22.12|-20.49|
95968305|NCT04978493|191907940|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|13.25|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||13.25|-21.14|
95968306|NCT04978493|191907941|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|18.78|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.78|-17.67|
95968307|NCT04978493|191907942|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|18.85|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||18.85|-24.91|
95968308|NCT04978493|191907943|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.86|17.34|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||17.34|-23.86|
95968309|NCT04978493|191907944|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.32|8.89|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||8.89|-42.32|
95968310|NCT04978493|191907945|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|23.41|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||23.41|-21.53|
95968311|NCT04978493|191907946|OTHER||Unadjusted risk difference|-22.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.42|5.19|||||BI 706321 and ustekinumab - Placebo and ustekinumab|Unadjusted risk difference between treatment groups were calculated simply as the difference in the observed percentage of patients. The method to provide confidence intervals for the unadjusted risk differences was derived from the Newcombe method.||5.19|-45.42|
95968312|NCT02387970|191907956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.088
95968313|NCT02387970|191907957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.235
95968314|NCT02387970|191907958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.165
95968315|NCT02387970|191907959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.297
95968316|NCT02387970|191907960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.121
95968317|NCT02387970|191907961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.248
95968318|NCT02387970|191907962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
95968319|NCT00422812|191907975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Overall effect at 2 hr (by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) for TREATMENT|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95968320|NCT00422812|191907976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
95968321|NCT00422812|191907976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0226
95968322|NCT00422812|191907976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
95968323|NCT00422812|191907977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Overall effect (0-4 hr) for TREATMENT by Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||||0.0007
95968324|NCT00422812|191907977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons||||||0.0008
95968325|NCT00422812|191907977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0008
95968326|NCT00422812|191907977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
95968327|NCT01743989|191907992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.383
95968328|NCT02671500|191908019|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided 1 sample exact binomial test|||A sample size of 260 participants in Region 1 would provide more than 80% power to detect an improvement of at least 6 percentage points in SVR12 rate from the performance goal of 85% by using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test at the significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95968329|NCT00515723|191908026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.002
95876512|NCT04823650|191709016|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|-0.06|
95876513|NCT04823650|191709016|OTHER||Intra-class correlation coefficient|0.363|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.06|
95968330|NCT00515723|191908026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA total fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6, and 12 weeks) and treatment group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.002
95876514|NCT04823650|191709016|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.84|-0.21|
95876515|NCT04823650|191709016|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|-0.02|
95876516|NCT04823650|191709016|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.75|-0.06|
95876517|NCT04823650|191709017|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.31|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.31|-0.24|
95876518|NCT04823650|191709017|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.19|
95876519|NCT04823650|191709017|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.72|-0.17|
95876520|NCT04823650|191709017|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.44|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.44|-0.22|
95876521|NCT04823650|191709017|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.289|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.68|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.68|-0.18|
95876522|NCT04823650|191709017|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.7|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.18|
95876523|NCT04823650|191709018|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.596|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.86|0.08|
95876524|NCT04823650|191709018|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.902|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.97|0.72|
95876525|NCT04823650|191709018|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.15|
95876526|NCT04823650|191709018|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.87|0.10|
95876527|NCT04823650|191709018|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.96|0.67|
95876528|NCT04823650|191709018|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.939|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|-0.05|
95876529|NCT04823650|191709019|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.81|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.81|-0.06|
95876530|NCT04823650|191709019|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.37|
95876531|NCT04823650|191709019|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.73|
95968331|NCT00515723|191908027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) as the independent variable, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time).||||0.05
95968332|NCT00515723|191908027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in insulin sensitivity used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0 and 12 weeks) and treatment group as the independent variables, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on the Akaike Information Criterion-Corrected (AIC-C). The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||0.22
95968333|NCT00186888|191908063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.3|96.9||||||||96.9|71.3|
95968334|NCT00186888|191908064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportion|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|99.6||||||||99.6|65.1|
95968335|NCT00186888|191908065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.452||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A4\*1B: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.452
95968336|NCT00186888|191908065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||CYP3A5\*3: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.106
95968337|NCT00186888|191908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 1143: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.245
95968338|NCT00186888|191908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.297||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP 15622: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.297
95968339|NCT00186888|191908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 2: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.372
95968340|NCT00186888|191908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.844||95.0|||||ANOVA|||BCRP Exon 5: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.844
95968341|NCT00186888|191908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.616||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 21: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.616
95968342|NCT00186888|191908066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.424||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pgp Exon 26: The null hypothesis is there is not a statistically significant difference between the genotype groups.||||0.424
95968343|NCT01647542|191908143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.78||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.78|-1.27|<0.001
95968344|NCT01647542|191908143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.57||Stepwise Comparison: 1) TAK-875 50 mg versus (vs.) placebo, 2) TAK-875 25 mg vs. placebo. Step 2 was performed only if p-value at step 1 was \<=0.050.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||Assuming a standard deviation of 0.9% in change from baseline in HbA1c to Week 24 and a dropout rate of 15%, 210 participants per group provided at least 95% power to detect a treatment difference of 0.5% between treatment arms at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.||-0.57|-1.07|<0.001
95968345|NCT01647542|191908144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|10.72||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||10.72|2.99|<0.001
95968346|NCT01647542|191908144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|6.49||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment and baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.||||6.49|1.81|<0.001
95968347|NCT01647542|191908145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-35.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-26.9||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value covariate.||||-26.9|-44.2|<0.001
95968348|NCT01647542|191908145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean Difference|-35.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-27.1||No multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, country, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors, baseline value as covariate.||||-27.1|-44.3|<0.001
95968349|NCT01647542|191908146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.72||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|69.6||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||69.6|-57.9|0.846
95968350|NCT01647542|191908146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.4||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.1|40.3||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate.||||40.3|-90.1|0.427
95968351|NCT03086655|191908147|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.93|||||This is the 'inflation part' of the zero inflated negative binomial model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations over time being nested within participant. Result shows odds of intervention group relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing a large number of 0. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 1: the odds of having 0 openings is lower in intervention than control group."||1.93|0.90|
95968352|NCT03086655|191908147|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio (IRR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.98|||||This is the negative binomial part of the model. We used cluster robust standard errors due to the multiple observations being nested within participant. Result shows intervention group had lower rate of openings relative to control.|"We used zero inflated negative binomial regression due to the count variable being overdispersed and containing many 0s. The analysis aggregated over multiple time points per participant. It simultaneously tests the odds of having 0 openings and the difference in the rate of openings between the 2 intervention groups. These 2 results are reported separately.~Null hypothesis 2: the incidence rate ratio for # days with box opening is \>1, i.e. more openings in intervention than control group."||0.98|0.61|
95968353|NCT03086655|191908148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (2 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for both 6 mo. by intervention and 12 mo. by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of undetectable VL as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of undetectable VL will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
95968354|NCT03086655|191908149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.43||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|(equal variances assumed)|Difference = control group - treatment group|||0.43|-0.11|<0.05
95968355|NCT03086655|191908150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|overall Wald chi2 (4 d.f.), simultaneously testing if parameters for all follow-ups by intervention are different from 0.||"statistical analyses is a GEE model with logit link function and binomial distribution with odds of optimal adherence as outcome and as predictors: intervention, time and time\*intervention. We hypothesize that over time, the odds of optimal adherence will be higher for the intervention than the control group, which would be reflected in a significant interaction effect time\*intervention.~H0: no significant interaction effect time\*intervention"||||0.08
95968356|NCT00798434|191908152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.97|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline urgency episodes.||Based on a 2-sided t-test (5% significance). Null hypothesis: no difference in mean change in mean micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 for the 2 groups. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method used for statistical analyses of the FAS (change from baseline to Week 12).||-0.97|-2.12|<0.0001
95968357|NCT00798434|191908153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|-14.25|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and confidence interval (CI)|Week 12 LOCF||-14.25|-14.67|<0.0001
95968358|NCT00798434|191908154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.42|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline severe urgency episodes||Week 12 LOCF||-0.42|-1.28|0.0001
95968359|NCT00798434|191908155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0005
95968360|NCT00798434|191908156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.64|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.64|-1.33|<0.0001
95968361|NCT00798434|191908157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-7.19|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-7.19|-7.40|<0.0001
95968362|NCT00798434|191908158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of night-time micturitions||Week 12 LOCF||-0.09|-0.40|0.0026
95968363|NCT00798434|191908159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-9.09|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||-9.09|-9.52|0.0012
95968364|NCT00798434|191908160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.0||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The protocol-defined analysis (ANOVA, parametric) not presented because normality assumptions were not met, instead an alternative analysis (Van-Elteren'ts test, non-parametric) as defined in the statistical analysis plan presented.|Van-Elteren's Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of median treatment difference and CI|Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.1005
95968365|NCT00798434|191908161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||2-sided Van Elteren's test|||Week 12 LOCF||0.00|0.00|0.0218
95968366|NCT00798434|191908162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and daily sum rating of USS at baseline||Week 12 LOCF||-3.10|-6.30|<0.0001
95968367|NCT00798434|191908163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.515||||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|2.528||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in dryness, where improvement was defined as dry at both weeks 8 and 12 relative to baseline incontinence.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||LOCF||2.528|0.909|0.1113
95968368|NCT00798434|191908164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of pads per 24 hours||Incontinence pads at Week 12 LOCF||-0.04|-0.47|0.0230
95968369|NCT00798434|191908164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of creams per 24 hours||Creams at Week 12 LOCF||0.01|-0.12|0.0909
95968370|NCT00798434|191908164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.02|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline number of powders per 24 hours||Powder at Week 12 LOCF||0.02|-0.08|0.2039
95968371|NCT00798434|191908165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.181|4.395|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, and age category||Week 12 LOCF||4.395|2.181|<0.0001
95968372|NCT00798434|191908168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.506|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|3.556||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as a negative change from baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPBC category||Week 12 LOCF||3.556|1.767|<0.0001
95968373|NCT00798434|191908172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.916||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.305|2.811||Logistic regression determined the odds of improvement versus no improvement in PPBC score, where improvement was defined as an increase of 1 or more points in difference of scores relative to baseline.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline PPUS category||LOCF||2.811|1.305|0.0009
95968374|NCT00798434|191908174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-4.59|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline symptom/bother score||Week 12 LOCF||-4.59|-9.65|<0.0001
95968375|NCT00798434|191908175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|6.73|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total health-related quality of life (HRQL) score.||Week 12 LOCF||6.73|2.24|<0.0001
95968376|NCT00798434|191908176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|8.22|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Coping Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||8.22|2.57|0.0002
95968377|NCT00798434|191908176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|7.93|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Concern Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||7.93|2.84|<0.0001
95968378|NCT00798434|191908176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Sleep Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||6.81|1.38|0.0032
95968379|NCT00798434|191908176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.53|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline HRQL subscale score||Social Subscale at Week 12; LOCF||4.53|0.49|0.0152
95968380|NCT00798434|191908177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.537|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.281|5.484||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (satisfaction with OAB control) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||5.484|2.281|<0.001
95968381|NCT00798434|191908178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.045|4.058||Analysis determined the odds of responding on the OAB-S scale (OAB medication expectation) for Fesoterodine versus placebo, where a responder was defined as a response of 'satisfied' or better on all 7 questions at week 12.|Regression, Logistic|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time and age category||LOCF||4.058|2.045|<0.0001
95968382|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.3163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|12.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||General Health Perception; LOCF||12.49|-4.13|0.3163
95968383|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|11.11|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Incontinence Impact; LOCF||11.11|-23.70|0.4698
95968384|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.5321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.58|12.88|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Role Limitations; LOCF||12.88|-24.58|0.5321
95968385|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|13.12|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Physical Limitations; LOCF||13.12|-20.74|0.6523
95968386|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|16.99|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Social Limitations; LOCF||16.99|-10.47|0.6344
95968387|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.2013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.71|6.49|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Personal Relationships; LOCF||6.49|-28.71|0.2013
95968388|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.3831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|7.83|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Emotions; LOCF||7.83|-19.96|0.3831
95968389|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|18.23|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Sleep/Energy; LOCF||18.23|-9.30|0.5167
95968390|NCT00798434|191908179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.53|0.15|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline total domain score||Severity of Urinary Symptoms; LOCF||0.15|-20.53|0.0532
95968391|NCT00798434|191908180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0125||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0229|0.0262|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, study center, dosing time, age category, and baseline single utility score||||0.0262|-0.0229|0.8959
95968392|NCT00558792|191908226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0099
95968393|NCT00558792|191908227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95968394|NCT00558792|191908228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1212||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1212
95968395|NCT00558792|191908230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0200
95968396|NCT00558792|191908231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0044
95968397|NCT00558792|191908232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0371||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.0371
95968398|NCT00558792|191908233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|14.1||||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|39.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||39.6|-11.4|0.2758
95968399|NCT00558792|191908233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|12.3||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|35.6||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.6|-11.1|0.3102
95968400|NCT00558792|191908233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|1.9||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|28.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||28.4|-24.6|0.8893
95968401|NCT00558792|191908234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.7||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.3|-4.7|0.2511
95968402|NCT00558792|191908234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|1.3||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.3||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||5.3|-2.6|0.4985
95876532|NCT04823650|191709019|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.584|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.85|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.85|0.06|
95876533|NCT04823650|191709019|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.93|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.93|0.45|
95876534|NCT04823650|191709019|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.964|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.63|
95876535|NCT04823650|191709020|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.16|
95876536|NCT04823650|191709020|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.49|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.49|-0.21|
95876537|NCT04823650|191709020|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
95876538|NCT04823650|191709020|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.35|-0.22|
95876539|NCT04823650|191709020|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.26|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.26|-0.35|
95876540|NCT04823650|191709020|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.284|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.71|-0.32|
95876541|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.53|-0.16|
95876542|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.64|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.64|-0.114|
95968403|NCT00558792|191908234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.1||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.4|-6.5|0.0693
95968404|NCT00558792|191908235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-1.5||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|24.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||24.8|-27.9|0.9104
95876543|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.73|-0.17|
95968405|NCT00558792|191908235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|-12.6||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|10.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||10.5|-35.7|0.2857
95968406|NCT00558792|191908235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|11.1||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|35.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||35.5|-13.3|0.3664
95968407|NCT00558792|191908236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specifcity between Doses|-3.7||||0.1322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|1.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.2|-8.7|0.1322
95876544|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.76|-0.23|
95968408|NCT00558792|191908236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-1.3||||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.2||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.2|-6.9|0.6381
95876545|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.12|
95876546|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.15|
95876547|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.65|-0.18|
95876548|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.87|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.87|-0.17|
95876549|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.75|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.75|-0.20|
95876550|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.228|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.06|
95876551|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.335|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.74|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.74|-0.10|
95876552|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.343|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.03|
95876553|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.376|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.77|-0.20|
95876554|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.56|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.56|-0.12|
95876555|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.71|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs APDM||0.71|-0.18|
95876556|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.449|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.8|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.80|-0.14|
95876557|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.65|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.65|-0.22|
95876558|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.399|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.77|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.77|-0.14|
95968409|NCT00558792|191908236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-2.4||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.4||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||2.4|-7.2|0.3217
95968410|NCT00558792|191908237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|7.6||||0.5843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|34.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||34.7|-19.6|0.5843
95876559|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.507|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.86|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.86|-0.22|
95876560|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.72|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.72|-0.18|
95876561|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.74|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar||0.74|-0.17|
95876562|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.78|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.78|-0.02|
95968411|NCT00558792|191908237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|4.6||||0.7197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|29.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||29.7|-20.5|0.7197
95876563|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.59|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs Actigraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.59|-0.08|
95876564|NCT04823650|191709021|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.7|||||Agreement between devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Wrist vs ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.70|-0.07|
95876565|NCT04823650|191709022|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.323|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.73|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.73|-0.28|
95876566|NCT04823650|191709022|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.822|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.95|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.95|0.23|
95876567|NCT04823650|191709022|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 1: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.91|
95876568|NCT04823650|191709022|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.88|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.88|0.16|
95876569|NCT04823650|191709022|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.829|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.94|0.55|
95876570|NCT04823650|191709022|OTHER||Intraclass correlation coefficient|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||||Agreement between two devices' measurements was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient as: \<= 0.4 (poor), 0.4 to 0.59 (moderate), 0.6 to 0.74 (good), and 0.75 to 1 (excellent) agreement.|Activity Block 2: ActiGraph Lumbar vs APDM||0.99|0.93|
95876571|NCT00717093|191709072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.58||p-values obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from logistic regression model including main effects of treatment and center|||3.58|1.59|<0.0001
95876572|NCT00717093|191709073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.58||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative|Odds Ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.58|1.12|0.0118
95876573|NCT00717093|191709074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine values were imputed as negative.||||2.67|1.17|0.0063
95876574|NCT00717093|191709075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.41||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 12||3.41|1.52|<0.0001
95876575|NCT00717093|191709075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.13||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Regression, Logistic|Missing salivary cotinine was imputed as negative|Odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and center|Week 26||2.13|0.94|0.0919
95876576|NCT00418015|191709104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Log rank test||||0.54
95876577|NCT00418015|191709105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
95876578|NCT00418015|191709106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
95968412|NCT00558792|191908237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity between Doses|3.0||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|30.1||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||30.1|-24.1|0.8292
95876579|NCT00418015|191709107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.02
95876580|NCT00418015|191709108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95876581|NCT00418015|191709108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95876582|NCT02699697|191709121|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.8325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8325
95876583|NCT02699697|191709122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5593|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 3 months||||0.5593
95876584|NCT02699697|191709122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Continuous pain scale p-value at 6 months||||0.8133
95876585|NCT02699697|191709123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 3 months||||0.3058
95876586|NCT02699697|191709123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Narcotic use at 6 months||||0.5337
95876587|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.4182
95876588|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional functioning p-value at 3 months||||0.8700
95876589|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 3 months||||0.7008
95876590|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Pain at 3 months||||0.9562
95876591|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Insomnia at 3 months||||0.4951
95876592|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7868|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Fatigue at 3 months||||0.7868
95876593|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Appetite loss at 3 months||||0.2200
95876594|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Nausea/vomiting at 3 months||||0.7998
95876595|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7998|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Constipation at 3 months||||0.7998
95876596|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scale Quality of Life at 3 months||||0.7409
95876597|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning at 6 months||||0.0128
95876598|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional Functioning at 6 months||||0.5861
95876599|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3561|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnea at 6 months||||0.3561
95876600|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Pain at 6 months||||0.1647
95876601|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3571|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia at 6 months||||0.3571
95968413|NCT00558792|191908238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-4.2||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.7||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||0.7|-9.0|0.0888
95968414|NCT00558792|191908238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-0.8||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||4.8|-6.4|0.7796
95876602|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue at 6 months||||0.1494
95876603|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Appetite loss at 6 months||||0.8424
95876604|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Nausea/vomiting at 6 months||||0.3287
95876605|NCT02699697|191709124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0961|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom Scales - Constipation at 6 months||||0.0961
95876606|NCT02699697|191709126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8444|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8444
95876607|NCT02699697|191709126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 6 months, total score for PSCC-18||||0.8946
95968415|NCT00558792|191908238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity between Doses|-3.4||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|1.5||Study was not powered for diagnostic performance analyses. Sample size was based on quality of visualization of coronary artery segments.|Chi-squared|||||1.5|-8.2|0.1662
95876608|NCT02699697|191709127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 3 months||||0.6700
95876609|NCT02699697|191709127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total at 3 months||||0.4350
95876610|NCT02699697|191709127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 3 months||||0.6131
95876611|NCT02699697|191709127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived helplessness total at 6 months||||0.2518
95876612|NCT02699697|191709127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5529|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived self-efficacy total||||0.5529
95876613|NCT02699697|191709127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2833|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total PSS-10 score at 6 months||||0.2833
95876614|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.3784
95876615|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.6640
95876616|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total at 3 months||||0.1745
95876617|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5792|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 3 months||||0.5792
95876618|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6814|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Appraisal Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.6814
95876619|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Belonging Support subscale total at 6 months||||0.5219
95876620|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tangible Support subscale total||||0.5516
95876621|NCT02699697|191709128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Total ISEL score at 6 months||||0.4329
95876622|NCT03270644|191709129|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.27|-3.64||||||Mean hourly HR was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-3.64|-7.27|
95876623|NCT03270644|191709130|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.939||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||0.939|0.832|
95876624|NCT03270644|191709131|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.917|1.0||||||Ratio of geometric LSMeans of Cmax used a mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for fixed effects for treatment, time point, time point by treatment, and random effect for subjects.||1.00|0.917|
95876625|NCT03270644|191709132|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.04||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.04|0.967|
95876626|NCT03270644|191709133|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.03||||||Log-transformed PK parameters were evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||1.03|0.967|
95968416|NCT04696653|191908267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
95968417|NCT04696653|191908268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8||||||hypertension||1.8|0.2|
95968418|NCT04696653|191908268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1||||||dyslipidemia||2.1|0.0|
95968419|NCT04696653|191908268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.0||||||diabetes||2.0|0.1|
95968420|NCT04696653|191908269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.6|
95968421|NCT04696653|191908269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||CUSP strategy||0.1|-0.6|
95968422|NCT04696653|191908270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.6|
95968423|NCT04696653|191908270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||Evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
95876627|NCT03270644|191709134|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|-3.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.39|-0.64||||||PR interval was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||-0.64|-6.39|
95876628|NCT03270644|191709135|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|5.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.57|7.57||||||Systolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||7.57|3.57|
95876629|NCT03270644|191709136|OTHER||Difference of LSMeans|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.99|4.95||||||Diastolic blood pressure was evaluated in a linear mixed-effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and a random effect for subject.||4.95|1.99|
95876630|NCT02476201|191709140|SUPERIORITY|Using a one-sided, one sample Exact Binomial Test and a significance level of 2.5%, the study required 74 patients to reach a power of 90%. With the MPP feature activated at baseline, it was assumed that the proportion of responders at 6 months was 75%. The MPP responder rate was compared to 57%, which is the responder rate obtained from literature for patients without the MPP feature activated.|Percentage|67.1||||0.0435|ONE_SIDED|97.5|55.6||||Exact binomial||||||55.6|0.0435
95876631|NCT01188421|191709148|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Group|1.31||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect of Group (e.g., Buprenorphine, Tramadol, Clonidine) on COWS Total Score Ratings|ANOVA|||A power analysis determined 40 participants in each group would detect a moderate effect size, assuming an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power. Due to the expiration of buprenorphine tablets, recruitment was terminated after enrolling 103 participants. This study utilized an Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis. The ITT analysis includes all volunteers who signed informed consent, were randomized into the study's treatment conditions, and took at least 1 dose of study medication.||||.275
95876632|NCT01188421|191709148|SUPERIORITY||F-value for main effect of Phase|3.57||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Phase (e.g., Stabilization, Taper, Post-Taper) on COWS total score.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
95876633|NCT01188421|191709148|SUPERIORITY||F-value for the main effect of Group x P|2.03||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||Main effect for Group x Phase interaction on COWS Total Score|ANOVA|||||||0.092
95876634|NCT01604408|191709155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.426|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.660|0.192|<0.001
95876635|NCT01604408|191709156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.461||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.883|-0.039|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.039|-0.883|0.073
95876636|NCT01604408|191709157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.062||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|0.276|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.276|-2.400|0.191
95876637|NCT01604408|191709158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.017||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.023|0.057|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.057|-0.023|0.478
95876638|NCT00075218|191709160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.329|||<|0.001||95.0|0.233|0.466||The nominal levels of significance for the interim and final analyses were determined at the time of the analyses using the Lan-DeMets procedure with an O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule.|Log Rank|two-sided unstratified log-rank test||The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the median TTP from placebo treatment is 4 months versus the alternative hypothesis that the median TTP from sunitinib treatment is at least 6 months with an overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and power of 90%.||0.466|0.233|<0.001
95876639|NCT00075218|191709161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.347|||<|0.001||95.0|0.253|0.475||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||0.475|0.253|<0.001
95876640|NCT00075218|191709163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.876||||0.306||95.0|0.679|1.129||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||||1.129|0.679|0.306
95876641|NCT00075218|191709164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.505||||0.306||95.0|0.262|1.134||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time||95% CI for Hazard Ratio is from 2.5% and 97.5% Empirical Percentiles of 100,000 Bootstraps.|||1.134|0.262|0.306
95876642|NCT00075218|191709166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percentage)|6.6||||||95.0|3.8|10.5|||||Used exact method based on binomial distribution.|||10.5|3.8|
95876643|NCT00075218|191709166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (%)|6.58||||0.004||95.0|3.47|9.7||No p-value adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Pearson chi-square test|||||9.70|3.47|0.004
95876644|NCT00075218|191709169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.339|||<|0.001||95.0|0.244|0.472||two-sided unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||0.472|0.244|<0.001
95876645|NCT00075218|191709169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.327|||<|0.001||95.0|0.232|0.46|||Log Rank|log-rank test of treatment stratified by prior imatinib mesylate response and McGill Pain Questionnaire's Present Pain Intensity score||Stratified log-rank test||0.460|0.232|<0.001
95876646|NCT00075218|191709170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.9322||95.0|0.508|1.86|||Log Rank|2-sided, unstratified log-rank test||||1.860|0.508|0.9322
95876647|NCT00075218|191709171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference (percent)|17.3||||0.0046||95.0|6.7|28.0|||Pearson chi-square||95% CI of Difference based on normal distribution. Percent = (number of subjects with response per total subjects per treatment in defined analysis population)\*100.|||28.0|6.7|0.0046
95876648|NCT00131508|191709196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in REE ratio between the placebo and glutamine groups. The study was designed to provide 80% power at an alpha level of 0.05 for this objective. Due to slow accrual, the sample size of 46 participants required to obtain the designed power of the study was not realized.||||0.17
95876649|NCT00131508|191709197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change of body mass index between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.53
95876650|NCT00131508|191709198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in red blood cell glutamine between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
95876651|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
95876652|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.14
95876653|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.20
95876654|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.62
95876655|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.61
95876656|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.65
95876657|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.55
95876658|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month parent reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.69
95876659|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.82
95876660|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.99
95876661|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.30
95876662|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between baseline patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.24
95876663|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported physical function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.50
95876664|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported emotional function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.45
95876665|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported social function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.46
95876666|NCT00131508|191709199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change between 12 month patient reported school function in the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.84
95876667|NCT00131508|191709200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.20
95876668|NCT00131508|191709200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.81
95876669|NCT00131508|191709200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height Z-Score betweeen baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.70
95876670|NCT00131508|191709201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.69
95876671|NCT00131508|191709201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.75
95876672|NCT00131508|191709201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in height percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.93
95876673|NCT00131508|191709202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||0.56
95876674|NCT00131508|191709202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||We tested the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months is equal to zero versus the alternative hypothesis that the difference is not zero.||||1.0
95876675|NCT00131508|191709202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We test the null hypothesis that the median difference in weight percentile between baseline and 12 months differs between the Glutamine and Placebo groups.||||0.61
95876676|NCT00131508|191709203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in pulse rate between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.83
95876677|NCT00131508|191709204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We tested for a significant difference in the median change in hand grip between the placebo and glutamine groups.||||0.40
95876678|NCT00986830|191709213|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided||||A reduction in SNOT-20 score of 0.8 or more is considered clinically meaningful.|||<0.0001
95876679|NCT00986830|191709214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95876680|NCT00986830|191709215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95876681|NCT00986830|191709216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95876682|NCT00986830|191709217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95876683|NCT00986830|191709218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95876684|NCT00986830|191709219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.292
95876685|NCT00986830|191709220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-tests were used to calculate the p-values and evaluate whether the change in outcomes from baseline to follow-up were statistically different from zero. A p value \<0.05 indicates statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95876686|NCT01436396|191709239|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|0.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.976|1.87||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||1.87|-0.976|
95876687|NCT01436396|191709240|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -10. The difference in percentage of seroconversion rates between group 1 and 2 was based on the Wilson score (without continuity adjustment) 95% two-sided CI.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.383||||||Non-inferiority of YF seroconversion rate was assessed 28 days post-Stamaril®/CYD dengue vaccine (CYD Dengue Vaccine Group) or post-Stamaril®/placebo (Placebo Group).||0.383|-2.81|
95876688|NCT01904058|191709278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.28||||0.6603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|8.03||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score evaluated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using generalized linear model (GLM). The model included terms for treatment group, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95 percentage (%) confidence interval for mean were presented.||8.03|-12.59|0.6603
95968424|NCT04696653|191908271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||||||evidenced based practice||0.1|-0.5|
95968425|NCT04696653|191908271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||CUSP strategy||0.2|-0.5|
95968426|NCT04696653|191908272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2||||||||2.2|0.9|
95968427|NCT04696653|191908273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9||||||||1.9|1.1|
95968428|NCT04696653|191908274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|0.7|
95968429|NCT04696653|191908275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||||2.6|1.2|
95968430|NCT04696653|191908280|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6||||||||1.6|1.0|
95968431|NCT04696653|191908281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
95968432|NCT04696653|191908282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
95876689|NCT01904058|191709278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|6.23||p-value (LUM001 LS Mean = Placebo LS Mean).|ANCOVA|||The difference between treatment groups in change from Baseline to Week 13/ET in ItchRO weekly sum score was evaluated by ANCOVA using a GLM. The model included terms for treatment group, ALP level (strata), treatment group by ALP level interaction, and Baseline ItchRO weekly sum score as a covariate. Least squares mean change from Baseline to Week 13/ET, along with 95% confidence interval for the mean, were presented.||6.23|-14.20|0.4380
95876690|NCT04102098|191709286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93|||Log Rank|||Stratification factors include geographic region (Asia Pacific excluding Japan vs. rest of world) and High risk features/curative procedure (Ablation vs. Resection with 1 high risk feature vs. Resection with 2 or more high risk features).||0.93|0.56|0.0120
95876691|NCT01254292|191709302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|82.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.1|86.5|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.5|77.1|
95876692|NCT01254292|191709302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single proportion|81.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.7|86.4|||||Clopper Pearson Confidence Interval|||86.4|76.7|
95876693|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-10.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
95876694|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.1858
95876695|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0007
95876696|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|14.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
95876697|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-14.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
95876698|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3384|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3384
95876699|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|19.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
95876700|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|38.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.0002
95876701|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|-23.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||Testing procedure stopped|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||
95876702|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority not confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||0.3249
95876703|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|29.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
95876704|NCT02633501|191709333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean|51.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Superiority confirmed|Mixed Models Analysis|||Holm's Step-Down Method||||<0.0001
95876705|NCT00395733|191709344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for investigators only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9736||||||90.0|0.9315|1.0168|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0168|0.9315|
95876706|NCT00395733|191709344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 1 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.954||||||90.0|0.9122|0.9965|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9965|0.9122|
95909016|NCT01212770|191776081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||35.3|15.5|<0.0001
95876707|NCT00395733|191709344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 2 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.9458||||||90.0|0.8776|1.024|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||1.0240|0.8776|
95909017|NCT01212770|191776081|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.4||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||20.0|0.8|0.0372
95968433|NCT04696653|191908283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.2|
95968434|NCT04696653|191908284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
95968435|NCT04696653|191908285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
95968436|NCT04696653|191908286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.3|
95968437|NCT04696653|191908287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
95968438|NCT04696653|191908288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.1|
95968439|NCT04696653|191908289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||||||||0.2|-0.2|
95968440|NCT04696653|191908290|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||||||||0.0|-0.4|
95968441|NCT04696653|191908291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||||||||3.3|1.0|
95968442|NCT04531982|191908297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4825||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between LSM changes for adjunctive pimavanserin and adjunctive placebo (pimavanserin - placebo) at the specified visit from MMRM analysis.||||0.4825
95968443|NCT04531982|191908298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8872||||||Two-sided p-value for treatment difference at Week 26 from MMRM analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8872
95968444|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.77||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|9.84|||Mixed-effect repeated measure (MMRM)|||||9.84|-0.3|0.0647
95968445|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.91||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.68|||MMRM|||||1.68|-9.5|0.1686
95968446|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-0.31|||MMRM|||||-0.31|-8.1|0.0348
95968447|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|-14.59|||MMRM|||||-14.59|-24.57|<0.0001
95968448|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.14||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-1.25|||MMRM|||||-1.25|-9.03|0.0101
95968449|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.19||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.21|||MMRM|||||-1.21|-9.16|0.011
95968450|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.38|-4.82|||MMRM|||||-4.82|-14.38|0.0001
95968451|NCT01531673|191908313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.3745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.71|2.17|||MMRM|||||2.17|-5.71|0.3745
95968452|NCT01531673|191908314|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-0.46|||MMRM|||||-0.46|-12.94|0.0357
95968453|NCT01531673|191908315|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.75|-2.65|||MMRM|||||-2.65|-31.75|0.0238
95968454|NCT00503139|191908348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that mHAQ scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
95968455|NCT00503139|191908349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sample|A two-sided t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis was that VAS Fatigue scores at 6 months, 1 year, 1.5 years, and 2 years were equal to the baseline score.||||<0.001
95968456|NCT00091169|191908353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95968457|NCT00091169|191908354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95968458|NCT00091169|191908355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.93
95968459|NCT00091169|191908356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95968460|NCT00091169|191908357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00001
95968461|NCT00091169|191908358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.677|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.677
95968462|NCT00921687|191908366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||2.30|1.01|0.04
95968463|NCT00921687|191908367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.44||95.0|0.84|1.49|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Intervention clinic (vs control clinic)|||1.49|0.84|0.44
95909018|NCT01212770|191776082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.6||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||24.8|4.5|0.0062
95968464|NCT00316602|191908368|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin to show that Group 2 (Atopic Dermatitis Participants) is non-inferior to Group 1 (Healthy Participants) in terms of seroconversion rate at Week 6 was predefined as -5% for the difference in seroconversion rates.|Difference in seroconversion rates (%)|-1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-4.3||||||||||-4.3|
95968465|NCT00626990|191908380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|99.1|0.73|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.73|0.76
95968466|NCT00626990|191908380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||Regression, Cox|||||0.79|0.52|<0.0001
95968467|NCT00626990|191908381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.72|0.11
95968468|NCT00626990|191908381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.7|||Regression, Cox|||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
95968469|NCT03921723|191908430|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
95968470|NCT03921723|191908430|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to t) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2||||||||1.20|1.05|
95968471|NCT03921723|191908449|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.03||||||||1.03|0.91|
95968472|NCT03921723|191908449|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for AUC (0 to inf) between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.13||||||90.0|1.06|1.2||||||||1.20|1.06|
95968473|NCT03921723|191908450|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype A versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.19||||||||1.19|1.01|
95968474|NCT03921723|191908450|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the 90% confidence interval of the ratio for Cmax between treatment formulations (Prototype B versus DTG Reference Treatment) are within the range of 0.80 to 1.25|Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.33||||||||1.33|1.13|
95968475|NCT05032872|191908463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time by condition interaction||||.49
95968476|NCT05032872|191908464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.48
95968477|NCT05032872|191908465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quality||||.04
95968478|NCT05032872|191908465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting dissatisfaction with contact quantity||||.44
95968479|NCT05032872|191908465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting satisfaction with contact quantity||||.99
95968480|NCT05032872|191908465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting knowing others' experience||||.87
95968481|NCT05032872|191908465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting shared understanding||||.98
95968482|NCT05032872|191908465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relationship salience||||.76
95968483|NCT05032872|191908466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.29
95968484|NCT05032872|191908467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting positive affect||||.51
95968485|NCT05032872|191908467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition predicting negative affect||||.83
95968486|NCT05032872|191908468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.51
95968487|NCT05032872|191908469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.65
95968488|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of distress||||.01
95968489|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||time x condition interaction predicting caregiver overload||||.75
95968490|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting relational deprivation||||.59
95968491|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting job caregiving conflict||||.51
95968492|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting role captivity||||.25
95876708|NCT00395733|191709344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates for blinded reader 3 only. A non-inferiority margin of 15% was assumed. Based on 60 pairs of observations in a crossover design (15 participants with 10 vessels segments, 15 participants with 6 vessels segments and 30 participants with 17 vessels segments to be visualized and assessed) and non-inferiority testing based the lower limit of Fieller's one-sided 95% confidence interval for the ratio Gadavist / Magnevist of the means, the power was at least 80% under realistic assumptions.|Ratio of means|0.8698||||||90.0|0.78|0.9657|||Fieller-type confidence interval||For the estimation, only vessel segments with vascular assessments available for both periods were considered. The lower limit of the 95% one-sided Fieller-type confidence interval was compared with the non-inferiority margin 0.85.|Non-inferiority analysis: The aim was to show that Gadavist is not inferior (i.e. similar or better) to Magnevist in visualizing different vascular regions of the body with diagnostic quality in contrast enhanced MRA. Gadavist was to be considered to be non-inferior to Magnevist if the mean number of vessel segments visualized with diagnostic quality of Gadavist enhanced-MRA images was higher than 85% of that of Magnevist enhanced-MRA images in a cross-over design.||0.9657|0.7800|
95876709|NCT04590963|191709364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.537|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.537|0.660|0.989
95876710|NCT04590963|191709365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|1.528|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.528|0.704|0.891
95876711|NCT04590963|191709366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.568|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.568|0.790|0.574
95876712|NCT04590963|191709367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.512|||Log Rank|P-value was calculated using stratified log-rank test, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS (0/1) and number of prior lines of therapy in R/M setting.|HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for HPV status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in R/M setting.|||1.512|0.818|0.530
95876713|NCT04590963|191709368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.154|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.154|0.274|0.115
95876714|NCT04590963|191709369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|P-value is based on twice the change in log-likelihood resulting from the addition of a treatment factor to the model.|The analysis was performed using a logistic regression model, with treatment as a covariate and adjusting for HPV Status, WHO/ECOG PS, and number of lines of prior therapy in the R/M setting with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|||1.231|0.297|0.162
95876715|NCT04191187|191709435|SUPERIORITY||PFS at 18 Months|70.8||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|59.2|||One sided log rank test|Log Rank||||||59.2|0.002
95968493|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting sense of self||||.34
95968494|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting personal gain||||.75
95968495|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting caregiving competence||||.99
95968496|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of situition||||.61
95968497|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting management of meaning||||.92
95968498|NCT05032872|191908470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction predicting expressive support||||.96
95968499|NCT05032872|191908471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.37
95968500|NCT05032872|191908472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.89
95968501|NCT05032872|191908473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.30
95968502|NCT05032872|191908474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Controlled for age, sex, education, and self-reported functional health|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x condition interaction||||.52
95968503|NCT05032872|191908475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent sample T-test comparing the treatment and control group||||.45
95968504|NCT04514510|191908494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation|||||||0.64
95968505|NCT04514510|191908500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
95968506|NCT00406692|191908504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed for the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in the mean daily standard drinks consumed between the baseline period and the zonisamide treatment weeks.||||<0.0003
95968507|NCT00406692|191908505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant change in the mean number of words produced during phonetic portion of the Controlled Word Association Test between the baseline period and the treatment weeks.||||<0.22
95876716|NCT02719327|191709441|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.18||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|0.99||ASL values at 18 months were regressed on treatment group (IPE vs placebo) statistically controlling for age at baseline visit and ASL measured at baseline visit.|Regression, Linear|||The proposed study aims to investigate the effects of 18 months of IPE vs. placebo on regional cerebral blood flow in the bilateral posterior cingulate gyrus as measured by arterial spin-labeling MRI . IPE was hypothesized to improve regional cerebral blood flow over placebo after 18 months.||0.99|-5.36|0.17
95876717|NCT02719327|191709442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.25|||Regression, Linear|18 month Beta-amyloid(1-42) was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline visit and Beta-amyloid(1-42) at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Beta-amyloid(1-42) concentration in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.25|-0.04|.12
95876718|NCT02719327|191709442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.045||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.061|||Regression, Linear|log-transformed 18 month pTau181 was regressed on group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and log-transformed ptau181at baseline visit.|Placebo group is the reference group.|Phosphorylated tau (pTau181) measured in CSF was log-transformed prior to analysis to approximate a normal distribution.||0.061|0.004|0.05
95876719|NCT02719327|191709442|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.046||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0008|0.106||18 months total Tau was regressed on Group (IPE vs placebo) and covariates age at baseline and total Tau at baseline.|Regression, Linear||Placebo group was the reference group.|Total tau was log-transformed prior to analysis to better approximate a normal distribution.||0.106|-0.0008|.07
95876720|NCT02719327|191709443|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.023|||Linear Mixed Effects model|Covariates included education level, gender, and age at baseline visit.|Placebo group was the reference group.|Four cognitive tests were standardized (baseline mean and standard deviation) prior to averaging to create the ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (ADCS-PACC) score. The final composite score was standardized again using baseline mean and standard deviation (range -3.15 to 3.10). Higher scores indicate better cognitive performance. A linear mixed effects model was used to determine if change in ADCS-PACC composite scores was modified by treatment group.||0.023|-0.009|.48
95876721|NCT02718300|191709446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4046|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4046
95876722|NCT02718300|191709448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7802|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.7802
95876723|NCT02718300|191709450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6856|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.6856
95876724|NCT02718300|191709452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3385|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3385
95876725|NCT02718300|191709454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4005|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by Easter Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.4005
95876726|NCT02718300|191709456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3138|||||||Van Elteren test|stratified by ECOG Performance Status at Screening (0 or 1 versus 2)||||||0.3138
95876727|NCT02718300|191709462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.3577
95876728|NCT02718300|191709462|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|1.388|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.388|0.791|
95876729|NCT02718300|191709462|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.435|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.435|0.936|
95876730|NCT02718300|191709462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1709|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1709
95876731|NCT02718300|191709462|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.281|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.281|0.780|
95876732|NCT02718300|191709462|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.448|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.448|0.955|
95876733|NCT02718300|191709463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6693|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 2||||0.6693
95876734|NCT02718300|191709463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1521|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.1521
95876735|NCT02718300|191709464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0809|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.0809
95876736|NCT02718300|191709464|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.994|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||0.994|0.342|
95876737|NCT02718300|191709464|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|1.477|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.477|0.658|
95876738|NCT02718300|191709464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1525|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1525
95876739|NCT02718300|191709464|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.062|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|1.867|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.867|0.604|
95876740|NCT02718300|191709464|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|2.414|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||2.414|0.937|
95876741|NCT02718300|191709465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2873|||||||ANOVA|||Week 2||||0.2873
95876742|NCT02718300|191709465|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.336|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.336|0.773|
95876743|NCT02718300|191709465|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.429|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 2||1.429|0.943|
95876744|NCT02718300|191709465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1601|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.1601
95876745|NCT02718300|191709465|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.274|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.274|0.773|
95876746|NCT02718300|191709465|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.955|1.452|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.452|0.955|
95876747|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.0830
95876748|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.753|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.753|0.846|
95876749|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.399|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.399|0.654|
95876750|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.354|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.354|0.656|
95876751|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.867|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|1.298|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.298|0.579|
95876752|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.2402
95876753|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|1.069|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.069|0.461|
95876754|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.073|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.073|0.456|
95876755|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.951|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.951|0.428|
95876756|NCT02718300|191709469|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.627|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.99|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||0.990|0.397|
95876757|NCT02718300|191709470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0756|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 1||||0.0756
95876758|NCT02718300|191709470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0866|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Week 4||||0.0866
95876759|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4287|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.4287
95876760|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.272|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|4.914|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.914|0.329|
95876761|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|4.251|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||4.251|0.252|
95876762|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.731|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.731|0.180|
95876763|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.525|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|2.348|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||2.348|0.118|
95876764|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.9788
95876765|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|3.896|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.896|0.198|
95876766|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.225|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|5.56|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||5.560|0.270|
95876767|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|3.821|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||3.821|0.221|
95876768|NCT02718300|191709471|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.853|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|4.299|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||4.299|0.169|
95876769|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||ANOVA|||Day 1||||0.1208
95876770|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|1.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.879|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.879|0.832|
95876771|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.992|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.518|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.518|0.649|
95876772|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.45|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.450|0.645|
95876773|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.35|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Day 1||1.350|0.548|
95876774|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3218|||||||ANOVA|||Week 4||||0.3218
95876775|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.761|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.2|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.200|0.482|
95876776|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.803|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.277|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.277|0.506|
95876777|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|1.028|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.028|0.432|
95876778|NCT02718300|191709472|SUPERIORITY||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.051|||||ANOVA was performed on dose-normalized PK parameters per dose level. The reference group was 5 mg QD.|Week 4||1.051|0.390|
95876779|NCT03708770|191709479|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Secondary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The Secondary Patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
95876780|NCT03708770|191709480|OTHER|No power calculation was performed for this study.||||||||||||||||"This was not a hypothesis-driven study. Therefore, there were no primary effectiveness or safety endpoints.~The Primary Patency endpoint was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis."|The primary patency rate was determined via Kaplan-Meier methods.|||
95876781|NCT05268055|191709484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.525
95876782|NCT05268055|191709484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.045
95876783|NCT05268055|191709484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.046
95876784|NCT05268055|191709485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.200
95876785|NCT05268055|191709485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.075
95876786|NCT05268055|191709485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.015
95876787|NCT05268055|191709486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.246
95876788|NCT05268055|191709486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.151
95876789|NCT05268055|191709486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.033
95876790|NCT05268055|191709487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of all participants.||||0.212
95876791|NCT05268055|191709487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants less than age 33.||||0.893
95876792|NCT05268055|191709487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of participants age 33 and greater.||||0.160
95876793|NCT05268055|191709488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Healthcare Provider Cultural Competence measure.||||0.752
95876794|NCT05268055|191709488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment.||||0.493
95876795|NCT05268055|191709488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Group comparison of self-rating scores on the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale.||||0.085
95876796|NCT03507400|191709489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95876797|NCT03507400|191709489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||pooled comparison of the participants of the non-waiting list and the waiting list before and after Introvision||||0.003
95876798|NCT03507400|191709491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95876799|NCT03507400|191709492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.003
95876800|NCT03507400|191709493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
95876801|NCT03507400|191709494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.001
95876802|NCT03507400|191709498|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon paired test||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95876803|NCT03507400|191709498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95876804|NCT03507400|191709498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95876805|NCT01555983|191709499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Armitage trend tes|0.0001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve 30% pain reduction during the 8-hour period was 4 (95% CI: 2.1-25.3) for the lower dose vs. placebo, and 3 (95% CI: 1.6-4.2) for the higher dose versus placebo.||||<.05
95876806|NCT04026711|191709500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||0.81
95876807|NCT04102189|191709517|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-16.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.27|-13.23|||ANCOVA|||Responses were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment, stratification groups (sex and Tanner stage at baseline) and the interaction between stratification groups as factors and baseline BMI as covariate.||-13.23|-20.27|<.0001
95876808|NCT00316719|191709555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a Non-inferiority Analysis with the margin of -1.0.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.94|<0.001
95876809|NCT02903355|191709568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4385|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4385
95876810|NCT02903355|191709569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5562
95876811|NCT02903355|191709570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5441|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5441
95876812|NCT02903355|191709571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3666
95876813|NCT02903355|191709572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4446|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.4446
95876814|NCT02903355|191709573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5431|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.5431
95876815|NCT02903355|191709574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7409
95876816|NCT02903355|191709575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1597|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1597
95876817|NCT02903355|191709576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2784|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.2784
95876818|NCT02903355|191709577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2303|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.2303
95876819|NCT01314703|191709600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|3.02|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.02|2.66|
95876820|NCT01314703|191709600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|4.33|||ANOVA||ChloraPrep 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||4.33|3.74|
95876821|NCT01314703|191709600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.7|||ANOVA||70%Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute abdomen|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||2.70|2.36|
95876822|NCT01314703|191709600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.24|3.82|||ANOVA||70% Isopropyl Alcohol 10 minute groin|Hypothesis: ChloraPrep will exceed 3 log 10 reduction for the groin at 10 minutes and 2 log 10 reduction for the abdomen at 10 minutes. The 70% Isopropyl Alcohol was used as a positive control. All calculations were performed after taking the base-10 logarithm of the original values. The model was a mixed model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).||3.82|3.24|
95876823|NCT02975336|191709601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|0.91|0.5462
95876824|NCT02975336|191709601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.76|0.5462
95876825|NCT02975336|191709601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.67|0.5462
95876826|NCT02975336|191709602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.24|0.69|0.5462
95876827|NCT02975336|191709602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|0.68|0.5462
95876828|NCT02975336|191709602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.75|0.59|0.5462
95876829|NCT02975336|191709630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.4|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.40|0.57|0.7034
95876830|NCT02975336|191709630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.31|0.5462
95876831|NCT02975336|191709630|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.97|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.97|0.42|0.5462
95876832|NCT02975336|191709631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.74|0.5462
95876833|NCT02975336|191709631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.13|0.49|0.5462
95876834|NCT02975336|191709631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.81|0.65|0.5462
95876835|NCT02975336|191709632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.54|0.73|0.2434
95876836|NCT02975336|191709632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.2389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.63|0.73|0.2389
95876837|NCT02975336|191709632|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.76|0.1952
95876838|NCT02975336|191709633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.89|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.89|0.87|0.0987
95876839|NCT02975336|191709633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.85|0.51|0.9201
95876840|NCT02975336|191709633|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.5645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||2.20|0.60|0.5645
95876841|NCT02975336|191709634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.44|0.3743
95876842|NCT02975336|191709634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.50|0.6445
95876843|NCT02975336|191709634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.28|0.41|0.2634
95876844|NCT02975336|191709635|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.59||||0.2989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.81||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.81|0.66|0.2989
95876845|NCT02975336|191709635|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.85||||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.19||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||2.19|0.33|0.7325
95876846|NCT02975336|191709635|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.29||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.22||Nominal p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||3.22|0.51|0.5910
95876847|NCT02975336|191709636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.47|0.72|0.3635
95876848|NCT02975336|191709636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.06|0.0329
95876849|NCT02975336|191709636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.59|0.7619
95876850|NCT02975336|191709637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.79|0.2642
95876851|NCT02975336|191709637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.87|0.1489
95876852|NCT02975336|191709637|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.70|0.56|0.9285
95876853|NCT02975336|191709640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.88|0.49|0.9061
95876854|NCT02975336|191709640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.31|0.61|0.6053
95876855|NCT02975336|191709640|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.59|0.40|0.5200
95876856|NCT02975336|191709649|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|21.2||||||||21.2|-9.7|
95876857|NCT02975336|191709649|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.6||||||||15.6|-14.5|
95876858|NCT02975336|191709649|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|16.6||||||||16.6|-13.5|
95876859|NCT02975336|191709653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.82|0.46|0.7728
95876860|NCT02975336|191709653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.3314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.54|0.28|0.3314
95876861|NCT02975336|191709653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.36|0.7205
95876862|NCT02975336|191709654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.71|0.35|0.8364
95876863|NCT02975336|191709654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.45|0.37|0.8287
95876864|NCT02975336|191709654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.16|0.35|0.7621
95876865|NCT02975336|191709655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|0.23|0.8464
95876866|NCT02975336|191709655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.12|0.16|0.4170
95876867|NCT02975336|191709655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.27|0.9988
95876868|NCT02975336|191709656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.04|0.62|0.6970
95876869|NCT02975336|191709656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.75|0.3234
95876870|NCT02975336|191709656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.82|0.54|0.9846
95876871|NCT00573183|191709664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2019|9.2842||95% confidence interval|Mixed Models Analysis|A covariate adjustment was used: average number of days of stimulant use within a 30-day window of assessment from 90 days pre-baseline to baseline.|The STAGE-12 group represented the numerator and TAU represented the reference group/denominator|Mixture model with a logistic part for assessing zero-inflation and a negative binomial part for the over-dispersed count data, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the odds ratios for logistic part and incidence rate ratios for negative binomial part.||9.2842|1.2019|<0.05
95876872|NCT00573183|191709664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4134|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0131|5.8637|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8637|1.0131|<0.01
95876873|NCT00573183|191709665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression|Zero-inflated negative binomial random-e|Statistical Model - zero-inflated negative binomial random-effects regression adjusted for average number of days of pre-baseline attendance||Outcome measure: Number of days of self-reported Self-Help meeting attendance by the Substance Use Calendar (SUC) within a 30-day window of assessment at mid-treatment, end-of-treatment, first, second, third and last follow-ups||||<0.05
95968508|NCT00406692|191908506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No significant difference for mean scores obtained for baseline, week 4 and week 12.||||< 0.55
95968509|NCT00573859|191908507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A 2 (ADHD medication versus Placebo) repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
95968510|NCT00573859|191908508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Four-way repeated measure ANOVA||||<0.05
95968511|NCT00573859|191908509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Friedman's two analysis of ranks|||Friedman's two-way analysis of variance by ranks.||||<0.05
95968512|NCT00368927|191908523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||With a sample size of 60 evaluable participants per intervention arm, we would have 90% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of 54% and 82% power to detect a bronchial dysplasia response rate of\> 51% among participants assigned to receive active sulindac (2-sided chi-square test with continuity correction; alpha=0.05).||||0.85
95968513|NCT00368927|191908524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 60 participants per intervention arm would provide 90% power and 80% power to detect effect sizes of 60% and 52%, respectively, using a two-sample t-test(alpha=0.05).||||0.63
95968514|NCT01989169|191908525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios were within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.215|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.116|1.323|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUCinf, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.323|1.116|
95876874|NCT03792191|191709676|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00007||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00005|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-0.00005|0.62
95876875|NCT03792191|191709677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95876876|NCT03792191|191709678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.036||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.079|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.079|-0.15|0.6
95876877|NCT03792191|191709679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.021||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.082|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||0.082|-0.125|0.77
95876878|NCT03792191|191709680|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-1|0.077
95876879|NCT03792191|191709681|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.00003||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00001|0.00003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.00003|-0.00001|0.1
95876880|NCT03792191|191709682|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
95876881|NCT03792191|191709683|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||>0.99
95876882|NCT03792191|191709685|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95876883|NCT00333177|191709741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||P value is for CT-HBT X RLAI-Oral Ris interaction|ANCOVA|Covaried baseline value of dependent variable||A priori hypothesis was that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would enhance this effect.||||<0.03
95876884|NCT00333177|191709742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||P-value is for each main effect. A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05 for each main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that LAI would be superior to oral risperidone and that CT would be superior to health behavior training (HBT) based on main effects.||||<.02
95876885|NCT00333177|191709743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||A priori hypothesis was that RLAI would lead to less medication non-adherence than Oral Ris.||1.10|.57|.001
95876886|NCT00333177|191709744|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P-value is for CT vs. HBT main effect.|ANCOVA|Baseline value of dependent variable was covaried.||2 X 2 ANOVA was calculated. A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<.05
95876887|NCT00333177|191709745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
95876888|NCT00333177|191709746|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||A priori hypotheses were that CT would be superior to HBT and that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.|ANOVA|2 X 2 ANOVA was computed.||||||<0.02
95876889|NCT00333177|191709747|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||Chi-square of frequencies of relapse vs. non-relapse were calculated, with a priori hypothesis that RLAI would be superior to Oral Ris.||||<0.01
95876890|NCT00333177|191709748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||2 X 2 ANOVA calculated. P-value is for main effect of RLAI vs. Oral Ris.|ANOVA|||||||<.05
95876891|NCT00333177|191709749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for main effect of CT vs. HBT.|ANOVA|||||||<.02
95876892|NCT00333177|191709750|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.053||||||2 X 2 ANOVA computed. P-value is for RLAI vs. Oral Ris main effect.|ANOVA|||||||=.053
95876893|NCT02024529|191709752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.97
95876894|NCT02024529|191709753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score|ANCOVA|||||||0.75
95876895|NCT02024529|191709754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.18
95876896|NCT02024529|191709755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.||||||0.81
95876897|NCT00191906|191709756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0||||P-value for Overall. No adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.504
95876898|NCT00191906|191709757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus Normal controls.||||0.970
95876899|NCT00191906|191709758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.579
95876900|NCT00191906|191709758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests are performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for RD versus RD controls.||||0.144
95876901|NCT00191906|191709759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment by study-arm-interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.005
95876902|NCT00191906|191709760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.097
95876903|NCT00191906|191709761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||0.003
95876904|NCT00191906|191709762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
95876905|NCT00191906|191709763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
95876906|NCT00191906|191709764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
95876907|NCT00191906|191709765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||Least Squares Mean (LSMean) values were calculated from the measurements taken at baseline and at the end of each 4 week therapy period.||||<0.001
95876908|NCT00191906|191709766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction.||||||0.094
95876909|NCT00191906|191709767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312||95.0||||P-value for Overall. There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|Repeated Measures|Repeated measures model including terms for baseline, study arm, treatment sequence, visit, treatment, and treatment-by-study-arm interaction||||||0.312
95876910|NCT00191906|191709768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.508||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C versus normal controls.||||0.508
95876911|NCT00191906|191709769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C versus normal controls||||0.769
95876912|NCT00191906|191709770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariates for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.302
95876913|NCT00191906|191709770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.663
95876914|NCT00191906|191709771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for ADHD-C+RD versus RD controls.||||0.070
95876915|NCT00191906|191709771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons - not applicable. All statistical tests were performed using a 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline value, study arm as covariate for RD versus RD controls.||||0.179
95876916|NCT00333801|191709772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95876917|NCT00333801|191709773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95876918|NCT00333801|191709774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95876919|NCT02642029|191709793|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1989|0.0002||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0002|-.1989|0.51
95876920|NCT02642029|191709793|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on IDT accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.0256||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS).||Conducted a mixed effects analysis, with IDT accuracy as the dependent variable and time (pre, post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) as the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction.||.0256|-.1770|0.143
95876921|NCT02642029|191709794|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-0.0446||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||.626
95876922|NCT02642029|191709794|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-0.0903||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with binomial (logit) distribution.~N-back accuracy was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.322
95876923|NCT02642029|191709795|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between iTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexiTBS interact|-9.797||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold of p \< 0.05, two-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the iTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.1118
95876924|NCT02642029|191709795|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis of no difference between cTBS and sham TBS on N-back accuracy.|Beta coefficient for timexcTBS interact|-47.764||||9e-08|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance threshold was p \< 0.05, two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Conducted a generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace Approximation) \['glmerMod' in R\] with gamma distribution.~N-back reaction time (RT) was the dependent variable. Time (pre vs. post), condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham), and the interaction of time x condition (time x iTBS, time x cTBS) were the independent variables. P-value here is for the cTBS (vs. sham) x time interaction."||||0.00000009
95968515|NCT01989169|191908526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.216|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.115|1.327|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in AUClast, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.327|1.115|
95968516|NCT01989169|191908527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratios fell within the range (0.80, 1.25), then equivalence was assumed and the hypothesis that a drug interaction occurred was rejected. If the 90% CIs were not wholly contained within the range (0.80, 1.25), then a drug interaction was not excluded.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.383|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.282|1.491|||Mixed-effects Model||The ratio of geometric LS means and 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio is for Treatment B to Treatment A.|The means of the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments using a mixed-effects model with period and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. In order to estimate the magnitude of the treatment regimen differences in Cmax, the geometric mean ratio (i.e., the least squares mean difference in the log-transformed parameters back transformed to the original scale) and their 90% CIs were calculated.||1.491|1.282|
95968517|NCT01114880|191908529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95968518|NCT01114880|191908531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95968519|NCT01114880|191908533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95876925|NCT02642029|191709796|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.91||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.910
95968520|NCT01114880|191908535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95968521|NCT01114880|191908537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95968522|NCT01114880|191908539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||< 0.001
95968523|NCT01114880|191908541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95968524|NCT01114880|191908543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95968525|NCT01114880|191908545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95968526|NCT01114880|191908547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95968527|NCT01114880|191908549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95968528|NCT06988800|191908581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
95968529|NCT06988800|191908582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests.||||<.001
95968530|NCT06988800|191908583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVAs and post hoc Tukey pairwise tests||||<.001
95968531|NCT03524092|191908646|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|31.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.2|15.2|<0.001
95968532|NCT03524092|191908647|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.8|20.2|<0.001
95968533|NCT03524092|191908648|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.5|14.5|<0.001
95968534|NCT03524092|191908649|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.6|21.9|<0.001
95968535|NCT03524092|191908650|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.6|22.4|<0.001
95968536|NCT03524092|191908651|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.9|22.3|<0.001
95968537|NCT03524092|191908652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|25.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.094|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.16|31.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||31.32|19.16|<0.001
95968538|NCT03524092|191908653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-839.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1323.08|-356.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF).||||-356.21|-1323.08|<0.001
95968539|NCT03524092|191908654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.51|<0.001
95968540|NCT04303780|191908657|EQUIVALENCE|A hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer PFS for AMG 510 relative to docetaxel. P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|0.864|||Log Rank|||||0.864|0.509|0.002
95968541|NCT03826030|191908658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was no overall difference in FM-UE scale change between the three groups on day 15. The change in FM-UE was modelled using a linear mixed-effects repeated measures model adjusted for visit (ie, day 15, day 45, and day 105), treatment group, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline FM-UE, time from stroke (30-90 vs. 91-180 days), and enrolment site. An AR(1) autocorrelation structure was used for visit, and variance components structure for sites.||||0.39
95968542|NCT04893460|191908661|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95968543|NCT04893460|191908661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Quit Letter activity||||<.001
95968544|NCT04893460|191908661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity||||.004
95876926|NCT02642029|191709796|OTHER|Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|beta coefficient for depressed mood|0.00071||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00048|0.0019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, depressed mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00190|-0.00048|0.243
95876927|NCT02642029|191709797|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.83||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.830
95876928|NCT02642029|191709797|OTHER||beta coefficient for anxiety|-0.00063||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00179|0.00052||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, anxiety). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00052|-0.00179|0.284
95876929|NCT02642029|191709798|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.755||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||0.755
95876930|NCT02642029|191709798|OTHER||beta coefficient for elated mood|-0.0007||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00208|0.00067||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, elated mood). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00067|-0.00208|0.317
95876931|NCT02642029|191709799|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.035||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.035
95968545|NCT04893460|191908661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.098|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity||||.098
95968546|NCT04893460|191908661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity||||.042
95968547|NCT04893460|191908661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.364|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in cognitive dissonance from baseline to 6 weeks post baseline.||||.364
95968548|NCT04893460|191908662|SUPERIORITY||median pairwise average|17.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxson Signed Rank Test|||The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate whether participants were smoking fewer cigarettes per day.||||<.001
95968549|NCT04893460|191908663|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Cost activity|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.776
95968550|NCT04893460|191908663|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Quit Latter activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
95968551|NCT04893460|191908663|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Pitfalls activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.043
95968552|NCT04893460|191908663|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Smoke Free activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.219
95968553|NCT04893460|191908663|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to after the Letter to Youth activity|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.110
95968554|NCT04893460|191908663|SUPERIORITY|This model is a paired t-test that tests for change in readiness to quit smoking from baseline to 6 week post baseline assessment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.868
95968555|NCT03578887|191908666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95968556|NCT03578887|191908667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
95968557|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|77.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968558|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|28.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968559|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.7||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968560|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|4.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968561|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|79.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968562|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968563|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|3.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968564|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|6.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968565|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|82.4||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968566|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|23.5||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968567|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|5.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968568|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|5.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968569|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with TEAEs|76.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968570|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with related AEs|20.0||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968571|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with severe AEs|6.2||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968572|NCT00379288|191908699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of subjects with serious AEs|3.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
95968573|NCT02980731|191908705|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004||||||P-value is derived from a paired t-test of H0: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) ≤ 5 versus H1: mean difference (Week 48 - baseline) \> 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.004
95968574|NCT03446781|191908771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.002
95968575|NCT03446781|191908772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968576|NCT03446781|191908773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968577|NCT03446781|191908774|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968578|NCT03446781|191908775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||0.033
95968579|NCT03446781|191908776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968580|NCT03446781|191908777|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|With factors of treatment group and analysis center adjusted for baseline values in the model||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968581|NCT03446781|191908778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968582|NCT03446781|191908779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for analysis center||CCH 0.84 mg/Buttock versus Placebo||||<0.001
95968583|NCT02787044|191908785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||Note, each participant can be included in the primary analysis up to 3 times (participating seasons).||1.17|0.97|0.21
95968584|NCT02787044|191908786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.94|0.44
95968585|NCT02787044|191908787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||Each participant can be analyzed up to three times (seasons)||1.2|.97|0.16
95968586|NCT02787044|191908788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|.96|0.26
95968587|NCT02787044|191908789|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.84|0.96
95968588|NCT04410523|191908790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.229|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.229|0.016|0.025
95968589|NCT04410523|191908790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0542||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.165|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.165|-0.049|0.286
95968590|NCT04410523|191908790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0521||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.168|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.168|-0.037|0.212
95968591|NCT04410523|191908790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.094|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.094|-0.076|0.831
95968592|NCT04410523|191908790|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0434||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.077|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.077|-0.094|0.852
95968593|NCT04410523|191908791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-1.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.363||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.219|3.083|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||3.083|-6.219|0.508
95968594|NCT04410523|191908791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-3.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.691|0.695|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.695|-8.691|0.095
95968595|NCT04410523|191908791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-2.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2943||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.405|1.627|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||1.627|-7.405|0.209
95968596|NCT04410523|191908791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8718||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.971|3.398|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||3.398|-3.971|0.878
95968597|NCT04410523|191908791|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|1.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8652||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.578|4.765|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||4.765|-2.578|0.558
95968598|NCT04410523|191908794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1493||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.252|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.252|-0.336|0.780
95968599|NCT04410523|191908794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1489||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|-0.127|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||-0.127|-0.713|0.005
95968600|NCT04410523|191908794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1446||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|0.004|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.004|-0.573|0.047
95968601|NCT04410523|191908794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1182||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.216|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.216|-0.249|0.887
95968602|NCT04410523|191908794|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1184||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.348|0.118|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.118|-0.348|0.333
95968603|NCT04410523|191908795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1485||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|0.195|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CSJ117-placebo)|||0.195|-0.389|0.515
95968604|NCT04410523|191908795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1484||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.51|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.510|-0.074|0.143
95968605|NCT04410523|191908795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.364|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.364|-0.207|0.590
95968606|NCT04410523|191908795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.265|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.265|-0.199|0.778
95968607|NCT04410523|191908795|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.305|||MMRM||Treatment difference (CCSJ117-placebo)|||0.305|-0.160|0.539
95968608|NCT04155047|191908810|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1861||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.066|-0.711|0.0987
95968609|NCT00821587|191908815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral level in patients receiving antiviral therapy for recurrent HCV after Liver Transplant|Chi-squared|||We hypothesize that subjects on CsA are more likely to achieve undetectable viral levels after liver transplant. Comparisons between the two groups (Undetectable viral level vs. Detectable viral level) were performed with Pearson Chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.||||<0.05
95968610|NCT04488770|191908868|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.93|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-24). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||0.93|0.61|
95968611|NCT04488770|191908869|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
95968612|NCT04488770|191908870|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.98|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for log transformed parameter AUC(0-infinity). Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.98|0.65|
95968613|NCT04488770|191908871|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.75|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||0.75|0.46|
95968614|NCT04488770|191908872|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.11|||||Mixed Effect Model was used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter C24h. Treatment in the fed/fasted state was fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant was fitted as Random Effect. Unstructured covariance structure was used.|||1.11|0.74|
95968615|NCT04488770|191908873|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tmax.|||2.000|0.000|
95968616|NCT04488770|191908874|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||Wilcoxon matched pair test was used to assess Food Effect for the parameter Tlag.|||0.250|0.000|
95968617|NCT01744392|191908900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between percentages. Increases in value indicate improvement in adherence.||||.73
95968618|NCT02551653|191908909|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.832|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|0.979|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|0.979|0.682|
95968619|NCT02551653|191908909|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|1.891|||||||Volume of Distribution - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.891|1.113|
95968620|NCT02551653|191908909|OTHER||Mean Ratio|0.958|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.241|||||||Volume of Distribution - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.241|0.692|
95968621|NCT02551653|191908910|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.189|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Left Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.189|0.846|
95968622|NCT02551653|191908910|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.269|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Heart, Right Ventricular Wall: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.269|0.853|
95876932|NCT02642029|191709799|OTHER||beta coefficient for auditory hallucinat|0.00195||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00021|0.00369||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, auditory hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00369|0.00021|0.028
95876933|NCT02642029|191709800|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.748||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.748
95876934|NCT02642029|191709800|OTHER||beta coefficient for visual hallucinatio|-0.00039||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00151||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, visual hallucinations). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00151|-0.00230|0.685
95968623|NCT02551653|191908910|OTHER||Mean Ratio|1.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|1.34|||||||Mean Standardized Uptake Values - Lung: The mean ratio was calculated using the posterior distribution of the ratio of group means (PAH subjects to Healthy Volunteers). The 95% confidence interval is a 95% Bayesian credible interval based on the highest posterior density interval.|1.340|0.786|
95968624|NCT02770612|191908964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We used a one sided one sample Wilcoxon test to compare the median number of oxycodone tablets chosen and prescribed to the institutional standard of 40 tablets of oxycodone 5mg on discharge||||<0.001
95968625|NCT02233803|191908965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) is demonstrated as the lower limit of CI for the difference is greater than the pre-specified NI margin of -1.25ML. The lower limit of the 95% CI for the treatment difference (NEUMOTEROL 400 -Symbicort Forte) was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -1.25 mL.|Difference of LS means|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.096||||||Sample size calculations are based on the primary efficacy endpoint (change from baseline in trough FEV1 at day 29). Assuming a within-subject standard deviation of 210 mL, 168 completed subjects are required to demonstrate the non-inferiority of BFF 400/12 mcg SINGLE CAPSULE INHALER and BFF 320/9 mcg TURBUHALER BID, assuming a true difference of -50 mL with 90% power and a 2.5% one-sided significance level. The pre-specified NI margin is set at -1.25mL.||0.096|-0.008|
95968626|NCT02233803|191908966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.384||||||||1.384|0.576|
95968627|NCT02233803|191908967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS means|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||||||||1.1|0.1|
95968628|NCT03846453|191908973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.1871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.04|0.1871
95968629|NCT03846453|191908974|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||ANCOVA|P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.||||0.23|-0.12|0.5549
95968630|NCT02946853|191909027|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.21|0.14|1.00
95968631|NCT02946853|191909028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.974
95968632|NCT02946853|191909029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Some patients did not undergo 6 month echocardiogram due to restrictions related to COVID-19.||||1.00
95968633|NCT02946853|191909030|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|84.4|||Fisher Exact|||||84.4|0.1|1.00
95968634|NCT02946853|191909031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95968635|NCT02946853|191909032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.00|0.00|1.00
95968636|NCT02946853|191909033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95968637|NCT02946853|191909034|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.565|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.565
95968638|NCT02946853|191909035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|42.0|||Fisher Exact|||||42.0|0.0|1.00
95968639|NCT01696955|191909063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95968640|NCT01696955|191909066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95968641|NCT01696955|191909067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.99
95968642|NCT01696955|191909068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
95968643|NCT03980808|191909072|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Total degrees of freedom (dof) = 17, with between groups dof = 1 and within groups dof = 16.||Composite scores were calculated for the knowledge based tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.95
95968644|NCT03980808|191909073|EQUIVALENCE|A priori significance levels were set to 0.05. As this was a pilot study on a demonstration intervention, power analysis were not performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5376||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Composite scores were calculated for the behavioral self-report tests tests. Differences in the pre and post test composite scores were compared using ANOVA. We tested the null hypothesis that score changes in the intervention group and control group were the same.||||0.093
95968645|NCT03653208|191909078|OTHER||Slope|1.01||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1075
95968646|NCT03653208|191909079|OTHER||Slope|1.2||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0548
95968647|NCT02229851|191909116|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-1.53|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Somapacitan-Placebo|Changes in truncal fat percentage from baseline to the 34 week's measurements was analysed using an analysis of covariance model with treatment, growth hormone deficiency (GHD) onset type, sex, region, diabetes mellitus (DM) and sex by region by DM interaction as factors and baseline as a covariate. The analysis was conducted using a multiple imputation technique where trajectory after a withdrawn subjects last observation was imputed based on data from the placebo arm.||-0.38|-2.68|=0.0090
95968648|NCT01204710|191909258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.2201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.9||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as IMC-3G3 + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.90|0.87|0.2201
95968649|NCT01204710|191909259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||Analysis was stratified by the randomization stratification factor: best overall response to prior docetaxel-based chemotherapy.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is expressed as Olaratumab + Mitoxantrone / Mitoxantrone and estimated from Cox model.|||1.61|0.72|0.7291
95968650|NCT01204710|191909260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3465
95968651|NCT01204710|191909261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6571
95968652|NCT01204710|191909262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4986|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4986
95968653|NCT04655027|191909303|OTHER|Treatment effect|Difference in Estimate (LSM)|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.155|50.15|||ANCOVA|||||50.150|-11.155|0.212
95968654|NCT04655027|191909304|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin by treatment effect|Difference in Estimate|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|0.208|||ANCOVA|||||0.208|-0.477|0.441
95968655|NCT04655027|191909304|OTHER|Baseline hs CRP by treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.707|5.017|||ANCOVA|||||5.017|-9.707|0.532
95968656|NCT04655027|191909305|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.635|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.635|0.723|0.688
95968657|NCT04655027|191909305|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.822|||ANCOVA|||||0.822|0.045|0.029
95968658|NCT04655027|191909305|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.366|||ANCOVA|||||0.366|-0.201|0.568
95968659|NCT04655027|191909306|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.031|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.031|0.687|0.096
95968660|NCT04655027|191909306|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.282|0.630
95968661|NCT04655027|191909306|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.342|||ANCOVA|||||0.342|0.037|0.015
95968662|NCT04655027|191909307|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.354|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.354|1.123|< 0.001
95968663|NCT04655027|191909307|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|-0.027|0.171
95968664|NCT04655027|191909307|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.101|||ANCOVA|||||0.101|-0.039|0.387
95968665|NCT04655027|191909308|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.312|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.312|0.606|0.561
95968666|NCT04655027|191909308|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.75|||ANCOVA|||||0.750|0.013|0.043
95968667|NCT04655027|191909308|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|0.302|||ANCOVA|||||0.302|-0.222|0.766
95968668|NCT04655027|191909309|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.108|1.369|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.369|1.108|< 0.001
95968669|NCT04655027|191909309|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.159|||ANCOVA|||||0.159|-0.059|0.351
95968670|NCT04655027|191909309|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.114|||ANCOVA|||||0.114|-0.031|0.248
95968671|NCT04655027|191909310|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.598|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||1.598|1.043|0.021
95968672|NCT04655027|191909310|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.223|||ANCOVA|||||0.223|-0.276|0.826
95968673|NCT04655027|191909310|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.132|||ANCOVA|||||0.132|-0.212|0.634
95968674|NCT04655027|191909311|OTHER|Treatment effect|Ratio of Estimates|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.786|||Geometric ANCOVA|Geometric ANCOVA of relative change from baseline. The Standard error of Mean (SEM) refers to Geometric SEM.||||0.786|0.257|0.007
95968675|NCT04655027|191909311|OTHER|Baseline hepcidin-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.798|0.48|||ANCOVA|||||0.480|-0.798|0.610
95968676|NCT04655027|191909311|OTHER|Baseline hs-CRP-by-treatment effect|Difference in Estimates|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.536|||ANCOVA|||||0.536|-0.387|0.740
95876935|NCT02642029|191709801|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.02||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.020
95876936|NCT02642029|191709801|OTHER||beta coefficient for paranoid ideation|0.0004||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00108|0.00188||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, paranoid ideation). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00188|-0.00108|0.597
95876937|NCT02642029|191709802|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.237||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.237
95876938|NCT02642029|191709802|OTHER||beta coefficient for ideas/del of refere|-0.00142||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.00065||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, ideas/delusions of reference). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00065|-0.00350|0.178
95876939|NCT02642029|191709803|EQUIVALENCE|Tested the null hypothesis that there is no effect of condition (iTBS, cTBS, sham) on pre-post change in VAS scores.||||||0.33||||||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \< 0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Friedman test|Non-parametric repeated measures ANOVA.||||||.330
95876940|NCT02642029|191709803|OTHER||beta coefficient for delusions of contro|-0.00038||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00305|0.00228||Given the exploratory nature of this pilot study, we set the significance threshold at p \<0.05, two-sided, without correcting for eight comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We explored the association between interval discrimination task (IDT) performance (accuracy) and each symptom self-rating (here, delusions of control). We conducted a mixed effects regression analysis to test the null hypothesis of no association. Model included time (pre, post) and condition (iTBS vs. sham, cTBS vs. sham) in addition to symptom rating as independent variables, and IDT performance accuracy as the dependent variable.||0.00228|-0.00305|0.777
95968677|NCT03361605|191909325|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.349|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline.||||<0.0001
95968678|NCT03361605|191909326|SUPERIORITY|"Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) such as testing if one treatment is superior to another. Therefore, here the Superiority indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the squeeze pressure in response to verbal instructions."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09||0.00148|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in squeeze pressure between sedated state and baseline.||||0.00148
95968679|NCT04777864|191909345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Parent group only||||0.18
95876941|NCT00398918|191709804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Results presented are for post-hoc comparisons of least squares means with Tukey-Kramer adjucted p values.|The estimated value is for the difference between the means obtained for the second hour of the self-administration sessions for the placebo and zonisamide conditions.|The analysis involved a within subjects comparison. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the amount of ethanol consumed in either the first or second hour of self-administration sessions. Results presented here are for the second hour of the self-administration sessions.||||<0.05
95876942|NCT00398918|191709805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.61||95.0||||P value shown is for a post-hoc comparison of least squares means generated by the mixed model used.|Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for difference between DSMT scores at 40 minutes post alcohol ingestion for zonisamide and placebo involved post-hoc comparisons of least squares means.|Null hypothesis: No difference in DSMT scores for zonisamide and placebo treatments 40 minutes after ingestion of ethanol.||||0.61
95968680|NCT04777864|191909345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent group only||||0.91
95968681|NCT04777864|191909346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975|||||||Regression, Linear|||Parent: Post-Index Visit||||0.975
95968682|NCT04777864|191909346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Regression, Linear|||Adolescent: Post-Index Visit||||0.854
95968683|NCT04777864|191909349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.03
95968684|NCT04777864|191909349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.21
95968685|NCT04777864|191909350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.76
95968686|NCT04777864|191909350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Post-Index Visit||||0.96
95968687|NCT04777864|191909350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months after initial clinic visit||||0.96
95876943|NCT00777205|191709816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.57|<0.05
95876944|NCT00777205|191709817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.03|<0.05
95876945|NCT00777205|191709818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-0.93|<0.05
95876946|NCT00777205|191709819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.039|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.89|-2.66|<0.05
95876947|NCT00777205|191709820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|3.16||||||||3.16|-3.31|
95876948|NCT01426438|191709850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.28
95876949|NCT01426438|191709850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Stratified exact Wilcoxon signed rank test. Stratified by screening HDL-C level and statin use within 90 days prior to study entry.||||||0.19
95876950|NCT02607930|191709864|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample of approximately 600 participants randomized 1:1 achieves at least 95% power using a non-inferiority margin of 12% assuming a response rate in both groups of 91% (Reference Genvoya studies) and a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.002|-4.8|3.6|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95.002% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.6|-4.8|
95876951|NCT02607930|191709864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.78
95876952|NCT02607930|191709865|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.1|-6.9|
95876953|NCT02607930|191709865|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.45
95876954|NCT02607930|191709866|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4|||||Differences in percentages of participants between groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||3.4|-8.5|
95968688|NCT00775463|191909364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel Haenszel mean score test was used on the standardized reverse mid-ranks (overall reverse ranks divided by the number of ranks +1, or modified ridit scores; largely negative changes had ranks near 1 and largely positive changes had ranks near 0)of the residuals from an ordinary least squares regression with change in net ulcer burden at Week 20 as a linear function of Baseline PDEI or prostacyclin use (binary variable:Yes/No) and net ulcer burden at Baseline(continuous variable).||0.0|-1.0|0.20
95968689|NCT00775463|191909365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.40|-1.40|0.31
95968690|NCT00775463|191909366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|2.7||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.7|-21.3|0.12
95968691|NCT00775463|191909367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-9.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The VAS-global assessments were recorded in centimeters, with possible values ranging from 0.0 to 15.0. The recorded value was divided by 15, then multiplied by 100 to convert it to the VAS-Global scale, with values ranging from 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (very severe disease). The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||0.0|-18.0|0.04
95876955|NCT02607930|191709866|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.39
95876956|NCT02607930|191709867|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||5.6|-4.8|
95876957|NCT02607930|191709867|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.87
95876958|NCT02607930|191709868|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|4.6|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||4.6|-6.9|
95968692|NCT00775463|191909368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||Analyses of secondary endpoints were descriptive in nature, no adjustments for multiplicity were made. P-values are for the purpose of describing the random imbalance between treatment groups and not to test formal hypotheses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline in CHFS Score were tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||2.0|-4.0|0.47
95968693|NCT00775463|191909370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he difference between treatment groups for the change from Baseline and at Week 20 in the mRSS was tested using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||1.0|0.0|0.68
95876959|NCT02607930|191709868|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.69
95876960|NCT02607930|191709869|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|2.1|||||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% CIs were calculated based on the MH proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).|||2.1|-10.5|
95876961|NCT02607930|191709869|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated from CMH test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 vs. \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region stratum (US vs. Ex-US).||||||0.19
95876962|NCT02607930|191709870|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.03||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in least-squares mean (LSM), and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.06|-0.12|0.48
95876963|NCT02607930|191709871|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.09|-0.09|0.99
95876964|NCT02607930|191709872|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.01||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||ANOVA||Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||0.10|-0.08|0.88
95876965|NCT02607930|191709873|OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-24|0.69
95876966|NCT02607930|191709874|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|36.0|||ANOVA|P-value was adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by the baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||36|-39|0.94
95876967|NCT02607930|191709875|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|18.0|||ANOVA|p-value was adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|Difference in LSM, and its 95% CI were adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum and region stratum.|||18|-59|0.30
95876968|NCT02607930|191709876|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.346||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.748|||ANOVA|||||0.748|-0.057|0.092
95876969|NCT02607930|191709877|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.135||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.356|0.625|||ANOVA|||||0.625|-0.356|0.59
95876970|NCT02607930|191709878|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.271||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.893|||ANOVA|||||0.893|-0.351|0.39
95968694|NCT00775463|191909371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|-1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||2.0|-3.0|0.54
95876971|NCT02607930|191709879|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.221||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.300|-0.741|0.41
95876972|NCT02607930|191709880|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.485||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.126|0.155|||ANOVA|||||0.155|-1.126|0.14
95876973|NCT02607930|191709881|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.406||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.119|0.307|||ANOVA|||||0.307|-1.119|0.26
95876974|NCT01050543|191709890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|9.6|||ANOVA|||To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to the efficacy of neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a 2-way ANOVA model adjusted for trial site.||9.6|6.8|<0.0001
95876975|NCT00676338|191709893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.62|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.26|0.17||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.17|-0.26|0.620
95909019|NCT01212770|191776082|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||23.1|3.0|0.0134
95968695|NCT00775463|191909371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Ef|-0.6||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||P value for Pain VAS|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Pain VAS||0.3|-1.6|0.18
95968696|NCT00775463|191909371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Eff|0.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P value for Total Pain Rating Index Score||0.0|-1.0|0.10
95876976|NCT00676338|191709893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.328|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.15|0.35||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.35|-0.15|0.328
95876977|NCT00676338|191709893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority Null Hypotheses: H1: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of metformin. H2: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of sitagliptin. H3: The effect of exenatide is inferior to that of pioglitazone. Then, the 3 superiority null hypotheses were tested. Change in HbA1c was analyzed using an MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.62|-0.13||Noninferiority was tested by Bonferroni (margin 0.3%, adjusted significance of 0.0167). Superiority was tested by Hommel (nominal significance level was between 0.0167 and 0.05 depended on the number of noninferiority hypotheses rejected).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power calculation: A sample of 740 (222 exenatide once weekly, 222 metformin, 148 pioglitazone, and 148 sitagliptin) would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true differences between exenatide once weekly and the 3 comparators: metformin, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin of 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively in change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.13|-0.62|<.001
95876978|NCT00676338|191709894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.151
95876979|NCT00676338|191709894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.913
95876980|NCT00676338|191709894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple adjustment were done.|Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
95876981|NCT00676338|191709895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.10|-0.66|0.155
95876982|NCT00676338|191709895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.75||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.75|-0.12|0.153
95876983|NCT00676338|191709895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in FSG from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline FSG, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.68|-1.56|<.001
95876984|NCT00676338|191709896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.53||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.53|-0.61|0.892
95876985|NCT00676338|191709896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|-2.9||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-2.90|-4.21|<.001
95876986|NCT00676338|191709896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.63||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Body Weight from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline body weight, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.63|-1.92|<.001
95876987|NCT00676338|191709897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.15||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.15|-0.18|0.873
95968697|NCT00833833|191909385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.99||||||With a 12-month accrual period and 12-month follow-up after the study closed to accrual, assuming a 10% drop out rate, 96 participants in each treatment arm would have had 85% power to detect a hazard rate ratio of 1.67 using a one-sided log rank test with an overall significance level of 0.025 adjusted for one interim analysis) and a significance level of 0.0245 for the final analysis.||0.99|0.54|
95968698|NCT00833833|191909390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|46.66||||||||46.66|0.84|
95968699|NCT00833833|191909391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
95968700|NCT00833833|191909392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.29||||||||1.29|0.57|
95968701|NCT00660543|191909407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.003
95968702|NCT00660543|191909407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences between groups were assessed by using the Student paired t test and were graphed by using Bland-Altman plots.||||||.008
95968703|NCT00996476|191909482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-1.97|||ANCOVA||TMC435 50 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.97|-2.83|
95876988|NCT00676338|191709897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.14|-0.52|<.001
95968704|NCT00996476|191909482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means difference|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.98|||ANCOVA||TMC435 100 mg minus PR48 control|Difference in least square (LS) mean change from baseline from the PR48 control group||-1.98|-2.85|
95968705|NCT00996476|191909487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|11.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||11.8|-58.3|
95968706|NCT00996476|191909487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-27.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|9.8|||||PR48 control minus TMC12/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC12/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||9.8|-61.1|
95968707|NCT00996476|191909487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|19.4|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 50 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||19.4|-59.9|
95968708|NCT00996476|191909487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-32.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|8.3|||||PR48 control minus TMC24/PR24|The difference in the percentage of participants between The TMC24/PR24 100 mg treatment group and the PR48 control group||8.3|-66.6|
95968709|NCT01470001|191909499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|39.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model with repeated measurements||A planned sample size of 56 subjects per group provided 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 between post void dribbling response rates (assumed to be 0.35 under the null hypothesis and 0.60 under the alternative hypothesis) at a one-sided 0.05 significance level.||39.7|-4.3|.1135
95968710|NCT01470001|191909500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.3||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|30.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic regression with repeated measurements||||30.8|-2.3|.0919
95968711|NCT01470001|191909501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|6.2||p value was adjusted for age.|ANCOVA||we calculated the estimated difference in change between the placebo and treatment groups.|the difference in change between the groups was measured||6.2|-17.5|0.44
95968712|NCT03268603|191909504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.38
95968713|NCT03733314|191909600|SUPERIORITY||Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|45.4|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||45.4|-24.9|
95968714|NCT03733314|191909605|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|18.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||18.0|-32.1|
95968715|NCT03733314|191909606|SUPERIORITY||Difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.0|||||The difference of percentage was calculated as E6011 minus placebo.|||24.0|-7.3|
95968716|NCT03547739|191909630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|6.18|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|Home visits as compared to Standard Care||6.18|2.88|<0.001
95968717|NCT03547739|191909630|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.45|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and couple age disparity.|HIV Self-testing as compared to Standard Care||5.45|2.50|<0.001
95968718|NCT03547739|191909631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.31|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.31|1.12|.001
95968719|NCT03547739|191909631|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth index, length of couple relationship, previous couple testing at baseline, and and couple age disparity.|Comparison of HIVST arm with Standard Care arm||1.36|1.17|.001
95968720|NCT03547739|191909645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.12|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the Home Visit arm with Standard Care||1.12|1.03|.011
95968721|NCT03547739|191909645|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08|||Chi-squared||Generalized Estimating Equation model (binomial family and log link) with robust standard errors used. Risk Ratios reported were adjusted for baseline education level, wealth, length of couple relationship, and couple age disparity.|Comparison of the HIVST arm with Standard Care||1.08|0.97|0.011
95968722|NCT03547739|191909646|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.92||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||Log Rank|||||0.95|0.86|0.087
95968723|NCT03547739|191909646|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.96||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.91|0.087
95968724|NCT03547739|191909646|OTHER||Kaplan Meier estimates|0.98||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.93|0.087
95968725|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968726|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968727|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|7.17||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0006
95968728|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|4.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95876989|NCT00676338|191709897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.03||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting TC from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TC, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.03|-0.41|0.022
95968729|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|5.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0002
95968730|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.92||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0285
95968731|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968732|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95876990|NCT00676338|191709898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.02||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.02|-0.09|0.004
95876991|NCT00676338|191709898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.11||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-0.11|-0.19|<.001
95876992|NCT00676338|191709898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Fasting HDL from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline HDL, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.01|-0.07|0.142
95876993|NCT00676338|191709899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.10|0.94|0.657
95876994|NCT00676338|191709899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.27|1.06|0.002
95876995|NCT00676338|191709899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||No multiple adjustment were done.|ANCOVA|||Fasting triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment and country as factors and baseline triglycerides as a covariate.||1.14|0.95|0.398
95876996|NCT00676338|191709902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.74||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||0.74|-3.52|0.201
95876997|NCT00676338|191709902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.93||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.93|-1.94|0.693
95876998|NCT00676338|191709902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.96||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline systolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||2.96|-1.84|0.646
95876999|NCT00676338|191709903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.73||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.73|-1.02|0.610
95877000|NCT00676338|191709903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.58|0.43|0.013
95877001|NCT00676338|191709903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.49||No multiple adjustment were done.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to Week 26 was analyzed using an MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline diastolic blood pressure, country, week of visit, and treatment-by week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.49|-1.60|0.946
95877002|NCT02122458|191709904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|9.56||Given the preliminary nature of this treatment study and the small number of participants the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|An Adjusted Rank Transform was applied to the data prior to applying the mixed model analyses.||The null hypothesis evaluated by the HHIA was that self-perceived hearing handicap would not reduce from baseline to 6-months post-fitting.||9.56|-8.66|.05
95877003|NCT02122458|191709905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Given the small sample size and the preliminary nature of this study, the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||.05
95877004|NCT01788046|191709910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|52.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PTH category (\< 600, ≥ 600 to ≤ 1000, and \> 1000 pg/mL), recent cinacalcet use within 8 weeks before randomization (yes and no), and region (North America and non-North America) was used to compare the primary endpoint of percentage of participants with \> 30% reduction from baseline in PTH during the EAP between etelcalcetide and placebo.||52.17|18.18|< 0.001
95877005|NCT01788046|191709911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.35|70.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by screening PTH category, prior cinacalcet use within 8 weeks prior to randomization, and region.||||70.37|16.35|< 0.001
95877006|NCT01788046|191709912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-71.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.53|-65.14|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-65.14|-77.53|< 0.001
95877007|NCT01788046|191709913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|-6.03|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-6.03|-8.38|< 0.001
95877008|NCT01788046|191709914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-14.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.65|-10.51|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-10.51|-18.65|< 0.001
95877009|NCT01788046|191709915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-8.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-3.92|||Repeated Measures Mixed Effects Model|Repeated measures mixed-effects model included treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as covariates.|Etelcalcetide - Placebo|||-3.92|-12.15|< 0.001
95877010|NCT03150173|191709949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.94
95877011|NCT03150173|191709950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.148
95877012|NCT03150173|191709951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.445||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|6.018|||Regression, Logistic|Adjustment for baseline self-report of injection-related HIV risk behaviors in the past 30 days||||6.018|0.347|0.6132
95877013|NCT03150173|191709952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
95877014|NCT03150173|191709953|SUPERIORITY||probability of cost effectiveness|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Data generated from the bootstrapping process were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which effectively measure the uncertainty around the ICER point estimate.|||
95877015|NCT03150173|191709954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||0.10
95877016|NCT03150173|191709955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is an actual calculated value not a threshold value.|non-parametric bootstrapping|Non-parametric bootstrapping of adjusted mean values with 1000 iterations||||||< 0.01
95877017|NCT03150173|191709956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95877018|NCT03150173|191709957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.098
95877019|NCT03150173|191709958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.256
95877020|NCT03755791|191709965|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.44|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.44|0.0012
95877021|NCT03755791|191709966|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9056|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.78|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.78|0.9056
95877022|NCT01479127|191709995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I OFF state"||||0.058
95877023|NCT01479127|191709995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS I Dyskinesia state"||||1.000
95877024|NCT01479127|191709995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Normal state"||||0.153
95877025|NCT01479127|191709995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II OFF state"||||0.140
95877026|NCT01479127|191709995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||"TRS II Dyskinesia state"||||0.374
95877027|NCT01479127|191709996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.574
95877028|NCT01479127|191709996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD||||0.661
95877029|NCT01479127|191709996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||ON time w/o D + time with NTD + time w/ TD||||0.574
95877030|NCT01479127|191709997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Rapid alternating movement of hands||||0.500
95877031|NCT01479127|191709997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Arising from chair||||1.000
95877032|NCT01479127|191709997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Postural stability||||0.250
95877033|NCT01479127|191709997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Body bradykinesia and hypokinesia||||0.500
95877034|NCT01479127|191709997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||Dyskinesia||||0.250
95877035|NCT01479127|191709998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.870
95877036|NCT01479127|191709998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part I||||0.374
95877037|NCT01479127|191709998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II||||0.799
95877038|NCT01479127|191709998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part II (Off-time)||||0.493
95877039|NCT01479127|191709998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part III||||0.530
95877040|NCT01479127|191709998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Part IV sub-score of dyskinesia||||0.108
95877041|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Total score||||0.636
95877042|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Mobility||||0.329
95877043|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Activities of daily living||||0.902
95877044|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Emotional well-being||||0.220
95877045|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Stigma||||0.799
95877046|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Social support||||0.178
95877047|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Cognition||||0.456
95877048|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Communication||||0.866
95877049|NCT01479127|191709999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Domain: Bodily discomfort||||0.576
95877050|NCT01479127|191710000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"On state staging"||||1.000
95877051|NCT01479127|191710000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||"Off state staging"||||1.000
95877052|NCT01479127|191710001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon one-sample test|||||||0.125
95877053|NCT01479127|191710006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.074
95877054|NCT01967342|191710014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.193||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.165
95877055|NCT01967342|191710014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Usual Care between post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.216
95877056|NCT01967342|191710014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
95877057|NCT01967342|191710014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within CBT group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.070
95877058|NCT01967342|191710014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
95877059|NCT01967342|191710014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.519|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Intensity within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.519
95877060|NCT01967342|191710015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.196|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.196
95877061|NCT01967342|191710015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.447|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.447
95877062|NCT01967342|191710015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||<.001
95877063|NCT01967342|191710015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.021
95968733|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0001
95968734|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|5.85||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.012
95968735|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NYmass at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.62||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0174
95877064|NCT01967342|191710015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
95877065|NCT01967342|191710015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in BPI-Interference within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.305
95877066|NCT01967342|191710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||.082
95968736|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-9.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.013
95968737|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968738|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.99||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0068
95968739|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.12||||0.0485|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0485
95968740|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.08||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0031
95968741|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.18||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0036
95968742|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.05||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0089
95877067|NCT01967342|191710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.652|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Usual Care group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.652
95877068|NCT01967342|191710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
95877069|NCT01967342|191710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.528||0.241|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within CBT for Pain group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.241
95877070|NCT01967342|191710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.617|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the pre-treatment and 10-week post-treatment.||||< .001
95877071|NCT01967342|191710016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiple comparisons in secondary outcomes, a corrected alpha level was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction method. Smallest p-value compared to .025; Largest p-value compared to .050.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A piecewise linear growth model examined changes in PHQ-9 within Pain Ed group between the post-treatment and 6-month follow-up.||||.422
95877072|NCT01967342|191710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (6-months).||||<.001
95877073|NCT01967342|191710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at post-treatment (10-weeks).||||.001
95877074|NCT01967342|191710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at pre-treatment (10-weeks).||||.217
95877075|NCT01967342|191710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.009
95877076|NCT01967342|191710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||EDU vs. TAU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.001
95877077|NCT01967342|191710017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.389|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||CBT vs. EDU|Odds ratios were computed to describe the likelihood of participants in each treatment condition reporting clinically meaningful improvement on the PGIC-pain intensity relative to the other groups at follow-up (6-months).||||.389
95968743|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-4.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968744|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.62||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0239
95877078|NCT03469934|191710036|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.058||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|0.15|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.150|-0.265|0.5703
95877079|NCT03469934|191710040|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.139|||Mixed-model repeated measures|||MMRM analysis with fixed terms for treatment, time point of measurement, and treatment by time point interaction, baseline eosinophil count as a covariate, and a repeated time point effect within a participant.||0.139|-0.239|0.5901
95877080|NCT03469934|191710041|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FEV1 was compared between etokimab and placebo using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||0.43|-0.25|0.5960
95877081|NCT03469934|191710042|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.823||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|22.96|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline for FeNO was compared between etokimab and placebo using an ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline result as covariate and participant as a random effect||22.96|-17.90|0.7993
95877082|NCT05280782|191710056|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Systolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Systolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
95877083|NCT05280782|191710056|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Diastolic Blood Pressure values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Diastolic Blood Pressure values were normal.|||
95877084|NCT05280782|191710057|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Heart Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Heart Rate values were normal.|||
95877085|NCT05280782|191710058|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Respiratory Rate values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.016||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.016
95877086|NCT05280782|191710059|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Temperature values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Temperature values were normal.|||
95968745|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.93||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0435
95968746|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Ctime at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.26||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0126
95968747|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.73||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0294
95968748|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D1m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.96||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0204
95968749|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for D2m at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0004
95877087|NCT05280782|191710060|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
95877088|NCT05280782|191710061|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection EKG. The outcomes were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the EKGs were normal.|||
95877089|NCT05280782|191710062|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Sodium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Sodium values were normal.|||
95877090|NCT05280782|191710062|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Potassium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Potassium values were normal.|||
95877091|NCT05280782|191710062|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Chloride values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Chloride values were normal.|||
95877092|NCT05280782|191710062|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection CO2 values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
95877093|NCT05280782|191710063|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Glucose values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
95968750|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.95||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0013
95877094|NCT05280782|191710063|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Calcium values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
95877095|NCT05280782|191710063|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Creatinine values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.453||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.453
95877096|NCT05280782|191710063|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection BUN values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.125||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.125
95877097|NCT05280782|191710063|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Bilirubin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
95877098|NCT05280782|191710064|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Total Protein values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Total Protein values were normal.|||
95877099|NCT05280782|191710064|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Albumin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
95968751|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.77||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
95877100|NCT05280782|191710065|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Alkaline Phosphatase values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Alkaline Phosphatase values were normal.|||
95877101|NCT05280782|191710065|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection ALT values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.219||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.219
95877102|NCT05280782|191710065|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection AST values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the AST values were normal.|||
95877103|NCT05280782|191710066|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection WBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.687||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.687
95877104|NCT05280782|191710067|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hemoglobin values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
95877105|NCT05280782|191710068|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Hematocrit values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||1.000
95877106|NCT05280782|191710069|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection Platelets values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the Platelets values were normal.|||
95877107|NCT05280782|191710070|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection RBC values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.||||||0.375||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.375
95877108|NCT05280782|191710071|EQUIVALENCE|A McNemar test was performed between baseline and post-injection MCV values. The values were categorized as Normal or Abnormal.|||||||||||||||||The McNemar test requires at least one participant for each outcome (Normal or Abnormal). Thus, no p-value was computed because all of the MCV values were normal.|||
95877109|NCT02761733|191710081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3652||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9559|0.2255||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.2255|-6.9559|.0679
95877110|NCT02761733|191710081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.882||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2957|0.5317||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||0.5317|-6.2957|.0999
95877111|NCT02761733|191710081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0139||||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4957|2.3779||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 148|||2.3779|-4.4957|.5588
95877112|NCT02761733|191710081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2798||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6771|3.2367||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 136|||3.2367|-2.6771|.8532
95877113|NCT02761733|191710082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4524||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5302|0.6254||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 180|||0.6254|-7.5302|.0988
95877114|NCT02761733|191710082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3087||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1799|3.5625||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|||3.5625|-4.1799|.8760
95877115|NCT02761733|191710082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.541||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2234|6.3054||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 153|||6.3054|-1.2234|.1878
95877116|NCT02761733|191710082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6237||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.6526||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 143|||1.6526|-4.9000|.3330
95877117|NCT02761733|191710083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9284||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4728|6.616||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 175|||6.6160|-10.4728|.6588
95877118|NCT02761733|191710083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3959||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2237|11.0155||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 169||a priori test||11.0155|-2.2237|.2633
95877119|NCT02761733|191710083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9703||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2107|-0.7299||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 166|a priori test||-0.7299|-17.2107|.0343
95877120|NCT02761733|191710083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7297||||0.3126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4864|10.9458||Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Mixed Models Analysis||Satterthwaite adjusted df = 163|a priori test||10.9458|-3.4864|.3126
95877121|NCT02761733|191710084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1241||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5675|0.3193||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 142|||.3193|-.5675|.5840
95877122|NCT02761733|191710084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2642||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1754|0.7038||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 184|||.7038|-.1754|.2404
95877123|NCT02761733|191710084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3192||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0667|0.7051||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 129|||.7051|-.0667|.1074
95877124|NCT02761733|191710084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0576||||0.7677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3238|0.439||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 131|||.4390|-.3238|.7677
95877125|NCT02761733|191710085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.026||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4507|0.3987||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 182|||.3987|-.4507|.9046
95877126|NCT02761733|191710085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2258||||0.2518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1591|0.6107||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 173|||.6107|-.1591|.2518
95877127|NCT02761733|191710085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.437||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.837|-0.037||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 165|||-.0370|-.8370|.0338
95877128|NCT02761733|191710085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2564||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6086|0.0958||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 157|||.0958|-.6086|.1555
95877129|NCT02761733|191710086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2967||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5599|-0.0335||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 213|||-.0335|-.5599|.0283
95877130|NCT02761733|191710086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0401||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1969|0.2771||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 194|||.2771|-.1969|.7407
95877131|NCT02761733|191710086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2338||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4778|0.0102||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 186|||.0102|-.4778|.0619
95877132|NCT02761733|191710086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3793||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.599|-0.1596||a priori test|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference Test using LSMEANS pdiff test in SAS PROC MIXED 9.4|Satterthwaite adjusted df = 172|||-.1596|-.5990|.0009
95877133|NCT04402060|191710092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Wald method.||1.51|0.63|0.82
95877134|NCT04402060|191710093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|3.4|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||3.40|0.77|0.36
95877135|NCT04402060|191710095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.51|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||0.51|0.01|0.03
95877136|NCT04402060|191710096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.72|||Log Rank|||P-value was from a 2-sided stratified Log-rank test by the randomization stratification factors (need of mechanical ventilation \[yes vs no\] and age \[\<65 years vs ≥65 years\]) at 0.1 significant level for evaluation of treatment difference. Hazard ratio was obtained from a Cox regression model with treatment and the randomization stratification factors as fixed factors and 90% CI was based on the Wald method.||1.72|0.69|0.93
95877137|NCT03467048|191710112|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath Video Laryngoscopy is non-inferior to Macintosh direct laryngoscopy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.75|||t-test, 1 sided|||||9.75|2.22|<0.01
95877138|NCT03467048|191710113|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|0.975|0.04|2.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.28|0.04|0.08
95877139|NCT03467048|191710114|NON_INFERIORITY|Null hypothesis: McGrath videolaryngoscopy is non-inferior to Direct laryngoscopy|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.1|7.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||||7.77|0.1|0.41
95968752|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968753|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95877140|NCT04068610|191710119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value for comparison of treatment arms obtained from stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the location of the primary tumor.||||5.6|0.6|0.3173
95877141|NCT01999868|191710162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study. This analysis is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint.||||0.41
95877142|NCT01999868|191710162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.013
95877143|NCT01999868|191710162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.50
95877144|NCT01999868|191710162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.67
95877145|NCT01999868|191710163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.019
95877146|NCT01999868|191710163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
95877147|NCT01999868|191710163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.018
95877148|NCT01999868|191710163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.07
95877149|NCT01999868|191710164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.16
95877150|NCT01999868|191710164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.002
95877151|NCT01999868|191710164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 28 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the last scheduled dose of ustekinumab or ustekinumab placebo until the end of the study.||||0.23
95877152|NCT01999868|191710164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from the beginning of the blinded observation phase until the end of the study.||||0.43
95877153|NCT01999868|191710165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.06
95968754|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for NCdiff at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-0.87||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0096
95968755|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Redness at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|0.36||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0003
95877154|NCT01999868|191710165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.008
95968756|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.13||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0063
95877155|NCT01999868|191710166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 88. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the study.||||0.005
95877156|NCT01999868|191710166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Two-sided test.|Grouped survival analysis|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40. This interval corresponds to the time from randomization until the end of the blinded treatment phase.||||0.001
95877157|NCT01999868|191710167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Two-sided test.|Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 40||||0.013
95877158|NCT01999868|191710167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Logistic|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20) and duration of disease prior to screening, centered about the median, are covariates.||Week 88||||0.95
95968757|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|2.3||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0018
95968758|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Pa at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|3.22||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0134
95877159|NCT01999868|191710168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization stratum (PASI score at week 0: 12-20 or \>20), baseline DLQI, and pre-screening disease duration, centered on the median, are covariates.||Week 12 to 40||||0.18
95877160|NCT01999868|191710168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Two-sided test.|ANCOVA|Randomization (PASI score week 0:12-20 or \>20), DLQI score at baseline, duration of disease prior to screening, centered about median, are covariates||Week 12 to 88||||0.045
95877161|NCT03319173|191710175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.79|8.7|||Regression, Linear|||||8.7|7.79|<0.0001
95877162|NCT03319173|191710176|OTHER||Estimate|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||0.39|0.31|<0.0001
95877163|NCT03319173|191710177|OTHER||Estimate|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.52|||Regression, Linear|||||0.52|0.41|<0.0001
95877164|NCT03319173|191710178|OTHER||Estimate|0.514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
95877165|NCT03319173|191710179|OTHER||Estimate|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Regression, Linear|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
95877166|NCT03319173|191710180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.49|||Estimate|||||0.49|0.40|<0.0001
95877167|NCT03319173|191710181|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.78|||Regression, Linear|||||0.78|0.72|<0.0001
95877168|NCT03319173|191710182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.37|||Estimate|||||0.37|0.30|<0.0001
95877169|NCT03319173|191710183|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
95877170|NCT03319173|191710184|OTHER||Estimate|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.88|||Regression, Linear|||||0.88|0.85|<0.0001
95877171|NCT03319173|191710185|OTHER||Estimate|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|0.71|<0.0001
95877172|NCT03319173|191710186|OTHER||Estimate|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||||0.56|0.47|<0.0001
95877173|NCT03319173|191710187|OTHER||Estimate|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.156|||Regression, Linear|||||1.156|1.104|<0.0001
95877174|NCT03319173|191710188|OTHER||Estimate|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.049|||Regression, Linear|||||1.049|1.025|<0.0001
95877175|NCT03319173|191710189|OTHER||Estimate|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.94|||Regression, Linear|||||0.94|0.91|<0.0001
95877176|NCT03319173|191710190|OTHER||Estimate|1.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.096|1.149|||Regression, Linear|||||1.149|1.096|<0.0001
95877177|NCT04195906|191710214|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.877|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-2.46|3.0||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline BWAT-CUA score and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM=Mixed model for repeated measures Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||3.00|-2.46|0.877
95877178|NCT04195906|191710215|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.146|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-4.8|27.78||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||27.78|-4.80|0.146
95877179|NCT04195906|191710216|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.706|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.38|0.56||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||0.56|-0.38|0.706
95877180|NCT04195906|191710217|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.995|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-5.27|5.24||The MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, visit, baseline sodium thiosulfate use, baseline Pain VAS and visit by randomized treatment interaction.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. Participant is fitted as random effect and an unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used.||||5.24|-5.27|0.995
95877181|NCT04195906|191710218|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.09||This model includes the stratification factor sodium thiosulfate use at baseline and the treatment as covariates|Regression, Logistic|As there is only a measure post-baseline, a logistic regression model was run instead of a generalized estimating equations model.|The odds ratio displayed is the odds ratio of having an improved result of SNF472 versus Placebo. The results 'Worsened', 'Equal', and 'Missing' are combined in one category and it is the reference for the odds ratio calculation.|||4.09|0.58|0.384
95968759|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dbase at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968760|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95877182|NCT04195906|191710219|SUPERIORITY||Difference in slopes between arms|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.93||MMRM model includes fixed effect terms for randomized treatment, continuous variables maintenance opioid dose, Week (1 to 12) and Week by randomized treatment interaction. The random coefficients are the intercept and Week as a continuous variable.|MMRM|MMRM: mixed model repeated measures. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix is used||||1.93|-0.79|0.406
95877183|NCT02495831|191710220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||point estimate (ratio of geometric means|90.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.0|125.0||If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval is \< 125.00%, no effect of safinamide on diclofenamic acid bioavailability is present (no interaction present).|ANOVA|||The PK parameters AUC0-t and Cmax were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Before analysis, the data were transformed using a neperian logarithmic transformation. ANOVA was performed taking into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as fixed effects with a variance components structure of the covariance matrix.||125|80|0.1
95877184|NCT02495831|191710221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||geometric mean ratio|104.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.4|114.02||||||||114.02|96.40|
95877185|NCT02281773|191710234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.34||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.34|-2.76|0.1256
95877186|NCT02281773|191710234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.7337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.84||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.84|-1.30|0.7337
95877187|NCT02281773|191710234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.6994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.95||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||1.95|-1.31|0.6994
95877188|NCT02281773|191710234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.93||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure has been used to fit the mixed model. Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|The restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based mixed effects model with repeated measurements (MMRM) was used with baseline value as fixed covariate and planned treatment, analysis visit, first test done, geographic region grouping 1, planned treatment by analysis visit and baseline value by analysis visit as fixed effects.||0.93|-2.19|0.4270
95877189|NCT02281773|191710239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.6|-0.9|0.5972
95877190|NCT02281773|191710239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.7|-1.9|0.3817
95877191|NCT02281773|191710239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.8||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.8|-0.9|0.4800
95909020|NCT01212770|191776083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||-2.9|-12.8|0.0021
95877192|NCT02281773|191710239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.5|-1.1|0.7507
95877193|NCT02281773|191710240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 10 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9399
95877194|NCT02281773|191710240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 25 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.1|-0.1|0.9919
95877195|NCT02281773|191710240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 50 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3027
95968761|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968762|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968763|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968764|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968765|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for PESC at 50 lux is reported."|Slope|1.43||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0313
95968766|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM5 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|1.92||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0481
95968767|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM10 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|2.57||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0171
95968768|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MM30 at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|3.84||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||0.0007
95877196|NCT02281773|191710240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Due to the exploratory nature of this trial, no multiplicity adjustment was made. All statistical testing was performed using a two-sided, α=0.05 level of significance.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (Final Values) is actually the Adjusted mean difference calculated as BI 409306 100 mg minus Placebo.|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences (BI 409306 group minus placebo group) in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12. The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12 during the treatment period adjusted for fixed categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||0.2|-0.1|0.3901
95877197|NCT03019575|191710297|OTHER|Linear Mixed Model|Geometric Mean Ratio|9.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|11.97||||||||11.97|7.44|
95877198|NCT05203289|191710351|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|101.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|111.23|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 105.455."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||111.23|93.31|
95877199|NCT05203289|191710352|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.06|116.81|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 106.431."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||116.81|95.06|
95877200|NCT05203289|191710353|OTHER||Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|98.76|||||"The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios (%) of BI 695501: (40 mg/0.4 mL (T))/(40 mg/0.8 mL (R)).~Geometric standard error= 104.874."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary endpoints was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANCOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'treatment', 'location of trial medication injection' and 'baseline body weight' (continuous).||98.76|84.38|
95877201|NCT03917459|191710362|OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|9.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||9.01|-3.29|0.3432
95877202|NCT02833350|191710368|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|8.0||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|21.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.64|-5.64|0.2503
95877203|NCT02833350|191710368|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|12.93||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|23.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.48|2.37|0.0164
95877204|NCT02833350|191710368|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|20.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|30.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.79|9.21|0.0003
95877205|NCT02833350|191710370|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-8.58||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.82|3.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.66|-20.82|0.1694
95877206|NCT02833350|191710370|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|-1.5||||0.8132||95.0|-13.96|10.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.95|-13.96|0.8132
95877207|NCT02833350|191710371|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|13.7||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|28.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.61|-1.21|0.0717
95877208|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||adjusted difference|-0.11||||0.8504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.23|-0.45|0.8504
95877209|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.04||||0.9884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.21|||ANCOVA|||At week 1, Day 7||0.21|-0.28|0.9884
95877210|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 1 Day 7||0.18|-0.31|0.9230
95877211|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.31|-0.43|0.9853
95877212|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.15|-0.38|0.6826
95877213|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.45|0.2634
95877214|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.14|-0.72|0.2885
95877215|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.01|-0.61|0.0598
95877216|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.01|-0.62|0.0440
95877217|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.76|0.4271
95877218|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.66|0.0969
95877219|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.01|-0.68|0.0612
95877220|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.12|-0.84|0.2079
95877221|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
95877222|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.22|-0.92|0.0003
95877223|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.82|0.34|<.0001
95968769|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for dbase at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95877224|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.80|0.31|<0.0001
95877225|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.74|0.20|<.0001
95877226|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.66|0.13|0.0009
95877227|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.25|<.0001
95877228|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.85|0.24|<.0001
95877229|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.76|0.08|0.0095
95877230|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.74|0.06|0.0153
95877231|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.4839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.54|-0.16|0.4839
95877232|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.19||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.16|0.5035
95877233|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.11||||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.38|0.4286
95877234|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.10|-0.50|0.1831
95877235|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.02|-0.65|0.0667
95877236|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.42|-1.11|<0.0001
95877237|NCT02833350|191710375|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.38|-1.15|0.0002
95877238|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.55|0.5807
95877239|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.12||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.39|0.6270
95877240|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.15||||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.12|-0.42|0.4475
95877241|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.35|-0.47|0.9891
95877242|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.21||||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.08|-0.51|0.2244
95877243|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.01|-0.58|0.0586
95877244|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.08|-0.85|0.1338
95877245|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.74|0.0119
95877246|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.11|-0.77|0.0046
95877247|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.31||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.20|-0.82|0.3943
95877248|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.37||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.00|-0.74|0.0526
95877249|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.02|-0.76|0.0365
95877250|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.41||||0.1696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.11|-0.93|0.1696
95877251|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.63||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.25|-1.01|0.0002
95877252|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.24|-1.00|0.0003
95877253|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.90|0.37|<0.0001
95877254|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.88|0.34|<0.0001
95877255|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.79|0.21|0.0001
95877256|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.43||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.72|0.14|0.0012
95877257|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.91|0.25|<0.0001
95877258|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.54||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.87|0.21|0.0002
95877259|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.46||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.82|0.09|0.0084
95877260|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.44||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.07|0.0124
95877261|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.15||||0.7565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.52|-0.23|0.7565
95877262|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.16||||0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.53|-0.22|0.7158
95877263|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.22||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.52|0.1368
95877264|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.05|-0.62|0.0974
95877265|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.00|-0.76|0.0479
95877266|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.46|-1.22|<0.0001
95877267|NCT02833350|191710376|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.83||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.42|-1.24|0.0001
95968770|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCV at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968771|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dcon at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95877268|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09||||0.9193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.24|-0.41|0.9193
95877269|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.1||||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.14|-0.33|0.7062
95877270|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.08||||0.8542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.16|-0.31|0.8542
95877271|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.24|-0.51|0.8095
95877272|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.44|0.3862
95877273|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.16||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.12|-0.43|0.4328
95877274|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.4915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.20|-0.68|0.4915
95877275|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.26||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-0.58|0.1441
95877276|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.24||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.07|-0.56|0.1890
95877277|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.25||||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.24|-0.74|0.5566
95877278|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.32||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.04|-0.68|0.0920
95877279|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.06|-0.65|0.1391
95877280|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.17|-0.86|0.2873
95877281|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.16|-0.91|0.0020
95877282|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.54||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.17|-0.92|0.0016
95877283|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.31||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.55|0.07|0.0050
95877284|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.57|0.10|0.0020
95877285|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.62|0.07|0.0082
95877286|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.35||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.63|0.08|0.0056
95877287|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.82|0.19|0.0004
95877288|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.84|0.21|0.0002
95877289|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.34||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.69|-0.01|0.0650
95877290|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.37||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.72|0.02|0.0365
95877291|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.47|-0.28|0.9338
95877292|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.09||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.29|0.9520
95877293|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.19||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.07|-0.45|0.1496
95877294|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.3936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.17|-0.43|0.3936
95968772|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for Dend at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95877295|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.35||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.68|0.0346
95877296|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.31|-1.04|0.0004
95877297|NCT02833350|191710377|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.34|-1.11|0.0003
95877298|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.6083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.19|-0.53|0.6083
95877299|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.18||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.08|-0.44|0.2672
95877300|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.17||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.09|-0.43|0.3158
95877301|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.14||||0.8495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.28|-0.55|0.8495
95877302|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.03|-0.58|0.0856
95877303|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.27||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.04|-0.57|0.1021
95877304|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.33||||0.2762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.15|-0.82|0.2762
95877305|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0286
95877306|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.38||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.03|-0.73|0.0274
95877307|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.28||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.24|-0.81|0.4981
95877308|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.39||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||-0.00|-0.78|0.0472
95877309|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.36||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.03|-0.75|0.0753
95968773|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for MCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95877310|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.13|-0.99|0.1853
95877311|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0009
95877312|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.62||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.21|-1.03|0.0008
95877313|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.67|0.15|0.0005
95877314|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||0.68|0.16|0.0003
95877315|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.69|0.09|0.0060
95877316|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.4||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.70|0.10|0.0039
95877317|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.18|0.0007
95877318|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.53||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||0.88|0.19|0.0007
95877319|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.39||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.77|0.01|0.0450
95877320|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.42||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Week 8, Day 56||0.80|0.04|0.0259
95877321|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9881
95877322|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.06||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||0.46|-0.34|0.9891
95877323|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.29||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 1, Day 7||-0.00|-0.57|0.0463
95877324|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.23||||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 2, Day 14||0.11|-0.56|0.1867
95877325|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.44||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.07|-0.81|0.0213
95877326|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.78||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 8. Day 56||-0.37|-1.19|0.0003
95877327|NCT02833350|191710378|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 12, Day 84||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
95877328|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877329|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
95877330|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.82||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|5.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.62|-1.98|0.3482
95877331|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
95877332|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
95877333|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|4.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.89|-3.07|0.6546
95877334|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.8||||0.7988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||5.35|-6.95|0.7988
95877335|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.01||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||4.36|-4.35|0.9975
95877336|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|10.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||10.25|-1.16|0.1185
95877337|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.4||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|4.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.21|-9.01|0.4765
95877338|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.61||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||11.12|-1.90|0.1655
95877339|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.18||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|15.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||15.26|1.11|0.0234
95877340|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|13.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||13.67|-7.27|0.5490
95877341|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.22|24.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||24.03|7.22|0.0003
95877342|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.91||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|18.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||18.43|3.39|0.0044
95877343|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
95877344|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
95877345|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
95877346|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.8853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|9.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||9.99|-8.62|0.8853
95877347|NCT02833350|191710379|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.64||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|23.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||23.70|-0.41|0.0584
95877348|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877349|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
95877350|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
95877351|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877352|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
95877353|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
95877354|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
95877355|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Day 28||2.48|-4.30|0.5976
95877356|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|5.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.05|-3.23|0.6669
95877357|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.6309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|4.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||4.93|-8.13|0.6309
95877358|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.83||||0.4473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.56|-2.90|0.4473
95877359|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.73||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|7.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.91|-2.45|0.3021
95877360|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.6||||0.7134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|6.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||6.94|-10.14|0.7134
95877361|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.7||||0.2635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|10.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.19|-2.79|0.2635
95877362|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.11|-2.02|0.1749
95877363|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|11.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||11.18|-7.07|0.6588
95877364|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877365|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877366|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877367|NCT02833350|191710380|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.37||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.20|-8.46|0.7848
95877368|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|6.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.28|-6.28|1.0000
95877369|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.93||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.37|-2.50|0.5941
95877370|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|2.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.93|-2.93|1.0000
95877371|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|6.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.17|-6.17|1.0000
95877372|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.95|-2.95|1.0000
95877373|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
95877374|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.43||||0.8929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||5.77|-6.62|0.8929
95877375|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.13||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||3.51|-3.78|0.9424
95877376|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.5927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||2.51|-4.40|0.5927
95877377|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.40|-6.31|0.8788
95877378|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.87||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|5.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8 Day 56||5.09|-3.36|0.6876
95877379|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.97||||0.6656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|5.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||5.35|-3.42|0.6656
95877380|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.46||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|5.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12 Day 84||5.42|-6.34|0.8787
95877381|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.74||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-3.17|0.7101
95877382|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.2||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.55|-2.16|0.2425
95877383|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.68|-8.68|1.0000
95877384|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2 Day 14||8.39|-8.39|1.0000
95877385|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.03||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|11.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.22|-7.17|0.6658
95877386|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|8.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.77|-8.77|1.0000
95877387|NCT02833350|191710381|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.57||||0.2457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|17.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||17.66|-4.52|0.2457
95877388|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.02|-6.73|0.4960
95877389|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.18||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|0.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.98|-5.34|0.2736
95877390|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.08||||0.0608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.10|-6.26|0.0608
95877391|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.25||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|3.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||3.52|-6.02|0.9237
95877392|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.14||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|0.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||0.33|-6.60|0.0893
95877393|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.07||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|-0.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||-0.63|-7.51|0.0138
95877394|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.80|-8.24|0.3358
95877395|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.57||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.94|-8.20|0.0078
95877396|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.68||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.06|-8.30|0.0059
95877397|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.29||||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.80|-7.39|0.6503
95877398|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.12||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.59|-6.84|0.1282
95877399|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|0.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.78|-6.65|0.1675
95877400|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.94||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||2.09|-7.96|0.4220
95877401|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.1||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.42|-8.77|0.0027
95877402|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.47||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.78|-9.15|0.0011
95877403|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.21||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.37|0.05|0.0455
95968774|NCT05731999|191909652|OTHER|"The hypothesis was that k = 0. If the hypothesis could be rejected (p\<0.05), then the pupillometric variable was considered correlated with plasma concentration for the particular key feature, medicinal product and ambient light condition.~Here the p-value for RMCA at 500 lux is reported."|Slope|-1.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The correlation between pupillometric variables and concentration in plasma over time for designated medicinal product and ambient light condition was evaluated by collecting all pairs of (key feature value) and (plasma concentration). For each key feature, medicinal product, and ambient light condition, a linear regression was conducted producing an estimate of k and m in the following equation (key feature value) = k \* (plasma concentration) + m||||<0.0001
95968775|NCT05731999|191909654|OTHER||probability|0.000244|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The smallest odds ratio from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
95968776|NCT05731999|191909654|OTHER||probability|0.00586|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
95968777|NCT05731999|191909654|OTHER||probability|0.0193|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
95968778|NCT05731999|191909654|OTHER||probability|0.000488|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
95968779|NCT05731999|191909654|OTHER||probability|0.1133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that the logistic regression classifier is unable to correctly classify subjects into sober or under the influence of D1-D4. The greatest p value from the group false positives and false negative is reported.||||<0.05
95968780|NCT05731999|191909654|OTHER||probability|0.0107|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95968781|NCT02369068|191909703|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|This test was selected since the distribution of the change in pain was not normal nor approximately symmetric.||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the pain score change between groups. Significance level was set at 0.05.||||0.072
95968782|NCT02369068|191909704|OTHER|||||||0.624|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed there were no differences in the median change pain severity between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.624
95968783|NCT02369068|191909705|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there is no difference in the change in pain interference between the groups. Statistical significance was set at 0.05||||0.571
95968784|NCT02369068|191909706|OTHER|||||||0.285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis assumed that there was no difference in the distribution between the groups. Significance level was set at 0.05||||0.285
95968785|NCT00403767|191909715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority (NI) by a NI margin of 1.46 in hazard ratio (HR) based on on-treatment data from the per protocol population. The required number of primary efficacy endpoint events was determined based on the following assumptions: NI margin of 1.46, 1-sided alpha of 0.025, power of \>95% when true HR is 1, and exponential distributions. The margin was selected based on clinical appropriateness and quantitative analysis of relevant studies in Hart et al.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.025 (1-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||||0.96|0.66|<0.001
95968786|NCT00403767|191909716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95||The p-value Is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.95|0.65|0.015
95877404|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.31||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|5.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||5.48|-0.87|0.2309
95877405|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.27||||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|6.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.72|-0.18|0.0698
95877406|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.33||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|5.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||5.76|-1.09|0.2851
95877407|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.29||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|7.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.90|0.69|0.0131
95877408|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.18||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|7.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||7.78|0.59|0.0161
95877409|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.85||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|7.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.51|0.18|0.0360
95877410|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||7.70|0.37|0.0252
95877411|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.03||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|4.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.66|-2.59|0.9032
95877412|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.66||||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.30|-2.97|0.9791
95877413|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|0.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.54|-6.98|0.0927
95877414|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.12||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.09|-6.33|0.3202
95968787|NCT00403767|191909717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11||The p-value is not adjusted for mulitple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternate hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.11|0.96|0.442
95968788|NCT00403767|191909718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.99|0.74|0.034
95968789|NCT00403767|191909719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.96||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.96|0.74|0.010
95877415|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.2||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.36|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-0.04|-8.36|0.0476
95877416|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|-5.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 54||-5.55|-14.31|<0.0001
95877417|NCT02833350|191710382|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-8.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-3.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-3.90|-12.56|0.0003
95877418|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877419|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
95877420|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
95968790|NCT00403767|191909720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.03|0.70|0.092
95968791|NCT00403767|191909721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.61||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||0.61|0.09|0.003
95968792|NCT00403767|191909722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.06||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.06|0.63|0.121
95968793|NCT00403767|191909723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as a covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.10|0.73|0.289
95968794|NCT00403767|191909724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (2-sided).|Cox Proportional Hazards model|(non-stratified) Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as covariate||Alternative hypothesis of superiority based on on-treatment data from the safety population.||1.02|0.70|0.073
95968795|NCT00799981|191909725|OTHER|||||||0.8762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The hypothesis that a 10 cm catheter provides equal emptying of the bladder as a 7 cm catheter was tested.||||0.8762
95968796|NCT00799981|191909726|OTHER|||||||0.7905|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7905
95968797|NCT00799981|191909727|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
95968798|NCT00799981|191909730|OTHER|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In the table 0=No and 1=Yes.||||0.0273
95968799|NCT03192475|191909731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95968800|NCT03192475|191909732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95968801|NCT03192475|191909733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95968802|NCT03192475|191909734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95968803|NCT03192475|191909735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95968804|NCT03192475|191909736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95968805|NCT03192475|191909737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95968806|NCT03192475|191909738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
95968807|NCT03192475|191909739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95968808|NCT03192475|191909740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95968809|NCT03192475|191909741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95968810|NCT03192475|191909742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.0009
95968811|NCT03192475|191909743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95968812|NCT03192475|191909744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.34
95968813|NCT03192475|191909745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
95968814|NCT01404429|191909758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.54|-0.26|0.6
95968815|NCT05319912|191909775|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|75.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.23|110.02||||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).||110.02|52.23|
95968816|NCT05319912|191909775|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|25.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.21|36.89||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||36.89|17.21|
95968817|NCT05319912|191909776|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|82.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.91|106.9||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||106.90|63.91|
95968818|NCT05319912|191909776|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|40.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.12|52.68||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA.||52.68|31.12|
95968819|NCT02344290|191909836|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.84|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Two-sided 95% repeated confidence interval that adjusts for interim looks according to the realized Lan and DeMets implementation of the O'Brien-Fleming sequential stopping boundary is presented.|||0.84|0.48|
95968820|NCT02344290|191909837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.87|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.87|0.36|
95968821|NCT02344290|191909838|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.97|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.97|0.40|
95968822|NCT02344290|191909839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||4.02|0.11|
95968823|NCT02344290|191909840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.38|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.38|0.35|
95968824|NCT02344290|191909841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.03|0.44|
95968825|NCT02344290|191909842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|1.05|0.36|
95968826|NCT02344290|191909844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo. Estimation of the confidence interval used a Bayes analysis with a non-informative prior using adaptive rejection Metropolis sampling. In this case, the interval shown is a 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval.|0.54|0.00|
95968827|NCT02344290|191909845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.94|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||0.94|0.64|
95968828|NCT02344290|191909846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.70|
95968829|NCT02344290|191909847|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.13|0.76|
95968830|NCT02344290|191909848|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.20|0.71|
95968831|NCT02344290|191909849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.31|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.31|0.68|
95968832|NCT02344290|191909850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.51|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.51|0.14|
95968833|NCT02344290|191909851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.02|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.02|0.42|
95968834|NCT02344290|191909852|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.10|0.90|
95968835|NCT02344290|191909853|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.57|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.57|1.07|
95968836|NCT02344290|191909854|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.19|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||2.19|1.14|
95877421|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95968837|NCT02344290|191909855|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.37|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.37|0.17|
95968838|NCT02344290|191909856|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.18|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||3.18|0.56|
95968839|NCT02344290|191909857|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.12|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.12|0.97|
95968840|NCT02344290|191909860|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.08|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.08|0.52|
95968841|NCT02344290|191909861|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.16|||||Incidence rate ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo.|||1.16|0.96|
95968842|NCT02344290|191909862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-0.1|||Regression, Linear||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted mean difference in change at year 2, using linear regression.|||-0.1|-8.6|0.04
95968843|NCT02344290|191909863|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88|||Chi-squared||Treatment effect was estimated as relative risk (pitavastatin/placebo), adjusted for presence of NCP at entry.|||0.88|0.52|0.003
95968844|NCT02344290|191909864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.62|||||Treatment group difference was estimated as baseline-adjusted difference in mean change at year 2, using linear regression.|||0.62|-9.2|
95968845|NCT02344290|191909865|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of LpPla2 Levels at Month 24||||<0.001
95968846|NCT02344290|191909866|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in LpPla2 from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
95968847|NCT02344290|191909867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of hsCRP Levels at Month 24||||0.02
95968848|NCT02344290|191909868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in hsCRP from Baseline at Month 24||||0.09
95968849|NCT02344290|191909869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of soluble CD163 Levels at Month 24.||||0.65
95968850|NCT02344290|191909870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Change in soluble CD163 from Baseline at Month 24||||0.88
95968851|NCT02344290|191909871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by sex was evaluated via interaction of treatment and sex in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by sex (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing in females compared to males).||||0.98
95968852|NCT02344290|191909871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.04|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among females.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among females.||1.04|0.39|
95968853|NCT02344290|191909871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among males.|Evaluation of pitavastatin effect among males.||0.86|0.48|
95968854|NCT02344290|191909872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect modification by race was evaluated via interaction of treatment and race in the Cox proportional hazards regression model.||Evaluation of treatment effect modification by race (i.e. pitavastatin effect differing between races).||||0.14
95968855|NCT02344290|191909872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.59||||||Pitavastatin effect among Asians from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Asians.|0.59|0.09|
95968856|NCT02344290|191909872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.96|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Blacks.|Pitavastatin effect among Blacks from subgroup analysis by race.||0.96|0.46|
95968857|NCT02344290|191909872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.13|||||Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Whites.|Pitavastatin effect among Whites from subgroup analysis by race.||1.13|0.49|
95968858|NCT02344290|191909872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.1||||||Pitavastatin effect among Other race from subgroup analysis by race.|Hazard ratio is shown as pitavastatin/placebo among Other race.|2.10|0.36|
95968859|NCT04348435|191909875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.6113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6113
95877422|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
95877423|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
95877424|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877425|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
95877426|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
95877427|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877428|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
95877429|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||10.34|0.57|0.0286
95877430|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
95877431|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.57||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|9.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||9.52|-0.39|0.0708
95877432|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|10.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.86|0.05|0.0478
95877433|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95968860|NCT04348435|191909875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.5039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5039
95968861|NCT04348435|191909875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8903
95877434|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877435|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
95877436|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.11||||0.3838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||13.36|-5.14|0.3838
95877437|NCT02833350|191710383|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|11.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.47|-10.10|0.9009
95877438|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.36||||0.5455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.27|-7.00|0.5455
95877439|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-1.97||||0.4114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||1.36|-5.30|0.4114
95877440|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.62||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.72|-5.97|0.1739
95877441|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.94||||0.9761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|4.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||4.06|-5.93|0.9761
95877442|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||0.41|-6.78|0.0998
95877443|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.97||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|-0.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Week 14||-0.39|-7.54|0.0239
95877444|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.98||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||1.30|-9.25|0.2018
95877445|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.67||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.87|-9.48|0.0011
95877446|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.27||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||-1.48|-9.06|0.0026
95877447|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.47||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||2.90|-7.84|0.6336
95877448|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.49||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.41|-7.38|0.0950
95877449|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.18||||0.1451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|0.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||0.71|-7.06|0.1451
95877450|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.28||||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||1.87|-8.43|0.3434
95877451|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.45||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|-1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-1.68|-9.23|0.0016
95877452|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.88||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.65|-2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-2.10|-9.65|0.0006
95877453|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.64||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.96|1.31|0.0025
95968862|NCT04348435|191909876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.8171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8171
95968863|NCT04348435|191909876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.5034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5034
95968864|NCT04348435|191909876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193||0.9948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9948
95968865|NCT04348435|191909877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2641
95968866|NCT04348435|191909877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8220
95968867|NCT04348435|191909877|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3097
95968868|NCT04348435|191909878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
95968869|NCT04348435|191909878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
95968870|NCT04348435|191909878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1713
95968871|NCT04348435|191909879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3868
95968872|NCT04348435|191909879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.9429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9429
95968873|NCT04348435|191909879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.9362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9362
95968874|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.9333
95968875|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.483||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.3627
95968876|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.604||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Energy/Fatigue - Treatment Contrast||||0.4160
95968877|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.8768
95968878|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.344||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.0869
95968879|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.514||0.6864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Social Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.6864
95968880|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.571||0.2587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.2587
95968881|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.316||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.1250
95968882|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.732||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Physical Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.9780
95968883|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.925||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.8721
95968884|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.735||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.6694
95968885|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.073||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average General Health - Treatment Contrast||||0.3733
95968886|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.116||0.5594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.5594
95968887|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.389||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.2127
95968888|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.303||0.4012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Physical Functioning - Treatment Contrast||||0.4012
95968889|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.678|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.748||0.0521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0521
95968890|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.696||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.4704
95968891|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.017||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Pain - Treatment Contrast||||0.0544
95968892|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.888||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5535
95968893|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.969||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
95968894|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.936||0.5692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Average Emotional Well Being - Treatment Contrast||||0.5692
95968895|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.4642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||0.4642
95968896|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.444||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
95968897|NCT04348435|191909880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Avg. Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems - Treatment Contrast||||1.0000
95877454|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.98||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||7.32|0.64|0.0129
95877455|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.04||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|7.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||7.62|0.46|0.0206
95968898|NCT04348435|191909881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8628
95968899|NCT04348435|191909881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5257
95968900|NCT04348435|191909881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5467
95968901|NCT00969709|191909913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.23||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.54|-5.92|0.0186
95968902|NCT00969709|191909913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.29|-6.69|0.0038
95968903|NCT00969709|191909913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.86||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-2.12|-7.59|0.0005
95968904|NCT00969709|191909914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.1687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||0.60|-3.42|0.1687
95968905|NCT00969709|191909914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-2.51||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.49|-4.54|0.0151
95968906|NCT00969709|191909914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.57||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.52|-4.62|0.0141
95968907|NCT02075476|191909929|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.048
95968908|NCT02075476|191909930|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95968909|NCT02075476|191909931|EQUIVALENCE|Normality in sample distribution was tested using the Kolmororov-Smirnov test and graphic models. For descriptive variables we use Pearson's Chi-square, and for the study of numerical variables over time we use a mixed linear test.||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.011
95968910|NCT02731690|191909949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5303||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5303
95968911|NCT02731690|191909949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1646||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1646
95968912|NCT02731690|191909949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1189||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1189
95968913|NCT02731690|191909949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0706||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0706
95968914|NCT02731690|191909950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0715
95968915|NCT02731690|191909950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1697||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.1697
95968916|NCT02731690|191909950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3428||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.3428
95968917|NCT02731690|191909950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0642||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0642
95968918|NCT02731690|191909951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0568||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0568
95968919|NCT02731690|191909951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0533||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0533
95968920|NCT02731690|191909951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0459||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0459
95968921|NCT02731690|191909951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5678||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.5678
95968922|NCT02731690|191909952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.5810
95968923|NCT02731690|191909952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0465||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0465
95877456|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.26||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.82|-0.30|0.0841
95877457|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.67||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.42|0.91|0.0088
95877458|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.07||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|8.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||8.81|1.34|0.0034
95877459|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.55||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.39|0.71|0.0138
95877460|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.85||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.69|1.02|0.0073
95877461|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.29||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.03|-2.46|0.8284
95877462|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.86||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||4.60|-2.88|0.9525
95877463|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.22||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|0.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||0.46|-6.91|0.0856
95877464|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-2.08||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.20|-6.36|0.3374
95877465|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.24||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||0.06|-8.53|0.0534
95877466|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|-6.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||-6.32|-15.33|<0.0001
95877467|NCT02833350|191710384|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-9.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.63|-4.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||-4.81|-13.63|<0.0001
95877468|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877469|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||4.30|-2.48|0.5976
95877470|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
95877471|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877472|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.92|-2.92|1.0000
95877473|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||2.91|-2.91|1.0000
95877474|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877475|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.91||||0.5726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.09|-2.26|0.5726
95877476|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|4.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||4.28|-2.47|0.5976
95877477|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|6.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.06|-6.06|1.0000
95877478|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.74||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|6.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||6.42|-0.94|0.1446
95877479|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.64||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|8.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.03|-0.76|0.1050
95877480|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.8979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|5.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||5.71|-6.51|0.8979
95877481|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.65||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|8.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||8.35|-1.04|0.1270
95877482|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.45||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||10.91|-0.00|0.0501
95877483|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1, Day 7||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877484|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2, Day 14||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877485|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.05||||0.6564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|11.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4, Day 28||11.11|-7.00|0.6564
95877486|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|8.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8, Day 56||8.31|-8.31|1.0000
95877487|NCT02833350|191710385|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.68||||0.9051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|11.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12, Day 84||11.95|-10.58|0.9051
95968924|NCT02731690|191909952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1047||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.1047
95877488|NCT01453725|191710398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|43.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and Screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||43.6|17.5|<0.0001
95877489|NCT01453725|191710399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|33.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|46.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||46.1|20.4|<0.0001
95968925|NCT02731690|191909952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0661||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0661
95968926|NCT02731690|191909953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.1615
95968927|NCT02731690|191909953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6201||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6201
95968928|NCT02731690|191909953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9229||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.9229
95968929|NCT02731690|191909953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6307||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.6307
95877490|NCT01453725|191710400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|40.6||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||40.6|14.4|<0.0001
95877491|NCT01453725|191710401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent vs Placebo|15.2||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|27.1||Stratification factors: Baseline evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI and Screening CRP level|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||||27.1|3.2|0.0136
95877492|NCT01453725|191710402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mann-Whitney Test|||||||<0.0001
95877493|NCT04981392|191710442|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0066
95877494|NCT04981392|191710443|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Difference in adjusted % vaccinated|||||||0.0058
95968930|NCT02731690|191909954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0088
95968931|NCT02731690|191909954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2213||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.2213
95968932|NCT02731690|191909954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0180
95968933|NCT02731690|191909954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.1970
95968934|NCT02731690|191909955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0752||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0752
95968935|NCT02731690|191909955|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.6403||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.6403
95968936|NCT02731690|191909955|SUPERIORITY|Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.||||||0.2316||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.2316
95968937|NCT02731690|191909955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.7635
95877495|NCT04856891|191710444|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|78.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|89.1|||Fisher Exact|||||89.1|62.2|<0.0001
95877496|NCT04856891|191710445|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|0.3||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.7|-4.0|0.8822
95877497|NCT04856891|191710446|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-74.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-64.7|||ANCOVA|||||-64.7|-85.2|<0.0001
95877498|NCT04856891|191710447|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.8|90.6|||Fisher Exact|||||90.6|64.8|<0.0001
95968938|NCT02731690|191909956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 12||||0.0872
95968939|NCT02731690|191909956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 24||||0.0073
95968940|NCT02731690|191909956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0086||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 36||||0.0086
95968941|NCT02731690|191909956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489||||||Analyzed using a repeated measure GEE model, which includes the change from baseline as the dependent variable, visit as a fixed factor, and the baseline value as a covariate. Compound symmetry is used as the covariance structure.|GEE model|||Week 48||||0.0489
95968942|NCT03573583|191910017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.36||No formal adjustment for type I error due to the pilot nature of the study. All significance tests were 2-tailed and an alpha level of 0.05 was required for significance.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||Continuous variables were expressed as mean (SD) and categorical variables were as frequencies and percentages. A 2-sided independent-sample t test was used to compare group differences in change scores. Change scores were calculated as Week 16 measurements minus baseline measurements. Statistical analyses were done by a blinded statistician without knowledge of group membership.||4.36|0.22|0.03
95968943|NCT03573583|191910018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline score.||||1.77|0.31|0.009
95877499|NCT04856891|191710448|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|43.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|59.9|||Fisher Exact|||||59.9|23.5|<0.0001
95877500|NCT04856891|191710449|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|-1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|18.0|||Fisher Exact|||||18.0|-22.2|1.0000
95877501|NCT04856891|191710450|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|6.9||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|26.3|||Fisher Exact|||||26.3|-13.8|0.4502
95877502|NCT04856891|191710451|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-3.1||||0.6805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Weeks 24 Percent Change from Baseline||11.8|-18.1|0.6805
95877503|NCT02155881|191710474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.01|-0.98|0.9716
95877504|NCT02155881|191710475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.8713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.02|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||1.02|-0.87|0.8713
95877505|NCT02155881|191710476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.81|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.81|-0.61|0.7789
95877506|NCT02155881|191710477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.86|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.86|-0.55|0.6630
95877507|NCT02155881|191710478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Nasal congestion: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.19|-0.35|0.5593
95877508|NCT02155881|191710478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Runny nose: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.22|0.7085
95877509|NCT02155881|191710478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Itching: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.22|0.7309
95877510|NCT02155881|191710478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Sneezing: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.30|-0.29|0.9584
95877511|NCT02155881|191710479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||ANCOVA|||Itching/Burning Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.46|-0.11|0.2266
95877512|NCT02155881|191710479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Redness: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.17|-0.35|0.4888
95968944|NCT03573583|191910019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.67|||ANCOVA|Baseline as covariate||||2.67|-0.10|0.07
95968945|NCT03573583|191910020|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficients, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs)|Pearson's Correlation coefficient|0.19||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.64|||Pearson's Correlation coefficient|||||0.64|-0.35|0.49
95968946|NCT02915302|191910044|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in fever rate was \<5%.|Difference in Fever Rate|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.8|||||Fever rate: Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|Difference in fever rate was defined as the fever rate following a 0.5-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine minus the fever rate following a 0.25-mL dose of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||3.80|-2.13|
95968947|NCT02915302|191910045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H1N1)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.77|1.19|
95877513|NCT02155881|191710479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Tearing/Watering Eyes: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.27|-0.22|0.8316
95877514|NCT02155881|191710480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.25|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.25|-0.80|0.2968
95968948|NCT02915302|191910045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (A/H3N2)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.83|1.23|
95968949|NCT02915302|191910045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Victoria lineage)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.62|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.62|1.10|
95968950|NCT02915302|191910045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs was \>0.667.|GMTs Ratio (B Yamagata lineage)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.73|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, GMT ratio was defined as the GMT after 0.5 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine divided by the GMT after 0.25 mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent vaccine.||1.73|1.20|
95877515|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Activities: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.31|-0.85|0.3533
95877516|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.3712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.32|-0.84|0.3712
95877517|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Non-nose/Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.29|-0.69|0.4098
95877518|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Practical Problems: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.28|-1.00|0.2683
95877519|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Nasal Symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.38|-0.82|0.4643
95877520|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Eye symptoms: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.33|-0.74|0.4502
95877521|NCT02155881|191710481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Emotional: An ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, site and the baseline score was used to test a null hypothesis of no difference between the treatment groups against a two-sided alternative hypothesis at the 5% level of significance.||0.18|-0.95|0.1770
95877522|NCT03488355|191710496|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95877523|NCT01739361|191710512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
95877524|NCT01361568|191710515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-15.14|<0.05
95877525|NCT01361568|191710516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-420.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|139.16|<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95877526|NCT01361568|191710516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-230.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|92.26|<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95877527|NCT01361568|191710516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-260.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|141.99||0.068||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
95877528|NCT01361568|191710517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95877529|NCT01361568|191710517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.059||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
95877530|NCT01361568|191710518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.82|0.22|<0.05
95877531|NCT01361568|191710518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.11|<0.05
95877532|NCT01361568|191710519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom (df = 1)||||||0.001
95877533|NCT01361568|191710520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95877534|NCT01361568|191710521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95877535|NCT02728596|191710528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age group, comorbidity, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.||PP-CSF use in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||1.57|0.12|0.21
95877536|NCT02728596|191710528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||3.20|0.44|0.74
95877537|NCT02728596|191710528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.08|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||7.08|0.70|0.17
95877538|NCT02728596|191710528|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age, sex, and cancer type.||PP-CSF use in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||1.19|0.11|0.094
95877539|NCT02728596|191710529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for age.||FN incidence rate in the high risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||2.95|0.75|0.26
95877540|NCT02728596|191710529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|18.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||FN incidence rate in the low risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the intervention group (Arm 3 and 4 combined).||18.80|0.23|0.51
95968951|NCT02915302|191910046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H1N1)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|10.0|||||A/H1N1 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H1N1 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||10.0|0.189|
95877541|NCT02728596|191710529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the SOE for PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 3).||2.88|0.41|0.87
95877542|NCT02728596|191710529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||FN incidence rate in the intermediate risk FN group was compared between the usual care (UC) group (Arm 2) and the alert against PP-CSF intervention group (Arm 4).||3.57|0.44|0.68
95877543|NCT02728596|191710530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||1.95|0.39|0.74
95877544|NCT02728596|191710530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||||2.88|0.41|0.87
95877545|NCT02728596|191710530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for cancer type.||This is comparing the FN incidence rate in the arm randomized to alert against PP-CSF vs usual care in intermediate risk participants.||3.57|0.44|0.68
95877546|NCT00370071|191710542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||In this single arm study, the number of newly active lesions per 3 months during treatment was compared to the number of newly active lesions during 3-month pre-treatment (Alternative hypothesis: Number of lesions is reduced during treatment with Interferon beta-1b). The sample size was calculated for the use of the one-sided Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test at level 2.5% (Power of 90% - anticipating P(X\&lt;Y)=0.15 and allowing for 25% exclusion from Per Protocol Set).||||<0.0001
95877547|NCT00370071|191710543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95877548|NCT00370071|191710544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||one-sided p-value (one-sided test level 2.5%)|Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||||||0.0017
95877549|NCT00370071|191710545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|One-sided p-value from Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank-Test for comparing the baseline visit to treatment visits||Lesion volume at Week 12. 38 subjects were evaluated.||||<0.0001
95877550|NCT00370071|191710545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank test|||Lesion volume at Week 24. 37 subjects were evaluated.||||=0.0019
95877551|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.80|1.24|
95877552|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.15|0.78|
95877553|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.12|0.80|
95877554|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.76||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.76|1.19|
95877555|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.86|0.59|
95877556|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.86|1.15|
95877557|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.42||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.42|0.97|
95877558|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.13||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||2.13|1.36|
95877559|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.67||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.67|0.48|
95968952|NCT02915302|191910046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (A/H3N2)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|8.99|||||A/H3N2 strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For A/H3N2 strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||8.99|-0.283|
95968953|NCT02915302|191910046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Victoria lineage)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|5.56|||||B Victoria lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Victoria lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||5.56|-2.78|
95877560|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.89|0.53|
95877561|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.67|1.05|
95877562|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||0.76|0.53|
95877563|NCT00761631|191710566|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC Group 4 - 13vPnC Group 3).||1.28|0.91|
95877564|NCT00667875|191710577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model, Group by time (4 time blocks) with an unstructured variance/covariance matrix. Baseline drinks per day was used as a covariate.||||0.49
95877565|NCT00667875|191710578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The p value represents variation of the total 16 week trial over all three groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed as a mixed model (SPSS linear mixed) with an unstructured variance/covariance and baseline percent heavy drinking days as a covariate||||0.03
95877566|NCT00667875|191710579|SUPERIORITY|Anova across all three treatment groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Naltrexone or naltrexone placebo pills taken F=3.9 df 2 Aripiprazole or aripiprazole placebo pills taken F=4.6 df 2||||||<.05
95877567|NCT00667875|191710580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|f 3.2 df 2||Anova across three groups||||<.05
95877568|NCT00309985|191710654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||The study was designed to detect a 33.3% improvement in median survival time across treatments with one-sided type I error of 0.025 and 80% power.||||0.0003
95877569|NCT00309985|191710655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95877570|NCT00309985|191710656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95877571|NCT00309985|191710657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95877572|NCT00309985|191710658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95877573|NCT00309985|191710659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0009
95877574|NCT00309985|191710659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.40
95877575|NCT01950390|191710660|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.383|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.23||One-sided|Log Rank|Stratification factors of BRAF mutation status (wild type/mutation) and prior therapy (yes/no) were used in the stratified analysis|One-sided 90% Repeated Confidence Interval for Hazard Ratio with Arm A as Reference|||1.23||0.383
95877576|NCT01950390|191710661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.2||Two-sided|Log Rank|Stratified Log rank test||||1.20|0.61|0.358
95877577|NCT01950390|191710662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.482
95877578|NCT01950390|191710664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937||||||Two-sided|Chi-squared|||||||0.937
95877579|NCT01251861|191710665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||one-sided|Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
95968954|NCT02915302|191910046|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in SCRs was \>-10%.|Difference in SCR (B Yamagata lineage)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|7.36|||||B Yamagata lineage strain: Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine (0.5-mL vs. 0.25-mL)|For B Yamagata lineage strain, difference in SCR was defined as SCR after 0.5-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine minus SCR after 0.25-mL dose(s) of Fluzone Quadrivalent Vaccine.||7.36|-0.465|
95968955|NCT01850446|191910050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectively planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|8.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints.|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (patient diary analysis)||||<0.0001
95877580|NCT01251861|191710674|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.5||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and Gleason score (\<7, 7 vs. \>7) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.50
95877581|NCT01251861|191710675|OTHER|The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||||0.28||||||p-value based on logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment|Regression, Logistic|||The association between PSA response (responder vs non-responder) and prior hormonal therapy (yes vs. no) was evaluated by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment assignment.||||0.28
95877582|NCT03355365|191710680|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95877583|NCT03355365|191710681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95877584|NCT03355365|191710682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95877585|NCT03355365|191710683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95877586|NCT03355365|191710684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.43
95877587|NCT03355365|191710685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95877588|NCT03355365|191710686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95877589|NCT03355365|191710687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.71
95877590|NCT03355365|191710688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95877591|NCT01601132|191710717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Significant difference defined a priori as p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5663
95877592|NCT01601132|191710718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.77|110.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Cmax, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Cmax to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, (AUC0-∞), and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||110.12|101.77|
95877593|NCT01601132|191710719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|105.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.81|109.59|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-t)\], expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-t) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||109.59|101.81|
95877594|NCT01601132|191710720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|106.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|112.04|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) , expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed AUC(0-∞) to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||112.04|101.10|
95909021|NCT01212770|191776083|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.||1.3|-8.6|0.1482
95909022|NCT01212770|191776084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.0|0.5349
95909023|NCT01212770|191776084|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.8231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.9|-0.7|0.8231
95909024|NCT01212770|191776085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1|-1.7|0.0720
95909025|NCT01212770|191776085|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.5|-1.3|0.3641
95909026|NCT01212770|191776086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-2.53|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.53|-7.34|0.0001
95909027|NCT01212770|191776086|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|0.56|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.56|-4.27|0.1325
95909028|NCT01212770|191776087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.70|0.0001
95909029|NCT01212770|191776087|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.04|-0.50|0.0237
95909030|NCT01212770|191776088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.54||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.30|0.77|0.0049
95909031|NCT01212770|191776088|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|2.44|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.44|-1.09|0.4505
95877595|NCT01601132|191710721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|93.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.25|98.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed CL/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed CL/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||98.92|89.25|
95877596|NCT01601132|191710722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%) (Test/Reference)|98.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.97|106.85|||ANOVA||Ratio (theophylline+colchicine/theophylline) of LSMs calculated using the exponentiation of the difference between treatment LSM from the log-transformed Vd/F, expressed as a percentage relative to the reference treatment.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the log-transformed Vd/F to calculate least squares mean (LSM) for each treatment. The ANOVA model included sequence, treatment, and treatment within a sequence as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect. The criterion for demonstrating a lack of a clinically significant interaction is a 90% CI for the ratio for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax to be within the 0.80 to 1.25 interval, representing a maximum of 20% difference between treatments.||106.85|90.97|
95877597|NCT02110238|191710723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A VAS (0-100 mm) WOMAC Pain subscale score CFB; an equal n t-test for non-inferiority of means; a non-inferiority margin of -8 mm; change standard deviation of 26 mm; two-sided alpha=0.05; 80% power; an expected mean difference of 0, and a drop-out plus important deviation percentage of approximately 20% were used to establish study sample size.|Least square mean difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|0.17|||||"A MERM regression model was fit to the change from baseline at weeks 3, 6, and 12. The over weeks 3, 6, and 12 single point estimate least square mean change was calculated for both arms, the difference and its 95% confidence interval calculated."|||0.17|-6.77|
95877598|NCT03228433|191710732|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The least squares(LS) means and difference of least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099||||||||1.099|0.823|
95877599|NCT03228433|191710732|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), log (ln) (parameter) equal to (=) intercept plus (+) slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln(0.8) per (/)l n(r) to 1 + ln(1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25||||||||1.25|1.04|
95968956|NCT01850446|191910050|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day). Type I error (alpha) level of 0.025 was prospectievely planned for this analysis. Power of this analysis was planned to be greater than 0.8|Z-value|7.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics (physician's examination analysis)||||<0.0001
95968957|NCT01850446|191910051|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 1.2 degree\*day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.23||||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of fever was measured as area under curve (body temperature-time)|||-0.23|0.027
95968958|NCT01850446|191910052|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority magrin was prespecified as 20% of comparator duration|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.63|||t-test, 1 sided|mean survival time estimates obtained from survival analysis were compared by means of t-test with infinite degrees of freedom||||0.63||0.02
95968959|NCT01850446|191910053|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was prespecified as 20% (on each day)|Z-value|6.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Global test statistics (GTS) was constructed in accordance with O'Brien, P. (1984). Procedures for Comparing Samples with Multiple Endpoints. Biometrics, 40(4), 1079-1087. doi:10.2307/2531158|Z-test for Global test statistics|||Individual day analyses were combined into Global Test Statistics||||<0.0001
95968960|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||1.33||<0.001
95968961|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.59|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 morning)||2.59||0.013
95968962|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.084|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.66|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 morning)||2.66||0.084
95968963|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.22|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 morning)||2.2||0.22
95968964|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.04|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 morning)||1.07||0.04
95968965|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.13|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 morning)||0.98||0.13
95968966|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.135|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||severity of influenza symptoms (day1 morning)||0.74||0.135
95968967|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.67|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 evening)||2.67||0.004
95968968|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.94|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day2 evening)||2.94||0.05
95877600|NCT03228433|191710733|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence interval of 627.51 to 659.59|LS Mean Difference|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.825|1.097||||||||1.097|0.825|
95877601|NCT03228433|191710733|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.22||||||||1.22|1.00|
95877602|NCT03228433|191710734|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with a fixed effect for regimen and random effect for participant. The LS means and difference of LS means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates (Geometric LS means) of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals CIs.|LS Mean Difference|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.431|0.781||||||||0.781|0.431|
95877603|NCT03228433|191710734|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model (power model), ln (parameter) = intercept + slope\*ln (dose), was fit to describe the relationship between each parameter and the corresponding dose levels. Dose Proportionality was declared if the 90% CI of the slope lied entirely within the critical region as defined by 1 - ln (0.8)/l n(r) to 1 + ln (1.25)/ln(r), where r was the ratio of the highest and lowest dose in the study.|Slope|1.06||||||90.0|0.96|1.17||||||||1.17|0.96|
95877604|NCT01147640|191710736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95877605|NCT01147640|191710737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95877606|NCT01856907|191710738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||McNemar|||Study change from dysglycemia to normal glucose state||||.035
95877607|NCT01856907|191710739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||Subjects (SS)/ Treatment Group x repeated measures (visit) design||||0.044
95877608|NCT01856907|191710740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.034
95877609|NCT01856907|191710741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||.047
95877610|NCT01856907|191710742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.017
95877611|NCT01856907|191710743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.014
95877612|NCT01856907|191710744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.042
95877613|NCT01856907|191710745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.002
95877614|NCT01856907|191710746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
95877615|NCT01856907|191710747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni contrast test||||0.004
95877616|NCT01856907|191710748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95877617|NCT00091442|191710754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5988||95.0|0.86|1.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||Null Hypothesis: Designed to detect an improvement in median survival from 15 months to 19.5 months with 80% power.||1.3|0.86|0.5988
95877618|NCT00091442|191710755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis - no difference in response rate between the two treatment groups.||||0.0085
95877619|NCT00091442|191710756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.55|0.77|||Log Rank|||"Null hypothersis - no difference in Time to Progression (TTP) between the two treatment groups.~Designed to detect an improvement in median TTP from 6 months to 7.8 months with 80% power, assuming exponential survival distribution."||0.77|0.55|<0.0001
95877620|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.42
95909032|NCT01212770|191776089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.34||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.94|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.94|0.74|0.0043
95877621|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.32
95909033|NCT01212770|191776089|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.67||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.27|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.27|0.07|0.0404
95968969|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.447|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.08|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 evening)||3.08||0.447
95968970|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.042|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day4 evening)||1.4||0.042
95968971|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.313|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.53|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day5 evening)||1.53||0.313
95968972|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.087|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.77|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day6 evening)||0.77||0.087
95968973|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.41|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day1 physician's objective examination)||1.41||<0.001
95968974|NCT01850446|191910054|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34||||0.305|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Severity of influenza symptoms (day3 physician's objective examination)||3.11||0.305
95968975|NCT01850446|191910055|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.02|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Fever duration||0.5||0.02
95968976|NCT01850446|191910055|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.14|||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-specific symptoms duration||0.14||<0.001
95968977|NCT01850446|191910055|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% of comparator (with respect to timeframe)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.11|||t-test, 1 sided|||Nasal/ throat/ chest symptoms duration||0.11||<0.001
95968978|NCT01850446|191910056|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20% (AUC ratio supposed to be less than 1.2)|AUC ratio|1.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17||bootstrap (100000 rep) confidence limits were constructed for AUC ratio|one-sample Z-test|AUC ratio was compared with N.I. margin||Severity of influenza was measured as area under curve (symptoms score-time)||1.17|0.9|0.015
95968979|NCT01850446|191910057|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05||||0.036|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.19|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day1)||0.19||0.036
95877622|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.36
95877623|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.17||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.23
95877624|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression model with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.26
95877625|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Treatment Effect|0.007||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.95
95877626|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Burden Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.92
95877627|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.07||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physician-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.59
95877628|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.08||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Interaction Term|||Regimen-Related Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.54
95877629|NCT04041375|191710782|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Interpersonal Distress Subscale - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.05
95968980|NCT01850446|191910057|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.009|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day2)||0.15||0.009
95968981|NCT01850446|191910057|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day3)||0.13||<0.001
95877630|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.03
95877631|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.83
95968982|NCT01850446|191910057|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.13|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day4)||0.13||<0.001
95968983|NCT01850446|191910057|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.01|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage difference of Patients, Who Used Antipyretics (day5)||0.01||<0.001
95877632|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.44||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.12
95877633|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.39||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.17
95877634|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.85
95877635|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.94
95877636|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General Diet - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.47
95877637|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.08||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fruits and Vegetables) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.82
95877638|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Specific Diet (Fat) - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.66
95877639|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.25||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Activity - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
95877640|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.12||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood Glucose Testing - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
95877641|NCT04041375|191710783|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.26||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Foot Care - Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.40
95877642|NCT04041375|191710785|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.06||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.93
95877643|NCT04041375|191710785|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.63||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.38
95877644|NCT04041375|191710786|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.32||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.66
95877645|NCT04041375|191710786|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.99||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
95877646|NCT04041375|191710789|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.45||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.38
95877647|NCT04041375|191710789|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|1.64||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.68
95877648|NCT04041375|191710790|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.19||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.74
95877649|NCT04041375|191710790|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.29||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.62
95877650|NCT04041375|191710791|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.16||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.72
95877651|NCT04041375|191710791|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|-0.24||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.58
95877652|NCT04041375|191710792|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.36||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 3||||0.50
95877653|NCT04041375|191710792|SUPERIORITY|Treatment effect was modeled via multilevel linear regression with random intercepts for participants. Outcome was regressed on dummy coded categorical indicators of study arm (usual care reference), time point (baseline reference), and arm x time point interaction. Test of the arm x time interaction terms were used to assess treatment effects at months 3 and 6. Models conditioned on race, education, and income as specified a priori.|Interaction Term|0.72||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment Effect - Month 6||||0.18
95877654|NCT03072732|191710853|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.75|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 1 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.75|0.57|
95877655|NCT03072732|191710853|NON_INFERIORITY|The µ-Cor System will be considered non-inferior with respect to clinical performance (i.e., trends in fluid change) of the ZOE device if the lower 95% confidence interval of the differences (Primary Measurement) is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.35|||||"Because the distribution was skewed, the average was calculated by 1) Fisher Transformation of values, 2) averaging the transformed values, 3) back calculating the mean.~The Taylor Series expansion and Delta method was used to determine variance."|"The null hypothesis was that the correlation coefficient of the ZOE device would be greater than the correlation coefficient of the uCor device by at least 0.05.~For each subject, a correlation coefficient was calculated between study arm 2 uCor readings and UFV, as well as ZOE readings and UFV.~The difference between uCor correlation coefficient and ZOE correlation coefficient for each subject was used as the Primary Measurement."||0.35|0.12|
95877656|NCT04889222|191710855|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the INVSENSOR00050 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0.00097||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00097
95877657|NCT04889222|191710856|EQUIVALENCE|A TOST procedure using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to test the hypothesis that the median biases of the RD SET SpO2 sensor from two pigmentation subgroups (Light and Dark) were equivalent within ± 1 %SpO2. The TOST procedure provides a p-value indicating whether the two measures are equivalent if the p-value is less than 0.05.||||||0||||||The a priori threshold for p-value was 0.05.|Two One-Sided Tests (TOST)|||||||0.00000
95877658|NCT01697358|191710857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||0.036
95877659|NCT01697358|191710858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
95877660|NCT01697358|191710859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline NPRS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
95877661|NCT01697358|191710860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline ODI, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
95877662|NCT01697358|191710861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|Variables included in the linear regression model are: baseline PCS, treatment group, and virtual center.||||||< 0.001
95877663|NCT01697358|191710862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test using unpooled standard deviation|||||||< 0.001
95877664|NCT02387710|191710863|OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.5
95877665|NCT01044706|191710866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|108.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0321|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|114.44||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 55|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed AUC0-144 at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for AUC0-144 hour.||114.44|102.79|<0.05
95909034|NCT01212770|191776090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|30.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|11.5|< 0.0001
95968984|NCT01850446|191910058|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Percentage of Patients Requiring Antibiotics Administration||0.03||<0.001
95968985|NCT01850446|191910059|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.014|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.15|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day3)||0.15||0.014
95968986|NCT01850446|191910059|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.037|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day5)||0.03||0.037
95968987|NCT01850446|191910059|NON_INFERIORITY|N.I. margin was prespecified as 20%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.03|||Z test for proportions|||Proportion difference of Patients With Negative Results (day7)||0.03||<0.001
95877666|NCT01044706|191710867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference produts. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ratio of T/R geometric mean x 100|110.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0281|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.43|115.82||Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|ANOVA|degrees of freedom 56|Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean for AUCO-144 and Cmax between the test and reference product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|Using GLM procedures in SAS, ANOVA was performed on ln-transformed Cmax at the alpha level of 0.05. Factors incorporated in the model will include: Group, Treatment and Treatment\*Group. Intra-subject coefficient of variation (CV%) will be estimated. The ratio of means (T/R) and 90% geometric confidence interval for the ratio of means, based on least-squares means from the ANOVA of the ln-transformed data, will be calculated for Cmax.||115.82|105.43|<0.05
95877667|NCT02256072|191710868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.12|||ANCOVA|||H1: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased planning with regard to planning behavior score (measured via the Planning Assessment tool) one (efficacy) month after intervention.||2.12|0.37|0.0054
95877668|NCT02256072|191710869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, importance of religion, stroke, and self efficacy score) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables (current utilization of services, physical function assessment, co-morbidities, social support, health literacy, self-efficacy, and sociodemographics) with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those found to have a significant association with outcome will be included in a linear mixed model, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for outcome.||||0.0471
95877669|NCT02256072|191710870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.423|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (confidence in using the internet, self efficacy score, support score, and race/ethnicity.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.|The score is the equally-weighted sum of responses to the five questions in the CAHS instrument. Each question has a scale of 1-5, with a total possible range of 5-25. No subscores are calculated.|H2: Compared to participants in the attention control group and controlling for baseline assessments, participants receiving the PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN tool will show increased confidence in accessing home services (measured via the Confidence in Accessing Home Services tool) one (efficacy) and three (effect retention) months after intervention.||||0.423
95877670|NCT02256072|191710871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value controlled for significant baseline covariates (sex, income, health literacy, education level, high blood pressure, and kidney disease) and individual participant effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|The p-value is based on the slope estimation provided below.||Compared to participants in the attention control group, participants receiving PLAN YOUR LIFESPAN will show increased UHS 1 (efficacy) and 3 (effect retention) months post-intervention. Secondary analyses will compare baseline variables with outcome (one-at-a-time). Those with a significant association with outcome will be included in a LMM for UHS, with random effect for intercept. A backward stepwise model building process will be used to determine an overall parsimonious model for UHS.||||<0.0001
95877671|NCT00810693|191710873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Prespecified significance level for all significance tests was 5%. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew/died before 12 weeks were imputed with worst value of 0m in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with last observed value otherwise. Comparison was done using ANCOVA, with baseline 6MWD as a covariate and treatment group, region and treatment naive/add-on therapy as main effects. The primary statistical method was the stratified Wilcoxon test if the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of residuals was statistically significant||||<0.0001
95877672|NCT00810693|191710873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.06|51.51||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||51.51|20.06|<0.0001
95877673|NCT00810693|191710873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95877674|NCT00810693|191710874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
95877675|NCT00810693|191710874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-281.37|-170.08||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-170.08|-281.37|<0.0001
95877676|NCT00810693|191710874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95877677|NCT00810693|191710875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values at week 12 were imputed using the last available post-baseline observation. Same analysis method as for primary efficacy parameter.||||<0.0001
95877678|NCT00810693|191710875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-431.81||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-781.52|-82.1||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-82.10|-781.52|0.0157
95877679|NCT00810693|191710875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95877680|NCT00810693|191710876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0033||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of IV in case of clinical worsening without termination visit or measurement at that termination visit and with a worst value of V in case of death and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0033
95877681|NCT00810693|191710877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|-0.55||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Log Rank|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy|Based on Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.|"The test is for difference of occurence of Any event."||-0.55|-9.85|0.0046
95968988|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.59||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from days 3 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-2)||3.59|0.19|0.03
95968989|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.12||P-value IL2 provided for between-group comparisson of difference from day 7 to day 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-2)||3.12|-0.64|0.19
95968990|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IFN-γ)||||0.012
95968991|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IFN-γ)||||<0.0001
95968992|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-18)||||0.795
95968993|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-18)||||0.992
95968994|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-4)||0.92|0.02|0.04
95968995|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-4)||0.79|-0.04|0.08
95968996|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (IL-16)||||0.062
95968997|NCT01850446|191910060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (IL-16)||||0.638
95968998|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.065
95968999|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-α)||||0.404
95969000|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.204
95969001|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-α)||||0.386
95969002|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.592
95877682|NCT00810693|191710878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy||Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 10 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0022
95877683|NCT00810693|191710879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0663||||||Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO functional class, Time to clinical worsening, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH. Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of -0.594 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0663
95877684|NCT00810693|191710879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|0.01|0.0197
95877685|NCT00810693|191710879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95877686|NCT00810693|191710880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019||||||"Hierarchical testing for secondary efficacy parameters in the order: PVR, NT-proBNP, WHO FC, TTCW, Borg scale, EQ5D, LPH.~Primary analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test. Nominally significant only due to hierarchical testing."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test was stratified by region and therapy naive/add-on therapy.||Missing values at baseline were imputed using last available observation prior to start of study treatment. Missing values for participants who withdrew or died before 12 weeks were imputed with a worst value of 105 in case of death or clinical worsening without termination visit and with the last observed value otherwise.||||0.0019
95877687|NCT00810693|191710880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.54||Additional analysis due to result of Shapiro-Wilk test.|ANCOVA|||||-2.54|-9.79|0.0009
95877688|NCT00810693|191710880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||Shapiro-Wilk|||Shapiro-Wilk test for normality of ANCOVA residuals.||||0.0001
95877689|NCT01848704|191710896|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|0.07|0.03
95877690|NCT01848704|191710897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-1.13|0.03
95877691|NCT01848704|191710898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.95|0.18
95877692|NCT01848704|191710899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.47|0.08|0.029
95877693|NCT01848704|191710900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.03|0.061
95877694|NCT01498978|191710905|OTHER|Exact binomial test (two-sided).||||||0.754|||||||Exact Binomial Test|||Exact binomial test (two-sided). Null hypothesis: the proportion is equal to 0.5||||0.754
95877695|NCT01498978|191710906|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.190
95877696|NCT01498978|191710909|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
95877697|NCT01498978|191710910|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95877698|NCT01498978|191710911|OTHER|Test of association (contingency) between the two kinds of classification.||||||0.524|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.524
95877699|NCT01892865|191710956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.6||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|44.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in predictive imprecision for the end of the operative day between the two arms||44|3.15|0.024
95877700|NCT01892865|191710956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson regression|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in throughput between the two arms||1.34|1.01|0.04
95877701|NCT01892865|191710957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.34|||Poisson Regression|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in throughput between the two scheduling methods||1.34|1.01|0.04
95877702|NCT01892865|191710958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There would be no difference in personnel satisfaction between the groups||||0.04
95877703|NCT01892865|191710959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the adverse event rates between the two scheduling methodologies||||0.44
95877704|NCT00144391|191710961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95909035|NCT01212770|191776090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.0|-0.5|0.0661
95877705|NCT03572972|191710975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.707||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of hazard ratio (HR) at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.707|0.541|
95877706|NCT03572972|191710975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.604|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.687||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.687|0.530|
95877707|NCT03572972|191710975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.884|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.884|0.563|
95877708|NCT03572972|191710976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.134||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.134|0.870|
95877709|NCT03572972|191710976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.073||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.073|0.839|
95877710|NCT03572972|191710976|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.082||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.082|0.854|
95877711|NCT03572972|191710977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.664||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.664|0.512|
95909036|NCT01212770|191776091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.7|3.8|0.0099
95877712|NCT03572972|191710977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.754|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|0.953|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.953|0.597|
95877713|NCT03572972|191710977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.04|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.040|0.685|
95877714|NCT03572972|191710978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|0.985||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.985|0.761|
95877715|NCT03572972|191710978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|0.862||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.862|0.684|
95877716|NCT03572972|191710978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.975||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.975|0.786|
95877717|NCT03572972|191710979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.964||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.964|0.470|
95877718|NCT03572972|191710979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.491|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.337|
95877719|NCT03572972|191710979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.018||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.018|0.548|
95877720|NCT03572972|191710980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.463|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.998|2.145||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||2.145|0.998|
95877721|NCT03572972|191710980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.225||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.225|0.647|
95969003|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Spontaneous IFN-γ)||||0.356
95969004|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (Induced IFN-γ)||||0.475
95969005|NCT01850446|191910061|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (Induced IFN-γ)||||>0.99
95969006|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (leukocytes)||||0.364
95969007|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (leukocytes)||||0.07
95969008|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day1 to day 3 (neutrophils)||||0.607
95969009|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (neutrophils)||||0.028
95877722|NCT03572972|191710980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|0.888||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.888|0.447|
95877723|NCT03572972|191710981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.738||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.738|0.556|
95877724|NCT03572972|191710981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.715||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.715|0.544|
95877725|NCT03572972|191710981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|0.954|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.954|0.588|
95877726|NCT03572972|191710982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.122||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.122|0.850|
95877727|NCT03572972|191710982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.1||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.100|0.848|
95877728|NCT03572972|191710982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|1.125||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.125|0.877|
95877729|NCT03572972|191710983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.523||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.523|0.119|
95877730|NCT03572972|191710983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.711||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.711|0.203|
95877731|NCT03572972|191710983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|0.722||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.722|0.247|
95969010|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (lymphocytes)||||0.759
95969011|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.777
95969012|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (monocytes)||||0.02
95969013|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (lymphocytes)||||0.343
95969014|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (eosinophils)||||0.575
95969015|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (eosinophils)||||0.912
95969016|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (basophils)||||0.242
95877732|NCT03572972|191710984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|1.615||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.615|0.343|
95877733|NCT03572972|191710984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|1.402||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.402|0.342|
95877734|NCT03572972|191710984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.747||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.747|0.498|
95877735|NCT03572972|191710985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.731||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.731|0.492|
95877736|NCT03572972|191710985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.522|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.522|0.719|
95877737|NCT03572972|191710985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.295|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.824|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.824|0.920|
95877738|NCT03572972|191710986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.91||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.91|0.62|
95969017|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (basophils)||||0.102
95969018|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+)||||0.429
95969019|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.783|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+)||||0.783
95969020|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.466
95969021|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD4+)||||0.945
95969022|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.335
95969023|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD8+)||||0.66
95969024|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.01
95877739|NCT03572972|191710986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.83||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.830|0.586|
95877740|NCT03572972|191710986|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.094||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.094|0.801|
95877741|NCT03572972|191710987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.658|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.658|0.212|
95877742|NCT03572972|191710987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.737||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.737|0.392|
95877743|NCT03572972|191710987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.87||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.870|0.507|
95877744|NCT03572972|191710988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.871|1.666||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.666|0.871|
95877745|NCT03572972|191710988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|1.218||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.218|0.691|
95877746|NCT03572972|191710988|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.578|1.027||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.027|0.578|
95969025|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.573
95969026|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.472
95969027|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.69
95969028|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.727
95969029|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3-CD8+)||||0.554
95969030|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.837
95969031|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD19+CD3-)||||0.967
95969032|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.473
95969033|NCT01850446|191910062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.736|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (CD3+CD119+)||||0.736
95969034|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.282
95969035|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of neutrophils)||||0.071
95969036|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.45
95969037|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of lymphocytes)||||0.58
95969038|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of monocytes)||||0.017
95969039|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of monocytes)||||0.019
95969040|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.424|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.424
95969041|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of eosinophils)||||0.666
95877747|NCT03572972|191710989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|0.701||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.701|0.481|
95877748|NCT03572972|191710989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.766||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.766|0.534|
95877749|NCT03572972|191710989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.13|||||HR evaluated using extended Cox model.|Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.130|0.622|
95877750|NCT03572972|191710990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.061||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.061|0.732|
95877751|NCT03572972|191710990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|0.947||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||0.947|0.678|
95877752|NCT03572972|191710990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.032||||||Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare event rates between the treatment groups. To check the proportional hazards assumption, the graphical methods and statistical tests using the time-dependent covariate were used. If there were evidence of violation in the proportional hazards assumption in graphical methods, the statistical tests were used and if the evidence of assumption violation still existed, the value of HR at year 1 as an extended Cox model was used.||1.032|0.754|
95877753|NCT00531934|191711048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.175
95877754|NCT00531934|191711051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3 intensity skin rash (folliculitis)||||<0.001
95877755|NCT00531934|191711057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|1.109|||Log Rank|||||1.109|0.525|0.143
95877756|NCT00531934|191711060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.769||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.529|0.153
95877757|NCT00531934|191711066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Erlotinib + doxycycline vs Erlotinib: Grade 3||||0.003
95877758|NCT04092582|191711171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.55|0.6835
95877759|NCT04092582|191711172|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.0989||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5925|2.0381|||Poisson regression|||||2.0381|0.5925|0.7648
95877760|NCT04092582|191711173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.43|0.5248
95877761|NCT04092582|191711174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.125|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.1250
95877762|NCT04092582|191711175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2249|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.2249
95877763|NCT04092582|191711176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9693|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9693
95877764|NCT04092582|191711177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9855|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||0.9855
95877765|NCT02478372|191711237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at \<0.01|Chi-squared|||||||0.332
95877766|NCT00116428|191711246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The study null hypothesis is that the chronic success rates for the THERMOCOOL and AAD groups are equal.||||<0.001
95877767|NCT01032174|191711251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95877768|NCT01032174|191711252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Least Square Mean|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.15||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contained terms for treatment, gender, age and Body Mass Index (BMI).|ANCOVA|Least square mean was adjusted for gender, age and BMI.||||2.15|-0.03|0.0568
95877769|NCT01032174|191711253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|||||The logistic regression model contained terms for treatment, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0682
95877770|NCT02572609|191711317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the Cmax will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|113.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.24||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.48|121.1|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||121.10|106.48|0.0082
95877771|NCT02572609|191711318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence in the AUC0-t will be concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the test/reference ratio of the least squares means is fully contained within the acceptance range, 80.00% - 125.00%.|T/R Ratio|119.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.65|124.79|||Anderson-Hauck procedure||Standard Deviation is actually the Coefficient of variation intra subject (CVintra).|||124.79|114.65|0.0438
95877772|NCT02345226|191711345|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 400 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 95% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and EFV/FTC/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-5.9|1.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the EFV/FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the EFV/FTC/TDF group.||1.8|-5.9|
95877773|NCT02345226|191711345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
95877774|NCT00910273|191711393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|8.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null Hypothesis: No difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Alternative Hypothesis: Difference in Change in FMD at 12 weeks for Etanercept and placebo.~Sample size of 36 subjects per treatment arm was planned based on an expected difference of 0.9 in FMD (Standard Deviation \[SD\] 1.5), with 80% power and 5% significance level."||8.58|-5.14|0.608
95877775|NCT00910273|191711394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analyses available for Week 4 only, due to limited number of participants for Week 24 to Week 52.|Week 4||7.00|-3.35|0.476
95877776|NCT00910273|191711395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.13|-0.08|0.650
95877777|NCT00910273|191711395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Common Bulb; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.07|-0.13|0.513
95877778|NCT00910273|191711395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 12; Internal Carotid Artery; Due to limited number of participants with visits after Week 12 analysis limited to Week 12||0.08|-0.14|0.592
95877779|NCT00910273|191711400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.50|-3.05|0.008
95877780|NCT00910273|191711400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.33|-3.70|0.021
95877781|NCT00910273|191711408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.40|-1.74|0.003
95877782|NCT00910273|191711408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.10|-1.72|0.029
95877783|NCT00910273|191711414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||-0.05|-2.13|0.041
95877784|NCT00910273|191711414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||-0.01|-2.55|0.048
95877785|NCT00910273|191711415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 4||1.57|-0.89|0.575
95877786|NCT00910273|191711415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference (Etanercept-Placebo)|Week 12||2.30|-0.52|0.204
95877787|NCT01033851|191711417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0366||95.0|||||ANOVA|||A repeated measure ANOVA, with time as the repeated measure, treatment arm as between-subjects factor and CGI-S score as the dependent variable, found a main effect of time (F(1,84)=62.19, p\<0.001) and a significant treatment arm X time interaction (F(1,84)=4.51, p=0.0366).||||0.0366
95969042|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of basophils)||||0.268
95969043|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of basophils)||||0.031
95969044|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+)||||0.361
95969045|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+)||||0.699
95969046|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||0.418
95969047|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD4+)||||>0.99
95969048|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.172
95969049|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD8+)||||0.904
95969050|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.148
95877788|NCT01011738|191711453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.349||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.542|7.271||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||7.271|1.542|0.0022
95877789|NCT01011738|191711453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.595||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.603|8.063||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Log10-drop HBsAg at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||8.063|1.603|0.0019
95969051|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3+CD16+CD56+)||||0.821
95969052|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||0.31
95969053|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD16+CD56+)||||>0.99
95969054|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.43
95969055|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD3-CD8+)||||0.821
95969056|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 3 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.943
95969057|NCT01850446|191910063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||difference between changes from day 1 to day 7 (RC of CD19+CD3-)||||0.841
95969058|NCT00591721|191910064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.47|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|10.41|||t-test, 2 sided|Each baseline subscale score was subtracted from 7 week subscale score; t-tests assessed mean individual differences between groups.||Hypothesis: Individuals who participate in the program will report significantly reduced fatigue impact immediately post-intervention compared to individuals allocated to the wait-list control group.||10.41|-15.47|<0.05
95969059|NCT00037830|191910083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase I was that at week 24, there is no difference between UPDRS motor scores in placebo vs. GM1-treated subjects.||||<0.0001
95877790|NCT01011738|191711453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.851||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.99||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg positive participants, Weight in kg was analyzed as independent predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.990|0.732|0.0369
95877791|NCT01011738|191711457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.155||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.539||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||0.539|0.045|0.0033
95877792|NCT01011738|191711457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.191||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.594|||Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, HBsAg in log10 IU/mL at Week 24 was analyzed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis B.||0.594|0.062|0.0042
95877793|NCT01011738|191711457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.528||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.15||Multiple logistic regression were run in stepwise procedure with significance level of 0.05 to stay, considering all pre and on-treatment factors identified by univariate logistic regression to be associated with HBsAg clearance 3 yrs post-treatment.|Wald-Chi-Square test|||In HBeAg negative participants, ALT ratio was analysed as the predictor factor of HBsAg clearance at 3 years post-treatment in analysis A.||2.150|1.086|0.0149
95877794|NCT01903031|191711468|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
95877795|NCT01903031|191711468|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Etonogestrel on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||<0.001
95877796|NCT01903031|191711469|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with EFV plus ≥2 NRTIs.||||<0.001
95877797|NCT01903031|191711469|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Statistical significance was declared if p\<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in concentrations of Ethinyl Estradiol on day 21 between the control arm (NuvaRing and no ART) and NuvaRing with ATV/r plus TDF and ≥1 NRTIs.||||0.004
95877798|NCT03841448|191711493|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-37.367||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.951|0.46|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||0.460|-60.951|0.1032
95877799|NCT03841448|191711494|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-36.167||||0.1432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.552|5.978|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS mean difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||5.978|-61.552|0.1432
95877800|NCT03841448|191711495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|21.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||21.27|0.43|0.1177
95877801|NCT03841448|191711495|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
95877802|NCT03841448|191711496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|20.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline 24-hour UP (≥1.0 g and \<2 g/day versus ≥2.0 g/day).|Odds ratio was estimated with logit method using a correction of 0.5 in every cell of the 2x2 table that contains a zero.|||20.34|0.45|0.1533
95877803|NCT03841448|191711496|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.42|||||Difference in proportions (cemdisiran - placebo) (90% CI) was based on the Wilson score method with continuity correction.|||0.42|-0.13|
95877804|NCT03841448|191711497|SUPERIORITY||Placebo-adjusted GM Percent Change|-45.771||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.093|-26.309|||MMRM||Placebo-adjusted GM percent change, 90% CIs were calculated by exponentially back-transforming the model based LS means difference (cemdisiran - placebo) and the corresponding 90% CI then subtracting by 1.|||-26.309|-60.093|0.0021
95877805|NCT01163266|191711506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.08||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with the estimated P-values at the 5% level of significance. To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 20 mg vortioxetine to placebo. Efficacy endpoints were tested for each dose in sequential order at significance level 0.025; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.025, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.08|-4.45|0.058
95969060|NCT00037830|191910084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis for Phase II is that long-term use of GM1 does not affect the progression of PD symptoms and that there is no benefit to early start of GM1 use.||||0.0368
95969061|NCT00037830|191910085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1903|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.1903
95969062|NCT00037830|191910085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0063
95877806|NCT01163266|191711506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.35||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.025, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-1.35|-5.92|0.002
95877807|NCT01163266|191711507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|2.093|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.093|0.796|0.301
95877808|NCT01163266|191711507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.639||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.013|2.652||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.025, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||2.652|1.013|0.044
95877809|NCT01163266|191711508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.05|-0.45|0.119
95877810|NCT01163266|191711508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline CGI-S score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.04|-0.55|0.024
95877811|NCT01163266|191711509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.891||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-0.56|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS Total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.56|-8.03|0.025
95877812|NCT01163266|191711509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.852|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|-3.6|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline MADRS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-3.60|-10.92|<0.001
95877813|NCT01163266|191711510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.665||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|3.018|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.018|0.918|0.093
95877814|NCT01163266|191711510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.779||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline MADRS score.||||3.233|0.979|0.059
95877815|NCT01163266|191711511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.042||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||0.66|-3.44|0.183
95877816|NCT01163266|191711511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measurements|MMRM ANCOVA with treatment, center, week, treatment-by-week interaction, baseline SDS total score-by-week as fixed effects.||||-0.30|-4.50|0.025
95877817|NCT03181893|191711512|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.26|-9.37|||LANCOVA-P model|||||-9.37|-20.26|<0.0001
95877818|NCT03181893|191711529|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.274||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|28.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 4||28.77|-7.10|0.1537
95877819|NCT03181893|191711529|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.761||0.1312|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|31.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 8||31.29|-6.29|0.1312
95969063|NCT00037830|191910086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502|||||||estimate of slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0502
95877820|NCT03181893|191711529|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|19.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.161||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.79|40.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference of the active treatment from Placebo at Week 12||40.68|-1.79|0.0647
95877821|NCT04010695|191711662|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||K-sample test|The p-value was calculated using a nonparametric k-sample test on the equality of medians.||Comparison of SD Biosensor POC G6PD test results for capillary and venous samples||||<0.001
95969064|NCT00037830|191910086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||estimate slope of change over time|random intercept model and a variance components covariance structure||||||0.0003
95877822|NCT02925117|191711674|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-36.3|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-36.3|-66.5|< 0.001
95877823|NCT02925117|191711674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-23.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-23.6|-53.7|<0.001
95969065|NCT00037830|191910087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95969066|NCT00037830|191910088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1310
95969067|NCT00037830|191910089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis was paired sample t-test on change from baseline.||||<0.05
95969068|NCT00037830|191910090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95969069|NCT00037830|191910091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95969070|NCT00037830|191910092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95969071|NCT03651622|191910093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.98
95969072|NCT03651622|191910094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
95969073|NCT03651622|191910095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.40
95969074|NCT03651622|191910096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95969075|NCT03651622|191910097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.38
95969076|NCT03651622|191910098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
95969077|NCT03651622|191910099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.79
95969078|NCT03651622|191910100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||The proposed sample size of n=72 was sufficient to ensure 60% power to detect a moderate effect size (Cohen h=0.68) and 80% to detect a large effect size (Cohen h=0.85) at a significance level of 0.10 for comparing difference in change among the 3 diets. By design, our primary goal for this pilot work is to inform the final efficacy design of a fully powered SMART, and the pilot SMART was therefore not designed to be fully powered for all analyses.||||0.39
95969079|NCT03651622|191910101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
95969080|NCT03651622|191910102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95969081|NCT03651622|191910103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.96
95969082|NCT03651622|191910104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.34
95969083|NCT03651622|191910105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
95969084|NCT03651622|191910106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
95969085|NCT03651622|191910107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95969086|NCT01417104|191910119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.16|||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|9.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.47|0.85|<0.031
95969087|NCT01417104|191910120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.36|0.44|0.041
95969088|NCT01489891|191910149|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Beta 0.1; Alpha 0.05|Median Difference (Final Values)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95969089|NCT02045875|191910166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Effect of interaction of time and treatment group|ANOVA|||||||0.046
95969090|NCT02045875|191910167|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.508|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||correlation of asthma control and adherence|||||
95969091|NCT02729831|191910191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|12.0|||Regression, Linear|||The comparison groups were: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid.||12|6|<0.001
95969092|NCT02729831|191910192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups were: MD Usual Care vs. MD Provider report.||1.44|0.74|0.86
95969093|NCT02729831|191910192|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|General Estimating Equations accounted for clustering of patients within surgeons and controlling for baseline EQ-5D, BMI, joint and education.||We tested for interaction effects. Comparison groups are: Interactive decision versus Video decision aid||1.47|0.76|0.75
95969094|NCT02729831|191910193|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|24.5|||Chi-squared|Compared patients who reported using all of the DA compared to everyone else.||Comparison groups were: patients who reported using all of the DA versus everyone else.||24.5|12.8|<0.001
95877824|NCT02925117|191711674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-1.4|-31.4|0.032
95877825|NCT02925117|191711675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|58.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|74.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||74.8|42.5|< 0.001
95877826|NCT02925117|191711675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|42.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|59.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||59.6|25.5|<0.001
95877827|NCT02925117|191711675|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|34.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.7|2.7|0.022
95877828|NCT02925117|191711676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|62.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||62.7|31.1|<0.001
95877829|NCT02925117|191711676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||43.4|13.8|<0.001
95877830|NCT02925117|191711676|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||23.5|0.3|0.044
95877831|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-46.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-46.3|-72.3|<0.001
95877832|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-34.3|-61.1|<0.001
95877833|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-17.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 2||-17.8|-44.3|<0.001
95877834|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-48.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-48.9|-83.9|<0.001
95877835|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-20.4|-56.4|<0.001
95877836|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.96||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-11.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 8||-11.2|-46.6|0.002
95877837|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.6|-39.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-39.9|-78.6|<0.001
95877838|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-18.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-18.4|-58.3|<0.001
95877839|NCT02925117|191711677|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-10.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in Pruritus NRS at Week 16||-10.3|-49.4|0.003
95877840|NCT02925117|191711678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-50.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-50.5|-80.0|<0.001
95877841|NCT02925117|191711678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-33.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-33.3|-62.6|<0.001
95877842|NCT02925117|191711678|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-11.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-11.5|-40.8|<0.001
95877843|NCT02925117|191711679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-58.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-44.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-44.9|-71.7|<0.001
95877844|NCT02925117|191711679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-23.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-23.4|-50.8|<0.001
95877845|NCT02925117|191711679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.9|-15.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 8||-15.0|-41.9|<0.001
95877846|NCT02925117|191711679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-34.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-34.3|-61.7|<0.001
95969095|NCT02729831|191910194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.065|||Regression, Linear|Generalized Estimating Equation accounting for clustering within surgeons. Model included treatment, sex, age, education, site and joint.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered decision yes vs. no.||0.065|0.016|<0.001
95969096|NCT02729831|191910195|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|40.1|||Regression, Logistic|General estimating equations were used to account for clustering of patients within surgeons.||We included all 4 study groups, but the comparison group was: informed, patient centered (IPC) decision yes vs. no. We excluded those who did not provide information to calculate the IPC variable.||40.1|16.5|<0.001
95969097|NCT00864253|191910196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.792||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.631|0.992||An interim safety review was performed by DMC. An alpha spending function was utilized to preserve the overall Type 1 error at 0.050. The spending function allocated alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 to the interim and final analyses of PFS, respectively.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||Two hundred fifty-seven (257) patients were to be randomized to each treatment group for a total of 514 patients. This sample size was chosen to provide at least 80% power for the final analysis (with a two-sided type I error of 0.049) to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI 007/dacarbazine hazard ratio (HR) for PFS is equal to 1.0. This sample size calculation was based on estimates of HR = 0.750. Proportional hazards were assumed.||0.992|0.631|0.044
95969098|NCT00864253|191910197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.578|1.196||At the time of the final PFS analysis, an interim analysis of survival was reported. The spending function allocated an alpha of 0.001 and 0.049 for the interim and final analysis, respectively, to preserve the overall Type I error at 0.050.|Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||For the participant survival, at the time at least 417 events are recorded, this sample size provides at least 80% power with a two-sided Type 1 error of 0.049 to reject the null hypothesis that the ABI-007/dacarbazine hazard ratio is equal to 1.0. This was based on a HR = 0.760. Proportional hazards were assumed.||1.196|0.578|0.094
95969099|NCT00864253|191910198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.025|||Log Rank|The treatment difference was tested using the stratified log-rank test, stratified by metastatic stage, region, and baseline LDH.||||1.025|0.696|0.086
95969100|NCT00864253|191910199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.305||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|2.035|||Chi-squared|||||2.035|0.837|0.239
95969101|NCT00864253|191910200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.442||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.123|1.582|||Chi-squared|||||1.582|1.123|0.004
95969102|NCT00864253|191910201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.201||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|5.053|||Log Rank|||||5.053|0.959|0.057
95969103|NCT05745701|191910209|OTHER||test/reference ratios|195.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.13|236.71||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without cyclosporine (Reference) or coadministered with cyclosporine (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||236.71|162.13|
95969104|NCT05745701|191910209|OTHER||test/reference ratios|282.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|258.81|307.55||||||Natural loge transformed Cmax of PF-07081532 administered without itraconazole (Reference) or coadministered with itraconazole (Test) were analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test/Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs was obtained from the models. The ratios (and 90% CIs) were expressed as percentages.||307.55|258.81|
95969105|NCT01747551|191910222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
95969106|NCT05014568|191910275|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|H0: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is equal between tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream; H1: The proportion of subjects who achieve a vIGA-AD score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and at least a 2-grade reduction from Baseline at Week 8 is different between the tapinarof cream, 1% and vehicle cream.||4.09|1.66|<0.0001
95969107|NCT05014568|191910276|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|2.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by vIGA-AD score at Baseline (vIGA-AD scores of 3 or 4) and age group (2-6 yrs, 7-11 yrs, 12-17 yrs, 18+ yrs)|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||3.00|1.57|<0.0001
95969108|NCT05014568|191910277|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-4.66|||ANCOVA|age\*vIGA cohort and treatment as categorical covariates, and baseline %BSA as a continuous covariate||||-4.66|-7.69|<0.0001
95877847|NCT02925117|191711679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-20.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-20.5|-48.5|<0.001
95877848|NCT02925117|191711679|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-6.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||Analysis of Percent Change from Baseline in SCORAD at Week 16||-6.4|-33.9|0.004
95877849|NCT02925117|191711680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|72.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|87.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||87.1|58.3|<0.001
95877850|NCT02925117|191711680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|61.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||61.9|27.9|<0.001
95877851|NCT02925117|191711680|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|39.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||39.4|7.5|0.004
95877852|NCT02925117|191711681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|85.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||85.2|56.2|<0.001
95877853|NCT02925117|191711681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|49.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|67.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||67.3|30.8|<0.001
95877854|NCT02925117|191711681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|13.4|<0.001
95877855|NCT02925117|191711681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|60.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|75.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||75.9|45.3|<0.001
95877856|NCT02925117|191711681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|48.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||65.9|31.3|<0.001
95877857|NCT02925117|191711681|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|28.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|46.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 50 Response at Week 16||46.6|9.8|0.003
95877858|NCT02925117|191711682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|43.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||58.5|29.1|<0.001
95877859|NCT02925117|191711682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|39.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||39.6|12.6|<0.001
95877860|NCT02925117|191711682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 8||18.8|-0.0|0.051
95877861|NCT02925117|191711682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|46.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||62.4|31.3|<0.001
95877862|NCT02925117|191711682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|38.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||38.1|9.6|0.001
95877863|NCT02925117|191711682|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.8||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of EASI 90 Response at Week 16||23.6|0.1|0.049
95877864|NCT02925117|191711683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|68.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||82.8|54.0|<0.001
95877865|NCT02925117|191711683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|52.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||52.2|18.5|<0.001
95877866|NCT02925117|191711683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|25.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 8||41.7|9.6|0.002
95877867|NCT02925117|191711683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|54.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|69.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||69.9|39.0|<0.001
95877868|NCT02925117|191711683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|52.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||52.5|19.1|<0.001
95877869|NCT02925117|191711683|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 50 Response at Week 16||36.8|5.7|0.008
95877870|NCT02925117|191711684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||44.6|16.2|<0.001
95877871|NCT02925117|191711684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|18.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.9|-0.1|0.052
95877872|NCT02925117|191711684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 8||18.5|0.1|0.048
95877873|NCT02925117|191711684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||53.3|22.2|<0.001
95877874|NCT02925117|191711684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||32.5|5.6|0.006
95877875|NCT02925117|191711684|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 75 Response at Week 16||10.8|-6.0|0.581
95877876|NCT02925117|191711685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|14.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||25.2|3.2|0.012
95877877|NCT02925117|191711685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||8.0|-3.4|0.428
95877878|NCT02925117|191711685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.6||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 8||11.8|-2.5|0.206
95877879|NCT02925117|191711685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|36.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||36.2|10.4|<0.001
95877880|NCT02925117|191711685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||18.8|0.1|0.048
95877881|NCT02925117|191711685|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.4||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||Analysis of SCORAD 90 Response at Week 16||8.1|-3.4|0.426
95877882|NCT02925117|191711691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-18.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-18.1|-34.9|<0.001
95877883|NCT02925117|191711691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-14.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||-14.6|-31.4|<0.001
95877884|NCT02925117|191711691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with stratum (geographic region), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||||0.8|-16.0|0.075
95877885|NCT02925117|191711692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|47.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|65.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||65.2|29.6|<0.001
95877886|NCT02925117|191711692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|71.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||71.3|35.5|<0.001
95877887|NCT02925117|191711692|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|18.6||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratum (geographic region).||||34.3|2.8|0.021
95877888|NCT00502944|191711713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|32.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test completed among patients randomized||32|27|<0.001
95877889|NCT00502944|191711714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|47.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test offered||47|42|<0.001
95877890|NCT00502944|191711715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference (%)|-4.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||HIV test accepted among patients offered||-1|-8|0.02
95877891|NCT00310401|191711717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Paired T Test|||Paired T Test was used to compare the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio from enrollment to procurement between albuterol and saline treated donors||||0.98
95877892|NCT00319501|191711723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.88||p-value is adjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Cox Proportional Hazard||Age adjusted|Null hypothesis||0.88|0.34|0.012
95877893|NCT00319501|191711725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.066
95877894|NCT00319501|191711726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.443
95877895|NCT00319501|191711727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95877896|NCT00319501|191711728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.75||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.61||p-Value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA=analysis of variance.|Model included treatment and age category.|||1.61|-0.11|0.086
95877897|NCT00319501|191711729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.79||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.56||p-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha=0.05.|ANOVA||Model included treatment and age category.|||1.56|0.02|0.045
95877898|NCT00594659|191711746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||accelerated bootstrapping|||Pairwise comparison; non-parametric tests performed because of non-normal distribution||||<0.05
95877899|NCT00594659|191711746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||pairwise comparison; non-parametric analysis||||< .05
95877900|NCT00594659|191711746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||accelerated bootstrapping|||nonparametric pairwise comparison; non-normal distribution||||> 0.05
95877901|NCT00594659|191711747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||piecewise mixed model with logit link an|Performed across all assessments.|Slope and p-value above are for group 1: baseline to ETX. Group 3 vs. Group 1 baseline to ETX slope, p \< 0.05. All other pairwise comparisons p \> 0.05.|pairwise comparisons among groups across 4 follow-up timepoints||||< 0.05
95877902|NCT02612129|191711755|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-0.03|||GLMM for Repeated Measures|||A general linear mixed model (GLMM) for repeated measurements was used for the analysis of NPC disease severity assessed based on the 5-domain NPCCSS scores at Month 12. The general linear mixed model analysis for repeated measures was fitted with treatment, miglustat level and visit as fixed effects including treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate.||-0.03|-2.76|0.0456
95877903|NCT02612129|191711756|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||1.0000
95877904|NCT02612129|191711757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Chi-squared Test|||||||0.5456
95877905|NCT02612129|191711758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Log-Rank Test|||Log-rank test had been stratified by miglustat use.||||0.8021
95877906|NCT02612129|191711759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3662|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 6||||0.3662
95877907|NCT02612129|191711759|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Percentage of participants worsening at Month 12||||1.0000
95877908|NCT02612129|191711760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.69||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 6 was analyzed using the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||0.66|-4.04|0.1546
95877909|NCT02612129|191711760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61||||0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in 17-Domain NPCCSS Apart from Hearing Domains (i.e. Hearing and Auditory Brainstem Response) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model is fitted with treatment, baseline full-scale NPCCSS apart from hearing domains score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||1.01|-4.24|0.2199
95877910|NCT02612129|191711761|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.11||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline 5-domain NPCCSS score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||-0.19|-2.03|0.0188
95877911|NCT02612129|191711763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 6 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||0.08|-10.26|0.0536
95877912|NCT02612129|191711763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.85|||ANCOVA|||"Change from baseline in the NPC-CDB score (modified Stampfer Score) at Month 12 was analyzed using the ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline NPC-CDB total score and use of miglustat as covariates."||3.85|-9.90|0.3785
95877913|NCT02612129|191711764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.6951
95877914|NCT02612129|191711764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7542|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 6 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.7542
95877915|NCT02612129|191711764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Better'||||0.4880
95877916|NCT02612129|191711764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1804|||||||Chi-squared Test|||Percentage of participants with change from baseline at Month 12 in Quality of Life (EQ-5D-Y) being 'Worse'||||0.1804
95877917|NCT02612129|191711765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score, and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.40|-0.92|0.3710
95877918|NCT02612129|191711765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28||||0.7899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.37|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in the SARA score at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model was fitted with treatment, baseline SARA score and use of miglustat as covariates.||2.37|-1.82|0.7899
95877919|NCT02612129|191711766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.34||||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.01|32.33|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||32.33|-53.01|0.6195
95877920|NCT02612129|191711766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.87||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.73|29.0|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 6 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||29.00|-60.73|0.4693
95877921|NCT02612129|191711766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2||||0.7283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|22.12|||ANCOVA|||Dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||22.12|-15.71|0.7283
95877922|NCT02612129|191711766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.91||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.54|35.72|||ANCOVA|||Non-dominant Hand: Change From Baseline in the Nine-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) at Month 12 was measured using an ANCOVA model: ANCOVA models were fitted with treatment, baseline dominant/non-dominant hand 9HPT time (secs), and use of miglustat as covariates||35.72|-47.54|0.7708
95877923|NCT03401489|191711782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.72||Significance threshold was α=0.05, two-sided. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized linear mixed models were also run for sensitivity analyses, adjusting for baseline SBP, site, and race.|Difference defined as Control minus PACESETTER at 12 months (SBP \<130 mmHg); odds ratio \<1 favors the PACESETTER arm.|Comparison between PACESETTER and control arms at 12 months for proportion of participants with SBP \<130 mmHg using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with logit link. Model included baseline SBP, site, and race as covariates.||2.72|.36|0.822
95877924|NCT03401489|191711783|OTHER|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare systolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|12.1||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Positive values favor the control arm.|||12.1|-7.3|0.623
95877925|NCT03401489|191711784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|6.0||Two-sided α=0.05; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Negative values favor the PACESETTER arm.|Longitudinal mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling (MMRM) was used to compare diastolic BP over time, adjusting for baseline BP, site, and race.||6.0|-7.8|0.614
95877926|NCT00216476|191711842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis was that there is no difference in treatment effect between risperidone LAI and quetiapine by mean relapse free period; given a estimated relapse rate of 30% for risperidone LAI and 42% for quetiapine, with 80% power and 5% 2-tailed significance level, 251 subjects were needed per treatment arm. To adjust for an estimated 20% discontinuations for reasons other than relapse, 628 subjects in total were needed. Actual relapse rates were 17% (risperidone LAI) and 31% (quetiapine).||||<0.0001
95877927|NCT00216476|191711844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) principle, i.e., it was defined as the last available visit during the study with non-missing data for a parameter (excluding the baseline value).||||<0.0001
95877928|NCT00216476|191711844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
95877929|NCT00216476|191711844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in total PANSS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1026
95877930|NCT00216476|191711845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
95877931|NCT00216476|191711845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
95877932|NCT00216476|191711845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in CGI-S score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0446
95877933|NCT00216476|191711846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.0941
95877934|NCT00216476|191711846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
95877935|NCT00216476|191711846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in PCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.1146
95969109|NCT05014568|191910278|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||7.09|1.98|<0.0001
95969110|NCT05014568|191910279|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.54||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Baseline vIGA-AD Score and Age Group|Adjusted logit-based estimate of the common relative risk of success (Tapinarof Cream 1%/Vehicle Cream) over all strata. Multiple imputation p-value is for null hypothesis that the log (Relative Risk) equals 0.|||2.31|1.03|0.0366
95877936|NCT00216476|191711846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5589|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||0.5589
95877937|NCT00216476|191711846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
95877938|NCT00216476|191711846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The statistical test was interpreted at the 5% significance level.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Within-group comparison of the change from baseline to endpoint in MCS score. The endpoint of the study was based on the LOCF principle.||||<0.0001
95877939|NCT01952145|191711847|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of IDegLira versus IGlar was considered as confirmed, if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean treatment difference was entirely below 0.30%.|Treatment contrast|-0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||This primary endpoint was analysed on the FAS using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-0.45|-0.74|< 0.001
95877940|NCT00694707|191711911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-3.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-3.3|-11.8|0.0005
95877941|NCT00694707|191711911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-4.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-4.6|-13.1|<0.0001
95877942|NCT00694707|191711911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-6.2|-14.6|<0.0001
95877943|NCT00694707|191711911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline PANSS total score as the covariate.||||-10.8|-19.4|<0.0001
95877944|NCT00694707|191711912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0040
95877945|NCT00694707|191711912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0003
95877946|NCT00694707|191711912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
95877947|NCT00694707|191711912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) included treatment group and study center as factors and the Baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||||-0.6|-1.1|<0.0001
95877948|NCT05981391|191711934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95877949|NCT05224141|191711935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.9762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.59|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.59|1.00|0.9762
95877950|NCT05224141|191711936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.5316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, LDH, liver metastasis, and brain metastasis.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||1.23|0.82|0.5316
95877951|NCT05224141|191711937|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|4.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).|Statistical analyses stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), LDH (≤ULN vs. \>ULN), liver metastasis (Yes or No), and brain metastasis (Yes or No).||4.9|-11.1|
95877952|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.72||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.72|-0.28|0.39
95877953|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.79||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.79|-0.84|0.94
95877954|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.74||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.74|-0.69|0.95
95877955|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.32||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.05||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||0.05|-0.69|0.09
95877956|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.18||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.18|-0.24|0.79
95877957|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.53|0.57
95877958|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.36|-0.35|0.97
95877959|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.24|-0.10|0.41
95877960|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.52||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-0.41|0.82
95877961|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.14||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.53||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.53|-0.26|0.49
95877962|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.33||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.15||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.15|-0.80|0.18
95877963|NCT02390908|191711963|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||0.32|-0.28|0.89
95877964|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.92||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.68|58.53||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.53|-54.68|0.95
95877965|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Beta|23.99||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.54|115.51||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||115.51|-67.54|0.61
95877966|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-23.71||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.82|41.4||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3 on CD4 Count was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||41.40|-88.82|0.48
95877967|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.19||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.76|58.14||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3 (the Waitlist condition) and the No-Treatment Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of being in the Waitlist condition (i.e., not receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 3) on log-transformed Viral Load was estimated against the No-Treatment Control EMR Group.|||58.14|-49.76|0.88
95969111|NCT02914275|191910280|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||0.88|0.72|
95969112|NCT02914275|191910280|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.42|1.15|
95969113|NCT02914275|191910280|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.24|1.01|
95969114|NCT02914275|191910280|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority criterion for the GMT ratio (adjusted analysis) was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio for the Comparator QIV GMT, divided by the Seqirus QIV GMT, should not exceed 1.5|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Geometric Mean Titer ratios 28 days after the last vaccination||1.09|0.86|
95969115|NCT02914275|191910281|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H1N1 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||-5.1|-15.4|
95969116|NCT02914275|191910281|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|7.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to A/H3N2 vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||7.8|-2.54|
95969117|NCT02914275|191910281|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/YAM vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||8.2|-2.1|
95969118|NCT02914275|191910281|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority criterion for the SCR difference was that the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCRs for Comparator QIV minus the Seqirus QIV SCR should not exceed 10%.|Seroconversion Rate Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|6.1||||||Non-inferiority of immune responses to B/VIC vaccine strain measured in terms of Seroconversion Rate Difference 28 days after the last vaccination||6.1|-4.2|
95969119|NCT01639495|191910308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|60.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.9|68.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on exact binomial|||68.8|51.9|
95969120|NCT01639495|191910310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects with primary AEs|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|24.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval is exact binomial|||24.6|11.6|
95969121|NCT01639495|191910311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|97.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.6|98.2|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are exact binomial|||98.2|95.6|
95969122|NCT03828747|191910315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||-1.21|-4.56|0.0008
95969123|NCT03828747|191910315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||-0.20|-5.31|0.0351
95969124|NCT03828747|191910316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.295||0.5207||95.0|-3.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.72|-3.39|0.5207
95969125|NCT03828747|191910316|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.911||0.3704||95.0|-5.5|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.07|-5.50|0.3704
95969126|NCT03828747|191910317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.3501||95.0|-0.29|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||0.82|-0.29|0.3501
95969127|NCT03828747|191910317|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||1.22|-0.87|0.7431
95969128|NCT03828747|191910318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.5366||95.0|-0.58|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 49||1.11|-0.58|0.5366
95877968|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.88|35.21||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||35.21|-19.88|0.59
95877969|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-24.95||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.78|16.88||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||16.88|-66.78|0.24
95877970|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|18.32||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|43.27||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||43.27|-6.63|0.15
95877971|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|10.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|30.74||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 1 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||30.74|-10.20|0.33
95877972|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.42||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.24|57.09||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||57.09|-44.24|0.80
95877973|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.43||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.47|74.61||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in CD4 count across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||74.61|-85.47|0.89
95877974|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.16||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.61|62.94||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Site 3 relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||62.94|-60.61|0.97
95969129|NCT03828747|191910318|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.0851||95.0|-0.15|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from Baseline at Week 61||2.30|-0.15|0.0851
95877975|NCT02390908|191711964|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-38.4||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.51|2.72||Piecemeal latent growth curves (LGC) were specified with intercepts and linear slopes. Slope 2 estimated here represents linear change in log VL across the 12-,15-, and 18-month follow-ups for Waitlist relative to the No-Treatment EMR Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.||||2.72|-79.51|0.07
95877976|NCT02390908|191711965|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-7.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.52|4.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||4.78|-20.52|0.22
95877977|NCT02390908|191711965|SUPERIORITY||Beta|10.29||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|26.82||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and pre-baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||26.82|-6.25|0.22
95877978|NCT02390908|191711965|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.27||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|11.08||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on ART Medication Adherence was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||11.08|-11.63|0.96
95877979|NCT02390908|191711965|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|11.97||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.97|0.72|0.03
95877980|NCT02390908|191711965|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.35||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|11.47||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||11.47|-4.78|0.42
95877981|NCT02390908|191711965|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|6.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in Medication Adherence across 3-,6-,9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||6.54|-5.85|0.91
95969130|NCT04187989|191910329|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|0.466|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.466|-.478|.980
95969131|NCT04187989|191910330|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.621||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.621|-.092|.140
95969132|NCT04187989|191910332|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.421||Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.421|-.294|.724
95969133|NCT04187989|191910333|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.269|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.269|-.425|.656
95969134|NCT04187989|191910334|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|0.067||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|||0.067|-.746|.158
95969135|NCT04187989|191910335|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.495|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.495|-.210|.422
95969136|NCT04187989|191910336|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.381|||t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.381|-.328|.882
95877982|NCT02390908|191711966|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.19||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|5.78||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 1 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 1 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||5.78|0.61|0.02
95877983|NCT02390908|191711966|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.86||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|2.61||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 2 and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention at Site 2 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||2.61|-4.33|0.63
95909037|NCT01212770|191776091|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.8||||0.0515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.4|0.1|0.0515
95909038|NCT01212770|191776092|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|-6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.7|-11.4|0.0080
95909039|NCT01212770|191776092|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||1.0|-8.6|0.1218
95909040|NCT01212770|191776093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.2761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.4|-1.3|0.2761
95909041|NCT01212770|191776093|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.1|0.5012
95909042|NCT01212770|191776094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.9|0.0399
95909043|NCT01212770|191776094|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.4413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.6|-1.3|0.4413
95909044|NCT01212770|191776095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.82|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.82|-7.73|< 0.0001
95909045|NCT01212770|191776095|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.65||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|-0.19|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.19|-5.11|0.0349
95909046|NCT01212770|191776096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.24|-0.72|0.0001
95909047|NCT01212770|191776096|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.06|-0.54|0.0147
95909048|NCT01212770|191776097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.24|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.24|0.64|0.0078
95909049|NCT01212770|191776097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.19||||0.1936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline DMARD use and ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||2.98|-0.61|0.1936
95877984|NCT02390908|191711966|SUPERIORITY||Beta|4.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.54||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between Site 3's Immediate Delivery Group and the Waitlist Group at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.|The main effect of receiving the PLUS intervention immediately at Site 3 on Alcohol Use severity (AUDIT) was estimated against Site 3's Waitlist Control Group.|||7.54|0.80|0.02
95877985|NCT02390908|191711966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.67||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 1 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.67|-1.47|0.46
95877986|NCT02390908|191711966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.55||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 2 relative to that for the Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.55|-1.12|0.50
95877987|NCT02390908|191711966|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.52||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The slope estimated here represents linear change in AUDIT across the 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups for Site 3 (Immediate) relative to Waitlist Control Group.|Latent Growth Curve|Analysis adjusted for gender and baseline value of the outcome.||||0.52|-1.23|0.43
95877988|NCT03569033|191711967|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.32||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.66|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.66|-2.29|0.748
95877989|NCT03569033|191711968|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.99||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.3|||ANCOVA|||||7.30|-5.33|0.754
95877990|NCT03569033|191711969|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.8||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||||4.10|-2.50|0.627
95877991|NCT03569033|191711970|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.09||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.28|0.631
95877992|NCT03725852|191712027|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|42.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.483||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.84|166.49||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model at each time point including treatment, sex, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither), age, height, and baseline value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||166.49|-81.84|0.495
95877993|NCT03725852|191712028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|24.5|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs||24.5|-17.3|
95877994|NCT03725852|191712028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|30.7|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|Serious TEAEs||30.7|-3.0|
95877995|NCT03725852|191712028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|49.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs related to study drug||49.4|8.2|
95877996|NCT03725852|191712028|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|36.4|||||95% CI for difference calculated using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|TEAEs leading to study drug discontinuation||36.4|6.7|
95877997|NCT03725852|191712029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause deaths||||0.397
95877998|NCT03725852|191712029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related deaths||||0.397
95877999|NCT03725852|191712029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|||All-cause hospitalizations||||0.131
95878000|NCT03725852|191712029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Log Rank|||Respiratory-related hospitalizations||||0.762
95878001|NCT03725852|191712030|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.713||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.87|22.64||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline 6MWT distance as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||22.64|-40.87|0.565
95878002|NCT03725852|191712031|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference.|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|5.91||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26||5.91|-9.06|0.673
95878003|NCT03725852|191712032|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|8.53||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Symptoms score||8.53|-9.98|0.875
95878004|NCT03725852|191712032|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.038||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|6.02||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Activity score||6.02|-14.29|0.416
95878005|NCT03725852|191712032|SUPERIORITY||Weighted LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.029||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|7.92||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model at Week 26 including treatment, stratum (nintedanib, pirfenidone or neither) and baseline SGRQ value as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 26: Impacts score||7.92|-8.32|0.961
95878006|NCT03725852|191712033|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95878007|NCT00494299|191712078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Log Rank|0.2520462|||||||||||||The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by the response of TACE (Responder group A versus Responder group B), ECOG performance status (PS) (0 versus 1) and the number of prior TACE (1 versus 2).|||||
95878008|NCT00494299|191712078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8735||||||95.0|0.6972|1.0942|||||Hazard Ratio: Sorafenib/Placebo.|||1.0942|0.6972|
95878009|NCT00113087|191712081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
95878010|NCT00113087|191712082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.42||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
95878011|NCT00113087|191712083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95878012|NCT00113087|191712084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95878013|NCT00113087|191712085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.71
95878014|NCT00113087|191712086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95878015|NCT00113087|191712087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95878016|NCT00113087|191712088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95878017|NCT00113087|191712089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95878018|NCT00113087|191712090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95878019|NCT00113087|191712091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95878020|NCT00113087|191712092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95878021|NCT00113087|191712093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95969137|NCT04187989|191910337|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.728|0.334||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.334|-.728|.497
95969138|NCT04187989|191910338|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.398|0.313||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.313|-.398|.813
95969139|NCT04187989|191910339|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.381|0.314||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.314|-.381|.849
95969140|NCT04187989|191910340|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.371||The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|t-test, 2 sided||The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.371|-.607|.667
95878022|NCT00113087|191712094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95878023|NCT00113087|191712095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95878024|NCT00113087|191712096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95878025|NCT00113087|191712097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95878026|NCT00113087|191712098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95878027|NCT00113087|191712099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95878028|NCT00113087|191712100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95878029|NCT00113087|191712101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95878030|NCT00113087|191712102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95878031|NCT00113087|191712103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95878032|NCT00113087|191712104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95878033|NCT00113087|191712105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95878034|NCT00113087|191712106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95878035|NCT00113087|191712107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
95878036|NCT00113087|191712108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95878037|NCT00113087|191712109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95878038|NCT03452228|191712110|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|1238.9||||||||1238.9|-89.4|
95878039|NCT03452228|191712110|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.2|121.2||||||||121.2|-82.2|
95969141|NCT04187989|191910341|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|0.005|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs||.005|-.689|.051
95878040|NCT02635776|191712129|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|63.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|73.3|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 600 mg||73.3|53|<0.0001
95878041|NCT02635776|191712130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.7|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 1000 mg||57.7|38|<0.0001
95878042|NCT02635776|191712131|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|78.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||Treatment difference at 300 mg||78.5|58.6|<0.0001
95878043|NCT02635776|191712132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (using equally spaced scores), stratified by region (North America, Europe)||Treatment difference in maximum severity||||<0.0001
95878044|NCT00788073|191712133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95878045|NCT00788073|191712134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95878046|NCT00516074|191712174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 25 subjects were intended to be randomized to both the exenatide and placebo arms. Assuming an approximate 24% dropout rate, 19 patients per treatment arm would complete the study. A sample of 19 patients per treatment group would provide 90% power to detect a 10 bpm difference between treatment groups in change in daily mean heart rate from baseline.||||||0.1585||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1585
95878047|NCT00516074|191712175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.1624||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1624
95878048|NCT00516074|191712176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.5077||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5077
95878049|NCT00516074|191712177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.9034||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9034
95878050|NCT00516074|191712178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4270
95878051|NCT00516074|191712179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation for the primary endpoint is described as part of the primary endpoint information above.||||||0.26||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2600
95878052|NCT02298023|191712200|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the three groups. Statistical power: 0.80||||0.35
95969142|NCT04187989|191910342|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model||We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|.284|-.412|.714
95969143|NCT04187989|191910343|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.531|0.311|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|: We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.311|-.531|.603
95878053|NCT02298023|191712201|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.662
95878054|NCT02298023|191712202|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.882|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.882
95878055|NCT02298023|191712203|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.835|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.835
95878056|NCT02298023|191712204|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.977|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.977
95878057|NCT02298023|191712205|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the rate of change among groups||||||0.867|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.867
95878058|NCT02298023|191712206|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.916|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.916
95878059|NCT02298023|191712207|EQUIVALENCE|To test whether there were differences in the change of tear size among groups||||||0.892|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.892
95878060|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.003
95878061|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.9
95878062|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||<0.001
95878063|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.42
95878064|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Advair 250/50||||0.84
95878065|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 500||||0.015
95878066|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.085
95878067|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 250/50 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.62
95878068|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 500 compared to Fluticasone 250||||0.48
95878069|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Advair 100/50 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.14
95878070|NCT01967173|191712217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test of the null hypothesis that the superiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100 is equal to the inferiority of Fluticasone 250 compared to Fluticasone 100||||0.096
95878071|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.8|1.000
95878072|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-0.7|1.000
95878073|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.0|0.391
95878074|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.696
95878075|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-0.7|0.921
95878076|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.6|0.693
95878077|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-0.7|0.770
95878078|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.0|-3.7|0.938
95878079|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.5|0.340
95878080|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.6|0.258
95878081|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.4|0.381
95878082|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||0.5|-1.6|0.287
95878083|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.420
95878084|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.4|-1.7|0.227
95878085|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||0.6|-1.5|0.427
95878086|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||2.2|-8.4|0.256
95878087|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.198
95878088|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||2.1|-0.3|0.132
95878089|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.4|0.227
95878090|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||2.0|-0.4|0.208
95878091|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.5|0.265
95878092|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||1.8|-0.6|0.340
95878093|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.9|-0.7|0.347
95878094|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||10.6|-2.0|0.179
95878095|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall Opinion: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.4|0.556
95878096|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vascularity: Intraparticipant analysis||0.9|-1.2|0.760
95878097|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pigmentation: Intraparticipant analysis||0.8|-1.3|0.636
95878098|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Thickness: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.774
95878099|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relief: Intraparticipant analysis||1.0|-1.3|0.771
95878100|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pliability: Intraparticipant analysis||0.7|-1.5|0.468
95878101|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Surface Area: Intraparticipant analysis||1.1|-1.2|0.886
95878102|NCT01346969|191712218|OTHER|LS Mean, SE, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were derived from MMRM model that includes fixed factors for treatment, pooled site, scheduled visit, an interaction for treatment by scheduled visit, and a covariate for Fitzpatrick category.|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Composite Score: Intraparticipant analysis||4.5|-7.0|0.668
95878103|NCT02002832|191712244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|LS mean for the treatment difference(lurasidone-risperidone) at week 6 and its 95% confidence interval was presented based on the MMRM. Non-inferiority for lurasidone relative to risperidone was evaluated by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval to the non-inferiority margin of 7.0. Plots of estimates for change from baseline in PANSS total score based on MMRM over time (Week 1 to Week 6) with 95% confidence intervals was provided for each treatment group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.3|1.0|
95878104|NCT03540030|191712246|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.297
95878105|NCT03540030|191712247|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||At the 6 hour time point|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95878106|NCT03540030|191712247|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At the 12 hour time point||||0.005
95878107|NCT03540030|191712248|OTHER|||||||0.0801|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0801
95878108|NCT03540030|191712249|OTHER|||||||0.0154|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0154
95878109|NCT03540030|191712250|OTHER|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2139
95878110|NCT03540030|191712252|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
95878111|NCT03540030|191712253|OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9669
95878112|NCT03540030|191712254|OTHER|||||||0.9208|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9208
95878113|NCT03540030|191712255|OTHER|||||||0.6481|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.6481
95878114|NCT03540030|191712255|OTHER|||||||0.3911|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.3911
95878115|NCT03540030|191712256|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
95878116|NCT03540030|191712257|OTHER|||||||0.3177|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3177
95878117|NCT03540030|191712258|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.99
95878118|NCT03540030|191712259|OTHER|||||||0.2349|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2349
95878119|NCT03540030|191712260|OTHER|||||||0.7892|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7892
95878120|NCT03540030|191712261|OTHER|||||||0.2023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For PCS only||||0.2023
95878121|NCT03540030|191712261|OTHER|||||||0.2486|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For MCS only||||0.2486
95878122|NCT03329508|191712262|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|-1.0|||MMRM|||||-1.0|-4.33|0.0018
95878123|NCT03329508|191712262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-1.63|||MMRM|||||-1.63|-4.96|0.0001
95878124|NCT03329508|191712263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.0001
95878125|NCT03329508|191712263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.81|||MMRM|||||-1.81|-3.50|<0.05
95878126|NCT03329508|191712264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.21|||MMRM|||||-0.21|-2.84|0.0231
95878127|NCT03329508|191712264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.43|||MMRM|||||-0.43|-3.06|0.0092
95878128|NCT03329508|191712265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.57|||MMRM|||||-0.57|-1.77|0.0001
95878129|NCT03329508|191712265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.92|||MMRM|||||-0.92|-2.13|<0.0001
95878130|NCT03329508|191712266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.85|||MMRM|||||0.85|-5.21|0.1589
95878131|NCT00569270|191712282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FEV1 of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.027
95878132|NCT00569270|191712283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|0.19||||0.96||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p=0.05|Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema; measure includes change in FEV1 post tiotropium||||0.96
95878133|NCT00569270|191712284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FRC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.318
95878134|NCT00569270|191712285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak FVC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.078
95878135|NCT00569270|191712286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rho|-0.26||||0.4||95.0|||||Spearman rho|||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema (19 patients); measures include change in IC at trough tiotropium.||||0.4
95878136|NCT00569270|191712287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Peak IC of tiotropium minus placebo.29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.067
95878137|NCT00569270|191712288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.615||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Regression, Logistic|||Mean difference of Peak FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.615
95878138|NCT00569270|191712289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.325
95878139|NCT00569270|191712290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.345
95878140|NCT00569270|191712291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC(L) in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.068
95878141|NCT00569270|191712292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of trough FVC in tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.589
95878142|NCT00569270|191712293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough IC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.922
95878143|NCT00569270|191712294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.02||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough FRC/TLC of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.02
95878144|NCT00569270|191712295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||-0.13||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean difference of Trough TLC (L) of tiotropium minus placebo. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||-0.13
95878145|NCT00569270|191712296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in IC before and after dynamic hyperinflation. 29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||0.0001
95878146|NCT00569270|191712297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Total lung capacity was similar in all groups and was not significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||29 patients needed to achieve a power of 80% at a significant alpha level of 5% using projected sample inspiratory capacity of 2.23+/- 0.5L post tiotropium compared to baseline inspiratory capacity 2.0+/-0.5L||||>0.05
95878147|NCT00569270|191712298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance: p= 0.05|Spearman rho|Spearman rho = -0.26||Correlation between improved lung function after tiotropium and extent of lung CT scored emphysema with respect to ratio functional residual capacity divided by total lung capacity. Specifically, correlation of tiotropium induced bronchodilation and extent of lung ct scored emphysema||||0.36
95878148|NCT00492531|191712315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|38.0|||ANCOVA|6 minute walk was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed effect and 6 minute walk distance, TRV stratum and study site as covariate.||||38|-56|0.70
95878149|NCT02128932|191712323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 1.0 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3 %).|Treatment difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment , country and stratum as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.67|-0.96|<0.0001
95878150|NCT02128932|191712323|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval for the estimated treatment difference between semaglutide 0.5 mg and insulin glargine was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin (0.3%).|Treatment difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The post baseline responses were analysed using a mixed model for repeated meausrements with treatment, country and stratum value as covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.24|-0.52|<0.0001
95969144|NCT04187989|191910344|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.597|||Cohen's D|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.597|-.273|.457
95969145|NCT04187989|191910345|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.686|0.156|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects).|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.156|-.686|.209
95969146|NCT04187989|191910346|OTHER|Two-sided test of the null hypothesis of no difference between groups|Cohen's D|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|0.328|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is for the coefficient of the treatment/control indicator in the above mixed model|The effect size used is the adjusted Cohen's D, calculated from the coefficient for treatment group in the mixed model, divided by total pooled SD (the square root of the sum of the residual variance+the variance of the group-level random effects)|We fixed linear mixed effects models adjusted for baseline values, balancing factors (age, sex, recreational cannabis), and included a random intercept for group because this is an individually randomized group treatment trial. We tested for treatment effects with a two-sided test of the coefficient for the treatment/control indicator, and estimated Cohen's D (mean difference between the 2 groups at follow-up divided by the total variation not captured by the fixed effects) along with 95% CIs.||.328|-.541|.623
95878151|NCT01254630|191712331|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.364|0.791|||||Point estimate and 97.5% CI of vaccine efficacy (primary endpoint) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 97.5% Confidence Interval (CI) be \>0.25.||0.791|0.364|
95878152|NCT01254630|191712332|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.8|
95878153|NCT01254630|191712333|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.899|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.899|0.480|
95878154|NCT01254630|191712334|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.874|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.984|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.984|-0.005|
95878155|NCT01254630|191712335|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.275|0.972|||||Point estimate and 95% CI of vaccine efficacy were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age (\<50 versus ≥50 years of age).|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 minus the hazard ratio of HZ in the V212 group versus the placebo group. The success criterion for vaccine efficacy required that the lower bound of the 95% CI be \>0.25.||0.972|-1.275|
95878156|NCT01254630|191712336|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.6|
95878157|NCT03685123|191712337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.256
95878158|NCT03685123|191712338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.089
95878159|NCT03685123|191712339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
95878160|NCT03685123|191712340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
95878161|NCT03685123|191712341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL levels||||0.983
95878162|NCT03685123|191712341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL levels||||0.56
95878163|NCT03685123|191712341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Cholesterol||||0.71
95878164|NCT03685123|191712341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||0.313
95878165|NCT03685123|191712342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||systolic Blood pressure||||0.72
95878166|NCT03685123|191712342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic Blood pressure||||0.61
95878167|NCT03685123|191712342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1609|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic blood pressure between the PA-REC and the WM-REC Groups.||||0.1609
95878168|NCT03685123|191712342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic blood pressure between the PA-REC and WM-REC Groups||||0.446
95878169|NCT03685123|191712343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.965
95878170|NCT03685123|191712344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.857
95878171|NCT03685123|191712345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.825|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.825
95878172|NCT03685123|191712346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.061
95878173|NCT03685123|191712348|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and WM-REC groups||||||0.105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL particle size||||0.105
95878174|NCT03685123|191712348|SUPERIORITY|Change in particle size between the PA-REC and the WM-REC groups||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL particles||||0.849
95878175|NCT03685123|191712350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278|||||||ANOVA|||Change in steps per day from week 10 to week 28||||0.278
95878176|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 General Health (GH)||||0.238
95878177|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical health (PH)||||0.124
95878178|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 role physical||||0.769
95878179|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Bodily Pain||||0.352
95878180|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.898|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Vitality||||0.898
95878181|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Between groups analysis between the change in PA-REC Group vs. the WM-REC Group||||||0.444|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 social function||||0.444
95878182|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health||||0.537
95878183|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Role Emotional||||0.448
95878184|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.537|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Mental Health (Sum)||||0.537
95878185|NCT03685123|191712351|SUPERIORITY|Change between the PA-REC group and the WM-REC group||||||0.482|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in SF-36 Physical Health (sum)||||0.482
95878186|NCT03685123|191712353|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878187|NCT03685123|191712354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.37
95878188|NCT03685123|191712355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in body fat||||<0.001
95878189|NCT03685123|191712356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878190|NCT03685123|191712357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||LDL||||0.004
95878191|NCT03685123|191712357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in HDL||||0.04
95878192|NCT03685123|191712357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in Total Cholesterol||||<0.001
95878193|NCT03685123|191712357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides||||<0.001
95878194|NCT03685123|191712358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Systolic blood pressure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95878195|NCT03685123|191712358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Diastolic blood pressure||||0.001
95878196|NCT03685123|191712358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aortic blood pressure (mmHg)||||<0.001
95878197|NCT03685123|191712358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in aortic diastolic pressure||||<0.001
95878198|NCT03685123|191712359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878199|NCT03685123|191712360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878200|NCT03685123|191712361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.366
95878201|NCT03685123|191712362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878202|NCT03685123|191712364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95878203|NCT03685123|191712365|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878204|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||General Health|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878205|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health||||<0.001
95878206|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role physical||||0.023
95878207|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Bodily Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95878208|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Vitality||||<0.001
95878209|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social Functioning||||<0.001
95878210|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Health||||0.0105
95878211|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Emotional||||<0.001
95878212|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 mental health Components (sum)||||0.01
95878213|NCT03685123|191712366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Health Components Sum||||<0.001
95878214|NCT03685123|191712367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in kilocalories consumed from baseline to week 10||||<0.001
95878215|NCT03685123|191712368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in LDL Particle Size||||0.658
95878216|NCT03685123|191712368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||HDL participle size||||0.07
95878217|NCT03221270|191712369|SUPERIORITY|alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is greater than 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.25||||t-test, 1 sided||||||-2.25|0.66
95878218|NCT03439657|191712382|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the anti-gE antibodies Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio between the Control group and the Co-Ad group should be \<1.5.|GMC ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.16|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group GMCs ratio was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-gE GMCs (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for anti-gE antibodies, one month after the administration of last vaccine dose.||1.16|0.99|
95878219|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-1), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.33|0.82|
95878220|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-3), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.86|
95878221|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-4), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.52|1.02|
95878222|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-5), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.81|
95878223|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.56|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.56|1.02|
95878224|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.73|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-6B), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.73|1.07|
95878225|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.44|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-7F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.44|1.01|
95878226|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.39|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-9V), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.39|0.97|
95878227|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-14), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.42|0.94|
95878228|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-18C), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.34|0.92|
95878229|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19A), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.22|0.87|
95878230|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-19F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.32|0.90|
95878231|NCT03439657|191712383|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper limit (UL) of 95% CI for each individual pneumococcal conjugate serotype Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio of the Control group over the Co-Ad group should be \<2.|GMT ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|The 95% CI of the group MOPA GMT ratios was computed using an Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log10 transformation of the concentrations.||Anti-pneumococcal antibody titers (non-inferiority): Non-inferiority comparison between Control Group and Co-Ad Group in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) for anti-pneumococcal antibody (MOPA-23F), one month after the administration of Prevnar 13 vaccine dose.||1.50|0.96|
95878232|NCT02663908|191712410|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.283||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|2.794|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.794|0.589|0.5294
95969147|NCT02366468|191910368|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin: -4 letters|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.27|||ANCOVA|including study treatment (DI, PRN) and center as factors and baseline BCVA as continuous covariate.||The primary objective was to demonstrate that the mean visit-averaged change from baseline of BCVA over month 1 to treatment completion for the DI arm was non-inferior to the PRN arm.||1.27|-3.04|0.002
95969148|NCT02366468|191910372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.56|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||28.56|-17.10|0.620
95969149|NCT02366468|191910373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.66|30.59|||ANCOVA|containing the baseline values of the dependent variables as continuous covariates, and center and treatment as categorical covariates||||30.59|-33.66|0.925
95878233|NCT02663908|191712411|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.204||||0.7126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.234|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||3.234|0.448|0.7126
95878234|NCT02663908|191712412|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.186||||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|1.595|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.595|0.022|0.0853
95878235|NCT02663908|191712413|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.594||||0.5196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|6.673|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||6.673|0.381|0.5196
95878236|NCT02663908|191712414|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.8966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.457|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||4.457|0.181|0.8966
95878237|NCT02663908|191712415|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|2.62|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.620|0.088|0.3857
95878238|NCT02663908|191712416|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.839||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|2.176|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||2.176|0.324|0.7180
95878239|NCT02663908|191712418|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|1.539|||Log Rank|The p-value of the log-rank test is based on comparison of the treatment groups stratified for age group and region.|Baseline hazards for the Cox regression were stratified over variables: age group and region.|||1.539|0.512|0.6701
95878240|NCT02663908|191712419|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.907||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.048|0.235|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 168||0.235|-2.048|0.1193
95878241|NCT02663908|191712419|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.213||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.473|0.047|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 168||0.047|-0.473|0.1080
95878242|NCT02663908|191712419|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.916||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|0.257|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS Total at Day 336||0.257|-2.089|0.1256
95878243|NCT02663908|191712419|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.047||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.218|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||IPSS, QoL at Day 336||0.218|-0.312|0.7261
95878244|NCT02663908|191712423|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.002||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.032|||ANCOVA|Compared using an ANCOVA model, where the QALY is the dependent variable and adjusted for treatment group, age group and region, respectively.||||0.032|-0.036|0.9110
95878245|NCT02663908|191712424|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.57||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 168||0.27|-3.41|0.0936
95878246|NCT02663908|191712424|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||DASI at Day 336||2.78|-1.11|0.4000
95878247|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.045||||0.2535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.122|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 168||0.122|-0.032|0.2535
95878248|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.036||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.127|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 168||0.127|-0.055|0.4370
95878249|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.116||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 168||0.248|-0.016|0.0852
95878250|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.012||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.111|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 168||0.111|-0.087|0.8156
95878251|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.051||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.135|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ Global Score at Day 336||0.135|-0.033|0.2299
95878252|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.038||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.136|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Attention at Day 336||0.136|-0.060|0.4440
95878253|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.007||||0.9172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.146|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Avoidance at Day 336||0.146|-0.131|0.9172
95878254|NCT02663908|191712425|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.093||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.204|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with the baseline score as a covariate, and treatment group, age group, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as factors.||CAQ domain score for Fear at Day 336||0.204|-0.019|0.1028
95878255|NCT05938920|191712442|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1026|2.8831||||||||2.8831|-4.1026|
95878256|NCT05938920|191712442|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.6721|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0738|4.4179||||||||4.4179|-3.0738|
95878257|NCT05938920|191712442|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.8232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.30479|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.697|7.3433||||||||7.3433|-1.6970|
95878258|NCT05938920|191712442|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.2933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15954|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5273|3.9408||||||||3.9408|-4.5273|
95878259|NCT05938920|191712443|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.0566||||||||0.0566|-0.1050|
95878260|NCT05938920|191712443|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0687|0.1074||||||||0.1074|-0.0687|
95878261|NCT05938920|191712443|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.0892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0087|0.1872||||||||0.1872|-0.0087|
95878262|NCT05938920|191712443|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04585|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0981|0.0817||||||||0.0817|-0.0981|
95878263|NCT05938920|191712444|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.6043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9549|1.7462||||||||1.7462|-2.9549|
95878264|NCT05938920|191712444|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9603|3.2624||||||||3.2624|-1.9603|
95878265|NCT05938920|191712444|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.4975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43617|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3187|5.3136||||||||5.3136|-0.3187|
95969150|NCT00307684|191910403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89||||0.2586||95.0|-2.2055|7.9774||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed. threshold for significance: 0.05 (2-sided)|ANCOVA|treatment, sex and country as factors, age and baseline sum of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity scores as covariate||Based on preliminary results of a controlled study in adults with MPH, the mean (SD=9) change in CAARS total score from randomization to the 4 week post-randomization endpoint was estimated as +2.5 for PR OROS MPH and +14 for placebo. slightly more conservative, a mean change of 3 in the PR OROS MPH group and a mean increase of 10 in the placebo group were expected. With a two-sided type-I error of 5% and a power of 90%, 37 eligible subjects per group were required.||7.9774|-2.2055|0.2586
95969151|NCT00307684|191910406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3942||||0.2616||95.0|-12.1928|3.4044||No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the ranks with sex, treatment and country as factors and age and baseline score as a covariate||||3.4044|-12.1928|0.2616
95969152|NCT00307684|191910407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.5458||95.0|-5.5469|10.3213|||ANCOVA|treatment and country as factors baseline score as covariate||||10.3213|-5.5469|0.5458
95969153|NCT03377699|191910408|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Primary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.08|-0.31|<0.0001
95878266|NCT05938920|191712444|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8142|2.7724||||||||2.7724|-2.8142|
95878267|NCT05938920|191712445|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.5762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0035|2.8511||||||||2.8511|-4.0035|
95878268|NCT05938920|191712445|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.5884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.90433|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1449|4.3216||||||||4.3216|-3.1449|
95878269|NCT05938920|191712445|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.6554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8486|7.1593||||||||7.1593|-1.8486|
95878270|NCT05938920|191712445|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.0625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3227|4.1977||||||||4.1977|-4.3227|
95878271|NCT03320057|191712451|OTHER|We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models to assess whether study implementation was associated with pharmacists' overall medication abortion knowledge. Multivariable GEE analyses included time period (baseline and endline) as the primary independent variable, adjusted for gender and years of experience, and accounted for clustering by pharmacy site and individual pharmacist.|Beta Coefficient|0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.17|||Regression, Linear||Coefficients in adjusted analyses examining overall medication abortion knowledge represent the difference in mean knowledge scores between baseline and endline.|Medication abortion knowledge scores were based on a set of 15 items. We first assessed the internal consistency reliability of the 15 knowledge items and considered a Cronbach's alpha coefficient above .70 to be acceptable to examine the items as a combined score.||0.17|0.11|<0.05
95878272|NCT06956170|191712452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.78|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard model with treatment arm as an explanatory variable.|||2.78|0.10|
95878273|NCT01977794|191712505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P value in both groups (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) for comparison of SBP after 18 weeks versus baseline|Paired t test|||For each group (Amlodipine failed and Bisoprolol failed) SBP after 18 weeks compared to baseline (under monotherapy). Superiority was assessed between FDC and monotherapies.||||<0.001
95969154|NCT03377699|191910408|EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for mean treatment difference in HbA1c is strictly below 0.4%.|Mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary Estimand. Imputation of missing data was done within two groups of participants defined by randomised treatment arm based on a multiple imputation approach (x1000). For each of the 1000 imputed datasets last planned HbA1c prior to delivery after GW 16 was analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and the stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and a pregnancy status at randomisation-by-baseline HbA1c interaction.||0.11|-0.27|0.3881
95969155|NCT03582943|191910432|SUPERIORITY|A priori power analyses was designed to detect at least a 3 second difference in change in balance scores between groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of differences between groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.984
95969156|NCT03582943|191910432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between age and RLIC vs. sham|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.455
95878274|NCT00533897|191712510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimate of difference|9.59||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|18.34||There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||A continuity corrected Chi-square test was used to compare percentage of positive antibody responses of SC placebo vs. SC abatacept (Period II treatment groups) on Day 169. P-value was evaluated at 0.05 significance level (2-sided). 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference (SC PLA - SC ABA) between ABA and PLA in the immunogenicity rates was also calculated. Point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the two Period II treatment group and the corresponding 95% CIs were also provided.||18.34|0.83|0.119
95969157|NCT03582943|191910432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between sex and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.803
95969158|NCT03582943|191910432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|||||Test of interaction between BMI and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.233
95969159|NCT03582943|191910432|SUPERIORITY|Test of interaction between presence of co-morbidities and RLIC vs. sham conditioning|Mean Difference (Net)|4.12||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95878275|NCT00533897|191712511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.25||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||14.25|-4.50|
95969160|NCT03527550|191910433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in negative urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in negative urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.95
95969161|NCT03527550|191910434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in positive urgency at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in positive urgency as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.64
95969162|NCT03527550|191910435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).|ANOVA|||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in stop-signal reaction time at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in stop-signal reaction time as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||0.91
95969163|NCT03527550|191910439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|Repeated-measures ANOVA. P-value reflects the significance of the interaction term (condition x time).||A 2 (condition: TAU, TAU + cognitive training) x 2 (time) repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test change in distress intolerance at time 1 (admission) and time 2 (discharge), and whether participants differ in their average change in distress intolerance as a function of condition (interaction of condition X time; reported below).||||.24
95969164|NCT01232738|191910505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.02|||Chi-squared|||Difference in slope of decline||0.02|-0.53|0.07
95969165|NCT01232738|191910506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
95969166|NCT04091061|191910514|OTHER|90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.14|296.44|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference.|||296.44|83.14|
95969167|NCT04091061|191910514|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|125.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.51|237.13|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||237.13|66.51|
95969168|NCT04091061|191910514|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|123.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.54|233.68|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||233.68|65.54|
95969169|NCT04091061|191910515|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.07|301.16|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||301.16|81.07|
95969170|NCT04091061|191910515|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.95|319.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||319.29|85.95|
95878276|NCT00533897|191712515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|8.43||||||Immunogenicity rates of the Period II treatment groups on Day 253 were analyzed similarly as on Day 169. However, no statistical test was carried out and no p-value was provided. Provided were: point estimates of the immunogenicity rates within the Period II treatment groups and corresponding 95% CIs, and point estimate for the difference in immunogenicity rates between these groups and corresponding 95% CI. There was no adjustment made for multiple comparisons.||8.43|-8.21|
95878277|NCT01935791|191712579|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||The p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.01
95878278|NCT01935791|191712580|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|plus Tukey test||||||<0.001
95878279|NCT03019185|191712614|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|13.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.48|16.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||16.27|10.48|<0.0001
95878280|NCT03019185|191712615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.813|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.38|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||13.60|5.38|<0.0001
95878281|NCT03019185|191712616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.144||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|11.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||11.89|3.41|0.0005
95878282|NCT03019185|191712617|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 48.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9451||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|11.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 48 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.39|3.40|0.0008
95878283|NCT03019185|191712618|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 100.|LS Mean change from baseline|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7484||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 100 (excluding Week 52) were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||7.72|0.84|0.0150
95878284|NCT03019185|191712619|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.656||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|8.8|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||8.80|1.37|0.0021
95878285|NCT03019185|191712620|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|7.94|||ANCOVA|Missing eGFR data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the treatment group to which the patient was assigned.|Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||7.94|0.58|0.0232
95878286|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H01 LotA ≠ LotB versus H1 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.29|0.92|
95878287|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H02 LotA ≠ LotC versus H12 LotA = Lotc H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.31|0.93|
95878288|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H1N1 Strain)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.2|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.2|0.85|
95878289|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 Strain)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.3|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.3|0.97|
95878290|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.13|0.85|
95878291|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (A/H3N2 strain)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.01|0.76|
95878292|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotB versus H13 LotA = LotB H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.23|0.91|
95878293|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.33|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (Comparator, n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotA ≠ LotC versus H13 LotA = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.33|0.99|
95878294|NCT00617851|191712638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GMTs and 95% CIs and median, min and max values were calculated for each vaccine group and for each strain by exponentiating (base 10) the least square means of the log transformed (base 10) titers and their 95% CIs obtained from a two-way ANOVA with factors for vaccine group. The overall power is 80.56%, and thus each single test (# of comparisons=9) is performed with a power of 97.62% assuming independency. To account for dropouts, \>= 428 subjects per lot was recruited.|Ratio of GMTs (B strain)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||ANOVA||"The control vaccine arm (n=216) is included primarily to provide a comparative assessment for safety rather than for immunogenicity.~Sample size calculations were done by means of Nquery Advisor 5.0."|H03 LotB ≠ LotC versus H13 LotB = LotC H0 refers to the null hypothesis of non-equivalence (inconsistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is outside the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5). H1 refers to the alternative hypothesis of equivalence (consistency) in that the two-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio is within the equivalence range (0.67 to 1.5).||1.26|0.94|
95878295|NCT00491764|191712658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9||||0.005||95.0|8.9|36.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||36.8|8.9|0.005
95878296|NCT00491764|191712658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.1|||<|0.001||95.0|38.0|70.1|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.1|38.0|<0.001
95878297|NCT00491764|191712658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.5|||<|0.001||95.0|28.5|62.4|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||62.4|28.5|<0.001
95878298|NCT00491764|191712658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.012||95.0|6.7|33.3|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||33.3|6.7|0.012
95878299|NCT00491764|191712658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.1|||<|0.001||95.0|21.1|53.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||53.2|21.1|<0.001
95878300|NCT00491764|191712659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.7||||0.002||95.0|11.2|40.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||40.2|11.2|0.002
95878301|NCT00491764|191712659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
95878302|NCT00491764|191712659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|48.5|||<|0.001||95.0|31.4|65.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||65.5|31.4|<0.001
95878303|NCT00491764|191712659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
95878304|NCT00491764|191712659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|54.3|||<|0.001||95.0|37.8|70.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||70.8|37.8|<0.001
95878305|NCT00491764|191712660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
95878306|NCT00491764|191712660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.9|||<|0.001||95.0|49.5|80.2|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||80.2|49.5|<0.001
95878307|NCT00491764|191712660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.7|||<|0.001||95.0|50.6|82.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||82.8|50.6|<0.001
95878308|NCT00491764|191712660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.4|||<|0.001||95.0|16.0|46.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||46.8|16.0|<0.001
95878309|NCT00491764|191712660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.1|||<|0.001||95.0|40.7|73.5|||Fisher Exact||Difference is in the proportion for Yes responders. Confidence Interval is around the difference in proportions.|||73.5|40.7|<0.001
95878310|NCT01479478|191712661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.87
95878311|NCT00705289|191712686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|0.1402||||0.0003|||||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and age (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.0003
95878312|NCT00705289|191712687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson Product Moment Correlation|-0.01||||0.7991||95.0|||||Test for non-zero correlation|||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and time since diagnosis (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7991
95878313|NCT00705289|191712688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7152||95.0|||||ANOVA|The association between Baseline DAS28 and gender is based on a one-way Anova.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and gender (prior to infliximab therapy)||||0.7152
95878314|NCT00705289|191712689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Relationship between DAS28 and Country of Residence was based on a 1-way ANOVA calculated as P-value.||Relationship between baseline DAS28 and country of residence (prior to infliximab therapy)||||<0.0001
95878315|NCT00705289|191712690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (all subjects, prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
95878316|NCT00705289|191712690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.0|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with early RA, not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.0|
95878317|NCT00705289|191712690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14||||95.0|5.1|5.3||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA not treated with anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.3|5.1|
95878318|NCT00705289|191712690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Baseline DAS28 Raw Score|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||||95.0|5.1|5.5||||||Relationship between Baseline DAS28 and previous anti-TNF therapy (subjects with established RA who failed or did not tolerate another anti-TNF; prior to infliximab therapy)||5.5|5.1|
95878319|NCT03055156|191712691|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95878320|NCT03055156|191712692|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95878321|NCT03055156|191712693|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95878322|NCT03055156|191712694|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95878323|NCT03055156|191712695|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Wake values||||0.02
95878324|NCT03055156|191712695|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of REM values||||0.06
95878325|NCT03055156|191712695|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 1 values||||0.83
95878326|NCT03055156|191712695|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 2 values||||0.87
95878327|NCT03055156|191712695|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of Non REM stage 3 values||||0.97
95878328|NCT03055156|191712696|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95878329|NCT03055156|191712697|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95878330|NCT03055156|191712699|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95878331|NCT03055156|191712700|OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 0-90 minutes||||0.86
95969171|NCT04091061|191910515|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.96|293.32|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.32|78.96|
95878332|NCT03055156|191712700|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 90-180 minutes||||0.29
95878333|NCT03055156|191712700|OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 180-270 minutes||||0.58
95969172|NCT04091061|191910516|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|156.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.95|300.6|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 1: Mild Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||300.60|80.95|
95969173|NCT04091061|191910516|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|165.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.82|318.67|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 2: Moderate Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||318.67|85.82|
95878334|NCT03055156|191712700|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||analysis of 270-360 min||||0.62
95878335|NCT03055156|191712701|OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to compare the difference in core body temperature trend over time between the two study arms. Interaction between time and topper type on CBT was calculated.||||0.389
95878336|NCT03055156|191712701|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect over time from both study arms on CBT. Main effect of time on CBT.||||0.01
95878337|NCT03055156|191712701|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||ANOVA|||Implemented two-way mixed ANOVA with time as within-subject variable and topper type as between-subject variable. This is to see the effect of the intervention on CBT including all time points. Main effect of topper type on CBT.||||0.642
95878338|NCT03055156|191712702|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95878339|NCT03055156|191712703|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95878340|NCT03055156|191712704|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95878341|NCT00304746|191712707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||For a complete presentation of the above analysis, please see the published paper presenting the full results of this study.|mixed effects linear regression analysis|||Our primary analysis of efficacy was a mixed effects linear regression analysis comparing the rate of change of score on the HAM-D during the blinded treatment phase between groups. Our model for the mean of the outcome variable included terms for treatment, time (modeled as a continuous variable), and treatment-by-time. The measure of effect was the treatment-by-time interaction, which can be interpreted as the difference in slope with respect to time, of the outcome measure.||||0.71
95878342|NCT01431989|191712708|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.53||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|93.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.17|86.99|0.0000
95878343|NCT01431989|191712709|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric mean T/R formulation|87.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.83||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|93.65|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.65|82.55|0.0018
95878344|NCT01431989|191712710|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Ratio Geometric means T/R formulation|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.51||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|93.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model: 1) Fixed effects: Sequence, Period, and Formulation; 2) Random effects: Volunteer (Sequence) and Residual|The ratio between the geometric means of the test (T) and reference (R) formulations was calculated. Standard deviation intra subject was obtained.|||93.12|86.96|0.0000
95878345|NCT01431989|191712711|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence analysis. This is a bioequivalence study performed to support the register of Clamoxyl 500 mg/5 mL, according to the requirements of Brazilian Regulatory Agency - National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (ANVISA).|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.125||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The non-parametric method included the following factors: Sequence, Formulation, Period, Formulation and Residual||||0.375|-0.125|0.3390
95878346|NCT03345914|191712715|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|27.97||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kilograms (kg) or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||27.97|8.28|= 0.0004
95878347|NCT03345914|191712715|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.36|31.45||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||31.45|11.36|< 0.0001
95878348|NCT03345914|191712716|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.95|51.82||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||51.82|28.95|< 0.0001
95878349|NCT03345914|191712716|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.54|54.15||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by randomization strata (baseline weight group (\< 30 kg or ≥ 30 kg) and region (North America or Europe) was used for the analysis of percentage of participants with EASI-75 at Week 16.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||54.15|31.54|< 0.0001
95878350|NCT03345914|191712717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.33|-23.24||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.24|-36.33|< 0.0001
95969174|NCT04091061|191910516|OTHER|90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|Ratio (%)|152.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.99|293.29|||||90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference): Analysis 3: Severe Hepatic Impairment = Test, Without Hepatic Impairment = Reference|||293.29|78.99|
95909050|NCT01212770|191776098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.1||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use and involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.0|-10.9|0.7585
95909051|NCT01212770|191776098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||9.7|-17.4|0.5808
95969175|NCT01141647|191910521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|7.07||||||||7.07|1.80|
95969176|NCT01167452|191910528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) analysis||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed weight for each participant.||||0.0004
95878351|NCT03345914|191712717|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.06|-26.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.82|-40.06|< 0.0001
95878352|NCT03345914|191712718|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.76|-23.26||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-23.26|-38.76|< 0.0001
95878353|NCT03345914|191712718|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.47|-20.82||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-20.82|-36.47|< 0.0001
95878354|NCT03345914|191712719|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|57.42||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||57.42|35.3|< 0.0001
95878355|NCT03345914|191712719|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.88|50.51||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.51|27.88|< 0.0001
95878356|NCT03345914|191712720|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.47|56.61||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||56.61|35.47|< 0.0001
95878357|NCT03345914|191712720|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.86|49.21||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||49.21|27.86|< 0.0001
95878358|NCT03345914|191712721|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.68|50.72||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||50.72|28.68|< 0.0001
95969177|NCT01167452|191910528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Multiple Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS)||We conducted a linear regression analysis of the log transformed elimination rate constant vs. the log transformed body mass index for each participant.||||<0.0001
95878359|NCT03345914|191712721|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|47.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.77|58.01||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||58.01|37.77|< 0.0001
95969178|NCT01253018|191910568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Sample size and power calculations were performed based on the difference in the FM score between the two groups with an assumed within group SD of 15.9, the correlation of 0.5 among repeated measures. 30 subjects enrolled in each arm of the study would give 80% power for detecting a difference of 8 points on the FM.~Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at final training (12 week)."||||<0.05
95878360|NCT03345914|191712722|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|23.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.65|32.38||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||32.38|13.65|< 0.0001
95909052|NCT01212770|191776099|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.0||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD useinvolvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline..|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.0|-3.1|0.1303
95852880|NCT02977403|191664882|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for AB reaction time measures. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. AB reaction times were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-1.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.79|16.894||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in AB, change scores were computed (post-pre = delta). Positive scores represent an increase in AB from pre- to post- intervention. Negative ∆reaction time scores represent a decrease in AB from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in AB following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||16.894|-20.790|
95852881|NCT02977403|191664882|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.952|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.28|33.377||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||33.377|-35.280|
95852882|NCT02977403|191664883|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|0.047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.025|
95852883|NCT02977403|191664883|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.019||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.019|-0.288|
95852884|NCT02977403|191664884|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass and height, race and ethnicity.|beta coefficent|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.082||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post-intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.082|-0.085|
95852885|NCT02977403|191664884|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.177|
95852886|NCT02977403|191664885|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.182||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.182|-0.022|
95852887|NCT02977403|191664885|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.103||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.103|-0.139|
95878361|NCT03345914|191712722|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.6|44.37||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||44.37|24.6|< 0.0001
95878362|NCT03345914|191712723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|3.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.097|4.624||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.624|2.097|< 0.0001
95878363|NCT03345914|191712723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.921|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.957|4.36||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||4.36|1.957|< 0.0001
95878364|NCT03345914|191712724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.631|3.182||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||3.182|1.631|< 0.0001
95878365|NCT03345914|191712724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratios|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.908||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cox model|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.908|1.481|< 0.0001
95878366|NCT03345914|191712725|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-17.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.272|-13.161||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-13.161|-22.272|< 0.0001
95909053|NCT01212770|191776099|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.5||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.2|-8.3|0.3610
95909054|NCT01212770|191776100|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.6|12.4|< 0.0001
95909055|NCT01212770|191776100|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.0||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.9|1.2|0.0309
95909056|NCT01212770|191776101|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|3.8||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-9.1|0.5731
95909057|NCT01212770|191776101|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.0||||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.6|-12.6|0.8876
95909058|NCT01212770|191776102|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.9|-2.5|0.1172
95878367|NCT03345914|191712725|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.479|-14.289||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-14.289|-23.479|< 0.0001
95878368|NCT03345914|191712726|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-24.48||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-24.48|-36.3|< 0.0001
95878369|NCT03345914|191712726|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.57|-26.59||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.59|-38.57|< 0.0001
95878370|NCT03345914|191712727|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-2.99||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.99|-5.62|< 0.0001
95878371|NCT03345914|191712727|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.89||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.89|-5.57|< 0.0001
95878372|NCT03345914|191712728|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|-6.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.31|-9.96|< 0.0001
95878373|NCT03345914|191712728|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.43||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-6.43|-10.13|< 0.0001
95878374|NCT03345914|191712729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.984|-1.831||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.831|-2.984|< 0.0001
95969179|NCT01253018|191910568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in FM between the two interventions groups at retention (24 weeks).||||<0.05
95878375|NCT03345914|191712729|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.754|-1.599||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-1.599|-2.754|< 0.0001
95969180|NCT01253018|191910570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at final training 12 week.||||<0.05
95969181|NCT01253018|191910570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in WMFT between the two interventions groups at retention 24 weeks.||||<0.05
95878376|NCT03345914|191712730|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.434|-2.796||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.796|-5.434|< 0.0001
95969182|NCT01253018|191910571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at final training week 12.||||<0.05
95969183|NCT01253018|191910571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-tests were conducted to compare changes in SIS Hand between the two interventions groups at retention week 24.||||<0.05
95969184|NCT02285153|191910583|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.434|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.792||Due to the low number of participants, the results of the statistical tests must be interpreted with caution!|Chi-squared|||||4.792|0.039|0.57
95969185|NCT02285153|191910584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.057
95969186|NCT02285153|191910585|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95969187|NCT02285153|191910586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.467
95969188|NCT01276379|191910620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.29|||Log Rank|||||3.29|1.23|0.004
95969189|NCT01276379|191910621|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|1.33|<0.0001
95969190|NCT05384938|191910635|OTHER|Single group|Median time to response|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|160.0|||||Estimate for Time to Response using Kaplan-Meier method|Estimate for Time to Response (Days)||160.0|65.00|
95969191|NCT05384938|191910639|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 4 (Visit 2)||||<0.0001
95969192|NCT05384938|191910639|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 16 (Visit 4)||||<0.0001
95969193|NCT05384938|191910639|OTHER|Parametric Test|||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||Week 24 (Visit 5)||||<0.0001
95969194|NCT03898167|191910640|OTHER||Relative Participation|2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|2.8||95% CIs were calculated.||||Bivariable tables, Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric tests were used to compare demographic/health care characteristics by study group. Log binomial regression was used to calculate screening proportion, participation difference, and relative participation (calculated as relative risk), with 95% CIs. Overall participation difference and relative participation for SC and SC with patient navigation vs TR were calculated by combining numerators and denominators from each group.||2.80|1.99|
95969195|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.324
95969196|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.031
95969197|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.076
95969198|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.013
95969199|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.553
95969200|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.132
95969201|NCT01200290|191910643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.230
95969202|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 8.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.335
95969203|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 16.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.043
95969204|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 24.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.073
95969205|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 36.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.004
95969206|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 52.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.699
95969207|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 64.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.095
95969208|NCT01200290|191910644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for Week 76.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||||||0.082
95878377|NCT03345914|191712730|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.298|-2.657||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.657|-5.298|< 0.0001
95878378|NCT03345914|191712731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.37|||=|0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.779|-0.962||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.962|-5.779|= 0.0061
95878379|NCT03345914|191712731|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.02|||=|0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.414|-0.629||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.629|-5.414|= 0.0133
95878380|NCT03345914|191712732|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.734|-2.272||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-2.272|-6.734|< 0.0001
95878381|NCT03345914|191712732|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.641|-3.207||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as covariate and the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANCOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-3.207|-7.641|< 0.0001
95969209|NCT00432666|191910740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis was equality of the chance (OR = 1) for a clinically relevant treatment effect between incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin) and placebo at Week 4 for wrist flexors. Responders were defined as subjects with an improvement of at least 1 point in the Ashworth score compared with Baseline. The dependent variable was the response to treatment, the independent variables were treatment, Ashworth score at the Baseline Visit, pre-treated patient status, gender, age, BMI, and pooled sites.||8.30|1.90|<0.001
95969210|NCT00923260|191910833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95969211|NCT00923260|191910834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95969212|NCT00923260|191910835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95969213|NCT00923260|191910836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.86
95969214|NCT00923260|191910837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95969215|NCT00923260|191910838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95969216|NCT00923260|191910839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95969217|NCT00923260|191910840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95969218|NCT00923260|191910841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95878382|NCT03345914|191712733|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-4.8|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|2.87||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||2.87|-12.49|= 0.222
95878383|NCT03345914|191712733|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Differenece|-7.3|||=|0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-0.03||P-values were derived by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by region \[North America vs Europe\] and baseline weight group \[\< 30 kg vs ≥ 30 kg\].|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.03|-14.51|= 0.0508
95878384|NCT03345914|191712736|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.7|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.96||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level||-1.96|-9.49|= 0.003
95878385|NCT03345914|191712736|SUPERIORITY|A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level|Least Square Mean Difference|-5.1|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-1.31||The confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on treatment difference (Dupilumab group vs placebo) of the LS mean percent change using ANOVA model with the treatment, randomization strata as fixed factors.|ANOVA|||||-1.31|-8.8|= 0.0082
95878386|NCT01419626|191712741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.461|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|-0.341|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.341|-0.581|<0.001
95878387|NCT01419626|191712741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.669|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.789|-0.549|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.549|-0.789|<0.001
95878388|NCT01419626|191712741|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis at Week 4|Difference in LS mean|-0.208|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.090|-0.326|<0.001
95878389|NCT01419626|191712742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.363|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.363|-0.625|<0.001
95878390|NCT01419626|191712742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.697|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|-0.567|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.567|-0.828|<0.001
95878391|NCT01419626|191712742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.203||||0.002||95.0|-0.333|-0.074|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.074|-0.333|0.002
95878392|NCT01419626|191712743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.021|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.021|-0.059|<0.001
95969219|NCT00923260|191910842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95969220|NCT00923260|191910843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95969221|NCT00923260|191910844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95969222|NCT00923260|191910845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95969223|NCT00923260|191910846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95852888|NCT02977403|191664886|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.113||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.113|-0.086|
95969224|NCT00923260|191910847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95969225|NCT00923260|191910848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95852889|NCT02977403|191664886|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.109||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.109|-0.179|
95854008|NCT01116986|191667216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.278|||Regression, Logistic|||The logistic regression model effects consisted of six treatment main effects and 15 two-way treatment interactions. The main effects provide direct tests of the primary aim of the study, i.e., determining whether or not more intensive treatments (compared to less intensive treatments; e.g., Short Term (8 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum vs. Long Term (26 Weeks) Postquit Nicotine Patch + Nicotine Gum) would result in significantly higher abstinence at 16 weeks post-quit.||1.278|.909|.389
95878393|NCT01419626|191712743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.044|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.064|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.025|-0.064|<0.001
95969226|NCT00923260|191910849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95969227|NCT00923260|191910850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95969228|NCT00923260|191910851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95969229|NCT00923260|191910852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95969230|NCT00923260|191910853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95969231|NCT00923260|191910854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95969232|NCT00923260|191910855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95969233|NCT00923260|191910856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95969234|NCT00923260|191910857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95969235|NCT00923260|191910858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95969236|NCT00923260|191910859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95969237|NCT00923260|191910860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95969238|NCT00923260|191910861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95969239|NCT00923260|191910862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95969240|NCT00923260|191910863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95969241|NCT00923260|191910864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95969242|NCT00923260|191910865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95969243|NCT00923260|191910866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95969244|NCT00923260|191910867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95969245|NCT00923260|191910868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95969246|NCT00923260|191910869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95969247|NCT00923260|191910870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95969248|NCT00923260|191910871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95969249|NCT00923260|191910872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95969250|NCT00923260|191910873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95969251|NCT00923260|191910874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95969252|NCT00923260|191910875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95969253|NCT00923260|191910876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95969254|NCT00923260|191910877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95969255|NCT00923260|191910878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95969256|NCT00923260|191910879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95878394|NCT01419626|191712743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.004||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.015|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.015|-0.023|0.671
95878395|NCT01419626|191712743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.091|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|-0.061|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.061|-0.121|<0.001
95878396|NCT01419626|191712743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.175|-0.114|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.114|-0.175|<0.001
95878397|NCT01419626|191712743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.023|-0.083|<0.001
95878398|NCT01419626|191712744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.065|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.065|-0.115|<0.001
95878399|NCT01419626|191712744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.164|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|-0.138|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.138|-0.189|<0.001
95878400|NCT01419626|191712744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.073|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.048|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.048|-0.099|<0.001
95878401|NCT01419626|191712744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.120|-0.180|<0.001
95878402|NCT01419626|191712744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.257|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|-0.226|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.226|-0.287|<0.001
95878403|NCT01419626|191712744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.107|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|-0.077|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.077|-0.137|<0.001
95878404|NCT01419626|191712745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.362|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|-0.259|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.259|-0.465|<0.001
95878405|NCT01419626|191712745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.534|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.637|-0.431|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.431|-0.637|<0.001
95878406|NCT01419626|191712745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.171||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.069|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.069|-0.273|0.001
95878407|NCT01419626|191712746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.292|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.292|-0.510|<0.001
95878408|NCT01419626|191712746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.558|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|-0.449|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.449|-0.667|<0.001
95878409|NCT01419626|191712746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.265|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.049|-0.265|<0.001
95878410|NCT01419626|191712747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.014|-0.046|<0.001
95878411|NCT01419626|191712747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.039|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.023|-0.055|<0.001
95878412|NCT01419626|191712747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.009||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.007|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.007|-0.025|0.294
95878413|NCT01419626|191712747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.019||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.003|-0.035|0.020
95878414|NCT01419626|191712747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.034|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|-0.018|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.018|-0.050|<0.001
95878415|NCT01419626|191712747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.015||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||0.001|-0.031|0.071
95878416|NCT01419626|191712748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.067|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.083|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.050|-0.083|<0.001
95878417|NCT01419626|191712748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.083|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|-0.066|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||-0.066|-0.099|<0.001
95878418|NCT01419626|191712748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.016||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 2||0.000|-0.032|0.057
95878419|NCT01419626|191712748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.077|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|-0.059|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.059|-0.095|<0.001
95878420|NCT01419626|191712748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.083|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.083|-0.120|<0.001
95878421|NCT01419626|191712748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.024||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|-0.006|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at Week 4||-0.006|-0.042|0.009
95878422|NCT00850070|191712762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.35|||||||Chi-squared||Estimated value comparison was active treatment minus placebo.|Chi-square analyses were used to assess CGI-I scores. There were no transformations.||||<.35
95878423|NCT00850070|191712763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.06
95878424|NCT00850070|191712769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95969257|NCT00923260|191910880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95969258|NCT00923260|191910881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95969259|NCT00923260|191910882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95969260|NCT00923260|191910883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95969261|NCT00923260|191910884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95969262|NCT00923260|191910885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95878425|NCT05047770|191712772|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-gE antibody concentration was below (\<) 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 2 doses of HZ/su vaccine when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to HZ/su vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-gE GMCs, at 1 month post-dose 2 of HZ/su vaccine administration (Week 14 for HZ/suSeq group and Week 12 for HZ/suCoAd group).||1.13|0.89|
95878426|NCT05047770|191712773|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between HZ/suSeq group and HZ/suCoAd group for anti-S protein antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when the first dose of HZ/su vaccine was co-administered with the mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone, in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both HZ/suSeq and HZ/suCoAd groups).||1.32|0.90|
95878427|NCT05047770|191712774|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H1N1 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.18|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.18|0.89|
95969263|NCT00923260|191910886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95969264|NCT00923260|191910887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95969265|NCT00923260|191910888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95969266|NCT00923260|191910889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95969267|NCT00923260|191910890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95969268|NCT00923260|191910891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95969269|NCT00923260|191910892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95969270|NCT00923260|191910893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95969271|NCT00923260|191910894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95969272|NCT00923260|191910895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95969273|NCT00923260|191910896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95969274|NCT02929329|191910956|SUPERIORITY|"The overall type I error was 0.05 for 2-sided testing across primary and secondary outcomes.~Control for multiple comparisons was achieved using the following testing algorithm: if the primary outcome met the P-value threshold of 0.05, the alpha error would be divided unequally between cardiovascular death (96% of the overall alpha error, or 0.048) and change from baseline to week 24 in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (4% of the overall alpha error, or 0.002)."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||0.99|0.86|0.0252
95969275|NCT02929329|191910956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Log-rank test stratified by randomization setting and region.||||||0.0211
95969276|NCT02929329|191910956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.99|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||0.99|0.86|
95969277|NCT02929329|191910957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11||If significance for the primary outcome was determined, cardiovascular death was tested against an alpha of 0.048.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.11|0.92|0.8555
95878428|NCT05047770|191712774|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the A/H3N2 influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.05|0.82|
95878429|NCT05047770|191712774|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.14|0.89|
95878430|NCT05047770|191712774|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMT ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-HI antibody titer was \<1.5 for the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain.|GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of anti-HI GMTs against the B/Yamagata lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||1.17|0.93|
95878431|NCT05047770|191712775|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the adjusted GMC ratio between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group for anti-S antibody concentration was \<1.5.|GMC Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of mRNA-1273 booster when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine compared to mRNA-1273 booster dose administered alone in terms of anti-S protein GMCs, at 1 month post-mRNA-1273 booster dose administration (at Week 4 for both FluD-QIVSeq and FluD-QIVCoAd groups).||1.13|0.84|
95878432|NCT05047770|191712776|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|6.4|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H1N1 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||6.4|-5.1|
95878433|NCT05047770|191712776|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the A/H3N2 influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.2|-7.8|
95969278|NCT02929329|191910957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the treatment group and baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint were considered as the competing risk.||1.11|0.92|
95969279|NCT02929329|191910958|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.48|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||0.48|-1.40|
95969280|NCT02929329|191910958|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.46|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|||4.46|0.54|
95969281|NCT02929329|191910958|SUPERIORITY|If significance for the primary outcome was determined, change from baseline in the KCCQ total symptom score was tested against an alpha of 0.002.||||||0.0278|||||||Omnibus F-test|||||||0.0278
95969282|NCT02929329|191910958|OTHER||Pooled treatment difference|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.51|||||Overall pooled estimate of treatment difference (Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo) using random effects meta-analysis approach.|||4.51|-2.55|
95969283|NCT02929329|191910958|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||0.20|-1.62|
95969284|NCT02929329|191910958|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.82|||||Treatment difference = Omecamtiv mecarbil - Placebo|As a sensitivity for missing data due to death, joint longitudinal and survival models were fit using KCCQ TSS observed values with random subject slopes and intercepts for the longitudinal models with terms for baseline eGFR, region, and treatment by slope. The survival models were fit for all-cause death with baseline eGFR and treatment in the proportional hazard part of the models, KCCQ TSS modeled values as the shared parameterization, stratified by region with Weibull baseline functions.||3.82|0.80|
95969285|NCT02929329|191910959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03||If statistical significance was achieved for both the time to CV death and change from baseline in the KCCQ TSS, time to first heart failure hospitalization was to be tested at the full alpha.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by randomization setting and region, including terms for baseline eGFR and treatment group.|Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.03|0.87|0.1902
95969286|NCT02929329|191910959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04|||||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|Competing risk subdistribution hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence intervals for treatment were computed. Deaths not included in the endpoint are considered as the competing risk.||1.04|0.88|
95969287|NCT02929329|191910960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.09||If time to first heart failure hospitalization was statistically significant, time to all-cause death was to be tested with the same alpha as time to first heart failure hospitalization.|Regression, Cox||Cox proportional-hazards model with baseline hazards stratified according to the randomization setting and geographic region and with the trial group and the baseline eGFR as covariates.|||1.09|0.92|0.9633
95969288|NCT00359216|191910961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9219||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The p-value is obtained by F-test in ANCOVA to assess the treatment group difference in changes from baseline, adjusted for baseline.||||0.9219
95878434|NCT05047770|191712776|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Victoria lineage influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||5.9|-5.8|
95878435|NCT05047770|191712776|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the UL of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain between FluD-QIVSeq group and FluD-QIVCoAd group was \< 10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of humoral immunogenicity of 1 dose of Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with mRNA-1273 booster dose compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine administered alone, in terms of percentage of participants seroconverted for anti-HI antibodies against the B/Yamagata influenza strain included in the Flu D-QIV vaccine, at 1 month post-Flu D-QIV vaccine dose administration (Week 6 for FluD-QIVSeq group and Week 4 for FluD-QIVCoAd group).||3.9|-7.0|
95878436|NCT03719612|191712816|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.947||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.358
95878437|NCT03719612|191712816|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.699||0.804|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.804
95969289|NCT00127205|191911067|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
95969290|NCT00127205|191911067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.94|0.24
95878438|NCT03719612|191712816|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.412||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.371
95878439|NCT03719612|191712817|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.952||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.030
95969291|NCT00127205|191911067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.90|0.50
95878440|NCT03719612|191712817|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.466||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.312
95878441|NCT03719612|191712817|SUPERIORITY|Difference between Echo Enhanced and Echo Unenhanced|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.725||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||0.347
95878442|NCT03719612|191712818|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.977|
95969292|NCT00127205|191911068|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.50
95969293|NCT00127205|191911069|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for recurrence to bone||||0.93
95969294|NCT04032613|191911113|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.2||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.20
95969295|NCT04032613|191911114|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.05||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.05
95969296|NCT04032613|191911115|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.004||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.004
95969297|NCT04032613|191911116|OTHER|Paired sample t-test||||||0.14||||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Paired sample t-test|||||||0.14
95969298|NCT03231800|191911122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.351|-3.137|||ANCOVA|||Least squares means, SEs, 95% CIs, and p-values were generated using an ANCOVA model, with treatment (dasotraline/placebo), mean SKAMP-CS at baseline, and site as fixed effects.||-3.137|-7.351|<0.001
95969299|NCT03231800|191911125|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.612||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.694|25.017|||ANCOVA|||||25.017|2.694|0.016
95969300|NCT03231800|191911126|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.105|23.017|||ANCOVA|||||23.017|1.105|0.031
95969301|NCT01163292|191911138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.144
95969302|NCT01163292|191911138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.004
95969303|NCT01163292|191911138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.006
95969304|NCT01163292|191911139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 0||||0.290
95969305|NCT01163292|191911139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 26||||1.000
95878443|NCT03719612|191712818|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.966|0.936|
95878444|NCT03719612|191712818|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.978|0.958|
95969306|NCT01163292|191911139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Week 52||||0.001
95878445|NCT03719612|191712818|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.959|0.923|
95878446|NCT03719612|191712818|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|0.972||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced||0.972|0.947|
95878447|NCT03719612|191712818|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
95878448|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.988|0.978|
95878449|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.967|0.983||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.983|0.967|
95969307|NCT01163292|191911140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.335
95878450|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|0.981||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.981|0.963|
95878451|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.952|0.910|
95878452|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.973|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.98||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced||0.980|0.962|
95878453|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.924|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced||0.945|0.896|
95878454|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.992||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.992|0.984|
95969308|NCT01163292|191911141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 0||||0.266
95969309|NCT01163292|191911141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 26||||0.440
95969310|NCT01163292|191911141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||Week 52||||0.609
95969311|NCT02643472|191911150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.73
95969312|NCT02643472|191911151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||STAI Y-1 data was used in these statistical analyses.||||0.12
95969313|NCT02643472|191911152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.03
95878455|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.988||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.988|0.977|
95878456|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.989|0.978|
95878457|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|0.962||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.962|0.928|
95878458|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|0.984||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced||0.984|0.969|
95878459|NCT03719612|191712819|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|0.958||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced||0.958|0.920|
95878460|NCT03719612|191712820|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
95878461|NCT03719612|191712820|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|0.963||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.963|0.888|
95878462|NCT03719612|191712820|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.961|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.978||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.978|0.931|
95878463|NCT03719612|191712820|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|0.955||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.955|0.864|
95878464|NCT03719612|191712820|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|0.97||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.970|0.907|
95878465|NCT03719612|191712820|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|0.945||||||Inter-Reader Variability Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.945|0.834|
95878466|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.971|
95878467|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.956|
95878468|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
95878469|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|0.966||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.966|0.896|
95878470|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|0.987||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.987|0.959|
95878471|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|0.956||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Diastolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.956|0.866|
95878472|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|0.994||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.994|0.982|
95878473|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|0.986||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.986|0.957|
95878474|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|0.991||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.991|0.973|
95969314|NCT02643472|191911155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|In analyzing predicted means, results of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) modeling controlled for time from baseline at each assessment.||||||0.06
95878475|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.959||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.959|0.876|
95878476|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.981|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.966|0.989||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Enhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.989|0.966|
95878477|NCT03719612|191712821|OTHER||Intra-class Correlation Coefficient|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|0.952||||||Inter-Reader Variability End Systolic Echo Unenhanced Sub-Optimal Echocardiograms||0.952|0.855|
95878478|NCT02130570|191712855|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.52||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91||This is the P-value for the adjusted IRR.|Regression poissant|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.91|0.30|0.02
95878479|NCT02130570|191712856|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.78||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95||This is the p-value for the adjusted rate|Regression poissant|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score, inpatient unit, and primary care practice. IRR: incidence rate ratio|0.95|0.64|0.01
95878480|NCT02130570|191712857|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.85||This is the P-value for the adjusted Odds Ratio|Regression, Logistic|"For adjustments, please see the Other Statistical Analysis field below."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect . OR: odds ratio|1.85|0.64|0.77
95878481|NCT02130570|191712858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the P-value for the adjusted difference.|Regression, Linear|"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|||Adjusted for study month, Elixhauser comorbidity score, patient age, sex, language, race/ethnicity, cognitive status, health literacy, functional status one month prior to admission, caregiver status, median income by zip code, ED visits in the previous 6 months, HOSPITAL readmission risk score; clustered by inpatient unit; primary care practice as a random effect.|||0.91
95969315|NCT02643472|191911156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95878482|NCT02130570|191712859|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.85||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments and the P-value computed for each survey question."|Regression, Logistic||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for a list of the estimated value and 95% CI for each survey question."||"Please see the Other Statistical Analysis field for adjustments."|1.51|0.47|0.57
95878483|NCT01781975|191712912|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA|0.0616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364||0.048|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.00176|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|0.00176|0.048
95878484|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0701|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.0701
95878485|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1383|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.1383
95878486|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0478|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Perianal disease||||=0.0478
95878487|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1454|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Ileal disease||||=0.1454
95878488|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=1.0000
95878489|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=0.4992
95878490|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Episcleritis||||=1.0000
95878491|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Uveitis||||=1.0000
95969316|NCT02643472|191911157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95969317|NCT02643472|191911158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95969318|NCT02643472|191911159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Cognitive subscale.||||0.92
95969319|NCT02643472|191911159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Language subscale.||||0.58
95969320|NCT02643472|191911159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant development status was evaluated with Bayley subscales. Motor subscale.||||0.87
95969321|NCT00673400|191911160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Lifestyle (LS)||||0.1340
95969322|NCT00673400|191911160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||95.0||||based on 29 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Coping/behavior (C/B)||||0.088
95969323|NCT00673400|191911160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Depression/self-perception (D/S)||||0.0012
95969324|NCT00673400|191911160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||95.0||||based on 30 matched pairs|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Embarrassment (E)||||0.0074
95878492|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
95878493|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.2022
95878494|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
95878495|NCT04873700|191712932|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.0000
95878496|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2896|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Location of disease||||=0.2896
95878497|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Disease behavior||||=0.0006
95878498|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.089|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Peripheral arthritis||||=0.0890
95878499|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Pyoderma gangrenosum||||=1.0000
95878500|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Aphthous ulcers||||=1.0000
95878501|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Primary sclerosing cholangitis||||=1.0000
95878502|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Osteoporosis||||=1.0000
95878503|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0752|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Anemia||||=0.0752
95878504|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|1|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Hematological alteration||||=1.0000
95878505|NCT04873700|191712933|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1032|||||||Chi-squared|p-value was obtained from Chi-square/Fisher's exact test.||Extraintestinal manifestations: Other||||=0.1032
95878506|NCT02713204|191712972|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|0.02||||0.9894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||3.03|-2.99|0.9894
95878507|NCT02713204|191712972|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.25||||0.8346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.59|-2.09|0.8346
95878508|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.2||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.00|-4.41|0.4611
95878509|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Least square mean difference|-2.0||||0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|1.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.22|-5.22|0.2225
95878510|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.82||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|2.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.32|-3.97|0.6063
95878511|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.25||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-0.11||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.11|-6.39|0.0426
95878512|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.39||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-1.19|-7.58|0.0073
95878513|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.17||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|4.36||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.36|-2.01|0.4690
95878514|NCT02713204|191712973|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.42||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|5.54||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.54|-0.69|0.1267
95878515|NCT02713204|191712974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-11.57||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|16.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.20|-39.5|0.4130
95878516|NCT02713204|191712974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-4.88||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|16.85|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||16.85|-26.2|0.6587
95878517|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.04||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|55.43||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||55.43|-21.35|0.3833
95878518|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.85||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|51.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||51.53|-25.84|0.5141
95878519|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|33.89||||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|71.67|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||71.67|-3.89|0.0785
95878520|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|42.27||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.56|79.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||79.98|4.56|0.0281
95878521|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.65||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.67|54.96||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||54.96|-21.67|0.3934
95878522|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.05||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.13|59.22||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||59.22|-17.13|0.2790
95878523|NCT02713204|191712975|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.38||||0.6586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.64|28.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||28.88|-45.64|0.6586
95878524|NCT02713204|191712976|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.55||||0.4889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-1.01|0.4889
95878525|NCT02713204|191712976|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.24||||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.46||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.46|-0.99|0.7027
95878526|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.13|-2.34|0.4927
95878527|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.38||||0.6645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.13||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.13|-1.36|0.6645
95878528|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.89||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|0.83||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.83|-2.61|0.3091
95878529|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-2.29|0.4898
95878530|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.89|-2.50|0.3504
95878531|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.98||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.74|-2.70|0.2632
95878532|NCT02713204|191712977|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.21||||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.88|-1.46|0.8056
95878533|NCT02713204|191712978|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.57||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.25||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||2.25|-1.11|0.5065
95878534|NCT02713204|191712978|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.22||||0.7418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.55|0.7418
95878535|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.19||||0.8383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.62||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.62|-1.99|0.8383
95878536|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.1||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|-1.91|0.9180
95878537|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.41||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-3.20|0.1238
95878538|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.97||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-2.73|0.2819
95878539|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.02||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.75||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.75|-2.78|0.2581
95878540|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.87||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.92||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.92|-2.66|0.3390
95878541|NCT02713204|191712979|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.05||||0.9558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.79||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-1.69|0.9558
95878542|NCT02959983|191712997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1-12||||0.0022
95878543|NCT02959983|191712998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0119|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0119
95878544|NCT02959983|191712998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.0048
95878545|NCT02959983|191712998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0207
95878546|NCT02959983|191712998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.3700
95878547|NCT02959983|191712999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||Overall Weeks 1 to 12||||0.0174
95878548|NCT02959983|191712999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1 to 4||||0.3832
95878549|NCT02959983|191712999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0052
95878550|NCT02959983|191712999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0619|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0619
95878551|NCT02959983|191713000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 1-4||||0.0330
95878552|NCT02959983|191713000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 5 to 8||||0.0063
95878553|NCT02959983|191713000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Chi-squared|||Weeks 9 to 12||||0.0018
95878554|NCT02280304|191713076|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold = voxel p\<.001, cluster p\<.05, FDR whole brain correction. There is no correction for multiple seeds given small sample sizes and pre-post design. To report NS p-values and associated z-scores, uncorrected cluster ps were queried.|t-test, 1 sided|||Z-scores represent Fisher transformed correlation coefficients representing the correlations between hypothesized regions. Positive values represents positive connectivity between regions. Negative values represent anticorrelations, or negative relations, between hypothesized regions.||||>0.05
95878555|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878556|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation subscale of the CRIS, Post - Pre|||||
95878557|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878558|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d reflects Extent of Participation Scale of the Cris pre- post|||||
95878559|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878560|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohens d reflects the Cris pre post Perceived Limitations scale|||||
95878561|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878562|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Cohens d|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878563|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878564|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Cohens d|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878565|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878566|NCT02280304|191713077|OTHER||Cohens d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878567|NCT02280304|191713078|OTHER||Cohens d|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
95878568|NCT02280304|191713078|OTHER||Cohens d|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d=.20 small, Cohen's d=.50 medium, Cohen's d=.80 large)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
95878569|NCT02280304|191713079|OTHER||Cohens d|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size change (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
95969325|NCT00673400|191911163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
95969326|NCT00673400|191911163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
95969327|NCT00673400|191911163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
95969328|NCT00673400|191911164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
95969329|NCT00673400|191911164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
95969330|NCT00673400|191911164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided, paired test, exact method||||||<0.0000001
95969331|NCT00673400|191911165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Physical component summary (PCS)||||0.65
95878570|NCT02280304|191713079|OTHER||Cohens d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d effect size (Cohen's d =0.20 is a small effect; Cohen's d=0.50 is a medium effect; Cohen's d=0.80 is a large effect.)|Cohen's d effect sizes are reported for changes over time (0 weeks vs. 12 weeks) in each group separately.||||
95878571|NCT02280304|191713080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0099||||||The p-value obtained for the L PHG seed/L IPL cluster is 0.0099. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<.0099
95878572|NCT02280304|191713080|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.02||||||The p-value obtained for the L anterior PGH seed/left VMPC cluster is 0.02. The critical p-value after Bonferroni correction for six seeds is p=.008.|t-test, 2 sided|Significance is determined when clusters reach voxel threshold p\<.001, cluster p\<.05 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain.||||||<0.02
95878573|NCT02280304|191713081|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|3.8e-05|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in MPFC p\<0.000038 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across whole brain. Bonferroni correction for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<.000038
95878574|NCT02280304|191713081|OTHER||Slope|0.02|||<|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|||||Cluster in the right cerebellum (crus 2) p\<0.000149 FDR corrected for multiple comparisons across the whole brain. Bonferroni for multiple seeds p=0.008.|Regression, Linear|Significance is determined when voxel (height) threshold p=.001, cluster threshold p=.05, FDR corrected for multiple tests across the whole brain.||The extent of community participation prior to therapy was correlated with the functional connectivity of the right hippocampus seed after therapy (post-pre).||||<0.000149
95878575|NCT00094172|191713102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Log Rank|||This is the primary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.929
95878576|NCT00094172|191713102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.823|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the secondary analysis of the primary endpoint||||0.823
95878577|NCT00094172|191713103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Log Rank|||||||.208
95878578|NCT00094172|191713104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.526
95878579|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0007
95878580|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||0.0007
95878581|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||0.0011
95878582|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||0.0015
95878583|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0029
95878584|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||0.0004
95878585|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||0.0059
95878586|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||0.0002
95878587|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0002
95878588|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878589|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878590|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878591|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||0.0002
95878592|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878593|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878594|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878595|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878596|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878597|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 9 (Month 9 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878598|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878599|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 15 (Month 15 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878600|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878601|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 21 (Month 21 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878602|NCT01313858|191713107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FFbH at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878603|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||0.0003
95878604|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878605|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878606|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878607|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878608|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878609|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878610|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878611|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878612|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878613|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 3 (Month 3 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878614|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878615|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878616|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878617|NCT01313858|191713108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in FACIT-F at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878618|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878619|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878620|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878621|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878622|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878623|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878624|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878625|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878626|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 6 (Month 6 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878627|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 12 (Month 12 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878628|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 18 (Month 18 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878629|NCT01313858|191713109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Least squares mean difference from baseline in EQ-5D-3L at Month 24 (Month 24 minus BL)||||<0.0001
95878630|NCT03689530|191713112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7436|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.7436
95878631|NCT03689530|191713113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1212|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1212
95878632|NCT03689530|191713114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8839|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8839
95878633|NCT03689530|191713115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1137|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1137
95878634|NCT03689530|191713116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0162
95878635|NCT03689530|191713118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.2117
95969332|NCT00673400|191911165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||based on 28 pairwise matches|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|matched pair test, two-sided, exact method||Mental component summary (MCS)||||0.010
95878636|NCT03689530|191713119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4169
95878637|NCT03689530|191713120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8785|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.8785
95878638|NCT03689530|191713121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.1006
95878639|NCT03689530|191713122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7168|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7168
95878640|NCT03689530|191713123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcomes were analyzed using multilevel models adapted for partially clustered data. Analyses was done in SAS v9.4||||0.0001
95878641|NCT03689530|191713124|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.799|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.885|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878642|NCT03689530|191713125|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|3.732|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878643|NCT03689530|191713126|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.222|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95878644|NCT03689530|191713127|OTHER|Single group analysis for peer support group only|Mean|6.179|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.141|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95969333|NCT01680640|191911166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Regression, Linear|||A total sample size of 100 participants, with a 14% drop out during the study and 43 participants in each group completing the study provided 85% power to detect a difference of 40% in liver fat (in the treatment arm compared with the placebo), using a power calculation test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. For change in liver fat percentage (and other secondary outcomes), ANCOVA will also be undertaken to assess effect sizes in the intervention group and placebo.||||=0.05
95969334|NCT01680640|191911166|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95878645|NCT03689530|191713128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9126
95878646|NCT03689530|191713129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7405|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7405
95878647|NCT03689530|191713130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5956|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5956
95878648|NCT03689530|191713131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3341|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3341
95878649|NCT03689530|191713132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2049
95878650|NCT03689530|191713133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0335|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0335
95878651|NCT03689530|191713134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3219
95878652|NCT03689530|191713135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5223
95878653|NCT01392443|191713136|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||single-sample biniminal test|||||||0.0007
95878654|NCT01895062|191713141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.022
95878655|NCT04622306|191713159|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total clinical failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified in ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%.|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Expected test condom total clinical failure rate - expected control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
95878656|NCT04622306|191713159|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CLof difference|2.5||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set.|GEE|||Null Hypothesis: Test condom total clinical failure rate - control natural rubber latex male condom total clinical failure rate ≥ δ, where δ = 2.5%; Power calculations were conducted according to ISO 29943-1:2017. Target sample sizes were chosen to provide a power of at least 90%.||2.5||0.025
95878657|NCT04622306|191713159|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in total failure rates (clinical breakage plus clinical slippage) between the test and control condom is specified on ISO 23409:2011 as 2.5%|Upper 97.5% CL for difference|2.37||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||The p-value was adjusted to 0.025 since two comparisons are being made on the data set|GEE|||The non-inferiority analysis was repeated after removing couples where the male partner had a penis length greater than 170 mm. The polyurethane condom B has a specified nominal length of 170 mm and is not recommended for men with penises longer than the length of the condom.||2.5||0.025
95878658|NCT00944671|191713175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given a 3-period crossover design, assuming a true within subject variance for natural log AUC of 0.029, 24 subjects completing the study, and alpha = 0.05, there is a 0.995 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of AUC for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
95878659|NCT00944671|191713176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true within subject variance for natural log Cmax of 0.017, there is a 0.999 probability that the 90% confidence interval for the true geometric mean ratio of Cmax for (famotidine antacid combination EZ Chew tablet without water/ famotidine antacid combination tablet with water) will be contained in (0.80, 1.25), given that the true ratio is one.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.13||||||||1.13|0.93|
95878660|NCT00944671|191713177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|0.98|1.13||||||||1.13|0.98|
95878661|NCT00944671|191713178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.93|1.14||||||||1.14|0.93|
95878662|NCT00142935|191713205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Outcome: engage in treatment post release, yes or no||||<0.001
95878663|NCT00142935|191713206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.02
95878664|NCT00142935|191713207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
95878665|NCT00142935|191713208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.09
95878666|NCT00142935|191713210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8
95878667|NCT04269707|191713241|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in hemoglobin from baseline to day 35 was assessed using paired t-tests (two-sided test, alpha = 0.05).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.80|-0.40|0.1711
95878668|NCT00885846|191713263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Regression analysis performed for equal variance at baseline.||||||0.664||95.0|||||Repeated ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2||Power analysis suggested 27 participants, 9 in each group.||||0.664
95878669|NCT00074984|191713264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.574||||0.1449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|1.222|||Log Rank|Comparison is based on a 2-sided log-rank test.||||1.222|0.269|0.1449
95878670|NCT00074984|191713264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.465||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|1.025|||Wald Test|||Time to First Primary Endpoint Adjusting for Baseline Proteinuria using Cox Proportional Hazards Model||1.025|0.211|0.0577
95878671|NCT00074984|191713265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.927|||Log Rank|2-sided log-rank test||Analysis of Time to First Renal Event for ITT population.||1.927|0.278|0.5261
95878672|NCT03758443|191713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.69|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.69|-1.22|0.5809
95878673|NCT03758443|191713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.59|-1.33|0.4501
95969335|NCT01680640|191911167|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end-of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.00
95878674|NCT03758443|191713269|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.65||||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Least square estimates, 95% CI, and p-values were obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, steroid use at baseline (yes, no) and prior biologic failure (yes, no), and baseline total Mayo score as covariate.||0.30|-1.60|0.1809
95878675|NCT03758443|191713270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3762|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3762
95878676|NCT03758443|191713270|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878677|NCT03758443|191713270|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878678|NCT03758443|191713271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|0.0||||0.9542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.11||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.110|-0.104|0.9542
95878679|NCT03758443|191713271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.071||P-value is shown for Cochran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.071|-0.126|0.5863
95878680|NCT03758443|191713271|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion|-0.03||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.069||P-value is shown for Conhran-Mantel Haenszel tests stratified by prior biologic failure and steroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in proportion estimates used Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights.|||0.069|-0.131|0.5408
95878681|NCT03758443|191713272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6656|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6656
95878682|NCT03758443|191713272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6424|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6424
95878683|NCT03758443|191713272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6199
95878684|NCT03758443|191713273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2643
95878685|NCT03758443|191713273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878686|NCT03758443|191713273|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878687|NCT03758443|191713274|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878688|NCT03758443|191713274|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878689|NCT03758443|191713274|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95878690|NCT03080454|191713275|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean percent change from baseline in area under the curve for the resistance torque measure across 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean percent change in area under the curve between anodal and sham Doublestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.004||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean percent change in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95878691|NCT03080454|191713276|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean Tardieu Scale Score summed across 11 joints of the upper extremity in 2 conditions (anodal vs. sham Doublestim) and at 2 timepoints (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU). Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change between anodal and sham Doubleestim conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.003||||||A 2x2 repeated measures ANOVA was performed with condition (mean score in anodal vs. sham condition) and time (final session at day 5 and 1 week FU in each condition) as factors. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|ANOVA|||||||0.003
95878692|NCT01496248|191713277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878693|NCT01496248|191713278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878694|NCT01496248|191713279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878695|NCT01496248|191713280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878696|NCT01496248|191713281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878697|NCT01496248|191713282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878698|NCT01496248|191713283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878699|NCT01496248|191713284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95878700|NCT00660673|191713300|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||<0.001
95878701|NCT00660673|191713300|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in off time was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||0.433
95878702|NCT00660673|191713301|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t-test."||||<0.001
95878703|NCT00660673|191713301|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time without troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.150
95878704|NCT00660673|191713302|OTHER|||||||0.725|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from initial LCIG infusion to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.725
95878705|NCT00660673|191713302|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||One-sample t-test|||"Change from Baseline to end of study in on time with troublesome dyskinesia was assessed for significance using a 1-sample paired t test"||||0.019
95878706|NCT00579098|191713310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.75
95878707|NCT00579098|191713311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||0.37
95878708|NCT00579098|191713312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95878709|NCT00579098|191713313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||Comparison between treatment groups. A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95878710|NCT00579098|191713314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in total cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
95878711|NCT00579098|191713314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in LDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||<0.001
95878712|NCT00579098|191713314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The change in HDL cholesterol was compared between treatment groups.||||0.92
95878713|NCT04154930|191713380|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|69.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.54|86.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||86.89|52.54|<0.001
95878714|NCT04154930|191713381|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.67|84.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 6 Months After Baseline||84.28|60.67|<0.001
95878715|NCT04154930|191713381|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|66.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.97|77.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 9 Months After Baseline||77.92|54.97|<0.001
95878716|NCT04154930|191713381|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|52.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|64.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Responder Rate Based on the Blinded Evaluator's live assessment of the GIHS at 12 Months After Baseline||64.26|40.57|<0.001
95878717|NCT00347360|191713398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.41499. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
95878718|NCT00347360|191713399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||Hung AVE test, see comments|Hung AVE Test Statistic: -0.00485. Tests an average of the minimum gains (in response) for the 9 combination cells over corresponding monotherapies.||This is an omnibus test to investigate the existence of at least one combination dose that outperforms its components.||||>0.1
95878719|NCT02400333|191713550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|84.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.77|93.78||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||93.78|76.77|
95878720|NCT02400333|191713550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.22|105.79||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||105.79|88.22|
95878721|NCT02400333|191713550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.59|99.25||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.25|85.59|
95878722|NCT02400333|191713550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.03|98.39||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.39|82.03|
95878723|NCT02400333|191713550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|104.9||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||104.90|90.53|
95878724|NCT02400333|191713550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.83|103.74||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||103.74|90.83|
95878725|NCT02400333|191713551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.33|99.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.99|90.33|
95878726|NCT02400333|191713551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.94|101.21||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||101.21|89.94|
95878727|NCT02400333|191713551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.53|98.98||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.98|90.53|
95969336|NCT01680640|191911168|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.80
95969337|NCT01680640|191911169|SUPERIORITY|For each primary outcome, a change variable was calculated as the difference between end of study and baseline measurements. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the effect of synbiotic treatment on each of the change variables of interest.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Beta-diversity indexes|Beta-diversity indexes were first visualized through a Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA)||||||<0.001
95878728|NCT02400333|191713551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.94|98.56||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.56|90.94|
95878729|NCT02400333|191713551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.87|100.33||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.33|91.87|
95878730|NCT02400333|191713551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.08|100.17||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.17|93.08|
95878731|NCT02400333|191713552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.27|99.89||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.89|90.27|
95878732|NCT02400333|191713552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.81|100.99||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||100.99|89.81|
95878733|NCT02400333|191713552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26|98.73||||||Statistical assessment of ticagrelor relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.73|90.26|
95878734|NCT02400333|191713552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.36|98.42||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered with water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.42|91.36|
95878735|NCT02400333|191713552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.78|99.82||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered without water compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.82|91.78|
95878736|NCT02400333|191713552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.26|99.87||||||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets suspended in water and administered through NG tube compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.87|93.26|
95878737|NCT00283400|191713584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc comparison of outcomes in dosage tier 1 vs dosage tier 2.||||14.1|0.65|<0.05
95878738|NCT04138810|191713600|NON_INFERIORITY|We defined the non-inferiority margin to be 5 points which with a sample of size of 25 women per arm would mean we would have a type I error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.80.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.03||||||||1.03|-1.95|
95878739|NCT00696800|191713601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Treatment groups were formally compared with a generalized linear model for the ongoing pregnancy rate which included factors for treatment group, age at randomization, and region. A pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 8% was applied.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-3.8|
95878740|NCT00696800|191713602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in number of oocytes. If the 95% confidence interval of the difference exceeded -3 or +5 oocytes, then Corifollitropin Alfa treatment was not considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.9||Treatment groups were formally compared including covariates treatment group, age and center.|ANOVA|||||1.9|0.5|0.001
95878741|NCT00762385|191713624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1247||||98.3|-0.2346|0.03164|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.03164|-0.2346|
95878742|NCT00762385|191713625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02287||||98.3|-0.04297|0.00556|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.005560|-0.04297|
95878743|NCT00762385|191713626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||||98.3|0.04553|0.2726|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference is galyfilcon A minus comfilcon A.|Results is overall lens effect with time as a covariate.||0.2726|0.04553|
95878744|NCT03863197|191713639|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878745|NCT03863197|191713640|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878746|NCT03863197|191713641|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878747|NCT03863197|191713642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878748|NCT03863197|191713643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878749|NCT03863197|191713644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878750|NCT03863197|191713648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878751|NCT03863197|191713649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The α-level was adjusted to p ≤ 0.01 since multiple parameters were evaluated for most research questions, with a maximum of 5 parameters (functional strength)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95878752|NCT01065597|191713650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||0.001
95878753|NCT01065597|191713651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|This was a paired t-test.||||||>0.05
95878754|NCT01065597|191713653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95878755|NCT02653872|191713679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|153.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.16|172.83|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||172.83|136.16|
95878756|NCT02653872|191713679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of Cmax for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over Cmax for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.84|68.34|||ANOVA|||The study was designed based on a test for bioequivalence. Using an estimated standard deviation for Cmax of AZD7986 of less than or equal to 0.202, 12 evaluable subjects were deemed needed to achieve a power of 90%, at an assumed ratio of 0.95, to show that a two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cmax between 2 treatments (AZD7986 and AZD7986+ Verapamil/Itraconazole) would be contained within the (0.8;1.25) equivalence limit. 3 extra subjects were added to compensate for dropout.||68.34|53.84|
95878757|NCT02653872|191713680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|132.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.78|143.64|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||143.64|121.78|
95878758|NCT02653872|191713680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|113.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.69|123.49|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC. A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||123.49|104.69|
95969338|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.3|-6.8|
95878759|NCT02653872|191713681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with verapamil over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|133.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.7|145.29|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||145.29|122.70|
95878760|NCT02653872|191713681|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered with itraconazole over AUC (0-t) for AZD7986 administered alone. Presented as a percentage.|% Geometric Mean Ratio|112.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.34|122.37|||ANOVA|||The study was sized for Cmax primarily and not AUC (0-t). A two-sided 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC (0-t) between the two treatments groups was used to determine equivalence.||122.37|103.34|
95878761|NCT04545060|191713694|SUPERIORITY||adjusted relative risk ratio|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.5||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.50|0.09|<0.001
95878762|NCT04545060|191713712|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.63||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.63|0.19|<0.001
95878763|NCT04545060|191713713|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.76||two-sided, alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-1.38|<0.001
95878764|NCT04545060|191713715|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.232||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.065||two-sided, alpha=0.05|Mixed model repeated measures|||||-0.065|-0.399|0.007
95878765|NCT04545060|191713719|SUPERIORITY||relative risk ratio|0.26||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.59||two-sided, alpha=0.05|poisson regression model|||||0.59|0.12|0.002
95878766|NCT00914485|191713728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Increase in mean, post-intervention versus baseline, across 18 providers and 369 patients.||||.03
95878767|NCT00973674|191713731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Barnard's unconditional Exact Test|||||||0.99
95878768|NCT00973674|191713732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.77|||Log Rank|||||3.77|0.74|.033
95878769|NCT00973674|191713733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.35
95878770|NCT02068027|191713743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4503||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4503
95878771|NCT02068027|191713744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735||||||MMRM imputing for missing data|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7350
95878772|NCT00657358|191713760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R^2 (adj)|0.477|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|DF=2 DFDEN=371.8, F-ratio=10.66||||||<0.001
95878773|NCT00005044|191713765|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39|||Log Rank||Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Assuming 40% of deaths in the 8-wk arm from prostate cancer (PC) and that 8-yr DSS would be 79%, 270 PC deaths were required to detect a 33% hazard reduction in the 28-wk arm with 90% power using the log-rank test with a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Under assumed failure rates, 1,540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years were expected to provide the requisite events. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate and 3 interim analyses.||1.39|0.48|0.45
95878774|NCT00005044|191713766|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.15|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level of 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|With 1540 patients accrued over 4 years and observed for an additional 6 years, determined for the primary endpoint, there would be 90% power to detect a 22% reduction in the hazard of all cause deaths in the 28-week arm, with 2-sided significance level of 0.05. This sample accounted for a 10% ineligible/lack-of-data rate.||1.15|0.79|0.62
95878775|NCT00005044|191713767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.08|||Log Rank|Significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.08|0.85|0.47
95878776|NCT00005044|191713768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.05|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Locoregional progression||1.05|0.40|0.07
95878777|NCT00005044|191713768|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.66|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Distant metastasis||1.66|0.68|0.80
95878778|NCT00005044|191713769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Protocol definition||1.17|0.89|0.74
95878779|NCT00005044|191713769|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Gray's test|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|Phoenix definition||1.19|0.79|0.77
95878780|NCT00005044|191713770|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = TAS x 8 weeks|||1.30|0.64|0.62
95878781|NCT03113916|191713791|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.20|1.05|=.001
95878782|NCT03113916|191713792|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-1.29|.23
95878783|NCT03113916|191713793|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.000000676||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00000002|0.00000137|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.00000137|-.00000002|.06
95878784|NCT03113916|191713794|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.64||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Values given need to be multiplied by 10 to the power of -10 (i.e., x 10\^-10).|||4.73|-16|.29
95878785|NCT03113916|191713795|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.351||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.978|-.277|.27
95878786|NCT03113916|191713796|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.015||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.003|-.032|.10
95878787|NCT03113916|191713797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-11.2||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-23.0|.07
95878788|NCT03113916|191713798|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-1.41|.12
95878789|NCT03113916|191713799|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.174||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.302|.050|.008
95878790|NCT03113916|191713800|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.015||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.059|-.029|.50
95878791|NCT03113916|191713801|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||.013|-.013|.99
95878792|NCT03855228|191713804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.36
95878793|NCT03855228|191713804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878794|NCT03855228|191713804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878795|NCT03855228|191713804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878796|NCT03855228|191713804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878797|NCT03855228|191713804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
95878798|NCT03855228|191713805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.35
95878799|NCT03855228|191713805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878800|NCT03855228|191713805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878801|NCT03855228|191713805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.03
95878802|NCT03855228|191713805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878803|NCT03855228|191713805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.02
95878804|NCT03855228|191713806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.77
95878805|NCT03855228|191713806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878806|NCT03855228|191713806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878807|NCT03855228|191713806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878808|NCT03855228|191713806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878809|NCT03855228|191713806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.45
95878810|NCT03855228|191713807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.99
95878811|NCT03855228|191713807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878812|NCT03855228|191713807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878813|NCT03855228|191713807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878814|NCT03855228|191713807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878815|NCT03855228|191713807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.08
95878816|NCT03855228|191713808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.85
95878817|NCT03855228|191713808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878818|NCT03855228|191713808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878819|NCT03855228|191713808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878820|NCT03855228|191713808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878821|NCT03855228|191713808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.17
95878822|NCT03855228|191713809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.88
95878823|NCT03855228|191713809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878824|NCT03855228|191713809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878825|NCT03855228|191713809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878826|NCT03855228|191713809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878827|NCT03855228|191713809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.22
95878828|NCT03855228|191713810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.65
95878829|NCT03855228|191713810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878830|NCT03855228|191713810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878831|NCT03855228|191713810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878832|NCT03855228|191713810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878833|NCT03855228|191713810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.92
95878834|NCT03855228|191713811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.95
95878835|NCT03855228|191713811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
95878836|NCT03855228|191713811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878837|NCT03855228|191713811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.01
95878838|NCT03855228|191713811|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||<0.01
95878839|NCT03855228|191713811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANOVA|||This analysis compares Change From Baseline values.||||0.58
95878840|NCT03855228|191713812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
95878841|NCT03855228|191713812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878842|NCT03855228|191713812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878843|NCT03855228|191713812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878844|NCT03855228|191713812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878845|NCT03855228|191713812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
95878846|NCT03855228|191713813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.41
95878847|NCT03855228|191713813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878848|NCT03855228|191713813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878849|NCT03855228|191713813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878850|NCT03855228|191713813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95878851|NCT03855228|191713813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95878852|NCT00843856|191713814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
95878853|NCT01758523|191713818|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95878854|NCT01758523|191713819|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
95878855|NCT01758523|191713820|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.45|||Chi-squared|||||6.45|0.96|0.057
95878856|NCT01758523|191713821|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact|||||20.7|1.5|0.007
95878857|NCT01758523|191713822|OTHER|||||||0.87||||||significance for drug x AKR1C3\*2 G-carrier genotype|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95878858|NCT01758523|191713823|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
95878859|NCT01893203|191713824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||McNemar|||||||0.375
95878860|NCT04729621|191713833|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-1.45, +1.45).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.15||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 52 in LS-BMD as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline LS-BMD and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes imputed using multiple imputation methods under the MAR assumption.||1.15|-0.73|
95878861|NCT04729621|191713834|EQUIVALENCE|Biosimilarity will be demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference falls entirely within the equivalence margin of (-20, +20).|Mean Difference (Net)|9.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|18.29||||||LS means, differences and confidence intervals (CI) from the ANCOVA model with percent change from baseline to Week 26 in sCTX-1 as the outcome, treatment group, region and previous use of bisphosphates as fixed effects, baseline sCTX-1 and baseline weight as covariates. Missing outcomes are not imputed. Results below the limit of quantification (BLQ) are imputed as the low limit of quantification (LLOQ = 0.033 ng/mL).||18.29|-0.14|
95878862|NCT03104543|191713856|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.45|||Generalized estimating equation|||||1.45|0.67|.05
95878863|NCT03104543|191713859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28|-0.47|.05
95878864|NCT02187744|191713886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|6.49|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||6.49|-8.02|
95878865|NCT02187744|191713886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis to be tested in this study is the percentage of participants with steady state (Cycle 5) Ctrough \>20 μg/mL of PF-05280014 is non-inferior to trastuzumab-EU using a margin of -12.5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|6.23|||||Unstratified analysis.|||6.23|-8.59|
95878866|NCT02187744|191713888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|10.96|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||10.96|-16.58|
95878867|NCT02187744|191713888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|11.4|||||Unstratified analysis.|||11.40|-17.40|
95878868|NCT02187744|191713889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|15.94|||||Stratified analysis was based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, adjusting for the randomization strata of primary tumor size, estrogen receptor status and by progesterone receptor status.|||15.94|-4.01|
95878869|NCT02187744|191713889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|16.27|||||Unstratified analysis.|||16.27|-4.08|
95878870|NCT00134030|191713909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.61|0.214
95878871|NCT00134030|191713909|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.78|0.86
95878872|NCT00134030|191713909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.9|||Difference in RMST|||Secondary RMST analysis performed in poor response group, due to evidence of non-proportional hazards.||4.9|-3.3|0.69
95878873|NCT00134030|191713910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.69|0.804
95878874|NCT00134030|191713910|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.81|0.674
95878875|NCT01972568|191713912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.72|||Logistic regression model|||||2.72|0.89|0.1208
95878876|NCT01972568|191713920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|7.61|||Logistic regression model|||||7.61|1.44|0.0048
95878877|NCT01972568|191713921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.46|||Logistic regression model|||||3.46|1.11|0.0202
95878878|NCT00945893|191713961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The currently proposed study provided at least 99.9% power to rule out a rate increase of 10 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%. Power is also high if the true difference is slightly greater than zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 3%.|Rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.9|||Score|||The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponded to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): Rate Difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): Rate Difference \< 10%||1.9|-6.0|
95878879|NCT00945893|191713962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.7|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||7.7|-8.8|
95878880|NCT00945893|191713963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.6|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CIs for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||12.6|-5.6|
95878881|NCT00945893|191713964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|16.3|||score|||The number of participants who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||16.3|-0.8|
95878882|NCT00945893|191713965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|22.8|||Score|||||22.8|-4.1|
95878883|NCT00945893|191713968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|14.5|||Score|||||14.5|-13.9|
95878884|NCT00945893|191713971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|11.8|||Score|||||11.8|-14.7|
95878885|NCT00945893|191713974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% CIs (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.|Rate difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|14.9|||Score|||||14.9|-12.6|
95969339|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.3|-4.6|
95878886|NCT00945893|191713983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-7.7|
95878887|NCT00945893|191713984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|5.3|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||5.3|-23.5|
95878888|NCT00945893|191713985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.8|||score|||The number of participants who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact CI for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||10.8|-9.3|
95878889|NCT01435603|191713993|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.273||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
95878890|NCT01611155|191714002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95878891|NCT01611155|191714003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor subscale||||0.53
95878892|NCT01611155|191714003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||autonomic subscale||||0.89
95878893|NCT01682954|191714005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95878894|NCT01682954|191714006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95969340|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.3|-6.8|
95878895|NCT01681472|191714007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0323
95878896|NCT01681472|191714007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
95878897|NCT01681472|191714007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8622|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8622
95878898|NCT01681472|191714007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95878899|NCT01681472|191714007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0074
95878900|NCT01681472|191714007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in tumor tissue was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
95878901|NCT01681472|191714008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1480
95878902|NCT01681472|191714008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
95878903|NCT01681472|191714008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
95878904|NCT01681472|191714008|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
95878905|NCT01681472|191714008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0019
95878906|NCT01681472|191714008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6R\]-5,10-methylene-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
95878907|NCT01681472|191714009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
95878908|NCT01681472|191714009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0538
95878909|NCT01681472|191714009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5244
95878910|NCT01681472|191714009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
95878911|NCT01681472|191714009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0313
95878912|NCT01681472|191714009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4777|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4777
95878913|NCT01681472|191714010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2716
95878914|NCT01681472|191714010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0124
95878915|NCT01681472|191714010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
95878916|NCT01681472|191714010|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
95878917|NCT01681472|191714010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0039
95878918|NCT01681472|191714010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0454
95878919|NCT01681472|191714011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0092
95878920|NCT01681472|191714011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.8303
95878921|NCT01681472|191714011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1182
95878922|NCT01681472|191714011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
95878923|NCT01681472|191714011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3184
95878924|NCT01681472|191714011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
95878925|NCT01681472|191714012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
95878926|NCT01681472|191714012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
95878927|NCT01681472|191714012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0428|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0428
95878928|NCT01681472|191714012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0003
95878929|NCT01681472|191714012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4309
95878930|NCT01681472|191714012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-methyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
95878931|NCT01681472|191714013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
95878932|NCT01681472|191714013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0034
95878933|NCT01681472|191714013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95969341|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.3|-4.6|
95878934|NCT01681472|191714013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95878935|NCT01681472|191714013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
95878936|NCT01681472|191714013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0055
95878937|NCT01681472|191714014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
95878938|NCT01681472|191714014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
95878939|NCT01681472|191714014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878940|NCT01681472|191714014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||<0.0001
95878941|NCT01681472|191714014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
95878942|NCT01681472|191714014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of \[6S\]-5-formyl-THF concentration in mucosa adjacent to the tumor was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0338
95878943|NCT01681472|191714015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878944|NCT01681472|191714015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878945|NCT01681472|191714015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878946|NCT01681472|191714015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878947|NCT01681472|191714015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878948|NCT01681472|191714015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95969342|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.3|-4.6|
95878949|NCT01681472|191714016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95969343|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|3.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.3|-6.8|
95878950|NCT01681472|191714016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95969344|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-0.3|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||-0.3|-12.3|
95878951|NCT01681472|191714016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878952|NCT01681472|191714016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878953|NCT01681472|191714016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
95878954|NCT01681472|191714016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878955|NCT01681472|191714017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0728
95878956|NCT01681472|191714017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2246
95878957|NCT01681472|191714017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0166
95878958|NCT01681472|191714017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1752
95878959|NCT01681472|191714017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.9581
95878960|NCT01681472|191714017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0118
95878961|NCT01681472|191714018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878962|NCT01681472|191714018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878963|NCT01681472|191714018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878964|NCT01681472|191714018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878965|NCT01681472|191714018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878966|NCT01681472|191714018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(0-2h) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95878967|NCT01681472|191714019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878968|NCT01681472|191714019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878969|NCT01681472|191714019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0022
95878970|NCT01681472|191714019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95969345|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|99.2|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||99.2|89.4|
95969346|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||98.6|87.7|
95969347|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||48.9|26.2|
95969348|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|33.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||33.4|14.4|
95969349|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.6|99.7|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||99.7|91.6|
95969350|NCT00688870|191911170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||4.5|-4.6|
95969351|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 4||3.1|-6.9|
95969352|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 6B||4.4|-4.6|
95969353|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 9V||3.1|-6.9|
95969354|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 14||4.4|-4.6|
95969355|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 18C||4.4|-4.6|
95969356|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 19F||3.1|-6.9|
95969357|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Common serotypes - serotype 23F||4.4|-4.6|
95969358|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|98.6|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 1||98.6|87.7|
95969359|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|82.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|90.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 3||90.1|72.0|
95969360|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.1|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 5||18.1|3.8|
95878971|NCT01681472|191714019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878972|NCT01681472|191714019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95969361|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.4|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.4|-4.6|
95878973|NCT01681472|191714020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95969362|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|97.9|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||97.9|86.0|
95969363|NCT00688870|191911171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Exact, unconditional, 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in proportions were computed using the noninferiority procedure of Chan and Zhang, using the standardized test statistics and gamma=0.000001.|Difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.5|||Chan and Zhang|||Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||6.5|-3.4|
95969364|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.78|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.78|0.50|
95969365|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.17|0.70|
95969366|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||0.82|0.55|
95969367|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||1.06|0.67|
95969368|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.97|0.63|
95969369|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||0.94|0.60|
95969370|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.77|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.77|0.46|
95878974|NCT01681472|191714020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878975|NCT01681472|191714020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878976|NCT01681472|191714020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878977|NCT01681472|191714020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
95878978|NCT01681472|191714020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878979|NCT01681472|191714021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
95878980|NCT01681472|191714021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
95878981|NCT01681472|191714021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878982|NCT01681472|191714021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2725|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2725
95878983|NCT01681472|191714021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1893|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1893
95878984|NCT01681472|191714021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95878985|NCT01681472|191714022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878986|NCT01681472|191714022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878987|NCT01681472|191714022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878988|NCT01681472|191714022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
95878989|NCT01681472|191714022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
95878990|NCT01681472|191714022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of AUC(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95878991|NCT01681472|191714023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
95878992|NCT01681472|191714023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878993|NCT01681472|191714023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0021
95878994|NCT01681472|191714023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878995|NCT01681472|191714023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
95878996|NCT01681472|191714023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878997|NCT01681472|191714024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95878998|NCT01681472|191714024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95878999|NCT01681472|191714024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95879000|NCT01681472|191714024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879001|NCT01681472|191714024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0009
95879002|NCT01681472|191714024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879003|NCT01681472|191714025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0240
95879004|NCT01681472|191714025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1336
95879005|NCT01681472|191714025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95969371|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|202.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.04|261.32|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||261.32|157.04|
95969372|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.46|31.49|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||31.49|18.46|
95969373|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|7.41|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||7.41|4.37|
95969374|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|7.67|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||7.67|4.42|
95969375|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|96.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|122.17|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||122.17|75.60|
95879006|NCT01681472|191714025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1551|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1551
95879007|NCT01681472|191714025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1563
95879008|NCT01681472|191714025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95879009|NCT01681472|191714026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879010|NCT01681472|191714026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879011|NCT01681472|191714026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879012|NCT01681472|191714026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0142
95879013|NCT01681472|191714026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0085
95879014|NCT01681472|191714026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of Cmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0024
95879015|NCT01681472|191714027|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||1.0000
95879016|NCT01681472|191714027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879017|NCT01681472|191714027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
95879018|NCT01681472|191714027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879019|NCT01681472|191714027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0005
95879020|NCT01681472|191714027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879021|NCT01681472|191714028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0056
95879022|NCT01681472|191714028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879023|NCT01681472|191714028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0010
95879024|NCT01681472|191714028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879025|NCT01681472|191714028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
95969376|NCT00688870|191911172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||1.83|1.23|
95879026|NCT01681472|191714028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879027|NCT01681472|191714029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1796
95879028|NCT01681472|191714029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3243|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.3243
95879029|NCT01681472|191714029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0263
95879030|NCT01681472|191714029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
95879031|NCT01681472|191714029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.2041
95879032|NCT01681472|191714029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0061
95879033|NCT01681472|191714030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879034|NCT01681472|191714030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879035|NCT01681472|191714030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879036|NCT01681472|191714030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879037|NCT01681472|191714030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879038|NCT01681472|191714030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of tmax was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879039|NCT01681472|191714031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0268
95879040|NCT01681472|191714031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879041|NCT01681472|191714031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0227
95879042|NCT01681472|191714031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879043|NCT01681472|191714031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0933
95879044|NCT01681472|191714031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879045|NCT01681472|191714032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0177
95879046|NCT01681472|191714032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879047|NCT01681472|191714032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0058
95879048|NCT01681472|191714032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879049|NCT01681472|191714032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0043
95879050|NCT01681472|191714032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879051|NCT01681472|191714033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879052|NCT01681472|191714033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879053|NCT01681472|191714033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879054|NCT01681472|191714033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879055|NCT01681472|191714033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879056|NCT01681472|191714033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879057|NCT01681472|191714034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879058|NCT01681472|191714034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879059|NCT01681472|191714034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879060|NCT01681472|191714034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0668|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0668
95879061|NCT01681472|191714034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0502
95879062|NCT01681472|191714034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0081|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t1/2 was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0081
95879063|NCT01681472|191714035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0011
95879064|NCT01681472|191714035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879065|NCT01681472|191714035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95879066|NCT01681472|191714035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879067|NCT01681472|191714035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6691|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.6691
95879068|NCT01681472|191714035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879069|NCT01681472|191714036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0015
95879070|NCT01681472|191714036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879071|NCT01681472|191714036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0640
95879072|NCT01681472|191714036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879073|NCT01681472|191714036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1213
95879074|NCT01681472|191714036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879075|NCT01681472|191714037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1791|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.1791
95879076|NCT01681472|191714037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.4945
95879077|NCT01681472|191714037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0014
95879078|NCT01681472|191714037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5990
95879079|NCT01681472|191714037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0303
95879080|NCT01681472|191714037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0107
95879081|NCT01681472|191714038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879082|NCT01681472|191714038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879083|NCT01681472|191714038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0
95879084|NCT01681472|191714038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0125
95879085|NCT01681472|191714038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0017|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.0017
95879086|NCT01681472|191714038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The exploratory evaluation of t(last) was done respectively for differences between treatments using Wilcoxon test. Differences in variability between the treatment groups were assessed using Proc GLM and Levene's test.||||0.5286
95879087|NCT01681472|191714039|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.21666||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.6063
95879088|NCT01681472|191714039|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.54039||||0.2105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.2105
95879089|NCT01681472|191714039|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27618||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5079
95969377|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 4||0.84|0.49|
95969378|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.36|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 6B||1.36|0.77|
95879090|NCT01681472|191714039|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68223||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.0913
95879091|NCT01681472|191714040|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.38298||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.3964
95969379|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.05|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 9V||1.05|0.64|
95969380|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 14||0.91|0.51|
95969381|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 18C||0.99|0.57|
95879092|NCT01681472|191714040|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.27018||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.5175
95879093|NCT01681472|191714040|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.02188||||0.959|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in tumor||||0.9590
95879094|NCT01681472|191714040|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.45404||||0.3061|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3061
95879095|NCT01681472|191714040|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34905||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3967
95879096|NCT01681472|191714040|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.07937||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.8518
95879097|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.73743||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0586
95879098|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.44757||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.2661
95879099|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.03292||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.9506
95879100|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.09033||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8315
95879101|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.76502||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in adjacent mucosa||||0.0451
95879102|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.34496||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.4027
95879103|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.66295||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.1513
95879104|NCT01681472|191714041|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.36854||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.3690
95879105|NCT01681472|191714042|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23512||||0.5751|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.5751
95879106|NCT01681472|191714042|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.02576||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. concentration in adjacent mucosa||||0.9672
95879107|NCT01681472|191714042|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.68778||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.0594
95879108|NCT01681472|191714042|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11512||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||AUC(0-2h) vs. conc in tumor||||0.8281
95879109|NCT01681472|191714043|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||pearson|||||||0.0451
95879110|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.42972||||0.3359|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.3359
95879111|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.75404||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.0307
95879112|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.7073||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.1160
95879113|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.47193||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for AMT gene expression||||0.2377
95879114|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88128||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0087
95879115|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58502||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.1277
95879116|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.89976||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.0146
95969382|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 19F||1.43|0.83|
95969383|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.92|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Common serotypes - serotype 23F||0.92|0.52|
95879117|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.11497||||0.7863|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for PCFT gene expression||||0.7863
95879118|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.97624||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0002
95879119|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.88682||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.0033
95879120|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.64743||||0.1645|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.1645
95879121|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.17664||||0.6756|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for FPGS gene expression||||0.6756
95879122|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.94364||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0014
95879123|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.43194||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2852
95879124|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.58419||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.2234
95879125|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.9584||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFS gene expression||||0.0002
95879126|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.38987||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.3873
95879127|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.25891||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.5358
95879128|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.777||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.0691
95879129|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.00322||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC3 gene expression||||0.9940
95879130|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.93711||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0018
95879131|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.46883||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.2413
95879132|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.09737||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.8544
95879133|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.78928||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for GGH gene expression||||0.0199
95969384|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|303.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|213.63|431.83|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 1||431.83|213.63|
95879134|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.82963||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0209
95879135|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.16724||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.6922
95879136|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.14436||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.7850
95879137|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74757||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for ABCC1 gene expression||||0.0330
95879138|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.32113||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.4825
95879139|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.3716||||0.3647|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.3647
95879140|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.20955||||0.6903|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.6903
95969385|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|10.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.77|14.62|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 3||14.62|7.77|
95879141|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.74459||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for MTHFD1L gene expression||||0.0341
95969386|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.78|6.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 5||6.08|3.78|
95879142|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.50966||||0.2426|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.2426
95879143|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.67853||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.0643
95879144|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.05531||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.9171
95879145|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.59183||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT1 gene expression||||0.1222
95879146|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.8104||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0271
95879147|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.86266||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.0058
95879148|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.71666||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1090
95879149|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.55508||||0.1533|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for SHMT2 gene expression||||0.1533
95879150|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.318||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.4870
95879151|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.23312||||0.5785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.5785
95879152|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|-0.0245||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.9632
95879153|NCT01681472|191714044|OTHER||Correlation factor|0.64565||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Correlation for RFC-1 gene expression||||0.0838
95879154|NCT02012283|191714050|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|78.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between plain and spiced broccoli intake was compared.||||0.001
95879155|NCT02012283|191714051|OTHER|paired t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|101.3||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<0.05 is defined as significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the broccoli intake with and without spices among low restraint eaters vs. the change among high restraint eaters.||||0.031
95879156|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.7|
95879157|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||||90.0|-5.13|-0.79||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-0.79|-5.13|
95879158|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.53||||||90.0|-7.7|-3.36||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-3.36|-7.70|
95879159|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||||90.0|-1.77|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||2.57|-1.77|
95879160|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37||||||90.0|-3.54|0.8||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||0.80|-3.54|
95879161|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||||90.0|-1.16|3.18||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.18|-1.16|
95879162|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||||90.0|-2.81|1.53||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||1.53|-2.81|
95879163|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.49||||||90.0|0.32|4.66||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||4.66|0.32|
95879164|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78||||||90.0|-3.95|0.39||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||0.39|-3.95|
95879165|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51||||||90.0|-9.68|-5.34||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-5.34|-9.68|
95879166|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47||||||90.0|1.3|5.64||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||5.64|1.30|
95879167|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13||||||90.0|-1.04|3.3||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||3.30|-1.04|
95879168|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||||90.0|-0.7|3.64||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||3.64|-0.70|
95879169|NCT00795145|191714062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||||90.0|-0.37|3.97||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.97|-0.37|
95969387|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|3.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|4.08|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 6A||4.08|2.28|
95879170|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27||||||90.0|1.1|5.44||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||5.44|1.10|
95879171|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.83||||||90.0|4.66|9.0||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||9.00|4.66|
95879172|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.27||||||90.0|8.1|12.44||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||12.44|8.10|
95879173|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.84||||||90.0|7.67|12.01||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||12.01|7.67|
95879174|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||||90.0|7.23|11.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||11.58|7.23|
95879175|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||||90.0|4.87|9.22||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||9.22|4.87|
95879176|NCT00795145|191714063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.52||||||90.0|4.35|8.69||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||8.69|4.35|
95879177|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||||90.0|-5.54|2.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||2.57|-5.54|
95879178|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.45||||||90.0|-11.51|-3.4||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-3.40|-11.51|
95879179|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75||||||90.0|-9.81|-1.7||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-1.70|-9.81|
95879180|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||||90.0|-4.97|3.13||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||3.13|-4.97|
95879181|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64||||||90.0|-9.69|-1.58||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||-1.58|-9.69|
95879182|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29||||||90.0|-6.34|1.77||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||1.77|-6.34|
95879183|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||||90.0|-4.64|3.47||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||3.47|-4.64|
95879184|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49||||||90.0|-7.54|0.57||||||Inferential analysis at 0.5 hour post-dose||0.57|-7.54|
95879185|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.19||||||90.0|-16.24|-8.13||||||Inferential analysis at 1 hour post-dose||-8.13|-16.24|
95879186|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.39||||||90.0|-18.44|-10.33||||||Inferential analysis at 2 hour post-dose||-10.33|-18.44|
95879187|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19||||||90.0|-6.24|1.87||||||Inferential analysis at 4 hour post-dose||1.87|-6.24|
95879188|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||||90.0|-2.95|5.15||||||Inferential analysis at 8 hour post-dose||5.15|-2.95|
95879189|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||||90.0|-3.94|4.17||||||Inferential analysis at 12 hour post-dose||4.17|-3.94|
95879190|NCT00795145|191714064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.68||||||90.0|-1.37|6.73||||||Inferential analysis at 24 hour post-dose||6.73|-1.37|
95879191|NCT01696071|191714071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.038|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 QD - Tio R2.5 BID|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.034|-0.038|
95879192|NCT01696071|191714072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||95.0|-0.032|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.052|-0.032|
95879193|NCT01696071|191714073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.05|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.022|-0.050|
95879194|NCT01696071|191714074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||||95.0|-0.051|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.023|-0.051|
95879195|NCT01696071|191714075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||||95.0|-0.06|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.068|-0.060|
95879196|NCT01696071|191714076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.044|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested.||0.035|-0.044|
95879197|NCT01696071|191714077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||95.0|-0.048|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.042|-0.048|
95879198|NCT01696071|191714078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.047|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.034|-0.047|
95879199|NCT01696071|191714079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||||95.0|-0.07|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.032|-0.070|
95969388|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|145.84|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 7F||145.84|75.60|
95879200|NCT01696071|191714080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||||95.0|-0.03|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||0.111|-0.030|
95879201|NCT01696071|191714081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.658||||95.0|-8.651|5.873|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline|Tio R5 qd - Tio R2.5 bid|No p-values are presented as no formal statistical hypothesis was tested||5.873|-8.651|
95879202|NCT00621959|191714093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.546||95.0|-0.59|0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA including treatment and center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.31|-0.59|0.546
95879203|NCT00621959|191714094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.442||95.0|-0.27|0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.12|-0.27|0.442
95879204|NCT02484690|191714128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.57||||0.5244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|4.74||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.74|-1.60|0.5244
95879205|NCT02484690|191714128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.59||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.86|1.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.67|-4.86|0.5308
95879206|NCT02484690|191714128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.51||||0.5309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|1.59||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.59|-4.62|0.5309
95969389|NCT00688870|191911173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ratio of GMCs|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|5.6|||||Confidence intervals for the ratio are back transformations of a confidence interval based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC-7vPnC reference).|Additional serotypes - serotype 19A||5.60|3.54|
95879207|NCT02484690|191714129|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.68||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.77|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: BCVA at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that the Arm E mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.42|-3.77|0.3034
95879208|NCT02484690|191714130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.63||||0.5527|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.52|17.77||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||17.77|-6.52|0.5527
95969390|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
95969391|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.533
95879209|NCT02484690|191714130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.09||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-14.95|8.76||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||8.76|-14.95|0.7382
95879210|NCT02484690|191714130|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.32||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.32|3.67||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||3.67|-18.32|0.3932
95879211|NCT02484690|191714131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-5.71||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.74|-0.69||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||-0.69|-10.74|0.2328
95879212|NCT02484690|191714132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.26|12.22||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||12.22|-13.26|0.9581
95879213|NCT02484690|191714132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-10.08||||0.3166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.99|2.82||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.82|-22.99|0.3166
95879214|NCT02484690|191714132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.68||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.01|4.64||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||4.64|-20.01|0.4244
95909059|NCT01212770|191776102|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|7.2||||0.3695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.6|-8.2|0.3695
95909060|NCT01212770|191776103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||32.1|13.0|< 0.0001
95909061|NCT01212770|191776103|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.7||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|20.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|2.7|0.0123
95909062|NCT01212770|191776104|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||13.5|0.0|0.0520
95909063|NCT01212770|191776104|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|4.2||||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||10.6|-2.2|0.2052
95879215|NCT02484690|191714133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-6.64||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.6|5.32||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||5.32|-18.60|0.5586
95879216|NCT02484690|191714134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.8536|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.93|7.93||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.93|-5.93|0.8536
95879217|NCT02484690|191714134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|8.14||||0.2303|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|16.83||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||16.83|-0.56|0.2303
95879218|NCT02484690|191714134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.08||||0.8406|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.79|7.95||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Generalized Estimating Equations Model|Categorical covariates: treatment group, visit, and visit by treatment group interaction. An AR(1) covariance structure was also used.|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||7.95|-5.79|0.8406
95879219|NCT02484690|191714135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.23|9.68||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||The difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||9.68|-11.23|1.0000
95879220|NCT02484690|191714136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|12.65||||0.3798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.81|31.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||31.11|-5.81|0.3798
95969392|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.039
95879221|NCT02484690|191714136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.88||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.3|20.03||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||20.03|-18.3|0.9529
95969393|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.059
95969394|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969395|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969396|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969397|NCT00688870|191911174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.275
95969398|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969399|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.617||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.617
95969400|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
95969401|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.810
95969402|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.674||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.674
95969403|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969404|NCT00688870|191911175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.497||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.497
95879222|NCT02484690|191714136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|32.81||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|80.0|14.65|50.96||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||50.96|14.65|0.0208
95969405|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969406|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Significant, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969407|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.044
95969408|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
95969409|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
95969410|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.361
95969411|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.635
95969412|NCT00688870|191911176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.244
95969413|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.076||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Tenderness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.076
95969414|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.735
95879223|NCT02484690|191714137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.35||||0.5185|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.0|6.27||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: FCPT at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||6.27|-19.0|0.5185
95879224|NCT02484690|191714138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|19.45||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.61|37.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||37.29|1.61|0.1624
95879225|NCT02484690|191714138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.79||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.8|21.37||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||21.37|-15.8|0.8475
95879226|NCT02484690|191714138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|28.52||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.93|46.11||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||46.11|10.93|0.0381
95879227|NCT02484690|191714139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-14.4||||0.2089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.1|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CST at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm E minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference between the treatment group (Arm E) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm E was different from Arm A.||0.29|-29.1|0.2089
95969415|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95879228|NCT02484690|191714142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.4||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.61|0.81||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.81|-1.61|0.6717
95879229|NCT02484690|191714142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.23||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|1.47||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.47|-1.01|0.8131
95909064|NCT01212770|191776105|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.2||||0.5154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.8|-2.4|0.5154
95969416|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Swelling - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
95909065|NCT01212770|191776105|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.3||||0.2527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-1.5|0.2527
95969417|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Any, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.805
95969418|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Mild, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95879230|NCT02484690|191714142|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.11||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.07|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between each of the treatment groups (Arms B, C, or D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arms B, C, or D means were different from Arm A mean.||1.29|-1.07|0.9069
95879231|NCT02484690|191714144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.96||||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.2|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.28|-2.20|0.3189
95879232|NCT02484690|191714144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.22||||0.2256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|2.52||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.52|-0.07|0.2256
95879233|NCT02484690|191714144|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.35||||0.7086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.57||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: CNV at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.57|-0.86|0.7086
95879234|NCT02484690|191714146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.78||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.07|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm B minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm B) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm B mean was different from Arm A mean.||0.51|-2.07|0.4353
95879235|NCT02484690|191714146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.45||||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.11|2.78||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm C minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm C) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm C mean was different from Arm A mean.||2.78|0.11|0.1652
95879236|NCT02484690|191714146|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|0.5||||0.61111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|1.75||The threshold for statistical significance was an unadjusted 2-sided p-value \<0.2. There was no formal correction for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Categorical covariates(cov): RAP/PCV at baseline(BL), treatment group, visit, \& visit by treatment group; Continuous cov: leak at BL; Unstructured cov|The mean difference was calculated as Arm D minus Arm A.|The null hypothesis (Ho) was that there was no difference in means between the treatment group (Arm D) and the control group (Arm A). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Arm D mean was different from Arm A mean.||1.75|-0.76|0.61111
95879237|NCT02569671|191714174|NON_INFERIORITY|"is less than the non-inferiority margin (indicating non-inferior bone gain).~The hypotheses associated with the primary analysis are defined as:~H0: µc - µs ≥ δ H1: µc - µs \< δ where µc is the mean change in crestal bone levels from implant loading to 12 months post-implant loading for the treatment group, µs is the mean change for the control group, and δ is the 0.5 mm non-inferiority margin. The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.95|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||SD for both test and control group is 0.5 mm, A difference between groups of ≥ 0.5 mm is considered clinically significant, The difference between the treatment groups is expected to be 0 mm, Statistical test will be one-sided 5% significance level.|t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.|The null hypothesis for the primary analysis is that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups is at least the non-inferiority margin (indicating inferior bone gain). Rejection of the null hypothesis indicates the observed data supports the alternative hypothesis that the difference between the mean change in crestal bone levels for the treatment and control groups|The change in mean bone level from implant loading to 12-month follow-up was calculated. Change in crestal bone levels was calculated as the crestal bone level at 12-months post implant loading minus crestal bone level at implant loading.|||.950
95879238|NCT02569671|191714176|NON_INFERIORITY|Smaller bone dimensional thickness of the buccal plate measurements indicates less bone loss and better healing.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3||0.022|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypotheses will be tested using a one-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||All secondary effectiveness endpoints were planned to be summarized descriptively, and no hypothesis tests was planned.||||0.022
95879239|NCT01332500|191714206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879240|NCT01332500|191714206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879241|NCT01332500|191714206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.005
95879242|NCT01332500|191714206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.336
95879243|NCT01332500|191714206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.162
95879244|NCT01332500|191714207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879245|NCT01332500|191714207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.349
95879246|NCT01332500|191714207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.208
95879247|NCT01332500|191714207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.239
95879248|NCT01332500|191714207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.583
95879249|NCT01332500|191714207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total heath plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879250|NCT01332500|191714208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879251|NCT01332500|191714208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177||95.0||||Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.177
95969419|NCT00688870|191911177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.477||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Redness - Moderate, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.477
95879252|NCT01332500|191714208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.173
95879253|NCT01332500|191714208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.191
95879254|NCT01332500|191714208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.254
95879255|NCT01332500|191714208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879256|NCT01332500|191714209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.866||95.0||||Triptan tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.866
95879257|NCT01332500|191714209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.094
95879258|NCT01332500|191714209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0||||Opioid tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.832
95879259|NCT01332500|191714209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0||||Ergot tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.392
95879260|NCT01332500|191714209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0||||Other tablets|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.752
95879261|NCT01332500|191714210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879262|NCT01332500|191714210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.054
95969420|NCT00688870|191911178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.633||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.633
95879263|NCT01332500|191714210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||Opioid health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.590
95879264|NCT01332500|191714210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||Ergot health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.382
95879265|NCT01332500|191714210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0||||Other health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.343
95879266|NCT01332500|191714210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Total health plan costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879267|NCT01332500|191714211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Triptan health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||<0.001
95879268|NCT01332500|191714211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.146
95879269|NCT01332500|191714211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826||95.0||||Opioid health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.826
95879270|NCT01332500|191714211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.354||95.0||||Ergot health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.354
95879271|NCT01332500|191714211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||Other health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.514
95879272|NCT01332500|191714211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Total health plus copay costs|paired t-test 2-sided|||||||0.001
95879273|NCT01650844|191714212|OTHER|We estimated the power to detect the smallest clinically significant difference in mean SFDs post intervention between the groups, accounting for repeated measures. A sample of 400 obtains greater than 90% power to detect a difference of 0.8 SFD per 2 weeks or greater. Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were multivariable modified intention to treat, including all participants with post intervention data. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were fitted with repeated asthma outcomes.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95879274|NCT01687998|191714216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.9054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|1.111|||Regression, Cox|||Primary Endpoint: Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Primary Endpoint of Cardiovascular (CV) Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for Unstable Angina (UA)||1.111|0.911|0.9054
95879275|NCT01687998|191714217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-36.08|||ANOVA|||LDL-C||-36.08|-38.15|<0.0001
95879276|NCT01687998|191714217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|131.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|130.01|133.09|||ANOVA|||HDL-C||133.09|130.01|<0.0001
95969421|NCT00688870|191911178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969422|NCT00688870|191911178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.527||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.527
95879277|NCT01687998|191714218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.991||||0.8463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.089|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of All-Cause Mortality, MI, Stroke, Coronary Revascularization, or Hospitalization for UA||1.089|0.901|0.8463
95879278|NCT01687998|191714219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.112|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Coronary Revascularization||1.112|0.901|0.9874
95879279|NCT01687998|191714220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.003||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.127|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of the Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, Stroke, or Hospitalization for UA||1.127|0.893|0.9574
95879280|NCT01687998|191714221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||Time to First Occurrence of Triple Composite Endpoint of CV Death, MI, or Stroke||1.100|0.846|0.5917
95879281|NCT01663532|191714223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.7||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-1.7|-6.1|0.0005
95909066|NCT01212770|191776106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||15.1|1.6|0.0180
95909067|NCT01212770|191776106|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||12.3|-0.6|0.0807
95969423|NCT00688870|191911178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.613
95969424|NCT00688870|191911178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.753||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.753
95969425|NCT00688870|191911178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.748||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.748
95969426|NCT00688870|191911179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.327||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.327
95969427|NCT00688870|191911179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969428|NCT00688870|191911179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.522
95969429|NCT00688870|191911179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.872||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.872
95969430|NCT00688870|191911179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.868||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.868
95969431|NCT00688870|191911179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.237
95969432|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.329
95969433|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.492||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.492
95969434|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.496||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.496
95969435|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.322||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.322
95969436|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.610
95969437|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.726||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.726
95969438|NCT00688870|191911180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.855||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.855
95969439|NCT00688870|191911181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.326||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>=38 but \<=39 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.326
95969440|NCT00688870|191911181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Fever \>39 but \<=40 degrees C, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969441|NCT00688870|191911181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased appetite, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.714
95969442|NCT00688870|191911181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Irritability, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969443|NCT00688870|191911181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Increased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||>0.99
95969444|NCT00688870|191911181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||For Decreased sleep, Fisher exact test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.525
95969445|NCT01151410|191911186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Indicates statistical significance at 0.025 level for one sided non-inferiority testing at 4mmHg margin.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.4||||ANCOVA||||||-2.40|0.0040
95879282|NCT01663532|191714223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.0||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-4.0|-10.0|<.0001
95969446|NCT00548262|191911190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Success at EOT||73.6|44.6|
95969447|NCT00548262|191911191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|EIVT Success||73.6|44.6|
95969448|NCT00548262|191911191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Week 2 Follow-up Success||62.5|33.0|
95969449|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
95969450|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida famata: Success||100.0|0.0|
95969451|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969452|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969453|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
95969454|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
95969455|NCT00548262|191911192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
95969456|NCT00548262|191911193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|73.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||73.7|31.0|
95969457|NCT00548262|191911193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida glabrata: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969458|NCT00548262|191911193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969459|NCT00548262|191911193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|46.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida parapsilosis: Success||46.5|0.0|
95969460|NCT00548262|191911193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||100.0|55.2|
95969461|NCT00548262|191911193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|93.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||93.8|20.5|
95969462|NCT00548262|191911194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|69.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida albicans: Success||69.0|26.3|
95969463|NCT00548262|191911194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida krusei: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969464|NCT00548262|191911194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.6|98.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Candida tropicalis: Success||98.4|41.6|
95969465|NCT00548262|191911194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|62.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Unidentifiable: Success||62.0|0.0|
95969466|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
95969467|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
95969468|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
95969469|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
95969470|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
95969471|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
95969472|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
95969473|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
95879283|NCT01663532|191714223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-5.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-5.6|-12.8|<.0001
95879284|NCT01663532|191714223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.3||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-7.3|-15.0|<.0001
95969474|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
95969475|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|67.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|84.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||84.2|51.3|
95969476|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
95969477|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
95969478|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|80.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||80.1|35.7|
95969479|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||79.2|40.8|
95969480|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
95969481|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
95969482|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
95969483|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
95969484|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|55.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||55.1|0.0|
95969485|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||79.2|49.0|
95969486|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|78.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||78.3|21.7|
95969487|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.7|79.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||79.3|45.7|
95969488|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969489|NCT00548262|191911195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
95969490|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.1|73.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||73.4|39.1|
95969491|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|93.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||93.3|40.0|
95969492|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|71.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||71.5|37.6|
95969493|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
95879285|NCT01663532|191714223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-9.6||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-9.6|-18.4|<.0001
95879286|NCT01663532|191714223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-10.8||Kenward-Rodger degree of freedom was used to test the treatment effects and p-value was not adjusted as this is a primary efficacy endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested. The sample size estimated a 1:1 randomization ratio (aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg: placebo) to achieve 90% power and to preserve a nominal alpha level of 0.05 given a treatment difference of -7.5 points in change from Baseline with standard deviation of 20 points between aripiprazole and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||-10.8|-19.4|<.0001
95879287|NCT01663532|191714224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.1|-0.4|0.0001
95879288|NCT01663532|191714224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.2|-0.6|<.0001
95879289|NCT01663532|191714224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-0.7|<.0001
95879290|NCT01663532|191714224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
95879291|NCT01663532|191714224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.5|-0.9|<.0001
95879292|NCT01663532|191714224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6||After the comparison for primary efficacy endpoint was statistically significant, the comparison of change from Baseline in CGI severity score was conducted at same alpha level 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
95969494|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|72.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||72.0|40.8|
95969495|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||100.0|44.9|
95969496|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|55.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|71.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||71.1|39.5|
95969497|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|83.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.5|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||100.0|53.5|
95969498|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|73.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||73.3|19.1|
95969499|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|64.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.7|81.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||81.4|47.7|
95969500|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
95969501|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
95969502|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.5|84.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||84.8|41.5|
95969503|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|75.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||75.5|36.5|
95969504|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|73.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||73.6|44.6|
95969505|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|79.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||79.5|6.2|
95969506|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|77.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||77.8|46.5|
95969507|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|72.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||72.9|43.4|
95969508|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
95969509|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|76.8|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||76.8|46.3|
95969510|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|86.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||86.2|30.4|
95969511|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|59.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|76.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||76.4|42.4|
95969512|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969513|NCT00548262|191911196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.4|79.7|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||79.7|44.4|
95969514|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|54.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (Yes): Success||54.3|20.7|
95969515|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|99.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ICU stay ≥ 4 days (No): Success||99.5|50.5|
95969516|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|56.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (Yes): Success||56.1|22.7|
95969517|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|99.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Mechanical ventilation (No): Success||99.0|46.4|
95969518|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (Yes): Success||64.4|33.0|
95969519|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Antibiotics (No): Success||82.9|0.0|
95969520|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.5|63.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (Yes): Success||63.2|31.5|
95969521|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|90.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|CV Catheter (No): Success||90.0|10.0|
95969522|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|64.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (Yes): Success||64.9|12.0|
95879293|NCT01663532|191714225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.6|-2.1|0.0006
95879294|NCT01663532|191714225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.3|<.0001
95879295|NCT01663532|191714225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.0|-4.3|<.0001
95879296|NCT01663532|191714225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-2.6|-5.1|<.0001
95879297|NCT01663532|191714225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.4|-6.2|<.0001
95879298|NCT01663532|191714225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-3.7|-6.4|<.0001
95879299|NCT01663532|191714226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 1.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.3|-1.6|0.0023
95879300|NCT01663532|191714226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 2.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.4|-2.0|0.0032
95879301|NCT01663532|191714226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 4.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-0.8|-2.7|0.0003
95969523|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|69.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|TPN (No): Success||69.2|34.0|
95969524|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
95969525|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Dialysis (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
95969526|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|42.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|64.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (Yes): Success||64.3|19.9|
95969527|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|71.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Abdominal surgery (No): Success||71.6|32.4|
95969528|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|62.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Solid organ transplant (No): Success||62.5|33.0|
95969529|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.2|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (Yes): Success||40.2|0.0|
95969530|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|54.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|70.1|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Renal insufficiency (No): Success||70.1|38.0|
95969531|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|46.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|61.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Chemotherapy (No): Success||61.4|31.6|
95879302|NCT01663532|191714226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 6.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.3|-3.2|<.0001
95879303|NCT01663532|191714226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 8.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.4|-3.7|<.0001
95879304|NCT01663532|191714226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis with treatment, pooled centers, Week and treatment-by-Week, and Baseline-by-Week interaction as an unstructured covariate was performed.|Difference in Least Square (LS) mean of change and 95% Confidence interval were derived from pair-wise comparison within MMRM at Week 10.|Null hypothesis of change from Baseline in PANSS total score of aripiprazole IM depot 400/300mg group is same as that of placebo group was tested.||-1.6|-4.1|<.0001
95879305|NCT01663532|191714227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled centers as factors and Baseline value as covariate for the comparison at other visits.|Difference in least square mean of change were derived from ANCOVA model.|Statistical analysis for Week 10.||10.1|4.1|<.0001
95879306|NCT01663532|191714228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH raw mean scores differ test (Van Elteren test) controlling for pooled centers.||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
95879307|NCT01663532|191714229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling by region (pooled sites).||Statistical analysis for Week 10. LOCF method were used in imputation of missing data.||32.4|12.9|<.0001
95879308|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Linear contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Linear contrasts were for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||<0.0001
95879309|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2274||95.0|||||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.||Quadratic contrasts were fitted in order to establish whether there was a dose-response relationship. Quadratic contrasts are for experimental dentifrice: non-zinc treatments.||||0.2274
95879310|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|3.2|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||3.20|-1.84|0.5950
95879311|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.93||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|7.48|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||7.48|2.38|0.0002
95879312|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|6.82|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||6.82|1.68|0.0013
95879313|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|10.21|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||10.21|5.20|<0.0001
95879314|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|9.55|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1150 ppm).|||9.55|4.51|<0.0001
95879315|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.32|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (250 ppm) minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (250 ppm).|||5.32|0.23|0.0325
95879316|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|0.35|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A'.|||0.35|-4.67|0.0920
95879317|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|0.93|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B' minus Sodium fluoride (0 ppm) such that a positive difference favors 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base B'.|||0.93|-4.04|0.2185
95879318|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.36|12.37|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) + zinc base A' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||12.37|7.36|<0.0001
95879319|NCT02195583|191714280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.77|11.75|||ANOVA|Calculated from ANOVA model using treatment and study period as fixed factors and participant as random effect.|Difference was calculated as Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm) minus 'Sodium fluoride (1426ppm) + zinc base B' such that a positive difference favors Sodium fluoride (1426 ppm).|||11.75|6.77|<0.0001
95879320|NCT01890473|191714294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.908|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.01||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale (using log (Cmax) without a formal test.||1.01|0.815|
95879321|NCT01890473|191714295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.843|1.05||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log (AUC (0-T) without a formal test.||1.05|0.843|
95879322|NCT01890473|191714296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.888|1.07||||||The PK comparability of the two devices was assessed via a linear model for each key PK parameter in log scale, using log AUC(INF) without a formal test.||1.07|0.888|
95879323|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|3.95|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 AM: Analysis was based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using statistical analysis system (SAS) mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.95|-1.82|0.5330
95879324|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.9532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.13|3.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.85|-4.13|0.9532
95879325|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.53||||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|6.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 12 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||6.18|-1.11|0.2493
95879326|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99||||0.2801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.59|1.6|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 2 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||1.60|-7.59|0.2801
95879327|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|3.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 4 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.39|-3.77|0.9288
95879328|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|4.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 6 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.58|-2.62|0.6459
95879329|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.06||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|7.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 8 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.48|0.63|0.0527
95879330|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.29||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|7.52|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 14 10 PM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||7.52|-0.95|0.1998
95969532|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|82.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (Yes): Success||82.9|0.0|
95969533|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|64.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Pancreatitis (No): Success||64.4|33.0|
95969534|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|41.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|69.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (Yes): Success||69.6|13.8|
95969535|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|67.3|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Systemic steroids/immunos (No): Success||67.3|32.7|
95969536|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|100.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Neutropenic: Success||100.0|13.3|
95969537|NCT00548262|191911197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|51.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|69.9|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Non-neutropenic: Success||69.9|33.5|
95969538|NCT00548262|191911198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|68.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|84.0|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EIVT): Success||84.0|53.2|
95969539|NCT00548262|191911198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|49.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EIVT): Success||49.4|0.0|
95969540|NCT00548262|191911198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.5|86.4|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (EOT): Success||86.4|56.5|
95969541|NCT00548262|191911198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (EOT): Success||31.6|0.0|
95969542|NCT00548262|191911198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|57.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|73.5|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE \<20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||73.5|40.7|
95969543|NCT00548262|191911198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants with success|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|31.6|||||95% CI based on normal approximation to the binomial.|APACHE ≥20 (Week 2 F/U): Success||31.6|0.0|
95969544|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.002
95969545|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.23
95969546|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.18
95969547|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
95969548|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-6 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.004
95969549|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
95969550|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.21
95969551|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
95879331|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 12 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||2.53|-4.22|0.6765
95879332|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.35|4.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 4 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.33|-2.35|0.6221
95879333|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 6 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||4.74|-1.11|0.3000
95879334|NCT00934089|191714346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.9103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.85|3.37|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 15 8 AM: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||3.37|-3.85|0.9103
95879335|NCT00934089|191714348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|59.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.69|79.7|||Fisher Exact|||Photophobia: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||79.70|38.69|<0.001
95879336|NCT00934089|191714348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.56||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|7.68|||Fisher Exact|||Iritis: p-value was calculated using fisher exact test.||7.68|-14.80|0.612
95879337|NCT00934089|191714350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.42||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-127.05|22.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||22.22|-127.05|0.2450
95879338|NCT00934089|191714350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.51||||0.3068|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.89|90.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 13 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||90.91|-21.89|0.3068
95879339|NCT00934089|191714350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99||||0.2632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.69|101.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM study eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||101.67|-19.69|0.2632
95879340|NCT00934089|191714350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.84|47.64|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 35 8 AM fellow eye: Analysis was based on ANCOVA using SAS mixed procedure with covariates of baseline IOP, sequence, study period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||47.64|-60.84|0.8373
95909068|NCT01212770|191776107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.8||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.2|-2.6|0.4230
95879341|NCT00680017|191714387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 primary efficacy endpoint comparison."|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||The null hypothesis was that percent change in triglycerides (TG) from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in TG from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 98% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in TG.||||<0.001
95879342|NCT00680017|191714388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"P values were based on 2 sided tests. Tests resulting in P values less than or equal to 0.050 (when rounded) were reported as statistically significant. No adjustments made for multiple comparisons since only 1 secondary endpoint comparison."|ANCOVA|P-value obtained from an ANCOVA with corresponding baseline value as the covariate and an effect for treatment group.||The null hypothesis was that percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the ABT-335 45 mg plus rosuvastatin 5 mg treatment group is equal to percent change in HDL-C from baseline to Week 8 in the rosuvastatin 5 mg plus placebo treatment group. A sample size of 140 participants per treatment group was used to provide 82% power to detect a difference between the combination therapy arm and the rosuvastatin monotherapy arm in the percent change from Baseline to Week 8 in HDL-C.||||<0.001
95879343|NCT02555683|191714442|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.04||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.41|0.77|0.800
95879344|NCT02555683|191714442|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.14|0.61|0.510
95879345|NCT02555683|191714443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.26|-0.11|0.819
95879346|NCT02555683|191714443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.32||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.32|-0.05|0.591
95879347|NCT02555683|191714444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.07|-0.31|0.819
95879348|NCT02555683|191714444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.02|-0.37|0.591
95879349|NCT02555683|191714445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0365||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.139||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.139|-0.005|0.800
95879350|NCT02555683|191714445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.121||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.121|-0.021|0.523
95879351|NCT02555683|191714446|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.96||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||1.22|0.75|0.819
95879352|NCT02555683|191714446|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.78||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01||adjusted p-value|negative binomial regression model|Adjusted p-values are based on the closed testing procedure||||1.01|0.61|0.510
95879353|NCT02555683|191714447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.23||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.23|-0.07|0.819
95879354|NCT02555683|191714447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.27||adjusted p-vale|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.27|-0.03|0.591
95879355|NCT02555683|191714448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.04|-0.27|0.819
95879356|NCT02555683|191714448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.04||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||-0.04|-0.35|0.591
95879357|NCT02555683|191714449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.134||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.134|0.019|0.819
95879358|NCT02555683|191714449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0292||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.097||adjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Adjusted p-values obtained from the closed testing procedure||||0.097|-0.017|0.591
95879359|NCT01948947|191714459|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Week Post-Treatment||||<0.0001
95879360|NCT01948947|191714459|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from Baseline to 1-Month Post-Treatment||||<0.001
95879361|NCT01948947|191714460|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Week post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95879362|NCT01948947|191714460|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change from Baseline to 1-Month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95879363|NCT01948947|191714461|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95879364|NCT01948947|191714461|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Change in Baseline to 1-month post-treatment|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95879365|NCT01948947|191714462|OTHER||||||=|0.033|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.033
95879366|NCT03535844|191714464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.49
95879367|NCT03535844|191714464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5672|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test (Week 0 and Week 16)||||||0.5672
95879368|NCT03535844|191714464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.788
95879369|NCT03535844|191714465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.67
95879370|NCT03535844|191714465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.8203
95879371|NCT03535844|191714465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of change values||||||0.3882
95879372|NCT03535844|191714466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.08
95879373|NCT03535844|191714467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of change values||||||0.7162
95879374|NCT03535844|191714467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||0.07
95879375|NCT03535844|191714467|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 nitric oxide values||||||<0.05
95879376|NCT03535844|191714468|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||<0.05
95879377|NCT03535844|191714469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change triglyceride values||||||0.4855
95879378|NCT03535844|191714469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change total cholesterol values||||||0.1393
95879379|NCT03535844|191714469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change LDL cholesterol values||||||0.2221
95879380|NCT03535844|191714469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change HDL cholesterol values||||||0.078
95879381|NCT03535844|191714469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||<0.05
95879382|NCT03535844|191714469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test of Week 0 and Week 16 HDL cholesterol values||||||0.7261
95879383|NCT03535844|191714470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of systolic blood pressure change values||||||0.1951
95879384|NCT03535844|191714470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of diastolic blood pressure change values||||||0.916
95879385|NCT03535844|191714471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test of malondialdehyde change values||||||0.9882
95879386|NCT03535844|191714472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4408|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of body fat % change values||||||0.4408
95879387|NCT03535844|191714473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.1487
95879388|NCT03535844|191714474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9135
95879389|NCT03535844|191714475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5859|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.5859
95879390|NCT03535844|191714476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.9379
95879391|NCT03535844|191714477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9717|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of change values||||||0.9717
95879392|NCT03535844|191714480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Independent t-test of change values||||||0.7052
95879393|NCT03535844|191714480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations||||||0.07
95879394|NCT03535844|191714480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Paired t-test between Week 0 and Week 16 endothelin-1 concentrations|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95879395|NCT03535844|191714481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9426||||||Independent t-test of change values|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9426
95879396|NCT01803204|191714482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GEE|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||GEE|||||||1.00
95879397|NCT01803204|191714483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effects Model|||||||<0.01
95879398|NCT01803204|191714484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|99.0|||||Mist Effect Model|||||||0.81
95879399|NCT01397890|191714533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.044||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.069|||ANCOVA|multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a (log-transformed) covariate||||1.069|1.019|0.0004
95879400|NCT01397890|191714534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.079|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.057|1.102|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.102|1.057|<0.0001
95879401|NCT01397890|191714535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.086|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.111|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.111|1.062|<0.0001
95879402|NCT01397890|191714536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.018||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.037|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.037|0.999|0.0570
95879403|NCT01397890|191714537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.067|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.067|1.033|<0.0001
95879404|NCT01397890|191714538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.054|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|1.073|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.073|1.036|<0.0001
95879405|NCT01397890|191714539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.05|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.050|0.990|0.1956
95879406|NCT01397890|191714540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|1.091|||ANCOVA|Multiplicative ANCOVA model with treatment and country as fixed factors and week 0 pre-dose value as a (log-transformed) covariate.||||1.091|1.035|<0.0001
95879407|NCT01397890|191714541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.303||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.904|30.702|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||30.702|9.904|0.0001
95879408|NCT01397890|191714542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.587|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.407|19.766|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||19.766|7.407|<0.0001
95879409|NCT01397890|191714543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.147|24.791|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||24.791|10.147|<0.0001
95879410|NCT01397890|191714544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.428||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.463|39.393|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||39.393|13.463|0.0001
95879411|NCT01397890|191714545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.192||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.491|26.894|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.894|7.491|0.0006
95879412|NCT01397890|191714546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.347|26.596|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||26.596|10.347|<0.0001
95879413|NCT01397890|191714547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.668|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.437|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.437|-0.900|<0.0001
95879414|NCT01397890|191714548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.375|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.552|-0.198|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.198|-0.552|<0.0001
95879415|NCT01397890|191714549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.741|-0.361|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.361|-0.741|<0.0001
95879416|NCT01397890|191714550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.236||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|-0.082|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.082|-0.391|0.0028
95879417|NCT01397890|191714551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.124||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.007|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.007|-0.240|0.0372
95879418|NCT01397890|191714552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.113|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.113|-0.350|0.0001
95879419|NCT01397890|191714553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|-0.159|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.159|-0.364|<0.0001
95879420|NCT01397890|191714554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.143||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|-0.04|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.040|-0.246|0.0067
95879421|NCT01397890|191714555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.222|-0.022|||ANCOVA|Additive ANCOVA model with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the run-in mean of pre-dose morning PEF as a covariate||||-0.022|-0.222|0.0171
95879422|NCT01397890|191714556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.593||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|0.839|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression model with treatment as a factor and the duration time in study as an offset variable morning PEF as a covariate||||0.839|0.419|0.0032
95879423|NCT01397890|191714556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.614||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.916|||Regression, Cox|Time to the first COPD exacerbation||||0.916|0.412|0.0167
95879424|NCT01397890|191714556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0196
95879425|NCT02100514|191714599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|-45.8|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were derived from an mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-45.8|-54.0|<0.001
95879426|NCT02100514|191714600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|-30.2|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-30.2|-36.1|<0.001
95879427|NCT02100514|191714600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-26.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-26.3|-32.8|
95879428|NCT02100514|191714600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-20.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-20.5|-27.0|
95879429|NCT02100514|191714601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-41.7|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.7|-49.7|<0.001
95879430|NCT02100514|191714601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-36.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.5|-45.3|
95879431|NCT02100514|191714601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-28.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI, were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.2|-36.7|
95879432|NCT02100514|191714602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-41.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-41.1|-48.9|<0.001
95879433|NCT02100514|191714602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-40.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-36.1||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-36.1|-44.8|
95879434|NCT02100514|191714602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-28.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-28.4|-37.0|
95879435|NCT02100514|191714603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-46.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-46.6|-56.7|<0.001
95879436|NCT02100514|191714603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-40.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-40.6|-52.2|
95879437|NCT02100514|191714603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-37.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-43.3|
95879438|NCT02100514|191714604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001||95.0|-53.7|-39.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-53.7|<0.001
95879439|NCT02100514|191714604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-39.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||||95.0|-47.9|-31.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.6|-47.9|
95879440|NCT02100514|191714604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.02||||95.0|-41.3|-25.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-25.5|-41.3|
95879441|NCT02100514|191714605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001||95.0|-36.9|-24.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-24.6|-36.9|<0.001
95879442|NCT02100514|191714605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||||95.0|-33.9|-21.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-21.2|-33.9|
95879443|NCT02100514|191714605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.2|-13.5||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-13.5|-85.2|
95879444|NCT02100514|191714606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|7.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI and p-value were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.4|<0.001
95879445|NCT02100514|191714606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||||95.0|3.2|7.6||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||7.6|3.2|
95879446|NCT02100514|191714606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||||95.0|3.6|8.3||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||8.3|3.6|
95879447|NCT02100514|191714607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-44.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||||95.0|-48.8|-39.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-39.5|-48.8|
95879448|NCT02100514|191714607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-31.4||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-31.4|-40.9|
95969552|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
95969553|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 6-12 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.14
95879449|NCT02100514|191714608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
95879450|NCT02100514|191714608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
95879451|NCT02100514|191714608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
95879452|NCT02100514|191714609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||||95.0|2.5|5.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.8|2.5|
95879453|NCT02100514|191714609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||||95.0|2.2|5.5||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||5.5|2.2|
95879454|NCT02100514|191714609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||||95.0|2.4|6.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||6.2|2.4|
95879455|NCT02100514|191714610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||||95.0|-0.7|2.8||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.8|-0.7|
95879456|NCT02100514|191714610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||||95.0|-1.1|3.0||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.0|-1.1|
95879457|NCT02100514|191714610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||||95.0|-1.0|2.7||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-1.0|
95879458|NCT02100514|191714611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||||95.0|-15.1|-5.1||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-5.1|-15.1|
95879459|NCT02100514|191714611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||||95.0|-17.9|-0.2||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-17.9|
95879460|NCT02100514|191714611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||||95.0|-14.1|-2.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-2.2|-14.1|
95879461|NCT02100514|191714612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||||95.0|-73.0|-60.5||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-60.5|-73.0|
95879462|NCT02100514|191714613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||||95.0|-76.7|-55.4||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction and geographical region. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-55.4|-76.7|
95969554|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.45
95969555|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.79
95879463|NCT02100514|191714614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-66.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||||95.0|-72.0|-61.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-61.1|-72.0|
95879464|NCT02100514|191714615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-69.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||||95.0|-75.2|-63.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-63.1|-75.2|
95879465|NCT02100514|191714616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-71.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||||95.0|-77.5|-65.1||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-65.1|-77.5|
95879466|NCT02100514|191714617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||||95.0|-51.9|-43.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-43.6|-51.9|
95879467|NCT02100514|191714618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||||95.0|-12.5|-8.3||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-8.3|-12.5|
95879468|NCT02100514|191714619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||||95.0|1.6|3.6||||||LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||3.6|1.6|
95879469|NCT02100514|191714620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||95.0|-1.8|-1.5||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.5|-1.8|
95879470|NCT02100514|191714620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||||95.0|-1.6|-1.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.3|-1.6|
95879471|NCT02100514|191714620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||||95.0|-1.6|-1.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% CI were derived from MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-1.2|-1.6|
95879472|NCT02100514|191714621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.4|
95879473|NCT02100514|191714621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||95.0|-0.3|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.3|-0.3|
95879474|NCT02100514|191714621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference compared to placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||||95.0|-0.4|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval CI were derived from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup. An unstructured variance covariance matrix was used.||-0.2|-0.4|
95879475|NCT02100514|191714622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|53.9||||||95.0|32.08|90.59||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||90.59|32.08|
95879476|NCT02100514|191714622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.0||||||95.0|11.15|26.07||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||26.07|11.15|
95879477|NCT02100514|191714622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.1||||||95.0|6.18|13.48||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||13.48|6.18|
95879478|NCT02100514|191714623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.4||||||95.0|48.84|501.11||||||Week 12: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||501.11|48.84|
95879479|NCT02100514|191714623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.8||||||95.0|39.77|308.46||||||Week 24: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||308.46|39.77|
95879480|NCT02100514|191714623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.3||||||95.0|19.52|96.13||||||Week 52: Odds ratio, associated 95% CI were derived from a logistic regression model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographical region and triglyceride subgroup.||96.13|19.52|
95879481|NCT02218320|191714635|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95879482|NCT01145625|191714642|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was greater than -6.565.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.4|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 24 data.||5.4|-6.0|0.9170
95879483|NCT01145625|191714643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||<|0.4158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.2|||ANCOVA|P-Value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 12 data.||8.2|-3.4|<0.4158
95879484|NCT01145625|191714644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|P-value and confidence interval are from ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and Baseline hair count as a covariate.||Statistical analysis is for the change from baseline to week 52 data.||4.1|-7.1|0.5980
95969556|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.77
95969557|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.03
95969558|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 12-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.12
95969559|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||This is the PCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"PCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.29
95969560|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||This is the MCS KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"MCS:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.01
95879485|NCT01751178|191714668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.041||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.041|-0.081|<0.0001
95879486|NCT01751178|191714668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GSI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.050|-0.090|<0.0001
95879487|NCT01751178|191714669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.05||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.05|-0.10|<0.0001
95969561|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||This is the Burden KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Burden:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.08
95879488|NCT01751178|191714669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.06||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline GI as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups.||-0.06|-0.11|<0.0001
95879489|NCT01751178|191714670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.62||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque scores.||-0.62|-0.98|<0.0001
95879490|NCT01751178|191714670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adusted Mean Difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.68||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the two treatment groups in Overall Plaque Scores.||-0.68|-1.04|<0.0001
95879491|NCT01751178|191714671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.69||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two treatments.||-0.69|-1.07|<0.0001
95879492|NCT01751178|191714671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.78||From ANCOVA with factors for treatment group, site, smoking status, number of bleeding sites strata and the baseline Plaque as a covariate|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypotheses stated that there was no difference between the two groups.||-0.78|-1.16|<0.0001
95879493|NCT04289623|191714672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.35||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.35|1.05|.007
95879494|NCT04289623|191714672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.19||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.19|0.56|.287
95879495|NCT04289623|191714672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.27|0.87|.590
95879496|NCT04289623|191714672|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||3.32|1.05|.035
95879497|NCT04289623|191714673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.37||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.37|0.98|.085
95879498|NCT04289623|191714673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.33||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the standard email as the reference group.||1.33|0.60|.569
95879499|NCT04289623|191714673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the previously enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.17|0.54|.240
95879500|NCT04289623|191714673|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.95||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression among the never enrolled group with the rank-and-file email as the reference group.||1.95|0.45|.871
95879501|NCT04424888|191714676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21875
95879502|NCT04424888|191714677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.90625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90625
95879503|NCT04424888|191714678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Akkermansia Munciphilae.||||0.020
95879504|NCT04424888|191714678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Bifidobacterium infantis.||||0.078
95879505|NCT04424888|191714678|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium beijerinckii.|No statistical test was conducted since Clostridium beijerinckii was not detected in any sample.|||
95879506|NCT04424888|191714678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Clostridium butyricum.||||0.20
95879507|NCT04424888|191714678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired t-test for the species Anaerobutyricum hallii.||||0.12
95879508|NCT04424888|191714679|OTHER||||||||||||||||||All participants had the same number of sensors (3) throughout the study, so no statistical analysis is conducted.|||
95879509|NCT04424888|191714680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average number of daily photos is greater in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.41
95879510|NCT04424888|191714681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We test whether the average time between consecutive scans is smaller in period 1 than in period 2.||||0.13
95879511|NCT03285984|191714683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.15||From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group, period and subject (random effect), and subject-level baseline and period-level baseline|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment|||-0.15|-0.27|<.0001
95969562|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||||||This is the Symptoms KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Symptoms:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.61
95969563|NCT02270515|191911220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is the Effects KDQOL Subscale p-value for change in 0-18 months shown in Primary Outcome table 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Effects:~From random-intercept linear mixed models with an AR(1) covariance pattern in the residual, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race (AA, all other), interview language, dialysis vintage (months), site, education (not HS grad, HS grad), marital status (married or living with partner, other), self-reported diabetes at baseline, PCP at baseline, urea reduction ratio (URR), hemoglobin (g/dL), and albumin (g/dL). The 3 lab values are time-varying covariates."||||0.02
95969564|NCT01607476|191911247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95969565|NCT01607476|191911247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95969566|NCT01607476|191911247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95969567|NCT01607476|191911248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95969568|NCT01607476|191911248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95879512|NCT01218113|191714744|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.801|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.553|1.162|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.162|0.553|
95969569|NCT01607476|191911248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95969570|NCT01133418|191911268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05|General Linear Model|||||||.36
95969571|NCT01133418|191911269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.86
95969572|NCT01133418|191911270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.79
95969573|NCT01133418|191911271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||General Linear Model|||||||.77
95879513|NCT01218113|191714744|NON_INFERIORITY|Crierion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.184|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.816|1.717|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||1.717|0.816|
95879514|NCT01218113|191714745|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (3D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.257|0.065|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 3 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.065|-0.257|
95879515|NCT01218113|191714745|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority evaluation: The upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in change between the two arms (2D\_HIV Group - Control Group) is below 0.|Mean Difference|0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.088|0.235|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||To show the difference in change from baseline of HIV-1 VL (log10-transformed values) at week 48 between persons who received 2 doses of the HIV Vaccine 732462 and persons who received placebo alone.||0.235|-0.088|
95969574|NCT04150068|191911274|SUPERIORITY|The difference in percentage between 2 treatment groups was compared using an unconditional exact method using 2 invert 1-sided tests with an alpha level at 0.05 to evaluate superiority.|Percentage Difference|70.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|90.0||The P value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the point estimate of treatment difference in proportions was estimated and constructed using the Chan and Zhang method.|Chan & Zhang method|||||90.0|34.9|< 0.0001
95969575|NCT05316701|191911283|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.47|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.47|0.14|<0.00001
95969576|NCT05316701|191911284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.43|||Gray's test|||Gray's test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.43|0.08|0.00002
95969577|NCT05316701|191911285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.11823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||1.22|0.20|0.11823
95969578|NCT05316701|191911286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6|||Log Rank|||Log-rank test was stratified by randomization stratification factors.||0.60|0.23|0.00003
95969579|NCT04362189|191911293|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95969580|NCT04362189|191911294|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|||||
95879516|NCT00967668|191714809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables||All participants were included in outcomes analyses using intention-to-treat principles. A linear mixed-effects model with baseline, 3- and 12-month outcome values modeled as dependent variables was used.This statistical approach allows the use of data from all participants as long as the dependent variable is available for at least one time point. Each subject was included as a random intercept to adjust for within-person correlations.||||<0.05
95879517|NCT01543958|191714836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||||||not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.87
95879518|NCT01543958|191714837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Sign test|no other adjustment||||||0.62
95879519|NCT01945281|191714886|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|27.7|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||27.7|-24.3|
95879520|NCT01945281|191714887|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by stratum (Weight category based on weight at study entry) with Cochran Mantel-Haenszel's weights.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|22.6|||||Caspofungin minus Amphotericin|||22.6|-30.2|
95879521|NCT01513343|191714915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|Multinomial logistic regression examined program effects on child BMI categories, controlling for child sex, age (months), \& BMI z-score at pretest.||||||<0.05
95879522|NCT01513343|191714916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||To control for type I errors, the critical P values for each assessment were determined with the unweighted Bonferroni method, dividing the critical value of P \< 0.05 by the number of comparisons conducted for a given assessment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95879523|NCT02165215|191714947|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|7.7||||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.2|-4.2|0.1942
95879524|NCT02165215|191714948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|14.6||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|33.15||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.15|-5.55|0.1524
95879525|NCT02165215|191714949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|8.7||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|20.21||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.21|-3.26|0.1466
95879526|NCT02165215|191714950|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|10.9||||0.3083||95.0|-9.72|30.49||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.49|-9.72|0.3083
95879527|NCT02165215|191714951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in response rates|14.4||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|26.28||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.28|1.84|0.0235
95879528|NCT02165215|191714952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|12.8||||0.0293||95.0|1.13|23.89||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.89|1.13|0.0293
95879529|NCT02165215|191714953|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|19.8||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|33.11||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.11|5.16|0.0075
95879530|NCT02165215|191714954|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
95879531|NCT02165215|191714955|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in remission rates|9.9||||0.1415||95.0|-4.47|23.13||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.13|-4.47|0.1415
95879532|NCT02165215|191714956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-2.8||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.4||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.4|-5.3|0.0266
95879533|NCT02165215|191714957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.2|-2.2|0.0175
95879534|NCT02165215|191714958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|2.1||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|10.8||p-value has not been adjusted for multiplicity|ANCOVA|||||10.8|-6.6|0.6331
95879535|NCT00592384|191714973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|see above||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
95879536|NCT00592384|191714986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025||||||Bonferroni corrected for two primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analyses included observations at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Random effects were included for participants' intercepts. Fixed effects were time (linear), treatment (VFN vs. PBO), interaction of time with treatment, stratification factors and potential confounders and variables to improve sensitivity. The primary indicator of treatment effect was the interaction of time by treatment.||||<.025
95879537|NCT05096221|191714994|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.2441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.74|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.74|-0.45|0.2441
95879538|NCT05096221|191714995|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Re-randomization test|||||||< 0.0001
95879539|NCT05096221|191714996|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.23|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.23|-1.06|0.0025
95879540|NCT05096221|191714997|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0048
95879541|NCT05096221|191714998|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.1942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|1.7|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.70|-8.28|0.1942
95879542|NCT05096221|191714999|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||-0.01|-0.71|0.0412
95879543|NCT05096221|191715000|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|0.00|0.0402
95879544|NCT05096221|191715001|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.19|-0.08|0.4272
95879545|NCT05096221|191715002|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||0.17|-0.24|0.7324
95879546|NCT05096221|191715003|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean change difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.06|||Mixed model of repeated measures|||||1.06|-0.67|0.6554
95879547|NCT04678661|191715007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for covariates of age, race, baseline BMI, and baseline hemoglobin A1c.||||||.207
95879548|NCT04678661|191715008|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent t-test||||.011
95879549|NCT04678661|191715009|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.024
95879550|NCT04678661|191715010|OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.579
95879551|NCT04678661|191715011|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95879552|NCT04678661|191715012|OTHER|||||||0.269|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.269
95879553|NCT04678661|191715015|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95879554|NCT04678661|191715016|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Reported p-value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95879555|NCT04678661|191715017|OTHER|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.647
95879556|NCT04613375|191715044|OTHER||Adjusted VE|16.91||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|44.52|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.|||44.52|-24.43|0.3685
95879557|NCT04613375|191715045|OTHER||Adjusted VE|49.27||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|76.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||76.37|-8.9|0.0817
95879558|NCT04613375|191715045|OTHER||Adjusted VE|4.72||||0.8367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|39.87|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||39.87|-50.96|0.8367
95879559|NCT04613375|191715045|OTHER||Adjusted VE|12.02||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.53|59.59|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||59.59|-91.53|0.7469
95879560|NCT04613375|191715051|OTHER||Adjusted VE|25.96||||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.21|52.42|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|||52.42|-15.21|0.1827
95879561|NCT04613375|191715052|OTHER||Adjusted VE|68.86||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.86|89.0|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\<2 years||89|11.86|0.028
95879562|NCT04613375|191715052|OTHER||Adjusted VE|7.97||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|43.43|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|2 years to \<5 years||43.43|-49.73|0.738
95879563|NCT04613375|191715052|OTHER||Adjusted VE|30.06||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.86|71.37|||Wald Test||Adjusted for the covariates age group, weekly exposure to children less than 5 years, calendar time, and CAP with RSV infection.|\>=5 years||71.37|-70.86|0.4327
95879564|NCT01081678|191715053|OTHER|||||||0.1983|||||||F-test|The p-value is based on F-test of multi-linear contrasts at Week 6 through Week 20.||The primary analysis was based on a test for linear trend in dose response at weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20. To account for multiple comparisons over time points, the primary analysis used a size α = 0.05 F-test with 4 degrees of freedom for the contrasts at Weeks 6, 12, 16, and 20.||||0.1983
95879565|NCT01619423|191715059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.31|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.5||0.31
95879566|NCT01619423|191715059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.15|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.16||0.15
95969581|NCT04362189|191911295|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95879567|NCT01619423|191715059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.16|ONE_SIDED|10.0||1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.14||0.16
95879568|NCT00413244|191715062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||log mean|||"Statistician used all the time points post-baseline together (Overall). The result gives the estimates and 95% CI of the treatment effect from longitudinal analyses (generalized estimating equation method) which basically pools data from all visits post-baseline."||||0.03
95879569|NCT03881670|191715079|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.0023|||||||Friedman Test|||Change in ratings over time||||0.0023
95879570|NCT03881670|191715079|OTHER|Friedman test||||||0.4679|||||||Friedman Test|||change in ratings over time||||0.4679
95879571|NCT02319837|191715085|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.424|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.607||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.05.|Log Rank|||||0.607|0.296|<0.0001
95879572|NCT02319837|191715086|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.631||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|0.871||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.871|0.456|0.0049
95969582|NCT04362189|191911296|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95879573|NCT02319837|191715087|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.068|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.141||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.141|0.033|<0.0001
95879574|NCT02319837|191715087|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.331|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.486||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.486|0.226|<0.0001
95879575|NCT02319837|191715088|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.358|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.488||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.02.|Log Rank|||||0.488|0.263|<0.0001
95879576|NCT02319837|191715088|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|0.709||Statistical significance can be declared if p-value \<0.03.|Log Rank|||||0.709|0.411|<0.0001
95879577|NCT02319837|191715090|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.690|0.284|0.0002
95879578|NCT02319837|191715090|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.920|0.409|0.0171
95879579|NCT02319837|191715091|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|31.0||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.0|20.7|<0.0001
95879580|NCT02319837|191715091|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|24.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|13.0|<0.0001
95879581|NCT02319837|191715092|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.5||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|15.2||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.2|-0.2|0.0439
95879582|NCT02319837|191715092|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-12.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-6.1||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.1|-19.8|0.0004
95969583|NCT04362189|191911297|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95879583|NCT02319837|191715093|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|7.2||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.8||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.8|1.7|0.0089
95879584|NCT02319837|191715093|OTHER||difference of percentage of participants|-5.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.6|-9.4|0.0326
95879585|NCT02319837|191715094|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.834|||Log Rank|||||0.834|0.577|<0.0001
95879586|NCT02319837|191715094|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.655|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.381|1.984|||Log Rank|||||1.984|1.381|<0.0001
95879587|NCT02319837|191715095|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.157|||Log Rank|||||0.157|0.051|<0.0001
95969584|NCT04362189|191911298|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||HB-adMSCs represents Numerator and Placebo represents Denominator.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95969585|NCT04362189|191911305|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95879588|NCT02319837|191715096|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.699|||Log Rank|||||0.699|0.427|<0.0001
95879589|NCT02319837|191715096|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|0.785|||Log Rank|||||0.785|0.488|<0.0001
95879590|NCT02319837|191715097|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.261||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.548|||Log Rank|||||0.548|0.125|0.0001
95969586|NCT04362189|191911306|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95969587|NCT04362189|191911307|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95969588|NCT04362189|191911308|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Slope represents beta coefficient for arm \* time interaction.|Analyses relied on Bayesian inference for test of superiority via generalized linear mixed model.||||
95969589|NCT00452426|191911363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
95969590|NCT00452426|191911365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95969591|NCT00452426|191911366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95969592|NCT00872989|191911378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.79|0.49
95969593|NCT00872989|191911380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|0.93|0.83
95969594|NCT05540717|191911412|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.25||||0.00048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-9.49|-31.0|0.00048
95969595|NCT05540717|191911413|SUPERIORITY||relative difference (%)|-20.2||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.13|-10.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect||-10.27|-30.13|0.00032
95969596|NCT05540717|191911414|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-26.54||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.15|-11.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on peak GPS||-11.94|-41.15|0.00080
95969597|NCT05540717|191911414|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect.|relative difference (%)|-26.6||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.49|-12.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dMS of CSMS on entire GPS||-12.72|-40.49|0.00031
95969598|NCT05540717|191911415|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.35||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-6.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on peak GPS||-6.44|-26.27|0.00223
95969599|NCT05540717|191911415|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect and pooled geographical region as random effect|relative difference (%)|-16.58||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of dSS of CSMS on entire GPS||||0.00076
95879591|NCT02319837|191715097|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.794|||Log Rank|||||0.794|0.226|0.0057
95969600|NCT05540717|191911416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.00032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using treatment group as fixed effect, Baseline total RQLQ score as covariate and pooled geographical region as random effect||Average Total RQLQ Score During Peak GPS||-0.23|-0.76|0.00032
95969601|NCT05540717|191911417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.99|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline to Visit 7 of serum grass-specific IgG4 \[mg/L\]||4.7|3.28|<0.00001
95969602|NCT05540717|191911418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.254||||0.10846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.652|||Regression, Logistic|The probability of a well day was calculated using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) or similar approaches as appropriate.||Probability of Well Days During Peak (truncated) GPS||1.652|0.951|0.10846
95969603|NCT01144052|191911437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed as this was a pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.125||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.125
95969604|NCT01144052|191911438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0|||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
95969605|NCT01144052|191911439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447|||||||non-parametric|||||||0.447
95969606|NCT01144052|191911440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.206
95969607|NCT01144052|191911442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No statistical hypothesis tests for efficacy were performed, as this was pilot study serving to generate first data and hypotheses.||||||0.234||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value refers to nT2L at month 12||||||0.234
95969608|NCT00105001|191911445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.09
95969609|NCT00105001|191911445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-u\[|||1.1|0.4|0.10
95969610|NCT00105001|191911445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.0|0.6|0.04
95969611|NCT00105001|191911446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.55
95969612|NCT00105001|191911447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.009
95969613|NCT00105001|191911447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm II relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||1.4|0.5|0.51
95969614|NCT00105001|191911447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||Regression, Cox||HR for Arm III relative to Arm I, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|||0.8|0.3|0.004
95879592|NCT02319837|191715098|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.894|1.301|||Log Rank|||||1.301|0.894|0.4321
95879593|NCT02319837|191715098|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.904|1.314|||Log Rank|||||1.314|0.904|0.3702
95969615|NCT00105001|191911448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.93
95969616|NCT00105001|191911449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall test of homogeneity among arms, reflecting events over the entire period of follow-up|Regression, Cox|||||||0.96
95969617|NCT02580305|191911502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.41
95969618|NCT02580305|191911502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.90
95969619|NCT02580305|191911503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.46
95969620|NCT02580305|191911503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.48
95969621|NCT02580305|191911504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.83
95969622|NCT02580305|191911504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.24
95969623|NCT02580305|191911505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.17
95969624|NCT02580305|191911505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.14
95969625|NCT02580305|191911506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.79
95969626|NCT02580305|191911506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p≤0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical Method: Mixed model for repeated measures||||||0.92
95969627|NCT01639560|191911516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|18.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.1|2.5|<0.001
95969628|NCT01639560|191911517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.0|2.2|0.001
95969629|NCT01639560|191911518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.3|1.0|0.047
95969630|NCT01639560|191911519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|16.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.5|1.5|0.009
95969631|NCT01177800|191911581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95969632|NCT01177800|191911582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 10: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
95969633|NCT01177800|191911583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95969634|NCT01177800|191911584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden|||Change at Week 26: p-value was calculated by Non parametric ANOVA by van der Waerden method.||||<0.001
95969635|NCT01871805|191911588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0056
95969636|NCT01871805|191911589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0251||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0251
95969637|NCT01871805|191911589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0203
95969638|NCT01871805|191911591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Tests null hypothesis that the response rate is equal to 35% versus the alternative hypothesis that the response rate is not equal to 35%.|Exact Clopper-Pearson CI, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
95969639|NCT01670760|191911690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.69
95969640|NCT01416389|191911714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.344|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This measure is compared between two treatment arms using a one-sided t-test. This measure followed a normal distribution.||||0.344
95969641|NCT01416389|191911715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.608|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.608
95969642|NCT01416389|191911717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.365
95879594|NCT02319837|191715099|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide + leuprolide.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.1567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|1.357|||Log Rank|||||1.357|0.954|0.1567
95879595|NCT02319837|191715099|OTHER|Two-sided P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by screening PSA, PSA doubling time, and prior hormonal therapy. Hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model stratified by factors defined above and was relative to placebo + leuprolide with \< 1 favoring enzalutamide monotherapy.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.168||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.391|||Log Rank|||||1.391|0.981|0.0855
95879596|NCT01961362|191715188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05 considered to represent statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95879597|NCT01961362|191715188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95879598|NCT01961362|191715189|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95879599|NCT01761175|191715233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95969643|NCT00858364|191911749|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.01|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis used the Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.01|0.83|
95969644|NCT00858364|191911749|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio (darbepoetin alfa to placebo) was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.0|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.00|0.83|
95879600|NCT01761175|191715234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95879601|NCT01761175|191715235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
95879602|NCT01761175|191715236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.01
95879603|NCT01761175|191715237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95879604|NCT01761175|191715238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95969645|NCT00858364|191911749|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.07|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin)||||||0.070
95879605|NCT01761175|191715239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95879606|NCT03576495|191715300|SUPERIORITY|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' knowledge improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident knowledge, resident knowledge was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value compares the average scores (in percent) of the residents' knowledge assessment at time period 2 between the Early Intervention and Delayed Intervention groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2422
95879607|NCT03576495|191715301|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' preparation for caring for culturally diverse patients improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident preparedness assessed by the Cross-Cultural Care Survey, resident preparedness was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||1.000
95969646|NCT00858364|191911749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.047
95879608|NCT03576495|191715302|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|0.9||||0.6295|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' self-assessed skills improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident skills, resident skills were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.6295
95879609|NCT03576495|191715303|SUPERIORITY||Difference between percentage|2.5||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' beliefs improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum on resident beliefs, beliefs were compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups."||||0.0199
95879610|NCT03576495|191715304|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|2.2||||0.2665|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Limited English Proficiency and Informed Consent OSCE."||||0.2665
95879611|NCT03576495|191715304|SUPERIORITY||difference in the percentage|6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if residents' OSCE performance improved after exposure to the PACTS curriculum. OSCE performance was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in the percentage of residents designated mostly and a great deal on Trust and Pain."||||0.0001
95879612|NCT03576495|191715305|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|3.19||||0.5079|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to trust at time period 2."||||0.5079
95879613|NCT03576495|191715305|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|1.92||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to limited English proficiency at period 2."||||0.1571
95879614|NCT03576495|191715305|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|4.76||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to consent at time period 2."||||0.0001
95969647|NCT00858364|191911749|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.02|0.84|
95969648|NCT00858364|191911750|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of PFS used a Cox Proportional Hazard Model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin), with treatment group as the only covariate.||1.04|0.87|
95879615|NCT03576495|191715305|SUPERIORITY||absolute difference between percentage|0.19||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patient satisfaction improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. For purposes of measuring an effect of the PACTS curriculum, patient satisfaction was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups. We compared the difference in proportion of patients who reported agree and strongly agree for satisfaction as it relates to pain at time period 2."||||0.2956
95879616|NCT03576495|191715306|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||We used Cox Proportional Hazard to assess time to discharge, with 5.31 days as the estimated value for the difference between the two groups.|"We conducted a superiority statistical test to assess if patients length of stay improved after resident exposure to the PACTS curriculum. Patient length of stay was compared at time Period 2 between the Early Intervention (intervention) and Delayed Intervention (control) groups to measure an effect of the PACTS intervention."||||0.0028
95879617|NCT02628938|191715320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.299
95879618|NCT02628938|191715320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.007
95879619|NCT02628938|191715320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.019
95879620|NCT02628938|191715320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.000
95879621|NCT02628938|191715320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.000
95879622|NCT02628938|191715320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Organoleptic scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.001
95879623|NCT02628938|191715321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.496
95879624|NCT02628938|191715321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.244
95879625|NCT02628938|191715321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Miswak sticks||||0.19
95879626|NCT02628938|191715321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of of using Miswak sticks||||0.829
95879627|NCT02628938|191715321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 15 minutes of the first use of Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.341
95879628|NCT02628938|191715321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Volatile sulfur compound scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.82
95879629|NCT02628938|191715322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak extract mouth wash||||0.008
95879630|NCT02628938|191715322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Miswak sticks||||0.001
95879631|NCT02628938|191715322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test was performed to examine the significance of change in Self-assessment scores after 7 days of using Chlorohexidine gluconate mouth wash||||0.02
95879632|NCT02229383|191715338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.54|-0.94|<0.001
95879633|NCT02229383|191715339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-0.85|-2.19|<0.001
95879634|NCT02229383|191715340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.754|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-16.45|||ANCOVA|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use (yes vs. no) as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||-16.45|-39.07|<0.001
95879635|NCT02229383|191715341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
95879636|NCT02229383|191715342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.2|-4.1|0.074
95879637|NCT02229383|191715343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|20.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline HbA1c (\<9.0% or ≥9.0%) and baseline SU-use (yes vs. no).||||||<0.001
95879638|NCT02229383|191715344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, region, baseline HbA1c (\< or ≥ 9.0%), baseline SU-use, week, treatment by week interaction as fixed factors; baseline value as covariate.||||0.4|-4.0|0.110
95879639|NCT04508335|191715378|EQUIVALENCE|We use 2, one-sided t-tests, each with alpha set at 0.05 to test the composite null hypothesis that the mean difference score (μReia-μCurrent) between the Reia pessary and baseline (current pessary) on the PFDI-20, is greater than 18.3 (H01), the upper equivalence limit, or lower than -18.3 (H02), the lower equivalence limit.||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H01: μReia-μCurrent \> 18.3 and H02: μReia-μCurrent \< -18.3. The alternative hypothesis is thus: HA: -18.3 ≤ μReia-μCurrent ≤ 18.3.||||.0021
95879640|NCT04508335|191715380|OTHER|Mean difference of PFIQ scores. A negative difference (Reia pessary - current pessary) indicates that the PFIQ-7 score improved with the Reia pessary.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|||||p value adjusted for multiple variables|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PFIQ scores at baseline with subjects using current pessary then after treatment with Reia pessary||||0.0192
95879641|NCT02785432|191715392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95879642|NCT02785432|191715393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95879643|NCT02785432|191715394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95879644|NCT02785432|191715395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Between group comparison at 8 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95879645|NCT00739674|191715424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
95879646|NCT00739674|191715425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
95879647|NCT00739674|191715426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.122
95879648|NCT00739674|191715427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.434
95879649|NCT00739674|191715428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.507||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.507
95879650|NCT00739674|191715429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.058||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.058
95969649|NCT00858364|191911750|NON_INFERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS, non-inferiority would be declared for PFS if the upper confidence limit for the hazard ratio was less than 1.15 using a 1-sided significance level of 0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||||A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower risk of death or progression for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis, an unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model with treatment group as the only covariate was conducted.||1.04|0.87|
95879651|NCT00739674|191715430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.158
95879652|NCT00739674|191715431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.064
95879653|NCT00739674|191715432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.262
95879654|NCT00739674|191715433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for study medication, age, gender, race, cardiovascular risk, baseline weight, and baseline waist circumference.||||||0.026
95879655|NCT00739674|191715434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.212
95879656|NCT01594281|191715435|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-5.4|0.0344
95879657|NCT01594281|191715435|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-3.8|0.3809
95879658|NCT01594281|191715435|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-1.0|0.2113
95969650|NCT00858364|191911750|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was demonstrated for both OS and PFS and superiority was demonstrated for the transfusion endpoint, superiority was then tested for both OS and PFS using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiplicity.||||||0.31|||||||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||||||0.31
95969651|NCT00858364|191911750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Log Rank|Unstratified log rank test||||||0.27
95879659|NCT01594281|191715436|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.2|0.0081
95879660|NCT01594281|191715436|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.7494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-2.0|0.7494
95879661|NCT01594281|191715436|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.9|||ANCOVA|||||3.9|0.4|0.0175
95879662|NCT01594281|191715437|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0|||ANCOVA|||||11.0|0.0|0.0495
95879663|NCT01594281|191715437|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|-2.5|0.2767
95879664|NCT01594281|191715437|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|-7.9|0.3641
95879665|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.749|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||2.749|0.080|0.4019
95879666|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.833||||0.2772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|5.471|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.471|0.614|0.2772
95969652|NCT00858364|191911750|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05||||||To evaluate the potential effect of cross-in (participants in the placebo group who began treatment with an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) at any point after randomization), a sensitivity analysis was conducted that included ESA use as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||1.05|0.88|
95879667|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.412||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.622|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||3.622|0.55|0.4731
95879668|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.068|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.068|0.155|0.065
95879669|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.229|4.361|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||4.361|0.229|1.000
95879670|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.314||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|3.173|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||3.173|0.031|0.3261
95879671|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.667||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|4.253|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||4.253|0.104|0.6680
95879672|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.842||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|9.283|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||9.283|0.870|0.0838
95879673|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.729|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.729|0.263|0.4116
95879674|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.621||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.977|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||1.977|0.195|0.4197
95879675|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
95879676|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.029||||0.9839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|17.127|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||17.127|0.062|0.9839
95879677|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.858|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters gain||6.858|0.294|0.6630
95879678|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|5.444||P-value was calculated as a point estimate.|Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters gain||5.444|0.441|0.4941
95879679|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.477||||0.1259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.231|||Regression, Logistic|||No clinically relevant change||1.231|0.185|0.1259
95879680|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.773||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.913|||Regression, Logistic|||≥5 letters loss||4.913|0.640|0.2710
95879681|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.419||||0.6632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|6.856|||Regression, Logistic|||≥10 letters loss||6.856|0.294|0.6632
95879682|NCT01594281|191715438|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.282||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|33.171|||Regression, Logistic|||≥15 letters loss||33.171|0.325|0.3140
95879683|NCT01594281|191715439|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.026|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||3.026|0.327|0.9918
95969653|NCT00858364|191911751|SUPERIORITY|If non-inferiority was declared for OS and PFS, superiority would be declared for the transfusion endpoint if the p-value from a two-sided test of significance using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was less than 0.05 in favor of the darbepoetin alfa group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|0.864|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|The primary analysis of the incidence of a transfusion or hemoglobin ≤ 8.0 g/dL from day 29 to EOETP was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method to test for treatment group differences while adjusting for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, and screening hemoglobin).||0.864|0.573|< 0.001
95969654|NCT00858364|191911751|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.705|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|0.866|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|As a sensitivity analysis a logistic regression analysis was conducted, stratified by the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).||0.866|0.574|< 0.001
95879684|NCT01594281|191715439|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.607||||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|1.765|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.765|0.209|0.3595
95879685|NCT01594281|191715439|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.611||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.204|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 1 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.830|0.204|0.3787
95879686|NCT01594281|191715439|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.889||||0.9097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|6.806|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||6.806|0.116|0.9097
95879687|NCT01594281|191715439|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.341||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.925|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||1.925|0.060|0.2230
95879688|NCT01594281|191715439|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.383||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|2.177|||Regression, Logistic|||≥ 2 class improvement from Baseline at EOCS||2.177|0.068|0.2792
95879689|NCT01594281|191715440|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1|-19.3|||ANCOVA|||||-19.3|-62.1|0.0003
95879690|NCT01594281|191715440|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.2|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-44.2|0.0357
95879691|NCT01594281|191715440|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|17.8||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|39.3|||ANCOVA|||||39.3|-3.7|0.1034
95879692|NCT01594281|191715441|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.1|-22.3|||ANCOVA|||||-22.3|-81.1|0.0007
95879693|NCT01594281|191715441|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-58.4|0.0542
95879694|NCT01594281|191715441|OTHER|The focus of this PoC study was not on hypothesis testing but on a rough estimation of differences between treatments. The usual p-values are provided as a descriptive tool.|Least Squares Mean Difference|22.8||||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|52.3|||ANCOVA|||||52.3|-6.7|0.1288
95879695|NCT01519271|191715450|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95879696|NCT00926328|191715456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95879697|NCT00926328|191715457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95879698|NCT01153347|191715492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.24||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.24|-2.96|1.000
95879699|NCT01153347|191715492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.57|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.57|-2.67|1.000
95879700|NCT01153347|191715492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.04|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.04|-2.26|1.000
95879701|NCT01153347|191715493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.6|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.60|0.64|0.967
95879702|NCT01153347|191715493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.43|0.57|0.670
95879703|NCT01153347|191715493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.38|0.54|0.544
95879704|NCT01153347|191715494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.53|0.55|0.730
95879705|NCT01153347|191715494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.50|0.53|0.671
95879706|NCT01153347|191715494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.29|0.45|0.308
95879707|NCT01153347|191715495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.15|0.42|0.905
95879708|NCT01153347|191715495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.14|0.41|0.864
95879709|NCT01153347|191715495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.25|0.43|0.958
95879710|NCT01153347|191715496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.73|0.48|0.778
95879711|NCT01153347|191715496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.24|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.24|0.66|0.532
95879712|NCT01153347|191715496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.64|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.64|0.44|0.633
95879713|NCT01153347|191715497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.31|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.31|0.46|0.949
95879714|NCT01153347|191715497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.4|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||3.40|0.72|0.253
95879715|NCT01153347|191715497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.08|0.37|0.763
95879716|NCT01153347|191715498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.55|-2.51|0.207
95879717|NCT01153347|191715498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.91|-2.16|0.427
95879718|NCT01153347|191715498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.12|-1.96|0.591
95879719|NCT01153347|191715499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.551||95.0|-0.34|0.18|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.18|-0.34|0.551
95879720|NCT01153347|191715499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.17|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.17|-0.36|0.487
95879721|NCT01153347|191715499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.23|0.780
95879722|NCT01153347|191715500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.53|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.53|0.62|0.908
95879723|NCT01153347|191715500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.67|0.67|0.803
95879724|NCT01153347|191715500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.03|0.41|0.066
95969655|NCT00858364|191911753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||1.401|0.983|0.076
95879725|NCT01153347|191715501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.645||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|0.442|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.442|-2.091|0.202
95879726|NCT01153347|191715501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.647||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.487|1.055|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.055|-1.487|0.738
95879727|NCT01153347|191715501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|0.767|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.767|-1.787|0.433
95879728|NCT01153347|191715502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.18|0.097
95879729|NCT01153347|191715502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.11|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.11|-1.29|0.882
95879730|NCT01153347|191715502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.23|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.23|-0.19|0.100
95969656|NCT00858364|191911753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.173||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.401|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||1.401|0.982|0.078
95879731|NCT01153347|191715503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-0.69|0.303
95969657|NCT00858364|191911755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.741||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.901|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (geographic region, histology, screening hemoglobin).|An odds ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for darbepoetin alfa relative to placebo.|||0.901|0.610|0.003
95969658|NCT00858364|191911755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.913|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Unstratified analysis||||0.913|0.630|0.003
95969659|NCT01655693|191911757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Initial 24 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||>0.991
95969660|NCT01655693|191911757|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison of DT pooled with BCS used non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test is used after checking the proportional hazards (PH) assumption is valid. The Wilcoxon test is used when the PH assumption fails.|The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) corresponding to 95% confidence interval (CI) and type II error rate as 15%.|Follow-up 45 month assessment: the primary aim was to demonstrate the superiority of DT pooled (20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2) compared to BSC treatment and not individual DT groups per protocol. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The comparison of treatment groups (pooled DT groups versus BSC group) was performed using a non-stratified log-rank test as the primary analysis. The Cox model and Wilcoxon test was used for sensitivity analysis.||||0.796
95879732|NCT01153347|191715503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.65|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.65|-1.26|0.793
95879733|NCT01153347|191715503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.25|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.25|-1.70|0.762
95879734|NCT01153347|191715504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.92|-2.65|0.339
95879735|NCT01153347|191715504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.89|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.89|-2.70|0.321
95879736|NCT01153347|191715504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.43|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.43|-2.20|0.680
95879737|NCT01153347|191715505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.58|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.58|-2.23|0.737
95879738|NCT01153347|191715505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|1.33|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.33|-2.52|0.547
95879739|NCT01153347|191715505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|2.01|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.01|-1.89|0.953
95879740|NCT01153347|191715506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|0.864||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.864|-2.069|1.000
95879741|NCT01153347|191715506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.755||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.004|0.96||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.960|-2.004|1.000
95879742|NCT01153347|191715506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.095|1.896||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.896|-1.095|1.000
95879743|NCT01153347|191715507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.59|-0.56|0.953
95969661|NCT01655693|191911758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Treatment comparison with BCS using non-stratified Log-rank test at significance level p=0.05.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio for treatment variable was determined by Cox model. The hazard ratio was controlled for the overall type I error rate at 5% (2-sided) and type II error rate as 15%.|PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and plotted as curves by treatment group. For comparison between treatment groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30 mg/m2 versus BSC) used Log-rank test as primary analysis. Hazard ratio, mean, and mean PFS rate were given with corresponding 95% CI.||||0.7
95879744|NCT01153347|191715507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.54|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.54|-0.64|0.868
95879745|NCT01153347|191715507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.66|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.66|-0.50|0.792
95969662|NCT01655693|191911759|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Treatment comparison with BCS using Fisher's exact test at significance level p=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The comparisons between groups (pooled DT 20 mg/m2 and 30mg/m2 versus BSC) used Fisher's exact test.||||1.0
95879746|NCT01153347|191715508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.48|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.48|-0.54|0.915
95879747|NCT01153347|191715508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.51|0.972
95879748|NCT01153347|191715508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.84|-0.21|0.237
95879749|NCT01153347|191715509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.19|-0.87|0.213
95879750|NCT01153347|191715509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.28|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.28|-0.80|0.343
95879751|NCT01153347|191715509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.53|-0.55|0.971
95879752|NCT01153347|191715510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.224|5.431|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||5.431|-1.224|0.215
95879753|NCT01153347|191715510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.624|4.062|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||4.062|-2.624|0.673
95879754|NCT01153347|191715510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.248|1.494|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.494|-5.248|0.275
95879755|NCT01153347|191715511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.11|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.11|-0.28|0.412
95879756|NCT01153347|191715511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.19|0.928
95879757|NCT01153347|191715511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.42|0.033
95879758|NCT01153347|191715512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.28|-0.10|0.353
95879759|NCT01153347|191715512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.23|-0.16|0.721
95879760|NCT01153347|191715512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.15|-0.24|0.666
95969663|NCT02626455|191911858|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of PFS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.125|||=|0.827974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.437||Significance level is 0.025.|Log Rank|PFS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log- rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.437|0.881|= 0.827974
95969664|NCT02626455|191911861|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-1.25|||=|0.658652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.75||Significance level is 0.025. P-values are descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||4.75|-7.25|= 0.658652
95969665|NCT02626455|191911862|SUPERIORITY|ORR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus ORR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-0.8|||=|0.605183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.05||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.05|-6.64|=0.605183
95969666|NCT02626455|191911863|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145|||=|0.846204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.484||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.484|0.883|= 0.846204
95879761|NCT01153347|191715513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0201||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0459|0.0329||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0329|-0.0459|0.747
95879762|NCT01153347|191715513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0203||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0529|0.027||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0270|-0.0529|0.524
95969667|NCT02626455|191911864|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of DOR|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117|||=|0.801735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.443||Significance level is 0.025, P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|DOR was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI were based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.443|0.865|= 0.801735
95969668|NCT02626455|191911865|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.74|||=|0.741153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|5.57||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||5.57|-11.06|= 0.741153
95969669|NCT02626455|191911866|SUPERIORITY|CRR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus CRR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-2.21|||=|0.696482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|6.2||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference.||||6.20|-10.62|= 0.696482
95879763|NCT01153347|191715513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0543|0.0267||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0267|-0.0543|0.502
95879764|NCT01153347|191715513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.0||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||6.00|-2.10|0.345
95879765|NCT01153347|191715513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|5.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||5.56|-2.65|0.486
95879766|NCT01153347|191715513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|2.94||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.94|-5.39|0.564
95879767|NCT01153347|191715514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.59|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.59|-4.48|0.350
95879768|NCT01153347|191715514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.73|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.73|-4.41|0.393
95879769|NCT01153347|191715514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.62|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SIS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||3.62|-2.59|0.745
95879770|NCT05673889|191715519|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|192.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|166.56|221.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||221.79|166.56|
95879771|NCT05673889|191715520|OTHER|Mixed Model|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|197.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.32|220.66|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Dabigatran etexilate administered alone as Reference, ARV-471 coadministered with dabigatran etexilate as Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as fixed effects and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||220.66|177.32|
95969670|NCT02626455|191911867|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.95|||=|0.936009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|1.14||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||1.14|-9.04|= 0.936009
95969671|NCT02626455|191911868|SUPERIORITY|DCR of Copa+R-B/R-CHOP minus DCR of Pbo+R-B/R-CHOP|Difference|-3.89|||=|0.944242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|0.9||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Point estimate and 95% CI are based on Mantel-Haenszel weighted treatment difference||||0.90|-8.68|= 0.944242
95879772|NCT03733470|191715531|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95879773|NCT02983825|191715532|SUPERIORITY|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for nonparametric matched-pairs||||||0.02|||||||Sign test|||"Within subject repeat analysis; V/Q mismatch (measured as degree of right shift in kPa) baseline vs best CPAP"||||0.02
95879774|NCT03779711|191715561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8095|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.8095
95879775|NCT03779711|191715562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline circumferential strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline circumferential strain, is used to assess change in circumferential strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.3029
95879776|NCT03779711|191715563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline longitudinal strain, is used to assess change in longitudinal strain from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.0323
95879777|NCT03779711|191715564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC.||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to 12-months post-surgery.||||0.6765
95879778|NCT03779711|191715565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3456|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline FAC||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), adjusted for baseline FAC, is used to assess change in FAC from baseline to discharge.||||0.3456
95879779|NCT03779711|191715566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.776|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery.||||0.7760
95969672|NCT02626455|191911869|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006|||=|0.517849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.303||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.303|0.777|= 0.517849
95969673|NCT02626455|191911870|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTP|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.971|||=|0.411398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.257||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTP was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.257|0.750|= 0.411398
95969674|NCT02626455|191911871|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of TTNT|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.289|||=|0.955865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.728||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|TTNT was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.728|0.962|= 0.955865
95969675|NCT02626455|191911872|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of OS|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.132|||=|0.758563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.603||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|OS was evaluated with a one-sided stratified log-rank test. HR and 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.603|0.800|= 0.758563
95879780|NCT03779711|191715567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9563|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in weight from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9563
95969676|NCT02626455|191911873|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to deterioration in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.394|||=|0.999695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.149|1.691||Significance level IS 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to deterioration in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on stratified Cox regression model.||||1.691|1.149|= 0.999695
95969677|NCT02626455|191911874|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of time to improvement in DRS-P|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.965639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.02||Significance level is 0.025. P-value is descriptive (nominal) due to multiplicity testing.|Log Rank|Time to improvement in DRS-P was evaluated with one-sided stratified log-rank test.HR and its 95% CI are based on the stratified Cox regression model.||||1.020|0.642|= 0.965639
95969678|NCT01241604|191911896|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent non-parametric tests||||||0.753|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test|||||||.753
95969679|NCT05116540|191911962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.616||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.282|31.959|||ANCOVA|||||31.959|12.282|0.0002
95969680|NCT05116540|191911963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.844||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.307|28.221|||ANCOVA|||||28.221|3.307|0.0166
95969681|NCT05116540|191911964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.137|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.962||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.361|32.006|||ANCOVA|||||32.006|12.361|0.9905
95879781|NCT03779711|191715568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in heart rate from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.9095
95879782|NCT03779711|191715569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6391|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test for change in oxygen saturation from baseline to 3-months post-surgery.||||0.6391
95879783|NCT03779711|191715576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8782|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test comparing number of days in hospital post stage-II surgery||||0.8782
95879784|NCT05338216|191715577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.63||||0.021||95.0|4.37|36.24||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Compliance would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||36.24|4.37|0.021
95879785|NCT05338216|191715578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.34||||0.027||95.0|0.78|32.77||Threshold for significance: p \< 0.05. No correction for multiple comparisons performed due to only two tests conducted and exploratory nature of this pilot study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis: Completion would be significantly higher for micro-interaction based versus traditional EMA. Null hypothesis: No difference between conditions.||32.77|0.78|0.027
95879786|NCT03993132|191715620|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.91|
95879787|NCT03993132|191715621|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.13|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.13|1.01|
95879788|NCT03993132|191715622|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.08|0.84|
95879789|NCT03993132|191715623|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.11|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.11|0.96|
95879790|NCT03993132|191715624|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.83|0.61|
95879791|NCT03993132|191715625|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.91|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.91|0.76|
95879792|NCT03993132|191715626|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
95879793|NCT03993132|191715627|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
95969682|NCT05116540|191911965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.747|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.274||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.329|28.177|||ANCOVA|||||28.177|3.329|0.8292
95969683|NCT05116540|191911966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|-0.195|||ANCOVA|||||-0.195|-2.914|0.0278
95879794|NCT03993132|191715628|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.88|
95879795|NCT03993132|191715629|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.96|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||0.96|0.91|
95879796|NCT03993132|191715630|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.18|0.83|
95879797|NCT03993132|191715631|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.16|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.16|0.97|
95879798|NCT03993132|191715632|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.06|0.72|
95969684|NCT05116540|191911967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.424|11.33|||ANCOVA|||||11.330|-0.424|0.0666
95969685|NCT05116540|191911968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.508||0.0863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.629|21.853|||ANCOVA|||||21.853|-1.629|0.0863
95879799|NCT03993132|191715633|OTHER|A Cox regression with selected variables based on previous literature, covariate data availability, examination of exposure group differences in the distribution of each covariate, and the association of covariates with the outcomes of interest was applied. The hazard ratio compare Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide (reference).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||||Hazard ratio compares empagliflozin versus liraglutide (reference).|||1.10|0.88|
95969686|NCT05116540|191911969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.633||0.5588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.504|4.457|||ANCOVA|||||4.457|-2.504|0.5588
95969687|NCT05116540|191911970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.773|-2.413|||ANCOVA|||||-2.413|-6.773|0.0004
95969688|NCT02516332|191912015|OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
95879800|NCT00467857|191715646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.655
95879801|NCT00467857|191715647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.276
95879802|NCT00467857|191715648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.375
95879803|NCT00467857|191715649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.039
95879804|NCT00467857|191715650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.057
95969689|NCT02516332|191912015|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95969690|NCT02516332|191912020|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.011
95969691|NCT02516332|191912020|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.036
95969692|NCT00705679|191912040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.21||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.21|0.61|0.37
95969693|NCT00705679|191912043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.29||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||2.29|0.97|0.07
95969694|NCT00705679|191912046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.49||The two-sided test a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 against an alternative of 0% effectiveness for estimated effectiveness levels between 33.3% and 50.0%.|Regression, Cox|The Cox proportional-hazards model was stratified by site.|A ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm. A ratio more than 1 indicates a higher rate of HIV infection in the active arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis is that the active product will be no more than 25% effective. The trial was designed so that 94 events per pairwise comparison are needed to detect 55% effectiveness while ruling out a lower effectiveness of 25% with 90% power and a false-positive error rate of 0.0025.||1.49|0.73|0.81
95969695|NCT00705679|191912047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher's Exact Test.||||||0.004
95969696|NCT03527173|191912048|NON_INFERIORITY|VE in reduction of shigellosis is demonstrated if lower limit (LL) of 90% CI of VE estimated with Miettinen-Nurminen (M-N) method is above 0. This estimated CI was complemented with Barnard test. The LL of the 90% CI for VE calculated with M-N method is above 0 if the p-value of the one-sided Barnard test is below 5%.|Vaccine efficacy rate|-9.4||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-96.7|33.7|||1-sided Barnard Unconditional Exact Test|||To demonstrate the efficacy of two vaccinations with 25 µg of S. sonnei vaccine in healthy adults compared to placebo in preventing shigellosis, fulfilling the protocol primary case definition, after challenge with S. sonnei 53G strain. Vaccine efficacy (VE) rate was assessed as 1-Risk Ratio(RR) with RR = ratio of proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the vaccinated group on the proportion of subjects with shigellosis in the placebo group.||33.7|-96.7|0.4266
95969697|NCT01248780|191912067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95969698|NCT01248780|191912068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95969699|NCT01248780|191912069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95969700|NCT01248780|191912070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95969701|NCT03809429|191912084|OTHER||Difference|1.31||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.4|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.40|0.22|0.0185
95879805|NCT00467857|191715651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.646
95879806|NCT00467857|191715652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.788
95879807|NCT00467857|191715653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.960
95879808|NCT00467857|191715654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||The sample size determination was selected to achieve 80% power to detect an absolute 10% difference between the two treatment groups in proportion of qualitative reduction in representative skin flora, at a significance level (alpha) of 0.05 using a two-sided z-test with continuity correction.||||0.359
95879809|NCT00467857|191715655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.730
95879810|NCT00467857|191715656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.348
95879811|NCT00467857|191715657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512||95.0|||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum Test|||||||0.512
95879812|NCT00467857|191715658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.285
95879813|NCT00467857|191715659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95879814|NCT00289783|191715703|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
95879815|NCT00289783|191715703|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.42|0.89|
95879816|NCT00289783|191715703|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for lot-to-lot consistency (1 month after primary vaccination): For each pair of lots and for the immune response to anti-PRP measured by ELISA the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) as measured by ELISA.||1.26|0.8|
95879817|NCT00289783|191715704|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.62|0.93|
95879818|NCT00289783|191715704|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.29||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.29|0.74|
95879819|NCT00289783|191715704|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenC, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.04||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup C (MenC) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.04|0.6|
95879820|NCT00289783|191715705|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||2.27|1.14|
95879821|NCT00289783|191715705|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.97||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.97|0.99|
95969702|NCT03809429|191912087|OTHER||Difference|1.14||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.15|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=10 mm at end of stimulation||2.15|0.12|0.0281
95969703|NCT03809429|191912087|OTHER||Difference|0.99||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=12 mm at end of stimulation||1.86|0.12|0.0258
95969704|NCT03809429|191912087|OTHER||Difference|0.58||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.2|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=15 mm at end of stimulation||1.20|-0.04|0.0672
95969705|NCT03809429|191912087|OTHER||Difference|0.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||\>=17 mm at end of stimulation||0.63|-0.22|0.3390
95969706|NCT03809429|191912089|OTHER||Difference|1.11||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.41|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||2.41|-0.20|0.0962
95969707|NCT03809429|191912091|OTHER||Difference|0.51||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of embryos||1.27|-0.25|0.1894
95969708|NCT03809429|191912091|OTHER||Difference|-0.03||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.63|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of Good-quality embryos||0.63|-0.68|0.9361
95969709|NCT03809429|191912092|OTHER||Difference|0.37||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Total number of blastocysts||0.94|-0.20|0.2025
95879822|NCT00289783|191715705|EQUIVALENCE|For each pair of lots and for the immune response to hSBA-MenY, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio between lots is within the \[0.5; 2.0\] interval.|GMT ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21||||||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency of 3 manufacturing lots of Hib-MenCY-TT vaccine co-administered with DTPa-HBV-IPV vaccine following 3 primary doses in terms of immunogenicity for N. meningitidis serogroup Y (MenY) as measured by a serum bactericidal assay using human complement (hSBA).||1.21|0.62|
95969710|NCT03809429|191912092|OTHER||Difference|0.12||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.54|||Negative binomial regression|Negative binomial regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||Number of good-quality blastocysts||0.54|-0.31|0.5946
95969711|NCT03809429|191912098|OTHER||Difference|16.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.13|21.74|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||21.74|12.13|<0.0001
95969712|NCT03809429|191912099|OTHER||Difference|1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.92|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||1.92|1.19|<0.0001
95969713|NCT03809429|191912100|OTHER||Difference|6.99||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|16.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.70|-2.71|0.1579
95969714|NCT03809429|191912102|OTHER||Difference|7.66||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|17.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||17.14|-1.82|0.1134
95852890|NCT02977403|191664887|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.167||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.167|-0.001|
95852891|NCT02977403|191664887|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.063||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.063|-0.201|
95852892|NCT02977403|191664888|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity|beta coefficient|0.031|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.121||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.121|-0.059|
95852893|NCT02977403|191664888|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.152||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.152|-0.157|
95854009|NCT01462370|191667235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority margin is -3.7 units.|Difference in LS Means|0.89||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.76||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.025 (one-sided).|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||With at least 128 participants, the study had a 92% power to establish that etoricoxib is noninferior to ibuprofen (null hypothesis). The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions: 1) an approximately 15% protocol violation rate, 2) a noninferiority margin of -3.7 units (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen), and 3) an intrapatient standard deviation of 8 units.||1.76|0.03|0.043
95969715|NCT03809429|191912103|OTHER||Difference|8.81||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|18.14|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||18.14|-0.52|0.0642
95852894|NCT02977403|191664889|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.149|
95969716|NCT03809429|191912104|OTHER||Difference|7.74||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|16.97|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with treatment, age strata, and AMH group as factors.||||16.97|-1.49|0.1002
95969717|NCT00896051|191912113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.22|0.55|
95852895|NCT02977403|191664889|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.131||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.131|-0.266|
95852896|NCT02977403|191664890|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.122|
95852897|NCT02977403|191664890|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.092||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.092|-0.233|
95852898|NCT02977403|191664891|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.126||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.126|-0.041|
95852899|NCT02977403|191664891|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.082||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.082|-0.252|
95852900|NCT02977403|191664892|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.102||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.102|-0.060|
95852901|NCT02977403|191664892|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.119||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.119|-0.260|
95969718|NCT00896051|191912113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.16|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.16|0.80|
95879823|NCT00289783|191715706|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenC (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||13.8|10.4|
95879824|NCT00289783|191715706|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values)|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|1.4||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenC.||1.4|1.4|
95879825|NCT00289783|191715707|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for immunogenicity of MenY (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the asymptotic 95% CI for the geometric mean of individual ratio of post-dose 4/pre-dose 4 is ≥ 2.|GMT ratio|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|13.8||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||13.8|10.2|
95879826|NCT00289783|191715707|NON_INFERIORITY|Point estimate = Lower limit (LL) = Upper limit (UL) as LL and UL values were not available due to the departure from lognormal distribution (large number of imputed values).|GMT ratio|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|21.1||||||To evaluate the specific effect of a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines at 12 to 15 months of age in terms of a fourth dose vaccine response as measured by hSBA-MenY.||21.1|21.1|
95879827|NCT00289783|191715711|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 150 mIU/mL, in initially seronegative subjects (\<150 mIU/mL), for anti-measles antibody is ≥-5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|3.06||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||3.06|-2.56|
95879828|NCT00289783|191715712|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose): Lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentration ≥ 1.0 µg/mL is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority)|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.57||||||To demonstrate that, following a fourth dose, the immune response to Hib polysaccharide (PRP) in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of Menhibrix vaccine and a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine coadministered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines was non-inferior to the corresponding immune response in the group that received 3 primary vaccine doses of ActHIB vaccine and a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine co-administered with M-M-R II and Varivax vaccines.||3.57|-1.78|
95969719|NCT00896051|191912114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.22|||Linear mixed effects model|linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.22|0.76|
95879829|NCT00289783|191715713|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with a seroconversion ≥28 ED50, in subjects with initial anti-mumps antibody \< 28 ED50, for anti-mumps antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.98||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M--M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||0.98|-2.16|
95879830|NCT00289783|191715714|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroresponse ≥10 IU/ml, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 4 IU/ml), for anti-rubella antibody is ≥ -5% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.73||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of M-M-R II vaccine when co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to M-M-R II vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with Varivax vaccine.||1.73|-0.57|
95879831|NCT00289783|191715715|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (42 days after the fourth dose vaccination): Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference (Menhibrix vaccine fourth dose group minus ActHIB fourth dose group) in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion ≥ 1:5 dilution, in initially seronegative subjects (\< 1:5), for anti-varicella antibody is ≥ -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.56||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of Menhibrix vaccine compared to Varivax vaccine co-administered with a fourth dose of PedvaxHIB vaccine, each co-administered with M-M-R II vaccine in terms of immunogenicity to varicella as measured by fluorescent antibody to membrane antigen (FAMA).||1.56|-0.78|
95879832|NCT05248867|191715775|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|59.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|63.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||63.9|54.7|<0.0001
95879833|NCT05248867|191715776|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.9|65.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.4|54.9|<0.0001
95879834|NCT05248867|191715777|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|71.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.5|76.2||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.2|66.5|<0.0001
95879835|NCT05248867|191715782|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|72.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.4|77.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||77.6|67.4|<0.0001
95879836|NCT05248867|191715783|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|41.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|49.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||49.3|34.5|<0.0001
95879837|NCT05248867|191715784|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|69.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|75.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||75.3|63.7|<0.0001
95879838|NCT05248867|191715785|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||65.0|51.3|<0.0001
95879839|NCT05248867|191715786|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|35.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||35.1|25.2|<0.0001
95879840|NCT05248867|191715787|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5|40.9||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||40.9|30.5|<0.0001
95969720|NCT00896051|191912115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.33|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: Minimum plasma concentration (Cmin)||1.33|0.63|
95879841|NCT05248867|191715788|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|52.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|60.0||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||60.0|45.2|<0.0001
95879842|NCT05248867|191715789|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.1|66.1||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||66.1|51.1|<0.0001
95879843|NCT05248867|191715790|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.6|34.4|<0.0001
95879844|NCT05248867|191715791|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|76.3||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||76.3|63.7|<0.0001
95879845|NCT05248867|191715799|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|48.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|55.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||55.4|42.2|<0.0001
95969721|NCT00896051|191912115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.27|||Linear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax)||1.27|0.86|
95879846|NCT05248867|191715800|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|50.4||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by investigator site, toxin use history (for aesthetic purposes), and baseline Facial Wrinkle Scale score at maximum frown after using multiple imputation for missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference: AGN-151586 - Placebo|AGN-151586 vs Placebo||50.4|38.0|<0.0001
95879847|NCT03128411|191715805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||z-test, 1-sided|||With a sample size of 60 participants, study was powered at \>82% to test null hypothesis: true MMR rate at 12 months (48 weeks) is 25% versus alternative hypothesis: true MMR rate is 40% with one-sided alpha of 5%.||||<0.0001
95879848|NCT00345839|191715842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.112||||||p-value\<0.044 considered significant|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.112
95879849|NCT00345839|191715842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.02|0.85|
95879850|NCT00345839|191715843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.249||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.249
95879851|NCT00345839|191715843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.04|0.85|
95879852|NCT00345839|191715844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.800
95879853|NCT00345839|191715844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.19|0.79|
95879854|NCT00345839|191715845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.283
95879855|NCT00345839|191715845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.18|0.58|
95879856|NCT00345839|191715846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.034
95969722|NCT00896051|191912116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21|||Llinear mixed effects model|A linear mixed effects model was used controlling for treatment as fixed effect, and participant as a random effect.||Parameter: area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of intake to 24 hours after dosing (AUC24hr)||1.21|0.81|
95969723|NCT00210470|191912136|EQUIVALENCE|The correlation of each of the above variables at biopsy/Day 1, surgery/Day 21, and change with percent change in the longest diameter (LD) of the primary tumor was calculated using Spearman rank correlations (183 correlations). Due to outliers in the distribution of percent change in the longest diameter, it was felt that the Spearman rank correlations would be more appropriate than Pearson correlations.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank|||||||<0.10
95879857|NCT00345839|191715846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.99|0.68|
95879858|NCT00345839|191715847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for the components of the primary composite endpoint since the purpose of these analyses is to show how each component contributes to the results of the composite.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.190
95879859|NCT00345839|191715847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.72|
95879860|NCT00345839|191715848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.277
95879861|NCT00345839|191715848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.80|
95879862|NCT00345839|191715849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.607||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.607
95969724|NCT04433585|191912143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
95969725|NCT04433585|191912143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
95969726|NCT04433585|191912143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
95969727|NCT04433585|191912144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.30|0.83|0.131
95969728|NCT04433585|191912144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.50|0.47|0.844
95969729|NCT04433585|191912144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.24|0.218
95879863|NCT00345839|191715849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.4|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.40|0.82|
95879864|NCT00345839|191715850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.218||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||0.218
95879865|NCT00345839|191715850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||1.07|0.75|
95879866|NCT00345839|191715851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made for this endpoint.|Log Rank|Stratified by history of diabetes and country. 2-sided test.||||||<0.001
95879867|NCT00345839|191715851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by history of diabetes and country.|HR is cinacalcet vs placebo.|||0.54|0.36|
95879868|NCT03298867|191715852|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|73.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.89|88.01||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|||88.01|58.89|<0.001
95879869|NCT03298867|191715853|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|70.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.89|85.75||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||85.75|55.89|<0.001
95879870|NCT03298867|191715854|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|54.67||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference (teprotumumab - placebo) is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||54.67|17.39|<0.001
95879871|NCT03298867|191715855|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.8||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-1.80|-2.77|<0.001
95879872|NCT03298867|191715856|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference in percentages|39.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|63.02||Two-sided p-value calculated assuming the test statistic was distributed as a standard normal random variable.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference is a weighted average of the difference within each stratum. Estimates from the 2 strata (tobacco user, tobacco non-user) were combined with CMH weights.|||63.02|15.55|0.001
95879873|NCT03298867|191715857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|14.64||Results obtained from an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix including the following terms: Baseline value, tobacco use status, treatment group, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and visit-by-Baseline-value interaction.|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||14.64|4.08|<0.001
95879874|NCT01757535|191715911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.86||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.||The confidence interval (CI) for the difference was derived using Kosorok's method.|0.86|0.55|0.0009
95879875|NCT01757535|191715912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.8||The p-value is 2-sided from a log-rank test stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age, cytogenetic risk category, and received consolidation therapy or not.|||0.80|0.52|< 0.0001
95969730|NCT04433585|191912145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|0.47|0.944
95879876|NCT01757535|191715918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9345||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6136|1.4231||Stratification factors: • Age (at induction therapy): 55 to 64 years and ≥ 65 years • Prior history of MDS: yes/no • Cytogenetic risk (at induction therapy): intermediate-risk/poor-risk • Received consolidation therapy following induction: yes/no|Regression, Cox|||||1.4231|0.6136|0.7522
95969731|NCT04433585|191912145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.04|0.70|0.309
95969732|NCT04433585|191912145|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.40|0.649
95879877|NCT05263895|191715924|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric means|90.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.85|102.65||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||102.65|79.85|
95879878|NCT05263895|191715924|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.65|116.53||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.53|90.65|
95879879|NCT05263895|191715924|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|138.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.03|161.69||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||161.69|118.03|
95879880|NCT05263895|191715924|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.7|35.2||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||35.20|25.70|
95879881|NCT05263895|191715925|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|91.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.46|103.51||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||103.51|80.46|
95879882|NCT05263895|191715925|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.36|116.26||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||116.26|90.36|
95879883|NCT05263895|191715925|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|136.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.09|160.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||160.27|117.09|
95879884|NCT05263895|191715925|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|29.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|34.83||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||34.83|25.45|
95879885|NCT05263895|191715926|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|94.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|110.05||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (slower dissolution tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||110.05|80.77|
95879886|NCT05263895|191715926|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.04|126.76||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (large particle size tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||126.76|93.04|
95969733|NCT04433585|191912146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|0.71|0.203
95969734|NCT04433585|191912146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.38|0.865
95969735|NCT04433585|191912146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.38|0.896
95969736|NCT02245737|191912150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.447|0.594|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.594|-2.447|0.232
95879887|NCT05263895|191715926|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|264.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|232.32|300.27||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension)/ritonavir 300/100 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||300.27|232.32|
95879888|NCT05263895|191715926|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|128.01|165.45||||||Test: Nirmatrelvir (SDD suspension) 300 mg Reference: Nirmatrelvir (commercial tablets)/ritonavir 300/100 mg||165.45|128.01|
95879889|NCT05764408|191715953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.35||||||||1.35|0.49|
95879890|NCT05764408|191715954|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.86||||||||1.86|0.39|
95879891|NCT05764408|191715955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95879892|NCT05764408|191715957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95969737|NCT02245737|191912150|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.124|1.947|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.947|-1.124|0.599
95879893|NCT05764408|191715958|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.12||||||||16.12|0.07|
95879894|NCT06934993|191715974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
95879895|NCT06934993|191715975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In all cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
95879896|NCT06934993|191715975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
95879897|NCT06934993|191715975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||<0.001
95879898|NCT06934993|191715976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.001
95879899|NCT06934993|191715976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.096
95969738|NCT02245737|191912151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.669|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.669|-1.609|0.971
95879900|NCT06934993|191715977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.04
95879901|NCT06934993|191715977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.679
95969739|NCT02245737|191912151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.743|-1.580|0.923
95879902|NCT06934993|191715977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Statistical significance was defined as cases where the p-value was below 0.05.|Chi-squared|||In LIMA-LAD cases, when the post hoc power analysis results for the relationship between graft patency and flow rate were examined, the effect size was found to be 0.836, with an alpha error level set at 0.05. The statistical power of the study was determined to be 99.99%.||||0.011
95879903|NCT05147428|191715978|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.04|||Log Rank|||For the primary analysis, we combined all three targeted medication classes (antipsychotics, sedative/hypnotics, or strong anticholinergics). We calculated Kaplan-Meier curves and performed log-rank testing, and estimated hazard ratios using Cox proportional hazards modeling, censoring at death or disenrollment from the health plan, or at the end of the 6-month study observation period, whichever came first. The index date for the survival analysis was the end of the 3-month blackout period.||1.04|0.94|0.76
95969740|NCT02245737|191912152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.172|0.899|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.899|-1.172|0.796
95969741|NCT02245737|191912152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.660|-0.437|0.252
95969742|NCT02245737|191912153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.637|3.852|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.852|-1.637|0.428
95969743|NCT02245737|191912153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|2.655|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.655|-2.918|0.926
95969744|NCT02245737|191912154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.622|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.622|-0.322|0.533
95879904|NCT05147428|191715979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.33
95879905|NCT05147428|191715980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.55
95879906|NCT05147428|191715981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.47
95879907|NCT05147428|191715982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
95879908|NCT05147428|191715984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.19
95969745|NCT02245737|191912154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.630|-0.328|0.537
95969746|NCT02245737|191912156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.441|3.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.986|-0.441|0.116
95969747|NCT02245737|191912156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|3.704|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.704|-0.808|0.208
95969748|NCT02245737|191912157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|1.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.027|-0.391|0.379
95969749|NCT02245737|191912157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.714|0.721|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.721|-0.714|0.992
95879909|NCT05147428|191715985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.46
95879910|NCT05147428|191715986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Secondary outcomes were analyzed only for those patients who were not censored due to health plan disenrollment or death over the 6-month study observation period (n = 10 424). For analyses of secondary outcomes, we compared the 3 arms using chi-square testing for dichotomous outcomes.||||0.79
95879911|NCT02468674|191715990|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.759
95879912|NCT02468674|191715990|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.500
95879913|NCT02468674|191715990|OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.144
95879914|NCT02468674|191715990|OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.648
95969750|NCT02245737|191912158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.963|-45.578|||ANCOVA|||||-45.578|-56.963|<0.001
95969751|NCT02245737|191912158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.947|-60.022|||ANCOVA|||||-60.022|-70.947|<0.001
95879915|NCT02468674|191715990|OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.929
95879916|NCT02468674|191715990|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.530
95879917|NCT02468674|191715991|OTHER|||||||0.839|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: SPPB total score at Week 49||||0.839
95879918|NCT02468674|191715992|OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.669
95879919|NCT02468674|191715992|OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.773
95879920|NCT02468674|191715992|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.290
95879921|NCT02468674|191715992|OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.766
95969752|NCT02245737|191912159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-57.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.865|-53.108|||ANCOVA|||||-53.108|-62.865|<0.001
95969753|NCT02245737|191912159|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.926|-68.575|||ANCOVA|||||-68.575|-77.926|<0.001
95969754|NCT02245737|191912160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.21|2.464|||ANCOVA|||||2.464|-42.210|0.081
95969755|NCT02245737|191912160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.78||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.555|5.938|||ANCOVA|||||5.938|-36.555|0.157
95969756|NCT02245737|191912161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.243|-0.002|||ANCOVA|||||-0.002|-5.243|0.050
95969757|NCT02245737|191912161|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.618|0.373|||ANCOVA|||||0.373|-4.618|0.095
95879922|NCT02468674|191715992|OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.885
95879923|NCT02468674|191715992|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.840
95879924|NCT02468674|191715993|OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: 6MWT at Week 49||||0.367
95879925|NCT02468674|191715994|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.875
95879926|NCT02468674|191715994|OTHER|||||||0.909|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.909
95879927|NCT02468674|191715994|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.168
95879928|NCT02468674|191715994|OTHER|||||||0.632|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.632
95879929|NCT02468674|191715994|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.310
95969758|NCT02245737|191912162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.785|-8.574|||ANCOVA|||||-8.574|-18.785|<0.001
95879930|NCT02468674|191715994|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance||Population I: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.321
95879931|NCT02468674|191715995|OTHER|||||||0.395|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square means (SE)||Population II: Gait speed at Week 49||||0.395
95879932|NCT02468674|191715996|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.120
95879933|NCT02468674|191715996|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.297
95879934|NCT02468674|191715996|OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.074
95879935|NCT02468674|191715996|OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.022
95879936|NCT02468674|191715996|OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.106
95879937|NCT02468674|191715996|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: ASMI at Week 49||||0.211
95879938|NCT02468674|191715997|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: ASMI at Week 49||||1.000
95879939|NCT02468674|191715998|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.084
95969759|NCT02245737|191912162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.887|-12.428|||ANCOVA|||||-12.428|-22.887|<0.001
95969760|NCT02245737|191912163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.014|||ANCOVA|||||0.014|-0.033|0.426
95879940|NCT02468674|191715998|OTHER|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.283
95879941|NCT02468674|191715998|OTHER|||||||0.323|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.323
95879942|NCT02468674|191715998|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.018
95879943|NCT02468674|191715998|OTHER|||||||0.179|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.179
95879944|NCT02468674|191715998|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sided test at the 0.025 significance level.||Population I: LBM at Week 49||||0.227
95879945|NCT02468674|191715999|OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|Difference in the least square geometric means||Population II: LBM at Week 49||||1.000
95879946|NCT02200211|191716000|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (PEDIG) studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). The upper limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.53||
95879947|NCT02200211|191716000|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, the primary analysis repeated but excluded data from participants (n=35) who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-defined protocol window (16 +/- 1 week).||0.53||
95879948|NCT02200211|191716000|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.54|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=15) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=7).||0.54||
95969761|NCT02245737|191912163|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.029|0.660
95969762|NCT02245737|191912164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.015|0.210
95969763|NCT02245737|191912164|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.007|||ANCOVA|||||0.007|-0.013|0.568
95969764|NCT02245737|191912165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.258|-1.413|||ANCOVA|||||-1.413|-3.258|<0.001
95969765|NCT02245737|191912165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.118|-2.247|||ANCOVA|||||-2.247|-4.118|<0.001
95969766|NCT00774930|191912178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|This analysis does not include any imputation for the early roll over subjects||||||0.0165
95969767|NCT00774930|191912179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2544|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included treatment group and 2 stratification variables at randomisation as factors and average frequency of diarrhoea per day during Screening||||||0.2544
95969768|NCT03292432|191912213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||15.2|-21.8|0.80
95969769|NCT03292432|191912214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|19.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/ml in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.6|-20.9|>0.99
95969770|NCT03292432|191912215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.1||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.2|-32.1|0.24
95969771|NCT03292432|191912215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|22.6|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||22.6|-16.0|0.76
95969772|NCT03292432|191912215|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|27.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||27.4|-21.8|>0.99
95969773|NCT03292432|191912216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|7.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 24 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 24||7.3|-32.7|0.26
95969774|NCT03292432|191912216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|32.8|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 36 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 36||32.8|-11.2|0.42
95969775|NCT03292432|191912216|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.4||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|20.7|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|Comparison of percentages at Week 48||20.7|-29.5|0.77
95969776|NCT03292432|191912217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.3|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL at Week 12 and maintained to Week 48 in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||25.3|-14.6|0.67
95854010|NCT01462370|191667236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.57||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||1.57|-1.16|0.768
95969777|NCT03292432|191912218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken from Weeks 0 -12||||<0.001
95969778|NCT03292432|191912218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>12 to 24||||<0.001
95969779|NCT03292432|191912218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>24 to 36||||0.06
95969780|NCT03292432|191912218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken from Weeks \>36 to 48||||0.50
95969781|NCT03292432|191912219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks 0 - 12||||<0.001
95969782|NCT03292432|191912219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentage of doses taken on time from Weeks \>12 - 24||||<0.001
95969783|NCT03292432|191912219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value equal to a priori threshold for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of percentages of doses taken on time from Weeks \>24 - 36||||0.05
95969784|NCT03292432|191912219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of doses taken on time from Weeks \>36 - 48||||0.49
95969785|NCT03292432|191912220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.33|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks 0 - 12||3.33|1.90|<0.001
95969786|NCT03292432|191912220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.89|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>12 - 24||1.89|1.29|<0.001
95969787|NCT03292432|191912220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|P-value from Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>24 - 36||1.47|1.03|0.020
95969788|NCT03292432|191912220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||Chi-squared|Pearson Chi-square test from generalized linear model with Poisson link|Risk ratio for SOC arm relative to TERA arm|Comparison of incidence rates from Weeks \>36 - 48||1.30|0.90|0.39
95969789|NCT03292432|191912221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|21.1|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 200 copies/mL in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||21.1|-16.4|>0.99
95969790|NCT03292432|191912222|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|19.4|||Fisher Exact||Risk difference reflects percentage of participants achieving sustained virologic control in TERA arm minus SOC arm|||19.4|-9.0|0.71
95969791|NCT01498679|191912233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|51.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.2|59.7|||ANCOVA|||||59.7|42.2|<0.001
95969792|NCT00355199|191912254|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.48|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.48|0.66|<0.05
95909069|NCT01212770|191776107|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.6||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||4.6|-3.5|0.7870
95969793|NCT00355199|191912256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.21|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.21|0.29|<0.05
95969794|NCT00355199|191912257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Regression, Cox||HR refers to R-HDS (R-CHOP is the reference level)|||1.52|0.57|<0.05
95969795|NCT02071290|191912260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
95969796|NCT02071290|191912261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.287
95969797|NCT02071290|191912262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.597
95969798|NCT02071290|191912263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.307|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.307
95969799|NCT02071290|191912264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.646
95969800|NCT02071290|191912265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.757
95969801|NCT02071290|191912266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
95969802|NCT02071290|191912267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.967
95969803|NCT02071290|191912268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.637
95969804|NCT02071290|191912269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.664
95969805|NCT02071290|191912270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.661
95969806|NCT02071290|191912271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.916
95969807|NCT02071290|191912272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.437
95969808|NCT02071290|191912273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.353
95969809|NCT02071290|191912274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95969810|NCT02071290|191912275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.085
95969811|NCT02071290|191912276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.371
95969812|NCT02071290|191912277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.106
95969813|NCT02071290|191912278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.829
95969814|NCT02071290|191912279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.323
95969815|NCT02071290|191912280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.287
95969816|NCT02071290|191912281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.151
95969817|NCT02071290|191912282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.510
95969818|NCT02071290|191912283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.348
95879949|NCT02200211|191716000|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.56|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates for age and visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analysis, all participants with 16-week exams were included in the analysis regardless of whether or not the exam was completed within the pre-specified analysis window (14 to \<20 weeks after randomization).||0.56||
95879950|NCT02200211|191716000|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.53|||||A 1-sided upper 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16-weeks, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from enrolled participants who were subsequently found to be ineligible for the study (n=7).||0.53||
95879951|NCT02200211|191716000|NON_INFERIORITY|Our sample size was computed to have 90% power with a type I error of 5% for a non-inferiority limit of 0.05 logMAR (0.5 lines), assuming a standard deviation of change of 0.15 logMAR (1.5 lines) based on prior PEDIG studies, and no more than 10% loss to follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.55|||||A 1-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted group difference (patching - binocular treatment) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive values favor the patching group.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 week, adjusting for baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, we excluded 16-week outcomes from participants who received alternative treatment for at least 1 week during study follow-up (n=4).||0.55||
95879952|NCT02200211|191716000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.58|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit. Positive estimate values favor the patching treatment group.|Analysis of covariance included baseline age and visual acuity as adjustment covariates. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). For this post hoc analysis, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the treatment group difference, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, adjusted for baseline age and VA, including only participants completing the 16-week outcome in a modified intent-to-treat analysis.||0.58|0.04|
95879953|NCT02200211|191716002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance: 2-sided type I error rate of 5%|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity.|A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the effectiveness of two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. The primary outcome measure was change in amblyopic-eye VA from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window). A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference at 16 weeks. There was no imputation for missing data.||0.3|-5.7|0.082
95969819|NCT02071290|191912284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.911
95969820|NCT04587752|191912294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
95879954|NCT02200211|191716002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside of the pre-specified 16 +/- 1 week protocol window (n=10 participants).||0.5|-5.9|
95969821|NCT04587752|191912295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.01
95969822|NCT04587752|191912296|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95969823|NCT02503852|191912309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.032
95969824|NCT02503852|191912309|OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||P value cited is the difference in non-vellus hair count between the low-dose ADRC NW3 group and the no-fat saline control at week 24|ANCOVA|||Non-vellus hair count in the low-dose ADRC group in the NW3 subgroup beginning at Week 6 (mean change from baseline persisting through weeks 12 , 24, and 52.||||0.0318
95969825|NCT01941719|191912334|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the enhanced education is no better and no worse than the standard education|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1212||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||significance level set at 0.05|ANCOVA|At each follow-up point, multivariate ANCOVA models were used to test for significant changes from the baseline||A mixed-effect model with repeated measures is used to compare the difference of group over time.||||0.0770
95969826|NCT01941719|191912335|EQUIVALENCE|This trial aims to show the new treatment is no better and no worse||||||0.6638||||||The threshold of significance level set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6638
95879955|NCT02200211|191716002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|0.3|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but excluded data from participants later found to be ineligible for the study (n=2).||0.3|-5.9|
95879956|NCT02200211|191716002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.2|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|The primary analysis was repeated for the treatment group comparison of change in amblyopic-eye from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analysis, multiple imputation was used to impute 16-week visual acuity scores for participants who missed the exam (n=3) or completed the 16-week exam outside of the pre-specified analysis window (n=2).||1.2|-5.0|
95879957|NCT02200211|191716002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|0.5|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this post hoc sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included data from participants who completed the 16-week visit outside the analysis window (n=2, range:14 to 28 weeks post randomization).||0.5|-5.5|
95879958|NCT02200211|191716002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.4|||||A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) evaluating change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to the 16-week visit.|An ANCOVA model was fit to compare the change in amblyopic-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (14 to \<20 week window) for two treatments (2-sided hypothesis test), adjusting for baseline visual acuity. For this sensitivity analyses, the primary analysis was repeated but included prior amblyopia treatment as an adjustment covariate (in addition to baseline visual acuity) in the model.||0.4|-5.7|
95879959|NCT02200211|191716006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|13.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (treated as a continuous covariate).||13|-4|
95879960|NCT02200211|191716006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|2.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (binocular treatment - patching) of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (≥ 10 letters) from baseline at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline visual acuity.||2|-31|
95879961|NCT02200211|191716007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.0|||||Binomial regression was used to compare the group proportions (patching - binocular treatment) of participants classified as having amblyopia resolution at the 16-week visit.|Binomial regression was used for the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants classified as improving 2 or more logMAR lines (10 or more letters if E-ETDRS) from baseline at the 16-week visit, adjusting for baseline age group (5 to \<7, 7 to \<13 years) and baseline visual acuity (20/40, 20/50 or worse).||5|-1|
95969827|NCT01941719|191912336|EQUIVALENCE|The test will compare the number of complications between the two groups|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.05
95969828|NCT01480219|191912398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96|||Regression, Cox|||Crude hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated using an unadjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.96|1.02|0.042
95969829|NCT01480219|191912398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated using a parsimoniously adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression model.||2.14|0.71|0.453
95969830|NCT02217475|191912413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.5194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.516|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||1.516|0.439|0.5194
95969831|NCT02217475|191912414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.934||||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.035|3.614|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.614|1.035|0.0388
95969832|NCT02217475|191912415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|2.821|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.821|0.553|0.5920
95969833|NCT02217475|191912416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.396||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|3.628|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||3.628|0.537|0.4941
95969834|NCT02217475|191912417|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.142||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|4.277|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.277|0.305|0.8434
95969835|NCT02217475|191912418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.201||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.113|4.352|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||4.352|1.113|0.0234
95879962|NCT02200211|191716008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||For testing the interaction term, the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described above in the Statistical Analysis Overview section.||A linear mixed model was used to compare the rate of amblyopic-eye visual acuity improvement between the treatment groups. The ANCOVA model included an interaction term with treatment group and time to compare the change in visual acuity over follow-up by treatment group, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity. If the interaction term was not statistically significant (p\>0.05), no further comparisons would be performed.||||0.83
95879963|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (gender and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Previously described in the Statistical Analysis Overview.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and gender, adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.83
95879964|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (race/ethnicity status and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|Four participants (1 binocular treatment group, 3 patching group) were excluded from the analysis due to unknown/not reported race/ethnicity status.||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and race/ethnicity status (White/non-Hispanic, Non-White or Hispanic), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.54
95879965|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (age and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and age at baseline (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline visual acuity.||||0.80
95879966|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline amblyopic-eye visual acuity (treated as a continuous factor in the model), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline age.||||0.99
95879967|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (prior amblyopia treatment and treatment group) was 0.05|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and prior amblyopia treatment (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.87
95879968|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (baseline stereoacuity and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and baseline stereoacuity (nil, better than nil), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.33
95879969|NCT02200211|191716009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance of the interaction term (presence of a near heterotropia at baseline and treatment group) was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment effect according to subgroups of baseline factors. An analysis of covariance was used to test the interaction between treatment group and presence of a near heterotropia (measured by SPCT) at baseline (Yes/No), adjusting for the main effects of the interaction term and baseline covariates of age and visual acuity.||||0.23
95879970|NCT02200211|191716014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.66
95879971|NCT02200211|191716014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.83
95969836|NCT02217475|191912419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|2.752|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model was used for analysis. Randomized treatment group, NAS score at screening and fibrosis stage were the factors.||||2.752|0.484|0.7474
95879972|NCT02200211|191716015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.19
95879973|NCT02200211|191716015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the distribution of change in stereoacuity levels from baseline to 16 weeks by treatment group.||||0.69
95879974|NCT02200211|191716021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) in mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks. Positive values favor the binocular treatment group.|The treatment group difference in the change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks (logMAR lines) was evaluated in an analysis of covariance model, adjusted for baseline fellow-eye visual acuity.||0.30|0.02|
95969837|NCT02310100|191912489|OTHER|This is a one-group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.673||||0.0008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.608||||Exact binomial|||H0: PE ≤ 54.9% Ha: PE \> 54.9% Where PE is the primary effectiveness endpoint rate.|||0.608|0.0008
95969838|NCT02310100|191912490|OTHER|One group comparison to a performance goal.|binomial proportion|0.081||||0.0013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Exact binomial|||H0: PS ≥ 16.2% Ha: PS \< 16.2% where PS is the primary safety endpoint rate||0.124||0.0013
95852902|NCT02977403|191664893|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.107|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.185||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.185|0.030|
95852903|NCT02977403|191664893|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.047|-0.346|
95852904|NCT02977403|191664894|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.175||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.175|0.010|
95852905|NCT02977403|191664894|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.107||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.107|-0.204|
95852906|NCT02977403|191664895|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.123||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.123|-0.032|
95852907|NCT02977403|191664895|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.177||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.177|-0.163|
95852908|NCT02977403|191664896|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.112||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.112|-0.03|
95852909|NCT02977403|191664896|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.14||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.140|-0.168|
95854011|NCT01462370|191667237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.45||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.07|0.007
95879975|NCT02200211|191716022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||||A 95% confidence interval was computed on the treatment group difference (binocular treatment - patching) of the adjusted mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity from baseline to 16 weeks.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compute the treatment group difference in the mean change in fellow-eye visual acuity (letters) from baseline to 16 weeks, adjusting for baseline visual acuity. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval was computed on the adjusted treatment group difference.||1.3|-1.1|
95879976|NCT02200211|191716023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.32
95879977|NCT02200211|191716023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to perform the treatment group comparison of the proportion of participants who developed a new ocular deviation and/or worsening of a pre-existing ocular deviation by 10 prism diopters at the 16-week visit.||||0.68
95879978|NCT02200211|191716024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.17
95879979|NCT02200211|191716024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.48
95879980|NCT02200211|191716024|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of parents who reported that their child had experienced diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
95879981|NCT02200211|191716024|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
95879982|NCT02200211|191716025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||0.05
95879983|NCT02200211|191716025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||0.02
95879984|NCT02200211|191716025|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the percentage of participants who reported diplopia (yes/no) at the 16-week visit by treatment group.||||>0.99
95879985|NCT02200211|191716025|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||The frequency of diplopia, across categories of diplopia, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Armitage trend test.||||>0.99
95879986|NCT01135420|191716033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95879987|NCT00717197|191716040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|21.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.46|43.7||||||||43.7|7.46|
95879988|NCT01206660|191716047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95879989|NCT01206660|191716048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95879990|NCT01206660|191716049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95879991|NCT01709513|191716068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|-24.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Alirocumab group was compared to the corresponding active control group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-24.2|-36.6|<0.0001
95879992|NCT01709513|191716069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 5% level.||-29.5|-40.7|<0.0001
95879993|NCT01709513|191716070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-31.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-26.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-26.1|-36.9|<0.0001
95879994|NCT01709513|191716071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-28.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-28.2|-38.0|<0.0001
95879995|NCT01709513|191716072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-29.8|<0.0001
95879996|NCT01709513|191716073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-24.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-24.4|-32.1|<0.0001
95879997|NCT01709513|191716074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-20.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.8|-30.4|<0.0001
95879998|NCT01709513|191716075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-25.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-25.8|-33.9|<0.0001
95879999|NCT01709513|191716076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-17.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.0|-24.7|<0.0001
95880000|NCT01709513|191716077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-20.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-20.4|-28.7|<0.0001
95880001|NCT01709513|191716078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-21.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-21.5|-29.9|<0.0001
95880002|NCT01709513|191716079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-17.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||-17.7|-24.5|<0.0001
95880003|NCT01709513|191716080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||55.2|6.9|<0.0001
95880004|NCT01709513|191716081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|71.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a Logistic regression model.||71.9|8.6|<0.0001
95880005|NCT01709513|191716082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|3022.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||3022.1|11.1|<0.0001
95880006|NCT01709513|191716083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|4759.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Exact Conditional Logistic|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a LOCF approach followed by Exact conditional logistic regression model.||4759.3|16.5|<0.0001
95880007|NCT01709513|191716084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-11.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant). Statistical analysis used a multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.||-11.8|-25.5|<0.0001
95880008|NCT01709513|191716085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.6997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (previous endpoints were statistically significant).||5.6|-3.8|=0.6997
95880009|NCT01034631|191716096|OTHER|||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.6625
95880010|NCT01292746|191716104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|2 sided t-test for correlated samples.||||||<0.05
95880011|NCT00621985|191716109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-19.0||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"A t-test was performed comparing the mean long transformed area under the curve of 17-hydroxyprogesterone between the dexamethasone and hydrocortisone arms. The percent difference in mean log AUC was calculated as:~(Mean log AUC on dexamethasone - Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone)/Mean log AUC on hydrocortisone"||||0.09
95880012|NCT01144286|191716120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||response rate (%)|80.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Significance level was set to α of 0.05 if the primary endpoint was significant, hierarchical testing was to be performed on the primary endpoint (each active dose X placebo). No other adjustment was made for testing multiple secondary outcomes.|Regression, Logistic|||"Primary analysis is the dose response at TOC based on the global therapeutic cure. Dose response will be tested using a logistic regression using linear coefficient for the treatment effect(Wald chi-square).~Assuming that the response rate is 80% for 600 mg, 75% for the 300 mg, 65% for 150 mg and 50% for the placebo group, a sample size of 45 subjects in each group will have 90% power to detect a linear dose response using a 0.05 two-sided test of trend based on the logistic model."||||0.0630
95880013|NCT00590720|191716126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.40
95880014|NCT00590720|191716127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||<0.01
95880015|NCT00590720|191716128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.53
95880016|NCT00590720|191716129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.22
95880017|NCT00590720|191716130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.16
95880018|NCT00590720|191716131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.52
95880019|NCT02478632|191716159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.27|0.014
95880020|NCT02478632|191716160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|0.07|0.039
95880021|NCT02478632|191716163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated the difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip T-scores|||0.16|0.02|0.016
95880022|NCT02478632|191716163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.15||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in total hip Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in total hip Z-score.|||0.15|0.01|0.026
95880023|NCT02478632|191716163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.23||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine T-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR for lumbar spine T-score.|||0.23|0.00|0.049
95880024|NCT02478632|191716163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.27||p value for the difference in adjusted change from Baseline at Week 48 in lumbar spine Z-scores between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups|ANCOVA||The analysis estimated difference between DTG+RPV and CAR in lumbar spine Z-score.|||0.27|0.03|0.013
95880025|NCT02478632|191716166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.81|||||The analysis refers to INSTI and total hip.|||4.81|-3.51|
95880026|NCT02478632|191716166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.81|||||The analysis refers to NNRTI and total hip.|||2.81|0.39|
95880027|NCT02478632|191716166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|3.38|||||this analysis refers to PI and total hip|||3.38|-1.39|
95880028|NCT02478632|191716166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.03|||||this analysis refers to INSTI and lumbar spine.|||7.03|0.67|
95880029|NCT02478632|191716166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.76|||||this analysis refers to NNRTI and lumbar spine|||2.76|-0.26|
95880030|NCT02478632|191716166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.77|||||this analysis refers to PI and lumbar spine|||3.77|-3.00|
95880031|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.30|-0.26|
95880032|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.19|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.19|0.03|
95880033|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.24|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.24|-0.09|
95880034|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.37|-0.25|
95880035|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.18|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.18|0.02|
95880036|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in total hip Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.21|-0.14|
95880037|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.71|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.71|0.01|
95880038|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.25|-0.03|
95880039|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.33|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine T-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.33|-0.30|
95880040|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.74|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent INSTI.|||0.74|0.03|
95880041|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.26|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent NNRTI.|||0.26|-0.02|
95880042|NCT02478632|191716167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||||The analysis estimated comparison of change from baseline to Week 48 between the DTG+RPV and CAR groups in lumbar spine Z-scores by baseline third agent PI.|||0.34|-0.26|
95880043|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.43||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: All cases.|Wilcoxon Test||The relative difference between groups is based on the change from baseline values to the values collected at each of the three time points.|Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) in prostate cancers upon injection of Eovist. Subgroup analysis of CER in (i) Advanced Disease and (ii) Localized Disease||||0.0008
95880044|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.42||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Advanced Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.0039
95880045|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median of Differences|0.475||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|||||Median of difference in CER: Local Disease Cases.|Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.084
95880046|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.17||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.25
95880047|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.1602
95880048|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.29||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0078
95880049|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.34||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection.||||0.0039
95880050|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.27||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 40 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0046
95880051|NCT01867424|191716186|OTHER||Median Difference CER|0.33||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Test|||Analysis of CER from baseline to 60 minutes after Eovist injection; Total cases.||||0.0017
95880052|NCT01867424|191716188|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.137||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5665|0.3511|||Nonparametric Spearman correlation|The calculation of Spearman correlation is between baseline PSA and CER at 20 minutes post Eovist injection.||Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in contrast enhancement ratio (CER) with Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 20-minute timepoint.||0.3511|-0.5665|0.5761
95880053|NCT01867424|191716188|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.257||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6549|0.2526|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 40 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2526|-0.6549|0.3033
95880054|NCT01867424|191716188|OTHER||Spearman r|-0.2861||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6634|0.2071|||nonparametric Spearman correlation|||Analyses include calculation of Spearman correlation between baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and CER at 60 minutes post Eovist injection.||0.2071|-0.6634|0.2351
95880055|NCT01867424|191716188|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.47||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.111
95880056|NCT01867424|191716188|OTHER||Median Difference (actual)|-0.775||||0.7738|TWO_SIDED||||||Mann Whitney|||Analyses include analysis of CER at 20 minutes after Eovist injection based on baseline Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) stratifying by PSA \< or \>/= 20ng/ml.||||0.7738
95880057|NCT00434954|191716281|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assuming 25% dropouts) gave a power of 85% to detect non-inferiority of exenatide BID for change in HbA1c (non-inferiority margin 0.4%; assumed common standard deviation of 1.1%).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.291||Non-inferiority: upper limit of 95% Confidence Interval (CI) to be \< 0.4%.|Mixed effect model repeat measures(MMRM)|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects); p-value: superiority test||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart 70/30 BID for glycemic control (change in HbA1c, outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2). This is the first part of the hierarchical test.||0.291|-0.003|0.055
95880058|NCT00434954|191716282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.554
95880059|NCT00434954|191716283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Chi square test (Pearson)|||||||0.159
95880060|NCT00434954|191716288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Non overlapping 95% CI's: statistically significant difference p\<0.05.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|For each treatment group, the incidence of hypoglycemia at Week 26 and 95% CIs were derived from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||The hypothesis was tested hierarchically that 1) exenatide BID is non-inferior to insulin aspart BID for glycemic control (outcome measure 1), and 2) superior regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia (outcome measure 2).The planned sample size of 366 patients treated with metformin only (assumed dropout rate 25%) gave 96% power to detect superiority of exenatide BID for the risk of hypoglycemia, assuming incidences of 3.6% for exenatide BID and 17.5% for insulin aspart BID (alpha=0.05).||||<0.05
95880061|NCT00434954|191716289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at baseline \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
95880062|NCT00434954|191716290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The MMRM model adjusted for baseline HbA1c stratum (HbA1c at Visit 1 \>= 6.5% and \<= 8.0% vs. \> 8.0% and \<=10%).|Mixed effects model repeated measures|95% CI of treatment group difference derived from MMRM (treatment, week, baseline HbA1c and interactions as fixed effects)||||||<0.0001
95880063|NCT01773733|191716299|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95880064|NCT03416946|191716308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||Post-op HKA angle|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.790
95880065|NCT02096731|191716322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.37|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.37|0.92|
95880066|NCT02096731|191716323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.1|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.10|0.69|
95880067|NCT02096731|191716324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.3|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.30|1.03|
95880068|NCT02096731|191716325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.36|0.81|
95880069|NCT02096731|191716326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.5|||||"HR adjusted for 10 year age groups, sex, calendar year of cohort entry, the decile of propensity score, ipratropium use prior to cohort entry and time since entry into base cohort.~Ratio calculated as combination therapy divided by monotherapy."|||1.50|1.23|
95880070|NCT01350492|191716411|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.939||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.680
95880071|NCT01350492|191716412|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mulitvariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.854
95880072|NCT01350492|191716413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.0002
95880073|NCT01350492|191716414|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.857||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.41
95880074|NCT01350492|191716415|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.828||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.16
95880075|NCT01350492|191716416|SUPERIORITY||Wilks' Lambda|0.919||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Multivariate regression|A Generalized Linear Model was employed with repeated measurements of pain ratings as the multivariate dependent variables and group as covariate.||General multivariate regression models were used to estimate the time averaged difference in pain ratings and other symptom scores (continuous measurements) between the treatment and the control group. In order to achieve 90% power, at alpha equal to .05, with an effect size of .6 (minimum effect size of clinical importance) and with a correlation of .6 between measurements from each individual, we estimated the necessary sample size at 34 subjects per group.||||0.66
95880076|NCT00702689|191716420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.011
95880077|NCT00702689|191716422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
95880078|NCT00702689|191716423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
95880079|NCT03800173|191716435|OTHER||Slope|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.096||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed Cmax. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.096|0.868|
95880080|NCT03800173|191716436|OTHER||Slope|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.128||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-inf Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1||1.128|0.872|
95880081|NCT03800173|191716436|OTHER||Slope|1.086|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.219||||||A model with In-transformed dose (dose continuous) as a fixed effect \& subject as a random effect was applied to In-transformed AUC0-t. Dose proportionality was assessed by restricted max likelihood using SAS PROC MIXED. The mean slope was estimated from the power model \& the corresponding 90% CI calculated. Although there was no formal statistical hypothesis tested for this secondary objective, there was evidence for dose proportionality if the 90% CI of the fixed slope for In-dose contained 1.||1.219|0.952|
95880082|NCT01589978|191716466|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Given the performance goal of 3.2%, with expected rate for PROMUS Element Plus of 2.2% and a one-sided 5% significance level, approximately 1,706 PLATINUM-like patients will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single binomial test will be performed to compare observed rate against performance goal, the normal approximation of the test statistic will be used. The performance goal is met if the one-sided upper 95% confidence bound for the observed binary rate is less than performance goal.||||<.0001
95880083|NCT01589978|191716486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is calculated for one-sample chi-square test for a single proportion using nQuery AdvisorVersion 5.0. The expected annual increase in ST rate is estimated to be 0.4% based on the current data available from the pooled TAXUS Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data and the PG is 1.0% using a delta of 0.6%. Given a one-sided 5% significance level, a minimum of 1,660 PLATINUM-like patients at 5-yrs will be required to provide 90% power to reject the null hypothesis if it is false.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The expected annual increase of stent thrombosis rate is assumed to be 0.4%, based on the observed increase in incidence rate of stent thrombosis of approximately 0.4% annually for PLATINUM-like patients in the pooled TAXUS SR Express and pooled TAXUS Liberté data. Using a delta of 0.6%, the performance goal is set to 1.0% (expected rate + delta = 0.4% + 0.6% = 1.0%).||||<.0001
95880084|NCT01235689|191716507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by Screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg or ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
95880085|NCT01235689|191716508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.014
95880086|NCT01235689|191716509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.006
95880087|NCT01235689|191716510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.010
95880088|NCT01235689|191716511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.299
95880089|NCT01235689|191716512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.728
95880090|NCT01235689|191716513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by screening smoking status (yes or no) and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg).||||||0.067
95880091|NCT01235689|191716514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model included factors for treatment group, screening smoking status (yes or no), and weight (\< 70 kg, ≥ 70 kg), and Baseline values as covariate.||||0.4|-3.2|0.116
95880092|NCT01235689|191716516|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.442||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||Regression, Cox|||||0.8|0.2|0.012
95880093|NCT01235689|191716517|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.9|1.1|0.008
95880094|NCT01235689|191716518|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.337||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|1.0|0.052
95880095|NCT01235689|191716521|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.823||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.5|0.501
95880096|NCT01235689|191716522|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.785||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.5|0.4|0.459
95880097|NCT01235689|191716529|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.423||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.6|0.1|0.212
95880098|NCT02197273|191716588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.764
95880099|NCT02197273|191716589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.206
95880100|NCT02197273|191716590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Fisher exact|0.486||||0.656|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.656
95880101|NCT00806351|191716613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95 percent confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
95880102|NCT00806351|191716614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|40.3||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||40.3|-80.9|
95880103|NCT00806351|191716615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|63.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||63.9|-97.5|
95880104|NCT00806351|191716616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.5|55.0||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||55.0|-97.5|
95880105|NCT00806351|191716621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.6|31.9||||||The 95% CI was calculated using the method of exact unconditional confidence limits for the difference. Global response (rates of success) by using a 2-sided 95% CI for the true difference in efficacy (Anidulafungin minus Caspofungin) was calculated. Statistical testing was done at 2.5% alpha.||31.9|-90.6|
95880106|NCT00087607|191716627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.35|0.978
95880107|NCT00087607|191716628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 4: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.58|-0.03|0.080
95880108|NCT00087607|191716628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||At Week 8: Mean treatment difference was tested using a two-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.27|0.688
95880109|NCT00087607|191716632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment as the only factor in the model.||||0.304
95880110|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.1||||0.2814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.5|-8.6|0.2814
95880111|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.3||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.6|-18.9|0.0214
95880112|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-10.7||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-1.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||-1.0|-20.3|0.0315
95880113|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-7.4||||0.1467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.6|-17.4|0.1467
95880114|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.8||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|3.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.2|-16.9|0.1823
95880115|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.1||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|8.0|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||8.0|-12.1|0.6871
95880116|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.4||||0.9295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|9.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||9.5|-10.4|0.9295
95880117|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.6|0.6593
95880118|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.2||||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.1|-7.7|0.6637
95880119|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2760
95880120|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||15.1|-4.3|0.2779
95880121|NCT00087607|191716634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|2.8||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|12.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||12.4|-6.8|0.5697
95880122|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 1: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.5|-1.4|0.9940
95880123|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-0.5||||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 2: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-3.2|0.7133
95880124|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.6||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||Chi-squared|||Week 3: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||0.5|-7.8|0.0864
95880125|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.1||||0.1713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Week 4: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.8|-10.0|0.1713
95880126|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.6||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 5: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||2.2|-11.4|0.1888
95880127|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 6: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||1.4|-14.7|0.1080
95880128|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.5||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|4.2|||Chi-squared|||Week 7: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.2|-13.1|0.3099
95880129|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-3.4||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.6|||Chi-squared|||Week 8: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.6|-12.4|0.4595
95880130|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-6.0||||0.2144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.4|||Chi-squared|||Week 9: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||3.4|-15.4|0.2144
95880131|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-5.4||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|4.3|||Chi-squared|||Week 10: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||4.3|-15.1|0.2779
95880132|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-2.7||||0.5876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|7.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 11: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||7.1|-12.6|0.5876
95880133|NCT00087607|191716635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of participants|-4.8||||0.3399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||Week 12: Treatment groups were compared using the Chi-Square Test.||5.1|-14.7|0.3399
95880134|NCT00087607|191716640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|The P-value is determined from a repeated measures analysis with terms for treatment group, baseline, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction.||Week 1: The treatment groups were compared using repeated measures analysis||||0.024
95880135|NCT00087607|191716640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 8: The treatment groups were compared using Repeated measures analysis||||<0.001
95880136|NCT02015754|191716679|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Differences of p-value \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|||Multivariate Cox-regression analysis to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival from baseline characteristics. Relative risk with 95% confidence intervals calculated as measure of association.||||0.004
95880137|NCT02015754|191716686|OTHER|VEGF immediately post treatment||||||0.6257|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.6257
95880138|NCT02015754|191716686|OTHER|VEGF at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.4143|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.4143
95880139|NCT02015754|191716686|OTHER|VEGFR1 immediately post treatment.||||||0.583|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.583
95880140|NCT02015754|191716686|OTHER|VEGFR1 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.0012|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||.0012
95880141|NCT02015754|191716686|OTHER|VEGFR2 immediately post treatment.||||||0.1353|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.1353
95880142|NCT02015754|191716686|OTHER|VEGFR2 at 24 hours post treatment.||||||0.2163|||||||one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.2163
95880143|NCT01064310|191716697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|49.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.0|61.5||The p value indicates the difference in preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib treatment|Prescotts test||The estimated value indicates the difference in the percentage of participants who preferred pazopanib versus sunitinib. This difference is adjusted for sequence.|||61.5|37.0|<0.001
95880144|NCT01960400|191716713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||"The statistical signifiance level : p\<0.05. After treatment (T1) Pain severity p=0.065~Sub-scale:~* Present pain p=0.046\*~* Average pain p=0.381~* Most intense pain p=0.064~* Least intense pain p=0.142"|ANOVA|To assess the effectiveness of interventions (inter-group differences), a mixed-model ANOVA (time X group interaction) was used.||For the severity of pain, the calculations have revealed that only this pain now had an acceptable statistical power, of 77.1% after treatment (T1).||||0.065
95880145|NCT01960400|191716714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.049
95880146|NCT01960400|191716715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.035
95880147|NCT01960400|191716716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||interaction group X time|ANOVA|||||||0.046
95969839|NCT00738894|191912514|SUPERIORITY|This is the first of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected event free for medical management 92% at 24 months; expected event free for device closure 96.4% at 24 months (55% risk reduction); 664 subjects randomly assigned 2:1 to device closure or medical management provides 80% power with 15% attrition (over 5 years) and 1-sided alpha = 0.024 to allow for interim analysis (interim analysis later rescinded from plan).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 2nd primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (test/control) obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as sole explanatory variable, the exponentiated coefficient of which provided the hazard ratio. Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lower recurrent stroke-free survivorship for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Sd(t) ≤ Sm(t) for all t, versus H1: Sd(t) \> Sm(t) for all t, where Sd(t) and Sm(t) are true Kaplan-Meier product-limit survivor functions for the device closure and medical management arms and t is time from randomization to event or censoring.~Event-free subjects were censored at time of last follow-up. Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.62|0.09|0.001
95880148|NCT04547712|191716732|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|78.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|59.4||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS single threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||59.4|
95880149|NCT04547712|191716732|SUPERIORITY||Proportion expressed as a percentage|91.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|75.6||||||The confidence interval lower limit was above the performance goal of 50%, the primary objective was met.|"Null Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \<= 50%; Alternative Hypothesis: The proportion of subjects with On time without troublesome dyskinesia during aDBS dual threshold mode Evaluation Period exceeding threshold \> 50%"|||75.6|
95880150|NCT04547712|191716733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS single threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0120
95880151|NCT04547712|191716733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0491||||||Nominal p-value is provided.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \>= 0; Alternative Hypothesis: Mean Difference between aDBS dual threshold (Evaluation Phase) minus cDBS (Baseline Phase) for TEED \< 0||||0.0491
95880152|NCT02342327|191716750|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.22||||||Hazard ratio for time to lapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.22|0.55|
95880153|NCT02342327|191716751|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.06||||||Hazard ratio for time to relapse to smoking in the group switched to non-menthol cigarettes relative to the group continuing to smoke menthol cigarettes||1.06|0.42|
95880154|NCT03187197|191716763|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 2.||||0.0001
95880155|NCT03187197|191716763|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline convenience with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
95880156|NCT03187197|191716763|OTHER|||||||0.0031|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 2.||||0.0031
95880157|NCT03187197|191716763|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Within group comparison of Baseline satisfaction with that of Visit 3.||||0.0001
95880158|NCT03187197|191716764|OTHER|||||||0.7879|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.7879
95880159|NCT03187197|191716764|OTHER|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment convenience before PSM.||||0.6110
95880160|NCT03187197|191716764|OTHER|||||||0.0832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.0832
95969840|NCT00738894|191912515|SUPERIORITY|This is the second of two primary outcomes for this study. Assumptions for power calculations: expected proportion of brain infarct is 3-7 times the clinical stroke rate; expected brain infarct proportion for medical management 14.5% (2.9% clinical stroke x 5); expected brain infarct for device closure 6.5% (55% risk reduction); 597 subjects (10% attrition from 664) provides 73% power with 1-sided alpha = 0.0125 (based conservatively on a Bonferroni adjustment of alpha/2).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.108||1-sided p-value was adjusted for multiplicity with 1st primary outcome using Dubey and Armitage-Parmer (D/AP) procedure.|z-test, 1-sided||Unadjusted for multiplicity.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or higher proportion with brain infarct for device closure compared to medical management.~H0: Pm - Pd ≤ 0, versus H1: Pm - Pd \> 0, where Pd and Pm are true proportions of subjects with brain infarct for the device closure and medical management arms.~Significance threshold (1-sided alpha) = 0.025."||0.108|0.003|0.024
95969841|NCT02186600|191912518|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling for intent-to-treat analysis to analyze time X group interactions, adjusted for baseline total body lean mass and height.||||||0.7|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|controlled for total lean mass and height||||||0.7
95852910|NCT02977403|191664897|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.052||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.052|-0.125|
95852911|NCT02977403|191664897|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.129||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.129|-0.196|
95852912|NCT02977403|191664898|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.093||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.093|-0.091|
95880161|NCT03187197|191716764|OTHER|||||||0.6488|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Between group comparison of Visit 3 treatment satisfaction before PSM.||||0.6488
95880162|NCT03187197|191716764|OTHER|||||||0.1301|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment convenience after PSM.||||0.1301
95880163|NCT03187197|191716764|OTHER|||||||0.1257|||||||Two sample T test|||Between group comparison of Visit 2 treatment satisfaction after PSM.||||0.1257
95880164|NCT01673867|191716797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.92|0.59|0.89|||Log Rank||HR = Nivolumab over docetaxel|||0.89|0.59|0.0015
95880165|NCT04666051|191716806|SUPERIORITY|Data from both groups has been collected compared to verify significant statistical difference||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
95880166|NCT00674700|191716807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||main effects = treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.0066
95880167|NCT00674700|191716807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||main effects= treatment and pools of study centers, Covariates = age, gender, asthma status, sensitization status and baseline ARTSS|ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95880168|NCT00674700|191716808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0086
95880169|NCT00674700|191716808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0095|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0095
95880170|NCT03166735|191716812|OTHER||Predicted mean daily dose in mg|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||non-linear regression||The model fit used power of mean variance estimates (POM) to account for heterogeneity.|D10: Estimated dose reaching \<=10% activity the first time.||||
95880171|NCT03166735|191716814|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0212||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0212
95880172|NCT03166735|191716815|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.127||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1270
95880173|NCT03166735|191716816|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.3324||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.3324
95880174|NCT03166735|191716817|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.129||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.1290
95880175|NCT03166735|191716818|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0042||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod Sigmoidal Emax model fit.|30% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0042
95880176|NCT03166735|191716819|OTHER|The MMRM included fixed effects for 'base', 'treatment', 'time', 'base\*time' interaction, and 'treatment\*time' interaction. Estimates were used to test dose-response relationship using MCPMod.||||||0.0728||||||p\<0.05 is a significant test result (rejecting the null hypothesis of a flat dose-response curve) with alpha 0.05, one-sided.|MCPMod exponential model fit.|90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 7 mg of BI 1467335||||||0.0728
95880177|NCT01227434|191716845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Compared to historical estimates of PFS-6 months. With 30 patients, there would be 90% power to detect an improvement in the PFS-6 months rate from 10% (historical estimate) to 30% based on a one-sided exact test with alpha=0.1.||||0.10
95880178|NCT03486223|191716851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the within-subject comparison of GSK2256294 versus placebo.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 16 per group was estimated to have 86% power to detect a within-subject difference of 3.76 (80% of the above difference) or larger (with an SD for the within-subject difference of 4.6) in insulin sensitivity.||||0.71
95880179|NCT02417831|191716866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|105.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.81|112.08|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||112.08|99.81|
95880180|NCT02417831|191716867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.71|105.23|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.23|97.71|
95880181|NCT02417831|191716868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio|101.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.81|105.17|||||The standard deviation in the statistical analysis is actually the intra-individual coefficient of variation. Ratio calculated as test divided by reference.|||105.17|97.81|
95880182|NCT00980057|191716875|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 12%.||||||0.0002|||||||Farrington-Manning test of two ind. prop|||||||0.0002
95969842|NCT02186600|191912519|OTHER|hierarchical linear modeling||||||0.01|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||0.01
95880183|NCT00980057|191716876|SUPERIORITY|The pre-specified minimum objective performance criteria was 0.82|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95880184|NCT00980057|191716878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95880185|NCT00980057|191716879|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 15|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95969843|NCT02186600|191912520|OTHER|Hierarchical linear modeling|||||<|0.007|||||||hierarchical linear modeling|||||||<0.007
95880186|NCT00980057|191716880|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
95880187|NCT00980057|191716881|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.3|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.0001
95880188|NCT00980057|191716882|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 30||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0002
95880189|NCT00980057|191716883|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5.1||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
95880190|NCT04645953|191716892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7024|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance value of ≤ 0.05.||||0.7024
95880191|NCT04645953|191716892|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis is there was no difference between groups treated with AZ-010 (1 mg or 3 mg) and the placebo group in the mean number of vomiting/retching events in the 2 hours following. treatment. Baseline, body weight, height, body mass index, age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors. Patients summarized by actual treatment received. Formal statistical tests (ANOVA, when performed) were 2-sided t-tests with a significance value of 0.05.||||||0.2051|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2051
95969844|NCT03026075|191912521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||"The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of MCS in cleansing a poorly prepared colon.~A sample size of 47 patients is required as per a McNemar test to determine that the paired discordant proportions are significantly different under the followings assumptions:~Probability of Type I Error (α) = 0.05, Power (1 - β) = 0.8 Proportion switching from + to - = 0, Proportion switching from - to + = 0.6 Potential of dropout 10% (i.e. 4 cases)"||||<0.01
95880192|NCT04645953|191716893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
95880193|NCT04645953|191716893|SUPERIORITY|Participants were asked to rate their anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
95969845|NCT01821352|191912545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
95969846|NCT01821352|191912546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95969847|NCT01821352|191912547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95969848|NCT05260021|191912588|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-2.35|<0.001
95969849|NCT05260021|191912589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-2.31|<0.001
95969850|NCT05260021|191912589|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-2.57|<0.001
95969851|NCT05260021|191912590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|61.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.7|18.6|<0.001
95969852|NCT05260021|191912590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|72.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.2|31.1|<0.001
95969853|NCT05260021|191912590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|27.5|<0.001
95969854|NCT05260021|191912591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.55|< 0.001
95969855|NCT05260021|191912591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.86|<0.001
95969856|NCT05260021|191912591|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||||-0.34|-0.68|< 0.001
95880194|NCT04645953|191716894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8299||||||Prior Episode Duration 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8299
95880195|NCT04645953|191716894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2346||||||Prior Episode Duration 3 mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2346
95880196|NCT04645953|191716894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 1mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
95880197|NCT04645953|191716894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3997||||||Prior Episode intensity 3mg AZ-010|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3997
95880198|NCT04645953|191716895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3847
95880199|NCT04645953|191716895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1785|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1785
95969857|NCT05260021|191912592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-28.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-8.0|||ANCOVA|||||-8.0|-49.7|0.007
95969858|NCT05260021|191912592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-23.6|||ANCOVA|||||-23.6|-64.3|< 0.001
95969859|NCT05260021|191912592|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-36.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|-18.6|||ANCOVA|||||-18.6|-54.2|< 0.001
95969860|NCT05260021|191912593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|-3.05|||ANCOVA|||||-3.05|-9.31|< 0.001
95969861|NCT05260021|191912593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|-7.38|||ANCOVA|||||-7.38|-13.67|< 0.001
95969862|NCT05260021|191912593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.05|-5.66|||ANCOVA|||||-5.66|-11.05|< 0.001
95969863|NCT05260021|191912594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|50.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.3|8.6|0.006
95969864|NCT05260021|191912594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|39.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|60.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||60.2|18.8|< 0.001
95969865|NCT05260021|191912594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|52.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||52.1|17|< 0.001
95969866|NCT05260021|191912595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|43.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|64.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.4|22.3|< 0.001
95969867|NCT05260021|191912595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|26.4|< 0.001
95969868|NCT05260021|191912595|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|45.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|64.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||64.1|26.3|< 0.001
95969869|NCT05260021|191912597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.089|-0.061|0.708
95969870|NCT05260021|191912597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.001||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.074|-0.076|0.976
95852913|NCT02977403|191664898|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.001||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.001|-0.286|
95852914|NCT02977403|191664899|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.132||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.132|-0.001|
95852915|NCT02977403|191664899|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.055||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.055|-0.246|
95854012|NCT01462370|191667238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54||A nominal threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.54|0.17|<0.001
95854013|NCT01462370|191667239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.14||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||1.14|0.70|0.371
95880200|NCT04645953|191716896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9732|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9732
95880201|NCT04645953|191716896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1471
95880202|NCT04645953|191716897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1337|||||||ANOVA|||The RINVR is an 8-part questionnaire with each item scored from 0-4, for a total scoring range of 0-32. A lower score indicates less distress related to nausea, vomiting, and retching. The data shown is collected within the first 24 hours after the first at-home dose.||||0.1337
95880203|NCT04645953|191716897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7224|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7224
95880204|NCT04645953|191716898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Participants were asked to rate their abdominal pain, nausea, and anxiety/panic on scale of 0-100 at each time point. The higher the number, the more intense the symptom.||||0.0504
95880205|NCT04645953|191716898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8246
95880206|NCT04645953|191716899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9664
95880207|NCT04645953|191716899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7919|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7919
95880208|NCT00002651|191716900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The overall type I error rate used is 0.05. The type II error rate is 0.10 (power = 0.9). The trial planned for a one-sided test of the hypothesis that the hazard ratio of intermittent CAD to continuous CAD is 1.2. A hazard ratio of 1.0 was used as the specific alternative in the trial size computations. Thus, rejection of the hypothesis will be evidence against the possibility that the intermittent CAD hazard ratio is larger than the continuous CAD hazard ratio by 20% or more.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.99|0.15
95880209|NCT00002651|191716901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|3.97||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.97|-0.31|0.09
95880210|NCT00002651|191716902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.76||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|1.00|0.003
95880211|NCT00002651|191716903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-5.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||-5|-14|<0.001
95880212|NCT00002651|191716904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|36.0||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||36|1|0.04
95880213|NCT00002651|191716905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.46||The type I error rate used was 0.005 in an attempt to adjust for multiple primary scores being tested.The type II error rate used was 0.10 (power = 0.9).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.83|0.23
95969871|NCT05260021|191912597|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.007||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.071|-0.058|0.841
95969872|NCT05260021|191912598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.45|< 0.001
95969873|NCT05260021|191912598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.57|< 0.001
95969874|NCT05260021|191912598|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.49|< 0.001
95969875|NCT04679935|191912624|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.47|-0.01|||MMRM model|||Week 40||-0.01|-7.47|
95969876|NCT04679935|191912624|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|-0.48|||MMRM model|||Week 44||-0.48|-8.78|
95969877|NCT04679935|191912624|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-0.58|||MMRM model|||Week 48||-0.58|-10.13|
95969878|NCT04679935|191912624|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||0.39|-8.77|
95969879|NCT04679935|191912624|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-0.16|||MMRM model|||Mean of Week 40 to Week 52||-0.16|-8.56|
95969880|NCT04679935|191912632|OTHER|Analysis was purely descriptive.|Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.39|||MMRM model|||Week 52||-0.39|-8.77|
95969881|NCT03541174|191912655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.79||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.76|-0.82||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.82|-6.76|0.0042
95969882|NCT03541174|191912655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.73||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.67|-0.78||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiSBP = baseline SiSBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.78|-6.67|0.0046
95969883|NCT03541174|191912656|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo.|-5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.71||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiSBP = DB-WD baseline SiSBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + DB-WD baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-7.94|<0.0001
95969884|NCT03541174|191912657|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.31||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.31|-5.57|<0.0001
95969885|NCT03541174|191912657|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-2.85||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in SiDBP = baseline SiDBP + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.85|-6.09|<0.0001
95969886|NCT03541174|191912658|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.12|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-2.12|-6.25|<0.0001
95969887|NCT03541174|191912658|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.94|-3.85|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-3.85|-7.94|<0.0001
95880214|NCT02609828|191716971|SUPERIORITY||Differences in least square (LS) mean|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.04|-1.52|0.0381
95880215|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.00|-0.72|0.0497
95880216|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.16|0.0092
95880217|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.11|-1.37|0.0218
95880218|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.58|0.0154
95880219|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.36|0.1289
95880220|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.43|0.2110
95880221|NCT02609828|191716972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.2049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.32|-1.49|0.2049
95880222|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-0.73|0.1103
95880223|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.19|-1.26|0.0084
95880224|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4:ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.10|-1.39|0.0236
95880225|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.17|-1.59|0.0155
95880226|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.00|-1.52|0.0505
95969888|NCT03541174|191912658|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-4.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-2.98|-5.66|<0.0001
95969889|NCT03541174|191912658|OTHER||LS Mean|-5.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-4.49|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-4.49|-7.14|<0.0001
95969890|NCT03541174|191912659|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-5.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.76||Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from DB-WD baseline in SiDBP = Double-blind withdrawal baseline SiDBP + stratum (randomized treatment in DB part) + treatment + visit + treatment x visit + Double-blind withdrawal baseline x visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.76|-6.62|<0.0001
95969891|NCT03541174|191912660|OTHER||LS Mean difference to placebo|-6.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-4.56|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean systolic (SBP)||-4.56|-8.50|<0.0001
95880227|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.08|-1.52|0.0761
95880228|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.21|-1.70|0.1263
95880229|NCT02609828|191716973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.17|-1.76|0.1051
95880230|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.3003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.47|-1.47|0.3003
95880231|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.35|-2.03|0.1603
95880232|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.53|-2.13|0.2298
95880233|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.97|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.97|-1.93|0.5054
95880234|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.77||0.4793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||1.01|-2.10|0.4793
95880235|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.4496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.83|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.83|-1.83|0.4496
95880236|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square LS mean|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.36|-2.77|0.1263
95880237|NCT02609828|191716974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.44|-2.54|0.1620
95880238|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.04|-2.17|0.0575
95880239|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.70|-3.22|0.0031
95880240|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.06|-2.82|0.0410
95969892|NCT03541174|191912660|OTHER||LSM Mean difference to placebo|-6.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-5.52|||ANCOVA|||24-hour mean diastolic (DBP)||-5.52|-7.98|<0.0001
95969893|NCT00275262|191912662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.125
95880241|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.68|-2.44|0.2598
95880242|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.85|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.85|-2.38|0.3426
95880243|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.26|-2.65|0.1034
95880244|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.21|-3.60|0.0290
95880245|NCT02609828|191716975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the non-index cancer pain sites and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.07|-3.31|0.0600
95880246|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.18|0.41|0.8054
95880247|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.98|0.22|0.9292
95880248|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9565|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9565
95880249|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.36|0.81|0.1429
95880250|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.19||||0.014||95.0|1.4|19.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.31|1.40|0.0140
95880251|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9450
95880252|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9489
95880253|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.39|0.78|0.1932
95880254|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.74|1.15|0.0254
95880255|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||24.16|1.03|0.0455
95969894|NCT00275262|191912663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|The statistical method used for a 1-way ANOVA between treatment groups.||The final on treatment values were included in the analysis.||||0.299
95969895|NCT02217332|191912666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 6 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||< 0.001
95969896|NCT02217332|191912667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885||||||Month 6/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 6 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.885
95969897|NCT02217332|191912671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 on log scale within the dexpramipexole treatment group.||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 3 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'.||||<.001
95880256|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
95880257|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.72|0.90|0.0969
95880258|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||11.74|1.58|0.0043
95880259|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|26.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||26.75|1.13|0.0352
95880260|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9464
95880261|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.52|0.83|0.1471
95880262|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.22|1.04|0.0405
95880263|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|12.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||12.83|0.80|0.0993
95880264|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71||||0.1726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||43.64|0.51|0.1726
95880265|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.74|0.91|0.0918
95969898|NCT02217332|191912672|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Month 3/LOCF was used for the analysis of change from Baseline to Month 3 within the dexpramipexole group.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test comparing baseline to month 3 within the dexpramipexole treatment group||||||1.0
95969899|NCT02217332|191912673|SUPERIORITY||log scale|||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (paired)|||Null hypothesis is the ratio of Month 6 to Baseline within the dexpramipexole group equals '1'; 68% confidence interval is equal to plus/minus 1 standard error||||0.001
95880266|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.82|0.94|0.0704
95880267|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|5.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.01|0.56|0.3569
95880268|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.79|0.44|0.3062
95880269|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.85|0.88|0.1058
95880270|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.14|0.79|0.1571
95880271|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.24|0.65|0.2454
95969900|NCT00266227|191912695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0195
95969901|NCT00266227|191912697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|Adjusted mean for Arm A (Rituxan) is -1.9 and adjusted mean for Arm B (Placebo) is -1.5.||Assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with retreatment group, baseline DAS28-ESR score, baseline RF status, and ≥20% improvement in both SJC and TJC at Week 24 from baseline (yes/no) as explanatory terms in the model.||-0.1|-0.7|
95880272|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.46|0.24|0.8867
95880273|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|4.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.21|0.95|0.0689
95880274|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.44|0.98|0.0568
95880275|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.1268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.46|0.78|0.1268
95880276|NCT02609828|191716978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.00|0.25|0.7971
95880277|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.70|0.43|0.6658
95880278|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.3443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|31.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||31.35|0.30|0.3443
95880279|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9527
95880280|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.50|0.92|0.0757
95880281|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|22.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||22.42|0.91|0.0659
95880282|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9380
95880283|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
95880284|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.59|0.89|0.0914
95880285|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.61|1.08|0.0359
95880286|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9538|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9538
95880287|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
95969902|NCT00007345|191912750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||An exact Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to compare the distributions. In view of the large number of tests performed, we only refer to those with P-values \<0.01 as statistically significant, with those for which 0.01 \<P\< 0.05 considered trends.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.01
95880288|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|5.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.80|1.22|0.0143
95880289|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|13.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||13.74|1.28|0.0176
95880290|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|18.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||18.06|0.69|0.1298
95880291|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9493|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 6 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||||0.9493
95880292|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.67|0.99|0.0527
95852916|NCT02977403|191664900|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.101||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.101|-0.055|
95852917|NCT02977403|191664900|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.137||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.137|-0.178|
95852918|NCT02977403|191664901|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.051||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.051|-0.116|
95852919|NCT02977403|191664901|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.223||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.223|-0.104|
95852920|NCT02977403|191664902|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.053||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.053|-0.078|
95852921|NCT02977403|191664902|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.12||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.120|-0.248|
95852922|NCT02977403|191664903|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.174||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.174|0.004|
95852923|NCT02977403|191664903|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.201||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.201|-0.159|
95854014|NCT01462370|191667240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|-0.00|0.051
95854015|NCT01462370|191667241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference in LS Means|0.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.32|0.03|0.019
95852924|NCT02977403|191664904|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.081||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.081|-0.113|
95852925|NCT02977403|191664904|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.062||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.062|-0.206|
95852926|NCT02977403|191664905|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.129|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.209||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.209|0.049|
95852927|NCT02977403|191664905|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.033||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.033|-0.330|
95852928|NCT02977403|191664906|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.207||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.207|0.045|
95852929|NCT02977403|191664906|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.112||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.112|-0.223|
95880293|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||7.12|1.02|0.0457
95880294|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|19.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||19.76|0.77|0.0994
95880295|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.6977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.86|0.07|0.6977
95880296|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.75|0.82|0.1460
95880297|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.01|0.92|0.0742
95880298|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.91|0.42|0.5565
95880299|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.5623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||10.35|0.28|0.5623
95880300|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.47|1.27|0.0116
95880301|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.70|0.96|0.0615
95880302|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||4.80|0.59|0.3316
95880303|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.33|0.19|0.9946
95880304|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=30%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||6.76|1.33|0.0083
95880305|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=50%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||5.88|1.00|0.0513
95880306|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|8.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=70%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||8.58|0.71|0.1528
95969903|NCT02074553|191912755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|100.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.14|108.44|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval (CI).||108.44|93.14|
95880307|NCT02609828|191716979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|9.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24 Reduction \>=90%: Logistic regression model included baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, baseline worst pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||9.65|0.21|0.7251
95880308|NCT02609828|191716980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.7045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.19|-0.28|0.7045
95880309|NCT02609828|191716980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||-0.01|-0.59|0.0402
95880310|NCT02609828|191716980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.02|-0.67|0.0637
95880311|NCT02609828|191716980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.20|-0.53|0.3804
95969904|NCT02074553|191912755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.71|105.48|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.48|90.71|
95969905|NCT02074553|191912755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.5|80.32|
95969906|NCT02074553|191912755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|92.24|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.24|85.15|
95969907|NCT02074553|191912755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|83.39|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.39|77.08|
95880312|NCT02609828|191716980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and baseline global assessment score, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, and baseline opioid dose as covariates.||0.27|-0.47|0.5894
95880313|NCT02609828|191716981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||1.69|0.09|0.2033
95880314|NCT02609828|191716981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.41|0.41|0.7627
95969908|NCT02074553|191912755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|79.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.84|83.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||83.19|76.84|
95969909|NCT02074553|191912756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|99.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.83|106.99|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.99|91.83|
95880315|NCT02609828|191716981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.43|0.44|0.6894
95880316|NCT02609828|191716981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.83|0.47|0.5905
95880317|NCT02609828|191716981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Logistic regression model included baseline PGA-CP, baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site, treatment, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness).||3.35|0.38|0.8354
95880318|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Frequency Composite Score: Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.38|-0.49|0.8069
95880319|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.7127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.28|0.7127
95880320|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.23|-0.57|0.3933
95880321|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.71|0.5869
95880322|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Frequency Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS frequency scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.21|-1.05|0.1814
95880323|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.46|-0.14|0.2822
95880324|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.41|-0.23|0.5795
95880325|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.22|-0.42|0.5486
95880326|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.24|0.3692
95880327|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Severity Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS severity scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.63|-0.30|0.4724
95880328|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.64|-0.30|0.4770
95969910|NCT02074553|191912756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|101.17|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.17|86.94|
95969911|NCT02074553|191912756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|80.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.41|86.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.7|74.41|
95969912|NCT02074553|191912756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.92|91.07|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.07|83.92|
95969913|NCT02074553|191912756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.76|82.11|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.11|75.76|
95969914|NCT02074553|191912756|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.53|81.92|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.92|75.53|
95969915|NCT02074553|191912757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.33|99.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.12|82.33|
95969916|NCT02074553|191912757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.45|72.68|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.68|60.45|
95969917|NCT02074553|191912757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|41.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|45.03|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||45.03|37.40|
95969918|NCT02074553|191912757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|86.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.77|91.09|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.09|81.77|
95854016|NCT01462370|191667243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.31||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.31|0.10|<0.001
95854017|NCT01462370|191667244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.28||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.45|0.10|0.002
95880329|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.9791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.38|0.9791
95880330|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.74|-0.27|0.3574
95880331|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.5607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.42|-0.77|0.5607
95880332|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Distress Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS distress scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.47|-0.68|0.7143
95880333|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.45|-0.28|0.6381
95969919|NCT02074553|191912757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.01|81.2|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||81.20|73.01|
95969920|NCT02074553|191912757|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.71|79.82|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.82|71.71|
95969921|NCT02074553|191912759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.34|102.05|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.05|82.34|
95969922|NCT02074553|191912759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.44|74.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.79|60.44|
95969923|NCT02074553|191912759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|34.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.83|38.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||38.21|30.83|
95969924|NCT02074553|191912759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.1|101.62|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||101.62|89.10|
95969925|NCT02074553|191912759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.67|78.16|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.16|68.67|
95969926|NCT02074553|191912759|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.48|72.33|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.33|63.48|
95969927|NCT02074553|191912761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.54|104.79|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||104.79|87.54|
95969928|NCT02074553|191912761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|78.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.97|86.04|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||86.04|71.97|
95969929|NCT02074553|191912761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|53.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.27|58.98|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||58.98|49.27|
95969930|NCT02074553|191912761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.14|94.37|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.37|86.14|
95969931|NCT02074553|191912761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.52|77.15|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.15|70.52|
95969932|NCT02074553|191912761|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|70.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.8|74.22|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||74.22|67.80|
95969933|NCT02074553|191912762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|93.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|102.78|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||102.78|84.24|
95969934|NCT02074553|191912762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|74.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.37|82.06|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||82.06|67.37|
95880334|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.37|-0.25|0.7181
95880335|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square (LS) mean|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.31|-0.38|0.8378
95880336|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.52|0.7950
95880337|NCT02609828|191716984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 MDA Composite Score: MMRM model includes time (study week), treatment, region, and randomization stratification variables (concomitant anticancer treatment and tumor aggressiveness) as fixed effects, and treatment\*time interaction, baseline OR-SDS MDA scores, and baseline average pain intensity at the index bone metastasis cancer pain site as covariates.||0.40|-0.62|0.6719
95880338|NCT01776840|191717012|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.59|0.011
95880339|NCT03068455|191717028|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.04|0.78|
95880340|NCT03068455|191717029|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.14|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab|||1.14|0.75|
95880341|NCT03068455|191717030|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.32|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.32|0.80|
95880342|NCT03068455|191717031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.73|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Nivolumab.|||1.73|0.85|
95880343|NCT03068455|191717032|SUPERIORITY|\< 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over Ipilimumab|||1.14|0.73|
95880344|NCT03068455|191717032|SUPERIORITY|\>= 1% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.18|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.18|0.76|
95880345|NCT03068455|191717032|SUPERIORITY|\>= 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.34|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.34|0.71|
95880346|NCT03068455|191717032|SUPERIORITY|\< 5% Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.10|0.77|
95880347|NCT03068455|191717032|SUPERIORITY|Non-quantifiable Tumor PD-L1 Expression|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.51|||||Unstratisfied HR, Nivolumab over ipilimumab|||1.51|0.38|
95880348|NCT02149719|191717100|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95880349|NCT02805972|191717111|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference across the Naloxone and placebo conditions.~The alternative hypothesis is that the cortisol value would be higher in the Naloxone condition than in the placebo condition."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.61||If the Winsorized value is excluded from analyses altogether, the P value is .012|t-test, 2 sided|Cortisol was log transformed for the statistical test, and the reported mean difference was exponentiated back to the original units of nmol/L below.||We compared cortisol values at 55 minutes, within person, across conditions. We Winsorized one participant's values for the placebo visit where values were between 2-4x above the 99th percentile value in the data and then log-transformed the data.||1.61|0.98|.067
95880350|NCT00389597|191717123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportion test with 10% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.0021|||||||Farrington Manning|||1 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.||||0.0021
95909070|NCT01212770|191776108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-4.1||||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-14.8|0.4707
95909071|NCT01212770|191776108|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.4||||0.3547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||5.7|-16.6|0.3547
95909072|NCT01212770|191776109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.6||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-8.6|0.4175
95880351|NCT00389597|191717123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% one-sided confidence bound for testing non-inferiority using two proportioned test with a 10% non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Farrington-Manning|||"2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<=-0.1 (inferiority) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm - pc \> -0.1 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group.~2 Level: Ho: pm-pc \<= 0 (not superior) Alternative hypothesis: Ha: pm-pc \>0 Where pm = the proportion of success in the Mobi-C group and the Pc = the proportion of success in the ACDF group."||||<0.0001
95880352|NCT03407625|191717124|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.05|||log binomial regression||||We used generalized estimating equations for the log binomial regression with cluster entered as a random effect.|1.05|0.95|0.86
95880353|NCT00306189|191717153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.76|8.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.24|5.76|<0.0001
95880354|NCT00306189|191717153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.25|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.1|6.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.4|4.1|<0.0001
95880355|NCT00306189|191717153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.06|7.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.49|5.06|<0.0001
95880356|NCT02993757|191717160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.45||||||Antigen HPV-6||1.45|0.664|
95969935|NCT02074553|191912762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|43.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.78|48.53|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||48.53|39.78|
95969936|NCT02074553|191912762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|90.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.12|94.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.49|86.12|
95969937|NCT02074553|191912762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|72.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.48|76.12|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||76.12|69.48|
95880357|NCT02993757|191717160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.804|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.03||||||Antigen HPV-11||1.03|0.626|
95880358|NCT02993757|191717160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.09||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.09|0.608|
95880359|NCT02993757|191717160|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.05||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.05|0.603|
95969938|NCT02074553|191912762|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|69.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.23|72.61|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||72.61|66.23|
95880360|NCT02993757|191717161|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.987|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.7||||||Serotype 1||1.70|0.574|
95880361|NCT02993757|191717161|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.22||||||Serotype 2||1.22|0.500|
95880362|NCT02993757|191717161|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|1.23||||||Serotype 3||1.23|0.568|
95880363|NCT02993757|191717161|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.4||||||Serotype 4||1.40|0.813|
95880364|NCT01637935|191717227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||||95.0|0.92|1.31||||||Fully adjusted refers to inclusion of all potential confounders in the statistical model from the 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder cancer, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and the interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, and year of cohort entry.||1.31|0.92|
95880365|NCT01637935|191717227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||||95.0|0.89|1.26||||||Fully adjusted adding the proteinuria testing variable.||1.26|0.89|
95880366|NCT01637935|191717228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||||95.0|0.71|1.12||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \<4.5 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.12|0.71|
95880367|NCT01637935|191717228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||||95.0|0.93|1.59||||||Time since starting pioglitazone 4.5-8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.59|0.93|
95854018|NCT01462370|191667245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.11||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.20|0.03|0.011
95854019|NCT01462370|191667246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.44||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, patient (sequence), and baseline pain intensity (moderate or severe).||||0.44|0.08|0.004
95854020|NCT01462370|191667247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.87||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||2.87|0.90|0.112
95969939|NCT02074553|191912765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|98.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.25|106.95|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||106.95|91.25|
95969940|NCT02074553|191912765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|91.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.65|99.08|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||99.08|84.65|
95969941|NCT02074553|191912765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.81|79.47|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.47|67.81|
95969942|NCT02074553|191912765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.62|92.13|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||92.13|85.62|
95969943|NCT02074553|191912765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|77.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.99|80.6|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||80.60|74.99|
95969944|NCT02074553|191912765|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.92|79.49|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.49|73.92|
95969945|NCT02074553|191912766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.7|97.84|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||97.84|81.7|
95969946|NCT02074553|191912766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.12|73.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.1|61.12|
95969947|NCT02074553|191912766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|42.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|46.32|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||46.32|38.68|
95969948|NCT02074553|191912766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.21|93.56|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||93.56|84.21|
95854021|NCT01462370|191667248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance = \<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, period, and baseline pain intensity.||||3.45|1.12|0.019
95880368|NCT01637935|191717228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||||95.0|0.83|1.75||||||Time since starting pioglitazone \>8 years vs unexposed group. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.75|0.83|
95880369|NCT01637935|191717229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.68|1.16||||||Duration of therapy \<1.5 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.68|
95880370|NCT01637935|191717229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||||95.0|0.8|1.33||||||Duration of therapy 1.5-4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.33|0.80|
95880371|NCT01637935|191717229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||||95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Duration of therapy \>4 years. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.54|0.87|
95880372|NCT01637935|191717230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.69|1.16||||||Cumulative dose 1-14000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.16|0.69|
95880373|NCT01637935|191717230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.85|1.42||||||Cumulative dose 14001-40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.42|0.85|
95880374|NCT01637935|191717230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||||95.0|0.79|1.44||||||Cumulative dose \>40000 mg. Fully adjusted including all potential confounders in statistical model from 5-year interim report plus year of cohort entry: age, sex, race/ethnicity, other diabetes medications, smoking, other bladder conditions, median household income, congestive heart failure, cancer other than bladder, renal insufficiency, HbA1c and interaction with new diagnosis of diabetes, duration of diabetes, year of cohort entry and proteinuria.||1.44|0.79|
95880375|NCT00381485|191717234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95880376|NCT00381485|191717234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95880377|NCT03281577|191717238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-25.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.757|-9.858||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as covariate.|||-9.858|-41.757|0.0012
95880378|NCT03281577|191717238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-27.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.224|-9.813||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-9.813|-45.224|0.0018
95880379|NCT03281577|191717238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-41.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.616|-23.902||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-23.902|-59.616|<.0001
95880380|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.72||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.364|1.795||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.795|-0.364|0.2590
95852930|NCT02977403|191664907|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.203||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.203|0.027|
95852931|NCT02977403|191664907|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.087||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.087|-0.203|
95852932|NCT02977403|191664908|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.127||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.127|-0.053|
95852933|NCT02977403|191664908|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.069||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.069|-0.240|
95852934|NCT02977403|191664909|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.05||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.050|-0.092|
95852935|NCT02977403|191664909|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.056||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.056|-0.249|
95852936|NCT02977403|191664910|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.069||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.069|-0.095|
95880381|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.27||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|2.418||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||2.418|0.119|0.0280
95880382|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.45||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|1.66||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 4 Hours, Day 2||1.660|-0.757|0.6882
95880383|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.87||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|3.25||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||3.250|0.493|0.0062
95880384|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.19||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.327|2.717||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.717|-0.327|0.1490
95880385|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.63||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.931|2.2||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 24 Hours, Day 2||2.200|-0.931|0.6285
95880386|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.29||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|2.501||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.501|0.073|0.0358
95880387|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|1.33||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|2.621||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||2.621|0.035|0.0430
95880388|NCT03281577|191717239|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.25||||0.9419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.107|1.611||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|Colonic Transit at 48 Hours, Day 2||1.611|-1.107|0.9419
95880389|NCT03281577|191717240|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|33.12||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|65.439||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||65.439|0.799|0.0436
95880390|NCT03281577|191717240|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|57.98||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.555|92.396||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||92.396|23.555|0.0007
95880391|NCT03281577|191717240|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|44.44||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.249|80.629||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||80.629|8.249|0.0134
95880392|NCT03281577|191717241|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-10.27||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.507|0.96||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.960|-21.507|0.0789
95880393|NCT03281577|191717241|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-13.28||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.242|-1.314||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||-1.314|-25.242|0.0270
95880394|NCT03281577|191717241|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|-11.63||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.206|0.952||Dunnett's test was used to compare each treatment arm to placebo. Multiplicity Adjusted p-value and 95% CI are presented.|ANCOVA||Linear mixed effects model used for analyses using gastroparesis type \[diabetic or idiopathic\], age, gender, BMI, baseline as a covariate.|||0.952|-24.206|0.0750
95969949|NCT02074553|191912766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.99|79.86|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.86|71.99|
95969950|NCT02074553|191912766|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|73.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.53|77.19|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||77.19|69.53|
95969951|NCT02074553|191912767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|97.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|105.21|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||105.21|89.85|
95880395|NCT00745823|191717253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-0.83|-10.7|0.044
95880396|NCT00745823|191717254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 800 mg q.d. dosage was considered non-inferior to 400 mg b.i.d. if the lower bound of the 2-sided exact 95% CI for difference in response rate remained above -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|-1.06|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||-1.06|-9.29|0.011
95880397|NCT00745823|191717255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||4.6|-5.0|
95969952|NCT02074553|191912767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|87.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.59|94.26|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||94.26|80.59|
95880398|NCT00745823|191717256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-1.3|
95880399|NCT00745823|191717257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|34.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||34.40|-7.29|
95969953|NCT02074553|191912767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|67.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.71|73.43|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||73.43|62.71|
95880400|NCT02955602|191717274|OTHER||||||=|0.2242|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 5 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment.||||= 0.2242
95880401|NCT02955602|191717274|OTHER||||||=|0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 2 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0021
95969954|NCT02074553|191912767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|88.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.06|91.63|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||91.63|85.06|
95880402|NCT02955602|191717274|OTHER||||||=|0.0024|||||||ANCOVA|||The analyses will assess the change from baseline in each treatment group and will assess the hypothesis that there are no differences in the percent change in ALP serum level between seladelpar 5 mg and 10 mg treatment groups after 8 weeks of treatment||||= 0.0024
95880403|NCT01001377|191717381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Cox proportional hazard ratio|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.113|||||Hazard ratio is presented as panitumumab : cetuximab. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for panitumumab relative to cetuximab.|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).||1.113|0.839|
95880404|NCT01001377|191717381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The overall survival non-inferiority hypothesis based on an asymptotic normal score was tested at a 1-sided 2.5% significance level. A value \< -1.96 indicates non-inferiority at a significance level of 1-sided 0.025.|Normal score|-3.19||||0.0007||||||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic|Asymptotic standard normal test|||A synthesis approach with an asymptotic standard normal test statistic based on the logarithm of the hazard ratio was used to test the hypothesis that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab for overall survival (ie, that panitumumab retains at least 50% of the overall survival benefit of cetuximab relative to best supportive care).||||0.0007
95880405|NCT01001377|191717383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||||Common treatment odds ratio stratified by geographic region (North America, western Europe and Australia vs rest of world) and ECOG performance status (0 or 1 vs 2).|||1.58|0.83|
95880406|NCT01001377|191717387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.0605|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||0.0605|-0.0353|
95880407|NCT01001377|191717388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6745|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9331|1.5841|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||1.5841|-4.9331|
95880408|NCT01001377|191717389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3267|4.401|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.4010|-2.3267|
95880409|NCT01001377|191717390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5836|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0269|4.1941|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||4.1941|-3.0269|
95880410|NCT01001377|191717391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0093|5.6098|||||A positive difference between the treatment groups favors the panitumumab group.|Repeated measures mixed model includes treatment, geographic region, ECOG score, assessment week, and treatment by assessment week interaction as fixed effects, and subjects a random effect. An unstructured covariance matrix is used in the mixed model.||5.6098|-6.0093|
95880411|NCT00964860|191717394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%. Units on the MGI Scale.|||||0.001
95880412|NCT00964860|191717395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|ANCOVA||All treatment comparisons were 1-sided with the significance level set at 5%|||||0.004
95880413|NCT03716024|191717396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|26.0|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.0|1.3|
95880414|NCT03716024|191717397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.4|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||11.4|-1.7|
95880415|NCT03716024|191717398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.7|||||omadacycline minus linezolid|||26.7|0.9|
95880416|NCT03716024|191717399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.0||||||||14.0|-5.3|
95880417|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.48, partial n2=0.061, observed power=0.639||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Total Score on PCITS at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||=0.03
95880418|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.03
95880419|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534||||||Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Parent Total Scores||||0.534
95880420|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.145, partial n2=0.056, observed power=0.593.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.047
95880421|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.056
95880422|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Cognitive Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.267
95852937|NCT02977403|191664910|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|0.071||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.071|-0.227|
95854022|NCT03279081|191667351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|2.37|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|10.55||P-value was based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for interactive web response system (IWRS) randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals (CI) are displayed.|||10.55|-5.82|=0.571
95969955|NCT02074553|191912767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|76.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.03|79.65|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||79.65|74.03|
95969956|NCT02074553|191912767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the test formulation was concluded if its 90% CI was included in the bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.7|78.27|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA (fixed factors: treatment, period, and treatment sequence; and random factor: participant) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratio (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||78.27|72.70|
95969957|NCT00911937|191912807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.08|-0.37|0.0030
95880423|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=3.440, partial n2=0.060, observed power=0.634||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Socio-Emotional Growth Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.036
95880424|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||0.036
95880425|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons used|ANCOVA|||Pairwise Group Comparison based on estimated marginal means - Socio-Emotional Growth Fostering Subscale||||1.00
95880426|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.409||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Sensitivity to Cues Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.665
95880427|NCT01056653|191717400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.732|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.313||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Response to Distress Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.732
95880428|NCT01056653|191717401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.49||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Parent Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.61
95880429|NCT01056653|191717401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,107)=0.96||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of Child Domain scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.38
95880430|NCT01056653|191717402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.24.||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Evaluation Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.11
95880431|NCT01056653|191717402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.686|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=0.379||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Centrality Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.686
95880432|NCT01056653|191717402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,106)=2.158||ANCOVA - Group Comparison of WPL-R scores - Life Change Subscale scores at 8 months, controlling for scores at baseline (4 months). Group entered as fixed factor, outcome scores as dependent variable, and baseline scores as covariate.||||0.121
95969958|NCT00911937|191912808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.27|0.0772
95880433|NCT02585960|191717403|SUPERIORITY||Gaussian Statistic estimate|1.96||||0.0545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|3.958|||Chi-squared||Approximately Gaussian Statistic is obtained by taking the square root of the Chi-squared test with continuity adjustment.|The proportion of participants with an ABR of 0 during the second 6-month period on BAX 855 prophylaxis, was compared between the 2 prophylaxis arms using a chi-square test with continuity correction at a 2-sided 5% level of significance.||3.958|-0.038|0.0545
95969959|NCT00911937|191912809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0001
95969960|NCT00911937|191912811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0827
95880434|NCT04377620|191717477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.201|1.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.028|0.201|0.0292
95880435|NCT04377620|191717477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|1.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|logistic regression mixed model includes treatment group and ARDS severity as fixed covariates and investigational site as a random effect.||||1.023|0.171|0.0280
95880436|NCT02527161|191717490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95880437|NCT02527161|191717491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Pain||||<0.0001
95880438|NCT02527161|191717491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Pain||||0.0013
95880439|NCT02527161|191717491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3316|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Pain||||0.3316
95880440|NCT02527161|191717491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3366|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Pain||||0.3366
95880441|NCT02527161|191717491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9826|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Pain||||0.9826
95880442|NCT02527161|191717491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9276|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Pain||||0.9276
95880443|NCT02527161|191717492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS Symptoms||||<0.0001
95880444|NCT02527161|191717492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0736|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.0736
95969961|NCT00911937|191912811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.04||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.04|-0.33|0.0112
95880445|NCT02527161|191717492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4675|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS Symptoms||||0.4675
95880446|NCT02527161|191717492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.0229
95880447|NCT02527161|191717492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9968|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.9968
95880448|NCT02527161|191717492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7761|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS Symptoms||||0.7761
95880449|NCT02527161|191717493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS ADL||||<0.0001
95880450|NCT02527161|191717493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS ADL||||0.0212
95880451|NCT02527161|191717493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7173|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS ADL||||0.7173
95880452|NCT02527161|191717493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1834|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.1834
95880453|NCT02527161|191717493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9957|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS ADL||||0.9957
95880454|NCT02527161|191717493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS ADL||||0.9999
95880455|NCT02527161|191717494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS S\&R||||<0.0001
95880456|NCT02527161|191717494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0522|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS S\&R||||0.0522
95880457|NCT02527161|191717494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1696|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS S\&R||||0.1696
95880458|NCT02527161|191717494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6942|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS S\&R||||0.6942
95880459|NCT02527161|191717494|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
95880460|NCT02527161|191717494|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS S\&R||||>0.9999
95880461|NCT02527161|191717495|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KOOS QoL||||<0.0001
95880462|NCT02527161|191717495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0135|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months KOOS QoL||||0.0135
95880463|NCT02527161|191717495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KOOS QoL||||0.0829
95880464|NCT02527161|191717495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1729|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KOOS QoL||||0.1729
95880465|NCT02527161|191717495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9687|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KOOS QoL||||0.9687
95880466|NCT02527161|191717495|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KOOS QoL||||>0.9999
95880467|NCT02527161|191717496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
95880468|NCT02527161|191717496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 PCS||||<0.0001
95880469|NCT02527161|191717496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8189|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 PCS||||0.8189
95880470|NCT02527161|191717496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9845|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 PCS||||0.9845
95880471|NCT02527161|191717496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 PCS||||0.7500
95969962|NCT00911937|191912812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0023
95969963|NCT00911937|191912814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-0.74|0.0026
95969964|NCT00911937|191912814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.22||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.22|-0.90|0.0014
95852938|NCT02977403|191664911|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.092||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.092|-0.103|
95852939|NCT02977403|191664911|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.173|0.11||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.110|-0.173|
95852940|NCT02977403|191664912|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.109||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.109|-0.069|
95852941|NCT02977403|191664912|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.088|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|0.077||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.077|-0.252|
95852942|NCT02977403|191664913|OTHER|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.08||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.080|-0.099|
95852943|NCT02977403|191664913|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.155|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|-0.017||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.017|-0.294|
95852944|NCT02977403|191664914|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.095||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.095|-0.069|
95880472|NCT02527161|191717496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 PCS||||0.1376
95880473|NCT02527161|191717497|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 week VAS Rest||||<0.0001
95880474|NCT02527161|191717497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Rest||||0.0031
95880475|NCT02527161|191717497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Rest||||0.2990
95880476|NCT02527161|191717497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9832|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Rest||||0.9832
95880477|NCT02527161|191717497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9991|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Rest||||0.9991
95880478|NCT02527161|191717497|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Rest||||>0.9999
95880479|NCT02527161|191717498|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks VAS Mob||||<0.0001
95880480|NCT02527161|191717498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months VAS Mob||||0.0062
95880481|NCT02527161|191717498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months VAS Mob||||0.3730
95880482|NCT02527161|191717498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8499|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year VAS Mob||||0.8499
95880483|NCT02527161|191717498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year VAS Mob||||>0.9999
95880484|NCT02527161|191717498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9958|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year VAS Mob||||0.9958
95880485|NCT02527161|191717499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3493|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks SF-12 MCS||||0.3493
95880486|NCT02527161|191717499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 weeks to 3 months SF-12 MCS||||0.4800
95880487|NCT02527161|191717499|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
95880488|NCT02527161|191717499|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
95880489|NCT02527161|191717499|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
95880490|NCT02527161|191717499|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year SF-12 MCS||||>0.9999
95880491|NCT02527161|191717500|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 6 weeks KSS Pain||||<0.0001
95880492|NCT02527161|191717500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9465|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Pain||||0.9465
95880493|NCT02527161|191717500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Pain||||0.1215
95880494|NCT02527161|191717500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Pain||||0.9912
95880495|NCT02527161|191717500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8952|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Pain||||0.8952
95880496|NCT02527161|191717501|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Function||||<0.0001
95880497|NCT02527161|191717501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Function||||0.0266
95880498|NCT02527161|191717501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Function||||0.9880
95880499|NCT02527161|191717501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9699|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 years KSS Function||||0.9699
95880500|NCT02527161|191717501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8575|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 years KSS Function||||0.8575
95880501|NCT02527161|191717502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||Change from preoperative to 3 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.8581
95880502|NCT02527161|191717502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7664|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 3 months to 6 months KSS Range of Motion||||0.7664
95880503|NCT02527161|191717502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7022|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 6 months to 1 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.7022
95880504|NCT02527161|191717502|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year KSS Range of Motion||||>0.9999
95880505|NCT02527161|191717502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2943|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year KSS Range of Motion||||0.2943
95880506|NCT02527161|191717503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0161|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 1 year to 2 year Forgotten Joint Score||||0.0161
95880507|NCT02527161|191717503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Change from 2 year to 5 year Forgotten Joint Score||||<0.0001
95880508|NCT02849678|191717505|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.148|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.148
95880509|NCT02849678|191717507|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.636|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.636
95880510|NCT02849678|191717509|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.193||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
95880511|NCT02849678|191717509|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.635||||||Hydromorphone consumption (mg) in PACU versus at 24 hours versus 48 hours|ANOVA|||||||0.635
95880512|NCT02849678|191717510|NON_INFERIORITY|A total sample size of 64 subjects (32 patients in each arm) is required to detect a difference of 0.5 SD, using an alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. After enrollment of 47 patients, we decided to complete the present interim analysis, and the study was then interrupted due to equivalence in results between the two groups.||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA|Local Anesthetic Consumption through para-vertebral catheters in PACU vs. at 24 hours vs. 48 hours||||||0.063
95880513|NCT01517711|191717539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.286||||||P value is for overall post-randomization CAPS score|ANOVA|||Women were excluded from analysis because of the small sample size and unequal distribution across groups.||||0.286
95880514|NCT01517711|191717540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.10
95880515|NCT01517711|191717541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis is for sleep only (men)||||=0.03
95880516|NCT02340975|191717549|OTHER|Comparison|Mean Difference (Net)|11.1||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Fisher Exact|||||23.0|-0.7|0.2376
95880517|NCT02340975|191717549|OTHER|Comparison|Median Difference (Net)|2.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|22.4|||Fisher Exact|||||22.4|-16.8|1.0000
95880518|NCT01786668|191717575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.3|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||30.3|5.0|
95880519|NCT01786668|191717575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|37.7|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||37.7|8.4|
95880520|NCT01786668|191717575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|43.4|||Emax Model|||Emax model - 95% Confidence Interval represents 95% Credible Interval||43.4|10.7|
95880521|NCT01786668|191717576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||29.90|-8.41|0.271
95880522|NCT01786668|191717576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.35|56.83|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||56.83|22.35|<0.001
95880523|NCT01786668|191717576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.74||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|33.69|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||||33.69|-4.50|0.134
95880524|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||31.04|-5.17|0.162
95880525|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||22.92|-12.44|0.561
95880526|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||24.97|-10.65|0.430
95880527|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
95880528|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|41.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||41.13|3.74|0.019
95880529|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.57||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|33.5|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.50|-4.01|0.123
95880530|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|33.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.66|-4.55|0.135
95880531|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|46.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||46.36|9.68|0.003
95880532|NCT01786668|191717577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.79||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|29.9|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||29.90|-8.48|0.274
95880533|NCT01786668|191717578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-3.11|0.427
95880534|NCT01786668|191717578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-4.58|0.039
95880535|NCT01786668|191717578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.131||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-4.97|0.016
95880536|NCT01786668|191717579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.517||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-5.99|0.050
95880537|NCT01786668|191717579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|-2.42|||ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-8.42|<0.001
95880538|NCT01786668|191717579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|-3.46|||ANCOVA|||||-3.46|-9.48|<0.001
95880539|NCT01786668|191717580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-1.66|0.221
95880540|NCT01786668|191717580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||||-0.78|-2.83|<0.001
95880541|NCT01786668|191717580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.523||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-2.75|0.001
95880542|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
95880543|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
95880544|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|15.95|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||15.95|-12.71|0.824
95880545|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|29.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||29.01|-2.69|0.104
95880546|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|33.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||33.20|0.81|0.040
95880547|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||20.40|-9.46|0.473
95880548|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.86||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|18.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||18.76|-15.97|0.875
95880549|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
95852945|NCT02977403|191664914|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.047||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.047|-0.216|
95852946|NCT02977403|191664915|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.041||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.041|-0.123|
95852947|NCT02977403|191664915|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.021||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.021|-0.213|
95852948|NCT02977403|191664916|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.142|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.142|
95852949|NCT02977403|191664916|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.097||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.097|-0.290|
95852950|NCT02977403|191664917|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.059||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.059|-0.105|
95852951|NCT02977403|191664917|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.029||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.029|-0.277|
95854023|NCT03279081|191667352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|2.72|||=|0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|10.9||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||10.90|-5.47|=0.515
95852952|NCT02977403|191664918|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.057|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.027||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.027|-0.140|
95852953|NCT02977403|191664918|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.161|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|-0.02||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.020|-0.302|
95852954|NCT02977403|191664919|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.0002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.091|
95852955|NCT02977403|191664919|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.149||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.149|-0.157|
95852956|NCT02977403|191664920|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.071||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.071|-0.092|
95852957|NCT02977403|191664920|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.183||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.183|-0.126|
95854024|NCT03279081|191667353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.374
95854025|NCT03279081|191667354|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Combined Remission Rate|1.27|||=|0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|9.31||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.31|-6.77|=0.757
95880550|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|27.01|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.01|-8.84|0.320
95880551|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.99|5.41|0.010
95852958|NCT02977403|191664921|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.076||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.076|-0.101|
95852959|NCT02977403|191664921|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.06||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.060|-0.273|
95854026|NCT03279081|191667355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Remission Rate|1.6|||=|0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|9.66||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||9.66|-6.46|=0.697
95854027|NCT03279081|191667356|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|3.23|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|11.21||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.21|-4.76|=0.428
95854028|NCT03279081|191667357|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Clinical Response Rate|2.84|||=|0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|11.03||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||11.03|-5.35|=0.497
95880552|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.16|43.93|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||43.93|9.16|0.003
95880553|NCT01786668|191717581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|35.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||35.99|1.72|0.031
95880554|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|28.86|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||28.86|1.61|0.028
95880555|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||17.47|-6.23|0.353
95880556|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|26.64|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.64|-0.02|0.050
95880557|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|24.39|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||24.39|-1.62|0.086
95880558|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.37|37.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||37.48|8.37|0.002
95880559|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|35.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||35.36|6.65|0.004
95880560|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|25.13|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||25.13|-2.43|0.106
95880561|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.79|48.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.22|16.79|<0.001
95880562|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|33.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.81|4.27|0.012
95880563|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|18.19|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||18.19|-11.10|0.635
95880564|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.45|51.18|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||51.18|17.45|<0.001
95880565|NCT01786668|191717582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|39.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||39.34|6.21|0.007
95880566|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.08|-0.46|0.175
95969965|NCT00911937|191912815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0016
95969966|NCT00911937|191912815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0004
95969967|NCT00911937|191912817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0072
95969968|NCT00911937|191912817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0009
95969969|NCT00911937|191912818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0041
95969970|NCT00911937|191912818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|Ranked ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95880567|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.24|-0.77|<0.001
95880568|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||-0.20|-0.74|<0.001
95880569|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.15|-0.70|0.003
95880570|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.34|-0.90|<0.001
95880571|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.31|-0.86|<0.001
95880572|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.04|-0.66|0.026
95880573|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.32|-0.94|<0.001
95880574|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.27|-0.90|<0.001
95880575|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.21|-0.89|0.002
95969971|NCT00911937|191912820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.19||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.19|-0.47|0.3954
95969972|NCT00911937|191912820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.11|-0.48|0.2166
95969973|NCT00911937|191912823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||0.08|-0.85|0.1018
95969974|NCT00911937|191912823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.25||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.25|-1.20|0.0027
95969975|NCT00911937|191912825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.33||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-0.33|-2.79|0.0131
95969976|NCT00911937|191912825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|-1.08||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.08|-3.78|0.0004
95969977|NCT00911937|191912827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|15.46||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||15.46|-12.82|0.8547
95969978|NCT00911937|191912829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.8396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|7.44||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||7.44|-9.14|0.8396
95880576|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.39|-1.07|<0.001
95880577|NCT01786668|191717583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.35|-1.03|<0.001
95880578|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|26.89|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||26.89|-4.41|0.159
95880579|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.54|49.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||49.24|15.54|<0.001
95880580|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.04|41.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||41.36|8.04|0.004
95880581|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.41|39.99|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||39.99|5.41|0.010
95880582|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.79|55.38|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||55.38|20.79|<0.001
95880583|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|49.73|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||49.73|14.90|<0.001
95880584|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.39||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|33.22|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||33.22|-3.58|0.114
95880585|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
95880586|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.92|48.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||48.49|11.92|0.001
95880587|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.18|42.76|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||42.76|6.18|0.009
95880588|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.09|53.94|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||53.94|18.09|<0.001
95880589|NCT01786668|191717584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.09|46.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||46.55|10.09|0.002
95880590|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
95880591|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
95969979|NCT00911937|191912831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-1.89||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||-1.89|-6.84|0.0006
95969980|NCT00911937|191912833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|6.05||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.05|0.79|0.0110
95880592|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||13.91|-2.45|0.170
95880593|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
95880594|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|16.48|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||16.48|-5.17|0.306
95880595|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|21.24|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||21.24|-2.24|0.113
95880596|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|13.65|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||13.65|-10.18|0.775
95880597|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.43||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|31.68|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.68|2.56|0.021
95880598|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|27.34|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||27.34|-0.79|0.064
95880599|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|21.36|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||21.36|-6.42|0.292
95880600|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|25.78|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||25.78|-3.16|0.125
95880601|NCT01786668|191717585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|27.96|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||27.96|-1.49|0.078
95880602|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
95880603|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
95880604|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|5.66|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||5.66|-1.81|0.313
95880605|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||5.29|-5.37|0.989
95880606|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||11.20|-3.58|0.313
95880607|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|13.91|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||13.91|-2.45|0.170
95880608|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.2|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||11.20|-3.58|0.313
95880609|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|5.29|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||5.29|-5.37|0.989
95880610|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.53||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|16.52|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||16.52|-1.22|0.091
95880611|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
95880612|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|17.47|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||17.47|-6.23|0.353
95880613|NCT01786668|191717586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.26||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|19.81|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||19.81|-4.73|0.228
95880614|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.58|-0.64|0.926
95880615|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.50|-0.72|0.718
95880616|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.79|-0.43|0.570
95880617|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.38|-0.97|0.384
95880618|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.341||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.34|-1.00|0.334
95880619|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.43|-0.92|0.474
95880620|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.46|-1.04|0.445
95880621|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.23|-1.27|0.174
95880622|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.28|-1.23|0.217
95880623|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.12|-1.69|0.024
95880624|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.396||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.24|-1.81|0.010
95880625|NCT01786668|191717587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.399||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.04|-1.62|0.038
95880626|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|9.08|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||9.08|-17.38|0.539
95880627|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.62||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|20.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||20.40|-9.46|0.473
95880628|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|11.4|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 2||11.40|-15.85|0.749
95880629|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
95880630|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.57|17.59|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||17.59|-14.57|0.854
95880631|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|23.98|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 4||23.98|-9.43|0.393
95880632|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|24.97|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||24.97|-10.65|0.430
95880633|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.44|22.92|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||22.92|-12.44|0.561
95880634|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|31.04|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 8||31.04|-5.17|0.162
95969981|NCT00911937|191912833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.79||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.79|0.50|0.0200
95969982|NCT00911937|191912833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.45||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||6.45|0.51|0.0218
95969983|NCT00911937|191912833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.68||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||3.68|0.03|0.0458
95969984|NCT00911937|191912833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.32||Statistical testing, two-sided, was done at alpha = 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: Total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.||5.32|0.72|0.0100
95969985|NCT00700427|191912834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95969986|NCT00700427|191912836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95969987|NCT00700427|191912837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95969988|NCT00700427|191912837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95880635|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.11||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.76|40.49|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||40.49|4.76|0.013
95880636|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
95880637|NCT01786668|191717588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|36.55|||Normal approximation for two proportions|||Week 12||36.55|1.01|0.038
95880638|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.16|-0.92|0.164
95880639|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.95|0.129
95969989|NCT00700427|191912837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95969990|NCT00700427|191912837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95969991|NCT00700427|191912838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Imputed (Attributed) Index Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95969992|NCT00700427|191912838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity/Impulsivity Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95969993|NCT00700427|191912838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Inattention Subscale Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95969994|NCT00700427|191912838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Total ADHD Symptom Imputed Score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95969995|NCT00700427|191912839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95969996|NCT00700427|191912840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95969997|NCT03535597|191912853|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.89|0.906
95969998|NCT03535597|191912853|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.53|||Chi-squared|||||1.53|1.09|0.002
95969999|NCT03535597|191912853|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.86|0.613
95880640|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.42|-0.66|0.660
95880641|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.25|-0.92|0.256
95880642|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.00|-1.17|0.048
95880643|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.29|-0.88|0.318
95970000|NCT03535597|191912854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-98.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95970001|NCT03535597|191912854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-120.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
95970002|NCT03535597|191912854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-94.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
95970003|NCT03535597|191912855|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.57|||Fisher Exact|||||2.57|0.23|0.744
95970004|NCT03535597|191912855|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||Fisher Exact|||||3.41|0.31|>0.999
95970005|NCT03535597|191912855|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.46|||Fisher Exact|||||2.46|0.18|0.724
95970006|NCT03535597|191912856|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.44||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.76|||Fisher Exact|||||3.76|0.56|0.594
95970007|NCT03535597|191912856|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.26|||Fisher Exact|||||3.26|0.37|>0.999
95970008|NCT03535597|191912856|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.88|||Fisher Exact|||||3.88|0.55|0.581
95970009|NCT03535597|191912857|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|5.22|||Fisher Exact|||||5.22|0.71|0.284
95970010|NCT03535597|191912857|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.9|||Fisher Exact|||||5.9|0.75|0.243
95970011|NCT03535597|191912857|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.01||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.54|||Fisher Exact|||||5.54|0.74|0.266
95970012|NCT03484273|191912858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measures ANOVA||Repeated Measured ANOVA was used to compare the 4 compression garment configurations.||||<0.001
95970013|NCT03484273|191912859|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95880644|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.47|-0.92|0.522
95880645|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.00|-1.38|0.050
95970014|NCT03484273|191912860|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95970015|NCT03484273|191912861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.01
95970016|NCT03484273|191912862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95970017|NCT03484273|191912863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.001
95970018|NCT03484273|191912864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||||0.04
95970019|NCT04075994|191912866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Proportion of days covered assessed as a continuous measure (range 0-1) at 12 months between study arms adjusted for trial stratification factors (type of anticoagulant treatment). We determined that a sample size of 120 in the intervention group and 120 in the control group enables us to detect a minimum difference in PDC as small as 12.6% with 90% power. Power calculations assume use of 2-sided tests with 0.05 significance level.||||0.22
95970020|NCT03097484|191912872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95970021|NCT03097484|191912873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0.05 is the calculated p-value (not the threshold for statistical significance)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95970022|NCT01247285|191912874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|107.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.37|119.38|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||119.38|97.37|
95970023|NCT01247285|191912875|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.9|109.14|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.14|92.90|
95970024|NCT01247285|191912876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.53|108.56|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.56|93.53|
95970025|NCT01247285|191912877|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.53|111.64|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.64|98.53|
95970026|NCT01247285|191912878|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|111.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||111.56|99.97|
95970027|NCT01247285|191912879|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.76|107.77|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.77|94.76|
95970028|NCT00291642|191912881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|-2.09|||ANCOVA|||||-2.09|-4.61|<0.001
95970029|NCT00291642|191912881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2.00|-4.50|<0.001
95970030|NCT00291642|191912881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-5.38|<0.001
95880646|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.36|-1.03|0.337
95970031|NCT00291642|191912881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.637|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.49|||ANCOVA|||||-2.49|-4.99|<0.001
95970032|NCT01472549|191912928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.9|||Chi-squared|||||0.90|0.34|0.02
95970033|NCT01472549|191912929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95970034|NCT01472549|191912930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Chi-squared|||||1.37|0.43|0.37
95970035|NCT01472549|191912931|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Chi-squared|||||1.80|0.30|0.49
95970036|NCT01472549|191912932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95970037|NCT01472549|191912933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.02||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.11|||Fisher Exact|||||22.11|0.18|0.56
95970038|NCT02327351|191912936|SUPERIORITY||survival distribution function|86.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|94.0|||Gray test|||||94|79|0.95
95970039|NCT02327351|191912942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
95970040|NCT04602221|191912943|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.339|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8242||0.9296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.975|7.297|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||7.297|-7.975|0.9296
95970041|NCT04602221|191912943|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|4.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8224||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.631|11.634|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||11.634|-3.631|0.2990
95970042|NCT04602221|191912943|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6608||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.565|6.05|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the primary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||6.050|-8.565|0.7322
95970043|NCT04602221|191912944|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.347|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.563||0.8249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|3.471|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||3.471|-2.776|0.8249
95970044|NCT04602221|191912944|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5889||0.4973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.091|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||2.091|-4.260|0.4973
95970045|NCT04602221|191912944|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-2.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5266||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.909|0.192|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.192|-5.909|0.0658
95970046|NCT04602221|191912945|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0106|0.0213|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0213|-0.0106|0.5081
95970047|NCT04602221|191912945|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00798||0.4723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0102|0.0217|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0217|-0.0102|0.4723
95970048|NCT04602221|191912945|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.0333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00767|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.0486|||ANCOVA||The difference was calculated as treatment group minus placebo group.|A linear mixed effects model, i.e. analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for analysis of the secondary endpoint. This model included effects for sequence, subject within sequence, period, baseline values (pre-ketamine baseline and on-ketamine baseline) and treatment. The effect 'subject within sequence' were considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||0.0486|0.0180|< .0001
95970049|NCT03001076|191912946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-28.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.376|-22.531|||ANCOVA|||||-22.531|-34.376|<0.001
95970050|NCT03001076|191912947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.005|-18.121|||ANCOVA|||||-18.121|-29.005|<0.001
95970051|NCT03001076|191912948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-17.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.94|-14.03|||ANCOVA|||||-14.030|-21.940|<0.001
95880647|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.27|-1.20|0.214
95880648|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.22|-1.69|0.011
95880649|NCT01786668|191717589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.375||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-1.55|0.031
95880650|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.21|-0.21|0.982
95970052|NCT03001076|191912949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-19.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.341|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.908|-14.732|||ANCOVA|||||-14.732|-23.908|<0.001
95970053|NCT03001076|191912950|SUPERIORITY||Location shift|-31.045|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.761|-17.401|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test||The location shift and asymptotic 95% confidence interval are based on Hodges-Lehman estimation.|||-17.401|-44.761|<0.001
95970054|NCT03001076|191912951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|=|0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.877|5.812|||ANCOVA|||||5.812|-14.877|=0.388
95970055|NCT03001076|191912952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.845|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.528|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.250|-9.528|=0.002
95970056|NCT03001076|191912954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-31.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.498|-26.682|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-26.682|-35.498|<0.001
95970057|NCT03001076|191912954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-29.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.074|-24.168|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-24.168|-34.074|<0.001
95970058|NCT03001076|191912955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.004|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.204|-21.308|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-21.308|-29.204|<0.001
95970059|NCT03001076|191912955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-23.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.219|-19.276|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-19.276|-28.219|<0.001
95970060|NCT03001076|191912956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.513|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.39|-17.43|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-17.430|-23.390|<0.001
95970061|NCT03001076|191912956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-18.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.651|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.71|-15.206|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-15.206|-21.710|<0.001
95970062|NCT03001076|191912957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|=|0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.663|9.059|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||9.059|-10.663|=0.873
95970063|NCT03001076|191912957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.131|=|0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.215|10.055|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||10.055|-10.215|=0.988
95970064|NCT03001076|191912958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.619|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.778|-5.394|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||-5.394|-11.778|<0.001
95970065|NCT03001076|191912958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.712|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.798|-3.049|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||-3.049|-9.798|<0.001
95970066|NCT02576587|191912960|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and AHI on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0|||Conditional logistic regression|||||1.00|0.97|0.054
95970067|NCT02576587|191912960|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.03|||Conditional logistic regression|N = 270 (135 cases and 135 controls)||||1.03|1.00|0.014
95970068|NCT02576587|191912960|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA volume index on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.06|||Conditional logistic regression|N=268 (134 cases and 134 controls)||||1.06|1.00|0.030
95970069|NCT02576587|191912960|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical four-chamber (A4C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||Conditional logistic regression|N=214 (107 cases and 107 controls)||||1.01|0.96|0.39
95970070|NCT02576587|191912960|OTHER|Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship of PAF and LA systolic strain apical two-chamber (A2C) on matched pairs of case and control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02|||Conditional logistic regression|N=212 (106 cases and 106 controls)||||1.02|0.97|0.49
95970071|NCT02576587|191912961|OTHER||median of change|3.4||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|||Inter-Quartile Range of the change (post minus pre) is (-7.0, 13.7).|||0.16
95970072|NCT02576587|191912962|OTHER||median of change|1.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-2.0, 6.0).|||||0.088
95880651|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.06|-0.36|0.151
95880652|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.07|-0.34|0.205
95880653|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.22|-0.25|0.898
95880654|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.13|-0.34|0.370
95880655|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.11|-0.36|0.288
95880656|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.11|-0.42|0.242
95880657|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.06|-0.48|0.120
95880658|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||-0.03|-0.56|0.031
95880659|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.14|-0.48|0.280
95880660|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.05|-0.57|0.099
95880661|NCT01786668|191717590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.08|-0.70|0.014
95880662|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.387||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.71|-0.81|0.895
95880663|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.07|-1.59|0.033
95970073|NCT02576587|191912963|OTHER||median of change|-3.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-8.0, -0.57).|||||0.006
95970074|NCT02576587|191912964|OTHER||median of change|-0.7||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.|Inter-quartile range of the change (post minus pre) is (-6.2, 10.7).|||||0.59
95970075|NCT02576587|191912965|OTHER||mean of change|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
95970076|NCT02576587|191912966|OTHER||mean of change|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test was used to compare pre- and post- treatment outcomes.||||||0.65
95970077|NCT01056718|191913053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of treatment. Each subject served as his/her own control.||||<0.05
95970078|NCT01056718|191913054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95970079|NCT01056718|191913055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95970080|NCT01056718|191913056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.078
95880664|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.388||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||-0.02|-1.55|0.044
95880665|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.55|-1.07|0.530
95880666|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.16|-1.46|0.114
95880667|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.38|-1.25|0.297
95880668|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.40|-1.06|0.377
95880669|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.31|-1.77|0.006
95880670|NCT01786668|191717591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.373||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||-0.17|-1.64|0.017
95880671|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.71|-0.92|0.800
95880672|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||1.47|-0.16|0.113
95880673|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.414||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.05|-1.59|0.064
95880674|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4||0.71|-0.74|0.972
95970081|NCT01056718|191913057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.186|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.186
95970082|NCT01056718|191913058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95880675|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.368||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||1.01|-0.44|0.440
95880676|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.369||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.35|-1.10|0.311
95880677|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.82|-1.66|0.501
95880678|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.629||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.86|-1.63|0.543
95880679|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.57|-1.93|0.287
95880680|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.519||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.14|-0.91|0.820
95970083|NCT01056718|191913059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95880681|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||1.22|-0.83|0.711
95880682|NCT01786668|191717593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.524||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.61|-1.45|0.424
95880683|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.46|-0.34|0.785
95880684|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.51|-0.30|0.605
95880685|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||0.12|-0.68|0.175
95880686|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.62|-0.29|0.482
95880687|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.70|0.288
95880688|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||0.21|-0.71|0.278
95880689|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.88|-0.12|0.134
95880690|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.72|-0.29|0.397
95880691|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||0.52|-0.50|0.964
95880692|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.91|-0.15|0.155
95880693|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.72|-0.34|0.491
95970084|NCT01056718|191913060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.06
95880694|NCT01786668|191717594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||0.36|-0.71|0.515
95880695|NCT01786668|191717595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|6.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.24|1.06|0.006
95880696|NCT01786668|191717595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.305||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.37|1.23|0.004
95880697|NCT01786668|191717595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Physical Health Score||6.98|1.74|0.001
95880698|NCT01786668|191717595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.857||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.33|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||3.33|-4.00|0.857
95880699|NCT01786668|191717595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|5.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.37|-1.91|0.350
95880700|NCT01786668|191717595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.876||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||Mental Health Score||5.00|-2.40|0.490
95880701|NCT01786668|191717596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.17|-0.02|0.125
95880702|NCT01786668|191717596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.16|-0.03|0.207
95880703|NCT01786668|191717596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes fixed effects for treatment group and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.22|0.03|0.013
95880704|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||4.15|-0.71|0.163
95880705|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.50|-2.36|0.955
95880706|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.237||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 2||2.71|-2.17|0.826
95880707|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||4.14|-1.07|0.246
95880708|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.318||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||3.56|-1.64|0.467
95880709|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 4||2.70|-2.53|0.948
95880710|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.61|-1.23|0.255
95880711|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.87|-0.96|0.187
95880712|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.497||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 8||4.29|-1.62|0.373
95880713|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||4.90|-1.58|0.313
95880714|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.642||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.19|0.71|0.017
95880715|NCT01786668|191717597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Includes fixed effects of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by-visit interaction and baseline value, using an unstructured covariance matrix||Week 12||7.78|1.23|0.007
95909073|NCT01212770|191776109|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.4||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|21.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.8|-9.1|0.4370
95909074|NCT01212770|191776110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.4||||0.9463|TWO_SIDED|195.0|-12.1|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||11.3|-12.1|0.9463
95909075|NCT01212770|191776110|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-7.7||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||3.8|-19.3|0.2032
95909076|NCT01212770|191776111|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.8||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|25.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.4|-5.8|0.2321
95880716|NCT00329238|191717603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.0137||95.0|0.78|2.64||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was chosen to be 2.85.|Regression, Cox|HR within cohort estimated by Cox regr. with treatment and baseline stratific. factor. Overall HR calc. by pooling with inverse variance weighting.|HR for time to first recurrent VTE or VTE death.|||2.64|0.78|0.0137
95880717|NCT00329238|191717603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2424||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio was then compared with 1 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.2424
95880718|NCT00329238|191717604|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using a Cox regression analysis with treatment and baseline stratification factor in the model.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|1.25||p-value for non-inferiority. The non-inferiority margin for the risk difference was chosen to be 2.80.|Regression, Cox|Risk difference for time to first recurrent VTE/VTE death is calculated based on weighted KM estimates across the cohorts via meta-analysis approach.||||1.25|-0.50|<0.0001
95880719|NCT00329238|191717604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013||||||p-value for superiority. If non-inferiority could be established for HR and for the risk difference, the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference was then compared with 0 to evaluate the superiority claim of dabigatran over warfarin.|Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.4013
95880720|NCT00329238|191717605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4732||95.0|0.75|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death.|||1.84|0.75|0.4732
95970085|NCT01056718|191913061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95970086|NCT01056718|191913062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95880721|NCT00329238|191717606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.8876||95.0|-1.11|1.28|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent VTE or all cause death at month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.28|-1.11|0.8876
95880722|NCT00329238|191717607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.4548||95.0|0.64|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|HR for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||2.71|0.64|0.4548
95880723|NCT00329238|191717608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.6563||95.0|-0.63|1.0|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic DVT at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.00|-0.63|0.6563
95880724|NCT00329238|191717609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04||||0.1925||95.0|0.7|5.98|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||5.98|0.70|0.1925
95880725|NCT00329238|191717610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.3723||95.0|-0.32|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier||Risk difference for the time to first centrally adjudicated recurrent symptomatic PE at Month 18|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.32|0.3723
95880726|NCT00329238|191717611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9921||95.0|0.06|16.22|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to deaths related to VTE.|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||16.22|0.06|0.9921
95880727|NCT00329238|191717612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.9204||95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to deaths related to VTE at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.23|-0.20|0.9204
95880728|NCT00329238|191717613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7405||95.0|0.47|1.72|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors and their interaction.|Hazard ratio for time to all deaths|Dabigatran versus Warfarin||1.72|0.47|0.7405
95880729|NCT00329238|191717614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9622||95.0|-0.89|0.84|||Kaplan-Meier|Risk difference for the time to all deaths at Month 18.||Dabigatran versus Warfarin||0.84|-0.89|0.9622
95880730|NCT00329238|191717615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.0577||95.0|0.27|1.02|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first MBE.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||1.02|0.27|0.0577
95880731|NCT00329238|191717615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.83|||Regression, Cox||This is the analysis of the time to the first occurrence of any bleeding event.|Hazard ratio estimated using the Cox regression with treatment, cohort, baseline stratification factors (including active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE as qualifying event) and their interaction.||0.83|0.61|<0.0001
95880732|NCT04457336|191717621|OTHER|Assessment of dose response for change from baseline in log 17-OHP after 12 weeks on double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment (Week 18). Results were obtained by using a repeated measures random coefficient mixed-effects model and are reported as the -2loglikelihood results for both the full (including interaction terms) and reduced (excluding interaction terms) models.||||||0.8051||||||Dose response p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|The result for the -2loglikelihood full model was -580.2550766 log(ng/dL) and -583.2846546 log(ng/dL) for the reduced model.||||||0.8051
95880733|NCT02498132|191717635|OTHER|A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model assuming a normal distribution, identity link function, and exchangeable correlation matrix was used to examine the interaction between time and treatment condition on BDI-II depressive symptoms adjusting for the main effects of baseline depressive symptoms, time, and treatment condition.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
95880734|NCT04203498|191717648|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914|=|0.4263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|1.08|||Linear mixed model repeated measures|||Week 9 to 12 (primary outcome statistics)||1.08|-2.54|=0.4263
95880735|NCT00939640|191717663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs|||||||.17
95880736|NCT00939640|191717664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests|||||||.02
95880737|NCT00939640|191717669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
95880738|NCT00939640|191717670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
95970087|NCT01056718|191913063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.85
95970088|NCT01056718|191913064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.40
95970089|NCT01056718|191913065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
95880739|NCT01323959|191717701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.0|99.6|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|"The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, 1 month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.~Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing."||99.6|89|
95880740|NCT01323959|191717701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|99.1|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||99.1|87.8|
95880741|NCT01323959|191717701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|100.0|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||100|94.8|
95970090|NCT01056718|191913066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.49
95970091|NCT01056718|191913067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.47
95880742|NCT01323959|191717703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|92.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|97.4|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to dose in study NCT01277705. Samples were analysed both with ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), and VERO-cell (African green monkey kidney cell) neutralisation testing.||97.4|82.4|
95880743|NCT01323959|191717703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|79.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.3|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||88.3|67.9|
95880744|NCT01323959|191717703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects seroprotected|84.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.3|91.8|||||The pre-specified lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of seroprotected (Anti-D concentrations ≥ 0.1 IU/mL by ELISA or ≥ 0.01 IU/mL by VERO-cell when subjects with ELISA result \<0.1 IU/mL) subjects was above 80%.|The objective of the analysis was to demonstrate that a booster dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine, administered to adults 10 years after a dose of Boostrix™ Polio vaccine or co-administered Boostrix™ + Poliorix™ vaccines, elicited seroprotective antibody concentrations, one month after the booster dose, in at least 80% of the subjects against diphtheria.||91.8|73.3|
95970092|NCT01056718|191913068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.55
95970093|NCT01056718|191913069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=0.64
95970094|NCT01056718|191913070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95970095|NCT01056718|191913071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.526
95970096|NCT01056718|191913072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95970097|NCT01056718|191913073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.925
95970098|NCT01056718|191913074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||<0.05
95970099|NCT01056718|191913075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.458|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.458
95970100|NCT01056718|191913076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.561|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.561
95970101|NCT01056718|191913077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.734
95970102|NCT01056718|191913078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Nebivolol treatment group refers to 50 patients that completed 10 weeks of open label nebivolol treatment. Results were compared using paired T-tests in a pre - post study design before and after 10 weeks of his/her treatment. Each subject served as own control.||||=.129
95970103|NCT00777088|191913080|NON_INFERIORITY|The cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurologic death is not ≥ 20% at 180-day clinical follow-up and the cumulative rate of ipsilateral stroke or neurovascular death is not ≥ 25% at 5-year clinical follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<.001
95970104|NCT00777088|191913081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The rate of complete IA occlusion without major parent artery stenosis exceeds 50% with a posterior probability \>0.975.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bayesian|||||||<0.001
95880745|NCT02762578|191717719|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: Non-inferiority with respect to change from baseline in HbA1c (%) to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30.~Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was below or equal to 0.4%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
95880746|NCT02762578|191717719|SUPERIORITY|"If non-inferiority was confirmed, the superiority of the IDegAsp group over the BIAsp 30 group was to be investigated.~Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval, which was calculated using the FAS, was below 0%."|Treatment contrast|-0.08||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.05||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatments was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline HbA1c as covariates.||0.05|-0.20|0.2430
95970105|NCT03592745|191913089|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|32.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95970106|NCT03592745|191913089|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|87.0||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
95970107|NCT03592745|191913089|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|95.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
95970108|NCT03592745|191913089|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG amplitude from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up after training) was measured in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median absolute change in bicep peak sEMG amplitude between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|98.0||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the median absolute change in tricep peak sEMG from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.777
95970109|NCT03592745|191913090|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to DC immediately following 3 weeks of training was assessed with the upper extremity fugl meyer score in the active vs. sham tDCS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in upper extremity fugl meyer score between the active and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|112.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 3 weeks (discharge) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95970110|NCT03592745|191913090|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis of median change from baseline to week 16 (3 month follow-up) was assessed with the Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score in the active vs. sham tVNS conditions. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score between the active and sham tVNS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-tailed).|U value|110.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|||||The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test was performed to compare median change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer score from baseline to 16 weeks (follow-up) across two separate study conditions (active vs. sham tVNS).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.950
95970111|NCT02656329|191913099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AdreView™ group over SoC group was demonstrated if upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) (AdreView™ group / SoC) was equal to 1.20.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.047||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|3.719||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Log Rank||AdreView™ vs. Standard of Care|Analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by country, with method of treatment guidance (SoC vs AdreView™ group) as the only covariate.||3.719|0.295|0.8459
95970112|NCT04927247|191913135|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|31.7|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||31.7|-15.8|0.6302
95970113|NCT04927247|191913136|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.16|||Stratified log-rank test|||||2.16|0.43|0.9382
95970114|NCT04927247|191913137|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-16.8||||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|0.8|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||||0.8|-34.4|0.1143
95970115|NCT04927247|191913138|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.09||||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.89|||Negative binomial model|||||1.89|0.63|0.7549
95970116|NCT00293059|191913139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||inverting 2 one-sided tests|||||||< 0.0001
95970117|NCT02001064|191913226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
95880747|NCT02762578|191717720|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (Provided that non-inferiority was confirmed for the primary endpoint)~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero."|Treatment Contrast|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-1.1||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FPG after 26 weeks of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age and baseline FPG as covariates.||-1.10|-1.74|<0.0001
95880748|NCT02762578|191717721|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: Superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in FPG to week 26 was confirmed for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.53||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.87|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate.||0.87|0.33|0.0112
95880749|NCT02762578|191717722|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below one."|Treatment Ratio|0.57||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.77|||Negative binomial regression model|||The number of events was analysed using a Negative Binomial Model with a log-link function and the logarithm of the exposure time (100 years) for which a hypoglycaemic episode is considered treatment emergent as offset. The model included treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, and age as covariate||0.77|0.42|0.0002
95880750|NCT02762578|191717723|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: Superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that Superiority with respect to confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the treatment difference (IDegAsp group-BIAsp 30 group) was entirely below zero"|Treatment contrast|0.61||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.08|||ANCOVA|Two-sided p-value for testing difference||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, anti-diabetic therapy at screening and sex as fixed factors, age and baseline response as covariate.||1.08|0.15|0.0092
95909077|NCT01212770|191776111|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|9.6||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use involvement of \>= 3% BSA with psoriasis at baseline.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across 4 strata of baseline DMARD use by ≥ 3% BSA psoriasis involvement at baseline with the CMH weights. The 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.3|-6.2|0.2520
95909078|NCT05725317|191776135|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance visual acuity was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID220365 minus LID006961. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
95909079|NCT02959996|191776136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95909080|NCT02959996|191776137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
95909081|NCT02959996|191776138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95909082|NCT00829387|191776145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.69|||Linear mixed model|||||0.69|-1.47|0.47
95909083|NCT00829387|191776146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.47|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||0.47|-1.15|0.40
95880751|NCT02762578|191717724|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 6: Superiority with respect to subjects achieving HbA1c \< 7% at end of trial without confirmed hypoglycaemia for IDegAsp vs. BIAsp 30 (provided that superiority with respect to change from baseline in body weight was confirmed).~Superiority was considered confirmed if the 95% CI for the odds ratio (IDegAsp group/BIAsp 30 group) was entirely above one."|Treatment Ratio|2.22||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.35||Two-sided p-value for testing difference|Regression, Logistic|||The endpoint was analysed in a logistic regression model using a logit link, including treatment, sex and anti-diabetic treatment at screening as fixed effects, and age and HbA1c as covariates.||3.35|1.47|0.0002
95880752|NCT02774954|191717810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
95880753|NCT02774954|191717811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
95880754|NCT00114530|191717827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed 4 pre-specified futility analyses that included an ability to stop for efficacy with p\<0.0001, leaving alpha equal to 0.0496 for the primary ITT analysis of the GRCS at 54 months post-randomization.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95880755|NCT00114530|191717828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95880756|NCT00114530|191717829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95880757|NCT00114530|191717830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95880758|NCT00114530|191717831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.059
95880759|NCT00114530|191717831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.06
95880760|NCT00114530|191717832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of EFS at Month 54.||||0.021
95970118|NCT02001064|191913227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073||||||Cohen's d (ranks) = -.049|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.073
95970119|NCT02001064|191913228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Cohen's d=0.31|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95970120|NCT00878826|191913232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 14-18 weeks gestational age||||0.4
95970121|NCT00878826|191913232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 24-28 weeks gestational age||||0.9
95880761|NCT00114530|191717832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for EFS through Month 72||||0.03
95880762|NCT00114530|191717833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
95880763|NCT00114530|191717834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
95880764|NCT00114530|191717835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95880765|NCT00114530|191717836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95880766|NCT00114530|191717837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95880767|NCT00114530|191717838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95880768|NCT00114530|191717839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.28
95880769|NCT00114530|191717839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.05
95880770|NCT00114530|191717840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||Treatment arm comparisons of overall survival at Month 54.||||0.19
95880771|NCT00114530|191717840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||Treatment arm comparisons of Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival through Month 72.||||0.02
95880772|NCT00114530|191717841|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
95880773|NCT00114530|191717842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.19
95880774|NCT00114530|191717843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
95880775|NCT00114530|191717843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
95880776|NCT00114530|191717844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
95880777|NCT00114530|191717844|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.002
95880778|NCT00114530|191717845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.001
95880779|NCT00114530|191717845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.02
95880780|NCT00114530|191717845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.05
95880781|NCT00114530|191717845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.1
95880782|NCT00114530|191717846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Physical Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
95970122|NCT00878826|191913232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||at 32-34 weeks gestational age||||0.3
95970123|NCT01468181|191913238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 26 Weeks||-1.67|-1.87|<0.001
95970124|NCT01468181|191913238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HbA1c at 52 Weeks||-1.55|-1.75|<0.001
95970125|NCT01468181|191913240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-40.0|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 26 Weeks||-40.0|-47.8|<0.001
95970126|NCT01468181|191913240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-38.7|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||FBG at 52 Weeks||-38.7|-46.4|<0.001
95880783|NCT00114530|191717846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Physical Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.003
95880784|NCT00114530|191717846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||Mental Component Score. This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
95880785|NCT00114530|191717846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||Mental Component Score. This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.07
95880786|NCT00114530|191717847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.08
95880787|NCT00114530|191717847|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.9
95880788|NCT00114530|191717848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.1
95970127|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-38.29|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-38.29|-46.55|<0.001
95970128|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.44|-38.76|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-38.76|-46.44|<0.001
95880789|NCT00114530|191717848|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.6
95880790|NCT00114530|191717849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.02
95880791|NCT00114530|191717849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.3
95880792|NCT00114530|191717850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.03
95880793|NCT00114530|191717850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.5
95880794|NCT00114530|191717851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||0.002
95880795|NCT00114530|191717851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.05
95880796|NCT00114530|191717852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Computed as Mantel Haenszel Chi Square using modified ridit scores.||This analysis is not stratified. EFS survivors and failures are pooled within each treatment arm.||||<0.001
95880797|NCT00114530|191717852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Van Elteren extension of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum||This analysis is stratified by EFS status.||||0.01
95880798|NCT00114530|191717853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.42
95880799|NCT00114530|191717853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.048
95970129|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.18|-62.79|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 26 Weeks||-62.79|-74.18|<0.001
95880800|NCT00114530|191717853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.51
95880801|NCT00114530|191717854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||Development of new or worsening arrhythmias||||0.46
95880802|NCT00114530|191717854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared|||CHF requiring clinical treatment||||0.042
95880803|NCT00114530|191717854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Clinically significant pericardial effusion||||0.15
95880804|NCT00114530|191717855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.026
95880805|NCT00114530|191717856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.022
95880806|NCT00114530|191717857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95880807|NCT00114530|191717858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95970130|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.12|-60.04|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-morning meal at 52 Weeks||-60.04|-72.12|<0.001
95970131|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.32|-43.09|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-43.09|-53.32|<0.001
95970132|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.77|-42.24|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-42.24|-52.77|<0.001
95880808|NCT00114530|191717859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95880809|NCT00114530|191717860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95970133|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.02|-61.11|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 26 Weeks||-61.11|-73.02|<0.001
95970134|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.16|-57.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-midday meal at 52 Weeks||-57.18|-69.16|<0.001
95970135|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.67|-38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-38.34|-49.67|<0.001
95970136|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-38.21|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Pre-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-38.21|-49.55|<0.001
95970137|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.32|-56.5|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 26 Weeks||-56.50|-69.32|<0.001
95970138|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-54.74|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||2 hours post-evening meal at 52 Weeks||-54.74|-66.95|<0.001
95880810|NCT00114530|191717861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95880811|NCT00114530|191717862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95880812|NCT00114530|191717863|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||<0.001
95880813|NCT00114530|191717863|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.61, Probably related = 0.57, Definitely related = 0.52|||||
95880814|NCT00114530|191717863|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rates (events/P-T) are as follows: Possibly related = 0.17, Probably related = 0.09, Definitely related = 0.04|||||
95880815|NCT00114530|191717865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|P-value comes from a Poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups.||||||0.7
95880816|NCT00114530|191717865|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|174.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.76|||||
95880817|NCT00114530|191717865|SUPERIORITY||Person-Time (Years)|141.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Person-Time (P-T) rate (events/P-T) is 0.80|||||
95880818|NCT03003390|191717883|SUPERIORITY||Posterior probabilities|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||Using informative priors of B(1, 1) on the enoxaparin arm and B(18, 82) on the usual care arm, the risks of CADVT were 0.32 (95% CrI: 0.16, 0.51) in the enoxaparin arm and 0.25 (95% CrI: 0.18, 0.33) in the usual care arm. The posterior probability that the absolute difference in the risk of CADVT was lower by 0.06 in the enoxaparin arm was 9.1%. Using minimally informative priors, the risk ratio of CADVT with enoxaparin was 0.55 (95% CrI: 0.24, 1.11).|||
95880819|NCT03003390|191717884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Linear mixed effects model|||||||0.22
95880820|NCT03003390|191717885|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95880821|NCT03003390|191717886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95880822|NCT03003390|191717887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95880823|NCT03003390|191717888|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95880824|NCT03003390|191717890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
95970139|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.93|-55.37|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 26 Weeks||-55.37|-66.93|<0.001
95970140|NCT01468181|191913241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|-54.25|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Bedtime meal at 52 Weeks||-54.25|-66.07|<0.001
95970141|NCT01468181|191913242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 26 Weeks||0.12|-0.40|<0.277
95970142|NCT01468181|191913242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||Body weight at 52 Weeks||0.16|-0.42|0.382
95970143|NCT01468181|191913243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|31.18|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 26 Weeks||31.18|26.00|<0.001
95880825|NCT03311724|191717955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
95880826|NCT03311724|191717955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
95970144|NCT01468181|191913243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.73|30.41|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-B% at 52 Weeks||30.41|24.73|<0.001
95970145|NCT01468181|191913243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 26 Weeks||1.32|-6.46|0.194
95970146|NCT01468181|191913243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-5.68|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|p-values are from within-group change t-test at the level of 0.05||HOMA2-S% at 52 Weeks||2.27|-5.68|0.400
95880827|NCT03311724|191717955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
95880828|NCT03311724|191717956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.43|338.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||338.97|9.43|<0.001
95880829|NCT03311724|191717956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|183.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|22.0|<0.001
95880830|NCT03311724|191717956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|157.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|999.0|||Regression, Logistic||"Maximum confidential interval is \>999"|||999|21.63|<0.001
95880831|NCT03311724|191717957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-26.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.3|-70.6|<0.001
95880832|NCT03311724|191717957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.7|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-80.7|<0.001
95880833|NCT03311724|191717957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-61.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-39.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.2|-84.6|<0.001
95880834|NCT03311724|191717958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.6|-7.1|<0.001
95880835|NCT03311724|191717958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.7|-7.2|<0.001
95880836|NCT03311724|191717958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-7.5|<0.001
95880837|NCT03311724|191717959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.7|0.075
95880838|NCT03311724|191717959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.065
95880839|NCT03311724|191717959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-4.9|0.065
95880840|NCT01633853|191717971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline both in group Vitamin D2.||||0.117
95880841|NCT01633853|191717971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The blood levels of calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared to the levels of the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||0.309
95880842|NCT01633853|191717971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood calcium at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.554
95880843|NCT01633853|191717972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
95880844|NCT01633853|191717972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH)Vitamin D were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3.||||<0.001
95880845|NCT01633853|191717972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.001, t=-14.982.|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood 25(OH) Vitamin D at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||<0.001
95880846|NCT01633853|191717973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|||||Chi-square value=0.099|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
95880847|NCT01633853|191717974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||<0.001
95880848|NCT01633853|191717974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus were compared between the 24th month of following up and the baseline in group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||<0.001
95880849|NCT01633853|191717974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|||||t=0.394|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood phosphorus at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.694
95880850|NCT01633853|191717975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline in group Vitamin D2.||||0.179
95880851|NCT01633853|191717975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH were compared between the 24th month and the baseline group 1,25(OH)2 Vitamin D3, respectively.||||0.106
95880852|NCT01633853|191717975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|||||t=-0.736|t-test, 2 sided|||The levels of blood iPTH at the 24th month of following up were compared between two groups.||||0.463
95880853|NCT01258582|191718021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in the acceptance rates|-0.022||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.023|||Chi-squared|The difference in the acceptance rates was estimated along with 95% confidence intervals and tested using the chi-square test.||Sample size was chosen to detect a 10% difference in acceptance rates between two testing modality arms (90% power, 0.05 level of significance).||0.023|-0.067|0.34
95880854|NCT01581931|191718026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.63|101.94|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||101.94|93.63|
95880855|NCT01581931|191718029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|102.07|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||102.07|93.64|
95909084|NCT00829387|191776147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|2.32|||Linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline||2.32|-7.02|0.31
95880856|NCT01581931|191718030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: the 90% confidence intervall has to be within the intervall (80%, 125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|98.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|103.21|||ANOVA||Numerator: FDC tablet; denominator: single tablets of linagliptin and metformin; The dispersion parameter is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||103.21|94.55|
95880857|NCT01847274|191718031|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.173|0.41||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.410|0.173|<0.0001
95880858|NCT01847274|191718032|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.586||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.586|0.243|<0.0001
95880859|NCT01847274|191718033|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.607||Two-sided P-value. PFS was independently evaluated in gBRCAmut cohort and non-gBRCAmut cohort. Hierarchical testing: HRD+ subset tested first. If HRD+ subset demonstrated statistical significance, overall non-gBRCA cohort was then tested.|Log Rank|Strata: tm to progression after penultimate platinum tx; use of bevacizumab w/penultimate or last platinum tx; best response during last platinum tx.|Niraparib:Placebo, based on the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Model using randomization stratification factors.|||0.607|0.338|<0.0001
95880860|NCT01847274|191718034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|0.783||Two-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.783|0.412|0.0005
95880861|NCT01847274|191718035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.74||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.740|0.454|<0.0001
95880862|NCT01847274|191718036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.561||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.561|0.268|<0.0001
95880863|NCT01847274|191718037|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.727||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.727|0.428|<0.0001
95880864|NCT01847274|191718038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.968||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.968|0.500|0.0302
95880865|NCT01847274|191718039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.022||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.022|0.627|0.0748
95880866|NCT01847274|191718040|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.198||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.198|0.606|0.3580
95880867|NCT01847274|191718041|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.369||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.369|0.813|0.6868
95880868|NCT01847274|191718042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.878||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||0.878|0.451|0.0061
95880869|NCT01847274|191718043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.077||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|||||1.077|0.654|0.1674
95880870|NCT01847274|191718060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7969|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.7969
95880871|NCT01847274|191718060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8794|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.8794
95880872|NCT01847274|191718061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2399|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.2399
95880873|NCT01847274|191718061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4584|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4584
95880874|NCT01847274|191718062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8566|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8566
95880875|NCT01847274|191718062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4705|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.4705
95880876|NCT01847274|191718063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8521|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.8521
95880877|NCT01847274|191718063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9923|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9923
95880878|NCT01847274|191718064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9997|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9997
95880879|NCT01847274|191718064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3518|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.3518
95880880|NCT01847274|191718065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9367|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.9367
95880881|NCT01847274|191718065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2502|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2502
95880882|NCT01847274|191718066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5037|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5037
95880883|NCT01847274|191718066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.1640
95880884|NCT01847274|191718067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9599|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.9599
95880885|NCT01847274|191718067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2470
95880886|NCT01847274|191718068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Feet||||||0.5921
95880887|NCT01847274|191718068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7459|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.7459
95880888|NCT01847274|191718069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0259|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|||||||0.0259
95880889|NCT01847274|191718069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2798|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared test|Analysis for gBRCA Niraparib vs gBRCA Placebo-Hands||||||0.2798
95880890|NCT01847274|191718076|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.216||||||||1.216|0.997|
95880891|NCT01847274|191718077|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|1.068|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.978|1.166||||||||1.166|0.978|
95880892|NCT01847274|191718078|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Least square mean|0.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|0.886||||||||0.886|0.695|
95880893|NCT03727230|191718082|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||In this study, a single-arm clinical trial was conducted. The summarized alloanti-D rate (203/720, 28.2%; 95% CI, 19%-32%) in truly RhD-negative patients with similar mixed diseases after RhD+ RBC transfusion reported in the meta-analysis (Ji YL, et al. Vox Sang 2022; 117: 633-40) was used as the control for comparison with alloanti-D rate identified in Asian-type DEL patients after RhD+ RBC transfusion in the clinical trial.||||< 0.001
95880894|NCT00724932|191718117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.1||Testing was performed using a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level. There was only one primary comparison, therefore no adjustment for multiplicity was required.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9 was calculated using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||4.1|2.8|<0.0001
95880895|NCT00724932|191718118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|2.8||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.7 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||2.8|2.1|<0.0001
95880896|NCT00724932|191718126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4||The p-value is not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA||Sugammadex is the numerator and neostigmine the denominator. The estimated value for the geometric mean ratio presents how many times the geometric mean time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was faster with sugammadex compared to neostigmine.|To evaluate the efficacy of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, the ratio of the geometric means of time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.8 was calculated using a two-way ANOVA model adjusted for treatment group and trial site.||3.4|2.5|<0.0001
95880897|NCT00044083|191718167|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis effect on placebo|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95880898|NCT00044083|191718167|OTHER|||||||0.0034||||||Drug Effect on Patients|ANOVA|||||||0.0034
95880899|NCT00044083|191718168|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Diagnosis Effect on Placebo in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95880900|NCT00044083|191718168|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Diagnosis Effect of Placebo in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.014
95880901|NCT00044083|191718169|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect across both groups in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.05
95880902|NCT00044083|191718169|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Drug Effect across both groups in right DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.32
95880903|NCT00044083|191718170|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95880904|NCT00044083|191718170|OTHER|||||||0.078||||||Effect of Drug on Patients with Schizophrenia in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
95970147|NCT00513305|191913245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p-value is from the Pearson chi-square test for testing the equality of two binomial proportions, assuming normal approximation of the binomial proportions.|Chi-squared|There were no adjustments for covariates. Since the primary endpoint was prespecified, no adjustment for multiplicity of endpoints was introduced||The hypothesis of equal complete remission rates between the two treatment groups was tested using a 2-sided, normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions test with two-sided alpha equal to 0.05.||||0.425
95880905|NCT00044083|191718171|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95970148|NCT00513305|191913246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank|||||1.973|0.535|0.829
95880906|NCT00044083|191718171|OTHER|||||||0.73||||||Drug Effect on Healthy Volunteers in right DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
95880907|NCT00044083|191718172|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in right DLPFC||||||<0.0001
95880908|NCT00044083|191718172|OTHER|||||||0.167|||||||ANOVA|Main Effect of Genotype across both Placebo and Tolcapone in left DLPFC||||||0.167
95880909|NCT00044083|191718173|OTHER|||||||0.189||||||Drug by Genotype Effect in left DLPFC|ANOVA|||||||0.189
95880910|NCT00044083|191718173|OTHER|||||||0.041||||||Drug Effect on Val/Val Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.041
95970149|NCT00513305|191913247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.31||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.343|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||33.343|0.160|0.527
95880911|NCT00044083|191718173|OTHER|||||||0.718||||||Drug Effect on Val/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.718
95880912|NCT00044083|191718173|OTHER|||||||0.469||||||Drug Effect of Met/Met Genotype in left DLPFC|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.469
95880913|NCT00044083|191718174|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||Drug Effect on Positive Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7
95880914|NCT00044083|191718174|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Drug Effect on Negative Syndrome for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.4
95970150|NCT00513305|191913250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.027||||0.8289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.535|1.973|||Log Rank||Estimate based on Cox Proportional Hazards Model adjusting for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, white blood count and presence of antecedent hematologic disorder.|||1.973|0.535|0.8289
95970151|NCT01081132|191913262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.026|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.865|-3.187|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-3.187|-8.865|<0.001
95970152|NCT01081132|191913263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.010
95970153|NCT01081132|191913264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|0.024|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.024|-0.254|0.104
95970154|NCT01081132|191913265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.078|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.078|-0.192|0.408
95880915|NCT00044083|191718174|OTHER|||||||0.12||||||Drug Effect on General Pathology for Patients|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.12
95909085|NCT00829387|191776148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.06|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 12 weeks comparison||1.06|-1.03|0.98
95909086|NCT00829387|191776149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.07|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||-0.07|-1.76|0.03
95909087|NCT00829387|191776150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.55|||linear mixed model|||baseline to 36 weeks post-baseline||1.55|-9.86|0.15
95970155|NCT01081132|191913266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.083||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.037|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.037|-0.203|0.176
95970156|NCT01081132|191913267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.036|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-0.036|-0.136|0.253
95970157|NCT01081132|191913268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.068|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.068|-0.061|0.912
95970158|NCT01081132|191913269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.029||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.081|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.081|-0.139|0.606
95970159|NCT01081132|191913270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.268|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.268|-0.064|0.228
95880916|NCT00289991|191718176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a true success rate of 50% in voriconazole (Vori) treatment (Tx) group and 45% in itraconazole (Itra) Tx group, sample size of 232 subjects per group=90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Vori to Itra using pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Sample has at least 80% power to demonstrate superiority of Vori over Itra if true success rates for Vori and Itra are 57% and 44% respectively. Based on this, up to 500 subjects were to be enrolled to obtain 464 eligible subjects.|percent difference adjusted proportions|16.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|25.1|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using Fleiss method|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 180 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."||25.1|7.7|
95880917|NCT00289991|191718177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority inferred if lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the voriconazole and itraconazole treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant is above -10%. Superiority achieved if 2-sided 95% CI for difference between these treatment groups in the adjusted proportion of subjects classified as Success at Day 100 after transplant does not include zero and is positive."|percent difference adjusted proportions|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.2|||Difference in adjusted responder rates|Difference in adjusted responder rates using the Fleiss method.|Overall treatment difference in adjusted proportions (expressed as percentages) calculated using Fleiss method.|||24.2|6.6|
95880918|NCT00289991|191718179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-0.4||||0.7114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.5|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 100; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.5|-2.2|0.7114
95880919|NCT00289991|191718179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportion: percent|-0.3||||0.7759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result).|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as percentages), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||1.9|-2.5|0.7759
95880920|NCT00289991|191718180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.9|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 180; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||6.9|-6.3|
95880921|NCT00289991|191718181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Mann-Whitney test used to investigate the null hypothesis that the times to discontinuation of study medication in each treatment group come from the same distribution.||||0.0026
95880922|NCT00289991|191718182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-4.8||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|3.4|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95 percent % confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Day 365; difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||3.4|-13.0|0.2487
95880923|NCT00289991|191718184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions: percent|-8.8||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.3|||Difference in proportions|Difference in proportions (approximate result)|Approximate 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions.|Difference in proportions (expressed as a percentage), voriconazole relative to itraconazole.||0.3|-17.8|0.0570
95880924|NCT00332163|191718192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-14.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-14|-51|
95880925|NCT00332163|191718193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-3.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||-3|-42|
95880926|NCT00332163|191718194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (pre-emptive vs. reactive), stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
95880927|NCT00332163|191718196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||0.7|0.2|
95880928|NCT00332163|191718197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|7.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||7|-16|
95880929|NCT00332163|191718198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.0|||||Difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||10|-10|
95880930|NCT00332163|191718199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|17.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||17|-9|
95880931|NCT00332163|191718200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.0|||||Rate difference = Pre-emptive - Reactive|||18|-21|
95880932|NCT00332163|191718201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.0|0.9|
95880933|NCT00332163|191718202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.5|0.6|
95880934|NCT00332163|191718203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||||Hazard ratio estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||2.1|0.7|
95880935|NCT00332163|191718204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||||Hazard ratio is estimated from a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model with an indicator for treatment (Pre-emptive vs. Reactive) stratified by chemotherapy stratum (Q2W vs Q3W).|||1.6|0.6|
95880936|NCT01172522|191718211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||P values above 0.05 is considered statistically insignificant in this study.|||||=1
95880937|NCT00963937|191718212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-7.49||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.02|8.04||Multiplicity was not considered because the primary analysis included a single statistical comparison.|Chi-squared||Percent difference = sumatriptan pooled group minus the placebo group|||8.04|-23.02|0.345
95880938|NCT00181155|191718222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.007||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.007
95880939|NCT00181155|191718223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0||||vs. baseline|Two-sided paired t tests|||||||<0.02
95880940|NCT01090492|191718224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.11||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.44|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.44|-0.21|0.6513
95880941|NCT01090492|191718224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.69||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.99|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.38|-0.99|0.0057
95880942|NCT01090492|191718224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.08|-0.80|0.1157
95880943|NCT01090492|191718224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.6286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.25|-0.56|0.6286
95970160|NCT01081132|191913271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.065|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.065|-0.159|0.410
95970161|NCT01081132|191913272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.208||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.026|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.026|-0.443|0.082
95880944|NCT01090492|191718225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.43|2.68|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||2.68|-2.43|0.9504
95880945|NCT01090492|191718225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.4651|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|1.03|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.03|-3.74|0.4651
95880946|NCT01090492|191718225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|1.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.73|-2.92|0.7423
95880947|NCT01090492|191718225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.91||||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.55|0.73|||ANCOVA|||At Week 4 - SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.73|-4.55|0.3524
95880948|NCT01090492|191718226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.61|7.03|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||7.03|-4.61|0.7900
95880949|NCT01090492|191718226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.17||||0.1463|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.61|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||PRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.73|-11.61|0.1463
95880950|NCT01090492|191718226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.29|-4.44|0.1446
95880951|NCT01090492|191718226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.45|1.26|||ANCOVA|||SRP: Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||1.26|-3.45|0.5497
95970162|NCT01081132|191913273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95970163|NCT01081132|191913274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Global Executive Composite||0.7|-5.3|0.134
95970164|NCT01081132|191913274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Behavioral Regulation Index||2.3|-4.0|0.579
95970165|NCT01081132|191913274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Metacognition Index||0.2|-5.6|0.072
95970166|NCT01081132|191913275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||0.8|-1.8|0.465
95880952|NCT01090492|191718227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.52|-0.21|0.5909
95880953|NCT01090492|191718227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.77||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (PRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.43|-1.12|0.0053
95880954|NCT01090492|191718227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.67|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||0.10|-0.67|0.3462
95880955|NCT01090492|191718227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.88|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 4 (SRP): Adjusted mean difference analysis was based on ANCOVA model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect, utilizing the baseline scores as covariate.||-0.01|-0.88|0.1940
95880956|NCT00622284|191718244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. Superiority testing was not part of the pre-specified Week 52 confirmatory analysis.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0005||97.5|0.13|0.31||Due to multiple testing of the primary endpoints at weeks 52 and 104 a Bonferroni correction was applied and 97.5% confidence intervals produced. This 1-sided p-value for non-inferiority should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.31|0.13|0.0005
95880957|NCT00622284|191718245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis of non-inferiority is rejected if the upper bound of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval is less than 0.35%. However, superiority testing is only applicable if the Linagliptin decrease is greater than that in Glimepiride.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0004||97.5|0.09|0.3||This 1-sided p-value should be compared to the 1-sided threshold of 0.0125 for non-inferiority. Due to the pre-specified hierarchial approach, further confirmatory analysis on the Week24 endpoints is only applicable if superiority is already met.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.30|0.09|0.0004
95880958|NCT00622284|191718246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001||97.5|-2.91|-2.09||This Week52 key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (2-sided threshold of 0.025 to allow for multiple testing within a visit) if the Week52 primary hypothesis was rejected.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.09|-2.91|<0.0001
95880959|NCT00622284|191718247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||97.5|-3.17|-2.19||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||-2.19|-3.17|<0.0001
95880960|NCT00622284|191718248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This key secondary endpoint was only to be tested (comparing to a 2-sided threshold of 0.025) if the Week52 body weight change from baseline was confirmatory.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
95880961|NCT00622284|191718249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Due to testing of multiple endpoints within a visit a sequential testing strategy (at 2-sided threshold of 0.025) was applied to the key secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||||<0.0001
95880962|NCT00622284|191718250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001||95.0|3.51|10.16|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.16|3.51|<0.0001
95880963|NCT00622284|191718251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.0012||95.0|2.51|10.25|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||10.25|2.51|0.0012
95880964|NCT00622284|191718252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.625||||0.0004||95.0|0.482|0.811|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.811|0.482|0.0004
95880965|NCT00622284|191718253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.654||||0.003||95.0|0.494|0.866|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.866|0.494|0.0030
95880966|NCT00622284|191718254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.648||||0.0025||95.0|0.489|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.859|0.489|0.0025
95880967|NCT00622284|191718255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.689||||0.024||95.0|0.498|0.952|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.952|0.498|0.0240
95880968|NCT00622284|191718256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.0018||95.0|0.56|0.875|||Regression, Logistic|The odds ratio is treatment adjusted for baseline HbA1c and the number of previous anti-diabetic medications.||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||0.875|0.560|0.0018
95880969|NCT00622284|191718257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.0918||95.0|-21.07|1.59|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin versus Glimepiride||1.59|-21.07|0.0918
95880970|NCT00282984|191718273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.13|8.86||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, used step-down procedure to analyze primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 thru 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the Long Term Quit Rate (LTQR) thru Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected \& clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Week 9 - 12 of trtmt based on response rates \& corresponding 95% OR confidence interval (CI) from A30510285 \& A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpoint (endpt) between (b/w) var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (OR of at least 3.04), and 84% power for 2 key secondary endpts.||8.86|4.13|<0.0001
95880971|NCT00282984|191718274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.97|5.18||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpts. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of treatment group \& center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful var \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of trtmt were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w var \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04) \& a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||5.18|1.97|<0.0001
95880972|NCT00282984|191718275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.82|4.38||To preserve type I family-wise error rate of 0.05, a step-down procedure was used for the analysis of primary \& 2 key secondary endpoints. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 through 12, 2) CA at Week 52, 3) the LTQR through Week 52.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model fitted to primary endpoint \& key secondary endpoints; included main effects of trtmt group and center as independent var.||Estimates for expected and clinically meaningful varenicline (var) \& pbo 4-week CQR for Weeks 9 - 12 of treatment were based on response rates \& corresponding 95% odds ratio CI from A30510285 and A30510366 study results. Total n=700 randomized var or pbo 1:1 should have provided at least 99% power to detect difference in primary endpt b/w varenicline \& pbo, assuming true 4-week CQR of 0.18 for pbo \& 0.40 for var (odds ratio of at least 3.04), and a power of 84% for the 2 key secondary endpts.||4.38|1.82|<0.0001
95880973|NCT00282984|191718276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.17|8.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 analysis||8.56|4.17|<0.0001
95880974|NCT00282984|191718277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.03|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||24 Week analysis||4.23|2.03|<0.0001
95880975|NCT00282984|191718278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0003||95.0|1.34|2.77|||Regression, Logistic|||52 Week analysis||2.77|1.34|0.0003
95880976|NCT00282984|191718279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0001||95.0|1.41|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.97|1.41|0.0001
95880977|NCT00282984|191718280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.51|5.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.93|2.51|<0.0001
95880978|NCT00282984|191718282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.58|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|2.58|<0.0001
95880979|NCT00457301|191718307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.05
95880980|NCT00457301|191718308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjuusting for baseline HADS anxiety scores||||0.34
95880981|NCT00457301|191718308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA adjusting for baseline HADS depression scores.||||0.55
95880982|NCT00457301|191718309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95880983|NCT00457301|191718310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.46||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Sample size was calculated based on the EQ-5D index score. To compare two independent means for a parallel trial design, 100 patients in each group were needed to detect a clinically important difference (CID) in EQ-5D index score (CID = 0.10, SD = 0.25) with a 5% probability of Type I error and 80% power.||||0.46
95880984|NCT03386448|191718324|SUPERIORITY|Student test was performed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95880985|NCT01558271|191718339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide greater than 99% power to demonstrate superiority of LY2189265 to placebo. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and placebo being 0.8%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||-1.35|-1.79|<0.001
95880986|NCT01558271|191718339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was \<0.4%, then LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Liraglutide. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<0.0%, then LY2189265 was declared superior to liraglutide.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 490 participants were to be randomized in a 4:1:2 ratio to LY2189265, placebo, or Liraglutide, respectively. This sample size would provide \>90% power to confirm non-inferiority of LY2189265 to liraglutide by a margin of 0.4%. This computation assumed a true mean difference in HbA1c change from baseline between LY2189265 and Liraglutide being 0%, a common standard deviation of 1.1%, a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, and a 9% drop-out rate between randomization and Week 26.||0.07|-0.27|0.248
95880987|NCT01558271|191718340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.39|0.040
95880988|NCT01558271|191718341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
95880989|NCT01558271|191718341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.608
95880990|NCT01558271|191718341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||<0.001
95880991|NCT01558271|191718341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.844
95880992|NCT01558271|191718341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<7% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.112
95880993|NCT01558271|191718341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c \<=6.5% at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pairwise comparison was adjusted for prestudy therapy (OAM yes/no), baseline BMI group (\<25 / \>=25 kg/m\^2), and baseline HbA1c group.||||||0.103
95880994|NCT01558271|191718342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.31|-33.11||Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-33.11|-47.31|<0.001
95880995|NCT01558271|191718342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for FBG at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.||||5.96|-4.82|0.835
95880996|NCT01558271|191718342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.77||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|4.1||Treatment comparison for FBG at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-7.65|0.553
95880997|NCT01558271|191718344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.||||1.23|-0.02|0.057
95880998|NCT01558271|191718344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.82||Treatment comparison for body weight at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.14|0.168
95880999|NCT01558271|191718344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.57||Treatment comparison for body weight at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.57|-0.64|0.911
95881000|NCT01558271|191718345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.86||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|8.48||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.48|-12.20|0.723
95881001|NCT01558271|191718345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|7.91||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||7.91|-7.92|0.998
95881002|NCT01558271|191718345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.83||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|9.38||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||9.38|-7.72|0.848
95881003|NCT01558271|191718345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.03||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|3.42||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||3.42|-9.48|0.357
95881004|NCT01558271|191718345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.49||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.35|5.36||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.36|-10.35|0.533
95881005|NCT01558271|191718345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|5.25||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%S based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.25|-7.32|0.747
95881006|NCT01558271|191718346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|28.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.63|35.07||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||35.07|21.63|<0.001
95881007|NCT01558271|191718346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.24||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||8.24|-2.09|0.242
95881008|NCT01558271|191718346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.25|30.4||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|ANCOVA|||||30.40|19.25|<0.001
95881009|NCT01558271|191718346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|6.13||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.13|-2.32|0.376
95881010|NCT01558271|191718346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.91||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|6.54||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting insulin at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||6.54|-2.72|0.417
95881011|NCT01558271|191718346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|5.29||Treatment comparison for HOMA2-%B based on fasting C-peptide at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|ANCOVA|||||5.29|-3.83|0.753
95881012|NCT01558271|191718347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and placebo.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95881013|NCT01558271|191718347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95881014|NCT01558271|191718347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks between LY2189265 and Liraglutide.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95881015|NCT02610725|191718373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom.|Means were analyzed in (pre-post) format. A negative mean here indicates an increase in positive affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes positive affect analysis.||-0.46|-3.73|0.013
95881016|NCT02610725|191718373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.02|||t-test, 2 sided|51 degrees of freedom|Means were analyzed in a (pre-post) format. A positive mean indicates a decrease in negative affect.|Paired-samples t-tests were used to analyze change in affect after participating in the yoga class. Analyses were conducted to measure changes in both positive affect and negative affect. This entry describes negative affect analysis.||8.02|4.10|<0.001
95881017|NCT05544734|191718376|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = baseline to postoperative day 2).|||1.25|-1.85|0.69
95881018|NCT05544734|191718377|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|11.85|||t-test, 2 sided||Direction = Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6) minus Non-Hydrocodone group mean change (i.e., change = postoperative day 3 to postoperative day 6).|||11.85|-7.25|0.62
95881019|NCT00743483|191718378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2179
95881020|NCT01466153|191718412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4475|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4475
95881021|NCT01466153|191718416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3206
95881022|NCT01466153|191718417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3130
95881023|NCT01466153|191718419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9527|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9527
95881024|NCT01703039|191718434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95881025|NCT01703039|191718435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95970167|NCT02489968|191913280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.67|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 10 mg + placebo)|||-0.67|-0.97|<0.0001
95881026|NCT01703039|191718436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
95881027|NCT01703039|191718437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
95881028|NCT01703039|191718438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95881029|NCT00147446|191718439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two smaple test statistics|2.09||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that treatment with stress management produced a significant reduction in cumulative Gd+ lesions compared to the control condition during the treatment period||||0.04
95881030|NCT00147446|191718439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.55|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving stress management remained free of Gd+ lesions during the treatment, compared to those receiving the control condition.||6.55|1.17|0.02
95881031|NCT00147446|191718440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon two sample test statistics|2.84||||0.005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||It was hypothesized that participants receiving SMT-MS showed a significant reduction in cumulative new T2 lesions, compared to those receiving the control condition during the treatment period.||||0.005
95881032|NCT00147446|191718440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.81|||Logistic Regression|||It was hypothesized that significantly greater numbers of participants receiving SMT-MS remained free of new T2 lesions during the treatment, compared to control condition participants.||6.81|1.38|0.006
95881033|NCT02302807|191718441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.63|0.4134
95970168|NCT02489968|191913280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.45|||REML based MMRM|Model including baseline HbA1c, treatment, baseline renal function, prior use of antidiabetic drug, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.|Adjusted mean difference: Change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + linagliptin 5 mg) - change in HbA1c in (empagliflozin 25 mg + placebo)|||-0.45|-0.73|<0.0001
95970169|NCT01982448|191913281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|23.68|||||Association between HRD status and pathologic response was measured by the odds ratio (OR).|In the Cisplatin treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 52% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 5.7.||23.68|0.39|
95881034|NCT02302807|191718441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
95881035|NCT02302807|191718441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||||||||0.99|0.73|
95881036|NCT02139228|191718481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.76|||ANOVA|||||0.76|0.36|
95881037|NCT02139228|191718482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-4.2|||Clopper-Pearson|||||-4.2|-18.6|
95881038|NCT03130257|191718483|EQUIVALENCE|The study planned for a sample size of 510 and 80% protocol completion, resulting in sample size 136 per group. With this sample size, the least detectable difference (LDD) is 4.1 mmHg systolic BP (SBP) and 2.8 mmHg diastolic BP (DBP) between any two groups (assuming Standard Deviation 12.1 and 8.3 for SBP and DBP respectively). Actual sample sizes completing protocol were 142, 149, and 111 for Clinic, Home, and Kiosk groups respectively, resulting in LDD of at least 4.3 for SBP and 3.0 for DBP.|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||We used linear regression models to estimate the mean difference in BP between diagnostic measurement and daytime average 24-hr BP for each randomization group. Models were estimated using generalized estimating equations with robust standard errors, and adjusted for age, sex, BMI, education, and baseline systolic and diastolic BP. Separate models estimated mean differences (diagnostic protocol - 24-hr BP) between groups for systolic and diastolic BP.||||<0.05
95881039|NCT02064894|191718486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.81
95881040|NCT00777608|191718505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.08|||ANOVA|||||0.08|-0.2|0.231
95881041|NCT00777608|191718506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.008|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 2|||-0.008|-0.3|0.041
95881042|NCT00777608|191718506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.06|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 8|||0.06|-0.3|0.143
95881043|NCT00777608|191718506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||0.09|-0.2|0.226
95881044|NCT00777608|191718507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.2|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 4|||2.2|-1.2|0.324
95881045|NCT00777608|191718507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.1|||ANOVA|||||3.1|-1.5|0.285
95881046|NCT00777608|191718507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.401|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||ANOVA||Statistical analysis for Week 12|||1.9|-2.6|0.401
95881047|NCT05275400|191718525|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin (NIM) was 0.4%|LS Mean Difference|-0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013||||||||0.013|-0.191|
95881048|NCT05275400|191718526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.013|||ANCOVA|||||0.013|-0.191|0.088
95970170|NCT01982448|191913281|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.95||||||In the Paclitaxel treated patients, the relationship between HRD status and pathologic response was conducted by arm using a univariate logistic regression model and a likelihood ratio test with a one-sided type I error of alpha 0.05. Assuming 12.5% unevaluable, prevalence of HR deficiency 60%, 70 evaluable patients per in a given arm, there is \~80% power to detect a response rate of 37% in HR-deficient patients vs a 16% in HR non-deficient patients, corresponding to the Odds Ratio 0.62.||4.95|0.19|
95970171|NCT01982448|191913282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|118.07||||||||118.07|0.23|
95881049|NCT05275400|191718527|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.03||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.74|||Negative binomial model|||||1.74|0.62|0.897
95881050|NCT05275400|191718528|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.72|||ANCOVA|||||2.72|-1.88|0.722
95881051|NCT05275400|191718529|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.33|||ANCOVA|||||2.33|-4.01|0.605
95881052|NCT05275400|191718530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-9.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.97|-50.10|0.003
95881053|NCT05275400|191718531|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.56|||Negative binomial model|||||1.56|0.83|0.430
95970172|NCT01982448|191913282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.14||||||||4.14|0.09|
95970173|NCT00605215|191913286|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.664|1.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||1.020|0.664|0.0746
95970174|NCT00605215|191913286|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|0.92|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using baseline-adjusted negative binomial regression, where a participant's number of relapses during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase served as the response variable and an offset based on the log of participant's exposure in years was employed to adjust for variability of treatment exposure. The model included baseline EDSS score, log of (prior 2-year number of relapses+1) and CGR as covariates.||0.920|0.596|0.0067
95970175|NCT01302067|191913326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.66||Primary comparison was 8 mg VS. 4 mg (closed-testing method). Treatment effect of 8 mg VS. placebo was tested 1st. Treatment difference of 8 mg VS. 4 mg was tested if a statistically significant difference between 8 mg and placebo was shown.|ANCOVA|Using a closed testing procedure, no adjustments of α-level was needed at each stage of testing. Each was done at the 0.05 significance level.|Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Comparisons were done with 2-sided test at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis: mean change from BL in the number of UUI episodes per 24 hours in the 8mg group was same as 4mg group at Week 12. ANCOVA was used to compare 8mg and 4mg arms for numeric change from BL - Week 12. This included terms for treatment, country, centered BL value and centered BL by treatment interaction, in which centered BL (BL - mean BL) was used to ensure that treatment effect was estimated at mean covariate value.||-0.66|-1.16|<0.0001
95970176|NCT01302067|191913326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.06|-0.48|0.0109
95970177|NCT01302067|191913326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.39||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Treatment comparisons were performed with a two-sided test at the 5% significance level.||-0.39|-0.89|<0.0001
95970178|NCT01302067|191913327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.79||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.79|-1.48|<0.0001
95970179|NCT01302067|191913327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.1||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.10|-0.67|0.0082
95970180|NCT01302067|191913327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.41||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.41|-1.10|<0.0001
95970181|NCT01302067|191913328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-1.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.03|-1.76|<0.0001
95881054|NCT05275400|191718532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.071||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.38|0.756
95881055|NCT05275400|191718533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|0.02|0.021
95881056|NCT05275400|191718534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-3.37|0.417
95881057|NCT05275400|191718535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 26||4.59|1.71|<0.001
95881058|NCT05275400|191718535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52||5.07|2.05|<0.001
95881059|NCT05275400|191718535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 78||4.94|1.75|<0.001
95881060|NCT03066804|191718553|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8362|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7987|0.8754|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.8754|0.7987|<0.0001
95881061|NCT03066804|191718554|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4985||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5267|3.52297|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.52297|-8.5267|0.4164
95970182|NCT01302067|191913328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.23|-0.83|0.0006
95881062|NCT03066804|191718555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5231||||0.4791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9258|1.972|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9720|-0.9258|0.4791
95881063|NCT03066804|191718556|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8993||||0.5294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6461|1.2518|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.2518|0.6461|0.5294
95881064|NCT03066804|191718557|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.4938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8287|1.476|||longitudinal binary logistic regression|||||1.4760|0.8287|0.4938
95881065|NCT03066804|191718558|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9798||||0.8314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|1.182|||Proportional cumulative odds model|||||1.1820|0.8122|0.8314
95881066|NCT03066804|191718559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.637||95.0|-0.8093|0.4953|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4953|-0.8093|0.6370
95881067|NCT00740831|191718560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|1.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-9.3||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in A minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||-9.3|
95881068|NCT00740831|191718560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority analysis based on the use of one-sided confidence intervals, using 2.5% level of statistical significance.|Difference in proportions|8.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.4||||||Newcombe-Wilson method for CI. Percentage in B minus percentage in C needed to be greater than non-inferiority margin of -20%.|As comparison involved two doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals.|||0.4|
95881069|NCT00740831|191718561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.181||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.181|-0.003|
95881070|NCT00740831|191718561|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.14||No p-values generated|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance after log transformation of the data|As comparison of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, Bonneferroni correction used to adjust confidence intervals|||0.14|-0.043|
95970183|NCT01302067|191913328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.51|-1.23|<0.0001
95881071|NCT00740831|191718562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
95881072|NCT00740831|191718562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since comparisons of 2 doses of ulipristal acetate vs GnRH-agonist, Bonferroni correction was used, p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and CI adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
95881073|NCT00740831|191718563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-14.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-14.6|-40.6|<0.001
95881074|NCT00740831|191718563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-16.6||Since planned analyses involved comparisons of 2 doses of PGL4001 vs GnRH-agonist, a Bonferroni correction was used and p values were doubled (p-value threshold was 0.05) and confidence intervals were similarly adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysed via a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for strata||||-16.6|-42.0|<0.001
95881075|NCT03948581|191718564|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9807|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9011|1.0675||||||||1.0675|0.9011|
95881076|NCT03948581|191718565|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9981|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9223|1.0801||||||||1.0801|0.9223|
95881077|NCT03948581|191718566|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with group, treatment, and injection site as fixed effects and weight as a continuous covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0038|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9401|1.0719||||||||1.0719|0.9401|
95881078|NCT00730405|191718574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881079|NCT00730405|191718574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881080|NCT00730405|191718574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881081|NCT00730405|191718574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881082|NCT00730405|191718575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881083|NCT00730405|191718575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881084|NCT00730405|191718575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881085|NCT00730405|191718575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881086|NCT00730405|191718576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881087|NCT00730405|191718576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881088|NCT00730405|191718576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881089|NCT00730405|191718576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881090|NCT00730405|191718577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881091|NCT00730405|191718577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881092|NCT00730405|191718577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881093|NCT00730405|191718577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881094|NCT00730405|191718578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95881095|NCT00730405|191718578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95881096|NCT00730405|191718578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95881097|NCT00730405|191718578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95881098|NCT00730405|191718579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881099|NCT00730405|191718579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881100|NCT00730405|191718579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881101|NCT00730405|191718579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881102|NCT00959764|191718580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assumed placebo-adjusted effect for both active treatment groups (% increase in BMD)was 1.56% and that the placebo adjusted effect for the rsCT tablets must be at least 0.5 times the placebo adjusted effect for the calcitonin nasal spray (active control treatment group). The null hypothesis to be tested was:~\[Mean(oral) - Mean(placebo)\] - 0.5 x \[Mean(nasal) - Mean(placebo)\] \< 0. Reference Pigeot, et al. 2003"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.45||The P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANCOVA|||The overall analysis across groups was an Analysis of Covariance where the study was powered to 80% with an assumption of a standard deviation of 2.5% and a two-sided 5% level of significance. For each treatment group, the BMD at 48 weeks was compared with the BMD at baseline and a % increase was calculated (baseline = 0%). This difference was subjected to the t-test. Two-sided P-value is less than or equal to 0.05 and was not adjusted as multiple comparisons were not done.||1.45|0.08|0.002
95881103|NCT00959764|191718581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.99||0.0006||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for significance was 0.05|ANCOVA|95% confidence interval not calculated||Same as for Primary Outcome||||0.0006
95881104|NCT00959764|191718582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as Primary Outcome|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.53||0.0012||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANCOVA||oral calcitonin vs placebo|Same as Primary Outcome||||0.0012
95881105|NCT00692341|191718583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.2|159.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||159.56|49.20|
95881106|NCT00692341|191718583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|127.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.9|229.91||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmax of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.91|70.90|
95881107|NCT00692341|191718584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.92|153.75||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||153.75|39.92|
95881108|NCT00692341|191718584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|195.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.49|383.18||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞) of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||383.18|99.49|
95881109|NCT00692341|191718585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|78.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.68|157.82||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||157.82|38.68|
95881110|NCT00692341|191718585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|198.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|401.74||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClast of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||401.74|98.47|
95881111|NCT00692341|191718590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|73.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.4|145.56||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||145.56|37.40|
95881112|NCT00692341|191718590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.58|183.02||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed fu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||183.02|55.58|
95881113|NCT00692341|191718591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.75|186.79||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||186.79|44.75|
95881114|NCT00692341|191718591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|50.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.14|95.03||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed CLu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.03|27.14|
95881115|NCT00692341|191718592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.53|206.22||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||206.22|51.53|
95881116|NCT00692341|191718592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|76.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.41|139.73||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Vzu/F of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||139.73|41.41|
95881117|NCT00692341|191718593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|109.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.54|223.47||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||223.47|53.54|
95881118|NCT00692341|191718593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|196.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.23|368.49||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)u of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||368.49|105.23|
95881119|NCT00692341|191718594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of geometric means|111.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.35|229.37||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||229.37|54.35|
95881120|NCT00692341|191718594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|200.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.68|377.2||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed AUClastu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||377.20|106.68|
95881121|NCT00692341|191718595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.22|195.99||||||For mild hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and mild hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (mild hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||195.99|58.22|
95970184|NCT01302067|191913329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95881122|NCT00692341|191718595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|128.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.62|219.25||||||For moderate hepatic impairment, ANOVA was used to compare natural log transformed Cmaxu of axitinib (AG-013736) between the control group (normal hepatic function) and moderate hepatic impairment. The point estimates and CIs on the log-scale were back transformed to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (moderate hepatic impairment/normal hepatic function) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||219.25|75.62|
95881123|NCT03617185|191718605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.63|0.15
95881124|NCT03617185|191718605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-4.98|0.08
95881125|NCT03617185|191718605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-4.43|0.15
95881126|NCT03617185|191718605|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.67
95881127|NCT03617185|191718605|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|0.002|0.77
95881128|NCT03617185|191718605|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.07||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.69
95881129|NCT03617185|191718606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.98||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.79||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.79|-2.77|0.27
95881130|NCT03617185|191718606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.53|-2.71|0.18
95881131|NCT03617185|191718606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.48||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.48|-0.82|0.21
95881132|NCT03617185|191718606|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.05|0.66
95970185|NCT01302067|191913329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0040
95881133|NCT03617185|191718606|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.02|0.25
95881134|NCT03617185|191718606|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.06||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.13|0.09
95970186|NCT01302067|191913329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970187|NCT01302067|191913330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970188|NCT01302067|191913330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970189|NCT01302067|191913330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970190|NCT01302067|191913331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.5||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.50|-1.02|<0.0001
95970191|NCT01302067|191913331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.01||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||0.01|-0.41|0.0662
95970192|NCT01302067|191913331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.3||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||-0.30|-0.82|<0.0001
95970193|NCT01302067|191913332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970194|NCT01302067|191913332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970195|NCT01302067|191913333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970196|NCT01302067|191913333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0006
95970197|NCT01302067|191913333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0001
95970198|NCT01302067|191913334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.06||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.06|-2.04|<0.0001
95970199|NCT01302067|191913334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.11||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.11|-0.92|0.0121
95970200|NCT01302067|191913334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.55||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.55|-1.52|<0.0001
95970201|NCT01302067|191913335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.49||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-1.49|-2.55|<0.0001
95970202|NCT01302067|191913335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.34||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.34|-1.22|0.0005
95970203|NCT01302067|191913335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.71||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, and centered baseline value.||-0.71|-1.77|<0.0001
95970204|NCT01302067|191913336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970205|NCT01302067|191913336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0348
95970206|NCT01302067|191913336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0003
95970207|NCT01302067|191913337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970208|NCT01302067|191913337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0002
95970209|NCT01302067|191913337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA|Testing for percent change from baseline was only carried out for given endpoint if corresponding numeric change result was statistically significant.||P-value was based on a RANKED ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and pooled country with ranked baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.0001
95970210|NCT01302067|191913338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||<0.0001
95970211|NCT01302067|191913338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0057
95970212|NCT01302067|191913338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0008
95970213|NCT01302067|191913339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0007
95970214|NCT01302067|191913339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.0091
95970215|NCT01302067|191913339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for country was used to calculate p-value.||||0.3901
95970216|NCT01302067|191913340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-9.45||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-9.45|-15.49|<0.0001
95970217|NCT01302067|191913340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-2.22||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-2.22|-7.15|0.0002
95970218|NCT01302067|191913340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.78|-4.78||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|Change at Week 12- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.||-4.78|-10.78|<0.0001
95881135|NCT03617185|191718607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.85||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.85|-3.72|0.97
95881136|NCT03617185|191718607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.31|-7.32|0.03
95970219|NCT01302067|191913341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|13.73||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||13.73|7.20|<0.0001
95970220|NCT01302067|191913341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.36||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.36|2.01|0.0006
95970221|NCT01302067|191913341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.03||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.03|2.53|0.0005
95970222|NCT01302067|191913342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|10.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.73|14.09||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||14.09|7.73|<0.0001
95970223|NCT01302067|191913342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|6.96||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.96|1.76|0.0010
95970224|NCT01302067|191913342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|9.72||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.72|3.39|<0.0001
95970225|NCT01302067|191913343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|10.51||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||10.51|4.40|<0.0001
95970226|NCT01302067|191913343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|6.23||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.23|1.24|0.0034
95970227|NCT01302067|191913343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.76||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.76|0.68|0.0164
95970228|NCT01302067|191913344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|9.97||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||9.97|5.03|<0.0001
95970229|NCT01302067|191913344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|5.7||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||5.70|1.65|0.0004
95970230|NCT01302067|191913344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|6.28||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.28|1.36|0.0023
95881137|NCT03617185|191718607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|2.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.05|-5.18|0.38
95881138|NCT03617185|191718608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95881139|NCT03617185|191718608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95881140|NCT03617185|191718608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95881141|NCT03617185|191718609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|4.86||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.86|-4.26|0.89
95881142|NCT03617185|191718609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.76|-4.64|0.83
95881143|NCT03617185|191718609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.3|-4.27|0.82
95881144|NCT03617185|191718609|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.05||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.21||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.11|0.51
95881145|NCT03617185|191718609|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.04||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.11|0.60
95881146|NCT03617185|191718609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.17|0.99
95881147|NCT03617185|191718610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95881148|NCT03617185|191718610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95881149|NCT03617185|191718610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95881150|NCT03617185|191718611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.17||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.17|-2.12|0.98
95970231|NCT01302067|191913345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|9.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|12.18||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||12.18|6.56|<0.0001
95881151|NCT03617185|191718611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.56|-2.26|0.71
95881152|NCT03617185|191718611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.31|-2.10|0.92
95881153|NCT03617185|191718611|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference of slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
95881154|NCT03617185|191718611|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.1||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.06|0.66
95881155|NCT03617185|191718611|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.10|0.66
95881156|NCT03617185|191718612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95881157|NCT03617185|191718612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95881158|NCT03617185|191718612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95881159|NCT03617185|191718613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95881160|NCT03617185|191718613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95881161|NCT03617185|191718613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95881162|NCT03617185|191718614|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95881163|NCT03617185|191718614|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95881164|NCT03617185|191718614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the change in participant count (as either having retinopathy or not having retinopathy) from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
95881165|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.50|-0.40|0.83
95881166|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.21||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.21|-0.62|0.33
95970232|NCT01302067|191913345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|6.53||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||6.53|1.93|0.0003
95970233|NCT01302067|191913345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.94||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|ANCOVA||Note- Standard Error of the Mean in the table refers to Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean.|P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, pooled country, centered baseline value and centered baseline by treatment interaction.||7.94|2.34|0.0003
95881167|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Peroneal distal motor latency (ms)||0.49|-0.36|0.75
95881168|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural peak latency (ms)||0.23|-0.49|0.45
95881169|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.08||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||0.08|-0.57|0.13
95881170|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure -Sural peak latency (ms)||-0.03|-0.79|0.03
95881171|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|1.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.01|-0.002|0.05
95970234|NCT01302067|191913346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0016
95881172|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.03||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||1.03|-0.07|0.08
95881173|NCT03617185|191718615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.7||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial distal motor latency (ms)||0.70|-0.27|0.38
95881174|NCT03617185|191718616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.48
95881175|NCT03617185|191718616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.31
95881176|NCT03617185|191718616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal amplitude (mV)||||0.23
95970235|NCT01302067|191913346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8121|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.8121
95970236|NCT01302067|191913346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0015
95970237|NCT01302067|191913347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||<0.0001
95970238|NCT01302067|191913347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0006
95881177|NCT03617185|191718616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.65
95881178|NCT03617185|191718616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
95881179|NCT03617185|191718616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial amplitude (mV)||||0.69
95881180|NCT03617185|191718617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.82
95881181|NCT03617185|191718617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.26
95881182|NCT03617185|191718617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Sural amplitude (µV)||||0.62
95881183|NCT03617185|191718618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.82
95881184|NCT03617185|191718618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.27
95881185|NCT03617185|191718618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal CV (m/s)||||0.52
95970239|NCT01302067|191913347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||A closed-testing procedure was used for the treatment comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) general association test stratified by country.||||0.0027
95881186|NCT03617185|191718619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.32
95881187|NCT03617185|191718619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.43
95970240|NCT02716818|191913348|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.069|||=|0.5521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|0.161|||ANCOVA|||The primary efficacy variable was the natural logarithm of the mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for the natural logarithm of 17-OHP. The SDS profile was calculated as the SDS of log transformed 17-OHP concentration unsigned. The mean of the 24-hour SDS profile for each visit was the arithmetic mean of all the SDSs, with the first and last (13th) weighted one half relative to the intermediate SDSs.||0.161|-0.299|=0.5521
95970241|NCT02716818|191913349|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|0.329|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to 24 Weeks in A4 Using an ANCOVA Model - The analysis conducted for the primary endpoint variable analysis of 17-OHP was repeated for A4.||0.329|-0.234|=0.7405
95970242|NCT02716818|191913350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.037|||=|0.8186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.281|||ANCOVA|||||0.281|-0.354|=0.8186
95970243|NCT02716818|191913350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.135|||=|0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.508|0.237|||ANCOVA|||||0.237|-0.508|=0.4655
95970244|NCT02716818|191913350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||=|0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.451|||ANCOVA|||||1.451|-1.32|=0.9081
95881188|NCT03617185|191718619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Peroneal F wave index (ms)||||0.48
95881189|NCT03617185|191718619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.75
95881190|NCT03617185|191718619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.09
95881191|NCT03617185|191718619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Measure - Tibial F wave index (ms)||||0.03
95881192|NCT03617185|191718620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.129||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.129|-0.16|0.79
95881193|NCT03617185|191718620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.01||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.01|-0.2|0.46
95881194|NCT03617185|191718620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.07|-0.26|0.24
95881195|NCT03617185|191718620|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.001||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.01|0.98
95881196|NCT03617185|191718620|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.002||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.004|0.49
95881197|NCT03617185|191718620|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.004||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.002|0.17
95881198|NCT03617185|191718621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.01|0.07
95881199|NCT03617185|191718621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.024||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.16||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.16|-0.11|0.72
95881200|NCT03617185|191718621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.19|-0.06|0.33
95881201|NCT03617185|191718622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.24|-0.11|0.46
95881202|NCT03617185|191718622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.31|-0.04|0.15
95881203|NCT03617185|191718622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.3||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|-0.06|0.20
95881204|NCT03617185|191718623|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|10.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.07
95881205|NCT03617185|191718623|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|3.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.34
95881206|NCT03617185|191718623|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|2.5||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.42
95881207|NCT03617185|191718623|SUPERIORITY||Wilcoxon test statistic|9.0||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare within-participant change between baseline and 2 year for each treatment group||||0.77
95881208|NCT03617185|191718624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.61||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.35||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.35|-1.5|0.21
95881209|NCT03617185|191718624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||0.80|-0.98|0.85
95881210|NCT03617185|191718624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.5||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Questionnaire||1.50|-0.58|0.37
95881211|NCT03617185|191718624|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.02|0.99|0.78
95881212|NCT03617185|191718624|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.01|0.98|0.53
95881213|NCT03617185|191718624|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Questionnaire||1.00|0.96|0.08
95881214|NCT03617185|191718625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95881215|NCT03617185|191718625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95881216|NCT03617185|191718625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95881217|NCT03617185|191718625|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.98||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.96|0.18
95881218|NCT03617185|191718625|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.96|0.52
95881219|NCT03617185|191718625|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.97|0.87
95881220|NCT03617185|191718626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95881221|NCT03617185|191718626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95881222|NCT03617185|191718626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95881223|NCT03617185|191718627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|-1.2|-1.2|2.67||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.67|-1.2|0.44
95881224|NCT03617185|191718627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.1||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.10|-2.16|0.97
95881225|NCT03617185|191718627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score||2.58|-1.78|0.71
95881226|NCT03617185|191718627|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.99
95881227|NCT03617185|191718627|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.02|0.98|0.88
95881228|NCT03617185|191718627|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||1.00|0.97|0.09
95881229|NCT03617185|191718628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.45||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.45|-3.41|0.78
95881230|NCT03617185|191718628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.95||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.95|-3.14|0.63
95881231|NCT03617185|191718628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.58|-1.55|0.43
95881232|NCT03617185|191718628|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.99||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.98|0.43
95881233|NCT03617185|191718628|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.98|0.83
95881234|NCT03617185|191718628|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.97|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|0.94|<0.01
95881235|NCT03617185|191718629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.59|-6.68|0.84
95970245|NCT02716818|191913350|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.092|||=|0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.527|||ANCOVA|||||0.527|-0.343|=0.6729
95970246|NCT02716818|191913350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|||=|0.5322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.489|||ANCOVA|||||0.489|-0.257|=0.5322
95970247|NCT02716818|191913350|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.568|||=|0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|0.662|||ANCOVA|||||0.662|-1.799|=0.2885
95970248|NCT02716818|191913351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||=|0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.45|=0.9877
95970249|NCT02716818|191913351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||=|0.8498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|0.43|=0.8498
95970250|NCT02716818|191913352|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.294|0.374|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||0.374|-2.294|=0.156
95970251|NCT02716818|191913352|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.425|||=|0.3392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.455|1.305|||ANCOVA|||German subjects have been excluded from this analysis group as DEXA scans are not performed at German sites.||1.305|-0.455|=0.3392
95970252|NCT02716818|191913353|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.009|||=|0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.025|||ANCOVA|||||0.025|-0.007|=0.2614
95970253|NCT00092495|191913369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970254|NCT00092495|191913369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970255|NCT00092495|191913370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970256|NCT00092495|191913370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970257|NCT00092495|191913371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970258|NCT00092495|191913371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970259|NCT00092495|191913371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95881236|NCT03617185|191718629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|12.97||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||12.97|-7.57|0.48
95970260|NCT00092495|191913372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970261|NCT00092495|191913372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970262|NCT00092495|191913372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970263|NCT00092495|191913373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970264|NCT00092495|191913373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970265|NCT00092495|191913374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
95970266|NCT00092495|191913374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
95970267|NCT00092495|191913375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970268|NCT00092495|191913375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970269|NCT00092495|191913375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970270|NCT00092495|191913376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970271|NCT00092495|191913376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group||||||<0.001
95970272|NCT00092495|191913376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970273|NCT00092495|191913377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970274|NCT00092495|191913377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970275|NCT00092495|191913378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970276|NCT00092495|191913378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970277|NCT00092495|191913379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.01
95881237|NCT03617185|191718629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|3.18||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.18|-4.94|0.64
95881238|NCT03617185|191718630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95881239|NCT03617185|191718630|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95970278|NCT00092495|191913379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970279|NCT00092495|191913379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970280|NCT00092495|191913380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970281|NCT00092495|191913380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970282|NCT00092495|191913380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970283|NCT00092495|191913381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (girls - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970284|NCT00092495|191913381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (boys - women) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970285|NCT00092495|191913382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (girls/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970286|NCT00092495|191913382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (boys/women) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970287|NCT00092495|191913383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970288|NCT00092495|191913383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970289|NCT00092495|191913383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The difference in seroconversion rates (partial dose - full dose) must be greater than -5%.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|"Miettinen and Nurminen method for difference in proportions~Miettinen and Nurminen, Stat Med 1985;4:213-26"||||||<0.001
95970290|NCT00092495|191913384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95881240|NCT03617185|191718630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95881241|NCT03617185|191718630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95881242|NCT03617185|191718631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.44||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||0.44|-5.66|0.09
95881243|NCT03617185|191718631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|2.41||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||2.41|-4.36|0.56
95881244|NCT03617185|191718631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||Mcgill Total Score||1.05|-4.5|0.21
95881245|NCT03617185|191718632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95970291|NCT00092495|191913384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970292|NCT00092495|191913384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of GMTs (partial dose/full dose) must be greater than 0.5.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA on natural log titer with fixed effects for region and comparison group.||||||<0.001
95970293|NCT00704379|191913425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|16.2|||Log Rank|||||16.2|1.1|<0.05
95881246|NCT03617185|191718632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95881247|NCT03617185|191718632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95881248|NCT03617185|191718632|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.46
95881249|NCT03617185|191718632|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.06|0.47
95881250|NCT03617185|191718632|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|0.003||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.04|0.91
95881251|NCT03617185|191718633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.65|-0.53|0.83
95881252|NCT03617185|191718633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.78||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.78|-0.76|0.97
95881253|NCT03617185|191718633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NeuroQOL- overall QOL||0.54|-0.73|0.76
95881254|NCT03617185|191718634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.58
95881255|NCT03617185|191718634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.80
95881256|NCT03617185|191718634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95881257|NCT03617185|191718634|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95881258|NCT03617185|191718635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95881259|NCT03617185|191718635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95881260|NCT03617185|191718635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95881261|NCT03617185|191718635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95881262|NCT03617185|191718636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95881263|NCT03617185|191718636|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95881264|NCT03617185|191718636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95881265|NCT03617185|191718636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the group from baseline to 2 years is significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95881266|NCT03617185|191718637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|2.36||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.36|-6.37|0.36
95881267|NCT03617185|191718637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.71||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||7.71|1.31|<0.01
95881268|NCT03617185|191718637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.62||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|16.63||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.63|-5.37|0.30
95881269|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.58||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||7.58|-1.30|0.16
95881270|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.88||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.88|-2.05|0.33
95881271|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|5.59||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Inhibitory Control and Attention Test||5.59|-2.72|0.49
95881272|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.97||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.35
95881273|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|9.44||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.44|-3.48|0.10
95970294|NCT02015455|191913474|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Median|-0.7||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, and site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Percent difference in median of the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.5|-2.9|0.54
95970295|NCT02015455|191913475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.0||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.00|0.91|0.04
95970296|NCT02015455|191913476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.90|0.02
95970297|NCT02015455|191913477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|0.99||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, prior opioid use, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||0.99|0.91|0.02
95970298|NCT02015455|191913481|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.07||Statistical significance defined as P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for site, clinic size, age, sex, image modality, comorbidity, site time trends. Random effects for clinic and provider.|Odds ratio is for the intervention group with respect to the control group.|||1.07|0.91|0.74
95970299|NCT03699085|191913499|EQUIVALENCE|A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.||||||0.38||||||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test is used, which ranks the values in each group, sums the ranks and determines the probability that they are the same. The probability p-value is reported.||||0.38
95881274|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.24||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|9.82||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Dimensional Change Card Sort Test||9.82|-3.34|0.32
95881275|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|9.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.37|-4.57|0.49
95881276|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|9.56||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||9.56|-3.03|0.30
95881277|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.49||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.38||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Picture Sequence Memory Test||6.38|-5.40|0.86
95881278|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.24||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.24|-5.39|0.88
95881279|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|6.31||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||6.31|-5.14|0.83
95881280|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|4.76||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||List Sorting Working Memory Test||4.76|-6.02|0.81
95881281|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.57||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||1.57|-12.1|0.12
95970300|NCT03699085|191913500|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mixed effects regression models were used to determine whether patients in the intervention and control group manifested different patterns of change in days of heroin use in the past 30 days in terms of incidence-rate ratio. We applied a negative binomial distribution to help account for overdispersion of outcome data.|Incidence rate ratio|1.29||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.37||A p value of \< 0.05 suggests the groups are different.|Regression, Cox||A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence rate of heroin use in past 30 days for intervention group compared to control group|Comparison of control and intervention populations based on substance use measured utilizing a time-line follow back (TLFB) calendar administered by the research assistant to for past 30-day heroin use. This is a covariate-adjusted mixed effects regression model at TLFB timepoint of 6 months. A number greater than 1.0 indicates a higher incidence of heroin use in the past 30 days at the 6 month timepoint for intervention group compared to control group.||4.37|0.38|0.68
95970301|NCT05126563|191913512|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.53|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Extreme fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.53|-1.42|0.9416
95970302|NCT05126563|191913513|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.2|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.20|-1.54|0.8021
95970303|NCT05126563|191913514|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.399|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.4417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.43|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms. - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.43|-0.63|0.4417
95970304|NCT05126563|191913515|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.98|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.98|-0.90|0.4550
95970305|NCT05126563|191913516|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.89|-0.98|0.9200
95970306|NCT05126563|191913517|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-0.88|0.6589
95970307|NCT05126563|191913518|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.61|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms Extreme Fatigue scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.61|-1.29|0.8240
95881282|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.84||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.84||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||5.84|-9.53|0.63
95970308|NCT05126563|191913519|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.9892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.36|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Brain Fog scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.36|-1.38|0.9892
95970309|NCT05126563|191913520|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.3952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.47|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Headache scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.47|-0.59|0.3952
95970310|NCT05126563|191913521|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.4504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.94|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Sleep Disturbances scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.87|0.4504
95970311|NCT05126563|191913522|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.78|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Taste scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.78|-1.10|0.7318
95970312|NCT05126563|191913523|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.5485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.5|||RMA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Neurological Symptoms - Loss of Smell scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.50|-0.93|0.5485
95970313|NCT05126563|191913554|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.3577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.44|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea at rest scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.44|-1.19|0.3577
95970314|NCT05126563|191913555|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.563||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.92|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Dyspnea during activity scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.92|-1.33|0.7196
95970315|NCT05126563|191913556|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.306|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.4847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.56|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Cough scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||0.56|-1.18|0.4847
95970316|NCT05126563|191913557|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.661||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.94|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Body aches scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.94|-0.71|0.3535
95970317|NCT05126563|191913558|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|0.472|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||0.4746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.78|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Visual Analog Scale of Non-Neurological Symptoms. - Joint Pain scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||1.78|-0.84|0.4746
95970318|NCT05126563|191913559|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-1.433|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.141||0.5059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|2.85|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Subject's energy - Fatigue Assessment form scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.85|-5.72|0.5059
95970319|NCT05126563|191913560|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-6.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.2269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|3.89|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups.|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (General Health) between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||3.89|-16.08|0.2269
95970320|NCT05126563|191913561|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.8735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.66|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||2.66|-2.91|0.8735
95970321|NCT05126563|191913562|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|-3.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.4802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.07|6.22|||ANCOVA||The value described represents the difference value of the mean change from baseline between HB-adMSC and Placebo groups|The null hypothesis is that the difference in change from baseline to Weeks 26 in PHQ-9 scale score between treatment groups (HB-adMSCs - Placebo) is equal to zero.||6.22|-13.07|0.4802
95881283|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|4.05||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test||4.05|-9.80|0.40
95881284|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.73||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||5.73|-3.63|0.65
95881285|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.68||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|7.54||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||7.54|-2.17|0.27
95970322|NCT06612255|191913563|OTHER|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means with comparison presented as test (powder)/reference (tablet).|Fixed Effect Analysis|51.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.71|58.43||||||Results obtained from mixed effects model of natural log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters including terms for regimen, period and sequence fitted as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence fitted as a random effect.||58.43|45.71|
95970323|NCT00964886|191913569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||ANCOVA|||In an intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance compared mean Descriptor Differential Scale scores at 12 weeks (or last observation carried forward) adjusted fro mean baseline score ( = ).||||0.7
95970324|NCT00964886|191913570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|Means are adjusted for baseline Roland and Morris scores.||In the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized participants assigned to experimental drug (desipramine) or active placebo (benztropine) an analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared mean Roland and Morris scores at 12 weeks adjusted for mean baseline scores.||||0.84
95970325|NCT00964886|191913571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
95970326|NCT00964886|191913572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||This analysis compares outcomes for participants assigned at baseline to receive cognitive behavioral therapy or not to receive cognitive behavioral therapy (behavioral effect)||||0.8
95970327|NCT00468104|191913582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||A univariate analysis was done to identify possible predictors of successful resolution of symptoms. The chi-square analysis was used to compare the percent successful.||||<0.001
95970328|NCT00294515|191913591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.66|0.25|<=0.0002
95970329|NCT00294515|191913592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.37|0.11|<0.0001
95970330|NCT00294515|191913593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.60|0.22|0.0001
95970331|NCT00294515|191913594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0126||95.0|0.35|0.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.88|0.35|0.0126
95970332|NCT00294515|191913595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.01||95.0|0.34|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Center Pools||||0.86|0.34|0.0100
95970333|NCT00741390|191913635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.59||||||95.0|98.09|99.59||||||||99.59|98.09|
95970334|NCT00741390|191913635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|98.79|100.0||||||||100|98.79|
95970335|NCT00741390|191913635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|97.61|100.0||||||||100|97.61|
95881286|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.65||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Cognition Fluid Composite||4.65|-4.10|0.90
95881287|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.17||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.17|-0.21|0.85
95970336|NCT00741390|191913635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.36|100.0||||||||100|95.36|
95970337|NCT00741390|191913635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0||||||95.0|95.13|100.0||||||||100|95.13|
95970338|NCT00741390|191913636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.84|||<|0.001||95.0|6.8|10.84|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||10.84|6.80|<0.001
95970339|NCT00741390|191913636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.55||||0.003||95.0|3.63|8.55|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||8.55|3.63|0.003
95970340|NCT00741390|191913636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.46||95.0|-3.57|0.23|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||0.23|-3.57|0.460
95970341|NCT00741390|191913637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9||||0.017||95.0|1.14|4.9|||ANOVA|A general linear model with subject as a random effect and order within a pair as a fixed effect was fit to each study group.||||4.90|1.14|0.017
95970342|NCT00741390|191913638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.001
95970343|NCT00741390|191913638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.002
95881288|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Interaction term for difference in slope|-0.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.09|-0.29|0.28
95881289|NCT03617185|191718638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.19||The P-value tests for association between the outcome and treatment at each visit, compared to the no-treatment group|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognition Fluid Composite||0.19|-0.18|0.99
95881290|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.49||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.49|-0.87|0.57
95881291|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.28|-0.81|0.33
95881292|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.38||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.23||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Auditory Learning||0.23|-1.00|0.22
95881293|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.81||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.81|-0.23|0.27
95881294|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.37||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.37|-0.69|0.54
95881295|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Delayed Recall||0.53|-0.57|0.93
95881296|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.74||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.74|-0.46|0.64
95881297|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.27||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.27|-0.70|0.37
95881298|NCT03617185|191718639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.69||The P-value tests whether the within-participant change in the outcome from baseline to 2 years differs between the treatment and no-treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Recognition||0.69|-0.59|0.88
95881299|NCT01964430|191718640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.063|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN).|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus LN-).|||1.063|0.729|0.1824
95881300|NCT01964430|191718641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.957|||Log Rank|Stratified by resection status (R0 versus. R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus. LN-)|Estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for strata of resection status (R0 versus R1) and nodal status (LN+ versus|||0.957|0.691|0.0128
95881301|NCT02284516|191718647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.096|=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|11.28||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||||11.28|3.04|=0.0007
95881302|NCT02284516|191718648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.792|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.33|11.37||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 14||11.37|4.33|<0.0001
95881303|NCT02284516|191718648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|9.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|13.2||The primary analysis was performed using a stratified 2-sample t-test (that is, analysis of variance \[ANOVA\]).|ANOVA|||Baseline and Day 42||13.20|5.44|<0.0001
95881304|NCT00113022|191718657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.867||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.565|51.006||The test reported here examines the main effect for placebo versus drug.|Mixed Models Analysis||A positive value indicates greater depression in the active treatment group compared to placebo.|Per protocol, a linear mixed model with a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used. Baseline was included as a covariate. Drug and visit were main effects with an interaction between them included.||51.006|-46.565|.919
95881305|NCT02572401|191718658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.21|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.21|.59|<.05
95970344|NCT00741390|191913638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.761
95970345|NCT00741390|191913638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|One proportion two-sided test; p=50%||Analysis consisted of a one proportion test for the 1st device in the lancing pair being preferred, out of the total number of times that a preference was stated. Note: lancing pairs in which no preference was stated or where data were missing were excluded from analysis. The null hypothesis for the one proportion test was that the 1st device in the lancing pair was preferred 50% of the times.||||0.004
95970346|NCT00620282|191913641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|7.43||||0.0549||95.0|-0.164|15.025||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||15.025|-0.164|0.0549
95881306|NCT02572401|191718658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.42|0.69|<.05
95881307|NCT02572401|191718658|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.49|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.49|.35|<.05
95881308|NCT02572401|191718659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.18|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.18|0.92|<.05
95881309|NCT02572401|191718659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.16|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.16|0.90|<.05
95881310|NCT02572401|191718659|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.42|0.86|<.05
95881311|NCT02572401|191718660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion.|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.24|0.89|<.05
95970347|NCT00620282|191913641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.08||||0.5681||95.0|-5.215|9.375||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||9.375|-5.215|0.5681
95970348|NCT00620282|191913641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|5.35||||0.1668||95.0|-2.323|13.024||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in Ach-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||13.024|-2.323|0.1668
95970349|NCT00620282|191913642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|4.499||||0.2648||95.0|-3.535|12.534||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||12.534|-3.535|0.2648
95970350|NCT00620282|191913642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.709||||0.8518||95.0|-6.904|8.322||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||8.322|-6.904|0.8518
95970351|NCT00620282|191913642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.79||||0.3435||95.0|-4.194|11.774||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in SNP-mediated FBF from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FBF as a covariate.||11.774|-4.194|0.3435
95881312|NCT02572401|191718660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.|The numerator is the treatment.|1.30|0.94|<.05
95881313|NCT02572401|191718660|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||1.47|0.76|<.05
95881314|NCT02572401|191718661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.48|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||1.48|0.73|<.05
95881315|NCT02572401|191718661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).|The numerator is the treatment.|This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||1.45|0.71|<.05
95881316|NCT02572401|191718661|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.08|||Poisson regression|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.|The numerator is the treatment.|The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||2.08|.50|<.05
95881317|NCT02572401|191718662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||The primary analysis tested the efficacy of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction Only and HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging Arms to the Text Messaging Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the main effect of the HIV risk reduction intervention.||0.080|-0.078|<.05
95881318|NCT02572401|191718662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.076|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion and time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months).||This analysis tested the efficacy of the text messaging intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and Text Messaging Only Arms to the HIV Risk Reduction Only and No-Intervention No Text Message Control Arms. This is a test of the text messaging main effect.||0.076|-0.082|<.05
95881319|NCT02572401|191718662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.149|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline of the criterion, time of follow-up assessment (6 vs. 12 months), and the HIV x Time and Text Messaging x Time interactions.||The analysis tested whether text messaging enhanced the effects of the HIV risk reduction intervention by comparing the HIV Risk Reduction and Text Messaging and No-Intervention No Text Message Arms to the Text Messaging Only and HIV Risk Reduction Only Arms. This is a test of the interaction between the two types of interventions.||0.149|-0.167|<.05
95881320|NCT01768286|191718663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95881321|NCT01768286|191718663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95881322|NCT01768286|191718663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95881323|NCT01768286|191718663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A 2-sided 1-sample binomial test was used to compare over the historical SVR12 rate of 25%. To control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05, the Hochberg procedure was applied, from which the adjusted p-values were obtained.|Binomial test|||||||<0.001
95970352|NCT00620282|191913643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.536||||0.0023||95.0|-0.868|-0.203||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.203|-0.868|0.0023
95970353|NCT00620282|191913643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.077||||0.6207||95.0|-0.391|0.236||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.236|-0.391|0.6207
95970354|NCT00620282|191913643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.458||||0.0098||95.0|-0.8|-0.116||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.116|-0.8|0.0098
95970355|NCT00620282|191913644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-35.605||||||95.0|-46.797|-24.413||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-24.413|-46.797|
95970356|NCT00620282|191913644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-9.653||||0.0677||95.0|-20.041|0.736||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||0.736|-20.041|0.0677
95970357|NCT00620282|191913644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-25.952||||||95.0|-37.429|-14.475||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in FPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline FPG as a covariate.||-14.475|-37.429|
95970358|NCT00620282|191913645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-11.871||||0.4121||95.0|-40.943|17.201||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||17.201|-40.943|0.4121
95970359|NCT00620282|191913645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.815||||0.7622||95.0|-21.618|29.247||2-sided significance level of 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||29.247|-21.618|0.7622
95881324|NCT02935842|191718677|OTHER|||||||||||||||||First Reliable Change (RC), Reliable Change Index (RCI) were calculated on every individual score. Further, ANOVAs and t-tests were administered in order to verify differences between groups or interventions. Significance levels were set at p \< .05.|Reliable Change / Reliable Change Index according to Jacobson \& Truax (1991). There, on the basis of every individual score, the change in performance (i.e. BL-4Weeks/ BL-6Months) has been calculated and is reported with level of significance as well as effect size.|||
95881325|NCT02935842|191718677|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95881326|NCT02935842|191718681|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95881327|NCT02935842|191718683|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95881328|NCT02465515|191718737|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by testing the hypothesis that the observed hazard ratio is significantly different from the null margin of 1.3 (a one-sided p \<0.025 for such a test with result in appropriate direction being equivalent to the upper 95% confidence limit for the hazard ratio being less than 1.3)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.9||One-sided p-value based on Wald test of hazard ratio (HR) \>=1.3 versus HR \<1.3.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||0.90|0.68|<0.0001
95881329|NCT02465515|191718737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test|||||||<0.001
95881330|NCT02465515|191718738|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.69|<0.001
95881331|NCT02465515|191718739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate|||1.19|0.73|0.578
95881332|NCT02465515|191718740|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.9||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.90|0.61|0.003
95881333|NCT02465515|191718741|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.14|0.66|0.300
95881334|NCT02465515|191718742|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||Two-sided p-value based on the Wald statistic.|Wald statistic||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.04|0.70|0.113
95881335|NCT02465515|191718743|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.53||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.53|0.33|<0.001
95881336|NCT02465515|191718744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.99||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.99|0.51|0.043
95881337|NCT02465515|191718745|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 8||||||<0.001
95881338|NCT02465515|191718745|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 16||||||<0.001
95881339|NCT02465515|191718745|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Month 24||||||<0.001
95881340|NCT02465515|191718745|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on the covariate-adjusted extended Mantel-Haenszel test. Covariates include Baseline HbA1c (\<8.0% versus \>= 8.0%) and Baseline diabetes therapy (diet and exercise alone versus all other therapies).|Mantel Haenszel|Final assessment||||||<0.001
95881341|NCT02465515|191718746|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.01|0.43|0.055
95881342|NCT02465515|191718747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.58||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.58|-0.69|<0.001
95881343|NCT02465515|191718747|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.45||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline HbA1c+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline HbA1c-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.45|-0.58|<0.001
95881344|NCT02465515|191718748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body Weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||-0.49|-0.83|<0.001
95881345|NCT02465515|191718748|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.6||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Body Weight+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Body weight-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||-0.60|-1.06|<0.001
95881346|NCT02465515|191718749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|2.93||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8|||2.93|1.85|<0.001
95881347|NCT02465515|191718749|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.01||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Total Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Total Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||3.01|1.66|<0.001
95881348|NCT02465515|191718750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.07||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||2.07|0.87|<0.001
95881349|NCT02465515|191718750|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.31||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline Score+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline Score-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide - Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16|||1.31|-0.26|0.192
95881350|NCT02465515|191718751|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||Two-sided p-value based on Wald test of HR=1 versus HR not equal to 1.|Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.16|0.79|0.644
95881351|NCT02465515|191718755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.39||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero.|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 8.|||-0.39|-1.84|0.003
95881352|NCT02465515|191718755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.41||P-value from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is equal to zero|t-test, 2 sided||Based on MMRM model: Change=Baseline eGFR+Treatment+Visit+Treatment-by-Visit Interaction+Baseline eGFR-by-Visit Interaction. Difference of least squares means (Albiglutide-Placebo) is from MMRM model for Month 16.|||0.41|-1.26|0.315
95881353|NCT00758836|191718758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.7|32.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomial distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||32.2|16.7|<0.001
95881354|NCT00758836|191718758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.6|35.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||35.8|19.6|<0.001
95881355|NCT00758836|191718758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.6|28.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||28.2|12.6|<0.001
95881356|NCT00758836|191718758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion differenece|4.2||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|13.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||13.3|-5.0|0.449
95881357|NCT00758836|191718758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|17.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||17.1|-1.8|0.182
95881358|NCT00758836|191718759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|40.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.9|49.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||49.0|31.9|<0.001
95881359|NCT00758836|191718759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.5|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||48.5|30.5|<0.001
95881360|NCT00758836|191718759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|14.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.9|-2.9|0.265
95970360|NCT00620282|191913645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-15.686||||0.2651||95.0|-43.838|12.466||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in PPG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline PPG as a covariate.||12.466|-43.838|0.2651
95970361|NCT00620282|191913646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-1.528||||0.0268||95.0|-2.873|-0.184||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-0.184|-2.873|0.0268
95970362|NCT00620282|191913646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.859||||||95.0|-4.139|-1.579||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||-1.579|-4.139|
95881361|NCT00758836|191718759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.2||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|14.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||14.5|-4.2|0.362
95881362|NCT00758836|191718759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.3|43.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Miettinen and Nurminen method for independent binomal distribution stratified by baseline severity.||||43.4|25.3|<0.001
95970363|NCT00620282|191913646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.331||||0.0486||95.0|0.009|2.653||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline body weight as a covariate.||2.653|0.0090|0.0486
95970364|NCT00620282|191913647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-2.237||||0.7736||95.0|-17.829|13.354||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||13.354|-17.829|0.7736
95970365|NCT00620282|191913647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|1.912||||0.7993||95.0|-13.168|16.991||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||16.991|-13.168|0.7993
95970366|NCT00620282|191913647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-4.149||||0.5903||95.0|-19.582|11.284||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TC from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TC as a covariate.||11.284|-19.582|0.5903
95970367|NCT00620282|191913648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|3.702||||0.5583||95.0|-8.96|16.365||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||16.365|-8.96|0.5583
95881363|NCT00293033|191718764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|The SPID was analyzed using a mixed model of repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, pooled site, and a random effect for subjects.|Onsolis minus placebo|||16.18|3.31|0.004
95881364|NCT00293033|191718765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.91|-0.40|0.440
95881365|NCT00293033|191718766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.33|-0.44|0.179
95881366|NCT00293033|191718767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.61|0.04|0.047
95881367|NCT00293033|191718768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|30.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.86|8.50|<0.001
95881368|NCT00293033|191718769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|48.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.12|15.85|<0.001
95881369|NCT00293033|191718770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.517|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.517
95881370|NCT00293033|191718771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.458|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.458
95881371|NCT00293033|191718772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.223|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.223
95881372|NCT00293033|191718773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.015
95881373|NCT00293033|191718774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95881374|NCT00293033|191718775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95881375|NCT00293033|191718776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.193
95881376|NCT00293033|191718777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.113
95881377|NCT00293033|191718778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.192
95881378|NCT00293033|191718779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95881379|NCT00293033|191718780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95881380|NCT00293033|191718781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95881381|NCT00293033|191718782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.157|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.157
95881382|NCT00293033|191718783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
95881383|NCT00293033|191718784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
95881384|NCT00293033|191718785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95881385|NCT00293033|191718786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95881386|NCT00293033|191718787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95881387|NCT00293033|191718788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95881388|NCT00293033|191718789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95881389|NCT00293033|191718790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95881390|NCT00293033|191718791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.563
95881391|NCT00293033|191718792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.498|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
95881392|NCT00293033|191718793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
95881393|NCT00293033|191718794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95881394|NCT00293033|191718795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.963|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.963
95881395|NCT00293033|191718796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95881396|NCT00293033|191718797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95881397|NCT00293033|191718798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95881398|NCT00293033|191718799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
95881399|NCT00293033|191718800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95881400|NCT00293033|191718801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95881401|NCT00293033|191718802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95881402|NCT00293033|191718803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95881403|NCT00293033|191718804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95881404|NCT00293033|191718805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.750
95881405|NCT00293033|191718806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95881406|NCT00293033|191718807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
95881407|NCT00293033|191718808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95881408|NCT00293033|191718809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95881409|NCT00293033|191718810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.01|0.92|0.023
95881410|NCT00293033|191718811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|34.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.04|5.63|0.009
95881411|NCT00293033|191718812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.72||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.32|58.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||58.20|8.32|0.012
95881412|NCT00293033|191718813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.46||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|83.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.08|10.69|0.015
95881413|NCT03583697|191718815|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.53||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in least squares (LS) means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.53|-0.02|
95881414|NCT03583697|191718815|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.54||||||"Z-Scores were derived using age-sex specific reference data (means and SDs) for average stature children per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.~Participants aged \< 24 months, body length takes precedence over standing height. Participants aged \< 24 months at baseline and \>= 24 months at Week 52, body length takes precedence.~Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model."||0.54|0.07|
95881415|NCT03583697|191718816|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.56||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.56|-0.02|
95881416|NCT03583697|191718816|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.66||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.66|0.26|
95881417|NCT03583697|191718817|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.54||||||||1.54|0.02|
95881418|NCT03583697|191718817|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.59||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||1.59|0.24|
95881419|NCT03583697|191718818|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.04||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.04|-0.17|
95881420|NCT03583697|191718818|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03||||||Difference in LS means were obtained from an analysis of covariance model.||0.03|-0.15|
95881421|NCT00365508|191718869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||Chi-square was used to examine the relationship between treatment arm and 24-hour point prevalence abstinence at 6-months.||||.05
95881422|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.12|95.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||95.05|11.12|< 0.001
95881423|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881424|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|41.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.3|6.72|< 0.001
95881425|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881426|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|25.84||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||25.84|4.79|< 0.001
95881427|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881428|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.81|49.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.27|7.81|< 0.001
95881429|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881430|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|12.3||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||12.3|2.95|< 0.001
95970368|NCT00620282|191913648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|2.773||||0.6517||95.0|-9.537|15.082||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||15.082|-9.537|0.6517
95970369|NCT00620282|191913648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.929||||0.8822||95.0|-11.646|13.505||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in LDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||13.505|-11.646|0.8822
95970370|NCT00620282|191913649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.169||||0.9131||95.0|-3.273|2.935||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.935|-3.273|0.9131
95970371|NCT00620282|191913649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.723||||0.6362||95.0|-3.785|2.339||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||2.339|-3.785|0.6362
95970372|NCT00620282|191913649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|0.554||||0.7283||95.0|-2.643|3.751||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in HDL-C from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline HDL-C as a covariate.||3.751|-2.643|0.7283
95970373|NCT00620282|191913650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-36.709||||0.0694||95.0|-76.467|3.048||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||3.048|-76.467|0.0694
95970374|NCT00620282|191913650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-3.786||||0.844||95.0|-42.373|34.801||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||34.801|-42.373|0.844
95970375|NCT00620282|191913650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-32.923||||0.0994||95.0|-72.353|6.507||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TG from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TG as a covariate.||6.507|-72.353|0.0994
95970376|NCT00620282|191913651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.42||||0.2282||95.0|-1.118|0.278||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.278|-1.118|0.2282
95970377|NCT00620282|191913651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.018||||0.9569||95.0|-0.697|0.661||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.661|-0.697|0.9569
95970378|NCT00620282|191913651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean|-0.402||||0.2465||95.0|-1.097|0.293||2-sided significance level of 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in TNF-alpha from baseline to end of treatment at 12 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline TNF-alpha as a covariate.||0.293|-1.097|0.2465
95970379|NCT01131182|191913666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Assessed for relative risk using prior therapy (monotherapy or combination therapy) as a stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0005
95970380|NCT00719329|191913679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.81|0.70|
95970381|NCT00719329|191913679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.77|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations (GEE) to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple CHX Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.77|0.66|
95970382|NCT00719329|191913680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.82|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.82|0.74|
95970383|NCT00719329|191913680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.65|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|Generalized Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.65|0.57|
95970384|NCT00719329|191913681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|0.96|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to adjust for clustered allocation|Prevalence Rate Ratio - Comparing Single Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.96|0.89|
95970385|NCT00719329|191913681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence Rate Ratio|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63|||Binomial Regression, Log Link|General Estimating Equations to account for clustered allocation|Prevalence Ratio Ratio - Comparing Multiple Cleansing to Dry Cord Care|Comparison of colonization prevalence, relative to dry cord care group||0.63|0.53|
95970386|NCT00633880|191913694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the primary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.509
95881431|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881432|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|22.34||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.34|4.79|< 0.001
95881433|NCT01817530|191718871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881434|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|156.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|641.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||641.22|38.04|< 0.001
95881435|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881436|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|206.88||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||206.88|21.1|< 0.001
95970387|NCT00633880|191913699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95970388|NCT00350103|191913736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||-0.02|-0.88|=0.0410
95970389|NCT00350103|191913736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||=|0.2902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is the difference of Least Square Means.|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) procedure was applied for missing daily diary entries between start of trial medication and Visit 8 or last intake of trial medication in the case of discontinuation during the Titration or Maintenance Phase.||0.20|-0.65|=0.2902
95970390|NCT04828837|191913782|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
95970391|NCT04828837|191913783|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
95970392|NCT04828837|191913784|SUPERIORITY|The intervention effect was evaluated using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) statistical method. Two-tailed tests were conducted, and p-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.|||||<|0.05||||||We used Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and Fisher's exact tests when more than 20% of cells have expected frequencies \<5 or less than 10 observations to examine the homogeneity between groups based on demographic characteristics.|The generalized estimating equation (GEE|||Descriptive statistics, including count, percentage, mean, and standard deviation, were used to summarize the data.||||<0.05
95970393|NCT04828837|191913785|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95970394|NCT03762200|191913842|OTHER|Confidence Interval|percentage of sucesses|87.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.4|93.1||||||||93.1|79.4|
95970395|NCT03762200|191913843|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|77.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.4|85.3||||||||85.3|68.4|
95970396|NCT03762200|191913844|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Percentage of Successes|92.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.3|96.6||||||||96.6|85.3|
95970397|NCT01865747|191913886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
95970398|NCT01865747|191913887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.83|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank test was stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group and number of prior VEGFR TKIs.||||0.83|0.53|0.0003
95881437|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881438|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|52.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.42|156.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||156.09|17.42|< 0.001
95881439|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881440|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.45|61.96||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||61.96|10.45|< 0.001
95881441|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881442|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.38|21.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.25|4.38|< 0.001
95881443|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881444|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|36.67||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||36.67|7.13|< 0.001
95881445|NCT01817530|191718872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881446|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|123.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.93|584.85||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||584.85|25.93|< 0.001
95881447|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881448|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.59|121.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||121.03|13.59|< 0.001
95881449|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95970399|NCT01865747|191913888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95881450|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|48.58||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||48.58|7.44|< 0.001
95881451|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881452|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.29|55.77||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||55.77|9.29|< 0.001
95970400|NCT00611975|191913889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.8
95970401|NCT00611975|191913889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.4
95881453|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881454|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|24.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||24.27|4.88|< 0.001
95881455|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881456|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|21.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||21.22|4.46|< 0.001
95881457|NCT01817530|191718873|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881458|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.57|71.32||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||71.32|8.57|< 0.001
95881459|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881460|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|45.05||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||45.05|6.57|< 0.001
95881461|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881462|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|19.92||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||19.92|3.79|< 0.001
95970402|NCT00611975|191913890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asex questionnaires were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for ASEX scores were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-2 days before NMP).||||>0.6
95970403|NCT00611975|191913890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on ASEX scores||||>0.6
95970404|NCT00611975|191913891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||<.01
95881463|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881464|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.11|49.02||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||49.02|7.11|< 0.001
95881465|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881466|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|10.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.04|2.43|< 0.001
95881467|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881468|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|26.79|||Regression, Logistic|P value is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.||||26.79|5.17|< 0.001
95881469|NCT01817530|191718874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95970405|NCT00611975|191913891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<0.01
95970406|NCT00611975|191913892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.4
95881470|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.02|98.83||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||98.83|10.02|< 0.001
95881471|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881472|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.77|35.91||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||35.91|5.77|< 0.001
95881473|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881474|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|22.8||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||22.8|4.23|< 0.001
95970407|NCT00611975|191913892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
95970408|NCT00611975|191913893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.7
95970409|NCT00611975|191913893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
95881475|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881476|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.66|41.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||41.26|6.66|< 0.001
95881477|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881478|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|14.68||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||14.68|3.36|< 0.001
95881479|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881480|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|23.76||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||23.76|4.85|< 0.001
95881481|NCT01817530|191718875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95881482|NCT01817530|191718876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881483|NCT01817530|191718876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881484|NCT01817530|191718876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881485|NCT01817530|191718876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881486|NCT01817530|191718876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881487|NCT01817530|191718876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881488|NCT01817530|191718877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881489|NCT01817530|191718877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881490|NCT01817530|191718877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881491|NCT01817530|191718877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881492|NCT01817530|191718877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881493|NCT01817530|191718877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95881494|NCT01817530|191718878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.28|-1.03||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-6.28|0.007
95881495|NCT01817530|191718878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|0.46||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-3.44|0.132
95881496|NCT01817530|191718878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.0||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.00|-1.71|0.876
95881497|NCT01817530|191718878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|0.04||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-3.92|0.055
95881498|NCT01817530|191718878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|-1.52|0.898
95881499|NCT01817530|191718878|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.17||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.17|-2.05|0.59
95881500|NCT01817530|191718879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.42||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-1.64|0.001
95881501|NCT01817530|191718879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.48||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-1.42|< 0.001
95881502|NCT01817530|191718879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.25||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.12|0.002
95881503|NCT01817530|191718879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.12||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-1.04|0.118
95881504|NCT01817530|191718879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
95881505|NCT01817530|191718879|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-1.51|< 0.001
95881506|NCT01817530|191718880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.15|-0.79|0.004
95881507|NCT01817530|191718880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.13||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.4|0.314
95970410|NCT00611975|191913894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
95970411|NCT00611975|191913894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||<.0001
95970412|NCT00611975|191913895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.9
95970413|NCT00611975|191913895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.9
95970414|NCT00611975|191913896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Blood draws were scheduled for early follicular, ovulatory and luteal phases. Menstrual phase for blood samples were re-assigned to phase based on time to onset of next menstrual period. Early follicular(35-21 days before next menstrual period (NMP)), Ovulatory (16-12 before NMP) luteal (11-3 days before NMP).||||>0.1
95970415|NCT00611975|191913896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This secondary analysis examined main effect of menstrual cycle phase on hormone levels||||>0.7
95970416|NCT02704754|191913915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95970417|NCT03730480|191913923|OTHER|count of number of results within 15% of reference analyzer||||||||||||||||count of number of responses|The number of results that are within 15% of reference analyzer is reported.|||
95970418|NCT00107120|191913946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.458||0.022||95.0|-6.2|-0.5||Two-sided at 5% level of significance p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANCOVA|The model included study center and treatment as factors and baseline core as covariate|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score between treatment groups. The power calculation was based on the change from baseline to Week 8 in CDRS-R total score (LOCF approach). Assuming an effect size (treatment group difference relative to standard deviation) of 0.325, a sample size of approximately 150 patients per treatment group was used to provide at least 80% power at a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided test.||-0.5|-6.2|0.022
95970419|NCT00107120|191913947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|-0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1128||0.008||95.0|-0.595|0.092||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA|The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline CGI-Severity score as covariate.|Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||0.092|-0.595|0.008
95970420|NCT00107120|191913948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|2.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.103||95.0|-0.439|4.777||Two-sided at 5% level of significance|ANCOVA||Differences are Escitalopram-Placebo|ANCOVA on the Change from Baseline to Week 8 in CGAS score. The model included treatment and center as factors and baseline score as covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF approach.||4.777|-0.439|0.103
95970421|NCT03241225|191913949|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|8.61|||t-test, 2 sided||Mean change in EM/PROTECT group not significantly different from mean change in EM/MH group, at week 12.|Week 12||8.61|-1.43|0.16
95970422|NCT03241225|191913950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.05|-1.37|0.79
95970423|NCT03241225|191913950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||3.46|-0.70|0.19
95970424|NCT03241225|191913950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.99|5.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||5.93|-14.99|0.37
95881508|NCT01817530|191718880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.12|0.307
95881509|NCT01817530|191718880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.58|0.106
95881510|NCT01817530|191718880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.36|0.424
95881511|NCT01817530|191718880|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS mean change|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.35||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.18|0.528
95881512|NCT01817530|191718881|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.74|0.80|< 0.001
95881513|NCT01817530|191718881|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.72||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.72|0.78|< 0.001
95881514|NCT01817530|191718881|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.27||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.27|0.33|< 0.001
95881515|NCT01817530|191718881|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.52||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.52|0.65|< 0.001
95881516|NCT01817530|191718881|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.16||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.16|0.29|< 0.001
95881517|NCT01817530|191718881|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each postbaseline time point is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.26|0.4|< 0.001
95881518|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881519|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881520|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.018
95881521|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881522|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881523|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.021
95881524|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881525|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881526|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.032
95881527|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881528|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.007
95881529|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.495
95881530|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881531|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881532|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.015
95881533|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881534|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
95881535|NCT01817530|191718882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.329
95881536|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95970425|NCT03241225|191913950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.75|-0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #4, Week 12||-0.73|-9.75|0.026
95970426|NCT03241225|191913950|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #5, Week 12||2.27|-3.51|0.66
95970427|NCT03241225|191913951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #1, Week 12||1.66|-0.26|0.14
95881537|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881538|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||0.036
95881539|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881540|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881541|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.040
95881542|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881543|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||< 0.001
95881544|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.098
95881545|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881546|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.014
95881547|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||0.409
95970428|NCT03241225|191913951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|1.55||Domain #2|t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #2, Week 12||1.55|0.011|0.047
95970429|NCT03241225|191913951|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Domain #3, Week 12||1.64|-0.34|0.18
95970430|NCT00686725|191913955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.183
95970431|NCT00686725|191913956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
95970432|NCT00686725|191913959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.648
95970433|NCT00686725|191913960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.915
95970434|NCT03507777|191913964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||<0.0001
95970435|NCT03507777|191913965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2487|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2487
95881548|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881549|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881550|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.094
95881551|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881552|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.002
95881553|NCT01817530|191718883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||0.393
95881554|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881555|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881556|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881557|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95970436|NCT03507777|191913966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2952|||||||A Cox regression model|||||||0.2952
95970437|NCT01346475|191913975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incident Risk Ratio|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.66|||Incident risk ratio|The model is adjusted for period effects.||This study had 80% power to detect a 50% reduction in HSV genital shedding rates for high-dose valacyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||0.66|0.44|<0.001
95970438|NCT00618618|191913980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.2|-1.0|0.005
95970439|NCT00618618|191913980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||-0.4|-1.4|0.001
95881558|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881559|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881560|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881561|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881562|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881563|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881564|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881565|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881566|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881567|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881568|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95970440|NCT00618618|191913980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.8|0.069
95970441|NCT00618618|191913981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||3.0|0.6|0.005
95970442|NCT00618618|191913981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.0|1.0|0.001
95881569|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881570|NCT01817530|191718884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from Kruskal-Wallis analysis with treatment as the main effect.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881571|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881572|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881573|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.020
95881574|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881575|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.002
95881576|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.061
95881577|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881578|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.004
95881579|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.085
95881580|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881581|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.012
95881582|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.049
95881583|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881584|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881585|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.056
95881586|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881587|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.005
95881588|NCT01817530|191718885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.088
95881589|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881590|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881591|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.188
95881592|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881593|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.001
95881594|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.104
95881595|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881596|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.021
95881597|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.859
95881598|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881599|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.006
95881600|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.015
95881601|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881602|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.007
95881603|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.722
95881604|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881605|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881606|NCT01817530|191718886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.032
95881607|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881608|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881609|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.041
95881610|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881611|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||< 0.001
95881612|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 3||||0.008
95881613|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881614|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881615|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
95881616|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881617|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||< 0.001
95881618|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Month 6||||0.003
95881619|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881620|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881621|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.004
95881622|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881623|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||< 0.001
95881624|NCT01817530|191718887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo is from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline value as a covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||Final Visit||||0.002
95881625|NCT01817530|191718888|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|3.59||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||3.59|-6.65|0.556
95881626|NCT01817530|191718888|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|4.09||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||4.09|-6.33|0.672
95881627|NCT01817530|191718888|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|8.36||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||8.36|-2.39|0.274
95881628|NCT01817530|191718888|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.23||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.23|-5.26|0.223
95881629|NCT01817530|191718888|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.22||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.22|-5.38|0.215
95881630|NCT01817530|191718888|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.75|1.87||P value for test of difference between each elagolix dose group and placebo at each post-baseline time point is from ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Final Month||1.87|-4.75|0.392
95881631|NCT00873912|191718898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on similar fever rate with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), the study would provide at least 98% power to rule out a rate increase of 5 percentage points assuming the true difference between the treatment groups is zero and the true fever rate is ≤ 1.0%. Power would be lower if the true difference was different from zero.|rate difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.3|||score statistic|||The percentage of subjects with fever was compared between the two treatment groups based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CIs for rate difference (monovalent vaccine minus placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points which corresponded to the following hypotheses: - H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points, - HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.||1.3|-7.9|
95881632|NCT01749137|191718917|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.04|-2.27|0.059
95881633|NCT01749137|191718918|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.14|||MMRM|||||0.14|-2.48|0.079
95881634|NCT01749137|191718919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site and the stratification factor severely obese (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.513
95881635|NCT01749137|191718927|SUPERIORITY|P-value from a mixed-effects analysis of covariance model with treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as factors, baseline weight as a covariate, and participant as the random effect.|Treatment Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.98|||MMRM|||||0.98|-2.50|0.387
95881636|NCT01749137|191718928|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P-values from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, controlling for site.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1.000
95881637|NCT01758432|191718929|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-95.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881638|NCT01758432|191718929|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-130.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881639|NCT01758432|191718929|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-129.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881640|NCT01758432|191718929|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-165.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881641|NCT01758432|191718929|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-167.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881642|NCT01758432|191718929|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-135.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881643|NCT01758432|191718930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|85559.49||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
95881644|NCT01758432|191718930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|105508.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881645|NCT01758432|191718930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|182753.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881646|NCT01758432|191718930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|193684.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881647|NCT01758432|191718930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|178055.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881648|NCT01758432|191718930|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|169709.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881649|NCT01758432|191718931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881650|NCT01758432|191718931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-4.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881651|NCT01758432|191718931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881652|NCT01758432|191718931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881653|NCT01758432|191718931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-7.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881654|NCT01758432|191718931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-6.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95881655|NCT01976338|191718940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95881656|NCT01112865|191718961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|||||Binomial test against the null hypothesis|binomial test|||Null hypothesis: percentage of participants preferring Genotropin Mark VII injection pen = 50%||||0.6858
95881657|NCT03758066|191718980|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value reported for quality of life measured between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.03
95881658|NCT03758066|191718981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between baseline and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||A two-tailed non-parametric one-sample paired sign test was used to determine whether to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis that the mean difference of scores between any of the 2 of 3 timepoints is 0 (Baseline v. 6-month, 6-month v. 12-month, and Baseline v. 12-month).||||.02
95881659|NCT03758066|191718981|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value reported for self-reported self-efficacy in chronic disease management between 6- and 12-month follow-up with a statistical significance threshold of .05.|Sign test|||||||.02
95881660|NCT02499783|191718991|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|||41.7|19.2|<0.001
95881661|NCT02499783|191718992|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference Compared to 30%|34.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|42.4|||One Sample Exact Test|The one sample Exact test was performed by comparing it to the clinically meaningful remission rate of 30%.||||42.4|26.2|< 0.001
95881662|NCT02499783|191718993|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
95881663|NCT02499783|191718997|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
95881664|NCT02499783|191718998|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
95881665|NCT02499783|191718999|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|37.0||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||37.0|18.2|< 0.001
95970443|NCT00618618|191913981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||2.2|-0.3|0.122
95970444|NCT00618618|191913982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|38.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|65.7|||Fisher Exact|||||65.7|11.0|0.008
95881666|NCT02499783|191719001|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|19.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|32.1||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||32.1|7.1|0.002
95881667|NCT02499783|191719003|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-385.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-598.81|-171.5||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-171.50|-598.81|< 0.001
95881668|NCT02499783|191719004|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|9.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.8||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by be stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline.|||15.8|3.9|0.001
95881669|NCT02499783|191719006|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 2||28.6|8.2|< 0.001
95881670|NCT02499783|191719006|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|41.7||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission at Week 4||41.7|19.2|< 0.001
95881671|NCT02499783|191719008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|30.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 2||30.2|12.6|< 0.001
95881672|NCT02499783|191719008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|33.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|43.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Remission (CDAI \< 150) Plus A Reduction in HS-CRP of at Least 50% From Baseline at Week 4||43.6|23.2|< 0.001
95881673|NCT02499783|191719010|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|21.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|34.6||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 2||34.6|8.7|0.001
95881674|NCT02499783|191719010|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|54.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Clinical Response (Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline) at Week 4||54.2|26.7|< 0.001
95881675|NCT02499783|191719012|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|43.2||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 2||43.2|19.6|< 0.001
95881676|NCT02499783|191719012|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.9|63.5||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab 160/80 mg - placebo). Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300 and CDAI \>300) at baseline and corticosteroid use at baseline.|Decrease in CDAI ≥ 70 Points From Baseline Plus a Reduction in Hs-CRP of at Least 30% From Baseline at Week 4||63.5|36.9|< 0.001
95970445|NCT00618618|191913982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|32.9||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|64.8|||Fisher Exact|||||64.8|1.0|0.172
95970446|NCT00618618|191913982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|22.9||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|54.2|||Fisher Exact|||||54.2|-8.4|0.252
95970447|NCT00618618|191913983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|46.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.3|75.9|||Fisher Exact|||||75.9|16.3|0.011
95970448|NCT00618618|191913983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|54.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|85.5|||Fisher Exact|||||85.5|23.0|0.013
95970449|NCT00618618|191913983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from Placebo|24.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|57.3|||Fisher Exact|||||57.3|-8.7|0.296
95970450|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.5|0.460
95881677|NCT02499783|191719014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-43.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.39|-27.3||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 2||-27.30|-59.39|< 0.001
95881678|NCT02499783|191719014|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.2|-49.06||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in CDAI at Week 4||-49.06|-84.20|< 0.001
95881679|NCT02499783|191719016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.921|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.183|-8.659||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 2||-8.659|-19.183|< 0.001
95881680|NCT02499783|191719016|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.844|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.206|-12.483||P-value for test of difference between adalimumab and placebo for mean change from Baseline using ANCOVA with Treatment, Crohn's disease severity (CDAI \<= 300, \> 300) at Baseline and corticosteroid use at Baseline, and Baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Change From Baseline in hs-CRP Level at Week 4||-12.483|-21.206|< 0.001
95881681|NCT00730132|191719040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson Chi-Square|||Significance of the differences in the number of patients per group who achieved goal TC levels on Visit 2.||||0.007
95881682|NCT00730132|191719041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Chi square, continuity corrected. Asymptotic significance.|McNemar|||Significance of paired changes in the number of patients who achieved LDL-C target levels on Visit 2, for each treatment group comparison||||<0.001
95881683|NCT00730132|191719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.757|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30606||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC levels from Baseline at Visit 2||||
95881684|NCT00730132|191719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.662||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
95881685|NCT00730132|191719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8181|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.03545||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in TC from baseline at Visit 2||||
95881686|NCT00730132|191719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.80928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48621||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.307|0.6884|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||.6884|-6.3070|.143
95881687|NCT00730132|191719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56351||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4298|-2.0664|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimbe||-2.0664|-9.4298|.001
95881688|NCT00730132|191719042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93883|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38286||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1948|0.3171|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.3171|-6.1948|.086
95881689|NCT00730132|191719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.8174|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85205||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
95881690|NCT00730132|191719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.2488|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.78727||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
95881691|NCT00730132|191719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0665|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5901||||95.0||||||||Descriptive statistics of relative (%) change in LDL-C levels by the end of the study (Visit 2) compared to Baseline (Visit 1)||||
95881692|NCT00730132|191719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01009||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1604|3.2977|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to New Statin||3.2977|-6.1604|.756
95881693|NCT00730132|191719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97821||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9072|-0.591|||Games-Howell|||Statin Dose Titration compared to Ezetimibe||-.5910|-9.9072|.023
95881694|NCT00730132|191719043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81773|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88425||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2523|0.6169|||Games-Howell|||New Statin compared to Ezetimibe||.6169|-8.2523|.107
95881695|NCT03982368|191719044|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.93||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|3.32|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||3.32|-1.47|0.078
95881696|NCT03982368|191719044|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.31||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|4.7|||ANOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.70|-0.08|0.066
95881697|NCT03982368|191719045|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.12|||ANOVA|||||4.12|-0.70|0.032
95881698|NCT03982368|191719045|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.86|||ANOVA|||||4.86|0.02|0.029
95881699|NCT03982368|191719046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.534
95881700|NCT03982368|191719046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.611
95881701|NCT03982368|191719047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
95881702|NCT03982368|191719047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.564
95881703|NCT03982368|191719049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.810
95881704|NCT03982368|191719049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.733
95881705|NCT03982368|191719050|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.13|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||4.13|-0.19|0.025
95881706|NCT03982368|191719050|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.68||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.83|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||2.83|-1.48|0.243
95881707|NCT03982368|191719051|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.54|||ANOVA|||||4.54|0.28|0.007
95881708|NCT03982368|191719051|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.71||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.85|||ANOVA|||||2.85|-1.43|0.230
95881709|NCT03982368|191719052|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.16||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|0.8|||ANOVA|Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) was used for imputing missing data in the Full analysis set at Week 4.||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.80|-3.11|0.799
95881710|NCT03982368|191719052|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.36||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.59|||ANOVA|||The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.||1.59|-2.30|0.715
95881711|NCT03982368|191719053|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.54||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.31|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||0.31|-3.40|0.831
95881712|NCT03982368|191719053|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.21||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.66|||ANOVA|||"The secondary endpoint was analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) including only treatment as the main factor, followed by preplanned comparisons from vehicle and rhNGF dosages according to Williams' procedure.~p value for total corneal ancd conjunctival score is reported."||1.66|-2.07|0.750
95881713|NCT03982368|191719054|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.96||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.75|||ANOVA|||||1.75|0.17|0.004
95881714|NCT03982368|191719054|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|-0.51|0.217
95881715|NCT03982368|191719055|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.92||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.74|||ANOVA|||||1.74|0.10|0.007
95881716|NCT03982368|191719055|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.28||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.10|-0.54|0.225
95881717|NCT03982368|191719056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.680
95881718|NCT03982368|191719056|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.066
95881719|NCT03982368|191719057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.097
95881720|NCT03982368|191719057|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
95881721|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|12.0|0.289
95881722|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|24.0|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.0|15.4|0.032
95881723|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|20.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change to baseline to week 8||20.8|11.9|0.095
95881724|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.5||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|18.8|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||18.8|10.1|0.282
95881725|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.0||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.4|10.6|0.169
95881726|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|19.7|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||19.7|11.1|0.129
95881727|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.4|9.7|0.111
95881728|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.0||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.3|9.7|0.107
95881729|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.3||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||18.9|9.7|0.827
95881730|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|20.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.8|11.8|0.688
95881731|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||20.0|11.4|0.324
95881732|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|12.9||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|17.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||17.1|8.7|0.949
95881733|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.1|11.4|0.927
95881734|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|18.8|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||18.8|10.8|0.776
95881735|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.7||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.1|11.4|0.418
95881736|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||19.0|10.6|0.613
95881737|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|23.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.2|8.3|0.721
95881738|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.6||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|28.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|13.1|0.558
95881739|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.4||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|25.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.3|11.5|0.809
95881740|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.4||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.4|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||26.4|12.4|0.651
95881741|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|23.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||23.3|9.5|0.769
95881742|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.3|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||28.3|14.3|0.454
95881743|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|25.0|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||25.0|11.6|0.564
95881744|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|27.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||27.8|14.1|0.250
95970451|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.5|0.906
95970452|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.6|0.404
95970453|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.3|-0.5|0.791
95881745|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.9||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|32.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||32.2|15.6|0.853
95881746|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.0||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||28.0|11.9|0.393
95881747|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|27.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|35.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||35.6|20.2|0.010
95881748|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||25.4|11.1|0.395
95881749|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.8||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||32.4|17.1|0.068
95881750|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.3||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|26.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||26.4|12.2|0.400
95881751|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|33.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.0|18.1|0.021
95881752|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||30.0|16.1|0.056
95881753|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.2||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|20.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||20.7|7.6|0.981
95881754|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.0||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.9|11.1|0.525
95881755|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.5||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|16.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||16.0|2.9|0.356
95881756|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||12.4|0.7|0.771
95881757|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|8.7||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|15.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.5|2.0|0.926
95881758|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.9||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||13.9|1.9|0.778
95881759|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||||0.984
95881760|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.4||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||13.1|1.6|0.514
95881761|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.6||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-12.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-12.8|-20.4|0.985
95881762|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.8||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.0|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.0|-21.5|0.646
95881763|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-16.9|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-16.9|-24.5|0.007
95881764|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.2||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-12.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-12.5|-19.9|0.305
95881765|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-15.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.4|-22.7|0.015
95881766|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-14.4|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-14.4|-21.5|0.039
95881767|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-16.0|||ANOVA|||||-16.0|-23.3|0.001
95970454|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.6|-0.3|0.410
95970455|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.5|-0.3|0.733
95881768|NCT03982368|191719058|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-15.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-15.3|-22.4|0.002
95881769|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||21.4|12.2|0.241
95881770|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|19.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|24.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||24.4|15.1|0.040
95881771|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.8||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.4|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||21.4|12.3|0.097
95881772|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|19.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||19.9|10.7|0.238
95881773|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||20.9|12.0|0.070
95881774|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|21.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||21.1|12.3|0.058
95881775|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|18.1|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||18.1|9.3|0.128
95881776|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|20.3|||ANOVA|||Daily Activity Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||20.3|11.6|0.024
95881777|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.2||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|20.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||20.1|10.4|0.865
95881778|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.3||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|22.2|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|12.4|0.662
95881779|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|21.1|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||21.1|12.2|0.266
95881780|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|13.9||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|18.3|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 8||18.3|9.4|0.824
95881781|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.8||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||19.0|10.6|0.883
95881782|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.3||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|20.4|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 12||20.4|12.1|0.516
95881783|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY|Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16|Least square mean difference|16.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|21.0|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||21.0|12.1|0.407
95881784|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|16.4||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|20.9|||ANOVA|||Emotional Well-Being - change from baseline to week 16||20.9|12.0|0.422
95881785|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.9||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|23.8|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||23.8|8.1|0.615
95881786|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|29.2|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 4||29.2|13.3|0.626
95881787|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|18.3||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|25.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 8||25.6|11.1|0.968
95881788|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|20.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.4|||ANOVA|||||27.4|12.8|0.689
95881789|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||22.7|8.5|0.528
95881790|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.0||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|30.1|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 12||30.1|15.8|0.368
95881791|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|17.7||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||24.7|10.7|0.764
95881792|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|22.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|29.6|||ANOVA|||Work Limitations - change from baseline to week 16||29.6|15.5|0.184
95881793|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.4||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|34.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||34.2|16.5|0.909
95881794|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|30.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 4||30.0|12.2|0.428
95881795|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|37.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||37.9|21.6|0.008
95881796|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.3||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|29.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 8||29.2|13.5|0.222
95881797|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|33.4|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||33.4|17.2|0.082
95881798|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|31.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 12||31.1|15.6|0.154
95881799|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|25.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|33.6|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||33.6|18.0|0.030
95881800|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|24.6||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|32.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment Satisfaction - change from baseline to week 16||32.1|17.1|0.046
95881801|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||22.2|8.6|0.861
95881802|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.3||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 4||21.7|9.0|0.865
95881803|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.5||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|17.3|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||17.3|3.6|0.278
95881804|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.2||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.5|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 8||13.5|0.9|0.689
95881805|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.1||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.2|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||16.2|2.1|0.993
95881806|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.2||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.7|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 12||15.7|2.8|0.989
95881807|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|10.4||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||17.0|3.7|0.976
95881808|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|9.0||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment-Related Bother - change from baseline to week 16||15.1|2.9|0.778
95881809|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.3||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-13.3|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-13.3|-21.2|0.964
95881810|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-18.7||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-14.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 4||-14.7|-22.7|0.581
95881811|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-17.5|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-17.5|-25.2|0.006
95881812|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-17.6||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|-13.7|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 8||-13.7|-21.4|0.175
95881813|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|-15.6|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-15.6|-23.1|0.016
95881814|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-19.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-16.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 12||-16.1|-23.5|0.010
95881815|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|-16.8|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-16.8|-24.3|0.000
95881816|NCT03982368|191719059|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-20.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-17.1|||ANOVA|||Symptom Bother - change from baseline to week 16||-17.1|-24.6|0.000
95881817|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.302
95881818|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.224
95881819|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
95881820|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.885|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.885
95881821|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.035
95881822|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 12 (FUP)||||0.698
95881823|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.016
95881824|NCT03982368|191719060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 16 (FUP)||||0.706
95881825|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 4||||0.210
95881826|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at weeek 4||||0.260
95881827|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At week 8 (FUP)||||0.000
95881828|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 8 (FUP)||||0.734
95881829|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.050
95881830|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 12 (FUP)||||0.985
95881831|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.018
95881832|NCT03982368|191719061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 16 (FUP)||||0.580
95881833|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-1.0|0.282
95881834|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.9||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||6.0|1.7|0.497
95881835|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.6||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.8|0.5|0.734
95881836|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.2||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.3|0.1|0.963
95881837|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.7|0.854
95881838|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.8||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.8|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||4.8|0.8|0.881
95881839|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||5.7|0.3|0.632
95881840|NCT03982368|191719062|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.0|1.7|0.220
95881841|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.2||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||3.3|-0.9|0.296
95881842|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.7|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 4||5.7|1.5|0.570
95881843|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.7||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.9|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.9|0.5|0.754
95881844|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.3||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.5|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 8||4.5|0.0|0.972
95881845|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.4|0.793
95970456|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.3|0.542
95970457|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.5|-0.4|0.882
95970458|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.4|-0.4|0.934
95970459|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.4|0.838
95970460|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.4|-0.5|0.777
95970461|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.5|-0.4|0.795
95970462|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.4|-0.4|0.852
95970463|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.3|-0.6|0.444
95970464|NCT00618618|191913984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||0.5|-0.3|0.724
95970465|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.4|-0.4|0.934
95970466|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.286
95881846|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.4||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 12||5.3|1.5|0.766
95881847|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.0|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||6.0|0.6|0.458
95881848|NCT03982368|191719063|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.3|||ANOVA|||statistical analysis at week 16||7.3|2.0|0.147
95881849|NCT03570697|191719064|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|37.7|||ANCOVA|||||37.7|4.7|0.015
95881850|NCT03570697|191719065|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|37.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.04||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|73.31|||ANCOVA|||||73.31|1.63|0.041
95881851|NCT03570697|191719066|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|32.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.67|52.35|||ANCOVA|||||52.35|12.67|0.003
95881852|NCT03570697|191719067|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-49.6|0.032
95881853|NCT03570697|191719068|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|1.1|0.036
95881854|NCT03570697|191719069|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-9.5|||ANCOVA|||||-9.5|-50.5|0.005
95881855|NCT03570697|191719070|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4.04|0.003
95881856|NCT02571777|191719110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.099|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.099|0.031|<0.001
95970467|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 4||0.7|-0.1|0.190
95970468|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.5|0.402
95970469|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.2|-0.7|0.290
95970470|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 8||0.4|-0.4|0.863
95881857|NCT02571777|191719110|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.111|||MMRM|||||0.111|0.041|<0.001
95881858|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.094|-0.066|0.729
95881859|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0404||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.006|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.006|-0.165|0.034
95881860|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0409||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.010|-0.151|0.085
95881861|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|-0.005|||MMRM|||Week 26||-0.005|-0.164|0.038
95881862|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.023|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.023|-0.140|0.157
95881863|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 52||-0.040|-0.202|0.003
95881864|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.072|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.072|-0.092|0.814
95881865|NCT02571777|191719111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0416||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.09|||MMRM|||Week 52||0.090|-0.073|0.845
95881866|NCT02571777|191719112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.154|||MMRM|||||0.154|0.085|<0.001
95881867|NCT02571777|191719112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0177|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.133|||MMRM|||||0.133|0.064|<0.001
95881868|NCT02571777|191719113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.12|||MMRM|||||0.120|0.051|<0.001
95881869|NCT02571777|191719113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|0.18|||MMRM|||||0.180|0.111|<0.001
95881870|NCT02571777|191719113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.096|||MMRM|||||0.096|0.027|<0.001
95881871|NCT02571777|191719113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.122|||MMRM|||||0.122|0.052|<0.001
95881872|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.116|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.116|0.030|<0.001
95881873|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.181|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.181|0.096|<0.001
95881874|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.082|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.082|-0.004|0.074
95881875|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.15|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.150|0.065|<0.001
95881876|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.099|0.014|0.010
95881877|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0218|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.145|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.145|0.059|<0.001
95881878|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.007|0.022
95881879|NCT02571777|191719114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.142|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.142|0.056|<0.001
95881880|NCT02571777|191719115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0254|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.145|||MMRM|||||0.145|0.045|<0.001
95881881|NCT02571777|191719115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.198|||MMRM|||||0.198|0.097|<0.001
95881882|NCT02571777|191719115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0256||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.099|||MMRM|||||0.099|-0.001|0.057
95881883|NCT02571777|191719115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0258||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.107|||MMRM|||||0.107|0.006|0.029
95881884|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|23.3|||Linear Mixed Model (LMM)|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||23.3|13.2|<0.001
95881885|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|40.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||40.3|30.2|<0.001
95881886|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|20.0|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||20.0|9.8|<0.001
95881887|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|33.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean morning PEF||33.1|22.9|<0.001
95881888|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|21.7|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||21.7|11.8|<0.001
95881889|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||34.1|24.2|<0.001
95881890|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|19.1|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||19.1|9.1|<0.001
95881891|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|29.3|||LMM|||Week 26 - Mean evening PEF||29.3|19.3|<0.001
95881892|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|24.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||24.1|13.4|<0.001
95881893|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|40.1|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||40.1|29.5|<0.001
95881894|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|20.9|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||20.9|10.2|<0.001
95881895|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|33.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean morning PEF||33.8|23.2|<0.001
95881896|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|22.8|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||22.8|12.3|<0.001
95881897|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|34.7|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||34.7|24.2|<0.001
95881898|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|20.2|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||20.2|9.7|<0.001
95881899|NCT02571777|191719116|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|31.0|||LMM|||Week 52 - Mean evening PEF||31.0|20.5|<0.001
95881900|NCT02571777|191719117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.8|||LMM|||||3.8|-3.3|0.907
95881901|NCT02571777|191719117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.0|||LMM|||||7.0|-0.1|0.055
95881902|NCT02571777|191719117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||LMM|||||3.6|-3.6|0.997
95881903|NCT02571777|191719117|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.5|0.606
95881904|NCT02571777|191719118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.2|||LMM|||||4.2|-2.8|0.712
95881905|NCT02571777|191719118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.2|||LMM|||||7.2|0.2|0.038
95881906|NCT02571777|191719118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.4|||LMM|||||3.4|-3.7|0.943
95881907|NCT02571777|191719118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-4.4|0.612
95881908|NCT02571777|191719119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.6|||LMM|||||2.6|-3.3|0.809
95881909|NCT02571777|191719119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.0|||LMM|||||4.0|-1.9|0.467
95881910|NCT02571777|191719119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5|||LMM|||||4.5|-1.5|0.318
95881911|NCT02571777|191719119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.7|||LMM|||||3.7|-2.3|0.640
95881912|NCT02571777|191719120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2|||LMM|||||3.2|-4.0|0.814
95881913|NCT02571777|191719120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.4|||LMM|||||7.4|0.2|0.036
95881914|NCT02571777|191719120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|6.7|||LMM|||||6.7|-0.6|0.098
95881915|NCT02571777|191719120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.5|||LMM|||||6.5|-0.7|0.118
95881916|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
95881917|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
95881918|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
95881919|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
95881920|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
95881921|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
95881922|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
95881923|NCT02571777|191719121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
95881924|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.20|0.70|0.535
95881925|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.93|0.151
95881926|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.48|0.86|0.380
95881927|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Logistic regression model|||Week 26||1.57|0.92|0.172
95881928|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.47|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.47|0.83|0.510
95881929|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.86|1.06|0.017
95881930|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.38|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.38|0.79|0.744
95970471|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.128
95970472|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||-0.1|-0.9|0.018
95970473|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 12||0.3|-0.5|0.489
95970474|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.1|-0.9|0.007
95970475|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||-0.4|-1.3|<0.001
95970476|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 16||0.1|-0.7|0.122
95970477|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-0.9|0.005
95970478|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.3|-1.2|<0.001
95970479|NCT00618618|191913985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Repeated Measures|Based on repeated measures analysis of variance with treatment, visit, center, treatment x visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||Week 24||-0.2|-1.0|0.007
95970480|NCT00618618|191913987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||4.8|-8.6|0.573
95970481|NCT00618618|191913987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|9.9|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||9.9|-6.3|0.653
95970482|NCT00618618|191913987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|8.1|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as the main effect and baseline SMF Rating Scale score as a covariate.||||8.1|-5.4|0.688
95970483|NCT00560560|191914004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The final analysis was intended to be a binomial test (death prior to 6 months, yes or no). However, 2 participants in the 30/kg mg group were censored prior to 6 months, so the six month Kaplan and Meier estimates were used for each group instead.|Test of probability of 6 month survival|p-Value \>0.05 applies to each group (20 mg/kg and 30 mg/kg). Greenwood's formula was used for standard deviation.||The hypotheses for each group were H0:p=0.45 vs H1:p\>0.45. There was one interim analysis for futility for each group based on the method of Case and Morgan. The futility boundary was not crossed for 20/kg mg group, but was crossed for the 30/kg mg group. It was recommended to investigators that participants be discontinued from treatment with 30 mg/kg of figitumumab.||||>0.05
95970484|NCT02029872|191914038|OTHER|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.||||||||||||||||Due to low enrollment in the intervention, statistical analysis was not possible.|The study was powered for enrollment of 100 subjects with MRSA colonization at baseline. Despite substantial screening, we were unable to enroll enough subjects to meet the necessary sample size.|||
95881931|NCT02571777|191719122|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Logistic regression model|||Week 52||1.29|0.75|0.922
95881932|NCT02571777|191719123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.63|||Regression, Cox|||||1.63|0.27|0.371
95881933|NCT02571777|191719123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.37|0.996
95881934|NCT02571777|191719123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.47|||Regression, Cox|||||4.47|0.80|0.145
95881935|NCT02571777|191719123|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.43|||Regression, Cox|||||4.43|0.80|0.150
95881936|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.15|0.77|0.523
95881937|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
95881938|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.164
95970485|NCT00371683|191914073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Relative Risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||1.32|0.78|0.0635
95970486|NCT00371683|191914073|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two criteria were to be met to demonstrate non-inferiority: the upper bound of the 95% CI for the relative risk should be \< 1.25, and the upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk difference should be \< 5.6%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.44||If p-value is less than 0.025, it is statistically significant.|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.44|-2.22|<0.0001
95881939|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.92|0.63|0.005
95970487|NCT00371683|191914074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.23|||||If the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the Relative Risk was \< 1 then superiority for the key secondary efficacy endpoint was demonstrated.|||2.23|0.70|
95970488|NCT00371683|191914074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.4||||||||1.40|-0.68|
95970489|NCT00371683|191914074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7779|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.7779
95970490|NCT00371683|191914075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||||1.35|0.80|
95881940|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.16|0.72|0.476
95881941|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.54|<0.001
95881942|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.09|0.70|0.243
95881943|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.97|0.63|0.027
95881944|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.12|0.79|0.497
95881945|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.84|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.60|<0.001
95881946|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.73|0.126
95881947|NCT02571777|191719124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.85|0.61|<0.001
95881948|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.04|0.68|0.120
95881949|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.78|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.78|0.52|<0.001
95881950|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.06|||Generalized linear modeñ|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.71|0.170
95881951|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99|||Generalized linear model|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||0.99|0.66|0.041
95881952|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.78||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.00|0.61|0.050
95881953|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||0.73|0.45|<0.001
95881954|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Generalized linear model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.17|0.74|0.531
95881955|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.05|||Linear generalized model|||Severe asthma exacerbation||1.05|0.67|0.117
95881956|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.79||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.96|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.96|0.66|0.016
95881957|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.72|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.72|0.50|<0.001
95881958|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||1.06|0.72|0.161
95881959|NCT02571777|191719125|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.84|||Generalized linear model|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||0.84|0.58|<0.001
95881960|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.183
95881961|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
95881962|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.155
95881963|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||van Elteren test|||Moderate or severe asthma exacerbation||||0.007
95881964|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.172
95881965|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
95881966|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.241
95881967|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||van Elteren test|||Severe asthma exacerbation||||0.033
95881968|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.095
95881969|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
95881970|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||0.090
95970491|NCT00371683|191914075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.59||||||||2.59|-2.04|
95970492|NCT00371683|191914075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7754
95970493|NCT00371683|191914076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6||||||||2.60|0.77|
95970494|NCT00371683|191914076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.52||||||||1.52|-0.47|
95970495|NCT00371683|191914076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2626|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2626
95970496|NCT00371683|191914077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.87||||||||1.87|0.63|
95970497|NCT00371683|191914077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.21||||||||1.21|-0.99|
95970498|NCT00371683|191914077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.7700
95970499|NCT00371683|191914078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.11||||||||2.11|0.68|
95970500|NCT00371683|191914078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.33||||||||1.33|-0.78|
95970501|NCT00371683|191914078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||||||0.5443
95970502|NCT00371683|191914079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.93||||||||4.93|0.20|
95970503|NCT00371683|191914079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.30|
95970504|NCT00371683|191914079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.9975
95970505|NCT00371683|191914080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.3||||||||0.30|-0.05|
95970506|NCT00371683|191914080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.1578
95970507|NCT00371683|191914081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.4||||||||2.40|0.65|
95970508|NCT00371683|191914081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.47|
95970509|NCT00371683|191914082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.95||||||||2.95|0.72|
95970510|NCT00371683|191914082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.30|
95970511|NCT00371683|191914082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.2873
95970512|NCT00371683|191914083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2||||||||1.20|0.74|
95970513|NCT00371683|191914083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.63||||||||1.63|-3.30|
95970514|NCT00371683|191914083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6145|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||||||0.6145
95970515|NCT00371683|191914086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI/Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.55|
95970516|NCT00371683|191914086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of MI. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.09|-0.46|
95970517|NCT00371683|191914086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Stroke. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
95881971|NCT02571777|191719126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren test|||All (mild, moderate, severe) asthma exacerbation||||<0.001
95881972|NCT02571777|191719128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.96|||Regression, Cox|||||1.96|0.12|0.314
95881973|NCT02571777|191719128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.08|0.055
95881974|NCT02571777|191719128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.25|0.306
95881975|NCT02571777|191719128|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.94|||Regression, Cox|||||1.94|0.30|0.566
95881976|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|2.6|||LMM|||Week 26||2.6|-4.2|0.645
95881977|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|6.3|||LMM|||Week 26||6.3|-0.5|0.095
95881978|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LMM|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.7|||LMM|||Week 26||4.7|-2.1|0.460
95881979|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||LMM|||Week 26||3.4|-3.5|0.971
95881980|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LMM|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.963
95881981|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|6.6|||LMM|||Week 52||6.6|-0.3|0.075
95881982|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.7|||LMM|||Week 52||4.7|-2.3|0.517
95881983|NCT02571777|191719130|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.6|||LMM|||Week 52||3.6|-3.4|0.956
95881984|NCT02571777|191719131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.118|||MMRM|||||0.118|-0.078|0.690
95881985|NCT02571777|191719131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0502||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.038|0.232
95881986|NCT02571777|191719131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0506||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.045|||MMRM|||||0.045|-0.153|0.285
95881987|NCT02571777|191719131|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0505||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.049|||MMRM|||||0.049|-0.150|0.319
95881988|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.101|0.036|<0.001
95970518|NCT00371683|191914086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of thrombocytopenia. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.05|-0.30|
95881989|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0165|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.177|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.177|0.113|<0.001
95881990|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0167||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.066|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.066|0.000|0.049
95881991|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.129|||MMRM|||Week 4||0.129|0.064|<0.001
95881992|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.094|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.094|0.022|0.002
95881993|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.153|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.153|0.081|<0.001
95881994|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.086|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.086|0.013|0.007
95881995|NCT02571777|191719132|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.123|||MMRM|||Week 12||0.123|0.051|<0.001
95881996|NCT03706079|191719145|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||||||||0.51|0.35|
95881997|NCT03706079|191719145|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||||0.96|0.38|
95881998|NCT03652012|191719149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|54.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|106.85||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference (Healthy Controls - MCI).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure."||106.85|1.54|0.044
95881999|NCT03652012|191719149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.87|57.47||As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.|ANOVA||Mean difference in slope of the stimulus-response curve by muscle contraction condition (Active - Rest).|"We conducted a two-way factorial ANOVA (Group x Condition). Group has two levels: MCI and Healthy controls. Condition has two levels: active muscle contraction and rest.~As multiple parameters were assessed from the stimulus-response curve, a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha threshold of α = 0.0125 was applied to account for multiple comparisons when assessing this outcome measure.~The results presented here reflect the main effect of Condition on the slope of the stimulus-response curve."||57.47|-51.87|0.912
95882000|NCT03652012|191719150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|45.54|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mean cortical silent period (CSP; units = milliseconds) in the CN group minus mean CSP in the MCI group. Positive values indicate a longer cortical silent period in the control group.|||45.54|-4.33|0.1021
95882001|NCT03652012|191719151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|0.529|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.529|-0.113|0.19
95970519|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.14||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.14|-1.49|
95970520|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Major Bleeding Endpoint||||0.0533
95882002|NCT03652012|191719152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0078||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.51|0.97
95882003|NCT01288235|191719153|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.3||||||||22.3|8.3|
95882004|NCT01288235|191719153|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.9||||||||28.9|12.7|
95882005|NCT01288235|191719154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t test||||4.9|-2.6|0.543
95882006|NCT01288235|191719155|OTHER||3-Year Local Disease Control Probability|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.1|94.9||||||||94.9|83.1|
95882007|NCT01288235|191719155|OTHER||5-Year Local Disease Control Probability|85.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|91.9||||||||91.9|78.2|
95882008|NCT01288235|191719155|OTHER||3-Year Distant Disease Control|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.1|99.2||||||||99.2|92.1|
95882009|NCT01288235|191719155|OTHER||5-Year Distant Disease Control|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|98.1||||||||98.1|89.4|
95882010|NCT01288235|191719156|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.5||||||||19.5|6.6|
95882011|NCT01288235|191719156|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative incidence of grade 3+|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|24.3||||||||24.3|9.8|
95882012|NCT01288235|191719157|OTHER||3-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
95882013|NCT01288235|191719157|OTHER||5-Year Cumulative inc. of hearing loss|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|29.5||||||||29.5|2.9|
95882014|NCT03851705|191719161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.19|25.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||25.83|-29.19|0.9047
95882015|NCT03851705|191719162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.47||||0.8685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.11|83.05||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|ANCOVA|||||83.05|-70.11|0.8685
95882016|NCT03851705|191719163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|8.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.1|-32.2|0.2347
95882017|NCT03851705|191719163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|29.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||29.2|-19.9|0.7058
95882018|NCT03851705|191719163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.5653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|14.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||14.1|-25.5|0.5653
95882019|NCT03851705|191719165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9||||0.4589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|33.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.6|-73.3|0.4589
95882020|NCT03851705|191719165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7||||0.5956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.8|84.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||84.3|-48.8|0.5956
95882021|NCT03851705|191719165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|47.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||47.7|-62.7|0.7861
95882022|NCT03851705|191719167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.1|-45.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-45.1|-80.1|<.0001
95882023|NCT03851705|191719167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.5|-37.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-37.8|-83.5|<.0001
95882024|NCT03851705|191719167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-92.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.4|-64.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-64.2|-120.4|<.0001
95882025|NCT03851705|191719169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-420.7|-212.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||-212.6|-420.7|<.0001
95882026|NCT03851705|191719169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-304.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-408.0|-200.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||-200.8|-408.0|<.0001
95882027|NCT03851705|191719169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-390.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-504.5|-276.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||-276.3|-504.5|<.0001
95882028|NCT03851705|191719171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.2|-23.9|0.3299
95882029|NCT03851705|191719171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|22.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||22.2|-16.7|0.7778
95882030|NCT03851705|191719171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.6613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|12.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||12.3|-19.2|0.6613
95882031|NCT03851705|191719172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.4911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|36.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||36.0|-74.0|0.4911
95882032|NCT03851705|191719172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.7461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|79.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||79.4|-57.2|0.7461
95882033|NCT03851705|191719172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.8|51.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||51.1|-62.8|0.8370
95882034|NCT03851705|191719175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|4.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.2|-29.5|0.1371
95882035|NCT03851705|191719175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|15.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||15.5|-22.6|0.7100
95882036|NCT03851705|191719175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3||||0.2278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2|6.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||6.6|-27.2|0.2278
95882037|NCT03851705|191719177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|10.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||10.9|-49.7|0.2044
95882038|NCT03851705|191719177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|30.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||30.4|-39.9|0.7875
95882039|NCT03851705|191719177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3|15.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||15.7|-47.3|0.3193
95882040|NCT03851705|191719179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.2877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|8.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||8.8|-29.0|0.2877
95882041|NCT03851705|191719179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|25.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||25.7|-19.7|0.7944
95882042|NCT03851705|191719179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.5803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|13.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.3|-23.4|0.5803
95882043|NCT03851705|191719181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.4848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.6|35.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||35.3|-73.6|0.4848
95882044|NCT03851705|191719181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|80.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||80.3|-56.0|0.7220
95882045|NCT03851705|191719181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.6|49.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||49.5|-63.6|0.8036
95970521|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.33||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.33|-1.87|
95882046|NCT03851705|191719189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|11.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||11.7|-6.8|0.6028
95882047|NCT03851705|191719189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||14.0|-11.5|0.8428
95882048|NCT03851705|191719189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|13.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||13.4|-6.6|0.4946
95882049|NCT03851705|191719191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.4|-4.0|0.9237
95970522|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1709|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Clinically relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint||||0.1709
95882050|NCT03851705|191719191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||4.5|-6.5|0.7177
95882051|NCT03851705|191719191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.5416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.4|-2.9|0.5416
95882052|NCT03851705|191719193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|5.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||5.2|-3.2|0.6497
95882053|NCT03851705|191719193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|2.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||2.6|-7.9|0.3209
95882054|NCT03851705|191719193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.7|-6.3|0.9294
95970523|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.17||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||-0.17|-2.75|
95970524|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED||||||test of equality|For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major Bleeding endpoint.||||0.0338
95882055|NCT03851705|191719195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|33.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||33.4|-10.8|0.3105
95882056|NCT03851705|191719195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|10.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||10.5|-33.3|0.3018
95882057|NCT03851705|191719195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.8755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|31.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||31.6|-27.0|0.8755
95882058|NCT03851705|191719197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.6848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||7.6|-11.5|0.6848
95882059|NCT03851705|191719197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|7.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.6|-18.5|0.4075
95882060|NCT03851705|191719197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.5998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|7.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||7.8|-13.4|0.5998
95882061|NCT03851705|191719199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|6.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||6.5|-8.4|0.7958
95882062|NCT03851705|191719199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|7.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||7.4|-12.7|0.6003
95882063|NCT03851705|191719199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||5.8|-11.0|0.5352
95882064|NCT03851705|191719201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.1716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|4.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||4.0|-21.8|0.1716
95882065|NCT03851705|191719201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|8.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||8.2|-46.2|0.1671
95882066|NCT03851705|191719201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.1808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|4.7||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||4.7|-24.2|0.1808
95882067|NCT03851705|191719203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|9.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 90||9.1|-28.3|0.3077
95882068|NCT03851705|191719203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|11.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 150||11.2|-30.1|0.3628
95882069|NCT03851705|191719203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|10.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05 (two-sided)|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Day 180||10.8|-23.2|0.4669
95882070|NCT03851705|191719209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.6814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|16.27|||ANCOVA|||||16.27|-24.88|0.6814
95882071|NCT03851705|191719210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.8725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|23.51|||ANCOVA|||||23.51|-27.70|0.8725
95882072|NCT03851705|191719211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.9425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|20.72|||ANCOVA|||||20.72|-22.30|0.9425
95882073|NCT03851705|191719212|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|0.2|
95882074|NCT00621582|191719213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||comparing results of post-treatment global assessment by patient with that of pre-treatment||||0.01
95882075|NCT00864383|191719225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the difference in proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference in proportions|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|10.5|||||Adjusted difference from control in proportion of unfavorable outcome - percentage points|||10.5|1.7|
95882076|NCT00864383|191719225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was defined as a between-group difference of less than 6 percentage points in the upper boundary of the two-sided 97.5% Wald confidence interval for the proportion of patients with an unfavorable outcome.|Adjusted difference from control|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.7|16.1|||||Adjusted difference from control in rate of unfavorable outcome- percentage points|||16.1|6.7|
95882077|NCT01146834|191719304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Chi-squared|||Arm B was initially closed due to low accrual, and Arms D and E were also closed due to no accrual. Arms A and C also had very low accrual. Therefore, the comparison of the primary outcome between Arms A and C is for exploratory purposes only.||0.28|-0.32|0.90
95882078|NCT01146834|191719306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18|||Fisher Exact|||||0.18|-0.68|0.25
95882079|NCT02021773|191719339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.937||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|-1.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.21|-44.28|0.0386
95882080|NCT02021773|191719339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.88|-8.95||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.95|-51.88|0.0057
95882081|NCT02516046|191719353|OTHER||Fleiss' kappa|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86||||||Inter-reader agreement analysis using Fleiss' kappa. The hypothesis tested was that the observed kappa values were ≥0.64 and the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs were ≥0.55 for the inter-reader agreement among readers.||0.86|0.74|
95882082|NCT04502693|191719355|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- Risk Ratio (RR) = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE (Vaccine Effectiveness)|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|81.9|84.4||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 3-dose (0,2,6-months) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||84.4|81.9|
95970525|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|0.13||||||Adjusted difference of event rates of Any Bleeding. Type of surgery was taken into consideration as a stratification factor.||0.13|-3.18|
95970526|NCT00371683|191914087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|||||For descriptive purposes only, p-values were presented for the test of equality of event rates|test of equality|||Any Bleeding Endpoint.||||0.0816
95970527|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.157||0.083||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.083
95970528|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.436||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr posterior insula||||0.436
95970529|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.306||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.306
95970530|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr posterior insula||||0.809
95970531|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.116|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.177||0.016|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.016
95970532|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.308||0.708||||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference between the pre-dose (baseline) and post-dose values calculated as post-dose minus pre-dose (post minus pre).|Glx/Cr posterior insula||||0.708
95970533|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.809||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.050.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.809
95970534|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.154||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glu/Cr anterior insula||||0.154
95970535|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.960
95970536|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.937||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Significance was set at p \<0.05.||Gln/Cr anterior insula||||0.937
95970537|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.897||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.897
95970538|NCT00760474|191914149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.309||95.0||||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Glx/Cr anterior insula||||0.309
95970539|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.032||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1081|0.1714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Anterior Cingulate||0.1714|-0.1081|0.6347
95970540|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.079||||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3356|0.1771||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA22||0.1771|-0.3356|0.5181
95970541|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.072||||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2161|0.0714||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||BA40||0.0714|-0.2161|0.2987
95970542|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.029||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.1219||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_anIns||0.1219|-0.0640|0.5151
95970543|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2228|0.0599||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Amygdala||0.0599|-0.2228|0.2369
95882083|NCT04502693|191719355|OTHER|"Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_ 6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%.~VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage."|VE|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|80.4|83.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,6-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||83.1|80.4|
95882084|NCT04502693|191719356|OTHER|Effectiveness of rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the MenB\_0\_2\_6 and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in MenB group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|77.2|80.1||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by bactericidal activity using enc-hSBA at 1 month after the 2-dose (0,2-M) schedule in MenB\_0\_2\_6 group when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY dose in the ACWY group.||80.1|77.2|
95882085|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.1||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.10|0.84|
95882086|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.75|
95882087|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup A at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.78|
95882088|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.11|0.76|
95882089|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.41||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.41|0.97|
95970544|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.077||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1642|0.0092||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Cerebellum||0.0092|-0.1642|0.0758
95970545|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.025||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0947|0.0452||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_DLPFC||0.0452|-0.0947|0.4609
95970546|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.111||||0.3813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3745|0.1524||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Insula||0.1524|-0.3745|0.3813
95970547|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.02||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0964|0.1361||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.1361|-0.0964|0.7200
95970548|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.168||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1065|0.4434||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Orbito Front||0.4434|-0.1065|0.2099
95970549|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.003||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1047|0.0992||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||PAG||0.0992|-0.1047|0.9551
95970550|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0855|0.0848||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Posterior Insula||0.0848|-0.0855|0.9940
95970551|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.049||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1792|0.0806||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0806|-0.1792|0.4291
95970552|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.027||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0496|0.1028||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Precuneus||0.1028|-0.0496|0.4670
95970553|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.044||||0.4443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0752|0.1624||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_Putamen||0.1624|-0.0752|0.4443
95970554|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.127||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3704|0.1165||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_S2||0.1165|-0.3704|0.2823
95970555|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.105||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2481|0.0378||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_DLPFC||0.0378|-0.2481|0.1369
95970556|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.078||||0.2376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0573|0.2127||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_anIns||0.2127|-0.0573|0.2376
95970557|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.153||||0.0968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3365|0.0313||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Amygdala||0.0313|-0.3365|0.0968
95970558|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.023||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.1062||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_BA23\_base||0.1062|-0.0610|0.5720
95882090|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.54||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup C at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.54|1.05|
95882091|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
95882092|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.02||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.02|0.77|
95882093|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup W at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.86|
95970559|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.027||||0.5822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1303|0.0761||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_IPL\_base||0.0761|-0.1303|0.5822
95970560|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.044||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2697|0.1824||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Insula\_base||0.1824|-0.2697|0.6851
95970561|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.013||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1699|0.1446||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Insula||0.1446|-0.1699|0.8656
95970562|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.094||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2296|0.0407||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Front\_DLPFC||0.0407|-0.2296|0.1562
95970563|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.012||||0.7752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0991|0.0754||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Mid Temporal Pole||0.0754|-0.0991|0.7752
95970564|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.01||||0.9182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1912|0.2109||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Orbito Front||0.2109|-0.1912|0.9182
95970565|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.022||||0.6544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0829|0.1278||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||L\_PAG||0.1278|-0.0829|0.6544
95970566|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.087||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.1863||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.1863|-0.0123|0.0813
95882094|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y are within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.01||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-2 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.01|0.73|
95882095|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.98||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-1 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||0.98|0.71|
95882096|NCT04502693|191719359|EQUIVALENCE|Lot-to-lot consistency is claimed if the 2-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of hSBA GMTs of antibodies against each of the serogroups A, C, W and Y is within the \[0.5;2.0\] equivalence interval for each pair of lots.|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.14||||||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of ABCWY-2 and ABCWY-3 lots of the MenACWY component of the MenABCWY vaccine, as measured by hSBA GMTs directed against serogroup Y at 1 month after last vaccination (Day 211).||1.14|0.82|
95882097|NCT04502693|191719360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.88|19.01|||Difference in percentage of participants|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup A at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||19.01|5.88|
95882098|NCT04502693|191719360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.14|56.3||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup C at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||56.30|38.14|
95882099|NCT04502693|191719360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|35.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.88|44.49||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup W at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||44.49|26.88|
95882100|NCT04502693|191719360|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with 4-fold rise between the 2 groups is above -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.38|35.81||||||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY vaccine compared to the MenACWY vaccine in participants without a previous MenACWY vaccination (unprimed) as measured by the percentages of participants, achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titers against N. meningitidis serogroup Y at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) and 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||35.81|19.38|
95970567|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.052||||0.4605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0956|0.2004||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_pIns||0.2004|-0.0956|0.4605
95970568|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.081||||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2484|0.0856||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Posterior Cingulate||0.0856|-0.2484|0.3136
95970569|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0885|0.0893||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus||0.0893|-0.0885|0.9929
95970570|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.002||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0815|0.0767||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Precuneus\_base||0.0767|-0.0815|0.9490
95970571|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.065||||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3019|0.1722||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Superior Temporal||0.1722|-0.3019|0.5668
95882101|NCT04502693|191719361|OTHER|Effectiveness of MenABCWY vaccine is demonstrated if the LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for VE against the selected strain panel between the ABCWY and the ACWY groups is above 65%. VE is defined as 1- RR = (1- percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in ABCWY\_Pooled group / percentage of samples without bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution in the ACWY group) x100 percentage.|VE|77.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|79.2||||||To demonstrate the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains as measured by enc-hSBA at 1 month after the last MenABCWY vaccination (Day 211) when compared to 1 month after the MenACWY vaccination.||79.2|76.6|
95882102|NCT04502693|191719362|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of MenABCWY to rMenB+OMV NZ is demonstrated if LL of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity at 1:4 dilution is above -5%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.03||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY vaccine (0,6-months schedule) compared to the rMenB+OMV NZ vaccine (0,2-months) in terms of percentage of samples with bactericidal serum activity using enc-hSBA against a randomly selected panel of endemic US N. meningitidis serogroup B invasive disease strains.||0.03|-1.25|
95882103|NCT03137537|191719401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95882104|NCT03137537|191719402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95882105|NCT01552694|191719416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted p-value compares the change (week 8 - baseline) for plasma hsCRP between the 2 groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95882106|NCT01552694|191719417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95882107|NCT01552694|191719418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Unadjusted analysis|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95882108|NCT00191139|191719421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|40.6||||||95.0|23.8|56.8|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||56.8|23.8|
95882109|NCT00191139|191719421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||survival rate|55.7||||||95.0|36.8|70.9|||normal approximation|Count the number of surviving participants at each time interval to get survival rates.||||70.9|36.8|
95882110|NCT00191139|191719422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|75.0||||||95.0|56.6|88.5|||normal approximation|||||88.5|56.6|
95882111|NCT00191139|191719422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|84.4||||||95.0|67.2|94.7|||Normal approximation|||||94.7|67.2|
95882112|NCT00191139|191719423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
95882113|NCT00191139|191719424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.38
95882114|NCT03338010|191719426|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
95970572|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1398|0.1391||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Premotor||0.1391|-0.1398|0.9958
95970573|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.057||||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0659|0.1795||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Putamen||0.1795|-0.0659|0.3379
95970574|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.085||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2262|0.0565||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_S1||0.0565|-0.2262|0.2186
95882115|NCT03338010|191719427|NON_INFERIORITY|0.40% noninferiority margin was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.19|0.545
95882116|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Morning Meal Glucose||4.8|-2.8|0.602
95882117|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Morning Meal Glucose||4.4|-11.8|0.373
95882118|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Mid-Day Meal Glucose||3.7|-10.3|0.351
95882119|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.9||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal Glucose||12.8|-3.1|0.230
95970575|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-0.008||||0.8191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0843|0.0678||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||R\_Thalamus||0.0678|-0.0843|0.8191
95882120|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.9||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Before Evening Meal Glucose||8.5|-6.7|0.819
95882121|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||2 Hours After Evening Meal Glucose||10.9|-6.2|0.588
95882122|NCT03338010|191719428|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bedtime Glucose||9.5|-6.7|0.732
95882123|NCT03338010|191719429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.846
95882124|NCT03338010|191719430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
95882125|NCT03338010|191719431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning Pre-meal Standard Deviation||2.42|-1.78|0.767
95882126|NCT03338010|191719431|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daily Mean Standard Deviation||3.3|-2.5|0.781
95882127|NCT03338010|191719432|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
95882128|NCT03338010|191719433|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.2|0.750
95882129|NCT03338010|191719434|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.6|<0.001
95882130|NCT03338010|191719435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Inconvenience of Regimen Transformed Score||1.82|-3.72|0.500
95882131|NCT03338010|191719435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.99||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Lifestyle Flexibility Transformed Score||-0.36|-7.62|0.031
95882132|NCT03338010|191719435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypoglycemic Control Transformed Score||0.95|-4.53|0.200
95882133|NCT03338010|191719435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Glycemic Control Transformed Score||2.88|-2.92|0.988
95882134|NCT03338010|191719435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.45||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insulin Delivery Device Satisfaction Transformed Score||1.51|-4.41|0.337
95970576|NCT00760474|191914150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.012||||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0698|0.093||Significance was set at p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect repeated measure model included participant as a random effect; treatment, visit as fixed effects.||Precuneus||0.0930|-0.0698|0.7647
95970577|NCT01011153|191914186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample sizes computed based on data from smaller studies provided 90% power for the comparison of sensitivity. Under the alternative hypothesis that the biopsy sensitivity of MelaFind would be 0.10 greater than the average biopsy/referral sensitivity of physicians (combined or separate), the probability that a 95% CI lies entirely above zero will be at least 90% when the standard error of the estimated difference is at most 0.0308.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.32|||ANOVA|||Using True Positives/All Positives, sensitivity values were calculated for MelaFind as well as the average of the 110 dermatologists.||0.32|0.18|<0.0001
95882135|NCT03338010|191719435|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.67||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ITSQ Overall Total||0.92|-4.26|0.205
95970578|NCT01011153|191914187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.34|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.34|0.19|<0.0001
95882136|NCT03338010|191719436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.639
95882137|NCT03338010|191719437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.19||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.92|0.74|0.143
95882138|NCT03338010|191719437|SUPERIORITY||Relative Ratio|1.22||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.23|0.67|0.945
95882139|NCT01211730|191719438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.709
95882140|NCT01211730|191719439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.003
95882141|NCT01211730|191719440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.0046
95882142|NCT01211730|191719441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
95970579|NCT01011153|191914187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.31|0.16|<0.0001
95882143|NCT01211730|191719442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
95970580|NCT01011153|191914187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.33|||ANOVA|||Sensitivity||0.33|0.19|<0.0001
95970581|NCT01011153|191914187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.25|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.25|-0.46|<0.0001
95882144|NCT01211730|191719443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
95882145|NCT00453063|191719449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95882146|NCT00453063|191719450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.304
95882147|NCT00453063|191719451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95882148|NCT00453063|191719452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95882149|NCT00453063|191719453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.356||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.356
95882150|NCT01918774|191719467|OTHER|Pre-post analysis comparing weeks worked in the 6 months preceding baseline and the 6 month study follow-up.|||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold of significance was p\<.05|within groups t-test|||||||<.001
95882151|NCT03000439|191719485|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.633|||=|0.1171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.354||1-sided p-value is provided.|Unstratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% CI was based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment group as covariate. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard ratio in favor of Tofacitinib 5 mg BID to Placebo.|||1.354|0.296|= 0.1171
95882152|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 4||13.6|-12.2|
95882153|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|11.3|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 8||11.3|-27.9|
95882154|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|11.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 12||11.6|-33.2|
95882155|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|9.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 16||9.8|-37.2|
95882156|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 20||11.5|-37.9|
95882157|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 24||11.5|-37.9|
95882158|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|15.6|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 28||15.6|-34.5|
95882159|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|11.5|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 32||11.5|-39.5|
95882160|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 36||16.7|-35.5|
95882161|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|16.7|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 40||16.7|-35.5|
95970582|NCT01011153|191914187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.31|-0.53|<0.0001
95970583|NCT01011153|191914187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Specificity||-0.30|-0.51|<0.0001
95882162|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 44||11.8|-41.8|
95882163|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 48||11.8|-41.8|
95882164|NCT03000439|191719486|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|11.8|||||The 95% CIs for the differences between the treatment groups were generated using Greenwood's formula.|DB Week 52||11.8|-41.8|
95882165|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
95882166|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.37|21.36|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 8||21.36|-18.37|
95882167|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
95882168|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
95882169|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
95882170|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
95882171|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
95882172|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
95882173|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
95882174|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
95882175|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
95882176|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
95882177|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR30 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
95882178|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.02|5.21|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 4||5.21|-28.02|
95882179|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|25.17|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 8||25.17|-15.72|
95882180|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.68|23.6|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 12||23.60|-22.68|
95970584|NCT01011153|191914188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made.|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
95970585|NCT01011153|191914188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
95970586|NCT01011153|191914188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003||||0.0||||No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
95882181|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|37.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 16||37.48|-10.76|
95882182|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|44.14|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 20||44.14|-5.20|
95882183|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
95882184|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
95882185|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
95882186|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
95882187|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
95970587|NCT01011153|191914188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||||0.0||||N/A - No comparison is being made|ANOVA||There is no threshold level-this is a measurement of variability among responses provided by the participants.|||||
95970588|NCT03014479|191914190|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.418||||0.2305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.546|6.382|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||6.382|-1.546|0.2305
95970589|NCT03014479|191914191|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|1.938||||0.4536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|7.027|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||7.027|-3.150|0.4536
95970590|NCT03014479|191914192|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|4.16||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|8.968|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.968|-0.649|0.0896
95970591|NCT03014479|191914193|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|-0.563||||0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.448|5.323|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||5.323|-6.448|0.8506
95970592|NCT03014479|191914194|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|2.696||||0.3533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.018|8.41|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||8.410|-3.018|0.3533
95970593|NCT03014479|191914196|SUPERIORITY||Differences of Least Square Means|0.613||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|2.605|||ANCOVA||Trelagliptin - Daily DPP-4 inhibitors|||2.605|-1.380|0.5451
95970594|NCT01846494|191914275|OTHER|||||||0.6173|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6173
95970595|NCT04664400|191914284|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.043
95970596|NCT04664400|191914285|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.036
95970597|NCT04664400|191914286|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.012
95970598|NCT04664400|191914287|OTHER|Paired t test, testing whether the within participant difference is larger than 0.||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.835
95970599|NCT03973931|191914292|NON_INFERIORITY|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure of the 12 observations|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3||||||<0.05
95970600|NCT03973931|191914293|NON_INFERIORITY|Analysis of the longitudinal data (12 observations per patient) and estimated absolute differences in PDC between treatment group and usual care was analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model with an identity link and independence with unequal variances for the covariance structure was used.|||||<|0.05||||||To account for multiple treatment comparisons significance levels of 0.05/3, and if any test was significant, a significance level of (R/3)\*(0.05/3) using the Holm method was used for the 3 pairwise comparisons, R=number of significant stage 1 tests.|GEE|||||||<0.05
95970601|NCT00153062|191914297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 1.075|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.11|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs clopidogrel||1.11|0.92|0.7830
95970602|NCT00153062|191914298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||ASA+ER-DP vs Clopidogrel||1.07|0.92|0.8292
95970603|NCT00153062|191914299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.1073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates.||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.01|0.87|0.1073
95970604|NCT00153062|191914300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs Placebo||1.04|0.65|0.1007
95970605|NCT00153062|191914301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.04|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox proportional hazards model with age, baseline diabetes status, baseline ACE-I use, and baseline Modified Rankin score as covariates||Telmisartan vs placebo||1.04|0.86|0.2312
95882188|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
95882189|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
95882190|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR50 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
95882191|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|10.49|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 4||10.49|-38.14|
95882192|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|13.15|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 8||13.15|-32.28|
95882193|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|24.24|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 12||24.24|-24.70|
95882194|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.31|31.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 16||31.06|-19.31|
95882195|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|44.06|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 20||44.06|-5.81|
95882196|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.55|27.47|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 24||27.47|-23.55|
95882197|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER|The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|Difference in percentage|15.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|40.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 28||40.46|-10.05|
95882198|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 32||37.56|-12.91|
95882199|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
95882200|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 40||37.56|-12.91|
95882201|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 44||37.56|-12.91|
95882202|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
95882203|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR70 at DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
95882204|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.09|4.46|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 4||4.46|-44.09|
95882205|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-17.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.19|5.63|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 8||5.63|-40.19|
95882206|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 20||14.45|-29.66|
95882207|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-13.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|9.77|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 12||9.77|-37.19|
95882208|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|18.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 16||18.61|-26.67|
95882209|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 32||5.83|-35.32|
95882210|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 24||17.26|-26.02|
95882211|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 28||12.99|-28.89|
95882212|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 36||16.83|-30.65|
95882213|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|19.78|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 40||19.78|-27.16|
95882214|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 44||22.68|-23.60|
95882215|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 48||22.68|-23.60|
95882216|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR90 at DB Week 52||22.68|-23.60|
95882217|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.45|0.05|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 4||0.05|-42.45|
95882218|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-18.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.98|1.34|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 8||1.34|-37.98|
95882219|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 12||8.61|-31.65|
95882220|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|12.99|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 16||12.99|-28.89|
95882221|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
95882222|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.36|18.37|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 24||18.37|-21.36|
95882223|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 28||11.32|-27.91|
95882224|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 32||4.10|-34.29|
95882225|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 36||8.61|-31.65|
95882226|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|14.45|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 40||14.45|-29.66|
95882227|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.02|17.26|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 44||17.26|-26.02|
95882228|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 48||21.43|-23.04|
95882229|NCT03000439|191719489|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.04|21.43|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|ACR100 at DB Week 52||21.43|-23.04|
95882230|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|7.75|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.75|-23.42|
95882231|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|24.08|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||24.08|-13.94|
95882232|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.43|23.04|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.04|-21.43|
95882233|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|34.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||34.10|-13.82|
95882234|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|40.92|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||40.92|-8.43|
95882235|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||34.39|-15.49|
95882236|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||34.33|-16.13|
95882237|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||34.33|-16.13|
95882238|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||34.33|-16.13|
95882239|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.33|-16.13|
95882240|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|34.33|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||34.33|-16.13|
95882241|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||37.56|-12.91|
95882242|NCT03000439|191719497|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|37.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||37.56|-12.91|
95882243|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.38||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.38|-2.40|
95882244|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|4.12||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.12|-2.25|
95882245|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|4.06||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.06|-4.54|
95882246|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|2.28||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.99|
95854029|NCT03279081|191667358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||=|0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.32|0.90|=0.363
95854030|NCT03279081|191667359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||=|0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.18|0.82|=0.833
95854031|NCT03279081|191667360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||=|0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model was used to estimate hazard ratio and 95% CI, adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|||1.16|0.81|=0.717
95854032|NCT03279081|191667361|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Relapse Rate|3.03|||=|0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|14.34||P-value was based on stratified CMH test adjusting for IWRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The asymptotic Wald's confidence intervals are displayed.|||14.34|-8.28|=0.599
95854033|NCT04531176|191667367|NON_INFERIORITY|The results of non-inferiority test results are between pairwise groups. Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison.||||||0.004||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 1% for weight loss change. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.004
95854034|NCT04531176|191667368|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was tested at the 0.05 level at 1 year and performed pairwise with Bonferroni adjusted significance levels for each paired comparison||||||0.05||||||The non-inferiority regions were set to be 0.5% for A1C. When both primary endpoints are non-inferior, superiority testing at the 0.025 overall error level with Bonferroni adjustment for each endpoint at 1 year was then performed.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95854035|NCT00573508|191667376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|6.6|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at End of Treatment'.||12.2|6.6|<0.0001
95854036|NCT00573508|191667377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 4', 'Change at Week 8' and 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
95854037|NCT00573508|191667378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value represents change from Baseline to Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at Week 12'.||||<.0001
95854038|NCT00573508|191667379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95854039|NCT00573508|191667387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-16.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.1|-11.6|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis applies to 'Change at EOT'.||-11.6|-22.1|<.0001
95854040|NCT01075243|191667393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.71||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.89|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and Paracetamol 650 mg caplet.||5.89|1.53|0.0009
95882247|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.94||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-3.12|
95882248|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|2.06||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.46|
95882249|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|5.29||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.29|-7.85|
95882250|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|2.93||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-1.98|
95882251|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|1.35||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.35|-1.86|
95882252|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.63||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.63|-2.18|
95882253|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.56||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.56|-3.22|
95882254|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.3||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.76|
95882255|NCT03000439|191719503|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|1.93||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.93|-3.43|
95882256|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.61||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.61|-1.80|
95882257|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|4.86||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.86|-0.64|
95882258|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.21||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.21|-4.25|
95882259|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|2.09||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.09|-4.32|
95882260|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.98||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.98|-3.04|
95882261|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.97||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.97|-1.29|
95882262|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|5.72||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.72|-5.89|
95882263|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.41||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.41|-3.79|
95882264|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.19||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-1.89|
95882265|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|3.58||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.58|-3.63|
95882266|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|0.49||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-5.67|
95882267|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.19||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.19|-2.82|
95882268|NCT03000439|191719504|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.36||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.36|-3.27|
95882269|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.79||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.79|-0.08|
95882270|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.4||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.40|0.25|
95970606|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family-wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus Test: A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment,natural time(defined as natural log of months) and treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects(using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software,version 9;www.sas.com). A significant treatment by time interaction(p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests (see below). Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .01
95970607|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.001||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970608|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|>|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .25
95970609|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .98
95970610|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970611|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
95970612|NCT00910689|191914307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72|>|0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.29
95970613|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||6 pair wise contrasts were conducted: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments to OAT + PL. The 3 additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure was used to control the family wise type I error for the 6 post test contrasts at .05. Adjusted p =.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (PROC MIXED, SAS 9).When the treatment by time interaction was significant (p \< .05, 2-tailed)post-tests were conducted (see below).Details of significant post tests are reported as separate analyses.||||< .03
95970614|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970615|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970616|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970617|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|>|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .02
95970618|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35|>|0.79||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.79
95970619|NCT00910689|191914308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.43|>|0.02||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.02
95970620|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post tests consisted of 6 pair wise contrasts: The first 3 contrasts compared each of the 3 additive treatments (Trial Arms 2, 3, 4) to OAT + PL (Trial arm 1); three additional contrasts compared the 3 additive treatments to one another.|Mixed Models Analysis|A Bonferoni procedure controlled the familywise type I error for the 6 contrasts at .05. Adjusted p=.0083.||Omnibus test:A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (defined as the natural log of months), and the treatment-by-time interaction and pretreatment Migraine Specific Quality of Life scores as covariate was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of missing values and to evaluate treatment effects (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS statistical software, version 9; www. sas.com).A significant treatment by time interaction (p \< .05, 2-tailed) was followed by post-tests||||<.005
95970621|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970622|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970623|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970624|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
95970625|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95882271|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|3.66||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.79|
95970626|NCT00910689|191914309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.38|>|0.87||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.87
95970627|NCT00910689|191914310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
95970628|NCT00910689|191914310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|>|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .83
95970629|NCT00910689|191914310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .05
95970630|NCT00910689|191914310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Significant post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970631|NCT00910689|191914310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
95970632|NCT00910689|191914310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||> .20
95970633|NCT00910689|191914311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
95970634|NCT00910689|191914311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 120.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||<.001
95882272|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-0.70|
95882273|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.64||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.43|
95970635|NCT00910689|191914311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970636|NCT00910689|191914311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69|>|0.04||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>.04
95970637|NCT00910689|191914311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|>|0.33||95.0||||Bonerfoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.33
95970638|NCT00910689|191914311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.68|>|0.21||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.21
95970639|NCT00910689|191914312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970640|NCT00910689|191914312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970641|NCT00910689|191914312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 122.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||< .001
95970642|NCT00910689|191914312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.85|>|0.56||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.56
95970643|NCT00910689|191914312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|>|0.08||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 108.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.08
95970644|NCT00910689|191914312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|>|0.03||95.0||||Bonferoni adjusted critical value p = .0083.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 1 and 106.||Post-test contrast. Mean difference in change.||||>0.03
95970645|NCT00189488|191914313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-17.9||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||-2.4|-33.4|0.034
95882274|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.81||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.06|
95882275|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|2.06||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.06|-1.64|
95882276|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.04|
95882277|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.79||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.09|
95882278|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.28||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.28|-0.23|
95882279|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.83||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.83|-1.20|
95882280|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.91||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.91|-0.49|
95882281|NCT03000439|191719517|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.92||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.92|-0.80|
95970646|NCT00189488|191914314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Difference (%)|0.5||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||12.1|-11.0|0.929
95882282|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.0||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.00|-0.43|
95882283|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.08||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-0.06|
95882284|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.64||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.64|-1.13|
95882285|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.88||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.68|
95882286|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.33||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.58|
95882287|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.68||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.68|-0.03|
95882288|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.08||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.08|-2.42|
95882289|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.14|
95882290|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.79|-0.15|
95882291|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.49||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.14|
95970647|NCT00189488|191914315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|The difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with Day 11 Methotrexate GVHD, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||6.4|-19.4|0.352
95882292|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.96||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.96|-1.28|
95882293|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.16||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.43|
95882294|NCT03000439|191719518|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.3||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.82|
95882295|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.5||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.07|
95882296|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.15|
95882297|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.28||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.28|-0.17|
95882298|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.36||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.16|
95882299|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.38||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.01|
95882300|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.12|
95882301|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.31|-0.18|
95882302|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.06|
95882303|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.36||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.14|
95882304|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.38||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.06|
95882305|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
95882306|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.38||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.38|-0.20|
95882307|NCT03000439|191719519|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, open-label baseline value, and open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.24|
95882308|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.24||||||DB Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.24|-0.10|
95882309|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||||||DB Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.19|
95882310|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.16||||||DB Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.16|-0.19|
95882311|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23||||||DB Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.20|
95882312|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.32||||||DB Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.02|
95882313|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4||||||DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.09|
95882314|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.34||||||DB Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.34|-0.16|
95882315|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.36||||||DB Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.36|-0.05|
95882316|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.43||||||DB Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.10|
95882317|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.39||||||DB Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.06|
95882318|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.3||||||DB Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.22|
95882319|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49||||||DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.49|-0.18|
95882320|NCT03000439|191719520|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.55||||||DB Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.55|-0.23|
95970648|NCT00189488|191914316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|-2.6||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|9.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with severe oral mucositis, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|"Participants with Unknown incidence are treated as Yes when constructing the differences, 95% confidence intervals and p-value."||9.0|-14.2|0.675
95970649|NCT00189488|191914317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.5||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||2.5|-1.5|0.953
95970650|NCT00189488|191914318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference (%)|2.0||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Difference between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with opioid analgesic use, adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||16.5|-12.5|0.797
95970651|NCT00189488|191914319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-5.5||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||1.8|-12.7|0.186
95882321|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.4||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.40|-0.97|
95882322|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.84||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.84|-0.68|
95882323|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.16||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.16|-0.77|
95882324|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.18||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.18|-1.30|
95882325|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.82|-0.29|
95882326|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|
95882327|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.13||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.13|-2.05|
95882328|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.18|
95882329|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.88||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.26|
95882330|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.99||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.99|-0.43|
95882331|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.03||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-0.45|
95882332|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.08||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.08|-0.63|
95882333|NCT03000439|191719521|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.57||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.66|
95882334|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.47||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.73|
95882335|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.59||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.59|-0.81|
95882336|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.95||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-0.54|
95882337|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.90|
95882338|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.13||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.13|-0.46|
95882339|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.63|
95882340|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|0.15||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.15|-2.34|
95882341|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.4||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.40|-0.26|
95882342|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.26||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.30|
95882343|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.43||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.43|-0.53|
95882344|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.46||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.56|
95882345|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.69||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.74|
95882346|NCT03000439|191719522|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.32||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.32|-0.91|
95882347|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.92||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|0.09|
95882348|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.22||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.40|
95882349|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.53||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.47|
95882350|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.16||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.63|
95882351|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.97||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.97|-0.33|
95882352|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.20|-0.10|
95882353|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.33||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.93|
95882354|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.42||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.42|-0.17|
95882355|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.98||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.98|-0.02|
95882356|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.58||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.30|
95882357|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.85||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.85|-0.40|
95882358|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.88||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-0.36|
95882359|NCT03000439|191719523|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.09||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.09|-0.87|
95882360|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.67|-0.77|
95882361|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.53||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.53|-0.37|
95970652|NCT00189488|191914320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-4.1||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-12.2|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|Adjusted for the stratification factors (TBI use, matched donor type, and source of donor cells) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||4.0|-12.2|0.219
95970653|NCT02233543|191914321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-1.21|0.2419
95882362|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.3||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-1.06|
95882363|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.74||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.27|
95882364|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.52||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.83|
95882365|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.71||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.61|
95882366|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.25||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.25|-1.45|
95882367|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.23||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.23|-0.61|
95882368|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.71||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.71|-0.34|
95882369|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.46||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.46|-0.74|
95882370|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.56|-0.75|
95882371|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.81||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.81|-0.68|
95882372|NCT03000439|191719524|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.94||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.94|-1.10|
95970654|NCT02233543|191914322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.79||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|20.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.08|-4.51|0.2016
95882373|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|11.66||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||11.66|-14.59|
95882374|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|5.17||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.17|-19.62|
95882375|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|6.14||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||6.14|-19.36|
95882376|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.28|3.27||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||3.27|-20.28|
95882377|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|2.62||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.62|-10.53|
95882378|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|5.21||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||5.21|-8.09|
95882379|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.67|8.03||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.03|-16.67|
95882380|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|8.25||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.25|-13.97|
95970655|NCT02349425|191914323|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-41.222||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.294|-15.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.127|-59.294|0.0055
95970656|NCT02349425|191914323|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-51.973||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.23|-27.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-27.397|-68.230|0.0008
95882381|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|2.73||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.73|-24.63|
95882382|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|8.18||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||8.18|-16.74|
95882383|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-8.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-1.43||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.43|-15.20|
95882384|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.92||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.92|-12.60|
95882385|NCT03000439|191719525|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|2.48||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open label baseline value, and Open-label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.48|-5.16|
95882386|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.19||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.19|-16.30|
95882387|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|0.77||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.77|-21.68|
95882388|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|2.03||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.03|-23.75|
95882389|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-13.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-0.46||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.46|-25.83|
95882390|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|-0.47||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-13.56|
95882391|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.95||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.95|-11.00|
95882392|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.24|3.54||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.54|-22.24|
95882393|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|4.83||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.83|-18.34|
95882394|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-30.36|
95882395|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.03||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.03|-21.00|
95882396|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-3.31||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||-3.31|-17.67|
95882397|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|1.67||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.67|-13.53|
95882398|NCT03000439|191719526|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|1.24||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.24|-6.37|
95882399|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.22||||||DB week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||2.22|0.20|
95970657|NCT02349425|191914323|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-46.853||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.291|-16.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.206|-66.291|0.0075
95882400|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.85||||||DB week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.85|-0.20|
95882401|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.27||||||DB week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-0.65|
95882402|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.41||||||DB week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.41|-0.26|
95882403|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.1||||||DB week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.10|-0.78|
95882404|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.49||||||DB week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.49|-0.18|
95882405|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.27||||||DB week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.27|-1.43|
95882406|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.5||||||DB week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.65|
95882407|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.63||||||DB week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.63|-0.51|
95882408|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.47||||||DB week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.55|
95882409|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.5||||||DB week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.50|-0.82|
95882410|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.22||||||DB week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.51|
95882411|NCT03000439|191719527|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.88||||||DB week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Open-Label baseline value, and Open-Label baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.05|
95882412|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.3||||||DB at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.30|-0.32|
95882413|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.61||||||DB at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.64|
95882414|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.07||||||DB at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.07|-1.02|
95882415|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.14||||||DB at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.69|
95882416|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.22||||||DB at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.05|
95882417|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16||||||DB at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.16|-0.60|
95882418|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
95882419|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.64||||||DB at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.64|-1.60|
95882420|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.73||||||DB at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.73|-0.58|
95882421|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65||||||DB at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.65|-0.53|
95882422|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.64||||||DB at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.64|-0.87|
95882423|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.54||||||DB at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.54|-1.13|
95882424|NCT03000439|191719528|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.11||||||DB at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.11|-1.00|
95882425|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|20.36||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||20.36|-8.35|
95882426|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|18.14||||||CHQ01-Global Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.14|-12.43|
95882427|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.78|7.4||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.40|-15.78|
95882428|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.06|41.68||||||CHQ01-Physical Functioning Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||41.68|-37.06|
95970658|NCT02349425|191914323|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-57.067||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.375|-30.771|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.771|-73.375|0.0009
95970659|NCT02349425|191914324|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-14.691||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.307|12.493|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.493|-35.307|0.2542
95970660|NCT02349425|191914324|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-25.165||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.014|-3.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.4210|-42.014|0.0267
95882429|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|6.43||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.43|-17.37|
95882430|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|6.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|34.57||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Emotional Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||34.57|-20.92|
95882431|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-6.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|6.5||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.50|-18.95|
95882432|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|11.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.24|68.42||||||CHQ01-Social Limitations: Physical Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||68.42|-46.24|
95882433|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|11.06||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||11.06|-13.97|
95882434|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.01|62.41||||||CHQ01-Bodily Pain Subscale Standardized Score: DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||62.41|-28.01|
95882435|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|2.93||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||2.93|-13.24|
95882436|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-15.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.12|3.06||||||CHQ01-Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||3.06|-33.12|
95882437|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|6.29||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||6.29|-16.92|
95970661|NCT02349425|191914324|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-37.146||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.345|-7.3821|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-7.3821|-57.345|0.0198
95970662|NCT02349425|191914324|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-55.92||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.923|-30.797|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation.|Percent change difference between Gefapixant and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where e=exponent of difference; and diff = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-30.797|-71.923|0.0006
95882438|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.35|5.87||||||CHQ01-Global Behavior Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||5.87|-20.35|
95882439|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|15.07||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.07|-6.18|
95882440|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|9.45||||||CHQ01-Mental Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.45|-24.37|
95882441|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|9.13||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||9.13|-9.14|
95882442|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-7.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.87|18.7||||||CHQ01-Self Esteem Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.70|-33.87|
95882443|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|14.77||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||14.77|-4.81|
95882444|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|18.28||||||CHQ01-General Health Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||18.28|-20.31|
95882445|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.33||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.33|-0.40|
95882446|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.65||||||CHQ01-Change in Health Subscale Score; DB Week48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.65|-0.68|
95882447|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|15.1||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||15.10|-10.59|
95882448|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-25.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.96|10.82||||||CHQ01-Emotional Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||10.82|-60.96|
95882449|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|17.29||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||17.29|-13.55|
95882450|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.91|30.53||||||CHQ01-Time Impact on Parent Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||30.53|-48.91|
95882451|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|4.9||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||4.90|-12.84|
95882452|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.35|13.75||||||CHQ01-Family Activities Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||13.75|-32.35|
95882453|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.81||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||7.81|-14.84|
95970663|NCT02349425|191914329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-31.2|0.003
95882454|NCT03000439|191719531|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-20.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.03|38.18||||||CHQ01-Family Cohesion Subscale Standardized Score; DB Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||38.18|-79.03|
95882455|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.54|-1.02|
95882456|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.57||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.57|-0.49|
95882457|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.9||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.90|-1.01|
95882458|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.58||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.49|
95882459|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.45||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 20: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.45|-0.98|
95882460|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.14||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.14|-0.51|
95882461|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.03||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 28: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.03|-1.87|
95882462|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.88||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.88|-1.53|
95882463|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.74||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 36: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.74|-1.36|
95882464|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.55|
95970664|NCT02349425|191914329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-12.1|-36.7|<0.001
95882465|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.39||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 44: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.39|-1.01|
95882466|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.92||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||1.92|-1.45|
95882467|NCT03000439|191719534|OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.69||||||CHAQ-Discomfort Index at Week 52: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, Double-Blind baseline value, and Double-Blind baseline value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.87|
95882468|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-30.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-6.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-6.94|-53.43|
95882469|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.19|0.42|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||0.42|-47.19|
95882470|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.99|23.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||23.76|-23.99|
95970665|NCT02349425|191914329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.5|-49.0|0.005
95970666|NCT02349425|191914329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|-14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-14.7|-44.6|<0.001
95882471|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|30.56|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||30.56|-17.20|
95882472|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|36.19|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||36.19|-9.92|
95882473|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||24.70|-24.24|
95882474|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.75|27.66|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||27.66|-20.75|
95882475|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|28.28|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||28.28|-16.29|
95882476|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
95882477|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||34.39|-13.88|
95882478|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||44.67|-3.43|
95882479|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|44.67|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||44.67|-3.43|
95882480|NCT03000439|191719543|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|41.82|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||41.82|-7.03|
95882481|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-26.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.42|-2.81|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||-2.81|-50.42|
95882482|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-20.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.91|3.59|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||3.59|-43.91|
95882483|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-9.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.31|14.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||14.72|-34.31|
95970667|NCT02349425|191914330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||7.2|-21.0|0.332
95970668|NCT02349425|191914330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-23.3|0.008
95970669|NCT02349425|191914330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-15.7|-44.7|<0.001
95882484|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|24.7|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||24.70|-24.24|
95882485|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.88|34.39|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||34.39|-13.88|
95882486|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||21.68|-27.67|
95882487|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.67|21.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||21.68|-27.67|
95882488|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.65|16.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||16.83|-30.65|
95882489|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.92|28.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||28.52|-20.92|
95882490|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.43|31.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||31.48|-17.43|
95882491|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||42.52|-7.03|
95882492|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.52|39.55|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||39.55|-10.52|
95882493|NCT03000439|191719544|OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|42.52|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||42.52|-7.03|
95882494|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.29|4.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.10|-34.29|
95882495|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||4.65|-29.08|
95882496|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||7.10|-25.07|
95882497|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||21.23|-12.01|
95882498|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|21.23|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||21.23|-12.01|
95882499|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||7.10|-25.07|
95882500|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
95882501|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
95882502|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||11.87|-22.70|
95882503|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
95882504|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||16.48|-20.16|
95882505|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||9.38|-26.66|
95882506|NCT03000439|191719545|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
95882507|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||4.65|-29.08|
95882508|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-14.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|5.83|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||5.83|-35.32|
95882509|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||11.32|-27.91|
95882510|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|20.93|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||20.93|-17.48|
95882511|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|18.91|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||18.91|-16.15|
95882512|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|11.87|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||11.87|-22.70|
95882513|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|6.79|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||6.79|-30.52|
95882514|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||13.94|-24.08|
95882515|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||9.38|-26.66|
95882516|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|8.61|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||8.61|-31.65|
95882517|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
95882518|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||11.32|-27.91|
95882519|NCT03000439|191719546|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.08|13.94|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||13.94|-24.08|
95882520|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 4||7.10|-25.07|
95882521|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-19.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.25|-2.76|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 8||-2.76|-35.25|
95882522|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.98|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 12||2.10|-32.98|
95882523|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.22|2.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 16||2.10|-27.22|
95882524|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.07|7.1|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 20||7.10|-25.07|
95882525|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-12.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|4.65|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 24||4.65|-29.08|
95882526|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 28||9.38|-26.66|
95882527|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.66|9.38|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 32||9.38|-26.66|
95882528|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|16.48|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 36||16.48|-20.16|
95882529|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 40||15.72|-25.17|
95882530|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-8.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.91|11.32|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 44||11.32|-27.91|
95882531|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|15.72|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 48||15.72|-25.17|
95882532|NCT03000439|191719549|OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.53|22.68|||||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to generate 95% CI for the difference in percentage.|DB Week 52||22.68|-18.53|
95882533|NCT02864498|191719601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.557|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.5570
95882534|NCT02864498|191719601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8774|||||||General Linear Model|||||||0.8774
95970670|NCT02349425|191914330|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.0|-42.3|0.001
95970671|NCT02349425|191914331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.8|-23.5|<0.001
95970672|NCT02349425|191914331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.4|-26.1|<0.001
95970673|NCT02349425|191914331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-7.8|-31.1|0.002
95970674|NCT02349425|191914331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.3|-31.8|<0.001
95970675|NCT02349425|191914332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.0|-12.3|0.315
95882535|NCT02197247|191719628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric least-squares (LS) mean ratio|27.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.36|30.29|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval (AUCtau) and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||30.29|24.36|
95970676|NCT02349425|191914332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.7|-13.7|0.030
95970677|NCT02349425|191914332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.1|-27.4|<0.001
95970678|NCT02349425|191914332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-9.0|-26.3|<0.001
95970679|NCT02349425|191914333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.6|-8.6|0.169
95970680|NCT02349425|191914333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.6|-7.5|0.341
95882536|NCT02197247|191719629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No effect on the PK of AZD9291 after co-administration of rifampicin was concluded if the lower bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios (Period 2 versus Period 1) of AZD9291 AUCtau and Css,max were both above 50%. The experiment-wide power for the ratios being above 50% was 90% (95% power for each parameter).|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.5|23.83|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as fixed effect and patient as random effect. It was assumed the within-patient coefficient of variation for AZD9291 in both AUCtau and Cmax was 34%. A 33% decrease in exposure for AZD9291 when given with rifampicin was also assumed.||23.83|19.50|
95882537|NCT02197247|191719630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.27|107.03|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||107.03|85.27|
95882538|NCT02197247|191719631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|21.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.08|24.72|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||24.72|19.08|
95882539|NCT02197247|191719631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|88.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.17|101.07|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||101.07|77.17|
95882540|NCT02197247|191719632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|139.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.74|151.96|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||151.96|127.74|
95882541|NCT02197247|191719632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|110.29|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed Css,max values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.29|92.04|
95882542|NCT02197247|191719634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|95.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|106.45|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for AZD9291 alone in separate periods, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone analysis (primary outcome measure).|Natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||106.45|86.37|
95970681|NCT02349425|191914333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-5.8|0.311
95970682|NCT02349425|191914333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.1|-8.6|0.128
95970683|NCT02349425|191914334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.9|-3.5|0.613
95970684|NCT02349425|191914334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||3.1|-4.3|.743
95970685|NCT02349425|191914334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.3|-4.1|0.589
95882543|NCT02197247|191719635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|18.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.61|21.19|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||21.19|16.61|
95882544|NCT02197247|191719635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|90.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.34|102.27|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ5104 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||102.27|79.34|
95882545|NCT02197247|191719636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|129.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.14|141.44|||||AZD9291+rifampicin / AZD9291 alone (Period 2 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||141.44|119.14|
95882546|NCT02197247|191719636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|100.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|110.19|||||AZD9291 alone / AZD9291 alone (Period 3 versus Period 1). No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis.|For AZ7550 (metabolite), natural log-transformed AUCtau values were compared between periods using a mixed effects ANOVA with period as a fixed effect and patient as a random effect.||110.19|92.15|
95882547|NCT01010061|191719647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.28||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.28|0.16|<0.0001
95882548|NCT01010061|191719649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.27|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.27|0.14|<0.0001
95882549|NCT01010061|191719652|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|55.5|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||55.5|34.7|< 0.0001
95882550|NCT01010061|191719653|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.26|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.26|0.15|<0.0001
95882551|NCT01010061|191719654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.94|||Log Rank, Stratified|||||0.94|0.49|0.0196
95970686|NCT02349425|191914334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||2.9|-13.2|0.205
95970687|NCT02349425|191914335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.1|-1.4|0.0811
95970688|NCT02349425|191914335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.3|-2.2|0.0097
95970689|NCT02349425|191914335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.6|-2.6|0.0025
95882552|NCT01010061|191719655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.28|0.13|<0.0001
95882553|NCT01010061|191719657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35|||Log Rank, Stratified|Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.||||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
95882554|NCT01203098|191719662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.6||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||4.6|-7.2|
95970690|NCT02349425|191914335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.8|0.0050
95970691|NCT02349425|191914336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||0.0|-1.4|0.0506
95970692|NCT02349425|191914336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-1.7|0.0447
95970693|NCT02349425|191914336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-2.2|0.0026
95970694|NCT02349425|191914336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.0|-2.2|0.0405
95882555|NCT01203098|191719662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.8||||||Primary analyses were performed on proportion of subjects who experienced thromboembolic events defined as primary efficacy endpoint (incidence of thromboembolic events); incidence of thromboembolic events and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by treatment group, and difference between DU-176b 15 mg and 30 mg groups and its 95% CI were also calculated. For reference, difference between enoxaparin group and each DU-176b group and its 95% CI of each were calculated.||6.8|-4.6|
95882556|NCT00578383|191719692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||5.8|0.5|0.009
95882557|NCT00578383|191719693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||1.9|0.2|0.006
95882558|NCT00578383|191719694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (POSITIVE SCALE).||6.9|1.3|0.001
95882559|NCT00578383|191719695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|5.1||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.025 for significance (correction factor 2).|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression and those with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.1|-1.1|0.15
95882560|NCT00578383|191719696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|6.2||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||6.2|-1.2|0.09
95882561|NCT00578383|191719697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.||9.6|-3.3|0.19
95882562|NCT00578383|191719698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by a visual analog scale.||2.1|-0.6|0.15
95882563|NCT00578383|191719699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.6||We used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by a visual analog scale.||3.6|-0.4|0.04
95882564|NCT00578383|191719700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|9.2||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||9.2|0.8|0.004
95970695|NCT02349425|191914337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.80|1.88|<0.001
95970696|NCT02349425|191914337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||5.38|1.66|<0.001
95882565|NCT00578383|191719701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (positive scale)||5.8|1.3|0.30
95882566|NCT00578383|191719702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with bipolar depression as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||6.8|-4.1|0.52
95882567|NCT00578383|191719703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1||95.0|-1.3|5.8||we used type HC3 robust standard errors (SEs)in place of OLS regression SEs to guard against biased estimation of SEs due to heteroscedasticity. This is an uncorrected p-value with a required threshold of 0.0125 for significance (correction factor 4)|Regression, Linear|Bonferroni multiple testing corrections were applied separately to results for our primary and secondary outcomes.||Active LFMS treatment would reduce depression immediately after treatment in subjects with major depressive disorder as assessed by the PANAS (negative scale)||5.8|-1.3|0.10
95882568|NCT03385564|191719717|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-5.68||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.192|22.825|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||22.825|-34.192|0.7957
95882569|NCT03385564|191719717|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|-9.37||||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.178|12.44|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||12.440|-31.178|0.5811
95882570|NCT03385564|191719717|OTHER|Percentage of patients with CRR at Week 52 without renal flare were analysed using a logistic regression model. Factors in the model included treatment and the covariates: race (Asian versus (vs.) non-Asian) and proteinuria \<3 gram (g)/day vs. ≥3 g/day (or Urine protein (UP)/ Urine creatinine (UC) \<3 vs. UP/UC ≥3) at screening.|Difference|1.97||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.534|21.48|||Regression, Logistic||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the delta method.|||21.480|-17.534|0.8972
95882571|NCT03385564|191719718|OTHER||Difference|-9.14||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-32.83|17.02|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||17.02|-32.83|0.8250
95882572|NCT03385564|191719718|OTHER||Difference|-21.23||||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.44|0.51|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||0.51|-39.44|0.2562
95882573|NCT03385564|191719718|OTHER||Difference|-2.0||||0.9632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.45|16.62|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||16.62|-20.45|0.9632
95882574|NCT03385564|191719719|OTHER||Difference|-2.86||||0.9275|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|21.1|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||21.10|-28.58|0.9275
95970697|NCT02349425|191914338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.2|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||1.9|-23.2|0.096
95882575|NCT03385564|191719719|OTHER||Difference|-10.0||||0.6064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.9|10.64|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||10.64|-29.90|0.6064
95882576|NCT03385564|191719719|OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.37|18.07|||||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||18.07|-18.37|
95970698|NCT02349425|191914338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-6.3|-33.6|0.005
95882577|NCT03385564|191719720|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-20.53|29.6|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||29.60|-20.53|0.9119
95970699|NCT02349425|191914338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-11.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-11.6|-40.7|<0.001
95970700|NCT02349425|191914338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-19.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-19.1|-48.4|<0.001
95882578|NCT03385564|191719720|OTHER||Difference|3.73||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.58|24.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||24.31|-16.58|0.8510
95882579|NCT03385564|191719720|OTHER||Difference|16.43||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.53|34.73|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||34.73|-3.53|0.3498
95882580|NCT03385564|191719721|OTHER||Difference|5.43||||0.7921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.19|23.57|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.57|-10.19|0.7921
95882581|NCT03385564|191719723|OTHER||Difference|32.0||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.28|44.74|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 120 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||44.74|10.28|0.1016
95882582|NCT03385564|191719723|OTHER||Difference|-3.71||||0.8323|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.79|15.29|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 180 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||15.29|-23.79|0.8323
95882583|NCT03385564|191719723|OTHER||Difference|7.0||||0.6247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.5|23.31|||Barnard test||The difference was calculated as value from BI 240 milligrams group minus value from Placebo group. Confidence intervals calculated using the Newcombe method.|||23.31|-10.50|0.6247
95882584|NCT03344796|191719735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95882585|NCT03344796|191719736|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95882586|NCT03344796|191719737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95882587|NCT03344796|191719738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Knowledge of sun protection score at baseline compared with score after completion of the arm. The hypothesis is that the focus group, usability test and structured interviews arms will not have significant change in knowledge. It is expected that cohort studies 1 and 2 will have significant change in knowledge of sun protection.||||< 0.1
95882588|NCT00679432|191719756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.1393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|13.4|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Asacol and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Asacol versus budesonide MMX.||13.4|-1.8|0.1393
95882589|NCT00679432|191719756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|18.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||18.7|2.2|0.0143
95970701|NCT02349425|191914339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||6.2|-19.1|0.311
95882590|NCT00679432|191719756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.1|-2.7|0.2200
95970702|NCT02349425|191914339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||4.9|-19.7|0.232
95970703|NCT02349425|191914339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-3.6|-27.6|0.012
95970704|NCT02349425|191914339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Per Protocol, statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model.||||-0.5|-30.4|0.043
95970705|NCT00715962|191914347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test used as the rate of falling was low.||||||<.05
95970706|NCT00715962|191914348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95970707|NCT02480153|191914358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if the 2-sided 95% CI fell within (-14%, 14%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.38|4.44||||||||4.44|-10.38|
95970708|NCT02480153|191914358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Confidence interval (CIs) calculated by the score statistic method were used for the inference of the equivalence for ACR20 at Week 12. Therapeutic equivalence could be established if 2-sided 90% CI fell within (-12%, 15%). Non-responder imputation was applied. Comparisons between treatments were computed as PF-06410293 versus Adalimumab-EU.|Week 12 ACR20 response rate difference|-2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.25|3.28||||||||3.28|-9.25|
95970709|NCT02342743|191914429|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95970710|NCT02342743|191914430|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95970711|NCT02342743|191914431|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95970712|NCT02342743|191914432|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95970713|NCT02342743|191914433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95970714|NCT02342743|191914434|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95970715|NCT02342743|191914436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.030
95970716|NCT00558259|191914453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.02|0.25|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.25|0.02|<0.0001
95970717|NCT00558259|191914454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|0.03|0.27|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs placebo||0.27|0.03|<0.0001
95970718|NCT00558259|191914455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.0001
95882591|NCT00679432|191719757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.8||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|17.0|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||17.0|-5.5|0.3146
95882592|NCT00679432|191719757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|19.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||19.9|-2.8|0.1420
95882593|NCT00679432|191719757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|9.1||||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||20.4|-2.3|0.1189
95882594|NCT00679432|191719758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|11.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Asacol and placebo groups is shown here.||11.8|-11.8|0.9991
95882595|NCT00824720|191719759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.9737|||||||ANCOVA||Mean difference was calculated as high dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis was that the high dose was different from the placebo.||||0.9737
95882596|NCT00824720|191719759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square mean difference|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.4711|||||||ANCOVA||The mean difference was calculated as low dose minus placebo.|The alternative hypothesis is that the low dose was different from placebo.||||0.4711
95882597|NCT00826943|191719779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
95882598|NCT00826943|191719779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.11
95882599|NCT00826943|191719779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.45
95882600|NCT00826943|191719780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< .05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.27
95882601|NCT00826943|191719780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
95882602|NCT00826943|191719780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.52
95882603|NCT00826943|191719781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.14
95882604|NCT00826943|191719781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.54
95882605|NCT00826943|191719781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.42
95882606|NCT03338998|191719828|SUPERIORITY||Geo-mean ratio|1.05||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.717|1.535|||ANCOVA|||||1.535|0.717|0.585
95882607|NCT04404361|191719842|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.51||||0.8516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|13.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5).||||13.53|-10.55|0.8516
95882608|NCT04404361|191719843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7494|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7494
95882609|NCT04404361|191719844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||3.58|0.46|0.6323
95882610|NCT04404361|191719845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.7541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||OR from a CMH test Stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS|||4.96|0.31|0.7541
95882611|NCT04404361|191719846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.5666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.53||"log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5) as entered in the IXRS"|Log Rank|"stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus~≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)"|estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization stratification factors age (\<60 years versus ≥60 years) and 7-point clinical status scale (baseline 3 or 4 versus 5)|||1.53|0.79|0.5666
95882612|NCT04404361|191719848|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|12.93|||Chi-squared|||||12.93|0.47|0.2722
95882613|NCT03329573|191719865|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.006|1.115||||||||1.115|1.006|
95882614|NCT03329573|191719866|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-infinity) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.947|1.047||||||||1.047|0.947|
95882615|NCT03329573|191719867|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.064|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.12||||||||1.120|1.010|
95882616|NCT03329573|191719868|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0-t) for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|1.044||||||||1.044|0.949|
95882617|NCT03329573|191719869|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.024|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.952|1.101||||||||1.101|0.952|
95882618|NCT03329573|191719870|EQUIVALENCE|The two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent if the 90% confidence interval of Cmax for difference between both treatments fall in the range of 0.80-1.25.|Ratio of Geometrical Mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.968|1.074||||||||1.074|0.968|
95882619|NCT00650260|191719895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
95882620|NCT00650260|191719896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.078
95882621|NCT00650260|191719899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95882622|NCT01980940|191719923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|5.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.03|6.42|||ANOVA|||The geometric least squares mean ratio (GLSMR) and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||6.42|4.03|
95882623|NCT01980940|191719923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.05|8.81|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||8.81|6.05|
95882624|NCT01980940|191719923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.55|0.38|
95882625|NCT01980940|191719923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.83|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for Cmax after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. Cmax with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.83|0.51|
95882626|NCT01980940|191719925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.77|18.18|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 75 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||18.18|4.77|
95882627|NCT01980940|191719925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|8.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.39|10.32|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the formulation comparison (ETOR 150 DMSO/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||10.32|6.39|
95882628|NCT01980940|191719925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.57|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 DMSO/ETOR 150 DMSO) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.57|0.39|
95882629|NCT01980940|191719925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|0.79|||ANOVA|||The GLSMR and 90% confidence interval was calculated for AUC0-last after log transformation for the dose comparison (ETOR 75 PG/ETOR 150 PG) using a linear mixed effect model with fixed effects terms for treatment and period and random effect for participants. AUC with value 0 included in calculation of GLSMs with a value of 0.5\*LLOQ (=0.5 h\*ng/ml).||0.79|0.21|
95882630|NCT01980940|191719926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.57||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.6|8.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||8.9|-63.6|0.2113
95882631|NCT01980940|191719926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.7|10.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||10.3|-55.7|0.2548
95882632|NCT01980940|191719926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.94||0.288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.9|12.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||12.0|-54.9|0.2880
95882633|NCT01980940|191719926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.52||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.4|15.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||15.1|-50.4|0.3709
95882634|NCT01980940|191719926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.81||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.5|16.0|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 pain subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||16.0|-50.5|0.3883
95882635|NCT01980940|191719927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.1383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.7|1.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||1.6|-29.7|0.1383
95882636|NCT01980940|191719927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.66||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.9|4.2|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.2|-24.9|0.2380
95882637|NCT01980940|191719927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.9|4.8|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||4.8|-23.9|0.2691
95882638|NCT01980940|191719927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|5.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||5.6|-21.8|0.3246
95882639|NCT01980940|191719927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.3881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|6.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 stiffness subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||6.6|-20.9|0.3881
95882640|NCT01980940|191719928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.25||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-166.8|62.3|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 2 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 2 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.3|-166.8|0.4477
95882641|NCT01980940|191719928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.42||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-143.6|76.1|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 4 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 4 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||76.1|-143.6|0.6084
95970719|NCT00558259|191914455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.06|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in Dabigatran group.|||1.06|0.04|
95970720|NCT00558259|191914455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|5.17|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing DVT in placebo group.|||5.17|2.21|
95970721|NCT00558259|191914456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.0004
95970722|NCT00558259|191914456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.82|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in Dabigatran group.|||0.82|0.00|
95970723|NCT00558259|191914456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing PE in placebo group.|||3.52|1.16|
95970724|NCT00558259|191914457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428|||||||Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo||||0.2428
95882642|NCT01980940|191719928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.25||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-144.7|74.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 7 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 7 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||74.4|-144.7|0.5926
95882643|NCT01980940|191719928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|62.49||0.5022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-147.2|62.6|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 11 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 11 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||62.6|-147.2|0.5022
95882644|NCT01980940|191719928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.7||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-149.0|64.9|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||Treatment difference in mean time-weighted average change from baseline to Day 14 in the WOMAC VA 3.1 physical function subscale score (ETOR 50 DMSO - Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was evaluated using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model that included baseline measurements and time-weighted average at Day 14 in the response variable. The model included terms of visit, visit-by-treatment, and treatment.||64.9|-149.0|0.5125
95882645|NCT01980940|191719929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2632|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 2 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.2632
95882646|NCT01980940|191719929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4703|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 4 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.4703
95882647|NCT01980940|191719929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5507|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 7 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.5507
95882648|NCT01980940|191719929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3992|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 11 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3992
95882649|NCT01980940|191719929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6626|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of Day 14 PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.6626
95882650|NCT01980940|191719929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.315|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test|||Treatment comparison of post-trial PGART frequencies (ETOR 50 DMSO vs Placebo \[Pt 2\]) was performed using a two-sided Jonckheere-Terpstra test.||||0.3150
95882651|NCT02065375|191719957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-1.2||||0.4543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|18.9|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||18.9|-21.3|0.4543
95882652|NCT02065375|191719957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|8.2||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|29.8|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||29.8|-13.5|0.2297
95882653|NCT02065375|191719958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-21.6||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|0.0|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 1.0% and placebo were one sided.||||0.00|-43.1|.0280
95882654|NCT02065375|191719958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-24.0||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-2.2|||Chi-squared|p values from Pearson chi-squared statistical test between the Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic suspension 0.5% and placebo were one sided.||||-2.2|-45.8|0.0192
95882655|NCT05438888|191720001|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.753|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.798|||Log Rank|||||0.798|0.711|<0.001
95882656|NCT05438888|191720002|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.687|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.760|0.622|<0.001
95882657|NCT05438888|191720003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.714|||Log Rank|||||0.714|0.570|<0.001
95882658|NCT05438888|191720004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|0.922|||Log Rank|||||0.922|0.791|<0.001
95882659|NCT05438888|191720005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.638|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.715|||Log Rank|||||0.715|0.570|<0.001
95882660|NCT05438888|191720006|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|0.934|||Log Rank|||||0.934|0.807|<0.001
95882661|NCT05438888|191720007|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.830|0.503|<0.001
95882662|NCT02761252|191720008|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3429||0.5721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8693|0.4813|||ANCOVA|||||0.4813|-0.8693|0.5721
95882663|NCT02761252|191720009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4489||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0379|-0.2725|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2725|-2.0379|0.0105
95882664|NCT02761252|191720010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2009||0.4885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5342|0.2557|||ANCOVA|||||0.2557|-0.5342|0.4885
95882665|NCT02761252|191720011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1504||0.81032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3319|0.2596|||ANCOVA|||||0.2596|-0.3319|0.81032
95882666|NCT02761252|191720012|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9322||0.3704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9969|2.6688|||ANOVA|||||2.6688|-0.9969|0.3704
95882667|NCT02761252|191720013|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5735||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8968|4.2228|||ANOVA|||||4.2228|-5.8968|0.7452
95882668|NCT04997304|191720041|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0019
95882669|NCT04997304|191720041|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0020
95882670|NCT04997304|191720042|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.0008
95882671|NCT04997304|191720042|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0003
95882672|NCT04997304|191720043|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for AirDuo||||0.04
95882673|NCT04997304|191720043|OTHER|Test of paired differences||||||0.0965|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||This analysis applies only to comparison of baseline and exacerbation for ProAir||||0.0965
95882674|NCT00844831|191720054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95882675|NCT00844831|191720056|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.9
95882676|NCT02370160|191720075|OTHER||||||||||||||||||In Phase I: There were 9 subjects treated on dose level 1 (60 µg/kg/dose). There were 6 subjects treated on Dose level 2 (80 µg/kg/dose). There were four DLT events happened in Phase I. One was treated on dose level 1 and the other three were treated on dose level 2. Therefore the MTD was dose level 1.|||
95882677|NCT04487730|191720082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4727||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional connectivity within the orbital prefrontal cortex (OFC; specifically between lateral and medial OFC), significantly changed over time.||||0.6249
95882678|NCT04487730|191720083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8176||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.525
95882679|NCT04487730|191720084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6503||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Mixed effects model with a fixed effect for treatment and time, as well as time by treatment interaction, and a random effect for subject level.~F value for time by treatment interaction."||||.844
95882680|NCT03156543|191720094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was based on the participants who were positive for C. acnes.||||0.004
95882681|NCT02891850|191720100|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the satisfactory clinical response rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.526|5.06|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||5.060|1.526|0.0007
95882682|NCT02891850|191720101|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of 6MWD in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|40.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||40.10|5.03|0.0542
95882683|NCT02891850|191720102|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change of NT-proBNP in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.65||||0.1067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-426.18|86.88|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||86.88|-426.18|0.1067
95882684|NCT02891850|191720103|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the change from baseline in WHO FC in terms of mean difference when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||-0.11|-0.42|0.0007
95882685|NCT02891850|191720104|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis was that there was no difference in the clinical worsening rates in terms of odds ratio (OR) when treated with riociguat compared with participants who remained on their previous therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.725|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by PAH category at baseline||||0.725|0.013|0.0047
95882686|NCT01751867|191720115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|29.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|47.5|||Exact binomial proportion test||ORR % = Number of participants who achieved response divided by total ITT participants|Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||47.5|15.1|0.003
95882687|NCT01751867|191720115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR %|25.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|35.3|||Exact binomial proportion test|||Null Hypothesis: threshold for statistical significance = 10%||35.3|17.2|<0.001
95882688|NCT02577510|191720158|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Version 21 statistical software (IBM, Armonk, New York). For continuous data, normality was fi rst assessed with the Lilliefors test and then analyzed using a paired t test. Data that did not have a normal distribution, as well as ordinal data, was analyzed using Wilcoxon's signed ranks or McNemar's test. All P values presented were 2-sided and values inferior to 0.05 were considered signifi cant||||0.05
95882689|NCT03095066|191720162|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.7||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM).||2.4|-5.8|0.405
95882690|NCT03095066|191720163|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|13.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||13.9|-15.3|0.921
95882691|NCT03095066|191720164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||0.3|-1.7|0.150
95882692|NCT03095066|191720164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.2||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.7|-4.3|0.921
95882693|NCT03095066|191720165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.3||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.9|-1.3|0.702
95882694|NCT03095066|191720165|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|7.6||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||7.6|-3.6|0.469
95882695|NCT03095066|191720166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.3||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.0||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.0|-3.5|0.267
95882696|NCT03095066|191720166|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.8||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||4.8|-8.0|0.609
95882697|NCT03095066|191720167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Baseline to Week 6: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||1.7|-2.4|0.743
95882698|NCT03095066|191720167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.2||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|6.1||MMRM included fixed effects of treatment, site, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline NPI-C-3 value and baseline-by-visit interaction.|MMRM|||Week 7 to Week 12: Treatment differences in each stage were estimated by the MMRM.||6.1|-3.8|0.575
95882699|NCT03095066|191720168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.664
95882700|NCT03095066|191720168|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.6||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.273
95882701|NCT03095066|191720169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.1|-0.9|0.159
95882702|NCT03095066|191720169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||1.1|-1.5|0.745
95882703|NCT03095066|191720170|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.2|-0.5|0.268
95882704|NCT03095066|191720170|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.2|-1.2|0.147
95882705|NCT03095066|191720171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to Week 6||0.3|-0.5|0.655
95882706|NCT03095066|191720171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 7 to Week 12||0.9|-1.2|0.734
95882707|NCT03766581|191720200|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.10|0.87|
95882708|NCT03766581|191720200|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.15|0.83|
95882709|NCT03766581|191720200|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.16|0.76|
95882710|NCT03766581|191720200|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.18|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.18|0.73|
95882711|NCT03766581|191720200|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31|||MCP-MOD|Multiple Comparison Procedures, MODel|95% confidence interval (CI) for composite event based on bootstrap (10000 samples)|Milvexian 200 mg BID over Placebo||1.31|0.69|
95882712|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.49|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg QD over Placebo||1.49|0.46|
95882713|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.3|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 25 mg BID over Placebo||1.30|0.36|
95882714|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.33|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg BID over Placebo||1.33|0.39|
95970725|NCT00558259|191914457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.54|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in Dabigatran group.|||0.54|0.00|
95970726|NCT00558259|191914457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.09|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants with unexplained death in placebo group.|||1.09|0.04|
95970727|NCT00558259|191914458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4998||||||As the Cox model did not converge due to too few events, hazard ratios are not estimable.|Fisher Exact|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo - Analysis of time to first occurrence of an MBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||||0.4998
95882715|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg BID over Placebo||1.25|0.33|
95882716|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.25|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 200 mg BID||2.25|0.87|
95882717|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|7.42|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 50 mg QD over Placebo||7.42|0.83|
95882718|NCT03766581|191720222|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.96|||Wald Confidence Limits|95% CIs for RR are constructed using Wald Confidence Limits||Milvexian 100 mg QD over Placebo||6.96|0.15|
95882719|NCT03600818|191720244|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.0|||=|0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|31.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Fisher Exact|||||31.82|4.15|=0.0193
95970728|NCT00558259|191914458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in Dabigatran group.|||1.05|0.04|
95970729|NCT00558259|191914458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with events|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.56|||||The confidence interval (Clopper-Pearson method) was calculated for the percentage of participants experiencing MBE in placebo group.|||0.56|0.00|
95882720|NCT03600818|191720245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. If the primary endpoint reaches statistical significance then the secondary endpoint for total cumulative CS dose was tested next.||||<0.0001
95882721|NCT01606007|191720263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.37||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-0.81|<0.0001
95882722|NCT01606007|191720263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1108||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.48|0.0166
95882723|NCT01606007|191720264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-34.3||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if Saxagliptin+Dapagliflozin+Metformin was superior to both Saxagliptin+Metformin and Dapagliflozin+Metformin.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||-34.3|-53.7|<0.0001
95882724|NCT01606007|191720264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.923||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|0.5||Each secondary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance testing stops at the endpoint where p-value\>0.05.|ANCOVA|||LOCF||0.5|-18.8|0.0639
95882725|NCT01606007|191720265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-15.9|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-15.9|-31.6|
95970730|NCT00558259|191914458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.6|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of a MBE or CRBE during the treatment period - FAS - as treated.||5.60|1.52|0.0013
95970731|NCT00558259|191914458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||Dabigatran vs. Placebo- Analysis of time to first occurrence of any bleeding event during the treatment period - FAS - as treated||2.68|1.23|0.0027
95970732|NCT02937454|191914472|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.01|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.01|0.62|0.059
95970733|NCT02937454|191914472|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.96|0.59|0.024
95970734|NCT02937454|191914473|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.0|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.0|0.64|0.050
95970735|NCT02937454|191914473|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.97|0.62|0.024
95970736|NCT02937454|191914474|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.58|0.013
95970737|NCT02937454|191914474|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.9|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||COVID-19 sensitivity analyses||0.90|0.55|0.005
95970738|NCT02937454|191914475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.32|0.70|0.809
95970739|NCT02937454|191914475|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||1.29|0.68|0.687
95970740|NCT02937454|191914476|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.98|0.66|0.030
95970741|NCT02937454|191914476|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.97|0.65|0.023
95970742|NCT02937454|191914477|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.97|0.47|0.035
95852960|NCT02977403|191664922|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.043||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.043|-0.110|
95852961|NCT02977403|191664922|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.166|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.003||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.003|-0.335|
95852962|NCT02977403|191664923|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.069|
95852963|NCT02977403|191664923|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.332|-0.002||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.002|-0.332|
95852964|NCT02977403|191664924|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.146||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.146|-0.037|
95852965|NCT02977403|191664924|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.09||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.090|-0.127|
95970743|NCT02937454|191914477|OTHER||Annualised event rate ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model adjusted for baseline covariates: sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Covid-19 Sensitivity Analysis||0.88|0.42|0.009
95970744|NCT02937454|191914478|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.92|0.59|0.006
95882726|NCT01606007|191720265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.7|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||1.7|-13.8|
95882727|NCT01606007|191720266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.5|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||31.5|14.7|
95882728|NCT01606007|191720266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference in percentages|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.587|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|28.1|||||Modified Logistic Regression was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||28.1|10.1|
95882729|NCT01606007|191720267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3451|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.37|||||ANCOVA was applied for comparison, but p-value was not reported because at least one prior test in the hierarchical testing procedure yielded p-value\>0.05.|||-1.37|-2.73|
95882730|NCT02228460|191720275|OTHER|||||||0.3173||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|McNemar Test|||A McNemar test was used to test the treatment effect based on paired pre-treatment and post-treatment (Week 26) frequencies of skin GL-3 score grouped into the categories (0 to \<2; 2 to 3).||||0.3173
95882731|NCT02228460|191720276|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess the mean change from Baseline to Week 26 in skin GL-3 score.||||0.625
95882732|NCT00370032|191720315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.131||95.0|-18.4|2.157|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.157|-18.4|0.131
95882733|NCT00370032|191720315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.131||95.0|-21.2|2.997|||paired t-test Hommel-Simes|||||2.997|-21.2|0.131
95882734|NCT00801632|191720318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|94.7|||||Clopper-Pearson used to derive confidence interval|||94.7|14.7|
95882735|NCT00801632|191720320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on a paired t-test comparing baseline creatinine level with the level at study completion/participant termination.|t-test, 2 sided|The test describes whether the average of the difference is different from zero.||||||0.215
95882736|NCT01233258|191720371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as only 1 primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation: Assumption 5 bleeds per year on prophylactic treatment, 15 on on-demand treatment; 2-sided alpha 5% and 90% power.||||0.0001
95970745|NCT02937454|191914479|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline.||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||0.94|0.63|0.009
95970746|NCT02937454|191914480|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country at baseline||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.31|0.75|0.944
95970747|NCT02937454|191914481|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.39|||Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE)|The following variables are included in the GEE model: treatment, visit, baseline NYHA class, sex, age, HF aetiology, HF duration, and country||Full Analysis Set (FAS)||1.39|0.93|0.196
95882737|NCT01233258|191720372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustment as this is not primary endpoint.|ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
95882738|NCT01233258|191720373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|No adjustment, no transformation of data seemed to be necessary.||Null hypothesis: bleeding rates are equal, alternative hypothesis rates are unequal. Power calculation not done for this comparison as not primary comparison.||||0.0001
95882739|NCT01233258|191720374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin 10%|Median Difference (Net)|-0.0001||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|||No multiplicity adjustment as not primary endpoint.|Exact Permutation Test for paired sample||Confidence interval calculated with exact Hodges- Lehmann estimates for CS/EP minus CS/ADJ|Null hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is less than the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. Alternative hypothesis: the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/EP group plus 10% is greater than or equal to the proportion of bleeds controlled by no more than 2 infusions in the CS/ADJ group. No power calculation since this is not the primary comparison.|||-0.0490|0.0001
95882740|NCT04967443|191720454|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|108.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.43|96.14|
95882741|NCT04967443|191720454|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.68|111.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||111.44|98.68|
95882742|NCT04967443|191720454|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.58|109.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.55|99.58|
95970748|NCT02937454|191914482|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.208
95970749|NCT02937454|191914482|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.408
95970750|NCT02937454|191914482|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.999
95970751|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 2||||0.227
95970752|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 4||||0.018
95852966|NCT02977403|191664925|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.065||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.065|-0.061|
95852967|NCT02977403|191664925|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.042||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.042|-0.215|
95852968|NCT02977403|191664926|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.115||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.115|-0.05|
95852969|NCT02977403|191664926|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.058||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.058|-0.248|
95852970|NCT02977403|191664927|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.042||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.042|-0.075|
95852971|NCT02977403|191664927|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.180|-0.130|
95854041|NCT01075243|191667393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|14.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 1000 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||14.00|8.66|<0.0001
95854042|NCT01075243|191667393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.63|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.94|10.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment as a fixed effect and baseline assessment of pain intensity (VAS score) as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered no difference in SPRID\^6h between Paracetamol 650 mg caplet and placebo caplet.||10.31|4.94|<0.0001
95970753|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 6||||0.005
95882743|NCT04967443|191720455|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|113.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.79|126.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||126.34|102.79|
95882744|NCT04967443|191720455|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|126.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.32|140.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||140.70|114.32|
95882745|NCT04967443|191720455|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|118.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.46|130.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||130.94|106.46|
95882746|NCT04967443|191720456|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.92|107.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||107.27|94.92|
95882747|NCT04967443|191720456|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.97|108.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 2x1 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x2 mg (Barceloneta)||108.57|95.97|
95882748|NCT04967443|191720456|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be demonstrated if the estimated 90% confidence interval for the ratios (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means for AUClast and Cmax fall entirely within (80%, 125%).|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|104.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.09|109.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Ascoli); Reference: Prazosin HCL 1x5 mg (Barceloneta)||109.23|99.09|
95882749|NCT00668707|191720492|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis conducted was an adjusted logistic regression (adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, smoking history). Results were presented as a relative risk. Based on an estimated 30% outcome rate of recurrence or mortality in the control arm, 294 participants per arm provided 80% power to detect a relative risk of one third at an alpha of 0.05. We inflated this sample size to 346 per arm to account for 15% lost to follow-up.||1.22|0.83|0.94
95882750|NCT00668707|191720493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Analysis for the LC-13 scale.||3.7|-1.3|0.36
95882751|NCT00668707|191720493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Symptom Scale.||3.3|-2.5|0.80
95882752|NCT00668707|191720493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.7||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Functional Scale.||2.7|-4.1|0.69
95882753|NCT00668707|191720493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|0.9||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for Global Scale.||0.9|-8.5|0.11
95882754|NCT00668707|191720494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||0.9|-7.2|0.13
95882755|NCT00668707|191720495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep Adequacy Analysis.||1.9|-10.0|0.18
95882756|NCT00668707|191720495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Between-arm least squares mean difference in change from randomization to 24 months post-surgery represented the effect of the intervention.||Sleep problems index II analysis.||4.8|-2.0|0.41
95882757|NCT00668707|191720499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95970754|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 12||||0.006
95970755|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 24||||0.028
95882758|NCT00668707|191720500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Log Rank|||DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.07|0.85|0.41
95882759|NCT00668707|191720500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those with stage I or II cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||1.11|0.85|0.66
95882760|NCT00668707|191720500|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.92|||Log Rank|||This analysis included only those participants who had stage III or IV cancer (pathologic stage). DFS up to five years post-surgery was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test, followed by a hazard ratio calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation, and smoking history.||0.92|0.61|0.004
95970756|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 36||||0.136
95970757|NCT02937454|191914483|OTHER|||||||0.329|||||||Mixed-effect model of repeated measures|MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change score = Baseline score + Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline covariates.||Week 52||||0.329
95970758|NCT02585232|191914543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline caregiver burden scores were included in the model as covariates.||||||.483
95970759|NCT02585232|191914544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||ANCOVA|Caregiver education, cognitive status of the person with dementia, and baseline Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores were included as covariates.||Only caregivers that were currently or previously in a romantic relationship (e.g., spouses, partners) with the person with dementia reported on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (i.e., N = 20, n = 9 in CC group and n = 11 in CC+C group).||||0.169
95970760|NCT02585232|191914545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline quality of life scores, education, and cognitive status were included as covariates in the model.||||||0.763
95854043|NCT03341299|191667484|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.991||||0.7734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.932|0.7734
95854044|NCT03341299|191667485|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-14.5||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.38|65.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||65.38|-94.38|0.7190
95854045|NCT01148979|191667506|OTHER|A Paired sample t-test was used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in MDAR score change after 4 weeks of treatment with Vyvanse versus placebo.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis represents a within-subject comparison of change under treatment with Vyvanse versus change under treatment with placebo, using paired t-tests with each subject as their own control. All tests reported are two-tailed.||||<0.05
95854046|NCT00906204|191667507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A one-sided alpha = 0.05, 85% power, an event rate of 0.70, equivalence margin of 0.20. Sample size = 75 patients per dose group, a total of 150 patients. Data analyzed will be counts of patients in each group who experience one or more component events of the primary endpoint during postoperative days one through seven. The DSMB requested an interim analysis after 80 patients and recommended ending the trial because the primary endpoint had been robustly reached.||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The analysis compares the rates at which patients in each of the two groups cumulatively exceed the five composite endpoint thresholds. There are five safety outcomes monitored during the first seven post-transplantation days. The rates of observed vs. possible safety outcomes are compared.||||0.64
95854047|NCT00906204|191667508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.35
95854048|NCT00906204|191667509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.47
95854049|NCT00906204|191667510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
95854050|NCT00906204|191667511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
95854051|NCT00906204|191667512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95854052|NCT01074814|191667535|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Results for the primary objective - evaluation of GMI - were presented with descriptive statistics as the ration of PFS on current therapy over the PFS on latest therapy. The percentage of patients with GMI greater than 1.3 was displayed along with its corresponding 95% exact confidence interval.|||
95854053|NCT01298648|191667574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed cases at Baseline and Week 4.||||||<0.0001
95854054|NCT01298648|191667576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 8.||||||<0.0001
95854055|NCT01298648|191667577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test using observed values at Baseline and Week 24.||||||<0.0001
95854056|NCT00124943|191667580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.396
95854057|NCT00124943|191667581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of the number of patients with any treatment emergent adverse event. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.783
95854058|NCT00124943|191667582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.293
95854059|NCT00124943|191667582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment binary restenosis. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes||||0.400
95854060|NCT00124943|191667583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||>0.999
95854061|NCT00124943|191667584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.061
95854062|NCT00124943|191667585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-stent late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.709
95854063|NCT00124943|191667585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of in-segment late lumen loss. The statistical testing of treatment difference is for exploratory purposes.||||0.495
95854064|NCT00124943|191667586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||ANOVA|P-value testing dose group differences based on an analysis of variance with dose effect in the model.||||||0.317
95854065|NCT00321620|191667589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A synthesis method was used for the non-inferiority test for the hypothesis that denosumab preserves as least 50% of the effect of zoledronic acid vs. placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0002||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox||Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy)|||0.95|0.71|0.0002
95854066|NCT00321620|191667590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.95|||Regression, Cox|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.95|0.71|0.0085
95882761|NCT00668707|191720501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|4.56|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of melatonin changes||4.56|-3.21|0.95
95882762|NCT00668707|191720501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|7.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of placebo changes||7.42|-0.15|0.02
95882763|NCT00668707|191720502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95882764|NCT00668707|191720503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis compares the mean ratios of 6 month cytotoxicity and baseline cytotoxicity between arms.||||0.34
95882765|NCT03307967|191720548|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum||||||.07
95882766|NCT03307967|191720549|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum Test||||||.98
95882767|NCT04249583|191720593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
95882768|NCT03291808|191720599|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.35
95970761|NCT02585232|191914546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline depression scores, cognitive status scores (i.e., MoCA), and education were included in the model as covariates.||||||0.780
95882769|NCT02957305|191720600|NON_INFERIORITY|400µg of misoprostol yields a 96% cervical dilation \> 8 mm. We considered 86% of the 200 µg misoprostol group as the minimal acceptable percentage. The non-inferiority margin was determined by 24.46.|treatment difference|25.0||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5||The null hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg ≥ percentage of dilation with 200µg + 25% Alternative hypothesis: percentage of dilation with 400µg - 25% \< percentage of dilation with 200µg|difference between proportions|difference between percentages and 95% confidence interval||If there is a true difference in favour of the standard treatment of 10% (96% vs 86%), then 184 patients are required to be 95% sure that the upper limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (or equivalently a 95% two-sided confidence interval) will exclude a difference in favour of the standard group of more than 25%||97.5||0.025
95882770|NCT02957305|191720600|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined by ⅓ of the difference between the 400µg effect (96.7%), compared to the 200 µg dose (23.3%), i.e. 73.4 / 3 = 24.46%|Difference between proportions|0.1146||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.192|||Chi-squared||The difference between both groups was 11.5% (95%CI = 3.7% to 19.2%)|||0.192|0.037|0.004
95882771|NCT02957305|191720602|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.9
95882772|NCT01509950|191720626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95882773|NCT04115839|191720637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.9||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.6||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of biologic (bio)DMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||49.6|4.3|0.022
95882774|NCT04115839|191720637|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.2||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|25.0||The stratification factors (Geographic Region, Concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, Prior Use of bioDMARD(s)) and treatment groups were included in the imputation model as covariates.|Multiple imputation method|||||25.0|-20.5|0.89
95882775|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|9.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||9.9|-21.6|0.39
95882776|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|14.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||14.5|-19.7|0.65
95882777|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.9||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|-19.4|-19.4|21.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||21.3|-19.4|0.86
95882778|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|16.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.1|-22.0|0.70
95970762|NCT02318992|191914553|OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.157
95970763|NCT02318992|191914554|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.041
95882779|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|32.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||32.3|-7.5|0.15
95882780|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|27.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||27.7|-10.1|0.30
95882781|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|45.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.2|-0.7|0.035
95882782|NCT04115839|191720640|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|33.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic Region, concurrent Use of csDMARD(s) and/or Apremilast at Randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.5|-9.3|0.22
95882783|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.8|-2.8|
95882784|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
95882785|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.2|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||12.2|-5.9|
95882786|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||2.9|-2.9|
95882787|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.9|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||11.9|-5.8|
95882788|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|16.7|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||16.7|-5.0|
95882789|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|11.6|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||11.6|-11.4|
95882790|NCT04115839|191720642|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.1|||||95% CI for response rate and difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||16.1|-10.0|
95882791|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.24
95882792|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0|-1|0.22
95882793|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.43
95882794|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||1|-1|0.70
95882795|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0|-2|0.10
95882796|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||1|-1|0.90
95882797|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.88
95970764|NCT01859988|191914555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-55.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-42.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|LS mean and standard error were obtained using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and randomization strata (moderate vs severe;Japan vs rest of world) and relevant baseline values as covariates. Multiplicity was controlled using hierarchical testing procedure:highest dose vs. placebo was tested first. Comparison order was 300 mg qw,300 mg q2w,200 mg q2w,300 mg q4w \& 100 mg q4w, vs placebo respectively. Testing continues only if previous comparison was statistically significant.||-42.4|-68.9|<0.0001
95970765|NCT01859988|191914555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-37.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.0|-63.3|<0.0001
95970766|NCT01859988|191914555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-34.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.1|-60.6|<0.0001
95882798|NCT04115839|191720650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||P-value was provided from MMRM having treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||1|-1|0.89
95882799|NCT04115839|191720654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|16.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||16.5|-15.9|
95882800|NCT04115839|191720654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|32.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.3|-7.1|
95882801|NCT04115839|191720654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|50.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||50.2|3.0|
95882802|NCT04115839|191720654|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||40.4|-4.1|
95882803|NCT04115839|191720656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.5|-5.6|
95882804|NCT04115839|191720656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
95882805|NCT04115839|191720656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.8|-2.0|
95970767|NCT01859988|191914555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-45.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.5|-32.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.3|-58.5|<0.0001
95882806|NCT04115839|191720656|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
95882807|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.4||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|36.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||36.3|-5.5|0.098
95882808|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|11.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.0|-21.1|0.40
95882809|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.8||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|34.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.3|-12.6|0.26
95882810|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|32.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||32.2|-14.6|0.39
95882811|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|46.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.9|-6.9|0.088
95882812|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-7.0||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.9||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||18.9|-32.9|0.49
95882813|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|54.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||54.2|2.4|0.019
95882814|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|28.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||28.4|-22.5|0.85
95970768|NCT01859988|191914555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-26.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 100 mg q4w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-13.7|-39.8|<0.0001
95970769|NCT05086276|191914602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.73||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||3.73|0.51|0.525
95882815|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|52.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||52.3|-0.4|0.036
95882816|NCT04115839|191720658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.8|-19.7|0.60
95882817|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|19.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||19.8|-7.8|0.31
95882818|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|5.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||5.5|-11.1|0.48
95882819|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||19.2|-14.1|0.70
95882820|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|3.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||3.6|-20.7|0.17
95882821|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|25.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||25.6|-12.5|0.34
95882822|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.3||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|16.4||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||16.4|-16.9|0.98
95882823|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.7||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|42.5||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.5|-5.1|0.071
95882824|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-8.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|10.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||10.1|-27.7|0.27
95970770|NCT05086276|191914602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|14.71||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||14.71|-7.52|0.525
95970771|NCT05086276|191914603|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.954|0.987||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.987|-0.954|0.973
95970772|NCT05086276|191914605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.34||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.06|0.160
95970773|NCT05086276|191914606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.41||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||0.41|0.03|0.027
95970774|NCT01237587|191914609|SUPERIORITY||LS mean change difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Repeated Measures|||||0.00|-1.30|0.052
95970775|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.03|-1.40|.059
95970776|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.02|-1.24|0.059
95970777|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.21|-1.23|.165
95970778|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||-0.30|-1.65|0.005
95970779|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.16|-1.25|.128
95970780|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking ability||0.49|-0.90|.560
95970781|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.45|-1.01|0.448
95882825|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|62.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.0|19.5|0.002
95882826|NCT04115839|191720660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.2||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|32.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-2.3|0.082
95882827|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|11.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||11.5|-5.6|
95882828|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||2.9|-2.9|
95882829|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||11.0|-5.4|
95882830|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||2.9|-2.9|
95970782|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations With Other||-0.19|-1.42|.011
95970783|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.55|-1.25|.443
95882831|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|29.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||29.5|-4.2|
95882832|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|5.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||5.7|-11.6|
95882833|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|36.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||36.3|0.2|
95882834|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
95882835|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|27.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||27.0|-2.0|
95882836|NCT04115839|191720662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|21.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||21.9|-3.7|
95882837|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||29.4|-10.4|
95882838|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|26.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||26.7|-12.5|
95882839|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|43.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||43.8|-3.8|
95882840|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|29.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||29.3|-16.3|
95970784|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of Life||0.38|-0.96|.390
95970785|NCT01237587|191914610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||School Work||0.24|-1.44|.160
95970786|NCT01237587|191914612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.051
95882841|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|44.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||44.5|-8.8|
95882842|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|28.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||28.8|-22.9|
95882843|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|50.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||50.6|-0.5|
95882844|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||39.9|-10.5|
95882845|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
95882846|NCT04115839|191720678|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|32.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||32.6|-20.5|
95970787|NCT01237587|191914613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.038
95882847|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|23.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||23.9|-6.0|
95882848|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|15.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||15.9|-9.4|
95882849|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||26.2|-14.7|
95882850|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|12.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||12.4|-23.4|
95882851|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|24.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||24.1|-21.5|
95882852|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|22.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||22.2|-22.2|
95882853|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||43.9|-0.8|
95882854|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|42.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||42.6|-1.4|
95882855|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|42.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||42.7|-7.7|
95882856|NCT04115839|191720680|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|26.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||26.3|-20.2|
95882857|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|27.8||||||Week 2||27.8|-9.2|
95882858|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|21.0||||||Week 2||21.0|-13.5|
95882859|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|28.2||||||Week 4||28.2|-16.8|
95882860|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|19.0||||||Week 4||19.0|-23.7|
95882861|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|31.8||||||Week 8||31.8|-21.1|
95882862|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|19.3||||||Week 8||19.3|-31.0|
95882863|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|45.3||||||Week 12||45.3|-7.0|
95882864|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|34.6||||||Week 12||34.6|-16.9|
95882865|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|45.6||||||Week 16||45.6|-8.7|
95882866|NCT04115839|191720683|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|29.5||||||Week 16||29.5|-23.4|
95882867|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|5.4||||||Week 2||5.4|-11.0|
95882868|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.1||||||Week 2||11.1|-10.6|
95882869|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.5||||||Week 4||9.5|-15.2|
95882870|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|4.9||||||Week 4||4.9|-16.3|
95882871|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|17.5||||||Week 8||17.5|-16.4|
95882872|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||||||Week 8||8.2|-19.9|
95882873|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|28.7||||||Week 12||28.7|-4.3|
95882874|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|15.6||||||Week 12||15.6|-9.7|
95882875|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.4||||||Week 16||30.4|-4.2|
95882876|NCT04115839|191720685|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|28.7||||||Week 16||28.7|-4.5|
95882877|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|40.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||40.7|-3.8|
95882878|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|28.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 2||28.2|-13.5|
95882879|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|40.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.4|-8.5|
95882880|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|40.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||40.3|-9.4|
95882881|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|45.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||45.0|-7.5|
95882882|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|20.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||20.7|-32.5|
95882883|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|65.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||65.2|15.8|
95882884|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|23.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|49.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||49.5|-2.5|
95970788|NCT01237587|191914614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Average Pain Score||5.86|-9.10|.669
95882885|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|46.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||46.9|-6.8|
95882886|NCT04115839|191720688|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|33.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||33.1|-21.0|
95882887|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|31.0|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||31.0|-31.0|
95882888|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|56.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||56.7|-12.8|
95882889|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|46.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.5|-37.9|
95882890|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|46.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||46.3|-35.4|
95882891|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|59.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||59.9|-25.6|
95882892|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|26.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||26.8|-53.7|
95882893|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|71.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||71.2|-14.1|
95882894|NCT04115839|191720692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|39.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||39.9|-40.8|
95882895|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|34.7||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||34.7|-21.3|0.55
95882896|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.0||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|39.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||39.3|-17.4|0.24
95882897|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.2||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|35.0||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||35.0|-22.6|0.47
95882898|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.5||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|39.6||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||39.6|-18.6|0.25
95882899|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.6||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|58.3||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||58.3|-21.1|0.44
95882900|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|30.8||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||30.8|-38.4|0.68
95882901|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|62.2||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||62.2|-19.4|0.33
95882902|NCT04115839|191720694|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.1||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|38.1||P-value was calculated from the logistic regression with treatment groups and stratification factors (geographic region, concurrent use of csDMARD(s) and/or apremilast at randomization, prior use of bioDMARD(s)) in the model.|Regression, Logistic||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||38.1|-33.9|0.98
95882903|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|24.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||24.5|-24.5|
95882904|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|22.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||22.4|-23.9|
95882905|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|37.4|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||37.4|-10.8|
95882906|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
95882907|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|17.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||17.1|-46.6|
95882908|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|15.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||15.2|-46.3|
95882909|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|55.8|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||55.8|-13.0|
95882910|NCT04115839|191720696|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|31.5|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||31.5|-22.3|
95882911|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|6.7|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||6.7|-6.7|
95882912|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|23.3|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 4||23.3|-11.6|
95882913|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|26.2|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||26.2|-12.9|
95882914|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 8||23.6|-11.8|
95882915|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||6.9|-6.9|
95970789|NCT01237587|191914614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Worst Pain Score||2.53|-14.32|.169
95970790|NCT01237587|191914614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.53|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Pain Score Right Now||5.94|-9.53|.647
95970791|NCT01237587|191914615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.52|.146
95970792|NCT01237587|191914616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.21|||ANCOVA|||||0.21|-0.23|.927
95970793|NCT01237587|191914617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.59|||ANCOVA|||||3.59|-1.54|.431
95970794|NCT01237587|191914618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|3.79|||ANCOVA|||||3.79|-1.95|.529
95970795|NCT01237587|191914619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||||0.86|-2.52|.335
95970796|NCT01237587|191914620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Physical Symptoms Score||1.68|-1.59|.955
95970797|NCT01237587|191914620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Harm Avoidance||0.70|-1.82|.381
95970798|NCT01237587|191914620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Social Anxiety||0.79|-1.66|.486
95970799|NCT01237587|191914620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Separation/Panic||0.79|-1.17|.700
95970800|NCT01237587|191914620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.69|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.69|-5.12|.540
95970801|NCT01139580|191914631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95882916|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 12||23.6|-11.8|
95882917|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||7.1|-7.1|
95882918|NCT04115839|191720698|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|23.6|||||95% CI for difference in response rates were based on normal approximation method with a continuity correction.|Week 16||23.6|-11.8|
95882919|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.04|-0.22|0.19
95970802|NCT01139580|191914634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95970803|NCT02559895|191914642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-1.68|0.0001
95970804|NCT02559895|191914642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.25|0.0182
95970805|NCT02559895|191914642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||||-0.25|-1.39|0.0046
95970806|NCT02559895|191914643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.2|5.8|0.0007
95970807|NCT02559895|191914643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.3|-1.4|0.1126
95970808|NCT02559895|191914643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|15.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|1.0|0.0272
95970809|NCT02559895|191914644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.3|3.2|0.0066
95970810|NCT02559895|191914644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|2.4|0.0112
95970811|NCT02559895|191914644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|17.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.8|1.8|0.0170
95970812|NCT02559895|191914645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|28.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.0|9.8|0.0001
95970813|NCT02559895|191914645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.5|3.2|0.0085
95970814|NCT02559895|191914645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.0|3.7|0.0064
95970815|NCT02559895|191914646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0159
95970816|NCT02559895|191914646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0312
95970817|NCT02559895|191914646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1539|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1539
95970818|NCT01397422|191914663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-3.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||20 subjects per treatment arm provided 80% power using a 2-sided 2-sample test at 5% significance. The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint was that the response of the ADS-5102 340 mg group was equal to that of the placebo group.||-3.5|-19.1|0.0051
95970819|NCT01397422|191914663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-17.8|0.0131
95970820|NCT01397422|191914663|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-13.4|0.1595
95970821|NCT01397422|191914664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-1.1|0.4314
95882920|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.12||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 2||0.12|-0.15|0.84
95882921|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.07||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.07|-0.22|0.30
95882922|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||0.16|-0.14|0.89
95882923|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.01|-0.37|0.064
95882924|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 8||0.20|-0.17|0.88
95882925|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.03||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.03|-0.43|0.023
95882926|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.17||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 12||0.17|-0.23|0.75
95882927|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||-0.10|-0.51|0.005
95882928|NCT04115839|191720706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.14||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||0.14|-0.27|0.54
95882929|NCT04115839|191720708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.5||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||4.5|-1.9|0.43
95882930|NCT04115839|191720708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||2.9|-3.6|0.81
95882931|NCT04115839|191720708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.9||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||9.9|0.2|0.040
95882932|NCT04115839|191720708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.1|-3.4|0.58
95882933|NCT04115839|191720712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.1|-1.2|0.40
95882934|NCT04115839|191720712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.4||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 4||3.4|-1.0|0.28
95882935|NCT04115839|191720712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.7||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||6.7|0.9|0.011
95882936|NCT04115839|191720712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|5.0||P-value was provided from MMRM including treatment, visit (categorical), treatment by visit, stratification factors, baseline value as fixed effects, participants being the random effect.|MMRM|||Week 16||5.0|-0.7|0.14
95882937|NCT02820753|191720743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.51|0.01|0.04
95882938|NCT02820753|191720744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.15|-0.08|0.53
95882939|NCT02820753|191720745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.48||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.48|-1.16|0.41
95882940|NCT02820753|191720746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.06||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment difference = (Text or Portal ) - Enhanced Usual Care|||5.06|-1.39|0.27
95882941|NCT02820753|191720747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.23||The threshold for significance is p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = (Text or Portal) - Enhanced Usual Care|||0.23|-0.68|0.33
95882942|NCT01397084|191720754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilocoxon signed-rank test|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to check whether the change in the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to the 8 week visit (Visit 3) compared to the frequency of heartburn during the 7-day period prior to baseline (Visit 1) was statistically significant or not.||||<0.001
95882943|NCT00706823|191720763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95882944|NCT00706823|191720764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95970822|NCT01397422|191914664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.5|0.5223
95970823|NCT01397422|191914664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.6298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, baseline value is a covariate||||1.0|-0.6|0.6298
95970824|NCT01397422|191914665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-8.7|0.0038
95970825|NCT01397422|191914665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-2.9|||ANCOVA|||||-2.9|-9.8|0.0004
95970826|NCT01397422|191914665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate.||||0.9|-6.0|0.1469
95882945|NCT00706823|191720766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95882946|NCT00706823|191720768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.11||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|58.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.6|1.1|0.03
95882947|NCT01652703|191720773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.51|-62.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-62.71|-74.51|<0.001
95882948|NCT01652703|191720773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.84|-46.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-46.86|-58.84|<0.001
95882949|NCT01652703|191720773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.23|-57.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-57.66|-70.23|<0.001
95882950|NCT01652703|191720773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.51|-51.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.81|-64.51|<0.001
95882951|NCT01652703|191720774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-96.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.0|-86.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-86.5|-106.0|<0.001
95882952|NCT01652703|191720774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.4|-65.5||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-65.5|-85.4|<0.001
95882953|NCT01652703|191720774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-88.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-79.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-79.0|-97.4|<0.001
95970827|NCT01397422|191914666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.2|||ANCOVA|||||5.2|0.8|0.0078
95970828|NCT01397422|191914666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.0|||ANCOVA|||||5.0|0.5|0.0179
95970829|NCT01397422|191914666|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||5.5|1.1|0.0040
95970830|NCT01397422|191914667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.9|||ANCOVA|||||6.9|-11.2|0.6355
95970831|NCT01397422|191914667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.7||||0.7053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|10.6|||ANCOVA|||||10.6|-7.2|0.7053
95882954|NCT01652703|191720774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-71.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-71.4|-90.0|<0.001
95882955|NCT01652703|191720775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1945.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.64|42232.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||42232.63|89.64|<0.001
95882956|NCT01652703|191720775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.74|5360.92||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q2W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||5360.92|14.74|<0.001
95882957|NCT01652703|191720775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|536.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.37|10143.4||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||10143.40|28.37|<0.001
95882958|NCT01652703|191720775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|595.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.11|11402.67||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression model includes treatment arms in dose frequency of Q4W and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||11402.67|31.11|<0.001
95882959|NCT01652703|191720776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.85|-57.27||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.27|-67.85|<0.001
95882960|NCT01652703|191720776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.83|-44.08||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-44.08|-54.83|<0.001
95882961|NCT01652703|191720776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|-52.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.22|-63.93|<0.001
95882962|NCT01652703|191720776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.46|-47.63||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.63|-59.46|<0.001
95882963|NCT01652703|191720777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.67|-55.72||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.67|<0.001
95882964|NCT01652703|191720777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.7||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.70|-51.80|<0.001
95882965|NCT01652703|191720777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.91|-47.97||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-47.97|-58.91|<0.001
95882966|NCT01652703|191720777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|-41.85||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.85|-52.90|<0.001
95882967|NCT01652703|191720778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.75||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|-11.26||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.26|-57.71|0.004
95882968|NCT01652703|191720778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.93||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-0.68||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-0.68|-47.83|0.044
95882969|NCT01652703|191720778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.36||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.32|-11.32||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.32|-48.32|0.002
95882970|NCT01652703|191720778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.41||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41|-2.22||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.22|-39.41|0.028
95882971|NCT01652703|191720779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.21|-41.76||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.76|-52.21|<0.001
95970832|NCT01397422|191914667|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2||||0.7862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|10.1|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is a dependent variable, treatment group is a factor, and the baseline value is a covariate||||10.1|-7.7|0.7862
95970833|NCT01397422|191914668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0036
95970834|NCT01397422|191914668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2158|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2158
95970835|NCT01397422|191914668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1042|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Equally spaced scores||||||0.1042
95852972|NCT02977403|191664928|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.099||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).||||Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.099|-0.039|
95852973|NCT02977403|191664928|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.335|0.049||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.049|-0.335|
95852974|NCT02977403|191664929|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.066||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.066|-0.097|
95852975|NCT02977403|191664929|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|-0.01||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||-0.01|-0.314|
95852976|NCT02977403|191664930|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.156||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.156|-0.051|
95852977|NCT02977403|191664930|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.111||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.111|-0.251|
95852978|NCT02977403|191664931|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.091||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.091|-0.061|
95970836|NCT03924765|191914669|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's overground self-selected walking speed by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||5e-06|||||||ANOVA|||Primary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.000005
95852979|NCT02977403|191664931|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.044||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.044|-0.260|
95882972|NCT01652703|191720779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.52|-31.91||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-31.91|-42.52|<0.001
95852980|NCT02977403|191664932|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.119||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.119|-0.047|
95852981|NCT02977403|191664932|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.106|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.064||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.064|-0.276|
95852982|NCT02977403|191664933|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.057||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.057|-0.092|
95852983|NCT02977403|191664933|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.153||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.153|-0.150|
95852984|NCT02977403|191664934|SUPERIORITY|Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|beta coefficient|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.159||Effect sizes and 95% CIs, rather than statistical significance, were used. Cohen's d was interpreted as minimal to no effect (\<.02) small effect (0.2-0.49) medium effect (0.5-0.79) large effect (0.8).|||To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||0.159|-0.019|
95852985|NCT02977403|191664934|SUPERIORITY|See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d|beta coefficient|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07||||||Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.||0.070|-0.260|
95852986|NCT02977403|191664935|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient|-0.8707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimation equations||Reported variable is a condition by time (pre or post-intervention) interaction term. The model included a Poisson distribution, log link function, exchangeable covariance matrix and was adjusted for age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.|Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.||||0.256
95852987|NCT00880698|191664964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|14.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-uninfected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||14.8|-20.6|0.62
95852988|NCT00880698|191664964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference and 95% confidence interval (RotaTeq minus Placebo) in percentage of HIV-infected participants experiencing a new grade \>=3 adverse event|||23.4|-21.0|1.00
95852989|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|46.1||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||46.1|11.5|<0.001
95882973|NCT01652703|191720779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.32|-41.0||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.00|-52.32|<0.001
95882974|NCT01652703|191720779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.02|-39.58||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.58|-51.02|<0.001
95882975|NCT01652703|191720780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.14|-55.56||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.56|-67.14|<0.001
95882976|NCT01652703|191720780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.41|-41.65||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.65|-53.41|<0.001
95882977|NCT01652703|191720780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.73|-51.77||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.77|-63.73|<0.001
95882978|NCT01652703|191720780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.27|-46.18||Testing based on a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment group and stratification factor of screening LDL-C level.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.18|-58.27|<0.001
95882979|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .38, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.54
95882980|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=39.97, df = 1/228||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
95882981|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 8.12, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.005
95882982|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 28.96, df = 1/228.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||<.0001
95882983|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 6.23, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.02
95882984|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 4.18, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
95882985|NCT02155608|191720786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/57.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
95882986|NCT02155608|191720787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Chi-squared|Group: F = 8.75, df = 1/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.003
95882987|NCT02155608|191720787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Chi-squared|Time: F = 1.69, df = 3/168.||Phase 1a: Assessed effects of group and time on categorical measure CGI-I from Baseline through Visit 4.||||.17
95882988|NCT02155608|191720787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|Group: Chi-square = .53, df = 1.||Phase 1b: Assessed effects of group on categorical measure CGI-I from at Visit 5 compared to baseline.||||.46
95970837|NCT03924765|191914670|OTHER|A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on different exoskeleton assistance strategies (including the baseline of not wearing the exoskeleton) on the subject's step length asymmetry by setting an alpha value to 0.05.||||||0.131|||||||ANOVA|||Secondary Outcome Measure - Arm/Group 1||||0.131
95970838|NCT05453201|191914701|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the functional disability subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.06
95970839|NCT05453201|191914701|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the symptom severity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.004
95970840|NCT05453201|191914701|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the perceived overall health now subscale (1 item) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.10
95970841|NCT05453201|191914702|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 1 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.46
95970842|NCT05453201|191914702|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 2 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.20
95970843|NCT05453201|191914702|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 3 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.42
95852990|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|68.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G1||68.6|27.1|<0.001
95852991|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.8||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||24.8|-11.3|0.20
95852992|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|36.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G2 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G2||36.7|-10.6|0.19
95852993|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|36.4||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||36.4|0.9|<0.001
95852994|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|50.6||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G3 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G3||50.6|4.7|<0.001
95852995|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|42.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||42.9|8.0|<0.001
95852996|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.2|75.9||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA G4 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA G4||75.9|37.2|<0.001
95852997|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|34.2||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||34.2|-1.7|0.024
95852998|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|35.5||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for SNA P1 in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|SNA P1||35.5|-12.0|0.34
95852999|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|51.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|66.3||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 uninfected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||66.3|34.3|<0.001
95853000|NCT00880698|191664965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|81.7||The pre-specified significance level was 5%. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Difference (95% confidence interval) in percentage of HIV-1 infected participants classified as responders for IgA in RotaTeq group minus Placebo group.|IgA||81.7|42.7|<0.001
95853001|NCT04567628|191664992|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Spearman's Rank Correlation|||||||=0.003
95853002|NCT04567628|191664993|OTHER||||||=|0.25||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||=0.25
95853003|NCT04567628|191664996|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95853004|NCT04567628|191664998|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A two-sided p-value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95853005|NCT03081117|191665005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis of Enrolled group.||||0.669
95853006|NCT03081117|191665006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3914||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 14||Analysis for Intent-to-Treat group.||||0.0366
95853007|NCT03081117|191665006|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5146||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 12||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.0103
95853008|NCT03081117|191665009|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
95853009|NCT03081117|191665010|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
95853010|NCT03081117|191665011|SUPERIORITY||Unstandardized beta coefficient|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||0.244
95882989|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F=.01; df =1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.91
95882990|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=13.03; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.0004
95882991|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .83; df = 1/209.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.37
95882992|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Time2: F = 7.45, df = 1/209.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parameterized in the model as a standard linear variable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2, defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.007
95882993|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .19, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.67
95882994|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .17, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.68
95882995|NCT02155608|191720788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.05, df = 1/50.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.16
95882996|NCT02155608|191720789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
95882997|NCT02155608|191720789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.12, df = .15||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.15
95882998|NCT02155608|191720789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .21, df = 1/56.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
95882999|NCT02155608|191720789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .20, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.66
95883000|NCT02155608|191720789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .50, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.48
95883001|NCT02155608|191720789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/47.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.81
95883002|NCT02155608|191720790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .02, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.89
95883003|NCT02155608|191720790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.28, df = 1/55.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.14
95883004|NCT02155608|191720790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = .81.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.80
95883005|NCT02155608|191720790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.93
95883006|NCT02155608|191720790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.22, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
95883007|NCT02155608|191720790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.23, df = 1/35.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.28
95883008|NCT02155608|191720791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01; df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.91
95883009|NCT02155608|191720791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 2.62, df = 1/46.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.11
95970844|NCT05453201|191914702|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 4 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.84
95853011|NCT03081117|191665012|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wald test, two-sided|||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
95853012|NCT03081117|191665013|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
95853013|NCT03081117|191665014|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.25|||||||Wald test, two-sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.||Comparisons of change from W0 to W24 between treatment and placebo are based on a mixed effects regression model using a two-sided Wald test of the interaction term for treatment and time.||||>0.25
95853014|NCT03081117|191665015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0031351||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.366
95853015|NCT03081117|191665015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0025586||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees fo freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.505
95853016|NCT03081117|191665016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00000061||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 13||Analysis for All Available group (participants who had both Baseline and Week 24 scans).||||0.98
95853017|NCT03081117|191665016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0000054||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom = 10||Analysis for Per Protocol group.||||0.86
95853018|NCT00904943|191665026|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|104.27|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
95853019|NCT00904943|191665027|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|102.35|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
95853020|NCT00904943|191665028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Using GLM procedures in SAS, analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed on log-transformed AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax at the significance level of 0.05.|Ratio of the LS Mean (test/ref x 100)|103.66|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Bioequivalence is established when Ratio of the Least Squares Mean falls within 80-125.|||||
95853021|NCT03651479|191665047|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95853022|NCT01391546|191665060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio was greater than 2/3|GMT Ratio|1.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||longitudinal regression model|Model adjusted for pre-vaccination titres and age at vaccination in years|GMT ratio = GMT IM route divided by GMT SC route|||1.18|0.93|<0.001
95853023|NCT01391546|191665061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.0|||||GMFR = GMT Post-vaccination/GMT Pre-vaccination|Acceptability was demonstrated if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was \>1.4||3.0|2.4|
95853024|NCT04723056|191665071|OTHER|||||||0.282||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.282
95853025|NCT04723056|191665072|OTHER|||||||0.217||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.217
95853026|NCT04723056|191665073|OTHER|||||||0.462||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||0.462
95853027|NCT04723056|191665073|OTHER|||||||0.179||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||0.179
95853028|NCT04723056|191665074|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.573
95853029|NCT04723056|191665074|OTHER|||||||0.606||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.606
95853030|NCT04723056|191665075|OTHER|||||||0.181||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.181
95853031|NCT04723056|191665076|OTHER|||||||0.407||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.407
95853032|NCT04723056|191665077|OTHER|||||||0.643||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.643
95853033|NCT04723056|191665078|OTHER|||||||0.625||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 8||||.625
95853034|NCT04723056|191665078|OTHER|||||||0.707||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis at week 24||||.707
95853035|NCT03044106|191665104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.825|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.308759||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058809|6.591192|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference between pre and post KEA in those receiving the active treatment with a history of hamstring strain.||6.591192|1.058809|0.0068
95853036|NCT03044106|191665104|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.431784||0.2185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.869044|3.869044|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre /post KEA means after receiving the sham treatment in those with a history of hamstring strains.||3.869044|-1.869044|0.2185
95853037|NCT03044106|191665104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6638904|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.450892||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5037233|1.831504|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the active treatment with no history of hamstring strain.||1.831504|-.5037233|0.1281
95883010|NCT02155608|191720791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .71; df = .40.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.40
95883011|NCT02155608|191720791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .48. df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.49
95883012|NCT02155608|191720791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.87, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.18
95883013|NCT02155608|191720791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .13, df = 1/38.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.72
95883014|NCT02155608|191720792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F =.25, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.62
95883015|NCT02155608|191720792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 3.58, df = 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.06
95883016|NCT02155608|191720792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 2.90, df 1/53.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.09
95883017|NCT02155608|191720792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.36, df = 1/58.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.06
95883018|NCT02155608|191720792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.20, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
95883019|NCT02155608|191720792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .66, df = 1/31.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.42
95883020|NCT02155608|191720793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 0.29, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.29
95883021|NCT02155608|191720793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.83, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
95883022|NCT02155608|191720793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.03, df = 1/129.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.31
95883023|NCT02155608|191720793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.69
95970845|NCT05453201|191914702|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 5 (part 1) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.25
95970846|NCT05453201|191914702|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses domain 6 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.26
95883024|NCT02155608|191720793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .98, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.33
95883025|NCT02155608|191720793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .88, df = 1/54.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.35
95883026|NCT02155608|191720794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.21
95970847|NCT05453201|191914703|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon test|||This analysis uses the SBQ-R total score from pre- to post-intervention.||||.89
95970848|NCT05453201|191914704|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the MOCS (part A) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.80
95970849|NCT05453201|191914705|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ score (all items) from pre- to post-intervention.||||.92
95883027|NCT02155608|191720794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.18, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.02
95883028|NCT02155608|191720794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 6.89, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.01
95883029|NCT02155608|191720794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F= 2.16, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.15
95883030|NCT02155608|191720794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.15, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
95970850|NCT05453201|191914705|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon test (paired)|||This analysis uses the FSCQ similarity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.90
95853038|NCT03044106|191665104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.688237|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.241751||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.557137|3.819337|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is the difference in pre/post KEA means in those receiving the sham treatment who have no history of hamstring strain.||3.819337|1.557137|0.00
95853039|NCT03044106|191665104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.825||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4543|6.0581|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference in effect between active and sham in those with a history of hamstring strain||6.0581|-0.4543|0.090
95853040|NCT03044106|191665104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.024||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4474|-0.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the mean difference of effect between active and sham in those without a history of hamstring strain.||-0.3406|-3.4474|0.018
95853041|NCT00106704|191665122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|-0.57|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not), baseline A1C||||-0.57|-90.0|<0.001
95853042|NCT00106704|191665123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, stratum (on metformin or not at Visit 3), baseline A1C||||-11.8|-28.4|<0.001
95853043|NCT01345240|191665167|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percent seroprotection below 5% between recipients of licensed hepatitis B vaccine (Engerix-B) and recipients of RTS,S/AS01E vaccine.|Difference in percent seroprotection|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|-2.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune response to the hepatitis B antigen induced by RTS,S/AS01E vaccine versus a licensed hepatitis B vaccine.||-2.16|-7.12|
95853044|NCT01345240|191665170|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.20|0.69|
95853045|NCT01345240|191665170|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.32|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.32|0.76|
95853046|NCT01345240|191665170|EQUIVALENCE|Criteria for consistency: one month post Dose 3 of RTS,S/AS01E, the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratio between all pairs of lots are within \[0.5, 2\].|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the lot-to-lot consistency in terms of anti-HBs immunogenicity between three commercial lots of the RTS,S/AS01E candidate malaria vaccine.||1.45|0.84|
95853047|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 1 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.39|0.95|
95853048|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.48|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 4 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.48|0.97|
95853049|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.52|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 5 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.52|1.06|
95853050|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 6B responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.83|
95853051|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 7F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.33|0.94|
95853052|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.63|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 9V responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.63|1.08|
95853053|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.27|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 14 responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.27|0.77|
95883031|NCT02155608|191720794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
95883032|NCT02155608|191720795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .01, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.94
95883033|NCT02155608|191720795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.76
95883034|NCT02155608|191720795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .75, df =1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.39
95883035|NCT02155608|191720795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.06, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.09
95883036|NCT02155608|191720795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .07, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.79
95883037|NCT02155608|191720795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.55, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.22
95883038|NCT02155608|191720796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .22, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.64
95883039|NCT02155608|191720796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.19
95883040|NCT02155608|191720796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.49, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.22
95883041|NCT02155608|191720796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 3.95, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.05
95883042|NCT02155608|191720796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.96
95883043|NCT02155608|191720796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .01, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.92
95970851|NCT05453201|191914705|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ vividness subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.74
95970852|NCT05453201|191914705|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the FSCQ positivity subscale from pre- to post-intervention.||||.44
95970853|NCT05453201|191914706|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the PHQ-9 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.003
95883044|NCT02155608|191720797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .07, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.79
95883045|NCT02155608|191720797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.10, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.30
95883046|NCT02155608|191720797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 4.61, df = 1/128.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.03
95883047|NCT02155608|191720797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 2.24, df = 1/59.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.14
95883048|NCT02155608|191720797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .05, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.82
95970854|NCT05453201|191914707|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the GAD-7 from pre- to post-intervention.||||.01
95970855|NCT05453201|191914708|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||paired t-test|||This analysis uses the QOLS from pre- to post-intervention.||||.04
95853054|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.38|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 18C responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||2.38|1.38|
95853055|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against serotype 19F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.65|0.89|
95853056|NCT01345240|191665178|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of 10 pneumococcal serotypes titers (measured with an ELISA test), is below a limit of 2 for the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody against 23F responses to the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.55|0.81|
95853057|NCT01345240|191665184|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertussis toxoid, (PT) of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.20|0.97|
95853058|NCT01345240|191665184|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.21|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.21|0.97|
95853059|NCT01345240|191665184|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 3, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratios of anti-PT, anti-FHA, anti-PRN antibody concentrations, is below a limit of 2 for the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.22|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the acellular B pertussis antigen, pertactin (anti-PRN), of the DTPa/Hib vaccine when co-administered with RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen.||1.22|0.98|
95853060|NCT01345240|191665185|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria for non-inferiority: one month post Dose 2, upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean concentrations (GMC) ratios of rotavirus antibodies (IgA) concentrations is below 2 for the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E.|GMC ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of antibody response to the rotavirus vaccine when co-administered with versus without RTS,S/AS01E as part of an EPI regimen||1.61|0.76|
95853061|NCT01283555|191665226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||The p-value presented here represents a comparison of the total number of non-iatrogenic findings at baseline and after one week of product use.|Fisher Exact|||Fishers exact test was used to compare the frequency of non-iatrogenic colposcopic findings at baseline and follow-up visits (after one week of twice-daily product use).||||0.4870
95853062|NCT00468169|191665235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1225||||||Log-rank test comparing PFS between two treatment arms|Log Rank|||||||0.1225
95853063|NCT01283139|191665250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.71|1.03|0.057
95853064|NCT01283139|191665250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.54|1.01|0.094
95853065|NCT01283139|191665250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|2.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.94|1.16|0.031
95853066|NCT01283139|191665251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|1.13|0.042
95853067|NCT01283139|191665251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|0.85|0.264
95853068|NCT01283139|191665251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|1.14|0.038
95853069|NCT01283139|191665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.37|0.808
95853070|NCT01283139|191665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|0.45|0.598
95853071|NCT01283139|191665252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|0.27|0.884
95853072|NCT01283139|191665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.01|1.22|0.044
95853073|NCT01283139|191665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|3.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.19|0.62|0.498
95853074|NCT01283139|191665253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|7.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.68|1.20|0.049
95853075|NCT01283139|191665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.25|0.85|0.270
95853076|NCT01283139|191665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|1.04|0.077
95853077|NCT01283139|191665254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.76|0.453
95853078|NCT03668873|191665259|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares Means|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.81||Threshold for significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models with repeated measures with fixed effects for baseline CSI, treatment, week as a categorical variable, and treatment-week interaction.|Treatment difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on change in CSI score at 10 weeks. Assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 units and an attrition rate of 10%, an enrollment target of 90 participants would provide 90% power to detect a difference of 1.85 points or greater with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a two-tailed two-sample t-test.||-0.81|-2.88|<0.001
95853079|NCT03668873|191665260|SUPERIORITY||Absolute percent difference|24.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|46.0||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Chi-squared||Difference = SPT minus SPE.|The null hypothesis was that the SPE and SPT groups did not differ on the rate of positive response to CGI-I at 10 weeks. Assuming a 25%-40% positive response rate at 10 weeks in the SPE group and 45 patients per group, power was 90% to detect a 32% or greater difference in positive response rate (57%-72% in SPT group, respectively), with a type I error rate of 0.05 using a Chi-square test.||46|2|0.037
95853080|NCT03668873|191665261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||threshold for significant 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.81
95853081|NCT03668873|191665262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.77
95853082|NCT03668873|191665263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Threshold for significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95853083|NCT04267380|191665265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95853084|NCT04267380|191665266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95853085|NCT04267380|191665267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95853086|NCT04267380|191665268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
95853087|NCT04267380|191665269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.33
95853088|NCT04267380|191665270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95853089|NCT04267380|191665271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95853090|NCT04267380|191665272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.68
95853091|NCT04267380|191665274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95853092|NCT04267380|191665275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95853093|NCT04267380|191665276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95853094|NCT04267380|191665277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95853095|NCT04267380|191665278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95853096|NCT04267380|191665279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95853097|NCT04267380|191665280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95853098|NCT04267380|191665281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95853099|NCT04267380|191665282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95853100|NCT04267380|191665283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
95853101|NCT04267380|191665284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.25
95853102|NCT02183675|191665287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|108.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.081|126.225|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||126.225|93.081|
95853103|NCT02183675|191665287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|114.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.097|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.216|134.326|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||134.326|98.216|
95853104|NCT02183675|191665288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.43|105.19|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||105.19|90.43|
95853105|NCT02183675|191665288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.94|107.4|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||107.40|96.94|
95853106|NCT02183675|191665289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|104.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.016|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.949|107.734|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||107.734|101.949|
95853107|NCT02183675|191665290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.023|106.964|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||106.964|101.023|
95853108|NCT02183675|191665291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|102.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.167|104.867|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-A5|||104.867|100.167|
95853109|NCT02183675|191665292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.23|111.847|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||111.847|99.230|
95853110|NCT02183675|191665293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limits: 80% - 125%|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|103.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.028|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.73|108.28|||ANOVA|The model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment.|Ratio calculated as T80-A5-H12.5 divided by T80-H12.5|||108.280|98.730|
95883049|NCT02155608|191720797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p \< .05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 3.35, df = 1/55.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.07
95883050|NCT02155608|191720798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .36, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.55
95883051|NCT02155608|191720798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .09, df = 1/52||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects.||||.34
95883052|NCT02155608|191720798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .06, df = 1/52||Phase 1 a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interaction to test for treatment effects.||||.81
95883053|NCT02155608|191720798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = .05, df = 1/59||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.83
95883054|NCT02155608|191720798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 4.52, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.04
95883055|NCT02155608|191720798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .12, df = 1/43||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.73
95883056|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.62, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.21
95883057|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .74, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.39
95883058|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F = 1.88, df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.18
95883059|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = 1.56; df = 1/58.||Phase 1a: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects using a piecewise linear time trend. This was parametrized in the model as a standard linear viable, time (ranging from baseline to 4 weeks) and a second variable, time2. defined as 0 at baseline and time past week 1 for subsequent weeks. The time 2 coefficient represents the change in slope after the initial week.||||.22
95883060|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Group: F = 1.72, df = 1/12.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||.21
95883061|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 0.00, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
95883062|NCT02155608|191720799|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Test not valid due to insufficient data.|Mixed Models Analysis|Group \* time: F = .87, df = 1/0.||Phase 1b: Outcomes were fitted via a mixed effects model with group, time, and group-by-time interactions to test for treatment effects between visits 4 and 5.||||1
95883063|NCT02728050|191720818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Participants on study receiving CLAGM-S were compared to a historical cohort of newly diagnosed AML/high-risk MDS patients treated with CLAG-M alone, matched for mitoxantrone dose, age, and TRM score.~Number of participants in historical cohort = 71. Number of participants in historical cohort who achieved MRD-negative CR = 55 (77.46%)"||||0.48
95883064|NCT00429273|191720852|OTHER|Test for differences in treatment outcomes between three different tx|F-Value for variance component|18.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses are based on a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) modelling the effects of the medication when calibrated to optimal dosage and controlling for time effects and within-subject effects. The design is a combined within-between subject design, where each participant is exposed to, and provides information about multiple tx modalities.||||<.01
95883065|NCT03984994|191720897|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.27
95970856|NCT05453201|191914709|OTHER|"The AIM measures an intervention's acceptability. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention acceptability. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the AIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.24|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.24
95853111|NCT01614249|191665327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.6||The p-value was adjusted for baseline variations in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) regression model. The significance level was set at p-value less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|In ANCOVA, fish oil group was main effect, participant baseline variables were covariates and presence of interaction between covariates was tested.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the magnitude of change in BDI-II scores between HIV-seropositive pregnant women on fish oil omega-3 EPA-rich supplements and the control group on soybean oil soft gels. A sample size of 91 women per arm gave an 85% power to detect as statistically significant at 5% level, a true difference of 4 scores in the mean depressive symptom scores between the two arms assuming a within group standard deviation of nine in depressive symptom scores.||2.60|-0.58|0.21
95853112|NCT03094416|191665341|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.783797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95853113|NCT03094416|191665342|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026128||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1607
95853114|NCT03094416|191665343|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.397559|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.174962||0.4204|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4204
95853115|NCT03094416|191665344|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019171||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0062
95853116|NCT03094416|191665345|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.100127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048171||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0438
95853117|NCT03094416|191665346|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.216479|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093366||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0254
95853118|NCT03094416|191665347|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036679||0.7619|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7619
95853119|NCT03094416|191665348|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064264||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0655
95853120|NCT03094416|191665349|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053033||0.5542|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5542
95853121|NCT03094416|191665350|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046827||0.682|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6820
95853122|NCT03094416|191665351|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024025||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0468
95854067|NCT00321620|191667591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.82||||0.0085||95.0|0.71|0.94|||Anderson-Gill model|P-value was adjusted for multiplicity according to a hierarchical testing strategy and Hochberg procedure.|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors (previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen level, and current chemotherapy).|||0.94|0.71|0.0085
95970857|NCT05453201|191914709|OTHER|"The IAM measures an intervention's appropriateness. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention appropriateness. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the IAM at pre- and post-intervention."||||||0.82|||||||Paired t-test|||||||.82
95970858|NCT05453201|191914709|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||Paired t-test|||"The FIM measures an intervention's feasibility. Therefore, the goal is not change over time, the goal is to assess, descriptively, post-intervention feasibility. Because we assessed this measure at baseline (with expectations of the future treatment), we provide a paired t-test with the FIM at pre- and post-intervention."||||.38
95853123|NCT03094416|191665352|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088103||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0203
95853124|NCT03094416|191665353|OTHER|"A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).~Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. No data transformation was done."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.030904|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038699||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4291
95853125|NCT03094416|191665354|OTHER|Normal distribution of data was tested with Shapiro Wilks. Data were log transformed. A mixed model ANCOVA repeated measures model was used to test differences in means at Visit 4 vs baseline on original data. As covariates the following baseline variables were considered: Age, Sex, BMI and the prescribed Tirosint dosage (dose/Kg).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047802||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|||||level of significance p-value \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5967
95853126|NCT01377584|191665392|OTHER||Effect size|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853127|NCT01377584|191665392|OTHER||Effect size|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853128|NCT01377584|191665392|OTHER||Effect size|-0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853129|NCT01377584|191665392|OTHER||Effect size|-1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853130|NCT01377584|191665392|OTHER||Effect size|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853131|NCT01377584|191665392|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853132|NCT01377584|191665393|OTHER||Effect size|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853133|NCT01377584|191665393|OTHER||Effect size|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853134|NCT01377584|191665393|OTHER||Effect size|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853135|NCT01377584|191665393|OTHER||Effect size|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853136|NCT01377584|191665393|OTHER||Effect size|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853137|NCT01377584|191665393|OTHER||Effect size|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853138|NCT01377584|191665394|OTHER||Effect size|-1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853139|NCT01377584|191665394|OTHER||Effect size|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853140|NCT01377584|191665394|OTHER||Effect size|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853141|NCT01377584|191665394|OTHER||Effect size|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853142|NCT01377584|191665394|OTHER||Effect size|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853143|NCT01377584|191665394|OTHER||Effect size|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95853144|NCT01377584|191665395|OTHER||Effect size|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
95853145|NCT01377584|191665395|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month and 3 months|||||
95853146|NCT01377584|191665395|OTHER||Effect size|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
95853147|NCT01377584|191665395|OTHER||Effect size|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
95853148|NCT01377584|191665395|OTHER||Effect size|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 week to 1 month|||||
95853149|NCT01377584|191665395|OTHER||Effect size|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Comparing 1 month to 3 months|||||
95853150|NCT00617734|191665416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0667|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0667
95853151|NCT00617734|191665417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1935|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1935
95853152|NCT00617734|191665419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7455|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7455
95853153|NCT00395746|191665458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.27|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.51|1.02||A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||1.02|-1.51|<0.0001
95853154|NCT00395746|191665458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.24|-0.75|||ANOVA|A significance level of a two-sided 5% was used for statistical hypothesis testing.||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and HbA1C at baseline as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively. When the test of comparison between 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono was significant, the test of comparison between 0.6 mg+SU and SU mono was performed."||-0.75|-1.24|<0.0001
95853155|NCT00395746|191665459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-1.33||||||95.0|-1.62|-1.04|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.04|-1.62|
95883066|NCT03984994|191720898|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.22
95883067|NCT03984994|191720899|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|251.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.21
95883068|NCT03984994|191720900|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Per the aims of the study, the responses to RT were compared between 2 arms/groups. The change in the outcome (post-RT minus pre-RT) in each arm/group was compared using a t-test. Responses to AEX training itself are not assessed as this was not an aim or hypothesis of the study.~The hypothesis was that the Aerobic exercise training followed by resistance training arm would have greater changes/improvements in study outcomes than the Resistance training followed by aerobic training group."||||0.28
95883069|NCT02535312|191720932|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.08
95883070|NCT02535312|191720933|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
95883071|NCT00709761|191720934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|53.0||||||95.0|40.7|66.0|||||The estimation parameter represents the percentage of participants experiencing either a CR or a PR.|||66.0|40.7|
95883072|NCT01192516|191720965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, pain level, and body mass index at baseline.||||||.85
95883073|NCT01192516|191720968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age, gender, and body mass index.||||||.06
95883074|NCT01192516|191720971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, and pain at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.36
95883075|NCT00407797|191720972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
95883076|NCT00407797|191720973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95883077|NCT00407797|191720974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
95883078|NCT00407797|191720975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \<= 6 seizures during Baseline period.||||<.0001
95883079|NCT00407797|191720975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Participants with \> 6 seizures during Baseline Period.||||<.0001
95883080|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0552
95883081|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Disturbance. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0350
95883082|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.6743
95883083|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4736|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Snoring. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.4736
95883084|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8173
95883085|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9092|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Awaken Short of Breath. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.9092
95883086|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1091
95883087|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Sleep Adequacy. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0944
95883088|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8928|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.8928
95883089|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7669|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Somnolence. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.7669
95883090|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1698|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problems Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1698
95883091|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: 9-Item Overall Sleep Problem Index. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0898
95883092|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0465
95883093|NCT00407797|191720981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF: Quantity of Sleep. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0316
95883094|NCT00407797|191720982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 21; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.2187
95883095|NCT00407797|191720982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||LOCF; change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.1905
95883096|NCT00407797|191720983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
95883097|NCT00407797|191720983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||<.0001
95883098|NCT00407797|191720983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: Week 21. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0799
95883099|NCT00407797|191720983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression: LOCF. Change from baseline evaluated by a one-sample two-sided t-test comparing the difference to zero.||||0.0846
95883100|NCT04950998|191720984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|604.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2560.36||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-813.815|2021.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2021.95|-813.815|0.376
95883101|NCT04950998|191720985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.019|STANDARD_DEVIATION|172.168||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.36|60.324|||t-test, 2 sided|||||60.324|-130.36|.444
95883102|NCT02621060|191720993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95883103|NCT02621060|191720994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
95883104|NCT02621060|191720995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
95883105|NCT02621060|191720996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95883106|NCT02621060|191720997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
95883107|NCT02621060|191720998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95883108|NCT02621060|191721000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.074
95883109|NCT02621060|191721001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95883110|NCT02621060|191721002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95883111|NCT02621060|191721003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.022
95883112|NCT02621060|191721004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
95883113|NCT02621060|191721005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95883114|NCT02621060|191721006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95883115|NCT02621060|191721007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95883116|NCT02621060|191721008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.059
95883117|NCT02621060|191721009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95883118|NCT02621060|191721010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95883119|NCT02621060|191721011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
95883120|NCT02621060|191721012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.472
95883121|NCT02621060|191721013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.774
95883122|NCT02621060|191721014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.637
95883123|NCT05973981|191721015|OTHER||Slope|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.63|||||Adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.63|-0.25|
95883124|NCT05973981|191721015|OTHER||Slope|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.46|||||adjusted for age, sex, and race|||0.46|-0.41|
95883125|NCT00555971|191721016|EQUIVALENCE|This was a statistical analysis to address the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment and placebo groups.||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
95883126|NCT03087643|191721054|OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0492
95883127|NCT03087643|191721055|OTHER|||||||0.0283|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0283
95883128|NCT03087643|191721056|OTHER|||||||0.0321|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0321
95883129|NCT03087643|191721057|OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0451
95883130|NCT03087643|191721058|OTHER|||||||0.0476|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
95883131|NCT02795832|191721074|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.441||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Observed case||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
95883132|NCT02795832|191721074|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.964||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.39|18.36||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Multiple imputations||18.36|-24.39|0.4082
95883133|NCT02795832|191721074|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.138||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.65|4.11||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Last observation carried forward||4.11|-40.65|0.0878
95883134|NCT02795832|191721074|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.748||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-69.53|-5.66||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Worst case imputation||-5.66|-69.53|0.0275
95883135|NCT02795832|191721075|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.72||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.85|5.51||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 5||5.51|-28.85|0.1284
95883136|NCT02795832|191721075|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.95||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.85|10.95||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 8||10.95|-22.85|0.2765
95883137|NCT02795832|191721075|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.01||||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.08|11.06||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||Day 10||11.06|-23.08|0.2765
95883138|NCT02795832|191721075|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.24|21.34|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||21.34|-21.24|0.5016
95883139|NCT02795832|191721076|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.4789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|10.75||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI 50||10.75|0.28|0.4789
95883140|NCT02795832|191721076|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model was fitted with percent change from baseline to Week 2 in EASI score as the dependent variable. Explanatory variables fitted were: treatment group (ZPL-5212372, placebo) and baseline EASI score as a continuous variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|999.0||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||EASI-75||999|0.24|0.3000
95883141|NCT02795832|191721077|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|19.2||Results for the ZPL-5212372 and placebo groups are estimated adjusted LS means from the fitted model.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|The p-value tests if the residuals are normally distributed.||||19.20|0.01|0.500
95883142|NCT02795832|191721078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22||0.5233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.16|||Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||2.16|-2.02|0.5233
95883143|NCT02795832|191721079|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|13.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||13.26|0.45|0.2455
95883144|NCT02795832|191721080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.521||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|5.09||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-5212372 LS mean is \< placebo LS mean.|Shapiro-Wilkes test|||||5.09|-10.40|0.2812
95883145|NCT05405309|191721126|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was estimated after the first 5 patients were treated at Original DL1 (camonsertib 40mg daily and olaparib 100mg BID dosing 2 days per week, at 28 day cycles)~After the first 5 patients were treated, it was determined that this dosing strategy may not be appropriate for R/R CLL patients and reduced dosing frequency may be necessary to increase the safety of the combination therapy. The protocol and DLs were amended, and sought to enroll an additional 18 patients.~Before the enrollment of 18 additional participants and MTD determination, the study was terminated due to sponsor de-activation of all programs associated with camonsertib."|||
95883146|NCT02801331|191721138|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A chi squared test of proportions was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.6||||||Unadjusted|Chi-squared|||||||.60
95970859|NCT04688320|191914717|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of the non-inferiority was established as a difference in the primary efficacy endpoints between compared groups|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.52|||Welch's t-test|||||4.52|0.11|<0.05
95970860|NCT00759915|191914802|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|109.98||||||90.0|100.1|120.8|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||120.8|100.1|
95970861|NCT00759915|191914804|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|100.91||||||90.0|96.96|105.0|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||105.0|96.96|
95970862|NCT00759915|191914805|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|96.5||||||90.0|92.3|100.97|||ANOVA|log-transformation||||100.97|92.3|
95970863|NCT00932113|191914814|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95970864|NCT00852540|191914830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.5|68.4|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||68.4|45.5|
95970865|NCT00852540|191914830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|95.8|||||The estimated value is the percentage of participants achieving clinical response. Confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.|||95.8|72.6|
95970866|NCT00435591|191914858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83||||||"Aggregated data were used to determine differences between groups. Statistical analysis is relevant to the aggregated data of all rows except the no assessment row."||0.83|-0.37|
95970867|NCT00717067|191914874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|129.17||||||90.0|92.16|181.04|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||181.04|92.16|
95970868|NCT00717067|191914874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.31||||||90.0|61.97|125.83|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||125.83|61.97|
95970869|NCT00717067|191914874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|322.23||||||90.0|171.97|603.78|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal). AUClast was calculated using the log-linear trapezoidal method.||603.78|171.97|
95883147|NCT02801331|191721139|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing cumulative morphine dose was performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom =58 for cohort analyzed that received morphine treatment.||||||.62
95970870|NCT00717067|191914875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|151.99||||||90.0|109.53|210.92|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||210.92|109.53|
95970871|NCT00717067|191914875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|115.95||||||90.0|82.23|163.5|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||163.50|82.23|
95970872|NCT00717067|191914876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|121.01||||||90.0|83.15|176.13|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (mild) / reference (normal).||176.13|83.15|
95970873|NCT00717067|191914876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|70.9||||||90.0|47.83|105.1|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (moderate) / reference (normal).||105.10|47.83|
95970874|NCT00717067|191914876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|238.73||||||90.0|106.83|533.48|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||533.48|106.83|
95970875|NCT00717067|191914878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|323.91||||||90.0|174.32|601.88|||ANOVA|||Ratio (%) test (severe) / reference (normal).||601.88|174.32|
95970876|NCT00006011|191914920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||"Primary outcome is measured as a treatment hazard ratio stratified by stage and assuming proportional hazards.~Recurrence-free survival hazard ratio: Arm 2 is relative to Arm 1."||1.17|0.69|
95970877|NCT03618823|191914935|EQUIVALENCE|All pain scores were included due to the sample size. Alpha =.05 Power = .80 Desired effect size of 0.30 Size of n=145 in each group was determined, however this was not reached for sufficient power.||||||0.912|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-way mixed-model analysis of variance||There will be no difference in pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups from before medication to after while controlling for total duration of mediation use (duration mean=10.11 days).||||.912
95970878|NCT03618823|191914936|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.311||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|3.478|||Fisher Exact|||There will be no difference in ED (Emergency Department) or urgent care visits between opioid and non-opioid pain control groups.||3.478|.494|.630
95970879|NCT03028220|191914975|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95970880|NCT03028220|191914976|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95853156|NCT00395746|191665459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.96||||||95.0|-1.25|-0.67|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-0.67|-1.25|
95853157|NCT00395746|191665460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-32.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-40.5|-24.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-24.2|-40.5|<0.0001
95853158|NCT00395746|191665460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-26.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.5|-18.2||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%: H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively.||-18.2|-34.5|<0.0001
95853159|NCT00395746|191665461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-30.2||||||95.0|-39.6|-20.7|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-20.7|-39.6|
95853160|NCT00395746|191665461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-24.4||||||95.0|-33.8|-14.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-14.9|-33.8|
95883148|NCT02801331|191721140|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants who completed hospitalization at study site (n=181).||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 179 based on number of infants who completed hospitalization at study site.||||||0.29
95970881|NCT03028220|191914977|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95970882|NCT03028220|191914978|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95970883|NCT03028220|191914979|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95970884|NCT03028220|191914980|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
95970885|NCT03028220|191914981|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
95970886|NCT03028220|191914982|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.570
95970887|NCT03028220|191914983|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95970888|NCT03028220|191914984|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.910
95970889|NCT03028220|191914985|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.460
95970890|NCT03028220|191914986|OTHER|||||||0.191|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.191
95883149|NCT02801331|191721141|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among untreated infants (n=121)||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 119 based on number of infants who did not receive morphine treatment.||||||0.55
95883150|NCT02801331|191721142|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life discharged among treated infants, n=60||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.36
95883151|NCT02801331|191721143|EQUIVALENCE|A test of equivalence was conducted for unadjusted comparisons. A t test of means was used for unadjusted comparisons.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.56
95970891|NCT00141219|191914987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.115||||0.289||95.0|0.785|1.583||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||1.583|0.785|0.289
95970892|NCT00141219|191914988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.644||||0.041||95.0|0.915|2.954||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value in above table was from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing Pregabalin and Placebo adjusted for center.|RR estimates relative responder rate between Pregabalin and Placebo (the ratio of the former responder rate to the latter). Estimated RR was center-adjusted ie, assumed common RR in all centers, then a weighted average of center specific RRs computed|Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in each of the centers.||2.954|0.915|0.041
95970893|NCT00141219|191914989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.049||95.0|-1.0|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from the general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypotheses stated there was no difference in pregabalin and placebo in the primary endpoint versus the alternative that there was. The target sample size was 234 subjects (156 and 78 respectively pregabalin vs placebo using a 2:1 ratio). The calculations assumed a 2-sided comparison at 0.05 alpha, 80% power and 3% dropout. Also, a treatment difference of 1 point and a standard deviation for endpoint mean pain scores of 2.5 were assumed based on previous studies.||-0.00|-1.00|0.049
95970894|NCT00141219|191914989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.729||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 1, a treatment by center independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across centers.||||0.729
95970895|NCT00141219|191914989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.979||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|General Linear Model|"In supportive model 2, a treatment by baseline mean pain independent variable added to the main model."||This was a supportive analysis of the primary endpoint to determine if the main results were generalizable across different baseline values.||||0.979
95970896|NCT00141219|191914990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||0.077||95.0|-1.0|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center fitted as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-1.00|0.077
95970897|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.042||95.0|-0.75|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Mean Pain Score Weeks 1 to 8~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.75|0.042
95970898|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.071||95.0|-0.79|0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.03|-0.79|0.071
95883152|NCT02801331|191721144|EQUIVALENCE|A statistical test comparing day of life infant started treatment as performed for the cohort that was treated with morphine (n=60)||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df = 58 based on number of infants who received morphine treatment.||||||0.25
95883153|NCT05231954|191721179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.55||P-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.55|1.08|0.006
95883154|NCT05231954|191721179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.65|0.081
95883155|NCT05231954|191721180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.05||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.05|1.01|0.044
95883156|NCT05231954|191721180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.5||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|0.69|0.919
95883157|NCT00056316|191721209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
95883158|NCT00056316|191721210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference is equal to Behavioral Skills Intervention minus Basic Education Control|||||.05
95883159|NCT01315678|191721219|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.51||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||Regression, Cox|||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||2.13|1.07|0.0286
95883160|NCT01315678|191721220|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66|||Regression, Cox|||||1.66|0.76|0.6031
95883161|NCT01315678|191721221|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Regression, Cox|||||1.44|0.49|0.4861
95883162|NCT00790023|191721229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.32||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.32|0.57|<0.0001
95883163|NCT00790023|191721229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.45||The p-value from primary outcome was adjusted at alpha=0.025.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a difference in primary outcome when compare active to placebo group. It was estimated that 200 subjects per group will provide at least 85% power to detect a difference between treatment groups of 0.7 in the change from baseline in rTNSS with a two-sided alpha level of 0.025.||1.45|0.70|<0.0001
95883164|NCT00790023|191721230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.25|0.50|<0.0001
95883165|NCT00790023|191721230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||1.37|0.63|<0.0001
95883166|NCT00790023|191721231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.95|0.28|0.0004
95883167|NCT00790023|191721231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Dmitrienko's tree-structured gatekeeping method was used for multiple comparisons||0.94|0.27|0.0005
95883168|NCT00004978|191721261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.16||P-value is 2-sided using an alpha of .05.|Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio is from unadjusted proportional hazards regression model.|HR is for rIL-2 vs control.|||1.16|0.75|.55
95883169|NCT00004978|191721262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.74|.62
95883170|NCT00004978|191721263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.69|.42
95970899|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.149||95.0|-0.72|0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.11|-0.72|0.149
95883171|NCT00004978|191721264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.73|.41
95883172|NCT00004978|191721265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|159.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.0|174.0|||||treatment difference (rIL2 - no rIL2) estimated from a longitudinal model that considers CD4+ measured at followup visits|||174|145|
95883173|NCT00004978|191721267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio (rIL-2 vs. no rIL-2) for first change in antiretroviral treatment.||||1.00|0.88|.07
95970900|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.057||95.0|-0.82|0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.01|-0.82|0.057
95883174|NCT00004978|191721268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.41|||Regression, Cox||HR (IL-2 vs control) for first grade 4 event, ITT analysis.|||1.41|1.07|.003
95883175|NCT00004978|191721269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.97
95883176|NCT00004978|191721270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.76|.74
95883177|NCT00869349|191721275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||0.0|-1.1|0.04
95883178|NCT00869349|191721276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||-0.8|-5.6|0.01
95883179|NCT00869349|191721277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.1||a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment effects are reported as mean between-group differences from baseline to 21 months using t-tests to determine the differential effect of the intervention versus the education group.||3.1|0.5|0.01
95883180|NCT01246401|191721306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.431
95883181|NCT01246401|191721307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Welch's T Test|||||||0.087
95883182|NCT01246401|191721309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Wilcoxon one sided|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95883183|NCT01246401|191721314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03962|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03962
95883184|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.473|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7096|26.6553|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||26.6553|-15.7096|
95883185|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.598|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.784|20.5888|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||20.5888|-21.7840|
95883186|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3489|33.1602|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||33.1602|-9.3489|
95883187|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.671|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9957|24.3384|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.3384|-16.9957|
95883188|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.618|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2069|37.4425|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||37.4425|-28.2069|
95883189|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0405|39.8527|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||39.8527|-17.0405|
95883190|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0153|31.5504|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||31.5504|-21.0153|
95883191|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7517|24.7608|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein A1||24.7608|-23.7517|
95883192|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.246|33.7161|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||33.7161|-3.2460|
95883193|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.428|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3243|8.9224|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.9224|-21.3243|
95883194|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8137|1.1513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||1.1513|-26.8137|
95883195|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6557|13.1191|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 10 mg + Ezetimibe 10 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||13.1191|-16.6557|
95883196|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1045|-11.3579|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|Atorvastatin 80 mg + GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||-11.3579|-45.1045|
95883197|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5021|11.3014|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 100 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||11.3014|-23.5021|
95883198|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2721|8.2918|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 300 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||8.2918|-25.2721|
95883199|NCT01218204|191721353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0247|6.6498|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|GSK1292263 800 mg vs Placebo: Apolipoprotein B100||6.6498|-26.0247|
95883200|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.471|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9323|3.202|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||3.2020|-47.9323|
95883201|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1027|25.3126|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||25.3126|-38.1027|
95883202|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.985|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5492|1.8605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||1.8605|-45.5492|
95883203|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.697|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0846|13.3024|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value Atorvastatin|||13.3024|-45.0846|
95883204|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2281|15.1569|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||15.1569|-27.2281|
95883205|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.198|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2901|32.6057|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||32.6057|-24.2901|
95883206|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4767|1.906|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||1.9060|-40.4767|
95883207|NCT01218204|191721354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3842|-12.5064|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-12.5064|-48.3842|
95883208|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.101|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5469|14.7495|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||14.7495|-4.5469|
95883209|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.273|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5937|21.9532|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|Fo HDLc||21.9532|2.5937|
95883210|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.833|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.955|38.7102|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||38.7102|18.9550|
95883211|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.701|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5562|12.9578|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||12.9578|-5.5562|
95883212|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.946|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.612|33.281|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For HDLc||33.2810|8.6120|
95883213|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.561|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9675|22.0898|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.0898|-0.9675|
95883214|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2902|22.5351|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||22.5351|-0.2902|
95970901|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.044||95.0|-0.85|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.85|0.044
95970902|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.051||95.0|-0.85|0.0||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.00|-0.85|0.051
95883215|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7527|31.6262|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For HDLc||31.6262|9.7527|
95883216|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.775|9.6768|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||9.6768|-18.7750|
95883217|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4549|3.7803|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||3.7803|-24.4549|
95883218|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.317|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0144|-6.619|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.6190|-36.0144|
95883219|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.271|-6.0755|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-6.0755|-34.2710|
95883220|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.472|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.3385|-8.1558|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For LDLc||-8.1558|-49.3385|
95883221|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.128|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3049|-0.9514|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-0.9514|-23.3049|
95970903|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.178||95.0|-0.72|0.13||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.13|-0.72|0.178
95883222|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1364|-4.4589|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-4.4589|-27.1364|
95883223|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3413|-11.2372|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For LDLc||-11.2372|-32.3413|
95883224|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.498|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.446|-2.4169|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-2.4169|-38.4460|
95883225|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1603|-4.513|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-4.5130|-39.1603|
95883226|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3394|-24.2717|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-24.2717|-52.3394|
95883227|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.444|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.502|2.491|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||2.4910|-33.5020|
95883228|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.781|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.296|-3.2667|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Triglycerides||-3.2667|-40.2960|
95883229|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.421|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3519|-4.4911|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-4.4911|-38.3519|
95883230|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-46.361|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.465|-29.2561|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-29.2561|-63.4650|
95883231|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.843|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7854|-38.9007|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Triglycerides||-38.9007|-70.7854|
95883232|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7561|2.2448|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||2.2448|-21.7561|
95883233|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.014|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7497|-2.2787|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-2.2787|-25.7497|
95883234|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.675|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8454|-15.5045|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-15.5045|-39.8454|
95883235|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6057|-9.269|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-9.2690|-32.6057|
95883236|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0346|-14.3696|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Non-HDLc||-14.3696|-29.0346|
95883237|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0636|-3.2961|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-3.2961|-23.0636|
95883238|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.942|-12.3605|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-12.3605|-31.9420|
95883239|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2874|-17.6092|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Non-HDLc||-17.6092|-36.2874|
95883240|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8484|4.04|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||4.0400|-11.8484|
95883241|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.437|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.346|1.4722|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||1.4722|-14.3460|
95883242|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3923|-2.196|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-2.1960|-18.3923|
95883243|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7688|-4.3609|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-4.3609|-19.7688|
95883244|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9778|-1.9039|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|For Cholesterol||-1.9039|-13.9778|
95883245|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9023|-0.866|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-0.8660|-15.9023|
95883246|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1404|-8.2592|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|For Cholesterol||-8.2592|-23.1404|
95883247|NCT01218204|191721355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.728|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8395|-9.6161||||||For Cholesterol||-9.6161|-23.8395|
95883248|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.123|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6276|2.3814|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||2.3814|-26.6276|
95883249|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9419|-7.3181|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-7.3181|-35.9419|
95883250|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.506|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3924|-26.6205|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-26.6205|-56.3924|
95883251|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.041|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2554|-13.8263|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-13.8263|-42.2554|
95883252|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.5654|-12.4042|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-12.4042|-51.5654|
95883253|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20.042|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8358|-5.2472|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-5.2472|-34.8358|
95883254|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.903|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6155|-7.1913|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-7.1913|-36.6155|
95883255|NCT01218204|191721356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.735|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.722|-21.7485|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-21.7485|-49.7220|
95883256|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0123|0.1942|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1942|-1.0123|
95883257|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9063|0.3141|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.3141|-0.9063|
95883258|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.811|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4125|-0.2098|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.2098|-1.4125|
95883259|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9831|0.1394|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||0.1394|-0.9831|
95883260|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.384|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6009|-0.1669|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of Atorvastatin|||-0.1669|-0.6009|
95883261|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.648|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1657|-0.1302|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.1302|-1.1657|
95883262|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.782|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2804|-0.2844|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.2844|-1.2804|
95883263|NCT01218204|191721357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.884|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3652|-0.4026|||||Statistical analysis was performed using LS mean value of GSK1292263|||-0.4026|-1.3652|
95883264|NCT01539538|191721381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of - 15% for lower boundary of 95% confidence interval|difference in proportion|12.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|22.11|||one-sided, z-test|||||22.11|3.69|<0.001
95883265|NCT01539538|191721381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|12.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95883266|NCT03897465|191721382|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0||Upper Limit= +Infinity|||||Descriptive analysis of the primary endpoint was provided on per protocol population. The overall difference LomatuellPro (LP) - UrgoTul (UT) of the % of patients meeting main efficacy criterion was calculated with 95% bilateral confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of the 95% CI did not exceed the -10% value of pre-specified non-inferiority margin, non-inferiority had to be accepted. As a sensitivity analysis, the same analysis was performed on mITT (modified Intention-to-treat) population.|||-10|
95883267|NCT02042183|191721428|OTHER|||||||0.1609||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency (\<1.5 or ≥1.5)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1609
95883268|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.11||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Age was treated as a continuous variable in years.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one year increase in age on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean±standard deviation) for age were 75.7±7.9 years among patients with AF, and 69.4±10.0 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that age did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.11|1.05|< 0.001
95883269|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.08||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons. BMI was treated as a continuous variable.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of a one unit increase in BMI on a patient's risk of developing AF. Descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation) for BMI were 31.0 ± 6.6 among patients with AF, and 31.2 ± 6.4 among patients without AF|The null hypothesis was that body mass index (BMI) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.08|1.01|0.02
95883270|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of being male on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that gender did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient for being male in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.61|0.77|0.56
95883271|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.59||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having diabetes on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that diabetes did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.59|0.74|0.66
95883272|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having heart failure on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that heart failure did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.69|0.69|0.73
95883273|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.6||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having hypertension on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that hypertension did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||2.60|0.58|0.58
95883274|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having renal impairment on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that renal impairment did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.32|0.64|0.65
95883275|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.2||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having COPD on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.20|0.45|0.22
95883276|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.38||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a prior stroke (more than one year pre-device implant) on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that prior stroke more than one year pre-device implant did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.38|0.54|0.53
95883277|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.15||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having coronary artery disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that coronary artery disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.15|0.53|0.21
95883278|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.17||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having sleep apnea on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that sleep apnea did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.17|0.45|0.19
95883279|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|5.14||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having a family history of AF on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that family history of AF did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||5.14|0.76|0.16
95883280|NCT01727297|191721431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.43||All predictors were tested in a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model; the results were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio represented the effect of having vascular disease on a patient's risk of developing AF.|The null hypothesis was that vascular disease did not influence a patient's risk of experiencing AF (it's coefficient in a Cox proportional hazards model was 0).||1.43|0.56|0.63
95883281|NCT00378378|191721445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.258||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from basline||||0.258
95883282|NCT00378378|191721445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.735||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.735
95883283|NCT00378378|191721445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.194||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for the change from baseline.||||0.194
95883284|NCT00378378|191721446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.361||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint||||0.361
95883285|NCT00378378|191721446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.603||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.603
95883286|NCT00378378|191721446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparison p-values were based on a two-way ANOVA for baseline to endpoint.||||0.193
95883287|NCT02321800|191721514|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of noninferiority was 20%. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the 2 treatment groups was greater than -20%. If the noninferiority inference based on the 20% margin was concluded successfully, noninferiority inference based on the 15% margin was performed.|Treatment Difference|18.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|28.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||28.92|8.23|
95883288|NCT02321800|191721515|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|7.79||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.79|-6.48|
95883289|NCT02321800|191721516|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|4.92||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||4.92|-3.48|
95883290|NCT02321800|191721517|OTHER||Treatment Difference|15.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.69|25.92||||||||25.92|4.69|
95883291|NCT02321800|191721518|OTHER||Treatment Difference|17.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.92|27.58||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||27.58|6.92|
95883292|NCT02321800|191721519|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|7.39||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||7.39|-4.83|
95883293|NCT02321800|191721520|OTHER||Treatment Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|5.25||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||5.25|-3.04|
95883294|NCT02321800|191721521|OTHER||Treatment Difference|13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|24.63||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||24.63|3.21|
95883295|NCT02321800|191721526|OTHER||Treatment Difference|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.44||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||9.44|-4.66|
95970904|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.104||95.0|-0.78|0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.07|-0.78|0.104
95970905|NCT00141219|191914991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.039||95.0|-0.88|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Mean Pain Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.88|0.039
95970906|NCT00141219|191914992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.044||95.0|-0.74|-0.01||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Duration Adjusted Average Change (DAAC)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.01|-0.74|0.044
95970907|NCT00141219|191914993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.018||95.0|-1.19|-0.11||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.11|-1.19|0.018
95970908|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.024||95.0|-0.96|-0.07||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Weeks 1 to 8 Mean Sleep Score~Overall Comparison (8-week average)~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.07|-0.96|0.024
95883296|NCT02321800|191721527|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|6.05||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||6.05|-6.57|
95883297|NCT02321800|191721528|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.29||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||1.29|-3.42|
95883298|NCT02321800|191721529|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|18.41||||||Adjusted estimates of the difference between the two treatment groups are based on a stratified analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights, with clinical diagnosis (complicated urinary tract infection with or without pyelonephritis vs acute uncomplicated pyelonephritis) as the stratification factor.||18.41|-0.37|
95883299|NCT02083783|191721559|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|11.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference in SKAMP-C scores from baseline to 4 hours postdose.||11.6|-17.9|<0.0001
95883300|NCT02083783|191721560|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|50.6|||ANCOVA|||p-value for comparison between change from baseline in placebo vs active treatment||50.6|27.3|<0.0001
95883301|NCT02557555|191721593|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Researched options for labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
95883302|NCT02557555|191721593|OTHER|P-values corresponding to a test of equal proportions (yes/no- 50%/50%)|||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet better explained options for pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
95883303|NCT02557555|191721593|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet should be given before onset labor pain|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
95883304|NCT02557555|191721593|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Pamphlet information helped to reduce anxiety|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
95883305|NCT02557555|191721593|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Information corrected any misconception|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||0.0002
95883306|NCT02557555|191721593|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Written information should always be available|Test of equal proportion (50/50)|||||||<0.0001
95970909|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.12||95.0|-0.86|0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 1 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.10|-0.86|0.120
95970910|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.041||95.0|-0.99|-0.02||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 2 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.02|-0.99|0.041
95883307|NCT02168361|191721594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis is no difference between two regimens in SVR-12.||||.02
95883308|NCT00602797|191721626|OTHER|An interim analysis was conducted after 10 patients were accrued. Since response rate seen at the first interim analysis was superior to that seen with standard of care, a new monitoring rule was approved. Toxicity monitoring would occur after 19 patients. If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated. This will provide 84% power to detect 40% toxicity.|Proportion|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||If 6/19 patients had ≥grade 4 non-hematological toxicity, accrual will be terminated.|Adverse events will be graded using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0).||||
95883309|NCT03846804|191721630|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95883310|NCT03547583|191721703|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-0.52|||=|0.8008|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.17|4.13|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||4.13|-5.17|= 0.8008
95883311|NCT03547583|191721703|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.46|||=|0.4722|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.02|3.1|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline PLS values as covariates.||3.10|-6.02|= 0.4722
95883312|NCT03547583|191721704|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-1.81|||=|0.8054|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.3|14.67|||Mixed model repeated-measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||14.67|-18.30|= 0.8054
95883313|NCT03547583|191721704|OTHER||Difference of LS-means|-5.49|||=|0.4502|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.77|10.8|||mixed model repeated measures|||The analysis of each imputed dataset will be performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), including treatment, region, heart rhythm, study visit as fixed effects, interaction between study visit and treatment group, and adjustment for the baseline 6MWT values as covariates.||10.80|-21.77|= 0.4502
95883314|NCT02657915|191721727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||=|0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|2.57|||ANCOVA|||||2.57|-14.56|=0.165
95883315|NCT02166905|191721782|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|1.2|||Log Rank||Reference=arm 1|||1.2|0.1|0.177
95883316|NCT02617628|191721788|EQUIVALENCE|The odds ratio for relapse versus non-relapse for the AR group relative to the BR group was analyzed, as well as the corresponding odds ratio for unknown relative to non-relapse.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.27|||Regression, Logistic||Threshold for significance was set at p\<.05|Based on Lee et al. we estimated a 23-33% group difference in relapse by month 3. Power estimates calculated this estimate with a 2-sided alpha of .05 and a baseline sample size of 100 per group resulted in 80% power to detect a difference of approximately 20% (OR = 2.4) between groups assuming a rate of 50% in the control condition and 10% and 20% attrition by 3- and 6-month follow-ups. For the 86 participants randomized and released, with 80% power; and odds ratio of 3.5.||4.27|0.57|0.38
95883317|NCT02617628|191721789|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.74486||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||We used Cox proportional hazards regression model to compare the groups on time to reincarceration.||||0.01
95883318|NCT04518306|191721811|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.176|-4.486||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-4.486|-10.176|<0.0001
95883319|NCT04518306|191721811|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.305|-5.151||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MIANALYZE procedure|||The analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) for estimating the difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 and placebo at Week 4||-5.151|-11.305|<0.0001
95883320|NCT04518306|191721812|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-7.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.649|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.281|-4.681||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-4.681|-11.281|<0.0001
95883321|NCT04518306|191721812|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.588|5.449||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||5.449|-13.588|<0.0001
95883322|NCT04518306|191721813|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.413|-1.597||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-1.597|-6.413|0.0015
95883323|NCT04518306|191721813|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-2.595||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.595|-7.130|<0.0001
95883324|NCT04518306|191721814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.811|42.45|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||42.450|11.811|0.0002
95883325|NCT04518306|191721814|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.199|47.186|||Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||47.186|17.199|<0.0001
95883326|NCT04518306|191721815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|26.385||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo.|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set.||26.385|6.070|<0.0001
95883327|NCT04518306|191721815|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.237|36.646||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|Percentages were calculated from the total number of participants within the randomized set||36.646|15.237|<0.0001
95883328|NCT04518306|191721816|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.978|-2.013||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-2.013|-5.978|0.0002
95883329|NCT04518306|191721816|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.908|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.328|-3.694||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||||-3.694|-7.328|<0.0001
95970911|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.017||95.0|-1.07|-0.1||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 3 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.10|-1.07|0.017
95883330|NCT04518306|191721817|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.752||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-3.287||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-3.287|-10.300|0.0003
95883331|NCT04518306|191721817|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.403|-5.082||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-5.082|-12.403|<0.0001
95883332|NCT04518306|191721818|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.004||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.865|-1.847||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ¼ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-1.847|-5.865|0.0003
95883333|NCT04518306|191721818|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.915|-2.932||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|MMRM procedure|||The difference between Triple ½ GMRx2 Dose and placebo at Week 4 was estimated using MMRM||-2.932|-7.915|<0.0001
95883334|NCT04518306|191721819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.541|48.549||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||48.549|19.541|<0.0001
95883335|NCT04518306|191721819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.218|43.093||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||43.093|14.218|<0.0001
95883336|NCT04518306|191721820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.637|28.424||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||28.424|3.637|0.0030
95883337|NCT04518306|191721820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|33.665||No adjustment for multiplicity was made and the 0.05 level of significance was used to claim efficacy compared with placebo|Wald test||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||33.665|8.720|<0.0001
95883338|NCT04518306|191721821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|2.76|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.760|-9.830|
95883339|NCT04518306|191721821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.276|9.774|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.774|-5.276|
95883340|NCT04518306|191721822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|1.662|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||1.662|-12.171|
95883341|NCT04518306|191721822|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.585|4.049||||||||4.049|-10.585|
95883342|NCT04518306|191721823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.115|9.352|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.352|-4.115|
95883343|NCT04518306|191721823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.779|11.2||||||||11.200|-2.779|
95883344|NCT04518306|191721824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.012|9.35|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.350|-4.012|
95883345|NCT04518306|191721824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.364|5.278|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.278|-6.364|
95883346|NCT04518306|191721825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.928|5.573|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||5.573|-10.928|
95883347|NCT04518306|191721825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|9.53|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilize Newcombe estimation method|||9.53|1.38|
95883348|NCT04518306|191721826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.492|7.954|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||7.954|-6.492|
95883349|NCT04518306|191721826|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.171|9.704|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||9.704|-5.171|
95883350|NCT04518306|191721827|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.324|5.548|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||5.548|-6.324|
95970912|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249||0.033||95.0|-1.02|-0.04||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 4 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.04|-1.02|0.033
95883351|NCT04518306|191721827|SUPERIORITY||number of participants at 95% CI|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.05|||||For this particular parameter we have used number of participants at 95% CI computed from Clopper-Pearson method as no risk difference was found between the Triple ½ (GMRx2) vs placebo|||3.05|0.00|
95883352|NCT04518306|191721828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.778|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method|||2.778|-9.684|
95883353|NCT04518306|191721828|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.684|2.59|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||2.590|-9.684|
95883354|NCT04518306|191721829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.722|12.959|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.959|-6.722|
95883355|NCT04518306|191721829|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.158|12.133|||||95% confidence intervals for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|||12.133|-7.158|
95883356|NCT04518306|191721830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.585|8.916||||||||8.916|-8.585|
95883357|NCT04518306|191721830|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.077|5.161||||||||5.161|-11.077|
95883358|NCT04518306|191721831|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.664|8.366|||GEE procedure|||||8.366|-17.664|<0.0001
95883359|NCT04518306|191721831|SUPERIORITY||LS Means|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|17.981|||GEE procedure|||||17.981|-9.040|<0.0001
95883360|NCT00540514|191721832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.313||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.1|1.082|1.593||Statistical significance defined as P-value \< 0.049.|Chi-squared||Response rate ratio = PA/PT. A response rate ratio \> 1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin arm of the study.|The null hypothesis is that the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen response rate (PA) is equal to that of the paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin regimen (PT). Superiority of albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin will be established if the lower bound of the 95.1% CI of the response rate ratio is \> 1.0.||1.593|1.082|0.005
95883361|NCT00540514|191721833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.902||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.767|1.06||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.060|0.767|0.214
95883362|NCT00540514|191721834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.797|1.066||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or other carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.066|0.797|0.271
95883363|NCT00540514|191721835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|1.074||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.210|0.953|0.239
95883364|NCT00540514|191721836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.244||P-value is based on a stratified log rank test stratified by geographic region (North America/Australia, Eastern Europe, or Asia/Pacific) and histology of primary diagnosis (Squamous cell carcinoma or Non squamous cell carcinoma).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin to paclitaxel/carboplatin) \<1 favors the albumin-bound paclitaxel/carboplatin group.|||1.244|0.652|0.551
95883365|NCT00540514|191721839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.302||95.0|||||Univariate Cox regression|||SPARC correlation with overall survival for the overall SPARC population.||||0.302
95883366|NCT00540514|191721840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036||95.0||||A nonsignificant interaction P-value (ie, p-value ≥ 0.100) indicates the treatment regimen effect was consistent within a prognostic factor.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with effects for treatment regimen, prognostic factor (histology), and treatment regimen by prognostic factor interaction.||||||0.036
95883367|NCT01411774|191721941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||p \< .05 was the threshold of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for the outcomes used linear mixed-effects models, with treatment group as the between-participant factor and time as the within group factor||||||.95
95883368|NCT04617509|191721957|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric means|1.4514|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.111|1.4514||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.4514|1.1110|
95883369|NCT04617509|191721957|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on Cmax ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.5497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3977|0.7597||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.7597|0.3977|
95883370|NCT04617509|191721958|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.3441|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0953|1.6495||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6495|1.0953|
95883371|NCT04617509|191721958|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-inf ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7327|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.9083||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.9083|0.5910|
95883372|NCT04617509|191721959|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FASTED) versus Formulation B (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.112|1.6904||||||Relative bioavailability (A versus B)||1.6904|1.1120|
95883373|NCT04617509|191721959|SUPERIORITY|Relative bioavailability for Formulation A (FED) versus Formulation A (FASTED). The calculated relative bioavailability is based on AUC0-24h ratio (ratio of geometric means) and is presented with 90% CI.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.7083|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5728|0.8759||||||Relative bioavailability (A FED versus A FASTED)||0.8759|0.5728|
95883374|NCT00618072|191721969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.181
95883375|NCT00618072|191721969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.026
95883376|NCT00618072|191721969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.063
95883377|NCT00618072|191721970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.049
95883378|NCT00618072|191721970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.002
95883379|NCT00618072|191721970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.032
95970913|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.078||95.0|-0.93|0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 5 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.05|-0.93|0.078
95970914|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.038||95.0|-1.01|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 6 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.01|0.038
95970915|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.037||95.0|-1.02|-0.03||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 7 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.03|-1.02|0.037
95883380|NCT00618072|191721971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.142
95883381|NCT00618072|191721971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
95883382|NCT00618072|191721971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.013
95883383|NCT00618072|191721972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.052
95883384|NCT00618072|191721972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.143
95883385|NCT00618072|191721972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.005
95883386|NCT00618072|191721973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.265
95883387|NCT00618072|191721973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.001
95970916|NCT00141219|191914994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.015||95.0|-1.11|-0.12||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Linear Mixed Model|Estimated from a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Interference Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.12|-1.11|0.015
95883388|NCT00618072|191721973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.389
95883389|NCT00618072|191721974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.025
95883390|NCT00618072|191721974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.162
95883391|NCT00618072|191721974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.562
95883392|NCT00618072|191721975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.016
95883393|NCT00618072|191721975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.03
95883394|NCT00618072|191721975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.150
95883395|NCT00618072|191721976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.648
95883396|NCT00618072|191721976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.094
95883397|NCT00618072|191721976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.054
95883398|NCT00618072|191721977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.092
95883399|NCT00618072|191721977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||0.730
95970917|NCT00141219|191914995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.034||95.0|-10.82|-0.42||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Disturbance~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.42|-10.82|0.034
95970918|NCT00141219|191914996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.309||0.128||95.0|-1.47|11.58||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Snoring Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||11.58|-1.47|0.128
95883400|NCT00618072|191721977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-tests were used to compare within-group mean differences at baseline and at 6 months following randomization for each of the 3 comparator groups.||||<0.001
95883401|NCT03633695|191721978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|-0.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.140|-0.214|<.0001
95883402|NCT03633695|191721979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|-0.158||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 Group was greater (i.e. worse) than or equal to that for the Control Group. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 Group less (i.e., better) than that for the Control Group.||-0.158|-0.223|<.0001
95883403|NCT03633695|191721980|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.007||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Group - Control Group|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL Group is inferior to the Control Group by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL group is inferior to the Control Group by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.007||<.0001
95883404|NCT03633695|191721981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|-0.163||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eye (IC-8 IOL Group) - Fellow Eye (IC-8 IOL Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes is greater (i.e., worse) than or equal to that for the fellow eyes. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean for the IC-8 IOL eyes is less (i.e., better) than that for the fellow eyes.||-0.163|-0.198|<.0001
95883405|NCT03633695|191721982|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference in depth of focus \[IC-8™ IOL Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8™ IOL Group)\]|||||
95883406|NCT03633695|191721983|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.082||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided||Acuity Difference = IC-8 IOL Eyes (IC-8 Group) - Fellow Eyes (IC-8 Group)|The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 IOL eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by 0.1 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity for the IC-8 eyes was inferior to the fellow eyes by less than 0.1 logMAR.||0.082||<.0001
95883407|NCT03633695|191721991|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.12 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to the Astigmatism Group 1 by 0.12 logMAR or more. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean acuity in Astigmatism Group 2 was inferior to Astigmatism Group 1 by less than 0.12 logMAR.||||<.0001
95883408|NCT05426902|191722006|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
95883409|NCT05426902|191722007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.6
95883410|NCT05426902|191722008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.2
95883411|NCT05426902|191722009|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||<0.0001
95883412|NCT05426902|191722010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)||||0.4
95883413|NCT05426902|191722015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I feel good about my medical visit at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
95883414|NCT05426902|191722015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist gave me his/her full attention at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
95883415|NCT05426902|191722015|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I was able to say everything I wanted to say to my rheumatologist at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
95883416|NCT05426902|191722017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"My rheumatologist and I agreed on how active my lupus was today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
95883417|NCT05426902|191722017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I understand the care recommendations that my doctor or provider gave me today at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.8
95883418|NCT05426902|191722018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs. Follow-Up||||0.02
95883419|NCT05426902|191722019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke meets my approval at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
95883420|NCT05426902|191722019|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke is appealing to me at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
95883421|NCT05426902|191722019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I like SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.5
95883422|NCT05426902|191722019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"I welcome SLE@Duke at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.6
95883423|NCT05426902|191722020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems fitting at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
95883424|NCT05426902|191722020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems suitable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.7
95883425|NCT05426902|191722020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems applicable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
95883426|NCT05426902|191722020|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems like a good match at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||1.0
95883427|NCT05426902|191722021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems implementable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
95883428|NCT05426902|191722021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems possible at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
95883429|NCT05426902|191722021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems doable at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.4
95883430|NCT05426902|191722021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"SLE@Duke seems easy to use at baseline (month 1) vs. intervention period (month 2)."||||0.3
95883431|NCT00133952|191722052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.67|||Fisher Exact|||||2.67|0.15|0.724
95883432|NCT00133952|191722053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.3||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|9.8|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||9.8|-16.5|0.616
95883433|NCT00133952|191722054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.44|0.68|0.971
95883434|NCT00133952|191722056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.5||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||Mixed models repeated measures|||||1.6|-0.6|0.344
95883435|NCT00133952|191722057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.663
95883436|NCT00133952|191722058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.23|0.37|0.203
95883437|NCT00133952|191722060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.92|0.46|0.749
95970919|NCT00141219|191914997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.887||0.103||95.0|-6.81|0.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Awaken Short of Breath or Headache~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.63|-6.81|0.103
95970920|NCT00141219|191914998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.018||95.0|0.08|0.8||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Quantity~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.80|0.08|0.018
95970921|NCT00141219|191914999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.504||95.0|0.67|2.24||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Regression, Logistic|OR estimated from model with Optimal sleep status (Yes/No) as response variable, and treatment, baseline Optimal sleep status as explanatory variables|"The OR estimates ratio of Odds of optimal sleep between Pregabalin and Placebo (ie, the former to the latter). Odds of optimal sleep in treatment group is ratio of Probability of having optimal sleep vs Probability of Not having optimal sleep"|"Week 8 Optimal Sleep~Optimal Sleep is a binary outcome derived from Sleep Quantity (SQ): the response is YES (or 1) if SQ = 7 or 8 hours per night.~Odds ratio measured the odds of optimal sleep in pregabalin to that in placebo.~Standard Error of the Mean equals Standard Error of the Odds Ratio (OR)."||2.24|0.67|.504
95883438|NCT04592874|191722061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.15|-1.49|0.7975
95883439|NCT04592874|191722061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.98|-1.61|0.6341
95883440|NCT04592874|191722061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||1.43|-1.18|0.8489
95883441|NCT04592874|191722062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.01|-2.81|0.7417
95883442|NCT04592874|191722062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.67|-4.16|0.1559
95883443|NCT04592874|191722062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||2.11|-2.78|0.7850
95883444|NCT04592874|191722063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.7934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.28|-5.58|0.7934
95883445|NCT04592874|191722063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.32|-4.84|0.9259
95883446|NCT04592874|191722063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|5.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.87|-4.04|0.7147
95883447|NCT04592874|191722064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.09|-3.14|0.6403
95883448|NCT04592874|191722064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||5.51|-2.71|0.5016
95883449|NCT04592874|191722064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||7.08|-1.21|0.1631
95883450|NCT04592874|191722065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|3.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||3.51|-4.57|0.7945
95883451|NCT04592874|191722065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.9371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.25|-3.92|0.9371
95883452|NCT04592874|191722065|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||4.64|-3.58|0.7991
95883453|NCT04592874|191722066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.11|-0.17|0.6458
95883454|NCT04592874|191722066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.2779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.21|-0.06|0.2779
95883455|NCT04592874|191722066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is using the Week 96 timepoint||0.18|-0.10|0.5355
95883456|NCT02442869|191722080|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.73||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|15.35|||Chi-squared|Df (1)|NNT = 5.59|Due to the large number of zeroes in the Suicidal Ideation (SI)-Current Subscale of the SSI at post (over a third of the participants reported no SI at the end of treatment), a zero-altered model was utilized which divided the outcome into (1) the probability of any SI and (2) the intensity of SI when non-zero, as done in other studies. This analysis tested the difference between the CAMS and TAU arms based on number of participants reporting no SI post Stage 1 treatment.||15.35|-2.41|0.19
95883457|NCT02442869|191722081|SUPERIORITY||Net difference in proportion|1.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
95883458|NCT02442869|191722082|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses. We determined that with a sample size of 62 clients, the outcome analyses had at least 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.80 (Ahn etal., 2001)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(60) = 2.15||||1.05|0.04|0.035
95883459|NCT05048784|191722083|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.009|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and confidence intervals (Cls) were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the natural-log (In) scale.|||1.040|0.980|
95883460|NCT05048784|191722084|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.967|1.055|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.055|0.967|
95883461|NCT05048784|191722085|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the bioequivalence of treatment A (test 1) to treatment B (reference) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.977|1.065|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.065|0.977|
95970922|NCT00141219|191915000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.796||0.571||95.0|-5.33|9.63||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Sleep Adequacy~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.63|-5.33|0.571
95970923|NCT00141219|191915001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.349||0.046||95.0|0.08|9.34||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Somnolence~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||9.34|0.08|0.046
95970924|NCT00141219|191915002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.044||0.3||95.0|-6.15|1.91||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Week 8 Overall Sleep Problem~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||1.91|-6.15|0.300
95883462|NCT05048784|191722087|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for Cmax.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.001|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.199|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.199|0.836|
95883463|NCT05048784|191722088|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUClast.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.447|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.745|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.745|1.200|
95883464|NCT05048784|191722089|OTHER|Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate the food effect of treatment C (test 2) to treatment A (test 1) for AUCinf.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.484|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.236|1.783|||||The geometric least squares mean ratios and Cls were obtained by taking the exponential of the corresponding differences and Cls on the In scale.|||1.783|1.236|
95883465|NCT01603056|191722092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
95883466|NCT01603056|191722093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.627
95883467|NCT01603056|191722094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95883468|NCT01603056|191722095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.641
95883469|NCT01603056|191722096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.818
95883470|NCT01603056|191722097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.391
95883471|NCT01603056|191722098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.497
95883472|NCT01603056|191722099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.222
95883473|NCT01603056|191722100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.438
95883474|NCT01603056|191722101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.465
95883475|NCT01603056|191722102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
95970925|NCT00141219|191915003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0325||0.429||95.0|-0.038|0.09||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Utility Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.090|-0.038|0.429
95970926|NCT00141219|191915004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.375||0.142||95.0|-1.18|8.18||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint VAS Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||8.18|-1.18|0.142
95883476|NCT01603056|191722103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.719
95883477|NCT02270957|191722161|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95883478|NCT02270957|191722162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.587
95883479|NCT02270957|191722163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||None of the endpoints were met in any pre-specified unbiased Full Analysis Set analysis|Chi-squared|||||||0.587
95883480|NCT00601458|191722187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.7||||0.005||97.8|-73.6|-8.0||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-8.0|-73.6|0.005
95883481|NCT00601458|191722187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.4||||0.0001||97.8|-81.7|-34.6||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|ANOVA||The natural log scale treatment difference (naproxen - placebo) and 97.8% CI for the treatment difference were exponentiated and reported as a percentage reduction in 24-h cumulative hydromorphone consumption.|||-34.6|-81.7|0.0001
95883482|NCT00601458|191722188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.46||||0.004||95.0|0.183|2.95||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||2.95|0.183|0.004
95883483|NCT00601458|191722188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||<|0.001||95.0|1.77|6.72||1-sided alpha = 0.045 Hochberg closed testing procedure|Log Rank||Hodges-Lehmann procedure was used to obtain an estimate of the difference in medians and an exact CI for the difference in medians|||6.72|1.77|<0.001
95883484|NCT01115101|191722232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|VAS score at 24h were defined as primary endpoint because of the expectation of the maximal effect at this time. Testing for differences of continuous variables between the study groups at baseline was accomplished by the 2-sample t test for independent samples or the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Test selection was based on evaluating the variables for normal distribution employing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.||"The sample size of n=120 was computed to detect a difference in VAS score at 24h of 1.2 (30% reduction) at a power of 80%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05.~Because measurements were made several times on the same patients within in two independent groups, GLM Repeated Measurement procedure was applied to test null hypotheses about the effects of both the between-subject factor (study group) and the within-subject factor (time)."||||<0.05
95883485|NCT01447433|191722237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.58|-0.70|0.441
95883486|NCT01447433|191722238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Fat Mass||1.70|0.05|0.038
95883487|NCT01447433|191722238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Lean Mass||0.07|-1.06|0.082
95883488|NCT01447433|191722238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Visceral Fat Mass||0.32|0.03|0.018
95883489|NCT01447433|191722239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.09|0.10|0.031
95883490|NCT01447433|191722240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|5.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.29|1.15|0.016
95883491|NCT01447433|191722241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Waist Circumference||4.58|-2.31|0.508
95883492|NCT01447433|191722241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|2.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Abdominal Circumference||2.98|-5.42|0.560
95883493|NCT01447433|191722241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hip Circumference||2.70|-0.74|0.255
95883494|NCT01447433|191722242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|5.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure||5.3|-12.9|0.404
95883495|NCT01447433|191722242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|7.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure||7.41|-5.52|0.768
95883496|NCT01447433|191722243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TC||0.20|-0.36|0.565
95883497|NCT01447433|191722243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||TG||0.39|-0.24|0.636
95883498|NCT01447433|191722243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||HDL||0.06|-0.58|0.112
95883499|NCT01447433|191722243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||LDL||0.05|-0.11|0.647
95883500|NCT01447433|191722244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.35|-0.10|0.260
95883501|NCT01447433|191722245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|4.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.17|-2.44|0.598
95883502|NCT01447433|191722246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|89.0||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|278.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||278.7|-81.6|0.275
95883503|NCT02002091|191722247|OTHER|||||||0.706|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.706
95883504|NCT02002091|191722248|OTHER|||||||0.346|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.346
95883505|NCT02002091|191722249|OTHER|||||||0.123|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.123
95883506|NCT02002091|191722250|OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.968
95883507|NCT02002091|191722251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance for P-Value is \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95883508|NCT02002091|191722252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.988
95883509|NCT02002091|191722253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
95883510|NCT02002091|191722255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.917|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.917
95883511|NCT02002091|191722256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.816|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.816
95883512|NCT02002091|191722257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Statistical significance : p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95970927|NCT00141219|191915005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.038||95.0|-1.66|-0.05||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Anxiety Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||-0.05|-1.66|0.038
95883513|NCT02002091|191722259|OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The threshold of statistical difference is P-value \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.025
95883514|NCT02002091|191722262|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||the threshold for statistical significance used is P-value \<0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.059
95883515|NCT01049308|191722273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|57.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Descriptive data to describe prevalence of cognitive impairment in outpatient veterans with chronic heart failure||||
95883516|NCT03473977|191722275|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95883517|NCT03473977|191722276|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.75
95883518|NCT03473977|191722277|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95883519|NCT03473977|191722278|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.004
95883520|NCT03473977|191722279|OTHER|||||||0.0058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0058
95883521|NCT03473977|191722280|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.014
95883522|NCT03473977|191722281|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Pain Score Comparison||||0.78
95883523|NCT03473977|191722281|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-pain score comparison||||0.34
95883524|NCT03473977|191722281|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Satisfaction score comparison||||0.66
95883525|NCT00418457|191722293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.74|0.84
95883526|NCT00418457|191722294|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||GEE|||||1.17|0.85|0.70
95883527|NCT00418457|191722295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||GEE|||||1.28|0.75|0.81
95883528|NCT00418457|191722296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.63|0.96
95883529|NCT00418457|191722297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.48|0.02|0.043
95883530|NCT03736447|191722302|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|67.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|84.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||84.5|50.0|<0.0001
95883531|NCT03736447|191722303|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.4|||Farrington-Manning test|||||81.4|47.0|<0.0001
95883532|NCT03736447|191722304|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|73.5|||Farrington-Manning test|||||73.5|39.8|<0.0001
95883533|NCT04523220|191722314|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||=|0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.21||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.21|0.28|= 0.222
95883534|NCT04523220|191722314|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.42||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.42|0.36|= 0.427
95883535|NCT04523220|191722315|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.64||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.64|0.98|= 0.128
95883536|NCT04523220|191722315|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24|||=|0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.61||Due to the explorative nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done.|Log Rank|||Two-sided log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards model were used in the analyses.||1.61|0.96|= 0.166
95883537|NCT03268954|191722326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.238|||Log Rank|P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|IPSS-R indicates the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System.||1.238|0.757|=0.557
95883538|NCT03268954|191722327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.888|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.113||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on the 1-sided Cui-Hung-Wang weighted unstratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival (OS)||1.113|0.709|=0.152
95883539|NCT03268954|191722332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.037|||=|0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.63||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS Participants||1.630|0.660|=0.562
95883540|NCT03268954|191722332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512|||=|0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|33.773||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR CMML Participants||33.773|0.068|=0.603
95883541|NCT03268954|191722332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.034|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.61||P-value comparing time to AML Transformation between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR CMML/MDS.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional HazardRegression with stratification(IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of AML transformation in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Time to AML Transformation in HR MDS/CMML Participants||1.610|0.663|=0.558
95883542|NCT03268954|191722333|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.18|||=|0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|4.83||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With Complete Remission (CR) and CR+Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||4.83|-13.18|=0.374
95883543|NCT03268954|191722338|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-4.67|||=|0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|4.39||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR||4.39|-13.72|=0.329
95883544|NCT03268954|191722339|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-0.44|||=|0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|9.15||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants with OR2||9.15|-10.03|=0.891
95883545|NCT03268954|191722340|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.679|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.146|||Log Rank|P-value was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of CR||1.146|0.402|=0.072
95883546|NCT03268954|191722341|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.846|||=|0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.339||P-value comparing duration of CR+CRi between treatment groups was based on 1-sided unstratified log-rank.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted unstratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Complete Remission + Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||2.339|0.306|=0.373
95883547|NCT03268954|191722342|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.889|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.458||P-value comparing duration of PR or better response between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response (OR)||1.458|0.542|=0.320
95970928|NCT00141219|191915006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.664||95.0|-1.05|0.67||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|General Linear Model|Estimated from general linear model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||"Endpoint Depression Score~Pregabalin minus Placebo"||0.67|-1.05|0.664
95970929|NCT00141219|191915007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.473||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance. p-value is from comparing Pregabalin versus Placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.473
95970930|NCT00141219|191915008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119||95.0||||All statistical testing was 2-sided and was conducted at the 5% level of significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"To apply CMH, each category is given a numerical score; the method of modified rdit used to assign numeric scores."||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test on the null hypothesis of no treatment difference in all centers. CMH test comparing Pregabalin to Placebo adjusted for center.||||0.119
95970931|NCT02224690|191915010|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.21||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.32|-4.09|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.09|-30.32|0.0135
95970932|NCT02224690|191915011|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)||||4.97|1.33|0.0043
95970933|NCT02224690|191915012|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-9.37|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-9.37|-33.26|0.0005
95970934|NCT02224690|191915013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor.|Odds of participants recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.47|1.45|0.0012
95970935|NCT01506609|191915014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.789||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.162|||Log Rank|||||1.162|0.536|0.227
95970936|NCT01506609|191915014|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.858||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|2.702|||Log Rank|||||2.702|1.278|0.001
95970937|NCT01506609|191915015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.218|||Log Rank|||||1.218|0.590|0.368
95970938|NCT01506609|191915015|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.512||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|2.127|||Log Rank|||||2.127|1.074|0.017
95970939|NCT01506609|191915016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
95970940|NCT01506609|191915016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
95970941|NCT01506609|191915017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.027
95970942|NCT01506609|191915017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status and prior cytotoxic therapy use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95970943|NCT01506609|191915018|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.476||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||ANCOVA with treatment arm and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.60|-7.20|0.354
95970944|NCT01285609|191915115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.907||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.072|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.072|0.767|0.2517
95970945|NCT01285609|191915116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.792|1.061||p-value based on stratified 2-sided log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard of Ipilimumab over Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with several stratification factors and treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.061|0.792|0.2421
95970946|NCT01285609|191915117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.009|||Log Rank|p-value based on an unstratified 2-sided log rank test|Hazard of Ipilimumab over Hazard of Placebo with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the single covariate|Hazard ratio = Ipilimumab with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin over Placebo with Paclitaxel/Carboplatin||1.009|0.749|0.0678
95970947|NCT01142115|191915118|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimated difference VAS(Monza) minus VAS(SpeediCath)(i.e. the upper confidence limit) shall be less than 1cm to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.052||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.692|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.692|0.412|0.0018
95970948|NCT01142115|191915119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|12.939|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.939|2.604|<0.0001
95970949|NCT01142115|191915120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|1.767|||Proportional odds regression model|||||1.767|0.382|0.6160
95970950|NCT01142115|191915121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.8014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.472|2.646|||Proportional odds regression model|||||2.646|0.472|0.8014
95970951|NCT01142115|191915122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|39.106|||Regression, Logistic|||||39.106|0.314|0.3085
95970952|NCT01142115|191915123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.398||||0.4324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|3.225|||Proportional odds regression model|||||3.225|0.606|0.4324
95970953|NCT03208036|191915124|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .69
95970954|NCT03208036|191915124|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.74|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .74
95883548|NCT03268954|191722343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796|||=|0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.231||P-value comparing duration of overall response 2 between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Duration of Overall Response 2 (OR2)||1.231|0.514|=0.151
95883549|NCT03268954|191722344|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|3.27|||=|0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|15.55||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With RBC-transfusion Independence||15.55|-9.02|=0.573
95883550|NCT03268954|191722344|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-3.43|||=|0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.84|18.97||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With Platelet-transfusion Independence||18.97|-25.84|=0.477
95970955|NCT03208036|191915125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .62
95970956|NCT03208036|191915125|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .24
95970957|NCT03208036|191915126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
95970958|NCT03208036|191915126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
95970959|NCT03208036|191915126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
95970960|NCT03208036|191915126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
95970961|NCT03208036|191915126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
95970962|NCT03208036|191915126|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
95970963|NCT03208036|191915127|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.68|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .68
95970964|NCT03208036|191915127|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .45
95970965|NCT03208036|191915128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .81
95970966|NCT03208036|191915128|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .31
95970967|NCT03208036|191915129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.79|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .79
95970968|NCT03208036|191915129|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .50
95970969|NCT03208036|191915130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .47
95883551|NCT03268954|191722345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.231|||=|0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.715|2.119||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of RBC Transfusion Independence||2.119|0.715|=0.774
95883552|NCT03268954|191722345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533|||=|0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|4.147||P-value comparing duration of platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Platelet Transfusion Independence||4.147|0.567|=0.801
95970970|NCT03208036|191915130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .09
95970971|NCT03208036|191915130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .02
95970972|NCT03208036|191915130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .48
95970973|NCT03208036|191915130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .66
95970974|NCT03208036|191915130|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and the 5.5 month assessment.||||= .46
95970975|NCT03208036|191915131|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .99
95970976|NCT03208036|191915131|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .84
95970977|NCT03208036|191915132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .25
95883553|NCT03268954|191722345|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968|||=|0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.614||P-value comparing duration of RBC or platelet transfusion between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard regression;stratification(low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:longer duration of transfusion independence in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Duration of Transfusion Independence||1.614|0.580|=0.450
95883554|NCT03268954|191722346|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||=|0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.234||P-value comparing time to first CR or PR or CRi (low-blast AML) between treatment groups was based on 1-sided stratified log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML,IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on an unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors (low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML) and treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to First Complete Remission (CR) or Partial Remission (PR) or Complete Remission with Incomplete Blood Count Recovery (CRi)||1.234|0.628|=0.228
95883555|NCT03268954|191722347|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.46|||=|0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|5.44||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Participants With HI||5.44|-16.36|=0.320
95883556|NCT03268954|191722348|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.58||||||Number of Participants With at Least 1 Inpatient Hospital Admissions Related to HR MDS, CMML or Low-blast AML||5.58|-0.30|
95883557|NCT03268954|191722349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.858|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.067||P-value was obtained from a stratified 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML, with treatment as a factor in the model.|Time to Progressive Disease (PD), Relapse after CR (Low-blast AML), Relapse After CR or PR (HR MDS/CMML), or Death||1.067|0.689|=0.084
95883558|NCT03268954|191722351|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-2.85|||=|0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|13.75||P-value for HR MDS/CMML was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR: HR MDS/CMML Participants||13.75|-19.44|=0.683
95883559|NCT03268954|191722351|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|2.36|||=|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.39|25.12||P-value for Low-blast AML was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR: Low-blast AML Participants||25.12|-20.39|=0.840
95883560|NCT03268954|191722352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.263||P-value comparing EFS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors (IPSS-R risk groups=very high,high,or intermediate for HRMDS/CMML),treatment as factor.HR\<1:better prevention of EFS in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Event-Free Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.263|0.608|=0.240
95883561|NCT03268954|191722353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.178||P-value comparing OS between treatment groups was based on 1-sided log-rank test stratified by low-blast AML, IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Log Rank||HR:unadjusted stratified Cox proportional hazard regression with stratification factors(IPSS-R risk groups of very high,high,intermediate) and treatment as factor in model.HR\<1: longer survival time in combination arm than azacitidine arm.|Overall Survival in Participants who have TP53 Mutations, 17p Deletions, and/or are Determined to be in an Adverse Cytogenetic Risk Group||1.178|0.580|=0.145
95970978|NCT03208036|191915132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
95970979|NCT03208036|191915132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .14
95970980|NCT03208036|191915132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .02
95970981|NCT03208036|191915132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .24
95883562|NCT03268954|191722354|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|-5.14|||=|0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.95|3.68||P-value was obtained from a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by IPSS-R risk groups of very high, high, or intermediate for HR MDS/CMML.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for HR MDS/CMML||3.68|-13.95|=0.261
95970982|NCT03208036|191915132|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .93
95970983|NCT03208036|191915133|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Group x Time interaction.||||= .98
95970984|NCT03208036|191915133|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect, repeated measure ANOVA to assess change between baseline, 4-month, and 5.5 month assessments. Test for a Main Effect of Time.||||= .08
95970985|NCT03208036|191915133|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .08
95970986|NCT03208036|191915133|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .06
95970987|NCT03208036|191915133|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 4-month assessment.||||= .28
95883563|NCT03268954|191722354|SUPERIORITY||Absolute Rate Difference|22.36|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|41.49||P-value was obtained from an unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall Response for Low-blast AML||41.49|3.22|=0.026
95883564|NCT01638546|191722392|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The study will be performed as a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized Phase II in patients with relapsed sensitive or refractory SCLC. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to one of two treatment arms: ABT-888 and temozolomide as the investigational arm, versus placebo and temozolomide as the control arm. The randomization will be stratified by center and by type or relapse (sensitive vs. refractory). The primary objective is to compare the two treatment regimens with respect to efficacy, expressed as Progression Free Survival (PFS) at 4 months post-randomization. PFS will be calculated as proportion of patients alive and without evidence of disease at 4 months after randomization.|||
95883565|NCT01651195|191722418|SUPERIORITY|We estimated that, with a power of 85% and at a significance level of 0.05 (Power 0.85, ß=0.14990 and α=0.05), we needed 467 conscripts per group to show a 17% difference between the groups. Each conscript was randomly allocated to the probiotic or the control group according to a computer generated, 8-blocked randomization list.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact||||"Result variables were analyzed according to intention to treat (ITT) principle. Missing data was handled by statistic modeling. Data on symptom diaries were calculated as follows: the incidence and duration of individual infection symptoms and respiratory episodes were analyzed between the intervention groups using time to event analysis (cox model for hazard) and duration analysis (gamma regression model). The results are expressed as a hazard ratio (incidence rate ratio) of symptoms and the mean duration of symptoms (days) with 95% confidence intervals or standard deviations. The sums of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms were calculated with gamma regression analysis."|||< 0.05
95883566|NCT01651195|191722419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
95883567|NCT01651195|191722420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
95883568|NCT01651195|191722421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.05
95883569|NCT00583778|191722447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Data were analyzed using STATA 10 SE.Categorical variables were described using frequencies and relative frequencies. Distribution of continuous variables were evaluated for normality using the Shapiro-Walk test and graphically using histograms and box plots. Because most data were non-parametric, they were described using the median and 25th and 75th percentiles (interquartile range) and then compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.|This study was designed to detect an absolute difference of 12 % in change of FEV-1percent predicted, with a standard deviation of 25% based on data provided to us from previous studies conducted by Sepracor. Based on this assumption, we sought to enter 76 patients in each group to have an 80% power to detect a 12 % absolute difference in charge of FEV-1 percent predicted over time at an alpha of 0.05. This accounted for a potential 10% dropout rate after randomization.|||< 0.05
95883570|NCT03292588|191722451|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations in the first year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.96|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted relative rate of exacerbations in the first year.||||0.96|0.56|0.027
95970988|NCT03208036|191915133|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group change assessed between baseline and 5.5-month assessment.||||= .23
95970989|NCT02842151|191915144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.346|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.13||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 1, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.13|-0.03|
95883571|NCT03292588|191722452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 12.||Week 12||0.24|-0.81|0.290
95883572|NCT03292588|191722452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 24.||Week 24||0.55|-0.69|0.820
95883573|NCT03292588|191722452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 36.||Week 36||0.09|-1.11|0.096
95883574|NCT03292588|191722452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 48.||Week 48||0.52|-0.65|0.831
95883575|NCT03292588|191722452|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The difference in least square mean of CASI scores for week 52.||Week 52||0.64|-0.60|0.947
95970990|NCT02842151|191915144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.595|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.07||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 2, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||0.07|-0.21|
95970991|NCT02842151|191915144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in A-Constant is manifest refraction minus autorefraction. The criteria for equivalence (based on paired difference t-test) was established if the bounds of the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) on the difference was contained within the equivalence range (-0.15, 0.15).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|-0.04||||||To demonstrate equivalency at Site 3, A-constant with manifest refraction was compared to A-constant with autorefraction.||-0.04|-0.22|
95883576|NCT03292588|191722453|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze Physician Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as primary exposure but was also adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Physician Global Assessment Tool||1.64|0.62|0.974
95883577|NCT03292588|191722454|SUPERIORITY|A generalized logit model was used to analyze the Patient Global Assessment Tool at Visit 14. The model included treatment arm as fixed effect as the primary exposure but was adjusted for study site, # of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils ((\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age) \& total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L). No imputation of missing data was used for participants who weren't assessed for quality of life measurements at Visit 14.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Patient Global Assessment Tool||1.24|0.42|0.238
95883578|NCT03292588|191722455|SUPERIORITY|A generalized mixed model as described in section 8.3.1 was used to analyze each spirometry and impulse oscillometry parameter, separately, at each visit where the lung function was collected.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.005||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 12||0.013|-0.023|0.591
95883579|NCT03292588|191722455|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.011||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 24||0.008|-0.031|0.265
95883580|NCT03292588|191722455|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.011||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 36||0.033|-0.012|0.345
95883581|NCT03292588|191722455|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.013||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 48||0.036|-0.009|0.248
95883582|NCT03292588|191722455|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1/FVC Week 52||0.020|-0.023|0.864
95883583|NCT03292588|191722456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 12||3.0|-3.8|0.816
95970992|NCT01781078|191915157|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.9|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||3.9||<0.0001
95970993|NCT01781078|191915158|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|-0.1||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.0|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||5.0||0.0006
95883584|NCT03292588|191722456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 24||0.6|-7.4|0.095
95883585|NCT03292588|191722456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.5||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 36||5.5|-2.4|0.444
95883586|NCT03292588|191722456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 48||4.6|-3.3|0.751
95883587|NCT03292588|191722456|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FEV1PP Week 52||1.3|-6.5|0.184
95883588|NCT03292588|191722457|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Did not meet FDA-approved dosing||1.31|0.55|0.458
95883589|NCT03292588|191722458|SUPERIORITY|Negative binomial model for the rate of exacerbations (per year. The model included an offset term to account for differential follow-up among participants. To account for adaptive randomization, the model was also adjusted for study site, number of exacerbations in year prior to study (2 or 3+), peripheral blood eosinophils (\< or ≥400 cells/μl), BMI (\< or ≥95th percentile for age), total serum IgE (\< or ≥540 kUA/L) and treatment dose (40 mg or 100 mg).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.95|||Regression, Negative Binomial|||Fit FDA-approved dosing||0.95|0.47|0.025
95883590|NCT03292588|191722459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3587
95883591|NCT00869206|191722490|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on the published data on the effect of a standard of dosing schedule of \> zoledronic acid compared to placebo, we choose ∆= 7%, πT= 42%, and πS= 35%. With a total of 1230 eligible patients (615 per arm), the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis using a one-sided test is at most 0.05 (Type I error α) when θ≥ 7% and the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis (the power) is at least 82% when θ≤0|||||<=|0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<=.05
95970994|NCT01781078|191915158|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the success rate between the 2 randomized groups was compared to 10% using a one-sided Farrington-Manning score test for non-inferiority at a significance level of 0.05.|difference|0.0||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.7|||Farrington-Manning score test|||||4.7||0.0002
95970995|NCT02217501|191915162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6595||||||Alpha of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6595
95970996|NCT03748992|191915169|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||Non Applicable||Non Applicable||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
95970997|NCT03748992|191915171|OTHER|Since no hypothesis testing was planned, no power analysis was required||||||||||||||||This was a single arm trial. there is no comparator group.|The overall response rates were calculated, and exact binomial confidence intervals was constructed.|||
95970998|NCT05121246|191915172|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
95883592|NCT00869206|191722491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.00394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00962||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SREs, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, race, BSA, and baseline performance status||||||0.68
95883593|NCT00869206|191722492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for tumor type, baseline creatinine, prior SRE, prior bisphosphonates, age, gender, BSA, race, and baseline performance status||||||0.64
95883594|NCT00869206|191722494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.10
95883595|NCT03462082|191722506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.326~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.163
95883596|NCT03462082|191722506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.749||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.749~\*Gait Velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.749
95970999|NCT05121246|191915173|EQUIVALENCE|CI 90% of least squares geometric means must be entirely contained within the range \[80%-125%\].||||||||||||||||PK parameters will be determined using a non-compartmental analysis method. Bioequivalence between MB05 and EU-Synagis®, between MB05 and US-Synagis® and between EU-Synagis® and US-Synagis® will be established by analysis of variance for the PK parameters AUC0-inf, and Cmax.|PK parameters for each participant will be listed and summarised by treatment using descriptive statistics.|||
95971000|NCT00604825|191915198|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.75||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.93||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||1.93|-0.44|0.215
95883597|NCT03462082|191722507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.155~\*MDS-UPDRS (total) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.031
95883598|NCT03462082|191722507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS total for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to report the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.778
95883599|NCT03462082|191722507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.157~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.039
95971001|NCT00604825|191915198|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.21||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.37||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||2.37|0.05|0.041
95971002|NCT00604825|191915198|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.92||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.92|-3.20|<0.001
95971003|NCT00604825|191915199|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.15||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.38||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 25 mg||0.38|-0.08|0.202
95883600|NCT03462082|191722507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.902~\*MDS-UPDRS (motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.451
95883601|NCT03462082|191722507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.333~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.111
95883602|NCT03462082|191722507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.030~\*MDS-UPDRS (axial motor) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.005
95883603|NCT03462082|191722508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.984
95883604|NCT03462082|191722508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.067
95883605|NCT03462082|191722509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.440
95883606|NCT03462082|191722509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.051
95883607|NCT03462082|191722510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.945
95883608|NCT03462082|191722510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.024
95883609|NCT03462082|191722511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.097
95883610|NCT03462082|191722511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Gait velocity for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.750
95883611|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.128
95971004|NCT00604825|191915199|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.31||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. GSK232802 75 mg||0.54|0.08|0.008
95971005|NCT00604825|191915199|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.3||Analysis included the terms for: Treatment + Baseline + country + uterine strata.|General linear model|||Placebo vs. Premarin 0.3 mg||-0.30|-0.75|<0.001
95971006|NCT03465904|191915245|SUPERIORITY|Our power analysis indicated that a minimum of 239 patients per group was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 13.4% difference in the primary outcome, pain freedom at 2 h. Accounting for an estimated attrition rate of 20%, we aimed to enroll 299 patients per group.|||||<|0.05||||||All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 26.0 with two-sided levels of statistical significance established at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|A Chi-square test of independent proportions was used to compare primary and secondary efficacy outcomes between groups.||Identical statistical analyses were performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) and the per protocol (PP) populations. The ITT population consisted of all randomized patients, who received any duration of sham or verum treatment and returned completed study materials. The PP population consisted of patients who strictly met inclusion criteria and completed at least 60 min of treatment.||||<0.05
95971007|NCT05593445|191915246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.41|||Chi-squared|||||2.41|0.29|0.737
95971008|NCT05593445|191915246|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|20.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the response rate difference was constructed from approximately normal distribution.|||20.7|-29.2|
95883612|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (mean) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.117
95883613|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.145
95883614|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (right) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.056
95883615|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.151
95883616|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length (left) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.129
95883617|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.698
95883618|NCT03462082|191722512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length difference for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.779
95883619|NCT03462082|191722513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.874
95883620|NCT03462082|191722513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.976||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length ratio for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.976
95883621|NCT03462082|191722513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.859
95883622|NCT03462082|191722513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Step length symmetry for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.860
95883623|NCT03462082|191722514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.480~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.040
95883624|NCT03462082|191722514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.883
95971009|NCT05593445|191915247|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-0.47|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.47|-5.05|0.0188
95971010|NCT05593445|191915248|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.91|||MMRM|||||0.91|-1.96|0.4674
95971011|NCT05593445|191915249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.869|||Log Rank||Cox regression model was conducted to compare the difference in hazard rate.|||1.869|0.503|0.9072
95883625|NCT03462082|191722514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 0.781~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.071
95883626|NCT03462082|191722514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Pitch (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.327
95883627|NCT03462082|191722515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.487
95883628|NCT03462082|191722515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (minimum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.861
95883629|NCT03462082|191722515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.411||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.411
95883630|NCT03462082|191722515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Loudness (maximum) for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.997
95883631|NCT03462082|191722516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.388
95883632|NCT03462082|191722516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Jitter for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.684
95883633|NCT03462082|191722517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.850
95883634|NCT03462082|191722517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||"Holm-adjusted P-Value: 1.00~\*Shimmer for Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS"|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.712
95883635|NCT03462082|191722518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Asymmetric STN-DBS 1 (right STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.501
95883636|NCT03462082|191722518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Asymmetric STN-DBS 2 (left STN-DBS reduced) vs. Bilateral STN-DBS|Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral (baseline) values are the average of the outcome measure data obtained during the 2 bilateral (baseline) conditions: 1) at enrollment before randomization and 2) after randomization. These average values are used to compare the changes associated with the 2 asymmetric conditions.||||0.216
95883637|NCT03462082|191722519|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Non-adjusted P-Values were \>0.05 and Holm-adjusted P-Values were 1.00 for all comparisons, except for the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised: Delayed Recall. For this test, the non-adjusted P-Value was 0.04 and the Holm-adjusted P-Value was 0.44.|Friedman test|Using ranks for repeated measures (3 conditions)||||||>0.05
95883638|NCT00919724|191722520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1||||||Comparison between HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected groups. Comparison adjusted for age, gender, race, height, and brachial artery baseline diameter.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.10
95883639|NCT01391559|191722521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.0||||0.17||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95971012|NCT05559476|191915258|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the Upper Limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is less than or equal (\<=)1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.35|||||The comparison is done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-A neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.35|1.03|
95883640|NCT01425281|191722544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Angiographic vasomotion reactivity following nitrate administration, the test was analyzable for 388 paired lesions (Absorb arm \[258 lesions\] vs Xience arm \[130 lesions\]).||||0.49
95971013|NCT05559476|191915259|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.16|0.85|
95971014|NCT05559476|191915259|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.09|0.80|
95883641|NCT01425281|191722545|NON_INFERIORITY|Using t-test with non-inferiority margin of 0.140mm||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"Null and alternative hypotheses for superiority testing.~H0: EndpointABSORB BVS = EndpointXIENCE H1: EndpointABSORB BVS ≠ EndpointXIENCE"||Follow-up angiographic analysis was available for 298 lesions in the Absorb arm and 151 lesions in the Xience arm.||||0.78
95883642|NCT01774604|191722727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.33
95883643|NCT01774604|191722728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95883644|NCT01774604|191722729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95883645|NCT01774604|191722730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95883646|NCT01774604|191722731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
95883647|NCT01774604|191722732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
95883648|NCT01774604|191722733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.10
95883649|NCT03250845|191722741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion time Ha: Multigam 10% infusion time is significantly shorter than Multigam 5%||||<0.0001
95883650|NCT03250845|191722742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in hospitalisation time between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Hospitalisation time with Multigam 10% infusion is significantly shorter than with Multigam 5%||||<0.0005
95883651|NCT03250845|191722744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||H0: No difference in number of nursing actions per patient between Multigam 5% and Multigam 10% infusion Ha: Number of nursing actions per patient is smaller with Multigam 10% infusion||||0.03
95883652|NCT00320411|191722786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|17.2||||||95.0|8.6|29.4||||||||29.4|8.6|
95883653|NCT00320411|191722788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|32.3||||||95.0|20.0|44.7||||||||44.7|20.0|
95971015|NCT05559476|191915259|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.03|0.88|
95883654|NCT00320411|191722789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|22.8||||||95.0|11.6|34.0||||||||34.0|11.6|
95883655|NCT00518986|191722804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3043||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study drug was fixed factor and corresponding baseline value was a covariate.||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.3043
95883656|NCT00518986|191722805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|P-value for comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test||Since there were two primary outcome measures the Hochberg procedure was used to control overall Type 1 error rate at the 0.05 level. If both p-values for the primary variables were \<= 0.05 the treatment was claimed to be significant for both variables. If 1 p-value was \> 0.05and the other was \<=0.025, the variable with a p-value \<= 0.025 was claimed as significant.||||0.0120
95883657|NCT00518986|191722806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||Nominal p-value is presented, but statistical significance cannot be claimed. As a key secondary variable significance could be claimed only if treatment effect was significant for both primary efficacy variables.|ANCOVA|||Least squares (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline as covariate.||||0.0027
95883658|NCT00518986|191722807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
95883659|NCT00518986|191722808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3145|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3145
95883660|NCT00518986|191722809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2196|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2196
95883661|NCT00518986|191722810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2017||||||P-value is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.2017
95883662|NCT00518986|191722811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0032
95883663|NCT00518986|191722812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0207||||||P-value from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0207
95883664|NCT00518986|191722813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529||||||P-value was generated from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0529
95883665|NCT00518986|191722814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
95883666|NCT00518986|191722815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
95883667|NCT00518986|191722816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1072
95883668|NCT00518986|191722817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0355
95883669|NCT00518986|191722818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0591|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0591
95883670|NCT00518986|191722819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0025
95883671|NCT00518986|191722820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0794||||||P-value for treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0794
95883672|NCT00518986|191722821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0888||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||0.0888
95883673|NCT00518986|191722822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0433
95883674|NCT00518986|191722823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0105
95883675|NCT00518986|191722824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0523|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0523
95883676|NCT00518986|191722825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0289|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0289
95883677|NCT00518986|191722826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1272
95883678|NCT00518986|191722827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0349
95883679|NCT00518986|191722828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0094
95971016|NCT05559476|191915259|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the group GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for HI antibody titers for the Flu strain is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.02|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone, in terms of HI GMTs against the Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata influenza strain, at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||1.02|0.84|
95971017|NCT05559476|191915260|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio (Control group divided by Co-Ad group) for RSVPreF3 OA vaccine is \<=1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||||The comparison was done using the adjusted group ratio of GMT (ANCOVA model applied to the logarithm- transformed titers). The ANCOVA model included the treatment group, the age category as fixed effects and the pre-dose log-10 titer as covariate.|To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine when co-administered with the FLU vaccine compared to the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine administered alone, in terms of RSV-B neutralizing antibody titers, at 1 month after the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine dose (Day 31 for the Co-Ad Group and Day 61 for the Control Group).||1.15|0.89|
95971018|NCT05559476|191915261|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.74||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Darwin/6/2021 H3N2 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||4.74|-8.15|
95971019|NCT05559476|191915261|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|2.48||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu A/Victoria/2570/2019 H1N1 strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||2.48|-10.67|
95971020|NCT05559476|191915261|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-2.29||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Austria/1359417/2021 Victoria at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||-2.29|-14.75|
95971021|NCT05559476|191915261|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority is demonstrated if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI on the group difference (Control group minus Co-Ad group) in terms of SCR is \<=10% for anti-HI antibodies.|Difference of Percentage|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.28|0.56||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the FLU vaccine when co-administered with the RSVPreF3 OA vaccine compared to the FLU vaccine administered alone as measured by the difference of percentage of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against Flu B/Phuket/3073/2013 Yamagata strain at 1 month post-FLU vaccine dose administration (Day 31 for both groups).||0.56|-12.28|
95971022|NCT00645801|191915328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||A 2-sided 2 sample t test was used to compare the overall cleanliness score between the 2 treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Based on the assumption that 70% of patients using PEG plus placebo (group 2) will have good results, by allocating 100 cases in each group, we will have 84% power to detect a difference of 18% or more in the effectiveness of PEG plus lubiprostone combination (group 1) (eg, 70% in group 2 vs. 88% in group 1) at the alpha level of significancelevel of significance.||||0.05
95971023|NCT00645801|191915329|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||2 sided Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||<0.05
95883680|NCT00518986|191722829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0754
95883681|NCT00518986|191722830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0105
95971024|NCT00645801|191915330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95883682|NCT00518986|191722831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2888|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2888
95883683|NCT00518986|191722832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0130
95883684|NCT00518986|191722833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0354|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0354
95883685|NCT00518986|191722834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7 after baseline||||0.3854
95883686|NCT00518986|191722835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were defined as subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0145
95883687|NCT00518986|191722836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders were patients with worst fatigue scores \< 7||||0.6475
95883688|NCT00518986|191722837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with worst fatigue score \< 7||||0.0118
95883689|NCT00518986|191722838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3483||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from the Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are subjects with a worst fatigue score of \< 7||||0.3483
95883690|NCT00518986|191722839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0879|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0879
95883691|NCT00518986|191722840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0277
95883692|NCT00518986|191722841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1245|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1245
95883693|NCT00518986|191722842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0305
95883694|NCT00518986|191722843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0129
95883695|NCT00518986|191722844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0308
95883696|NCT00518986|191722845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0679|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0679
95883697|NCT00518986|191722846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0153|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0153
95883698|NCT00518986|191722847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0296|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0296
95883699|NCT00518986|191722848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0107|||||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0107
95883700|NCT00518986|191722849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as patients with a total score on FOSQ \> 17.9||||0.0100
95883701|NCT00518986|191722850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0854||95.0||||P-value for treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0854
95883702|NCT00518986|191722851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with a total score \> 17.9||||0.0027
95883703|NCT00518986|191722852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0189||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects who had a total score of \> 17.9||||0.0189
95883704|NCT00518986|191722853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from a Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Responders are defined as subjects with total score \> 17.9||||0.0240
95883705|NCT00518986|191722854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.3320
95883706|NCT00518986|191722855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.8930
95883707|NCT00518986|191722856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1774
95883708|NCT00518986|191722857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1000
95883709|NCT00518986|191722858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.2428
95883710|NCT00518986|191722859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1816||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1816
95883711|NCT00518986|191722860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1627||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.1627
95883712|NCT00518986|191722861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0018
95883713|NCT00518986|191722862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0096
95883714|NCT00518986|191722863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group, and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.0126
95883715|NCT02454296|191722868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95883716|NCT02454296|191722869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95883717|NCT02454296|191722870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95883718|NCT03366337|191722948|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3743|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|12.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.13|6.5|<0.0001
95883719|NCT03366337|191722948|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.75|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||11.25|4.75|<0.0001
95883720|NCT03366337|191722948|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2792||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||10.16|0.76|0.0247
95883721|NCT03366337|191722948|SUPERIORITY|A formal test of mean change from baseline in eGFR ≠ 0 was conducted at Week 12.|LS Mean change from baseline|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.216||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Available data from analysis visits Week 1 to Week 12 were included. Missing data were not imputed.||||12.55|3.11|0.0030
95883722|NCT00769392|191722953|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of injection discomfort using mean pain scores for all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study.||||0.28
95883723|NCT00769392|191722954|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||single factor analysis of variance|||A comparison of discomfort of all 4 anesthesia intervention agents used in this study using mean pain scores.||||0.17
95883724|NCT02296320|191722955|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk reduction|31.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|56.8|||Poisson regression with robust variance|||The key efficacy analyses were based on 5000 mg MEDI4893 and placebo. Participants who received 2000 mg MEDI4893 were summarized descriptively.||56.8|-7.5|0.166
95883725|NCT01930123|191723027|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.98||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95883726|NCT01930123|191723028|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mild fibrosis vs. advanced fibrosis||||0.006
95883727|NCT01930123|191723029|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|56.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.09
95883728|NCT02899793|191723032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||Subgroup difference in ORRs||||0.024
95883729|NCT00729651|191723044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Primary efficacy endpoint was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.08|0.00|<0.0001
95883730|NCT00729651|191723045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Least squares mean is mean of serum PTH percentage changes adjusted serum PTH level at baseline.||||||0.0091
95883731|NCT00729651|191723046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.01|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|It was analyzed by a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline vitamin D level as covariate.|Mantel-Haenszel estimator of the common odds ratio was calculated by using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for subjects' proportions with vitamin D deficiency changes at 16 weeks (visit 4) from baseline (visit 1) between treatment groups.|||0.04|0.01|<0.0001
95883732|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.5||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-58.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-58.00|-78.00|0.0275
95883733|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-44.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-44.00|-65.00|0.025
95883734|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-32.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-47.00|0.0136
95883735|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.5||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-9.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-9.00|-62.00|0.0136
95883736|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-38.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-38.00|-70.00|0.025
95883737|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-66.0||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-61.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.00|-68.00|0.0119
95883738|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-15.5||||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|17.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||17.00|-38.00|0.2667
95883739|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-68.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-59.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-59.00|-74.00|0.0238
95883740|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-56.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-39.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.00|-65.00|0.0007
95883741|NCT03310021|191723048|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-35.0||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-24.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-24.00|-53.00|0.0121
95883742|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-80.0||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-83.00|0.0256
95883743|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-67.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-67.00|-97.00|0.025
95883744|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-37.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|5.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||5.00|-66.00|0.074
95883745|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-10.5||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|10.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||10.00|-59.00|0.1066
95883746|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-71.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.00|-87.00|0.0219
95883747|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-78.0||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-74.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-74.0|-83.00|0.0262
95883748|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-50.0||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|0.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||0.00|-65.00|0.0412
95883749|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-89.5||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-77.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-77.00|-93.00|0.0269
95883750|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-84.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|-69.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-69.00|-86.00|0.0026
95883751|NCT03310021|191723049|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.0||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-57.0|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-57.00|-76.00|0.0181
95883752|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.06||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.99|-71.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-71.96|-92.99|0.0282
95883753|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-69.15||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.91|-48.64|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.64|-96.91|0.0282
95883754|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-57.39||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.07|-40.03|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-40.03|-72.07|0.0085
95883755|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.96||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-25.5|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-25.50|-80.42|0.0085
95883756|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-100.25||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|-84.48|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-84.48|-133.08|0.0282
95883757|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-79.87||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.36|-65.74|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.74|-86.36|0.0282
95883758|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-65.02||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.54|-39.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-39.17|-89.54|0.0085
95883759|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-91.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.88|-60.83|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-60.83|-128.88|0.0282
95883760|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-81.49||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.05|-65.96|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-65.96|-91.05|0.0034
95883761|NCT03310021|191723050|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-58.47||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.86|-46.12|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-46.12|-110.86|0.0189
95883762|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.39||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.48|-52.62|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-52.62|-66.48|0.0282
95883763|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.26||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-26.94|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-26.94|-70.34|0.0282
95883764|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.76||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.14|-29.76|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-29.76|-46.14|0.0085
95883765|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-36.82||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.81|-20.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-20.46|-55.81|0.0085
95883766|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-61.67||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.82|-43.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-43.78|-75.82|0.0282
95883767|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-67.63||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-61.99|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-61.99|-77.40|0.0282
95883768|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-40.33||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.77|-11.17|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-11.17|-59.77|0.0085
95883769|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-59.18||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.02|-48.14|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-48.14|-101.02|0.0282
95883770|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-54.63||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.14|-41.19|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-41.19|-59.14|0.0027
95883771|NCT03310021|191723051|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|-38.14||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-15.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||-15.37|-65.78|0.0189
95883772|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|965.09||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|474.48|1377.35|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1377.35|474.48|0.0282
95883773|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1127.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|769.46|1575.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1575.02|769.46|0.0282
95883774|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|574.89||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|307.65|1175.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1175.28|307.65|0.0085
95883775|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|715.34||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|535.38|836.4|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||836.40|535.38|0.0085
95883776|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1141.17||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|964.03|1736.78|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1736.78|964.03|0.0282
95883777|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1198.83||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|988.82|1670.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1670.30|988.82|0.0282
95883778|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|721.21||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.92|1108.92|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1108.92|585.92|0.0085
95883779|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1204.62||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1001.72|1471.45|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1471.45|1001.72|0.0282
95883780|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1180.5||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|857.21|1296.02|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1296.02|857.21|0.0027
95883781|NCT03310021|191723052|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|976.59||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|585.99|1498.37|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1498.37|585.99|0.0189
95883782|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|826.9||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|505.4|1362.11|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1362.11|505.40|0.0282
95883783|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1125.7||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|873.87|1552.77|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1552.77|873.87|0.0282
95883784|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|538.84||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|291.2|1077.46|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1077.46|291.20|0.0085
95883785|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|687.57||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|500.92|902.73|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||902.73|500.92|0.0085
95883786|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1012.45||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|859.08|1352.05|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1352.05|859.08|0.0282
95883787|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|1057.27||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|818.96|1634.3|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1634.30|818.96|0.0282
95883788|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|630.81||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|421.78|1124.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1124.28|421.78|0.0085
95883789|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|925.84||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|663.74|1216.28|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1216.28|663.74|0.0282
95883790|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|871.11||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|631.67|1051.06|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1051.06|631.67|0.0027
95883791|NCT03310021|191723053|SUPERIORITY||Hodges lehman Location shift|874.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|637.25|1412.21|||2-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||1412.21|637.25|0.0189
95883792|NCT01269463|191723124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95883793|NCT01269463|191723125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95883794|NCT00279305|191723126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0699|0.348|||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||0.348|-0.0699|0.05
95883795|NCT02674529|191723169|OTHER|This was a mechanistic trial and non-inferiority or equivalence analysis were not performed.|regression coefficient|-1.29864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Drug (antidepressant vs. placebo) prediction of changes in mood as measured by the MADRS scores.||||||0.58
95883796|NCT02674529|191723169|OTHER||r|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation|Change in MADRS after 8 weeks correlation with brain responses during the baseline fMRI task.||||||0.05
95883797|NCT02674529|191723170|OTHER|This is a mechanistic trial, we did not perform non-inferiority or equivalence analysis.|regression coefficient|-1.4328918|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8
95883798|NCT02674529|191723171|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The resulting voxel-wise parametric maps are thresholded with height and extent values generated by Monte Carlo simulations with 3dClustSim to protect against overall type I error at p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||At the group-level, a random-effects analysis determines the main effects of the regressors of interest (e.g., high vs. low expectancy) resulting in statistical parametric maps (t or F statistics). To control for potential confounders, sex and depression severity will be entered as covariates in statistical models.||||<0.05
95883799|NCT03761277|191723176|NON_INFERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit is non-inferior to VAS at Baseline, i.e., the change in pain intensity is not greater than 0 by more than 10 points from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the non-inferiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and the upper 97.5% confidence limit are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1||< 0.001
95883800|NCT03761277|191723176|SUPERIORITY|This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit, with change calculated as 6-Month - Baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-7.1|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||This analysis was to demonstrate pain intensity scores (VAS) at the 6-Month Visit are less than VAS at Baseline, i.e., the reduction in pain intensity is less than 0 from Baseline to the 6-Month Visit.|Due to non-normality, the superiority test was conducted using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, rather than a one-sample t-test. Mean reduction in VAS and 95% confidence interval are presented, but the change from baseline was evaluated using non-parametric analysis methods.|-7.1|-22.7|< 0.001
95883801|NCT02483520|191723191|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.03||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||2.08|-2.02|.977
95883802|NCT02483520|191723192|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.22||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-2.09|.812
95883803|NCT02483520|191723195|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-1.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.64|-4.64|.343
95883804|NCT02483520|191723196|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-4.79||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||-1.08|-8.51|.012
95883805|NCT02483520|191723197|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|0.77||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||1.47|0.07|.033
95883806|NCT02483520|191723200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.211
95883807|NCT02483520|191723200|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||<.001
95883808|NCT02483520|191723201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.476
95883809|NCT02483520|191723201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.005
95883810|NCT02483520|191723202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for differences between mean group changes using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at 3 months||||.677
95883811|NCT02483520|191723202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p-values were calculated for within- group changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank test between baseline and 3 months||||.020
95883812|NCT02483520|191723203|SUPERIORITY||LSM Estimate|-0.62||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models were fitted to changes in outcomes with SAS Procedure Mixed. Efficacy of the FamTechCare intervention versus attention control was expressed as the model-estimated difference between the groups on mean change from baseline to 3 months. Burden, Depression, Sleep disturbance, Competence, Desire to institutionalize, Reaction to memory symptoms, Reaction to depression symptoms, Reaction to disruptive symptoms were included in the model.||0.94|-2.18|.432
95883813|NCT02483520|191723204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.255
95883814|NCT00411645|191723209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.424|1.92||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|||1.920|0.424|0.789
95883815|NCT00411645|191723210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.721||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|1.008||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||1.008|0.515|0.056
95883816|NCT00411645|191723210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.979||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.375|0.697|0.904
95883817|NCT00411645|191723210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.838||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.161||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.161|0.606|0.289
95883818|NCT00411645|191723210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.891||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.239||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.239|0.640|0.493
95883819|NCT00411645|191723211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
95883820|NCT00411645|191723211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted hazard ratio|0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||The p-value from Wald Chi-Square test for treatment effect.|Wald Chi-squared||Maribavir versus placebo; based on Cox's proportional hazards regression model: time = recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) + transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity) + treatment.|||1.06|0.65|0.130
95883821|NCT00411645|191723212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||||0.542
95883822|NCT00411645|191723212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||||0.637
95883823|NCT00411645|191723212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||||0.825
95883824|NCT00411645|191723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.669||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|0.946||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay||0.946|0.474|0.022
95883825|NCT00411645|191723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.247||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of CMV DNA PCR assay||1.247|0.617|0.468
95883826|NCT00411645|191723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.772||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|1.075||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of pp65 antigenemia assay or CMV DNA PCR assay||1.075|0.555|0.125
95883827|NCT00411645|191723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.731||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.026||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of initiation of anti-CMV therapy||1.026|0.521|0.069
95883828|NCT00411645|191723213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.913||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|2.508||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of EC-confirmed disease||2.508|0.332|0.860
95883829|NCT00411645|191723214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.835||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.411|1.693||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R-) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 12 months post-transplant||1.693|0.411|0.617
95883830|NCT00411645|191723215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.048||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.457||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||1.457|0.754|0.7808
95883831|NCT00411645|191723215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.6946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.479||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.479|0.771|0.6946
95883832|NCT00411645|191723216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.375||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 100 days post-transplant||2.375|0.592|0.6304
95883833|NCT00411645|191723216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.066||The p-value is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for recipient CMV serostatus (R+ or R -) and transplant type (myeloablative or non-myeloablative/reduced intensity).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio for maribavir versus placebo|Analysis of 6 months post-transplant||1.066|0.495|0.1019
95883834|NCT01697566|191723281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Body Weight||||0.006
95883835|NCT01697566|191723281|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fat Mass||||<0.001
95883836|NCT01697566|191723283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
95883837|NCT04518293|191723285|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).|LS Means Difference|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.774|-4.107|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LS means (LSM) difference (95% CI) in home seated SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.107|-6.774|<.0001
95971025|NCT01190514|191915348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|105.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.04|86.94|
95971026|NCT01190514|191915348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||105.64|97.17|
95883838|NCT04518293|191723285|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.723|-1.251|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.251|-3.723|<.0001
95883839|NCT04518293|191723285|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.758|-3.091|||MIANALYZE procedure|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.091|-5.758|<.0001
95883840|NCT04518293|191723286|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.863|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.307|-3.902|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 between dual-TA arms.||-3.902|-7.307|<.0001
95883841|NCT04518293|191723286|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.212||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.718|-1.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.933|-6.718|0.0005
95883842|NCT04518293|191723286|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using a MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.837|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.984|-4.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-4.680|-7.984|<.0001
95883843|NCT04518293|191723287|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.703|-3.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-3.317|-6.703|<.0001
95883844|NCT04518293|191723287|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.700|-5.293|0.0002
95883845|NCT04518293|191723287|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.965|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.251|-3.444|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.444|-7.251|<.0001
95883846|NCT04518293|191723288|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.692|-2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.757|-4.692|<.0001
95883847|NCT04518293|191723288|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.897|-2.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-2.128|-4.897|<.0001
95883848|NCT04518293|191723288|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.665|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.812|-3.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.189|-5.812|<.0001
95883849|NCT04518293|191723289|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.392|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-1.469|-3.392|<.0001
95883850|NCT04518293|191723289|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.371|-1.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.201|-3.371|<.0001
95883851|NCT04518293|191723289|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.882|-2.664|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in clinic DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.664|-4.882|<.0001
95883852|NCT04518293|191723290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.63|19.487|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.487|5.630|0.0003
95883853|NCT04518293|191723290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.392|20.394|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||20.394|6.392|0.0001
95883854|NCT04518293|191723290|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.812|28.013|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||28.013|13.812|<.0001
95883855|NCT04518293|191723291|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.31||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.044|17.535|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||17.535|3.044|0.0044
95883856|NCT04518293|191723291|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.08||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|15.373|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.373|0.804|0.0262
95883857|NCT04518293|191723291|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.201|25.746|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.746|11.201|<.0001
95971027|NCT01190514|191915348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for AUC48 fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|108.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|117.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed AUC48: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||117.01|101.10|
95971028|NCT01190514|191915350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.37|101.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fasted (test); DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||101.20|89.37|
95883858|NCT04518293|191723292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.707|22.837|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.837|9.707|<.0001
95883859|NCT04518293|191723292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.03||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.982|18.658|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||18.658|4.982|0.0004
95883860|NCT04518293|191723292|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.412|24.432|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.432|11.412|<.0001
95883861|NCT04518293|191723293|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.45||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|16.433|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||16.433|3.993|0.0007
95883862|NCT04518293|191723293|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.337|15.058|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.058|2.337|0.0046
95883863|NCT04518293|191723293|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.792|18.073|||Wald test|||||18.073|5.792|<.0001
95883864|NCT04518293|191723294|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.495|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.086|-5.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.144|-7.086|<.0001
95883865|NCT04518293|191723294|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.543|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-1.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.932|-4.060|<.0001
95883866|NCT04518293|191723294|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.274|-3.912|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.912|-6.274|<.0001
95883867|NCT04518293|191723295|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.364|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.069|-2.632|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.632|-4.069|<.0001
95883868|NCT04518293|191723295|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.200|-2.998|<.0001
95883869|NCT04518293|191723295|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.499|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.617|-2.649|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.649|-4.617|<.0001
95883870|NCT04518293|191723296|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.311|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.137|-2.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-2.908|-4.137|<.0001
95883871|NCT04518293|191723296|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.361|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.803|-1.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.376|-2.803|<.0001
95883872|NCT04518293|191723296|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.446|-2.713|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in home DBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.713|-4.446|<.0001
95883873|NCT04518293|191723297|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-5.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.983|-4.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-4.169|-6.983|<.0001
95883874|NCT04518293|191723297|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.218|-0.607|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-0.607|-3.218|0.0043
95883875|NCT04518293|191723297|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 12 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.214|-2.274|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-2.274|-5.214|<.0001
95883876|NCT04518293|191723298|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TA at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-6.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.546|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.324|-5.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||-5.168|-7.324|<.0001
95883877|NCT04518293|191723298|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-TI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.941|-1.507|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||-1.507|-3.941|<.0001
95883878|NCT04518293|191723298|OTHER|The difference between GMRx2 and dual-AI at Week 6 was estimated using MMRM.|LS Means Difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.537|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.489|-3.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LSM difference (95% CI) in trough (i.e. before morning dose) home SBP reduction was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-3.368|-5.489|<.0001
95883879|NCT04518293|191723299|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.749|21.824|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||21.824|7.749|<.0001
95883880|NCT04518293|191723299|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.46||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|15.501|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||15.501|1.580|0.0146
95883881|NCT04518293|191723299|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.953|23.171|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||23.171|8.953|<.0001
95883882|NCT04518293|191723300|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.778|25.226|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.226|10.778|<.0001
95883883|NCT04518293|191723300|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.64||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|13.926|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||13.926|-0.613|0.0674
95883884|NCT04518293|191723300|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.839|25.392|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.392|10.839|<.0001
95883885|NCT04518293|191723301|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.902|24.286|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||24.286|9.902|<.0001
95883886|NCT04518293|191723301|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.06||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.632|19.293|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.293|4.632|0.0010
95883887|NCT04518293|191723301|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.622|29.796|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 12 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||29.796|15.622|<.0001
95883888|NCT04518293|191723302|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.579|25.124|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TA at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||25.124|11.579|<.0001
95883889|NCT04518293|191723302|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.22||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.963|19.123|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and TI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||19.123|4.963|0.0005
95883890|NCT04518293|191723302|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|22.914|||Wald test|||The difference between GMRx2 and AI at Week 6 was estimated using Generalized Estimating Equation.||22.914|9.060|<.0001
95883891|NCT04518293|191723303|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.529|2.768||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.768|-1.529|
95883892|NCT04518293|191723303|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
95883893|NCT04518293|191723303|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|2.475||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants discontinuing trial medication due to AE/SAE at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.475|-2.098|
95883894|NCT04518293|191723309|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|7.116||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||7.116|0.494|
95883895|NCT04518293|191723309|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.927|4.02||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.020|-3.927|
95883896|NCT04518293|191723309|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|6.764||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||6.764|-0.070|
95883897|NCT04518293|191723310|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.136||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.136|-0.500|
95883898|NCT04518293|191723310|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
95883899|NCT04518293|191723310|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|3.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration below 135 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.633|-2.855|
95883900|NCT04518293|191723311|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|3.129||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.129|-3.911|
95883901|NCT04518293|191723311|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|2.744||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.744|-4.519|
95883902|NCT04518293|191723311|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.228|3.647||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.647|-3.228|
95883903|NCT04518293|191723312|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.993|2.816||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.816|-3.993|
95883904|NCT04518293|191723312|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.513|4.517||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.517|-1.513|
95883905|NCT04518293|191723312|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.596|2.44||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium concentration above 145 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.440|-4.596|
95883906|NCT04518293|191723313|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|9.222||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.222|4.196|
95883907|NCT04518293|191723313|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.883|5.257||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||5.257|-1.883|
95971029|NCT01190514|191915350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|Ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|101.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.66|108.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"DVS SR 25 mg\*2 fed (test); DVS SR 50 mg fed (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||108.40|94.66|
95883908|NCT04518293|191723313|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.979|-1.6||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||-1.600|-10.979|
95883909|NCT04518293|191723314|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|5.632||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.632|0.123|
95883910|NCT04518293|191723314|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.245|4.134||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||4.134|-2.245|
95883911|NCT04518293|191723314|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.968|0.819||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration below 3.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||0.819|-6.968|
95883912|NCT04518293|191723315|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.231|-0.863|
95883913|NCT04518293|191723315|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.897|2.231||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.231|-0.897|
95883914|NCT04518293|191723315|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|1.913||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.913|-1.494|
95883915|NCT04518293|191723316|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.931|1.149||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.149|-1.931|
95883916|NCT04518293|191723316|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|1.143||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.143|-1.979|
95883917|NCT04518293|191723316|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.453||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum potassium concentration above 5.5 mmol/l at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.453|-1.374|
95883918|NCT04518293|191723317|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.014|2.087||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||2.087|-2.014|
95883919|NCT04518293|191723317|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
95883920|NCT04518293|191723317|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.015|2.633||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.633|-1.015|
95883921|NCT04518293|191723318|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.501|1.385||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||1.385|-2.501|
95883922|NCT04518293|191723318|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|1.108||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.108|-3.078|
95883923|NCT04518293|191723318|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.571|1.37||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with eGFR drop of over 30% at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.370|-2.571|
95883924|NCT04518293|191723319|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|10.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.422|15.138||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||15.138|5.422|
95883925|NCT04518293|191723319|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.776|8.49||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||8.490|-2.776|
95883926|NCT04518293|191723319|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.807|4.174||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||4.174|-7.807|
95883927|NCT04518293|191723320|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|9.867||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||9.867|0.531|
95883928|NCT04518293|191723320|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|9.397||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||9.397|-0.136|
95883929|NCT04518293|191723320|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.299|3.567||||||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with serum sodium \<135mmol/L or \>145 mmol/L, and/or serum potassium \<3.5 mmol/L or \>5.5mmol/L at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.567|-7.299|
95883930|NCT04518293|191723321|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.825|3.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.019|-3.825|0.9677
95883931|NCT04518293|191723321|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.35||||0.1952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|1.125|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.125|-6.550|0.1952
95883932|NCT04518293|191723321|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.53||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.642|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||2.642|-4.428|0.7453
95883933|NCT04518293|191723322|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.12||||0.9415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.657|3.222|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.222|-3.657|0.9415
95883934|NCT04518293|191723322|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.799|1.019|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||1.019|-6.799|0.1719
95883935|NCT04518293|191723322|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.16||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|1.326|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypotension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||1.326|-6.380|0.2342
95883936|NCT04518293|191723323|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.87||||0.3548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.316|3.215|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||3.215|-9.316|0.3548
95883937|NCT04518293|191723323|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.94||||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.356|6.8|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||6.800|-5.356|0.7529
95883938|NCT04518293|191723323|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.32||||0.4563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.791|3.772|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 6 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||3.772|-8.791|0.4563
95883939|NCT04518293|191723324|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.063|5.859|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TA arms.||5.859|-6.063|0.9691
95883940|NCT04518293|191723324|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.59||||0.2454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.018|2.462|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-TI arms.||2.462|-10.018|0.2454
95883941|NCT04518293|191723324|OTHER|95% CI for risk difference utilized Newcombe estimation method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.33||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.583|5.488|||Wald test|||The Risk difference (95% CI) in percentage of participants with orthostatic hypertension at Week 12 was calculated between GMRx2 and dual-AI arms.||5.488|-6.583|0.9130
95883942|NCT01370356|191723333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|12.53||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Assuming true CA rate of 6.9% for placebo and 17.2% for varenicline (odds ratio ≥ 2.8), a study randomizing 1404 participants (1:1 ratio) has ≥90% power to detect a difference between the two groups. Analysis was done using a logistic regression model; treatment effect as explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including treatment-by-center interaction.||12.53|6.09|<0.0001
95883943|NCT01370356|191723334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|7.61||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||7.61|4.21|<0.0001
95883944|NCT01370356|191723335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.5||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used. A fixed-sequence procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity. Hierarchy of comparisons: 1) 10-week CA for Weeks 15 - 24, 2) CA for Weeks 21 - 24, 3) CA for Weeks 21 - 52.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||5.50|2.94|<0.0001
95883945|NCT01370356|191723336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|12.51||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 12. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||12.51|6.03|<0.0001
95883946|NCT01370356|191723336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|5.98||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 24. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||5.98|3.51|<0.0001
95883947|NCT01370356|191723336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.44||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for Week 52. Analysis was done using logistic regression model with treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. The interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model with treatment-by-center interaction. The inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of treatment by center interaction.||3.44|2.05|<0.0001
95971030|NCT01190514|191915350|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CIs for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for Cmax fell wholly within (80%, 125%).|ratio (%) of adjusted geometric means|115.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.59|122.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference and the 90% CI for the difference were exponentiated to provide an estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (test/reference).|"Food effect DVS SR 50 mg fed (test) versus DVS SR 50 mg fasted (reference).~Natural log transformed Cmax: mixed models analysis with sequence, period, treatment (formulation by food status) as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect."||122.94|108.59|
95883948|NCT01370356|191723337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.47||Statistical test was 2-sided and a 0.05 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model including treatment effect as the explanatory variable and investigative center as covariate. In addition, the interaction effect was tested using an expanded logistic regression model including the treatment-by-center interaction. However, the inferences reported were based on the logistic regression model including only the main effects of treatment and center, regardless of the significance of the treatment by center interaction.||3.47|2.05|<0.0001
95883949|NCT02446483|191723338|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|101.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.81|107.15||||||||107.15|95.81|
95883950|NCT02446483|191723339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.54|105.28||||||Comparison of T- rabeprazole 20 mg and R- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-t.||105.28|92.54|
95883951|NCT02446483|191723339|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point Estimate Percent|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.81|104.71||||||Comparison of Treatment A- rabeprazole 20 mg and Treatment B- rabeprazole 20 mg for AUC0-infinity.||104.71|91.81|
95883952|NCT02446483|191723340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|||||||0.0029
95883953|NCT00545662|191723379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression estimated global OR. GEE accounted for correlations of the scales. Models adjusted for site \& injury severity.|The odds in the citicoline group were compared to the odds in the placebo group.|"Null hypothesis: The placebo and citicoline groups do not differ at 90-days on the Core Battery~Power:~1. Two sided type I error of 0.05~2. 85% power~3. Expected OR=1.40 for the global statistic~4. Response rate in the control group~5. Correlations among the nine measures were accounted for. Response rates for the whole sample were a weighted average of the rates provided by TBI severity.~1240 participants were required to detect an OR \>= 1.4 for the global statistic."||1.14|0.83|0.76
95883954|NCT01146418|191723380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.0|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.0|-6.5|
95883955|NCT01146418|191723381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.4|||Clopper-Pearson method|Difference calculated using generalized linear model including covariates for treatment group and age class as stratified (≤38 yrs vs \>38 yrs)||||3.4|-5.7|
95883956|NCT03845985|191723382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.838||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.838
95883957|NCT03845985|191723383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.620
95971031|NCT00252733|191915354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.821||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.001|||Log Rank|Generalized||||1.001|0.673|0.0508
95971032|NCT00706433|191915371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.7680
95971033|NCT00706433|191915372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7975||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7975
95971034|NCT00706433|191915373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
95971035|NCT00706433|191915374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|Rank transformed data.||Null hypothesis: equal median percent changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||>0.10
95883958|NCT03845985|191723384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.713
95883959|NCT03845985|191723385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.509
95883960|NCT03845985|191723386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.491
95883961|NCT03845985|191723387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.715
95883962|NCT03845985|191723388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.665
95883963|NCT03845985|191723389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.875
95883964|NCT03845985|191723390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Risk and Aggression/Liquid Courage/Sociability Subscale||||.610
95883965|NCT03845985|191723390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Self-Perception/Cognitive and Behavioral Impairment Subscale||||.658
95883966|NCT03845985|191723390|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Sexuality Subscale||||1.000
95883967|NCT03845985|191723390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the Tension Reduction Subscale||||.007
95883968|NCT03845985|191723391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.407
95883969|NCT03845985|191723392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.893
95883970|NCT03845985|191723393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709||||||Analysis was significantly underpowered.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.709
95883971|NCT03926169|191723409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|6.0||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.8|22.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.8|-10.8|0.422
95883972|NCT03926169|191723409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|1.3||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.4|18.1||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.1|-15.4|0.858
95883973|NCT03926169|191723410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-3.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|15.9||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.9|-21.8|0.725
95971036|NCT00706433|191915376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA with baseline total inflammatory lesion counts serving as the covariate.||Null hypothesis: equal median changes from baseline in total inflammatory lesion counts among the treatments||||0.1103
95883974|NCT03926169|191723410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|8.8||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|27.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.8|-10.3|0.301
95883975|NCT03926169|191723411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|3.7||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.5|21.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.8|-14.5|0.650
95883976|NCT03926169|191723411|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|12.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.7|31.3||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|-6.7|0.147
95883977|NCT03926169|191723412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-6.5||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.8|8.8||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.8|-21.8|0.342
95883978|NCT03926169|191723412|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Response Rate Difference (%)|-10.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-25.3|4.2||Across the strata, 97.5% confidence interval for adjusted difference and P-value were calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the actual values stratification factors under a two-sided alpha level 0.025 for each dose.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.2|-25.3|0.108
95883979|NCT03926169|191723413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.179|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.5|0.9||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.9|-3.5|0.179
95883980|NCT03926169|191723413|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.105|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.8|0.6||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.6|-3.8|0.105
95883981|NCT03926169|191723414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3385||0.727|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.646|0.883||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.883|-0.646|0.727
95883982|NCT03926169|191723414|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3273||0.963|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.755|0.724||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.724|-0.755|0.963
95883983|NCT03926169|191723415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2941||0.886|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.622|0.706||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.706|-0.622|0.886
95883984|NCT03926169|191723415|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.409|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.408|0.879||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.879|-0.408|0.409
95971037|NCT00706433|191915377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7228||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Null hypothesis: equal success rates.||||0.7228
95971038|NCT00706433|191915378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3416||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates||||0.3416
95971039|NCT00706433|191915379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5759||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5759
95883985|NCT03926169|191723416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.434|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.977|0.473||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.473|-0.977|0.434
95883986|NCT03926169|191723416|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3123||0.813|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.779|0.631||Mixed-effect model repeat measures analysis with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor and baseline measurement in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used.|mixed-effect model repeat measures|||||0.631|-0.779|0.813
95883987|NCT03334539|191723417|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.12|0.3378
95883988|NCT03334539|191723417|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12||||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35||P-value was calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.10|0.2883
95971040|NCT00706433|191915380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4754||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4754
95883989|NCT03334539|191723417|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates|ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.9293
95883990|NCT03334539|191723418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.7|0.1473
95883991|NCT03334539|191723418|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2321
95883992|NCT03334539|191723418|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value calculated using a model with treatment, baseline score, and site as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.4|0.8217
95883993|NCT04974697|191723496|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 40 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|58.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.9|65.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test superiority for myope.||65.4|50.9|
95883994|NCT04974697|191723496|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold 32 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.2|62.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample means t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power, that 18 subjects were required to test superiority for hyperope.||62.8|47.2|
95883995|NCT04974697|191723497|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold 0.00 logMAR for Distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|-0.091|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 42 subjects were required to test superiority for distance (4m).||-0.091|-0.167|
95883996|NCT04974697|191723497|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Intermediate.|Least-square Mean|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 7 subjects were required to test superiority for intermediate (64 cm).||-0.008|-0.084|
95883997|NCT04974697|191723497|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the Test lens was concluded if the upper credible limit of the mean was below the pre-defined threshold +0.17 logMAR for Near.|Least-square Mean|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0166|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated by using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% and at least 80% statistical power , 36 subjects were required to test superiority for near (40 cm).||0.105|0.029|
95971041|NCT00706433|191915381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4096
95971042|NCT00706433|191915382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5812||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5812
95971043|NCT00706433|191915383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8679
95971044|NCT00706433|191915384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3666||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3666
95971045|NCT00706433|191915385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
95971046|NCT00706433|191915386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95883998|NCT04974697|191723498|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|3.1|
95883999|NCT04974697|191723498|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.2|-1.2|
95884000|NCT04974697|191723499|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||13.7|0.0|
95884001|NCT04974697|191723499|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||11.3|-4.7|
95884002|NCT04974697|191723500|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for myope.|Least-square Mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.4|5.0|
95884003|NCT04974697|191723500|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the test lens was concluded if the lower credible limit of the mean was above the pre-defined threshold -5 points for hyperope.|Least-square Mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||The study was only powered for the primary endpoint.||17.3|2.8|
95884004|NCT03302234|191723526|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.74156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.37||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|||1.37|0.85|0.74156
95884005|NCT03302234|191723527|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor history.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||1.30|0.86|0.71720
95884006|NCT03302234|191723528|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1||||0.50644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|One-sided p-value for testing|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site and predominant tumor history.|||8.1|-8.2|0.50644
95884007|NCT03302234|191723530|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9815||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7386|1.3042|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, and predominant tumor histology.|||1.3042|0.7386|0.9112
95884008|NCT03302234|191723533|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.42||||0.8151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.12|||cLDA Model|Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) Model|Based on a cLDA model with PRO scores as response variable, with covariates for treatment by time interaction, and stratification factors (ECOG, geographic region of the enrolling site, \& predominant tumor histology) as covariates.|||3.12|-3.96|0.8151
95884009|NCT02010775|191723547|OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LS) Mean Difference|-3.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-2.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-2.19|-5.58|< 0.001
95884010|NCT02010775|191723547|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-4.62|-8.02|<0.001
95884011|NCT02010775|191723547|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|-5.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-5.22|-8.56|<0.001
95884012|NCT02010775|191723547|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.35|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, and baseline MMPS grade as factors.||||-6.00|-9.35|<0.001
95884013|NCT02010775|191723548|OTHER||Percentage Difference|31.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|53.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||53.3|9.8|0.008
95971047|NCT00706433|191915387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971048|NCT00706433|191915388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884014|NCT02010775|191723548|OTHER||Percentage Difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|67.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||67.8|28.6|< 0.001
95971049|NCT00706433|191915389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3916||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3916
95884015|NCT02010775|191723548|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|< 0.001
95884016|NCT02010775|191723548|OTHER||Percentage Difference|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.1|72.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values for between-treatment comparisons were determined using CMH tests stratified by baseline MMPS.||||72.6|36.1|<0.001
95884017|NCT00256750|191723549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.1|9.0||||||||9.0|-1.1|
95884018|NCT00256750|191723549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.5|8.1|||||If the lower bound of the CI (belatacept-CsA) was \> -10%, then the corresponding belatacept regimen was considered non-inferior to CsA.|||8.1|-2.5|
95884019|NCT00256750|191723550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-33.3|-13.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-13.7|-33.3|<.0001
95884020|NCT00256750|191723550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-22.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-32.6|-12.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine||||-12.9|-32.6|<.0001
95884021|NCT00256750|191723551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|3.3|17.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||17.1|3.3|
95884022|NCT00256750|191723551|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens. The 20% non-inferiority margin was not met in the belatacept MI group.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|22.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||22.2|7.5|
95884023|NCT00256750|191723552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.3|18.7||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||18.7|7.3|<0.0001
95884024|NCT00256750|191723552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.9|20.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 12 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 12||20.4|8.9|<0.0001
95884025|NCT00256750|191723552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|11.5|23.4||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||23.4|11.5|<0.0001
95884026|NCT00256750|191723552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|8.5|20.5||To account for missing measured GFR due to graft loss or death, an ANOVA model on the ranks of measured GFR (with imputed missing values) at Months 24 with factor for randomization group was applied. Measured GFR missing were assigned the worst rank.|Kruskal-Wallis|Tests comparing a belatacept to CsA were based on the Kruskal-Wallis test (using a chi-square approximation of the distribution of the test statistic)|Test were conducted at a level of 0.027 (2-sided).|Time Frame = Day 1 to Month 24||20.5|8.5|<0.0001
95884027|NCT00256750|191723553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-8.5||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-17.9|0.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||0.9|-17.9|0.0581
95884028|NCT00256750|191723553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test of superiority using DerSimonian-Laird statistic at 0.027 level of significance.|Difference in Percent|-14.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-23.2|-5.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|A continuity corrected chi-square test at a significance level of 0.027 was performed.||||-5.0|-23.2|0.0010
95884029|NCT00256750|191723558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-14.6|-3.3|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-3.3|-14.6|
95884030|NCT00256750|191723558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-16.1|-5.1|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Percent treatment difference measured as Belatacept - LI minus Cyclosporine||-5.1|-16.1|
95971050|NCT00706433|191915390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8387||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8387
95971051|NCT00706433|191915391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1489||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1489
95971052|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
95971053|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4143||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4143
95971054|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
95971055|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0003
95971056|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
95971057|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
95971058|NCT00706433|191915392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9700
95971059|NCT00706433|191915393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2544||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2544
95971060|NCT00706433|191915394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4321||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4321
95971061|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0317
95971062|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5818||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5818
95971063|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0395||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0395
95971064|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7426||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7426
95971065|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0029
95971066|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2142||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2142
95971067|NCT00706433|191915395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0781||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0781
95971068|NCT00706433|191915396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9886||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9886
95971069|NCT00706433|191915397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6907||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6907
95971070|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0047
95971071|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6116||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6116
95971072|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0209
95971073|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0513||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0513
95884031|NCT00256750|191723562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.3|20.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.3|10.3|
95884032|NCT00256750|191723562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|10.1|20.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 12||20.1|10.1|
95884033|NCT00256750|191723562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.1|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.1|12.0|
95884034|NCT00256750|191723562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|12.0|23.3|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 24||23.3|12.0|
95884035|NCT00256750|191723562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|15.4|27.4|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||27.4|15.4|
95884036|NCT00256750|191723562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|14.8|26.9|||||ANOVA model: GFR = treatment|Month 36||26.9|14.8|
95971074|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0019
95884037|NCT00256750|191723564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.7||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.6|0.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||0.5|-12.6|0.0687
95884038|NCT00256750|191723564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.4825|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.2|4.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 12||4.4|-10.2|0.4825
95884039|NCT00256750|191723564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.1||||0.1267|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.3|1.5||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||1.5|-12.3|0.1267
95884040|NCT00256750|191723564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.2||||0.6405|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.8|5.4||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 24||5.4|-9.8|0.6405
95884041|NCT00256750|191723564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-4.6||||0.2043|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-12.0|2.5|||Chi-squared|Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.||Month 36||2.5|-12.0|0.2043
95884042|NCT00256750|191723564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|97.3|-8.8|7.1||Normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise, exact method is used.|Chi-squared|||Month 36||7.1|-8.8|0.9481
95884043|NCT00256750|191723565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.31|0.74|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.74|0.31|0.0002
95884044|NCT00256750|191723565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.38|0.92|||Chi-squared||Odds ratio is estimated by a cumulative logit model.|||0.92|0.38|0.0092
95884045|NCT00256750|191723566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-67.6|43.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||43.2|-67.6|
95884046|NCT00256750|191723566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-72.3|52.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||52.2|-72.3|
95884047|NCT00256750|191723567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-7.51|5.23|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||5.23|-7.51|
95884048|NCT00256750|191723567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.01|4.15|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 12||4.15|-9.01|
95971075|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0089
95971076|NCT00706433|191915398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5260
95971077|NCT00706433|191915399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7820
95884049|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.4|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 12||-3.3|-11.4|
95884050|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.1|-2.0||||||Systolic, Month 12||-2.0|-10.1|
95884051|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.8|-0.7||||||Diastolic, Month 12||-0.7|-5.8|
95884052|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.1|0.0||||||Diastolic, Month 12||0.0|-5.1|
95884053|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.2|-0.6||||||Systolic, Month 24||-0.6|-9.2|
95884054|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-9.9|-1.1||||||Systolic, Month 24||-1.1|-9.9|
95884055|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-4.4|0.5||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.5|-4.4|
95884056|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.0|0.1||||||Diastolic, Month 24||0.1|-5.0|
95884057|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-10.0|-1.6||||||Systolic, Month 36||-1.6|-10.0|
95884058|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-11.7|-3.3||||||Systolic, Month 36||-3.3|-11.7|
95884059|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.4|-0.4||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.4|-5.4|
95884060|NCT00256750|191723568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.0|-0.9||||||Diastolic, Month 36||-0.9|-6.0|
95884061|NCT00256750|191723569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|17.1|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||17.1|-2.9|
95971078|NCT00706433|191915400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4965||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4965
95971079|NCT00706433|191915401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0728
95971080|NCT00706433|191915402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5480
95884062|NCT00256750|191723569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.6|12.9|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|At Month 12||12.9|-6.6|
95971081|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0301||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0301
95971082|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0564||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0564
95971083|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.447||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4470
95884063|NCT00256750|191723570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|7.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.79|16.71|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||16.71|-2.79|
95884064|NCT00256750|191723570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-5.86|13.35|||||A continuity-corrected Chi-square test at significance level 0.027 was performed for the difference between the belatacept regimen and cyclosporine|||13.35|-5.86|
95884065|NCT00256750|191723575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-21.4|1.0||||||||1.0|-21.4|
95884066|NCT00256750|191723575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-19.9|2.7||||||||2.7|-19.9|
95884067|NCT00256750|191723577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|5.0|18.2|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||18.2|5.0|
95884068|NCT00256750|191723577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens|Difference in Percent|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|9.6|23.8|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 6||23.8|9.6|
95971084|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2804||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2804
95971085|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1835
95971086|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0103
95884069|NCT00256750|191723577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|1.2|15.4|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used|Month 24||15.4|1.2|
95884070|NCT00256750|191723577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.5|23.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 24||23.0|7.5|
95884071|NCT00256750|191723577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|0.6|15.0|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||15.0|0.6|
95884072|NCT00256750|191723577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 20% margin for non-inferiority was used and provides 99% power to ascertain that the upper bound of the 97.3% 2-sided confidence intervals for the absolute difference between each belatacept regimen and cyclosporine, assuming the true acute rejection rate by 12 months is 15% for all three regimens.|Difference in Percent|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|7.0|22.6|||||For 97.3% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|Month 36||22.6|7.0|
95884073|NCT00256750|191723579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
95884074|NCT00256750|191723579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation is used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method is used.|||-0.6|-6.6|
95884075|NCT00256750|191723583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.5|5.3||||||Month 12||5.3|-6.5|
95884076|NCT00256750|191723583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-6.9|4.8||||||||4.8|-6.9|
95884077|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.6|-1.6|0.6573
95971087|NCT00706433|191915403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1319||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1319
95971088|NCT00706433|191915404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971089|NCT00706433|191915405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4378||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4378
95971090|NCT00706433|191915406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3430
95971091|NCT00706433|191915407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971092|NCT00706433|191915408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971093|NCT00706433|191915409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971094|NCT00706433|191915410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971095|NCT00706433|191915411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971096|NCT00706433|191915412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971097|NCT00706433|191915413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971098|NCT00706433|191915414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971099|NCT00706433|191915415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971100|NCT00706433|191915416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971101|NCT00706433|191915417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971102|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0165||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0165
95884078|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.4|0.1198
95884079|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.2|-0.1|0.0672
95884080|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.6|0.2|0.0257
95884081|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.9|-1.2|0.4146
95884082|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.4|-1.7|0.7327
95884083|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.8||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.8|0.4|0.0144
95884084|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.8||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||4.5|1.1|0.0015
95884085|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.8|0.2340
95884086|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.6||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.6|-1.7|0.6635
95884087|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.5|0.1|0.0417
95884088|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.4||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||4.4|0.9|0.0026
95884089|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.1||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.1|-0.3|0.0953
95971103|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2252||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2252
95971104|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0179
95884090|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||3.7|-0.8|0.1961
95884091|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.9||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.9|0.3|0.0191
95884092|NCT00256750|191723585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.5||Baseline observations were not used for imputations at subsequent time points.|ANOVA|ANOVA model: Component Score = treatment. Missing values were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.5|-0.1|0.0684
95884093|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.9|||ANOVA|Domain Score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||3.9|-0.2|0.0714
95884094|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.1|||ANOVA|Domain score = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 6||4.1|-0.0|0.0536
95884095|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||2.2|-1.6|0.7543
95884096|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 6||3.0|-0.8|0.2499
95884097|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.2||||0.8332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||2.3|-1.9|0.8332
95971105|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0233
95971106|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1573
95971107|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2039||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2039
95971108|NCT00706433|191915418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884098|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 6||3.4|-0.9|0.2523
95884099|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.7|-0.8|0.3018
95884100|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.6||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 6||2.3|-1.2|0.5437
95884101|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||3.6|-0.9|0.2370
95884102|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 6||4.5|-0.1|0.0588
95884103|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Physical, Month 6||4.0|-0.0|0.0502
95884104|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 6||5.6|1.5|0.0007
95971109|NCT00706433|191915419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1594||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1594
95971110|NCT00706433|191915420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5838||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5838
95884105|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.3||||0.7637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.4|-1.8|0.7637
95884106|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 6||2.5|-1.7|0.7006
95884107|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||3.4|-0.4|0.1222
95884108|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 6||4.1|0.2|0.0289
95884109|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||3.8|-0.1|0.0571
95884110|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.9||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 12||4.9|0.9|0.0042
95884111|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||3.7|0.1|0.0423
95971111|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0064
95971112|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0939||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0939
95971113|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3173
95971114|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2207||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2207
95971115|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0183
95971116|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0254
95971117|NCT00706433|191915421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971118|NCT00706433|191915422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4753||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4753
95971119|NCT00706433|191915423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1728||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1728
95971120|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0002
95971121|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5313||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.5313
95971122|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
95884112|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 12||4.1|0.4|0.0174
95884113|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||3.0|-1.1|0.3630
95884114|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.6|||ANOVA|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 12||2.6|-1.6|0.6319
95884115|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.8||||0.0503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||3.7|-0.0|0.0503
95884116|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.9||||0.3291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 12||2.8|-0.9|0.3291
95884117|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||3.1|-1.2|0.3860
95884118|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.0||||0.9672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 12||2.3|-2.2|0.9672
95971123|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0045||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0045
95971124|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0012
95971125|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0015
95884119|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.1|0.1|0.0392
95884120|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 12||4.5|0.5|0.0151
95884121|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.3978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.3978
95884122|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 12||3.5|-0.4|0.1263
95971126|NCT00706433|191915424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884123|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.2|0.4|0.0160
95884124|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 12||4.5|0.7|0.0075
95971127|NCT00706433|191915425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0892||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0892
95971128|NCT00706433|191915426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4575||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4575
95971129|NCT00706433|191915427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8848
95971130|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0008
95971131|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4091||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4091
95971132|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0176
95971133|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
95971134|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0020
95971135|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0022
95971136|NCT00706433|191915428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9372||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.9372
95971137|NCT00706433|191915429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2390
95971138|NCT00706433|191915430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884125|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6990
95884126|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 24||3.5|-0.6|0.1608
95884127|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.0|0.3|0.0214
95884128|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.00886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 24||4.4|0.6|0.00886
95884129|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.2555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||3.3|-0.9|0.2555
95884130|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 24||2.9|-1.4|0.4804
95884131|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||4.2|0.2|0.0276
95971139|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0463||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0463
95971140|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1261||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.1261
95971141|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884132|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 24||3.5|-0.4|0.1285
95884133|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.9|-0.5|0.1352
95884134|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 24||3.5|-1.0|0.2663
95884135|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||4.5|0.5|0.0164
95884136|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|3.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 24||5.9|1.9|0.0002
95884137|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||3.3|-0.7|0.1914
95884138|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.4||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 24||2.4|-1.6|0.6882
95884139|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||4.0|-0.0|0.0547
95884140|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 24||3.8|-0.3|0.0992
95884141|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.4|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||4.4|0.2|0.0339
95884142|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Bodily Pain, Month 36||3.1|-1.1|0.3572
95884143|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.3||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.2|0.3|0.0211
95884144|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.0||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|General Health, Month 36||4.0|0.0|0.0450
95971142|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971143|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0947||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0947
95971144|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0886||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0886
95971145|NCT00706433|191915431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884145|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.7|-0.7|0.1710
95884146|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.2484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.6|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Mental Health, Month 36||3.6|-0.9|0.2484
95884147|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||3.2|-0.6|0.1836
95884148|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Physical Functioning, Month 36||2.9|-1.0|0.3303
95884149|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.8|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.8|0.2|0.0299
95884150|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role Emotional, Month 36||4.2|-0.4|0.1141
95884151|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.7||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.7|0.0087
95884152|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.6||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.7|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Role-Physical, Month 36||4.7|0.6|0.0128
95884153|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||3.5|-0.5|0.1369
95884154|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.5||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Social Functioning, Month 36||2.5|-1.5|0.6331
95884155|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.3|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.3|0.1|0.0361
95884156|NCT00256750|191723586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.1||||0.0525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.2|||ANOVA|Missing data = treatment|Missing data were imputed by LOCF|Vitality, Month 36||4.2|-0.0|0.0525
95971146|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||<0.0001
95884157|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.015|-0.032|<0.0001
95884158|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|-0.011||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 6. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.011|-0.028|<0.0001
95884159|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.014||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.014|-0.031|<0.0001
95884160|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 6.||-0.017|-0.035|<0.0001
95884161|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.016|-0.032|<0.0001
95884162|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|-0.012||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 12. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.012|-0.029|<0.0001
95884163|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.017||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.017|-0.034|<0.0001
95884164|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.025|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|-0.016||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 12.||-0.016|-0.034|<0.0001
95884165|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
95884166|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|-0.007||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Distress, Month 24. For calculation of symptom distress, those symptoms that never occurred will be converted to missing values, in order to avoid anticipatory symptom distress.||-0.007|-0.024|<0.0001
95884167|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|-0.015||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.015|-0.031|<0.0001
95884168|NCT00256750|191723587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|-0.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.013||Missing data were imputed by LOCF. The ridit of the reference group is by definition 0.5.|z-test|The obtained ridits between treatment groups will be compared using z-test at 0.05 significance level for each year.||Symptom Occurrence, Month 24||-0.013|-0.030|<0.0001
95884169|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-1.2|0.4498
95884170|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 6||3.9|-0.1|0.0584
95884171|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.1||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||2.7|-0.5|0.1595
95884172|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.7||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 6||3.3|0.0|0.0457
95884173|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.6|0.1729
95884174|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 12||2.7|-1.1|0.4209
95971147|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0255||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0255
95884175|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.2|-0.0|0.0526
95884176|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 12||3.9|0.6|0.0077
95884177|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.1849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.4|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||3.4|-0.6|0.1849
95884178|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|0.8||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 24||2.8|-1.3|0.4633
95884179|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.4||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.0|-0.3|0.0971
95971148|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0576
95971149|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0686||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0686
95971150|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0004
95971151|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0005
95971152|NCT00706433|191915432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884180|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.2||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 24||3.8|0.5|0.0102
95884181|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|2.5||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.5|0.4|0.0186
95884182|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.9||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.0|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Mental Component Score; Month 36||4.0|-0.2|0.0775
95884183|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.6||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||3.3|-0.2|0.0768
95884184|NCT00256750|191723588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Value)|1.2||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted mean based on an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor, and baseline value as covariate.|Statistical tests comparing each belatacept regimen to the CsA regimen were conducted at a significance level of 0.05. Subjects with only baseline observations were excluded from these summaries.|Physical Component Score; Month 36||2.9|-0.6|0.1876
95884185|NCT00256750|191723590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-1.3|10.1||||||Month 24||10.1|-1.3|
95884186|NCT00256750|191723590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.2|9.6||||||Month 24||9.6|-2.2|
95884187|NCT00256750|191723590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.9|9.8||||||Month 36||9.8|-2.9|
95884188|NCT00256750|191723590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 10% for the co-primary endpoint of participant and graft survival was used. Determination of a margin for non-inferiority based on 'preservation of benefit' is not feasible, given the low rate of patient death and/or graft loss in the first year post-transplantation, and the absence of published, adequately sized, parallel-group trials with which to assess the effect of CsA on patient death and/or graft loss in the setting of MMF/steroids/basiliximab.|Difference in Percent|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|97.3|-2.8|10.0||||||||10.0|-2.8|
95884189|NCT00256750|191723591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8||||||Month 12||12.8|-1.0|
95884190|NCT00256750|191723591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.9||||||Month 12||18.9|4.2|
95884191|NCT00256750|191723591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.1||||||Month 24||9.1|-5.5|
95884192|NCT00256750|191723591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|17.6||||||Month 24||17.6|1.9|
95884193|NCT00256750|191723591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|8.4||||||Month 36||8.4|-6.6|
95884194|NCT00256750|191723591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|16.4||||||Month 36||16.4|0.4|
95884195|NCT04659161|191723595|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-5.2|-13.9|<0.0001
95884196|NCT04659161|191723596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
95884197|NCT04659161|191723597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.0055
95884198|NCT04659161|191723598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||0.0022
95884199|NCT04659161|191723599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
95884200|NCT04659161|191723600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||||<0.0001
95884201|NCT01600638|191723603|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95884202|NCT01600638|191723604|OTHER||sucess proportion|0.7823|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.951||||||||0.951|0.614|
95884203|NCT01372462|191723607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||The primary endpoint was difference in endurance between nasal cannula oxygen and NIOV+O2. Assuming 153 sec clinically important difference, 183 sec SD, and α=0.05, a sample size of 15 yielded 85% power.||||<0.05
95884204|NCT01372462|191723607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884205|NCT01372462|191723607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884206|NCT01372462|191723608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test||||< 0.05
95884207|NCT01372462|191723608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884208|NCT01372462|191723608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884209|NCT01372462|191723609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-way, repeated-measures ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests|ANOVA|Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons tests||Per protocol||||<0.05
95884210|NCT01372462|191723609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884211|NCT01372462|191723609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884212|NCT03791489|191723612|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95884213|NCT03791489|191723613|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance = p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.03
95884214|NCT02854631|191723638|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||1.00
95884215|NCT02854631|191723639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.061
95884216|NCT02854631|191723640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.||||||0.060
95884217|NCT02854631|191723641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||P-value from 2-sided Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences between treatment groups in the percentage of participants with an event.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95884218|NCT02854631|191723657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test (2-sided) was used to explore differences between groups in the percentage of participants with response/non-response.||||||0.30
95884219|NCT01179568|191723686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT vs PLA at week 12 (aim 1), based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants. With 10% of 440 target enrollment lost to follow-up we had a power of 76-83% to detect predicted between-group difference in response (CGT with PLA, 40%; CGT with CIT, 60%; CIT 40%; and PLA 20%)||1.81|0.82|<0.05
95884220|NCT01179568|191723686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.17|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs PLA with CGT at week 20 (aim 2) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.17|0.88|<0.05
95884221|NCT01179568|191723686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with inverse probability weighting controlled for randomization stratification variables (site and baseline MDD) \& race/ethnicity||Our prespecified primary analysis was cross-sectional, comparing treatment response rates for CIT with CGT vs CIT at week 20 (aim 3) based on the intention-to-treat principle including all randomized participants.||1.46|1|<0.05
95884222|NCT01179568|191723687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.74
95884223|NCT01179568|191723688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.53
95884224|NCT01179568|191723688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in ICG scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95884225|NCT01179568|191723689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.|Regression, Linear|||||||.59
95884226|NCT01179568|191723690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.40
95884227|NCT01179568|191723690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Pre-specified secondary analyses compared changes in WSAS scores using a weighted linear regression, controlling for site, baseline MDD, \& race/ethnicity, and with inverse probability weighting to adjust for missing assessments.||||.005
95884228|NCT02443987|191723691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95884229|NCT02443987|191723692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95884230|NCT02443987|191723693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95884231|NCT02443987|191723694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95884232|NCT03727347|191723697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Hypothesis was that the improvement (decrease) in rTNSS mean score, from baseline to 12 weeks, would exceed 1 point||||||<0.0001
95884233|NCT00759031|191723705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95884234|NCT03808493|191723706|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the least square means (LS-Means) between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0211|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0752|0.0329||||||||0.0329|-0.0752|
95884235|NCT03808493|191723706|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUClast, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0778|0.0815||||||||0.0815|-0.0778|
95884236|NCT03808493|191723707|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0698|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1404|0.0008||||||||0.0008|-0.1404|
95884237|NCT03808493|191723707|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Cmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0811|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1658|0.0036||||||||0.0036|-0.1658|
95884238|NCT03808493|191723708|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0199|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0731|0.0333||||||||0.0333|-0.0731|
95884239|NCT03808493|191723708|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) AUC∞, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.083||||||||0.0830|-0.0760|
95884240|NCT03808493|191723709|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.1902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0199|0.3605||||||||0.3605|0.0199|
95884241|NCT03808493|191723709|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) Tmax, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.2142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0558|0.3725||||||||0.3725|0.0558|
95884242|NCT03808493|191723710|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0022|0.0599||||||||0.0599|0.0022|
95884243|NCT03808493|191723710|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) MRT∞,ev, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0306|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0003|0.0616||||||||0.0616|-0.0003|
95884244|NCT03808493|191723711|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|0.0209|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0112|0.053||||||||0.0530|-0.0112|
95884245|NCT03808493|191723711|EQUIVALENCE|For log-transformed (natural log) λz, the two-sided 90% CI of the difference in the LS-Means between the formulations (TAK-438 OD tablet-TAK-438 tablet) was provided using the ANOVA model.|LS-Means Difference|-0.0135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0508|0.0238||||||||0.0238|-0.0508|
95884246|NCT01104493|191723712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0 (null): Rate difference ≥ 5 percentage points This corresponded to a null hypothesis of: HA (alternative): rate difference \< 5 percentage points.|rate difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6|||score statistic|||Comparison of the rate of fever between the 2 treatment groups was based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals (CIs) for the rate increase (Monovalent vaccine minus Placebo) evaluated against the prespecified equivalence criterion of 5 percentage points.||2.6|-5.2|
95884247|NCT02033694|191723733|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm is the only independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years is the outcome. The null hypothesis tested by the Wald test that the regression coefficient in a proportional hazards regression model is significantly different from 0. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mmI is a risk factor for NC-MACE.||1.35|1.09|0.0004
95884248|NCT02033694|191723733|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque Hypothesis) first fit a univariate proportional hazards regression model in which maxLCBI4mm in the coronary artery segment is the measure of exposure and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome. This analysis was performed with adjustment for the potential clustering effect within patient utilizing the Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW) methodology. This analysis determined whether maxLCBI4mm is a risk factor NC-MACE.||1.60|1.30|<0.0001
95884249|NCT02033694|191723734|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.22|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 1 (Vulnerable Patient)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years as the outcome.||3.22|1.48|<0.0001
95884250|NCT02033694|191723734|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|7.45|||Regression, Cox|||Secondary Hypothesis 2 (Vulnerable Plaque)- Cox proportional hazards regression model to assess a threshold of maxLCBI4mm \> 400 in the coronary artery segment as the independent variable and NC-MACE during 2 years caused by a new culprit lesion in that segment is the outcome.||7.45|2.39|<0.0001
95884251|NCT02899988|191723738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|41.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.9|16.9|0.009
95884252|NCT02899988|191723738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|58.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3|72.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.3|45.3|<0.001
95884253|NCT02899988|191723738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|79.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||79.6|53.7|<0.001
95884254|NCT02899988|191723739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.7|5.7|0.039
95884255|NCT02899988|191723739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
95884256|NCT02899988|191723739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.1|18.6|0.007
95884257|NCT02899988|191723740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.62|89.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.97|5.62|<0.001
95884258|NCT02899988|191723740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|74.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|87.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||87.0|62.1|<0.001
95884259|NCT02899988|191723740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.6|83.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.7|57.6|<0.001
95884260|NCT02899988|191723741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||25.7|5.7|0.041
95884261|NCT02899988|191723741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.007
95884262|NCT02899988|191723741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|44.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0)||44.1|18.6|0.008
95884263|NCT02899988|191723741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|49.1|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||49.1|21.5|<0.001
95884264|NCT02899988|191723741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|68.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|81.7|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||81.7|55.6|<0.001
95884265|NCT02899988|191723741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Regression, Logistic|||sPGA (0/1)||80.0|53.4|<0.001
95884266|NCT02899988|191723742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95971153|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0006
95971154|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0245
95971155|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884267|NCT02899988|191723742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884268|NCT02899988|191723742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884269|NCT02899988|191723743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884270|NCT02899988|191723743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884271|NCT02899988|191723743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884272|NCT02899988|191723744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884273|NCT02899988|191723744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884274|NCT02899988|191723744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95884275|NCT02899988|191723745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.009
95884276|NCT02899988|191723745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.002
95884277|NCT02899988|191723745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Summary (MCS)||||0.087
95884278|NCT02899988|191723745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
95971156|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971157|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0097
95884279|NCT02899988|191723745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
95884280|NCT02899988|191723745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Summary||||<0.001
95884281|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 3|Geometric Mean Titers Ratio (GMT Ratio)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.97|0.72|
95884282|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 6A|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.66|
95884283|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 7F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.63|
95884284|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 8|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.82|0.61|
95884285|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 9N|GMT Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.79||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.79|0.57|
95884286|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 10A|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
95884287|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 11A|GMT Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.75||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.75|0.54|
95884288|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 12F|GMT Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.94||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.94|0.62|
95884289|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15A|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.60|
95884290|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 15C|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.58|
95884291|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 16F|GMT Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.81|0.59|
95884292|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 17F|GMT Ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.62|
95884293|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 19A|GMT Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.85|0.65|
95884294|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 20A|GMT Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.87|0.63|
95884295|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 22F|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.91|0.65|
95884296|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23A|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.96||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.96|0.63|
95884297|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 23B|GMT Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.72|0.44|
95884298|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 24F|GMT Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.86||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.86|0.61|
95884299|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 31|GMT Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.83||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||0.83|0.56|
95884300|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 33F|GMT Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the serotypes is \>0.50.||1.01|0.70|
95884301|NCT05526716|191723755|NON_INFERIORITY|Serotype 35B|GMT Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the OPA GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of serotypes is \>0.50.||0.89|0.67|
95884302|NCT05526716|191723756|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H1N1|GMT Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.97|0.70|
95884303|NCT05526716|191723756|NON_INFERIORITY|A/H3N2|GMT Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.93|0.67|
95884304|NCT05526716|191723756|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Victoria|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||0.95|0.70|
95884305|NCT05526716|191723756|NON_INFERIORITY|B/Yamagata|GMT Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||The concomitant group will be considered noninferior to the sequential group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the HAI GMT ratio (GMTcon/GMTseq) for each of the strains is \>0.67.||1.00|0.78|
95884306|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 3|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02||||||||1.02|0.80|
95884307|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 6A|GMC Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11||||||||1.11|0.79|
95884308|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 7F|GMC Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9||||||||0.90|0.67|
95884309|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 8|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||||||||0.95|0.70|
95884310|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 9N|GMC Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||||||||1.05|0.75|
95884311|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 10A|GMC Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.94||||||||0.94|0.67|
95884312|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 11A|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96||||||||0.96|0.72|
95884313|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 12F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||||||||1.01|0.69|
95884314|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 15A|GMC Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
95884315|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 15C|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.02||||||||1.02|0.71|
95884316|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 16F|GMC Ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||||||||0.99|0.70|
95884317|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 17F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
95884318|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 19A|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||||0.93|0.71|
95884319|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 20A|GMC Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||||0.97|0.70|
95884320|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 22F|GMC Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||||1.10|0.80|
95884321|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 23A|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||||||||1.03|0.70|
95884322|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 23B|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.02||||||||1.02|0.72|
95884323|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 24F|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
95884324|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 31|GMC Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
95971158|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0146||95.0||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0146
95971159|NCT00706433|191915433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884325|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 33F|GMC Ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||||||||0.94|0.69|
95884326|NCT05526716|191723757|OTHER|Serotype 35B|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||||||||0.99|0.72|
95884327|NCT01806545|191723797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.11||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.025||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.025|-0.242|0.1197
95884328|NCT01806545|191723798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.08||||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.045||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.045|-0.204|0.1962
95884329|NCT01806545|191723799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.090
95971160|NCT00706433|191915434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4235
95971161|NCT00706433|191915435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95884330|NCT01806545|191723800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.193
95884331|NCT01806545|191723801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.231
95884332|NCT01806545|191723802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.158
95884333|NCT01806545|191723803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.895|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.213|0.423||||||Treatment difference at week 12||0.423|-2.213|
95884334|NCT01806545|191723803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|-0.232|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.791|1.327||||||Treatment difference at week 26||1.327|-1.791|
95884335|NCT01806545|191723804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.2||||||Analysis of week 12||0.200|-0.273|
95884336|NCT01806545|191723804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Proportion treatment difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.318||||||Analysis of week 26||0.318|-0.165|
95884337|NCT01806545|191723805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.404||||||Analysis of week 12||0.404|-0.096|
95884338|NCT01806545|191723805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.565|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|1.152||||||Analysis of week 26||1.152|-0.023|
95884339|NCT02111772|191723806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||0.049
95884340|NCT02111772|191723807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
95884341|NCT03454581|191723836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95884342|NCT03454581|191723837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
95884343|NCT03454581|191723838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
95884344|NCT03454581|191723839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.05
95884345|NCT03454581|191723840|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||<0.01
95884346|NCT03454581|191723841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
95884347|NCT03454581|191723842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
95884348|NCT03454581|191723843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||||0.05
95971162|NCT00706433|191915436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0865||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0865
95971163|NCT00706433|191915437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.6230
95884349|NCT01438957|191723851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
95884350|NCT01438957|191723851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.003
95884351|NCT01438957|191723851|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.086
95884352|NCT01438957|191723851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel-extension test|Stratified by the anesthesia type||Dose-response relationship is assessed using Mantel-extension test. In this analysis, dose of placebo group is hypothesized as 0 microg/kg. Dose-response relationship among Dexmedetomidine 4 dose groups excluding placebo group is also assessed using Mantel-extension test.||||<0.001
95884353|NCT01438957|191723852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
95884354|NCT01438957|191723852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
95884355|NCT01438957|191723852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
95971164|NCT00706433|191915438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.0963
95884356|NCT01438957|191723852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.329
95884357|NCT01438957|191723853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
95884358|NCT01438957|191723853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||<0.001
95884359|NCT01438957|191723853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.006
95884360|NCT01438957|191723853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.371
95884361|NCT01438957|191723854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
95884362|NCT01438957|191723854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.001
95884363|NCT01438957|191723854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.212
95971165|NCT00706433|191915439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4814||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.4814
95971166|NCT00706433|191915440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.7153
95971167|NCT00706433|191915441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3832
95884364|NCT01438957|191723855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.869
95884365|NCT01438957|191723856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
95884366|NCT01438957|191723857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.897
95884367|NCT01438957|191723858|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||<0.001
95884368|NCT01438957|191723858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.002
95884369|NCT01438957|191723858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.116
95971168|NCT00706433|191915442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2908||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.2908
95971169|NCT00706433|191915443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8096||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.8096
95884370|NCT01438957|191723859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.088
95884371|NCT01438957|191723860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.085
95884372|NCT01438957|191723861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.005
95884373|NCT01438957|191723861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.014
95884374|NCT01438957|191723861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.055
95884375|NCT01438957|191723862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.737
95884376|NCT01438957|191723863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.11
95884377|NCT01438957|191723864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.567
95884378|NCT01438957|191723865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.044
95884379|NCT01438957|191723865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||||||0.234
95884380|NCT01438957|191723866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.729
95971170|NCT00706433|191915444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3080
95884381|NCT01438957|191723867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.082
95971171|NCT00706433|191915445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||0.3208
95971172|NCT00706433|191915446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971173|NCT00706433|191915447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study center.||Dichotomized grade as less than or equal to one and greater than one. Null hypothesis: equal response rates.||||1.0
95971174|NCT01236365|191915450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in LDL-C between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95884382|NCT01438957|191723868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.451
95971175|NCT01236365|191915451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|||||Change in hsCRP (6months minus 0months) between Atorvastatin and Placebo|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.913
95971176|NCT01236365|191915454|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95971177|NCT00955253|191915455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||between the placebo and guanfacine conditions||||0.013
95971178|NCT01183234|191915458|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|0.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.993|0.915|
95971179|NCT01183234|191915459|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of the treatment regimen means were provided by back-transformation on to the linear scale and were assessed against the currently accepted bioequivalence criteria for log-transformed data (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.988|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.931|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.931|
95971180|NCT01183234|191915460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.492|||Wilcoxon (Hodges-Lehmann)|||||0.492|-0.150|
95971181|NCT00370331|191915488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2|||<|0.001||99.0|3.59|18.73|||Repeated measures model for binary data|Repeated measures model for binary data using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)||||18.73|3.59|<0.001
95971182|NCT00545051|191915515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.41|||ANCOVA|||||4.41|2.09|<0.001
95971183|NCT00545051|191915516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.23|||ANCOVA|||||3.23|1.22|<0.001
95971184|NCT00545051|191915517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.25|-0.15|0.122
95971185|NCT00545051|191915517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||2.66|0.96|<0.001
95971186|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 1||||<0.001
95884383|NCT01438957|191723869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.873|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.873
95884384|NCT01438957|191723870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by the anesthesia type||The closed testing procedure is used taking multiplicity into consideration, in which Dexmedetomidine 1.0 mcg/kg group, 0.5 mcg/kg group, 0.25 mcg/kg group, 0.067 mcg/kg group and the placebo group are tested in this order||||0.374
95884385|NCT03143894|191723889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95884386|NCT03143894|191723890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95884387|NCT03143894|191723891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95971187|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 6||||<0.001
95971188|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||sCTX at Month 12||||<0.001
95884388|NCT03521934|191723892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.85|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.85|0.52|< 0.001
95884389|NCT03521934|191723893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.49|< 0.001
95884390|NCT03521934|191723894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.22|0.58|= 0.36
95884391|NCT03521934|191723895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.92||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.92|0.56|
95884392|NCT03521934|191723896|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.86||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.86|0.54|
95884393|NCT03521934|191723897|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.14|0.59|
95884394|NCT03521934|191723898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.0||||||The change from baseline to Month 4 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment groups as factor and baseline KCCQ-12 score and randomization stratification factors as covariates.||7|1.3|
95971189|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 1||||<0.001
95971190|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 6||||<0.001
95971191|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP at Month 12||||<0.001
95971192|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 1||||<0.001
95971193|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 6||||<0.001
95971194|NCT00545051|191915518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||TRACP at Month 12||||<0.001
95971195|NCT04601870|191915529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
95971196|NCT04601870|191915529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|3.973|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.668 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||3.973|.566|0.4137
95971197|NCT04601870|191915529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|3.446|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.917 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for completing counseling in $50 or $100 arm vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||3.446|.653|.3383
95884395|NCT03521934|191723899|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.98||||||Rate of decline in eGFR observed over time was analyzed by MMRM with absolute change in eGFR from baseline as the outcome, a random effect for intercept, and fixed effects for treatment, baseline value, and time.||0.98|-1.3|
95884396|NCT00166114|191723918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi Square test was performed comparing actual vs. expected non- and partial response or response to either escitalopram or desipramine treatment.||||.918
95884397|NCT02509156|191723964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|6.11|||ANCOVA|The change in LVEF was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.|Confidence intervals based on t-test|||6.11|-4.52|0.746
95884398|NCT02509156|191723965|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate of the slope of time."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.024
95884399|NCT02509156|191723966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.26|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in global strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.26|-2.68|0.328
95884400|NCT02509156|191723967|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.261|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.261
95884401|NCT02509156|191723968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|1.35|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in regional strain was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.35|-4.51|0.071
95884402|NCT02509156|191723969|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.689|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.689
95884403|NCT02509156|191723970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|14.45|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVEDVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||14.45|-12.33|0.935
95884404|NCT02509156|191723971|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.325
95884405|NCT02509156|191723972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.75|13.08|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LVESVI was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||13.08|-11.75|0.919
95884406|NCT02509156|191723973|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.183|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.183
95884407|NCT02509156|191723974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.15|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in LV sphericity index was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||0.15|0.003|0.124
95884408|NCT02509156|191723975|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. A time by treatment interaction was assessed.|There was a significant treatment and time interaction (p=0.024), so we report a slope for each treatment arm.|||
95884409|NCT02509156|191723976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.74|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in scar percent was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||1.74|-3.05|0.993
95884410|NCT02509156|191723977|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.151|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.151
95884411|NCT02509156|191723978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.96||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|81.89|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in distance walked was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||81.89|-5.84|0.056
95884412|NCT02509156|191723979|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.583|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.583
95884413|NCT02509156|191723980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.49|4.84|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in MLHFQ summary score was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values.||4.84|-30.49|0.048
95884414|NCT02509156|191723981|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-8.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope."|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported.||||0.0002
95884415|NCT02509156|191723982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-315.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|295.0||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-947.5|315.8|||ANCOVA||Confidence intervals based on t-test|The change in NT-proBNP was compared using ANCOVA analyses adjusting for baseline values. Data log transformed. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||315.80|-947.50|0.199
95884416|NCT02509156|191723983|SUPERIORITY||slope of time|-23.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|202.08||0.229|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiplicity were made in this Phase I trial.|Repeated Measures Linear Regression||"Standard error of the mean is the standard error of the estimate over time of the slope"|Repeated-measures linear regression models were used to address trajectories (upward or downward trends) over time within each of the treatment groups. If there was no significant interaction, only one trajectory (slope) was reported. Log transformation used for the regression. p-values were obtained from transformed data.||||0.229
95884417|NCT00489541|191723986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||A superiority test of TAXUX Element vs bare metal (BMS) Express historical control. The null hypothesis that the true difference in means (TAXUS Element - BMS Express) is equal to zero was tested against the two-sided alternative that the true difference in means is different from zero. A sample size of 224 patients in the TAXUS Element group (190 after 15% attrition due to angiographic follow-up) provided 85% power.||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
95884418|NCT00489541|191723987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month TLR rate|7.34|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.8|||Chi-squared|||One-sided, single-sample binomial test to compare the observed TLF rate in PERSEUS SV to the pre-specified performance goal (19.5%). The normal approximation of the test statistic was used. The null hypothesis that the true TAXUS Element TLF rate is greater than or equal to the performance goal was tested against the one-sided alternative that the true rate is less than the performance goal. A sample size of 224 patients (accounting for 5% attrition to follow-up) provided 80% power.||10.8||<0.0001
95884419|NCT04182763|191723995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wald test after neg binomial regression|Chi-squared with 3 d.f.||Mean counts of events per person were calculated from a negative binomial regression model with categorical coefficients for active dose levels, controlling for the baseline number of prescriptions. A joint test of the null hypothesis that the three regression parameters representing active treatment = 0 was done.||||0.50
95884420|NCT04182763|191724000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after mixed-effects GLM with log link, random subject intercept, treatment, PKAN type, and time (1 mo vs 3d).||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 1 month + 3 days after first dose. Adjusted for PKAN type (classical or atypical), because randomization was stratified on type, and time point.||||0.105
95971198|NCT04601870|191915530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.333||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|10.6751|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.243 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 arm vs. $0 arm|||10.6751|.5100|.2650
95971199|NCT04601870|191915530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8333||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1301|5.3369|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.037 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $0 arm|||5.3369|.1301|.8472
95971200|NCT04601870|191915530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.541||||0.5478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3731|6.364|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 0.361 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $50 or $100 arms vs. $0 arm|$0 vs. $50 or $100||6.3640|.3731|.5478
95971201|NCT04601870|191915530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3571||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06355|2.007|||Chi-squared|Chi squared equals 1.456 with 1 degrees of freedom|Odds ratio for achieving confirmed abstinence at 6 months post-tqd in $100 arm vs. $50 arm|||2.0070|.06355|.2276
95884421|NCT04182763|191724000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||Two-sided threshold of p\<.10|Linear contrast / test for trend|Contrast after GLM with log link, treatment, and PKAN type.||Test that high \> med \> low \> placebo vs the null that all groups are equal at 6 months after first dose. PKAN type (classical or atypical) was included because randomization was stratified on type. The study hypothesis was that expression levels would not vary significantly at this time point.||||0.55
95884422|NCT03266107|191724001|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95884423|NCT03266107|191724002|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95884424|NCT03266107|191724005|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95884425|NCT02548650|191724018|NON_INFERIORITY|Under the null hypothesis that the mean aggregation between dual and triple therapy is not equal to 0 and a common standard deviation of 13%, a sample size of 28 patients per group with a valid primary end point time point allowed for the 95% confidence interval (CI) to stay within ± 10% with a 80% power and a two-sided alpha=0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|12.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|21.0|||ANOVA|||The primary end point of our study was the comparison of CAT-induced MPA measured by LTA between triple (vorapaxar plus DAPT) and dual (vorapaxar plus clopidogrel) therapy. We hypothesized that dual therapy would be non-inferior to triple therapy after 30±5 days of treatment||21|3|>0.05
95884426|NCT01191801|191724022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87||||0.0305|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one sided P-Value|Unstratified Log Rank|Since the sample size was increased, the primary analysis used the weighted statistic proposed by Cui, Hung, and Wang (Cui 1999).||||||0.0305
95884427|NCT01191801|191724023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95884428|NCT01191801|191724026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Two sided P-Value|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95884429|NCT01191801|191724027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Unstratified one-sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95884430|NCT01191801|191724028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One sided P-Value|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
95884431|NCT02128113|191724030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|26.95||||0.4529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension (pooled) - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4529
95884432|NCT02128113|191724030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|64.31||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.1276
95884433|NCT02128113|191724030|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-11.08||||0.7996|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.|Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.7996
95884434|NCT02128113|191724031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.55||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-0.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.36|-26.75|0.0647
95884435|NCT02128113|191724031|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.34|-1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-1.96|-28.34|0.0517
95884436|NCT02128113|191724032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-0.11||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|8.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||8.68|-8.91|0.9258
95884437|NCT02128113|191724032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-3.03||||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.27|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||6.21|-12.27|0.6547
95884438|NCT02128113|191724033|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|-13.56||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.84|-0.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||-0.28|-26.84|0.0657
95884439|NCT02128113|191724033|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Difference in proportion of patients|-15.15||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|||-1.88|-28.42|0.0526
95884440|NCT02128113|191724034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|0.0||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|10.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||10.87|-10.87|0.8771
95884441|NCT02128113|191724034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion of patients|1.35||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|12.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% - Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution|Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||12.02|-9.32|0.8248
95884442|NCT02128113|191724035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|27.21||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension pooled (0.5% and 1.0%) versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.4686
95884443|NCT02128113|191724035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|49.99||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.5% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.2636
95884444|NCT02128113|191724035|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|-1.74||||0.9691|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Missing data were imputed.||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Ophthalmic Suspension 1.0% versus Vehicle Ophthalmic Solution||||0.9691
95884445|NCT01750242|191724044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||% of leads|86.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|73.7|||||||A 95% lower confidence bound was calculated on the percentage of leads where an overlap existed. A subject may have 1 or 2 leads included in the analysis.|||73.7|
95884446|NCT01750242|191724045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-18.4||||||Summary statistics on the UPDRS III score. A higher score is more motor dysfunction.||-18.4|-26.5|
95884447|NCT03765918|191724046|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.3|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|12.8||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||12.8|6.7|<0.00001
95971202|NCT04193436|191915546|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|92.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.15|126.6||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model based on natural log transformed data.||126.60|68.15|
95971203|NCT04193436|191915546|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|134.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.61|183.17||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||183.17|98.61|
95971204|NCT04193436|191915546|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|139.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.69|192.78||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||192.78|100.69|
95971205|NCT04193436|191915547|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.61|119.53||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||119.53|63.61|
95971206|NCT04193436|191915547|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|102.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.59|140.15||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||140.15|74.59|
95971207|NCT04193436|191915547|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|83.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.18|116.62||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||116.62|60.18|
95884448|NCT03765918|191724047|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|13.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|18.7||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||18.7|9.7|<0.00001
95884449|NCT03765918|191724048|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|9.8|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|13.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||13.3|7.0|<0.00001
95884450|NCT03765918|191724049|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.3||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.3|1.5|0.0006
95884451|NCT03765918|191724050|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|4.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||7.6|2.1|0.0011
95884452|NCT03765918|191724051|OTHER|Difference in percentage (calculated as % Pembrolizumab + SOC arm - % SOC arm) and 95% CI were based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|5.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen|||||5.6|1.6|0.0006
95971208|NCT04193436|191915548|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|121.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.69|167.31||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||167.31|88.69|
95971209|NCT04193436|191915548|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|178.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.96|245.18||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||245.18|129.96|
95971210|NCT04193436|191915548|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|195.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.31|273.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter AUCinf,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||273.03|140.31|
95884453|NCT03765918|191724058|OTHER|Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.29||||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.2||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.20|-4.78|0.4671
95884454|NCT03765918|191724059|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.21|-7.27|0.1606
95884455|NCT03765918|191724060|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.41||||0.4374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.15||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.15|-4.96|0.4374
95884456|NCT03765918|191724061|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.39||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|4.13||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.13|-3.35|0.8379
95884457|NCT03765918|191724062|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.39||||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.07||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.07|-4.84|0.8643
95884458|NCT03765918|191724063|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.54||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.54|-4.12|0.8813
95971211|NCT04193436|191915549|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|114.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.13|148.63||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||148.63|88.13|
95884459|NCT03765918|191724070|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.34||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|3.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.45|-2.76|0.8287
95884460|NCT03765918|191724071|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.53||||0.7761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.18|-3.12|0.7761
95971212|NCT04193436|191915549|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|136.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.75|176.67||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||176.67|104.75|
95971213|NCT04193436|191915549|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Adjusted Means|117.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.61|155.03||||||The effect of the hepatic impairment on PK parameter Cmax,u were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals around the estimated difference between each of the Test (impaired) cohorts and the Reference (without hepatic impairment) cohort using a one-way ANOVA model based on natural log transformed data.||155.03|89.61|
95971214|NCT01156792|191915554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||=|0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.02|=0.268
95971215|NCT01156792|191915554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.00|=0.080
95971216|NCT01156792|191915554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.056|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|0.01|=0.017
95971217|NCT01156792|191915554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|0.03|=0.002
95971218|NCT01156792|191915555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.946|||=|0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|-4.91|=0.751
95971219|NCT01156792|191915555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.771|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.51|0.03|=0.049
95971220|NCT01156792|191915555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.983|||=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|11.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.32|-1.35|=0.123
95971221|NCT01156792|191915555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.93|18.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.35|5.93|<0.001
95971222|NCT01156792|191915556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.651|||=|0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.27|-3.97|=0.563
95971223|NCT01156792|191915556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|10.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.67|-0.47|=0.072
95971224|NCT01156792|191915556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.822|||=|0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.02|-1.37|=0.126
95971225|NCT01156792|191915556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.292|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|16.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.38|4.21|=0.001
95971226|NCT01156792|191915557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.36|1.06||||||||1.06|-9.36|
95971227|NCT01156792|191915557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|5.5||||||||5.50|-6.22|
95971228|NCT01156792|191915558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||=|0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.18|=0.957
95971229|NCT01156792|191915558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.28|=0.213
95971230|NCT01156792|191915558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|||=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.20|=0.647
95971231|NCT01156792|191915558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|||=|0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.17|=0.894
95971232|NCT01156792|191915559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.025|||=|0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|=0.811
95971233|NCT01156792|191915559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.133|||=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.07|-0.34|=0.200
95971234|NCT01156792|191915559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.26|=0.415
95971235|NCT01156792|191915559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.26|=0.358
95971236|NCT01156792|191915560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.666|||=|0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|7.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.57|-2.24|=0.285
95971237|NCT01156792|191915560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|10.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.22|0.38|=0.035
95971238|NCT01156792|191915560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.036|||=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.70|-0.63|=0.090
95971239|NCT01156792|191915560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.602|||=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.14|0.06|=0.047
95971240|NCT01156792|191915561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
95971241|NCT01156792|191915561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
95971242|NCT01156792|191915561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
95971243|NCT01156792|191915561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
95971244|NCT01156792|191915562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.992|||=|0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.33|-2.35|=0.367
95971245|NCT01156792|191915562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.147|||=|0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.49|-2.20|=0.332
95971246|NCT01156792|191915562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.331|||=|0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.55|-1.88|=0.277
95971247|NCT01156792|191915562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.521|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.63|-2.59|=0.467
95971248|NCT01156792|191915563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.575|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.80|-3.65|=0.789
95971249|NCT01156792|191915563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.669|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.87|-0.54|=0.087
95971250|NCT01156792|191915563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||=|0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.24|-3.84|=0.923
95971251|NCT01156792|191915563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.137|||=|0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.81|-5.08|=0.571
95971252|NCT01156792|191915564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.014|||=|0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.67|-3.64|=0.668
95971253|NCT01156792|191915564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.349|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|7.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.98|-1.29|=0.156
95971254|NCT01156792|191915564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.496|||=|0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-3.83|=0.822
95971255|NCT01156792|191915564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||=|0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-2.94|=0.555
95971256|NCT01156792|191915565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
95971257|NCT01156792|191915565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.138||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.138
95971258|NCT01156792|191915565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.797||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.797
95971259|NCT01156792|191915565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.408||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.408
95971260|NCT00768079|191915566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
95971261|NCT00768079|191915566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
95971262|NCT00768079|191915566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.312
95971263|NCT00768079|191915566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
95971264|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
95971265|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
95971266|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.343|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.343
95971267|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
95971268|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
95971269|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, non-adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
95971270|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||0.474
95971271|NCT00768079|191915568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 24, adjudicated exacerbations: Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.||||1.000
95971272|NCT03988920|191915594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7439|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7439
95971273|NCT01226095|191915612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95971274|NCT05038163|191915625|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.39|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.39|-0.63|<0.001
95971275|NCT05038163|191915625|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
95971276|NCT05038163|191915625|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.24|-0.44|<0.001
95971277|NCT05038163|191915626|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.11|-0.55|0.003
95971278|NCT05038163|191915626|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
95971279|NCT05038163|191915626|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.17|||Regression, Linear|||||-0.17|-0.48|<0.001
95971280|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.32|-0.67|<0.001
95971281|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.36|-0.70|<0.001
95971282|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.25|-0.57|<0.001
95971283|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Male||-0.32|-0.65|<0.001
95971284|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Gender subgroup: Female or other||-0.14|-0.42|<0.001
95971285|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.27|||Regression, Linear|||Gender subgroup: Male|Unit: $ per 12-pack|-0.27|-0.57|<0.001
95971286|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|-1.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-1.12|-3.34|<0.001
95971287|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.23|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.23|-1.15|<0.001
95884461|NCT03765918|191724072|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.65||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.84||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||3.84|-2.54|0.6880
95884462|NCT03765918|191724073|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.45||||0.3858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|1.83||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.83|-4.73|0.3858
95884463|NCT03765918|191724074|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.45||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|1.62||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.62|-6.53|0.2370
95884464|NCT03765918|191724075|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.76||||0.3138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.67||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.67|-5.20|0.3138
95884465|NCT03765918|191724082|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.28||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.05|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.48|-8.05|0.1763
95884466|NCT03765918|191724083|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-1.18||||0.6882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|4.59||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.59|-6.95|0.6882
95884467|NCT03765918|191724084|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.52||||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.35||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||2.35|-7.39|0.3103
95884468|NCT03765918|191724085|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.48||||0.8475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|4.45||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.45|-5.41|0.8475
95884469|NCT03765918|191724086|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.42||||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.51||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.51|-6.36|0.8881
95884470|NCT03765918|191724087|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.9307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.78||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.78|-5.22|0.9307
95971288|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
95971289|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||1.14|-0.24|<0.001
95971290|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.37|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.37|-0.63|<0.001
95971291|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.25|-1.67|<0.001
95971292|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.40|-1.16|<0.001
95971293|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||0.19|-1.07|<0.001
95971294|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.17|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.17|-0.91|<0.001
95971295|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.00|0.00|<0.001
95971296|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.68|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.68|-0.36|<0.001
95884471|NCT03765918|191724094|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|1.3||||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|5.85||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.85|-3.25|0.5752
95884472|NCT03765918|191724095|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.98||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|6.34||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.34|-4.38|0.7196
95884473|NCT03765918|191724096|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.74||||0.7522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||5.37|-3.88|0.7522
95971297|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: white||-0.31|-0.57|<0.001
95971298|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.32|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.32|-2.04|<0.001
95971299|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.14|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.14|-0.90|<0.001
95971300|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.04|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native||-0.04|-1.54|<0.001
95971301|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.12|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Asian||-0.12|-0.90|<0.001
95971302|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.8|||Regression, Logistic||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander||0.80|0.80|<0.001
95971303|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.71|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Black or African American||0.71|-0.79|<0.001
95971304|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.22|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: White||-0.22|-0.44|<0.001
95971305|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.06|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: More Than One Race||-0.06|-0.76|<0.001
95971306|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported||0.31|-0.85|<0.001
95971307|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.91|-0.45|<0.001
95971308|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.39|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.39|-0.65|<0.001
95971309|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.38|-1.48|<0.001
95971310|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.38|-0.70|<0.001
95971311|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.33|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.33|-0.57|<0.001
95971312|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.16|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||-0.16|-1.42|<0.001
95971313|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.41|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic||0.41|-0.40|0.980
95971314|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic||-0.25|-0.47|<0.001
95971315|NCT05038163|191915627|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.25|||Regression, Linear||Unit: $ per 12-pack|Ethnicity Subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say||0.25|-1.03|<0.001
95971316|NCT00383110|191915631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.648
95971317|NCT00383110|191915632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.14
95971318|NCT00383110|191915633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.675
95971319|NCT00383110|191915634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95971320|NCT00383110|191915635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95971321|NCT00383110|191915636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95971322|NCT00935818|191915644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression with covariate included for study site.||2.12|1.05|0.03
95971323|NCT00935818|191915645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.22|1.04|0.03
95971324|NCT00935818|191915646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.001
95971325|NCT00935818|191915647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression adjusted for study site||1.93|0.95|0.09
95971326|NCT00935818|191915648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression adjusting for study site||1.91|0.91|0.14
95971327|NCT00935818|191915649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for study site||2.07|0.93|0.11
95971328|NCT00935818|191915650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression - adjusting for site||2.05|0.96|0.08
95971329|NCT01143038|191915702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.1|||||Based on the t-distribution|||10.1|8.3|
95971330|NCT01143038|191915702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Bootstrap mean|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|10.0|||||Estimates are based on bootstrap method with 1000 samples with replacement.|Bootstrap analysis||10.0|8.3|
95971331|NCT03310268|191915707|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.374|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.374|0.002|0.0476
95971332|NCT03310268|191915707|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.8411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.164|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.164|-0.202|0.8411
95971333|NCT03310268|191915707|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.393|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.393|0.020|0.0298
95971334|NCT03310268|191915708|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.649||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.376|1.975|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.975|-16.376|0.1232
95884474|NCT03765918|191724097|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.82|-5.30|0.9255
95884475|NCT03765918|191724098|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|2.22||||0.4926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|8.6||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||8.60|-4.15|0.4926
95884476|NCT03765918|191724099|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.99||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|6.21||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||6.21|-4.23|0.7087
95884477|NCT03765918|191724106|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.75||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.14|-6.65|0.1654
95884478|NCT03765918|191724107|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.26||||0.9117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.8||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||4.80|-4.29|0.9117
95884479|NCT03765918|191724108|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.22||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|1.82||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.82|-6.25|0.2808
95884480|NCT03765918|191724109|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.77||||0.1577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.08|-6.62|0.1577
95884481|NCT03765918|191724110|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.81||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|1.97||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||1.97|-7.59|0.2485
95884482|NCT03765918|191724111|OTHER|Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by primary tumor site, tumor stage, and PD-L1 status.|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.03||||0.1364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|0.96||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model.|cLDA model|||||0.96|-7.03|0.1364
95971335|NCT03310268|191915708|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.588||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.099|5.011|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.011|-13.099|0.3793
95971336|NCT03310268|191915708|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.648||0.4979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.33|6.017|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||6.017|-12.330|0.4979
95971337|NCT04101318|191915731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.62||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.62|-0.38|0.625
95971338|NCT04101318|191915732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.908||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for itching evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.908|1.038|0.036
95971339|NCT04101318|191915733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|The mode had following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.20|-0.90|0.202
95971340|NCT04101318|191915734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.369||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|2.401||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for pain evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.401|0.781|0.267
95884483|NCT03765918|191724117|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.00411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value was based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.92|0.58|0.00411
95884484|NCT03765918|191724118|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.88|0.49|0.00217
95884485|NCT03765918|191724119|SUPERIORITY|HR and associated 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by primary tumor site and tumor stage.||||0.89|0.55|0.00140
95884486|NCT00299975|191724152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
95884487|NCT00299975|191724153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis.||||||<0.05
95884488|NCT00299975|191724154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95971341|NCT04101318|191915735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.30|-0.57|0.545
95971342|NCT04101318|191915736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.316||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|2.211||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Proportional odds ratio model|Ordinal regression model for burning evaluated on a 5 point scale. Product and period are fixed effects and subject is a random effect.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||2.211|0.783|0.293
95971343|NCT04101318|191915737|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|There is no difference between the two arms.||1.27|0.53|0.375
95971344|NCT04101318|191915738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||1.40|0.49|0.482
95971345|NCT04101318|191915739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.14||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed repeated model with fixed effects||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.|Odds ratio, marginal= Arm1/Arm2|1.14|0.43|0.151
95971346|NCT04101318|191915740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.725
95971347|NCT04101318|191915741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
95971348|NCT04101318|191915742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.28||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.28|-0.38|0.753
95971349|NCT04101318|191915743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|4.18||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||4.18|-1.43|0.331
95884489|NCT00299975|191724155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884490|NCT00299975|191724156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test from Crosstabs analysis was implemented between three treatment groups in each time frame.||||||<0.05
95884491|NCT00299975|191724157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884492|NCT00299975|191724158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884493|NCT00299975|191724159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884494|NCT00299975|191724160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884495|NCT00299975|191724161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884496|NCT00299975|191724162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95884497|NCT00299975|191724164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95884498|NCT00299975|191724165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95884499|NCT00299975|191724166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95884500|NCT00299975|191724167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Paired-Samples T Test|Paired-Samples T Test was implemented between pre-treatment (Wk2) and post-treatment (Wk10) of each treatment group.||||||<0.05
95884501|NCT04380116|191724169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||ANOVA|||||||.366
95971350|NCT04101318|191915744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.68||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|31.34||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject and the interaction between product and subject were random effects.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||31.34|-7.98|0.239
95971351|NCT04101318|191915745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.31|-0.91|0.322
95884502|NCT01537393|191724207|NON_INFERIORITY|The two treatment groups will be declared equivalent if the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions excludes the pre-defined non-inferiority limit of 4%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.4|||||||The bootstrap re-sampling technique were used to account for potentially correlated data from donors who donated both corneas in this study and potentially correlated data from 2 study eyes of the same study participant. The technique will sample with replacement from the observed dataset. Confidence intervals will be calculated using the bias-corrected and accelerated method. The number of bootstraps will be 100,000.|5.4||
95884503|NCT01537393|191724207|OTHER|Confounding and treatment interactions were assessed in Cox proportional hazards regression models|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.71|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted Hazard Ratio||||2.71|1.09|0.02
95884504|NCT01537393|191724208|OTHER|The primary analysis to assess the effect of PT on 3 year ECD was conducted with a mixed linear model adjusting for baseline ECD, corneal diagnosis, and potential confounders, including storage solution, preparation by eye bank vs surgeon, and accounting for correlated data from participants with 2 study eyes or 2 corneas from the same donor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|138.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline ECD, diagnosis, storage solution, preparation by eye bank/surgeon, participants with 2 study eyes/ 2 corneas from the same donor||||138|8|0.03
95884505|NCT00036270|191724218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.03|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 2.75 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 2.75 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, 2 adjustments made: first, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used for the primary endpoint. Second, level of significant was 0.0012 for interim analysis."||1.03|0.77|0.118
95884506|NCT00036270|191724219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|"Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in DFS between the two treatments for the first 5 years.~To maintain overall alpha of 0.05, a nominal alpha of 0.0302 was used."||1.08|0.88|0.604
95884507|NCT00036270|191724220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in OS between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.14|0.89|0.951
95884508|NCT00036270|191724222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Log Rank|Log rank (Mantel-Cox). Adjusted for overall stratification factor; 1 degree of freedom.|A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the test treatment (exemestane only arm).|Analysis at 5 years post-randomization. Null hypothesis: no difference in time to relapse between the two treatments for the first 5 years. Overall alpha of 0.05 was maintained.||1.06|0.83|0.293
95884509|NCT01217801|191724327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|93.77||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.15|98.63|||Regression, Linear|||Linear mixed effect model, log transformed AUC, LSMeans for treatment Film and Tablet, the difference between the LSMeans and 90%CI calculated and transformed to geometric means, ratio estimates and 90%CI||98.63|89.15|0.05
95884510|NCT02197130|191724337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.2033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|3.49|||MMRM|MMRM: A linear mixed-effect repeated measures model||||3.49|-0.45|0.2033
95884511|NCT02197130|191724337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.118||0.7549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||MMRM|||||1.50|-2.20|0.7549
95884512|NCT02197130|191724349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 13||2.39|0.69|0.0030
95884513|NCT02197130|191724349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|1.17|||MMRM|||Week 13||1.17|-0.45|0.4656
95884514|NCT02197130|191724349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.02|||MMRM|||Week 26||2.02|0.39|0.0149
95884515|NCT02197130|191724349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8233|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.86|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.86|-0.66|0.8233
95884516|NCT02197130|191724351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|0.6|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.60|0.11|0.0181
95884517|NCT02197130|191724351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 13||0.28|-0.18|0.7133
95884518|NCT02197130|191724351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.4657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.15|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.39|-0.15|0.4657
95884519|NCT02197130|191724351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.8339|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 26||0.28|-0.22|0.8339
95884520|NCT01125605|191724399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit 1) and last observation was exploratively analysed||||0.0033
95884521|NCT01125605|191724399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with GLM (Generalized Linear Model) of SAS® (with type III sums of squares); including the baseline value of the sum score as a covariate||decrease of the sum score between baseline (visit1) and last observation by duration of treatment||||0.0002
95884522|NCT01125605|191724400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0014
95971352|NCT04101318|191915746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.15||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.15|-0.44|0.343
95971353|NCT04101318|191915747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.21|-0.53|0.387
95971354|NCT04101318|191915748|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. Furthermore, p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|Model was with the following fixed effects: product and period. Subject was a random effect.|Difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2= Mean (Arm 1) - Mean (Arm 2)|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms.||0.16|-0.18|0.899
95884523|NCT01125605|191724401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0125
95884524|NCT01125605|191724402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0006
95884525|NCT01125605|191724403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0016
95884526|NCT01125605|191724404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0504||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
95884527|NCT01125605|191724406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
95884528|NCT03396367|191724428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.372||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.302||Condition (referent = education control).|Latent Growth Curve||Variable:|||1.302|-.558|.433
95884529|NCT03396367|191724428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.017||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Communication Compentence|||.087|-.121|.749
95884530|NCT03396367|191724428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.073||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.087|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Communication Competence by Condition|||.087|-.121|.302
95884531|NCT03396367|191724428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.027||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.236|||Latent Growth Curve||Variable: Relationship Satisfaction|||.236|-.182|.799
95884532|NCT03396367|191724428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.211||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|0.092|||Latent Growth Curve||Moderating Variable: Relationship Satisfaction by Condition|||.092|-.514|.173
95884533|NCT03396367|191724429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.427||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|1.04||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.04|-.186|.172
95884534|NCT03396367|191724429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.281||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.061||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.061|-.623|.054
95884535|NCT03396367|191724429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.125||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.26||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.260|-.011|.036
95884536|NCT03396367|191724430|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.245||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.913|1.403||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.403|-.913|.679
95884537|NCT03396367|191724430|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.301||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.938|1.336||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.336|-1.938|.359
95884538|NCT03396367|191724430|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.048||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|0.593||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||.593|-.496|.431
95884539|NCT03396367|191724431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.251||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.814|1.311||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at baseline.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.311|-3.814|.326
95884540|NCT03396367|191724431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.246||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|1.875||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention at the 3-month follow-up.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.875|-1.383|.384
95884541|NCT03396367|191724431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.856||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.659||A latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The intercept quoted here represents the difference between the Partner intervention and the Education intervention across the 3-,6-,9-, and 12- month follow-ups.|Latent Growth Curve|||||1.659|.052|.019
95884542|NCT00911820|191724441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.714
95884543|NCT00911820|191724443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.605|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.605
95884544|NCT00911820|191724444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.721
95884545|NCT00279591|191724456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95884546|NCT00903695|191724460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8133||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio = 0.06, t-test = -0.25."||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.8133
95884547|NCT00903695|191724461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||a priori threshold for statistical sginficance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA calculation: F-ratio=1.22, t-test=1.1"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.31
95884548|NCT00903695|191724462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.5, t-test = -1.23"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.27
95884549|NCT00903695|191724463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.7, t-test = 1.3"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.24
95884550|NCT00903695|191724464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 0.15, t-test = 0.39"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.71
95884551|NCT00903695|191724465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 2.25, ttest = -1.5"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.18
95884552|NCT00903695|191724466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.01 (multiple comparisons)|ANOVA|"DF = 6~ANOVA: F-ratio = 1.06, t-test = -1.03"||ANOVA used to detect significant difference in test scores between baseline and end assessments, by study arm (nutriceutical vs placebo).||||0.34
95971355|NCT04797650|191915749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.37||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.37|0.25|<0.0001
95971356|NCT04797650|191915749|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.45|0.27|<0.0001
95884553|NCT01549860|191724467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.024
95884554|NCT01549860|191724469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0126|TWO_SIDED|||||The MIST+SOC subjects decreased in their reported mean pain scores and reduced from a median of 3.0 to 0.6 cm after four weeks of study treatment.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0126
95884555|NCT03247530|191724503|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-2.6|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-2.6|-8.9|0.0004
95884556|NCT03247530|191724503|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-3.8|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||||-3.8|-10.0|<0.0001
95884557|NCT03247530|191724504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.2|-0.7|0.0020
95884558|NCT03247530|191724504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score and treatment as fixed independent variables.||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.0001
95971357|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.46|0.31|<0.0001
95971358|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.45|0.26|<0.0001
95971359|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.45||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.45|0.30|<0.0001
95971360|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
95884559|NCT03247530|191724505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-6.5|0.0003
95884560|NCT03247530|191724505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.1|||ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.6|0.0002
95884561|NCT03247530|191724506|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||||-0.05|-0.24|0.0019
95884562|NCT03247530|191724506|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||||-0.08|-0.26|0.0020
95884563|NCT03247530|191724507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.5||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|24.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.6|4.3|0.0063
95884564|NCT03247530|191724507|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|31.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.6|11.3|<0.0001
95884565|NCT03247530|191724508|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-4.5|0.9974
95884566|NCT03247530|191724508|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.7|||ANCOVA|||||2.7|-6.1|0.4557
95884567|NCT03247530|191724509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.2|-4.6|0.0006
95884568|NCT03247530|191724509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||This statistical analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale score||-1.9|-5.2|<0.0001
95971361|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.46||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.46|0.32|<0.0001
95971362|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.59||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.59|0.41|<0.0001
95971363|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.52||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.38|<0.0001
95971364|NCT04797650|191915750|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.58||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.58|0.40|<0.0001
95971365|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.3175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 4||0.01|-0.00|0.3175
95971366|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.00|0.1020
95971367|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.3103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 8||0.05|-0.01|0.3103
95971368|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.14||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.14|0.06|<0.0001
95971369|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.17|0.06|<0.0001
95884569|NCT03247530|191724509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-0.9|-4.1|0.0026
95971370|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.24|0.14|<0.0001
95971371|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.27||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.27|0.13|<0.0001
95971372|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.29|0.18|<0.0001
95971373|NCT04797650|191915751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.35||P-value was calculated by Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.35|0.19|<0.0001
95971374|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9||P-value was calculated by mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-0.9|-4.7|0.0039
95971375|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 4||-1.2|-5.6|0.0027
95971376|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-5.1|-13.6|<0.0001
95971377|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-9.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 8||-9.3|-19|<0.0001
95971378|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-17.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-17.3|-28.8|<0.0001
95884570|NCT03247530|191724509|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale score||-1.7|-4.8|<0.0001
95971379|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-22.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-22.7|-35.9|< 0.0001
95884571|NCT03247530|191724510|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.2|0.1292
95971380|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-28.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-28.2|-41.4|< 0.0001
95971381|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-32.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-32.6|-47.8|< 0.0001
95971382|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-31.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-31.6|-45.9|< 0.0001
95971383|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-38.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-38.4|-54.8|< 0.0001
95971384|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-38.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-38.5|-53.4|< 0.0001
95971385|NCT04797650|191915752|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-44.2|||MMRM|||Week 24||-44.2|-61.4|< 0.0001
95971386|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by cochran mantel haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95971387|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95884572|NCT03247530|191724510|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-3.4|0.3447
95884573|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.0005
95884574|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0212|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0212
95884575|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0115
95884576|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0027|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0027
95884577|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0066
95884578|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0065
95884579|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5826|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 1 of treatment||||0.5826
95884580|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 2 of treatment||||0.0099
95884581|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 3 of treatment||||0.0225
95884582|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 4 of treatment||||0.0008
95884583|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 5 of treatment||||0.0020
95884584|NCT03247530|191724511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||This analysis pertains to Week 6 of treatment||||0.0002
95884585|NCT00299104|191724512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0016
95884586|NCT00299104|191724512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1824||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status||||0.1824
95884587|NCT00299104|191724512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0004
95884588|NCT00299104|191724513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups||||0.0004
95884589|NCT00299104|191724513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1194||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.1194
95884590|NCT00299104|191724513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.0001
95884591|NCT00299104|191724514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.3803||95.0|-0.05|0.13||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.13|-0.05|0.3803
95884592|NCT00299104|191724514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0309||95.0|0.01|0.18||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||0.18|0.01|0.0309
95884593|NCT00299104|191724515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3752||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||0.3752
95884594|NCT00299104|191724515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate verus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and Baseline RF status.||||0.0081
95884595|NCT00299104|191724516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5939||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparing all three treatment groups.||||0.5939
95884596|NCT00299104|191724516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5478||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.5478
95884597|NCT00299104|191724516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3096||95.0||||The Closure Principle was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||0.3096
95884598|NCT00299104|191724521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
95884599|NCT00299104|191724521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Rituximab 2 x 1.0 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status||||<0.0001
95884600|NCT00299104|191724531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate stratified for region and RF status.||||<0.0001
95884601|NCT00299104|191724531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
95884602|NCT00299104|191724537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||This was a secondary endpoint in a hierarchical testing structure.|Van-Elteren|||Week 104: Rituximab 2 x 0.5 g + Methotrexate arm versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) status.||||<0.0001
95884603|NCT00299104|191724541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (0.5 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
95884604|NCT00299104|191724541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Secondary endpoint in hierarchical testing structure.|ANOVA|||Rituximab (1.0 g x 2) + Methotrexate versus Placebo + Methotrexate, stratified for region and baseline RF status.||||<0.0001
95884605|NCT03167411|191724572|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of Cmax when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|125.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.45|150.24|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||150.24|104.45|
95884606|NCT03167411|191724575|EQUIVALENCE|The ratio of the least squares (LS) geometric means of AUC0-inf when bexagliflozin is dosed in combination with exenatide versus when dosed alone, with 80-125% defined as the lack of interaction boundaries. 90% confidence intervals was constructed.|Point Estimate (%)|137.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.28|154.75|||||Estimated ratio (%) of exponentiated mean difference of log-transformed PK parameter from ANOVA (linear mixed-effects model), with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|||154.75|122.28|
95884607|NCT00291577|191724633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.89||||||90.0|80.34|121.73|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no statistical hypothesis testing was done since the primary purpose was to assess the tolerability of the combination of SU011248 with docetaxel.||121.73|80.34|
95884608|NCT00291577|191724633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.96||||||90.0|59.76|112.41|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||112.41|59.76|
95884609|NCT00291577|191724633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.81||||||90.0|80.44|118.94|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||118.94|80.44|
95884610|NCT00291577|191724634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.23||||||90.0|82.75|123.83|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU011248 C1D2 vs C2D3||123.83|82.75|
95884611|NCT00291577|191724634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.72||||||90.0|62.4|107.04|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|SU012662 C1D2 vs C2D3||107.04|62.40|
95884612|NCT00291577|191724634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.0||||||90.0|82.95|120.56|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Total drug C1D2 vs C2D3||120.56|82.95|
95884613|NCT00291577|191724638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.18||||||90.0|78.73|124.95|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||124.95|78.73|
95884614|NCT00291577|191724639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.98||||||90.0|78.73|114.58|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.58|78.73|
95884615|NCT00291577|191724641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|73.7||||||95.0|48.8|90.9|||||Two-sided Confidence Interval (CI) (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Overall confirmed objective response rate (CR + PR)||90.9|48.8|
95971388|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
95971389|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
95971390|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
95971391|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
95884616|NCT00291577|191724642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate (percent)|89.5||||||95.0|66.9|98.7|||||Two-sided CI (%) from exact method based on F distribution.|Clinical Benefit Rate (CR + PR + SD \> = 24 weeks)||98.7|66.9|
95884617|NCT00291577|191724644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.57||||||90.0|79.9|114.32|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.32|79.90|
95884618|NCT00291577|191724645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|112.39||||||90.0|81.05|155.85|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||155.85|81.05|
95884619|NCT00291577|191724646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|79.82|114.96|||||Ratio percent (%) (Test/Reference) of adjusted geometric means; values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|C1D1 vs C2D1||114.96|79.82|
95884620|NCT03129100|191724649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|9.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.35|2.03|<0.001
95884621|NCT03129100|191724650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|11.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.03|1.66|0.003
95884622|NCT03129100|191724650|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.02|1.77|0.001
95884623|NCT03129100|191724652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.41|1.78|0.001
95884624|NCT03129100|191724652|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|11.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.31|1.88|<0.001
95884625|NCT03129100|191724653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|12.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.69|2.11|<0.001
95884626|NCT03129100|191724653|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|12.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.47|2.20|<0.001
95884627|NCT03129100|191724654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.17|1.90|<0.001
95884628|NCT03129100|191724654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|8.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.09|1.56|0.003
95884629|NCT03129100|191724655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|11.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.72|2.07|<0.001
95884630|NCT03129100|191724655|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|8.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.32|1.57|0.003
95884631|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.1|-3.1|<0.001
95884632|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Patient Global||-1.0|-2.9|<0.001
95884633|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-1.0|-3.1|<0.001
95884634|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||Spinal Pain||-0.8|-2.8|<0.001
95884635|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.421|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.72|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.72|-2.39|<0.001
95884636|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||BASFI||-0.59|-2.20|<0.001
95884637|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-1.28|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-1.28|-3.05|<0.001
95884638|NCT03129100|191724656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Inflammation||-0.95|-2.66|<0.001
95884639|NCT03129100|191724657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|13.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.35|2.13|<0.001
95884640|NCT03129100|191724657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.45|1.75|0.001
95884641|NCT03129100|191724658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.858|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9586|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.729|-3.987|||ANCOVA|||||-3.987|-11.729|<0.001
95884642|NCT03129100|191724658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.655|-2.304|||ANCOVA|||||-2.304|-9.655|0.002
95884643|NCT03129100|191724659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.40|0.062
95884644|NCT03129100|191724659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.43|0.018
95884645|NCT03129100|191724660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.77|||ANCOVA|||||0.77|-0.56|0.757
95884646|NCT03129100|191724660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.77|0.670
95884647|NCT03129100|191724661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.07|0.236
95884648|NCT03129100|191724661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.92|0.373
95884649|NCT03129100|191724662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.459||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.85|||ANCOVA|||||0.85|-0.98|0.885
95884650|NCT03129100|191724662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.68|||ANCOVA|||||0.68|-0.95|0.735
95884651|NCT03129100|191724663|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|-1.53|0.294
95884652|NCT03129100|191724663|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.453||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-1.54|0.164
95884653|NCT03129100|191724664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-4.3|0.063
95884654|NCT03129100|191724664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-3.3|0.211
95884655|NCT03129100|191724665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-2.7|0.334
95884656|NCT03129100|191724665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.0|0.168
95884657|NCT03129100|191724667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.5|0.100
95884658|NCT03129100|191724667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-1.5|0.047
95884659|NCT03129100|191724668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-1.83|0.068
95884660|NCT03129100|191724668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-1.40|0.307
95884661|NCT03129100|191724669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.6021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4684||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3011|5.5053|||ANCOVA|||||5.5053|-0.3011|0.079
95884662|NCT03129100|191724669|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3978||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3541|5.1734|||ANCOVA|||||5.1734|-0.3541|0.087
95884663|NCT03129100|191724670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1752||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4864|3.1605|||ANCOVA|||||3.1605|-1.4864|0.477
95884664|NCT03129100|191724670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1192||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|4.5138|||ANCOVA|||||4.5138|0.0880|0.042
95884665|NCT03129100|191724671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-2.02|0.058
95884666|NCT03129100|191724671|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-1.71|0.147
95884667|NCT03129100|191724672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0334||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0329|0.1164|||ANCOVA|||||0.1164|-0.0329|0.213
95884668|NCT03129100|191724672|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0319||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0324|0.1101|||ANCOVA|||||0.1101|-0.0324|0.225
95884669|NCT03129100|191724673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.383||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.28|-1.95|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||-1.95|-19.28|0.017
95884670|NCT03129100|191724673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.199||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.44|1.16|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of Activity Impairment||1.16|-15.44|0.091
95884671|NCT03129100|191724674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.7|0.531
95884672|NCT03129100|191724674|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-1.4|0.743
95884673|NCT03789474|191724684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.443
95884674|NCT03789474|191724685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
95884675|NCT03789474|191724686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
95884676|NCT03789474|191724687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.038
95884677|NCT03789474|191724688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.072
95884678|NCT03789474|191724689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.189
95884679|NCT03789474|191724690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.358
95884680|NCT03789474|191724691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.406
95884681|NCT03789474|191724692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.256
95884682|NCT03789474|191724693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
95884683|NCT03789474|191724694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.316
95884684|NCT03789474|191724695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.971
95884685|NCT03789474|191724696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
95884686|NCT03789474|191724697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.009
95884687|NCT03789474|191724698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.704
95884688|NCT03789474|191724699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
95884689|NCT03789474|191724700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.708
95884690|NCT03789474|191724701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.711
95884691|NCT03789474|191724702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.956
95884692|NCT03789474|191724703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.139
95884693|NCT03789474|191724704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.035
95884694|NCT03789474|191724705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.502
95884695|NCT03789474|191724706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.350
95884696|NCT03789474|191724707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.380
95884697|NCT03789474|191724708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.914
95884698|NCT03789474|191724709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.915
95884699|NCT03789474|191724710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.087
95884700|NCT03789474|191724711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
95884701|NCT03789474|191724712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.207
95884702|NCT03789474|191724713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
95884703|NCT03789474|191724714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.021
95884704|NCT03789474|191724715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95884705|NCT03789474|191724716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.030
95884706|NCT03789474|191724717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
95884707|NCT03789474|191724718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.047
95884708|NCT03789474|191724719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
95884709|NCT03789474|191724720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95884710|NCT03789474|191724721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
95884711|NCT03789474|191724722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.020
95884712|NCT03789474|191724723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95884713|NCT03789474|191724724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
95884714|NCT03789474|191724725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.746
95884715|NCT03789474|191724726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
95884716|NCT03789474|191724727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95884717|NCT03789474|191724728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.043
95884718|NCT03789474|191724729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.160
95884719|NCT04786990|191724768|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884720|NCT04786990|191724768|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884721|NCT04786990|191724769|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884722|NCT04786990|191724769|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884723|NCT04786990|191724771|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884724|NCT04786990|191724771|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0002
95884725|NCT04786990|191724772|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884726|NCT04786990|191724772|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated for the comparison between time points for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed. There is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884727|NCT04786990|191724773|OTHER|||||||0.0685||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0685
95884728|NCT04786990|191724773|OTHER|||||||0.2575||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.2575
95884729|NCT04786990|191724774|OTHER|||||||0.0832||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0832
95884730|NCT04786990|191724774|OTHER|||||||0.3715||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.3715
95884731|NCT04786990|191724775|OTHER|||||||0.0042||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0042
95884732|NCT04786990|191724775|OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0019
95884733|NCT04786990|191724776|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884734|NCT04786990|191724776|OTHER|||||||0.0025||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0025
95884735|NCT04786990|191724777|OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0161
95884736|NCT04786990|191724777|OTHER|||||||0.0122||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||0.0122
95884737|NCT04786990|191724778|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884738|NCT04786990|191724778|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884739|NCT04786990|191724779|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||0.0002
95884740|NCT04786990|191724779|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884741|NCT04786990|191724780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884742|NCT04786990|191724780|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884743|NCT04786990|191724781|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
95884744|NCT04786990|191724782|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0005
95884745|NCT04786990|191724783|OTHER|||||||0.0016||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0016
95884746|NCT04786990|191724784|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.8900
95884747|NCT04786990|191724785|OTHER|||||||0.3269||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3269
95884748|NCT04786990|191724786|OTHER|||||||0.5085||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5085
95884749|NCT04786990|191724787|OTHER|||||||0.3484||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.3484
95884750|NCT04786990|191724788|OTHER|||||||0.4385||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.4385
95884751|NCT04786990|191724789|OTHER|||||||0.5073||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.5073
95884752|NCT04786990|191724790|OTHER|||||||0.9119||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.9119
95884753|NCT04786990|191724791|OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0140
95884754|NCT04786990|191724792|OTHER|||||||0.1542||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.1542
95884755|NCT04786990|191724793|OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4 versus Week 8||||0.0086
95884756|NCT04786990|191724794|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884757|NCT04786990|191724794|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884758|NCT04786990|191724795|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95884759|NCT04786990|191724795|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95884760|NCT04786990|191724796|OTHER|||||||0.5582||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 4; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5582
95884761|NCT04786990|191724797|OTHER|||||||0.5061||||||The p-value generated from the statistical test for this efficacy measure is considered nominal. An adjustment for multiplicity was not performed, and as a result, there is no control of Type 1 error in the statistical analysis of these data.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Week 8; Morning PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score versus Evening PR-ADHD-RS-5 Total score"||||0.5061
95884762|NCT00843024|191724808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.3||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 10 mg/Naproxen 60 mg minus placebo|||0.30|0.09|0.003
95884763|NCT00843024|191724808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.26||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 30 mg/Naproxen180 mg minus placebo|||0.26|0.07|0.003
95884764|NCT00843024|191724808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.22||Adjusted for multiplicity according to the fixed-sequence testing strategy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sumatriptan 85 mg/Naproxen 500 mg minus placebo|||0.22|0.05|0.003
95884765|NCT01197560|191724825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.079
95884766|NCT01197560|191724825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to GCB Subtype; row 2||||0.279
95884767|NCT01197560|191724825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to non-GCB Sub-type; row 3||||0.179
95884768|NCT01197560|191724826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants||||0.091
95884769|NCT01197560|191724827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
95884770|NCT01197560|191724828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|||Pertains to all participants; row 1||||0.160
95884771|NCT01197560|191724829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.529|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.529
95884772|NCT01197560|191724830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.972
95884773|NCT01197560|191724831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.020
95884774|NCT01197560|191724832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.211
95884775|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||||0.1110
95884776|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|1.64||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|4.56||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.56|-1.28|0.2704
95884777|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.09||||0.9516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.98||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.98|-3.17|0.9516
95884778|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.73||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-0.01||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.01|-3.46|0.0489
95884779|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||||0.9785
95884780|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.13||||0.9379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|3.11||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.11|-3.37|0.9379
95884781|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.07||||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.47||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.47|-3.33|0.9678
95884782|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.2||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable is the change of PRISM from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.10|-1.70|0.8373
95884783|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.417|7.32|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 12 vs Baseline across all participants||7.320|5.417|< 0.0001
95884784|NCT02615145|191724870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.936|11.362|||paired t-test|paired t-test of whether difference in means is 0||Week 48 vs Baseline across all participants||11.362|8.936|< 0.0001
95884785|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EOT||||0.5751
95884786|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|2.29||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|9.23||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||9.23|-4.66|0.5176
95884787|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.324||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.64||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||7.64|-7.00|0.9308
95884788|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.96||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|2.13||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||EoT||2.13|-6.06|0.3462
95884789|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7016||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 Weeks after EoT||||0.7016
95884790|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.61||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|3.49||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.49|-8.71|0.4002
95884791|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.33||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|4.08||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||4.08|-8.74|0.4750
95884792|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.282||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.77||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||12 weeks after EoT||3.77|-3.21|0.8740
95884793|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7211||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||||0.7211
95884794|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.67||||0.4256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.39||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.39|-12.7|0.4256
95884795|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|6.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||6.54|-12.6|0.5347
95884796|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|0.654||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|5.54||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of FACIT-F \[0-100\] from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||48 weeks after EoT||5.54|-4.23|0.7920
95884797|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.355|7.935|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference from 0||Baseline to EOT across all participants||7.935|3.355|< 0.0001
95884798|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.113|12.299|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||Baseline vs 12 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.299|8.113|< 0.0001
95884799|NCT02615145|191724875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.259|12.992|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference versus 0||baseline vs 48 weeks after EOT across all participants||12.992|7.259|< 0.0001
95884800|NCT02615145|191724876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869||||||Between group change comparison: overall. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3869
95884801|NCT02615145|191724876|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-1.89||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|1.79||Between group change comparison: 3DAA - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-5.57|0.3125
95884802|NCT02615145|191724876|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-2.65||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|1.18||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 2DAA+RBV. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.18|-6.48|0.1741
95884803|NCT02615145|191724876|SUPERIORITY||difference in LS means|-0.76||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|1.42||Between group change comparison: 3DAA+RBV - 3DAA. The dependent variable in the change of PAM-13 from Baseline (Visit-Baseline). The analysis is adjusted for Baseline.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.94|0.4941
95884804|NCT02615145|191724876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.8842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.271|1.096|||paired t-test|paired t-test of mean difference vs 0||Change from Baseline to Final visit across all participants||1.096|-1.271|0.8842
95884805|NCT02320669|191724880|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.432|||Regression, Cox|||||1.432|.82|<.05
95884806|NCT00006237|191724885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.49
95884807|NCT00006237|191724886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
95884808|NCT02984709|191724915|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.47||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.47|-0.81|0.593
95884809|NCT02984709|191724916|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.137||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.99||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||2.99|-5.27|0.581
95884810|NCT02984709|191724917|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.587||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.34||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||0.34|-1.52|0.206
95884811|NCT02984709|191724918|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-2.494||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|5.13||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Child-reported family conflict||5.13|-10.11|0.511
95884812|NCT02984709|191724918|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-3.354||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|1.73||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||Parent-reported family conflict||1.73|-8.44|0.190
95884813|NCT02984709|191724919|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.396||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.36||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||5.36|-4.57|0.873
95884814|NCT02984709|191724920|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|2.996||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|14.56||The following a priori selected covariates were adjusted in each analysis: age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, baseline depressive symptoms, pump use, and baseline measurement for each outcome.|Multiple linear regression|||||14.56|-8.57|0.603
95884815|NCT01414010|191725018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"Statistical analysis was performed using a variety of computer packages including XLstat, NCSS 2007, R and NCSS 2010"||||<0.05
95884816|NCT01753856|191725019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884817|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95884818|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95884819|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in CC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.494
95971392|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95971393|NCT04797650|191915753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95884820|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95884821|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
95884822|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in EC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.118
95884823|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95884824|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95884825|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in IC.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95884826|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and SL, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95884827|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||SL Only, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95884828|NCT01753856|191725020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No Label, in PC.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95884829|NCT01753856|191725021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884830|NCT01753856|191725021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884831|NCT01753856|191725021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884832|NCT01753856|191725022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884833|NCT01753856|191725022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884834|NCT01753856|191725022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884835|NCT01753856|191725022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884836|NCT01753856|191725023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
95884837|NCT01753856|191725023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
95971394|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95971395|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95971396|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
95971397|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||||< 0.0001
95971398|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
95971399|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||< 0.0001
95971400|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95971401|NCT04797650|191915754|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated by CMH test stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for responders in each treatment group compared to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95971402|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971403|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
95971404|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
95971405|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.5|-2.2|< 0.0001
95971406|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2|< 0.0001
95884838|NCT01753856|191725023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95884839|NCT01753856|191725023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95884840|NCT01753856|191725023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Remodeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
95884841|NCT01753856|191725023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|||||Modeling-Based Bone Formation in the PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.661
95884842|NCT01753856|191725025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884843|NCT01753856|191725025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884844|NCT01753856|191725025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
95884845|NCT01753856|191725026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95971407|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
95884846|NCT01753856|191725026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
95884847|NCT01753856|191725026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884848|NCT01753856|191725026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.850
95971408|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
95971409|NCT04797650|191915755|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-2|-2.8|< 0.0001
95971410|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1|-1.8|< 0.0001
95971411|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||-1.1|-2|< 0.0001
95971412|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-2|< 0.0001
95971413|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.4|-2.3|< 0.0001
95971414|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.3|-2.2|< 0.0001
95971415|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.5|-2.4|< 0.0001
95971416|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
95971417|NCT04797650|191915756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.8|-2.8|< 0.0001
95884849|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.004
95884850|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in the CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884851|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884852|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884853|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884854|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884855|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.931
95884856|NCT01753856|191725027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.549
95971418|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.12||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.12|0.05|< 0.0001
95971419|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.17||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.17|0.06|< 0.0001
95971420|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.38|0.27|< 0.0001
95971421|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.45||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||75% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.45|0.28|< 0.0001
95971422|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.03|0.00|0.0409
95971423|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.09||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 12||0.09|0.01|0.012
95971424|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.26||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.26|0.16|< 0.0001
95971425|NCT04797650|191915757|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.31||P-value was calculated by mantel-haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||90% Relative Reduction: Week 24||0.31|0.16|< 0.0001
95971426|NCT04797650|191915758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.4|0.7|< 0.0001
95971427|NCT04797650|191915758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
95971428|NCT04797650|191915758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||1.8|1.1|< 0.0001
95971429|NCT04797650|191915758|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.2|1.3|< 0.0001
95971430|NCT04797650|191915759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.5|0.7|< 0.0001
95971431|NCT04797650|191915759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 12||1.6|0.7|< 0.0001
95971432|NCT04797650|191915759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2|1|< 0.0001
95971433|NCT04797650|191915759|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Week 24||2.1|1|< 0.0001
95971434|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
95971435|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 12||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971436|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95971437|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 16||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
95971438|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95971439|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 20||-1.4|-2|< 0.0001
95971440|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.3|-1.8|< 0.0001
95971441|NCT04797650|191915760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value.|MMRM|||Week 24||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
95884857|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884858|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884859|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884860|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884861|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884862|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884863|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884864|NCT01753856|191725028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884865|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884866|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in CC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884867|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884868|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in EC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884869|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884870|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in IC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884871|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||sLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95971442|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.43||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.43|0.25|< 0.0001
95884872|NCT01753856|191725029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||dLS/BS, in PC.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline as a covariate.||||||0.028
95884873|NCT01753856|191725030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884874|NCT01753856|191725030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884875|NCT01753856|191725030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884876|NCT01753856|191725031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884877|NCT01753856|191725031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884878|NCT01753856|191725031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884879|NCT01753856|191725032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884880|NCT01753856|191725032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884881|NCT01753856|191725032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95971443|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.54||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 12||0.54|0.33|< 0.0001
95971444|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.51||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.51|0.35|< 0.0001
95971445|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.57||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 16||0.57|0.37|< 0.0001
95971446|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.5||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.5|0.34|< 0.0001
95971447|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.63||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 20||0.63|0.44|< 0.0001
95971448|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.52||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.52|0.36|< 0.0001
95971449|NCT04797650|191915761|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.62||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||Week 24||0.62|0.42|< 0.0001
95971450|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.2|< 0.0001
95971451|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
95884882|NCT01753856|191725033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||1 month.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884883|NCT01753856|191725033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||3 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95971452|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
95971453|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 16||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95971454|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971455|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-1.3||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 20||-1.3|-1.9|< 0.0001
95971456|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95971457|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied Thickness Hair Coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
95971458|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95971459|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95884884|NCT01753856|191725033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884885|NCT01753856|191725034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884886|NCT01753856|191725034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884887|NCT01753856|191725034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884888|NCT01753856|191725034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884889|NCT01753856|191725034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884890|NCT01753856|191725034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884891|NCT01753856|191725035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95884892|NCT01753856|191725035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884893|NCT01753856|191725035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.214
95884894|NCT01753856|191725035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95884895|NCT01753856|191725035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL Only, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884896|NCT01753856|191725035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||DL and Imputed SL, in IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884897|NCT01753856|191725036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884898|NCT01753856|191725037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884899|NCT01753856|191725037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884900|NCT01753856|191725037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884901|NCT01753856|191725038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884902|NCT01753856|191725038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884903|NCT01753856|191725038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884904|NCT01753856|191725039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of DLs in the CC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884905|NCT01753856|191725039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in EC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.004
95884906|NCT01753856|191725039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in IC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||<0.001
95884907|NCT01753856|191725039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|||||Average length of double labels in the PC|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as the main effect and baseline MS/BS as a covariate.||||||0.850
95884908|NCT01753856|191725040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884909|NCT01753856|191725040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||EC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95884910|NCT01753856|191725040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|||||IC.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.678
95884911|NCT01753856|191725041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884912|NCT01753856|191725041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||EC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884913|NCT01753856|191725041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||IC|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95884914|NCT04600921|191725042|SUPERIORITY|The parameters required to calculate sample size were the expected rate of VT/VF episodes/year in the placebo group, the minimal VT/VF rate ratio to be detected in the ertugliflozin group compared with the placebo group, the average follow-up of treatment duration, the negative binomial dispersion parameter, type 1 error probability, and the desired power.|Rate Ratio|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.61||The yearly rate ratio was adjusted for baseline number of sVT/VF episodes.|Negative binomial regression model|A prespecified sensitivity analysis was done to mitigate the effect of outliers by using the robust estimation approaches for negative binomial model.|Ertugliflozin is the numerator and the placebo is the denominator.|We compared the rate of sVT/VF episodes between experimental arms after 52 weeks.The initial sample calculation was based on the mathematical formula provided by Zhu and Lakkis for comparing event rates of two negative binomial distributiuons. To detect a 30% reduction in VT/VF episode rates in the ertugliflozin group compared to placebo group, with 80% power and an alpha level of 0.05, accounting for 5% drop out in each group, a total sample size of 402 was estimated to be required.||0.61|0.04|<0.001
95884915|NCT04600921|191725043|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.97||||||The number of incident nsVT episodes were analyzed using a beta binomial model.||0.97|0.12|
95884916|NCT04600921|191725044|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.81||||||The number of appropriate ICD therapies were analyzed by using beta binomial model.||1.81|0.13|
95884917|NCT04600921|191725045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in mean change|0.17|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||The change in NTproBNP levels was analyzed by using a multiple linear regression model.||0.69|-0.35|>0.05
95884918|NCT04600921|191725046|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.13||||||The change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 52 was analyzed by multiple linear regression model.||3.13|-1.69|
95884919|NCT04600921|191725047|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.7||||||||1.7|0.2|
95884920|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
95884921|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.001
95884922|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
95884923|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.01
95884924|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between mid-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||0.13
95884925|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis = no difference in TLF between mid-treatment and baseline. Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) tests were performed assessing the longitudinal difference between post-treatment TLF from baseline TLF.||||<0.05
95884926|NCT02881554|191725055|OTHER|Non-parametric|Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant p-value is \<0.05|Spearman rank correlation|||Null hypothesis = no monotonic association between the baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores. Spearman rank correlation was performed to assess association between baseline TLF and Child-Pugh scores.||||0.002
95884927|NCT02670083|191725101|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.53||||||||0.53|-0.86|
95884928|NCT02670083|191725102|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.87||||||||1.87|-2.39|
95884929|NCT02670083|191725103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|1.88||||||||1.88|-2.08|
95884930|NCT02670083|191725104|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||||0.20|-0.10|
95884931|NCT02670083|191725105|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.29||||||||1.29|-0.62|
95884932|NCT02670083|191725106|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|5.18||||||||5.18|-1.43|
95884933|NCT02670083|191725107|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|3.79||||||||3.79|-1.35|
95884934|NCT02670083|191725109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.9||||||||0.90|-1.95|
95884935|NCT02670083|191725110|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.6||||||||1.60|-0.81|
95884936|NCT02670083|191725111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.86||||||||10.86|-13.64|
95884937|NCT02670083|191725112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|6.27||||||||6.27|-2.64|
95971460|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
95884938|NCT02670083|191725113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.222|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|5.32||||||||5.32|-3.45|
95884939|NCT02670083|191725119|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.24|
95884940|NCT02670083|191725120|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|1.17||||||||1.17|-3.72|
95884941|NCT02670083|191725121|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.89||||||||0.89|-0.10|
95884942|NCT00711711|191725122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.51
95884943|NCT00711711|191725123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All outcomes and control variables were compared between the treatment and the control group at each time point using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test or the chi-square test, as appropriate. The change in swelling from second day to seventh day, that is, during the treatment period, was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The significance level was set at P\<.05.||||0.58
95884944|NCT00543140|191725169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6919|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed as only one hypothesis was tested in this study. The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Exact Binomial method|||The primary analysis used a one-sided binomial exact test method by Clopper and Pearson to determine if the rate of reoperations observed in Years 4 and 5 (combined) of the study was significantly less than 8%. The null hypothesis was that the reoperation rate was greater than or equal to 8%.||||0.6919
95884945|NCT00309387|191725204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.68|0.03
95884946|NCT01599234|191725238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.23||||0.22||95.0|-0.59|0.14|||ANCOVA|||The initial model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline as a covariate and treatment group, centre group, ambulatory status at baseline and previous use of cannabis as main effects. Interactions between the main effects were investigated, and if they had little influence then they were dropped from the model. These tests were performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect.||0.14|-0.59|0.220
95884947|NCT01599234|191725239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.341||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.167|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.167|0.830|0.231
95884948|NCT01599234|191725240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.16||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.61|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.61|-1.94|0.857
95884949|NCT01599234|191725241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.07||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||0.40|-0.55|0.734
95971461|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 16||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
95971462|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-0.9|-1.3|< 0.0001
95884950|NCT01599234|191725243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||The change at end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.0|-2.0|0.624
95884951|NCT01599234|191725244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were to be compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model was to incorporate ambulatory status at baseline and centre group.||1.849|0.842|0.270
95884952|NCT01599234|191725245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.15||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment, centre group and ambulatory status at baseline as factors and baseline score as a covariate.||1.64|-1.95|0.867
95884953|NCT01599234|191725246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.215||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|2.373|||ANCOVA|||The numbers of responders was analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio. The two groups were compared using ANCOVA with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre and treatment group as factors.||2.373|0.622|0.569
95884954|NCT03975790|191725258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4695|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4695
95884955|NCT03975790|191725258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7644
95884956|NCT03975790|191725258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8316|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8316
95884957|NCT03975790|191725259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
95884958|NCT03975790|191725259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8021
95884959|NCT03975790|191725259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8376
95884960|NCT03975790|191725260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||t-test|||||||0.2864
95884961|NCT03975790|191725260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||t-test|||||||0.1583
95884962|NCT03975790|191725260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4546|||||||t-test|||||||0.4546
95884963|NCT03975790|191725261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test|||||||0.0280
95884964|NCT03975790|191725261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0106|||||||t-test|||||||0.0106
95884965|NCT03975790|191725261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||t-test|||||||0.7293
95884966|NCT03975790|191725262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9215|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9215
95884967|NCT03975790|191725262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6078|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6078
95884968|NCT03975790|191725262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6258|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6258
95884969|NCT03975790|191725263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3586|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3586
95884970|NCT03975790|191725263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5117|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5117
95884971|NCT03975790|191725264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5372|||||||t-test|||||||0.5372
95884972|NCT03975790|191725264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6155|||||||t-test|||||||0.6155
95884973|NCT03975790|191725264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9696|||||||t-test|||||||0.9696
95884974|NCT03975790|191725265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2514|||||||t-test|||||||0.2514
95884975|NCT03975790|191725265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9851|||||||t-test|||||||0.9851
95884976|NCT03975790|191725265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4309|||||||t-test|||||||0.4309
95884977|NCT03975790|191725266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6033|||||||t-test|||||||0.6033
95884978|NCT03975790|191725266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test|||||||0.3480
95884979|NCT03975790|191725266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||t-test|||||||0.5375
95884980|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0345
95884981|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2316|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.2316
95884982|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.7349
95884983|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0774
95884984|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.4228
95884985|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.0583
95884986|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9683|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9683
95884987|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8877|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.8877
95884988|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.9228
95884989|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7661|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.7661
95884990|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3034|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3034
95884991|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.2765
95884992|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8652|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.8652
95884993|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2243|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.2243
95884994|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3449|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3449
95884995|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.3529
95884996|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1012|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1012
95884997|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4123
95884998|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.2742
95884999|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.1009
95885000|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0318|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.0318
95885001|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4808|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.4808
95885002|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0778|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.0778
95885003|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.2871
95885004|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7356|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7356
95885005|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4975|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4975
95885006|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
95885007|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3559
95885008|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7725|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7725
95885009|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3875|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.3875
95885010|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.0225
95885011|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4427|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4427
95885012|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4094|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.4094
95885013|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8775|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.8775
95885014|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3525|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3525
95885015|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.4724
95885016|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7170
95885017|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2909|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.2909
95885018|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5057|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.5057
95885019|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2613|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.2613
95885020|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9901|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.9901
95885021|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.4768
95885022|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0219
95885023|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5172|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.5172
95885024|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0278|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.0278
95885025|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6103|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6103
95885026|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1682|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.1682
95885027|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3654|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.3654
95885028|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7637
95885029|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8693|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.8693
95885030|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7349|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.7349
95885031|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7324|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.7324
95885032|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4182|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.4182
95885033|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6200
95885034|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6064|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6064
95885035|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.6360
95885036|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.9445
95885037|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8135
95885038|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6705|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.6705
95885039|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8331|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.8331
95885040|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4158|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.4158
95885041|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.636|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.6360
95885042|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional; endocrine; and metabolic disorders||||0.3336
95885043|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6402|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.6402
95885044|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8068|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.8068
95885045|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5983|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.5983
95885046|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9759|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.9759
95885047|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1360
95885048|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1815|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.1815
95885049|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2731|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.2731
95885050|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8327|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.8327
95885051|NCT03975790|191725267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Chi-squared|||Genitourinary symptoms/ill-defined conditions||||0.3420
95885052|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.0590
95885053|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.7055
95885054|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid arthritis/related disease||||0.3088
95885055|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.0036
95885056|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3772|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3772
95885057|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||Other aftercare||||0.3000
95885058|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7354|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.7354
95885059|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1435|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.1435
95885060|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2876|||||||Chi-squared|||Other connective tissue disease||||0.2876
95885061|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2848|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.2848
95885062|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.1830
95885063|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6453|||||||Chi-squared|||Other non-traumatic joint disorders||||0.6453
95885064|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
95885065|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8717|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.8717
95885066|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3422|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical examination/evaluation||||0.3422
95885067|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3465|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.3465
95885068|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.4953
95885069|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9796|||||||Chi-squared|||Other suspected conditions||||0.9796
95885070|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4187|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.4187
95885071|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.1510
95885072|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0751|||||||Chi-squared|||Immunizations/screening for infectious disease||||0.0751
95885073|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7577|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.7577
95885074|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.802|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.8020
95885075|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9879|||||||Chi-squared|||Osteoarthritis||||0.9879
95885076|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1717|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.1717
95885077|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3065|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.3065
95885078|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Essential hypertension||||0.9920
95885079|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4626|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.4626
95885080|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8922|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.8922
95885081|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Chi-squared|||Residual codes; unclassified||||0.7143
95885082|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8212|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.8212
95885083|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5732|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.5732
95885084|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7319|||||||Chi-squared|||Disorders of lipid metabolism||||0.7319
95885085|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9272|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.9272
95885086|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1441|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1441
95885087|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1859|||||||Chi-squared|||Back problems||||0.1859
95885088|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3109
95885089|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3313|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.3313
95885090|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1279|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory infections||||0.1279
95885091|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7575|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.7575
95885092|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1583|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1583
95885093|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1569|||||||Chi-squared|||Other lower respiratory disease||||0.1569
95885094|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0745
95885095|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0933|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.0933
95885096|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nervous system disorders||||0.7910
95885097|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6755
95885098|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4183|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.4183
95885099|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6749|||||||Chi-squared|||Other skin disorders||||0.6749
95885100|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6626|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.6626
95885101|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5766|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.5766
95885102|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Thyroid disorders||||0.8376
95885103|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2857|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.2857
95885104|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.9560
95885105|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Other bone disease/musculoskeletal deformities||||0.4384
95885106|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6082|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.6082
95885107|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.3374
95885108|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5984|||||||Chi-squared|||Malaise/fatigue||||0.5984
95885109|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8568|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.8568
95885110|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7698
95885111|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophageal disorders||||0.7089
95885112|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3446|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.3446
95885113|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0815|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.0815
95885114|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Chi-squared|||Nutritional deficiencies||||0.4020
95885115|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4246|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.4246
95885116|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8118|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.8118
95885117|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7454|||||||Chi-squared|||Other nutritional: endocrine/metabolic disorders||||0.7454
95885118|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3559|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.3559
95885119|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7698|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7698
95885120|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7323|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes mellitus without complication||||0.7323
95885121|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5935|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.5935
95885122|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3928|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.3928
95885123|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7089|||||||Chi-squared|||Other/unspecified benign neoplasm||||0.7089
95885124|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8746|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.8746
95885125|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3835|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.3835
95885126|NCT03975790|191725268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||Chi-squared|||Other upper respiratory disease||||0.4992
95885127|NCT03975790|191725269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2336|||||||t-test|||||||0.2336
95885128|NCT03975790|191725269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||t-test|||||||0.2109
95885129|NCT03975790|191725269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0691|||||||t-test|||||||0.0691
95885130|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9758|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9758
95885131|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9978
95885132|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.9861
95885133|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5744|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5744
95885134|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8542
95885135|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8363|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.8363
95885136|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0473
95885137|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0327|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0327
95885138|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5348|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5348
95885139|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6934|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6934
95885140|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6017|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.6017
95885141|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4768|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.4768
95885142|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2315|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2315
95885143|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.2588
95885144|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8576
95885145|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5909|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.5909
95885146|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0570
95885147|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0408|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0408
95885148|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6465|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.6465
95885149|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5654|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.5654
95885150|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8371|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.8371
95885151|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9654|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.9654
95885152|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1013
95885153|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.1580
95885154|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1663
95885155|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6563|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.6563
95885156|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
95885157|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4166|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.4166
95885158|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0636|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.0636
95885159|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3137|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.3137
95885160|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4568|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4568
95885161|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.5785
95885162|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9541|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9541
95885163|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1956|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.1956
95885164|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3633|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3633
95885165|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.9481
95885166|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3653|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.3653
95885167|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.9255
95885168|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5137|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.5137
95885169|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6338|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6338
95885170|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6329|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.6329
95885171|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9228|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9228
95885172|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8433|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.8433
95885173|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1175|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1175
95885174|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1215
95885175|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9007|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9007
95885176|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8789|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8789
95885177|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8305
95885178|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0694|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.0694
95885179|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8606|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.8606
95885180|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3363|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.3363
95885181|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3319|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.3319
95885182|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5615|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.5615
95885183|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8898|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8898
95885184|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.3670
95885185|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8155|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.8155
95885186|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7091|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7091
95885187|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9769|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.9769
95885188|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5032|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5032
95885189|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.5631
95885190|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4426|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.4426
95885191|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5734|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5734
95885192|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3071|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.3071
95885193|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1608|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1608
95885194|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4092|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.4092
95885195|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1215|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.1215
95885196|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7279|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7279
95885197|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7703|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.7703
95885198|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6254|||||||Chi-squared|||Atorvastatin Calcium||||0.6254
95885199|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1615
95885200|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.5050
95885201|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1592|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1592
95885202|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6088
95885203|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4713|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.4713
95885204|NCT03975790|191725270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3399|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.3399
95885205|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2349|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.2349
95885206|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3956|||||||Chi-squared|||MTX Sodium||||0.3956
95885207|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.5500
95885208|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.7131
95885209|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Folic Acid||||0.9420
95885210|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0571|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0571
95885211|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.0490
95971463|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 20||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95971464|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971465|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||Satisfied evenness hair coverage: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
95971466|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95971467|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 12||-0.8|-1.4|< 0.0001
95971468|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95971469|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 16||-1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95971470|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971471|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 20||-1.1|-1.7|< 0.0001
95971472|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971473|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.2||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyebrows: Week 24||-1.2|-1.8|< 0.0001
95885212|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||Chi-squared|||Prednisone||||0.5631
95885213|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2198|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.2198
95971474|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95971475|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 12||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
95885214|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.3850
95971476|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
95971477|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 16||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95971478|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.0001
95885215|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Hydrocodone Bitartrate||||0.1165
95885216|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4291|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.4291
95885217|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.3850
95885218|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8143|||||||Chi-squared|||Azithromycin||||0.8143
95885219|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7272|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.7272
95885220|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0501|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0501
95885221|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Adalimumab||||0.0500
95885222|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3116|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.3116
95885223|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4882|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.4882
95971479|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.0||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 20||-1.0|-1.5|< 0.0001
95971480|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.9||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-0.9|-1.4|< 0.0001
95885224|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9505|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate||||0.9505
95885225|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4080
95885226|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7644|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.7644
95885227|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4146|||||||Chi-squared|||Etanercept||||0.4146
95885228|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1348|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.1348
95885229|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5948|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5948
95885230|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5785|||||||Chi-squared|||Levothyroxine Sodium||||0.5785
95885231|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1033|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.1033
95885232|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2117|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.2117
95885233|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Chi-squared|||Methylprednisolone||||0.9920
95885234|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
95885235|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9212|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.9212
95885236|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4384|||||||Chi-squared|||Omeprazole||||0.4384
95885237|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.0162
95885238|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.3239
95885239|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4837|||||||Chi-squared|||Tramadol Hydrochloride||||0.4837
95885240|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7183|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.7183
95885241|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.2667
95885242|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Meloxicam||||0.4510
95885243|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7993|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.7993
95885244|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9896|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.9896
95885245|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8576|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin||||0.8576
95885246|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9373|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.9373
95885247|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1253
95885248|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1851|||||||Chi-squared|||Albuterol Sulfate||||0.1851
95885249|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8697|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.8697
95885250|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9719|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9719
95885251|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.938|||||||Chi-squared|||Gabapentin||||0.9380
95885252|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1079|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.1079
95885253|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2588|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.2588
95885254|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9358|||||||Chi-squared|||Acetaminophen/Oxycodone Hydrochloride||||0.9358
95885255|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.1984
95885256|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8542|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.8542
95885257|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2973|||||||Chi-squared|||Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium||||0.2973
95885258|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1046|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.1046
95885259|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7961|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.7961
95885260|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||Chi-squared|||Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride||||0.2140
95885261|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8578
95885262|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7131|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.7131
95885263|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8421|||||||Chi-squared|||Fluticasone Propionate||||0.8421
95885264|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.7637
95885265|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6355|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.6355
95885266|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5425|||||||Chi-squared|||Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride||||0.5425
95885267|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.0410
95885268|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8251|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.8251
95971481|NCT04797650|191915762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.1||P-value was calculated by MMRM analysis with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline SALT score.|MMRM|||How satisfied with your eyelashes: Week 24||-1.1|-1.6|< 0.0001
95885269|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2871|||||||Chi-squared|||Duloxetine Hydrochloride||||0.2871
95885270|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.1174
95885271|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9702|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.9702
95885272|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3109|||||||Chi-squared|||Diclofenac Sodium||||0.3109
95885273|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6744|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.6744
95885274|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8121|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.8121
95885275|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451|||||||Chi-squared|||Levofloxacin||||0.9451
95885276|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.1660
95885277|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9549|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.9549
95885278|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3104|||||||Chi-squared|||Cephalexin||||0.3104
95885279|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0489|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.0489
95885280|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.1515
95885281|NCT03975790|191725271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||Chi-squared|||Ibuprofen||||0.9481
95885282|NCT03975790|191725272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2178
95885283|NCT03975790|191725272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5237|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5237
95885284|NCT03975790|191725272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7964|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7964
95885285|NCT03975790|191725273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9085
95885286|NCT03975790|191725273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6283|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6283
95885287|NCT03975790|191725273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7293|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7293
95885288|NCT03975790|191725274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9392|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9392
95885289|NCT03975790|191725274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3063|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3063
95885290|NCT03975790|191725274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3467|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3467
95885291|NCT03975790|191725275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7977|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7977
95885292|NCT03975790|191725275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5241|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5241
95885293|NCT03975790|191725275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4702
95885294|NCT03975790|191725276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1461|||||||t-test|||||||0.1461
95885295|NCT03975790|191725276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1411|||||||t-test|||||||0.1411
95885296|NCT03975790|191725276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201|||||||t-test|||||||0.4201
95885297|NCT03975790|191725277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||t-test|||||||0.3955
95885298|NCT03975790|191725277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||t-test|||||||0.6356
95885299|NCT03975790|191725277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3833|||||||t-test|||||||0.3833
95885300|NCT03975790|191725278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3292|||||||t-test|||||||0.3292
95885301|NCT03975790|191725278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2959|||||||t-test|||||||0.2959
95885302|NCT03975790|191725278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6962|||||||t-test|||||||0.6962
95885303|NCT03975790|191725279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8138|||||||t-test|||||||0.8138
95885304|NCT03975790|191725279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test|||||||0.0070
95885305|NCT03975790|191725279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0358|||||||t-test|||||||0.0358
95885306|NCT03975790|191725280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8453|||||||t-test|||||||0.8453
95885307|NCT03975790|191725280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4806|||||||t-test|||||||0.4806
95885308|NCT03975790|191725280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4809|||||||t-test|||||||0.4809
95885309|NCT03975790|191725281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3076|||||||t-test|||||||0.3076
95885310|NCT03975790|191725281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2509|||||||t-test|||||||0.2509
95885311|NCT03975790|191725281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||t-test|||||||0.7827
95885312|NCT03975790|191725282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4261|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.4261
95885313|NCT03975790|191725282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5247|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.5247
95885314|NCT03975790|191725282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2809|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.2809
95885315|NCT03975790|191725282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1153|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1153
95885316|NCT03975790|191725282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.1344
95885317|NCT03975790|191725282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8229|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8229
95885318|NCT03975790|191725283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7816|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7816
95885319|NCT03975790|191725283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7124|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.7124
95885320|NCT03975790|191725283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6148|||||||Chi-squared|||During Persistency||||0.6148
95885321|NCT03975790|191725283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.4876
95885322|NCT03975790|191725283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7826|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.7826
95885323|NCT03975790|191725283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8337|||||||Chi-squared|||Post Persistency||||0.8337
95885324|NCT03975790|191725284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1344
95885325|NCT03975790|191725284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0095
95885326|NCT03975790|191725284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1406|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1406
95885327|NCT03975790|191725285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9379|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9379
95885328|NCT03975790|191725285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3025
95885329|NCT03975790|191725285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3388|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3388
95885330|NCT03975790|191725286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8205|||||||t-test|||||||0.8205
95885331|NCT03975790|191725286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0467|||||||t-test|||||||0.0467
95885332|NCT03975790|191725286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1083|||||||t-test|||||||0.1083
95885333|NCT03975790|191725287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8899|||||||t-test|||||||0.8899
95885334|NCT03975790|191725287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6183|||||||t-test|||||||0.6183
95885335|NCT03975790|191725287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6496|||||||t-test|||||||0.6496
95885336|NCT03975790|191725288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5027|||||||t-test|||||||0.5027
95885337|NCT03975790|191725288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2375|||||||t-test|||||||0.2375
95885338|NCT03975790|191725288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5577|||||||t-test|||||||0.5577
95885339|NCT03975790|191725289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6908|||||||t-test|||||||0.6908
95885340|NCT03975790|191725289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0859|||||||t-test|||||||0.0859
95885341|NCT03975790|191725289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2764|||||||t-test|||||||0.2764
95885342|NCT03975790|191725290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1906|||||||t-test|||||||0.1906
95885343|NCT03975790|191725290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8744|||||||t-test|||||||0.8744
95885344|NCT03975790|191725290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3295|||||||t-test|||||||0.3295
95885345|NCT03975790|191725291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0056
95885346|NCT03975790|191725291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4222
95971482|NCT04797650|191915763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0||P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||1.0|-0.1|0.1206
95885347|NCT03975790|191725291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.0041
95885348|NCT03975790|191725291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2277|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2277
95885349|NCT03975790|191725291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.2812
95885350|NCT03975790|191725291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0772|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.0772
95885351|NCT03975790|191725292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.2930
95885352|NCT03975790|191725292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.4390
95885353|NCT03975790|191725292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||All cause||||0.1530
95885354|NCT03975790|191725292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9439|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.9439
95885355|NCT03975790|191725292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4477|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4477
95885356|NCT03975790|191725292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||t-test|||RA related||||0.4519
95885357|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.9829
95885358|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8021|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8021
95885359|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8376|||||||Chi-squared|||Cardiovascular Disease||||0.8376
95885360|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5927|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5927
95885361|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5202|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.5202
95885362|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||COPD||||0.8517
95885363|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||8.33|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||8.33
95885364|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7483|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.7483
95885365|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9713|||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma||||0.9713
95885366|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9148|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.9148
95885367|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7248|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.7248
95885368|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney disease||||0.8200
95885369|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9657|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9657
95885370|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9255
95885371|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9575|||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes||||0.9575
95885372|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9410
95885373|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9146|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9146
95885374|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9641|||||||Chi-squared|||Depression||||0.9641
95885375|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2596
95885376|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2228|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.2228
95885377|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Anxiety||||0.7824
95885378|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4184
95885379|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4371|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.4371
95885380|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2074|||||||Chi-squared|||Liver disease||||0.2074
95885381|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.7850
95885382|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1288|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.1288
95885383|NCT03975790|191725293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2839|||||||Chi-squared|||Sleep disorders||||0.2839
95885384|NCT03975790|191725294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2242
95885385|NCT03975790|191725294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0014
95885386|NCT03975790|191725294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0557|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0557
95885387|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5944|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.5944
95885388|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9255|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.9255
95885389|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7824|||||||Chi-squared|||Switch immediately||||0.7824
95885390|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3975|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3975
95885391|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0552|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.0552
95885392|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3914|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then switch||||0.3914
95885393|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.2036
95885394|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.1336
95885395|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue then restart||||0.7095
95885396|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2241|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.2241
95971483|NCT04797650|191915763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.5367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Anxiety||0.9|-0.5|0.5367
95885397|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.0024
95885398|NCT03975790|191725295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1204|||||||Chi-squared|||Discontinue without switch or restart||||0.1204
95885399|NCT03975790|191725296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
95885400|NCT03975790|191725296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
95885401|NCT03975790|191725296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
95885402|NCT03975790|191725297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2036
95885403|NCT03975790|191725297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1336
95885404|NCT03975790|191725297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7095|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7095
95885405|NCT03975790|191725299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<0.0001
95885406|NCT03975790|191725299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
95885407|NCT03975790|191725299|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test|||||||<.0001
95885408|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0309|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.0309
95885409|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9978|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.9978
95885410|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2629|||||||Chi-squared|||Leflunomide||||0.2629
95885411|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.0225
95885412|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4456|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.4456
95885413|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5065|||||||Chi-squared|||Sulfasalazine||||0.5065
95885414|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6617|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.6617
95885415|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7309|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.7309
95885416|NCT03975790|191725300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9861|||||||Chi-squared|||Hydroxychloroquine||||0.9861
95885417|NCT03975790|191725301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0880
95885418|NCT03975790|191725301|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95885419|NCT03975790|191725301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0065
95885420|NCT03975790|191725302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5157
95885421|NCT03975790|191725302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1231|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1231
95885422|NCT03975790|191725302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2109
95885423|NCT03975790|191725303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8424|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8424
95885424|NCT03975790|191725303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3278|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3278
95885425|NCT03975790|191725303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
95885426|NCT03975790|191725304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0654
95885427|NCT03975790|191725304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7315
95885428|NCT03975790|191725304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1897|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1897
95885429|NCT03975790|191725305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5146
95885430|NCT03975790|191725305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7121|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7121
95885431|NCT03975790|191725305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4434
95885432|NCT03975790|191725306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8966
95885433|NCT03975790|191725306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2105
95885434|NCT03975790|191725306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3336|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3336
95885435|NCT03975790|191725308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3610
95885436|NCT03975790|191725308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4519|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4519
95885437|NCT03975790|191725308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9612|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9612
95885438|NCT03975790|191725309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8135
95885439|NCT03975790|191725309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5910
95885440|NCT03975790|191725309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7635|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7635
95885441|NCT03975790|191725310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5970
95885442|NCT03975790|191725310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7055|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7055
95885443|NCT03975790|191725311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5435|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5435
95885444|NCT03975790|191725311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6790
95885445|NCT03975790|191725311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9676
95885446|NCT03975790|191725312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8035
95885447|NCT03975790|191725312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4184
95885448|NCT03975790|191725312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3950
95885449|NCT03975790|191725314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7871|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7871
95885450|NCT03975790|191725314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0722|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0722
95885451|NCT03975790|191725314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1810
95885452|NCT03975790|191725315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1984|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1984
95885453|NCT03975790|191725315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2043|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2043
95885454|NCT03975790|191725315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0439|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0439
95885455|NCT03975790|191725316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1702|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1702
95885456|NCT03975790|191725316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5926|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5926
95885457|NCT03975790|191725316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3088|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3088
95885458|NCT03975790|191725317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9141
95885459|NCT03975790|191725317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7623|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7623
95885460|NCT03975790|191725317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8517|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8517
95885461|NCT03975790|191725318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1208|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1208
95885462|NCT03975790|191725318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
95885463|NCT03975790|191725318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0046|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
95885464|NCT03975790|191725319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8698|||||||t-test|||||||0.8698
95885465|NCT03975790|191725319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7391|||||||t-test|||||||0.7391
95885466|NCT03975790|191725319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7043|||||||t-test|||||||0.7043
95885467|NCT03975790|191725320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0536|||||||t-test|||||||0.0536
95971484|NCT04797650|191915763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.3||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.3|0.2|0.0064
95971485|NCT04797650|191915763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7||P-value was calculated by ANCOVA analysis with effects for treatment, visit, baseline SALT score, and baseline HADS value.|ANCOVA|||Depression||1.7|0.4|0.0011
95971486|NCT04797650|191915764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.3||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.3|0.19|< 0.0001
95971487|NCT04797650|191915764|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.33||P-value was calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel estimate stratified by baseline scalp hair loss (partial vs complete/near-complete) for each treatment group compared to placebo.|Mantel Haenszel|||||0.33|0.18|< 0.0001
95971488|NCT00522873|191915799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0119|||||The number of women who had a biopsy classified as 'hyperplasia or worse' was divided by the number of women with an evaluable biopsy (i.e. classified as 'normal' after 1 year of treatment or as 'hyperplasia or worse' at any time during the study).|Exact 95% confidence interval for proportion of participants with hyperplasia or worse at EoS||0.0119|0.0000|
95971489|NCT00522873|191915800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|0.734||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.734|0.637|
95971490|NCT00522873|191915800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.496|0.684||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.684|0.496|
95971491|NCT00522873|191915801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.83||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.830|0.743|
95971492|NCT00522873|191915801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|0.904||||||exact 95% confidence intervall (Clopper-Pearson) for proportion of participants with amenorrhea||0.904|0.756|
95971493|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of Interest is left anterior insula.||||0.2960
95971494|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior insula.||||0.3450
95971495|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1192||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.1192
95971496|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6639||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left anterior putamen.||||0.6639
95971497|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8295||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.8295
95971498|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.||||0.0078
95971499|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7153||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex.||||0.7153
95971500|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.8511
95971501|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4228||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.4228
95971502|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0611||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex||||0.0611
95971503|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9879||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.9879
95971504|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2065||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left premotor cortex||||0.2065
95971505|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1837||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.1837
95971506|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8195||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area||||0.8195
95971507|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.6420
95971508|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7475||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left thalamus||||0.7475
95971509|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.9049
95971510|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex||||0.1830
95971511|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.5318
95971512|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9588||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right anterior insula||||0.9588
95971513|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7551||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7551
95971514|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7895||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsal anterior cingulate cortex||||0.7895
95971515|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9494||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.9494
95971516|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4482||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex||||0.4482
95971517|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9343||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.9343
95971518|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7711||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex||||0.7711
95971519|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.4755
95971520|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3982||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex||||0.3982
95971521|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4622||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4622
95971522|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4604||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right thalamus||||0.4604
95971523|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2485||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.2485
95971524|NCT00657020|191915802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1931||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex||||0.1931
95971525|NCT00657020|191915803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4535||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.4535
95971526|NCT00657020|191915803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1811||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1811
95971527|NCT00657020|191915804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.6261
95971528|NCT00657020|191915804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0106
95971529|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5544||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.5544
95885468|NCT03975790|191725320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9313|||||||t-test|||||||0.9313
95885469|NCT03975790|191725320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test|||||||0.3740
95885470|NCT03975790|191725321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6963|||||||t-test|||||||0.6963
95971530|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6716||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left parietal cortex.||||0.6716
95971531|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7511||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7511
95885471|NCT03975790|191725321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9816|||||||t-test|||||||0.9816
95971532|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left superior occipital cortex.||||0.7959
95971533|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6418||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.6418
95971534|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2205||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is left visual cortex.||||0.2205
95971535|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5135||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.5135
95971536|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9781||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right parietal cortex.||||0.9781
95971537|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3755||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.3755
95971538|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2612||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right premotor cortex.||||0.2612
95971539|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8486||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8486
95971540|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8318||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right superior occipital cortex.||||0.8318
95971541|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7554||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.7554
95971542|NCT00657020|191915805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5421||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Region of interest is right visual cortex.||||0.5421
95971543|NCT00657020|191915806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1963||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1963
95971544|NCT00657020|191915806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0959||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered response time of treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.0959
95971545|NCT00657020|191915807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.5400
95885472|NCT03975790|191725321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8349|||||||t-test|||||||0.8349
95885473|NCT03975790|191725322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test|||||||0.0003
95885474|NCT03975790|191725322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||t-test|||||||0.9431
95885475|NCT03975790|191725322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2964|||||||t-test|||||||0.2964
95885476|NCT03975790|191725323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2614|||||||t-test|||||||0.2614
95885477|NCT03975790|191725323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test|||||||0.0014
95885478|NCT03975790|191725323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0535|||||||t-test|||||||0.0535
95971546|NCT00657020|191915807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis considered the treatments in comparison to be equal.||||0.1800
95971547|NCT00822172|191915827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.076
95971548|NCT00822172|191915828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.048
95971549|NCT00822172|191915829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||two-sample equal-variances t-test|||||||0.650
95971550|NCT01160289|191915860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|Treatment group (tx grp), baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.5
95971551|NCT01160289|191915860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0||||The p-value was 1-sided and adjusted for multiple comparisons. The level of significance was 1-sided of 0.04.|ANCOVA|The model included tx grp, baseline IIEF EF domain score, baseline testosterone level, tx grp\*baseline IIEF, tx grp\*testosterone level interactions.||Only the treatment effects of the treatment effects of 5 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil and 1 mg LY2452473 and 5 mg tadalafil versus 5 mg tadalafil were analyzed.||||0.498
95971552|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.312||0.722||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.722
95971553|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.552|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.253||0.634||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.634
95971554|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-4.674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.218||0.147||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.147
95971555|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.02||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q1; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.020
95971556|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658||0.775||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.775
95971557|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|1.844|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.687||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.687
95971558|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535||0.119||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.119
95971559|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-6.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.14||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q2; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.140
95971560|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|6.703|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.302||0.207||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.207
95971561|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|9.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.079||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.079
95971562|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-5.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.165||0.301||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.301
95971563|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-2.893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.067||0.568||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q3; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.568
95971564|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.566||0.464||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.464
95885479|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0051|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.0051
95971565|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.463||0.356||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.356
95971566|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-11.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.418||0.038||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.038
95971567|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-10.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312||0.054||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q4; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.054
95971568|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|4.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.603||0.454||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.454
95971569|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|5.796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.499||0.293||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.293
95971570|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-8.808|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.457||0.107||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.107
95885480|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3041|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.3041
95885481|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||t-test|||1 months before index date||||0.4432
95885482|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8641|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.8641
95885483|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0435|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0435
95885484|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.153|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.1530
95885485|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1188|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1188
95885486|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6807|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.6807
95885487|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1772
95885488|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6104|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6104
95885489|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9564|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.9564
95885490|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7688|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.7688
95885491|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5685|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5685
95885492|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5122|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5122
95885493|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4321|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4321
95971571|NCT01160289|191915861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-7.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.349||0.178||95.0||||"The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the percentage of Yes responses on the SEP diary, Q5; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity."|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.178
95885494|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7892|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.7892
95885495|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2874|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2874
95885496|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2662|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2662
95885497|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3091|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.3091
95885498|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5783|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.5783
95885499|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4021|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4021
95885500|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7670
95885501|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6978|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6978
95885502|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.6328
95885503|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0541|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0541
95885504|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6999|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.6999
95885505|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.359|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.3590
95885506|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.9360
95885507|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6260
95885508|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7797|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.7797
95885509|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0934|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.0934
95885510|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3960
95885511|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4292|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.4292
95885512|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.8540
95885513|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9600
95885514|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9374|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9374
95885515|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6674|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6674
95885516|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0776|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0776
95885517|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.335|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.3350
95885518|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8461
95885519|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8111|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.8111
95885520|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7267|||||||t-test|||2 month after index date||||0.7267
95885521|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2453|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.2453
95885522|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5889|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.5889
95885523|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4162|||||||t-test|||3 month after index date||||0.4162
95885524|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0307|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.0307
95885525|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.1147
95885526|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9481|||||||t-test|||4 month after index date||||0.9481
95885527|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4455|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.4455
95885528|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9445|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.9445
95885529|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6191|||||||t-test|||5 month after index date||||0.6191
95885530|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.0805
95885531|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7037|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.7037
95885532|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4288|||||||t-test|||6 month after index date||||0.4288
95885533|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3731|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.3731
95971572|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.867||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.867
95885534|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4803|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.4803
95885535|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5831|||||||t-test|||7 month after index date||||0.5831
95885536|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0944|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.0944
95885537|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.8800
95885538|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4949|||||||t-test|||8 month after index date||||0.4949
95885539|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.6373
95885540|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.0497
95885541|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1695|||||||t-test|||9 month after index date||||0.1695
95885542|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6373|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.6373
95885543|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866|||||||t-test|||10 month after index date||||0.7866
95885544|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.7643
95885545|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2307|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.2307
95885546|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6712|||||||t-test|||11 month after index date||||0.6712
95885547|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6953|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6953
95885548|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3675|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.3675
95885549|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8027|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.8027
95885550|NCT03975790|191725324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4817|||||||t-test|||12 month after index date||||0.4817
95885551|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0063
95885552|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0162|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.0162
95885553|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8715|||||||t-test|||1 month before index date||||0.8715
95885554|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2799
95885555|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.0126
95885556|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2126|||||||t-test|||2 months before index date||||0.2126
95885557|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7004|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.7004
95885558|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1476|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.1476
95885559|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2057|||||||t-test|||3 months before index date||||0.2057
95885560|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2905|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.2905
95885561|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8273|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.8273
95885562|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||t-test|||4 months before index date||||0.6270
95885563|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3256|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.3256
95885564|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5631|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.5631
95885565|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4491|||||||t-test|||5 months before index date||||0.4491
95885566|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2009|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2009
95885567|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3011|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.3011
95885568|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2065|||||||t-test|||6 months before index date||||0.2065
95885569|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.6098
95885570|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2586|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.2586
95885571|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4074|||||||t-test|||7 months before index date||||0.4074
95885572|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0345|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.0345
95885573|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4377|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.4377
95885574|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7191|||||||t-test|||8 months before index date||||0.7191
95885575|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0199|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.0199
95885576|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1032|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.1032
95885577|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.904|||||||t-test|||9 months before index date||||0.9040
95885578|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0316|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.0316
95885579|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6748|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.6748
95885580|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2679|||||||t-test|||10 months before index date||||0.2679
95885581|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.5010
95885582|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3228|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.3228
95885583|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||t-test|||11 months before index date||||0.7881
95885584|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.0876
95885585|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1226|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.1226
95885586|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9753|||||||t-test|||12 months before index date||||0.9753
95885587|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0336|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.0336
95885588|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2551|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.2551
95885589|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6189|||||||t-test|||1 month after index date||||0.6189
95885590|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7051|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7051
95885591|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9775|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.9775
95885592|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7643|||||||t-test|||2 months after index date||||0.7643
95885593|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.2953
95885594|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6257|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.6257
95885595|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4753|||||||t-test|||3 months after index date||||0.4753
95885596|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0926|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0926
95885597|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0013
95885598|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065|||||||t-test|||4 months after index date||||0.0065
95885599|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2212|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.2212
95885600|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9688|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.9688
95885601|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5647|||||||t-test|||5 months after index date||||0.5647
95885602|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.0023
95885603|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1142|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.1142
95885604|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842|||||||t-test|||6 months after index date||||0.3842
95885605|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9097|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.9097
95885606|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3885|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3885
95885607|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3834|||||||t-test|||7 months after index date||||0.3834
95885608|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.3075
95885609|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9075|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.9075
95885610|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5993|||||||t-test|||8 months after index date||||0.5993
95885611|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0775|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.0775
95885612|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1536|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.1536
95885613|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8553|||||||t-test|||9 months after index date||||0.8553
95885614|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6295|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.6295
95885615|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0551|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.0551
95885616|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2215|||||||t-test|||10 months after index date||||0.2215
95885617|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1948|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.1948
95885618|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6621|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6621
95885619|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6629|||||||t-test|||11 months after index date||||0.6629
95885620|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5699
95885621|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7105|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.7105
95885622|NCT03975790|191725325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5965|||||||t-test|||12 months after index date||||0.5965
95885623|NCT02289690|191725374|OTHER||RP2D for veliparib in mg BID for 14 days|240.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The RP2D for veliparib was determined to be 240 mg BID for 14 days with carboplatin (AUC 5 mg/mL\*min) on Day 1 and etoposide (100 mg/m²) on Days 1 to 3 during 21-day cycles for 4 cycles.|A primary objective of Phase 1 was to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for veliparib combined with carboplatin and etoposide. The RP2D was determined by the rate of DLTs and overall tolerability of veliparib plus carboplatin and etoposide.||||
95885624|NCT02289690|191725390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.503|0.88|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"The primary efficacy analysis in the Phase 2 portion of the study was the comparison of PFS among participants who received veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A) vs. placebo in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm C).~Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p-value ≤ 0.2"||0.880|0.503|0.059
95885625|NCT02289690|191725390|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.744|1.288|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test stratified by lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.288|0.744|0.924
95885626|NCT02289690|191725391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.432||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.092|1.879|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.879|1.092|0.088
95885627|NCT02289690|191725391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.104|1.931|||Log Rank|Two-sided log rank test stratified by LDH level.|Hazard ratio estimate was obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by LDH level. A hazard ratio of \< 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.931|1.104|0.083
95971573|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.458||0.931||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.931
95885628|NCT02289690|191725392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by veliparib maintenance monotherapy (Arm A).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||3.2|1.1|0.115
95885629|NCT02289690|191725392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level.|Odds ratio was from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by LDH level. An odds ratio of \> 1 favors veliparib in combination with carboplatin and etoposide followed by placebo maintenance monotherapy (Arm B).|"If the primary analysis of PFS (Arm A vs Arm C) was statistically significant a fixed sequence testing procedure was to be performed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.2 for the following key secondary endpoints:~1. OS (Arm A vs Arm C)~2. PFS (Arms B vs Arm C)~3. OS (Arm B vs Arm C)~4. ORR (Arm A vs Arm C)~5. ORR (Arm B vs Arm C)~If significance versus Arm C was not demonstrated, all endpoints later in the testing hierarchy were to be considered exploratory."||1.3|0.5|0.604
95885630|NCT02495168|191725394|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Referece LS Mean Ratio|101.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|111.9|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||111.9|92.7|
95885631|NCT02495168|191725395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.334|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.673|2.996||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||2.996|1.673|<0.0001
95885632|NCT02495168|191725395|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.939|3.273||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||3.273|1.939|<0.0001
95885633|NCT02495168|191725396|EQUIVALENCE|To show the clinical equivalence, an ANCOVA model was fit on the participants from the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort groups only, with the endpoint as outcome and treatment, study site and treatment-by site interaction as fixed effects and FEV1 baseline value as covariate. If the treatment-by-site interaction factor was not significant at the 0.05 level, the model was to be rerun without the interaction term.|Test/Reference LS Mean Ratio|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|114.5|||||Fieller's formula was applied to calculate the 90% CI for the generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate and Symbicort LS mean ratio; covariance between treatment means was assumed to be 0.|||114.5|87.0|
95885634|NCT02495168|191725397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.226||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on generic budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate and Placebo participants only.||0.226|0.093|<0.0001
95885635|NCT02495168|191725397|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.229||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||LS means difference and p-value from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects, baseline FEV1 as covariate and endpoint as outcome on Symbicort and Placebo participants only.||0.229|0.099|<0.0001
95885636|NCT02648178|191725413|OTHER|We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, by week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol), Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO (Carbon Monoxide) level,by week and their interactions.||||||||||||We tested whether there were significant associations between cigarette smoking and e-cigarette smoking, as well as whether there were significant associations between biomarkers mentioned above with CO level.||We provided estimated values of coefficients from model and their 95% confidence intervals.|||We used a linear mixed model to estimate associations between cigarette smoking and that of e-cigarette smoking, week and their interactions. We also used the same model to estimate association between biomarkers such as NNAL, Nicotine, Cotinine, Hydro and Creatinine and CO level, week and their interactions.|||
95971574|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.652|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.158||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.158
95885637|NCT00420927|191725421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||Chi-squared|P value is from Pearson's chi-square test.||||||0.023
95885638|NCT00420927|191725422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.082
95885639|NCT00420927|191725423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.280
95885640|NCT00420927|191725423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.287
95885641|NCT00420927|191725424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.026
95885642|NCT00420927|191725424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.009
95885643|NCT00420927|191725425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
95885644|NCT00420927|191725425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.063
95885645|NCT00420927|191725426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.395
95885646|NCT00420927|191725426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.640
95885647|NCT00420927|191725427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.159
95885648|NCT00420927|191725427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.217
95885649|NCT00420927|191725428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.060
95885650|NCT00420927|191725428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.043
95885651|NCT00420927|191725429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.004
95885652|NCT00420927|191725429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.049
95885653|NCT00420927|191725430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.240
95885654|NCT00420927|191725430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.271
95885655|NCT00420927|191725431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.230
95885656|NCT00420927|191725431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.550
95885657|NCT00420927|191725432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.301
95885658|NCT00420927|191725432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.188
95885659|NCT00420927|191725433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.314
95885660|NCT00420927|191725433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.235
95885661|NCT00420927|191725434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.030
95885662|NCT00420927|191725434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.403
95885663|NCT00420927|191725435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.036
95971575|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.172||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF IS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.172
95971576|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.401||0.579||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.579
95971577|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.115||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.115
95971578|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.392||0.668||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.668
95971579|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.141||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OF domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.141
95971580|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.734||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.734
95971581|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.477||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.477
95885664|NCT00420927|191725435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.349
95885665|NCT00420927|191725436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||0.037
95885666|NCT00420927|191725436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline||||||<0.001
95885667|NCT00420927|191725437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.192||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
95885668|NCT00420927|191725437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.241
95885669|NCT00420927|191725438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.028
95885670|NCT00420927|191725438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
95885671|NCT00420927|191725439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.074
95885672|NCT00420927|191725439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
95885673|NCT01025752|191725463|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.8||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.80) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||0.80|-0.67|0.007
95885674|NCT01025752|191725463|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49||Non-inferiority margin of 1|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.49) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|3 month post-baseline time point||0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
95885675|NCT01025752|191725463|NON_INFERIORITY|A 20% (1.4) reduction in NRS for pain intensity from baseline was considered minimally clinically important the non-inferiority margin was set at one NRS unit. The required sample size was 230 participants. Because enrollment was slower than expected and the standard deviation in the primary outcome was less than the initial power calculation (1.6 vs. 2.45) we conducted a sample size recalculation, based on observed data to determine that we would need 42 completers per arm for 80% power.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.71||The non-inferiority margin is 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|The models includes treatment arm, time, treatment-by-time interaction, baseline NRS, stratification variables (distance from VA \& back pain cause)|The upper limit (0.71) fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.|6 month post- baseline time point.||0.71|-0.86|0.004
95885676|NCT01025752|191725464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.09|-0.74|0.12
95885677|NCT01025752|191725464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.18|-0.87|0.20
95885678|NCT01025752|191725464|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.52|-0.57|0.93
95885679|NCT01025752|191725465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point||1.29|-2.29|0.58
95885680|NCT01025752|191725465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point||0.41|-3.46|0.12
95885681|NCT01025752|191725465|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point||1.20|-2.42|0.51
95885682|NCT01025752|191725466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.87|-2.30|0.83
95885683|NCT01025752|191725466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.98|-1.68|0.42
95885684|NCT01025752|191725466|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.24|-3.40|0.68
95885685|NCT01025752|191725467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|4.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||4.16|-1.66|0.40
95885686|NCT01025752|191725467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|3.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||3.58|-2.82|0.81
95885687|NCT01025752|191725467|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||5.82|-0.96|0.16
95885688|NCT01025752|191725468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks time point). (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.80|-2.32|0.85
95885689|NCT01025752|191725468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.73|-4.27|0.40
95885690|NCT01025752|191725468|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||2.83|-4.30|0.68
95885691|NCT01025752|191725469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||post-treatment (12 weeks) time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||0.40|-2.28|0.17
95885692|NCT01025752|191725469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.16|-1.39|0.86
95885693|NCT01025752|191725469|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months post-baseline time point. (Mean difference of IVR CBT- F2F CBT)||1.97|-1.22|0.64
95885694|NCT01218243|191725486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|6.36|||ANCOVA|||||6.36|2.67|< 0.01
95885695|NCT01218243|191725487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|16.44|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.44|-9.76|>0.05
95885696|NCT01218243|191725488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|||||1.78|-1.41|> 0.05
95885697|NCT01218243|191725489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|5.05|||ANCOVA|||||5.05|1.36|< 0.01
95885698|NCT01218243|191725490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|6.18|||ANCOVA|||||6.18|2.07|<0.01
95885699|NCT04545385|191725494|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|4.071|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was performed using logistic regression with fixed effects for treatment, baseline FEV1, weight, age group, and gender.||4.071|0.545|0.7817
95885700|NCT01362205|191725516|OTHER|||||||0.2454|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2454
95885701|NCT02207244|191725527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
95885702|NCT02207244|191725528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
95885703|NCT02207244|191725529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
95885704|NCT02207244|191725530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
95885705|NCT02207244|191725531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||< 0.001
95885706|NCT02207244|191725532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||p value is based on the log-rank test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95971582|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.235||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.235
95971583|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.391|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.111||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF SD domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.111
95885707|NCT02207244|191725533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885708|NCT02207244|191725534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.2|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided Mantel Haenszel (MH) Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||23.2|10.0|< 0.001
95885709|NCT02207244|191725534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885710|NCT02207244|191725535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10.0%|Difference in Percentage|23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|30.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||30.4|16.0|< 0.001
95885711|NCT02207244|191725535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885712|NCT02207244|191725536|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority margin= -10%|Difference in percentage|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|24.4|||MH Z-test|||p value is based on 1-sided MH Z-test adjusted for investigator site (pooled).||24.4|11.4|< 0.001
95885713|NCT02207244|191725536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885714|NCT02207244|191725537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885715|NCT02207244|191725538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||p value is based on ANOVA model stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885716|NCT02207244|191725539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||p value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by investigator site (pooled).||||< 0.001
95885717|NCT02216591|191725547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was significant, F(1,16) = 7.76, p = 0.013.||||||.013
95971584|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.343||0.31||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.310
95885718|NCT02216591|191725548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = 1.29, p = 0.274||||||.274
95885719|NCT02216591|191725549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|Mixed-model general linear model with age and education included as covariates. Time x arm interaction was not significant, F(1,16) = .72, p = 0.410||||||.410
95885720|NCT00357968|191725586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.04|48.38|||ANCOVA|||||48.38|38.04|<0.0001
95885721|NCT00357968|191725587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|19.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.26|10.6|<0.0001
95885722|NCT00357968|191725588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.35|51.15|||ANCOVA|||||51.15|38.35|<0.0001
95885723|NCT00357968|191725593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95885724|NCT00357968|191725594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0629||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0629
95885725|NCT00357968|191725595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1827||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1827
95885726|NCT00357968|191725596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-47.4|||ANCOVA|||||-47.4|-61.2|<0.0001
95885727|NCT00357968|191725597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-60.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|-54.0|||ANCOVA|||||-54.0|-67.1|<0.0001
95971585|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.09||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.090
95971586|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.335||0.03||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.030
95885728|NCT00357968|191725598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-49.2|||ANCOVA|||||-49.2|-63.2|<0.0001
95885729|NCT00357968|191725599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-20.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.5|-25.7|<0.0001
95885730|NCT00357968|191725600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|-2.95|0.7058
95885731|NCT00357968|191725601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|1.82|||ANCOVA|||||1.82|-4.48|0.4029
95885732|NCT00357968|191725602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.7893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.06|0.7893
95885733|NCT00357968|191725603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.25|0.4528
95885734|NCT03919799|191725604|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|5.82||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||5.82|0.19|0.9472
95885735|NCT03919799|191725604|SUPERIORITY|The LOCF imputation was followed by logistic regression analysis. Comparison analysis between belumosudil dose regimen and placebo was performed using a logistic regression analysis with treatment in the model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|2.35||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.35|0.07|0.3078
95885736|NCT03919799|191725605|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis used rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-0.04||||0.9889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|6.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||6.42|-6.51|0.9889
95885737|NCT03919799|191725605|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analysis using rank-transformed data, with CRISS score as a dependent variable and treatment, visit, and visit x treatment interaction as fixed effects. Visit was a repeated factor, and analyses were done through week 24.|Least square mean difference|-4.18||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.59|2.23||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||2.23|-10.59|0.1916
95885738|NCT03919799|191725607|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.6||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||3.6|-4.7|0.7710
95885739|NCT03919799|191725607|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.6||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.8|0.5|0.0308
95885740|NCT03919799|191725608|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.4||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||7.7|-4.9|0.6533
95885741|NCT03919799|191725608|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.5||||0.6338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||5.0|-8.1|0.6338
95885742|NCT03919799|191725609|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|14.6||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||31.8|-2.5|0.0916
95885743|NCT03919799|191725609|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.6||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.6|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||8.6|-25.7|0.3146
95885744|NCT03919799|191725610|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.0||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||12.8|-32.8|0.3753
95885745|NCT03919799|191725610|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.7||||0.9481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|22.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||22.1|-23.5|0.9481
95885746|NCT03919799|191725611|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.036||||0.8387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||0.320|-0.392|0.8387
95885747|NCT03919799|191725611|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.039||||0.8234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||0.395|-0.317|0.8234
95885748|NCT03919799|191725612|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.009||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.413|16.395||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||16.395|-22.413|0.7535
95885749|NCT03919799|191725612|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.015||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.419|-1.611||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||-1.611|-40.419|0.0348
95885750|NCT03919799|191725613|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|45.566||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.621|87.512||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||87.512|3.621|0.0343
95885751|NCT03919799|191725613|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-21.984||||0.2922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.93|19.962||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||19.962|-63.930|0.2922
95885752|NCT03919799|191725614|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-16.757||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.933|37.419||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||37.419|-70.933|0.5320
95885753|NCT03919799|191725614|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|4.02||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.156|58.196||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||58.196|-50.156|0.8804
95885754|NCT03919799|191725615|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|7.522||||0.8628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.837|95.88||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg QD versus Placebo||95.880|-80.837|0.8628
95885755|NCT03919799|191725615|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-42.442||||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-128.242|43.359|||MMRM|||Belumosudil 200 mg BID versus Placebo||43.359|-128.242|0.3196
95971587|NCT01160289|191915862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.326||0.004||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF OS domain score; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.004
95971588|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.656
95885756|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .57||Relief of breathlessness||||.91
95885757|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.56||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.31
95885758|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value=.32||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.96
95885759|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 8.09||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.04
95885760|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.41||Improve your physical well-being||||.70
95885761|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.81||Relief of breathlessness||||.01
95885762|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.41||Improve your ability to perform activities in and out of your home||||.49
95885763|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= .44||Prevent lung flare-ups||||.93
95885764|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.87||Discuss COPD and its progression||||.60
95885765|NCT02970422|191725675|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 3.61||Improve your physical well-being||||.31
95885766|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value: 1.31||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.73
95885767|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.28||To prevent the development of COPD||||.23
95885768|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.51||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.14
95885769|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 2.28||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.52
95885770|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.88||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.11
95885771|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.57||To relieve breathlessness in adults living with COPD||||.14
95885772|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 1.29||To prevent the development of COPD||||.73
95885773|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.64||To prevent lung flare-ups in adults living with COPD||||.20
95885774|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 5.02||To increase the ability of adults living with COPD to exercise||||.17
95885775|NCT02970422|191725676|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square value= 9.97||To improve the maximal amount of exercise of adults living with COPD in and out of the home||||.02
95885776|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Chi squared value= 17.20||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.05
95885777|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 4.56||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.87
95885778|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 6.85||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.65
95885779|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.00||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.35
95885780|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 18.75||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.03
95885781|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 35.52||Activity 1: Walking from one place to another outside of your home on a flat surface||||.00
95971589|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.460
95885782|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 10.23||Activity 2: Moving from one place to another using motorized transportation||||.33
95885783|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 23.94||Activity 3: Climbing two or more flights of stairs||||.00
95885784|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 22.80||Activity 4: Walking up a hill||||.01
95885785|NCT02970422|191725677|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value= 20.43||Activity 5: Participating in regular exercise requiring physical effort, to maintain or improve health or fitness||||.02
95885786|NCT02970422|191725678|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric led to equal variance (levene's test) which couldn't be assumed, independent samples were taken (Kruskal-Wallis)|||F(3,144)=137.82|||.00
95885787|NCT02970422|191725679|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|Factorial ANOVA used because variance could be assumed|||F(3,144)=55.89 Partial ETA squared (effect size)=0.54|||.000
95971590|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level \<340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.198
95971591|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95971592|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.671
95885788|NCT02970422|191725680|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=7.61|||.00
95885789|NCT02970422|191725681|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,142)=1.21|||.31
95885790|NCT02970422|191725682|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric independent sample Kruskal-Wallis test (failed variance assumed|||F(3,139)=8.09|||.04
95885791|NCT02970422|191725683|OTHER|||||||0|||||||ANOVA|One-way ANOVA|||F(3,143)=8.01|||.00
95885792|NCT02142959|191725685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|65.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factors: treatment grp \& wk of visit; covariates of site, smoking status \& surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation.||Comparison of omaveloxolone lotion pooled (0.5% and 3%) versus vehicle lotion||0.0|-0.2|0.237
95885793|NCT02142959|191725685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Omaveloxolone treatment arms were compared with Vehicle Lotion using a hierarchical testing strategy to control the overall type I error.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 0.5% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.0|-0.2|>0.05
95885794|NCT02142959|191725685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed factor: treatment grp \& visit wk; Covariates: site, smoking status \& breast surgery. Missing data imputed using each patient's worst-observation||Comparison of Omaveloxolone Lotion 3% versus Vehicle Lotion||0.1|-0.1|>0.05
95885795|NCT00646776|191725699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.188|1.835|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.835|1.188|
95885796|NCT00646776|191725700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.025|3.06|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||3.060|2.025|
95885797|NCT00646776|191725701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.402|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.052|1.867|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||1.867|1.052|
95885798|NCT00646776|191725702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.098|||ANOVA|||||1.098|0.817|
95885799|NCT00646776|191725703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.745||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5569|0.9967|||ANOVA|||||0.9967|0.5569|0.0963
95885800|NCT00646776|191725704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.723|1.015|||ANOVA|||||1.015|0.723|
95885801|NCT00646776|191725707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.809|||ANOVA|||||0.809|0.538|
95885802|NCT00646776|191725708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.651|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.986|||ANOVA|||||0.986|0.430|
95885803|NCT00646776|191725709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.696|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.563|0.862|||ANOVA|||||0.862|0.563|
95885804|NCT00646776|191725715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|10.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.135|14.61|||ANOVA|||||14.610|8.135|
95885805|NCT00646776|191725716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|7.766|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.133|9.833|||ANCOVA|||||9.833|6.133|
95885806|NCT00646776|191725717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|11.451|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.147|16.095|||ANOVA|||||16.095|8.147|
95885807|NCT00646776|191725718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.783|2.691|||ANOVA||Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of treatment differences on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain estimates on the original scale.|||2.691|1.783|
95971593|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259||||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.259
95971594|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.441||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.441
95971595|NCT01160289|191915864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in the IIEF EF domain scores reported by optimal testosterone level ≥340 ng/dL; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||||||0.433
95971596|NCT01160289|191915865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.13||||0.423||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.423
95885808|NCT02700815|191725738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.06|-1.15|0.0303
95885809|NCT02700815|191725738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.60|-0.18|0.2886
95885810|NCT02700815|191725738|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.33|-1.10|0.0003
95885811|NCT02700815|191725739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.07|-0.80|0.0956
95885812|NCT02700815|191725739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.61|-0.01|0.0564
95885813|NCT02700815|191725739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-72 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.25|-0.87|0.0004
95885814|NCT02700815|191725740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.04|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.04|-0.97|0.0347
95885815|NCT02700815|191725740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.65|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||0.65|-0.02|0.0622
95885816|NCT02700815|191725740|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA includes treatment, country, and application site (back/neck) as fixed effects, and baseline POMwp as a continuous covariate.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare POMwp AUC(0-120 h) between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin||-0.35|-1.01|<0.0001
95971597|NCT01160289|191915865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.12||||0.443||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.443
95971598|NCT01160289|191915865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.084||||0.599||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.599
95971599|NCT01160289|191915865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.334||||0.029||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.029
95971600|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.152||||0.148||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.148
95971601|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.216||||0.033||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.033
95971602|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.124||||0.224||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.224
95971603|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.189||||0.056||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in total cholesterol; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.056
95971604|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.211||||0.031||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.031
95885817|NCT02700815|191725741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.882||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.21|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.21|1.10|0.0202
95885818|NCT02700815|191725741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.09|0.49|0.1206
95885819|NCT02700815|191725741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.629||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 30% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||2.39|1.11|0.0122
95885820|NCT02700815|191725742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.729||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.09|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.09|0.97|0.0643
95885821|NCT02700815|191725742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.833||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||1.22|0.57|0.3479
95885822|NCT02700815|191725742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.125||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model include country and application site as covariates. Odds ratio was calculated as combination treatment/individual treatment.||A logistic regression was used to compare change in number of patients with a decrease in POMwp of at least 50% from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. The likelihood-ratio test was used to test for differences between treatments.||3.22|1.40|0.0004
95885823|NCT02700815|191725743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.313||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.44|-1.67|0.0008
95885824|NCT02700815|191725743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||0.64|-0.24|0.3726
95885825|NCT02700815|191725743|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in POMwp from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline POMwp and baseline POMwp by time interaction.||-0.68|-1.56|<0.0001
95885826|NCT02700815|191725744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.53|-1.78|0.8810
95885827|NCT02700815|191725744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.49|-0.87|0.6094
95971605|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.227||||0.017||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.017
95971606|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.016||||0.866||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.866
95971607|NCT01160289|191915866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.032||||0.726||95.0||||The p-value is for the change from baseline to Week 12 in triglycerides; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.726
95971608|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-9.014|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
95971609|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.547|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
95971610|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-9.216|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
95971611|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-18.75|||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in HDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||<0.001
95971612|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.977||||0.776||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
95971613|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.78||||0.814||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.814
95971614|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.629||||0.627||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.627
95971615|NCT01160289|191915867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.128||||0.968||95.0||||The p-value is for the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in LDL-C; Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.968
95971616|NCT01160289|191915868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|-0.006||||0.984||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.984
95971617|NCT01160289|191915868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.465||||0.076||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.076
95971618|NCT01160289|191915868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|0.387||||0.142||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.142
95971619|NCT01160289|191915868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-0.072||||0.776||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.776
95885828|NCT02700815|191725744|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.602||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||1.95|-0.42|0.2047
95885829|NCT02700815|191725745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339||0.2193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between placebo and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||4.27|-0.98|0.2193
95885830|NCT02700815|191725745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949||0.7672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between capsaicin and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||2.15|-1.58|0.7672
95885831|NCT02700815|191725745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|A Mixed Model Repeat Measures (MMRM) analysis was used to compare change in PA from baseline between diclofenac and combination therapy diclofenac + capsaicin. MMRM model included fixed effects of treatment, country, application site (back/neck), time and fixed covariates of baseline PA and baseline PA by time interaction.||3.88|0.15|0.0339
95885832|NCT00524368|191725746|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/rtv once daily and DRV/rtv twice daily exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/rtv q.d. versus the DRV/rtv b.i.d. therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.092|||Regression, Logistic|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline viral load (log10) as covariate.|Difference in proportion of response DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 70% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 306 participants were required per treatment arm to establish noninferiority of darunavir (DRV)/ritonavir (rtv) once daily versus DRV/rtv twice daily with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.025 and 90% power.||0.092|-0.054|<0.001
95885833|NCT00524368|191725747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of this 95% 2-sided CI of the difference between DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. exceeded -12%, noninferiority of DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. could be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.075|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate.|Difference in proportion of response between 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. minus DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.075|-0.060|<0.001
95885834|NCT00524368|191725748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between least square means|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.182|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference between least square means between the DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d. treatment groups at Week 48.|||0.182|-0.188|0.977
95885835|NCT00524368|191725749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.191|||Cox proportional hazards|Including treatment as fixed factor and baseline plasma viral load as a covariate||||1.191|0.824|0.917
95885836|NCT00524368|191725750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.945|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.279|||Regression, Cox|Including baseline log10 viral load as covariate||||1.279|0.699|0.716
95885837|NCT00524368|191725751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.169|0.115|||ANCOVA|Including 1 factor for treatment, and including the covariate baseline log10 plasma viral load|Difference in least square means between the 2 treatment groups (DRV/rtv q.d. and DRV/rtv b.i.d)|||0.115|-0.169|0.711
95885838|NCT00524368|191725752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.26||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.09|14.2|||ANCOVA|The model includes treatment as factor and baseline CD4 count and baseline viral load (log10) as covariates.|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||14.20|-26.09|0.562
95885839|NCT00524368|191725753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.06|||ANCOVA|Including factors for treatment, and baseline log10 plasma viral load and baseline FAHI score as covariates|Difference in least square means DRV/rtv once daily minus DRV/rtv twice daily estimated from the ANCOVA model.|||4.06|-2.97|0.761
95885840|NCT01852110|191725801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||1.37|-1.00|0.7623
95885841|NCT01852110|191725805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||2.54|-2.42|0.9604
95885842|NCT01852110|191725806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.22|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.22|-0.01|0.0829
95885843|NCT00842712|191725864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.718||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|1.048|||Log Rank|||PFS Time: Independent read||1.048|0.492|0.0845
95885844|NCT00842712|191725865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.5912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.642|1.286|||Log Rank|||||1.286|0.642|0.5912
95885845|NCT00842712|191725866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|1.171|||Log Rank|||||1.171|0.564|0.2648
95885846|NCT00410046|191725869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Admissions to hospital||||1.0
95885847|NCT00410046|191725869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions||||0.23
95885848|NCT00410046|191725869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567|||||||Fisher Exact|||Physiotherapist visits||||0.567
95885849|NCT00410046|191725869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Out-patient physician visit||||0.475
95885850|NCT00410046|191725870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA, baseline was a covariate.||Inpatient hospitalization days per patient||||0.628
95885851|NCT00410046|191725870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||Therapeutic warm bath sessions per patient||||0.045
95885852|NCT00410046|191725870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||ANCOVA|||Physiotherapist visits per patient||||0.361
95885853|NCT00410046|191725870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||Out-patient physician visit per patient||||0.816
95885854|NCT00410046|191725871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis completed for patients with sick leave during the past 12 months||||1.00
95885855|NCT00410046|191725872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.906
95885856|NCT00410046|191725877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743||||||Comparison of Hospitalization 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Hospitalization during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.743
95885857|NCT00410046|191725877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||Comparison of Therapeutic warm bath 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Therapeutic warm bath during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of percentages||||0.362
95885858|NCT00410046|191725877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Comparison of Visit to physiotherapist 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Visit to physiotherapist during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95885859|NCT00410046|191725877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Comparison of Out-patient physician 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Out-patient physician during 48 treatment weeks|Fisher Exact|||||||0.091
95885860|NCT00410046|191725878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||Comparison of Sick leave 48 weeks before treatment Vs. Sick leave during 48 weeks of treatment|Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
95885861|NCT02785354|191725886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI ) (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.51|<0.0001
95885862|NCT02785354|191725886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.92|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.92|0.75|0.0006
95885863|NCT02785354|191725887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.66|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.66|0.46|<0.0001
95885864|NCT02785354|191725887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.79|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.79|0.58|<0.0001
95885865|NCT02785354|191725888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.88|0.63|0.0007
95885866|NCT02785354|191725888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.14|0.85|0.8341
95885867|NCT02785354|191725889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.95|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with hazard ratio (HR) and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||0.95|0.65|0.0147
95971620|NCT01160289|191915869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean of treatment difference|5.031||||0.103||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.103
95971621|NCT01160289|191915869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean treatment difference|-3.225||||0.277||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.277
95885868|NCT02785354|191725889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0|||Fine and Gray model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Cumulative function to estimate the incidence (with death as a competing risk), 2) Fine and Gray model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI (and death as a competing risk).||1.00|0.71|0.0501
95885869|NCT02785354|191725890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
95971622|NCT01160289|191915869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|7.056||||0.019||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.019
95971623|NCT01160289|191915869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean of treatment difference|-1.201||||0.676||95.0||||Conducted at a 2-sided alpha level of 0.10 without adjustment for multiplicity.|Mixed model repeated measures analysis|||||||0.676
95971624|NCT00158860|191915898|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier estimates|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|38.6|||Log Rank|||||38.6|16.0|<0.001
95971625|NCT00158860|191915898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|0.57|||Log Rank|||||0.570|0.282|<0.001
95971626|NCT00158860|191915899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.001
95971627|NCT00652327|191915972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||.0026
95885870|NCT02785354|191725890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.84|0.71|<0.0001
95885871|NCT02785354|191725891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.76|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during dabigatran or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for dabigatran versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.76|0.66|<0.0001
95885872|NCT02785354|191725891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.89|||Cox proportional hazard risk model|||Outcome was analyzed during rivaroxaban or VKA exposure period (on treatment) using: 1) Kaplan-Meier to estimate the cumulative incidence, 2) Cox proportional hazard risk model to compare the 1-year risk for rivaroxaban versus VKA, with HR and 95%CI.||0.89|0.79|<0.0001
95885873|NCT00848081|191725895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403||||||1-sided test|Fisher Exact|||The p-value is from a one-sided Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. A total of 142 subjects per treatment arm would provide 91% power to detect the difference between a Group 1 proportion of 0.03 and a Group 2 proportion of 0.13.||||0.403
95885874|NCT00848081|191725897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANCOVA|||The LS mean, standard error, 2-sided 95% confidence interval and p-value for the difference between placebo and tadalafil 5 mg are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||||0.130
95885875|NCT00848081|191725898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||||||p-value is on change from baseline|ANOVA|The p-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data.||||||0.258
95885876|NCT00848081|191725899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|P-value is from Type III sums of squares ANOVA on rank-transformed data; p-value is on change from baseline.||||||0.828
95885877|NCT00875212|191725900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measure anova|The median value of each parameter (pH baseline, minimal pH) was obtained and these values were compared between each group|The study was based on the use of dentifrices for daily oral hygiene in a crossover design. The null hyphothesis was no difference between pH values of the groups. The statistical analysis was by repeated measurements ANOVA.||||0.001
95885878|NCT00875212|191725900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated-measurements ANOVA||The comparison was based on mean and median values of plaque pH in different moments of cariogenic challenge. The null hypothesis was that no diference between the groups wil be found. The test hypothesis was that the experimental dentifrice of CaGP-F would provide a better control of plaque pH after 14 days of use.||||0.001
95885879|NCT00875212|191725901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.25||0.01||95.0|||||ANOVA|repeated measurements ANOVA|The difference of pH values between groups was above 1.0 unit.|The groups were compared by repeated measurements anova. There was no power calculation, but a pilot study to check the minimal number necessary of subjects in order to find a signifcant difference between interventions.||||0.01
95885880|NCT01752907|191725902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Treatment difference = bone pain DVD - general education DVD|There was no statistical hypothesis testing for this study. The clinical hypothesis was that a difference in mean maximum pain of 0.5 (scale 0 to 10) in favor of bone pain education would be a clinically relevant difference.||1.0|-0.4|0.3479
95971628|NCT02926898|191915973|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|-54.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-35.6||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ZX008 or placebo) and age group (\< 6 years, ≥ 6 years) as factors, and with log baseline frequency as a covariate, and log CSF as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||||-35.6|-67.2|<0.001
95971629|NCT02926898|191915974|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model using a categorical response variable as a function of Treatment group, Baseline seizure frequency, and age group.||||||<0.001
95885881|NCT02310568|191725925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|3.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.9|-2.8|0.784
95885882|NCT02310568|191725925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|5.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||5.8|-0.6|0.184
95885883|NCT02310568|191725925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.36|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||1.6|-5.7|0.360
95885884|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.0|-3.2|0.708
95971630|NCT02926898|191915975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95971631|NCT01288521|191915988|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis is that the tacrolimus biovailability alone is equal to the tacrolimus bioavailability when given with ketoconazole.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|The bioavailability with Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using linear model adjusting for sex and creatinine clearance.||The bioavailability of Tac alone vs. Tac +keto was compared using a general linear model including sex and creatinine clearance as covariates.||||0.006
95885885|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-5.2|0.646
95885886|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-1.6|0.352
95885887|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|7.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.3|-3.1|0.495
95885888|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99||0.422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-2.7|0.422
95885889|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65||0.889|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|4.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.2|-5.0|0.889
95885890|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.324||90.0|-2.0|7.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.4|-2.0|0.324
95885891|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.939|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|4.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.9|-4.5|0.939
95885892|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.308|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|6.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||6.7|-1.7|0.308
95885893|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|7.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||7.6|-6.0|0.846
95885894|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-9.8|0.449
95971632|NCT00116337|191915990|OTHER|Statistical analyses was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test. A p value of \< 0.05 was taken as indicating statistical significance.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Statistical analyses will be performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and Paired t test.||Each patient was served as their own control; comparisons was made at various points in the study. Clinical parameters was assessed before the study and also at several end points following the Reconditioning Phase.||||<0.05
95971633|NCT00116337|191915992|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||nonparametric analog (Freidman Test)|||The data prior to implantation were compared with data obtained after implantation of the cough system using a nonparametric analog (Freidman Test) to the standard repeated measures analysis of variance. Statistical significance was assumed at P\<0.05. This alpha level was chosen as a correlation for inflated type I error rates because of multiple comparisons. Results are reported as means ± SEs.||||<0.05
95971634|NCT00682890|191915995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||P value on change at 3 months for placebo group||||0.63
95885895|NCT02310568|191725927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||9.9|-2.3|0.295
95885896|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-4.0|0.514
95971635|NCT00682890|191915995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
95971636|NCT00682890|191915996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.51
95971637|NCT00682890|191915996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95971638|NCT04494256|191916010|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84|=|0.9924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|15.32||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||15.32|-15.47|=0.9924
95885897|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.0|-4.5|0.302
95885898|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.8|-2.6|0.736
95885899|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||7.8|-5.6|0.775
95885900|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.553|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.4|4.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.5|-9.4|0.553
95885901|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.299|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|9.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||9.3|-2.2|0.299
95971639|NCT04494256|191916011|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|=|0.9203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.74||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||3.74|-4.14|=0.9203
95971640|NCT04494256|191916012|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|=|0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.04||ANCOVA model included: treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline percent predicted SVC, baseline plasma NfL, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.41|=0.1069
95971641|NCT04494256|191916013|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.29|||=|0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|42.587|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL||||42.587|0.433|=0.1003
95971642|NCT04494256|191916014|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1143|||||||Kaplan-Meier product limit method|||||||=0.1143
95885902|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.994|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.1|0.994
95885903|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.87|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-0.9|0.870
95885904|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-1.3|0.885
95885905|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|2.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.7|-3.5|0.834
95885906|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.1|-5.1|0.281
95885907|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|4.1|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||4.1|-0.9|0.272
95885908|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.249|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.4|-2.1|0.249
95885909|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.6|-2.9|0.016
95885910|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.285|TWO_SIDED|0.285|-0.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.3|-0.5|0.285
95971643|NCT00577473|191916021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0455||||0.4411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.01|16.11||4.8 g/day compared to 2.4 g/day|Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||16.11|-7.01|0.4411
95971644|NCT00577473|191916022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0331||||0.5677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.67|8.04|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||8.04|-14.67|0.5677
95971645|NCT00577473|191916023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0445||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.7|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||7.7|-16.6|0.4730
95885911|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score ( Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.8|-3.1|0.635
95885912|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-4.4|0.217
95885913|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|3.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.6|-1.2|0.399
95885914|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.429|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.5|-1.5|0.429
95885915|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.3|-1.7|0.260
95885916|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.799|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 4): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.3|-1.0|0.799
95885917|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.5|-1.7|0.738
95885918|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.5||0.691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-2.7|0.691
95885919|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.417|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.9|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Week 8): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.9|-1.0|0.417
95885920|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||3.7|-3.7|0.998
95971646|NCT00577473|191916024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0339||||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|15.26|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.26|-8.48|0.5761
95971647|NCT00577473|191916025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0766||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|19.74|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.74|-4.41|0.2150
95885921|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.353|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-5.8|0.353
95885922|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|5.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Total Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||5.4|-1.3|0.296
95885923|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.5|-1.8|0.841
95885924|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.332|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|0.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.7|-2.6|0.332
95885925|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Social Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.2|-0.6|0.359
95885926|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-2.1|0.347
95885927|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||-0.4|-3.2|0.041
95885928|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|2.4|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Work Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||2.4|-0.4|0.212
95971648|NCT00577473|191916026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0351||||0.5569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|15.2|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||15.20|-8.18|0.5569
95971649|NCT00577473|191916027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1091||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|22.91|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.91|-1.10|0.0769
95971650|NCT00577473|191916028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1139||||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|22.92|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||22.92|-0.13|0.0551
95971651|NCT00577473|191916029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0738||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|19.43|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||19.43|-4.66|0.2306
95971652|NCT00577473|191916030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0652||||0.2931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|18.64|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||18.64|-5.60|0.2931
95971653|NCT00577473|191916031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0051||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|12.69|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||12.69|-11.67|0.9349
95971654|NCT00577473|191916032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.065||||0.2583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|17.73|||Chi-squared|||It was assumed that the true rate of improvement for the 2.4 g/day treatment group is 40% and for the 4.8 g/day group is 60%. To detect a true difference of 20% between these 2 groups with a 2-sided test, type I error of 0.05 (α = 0.05), and power of 90%, 140 patients were required per group to complete the study. To account for a 10% dropout/withdrawal rate, approximately 308 patients were to be enrolled in the study.||17.73|-4.72|0.2583
95971655|NCT02595073|191916036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353|||||||z-test, 2-tailed|||||||0.3353
95971656|NCT02595073|191916037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6190
95885929|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.2|-1.2|0.954
95885930|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||0.6|-1.8|0.407
95885931|NCT02310568|191725929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.7|||ANCOVA|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Family Sub-Scale Score (Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2): The ANCOVA model included change from baseline as dependent variable, and treatment and baseline in the model. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28). The estimates from Stage 1 and the Stage 2 were combined together using a weighted mean (weight=0.5) and assuming the covariance between the two treatment effect estimates is zero.||1.7|-0.6|0.412
95885932|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.7|-2.2|0.856
95885933|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.9|-1.7|0.647
95885934|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.817|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.3|-3.0|0.817
95885935|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.2|-3.8|0.670
95885936|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.736|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.5|-2.3|0.736
95885937|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.0|-4.7|0.496
95885938|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||3.8|-1.9|0.575
95885939|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||4.3|-1.2|0.362
95885940|NCT02310568|191725930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1.||2.6|-3.7|0.771
95885941|NCT02310568|191725931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.26|0.45|
95885942|NCT02310568|191725931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||1.54|0.23|
95971657|NCT02884908|191916060|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95971658|NCT02884908|191916061|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.90
95971659|NCT02884908|191916062|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at baseline (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.38
95971660|NCT02054741|191916074|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||0.86|0.64|0.0001
95971661|NCT02054741|191916075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||||1.50|0.85|0.39
95885943|NCT02310568|191725931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 1: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.32|0.69|
95885944|NCT02310568|191725931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||5.78|0.27|
95885945|NCT02310568|191725931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|24.51|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||24.51|0.19|
95885946|NCT02310568|191725931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Stage 2: Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect, and the baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and for Stage 2 is Day 28.||2.09|0.16|
95885947|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.801|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.801
95885948|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.5|0.416
95885949|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.634|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.634
95885950|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.470
95885951|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.5|0.683
95885952|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.775
95885953|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.4|0.848
95885954|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-0.2|0.490
95885955|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.433
95885956|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.4|0.796
95971662|NCT02054741|191916076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Model||||1.78|1.06|0.015
95971663|NCT00138671|191916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||90.0|-0.17|0.36||||||Week 6||0.36|-0.17|
95971664|NCT00138671|191916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||90.0|-0.27|0.26||||||Week 12||0.26|-0.27|
95971665|NCT00138671|191916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||||90.0|-0.29|0.26||||||Week 26||0.26|-0.29|
95971666|NCT00138671|191916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||||90.0|-0.36|0.2||||||Week 39||0.20|-0.36|
95971667|NCT00138671|191916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||90.0|-0.23|0.35||||||Week 52||0.35|-0.23|
95971668|NCT00138671|191916113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||90.0|-0.29|0.31||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.31|-0.29|
95971669|NCT00138671|191916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.475||||||90.0|-23.47|14.518||||||Week 6||14.518|-23.47|
95885957|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.3|0.624
95885958|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.5|0.844
95885959|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.0|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.7|0.743
95885960|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.356|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.3|0.356
95885961|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-0.2|0.180
95971670|NCT00138671|191916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.91||||||90.0|-30.04|8.232||||||Week 12||8.232|-30.04|
95971671|NCT00138671|191916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.84||||||90.0|-42.51|-3.166||||||Week 26||-3.166|-42.51|
95971672|NCT00138671|191916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.222||||||90.0|-28.52|12.075||||||Week 39||12.075|-28.52|
95971673|NCT00138671|191916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.329||||||90.0|-29.27|12.616||||||Week 52||12.616|-29.27|
95971674|NCT00138671|191916114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.406||||||90.0|-13.7|16.514||||||Week 52 LOCF||16.514|-13.70|
95971675|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.884||||||90.0|-0.317|2.084||||||Week 1||2.084|-0.317|
95885962|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-0.6|0.589
95885963|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.8|0.873
95885964|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.667|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-0.6|0.667
95971676|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||||90.0|-0.728|1.668||||||Week 2||1.668|-0.728|
95971677|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.382||||||90.0|-0.815|1.579||||||Week 3||1.579|-0.815|
95971678|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405||||||90.0|-0.793|1.602||||||Week 4||1.602|-0.793|
95971679|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.562||||||90.0|-0.642|1.766||||||Week 6||1.766|-0.642|
95971680|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.416||||||90.0|-0.809|1.641||||||Week 9||1.641|-0.809|
95971681|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||||90.0|-1.416|1.454||||||Week 11||1.454|-1.416|
95971682|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||||90.0|-1.127|1.308||||||Week 12||1.308|-1.127|
95971683|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.309||||||90.0|-1.551|0.934||||||Week 18||0.934|-1.551|
95971684|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.869||||||90.0|-2.123|0.384||||||Week 26||0.384|-2.123|
95971685|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.664||||||90.0|-2.968|-0.36||||||Week 39||-0.360|-2.968|
95971686|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.116||||||90.0|-3.829|-0.403||||||Week 50||-0.403|-3.829|
95971687|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.801||||||90.0|-3.204|-0.397||||||Week 51||-0.397|-3.204|
95971688|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.026||||||90.0|-3.384|-0.668||||||Week 52||-0.668|-3.384|
95971689|NCT00138671|191916115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.451||||||90.0|-3.003|0.101||||||Week 52 LOCF||0.101|-3.003|
95971690|NCT01856868|191916138|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
95971691|NCT01856868|191916139|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0185
95971692|NCT01856868|191916140|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0434|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0434
95971693|NCT01856868|191916141|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0078
95971694|NCT01856868|191916142|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0025
95885965|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.5|0.548
95885966|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-1.0|0.567
95885967|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.2|0.208
95885968|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.858|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.2|0.858
95885969|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-1.7|0.329
95885970|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.272|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.4|0.272
95885971|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.6|0.946
95885972|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.407|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.3|-0.8|0.407
95885973|NCT02310568|191725932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.8|-0.3|0.436
95885974|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.1|-0.6|0.325
95971695|NCT01856868|191916143|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0082
95971696|NCT01856868|191916144|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95971697|NCT01856868|191916145|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
95971698|NCT01856868|191916146|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0321|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0321
95971699|NCT01856868|191916147|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0182|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0182
95971700|NCT01856868|191916148|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0371
95971701|NCT01856868|191916149|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a paired t-test analysis.||||||0.0257|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0257
95971702|NCT01856868|191916152|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height and weight using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95885975|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.996|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.3|0.996
95885976|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.6|0.377
95885977|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-0.7|0.291
95885978|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-0.4|0.925
95885979|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.2|-0.7|0.390
95885980|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.7|0.502
95971703|NCT01856868|191916153|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95971704|NCT01856868|191916155|EQUIVALENCE|Difference in baseline and 8 week scores was evaluated using a mixed model regression analysis, including fixed effects for height, weight and knee extension strength using patient identity as source of random variation. As a pilot study, these measures were not subject to a formal power analysis but will be used in future sample size calculations.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.159
95971705|NCT00662818|191916161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.25|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.25|0.62|0.329
95971706|NCT00662818|191916162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.5|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.50|0.59|0.420
95971707|NCT00662818|191916166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.85|0.52|0.648
95971708|NCT00662818|191916167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||2.07|0.31|0.647
95971709|NCT00662818|191916168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||4.60|0.73|0.201
95971710|NCT00662818|191916169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|Computed using a logistic regression model adjusting for geographic region, baseline migraine severity, and age.||||3.85|0.47|0.579
95971711|NCT01642251|191916171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.22|0.51||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients within the male/abnormal LDH stratum||0.51|0.22|<0.001
95971712|NCT01642251|191916171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.09||one-sided p value|Regression, Cox|adjusted for ECOG performance status, abnormal protein in the Cox proportional hazard model||The significance test reported here was for treatment arms comparison in patients not in the male/abnormal LDH stratum.||1.09|0.60|0.18
95971713|NCT01642251|191916171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||p value for the interaction by treatment and stratification factor|Regression, Cox|||If there was a significant treatment-by-stratification factor interaction, the results would be reported separately for each stratum. Significance was defined as the p value was less than 0.05.||||0.028
95971714|NCT01642251|191916172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.64|1.07|||Regression, Cox|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||1.07|0.64|0.17
95971715|NCT01642251|191916174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95885981|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.348
95885982|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.1|-1.0|0.160
95885983|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.5|-0.5|0.965
95885984|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.389|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-0.2|0.389
95885985|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.3|-0.8|0.433
95885986|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.94|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|0.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-0.9|0.940
95885987|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.757|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.7|-1.0|0.757
95885988|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-0.7|0.836
95885989|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-0.9|0.827
95885990|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.6|0.507
95885991|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.632
95885992|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.442|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.3|-0.5|0.442
95885993|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-1.1|0.643
95971716|NCT03954392|191916189|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Only one statistical test was conducted, therefore no adjustments for multiple comparisons was needed.||Statistical analysis will compare the post-intervention scores on the primary outcome (Faux Pas Recognition Test scores), controlling for pre-intervention scores.||||< 0.05
95971717|NCT03954392|191916190|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.05
95971718|NCT05249829|191916193|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
95971719|NCT05249829|191916194|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||2.010|1.546|
95971720|NCT05249829|191916195|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.535|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.409|1.672||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||1.672|1.409|
95971721|NCT05249829|191916196|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667. Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.713|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.583|1.853||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration.||1.853|1.583|
95971722|NCT05249829|191916197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.958|1.147||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1818).||1.147|0.958|
95971723|NCT05249829|191916198|OTHER|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>0.667.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.104|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.032|1.18||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.214/GMCmRNA-1273 against the ancestral strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=1418).||1.180|1.032|
95885994|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.2|0.188
95885995|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.701|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.9|-1.4|0.701
95885996|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.4|-1.8|0.271
95885997|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.445|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-0.6|0.445
95885998|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.714|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.5|-0.8|0.714
95885999|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.4|-0.8|0.515
95886000|NCT02310568|191725933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 (Week 4) and Stage 2 (Week 8): Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||0.7|-0.5|0.778
95971724|NCT05249829|191916205|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 99% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|1.493|2.005||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 29 after study vaccine administration.||2.005|1.493|
95886001|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.562|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.0|-2.1|0.562
95886002|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.2|-1.9|0.708
95886003|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.9|0.852
95886004|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.347|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.8|-3.0|0.347
95886005|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.759|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.2|0.759
95886006|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.574|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.9|0.574
95886007|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-2.1|0.831
95886008|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.705|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.4|0.705
95886009|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-2.7|0.600
95886010|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-2.3|0.848
95886011|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-0.6|0.237
95886012|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||0.6|-4.0|0.224
95886013|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.747|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.8|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.8|-1.9|0.747
95886014|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28). Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-2.8|0.764
95886015|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.487|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.0|-1.3|0.487
95886016|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-2.1|0.744
95971725|NCT05249829|191916205|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 96% CI of the Geometric Mean Ratio was \>1.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.763|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.546|2.01||||||Geometric Mean Ratio = GMCmRNA-1273.529/GMCmRNA-1273 against the B.1.1.529 strain at Day 85 after study vaccine administration. Reported statistical analysis based upon the number of participants with non-missing data at baseline and the corresponding timepoint (N=460).||2.010|1.546|
95886017|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.1|-1.1|0.340
95886018|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-3.3|0.477
95886019|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.7|-1.5|0.482
95886020|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.719|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-3.1|0.719
95886021|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|4.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.0|-0.7|0.245
95886022|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.586|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|4.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.4|-2.3|0.586
95886023|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.8|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.8|-4.8|0.440
95886024|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|5.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||5.6|-0.5|0.159
95886025|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.6|0.720
95886026|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.9|-2.0|0.991
95886027|NCT02310568|191725936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.4|-1.5|0.704
95886028|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.539|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.9|0.539
95886029|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.439|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.9|-0.7|0.439
95886030|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 1: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.4|-1.6|0.914
95886031|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-1.3|0.892
95886032|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.463|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|2.0|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.0|-0.8|0.463
95886033|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.1|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.1|-2.1|0.611
95886034|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.321|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.4|-0.6|0.321
95886035|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-0.5|0.294
95886036|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 3: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-1.7|0.987
95886037|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.3|-1.2|0.599
95886038|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.6|-0.7|0.322
95886039|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.704|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 4: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.5|-2.4|0.704
95971726|NCT00857272|191916250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fifteen percent has been established as an acceptable non-inferiority margin for evaluation of investigational bowel preparations in previous studies of FDA approved preparations (e.g. NuLytely, MoviPrep).|Difference in success rates|-2.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|6.8|||Chi-squared|||"The primary endpoint of preparation success was tested using a non-inferiority test based upon the difference D=P1-P2,~Null Hypothesis H0: P1-P2\<=D0 versus Alternative Hypothesis H1: P1-P2=D1\>D0,~Where P1 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 5mg group and P2 is the % of patients with successful preps in the HalfLytely 10mg group and D0 is the acceptable margin of equivalence equal to an absolute margin of 15%."||6.8|-11.9|0.005
95886040|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.7|||LS Mean Difference|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-2.0|0.804
95971727|NCT03283072|191916251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.592
95971728|NCT03283072|191916252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANCOVA (gender as co-variate).||||||0.721
95971729|NCT03283072|191916253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.553|||||||ANCOVA|Within, within repeated measures ANVOA (gender as covariate)||||||0.553
95971730|NCT02552368|191916254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-Test|||||||0.002
95971731|NCT02552368|191916255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Performance COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.022
95971732|NCT02552368|191916255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Signed-Rank Test for Satisfaction COPM between Baseline and 12 weeks||||0.031
95886041|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-3.2|0.559
95886042|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.4|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 5: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.4|-1.0|0.369
95886043|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.313|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-1.1|0.313
95886044|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.6|-1.8|0.560
95886045|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.635|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 6: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.2|-1.8|0.635
95886046|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|3.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.8|-1.8|0.538
95886047|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|2.9|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.9|-2.7|0.942
95886048|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 7: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||3.5|-1.7|0.555
95886049|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|2.7|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||2.7|-4.1|0.728
95886050|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|1.6|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||1.6|-5.2|0.362
95886051|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.538|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|4.3|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Week 8: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect. Baseline for Stage 1 was Day 1 and baseline for Stage 2 was Week 4 (Day 28).||4.3|-2.0|0.538
95886052|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.949|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.8|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.8|-2.0|0.949
95886053|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.5|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||1.5|-2.3|0.708
95971733|NCT03406078|191916256|SUPERIORITY||Cumulative Odds Ratio|1.28||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.35|||Proportional odds model|Response variable: categorised % reduction from baseline in final OCS dose. Covariates in the model: treatment, region and daily OCS dose at baseline.||||2.35|0.69|0.434
95971734|NCT00467350|191916276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|"Similar to previous studies, the main outcome measure was the change in the child's main symptom. Changes were determined by the question Has your child's main symptom improved, stayed the same or gotten worse? The main symptom was defined as the chief complaint identified during the triage process. For analysis, responses were dichotomized into 2 groups: improved/better versus worse/same."|||||||||||||||||A χ2 test was used to examine the difference in probabilities of experiencing an outcome between treatment arms and differences were expressed by Mantel-Haenszel common OR estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI).|||
95971735|NCT03616977|191916292|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 2-sided 90% Confidence Interval is completely contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.06||||||||1.06|0.961|
95971736|NCT00515853|191916294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|||CCI final||||0.54
95971737|NCT03691909|191916327|OTHER|||||||0.743|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.09||||||0.743
95971738|NCT03691909|191916328|OTHER|||||||0.714|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.10||||||0.714
95886054|NCT02310568|191725937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|2.2|||Mixed-Effects Model Repeated Measure|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Combined Stage 1 and Stage 2: Repeated measures model included week\*treatment and baseline\*week interaction as fixed effects, week repeated in each participant as repeated effect.||2.2|-1.5|0.752
95886055|NCT02310568|191725938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|2.45|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||2.45|0.37|
95886056|NCT02310568|191725938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|6.88|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 2.5 mg - Placebo). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||6.88|0.39|
95886057|NCT02310568|191725938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||(PF-06372865 7.5 mg - PF-06372865 2.5 mg). Logistic regression model includes treatment as fixed effect, and baseline as covariate. Baseline for Stage 1 is Day 1 and Stage 2 is Week 4 (Day 28).||1.49|0.23|
95886058|NCT02990910|191725968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square test was used to compare the count data,p \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.||||<0.05
95886059|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.158||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 2. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.158
95886060|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.025||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 3. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.025
95886061|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.007||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 4. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.007
95886062|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.061||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 5. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.061
95886063|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.107||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 6. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.107
95886064|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.237||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 7. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.237
95886065|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.497||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 8. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.497
95971739|NCT03691909|191916329|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.37||||||0.183
95971740|NCT03691909|191916330|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.05||||||0.775
95971741|NCT03691909|191916331|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.93||Tender Joint Count||||0.0008
95971742|NCT03691909|191916331|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon-signed rank test|Effect Size: 0.83||Swollen Joint Count||||0.003
95971743|NCT02874924|191916351|EQUIVALENCE|Pilot study, therefore, no power calculation available.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis||4.86|-8.48|0.56
95971744|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.926||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.799|1.074|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a last-observation carried-forward (LOCF) method for missing observations.||1.074|0.799|0.1973
95971745|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.949||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.101|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.101|0.818|0.2808
95971746|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.878||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.758|1.017|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||1.017|0.758|0.0723
95886066|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.704||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 9. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.704
95886067|NCT02989194|191725984|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.585||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only, there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percent Change from Baseline to Day 10. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.585
95886068|NCT02989194|191725995|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to assess the difference between the VIS410 total and placebo treatment groups from nasopharyngeal swabs based on the TCID50.||||0.083
95886069|NCT02989194|191725996|SUPERIORITY|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.169||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was defined as no treatment difference.||||0.169
95886070|NCT02989194|191725997|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive Statistics. Statistical comparisons were performed using log rank test.||||||0.028||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.|All statistical comparisons were performed using 2-sided tests at the 0.05 significance level, unless specifically stated otherwise. All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference. All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|||0.028
95886071|NCT02989194|191725999|EQUIVALENCE|Descriptive Statistics. All statistical comparisons were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||||0.173||||||All p-values are presented for informational purposes only; there were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate the median time, 25th percentile and 75th percentile.||All null hypotheses were defined as no treatment difference.||||0.173
95886072|NCT02064868|191726002|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98||One-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||0.98|0.51|0.0172
95886073|NCT02064868|191726003|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.02||Two-sided p-value|Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.02|0.61|0.0634
95971747|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.787||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.912|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.912|0.68|0.0039
95886074|NCT02064868|191726004|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95886075|NCT02064868|191726005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95886076|NCT02064868|191726006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1392|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1392
95886077|NCT02064868|191726008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5||||0.3115
95886078|NCT02064868|191726008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1236|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||||0.1236
95886079|NCT00482612|191726014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95886080|NCT00482612|191726014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95886081|NCT00482612|191726014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline TST was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95886082|NCT00482612|191726015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0014
95971748|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.755||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.651|0.875|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.875|0.651|0.0009
95971749|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.671|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.584|0.772|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.772|0.584|< 0.0001
95971750|NCT01874431|191916380|OTHER||Least square mean ratio|0.624|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.542|0.718|||t-test, 1 sided|||To demonstrate a dose-dependent effect of finerenone, an ANCOVA with factors treatment group, type of albuminuria at screening and region, and log-transformed baseline value as covariate nested within type of albuminuria at screening was performed in the FAS using a LOCF method for missing observations.||0.718|0.542|< 0.0001
95971751|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.107||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|0.003|0.0428
95886083|NCT00482612|191726015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||0.0135
95886084|NCT00482612|191726015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline SL was used as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95886085|NCT04180488|191726036|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.23||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|-1.84||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.84|-6.63|0.0005
95886086|NCT04180488|191726036|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.07||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.043 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.07|-5.68|0.0449
95886087|NCT04180488|191726036|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.54||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.43||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.43|-4.65|0.0184
95886088|NCT04180488|191726037|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-8.53||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-3.9||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-3.90|-13.16|0.0003
95886089|NCT04180488|191726037|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.65||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|-0.65||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.65|-8.65|0.0226
95886090|NCT04180488|191726038|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-4.38||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-1.98||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-1.98|-6.78|0.0003
95886091|NCT04180488|191726038|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|-0.19||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.19|-4.15|0.0316
95886092|NCT04180488|191726039|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.413||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|7.299||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed on association between responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7\<28,\>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline and region.||7.299|1.596|0.0014
95886093|NCT04180488|191726039|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.507||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.231|5.107||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||5.107|1.231|0.0109
95886094|NCT04180488|191726040|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.848||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.301|6.234||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.234|1.301|0.0075
95886095|NCT04180488|191726040|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.137||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.371|7.176||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.176|1.371|0.0045
95886096|NCT04180488|191726041|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.908||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.173|7.209||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||7.209|1.173|0.0199
95886097|NCT04180488|191726041|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.677||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.127|6.359||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.359|1.127|0.0187
95971752|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.121||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.225|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.225|0.017|0.0223
95971753|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.305|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.305|0.096|0.0002
95886098|NCT04180488|191726042|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|0.93||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.34||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||2.34|-0.48|0.1940
95971754|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.125||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.229|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.229|0.021|0.0181
95971755|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.166||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.27|0.061|0.0019
95971756|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.334|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.334|0.137|< 0.0001
95971757|NCT01874431|191916381|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.186||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.284|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.284|0.088|0.0002
95971758|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.786||||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.337|1.765|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.765|-3.337|0.5454
95971759|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.61||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.177|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.957|-4.177|0.2186
95971760|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.918||||0.4859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.503|1.667|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.667|-3.503|0.4859
95971761|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.8||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.358|0.759|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.759|-4.358|0.1677
95971762|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.613||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.183|-0.044|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.044|-5.183|0.0462
95971763|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.228||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.643|0.187|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.187|-4.643|0.0705
95886099|NCT04180488|191726043|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-2.37||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.13||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.13|-4.60|0.0377
95886100|NCT04180488|191726044|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS Mean Difference|-5.02||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-0.72||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, intervention group, presence of angioedema at baseline, and regions as covariates.||-0.72|-9.32|0.0223
95886101|NCT04180488|191726045|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.645||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|6.061||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||6.061|1.154|0.0215
95886102|NCT04180488|191726046|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|3.923||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CMH test was performed on the association between the responder status and intervention group, adjusted by baseline disease severity (UAS7 \<28, \>=28), presence of angioedema at baseline, and region.||3.923|0.893|0.0971
95886103|NCT01059825|191726097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.25||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.25|-0.65|0.002
95886104|NCT01059825|191726097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.89|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.49|-0.89|0.000
95886105|NCT01059825|191726097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.42||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.42|-0.82|0.000
95886106|NCT01059825|191726097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.52||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between ertugliflozin and placebo on the primary endpoint.||-0.52|-0.93|0.000
95886107|NCT01059825|191726097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.97|-0.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-0.97|0.000
95886108|NCT01059825|191726098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.13||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|-0.03||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.03|-0.24|0.049
95886109|NCT01059825|191726098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.39|-0.18||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.18|-0.39|0.000
95886110|NCT01059825|191726098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.22||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.32|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.32|0.004
95886111|NCT01059825|191726098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.17||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.06|-0.27|0.020
95886112|NCT01059825|191726098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.15||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.15|-0.36|0.001
95886113|NCT01059825|191726099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.23||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-0.50|0.000
95971764|NCT01874431|191916382|OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.446||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|-0.022|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.022|-4.869|0.048
95971765|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.863||||0.0757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.022|0.297|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.297|-6.022|0.0757
95971766|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.643||||0.6941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|2.565|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.565|-3.851|0.6941
95971767|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.976||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.155|1.203|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.203|-5.155|0.2228
95971768|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.932||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.098|1.234|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.234|-5.098|0.2313
95971769|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.342||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.509|-0.176|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.176|-6.509|0.0386
95971770|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.634||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.624|2.355|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.355|-3.624|0.677
95886114|NCT01059825|191726099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|-0.32||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.32|-0.59|0.000
95886115|NCT01059825|191726099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
95886116|NCT01059825|191726099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|-0.22||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.22|-0.49|0.000
95886117|NCT01059825|191726099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.57|0.000
95971771|NCT01874431|191916383|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.688||||0.6536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.699|2.322|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.322|-3.699|0.6536
95971772|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.044||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.471|0.383|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.383|-6.471|0.0816
95886118|NCT01059825|191726100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.47||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-0.64|0.000
95886119|NCT01059825|191726100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.83|-0.49||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.49|-0.83|0.000
95886120|NCT01059825|191726100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.45||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.45|-0.80|0.000
95886121|NCT01059825|191726100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.47||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.47|-0.82|0.000
95886122|NCT01059825|191726100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|-0.5||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.50|-0.84|0.000
95971773|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.537||||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.027|2.953|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.953|-4.027|0.7625
95971774|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.301|||=|0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.759|2.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.157|-4.759|= 0.4603
95971775|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.574||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.004|1.855|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.855|-5.004|0.3678
95971776|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.727||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.191|1.736|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.736|-5.191|0.3279
95971777|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.682||||0.3102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.935|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.57|-4.935|0.3102
95971778|NCT01874431|191916384|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.511||||0.1317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.778|0.755|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.755|-5.778|0.1317
95971779|NCT01375114|191916407|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.67
95971780|NCT01375114|191916408|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95971781|NCT01375114|191916409|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.34
95971782|NCT01375114|191916410|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95971783|NCT01375114|191916411|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95886123|NCT01059825|191726102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.75|-0.55||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.75|0.007
95886124|NCT01059825|191726102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.35|-1.14||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.14|-2.35|0.000
95886125|NCT01059825|191726102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.15||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|-1.54||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.54|-2.76|0.000
95886126|NCT01059825|191726102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.52|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.52|0.000
95886127|NCT01059825|191726102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|1.06||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.06|-0.15|0.833
95886128|NCT01059825|191726103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.42||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-0.73|0.043
95886129|NCT01059825|191726103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|-0.81||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.81|-1.44|0.000
95886130|NCT01059825|191726103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.22|-0.59||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-1.22|0.000
95886131|NCT01059825|191726103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|-0.55||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.55|-1.18|0.000
95886132|NCT01059825|191726103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.45||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|0.76||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.76|0.14|0.967
95886133|NCT01059825|191726104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|-0.36||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.36|-1.17|0.008
95886134|NCT01059825|191726104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.73|-0.91||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.91|-1.73|0.000
95886135|NCT01059825|191726104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.65|-0.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.83|-1.65|0.000
95886136|NCT01059825|191726104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|-0.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward..||||-0.67|-1.49|0.000
95886137|NCT01059825|191726104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.04|0.86||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.86|0.04|0.922
95886138|NCT01059825|191726105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.51|-0.56||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.56|-1.51|0.003
95886139|NCT01059825|191726105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.09|-2.04|0.000
95886140|NCT01059825|191726105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.16|-1.21||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.21|-2.16|0.000
95886141|NCT01059825|191726105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|-1.3||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.30|-2.26|0.000
95886142|NCT01059825|191726105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.24||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.71|-0.24|0.741
95886143|NCT01059825|191726107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.13||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.92|0.65||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.65|-4.92|0.163
95971784|NCT05398237|191916412|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0122||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK).|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0122
95971785|NCT05398237|191916412|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.009||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.009
95971786|NCT05398237|191916413|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0063||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 1 hour post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study||||0.0063
95971787|NCT05398237|191916413|OTHER|A self-contained, subject-level permutation test for changes of all analytes in a pathway, assuming all analyte levels increasing after SSL exposure.||||||0.0056||||||Change in pathway from baseline to 24 hours post-SSL. Threshold for p-value of each test is 0.05/4=0.0125 based on Bonferroni adjustment for four tests, with two time points and two pathways (TLR4 and TOPK/PRPK)|Permutation test|The self-contained, subject-level permutation test comparing the pre- and post-SSL levels of all analytes in the pathway.||This is a single-arm study.||||0.0056
95971788|NCT01534689|191916416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95971789|NCT01534689|191916417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||results at 12 weeks compared to baseline||||<0.0001
95971790|NCT01749904|191916453|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.|||||<|0.01||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol and also superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol|ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95971791|NCT01749904|191916454|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95971792|NCT01749904|191916455|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95971793|NCT01749904|191916456|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions.|||
95971794|NCT01383499|191916463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.132||First step of closed testing procedure, where the active treatments are compared to placebo. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R5 minus Placebo||0.132|0.042|0.0002
95886144|NCT01059825|191726107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.48||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.28|-0.68||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.68|-6.28|0.056
95886145|NCT01059825|191726107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.7|-0.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.05|-5.70|0.096
95886146|NCT01059825|191726107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.37||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.21|-0.53||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.53|-6.21|0.064
95886147|NCT01059825|191726107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.54||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.33|2.26||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.26|-3.33|0.403
95886148|NCT01059825|191726108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.17||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.17|-2.91|0.425
95886149|NCT01059825|191726108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.81||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.23||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.23|-5.38|0.082
95886150|NCT01059825|191726108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.35||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.21||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.21|-2.92|0.430
95886151|NCT01059825|191726108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.47||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.05|-0.89||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.89|-6.05|0.043
95886152|NCT01059825|191726108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.01||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.55|3.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.58|-1.55|0.694
95886153|NCT01059825|191726109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.38||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.81|1.05||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.05|-3.81|0.234
95886154|NCT01059825|191726109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.59||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.03|-0.14||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.14|-5.03|0.087
95886155|NCT01059825|191726109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.86||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|-0.4||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.40|-5.33|0.068
95886156|NCT01059825|191726109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.77||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.25|1.71||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.71|-3.25|0.346
95886157|NCT01059825|191726109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.76||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.21|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-3.21|0.346
95886158|NCT01059825|191726110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.87|1.67||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.67|-3.87|0.306
95886159|NCT01059825|191726110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.41||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|0.37||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.37|-5.19|0.133
95886160|NCT01059825|191726110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.42|0.2||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.20|-5.42|0.117
95971795|NCT01383499|191916463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.149||Second step of closed testing procedure. If this statistical test significant at the 0.05 alpha level then proceed to comparison of the next lower dose to placebo.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as random effect.||Tio R2.5 minus Placebo||0.149|0.059|<.0001
95971796|NCT01383499|191916463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.12|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|This MMRM model includes treatment, period and baseline as fixed effects, and patient as a random effect.||Tio R1.25 minus Placebo||0.120|0.030|0.0011
95971797|NCT01383499|191916463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.057|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R1.25||0.057|-0.034|
95886161|NCT01059825|191726110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.87||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.69|-0.04||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.04|-5.69|0.097
95886162|NCT01059825|191726110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.78|0.79||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.79|-4.78|0.179
95886163|NCT01059825|191726112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.93||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.62|-0.24||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.24|-3.62|0.072
95886164|NCT01059825|191726112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.81||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.51|-0.11||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.11|-3.51|0.086
95886165|NCT01059825|191726112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.99||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.71|-2.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-2.27|-5.71|0.002
95886166|NCT01059825|191726112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.64||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.37|-0.92||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.92|-4.37|0.025
95886167|NCT01059825|191726112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.88||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|2.58||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||2.58|-0.82|0.746
95886168|NCT01059825|191726113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.69||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.9||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.90|-2.27|0.289
95886169|NCT01059825|191726113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.7||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.31|0.91||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.91|-2.31|0.288
95886170|NCT01059825|191726113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.41||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.01|0.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.19|-3.01|0.130
95886171|NCT01059825|191726113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.44||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.05|-0.84||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.84|-4.05|0.026
95886172|NCT01059825|191726113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.49||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|3.08||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||3.08|-0.11|0.883
95886173|NCT01059825|191726114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.67||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.07|-0.27||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.27|-3.07|0.063
95886174|NCT01059825|191726114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.29||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.88||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.88|-3.69|0.019
95971798|NCT01383499|191916463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.028|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R5 minus Tio R2.5||0.028|-0.063|
95971799|NCT01383499|191916463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.074|||Mixed models repeated measures (MMRM)|||Tio R2.5 minus Tio R1.25||0.074|-0.016|
95971800|NCT00477334|191916474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.98|||Hodges-Lehman Shift Model||Difference in time to healing= time to healing for Famciclovir-time to healing for Placebo. Hodges-Lehman shift model is used to estimate the difference in treatment effect. P-value is from the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status are imputed according to the distribution of the time to healing among the subjects in the placebo group whose time to healing is greater than or equal to the observed discontinuation time. (Censor time)||0.98|-0.40|0.4161
95971801|NCT00477334|191916474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.39|||Kaplan-Meier & Cox Regression||"Hazard ratio in time to healing=hazard rate of Famciclovir/hazard rate of Placebo.~Based on Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, pooled center and gender as explanatory variables."|Participants who discontinued from the study before healing of non-aborted lesions was confirmed and participants who completed the study after 21 days since treatment initiation without non-aborted lesion stages and without a final assessment on aborted lesion status were censored at the time of the last clinical lesion observation.||1.39|0.74|0.9372
95971802|NCT00372229|191916507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-28.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-39.7|-17.3||||||||-17.3|-39.7|
95971803|NCT00372229|191916508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.2|-3.4||||||||-3.4|-19.2|
95971804|NCT00372229|191916509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2509|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1838||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.2271|0.7289|||F-test|||||0.7289|-0.2271|0.1739
95971805|NCT00372229|191916542|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.9||||||||13.9|-20.2|
95971806|NCT00372229|191916543|OTHER|Descriptive analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.2||||||||24.2|-0.1|
95971807|NCT02257567|191916554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|5.82||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|25.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.38|-14.53|0.5353
95886175|NCT01059825|191726114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.01||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.43|-0.59||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.59|-3.43|0.035
95971808|NCT02257567|191916554|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates (4.89|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
95971809|NCT02257567|191916563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.69||||0.8817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.68|20.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.86|-19.68|0.8817
95886176|NCT01059825|191726114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.73|0.12||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.12|-2.73|0.121
95886177|NCT01059825|191726114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.29||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.13|1.7||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.70|-1.13|0.602
95886178|NCT01059825|191726115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.86|-0.54||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.54|-3.86|0.045
95886179|NCT01059825|191726115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.49||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.16|0.18||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||0.18|-3.16|0.126
95886180|NCT01059825|191726115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.03||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.72|-1.34||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-1.34|-4.72|0.011
95886181|NCT01059825|191726115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.99||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|-0.3||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-0.30|-3.69|0.066
95886182|NCT01059825|191726115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.48||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.15|1.19||P-value is one-sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||1.19|-2.15|0.357
95886183|NCT01059825|191726117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.29|-13.69||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.69|-28.29|0.000
95886184|NCT01059825|191726117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-33.17|-18.47||P-value is one-sided.P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-18.47|-33.17|0.000
95886185|NCT01059825|191726117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.64|-26.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-26.83|-41.64|0.000
95886186|NCT01059825|191726117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.49|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.49|0.000
95886187|NCT01059825|191726117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-27.39|-12.72||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.72|-27.39|0.000
95971810|NCT02257567|191916563|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|27.5||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|44.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.74|7.66|0.0061
95971811|NCT02257567|191916565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-1.0||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|16.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.46|-18.66|0.9523
95886188|NCT01059825|191726118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.58|-13.34||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.34|-28.58|0.000
95886189|NCT01059825|191726118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-21.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.27|-13.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-13.86|-29.27|0.000
95886190|NCT01059825|191726118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-32.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.2|-24.88||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.88|-40.20|0.000
95886191|NCT01059825|191726118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.05|-14.61||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-14.61|-30.05|0.000
95886192|NCT01059825|191726118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.57||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.19|-12.96||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-12.96|-28.19|0.000
95886193|NCT01059825|191726119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.16|-15.01||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.01|-29.16|0.000
95971812|NCT02257567|191916565|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.48|47.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.37|9.48|0.0036
95971813|NCT02257567|191916566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.75||||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|22.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.11|-15.14|0.6574
95971814|NCT02257567|191916566|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|42.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.63|4.89|0.0128
95971815|NCT02257567|191916569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|3.88||||0.6225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|21.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.72|-14.49|0.6225
95886194|NCT01059825|191726119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-27.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.06|-20.83||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-20.83|-35.06|0.000
95886195|NCT01059825|191726119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-33.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-40.29|-25.95||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-25.95|-40.29|0.000
95886196|NCT01059825|191726119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-31.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.02|-24.56||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-24.56|-39.02|0.000
95886197|NCT01059825|191726119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-23.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.28|-16.07||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-16.07|-30.28|0.000
95886198|NCT01059825|191726120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-28.87|-15.27||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.27|-28.87|0.000
95886199|NCT01059825|191726120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-28.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-35.35|-21.67||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-21.67|-35.35|0.000
95886200|NCT01059825|191726120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-35.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-42.3|-28.51||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-28.51|-42.30|0.000
95886201|NCT01059825|191726120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.76|-27.86||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-27.86|-41.76|0.000
95971816|NCT02257567|191916569|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|30.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.94|47.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.12|9.94|0.0032
95971817|NCT02257567|191916570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-6.13||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|12.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.12|-24.14|0.4835
95971818|NCT02257567|191916570|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.0||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|42.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.33|5.39|0.0096
95971819|NCT02257567|191916571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-0.5||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|13.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.71|-15.07|0.9390
95971820|NCT02257567|191916571|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.64|54.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.71|15.64|0.0006
95971821|NCT02257567|191916572|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|37.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.82|54.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.62|15.82|0.0005
95971822|NCT02257567|191916573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.19|0.0245
95971823|NCT02257567|191916574|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.25|0.2451
95971824|NCT02257567|191916575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.20|<.0001
95971825|NCT02257567|191916576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.66|||Log Rank|||||0.66|0.23|0.0003
95971826|NCT05383508|191916660|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|17.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.69|27.19||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||27.19|10.69|
95971827|NCT05383508|191916660|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|19.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.89|31.87||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the Cmax ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||31.87|11.89|
95971828|NCT05383508|191916661|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||11.00|0.00|
95971829|NCT05383508|191916661|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.0||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Wilcoxon signed rank test||Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift and Moses 95% CI|The objective of this study was to determine the Tmax difference of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||4.00|0.00|
95886202|NCT01059825|191726120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-22.75||||0|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-29.58|-15.92||P-value is one-sided. P-value is rounded to 3 decimals; therefore, p \<0.0005 is reported as 0.000.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate with last observation carried forward.||||-15.92|-29.58|0.000
95886203|NCT02557698|191726141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0=Intervention and control groups do not differ with respect to the TEWL forearm at visit 3 H1=The TEWL on the forearm at visit 3 differs between the groups||-0.8|-3.1|0.002
95886204|NCT02557698|191726142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.2|-3.5|<0.001
95886205|NCT02557698|191726143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.2|-3.2|0.024
95886206|NCT02557698|191726144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-3.1|0.017
95886207|NCT02557698|191726145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.964
95886208|NCT02557698|191726146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.2|0.5|0.025
95886209|NCT02557698|191726147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-2.5|0.458
95886210|NCT02557698|191726148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-3.5|0.066
95886211|NCT02557698|191726149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.5|-13.7|0.171
95971830|NCT05383508|191916662|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|28.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|50.04||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||50.04|16.00|
95971831|NCT05383508|191916662|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|26.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.74|53.69||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the AUC0-infinity ratio of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||53.69|12.74|
95971832|NCT05383508|191916663|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|10.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.57|21.1||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||21.10|5.57|
95886212|NCT02557698|191726150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.3|-15.3|0.059
95886213|NCT02557698|191726151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5|-0.2|0.400
95886214|NCT02557698|191726152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.1|0.100
95886215|NCT02557698|191726153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95886216|NCT02557698|191726154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.914
95886217|NCT02557698|191726155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
95886218|NCT02557698|191726156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.585
95886219|NCT02557698|191726157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.259
95886220|NCT02557698|191726158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.581
95886221|NCT02557698|191726159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.182
95886222|NCT02557698|191726160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
95886223|NCT02557698|191726161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.831
95886224|NCT02557698|191726162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.084
95886225|NCT02557698|191726163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.4|-0.3|0.07
95886226|NCT02557698|191726164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.7|0.4|0.029
95886227|NCT02557698|191726165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6|-1.8|0.325
95886228|NCT02557698|191726166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.9|-2.6|0.365
95886229|NCT02557698|191726167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-8.5|0.143
95886230|NCT02557698|191726168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.2|-6.5|0.662
95886231|NCT02557698|191726169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.4|0.326
95886232|NCT02557698|191726170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.687
95886233|NCT01737944|191726176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A - SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B - SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.33|100.31||||||||100.31|92.33|
95886234|NCT01737944|191726176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-inf)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.17|105.56||||||||105.56|97.17|
95886235|NCT01737944|191726177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.32|100.28||||||||100.28|92.32|
95886236|NCT01737944|191726177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of AUC(0-24)/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.06|105.4||||||||105.40|97.06|
95886237|NCT01737944|191726178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment B-SC injection without the device was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.93|106.47||||||||106.47|87.93|
95886238|NCT01737944|191726178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence of Methotrexate following Treatment A-SC injection with the Vibex MTX device and Treatment C-IM injection was established if the 90% CI for the geometric LS Mean ratios of Cmax/Dose were within the range of 80% to 125%.|Test / Reference Ratio|89.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.61|98.78||||||||98.78|81.61|
95886239|NCT01669915|191726202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.31
95886240|NCT01669915|191726202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 fatty acids active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.003|-0.02|0.14
95886241|NCT01669915|191726203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.03|-0.01|0.49
95886242|NCT01669915|191726203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
95971833|NCT05383508|191916663|OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Ratio (%)|16.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|28.53||95% confidence intervals are provided for this analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included terms for sequence, period, and product exposure as fixed effects and subject as a categorical random effect.|Analysis was performed on log transformed data with Kenward Roger degrees of freedom approximation. Ratio and related 95% CI were derived by exponentiating the estimates obtained on the log scale.|The objective of this study was to determine the maximum ratio of background-corrected concentration over time of P4M3 variants:Cigarettes along with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals||28.53|9.93|
95971834|NCT02081417|191916694|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on the PCL-C if the interventions fell within 2.5 points of each other|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.8|-3.4|0.01
95971835|NCT00122460|191916702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|0.986|||Stratified Log Rank|||"The primary analysis tested the equality of OS between treatment groups applying a 2-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account the strata used for randomization (previous chemotherapy (CTX) \[no vs. yes\] and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Hazard Ratio (HR) of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.986|0.644|0.036
95886243|NCT01669915|191726204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.02|-0.01|0.23
95886244|NCT01669915|191726204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.003||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included terms for the variables time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization)||0.02|-0.01|0.68
95886245|NCT01669915|191726205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in vitamin D active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||0.09|-0.04|0.46
95886246|NCT01669915|191726205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04||Given the 3 secondary analyses, the p-value threshold was 0.0167 (=Bonferroni correction of 0.05/3=0.0167).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The rates of cognitive decline over 2.8 years were compared in the two groups (rate in omega-3 active group minus the rate in placebo group). A mixed model included the variables, time since randomization, assignment to one arm, assignment to the other arm, sex, age, race/ethnicity, history of depression and the six interaction terms (products with time since randomization).||-0.04|-0.17|0.003
95886247|NCT00887978|191726224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|22.0|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 1:1 between UT-15C SR and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 266 subjects would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a 30 meter between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline in distance traversed during the 6-Minute Walk, assuming a standard deviation of 75 meters. A total sample size of approximately 300 subjects was determined to account for discontinuations during the enrollment period.||22.0|-2.0|0.089
95886248|NCT00887978|191726225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95886249|NCT00887978|191726226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) Estimate|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-1.0|0.22
95886250|NCT00887978|191726227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for the 26 UT-15C subjects and 17 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 16.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.43
95886251|NCT00887978|191726229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L) estimate|0.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||1.0|0.0|0.30
95886252|NCT00887978|191726232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|14.0||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|0.0|0.058
95886253|NCT00887978|191726233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|15.0||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|29.0|||ANCOVA|||||29.0|-1.0|0.054
95886254|NCT00887978|191726235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|-16.0|0.674
95886255|NCT00887978|191726236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|28.0||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|59.0|||ANCOVA|||||59.0|1.0|0.059
95886256|NCT00887978|191726237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|10.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|31.0|||ANCOVA|||||31.0|-10.0|0.22
95886257|NCT00887978|191726238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|3.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||||28.0|-23.0|0.99
95886258|NCT00887978|191726239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-2.0||||0.84||95.0|-25.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||||22.0|-25.0|0.84
95886259|NCT05353985|191726262|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.017|||=|0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.197||P-value was based on a MMRM analysis with treatment group, week, treatment-by-week interaction, \& the randomization stratification factors as fixed effects \& baseline CDSD GI symptom severity scores as covariates, and participant as a random effect.|MMRM|||||0.197|-0.162|=0.847
95886260|NCT05353985|191726263|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.331|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.181||P-value was based on a ANCOVA model with treatment group and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and baseline Vh:Cd as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||-0.181|-0.481|<0.001
95886261|NCT05425745|191726271|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.22|-30.39|||ANCOVA|||||-30.39|-42.22|<.0001
95886262|NCT05425745|191726272|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.572|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.79|-30.78|||ANCOVA|||||-30.78|-44.79|<.0001
95886263|NCT05425745|191726273|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-41.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.14|-31.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-31.76|-51.14|<.0001
95886264|NCT05425745|191726274|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.136|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.58|-20.2||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-20.20|-28.58|<.0001
95886265|NCT05425745|191726275|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.38|-19.25||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.25|-29.38|<.0001
95886266|NCT05425745|191726276|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.114|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.88|-19.67||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-19.67|-31.88|<.0001
95886267|NCT05425745|191726277|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-34.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.661|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.67|-29.24||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-29.24|-39.67|<.0001
95886268|NCT05425745|191726278|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.241|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.36|-26.65||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.65|-39.36|<.0001
95886269|NCT05425745|191726279|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.535|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.38|-28.58||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-28.58|-46.38|<.0001
95971836|NCT00122460|191916703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.672|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of PFS between treatment groups, a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%)was used, taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median PFS time was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.672|0.431|<0.0001
95971837|NCT00122460|191916704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.326||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.504|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||3.600|1.504|0.0001
95886270|NCT05425745|191726280|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|138.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|126.42|150.9||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||150.90|126.42|<.0001
95971838|NCT00122460|191916705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.441|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was performed using the randomization strata previous CTX (no vs. yes) and KPS (\<80 vs. ≥80). Treatment group comparisons were performed two-sided with α=5%.||4.441|1.870|<0.0001
95886271|NCT05425745|191726281|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|131.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|118.27|144.13||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||144.13|118.27|<.0001
95886272|NCT05425745|191726282|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|121.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.333|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|107.02|135.76||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value \<0.05|ANCOVA|||||135.76|107.02|<.0001
95886273|NCT05425745|191726283|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-45.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.88|-26.0||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05|ANCOVA|||||-26.00|-65.88|<.0001
95886274|NCT05425745|191726284|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.924||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.13|22.53||The hierarchical testing procedure would only be conducted if the previous secondary efficacy endpoint reached a statistically significant treatment effect at p-value\<0.05; therefore hierarchical testing was stopped for subsequent secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|||||22.53|-131.13|0.1648
95886275|NCT02927080|191726295|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the TA muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|9.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.876||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.17|15.92|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||15.92|3.17|0.0138
95971839|NCT00122460|191916706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.593|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|0.727|||Stratified Log Rank|||"Treatment groups were compared applying a two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%), taking into account strata used for randomization (previous CTX \[yes/no\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median time to treatment failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||0.727|0.484|<0.0001
95971840|NCT00122460|191916707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.762||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.168|||Stratified Log Rank|||"To test the equality of duration of response between treatment groups, the two-sided stratified log-rank test (α=5%) was used taking strata used for randomization into account (previous CTX \[no vs. yes\] and KPS \[\<80 vs. ≥80\]).~Median duration of response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The HR of cetuximab + CTX over CTX alone was calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by randomization strata."||1.168|0.497|0.21
95886276|NCT02927080|191726295|SUPERIORITY|Percent Change in Total Muscle Volume (TMV) of the BB muscle in patients with FSHD administered ACE-083 when compared to placebo During Part 2 (randomized, controlled portion)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.032|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.75|23.02|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in TMV||23.02|9.75|<0.0001
95886277|NCT02927080|191726297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.299||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|-0.59|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the TA group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||-0.59|-4.86|0.0359
95886278|NCT02927080|191726297|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.359||0.3582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.49|0.99|||ANCOVA|||D190 Absolute change from baseline in FF for the BB group administered ACE-083 when compared to Placebo in part 2||0.99|-3.49|0.3582
95886279|NCT02927080|191726298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.068||0.1945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.97|1.41|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in 6 Minute Walk Test (MWT) distance from baseline||1.41|-11.97|0.1945
95886280|NCT02927080|191726298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.968||0.3451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.48|12.86|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete a 10 meter walk/run||12.86|-3.48|0.3451
95886281|NCT02927080|191726298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03||0.9402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.47|10.37|||ANCOVA|||D190 Percent change from baseline in time to complete 4-stair climb (ascend)||10.37|-9.47|0.9402
95886282|NCT02927080|191726299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.18||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.78|60.46|||ANCOVA|||||60.46|11.78|0.0183
95886283|NCT02927080|191726300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|5.69|||ANCOVA|||||5.69|0.09|0.0895
95886284|NCT02927080|191726301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.459||0.5661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.67|3.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for TA group part 2; compared to Placebo||3.70|-7.67|0.5661
95886285|NCT02927080|191726301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618||0.976|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.06|5.84|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in FSHD-HI, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures Part 2 (Randomized, Controlled Portion)- Total Score for BB group part 2; compared to Placebo||5.84|-6.06|0.9760
95886286|NCT02715076|191726310|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||mixed-effects model|||||||<0.05
95886287|NCT02144233|191726313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95886288|NCT01075204|191726341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||95.0|||||Chi-squared|9 degrees of freedom.||Logistic regression: Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients (all the nine variables are considered together).||||0.334
95886289|NCT00616200|191726363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Sickness Impact Profile scores improved.||||.001
95886290|NCT02057406|191726379|SUPERIORITY|The EPA/DHA arm versus placebo at Week 12.||||||0.74|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.74
95886291|NCT02057406|191726379|SUPERIORITY|High EPA group versus placebo group at Week 12.||||||0.45|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment HAMD values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline HAMD value as covariates. This analysis was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing HAMD endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.45
95886292|NCT02057406|191726380|SUPERIORITY|Active supplements (2:1 EPA/DHA and High EPA combined) versus placebo at Week 12.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||<0.0001
95886293|NCT02057406|191726380|SUPERIORITY|2:1 EPA/DHA versus High EPA at Week 12.||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||The model used post-treatment EPA values as the dependent variable and included age, race, sex, treatment site, and the baseline EPA value as covariates. This analyses was conducted under intention-to-treat (ITT) in which the missing EPA endpoint values were imputed using 50 imputations.||||0.12
95886294|NCT00208091|191726381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.06
95886295|NCT00208091|191726382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.23
95886296|NCT03562481|191726384|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.|F statistic|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|Analysis of variance for a 2x2 crossover study implemented using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1, accounting of sequence and period effects.||||||0.38
95886297|NCT03562481|191726385|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as a non-statistically significant difference.|F statistic|1.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 and accounting for sequence and period effects.||||0.28
95886298|NCT03562481|191726386|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the cross-over ANOVA.|F statistic|11.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is adjusted for period and sequence effects and is statistically significant at the p\<0.05 level.|ANOVA|||Analysis of variance for 2x2 crossover study using the pkcross routine of Stata 16.1 adjusting for perio and sequence effects.||||0.003
95886299|NCT03562481|191726387|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Z score|-0.996||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sign test|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.33
95886300|NCT03562481|191726388|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was determined based on the statistical significance of the chi square test.|Chi-square test|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95886301|NCT03562481|191726389|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.2||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Stuart-Maxwell test of marginal homogeneity implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1||||0.65
95886302|NCT03562481|191726390|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|0.14||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry or marginal homogeneity (Stuart-Maxwell) implemented with the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.71
95886303|NCT03562481|191726391|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on statistical significance in the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.32
95886304|NCT03562481|191726392|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined based on the statistical significance of the symmetry test.|Chi-square test|1.29||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Sruart-Maxwell symmetry test|||Test of symmetry (marginal homogeneity, Stuart-Maxwell) implemented using the symmetry routine in Stata 16.1.||||0.26
95971841|NCT01778023|191916712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|5.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|6.21|||ANOVA|The HV after 6 months of treatment was analysed using an ANCOVA method with group and sex as fixed effects, and age as a covariate.||Let D be a mean difference of the primary endpoint between group A and group B. Null hypothesis H0: D = 0 vs. alternative H1: D ≠ 0 will be statistically tested by an ANOVA model.||6.21|4.09|<0.0001
95886305|NCT00856284|191726401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.03|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.059||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||0.059||
95886306|NCT00856284|191726401|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.003||||||||0.003||
95886307|NCT00856284|191726407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||-0.006||||||The null hypotheses were tested in a fixed order at the 1-sided 0.0125 significance level at Weeks 52 and 104, independently: H01: Alogliptin 25 mg was inferior in HbA1c change from Baseline vs glipizide. H02: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was inferior vs glipizide. H03: Alogliptin 25 mg was not superior vs glipizide. H04: Alogliptin 12.5 mg was not superior vs glipizide. Each subsequent null hypothesis was tested only if all previously tested null hypotheses were rejected with respect to Weeks 52 and 104.||-0.006||
95886308|NCT00856284|191726407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%. If the null hypothesis H01 was rejected, then H02 was tested to show noninferiority of alogliptin 12.5 mg versus glipizide with a margin of 0.3%. Non-inferiority was met if the upper limit of the 1-sided 98.75% CI for the difference between alogliptin 12.5 mg and glipizide in HbA1c change from Baseline was less than 0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||ONE_SIDED|98.75||0.035||||||||0.035||
95886309|NCT01635101|191726408|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-91.0|67.3|||ANOVA|||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means||67.3|-91.0|0.736
95886310|NCT01635101|191726408|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-75.9|78.7|||ANOVA|||LS Mean Difference||78.7|-75.9|0.967
95971842|NCT02344004|191916725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The proportion of participants achieving culture conversion by Month 6 was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by smoking status and prior multi-drug regimen. The treatment comparison was tested at two-sided significance level of 0.05. The null hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is independent of treatment, and the alternative hypothesis assumed that culture conversion by Month 6 is associated with treatment.|The final analysis of the primary endpoint, the number of participants achieving culture conversion at by Month 6, was performed after the last participants completed Month 6 and his/her Month 6 sputum culture result was available.|||<0.0001
95971843|NCT02344004|191916726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95886311|NCT01327885|191726418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.768|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.954||The P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|Statistical analysis was designed to detect superiority of Arm A (eribulin) over Arm B (dacarbazine). OS was compared between the two treatment arms using a two-sided stratified log-rank test at a nominal significance level of 0.0455 (adjusted for the interim analysis). This was the primary analysis that was performed when the target number of events (\~353 deaths) was observed.||0.954|0.618|=0.0169
95886312|NCT01327885|191726419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.877|||=|0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.085||P-value was calculated by 2-sided log-rank test, as stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio is based on a stratified Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS as strata.|The PFS and PFS rate at 3, 6, and 12 months (95% confidence interval (CI)) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier (K-M) product-limit method and Greenwood Formula. PFS was compared between the treatment arms using two-sided stratified log-rank test, stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.085|0.710|=0.2287
95886313|NCT01327885|191726420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9||The P-value was calculated using the stratified CMH method, the stratified factors included histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The odds ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of the odds ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.9|0.8|0.253
95886314|NCT01327885|191726421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||The P-value was calculated using the CMH method. The stratified factors were histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The Odds Ratio between eribulin and dacarbazine was calculated by stratified CMH method. The stratified factors were as described above. The 2-sided 95% CI of Odds Ratio is based on asymptotic normal approximation.|The PFR12wks was compared between the treatment arms using stratified CMH chi-square test stratified by histology, geographic region, and number of prior regimens for advanced STS.||1.4|0.7|=0.741
95886315|NCT01577329|191726426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||This is a calculated P value and was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||This is a calculated P value comparing two groups at baseline and follow-up||||0.05
95886316|NCT05025241|191726451|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||<0.0001
95886317|NCT05025241|191726452|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0003
95886318|NCT05025241|191726453|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
95886319|NCT05025241|191726454|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0005
95886320|NCT05025241|191726455|OTHER|||||||0.0647|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants.||||0.0647
95886321|NCT05025241|191726456|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0984|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0984
95886322|NCT05025241|191726457|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
95886323|NCT05025241|191726458|OTHER|Change from baseline||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0191
95886324|NCT05025241|191726459|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0013|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0013
95886325|NCT05025241|191726460|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1710
95886326|NCT05025241|191726461|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0066|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0066
95971844|NCT02344004|191916727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7804|||||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||This was analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of change from Baseline at Months 4\&6. MMRM included treatment, month, treatment-by-month interaction, combination of smoking status \& prior MDR (4 levels: Yes/Yes, Yes/No, No/Yes, and No/No) as fixed factors, baseline 6MWD as a covariate \& baseline 6MWD-by-month interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the MMRM.|"* Baseline is defined as the last non-missing value prior to first dose of study drug.~* Statistics were obtained from an mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) model with pattern-mixture modeling of missing values due to dropout, which included treatment, month, the treatment-by-month interaction, and the combination of smoking status and prior multidrug regimen as fixed factors, the baseline 6MWT distance as a covariate and baseline 6MWT distance-by-month interaction. MMRM included postbaseline data through Month 6.~* For baseline, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and at least 1 postbaseline score. For Month 6, n is the number of participants with a baseline score and a postbaseline score at the summarized visit."|||0.7804
95886327|NCT05025241|191726462|OTHER|change form baseline||||||0.1094|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.1094
95886328|NCT05025241|191726463|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0156
95886329|NCT05025241|191726464|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.0326|||||||Wilcoxon Signed rank|||Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test on the paired participant data from baseline to EOT (Visit 16), when applicable. Baseline values were based on the average non-missing values of visits 1, 2, and 3 for assessments collected at more than one visit during the Screening/Baseline period. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. For total scores, waterfall plots, and histograms were created at the EOT visit with plots for all participants||||0.0326
95886330|NCT02268084|191726519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that the active treatment group does not differ from the sham group in changes in the PCL-M total scores.||||.007
95886331|NCT02268084|191726520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.326
95886332|NCT03552198|191726596|OTHER|||||||0.964|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline measures, tested for differences between intervention and control groups in preventative behaviours at 4 weeks||We predicted that the groups receiving the alternative format of air quality notifications would report greater frequency of behaviour change at 4 weeks compared to the groups receiving the usual format.||||.964
95886333|NCT03552198|191726597|OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||Chi-squared|χ2(1)=4.11, V=0.229||We predicted that more respondents in the intervention groups (i.e. receiving alternative health advice) would consider making permanent changes to their daily travel route, exercise location or exercise time compared to the control groups||||0.043
95886334|NCT03552198|191726598|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||We predicted that the alternative health advice would lead to greater actual behaviour change compared to the usual format||||>0.05
95886335|NCT03552198|191726599|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline intentions, tested for differences between groups in intentions in relation to an high-air-pollution scenario at 4 weeks||We predicted that the alternative format would lead to stronger intentions to adhere to recommendations associated with an hypothetical high air pollution episode compared to the usual format.||||>0.05
95886336|NCT01767155|191726603|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|69.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.6|75.1||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||75.1|63.6|
95886337|NCT01767155|191726603|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|45.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|52.0||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||52.0|39.5|
95886338|NCT01767155|191726603|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.0|77.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||77.3|66.0|
95886339|NCT01767155|191726603|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|44.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.2|50.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||50.7|38.2|
95886340|NCT01767155|191726603|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.3|||Log Rank|2-sided||A Cox model with treatment effects was used to estimate the hazard ratio and perform hypothesis testing. The estimated hazard ratio and the 95% CI of the hazard ratio were presented.||1.30|0.87|0.5441
95886341|NCT01767155|191726604|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.5907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided test||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test. The odds ratio and 95% CI of the odds ratio were presented.||1.45|0.52|0.5907
95886342|NCT01767155|191726605|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|53.6||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months.||53.6|39.5|
95886343|NCT01767155|191726605|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|20.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|27.4||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||27.4|14.6|
95886344|NCT01767155|191726605|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|54.7||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 6 months||54.7|40.0|
95886345|NCT01767155|191726605|OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|19.3||||||Kaplan-Meier log-log transformed estimates: survivors at 12 months||19.3|6.9|
95886346|NCT01767155|191726605|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.11|||Log Rank|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a log rank test.||1.11|0.71|0.3089
95886347|NCT01767155|191726606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52|||Mantel Haenszel|2-sided||Hypothesis testing between the two treatment arms was performed using a Mantel Haenszel test.||1.52|0.76|0.6924
95886348|NCT00371137|191726607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Overall Comparison||||>0.001
95886349|NCT00371137|191726607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 4.5g||||<0.001
95886350|NCT00371137|191726607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Pairwise comparison of placebo and Xyrem 6.0g||||0.015
95886351|NCT02643082|191726630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.86|1.65|<0.0001
95886352|NCT02643082|191726631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.26|<0.0001
95886353|NCT02643082|191726632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|0.25|<0.0001
95886354|NCT02643082|191726633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.92|1.67|<0.0001
95886355|NCT02643082|191726634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Between Treatments|0.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|0.569|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.569|0.318|<0.0001
95886356|NCT02643082|191726635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean ratio between treatments|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.82|<0.0001
95886357|NCT03978520|191726681|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|12.8|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||27.1|-1.6|=0.081
95886358|NCT03978520|191726681|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.9|||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||31.9|1.8|=0.028
95886359|NCT03978520|191726681|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-4.7|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||11.4|-20.8|=0.566
95886360|NCT03978520|191726682|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.3|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||32.6|3.9|=0.013
95971845|NCT02344004|191916728|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.63|||Regression, Cox|||Kaplan Meier estimates for the distribution of time to culture conversion were constructed for treatment arms. The treatment comparison was made using the stratified log rank test for the ITT population. The estimated median time to culture conversion for each treatment arm was not estimable. The time to culture conversion was analyzed using Cox regression model to estimate hazards ratio.||7.63|2.01|<0.0001
95971846|NCT02943226|191916775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4487|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.4487
95971847|NCT02943226|191916776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0112
95971848|NCT02943226|191916777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0784|||||||two sample t-test|||||||0.0784
95971849|NCT01708213|191916779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Parametric Testing|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Parametric testing|||||||<0.05
95971850|NCT01090427|191916810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95971851|NCT01090427|191916810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95971852|NCT01090427|191916811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95971853|NCT01090427|191916811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95886361|NCT03978520|191726682|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|18.1|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||33.2|3.0|=0.018
95886362|NCT03978520|191726682|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-1.2|||=|0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|15.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||15.2|-17.6|=0.882
95886363|NCT03978520|191726683|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.7|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||29.4|0.0|=0.049
95886364|NCT03978520|191726683|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.9|||=|0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||30.1|-2.2|=0.091
95886365|NCT03978520|191726683|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-6.3|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|9.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||9.9|-22.5|=0.447
95886366|NCT03978520|191726684|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.7|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|28.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||28.9|4.5|=0.007
95886367|NCT03978520|191726684|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|44.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo||44.0|18.1|<0.001
95886368|NCT03978520|191726684|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-13.7|||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The difference between the groups was assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by baseline corticosteroid dose above 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤10 mg or \> 10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\< 10 or ≥10), baseline interferon score (high or low or NA), baseline immunosuppressant (azathioprine, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, methotrexate \[MTX\], mycophenolate) (yes or no)."||1.0|-28.4|=0.068
95886369|NCT03978520|191726685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.527|=|0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.23|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.23|-0.84|=0.710
95886370|NCT03978520|191726685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|=|0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.1|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.10|-1.05|=0.963
95971854|NCT01090427|191916812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||0.003
95971855|NCT01090427|191916812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] will be used as factors in the model.||||||<0.001
95971856|NCT01090427|191916813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95971857|NCT01090427|191916813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95971858|NCT01090427|191916814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
95971859|NCT01090427|191916814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0||||<0.001
95886371|NCT03978520|191726685|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.25|||Mixed-effect model repeat measurement|||"ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement model included fixed effects of Tx, visit and Tx-by-visit interaction, stratification factors (Baseline corticosteroid dose \> 10 mg prednisone-equivalent (≤ 10 mg or \>10 mg), screening SLEDAI-2K (\<10 or ≥ 10), baseline interferon score (high/low/NA, baseline immunosuppressant (yes/no)), and continuous fixed covariates of measurements at Baseline."||1.25|-0.90|=0.754
95886372|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-1.06|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.39|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.39|-1.74|=0.002
95886373|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.69|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.03|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.03|-1.41|=0.059
95886374|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.37|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.27|||Binomial regression|||"Mild/Moderate~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.27|-1.01|=0.252
95886375|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.1|||=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.17|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.17|-0.37|=0.467
95886376|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.26|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.02|-0.49|=0.033
95886377|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|0.15|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.37|||Binomial regression|||"Severe~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.37|-0.06|=0.156
95886378|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-1.16|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.44|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.44|-1.89|=0.002
95886379|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.95|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.19|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~Elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib placebo~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||-0.19|-1.70|=0.014
95971860|NCT01090427|191916814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
95971861|NCT01090427|191916814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PGA of 0, 1, or 2||||<0.001
95971862|NCT01090427|191916815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
95971863|NCT01090427|191916815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||PASI 50 responders||||<0.001
95971864|NCT01090427|191916815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||0.014
95971865|NCT01090427|191916815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||Participants with PASI score of 0||||<0.001
95971866|NCT01090427|191916816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.003
95971867|NCT01090427|191916816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Total Scale Score||||0.028
95971868|NCT01090427|191916816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.005
95886380|NCT03978520|191726686|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|-0.22|||=|0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.46|||Binomial regression|||"Overall~ABBV-599 High Dose (Elsubrutinib 60 mg/upadacitinib 30 mg) vs elsubrutinib placebo/upadacitinib 30 mg~A negative binomial regression model was used to assess treatment effect with treatment, visit, and stratification factors as covariates."||0.46|-0.89|=0.526
95886381|NCT02837783|191726687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.283
95886382|NCT04774328|191726732|OTHER|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-39.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.818||0.4812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.97|74.4|||ANOVA|||||74.40|-152.97|0.4812
95886383|NCT04774328|191726733|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64.232||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.29|-24.87|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after coughing."||-24.87|-291.29|0.0222
95886384|NCT04774328|191726733|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.19||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.61|34.53|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure for after sitting up."||34.53|-144.61|0.2158
95886385|NCT04774328|191726733|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.532||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.93|9.48|||ANOVA|||"Applies to evoked measure of after ambulation."||9.48|-166.93|0.0777
95886386|NCT04774328|191726734|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7245||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.764|17.014|||ANOVA|||Entry applies to OC 0-96 hours.||17.014|-35.764|0.4690
95886387|NCT04774328|191726734|OTHER|ANOVA|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.5059||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.208|21.958|||ANOVA|||Applies to OC 0 - Day 8.||21.958|-38.208|0.5811
95886388|NCT05355805|191726797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.075||0.3055|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.3055
95886389|NCT05355805|191726797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.427||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error was estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR75."||||0.6192
95886390|NCT05355805|191726800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.229||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.1606
95886391|NCT05355805|191726800|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.294||0.5116|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR90."||||0.5116
95886392|NCT05355805|191726801|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.019||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.0514
95886393|NCT05355805|191726801|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.764||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR100."||||0.3322
95886394|NCT05355805|191726802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.3258
95886395|NCT05355805|191726802|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.775||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Non-response imputation was used for participants with missing HiSCR50."||||0.4068
95971869|NCT01090427|191916816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Psychosocial health summary score||||0.063
95971870|NCT01090427|191916816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.007
95886396|NCT05355805|191726803|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.661||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error will be used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.3329
95886397|NCT05355805|191726803|SUPERIORITY|Predictors in the regression model for missing values at Week 16 are Baseline Hurley stage, baseline abscess count, baseline inflammatory nodule count, baseline draining fistula count, sex, race, age, BMI and Prior Biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS plus counts of abscess, inflammatory nodule, and draining fistula at prior scheduled assessment. Missing flare values in both the placebo and izokibep groups are imputed using observed data from the placebo group only.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.574||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.~Missing data of abscess and inflammatory nodules counts at scheduled visits are imputed assuming monotone missingness pattern."||||0.5882
95886398|NCT05355805|191726804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.995||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.5422
95886399|NCT05355805|191726804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.77||0.6569|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.6569
95886400|NCT05355805|191726805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.951||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg QW arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.4031
95886401|NCT05355805|191726805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.959||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated risk difference divided by the standard error was used as the test statistic and a p-value calculated assuming that the test statistic follows a standard normal distribution under the null hypothesis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common risk difference between placebo QW/Q2W and the izokibep 160 mg Q2W arm among the four strata, prior biologic/JAK inhibitor use for HS (Yes/No) and Hurley Stage (II or III), used for randomization and associated standard error will be estimated by combining the observed risk differences using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||0.0327
95886402|NCT00040937|191726825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||4-yr survival (%)|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kaplan and Meier|||The study was designed to have 82% power for detecting a 50% improvement in survival from a median of 4 years, as observed in SWOG S9321.||74|55|
95886403|NCT02324569|191726888|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.826|-0.443|||ANCOVA|||||-0.443|-0.826|<0.0001
95971871|NCT01090427|191916816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal Score|Treatment and baseline weight \[less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg\] were used as factors in the model.||PedsQL Physical health summary score||||0.020
95971872|NCT01090427|191916817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||0.027
95971873|NCT01090427|191916817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (less than or equal to 60 kg vs greater than 60 kg).||||||<0.001
95971874|NCT04493502|191916851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|41.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.4|-7.3|0.189
95971875|NCT04493502|191916852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.69|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-8.69|0.024
95971876|NCT04493502|191916853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.53|||ANCOVA|||||1.53|-1.44|0.949
95886404|NCT02016560|191726898|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.581||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|2.581||A p-value of \<0.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Cox proportional hazards|The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted for baseline age, American National Adult Reading Test (ANART) score, and baseline CDR-SB score.||The specific hypothesis tested was that the hazard of progressing to the clinically meaningful event (defined as CDR-SB value change of at least 1 within 18 months) will be significantly greater for subjects with flortaucipir scans rated by majority interpretation as predicted to progress (Advanced AD scan pattern), as compared to subjects with scans rated as not predicted to progress (Moderate or Not AD scan pattern).||2.581|0.968|0.067
95886405|NCT02016560|191726899|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and Older Cognitively Healthy within amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
95886406|NCT02016560|191726899|OTHER|||||||0.0622||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between MCI and Older Cognitively Healthy within the amyloid positive group.||||0.0622
95886407|NCT02016560|191726899|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. No a priori threshold was set.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age||ANCOVA model comparing the mean SUVr between AD and MCI within the amyloid positive group.||||<0.0001
95886408|NCT02016560|191726900|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid positive subjects only.||||<0.0001
95886409|NCT02016560|191726900|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the least squares mean change is significantly different than zero||||||0.7851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SUVr change from baseline as dependent variable, baseline SUVr, age, and visit as independent variables, using an unstructured covariance structure for amyloid negative subjects only.||||0.7851
95886410|NCT02016560|191726901|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The hypothesis tested was that, of the 5 independent imaging physicians, at least 3 will have the lower bounds of 2-sided 95% confidence intervals ≥50%, for both sensitivity and specificity.|||
95886411|NCT02016560|191726902|OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|-0.0925||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson|||Pearson's correlation coefficient||||0.4361
95886412|NCT03758274|191726904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.746
95886413|NCT03758274|191726905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Based on simple path model in Mplus.|||||||0.247
95886414|NCT03758274|191726906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.689|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.689
95971877|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||Geometric least-square mean (GLSM) ratio|181.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0|332.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||332|98|
95971878|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||GLSM ratio|881.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|488.0|1589.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||1589|488|
95971879|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3081.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2446.0|3881.0||||||AUClast of Firsocostat||3881|2446|
95971880|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||GLSM ratio|430.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|185.0|998.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||998|185|
95971881|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4417.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1867.0|10449.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||10449|1867|
95971882|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||GLSM ratio|14676.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7932.0|27153.0||||||AUClast of GS-834773||27153|7932|
95971883|NCT02891408|191916863|OTHER||GLSM ratio|122.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.0|173.0||||||AUClast of Fenofibric Acid||173|86|
95971884|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|183.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.0|337.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||337|100|
95971885|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|869.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|482.0|1568.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||1568|482|
95971886|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2976.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2389.0|3708.0||||||AUCinf of Firsocostat||3708|2389|
95971887|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|399.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.0|892.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||892|179|
95886415|NCT03010254|191726928|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.097||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.097|-0.180|<0.001
95886416|NCT03010254|191726930|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115|||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.059|||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF).The 1-sided 97.5% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.059||
95886417|NCT03010254|191726931|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.048||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.048|-0.133|<0.001
95886418|NCT03010254|191726932|OTHER||Mean difference in depth of focus|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Mean difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
95886419|NCT03010254|191726933|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0551|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|Without glare|||-0.287|
95886420|NCT03010254|191726933|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was -0.15 log unit|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0541|||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.287||||||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 97.5 Lower Limit Confidence Interval is presented.|With glare|||-0.287|
95886421|NCT03010254|191726934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.77|31.04|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||31.04|8.77|
95886422|NCT03010254|191726935|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.92|35.06|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||35.06|7.92|
95886423|NCT01404325|191726936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95971888|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|3843.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1641.0|9000.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||9000|1641|
95971889|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|10712.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6525.0|17585.0||||||AUCinf of GS-834773||17585|6525|
95886424|NCT00754624|191726974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|-0.037|||Random coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FEV1 value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FEV1 data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FEV1 and time (in years) of FEV1 measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.037|-0.059|
95886425|NCT00754624|191726975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|-0.043|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline FVC value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed FVC data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline FVC and time (in years) of FVC measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.043|-0.072|
95886426|NCT00754624|191726976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.311|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|-0.168|||Random Coefficient|Adjusted for Baseline DLCo value||A random coefficient model with a random intercept and slope associated with each subject, was fitted (using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS) to the observed DLco data to estimate the annual rate of decline. The model included terms for baseline DLco and time (in years) of DLco measurements. Missing pulmonary functions were not imputed.||-0.168|-0.454|
95886427|NCT02692716|191726983|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Non-inferiority of oral semaglutide versus placebo was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the HR was strictly below 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first event adjudication committee (EAC) confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|< 0.0001
95886428|NCT02692716|191726983|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Unadjusted two-sided p-value from test of no difference from 1 (superiority).|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed MACE was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.11|0.57|= 0.1749
95886429|NCT02692716|191726984|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||=|0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed expanded cardiovascular outcome was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.10|0.61|= 0.1827
95886430|NCT02692716|191726985|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.92||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed cardiovascular death (including undetermined cause of death) was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.92|0.27|= 0.0261
95886431|NCT02692716|191726985|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||=|0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.90|0.73|= 0.5044
95886432|NCT02692716|191726985|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||=|0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.57||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.57|0.35|= 0.4350
95886433|NCT02692716|191726985|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||=|0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|4.01||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed unstable angina pectoris requiring hospitalisation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||4.01|0.60|= 0.3605
95886434|NCT02692716|191726985|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.55||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed hospitalisation for heart failure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.55|0.48|= 0.6227
95886435|NCT02692716|191726986|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.05||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.05|0.56|= 0.0952
95971890|NCT02891408|191916864|OTHER||GLSM ratio|125.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|174.0||||||AUCinf of Fenofibric Acid||174|89|
95971891|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|169.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.0|326.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||326|87|
95971892|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|905.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|537.0|1526.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||1526|537|
95886436|NCT02692716|191726987|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the on-treatment observation period. Time from first dose of trial product to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their on-treatment observation period.||1.66|0.66|0.8583
95886437|NCT02692716|191726988|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed fatal or non-fatal stroke was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||1.56|0.37|0.4485
95886438|NCT02692716|191726989|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial observation period. Time from randomisation to first EAC-confirmed all-cause death was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the end of their in-trial observation period.||0.84|0.31|0.0078
95886439|NCT02692716|191726990|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Data from date of first dose of trial product to date of end of treatment visit. Time from first dose to first AE leading to permanent trial product discontinuation was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor and stratified by evidence of cardiovascular disease at screening. Participants were censored at the date of their end of treatment visit or at their end of study date, whichever came first.||2.30|1.42|<0.0001
95886440|NCT04492618|191727003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95886441|NCT01571427|191727004|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.25
95886442|NCT01571427|191727004|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample (CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 combined). Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.25
95886443|NCT01571427|191727004|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses within each CDR group are exploratory.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: AMONG CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34 .||||0.85
95971893|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|2719.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1994.0|3708.0||||||Cmax of Firsocostat||3708|1994|
95971894|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|391.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|163.0|942.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||942|163|
95971895|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|4470.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2170.0|9207.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||9207|2170|
95971896|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|9278.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4945.0|17407.0||||||Cmax of GS-834773||17407|4945|
95971897|NCT02891408|191916865|OTHER||GLSM ratio|109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|146.0||||||Cmax of Fenofibric Acid||146|81|
95971898|NCT02891837|191916876|OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4930
95971899|NCT02891837|191916878|OTHER|||||||0.1924|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1924
95971900|NCT02891837|191916879|OTHER|||||||0.8678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8678
95971901|NCT02891837|191916886|OTHER|||||||0.6422|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6422
95971902|NCT02891837|191916887|OTHER|||||||0.7572|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7572
95971903|NCT02891837|191916889|OTHER|||||||0.3681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3681
95971904|NCT02891837|191916893|OTHER|"Sample size calculated with nQuery 7.0. Assumed standard deviation = 50 h, \& mean values of 44 h (placebo) \& 14 h (L-citrulline group), estimated effect size = 0.600, yielding a sample size N=92/group (two-sided Wilcoxon-rank-sum test with 0.01 significance level and 90% power). Assumptions for standard deviation \& mean based on Study CIT-002-01 results.~To allow for subjects being enrolled but not assigned to the full analysis set (FAS), an overall N=95 subjects per group were to be enrolled."|Location shift|219.0||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|626.0||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo For the mean and median values, that the estimated values are given in minutes \[min\]|H0: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group = placebo group H1: Composite endpoint in L-citrulline group ≠ placebo group H0 tested using Wilcoxon-rank-sum test. Significance level = 1% (2-sided).||626.0|-88.0|0.1560
95971905|NCT02891837|191916893|OTHER||Location shift|813.1||||0.1627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.5|1961.6||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The results of the T-test should be interpreted with caution since the endpoint is not normally distributed.|Treatment difference = L-citrulline - placebo. For the mean and median values, the estimated values are given in minutes|Post hoc analyses were done for US patients on mechanical ventilation for \<=48 hours. For all post hoc analyses a significance level of 5% was applied.||1961.6|-335.5|0.1627
95971906|NCT02891837|191916901|OTHER|||||||0.0326||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for all US patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0326
95886444|NCT01571427|191727005|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.02
95886445|NCT01571427|191727005|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistically significant based on the Bonferroni multiple comparison adjusted P value of P\<0.004.|Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: AMONG CDR=0 group (N=49)||||0.003
95886446|NCT01571427|191727005|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analyses 3: CDR=0.5 (Mild Cognitive Impairment) group, N=34||||0.65
95886447|NCT01571427|191727006|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.98
95886448|NCT01571427|191727006|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: Among CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.96
95886449|NCT01571427|191727006|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: Among CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.83
95886450|NCT01571427|191727007|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.68
95886451|NCT01571427|191727007|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.69
95886452|NCT01571427|191727007|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.86
95971907|NCT02891837|191916901|OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|||"Values at 48 hours post-surgery start for ALL patients on ventilation for ≤48 hours are presented.~Treatment group, baseline values and site were included as fixed factors, site\*treatment as interaction terms in this ANOVA. The normality assumption of residuals is critical for all considered timepoints. Please interpret results with caution."||||0.0026
95971908|NCT02632526|191916911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0433|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.31||||||||1.31|1.17|
95971909|NCT02632526|191916911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0124|0.656||||||||0.656|-0.0124|
95971910|NCT02632526|191916912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0813|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.36||||||Day 1||1.36|1.08|
95971911|NCT02632526|191916914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0851|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.38||||||Day 10||1.38|1.08|
95971912|NCT02632526|191916915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0692|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|1.66||||||||1.66|1.43|
95971913|NCT02632526|191916915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0315|0.669||||||||0.669|0.0315|
95971914|NCT02632526|191916916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|1.63||||||For Day 1||1.63|1.34|
95886453|NCT01571427|191727008|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.92
95886454|NCT01571427|191727008|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.92
95886455|NCT01571427|191727008|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.94
95971915|NCT02632526|191916916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.25|1.6||||||Day 10||1.60|1.25|
95971916|NCT02632526|191916929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|28.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.98|37.73||||||Cmax||37.73|20.98|
95971917|NCT02632526|191916930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|64.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.34|76.74||||||AUC(0-τ)||76.74|54.34|
95971918|NCT00998335|191917204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline versus 3 months||||0.03
95971919|NCT05326815|191917246|OTHER|Spearman Correlation.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95971920|NCT03798691|191917247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mann-Whitney U test|||one month after series completion of two dose series||||0.16
95971921|NCT04548544|191917254|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||timepoint × group interaction|timepoint × group interaction F = 0.77, p = 0.38|||0.38
95971922|NCT00728910|191917255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that the sequential addition of a fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would not have any effect on apo-AI catabolism.||||>0.5
95971923|NCT00728910|191917256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on apo-A1 production rates||||>0.5
95971924|NCT00728910|191917257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis was that sequential addition of fibrate and niacin to baseline atorvastatin therapy would have no effect on post-prandial triglyceride levels following an oral fat load||||<0.0005
95971925|NCT00728910|191917257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
95971926|NCT04155203|191917258|EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each treatment group with clinical cure, defined as a SIRS score of 0 for all signs and symptoms at Visit 4/Follow-up (7 days after the end of treatment).|equivalence ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.19|2.7||||||||2.70|-8.19|
95886456|NCT01571427|191727009|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.46
95971927|NCT00925353|191917267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Actual lab results shown|1.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||non-compartmental pharmacokinetic|The planned analysis was to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters. There were too few detectable values to be able to perform this analysis.||Null Hypothesis: Application of 4% lidocaine gel on the breasts and chest wall of healthy women occluded for one hour does not result in systemically toxic plasma concentrations of lidocaine or its principal metabolite, monoethylglycinexyliidie (MEGX), electrocardiogram changes, or adverse events.||||<0.05
95971928|NCT01586910|191917367|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was 0.07. Posterior threshold for non-inferiority was 0.971|Posterior Median of the Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The posterior probability of non-inferiority is \> 0.9999. The posterior probability is the probability of the event rate by updating the prior probability distribution with observed data using Bayes' Theorem.|Bayesian||95% Bayesian credible interval for the difference (TAVR-SAVR) was (-5.2%, 2.3%). The 95% credible interval is the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the posterior distribution.|Primary Hypothesis: TAVR with the Medtronic TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke rate during a fixed follow-up of 24 months.||||
95971929|NCT00346268|191917395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-0.53|-14.63|0.035
95971930|NCT00346268|191917396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least square (LS) mean difference (net)|-15.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|-4.85||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||||-4.85|-25.47|0.004
95971931|NCT00346268|191917397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by center||||||0.257
95971932|NCT00346268|191917398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.53||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANCOVA|Covariates:Total RBCUs and RBCUs substituted during surgery, baseline hemoglobin, swab and lavage weights, intraoperative blood loss fluid volume||||0.53|-0.68|0.810
95886457|NCT01571427|191727009|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.61
95886458|NCT01571427|191727009|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.80
95886459|NCT01571427|191727010|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.72
95886460|NCT01571427|191727010|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.84
95886461|NCT01571427|191727010|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
95886462|NCT01571427|191727011|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.38
95886463|NCT01571427|191727011|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.39
95886464|NCT01571427|191727011|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.59
95886465|NCT01571427|191727012|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.03
95886466|NCT01571427|191727012|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.24
95886467|NCT01571427|191727012|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.04
95886468|NCT01571427|191727013|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.65
95886469|NCT01571427|191727013|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.64
95886470|NCT01571427|191727013|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.42
95886471|NCT01571427|191727014|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.45
95886472|NCT01571427|191727014|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.93
95886473|NCT01571427|191727014|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.40
95886474|NCT01571427|191727015|EQUIVALENCE|It was calculated that 82 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% to detect a Cohen's D of 0.45 in the difference in changes from baseline to week 6 at alpha=0.05 (two tailed). All randomized participants (n=83) were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|||||0.30
95886475|NCT01571427|191727015|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 2: CDR 0 (n=49)||||0.75
95886476|NCT01571427|191727015|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation was based on the entire sample which combined CDR=0 and CDR=0.5 groups. Analyses by each CDR group are exploratory.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Estimates reported here is coefficient for the experimental group (with the control group as a reference), using a linear regression model controlling for Geriatric Depression Scale - 15 items version (GDS-15).|Analysis 3: CDR 0.5 (n=34)||||0.12
95886477|NCT03232801|191727025|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|4.86||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.027
95886478|NCT03232801|191727026|SUPERIORITY||chi-squared|0.45||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
95886479|NCT00106392|191727032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0||||P-Values were not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A group sequential design using the O'Brien and Fleming stopping rule will require 58 evaluable patients per group to detect a 5-point difference in the Erectile Function domain of the IIEF with a power of 80% and an overall significance level of 5%.||||0.111
95886480|NCT00106392|191727033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
95886481|NCT00106392|191727034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.790
95971933|NCT00346268|191917400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference (net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.35|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at rest prior to administration and pain at rest post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.35|-0.01|0.070
95971934|NCT00346268|191917400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.33|||ANOVA|||The difference in pain at movement prior to administration and pain at movement post administration compared between treatments at 48 hours post surgery.||0.33|-0.02|0.074
95971935|NCT00346268|191917401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.26||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.26|-1.16|0.002
95971936|NCT00346268|191917401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.23||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.23|-1.22|0.004
95886482|NCT00106392|191727035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.099
95886483|NCT00106392|191727036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
95886484|NCT00106392|191727037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.879||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.879
95886485|NCT05620563|191727057|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.87|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.87|-0.28|
95886486|NCT05620563|191727058|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-1.13|
95886487|NCT05620563|191727059|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.05|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.05|-0.99|
95886488|NCT05620563|191727060|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.69|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.69|-3.82|
95886489|NCT05620563|191727061|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.51|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.51|-0.33|
95886490|NCT05620563|191727062|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.95|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.95|-0.35|
95886491|NCT05620563|191727063|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|9.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.99|-5.70|
95886492|NCT05620563|191727064|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.39|
95886493|NCT05620563|191727065|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.48|166.06|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||166.06|-115.48|
95886494|NCT05620563|191727066|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.09|
95886495|NCT01170754|191727076|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between the two groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
95886496|NCT01170754|191727077|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.13
95886497|NCT01170754|191727078|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.31
95971937|NCT00346268|191917402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.56||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||24 hours post surgery||-0.56|-1.77|0.001
95971938|NCT00346268|191917402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.24||Adjusted for treatment group and center|ANOVA|||48 hours post surgery||-0.24|-1.41|0.006
95886498|NCT01170754|191727079|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.87
95886499|NCT01170754|191727080|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.25
95971939|NCT00192647|191917415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by viral load and country||||1.52|0.88|0.2893
95971940|NCT00192647|191917416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||||||||1.63|0.91|
95971941|NCT00192647|191917417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27||||||Week 4||2.27|1.24|
95971942|NCT00192647|191917417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.17||||||Week 8||2.17|1.24|
95971943|NCT00192647|191917417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.53||||||Week 12||2.53|1.40|
95971944|NCT00192647|191917417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.98||||||Week 24||1.98|1.08|
95886500|NCT01170754|191727081|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.47
95886501|NCT01170754|191727082|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
95886502|NCT01170754|191727083|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
95886503|NCT01170754|191727084|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
95886504|NCT01170754|191727085|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.92
95886505|NCT01170754|191727086|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two groups was defined as a p-value = or \>.05.||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
95886506|NCT01170754|191727087|NON_INFERIORITY|Inferiority between groups was defined as a difference of 10% in the overall BBPS score.||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||p\<.05 was defined as the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
95886507|NCT01442493|191727127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.92
95886508|NCT01442493|191727128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95886509|NCT01442493|191727129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95886510|NCT01442493|191727130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.54
95886511|NCT01442493|191727131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95886512|NCT01442493|191727132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95886513|NCT01442493|191727133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95886514|NCT03454997|191727167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|7.1||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across both groups||7.1|3.9|
95886515|NCT03454997|191727167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.1||||||between groups differences of change between baseline and 6 months||1.1|-2.3|
95886516|NCT03454997|191727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||||||leading behavioral weight loss group baseline to 6 months comparison||0.4|-1.4|
95886517|NCT03454997|191727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0||||||leading behavioral weight loss group between group comparison of change||1.0|-2.0|
95886518|NCT03454997|191727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||||||completing weight ins baseline to 6 month comparison||0.2|-1.4|
95886519|NCT03454997|191727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5||||||completing weigh ins between groups comparison of change||0.5|-2.5|
95886520|NCT03454997|191727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3||||||managing a group session baseline to 6 months comparison||0.3|-1.2|
95886521|NCT03454997|191727168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.1||||||managing a group session between groups comparison of change||1.1|-2.0|
95886522|NCT03454997|191727169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||comparison between baseline and 6 months across groups||2.9|-2.0|
95886523|NCT03454997|191727169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.8||||||between groups comparison of change post training to 6 months||0.8|-9.1|
95886524|NCT03454997|191727170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across both groups||0.3|-6.9|
95886525|NCT03454997|191727170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.8||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||1.8|-11.4|
95886526|NCT03454997|191727171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||Comparison of Baseline \& 6 Months across both groups||1.1|-0.4|
95886527|NCT03454997|191727171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||||||Between Groups Differences of Change between Baseline \& 6 Months||0.2|-2.0|
95886528|NCT03454997|191727172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.3||||||comparison of between group differences baseline to 6 months||3.3|-4.5|
95886529|NCT03454997|191727172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2||||||comparison of baseline to 6 months across groups||0.2|-3.1|
95886530|NCT03454997|191727173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.6||||||comparison of baseline and 6 months across groups||-1.6|-6.1|
95886531|NCT03454997|191727173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|6.9||||||between groups differences of change between baseline to 6 months||6.9|-20.2|
95886532|NCT02221947|191727178|OTHER||mean Tmax(h)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.206|Bryostatin plasma concentration: mean Tmax (h)||||
95886533|NCT02221947|191727178|OTHER||mean (h*ng/mL)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||SD=0.330|Bryostatin plasma concentration AUC0-last (h\*ng/mL)||||
95886534|NCT04649060|191727217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.184|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.65|||Log Rank|||||0.650|0.052|=0.0032
95886535|NCT04649060|191727218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.03
95886536|NCT04649060|191727219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.418||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|6.693|||Log Rank|||||6.693|0.026|0.525
95886537|NCT04649060|191727221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0997|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0997
95886538|NCT04649060|191727222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.111||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.960|0.013|0.016
95886539|NCT04649060|191727224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.231||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.063|0.846|||Log Rank|||||0.846|0.063|0.0187
95886540|NCT04649060|191727225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.224||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.047|0.0384
95886541|NCT04649060|191727226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.569|||Log Rank|||||2.569|0.086|0.3721
95886542|NCT02602496|191727231|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9942||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9942
95886543|NCT02602496|191727231|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0062|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0062
95886544|NCT02602496|191727231|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6843|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6843
95886545|NCT02602496|191727232|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.5096||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.5096
95886546|NCT02602496|191727232|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2276|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2276
95886547|NCT02602496|191727232|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0006
95886548|NCT02602496|191727233|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9708||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9708
95886549|NCT02602496|191727233|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.1642|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.1642
95886550|NCT02602496|191727233|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.6043|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.6043
95886551|NCT02602496|191727234|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0868||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.0868
95886552|NCT02602496|191727234|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0083|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0083
95886553|NCT02602496|191727234|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0151|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0151
95886554|NCT02602496|191727235|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.9255||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.9255
95886555|NCT02602496|191727235|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.0454|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.0454
95886556|NCT02602496|191727235|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.292|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.2920
95886557|NCT02602496|191727236|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.2252||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.2252
95886558|NCT02602496|191727236|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.4715|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.4715
95886559|NCT02602496|191727236|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.7157|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.7157
95886560|NCT02602496|191727237|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8323||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index|ANOVA|||||||0.8323
95886561|NCT02602496|191727237|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.8927|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.8927
95886562|NCT02602496|191727237|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.3173|||||||ANOVA|Corrected for baseline concentrations, age, gender, and body mass index||||||0.3173
95886563|NCT02602496|191727238|EQUIVALENCE|Value at week 8 minus value at week 0||||||0.27||||||Corrected for baseline concentrations, age and gender|ANOVA|||||||0.27
95886564|NCT00923247|191727259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1, day 1 vs. cycle 3, day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib Cmax (normalized to dose).||||0.019
95886565|NCT00923247|191727260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib AUCinf (normalized to dose).||||0.052
95886566|NCT00923247|191727261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib half-life.||||0.440
95886567|NCT00923247|191727262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase 1 portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib clearance.||||0.016
95886568|NCT00923247|191727263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Mann-Whitney|(nonparametric unpaired t-test; assumed homoscedasticity)||Patients given bortezomib on cycle 1 day 1 vs. cycle 3 day 1. A paired analysis among same 14 patients on Phase I portion. To assess whether presence of vandetanib significantly altered bortezomib volume of distribution.||||0.010
95886569|NCT01691781|191727265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.049
95886570|NCT01691781|191727265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the difference in PTH means among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in PTH, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants (without primary hyperparathyroidism).||||0.80
95886571|NCT01691781|191727266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This p-value reflects the comparison of means among the primary hyperparathyroidism group only.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.22
95886572|NCT01691781|191727266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||This p-value reflects the mean difference in 24h aldosterone excretion rate among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in urinary aldosterone excretion rate, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.86
95886573|NCT01691781|191727267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the primary hyperparathyroidism group.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among participants with primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.48
95886574|NCT01691781|191727267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||This p-value reflects the statistic for the comparison of mean calcium levels for the normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.|t-test, 2 sided|||The statistical analysis compared the change in serum calcium, before and after ACE inhibitor therapy, among normal control participants without primary hyperparathyroidism.||||0.80
95886575|NCT01493570|191727333|OTHER||Ratio CSF to Plasma in %|28.31||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.418|31.532||p-value for ratio outside interval 80% - 125%|ANOVA||Intra Individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\]) = 17.50 .|Dose-adjusted CSF to plasma ratio for Cmax. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model was used with 'subject nested within treatment' considered as random effect.||31.532|25.418|1.0000
95886576|NCT00267046|191727341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fine and Gray method.|||||||<0.001
95886577|NCT02772081|191727346|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|17.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||First Administration; Treatment comparison. Adjusted difference, its 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value are estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test||17.1|-47.9|0.390
95886578|NCT02772081|191727352|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|23.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of standalone oxygen supplementation||23.8|-13.8|0.563
95886579|NCT02772081|191727352|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|21.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of NIV||21.7|-19.7|0.612
95886580|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.619||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.447|0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.210|-1.447|0.137
95971945|NCT02469389|191917508|SUPERIORITY|Based on randomization to treatment condition, the model assumed no differences at BL (any difference was assumed due to random sampling error).||||||0.295|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Post-hoc mixed effects model analyses of all outcomes were performed adjusting for BL CAINS MAP score.||Analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes utilized a linear mixed effects model accounting for random therapy group effects and included all available data at baseline (BL), post-treatment (PT; 12-week), and follow-up (FU; 24-week) timepoints (TPs). Error terms across TPs were assumed correlated with unstructured correlation matrix. To test time specific hypotheses, terms in the mean model included separate indicators for PT \& FU \& interaction terms between these indicators and conditions.||||0.295
95886581|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.268||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|1.14|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.140|-0.604|0.534
95886582|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.27||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.597|1.136|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.136|-0.597|0.530
95886583|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.641||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|1.389|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||1.389|-0.108|0.091
95886584|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.463||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.903|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.903|0.023|0.040
95886585|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.166||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.703|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.703|-0.371|0.532
95886586|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|0.674|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.674|-0.578|0.877
95886587|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.244||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.289|0.776|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.776|-0.289|0.356
95886588|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.303||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.841|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.841|-0.235|0.258
95886589|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.022||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.616|0.66|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.660|-0.616|0.945
95886590|NCT02772081|191727355|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.075||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.436|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2/FiO2 as a covariate.||0.436|-0.586|0.766
95886591|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.051||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.243|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.243|-0.141|0.590
95971946|NCT02469389|191917509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.182
95971947|NCT02469389|191917510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.114
95886592|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.051||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.107|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.107|-0.210|0.511
95886593|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.05||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.096|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.096|-0.196|0.488
95886594|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.11||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.019|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.019|-0.239|0.091
95886595|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.024||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.027|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.027|-0.076|0.344
95971948|NCT02469389|191917511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.220
95886596|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.033|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||6 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.033|-0.084|0.376
95886597|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.135|0.396
95886598|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.026||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.021|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.021|-0.074|0.268
95886599|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.037||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.014|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.014|-0.089|0.147
95886600|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.055|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.055|-0.055|0.994
95886601|NCT02772081|191727356|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.004||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours, Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure FiO2 as a covariate.||0.040|-0.048|0.853
95886602|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-10.4||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|1.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||T0; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||1.7|-22.6|0.090
95886603|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||5 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.8|-6.4|0.917
95886604|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||15 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.6|-8.5|0.668
95886605|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|4.0||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||30 min; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||9.6|-1.5|0.149
95886606|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.8||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||1 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||5.5|-1.9|0.318
95886607|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.6||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 hour; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.7|-0.6|0.148
95886608|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|3.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|10.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||12 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||10.2|-3.6|0.333
95886609|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.9||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||24 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.0|-2.2|0.560
95886610|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|4.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||48 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.3|-0.3|0.089
95886611|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.9||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||72 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||4.4|-0.5|0.115
95886612|NCT02772081|191727357|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||120 hours; Treatment comparison. The analysis was based on an MMRM with treatment, timepoint, treatment by timepoint interaction, and GA group as fixed effects and pre-procedure SpO2 as a covariate.||3.3|-1.0|0.284
95886613|NCT02772081|191727358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-15.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|8.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure in first 72 hours of life.||8.2|-39.6|0.220
95886614|NCT02772081|191727358|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|4.9||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|32.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Any intubation procedure within 36 weeks PMA.||32.5|-22.8|0.741
95886615|NCT02772081|191727359|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|16.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV in first 28 days PNA.||16.3|-32.3|0.333
95886616|NCT02772081|191727359|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|33.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||33.5|-49.5|0.334
95886617|NCT02772081|191727360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-28.6||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.9|63.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation.||63.6|-120.9|0.596
95886618|NCT02772081|191727361|SUPERIORITY||CMH adjusted difference|-18.6||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|9.8||The percentage of neonates needing invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life, was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, adjusted for gestational age (GA) group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in the first 72 hours of life.||9.8|-47.0|0.219
95886619|NCT02772081|191727361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV in first 28 days PNA||26.7|-33.5|0.826
95886620|NCT02772081|191727361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.4||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Invasive MV within 36 weeks PMA.||26.7|-33.5|0.826
95971949|NCT02469389|191917512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95886621|NCT00982592|191727398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Log Rank|||||1.54|0.70|0.874
95886622|NCT00982592|191727400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.83|0.253
95886623|NCT01741701|191727403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95886624|NCT01741701|191727404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change between groups from baseline to 4 months||||0.51
95886625|NCT01741701|191727405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||0.97
95886626|NCT01741701|191727406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in the change from baseline to 4 months||||.77
95886627|NCT01741701|191727407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.90
95886628|NCT01741701|191727408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups in change from baseline to 4 months||||.95
95886629|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|7.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||7.70|-3.48|
95886630|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|11.07||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 1.||11.07|-0.41|
95886631|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|8.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 1.||8.33|-3.35|
95886632|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|5.36||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||5.36|-6.11|
95886633|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|10.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.29|-1.57|
95886634|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|10.65||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 2.||10.65|-1.45|
95886635|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|1.93||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.93|-10.44|
95886636|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.32||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 7.||6.32|-7.22|
95886637|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|5.33||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 7.||5.33|-8.25|
95886638|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|6.29||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||6.29|-5.98|
95886639|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|15.08||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 8.||15.08|1.52|
95886640|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|10.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 8.||10.50|-2.85|
95886641|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|4.97||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||4.97|-7.16|
95886642|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|13.66||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 14.||13.66|-0.11|
95971950|NCT02469389|191917513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.903
95971951|NCT02469389|191917514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.535
95971952|NCT02469389|191917515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.010
95971953|NCT02469389|191917516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.692
95971954|NCT02469389|191917517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.498
95886643|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|10.15||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 14.||10.15|-3.58|
95886644|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|5.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||5.40|-7.64|
95886645|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|10.89||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h at Day 15.||10.89|-3.71|
95886646|NCT00372112|191727418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|9.18||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h at Day 15.||9.18|-4.96|
95886647|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||12.0|-7.7|
95886648|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|13.1||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||13.1|-7.2|
95886649|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 1.||10.1|-10.2|
95886650|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.4||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.4|-6.1|
95886651|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|14.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||14.3|-2.8|
95886652|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|10.1||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 2.||10.1|-6.9|
95886653|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||6.2|-16.1|
95886654|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|10.2||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||10.2|-14.0|
95886655|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|7.5||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 7.||7.5|-17.1|
95886656|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.9||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||10.9|-4.1|
95886657|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|19.0||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||19.0|2.6|
95886658|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|11.4||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 8.||11.4|-5.2|
95886659|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|2.7||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||2.7|-17.0|
95886660|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|16.8||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||16.8|-6.0|
95886661|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.0||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 14.||8.0|-13.8|
95886662|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.3||||||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||8.3|-7.8|
95886663|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|15.6||||||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||15.6|-2.1|
95886664|NCT00372112|191727420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.3||||||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for 0-4 h maximum HR at Day 15.||13.3|-4.5|
95886665|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1131|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0031|0.2293|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2293|-0.0031|
95886666|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.159|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0408|0.2771|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.2771|0.0408|
95886667|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0375|0.1903|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 1.||0.1903|-0.0375|
95886668|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1741|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0178|0.3305|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3305|0.0178|
95886669|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1713|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.3365|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.3365|0.0060|
95886670|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1377|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0233|0.2987|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 7.||0.2987|-0.0233|
95886671|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0266|0.3046|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3046|-0.0266|
95971955|NCT02469389|191917518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.079
95971956|NCT02469389|191917519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.539
95971957|NCT01079663|191917520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-1.19|0.1629
95971958|NCT01079663|191917521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-1.46|0.0347
95971959|NCT01014143|191917523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95886672|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0177|0.3635|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.3635|0.0177|
95886673|NCT00372112|191727435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0686|0.2599|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline FEV1, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for FEV1 over 22-24 h at Day 14.||0.2599|-0.0686|
95886674|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.608|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.608|-0.590|
95886675|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.829|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.829|-0.354|
95886676|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.654|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.654|-0.469|
95886677|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.591|0.988|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.988|-0.591|
95886678|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.633|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|1.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.418|-0.152|
95886679|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.065|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.797|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.797|-0.667|
95886680|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.476|0.67|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.670|-0.476|
95886681|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.408|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|1.024|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.024|-0.208|
95886682|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.471|0.631|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.631|-0.471|
95886683|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.149|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.149|-0.660|
95886684|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.796|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|1.766|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.766|-0.174|
95971960|NCT00952120|191917524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|robust standard errors were used to account for the multiple observations per patient||||||0.80
95886685|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.742|1.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.030|-0.742|
95886686|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|0.669|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.669|-0.556|
95886687|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.767|0.491|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.491|-0.767|
95886688|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.765|0.391|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.391|-0.765|
95886689|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|0.806|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.806|-0.619|
95886690|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.105|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.105|-0.390|
95886691|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|0.877|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.877|-0.522|
95886692|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.294|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|-0.001|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.001|-0.586|
95971961|NCT01878214|191917526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.76
95971962|NCT01878214|191917527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.79
95971963|NCT01878214|191917528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking frequency||||0.63
95971964|NCT01878214|191917528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Smoking quantity||||0.30
95886693|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.371|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.085|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||-0.085|-0.657|
95886694|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.133|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.133|-0.440|
95886695|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.216|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|0.247|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.247|-0.679|
95886696|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.536|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.074|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.074|-0.998|
95886697|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|0.416|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.416|-0.452|
95886698|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.095|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.095|-0.878|
95886699|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.135|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.135|-0.990|
95886700|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.196|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.196|-0.575|
95886701|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|0.385|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.385|-0.235|
95886702|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.623|0.073|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.073|-0.623|
95886703|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.418|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.418|-0.213|
95886704|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.042|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.042|-0.640|
95886705|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.271|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|0.079|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.079|-0.621|
95971965|NCT01878214|191917529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.28
95886706|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.432|0.243|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.243|-0.432|
95886707|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.505|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.505|-0.158|
95886708|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.143|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.143|-0.535|
95886709|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.139|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.475|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for weighted mean potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.475|-0.198|
95886710|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.9|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.90|-1.18|
95886711|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||1.30|-0.72|
95971966|NCT01878214|191917530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Motivation to quit||||0.09
95971967|NCT01878214|191917530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Thinking about quitting||||0.04
95971968|NCT00946101|191917531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the calculation of the power to rule out a 10% increase of fever rate in vaccine recipients with 300 evaluable subjects (240 vaccine and 60 placebo recipients), it is assumed that the true fever rate in the monovalent vaccine group is 3.0% to 8.0%,and the true fever rate in placebo group is 0% to 3% lower than the fever rate in the vaccine group.|rate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.1|||score|||The rate of subjects with fever between the two treatment groups was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo). The upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals was evaluated against the pre-specified equivalence criterion of 10% which corresponds to the following hypotheses: H0 (null): rate difference ≥ 10%, HA (alternative): rate difference \< 10%||3.1|-6.4|
95886712|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.8|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.80|-1.15|
95971969|NCT00946101|191917532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|9.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||9.8|-12.8|
95971970|NCT00946101|191917533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|13.8|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||13.8|-9.6|
95971971|NCT00946101|191917534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.1|||score|||The number of subjects who experienced a post-dose seroresponse was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||27.1|5.5|
95971972|NCT00946101|191917535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.6|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compated following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||17.6|-8.4|
95971973|NCT00946101|191917538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|25.7|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||25.7|-0.4|
95971974|NCT00946101|191917541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|6.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||6.1|-19.7|
95971975|NCT00946101|191917544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|7.1|||score|||Rates of solicited symptoms following each dose (Days 1 to 8 and Days 1 to 15) between the two treatment groups were compared following each dose. Exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals (Chan and Zhang, 1999) on the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo) were constructed. There were no prespecified equivalence criteria for the secondary analyses.||7.1|-20.3|
95854068|NCT01921205|191667596|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction over Placebo|31.72|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.342|44.277|||ANCOVA|Seizure frequency (log transformed) is analyzed using analysis of covariance with terms for treatment, pooled center and Baseline seizure frequency.|Percent reduction over placebo is estimated as 100 x (1-exp\[LSMLacosamide-LSMPlacebo\]). Where LSM is Least Square Mean.|||44.277|16.342|=0.0003
95854069|NCT02584686|191667609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the study group using the t-test.||||0.0049
95854070|NCT02584686|191667609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Comparing the mean PSV before \& after treatment in the control group using the t-test.||||0.68
95854071|NCT02584686|191667611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01086956|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the study group.||||0.01086956
95854072|NCT02584686|191667611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparing the Erection hardness score before \& after treatment in the control group.||||0.6618176
95854073|NCT02584686|191667613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00751288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the study group before \& after treatment.||||0.00751288
95854074|NCT02584686|191667613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6618176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SHIM Score in the control group before \& after treatment.||||0.6618176
95854075|NCT02584686|191667614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027191||||||"Due to the small sample size Fisher exact test was chosen. 7 out of 12 in the treatment group answered yes, while 1 out of 12 in the control group answered yes."|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027191
95854076|NCT02584686|191667616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109091|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in the number of in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 8 (SEP-Q2 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 9 (SEP-Q2 Question after Treatment), for both (BTXA) and Saline groups."||||0.109091
95854077|NCT02584686|191667618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Fisher Exact Test was used to compare the change in patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 10 (SEP-Q3 Question Before Treatment) to patients who answered Yes in Secondary Outcome 11 (SEP-Q3 Question after Treatment)."||||1
95854078|NCT02703597|191667633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network Group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to vaping than participants in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||4.20|0.32|0.80
95854079|NCT02703597|191667633|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility to vaping over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.43|0.06|<0.01
95886713|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.44|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.44|-0.64|
95886714|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.7|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.70|-0.32|
95886715|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.2|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 2.||1.20|-0.74|
95886716|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.01|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.01|-1.11|
95886717|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.62|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.62|-0.57|
95886718|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.15|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 7.||1.15|-0.89|
95886719|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.5|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.50|-0.98|
95886720|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.14|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||2.14|-0.42|
95886721|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.54|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 8.||1.54|-0.90|
95886722|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.30|-1.20|
95971976|NCT00946101|191917553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.7|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||14.7|-6.1|
95971977|NCT00946101|191917554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.1|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 1 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||15.1|-5.8|
95971978|NCT00946101|191917555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|25.2|||score|||The number of subjects who achieved a post Dose 2 HAI titer greater than or equal to 32 against the H1N1 strain was compared based on the upper limit of the two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals for the rate difference (Vaccine minus Placebo).||25.2|5.9|
95971979|NCT03406260|191917574|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|1.81|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||1.81|-1000|<0.0001
95886723|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||2.03|-0.53|
95886724|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 14.||1.23|-1.23|
95886725|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.23|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.23|-0.78|
95886726|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.89|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.89|-0.21|
95886727|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.48|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline glucose, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for maximum glucose 0-4 h at Day 15.||1.48|-0.50|
95886728|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.09|-0.47|
95971980|NCT03406260|191917574|NON_INFERIORITY|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates lasmiditan can be declared noninferior to placebo with noninferiority margin of 10 mmHg, i.e. the difference lasmiditan mean minus placebo mean is less than 10 mmHg.|LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1000.0|2.06|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||2.06|-1000|<0.0001
95971981|NCT02313233|191917579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95971982|NCT02313233|191917580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95886729|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.04|-0.49|
95971983|NCT02313233|191917583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95971984|NCT02313233|191917584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95971985|NCT06377488|191917585|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|-0.056|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at distance was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||-0.056|-0.115|
95971986|NCT06377488|191917585|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.005|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at intermediate was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.005|-0.050|
95971987|NCT06377488|191917585|SUPERIORITY||least-square mean estimate|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.116|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Visual Acuity scores at near was estimated using 95% confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least-square mean (LSM).|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 9, 6 and 29 subjects were required to test the primary hypotheses for distance, intermediate and near, respectively.||0.116|0.051|
95971988|NCT06377488|191917586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
95971989|NCT06377488|191917586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes only using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a 1-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 29 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
95971990|NCT06377488|191917587|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.943|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|0.968|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.902 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.968|0.908|
95971991|NCT06377488|191917588|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.988|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 96% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.974|
95971992|NCT06377488|191917589|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.017|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.017|0.000|
95971993|NCT06377488|191917590|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.011|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data||It was calculated that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.011|0.000|
95971994|NCT06377488|191917591|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.7|64.0|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for hyperopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||64.0|51.7|
95971995|NCT06377488|191917591|SUPERIORITY||Least-square mean estimate|62.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|67.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|This is the analysis for myopes only. Mean estimates were conducted using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 42 and 55 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||67.5|56.7|
95886730|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.07|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 1.||0.07|-0.46|
95886731|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.27|-0.47|
95886732|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||-0.03|-0.73|
95886733|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 2.||0.34|-0.37|
95886734|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.97|
95886735|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||-0.12|-0.98|
95886736|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 7.||0.08|-0.76|
95886737|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.33|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.33|-0.26|
95886738|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||-0.10|-0.70|
95886739|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 8.||0.34|-0.26|
95886740|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.12|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.12|-0.42|
95886741|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.04|-0.51|
95886742|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.21|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 14.||0.21|-0.34|
95886743|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.35|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus GW642444 100 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.35|-0.25|
95886744|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.05|||Regression, Linear|||Placebo versus GW642444 400 mcg once daily for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||-0.05|-0.66|
95886745|NCT00372112|191727440|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.34|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed using linear regression ANCOVA with covariates of Baseline potassium, gender, age and treatment.||Placebo versus Salmeterol 50 mcg BD for minimum potassium 0-4 h at Day 15.||0.34|-0.26|
95886746|NCT02205814|191727484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||||||<0.05
95886747|NCT02205814|191727485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Fourhundred evaluable patients were supposed to provide approximately 80% power in rejecting the null hypothesis of equality between any dose of fasitibant and placebo based on previous results and an overall significance level of 5% (two-sided).|mixed linear model for repeated measures|||All secondary efficacy variables were analysed on the ITT population only. Multiplicity was adjusted using the Hochberg procedure. The continuous secondary efficacy variables were analysed over time and were treated in the same way as the primary efficacy variable with respective output.||||<0.05
95886748|NCT01574326|191727506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.37|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.||Primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline to Week 2 in serum phosphorus, was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline phosphorus and screening BSA as covariates and fixed effect for treatment. No center effect was included in the model. The estimate of the treatment difference (Sevelamer Carbonate - Placebo) and its 95% CI were presented. Significance was to be declared if the p-value was ≤0.05.||-0.37|-1.44|0.001
95886749|NCT01860651|191727516|OTHER||mean difference over time|-0.002||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.001|||Mixed Effect Model|||"Statistical analysis of Medical adherence in study Medication adm. at home were analysed using a Mixed Effect Model (MEM). The MEM model included a random patient effect and a fixed effect interaction between group and time, to evaluate difference between the groups over time."||0.001|-0.005|0.22
95886750|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||||90.0|-0.041|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.041|
95886751|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||||90.0|-0.04|-0.003|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.003|-0.040|
95886752|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.038|0.001|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.001|-0.038|
95886753|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||||90.0|-0.058|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.058|
95886754|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.065|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.065|
95886755|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.043|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.043|
95886756|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.066|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.020|-0.066|
95886757|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.058|-0.009|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.009|-0.058|
95886758|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.039|0.009|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.009|-0.039|
95886759|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||||90.0|-0.027|0.017|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.017|-0.027|
95886760|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||||90.0|-0.037|0.012|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.012|-0.037|
95886761|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.014|-0.076|
95886762|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.076|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.013|-0.076|
95886763|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.071|
95886764|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.074|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.008|-0.074|
95886765|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.088|-0.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.025|-0.088|
95886766|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||||90.0|-0.071|-0.007|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.007|-0.071|
95886767|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||||90.0|-0.079|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.079|
95886768|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.055|0.016|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.016|-0.055|
95886769|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.079|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.079|
95886770|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.091|-0.019|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.019|-0.091|
95886771|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||||90.0|-0.081|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.010|-0.081|
95886772|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||||90.0|-0.073|0.002|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.002|-0.073|
95886773|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||||90.0|-0.121|-0.038|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.038|-0.121|
95886774|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||||90.0|-0.124|0.003|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.003|-0.124|
95886775|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||||90.0|-0.098|-0.033|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.033|-0.098|
95886776|NCT00137046|191727524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||||90.0|-0.085|-0.004|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.004|-0.085|
95886777|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||||90.0|-0.06|0.122|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.122|-0.060|
95886778|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||||90.0|0.033|0.239|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.239|0.033|
95886779|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||||90.0|0.0|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.000|
95886780|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.141|0.374|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.374|0.141|
95886781|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||||90.0|0.04|0.273|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.273|0.040|
95886782|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||||90.0|0.065|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.300|0.065|
95886783|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||||90.0|0.06|0.319|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.319|0.060|
95886784|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||||90.0|0.19|0.443|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.443|0.190|
95886785|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||||90.0|-0.037|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.224|-0.037|
95886786|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||||90.0|-0.103|0.145|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.145|-0.103|
95886787|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||||90.0|-0.023|0.248|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.248|-0.023|
95886788|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.126|0.419|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.419|0.126|
95886789|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||||90.0|0.219|0.507|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.507|0.219|
95886790|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.128|0.428|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.428|0.128|
95886791|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||||90.0|0.144|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.442|0.144|
95886792|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||||90.0|0.058|0.369|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.369|0.058|
95886793|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||||90.0|0.101|0.386|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.386|0.101|
95886794|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||90.0|0.079|0.376|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.376|0.079|
95886795|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||||90.0|0.079|0.372|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.372|0.079|
95886796|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||||90.0|0.055|0.368|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.368|0.055|
95886797|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||||90.0|0.18|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.483|0.180|
95886798|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||||90.0|0.302|0.622|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.622|0.302|
95886799|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||||90.0|0.221|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.600|0.221|
95886800|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||||90.0|0.183|0.718|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.718|0.183|
95886801|NCT00137046|191727526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||||90.0|-0.174|0.237|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline HbA1c, and Center.||0.237|-0.174|
95886802|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.33||||90.0|-25.24|-4.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.39|-25.24|
95886803|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||||90.0|-35.16|-14.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.51|-35.16|
95886804|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||||90.0|-37.56|-14.75|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.75|-37.56|
95886805|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||||90.0|-30.56|-8.36|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-8.36|-30.56|
95886806|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||||90.0|-50.93|-29.0|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-29.00|-50.93|
95886807|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||||90.0|-27.65|-4.51|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.51|-27.65|
95886808|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||||90.0|-24.69|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-2.39|-24.69|
95886809|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||||90.0|-30.88|-6.84|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-6.84|-30.88|
95886810|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12||||90.0|-9.83|16.96|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin.Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||16.96|-9.83|
95886811|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||||90.0|-31.32|-4.27|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-4.27|-31.32|
95886812|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.72||||90.0|-33.44|-7.99|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-7.99|-33.44|
95886813|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||||90.0|-11.06|14.66|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||14.66|-11.06|
95886814|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02||||90.0|-23.61|6.17|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||6.17|-23.61|
95886815|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.84||||90.0|-29.28|-3.4|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-3.40|-29.28|
95886816|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25||||90.0|-26.6|0.63|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||0.63|-26.60|
95886817|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||90.0|-24.39|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.94|-24.39|
95886818|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82||||90.0|-43.19|-14.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||-14.09|-43.19|
95886819|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||||90.0|-23.69|5.71|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.71|-23.69|
95886820|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||||90.0|-24.04|5.0|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||5.00|-24.04|
95886821|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||||90.0|-24.71|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||3.92|-24.71|
95886822|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.24||||90.0|-21.42|9.09|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||9.09|-21.42|
95886823|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44||||90.0|-20.98|10.21|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||10.21|-20.98|
95886824|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.77||||90.0|-38.43|7.26|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||7.26|-38.43|
95886825|NCT00137046|191727529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27||||90.0|-15.79|21.46|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, and Center.||21.46|-15.79|
95886826|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||||90.0|-0.846|-0.199|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.199|-0.846|
95886827|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||||90.0|-1.541|-0.685|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.685|-1.541|
95886828|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.836|-0.882|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.882|-1.836|
95886829|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||||90.0|-1.702|-0.666|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.666|-1.702|
95886830|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.426|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.338||||90.0|-1.984|-0.869|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.869|-1.984|
95886831|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||||90.0|-2.35|-1.084|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.084|-2.350|
95886832|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||||90.0|-1.95|-0.596|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.596|-1.950|
95886833|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||||90.0|-1.792|-0.346|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.346|-1.792|
95886834|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.418||||90.0|-1.475|-0.096|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.096|-1.475|
95971996|NCT06377488|191917592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|70.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||70.8|58.6|
95971997|NCT06377488|191917592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|69.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 23 and 46 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE comfort scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||69.5|59.0|
95971998|NCT06377488|191917593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|73.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for hyperopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||73.5|62.2|
95886835|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||||90.0|-1.114|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.224|-1.114|
95886836|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.654||||90.0|-1.133|1.025|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||1.025|-1.133|
95886837|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.438|-0.235|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.235|-2.438|
95886838|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||||90.0|-2.356|-0.568|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.568|-2.356|
95886839|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564||||90.0|-2.316|-0.454|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.454|-2.316|
95886840|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.559||||90.0|-1.877|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.034|-1.877|
95886841|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.588||||90.0|-1.97|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.030|-1.970|
95886842|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.655||||90.0|-2.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||0.121|-2.041|
95886843|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||||90.0|-2.77|-0.565|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.565|-2.770|
95886844|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||||90.0|-3.013|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.730|-3.013|
95886845|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.887|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||||90.0|-3.084|-0.69|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.690|-3.084|
95886846|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||||90.0|-4.264|-1.324|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.324|-4.264|
95886847|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||||90.0|-5.088|-1.485|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-1.485|-5.088|
95886848|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.857||||90.0|-2.901|-0.071|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.071|-2.901|
95886849|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||||90.0|-5.382|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.880|-5.382|
95886850|NCT00137046|191727530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.487|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.866||||90.0|-2.918|-0.055|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment-Difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted model includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Body Weight, and Center.||-0.055|-2.918|
95886851|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||||90.0|-0.981|-0.506|||ANCOVA|||Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.506|-0.981|
95886852|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.797|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||||90.0|-1.073|-0.522|||ANCOVA|||Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.522|-1.073|
95886853|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||||90.0|-0.949|-0.384|||ANCOVA|||Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.384|-0.949|
95886854|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||||90.0|-1.123|-0.528|||ANCOVA|||Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.528|-1.123|
95886855|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||||90.0|-0.923|-0.296|||ANCOVA|||Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.296|-0.923|
95886856|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||||90.0|-0.91|-0.245|||ANCOVA|||Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.245|-0.910|
95886857|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||||90.0|-0.962|-0.263|||ANCOVA|||Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.263|-0.962|
95886858|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||||90.0|-0.736|-0.034|||ANCOVA|||Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.034|-0.736|
95886859|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||||90.0|-0.197|0.497|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.497|-0.197|
95886860|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||||90.0|-0.16|0.492|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.492|-0.160|
95886861|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||||90.0|-0.274|0.411|||ANCOVA|||Follow-up Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.411|-0.274|
95886862|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||||90.0|-0.876|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 1; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-0.876|
95886863|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||||90.0|-0.986|-0.172|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.172|-0.986|
95886864|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||||90.0|-0.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 6; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.040|-0.880|
95886865|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||||90.0|-0.822|0.053|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 9; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.053|-0.822|
95886866|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||||90.0|-1.372|-0.487|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 12; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.487|-1.372|
95886867|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||||90.0|-1.296|-0.351|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 15; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.351|-1.296|
95886868|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267||||90.0|-0.965|-0.084|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 18; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.084|-0.965|
95886869|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||||90.0|-1.104|-0.191|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 21; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.191|-1.104|
95886870|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||||90.0|-1.34|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 24; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.367|-1.340|
95886871|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||||90.0|-0.89|0.111|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 27; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.111|-0.890|
95886872|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||||90.0|-1.119|-0.153|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 30; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.153|-1.119|
95886873|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||||90.0|-1.0|-0.043|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 33; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.043|-1.000|
95886874|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||||90.0|-1.315|-0.173|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 36; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.173|-1.315|
95886875|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||||90.0|-2.42|-0.335|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.335|-2.420|
95886876|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||||90.0|-1.183|-0.258|||ANCOVA|||Extension Month 39 (LOCF); Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||-0.258|-1.183|
95886877|NCT00137046|191727539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||||90.0|-0.594|0.472|||ANCOVA|||Extension Follow Up Month 3; Treatment difference: Inhaled Insulin - Subcutaneous Insulin. Adjusted (Primary Analysis Model) includes terms of Treatment, Baseline Pulmonary Function Test (PFT), Center, Age, Sex, and Height.||0.472|-0.594|
95886878|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|2.44||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||2.44|-1.20|
95886879|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|4.73||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||4.73|1.05|
95886880|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|3.95||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||3.95|0.28|
95886881|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
95886882|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|3.32||||||Comparison at 5.0 hours postdose.||3.32|-0.36|
95886883|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.64|5.32||||||Comparison at 6.0 hours postdose.||5.32|1.64|
95886884|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|3.97||||||Comparison at 8.0 hours postdose.||3.97|0.27|
95886885|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|3.51||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||3.51|-0.17|
95886886|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.57|3.59||||||Comparison at 0.5 hours postdose.||3.59|-1.57|
95886887|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|7.57||||||Comparison at 2.0 hours postdose.||7.57|2.40|
95886888|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.71|8.86||||||Comparison at 3.0 hours postdose.||8.86|3.71|
95886889|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|8.93||||||Comparison at 4.0 hours postdose.||8.93|3.78|
95886890|NCT01606436|191727652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.11|7.31||||||Comparison at 12.0 hours postdose.||7.31|2.11|
95886891|NCT00110149|191727660|OTHER|As the study was not able to be completed the simple number of patients per outcome is listed.|||||||||||||||||The trial was to measure the response rate and EFS of patients but the manufacturer of the investigational agent closed and sold the agent to a new company so the trial was not able to be completed.|||
95886892|NCT01911689|191727662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the Control group and AP group.||||<0.01
95886893|NCT01911689|191727663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent T test was used to determine the differences for the T2\* value between the edematous AP and necrotizing AP||||0.05
95886894|NCT01911689|191727664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the differences in the T2\* value between the mild, moderate, and severe AP groups according to the MRSI score.||||<0.01
95886895|NCT01911689|191727664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value in the mild and moderate AP according to MRSI||||0.0111
95886896|NCT01911689|191727664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the mild and severe AP||||0.002
95886897|NCT01911689|191727664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||compare the T2\* value between the moderate and severe AP according to MRSI||||0.071
95886898|NCT01911689|191727665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.629
95886899|NCT00748033|191727673|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0650
95886900|NCT00748033|191727674|OTHER|||||||0.2487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.2487
95886901|NCT00748033|191727675|OTHER|||||||0.7288|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.7288
95886902|NCT00748033|191727676|OTHER|||||||0.0045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-sided. Testing the hypothesis that the perception is same.||||0.0045
95886903|NCT00748033|191727677|OTHER|||||||0.4561|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at insertion.||||0.4561
95886904|NCT00748033|191727678|OTHER|||||||0.1797|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||Testing the hypothesis that 5s and 24 h are equal at withdrawal.||||0.1797
95886905|NCT00748033|191727679|OTHER|||||||0.5171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test if the difference between 5s and 24h is equal to 0.||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.5171
95886906|NCT00748033|191727680|OTHER|||||||0.7105|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The mean perception of the 5s and the 24h catheter is calculated for each patient. The patients are then divided in two groups depending on the order the patients received the two catheters and the hypotheses that the mean of the 5s and the 24h catheter is equal in the two groups are tested. If the test results in a significant p-value it can be concluded that a carry-over effect is present.||||0.7105
95886907|NCT00748033|191727681|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
95886908|NCT00748033|191727682|OTHER|||||||0.0346|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0346
95886909|NCT00748033|191727683|OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
95886910|NCT01018186|191727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||2.08|1.34|
95886911|NCT01018186|191727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||2.13|1.29|
95886912|NCT01018186|191727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||||Ratio of FF/VI 100/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.33|0.83|
95886913|NCT01018186|191727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 12|||1.89|1.22|
95886914|NCT01018186|191727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 28|||1.84|1.11|
95886915|NCT01018186|191727696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||||Ratio of FF/VI 200/25 OD versus FP 500 BD to Baseline of 24-Hour Urinary Cortisol Excretion at Week 52|||1.38|0.87|
95886916|NCT01018186|191727697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.08|||ANCOVA|||||2.08|1.34|<0.001
95886917|NCT01018186|191727697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.89|||ANCOVA|||||1.89|1.22|<0.001
95886918|NCT01018186|191727698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||ANCOVA|||||2.13|1.29|<0.001
95886919|NCT01018186|191727698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||ANCOVA|||||1.84|1.11|0.006
95886920|NCT01018186|191727699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.05||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.83|0.674
95886921|NCT01018186|191727699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LSGM to Baseline|1.09||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38|||ANCOVA|||||1.38|0.87|0.444
95886922|NCT03200860|191727749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95886923|NCT03200860|191727750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95886924|NCT03200860|191727751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95886925|NCT03200860|191727752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95886926|NCT03200860|191727753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.31
95886927|NCT03200860|191727754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
95886928|NCT02846779|191727790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||||||||1.03|0.75|
95886929|NCT02846779|191727790|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||||||||1.06|0.77|
95886930|NCT02846779|191727791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.34|
95886931|NCT02846779|191727791|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.06||||||||-0.06|-0.43|
95886932|NCT02846779|191727792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.11||||||||1.11|0.95|
95886933|NCT02846779|191727792|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06||||||||1.06|0.92|
95886934|NCT02846779|191727793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.02||||||||1.02|0.97|
95886935|NCT02846779|191727793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0||||||||1.00|0.96|
95886936|NCT02846779|191727794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.53||||||||1.53|1.24|
95886937|NCT02846779|191727794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||||1.07|0.85|
95886938|NCT02846779|191727795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.41||||||||1.41|1.06|
95886939|NCT02846779|191727795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.32||||||||1.32|0.99|
95886940|NCT01428453|191727807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|39.8||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|92.0|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-42 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||92.0|-12.4|0.133
95886941|NCT01428453|191727807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-250.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|265.66||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-771.9|271.2|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Abeta1-40 and Age.|Comparison of CSF Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||271.2|-771.9|0.829
95886942|NCT01428453|191727808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.016|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.036|||||The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Ratio Abeta1-42/Abeta1-40 and Age.|||0.036|-0.003|
95886943|NCT01428453|191727809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.4||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.5|30.3|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF tau and Age.|Comparison of CSF tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||30.3|-144.5|0.902
95886944|NCT01428453|191727809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF P-tau and Age.|Comparison of P-tau between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg.|||1.8|-7.9|0.892
95886945|NCT01428453|191727810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.167||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.313||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Working Memory/Executive Function Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.313|0.021|0.026
95886946|NCT01428453|191727811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.26|||ANCOVA|The analysis method was ANCOVA adjusted for Treatment, Baseline CSF Albumin Quotient and Age.||||0.26|-0.74|0.828
95886947|NCT01428453|191727812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta42 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||1.2|-3.9|
95886948|NCT01428453|191727812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||||95.0|-10.2|12.2|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||Comparison of Abeta40 between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg. The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||12.2|-10.2|
95886949|NCT01428453|191727813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.01|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||The analysis method for Plasma parameters was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline, Treatment by Visit, Baseline by Visit and Age.|||0.010|-0.016|
95971999|NCT06377488|191917593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Population Estimate|67.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|71.8|||Mixed Model Analysis|The Satterthwaite Method was used for the calculation of the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean estimates were conducted for myopes using two-sided confidence intervals (CI) constructed for the least square mean.|It was calculated using a one-sided one-sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% with at least 99% statistical power, that 15 and 26 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE handling scores for hyperopes and myopes, respectively.||71.8|62.2|
95972000|NCT06377488|191917594|SUPERIORITY||Central Posterior Mean Estimate|0.966|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0135|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|0.988|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta-binomial model with correlated binary data.||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70 with 5000 replicating trials, that 140 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible.||0.988|0.933|
95972001|NCT04745026|191917598|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.931|=|0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|7.21||Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).|Mixed models for repeated measures|||Irritability (Week 12)||7.21|-0.48|=0.085
95972002|NCT04745026|191917598|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|=|0.3107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.36|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Social Withdrawal Week 12)||3.36|-1.08|=0.3107
95972003|NCT04745026|191917598|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695|=|0.9513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.42|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Stereotypic Behavior (Week 12)||1.42|-1.34|=0.9513
95972004|NCT04745026|191917598|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.943|=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|5.88|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Hyperactivity/Noncompliance (Week 12)||5.88|-1.86|=0.305
95972005|NCT04745026|191917598|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517|=|0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.66|||Mixed models repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Inappropriate Speech (Week 12)||0.66|-1.4|=0.4754
95972006|NCT04745026|191917599|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|=|0.8506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|5.15|||Mixed models for repeated measures|Randomization factors, baseline score, visit, treatment arm, visit by treatment arm (fixed), and visit repeated within each patient (repeated).||Week 12||5.15|-4.26|=0.8506
95972007|NCT04745026|191917600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||=|0.7087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment arm, randomization variables and baseline score (CGI-S) covariates. Responders achieved a score of 1 or 2 at post-baseline visits.||Responders with 'Very Much Improved' or 'Much Improved' response at week 12||3.51|0.43|=0.7087
95972008|NCT04745026|191917601|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||||=0.6108
95972009|NCT05478499|191917618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||15.3|2.5|<0.0001
95972010|NCT05478499|191917618|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||18.4|2.7|<0.0001
95972011|NCT05478499|191917619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.6|352.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Full Analysis Set||352.0|4.6|<0.0001
95886950|NCT01428453|191727815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.057|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis||"The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.~placebo."|||0.057|-0.191|
95972012|NCT05478499|191917619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|317.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||317.6|4.4|<0.0001
95972013|NCT05478499|191917620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.3|-1.6|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Full Analysis Set||-1.6|-3.3|<0.0001
95972014|NCT05478499|191917620|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.5|||analysis of covariance model||analysis of covariance model|Patient sub-population (s-PGA ≥ 3)||-1.5|-3.3|<0.0001
95972015|NCT05478499|191917621|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|105.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||105.6|5.4|<0.0001
95886951|NCT01428453|191727815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.138||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.267||The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Overall Composite Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Overall Composite Score by Visit.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The probability (effect size) for change from Baseline in CogState battery overall composite score \>0 is presented.|A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo. Comparison of overall composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24.|||0.267|0.010|0.982
95886952|NCT01428453|191727816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.063|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.13|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 12. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.130|-0.257|
95972016|NCT04426851|191917635|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|45.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.4|50.9|||||"Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg tablet fasted/BI 1358894 (C-14) 100 ug i.v.~Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=14.3."|The Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'formulation'. The effect 'subjects' was considered as random, whereas 'formulation' was considered as fixed.||50.9|41.4|
95972017|NCT04426851|191917636|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|141.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.3|154.6|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra -individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=10.9.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||154.6|129.3|
95972018|NCT04426851|191917638|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|65.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.6|78.0|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)=22.5.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||78.0|54.6|
95972019|NCT04426851|191917639|OTHER||Ratio of the geometric means (%)|148.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.1|159.5|||||Ratio was calculated as: BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fed/BI 1358894 100 mg oral suspension fasted. Intra - individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) =8.7.|The ANOVA model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence or block', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||159.5|138.1|
95972020|NCT01415531|191917653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||||-4.8|-7.7|<0.0001
95972021|NCT03086213|191917689|NON_INFERIORITY|the definition of non-inferiority analysis is that the new method is no less effective than standard interventions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.025||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|95.0||whether or not the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom|Paravertebral nerve block arm represents the numerator and intercostal block represents the denominator for relative risk|null hypothesis||95|5|0.025
95972022|NCT03086213|191917690|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95972023|NCT03086213|191917693|SUPERIORITY|During the calculation of sample size,a sample size of 24 patients per group was calculated as being required to ensure 90% power of detecting the difference-if any-as statistically significant at the 5% level||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Degree of freedom is defined as sample size subtraction one.||null hypothesis||||0.05
95972024|NCT02084056|191917698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.703|106.747|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||106.747|100.703|<0.0001
95972025|NCT02084056|191917698|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.721|110.202|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||110.202|93.721|0.0003
95972026|NCT02084056|191917699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|114.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.687|121.908|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||121.908|107.687|0.0113
95972027|NCT02084056|191917699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.543|111.609|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||111.609|86.543|0.0064
95886953|NCT01428453|191727816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.269|||Mixed-Model Repeated Measures analysis|The analysis method was Mixed-Model Repeated Measures adjusted for Treatment, Visit, Baseline Score, Treatment by Visit and Baseline Score by Visit.|Comparison of attention composite score between placebo and rilapladib 250 mg at Week 24. A positive treatment difference indicates benefit, relative to placebo.|||0.269|-0.130|
95886954|NCT02421315|191727822|OTHER|a t-test comparing groups in a specific region-of-interest (ROI); the insula|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that compared to HC, children and adolescents with OCD would have increased activation in subcortical structures (insula, and putamen) comprising a right hemisphere dorsal frontostriatal circuit.||0.224|-0.004|0.0585
95886955|NCT02421315|191727823|SUPERIORITY|We selected 'arbitrary units' as the unit of measure here because we are looking at connectivity strengths|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49512921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06553315||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p\<.05 with 20,000 permutations was used."|t-test, 1 sided||Direction of the comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the FC-strength indices between 352 regions. Edge-wise functional connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 352 nodes and 123,904 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox. We hypothesized that youth with OCD would show altered FC between task-control circuit regions.||||.037
95886956|NCT02421315|191727823|OTHER||Slope|-0.521|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Separate cross-lagged panel models were computed in the OCD group for the three functional connections that differed significantly across groups at baseline (see Statistical Analysis 1). These models were constructed using IBM SPSS Amos (v.23) to test for directional relationships between OCD symptoms and FC pre- to post-treatment in the OCD patients. CY-BOCS total scores at each time point were used as the OCD symptoms measure.||||<.05
95886957|NCT02421315|191727824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.218|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.218|0.0018|0.0464
95886958|NCT02421315|191727825|SUPERIORITY|only participants were assigned to groups (OCD, HC) and we measured streamline count in these participants to index structural connectivity|Slope|-102.67|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|||||"NBS controls for family-wise error rate using permutation testing to identify components or clusters of contiguous region-to-region connections. A statistical threshold of p=.025 with 10,000 permutations was used."|Regression, Linear||Direction of comparison: HC\>OCD|Whole-Brain Connectome-Level Analyses were performed on the structural connectivity indices (streamline count) between 164 regions. Edge-wise structural connectivity analyses was then be conducted across the resulting matrix comprised of 164 nodes and 26,896 edges, using the Network-Based Statistics (NBS) Toolbox.||||<0.025
95886959|NCT01405456|191727826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Insulin Stimulated Glucose Uptake measured during euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure from baseline to 6 months||||0.71
95886960|NCT01405456|191727827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Visceral Adipose Tissue area as measured by magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen from baseline to 6 months||||0.42
95886961|NCT01405456|191727828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Liver Fat (Intrahepatic Lipid) as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.51
95886962|NCT01405456|191727829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Intramyocellular Lipid of calf muscles as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
95886963|NCT01405456|191727830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Flow Mediated Vasodilation (maximum percentage) from baseline to 6 months||||0.44
95886964|NCT01405456|191727831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean serum measurements of Potassium||||0.07
95886965|NCT01405456|191727832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Hemoglobin A1c from baseline to 6 months||||0.70
95886966|NCT01405456|191727833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in C-Reactive Protein from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
95886967|NCT01405456|191727834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.37
95886968|NCT01405456|191727835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in Adiponectin from baseline to 6 months||||0.78
95886969|NCT01405456|191727836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in IL-6 from baseline to 6 months||||0.10
95886970|NCT01405456|191727837|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in MCP-1 from baseline to 6 months||||0.04
95886971|NCT02044393|191727848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.371|87.959|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment (in plasma)||87.959|62.371|
95886972|NCT02044393|191727848|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.04|95.56|||||"ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. Estimated value and its confidence interval (CI) are in percentage unit.~The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance."|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||95.56|78.04|
95886973|NCT02044393|191727849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|95.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.195|108.537|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in plasma)||108.537|84.195|
95886974|NCT02044393|191727849|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|93.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.142|101.57|||||ratio of test to reference treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of test to reference treatment (in whole blood)||101.570|86.142|
95886975|NCT02044393|191727850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|74.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.946|89.035|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in plasma)||89.035|62.946|
95886976|NCT02044393|191727850|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"90% confidence interval for gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 69175 treatment was provided.~The ANOVA model included the fixed effects 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' and as a random effect 'subject within sequence' as source of variation."|gMean ratio|88.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|98.95|||||ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variance.|gMean ratio of IT+BI 691751 to BI 691751 treatment (in whole blood)||98.95|78.60|
95886977|NCT04346537|191727853|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
95886978|NCT04346537|191727854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
95886979|NCT04346537|191727855|OTHER|Two-one sided t-tests (TOST) -- the 90% confidence interval was required to be contained with 300 and 1300 ohms.|||||<|0.001|||||||Two one-sided t-tests|||||||< 0.001
95886980|NCT01134783|191727856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.707
95886981|NCT01134783|191727857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis used hierarchical linear models having repeated measures of the outcome regressed on experimental condition, adjusted for baseline age, sex, race, and household education level as well as wave and college.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.049
95886982|NCT02423577|191727882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.98|0.1436
95886983|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|1.154||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates at specific time points (1 year and 2 years post randomization). The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.154|0.562|0.2368
95886984|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.4134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.228||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.228|0.609|0.4134
95886985|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|1.355||The primary pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The primary null hypothesis of the study is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||1.355|0.643|0.7166
95886986|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.386||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the CRFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk. The data in primary outcome table provides point estimates. The statistics in this session provides comparisons between different arms for the entire period of the study.||||0.386
95972028|NCT02084056|191917700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|96.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|101.97|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.97|91.23|<0.0001
95972029|NCT02084056|191917700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.47|105.63|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||105.63|90.47|0.0002
95972030|NCT02084056|191917701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|97.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.046|104.257|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||104.257|92.046|<0.0001
95886987|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and disease risk (Low/Intermediate vs. High) for CRFS.||||0.461
95886988|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||Cox proportional hazards regression|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Age (\<=50 vs. \>50) for CRFS.||||0.115
95886989|NCT02345850|191727884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.227||||||A Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3=0.0167 is used for each of three interaction tests to account for multiple testing.|Cox proportional hazards regression|||Subgroup analyses are conducted for CRFS according to disease, disease risk and age. Interaction tests between treatment group and subgroup are conducted within a Cox proportional hazards regression model with treatment, subgroup, and a treatment\*subgroup interaction term. The null hypothesis is that there is no Interaction between treatment group and Disease (AML vs. ALL vs. MDS) for CRFS.||||0.227
95886990|NCT02345850|191727885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.744||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|2.8||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Tac/MTX Control.||2.800|1.086|0.0197
95886991|NCT02345850|191727885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.016||||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|1.724||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide vs. Tac/MTX Control.||1.724|0.599|0.9525
95886992|NCT02345850|191727885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.774||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.093|2.877||The OS pairwise comparisons are tested at a Bonferroni adjusted significance level of 0.05/3.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between CD34 select graft vs. Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide.||2.877|1.093|0.0185
95886993|NCT02345850|191727885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the OS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.026
95886994|NCT02345850|191727886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Relapse-Free Survival between the treatment groups.||||0.029
95886995|NCT02345850|191727886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the RFS hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.145
95886996|NCT02345850|191727887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Transplant-Related Mortality between the treatment groups.||||0.020
95886997|NCT02345850|191727887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the TRM hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.040
95886998|NCT02345850|191727888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2389||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant between the treatment groups.||||0.2389
95886999|NCT02345850|191727888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cohen's Kappa|||The null hypothesis is that there is no agreement between CRFS and immunosuppression-free survival at 1-year post-transplant.||||<0.0001
95887000|NCT02345850|191727889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Disease Relapse between the treatment groups.||||0.076
95887001|NCT02345850|191727889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the Disease Relapse hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.106
95887002|NCT02345850|191727890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Neutrophil Engraftment post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0764
95887003|NCT02345850|191727891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Platelet recovery post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0001
95887004|NCT02345850|191727893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1478|||||||Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Secondary graft failure post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.1478
95887005|NCT02345850|191727894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade II-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0026
95887006|NCT02345850|191727894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of grade III-IV acute GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0369
95887007|NCT02345850|191727894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade II-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.002
95887008|NCT02345850|191727894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the grade III-IV acute GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.046
95887009|NCT02345850|191727896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0024||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of chronic GVHD post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0024
95887010|NCT02345850|191727896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of the chronic GVHD hazard ratio between treatment groups after adjustment for age, donor type, performance status, primary disease, and disease risk.||||0.005
95887011|NCT02345850|191727897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Chronic GVHD-free Survival post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.229
95887012|NCT02345850|191727899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||Superiority - Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades II-III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0006
95887013|NCT02345850|191727899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Gray's test for cumulative Incidence|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference of Grades III infection post-transplantation between the treatment groups.||||0.0145
95887014|NCT01991067|191727921|OTHER|Furthermore, a multivariable logistic regression model was applied accounting for group as well as age, body mass index, and gender as possible influence factors.|||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value of \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||The calculation of the sample size was performed using nQuery 6.1. The primary endpoint was the outcome of the NT 4 weeks after the second vaccination. A Fisher exact tes was calculated to analyze the primary hypothesis on the difference in NT-titer response between patients and controls||||<0.001
95887015|NCT01991067|191727922|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher exact test was calculated to analyze antibody response by ELISA between patients and controls. To measure the Agreement between the NT and ELISA response, Cohens Kappa and the corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated||||0.02
95887016|NCT01991067|191727923|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For titer values the geometric mean was calculated and the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals were constructed by back-transfomration of the CI for the mean of the logarithmically transformed results.~To investigate the difference in absolute titer values and geometric mean fold changes between time point and Groups, Wilcoxon tests were performed."||||<0.01
95972031|NCT02084056|191917701|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|105.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.705|115.861|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||115.861|96.705|0.0030
95972032|NCT02084056|191917702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|103.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.426|108.79|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||108.790|98.426|<0.0001
95972033|NCT02084056|191917702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|101.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.13|112.708|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||112.708|91.130|0.0019
95972034|NCT02084056|191917703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|95.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.73|101.62|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fasted/ L+M 2000 fasted)|||101.62|89.73|<0.0001
95972035|NCT02084056|191917703|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon 2-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (FDC/free combination) using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.|Adjusted Geometric Means ratio|98.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.73|106.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|Ratio of (FDC 2000 fed/ L+M 2000 fed)|||106.27|90.73|0.0002
95972036|NCT00395460|191917723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was performed by means of a Confidence Interval (CI) approach: noninferiority of Gadavist was assumed if the one-sided 95% CI for pGadavist-pMagnevist was lying entirely to the right of the value -delta, where p is the estimated change in CNR and with pre-defined non-inferiority margin delta of 15% (=6.52 or 15% of 43.467).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.939|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.83|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.897||||non-inferiority||||||-3.897|
95972037|NCT00298090|191917736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.48|||repeated measures model||A repeated measures model was used to assess whether the one-minute average StO2 values differed systematically between pre and post arterial line placement.|||1.48|-0.80|0.55
95887017|NCT00127712|191727930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95887018|NCT00127712|191727931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95887019|NCT00127712|191727932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95887020|NCT00127712|191727933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95887021|NCT02014597|191727942|OTHER|||||||0.0583||||||Scotopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0583
95887022|NCT02014597|191727942|OTHER|||||||0.1762||||||Photopic logCS|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1762
95887023|NCT02014597|191727943|OTHER|||||||0.183||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.183
95887024|NCT02014597|191727943|OTHER|||||||0.771||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and MD.||||0.771
95887025|NCT02014597|191727943|OTHER|||||||0.492||||||Scotopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.492
95887026|NCT02014597|191727943|OTHER|||||||0.83||||||Photopic|Pearson correlation|||Correlation between logCS and PSD.||||0.830
95887027|NCT00720434|191727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95 percentage (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
95887028|NCT00720434|191727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
95887029|NCT00720434|191727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
95972038|NCT02319525|191917738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95972039|NCT02319525|191917739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||||||We compared informed choice vs. no informed choice made between the decision aid and the pamphlet groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95972040|NCT02319525|191917740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|||||||Chi-squared|||We compared concordance between preferred and actual roles vs. no concordance between roles between decision aid and pamphlet.||||0.252
95972041|NCT02319525|191917741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.504
95972042|NCT02319525|191917742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95972043|NCT02319525|191917743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Impact of lupus nephritis"||||0.006
95972044|NCT02319525|191917743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the Risk factors"||||0.006
95972045|NCT02319525|191917743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the medication options"||||0.003
95972046|NCT02319525|191917743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the evidence about medications"||||<0.001
95972047|NCT02319525|191917743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"statistical analysis comparing the decision-aid vs. pamphlet for patient rating of acceptability of information and presentation related to the study about other patients"||||<0.001
95972048|NCT02319525|191917744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||The test of significance compared all the rows, i.e., all response options for the statement.||||0.006
95972049|NCT00324116|191917790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent responders|85.0||||||95.0|76.0|95.0|||||Proportion of responders estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Proportion of responders along with 95% CI calculated directly from estimate of survival distribution function. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects without missing data.|||95|76|
95972050|NCT00324116|191917791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.29||||||95.0|-6.83|-1.75|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|6 weeks||-1.75|-6.83|
95972051|NCT00324116|191917791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.86||||||95.0|-9.06|-2.67|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|12 weeks||-2.67|-9.06|
95972052|NCT00324116|191917791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.12||||||95.0|-16.28|-5.96|||||95% CI for the change in mean value obtained from one sample t-test.|54 weeks||-5.96|-16.28|
95972053|NCT00324116|191917792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|5.0||||||95.0|1.61|11.32|||||Proportion of subjects gaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations|||11.32|1.61|
95972054|NCT00324116|191917793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|22.5||||||95.0|14.22|32.11|||||Proportion of subjects maintaining vision was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||32.11|14.22|
95972055|NCT00324116|191917794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|13.75||||||95.0|7.39|22.24|||||Proportion of subjects with severe visual loss was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||22.24|7.39|
95972056|NCT00324116|191917795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of subjects|25.97||||||95.0|16.28|34.81|||||Proportion of subjects progressing to \<=20/200 was estimated on an observed case basis. Percentage denominator = total number of subjects in the FAS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated from Fleiss quadratic equations.|||34.81|16.28|
95887030|NCT00720434|191727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
95887031|NCT00720434|191727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
95887032|NCT00720434|191727979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
95887033|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1565|0.8785||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.8785|0.1565|
95887034|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.233|0.969||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9690|0.2330|
95887035|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0871|0.9191||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.9191|0.0871|
95887036|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
95887037|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125||||||95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
95887038|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 4: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
95887039|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1836|0.6931||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6931|-0.1836|
95887040|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1732|0.7797||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.7797|-0.1732|
95887041|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
95887042|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2934|0.5917||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5917|-0.2934|
95887043|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
95887044|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5144|0.388||||||Week 12: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3880|-0.5144|
95887045|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3728|0.5414||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5414|-0.3728|
95887046|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2913|0.696||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6960|-0.2913|
95887047|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
95887048|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.025||||||95.0|-0.4769|0.4336||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.4336|-0.4769|
95887049|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.125|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4024|0.6049||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.6049|-0.4024|
95887050|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5729|0.3149||||||Week 48: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.3149|-0.5729|
95887051|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
95887052|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
95887053|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
95887054|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
95887055|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
95887056|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 60: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
95887057|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
95887058|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
95887059|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
95887060|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
95887061|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|0.507||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.5070|-0.5070|
95887062|NCT00720434|191727980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6191|0.2811||||||Week 72: The difference in proportions between treatment groups presented along with 95% CI, were based on exact method for small samples from the binomial distribution.||0.2811|-0.6191|
95887063|NCT00720434|191727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.36357||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.19228|-0.53485|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53485|-4.19228|0.0131
95887064|NCT00720434|191727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4919||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44619|-0.5376|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||-0.53760|-4.44619|0.0142
95887065|NCT00720434|191727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.46325||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41898|0.49248|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.49248|-3.41898|0.1368
95887066|NCT00720434|191727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.90032||||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76711|0.96648|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.96648|-2.76711|0.3321
95887067|NCT00720434|191727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.02865||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95573|0.89844|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||0.89844|-2.95573|0.2839
95887068|NCT00720434|191727983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.12833||||0.8891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73676|1.99342|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to compare differences among treatments. Independent variables included treatment and log-transformed baseline HCV viral load. Adjusted mean difference and corresponding 95% CI were calculated.||1.99342|-1.73676|0.8891
95887069|NCT02564042|191728001|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||76.6|25.9|
95887070|NCT02564042|191728001|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
95887071|NCT02564042|191728001|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
95887072|NCT02564042|191728001|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
95887073|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented|||26.6|-21.0|
95887074|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3||||||95.0|-20.5|32.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||32.4|-20.5|
95887075|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|39.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||39.1|-9.6|
95887076|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|29.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||29.9|-23.6|
95887077|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|28.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||28.1|-22.2|
95887078|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|27.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|52.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||52.4|-0.5|
95887079|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|49.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||49.3|-0.4|
95887080|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|35.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||35.7|-18.4|
95887081|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented|||31.7|-19.7|
95887082|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|68.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||68.4|16.6|
95887083|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
95887084|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|57.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||57.2|3.5|
95887085|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|58.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||58.7|6.3|
95887086|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
95887087|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
95972057|NCT01451827|191917797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0127
95887088|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|56.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||56.1|1.0|
95887089|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|41.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|65.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||65.0|12.7|
95887090|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|49.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|72.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||72.4|20.1|
95887091|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|60.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|80.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||80.1|33.2|
95972058|NCT01451827|191917797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.95|0.0108
95887092|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|56.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||56.5|0.2|
95887093|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|66.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||66.5|14.4|
95887094|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.2|74.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||74.4|23.2|
95887095|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||74.0|24.4|
95887096|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
95887097|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|48.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|71.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||71.1|19.7|
95887098|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
95887099|NCT02564042|191728002|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
95887100|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|21.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||21.9|-28.8|
95887101|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|25.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented|||25.1|-25.4|
95887102|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|35.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented|||35.3|-17.5|
95887103|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|33.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented .|||33.3|-15.4|
95887104|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|36.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented .|||36.1|-17.1|
95887105|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented|||31.0|-19.3|
95887106|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|36.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||36.7|-18.2|
95887107|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|43.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||43.6|-6.9|
95887108|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|38.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented|||38.9|-15.1|
95887109|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|37.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented .|||37.4|-13.6|
95887110|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|66.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented|||66.0|13.8|
95887111|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|61.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented|||61.3|8.7|
95887112|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|58.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented .|||58.2|4.8|
95887113|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|63.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||63.9|12.8|
95887114|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|54.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|76.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||76.6|25.9|
95887115|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|73.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||73.2|22.2|
95887116|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|60.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented|||60.5|6.3|
95887117|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|55.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented|||55.9|1.6|
95887118|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|51.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|74.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||74.0|22.0|
95887119|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|81.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||81.0|34.6|
95887120|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented|||51.0|-6.1|
95887121|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|37.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|61.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented|||61.6|7.8|
95887122|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.7|75.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||75.6|24.7|
95887123|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.8|75.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||75.5|25.8|
95887124|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented|||55.0|-0.3|
95887125|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|35.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|60.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented|||60.2|6.5|
95887126|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|53.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||53.9|-36.9|
95887127|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|42.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|81.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1% QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented|||81.6|-6.3|
95887128|NCT02564042|191728011|OTHER||Proportion difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|80.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5% BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented|||80.6|-35.7|
95887129|NCT03590041|191728046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in Patient-Driven SMAs would have greater reductions in Diabetes Distress than those in Standardized SMAs. We expected seeing an effect size of a .6 unit decrease (.30) in Standardized SMAs and 1.2 unit decrease (.60) in Patient-Driven SMAs. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.04
95887130|NCT03590041|191728047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Linear Mixed Model adjusted for a priori patient covariates: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Health Literacy, Food Availability, Charlson Score, Mental Illness, Substance use. Adjusted P-value represents the significance test for the time x group interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||We hypothesized that patients in the Patient-Driven condition would have a greater reduction in HbA1c than patients in the Standardized condition. We estimate we have \>80% power to detect effect sizes between .29 (ICC=3%) and .34 (ICC=5%).||||0.82
95887131|NCT04626297|191728048|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|11.2||||||||11.2|-10.2|
95887132|NCT04626297|191728049|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|22.0||||||||22.0|2.5|
95887133|NCT04626297|191728050|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|33.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.2|10.3|<0.001
95887134|NCT04626297|191728051|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38|12.6|<0.001
95887135|NCT04626297|191728052|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|31.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.6|9.0|<0.001
95887136|NCT04626297|191728053|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.5|-3.8|0.138
95887137|NCT04626297|191728054|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.04|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) included treatment, baseline value, visit, the interaction of the baseline value-by-visit, the interaction of treatment by-visit, geographic region, age group, baseline IGA score as fixed factors.|||-3.39|-13.04|<0.001
95887138|NCT04626297|191728055|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.001658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.8|0.001658
95887139|NCT02254486|191728060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|0.14||||0.528|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-8.15|||P-value adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-8.15|0.528
95887140|NCT02254486|191728061|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favour of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|6.58||||0.059|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.69|||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and with 1-sided p-value \<0.025; the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 to Trisulfate Solution (TS) (10% margin). Success rate was number of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of number of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - TS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-1.69|0.059
95972059|NCT01451827|191917797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.00|0.96|0.0155
95887141|NCT02254486|191728062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|-3.01||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.36|5.28||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||5.28|-11.36|0.863
95887142|NCT02254486|191728063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.66||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - TS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.660
95887143|NCT02254486|191728064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of Trisulfate Solution using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.||||||0.953||||||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to Trisulfate Solution with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - Trisulfate Solution rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||||0.953
95887144|NCT02254486|191728065|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formal hierarchical testing of this key secondary endpoints was not performed due to the results of the non-inferiority analysis.||||||0.781|||||||Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints were met, then key secondary endpoints were evaluated hierarchichally in a pre-specified order. Non-inferiority was concluded if the 1-sided 97.5% confidence limit (CL) for difference in proportion of events between 2 groups excluded a 10% or greater difference was in favor of Trisulate Solution. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint had at least met non-inferiority.||||0.781
95887145|NCT01077856|191728090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.00|0.89|
95887146|NCT01077856|191728090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.77|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||4.77|0.00|
95887147|NCT01077856|191728090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Standardized Prevalence Ratio (SPR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.02|||||SPR is the age-adjusted ratio of percentage of live births with a major congenital anomaly (Women who received Gardasil / Women in the general population)|||2.02|0.00|
95887148|NCT01979016|191728108|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-69.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-46.2|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model.||-46.2|-92.5|< 0.0001
95887149|NCT01979016|191728109|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|37.0|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.82|55.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||55.25|18.82|= 0.0006
95887150|NCT01979016|191728110|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|68.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||68.30|28.00|< 0.0001
95972060|NCT01451827|191917797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.99||||0.2417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||1.01|0.97|0.2417
95972061|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||0.99|0.31|0.0002
95972062|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.08|0.40|< 0.0001
95972063|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Frequency||1.25|0.58|< 0.0001
95887151|NCT01979016|191728111|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.52|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-1.52|-3.80|< 0.0001
95887152|NCT01979016|191728112|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-48.08|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.31|-24.85|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-24.85|-71.31|= 0.0001
95887153|NCT01979016|191728113|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-14.0|-29.0|<0.0001
95887154|NCT01979016|191728114|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-21.1|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-21.1|-41.5|< 0.0001
95887155|NCT01979016|191728115|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Dupilumab 200 mg qw vs Placebo qw|Analysis was performed by MMRM model.||-31.3|-62.0|< 0.0001
95887156|NCT01979016|191728116|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.38|77.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||77.73|33.38|< 0.0001
95887157|NCT01979016|191728116|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|51.9|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.59|74.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||74.12|29.59|= 0.0001
95887158|NCT01979016|191728116|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.3|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.55|51.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in EASI score (EASI-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||51.11|15.55|= 0.0011
95887159|NCT01979016|191728117|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|48.1|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|69.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 50% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-50). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||69.3|27.0|= 0.0002
95887160|NCT01979016|191728117|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|11.1|||=|0.0792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|23.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 75% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-75). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||23.0|-0.7|= 0.0792
95887161|NCT01979016|191728117|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|7.4|||=|0.1573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical comparison for percentage of participants who achieved 90% reduction from baseline in SCORAD Score (SCORAD-90). Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||17.3|-2.5|= 0.1573
95887162|NCT01979016|191728118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-6.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-6.6|-14.3|< 0.0001
95887163|NCT01979016|191728119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-28.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed by a MMRM model.||-28.5|-63.9|< 0.0001
95887164|NCT01979016|191728121|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-2.39|||ANCOVA|||||-2.39|-5.02|< 0.0001
95887165|NCT01111149|191728133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
95887166|NCT01111149|191728133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Serum Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
95887167|NCT01111149|191728133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Cotinine at Week 12||||>0.05
95887168|NCT01111149|191728133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Urine Nicotine at Week 12||||>0.05
95972064|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.30|0.0004
95972065|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.01|0.29|0.0004
95972066|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Urinary Urgency||1.34|0.63|< 0.0001
95887169|NCT01111149|191728134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical analysis for 50% Reduction in Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887170|NCT01111149|191728134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887171|NCT01111149|191728134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Serum Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887172|NCT01111149|191728134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for 30% Reduction in Urine Cotinine (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887173|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Composite (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887174|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Total Global (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887175|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Affective Flattening (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887176|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Alogia (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887177|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Avolition (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887178|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Anhedonia (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887179|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SANS Attention (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887180|NCT01111149|191728135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Inappropriate Affect at Week 12||||>0.05
95887181|NCT01111149|191728136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT % Omissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
95972067|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.30|0.42|0.0002
95972068|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.51|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.51|0.63|< 0.0001
95972069|NCT01451827|191917798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66|||ANCOVA|||Nocturia||1.66|0.80|< 0.0001
95887182|NCT01111149|191728136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for CPT% commissions (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887183|NCT01111149|191728136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for perseveration % (week 12)||||>0.05
95887184|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Anxiety at week 12||||>0.05
95887185|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dizziness at week 12||||>0.05
95887186|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Mania at week 12||||>0.05
95887187|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for abnormal dreams at week 12||||>0.05
95887188|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Abdominal Pain at week 12||||>0.05
95887189|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Headache at week 12||||>0.05
95887190|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Insomnia at week 12||||>0.05
95887191|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Nausea at week 12||||>0.05
95887192|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Psychosis at week 12||||>0.05
95887193|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Dry Mouth at week 12||||>0.05
95887194|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Chest Pain at Week 12||||>0.05
95887195|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irregular Heart Beat at week 12||||>0.05
95887196|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Weakness/Fainting at week 12||||>0.05
95887197|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Diarrhea at week 12||||>0.05
95887198|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Vomiting at week 12||||>0.05
95887199|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Constipation at week 12||||>0.05
95887200|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Confusion at week 12||||>0.05
95887201|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Irritability at week 12||||>0.05
95887202|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for drooling at week 12||||>0.05
95887203|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Cold Sweats at week 12||||>0.05
95887204|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Blurred Vision at week 12||||>0.05
95887205|NCT01111149|191728137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for Leg Pain/Cramps||||>0.05
95887206|NCT01111149|191728138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for FTND (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887207|NCT01111149|191728138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 24 Hour Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887208|NCT01111149|191728138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS 7 day total (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887209|NCT01111149|191728138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS Resistance (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887210|NCT01111149|191728139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of Beck Depression Inventory (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887211|NCT01111149|191728140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAS (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887212|NCT01111149|191728140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS items 1-3 (week 12)||||>0.05
95887213|NCT01111149|191728140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BAS item 4 (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887214|NCT01111149|191728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for systolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887215|NCT01111149|191728141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for diastolic blood pressure (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887216|NCT01111149|191728142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Weight (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887217|NCT01111149|191728143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Number of Cigarettes Smoked (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887218|NCT01111149|191728144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Smoking Abstinence - Exhaled Carbon Monoxide (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887219|NCT01111149|191728145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Vital Signs - Pulse (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887220|NCT01111149|191728146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicidal Ideation (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887221|NCT01111149|191728146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Lifetime Suicide Attempts (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887222|NCT01111149|191728147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Composite Score - Week 12||||>0.05
95887223|NCT01111149|191728147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Total Global - Week 12||||>0.05
95887224|NCT01111149|191728147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Hallucinations - Week 12||||>0.05
95887225|NCT01111149|191728147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Delusions - Week 12||||>0.05
95887226|NCT01111149|191728147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for SAPS Bizarre Behavior - Week 12||||>0.05
95887227|NCT01111149|191728147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for SAPS Thought Disorder - Week 12||||>0.05
95887228|NCT01111149|191728148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Total - Week 12||||>0.05
95887229|NCT01111149|191728148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Positive Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
95887230|NCT01111149|191728148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Negative Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
95887231|NCT01111149|191728148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Mania Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
95887232|NCT01111149|191728148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Disorientation Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
95887233|NCT01111149|191728148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for BPRS Depression Subscale - Week 12||||>0.05
95887234|NCT01111149|191728149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Hit Reaction Time - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887235|NCT01111149|191728150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Variability of Standard Error - CPT (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887236|NCT01111149|191728151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Detectibility (d') of Continuous Performance Test (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887237|NCT01111149|191728152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for Response Style Indicator (Beta) for CPT (week 12)||||>0.05
95887238|NCT01111149|191728153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887239|NCT01111149|191728153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for WISDM Cognition (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887240|NCT01111149|191728153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for WISDM Craving (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887241|NCT01111149|191728154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Urge to Smoke (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887242|NCT01111149|191728154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for MNWS % Strong Urge (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887243|NCT01111149|191728155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Total (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887244|NCT01111149|191728155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis for AIMS Severity Index (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887245|NCT01111149|191728155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical Analysis for AIMS Global Score (Week 12)||||>0.05
95887246|NCT00010374|191728173|OTHER|Performance goal of 35%|Exact two-sided binomial test|96.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.0|99.5|||Exact two-sided binomial test|||||99.5|87.0|<0.001
95887247|NCT01985867|191728180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.5|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||1.5|0.24|0.399
95887248|NCT01985867|191728181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.7|-0.6|0.589
95887249|NCT01985867|191728182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.0|0.5|0.005
95887250|NCT01985867|191728183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.659
95887251|NCT01985867|191728184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.790
95887252|NCT01985867|191728185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.698
95887253|NCT01985867|191728186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.2|||risk analysis (prospective)|||||6.2|0.9|0.120
95887254|NCT01985867|191728187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
95887255|NCT01985867|191728188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.8|-0.6|0.612
95887256|NCT01985867|191728189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.0|0.0|0.004
95887257|NCT01985867|191728190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.708
95887258|NCT01985867|191728191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-1.0|0.522
95887259|NCT01985867|191728192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|0.0|0.185
95887260|NCT01985867|191728193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.973
95887261|NCT01985867|191728194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.0|0.0|0.642
95887262|NCT02397785|191728195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 52 participants (26 in each arm) was sufficient to detect a 30% reduction in the VAS score (⍺ = 0.05, β = 0.80) from baseline to 12 weeks using paired t-tests, assuming average pain of 80-90 on the VAS and 10% drop-out. Because stratified randomization was performed on the basis of levator ani muscle spasm, there was an imbalance between the size of the sham and active groups, and 58 subjects were ultimately recruited with approval from the Institutional Review Board.||||0.8979
95887263|NCT02397785|191728196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9338|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9338
95887264|NCT02397785|191728197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1568|||||||Sign test|||||||0.1568
95887265|NCT02397785|191728198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Sign test|||||||0.3817
95887266|NCT02397785|191728199|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2860
95887267|NCT02397785|191728200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2884|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2884
95887268|NCT02397785|191728201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0855|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0855
95887269|NCT02397785|191728202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0287|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0287
95887270|NCT02397785|191728203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2887|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2887
95887271|NCT02397785|191728204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9954|||||||Sign test|||||||0.9954
95887272|NCT02397785|191728205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0574|||||||Sign test|||||||0.0574
95887273|NCT02397785|191728206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7827|||||||Sign test|||||||0.7827
95887274|NCT02397785|191728207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2114|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2114
95887275|NCT02397785|191728208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4986|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4986
95887276|NCT02397785|191728209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||Sign test|||||||0.4610
95887277|NCT02397785|191728210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2556|||||||Sign test|||||||0.2556
95887278|NCT02397785|191728211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0723
95887279|NCT02397785|191728212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7456
95887280|NCT02397785|191728213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1380
95887281|NCT02397785|191728214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3155
95887282|NCT02756689|191728215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95887283|NCT02756689|191728216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95887284|NCT02756689|191728217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.8|0.09
95887285|NCT02756689|191728218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
95887286|NCT02756689|191728219|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.4|||Chi-squared|||||11.4|0.9|0.06
95887287|NCT02756689|191728220|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|0.2|0.74
95887288|NCT02756689|191728221|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95887289|NCT02756689|191728222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95887290|NCT02756689|191728223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95887291|NCT02756689|191728224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95887292|NCT02756689|191728225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95887293|NCT02756689|191728226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7|||Chi-squared|||||4.7|0.2|>0.99
95887294|NCT02756689|191728227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.7|0.3|0.43
95887295|NCT02756689|191728228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.3|0.1|0.09
95887296|NCT02756689|191728229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|0.1|0.68
95887297|NCT02756689|191728230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|0.3|0.73
95887298|NCT02756689|191728231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95887299|NCT02756689|191728232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.4|||Chi-squared|||||15.4|0.1|>0.99
95887300|NCT02756689|191728233|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95887301|NCT02756689|191728234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95887302|NCT02756689|191728235|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.3|0.03|0.37
95887303|NCT02756689|191728236|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95887304|NCT02756689|191728237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.3|||Chi-squared|||||5.3|0.05|0.62
95887305|NCT02756689|191728238|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||Chi-squared|||||3.2|0.3|>0.99
95887306|NCT02756689|191728239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.234
95887307|NCT02756689|191728240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95887308|NCT02756689|191728241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95887309|NCT02756689|191728242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95887310|NCT02756689|191728243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95887311|NCT02756689|191728244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95887312|NCT02756689|191728245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95887313|NCT02756689|191728246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95887314|NCT02756689|191728247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95887315|NCT02756689|191728248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95887316|NCT02756689|191728249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95887317|NCT02756689|191728250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95887318|NCT02756689|191728251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95887319|NCT02756689|191728252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95887320|NCT02756689|191728253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95972070|NCT01451827|191917799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.97||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|0.99|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo.||0.99|0.94|0.0209
95972071|NCT01451827|191917799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0287
95972072|NCT01451827|191917799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.96||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.00|0.93|0.0298
95887321|NCT02756689|191728254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95972073|NCT01451827|191917799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.98||||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.01|||ANCOVA|||Hierarchical tests were used to control the type I error in the primary analysis. They are given in the following order: 1. Pooled tolvaptan treatment groups (IR and MR) versus placebo; 2. Tolvaptan MR 80 mg versus placebo; 3. Tolvaptan MR 50 mg versus placebo; 4. Tolvaptan IR 60/30 mg versus placebo||1.01|0.94|0.2306
95887322|NCT02756689|191728255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95887323|NCT02557646|191728256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cumulative dose of ribavirin \>90%: the relationship between cumulative dose and SVR response in participants in whom the cumulative dose of ribavirin exceeded 90% was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0437
95972074|NCT00709852|191917901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95972075|NCT00709852|191917901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95887324|NCT02557646|191728258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.6859
95887325|NCT02557646|191728259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose ribavirin and sustained virological response (SVR) was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.3740
95887326|NCT02557646|191728260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and virological response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0263
95887327|NCT02557646|191728261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and sustained virological (SVR) response was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0475
95887328|NCT02557646|191728267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the cumulative dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.1499
95887329|NCT02557646|191728268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the starting dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.5885
95887330|NCT02557646|191728269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The relationship between the body weight-normalized dose of ribavirin and relapse rate was analyzed using Chi-square test.||||0.0062
95887331|NCT03334448|191728276|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|0.957||||||||0.957|0.818|
95887332|NCT03334448|191728277|SUPERIORITY||Ration of Lease Square Means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.09||||||||1.09|0.83|
95887333|NCT02326025|191728278|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.13|||||Log(PK) is participant and treatment and random error, where participant is fitted as a random effect.|||1.13|0.964|
95887334|NCT02326025|191728278|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.957|1.11||||||||1.11|0.957|
95887335|NCT02326025|191728279|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.16||||||||1.16|0.770|
95887336|NCT02326025|191728279|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|1.33||||||||1.33|0.801|
95887337|NCT00536198|191728286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.21
95887338|NCT00536198|191728286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887339|NCT00536198|191728286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.06
95887340|NCT00536198|191728286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||3.75|0.01|0.049
95887341|NCT00536198|191728287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.54
95887342|NCT00536198|191728287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95972076|NCT00709852|191917901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95972077|NCT00709852|191917902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887343|NCT00536198|191728287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison of rates of change||||0.02
95887344|NCT00536198|191728287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||8.31|1.97|0.0015
95887345|NCT00536198|191728288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.46
95887346|NCT00536198|191728288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.0001
95887347|NCT00536198|191728288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.69
95887348|NCT00536198|191728288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from Cycle 1 to end point between active vs. placebo||1.26|0.83|0.84
95887349|NCT00536198|191728289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
95887350|NCT00536198|191728289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887351|NCT00536198|191728289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.28
95887352|NCT00536198|191728289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.19|0.30|0.056
95887353|NCT00536198|191728291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.30
95887354|NCT00536198|191728291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.01
95887355|NCT00536198|191728291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
95887356|NCT00536198|191728291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.35|0.92|0.06
95887357|NCT00536198|191728292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.80
95887358|NCT00536198|191728292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887359|NCT00536198|191728292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.43
95887360|NCT00536198|191728292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to endpoint between active vs. placebo||1.45|0.85|0.61
95887361|NCT00536198|191728293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.83
95887362|NCT00536198|191728293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887363|NCT00536198|191728293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.02
95887364|NCT00536198|191728293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.25|0.96|0.169
95887365|NCT00536198|191728294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.37
95887366|NCT00536198|191728294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887367|NCT00536198|191728294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.73
95887368|NCT00536198|191728294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.08||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.28|0.91|0.13
95887369|NCT00536198|191728295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||0.31
95887370|NCT00536198|191728295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887371|NCT00536198|191728295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||0.46
95887372|NCT00536198|191728295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.09||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.23|0.96|0.94
95887373|NCT00536198|191728296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group comparison||||<0.001
95887374|NCT00536198|191728296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Change over time in both groups||||<0.001
95887375|NCT00536198|191728296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.01
95887376|NCT00536198|191728296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference from baseline to end point between active vs. placebo||1.41|1.05|0.027
95887377|NCT00536198|191728297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison||||0.01
95887378|NCT00536198|191728297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Group by time: comparison rates of change||||<0.001
95887379|NCT00536198|191728297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated mean difference between active and placebo groups at end-point only||1.02|0.30|0.056
95887380|NCT02289417|191728303|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.2||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of oral (PO) corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.6|3.4|0.0142
95887381|NCT02289417|191728303|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|7.7||||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method|||22.0|-6.9|0.2689
95887382|NCT02289417|191728304|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.5|-3.6|0.1224
95887383|NCT02289417|191728304|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.4||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|36.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.0|1.1|0.0401
95887384|NCT02289417|191728305|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|5.2||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||16.7|-5.7|0.2472
95887385|NCT02289417|191728305|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.1||||0.4628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||14.6|-7.5|0.4628
95887386|NCT02289417|191728306|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|47.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.4|13.8|0.0005
95887387|NCT02289417|191728306|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|3.7||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|21.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.5|-14.4|0.6878
95887388|NCT02289417|191728307|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|11.5||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|26.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||26.1|-4.1|0.1388
95887389|NCT02289417|191728307|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|13.5||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|27.7||Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||27.7|-1.6|0.0788
95972078|NCT00709852|191917902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972079|NCT00709852|191917902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972080|NCT00709852|191917903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972081|NCT00709852|191917903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972082|NCT00709852|191917903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972083|NCT00709852|191917904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972084|NCT00709852|191917904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972085|NCT00709852|191917904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972086|NCT00709852|191917905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.984|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 1||0.984|-0.199|
95972087|NCT00709852|191917905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.772|0.885|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval (CI) is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 2||0.885|-1.772|
95972088|NCT00709852|191917905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|1.0|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||BR 3||1.000|0.125|
95972089|NCT00709852|191917905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.78|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||AR||0.780|-0.439|
95972090|NCT00709852|191917906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972091|NCT00709852|191917906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972092|NCT00709852|191917906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972093|NCT00709852|191917907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972094|NCT00709852|191917907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972095|NCT00709852|191917907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972096|NCT00709852|191917908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972097|NCT00709852|191917908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887390|NCT02289417|191728308|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|24.8||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|40.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||40.1|7.5|0.0046
95887391|NCT02289417|191728308|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|6.0||||0.4476||95.0|-9.8|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||21.6|-9.8|0.4476
95887392|NCT02289417|191728309|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.7||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|33.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.5|-1.4|0.0755
95887393|NCT02289417|191728309|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|19.8||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||36.4|1.5|0.0370
95887394|NCT02289417|191728310|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|14.6||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||31.4|-3.3|0.1167
95887395|NCT02289417|191728310|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|18.1||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||34.9|-0.3|0.0534
95887396|NCT02289417|191728311|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|16.6||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|33.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||33.3|-1.5|0.0758
95887397|NCT02289417|191728311|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Difference|32.5||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|47.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification was based on baseline use of PO corticosteroids and previously used immunosuppressants (yes/no).|Stratified difference in percentages is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights, with 2-sided 95% CI based on the stratified Newcombe method.|||47.5|14.9|0.0004
95972098|NCT00709852|191917908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887398|NCT02725710|191728320|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.56
95887399|NCT03178903|191728334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.678||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||p\<.05 was the a priori threshold for statistical significance.|ANCOVA|Covarying for baseline depressive symptoms and MVPA.||||||.87
95887400|NCT01897402|191728373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||||Serogroup A|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-7.9|
95887401|NCT01897402|191728373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|2.6|||||Serogroup C|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||2.6|-14.6|
95887402|NCT01897402|191728373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.9|||||Serogroup Y|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||7.9|-9.9|
95972099|NCT00709852|191917909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972100|NCT00709852|191917909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972101|NCT00709852|191917909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972102|NCT00709852|191917910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972103|NCT00709852|191917910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887403|NCT01897402|191728373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assumptions for the sample size calculations were: 1) Seroconversion for the control vaccine (Menactra) is 40-80% and 2) the true treatments are theoretically equal and 3) the power of detecting non-inferiority is 90%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|9.1|||||Serogroup W-135|The hypothesis was that the test vaccine is comparable to the licensed active control vaccine. Differences between treatment groups were described using exact two-sided 95% confidence intervals on differences in % seroconversion between the two treatment groups (test vaccine minus reference vaccine) for each serogroup. If the lower bound of the difference is ≥ -15%, then the test vaccine meets the preliminary criterion for non-inferiority.||9.1|-8.5|
95887404|NCT02634320|191728382|OTHER|Statistical test is to confirm the change from baseline is statistically different from 0.||||||0.078||||||Change from baseline at last on-treatment visit|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.078
95887405|NCT00965718|191728416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.123||||||Global health status scores at baseline and final observation point were compared via a 2-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
95887406|NCT00064844|191728458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||chi square|7.25|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|df = 1, N = 96||||||<0.01
95887407|NCT01986855|191728461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.18|-0.23|0.807
95887408|NCT01986855|191728461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.15||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.06||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, eGFR stratum (\<45 or ≥45 mL/min/1.73m\^2), baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.06|-0.35|0.155
95887409|NCT01986855|191728462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||12.1|-4.8|
95887410|NCT01986855|191728462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|2.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||2.3|-16.3|
95887411|NCT01986855|191728463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||9.0|-2.7|
95887412|NCT01986855|191728463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages vs. Placebo|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen Method|||3.7|-6.5|
95887413|NCT01986855|191728464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.03||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.23|-0.28|0.828
95887414|NCT01986855|191728464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-0.09||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.17||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.17|-0.35|0.496
95887415|NCT01986855|191728465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.96||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.96|-2.57|<0.001
95887416|NCT01986855|191728465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.02||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-1.02|-2.66|<0.001
95887417|NCT01986855|191728466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.42||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|2.29||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.29|-5.13|0.451
95887418|NCT01986855|191728466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-3.46||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|0.31||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.31|-7.24|0.072
95887419|NCT01986855|191728467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-6.81||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-19.47|5.85||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.85|-19.47|0.291
95887420|NCT01986855|191728467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-15.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-2.53||The cLDA model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable. P-value is nominal.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-2.53|-28.50|0.019
95887421|NCT01986855|191728468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.56||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.56|0.53|0.713
95972104|NCT00709852|191917910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972105|NCT00709852|191917911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972106|NCT00709852|191917911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972107|NCT00709852|191917911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972108|NCT00709852|191917912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972109|NCT00709852|191917912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887422|NCT01986855|191728468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.55||Adjusted Odds Ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, baseline treatment with insulin stratum (yes/no), and a covariate for baseline A1C.|Logistic regression model|||||2.55|0.44|0.890
95887423|NCT02771990|191728475|OTHER|Pilot study|z-score|3.11||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
95887424|NCT02771990|191728476|OTHER|Pilot study||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.67
95887425|NCT01313767|191728487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|90% of the power, 0.45 of non-inferiority margin|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||The difference between the two groups was provided with 95% CI. If the upper limit of CI is no greater than 0.45 (non-inferiority margin), the study group was determined not inferior to the control group. Additionally, difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||0.40|-0.05|0.1347
95887426|NCT01313767|191728488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2591
95887427|NCT01313767|191728488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in wrist flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3395
95887428|NCT01313767|191728489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0675
95887429|NCT01313767|191728489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0605
95887430|NCT01313767|191728489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in elbow flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.0429
95887431|NCT01313767|191728490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6954
95887432|NCT01313767|191728490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6024|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.6024
95972110|NCT00709852|191917912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972111|NCT00709852|191917913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887433|NCT01313767|191728490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.9316|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in finger flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.9316
95887434|NCT01313767|191728491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.2284
95887435|NCT01313767|191728491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.3221
95887436|NCT01313767|191728491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in thumb flexor MAS score was compared using two sample t-test.||||0.5930
95972112|NCT00709852|191917913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972113|NCT00709852|191917913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972114|NCT00709852|191917914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972115|NCT00709852|191917914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972116|NCT00709852|191917914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972117|NCT00709852|191917915|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.851|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.851|-0.532|
95972118|NCT00709852|191917916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.33||||95.0|0.0004|0.078|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.078|0.0004|
95972119|NCT00709852|191917916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||||95.0|-0.009|0.082|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.082|-0.009|
95972120|NCT00709852|191917916|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29||||95.0|-0.006|0.059|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.059|-0.006|
95972121|NCT00709852|191917917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||||95.0|-0.601|0.622|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.622|-0.601|
95972122|NCT00709852|191917918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||||||||||for BR1|||||
95972123|NCT00709852|191917918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||||||||||for BR2|||||
95972124|NCT00709852|191917918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.8|||||||||||||for BR3|||||
95972125|NCT00709852|191917918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|18.4|||CI for paired percentages|confidence interval is given for AR; lower limit is compared to the noninferiority margin||||18.4|-0.5|
95887437|NCT01313767|191728492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1585
95887438|NCT01313767|191728492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0028||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.9596
95887439|NCT01313767|191728492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0304||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in wrist flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.6164
95887440|NCT01313767|191728493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.1802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1802
95887441|NCT01313767|191728493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1164||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1176
95887442|NCT01313767|191728493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1138||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in elbow flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.1252
95887443|NCT01313767|191728494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.098||||0.3431|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.3431
95887444|NCT01313767|191728494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1097||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.1329
95972126|NCT00709852|191917919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|3.6||||||95.0|-5.9|13.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||13.1|-5.9|
95972127|NCT00709852|191917920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|8.3||||||95.0|-0.9|17.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||17.6|-0.9|
95887445|NCT01313767|191728494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0853||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in finger flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test||||0.2611
95972128|NCT00709852|191917921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972129|NCT00709852|191917921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972130|NCT00709852|191917922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.21||||95.0|-0.053|0.636|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.636|-0.053|
95972131|NCT00709852|191917923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972132|NCT00709852|191917923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887446|NCT01313767|191728495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0654||||0.4623|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 4 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.4623
95887447|NCT01313767|191728495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1194||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 8 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.2007
95887448|NCT01313767|191728495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0172||||0.8553|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between groups in frequency of responders who have improved at least 1-point on the MAS at week 12 from baseline in thumb flexor was compared using Pearson's chi-square test.||||0.8553
95972133|NCT00709852|191917924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972134|NCT00709852|191917924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972135|NCT00709852|191917925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.76|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887449|NCT01313767|191728496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.604|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6040
95972136|NCT00709852|191917925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972137|NCT00709852|191917926|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.39||||95.0|-0.087|0.641|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.641|-0.087|
95972138|NCT00709852|191917927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.61|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887450|NCT01313767|191728496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3233
95887451|NCT01313767|191728496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of hygiene was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4469
95887452|NCT01313767|191728497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.122|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1220
95887453|NCT01313767|191728497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1016
95887454|NCT01313767|191728497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of dressing was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2235
95887455|NCT01313767|191728498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5030
95887456|NCT01313767|191728498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.6934|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.6934
95887457|NCT01313767|191728498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of limb position was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9574
95887458|NCT01313767|191728499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
95887459|NCT01313767|191728499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.7237|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7237
95887460|NCT01313767|191728499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.4017|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in DAS score of pain was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.4017
95887461|NCT01313767|191728500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.2346
95887462|NCT01313767|191728501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Difference between groups in frequency distribution of responders on the Global Assessment at week 12 was compared using Fisher's exact test.||||0.9513
95887463|NCT01313767|191728502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8088
95887464|NCT01313767|191728502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.3702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.3702
95887465|NCT01313767|191728502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.1497|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the palm was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.1497
95887466|NCT01313767|191728503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.9634|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9634
95887467|NCT01313767|191728503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7302
95887468|NCT01313767|191728503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cutting the finger-nails was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7715
95887469|NCT01313767|191728504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9362|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.9362
95887470|NCT01313767|191728504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.7998|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7998
95887471|NCT01313767|191728504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of putting shirts on was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.5436
95887472|NCT01313767|191728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 4 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.7014
95887473|NCT01313767|191728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8884|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 8 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.8884
95887474|NCT01313767|191728505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference between groups in change from baseline to week 12 in carer burden scale of cleaning the armpit was compared using wilcoxon rank sum test.||||0.2840
95887475|NCT03395886|191728514|OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Chi-squared|||Summary statistics are expressed as numbers and percentages and compared between groups by Chi-square test.||||0.831
95887476|NCT03395886|191728515|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||||||0.800
95887477|NCT00589914|191728516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 5 points in the change in PANSS total score i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) had to be greater than -5 to demonstrate non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||No p-value to report.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with factors treatment, country and baseline score. Weighted approach used to account for interim analysis for sample size re-estimation.||Null hypothesis: Difference between groups (RISPERDAL CONSTA minus paliperidone palmitate) for the mean change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS total score (LOCF) was less than or equal to -5 (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Sample size: SD of 20 for the change in PANSS total score, a true difference between treatment groups of 0.1 in favor of RISPERDAL CONSTA, 2-sided significance level of 5%, and 80% power. A sample size reestimation was performed when 60% of the data was available.||2.38|-1.62|
95887478|NCT00589914|191728517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||0.17|-0.07|
95887479|NCT00589914|191728518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.69||No P-values reported.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with factors for treatment and country and baseline score as a covariate.||1.69|-1.22|
95887480|NCT00799487|191728519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-20.2||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.2|-34.4|<0.0001
95887481|NCT00799487|191728520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-20.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-20.8|-35.1|<0.0001
95887482|NCT00799487|191728521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|6.6||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||6.6|3.4|<0.0001
95887483|NCT00799487|191728522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.8||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||5.8|3.2|<0.0001
95887484|NCT00799487|191728523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.0||P-values were determined by using a repeated measures mixed model with actual value as the dependent variable with terms for treatment, time, treatment by time interaction, period, sequence, and baseline score.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||12.0|6.9|<0.0001
95887485|NCT00799487|191728524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-2.74||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-2.74|-4.27|<0.0001
95887486|NCT00799487|191728525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.72|-11.45||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.45|-23.72|<0.0001
95887487|NCT00799487|191728526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-30.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.29|-21.37||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-21.37|-39.29|<0.0001
95887488|NCT00799487|191728527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13||||0.0297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.12||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.12|-2.15|0.0297
95887489|NCT00799487|191728528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.15||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model. Finger Windows Forwards was the first non-significant p-value in the gatekeeper sequence.|Mixed Models Analysis|Testing of additional endpoints in the sequence was still performed without any unqualified statements about the individual statistical significance.|Placebo minus Concerta|||0.15|-1.84|0.0955
95887490|NCT00799487|191728529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.52|-7.23||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-7.23|-21.52|0.0002
95887491|NCT00799487|191728530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.17||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.17|-0.70|0.2335
95887492|NCT00799487|191728531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|1.65||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||1.65|-6.67|0.2321
95887493|NCT00799487|191728532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-1.4||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.40|-5.64|0.0015
95887494|NCT00799487|191728533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.38||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|-1.33||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-1.33|-9.43|0.0101
95887495|NCT00799487|191728534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.34||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.34|-0.53|0.6642
95887496|NCT00799487|191728535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-35.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-11.71||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-11.71|-58.89|0.0040
95887497|NCT00799487|191728536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.03|-0.14|0.0012
95887498|NCT00799487|191728537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||-0.02|-0.12|0.0051
95887499|NCT00799487|191728538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.02|-0.13|0.1768
95887500|NCT00799487|191728539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.4245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.09|0.4245
95887501|NCT00799487|191728540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.0||||0.9729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.09|-0.09|0.9729
95972139|NCT00709852|191917927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887502|NCT00799487|191728541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.3486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.04||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.04|-0.12|0.3486
95887503|NCT00799487|191728542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.01|-0.07|0.1466
95887504|NCT00799487|191728543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||P-values were determined by using a general linear mixed model.|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo minus Concerta|||0.08|-0.01|0.1368
95972140|NCT00709852|191917928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887505|NCT02692703|191728544|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment as compared with the historical rate for the current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV or SOF + DCV + RBV) was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 86% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.3|100.0||||||Based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of ≥96%, 90 participants provides \>90% power to demonstrate noninferiority of the regimen to the historical rate for current standard of care regimens (SOF/LDV + RBV OR SOF + DCV + RBV) (94%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|95.3|
95887506|NCT02289898|191728547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.7158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.375|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy (investigator-assessed Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival) of placebo/placebo arm to the pooled demcizumab arm (i.e., placebo/placebo arm to demcizumab/placebo and demcizumab/demcizumab arms) in subjects with first-line metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.||1.375|0.630|=0.7158
95887507|NCT03950167|191728548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95887508|NCT03950167|191728548|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial CCK level difference: hyperemesis group-control group|Since this is the first study comparing both CCK levels and GB functions in patients diagnosed with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) and healthy pregnant women, a power analysis was not feasible.||||0.05
95887509|NCT03950167|191728549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB wall thickness: Hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95887510|NCT03950167|191728549|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB wall thickness: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95972141|NCT00709852|191917928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972142|NCT00709852|191917929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||||95.0|0.03|0.096|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.096|0.030|
95972143|NCT00709852|191917929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||||95.0|0.003|0.071|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.071|0.003|
95887511|NCT03950167|191728550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95887512|NCT03950167|191728550|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB volume: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95887513|NCT03950167|191728551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Fasting GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95887514|NCT03950167|191728551|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||A p value of \<0.05 was accepted as significant in all statistical analyses.|t-test, 2 sided||p value demonstrated above is the calculated value. Postprandial GB ejection fraction: hyperemesis group-control group|||||0.05
95887515|NCT02533427|191728552|OTHER||% Geometric Least Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio|107.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.19|111.69|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||111.69|103.19|
95972144|NCT00709852|191917929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|0.003|0.055|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.055|0.003|
95972145|NCT00709852|191917930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||||95.0|-0.049|0.078|||confidence interval for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||0.078|-0.049|
95972146|NCT00709852|191917931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||||95.0|-0.009|0.065|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.065|-0.009|
95972147|NCT00709852|191917931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||||95.0|-0.04|0.02|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.020|-0.040|
95972148|NCT00709852|191917931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||||95.0|-0.015|0.035|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.035|-0.015|
95972149|NCT00709852|191917932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.042|0.153|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for contrast enhancement||0.153|0.042|
95887516|NCT02533427|191728553|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.49|124.5|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||124.50|106.49|
95887517|NCT02533427|191728554|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|105.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.95|114.66|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||114.66|96.95|
95887518|NCT02533427|191728555|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|248.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.11|1870.81|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||1870.81|33.11|
95887519|NCT02533427|191728556|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|107.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.78|118.65|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||118.65|97.78|
95887520|NCT02533427|191728557|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|115.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.12|122.37|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||122.37|108.12|
95887521|NCT02533427|191728558|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.1|138.12|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||138.12|106.10|
95887522|NCT02533427|191728559|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|112.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.19|144.14|||||Test/Reference: Norgestimate Part B/Part A|Norgestimate Part B/Part A||144.14|87.19|
95887523|NCT02533427|191728560|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|114.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.4|121.39|||||Test/Reference: Norelgestromin Part B/Part A|Norelgestromin Part B/Part A||121.39|107.40|
95887524|NCT02533427|191728561|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|121.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.85|133.44|||||Test/Reference: Norgestrel Part B/Part A|Norgestrel Part B/Part A||133.44|110.85|
95887525|NCT02533427|191728562|OTHER||% GLSM Ratio|92.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.55|104.45|||||Test/Reference: Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A|Ethinyl estradiol Part B/Part A||104.45|82.55|
95887526|NCT00759954|191728579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|97.19|||<|0.05||90.0|91.31|103.45|||ANOVA|||||103.45|91.31|<0.05
95887527|NCT00759954|191728581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|95.82|||<|0.05||90.0|92.93|98.8|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance for the log-transformed AUC. The 90% confidence interval for the ratio of AUC(Test)/AUC(Ref) is provided.||||98.80|92.93|< 0.05
95887528|NCT00759954|191728582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for a nonparametric comparison of Tmax values and a significant difference was defined a priori as p \< 0.05.|mean ratio|98.1|||<|0.05||90.0|94.2|102.1|||ANOVA|||||102.1|94.2|< 0.05
95887529|NCT04677374|191728583|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
95887530|NCT04677374|191728583|OTHER|||||||0.259|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.259
95887531|NCT04677374|191728583|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Test of proportions|||||||0.044
95887532|NCT04677374|191728584|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.93||||||||4.93|1.01|
95887533|NCT04677374|191728584|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.0||||||||4.00|0.69|
95887534|NCT04677374|191728584|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.36||||||||5.36|1.00|
95887535|NCT00333866|191728599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.23||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.15|-0.61|0.2361
95887536|NCT00333866|191728599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.17|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||-0.17|-0.94|0.0132
95887537|NCT00333866|191728599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-0.33||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.05|||ANCOVA|Hochberg's approach was used to protect the Type I error rate at 0.05 level, Hochberg adjusted p-values were presented.||P value was calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean pain score as covariate.||0.05|-0.72|0.1694
95887538|NCT00333866|191728600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0227
95887539|NCT00333866|191728600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0017
95887540|NCT00333866|191728600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P-values were calculated using a modified ridit transformation with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel procedure, adjusting for center.||||0.0768
95887541|NCT00333866|191728601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.60|-1.42|<.0001
95887542|NCT00333866|191728601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.37|-1.20|0.0002
95887543|NCT00333866|191728601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline mean sleep score as covariate.||-0.07|-0.89|0.0222
95887544|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
95887545|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
95887546|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 1: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
95887547|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
95887548|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
95887549|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 2: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
95887550|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.5|<.0001
95887551|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
95972150|NCT00709852|191917932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||||95.0|0.03|0.161|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for border delineation||0.161|0.030|
95972151|NCT00709852|191917932|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||||95.0|0.006|0.098|||CI for paired means|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||analysis for internal morphology||0.098|0.006|
95887552|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 3: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.0|0.0005
95887553|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
95887554|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.3|<.0001
95887555|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 4: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
95887556|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
95972152|NCT00709852|191917933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.2||||0.0082|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0082
95972153|NCT00709852|191917934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95972154|NCT00709852|191917935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.8||||0.0039|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0039
95972155|NCT00709852|191917936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95972156|NCT00709852|191917937|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.8|2.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||2.9|-3.8|
95972157|NCT00709852|191917938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
95887557|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
95887558|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 5: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.2|<.0001
95887559|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
95887560|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
95887561|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 6: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.1|0.0003
95887562|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
95887563|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
95887564|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 7: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0037
95887565|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.7|<.0001
95972158|NCT00709852|191917939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
95972159|NCT00709852|191917940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95887566|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.4|<.0001
95887567|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 8: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0031
95972160|NCT00709852|191917941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95972161|NCT00709852|191917942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.5||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
95972162|NCT00709852|191917943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.1||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
95972163|NCT00709852|191917944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||0.763|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7630
95887568|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.5|<.0001
95887569|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
95972164|NCT00709852|191917945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-3.1|3.1|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.1|-3.1|
95972165|NCT00709852|191917946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-2.7|3.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.6|-2.7|
95972166|NCT00709852|191917947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|-1.6||||||95.0|-10.1|6.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||6.9|-10.1|
95972167|NCT00709852|191917948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.5||||0.0006|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0006
95972168|NCT00709852|191917949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|19.4||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
95972169|NCT00709852|191917950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.6547|||||||McNemar|||||||0.6547
95972170|NCT00709852|191917951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95887570|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 9: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-0.9|0.0117
95887571|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
95887572|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
95887573|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 10: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0040
95887574|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.7|-1.6|<.0001
95887575|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.2|<.0001
95887576|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 11: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.1|-1.0|0.0100
95887577|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.5|<.0001
95887578|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.3|-1.2|0.0006
95887579|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 12: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||0.0|-0.8|0.0690
95972171|NCT00709852|191917952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|21.5|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95972172|NCT00709852|191917953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||0.0833|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0833
95887580|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
95972173|NCT00709852|191917954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.5||||0.0236|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0236
95972174|NCT00709852|191917955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.9||||0.0186|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0186
95972175|NCT00709852|191917956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||0.7055|||||||McNemar|||||||0.7055
95887581|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.5|-1.3|<.0001
95972176|NCT00709852|191917957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.2|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95972177|NCT00709852|191917958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||< 0.0001
95972178|NCT00709852|191917959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.0||||0.1573|||||||McNemar|||||||0.1573
95972179|NCT00709852|191917960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|2.1||||||95.0|0.2|3.9|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.9|0.2|
95972180|NCT00709852|191917961|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|6.5||||||95.0|1.5|11.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||11.4|1.5|
95972181|NCT00709852|191917962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.4|-1.4|
95972182|NCT00709852|191917963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.7||||||95.0|-0.3|1.6|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.6|-0.3|
95972183|NCT00709852|191917964|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|1.1||||||95.0|-1.0|3.2|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||3.2|-1.0|
95887582|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 13: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.0|0.0054
95887583|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.8|-1.6|<.0001
95887584|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.3|<.0001
95887585|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Week 14: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.2|-1.1|0.0036
95887586|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.9|-1.5|<.0001
95887587|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.6|-1.1|<.0001
95972184|NCT00709852|191917965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -10%|Difference in percentages|0.5||||||95.0|-0.5|1.5|||CI for paired percentages|lower limit of confidence interval is compared to noninferiority margin||||1.5|-0.5|
95972185|NCT00709852|191917966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972186|NCT00709852|191917967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972187|NCT00709852|191917968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||||||||||||||||
95972188|NCT00709852|191917969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95972189|NCT00709852|191917970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|<|0.0001|||||||paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95887588|NCT00333866|191728602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Overall: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. A mixed model repeated measures ANCOVA using treatment, center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction in the model and baseline mean sleep score as the covariate.||-0.4|-1.0|<.0001
95887589|NCT00333866|191728603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.95|0.71|0.5370
95887590|NCT00333866|191728603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.18|1.16|0.0109
95887591|NCT00333866|191728603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. Logistic regression method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.68|0.61|0.9613
95887592|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-12.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.86|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-7.86|-17.56|<.0001
95887593|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-13.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|-8.38|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-8.38|-18.18|<.0001
95887594|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.2||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.33|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Disturbance: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.33|-12.06|0.0038
95887595|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.9||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.61|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||10.61|1.19|0.0142
95887596|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.92||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.66|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.66|0.19|0.0414
95887597|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.21||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|5.95|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.95|-3.53|0.6165
95887598|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-9.24||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.44|-4.05|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.05|-14.44|0.0005
95887599|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|-17.17|-6.68|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-6.68|-17.17|<.0001
95887600|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.95||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-3.74|||ANCOVA|||Shortness of Breath, Headache: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.74|-14.16|0.0008
95887601|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.36||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.64|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.64|0.08|0.0127
95887602|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Quantity of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.79|0.22|0.0005
95887603|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Quality of Sleep: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.07|0.1453
95887604|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.34||||0.1033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.57|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.57|-0.88|0.1033
95887605|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.14||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|14.41|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||14.41|3.88|0.0007
95887606|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.56||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|7.81|||ANCOVA|||Sleep Adequacy: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.81|-2.68|0.3370
95887607|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.01||||0.3308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.07|-2.05|0.3308
95887608|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|4.8|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.80|-3.39|0.7364
95887609|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.84|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.84|-3.31|0.7132
95887610|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-6.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|-3.25|||ANCOVA|||Overall sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-3.25|-10.54|0.0002
95887611|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-8.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.94|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-4.55|-11.94|<.0001
95887612|NCT00333866|191728604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.36||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Overall Sleep Problem Index: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.70|-8.02|0.0197
95887613|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.20|-0.54|0.3627
95887614|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.11|-0.63|0.1686
95887615|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.19|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Physical Impairment: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-0.55|0.3468
95887616|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.49|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.49|-0.71|0.7147
95972190|NCT00709852|191917971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||||||||||||||||
95972191|NCT00709852|191917972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||for all three readers|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95887617|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.63||||0.0409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.03|-1.23|0.0409
95972192|NCT00709852|191917974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||||||||||||||||
95972193|NCT00709852|191917975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6||||||||||||||||
95887618|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.63|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Feel Good: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.63|-0.56|0.9077
95972194|NCT00825825|191918007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000704||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.000704
95887619|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.37|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.37|-0.64|0.5923
95887620|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.11|-1.12|0.0174
95887621|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.5408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Work Missed: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.66|0.5408
95972195|NCT00825825|191918008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1.62e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000162
95972196|NCT00825825|191918009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||9.36e-06||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00000936
95972197|NCT00825825|191918010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the citalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.0279
95972198|NCT00825825|191918011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00124||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and placebo medication periods.||||0.00124
95972199|NCT00825825|191918012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6.33e-05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the placebo and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0000633
95972200|NCT00825825|191918013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is a comparison between the escitalopram and citalopram medication periods.||||0.0241
95972201|NCT01942590|191918016|OTHER|||||||0.0512|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0512
95972202|NCT01942590|191918016|OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
95972203|NCT01942590|191918017|OTHER|||||||0.0816||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0816
95887622|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.4|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.40|-0.57|0.7236
95887623|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.22|-1.19|0.0045
95887624|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5613||95.0|-0.63|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Do Work: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.63|0.5613
95887625|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.5609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.33|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.33|-0.60|0.5609
95887626|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.28|-1.22|0.0016
95887627|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.3692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.68|0.3692
95887628|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24||||0.3294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.25|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.25|-0.73|0.3294
95887629|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.06|-1.05|0.0270
95887630|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.44|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Fatigue: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.54|0.8432
95887631|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.06|-0.98|0.0806
95887632|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.01|-1.06|0.0470
95887633|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.3845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.29|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Rested: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-0.75|0.3845
95887634|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.60|-0.37|0.6326
95887635|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.27|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.27|-0.71|0.3740
95972204|NCT01942590|191918017|OTHER|||||||0.3318||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3318
95972205|NCT01942590|191918018|OTHER|||||||0.2074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2074
95972206|NCT01942590|191918018|OTHER|||||||0.332|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.332
95887636|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.52|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Stiffness: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.52|-0.45|0.8936
95887637|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.4743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.73|0.4743
95887638|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.10|-1.18|0.0192
95887639|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.35|||ANCOVA|||FIQ anxiety: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.35|-0.71|0.5101
95887640|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.34|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.34|-0.75|0.4617
95972207|NCT01942590|191918019|OTHER|||||||0.233||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.233
95972208|NCT01942590|191918019|OTHER|||||||0.142||||||Paired t test comparing each subject's performance at Week 52 to Baseline|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.142
95972209|NCT01942590|191918020|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.019
95972210|NCT01942590|191918020|OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.366
95972211|NCT01942590|191918021|OTHER|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.161
95972212|NCT01942590|191918021|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.43
95887641|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-0.42|-1.51|0.0006
95887642|NCT00333866|191728605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||FIQ Depression: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.21|-0.88|0.2290
95887643|NCT00333866|191728606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|2.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.06|-4.95|0.4200
95887644|NCT00333866|191728606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-5.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.38|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.31|-9.38|0.0012
95887645|NCT00333866|191728606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.17||||0.5126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|2.34|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||2.34|-4.68|0.5126
95887646|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.7781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|3.05|||ANCOVA|||Physical functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.05|-4.07|0.7781
95887647|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|5.59|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.59|-1.62|0.2792
95887648|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.15|||ANCOVA|||Physical Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.15|-3.00|0.7512
95887649|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.02||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Physical role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.43|-3.39|0.6490
95887650|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.5||||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|5.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.96|-2.96|0.5105
95887651|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.8625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Physical Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|-4.04|0.8625
95887652|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|9.12|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.12|-1.39|0.1489
95972213|NCT01942590|191918022|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.01
95887653|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|6.24||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|11.54|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||11.54|0.93|0.0213
95887654|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.75||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|9.02|||ANCOVA|||Emotional Role Limitations: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.02|-1.51|0.1620
95972214|NCT01942590|191918022|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 52||||0.004
95887655|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.85||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|7.65|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.65|-1.95|0.2446
95887656|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.01||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.85|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.85|0.16|0.0429
95887657|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.35||||0.1721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Social Functioning: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.16|-1.46|0.1721
95887658|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|4.08||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|7.74|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||7.74|0.42|0.0291
95887659|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.93||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||9.62|2.23|0.0017
95972215|NCT01942590|191918022|OTHER|||||||0.154|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, week 18||||0.154
95972216|NCT01942590|191918022|OTHER|||||||0.211|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.211
95972217|NCT01942590|191918023|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.006
95972218|NCT01942590|191918023|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.007
95972219|NCT01942590|191918023|OTHER|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.297
95972220|NCT01942590|191918023|OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.196
95887660|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.32||||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Mental Health: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.35|0.0763
95887661|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.58||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|6.11|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.11|-0.95|0.1524
95887662|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.36||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.93|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.93|1.80|0.0032
95887663|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.82||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|6.36|||ANCOVA|||Bodily Pain: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.36|-0.72|0.1180
95887664|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.15||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|6.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||6.99|-0.69|0.1081
95887665|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|5.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.99|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||8.99|1.22|0.0101
95887666|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.75||||0.7031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Vitality: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.60|-3.10|0.7031
95887667|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.27||||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.39|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.39|-1.86|0.4253
95887668|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.73||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|5.89|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.89|-0.44|0.0910
95972221|NCT01942590|191918024|OTHER|||||||0.3639|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline Week 18||||0.3639
95887669|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.82||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.95|||ANCOVA|||General Health Perception: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.95|-1.30|0.2526
95887670|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.62||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.82|0.42|0.0195
95887671|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|3.66||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||5.88|1.44|0.0013
95887672|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|2.14||||0.0568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|4.34|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||4.34|-0.06|0.0568
95972222|NCT01942590|191918024|OTHER|||||||0.0371|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0371
95887673|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.27|-1.54|0.8529
95887674|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.4564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.96|-0.88|0.4564
95887675|NCT00333866|191728607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.8576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.54|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component Score: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.54|-1.28|0.8576
95887676|NCT00333866|191728608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.40|-1.98|0.7384
95887677|NCT00333866|191728608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.29|-3.12|0.1044
95972223|NCT01942590|191918025|OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.268
95972224|NCT01942590|191918025|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.0036
95972225|NCT01942590|191918025|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.286
95972226|NCT01942590|191918025|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.279
95972227|NCT01942590|191918026|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.479
95972228|NCT01942590|191918026|OTHER|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.059
95887678|NCT00333866|191728608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.83|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.83|-2.58|0.3137
95887679|NCT00333866|191728609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.09|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.09|-1.28|0.0900
95887680|NCT00333866|191728609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.19|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.19|-1.20|0.1564
95887681|NCT00333866|191728609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.7519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.58|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Anxiety Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.58|-0.80|0.7519
95887682|NCT00333866|191728609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.6416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.80|-0.50|0.6416
95887683|NCT00333866|191728609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.59||||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.07|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.07|-1.25|0.0778
95887684|NCT00333866|191728609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.5191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.44|||ANCOVA|||HADS-Depression Total: P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||0.44|-0.87|0.5191
95887685|NCT00333866|191728610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.44||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.97|3.09|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||3.09|-5.97|0.5340
95887686|NCT00333866|191728610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-7.44||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||-2.88|-12.00|0.0014
95887687|NCT00333866|191728610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56||||0.2694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|1.98|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. ANCOVA method was used with treatment and center in the model, and the baseline score as covariate.||1.98|-7.09|0.2694
95887688|NCT00333866|191728611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|263.77||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.78|603.33|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatment and center in the model.||603.33|-75.78|0.1277
95887689|NCT00333866|191728611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|47.89||||0.7829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.2|389.02|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||389.02|-293.2|0.7829
95887690|NCT00333866|191728611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-11.51||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-351.9|328.86|||ANCOVA|||P-values less than 0.05 (2-sided) considered statistically significant. P value was calculated using ANOVA, with treatment and center in the model.||328.86|-351.9|0.9471
95887691|NCT00356369|191728612|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than (\>) -15%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenA antibodies|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|23.5||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||23.5|3.52|
95887692|NCT00356369|191728612|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenC antibodies|4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|11.36||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.36|-1.03|
95972229|NCT01942590|191918026|OTHER|||||||0.152|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 18||||0.152
95972230|NCT01942590|191918026|OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Baseline, Week 52||||0.118
95887693|NCT00356369|191728612|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in%for rSBA-MenW-135 antibody|4.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|11.49||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||11.49|-0.07|
95887694|NCT00356369|191728612|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Lower limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between MenACWY-TT and (minus) MenACWY in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was ≥ -12%.|Difference in % for rSBA-MenY antibodies|8.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|16.17||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the vaccine response\* induced by the MenACWY-TT vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine.||16.17|1.72|
95972231|NCT04619251|191918031|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|337.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|302.8|376.4|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =15.9|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||376.4|302.8|
95887695|NCT00356369|191728613|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion indicative of non-inferiority: Upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% CI on the difference between MenACWY- TT and (minus) MenACWY in the incidence of Grade 3 systemic symptoms was below 5%.|Difference in % Grade 3 general symptoms|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|3.09||||||To evaluate the non-inferiority of the MenACWY-TT conjugate vaccine when compared to the licensed MenACWY vaccine in terms of the incidence of any Grade 3 systemic symptom within 4 days after vaccination.||3.09|-1.64|
95887696|NCT01285310|191728694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.4||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|7.0|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI of the proportion difference is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|Significance testing was done using the following closed procedure; if the overall test among treatments is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, pair-wise comparisons (30 mg versus PBO, and 20 mg versus PBO, using a 0.05 two-sided significance level) will be performed||7.0|-27.1|0.3134
95887697|NCT01285310|191728694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|13.8|||Chi-squared||2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the binomial distribution|||13.8|-16.2|0.8721
95887698|NCT01285310|191728695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887699|NCT01285310|191728695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.091|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887700|NCT01285310|191728696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||||||||||||||||
95887701|NCT01285310|191728696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||||||||||||||
95887702|NCT01285310|191728697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.007||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887703|NCT01285310|191728697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887704|NCT01285310|191728698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95972232|NCT04619251|191918032|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|184.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|218.0|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =26.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||218.0|156.0|
95887705|NCT01285310|191728698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887706|NCT01285310|191728699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.21||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887707|NCT01285310|191728699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887708|NCT01285310|191728700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||||||||||||||||
95887709|NCT01285310|191728700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2||||||||||||||||||
95887710|NCT01285310|191728701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887711|NCT01285310|191728701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887712|NCT01285310|191728702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.15|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887713|NCT01285310|191728702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model (Ancova) for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887714|NCT01285310|191728703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.58|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887715|NCT01285310|191728703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.26||||||||||||||||||
95887716|NCT01285310|191728704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-35.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887717|NCT01285310|191728704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-38.37|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887718|NCT01285310|191728705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.35|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887719|NCT01285310|191728705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887720|NCT01285310|191728706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887721|NCT01285310|191728706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.84|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887722|NCT01285310|191728707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.93|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887723|NCT01285310|191728707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.77|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887724|NCT01285310|191728708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887725|NCT01285310|191728708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|58.05||||||||||||||||||
95887726|NCT01285310|191728709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887727|NCT01285310|191728709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-16.19|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887728|NCT01285310|191728710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887729|NCT01285310|191728710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 16, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887730|NCT01285310|191728711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
95887731|NCT01285310|191728711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||||||||||||||||
95887732|NCT01285310|191728712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9||||||||||||||||||
95887733|NCT01285310|191728712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||||||||||||||||
95887734|NCT01285310|191728713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4||||||||||||||||||
95887735|NCT01285310|191728713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.1||||||||||||||||||
95887736|NCT01285310|191728714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.5||||||||||||||||||
95887737|NCT01285310|191728714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.2||||||||||||||||||
95887738|NCT01285310|191728715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||||||||||||||||
95887739|NCT01285310|191728715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||||||||||||||||
95887740|NCT01285310|191728716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||||||||||||||||
95887741|NCT01285310|191728716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5||||||||||||||||||
95887742|NCT01285310|191728717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95887743|NCT01285310|191728717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95887744|NCT01285310|191728718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887745|NCT01285310|191728718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887746|NCT01285310|191728719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.94||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887747|NCT01285310|191728719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.24||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||
95887748|NCT01285310|191728720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-4.3||||||||||||||||||
95887749|NCT01285310|191728720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|4.6||||||||||||||||||
95887750|NCT01285310|191728721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887751|NCT01285310|191728721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24 with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887752|NCT01285310|191728722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887753|NCT01285310|191728722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.01|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24; treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887754|NCT01285310|191728723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.86|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887755|NCT01285310|191728723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-7.02|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887756|NCT01285310|191728724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-34.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887757|NCT01285310|191728724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-37.82|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887758|NCT01285310|191728725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-14.34|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887759|NCT01285310|191728725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-12.5|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887760|NCT01285310|191728726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.85|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887761|NCT01285310|191728726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.8|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887762|NCT01285310|191728727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887763|NCT01285310|191728727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.72|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887764|NCT01285310|191728728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|8.29|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887765|NCT01285310|191728728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|67.09|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887766|NCT01285310|191728729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|12.05|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887767|NCT01285310|191728729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.54|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate.|||||
95887768|NCT01285310|191728730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887769|NCT01285310|191728730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|||||||||||||Based on an analysis of covariance model for the change from baseline at Week 24, with treatment group as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate|||||
95887770|NCT01285310|191728731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||||||||||||||||
95887771|NCT01285310|191728731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||||||||||||||||
95887772|NCT01285310|191728732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||||||||||||||||
95887773|NCT01285310|191728732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||||||||||||||||
95887774|NCT01285310|191728733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.2||||||||||||||||||
95887775|NCT01285310|191728733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||||||||||||||||
95887776|NCT00143403|191728767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.67|1.2|||||HR: Irinotecan+5-FU/FA / 5-FU/FA|||1.20|0.67|
95887777|NCT00143403|191728767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.468
95887778|NCT00514540|191728769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||"Stoppage of trial early if 1) probability of response with the frontline treatment DC in the 1st 2 courses is unacceptably low compared to a target of 30% Pr(p1\*p2 \> .30\|data) \< 0.005, or 2) risk of a SAE is unacceptably high Pr(m \> m\* \|data) \< 0.001"|Bayesian probability model|Operating Characteristics of futility monitoring rule 1 \& safety monitoring rule 2 applied simultaneously for frontline treatment DC in courses 1 \& 2.||Disease status evaluated at the end of course 1 \& the end of course 2. Primary outcomes are response, defined as the absence of disease progression, and the time to a serious adverse event (SAE), defined as grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity or death. Bayesian probability model \& decision rules used to monitor patient outcomes.||||< 0.005
95887779|NCT03530098|191728775|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.04|-1.14|0.04
95887780|NCT03530098|191728776|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.001
95887781|NCT01288469|191728909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.62|-46.03||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|ANCOVA||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Throughout the ANCOVA model, the Alirocumab + atorvastatin 80 mg group was compared to the placebo + atorvastatin 80 mg group using appropriate contrast and the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was provided.||-46.03|-65.62|<0.0001
95887782|NCT04044716|191728943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANCOVA|age, joint involved in surgery, sex, baseline pain||||||.048
95972233|NCT04619251|191918033|OTHER|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, a formal hypothesis test and associated acceptance range is not specified.|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|356.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|315.7|403.2|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio was estimated by the ratios of the geometric means (T/R). Intra-individual geometric coefficient variation (gCV %) =18.4|The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: subject and treatment. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect 'treatment' was considered as fixed. These quantities were then back-transformed to the original scale.||403.2|315.7|
95972234|NCT03538301|191918041|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.004153||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008284|-0.000021|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.000021|-0.008284|0.049
95972235|NCT03538301|191918041|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.002112||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00626|0.002036|||random coefficient model|||Slope in FVC (L/week) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.002036|-0.006260|0.316
95887783|NCT04044716|191728944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline pain||||||0.29
95972236|NCT03538301|191918042|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.091238||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199456|0.016979|||random coefficient model|||||0.016979|-0.199456|0.098
95972237|NCT03538301|191918042|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.039596||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.148248|0.069056|||random coefficient model|||||0.069056|-0.148248|0.473
95972238|NCT03538301|191918043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0997||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1988|-0.0005|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.0005|-0.1988|0.049
95972239|NCT03538301|191918043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0507||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1502|0.0489|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in FVC (L) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.0489|-0.1502|0.316
95972240|NCT03538301|191918044|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.16||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.59|11.28|||random coefficient model|||||11.28|-17.59|0.668
95972241|NCT03538301|191918044|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|13.13|||random coefficient model|||||13.13|-16.57|0.821
95972242|NCT03538301|191918045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1897||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7869|0.4075|||random coefficient model|||Change from baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||0.4075|-4.7869|0.098
95887784|NCT04044716|191728945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline morphine milligram equivalents (MME)||||||0.64
95887785|NCT04044716|191728946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for age, sex, type of surgery (joint), baseline MME, and time in hospital||||||0.86
95887786|NCT04044716|191728947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||adjusted for age, type of surgery (joint), and sex|ANCOVA|||||||0.661
95887787|NCT02480439|191728969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8747|1.0668|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0668|0.8747|
95887788|NCT02480439|191728969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9223|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8352|1.0185|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0185|0.8352|
95887789|NCT02480439|191728970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.0477|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0477|0.9540|
95887790|NCT02480439|191728970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0149|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9685|1.0636|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0636|0.9685|
95887791|NCT02480439|191728971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|0.9992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9541|1.0464|||||Relative Bioavailability A/B. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0464|0.9541|
95887792|NCT02480439|191728971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point Estimate|1.0134|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9676|1.0612|||||Relative Bioavailability B/C. The point estimates and 90% CIs were obtained from the exponentiated results of the analysis of the natural logarithm-transformed data.|||1.0612|0.9676|
95887793|NCT03235154|191728977|OTHER|There was no comparator arm in this small single arm study||||||||||||No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants||||This was a single arm intervention study with a very small number of participants. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are provided.|No confidence intervals around point estimates provided given very small number of participants|||
95887794|NCT01782222|191728983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.50|-2.42|0.977
95887795|NCT01782222|191728983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.18|-2.61|0.859
95887796|NCT01782222|191728984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-2.28|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-2.28|-12.30|0.005
95887797|NCT01782222|191728984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.21|-10.90|0.015
95887798|NCT01782222|191728985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|1.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.76|-8.17|0.200
95887799|NCT01782222|191728985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.10|-8.19|0.239
95887800|NCT01782222|191728986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|4.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||4.31|-8.48|0.519
95972243|NCT03538301|191918045|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9503||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5579|1.6573|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in ppFVC||1.6573|-3.5579|0.473
95972244|NCT03538301|191918046|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.53||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|10.34|||random coefficient model|||||10.34|-15.40|0.700
95972245|NCT03538301|191918046|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|12.07|||random coefficient model|||||12.07|-14.31|0.867
95972246|NCT03538301|191918049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.146||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6226|0.9147|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.9147|-0.6226|0.708
95972247|NCT03538301|191918049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7038||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0695|1.4771|||random coefficient|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.4771|-0.0695|0.074
95972248|NCT03538301|191918049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6362|0.8641|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.8641|-0.6362|0.765
95972249|NCT03538301|191918049|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.556||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1986|1.3107|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in DLCO Not Corrected for Hemoglobin (mL/min/mmHg) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||1.3107|-0.1986|0.148
95972250|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|2.71|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.71|-3.68|0.765
95972251|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.47|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in QLF Score (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.47|-1.68|0.370
95972252|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.34|-0.70|0.499
95887801|NCT01782222|191728986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|1.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||1.17|-11.29|0.111
95887802|NCT01782222|191728987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.15|-7.39|0.060
95887803|NCT01782222|191728987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-0.30|-7.46|0.034
95887804|NCT01782222|191728988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.40|-1.16|0.334
95887805|NCT01782222|191728988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||0.77|-0.74|0.968
95887806|NCT01782222|191728989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.66|-2.34|0.899
95887807|NCT01782222|191728989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Treatment containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||2.03|-2.68|0.785
95887808|NCT01782222|191728990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-1.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.01|-8.91|0.014
95887809|NCT01782222|191728990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.63|-1.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model for the change from Baseline to End of Maintenance containing treatment and disease stage as factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||-1.03|-8.63|0.013
95887810|NCT01648205|191729026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||11.0|-14.1|0.7958
95887811|NCT01648205|191729027|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.9||0.3369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|26.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test was used||||26.2|-9.5|0.3369
95887812|NCT01774968|191729036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of 0.4% was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Approximately 325 participants were to be randomized (in a 1:1 ratio of U-500R insulin TID:BID) and 260 were to complete the study (with a 20% dropout rate). The 260 completers would provide a 66.4% chance to show equivalence of TID and BID algorithms, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of TID, 2.5% chance to superiority of TID, 14.4% chance to show noninferiority of BID, and 2.5% chance to show superiority of BID, assuming a difference in HbA1c change of 0% and a standard deviation of 1.1%.||0.12|-0.33|0.3709
95887813|NCT00534430|191729053|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments.||Log-rank test. (Mantel-Haenszel test). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing.||||>0.05
95887814|NCT00534430|191729054|EQUIVALENCE|Given the small sample-size of the disease sub-groups, this was a hypothesis generating study.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Gray's Test|No adjustments.||Gray's estimate. (Fine and Gray). Null hypothesis is all four groups are statistically from the same population. Alternative hypothesis is that at least one of the groups is from a population different from the remaining groups. Anticipated sample-sizes comparing Active ALL (anticipated N= 12) with the combined AML patients (anticipated N=38) was deemed to be too small for formal hypothesis testing||||>0.05
95887815|NCT02392247|191729081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'.Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming Regression||Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG measurement as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements)||0.44|0.26|<0.001
95909088|NCT00707031|191776167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference between lixisenatide and exenatide on mITT population was \<=0.4%.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.033|0.297||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), BMI (\<30, \>=30 kg/m\^2), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||||To detect that upper confidence limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval for least square (LS) mean difference between the 2 arms do not exceed 0.4% HbA1c, 300 patients per group would provide 96% power assuming a standard deviation of 1.3 and true difference in HbA1c between the 2 arms as 0.||0.297|0.033|
95909089|NCT00182754|191776176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
95887816|NCT02392247|191729082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|3.4||This study was not designed to determine which method is 'superior'. Statistical significance refers to deviation of slope for perfect agreement (=1) between paired measurements to quantify strength of association .|Deming regression|Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|Slope measured deviation from 1:1 concordance between SEER and TEG with TEG as denominator. Confidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping 1000 times on the parameters estimates for the slopes, intervals and correlation coefficients|A cohort of 50 patients was estimated to capture at least 7 'bleeding' patients with a likelihood of 95%, assuming a 25% incidence of bleeding, and standard deviation of 20%, to determine maximum clot stiffness within +/- 10% of the mean. This was a descriptive and method-comparison study. Method comparisons were performed according to Clinical Laboratory Science Institute (CLSI) guidelines (Deming regression on paired measurements )||3.4|2.9|<0.001
95887817|NCT02068443|191729117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.48|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin alone (Metformin QD - Alogliptin alone).|||-0.480|-0.821|
95887818|NCT02068443|191729117|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD to Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID.|LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.247|||||Estimated Value was for the difference between Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride QD and Alogliptin + Metformin Hydrochloride BID (Metformin QD - Metformin BID).|||0.247|-0.026|
95887819|NCT02723084|191729128|NON_INFERIORITY|The percentage of participants achieving SVR12 was calculated for each arm and a 2- sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A minus Arm B) was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution to assess non-inferiority in SVR12 rates of arm A to arm B. If the lower bound of the CI for the difference was above the noninferiority margin of -10%, then arm A was considered non-inferior to arm B.|Risk Difference (RD)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|12.1|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B)||12.1|-3.5|
95887820|NCT02801942|191729135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.307|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|9.21|||||The mean difference in circulating B lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||9.21|-4.59|
95887821|NCT02801942|191729135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.398|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|8.54|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.54|-1.46|
95887822|NCT02801942|191729135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|0.86|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.86|-6.87|
95887823|NCT02801942|191729135|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.482||||95.0|-11.86|6.84|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||6.84|-11.86|
95887824|NCT02801942|191729136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|8.98|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.98|-2.22|
95887825|NCT02801942|191729136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.833|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|20.91|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||20.91|-3.72|
95887826|NCT02801942|191729136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.38|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.38|-6.53|
95887827|NCT02801942|191729136|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|2.71|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.71|-19.32|
95887828|NCT02801942|191729137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.75|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.75|-0.90|
95887829|NCT02801942|191729137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.19|-0.07|
95887830|NCT02801942|191729137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.84|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.84|-3.41|
95972253|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Ground Glass Opacity (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.54|-0.47|0.901
95887831|NCT02801942|191729137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.13|-0.10|
95887832|NCT02801942|191729137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.31|-0.19|
95887833|NCT02801942|191729137|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.482|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.96|-3.23|
95972254|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|3.46|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.46|-2.25|0.676
95972255|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|4.42|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Reticulation (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.42|-1.13|0.242
95887834|NCT02801942|191729138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|6.23|||||The mean difference in B-cells in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) iLN has been presented.|||6.23|-3.14|
95887835|NCT02801942|191729138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.34|||||The mean difference in CD56bright sNK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.25|
95887836|NCT02801942|191729138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.52|-0.54|
95887837|NCT02801942|191729138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.10|-0.15|
95887838|NCT02801942|191729138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.34|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.21|
95887839|NCT02801942|191729138|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.96|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-1.10|
95887840|NCT02801942|191729139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.8|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.80|-1.73|
95887841|NCT02801942|191729139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.16|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.16|-7.54|
95887842|NCT02801942|191729139|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.95|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.95|-1.12|
95887843|NCT02801942|191729140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|18.6|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||18.60|-4.92|
95887844|NCT02801942|191729140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|9.0|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.00|-24.77|
95887845|NCT02801942|191729140|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|3.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.73|-6.66|
95887846|NCT02801942|191729141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.558|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|10.84|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.84|-8.17|
95887847|NCT02801942|191729141|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|7.86|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.86|-11.57|
95887848|NCT02801942|191729142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|24.09|||||The mean difference in myeloid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||24.09|0.38|
95887849|NCT02801942|191729142|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.961|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.52|3.78|||||The mean difference in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.78|-25.52|
95887850|NCT02801942|191729145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|14.99|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||14.99|-11.41|
95887851|NCT02801942|191729145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.91|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.91|-4.60|
95887852|NCT02801942|191729145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|11.26|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.26|-2.50|
95887853|NCT02801942|191729145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|5.89|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.89|-18.01|
95887854|NCT02801942|191729145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.6|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.60|-0.67|
95887855|NCT02801942|191729146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.133|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.73|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.73|-5.33|
95887856|NCT02801942|191729146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.466|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.41|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.41|-3.73|
95887857|NCT02801942|191729146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|3.96|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.96|-7.67|
95887858|NCT02801942|191729146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.342|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.54|13.87|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||13.87|-12.54|
95887859|NCT02801942|191729146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.36|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.36|-1.71|
95887860|NCT02801942|191729149|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.16|-0.84|
95887861|NCT02801942|191729150|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|2.96|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.96|-15.37|
95887862|NCT02801942|191729151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.269|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.68|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.68|-1.61|
95887863|NCT02801942|191729151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|5.03|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.03|-8.12|
95887864|NCT02801942|191729151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.089|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|4.13|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.13|-4.59|
95887865|NCT02801942|191729151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.08|8.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.92|-7.08|
95887866|NCT02801942|191729151|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.21|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.21|-0.40|
95887867|NCT02801942|191729152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||||95.0|-0.23|0.75|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.75|-0.23|
95887868|NCT02801942|191729152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.943|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|6.29|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.29|-10.20|
95887869|NCT02801942|191729152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.621|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|9.69|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells(Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.69|-5.38|
95887870|NCT02801942|191729152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.629|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.47|8.86|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.86|-10.47|
95887871|NCT02801942|191729152|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.34|||||The mean difference in Stem cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.34|-0.77|
95887872|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.556|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|0.25|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.25|-10.42|
95887873|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.07|-0.15|
95909090|NCT00541450|191776224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.002
95909091|NCT00541450|191776225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.001
95909092|NCT00541450|191776226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||||95.0|-0.37|0.05|||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||0.05|-0.37|
95909093|NCT00541450|191776228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANCOVA|For Least Squares Mean, the ANCOVA model included a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.030
95909094|NCT02048072|191776230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95909095|NCT00902694|191776256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-2.6|
95909096|NCT00902694|191776256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.2||||||18 month intervention versus control||-1.2|-5.1|
95909097|NCT00902694|191776258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.4||||||6 month intervention versus control||-0.4|-3.6|
95909098|NCT00902694|191776258|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.3||||||18 month intervention versus control||0.3|-4.1|
95909099|NCT00902694|191776259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.4||||||6 month systolic intervention versus control||2.4|-3.2|
95909100|NCT00902694|191776259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1||||||6 month diastolic intervention versus control||2.1|-1.6|
95909101|NCT00902694|191776259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.8||||||18 month systolic intervention versus control||4.8|-1.6|
95909102|NCT00902694|191776259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.4||||||18 month diastolic intervention versus control||3.4|-0.9|
95887874|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.88|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.88|-3.08|
95887875|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.294|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.05|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||11.05|-6.87|
95887876|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|5.0|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||5.00|-4.94|
95887877|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|2.32|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.32|-2.31|
95887878|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.55|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.55|-2.73|
95887879|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.64|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||4.64|-1.51|
95887880|NCT02801942|191729153|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.05|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-1.05|
95887881|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.607|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|9.07|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||9.07|-5.99|
95972256|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.4|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||0.40|-2.82|0.140
95972257|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.56|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Honeycombing (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.56|-2.53|0.211
95972258|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|3.91|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||3.91|-2.16|0.568
95972259|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|2.09|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Normal Lung (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.09|-3.76|0.573
95887882|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.18|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.18|-2.43|
95887883|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.391|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.31|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.31|-2.49|
95972260|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|-0.81|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||-0.81|-6.35|0.012
95972261|NCT03538301|191918050|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|0.51|||random coefficient model|||Change from Baseline to Week 24 in Emphysema (% of whole lung field volume) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||0.51|-4.82|0.112
95887884|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.824|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.39|-9.39|
95887885|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.78|-1.29|
95887886|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.54|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.54|-0.73|
95887887|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|3.07|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.07|-2.12|
95887888|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|8.55|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||8.55|-2.45|
95887889|NCT02801942|191729154|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||0.96|-0.92|
95887890|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|1.05|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.05|-10.71|
95887891|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|1.16|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.16|-2.82|
95887892|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||||95.0|-6.08|0.33|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.33|-6.08|
95887893|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.81|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.81|-0.20|
95887894|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.39|-2.99|
95887895|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|7.36|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.36|-0.59|
95887896|NCT02801942|191729155|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.413|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.78|-4.11|
95887897|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.63|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-5.60|
95887898|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.842|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.26|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||-0.26|-7.93|
95887899|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|1.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.24|-4.34|
95887900|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|2.77|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.77|-4.51|
95887901|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|4.09|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.09|-5.02|
95887902|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|7.68|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.68|-6.52|
95887903|NCT02801942|191729156|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.811|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.4|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.40|-2.21|
95887904|NCT02801942|191729157|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.65|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.65|-0.86|
95887905|NCT02801942|191729158|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||1.70|-2.18|
95887906|NCT02801942|191729159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.443|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.87|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.87|0.02|
95887907|NCT02801942|191729159|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.38|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.38|-2.04|
95887908|NCT02801942|191729160|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|6.27|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.27|-11.81|
95887909|NCT02801942|191729160|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|4.44|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.44|-0.04|
95887910|NCT02801942|191729161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|3.32|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.32|-5.91|
95887911|NCT02801942|191729161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.28|
95887912|NCT02801942|191729161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|10.51|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||10.51|-2.08|
95909103|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.1||||||6 month total chol intervention versus control||4.1|-9.9|
95887913|NCT02801942|191729161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|1.08|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.08|-3.03|
95887914|NCT02801942|191729161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.07|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.07|-12.80|
95887915|NCT02801942|191729161|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.733|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|18.47|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||18.47|-1.27|
95887916|NCT02801942|191729162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||||95.0|-3.78|16.85|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||16.85|-3.78|
95887917|NCT02801942|191729162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|1.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.10|-18.17|
95887918|NCT02801942|191729162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.519|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|7.45|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.45|-3.23|
95887919|NCT02801942|191729162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|7.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||7.59|-0.98|
95887920|NCT02801942|191729162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.026|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|8.67|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||8.67|-8.23|
95887921|NCT02801942|191729162|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|17.95|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||17.95|-1.32|
95887922|NCT02801942|191729163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|-0.94|
95887923|NCT02801942|191729163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.28|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.28|0.00|
95887924|NCT02801942|191729163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.11|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.11|-0.33|
95887925|NCT02801942|191729163|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.47|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.47|-0.78|
95887926|NCT02801942|191729164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.86|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.86|-0.30|
95887927|NCT02801942|191729164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.716|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.45|7.35|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.35|-12.45|
95887928|NCT02801942|191729164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|2.14|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||2.14|-1.86|
95887929|NCT02801942|191729164|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.58|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||4.58|0.90|
95887930|NCT02801942|191729165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.344|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|3.38|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||3.38|-2.23|
95887931|NCT02801942|191729165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.57|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||1.57|0.10|
95887932|NCT02801942|191729165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.07|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||2.07|-0.41|
95887933|NCT02801942|191729165|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in blood has been presented.|||0.92|-1.54|
95887934|NCT02801942|191729166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.728|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|6.63|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||6.63|-0.62|
95887935|NCT02801942|191729166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|7.21|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||7.21|-11.33|
95887936|NCT02801942|191729166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.042|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|17.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||17.13|-14.56|
95909104|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.4||||||18 month total chol intervention versus control||4.4|-14.9|
95909105|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|5.1||||||6 month LDL chol intervention versus control||5.1|-7.5|
95909106|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||||||18 month LDL chol intervention versus control||3.9|-13.1|
95909107|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7||||||6 month HDL chol intervention versus control||1.7|-2.9|
95909108|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||||||18 month HDL intervention versus control||3.1|-1.8|
95909109|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.4||||||6 month TRIG intervention versus control||12.4|-23.5|
95887937|NCT02801942|191729166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.843|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.92|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) in iLN has been presented.|||3.92|0.36|
95887938|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|8.83|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.83|-4.24|
95887939|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.334|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|9.39|||||The mean difference in Circulating B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.39|-0.47|
95887940|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.693|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|28.32|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||28.32|-5.24|
95887941|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|19.01|||||The mean difference in Classical B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||19.01|-7.73|
95887942|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|5.71|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.71|-8.46|
95887943|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.755|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|1.98|||||The mean difference in Double Negative B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.98|-5.54|
95887944|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.58|4.98|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.98|-21.58|
95887945|NCT02801942|191729167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.49|4.87|||||The mean difference in Naive B Lymphocytes by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.87|-21.49|
95887946|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.538|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|10.48|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.48|-0.54|
95972262|NCT03538301|191918051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.256
95972263|NCT03538301|191918051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
95972264|NCT03538301|191918052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|2.225|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||2.225|0.189|0.517
95972265|NCT03538301|191918052|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.678||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|2.324|||Log Rank|||Time to First IPF Exacerbation or Death (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||2.324|0.198|0.506
95972266|NCT03538301|191918052|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-9.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|5.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||5.5|-25.2|0.313
95887947|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|4.61|||||The mean difference in B-cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.61|-8.37|
95887948|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.54|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.54|-0.26|
95887949|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.27|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.27|-0.37|
95887950|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.49|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.49|-1.27|
95887951|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.312|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.07|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.07|-0.33|
95887952|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) FNA method has been presented.|||0.13|-0.16|
95887953|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.12|-0.17|
95887954|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.47|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.47|-0.03|
95887955|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.4|||||The mean difference in Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.40|-0.59|
95887956|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.6|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.60|-1.72|
95887957|NCT02801942|191729168|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||||The mean difference in NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.82|-0.99|
95887958|NCT02801942|191729169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|30.15|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||30.15|-2.72|
95972267|NCT03538301|191918052|SUPERIORITY|The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|9.2|||Chi-squared|||Rate of First IPF Exacerbation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||9.2|-22.6|0.376
95887959|NCT02801942|191729169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.566|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|16.78|||||The mean difference in CD56bright NK cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.78|-16.85|
95887960|NCT02801942|191729169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.586|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.98|-1.08|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||-1.08|-38.98|
95887961|NCT02801942|191729169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.739|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|32.65|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16+ by (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) core biopsy method has been presented.|||32.65|-24.14|
95909110|NCT00902694|191776260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|23.9||||||18 month TRIG intervention versus control||23.9|-27.0|
95909111|NCT05540522|191776295|OTHER||RVE|34.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|53.9||||||||53.9|7.4|
95909112|NCT05540522|191776296|OTHER||RVE|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|23.8||||||||23.8|-47.2|
95909113|NCT05540522|191776317|OTHER||GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.38||||||A/H3N2||1.38|1.10|
95909114|NCT05540522|191776317|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39||||||A/H1N1||1.39|1.10|
95909115|NCT05540522|191776317|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8||||||B/Yamagata||0.80|0.67|
95909116|NCT05540522|191776317|OTHER||GMR|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.35||||||B/Victoria||0.35|0.26|
95909117|NCT05540522|191776318|OTHER||GMR|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.84||||||A/H3N2||1.84|1.47|
95909118|NCT05540522|191776318|OTHER||GMR|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.92||||||A/H1N1||1.92|1.51|
95972268|NCT03538301|191918053|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||9.6|-19.2|0.713
95887962|NCT02801942|191729169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|5.26|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.26|-5.54|
95887963|NCT02801942|191729169|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|6.73|||||The mean difference in CD56lo CD16- (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.73|-12.31|
95887964|NCT02801942|191729170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.673|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|25.08|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||25.08|-8.58|
95887965|NCT02801942|191729170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.189|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|29.26|||||The mean difference in Myeloid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||29.26|3.17|
95887966|NCT02801942|191729170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.03|15.25|||||The mean difference in Plasmacytoid Dendritic cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||15.25|-31.03|
95887967|NCT02801942|191729170|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.04|-1.66|||||The mean difference in (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-1.66|-26.04|
95887968|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.561|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.05|5.82|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.82|-9.05|
95887969|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.418|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|11.16|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||11.16|-3.13|
95972269|NCT03538301|191918053|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.7|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Hospitalization for Respiratory Ailments (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||10.7|-19.2|0.713
95972270|NCT03538301|191918054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.937|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.937
95972271|NCT03538301|191918054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Log Rank|||Overall Survival (weeks) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||||0.414
95887970|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.428|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|2.82|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.82|-3.14|
95887971|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.851|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.71|||||The mean difference in Central Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.71|-5.03|
95887972|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.65|4.43|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.43|-8.65|
95887973|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.071|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|4.81|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.81|-8.00|
95887974|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.594|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|17.24|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||17.24|-10.21|
95887975|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.155|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|12.74|||||The mean difference in Naive CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||12.74|-17.10|
95887976|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.58|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.58|-2.42|
95887977|NCT02801942|191729172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.35|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.35|-1.19|
95887978|NCT02801942|191729174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.545|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|0.78|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.78|-11.56|
95887979|NCT02801942|191729174|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.22|8.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy FNA method has been presented.|||8.16|-22.22|
95887980|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.14|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.14|-0.36|
95887981|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||||The mean difference in CD45RA+ Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.52|-0.25|
95887982|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|8.64|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.64|-9.02|
95887983|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.223|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.57|5.13|||||The mean difference in Central Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.13|-12.57|
95887984|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|10.66|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||10.66|-6.16|
95887985|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|10.39|||||The mean difference in Effector Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.39|-6.27|
95887986|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.09|9.92|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.92|-14.09|
95887987|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|10.87|||||The mean difference in Naive Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.87|-9.91|
95887988|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.65|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.65|-0.67|
95887989|NCT02801942|191729175|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.325|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.26|||||The mean difference in Stem Cell Memory-like Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.26|-1.10|
95887990|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.671|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.81|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||16.81|-2.80|
95887991|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.828|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|6.17|||||The mean difference in TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.17|-14.02|
95887992|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.651|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.16|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.16|-2.69|
95887993|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|3.24|||||The mean difference in PD-1+ ICOS+ TFH cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.24|-3.21|
95887994|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|4.33|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.33|-2.78|
95887995|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.85|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.85|-2.75|
95887996|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.56|6.63|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.63|-8.56|
95887997|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.708|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-0.38|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||-0.38|-11.69|
95887998|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.78|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.78|-1.98|
95887999|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.787|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|2.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.24|-1.07|
95888000|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.72|-0.85|
95888001|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.56|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.56|-0.80|
95909119|NCT05540522|191776318|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14||||||B/Yamagata||1.14|0.95|
95909120|NCT05540522|191776318|OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69||||||B/Victoria||0.69|0.54|
95909121|NCT05540522|191776319|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|16.4||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||16.4|6.4|
95909122|NCT05540522|191776319|OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.6||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||18.6|8.6|
95888002|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.546|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|3.76|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.76|-2.71|
95853161|NCT00395746|191665462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-150.22|||<|0.0001||95.0|-186.32|-114.12||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-114.12|-186.32|<0.0001
95853162|NCT00395746|191665462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-111.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-147.61|-74.68||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-74.68|-147.61|<0.0001
95888003|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|3.79|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|-2.95|
95888004|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.356|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|9.14|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.14|-4.84|
95888005|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|9.15|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||9.15|-1.25|
95888006|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.38|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.38|-1.28|
95888007|NCT02801942|191729176|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.91|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.91|-0.93|
95888008|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.0|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.00|-7.40|
95888009|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.694|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.35|||||The mean difference in TFH cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.35|-4.90|
95888010|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.377|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|0.08|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||0.08|-9.89|
95888011|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|0.24|||||The mean difference in TH1 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||0.24|-6.82|
95888012|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.1|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.10|-2.67|
95888013|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|1.59|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH17 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.59|-7.20|
95972272|NCT03538301|191918054|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.9|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||10.9|-10.4|>0.999
95972273|NCT03538301|191918054|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.8|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Mortality (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||6.8|-13.1|>0.999
95972274|NCT03538301|191918055|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|4.6|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 45 mg cohort versus placebo||4.6|-16.6|0.494
95972275|NCT03538301|191918055|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||The 95% Confidence Interval for difference in proportions are based on the Chan-Zhang method.|Rate of Deterioration of IPF Resulting in Lung Transplantation (%) in the 90 mg cohort versus placebo||4.5|-16.2|0.494
95972276|NCT00943111|191918057|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size for study was based on expected stability rates of 95% for the Imiglucerase group and 85% for the Eliglustat group, power of 85%, a one-sided significance level of 0.025, a non-inferiority margin of 25%, and a 20% non-evaluable/drop-out rate. Eliglustat was declared non-inferior to Imiglucerase if the lower-bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was within the non-inferiority margin of 25%.|Difference in Percentage Stable|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.2||||||||4.2|-17.6|
95972277|NCT05172050|191918099|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.781||Upper limit is not estimable (NE) due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||1.781|0.0109
95972278|NCT05172050|191918099|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.414||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858||The upper limit is not estimable (NE), due to the low number of events||Regression, Logistic||||||0.858|0.0673
95853163|NCT00395746|191665463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-127.57||||||95.0|-166.91|-88.24|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-88.24|-166.91|
95853164|NCT00395746|191665463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-68.68||||||95.0|-108.91|-28.45|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-28.45|-108.91|
95853165|NCT00395746|191665464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-44.45|||<|0.0001||95.0|-55.02|-33.89||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-33.89|-55.02|<0.0001
95888014|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.117|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|3.11|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.11|-5.98|
95853166|NCT00395746|191665464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.06|-23.54||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-23.54|-45.06|<0.0001
95853167|NCT00395746|191665465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-34.49||||||95.0|-46.77|-22.22|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-22.22|-46.77|
95853168|NCT00395746|191665465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-46.34||||||95.0|-58.49|-34.18|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-34.18|-58.49|
95853169|NCT00395746|191665466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-11.37||||0.0433||95.0|-22.4|-0.34||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||-0.34|-22.40|0.0433
95853170|NCT00395746|191665466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|6.67||||0.2359||95.0|-4.39|17.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||17.73|-4.39|0.2359
95853171|NCT00395746|191665467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-13.3||||||95.0|-24.69|-1.9|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||-1.90|-24.69|
95853172|NCT00395746|191665467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-7.11||||||95.0|-18.42|4.21|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||4.21|-18.42|
95853173|NCT00395746|191665468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.75||||0.0071||95.0|0.21|1.3||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.30|0.21|0.0071
95853174|NCT00395746|191665468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73||To perform the pairwise comparisons simultaneously, a closed testing procedure was applied. When the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected, the 2 hypotheses of pairwise comparison were tested simultaneously both at significance level of 5%.|ANOVA|||"ANOVA model included treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate. Two null hypotheses were statistically tested, when the hypothesis μ0.9 = μ0.6 = μSU was rejected at a significance level of 5%:~H10: μ0.9 = μSU, H11: μ0.9 ≠ μSU H20: μ0.6 = μSU, H21: μ0.6 ≠ μSU where μ0.6, μ0.9 and μSU are population mean after 24-week treatment for 0.6 mg+SU, 0.9 mg+SU and SU mono, respectively."||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
95853175|NCT00395746|191665469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.04||||||95.0|0.42|1.66|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed.||1.66|0.42|
95853176|NCT00395746|191665469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.13||||||95.0|0.51|1.75|||ANOVA|||95% confidence interval for the mean difference (each liraglutide - SU monotherapy) was calculated under an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment group and pre-trial SU as fixed effects and corresponding baseline value as a covariate, and no statistical testing was performed||1.75|0.51|
95909123|NCT05540522|191776319|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-11.2||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.2|-19.5|
95909124|NCT05540522|191776319|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-40.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-36.1||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-36.1|-44.7|
95909125|NCT05540522|191776320|OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|26.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||26.5|16.7|
95909126|NCT05540522|191776320|OTHER||Difference in percentage|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|30.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||30.4|20.9|
95909127|NCT05540522|191776320|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||0.6|-4.8|
95909128|NCT05540522|191776320|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-18.5||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-18.5|-26.7|
95909129|NCT05540522|191776321|OTHER||GMR|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|2.07||||||A/H3N2||2.07|1.78|
95909130|NCT05540522|191776321|OTHER||GMR|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|1.82||||||A/H1N1||1.82|1.55|
95909131|NCT05540522|191776321|OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.94||||||B/Yamagata||0.94|0.82|
95909132|NCT05540522|191776321|OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.63||||||B/Victoria||0.63|0.53|
95909133|NCT05540522|191776322|OTHER||GMR|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|2.54||||||A/H3N2||2.54|2.23|
95909134|NCT05540522|191776322|OTHER||GMR|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|2.54||||||A/H1N1||2.54|2.22|
95909135|NCT05540522|191776322|OTHER||GMR|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.43||||||B/Yamagata||1.43|1.29|
95909136|NCT05540522|191776322|OTHER||GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.81||||||B/Victoria||0.81|0.71|
95909137|NCT05540522|191776323|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|29.9||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.9|23.7|
95909138|NCT05540522|191776323|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|26.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|29.8||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||29.8|23.9|
95909139|NCT05540522|191776323|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-0.6|-6.6|
95909140|NCT05540522|191776323|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-16.6||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-16.6|-21.9|
95853177|NCT00395746|191665470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.59||||||95.0|0.86|2.96|||Negative binomial regression|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.96|0.86|
95853178|NCT00395746|191665470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.18||||||95.0|0.56|2.47|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.47|0.56|
95853179|NCT00395746|191665470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.8||||||95.0|0.92|3.54|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.54|0.92|
95853180|NCT00395746|191665470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.62||||||95.0|0.85|3.07|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'All hypoglycaemic episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.07|0.85|
95853181|NCT00395746|191665470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.48||||||95.0|0.69|3.17|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Minor episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||3.17|0.69|
95853182|NCT00395746|191665470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.45||||||95.0|0.72|2.91|||Negative binomial regression model|||The relative risk for 'Symptoms only episodes' and 95% confidence interval are based on a generalised linear negative-binomial model, which included treatment group as a fixed effect and log of exposure time as an offset variable.||2.91|0.72|
95853183|NCT03413891|191665530|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.60|=0.72
95853184|NCT03413891|191665532|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.76|||=|0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.37|0.42|=0.36
95853185|NCT03413891|191665533|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.32|||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.89|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.89|0.12|=0.03
95853186|NCT03413891|191665534|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.6|||=|0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.12|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.12|0.32|=0.11
95853187|NCT03413891|191665535|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.42|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.38|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.38|0.13|=0.15
95853188|NCT03413891|191665537|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.57|||=|0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.91|||negative-binomial regression|||||1.91|0.17|=0.37
95853189|NCT03413891|191665538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.26|=0.66
95853190|NCT03413891|191665539|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.4|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.98|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.98|0.16|=0.04
95853191|NCT03413891|191665540|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.37|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.78|||negative-binomial regression|||||0.78|0.18|<0.01
95853192|NCT00795704|191665562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.079
95853193|NCT00795704|191665564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95853194|NCT03905096|191665590|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|92.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.34|100.53|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale considering the effects subjects as random and treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||100.53|85.34|
95853195|NCT03905096|191665591|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.21|104.39|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||104.39|93.21|
95853196|NCT03905096|191665592|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|98.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.74|106.88|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||106.88|90.74|
95853197|NCT03905096|191665593|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.01|112.68|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||112.68|89.01|
95853198|NCT03905096|191665594|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|94.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.36|101.64|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||101.64|88.36|
95909141|NCT05540522|191776324|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|40.5||||||A/H3N2: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||40.5|35.2|
95853199|NCT03905096|191665595|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ratio of the geometric means (T/R) %|100.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.56|105.87|||ANOVA|"The statistical model was ANOVA on the logarithmic scale considering the effect subjects as random and the effect treatment as fixed."|The standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) T=Test, R=Reference|||105.87|94.56|
95853200|NCT02016781|191665599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|Wald test of difference in adjusted OS estimates.||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments. The results posted are from the interim analysis per protocol study design.||||0.0001
95853201|NCT02016781|191665599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3345||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between response to hypomethylating therapy and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy (No Response to Hypomethylation vs. Any Response or Hematologic Improvement to Hypomethylation vs. No Prior Hypomethylation) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3345
95853202|NCT02016781|191665599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7328||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between patient age and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< vs. \>= 65) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.7328
95853203|NCT02016781|191665599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6261||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between disease duration and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.6261
95853204|NCT02016781|191665599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4134||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS score and treatment assignment in regression model.||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4134
95853205|NCT02016781|191665599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3147||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|Overall Wald test of interaction terms between IPSS-R score and treatment assignment in regression model.||Statistical Analysis 6: This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score (Very Low, Low, or Intermediate vs. High vs. Very High) on the treatment effect for OS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.3147
95853206|NCT02016781|191665600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments.||||0.0030
95853207|NCT02016781|191665600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9908||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of response to hypomethylating therapy on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.9908
95853208|NCT02016781|191665600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8981||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of patient age (\< or \>= 65) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.8981
95888015|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.99|||||The mean difference in TH1 TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.99|-4.59|
95909142|NCT05540522|191776324|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|47.4||||||A/H1N1: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||47.4|42.4|
95853209|NCT02016781|191665600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1465||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of disease duration (less than vs. 3 months or more) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.1465
95853210|NCT02016781|191665600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.||||||0.4991|||||||pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS score (Intermediate-2 vs. High) on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4991
95853211|NCT02016781|191665600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4953||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|pseudo-value regression models|||This subgroup analysis investigated the differential impact of IPSS-R score on the treatment effect for LFS at three years post-consent for the HCT arm vs. the non-HCT arm. The analysis was conducted using pseudo-value regression models via an interaction term between the factor and the treatment group with a logit link function.||||0.4953
95853212|NCT02016781|191665601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2777||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the FACT-G scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.2777
95853213|NCT02016781|191665601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.2250
95888016|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.645|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.06|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.06|-6.99|
95972279|NCT05172050|191918099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.186||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.147||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm.|||2.147|0.0061
95972280|NCT05172050|191918099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.936||||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938||The upper limit was not estimable due to the low number of events|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm|||0.938|0.0567
95972281|NCT05172050|191918100|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.663||||0.7121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|9.053|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.053|0.337|0.7121
95972282|NCT05172050|191918100|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|4.977|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.977|0.185|>0.999
95972283|NCT05172050|191918100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.5378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|20.153||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||20.153|0.350|0.5378
95972284|NCT05172050|191918100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.209|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|8.589||Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||This sensitivity analysis is conducted on the per protocol (PP) population: n=18 in the Raloxifene 60 mg arm; n=17 in the Raloxifene 120 mg arm; and n=17 in the Placebo arm||8.589|0.185|>0.999
95972285|NCT05172050|191918101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.114|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|5.708|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 14||5.708|0.219|>0.999
95972286|NCT05172050|191918101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.202||||0.2553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|22.116|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||At day 14||22.116|0.541|0.2553
95972287|NCT05172050|191918101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.6189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|18.532|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||18.532|0.294|0.6189
95972288|NCT05172050|191918101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|413.499|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects.||at Day 28||413.499|0.586|0.1662
95972289|NCT05172050|191918102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|4.906|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||4.906|0.193|>0.999
95972290|NCT05172050|191918102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.156|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.822|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 7||6.822|0.200|>0.999
95972291|NCT05172050|191918102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.066|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|5.478|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||5.478|0.208|>0.999
95972292|NCT05172050|191918102|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.068||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|12.58|||Regression, Logistic|Analysis is based on Exact Binary logistic regression model with treatment group, age group and status as main effects||at Day 28||12.580|0.369|0.5465
95972293|NCT05172050|191918105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R60 vs Placebo||||0.3899
95853214|NCT02016781|191665601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1048||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.1048
95853215|NCT02016781|191665601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0888||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0888
95853216|NCT02016781|191665601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5844||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5844
95972294|NCT05172050|191918105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120 mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 7 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
95853217|NCT02016781|191665601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in FACT-G scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.0344
95853218|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5583||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 PCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5583
95853219|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.669||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.6690
95853220|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2089||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.2089
95972295|NCT05172050|191918105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3899||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R60 vs placebo||||0.3899
95853221|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4343||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.4343
95853222|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5942||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.5942
95853223|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1615||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 PCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.1615
95853224|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5659||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the MOS SF-36 MCS scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.5659
95853225|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8555||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8555
95853226|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8995||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.8995
95853227|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0105||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.0105
95853228|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2596||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.2596
95853229|NCT02016781|191665602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5022||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in MOS SF-36 MCS scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.5022
95853230|NCT02016781|191665603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1768||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the EQ-5D scores are the same at Enrollment for both treatments.||||0.1768
95853231|NCT02016781|191665603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8318||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 6 Months for both treatments.||||0.8318
95853232|NCT02016781|191665603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4752||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 12 Months for both treatments.||||0.4752
95853233|NCT02016781|191665603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5671||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 18 Months for both treatments.||||0.5671
95853234|NCT02016781|191665603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3009||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 24 Months for both treatments.||||0.3009
95853235|NCT02016781|191665603|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3403||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|ANOVA|Changes in scores from enrollment were compared between arms using ANOVA models with treatment arm as main effect and enrollment score as a covariate||The null hypothesis is that the changes in EQ-5D scores from enrollment are the same at 36 Months for both treatments.||||0.3403
95853236|NCT02016781|191665604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year OS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
95888017|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|5.11|||||The mean difference in TH17 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.11|-4.05|
95888018|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.299|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|6.73|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.73|-11.23|
95972296|NCT05172050|191918105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4075|||||||Fisher Exact|P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 14 R120 vs placebo||||0.4075
95972297|NCT05172050|191918105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6846||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 60mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R60 vs placebo||||0.6846
95853237|NCT02016781|191665605|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05.|Wald test|||The null hypothesis is that the rates of three-year LFS are the same for both treatments in treated population.||||< 0.0001
95853238|NCT04886154|191665626|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.38|5.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,6-months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.97|3.38|
95853239|NCT04886154|191665626|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|-0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.65|1.3|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||1.30|-1.65|
95853240|NCT04886154|191665626|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.33|5.89|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,6- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||5.89|3.33|
95853241|NCT04886154|191665626|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of samples with bactericidal serum activity is above 5% between the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the Control group at 1 month after the last vaccination.|Difference in percentage|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.6|3.42|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the superiority of the effectiveness of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) when administered at 0,2- months schedule, compared to the MenB vaccine administered at 0,6-months schedule.||3.42|0.60|
95853242|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|10.17|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.17|-4.21|
95853243|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|4.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|11.64|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||11.64|-2.71|
95854080|NCT02703597|191667634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Adolescents who participated in the GSA-ASPIRE-Network group will be more likely to decrease in susceptibility to using conventional tobacco than adolescents who participated in the ASPIRE group.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||3.49|0.16|0.70
95972298|NCT05172050|191918105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6614||||||P-Value comparing % among treatment groups Raloxifene 120mg versus Placebo using Fisher's Exact test.|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of hospitalized participants who at the beginning of the study were at domicile isolation at Day 7, Day 14 and Day 28 after randomization was analysed using comparison of proportions (i.e. comparisons of each active treatment group versus placebo at each assessment day) through Fisher's exact test and was summarized using frequency and percent by treatment and visit. Herein Day 28 R120 vs placebo||||0.6614
95853244|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.71|12.25|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||12.25|-0.71|
95853245|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.7|10.97|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men A).||10.97|-3.70|
95853246|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|35.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|25.22|44.75|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.75|25.22|
95853247|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|34.16|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.76|44.1|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||44.10|23.76|
95853248|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.26|40.19|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||40.19|19.26|
95853249|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.54|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.09|43.54|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men C).||43.54|23.09|
95853250|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|30.88|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|21.61|40.32|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||40.32|21.61|
95853251|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the MenABCWY-2Gen MenACWY vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.31|39.08|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||39.08|19.31|
95853252|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.42|38.67|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||38.67|19.42|
95888019|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.472|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|10.67|||||The mean difference in TH2 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.67|-3.84|
95853253|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|25.13|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|14.2|35.45|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men W).||35.45|14.20|
95853254|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|33.38|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|23.08|43.26|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||43.26|23.08|
95853255|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY low dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|28.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.61|38.86|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY low dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (low dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.86|16.61|
95853256|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_06 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|29.37|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.67|39.63|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_06 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,6-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||39.63|18.67|
95853257|NCT04886154|191665627|NON_INFERIORITY|NI was to be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% CI for the difference in percentages of participants achieving a 4-fold rise in hSBA titres is above -10% at 1 month after the last MenABCWY-2Gen vaccination in the ABCWY high dose\_02 group compared to the MenACWY vaccination in the Control group.|Difference in percentage|27.21|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.46|38.02|||||The 97.5% CIs for the difference in percentages between ABCWY high dose\_02 group and the control group is constructed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the MenABCWY-2Gen vaccine (high dose) administered at 0,2-months schedule compared to the MenACWY vaccine administered at month 0 in the control group (Men Y).||38.02|15.46|
95854081|NCT02703597|191667634|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Hypothesis: Participants in both arms will decrease in susceptibility of using conventional tobacco over time.~The statistical analysis was conducted for 10 out of the 15 participating sites, to avoid bias with respect to the sites that participated in different conditions (i.e., 1 site in a school classroom during class time and 4 sites in the summer camp during summer time)."||0.40|0.04|<0.01
95854082|NCT03416985|191667645|OTHER|||||||0.1561||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to plaque level after 30 days||||0.1561
95854083|NCT03416985|191667646|OTHER|||||||0.2161||||||p \< 0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||Compare groups with respect to Gingival scores at 30 days||||0.2161
95972299|NCT05172050|191918107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
95972300|NCT05172050|191918107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||p value= not estimable|Log Rank|||||1.00|1.00|
95972301|NCT00409773|191918110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-16.5|-9.8||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-9.8|-16.5|<0.001
95972302|NCT00409773|191918110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-13.6|-6.9||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.9|-13.6|<0.001
95854084|NCT02006472|191667647|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.42||||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-1.39|0.3202
95854085|NCT02006472|191667647|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.46|-1.06|0.2266
95854086|NCT02006472|191667647|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.66||||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.39|-2.07|0.6348
95854087|NCT02006472|191667647|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|2.04||||0.1447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.8|-0.71|0.1447
95854088|NCT02006472|191667649|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.87||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.45|0.29|0.0032
95854089|NCT02006472|191667649|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.11||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.68|-0.46|0.7042
95854090|NCT02006472|191667649|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.19||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.75|-0.37|0.5099
95854091|NCT02006472|191667649|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.24||||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.82|-0.33|0.4061
95853258|NCT04972162|191665687|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.38||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Ease of Communication Subscale (EC)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.38
95853259|NCT04972162|191665687|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.79||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Background Noise Subscale (BN)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.79
95853260|NCT04972162|191665687|OTHER|The rm-ANOVA model fitted for the primary analysis was run to confirm if there is a significant interaction for treatment and order. This confirmation of the absence of an interaction effect is needed to validate the pooling of the two periods of Web-App treatment and the two periods of Standard-of-Care treatment, respectively.||||||0.51||||||p\<0.05 would show that there is an interaction effect i.e. results would differ depending on the order in which the participants wore the hearing aids|ANOVA|||"Check for interaction effect for Reverberant Room Subscale (RV)~The statistical analysis method was a repeated-measures ANOVA in which:~* order is a between-subjects effect - i.e., each subject has just one order~* treatment is a within-subjects effect - i.e., each subjects has both treatments because of the cross-over design~* the interaction term treatment x order is a within-subjects effect. The rm-ANOVAs generates a nuisance p-value: that of the interaction effect."||||0.51
95853261|NCT04972162|191665687|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Ease of Communication Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||5.2|-4.3|<0.0001
95853262|NCT04972162|191665687|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.2||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Background Noise Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||7.2|-5.3|<0.0001
95854092|NCT02006472|191667650|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.16||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.78|0.54|0.0003
95854093|NCT02006472|191667651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95854094|NCT02006472|191667652|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0341||||0.0346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0658|-0.0026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 26||-0.0026|-0.0658|0.0346
95854095|NCT02006472|191667652|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.0444||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0847|-0.0042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 52||-0.0042|-0.0847|0.0305
95888020|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.153|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.0|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.00|-3.30|
95853263|NCT04972162|191665687|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority tests compared the subject´s perceived hearing aid benefit when the hearing aid was standard-of-care fitted compared to Web-App fitted by the subject. The non-inferiority margins are the minimum clinically important differences on each of the 3 communication benefit subscales as described by Cox \& Alexander (Ear and Hearing 1995;16;176-186). These literature values are as follows: Ease of Communication (EC): 26, Background Noise (BN): 27, Reverberant Room (RV): 28|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|6.5||Threshold for statistical significance was p =0.05. p-value was calculated using the estimated difference of benefits, calculating a new t-statistic by subtracting the applicable non-inf. margin from the difference and dividing by standard error.|ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA where factors are order and treatment is device with patient as a random effect. Added interaction term of treatment and order|Difference calculated as benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit)|Results for Reverberant Room Subscale. Null hypothesis: benefit(standard-of-care fit) - benefit(web-app-fit) \< noninferiority margin for all subscales. Each subscale was analyzed using an rm-ANOVA in which the repeated factors are order \& treatment; no between-group factors. Interaction term was order x treatment. ITT population includes 2 subjects who withdrew. It was concluded that their primary endpoint data was missing for cause and their APHAB benefit scores were imputed as 0.||6.5|-4.6|<0.0001
95853264|NCT00781768|191665688|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that there will be a higher proportion of complete responders among those subjects receiving the combination therapy.||||<.001
95853265|NCT04944992|191665689|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|30.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.1|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||38.7|22.1|<0.0001
95853266|NCT04944992|191665690|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|difference in percentage|16.3||||||95.0|3.5|29.1||||||||29.1|3.5|
95853267|NCT04944992|191665691|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in percentage|5.6||||||95.0|0.4|13.5||||||||13.5|0.4|
95853268|NCT04944992|191665692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squared means|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.6|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.7|4.6|<0.001
95853269|NCT04944992|191665693|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squared Means|-1.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-2.7|0.085
95853270|NCT04944992|191665694|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in Least Squared Means|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.2|-3.1||||||||-3.1|-11.2|
95853271|NCT04944992|191665695|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.7||||||90.0|-10.9|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-10.9|
95853272|NCT04944992|191665696|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-11.7||||||90.0|-15.8|-7.7||||||||-7.7|-15.8|
95853273|NCT04944992|191665697|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-6.1||||||90.0|-12.0|-0.1||||||||-0.1|-12.0|
95888021|NCT02801942|191729177|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.72|||||The mean difference in TH22 cells-like Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.72|-2.06|
95853274|NCT04944992|191665698|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.3|-0.9||||||||-0.9|-14.3|
95853275|NCT04944992|191665699|OTHER|Difference (Efinopegdutide - Semaglutide) in %|Difference in least squared means|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.4|-0.4||||||||-0.4|-10.4|
95853276|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.046||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.098|-0.006|0.085
95853277|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.041||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.093|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.093|-0.011|0.123
95853278|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.185|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.237|0.133|<0.001
95853279|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.214|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|0.266||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.266|0.161|<0.001
95853280|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.209|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.261|0.157|<0.001
95853281|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.22||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.220|0.116|<0.001
95853282|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.168|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.219|0.117|<0.001
95853283|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.081|-0.023|0.274
95853284|NCT01054885|191665727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.024||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.075|-0.027|0.357
95853285|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.044||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.095
95853286|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.008||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.060|-0.044|0.756
95853287|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.151|0.048|<0.001
95853288|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.144|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.197||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.197|0.091|<0.001
95888022|NCT02801942|191729178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.304|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|3.19|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||3.19|-2.27|
95972303|NCT00409773|191918110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-11.3|-4.6||Reported p-value is multiplicity-adjusted. Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.6|-11.3|<0.001
95972304|NCT00409773|191918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-9.6|-4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.8|-9.6|<0.001
95972305|NCT00409773|191918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.8|-2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.9|-7.8|<0.001
95972306|NCT00409773|191918111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.0|-6.8|<0.001
95972307|NCT00409773|191918112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.69||95.0|-5.4|3.3|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.3|-5.4|0.690
95853289|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.131|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.183|0.080|<0.001
95853290|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.152||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.152|0.047|<0.001
95853291|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.123|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.174||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.174|0.072|<0.001
95853292|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.045||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.097|-0.008|0.093
95972308|NCT00409773|191918112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.2||95.0|-1.6|7.1|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.1|-1.6|0.200
95972309|NCT00409773|191918112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.48||95.0|-4.7|3.9|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.9|-4.7|0.480
95853293|NCT01054885|191665728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.032||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.083|-0.019|0.224
95972310|NCT00409773|191918113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.013||95.0|0.7|6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.0|0.7|0.013
95972311|NCT00409773|191918113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.378||95.0|-1.5|3.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||3.8|-1.5|0.378
95972312|NCT00409773|191918113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.003||95.0|1.3|6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||6.6|1.3|0.003
95972313|NCT00409773|191918114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-13.3|-7.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-7.3|-13.3|<0.001
95972314|NCT00409773|191918114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-10.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-10.2|<0.001
95972315|NCT00409773|191918114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.9|-3.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.9|-9.9|<0.001
95972316|NCT00409773|191918115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.809||95.0|-5.7|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-5.7|0.809
95972317|NCT00409773|191918115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.217||95.0|-1.9|8.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||8.4|-1.9|0.217
95972318|NCT00409773|191918115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.796||95.0|-5.8|4.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.4|-5.8|0.796
95972319|NCT00409773|191918116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-12.1|-6.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.6|-12.1|<0.001
95972320|NCT00409773|191918116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.1|-2.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.6|-8.1|<0.001
95972321|NCT00409773|191918116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.0|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.0|<0.001
95853294|NCT03027609|191665732|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.54||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|10.8||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.8|-21.9|0.6154
95853295|NCT03027609|191665733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.01||||0.8426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|10.5||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||10.5|-18.5|0.8426
95853296|NCT03027609|191665734|SUPERIORITY|comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|3.6||||0.3562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|20.3||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between the treatment and placebo||20.3|-13.1|0.3562
95853297|NCT03027609|191665735|SUPERIORITY|Comparison between the treatment and placebo|P value CMH|-2.81||||0.8472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|13.2||P-value was obtained with the stratified CMH test adjusted for baseline randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.2|-18.9|0.8472
95853298|NCT03027609|191665736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|60.6||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||60.6|-16.2|0.4616
95853299|NCT03027609|191665736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.3||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|57.8||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 21||57.8|-13.3|0.4053
95853300|NCT03027609|191665737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.1||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|90.9||Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1|Chi-squared|||Data for Day 14||90.9|-14.8|0.0833
95853301|NCT03027609|191665737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.8||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.5|78.1||Data for Day 21|Chi-squared|Marginally statistically significant only if p\<0.1 Day 21||Data for Day 21||78.1|-30.5|0.5151
95853302|NCT03182374|191665738|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||ITT Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95853303|NCT03182374|191665739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95853304|NCT03182374|191665740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6655||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6655
95853305|NCT03182374|191665741|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||PP Population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95853306|NCT03182374|191665742|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||PP population|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95853307|NCT03182374|191665743|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95972322|NCT00409773|191918117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.042||95.0|0.1|4.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.8|0.1|0.042
95972323|NCT00409773|191918117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-0.2|4.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.5|-0.2|<0.001
95972324|NCT00409773|191918117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.0|4.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||4.0|-7.0|<0.001
95972325|NCT00409773|191918118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-6.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.0|-11.6|<0.001
95972326|NCT00409773|191918118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.2|-2.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.5|-8.2|<0.001
95972327|NCT00409773|191918118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-3.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.1|-8.7|<0.001
95972328|NCT00409773|191918119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-17.6|-10.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-10.5|-17.6|<0.001
95972329|NCT00409773|191918119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-13.2|-6.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-6.1|-13.2|<0.001
95972330|NCT00409773|191918119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-12.0|-4.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.9|-12.0|<0.001
95972331|NCT00409773|191918120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-14.0|-8.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.0|-14.0|<0.001
95972332|NCT00409773|191918120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.3|-9.4|<0.001
95972333|NCT00409773|191918120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001||95.0|-8.7|-2.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-2.7|-8.7|<0.001
95972334|NCT00409773|191918121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.0|-8.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-8.1|-15.0|<0.001
95972335|NCT00409773|191918121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-10.4|-3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-3.6|-10.4|<0.001
95972336|NCT00409773|191918121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-11.2|-4.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||-4.3|-11.2|<0.001
95972337|NCT00409773|191918124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.42||95.0|-11.0|5.0|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||5.0|-11.0|0.420
95972338|NCT00409773|191918124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.555||95.0|-9.5|7.2|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||7.2|-9.5|0.555
95972339|NCT00409773|191918124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.41||95.0|-5.1|9.6|||Non-parametric ANOVA|ANOVA using normal scores (Tukey method) based on ranks with terms for treatment and baseline risk stratum||||9.6|-5.1|0.410
95972340|NCT01919814|191918133|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Threshold P-Value was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95972341|NCT02164383|191918136|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||ANOVA results: F(1,28)=.04, p=.85, partial eta-squared (as a measure of effect size) = .001|||||.85
95853308|NCT02399163|191665750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.061|22.454||From ANOVA: participant (random), treatment (fixed), period (fixed)|ANCOVA||Difference is Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse minus Placebo dentifrice/No rinse such that a positive difference implies a larger response value for the Placebo dentifrice/Fluoride rinse.|||22.454|11.061|<0.0001
95853309|NCT00834977|191665771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|101.08||||||90.0|97.23|105.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.09|97.23|
95853310|NCT00834977|191665772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.38||||||90.0|96.63|102.22|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||102.22|96.63|
95853311|NCT00834977|191665773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.48||||||90.0|95.8|101.23|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.23|95.80|
95853312|NCT00834977|191665774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|98.72||||||90.0|86.95|112.09|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||112.09|86.95|
95853313|NCT00834977|191665775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|95.69||||||90.0|90.54|101.14|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||101.14|90.54|
95853314|NCT00834977|191665776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Slope|99.43||||||90.0|96.48|102.46|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.46|96.48|
95853315|NCT00834977|191665777|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|97.2||||||90.0|92.82|101.78|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.78|92.82|
95853316|NCT00834977|191665778|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|96.99||||||90.0|92.52|101.68|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||101.68|92.52|
95853317|NCT00834977|191665779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)on AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax; geometric Confidence Intervals for AUC0-t, AUC0-inf and Cmax|Ratio of Least Squares Means|99.24||||||90.0|96.21|102.35|||||Metabolite presented for informational purposes only.|||102.35|96.21|
95888023|NCT02801942|191729178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.36|||||The mean difference in Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||1.36|-3.24|
95972342|NCT02831387|191918175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.696|9.936|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in the Subject Reported Dry Eye Questionnaire||9.936|-13.696|0.749
95972343|NCT02831387|191918176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.6||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Frequency Scores||5.3|-18.4|0.267
95972344|NCT02831387|191918177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 29 in Severity Scores||15.4|-7.6|0.495
95972345|NCT02831387|191918178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Fluorescein Staining of the Cornea||1.9|-0.6|0.316
95972346|NCT02831387|191918179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline to Day 29 in Lissamine Green Staining of the Conjunctiva||1.5|-1.9|0.823
95972347|NCT02831387|191918180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.515|7.184||||||Statistical Analysis 1 for the Number of participants with at least 20% improvement in symptoms from baseline to Day 29||7.184|0.515|
95972348|NCT02831387|191918181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.666||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.759|11.092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Change From Baseline (Visit 2) to Day 15 (Visit 3) in the Subject-reported Dry Eye Symptom Score||11.092|-7.759|0.723
95972349|NCT01828073|191918184|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|31.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|16.0|51.5|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, adverse birth outcome, death)||51.50|16.00|
95972350|NCT01828073|191918184|OTHER||Clopper-Pearson Confidence Interval (CI)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.1|70.9|||||With the small sample size, the CI estimate tend to be wide.|Point and 90% CI estimates of percentage of full term infants meeting the composite safety endpoint (grade 3/4 adverse event, death)||70.90|29.10|
95972351|NCT01828073|191918188|OTHER|||||||0.747||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in full term infants.||||0.747
95972352|NCT01828073|191918188|OTHER|||||||0.341||||||The study was not powered to do the comparison. This was an exploratory analysis.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To investigate the relationship between neonatal RAL elimination and UGT1A1 genotype in LBW infants.||||0.341
95972353|NCT02502097|191918195|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||5.1|-10.1|0.5096
95972354|NCT02502097|191918195|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.8983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||11.8|-13.4|0.8983
95853318|NCT04196777|191665811|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 3. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.089||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.445|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 3, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||0.445|0.016|0.004
95853319|NCT04196777|191665811|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 1. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.593||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.585|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 1, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||3.585|0.710|0.259
95853320|NCT04196777|191665811|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression analysis that measured the effect of the intervention at site 2. The below results show the interaction term between time and the intervention from this model. Time was measured in days divided by 365, giving an annualized figure for the time coefficient estimate and interaction coefficient.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.135|4.147|||Regression, Logistic|||To model the primary outcome for site 2, we used a logistic regression model and a set of three explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, and an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention).||4.147|0.135|0.738
95853321|NCT04196777|191665812|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 3 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|1280.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 3 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.001
95853322|NCT04196777|191665812|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 1 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|28662.0||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 1 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.Type of statistical test||||0.013
95853323|NCT04196777|191665812|OTHER|The Wilcoxon rank-sum test assessed whether the post-procedural antimicrobial duration significantly differed at site 2 between the baseline and intervention periods.|Rank sum test statistic|784.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The median duration of post-procedural antimicrobial prescriptions at site 2 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.14
95888024|NCT02801942|191729179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.069|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.91|9.58|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.58|-11.91|
95972355|NCT02502097|191918199|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||7.2|-14.6|0.5005
95972356|NCT02502097|191918199|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.1|-19.8|0.8382
95853324|NCT04196777|191665813|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome. This last variable was included to assess the risk of these secondary outcomes in patients who were not exposed to post-procedural antimicrobials compared to those who were exposed.||0.99|0.58|0.04
95853325|NCT04196777|191665814|OTHER|We performed a logistic regression model that included patients across all 3 sites.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||To model this secondary outcome across all sites, we used a logistic regression model and a set of four explanatory variables: time, a binary indicator for an observation occurring within the intervention phase, an interaction term between these two main effects (time and intervention), and a binary indicator for the primary outcome.||0.87|0.53|<0.01
95853326|NCT05172128|191665839|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided||||Paired t-test comparing baseline value to endpoint value revealed a p-value of 0.80.|||>0.05
95853327|NCT05172128|191665840|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95853328|NCT05172128|191665841|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95853329|NCT05172128|191665842|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95853330|NCT05172128|191665845|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95853331|NCT00989911|191665846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95853332|NCT00837434|191665847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses week 12 CD27+ switched memory as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline CD27+ switched memory||Null Hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 does not differ between individuals treated with etanercept and those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells. Alt. hypothesis: Mean percentage of CD27+ switched memory cells in the peripheral blood at Week 12 in individuals treated with etanercept is lower than in those treated with adalimumab after adjusting for baseline CD27+ switched memory cells.||||0.3
95853333|NCT03402217|191665878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Pre and post-score paired comparison.||||.383
95972357|NCT02502097|191918200|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||9.2|-11.9|0.8008
95853334|NCT03402217|191665879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Information pre-post paired comparison||||.001
95972358|NCT02502097|191918200|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|18.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||18.0|-17.6|0.9805
95853335|NCT03402217|191665879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Motivation pre- and post-paired comparison.||||.07
95853336|NCT03402217|191665879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Behavior pre and post paired comparison||||.230
95853337|NCT02992288|191665892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2297||||||Linear dose-response shape: The multiple comparison procedures (MCP) approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2297
95853338|NCT02992288|191665892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4409||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4409
95853339|NCT02992288|191665892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2842||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2842
95853340|NCT02992288|191665892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2534||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.2534
95853341|NCT02992288|191665892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3842||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.3842
95853342|NCT02992288|191665893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8966||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8966
95853343|NCT02992288|191665893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9233||||||Sigmoidal Emax 1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9233
95853344|NCT02992288|191665893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9296||||||Sigmoidal Emax 2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9296
95853345|NCT02992288|191665893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7357||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7357
95853346|NCT02992288|191665893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9083||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9083
95853347|NCT02992288|191665894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4596||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.4596
95888025|NCT02801942|191729179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|7.1|||||The mean difference in CD69+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.10|-15.85|
95888026|NCT02801942|191729179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|4.59|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.59|-1.62|
95972359|NCT02502097|191918203|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||2.4|-7.1|0.3279
95972360|NCT02502097|191918203|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|12.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||12.3|-9.2|0.7772
95972361|NCT02502097|191918204|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.3493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||3.6|-10.1|0.3493
95972362|NCT02502097|191918204|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||16.3|-14.3|0.8952
95972363|NCT02502097|191918205|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.6597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 7|||5.2|-8.1|0.6597
95972364|NCT02502097|191918205|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS means difference Day 14|||17.2|-13.1|0.7880
95972365|NCT02502097|191918209|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-6.3|0.1856
95972366|NCT02502097|191918209|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7||||0.5658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||12.1|-6.6|0.5658
95972367|NCT02502097|191918210|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.1|-17.2|0.0847
95972368|NCT02502097|191918210|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||5.4|-17.0|0.3083
95972369|NCT02502097|191918211|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||1.3|-5.3|0.2290
95972370|NCT02502097|191918211|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||3.4|-3.5|0.9794
95972371|NCT02502097|191918212|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 1|||-0.4|-1.5|0.0009
95888027|NCT02801942|191729179|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.88|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ CD8 cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||5.88|-0.05|
95888028|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.31|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||11.31|-1.60|
95972372|NCT02502097|191918212|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Week 2|||-0.3|-1.7|0.0050
95853348|NCT02992288|191665894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7859||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7859
95853349|NCT02992288|191665894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5562||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5562
95972373|NCT02502097|191918213|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||2.5|-8.2|0.2938
95972374|NCT02502097|191918213|SUPERIORITY|MMRM model uses the change from baseline as the dependent variable and includes the period, treatment group (Gefapixant 50 mg, Placebo), visit (Day 7 and Day 14 at each Period), all interactions terms as fixed factors, and baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||1.2|-9.2|0.1319
95853350|NCT02992288|191665894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5338||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5338
95853351|NCT02992288|191665894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7303||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.7303
95853352|NCT02992288|191665895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5703||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.5703
95853353|NCT02992288|191665895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8253||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8253
95853354|NCT02992288|191665895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6506||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6506
95853355|NCT02992288|191665895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6923||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.6923
95853356|NCT02992288|191665895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8036||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.8036
95853357|NCT02992288|191665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9955||||||Linear dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9955
95853358|NCT02992288|191665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9946||||||Sigmoidal Emax1 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9946
95853359|NCT02992288|191665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Sigmoidal Emax2 dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9913
95853360|NCT02992288|191665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982||||||Emax dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9982
95853361|NCT02992288|191665896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959||||||Quadratic dose-response shape: The MCP approach was applied to calculate the adjusted one-sided p-values of the contrast test.|MCP-Mod method|Dose response relationship was assessed using the MCP-Mod method combining MCP principles with modeling techniques under model uncertainty.||||||0.9959
95853362|NCT00656513|191665905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||An effect size of 0.50 was chosen for sample size calculation. On the basis of a 2-sided t test with alpha= 0.05 and 1 interim analysis, 130 patients were required for 80% statistical power. Adjustment by 10% for loss to follow-up and retrospective ineligibility of recruited study participants yielded a sample size of 144 patients. Actual power given only 96 patients was 68.6%||||0.45
95853363|NCT00656513|191665907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Two-sided test of values at 4 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95853364|NCT00656513|191665907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided test of values at 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95853365|NCT00656513|191665907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-sided test of values at 15 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95853366|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||4-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95853367|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||4 months Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95853368|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||4 months Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95853369|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||4-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95853370|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||6-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95853371|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||6-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95853372|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||6-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95853373|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95888029|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|22.57|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||22.57|-6.15|
95853374|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||9-month Physical Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95853375|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||9-month Pain/Discomfort score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95853376|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||9-month Personal/Psychological Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95853377|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||9-month Social Functioning score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95853378|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||15-month Physical Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95853379|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||15-month Pain/Discomfort; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95853380|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||15-month Personal/Psychological Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95853381|NCT00656513|191665908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||15-month Social Functioning; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95853382|NCT00656513|191665909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||4-month score; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95853383|NCT00656513|191665909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.83
95853384|NCT00656513|191665909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||9-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95853385|NCT00656513|191665909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||15-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95853386|NCT00656513|191665910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||4-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95853387|NCT00656513|191665910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.99
95853388|NCT00656513|191665910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95853389|NCT00656513|191665910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||6-months; two-sided test, significance level 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.58
95853390|NCT00656513|191665911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided test, significance level 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95853391|NCT03137381|191665914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.177
95853392|NCT03137381|191665914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95853393|NCT03137381|191665914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95853394|NCT03199976|191665919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95853395|NCT03199976|191665920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.595
95853396|NCT03199976|191665921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Bonferroni correction was applied in pairwise analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95853397|NCT03199976|191665922|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95909143|NCT05540522|191776324|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|12.8||||||B/Yamagata: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||12.8|8.5|
95853398|NCT03367793|191665923|OTHER||f statistic|1.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.341
95853399|NCT03367793|191665923|OTHER||least square means|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.36|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.36|0.26|
95853400|NCT03367793|191665923|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.38|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.38|0.27|
95853401|NCT03367793|191665923|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.39|0.28|
95853402|NCT03367793|191665924|OTHER||f statistic|0.93||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.410
95853403|NCT03367793|191665924|OTHER||least square means|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for PFST.|||0.41|0.28|
95853404|NCT03367793|191665924|OTHER||least square means|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.39|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for VSX.|||0.39|0.26|
95853405|NCT03367793|191665924|OTHER||least square means|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Additional model based estimates for initial visit estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) for Clinical Refraction.|||0.41|0.28|
95853406|NCT03367793|191665925|OTHER||f statistic|1.09||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was alpha=0.05.|f test|||It was calculated that 29 participants randomized in a 3x3 within-subject crossover design (repeated measures) achieves at least 89% power to detect an effect size of 0.25. Sample size was determined by a 2-sided f-test (alpha = 0.05) of the overall treatment effect based on a statistical simulation, simulating the repeated measures design. Assumptions included ICC of 0.3.||||0.351
95853407|NCT03367793|191665925|OTHER||least square means|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|12.7|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for PFST.|||12.7|9.3|
95853408|NCT03367793|191665925|OTHER||least square means|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|12.6|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for VSX.|||12.6|9.2|
95853409|NCT03367793|191665925|OTHER||least square means|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|12.9|||||Additional model based estimates for two-month wear time estimated least square means in spectacle wear-time (Hours) for Clinical Refraction.|||12.9|9.5|
95853410|NCT03367793|191665926|OTHER||f statistic|0.58||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||0.562
95853411|NCT03367793|191665926|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for PFST.|||||
95888030|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.812|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.48|1.11|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||1.11|-23.48|
95972375|NCT02502097|191918214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 7|||0.4|-1.5|0.2175
95972376|NCT02502097|191918214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference Day 14|||0.7|-1.4|0.5312
95972377|NCT04234425|191918232|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.702|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.36||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
95972378|NCT04234425|191918233|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.08
95972379|NCT04234425|191918234|OTHER|paired t test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.33||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
95972380|NCT00118755|191918235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.67|0.3883
95972381|NCT00118755|191918236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2458
95853412|NCT03367793|191665926|OTHER||proportion|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for VSX.|||||
95853413|NCT03367793|191665926|OTHER||proportion|0.897|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 1 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
95853414|NCT03367793|191665927|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
95853415|NCT03367793|191665927|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for PFST.|||||
95853416|NCT03367793|191665927|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for VSX.|||||
95853417|NCT03367793|191665927|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 2 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
95888031|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.855|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.14|2.37|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.37|-14.14|
95853418|NCT03367793|191665928|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was calculated that a sample size of n=28 yields 82% power to detect a difference of 0.4 in proportion of satisfaction (binary outcome of scores of '4' or '5' versus '1 to 3') in comparing two metrics using a two sided McNemar's test (alpha = 0.025 to account for pairwise testing).||||>0.99
95853419|NCT03367793|191665928|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for PFST.|||||
95853420|NCT03367793|191665928|OTHER||proportion|0.967|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for VSX.|||||
95853421|NCT03367793|191665928|OTHER||proportion|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Additional estimates of proportion of 2-month satisfactory responses (binary) for Spectacle Assessment Survey Item 3 for Clinical Refraction.|||||
95853422|NCT03873116|191665931|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-24.6||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|14.0|||negative binomial regression model|||||14.0|-50.1|0.181
95853423|NCT03873116|191665931|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|-49.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.5|-20.4|||negative binomial regression model|||||-20.4|-67.5|0.003
95853424|NCT03873116|191665934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|0.018||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.179|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.179|-0.143|0.814
95853425|NCT03873116|191665934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.122||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.036|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms.||0.036|-0.280|0.120
95853426|NCT03873116|191665935|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|24.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|50.3|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||50.3|-14.7|0.188
95853427|NCT03873116|191665935|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|47.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|66.6|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed angioedema events during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. Therefore, P-values reported are nominal.||66.6|17.7|0.005
95853428|NCT03873116|191665936|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-12.65||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|8.03|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||8.03|-33.33|0.213
95853429|NCT03873116|191665936|SUPERIORITY||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|-19.0||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|0.99|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of change from baseline in AE-QoL total score at Week 24 for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||0.99|-39.00|0.061
95853430|NCT03697252|191665942|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.07|-7.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures||||Statistics are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model includes the treatment group (KarXT or placebo), visit, and the interaction between the treatment group and visit as fixed factors, and baseline PANSS total score, site, age, and gender as covariates. An unstructured covariance matrix is used to model the correlation among repeated measurements and the denominator degrees of freedom are computed using the Kenward-Roger method.|-7.05|-16.07|<0.0001
95853431|NCT03697252|191665944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of KarXT and Placebo at Week 5||||<0.001
95853432|NCT01867671|191665964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|205.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|1758.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1758.51|24.00|<0.0001
95853433|NCT01867671|191665965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.82|||<|0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|252.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||252.33|3.07|<0.0031
95853434|NCT01867671|191665966|OTHER|McNemar's Test|Simple Kappa Coefficient|0.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0628|0.2612|||McNemar|||||0.2612|0.0628|<0.0001
95853435|NCT01867671|191665967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1464.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|944.0|1985.0|||Chi-squared|||||1985|944|<0.0001
95853436|NCT02491684|191665981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.29||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.85|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.85|0.43|0.645
95853437|NCT02491684|191665982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.97||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|9.89|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 7|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||9.89|0.39|0.411
95909144|NCT05540522|191776324|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-11.3||||||B/Victoria: 2-Sided CI, difference in percents (qIRV - Licensed QIV), expressed as a percentage.||-11.3|-16.3|
95853438|NCT02491684|191665982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.25||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.41|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||3.41|0.46|0.659
95853439|NCT02491684|191665983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 14|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
95853440|NCT02491684|191665983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of proportions|1.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|15.79|||log-binomial regression model|The ratio of proportions was calculated by back-transforming the estimated treatment effect.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for Days 1 - 30|Proportions of patients with exacerbations are compared using a log-binomial regression model with treatment group and region as factors.||15.79|0.08|0.944
95853441|NCT02491684|191665984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first severe exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||3.77|0.45|0.634
95853442|NCT02491684|191665985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.78|||Regression, Cox|Hazard ratio was calculated adjusting for treatment group and region.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of time to first moderate exacerbation within 30 days of treatment start.||16.78|0.07|0.973
95853443|NCT02491684|191665987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.09||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.35|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo for change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 4.||0.35|-0.17|0.495
95853444|NCT02491684|191665987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.38|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 6.||0.38|-0.26|0.715
95853445|NCT02491684|191665987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.28|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in total score at Visit 8.||0.28|-0.42|0.687
95853446|NCT02491684|191665988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.45|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-14.||0.45|-0.23|0.516
95853447|NCT02491684|191665988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.37|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 1-7.||0.37|-0.16|0.417
95853448|NCT02491684|191665988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.36|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 8-14.||0.36|-0.34|0.954
95853449|NCT02491684|191665988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline in total score over Days 15-30.||0.35|-0.35|0.985
95853450|NCT02491684|191665990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.07||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.24|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 6.||0.24|-0.38|0.660
95853451|NCT02491684|191665990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.09||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.29|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of change from baseline in overall score at Visit 8.||0.29|-0.48|0.624
95853452|NCT02491684|191665991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.54||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.59|||ANCOVA|AUC for change from baseline is analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||1.59|-0.51|0.309
95853453|NCT02491684|191665992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|16.98||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|34.6|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||34.60|-0.63|0.059
95853454|NCT02491684|191665992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|34.05|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||34.05|4.66|0.010
95972382|NCT00118755|191918237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rate|9.8||||||95.0|0.9|18.7|||||95% Wald asymptotic CI using normal approximation (continuity corrected)|||18.7|0.9|
95972383|NCT00118755|191918238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6294||95.0|0.66|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|0.66|0.6294
95972384|NCT01765192|191918252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|0.1795|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model adapted for the crossover design. The following fixed factors and covariates were included in the model: Treatment, sequence, period, and baseline FEV1 measurement of the respective treatment period. The reported analysis results are for the 2 crossover treatment periods combined.||0.1795|0.0219|0.013
95853455|NCT02491684|191665992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|14.38||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|34.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||34.20|-5.44|0.153
95853456|NCT02491684|191665992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|19.26||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|41.97|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.97|-3.44|0.096
95853457|NCT02491684|191665993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.07||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.17|-0.03|0.161
95853458|NCT02491684|191665993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.08||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.17|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.17|-0.01|0.087
95853459|NCT02491684|191665993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.280
95853460|NCT02491684|191665993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.24|-0.02|0.086
95853461|NCT02491684|191665994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.69||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|30.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||30.14|-6.76|0.211
95853462|NCT02491684|191665994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.19||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|25.56|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||25.56|-3.18|0.125
95853463|NCT02491684|191665994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|11.14||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|31.36|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||31.36|-9.08|0.277
95853464|NCT02491684|191665994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|17.13||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|41.18|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||41.18|-6.92|0.161
95853465|NCT02491684|191665995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.287
95853466|NCT02491684|191665995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 1-7.||0.14|-0.06|0.457
95853467|NCT02491684|191665995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.05||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 8-14.||0.16|-0.05|0.315
95853468|NCT02491684|191665995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.09||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis uses an ANCOVA model with treatment, region, gender, and smoking status as factors, and baseline value and height as covariates.|AZD9412 versus Placebo|Analysis of AUC for change from baseline over Days 15-30.||0.22|-0.03|0.134
95853469|NCT01576341|191666030|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.019|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Incidence rate is based on duration of treatment period (years)|||||
95972385|NCT01765192|191918253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0185|0.1422||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FVC measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1422|-0.0185|0.129
95853470|NCT05010707|191666039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0, and 1 month)||||0.005
95853471|NCT05010707|191666039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-225.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-421.71|-28.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.79|-421.71|0.02
95853472|NCT05010707|191666039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-250.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-447.1|-54.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-54.19|-447.10|0.009
95853473|NCT05010707|191666040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.951
95853474|NCT05010707|191666040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|26.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||26.4|-29.6|1
95853475|NCT05010707|191666040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|20.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is computed using the model based estimates rather than from the raw data.|||20.8|-35.1|1
95853476|NCT05010707|191666041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time x treatment (month 0 and month 1)||||0.004
95853477|NCT05010707|191666041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-280.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.3|-73.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-73.5|-487.3|0.005
95853478|NCT05010707|191666041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-204.1||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-411.1|0.054
95853479|NCT03518086|191666044|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||6e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|3.2|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|3.2|0.00006
95853480|NCT03518086|191666045|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|10.8|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.0|10.8|<0.00001
95853481|NCT03518086|191666046|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|6.3|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|6.3|<0.00001
95853482|NCT03518086|191666047|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|99.875|11.4|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.6|11.4|<0.001
95853483|NCT03518086|191666048|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|26.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|13.8|<0.001
95853484|NCT03518086|191666049|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|8.6|<0.001
95853485|NCT03518086|191666050|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|13.2|<0.00001
95853486|NCT03518086|191666051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159|<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|99.875|-1.47|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||The confidence interval of 99.875 % was chosen to match the significance level.|||-0.44|-1.47|<0.00001
95853487|NCT03518086|191666052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.28|17.15|||ANCOVA|||||17.15|9.28|<0.001
95853488|NCT03518086|191666053|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-935.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1363.64|-507.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-507.55|-1363.64|<0.001
95972386|NCT01765192|191918254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0113|0.2364||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator FEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2364|0.0113|0.032
95972387|NCT01765192|191918255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.105||0.635||95.0|-23.0531|37.466||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||37.4660|-23.0531|0.635
95972388|NCT01765192|191918256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.206||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1896|24.0553||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline pre-bronchodilator PEF measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||24.0553|3.1896|0.011
95972389|NCT01765192|191918257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.0271||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Daytime Asthma Symptom Score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.0271|-0.3850|0.025
95972390|NCT01765192|191918258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2426|0.0563||P-values were obtained using an ANCOVA model with treatment sequence, treatment period, and study treatment as fixed factors with Baseline Nighttime Asthma Symptoms measurement as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.0563|-0.2426|0.217
95972391|NCT00666679|191918292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||0.033||95.0|0.0|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.09|0.00|0.033
95972392|NCT00666679|191918293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.15||||0.005||95.0|-0.26|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.05|-0.26|0.005
95972393|NCT00666679|191918294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.09||||0.015||95.0|-0.17|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.02|-0.17|0.015
95972394|NCT00666679|191918295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.6||||0.073||95.0|-1.26|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.06|-1.26|0.073
95972395|NCT00666679|191918296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|6.08||||0.004||95.0|1.94|10.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|Least-Squares Means for average percentage of days are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction and period.|||10.23|1.94|0.004
95972396|NCT00666679|191918297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-5.43|||<=|0.001||95.0|-8.67|-2.19|||ANCOVA|Model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|Least-Squares Means for percentage of days are derived from ANCOVA model with terms for patient, treatment and period.|||-2.19|-8.67|<=0.001
95972397|NCT00666679|191918298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|-0.07||||0.013||95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for change from baseline are derived from mixed model with terms for treatment, period and baseline covariate.|||-0.01|-0.12|0.013
95972398|NCT00666679|191918299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||0.002||95.0|0.03|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|Least-Squares Means for average change from baseline are derived using appropriate contrast from mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time (weeks 1 and 2), treatment-by-time interaction, period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.03|0.002
95853489|NCT05565742|191666097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-55.8|<0.001
95853490|NCT05565742|191666097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.4|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-68.5|-80.4|<0.001
95853491|NCT05565742|191666097|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-93.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-92.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-92.5|-95.1|<0.001
95853492|NCT05565742|191666098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.43||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.2|-54.9|0.002
95853493|NCT05565742|191666098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-77.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.4|-71.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-71.1|-82.4|<0.001
95853494|NCT05565742|191666098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|-93.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.6|-96.1|<0.001
95853495|NCT05565742|191666098|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-76.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-70.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-70.2|-81.9|<0.001
95853496|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.03||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.35|1975.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1975.13|6.35|0.001
95853497|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2762.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|142.74|53463.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||53463.34|142.74|<0.001
95853498|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|50904.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1700.95|1523398.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 60||1523398.10|1700.95|<0.001
95853499|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.94||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|527.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||527.74|1.48|0.026
95853500|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|309.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.99|5320.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||5320.81|17.99|<0.001
95853501|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3060.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|166.84|56127.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 180||56127.55|166.84|<0.001
95853502|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.91||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|635.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||635.94|1.70|0.021
95853503|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|579.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.48|10673.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||10673.41|31.48|<0.001
95853504|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14659.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|646.35|332498.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 60||332498.98|646.35|<0.001
95888032|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.84|-3.54|
95853505|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.94||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|321.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||321.21|0.79|0.071
95853506|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|86.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|1468.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||1468.36|5.07|0.002
95853507|NCT05565742|191666099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|956.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.75|16422.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 180||16422.76|55.75|<0.001
95853508|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|191.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||191.58|5.36|<0.001
95853509|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|602.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.36|3805.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||3805.22|95.36|<0.001
95853510|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6953.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|527.56|91646.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||91646.24|527.56|<0.001
95853511|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.46|2104.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 240||2104.62|57.46|<0.001
95853512|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.99||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|1015.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||1015.84|2.98|0.007
95853513|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|363.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.83|6332.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6332.68|20.83|<0.001
95853514|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2953.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|150.95|57790.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||57790.71|150.95|<0.001
95888033|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.937|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|8.98|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||8.98|-3.84|
95853515|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|375.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.46|6571.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 360||6571.66|21.46|<0.001
95853516|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.43||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|331.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||331.69|0.81|0.068
95853517|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.97||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.99|1447.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1447.48|4.99|0.002
95853518|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|594.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.99|10405.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||10405.09|33.99|<0.001
95853519|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|110.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.47|1875.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<125 nmol/L: Day 540||1875.77|6.47|0.001
95853520|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|74.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||74.29|1.81|0.010
95853521|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|233.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.92|1362.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||1362.79|39.92|<0.001
95853522|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3087.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.26|28778.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||28778.10|331.26|<0.001
95888034|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|9.12|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||9.12|-2.67|
95853523|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|829.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 240||829.42|25.20|<0.001
95853524|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.16||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|243.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||243.85|0.51|0.125
95853525|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|148.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|2546.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2546.89|8.64|<0.001
95853526|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1431.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.76|26349.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||26349.86|77.76|<0.001
95972399|NCT03486457|191918373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|32.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.45|42.25|||Normal approximation|||The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between tofacitinib 5 mg BID and placebo and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.25|22.45|<0.0001
95853527|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|147.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|2538.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 360||2538.95|8.60|<0.001
95853528|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|104.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||104.02|0.04|0.733
95853529|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.28||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|594.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||594.46|1.98|0.015
95853530|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|159.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|2716.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||2716.42|9.40|<0.001
95853531|NCT05565742|191666100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.98||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|659.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Lp(a) \<75 nmol/L: Day 540||659.75|2.19|0.013
95853532|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.9|-30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-30.9|-59.9|<0.001
95972400|NCT03486457|191918374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|24.83|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.83|6.05|0.0013
95853533|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-80.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-76.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-76.1|-84.7|<0.001
95853534|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
95853535|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-95.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.3|-94.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-94.5|-96.3|<0.001
95853536|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-6.2|-50.6|0.019
95853537|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-66.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-55.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-55.9|-73.8|<0.001
95853538|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
95853539|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-90.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-88.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-88.3|-92.6|<0.001
95853540|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3|-28.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-28.3|-61.3|<0.001
95853541|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.1|-80.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.3|-88.1|<0.001
95853542|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-96.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.4|-95.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-95.9|-97.4|<0.001
95853543|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-84.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.9|-80.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-80.8|-87.9|<0.001
95853544|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.45||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-3.6|-49.4|0.029
95853545|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.9|-57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-57.6|-74.9|<0.001
95853546|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-91.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.9|-88.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-88.5|-92.9|<0.001
95853547|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-67.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8|-59.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-59.0|-74.8|<0.001
95853548|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||3.7|-37.8|0.093
95853549|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-33.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-33.2|-56.0|<0.001
95888035|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.337|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.21|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ T Reg cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.21|0.55|
95888036|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|8.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.58|-11.49|
95888037|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.142|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|10.58|||||The mean difference in Memory Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||10.58|-6.81|
95888038|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|22.92|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||22.92|-2.01|
95888039|NCT02801942|191729180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|16.59|||||The mean difference in Resting Reg T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||16.59|-4.24|
95888040|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.83|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.83|-0.08|
95888041|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.98|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.98|-0.61|
95853550|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-74.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-68.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-68.5|-78.8|<0.001
95853551|NCT05565742|191666101|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-53.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.7|-43.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-43.3|-61.7|<0.001
95888042|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.389|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|12.85|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||12.85|-14.66|
95888043|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.71|6.33|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.33|-14.71|
95888044|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|2.47|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||2.47|-2.73|
95853552|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-2.6|-17.5|0.010
95853553|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-5.8|-17.7|<0.001
95853554|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
95853555|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||-8.8|-19.0|<0.001
95853556|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||0.6|-16.2|0.068
95853557|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-3.8|-17.1|0.003
95853558|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
95853559|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||-7.9|-19.3|<0.001
95853560|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-1.2|-16.7|0.026
95888045|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.859|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|2.28|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||2.28|-1.45|
95888046|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|5.78|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||5.78|0.64|
95888047|NCT02801942|191729181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.79|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.79|0.75|
95888048|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.15|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||6.15|0.40|
95853561|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.3|-21.1|<0.001
95853562|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-9.6|-21.0|<0.001
95853563|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||-4.4|-16.3|<0.001
95853564|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||1.7|-14.9|0.111
95853565|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-5.3|-18.1|<0.001
95853566|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||-7.8|-20.0|<0.001
95853567|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||400 mg LY3819469, Placebo||-1.9|-14.9|0.013
95853568|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||5.8|-10.7|0.510
95853569|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||2.1|-11.1|0.173
95853570|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||-6.8|-18.6|<0.001
95853571|NCT05565742|191666102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||1.7|-11.2|0.139
95853572|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.71||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|23.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||23.3|-44.3|0.353
95853573|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.84||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|34.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||34.7|-28.7|0.902
95853574|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
95888049|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|7.17|||||The mean difference in CD15s+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||7.17|-1.68|
95853575|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 60||27.1|-27.4|0.779
95853576|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.41||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|49.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||49.7|-32.8|0.987
95853577|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|17.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||17.2|-38.7|0.316
95853578|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
95888050|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.712|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|14.48|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||14.48|-14.49|
95888051|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.947|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|4.43|||||The mean difference in CD69+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||4.43|-12.67|
95888052|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.48|8.13|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||8.13|-5.48|
95853579|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.37||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 180||40.4|-20.9|0.720
95853580|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.66||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1|22.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||22.6|-36.1|0.461
95853581|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||9.4|-35.6|0.194
95853582|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.87||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|27.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||27.2|-24.0|0.898
95853583|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.81||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|17.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 240||17.0|-29.9|0.448
95853584|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|29.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.05||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|98.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||98.4|-15.4|0.233
95853585|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.04||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|44.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||44.9|-27.6|0.891
95853586|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.18||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|39.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||39.9|-29.0|0.984
95853587|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.52||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|67.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 360||67.5|-14.8|0.302
95853588|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.49||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|36.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.8|-37.9|0.684
95853589|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.19||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|36.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||36.3|-28.6|0.933
95853590|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.33||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|38.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||38.6|-26.7|0.962
95853591|NCT05565742|191666103|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.52||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|56.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baseline to Day 540||56.9|-17.2|0.422
95853592|NCT03563209|191666116|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.05/3 (0.0167)|Friedman|||Null hypothesis: no difference between dynamic components of elbow flexor spasticity (spasticity angle) in three different forearm positions. (Comparison groups were Spasticity angle in pronation, Spasticity angle in neutral position and Spasticity angle in supination)||||<0.001
95853593|NCT05366738|191666135|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.64|109.41||||||||109.41|97.64|
95853594|NCT05366738|191666135|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|103.56||||||||103.56|92.42|
95853595|NCT05366738|191666136|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.25|108.15||||||||108.15|97.25|
95853596|NCT05366738|191666136|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|97.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.55|102.93||||||||102.93|92.55|
95853597|NCT05366738|191666137|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.49|112.0||||||||112.00|96.49|
95853598|NCT05366738|191666137|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio between the test treatments (20 mg sprinkle capsule, either sprinkled on pudding or on applesauce) and the reference treatment (20 mg tablet) were wholly contained within 80.00% and 125.00% for the vonoprazan PK parameters.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Means|100.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|108.39||||||||108.39|93.38|
95853599|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.069|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo' at 1 hour||0.069|0.008|=0.020
95853600|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0227|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.101|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.176|0.101|<0.001
95853601|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.158|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.158|0.087|<0.001
95853602|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0185|=|0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.045|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.045|-0.016|=0.220
95853603|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.087|0.161|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.161|0.087|<0.001
95853604|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.105|0.176|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.176|0.105|<0.001
95853605|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.05|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.050|-0.012|0.155
95853606|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.129|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.129|0.053|<0.001
95853607|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.162|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.162|0.090|<0.001
95853608|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.188|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.015|0.048|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.048|-0.015|0.188
95853609|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.017|0.093|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.093|0.017|=0.009
95853610|NCT00674817|191666143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.086|0.159|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.159|0.086|<0.001
95853611|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0616|=|0.856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.036|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.036|-0.168|=0.856
95853612|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496|=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.174|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.174|0.010|=0.033
95888053|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|6.84|||||The mean difference in Helios+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||6.84|-4.36|
95888054|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.84|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by FNA method has been presented.|||4.84|0.54|
95888055|NCT02801942|191729182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.737|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.13|||||The mean difference in Ki67+ Memory Conv T cells (Healthy participants versus NOT1D participants) by core biopsy method has been presented.|||3.13|0.03|
95888056|NCT02282020|191729203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.58|||Regression, Logistic|Model includes a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months)|An odds ratio \>1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.58|1.40|0.002
95888057|NCT02282020|191729204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.43|0.013
95853613|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0523|=|0.099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.019|0.154|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.154|-0.019|=0.099
95853614|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0612|=|0.862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.168|0.034|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.034|-0.168|=0.862
95853615|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.201|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.201|0.039|=0.008
95853616|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516||0.027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.185|||Mix model|||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.185|0.015|0.027
95853617|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0621|=|0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.155|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.155|-0.050|=0.200
95853618|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.011|0.177|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus that due to GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.177|0.011|=0.031
95888058|NCT02282020|191729205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.15|0.56|0.229
95888059|NCT02282020|191729206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.49|0.76|0.714
95888060|NCT02282020|191729207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.85||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \<1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.85|0.41|0.005
95888061|NCT02282020|191729208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.69||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.69|0.35|<0.001
95888062|NCT02282020|191729209|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.05||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.05|0.53|0.089
95888063|NCT02282020|191729210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.29|0.14|<0.001
95888064|NCT02282020|191729213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes factors for patient, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline TOI score and baseline TOI score by visit interaction.||||5.5|-0.5|0.108
95888065|NCT02282020|191729214|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|6.86||Estimated from an unadjusted logistic regression model|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||6.86|0.88|0.092
95888066|NCT02282020|191729215|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.39||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 favours the olaparib arm|||4.39|1.32|0.004
95888067|NCT02282020|191729216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.91||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.91|0.42|0.014
95888068|NCT02282020|191729217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.14|0.56|0.213
95888069|NCT02282020|191729218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.51||Determined using a log-rank test with a factor for time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.51|0.76|0.699
95888070|NCT02282020|191729219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.27||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.27|0.12|<0.001
95888071|NCT02282020|191729220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.66||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||0.66|0.33|<0.001
95888072|NCT02282020|191729221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.01||Model included factors for number of prior chemotherapy regimens received for ovarian cancer (2 or 3 prior lines vs 4 or more lines) and time to disease progression after the end of last platinum based chemotherapy (6-12 months vs \> 12 months).|Log Rank||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the olaparib arm|||1.01|0.51|0.055
95888073|NCT02618434|191729224|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.56||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|7.84|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7.84|-8.96|0.9383
95888074|NCT02618434|191729225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.33|0.0979
95888075|NCT02618434|191729225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.50|0.0502
95888076|NCT02618434|191729225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.18|-0.38|0.4769
95888077|NCT02618434|191729226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.03|-0.41|0.0881
95888078|NCT02618434|191729226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.00|-0.53|0.0522
95888079|NCT02618434|191729226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.1766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.10|-0.52|0.1766
95888080|NCT02618434|191729227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.613||0.3409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|4.72|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Physical Functioning Summary Score at Visit 6.||4.72|-1.64|0.3409
95888081|NCT02618434|191729227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Psychosocial Health Summary Score at Visit 6.||-0.33|-4.08|0.0215
95972401|NCT03486457|191918374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|30.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.53|40.76|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.76|19.53|<0.0001
95972402|NCT03486457|191918374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|51.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.57|62.37|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||62.37|40.57|<0.0001
95972403|NCT03486457|191918374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.41|50.12|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||50.12|23.41|<0.0001
95853619|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.004|0.179|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.179|0.004|=0.043
95853620|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0625|=|0.637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.081|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 1 hour||0.081|-0.125|=0.637
95853621|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.053|0.218|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 12 hour||0.218|0.053|=0.004
95853622|NCT00674817|191666144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.012|0.189|||Mix model|||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo at 24 hour||0.189|0.012|=0.031
95888082|NCT02618434|191729228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.89|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Total Score at Visit 6.||2.89|-5.00|0.5977
95888083|NCT02618434|191729228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.79|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parental Distress Domain score at Visit 6.||1.79|-1.39|0.8049
95888084|NCT02618434|191729228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.69|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction score at Visit 6.||1.69|-1.47|0.8911
95888085|NCT02618434|191729228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.849||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.42|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Difficult Child Domain score Visit 6.||0.42|-2.93|0.1426
95888086|NCT02618434|191729229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 4||0.20|-0.33|0.6171
95888087|NCT02618434|191729229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 5||0.01|-0.55|0.0617
95888088|NCT02618434|191729229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis pertains to Visit 6||0.21|-0.47|0.4419
95888089|NCT02618434|191729230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Inattention subscale at Visit 6.||-0.01|-0.32|0.0416
95888090|NCT02618434|191729230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale at Visit 6||0.02|-0.33|0.0921
95888091|NCT02618434|191729230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Oppositional Defiant Disorder subscale at Visit 6||0.11|-0.26|0.4480
95888092|NCT02618434|191729230|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||ANCOVA|||This analysis pertains to the Combined Scale score at Visit 6||-0.00|-0.31|0.0457
95888093|NCT02618434|191729231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 30% Responders.||1.93|0.58|0.8525
95888094|NCT02618434|191729231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis pertains to ≥ 50% Responders.||1.51|0.52|0.6635
95888095|NCT02598076|191729259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95888096|NCT02598076|191729260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
95888097|NCT02598076|191729261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95888098|NCT02598076|191729262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.095
95888099|NCT02598076|191729263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95888100|NCT03070782|191729302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-12.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-12|-46|0.0032
95888101|NCT03070782|191729302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-41.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-41|-64|<.0001
95888102|NCT03070782|191729302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-70.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-62.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-62|-77|<.0001
95888103|NCT03070782|191729302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-43.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-43|-65|<.0001
95888104|NCT03070782|191729302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-78.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-72.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-72|-83|<.0001
95888105|NCT03070782|191729306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-6.0||||0.4407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||9|-19|0.4407
95888106|NCT03070782|191729306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-13|-35|<.0001
95888107|NCT03070782|191729306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-14.0||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-26|0.0368
95888108|NCT03070782|191729306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-3|-28|0.0216
95888109|NCT03070782|191729306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-22.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-33|0.0012
95888110|NCT03070782|191729307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|21.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.0|1.2|0.0286
95888111|NCT03070782|191729307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|131.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.4|7.3|<.0001
95888112|NCT03070782|191729307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|122.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|627.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||627.4|24.0|<.0001
95888113|NCT03070782|191729307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|195.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||195.0|9.8|<.0001
95888114|NCT03070782|191729307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1124.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|109.3|11571.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||11571|109.3|<.0001
95888115|NCT03070782|191729308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.34||||0.2007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|155.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||155.3|0.3|0.2007
95888116|NCT03070782|191729308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.92||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|521.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||521.5|1.5|0.0258
95888117|NCT03070782|191729308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|113.92||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|2098.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2098.5|6.2|0.0014
95888118|NCT03070782|191729308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|59.85||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|1128.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1128.0|3.2|0.0063
95888119|NCT03070782|191729308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|347.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.3|6597.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6597.9|18.3|<.0001
95888120|NCT03070782|191729309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-4.0||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||5|-12|0.4022
95888121|NCT03070782|191729309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-23|<.0001
95888122|NCT03070782|191729309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-1|-17|0.0323
95888123|NCT03070782|191729309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-2.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-2|-18|0.0157
95888124|NCT03070782|191729309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-17.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-9|-24|<.0001
95888125|NCT03070782|191729310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-9.0||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||21|-32|0.4956
95888126|NCT03070782|191729310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-36.0||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-14|-52|0.0027
95972404|NCT03486457|191918374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.14|38.39|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||38.39|10.14|0.0008
95972405|NCT03486457|191918374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|27.85|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||27.85|0.09|0.0486
95972406|NCT03486457|191918375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.1|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||4.10|-1.90|0.4730
95972407|NCT03486457|191918375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|5.14|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||5.14|-1.48|0.2792
95888127|NCT03070782|191729310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-38.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-38|-65|<.0001
95888128|NCT03070782|191729310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-31.0||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-8|-48|0.0114
95888129|NCT03070782|191729310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-49|-72|<.0001
95888130|NCT03070782|191729311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-45.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|-19.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-19|-62|0.0020
95972408|NCT03486457|191918375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|12.91|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||12.91|1.79|0.0095
95853623|NCT00674817|191666150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|8.041||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||8.041|-0.547|
95853624|NCT00674817|191666150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1453|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.521|5.944||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||5.944|-2.521|
95853625|NCT00674817|191666150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.559|6.069||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||6.069|-2.559|
95888131|NCT03070782|191729311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.0|-46.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-46|-74|<.0001
95853626|NCT00674817|191666150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.197|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.565|3.103||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.103|-5.565|
95853627|NCT00674817|191666151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7064|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.781|9.897||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||9.897|-0.781|
95853628|NCT00674817|191666151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.999|7.532||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||7.532|-2.999|
95888132|NCT03070782|191729311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.0|-73.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-73|-87|<.0001
95972409|NCT03486457|191918375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.63|19.84|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||19.84|6.63|<0.0001
95972410|NCT03486457|191918375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.03|22.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.44|4.03|0.0048
95972411|NCT03486457|191918375|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|26.17|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.17|0.30|0.0449
95972412|NCT03486457|191918376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|7.42|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||7.42|-1.54|0.1985
95972413|NCT03486457|191918376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|13.8|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||13.80|2.38|0.0055
95972414|NCT03486457|191918376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|27.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|35.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||35.90|18.51|<0.0001
95972415|NCT03486457|191918376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|22.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.58|34.54|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||34.54|9.58|0.0005
95972416|NCT03486457|191918376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|32.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.57|4.20|0.0111
95972417|NCT03486457|191918377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0097
95888133|NCT03070782|191729311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-78|<.0001
95888134|NCT03070782|191729311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-89.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|-84.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-84|-93|<.0001
95888135|NCT01830699|191729315|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For details of power calculation, see above. Using a minimal clinical importance of -9.1, the null hypothesis was a mean difference less than -9.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.004
95888136|NCT01830699|191729316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See details above regarding effect size, power, etc.||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Setting α=0.05 and β=0.8, with effect size of 0.17 anticipated total n = 138 to be recruited (requested recruitment of 150 to account for possible drop-outs)~1st data analysis (n = 33), effect size calculated at 1.1 with new n = 29 with α=0.05 and β=1.0."||||0.044
95888137|NCT00810407|191729364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was diagnosis. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between diagnosis and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
95888138|NCT00810407|191729365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was gender. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between gender and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||<0.001
95888139|NCT00810407|191729366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between age of participants and the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events."||||0.587
95888140|NCT00810407|191729366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of participants with treatment-related adverse events across the age at baseline."||||0.428
95888141|NCT02320149|191729391|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-3.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-3.6|-6.7|< 0.0001
95888142|NCT02320149|191729392|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|11.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.39|15.72||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||15.72|6.39|< 0.0001
95888143|NCT02320149|191729393|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-11.6||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-11.6|-21.9|< 0.0001
95888144|NCT02320149|191729394|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-16.9|-8.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-8.0|-16.9|< 0.0001
95888145|NCT02320149|191729395|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-9.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-9.1|-17.5|< 0.0001
95888146|NCT02320149|191729396|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-3.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-3.3|-11.1|0.0003
95888147|NCT02320149|191729397|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.3|< 0.0001
95888148|NCT02320149|191729398|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.9|-5.4|< 0.0001
95888149|NCT02320149|191729399|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
95888150|NCT02320149|191729400|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.3||||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|10.8||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||10.8|-19.4|0.5786
95888151|NCT02320149|191729401|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.6969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|11.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||11.4|-17.1|0.6969
95888152|NCT02320149|191729402|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.7377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||20.7|-14.7|0.7377
95888153|NCT02320149|191729403|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.4||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|18.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||18.1|-5.3|0.2861
95888154|NCT02320149|191729404|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-1.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 12||-1.5|-6.3|0.0014
95972418|NCT03486457|191918377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.04|-0.22|0.0043
95972419|NCT03486457|191918377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.30|<0.0001
95972420|NCT03486457|191918377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.11|-0.32|<0.0001
95972421|NCT03486457|191918377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.18|0.0535
95972422|NCT03486457|191918377|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.16|0.0940
95972423|NCT03486457|191918378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
95972424|NCT03486457|191918378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
95972425|NCT03486457|191918378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
95972426|NCT03486457|191918378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
95972427|NCT03486457|191918378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
95972428|NCT03486457|191918378|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
95972429|NCT03486457|191918379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|29.85|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.85|-3.72|0.1270
95972430|NCT03486457|191918379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.6634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|22.1|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||22.10|-14.07|0.6634
95972431|NCT03486457|191918379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|40.33|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.33|3.23|0.0214
95972432|NCT03486457|191918379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.46||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|42.57|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||42.57|5.50|0.0110
95853629|NCT00674817|191666151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.429|6.29||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||6.290|-4.429|
95853630|NCT00674817|191666151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.731|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.539|4.236||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-27 hours||4.236|-6.539|
95853631|NCT00674817|191666152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6816|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.069|4.566||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||4.566|-2.069|
95853632|NCT00674817|191666152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6565|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.687||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||3.687|-2.850|
95853633|NCT00674817|191666152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.013|2.714||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||2.714|-4.013|
95853634|NCT00674817|191666152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.325|1.427||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo over 0-4 hours||1.427|-5.325|
95853635|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.258|15.139||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||15.139|5.258|
95853636|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4738|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.195|7.567||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||7.567|-2.195|
95853637|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5196|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.883|12.825||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||12.825|2.883|
95853638|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5244|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.864|4.097||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-5.864|
95853639|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9782|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.352|17.103||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||17.103|5.352|
95853640|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9434|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.418|10.197||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||10.197|-1.418|
95853641|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|11.886||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||11.886|0.065|
95853642|NCT00674817|191666153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0023|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.006|3.84||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.840|-8.006|
95853643|NCT00674817|191666154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|8.542||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||8.542|1.857|
95853644|NCT00674817|191666154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.294|3.307||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.307|-3.294|
95853645|NCT00674817|191666154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|6.345||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||6.345|-0.433|
95853646|NCT00674817|191666154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7199|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.076|1.711||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.711|-5.076|
95853647|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.588|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3932|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.839|9.336||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.336|3.839|
95853648|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3725|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|3.962||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.962|-1.453|
95853649|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.985|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.231|9.738||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||9.738|4.231|
95853650|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4077|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.522|5.031||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.031|-0.522|
95853651|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2464|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.662|6.58||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus maximal GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.580|1.662|
95853652|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.142|2.703||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.703|-2.142|
95888155|NCT02320149|191729405|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-1.4|-5.5|0.0010
95888156|NCT02320149|191729406|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.1||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.1|-4.0|0.0371
95888157|NCT02320149|191729407|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.3806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.0||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||1.0|-2.5|0.3806
95888158|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||0.1 mg vs. placebo|-7.06||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|-3.0|||ANOVA|||||-3.00|-11.1|0.003
95888159|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|-1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.42|2.96|||ANOVA|||||2.96|-5.42|0.310
95888160|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||0.5 mg vs. placebo|0.01||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|4.06|||ANOVA|||||4.06|-4.05|0.498
95888161|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|-5.69||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.74|-1.63|||ANOVA|||||-1.63|-9.74|0.012
95888162|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-3.97||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.16|0.22|||ANOVA|||||0.22|-8.16|0.059
95888163|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|2.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|6.54|||ANOVA|||||6.54|-2.09|0.191
95888164|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|1.24||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|6.15|||ANOVA|||||6.15|-3.67|0.333
95888165|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-1.43||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|3.63|||ANOVA|||||3.63|-6.50|0.314
95888166|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|-9.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.2|-4.37|||ANOVA|||||-4.37|-14.2|0.001
95888167|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|-6.45||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.4|-1.51|||ANOVA|||||-1.51|-11.4|0.017
95888168|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.96||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|-5.02|||ANOVA|||||-5.02|-14.9|0.001
95888169|NCT01025791|191729427|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-9.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-4.17|||ANOVA|||||-4.17|-13.8|0.002
95888170|NCT01025791|191729432|OTHER||GMR (Fed/Fasted)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.92||||||||0.92|0.86|
95888171|NCT01025791|191729433|OTHER||GMR (Fed/fasted)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
95888172|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||0.1 mg vs placebo|-0.53||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.92|2.86|||ANOVA|||||2.86|-3.92|0.396
95888173|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||0.2 mg vs. placebo|2.33||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.17|5.83|||ANOVA|||||5.83|-1.17|0.1329
95888174|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||0.5mg vs. placebo|-2.96||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.35|0.43|||ANOVA|||||0.43|-6.35|0.0741
95888175|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1 mg vs. placebo|7.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.69|10.47|||ANOVA|||||10.47|3.69|<0.001
95888176|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|4.39||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|7.09|||ANOVA|||||7.09|0.89|0.0211
95888177|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||0.4 mg vs. placebo|0.85||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.79|6.48|||ANOVA|||||6.48|-4.79|0.399
95888178|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1.2 mg vs. placebo|4.54||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|11.02|||ANOVA|||||11.02|-1.94|0.100
95888179|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1.2 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.38||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.29|10.06|||ANOVA|||||10.06|-3.29|0.195
95888180|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1.0 mg + 0.8 mg vs. placebo|9.16||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.74|16.58|||ANOVA|||||16.58|1.74|0.022
95888181|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1.2 mg + 1.0 mg vs. placebo|5.74||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.68|13.16|||ANOVA|||||13.16|-1.68|0.098
95888182|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1 mg + 0.6 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|3.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.94|10.9|||ANOVA|||||10.90|-3.94|0.214
95888183|NCT01025791|191729434|OTHER||1 mg + 1 mg + 0.6 mg vs. placebo|4.24||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|11.52|||ANOVA|||||11.52|-3.03|0.163
95888184|NCT00533845|191729439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0022
95888185|NCT02663232|191729453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage (IIIC \[referral category\] versus (vs) M1a vs M1b vs M1c) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.001
95888186|NCT02663232|191729453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.196|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIC/M1a/M1b \[referral category\] vs M1c with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.196
95888187|NCT02663232|191729453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Melanoma Stage IIIc with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||||0.002
95888188|NCT02663232|191729453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.115|6.616|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1a (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||6.616|1.115|0.028
95853653|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.249|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|6.729||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||6.729|1.802|
95972433|NCT03486457|191918379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|31.36|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||31.36|-6.21|0.1896
95972434|NCT03486457|191918379|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.97||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.75|24.41|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||24.41|-10.75|0.4466
95972435|NCT03486457|191918380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.45|-3.95|<0.0001
95972436|NCT03486457|191918380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.39|-5.20|<0.0001
95972437|NCT03486457|191918380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-3.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.39|-6.39|<0.0001
95972438|NCT03486457|191918380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.17|-7.53|<0.0001
95972439|NCT03486457|191918380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.583|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.04|-4.35|<0.0001
95972440|NCT03486457|191918380|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.668||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.27|-3.91|0.0002
95972441|NCT03486457|191918381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.40|-5.40|0.0010
95972442|NCT03486457|191918381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|-3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.01|-7.05|<0.0001
95972443|NCT03486457|191918381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.023|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.66|-7.70|<0.0001
95972444|NCT03486457|191918381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.82|-9.20|<0.0001
95972445|NCT03486457|191918381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|-1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.83|-6.07|0.0003
95972446|NCT03486457|191918381|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.58|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.20|-4.58|0.0323
95972447|NCT03486457|191918382|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.481||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.68|-11.46|0.0087
95853654|NCT00674817|191666155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.621|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.863|4.106||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||4.106|-0.863|
95853655|NCT00674817|191666156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.456|5.732||||||GSK961081 400 mcg plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.732|2.456|
95853656|NCT00674817|191666156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|2.258||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.258|-0.967|
95853657|NCT00674817|191666156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8395|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.324|5.636||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||5.636|2.324|
95888189|NCT02663232|191729453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.466||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|1.291|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1b (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.291|0.168|0.142
95888190|NCT02663232|191729453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.822||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.351|1.928|||Multivariate regression analysis|Multivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation (n=184)||The association of Melanoma Stage M1c (using Melanoma Stage IIIC as referral category) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis.||1.928|0.351|0.653
95888191|NCT02663232|191729454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Family family history of melanoma (yes vs no) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.240
95888192|NCT02663232|191729455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.719|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of sun exposure yes vs no with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.719
95888193|NCT02663232|191729456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of primary tumor site (trunk \[referral category\] vs head and neck vs upper extremities vs lower extremities vs. visceral/mucosa) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.262
95888194|NCT02663232|191729457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of LDH (elevated \[referral category\] vs normal vs unknown) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.313
95888195|NCT02663232|191729458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of clinical risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of time since diagnosis of primary melanoma (continuous variable) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.291
95888196|NCT02663232|191729459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.164|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample source (primary tumor \[referral category\] vs metastases vs relapses) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.164
95888197|NCT02663232|191729460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of tumor sample type (paraffin-embedded blocks \[referral category\] vs slides of paraffin blocks vs cytology slides) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.505
95888198|NCT02663232|191729461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of method of fixation (buffered formalin \[referral category\] vs other) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.701
95888199|NCT02663232|191729462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.683|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Berslow thickness (≤1 mm \[referral category\] vs 1.01-2 mm vs 2.01-4 mm vs 4 mm) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.683
95888200|NCT02663232|191729463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Ulceration (no \[referral category\] vs yes) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.615
95888201|NCT02663232|191729464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of presence of regression (Without regression \[referral category\] vs With regression) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.949
95888202|NCT02663232|191729465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED||||||Bivariate regression analysis|Bivariate regression analysis of anatomopathological risk factors for BRAF mutation||The association of Vascular invasion (Without vascular invasion \[referral category\] vs With vascular invasion) with the risk of BRAF mutation (Yes/No) was assessed using bivariate regression analysis.||||0.374
95888203|NCT00555321|191729470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|49.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||49.8|16.1|
95888204|NCT00555321|191729470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|43.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||43.5|9.6|
95888205|NCT00555321|191729470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|48.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||48.5|14.8|
95888206|NCT00555321|191729470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|29.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||29.6|-8.7|
95888207|NCT00555321|191729470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|23.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||23.2|-15.3|
95888208|NCT00555321|191729470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|28.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||28.4|-9.8|
95888209|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.7|-12.9|
95888210|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|8.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||8.5|-13.6|
95888211|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|1.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||1.5|-23.8|
95972448|NCT03486457|191918382|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.487|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.79|-16.60|<0.0001
95888212|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||||
95888213|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|11.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||11.3|-12.1|
95888214|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.1|-22.9|
95888215|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-12.9|
95888216|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|5.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.4|-18.1|
95888217|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-9.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-9.5|-38.9|
95888218|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||14.4|-9.9|
95972449|NCT03486457|191918382|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.796|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.66|-10.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.63|-21.66|<0.0001
95972450|NCT03486457|191918382|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.027|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.90|-27.84|<0.0001
95888219|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|10.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||10.7|-15.5|
95888220|NCT00555321|191729471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-4.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.1|-35.5|
95888221|NCT00555321|191729472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-14.5|
95888222|NCT00555321|191729472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|8.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||8.8|-25.7|
95888223|NCT00555321|191729472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|17.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||17.5|-13.2|
95888224|NCT00555321|191729472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||13.1|-18.1|
95888225|NCT00555321|191729472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|6.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||6.2|-29.4|
95888226|NCT00555321|191729472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||15.3|-16.9|
95888227|NCT00555321|191729473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|50.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||50.6|15.8|
95888228|NCT00555321|191729473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|46.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||46.3|11.4|
95888229|NCT00555321|191729473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|51.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||51.5|16.9|
95888230|NCT00555321|191729473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|31.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||31.6|-7.1|
95888231|NCT00555321|191729473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|27.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||27.2|-11.5|
95888232|NCT00555321|191729473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|32.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|||32.6|-5.9|
95888233|NCT00555321|191729474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|36.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.8|-5.8|
95888234|NCT00555321|191729474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|38.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||38.0|-6.0|
95888235|NCT00555321|191729474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|26.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.8|-16.6|
95888236|NCT00555321|191729474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|36.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||36.1|-10.8|
95888237|NCT00555321|191729474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|37.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||37.3|-10.9|
95888238|NCT00555321|191729474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|26.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N\>=5 in both arms. Otherwise exact method was used.|||26.0|-21.8|
95888239|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|43.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||43.3|-6.7|
95888240|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|25.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||25.5|-21.6|
95888241|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|28.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||28.7|-20.1|
95888242|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|32.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||32.1|-21.2|
95888243|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|14.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||14.2|-36.0|
95888244|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|17.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.3|-34.6|
95888245|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|35.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||35.1|-18.8|
95888246|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|6.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.3|-46.3|
95888247|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.2|5.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.2|-48.2|
95888248|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|48.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||48.4|-5.2|
95888249|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.8|-32.9|
95972451|NCT03486457|191918382|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.29|-12.60|0.0163
95888250|NCT00555321|191729498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|18.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||18.7|-34.8|
95888251|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|26.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||26.3|-42.4|
95972452|NCT03486457|191918382|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.967||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.76|-8.95|0.2977
95888252|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|19.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.0|-49.2|
95888253|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-19.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-19.8|-81.6|
95888254|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-55.9|
95888255|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-62.6|
95888256|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.0|-33.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-33.1|-94.0|
95888257|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|34.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||34.3|-32.6|
95888258|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|20.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||20.6|-47.4|
95888259|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|0.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||0.5|-72.6|
95888260|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|31.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||31.1|-41.1|
95888261|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||16.9|-55.9|
95888262|NCT00555321|191729499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-3.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, normal approximation was used if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method was used.|Analysis at database lock||-3.5|-81.9|
95888263|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|6.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||6.0|-21.2|
95888264|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||5.3|-18.2|
95888265|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-14.9|
95888266|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|7.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||7.1|-25.1|
95888267|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||4.5|-15.6|
95888268|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||3.9|-12.7|
95888269|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
95888270|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|5.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||5.3|-18.2|
95888271|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-14.9|
95888272|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||||95.0|||||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||||
95888273|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|4.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||4.5|-15.6|
95888274|NCT00555321|191729512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||3.9|-12.7|
95888275|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-25.6|
95888276|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||22.3|-11.7|
95888277|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|15.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||15.2|-20.1|
95888278|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|12.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||12.5|-24.0|
95888279|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|24.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||24.2|-10.5|
95888280|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|17.6|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||17.6|-18.5|
95888281|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|9.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||9.4|-23.3|
95972453|NCT03486457|191918383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.93|-11.37|0.0211
95888282|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|6.5|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||6.5|-27.4|
95888283|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-2.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-2.7|-37.5|
95888284|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|19.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||19.7|-15.5|
95972454|NCT03486457|191918383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.58|-18.59|<0.0001
95888285|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|16.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||16.9|-19.4|
95888286|NCT00555321|191729513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|7.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.9|-29.3|
95888287|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|36.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||36.0|-6.3|
95972455|NCT03486457|191918383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.928|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|-7.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-7.38|-18.93|<0.0001
95972456|NCT03486457|191918383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-12.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.49|-25.06|<0.0001
95972457|NCT03486457|191918383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.827||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-1.43|-12.59|0.0140
95972458|NCT03486457|191918383|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.931||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.64|-10.93|0.0811
95972459|NCT03486457|191918384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.939|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|-5.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.81|-13.46|<0.0001
95972460|NCT03486457|191918384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.305|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-4.98|-14.07|<0.0001
95888288|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.2|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.2|-23.4|
95888289|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|10.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||10.0|-23.4|
95888290|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|23.4|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||23.4|-22.0|
95888291|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-0.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-0.1|-38.6|
95888292|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-1.8|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 6||-1.8|-39.1|
95888293|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|34.0|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||34.0|-8.7|
95888294|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|8.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||8.7|-25.2|
95888295|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|7.7|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||7.7|-26.3|
95888296|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|21.1|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12.||21.1|-24.5|
95888297|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.5|-1.9|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-1.9|-40.5|
95888298|NCT00555321|191729520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-4.3|||||For 95% CI of difference, adjustment was made for randomization strata (HCV-Infection status at baseline) if N \>= 5 in each treatment arm. Otherwise exact method ignoring stratification was used.|Analysis at Month 12||-4.3|-41.8|
95888299|NCT00667368|191729529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|10.1|||Two-sample test, Poisson||The risk difference reflects the treatment arm minus the control arm. The units are the number of positive tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea per 100 person-years.|||10.1|-12.0|0.754
95888300|NCT00667368|191729530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95888301|NCT00824512|191729532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No multiplicity adjustment performed for this study and all statistical tests are two-sided at the 5% significance level.|Non parametric ANCOVA on the rank test|The baseline value was used as a covariate.||||||0.9133
95888302|NCT01209260|191729559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size of 72 was targeted to achieve 80% power to detect a 5-minute reduction in transseptal access procedure time (assuming a standard deviation of 7.5 minutes), using a 2-sided alpha of 0.05, with the primary analysis done on an intention-to-treat basis.||||0.005
95972461|NCT03486457|191918384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.472|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.85|-12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.10|-21.85|<0.0001
95972462|NCT03486457|191918384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.506|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.36|-13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-13.48|-23.36|<0.0001
95972463|NCT03486457|191918384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.38|-12.06|0.0037
95972464|NCT03486457|191918384|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.267||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-3.18|-12.13|0.0009
95972465|NCT03486457|191918385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|-5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.02|-9.39|<0.0001
95972466|NCT03486457|191918385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.56|-10.18|<0.0001
95888303|NCT01209260|191729561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95888304|NCT01209260|191729562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and considered significant if they yielded a p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95888305|NCT02622321|191729569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.277||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (less than \[\<\] 9 or greater than or equal to \[\>/=\] 9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.277|0.057|<0.0001
95888306|NCT02622321|191729570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.102|0.375||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.375|0.102|<0.0001
95888307|NCT02622321|191729571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|0.218||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.218|0.055|<0.0001
95888308|NCT02622321|191729572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.198||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.198|0.031|<0.0001
95888309|NCT02622321|191729573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.11||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.52||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.520|0.025|0.0050
95888310|NCT02622321|191729574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|0.435||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for all bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.435|0.119|<0.0001
95888311|NCT02622321|191729575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.21||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.486||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Non-Stratified Wald Test|||This intra-participant comparison of ABR for treated bleeds was performed using an NB regression model.||0.486|0.089|0.0003
95888312|NCT02622321|191729576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.154||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.154|0.037|<0.0001
95888313|NCT02622321|191729577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||ABR Ratio|0.05||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.227||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 based on a Wald testing procedure.|Stratified Wald Test|||Analysis was performed using an NB regression model, which accounted for different follow-up times, with the participant's number of bleeds as a function of randomization and the time that each participant stays in the study included as an offset in the model. The model also included the number of bleeds (\<9 or \>/=9) in the last 24 weeks prior to study entry as a stratification factor in the randomization.||0.227|0.009|0.0002
95888314|NCT02622321|191729581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|21.55||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|35.22||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm. Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA).||35.22|7.89|0.0029
95888315|NCT02622321|191729582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.01||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.56|22.45||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 25. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||22.45|5.56|0.0019
95888316|NCT02622321|191729583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.72||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.62|-1.82||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-1.82|-17.62|0.0171
95972467|NCT03486457|191918385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.182|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.08|-9.74|<0.0001
95972468|NCT03486457|191918385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.21|-5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.39|-10.21|<0.0001
95972469|NCT03486457|191918385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.615||0.6264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||1.51|-0.91|0.6264
95972470|NCT03486457|191918385|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.778||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-2.82|0.1008
95972471|NCT03486457|191918386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|3.9|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.90|-3.02|0.8032
95853658|NCT00674817|191666156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.735|2.603||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||2.603|-0.735|
95853659|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8168|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|1.748||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.748|-5.420|
95853660|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7809|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.914|4.113||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.113|-2.914|
95853661|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.324|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8174|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.261|3.909||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||3.909|-3.261|
95853662|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.781|1.416||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.416|-5.781|
95853663|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7723|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.762|0.23||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.230|-6.762|
95853664|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.502|3.348||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||3.348|-3.502|
95853665|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7743|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.673|5.327||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||5.327|-1.673|
95853666|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|2.279||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.279|-4.743|
95853667|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3084|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.976|1.187||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.187|-3.976|
95853668|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2819|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.348|3.71||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||3.710|-1.348|
95853669|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.498|2.71||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.710|-2.498|
95853670|NCT00674817|191666157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.713|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.325|1.899||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.899|-3.325|
95853671|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.997|1.876||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.876|-2.997|
95853672|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2125|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.687|4.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||4.097|-0.687|
95853673|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2341|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.771|1.098||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.098|-3.771|
95888317|NCT02622321|191729584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.07||Statistical significance was controlled at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Actual number of participants included for inferential statistics in Arm A is 29. Means adjusted for covariates: baseline score, treatment group and treatment by baseline interaction arm.||-0.07|-0.25|0.0014
95888318|NCT02260921|191729602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-7.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-3.58||P-values are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|ANCOVA||LS estimates are obtained by fitting an ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and WOMAC baseline pain score as a covariate.|||-3.58|-11.48|0.0002
95888319|NCT01482884|191729660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.4062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|22.5||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants responding on tralokinumab is less than or equal to the proportion of participants responding on placebo.||22.5|-13.0|0.4062
95888320|NCT01482884|191729661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.65|||ANCOVA|Mayo score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment and glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as factors in the model.||||0.65|-1.63|0.3937
95888321|NCT01482884|191729662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.1||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|28.3||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.3|-4.0|0.1043
95888322|NCT01482884|191729663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.1||Glucocorticosteroid-refractory status as stratification factor|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.1|0.7|0.0326
95888323|NCT01482884|191729665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.91|||ANCOVA|Modified Riley score at baseline as a covariate, and treatment as factors in the model.||||0.91|-0.41|0.4490
95888324|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-59.46|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888325|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-62.73|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888326|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-48.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888327|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-50.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888328|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-22.67|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888329|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-33.32|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888330|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-20.4|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888331|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-31.08|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888332|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-64.74|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888333|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.26|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888334|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-27.85|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888335|NCT04853225|191729739|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-28.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888336|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-87.47|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888337|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-83.25|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888338|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.54|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888339|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-77.41|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888340|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-60.1|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888341|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-73.65|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888342|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-45.44|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888343|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-79.49|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888344|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-74.39|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888345|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-63.04|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888346|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-25.59|||||||||||||Pre-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888347|NCT04853225|191729740|OTHER||Adjusted rate of change|-38.69|||||||||||||Post-bronchodilator. Adjusted rate of change was analyzed using Random Coefficient Model. The model was fitted with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|||||
95888348|NCT03918447|191729741|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|=|0.3886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|3.19|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with baseline eGFR as a covariate, and treatment group as fixed effects.||3.19|-1.25|=0.3886
95888349|NCT03918447|191729743|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|7.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.41|9.47|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) model used baseline eGFR as a covariate, and the following fixed factors: treatment group, time (Week 1 to 100, excluding Week 52), and the interaction between treatment and time. Within-participant errors are modeled using an unstructured covariance matrix.||9.47|6.41|<0.0001
95888350|NCT00850564|191729744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing baseline and 2 week mean overnight growth hormone||||<0.005
95888351|NCT00850564|191729745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose uptake (M) between baseline and 2 week visits.||||0.61
95888352|NCT02425046|191729765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||||||0.67
95888353|NCT02425046|191729766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||null hypothesis - there will be no difference between the groups.||||0.735
95972472|NCT03486457|191918386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|14.21|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||14.21|0.73|0.0298
95972473|NCT03486457|191918386|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.88|1.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||1.50|-23.88|0.0840
95972474|NCT03486457|191918387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.57|0.0020
95888354|NCT02425046|191729767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis that there would be no difference in change in FNPA scores between the two groups over 12 months.||||0.599
95888355|NCT02425046|191729768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation used to fill in missing data - imputation included demographic and 6 month data. 5 datasets created and results averaged.||Null hypothesis: Change in MVPA from baseline to 12 months will not be different between target children in the two groups.||||0.583
95888356|NCT02425046|191729769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference between the two arms in change in sugar sweetened beverage intake over 12 months.||||0.312
95972475|NCT03486457|191918387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.32|-0.87|<0.0001
95972476|NCT03486457|191918387|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.9678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.31|-0.30|0.9678
95972477|NCT03486457|191918388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|26.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||26.30|3.63|0.0097
95972478|NCT03486457|191918388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.81|40.97|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||40.97|8.81|0.0024
95972479|NCT03486457|191918388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.1042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|3.7|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||3.70|-39.55|0.1042
95888357|NCT02425046|191729770|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|75.0||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|165.0|||Linear quantile mixed model|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because of non-normal distribution that could not be transformed.|Comparison of the intervention target adult change in reported physical activity compared to the control group.|Linear quantile mixed models (a non-parametric linear mixed model) was used because because of non-normal distribution that could not be remedied by transformation.||165|-15|0.10
95888358|NCT02425046|191729771|SUPERIORITY||difference in change between two arms|-2.54||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The intervention arm in comparison to the control arm.|||0.07|-5.14|0.057
95888359|NCT02425046|191729772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.874
95888360|NCT02425046|191729773|SUPERIORITY||% difference in change between arms|7.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|23.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Screen time was log transformed to normalized the distribution. Results have been back transformed from log 10 scale.|% change in screen time of the intervention arm compared to the control arm.|||23|-7|0.31
95888361|NCT02425046|191729774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Multiple imputation including demographics and 6 month data used to complete dataset. 5 datasets created and t-score averaged.||||||0.516
95888362|NCT01409564|191729807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Repeated ANOVA|Uncorrected, Repeated ANOVA||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.14
95888363|NCT01409564|191729807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Parietal Lobe in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
95888364|NCT01409564|191729807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||<0.01
95888365|NCT01409564|191729807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test group\*time interaction effect in glucose uptake of Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus in two groups on two data points (baseline, 24-week).||||0.08
95888366|NCT01409564|191729808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADAS-Cog scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.93
95888367|NCT01409564|191729809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of MMSE scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.15
95888368|NCT01409564|191729810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Repeated ANOVA|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of ADCS-ADL scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.82
95888369|NCT01409564|191729811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Repeated ANOVA, tested for group\*time interaction effect of Summed CDR scores on three data points (Baseline, 12-week, 24-week)||||0.79
95888370|NCT01409564|191729812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Distribution of Fazekas scale in two groups according to Chi-square test results.||||0.87
95888371|NCT00254540|191729813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|48.0||||||95.0|27.8|68.7||||||||68.7|27.8|
95888372|NCT00254540|191729813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate(percentage)|46.2||||||95.0|26.6|66.6||||||||66.6|26.6|
95888373|NCT00225251|191729829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95888374|NCT02782780|191729834|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.01||||||Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.21|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95888375|NCT02782780|191729834|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(92.3)=4.10|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||||||<0.001
95888376|NCT02782780|191729835|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001||||||test of treatment effect: t(94.7)=6.10|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95888377|NCT02782780|191729835|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTI group: t(94)=6.67|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTI group.||To compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBT-I group, planned contrasts following the mixed models were used.||||<0.001
95888378|NCT02782780|191729836|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(104)=3.40||||||<0.001
95888379|NCT02782780|191729836|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.6)=4.37|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
95888380|NCT02782780|191729837|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(99.9)=2.09||||||<0.05
95888381|NCT02782780|191729837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(92.1)=2.56||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||<0.01
95888382|NCT02782780|191729838|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||=|0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(110)=-0.41||||||=0.991
95888383|NCT02782780|191729838|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.8)=0.94|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||=0.41
95888384|NCT02782780|191729839|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(83.7)=2.51||||||<0.05
95888385|NCT02782780|191729839|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.49||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(90.9)=0.27||||||=0.49
95888386|NCT02782780|191729840|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(105)=4.55||||||<0.01
95888387|NCT02782780|191729840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(91.3)=3.23||||||<0.01
95888388|NCT02782780|191729841|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(91.6)=3.37||||||<0.001
95888389|NCT02782780|191729841|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: (92.1)=3.64|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
95888390|NCT02782780|191729842|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(99.2)=5.45||||||<0.001
95888391|NCT02782780|191729842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(93.4)=6.06|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
95888392|NCT02782780|191729843|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|test of treatment effect: t(76.9)=-4.20||||||<0.001
95888393|NCT02782780|191729843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(33.1)=6.52|Mixed Models Analysis|Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.||||||<0.001
95853674|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2416|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.516|1.382||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||1.382|-3.516|
95853675|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0997|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.545|1.794||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.794|-2.545|
95853676|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.588|2.668||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.668|-1.588|
95853677|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0999|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.185|2.154||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.154|-2.185|
95853678|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1058|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.715|2.648||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||2.648|-1.715|
95853679|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.881|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.918|0.559||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.559|-2.918|
95888394|NCT02782780|191729844|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.6)=4.33||||||<0.001
95888395|NCT02782780|191729844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month follow-up in CBTi group: t(34.4)=4.75||||||<0.001
95888396|NCT02782780|191729845|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed models with random effects for subjects were used to analyze all available data for the intent-to-treat analysis. Because sex was used as a stratification variable in the randomization procedure, it was not included as a covariate the analyses.|||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Test of treatment effect: t(75.1)=3.91||||||<0.001
95888397|NCT02782780|191729845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Planned contrasts following the mixed models were used to compare baseline data to 6-month follow-up data in the CBTi group.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline vs. 6-month in CBTi group: t(34.5)=4.39||||||<0.001
95888398|NCT03654651|191729853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-2.7|
95888399|NCT03654651|191729853|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-2.7|
95888400|NCT03654651|191729853|OTHER|Change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.2|
95888401|NCT03654651|191729854|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-4.8|
95888402|NCT03654651|191729854|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
95888403|NCT03654651|191729854|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-5.1|
95888404|NCT03654651|191729855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-1.2|
95888405|NCT03654651|191729855|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-1.5|
95888406|NCT03654651|191729855|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-2.1|
95888407|NCT03654651|191729856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP||4.6|-3.1|
95888408|NCT03654651|191729856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP||2.9|-2.1|
95888409|NCT03654651|191729856|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||3.3|-2.5|
95888410|NCT03654651|191729856|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral systolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-3.1|
95888411|NCT03654651|191729856|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2.5|-1.5|
95888412|NCT03654651|191729856|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||peripheral diastolic BP change from baseline||2|-2|
95888413|NCT03654651|191729857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP||4.4|-2.4|
95888414|NCT03654651|191729857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP||3.3|-1.7|
95888415|NCT03654651|191729857|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||3.1|-1.9|
95888416|NCT03654651|191729857|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central systolic BP change from baseline||2.1|-2.9|
95888417|NCT03654651|191729857|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||2.6|-1.5|
95888418|NCT03654651|191729857|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||central diastolic BP change from baseline||1.6|-2.4|
95888419|NCT03654651|191729858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.1|
95888420|NCT03654651|191729858|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|0.1|
95888421|NCT03654651|191729858|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|
95888422|NCT03654651|191729859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.9|
95888423|NCT03654651|191729859|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-3.7|
95888424|NCT03654651|191729859|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|-4.0|
95888425|NCT03654651|191729860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.8|-1.4|
95888426|NCT03654651|191729860|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-2.1|
95888427|NCT03654651|191729860|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-6.8|
95888428|NCT03654651|191729861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-2.3|
95888429|NCT03654651|191729861|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.6|
95888430|NCT03654651|191729861|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.6|
95888431|NCT03654651|191729862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.2|-3.8|
95888432|NCT03654651|191729862|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1|-4.9|
95888433|NCT03654651|191729862|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-7.8|
95888434|NCT03654651|191729863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-18.3|
95888435|NCT03654651|191729863|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.8|-29.1|
95888436|NCT03654651|191729863|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-17.1|
95853680|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.876|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8644|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|2.582||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||2.582|-0.829|
95853681|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8882|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.561|0.944||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.944|-2.561|
95853682|NCT00674817|191666158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8929|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.122|1.401||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||1.401|-2.122|
95853683|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.994||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.994|0.066|
95853684|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2318|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.846||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.846|-0.069|
95853685|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2363|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.775||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.775|-0.157|
95853686|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.78||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.780|-0.163|
95853687|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3099|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.485||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.485|0.262|
95853688|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.656|0.55||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.550|-0.656|
95853689|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3112|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|1.443||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.443|0.215|
95853690|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|1.189||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||1.189|-0.054|
95853691|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.513||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.513|0.110|
95853692|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.372||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus maximum GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.372|-0.025|
95853693|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1035|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.414||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.414|0.006|
95853694|NCT00674817|191666159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.311||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.311|-0.103|
95853695|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0503|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|-0.078||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||-0.078|-0.276|
95853696|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.097||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.097|-0.096|
95853697|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.022||||||SK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.022|-0.174|
95853698|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.072||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.072|-0.128|
95853699|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0493|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|-0.069||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.069|-0.263|
95853700|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.038||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.038|-0.152|
95888437|NCT03654651|191729864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.3|
95888438|NCT03654651|191729864|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.5|-0.1|
95888439|NCT03654651|191729864|OTHER|change from baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.5|
95888440|NCT01702454|191729880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|8.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|12.96|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Christchurch strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||12.96|6.21|
95972480|NCT03486457|191918389|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.858||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.29|-41.49|0.0014
95972481|NCT03486457|191918389|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.948||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.69|-17.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-17.13|-52.69|0.0002
95972482|NCT03486457|191918389|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.663||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|26.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||26.51|-15.90|0.6200
95972483|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.862||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.21|-18.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-18.08|-61.21|0.0004
95972484|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.453||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.97|-8.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-8.40|-41.97|0.0037
95972485|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.423||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.61|-42.00|0.0438
95972486|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-49.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.529|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.03|-28.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-28.19|-70.03|<0.0001
95972487|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.47||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.52|-10.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-10.89|-48.52|0.0023
95972488|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-36.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.72||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.08|-15.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-15.49|-58.08|0.0009
95888441|NCT01702454|191729880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.02|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for A/Victoria strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||4.02|1.81|
95888442|NCT01702454|191729880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|5.37|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Brisbane strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||5.37|2.89|
95888443|NCT01702454|191729880|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the GMT ratio is above 1|Adjusted GMT ratio|6.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|8.63|||||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval.|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for B/Hub-Wuj strain at post-vaccination dose 1, the GMT ratio of Fluarix Quadrivalent Primed Group/Fluarix Quadrivalent Unprimed Group and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination log-10 titer and age as regressors.||8.63|5.21|
95888444|NCT01702454|191729882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|44.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.87|52.84||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||52.84|35.87|
95888445|NCT01702454|191729882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|45.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.58|53.3||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||53.3|36.58|
95888446|NCT01702454|191729882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in percentages|37.86||||||95.0|28.83|46.26||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||46.26|28.83|
95888447|NCT01702454|191729882|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SCR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in percentages|56.0||||||95.0|48.32|63.04||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SCR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.04|48.32|
95888448|NCT01702454|191729884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|62.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.27|68.89||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains||68.89|55.27|
95888449|NCT01702454|191729884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.08|55.06||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||55.06|39.08|
95888450|NCT01702454|191729884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion|Difference in SPR|56.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.44|63.43||||||To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.||63.43|49.44|
95888451|NCT01702454|191729884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|SPR difference was calculated using standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in proportion.|Difference in SPR|56.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.41|63.49||||||"To assess the immune response in terms of SPR difference at Day 7 after one dose of Fluarix Quadrivalent vaccine (2012-2013 formulation) in vaccine-primed and vaccine-unprimed subjects, for all the strains.~B/Hu-Wuj = B/Hubei-Wujiagang/158/2009 (Yamagata)"||63.49|49.41|
95888452|NCT00710710|191729917|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
95888453|NCT00710710|191729917|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
95888454|NCT00710710|191729917|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.7021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.7021
95888455|NCT00710710|191729917|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0233||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1229||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.1229|0.0006|0.9156
95888456|NCT00710710|191729920|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.91|0.78|0.38
95888457|NCT00710710|191729921|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.78|||Regression, Cox||if HR is below 1, then 60mg BI 2536 IV on day 1-3 is better.|||1.78|0.68|0.69
95888458|NCT00710710|191729922|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
95888459|NCT00710710|191729922|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
95888460|NCT00710710|191729922|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.056, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9161
95888461|NCT00710710|191729922|OTHER||Maximum likelihood estimation|0.0||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0822||p0 = 0.092, one sided exact binomial test with a 2.5% significance level|Exact binomial test|||Confirmed objective response, comparison with historical controls (Gemcitabine)||0.0822|0.0000|0.9842
95888462|NCT04615923|191729937|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.207||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. Pridopidine slowed progression) was (0.5475). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.207|0.801|
95888463|NCT04615923|191729939|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.334||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.57|-0.75|0.78
95888464|NCT04615923|191729940|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.52|-0.33|0.6594
95888465|NCT04615923|191729941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.745||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.96|-3.89|0.7918
95888466|NCT04615923|191729942|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.9903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||0.84|-0.83|0.9903
95888467|NCT04615923|191729943|SUPERIORITY|Analysis performed using interval-censored survival analysis. This type of model accommodates interval censoring between ALSFRS-R assessments|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Interval censored cox model adjusted for time since symptom onset, pre-baseline change in ALSFRS-R, baseline use of edaravone, riluzole, and neudexta||||1.27|0.69|
95888468|NCT04615923|191729944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.285||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Pridopidine 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.67|-8.23|0.5888
95888469|NCT04615923|191729945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9690
95888470|NCT00715078|191729946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort B is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of Cohort B vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|ratio of geometric means (GeoMean)|1.046||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.936|1.168|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.168|0.936|0.5019
95888471|NCT00715078|191729946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cohort C is considered non-inferior to Cohort A if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of Cohort C vs. Cohort A in the geometric mean of cumulative CD54 upregulation ratio is \>0.8. The use of one-sided CI is based on an assumption that a higher concentration will correspond to a higher CD54 upregulation ratio. The use of 0.8 as margin is based on the assumption that a relative difference of \<20% in upregulation ratios may not be clinically significant.|the ratio of geometric means|0.907||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.013|||ANOVA|||The sample size determination is based on a standard deviation of 0.45 for the log transformed CD54 upregulation ratio estimated from previous studies assuming there is no difference in central values between the two compared cohorts. A sample size of 38 subjects per cohort will provide 70% power for the non-inferiority test for the two pairwise comparisons (Cohort B vs. Cohort A and Cohort C vs. Cohort A).||1.013|0.813|0.1443
95888472|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.38|0.22||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.22|-0.38|
95888473|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.39||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.39|-0.20|
95888474|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.32||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.32|-0.28|
95888475|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.41|
95888476|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.44||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.32|
95888477|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.77||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.01|
95888478|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|-0.22|
95888479|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.07||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.07|0.24|
95888480|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.42||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.42|-0.37|
95888481|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.78||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.78|-0.00|
95888482|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.29|
95888483|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.45||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.45|0.59|
95888484|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.62||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.21|
95888485|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.76||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|-0.07|
95888486|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.72||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.11|
95888487|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.75||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.75|0.85|
95888488|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.04|
95888489|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.75||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.75|-0.10|
95888490|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.81||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.81|-0.05|
95888491|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|2.15||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.15|1.22|
95888492|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.99||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.99|0.01|
95888493|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|1.03||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.05|
95888494|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.94||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.04|
95888495|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|2.31||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.31|1.26|
95888496|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.06|1.11||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.06|
95888497|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.17||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.17|0.11|
95888498|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|1.15||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.15|0.11|
95888499|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|2.4||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.40|1.33|
95888500|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|1.05||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.05|-0.07|
95888501|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.91||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.24|
95888502|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.98||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.98|-0.13|
95888503|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|2.17||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||2.17|1.05|
95888504|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|0.64||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|-0.74|
95888505|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.56||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.56|-0.86|
95888506|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.8||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.57|
95888507|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|1.58||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.58|0.22|
95888508|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.59||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.59|-0.93|
95888509|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.98|0.62||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.98|
95853701|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.075||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||-0.075|-0.267|
95853702|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0498|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.089||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-27 hours||0.089|-0.108|
95853703|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.005||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus SAL versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||-0.005|-0.211|
95853704|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0509|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.114||||||GSK961081 400 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 400 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours||0.114|-0.087|
95853705|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.026||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus SAL GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.026|-0.180|
95853706|NCT00674817|191666160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0529|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.129|0.08||||||GSK961081 1200 mcg Plus IPR versus GSK961081 1200 mcg plus Placebo during 0-4 hours (WMC)||0.080|-0.129|
95888510|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.45||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-1.05|
95888511|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.47|1.02||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.02|-0.47|
95888512|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|1.11||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.11|0.15|
95888513|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.74||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.74|-0.27|
95888514|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.91||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.91|-0.03|
95888515|NCT01529346|191729955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.67||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.67|-0.30|
95888516|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.14||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.14|-0.19|
95888517|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.37||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.37|0.03|
95888518|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.24||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.24|-0.10|
95888519|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.21||||||15 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.21|-0.16|
95888520|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.45||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.06|
95888521|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.19|0.7||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.70|0.19|
95888522|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.54||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.54|0.04|
95888523|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.87||||||30 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.87|0.32|
95888524|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.4||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.16|
95888525|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|0.12|
95888526|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.5||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.50|-0.05|
95888527|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.01||||||45 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.01|0.40|
95888528|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.4||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.40|-0.19|
95888529|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.49||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.49|-0.10|
95972489|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.495||0.5048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Erythema: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||27.90|-13.84|0.5048
95972490|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.273||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|33.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Induration: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||33.57|-15.24|0.4575
95972491|NCT03486457|191918390|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.539||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.26|23.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Scaling: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||23.65|-22.26|0.9523
95888530|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.43||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.43|-0.16|
95888531|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.06||||||60 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.06|0.41|
95888532|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.64||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.64|0.01|
95888533|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.62||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.62|-0.01|
95888534|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.71||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.71|0.08|
95888535|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.61||||||90 Minutes: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.61|0.92|
95888536|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|0.76||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.76|0.04|
95888537|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.69||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.69|-0.03|
95888538|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.77||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|0.05|
95888539|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.68||||||2 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.68|0.92|
95888540|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.95||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.95|0.16|
95888541|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.97||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.97|0.17|
95888542|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|1.03||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.03|0.24|
95888543|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.78||||||3 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.78|0.97|
95888544|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.92||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.92|0.08|
95972492|NCT03486457|191918391|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.386||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.24|-12.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-12.15|-45.24|0.0008
95972493|NCT03486457|191918391|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-46.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.632|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.45|-25.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-25.49|-67.45|<0.0001
95888545|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.84||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.84|-0.03|
95888546|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.93||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.93|0.09|
95888547|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.59||||||4 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.59|0.75|
95888548|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.72||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.72|-0.27|
95888549|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.65||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.65|-0.37|
95888550|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|0.77||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.77|-0.23|
95888551|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|1.31||||||6 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.31|0.33|
95888552|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.89||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.89|-0.24|
95888553|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.94||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.94|-0.25|
95888554|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.8||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.80|-0.31|
95888555|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|1.19||||||8 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||1.19|0.08|
95888556|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.83||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.83|0.07|
95888557|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.44||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.44|-0.36|
95888558|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.07|0.68||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.68|-0.07|
95888559|NCT01529346|191729956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.45||||||24 Hours: repeated measures model included baseline pain intensity, treatment, time, the treatment by time interaction and the time by baseline pain intensity interaction as fixed effects. The unstructured covariance matrix was used to estimate the variances and covariance within participant across time points.||0.45|-0.32|
95888560|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|3.71||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.71|0.43|
95888561|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|3.33||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.33|0.05|
95888562|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.99||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||3.99|0.69|
95888563|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.19|8.79||||||SPID(6): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||8.79|5.19|
95888564|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.97|17.63||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||17.63|1.97|
95888565|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.28|11.37||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||11.37|-4.28|
95888566|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.97|18.68||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||18.68|2.97|
95888567|NCT01529346|191729957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|22.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.82|30.97||||||SPID(24): LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||30.97|13.82|
95888568|NCT01529346|191729958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.26|23.27||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||23.27|1.26|
95888569|NCT01529346|191729958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.82|15.18||||||LS mean estimate of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on an ANCOVA model including treatment as a fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as a covariate.||15.18|-6.82|
95888570|NCT01529346|191729958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|23.61||||||||23.61|1.52|
95888571|NCT01529346|191729958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|32.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.51|44.61||||||||44.61|20.51|
95888572|NCT01529346|191729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.5||||||Hazard Ratio (HR) estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.5|0.6|
95888573|NCT01529346|191729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.9|0.9|
95888574|NCT01529346|191729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.6|0.7|
95888575|NCT01529346|191729959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.4||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||2.4|1.0|
95888576|NCT01529346|191729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|3.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||3.8|1.1|
95888577|NCT01529346|191729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.9|1.4|
95888578|NCT01529346|191729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|4.1||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||4.1|1.1|
95888579|NCT01529346|191729960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|9.9||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||9.9|2.8|
95888580|NCT01529346|191729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.0||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.0|0.4|
95888581|NCT01529346|191729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.2||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||1.2|0.5|
95888582|NCT01529346|191729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.8||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.8|0.3|
95888583|NCT01529346|191729961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.6||||||HR estimates of the treatment difference along with 90% CI were based on Cox proportional hazards model including treatment and baseline pain intensity as fixed effects.||0.6|0.2|
95888584|NCT01067456|191729991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95888585|NCT02328755|191729996|OTHER|Single group|cumulative incidence|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).||0.58|0.24|
95888586|NCT02328755|191729997|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.0|75.0||||||The analysis applies only to the first row, data at 6 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|75|40|
95888587|NCT02328755|191729997|OTHER|Single group|Kaplan-Meier|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|58.0||||||The analysis applies only to the 3rd row, data at 24 months, for recipients of HLA-matched HCT who received the phase II MTD (180mcg) peg-IFN-a (n=31).|Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|58|19|
95888588|NCT02328755|191729998|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 6 months and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method.|||
95888589|NCT02328755|191729999|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||GVHD proportion estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
95888590|NCT02328755|191730000|OTHER|Single group|||||||||||||||||Non-relapse mortality estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using methods of Fine and Gray.|||
95888591|NCT01124422|191730074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.58||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|13.0||ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, Oxycon stratum, and baseline value|ANCOVA|||||13.0|-68.2|0.181
95888592|NCT04294472|191730113|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.1866|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1866
95888593|NCT04294472|191730113|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.2627|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2627
95888594|NCT04294472|191730114|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 1 vs Placebo||||||0.0639|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0639
95888595|NCT04294472|191730114|SUPERIORITY|Cohort 2 vs Placebo||||||0.0508|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0508
95888596|NCT01324999|191730121|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing baseline to week 24.||||0.68
95888597|NCT01324999|191730122|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.34
95888598|NCT01324999|191730123|OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95888599|NCT01324999|191730124|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.19
95888600|NCT01324999|191730125|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing Baseline to week 24.||||0.68
95888601|NCT01324999|191730126|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparing baseline to week 24||||0.92
95888602|NCT01324999|191730127|OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline to week 24||||0.44
95888603|NCT01958008|191730185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1019|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0636|1.4713|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint Cmax,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.4713|1.0636|
95888604|NCT01958008|191730186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.2139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0519|1.3759|||Regression, Linear|Power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and pharmacokinetic endpoint AUC tau,ss||Dose proportionality was analysed over the dose range 10 to 50 mg for plasma PK parameters based on a power model||1.3759|1.0519|
95888605|NCT01244425|191730205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood-ratio chi square test|||||||<0.001
95888606|NCT01244425|191730206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.001
95888607|NCT01244425|191730207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.028
95888608|NCT01244425|191730208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.017
95888609|NCT01244425|191730209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.293||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.293
95888610|NCT01244425|191730210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.237
95888611|NCT01244425|191730211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808||95.0|||||likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.808
95888612|NCT01804075|191730243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95888613|NCT04847557|191730248|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|10.6|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||10.6|3.3|<0.001
95888614|NCT04847557|191730249|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||Heart Failure Outcomes||0.95|0.41|0.026
95888615|NCT04847557|191730250|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|26.7|||Stratified Wilcoxon|Stratified Wilcoxon test used to control for stratification factors of HF decompensation within 12 months of screening,diagnosed T2DM \& baseline BMI|The Hodges-Lehmann estimate for the median difference and 95% CIs was reported.|||26.7|9.9|<0.001
95888616|NCT04847557|191730251|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-10.38|||ANCOVA|||||-10.38|-12.85|<0.001
95888617|NCT04847557|191730252|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-22.17|||ANCOVA|||||-22.17|-45.60|<0.001
95888618|NCT04847557|191730253|SUPERIORITY||Win Ratio|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.28|||||The win ratio was reported as the measure of treatment effect based on the principle that each participant is compared with every other participant within each stratum in a pair-wise manner that proceeds in a hierarchical fashion.|||2.28|1.17|
95888619|NCT04847557|191730254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.4||||||||3.40|1.53|
95888620|NCT04847557|191730255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.452||||||||2.452|0.633|
95888621|NCT04847557|191730256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.342|0.85||||||||0.850|0.342|
95888622|NCT04847557|191730257|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14||||||||1.14|0.46|
95888623|NCT04847557|191730258|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.05||||||||1.05|0.37|
95888624|NCT01705288|191730259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.36
95888625|NCT01705288|191730260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention to Treat Analysis||||0.05
95888626|NCT01705288|191730261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95888627|NCT00670800|191730263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.143
95888628|NCT00670800|191730263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.900
95888629|NCT00670800|191730263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.133||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.133
95888630|NCT00670800|191730264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95888631|NCT00670800|191730264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.717||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.717
95888632|NCT00670800|191730264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95888633|NCT00670800|191730265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
95888634|NCT00670800|191730265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
95888635|NCT00670800|191730265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.606
95888636|NCT00670800|191730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.118
95888637|NCT00670800|191730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581
95888638|NCT00670800|191730266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.190
95888639|NCT03653637|191730267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||Regression, Cox|This model adjusted for site and lifetime suicide attempt history.|The HR represents the PLF+TAU group compared to TAU.|||1.30|0.43|0.263
95888640|NCT03653637|191730270|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.72
95888641|NCT03653637|191730271|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.1||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.30|-.43|.23
95888642|NCT03653637|191730272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.27||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-0.04|0.58||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.58|-.04|.09
95888643|NCT03653637|191730273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.76||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||2.76|-.42|.15
95888644|NCT03653637|191730274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.91|-1.78|.52
95888645|NCT03653637|191730275|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|188.5||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The estimation parameter statistic provided is the U value from the Mann-Whitney U test.|||||.83
95888646|NCT03653637|191730277|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.15||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|||PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.15|-.58|.24
95888647|NCT03653637|191730278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the verbal aggression subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.19|-.06|.28
95888648|NCT03653637|191730278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.07||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.12||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the physical aggression subscale."||.12|-.25|.48
95888649|NCT03653637|191730278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|"This analysis concerns the anger subscale."||.07|-.24|.30
95888650|NCT03653637|191730278|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.22||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.||"This analysis concerns the hostility subscale."|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|.22|-.17|.82
95888651|NCT03653637|191730279|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.08||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.11||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.11|-.27|.41
95888652|NCT03653637|191730280|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48||The p-value is for the treatment-by-time interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|The mixed model has a random intercept for participant and is adjusted for site. Time is a linear effect.|PLF is coded as 1 and TAU is coded as 0.|||.48|-.68|.67
95888653|NCT01346839|191730285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.05
95888654|NCT00157950|191730317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.8|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||99.8|93.6|
95888655|NCT00157950|191730318|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.8|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|96.8|
95888656|NCT00157950|191730319|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.2|
95888657|NCT00157950|191730320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the proportion of subjects receiving Gardasil who were seropositive at Week 4 postdose 3 must be greater than 90%|Proportion|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||100|95.0|
95888658|NCT02451839|191730331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.001
95888659|NCT02451839|191730332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888660|NCT02451839|191730333|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888661|NCT02451839|191730334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888662|NCT02451839|191730335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888663|NCT02451839|191730336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888664|NCT02451839|191730337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.015
95888665|NCT02451839|191730338|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888666|NCT02451839|191730339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
95888667|NCT02451839|191730340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888668|NCT02451839|191730341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888669|NCT02451839|191730342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.006
95888670|NCT02451839|191730343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888671|NCT02451839|191730344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888672|NCT02451839|191730345|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888673|NCT02451839|191730346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95888674|NCT02135146|191730436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95888675|NCT02135146|191730436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95888676|NCT03315208|191730451|SUPERIORITY||Chi-squared statistic value|0.23||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|df=1||||||0.63
95888677|NCT03315208|191730452|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.72||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.29
95888678|NCT03315208|191730453|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.50
95888679|NCT03315208|191730454|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.96||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. BSI scores were binarized (0 and \>=1) for this analysis due to the non-normal distribution of this outcome.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.45
95888680|NCT03315208|191730456|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||0.76
95888681|NCT03315208|191730457|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.07||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is for the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term.|Mixed Models Analysis||The treatment condition effect was determined by the model parameter of the condition-by-time interaction term. Due to the non-normal distribution of the Craving Scale, scores on this measure were binarized (\< 15 and \>= 15) for this analysis.|Linear mixed effects models with random intercepts (as best practice likelihood ratio tests dropping random slopes and intercepts indicated that only random intercepts should be retained) were used, with restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML) for missing data. Analyses were intent-to-treat so included all randomized participants (n=29 in the UP+TAU group and n=18 in the TAU alone group), regardless of whether or not they completed the mid- or post-treatment assessments.||||.21
95888682|NCT03315208|191730458|SUPERIORITY||t statistic|0.29||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the non-normal distribution of the PDA variable, this variable was treated as binary (\<50% and \>=50%) for mixed models; however, due to the small numbers of participants (\< 5) in certain cells of treatment condition (UP versus TAU) by time point, we ran into issues with convergence of linear mixed models. Thus, here we report the results from an independent samples t-test of means (percentage of past 30 days abstinent) at post-treatment (UP versus TAU).||||0.77
95888683|NCT06133348|191730481|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.9||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8|||Paired t-Test|||||5.8|0.9|0.0089
95888684|NCT06133348|191730482|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|18.8|||Paired t-Test|||||18.8|2|0.0169
95888685|NCT06133348|191730483|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|0.5|0.0162
95888686|NCT06133348|191730484|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.1|||Paired t-Test|||||6.1|0.7|0.0144
95888687|NCT06133348|191730485|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.5|||Paired t-Test|||||5.5|0.4|0.0264
95888688|NCT06133348|191730486|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||Paired t-Test|||||1.6|-0.3|0.1622
95888689|NCT06133348|191730487|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.4|0.1506
95888690|NCT06133348|191730488|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.5||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.4|||Paired t-Test|||||5.4|1.5|0.0012
95888691|NCT06133348|191730489|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0|||Paired t-Test|||||2|0.5|0.0021
95888692|NCT06133348|191730490|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Paired t-Test|||||2.4|0.6|0.0027
95888693|NCT06133348|191730491|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.697|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|0.0|0.0494
95888694|NCT06133348|191730492|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Paired t-Test|||||2.3|-1.1|0.4707
95888695|NCT06133348|191730493|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.7|||Paired t-Test|||||-0.7|-4.3|0.0082
95888696|NCT06133348|191730494|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.3||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-2.7|0.1327
95888697|NCT06133348|191730495|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6|||Paired t-Test|||||0.6|-2.9|0.2046
95888698|NCT06133348|191730496|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9||0.5252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.4|||Paired t-Test|||||1.4|-2.8|0.5252
95888699|NCT06133348|191730497|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0||0.4569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9|||Paired t-Test|||||2.9|-1.3|0.4569
95888700|NCT06133348|191730498|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.8||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|29.0|||Paired t-Test|||||29.0|-4.7|0.1497
95888701|NCT06133348|191730499|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.5||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|43.7|||Paired t-Test|||||43.7|-10.4|0.2163
95888702|NCT06133348|191730500|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|7.7|||Paired t-Test|||||7.7|-0.6|0.0915
95888703|NCT06133348|191730501|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|16.9|||Paired t-Test|||||16.9|-6.3|0.3573
95888704|NCT06133348|191730502|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.7||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Paired t-Test|||||1.1|-2.8|0.3741
95888705|NCT06133348|191730503|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Paired t-Test|||||1.0|-0.6|0.6187
95888706|NCT06133348|191730504|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.3572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.1|||Paired t-Test|||||0.1|-0.04|0.3572
95888707|NCT06133348|191730505|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.3|||Paired t-Test|||||4.3|-0.5|0.1080
95888708|NCT06133348|191730506|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.7||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Paired t-Test|||||2.5|-0.6|0.2088
95888709|NCT06133348|191730509|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.7333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Paired t-Test|||||0.2|-0.1|0.7333
95888710|NCT06133348|191730510|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.6382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3|||Paired t-Test|||||1.3|-0.8|0.6382
95888711|NCT06133348|191730511|OTHER|Single group|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.4771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Paired t-Test|||||0.4|-0.8|0.4771
95888712|NCT04483011|191730519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Dave 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.034
95888713|NCT04483011|191730519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.79||0.265|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of Comparator.||||0.265
95888714|NCT04483011|191730519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.72||0.044|TWO_SIDED|||||\< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.044
95888715|NCT04483011|191730520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation of RiaGev.||||0.008
95888716|NCT04483011|191730520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34||0.297|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.297
95888717|NCT04483011|191730520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.88||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.04
95888718|NCT04483011|191730521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in the RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.004
95888719|NCT04483011|191730521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.88||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.640
95888720|NCT04483011|191730521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.57||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator supplementation.||||0.014
95888721|NCT04483011|191730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1037.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1590.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.013
95888722|NCT04483011|191730522|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-302.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1427.42||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison before before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.382
95888723|NCT04483011|191730523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-135.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2153.66||0.793|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.793
95888724|NCT04483011|191730523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-134.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1830.16||0.758|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 8 over Day 1 baseline is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.758
95888725|NCT04483011|191730524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|70.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|123.89||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation||||0.003
95888726|NCT04483011|191730524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|88.62||0.766|TWO_SIDED|||||p \> 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.766
95888727|NCT04483011|191730525|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|24.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|58.2||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups after 7-day supplementation.||||0.029
95888728|NCT04483011|191730526|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|ANCOVA||The p value between RiaGev and Comparator groups at Day 5 is reported.|A comparison between RiaGev and Comparator groups.||||0.034
95888729|NCT04483011|191730527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.99||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in RiaGev group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after RiaGev supplementation.||||0.014
95888730|NCT04483011|191730527|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.66||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The p value in Comparator group at Day 5 over Day 1 is reported.|A comparison between before and after supplementation with Comparator.||||0.049
95888731|NCT02408315|191730562|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimates obtained from Kaplan-Meier method and results of Log-rank test. P-value for non-inferiority hypothesis based on Cox proportional hazards model (H0: HR ≤ 0.74 vs. HA: HR \> .74), p-value \< .05 provides evidence to reject inferiority and conclude BM is non-inferior to VM.||||||0.663|||||||Cox proportional|||||||0.663
95888732|NCT00345254|191730579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95888733|NCT00563381|191730580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.9|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.77|<0.0001
95888734|NCT00563381|191730581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.66|0.82|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium vs. Salmeterol||0.82|0.66|<0.0001
95888735|NCT00563381|191730582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0002||95.0|0.85|0.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|0.85|0.0002
95888736|NCT00563381|191730583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0017||95.0|0.83|0.96|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.96|0.83|0.0017
95888737|NCT00563381|191730584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.61|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.61|<0.0001
95888738|NCT00563381|191730585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.0005||95.0|0.66|0.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.89|0.66|0.0005
95972494|NCT03486457|191918391|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.778||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.05|-5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-5.47|-48.05|0.0141
95888739|NCT00563381|191730586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0242||95.0|0.78|0.98|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|0.78|0.0242
95888740|NCT00563381|191730587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.0406||95.0|0.82|1.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.00|0.82|0.0406
95888741|NCT00563381|191730588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.91|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.91|0.78|<0.0001
95888742|NCT00563381|191730589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.85|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
95888743|NCT00563381|191730590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.78|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.92|0.78|<0.0001
95888744|NCT00563381|191730591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.68|0.86|||Regression, Cox|Treatment effect adjusted for pooled centre||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.86|0.68|<0.0001
95888745|NCT00563381|191730592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.76|0.9|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdispersion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.90|0.76|<0.0001
95888746|NCT00563381|191730593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0036||95.0|0.84|0.97|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.97|0.84|0.0036
95888747|NCT00563381|191730594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio (ratio of incidence rates)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.73|0.88|||Poisson regression|Poisson regression correcting for overdisperion and adjusted for treatment exposure||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.88|0.73|<0.0001
95888748|NCT00563381|191730595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.6||||0.1035||95.0|-3.53|0.33|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MMRM) (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.33|-3.53|0.1035
95888749|NCT00563381|191730596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.06||||0.0369||95.0|-3.99|-0.12|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|Mixed effects repeated measures model (MRMM)(fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week).||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.12|-3.99|0.0369
95888750|NCT00563381|191730597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-2.07||||0.0362||95.0|-4.0|-0.13|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||-0.13|-4.00|0.0362
95888751|NCT00563381|191730598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.88||||0.0573||95.0|-3.82|0.06|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.06|-3.82|0.0573
95888752|NCT00563381|191730599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2641||95.0|-3.04|0.83|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.83|-3.04|0.2641
95888753|NCT00563381|191730600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.01||||0.3068||95.0|-2.95|0.93|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.93|-2.95|0.3068
95972495|NCT03486457|191918392|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-10.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.02|-15.48|<0.0001
95972496|NCT03486457|191918392|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-19.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.575|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|-14.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-14.37|-24.52|<0.0001
95888754|NCT00563381|191730601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.78||||0.4299||95.0|-2.72|1.16|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.16|-2.72|0.4299
95888755|NCT00563381|191730602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.48||||0.6277||95.0|-2.42|1.46|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.46|-2.42|0.6277
95888756|NCT00563381|191730603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.85||||0.3931||95.0|-2.8|1.1|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.10|-2.80|0.3931
95888757|NCT00563381|191730604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.97||||0.3297||95.0|-2.92|0.98|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.98|-2.92|0.3297
95888758|NCT00563381|191730605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.3||||0.1904||95.0|-3.25|0.65|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.65|-3.25|0.1904
95888759|NCT00563381|191730606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.99||||0.3172||95.0|-2.94|0.95|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.95|-2.94|0.3172
95888760|NCT00563381|191730607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.67||||0.5017||95.0|-2.62|1.28|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.28|-2.62|0.5017
95888761|NCT00563381|191730608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.23||||0.2174||95.0|-3.18|0.72|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.72|-3.18|0.2174
95888762|NCT00563381|191730609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-1.1||||0.2682||95.0|-3.05|0.85|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||0.85|-3.05|0.2682
95972497|NCT03486457|191918392|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.289||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|-2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.18|-11.22|0.0039
95888763|NCT00563381|191730610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in peak expiratory flow rates|-0.59||||0.552||95.0|-2.55|1.36|||Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model|MMRM (fixed terms: treatment, centre, week, treatment\*week; covariates: baseline PEFR, baseline PEFR\*week)||Tiotropium versus Salmeterol||1.36|-2.55|0.5520
95888764|NCT01683383|191730646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Adjusted Wald estimation|||||||<0.001
95888765|NCT01683383|191730647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95888766|NCT01683383|191730649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95888767|NCT02850965|191730651|EQUIVALENCE|Protocol defined margins are: \[-18.0%, +18.0%\] for Week 16, 95% confidence interval. Between-imputation variance is zero. Confidence interval is based on one imputed set.|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|8.7|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|8.7|-14.4|
95888768|NCT02850965|191730652|OTHER|Missing PASI 75 at Week 24 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|12.6|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in PASI 75 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %).|The week 24 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 24)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI. The random error was assumed to be binomially distributed.|12.6|-8.5|
95972498|NCT03486457|191918393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|14.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|25.73|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.73|2.64|0.0160
95888769|NCT02850965|191730653|OTHER||Difference of Least Squares Means|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|Difference of Least Squares Means (LSM)= LSM of (BI 695501 - Humira)|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed based on the following model: PASI percentage improvement from baseline at Week 16= Treatment + Baseline PASI +Prior exposure to a biologic agent + random error.||6.0|-2.7|
95972499|NCT03486457|191918393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|25.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.06||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.86|41.44|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.44|9.86|0.0015
95972500|NCT03486457|191918393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|23.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.16||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|41.0|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||41.00|5.11|0.0118
95888770|NCT02850965|191730654|OTHER|Missing sPGA at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in sPGA <= 1 Response Rate|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.1|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in sPGA \<= 1 Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|19.1|-4.8|
95888771|NCT02850965|191730655|OTHER|Missing DLQI at Week 16 data were imputed using a combination of non-responder imputation (NRI) and last observed carried forward (LOCF).|Difference in DLQI Response Rate|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|11.3|||Regression, Logistic||Difference in DLQI (0, 1) Response Rate = (BI 695501 - US-licensed Humira, %)|The week 16 confidence interval for the estimated difference in percentage are produced using the cumulative distribution function method of Reeve.|The statistical model: Logit (response to treatment at Week 16)=Treatment+Baseline PASI+Prior exposure to a biologic agent+random error. Model included fixed, categorical effects of treatment (BI 695501 vs US-licensed Humira) and prior exposure to a biologic agent (yes/no), continuous effect of baseline PASI.|11.3|-11.7|
95888772|NCT00580606|191730703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|77.6||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's Statistic|The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Number of participants who successfully consumed 5,000 mg of peanut powder or at least a 10-fold increase in the amount of peanut powder compared to their baseline OFC was compared using Barnard's Statistic with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between treatment groups.||77.6|22.2|<0.001
95888773|NCT03789318|191730799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2912
95888774|NCT03789318|191730800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4980
95888775|NCT03789318|191730801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1958|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1958
95888776|NCT03789318|191730802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9546|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9546
95888777|NCT03789318|191730803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4434
95888778|NCT01317160|191730804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Domeij-Arverud et al., Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:675-80.||||0.042
95888779|NCT01317160|191730804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|Age was adjusted for in the calculation.|Risk of VTE by routine care (numerator) divided by IPC treatment (denominator)|||6.32|1.25|<0.05
95888780|NCT01317160|191730806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.737|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.737
95888781|NCT01325584|191730813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.07
95888782|NCT01325584|191730815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.53
95888783|NCT01325584|191730816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.48
95888784|NCT02636868|191730821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.363
95888785|NCT02636868|191730821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.360
95888786|NCT02636868|191730821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.461
95888787|NCT02636868|191730822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.401
95888788|NCT02636868|191730822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.372
95888789|NCT02636868|191730822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis is no difference across treatment groups||||0.648
95888790|NCT02636868|191730823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference across treatments||||0.996
95888791|NCT02636868|191730823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.951
95888792|NCT02636868|191730823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.05|Log Rank|||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.995
95888793|NCT02636868|191730824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.312||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.312
95888794|NCT02636868|191730824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.094
95888795|NCT02636868|191730824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance set at 0.10|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model using Poisson distribution with pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO₂ in model.||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.414
95888796|NCT02636868|191730825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.099
95888797|NCT02636868|191730825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatments||||0.090
95888798|NCT02636868|191730825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||A priori statistical significance of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Pooled site, treatment, gender, birth weight, and baseline FiO2 in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.461
95888799|NCT02636868|191730826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no treatment between treatments||||0.534
95888800|NCT02636868|191730826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.480
95888801|NCT02636868|191730826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05|ANOVA|Treatment and pooled site in model||Null hypothesis of no difference between treatment groups||||0.313
95888802|NCT01969240|191730827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.86||||||||0.86|0.46|
95888803|NCT01969240|191730828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The a-priori significance level was 0.05.||||||<0.013
95888804|NCT01969240|191730829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|11.5||||||||11.5|9.1|
95888805|NCT01969240|191730830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.998
95888806|NCT01969240|191730831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||negative binomial model|||||||<0.001
95888807|NCT01969240|191730832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.9||||||||-0.90|-4.8|
95888808|NCT01969240|191730833|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6||||||||3.6|-0.2|
95888809|NCT00227903|191730845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power||||0.88
95888810|NCT00227903|191730846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95888811|NCT00227903|191730847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0||||Not corrected for multiple comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|2 degrees of freedom||We estimated that 110 people with 10% attrition would provide 80% power.||||0.88
95888812|NCT00227903|191730848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
95888813|NCT00227903|191730849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.67|0.36|0.79
95888814|NCT00227903|191730850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.42|0.79
95888815|NCT00227903|191730851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.72|0.34|0.88
95888816|NCT00227903|191730852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|0.57|0.88
95888817|NCT00227903|191730853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.32|0.50
95888818|NCT00227903|191730854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95888819|NCT00227903|191730855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95888820|NCT00227903|191730856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95888821|NCT00227903|191730857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95888822|NCT00227903|191730858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.11|0.27|0.50
95888823|NCT00227903|191730859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.14|0.44|0.07
95888824|NCT00227903|191730860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.52|0.47|0.07
95888825|NCT00227903|191730861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.02|0.08|0.07
95888826|NCT00227903|191730862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.90|0.10|0.07
95888827|NCT00227903|191730863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|0.32|0.91
95888828|NCT00227903|191730864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.07|0.35|0.91
95888829|NCT00227903|191730865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|0.14|0.91
95888830|NCT00227903|191730866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|7.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.12|0.21|0.91
95888831|NCT00227903|191730867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.55|0.46|.04
95888832|NCT00227903|191730868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.17|0.35|0.04
95888833|NCT00227903|191730869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.63|0.04|0.04
95888834|NCT00227903|191730870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.74|0.04|0.04
95888835|NCT00227903|191730871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.01
95888836|NCT00227903|191730872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95888837|NCT05081011|191730896|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Log Rank|||||||0.006
95888838|NCT05081011|191730897|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|57.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||57.4|8.0|0.01
95888839|NCT05081011|191730898|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.4||A p-value of 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Welch 2-sample method|||||-0.4|-6.8|0.03
95888840|NCT05081011|191730899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.8|||Welch 2-sample method|||||2.8|-0.03|0.06
95888841|NCT05081011|191730900|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.5|||Welch 2-sample method|||||3.5|-1.6|0.46
95888842|NCT05081011|191730901|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.91|||2-sample test|2-sample test for equality of proportions with Yates continuity correction|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.|Comparison of percentage (proportion) of participants achieving glycemic control.||0.91|0.21|0.005
95888843|NCT05081011|191730902|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-68.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|-30.1|||Welch 2-sample method|||||-30.1|-107.1|0.001
95888844|NCT01506479|191730911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|16.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.6|12.0|<0.0001
95888845|NCT01506479|191730912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.34|ONE_SIDED|90.0||4.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.10|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the vigorous exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference between the mean change in the control group and the mean change in the vigorous exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that vigorous exercise does not warrant further investigation.||4.6||0.34
95972501|NCT03486457|191918394|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.259||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.60|-5.58|0.0156
95888846|NCT01506479|191730912|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set to 0.10. If the p-value is less than 0.10, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative (moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation).|t-test, 1 sided||"The estimate is the difference between the control group and the moderate exercise group.~The upper bound of the confidence interval should be compared to the futility threshold of 3.5 to reject or not reject the null hypothesis."|The null hypothesis is that the moderate exercise group warrants further investigation using a futility threshold of 3.5 compared to the control group (difference in the mean change between the control group and the moderate exercise group). The alternative hypothesis is that moderate exercise does not warrant further investigation .||2.8||0.03
95888847|NCT01506479|191730913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1334
95888848|NCT02746874|191730924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
95972502|NCT03486457|191918394|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.989|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.02|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-2.10|-6.02|<0.0001
95972503|NCT03486457|191918394|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.346||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.28|-1.65|0.0061
95972504|NCT03486457|191918395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|32.64|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.64|-6.59|0.1930
95972505|NCT03486457|191918395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|44.11|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||44.11|4.48|0.0162
95972506|NCT03486457|191918395|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.83||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.15|25.3|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||25.30|-17.15|0.7068
95888849|NCT02746874|191730926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.978
95888850|NCT02746874|191730927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.371
95888851|NCT02746874|191730928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.325
95888852|NCT02746874|191730929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.466
95888853|NCT02746874|191730930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.368
95888854|NCT02746874|191730931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.509
95972507|NCT03486457|191918396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.2811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.25|-0.83|0.2811
95972508|NCT03486457|191918396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.96|0.2140
95972509|NCT03486457|191918396|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.22|-0.74|0.2817
95972510|NCT03486457|191918397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.9407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.37|0.9407
95888855|NCT02746874|191730932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.593|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.593
95888856|NCT02746874|191730933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.687
95888857|NCT02746874|191730934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
95888858|NCT02746874|191730935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.687
95888859|NCT02746874|191730936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.840
95888860|NCT02746874|191730937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.913
95888861|NCT02746874|191730938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.301
95888862|NCT02746874|191730939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.826
95888863|NCT02746874|191730940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.813|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.813
95888864|NCT02746874|191730942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.047
95888865|NCT02746874|191730943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.115
95888866|NCT02746874|191730944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.349
95888867|NCT01156311|191730963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.17|<0.0001
95888868|NCT01156311|191730963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.33|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -8, -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 16, 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.33|-1.83|0.0124
95888869|NCT01156311|191730964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.25|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||-0.25|-1.50|0.0010
95888870|NCT01156311|191730964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test||based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate|Change from average of Weeks -4, and 0 to average of Weeks 20, 24 MRI scans.||0.00|-1.25|0.0339
95888871|NCT06073119|191730969|SUPERIORITY||Response rate difference (RRD), %|23.43||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|45.98||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg BID - placebo.|||45.98|-2.74|0.0874
95888872|NCT06073119|191730969|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|33.08||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|54.83||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg BID - placebo.|||54.83|5.71|0.0185
95888873|NCT06073119|191730969|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|38.02||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.62|58.84||A hierarchical testing was used to control the overall type I error of 0.05 (two-sided). Testing was performed in the order of 200 mg BID, 100 mg BID, 200 mg QD versus placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 200 mg QD - placebo.|||58.84|10.62|0.0077
95888874|NCT06073119|191730969|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|9.35||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|32.4||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 100 mg QD - placebo.|||32.40|-14.72|0.4576
95888875|NCT06073119|191730969|SUPERIORITY||RRD, %|13.44||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|36.72||No multiplicity adjustment, hence p-value is nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for baseline PASI score (\<=20, \>20).|Difference = SAR441566 Dose Regimen 50 mg QD - placebo.|||36.72|-11.38|0.3051
95888876|NCT01454947|191730976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P values computed using difference between proportions (z value) with Bonferroni correction.|2 proportion Z-test|||||||0.007
95888877|NCT00456547|191730977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjusted for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95888878|NCT00456547|191730978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95888879|NCT00456547|191730979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95888880|NCT00456547|191730980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Corrected for 12 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95888881|NCT00673465|191730981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-4.4||||0.5269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|9.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||9.7|-18.5|0.5269
95888882|NCT00673465|191730981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-53.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|-39.8|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-39.8|-68.1|<0.0001
95888883|NCT00673465|191730985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.81||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|14.5|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||14.5|-20.1|0.7410
95888884|NCT00673465|191730985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-46.2|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-46.2|-80.9|<0.0001
95888885|NCT00673465|191730987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-3.59||||0.3146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|3.6|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||3.6|-10.8|0.3146
95888886|NCT00673465|191730987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-19.4|||ANOVA|ANOVA model extracting the effect due to treatment, period, sequence and participant.||||-19.4|-33.8|<0.0001
95888887|NCT00680745|191731006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0867|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.27||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided)||-0.27|-0.61|<0.0001
95888888|NCT00680745|191731006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0885|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
95888889|NCT00680745|191731006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0873|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.51||significant at alpha=0.019 (2-sided) applying Dunnett's adjustment. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control the Type I error rate across the primary and key secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0 (with alpha = 0.019 applying Dunnett's adjustment, two-sided).||-0.51|-0.86|<0.0001
95888890|NCT00680745|191731007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3153||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.15||not significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.15|-1.08|0.1410
95888891|NCT00680745|191731007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3217||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.21||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.21|-1.47|0.0091
95888892|NCT00680745|191731007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3168|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.92||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.92|-2.17|<0.0001
95888893|NCT00680745|191731008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|-18.0||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-18.0|-45.0|
95888894|NCT00680745|191731008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.968||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-12.3||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.3|-39.7|0.0002
95888895|NCT00680745|191731008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|-15.6||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-15.6|-42.2|<0.0001
95888896|NCT00680745|191731009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.265|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||22.1|5.4|
95972511|NCT03486457|191918397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.35|-0.81|0.4295
95972512|NCT03486457|191918397|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.2946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.29|-0.95|0.2946
95972513|NCT03486457|191918398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|21.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|32.33|||Normal approximation|||Week 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.33|10.32|0.0001
95972514|NCT03486457|191918398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.31|48.75|||Normal approximation|||Month 1: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||48.75|23.31|<0.0001
95888897|NCT00680745|191731009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.392||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|25.9||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||25.9|8.7|0.0001
95888898|NCT00680745|191731009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.457|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|27.4||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline value.||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||27.4|9.9|<0.0001
95888899|NCT00680745|191731010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.45||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.45|-1.19|
95888900|NCT00680745|191731010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4234||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.11||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.11|-1.78|0.0262
95888901|NCT00680745|191731010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4211|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|-2.5|-0.84||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.84|-2.50|<0.0001
95888902|NCT00680745|191731011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.522|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.9||Not significant. Hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group stopped at previous endpoint.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-7.9|-21.8|
95888903|NCT00680745|191731011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.594|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|-12.2||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-26.3|<0.0001
95888904|NCT00680745|191731011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.545|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-19.5||significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure within treatment group.|ANCOVA|with treatment group as effect (all treatment groups included) and baseline value as covariate.||The null hypothesis is given as H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-19.5|-33.5|<0.0001
95888905|NCT02730455|191731031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, United States of America \[USA\]) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.07|0.38|0.086
95888906|NCT02730455|191731031|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite Measure: The global odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||0.95|0.34|0.031
95888907|NCT02730455|191731032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.28|0.35|0.222
95888908|NCT02730455|191731032|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure||1.06|0.28|0.073
95888909|NCT02730455|191731033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.08|0.29|0.085
95888910|NCT02730455|191731033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.04|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio was based on a linear logistic regression model with baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), tPA use (yes/no), treatment window (\<=9, \>9 and \<=24hours), thrombectomy (yes/no) and region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) as covariates and unstructured working correlation structure.||1.04|0.28|0.067
95888911|NCT02730455|191731034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|1.64|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.64|-16.97|0.106
95888912|NCT02730455|191731034|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.1||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|3.27|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.27|-15.43|0.202
95888913|NCT02730455|191731035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.99|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.99|-2.64|0.780
95888914|NCT02730455|191731035|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.73|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.73|-2.89|0.622
95888915|NCT02730455|191731036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.2||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||3.40|-1.10|0.315
95888916|NCT02730455|191731036|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.56|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment and treatment by visit interaction were included in the model as explanatory variables. Baseline NIHSS category (score 5-15, 16-23), tPA use (yes/no), age (\<60, 60-69, 70-80), thrombectomy (yes/no), region (Spain, UK/Germany, USA) and treatment window were considered as covariates. An unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used in the model.||1.56|-2.96|0.542
95888917|NCT02730455|191731039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||"mRS: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome.~Dose levels are log transformed."||||0.028
95888918|NCT02730455|191731039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||BI: The Cochran-Armitage trend test of a monotonically increasing dose response in proportion of excellent outcome. Dose levels are log transformed.||||0.049
95888919|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.46|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||6.46|2.55|
95888920|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.56|1.42|
95888921|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|7.19|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||7.19|2.8|
95888922|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.96|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 22|||3.96|1.56|
95888923|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|8.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|12.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||12|5.52|
95888924|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.15|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.15|2.94|
95888925|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratio of GMTs|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|11.0|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||11|5.36|
95888926|NCT00996307|191731103|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided CIs were calculated and assessed for non-inferiority first against the margin of 0.5 (exploratory margin) and in case of success against the margin of 0.667 (based on CBER guidance against the licensed comparator).|Ratios of GMTs|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|6.02|||||Ratio of GMTs at Day 43|||6.02|2.86|
95888927|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|5.65||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22||5.65|2.37|
95888928|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.4||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||3.4|1.43|
95888929|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|6.86||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||6.86|2.85|
95888930|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|2.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.13||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 22.||4.13|1.72|
95888931|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.54|
95888932|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|6.42||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines||6.42|3.23|
95888933|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|7.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.0||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||11|5.3|
95888934|NCT00996307|191731103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|4.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|6.19||||||Superiority of the adjuvanted vaccines against the non-adjuvanted vaccines was to be tested against the margin of 1 on day 43.||6.19|3.09|
95888935|NCT01867021|191731111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.06|||ANCOVA|Not applicable(NA)||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||2.06|1.66|
95888936|NCT01867021|191731111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||1.64|1.38|
95888937|NCT01867021|191731111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The HI GMTs of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of GMTs (GMT TIVf / GMT TIV) was ≤1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Non-inferiority of HI GMTs of TIV vaccine over HI GMTs of TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||1.08|0.93|
95888938|NCT01867021|191731112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H1N1 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H1N1 at day 22||11.5|5.6|
95972515|NCT03486457|191918398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|52.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.86|63.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 2: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||63.55|40.86|<0.0001
95972516|NCT03486457|191918398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|39.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.38|53.03|||Normal approximation|||Month 3: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||53.03|26.38|<0.0001
95972517|NCT03486457|191918398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|18.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|32.55|||Normal approximation|||Month 4: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||32.55|4.22|0.0110
95972518|NCT03486457|191918398|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of participants|16.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|29.5|||Normal approximation|||Month 6: The normal approximation to the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the difference between the two treatment arms and to generate 95% CI and p-value for the difference in response rates.||29.50|2.85|0.0173
95972519|NCT03486457|191918399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.47|-0.79|<0.0001
95972520|NCT03486457|191918399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.62|-0.99|<0.0001
95972521|NCT03486457|191918399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.66|-1.08|<0.0001
95972522|NCT03486457|191918399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.80|-1.28|<0.0001
95972523|NCT03486457|191918399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.18|-0.69|0.0009
95972524|NCT03486457|191918399|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.06|-0.51|0.1202
95972525|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.69|1.76|0.0003
95972526|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.35|1.01|0.0043
95972527|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.82|1.42|0.0004
95972528|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.39|1.69|0.0002
95972529|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.203||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.41|0.67|0.0123
95972530|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.78|0.38|0.0216
95972531|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.336||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.67|-0.60|0.1290
95972532|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.22|-0.40|0.1043
95972533|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.763|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.27|2.26|<0.0001
95972534|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.178||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.10|-0.54|0.1318
95972535|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.225||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.95|0.11|0.0402
95972536|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.83|1.99|0.0004
95972537|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.40|3.18|<0.0001
95888939|NCT01867021|191731112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain A/H3N2 considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|16.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain A/H3N2 at day 22||16.1|10.1|
95888940|NCT01867021|191731112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine for strain B considered non-inferior to percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIVf vaccine if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion TIVf - Seroconversion TIV) was ≤10%.|Difference in seroconversion rates|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Non-inferiority of percentage of subjects with HI seroconversion of TIV vaccine over TIVf vaccine for the strain B at day 22||2.3|-5|
95888941|NCT01712490|191731116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|0.983|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 favors A+AVD arm.||0.983|0.603|0.035
95888942|NCT01712490|191731117|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.184|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio (A+AVD/ABVD) and 95% CI are based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors region and number of IPFP risk factors at baseline with treatment as the explanatory variable in the model. Hazard ratio \<1 favors A+AVD arm.||1.184|0.448|0.199
95888943|NCT00060008|191731167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95888944|NCT00560859|191731168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of change from baseline|2.0||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
95888945|NCT03171415|191731187|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||>0.05
95888946|NCT03171415|191731187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups, at day 28 and Day 56||||<0.05
95888947|NCT03171415|191731187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
95888948|NCT03171415|191731187|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis T-test was applied for analyzing the difference in between the study groups||||<0.05
95888949|NCT03171415|191731188|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95888950|NCT03171415|191731188|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95888951|NCT03171415|191731188|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95888952|NCT03171415|191731188|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95888953|NCT03171415|191731194|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95888954|NCT02848651|191731200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.54|0.3502
95888955|NCT02848651|191731207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.40|0.1783
95888956|NCT02848651|191731207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.23|0.0358
95888957|NCT02848651|191731208|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|13.27||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.53|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.00|2.53|0.0326
95888958|NCT02848651|191731208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|30.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.82|45.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.62|14.82|<0.0001
95888959|NCT02848651|191731208|SUPERIORITY||Differences in Rates|41.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.13|60.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.61|22.13|<0.0001
95888960|NCT00883116|191731209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Log Rank|||||1.7|1.0|0.0397
95888961|NCT00883116|191731210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.3|0.8|0.8011
95888962|NCT00680043|191731260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.79|0.29|||ANOVA|||||0.29|-0.79|
95888963|NCT00680043|191731260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.56|0.52|||ANOVA|||||0.52|-0.56|
95888964|NCT00680043|191731262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.84|
95888965|NCT00680043|191731262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.03|0.92|
95888966|NCT03194698|191731282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0312|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0312
95888967|NCT03194698|191731283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95888968|NCT03194698|191731284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95972538|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.261|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|7.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.76|2.79|<0.0001
95888969|NCT01031069|191731296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-16 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.52||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.52|1.92|
95888970|NCT01031069|191731296|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above (\>) 0.5 for HPV-18 type.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.84|12.66||||||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) one month after the administration of the third dose of vaccine in HIV+ subjects.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|12.66|4.84|
95888971|NCT01031069|191731297|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-18 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.79|11.54|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, assessed following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|11.54|4.79|<0.0001
95888972|NCT01031069|191731297|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) being above 1 for HPV-16 type, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|2.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV+ subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratios for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV+/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV+/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV+ subjects, following a sequential approach.|Primary objectives were to be assessed sequentially: firstly, non-inferiority for both HPV-16 and HPV-18, and then, superiority for HPV-18 followed by superiority for HPV-16.|4.11|1.83|<0.0001
95888973|NCT01031069|191731314|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-18 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|9.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-18 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-18, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||9.06|3.20|<0.0001
95888974|NCT01031069|191731314|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was defined as the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix over Gardasil) for HPV-16 type being above 1, with a statistically significant p-value.|Adjusted GMT ratio|3.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.84|5.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA model on the log10 transformation of the titers for HIV- subjects and including the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Adjusted GMT ratio for anti-HPV-16 neutra antibody (ED50): To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Cervarix vaccine (HIV-/Cervarix Group) was superior to that of Gardasil vaccine (HIV-/Gardasil Group), in terms of geometric mean titers (GMTs) against HPV-16, measured by Pseudovirion-based neutralization assay (PBNA) in HIV- subjects.||5.06|1.84|<0.0001
95972539|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366||0.1254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.80|-0.59|0.1254
95888975|NCT02127567|191731385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|1.5|<0.001
95972540|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.68|2.00|0.0003
95888976|NCT02127567|191731386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.4|1.1|<0.01
95888977|NCT02127567|191731387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-0.7|0.44
95888978|NCT02127567|191731388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|0.8|<0.01
95888979|NCT02127567|191731389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.7|<0.01
95888980|NCT02127567|191731390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.0|0.78
95888981|NCT02127567|191731391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|4.1|<0.01
95888982|NCT02127567|191731392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|0.5|0.002
95888983|NCT03182829|191731411|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority was chosen|Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||Chi-squared||||Fisher's exact test|100|90|<0.05
95888984|NCT02664441|191731412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||0.6|-4.1|0.40
95888985|NCT02664441|191731413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||-0.4|-5.7|0.02
95888986|NCT02664441|191731414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.2||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-2.7|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Fat Intake||-2.7|-37.8|.032
95888987|NCT02664441|191731414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-430.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-761.0|-100.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||Analysis for Total Calorie Intake||-100|-761|.02
95888988|NCT02664441|191731415|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.08|0.97|0.19
95888989|NCT02664441|191731416|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for HDL Cholesterol||1.11|0.91|0.82
95888990|NCT02664441|191731416|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|Analysis for Triglycerides||1.19|0.83|0.92
95888991|NCT02664441|191731417|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||0.92|0.41|0.03
95888992|NCT02664441|191731418|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) as covariates|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals|||2.14|0.90|0.32
95888993|NCT02664441|191731419|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.95||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.|Data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Results were back-transformed through exponentiation and presented as geometric mean ratios with 95% confidence intervals.|||1.10|0.81|0.69
95888994|NCT02664441|191731420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-269.7|-63.1|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values||||-63.1|-269.7|0.004
95888995|NCT02664441|191731421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-145.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-653.5|363.4|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline||||363.4|-653.5|0.58
95888996|NCT02664441|191731422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Randomization stratification variables (site, sex and age group) were used as covariates.||||2.1|-19.1|0.088
95909145|NCT05338333|191776353|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if the least squares means difference upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens-by-visit interaction, period, sequence, and habitual lens stratum) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID210464 minus AOHG MF.|||0.00||
95909146|NCT05520138|191776354|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.16|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.16|1.04|
95909147|NCT05520138|191776355|SUPERIORITY|With a 2-sided Type I of 0.05 significance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.27|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.27|1.06|
95888997|NCT03510884|191731423|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.0|-30.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per interactive voice response system (IVRS), time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.7|-56.0|<0.0001
95888998|NCT03510884|191731423|SUPERIORITY|Bonferroni adjustment was applied to handle multiplicity for the comparison of each alirocumab dosing regimen group versus its placebo group for the primary efficacy endpoint.|LS mean difference|-33.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-21.2||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.2|-46.4|<0.0001
95888999|NCT03510884|191731424|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.3|-34.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-34.7|-56.3|<0.0001
95889000|NCT03510884|191731424|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported and independently for each dosing regimen. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Statistical significance of the primary endpoint was required before testing the first secondary endpoint for each dosing regimen independently.|LS mean difference|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.7|-30.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline LDL-C value and Baseline value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-30.2|-52.7|<0.0001
95889001|NCT03510884|191731425|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.5|-28.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-28.2|-47.5|<0.0001
95889002|NCT03510884|191731425|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.0|-19.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.4|-42.0|<0.0001
95889003|NCT03510884|191731426|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-52.2|-29.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.1|-52.2|<0.0001
95889004|NCT03510884|191731426|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.1|-19.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-19.7|-44.1|<0.0001
95889005|NCT03510884|191731427|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-39.8|-21.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-21.9|-39.8|<0.0001
95889006|NCT03510884|191731427|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-13.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-13.1|-33.5|<0.0001
95889007|NCT03510884|191731428|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.2|-29.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-29.6|-48.2|<0.0001
95889008|NCT03510884|191731428|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-42.8|-22.7|||MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Apo B value and Baseline Apo B value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-22.7|-42.8|<0.0001
95889009|NCT03510884|191731429|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-53.8|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Non-HDL-C value and Baseline Non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-31.8|-53.8|<0.0001
95889010|NCT03510884|191731429|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-37.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.9|-27.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline non-HDL-C value and Baseline non-HDL-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-27.0|-47.9|<0.0001
95889011|NCT03510884|191731430|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-41.3|-24.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-24.2|-41.3|<0.0001
95889012|NCT03510884|191731430|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|LS mean difference|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-35.6|-20.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|MMRM||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|The MMRM model included the fixed categorical effects of treatment group (alirocumab, placebo), randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, and BW strata-by-time point interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of Baseline Total-C value and Baseline Total-C value by time-point interaction. Comparison was performed using an appropriate contrast.||-20.2|-35.6|<0.0001
95889013|NCT03510884|191731431|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|77.6|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.3|960.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||960.0|6.3|=0.0001
95889014|NCT03510884|191731431|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|14.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.2|69.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. Logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||69.8|3.2|<0.0001
95889015|NCT03510884|191731432|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.0|174.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||174.8|4.0|<0.0001
95889016|NCT03510884|191731432|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|40.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.7|290.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||290.9|5.7|<0.0001
95889017|NCT03510884|191731433|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|52.7|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.5|804.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||804.3|3.5|=0.0011
95889018|NCT03510884|191731433|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|43.1|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.7|498.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||498.6|3.7|=0.0006
95909148|NCT05520138|191776356|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.1|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.10|0.99|
95909149|NCT05520138|191776357|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.22|||||A weighted Cox proportional hazard model with an independent variable for treatment group were fitted, using a robust variance estimator.|||1.22|1.06|
95889019|NCT03510884|191731434|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.6||The percentage of participants reaching LDL-C level lower than 110 mg/dL was 0% in the placebo arm, as a result it was possible to derive the estimated odds-ratio, but the estimated confidence interval (CI) was very wide, with the upper limit estimated to Infinity, therefore upper limit of 97.5% CI was not available to report.|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Exact conditional logistic regression||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W: Odds ratios and confidence intervals estimated from exact conditional logistic regression model.|The LOCF approach followed by exact conditional logistic regression model. The exact conditional logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the quartiles of the Baseline LDL-C value.|||6.6|<0.0001
95889020|NCT03510884|191731434|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Odds Ratio (OR)|104.8|||=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.2|2095.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Regression, Logistic||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W: Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by combining the logarithm of odds ratio from logistic regression model analyses of the different imputed data sets, using Rubin's formulae.|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model. The logistic regression model stratified by randomization factors (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline LDL-C value.||2095.9|5.2|=0.0005
95889021|NCT03510884|191731435|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|=|0.0237|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|-0.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-0.1|-30.3|=0.0237
95889022|NCT03510884|191731435|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-24.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7|=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-44.4|-5.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||-5.4|-44.4|=0.0043
95889023|NCT03510884|191731436|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.4288|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-21.7|10.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q2W versus Placebo Q2W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (previous participation \[yes or no\] to DFI14223 study, Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||10.4|-21.7|=0.4288
95889024|NCT03510884|191731436|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the considered dosing regimen).|Adjusted mean difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|=|0.1148|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.7|5.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Robust regression model||Alirocumab Q4W versus Placebo Q4W|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model. The robust regression model included the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and randomization strata (Baseline BW \[\<50 or \>=50 kg\]) as per IVRS and the continuous fixed covariate of Baseline lipoprotein (a) value.||5.7|-32.7|=0.1148
95889025|NCT01287897|191731466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.3406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|21.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|Generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||21.7|-13.0|0.3406
95889026|NCT01287897|191731466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.7|0.0438
95889027|NCT01287897|191731467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|32.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||32.6|-12.1|0.2258
95972541|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.384||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.16|0.70|0.0140
95972542|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.98|0.97|0.0067
95972543|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.986|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||6.12|2.23|<0.0001
95972544|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.73|0.81|0.0094
95889028|NCT01287897|191731468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|23.9||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||23.9|-10.6|0.2627
95889029|NCT01287897|191731468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|36.7||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||36.7|0.8|0.0425
95889030|NCT01287897|191731469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|37.6||Type I rate was controlled for the 2 time points (Week 8 and Week 12) at 0.05 (one sided).|GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||||37.6|-7.5|0.1362
95889031|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||18.6|-4.3|0.1527
95889032|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.1|33.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||33.2|3.1|0.0235
95889033|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.0792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|30.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||30.2|-2.3|0.0792
95889034|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.1909||90.0|-8.4|27.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||27.6|-8.4|0.1909
95889035|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.1981|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|17.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||17.0|-5.4|0.1981
95889036|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.3|35.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||35.8|5.3|0.0132
95889037|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.6|41.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||41.7|8.6|0.0063
95889038|NCT01287897|191731470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.2|43.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||43.1|6.2|0.0138
95889039|NCT01287897|191731471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.0662|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||32.1|-1.4|0.0662
95889040|NCT01287897|191731471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|25.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||25.8|-6.9|0.1708
95889041|NCT01287897|191731471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|26.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.0|-10.5|0.2416
95889042|NCT01287897|191731471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.1||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|42.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-70 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||42.3|-4.1|0.0880
95889043|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||7.2|-3.2|0.2610
95889044|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|7.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||7.0|-5.6|0.4291
95889045|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.5791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|8.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||8.6|-11.0|0.5791
95889046|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0||0.7544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|7.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||7.7|-18.8|0.7544
95889047|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.2308||90.0|-8.3|21.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||21.9|-8.3|0.2308
95889048|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.5038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|11.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||11.7|-11.8|0.5038
95972545|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.049||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Functioning Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.46|-1.68|0.7098
95889049|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|16.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||16.0|0.0|0.0498
95972546|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.234||0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Physical Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.47|-1.40|0.4019
95889050|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|28.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||28.7|3.9|0.0155
95889051|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|28.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||28.9|0.9|0.0399
95889052|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|24.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||24.3|-7.2|0.1866
95889053|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|34.7|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||34.7|0.9|0.0415
95889054|NCT01287897|191731472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|32.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||32.1|0.9|0.0408
95889055|NCT01287897|191731473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|14.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||14.5|-2.8|0.1342
95889056|NCT01287897|191731473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|9.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||9.8|-4.3|0.2623
95972547|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.186||0.7537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Bodily Pain Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.71|-1.97|0.7537
95889057|NCT01287897|191731473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.7|13.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||13.2|-7.7|0.3324
95889058|NCT01287897|191731473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.5|9.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||9.1|-15.5|0.6637
95889059|NCT01287897|191731473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.2721||90.0|-9.3|20.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||20.2|-9.3|0.2721
95889060|NCT01287897|191731473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.8|16.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience and concomitant immunosuppressant therapy were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI remission rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||16.9|-8.8|0.3022
95889061|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|15.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||15.8|-7.2|0.2687
95889062|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4||0.246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|17.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||17.3|-7.1|0.2460
95889063|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|29.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||29.5|-1.1|0.0633
95972548|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.3595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, General Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.85|-1.40|0.3595
95972549|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Vitality Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.99|-1.01|0.1919
95972550|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.209||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Social Function Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.67|-2.10|0.8163
95889064|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.9||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|18.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||18.6|-13.8|0.4036
95889065|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2||0.1921||90.0|-7.9|25.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||25.6|-7.9|0.1921
95889066|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.1541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|27.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||27.5|-6.5|0.1541
95889067|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|10.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||10.9|-10.5|0.4893
95889068|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|27.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||27.4|-0.9|0.0619
95889069|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|33.1|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||33.1|2.3|0.0290
95889070|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|31.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||31.4|-3.8|0.0988
95889071|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|35.0|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||35.0|-0.5|0.0549
95972551|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Role - Emotional Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.93|-0.47|0.1048
95889072|NCT01287897|191731474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|31.3|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||31.3|-3.3|0.0920
95889073|NCT01287897|191731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|12.9|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||12.9|-9.5|0.4031
95889074|NCT01287897|191731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.6||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|26.8|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.8|-4.6|0.1219
95889075|NCT01287897|191731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|26.4|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||26.4|-6.5|0.1600
95889076|NCT01287897|191731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.3||0.6019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.5|14.2|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||14.2|-19.5|0.6019
95889077|NCT01287897|191731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.3||0.1601||90.0|-8.0|32.5|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||32.5|-8.0|0.1601
95889078|NCT01287897|191731475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.8|26.6|||GLMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in CDAI-100 response rate for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||26.6|-11.8|0.2622
95889079|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.2173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.8|10.6|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 2.||10.6|-29.8|0.2173
95889080|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.95||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.4|9.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 4.||9.4|-33.4|0.1778
95889081|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.0|11.2|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 6.||11.2|-43.0|0.1661
95889082|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.1|14.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 8.||14.3|-44.1|0.1993
95889083|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.66||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.7|2.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 10.||2.3|-62.7|0.0632
95972552|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.392||0.6118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Health Domain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.45|-2.04|0.6118
95972553|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.39|-1.61|0.6996
95889084|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.71||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.4|15.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 10-mg arm at Week 12.||15.8|-49.4|0.1975
95889085|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.25||0.5868|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.6|22.9|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 2.||22.9|-17.6|0.5868
95972554|NCT03486457|191918400|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.424||0.2122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.59|-1.03|0.2122
95972555|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.25|0.0722
95889086|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.93||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.0|-4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 4.||-4.3|-47.0|0.0243
95889087|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.12||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.0|4.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 6.||4.3|-49.0|0.0834
95889088|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.43||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.7|0.0|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 8.||-0.0|-57.7|0.0499
95889089|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.45||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-77.1|-12.7|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 10.||-12.7|-77.1|0.0111
95889090|NCT01287897|191731476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.49||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.7|-7.3|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 50-mg arm at Week 12.||-7.3|-71.7|0.0221
95889091|NCT01287897|191731477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.27||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.0|21.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 2.||21.4|-39.0|0.3157
95889092|NCT01287897|191731477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.28||0.4171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|26.4|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 4.||26.4|-34.0|0.4171
95889093|NCT01287897|191731477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.79||0.3837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.6|25.5|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 6.||25.5|-36.6|0.3837
95889094|NCT01287897|191731477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.27||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.8|22.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 8.||22.8|-40.8|0.3204
95889095|NCT01287897|191731477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.64||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.3|2.6|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 10.||2.6|-62.3|0.0649
95889096|NCT01287897|191731477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.87||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.9|1.8|||LMM|Status of anti-TNF experience, concomitant immunosuppressant therapy, and baseline were included as covariates.||LSM difference from placebo in change from baseline in CDAI score for the 200-mg arm at Week 12.||1.8|-63.9|0.0598
95889097|NCT00786487|191731523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95889098|NCT00786487|191731523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95889099|NCT01500629|191731524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.33|-1.90|0.156
95889100|NCT01500629|191731525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.92|-1.49|0.625
95889101|NCT01500629|191731526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.67|-2.12|0.291
95889102|NCT01500629|191731527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.07|-1.21|0.899
95889103|NCT01500629|191731528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.701||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.701
95889104|NCT01500629|191731529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.108||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.108
95889105|NCT01500629|191731530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.253||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.253
95889106|NCT01500629|191731531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.287||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.287
95889107|NCT01500629|191731532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.409||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.409
95889108|NCT01500629|191731533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.092||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.092
95889109|NCT01500629|191731534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.042||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.042
95889110|NCT01500629|191731535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.307||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.307
95889111|NCT01500629|191731536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.903||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.903
95889112|NCT01500629|191731537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.121||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.121
95889113|NCT01500629|191731538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.689||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.689
95889114|NCT01500629|191731539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.314||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.314
95889115|NCT01500629|191731540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.034||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.034
95889116|NCT01500629|191731541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.845||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.845
95889117|NCT01500629|191731542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.619||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.619
95889118|NCT01500629|191731543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.803||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.803
95889119|NCT01500629|191731544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.175||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.175
95889120|NCT01500629|191731545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.206|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.206
95889121|NCT01500629|191731546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.072||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||0.072
95889122|NCT01500629|191731547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.014||||||The rank sum test was based on period difference for comparison between sequence.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||||.0140
95889123|NCT01500629|191731548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.22|-0.24|0.907
95889124|NCT01500629|191731549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.18|-0.28|0.666
95972556|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.05|-0.27|0.0035
95972557|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.27|0.0475
95889125|NCT01500629|191731550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.28|-0.29|0.972
95889126|NCT01500629|191731551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.59|-0.31|0.521
95909150|NCT01329029|191776358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0633||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.002||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.002|0.753|0.0529
95909151|NCT01329029|191776359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.073|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment by time interaction.||||0.073|0.038|<0.0001
95909152|NCT01329029|191776360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0889||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|0.952|||Generalized Linear Regression|Analyzed using a negative binomial regression model excluding a correction for overdispersion.|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||0.952|0.601|0.0175
95909153|NCT01329029|191776361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0771||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|1.078||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate COPD Exacerbations||1.078|0.775|0.2875
95909154|NCT01329029|191776361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.933||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Mild, Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations||0.933|0.675|0.0050
95889127|NCT01500629|191731552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.39|-0.15|0.376
95889128|NCT01500629|191731553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.30|-0.11|0.350
95889129|NCT01500629|191731554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.34|-0.36|0.947
95889130|NCT01500629|191731555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.19|-0.30|0.651
95889131|NCT01500629|191731560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.38|-1.30|0.261
95889132|NCT01500629|191731561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.51|0.481
95889133|NCT01500629|191731562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||0.89|-0.85|0.961
95889134|NCT01500629|191731563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||The following comparison was made: Allergen Block (C-1266-7) vs placebo. For this comparison, the following hypothesis was tested: Ho: µ1= µ2 against the two-sided alternative H1: µ1≠ µ2 where µ1 and µ2 are the mean values of the parameter variable for the two treatment groups.||1.04|-0.57|0.546
95889135|NCT00412854|191731575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|3.39||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against diphteria toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose primary vaccination course."||3.39|-1.68|
95909155|NCT01329029|191776361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.854|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0605||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.982||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|COPD Exacerbations treated with Glucocorticosteroids and/or Antibiotics||0.982|0.744|0.0262
95909156|NCT01329029|191776361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0528||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|0.947||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Generalized Linear Regression|Poisson regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates using time in trial as model offset).|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbations and/or treated with Antibiotics||0.947|0.739|0.0047
95909157|NCT01329029|191776361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0899||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|0.96||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Generalized Linear Regression|Negative binomial regression model (estimates of exacerbation rates)|A rate ratio of \< 1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|Leading to Hospitalisation||0.960|0.604|0.0209
95909158|NCT01329029|191776363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0549||0.1461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.815|1.031||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.031|0.815|0.1461
95909159|NCT01329029|191776364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0842||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|0.974||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment|||0.974|0.641|0.0270
95909160|NCT01329029|191776365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.027||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided|Wei-Lin-Weissfeld Method||A hazard ratio of \<1 represents a favourable outcome for the test treatment.|||1.027|0.546|0.0731
95909161|NCT01329029|191776366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NNTB|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|31.0||||||||31|4|
95889136|NCT00412854|191731575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against tetanus toxoid:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
95889137|NCT00412854|191731576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of seroprotected subjects was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|6.18||||||"Difference in seroprotection rates against PRP:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||6.18|0.15|
95889138|NCT00412854|191731577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PT:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
95889139|NCT00412854|191731577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.3||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against FHA:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||2.30|-2.29|
95889140|NCT00412854|191731577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The upper limit of the standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Infanrix+Hiberix Group minus Infanrix/Hib Group\] in percentage of subjects with a vaccine response was ≤ 10%.|Difference in seroresponse rate|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|5.07||||||"Difference in vaccine response rates against PRN:~To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Infanrix™/Hib vaccine administered at 3, 4 and 5 months of age (Infanrix/Hib Group) was non-inferior to that of the concomitant administration of Infanrix™ and Hiberix™ vaccines at the same age (Infanrix+Hiberix Group), in terms of immune response to all vaccine antigens, one month after the three-dose vaccination course."||5.07|-2.17|
95889141|NCT03045081|191731605|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. GEE allows for the analysis of repeated measures with unknown covariance structure and uses all available data that participants provide, even if follow-up data are missing (ie, intent-to-treat analysis). Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; i.e., as treated 'completer' analysis) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in pain self efficacy over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
95889142|NCT03045081|191731605|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interactions.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain self-efficacy over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer analysis').||||<0.05
95909162|NCT01329029|191776369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0159|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.124||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and restricted maximum likelihood (REML).||||0.124|0.061|<0.0001
95909163|NCT01329029|191776370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.038||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.038|0.013|<0.0001
95909164|NCT01329029|191776371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.12||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.120|0.069|<0.0001
95909165|NCT01329029|191776373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0941||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|-0.098||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||-0.098|-0.467|0.0027
95909166|NCT01329029|191776374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.071||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Compound symmetry covariance structure and REML.||||0.071|-0.101|0.7392
95909167|NCT01329029|191776377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2175||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.142||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Repeated measurement model|Unstructured covariance structure and REML.||||0.142|-0.711|0.1909
95909168|NCT01329029|191776379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3468||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.99||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.990|0.528|0.9414
95889143|NCT03045081|191731606|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months; 'study completers') were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.068||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample)||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group. Note: this questionnaire has 2 subscales, Activity Engagement and Pain Willingness. Intent-to-treat and as treated analyses were conducted for each subscale.||||0.068
95889144|NCT03045081|191731606|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \<0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Activity Engagement - over time compared to the usual care group.This analysis was limited to those participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||<0.05
95889145|NCT03045081|191731606|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.173||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.173
95889146|NCT03045081|191731606|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.167||||||Wald χ2 \>0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group by time interaction such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improvement in chronic pain acceptance - Pain Willingness - over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.167
95889147|NCT03045081|191731607|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.176||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.176
95889148|NCT03045081|191731607|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations were used to test this hypothesis.||||||0.143||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved confidence in patient-provider interactions over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points ('completer' analysis).||||0.143
95889149|NCT03045081|191731608|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis. Main effects of group and time, and group × time interactions were evaluated. Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group.||||<0.05
95889150|NCT03045081|191731608|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.001||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant for the group x time interaction.|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate improved satisfaction with pain treatment over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each of the study time points (i.e., 'completer' analysis).||||<0.001
95889151|NCT03045081|191731610|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.Models for the entire study sample and for only those who provided outcome data at all study time points (0, 3, 6 months) were evaluated (see Statistical Analysis 2).||||||0.102||||||Wald χ2 p-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|Wald χ2|Intent-to-treat analysis (full sample).||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group.||||0.102
95889152|NCT03045081|191731610|OTHER|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to test this hypothesis.|||||<|0.05||||||Wald χ2 \< 0.05 considered statistically significant for group x time interaction|Wald χ2|Study 'completers' only||We hypothesized that we would observe a group (usual care vs PTSM) by time (0, 3, 6 months) interaction, such that the PTSM group would demonstrate greater reductions in pain intensity and interference over time compared to the usual care group. This analysis was restricted to those study participants who provided data at each time point (as treated, 'completer' analysis).||||<0.05
95889153|NCT01084174|191731612|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|Analyzed by linear regression models using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures over time with robust standard errors||||||.003
95972558|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.00|-0.26|0.0537
95889154|NCT01084174|191731613|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95889155|NCT01084174|191731614|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95889156|NCT01084174|191731615|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
95889157|NCT01084174|191731616|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
95889158|NCT01084174|191731617|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.007
95889159|NCT01034462|191731618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.095||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.256|-0.935|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.935|-5.256|0.0051
95889160|NCT01034462|191731619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.632||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.193|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-1.070|-4.193|0.0010
95889161|NCT00708643|191731626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2863|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-3.0047|2.7153|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A will provide a lower level of limbal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||2.7153|-3.0047|
95889162|NCT00708643|191731627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7605|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.0804|1.8821|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides better comfort than the habitual lens by having a lower rating on the scale.||1.8821|-0.0804|
95889163|NCT00708643|191731628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7002|||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.2228|4.6564|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lowe level of upper lid margin staining than the habitual lens.||4.6564|0.2228|
95889164|NCT00708643|191731629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1873|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.2596|4.2599|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus the habitual lens.|||4.2599|1.2596|
95889165|NCT00708643|191731630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3407|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.8625|5.0524|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides a lower level of tarsal hyperemia than the habitual lens.||5.0524|-0.8625|
95889166|NCT00708643|191731631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6975|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.241|4.0043|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as narafilcon A minus habitual lens.|The alternative hypothesis is that narafilcon A provides lower levels of corneal staining than the habitual lens.||4.0043|-0.2410|
95889167|NCT02493608|191731696|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95889168|NCT02493608|191731697|OTHER|||||||0.218||||||POD 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.218
95889169|NCT02493608|191731697|OTHER|||||||0.638||||||POD 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.638
95889170|NCT02493608|191731698|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.113
95889171|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 2||||0.55
95889172|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 1: Day 8||||0.54
95889173|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 1||||0.54
95889174|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 2: Day 8||||0.54
95889175|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 1||||0.54
95889176|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 3: Day 8||||0.57
95889177|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 1||||0.54
95889178|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 2||||0.52
95889179|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 4||||0.52
95889180|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 4: Day 8||||0.61
95889181|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 1||||0.54
95889182|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 5: Day 8||||0.52
95889183|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 1||||0.52
95889184|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 6: Day 4||||0.52
95889185|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 6: Day 8||||0.52
95889186|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7: Day 1||||0.52
95889187|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 7 - Day 8||||0.52
95889188|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 1||||0.52
95889189|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 8: Day 8||||0.52
95889190|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 9: Day 1||||0.52
95889191|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 9: Day 8||||1.00
95889192|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests||Dose 10: Day 1||||0.52
95889193|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 2||||0.52
95889194|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 4||||0.52
95889195|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 8||||0.52
95889196|NCT03060447|191731700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||Dose 10: Day 14||||0.52
95889197|NCT03060447|191731701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 50 Copies/mL||||0.035
95889198|NCT03060447|191731701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Log Rank|P-value between treatment groups was based on log-rank test.||≥ 200 Copies/mL||||0.024
95889199|NCT03060447|191731702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.67
95889200|NCT03060447|191731703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values between treatment groups were based on Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.78
95889201|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Baseline||||0.34
95889202|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.11
95889203|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.81
95889204|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.83
95889205|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.12
95889206|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.45
95889207|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
95889208|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.053
95889209|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.16
95889210|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IFN-a, ATI Remission Visit||||0.27
95889211|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Baseline||||0.35
95889212|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.013
95889213|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.15
95889214|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.30
95889215|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
95889216|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.49
95889217|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.25
95889218|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.055
95889219|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.90
95889220|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IL-1RA, ATI Remission Visit||||0.39
95889221|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Baseline||||0.75
95889222|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
95889223|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.69
95889224|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.15
95889225|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
95889226|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.030
95889227|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.087
95889228|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
95889229|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.066
95889230|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||IP-10, ATI Remission||||0.86
95889231|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Baseline||||0.19
95889232|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.021
95889233|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 1: Day 8||||0.31
95889234|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.10
95889235|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.018
95889236|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 4: Day 8||||0.69
95889237|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.46
95889238|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.21
95889239|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, Dose 10: Day 8||||0.67
95889240|NCT03060447|191731704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ITAC, ATI Remission||||0.60
95889241|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.002
95889242|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.58
95889243|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
95889244|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|ISG15, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.031
95889245|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||ISG15, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.001
95889246|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 1: Day 2||||0.003
95889247|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.057
95889248|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.009
95889249|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.057
95889250|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||OAS-1, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.005
95889251|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 1: Day 2||||<0.001
95889252|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.17
95889253|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.003
95889254|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY|MX1, Dose 10: Day 1||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.100
95889255|NCT03060447|191731705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||MX1, Dose 10: Day 2||||<0.001
95889256|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7469|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.7469
95889257|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1207|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1207
95889258|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.4113
95889259|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1113
95889260|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.2410
95889261|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
95889262|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.0369
95889263|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
95889264|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.1658
95889265|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD4/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.9431
95889266|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Baseline||||0.6514
95889267|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.0821
95889268|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2353
95889269|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1779
95889270|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
95889271|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
95889272|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3711|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.3711
95889273|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
95889274|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
95889275|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD8/CD38/HLADR, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.8303
95889276|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Baseline||||0.9530
95889277|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1735|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.1735
95889278|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.2971
95889279|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 4: Day 4||||1.0000
95889280|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 1||||1.0000
95889281|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.3374
95889282|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
95889283|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
95889284|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.3374
95889285|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56+CD16+, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.4320
95889286|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Baseline||||0.8597
95889287|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 1||||1.0000
95889288|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.0306
95889289|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8345|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.8345
95889290|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9151|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.9151
95889291|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1098|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.1098
95889292|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 1||||1.0000
95889293|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0814|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.0814
95889294|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.4555
95889295|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56dimCD16neg, Dose 10: Day 14||||0.6171
95889296|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0677|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Baseline||||0.0677
95889297|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4712|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 1||||0.4712
95889298|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6889|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 2||||0.6889
95889299|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1437|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 4: Day 4||||0.1437
95889300|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 1||||0.7491
95889301|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 6: Day 4||||0.0700
95889302|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 1||||0.7656
95889303|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 2||||0.1752
95889304|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 4||||0.0700
95889305|NCT03060447|191731706|SUPERIORITY|CD69+CD56brCD16dim, Dose 10: Day 14||||||0.2246|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-values are based on two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests.||||||0.2246
95889306|NCT01988103|191731716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|16.4||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|27.0|||Chi-squared|||||27.0|5.8|0.0032
95889307|NCT01988103|191731716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|21.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|32.1|||Chi-squared|||||32.1|10.1|0.0003
95889308|NCT01988103|191731717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|15.1||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|27.1|||Chi-squared|||||27.1|3.1|0.0165
95889309|NCT01988103|191731717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|20.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|33.3|||Chi-squared||Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||33.3|8.2|0.0020
95889310|NCT01988103|191731718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-13.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-13.6|-44.5|0.0003
95889311|NCT01988103|191731718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-22.6|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-22.6|-53.4|<0.0001
95889312|NCT01988103|191731719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-14.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-14.0|-44.9|0.0002
95889313|NCT01988103|191731719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-24.1|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-24.1|-54.9|<0.0001
95889314|NCT01988103|191731720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|19.7||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|33.4|||Chi-squared|||||33.4|6.1|0.0057
95889315|NCT01988103|191731720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|29.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.4|42.9|||Chi-squared|||||42.9|15.4|<0.0001
95889316|NCT01988103|191731721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-6.7|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-6.7|-22.6|0.0003
95889317|NCT01988103|191731721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-16.9|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate. Missing values were imputed using the LOCF method.|||-16.9|-32.7|<0.0001
95889318|NCT01988103|191731722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-0.3|-3.2|0.0204
95889319|NCT01988103|191731722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.0|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||-2.0|-4.9|<0.0001
95889320|NCT01988103|191731723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.5149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.53|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||3.53|-1.78|0.5149
95889321|NCT01988103|191731723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.1693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|4.5|||ANCOVA||2-sided 95% CI and p-values were based on an analysis of covariance model with treatment arm as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Means (LS Means) and p-values were adjusted by covariate.|||4.50|-0.79|0.1693
95889322|NCT03045887|191731756|OTHER||Ratio|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.61|||||AUC(0-t). Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||0.61|0.27|
95889323|NCT03045887|191731756|OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.47|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.47|0.65|
95889324|NCT03045887|191731756|OTHER||Ratio|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.74|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.74|1.01|
95889325|NCT03045887|191731756|OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.62|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.62|0.69|
95889326|NCT03045887|191731756|OTHER||Ratio|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.64|||||AUC(0-t).Standard error of mean was on logged scale|||1.64|0.95|
95889327|NCT03045887|191731757|OTHER||Ratio|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.47|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for AUC(0-24) is presented|||1.47|1.01|
95889328|NCT03045887|191731758|OTHER||ratio|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.99||||||||0.99|0.61|
95889329|NCT03045887|191731758|OTHER||ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
95889330|NCT03045887|191731758|OTHER||ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.97||||||||0.97|0.68|
95889331|NCT03045887|191731758|OTHER||ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.86||||||||0.86|0.51|
95889332|NCT03045887|191731758|OTHER||ratio|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|0.9||||||||0.90|0.63|
95972559|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.04|-0.20|0.1977
95889333|NCT03045887|191731759|OTHER||ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.36|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Cmax is presented|||1.36|0.96|
95889334|NCT03045887|191731765|OTHER||Ratio|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.67|2.55|||||Treatment ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Day 14/Day 1) for Ctau is presented.|||2.55|1.67|
95889335|NCT03103919|191731768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||=|0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|1.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||1.41|-10.04|=0.134
95889336|NCT03103919|191731769|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||=|0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.44|=0.982
95889337|NCT03103919|191731770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||=|0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.45|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.45|-0.81|=0.566
95889338|NCT03103919|191731771|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||=|0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.35|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.35|-0.50|=0.720
95889339|NCT03103919|191731772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||=|0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.53|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.53|-0.24|=0.443
95889340|NCT03103919|191731773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.57|-0.75|=0.777
95889341|NCT03103919|191731774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||=|0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.33|=0.947
95889342|NCT03103919|191731775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.26|-0.79|=0.306
95889343|NCT03103919|191731776|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||=|0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.31|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.|The difference presented is Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device FAS) minus Control Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care FAS).|||0.31|-0.25|=0.819
95889344|NCT03103919|191731777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||=|0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.41|-0.26|=0.663
95889345|NCT03103919|191731778|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||=|0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|The model used an ANCOVA with baseline as a covariate, center as factor, and group as main factor.||||0.11|-0.51|=0.197
95889346|NCT03103919|191731781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||=|0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|5.66||P-values for the comparison of treatment groups have been calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio was calculated as Control Group/Experimental Group (Rotigotine + Standard Care SS / Rotigotine + Standard Care + Kinesia-360™ wearable device SS) calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment and center.|||5.66|0.23|=0.876
95972560|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.13|-0.38|0.0001
95889347|NCT00546637|191731783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1959||95.0|-0.9|0.2||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (Net) = Least squares mean|The null hypothesis was that the mean change from Baseline in 24-hour micturition-related urgency was the same at Week 12 for the two treatment groups: fesoterodine + alpha-blocker vs. placebo + alpha-blocker. It was estimated that 900 randomized subjects would have 85% power to detect a mean difference of -0.93(SD = 4.15) between the 2 treatments on the primary endpoint,mean reduction of micturition-related urgency episodes/24hr from Baseline to Week 12,assuming a 10% non-evaluability rate.||0.2|-0.9|0.1959
95889348|NCT00546637|191731784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0621||95.0|-1.0|0.0||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|||0.0|-1.0|0.0621
95889349|NCT00546637|191731786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0056||95.0|-0.8|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.8|0.0056
95889350|NCT00546637|191731786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.009||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
95889351|NCT00546637|191731787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0012
95889352|NCT00546637|191731787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||P-value was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 12||||0.0027
95972561|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.07|-0.29|0.0018
95972562|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.19|-0.47|<0.0001
95972563|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-0.14|-0.42|0.0002
95972564|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.23|0.0835
95972565|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.21|0.0825
95889353|NCT00546637|191731788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1112||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1112
95889354|NCT00546637|191731788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0855||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.0|-0.3|0.0855
95972566|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.07|-0.13|0.5616
95972567|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.01|-0.24|0.0748
95972568|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.9477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.16|-0.15|0.9477
95972569|NCT03486457|191918401|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||0.19|-0.07|0.3829
95889355|NCT00546637|191731790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.3847||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.3847
95889356|NCT00546637|191731790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.4449||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was estimated using Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.4449
95889357|NCT00546637|191731792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.0062||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0062
95889358|NCT00546637|191731792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0825||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0825
95889359|NCT00546637|191731793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025||95.0||||P-value for median was based on a ranked ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and ranked baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Ranked ANCOVA|Treatment comparisons were performed only if the corresponding numerical change from Baseline at the same visit was statistically significant.||Week 4||||0.0025
95889360|NCT00546637|191731794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1748||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.3|0.1748
95889361|NCT00546637|191731794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6572||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.2|-0.1|0.6572
95889362|NCT00546637|191731796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0051||95.0|-2.9|-0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.5|-2.9|0.0051
95889363|NCT00546637|191731796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1231||95.0|-2.3|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.3|-2.3|0.1231
95889364|NCT00546637|191731797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3579||95.0|-1.0|0.4||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.4|-1.0|0.3579
95889365|NCT00546637|191731797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9274||95.0|-0.8|0.7||P-value was based on an ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.8|0.9274
95889366|NCT00546637|191731798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0223||95.0|-0.7|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0223
95889367|NCT00546637|191731798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1744||95.0|-0.6|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.6|0.1744
95889368|NCT00546637|191731799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7564||95.0|-0.4|0.5||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.5|-0.4|0.7564
95889369|NCT00546637|191731799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.401||95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as a covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.7|-0.3|0.4010
95972570|NCT03486457|191918402|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.084||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 1: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||10.12|1.90|0.0044
95972571|NCT03486457|191918402|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||15.88|5.71|<0.0001
95972572|NCT03486457|191918402|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.74|-3.90|0.7062
95889370|NCT00546637|191731800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1472||95.0|-0.2|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||0.0|-0.2|0.1472
95889371|NCT00546637|191731800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.5839||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||0.1|-0.2|0.5839
95889372|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6621||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q1||0.2|-0.1|0.6621
95889373|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q2||-0.2|-0.5|<.0001
95889374|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3242||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q3||0.2|-0.1|0.3242
95889375|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1604||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.1604
95972573|NCT03486457|191918403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.404||0.7228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||5.63|-3.92|0.7228
95972574|NCT03486457|191918403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.561||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.39|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||2.72|-15.39|0.1682
95972575|NCT03486457|191918403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.707||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||3.13|-15.56|0.1900
95972576|NCT03486457|191918403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.581||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Work Time Missed: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||4.05|-6.22|0.6757
95972577|NCT03486457|191918403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.905||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|7.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Impairment While Working: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.37|-12.13|0.6285
95972578|NCT03486457|191918403|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.333||0.6228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|7.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Overall Work Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.97|-13.23|0.6228
95972579|NCT03486457|191918404|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-6.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||-6.72|-18.90|<0.0001
95972580|NCT03486457|191918404|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.157||0.7384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6, Activity Impairment: Analysis performed using MMRM which included the fixed effect of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value.||7.28|-5.17|0.7384
95972581|NCT03536143|191918408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0216
95972582|NCT03536143|191918409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0009
95972583|NCT00495586|191918410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|24.3|||Chi-squared|||For the comparison of the efficacy of antibiotic versus placebo, we accepted a null hypothesis if the cure rate in the intervention group was the same or ±7% as that observed in the placebo arm. Based on previous studies, the expected rate of cure among patients assigned to antibiotic therapy was 90%. For an alpha of 0.05 and a beta of 0.2 and accepting possible losses of 15%, we calculated that the sample size is 677 patients in total.||24.3|3.7|<0.05
95972584|NCT03038438|191918412|OTHER|Single arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|88.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|82.5||||Fisher Exact|||"The primary effectiveness endpoint, primary patency at 12 months, was tested against a PG of 75%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: π ≤ PG vs. HA: π \> PG where π is the primary patency rate at 12 months in the study population and PG is the performance goal of 75%. The primary effectiveness objective will be met if the lower limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is above 75%."|||82.5|<0.0001
95889376|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4102||95.0|-0.2|0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q5||0.1|-0.2|0.4102
95889377|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3079||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.3079
95889378|NCT00546637|191731801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.4066
95889379|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1595||95.0|0.0|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q1||0.3|-0.0|0.1595
95889380|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0614||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q2||0.0|-0.3|0.0614
95889381|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2032||95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q3||0.3|-0.1|0.2032
95889382|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0631||95.0|-0.3|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q4||0.0|-0.3|0.0631
95889383|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.9706||95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q5||0.2|-0.2|0.9706
95889384|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8058||95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q6||0.2|-0.1|0.8058
95889385|NCT00546637|191731802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12 Q7||0.2|-0.1|0.3302
95889386|NCT00546637|191731803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1136||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1136
95889387|NCT00546637|191731804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5775||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5775
95889388|NCT00546637|191731805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7433
95889389|NCT00546637|191731806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9402||95.0||||P-value was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with modified ridit scoring, stratified by center. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9402
95889390|NCT00546637|191731807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.004||95.0|-4.5|-0.9||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||-0.9|-4.5|0.0040
95889391|NCT00546637|191731807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0068||95.0|-4.8|-0.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||-0.8|-4.8|0.0068
95889392|NCT00546637|191731808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0412||95.0|0.1|3.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||3.6|0.1|0.0412
95889393|NCT00546637|191731808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.1373||95.0|-0.5|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.5|0.1373
95889394|NCT00546637|191731809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0941||95.0|-0.3|3.8||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.8|-0.3|0.0941
95889395|NCT00546637|191731809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2273||95.0|-0.8|3.4||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||3.4|-0.8|0.2273
95889396|NCT00546637|191731810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0507||95.0|0.0|4.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.3|-0.0|0.0507
95889397|NCT00546637|191731810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.1136||95.0|-0.4|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 12||4.1|-0.4|0.1136
95889398|NCT00546637|191731811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0845||95.0|-0.3|4.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net)= Least squares mean|Week 4||4.1|-0.3|0.0845
95889399|NCT00546637|191731811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0662||95.0|-0.2|4.6||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||4.6|-0.2|0.0662
95889400|NCT00546637|191731812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.1085||95.0|-0.3|3.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 4||3.2|-0.3|0.1085
95889401|NCT00546637|191731812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7685||95.0|-1.6|2.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA model with terms for country, treatment, and baseline value as covariate. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Mean Difference (net) = Least squares mean|Week 12||2.1|-1.6|0.7685
95889402|NCT00546637|191731813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0005||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 4||||0.0005
95972585|NCT03038438|191918413|OTHER|Single-arm study with a hypothesis test comparing to performance goal|Proportion|2.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||5.0|||Fisher Exact|||"The primary safety endpoint, major adverse events at 30 days post-procedure, was tested against a performance goal of 12.5%. The null and alternative hypotheses tested appear below:~H0: P ≥ PG vs. HA: P \< PG where P is the primary safety endpoint at 30 days in the study population and PG is the performance goal.~The primary safety objective will be met if the upper limit of the 97.5% one-sided confidence interval is below 12.5%."||5.0||<0.0001
95972586|NCT02527343|191918441|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-66.83||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.17|-29.48|||ANCOVA|||||-29.48|-104.17|0.0009
95972587|NCT02527343|191918442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-25.69||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.03|2.65|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||2.65|-54.03|0.0736
95972588|NCT02527343|191918442|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-53.33||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.71|-18.95|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||-18.95|-87.71|0.0039
95889403|NCT00546637|191731813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.0|||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 8||||<.0001
95889404|NCT00546637|191731813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.0||||0.0003||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|Week 12||||0.0003
95889405|NCT00546637|191731814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.2251||95.0||||P-value was based on Van Elteren's Test adjusted by baseline quartiles. No adjustment of p-value was made for multiple comparisons.|Van Elteren's Test||Median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the location shift between the two groups.|||||0.2251
95889406|NCT02959944|191731850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
95972589|NCT02527343|191918444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.3||||0.4108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Month 3||1.03|-0.43|0.4108
95972590|NCT02527343|191918444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|0.19||||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||ANCOVA|||Month 6||1.34|-0.95|0.7308
95972591|NCT02527343|191918444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.7511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Month 9||1.06|-1.45|0.7511
95972592|NCT02527343|191918444|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.19||||0.7659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.13|||ANCOVA|||Month 12||1.13|-1.52|0.7659
95889407|NCT02959944|191731851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.043||||0.5384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.181||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.181|-0.094|0.5384
95889408|NCT02959944|191731852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.324
95889409|NCT02959944|191731853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.281
95889410|NCT02959944|191731854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.275
95889411|NCT02959944|191731855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216||||||Gray's chi-square test (p-value) was calculated using SAS lifetest procedure adjusting for competing risks including death, cGVHD progression, relapse of underlying disease, and start of subsequent cGVHD therapy.|Chi-squared|||||||0.216
95889412|NCT02959944|191731856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
95889413|NCT02959944|191731857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.067||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.074||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.074|-0.208|0.3510
95889414|NCT02959944|191731858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.124||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.256||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval is computed using normal approximation.|||0.256|-0.007|0.0659
95889415|NCT02959944|191731859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|0.125||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.261||P-value is computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared|||||0.261|-0.010|0.0708
95889416|NCT02959944|191731860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.059||||0.4064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.08||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.080|-0.199|0.4064
95889417|NCT02959944|191731861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Rates|-0.049||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.091||P-value was computed using non-stratified Chi-Square test.|Chi-squared||Confidence interval was computed using normal approximation.|||0.091|-0.188|0.4955
95889418|NCT02959944|191731862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.994|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|1.949|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.949|0.507|
95889419|NCT02959944|191731863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.904|||||Hazard ratio is estimated using unstratified Cox regression model with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.904|0.591|
95889420|NCT02959944|191731864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|1.076|||Regression, Cox|||||1.076|0.451|0.1010
95889421|NCT02959944|191731865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.1004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|1.068|||Regression, Cox|||||1.068|0.482|0.1004
95889422|NCT00587483|191731874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.37||An alpha of 0.0167 was used to account for multiple comparisons among the 3 groups. Given the total of 3 comparisons, 0.05/3 = 0.0167 was used in the calculation.|Regression, Logistic|||The expected overall incidence of ventricular fibrillation after removal of the aortic clamp is at least 70%. Using a chi square analysis with 80% power and an alpha of 0.0167, we estimate that we will need 113 patients in each group to show a 30% reduction in the incidence of ventricular fibrillation with amiodarone.||1.37|0.48|0.427
95889423|NCT00587483|191731874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.39|0.117
95889424|NCT00587483|191731874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.37|0.47|0.433
95889425|NCT00587483|191731875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.45|0.215
95889426|NCT00587483|191731875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.84|0.32|0.008
95889427|NCT00587483|191731875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.33|0.52|0.424
95889428|NCT01949051|191731881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.943|-0.756|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.756|-1.943|<0.0001
95889429|NCT01949051|191731881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.118||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.712|-0.525|||Mixed Model ANOVA|||||-0.525|-1.712|0.0003
95889430|NCT01949051|191731881|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Levocabastine OD would be declared as non-inferior to levocabastine BID if upper limit of 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference estimate (OD vs BD) was less than 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.823||||||||0.823|-0.361|
95889431|NCT02288559|191731883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.435||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.162|0.707|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measures|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.707|0.162|0.0428
95889432|NCT02288559|191731883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.21||||0.3361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.491|0.071|||MMRM|MMRM analysis variables: treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, and BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category.||||0.071|-0.491|0.3361
95889433|NCT00558025|191731890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: -15 %, power: 80%|Risk Difference (RD)|-10.75||||||95.0|-20.51|1.48|||Wilson score interval|||Successfully switched patients||1.48|-20.51|
95889434|NCT00558025|191731890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0803||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.0803
95889435|NCT00558025|191731891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2061||95.0|-2.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.6|-2.8|0.2061
95889436|NCT00558025|191731892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4694||95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-0.8|0.4694
95889437|NCT00558025|191731893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.1804||95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors of treatment, country and baseline as covariate||||0.4|-2.3|0.1804
95889438|NCT00558025|191731894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1623|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1623
95889439|NCT00558025|191731895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1299|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.1299
95889440|NCT00558025|191731896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.619||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|test with stratification by country||||||0.6190
95889441|NCT05185089|191731938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.63|||ANCOVA|||||0.63|-0.62|0.989
95889442|NCT05185089|191731938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-1.16|0.054
95889443|NCT05185089|191731939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.62|||ANCOVA|||||0.62|-0.52|0.872
95889444|NCT05185089|191731939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.14|0.041
95889445|NCT05185089|191731940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.303||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.61|0.991
95889446|NCT05185089|191731940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.298||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.97|0.215
95889447|NCT05185089|191731941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.45|||ANCOVA|||||0.45|-0.73|0.639
95889448|NCT05185089|191731941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.00|0.092
95889449|NCT05185089|191731942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.17|0.650
95889450|NCT05185089|191731942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.41|0.010
95972593|NCT02700945|191918461|SUPERIORITY|The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate will be reported for each arm. The hazard ratio estimate for the treatment effect with its 95% confidence interval will be reported.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|21.3||A priori threshold is .05|Log Rank||A hazard ratio of \> 1 indicates that continuous monitoring arm is superior to control arm in detecting AF.|H0: h(t) = hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months HA: hC(t) ≠ hT(t) for t ≤ 12 months where hT(t) and hC(t) are the hazard functions of first detected and adjudicated AF at time t for subjects with and without the Reveal LINQ diagnostics for AF, respectively. Hazard functions and survival functions are transformations of each other.||21.3|2.6|<0.001
95972594|NCT00523640|191918463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion responding|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.44||||||||0.44|0.10|
95889451|NCT05185089|191731943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.53|||ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.44|0.856
95889452|NCT05185089|191731943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.87|0.036
95889453|NCT05185089|191731944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.73|0.678
95889454|NCT05185089|191731944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.525||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.31|||ANCOVA|||||2.31|0.16|0.025
95889455|NCT05185089|191731945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.22|0.633
95889456|NCT05185089|191731945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.56|||ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.02|0.063
95889457|NCT05185089|191731946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.44|0.732
95889458|NCT05185089|191731946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|0.01|0.044
95889459|NCT05185089|191731947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.58|||ANCOVA|||||0.58|-0.19|0.318
95889460|NCT05185089|191731947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.98|0.05|0.030
95889461|NCT05185089|191731948|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||ANCOVA|||||1.33|0.88|0.438
95889462|NCT05185089|191731948|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.31|||ANCOVA|||||1.31|0.82|0.761
95889463|NCT05185089|191731949|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|0.88|0.449
95889464|NCT05185089|191731949|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.125||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|0.82|0.732
95889465|NCT05185089|191731950|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.161||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|0.84|0.400
95889466|NCT05185089|191731950|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|0.69|0.912
95889467|NCT05185089|191731951|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.93|0.287
95889468|NCT05185089|191731951|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||ANCOVA|||||1.29|0.90|0.420
95889469|NCT05185089|191731952|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.022||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.05|||ANCOVA|||||1.05|0.96|0.765
95889470|NCT05185089|191731952|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Ratios|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.033||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.97|||ANCOVA|||||0.97|0.85|0.004
95889471|NCT00001723|191731958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95889472|NCT01862874|191731988|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|85.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|97.3|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 group versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, then superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.3|52.7|<0.001
95889473|NCT01862874|191731989|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of maximum temperature ≥37.5°C|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.9|-3.5|0.256
95889474|NCT01862874|191731990|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site erythema|Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site erythema||7.9|-2.1|0.251
95889475|NCT01862874|191731990|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site pain|Risk Difference (RD)|6.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|12.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site pain||12.2|0.5|0.033
95889476|NCT01862874|191731990|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of injection-site swelling|Risk Difference (RD)|6.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|11.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Injection-site swelling||11.3|2.3|0.003
95889477|NCT01862874|191731991|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-5.2|
95889478|NCT01862874|191731992|OTHER|Statistical testing of no difference in incidence of vaccine-related systemic AEs|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.8|||||Risk difference (V501 - placebo) was estimated using the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.8|-4.1|
95889479|NCT01862874|191731993|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|86.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|97.4|||One-sided exact test||Vaccine efficacy is defined as the percentage reduction in relative risk for the V501 versus the placebo group.||If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%, superiority of the V501 group is demonstrated.|97.4|55.2|<0.001
95889480|NCT02056340|191732024|OTHER|||||||0.611||||||Threshold for significaance was p value \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a linear mixed-effects model which accounted for all measurements taken and the time that those measurements were taken.||||0.611
95889481|NCT02056340|191732025|OTHER|||||||0.029||||||P value reflects baseline to 72 hours between groups. A p-value \<0.05 will be considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was at 72 hours for the self-reported influenza severity score.||||0.029
95889482|NCT02480114|191732055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.549||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.827|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.827|0.364|0.004
95889483|NCT02480114|191732056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95889484|NCT02480114|191732057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.371|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|0.597|||Proportional Odds Regression|||||0.597|0.244|<0.001
95889485|NCT03578367|191732112|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.0|33.1||||||||33.1|5.0|
95889486|NCT03578367|191732112|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.4|44.8||||||||44.8|12.4|
95889487|NCT03578367|191732113|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|30.3||||||||30.3|-1.7|
95889488|NCT03578367|191732113|OTHER|No test performed|Risk Difference (RD)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.9|41.7||||||||41.7|5.9|
95889489|NCT01662908|191732146|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|30.2||||||||30.2|-12.7|
95889490|NCT01199289|191732179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.068||||0.5838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.311|0.175|||ANCOVA|||||0.175|-0.311|0.5838
95889491|NCT01199289|191732179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.075||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.166|||ANCOVA|||||0.166|-0.316|0.5391
95889492|NCT01199289|191732179|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.3583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.129|||ANCOVA|||||0.129|-0.355|0.3583
95889493|NCT01199289|191732180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.047||||0.4076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.064|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.064|-0.157|0.4076
95889494|NCT01199289|191732180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.022||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.086|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.086|-0.130|0.6915
95889495|NCT01199289|191732180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.019||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.088|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Bronchodilator||0.088|-0.126|0.7271
95889496|NCT01199289|191732180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.005||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.095|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.095|-0.086|0.9210
95889497|NCT01199289|191732180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.157|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.157|-0.017|0.1139
95889498|NCT01199289|191732180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021||||0.6426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.107|||ANCOVA|||Post-Bronchodilator||0.107|-0.066|0.6426
95889499|NCT01199289|191732181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.847||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.686|-2.009|||ANCOVA|||AM||-2.009|-31.686|0.0262
95889500|NCT01199289|191732181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.723||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.239|7.793|||ANCOVA|||AM||7.793|-21.239|0.3627
95889501|NCT01199289|191732181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.488||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.791|8.814|||ANCOVA|||AM||8.814|-19.791|0.4507
95889502|NCT01199289|191732181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.426||||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.686|2.834|||ANCOVA|||PM||2.834|-23.686|0.1228
95889503|NCT01199289|191732181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.738||||0.3092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.758|6.281|||ANCOVA|||PM||6.281|-19.758|0.3092
95889504|NCT01199289|191732181|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.043||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.831|4.744|||ANCOVA|||PM||4.744|-20.831|0.2167
95889505|NCT01199289|191732182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.331||||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.332|||ANCOVA|||||1.332|-0.670|0.5157
95889506|NCT01199289|191732182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.234||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.229|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.760|-1.229|0.6434
95889507|NCT01199289|191732182|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.199||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.196|0.799|||ANCOVA|||||0.799|-1.196|0.6954
95889508|NCT01199289|191732183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.283||||0.5577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.665|||ANCOVA|||||0.665|-1.231|0.5577
95889509|NCT01199289|191732183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.038||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|0.98|||ANCOVA|||||0.980|-0.904|0.9366
95889510|NCT01199289|191732183|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.138||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.084|||ANCOVA|||||1.084|-0.808|0.7745
95889511|NCT01199289|191732184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.026||||0.8524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.303|||ANCOVA|||||0.303|-0.251|0.8524
95889512|NCT01199289|191732184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.033||||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.305|0.8139
95889513|NCT01199289|191732184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.002||||0.9881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.276|||ANCOVA|||||0.276|-0.281|0.9881
95889514|NCT01199289|191732185|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.062||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.017|-0.141|0.1213
95889515|NCT01199289|191732185|SUPERIORITY|With use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.017||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.061|||ANCOVA|||||0.061|-0.095|0.6643
95889516|NCT01199289|191732185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.036|||ANCOVA|With use of SABA||||0.036|-0.121|0.2879
95889517|NCT01199289|191732185|SUPERIORITY|Without use of SABA|LS Mean Difference|-0.074||||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.001|||ANCOVA|||||0.001|-0.150|0.0546
95889518|NCT01199289|191732185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.004||||0.9078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.071|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.071|-0.080|0.9078
95889519|NCT01199289|191732185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.035||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Without use of SABA||0.040|-0.111|0.3616
95889520|NCT02902965|191732209|OTHER||median PFS|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|10.8|||||Kaplan-Meier estimates for median PFS and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||10.8|6.2|
95889521|NCT02902965|191732210|OTHER||ORR in %|56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|68.2|||||Overall response = confirmed sCR + CR + VGPR + PR with corresponding 95% Exact binomial Cl|||68.2|44.7|
95889522|NCT02902965|191732211|OTHER||PFS rate|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.9|||||Kaplan-Meier method used for PFS rate and its associated 95% confidence intervals using log-log transformed Greenwood variance estimate were calculated.|||16.9|1.6|
95889523|NCT02902965|191732214|OTHER||median TTP|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|12.0|||||KM estimates for median TTP with associated 95% CI|||12|7.8|
95889524|NCT02259582|191732233|SUPERIORITY|Based on RECIST v1.1. Response outcomes from an assessment done anytime less than Day 35 were considered as not evaluable unless the response assessment was progress disease.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.04|||=|0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.095|||Log Rank|||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate both the survival curves and the median survival time. The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the median survival time was calculated. A p-value for treatment effect was generated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.||.095|.013|=0.0401
95889525|NCT03720470|191732318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||31.4|14.7|<0.0001
95889526|NCT03720470|191732318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|43.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.5|26.1|<0.0001
95889527|NCT03720470|191732319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|41.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||41.6|22.2|<0.0001
95889528|NCT03720470|191732319|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|52.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||52.7|33.7|<0.0001
95889529|NCT03720470|191732320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|26.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||26.3|9.5|0.0002
95889530|NCT03720470|191732320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|34.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.0|<.0001
95972595|NCT04055090|191918467|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. The Baseline average 24-hour pain score was included as a covariate.|||-0.02|-1.76|0.0460
95972596|NCT04055090|191918469|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2190
95972597|NCT04055090|191918470|OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, and use of gabapentin/pregabalin as main fixed effects. Baseline average 24-hour pain score is included as a covariate.|||-0.29|-2.67|0.0155
95972598|NCT02065687|191918478|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between BMI and metformin treatment (i.e. the parameter associated with the interaction term of BMI \* treatment is equal to 0).|Cox Proportional Hazard|-0.01787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27472||0.9482|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||The interaction between BMI and metformin treatment will be examined with an interaction term in a Cox proportional hazards model. Historical data indicate that approximately 50% of people are obese (BMI\>=30). For the purposes of examining the relationship, we will classify patients into two levels (high versus low) at the median BMI, which will increase the likelihood of detecting an interaction between metformin treatment and obesity.||||0.9482
95972599|NCT00825916|191918509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.078
95972600|NCT00825916|191918509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.086
95972601|NCT00825916|191918509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
95972602|NCT00825916|191918509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.49
95972603|NCT00825916|191918510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.74
95972604|NCT00825916|191918510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
95972605|NCT00825916|191918510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
95972606|NCT00825916|191918510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||1.00
95972607|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.34
95972608|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.98
95972609|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.15
95972610|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.83
95972611|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
95972612|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.59
95972613|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.76
95972614|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.63
95972615|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.92
95972616|NCT00825916|191918511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.69
95972617|NCT00825916|191918512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.95
95972618|NCT00825916|191918512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.76
95972619|NCT00825916|191918512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.60
95972620|NCT00825916|191918512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.44
95972621|NCT00825916|191918512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.85
95972622|NCT00825916|191918512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.83
95972623|NCT00882687|191918581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3235|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3235
95972624|NCT00882687|191918581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9144|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9144
95972625|NCT00882687|191918581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3324
95972626|NCT00882687|191918582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5846|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5846
95972627|NCT00882687|191918582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1493
95972628|NCT00882687|191918582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0404
95972629|NCT00882687|191918583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.0578
95972630|NCT00882687|191918583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8988
95972631|NCT00882687|191918583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4709
95972632|NCT00882687|191918584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1773|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.1773
95889531|NCT03720470|191732320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|5.2||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||13.4|-2.9|0.2084
95889532|NCT03720470|191732320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.7|13.5|<0.0001
95889533|NCT03720470|191732321|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|30.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||30.5|13.7|<0.0001
95889534|NCT03720470|191732321|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||43.7|26.3|<0.0001
95889535|NCT03720470|191732321|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||5.2|-12.2|
95889536|NCT03720470|191732321|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|18.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||18.5|0.4|
95889537|NCT03720470|191732322|OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||34.1|14.0|<0.0001
95889538|NCT03720470|191732322|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|30.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||39.8|20.3|<0.0001
95889539|NCT03720470|191732322|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||4.2|-9.6|
95889540|NCT03720470|191732322|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 versus dupilumab) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference by disease severity group using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by baseline disease severity.||9.6|-3.3|
95889541|NCT00453921|191732351|OTHER||||||<|0.04||||||For active therapy/placebo relative to both placebo|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.04
95889542|NCT00453921|191732353|EQUIVALENCE|Looking for statistical difference, p \< .01, between groups looking at change scores|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95889543|NCT00453921|191732354|EQUIVALENCE|group differences|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95889544|NCT00453921|191732357|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95889545|NCT00453921|191732357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||a priopr|ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95889546|NCT00303498|191732358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.0302|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was obtained from the non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for baseline treadmill exercise time.||The median of the treatment difference was calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||||0.0302
95889547|NCT00303498|191732359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.495|||||||ANCOVA|Change at Week 24: P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.4950
95889548|NCT00303498|191732360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.6||||0.3874|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PLAX 2D mode||||0.3874
95889549|NCT00303498|191732360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7038|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||Change at Week 24 for PSAX M-mode||||0.7038
95889550|NCT00303498|191732361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.8998|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8998
95889551|NCT00303498|191732362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.7245|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.7245
95889552|NCT00303498|191732363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8649|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from an ANCOVA with effect for treatment and baseline value as a covariate.||||||0.8649
95889553|NCT00303498|191732364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5909||||||The statistical analysis (P value) was performed on the composite change for all categories.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Change at Week 24||||0.5909
95889554|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL versus \[v.\] \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889555|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889556|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The overall 0.05 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each febuxostat dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889557|NCT00174915|191732365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 80 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|25.7||||||97.5|16.7|34.7||||||||34.7|16.7|
95889558|NCT00174915|191732365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of febuxostat 120 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 97.5% confidence interval is \> -10%.|Difference in percentage|42.7||||||97.5|34.0|51.3||||||||51.3|34.0|
95889559|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889560|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons of each febuxostat dose to allopurinol were adjusted to control the overall 0.05 level of significance for superiority by using Hochberg's method. The p-value was statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889561|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889562|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889563|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889564|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.479
95889565|NCT00174915|191732365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889566|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889567|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889568|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889569|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889570|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889571|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889572|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.011
95889573|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889574|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.091
95889575|NCT00174915|191732366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889576|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889577|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889578|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889579|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889580|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889581|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889582|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.074
95972633|NCT00882687|191918584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4222|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4222
95889583|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889584|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.001
95889585|NCT00174915|191732367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||<0.001
95889586|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889587|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889588|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889589|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889590|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889591|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889592|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889593|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95972634|NCT00882687|191918584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.4326
95972635|NCT02649946|191918587|SUPERIORITY|TLPP evaluated at 6 months post-index procedure to assess if TLPP of COVERA is superior to that of PTA alone, by direct comparison.|||||<|0.001||||||Test successful if the one-side p-value is less than 0.025 and the result is in favor of the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent.|Chi-squared|||"Hypothesis: The (survival) rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) with respect to TLPP through 6 months is greater than that in subjects treated with PTA alone in the treatment of stenoses in the upper extremity venous outflow of subjects dializing with an AV fistula.~Sample size calculation: 238 randomized subjects \[214 evaluable\] will give 92% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||<0.001
95889594|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889595|NCT00174915|191732368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889596|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889597|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889598|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889599|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889600|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889601|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95972636|NCT02649946|191918588|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority Farrington and Manning Exact Test is used to test the primary safety hypothesis. The test is successful if the one-sided p-value is less than 0.025.||||||0.0022|||||||Farrington and Manning|Non-inferiority test with non-inferiority margin of 10%.||"Hypothesis: The safety rate in subjects treated with the COVERA Vascular Covered Stent (following PTA) is non-inferior to the safety rate in subjects treated with PTA alone through 30 days in the treatment of stenotic lesions.~Sample size: 238 randomized subjects \[226 evaluable\] will give 85% power with one-sided type 1 error = 0.025."||||0.0022
95889602|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889603|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889604|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889605|NCT00174915|191732369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-values for pairwise comparisons are from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA model with treatment and baseline renal function as factors. Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95889606|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.789||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.789
95889607|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.320
95972637|NCT00911768|191918656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.05||95.0|-0.647|1.008|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.008|-0.647|<0.05
95889608|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.381
95889609|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.809
95889610|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.154
95889611|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.247
95889612|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.415
95889613|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.649||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at the 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
95889614|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.807
95889615|NCT00174915|191732370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.844
95972638|NCT00911768|191918657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of stimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|<|0.05||95.0|-0.576|-0.115|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.115|-0.576|<0.05
95889616|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.699
95889617|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.822
95889618|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
95889619|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.679
95889620|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
95889621|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.104
95889622|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
95889623|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.309
95889624|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.759
95889625|NCT00174915|191732371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.385
95889626|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.949
95972639|NCT00911768|191918658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority analysis was conducted. We just compared the difference of unstimulated salivary rates between both groups at 8 weeks, because there were no definition of the effective margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.05||95.0|-0.155|-0.017|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.017|-0.155|<0.05
95972640|NCT05026710|191918672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.26
95889627|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.050
95889628|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.577
95889629|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.598||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.598
95889630|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
95889631|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.969
95889632|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.056
95889633|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.659
95889634|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.197||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.197
95889635|NCT00174915|191732372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.521||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
95889636|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.683
95889637|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.078
95889638|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.442
95889639|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.990
95889640|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.077
95889641|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.662
95972641|NCT05026710|191918673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.57
95972642|NCT05026710|191918674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.58
95972643|NCT05026710|191918675|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
95972644|NCT05026710|191918676|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95972645|NCT05026710|191918677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects; covariates: days since URS, study arm, days\*arm, baseline LURN, stone location; random intercept with unstructured covariance||||||0.80
95889642|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.139
95889643|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.705||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.705
95889644|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.337
95972646|NCT05026710|191918678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||WinRatio, unmatched unstratified|WinRatio using unmatched method.||||||0.25
95889645|NCT00174915|191732373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.643
95889646|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.645||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.645
95889647|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.756
95889648|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.428
95889649|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons..|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL)||||||0.076
95889650|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.106
95889651|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.069
95972647|NCT05026710|191918679|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
95972648|NCT05026710|191918680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.85
95972649|NCT00589121|191918681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|The fixed rate of 37% comes from the published National Cancer Institute of Canada trial SR2 (CAN-NCIC-SR2: Phase III Randomized Study of Pre- vs Postoperative Radiotherapy in Curable Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma) receiving preoperative radiation therapy without image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT).||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Initially designed to test for a 20% absolute improvement from 37% (fixed rate) to 17% using Fisher's exact test, requiring 41 patients per cohort (51 with 20% ineligibility) with 5% type I error and 90% statistical power. During accrual, the sample size for cohort B was increased to 66 (83 with 20% ineligibility) to test for a 15% improvement with 5% type I error and 85% power.||||0.0005
95972650|NCT02495792|191918699|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.7||||||||21.7|1.6|
95889652|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.837
95889653|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.749
95889654|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.581
95889655|NCT00174915|191732374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.05 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline renal function (serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg/dL v. \>1.5 mg/dL).||||||0.311
95889656|NCT03108027|191732447|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.538|0.6811|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6811|0.5380|
95889657|NCT03108027|191732447|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6152|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5437|0.6868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6868|0.5437|
95889658|NCT03108027|191732447|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0057|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.076|0.0647|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0647|-0.0760|
95889659|NCT03108027|191732448|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6206|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5335|0.7077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7077|0.5335|
95889660|NCT03108027|191732448|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7347|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6469|0.8225|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8225|0.6469|
95889661|NCT03108027|191732448|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1141|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.197|-0.0311|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0311|-0.1970|
95889662|NCT03108027|191732449|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|82.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||82.9|61.3|
95889663|NCT03108027|191732449|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|86.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.1|97.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||97.8|76.1|
95889664|NCT03108027|191732449|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.6|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Morning average PEF||-4.1|-25.6|
95889665|NCT03108027|191732449|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|73.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.9|84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||84.2|61.9|
95889666|NCT03108027|191732449|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|58.7||||||90.0|47.5|69.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||69.9|47.5|
95972651|NCT03519971|191918704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.123|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||The hazard ratio (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age \[\< 65 versus (vs.) \>= 65 years\] and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.||1.123|0.647|0.247
95889667|NCT03108027|191732449|OTHER|A hypothesis test is not planned for this study, inferences are to be performed by interpreting confidence interval of treatment difference.'|Mean Difference (Net)|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.3|25.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Evening average PEF||25.5|3.3|
95889668|NCT00003901|191732509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.59||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.23|||Regression, Cox|||||2.23|1.13|0.007
95889669|NCT00003901|191732510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.03||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.69|0.886
95889670|NCT00003901|191732511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.63||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.36|||Regression, Cox|||||2.36|1.13|0.009
95889671|NCT00003901|191732512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.48|0.332
95889672|NCT02237950|191732530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.015
95889673|NCT02237950|191732531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
95889674|NCT02237950|191732532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.002
95889675|NCT02237950|191732533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
95889676|NCT02237950|191732534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.012
95889677|NCT02237950|191732535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.059
95889678|NCT02237950|191732536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.008
95889679|NCT01896531|191732539|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||=|0.56|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.55|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.55|0.81|= 0.56
95972652|NCT03519971|191918705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|0.2||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|99.5|-15.2|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|The CIs for difference in percentages were estimated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||16.3|-15.2|0.976
95889680|NCT01896531|191732539|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.11|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||2.11|0.54|= 0.86
95889681|NCT01896531|191732540|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.52|||=|0.0234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.07|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||2.07|1.12|= 0.0234
95889682|NCT01896531|191732540|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.2867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|3.65|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||3.65|0.75|= 0.2867
95889683|NCT01896531|191732540|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66|||=|0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.93|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||2.93|0.94|= 0.1369
95972653|NCT03519971|191918706|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.386|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.386|0.778|0.823
95972654|NCT03519971|191918707|SUPERIORITY|For the comparison between treatments, the Kaplan-Meier estimator of survival at 24 months for each treatment was used to obtain the HR and the test is based on the method described in Klein 2007. To account for the stratification factors, the estimates and test statistics in each strata were combined by weighting inversely proportionately according to each within stratum variance.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.502|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.502|0.716|0.847
95972655|NCT03519971|191918708|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was performed using a CMH test, stratified by age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0|||||The CIs for difference in percentages was calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|||3.0|-4.8|
95972656|NCT03519971|191918711|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.413|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.413|0.649|0.790
95972657|NCT03519971|191918712|SUPERIORITY|The HR and CIs were calculated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C), with treatment as the only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.071|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test, adjusting for age (\< 65 vs. \>= 65 years) and stage (IIIA vs. IIIB/C).||||1.071|0.614|0.132
95889684|NCT01896531|191732541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-5.2|||=|0.5202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.46|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||All randomized participants||8.06|-18.46|= 0.5202
95889685|NCT01896531|191732541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-23.33|||=|0.2035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.24|5.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||5.58|-52.24|= 0.2035
95972658|NCT02909764|191918717|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95972659|NCT02909764|191918718|OTHER|Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Yates's chi-square analyses were used to determine which of the two cereals children in each group preferred at baseline and after the 8-week exposure period, and whether the number of children who shifted preference from the regular cereal at baseline to the low salt cereal after the exposure period differed between groups.||||<0.05
95889686|NCT01896531|191732541|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|-4.35|||=|0.7697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.48|19.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||19.79|-28.48|= 0.7697
95889687|NCT01896531|191732542|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||=|0.5974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.73|||Log Rank|||All randomized participants||1.73|0.76|= 0.5974
95889688|NCT01896531|191732542|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.5385|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|1.79|||Log Rank|||Participants with PTEN loss tumors||1.79|0.28|= 0.5385
95889689|NCT01896531|191732542|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.6097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.75|||Log Rank|||Participants who are Akt Dx+||1.75|0.35|= 0.6097
95889690|NCT00268996|191732545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-11.717||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.995|14.607|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||14.607|-31.995|0.348
95889691|NCT00268996|191732546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.082||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.049|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means is shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.049|-0.214|0.220
95889692|NCT00268996|191732547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|3.977||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.331|32.379|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||32.379|-18.331|0.751
95972660|NCT02909764|191918719|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
95972661|NCT02909764|191918720|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.77
95972662|NCT02909764|191918721|OTHER|General estimating equations (GEE)|||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were conducted on the amount of cereal in grams ingested during 28 days home-exposure period. The GEE approach accounts for the repeated measurements of outcomes over time for each child and examines whether the slopes of the lines created differ between the treatment groups.||||<0.05
95889693|NCT00268996|191732548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-60.737|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.486|-57.78|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 26 (LOCF)||-57.780|-63.486|<0.001
95889694|NCT00268996|191732548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-59.326|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.21|-56.222|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet at Week 52 (LOCF)||-56.222|-62.210|<0.001
95889695|NCT00268996|191732549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.253||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.998|7.504|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||7.504|-6.998|0.945
95889696|NCT00268996|191732550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-0.062||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.009|0.886|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||0.886|-1.009|0.898
95889697|NCT00268996|191732551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-5.165||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.185|-1.145|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-1.145|-9.185|0.012
95889698|NCT00268996|191732552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|-1.967||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.912|-0.022|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet - Placebo).|||-0.022|-3.912|0.047
95889699|NCT00268996|191732553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|6.958||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.568|29.364|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 26 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||29.364|-11.568|0.487
95889700|NCT00268996|191732553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|12.255||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.725|36.562|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet /Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Week 52 (LOCF): Comparison between Placebo Vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet||36.562|-7.725|0.247
95889701|NCT00268996|191732554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-1.112||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.363|4.433|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||4.433|-6.363|0.687
95889702|NCT00268996|191732554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-3.237||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.976|2.865|||ANOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|||2.865|-8.976|0.290
95889703|NCT00268996|191732555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|16.725||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.232|33.271|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||33.271|2.232|0.022
95889704|NCT00268996|191732555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|9.256||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.136|27.172|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||27.172|-6.136|0.252
95889705|NCT00268996|191732556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|15.449||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.204|43.632|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26||43.632|-7.204|0.196
95889706|NCT00268996|191732556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|38.567||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.355|83.997|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52||83.997|4.355|0.024
95889707|NCT00268996|191732557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-2.098||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.303|14.517|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||14.517|-16.303|0.790
95889708|NCT00268996|191732557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|1.986||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.807|20.673|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||20.673|-13.807|0.818
95889709|NCT00268996|191732558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-0.252||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.151|21.561|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 26 (LOCF)||21.561|-18.151|0.980
95889710|NCT00268996|191732558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted percentage change|-8.585||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.007|37.012|||ANCOVA||Adjusted percentage change is shown \[(Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily/Placebo) - 1 multiplied by 100\]|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily at Week 52 (LOCF)||37.012|-39.007|0.663
95889711|NCT00268996|191732560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment Difference|1.758||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.675|16.192|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For vessel volume||16.192|-12.675|0.811
95889712|NCT00268996|191732560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.627||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.171|16.425|||ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet once daily - Placebo).|For lumen volume||16.425|-11.171|0.708
95889713|NCT00268996|191732561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.012||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.136||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.136|-0.160|0.873
95889714|NCT00268996|191732561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.048||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.354|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean vessel area||0.354|-0.258|0.756
95889715|NCT00268996|191732561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.061||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.36|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value , matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Mean lumen area||0.360|-0.237|0.687
95889716|NCT00268996|191732562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.584||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.819|5.65|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue volume||5.650|-6.819|0.854
95889717|NCT00268996|191732562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.926||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.748|6.6||Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|ANCOVA||Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty volume||6.600|-2.748|0.418
95889718|NCT00268996|191732563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|3.701|||ANOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibrous tissue as % of VH plaque||3.701|0.299|0.021
95889719|NCT00268996|191732563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.739||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.635|3.114|||ANCOVA|Data analyzed using ANCOVA, with ACS status, pooled country, baseline value, matched segment length and treatment included as covariates.|Difference in adjusted means are shown (Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet one daily - Placebo).|Placebo vs Darapladib 160 mg EC tablet: Fibro-fatty as percentage of VH plaque||3.114|-1.635|0.540
95889720|NCT02956486|191732564|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (mild cognitive impairment \[MCI\]/Prodromal, mild alzheimer's disease \[AD\]), concurrent AD medication use, region, apolipoprotein E (ApoE4) status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.57|0.385
95889721|NCT02956486|191732566|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.06|0.345
95889722|NCT02956486|191732567|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.79|-6.88|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||-6.88|-18.79|<.001
95972663|NCT02909764|191918722|OTHER|T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between groups|||||>|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-tests were conducted to determine whether differences in baseline blood pressure between the two groups.||||>0.40
95889723|NCT02956486|191732568|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.22|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.22|-0.67|0.316
95889724|NCT02956486|191732569|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.02|-0.07|0.254
95889725|NCT02956486|191732570|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Mean Slope|-0.008||||0.9088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.129|||Linear mixed effects model|||Based on the linear mixed effects model, which included assessment time and treatment group by assessment time interaction as covariate with random intercept and slope.||0.129|-0.145|0.9088
95889726|NCT02956486|191732571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.16|0.77|0.6155
95889727|NCT02956486|191732572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||Based on a Cox regression model which included treatment group, concurrent AD medication use, region, APOE4 status (positive, negative) as covariate.||1.35|0.96|0.1281
95889728|NCT02956486|191732573|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|0.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.90|-1.75|0.525
95889729|NCT02956486|191732574|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.62|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.62|-0.64|0.977
95972664|NCT04487834|191918770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95972665|NCT04487834|191918771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95972666|NCT04487834|191918772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4852|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4852
95972667|NCT02079610|191918791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95972668|NCT02079610|191918792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.2||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95972669|NCT02079610|191918793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95889730|NCT02956486|191732575|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.32|-1.09|0.854
95889731|NCT02956486|191732576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.26|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||0.26|-0.79|0.314
95889732|NCT02956486|191732577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value and the baseline value by visit interaction as covariate.||1.07|-0.93|0.895
95889733|NCT02956486|191732578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.17|-0.09|0.542
95889734|NCT02956486|191732579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.01|-0.02|0.380
95889735|NCT02956486|191732580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.02|-0.82|0.063
95889736|NCT02956486|191732581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.01|-1.11|0.045
95889737|NCT02956486|191732582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.24|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||0.24|-0.32|0.799
95889738|NCT02956486|191732583|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.07|||MMRM|||Analysis was based on the MMRM and factors for treatment group, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, clinical disease staging (MCI/Prodromal, mild AD), concurrent AD medication use, region, ApoE4 status (positive, negative) as fixed effects, and the baseline value as covariate.||-0.07|-0.56|0.012
95889739|NCT04446377|191732633|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would induce greater changes in viral load from Day 1 to Day 4 than would Placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.53||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.20|Mixed Models Analysis|ANCOVA linear mixed model to evaluate the relative differences between the LAM-002A and Placebo groups in the log10 viral load from Day 1 to Day 4.|The difference between the groups (LAM-002A vs Placebo).|The analysis tested whether the viral load in nasopharyngeal samples was lower at Day 4 in those receiving LAM-002A compared to Placebo.||0.53|-1.47|0.35
95889740|NCT04446377|191732635|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that LAM-002A would reduce the cumulative rate of hospitalization or death during the 28-day period comprising 10 days of study drug administration and a further 18 days of observation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.89|||Log Rank|||||22.89|0.18|0.55
95889741|NCT04446377|191732637|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression at Baseline||||
95889742|NCT04446377|191732637|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE Logistic Regression at Day 1||||
95889743|NCT04446377|191732637|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 4||||
95889744|NCT04446377|191732637|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that a higher proportion of participants would have ≥95% oxygen saturation during LAM-002A administration than during Placebo administration as assessed across Days 1, 4, and 11 of the study drug course.|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Risk Difference from GEE logistic regression at Day 11||||
95889745|NCT04446377|191732638|SUPERIORITY|The alternative hypothesis for the statistical testing was that, relative to Placebo, LAM-002A would result in a greater proportion of participants with a SARS-CoV-2 viral load \<LLOQ on Day 4.|Relative Risk|2.51||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|8.48||Prespecified significance level of 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||8.48|0.74|0.20
95972670|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.019|0.14||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg versus (vs) placebo, centrally read||0.140|0.019|0.0213
95889746|NCT01129960|191732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3726|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.3726
95889747|NCT01129960|191732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.8034
95889748|NCT01129960|191732673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1391|||||||Dunnett's test (analysis of covariance)|||||||0.1391
95889749|NCT00071513|191732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean changes in Short Moods and Feelings measure of depression was the unit of analysis.||||<0.05
95889750|NCT00071513|191732674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A secondary hypothesis of the study was that attachment to school and/or perceptions of school supportiveness would mediate the effect of the HSTS intervention on depressive symptoms.||||<0.01
95889751|NCT02157298|191732685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.39||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.39|-0.81|<0.0001
95889752|NCT02157298|191732686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.301|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-12.2||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-12.2|-33.2|<0.0001
95889753|NCT02157298|191732687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.7|-1.7|<0.0001
95889754|NCT02157298|191732688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4017||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.07||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, DPP-4, baseline eGFR, treatment-by-week interaction, continuous fixed covariate of baseline value.||H0: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: mean(dapa) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||0.07|-1.51|0.0743
95889755|NCT02157298|191732689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.769||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|10.7||Significant at alpha=0.05 (two-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Tsitatis, Davidian, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment with adjustment for baseline value and DPP-4||H0: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus alternative HA: proportion(dapa) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||10.7|-4.0|0.3727
95889756|NCT04059094|191732690|OTHER||Adjusted means difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.5468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.5|||Mixed model with repeated measurements||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, visit, treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline-by-visit interaction, and random effect for patient was applied. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. MMRM only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-3.5|0.5468
95889757|NCT04059094|191732691|OTHER||Adjuste means difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANCOVA||Adjusted means difference was calculated as value from BI 1265162 200μg minus value from placebo group.|ANCOVA based on analysis of covariance with fixed effects for baseline and treatment was applied. Statistical analysis was performed for 200μg BI and placebo groups only. No hypothesis testing was performed, as this trial was prematurely discontinued. ANCOVA only included data from 200µg BI and placebo, as the sample size of the BI 20µg, BI 50µg and BI 100µg dose levels was limited because of the premature discontinuation of the trial.||6.5|-2.4|0.3039
95889758|NCT00459667|191732712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|17.4||||||95.0|14.4|20.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||20.7|14.4|
95889759|NCT00459667|191732712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|15.8||||||95.0|13.1|18.9||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||18.9|13.1|
95889760|NCT00459667|191732712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome|31.1||||||95.0|24.4|38.4||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Flu-Like-Syndrome||38.4|24.4|
95889761|NCT00459667|191732713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|28.0|35.7||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||35.7|28.0|
95889762|NCT00459667|191732713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|26.2||||||95.0|22.8|29.8||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||29.8|22.8|
95889763|NCT00459667|191732713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||number of patients w/ IS reactions.|31.7||||||95.0|24.9|39.0||||||The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated for number of patients w/ Injection-site (IS) reactions.||39.0|24.9|
95889764|NCT03715764|191732717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95889765|NCT03715764|191732717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Results for the final model for the variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95972671|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.128||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.056|0.199||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.199|0.056|0.0025
95889766|NCT03715764|191732717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Results for the final model, variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time), adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95889767|NCT03715764|191732718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Results for the final model, variable GROUP, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
95889768|NCT03715764|191732718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||Results for the final model, variable TIME, adjusted for confounders.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0049
95889769|NCT03715764|191732718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Results for the final model, adjusted for confounders, for the variable Group x Time (Statistical interaction of group and time).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95889770|NCT03715764|191732719|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
95889771|NCT03715764|191732720|SUPERIORITY|Used as a confounder in the mixed effect model analysis for primary outcome. All participants enrolled in the study were included in the 12 months analysis.|||||<|0.2||||||Confounding variables with p-values \< 0.2 were carried forward to the final model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.2
95889772|NCT00556712|191732751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.62|<0.0001
95889773|NCT00556712|191732755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.72|0.0097
95889774|NCT00556712|191732758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||Log Rank|||||0.93|0.66|0.0050
95889775|NCT00556712|191732761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.51|0.1768
95889776|NCT00556712|191732764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.4|||Log Rank|||||1.40|0.49|0.4797
95889777|NCT00556712|191732766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.61|<0.0001
95889778|NCT00556712|191732768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|6.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|10.3|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||10.3|2.7|0.0006
95889779|NCT00556712|191732770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Upgrade Rates|4.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.7|||Chi-squared||The approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||6.7|1.6|0.0007
95889780|NCT00556712|191732772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|9.8||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|16.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD rate.||16.4|3.1|0.0035
95972672|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.048|0.188||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.188|0.048|0.0040
95889781|NCT00556712|191732772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|19.7|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for the difference of two rates was determined using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Analysis included CR + PR + SD \> 12 weeks rate.||19.7|7.1|<0.0001
95889782|NCT00556712|191732774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.74|0.3787
95889783|NCT00556712|191732776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|< 0.0001
95889784|NCT00556712|191732779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.87|0.5385
95889785|NCT00556712|191732782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.79|0.6530
95889786|NCT04203238|191732838|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95889787|NCT03518073|191732888|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.265|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.265|0.959|
95889788|NCT03518073|191732888|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.209|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.209|0.907|
95889789|NCT03518073|191732889|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.29|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.290|0.943|
95889790|NCT03518073|191732889|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|1.053|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.053|0.737|
95889791|NCT03518073|191732890|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.284|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.284|0.873|
95889792|NCT03518073|191732890|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.006|1.453|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.453|1.006|
95889793|NCT03518073|191732891|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.963|1.3|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.300|0.963|
95889794|NCT03518073|191732891|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.119|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.119|0.805|
95889795|NCT03518073|191732892|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.221|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.221|0.880|
95889796|NCT03518073|191732892|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.065|||||Posterior mean ratio with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.065|0.742|
95889797|NCT03518073|191732893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.01|0.253
95889798|NCT03518073|191732893|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.02|0.354
95889799|NCT03518073|191732894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.68|-2.44|0.691
95889800|NCT03518073|191732894|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.599||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.66|-2.64|0.749
95889801|NCT02436889|191732910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.949
95889802|NCT02436889|191732911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.11||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.31|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||8.31|-2.09|0.2415
95889803|NCT02436889|191732912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-5.87|||ANCOVA|||||-5.87|-18.16|0.0001
95889804|NCT02436889|191732913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.33|||ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.59|0.1956
95889805|NCT02436889|191732914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.40|0.34|0.0168
95889806|NCT02436889|191732915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.71|||ANCOVA|||||3.71|0.50|0.0101
95889807|NCT02057198|191732918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.05|-0.34|0.52
95889808|NCT02057198|191732918|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.35||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.|Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||||0.35|-0.69|0.66
95889809|NCT02057198|191732919|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||<0.001
95889810|NCT02057198|191732919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.01
95889811|NCT02057198|191732920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.99
95889812|NCT02057198|191732920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi square (2 proportion test)|||||||0.52
95889813|NCT02057198|191732921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.43||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.19|-0.67|0.05
95889814|NCT02057198|191732921|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effects model was used to compare decay slopes for the reduction in log(CFUs)/day according to each treatment group||Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models. Data from the specified time points were combined to construct a decay slope, representing the reduction in log(CFUs)/day for each treatment group. We compared the slope (rate of change) between treatment groups using mixed effects models.||-0.57|-1.14|0.002
95889815|NCT02057198|191732923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.48
95889816|NCT02057198|191732923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Chi square (two proportion test)|||||||0.66
95889817|NCT01985581|191732924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-3.0||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-5.9|0.0392
95889818|NCT01985581|191732925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.6|||ANOVA|||||4.6|-4.0|0.894
95889819|NCT01985581|191732926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-3.2|||ANOVA|||||-3.2|-9.1|0.0001
95889820|NCT01985581|191732928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7|||ANOVA|||||3.7|-3.2|0.8706
95889821|NCT03878745|191732932|SUPERIORITY|Two-sided 95% confidence intervals is calculated for the average relative rating. A linear model was used to evaluate the pen needle group effect on the response to test whether the groups can be combined and to adjust for the order effect. The order of the pen needles used and the group to which the subject belongs were used as covariates. If the lower bound of the CI is \> 0, we can conclude in superiority.|Overall Mean|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.35||||||||0.35|0.07|
95889822|NCT03878745|191732933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||||||||1.6|-1.6|
95889823|NCT03878745|191732934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.1||||||||0.1|-3.6|
95889824|NCT03878745|191732935|SUPERIORITY|A mixed effect model was used (fixed effects of PN, abdomen site, order of pair, order of PN within pair and random subject effect) to estimate average difference (BD Nano PN - Terumo PN) in delivery time and total injection time. A Box-Cox transformation might be used to normalize the data if necessary.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.026||<0.001
95889825|NCT03878745|191732936|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.2|
95889826|NCT01042236|191732956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|2.41||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||2.41|-1.18|0.4907
95889827|NCT01042236|191732956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.32||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.32|-2.27|0.5944
95889828|NCT01042236|191732957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.94||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.94|-1.91|0.9870
95972673|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.026||||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.012|0.064||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.064|-0.012|0.1803
95972674|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.159||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.159|0.002|0.0582
95972675|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.178||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.083|0.272||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.272|0.083|0.0014
95972676|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.122||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.036|0.208||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.208|0.036|0.0125
95972677|NCT01620255|191918805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.142|-0.009|0.0927
95972678|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089||||0.1379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.037|0.214||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.214|-0.037|0.1379
95972679|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.254||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.121|0.388||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.388|0.121|0.0011
95889829|NCT01042236|191732957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.15||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||1.15|-2.71|0.4167
95889830|NCT01042236|191732958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.26||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.26|-0.24|0.9403
95889831|NCT01042236|191732958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.09|-0.42|0.1881
95889832|NCT01042236|191732959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.22|-0.26|0.8602
95889833|NCT01042236|191732959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.1271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06||A treatment by period interaction term (fixed effect) was included if significant at 10% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline (prior to Period 1) at the end of the treatment period was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with fixed effect terms for sequence, period and treatment, using baseline (prior to Period 1) as a covariate, and participant within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.43|0.1271
95889834|NCT04309656|191732991|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|85.85||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.21|90.75|||ANOVA|||||90.75|81.21|0.0001
95889835|NCT04309656|191732991|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|92.99||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.65|104.62|||ANOVA|||||104.62|82.65|0.3001
95889836|NCT04309656|191732992|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|100.6||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|103.03|||ANOVA|||||103.03|98.23|0.6686
95889837|NCT04309656|191732992|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.7||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|99.1|||ANOVA|||||99.10|81.20|0.0745
95889838|NCT04309656|191732993|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|101.03||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.65|103.47|||ANOVA|||||103.47|98.65|0.4683
95889839|NCT04309656|191732993|EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons performed: Treatment B (test) versus Treatment A (reference). Relative bioavailability of test compared to reference assessed via 90% CI. CI obtained by taking the antilog of the upper and lower limits of CI for the difference of the least squares means on the log scale within the ANOVA framework model.|Geometric mean ratio (%)|89.63||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|99.05|||ANOVA|||||99.05|81.10|0.0734
95889840|NCT01172847|191732998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||1.05|0.91|
95889841|NCT01172847|191732998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.02|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.02|0.95|
95889842|NCT01172847|191732999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|1.00|
95889843|NCT01172847|191733000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir||0.96|0.77|
95889844|NCT01172847|191733000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|Mean exposure ratio of oseltamivir carboxylate||1.05|0.92|
95972680|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.163||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.032|0.293||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.293|0.032|0.0239
95972681|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.213||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.08|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.347|0.080|0.0052
95889845|NCT01172847|191733001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean exposure ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.06|||||Estimate of the treatment difference and corresponding 90% CI was derived from the back-transformed model.|mean exposure ratio of rimantadine||1.06|0.99|
95889846|NCT00183092|191733006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.53|||Regression, Cox|||||3.53|0.58|0.43
95889847|NCT00183092|191733007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.54||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05. One subject in the placebo group was administered only 25 items on the MMSE due to visual impairment, and this subject's score was scaled based on percentage correct.|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.54
95889848|NCT00183092|191733008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.9||||0.36||95.0||||significance threshold p=0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance.||||.36
95889849|NCT00183092|191733009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.8||||0.01||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||.01
95889850|NCT00183092|191733010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.03||95.0||||Threshold for significance p\<0.05|Quade's rank analysis of covariance|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.03
95889851|NCT00183092|191733011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.92||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.92
95889852|NCT00183092|191733012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.71||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted changed (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.71
95889853|NCT00183092|191733013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.7||95.0||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|||The difference between change scores, adjusted for Month-0 performance. Positive adjusted differences indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the placebo group; negative indicate greater adjusted change (worsening) in the quinacrine group.||||0.70
95889854|NCT00665353|191733014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.158||||0.29|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.059|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.10. The hypothesized response rate was 0.30.|||0.059|0.29
95889855|NCT00665353|191733017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.053||||0.42|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.001|||This is an unadjusted p-value. Statistical significance was defined a priori as 0.10.|Exact test of proportions|||The proportion of subjects responding was compared to a historical null rate of 0.02. The hypothesized response rate was 0.15.|||0.001|0.42
95889856|NCT04984993|191733030|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 0 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>0, where mu is the population mean change from baseline in the EF domain of the IIEF questionnaire at week 24.||||<0.001
95889857|NCT04984993|191733031|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 15 minutes.||||<0.001
95889858|NCT04984993|191733031|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 10 minutes.||||<0.001
95889859|NCT04984993|191733031|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: mu \<= 30 versus alternative hypothesis: mu \>30, where mu is the population mean percentage of MED3000 uses per patient that resulted in the patient noticing their erection starting within 5 minutes.||||0.890
95889860|NCT04984993|191733032|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95889861|NCT04984993|191733032|OTHER|||||||0.3327||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.3327
95889862|NCT04984993|191733032|OTHER||||||>|0.999||||||Significance level of 0.025|t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.999
95889863|NCT02865187|191733033|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|5.1||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-7.4|0.71
95889864|NCT02865187|191733034|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance was set at p\< 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||1.00
95889865|NCT04249310|191733085|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.46|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox-regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|||2.46|0.32|
95889866|NCT04249310|191733086|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate or Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.15|0.63|
95889867|NCT04249310|191733086|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.01|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Moderate COPD Exacerbation||1.01|0.43|
95889868|NCT04249310|191733086|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.31|||||\[(Tiotropium/Olodaterol) / Tiotropium\] Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals.|Severe COPD Exacerbation||1.31|0.62|
95889869|NCT00770289|191733099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.899|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|0.911||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.911|0.886|<0.0001
95889870|NCT00770289|191733099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.797|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|0.82||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.820|0.771|<0.0001
95889871|NCT00770289|191733099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pearson's correlation coefficient|0.765|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|0.791||The statistical testing was done at alpha = 0.05.|Pearson's correlation|||Change from baseline at Week 12: Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate compatibility between the questionnaires.||0.791|0.736|<0.0001
95889872|NCT02733991|191733101|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-2.25|-3.51|<0.0001
95889873|NCT02733991|191733102|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|-33.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Treatment arm - Control arm|||-33.19|-52.01|<0.0001
95889874|NCT02733991|191733103|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 40 min/day|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.46|||||Model based Estimated mean; difference = control arm - treatment arm|||-0.46||
95889875|NCT02733991|191733103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.8||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|77.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based Estimated mean; Difference = Treatment arm - Control arm|||77.11|0.46|0.0474
95889876|NCT00862745|191733140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons, threshold for significance is P \< .05|ANCOVA|Mean difference=Drug A minus Drug B||Null hypothesis: fesoterodine treatment is not associated with greater reduction in urgency incontinence frequency compared to placebo in women diagnosed using the 3IQ||||<0.001
95889877|NCT02141997|191733153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.863|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.863
95889878|NCT02141997|191733153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.414|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.414
95889879|NCT02141997|191733153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.196|||||||Fisher Exact|||P-value calculated using 1-sided Fisher's Exact test.||||=0.196
95889880|NCT01119131|191733167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.699
95889881|NCT01119131|191733168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.308
95889882|NCT01119131|191733169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.419|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.419
95889883|NCT01119131|191733170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.253
95972682|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.056||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.075|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.075|0.2617
95889884|NCT01119131|191733171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.793
95889885|NCT01119131|191733173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.949
95889886|NCT01119131|191733174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.957
95889887|NCT01516424|191733175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|7.75||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is ITT analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS scores at week 8 relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. Least Squares Means for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||7.75|-0.36|<0.05
95889888|NCT01516424|191733175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power is 80%, non-inferiority margin is 7.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.65||Satisfaction with the non-inferiority criteria was determined by the upper limit of confidence interval. If the upper limit of 95% confidence interval was less than 7.0, then non-inferiority was concluded.|ANCOVA|Study center and grouping as fixed effects.|This is PPS analysis data.|"ANCOVA was employed to compare the changes of PANSS total scores at end of treatment relative to the baseline in these 2 groups. LSMeans for the differences in changes between the 2 groups (μ blonanserin - μ risperidone) and the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval were calculated in accordance with the main model.~H0: Compared with risperidone, blonanserin reduced more than 7.0 in mean change in PANSS total score from baseline at week 8 of treatment (μ blonanserin-μ risperidone\> 7.0)."||6.65|-0.76|<0.05
95889889|NCT00530764|191733187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportions of responders were compared between the treatment groups using logistic regression with region and treatment groups as factors. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between each of the Sativex treatment groups and placebo. The estimated response rates, odds ratios, 95% CIs for the odds ratios and p-values were presented.||2.60|0.72|0.33
95889890|NCT00530764|191733187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||1.76|0.46|0.62
95889891|NCT00530764|191733187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||As for Sativex Low dose versus placebo||2.28|0.62|0.61
95972683|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.212||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.077|0.347||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.347|0.077|0.0058
95972684|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.156||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.022|0.29||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.290|0.022|0.0326
95972685|NCT01620255|191918806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.185||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.32||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.320|0.050|0.0145
95889892|NCT00530764|191733188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.35|-3.33|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||Each of the active treatment groups were compared with placebo using pairwise Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. The Hodges-Lehmann estimates and 95% CI for the median differences were also presented.||-3.33|-21.35|0.0077
95889893|NCT00530764|191733188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|7.14|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||7.14|-11.04|0.67
95889894|NCT00530764|191733188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.75||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.14|0.0|||Wilcoxin rank sum test|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.00|-17.14|0.039
95889895|NCT00530764|191733189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.75||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (average pain) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.22|-1.28|0.006
95889896|NCT00530764|191733189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.44|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.44|-0.62|0.75
95889897|NCT00530764|191733189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.36||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.18|-0.89|0.19
95889898|NCT00530764|191733190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.73||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean pain NRS score (worst pain) was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.17|-1.30|0.011
95889899|NCT00530764|191733190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment effect|-0.35||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.11|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.11|-0.81|0.14
95889900|NCT00530764|191733190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.24||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.32|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.32|-0.81|0.40
95972686|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.081||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.162||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.162|0.000|0.0618
95972687|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.187||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.284||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.284|0.091|0.0009
95972688|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.159||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.068|0.25||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.250|0.068|0.0027
95972689|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.013|0.151||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read||0.151|-0.013|0.0999
95972690|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.001||||0.5225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.111|0.114||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.114|-0.111|0.5225
95972691|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.154||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.278||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.278|0.030|0.0246
95972692|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.253||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.253|0.008|0.0464
95972693|NCT01620255|191918807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.066||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.053|0.186||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read||0.186|-0.053|0.2000
95889901|NCT00530764|191733191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||The change in mean sleep disturbance NRS score was analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as a covariate and region and treatment group as factors.||-0.31|-1.45|0.003
95889902|NCT00530764|191733191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.49|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo||0.49|-0.65|0.78
95889903|NCT00530764|191733191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Effect|-0.33||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|||As for Sativex low dose versus placebo.||0.24|-0.90|0.26
95889904|NCT03742037|191733210|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.68|-1.45|0.4749
95889905|NCT03742037|191733210|SUPERIORITY||LS mean to placebo|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||0.49|-1.65|0.2941
95889906|NCT03742037|191733210|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference to placebo|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.9802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||1.08|-1.05|0.9802
95889907|NCT03742037|191733210|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis was performed on the Full Analysis Set (FAS). The FAS included all participants who were randomized. Baseline was defined as the last measurement before randomization.||-0.12|-2.25|0.0291
95972694|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.88||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.623|-0.145|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.145|-1.623|0.0494
95972695|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.53||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.254|-0.809|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.809|-2.254|0.0005
95972696|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.12||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.845|-0.39|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.390|-1.845|0.0117
95889908|NCT03742037|191733211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||1.9|0.54|0.974
95889909|NCT03742037|191733211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.65|0.75|0.2845
95889910|NCT03742037|191733211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
95889911|NCT03742037|191733211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized mixed effects model for repeated measures was applied to the SRI-4 response from Month 1 through 6 with treatment group, month, treatment group by month interaction, and stratification factors (oral corticosteroids dose \& mSLEDAI-2K) as fixed effects \& participant as random effect.||2.32|0.66|0.5115
95972697|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.27||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.016|-0.533|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, centrally read change||-0.533|-2.016|0.0049
95972698|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.94||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.737|-0.137|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.137|-1.737|0.0543
95972699|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.372|-0.819|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.819|-2.372|0.0008
95972700|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.07||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.858|-0.284|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.284|-1.858|0.0255
95972701|NCT01620255|191918809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.29||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|-0.493|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, locally read change||-0.493|-2.082|0.0079
95889912|NCT01414075|191733213|OTHER|||||||0.0757||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0757
95889913|NCT01414075|191733213|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.0630
95972702|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed Model (LMM) with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.001|-0.511|0.1016
95889914|NCT01414075|191733213|OTHER|||||||0.8653||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8653
95889915|NCT01414075|191733213|OTHER|||||||0.8982||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, baseline Hb and iron repletion status as covariates was used to compare treatments.||||0.8982
95889916|NCT00923598|191733244|EQUIVALENCE|A method by Armitage et al was used, where by equivalence of treatments would be concluded if the 95% CI for the difference fell within the prespecified tolerated interval. Under these assumptions, a trial with 36 subjects (72 limbs) would correctly conclude there is no treatment difference with probability 80%, and incorrectly conclude equivalence when there is a difference of 20% with probability 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|17.0|||Fisher Exact|||||17|-10|0.05
95889917|NCT00467259|191733264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
95972703|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.529|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.030|-0.529|0.0654
95972704|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.472|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||0.031|-0.472|0.1500
95972705|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.38||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W4||-0.129|-0.637|0.0132
95972706|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.3||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|-0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.046|-0.555|0.0526
95972707|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.31||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.554|-0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.058|-0.554|0.0422
95972708|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.637|-0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.137|-0.637|0.0110
95972709|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.755|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W8||-0.254|-0.755|0.0010
95972710|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|0.038|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.038|-0.475|0.1611
95972711|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.36||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.608|-0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.108|-0.608|0.0186
95972712|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.465|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||0.039|-0.465|0.1647
95972713|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.35||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.607|-0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Stool Frequency, W12||-0.097|-0.607|0.0231
95972714|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.658|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.260|-0.658|0.0002
95889918|NCT00467259|191733265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
95972715|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.322|-0.710|<0.0001
95972716|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.686|-0.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.295|-0.686|<0.0001
95972717|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.39||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.587|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W4||-0.192|-0.587|0.0012
95889919|NCT00467259|191733266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|p-value obtained from Fisher's Exact test and corresponds to the test of the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.||1000 naturally postmenopausal women not on concomitant E+P therapy at baseline were to be randomized (800 TTS; 200 placebo). It was assumed 60% would complete 1 year and 80% of these would have evaluable biopsies. Of the 800 randomized to TTS approximately 380 were expected to have evaluable biopsies at 1 year. 380 patients on TTS with evaluable biopsies at 1 year would provide 90% power to rule out an incidence of hyperplasia of 2% using the upper bound of a 2-sided 95% CI.||||1.0000
95889920|NCT01846611|191733293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.925|||=|0.5236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.177|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.177|0.727|= 0.5236
95889921|NCT01846611|191733294|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.935|||=|0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.147|||Unstratified log rank test|||||1.147|0.762|= 0.5174
95889922|NCT01846611|191733295|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.523|||=|0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.158|||Fisher Exact|||||2.158|1.075|= 0.0142
95889923|NCT00613938|191733323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.9|<|0.001||95.0|39.01|85.73||Comparisons of tapentadol dose groups and placebo was performed with Hochberg procedure for adjustment for the multiple tests.|ANCOVA||The results shown are the treatment group differences between Tapentadol IR 50mg group and placebo.|Null hypothesis: There are no differences in pain intensity measured by SPID-48 hours between any of tapentadol dose groups and placebo. ANCOVA model with factors of treatment, center and baseline pain intensity score was used for the primary analysis.||85.73|39.01|<0.001
95889924|NCT00312494|191733421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1077||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||N=135/arm (405 total) for 85% power for 2-sample t-test (2-sided alpha=0.05) based on true mean difference=3.5 and SD=10. Interim Analysis (IA) to validate sample-size assumptions and adjust sample-size if needed. Based on IA results total sample-size increased to N=223/arm (669 total) to maintain desired power. Null Hypothesis=No statistically significant difference between add-on ziprasidone (higher, lower dose) and add-on placebo groups with respect to the population mean for primary endpoint||||0.1077
95889925|NCT00312494|191733421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons. Dunnet's procedure for multiple dose comparisons to placebo was used for primary efficacy measure at Week 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score. Tests were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.4274
95889926|NCT00312494|191733422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4025||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4025
95889927|NCT00312494|191733422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.283||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.2830
95889928|NCT00312494|191733422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4125||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.4125
95889929|NCT00312494|191733422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1527||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline YMRS total score.||||0.1527
95889930|NCT00312494|191733423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0101||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0101
95889931|NCT00312494|191733423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0694||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0694
95889932|NCT00312494|191733423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0183||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0183
95889933|NCT00312494|191733423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0176||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0176
95889934|NCT00312494|191733423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2302||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.2302
95889935|NCT00312494|191733423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0796||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline MADRS total score.||||0.0796
95889936|NCT00312494|191733424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6191||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6191
95889937|NCT00312494|191733424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5629||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.5629
95889938|NCT00312494|191733424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9049||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.9049
95889939|NCT00312494|191733424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7153||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.7153
95889940|NCT00312494|191733424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.2420
95889941|NCT00312494|191733424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6121||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline as covariate.||||0.6121
95889942|NCT00312494|191733425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6138||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6138
95889943|NCT00312494|191733425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6536||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.6536
95909169|NCT01329029|191776380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5765||0.8876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|3.075|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||3.075|0.378|0.8876
95889944|NCT00312494|191733425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4758||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.4758
95889945|NCT00312494|191733425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7581||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.7581
95889946|NCT00312494|191733425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2221||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.2221
95889947|NCT00312494|191733425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5665||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.5665
95889948|NCT00312494|191733426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1063||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.1063
95889949|NCT00312494|191733426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2499||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 total score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS total score.||||0.2499
95889950|NCT00312494|191733426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0876||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.0876
95889951|NCT00312494|191733426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3623||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 positive score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS positive score.||||0.3623
95889952|NCT00312494|191733426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4686||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.4686
95889953|NCT00312494|191733426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2202||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 negative score MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline PANSS negative score.||||0.2202
95889954|NCT00312494|191733427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0728||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.0728
95889955|NCT00312494|191733427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3174||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline GAF score.||||0.3174
95889956|NCT00312494|191733428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.446||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.4460
95889957|NCT00312494|191733428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3253||95.0||||The p-values reported are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 MMRM with model terms: treatment, length of prior lithium/divalproex usage, type of mood stabilizer therapy, rapid cycling, hospitalization status, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline LIFE-RIFT total score.||||0.3253
95889958|NCT00501293|191733430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.028
95889959|NCT00501293|191733430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
95889960|NCT00501293|191733431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.027
95889961|NCT00501293|191733431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||<0.001
95889962|NCT00501293|191733434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of MTS at baseline and 6 months||||||0.071
95889963|NCT00501293|191733434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test of placebo at baseline and 6 months||||||0.017
95889964|NCT02642614|191733480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.72|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 5 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|Adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating Least Square (LS) means of corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sub-study participation and Multiple-breath washout (MBW) sub-study participation)||2.72|0.93|0.1540
95889965|NCT02642614|191733480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|2.65|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 25 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.65|0.94|0.1430
95889966|NCT02642614|191733480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted mean|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.41|||ANCOVA||"Standard Error of Mean is actually Standard Error of ratio of adjusted means, adjusted means ratio is calculated as 100 milligram BI 1026706 divided by Placebo."|The adjusted means were calculated by exponentiating the LS means of the corresponding values obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model to the natural log transformed endpoint variable, including treatment effect and study baseline as covariates, and adjusting for stratification factors (extensive PK sub-study participation and MBW sub-study participation)||2.41|0.86|0.2398
95889967|NCT03316131|191733487|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|9.22||||||||9.22|-8.67|
95889968|NCT03316131|191733488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.25||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.25|1.03|
95889969|NCT03316131|191733488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.07||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.07|0.88|
95889970|NCT03316131|191733488|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.08||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.08|0.91|
95889971|NCT03316131|191733489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
95889972|NCT03316131|191733489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
95889973|NCT03316131|191733489|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
95889974|NCT03316131|191733493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for Verinurad||1.13|1.00|
95889975|NCT03316131|191733493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96||||||90.0|0.9|1.02||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M1||1.02|0.90|
95889976|NCT03316131|191733493|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.04||||||Treatment A/Treatment B, for M8||1.04|0.94|
95889977|NCT02560584|191733494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for a single propor|||"The proportion of patients with malignancy detected only with BLC with Cysview was to be analyzed using an exact one-sided test for a single proportion based on the cumulative binomial distribution with a significance level of 2.5%.~Null hypothesis: Malignancy is detected with BL only in 0.5% or less of the patients"||||<0.0001
95889978|NCT02560584|191733496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact one-sided test for single proporti|||"The proportion of patients with one or more CIS lesions detected with BL and none with WL was to be evaluated using an exact binomial test for single proportion with a significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).~Null hypothesis: One or more CIS lesions are detected with BLC with Cysview and none with WL in less than or equal to 0.1% of the patients."||||<0.0001
95889979|NCT02632552|191733539|EQUIVALENCE|Using a pre-intervention rate of 18 for both intervention and control, and a post-control change of 1, assuming an alpha of 0.05, we have power (0.8) to detect a difference of differences in change in mean urgent care/ED utilization of 0.75 with a standard deviation equal to the control mean; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Incidence Rate Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.45|||Mixed Effects Negative Binomial Model|A segmented negative binomial regression model was used to estimate changes in ED/urgent care utilization between the intervention and control groups.||||1.45|0.85|0.45
95889980|NCT02632552|191733540|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.61|-7.21|0.05
95889981|NCT02632552|191733541|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.57|0.08|0.03
95909170|NCT01329029|191776381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.268|1.845|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.845|1.268|<0.0001
95972718|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.28||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.081|-0.475|0.0207
95972719|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.432|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.048|-0.432|0.0402
95972720|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.124|-0.511|0.0071
95972721|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.664|-0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W8||-0.275|-0.664|<0.0001
95972722|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.449|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.050|-0.449|0.0395
95889982|NCT02632552|191733542|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.29|-0.41|0.75
95889983|NCT02632552|191733543|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||0.70|-0.50|0.74
95889984|NCT02632552|191733544|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||1.29|-2.21|0.63
95972723|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.32||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.511|-0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.123|-0.511|0.0073
95972724|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.24||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.439|-0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.047|-0.439|0.0413
95972725|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.602|-0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Rectal Bleeding, W12||-0.206|-0.602|0.0008
95972726|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.19||||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.421|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.046|-0.421|0.1862
95972727|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.455|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||-0.000|-0.455|0.0998
95972728|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.22||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.453|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.006|-0.453|0.1085
95972729|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.14||||0.3161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.372|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W4||0.090|-0.372|0.3161
95972730|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.1||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.328|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.136|-0.328|0.4962
95972731|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.29||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.512|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||-0.060|-0.512|0.0371
95972732|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.21||||0.1212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.441|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.013|-0.441|0.1212
95972733|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.18||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W8||0.045|-0.410|0.1870
95889985|NCT02632552|191733545|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta of Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||4.05|-0.97|0.23
95889986|NCT02632552|191733546|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.1||MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.10|-7.95|0.38
95889987|NCT02632552|191733547|EQUIVALENCE|We initially powered at 80% to detect an effect size of 0.5 for all secondary outcomes; however, the equivalence boundary did not apply because this is a pragmatic trial.|Beta for the Mean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMA by group, time, and group by time as predictors. We also adjusted by: Marital Status and indicator variable for problems learning online.||||3.52|-9.10|0.38
95889988|NCT02132767|191733553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95889989|NCT02132767|191733554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
95889990|NCT02132767|191733555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95889991|NCT02132767|191733556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.71
95889992|NCT02132767|191733557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95889993|NCT02132767|191733558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.88
95889994|NCT02132767|191733559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.82
95889995|NCT02132767|191733560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Poisson|||||||0.73
95889996|NCT00867009|191733610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|32.3|45.09||||||||45.09|32.30|
95889997|NCT00867009|191733611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median number of months|5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.4|6.7||||||||6.70|4.40|
95889998|NCT00867009|191733612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|39.0|51.0||||||||51|39|
95889999|NCT00867009|191733613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|59.6|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|53.06|65.94||||||||65.94|53.06|
95890000|NCT00147199|191733614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|20.0||||0.00044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|32.8|||ANCOVA|Lowest rank was assigned for death, discontinuation due to disease progression, and for patients who initiated additional approved PAH therapy.||Sample size was calculated based on the primary endpoint; change in 6MWD at Week 12. Assuming a between-treatment difference of 35m, a standard deviation of 75m, and a type I (alpha) error of 0.05 (i.e., two-sided p-value of less than 0.05), in order to have 90% power to detect this difference, 100 subjects per treatment group were required for this trial (total n=200). This allowed for a dropout rate of 10% as 110 subjects per group was planned.||32.8|8.0|0.00044
95890001|NCT00147199|191733616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|-0.5|0.623
95890002|NCT00147199|191733617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||Imputation strategies were implemented for 16 inhaled treprostinil subjects and 9 placebo subjects without values reported at Week 12|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||0.0|0.0|0.807
95890003|NCT00147199|191733618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|24.8|||ANCOVA|||||24.8|4.0|0.007
95890004|NCT00147199|191733619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|18.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|28.3|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||28.3|8.5|0.0003
95890005|NCT00147199|191733620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-4.0||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Global Score||0|-8.0|0.027
95890006|NCT00147199|191733620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-2.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Physical Dimension||0.0|-3.0|0.037
95890007|NCT00147199|191733620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-1.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Emotional Dimension Score||0.0|-2.0|0.173
95890008|NCT00147199|191733622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-167.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.0|-64.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||-64|-333|0.001
95890009|NCT01850524|191733640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.018|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.||||1.018|0.676|0.073
95909171|NCT01329029|191776382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2691||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.484||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||1.484|0.326|0.3477
95909172|NCT01329029|191776384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3832||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|2.167||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model||A hazards ratio of \< 1 represents a lower hazard for the test treatment.|||2.167|0.542|0.8208
95909173|NCT01329029|191776386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.977|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.162||Level of significance: 5% 2-sided.|Cox-proportional hazards model|||||1.162|0.821|0.7943
95909174|NCT01106430|191776397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.001||95.0|||||Peto-Peto-Prentice Wilcoxon Test|||||||=0.001
95909175|NCT01106430|191776398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.7|7.5|0.001
95909176|NCT01106430|191776399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-9.3|<0.001
95909177|NCT01106430|191776400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.09||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.00|-0.17|0.046
95890010|NCT01850524|191733641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.261|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an Unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.261|0.790|0.988
95890011|NCT01850524|191733642|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||3.09|1.43|<0.001
95890012|NCT01850524|191733643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|1.463|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with prognostic factor: age (\<75 years vs \>=75) and ISS (stage I or II vs stage III).|Odds ratio \> 1 favors Ixazomib+LenDex versus LenDex alone.|||1.463|0.656|0.9195
95972734|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.459|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||0.009|-0.459|0.1133
95890013|NCT01850524|191733644|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Odds ratio and confidence interval are based on logistic regression model with treatment group as categorical predictor variable,age(\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS(stage I or II vs stage III),and BPI-SF worst pain score(\<4 vs \>=4)at screening as covariates.|||1.70|0.79|0.436
95890014|NCT01850524|191733645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.402|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|1.659|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.659|1.185|<0.001
95890015|NCT01850524|191733647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.738||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|0.925|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||0.925|0.589|0.008
95890016|NCT01850524|191733648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.078|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|||1.078|0.684|0.189
95890017|NCT01850524|191733654|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.118||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.678|1.845|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|OS in High-risk Population Carrying Del(17p), Amp(1q21), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.845|0.678|0.662
95890018|NCT01850524|191733655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|1.24|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|PFS in High-risk Population Carrying del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16) Mutations||1.240|0.466|0.271
95890019|NCT01850524|191733657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|1.12|||Log Rank|Log-rank test is stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Hazard ratio is based on an unadjusted Cox's proportional hazard regression model stratified by age (\<75 years vs \>=75), ISS (stage I or II vs stage III), and BPI-SF worst pain score (\<4 vs \>=4) at screening.|Time to Pain Progression||1.120|0.661|0.260
95890020|NCT00818662|191733671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.8||||0.476||95.0|-3.1|1.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||1.5|-3.1|0.476
95890021|NCT00818662|191733671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.53||95.0|-1.6|3.0|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.0|-1.6|0.530
95890022|NCT00818662|191733672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.812||95.0|-2.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||3.7|-2.9|0.812
95890023|NCT00818662|191733672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.3|2.5|||ANCOVA||Results combined from 100 imputations from estimates \& standard errors from 100 ANCOVA results for fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, \& continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog \& education level|||2.5|-4.3|0.602
95972735|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.43||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.653|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.198|-0.653|0.0022
95890024|NCT00818662|191733673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.7||||0.368||95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||0.8|-2.3|0.368
95890025|NCT00818662|191733673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.8||||0.319||95.0|-0.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADAS-Cog and education level (in years)|||2.4|-0.8|0.319
95890026|NCT00818662|191733674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.778||95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||2.4|-1.8|0.778
95890027|NCT00818662|191733674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.851||95.0|-2.3|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated within a ANCOVA model accounting for the fixed effect of treatment, E4 allele of apolipoprotein E carrier status, and for the continuous covariates age at baseline, baseline ADCS-ADL and education level (in years)|||1.9|-2.3|0.851
95890028|NCT00818662|191733675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.306||95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.306
95890029|NCT00818662|191733675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.3||||0.028||95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|0.0|0.028
95890030|NCT00818662|191733676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.66||95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.3|0.660
95890031|NCT00818662|191733676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.766||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.2|0.766
95890032|NCT00818662|191733677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.9||||0.206||95.0|-1.0|4.8|||ANCOVA|||||4.8|-1.0|0.206
95890033|NCT00818662|191733677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.4||||0.331||95.0|-4.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-4.3|0.331
95890034|NCT00818662|191733678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.7||||0.64||95.0|-2.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.1|0.640
95890035|NCT00818662|191733678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|2.5||||0.075||95.0|-0.3|5.3|||ANCOVA|||||5.3|-0.3|0.075
95890036|NCT00818662|191733679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.093||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.093
95890037|NCT00818662|191733679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.1||||0.094||95.0|-0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||||2.3|-0.2|0.094
95890038|NCT00818662|191733680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.096||95.0|-2.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.3|0.096
95890039|NCT00818662|191733680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.2|0.123
95890040|NCT00818662|191733681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.167||95.0|-0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-0.2|0.167
95890041|NCT00818662|191733681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.998||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.998
95890042|NCT00818662|191733682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.173||95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.2|0.173
95890043|NCT00818662|191733682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.1||||0.744||95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.4|0.744
95890044|NCT00818662|191733683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|1.5||||0.238||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.0|0.238
95890045|NCT00818662|191733683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.1||||0.4||95.0|-3.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-3.6|0.400
95890046|NCT00818662|191733684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.6||||0.695||95.0|-3.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||||2.4|-3.6|0.695
95890047|NCT00818662|191733684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.3||||0.41||95.0|-4.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-4.5|0.410
95890048|NCT00818662|191733685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.0||||0.988||95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.5|0.988
95890049|NCT00818662|191733685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|0.4||||0.555||95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.0|0.555
95890050|NCT00818662|191733686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.5||||0.783||95.0|-12.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-12.2|0.783
95890051|NCT00818662|191733686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-2.1||||0.7||95.0|-13.1|8.8|||ANCOVA|||||8.8|-13.1|0.700
95890052|NCT00818662|191733687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-15.2||||0.191||95.0|-38.0|7.7|||ANCOVA|||||7.7|-38.0|0.191
95890053|NCT00818662|191733687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-1.6||||0.892||95.0|-25.4|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|-25.4|0.892
95890054|NCT00818662|191733688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.1||||0.588||95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.588
95890055|NCT00818662|191733688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-square means|-0.2||||0.351||95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.351
95909178|NCT02066402|191776405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. Predefined margin for non-inferiority is -10%.|Difference of responder rate|-4.6||||0.2027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-11.2|0.2027
95909179|NCT02066402|191776406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.8||||||||3.8|-8.3|
95909180|NCT02066402|191776407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.2||||||||3.2|-7.4|
95890056|NCT01722071|191733699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 18 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.890
95890057|NCT01722071|191733699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 8 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.422
95890058|NCT01722071|191733699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided paired t-test was performed to determine whether oxytocin administration was associated with reward-related BOLD signal changes (within the Nucleus Accumbens \[Bilateral\]). For the group of 10 participants, BOLD signal activity was compared between oxytocin and placebo scanning days.||||0.814
95890059|NCT01338493|191733703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95890060|NCT01338493|191733704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95890061|NCT02671422|191733705|OTHER||1 year-survival rate|0.342|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.894|||||Confidence interval is computed based on the LOGLOG method.|||0.894|0.000|
95890062|NCT02625259|191733716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.83||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||1.83|1.00|
95972736|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.475|-0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.016|-0.475|0.0788
95972737|NCT01620255|191918810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.25||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.485|-0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, PGA, W12||-0.022|-0.485|0.0717
95972738|NCT01620255|191918811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.08||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.286|0.131|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.131|-0.286|0.5406
95972739|NCT01620255|191918811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.628|-0.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||-0.221|-0.628|0.0007
95972740|NCT01620255|191918811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.34||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.549|-0.137|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||-0.137|-0.549|0.0063
95972741|NCT01620255|191918811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.23||||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.436|-0.018|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with model terms: treatment group, baseline, status of anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||-0.018|-0.436|0.0748
95972742|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.9||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-101.0|97.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||97.14|-101.00|0.9744
95972743|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|74.9||||0.2023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.77|171.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||171.66|-21.77|0.2023
95972744|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|32.9||||0.5808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.09|130.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||130.79|-65.09|0.5808
95972745|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|37.6||||0.5388|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-63.12|138.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||138.34|-63.12|0.5388
95890063|NCT02625259|191733716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.67||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||1.67|0.86|
95890064|NCT02625259|191733716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.07||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean Cmax of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.07|0.02|
95972746|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-8.2||||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-106.24|89.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||89.81|-106.24|0.8902
95972747|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|10.2||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-86.14|106.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||106.54|-86.14|0.8616
95972748|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-34.3||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-133.49|64.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||64.79|-133.49|0.5684
95972749|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|33.8||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.2|131.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||131.86|-64.20|0.5700
95972750|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-30.0||||0.6234|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-130.56|70.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||70.57|-130.56|0.6234
95972751|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|36.0||||0.5474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.44|134.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||134.38|-62.44|0.5474
95972752|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|78.5||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.48|177.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||177.56|-20.48|0.1918
95972753|NCT01620255|191918812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-3.0||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.88|98.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||98.91|-104.88|0.9615
95972754|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|6.4||||0.9328|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-118.6|131.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||131.41|-118.60|0.9328
95972755|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-9.8||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-132.91|113.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 4||113.39|-132.91|0.8962
95972756|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.5||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-110.83|133.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 4||133.74|-110.83|0.8775
95972757|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-17.0||||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-142.02|107.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 4||107.94|-142.02|0.8224
95972758|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-52.7||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-176.48|71.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||71.02|-176.48|0.4831
95972759|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.2||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.63|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 8||6.13|-236.63|0.1183
95972760|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-115.8||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-236.29|4.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, Week 8||4.69|-236.29|0.1139
95972761|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-96.4||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-218.17|25.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 8||25.46|-218.17|0.1931
95972762|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-119.7||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-245.66|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||6.32|-245.66|0.1182
95972763|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-41.7||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-165.34|81.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, Week 12||81.87|-165.34|0.5784
95972764|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-163.6||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-285.84|-41.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo,Week 12||-41.29|-285.84|0.0279
95972765|NCT01620255|191918813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-123.5||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-249.0|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, Week 12||1.93|-249.00|0.1053
95972766|NCT01620255|191918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-1.1||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.507|7.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||7.317|-9.507|0.8302
95972767|NCT01620255|191918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|12.33||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.084|20.567|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||20.567|4.084|0.0141
95972768|NCT01620255|191918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|11.7||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.564|19.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||19.840|3.564|0.0182
95972769|NCT01620255|191918814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|15.48||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.056|23.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, change from BL at W12||23.907|7.056|0.0026
95972770|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.73||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.689|2.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||2.235|-3.689|0.6862
95972771|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.467|7.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.280|1.467|0.0135
95890065|NCT02625259|191733718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.18|0.98|
95890066|NCT02625259|191733718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.78||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.78|1.11|
95890067|NCT02625259|191733718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.04||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUClast of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.04|0.01|
95890068|NCT02625259|191733719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.51||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90 % CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet versus capsule dosage form.||2.51|0.93|
95890069|NCT02625259|191733719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.25||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with food versus without food.||2.25|1.00|
95890070|NCT02625259|191733719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|0.18||||||Analysis of variance was performed for calculating 90% CIs for the ratios of log-transformed geometric mean AUC∞ of TAK-117 tablet dosage form with lansoprazole versus a single dose of TAK-117 alone.||0.18|0.03|
95890071|NCT01686633|191733721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.108|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|0.045|<0.001
95890072|NCT01686633|191733721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.086||||||||0.086|-0.037|
95890073|NCT04772755|191733736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
95890074|NCT04772755|191733737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8918|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.8918
95890075|NCT04772755|191733738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6587|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6587
95890076|NCT04772755|191733739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0059|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0059
95890077|NCT04772755|191733740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1647
95890078|NCT04772755|191733741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0090
95890079|NCT04772755|191733742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0273|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0273
95890080|NCT04772755|191733743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0458
95890081|NCT04772755|191733744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0976|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0976
95890082|NCT00662363|191733756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||independent sample t test|||Primary outcome measures chosen were between group comparisons for change on Constipation Symptom Questionnaire ratings at exit from the study. The PAC-SYM is a symptom scale where higher numbers indicate more symptoms. Change from baseline to Day 7 was calculated and larger negative differences indicated greater improvement in constipation symptoms. The PAC-QOL is a quality of life scale where higher numbers indicate better quality of life. Change from baseline to 7 days was calculated.||||<0.05
95890083|NCT01905657|191733758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.38|0.00024
95890084|NCT01905657|191733758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.70|0.36|0.00002
95890085|NCT01905657|191733758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.00076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.88|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.88|0.58|0.00076
95890086|NCT01905657|191733758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.75|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.75|0.49|<0.00001
95890087|NCT01905657|191733759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.77|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.77|0.43|0.00009
95890088|NCT01905657|191733759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.78|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||0.78|0.45|0.00007
95890089|NCT01905657|191733759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||1.04|0.73|0.06758
95890090|NCT01905657|191733759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Hazard Ratio based on stratified Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate and p-value based on stratified log-rank test, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.00462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.94|||Log Rank||Numerator=Pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Denominator=Docetaxel 75 mg/m\^2|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||0.94|0.66|0.00462
95890091|NCT01905657|191733762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|-2.3||||0.66608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|8.2||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage not equal to 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||8.2|-12.7|0.66608
95890092|NCT01905657|191733762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|22.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|30.7||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with strongly PD-L1 positive tumors||30.7|14.0|<0.00001
95890093|NCT01905657|191733762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|8.7||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|13.9||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||13.9|3.6|0.00045
95890094|NCT01905657|191733762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|9.1||||0.00024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|14.3||P-value indicated for testing a difference in percentage equal to 0 versus a difference in percentage greater than 0, in accordance with the statistical analysis plan.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||This is an adjusted risk difference estimated by stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|In participants with PD-L1 positive tumors||14.3|4.1|0.00024
95890095|NCT05838742|191733764|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.17|-0.23|
95890096|NCT05838742|191733764|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.95|-0.46|
95890097|NCT05838742|191733764|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|1.10|-0.31|
95890098|NCT05838742|191733764|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Difference in Posterior Mean Change|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed using a joint model for change from baseline in average weekly pain score and time to intercurrent event handled using a composite strategy.|||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|0.80|-0.60|
95890099|NCT02607033|191733775|OTHER|Wilxocon signed Rank test||||||0.028|||||||Wilxocon signed Rank test|||Wilxocon signed Rank test to compare pre to post onset of pain time in the Exercise + Weight loss group. Due to low sample size were unable to compare changes between the Exercise + Weight Loss group and the Exercise only groups.||||0.028
95909181|NCT02066402|191776408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1||||||||4.1|-8.6|
95909182|NCT02066402|191776409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority (NI) hypothesis test is a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance.|Difference of responder rate|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.0||||||||2.0|-8.4|
95909183|NCT00152464|191776434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.338|||Regression, Cox|||||1.338|0.750|=0.991
95972772|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.16||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.293|7.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||7.023|1.293|0.0171
95972773|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.2||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.232|8.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, bowel fx change from BL at W12||8.172|2.232|0.0041
95909184|NCT00605293|191776444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4778|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4778
95890100|NCT06092710|191733798|OTHER|Then, to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.||||||0.05572|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Non-parametric tests on patient sensitivity, given the non-normal distribution, (based on the median of the data) were applied to analyse the diﬀerences between the groups (ST1+ ST2 according to the STATUS3 and STATUS4 classification criteria). To analyse any diﬀerences in sensitivity between patient groups, Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. In this type of analysis, having a p-value greater than 1% and ideally greater than 5% would indicate the absence of diﬀerences between groups.||||0.05572
95890101|NCT06092710|191733798|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected.|||||<|8e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000008
95890102|NCT06092710|191733798|OTHER|Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.|||||<|1e-07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||to see if the median of a particular group is diﬀerent from 0 (= no sensitivity: not feeling the diﬀerences in airflow induced by the diﬀerent tests given by the operator), Wilcoxon tests were performed on each group of data. If the p-value is small (less than 5%, ideally less than 1%), the null hypothesis that the score is identical to 0 is rejected. In this case, it means that the patients in the test group feel the diﬀerences in airflow depending on their position.||||<0.0000001
95890103|NCT06092710|191733799|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.06e-06||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFI (Intermediate Final Score) For these analyses, as the SFI score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another.||||0.00000106
95890104|NCT06092710|191733799|SUPERIORITY|||||||48||||||Confidence level used: 0.95 Tukey multiple comparisons of means (95% family-wise confidence level)|ANOVA|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status with SFT score (Final Total score):~For these analyses, as SFT score follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value, a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0000000048
95890105|NCT06092710|191733799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.73||||7.7e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFI:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000077
95890106|NCT06092710|191733799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.37||||6.9e-07|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"Determination of cut-oﬀ values for SFT:~The Cutoﬀ\_final txt file includes the various sensitivity and specificity calculations as well as the Youden index in order to determine the best cut-oﬀ value (largest Youden). The ROC curves allow the values in the file to be appreciated graphically."||||0.00000069
95890107|NCT06092710|191733800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142266|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0142266
95890108|NCT06092710|191733800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
95890109|NCT06092710|191733800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023308|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.0023308
95909185|NCT03581981|191776487|SUPERIORITY|see statistical plan|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-10.7|0.33
95909186|NCT03581981|191776488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
95890110|NCT06092710|191733800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9915779|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9915779
95890111|NCT06092710|191733800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999943|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9999943
95890112|NCT06092710|191733800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9905111|||||||TUKEY TEST|||"Parametric tests on the prediction of patients' pathological status (SFI and SFT scores):~For these analyses, as the SFI and SFT scores follow a normal distribution, ANOVAs (analyses of variance) were performed. For discrete variables with more than 2 levels of value (STATUS4), a post-hoc 2-to-2 comparison analysis was performed (Tukey) to see which level of the variable diﬀered from one another."||||0.9905111
95890113|NCT03700671|191733823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A P-value of 0.05 was used as the threshold for significance|ANOVA|||A sample size of 38 using G\*Power 3.1 software was calculated based on previously published data in which the mean difference between HIIT and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) was 3.2 ml.kg-1.min-1 with a pooled standard deviation of 3 ml.kg-1.min-1. Statistical significance was set at = 0.05 and power set to 0.95. To allow for 10% attrition 42 individuals were recruited to the study||||<0.01
95890114|NCT03700671|191733824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||0.05 was used as a threshold for significance|ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95890115|NCT00066703|191733827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.855|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.855|0.602|.0002
95890116|NCT00066703|191733828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.804|||Log Rank||T+OFS is the reference group for the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||.804|.548|<.0001
95890117|NCT00066703|191733829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.777||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.624|0.967|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.967|0.624|0.02
95890118|NCT00066703|191733830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.22|||Log Rank||T+OFS was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||1.22|0.79|0.84
95890119|NCT03653507|191733831|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.86|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.860|0.552|0.0005
95890120|NCT03653507|191733832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.763||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|0.936|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||0.936|0.622|0.0047
95972774|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|0.22||||0.9072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.897|3.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||3.339|-2.897|0.9072
95972775|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.47||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.42|7.522|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.522|1.420|0.0161
95890121|NCT03653507|191733833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.012||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|1.328|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.328|0.772|0.4654
95890122|NCT03653507|191733834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.4478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.577|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.577|0.673|0.4478
95890123|NCT03653507|191733835|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.869||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.153|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.153|0.655|0.1670
95890124|NCT03653507|191733836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219||||||Based on 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test. Stratification factors were Region, Number of Metastatic Sites and Prior Gastrectomy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2219
95890125|NCT03653507|191733837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.105|||Log Rank||Log-rank test stratified by:\* Region (Asia vs Non-Asia), \* Number of organs with metastatic sites (0 to 2 vs \>= 3), \* Prior gastrectomy (Yes or No)|||1.105|0.552|0.0826
95890126|NCT00066690|191733863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.04|0.66|0.1
95972776|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|4.06||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.042|7.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||7.071|1.042|0.0271
95890127|NCT00066690|191733863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.86|0.53|
95890128|NCT00066690|191733864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.03|||Log Rank||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.03|0.3|0.09
95890129|NCT00066690|191733864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.83|||||Tamoxifen was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||0.83|0.49|
95890130|NCT00066690|191733865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio.|||1.18|0.66|0.40
95890131|NCT00066690|191733865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio.|||0.96|0.52|
95972777|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.778|9.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, emotional fx change from BL at W12||9.026|2.778|0.0020
95972778|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.26||||0.7711|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.756|1.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||1.229|-1.756|0.7711
95972779|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.69||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.223|3.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.147|0.223|0.0582
95972780|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.68||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.235|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.120|0.235|0.0558
95972781|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.66||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.161|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, systemic symptoms change from BL at W12||3.153|0.161|0.0686
95890132|NCT00066690|191733866|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Log Rank||T was the reference group in the estimation of the hazard ratio|||0.92|0.48|0.01
95972782|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|-0.33||||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.094|1.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||1.429|-2.094|0.7561
95890133|NCT00066690|191733866|SUPERIORITY|\[not specified\]|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.15|||||T was the reference group in the estimation of hazard ratio|||1.15|0.62|
95972783|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.17||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.447|3.891|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.891|0.447|0.0384
95972784|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|1.86||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.154|3.557|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||3.557|0.154|0.0729
95972785|NCT01620255|191918815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM Difference|2.95||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|4.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|LMM with model terms: treatment group, time, baseline, time by treatment, status of previous anti-TNF therapy experience.||PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo, social fx change from BL at W12||4.715|1.190|0.0060
95890134|NCT02611778|191733893|EQUIVALENCE|The confidence interval (CI) for treatment difference (FYB201 - Lucentis) was calculated using Least Square Means. If the 90% CI was completely contained in the interval \]-3.5;3.5\[ ETDRS letters, equivalence of FYB201 and Lucentis could be concluded.|Difference in least square means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|The hypothesis of biosimilarity of FYB201 and Lucentis was tested with a two-sided equivalence test with an equivalence margin of 3 ETDRS letters. An ANCOVA model was used with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 8 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and the country and the treatment group as fixed effects.||0.9|-1.6|
95890135|NCT02611778|191733894|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.5|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.5|-1.6|
95972786|NCT01620255|191918816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.002||||0.5201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.145|0.142||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 7.5 mg vs placebo||0.142|-0.145|0.5201
95972787|NCT01620255|191918816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.183||||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.039|0.328||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 22.5 mg vs placebo||0.328|0.039|0.0217
95972788|NCT01620255|191918816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.096||||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.045|0.237||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 75 mg vs placebo||0.237|-0.045|0.1473
95972789|NCT01620255|191918816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.112||||0.1231|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.038|0.261||1-sided p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|Statistics of risk difference are calculated using the Minimum Risk Weights test.|PF-00547659 225 mg vs placebo||0.261|-0.038|0.1231
95972790|NCT00871780|191918843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0003
95972791|NCT00871780|191918843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0002
95972792|NCT00871780|191918844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||0.0148
95972793|NCT00871780|191918844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0119|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0119
95972794|NCT00871780|191918845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
95972795|NCT00871780|191918845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||0.0157
95972796|NCT00871780|191918846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 24||||<0.0001
95890136|NCT02611778|191733895|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.7|-1.8|
95890137|NCT02611778|191733896|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|1.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in BCVA between baseline and 12 months (average of Weeks 40, 44 and 48) as the dependent variable, the baseline BCVA as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.8|-1.6|
95890138|NCT02611778|191733897|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.469|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.22|19.6|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||19.60|-18.22|
95890139|NCT02611778|191733898|OTHER||Difference in least square means|2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.632|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.49|21.85|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCP retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCP retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||21.85|-16.49|
95890140|NCT02611778|191733899|OTHER||Difference in least square means|-5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.136|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.62|10.8|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||10.80|-22.62|
95890141|NCT02611778|191733900|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.285|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.28|20.63|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in FCS retinal thickness between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline FCS retinal thickness as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||20.63|-13.28|
95890142|NCT02611778|191733901|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4709|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.706|0.846|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 24 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||0.846|-0.706|
95890143|NCT02611778|191733902|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.342|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5387|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.547|1.23|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with the change in total lesion area between baseline and Week 48 as the dependent variable, the baseline total lesion area as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.230|-0.547|
95890144|NCT02611778|191733903|OTHER||Difference in least square means|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|1.67|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 24 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||1.67|-1.25|
95890145|NCT02611778|191733904|OTHER||Difference in least square means|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.42|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used for the analysis with change in NEI VFQ-25 composite score between baseline and Week 48 as dependent variable, baseline NEI VFQ-25 composite score as covariate, and (pooled) country and treatment group as fixed effects.|There was no formal hypothesis testing.||3.42|0.04|
95890146|NCT00385996|191733936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Binomial distribution|Binomial distribution and test proportion =0.50||One arm phase 2 trial. This study is designed to asses response rate and defined as the percentage of subjects achieving at least 50% tumor volume. One-sided alpha is set at no more than 5% and the power no less than 90%,and the null hypothesis of RR of less than 10% and alternative hypothesis of RR of greater than 30%, a total of 30 patients will be enrolled (Fleming 1982).At least 7 responders out of 30 patients are needed to reject the null hypothesis of a 10% RR.||||<0.01
95890147|NCT00385996|191733938|OTHER||TTP [% without disease at 24 months]|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.4|83.8|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||83.8|43.4|
95890148|NCT00385996|191733939|OTHER||% alive without disease at 25 months|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.1|91.3|||||Using the Kaplan-Meier method.|One arm study||91.3|54.1|
95890149|NCT03405792|191733940|OTHER|||||||||||||||||We will use one-sample log-rank test to compare PFS between the triple combination arm relative to the historical control arm.|We took a look at median survival time and CI of our population and we compared it to the median PFS and CI of the historical control descriptively. There is no yielded P value.|||
95890150|NCT03405792|191733941|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Every participant (26/26; 100%) experienced an adverse event.|||
95890151|NCT00598663|191733976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|ANOVA with adjustment for period effect and subject as random effect. Period was included in the model regardless of statistical significance.||||||<0.0001
95909187|NCT03581981|191776489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
95890152|NCT03133546|191733983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37||significance level: 5%|Regression, Cox|Univariate Cox for PFS with treatment effect only|The HR for Osimertinib plus Bevacizumab versus Osimertinib alone is provided.|"Assumption: Median PFS with osimertinib 11 months Target: Detect a 36% improvement in PFS (HR=0.64, corresponding to an increase in median PFS to 17.2 months) under osimertinib and bevacizumab (80% power, at one-sided significant level of 5%)~126 events required"||1.37|0.68|0.84
95909188|NCT03581981|191776490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-3.6|0.99
95890153|NCT00732615|191733989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|52.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|64.0||A fixed sequence test procedure was used to control the study level type I error. Order of test sequence started with the primary efficacy endpoint and proceeded to the 3 secondary efficacy endpoints, in the order defined in the protocol.|Fisher Exact|The 2-sided Fisher's Exact test was utilized to test for difference between NPSP558 and the placebo treatment groups.|The above two sided asymptotic 95% confidence interval is based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis is that the % of subjects meeting primary efficacy endpoint criteria are the same for both tmt arms. The sample size was determined based on the assumption that 40% and 10% of subjects for NPSP558 and pbo arms would meet the endpt criteria, respectively. Based on 2-tailed test, alpha of 0.05 and 2-to-1 randomization ratio, 84 (56 NPSP558, 28 pbo) subjects who completing the study would achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusted for dropouts, planned enrollment was 110 subjects.||64.0|40.6|<0.001
95890154|NCT00732615|191733990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the primary endpoint reached statistical significance.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis conducted using percentage change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as factor, and baseline calcium dose as covariate.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the percentage changes from baseline for the two treatment arms.||||<0.001
95890155|NCT00732615|191733991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.711|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.619|52.363||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the first secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the proportions of subjects (who achieved this secondary endpoint) from the two treatment arms.||52.363|2.619|<0.001
95890156|NCT00732615|191733992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|1.922||Following fixed sequence test procedure described in the primary endpoint section, statistical hypothesis testing was conducted for this secondary endpoint after the testing for the second secondary endpoint reached statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of subjects with any reported clinical symptoms for the two treatment arms are the same.||1.922|0.402|0.747
95890157|NCT01341964|191734000|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|not normally distributed, values were log-transformed.||||||0.66
95890158|NCT02669433|191734009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.79||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.79|-4.80|0.158
95890159|NCT02669433|191734009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.6069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|3.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||3.55|-2.08|0.6069
95890160|NCT02669433|191734010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||1.60|-2.55|0.6531
95890161|NCT02669433|191734010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||2.75|-1.41|0.5274
95890162|NCT02669433|191734011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.3953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.5|-0.2|0.3953
95890163|NCT02669433|191734011|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Placebo - active|||0.42|-0.28|0.7008
95890164|NCT03061331|191734041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.7|-2.5|0.9277
95909189|NCT03581981|191776491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|-7.3|0.52
95909190|NCT03581981|191776492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-1.4|0.50
95909191|NCT03581981|191776493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95909192|NCT03581981|191776494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95909193|NCT03581981|191776495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95909194|NCT03581981|191776496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95909195|NCT03581981|191776497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
95890165|NCT00665847|191734056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|52.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|62.2|||||The standard error for a proportion was calculated as the square root of the variance divided by the number of patients. The variance for a proportion is equal to p\*(1-p), with p being the proportion.|||62.2|42.7|
95890166|NCT00513474|191734060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Gray's test for competing risks|||||||.036
95890167|NCT01237054|191734128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ang2 in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.024
95890168|NCT01237054|191734128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of G-CSF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
95890169|NCT01237054|191734128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Follistatin in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.055
95890170|NCT01237054|191734128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of HGF in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0098
95890171|NCT01237054|191734128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of VEGF-A in both groups.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.02
95890172|NCT01237054|191734129|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.008|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.008
95890173|NCT01237054|191734130|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.15||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Kep between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.15
95890174|NCT01237054|191734130|OTHER|Other, trend test.||||||0.33||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of Ktrans between MGUS and SMM+MM.|Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend|||||||0.33
95890175|NCT01237054|191734131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.08
95890176|NCT01237054|191734132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.011
95890177|NCT05180669|191734147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.272||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.272
95890178|NCT05180669|191734148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.768
95890179|NCT05180669|191734153|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance was set at p\<0.05. z-score = 0.329|z statistics|||||||1.00
95890180|NCT02879305|191734162|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|
95890181|NCT02879305|191734163|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.24|||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for treatment, Baseline Hgb, dialysis type and region along with 95% CI for treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO).|||0.24|0.12|
95890182|NCT02879305|191734164|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.156123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||The p-value was compared against 0.0125 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.81|0.156123
95890183|NCT02879305|191734165|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.023539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||The p-value was compared against 0.006250 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.00|0.78|0.023539
95890184|NCT02879305|191734166|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.325797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.325797
95890185|NCT02879305|191734167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.1||||0.026947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|0.2||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|ANCOVA||Analysis was carried out by using ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, Baseline monthly IV iron dose, dialysis type and region.|||0.2|-18.4|0.026947
95890186|NCT02879305|191734168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.13|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.82|0.3281
95890187|NCT02879305|191734169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.23|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.74|0.3553
95890188|NCT02879305|191734170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.63|0.0524
95890189|NCT02879305|191734171|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.25|0.56|0.1927
95890190|NCT02879305|191734172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.01|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.01|0.80|0.0351
95890191|NCT02879305|191734172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
95890192|NCT02879305|191734172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.98|0.58|0.0158
95890193|NCT02879305|191734172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.17|0.47|0.0981
95890194|NCT02879305|191734172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.11|0.85|0.3258
95890195|NCT02879305|191734172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||0.94|0.60|0.0058
95890196|NCT02879305|191734173|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.06|0.73|0.0872
95890197|NCT02879305|191734174|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.04|0.87|0.1540
95890198|NCT02879305|191734175|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.07|0.77|0.1244
95972797|NCT00871780|191918846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline, Week 48||||<0.0001
95972798|NCT00871780|191918847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95890199|NCT02879305|191734176|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.81|0.0540
95890200|NCT02879305|191734177|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.45|0.84|0.7658
95890201|NCT02879305|191734178|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.02|0.69|0.0425
95972799|NCT00871780|191918847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95972800|NCT00871780|191918847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95890202|NCT02879305|191734179|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21||||||||0.21|0.03|
95890203|NCT02879305|191734180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|3.5||||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for dialysis type, and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||7.1|-0.1|0.0367
95890204|NCT02879305|191734181|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.86|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||3.86|0.00|
95890205|NCT02879305|191734182|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.52||||0.0805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.54|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.54|0.49|0.0805
95909196|NCT03581981|191776498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
95909197|NCT02606903|191776508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|110.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.603|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.8|125.44|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and body mass index (BMI) group as fixed effects||125.44|96.80|
95909198|NCT02606903|191776509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.354|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|117.76|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||117.76|85.15|
95909199|NCT02606903|191776510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means (%)|100.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.137|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.13|122.29|||ANOVA||Relative bioavailability was estimated by the ratio (AI/PFS) of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard deviation is actually inter-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log scale was used including treatment and BMI group as fixed effects||122.29|82.13|
95909200|NCT01624948|191776512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
95909201|NCT01624948|191776514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in p70S6 kinase phosphorylation as measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) between those patients who reached the primary endpoint and those who did not||||0.67
95909202|NCT01624948|191776515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95909203|NCT01624948|191776517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95909204|NCT00781391|191776555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.632|0.985||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||.985|.632|<.0001
95972801|NCT00871780|191918848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95890206|NCT02879305|191734183|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.05|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-rhEPO) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||4.05|0.28|
95890207|NCT02879305|191734184|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.53||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.55|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.55|0.50|0.0139
95890208|NCT02879305|191734185|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.6551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.94|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||1.94|-1.28|0.6551
95890209|NCT02879305|191734185|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.1586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.44|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.44|-1.36|0.1586
95972802|NCT00871780|191918848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95890210|NCT02879305|191734185|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.84|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in means between arms.|||0.84|-1.20|0.3646
95890211|NCT02879305|191734186|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.54|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.54|-1.54|0.5012
95972803|NCT00871780|191918848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95890212|NCT02879305|191734186|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.31|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.31|-0.42|0.8451
95890213|NCT02879305|191734186|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.7312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.28|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, dialysis type, region and Baseline value.|||1.28|-0.67|0.7312
95890214|NCT02879305|191734187|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.0||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.11|0.91|0.5290
95890215|NCT02879305|191734189|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.52|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and region.|||1.52|0.71|0.5772
95890216|NCT02879305|191734190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.29||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.86|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-0.29|0.1620
95890217|NCT02879305|191734190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.61||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.18|0.04|0.0180
95972804|NCT00871780|191918849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95972805|NCT00871780|191918849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95972806|NCT00871780|191918849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95890218|NCT02879305|191734190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.97|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.97|-0.31|0.1530
95890219|NCT02879305|191734190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.22|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.22|-0.17|0.0686
95890220|NCT02879305|191734191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.54|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.88|0.6807
95890221|NCT02879305|191734191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.17||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.91|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.91|-0.57|0.3256
95972807|NCT00871780|191918850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95972808|NCT00871780|191918850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95972809|NCT00871780|191918850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95972810|NCT00871780|191918851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95972811|NCT00871780|191918851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95972812|NCT00871780|191918851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95972813|NCT00871780|191918852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95972814|NCT00871780|191918852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95972815|NCT00871780|191918852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95972816|NCT00871780|191918853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95890222|NCT02879305|191734191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.5144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.81|0.5144
95890223|NCT02879305|191734191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.27|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and the model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.27|-1.47|0.9120
95890224|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.5|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.50|-0.99|0.7432
95972817|NCT00871780|191918853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.0016
95972818|NCT00871780|191918853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||0.0866
95972819|NCT00871780|191918854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Baseline||||<0.0001
95972820|NCT00871780|191918854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95972821|NCT00871780|191918854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman correlation|||Change from Baseline at Week 48||||<0.0001
95972822|NCT00552240|191918856|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A point estimate of -6.5% or higher for the diff. in the prop. of responders (NVP - ATV/r) was to be considered consistent with a successful ArTEN study. In the worst case for both studies, if the 2 studies were to be pooled, the non-inferiority margin of -12% would then be outside the 95% confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.041||||0.7142||95.0|-0.183|0.101|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||With 75 evaluable patients per treatment group, this study had 80% power to observe a difference no lower than -6.5% assuming the true proportions of responders are both 65%.||0.101|-0.183|0.7142
95972823|NCT00552240|191918857|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for the primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.027||||0.6479||95.0|-0.167|0.113|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.113|-0.167|0.6479
95972824|NCT00552240|191918858|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|0.084||||0.1477||95.0|-0.03|0.197|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.197|-0.030|0.1477
95972825|NCT00552240|191918859|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Same as for primary analysis|Difference in proportion of responders|-0.067||||0.3703||95.0|-0.215|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.080|-0.215|0.3703
95972826|NCT00552240|191918860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.0314||95.0|0.46|0.964|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories.||Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine.||0.964|0.460|0.0314
95972827|NCT00552240|191918861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.628||||0.0172||95.0|0.428|0.921|||Regression, Cox|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||"Responders only~Hazard ratio Atazanavir plus ritonavir / Nevirapine. Values \< 1 indicate faster response in nevirapine."||0.921|0.428|0.0172
95972828|NCT00552240|191918889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.7315||95.0|-8.4|11.9|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||11.9|-8.4|0.7315
95972829|NCT00552240|191918890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-10.6||||0.3625||95.0|-33.4|12.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||12.3|-33.4|0.3625
95972830|NCT00552240|191918891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.0164||95.0|0.9|8.8|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||8.8|0.9|0.0164
95972831|NCT00552240|191918892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.9257||95.0|-8.4|9.3|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||9.3|-8.4|0.9257
95972832|NCT00552240|191918893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0375||95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||-0.02|-0.64|0.0375
95972833|NCT00552240|191918894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.4645||95.0|-1.02|0.47|||ANCOVA|Controlling for screening viral load and CD4+ categories||||0.47|-1.02|0.4645
95972834|NCT02476279|191918904|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.066|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.066|0.006|
95972835|NCT02476279|191918904|NON_INFERIORITY|To declare noninferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) needed to be less than 5% in both the intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis populations.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.06|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is calculated as risk of PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.060|-0.003|
95972836|NCT02476279|191918905|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.043|||||These numbers are in the intention-to-treat analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.043|-0.002|
95972837|NCT02476279|191918905|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.044|||||These numbers are in the per protocol analysis population. Risk difference is calculated as risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin alone arm minus risk of moderate-severe PEP in indomethacin plus stent arm.|||0.044|-0.004|
95972838|NCT01502631|191918923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|13.14|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 2||13.14|-1.93|0.2182
95890225|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.33|-0.16|0.0631
95890226|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.87|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.87|-0.79|0.4604
95890227|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15|||MMRM||Bodily pain,Week52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.15|-0.60|0.2688
95890228|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||MMRM||General health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.84|-0.32|0.1918
95890229|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.04|||MMRM||General health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.04|-0.14|0.0677
95890230|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.32|||MMRM||General health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.98|0.8386
95890231|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.7928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.41|||MMRM||General health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-0.99|0.7928
95890232|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.71|||MMRM||Mental health,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.71|-0.63|0.4537
95890233|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.65|||MMRM||Mental health,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.65|-0.74|0.5548
95890234|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.88|||MMRM||Mental health,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.88|-0.61|0.3626
95890235|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.9721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.02|||MMRM||Mental health,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.02|-1.64|0.9721
95890236|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.78|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.96|0.5789
95890237|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.2054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.24|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.51|0.2054
95890238|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.89|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.89|-0.98|0.5389
95890239|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.09|||MMRM||Role-emotional,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.09|-0.91|0.4289
95890240|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.75|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.75|-0.60|0.4096
95890241|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.07|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.07|-0.27|0.1196
95890242|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.2093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.01|-0.42|0.2093
95972839|NCT01502631|191918923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|6.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.583||0.226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.54|16.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 4||16.27|-2.54|0.2260
95972840|NCT01502631|191918923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.023||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.15|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 8||13.21|-7.15|0.6184
95890243|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39||||0.1674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.19|||MMRM||Role-physical,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||1.19|-0.40|0.1674
95890244|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.54|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.54|-0.82|0.6585
95890245|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.4|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.40|-0.03|0.0293
95890246|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.11|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.11|-0.45|0.2057
95890247|NCT02879305|191734192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.9|||MMRM||Social fun, Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.90|-0.86|0.4849
95890248|NCT02879305|191734193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.64|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.64|-0.58|0.4621
95890249|NCT02879305|191734193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35||||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.98|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.98|-0.29|0.1439
95890250|NCT02879305|191734193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.2392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.92|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.92|-0.43|0.2392
95972841|NCT01502631|191918923|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.524||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.48|15.56|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference (SUN13837 - Placebo) at Week 16||15.56|-6.48|0.4912
95972842|NCT01616056|191918930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95972843|NCT01616056|191918932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95972844|NCT01616056|191918934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95890251|NCT02879305|191734193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.60|-0.90|0.6545
95890252|NCT02879305|191734194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.64||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.31|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.31|-0.02|0.0290
95890253|NCT02879305|191734194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.24|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.24|-0.11|0.0509
95890254|NCT02879305|191734194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.53|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.53|0.01|0.0237
95890255|NCT02879305|191734194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.39|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.39|-0.24|0.0828
95890256|NCT02879305|191734195|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0003||||0.4939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0326|0.0331|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0331|-0.0326|0.4939
95972845|NCT01616056|191918937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95972846|NCT03339570|191918939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student's t test was used if they were variables adjusted to a normal distribution, or the Mann-Whitney U test if they were non-normal variables.||||<0.01
95972847|NCT04964414|191918978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.6
95972848|NCT04964414|191918979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||||||0.6
95972849|NCT04964414|191918980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.09
95972850|NCT04964414|191918985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
95972851|NCT04964414|191918986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.2
95972852|NCT01445301|191919053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-15.0|<0.001
95890257|NCT02879305|191734196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.9292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.6|-4.2|0.9292
95890258|NCT02879305|191734197|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.0428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.01|-0.13|0.0428
95890259|NCT02879305|191734197|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1155
95890260|NCT02879305|191734197|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.12|0.1426
95890261|NCT02879305|191734197|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.13|0.1152
95890262|NCT04736199|191734198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.707||One-sided|Log Rank|||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.707|0.413|<0.0001
95890263|NCT04736199|191734199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.118||One-sided|Log Rank||significance level of 0.0185 (one-sided)|Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||1.118|0.591|0.1007
95890264|NCT04736199|191734200|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|0.508||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.508|0.321|
95890265|NCT04736199|191734201|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|0.558||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.558|0.288|
95890266|NCT04736199|191734202|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.405||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.405|0.231|
95972853|NCT01445301|191919053|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.6|-12.9|<0.001
95972854|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.5|-4.4|<0.001
95972855|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||0.4|-4.0|0.113
95890267|NCT04736199|191734203|OTHER||Rate difference|44.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|51.2||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||51.2|37.4|
95890268|NCT04736199|191734204|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.957||||||Analyzed with log-rank test and Cox regression proportional hazard model, stratified by the same factor as used for randomization visceral disease (present versus absent), prior local therapy (Yes versus No).||0.957|0.544|
95890269|NCT02152631|191734208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.968||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.219|||Stratified Log-Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|The stratification factors used in the analysis were: number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Score (PS) (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||1.219|0.768|0.771
95890270|NCT02152631|191734209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by number of prior chemotherapy regimens (1 versus 2), ECOG PS (0 versus 1), gender (male versus female), and KRAS mutation (GLY12CYS \[G12C\] vs. all others)||||0.010
95890271|NCT02152631|191734210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.723|||Stratified Log-Rank|||||0.723|0.470|<0.000001
95890272|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Headache||0.29|-0.44|0.698
95890273|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Diarrhea||1.15|0.03|0.038
95890274|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Rash||-1.86|-2.94|<.001
95890275|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Symptom Severity||0.08|-0.56|0.142
95972856|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||0.3|-4.2|0.084
95972857|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.3|-5.1|0.026
95972858|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-0.3|-5.0|0.030
95972859|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-0.4|-6.5|0.028
95890276|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of square, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Interference||0.30|-0.59|0.514
95890277|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Lung Cancer||0.23|-0.37|0.646
95972860|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.7|-9.1|0.004
95972861|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Odds Ratio (OR)|-5.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-1.9|-9.6|0.003
95972862|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-1.6|-9.4|0.006
95972863|NCT01445301|191919055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.7|-9.5|0.005
95972864|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-1.1|-3.9|<0.001
95972865|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-1.6|-4.7|<0.001
95972866|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-0.9|-4.1|0.002
95972867|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-0.9|-4.5|0.003
95972868|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-1.0|-4.6|0.002
95972869|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 1||-3.2|-8.8|<0.001
95890278|NCT02152631|191734211|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed by Type 3 sums of squares, model covariates included Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||Mean Core Plus Lung Cancer||0.10|-0.51|0.188
95972870|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 2||-4.7|-11.4|<0.001
95890279|NCT02152631|191734213|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Change Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed By Type 3 sums of squares, Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment\*Visit + Baseline.||||0.05|-0.05|0.951
95890280|NCT02520063|191734226|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The primary analysis was of safety and included all patients who received at least one dose of the investigational regimen. The rate of adverse events was be estimated at the end of the study along with two-sided 95% exact CIs (Clopper-Pearson intervals).|||
95972871|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 4||-6.2|-13.1|<0.001
95972872|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 8||-5.1|-12.1|<0.001
95972873|NCT01445301|191919055|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|-4.8|||ANCOVA|||WEEK 12||-4.8|-11.6|<0.001
95972874|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.12|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.12|-11.30|<0.001
95972875|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-3.77|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-3.77|-13.24|<0.001
95890281|NCT05850494|191734281|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of -0.200 L at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0136|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.018||P-Value not applicable since a non-inferiority test was used for the analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.018|-0.037|
95890282|NCT05571397|191734284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time in Range 70-180mg/dl||||<0.001
95890283|NCT05571397|191734284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time 100-180mg/dl||||0.002
95890284|NCT05571397|191734284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Time 140-180mg/dl||||0.003
95890285|NCT03631199|191734313|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.00164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.86|||Log Rank|||Chest pain||0.86|0.45|0.00164
95890286|NCT03631199|191734313|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.00069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Log Rank|||Cough||0.82|0.43|0.00069
95890287|NCT03631199|191734313|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.00045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.84|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||0.84|0.51|0.00045
95890288|NCT03631199|191734314|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.1|||Log Rank|||Quality of Life||1.10|0.66|0.113
95890289|NCT03631199|191734314|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.00433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.91|||Log Rank|||Shortness of Breath||0.91|0.51|0.00433
95972876|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.37|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-4.41|-13.37|<0.001
95972877|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.82|-4.43|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-4.43|-13.82|<0.001
95972878|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-4.75|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.75|-14.11|<0.001
95890290|NCT03631199|191734314|EQUIVALENCE|Nominal p-values are presented without any statistical inference since there was no adjustment for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|||Pain||1.20|0.72|0.294
95890291|NCT03258554|191734319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.8878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12||One-sided significance level = 0.2|Log Rank||Reference arm = radiation therapy + cetuximab|Sixty-nine progression-free survival (PFS) events provides 0.80 power for a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.20 to detect an improvement in PFS corresponding to a median of 2.35 years (RT+Durvalumab) compared to 1.53 years (RT+Cetuximab). A hazard ratio (RT+Durvalumab/RT+Cetuximab) ≤ 0.806 would indicate a rejection of the null hypothesis (no difference between the arms) and the study would continue to phase III; otherwise, the study would not continue to phase III.||2.12|0.84|0.8878
95890292|NCT03258554|191734320|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.28||One-side significance level = 0.025|Log Rank|||||2.28|0.74|0.8175
95890293|NCT03258554|191734321|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.28||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||3.28|0.89|0.1001
95890294|NCT03258554|191734322|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = RT+ Cetuximab|||1.77|0.32|0.5197
95890295|NCT03258554|191734323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.38||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||5.38|0.57|0.3201
95890296|NCT03258554|191734324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95890297|NCT03258554|191734325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0688||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0688
95972879|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.12|-5.97|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.97|-15.12|<0.001
95890298|NCT03258554|191734328|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS ≥ 1||1.97|0.62|
95890299|NCT03258554|191734328|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06|||||Reference arm = RT + Cetuximab|CPS = 0||4.06|0.66|
95890300|NCT03258554|191734328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥ 1, CPS = 0)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.41
95890301|NCT03258554|191734329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.51|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-positive||2.51|0.57|
95890302|NCT03258554|191734329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.89|||||Reference arm = RT + cetuximab|p16-negative||2.89|0.83|
95890303|NCT03258554|191734329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Testing the interaction of treatment arm and p16 status (positive, negative)|Regression, Cox|||Interaction||||0.61
95890304|NCT04221477|191734333|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.4||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|24.84||Test 1 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.84|1.95|0.0232
95890305|NCT04221477|191734334|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.88||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|23.18||Test 2 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.18|0.57|0.0421
95890306|NCT04221477|191734335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.68||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|25.36||Test 3 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.04 with fallback method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.36|2.01|0.0227
95972880|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.21||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-1.69|-12.73|0.011
95890307|NCT04221477|191734336|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|3.84||||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|9.51||Test 4 of 7 maintaining a fixed sequence testing for type I error control at two-sided alpha 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||9.51|-1.83|0.1842
95890308|NCT04221477|191734337|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-16.83||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-6.23||Ranked 5 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control. P-value is nominal as the hierarchical testing stops at the first non-significant endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-6.23|-27.42|0.0026
95890309|NCT04221477|191734338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.36||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|20.12||Ranked 6 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.12|-3.41|0.1670
95890310|NCT04221477|191734339|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.35||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.2||Ranked 7 of 7 in the fixed sequence for type I error control.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-3.89|0.2991
95890311|NCT04221477|191734340|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.16||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-0.57|0.0006
95890312|NCT04221477|191734341|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||Not type I error controlled|ANCOVA|||||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
95890313|NCT04221477|191734342|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.12||||0.9384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.87||Not type I error controlled.|ANCOVA|||||2.87|-3.11|0.9384
95890314|NCT04221477|191734343|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.89||Not type I error controlled.|Log Rank|||||1.89|0.91|0.1324
95890315|NCT04221477|191734344|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.37||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|24.82||Not type I error controlled.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.82|1.91|0.0237
95890316|NCT02438722|191734350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||||1.36|0.50|0.44
95890317|NCT02438722|191734351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.72|0.94
95890318|NCT02438722|191734353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.64|0.54
95890319|NCT02438722|191734354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.73|0.95
95972881|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-2.35|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-2.35|-12.93|0.005
95890320|NCT03182244|191734371|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.612||||0.00152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.832|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per interactive response technology (IRT).|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.832|0.451|0.00152
95890321|NCT03182244|191734372|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.589||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.792|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||0.792|0.438|0.00005
95890322|NCT03182244|191734373|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|8.9||||0.04256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||17.5|0.3|0.04256
95890323|NCT03182244|191734374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.163||||0.8871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|10.338|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||10.338|0.131|0.88710
95890324|NCT03182244|191734375|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.55969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|2.414|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||2.414|0.209|0.55969
95890325|NCT03182244|191734376|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.583||||0.66261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|13.048|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||13.048|0.192|0.66261
95890326|NCT03182244|191734377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.55731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.999|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.999|0.286|0.55731
95890327|NCT03182244|191734378|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|17.7||||0.00049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||27.5|7.9|0.00049
95890328|NCT03182244|191734380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.857||||0.56944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|1.487|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT.|Based on Cox proportional hazard model. Assuming proportional hazards, an HR \< 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate where the numerator is the Gilteritinib arm and the denominator is the Salvage chemotherapy arm.|||1.487|0.494|0.56944
95890329|NCT03182244|191734381|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|31.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|42.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||42.3|20.2|<0.00001
95890330|NCT03182244|191734387|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|14.7||||0.00055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|22.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors: first-line AML therapy \& preselected salvage chemotherapy/IRT response. Treatment difference based on stratification factors.||||22.8|6.5|0.00055
95890331|NCT03182244|191734388|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.6||||0.14841||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment as a fixed factor, baseline score, response to first-line AML therapy and preselected salvage chemotherapy per IRT as covariates. LS Mean difference was estimated using chemotherapy as control.|ANCOVA|||||||0.14841
95890332|NCT04731506|191734426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.353|0.099||Difference between Child-standard care and Child-waitlist arms of respective changes from baseline to 12 months with each arm.|Mann-Whitney U test|We used the Mann-Whitney U test to asses the difference in BMI z-score by arms for child.||BMI z-score analysis is for children only||0.099|-0.353|0.286
95890333|NCT04731506|191734427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.65||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|13.26|||Mann-Whitney U test|We used the Mann-Whitney U test to examine the BMI difference between arms at 12 months for adults||||13.26|-5.95|0.741
95890334|NCT04434092|191734437|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.67|11.14|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants with TA is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||11.14|-15.67|
95890335|NCT04434092|191734438|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio is above 0.2|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.82||||||||1.82|0.57|
95890336|NCT04434092|191734439|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI for the difference between crovalimab and eculizumab in the proportion of participants with BTH is less than the non-inferiority margin of 20%|Weighted Difference in Proportion|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.82|5.26|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||5.26|-14.82|
95890337|NCT04434092|191734440|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -20%.|Weighted Difference in Proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|16.31|||||95% CI for the difference in proportions of participants is calculated by Stratified Newcombe CI method.|||16.31|-11.37|
95890338|NCT04434092|191734441|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was a -5 point score, where higher scores indicated less fatigue, and hence non-inferiority hypothesis was tested comparing the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference with a non-inferiority margin of -5 points.|Difference in Adjusted mean|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.6|||||Non-inferiority is met when the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -5.|||4.60|0.68|
95890339|NCT00065507|191734590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.18|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr status.||||-1.18|-2.30|<0.0001
95890340|NCT00065507|191734591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline HBV DNA and LVDr Status||||-0.96|-1.85|<0.0001
95890341|NCT00065507|191734592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Percent Difference|32.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.2|20.2|<0.0001
95890342|NCT00065507|191734593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percent treatment difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||50.3|24.8|<0.0001
95972882|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.73||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-3.26|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.26|-14.20|0.002
95890343|NCT00065507|191734594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|19.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24 treatment difference||34.6|3.7|0.0193
95890344|NCT00065507|191734594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent treatment difference|16.4||||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48 treatment difference||32.0|0.9|0.0425
95972883|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-3.06|-13.34|0.002
95890345|NCT00065507|191734600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.82|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 24||0.82|-1.63|0.51
95890346|NCT00065507|191734600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.88|||Regression, Linear|Model estimate incorporates prognostic factors measured at baseline. Adjusted for baseline||Covariate adjusted model for MELD score at Week 48||1.88|-1.08|<0.0001
95890347|NCT00065507|191734608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|25.2||||||Difference estimate ETV - ADV at Week 48||25.2|-4.5|
95890348|NCT00065507|191734609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|8.0||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||8.0|-8.7|
95972884|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.32|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-1.32|-10.29|0.011
95972885|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-2.50|-14.10|0.005
95972886|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-3.83|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.83|-14.72|<0.001
95972887|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.28|-3.39|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.39|-14.28|0.002
95972888|NCT01445301|191919056|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% confidence was less than the pre-defined threshold (-Δ \[non-inferiority margin, -3.8\]) of 3.8, non-inferiority of GSK2585823 once daily to CLDM twice daily would be established.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.30|-15.06|<0.001
95890349|NCT00065507|191734610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|6.9||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||6.9|-21.3|
95890350|NCT00065507|191734611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference Estimate|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|11.7||||||Difference Estimate at Week 48||11.7|-0.3|
95890351|NCT00065507|191734612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for age \<=45 versus age \>45 years, gender, and race (white versus non-white).||treatment comparison of HCC-free survival at Week 48||1.18|0.46|0.20
95890352|NCT00870363|191734635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95890353|NCT00594997|191734643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.0001
95890354|NCT02389998|191734644|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.03
95890355|NCT02389998|191734645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.001
95890356|NCT02389998|191734646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||McNemar|||||||0.3
95890357|NCT01770379|191734694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.2001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.03|0.79|0.2001
95890358|NCT01770379|191734694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|0.83|0.1574
95890359|NCT00778700|191734698|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.85|-0.51|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.51|-1.85|0.0041
95890360|NCT00778700|191734698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|-0.73|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.73|-2.08|0.0007
95890361|NCT00778700|191734698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.407||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.88|-0.53|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as the main factor and Baseline score as the covariate.||||-0.53|-1.88|0.0035
95890362|NCT00828347|191734729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
95890363|NCT02028065|191734742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||10.7|-0.9|
95972889|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.32|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-5.48|-12.32|<0.001
95972890|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.18|-7.16|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-7.16|-15.18|<0.001
95972891|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-8.35|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-8.35|-15.90|<0.001
95972892|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-7.30|-15.37|<0.001
95972893|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.11|-7.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.25|-15.11|<0.001
95972894|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-3.88|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-3.88|-12.76|<0.001
95972895|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-5.3|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.30|-13.83|<0.001
95972896|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.03|-3.62|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-3.62|-12.03|<0.001
95972897|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|-3.53|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-3.53|-12.63|<0.001
95972898|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.71|-4.41|||ANCOVA|||Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-4.41|-12.71|<0.001
95972899|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|-4.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 1||-4.68|-13.53|<0.001
95972900|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-5.8|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 2||-5.80|-16.30|<0.001
95972901|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-9.37|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 4||-9.37|-18.97|<0.001
95972902|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|-8.25|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 8||-8.25|-17.83|<0.001
95972903|NCT01445301|191919056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.05|-7.68|||ANCOVA|||Non-Inflammatory Lesion Counts, WEEK 12||-7.68|-17.05|<0.001
95972904|NCT01445301|191919057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95972905|NCT01445301|191919057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95972906|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.470
95972907|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.844
95972908|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.022
95972909|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
95972910|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
95972911|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.572
95972912|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||0.335
95972913|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.187
95890364|NCT02028065|191734742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.2|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen(Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|Planned sample size of 150 participants in each sugammadex group (4 mg/kg and 16 mg/kg) allowed estimation of adjudicated hypersensitivity in each sugammadex group with a 95% confidence interval with a half-width between 1.2 and 4.2 percentage points. Calculation, based on method of Clopper and Pearson (Biometrika 1934;26\[4\]:404-413), used underlying event rate of up to 6% in the sugammadex high dose group, based on study results from protocol P06042 (NCT00988065).||14.2|1.7|
95890365|NCT02028065|191734743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||||Difference is Sugammadex 4 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||2.5|-4.8|
95890366|NCT02028065|191734743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.7|||||Difference is Sugammadex 16 mg/kg incidence minus Placebo incidence. Confidence interval calculated using method of Miettinen and Nurminen (Statistics in Medicine 1985;4:213-226).|||3.7|-4.2|
95890367|NCT00576927|191734785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|8.717||p-value suspect because of sparse cell counts|Chi-squared|||||8.717|0.156|0.655
95890368|NCT02970318|191734794|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.49||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.49|0.20|<0.0001
95890369|NCT02970318|191734795|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.38||Stratified by randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.38|0.20|<0.0001
95972914|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
95972915|NCT01445301|191919058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of ISGA Score of 0 or 1 between GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.006
95890370|NCT02970318|191734796|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.2248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||14.9|-3.3|0.2248
95890371|NCT02970318|191734797|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|Risk difference (% Arm A - Arm B) based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with adjustment for randomization stratification factors as recorded in IXRS.|||7.0|-9.6|0.7340
95972916|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.002
95972917|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
95972918|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||<0.001
95972919|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||<0.001
95972920|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 twice daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||<0.001
95972921|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 1||||0.480
95972922|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 2||||<0.001
95972923|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 4||||0.009
95972924|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 8||||0.008
95972925|NCT01445301|191919059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of GSK2585823 once daily and CLDM twice daily at Week 12||||0.065
95972926|NCT01323972|191919102|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.65|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 2 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.65|1.06|
95972927|NCT01323972|191919102|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 1 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.32|0.85|
95972928|NCT01323972|191919102|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.64|1.0|||||Consistency was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio between all pairs of lots were within \[0.5, 2\].|Demonstration of the lot-to-lot consistency between GSK 257049-Lot 2 and GSK 257049-Lot 3 in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1|0.64|
95972929|NCT01323972|191919102|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if one month post Dose 3, the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio of the pilot scale lot (Control Group) over the pooled commercial scale lots (Pooled Log Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of the commercial scale lots of GSK 257049 to the pilot scale lot in terms of anti-Circumsporozoite (anti-CS) immunogenicity.||1.15|0.79|
95890372|NCT02970318|191734798|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.04|||Log Rank|Log-Rank Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data: presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Cox proportional hazard analysis stratified (Arm A vs. Arm B) by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Analysis stratified by factors recorded in IXRS data including presence of deletion 17 p (yes / no), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).||1.04|0.46|0.0783
95890373|NCT02970318|191734799|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.59||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.59|0.19|<0.0001
95890374|NCT02970318|191734800|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.33||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.33|0.16|<0.0001
95890375|NCT02970318|191734801|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.4||Log Rank Test stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|Log Rank||Cox Proportional Hazard Model (Arm A vs. Arm B) stratified by factors as recorded in IXRS, i.e., presence of del17p (Yes/No), ECOG (0-1/2), # of prior therapies (1-3/4+).|||0.40|0.21|<0.0001
95890376|NCT02747004|191734802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Two-sided P-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||||0.2930
95890377|NCT02747004|191734802|OTHER|Informal phase 2 non-inferiority.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.535|||Log Rank|Stratified by the randomization factors of presence of liver metastases and prior use of Tamoxifen in the advanced/metastatic setting.||||1.535|0.711|
95890378|NCT04860830|191734812|SUPERIORITY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4745||0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.316|0.548||Null hypothesis: the adjusted mean change in iclepertin is worse than or equal to that in placebo. One-sided significance level of \<0.025 is needed for conducting further formal hypothesis tests in the secondary endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean iclepertin - adjusted mean placebo|The primary analysis was a REML-based approach using a MMRM, which included the fixed categorical effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical effect of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and a fixed effect for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-subject dependencies.||0.548|-1.316|0.4187
95890379|NCT04860830|191734813|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|0.762|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5255||0.1478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.271|1.794|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean iclepertin - adjusted mean placebo|The analysis was a REML-based approach using a MMRM model, which included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, a fixed effect for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||1.794|-0.271|0.1478
95972930|NCT01049217|191919133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, dideoxynucleoside analogue (D-drug) anti-retroviral agent (ART) use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.30|0.7090
95972931|NCT01049217|191919134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.5049
95972932|NCT01049217|191919135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4271|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.4271
95972933|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.31|0.2084
95972934|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.43|0.1516
95890380|NCT04860830|191734814|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-1.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.347|0.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean iclepertin - adjusted mean placebo|The analysis was a REML-based approach using a MMRM model, which included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, a fixed effect for the continuous covariate of baseline at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||0.904|-3.347|0.2596
95890381|NCT04860830|191734815|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8187||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.184|1.032|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean iclepertin - adjusted mean placebo|The analysis was performed with an ANCOVA model, which included treatment, stratification factor of screening MCCB overall composite T-score (\< 30, ≥ 30), and baseline number of correct responses on Tower of London T-score.||1.032|-2.184|0.4822
95890382|NCT04860830|191734816|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|-0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0391||0.2936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean iclepertin - adjusted mean placebo|The analysis was a REML-based approach using a MMRM model, which included the discrete fixed effects of treatment at each visit, fixed categorical covariate of the stratification factor using the screening MCCB overall composite T-score, and continuous fixed effects for the corresponding baseline endpoint value at each visit. Visit was treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure to model the within-subject measurements. Subjects were considered as a random effect.||0.036|-0.118|0.2936
95890383|NCT04076059|191734819|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.222|||Log Rank||Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.|||0.222|0.076|<0.0001
95890384|NCT04076059|191734820|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.196|0.556|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.556|0.196|<0.0001
95890385|NCT04076059|191734821|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.789||||0.7279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|2.998|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||2.998|0.208|0.7279
95890386|NCT04076059|191734822|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|0.276|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||0.276|0.107|<0.0001
95890387|NCT04076059|191734823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||0.0036
95890388|NCT04076059|191734824|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||||<0.0001
95890389|NCT04076059|191734825|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.797||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.819|||Log Rank|Stratified by volume of disease (low vs high) and prior docetaxel use (yes vs no) during screening period.||||1.819|0.350|0.5899
95890390|NCT04076059|191734826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|53.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|66.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||66.9|40.1|<0.0001
95890391|NCT04076059|191734827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-5.2||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by volume of disease and previous docetaxel use during screening period. Parameter estimate: Difference in percentage||||14.9|-25.4|0.8312
95890392|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Average difference in response rates|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5|41.0|||Bayesian Analysis||90% credible intervals of the treatment difference are reported as 90% Confidence Interval 2-Sided below.|||41.0|2.5|
95890393|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Probability (%) diff. in resp. rate >= 0|97.1|||||||||||Bayesian Analysis|||||||
95890394|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Average difference in response rates|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.9|15.9|||Bayesian Analysis||90% credible intervals of the treatment difference are reported as 90% Confidence Interval 2-Sided below.|||15.9|-21.9|
95890395|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Probability (%) diff. in resp. rate >= 0|38.7|||||||||||Bayesian Analysis|||||||
95890396|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Average difference in response rates|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|31.6|||Bayesian Analysis||90% credible intervals of the treatment difference are reported as 90% Confidence Interval 2-Sided below.|||31.6|-7.5|
95890397|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Probability (%) diff. in resp. rate >= 0|84.7|||||||||||Bayesian Analysis|||||||
95890398|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Average difference in response rates|37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.7|53.0|||Bayesian Analysis||90% credible intervals of the treatment difference are reported as 90% Confidence Interval 2-Sided below.|||53.0|19.7|
95890399|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Probability (%) diff. in resp. rate >= 0|99.9|||||||||||Bayesian Analysis|||||||
95890400|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Average difference in response rates|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|31.9|||Bayesian Analysis||90% credible intervals of the treatment difference are reported as 90% Confidence Interval 2-Sided below.|||31.9|-4.2|
95890401|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Probability (%) diff. in resp. rate >= 0|89.6|||||||||||Bayesian Analysis|||||||
95890402|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Average difference in response rates|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|31.5|||Bayesian Analysis||90% credible intervals of the treatment difference are reported as 90% Confidence Interval 2-Sided below.|||31.5|-4.2|
95890403|NCT03827798|191734845|OTHER|Bayesian Analysis using a Beta-binomial model|Probability (%) diff. in resp. rate >= 0|89.0|||||||||||Bayesian Analysis|||||||
95890404|NCT04995029|191734847|SUPERIORITY|Any missed or skipped visit was counted as non-negative or de-facto positive. Difference between DB treatment arms was compared using CMH test accounting for randomization stratification (Opioid injection: Yes/No, Week 6 UDS Fentanyl result: Positive/Negative). Statistical superiority was declared if CMH weighted difference in proportion of responders in the 300-mg arm minus the proportion of responders in the 100-mg arm was \>0 and the 2-sided P-value of CMH test ≤0.05.|CMH treatment difference|2.62||||0.4819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|9.93||CMH weighted treatment difference and P-value based on CMH randomization stratified analysis using Sato (1989) variance equation. Treatment difference estimate calculated as weighted average of strata-specific estimates within each analysis stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference between DB treatment arms was compared using CMH test accounting for randomization stratification.||"Based on Phase 3 results, for the primary efficacy endpoint of INDV-6000-401, a sample size of 195 per arm was estimated to provide approximately 90% power at 2-sided 0.05 alpha level to detect a difference of 15.6%.~Since the participant population in this study had more severe OUD compared with the Phase 3 DB study, the responder rates and treatment differences were anticipated to be lower."||9.93|-4.69|0.4819
95890405|NCT04995029|191734847|SUPERIORITY|Any missed or skipped visit was counted as non-negative or de-facto positive. Difference between DB treatment arms was compared using CMH test accounting for randomization stratification (Opioid injection: Yes/No, Week 6 UDS Fentanyl result: Positive/Negative). Statistical superiority was declared if CMH weighted difference in proportion of responders in the 300-mg arm minus the proportion of responders in the 100-mg arm was \>0 and the 2-sided P-value of CMH test ≤0.05.|CMH treatment difference|12.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|22.12|||||CMH weighted treatment difference based on CMH randomization stratified analysis using Sato (1989) variance equation. Treatment difference estimate calculated as weighted average of strata-specific estimates within each analysis stratum.|Post-hoc subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint to characterize the population of patients who would benefit from the higher maintenance dosing regimen identified participants who reported using fentanyl ≥14 times per week at Screening as one such group.|The posterior possibility of responder rate difference (300 mg-100 mg) \>0 was estimated (via Bayesian beta-binomial model using non-informative uniform prior, ie, Beta (1,1), within individual treatment groups) to evaluate the superiority of 300 mg over 100 mg. Bayesian posterior probability of superiority 300-mg dose to 100-mg dose=99.099%.|22.12|2.35|
95890406|NCT04995029|191734847|SUPERIORITY|Any missed or skipped visit was counted as non-negative or de-facto positive. Difference between DB treatment arms was compared using CMH test accounting for randomization stratification (Opioid injection: Yes/No, Week 6 UDS Fentanyl result: Positive/Negative). Statistical superiority was declared if CMH weighted difference in proportion of responders in the 300-mg arm minus the proportion of responders in the 100-mg arm was \>0 and the 2-sided P-value of CMH test ≤0.05.|CMH treatment difference|11.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|21.56|||||CMH weighted treatment difference and P-value based on CMH randomization stratified analysis using Sato (1989) variance equation. Treatment difference estimate calculated as weighted average of strata-specific estimates within each analysis stratum.|Post-hoc subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint to characterize the population of patients who would benefit from the higher maintenance dosing regimen identified participants who reported using fentanyl daily at Screening as one such group.|The posterior possibility of responder rate difference (300 mg-100 mg) \>0 was estimated (via Bayesian beta-binomial model using non-informative uniform prior, ie, Beta (1,1), within individual treatment groups) to evaluate the superiority of 300 mg over 100 mg. Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of 300-mg dose to 100-mg dose=97.846%|21.56|0.36|
95890407|NCT04995029|191734847|SUPERIORITY|Any missed or skipped visit was counted as non-negative or de-facto positive. Difference between DB treatment arms was compared using CMH test accounting for randomization stratification (Opioid injection: Yes/No, Week 6 UDS Fentanyl result: Positive/Negative). Statistical superiority was declared if CMH weighted difference in proportion of responders in the 300-mg arm minus the proportion of responders in the 100-mg arm was \>0 and the 2-sided P-value of CMH test ≤0.05.|CMH treatment difference|15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|26.09|||||CMH weighted treatment difference based on CMH randomization stratified analysis using Sato (1989) variance equation. Treatment difference estimate calculated as weighted average of strata-specific estimates within each analysis stratum.|Post-hoc subgroup analyses of the primary endpoint to characterize the population of patients who would benefit from the higher maintenance dosing regimen identified participants who reported using fentanyl ≥14 times per week AND daily at Screening as one such group.|The posterior possibility of responder rate difference (300 mg-100 mg) \>0 was estimated (via Bayesian beta-binomial model using non-informative uniform prior, ie, Beta (1,1), within individual treatment groups) to evaluate the superiority of 300 mg over 100 mg. Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of 300-mg dose to 100-mg dose=99.675%.|26.09|4.61|
95890408|NCT04995029|191734848|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated by Bayesian beta-binomial model using non-informative uniform prior, ie, Beta (1,1), within individual induction arms. Posterior distribution of retention rate difference between arms was used to calculate posterior probability of NI of RI to SoC induction using a 10% NI margin or favorable trend of RI over SoC induction.|Bayesian beta-binomial model|11.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|19.03|||||Posterior probability of RI NI to SoC, ie, (RI - SoC)\>10%=100.00%|"Null and alternative statistical hypotheses:~H0: retention rate of RI - SoC induction≤-10% (non-inferiority \[NI\] margin of 10%) HA: retention rate of RI-SoC induction\>-10%. Criterion for success (ie, demonstrating non-inferiority \[NI\]) was based on posterior probability of retention rate difference (RI-SoC)\>-10%. NI of RI to SoC induction was declared if the posterior probability was higher than 96%. The 96% critical value was chosen so that the overall 1-sided Type I error was less than 10%."||19.03|4.34|
95890409|NCT04995029|191734848|SUPERIORITY|The posterior possibility of retention rate difference (RI - SoC) greater than 0 was estimated to evaluate the superiority of RI over SoC induction|Bayesian beta-binomial model|11.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|19.03|||||Posterior probability that RI treatment is superior to SoC treatment=99.90%|If the non-inferiority of rapid induction (RI) to standard of care (SoC) induction was declared, the posterior possibility of retention rate difference (RI - SoC) greater than 0 was estimated to evaluate the superiority of RI over SoC induction.||19.03|4.34|
95972935|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.00|-0.56|0.0468
95890410|NCT04995029|191734849|SUPERIORITY|A Wilcoxon rank sum test (Van Elteren 1960) stratified for randomisation factors was performed to compare the difference between the 2 treatment arms. The test result P-value was used inferentially, if the primary endpoint test was statistically significant.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73||||0.8836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|3.36|||Wilcoxon rank sum (Van Elteren)|Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by DB randomisation factor (Van Elteren, 1960).|Van Elteren Test Z-Score for Difference Between Arms (300 mg - 100 mg)=-0.1464|||3.36|-6.83|0.8836
95890411|NCT04995029|191734850|OTHER||CMH Difference|1.26||||0.6111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|6.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH weighted treatment difference and p-value based on the CMH randomization stratified analysis using the Sato (1989) variance equation.|CMH weighted treatment difference and p-value based on the CMH randomization stratified analysis using the Sato (1989) variance equation.|Opioid abstinence between Weeks 10 to 38 (inclusive) was derived as the participant's number of visits with negative assessments (defined as negative UDS and TLFB for opioid use) divided by 15. Under this derivation, any missed or skipped visits were counted as positive, in accordance with the composite Intercurrent Events Strategy. The opioid use derivation at a specific visit was the same as that used for the primary efficacy endpoint.||6.13|-3.61|0.6111
95890412|NCT04995029|191734851|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.99||||||Opioid abstinence between Weeks 10 to 38 (inclusive) was derived as his/her number of visits with negative assessments (defined as negative UDS and TLFB for opioid use) divided by 15. Under this derivation, any missed or skipped visits were counted as positive, in accordance with the composite intercurrent event strategy.||7.99|-6.00|
95890413|NCT04995029|191734852|OTHER||CMH Difference|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|10.43||This endpoint was summarized similar to the analysis for #4 above. The opioid abstinence percentage for an individual participant was derived as his/her number of visits with negative assessments divided by 5.|||CMH weighted treatment difference based on the CMH randomization stratified analysis using the Sato (1989) variance equation.|||10.43|-4.98|
95972936|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.07|-0.62|0.1224
95972937|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||-0.02|-0.75|0.0373
95972938|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.12|-0.67|0.1660
95972939|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.3246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.21|-0.63|0.3246
95890414|NCT04995029|191734853|OTHER||CMH Difference|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|7.78|||||CMH weighted treatment difference based on the CMH randomization stratified analysis using the Sato (1989) variance equation.|||7.78|-7.49|
95890415|NCT04995029|191734854|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|7.78||||||||7.78|-4.80|
95890416|NCT04995029|191734855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|4.09||||||||4.09|-5.38|
95890417|NCT04995029|191734856|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|6.25||||||||6.25|-9.00|
95890418|NCT04995029|191734862|OTHER||CMH Difference|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|10.65|||||CMH weighted treatment difference based on the CMH randomisation stratified analysis using the Sato (1989) variance equation.|||10.65|-7.56|
95972940|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.4879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.28|-0.58|0.4879
95972941|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.19|-0.69|0.2669
95972942|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.30|-0.56|0.5452
95972943|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.59|0.5469
95890419|NCT04995029|191734863|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.03|||||Estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model, with treatment arm as a single covariate, stratified by the randomisation strata. Note that the estimation is impacted by last observed visit for the OLTP (including out-of-window visits).|||1.03|0.65|
95890420|NCT00773292|191734875|OTHER|change from baseline||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95972944|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.7843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.54|0.7843
95972945|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.44|-0.50|0.9008
95890421|NCT01853046|191734876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.796|1.63||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of regorafenib calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.63|0.796|
95890422|NCT01853046|191734876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.684|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.397|1.18||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-2 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs.||1.18|0.397|
95890423|NCT01853046|191734876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-means|0.446|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|0.996||||||Point estimates (LS-means) and 2-sided exploratory 90% confidence intervals for AUC(0-tlast) of metabolites M-5 calculated by re-transformation of the logarithmic data from ANOVAs||0.996|0.200|
95890424|NCT05022784|191734901|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compares the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||<.0001
95890425|NCT05022784|191734902|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||<.0001
95890426|NCT05022784|191734903|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.37
95890427|NCT05022784|191734904|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.477
95972946|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.45|0.9064
95972947|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.39|-0.57|0.7205
95890428|NCT05022784|191734905|OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.644
95890429|NCT05022784|191734906|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.206
95890430|NCT05022784|191734907|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.052
95890431|NCT05022784|191734908|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.044
95890432|NCT05022784|191734909|OTHER|||||||0.525|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.525
95890433|NCT05022784|191734910|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.024
95890434|NCT05022784|191734911|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.016
95890435|NCT05022784|191734912|OTHER|||||||0.913|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.913
95890436|NCT05022784|191734913|OTHER|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.448
95890437|NCT05022784|191734914|OTHER|||||||0.515|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.515
95890438|NCT05022784|191734915|OTHER|||||||0.829|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.829
95890439|NCT05022784|191734916|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.471
95890440|NCT05022784|191734917|OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.915
95890441|NCT05022784|191734918|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.190
95890442|NCT05022784|191734919|OTHER|||||||0.928|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.928
95890443|NCT05022784|191734920|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.490
95890444|NCT05022784|191734921|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.667
95890445|NCT05022784|191734922|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.032
95890446|NCT05022784|191734923|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.721
95890447|NCT05022784|191734924|OTHER|||||||0.352|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.352
95890448|NCT05022784|191734925|OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Chi-squared hypothesis test, which tested if the count in each group was impacted by any confounding variable.||||0.136
95890449|NCT05022784|191734926|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.270
95890450|NCT05022784|191734927|OTHER|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.306
95890451|NCT05022784|191734928|OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.145
95890452|NCT05022784|191734929|OTHER|||||||0.109|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.109
95890453|NCT05022784|191734930|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.454
95890454|NCT05022784|191734931|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.960
95890455|NCT05022784|191734932|OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.265
95890456|NCT05022784|191734933|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.026
95890457|NCT05022784|191734934|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.016
95890458|NCT05022784|191734935|OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.937
95890459|NCT05022784|191734936|OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.948
95890460|NCT05022784|191734937|OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.574
95890461|NCT05022784|191734938|OTHER|||||||0.491|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.491
95890462|NCT05022784|191734939|OTHER|||||||0.432|||||||ANOVA|||The statistical method applied in this analysis is Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), which compared the mean value in each group and tests if they are significantly different via a fixed-effect regression model.||||0.432
95890463|NCT00708162|191734940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG group was at least 10% worse than the RAL group with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG group was less than 10% worse than the RAL group.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions and normal approximation.|The planned sample size of 700 HIV-1 infected participants, (350 in each group) was estimated to provide at least 85% power to establish noninferiority in the percentage of participants achieving and maintaining confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48. For sample size and power computation, it was assumed that both elvitegravir and raltegravir arms have a response rate of 0.74, that a noninferiority margin was 0.10, and that the significance level of the test was 1-sided 0.025 level.||8.2|-6.0|
95890464|NCT00708162|191734941|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the EVG arm was at least 10% worse than the RAL arm with respect to percentage of participants achieving and maintaining HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL through Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the EVG arm was less than 10% worse than the RAL arm.|Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.9|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.9|-4.6|
95890465|NCT00708162|191734942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|7.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.7|-6.0|
95890466|NCT00708162|191734943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|8.2|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||8.2|-6.4|
95890467|NCT00708162|191734944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||9.3|-5.0|
95890468|NCT00708162|191734945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.8|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||6.8|-7.9|
95890469|NCT00708162|191734950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.3|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||7.3|-6.9|
95890470|NCT00708162|191734951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.4|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.4|-10.2|
95890471|NCT00708162|191734952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||4.7|-8.6|
95890472|NCT00708162|191734953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|5.5|||||The difference in percentages and its 95% CI were based on stratum-adjusted HIV-1 RNA level and the class of second agent (NRTI or other classes) using MH proportions and normal approximation.|||5.5|-8.8|
95890473|NCT00708162|191734954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19|||||The difference in least squares means (LSM) and its 95% CI were obtained using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.19|-0.16|
95890474|NCT00708162|191734955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in log10 copies/mL|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.22|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||0.22|-0.12|
95890475|NCT00708162|191734956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|16.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||16|-33|
95890476|NCT00708162|191734957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in cells/mm^3|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|39.0|||||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were obtained using ANOVA adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA level and class of the second agent (NRTI or other classes).|||39|-25|
95890477|NCT06273124|191735030|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|97.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||97|94|<0.001
95890478|NCT06273124|191735031|SUPERIORITY||Kaplan-Meier 7 Day Survival Estimate|95.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|96.0|||Bootstrapping Kaplan-Meier estimates|||Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the 7-day survival rates and p-values for the survival probabilities being greater than 75% were calculated with a bootstrap to account for the correlated data from having each participant wear multiple infusion sets.||96|93|<0.001
95890479|NCT00597766|191735042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GroupXtime interaction|-0.17||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,92)=2.06, p=0.16|Linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 60mg group would have greater pain relief than the the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.16
95890480|NCT00597766|191735042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.04||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,90)=0.1, p=0.77|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||"Hypothesis that 40mg group would have greater pain reduction than the 20mg group.~The study was powered to detect the difference in pain between the 40mg and placebo at 4-wks. To detect effect size 0.75 with alpha of 0.05, beta of 0.20, 31 the difference between the 60mg and placebo groups (effect size \> 1.0),18 participants per group are needed. \*NOTE\* the design was changed from placebo-control due to ethical concerns arising from ethical concerns of placebo injection."||||0.77
95890481|NCT00597766|191735043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.7, p=0.2|Linear mixed model|first order antedpendent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
95890482|NCT00597766|191735043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|-0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=0.0, p=0.9|linear mixed model|1st order antedependence covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.9
95890483|NCT00597766|191735044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=1.6, p=0.2|linear mixed model|unstructured covariance structure||The study was not powered for secondary analyses. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.2
95890484|NCT00597766|191735044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Groupxtime interaction|1.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.0, p=0.3|linear mixed model|Unstructured covariance structure||Secondary outcomes were not powered for analysis. The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
95972948|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.31|-0.71|0.4334
95972949|NCT01049217|191919136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.8402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.35|-0.43|0.8402
95890485|NCT00597766|191735045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|0.4||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 60mg vs. 20mg: F (1,36)=0.06, p=0.8|linear mixed model|first order antedepentent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.8
95890486|NCT00597766|191735045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||group x time interaction|1.7||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparison 40mg vs. 20mg: F (1,35)=1.1, p=0.3|linear mixed model|first order antedependent covariance structure||This study was not powered for secondary outcomes.The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures with random intercept and subject effects. The dependent variable was treatment group and variables for week (continuous) and group interaction term was included in the model. The effect of treatment at discrete time points was analyzed using a linear mixed model with categorical time.||||0.3
95890487|NCT01528254|191735072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.45|<0.001
95890488|NCT01528254|191735073|OTHER||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.05|0.042
95890489|NCT01528254|191735074|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|-0.29|0.635
95890490|NCT01528254|191735075|OTHER||Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.05|0.530
95890491|NCT01528254|191735076|OTHER||Slope|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-0.35|0.381
95890492|NCT01528254|191735077|OTHER||Slope|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||0.38|-0.53|0.744
95890493|NCT01528254|191735077|OTHER||Slope|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-0.09|-0.91|0.017
95890494|NCT01528254|191735077|OTHER||Slope|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-0.17|-0.99|0.006
95890495|NCT01528254|191735078|OTHER||Slope|-5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 1||-0.79|-9.26|0.020
95890496|NCT01528254|191735078|OTHER||Slope|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of Period 2||-1.69|-8.46|0.003
95890497|NCT01528254|191735078|OTHER||Slope|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.61|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From Week 13 to end of study||-2.16|-8.61|0.001
95890498|NCT03557151|191735083|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Transdisciplinary Care is being compared to Usual Care using the Time 2 HbA1c (as baseline) and Time 5 HbA1c (as the outcome) controlling for race/ethnicity, gender, and age of the patient. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||0.60|-0.68|0.895
95890499|NCT03557151|191735084|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data, controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to examine the treatment effect. Missing data were not imputed.||6.88|-2.29|.33
95890500|NCT03557151|191735085|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TC is being compared to UC using baseline and 12 month data and controlling for patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Missing data are not imputed.||8.53|-.32|.07
95890501|NCT03557151|191735086|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12-month data. The interaction of condition (TC or UC) and time was used to examine the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||5.0|-9.77|.527
95890502|NCT03557151|191735087|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12 month data. The interaction of condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child sex, age, and race/ethnicity were used as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||2.35|-8.94|.253
95890503|NCT03557151|191735088|SUPERIORITY||Slope|9.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|17.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis included baseline and 12 month data. The condition by time interaction was used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were included as covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||17.08|2.31|0.01
95890504|NCT03557151|191735089|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|4.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis uses baseline and 12-month data. The interaction between condition and time is used to evaluate the treatment effect. Child age, sex, and race/ethnicity were covariates. Missing data were not imputed.||4.35|-3.62|.83
95890505|NCT00775645|191735132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||0.4|-2.2|0.17
95890506|NCT00775645|191735133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.7|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||2.7|-3|0.92
95890507|NCT00775645|191735134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear regression model adjusted for baseline score, taxane regiment, and age.||||3.3|-0.7|0.20
95890508|NCT00775645|191735135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||||0.46
95890509|NCT00056407|191735144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.6|30.3||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data given are for the overall assessment.|||30.3|15.6|<0.0001
95890510|NCT00056407|191735145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|23.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.5|30.0||The p value is given is for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given are for the overall assessment.|||30.0|15.5|<0.0001
95890511|NCT00056407|191735146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction|22.8|||<|0.0001||95.0|15.2|29.8||The p value is given for the overall assessment.|Mantel-Cox||Estimation data are given for the overall assessment.|||29.8|15.2|<0.0001
95890512|NCT00056407|191735169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in adjusted means|18.8|||<|0.001||95.0|17.3|20.4|||general linear model, t-test||The adjusted mean difference was calculated as the difference between the adjusted means (-6.1 and 12.7) for the placebo and Dutasteride arms, respectively.|||20.4|17.3|<0.001
95890513|NCT03761147|191735175|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95890514|NCT02335099|191735191|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|217.52|||Fisher Exact|||||217.52|0.27|0.32
95890515|NCT02335099|191735192|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|3.2|||Log Rank|||||3.20|0.23|0.82
95909205|NCT00781391|191776555|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.874|1.314||Two stratification factor covariates: 1) CHADS2 score 2) dose-adjustment factor. If upper limit of CI of HR was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was established for group.|Cox proportional hazards model|||The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.||1.314|.874|.0055
95909206|NCT00781391|191776556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.719|1.029|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.029|.719|<.0001
95909207|NCT00781391|191776556|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.955|1.336|||Cox proportional hazards model|||Non-inferiority or equivalence analysis; Non-inferiority analysis. The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.336|.955|.0074
95909208|NCT00781391|191776557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.634|0.989|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||.989|.634|<.0001
95909209|NCT00781391|191776557|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy endpoint, time to the first occurrence of stroke/SEE, was first compared concurrently between each of the 2 edoxaban groups and warfarin group using the mITT Analysis Set in the on-treatment period for non-inferiority. In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.878|1.32|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.32|.878|.0064
95909210|NCT00781391|191776558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.032|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.032|.720|<.0001
95909211|NCT00781391|191776558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"In order to control the study-wise type-I error rate of two-sided α=0.05 for non-inferiority, each of these 2 comparisons were performed at the statistical significance level of two-sided α=0.025, respectively.~If the upper limit of this CI of the hazard ratio was below 1.38, then non-inferiority to warfarin was considered established for the edoxaban treatment group."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.958|1.34|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The non-inferiority analysis included the mITT and PP analysis sets for both the on-treatment and overall study period, although mITT on-treatment was considered primary.||1.34|.958|.0084
95909212|NCT00781391|191776559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.709|1.068|||Log Rank|||The superiority analysis included the ITT analysis set||1.068|.709|.081
95909213|NCT00781391|191776560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.786|0.959|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.959|.786|.0053
95890516|NCT01729754|191735235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|59.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.9|65.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and confidence intervals (CIs) are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||65.9|52.9|<0.001
95890517|NCT01729754|191735235|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|61.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||61.8|48.3|<0.001
95890518|NCT01729754|191735236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.9|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||60.8|47.9|<0.001
95890519|NCT01729754|191735236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|56.5||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||56.5|43.2|<0.001
95890520|NCT01729754|191735239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|26.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||26.7|11.5|<0.001
95890521|NCT01729754|191735239|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|27.6||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||27.6|12.4|<0.001
95890522|NCT01729754|191735242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|24.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||31.7|16.2|<0.001
95890523|NCT01729754|191735242|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||27.3|11.7|<0.001
95890524|NCT01729754|191735245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|41.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||41.1|29.2|<0.001
95890525|NCT01729754|191735245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|43.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights|||43.4|31.1|<0.001
95890526|NCT01729754|191735245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|8.3|<0.001
95890527|NCT01729754|191735245|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||24.4|10.3|<0.001
95890528|NCT01729754|191735246|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.7||Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||34.7|19.1|<0.001
95890529|NCT01729754|191735246|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||32.6|17.0|<0.001
95890530|NCT01729754|191735249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.0|7.8|<0.001
95890531|NCT01729754|191735249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|16.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||16.6|8.5|<0.001
95890532|NCT01729754|191735249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||11.6|2.8|0.001
95890533|NCT01729754|191735249|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|12.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.3|3.3|<0.001
95890534|NCT01729754|191735250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.1|9.4|<0.001
95890535|NCT01729754|191735250|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||17.9|5.6|<0.001
95890536|NCT01729754|191735254|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.2|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.2|-9.3|<0.001
95890537|NCT01729754|191735254|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-8.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-7.3|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-7.3|-9.3|<0.001
95890538|NCT01729754|191735254|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.5|-2.1|0.002
95890539|NCT01729754|191735254|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-0.6|-2.2|0.001
95890540|NCT01729754|191735255|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
95890541|NCT01729754|191735255|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.5|||cLDA|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-1.5|-2.9|<0.001
95890542|NCT01729754|191735258|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|46.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||46.1|31.8|<0.001
95890543|NCT01729754|191735258|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|39.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||39.1|24.5|<0.001
95890544|NCT01729754|191735258|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|19.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||19.5|4.1|0.003
95972950|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.3098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.08|-0.25|0.3098
95972951|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.2429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.09|-0.37|0.2429
95972952|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.00|-0.54|0.0504
95972953|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.06|-0.58|0.1141
95972954|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 5: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.02|-0.66|0.0667
95890545|NCT01729754|191735258|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.8||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||12.5|-2.9|0.221
95890546|NCT01729754|191735259|OTHER||Difference in percentages|25.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||33.4|17.7|<0.001
95890547|NCT01729754|191735259|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|22.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.|Difference and CIs are calculated using Miettinen-Nurminen stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no) with sample size weights.|||22.9|6.9|<0.001
95890548|NCT00202644|191735275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-100.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.42|-21.49||||||||-21.49|-179.42|
95890549|NCT00202644|191735276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-113.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|-38.83||||||Month 3||-38.83|-187.40|
95972955|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 6: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.13|-0.61|0.2104
95972956|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 7: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.25|-0.53|0.4830
95890550|NCT00202644|191735276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of anagrelide could be concluded if lower limit of 95% Confidence Interval for the difference between treatment groups (Hydroxyurea - Anagrelide) was \> -100 x 10\^9/Liter.|Least Square Mean|-68.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.95|18.43||||||Month 36||18.43|-154.95|
95890551|NCT03274440|191735322|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction effect between condition and time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.577
95890552|NCT03274440|191735322|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=10.50; df=6, 10||Test for main effect of time (includes all three groups and all time points)||||<.001
95972957|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.5757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.29|-0.51|0.5757
95972958|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208||0.3231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 9: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.62|0.3231
95972959|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 10: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.20|-0.63|0.3143
95972960|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 11: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.54|0.6300
95972961|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.5752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.32|-0.57|0.5752
95972962|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 13: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.46|0.8905
95972963|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 14: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.45|-0.45|0.9991
95890553|NCT03274440|191735322|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in YBOCCS as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.72|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for main effect of condition (includes all three groups and all time points)||||.72
95890554|NCT03274440|191735323|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.577|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|||Test for interaction between condition and time||||.577
95890555|NCT03274440|191735323|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.|||||<|0.001|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=7.00, df=6,10||Test for main effect of time||||<.001
95890556|NCT03274440|191735323|OTHER|A random-effects linear mixed model evaluated changes in STAI-S as a function of condition (THC, CBD, placebo \[PBO\]), time point, and their interaction.||||||0.002|||||||Linear mixed effects regression|F=6.26, df=2, 10||Test for main effect of condition||||.002
95890557|NCT01291173|191735324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014||||0.8825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.175|-0.203|0.8825
95890558|NCT01291173|191735324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.258||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.446|-0.069|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.069|-0.446|0.0077
95890559|NCT01291173|191735324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.345||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.534|-0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.155|-0.534|0.0004
95890560|NCT01291173|191735325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4676
95890561|NCT01291173|191735325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0198
95890562|NCT01291173|191735325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0031
95890563|NCT01291173|191735326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3341
95890564|NCT01291173|191735326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0063
95890565|NCT01291173|191735326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
95890566|NCT01291173|191735327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0937
95890567|NCT01291173|191735327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0127
95890568|NCT01291173|191735327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0009
95890569|NCT01291173|191735330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0091
95890570|NCT01291173|191735330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
95890571|NCT01291173|191735330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95890572|NCT01291173|191735331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.60|-5.34|0.0142
95890573|NCT01291173|191735331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.25||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.88|-5.62|0.0075
95890574|NCT01291173|191735331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.56|-7.30|<0.0001
95890575|NCT01291173|191735332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.7538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.11|0.7538
95890576|NCT01291173|191735332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.44|-0.45|0.3062
95890577|NCT01291173|191735332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.7697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|-0.81|0.7697
95890578|NCT01291173|191735333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.35|-0.29|0.2046
95890579|NCT01291173|191735333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.3348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-0.42|0.3348
95890580|NCT01291173|191735333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.63|-0.00|0.0505
95890581|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0371
95890582|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.1380
95890583|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||||0.0459
95890584|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0278
95890585|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||0.0022
95890586|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Disinhibition||||<0.0001
95890587|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0149
95890588|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||0.0009
95890589|NCT01291173|191735334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hunger||||<0.0001
95890590|NCT01291173|191735335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-7.44|0.030
95890591|NCT01291173|191735335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.94|-8.95|0.002
95890592|NCT01291173|191735335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.92|-11.99|<0.001
95890593|NCT01291173|191735336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.65||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.34|-5.64|0.0824
95890594|NCT01291173|191735336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07||||0.1725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-5.05|0.1725
95890595|NCT01291173|191735336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-6.69|0.0148
95890596|NCT01291173|191735337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|3.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.38|-0.89|0.2504
95890597|NCT01291173|191735337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||3.21|-1.02|0.3090
95890598|NCT01291173|191735337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Physical Score||4.64|0.37|0.0216
95890599|NCT01291173|191735337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.90|-2.75|0.9587
95890600|NCT01291173|191735337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||3.45|-2.17|0.6530
95890601|NCT01291173|191735337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aggregate Mental Score||2.86|-2.79|0.9814
95890602|NCT01074450|191735340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.23|108.1|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.1|94.23|
95890603|NCT01074450|191735341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.74|109.92|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.92|99.74|
95890604|NCT01074450|191735342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.05|109.52|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.52|99.05|
95890605|NCT02024867|191735343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size of 120 per group was calculated according to an assumed treatment cure rate of 95% with 10 days of antibiotics, and a non-inferiority margin of 7% (allowing up to 88% cure rate with 3 days of antibiotics), to achieve a power of 0.80 (alpha=0.05). An additional 25 patients were recruited to account for an estimated 10% lost to follow-up.|Rate Difference|4.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.5|||Chi-squared|||||9.5|-1.5|0.25
95890606|NCT02024867|191735344|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|19.2|||Chi-squared|||||19.2|2.1|0.02
95890607|NCT02024867|191735345|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|18.2|||Chi-squared|||||18.2|2.1|0.03
95890608|NCT02024867|191735346|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|0.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.0|||Chi-squared|||||7.0|-6.9|>0.05
95890609|NCT02024867|191735347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|Rate Difference|10.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|19.9|||Chi-squared|||||19.9|0.8|0.046
95890610|NCT02024867|191735348|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|described previously|rate difference|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95890611|NCT01086540|191735359|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|The null hypothesis was that the mean change in 6MWD between baseline and Week 24 does not differ between rituximab and placebo. A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 24.||||0.12
95890612|NCT01086540|191735360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with PVR as the outcome and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
95890613|NCT01086540|191735361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 48 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.28
95890614|NCT01086540|191735361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 24 value. P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 24.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit to model the distance walked as a function of treatment, visit week, a treatment by visit week interaction, and a quadratic visit term. A random slope and intercept were fit for each participant using a separate unstructured covariance matrix for each treatment group. The model included all available data up to Week 48.||||0.031
95890615|NCT01086540|191735362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to clinical worsening were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.92
95890616|NCT01086540|191735363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to change or addition of PAH medications were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.36
95890617|NCT01086540|191735364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the mental component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.81
95890618|NCT01086540|191735365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with the physical component score as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.30
95890619|NCT01086540|191735366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.58|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with HAQ-DI as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.58
95890620|NCT01086540|191735367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||A Poisson model was used to describe the rate of new digital ulcers (per week) as the outcome with treatment, number of digital ulcers at Baseline, and if the measurement was affected by changed or new PAH therapeutic agents as covariates.||||0.47
95890621|NCT01086540|191735368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with severity of Raynaud's (0 to 100) as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.43
95890622|NCT01086540|191735369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate is for the difference (Rituximab - Placebo) at Week 48.|A repeated measures random effect model was fit with DLCO as the outcome, and treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.65
95890623|NCT01086540|191735371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures mixed model was fit with percent change in PVR as the outcome and baseline PVR, treatment, visit week (actual observed week), and their interaction as predictors. Random intercepts and slopes were fit for each participant using an unstructured covariance structure for each treatment group.||||0.42
95890624|NCT01086540|191735376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.17
95890625|NCT01086540|191735377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||P-values not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier curves for time to all-cause mortality were compared using a log-rank test.||||0.35
95890626|NCT04008030|191735378|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.81||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0095.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.81|0.48|0.0003
95890627|NCT04008030|191735379|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.32||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.0209.|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by the same factors as used in the Cox proportional hazard model.|From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.32|0.14|<0.0001
95890628|NCT04008030|191735381|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
95890629|NCT04008030|191735382|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.46|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.46|0.23|
95890630|NCT04008030|191735384|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||||95.0|0.45|0.8|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.80|0.45|
95890631|NCT04008030|191735385|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.48|0.83|||||from a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, ≥ 2) per IRT.|||0.83|0.48|
95890632|NCT04008030|191735386|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
95890633|NCT04008030|191735387|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2||||||95.0|0.12|0.31|||||From a stratified Cox proportional hazard model by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) as entered into the IRT.|||0.31|0.12|
95890634|NCT04008030|191735388|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||||95.0|0.52|0.79|||||from a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.79|0.52|
95890635|NCT04008030|191735389|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||||95.0|0.48|0.8|||||Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.80|0.48|
95890636|NCT04008030|191735391|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.5||Boundary for statistical significance p-value \< 0.006|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value from stratified CMH Test.|||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT|2.50|1.26|0.0011
95890637|NCT04008030|191735392|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm C|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||||95.0|3.91|12.62|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||12.62|3.91|
95890638|NCT04008030|191735392|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||||95.0|1.06|2.63|||||Stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right)|||2.63|1.06|
95890639|NCT04008030|191735393|SUPERIORITY|Arm B over Arm A|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||From a Cox Model stratified by tumor sidedness (left vs. right) and prior lines of therapy (0, 1, \>= 2) as entered into the IRT.|||0.83|0.45|
95890640|NCT05167734|191735482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|values greater than 0 infer higher hemoglobin in active intervention|||1.2|0.1|0.02
95890641|NCT05167734|191735483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|adjusted mean difference|3-months post hospitalization||1.1|0.0|0.04
95890642|NCT05167734|191735483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|linear mixed effects model adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission||Hospital Discharge||0.7|-0.3|0.42
95890643|NCT05167734|191735484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.352|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.352
95890644|NCT05167734|191735485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||threshold for significance - p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95890645|NCT05167734|191735486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital Discharge||2.40|0.44|0.94
95890646|NCT05167734|191735486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||4.20|0.76|0.18
95890647|NCT05167734|191735486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.0|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||3.00|0.51|0.64
95890648|NCT05167734|191735487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|Hospital discharge||4.80|0.68|0.23
95890649|NCT05167734|191735487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|6.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||6.80|0.87|0.09
95890650|NCT05167734|191735487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.52||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.2|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||7.20|0.88|0.084
95890651|NCT05167734|191735488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|218.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, and baseline ADLs|scores greater than 0 reflect greater ambulatory distance in active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||510|-73|0.13
95890652|NCT05167734|191735488|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|178.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|510.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, surgical vs. non-surgical admission, baseline ADLs||3-months post hospitalization||510|-154|0.27
95890653|NCT05167734|191735489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.8|||proportional odds|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||7.80|0.79|0.12
95890654|NCT05167734|191735489|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|10.5|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||10.5|0.91|0.07
95890655|NCT05167734|191735490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.8|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for anxiety score||1.80|0.14|0.29
95890656|NCT05167734|191735490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for anxiety score||2.60|0.18|0.57
95890657|NCT05167734|191735490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.3|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization for depression score||1.30|0.10|0.12
95890658|NCT05167734|191735490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.4|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization for depression score||2.40|0.16|0.48
95890659|NCT05167734|191735491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|5.6|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|1-month post hospitalization||5.60|0.39|0.56
95890660|NCT05167734|191735491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.16||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|59.9|||proportional odds|proportional odds models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||59.9|1.40|0.02
95890661|NCT05167734|191735492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.16||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds of higher value/score associated with active intervention|||1.40|0.02|0.09
95890662|NCT05167734|191735494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||1.80|0.30|0.48
95890663|NCT05167734|191735495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|24.0|||Regression, Logistic|logistic models adjusting for baseline hemoglobin, age, sex, and surgical vs. non-surgical admission|Estimates are odds ratios and correspond to the multiplicative increase in odds for the given event associated with intervention associated with active intervention|3-months post hospitalization||24.0|0.19|0.54
95890664|NCT03336853|191735504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|0.66|<.0001
95972964|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 15: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.48|0.8927
95972965|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.42|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.42|-0.54|0.8067
95890665|NCT04339296|191735505|EQUIVALENCE|An independent sample t-test was performed between intervention and control group to determine if the difference of the mean medication adherence is equal to zero (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Net)|7.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Medication Adherence Difference = Intervention Adherence - Control Adherence|||||<0.01
95890666|NCT04339296|191735506|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for intervention participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical test was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (intervention participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||<0.01
95890667|NCT04339296|191735506|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis assumes that the true mean difference for control participants self-reported medication adherence scores (from baseline to 6-month) is equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical tests was set at 95% confidence level.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference (control participants self-reported score) = baseline minus 6-month.|||||0.07
95890668|NCT00840294|191735522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95890669|NCT04600414|191735555|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||0.38|0.03|<0.001
95890670|NCT04600414|191735556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|2.57|||Multi-level model to account for cluster|||||2.57|-4.97|0.532
95972966|NCT01049217|191919137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.40|-0.35|0.9009
95972967|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.64|0.0948
95890671|NCT01340898|191735578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.9|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup A one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.9|
95890672|NCT01340898|191735578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup C one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants.||100|98.3|
95890673|NCT01340898|191735578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|99.9|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup W-135 one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||99.9|97.8|
95890674|NCT01340898|191735578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of subjects|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.3|100.0|||||Immunogenicity was considered demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided exact 95% confidence interval (CI) for the percentage of subjects with rSBA titre ≥ 1:8 was greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 80%.|Demonstration of the immunogenicity of the Nimenrix™ conjugate vaccine in terms of bactericidal antibodies to N. meningitidis serogroup Y one-month post-dose 3 of Nimenrix™ vaccine at 7 months of age in healthy infants||100|98.3|
95890675|NCT00416078|191735640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|||||F test of time X group effect F(1,3)=.26|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat||||.65
95890676|NCT00416078|191735641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(30)=.67|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.51
95890677|NCT00416078|191735642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||t test of differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.27|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.79
95890678|NCT00416078|191735643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.70|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.49
95890679|NCT00416078|191735644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||t test for differential change over time in the two groups t(29)=.43|Mixed Models Analysis|||intent to treat analysis||||.67
95890680|NCT00416078|191735645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.64
95890681|NCT00969150|191735648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.49||||0.2492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.05|-4.02|0.2492
95890682|NCT00969150|191735649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.54||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||1.29|-2.38|0.5625
95890683|NCT04501666|191735672|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.4|50.8||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||50.8|29.4|< 0.0001
95890684|NCT04501666|191735673|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|14.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|22.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||22.6|6.7|0.0025
95890685|NCT04501666|191735675|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|40.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||40.4|23.0|< 0.0001
95890686|NCT04501666|191735676|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.3|38.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.7|22.3|< 0.0001
95890687|NCT04501666|191735677|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|48.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.2|27.8|< 0.0001
95890688|NCT04501666|191735678|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|30.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||30.7|14.7|< 0.0001
95890689|NCT04501666|191735679|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted percentage difference|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|25.0||A 2-sided p-value was derived from CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.0|12.3|< 0.0001
95890690|NCT01698801|191735698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall dichotomized response rate|87.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.269|100.0||One sample binomial test for the overall response rate was performed to provide p-value (significance level: 0.05) based on EE population. The hypotheses of interest are: H0: p = 0.3, H1: p ≠ 0.3, where p is overall response.|Binomial test for dichotomized response|||||100|74.269|<0.0001
95890691|NCT01190254|191735794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-4.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-9.9|0.070
95890692|NCT01190254|191735794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.6||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|-0.5||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing two asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-10.7|0.064
95890693|NCT01190254|191735794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Linear dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.064
95890694|NCT01190254|191735794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Convex dose-response pattern (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.046
95890695|NCT01190254|191735794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.273||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for Concave dose-response pattern (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg)|MMRM|||Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 56 in PANSS Total Score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model was used to evaluate 3 pre-defined dose-response patterns (Linear, Convex, Concave)||||0.273
95890696|NCT01190254|191735795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-0.5|0.218
95890697|NCT01190254|191735795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.024||95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Confirmative testing for the key secondary endpoint was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were superior to placebo in change from baseline in PANSS total score at Day 56 (hypotheses associated with Primary outcome measure). If this did not occur, no confirmative testing could be performed and multiplicity unadjusted p-values are provided. Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.0|-0.6|0.024
95972968|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.4167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.23|-0.57|0.4167
95972969|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.8179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.39|0.8179
95972970|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.6913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.50|-0.33|0.6913
95972971|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PSI: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.41|-0.39|0.9475
95972972|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.7412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.33|-0.47|0.7412
95972973|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.43|-0.41|0.9715
95972974|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.48|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 12, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.48|-0.38|0.8163
95972975|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204||0.3682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.22|0.3682
95972976|NCT01049217|191919138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.199||0.3511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, PII: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.58|-0.21|0.3511
95972977|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9686
95972978|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Squeezing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.4476
95972979|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.3|-0.6|0.5630
95972980|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Electric Shocks: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9937
95890698|NCT01190254|191735796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-3.3|0.067
95890699|NCT01190254|191735796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.5|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.5|-3.8|0.012
95890700|NCT01190254|191735797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.097
95890701|NCT01190254|191735797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.099
95890702|NCT01190254|191735798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-5.6|0.062
95890703|NCT01190254|191735798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.4|-6.0|0.025
95890704|NCT01190254|191735799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.4|-4.6|0.098
95890705|NCT01190254|191735799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-4.8|0.071
95890706|NCT01190254|191735800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-3.1|0.106
95890707|NCT01190254|191735800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-3.6|0.026
95890708|NCT01190254|191735801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-2.6|0.083
95890709|NCT01190254|191735801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.7|0.067
95890710|NCT01190254|191735802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.131
95890711|NCT01190254|191735802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-2.1|0.135
95890712|NCT01190254|191735803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.1|-2.0|0.071
95890713|NCT01190254|191735803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.9|0.120
95890714|NCT01190254|191735804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.3|-1.2|0.263
95972981|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Stabbing: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8718
95890715|NCT01190254|191735804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.2|-1.3|0.146
95890716|NCT01190254|191735805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.6|1.1|0.028
95890717|NCT01190254|191735805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline PANSS Total Score|OR was adjusted for baseline and (pooled) site. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total PANSS 30% response|||3.3|1.0|0.048
95890718|NCT01190254|191735806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.576||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (PANSS 30% response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.576
95890719|NCT01190254|191735806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||2.0|0.9|0.171
95890720|NCT01190254|191735806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site, treatment and baseline PANSS Total Score|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a Total PANSS 30% Responder than placebo|||1.8|0.8|0.368
95890721|NCT01190254|191735807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||0.0|-0.6|0.094
95890722|NCT01190254|191735807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, and the interaction of visit by treatment|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||-0.2|-0.8|0.003
95890723|NCT01190254|191735808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.8|0.8|0.177
95890724|NCT01190254|191735808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of region (Asia-Pacific, North America, Eastern Europe \[Africa/Latin America sites assigned to this region\]) and treatment|OR was adjusted for region. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving CGI-I response|||2.9|0.9|0.114
95890725|NCT01190254|191735809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||p-value is for Log Rank test of difference in time to event (CGI-I response) curves between the three treatment groups|Log Rank|||||||0.057
95890726|NCT01190254|191735809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.3|0.9|0.135
95890727|NCT01190254|191735809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.9|||Regression, Cox|Model included factors for (pooled) site and treatment|An HR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher likelihood of being a CGI-I Responder than placebo|||2.9|1.2|0.010
95890728|NCT01190254|191735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.8|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||4.8|-2.0|0.417
95890729|NCT01190254|191735810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.6|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 100, asenapine 2.5 mg - 96, asenapine - 104)||7.6|0.8|0.017
95890730|NCT01190254|191735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.8|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||2.8|-1.6|0.600
95890731|NCT01190254|191735811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.1||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.3|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.3|-0.1|0.064
95890732|NCT01190254|191735812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.33|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.33|-0.13|0.407
95890733|NCT01190254|191735812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.42|-0.04|0.111
95890734|NCT00861146|191735818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|df = 1||||||<.01
95890735|NCT00861146|191735819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||mixed model regression analyses (F)|2.04|||>|0.15|||||||mixed model regression analyses|||Drinking outcomes assessed using the timeline follow-back were evaluated with mixed model regression analyses using maximum likelihood estimation. Time was measured in three monthly periods and treated as a repeated factor (due to the fixed time period between estimates).||||> .15
95890736|NCT00861146|191735820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||<.001
95890737|NCT00605813|191735889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was renal dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without renal dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||0.003
95890738|NCT00605813|191735890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was past medical history of other illness. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without past medical history of other illness in the participants of responders."||||<0.001
95890739|NCT00605813|191735891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was non-pharmaceutical therapies. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with or without non-pharmaceutical therapies in the participants of responders."||||0.040
95890740|NCT00605813|191735892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||not adjusted, p=0.050|Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between present or past history of intentional suicidal ideation (including suicide attempt) in the participants of responders."||||0.004
95890741|NCT01163279|191735898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95890742|NCT01163279|191735898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||||||Statistical analysis applies to post intervention satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95890743|NCT01163279|191735898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up performance category|Chi-squared|||||||0.54
95972982|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Light Touching: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.4|-0.5|0.8241
95890744|NCT01163279|191735898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3-month follow up satisfaction category|Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95890745|NCT01163279|191735899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890746|NCT01163279|191735900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95890747|NCT01163279|191735901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95890748|NCT01163279|191735902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890749|NCT01163279|191735903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
95890750|NCT01163279|191735903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890751|NCT01163279|191735904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890752|NCT01163279|191735904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95890753|NCT01163279|191735905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.1
95890754|NCT01163279|191735905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890755|NCT01163279|191735906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890756|NCT01163279|191735907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95890757|NCT01163279|191735907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to 3 months post intervention category|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95890758|NCT01163279|191735908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Statistical analysis applies to immediately post intervention and 3 months post intervention categories|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95890759|NCT01245270|191735909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||"For the incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed.~Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95890760|NCT01245270|191735910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028||95.0||||For incremental area under the curve (AUCi), only the extent of interpolated values above baseline contributed. Values obtained following the control and extract capsules were compared by paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95890761|NCT03227029|191735950|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.0|80.0|||||Proportions of study participants were calculated and presented with 90% exact confidence intervals. This highlights that we are 95% sure that the true proportion is not higher that the upper limit of the confidence interval.|||80|46|
95890762|NCT03227029|191735950|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|84.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.0|94.0||||||||94|67|
95972983|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressure of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.2|-0.7|0.3164
95890763|NCT03227029|191735950|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.0|82.0||||||||82|32|
95890764|NCT03227029|191735951|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.0|54.0||||||||54|20|
95890765|NCT03227029|191735951|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with usolicited AEs|52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.0|69.0||||||||69|34|
95890766|NCT03227029|191735951|OTHER||% placebo recipients with usolicited AEs|42.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.0|68.0||||||||68|18|
95890767|NCT03227029|191735953|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.0|97.0||||||||97|72|
95890768|NCT03227029|191735953|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|100.0||||||||100|82|
95890769|NCT03227029|191735953|OTHER||% recipients infected with vaccine virus|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
95890770|NCT03227029|191735956|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
95890771|NCT03227029|191735956|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
95890772|NCT03227029|191735956|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV-PRNT|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
95890773|NCT03227029|191735956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95890774|NCT03227029|191735956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95890775|NCT03227029|191735957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95890776|NCT03227029|191735957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95890777|NCT03227029|191735958|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.0|76.0||||||||76|42|
95890778|NCT03227029|191735958|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.0|98.0||||||||98|76|
95890779|NCT03227029|191735958|OTHER||% with >=4 fold rise in RSV F protein|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|22.0||||||||22|0|
95890780|NCT03227029|191735958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95890781|NCT03227029|191735958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that proportions of greater than or equal to 4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95890782|NCT03227029|191735959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95890783|NCT03227029|191735959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Due to unequal sample sizes, a 1-sided Wilcoxon test was used to test the hypothesis that antibody levels at Day 56 were higher in the vaccinated than in the placebo group. Statistical significance level was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95890784|NCT04788953|191735986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects tobit regression model (censored normal). Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||The statistical null hypothesis was that solriamfetol does not improve change in MWT scores versus placebo after 4 weeks of treatment (H0: µsol - µpl ≤ 0). Study was designed to have 97% power to detect a difference of 5.7 minutes or greater on MWT sleep latency (α=0.05, assumed σ=7.2) with 100 participants. Blinded interim power analysis on the baseline data conducted in October 2023 indicated the trial would have \>99% power to detect a similar difference with only 74 participants.||||<0.001
95890785|NCT04788953|191735987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol, Placebo), visit (Baseline, End-of-Treatment), trial (1-4) main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
95890786|NCT04788953|191735988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||"Chi-squared tests performed on dichotomized CGI-Change data (Improved \[very much improved, much improved, minimally improved\] vs. Not Improved \[no change, minimally worse, much worse, very much worse\])."|Chi-squared|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.01
95890787|NCT04788953|191735990|SUPERIORITY|Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.02
95890788|NCT04788953|191735991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.64
95890789|NCT04788953|191735992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.04
95890790|NCT04788953|191735993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.61
95890791|NCT04788953|191735994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and Condition (Baseline vs. Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||0.57
95890792|NCT04788953|191735995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Change from baseline using mixed-effects linear regression model. Group (Solriamfetol vs. Placebo) and visit (Baseline vs. End-of-Treatment) as main factors and their interactions. Covariates considered: age, sex, ethnicity, race.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is difference between groups.||||||<0.001
95890793|NCT00469092|191735996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI is less than 0.4%. Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%. Equivalence is shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0.4% and the lower limit of the 95% CI is greater than -0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.029||95.0|-0.3|-0.02||P-value is for the test for difference in means equals 0 against the alternative that the difference is different from 0.|Regression, Linear|||HbA1c was compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model (ANCOVA) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate. Mean and SE are estimated from the model.||-0.02|-0.30|0.029
95890794|NCT00469092|191735997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059||95.0||||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups i.e. time by treatment group interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The profiles were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a repeated measures mixed model including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction and country as fixed effects, and subject as random effect.||||0.0059
95890795|NCT00469092|191735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||||95.0|0.57|1.47|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \<= 6.5% treatment target.|||1.47|0.57|
95890796|NCT00469092|191735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||||95.0|0.67|1.54|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7.0% treatment target.|||1.54|0.67|
95890797|NCT00469092|191735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.131||||||95.0|0.72|1.77|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the reduction more than 1.0% from baseline treatment target.|||1.77|0.72|
95890798|NCT00469092|191735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.905||||||95.0|0.59|1.38|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7% no nocturnal (00:00-06:00) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.38|0.59|
95890799|NCT00469092|191735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.181||||||95.0|0.74|1.87|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no daytime (06:01-23:59) hypoglycemia treatment target|||1.87|0.74|
95890800|NCT00469092|191735998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.122||||||95.0|0.69|1.82|||||The OR and 95% CI is for the HbA1c \< 7%, no hypoglycemia treatment target.|||1.82|0.69|
95890801|NCT00469092|191735999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||||95.0|-2.4|2.48|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the burden score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.48|-2.40|
95890802|NCT00469092|191735999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||||95.0|-3.56|3.11|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the efficacy score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||3.11|-3.56|
95890803|NCT00469092|191735999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||||95.0|-3.14|2.35|||||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the symptoms score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|The Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores. The scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.35|-3.14|
95890804|NCT00469092|191735999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||||95.0|-2.36|2.14|||Regression, Linear||The mean difference and 95% CI is for the overall score. The scores were compared between the treatment groups by fitting a linear regression model with treatment and country as factors and the baseline values as a continuous covariate.|Diab MedSat measure was scored as an overall score as well as three subscale scores, and transformed to a 0-100 scale with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. The score of the subscales was computed as the mean of the items in each subscale. The overall score is the mean of all three subscales.||2.14|-2.36|
95972984|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Cold of Area: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.8996
95890805|NCT02278263|191736035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 412 mL, to detect a difference of 300 mL of blood loss between the two treatment arms (sTXA and tTXA) and the placebo group, a sample size of 125 participants is required for a statistical power of 0.85, and a type I error of 0.05. The sample size required was 125 participants in total. The was increased by 15% to allow for expected dropouts. Therefore, a minimum of 147 patients was required for the study.||||<0.05
95890806|NCT02574247|191736074|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -9 dB SNR||||0.34
95890807|NCT02574247|191736074|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM at -6 dB SNR||||0.64
95890808|NCT02574247|191736074|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -6 dB SNR||||0.24
95890809|NCT02574247|191736074|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row IEEE at -3 dB SNR||||0.20
95890810|NCT02574247|191736077|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for the row CRM slope||||0.03
95972985|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pins and Needles: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9676
95972986|NCT01049217|191919139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.9091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Tingling: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.5|-0.5|0.9091
95890811|NCT02574247|191736077|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Spearman partial rank correlation|Age and high-frequency pure-tone average controlled for.||Statistical analysis for row IEEE slope||||0.04
95890812|NCT04035161|191736115|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.16||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.16|-0.15|
95972987|NCT01049217|191919140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Duration of Spontaneous Pain: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7300
95890813|NCT04035161|191736115|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.05||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||-0.05|-0.43|
95890814|NCT04035161|191736115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|1.97||||||"Abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||1.97|1.66|
95890815|NCT04035161|191736115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|2.56||||||"Groin at 10 minutes post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the groin at 10 minutes post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.56|2.19|
95972988|NCT01049217|191919140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0559|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Number of Pain Attacks: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.0559
95972989|NCT01049217|191919141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Burning Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.05|0.9686
95972990|NCT01049217|191919141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.4711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Pressing Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.06|0.4711
95972991|NCT01049217|191919141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.9215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Paroxysmal Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.05|-0.04|0.9215
95890816|NCT04035161|191736118|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority criterion with a 0.5 log10 margin will be implemented for the average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control (i.e., the upper two-sided 95% confidence bound of the post-product application bacterial load corrected for pre-product application bacterial load of the Investigational Product - Active Control should be less than 0.5 log10).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.23||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Active Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||0.23|-0.08|
95890817|NCT04035161|191736118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.15||||||"Abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application.~Average treatment effect (ATE) of the Investigational Product compared to the Negative Control on the abdomen at 30 seconds post-product application. ATE was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate."||2.15|1.84|
95890818|NCT04702997|191736119|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Net)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.268|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.24||KDIGO strata, treatment group, time (Week 1 to 12), and the interaction between treatment and time were used as fixed factors.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is bardoxolone methyl - placebo|||10.24|5.18|<0.0001
95890819|NCT01103284|191736148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: age, C-peptide, insulin dose by body weight and AUC||||||0.33
95890820|NCT01103284|191736149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC.||||||0.68
95890821|NCT01103284|191736150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The MMRM model was adjusted for the following covariates: age, Baseline C-peptide, Baseline insulin dose adjusted for body weight, and Baseline AUC||||||0.44
95890822|NCT01103284|191736152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.79||Standard multiple imputation was used to predict the number and timing of hypoglycemic events after discontinuing the study for subjects who did not remain in the study until Month 25.|negative binomial regression|||The number of hypoglycemia events during the study was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model, with number of events as the dependent variable, and treatment, age, baseline daily insulin dose, and baseline C-peptide as covariates. The log of duration in the study for each patient was used as an offset variable in the model.||0.79|-0.02|0.07
95972992|NCT01049217|191919141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Evoked Pain: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.05|0.6042
95972993|NCT01049217|191919141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.9394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, P/D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.04|-0.05|0.9394
95972994|NCT01049217|191919141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.7801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Total Score: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.03|-0.04|0.7801
95972995|NCT01049217|191919142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.6012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint TST: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.6012
95972996|NCT01049217|191919142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0534|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Endpoint MIS: ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0534
95890823|NCT04318080|191736159|SUPERIORITY|Analysis tested whether ORR with tislelizumab was superior to a historical ORR of 45% using a one-sided binomial exact test (α = 0.05).|Z-test|2.62||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|||||One-sided p-value based on a binomial exact test comparing observed ORR to historical rate of 45%.|Binomial Exact Test|||The primary analysis was conducted on both cohorts combined, A binomial exact test was performed to test the null hypothesis (H0: ORR = 45% based on previous clinical trials) and alternative hypothesis (ORR \>45%). If the one-sided p-value was ≤ 0.05, tislelizumab was considered to statistically significantly increase ORR compared to the historical control.||||0.0044
95972997|NCT01049217|191919143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0966
95972998|NCT01049217|191919144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0611|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.0611
95972999|NCT01049217|191919145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8436.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6855.2||0.2195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.||||0.2195
95973000|NCT01049217|191919146|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and D-drug ART, pooled site value, baseline value as covariates.|LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.8241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8241
95973001|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|3.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.66|-4.42|0.8528
95973002|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.179||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|9.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||9.14|-3.37|0.3650
95890824|NCT01536379|191736169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.5|40.7||||||||40.7|-109.5|
95890825|NCT01536379|191736190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|204.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|550.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||550.00|90.00|
95890826|NCT01536379|191736190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-169.84|25.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||25.00|-169.84|
95890827|NCT01536379|191736191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1232.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25735.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50457.0|52921.8|||||Week 24 comparison|||52921.8|-50457.0|
95890828|NCT01536379|191736191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13128.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24165.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61868.9|35612.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||35612.2|-61868.9|
95890829|NCT01536379|191736192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3|3.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.7|-31.3|
95890830|NCT01536379|191736192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|22.2|||||Week 52 comparison|||22.2|-8.6|
95890831|NCT01536379|191736193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2791.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4651.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12105.0|6524.0|||||Week 24 comparison|||6524|-12105|
95890832|NCT01536379|191736193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-458.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4501.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9487.0|8572.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||8572|-9487|
95890833|NCT01536379|191736194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.156|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.01|||||Week 24 comparison|||1.01|-3.59|
95890834|NCT01536379|191736194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.82|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.82|-1.24|
95890835|NCT01536379|191736195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30326.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34677.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100559.1|39905.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||39905.3|-100559.1|
95890836|NCT01536379|191736195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46955.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32594.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113218.9|19308.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||19308.3|-113218.9|
95890837|NCT01536379|191736196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.2|||||Week 24 comparison|||4.2|-10.1|
95890838|NCT01536379|191736196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|6.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||6.3|-7.2|
95890839|NCT01536379|191736197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|648.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12618.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24661.1|25957.7|||||Week 24 comparison|||25957.7|-24661.1|
95890840|NCT01536379|191736197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5618.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12153.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29994.8|18757.0|||||Week 52 comparison|||18757.0|-29994.8|
95890841|NCT01536379|191736198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.5|||||Week 24 comparison|||3.5|-3.2|
95890842|NCT01536379|191736198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.3|||||Week 52 comparison|||2.3|-3.5|
95890843|NCT01536379|191736199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|0.98|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.98|-4.07|
95890844|NCT01536379|191736199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|1.67|||||Week 52 comparison|||1.67|-3.68|
95890845|NCT01536379|191736200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.067|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|0.505|||||Week 24 comparison|||0.505|-0.638|
95890846|NCT01536379|191736200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportion|-0.267|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.305|||||Week 52 comparison|||0.305|-0.838|
95890847|NCT01536379|191736201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.9|100.3|||||Week 24 comparison|||100.3|-105.9|
95890848|NCT01536379|191736201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|81.4|||||Week 52 comparison|||81.4|-107.1|
95890849|NCT01536379|191736202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.56|5.71|||||Week 24 comparison|||5.71|-31.56|
95890850|NCT01536379|191736202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.315|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.11|13.72|||||Week 52 comparison|||13.72|-19.11|
95890851|NCT01536379|191736203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|3.96||||||||3.96|-4.84|
95890852|NCT04916600|191736208|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|22.0||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|Chi-squared||Treatment difference = Active device \>=24 hour group - remainder of participants (Active \<24 hr, Sham \>=24 hr, and Sham \<24 hr groups)|||||.043
95890853|NCT04916600|191736209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=101||||||.032
95890854|NCT01304966|191736216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.013
95890855|NCT00527943|191736233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.01|0.85|0.072
95890856|NCT00527943|191736234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.81|0.018
95890857|NCT00527943|191736235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.57|1.18|<0.001
95890858|NCT00527943|191736236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.54|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.54|1.29|<0.001
95890859|NCT00527943|191736237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.00|0.84|0.038
95890860|NCT00527943|191736238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.99|0.81|0.027
95890861|NCT00527943|191736239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.03|0.87|0.174
95890862|NCT00527943|191736240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.02|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.02|0.86|0.108
95890863|NCT00527943|191736241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.22|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.22|0.83|0.963
95890864|NCT00527943|191736242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||0.98|0.79|0.021
95890865|NCT00527943|191736243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.58|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.58|0.83|0.418
95890866|NCT00527943|191736244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.31|0.88|0.493
95890867|NCT00527943|191736245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.90|0.515
95890868|NCT00527943|191736246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.23|||Cox Proportional Hazards Regression|Hazard Ratio calculated with covariates for treatment and stratification factors|Hazard ratio calculated by dividing the Kaplan-Meier (KM) Estimate for vorapaxar by the KM Estimate for Placebo and correcting for covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 would indicate a lower hazard associated with vorapaxar relative to placebo.|||1.23|0.70|0.606
95890869|NCT02612428|191736247|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|1.64|||Log Rank|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the Intent-to-treat (ITT) population utilizing a log-rank test.||1.640|0.509|0.762
95890870|NCT02612428|191736248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6829
95890871|NCT02612428|191736249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.048
95890872|NCT00137423|191736255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|28.3||||||95.0|16.8|42.3|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||42.3|16.8|
95890873|NCT00137423|191736255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate|11.5||||||95.0|4.4|23.4|||F distribution|||Objective response rate required a sample size of 100 to test null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% versus alternative hypothesis that true response rate was \>=15% with 90% power and alpha level of 0.05. If number of OR\> =11 null hypothesis that true response rate was \<=5% could be rejected with a target α error rate of 0.05.||23.4|4.4|
95890874|NCT00137423|191736259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|77.4||||||95.0|63.6|86.5|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||86.5|63.6|
95890875|NCT00137423|191736259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1-year survival rate|66.0||||||95.0|51.6|77.1|||Kaplan-Meier method||valid presentation only if at least 1 patient has overall survival \>=1 year. Based on normal approximation, 95% CI will be derived by log transformation of the cumulative hazard rate.|||77.1|51.6|
95890876|NCT01928329|191736263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.03|-0.50|0.0816
95890877|NCT01928329|191736264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||The \<0.05 is the apriori threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|HbA1c Linear Mixed Model Results (adjusts the model for: baseline BMI, gender, study site, race (White/Non White) and Baseline C-Peptide production).||||0.25|-0.28|0.912
95890878|NCT01928329|191736265|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-0.801||||0.423|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.423
95890879|NCT01928329|191736266|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-1.312||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.189
95890880|NCT02073279|191736330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.89|||Log Rank|||Stratified by prior therapy (B-cell depleting therapy or immunosuppressants/others) and most recent attack (first attack or relapse).||0.89|0.23|0.0184
95890881|NCT02073279|191736331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.178||0.4436||95.0|-5.086|11.515|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: treatment group as fixed effect and baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||11.515|-5.086|0.4436
95890882|NCT02073279|191736332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.567||0.1824||95.0|-1.008|5.221|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment group as fixed effect. Baseline measurements, prior therapy, most recent attack (first attack/relapse) as covariates.||||5.221|-1.008|0.1824
95890883|NCT00391274|191736464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.1326||95.0|0.76|8.25||Logistic regression of best overall tumor response (complete response + partial response).|Regression, Logistic|Treatment was the only covariate.||||8.25|0.76|0.1326
95973003|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525||0.7237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, SOB: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.86|-4.07|0.7237
95973004|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Quantity: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.15|-0.50|0.2783
95890884|NCT00391274|191736465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7704||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7704
95890885|NCT00391274|191736465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7784||95.0|0.75|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.46|0.75|0.7784
95890886|NCT00391274|191736468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.4921||95.0|0.78|1.68||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 24 months)|Regression, Cox|Treatment was the only covariate.||||1.68|0.78|0.4921
95890887|NCT00391274|191736468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4||P-value for Overall Survival (up to 30 months)|Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.74|0.9256
95890888|NCT00399360|191736470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95890889|NCT00399360|191736471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
95890890|NCT00399360|191736472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95890891|NCT00399360|191736473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95890892|NCT00399360|191736474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.85
95890893|NCT00399360|191736475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95890894|NCT00399360|191736476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95890895|NCT00399360|191736477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
95890896|NCT00399360|191736478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95890897|NCT00399360|191736479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95890898|NCT03143569|191736480|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.45
95890899|NCT03143569|191736481|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95890900|NCT03143569|191736482|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95890901|NCT03143569|191736483|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95890902|NCT03143569|191736484|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.018
95973005|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.2475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|8.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||8.16|-2.11|0.2475
95973006|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.933||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.96|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.96|-2.64|0.5492
95890903|NCT02738151|191736658|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Toujeo vs Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Toujeo vs. Tresiba|A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates.||0.051|-0.152|<.0001
95890904|NCT02738151|191736658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|0.051|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority of Toujeo over Tresiba was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24 between Toujeo over Tresiba on ITT population was \<0 (zero).||0.051|-0.152|0.3302
95890905|NCT03649711|191736680|OTHER|Post treatment values were compared using ANCOVA||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95890906|NCT03649711|191736680|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||mean changes in values were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test adjusted for multiple comparisons (Bonferonni method) between CKD-ticagrelor arm, and the non-CKD controls||||0.18
95890907|NCT03649711|191736681|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||CKD groups randomized were compared for post treatment values.||||0.22
95890908|NCT04350788|191736692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for patient.||||0.02
95890909|NCT04350788|191736692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed program satisfaction between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner). The following result is for partner.||||0.25
95890910|NCT04350788|191736693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in general domain.||||0.36
95890911|NCT04350788|191736693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in content domain.||||0.38
95890912|NCT04350788|191736693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in navigation domain.||||0.02
95890913|NCT04350788|191736693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in general domain.||||0.62
95890914|NCT04350788|191736693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in content domain.||||0.65
95890915|NCT04350788|191736693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in navigation domain.||||0.45
95890916|NCT04350788|191736694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
95890917|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in urinary domain.||||0.01
95890918|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in bowel domain.||||0.41
95890919|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in sexual domain.||||0.21
95890920|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for patient in hormonal domain.||||0.52
95890921|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in urinary domain.||||0.79
95890922|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in bowel domain.||||0.84
95890923|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in sexual domain.||||0.82
95890924|NCT04350788|191736695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||We analyzed this measure between SCP and ESCP by role (patient vs partner) and by domain. The following result is for partner in hormonal domain.||||0.33
95890925|NCT04350788|191736696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
95890926|NCT04350788|191736696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
95890927|NCT04350788|191736697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||generalized linear regression|||||||0.05
95890928|NCT04350788|191736698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95890929|NCT04350788|191736699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.29
95890930|NCT04350788|191736700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95890931|NCT04350788|191736701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95890932|NCT04350788|191736702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95890933|NCT04350788|191736703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.55
95890934|NCT02472795|191736725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.56|0.39
95890935|NCT02472795|191736725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.09|||ANCOVA|||||0.09|-0.91|0.02
95890936|NCT02472795|191736725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.95|0.004
95890937|NCT02472795|191736725|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.75|0.06
95890938|NCT02472795|191736727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|0.123|||ANCOVA|||||0.123|-0.413|0.2837
95890939|NCT02472795|191736727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.234|||ANCOVA|||||-0.234|-0.797|0.0006
95890940|NCT02472795|191736727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.825|-0.305|||ANCOVA|||||-0.305|-0.825|0.0001
95890941|NCT02472795|191736727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.173|-0.586|||ANCOVA|||||-0.586|-1.173|<0.0001
95890942|NCT02472795|191736729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.626||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.513|6.085|||ANCOVA|||||6.085|-32.513|0.1755
95890943|NCT02472795|191736729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.096||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.552|-19.069|||ANCOVA|||||-19.069|-59.552|0.0003
95890944|NCT02472795|191736729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.329|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.981|-28.574|||ANCOVA|||||-28.574|-65.981|<0.0001
95890945|NCT02472795|191736729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.541|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.585|-35.32|||ANCOVA|||||-35.320|-77.585|<0.0001
95890946|NCT00353262|191736730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.02||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.02|0.79|
95890947|NCT00353262|191736730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.99||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.99|0.76|
95890948|NCT00353262|191736730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.1||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.10|0.85|
95890949|NCT00353262|191736731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.08||||||Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|1.01|
95890950|NCT00353262|191736731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.05||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 2||1.05|0.98|
95890951|NCT00353262|191736731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0||||||Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.94|
95890952|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.24||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.24|0.83|
95890953|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.42||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 2, Day 1||1.42|0.94|
95890954|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.44||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 to Cycle 1, Day 1||1.44|0.96|
95890955|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.69|
95890956|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.34||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.34|0.86|
95890957|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.55||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.55|1.00|
95890958|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.01||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.01|0.66|
95890959|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|0.97||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.97|0.64|
95890960|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.19||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.19|0.78|
95890961|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.91|
95890962|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.04||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.04|0.90|
95890963|NCT00353262|191736732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.07||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.93|
95890964|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.9||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.90|0.61|
95890965|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.79||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.79|0.53|
95890966|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.06||||||5'-DFUR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.06|0.71|
95890967|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.08||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.08|0.63|
95890968|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.34||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.34|0.78|
95890969|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1||||||Capecitabine: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.10|0.65|
95890970|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.18||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.18|0.65|
95890971|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.3||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.30|0.71|
95890972|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.49||||||5'-DFCR: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.49|0.81|
95890973|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|0.98||||||5-FU: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.98|0.56|
95890974|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.76||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.76|0.44|
95890975|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.03||||||5-FU: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.03|0.59|
95890976|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
95890977|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.91||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 1||0.91|0.76|
95890978|NCT00353262|191736734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.0||||||FBAL: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.00|0.83|
95890979|NCT00353262|191736736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.33|1.09|
95890980|NCT00353262|191736736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.48||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.48|1.21|
95890981|NCT00353262|191736736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.23||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.23|1.01|
95890982|NCT00353262|191736738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.96|
95890983|NCT00353262|191736738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.08||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.95|
95890984|NCT00353262|191736738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.05||||||Total Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.05|0.93|
95890985|NCT00353262|191736738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.09||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 2, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.09|0.94|
95890986|NCT00353262|191736738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.08||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 1, Day 2||1.08|0.92|
95890987|NCT00353262|191736738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.07||||||Free Platinum: Cycle 3, Day 1 versus Cycle 2, Day 1||1.07|0.91|
95890988|NCT02603809|191736822|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
95890989|NCT02603809|191736822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.548||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.49|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||2.49|-5.10|0.8117
95890990|NCT02603809|191736822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.532||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|-1.17|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.17|-8.68|0.0053
95890991|NCT02603809|191736822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.554|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.19|-10.80|<.0001
95890992|NCT02603809|191736822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.549||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.75|-1.15|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.15|-8.75|0.0057
95890993|NCT02603809|191736823|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrasts Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran-rprojects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
95890994|NCT02603809|191736823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.7071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|3.54|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||3.54|-8.44|0.7071
95890995|NCT02603809|191736823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.98|-1.12|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.12|-12.98|0.0138
95890996|NCT02603809|191736823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.457||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.92|-3.88|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-3.88|-15.92|0.0003
95890997|NCT02603809|191736823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0077||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|-1.59|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-1.59|-13.58|0.0077
95890998|NCT02603809|191736829|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling|||"Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modeling (MCP-Mod) was used to assess a dose-response across placebo and all aprocitentan doses. The null hypothesis of no dose-response was rejected if at least one of the six Multiple Contrast Tests (MCTs) had a multiplicity adjusted p-value \<0.05. The analysis was performed using the R-package DoseFinding (Bornkamp B, Pinheiro J, Bretz F. Planning and analyzing dose finding experiments. 2016. Available from: cran.r-projects.org/web/packages/DoseFinding.)"||||<0.001
95890999|NCT02603809|191736829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.401||0.5356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|1.69|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||1.69|-5.19|0.5356
95891000|NCT02603809|191736829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.25|-2.4|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.40|-9.25|0.0001
95891001|NCT02603809|191736829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.04|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-4.04|-10.96|<.0001
95891002|NCT02603809|191736829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|-2.19|||ANCOVA|with Dunnett correction.||||-2.19|-9.11|0.0003
95891003|NCT00380978|191736843|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Group sample sizes of 800 in each group achieve 80% power to detect equivalence when the margin of equivalence extends from 0.1 to 0.25||1.20|0.90|0.65
95891004|NCT00380978|191736844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||Chi-squared|||There rate of instrumented vaginal delivery will be equal in both groups.||1.20|0.80|0.63
95891005|NCT00380978|191736845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.047
95891006|NCT00380978|191736846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95891007|NCT00380978|191736847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-3|-4|<0.005
95891008|NCT00380978|191736848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
95891009|NCT00380978|191736849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95891010|NCT00380978|191736850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.005
95891011|NCT03232281|191736861|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was confirmed.|Rate difference (%)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.58|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||2.58|-4.41|
95891012|NCT03232281|191736862|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
95891013|NCT03232281|191736862|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.16|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.16|-6.80|
95973007|NCT01049217|191919147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.614||0.9113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Sleep Problems Index: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.36|-3.00|0.9113
95973008|NCT01049217|191919148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7399|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Endpoint: Overall p-value was derived from CMH test adjusted for pooled site and D-drug ART use using modified ridit scores.||||0.7399
95973009|NCT01049217|191919149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.8258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-A: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||0.84|-0.67|0.8258
95973010|NCT01049217|191919149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.372||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, HADS-D: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.38|-0.09|0.0840
95891014|NCT03232281|191736863|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|1.93|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 4. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.93|-5.26|
95973011|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.393||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|5.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.92|-3.49|0.6114
95973012|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.522||0.8209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-P: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||5.53|-4.39|0.8209
95973013|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.335||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.67|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, BP: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.67|-4.52|0.9737
95973014|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.6966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.57|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, GH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||4.57|-3.05|0.6966
95973015|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.807||0.8569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Ph C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.73|-1.44|0.8569
95891015|NCT03232281|191736863|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.93|-0.52|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 8. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||-0.52|-8.93|
95891016|NCT03232281|191736863|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference was \>-10%, triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month non-inferiority to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month was observed without multiplicity adjustment.|Rate difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|1.17|||||The rate difference (triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month - triptorelin acetate PR 1-month) and the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by randomisation stratification factors.|Rate difference at Week 12. The null hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month. The alternative hypothesis was that triptorelin pamoate PR 3-month was non-inferior to triptorelin acetate PR 1-month.||1.17|-7.44|
95891017|NCT01277523|191736882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.22||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.220|0.002|0.0457
95891018|NCT01277523|191736882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.198||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.019|0.1039
95891019|NCT01277523|191736883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.231||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.231|-0.000|0.0509
95891020|NCT01277523|191736883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.061|0.168||Stepwise testing of the null hypothesis was used to test the efficacy of Tio R5 and then Tio R2.5, each over placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.168|-0.061|0.3605
95891021|NCT01277523|191736884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.1264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.207|-0.026|0.1264
95891022|NCT01277523|191736884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.2845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.179|-0.053|0.2845
95891023|NCT01277523|191736885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.217|0.009|0.0338
95891024|NCT01277523|191736885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.191|-0.017|0.0999
95891025|NCT01277523|191736886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.198|-0.024|0.1252
95891026|NCT01277523|191736886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.163|-0.058|0.3549
95891027|NCT01277523|191736887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.292|-0.055|0.1819
95891028|NCT01277523|191736887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.5448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.226|-0.119|0.5448
95891029|NCT01277523|191736889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.219|-0.102|0.4762
95891030|NCT01277523|191736889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.196|-0.123|0.6558
95891031|NCT01277523|191736891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.300|-0.301|0.9960
95891032|NCT01277523|191736891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|-0.355|0.7030
95891033|NCT01277523|191736892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.153|-0.217|0.7309
95891034|NCT01277523|191736892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.133|-0.232|0.5954
95891035|NCT01277523|191736893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.252|-0.074|0.2841
95891036|NCT01277523|191736893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|-0.140|0.7950
95891037|NCT01277523|191736894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|16.95|||Regression, Cox|||||16.95|0.07|0.9671
95891038|NCT01277523|191736894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.06||||0.5557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.7|||Regression, Cox|||||22.70|0.19|0.5557
95891039|NCT01277523|191736895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.41|0.3567
95891040|NCT01277523|191736895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.32|0.1168
95891041|NCT00914810|191736898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-0.8|0.55
95891042|NCT00914810|191736899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|13.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.6|7.4|<0.0001
95891043|NCT02432846|191736900|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.978||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.371|2.579|||Log Rank|||||2.579|0.371|0.964
95891044|NCT02432846|191736900|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.619||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.222|||Log Rank|||||1.222|0.314|0.163
95891045|NCT02432846|191736900|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.270|0.421|0.250
95891046|NCT02432846|191736901|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.134|||Log Rank|||||2.134|0.268|0.596
95891047|NCT02432846|191736901|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|1.418|||Log Rank|||||1.418|0.308|0.285
95891048|NCT02432846|191736901|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.699||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.29|||Log Rank|||||1.290|0.378|0.240
95891049|NCT02432846|191736902|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.812
95891050|NCT02432846|191736903|OTHER|Exploratory superiority (non-powered)|||||=|0.861|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.861
95891051|NCT01514760|191736934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||This a comparison for participants with uncontrolled asthma at baseline and change in scores over time.||||0.03
95891052|NCT02707991|191736997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.036|ONE_SIDED|||||one-sided test|z-test for difference in proportions|||||||0.036
95891053|NCT03329690|191736999|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test with region as a stratification factor||||||<0.0001
95891054|NCT04105998|191737023|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.64
95891055|NCT04105998|191737024|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.19
95891056|NCT04105998|191737025|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.067
95891057|NCT04105998|191737026|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.25
95891058|NCT04105998|191737027|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.058
95891059|NCT04105998|191737028|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||||0.111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Exploratory analysis without power calculation||||0.111
95891060|NCT01857232|191737044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
95891061|NCT01857232|191737044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0987
95891062|NCT01857232|191737044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1041|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1041
95891063|NCT01857232|191737045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.0235
95891064|NCT01857232|191737045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1651
95891065|NCT01857232|191737045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1332|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|1-sided||||||0.1332
95891066|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.8096|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0866|26.5327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from the model.||26.5327|15.0866|<0.0001
95891067|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4625|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7321|30.1929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1929|18.7321|<0.0001
95891068|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5792||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3385|5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.1800|-6.3385|0.8428
95891069|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9993||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7832|3.7845|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.7845|-7.7832|0.4957
95891070|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9683||||0.7431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8567|6.7932|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.7932|-4.8567|0.7431
95891071|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.3889|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1044|-15.6734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.6734|-27.1044|<0.0001
95891072|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5584|-17.0596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.0596|-28.5584|<0.0001
95891073|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.8414|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6435|-14.0393|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.0393|-25.6435|<0.0001
95891074|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0418|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6705|-19.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.4130|-30.6705|<0.0001
95891075|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4618|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1455|-20.7782|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.7782|-32.1455|<0.0001
95891076|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.4943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.244|-17.7445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.7445|-29.2440|<0.0001
95891077|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4538||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5274|3.6198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.6198|-6.5274|0.5720
95973016|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.847||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Vit: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.31|-4.96|0.4734
95973017|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.159||0.3625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, So Fn: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||2.28|-6.22|0.3625
95973018|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.543||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|7.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, R-E: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||7.79|-2.21|0.2736
95891078|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9938||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0695|-3.918|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.9180|-14.0695|0.0006
95973019|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.811||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, MnH: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||3.15|-3.98|0.8199
95973020|NCT01049217|191919150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Endpoint, Mn C: ANCOVA model was used with terms of treatment, pooled site, D-drug ART use and baseline score.||1.98|-1.82|0.9361
95891079|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8686||||0.4704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2342|6.9713|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9713|-3.2342|0.4704
95891080|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0725||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0533|7.1984|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1984|-3.0533|0.4255
95891081|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3425||||0.8959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5053|4.8204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.8204|-5.5053|0.8959
95891082|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3224||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7402|8.385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.3850|-1.7402|0.1967
95973021|NCT04617275|191919183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.23|19.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||19.85|-15.23|0.5863
95973022|NCT04617275|191919183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.41||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.75|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-34.75|0.0494
95973023|NCT04617275|191919183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.85||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.09|-13.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.61|-48.09|0.0019
95973024|NCT04617275|191919183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.0|-16.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-16.32|-51.00|0.0009
95973025|NCT04617275|191919183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.12|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-37.12|0.0343
95891083|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5264||||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5676|8.6203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.6203|-1.5676|0.1733
95891084|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1113||||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0285|6.2512|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2512|-4.0285|0.6697
95891085|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8623|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8712|15.8535|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.8535|5.8712|<0.0001
95891086|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0281|16.1045|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1045|6.0281|<0.0001
95891087|NCT00975481|191737095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6513||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5552|13.7474|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7474|3.5552|0.0010
95891088|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6388|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5727|22.7049|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||22.7049|10.5727|<0.0001
95891089|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.8432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7627|25.9238|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.9238|13.7627|<0.0001
95891090|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6121||||0.6029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7209|4.4967|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4967|-7.7209|0.6029
95891091|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9241||||0.3477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0571|3.2089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.2089|-9.0571|0.3477
95909214|NCT00781391|191776561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|0.972|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.972|.806|.0109
95909215|NCT00781391|191776562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|0.981|||Log Rank|||the time to first event was estimated by a KM estimate and was compared between the edoxaban 60 mg group and the warfarin group using a log-rank test at a pairwise comparison significance level of α=0.01.||.981|.823|.0168
95909216|NCT00781391|191776563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|0.914|||Regression, Cox|||All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period||.914|.707|.0009
95909217|NCT00781391|191776563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.548|||Regression, Cox|||"All Major Adjudicated Bleeding Events, Safety Analysis Set On-treatment period.~The HR, two-sided CI, and p-value for pairwise comparisons versus Warfarin are based on the Cox regression model with counting process approach for on-treatment including treatment and the two stratification factors as covariates: the dichotomized CHADS2 score and the dichotomized dose-adjustment factor"||.548|.406|<.0001
95909218|NCT00781391|191776563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.918|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, high dose vs. warfarin||.918|.800|<.0001
95909219|NCT00781391|191776563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.666|||Regression, Cox|||Major or Clinically Relevant Non-Major, low dose vs. warfarin||.666|.575|<.0001
95891092|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0908||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.085|6.2667|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2667|-6.0850|0.9769
95891093|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3155|-12.1864|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-12.1864|-24.3155|<0.0001
95891094|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6616|-13.4642|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.4642|-25.6616|<0.0001
95891095|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7036|-10.3923|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.3923|-22.7036|<0.0001
95891096|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4554|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4199|-15.4908|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.4908|-27.4199|<0.0001
95973026|NCT04617275|191919184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33||||0.3804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.41|14.76||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||14.76|-21.41|0.3804
95973027|NCT04617275|191919184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.65||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.44|-1.87||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.87|-37.44|0.0348
95973028|NCT04617275|191919184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.8||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.54|-15.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-15.05|-50.54|0.0014
95973029|NCT04617275|191919184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.85||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.9|-17.81||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.81|-53.90|0.0007
95973030|NCT04617275|191919184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.6|-10.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-10.37|-46.60|0.0052
95973031|NCT04617275|191919185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.97|-4.18||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.18|-46.97|0.0250
95973032|NCT04617275|191919185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.95||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-53.95|-11.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-11.95|-53.95|0.0053
95973033|NCT04617275|191919185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.07||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-61.41|-18.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-18.73|-61.41|0.0012
95973034|NCT04617275|191919185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.85|-24.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-24.10|-66.85|0.0003
95973035|NCT04617275|191919185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.63||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.19|-12.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.08|-55.19|0.0055
95973036|NCT04617275|191919186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.79||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.12|-7.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-7.47|-48.12|0.0127
95973037|NCT04617275|191919186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.67||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.51|-5.83||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-5.83|-45.51|0.0171
95973038|NCT04617275|191919186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.94||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.16|-26.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-26.72|-67.16|0.0001
95973039|NCT04617275|191919186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.79||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-54.32|-13.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-13.27|-54.32|0.0037
95973040|NCT04617275|191919186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.13||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.85|-21.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-21.40|-62.85|0.0005
95973041|NCT04617275|191919187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.85||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.9|9.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||9.21|-34.90|0.1678
95973042|NCT04617275|191919187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.82||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.85|6.21||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||6.21|-35.85|0.1223
95973043|NCT04617275|191919187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.97||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-55.66|-12.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-12.28|-55.66|0.0054
95973044|NCT04617275|191919187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.5398|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.38|22.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||22.99|-20.38|0.5398
95973045|NCT04617275|191919187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42||||0.1409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.56|7.72||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||7.72|-36.56|0.1409
95891097|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.7673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7925|-16.7422||Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.7422|-28.7925|<0.0001
95891098|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7524|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8485|-13.6563|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-13.6563|-25.8485|<0.0001
95891099|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0888||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3225|18.8551|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.8551|5.3225|0.0006
95891100|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0768||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3132|16.8403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.8403|3.3132|0.0038
95891101|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1875||||0.2257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.989|2.6139|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6139|-10.9890|0.2257
95891102|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8589||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6927|5.975|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9750|-7.6927|0.8042
95891103|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6335||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5177|5.2506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2506|-8.5177|0.6399
95891104|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2763|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0228|-9.5229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.5229|-23.0228|<0.0001
95891105|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9477||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7374|-6.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.1580|-19.7374|0.0002
95891106|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7223||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.572|-6.8727|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.8727|-20.5720|0.0001
95891107|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.2643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9226|-7.606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.6060|-20.9226|<0.0001
95973046|NCT04617275|191919188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.65||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.31|-4.99||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.99|-52.31|0.0236
95973047|NCT04617275|191919188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.32||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.67|-4.97||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-4.97|-49.67|0.0226
95973048|NCT04617275|191919188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.85||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-64.11|-17.59||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-17.59|-64.11|0.0022
95891108|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9356||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6548|-4.2165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.2165|-17.6548|0.0016
95891109|NCT00975481|191737096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7103||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5055|-4.9151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.9151|-18.5055|0.0008
95891110|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.009|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7265|34.2916|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.2916|13.7265|<0.0001
95891111|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.116|39.7151|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||39.7151|19.1160|<0.0001
95891112|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3979||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7479|3.9521|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.9521|-16.7479|0.2239
95891113|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1396||||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5328|6.2526|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.2526|-14.5328|0.4326
95891114|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7283||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.195|8.7383|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7383|-12.1950|0.7447
95891115|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.4069|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6795|-20.1343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1343|-40.6795|<0.0001
95909220|NCT03923959|191776564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5597|1.834|||Regression, Logistic||||A two-sample proportion test was also completed; the test utilized an α \< 0.049 to account for the O'Brien-Fleming adjustment. The p-value for the two-sample proportion test was 0.966.|1.834|0.5597|0.966
95891116|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.1487|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4812|-17.8161|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8161|-38.4812|<0.0001
95891117|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7374|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.1651|-15.3096|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.3096|-36.1651|<0.0001
95891118|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.8134|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9257|-25.7012|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-25.7012|-45.9257|<0.0001
95891119|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.5552|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7675|-23.3429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-23.3429|-43.7675|<0.0001
95891120|NCT00975481|191737097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1439|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4754|-20.8124|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.8124|-41.4754|<0.0001
95891121|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.8779|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5658|30.1899|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.1899|19.5658|<0.0001
95891122|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.9857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.667|31.3043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||31.3043|20.6670|<0.0001
95891123|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0544||||0.4489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2911|7.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.3998|-3.2911|0.4489
95891124|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5743||||0.8329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7941|5.9427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9427|-4.7941|0.8329
95891125|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6863||||0.5387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7203|7.0929|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.0929|-3.7203|0.5387
95891126|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1283|-17.5187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.5187|-28.1283|<0.0001
95891127|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.64|-18.9672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9672|-29.6400|<0.0001
95891128|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.1916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5768|-17.8064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.8064|-28.5768|<0.0001
95891129|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1559|-18.7066|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.7066|-29.1559|<0.0001
95891130|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6869|-20.1358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1358|-30.6869|<0.0001
95891131|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6361|-18.9626|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-18.9626|-29.6361|<0.0001
95891132|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4301||||0.5349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9725|3.1123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.1123|-5.9725|0.5349
95891133|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1367||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6684|-4.605|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.6050|-13.6684|0.0001
95909221|NCT03923959|191776565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.183
95909222|NCT03923959|191776566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.729
95891134|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3357||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2244|5.8958|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.8958|-3.2244|0.5637
95891135|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4065||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1779|4.9909|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.9909|-4.1779|0.8612
95891136|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9175||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7022|5.5373|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.5373|-3.7022|0.6954
95891137|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7658||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7552|7.2868|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.2868|-1.7552|0.2287
95891138|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8366||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7158|6.389|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.3890|-2.7158|0.4267
95891139|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3476||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2429|6.9381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.9381|-2.2429|0.3140
95891140|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9992|14.9456|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.9456|5.9992|<0.0001
95891141|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.032|14.0544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.0544|5.0320|<0.0001
95909223|NCT03923959|191776567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.655
95909224|NCT03923959|191776568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7832||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was the standard α = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7832
95909225|NCT04575051|191776569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference in the adjusted means for the Consult model and HearCARE model.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve satisfaction with social participation.||1.96|-1.10|0.58
95909226|NCT04575051|191776570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimated parameter represents the difference between the adjusted means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|The null hypothesis is that the HearCARE intervention does not improve hearing related quality of life.||1.10|-1.13|0.95
95909227|NCT04575051|191776571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Value represents the difference in the means for the Consult and HearCARE models.|||1.14|-1.20|0.96
95909228|NCT04575051|191776572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Estimated Value is the difference between the means of the Consult and HearCARE models.|||0.48|-0.07|0.13
95909229|NCT00765388|191776574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.96
95909230|NCT00765388|191776576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference in the multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.92
95909231|NCT00765388|191776578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||0.0|||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.40
95891142|NCT00975481|191737098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.494|14.6144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||14.6144|5.4940|<0.0001
95891143|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4728|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4718|19.4737|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.4737|9.4718|<0.0001
95891144|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7131|24.7437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||24.7437|14.7131|<0.0001
95891145|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2088||||0.9348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8289|5.2466|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.2466|-4.8289|0.9348
95891146|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7271||||0.5009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7841|3.3299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3299|-6.7841|0.5009
95891147|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3325||||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4245|4.7595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.7595|-5.4245|0.8975
95909232|NCT00765388|191776579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.64
95973049|NCT04617275|191919188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.2335|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.59|13.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||13.08|-33.59|0.2335
95973050|NCT04617275|191919188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.38||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.69|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-48.69|0.0494
95973051|NCT04617275|191919189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.13||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.13|-0.31|0.2485
95973052|NCT04617275|191919189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.04||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.04|-0.48|0.0252
95973053|NCT04617275|191919189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-0.56|0.0053
95973054|NCT04617275|191919189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-0.54|0.0090
95973055|NCT04617275|191919189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.39|0.05||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.05|-0.39|0.1066
95973056|NCT04617275|191919190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-0.40|0.2740
95973057|NCT04617275|191919190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.08||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.08|-0.66|0.0196
95973058|NCT04617275|191919190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.30|-0.88|0.0006
95973059|NCT04617275|191919190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|-0.23||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.23|-0.82|0.0019
95973060|NCT04617275|191919190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.06||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.06|-0.66|0.0243
95973061|NCT04617275|191919191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.1587|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.62|0.15||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.15|-0.62|0.1587
95973062|NCT04617275|191919191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|-0.27||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.27|-1.04|0.0027
95973063|NCT04617275|191919191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.24|0.0002
95973064|NCT04617275|191919191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.32||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.32|-1.10|0.0016
95973065|NCT04617275|191919191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|-0.28||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.28|-1.07|0.0027
95891148|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.266|-9.2619|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.2619|-19.2660|<0.0001
95891149|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2294|-11.1704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-11.1704|-21.2294|<0.0001
95891150|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8053|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8822|-9.7283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.7283|-19.8822|<0.0001
95891151|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4361|-14.603|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.6030|-24.4361|<0.0001
95891152|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4555|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.423|-16.488|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.4880|-26.4230|<0.0001
95891153|NCT00975481|191737099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0609|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0872|-15.0345|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.0345|-25.0872|<0.0001
95891154|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1634|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9014|4.4254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.4254|1.9014|<0.0001
95891155|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6706|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4066|5.9346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.9346|3.4066|<0.0001
95891156|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478||||0.8184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1217|1.4173|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4173|-1.1217|0.8184
95909233|NCT00765388|191776580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.55
95909234|NCT00765388|191776581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model. The null hypothesis tested is that there is no difference inthe multinomial distributions defined by products||||||0.48
95909235|NCT01163097|191776590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence of the treatments was assessed using the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio for Ki67. The lower bound of the CI needed to be greater than 0.70 and the upper bound needed to be below 1.43 for the treatments to be considered equivalent.|Geometric mean ratio|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.759|0.982|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to estimate the treatment effect and the Schuirmann's two one-sided test was used to test for statistical equivalence.||H0: mean ratio\<0.7 or mean ratio\>1.43; H1: 0.7\< mean ratio \<1.43 Sample size calculation assumed change in Ki67 expression following palifermin administration would not be affected by co-administration of heparin. With n=26 (13 + 13), an approx. 80% probability that the 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means of Ki67 for palifermin when co-administered with heparin compared to palifermin alone would fall in the interval (0.7, 1.43). This assumed a Coefficient of Variation (CV) for Ki67 of 31%.||0.982|0.759|
95909236|NCT01163097|191776592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.885|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 20% increase (or 17% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of amylase would be 14% (as observed in other study)||0.885|0.614|
95891157|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2211||||0.7324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|1.4963|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.4963|-1.0540|0.7324
95891158|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0946||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1898|1.3791|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3791|-1.1898|0.8844
95891159|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2754|-1.7558|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7558|-4.2754|<0.0001
95891160|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9423|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2101|-1.6745|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.6745|-4.2101|<0.0001
95891161|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3484|-1.7891|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.7891|-4.3484|<0.0001
95891162|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7651|-3.2805|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2805|-5.7651|<0.0001
95891163|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7031|-3.1959|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1959|-5.7031|<0.0001
95891164|NCT00975481|191737100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8438|-3.3081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.3081|-5.8438|<0.0001
95891165|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0453|58.1142|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||58.1142|34.0453|<0.0001
95891166|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.8771|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.8247|61.9295|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.9295|37.8247|<0.0001
95891167|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5797||||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6918|11.5325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.5325|-12.6918|0.9248
95891168|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3632||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5264|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.8000|-15.5264|0.5857
95973066|NCT04617275|191919192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.01||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.01|-0.86|0.0472
95973067|NCT04617275|191919192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.45|-1.29|0.0004
95891169|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4225||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.827|16.6719|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.6719|-7.8270|0.4768
95891170|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.6594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.6804|-34.6385|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.6385|-58.6804|<0.0001
95891171|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.443|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5346|-37.3514|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.3514|-61.5346|<0.0001
95973068|NCT04617275|191919192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.68|-1.53|<0.0001
95973069|NCT04617275|191919192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|-0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.50|-1.36|0.0003
95973070|NCT04617275|191919192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-1.34|0.0004
95973071|NCT04617275|191919193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.19|-1.18|0.0116
95973072|NCT04617275|191919193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.43|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.43|0.0008
95973073|NCT04617275|191919193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|-0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.67|-1.66|<0.0001
95973074|NCT04617275|191919193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|-0.4||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.40|-1.40|0.0017
95973075|NCT04617275|191919193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.55||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.55|-1.55|0.0004
95973076|NCT04617275|191919194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|-0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.20|-1.32|0.0132
95973077|NCT04617275|191919194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|-0.46||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.46|-1.55|0.0014
95973078|NCT04617275|191919194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.80|0.0002
95973079|NCT04617275|191919194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.29|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.16|-1.29|0.0174
95973080|NCT04617275|191919194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.82|-0.69||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.69|-1.82|0.0002
95973081|NCT04617275|191919195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|0.5||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.50|-1.02|0.2843
95973082|NCT04617275|191919195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-0.84|0.4310
95973083|NCT04617275|191919195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|0.43||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.43|-1.07|0.2402
95973084|NCT04617275|191919195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|0.26||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.26|-1.24|0.1397
95973085|NCT04617275|191919195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.4393|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.71||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.71|-0.85|0.4393
95973086|NCT04617275|191919196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.45||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.45|-2.00|0.1491
95973087|NCT04617275|191919196|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.34||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.34|-1.09|0.5664
95973088|NCT04617275|191919196|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|0.09||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.09|-2.33|0.0632
95973089|NCT04617275|191919196|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.23|0.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.20|-2.23|0.0847
95973090|NCT04617275|191919196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|1.3||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.30|-1.20|0.5264
95973091|NCT04617275|191919197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.48||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|-0.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.10|-2.86|0.0395
95973092|NCT04617275|191919197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|1.1||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.10|-1.63|0.3726
95973093|NCT04617275|191919197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.36||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.74|-0.98||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.98|-3.74|0.0028
95891172|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.86|-29.4546|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.4546|-53.8600|<0.0001
95891173|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.4567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2925|-38.621|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.6210|-62.2925|<0.0001
95891174|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.2403|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1923|-41.2882|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-41.2882|-65.1923|<0.0001
95891175|NCT00975481|191737101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.4546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5459|-33.3633|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-33.3633|-57.5459|<0.0001
95891176|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.845|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6464|59.0436|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.0436|34.6464|<0.0001
95891177|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.3036|69.6991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.6991|45.3036|<0.0001
95891178|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0913||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3421|7.1595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||7.1595|-17.3421|0.4129
95891179|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1893||||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4954|11.1168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1168|-13.4954|0.8488
95891180|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1995||||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1963|17.5954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||17.5954|-7.1963|0.4086
95973094|NCT04617275|191919197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.23|-0.47||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.47|-3.23|0.0139
95973095|NCT04617275|191919197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.64||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.64|-2.19|0.1815
95973096|NCT04617275|191919198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.71|-0.61||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.61|-3.71|0.0112
95973097|NCT04617275|191919198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.2161|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.24|0.8||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.80|-2.24|0.2161
95973098|NCT04617275|191919198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.02|-1.92||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.92|-5.02|0.0002
95973099|NCT04617275|191919198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.59|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-3.59|0.0147
95973100|NCT04617275|191919198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|-1.37||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.37|-4.56|0.0013
95891181|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.9363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1108|-39.7618|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-39.7618|-64.1108|<0.0001
95891182|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.0343|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2801|-35.7885|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7885|-60.2801|<0.0001
95891183|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.6455|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9964|-29.2946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-29.2946|-53.9964|<0.0001
95891184|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.5926|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5881|-50.5971|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-50.5971|-74.5881|<0.0001
95891185|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7965|-46.5847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-46.5847|-70.7965|<0.0001
95891186|NCT00975481|191737102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.3018|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5427|-40.0609|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.0609|-64.5427|<0.0001
95891187|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4604||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.321|26.5998|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||26.5998|6.3210|0.0016
95891188|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.9971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8247|38.1696|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||38.1696|17.8247|<0.0001
95891189|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1425||||0.8254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3591|9.0742|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.0742|-11.3591|0.8254
95891190|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.747||||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5075|11.0015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.0015|-9.5075|0.8858
95891191|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4279||||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8972|13.7529|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||13.7529|-6.8972|0.5128
95891192|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6028||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7485|-7.4572|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-7.4572|-27.7485|0.0008
95891193|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.7134||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9136|-5.5132|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.5132|-25.9136|0.0028
95973101|NCT04617275|191919199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.22|-0.7||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.70|-4.22|0.0111
95973102|NCT04617275|191919199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|0.68||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.68|-2.75|0.1600
95973103|NCT04617275|191919199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.03|-2.52||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.52|-6.03|<0.0001
95973104|NCT04617275|191919199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.68||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|-0.94||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.94|-4.42|0.0061
95973105|NCT04617275|191919199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.52|-1.89||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.89|-5.52|0.0005
95973106|NCT04617275|191919200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.22|-1.2||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-1.20|-5.22|0.0047
95973107|NCT04617275|191919200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.45|0.44||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.44|-3.45|0.1003
95973108|NCT04617275|191919200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|-2.95||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.95|-6.96|<0.0001
95973109|NCT04617275|191919200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.49|-0.51||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.51|-4.49|0.0197
95973110|NCT04617275|191919200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.03|-2.85||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-2.85|-7.03|<0.0001
95973111|NCT04617275|191919201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.12|0.19||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.19|-2.12|0.0836
95973112|NCT04617275|191919202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.07|-0.12||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||-0.12|-3.07|0.0386
95973113|NCT04617275|191919203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|1.0||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||1.00|-3.99|0.1566
95973114|NCT04617275|191919204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.0916|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.91|0.67||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.67|-5.91|0.0916
95973115|NCT04617275|191919205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.31|0.17||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.17|-6.31|0.0590
95973116|NCT04617275|191919206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.23|0.75||1-Sided|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM|Test = PF-06882961 Reference = Placebo|||0.75|-8.23|0.0826
95973117|NCT04227704|191919218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
95973118|NCT04227704|191919219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95973119|NCT04227704|191919226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
95973120|NCT01775124|191919229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Descriptive, no hypothesis||-0.2|-2.95|
95973121|NCT02317432|191919242|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.12|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95891194|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0325||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3295|-2.7355|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7355|-23.3295|0.0135
95891195|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.1396|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1071|-19.1721|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.1721|-39.1071|<0.0001
95891196|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.2502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3224|-17.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-17.1780|-37.3224|<0.0001
95973122|NCT02317432|191919243|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.6||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95973123|NCT02317432|191919244|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95973124|NCT02317432|191919245|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.24||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95973125|NCT02317432|191919246|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.49||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.35
95891197|NCT00975481|191737103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5693|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7614|-14.3772|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.3772|-34.7614|<0.0001
95891198|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2535||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5623|1.9446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.9446|0.5623|0.0005
95909237|NCT01163097|191776593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.645|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 70% increase (or 41% reduction) when Treatment A was compared to Treatment B; assuming that the coefficient of variation of lipase would be 49% (as observed in other study)||0.645|0.216|
95909238|NCT01163097|191776594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.768|1.231|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA (with dependent variable:natural log of the ratio to baseline, independent variable:treatment, covariate:natural log of the baseline value)||80% power achieved for detecting a 140% increase with 13 and 6 subjects (respectively) when Treatment B was compared to Treatment C; assuming that the coefficient of variation of the protein/creatinine ratio would be 67% (Ginsberg et al 1983)||1.231|0.768|
95909239|NCT01163097|191776595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95909240|NCT01163097|191776596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95909241|NCT01163097|191776597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95909242|NCT01163097|191776598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95909243|NCT01163097|191776599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4123||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.4123
95909244|NCT01163097|191776600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9944||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.9944
95909245|NCT01163097|191776601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95909246|NCT01163097|191776602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95909247|NCT00452387|191776624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The test of association of PSA and imaging response tests the null hypothesis that the proportion of cases exhibiting PSA response is the same for patients with and without a favorable imaging response. A 2x2 table was constructed based on the number of the patients in imaging response (favorable and unfavorable) and PSA response (\>50% reduction and \<=50% reduction). The Fisher's exact test was used to test this hypothesis.||||0.55
95909248|NCT02510144|191776627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side vs the non-treated side||||0.68
95909249|NCT02510144|191776627|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Negative cultures were compared on the treated side versus the non-treated side||||<0.01
95891199|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8073|4.1948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.1948|2.8073|<0.0001
95891200|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3418||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3559|1.0396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0396|-0.3559|0.3347
95891201|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3208||||0.3678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3808|1.0225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.0225|-0.3808|0.3678
95891202|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.9197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6686|0.7406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7406|-0.6686|0.9197
95891203|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9117||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6013|-0.222|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2220|-1.6013|0.0099
95891204|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9326||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6269|-0.2384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2384|-1.6269|0.0088
95891205|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2175||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9171|-0.5178|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.5178|-1.9171|0.0008
95891206|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1592|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.838|-2.4804|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4804|-3.8380|<0.0001
95891207|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1802|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8656|-2.4947|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.4947|-3.8656|<0.0001
95891208|NCT00975481|191737104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1583|-2.7717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.7717|-4.1583|<0.0001
95891209|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2943|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0783|6.5102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||6.5102|4.0783|<0.0001
95891210|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8983|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6799|8.1167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.1167|5.6799|<0.0001
95891211|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6545||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5676|1.8767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.8767|-0.5676|0.2917
95891212|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8489||||0.1738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3784|2.0763|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.0763|-0.3784|0.1738
95891213|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9372||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3024|2.1767|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.1767|-0.3024|0.1373
95891214|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8537|-3.4257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.4257|-5.8537|<0.0001
95891215|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4453|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6662|-3.2244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.2244|-5.6662|<0.0001
95973126|NCT03992846|191919253|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.46|4.49|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||4.49|1.46|<0.001
95973127|NCT03992846|191919253|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 1.10 or greater from baseline pain for Dysmenorrhea (DYS).|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.86|15.91|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||15.91|4.86|<0.001
95973128|NCT03992846|191919254|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.83|2.45|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||2.45|0.83|0.279
95973129|NCT03992846|191919254|OTHER|The criterion for defining a subject as a responder over the last 28 days of randomized treatment up to Month 3 was a reduction of 0.80 or greater from baseline pain for Non-Menstrual Pelvic Pain (NMPP).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.18|3.42|||Bonferroni-corrected p-value|||||3.42|1.18|0.007
95973130|NCT00701220|191919336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The data were analyzed using analysis of variance for repeated measures with two groups. The repeated measure was the proportion of circulating blood cells that were positive for aldehyde dehydrogenase using the commercially available Aldofluor assay. The two groups were those with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. This analysis permitted both intergroup and intragroup analysis of the change in aldehyde dehydrogenase positive cells.||||<0.05
95891216|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3571|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5887|-3.1255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-3.1255|-5.5887|<0.0001
95973131|NCT04018092|191919372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573||||||Only 2 values, thus not necessary to adjust.|Regression, Linear|The independent variable = intervention (active, sham); Covariates=baseline scores, site (Florida, Arizona), age (yrs), sex (m,f), and education (yrs)||linear regression was used to analyze pre-post intervention changes in the active vs sham group. Covariates in regression were baseline cognitive performance, site (University of Florida, University of Arizona), age (yrs), sex (F, M) and education (years)||||0.573
95973132|NCT04018092|191919373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Default Mode Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, Age, Sex, Education years, study site Baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.043
95973133|NCT04018092|191919373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Frontoparietal Control Network Analysis: Regression was performed using permutation tests with 5000 iterations for significance and to address multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Covariates: Baseline network segregation values, age, sex, education years, study site and baseline white matter hyperintensity volume. DOF = (1, 135)||||||0.285
95973134|NCT02679573|191919375|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.1|||||Difference = Difference in responder rates (Delafloxacin treatment group minus Moxifloxacin treatment group). Confidence intervals are calculated using Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125 where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) were presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test, without stratification, was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.1|-4.4|
95973135|NCT02679573|191919376|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.3||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||16.3|3.0|
95891217|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4397|-5.0477|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-5.0477|-7.4397|<0.0001
95891218|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2568|-4.8419|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.8419|-7.2568|<0.0001
95891219|NCT00975481|191737105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1812|-4.741|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-4.7410|-7.1812|<0.0001
95973136|NCT02679573|191919377|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.8||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.8|-3.3|
95973137|NCT02679573|191919378|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.6||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||4.6|-3.0|
95973138|NCT02679573|191919379|NON_INFERIORITY|Used on a normal approximation approach (Miettinen and Nurminen's Likelihood Score Test), 860 subjects in the ITT population provided a 90% power to assess non-inferiority of delafloxacin vs. moxifloxacin based on the following assumptions: (1) a rate of ECR for moxifloxacin therapy and delafloxacin of 77% and 74%, respectively; (2) 1 sided type I error (α) of 0.025; and (3) a non-inferiority margin of 12.5%.|Difference in responder rates|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.9||||||"The null (H0) and alternative (Ha) hypotheses to be tested to establish the noninferiority of delafloxacin were:~H0: Pd - Pm ≤ -0.125 Ha: Pd - Pm \> -0.125~where Pd and Pm are the probabilities of the ECR for delafloxacin and moxifloxacin, respectively.~The treatment difference (delafloxacin - moxifloxacin) was presented, and the Miettinen-Nurminen test without stratification was used for the 2 sided 95% CI on the difference in response rate."||5.9|-4.8|
95973139|NCT02679573|191919380|OTHER|||||||0.5951||||||The log-rank test was used to compare the time to all-cause mortality between the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||||0.5951
95973140|NCT02483585|191919394|SUPERIORITY|A sequential testing procedure, specifically, the hierarchical gate-keeping procedures and Hochberg method, was used to maintain the 2-sided study-wise type I error at 0.05 between the primary and efficacy secondary endpoints.|LS Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.47|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.47|-1.61|< 0.001
95973141|NCT02483585|191919395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||2.27|1.12|0.010
95973142|NCT02483585|191919396|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.21|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including treatment group, baseline value, stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication), scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.||-0.21|-0.96|0.002
95973143|NCT02483585|191919397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.71|0.87|0.26
95973144|NCT02483585|191919398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test after the missing data were imputed as nonresponse, stratified by stratification factors (region and prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication).||1.90|0.92|0.13
95891220|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.6205|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1192|-20.1219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-20.1219|-33.1192|<0.0001
95973145|NCT00912301|191919404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison low dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.031
95973146|NCT00912301|191919404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Dunnett's test|pairwise comparison high dose NaCDC against placebo||||||0.010
95973147|NCT01831856|191919479|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.85|||Log Rank|||The primary criterion, time to first Atrial Fibrillation (AF) recurrence or atrial flutter emergence, was described using survival curves according to the Kaplan-Meier method, reporting the first and third quartiles (Q1, Q3), median, and 95% confidence interval. The time to first AF recurrence or atrial flutter emergence was compared between treatment groups using the Log rank test. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated with the Cox regression model.||1.85|0.71|0.5749
95973148|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of partcipants|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|69.0|86.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||86|69|
95973149|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|79.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|71.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|71|
95973150|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|85.3|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|77.0|91.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||91|77|
95973151|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3022||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3022
95973152|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7797||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.7797
95973153|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1557||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.1557
95973154|NCT00116753|191919543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2208||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2208
95973155|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.7|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|88.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from after Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||88|72|
95973156|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|80.2|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|72.0|87.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||87|72|
95973157|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|96.5|78.0|92.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with all testosterone values from Day 28 to end of study \<=0.5 ng/mL. Measure dispersion is the 96.5% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||92|78|
95973158|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.3830
95973159|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.9587
95973160|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2579||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2579
95973161|NCT00116753|191919544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2072||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.2072
95973162|NCT00116753|191919545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||99|93|
95973163|NCT00116753|191919545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
95973164|NCT00116753|191919545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||Estimated value is the percentage of participants with testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL at Day 28. Measure dispersion is the 95% two-sided confidence interval which was calculated by the Clopper-Pearson method.|||100|94|
95973165|NCT00190749|191919556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.226
95973166|NCT00190749|191919556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||P-value is change to last observation|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
95973167|NCT00190749|191919556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value for change to last observation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.204
95973168|NCT00190749|191919557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.184
95973169|NCT00190749|191919557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.295
95973170|NCT00190749|191919558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.256
95973171|NCT00190749|191919558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.277
95973172|NCT00190749|191919559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.766
95973173|NCT00190749|191919559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.622||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.622
95973174|NCT00190749|191919560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.829
95973175|NCT00190749|191919560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.714
95973176|NCT00190749|191919561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.672||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.672
95973177|NCT00190749|191919561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.191
95973178|NCT00190749|191919562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.994
95973179|NCT00190749|191919562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.456
95973180|NCT00190749|191919563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.454
95973181|NCT00190749|191919563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.974||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.974
95973182|NCT00190749|191919564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.249
95973183|NCT00190749|191919564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.163
95973184|NCT00190749|191919565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.201
95973185|NCT00190749|191919565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.168
95973186|NCT00190749|191919566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.793
95973187|NCT00190749|191919566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.777
95973188|NCT00190749|191919567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.815||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.815
95973189|NCT00190749|191919567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||||||0.675
95973190|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.393
95973191|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 1||||0.033
95973192|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.392||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.392
95973193|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 2||||0.129
95973194|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 3||||0.956
95973195|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 3||||0.846
95973196|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.675||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.675
95973197|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 4||||0.306
95973198|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.468
95973199|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.739||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 5||||0.739
95973200|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.404
95973201|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 6||||0.711
95973202|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.281
95973203|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 7||||0.805
95973204|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.844||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 8||||0.844
95973205|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Bahavior Item 8||||0.359
95973206|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.642
95973207|NCT00190749|191919568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Change in Eating Behavior Item 9||||0.043
95973208|NCT00190749|191919569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on Least Squares Mean (LSMean) change||||||<.001
95973209|NCT00190749|191919569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.019
95973210|NCT00190749|191919569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.065
95973211|NCT00190749|191919570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||<.001
95973212|NCT00190749|191919570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.013
95973213|NCT00190749|191919570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
95891221|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.5724|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1073|-26.0375|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.0375|-39.1073|<0.0001
95891222|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8966||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6607|8.454|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.4540|-4.6607|0.5685
95891223|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5761||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.159|3.0068|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.0068|-10.1590|0.2848
95891224|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1754||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7855|3.4347|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.4347|-9.7855|0.3440
95891225|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0454|34.989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||34.9890|22.0454|<0.0001
95891226|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0445|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5383|29.5506|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||29.5506|16.5383|<0.0001
95891227|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8772|30.0131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||30.0131|16.8772|<0.0001
95891228|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1136|40.8244|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||40.8244|28.1136|<0.0001
95891229|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5734|35.4192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.4192|22.5734|<0.0001
95891230|NCT00975481|191737106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.397|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8946|35.8994|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||35.8994|22.8946|<0.0001
95891231|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6044|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.4091|59.7996|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||59.7996|33.4091|<0.0001
95891232|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.7222|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.5038|63.9407|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||63.9407|37.5038|<0.0001
95891233|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6987||||0.9174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9815|12.584|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.5840|-13.9815|0.9174
95891234|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5629||||0.5002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9006|8.7749|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||8.7749|-17.9006|0.5002
95891235|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3982||||0.3482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0337|19.8301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||19.8301|-7.0337|0.3482
95891236|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.3031|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4869|-34.1193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-34.1193|-60.4869|<0.0001
95891237|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.1672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.4276|-37.9069|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-37.9069|-64.4276|<0.0001
95973214|NCT00190749|191919571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.007
95973215|NCT00190749|191919571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.266
95973216|NCT00190749|191919571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change = Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.239
95973217|NCT00190749|191919572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-vales are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.274
95973218|NCT00190749|191919572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change.||||||0.105
95973219|NCT00190749|191919572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.609
95973220|NCT00190749|191919573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.406
95973221|NCT00190749|191919573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.011
95973222|NCT00190749|191919573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.076
95973223|NCT00190749|191919574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.456
95973224|NCT00190749|191919574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.712||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.712
95973225|NCT00190749|191919574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change= Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.689
95973226|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Total Score||||0.111
95973227|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.159||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean changes||Total Score||||0.159
95973228|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Total Score||||0.951
95973229|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Positive Subscale||||0.012
95973230|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean||Positive subscale||||0.002
95973231|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change =Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Positive subscale||||0.467
95891238|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.589|-26.8234|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.8234|-53.5890|<0.0001
95891239|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3974|-38.4445|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-38.4445|-64.3974|<0.0001
95891240|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2851|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.3904|-42.1798|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-42.1798|-68.3904|<0.0001
95891241|NCT00975481|191737107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.3241|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5825|-31.0656|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||Mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.0656|-57.5825|<0.0001
95891242|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.3823|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.1244|-30.6401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI was obtained from the model.||-30.6401|-62.1244|<0.0001
95891243|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.5199|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2633|-35.7765|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.7765|-67.2633|<0.0001
95973232|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.365||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|With group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.365
95973233|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Negative subscale||||0.846
95973234|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.559||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Negative subscale||||0.559
95973235|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.150
95973236|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.612||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.612
95973237|NCT00190749|191919575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Anxiety-Depression subscale||||0.475
95973238|NCT00190749|191919576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.012
95973239|NCT00190749|191919576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.010
95973240|NCT00190749|191919576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of square ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.760
95973241|NCT00190749|191919577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.943
95973242|NCT00190749|191919577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.763
95973243|NCT00190749|191919577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.832
95973244|NCT00190749|191919578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.623
95973245|NCT00190749|191919578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.853||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.853
95973246|NCT00190749|191919578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.591||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.591
95973247|NCT00190749|191919579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.302
95973248|NCT00190749|191919579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.922||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.922
95973249|NCT00190749|191919579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall group p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.479
95973250|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.004
95973251|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 1||||0.001
95891244|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0366||||0.4524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7924|21.8657|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.8657|-9.7924|0.4524
95891245|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4423||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4599|18.3446|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.3446|-13.4599|0.7620
95891246|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1573||||0.9846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8609|16.1754|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||16.1754|-15.8609|0.9846
95891247|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|52.4189|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7157|68.1221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||68.1221|36.7157|<0.0001
95891248|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.8246|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0228|64.6264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||64.6264|33.0228|<0.0001
95891249|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.5395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.5968|62.4823|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||62.4823|30.5968|<0.0001
95891250|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.5565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0679|73.0451|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||73.0451|42.0679|<0.0001
95891251|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.9622|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3293|69.5952|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||69.5952|38.3293|<0.0001
95891252|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.6772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.866|67.4884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For placebo, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||67.4884|35.8660|<0.0001
95973252|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares, ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 1||||0.549
95973253|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.011
95973254|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 2||||0.009
95973255|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 2||||0.793
95973256|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.045
95973257|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 3||||0.027
95973258|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.699||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 3||||0.699
95973259|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 4||||0.002
95973260|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||ITem 4||||0.019
95973261|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 4||||0.733
95973262|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.034
95973263|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 5||||0.235
95973264|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 5||||0.532
95973265|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.242||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.242
95973266|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 6||||0.186
95973267|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 6||||0.799
95973268|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.097
95973269|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 7||||0.214
95891253|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.4454||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7051|57.1857|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||57.1857|17.7051|0.0003
95891254|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.6714|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2888|61.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||61.0540|22.2888|<0.0001
95891255|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7583||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2956|1.7789|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7789|-37.2956|0.0744
95891256|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5551||||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5573|10.4471|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||10.4471|-29.5573|0.3458
95891257|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.792||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1777|20.7616|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||20.7616|-19.1777|0.9375
95891258|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.2037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.8113|-35.5961|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-35.5961|-74.8113|<0.0001
95973270|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.827||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 7||||0.827
95973271|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.151
95973272|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 8||||0.071
95973273|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.629||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 8||||0.629
95973274|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.036
95973275|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Item 9||||0.112
95973276|NCT00190749|191919580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.806||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Item 9||||0.806
95973277|NCT00190749|191919581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.156
95973278|NCT00190749|191919581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.829||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.829
95973279|NCT00190749|191919581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.352
95973280|NCT00190749|191919582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.740
95973281|NCT00190749|191919582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are frm t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.760
95973282|NCT00190749|191919582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.997||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.997
95891259|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.0005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.002|-26.9989|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-26.9989|-67.0020|<0.0001
95891260|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.6534||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7246|-16.5822|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-16.5822|-56.7246|0.0004
95891261|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-59.4297|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.5162|-40.3433|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-40.3433|-78.5162|<0.0001
95891262|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2265|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.8131|-31.6399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-31.6399|-70.8131|<0.0001
95891263|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8794||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.4726|-21.2862|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For benzodiazepines, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-21.2862|-60.4726|0.0001
95891264|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.5197||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7096|41.3298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.3298|5.7096|0.0102
95891265|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.7321||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3632|45.1011|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||45.1011|10.3632|0.0021
95891266|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7334||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2807|12.814|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||12.8140|-22.2807|0.5935
95973283|NCT00190749|191919583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.176
95973284|NCT00190749|191919583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.237
95973285|NCT00190749|191919583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.996
95973286|NCT00190749|191919584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.027
95973287|NCT00190749|191919584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||||||0.545
95973288|NCT00190749|191919584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||||||0.024
95973289|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.009
95973290|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.959||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||HDL particles, total||||0.959
95973291|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline TReatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||HDL particles, total||||0.038
95973292|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.013
95973293|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.928||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||IDL||||0.928
95973294|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||IDL||||0.049
95973295|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.009
95891267|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5486||||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3397|21.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||21.4370|-14.3397|0.6945
95891268|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2936||||0.4177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4975|25.0847|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||25.0847|-10.4975|0.4177
95891269|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.2531||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.802|-10.7042|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.7042|-45.8020|0.0019
95891270|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9711||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9541|-1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.9880|-37.9541|0.0299
95891271|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2261||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1785|1.7264|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.7264|-34.1785|0.0759
95891272|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4655||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2278|-15.7032|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.7032|-49.2278|0.0002
95891273|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1835||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5832|-6.7838|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.7838|-41.5832|0.0069
95891274|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4385||||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8861|-2.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For codeine/morphine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.9910|-37.8861|0.0222
95891275|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.589||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0126|37.1654|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||37.1654|12.0126|0.0002
95891276|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4903|41.7298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.7298|16.4903|<0.0001
95891277|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6428||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0309|15.3165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||15.3165|-10.0309|0.6809
95891278|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3215||||0.6067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0415|9.3985|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||9.3985|-16.0415|0.6067
95891279|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4722||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.335|18.2795|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||18.2795|-7.3350|0.3999
95891280|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.9461||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5327|-9.3596|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-9.3596|-34.5327|0.0007
95891281|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.564|-15.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-15.2570|-40.5640|<0.0001
95973296|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.662||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Medium small LDL||||0.662
95973297|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Medium small LDL||||0.12
95973298|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.099
95973299|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Small LDL||||0.304
95891282|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1168||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8907|-6.3428|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-6.3428|-31.8907|0.0036
95891283|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.4672|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8298|-14.1046|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-14.1046|-38.8298|<0.0001
95891284|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.4315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.925|-19.938|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-19.9380|-44.9250|<0.0001
95891285|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.6378||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2802|-10.9954|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For THC, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-10.9954|-36.2802|0.0003
95891286|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6675||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.708|41.043|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||41.0430|-39.7080|0.9728
95891287|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.7977||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1059|79.4894|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||79.4894|6.1059|0.0246
95891288|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5411||||0.7068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.785|48.8672|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||48.8672|-33.7850|0.7068
95891289|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7069||||0.5492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0358|47.4496|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||47.4496|-26.0358|0.5492
95891290|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1248||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.3098|53.5595|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||53.5595|-31.3098|0.5899
95891291|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8736||||0.6998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8691|43.6163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||43.6163|-29.8691|0.6998
95891292|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0394||||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4818|51.5606|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||51.5606|-31.4818|0.6187
95973300|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||Small LDL||||0.024
95973301|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.176
95973302|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Withn group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||Very small LDL||||0.246
95973303|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator|ANCOVA|||Very small LDL||||0.033
95973304|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||<0.001
95891293|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4573||||0.5863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0355|49.9502|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||49.9502|-29.0355|0.5863
95891294|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.2566||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.608|5.0948|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||5.0948|-75.6080|0.0832
95891295|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0907||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7519|4.5704|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||4.5704|-68.7519|0.0827
95891296|NCT00975481|191737108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.6728||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5352|11.1895|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For pseudoephedrine, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||11.1895|-74.5352|0.1386
95891297|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3637||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1566|0.884|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8840|-0.1566|0.1691
95891298|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8444||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3238|1.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||1.3650|0.3238|0.0017
95891299|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2093||||0.4305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3141|0.7327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.7327|-0.3141|0.4305
95891300|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1206||||0.6517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4064|0.6476|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.6476|-0.4064|0.6517
95891301|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0374||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5666|0.4919|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.4919|-0.5666|0.8892
95891302|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1544||||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6737|0.3649|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.3649|-0.6737|0.5576
95891303|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2431||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7658|0.2796|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2796|-0.7658|0.3594
95891304|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4011||||0.1355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9291|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.1270|-0.9291|0.1355
95891305|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6351||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1466|-0.1236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.1236|-1.1466|0.0153
95891306|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7238||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2418|-0.2059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.2059|-1.2418|0.0065
95891307|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8818||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4042|-0.3594|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emax, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-0.3594|-1.4042|0.0011
95891308|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1614|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9373|-1.3856|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-1.3856|-2.9373|<0.0001
95973305|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Within group p-values are from t-tests on LSMean change||VLDL mean particle size||||0.047
95973306|NCT00190749|191919585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Overall p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares ANCOVA, Model: Change=Baseline Treatment Pooled Investigator||VLDL mean particle size||||0.221
95973307|NCT00598273|191919590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.19|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.19|
95973308|NCT00598273|191919590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.48|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.48|0.04|
95973309|NCT00598273|191919591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.10|0.51|
95973310|NCT00598273|191919591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.56|0.62|
95891309|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0336|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8085|-2.2587|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||-2.2587|-3.8085|<0.0001
95891310|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2791||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0586|0.5004|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.5004|-1.0586|0.4804
95891311|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.024||||0.9519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7608|0.8087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.8087|-0.7608|0.9519
95891312|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.497||||0.2152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.286|0.2921|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||0.2921|-1.2860|0.2152
95891313|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8824|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1094|2.6553|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.6553|1.1094|<0.0001
95891314|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1854|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.9638|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.9638|1.4070|<0.0001
95973311|NCT00598273|191919592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.05|0.94|
95973312|NCT00598273|191919592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.95|
95973313|NCT01313689|191919593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.24|0.50|0.2677
95973314|NCT01313689|191919593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.53|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.53|0.19|0.0837
95973315|NCT01313689|191919594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.87|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum.|||0.87|0.35|0.0030
95973316|NCT01313689|191919594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.21|0.0262
95973317|NCT01313689|191919595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.942||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|7.424|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||7.424|1.166|0.0223
95973318|NCT01313689|191919595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999||||0.9985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|999.999|||Regression, Logistic|conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum||||999.999|0.001|0.9985
95973319|NCT01313689|191919596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.4159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|2.899||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum included in the Strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||2.899|0.644|0.4159
95973320|NCT01313689|191919596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.225||||0.8866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|19.862||Odds ratios and p-value are based on conditional logistic regression with interval and pooled stratum in the strata statement|Regression, Logistic|||||19.862|0.076|0.8866
95973321|NCT01313689|191919597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.17|||Log Rank|P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||1.17|0.48|0.1732
95973322|NCT01313689|191919597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||P-value is based on the stratified log-rank test adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using the Pike estimator, adjusted for 'interval' and pooled stratum|||2.68|0.46|0.8128
95973323|NCT02481947|191919612|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 12.6% (pre-specified)||||||0.016||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.016
95973324|NCT02751320|191919639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.94||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||5.94|-8.11|0.7603
95973325|NCT02751320|191919639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|3.74||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), subject-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, subject-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates).|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||3.74|-10.34|0.3555
95973326|NCT02751320|191919639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.5335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|9.23||ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant-level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates)|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||9.23|-4.81|0.5335
95891315|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6645|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8786|2.4503|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||2.4503|0.8786|<0.0001
95891316|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7545|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9912|3.5179|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.5179|1.9912|<0.0001
95973327|NCT02751320|191919639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.02|29.9||From ANCOVA: Participant (random), treatment \& period (fixed), Participant -level baseline SMH, period-level baseline SMH, Participant -level pre-treatment acidchallenge SMH and period-level pre-treatment acid challenge SMH (covariates) .|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Treatment comparison corresponding to qualifying criteria for the analysis||29.90|16.02|<.0001
95973328|NCT01815138|191919658|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95973329|NCT01815138|191919659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95973330|NCT02697292|191919663|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|98.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||98.9|1.1|0.044
95973331|NCT02697292|191919664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.100
95973332|NCT01588496|191919750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-18.62|-40.94|<0.001
95973333|NCT01588496|191919751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.83|-11.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.45|-34.83|<0.001
95973334|NCT01588496|191919752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.72|-12.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.05|-33.72|<0.001
95891317|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0576|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2858|3.8294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.8294|2.2858|<0.0001
95891318|NCT00975481|191737109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5366|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7578|3.3155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effect model was implemented with REML estimation method and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom algorithm.||For Emin, mixed-effect model was used which included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline measurement as covariate where applicable, and participant nested within sequence as random effect. The estimates of adjusted mean differences and corresponding 95% CI were obtained from the model.||3.3155|1.7578|<0.0001
95891319|NCT01519960|191737116|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43|||=|0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis stratified by hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype A versus non-A genotypes and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) less than (\<) 5 times (×) upper limit of normal (ULN) versus greater than or equal to (≥) 5 × ULN at Baseline. The OR was calculated using Group B as reference.||19.2|1.54|= 0.0043
95891320|NCT01519960|191737116|OTHER||||||=|0.3732|||||||Breslow-Day|||||||= 0.3732
95891321|NCT01387347|191737189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.2596|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Inferior corneal fluorescein staining score at Day 29(primary sign) was summarized using descriptive statistics (number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum). Active treatment was compared to placebo using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the α = 0.05 level||||0.2596
95891322|NCT01387347|191737189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of central corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0075
95891323|NCT01387347|191737189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of superior corneal fluorescein staining score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups||||0.0210
95891324|NCT01387347|191737190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3734|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between the groups uses a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances, assessed at the alpha = 0.05 level.||||0.3734
95891325|NCT01387347|191737190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of discomfort score between the placebo and Thymosin beta 4 groups on Day 28||||0.0244
95891326|NCT00951808|191737192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||optimal threshold level of sPLA2|48.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|58.0|||||The optimal threshold level (TL) was determined to be the same for all analysis groups.|The optimal threshold level (TL), determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, maximizes the difference between the true positive rate (TPR) and the false positive rate (FPR). Since there is no corresponding analytic standard deviation (SD) for this value, we computed a robust SD based upon the interquartile range (IQR)/1.35 from a bootstrap sample of optimal TLs.||58|38|
95891327|NCT03194555|191737227|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.17||||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|8.01|||Chi-squared|||||8.01|-3.67|0.4267
95891328|NCT03194555|191737228|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|66.83|||Chi-squared|||||66.83|-18.46|0.268
95891329|NCT03194555|191737229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.0926
95891330|NCT03194555|191737230|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.2894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|67.4|||Chi-squared|||||67.4|-17.2|0.2894
95891331|NCT03194555|191737231|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.83||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1557|8.8157|||Chi-squared|||||8.8157|-5.1557|0.5724
95891332|NCT03194555|191737232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.84||||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|30.83|||Chi-squared|||||30.83|-11.15|0.2998
95891333|NCT03194555|191737233|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.67||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2673
95891334|NCT03194555|191737236|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.76||||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.5005|36.9805|||Chi-squared|||||36.9805|-94.5005|0.3527
95891335|NCT03194555|191737237|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.95||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5246
95891336|NCT03194555|191737239|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.34||||0.8649|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8649
95891337|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and participant age||||0.0164
95891338|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0200
95891339|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.0867
95891340|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and participant age||||0.0001
95891341|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and positive tuberculosis screening at Visit 0||||0.0734
95891342|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and male gender||||0.0438
95891343|NCT01474876|191737255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.5030
95891344|NCT01474876|191737264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and presence of enthesitis at Visit 0||||0.0576
95891345|NCT01474876|191737264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment response and BASDAI score at Visit 0||||0.1739
95891346|NCT01474876|191737264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and Psoriasis at Visit 0||||0.0733
95891347|NCT01474876|191737264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Remission and BASDAI at Visit 0||||0.5000
95891348|NCT01765153|191737320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04366667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04366667
95891349|NCT02467465|191737367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.175
95891350|NCT02467465|191737368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.250
95891351|NCT02467465|191737369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.466|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.466
95891352|NCT02467465|191737371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.737
95891353|NCT02467465|191737372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
95891354|NCT02467465|191737373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
95891355|NCT02467465|191737375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.849
95891356|NCT02467465|191737376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.425
95891357|NCT02467465|191737377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.487|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.487
95891358|NCT02467465|191737379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.651
95891359|NCT02467465|191737380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.387
95891360|NCT02467465|191737381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.755
95891361|NCT02467465|191737383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.032
95973335|NCT01588496|191919753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.48|1.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||1.82|-25.48|0.088
95973336|NCT01588496|191919754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.86||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|0.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||0.56|-23.11|0.088
95891362|NCT02467465|191737384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.058
95891363|NCT02467465|191737385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.279
95891364|NCT00597012|191737389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.5|||ANCOVA|||"The primary analysis was implemented with an analysis of covariance with changes in the WOMAC physical-function score from baseline to 6 months as the dependent variable, treatment as the independent variable of interest, and study site as a covariate.~The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach in which patients who did not withdraw from the study were evaluated in the group to which they were randomly assigned."||6.5|-1.8|0.26
95891365|NCT00597012|191737390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.0|||ANCOVA|||||7.0|-1.2|0.16
95891366|NCT00597012|191737391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-4.4|0.68
95891367|NCT04729127|191737403|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.79
95891368|NCT04729127|191737403|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.27
95891369|NCT04729127|191737404|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.04
95891370|NCT04729127|191737404|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.02
95891371|NCT04729127|191737405|OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.78
95891372|NCT04729127|191737405|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.89
95891373|NCT04729127|191737406|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.07
95891374|NCT04729127|191737406|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.88
95891375|NCT04729127|191737409|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.26
95891376|NCT04729127|191737409|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, Linear|||See protocol for full statistical analysis plan.||||.74
95891377|NCT02981342|191737427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0495
95891378|NCT02981342|191737427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0230
95891379|NCT02981342|191737428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0085
95891380|NCT02981342|191737428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0123
95891381|NCT02981342|191737429|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
95891382|NCT02981342|191737429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
95891383|NCT02981342|191737434|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||1
95891384|NCT02981342|191737434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3017
95891385|NCT02981342|191737436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|3.272|||Log Rank|||||3.272|0.782|0.1938
95891386|NCT02981342|191737436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.533||||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.150|0.746|0.2477
95891387|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||2.13|-0.84|0.383
95973337|NCT01588496|191919755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-18.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|Model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level (\< 420 vs ≥ 420 mg/dL), scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|LDL-C lowering was analyzed by comparing evolocumab and placebo. Statistical analysis was 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-18.00|-43.86|<0.001
95891388|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Worst in Last 24 Hours||1.28|-1.91|0.692
95891389|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.80|-0.85|0.469
95891390|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain at its Least in Last 24 Hours||1.22|-1.62|0.776
95891391|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||2.11|-0.72|0.328
95891392|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain on the Average||1.54|-1.45|0.954
95891393|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||2.36|-0.85|0.350
95891394|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain right now.||2.44|-1.01|0.405
95973338|NCT03102645|191919758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS. DF=14.||CROS test||13.5|-0.5|0.07
95891395|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.91|-1.06|0.565
95891396|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered General Activity||1.43|-1.74|0.848
95891397|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.25|-1.37|0.928
95973339|NCT03102645|191919759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.2|||t-test, 2 sided|CROS test||CROS test||28.2|2.0|0.03
95973340|NCT05180500|191919779|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.70
95973341|NCT05180500|191919780|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
95973342|NCT05180500|191919783|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.28
95891398|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Mood||1.08|-1.71|0.650
95891399|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||1.60|-1.89|0.865
95891400|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Walking Ability||2.50|-1.23|0.497
95891401|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.50|-0.72|0.272
95891402|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Normal Work||2.19|-1.25|0.583
95891403|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Relations||1.79|-1.53|0.876
95891404|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with relations.||2.19|-1.37|0.644
95973343|NCT05180500|191919784|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95973344|NCT05180500|191919785|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
95891405|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered with Sleep||2.48|-0.97|0.384
95891406|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.71|-0.90|0.318
95973345|NCT05180500|191919786|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
95973346|NCT05180500|191919787|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Concentrations that were below the lower limit of quantification (\<15 ng/mL) were set to 7.5 ng/mL for analyses.||||<.001
95891407|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.78|-1.15|0.407
95891408|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Interfered Enjoyment of Life||2.62|-1.58|0.620
95973347|NCT05180500|191919788|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95973348|NCT01340196|191919797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|121.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.714|132.999|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||132.999|111.714|
95973349|NCT01340196|191919798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.215|105.29|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||105.290|85.215|
95973350|NCT01340196|191919799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|147.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.6||||90.0|134.482|160.943|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||160.943|134.482|
95973351|NCT01340196|191919800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|77.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.24|85.15|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||85.15|71.24|
95973352|NCT01340196|191919801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|81.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.56|93.34|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||93.34|71.56|
95973353|NCT01340196|191919802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|75.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.71|82.45|||ANOVA|No formal testing. Investigation of relative bioavailability.|The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|||82.45|68.71|
95973354|NCT01440374|191919806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.202||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.868|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||||0.868|0.047|0.0315
95973355|NCT00876928|191919820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of patients developing diabetes|10.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|12.0||A chi square test was used for the number of participants developing diabetes and a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA for the disposition index|Chi-squared||Primary outcome compared the number of participants developing diabetes after receiving vitamin D or placebo for one year. Secondary outcome compared changes in 2-way repeated measures ANOVA; therefore,no confidence intervals/dispersion parameters|Null hypothesis is that there is no effect of vitamin D on the development of diabetes in people with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D. There were no published data when this trial was started on the effect of vitamin D in pre-diabetes making a power calculation difficult.||12|8|0.61
95973356|NCT00876928|191919821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in the changes in the Disposition Index between the 2 groups over the year.||||0.39
95973357|NCT01016977|191919822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9597||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.9597
95973358|NCT01016977|191919822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
95973359|NCT01016977|191919822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6315||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.6315
95973360|NCT01016977|191919822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5655
95973361|NCT01016977|191919822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7917||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.7917
95891409|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.91|-0.90|0.475
95891410|NCT02981342|191737438|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||BPI-Mean Interference Score||1.96|-1.04|0.540
95891411|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|10.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||10.68|-13.46|0.818
95891412|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|8.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global health status||8.42|-16.03|0.533
95891413|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|10.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||10.82|-16.40|0.681
95891414|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.63|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Physical functioning||4.59|-22.63|0.189
95891415|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.54||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.29|20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning||20.21|-18.29|0.921
95891416|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Role functioning.||19.42|-19.40|0.999
95891417|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|9.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||9.68|-18.20|0.541
95891418|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.17|7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Emotional functioning||7.27|-21.17|0.330
95891419|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|10.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive Functioning||10.66|-14.74|0.747
95891420|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.22|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Cognitive functioning||7.73|-18.22|0.419
95973362|NCT01016977|191919823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5961||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.5961
95891421|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|11.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||11.19|-19.23|0.596
95891422|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.68|-3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales: Social functioning||-3.55|-34.68|0.017
95891423|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.03|14.49||Social Scales: Fatigue|Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptoms Scales: Fatigue||14.49|-16.03|0.919
95891424|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.54||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|23.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Fatigue||23.69|-6.72|0.267
95891425|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.66|15.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||15.77|-18.66|0.866
95973363|NCT01016977|191919823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2293||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2293
95973364|NCT01016977|191919823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9852||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9852
95973365|NCT01016977|191919823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5538||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5538
95973366|NCT01016977|191919823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
95891426|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.23|13.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Nausea and Vomiting||13.43|-21.23|0.652
95891427|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.67||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.39|24.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||24.60|-10.39|0.417
95891428|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.69||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|21.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Pain||21.89|-13.16|0.618
95891429|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.44||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.85|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||6.18|-27.85|0.206
95891430|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|21.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Dyspnoea||21.80|-12.08|0.566
95891431|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|8.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||8.96|-23.01|0.380
95891432|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|17.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Insomnia||17.64|-14.60|0.850
95891433|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.78|15.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||15.21|-20.78|0.756
95891434|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.31||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|21.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Appetite loss||21.82|-15.77|0.747
95891435|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|9.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.23||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|28.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||28.09|-9.16|0.311
95891436|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.75|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Constipation||8.80|-28.75|0.290
95891437|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.58||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.93|10.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||10.78|-31.93|0.323
95891438|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.08|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Diarrhoea||16.48|-26.08|0.651
95891439|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.47||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|16.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||16.59|-13.57|0.841
95973367|NCT01016977|191919824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8545||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.8545
95973368|NCT01016977|191919824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2895||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.2895
95973369|NCT01016977|191919824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8234||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.8234
95891440|NCT02981342|191737439|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.57||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|22.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales: Financial Difficulties||22.54|-8.03|0.344
95891441|NCT00112502|191737487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||||||||1.7|0.8|
95891442|NCT00112502|191737488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2||||||||1.2|0.6|
95891443|NCT00112502|191737489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8||||||||1.8|0.9|
95891444|NCT00112502|191737490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3||||||||1.3|0.6|
95891445|NCT00112502|191737492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5||||||||1.5|0.7|
95891446|NCT00112502|191737493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.2||||||||1.2|0.5|
95891447|NCT00112502|191737494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||||||||1.8|0.8|
95891448|NCT00112502|191737495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1||||||||1.1|0.5|
95891449|NCT02807350|191737540|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|29.0||||||\>1 point analysis||29|7|
95891450|NCT02807350|191737540|OTHER|\>2 points analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|28.0||||||||28|10|
95891451|NCT02807350|191737541|OTHER|\>1 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0||||||||15|-7|
95891452|NCT02807350|191737541|OTHER|\>2 analysis|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|17.0||||||||17|-2|
95891453|NCT01959542|191737561|OTHER|Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.53||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.0|0.1|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|||||0.10|-086|0.09
95973370|NCT01016977|191919824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3644||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.3644
95973371|NCT01016977|191919824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.6540
95973372|NCT01016977|191919825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7546||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7546
95973373|NCT01016977|191919825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7705||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.7705
95973374|NCT01016977|191919825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0259||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.0259
95891454|NCT01959542|191737562|OTHER||Pearson's product-moment correlation|-0.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||Pearson's product-moment correlation|Pearson's product moment correlation||||-0.15|-0.62|0.03
95891455|NCT03388138|191737584|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.025|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.025|-0.021|
95891456|NCT03388138|191737585|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the etafilcon A with ketotifen lens relative to the etafilcon A lens was established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.1 logMAR.|Least-Square Mean Difference|0.0007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01158|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.024|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|LS Mean difference was calculated as etafilcon A with ketotifen - etafilcon A|||0.024|-0.022|
95891457|NCT02094716|191737602|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6084
95891458|NCT02094716|191737604|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6937|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6937
95891459|NCT02094716|191737605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1010
95891460|NCT02094716|191737605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0764
95891461|NCT02436759|191737617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline score as a covariate||||||<0.0001
95891462|NCT02436759|191737618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|Two-sided t-test||||||0.12
95891463|NCT03054857|191737619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.532||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|3.406|||Chi-squared|||||3.406|0.689|0.289
95891464|NCT03054857|191737620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.329||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.319|||Chi-squared|||||4.319|0.409|0.636
95891465|NCT03054857|191737622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.792||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.626|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.626|0.187
95891466|NCT03054857|191737623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.644|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.606||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.74|10.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.45|-19.74|0.543
95891467|NCT02584504|191737647|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.5|-32.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-32.4|-46.5|<0.0001
95891468|NCT02584504|191737647|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-65.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.9|-58.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-58.7|-72.9|<0.0001
95891469|NCT02584504|191737647|OTHER|Statistical test was not planned because this comparison was for a descriptive purpose.|LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-20.0|||||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group vs Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W group was compared to Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-20.0|-32.5|
95973375|NCT01016977|191919825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9252||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.9252
95973376|NCT01016977|191919825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2927||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2927
95973377|NCT01016977|191919826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4010
95973378|NCT01016977|191919826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0963||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.0963
95973379|NCT01016977|191919826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9291
95973380|NCT01016977|191919826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5523||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.5523
95973381|NCT01016977|191919826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2556||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.2556
95973382|NCT01016977|191919827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4037||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.4037
95973383|NCT01016977|191919827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8662||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.8662
95891470|NCT02584504|191737648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-47.4|-33.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Hierarchical procedure for comparisons of Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus Placebo Q2W and Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus Placebo Q2W were processed separately.||-33.8|-47.4|<0.0001
95891471|NCT02584504|191737648|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-74.2|-60.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.5|-74.2|<0.0001
95891472|NCT02584504|191737649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-50.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-56.6|-44.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-44.5|-56.6|<0.0001
95891473|NCT02584504|191737649|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-66.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-72.3|-60.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-60.1|-72.3|<0.0001
95891474|NCT02584504|191737650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-57.4|-45.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.4|-57.4|<0.0001
95891475|NCT02584504|191737650|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-67.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-73.3|-61.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-61.3|-73.3|<0.0001
95973384|NCT01016977|191919827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5951||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.5951
95973385|NCT01016977|191919827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2349||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.2349
95973386|NCT01016977|191919827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3461||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.3461
95973387|NCT01016977|191919828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725||95.0||||Week 1|ANCOVA|||||||0.7250
95973388|NCT01016977|191919828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9743||95.0||||Week 2|ANCOVA|||||||0.9743
95973389|NCT01016977|191919828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9816||95.0||||Week 4|ANCOVA|||||||0.9816
95973390|NCT01016977|191919828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8809||95.0||||Week 8|ANCOVA|||||||0.8809
95973391|NCT01016977|191919828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1679||95.0||||Week 12|ANCOVA|||||||0.1679
95973392|NCT01052103|191919883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.732||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.732
95973393|NCT01052103|191919884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.846
95973394|NCT01052103|191919885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.201||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.201
95973395|NCT01052103|191919886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.136||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Tests|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.136
95973396|NCT01052103|191919887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.739||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.739
95973397|NCT01052103|191919888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.19||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.190
95973398|NCT01052103|191919889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.702||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.702
95891476|NCT02584504|191737651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.5|-19.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-19.9|-32.5|<0.0001
95891477|NCT02584504|191737651|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-51.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-58.3|-45.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-45.5|-58.3|<0.0001
95891478|NCT02584504|191737652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-33.5|-20.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-20.9|-33.5|<0.0001
95891479|NCT02584504|191737652|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-53.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-59.7|-47.1||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-47.1|-59.7|<0.0001
95891480|NCT02584504|191737653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-37.7|-25.0||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-25.0|-37.7|<0.0001
95891481|NCT02584504|191737653|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-56.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-62.5|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-49.8|-62.5|<0.0001
95891482|NCT02584504|191737654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-38.6|-26.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-26.3|-38.6|<0.0001
95891483|NCT02584504|191737654|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-57.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-63.8|-51.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-51.4|-63.8|<0.0001
95891484|NCT02584504|191737655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-27.4|-17.6||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-17.6|-27.4|<0.0001
95891485|NCT02584504|191737655|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-46.4|-36.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-36.5|-46.4|<0.0001
95891486|NCT02584504|191737656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|61.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|13.9|268.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||268.9|13.9|<0.0001
95891487|NCT02584504|191737656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|281.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|33.3|2382.2||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||2382.2|33.3|<0.0001
95891488|NCT02584504|191737657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|102.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|19.0|556.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||556.8|19.0|<0.0001
95891489|NCT02584504|191737657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|500.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|47.9|5230.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||5230.9|47.9|<0.0001
95891490|NCT02584504|191737658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-43.4|-22.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-22.5|-43.4|<0.0001
95891491|NCT02584504|191737658|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-61.5|-40.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||-40.3|-61.5|<0.0001
95891492|NCT02584504|191737659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.7||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.0|11.3||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||11.3|0.0|0.0241
95891493|NCT02584504|191737659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|97.5|2.1|13.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||13.5|2.1|0.0022
95891494|NCT02584504|191737660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.9|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||17.7|-5.9|0.2645
95891495|NCT02584504|191737660|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.6||||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-23.5|0.4||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level for Bonferroni adjustment.|Regression, Robust||Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant for the relevant compared arms).||0.4|-23.5|0.0299
95891496|NCT01344447|191737674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|20.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.4|<0.0001
95891497|NCT01344447|191737674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|63.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|60.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||60.9|<0.0001
95891498|NCT01344447|191737674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|17.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||17.8|<0.0001
95891499|NCT01344447|191737674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|13.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.3|<0.0001
95891500|NCT01344447|191737674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.1|16.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||16.5|<0.0001
95891501|NCT01344447|191737675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-3.6|
95891502|NCT01344447|191737675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.4||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.4|
95891503|NCT01344447|191737675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-4.7|
95891504|NCT01344447|191737675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-5.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.9|
95891505|NCT01344447|191737675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|21.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|14.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.1|
95891506|NCT01344447|191737676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.7|
95891507|NCT01344447|191737676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|28.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||28.6|
95891508|NCT01344447|191737676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|8.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||8.5|
95891509|NCT01344447|191737676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|6.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||6.6|
95891510|NCT01344447|191737676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|7.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.9|
95891511|NCT01344447|191737677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|55.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||55.3|
95891512|NCT01344447|191737677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|60.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.6||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||53.6|
95891513|NCT01344447|191737677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|59.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|53.1||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||53.1|
95891514|NCT01344447|191737677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|58.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|52.2||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||52.2|
95891515|NCT01344447|191737677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|61.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|56.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||56.7|
95891516|NCT01344447|191737678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||97.7|
95891517|NCT01344447|191737678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.3||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||97.3|
95891518|NCT01344447|191737678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|97.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|96.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||96.9|
95891519|NCT01344447|191737678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|97.7||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||97.7|
95891520|NCT01344447|191737678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|99.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|98.9||||One sided 95.1% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||98.9|
95891521|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
95891522|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
95891523|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
95891524|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
95891525|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
95891526|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at normal point||||
95891527|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
95891528|NCT01344447|191737679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-enhanced MRA for clinical investigators on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
95891529|NCT01912287|191737696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.42|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. SE at post-treatment||5.42|1.12|.03
95891530|NCT01912287|191737696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.82|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of CBT vs. SE at post-treatment||11.82|2.12|<.001
95973399|NCT01052103|191919890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.851||95.0|||||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.851
95973400|NCT01052103|191919894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|4.3||P-value is for standing systolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.3|-4.3|0.999
95973401|NCT01052103|191919894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|3.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.7||P-value is for standing diastolic BP.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||6.7|1.0|0.009
95973402|NCT01052103|191919895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.9|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||3.9|-5.0|0.818
95973403|NCT01052103|191919896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.44||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.1|||Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.10|-1.98|0.571
95973404|NCT01052103|191919901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.682||95.0||||P-value is for treatment-emergent suicidal ideation.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
95973405|NCT01052103|191919902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.727||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.727
95973406|NCT01052103|191919906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.305||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.305
95973407|NCT01052103|191919907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.42||95.0||||One-sided p-value.|Type 3 Sums of Squares|||Changes from baseline to all post-baseline visits were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood-based MMRM. Model terms included fixed class effects for visit, investigative site, treatment, SOC type, baseline positive symptom stratum, and treatment-by-visit interaction as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline measurement and baseline-by-visit interaction.||||0.420
95973408|NCT01205152|191919927|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Two-sided with p-value threshold \<0.05 for statistical significance.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change is relative to Baseline in Study ENB-002-08 (NCT00744042). The RGI-C score represents evaluation of skeletal X-rays at each post-treatment study timepoint compared with pre-treatment X-rays from Study ENB-002-08 using an ordinal scale. Therefore, an RGI-C score is not applicable for radiographs obtained at Baseline.||||0.0020
95973409|NCT04147650|191919982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.62|||Regression, Logistic|||0.05 % VOS versus vehicle||7.62|0.62|0.1352
95973410|NCT04147650|191919982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.45|||Regression, Logistic|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||6.45|0.49|0.2823
95973411|NCT04147650|191919982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Logistic|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.30|0.70|0.0889
95973412|NCT04147650|191919983|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||0.05% VOS versus vehicle||4.3|-9.6|0.3604
95891531|NCT01912287|191737696|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.03|||Generalized Linear Mixed Models|||This comparison is from the Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) analysis using a quadratic growth curve over time. This comparison is at post-treatment. Note, although all 3 groups are included in the GLMM, this statistical test specifically compares response rates of KY vs. CBT at post-treatment||1.03|0.24|0.07
95891532|NCT01519414|191737709|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.02
95891533|NCT00894322|191737759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.4||Treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors. Placebo was reference group.|ANOVA|||||-0.40|-1.50|0.0013
95891534|NCT00894322|191737760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c strata at screening.||||||0.0033
95891535|NCT00894322|191737761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.835||0.2285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.68|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||Least square mean (LS) mean, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value calculated for the changes in weight from baseline in participants in cohort 2 treated with exenatide with placebo as reference group.||0.68|-2.73|0.2285
95891536|NCT00894322|191737762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|-14.3|||ANOVA|treatment group and HbA1c stratum at screening were factors.||||-14.3|-66.5|0.0035
95891537|NCT00531817|191737768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.29|25.42||The p-value was not adjusted. The primary objective was a single comparison with an a priori threshold of 0.05 for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Power calculation: Assuming placebo+DMARDs response rate of 15% and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg+DMARDs response rate of 28% based on previous trials, a sample size of 570 patients (2:1 ratio, tocilizumab+DMARDs n=380 and placebo+DMARDs n=190) will provide \> 90% power to detect a difference between 2 treatment arms with 5% Type I error with a 2-sided Fisher's exact test. Null Hypothesis: The percentage of patients responding in each treatment group (tocilizumab+DMARDs vs placebo+ DMARDs) is the same.||25.42|12.29|<0.0001
95891538|NCT00553150|191737778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95891539|NCT03338855|191737784|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-1.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.183|1.047|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RD (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||1.047|-3.183|0.3047
95891540|NCT03338855|191737785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.705|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.517||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.784|-0.625|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs low insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.625|-2.784|0.0036
95891541|NCT03338855|191737785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.146|-1.438|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta EGP (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-1.438|-3.146|<0.0001
95891542|NCT03338855|191737786|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.1842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.03|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of delta RER (basal vs high insulin) between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.030|-0.006|0.1842
95891543|NCT03338855|191737787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|-0.013|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of 24-hour RER between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.013|-0.033|0.0001
95891544|NCT03338855|191737788|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.027|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of energy expenditure between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||0.027|-0.245|0.1095
95973413|NCT04147650|191919983|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.6||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.4|||ANCOVA|||0.10% VOS versus vehicle||4.4|-9.6|0.3737
95973414|NCT04147650|191919983|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.8||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|8.6|||ANCOVA|||0.20% VOS versus vehicle||8.6|-5.1|0.5307
95973415|NCT02996565|191919984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares model-predicted change in SBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth Care vs. Best Practice Clinic-Based Care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.33|-2.84|0.45
95891545|NCT03338855|191737789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-246.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|464.3||0.6005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1209.5|716.2|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of fat mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||716.2|-1209.5|0.6005
95891546|NCT03338855|191737789|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-666.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1291.0|-41.9|||Linear Mixed Effects Model|A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.||Comparison of lean mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-41.9|-1291.0|0.0376
95891547|NCT03338855|191737790|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.854|-0.657|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of total mass between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||-0.657|-1.854|0.0003
95891548|NCT03338855|191737791|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-244.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|165.168||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-590.002|101.401|||Linear Mixed Effects Model||A linear mixed model with treatment group, treatment sequence, and period as fixed effects and patient as random effect.|Comparison of FGF21 AUC between dapagliflozin and placebo after 5 weeks of treatment was performed using a random effects analysis of variance model.||101.401|-590.002|0.1555
95891549|NCT01895855|191737792|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|90.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|62.7||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||62.7|
95973416|NCT02996565|191919985|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted all EHR-documented DBPs from treatment group, days elapsed from index to each DBP (time) and treatment group by time with random clinic and patient intercepts.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.51||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|planned contrast|The planned contrast compares the model-predicted change in DBP from index to 365 days in Telehealth care vs. index to 365 days in clinic based care.|adjusted for baseline SBP, baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.51|-0.95|0.64
95891550|NCT01895855|191737793|SUPERIORITY|The lower, two sided 95% confidence bound on protective efficacy must be \>/= 30%.|Vaccine Efficacy|79.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.1|49.9||||||Confidence intervals for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.|||49.9|
95891551|NCT01895855|191737794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0073
95891552|NCT01895855|191737795|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenge 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
95891553|NCT01895855|191737796|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|100.0|||||Confidence interval for the protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||100.0|67.0|
95891554|NCT01895855|191737797|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|66.8|||||Confidence interval for protective vaccine efficacy (PE) estimates were calculated using the method of Farrington and Manning (Farrington 1990).|33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||66.8|33.6|
95891555|NCT01895855|191737798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Fisher Exact|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0025
95891556|NCT01895855|191737799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Fisher Exact|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||0.0159
95891557|NCT01895855|191737800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
95891558|NCT01895855|191737801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
95891559|NCT01895855|191737802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||35 participants were challenged 10 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
95891560|NCT01895855|191737803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||33 participants were challenged 90 days after receiving PXVX0200. 66 participants were challenged either 10 days or 90 days after receiving placebo.||||<0.0001
95891561|NCT01831154|191737815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared value of 1.34 and Cramer's V .190||Cross tabulation with statistical testing with chi-square and Cramer's V was performed on infection to determine if there was any difference in surgical site infections between the interventional groups in 30 day period.||||0.512
95891562|NCT01831154|191737816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.024
95891563|NCT01831154|191737818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.132
95891564|NCT01831154|191737819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.908||||||A one way ANOVA was used to determine if participants in the tight glycemic group had shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) than participants in the other interventional groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.908
95891565|NCT03255382|191737838|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|73.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.3|85.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||85.3|61.3|< 0.001
95891566|NCT03255382|191737839|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|60.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.8|32.8|< 0.001
95891567|NCT03255382|191737840|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|76.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||76.6|50.2|< 0.001
95891568|NCT03255382|191737841|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|65.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||65.7|40.4|< 0.001
95891569|NCT03255382|191737842|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|51.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.9|27.3|< 0.001
95891570|NCT03255382|191737843|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||48.5|24.1|< 0.001
95891571|NCT03255382|191737844|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|59.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.0|33.7|< 0.001
95891572|NCT03255382|191737845|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|9.9||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||19.7|0.1|0.047
95891573|NCT03255382|191737846|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
95891574|NCT03255382|191737847|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.9|53.3|< 0.001
95891575|NCT03255382|191737848|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|79.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.5|53.8|< 0.001
95891576|NCT03255382|191737849|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.0|< 0.001
95891577|NCT03255382|191737850|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.5|77.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||77.2|52.5|< 0.001
95891578|NCT03255382|191737851|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
95891579|NCT03255382|191737852|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|36.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.8|49.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||49.3|23.8|< 0.001
95891580|NCT03255382|191737853|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|70.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.0|43.2|< 0.001
95891581|NCT03255382|191737854|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.5|78.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||78.3|51.5|< 0.001
95891582|NCT03255382|191737855|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|79.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||79.8|53.3|< 0.001
95891583|NCT03255382|191737856|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||2.1|-2.0|0.991
95891584|NCT03255382|191737857|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|3.3||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||9.8|-3.2|0.323
95891585|NCT03255382|191737858|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||32.6|10.4|< 0.001
95891586|NCT03255382|191737859|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|45.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.5|20.7|< 0.001
95891587|NCT03255382|191737860|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
95891588|NCT03255382|191737861|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||58.5|30.9|< 0.001
95891589|NCT03255382|191737862|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|-5.56|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-5.56|-8.82|< 0.001
95891590|NCT03255382|191737863|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.43|-7.72|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.72|-11.43|< 0.001
95891591|NCT03255382|191737864|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.972|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|-6.87|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.87|-10.72|< 0.001
95891592|NCT03255382|191737865|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.958|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|-5.88|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.88|-9.68|< 0.001
95891593|NCT03255382|191737866|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.71|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.71|-10.07|< 0.001
95891594|NCT03255382|191737867|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.175|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.71|-6.06|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.06|-10.71|< 0.001
95891595|NCT03255382|191737868|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|42.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||42.4|17.1|< 0.001
95891596|NCT03255382|191737869|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|66.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.4|80.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||80.0|53.4|< 0.001
95891597|NCT03255382|191737870|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.8|42.7|< 0.001
95891598|NCT03255382|191737871|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|59.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|73.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||73.6|46.3|< 0.001
95891599|NCT03255382|191737872|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|59.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||59.1|30.8|< 0.001
95891600|NCT03255382|191737873|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.2|68.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||68.8|41.2|< 0.001
95891601|NCT03255382|191737874|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|1.7||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||5.4|-2.1|0.392
95891602|NCT03255382|191737875|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|8.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||16.7|0.1|0.048
95891603|NCT03255382|191737876|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|29.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||29.5|7.1|0.001
95891604|NCT03255382|191737877|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.2|45.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||45.9|20.2|< 0.001
95891605|NCT03255382|191737878|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|41.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|55.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||55.3|27.3|< 0.001
95891606|NCT03255382|191737879|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|46.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.6|60.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||60.1|32.6|< 0.001
95891607|NCT03255382|191737880|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||31.9|7.6|0.001
95891608|NCT03255382|191737881|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||51.5|25.0|< 0.001
95891609|NCT03255382|191737882|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.0|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.0|-4.5|< 0.001
95891610|NCT03255382|191737883|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-2.7|||van Elteren test|||P-values were calculated by stratified van Elteren test.||-2.7|-5.1|< 0.001
95891611|NCT03255382|191737884|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.146|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|1.528|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.528|0.764|< 0.001
95891612|NCT03255382|191737885|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.704|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||1.704|0.936|< 0.001
95891613|NCT03255382|191737886|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.6|< 0.001
95891614|NCT03255382|191737887|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.6|-4.3|< 0.001
95891615|NCT03255382|191737888|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.32|-0.90|0.352
95891616|NCT03255382|191737889|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.296||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.29|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.29|-0.88|0.315
95891617|NCT03255382|191737890|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-2.7|-6.9|< 0.001
95891618|NCT03255382|191737891|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-6.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.1|-12.6|< 0.001
95891619|NCT03255382|191737892|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-7.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.2|-13.2|< 0.001
95891620|NCT03255382|191737893|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.8|< 0.001
95891621|NCT03255382|191737894|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-6.8|-12.4|< 0.001
95891622|NCT03255382|191737895|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-7.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-7.1|-12.9|< 0.001
95891623|NCT03255382|191737896|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.385||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|7.23|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.23|1.74|0.002
95973417|NCT02996565|191919986|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.85|1.27|<0.001
95891624|NCT03255382|191737897|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|7.25|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||7.25|2.01|< 0.001
95891625|NCT03255382|191737898|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.787|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|10.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||10.20|3.11|< 0.001
95891626|NCT03255382|191737899|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.784|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.38|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||11.38|4.31|< 0.001
95891627|NCT03255382|191737900|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.001
95891628|NCT03255382|191737901|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
95891629|NCT03255382|191737902|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-0.9|-3.2|< 0.001
95891630|NCT03255382|191737903|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.1|-3.5|< 0.001
95891631|NCT03255382|191737904|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.9|-4.3|< 0.001
95891632|NCT03255382|191737905|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-1.8|-4.4|< 0.001
95973418|NCT02996565|191919987|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood pf reporting high satisfaction at 6 months relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.52|1.02|0.03
95891633|NCT03255382|191737906|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|53.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||53.1|23.6|< 0.001
95891634|NCT03255382|191737907|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|56.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.7|70.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test adjusted for strata (prior phototherapy \[yes/no\]).||70.9|42.7|< 0.001
95891635|NCT03255382|191737908|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with prior phototherapy (yes/no), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.1|-9.6|< 0.001
95891636|NCT03255382|191737909|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.5|-9.7|< 0.001
95891637|NCT03255382|191737910|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-4.1|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-4.1|-9.0|< 0.001
95891638|NCT03255382|191737911|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||-5.0|-11.1|< 0.001
95891639|NCT03255382|191737912|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0215|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.13|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.130|0.045|< 0.001
95891640|NCT03255382|191737913|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.096|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||0.096|0.022|0.002
95891641|NCT03255382|191737914|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|20.5|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||20.5|9.4|< 0.001
95891642|NCT03255382|191737915|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and treatment in the model.||22.2|11.4|< 0.001
95891643|NCT03255382|191737916|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-6.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-6.2|-16.6|< 0.001
95891644|NCT03255382|191737917|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-8.4|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-8.4|-19.1|< 0.001
95891645|NCT03255382|191737918|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|-9.8|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-9.8|-24.8|< 0.001
95891646|NCT03255382|191737919|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-14.2|||ANCOVA|||P-values were calculated using ANCOVA with strata (phototherapy \[yes/no\]), baseline value, and the treatment in this model.||-14.2|-28.8|< 0.001
95891647|NCT00735787|191737947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary null hypothesis for this study was that there was no difference in the proportion of subjects that achieved PGA clear or almost clear at Week 16 between the adalimumab and placebo groups. Analysis was done using a two-sided Fisher's exact test at alpha level=0.05.||||0.014
95891648|NCT00624052|191737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||||95.0|0.47|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.66|0.47|
95891649|NCT00624052|191737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||||95.0|0.14|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.14|
95891650|NCT00624052|191737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||||95.0|0.12|0.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.48|0.12|
95891651|NCT00624052|191737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||||95.0|0.17|0.59|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.59|0.17|
95891652|NCT00624052|191737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||||95.0|0.15|0.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.49|0.15|
95891653|NCT00624052|191737967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||||95.0|0.42|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.68|0.42|
95891654|NCT03479307|191738013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.013|-0.407|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 4b (including all time points).||-0.407|-1.013|< 0.0001
95891655|NCT03479307|191738013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.439|-0.895|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.895|-1.439|< 0.0001
95891656|NCT03479307|191738013|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.413|-0.868|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (95% CI): Ketotifen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm minus Vehicle of Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution arm at Visit 5 (including all time points).||-0.868|-1.413|< 0.0001
95891657|NCT03479307|191738013|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.0007|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.235|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 3 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.235||0.0007
95891658|NCT03479307|191738013|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077||||0.0002|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.175|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 5 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.175||0.0002
95891659|NCT03479307|191738013|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 0.40|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.101|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Difference (one-sided, 97.5% CI): Bilastine Ophthalmic Solution 0.6% arm minus Ketotiphen Ophthalmic Solution 0.025% (Zaditen) arm at Visit 5, 7 minutes Post-CAC (non-inferiority test).||0.101||< 0.0001
95891660|NCT01464346|191738014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.69|90.33|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||90.33|85.69|<0.05
95891661|NCT01464346|191738015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|90.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.77|92.28|||ANCOVA|Mixed effects model was used, with day of sensor wear(1,3 or 6) as covariate. Day was centered to 0 to permit interpretation of the model intercept||||92.28|88.77|< 0.05
95891662|NCT02295995|191738026|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for physical activity in this sample was 1.37|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
95891663|NCT02295995|191738027|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for PCL-5 in this sample was 0.38|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
95891664|NCT02295995|191738028|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The between-group difference at 12 weeks \[mean difference (MD) and 95% Confidence Interval\] was calculated for all outcome measures. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated as the difference in mean-level change (from baseline to 12 weeks) between the two groups divided by the standard deviation (SD) and is interpreted as d=0.20 (small), d=0.50 (medium), and d=0.80 (large). Cohen's d for 6-minute walk in this sample was 0.50|Cohen's d calculated as the change from baseline to 12 weeks in both groups.|||
95891665|NCT00657241|191738036|SUPERIORITY|All hemodynamic variables are continuous and all participants received both treatments, so paired-t analysis could be used. While paired t-tests do not necessarily require a power and sample size analysis, we estimated that 30 subjects were sufficient to detect an 8% difference in CTTI between comparators at p\<0.05 with a conservatively estimated power of 0.8.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||<0.05
95891666|NCT00657241|191738038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
95891667|NCT00657241|191738039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
95891668|NCT00657241|191738040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
95891669|NCT00657241|191738041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Statistical analysis performed on treatment groups (valsartan or carvedilol CR) at end of treatment period (4 weeks), not on the randomization arms in the crossover design (which controlled for carryover effects of the prior treatment arm).||||0.05
95891670|NCT01286012|191738048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95891671|NCT01286012|191738049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.915|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.915
95891672|NCT01286012|191738050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6714
95891673|NCT01286012|191738051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95891674|NCT01286012|191738052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.361
95891675|NCT00827983|191738053|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|3.7|||Chi-squared|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||3.7|-9.9|0.37
95891676|NCT00827983|191738054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|-9.87|0.37
95891677|NCT00827983|191738055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-4.7|0.85
95891678|NCT02113956|191738056|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.57|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|||2.57|0.79|
95891679|NCT02113956|191738057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.12|0.36|
95891680|NCT02113956|191738058|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.02|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|2.02|0.45|
95891681|NCT02113956|191738059|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.18|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|3.18|0.12|
95891682|NCT02113956|191738060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.997|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|0.997|0.23|
95891683|NCT02113956|191738061|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.53|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.53|0.38|
95891684|NCT02113956|191738062|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.09|1.65|
95891685|NCT02113956|191738063|SUPERIORITY||Incident Risk Ratio (IRR)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.5|||Poisson||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.5|0.22|
95891686|NCT02113956|191738064|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.09|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|2.09|0.6|
95891687|NCT02113956|191738065|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|1.68|0.22|
95891688|NCT02113956|191738066|SUPERIORITY||Incident Rate Ratio (IRR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|92.03|||||||Adjusted for age and baseline number of condomless sex acts|92.03|0.01|
95891689|NCT02113956|191738067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.88|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|1.88|0.46|
95891690|NCT02113956|191738068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|16.95|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of abstinence|16.95|0.88|
95891691|NCT02113956|191738069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|7.58|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted for age and baseline rate of HIV testing|7.58|1.52|
95891692|NCT03658538|191738086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-0.5||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||-0.5|-8.2|0.025
95891693|NCT03658538|191738087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||P-value corresponds to the statistical significance of the group difference (active vs. control) in the primary outcome, and was not adjusted for the multiple comparison and based on the a priori threshold for statistical significance (P\<0.05).|Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|The analysis was adjusted for covariates.||||||0.061
95891694|NCT02967692|191738116|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.655|1.027|||Log Rank|||||1.027|0.655|0.042
95891695|NCT02967692|191738124|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.619|||Log Rank|||||1.619|0.865|0.2975
95891696|NCT01010906|191738178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for mild HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|3.43||||||||3.43|0.96|
95891697|NCT01010906|191738178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for moderate HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|3.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|6.04||||||||6.04|1.60|
95891698|NCT01010906|191738178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval falls within the interval \[0.50, 2.00\], then treatment of HI participants is similar to treatment of healthy matched for severe HI participants.|Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|8.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.2|13.64||||||||13.64|5.20|
95891699|NCT01010906|191738179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|3.24||||||||3.24|0.76|
95891700|NCT01010906|191738179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|4.03||||||||4.03|1.21|
95891701|NCT01010906|191738179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean Ratio|6.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|9.71||||||||9.71|3.90|
95891702|NCT03928847|191738180|SUPERIORITY|The mean EGCG blood levels were compared among 450 mg, 600 mg, and 750 mg groups.|Mean Difference (Net)|250.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95891703|NCT03928847|191738181|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95891704|NCT03928847|191738182|OTHER|ELISA data from each patient before and after EGCG treatment were compared and analyzed with the use of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (two-tailed).|||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95891705|NCT03928847|191738183|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95891706|NCT03928847|191738184|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95891707|NCT03928847|191738185|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95891708|NCT03739112|191738208|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative vaccine efficacy (VE) was \> -20%.|percent VE|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|28.7|||||VE of VLP vaccine versus Fluarix = (1-ARVv/ARVc) x 100% where ARVv = attack rate in participants vaccinated with the Quadrivalent VLP Influenza vaccine and ARVc = attack rate in participants vaccinated with an active Fluarix.|||28.7|-16.7|
95891709|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-28.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.85|-22.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-22.51|-33.85|<0.0001
95891710|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-25.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.23|-19.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||-19.34|-31.23|<0.0001
95891711|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-29.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.15|-25.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-25.15|-33.15|<0.0001
95891712|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-22.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.36|-18.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||-18.14|-26.36|<0.0001
95891713|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-17.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.54|-13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-13.50|-21.54|<0.0001
95891714|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-15.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.53|-11.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||-11.49|-19.53|<0.0001
95891715|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||-5.51|-13.97|<0.0001
95891716|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-4.98||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||-0.76|-9.19|0.0221
95891717|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-35.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-31.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-31.87|-38.89|<0.0001
95891718|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-27.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|-23.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-23.57|-30.60|<0.0001
95891719|NCT02246673|191738316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|-31.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.77|-27.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||-27.75|-34.77|<0.0001
95891720|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.27||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.57|35.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||35.98|12.57|0.0002
95891721|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.08||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|31.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||31.79|8.38|0.0013
95891722|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|33.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||33.17|14.23|<0.0001
95891723|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||28.44|8.30|0.0008
95891724|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|18.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|32.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||32.79|4.86|0.0101
95891725|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|20.52||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|34.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||34.48|6.56|0.0055
95891726|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|10.36||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|17.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||17.59|3.13|0.0065
95891727|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|1.79||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect||Cohort 4||8.94|-5.37|0.6140
95891728|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|30.83||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.62|46.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||46.04|15.62|0.0002
95891729|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|24.38||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.63|39.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||39.14|9.63|0.0019
95891730|NCT02246673|191738317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|26.35||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.59|41.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||41.11|11.59|0.0009
95891731|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|139.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.92|184.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||184.31|93.92|<0.0001
95891732|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|174.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|125.52|233.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||233.42|125.52|<0.0001
95891733|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|168.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|123.13|212.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||212.93|123.13|<0.0001
95891734|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.04|239.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||239.46|138.04|<0.0001
95891735|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|70.43||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.74|107.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||107.12|33.74|0.0005
95891736|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|91.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.81|128.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||128.19|54.81|<0.0001
95891737|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|40.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.17|55.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||55.05|25.17|<0.0001
95891738|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|15.96||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|30.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||30.71|1.20|0.0350
95891739|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|236.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|178.29|293.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||293.86|178.29|<0.0001
95891740|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|146.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.4|202.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||202.01|90.40|<0.0001
95891741|NCT02246673|191738318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|176.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.77|232.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||232.38|120.77|<0.0001
95891742|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|135.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.33|178.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||178.32|93.33|<0.0001
95891743|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|178.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.25|227.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 1||227.90|129.25|<0.0001
95891744|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|163.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|120.8|207.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||207.16|120.80|<0.0001
95891745|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|169.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.82|217.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 2||217.03|122.82|<0.0001
95891746|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|59.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.85|90.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||90.34|28.85|0.0007
95891747|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|73.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.79|104.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 3||104.28|42.79|<0.0001
95973419|NCT02996565|191919988|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that smoking was current 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of current smoking at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|unadjusted|||1.07|0.95|0.73
95891748|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|33.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.21|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||46.20|21.21|<0.0001
95891749|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|27.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.58|39.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 4||39.58|14.58|0.0001
95891750|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|188.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|152.55|225.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||225.10|152.55|<0.0001
95891751|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|116.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.76|151.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||151.90|81.76|<0.0001
95891752|NCT02246673|191738319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio|151.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|116.59|186.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included treatment and period as fixed effects and subject(s) as a random effect.||Cohort 5||186.73|116.59|<0.0001
95891753|NCT03559257|191738343|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-3.92|<0.0001
95891754|NCT03559257|191738344|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.72|-3.41|<0.0001
95891755|NCT03559257|191738345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.935|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|5.693|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.693|2.719|<0.0001
95891756|NCT03559257|191738346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|5.381|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||5.381|2.252|<0.0001
95891757|NCT03559257|191738347|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|12.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.19|15.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.87|9.19|<0.0001
95891758|NCT03559257|191738348|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|11.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.14|15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.89|7.14|<0.0001
95891759|NCT03559257|191738349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.878||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.374|14.554|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||14.554|2.374|0.0001
95891760|NCT03559257|191738350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|548.706|999.999|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Estimated value and upper bound are \>999.999|||999.999|548.706|<0.0001
95891761|NCT03559257|191738351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.352|10.679|||pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure|||||10.679|2.352|<0.0001
95891762|NCT03559257|191738352|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|999.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|999.99|999.99|||Pseudo likelihood-based repeated measure||Point estimate, upper limit and lower limit are \>999.99|||999.99|999.99|<0.0001
95891763|NCT03559257|191738353|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.65|-4.14|<0.0001
95891764|NCT03559257|191738354|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.29|-3.96|<0.0001
95891765|NCT03559257|191738355|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95891766|NCT03559257|191738356|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.54|-1.58|<0.0001
95891767|NCT03559257|191738357|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Activity Impairment.||||<0.0001
95973420|NCT02996565|191919989|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.4|.98|0.08
95973421|NCT02996565|191919990|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.29|0.95|0.18
95973422|NCT02996565|191919991|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.87|0.77
95973423|NCT02996565|191919992|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.80|0.32
95973424|NCT02996565|191919993|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.19||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.19|0.76|0.62
95973425|NCT02996565|191919994|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the side effect was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.08|0.91|0.87
95973426|NCT02996565|191919995|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|0.82|0.51
95973427|NCT02996565|191919996|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.37|0.87|0.41
95973428|NCT02996565|191919997|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity was helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.06|0.77|0.18
95973429|NCT02996565|191919998|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.09|0.78|0.31
95891768|NCT03559257|191738357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANCOVA|||Absenteeism.||||0.3880
95891769|NCT03559257|191738357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANCOVA|||Presenteeism.||||0.0004
95891770|NCT03559257|191738357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||Work impairment.||||0.0003
95891771|NCT03559257|191738358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95891772|NCT03559257|191738359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1267|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1267
95891773|NCT03559257|191738360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1630
95891774|NCT03559257|191738361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0277
95891775|NCT00561080|191738383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio (GMTR)|1.11||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||1.22|1.02|0.948
95891776|NCT00561080|191738383|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority was achieved if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was greater than 1.2|GMTR|0.78|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.85|||ANOVA||GMTR = GMT Post Dose 2/GMT Post dose 1|||0.85|0.73|>0.999
95891777|NCT00561080|191738384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMFR|2.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|2.62|||||GMFR=GMT Post Dose/GMT Pre Dose|||2.62|2.11|
95891778|NCT00561080|191738386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.17|||||GMT Ratio = Group 2 GMT/Group 1 GMT|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.17|0.96|
95891779|NCT00561080|191738386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||||GMT Ratio = GMT Group 3/GMT Group 1|ANCOVA model includes country and age at first vaccination as independent variables and baseline antibody titre as covariate. The GMT 12-month post-last dose is the GMT adjusted from the ANCOVA model||1.19|0.98|
95891780|NCT03204305|191738406|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||p \< 0.05 for all analyses. Bonferroni corrections were made to reduce family-wise error rate.|t-test, 2 sided|Composite VT was compared using independent t-tests.||VT in the 8 volumes of interest were analyzed using linear regression model group coded encoded as a dummy variable \[1=females cannabis users; 2= female healthy controls\], age as a covariate, and VT for VOIs (ventral striatum, amygdala, putamen, cingulate, globus pallidus, insula, frontal cortex, and hippocampus) as dependent variables, followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD between between groups.||||0.02
95891781|NCT03204305|191738406|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.36||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95891782|NCT03204305|191738406|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.35||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95891783|NCT03204305|191738406|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-2.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95891784|NCT03204305|191738407|SUPERIORITY||t test|-2.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95891785|NCT03388294|191738432|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|7.32||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
95891786|NCT03388294|191738433|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The focus for this analysis is change over time||||<0.001
95891787|NCT03388294|191738434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95891788|NCT03388294|191738435|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95891789|NCT03388294|191738436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
95891790|NCT03388294|191738437|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.849|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.849
95891791|NCT03388294|191738438|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.063
95891792|NCT03388294|191738439|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95891793|NCT03388294|191738443|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.036
95891794|NCT03388294|191738444|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time||||||0.0002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95891795|NCT03388294|191738445|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.864|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.864
95891796|NCT03388294|191738446|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95891797|NCT03388294|191738447|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
95891798|NCT03388294|191738448|OTHER|The focus for this analysis is change over time|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.846
95891799|NCT03526458|191738529|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|28.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||28.9|4.4|0.012
95891800|NCT03526458|191738530|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|26.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|-3.6|0.132
95891801|NCT03526458|191738531|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.9|-4.4|0.654
95891802|NCT03526458|191738532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.299
95891803|NCT03526458|191738533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.076
95891804|NCT03526458|191738534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|143.9||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-286.0|306.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||306.8|-286|0.943
95891805|NCT03526458|191738535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.185
95891806|NCT00484939|191738536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95891807|NCT00484939|191738537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||This statistical analysis compared the number of responders in the 2 treatment groups. A responder was defined as any participant with a best overall response of complete response or partial response. There were 28 responders in the bevacizumab + capecitabine group and 14 responders in the capecitabine group.||||0.029
95891808|NCT00484939|191738540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.130
95891809|NCT00529542|191738547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|5.3||All hypotheses tests were two-sided.|Linear mixed-effects models|Linear mixed-effects models were fit to continuous outcomes to assess the change from baseline to 6 weeks between groups.|This analysis revealed that the required sample size was 235 subjects per group for 80% power to detect an absolute 2% increase in FMD with Atorvastatin vs. Placebo. We stopped the trial because we had insufficient funds for the required sample size.|This study was initiated as a pilot study with the goal of enrolling 19 women in each group, which we hypothesized would provide 80% power to detect an absolute difference in the change in FMD from baseline between the two groups (Atorvastatin vs. Placebo) of 3.75%, assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 4%, using a two-sided, two-sample t-test with α=0.05. Recruitment was slow due to strict inclusion/ exclusion criteria so we analyzed our data after the first 20 women completed the study.||5.3|-9.3|0.58
95891810|NCT00529542|191738548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2.3|-0.9|0.39
95891811|NCT00529542|191738549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-46.4|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-46.4|-95.2|<0.001
95891812|NCT00529542|191738550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-57.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.3|-35.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-35.9|-79.3|<0.001
95891813|NCT00529542|191738551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|9.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||9.5|-2.7|0.26
95891814|NCT00529542|191738552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-82.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.2|-38.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-38.1|-126.2|<0.001
95891815|NCT00529542|191738553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|5.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.8|-12.4|0.45
95891816|NCT00529542|191738554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|7.9|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7.9|-2.8|0.33
95891817|NCT00529542|191738555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|586.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1811.0|2983.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||2983|-1811|0.61
95891818|NCT00529542|191738556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3385.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.0|7056.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||7056|-287|0.07
95891819|NCT00529542|191738557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|27.8|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||27.8|-24.1|0.88
95891820|NCT00529542|191738558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-0.5|-1.6|<0.001
95891821|NCT00529542|191738559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-364.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-655.3|-73.2|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||-73.2|-655.3|0.02
95891822|NCT00529542|191738560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.5|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.5|-6.4|0.21
95891823|NCT00529542|191738561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|5.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||5.0|-16.9|0.27
95891824|NCT00529542|191738562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|0.1|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||0.1|-15.8|0.05
95891825|NCT00529542|191738563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.7|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||13.7|-6.8|0.48
95891826|NCT00529542|191738564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0|||Linear mixed-effects models|||"What is being compared for this analysis is the change from baseline for Atorvastatin to the change from baseline for Placebo."||1.0|-0.6|0.63
95891827|NCT04262232|191738597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.95|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.95|-2.6|0.0001
95891828|NCT04262232|191738598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.63|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||1.63|1.17|<0.0001
95891829|NCT04262232|191738600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-0.61|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||-0.61|-4.99|0.01
95891830|NCT04262232|191738602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.02|||Paired t-test, two-sided||Baseline value minus two weeks post-intervention value.|||2.02|-1.02|0.51
95891831|NCT01975909|191738603|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of SARA (i.e., greater percent decrease of SARA score from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95891832|NCT01975909|191738604|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 25-foot walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95891833|NCT01975909|191738605|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 9-hole peg test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete the test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95891834|NCT01975909|191738606|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of 90-second walking test (i.e., greater percent increase of walking speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95891835|NCT01975909|191738607|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the standing postural control stability (i.e., greater percent decrease increase of postural sway speed from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95891836|NCT01975909|191738608|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real TMS would improve the performance of TUG test (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG test from baseline) as compared to the sham TMS.||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95891837|NCT02921776|191738732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95891838|NCT02921776|191738733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95891839|NCT02921776|191738734|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Effect size|Effect size =-0.29||||||0.10
95891840|NCT02921776|191738734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.10
95891841|NCT02921776|191738735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Benzodiazepine exposure||||0.02
95891842|NCT02921776|191738735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.291|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Opioid Exposure||||0.291
95891843|NCT02921776|191738736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95891844|NCT02921776|191738737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95891845|NCT02921776|191738738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.72|0.19|0.93
95891846|NCT02921776|191738739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95891847|NCT02921776|191738741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95891848|NCT02921776|191738742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.94
95891849|NCT02921776|191738742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient Extubation or Discharge from ICU||||0.89
95891850|NCT02921776|191738742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-Month||||0.38
95891851|NCT02921776|191738742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.63
95891852|NCT02921776|191738742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.73
95891853|NCT02921776|191738743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.82
95891854|NCT02921776|191738743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient extubation or discharge from ICU||||0.84
95891855|NCT02921776|191738743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month||||0.96
95891856|NCT02921776|191738743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||3-Month||||0.17
95891857|NCT02921776|191738743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.39
95891858|NCT02921776|191738744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1-month||||0.26
95891859|NCT02921776|191738744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month||||0.25
95891860|NCT02921776|191738744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month||||0.79
95891861|NCT02921776|191738752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.01|0.05|0.05
95891862|NCT02921776|191738752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||Adjusted for baseline communication difficulty||1.30|0.06|0.10
95891863|NCT03628703|191738753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95891864|NCT05247229|191738754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
95891865|NCT05247229|191738754|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
95891866|NCT05247229|191738755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.11|||Chi-squared|||Q6 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.11|-0.96|0.12
95891867|NCT05247229|191738755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Q7 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.05|-0.23|0.21
95891868|NCT05247229|191738755|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.54|||Chi-squared|||Q15 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.54|-0.41|0.78
95891869|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Q1 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.86|0.16|0.01
95891870|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q2 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.34|0.67
95891871|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41|||Chi-squared|||Q3 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.41|-0.15|0.35
95891872|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||Chi-squared|||Q4 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.61|-0.43|0.73
95891873|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||Chi-squared|||Q5 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.52|-0.13|0.23
95891874|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.71||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Q9 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||1.15|0.27|0.00
95891875|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.73|||Chi-squared|||Q10 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.73|0.00|0.05
95891876|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Q11 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.82|-0.07|0.10
95891877|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Q12 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.91|-0.30|0.32
95891878|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.7|||Chi-squared|||Q13 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.70|-0.25|0.36
95891879|NCT05247229|191738756|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||Chi-squared|||Q14 Difference between pre- and post-program surveys from generalized estimating equation linear regressions accounting for clustering of longitudinal observations within person, adjusted associations and 95% confidence intervals.||0.78|-0.07|0.11
95891880|NCT02117999|191738772|NON_INFERIORITY|Sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values. The relationship between the change in Kmax at 12 months and baseline parameters was assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis for either group.||||<0.05
95891881|NCT02117999|191738773|NON_INFERIORITY|sample size calculation was performed to detect a difference of 0.95 D between the average Kmax changes for the T-ionto CL and standard CL groups at 12 months, at a significance level of 5% and a power of 81%, assuming a standard deviation of 1.20 D. The sample size of the study was 34 cases (allocation ratio of 2:1)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of changes from baseline in each group was made using the paired Student t-test. Treatment effects were assessed using repeated measures ANOVA between groups and time (3 days, 7 days, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-months). The outcome measures over time were corrected for baseline values.||||0.05
95891882|NCT04447417|191738789|OTHER||Point estimate|0.43|||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.49||One-sided p-value. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|linear mixed model||Point estimate obtained was back-transformed by exponentiation|TEWL data for linear mixed model was log-transformed to account for right skewness of data and heteroskedasticity. The linear mixed effect on log (TEWL) included age, sex, number of STS, localization on the body, visit, number of STS-by-visit interaction and number of STS-by-age interaction as fixed effects. Model was run on data on lesional skin area.||0.49|0.37|<=0.0001
95891883|NCT01921179|191738819|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on neurocognitive performance Attention and Executive Function Overall Domain Z Score|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95891884|NCT01921179|191738820|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare neurocognitive performance on Overall Attention /Executive Function overall score at baseline and at 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure MANOVA was used to compare performance on neurocognitive domain scores at baseline and at 6+ month follow-up post-GOALS training||||||<0.001
95891885|NCT01921179|191738821|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on functional performance||||||>0.05
95891886|NCT01921179|191738822|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare performance on Goal Processing Scale Overall domain scores at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95891887|NCT01921179|191738823|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS training versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|A repeated measures MANOVA was used to compare the impact of GOALS versus the BHE training on emotional regulation measures - POMS Total score||||||<0.05
95891888|NCT01921179|191738824|EQUIVALENCE|A repeated measure multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to compare participants' self-report on POMS Total Mood Disturbance overall score at baseline and 6+ month post-GOALS training follow-up|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95891889|NCT00858442|191738825|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks = 0.953, P\> 0.449 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks=0.946, P \> 0.259.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 0.1234, P\> 0.99)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.452|>|0.1574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.332|2.428||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -1.016 is obtained. p\> 0.1574|t-test, 1 sided|||||2.428|-7.332|>0.1574
95891890|NCT00858442|191738826|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks =0.972, P\> 0.687 in group without PRP and in PRP group shapiro Wilks = 0.964, P \> 0.410.~The data were normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene: F = 3.153, P\> 0.082)"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.50519|>|0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28561|0.74189||Applies t-test for equality of means. t = -0.538 is obtained. p\> 0.593|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74189|-1.28561|>0.593
95891891|NCT00858442|191738827|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Applies normality test of shapiro Wilks=0.822, P\<0.001 in group without PRP, and in PRP group shapiro Wilks =0.910, P\<0.017.~The data were no normally distributed, with equal variances (Test of levene, F=1.324, P\>0.255)"|||||>|0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank group without PRP= 28.88 Mean rank group with PRP= 26.31 Z value = -0.027||||||>0.398
95891892|NCT02016625|191738828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis (H0): ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. alternative hypothesis (H1): ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|108.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.992|117.076|||ANOVA||ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|Geometric mean (gMean) ratio of cyclo + FDV to cyclo treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||117.076|99.992|0.0033
95973430|NCT02996565|191919999|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the activity is helpful at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.22|0.89|0.56
95891893|NCT02016625|191738829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) vs. H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|106.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.7||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|115.534|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||115.534|98.360|0.0019
95973431|NCT02996565|191920000|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.03|0.68|0.08
95973432|NCT02996565|191920001|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.11|.73|0.32
95973433|NCT02996565|191920002|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.33|0.98|0.09
95973434|NCT02996565|191920003|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.83|0.77
95973435|NCT02996565|191920004|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.5|.97|0.09
95973436|NCT02996565|191920005|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.64||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.92||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||0.92|0.45|0.02
95891894|NCT02016625|191738830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|90.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.6||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.281|101.205|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to cyclo treatment The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||101.205|80.281|0.0457
95891895|NCT02016625|191738831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|140.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.8||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.772|177.833|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||177.833|111.772|0.8122
95891896|NCT02016625|191738832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|116.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.674|125.801|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||125.801|108.674|0.0650
95891897|NCT02016625|191738833|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|122.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.9||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.8|143.6|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of cyclo+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||143.60|104.80|0.4181
95891898|NCT02016625|191738834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|127.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.453|141.827|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||141.827|114.453|0.6207
95891899|NCT02016625|191738835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|136.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.4||0.8592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.683|157.793|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||157.793|118.683|0.8592
95891900|NCT02016625|191738836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.5||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.857|118.644|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||118.644|82.857|0.0269
95891901|NCT02016625|191738837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|93.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.1||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.059|110.022|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||110.022|80.059|0.0493
95973437|NCT02996565|191920006|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||.89|.55|0.006
95973438|NCT02996565|191920007|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting the burden was a problem at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.01|0.60|0.06
95891902|NCT02016625|191738838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|99.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.375|106.115|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||106.115|93.375|0.0000
95891903|NCT02016625|191738839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|H0: ratio is outside of interval (80%, 125%) VS H1: ratio is inside of interval (80%, 125%)|gMean ratio (%)|96.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.53|104.45|||ANOVA||gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The standard error of the mean actually is the geometric coefficient of variation (%).|gMean ratio of tac+FDV to FDV treatment. The statistical model used for the analysis of primary endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale. This model accounted for variation from 'subject' and 'treatment' effects. The 'subject' effect was considered to be random, whereas the 'treatment' effect was considered as fixed.||104.45|88.53|0.0008
95891904|NCT01268111|191738898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
95891905|NCT02603432|191738916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|0.863||One-sided log-rank test was used.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed using a Cox's Proportional Hazard model.||||0.863|0.556|0.0005
95891906|NCT02603432|191738939|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.26||||0.913|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.901||||Log Rank||||||0.901|0.9130
95891907|NCT02529137|191738943|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority margin was set at 4%|difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.01||||||||1.01|-0.30|
95891908|NCT02066467|191738986|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
95891909|NCT02066467|191738988|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||exact binominal methodology|||||||<0.0001
95891910|NCT02357901|191738989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
95891911|NCT02357901|191738989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||significance at the 0.025 level|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
95891912|NCT02357901|191738990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95891913|NCT02357901|191738990|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95891914|NCT02357901|191738991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
95891915|NCT02357901|191738991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
95891916|NCT02357901|191738992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
95891917|NCT02357901|191738992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||<0.0001
95891918|NCT02357901|191738993|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|-4.3||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-4.30|-14.56|0.0003
95891919|NCT02357901|191738993|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|-7.28||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-7.28|-17.51|<0.0001
95891920|NCT02357901|191738994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
95891921|NCT02357901|191738994|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
95891922|NCT02357901|191738995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
95891923|NCT02357901|191738995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
95891924|NCT02357901|191738996|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.46||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.46|-0.96|<0.0001
95891925|NCT02357901|191738996|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.62||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.62|-1.12|<0.0001
95891926|NCT02357901|191738997|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.33||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.89|<0.0001
95891927|NCT02357901|191738997|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.41||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.97|<0.0001
95891928|NCT02357901|191738998|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.36||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.36|-1.13|0.3143
95973439|NCT02996565|191920008|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.10|0.94|0.65
95973440|NCT02996565|191920009|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.25|0.83|0.83
95973441|NCT02996565|191920010|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.13|0.95|0.41
95973442|NCT02996565|191920011|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.16|0.94|0.40
95973443|NCT02996565|191920012|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted baseline and 6 month patient-reported outcome from treatment group, time point and treatment group by time with random clinic intercept and patient scale parameter.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The interaction RR compares the likelihood of reporting very/extremely confident at 6m relative to baseline in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline DBP, baseline age, sex|||1.07|0.95|0.74
95973444|NCT02996565|191920013|SUPERIORITY|Random coefficients model predicted the likelihood that a new statin was current at 12 months by treatment group with random clinic intercept.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|The risk ratio compares the likelihood of a new statin medication that is current at 12 months in Telehealth care vs. clinic based care|adjusted for baseline SBP , baseline DBP, baseline age, sex, Asian race|||1.37|0.81|0.71
95973445|NCT01602562|191920014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.11|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||16.11|0.00|
95973446|NCT01602562|191920014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.65|||||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with an HSV infection.|||17.65|0.00|
95891929|NCT02357901|191738998|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.23||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.23|-1.72|0.0101
95891930|NCT02357901|191738999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|0.14||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||0.14|-3.29|0.0726
95973447|NCT03881553|191920029|OTHER|Non-parametric Friedmans||||||0.081||||||χ2 =5.03|Friedman's|||||||0.081
95973448|NCT03881553|191920029|OTHER|Post hoc: Wilcoxon||||||0.05||||||ON1 compared to OFF1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95973449|NCT03881553|191920029|OTHER|Post Hoc Wilcoxon||||||0.021||||||ON1 compared to OFF2|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95973450|NCT01718353|191920034|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||%ARNL change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥50% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.02
95973451|NCT01718353|191920042|OTHER|||||||0.0927|||||||ANOVA|||MTB change from baseline at Cycle 1 Day 8 in participants with ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4 was compared with that of participants who did not have ≥30% decrease in PSA at Cycle 4||||0.0927
95973452|NCT00968227|191920087|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95973453|NCT01191268|191920099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||The study was designed to enroll 837 randomized participants (279 per treatment arm) with 90% power to detect non-inferiority of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine on HbA1c change from baseline at the 26-week primary endpoint with a margin of 0.4%, a standard deviation of 1.3%, and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025 assuming no true difference between treatments. This corresponds to 248 participants per arm, with an assumed drop-out rate of 11%.||-0.07|-0.38|<0.001
95891931|NCT02357901|191738999|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.9||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with terms for treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Center was included in the model as a random effect.||-0.90|-4.32|0.0028
95891932|NCT02357901|191739000|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.81|9.2||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.20|5.81|<0.0001
95891933|NCT02357901|191739000|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.82|9.21||Significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|a random effects ANOVA model with treatment included as fixed effect and center as random effect.||||9.21|5.82|<0.0001
95891934|NCT04259762|191739004|OTHER|This is a summary of the total number of participants in the focus groups who endorsed the particular theme.|Proportion endorsing themes|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||All focus groups were summarized together and, therefore, the denominators (N=85 \[Community\], N=11 \[Provider\]) for each theme are the same. Further, the focus groups only made qualitative (and no quantitative) assessments/endoresement of themes. No formal comparisons among groups were made.||||
95891935|NCT04259762|191739006|OTHER|Formal statistical comparisons were not made.|Proportion endorsing attempt to screen|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.831|||||"Pooled estimate of attempt to screening. Using R:~n1 \<- c(20,28,11,15,26,23,21); nt \<- c(45,50,45,50,50,50,22) p1 \<- n1/nt; v1 \<- p1\*(1-p1)/nt fit \<- lm(p1 \~ 1,weight=1/v1) summary(fit)$coef\[1\] + qt(.975,6)\*c(0,-1,1)\*summary(fit)$coef\[2\]"|||0.831|0.303|
95891936|NCT01203046|191739007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was used for the calculation of statistical power an author of 5% level, it was felt that the difference between the minimum value of non inferiority does not exceed 10%.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|19.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.83|0.35|<0.05
95891937|NCT01203046|191739008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Consider a 5% confidence level, the power of assigned contrast was 80% to detect a difference minima of at least 10% of equivalence between the analyzed groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|6.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.51|0.21|<0.05
95973454|NCT01191268|191920099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.33|<0.001
95973455|NCT01191268|191920099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.38|0.005
95891938|NCT03453684|191739009|OTHER||Overall SE of the estimate|0.009|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.45 Standard error of the estimate of w\^2: 0.39|||||
95891939|NCT03453684|191739010|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|9.85|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.61 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
95891940|NCT03453684|191739011|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|8.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): \^a (fixed to 0)|||||
95891941|NCT03453684|191739012|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|4.83|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.003 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.03|||||
95891942|NCT03453684|191739013|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|17.21|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.13|||||
95891943|NCT03453684|191739014|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95891944|NCT03453684|191739015|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value should be read as: 2.1E-06 Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.24|||||
95891945|NCT03453684|191739016|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of ꙍ\^2 (intersubject variability): 0.08|||||
95973456|NCT01191268|191920099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.33|0.015
95973457|NCT01191268|191920100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.5 mg LY2189265 versus Insulin Glargine was below 0.4%, 1.5 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.42|<0.001
95891946|NCT03453684|191739017|OTHER||Overall Standard Error of the Estimate|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Standard error of the estimate of Typical value: 0.02|||||
95891947|NCT03453684|191739018|OTHER||SE of the estimate of Typical Value|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95891948|NCT02759120|191739060|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.71|0.83
95891949|NCT02759120|191739061|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.78|||Regression, Cox|||||1.78|0.70|0.65
95891950|NCT02759120|191739062|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.17|||Regression, Cox|||||2.17|0.82|0.25
95891951|NCT02759120|191739063|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.91|0.13
95891952|NCT02759120|191739064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.89|||Regression, Cox|||||1.89|0.78|0.40
95891953|NCT02759120|191739065|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.90|0.16
95973458|NCT01191268|191920100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 1-sided adjusted p-value was below 0.025, then 0.75 mg LY2189265 was declared non-inferior to Insulin Glargine.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.37|<0.001
95891954|NCT02759120|191739066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.83|||Regression, Cox|||||2.83|-0.56|0.19
95891955|NCT02759120|191739067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.35|||Regression, Cox|||||3.35|-1.67|0.51
95891956|NCT02759120|191739068|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.46|0.13
95891957|NCT02759120|191739069|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
95891958|NCT02759120|191739070|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.46|||Regression, Cox|||||0.46|-0.24|0.54
95891959|NCT02759120|191739071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.8|||Regression, Linear|||||0.80|-0.79|0.99
95891960|NCT02759120|191739072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.39|||Regression, Cox|||||3.39|-4.64|0.76
95973459|NCT01191268|191920100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.07|-0.42|0.005
95973460|NCT01191268|191920100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.02||Family-wise Type I error rate was controlled by applying tree-gatekeeping strategy.|ANCOVA|||Superiority analysis.||-0.02|-0.37|0.014
95891961|NCT02759120|191739073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.051|||Regression, Cox|||||0.051|-0.031|0.63
95973461|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.014
95973462|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7.0% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.010
95973463|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.027
95973464|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.384
95973465|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95973466|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than 7% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.250
95973467|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.272
95973468|NCT01191268|191920101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||||||Treatment comparison for HbA1c less than or equal to 6.5% at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.623
95973469|NCT01191268|191920102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95891962|NCT02759120|191739074|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.043|||Regression, Cox|||||0.043|-0.007|0.15
95891963|NCT02759120|191739075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|-1.11|0.53
95891964|NCT02759120|191739076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|2.2|||Regression, Linear|||||2.20|-1.61|0.75
95891965|NCT03992781|191739085|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-53.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891966|NCT03992781|191739086|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUDOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891967|NCT03992781|191739087|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-33.2|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95973470|NCT01191268|191920102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95973471|NCT01191268|191920102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95973472|NCT01191268|191920102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95891968|NCT03992781|191739087|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-47.1|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in CUXOS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891969|NCT03992781|191739088|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-27.6|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891970|NCT03992781|191739088|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-34.5|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in JSEQ score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891971|NCT03992781|191739089|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-43.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 2 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891972|NCT03992781|191739089|SUPERIORITY||Relative change|-35.4|||<|0.001|||||||t-test|||Relative change in VAS score between Visit 3 and Visit 1 was tested by ratio t-test (paired t-test of logarithm) at 0.05 alpha level. This was expressed in percentage.||||<0.001
95891973|NCT01996826|191739097|OTHER|Based on prior studies endothelial rejection episodes tend to occur in the range of about 60% of transplants. We used rates ranging from 50 to 70 % to compute the sample size. We specified the probability of a type 1 error equal to 0.05, study power equal to 80%, a follow-up period of 12 months, and 4% loss to follow-up. Calculations resulted in sample size estimates of between 65 and 124 participants.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.14|||Log Rank|||Endothelial rejection rates in patients in the treatment group and the control group were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. The Kaplan-Meier/product limit estimator is a non-parametric statistical test used to show the probability of an event occurring at a given time interval. The Kaplan-Meier estimator is used to show what the probability of corneal transplant rejection (and therefore transplant survival) after administration of the active treatment or control.||1.14|0.12|0.10
95891974|NCT01996826|191739098|OTHER|The count of ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.06|||Fisher Exact|||The incidence of Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.06|0.78|0.36
95891975|NCT01996826|191739098|OTHER|Mild ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.4|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||1.4|0.63|0.82
95891976|NCT01996826|191739098|OTHER|Moderate severity ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity Ocular Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||2.2|0.41|>0.99
95891977|NCT01996826|191739098|OTHER|Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||Severe ocular adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.||1.9|0.20|0.51
95891978|NCT01996826|191739099|OTHER|The incidence of Systematic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were calculated and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||Fisher Exact|||||1.02|0.79|0.24
95891979|NCT01996826|191739099|OTHER|Mild severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.62||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.9|||Fisher Exact|||The number of mild systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||3.9|0.68|0.40
95891980|NCT01996826|191739099|OTHER|Moderate severity systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.95|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of moderate severity systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
95973473|NCT01191268|191920103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.35|0.628
95973474|NCT01191268|191920103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.41||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.15|0.368
95973475|NCT01191268|191920103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.42|-0.16|0.370
95973476|NCT01191268|191920103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.3||Treatment comparison of Daily Mean values at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.26|0.879
95973477|NCT01191268|191920104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.79||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|0.83|<0.001
95973478|NCT01191268|191920104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.28||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.28|1.32|<0.001
95891981|NCT01996826|191739099|OTHER|Severe systemic adverse events for subjects in intervention group and control group were counted and compared.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.9|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|14.5|||Fisher Exact|||The number of severe systemic Adverse Events for subjects in intervention group (Avastin® (bevacizumab) and control group (0.9% NaCl \& Refresh Liquigel) were counted and compared.||14.5|0.26|>0.99
95891982|NCT00518323|191739106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.508||95.0|-8.36|4.16||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||4.16|-8.36|0.508
95973479|NCT01191268|191920104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.64||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.55|<0.001
95973480|NCT01191268|191920104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.96||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.96|0.88|<0.001
95973481|NCT01191268|191920106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-2.59||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.59|-3.81|<0.001
95973482|NCT01191268|191920106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.54||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-2.76|<0.001
95973483|NCT01191268|191920106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.48||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-2.48|-3.99|<0.001
95973484|NCT01191268|191920106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-1.27||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.78|<0.001
95973485|NCT01191268|191920108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.96||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.96|-1.44|<0.001
95973486|NCT01191268|191920108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.55||Treatment comparison at 26 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-1.03|<0.001
95973487|NCT01191268|191920108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.94||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.55|<0.001
95973488|NCT01191268|191920108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||Treatment comparison at 52 weeks.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.46|-1.06|<0.001
95973489|NCT02842827|191920175|OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.3868
95973490|NCT02842827|191920176|OTHER|||||||0.7744|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.7744
95973491|NCT02842827|191920177|OTHER|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.5080
95973492|NCT02842827|191920178|OTHER|||||||0.6109|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.6109
95973493|NCT02842827|191920179|OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.1151
95973494|NCT02842827|191920180|OTHER|||||||0.0791|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of the treatment effect was calculated between all dose arms with ≥3 participants||||||0.0791
95973495|NCT03386110|191920181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.19||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-month follow-up, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||2.54|-0.15|0.08
95973496|NCT03386110|191920181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.89|-0.49|0.25
95973497|NCT03386110|191920181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.79||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||3.09|0.49|0.007
95973498|NCT03386110|191920181|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.36||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on illicit drug use at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||1.53|-2.26|0.71
95973499|NCT03386110|191920182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.36||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.37|-0.65|0.36
95973500|NCT03386110|191920182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted CAS events at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.78|-1.15|0.63
95891983|NCT00518323|191739106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.006||95.0|-16.58|-3.67||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-3.67|-16.58|0.006
95891984|NCT00518323|191739106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.086||95.0|-13.07|-0.09||The p value was associated with the closed testing procedure using Dunnett's test.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|The 95% confidence intervals were unadjusted for multiplicity.|If there were approximately 49 subjects per treatment group who had Week 6 (LOCF or end point) PANSS total measurements, the study was expected to have approximately 80% power to detect a clinically relevant difference of 13.2 points between any paliperidone ER group compared with placebo for the primary outcome measure.||-0.09|-13.07|0.086
95891985|NCT00518323|191739107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.968
95891986|NCT00518323|191739107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||<0.001
95891987|NCT00518323|191739107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Analysis of the change in the CGI-S score at end point was performed using an analysis of covariance model on the ranks of the change in score at end point with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors, and (non-ranked) baseline CGI-S score as a covariate.||||0.021
95891988|NCT00518323|191739108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.846||95.0|-4.54|3.73||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.73|-4.54|0.846
95891989|NCT00518323|191739108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001||95.0|4.28|12.82||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||12.82|4.28|<0.001
95891990|NCT00518323|191739108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.067||95.0|-0.28|8.33||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||8.33|-0.28|0.067
95891991|NCT00518323|191739109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.058||95.0|-0.29|16.56||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||16.56|-0.29|0.058
95891992|NCT00518323|191739109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001||95.0|8.08|25.43||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||25.43|8.08|<0.001
95891993|NCT00518323|191739109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.003||95.0|4.76|22.23||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||22.23|4.76|0.003
95891994|NCT00518323|191739110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.237||95.0|-13.11|3.26||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||3.26|-13.11|0.237
95891995|NCT00518323|191739110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.119||95.0|-15.15|1.74||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||1.74|-15.15|0.119
95891996|NCT00518323|191739110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.574||95.0|-11.0|6.11||Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Used ANCOVA model with treatment(placebo, pali ER Low, pali ER Medium, and pali ER High) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||6.11|-11.00|0.574
95891997|NCT03164928|191739111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.673|||ANCOVA|||||0.673|-0.450|0.68
95891998|NCT03164928|191739112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.17||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.542|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6||0.542|-0.194|0.34
95891999|NCT03164928|191739112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.661|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18||0.661|-0.609|0.93
95892000|NCT03164928|191739112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.572|0.795|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24||0.795|-0.572|0.74
95892001|NCT03164928|191739112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means Difference|-0.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.848|0.239|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36||0.239|-1.848|0.12
95892002|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.223|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Total Hip)||0.223|-1.050|0.19
95892003|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.631|0.515|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Total Hip)||0.515|-0.631|0.83
95892004|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.108|0.565|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Total Hip)||0.565|-1.108|0.51
95892005|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.098|0.746|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Total Hip)||0.746|-1.098|0.69
95892006|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.465|1.286|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Total Hip)||1.286|-1.465|0.89
95892007|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|0.614|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 6 (Femoral Neck)||0.614|-0.969|0.64
95892008|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 12 (Femoral Neck)||1.000|-0.808|0.83
95892009|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|1.442|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 18 (Femoral Neck)||1.442|-0.697|0.48
95892010|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.222|1.443|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 24 (Femoral Neck)||1.443|-1.222|0.86
95892011|NCT03164928|191739113|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.38||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.378|2.13|||Repeated Measures Model|||Month 36 (Femoral Neck)||2.130|-1.378|0.66
95892012|NCT01817725|191739136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95892013|NCT02418468|191739138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM|||||0.07|-0.26|0.262
95892014|NCT00909779|191739139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The study was powered under a one-sided alternative hypothesis, in which arformoterol is superior to placebo, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 or less. To achieve 80% power, it was necessary to observe 86 total events for the primary endpoint adjusted for interim analysis. Assuming an annual event proportion of 17.3% in the placebo group and 30% lost to follow-up, we anticipated to randomize approximately 900 subjects (450 per arm).~The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.4."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.606|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.864|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio was calculated as arformoterol vs. placebo.|"The null hypothesis is: There is 40% or higher excess risk of the primary events in the arformoterol group relative to placebo (a constant hazard ratio of 1.4).~The primary analysis was a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group, baseline smoking status, sex, age, BMI, and baseline FEV1 as covariates. The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio (adjusted for the interim analysis) comparing arformoterol to placebo were estimated."||0.864|0.425|
95892015|NCT01592344|191739148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0048
95973501|NCT03386110|191920182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.54||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 3-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.77|-1.85|0.42
95892016|NCT01592344|191739149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892017|NCT01592344|191739150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892018|NCT01592344|191739151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892019|NCT02738333|191739152|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 100 participants per treatment group would provide over 90% power to establish non-inferiority in the SVR12 rates between the LDV/SOF group and SOF+RBV group. Sample size was based on the assumptions that the clinically meaningful non-inferiority margin is 10%, both groups have a SVR12 rate of 96%, and the significance level is 0.025 one-sided.|Difference in proportions|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|7.1|||||Difference in proportions between treatment groups and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) are calculated based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions.|||7.1|-5.3|
95892020|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.127|0.004|0.036
95892021|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.090|-0.030|0.331
95892022|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.095|-0.027|0.272
95892023|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.149|0.026|0.005
95892024|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.073|-0.050|0.722
95892025|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.119|-0.006|0.076
95892026|NCT01641692|191739248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.051||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.113|-0.010|0.101
95892027|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.840
95892028|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-2.4|0.553
95892029|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-0.4|0.121
95892030|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.1|0.814
95892031|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.5|0.683
95892032|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7|-1.2|0.456
95892033|NCT01641692|191739251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-2.7|0.399
95892034|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|0.2|0.030
95892035|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-0.1|0.077
95892036|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|0.5|0.010
95892037|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.9|0.9|0.002
95892038|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.7|0.7|0.005
95892039|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3|1.2|<0.001
95892040|NCT01641692|191739252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|0.0|0.054
95892041|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.0|-1.4|0.752
95892042|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.1|0.072
95892043|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-1.1|0.503
95892044|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-1.1|0.476
95892045|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-0.2|0.084
95892046|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-1.8|0.970
95892047|NCT01641692|191739253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.4|0.423
95892048|NCT02226003|191739285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.84|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.84|-1.49|< 0.001
95892049|NCT02226003|191739285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.91|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.91|-1.57|< 0.001
95892050|NCT02226003|191739286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.2|
95892051|NCT02226003|191739286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs Placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|16.4||||||||16.4|-11.4|
95892052|NCT02226003|191739288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.93|-27.96|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-27.96|-49.93|< 0.001
95892053|NCT02226003|191739288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-46.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.09|-35.02|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-35.02|-57.09|< 0.001
95892054|NCT02226003|191739289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-62.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.47|-44.37|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-44.37|-80.47|< 0.001
95892055|NCT02226003|191739289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-69.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.83|-51.46|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-51.46|-87.83|< 0.001
95892056|NCT02226003|191739290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|16.83|||Logistic regression model|||||16.83|2.81|< 0.001
95892057|NCT02226003|191739290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|18.31|||Logistic regression model|||||18.31|2.98|< 0.001
95892058|NCT02226003|191739291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-2.99|< 0.001
95892059|NCT02226003|191739291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.11|-3.10|< 0.001
95892060|NCT02226003|191739292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-4.44||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.01|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-1.01|-7.87|0.011
95973502|NCT03386110|191920182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline rates of CAS (actor and partner) moderated the effect of condition on CAS events at 6-months||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment at 6-months was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||-0.27|-3.14|0.02
95973503|NCT03386110|191920183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.48||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 3-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 3-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||1.44|-0.18|0.15
95892061|NCT02226003|191739292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-6.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.83|-2.95|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-2.95|-9.83|< 0.001
95892062|NCT02226003|191739293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.65||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|0.79|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.79|-4.09|0.184
95973504|NCT03386110|191920183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.24||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use at 6-months||Multi-level models tested whether treatment condition predicted outcome at 6-months, and controlled for the nesting of participants within couples.||0.92|-0.44|0.50
95892063|NCT02226003|191739293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.18||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|0.26|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||0.26|-4.62|0.080
95892064|NCT01876485|191739294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 4. The value of HbA1c at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||0.003
95892065|NCT01876485|191739294|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|Numerator degrees of freedom = 1 for both models (4mo and 10mo) and denominator degrees of freedom vary based on multiple imputation.||"We compared group differences in HbA1c at 10 months. The value of HbA1c at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline HbA1c was a covariate.~Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the HbA1c in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n = 140 EPIC, n = 140 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group."||||.60
95892066|NCT01876485|191739295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 4 months. The value of DDS at 4 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||0.003
95892067|NCT01876485|191739295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||proc mixed in SAS (multilevel modeling)|||We compared group differences in DDS at 10 months. The value of DDS at 10 months was the dependent variable, treatment group was the independent variable, and baseline DDS was a covariate. Power calculations were based on effect sizes for the DDS in similar trial that revealed small-to-medium effect sizes. Our goal was to include 130 patients in each arm. The randomized samples (n=138 EPIC, n=135 EUC) exceed the required 130 per group.||||.003
95892068|NCT01499563|191739296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-0.4|||Mixed Effects model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||-0.4|-11.1|0.017
95892069|NCT01499563|191739296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.5|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure||95% CI for LS Mean difference are with Bonferroni correction|The study was powered for prespecified comparison of both doses of ITI-007 with placebo using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The study was not statistically powered to include multiple comparisons of risperidone to placebo and thus, this comparison is not presented here.||4.5|-6.3|0.708
95973505|NCT03386110|191920183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-way interaction model testing whether baseline use moderated the effect of condition on marijuana use at 3-months||"Moderation analysis in 3-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.31|-0.34|0.910
95973506|NCT03386110|191920183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Moderation analysis in 6-month follow-up data.~The hypothesis that baseline frequency may moderate the effects of treatment was evaluated using models incorporating participants' baseline report of the outcome (actor) as well as their partners' report (partner) at Level 1. Interactions among actor and partner baseline scores and treatment condition were also included at Level 1. Additionally, the model controlled for the nesting of participants within couples."||0.75|-0.07|0.11
95973507|NCT03426267|191920184|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95973508|NCT03426267|191920185|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95973509|NCT01043393|191920197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.779|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.055|11.126||||||||11.126|0.055|
95973510|NCT03143166|191920223|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|86.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.346|38.996|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||38.996|21.346|
95973511|NCT03143166|191920224|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|26.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.066|34.665|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||34.665|20.066|
95973512|NCT03143166|191920225|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.914|37.537|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||37.537|20.914|
95973513|NCT03143166|191920226|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|27.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.023|36.118|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||36.118|21.023|
95973514|NCT03143166|191920227|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.26|40.234|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.234|23.260|
95973515|NCT03143166|191920228|OTHER||Adjusted gMean ratio Test/Reference (%)|30.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.404|40.037|||ANOVA|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'subjects' and 'treatment'.|The dispersion value standard error of the mean is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) (%).|||40.037|23.404|
95973516|NCT04217590|191920229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.12|||Fisher Exact||The CI for OR is calculated as an exact CI. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|1.90|<0.001
95973517|NCT04217590|191920230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|15.55|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.55|2.64|<0.001
95973518|NCT04217590|191920231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|15.12|||Regression, Logistic|The OR, 95% CI and p-value are obtained from a pooled logistic regression model after multiple imputation (MI) of missing pre-dialysis S-K values.|An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||15.12|2.71|<0.001
95973519|NCT04217590|191920232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|7.67|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||7.67|2.53|<0.001
95892070|NCT05760300|191739300|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.1|119.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||119|60.1|
95892071|NCT05760300|191739300|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.8|133.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||133|80.8|
95973520|NCT04217590|191920233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.64|||||Endpoint analysed with Generalised linear mixed model. The CI for the mean difference was calculated by bootstrapping. A mean difference \> 0 favours SZC.|||1.64|0.77|
95973521|NCT04217590|191920234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.73|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|The p-value was obtained from a test of equality of odds ratios.|The OR was obtained from GLMM model with random intercept and logit link. Treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and baseline were specified as fixed effects. An OR \> 1 favours SZC.|||10.73|3.15|<0.001
95973522|NCT00803751|191920235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.17
95973523|NCT00803751|191920236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95973524|NCT00803751|191920237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95973525|NCT00803751|191920238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95973526|NCT00803751|191920239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95973527|NCT00803751|191920240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
95973528|NCT01413087|191920241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.483
95973529|NCT01413087|191920242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||Log Rank|P value by log-rank test for the difference between treatment groups||||||0.992
95973530|NCT01395888|191920272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.259||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.468|0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.986|-0.468|0.484
95973531|NCT03218397|191920273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|5.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic modification (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||10|1.2|0.013
95973532|NCT03218397|191920274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.265||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.265
95973533|NCT03218397|191920275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T-test for the difference in mean length of stay (days) between treatment arms among subjects alive at 30 days.||||||0.093
95973534|NCT03218397|191920276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||alpha = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95973535|NCT03218397|191920277|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|7.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|13.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||13.1|1.9|0.009
95973536|NCT03218397|191920278|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|12.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||12.0|0.9|0.022
95973537|NCT03218397|191920279|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|0.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.7|-1.2|0.46
95973538|NCT03218397|191920280|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|4.6||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|9.6||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||9.6|-0.4|0.074
95973539|NCT03218397|191920281|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|6.5||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-negative antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||11.2|1.7|0.008
95973540|NCT03218397|191920282|SUPERIORITY||Difference in means|-1.9||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.2||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Difference in mean hours to first gram-positive antibiotic de-escalation (Standard Blood Culture and AST minus Rapid Organism Identification and AST)|||2.2|-5.9|0.37
95973541|NCT02545933|191920338|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|27.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|34.0|||ANOVA||DAPT group vs DAPT plus vorapaxar group|We hypothesized that adjunctive vorapaxar would result in a significant reduction of CAT-induced platelet aggregation. Assuming a 10% absolute reduction in CAT-induced maximal platelet aggregation with a common standard deviation of 13%, 37 patients per group with valid primary endpoint data were required to detect a significant difference with a 90% power and 2-sided alpha=0.05.||34|19|0.011
95973542|NCT01060540|191920379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for family history (low/unknown vs. high/moderate) and BMI\>=35 (yes vs no) stratification variables||||0.7|-0.3|0.44
95973543|NCT01060540|191920380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||adjusted for baseline BMI class and family history level stratification variables|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.1|0.19
95973544|NCT01060540|191920381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||adjusted for stratification variables baseline BMI and family history|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.38
95973545|NCT01060540|191920382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.2|0.05
95973546|NCT01060540|191920383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incident rate ratio|0.9||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2||adjusted for baseline family history and BMI|generalized linear model for count data|||||1.2|0.7|0.68
95973547|NCT03057977|191920404|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.65|0.86|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~alpha = 0.0496 (resulting from interim analysis) eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.86|0.65|<0.0001
95892072|NCT05760300|191739301|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|106.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|175.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||175|63.6|
95892073|NCT05760300|191739301|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.8|151.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||151|77.8|
95892074|NCT05760300|191739302|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|83.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.4|104.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||104|67.4|
95892075|NCT05760300|191739302|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.2|179.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||179|56.2|
95892076|NCT05760300|191739303|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.1|143.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||143|65.1|
95892077|NCT05760300|191739303|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|77.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.7|142.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|||142|42.7|
95973548|NCT03057977|191920405|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.58|0.85|||Joint frailty model||HR vs placebo of recurrent HFF|"Model accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.~eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction."||0.85|0.58|0.0003
95892078|NCT05760300|191739308|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|160.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.2|263.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||263|97.2|
95892079|NCT05760300|191739308|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|65.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|124.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||124|35.0|
95892080|NCT05760300|191739308|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.3|141.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||141|53.3|
95892081|NCT05760300|191739308|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.4|105.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||105|50.4|
95892082|NCT05760300|191739309|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|139.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.8|221.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||221|87.8|
95892083|NCT05760300|191739309|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|66.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|37.3|120.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||120|37.3|
95892084|NCT05760300|191739309|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.5|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.5|
95892085|NCT05760300|191739309|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|70.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.4|100.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||100|49.4|
95892086|NCT05760300|191739310|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.7|217.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||217|32.7|
95892087|NCT05760300|191739310|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.1|112.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||112|30.1|
95892088|NCT05760300|191739310|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|85.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|135.0|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 1||135|54.1|
95892089|NCT05760300|191739310|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares Mean Ratio|69.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.9|99.2|||||Parametric (normal theory) ANOVA model appropriate for a parallel design with renal function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural log-transformed values of the multiple dose PK parameter under evaluation.|Day 6||99.2|48.9|
95892090|NCT00319644|191739313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0||||0.26||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The chi-square test(or Fisher exact test where needed) was used to compare proportions with dichotomous variables. The Student-t test was used for quantitative variables woth normal distribution, and Mann-Whitney-U test was used for data not normally distributed.||||0.26
95892091|NCT01064401|191739315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|0.645||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (≤ 2.5 vs \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|||||0.645|0.469|< 0.0001
95892092|NCT01064401|191739315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|53.1||||||||53.1|35.5|
95892093|NCT01064401|191739316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|54.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.9|60.8||Estimated from a negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline volume of T2 hyperintense lesions, history of prior IFN beta use and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Negative Binomial Regression|The logarithmic transformation of the scan number of the MRI assessment was included in the model as the 'offset' parameter.||||60.8|46.9|< 0.0001
95892094|NCT01064401|191739317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.07||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted by baseline EDSS values as continuous variable, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.07|0.66|0.1575
95892095|NCT01064401|191739317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|34.2||||||||34.2|-7.0|
95892096|NCT01064401|191739318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.69||Based on Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use, baseline EDSS (EDSS ≤ 2.5 vs EDSS \> 2.5) and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||0.69|0.50|< 0.0001
95892097|NCT01064401|191739318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Risk of Relapse|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|49.5||||||||49.5|30.8|
95892098|NCT01064401|191739319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95||Based on logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score, history of prior IFN beta use, and baseline age (≤ 35 vs \> 35 years).|Regression, Logistic|||||0.95|0.60|0.0176
95892099|NCT01064401|191739319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction in Odds of Worsening|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|39.6||||||||39.6|4.7|
95892100|NCT01331148|191739327|OTHER|||||||0.0507|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Due to the longitudinal nature of the data and presence of missing values, repeated measures analyses were conducted using the MIXED procedure in SAS. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to quantify the relationship between PedsQL scores with 25OHD concentrations and pain days. Two-way analysis of variance models compared PedsQL scores between treatment groups over time.||||0.0507
95892101|NCT01698463|191739334|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||\<0.05 (threshold for significance).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95892102|NCT04709575|191739339|SUPERIORITY||linear mixed-effect model|-0.995||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9886|-0.0011|||LS Mean Difference|||||-0.0011|-1.9886|0.0497
95892103|NCT05027438|191739370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 1.42 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892104|NCT05027438|191739370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 1.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892105|NCT05027438|191739371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.98||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to post-treatment||||0.004
95892106|NCT05027438|191739371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|62.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.93||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction|Friedman test|||% change in medication dose from baseline to 3-month follow-up||||0.005
95973549|NCT03057977|191920406|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.733|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.669|2.796|||Random intercept random coef. model||Empa vs Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with the same factors used for the primary endpoint (age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment) and additional factors time, treatment-by-time interaction, and baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr-by-time interaction. Only on-treatment data from treated patients were used.~alpha=0.001"||2.796|0.669|<0.0001
95973550|NCT03057977|191920407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||0.77|0.32|0.0019
95892107|NCT05027438|191739372|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|31.8||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to post-treatment||||0.052
95892108|NCT05027438|191739372|SUPERIORITY||Proportion (%)|60.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran's Q test|Bonferroni correction||baseline to 3-month follow-up||||<0.001
95892109|NCT05027438|191739373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.54 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892110|NCT05027438|191739373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.47 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892111|NCT05027438|191739374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.34||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.10 (small \>=0.02)|||0.101
95892112|NCT05027438|191739374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates reduction of symptoms)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.34 (medium; large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892113|NCT05027438|191739375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to post-treatment|effect size (f2) = 0.87 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892114|NCT05027438|191739375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)|baseline to 3-month follow-up|effect size (f2) = 0.96 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892115|NCT05027438|191739376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.14 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892116|NCT05027438|191739376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (negative value indicates improvement)|Sleep Disturbance - higher scores indicate more sleep disturbance. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10.|effect size (f2) = 1.21 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892117|NCT05027438|191739377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||post-treatment - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 0.18 (medium \>=0.15)|||0.22
95892118|NCT05027438|191739377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||3-month follow-up - baseline (positive value indicates improvement)||effect size (f2) = 1.99 (large \>=0.35)|||<0.001
95892119|NCT03971695|191739379|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|100.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|111.48|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 14.2. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||111.48|90.18|
95892120|NCT03971695|191739379|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|98.35|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 9.5. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||98.35|85.37|
95892121|NCT03971695|191739380|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.08|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 20.5. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||114.08|84.20|
95892122|NCT03971695|191739380|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|77.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.11|88.22|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 17.4. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||88.22|68.11|
95892123|NCT03971695|191739384|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|96.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.96|106.9|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 13.9. Ratio is T1/R.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||106.90|86.96|
95892124|NCT03971695|191739384|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio(%)|91.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|97.54|||||Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variance (gCV) = 8.9. Ratio is T2/T1.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'. Confidence intervals were calculated based on the residual error from the ANOVA.||97.54|85.40|
95892125|NCT00066066|191739400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
95892126|NCT00066066|191739400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
95892127|NCT00066066|191739400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in non-smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
95892128|NCT00066066|191739400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 3 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
95892129|NCT00066066|191739400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 6 months post-therapy.||||<0.05
95892130|NCT00066066|191739400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for significance was alpha = 0.05|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis of no difference among treatment groups in smokers was tested by comparing change in mean CAL in individuals at 12 months post-therapy.||||>0.05
95973551|NCT03057977|191920408|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo|||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
95973552|NCT03057977|191920409|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Regression, Cox|Model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo|||1.12|0.75|0.4133
95892131|NCT01280552|191739402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Stratified for age and MGMT methylation status|Log Rank|||Stratified log rank p value stratified for age and MGMT methylation status||||0.010
95892132|NCT01280552|191739404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were stratified for age and MGMT methylation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.033
95973553|NCT03057977|191920410|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.10|0.77|0.3536
95973554|NCT03057977|191920411|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.3576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline LVEF and treatment.|Comparison vs. placebo|||1.19|0.62|0.3576
95892133|NCT02155738|191739407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 1: Quantify the impact of IV acetaminophen on 1a) postoperative pain scores ... 1a) To achieve this aim, we will measure the degree of postoperative pain using visual analog scales (VAS) at multiple specified time points throughout the postoperative period; we report on change from Baseline VAS at 24 Hours Postop. Null Hypothesis is that there is no difference between subgroups in VAS scores. Sample size was determined considering significant differences in VAS scores.||||<0.05
95892134|NCT02155738|191739408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1b) We will use equianalgesic dosage tables to convert intra- and postoperative narcotics into morphine equivalents to compare narcotic requirements for the first week after surgery. We hypothesize that those patients receiving preemptive IV acetaminophen will have lower postoperative VAS scores and reduced narcotic requirements compared to placebo.||||<0.05
95892135|NCT00887354|191739421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.055|0.025|<.0001
95892136|NCT01466348|191739438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.6|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was carried out.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.6|1.5|0.0008
95892137|NCT01466348|191739439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|8.4|||ANOVA|No baseline covariate adjustment was applied.|A positive difference favors the paracetamol/ caffeine treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||8.4|4.5|<0.0001
95909250|NCT01939548|191776647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.409||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|6.21||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||6.21|0.01|0.1991
95973555|NCT03057977|191920412|OTHER||Difference of adjusted means|2.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|3.96|||Mixed Model|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Comparison vs. placebo|Mixed model with age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline LVEF, week reachable, treatment by visit interaction, baseline KCCQ - Clinical Summary Score by Visit interaction as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance structure has been used.||3.96|0.16|0.0340
95973556|NCT03057977|191920413|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.95|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. placebo|Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CDK-EPI), region, sex, baseline diabetes status and baseline LVEF. Model accounts for dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalizations and all-cause mortality.||0.95|0.75|0.0065
95973557|NCT01350336|191920419|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 2 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.038|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1251|0.0497||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 2||0.0497|-0.1251|
95973558|NCT01350336|191920419|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 3 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1197|0.0565||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 3||0.0565|-0.1197|
95973559|NCT01350336|191920419|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 4 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1444|0.0329||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 4||0.0329|-0.1444|
95973560|NCT01350336|191920419|NON_INFERIORITY|An upper 95% confidence limit of the difference between Year 5 compared to the first 12-month proportion is less than 20% will demonstrate that the proportions are not substantially worse during each of the subsequent evaluation periods.|Difference of proportions|-0.0765|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1661|0.013||||||Comparison of Years 1 and 5||0.0130|-0.1661|
95973561|NCT01097785|191920431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
95973562|NCT01097785|191920432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Student's t-test|||||||<0.05
95973563|NCT02382016|191920437|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.65||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model adjusted by treatment, background PAH-specific therapy at baseline and region as factors \& log-transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at Week 12 as a ratio of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed ratio of PVR at Week 12 to baseline PVR.||0.72|0.59|0.0001
95973564|NCT02382016|191920438|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|9.73||||0.4264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|33.95||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|mixed-effect model repeated measure||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in 6MWD (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|The main analysis on 6MWD was performed using a mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) adjusted for treatment, visit, region, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors, and baseline 6MWD and WHO functional class (FC) as covariates.||33.95|-14.50|0.4264
95892138|NCT01955161|191739449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.26||Corrected for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.26|-0.59|0.9591
95892139|NCT01955161|191739449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.98||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.98|-0.88|1.000
95892140|NCT01955161|191739450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|1.21||Corrected for multiplicity according toe the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.21|-1.37|1.000
95892141|NCT01955161|191739450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.31||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A positive mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||1.31|-1.29|1.000
95892142|NCT01955161|191739451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, change in cognition (ADAS-cog) and either change in daily functioning (ADCS-ADL23) or change in global clinical impression (ADCS-CGIC) had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.20|-0.15|1.000
95892143|NCT01955161|191739451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.02||Corrected for multiplicity according to the multiple testing procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, country, MMSE stratum, week as fixed effects, baseline score, treatment-by-week, MMSE stratum-by-week, and baseline-by-week interactions|A negative mean difference indicates a treatment effect in favour of idalopirdine.|For demonstrating efficacy of a dose, ADAS-cog total score and either ADCS-ADL23 total score or ADCS CGIC had to show statistically significant favourable differences compared to placebo at Week 24. Multiple testing procedures were used to control the overall type 1 error at 5%. The null hypothesis of no difference in mean change from baseline in ADAS-cog total score at Week 24 was tested for each dose at significance level 2.5%.||0.02|-0.34|1.000
95892144|NCT00706641|191739463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Tumor samples from 20 patients were analyzed for expression of pSFK. A paired t-Test was used to calculate the significance of the difference in expression levels before and after treatment.||||0.003
95892145|NCT00706641|191739466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.20
95892146|NCT00706641|191739467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||||||0.42
95892147|NCT01327300|191739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.72||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GIS scoring system is from 1-7 with one being a worse outcome and 7 the better outcome.~Comparisons below list the p values for comparison of difference in GIS between baseline and mesalamine."||||.001
95892148|NCT01327300|191739481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.22||||0.008||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparisons of mean difference in GIS scores between baseline and placebo is made below.||||0.008
95892149|NCT01327300|191739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Correlation coefficients were used for each of three biomarkers in relation to other biomarkers and to the questionnaires and patient's symptoms.||||0.873
95892150|NCT01327300|191739482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Pearson's linear coefficient||The study tested three biomarkers and symptom domains at baseline and the end of 12 weeks of placebo using the Mann-Whitney test, as well as correlations between domains with Pearson's linear correlation coefficient.||||0.810
95892151|NCT01327300|191739483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.5||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed P values are listed for baseline versus 12 weeks of mesalamine||"The FBDSI score is based on the severity of abdominal pian. Severity is rated as the following:~None= 0 points Mild= (1-36) Moderate =(37-110) Severe= (\>110 points)"||||0.67
95892152|NCT01327300|191739483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||See prior description of the FBDSI score. Change in the FBDSI after 12 weeks of intervention is made using a two sided t-test.||||0.77
95892153|NCT01327300|191739484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the IBS QOL we compared the change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) after 12 weeks of mesalamine.||||0.61
95892154|NCT01327300|191739484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in IBS-Quality of Life (IBS-QOL)from baseline after 12 weeks of intervention was made.||||0.33
95892155|NCT01327300|191739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.71||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in HADS score of baseline to 12 weeks of mesalamine is made.||||0.71
95892156|NCT01327300|191739485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.57||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in HADS score between baseline and after 12 weeks of placebo is made.||||0.57
95892157|NCT01327300|191739486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the lactulose/mannitol ratio is made after a 12 week intervention with mesalamine to 12 weeks of placebo.||||0.55
95892158|NCT00697515|191739492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95892159|NCT00697515|191739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0017
95892160|NCT00697515|191739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95973565|NCT02382016|191920439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.253||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|298.376||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model (exact) adjusted for treatment, PAH-specific therapy at baseline, and region as covariates was used to analyze worsening in WHO FC.||298.376|0.714|0.1278
95892161|NCT00697515|191739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892162|NCT00697515|191739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892163|NCT00697515|191739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892164|NCT00697515|191739493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892165|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Average over the treatment day||||<0.0001
95892166|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0010
95892167|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892168|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892169|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892170|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892171|NCT00697515|191739494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892172|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Over the treatment day||||<0.0001
95892173|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||ANOVA|||2.0 hours post-dose||||0.0031
95973566|NCT02382016|191920440|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.874||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.196||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA|||||1.196|0.639|0.3951
95973567|NCT02382016|191920441|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|1.67||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.44||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mRAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||3.44|-0.10|0.0637
95973568|NCT02382016|191920442|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.99||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.57||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in mPAP (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-3.57|-8.40|0.0001
95973569|NCT02382016|191920443|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.52||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.81||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in cardiac index (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||0.81|0.22|0.0009
95892174|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||4.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892175|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||8.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892176|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||10.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892177|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||12.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892178|NCT00697515|191739495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||14.0 hours post-dose||||<0.0001
95892179|NCT00697515|191739496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892180|NCT00697515|191739497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95892181|NCT00697515|191739500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Prescott's Test|||||||<0.0001
95892182|NCT00697515|191739501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892183|NCT00697515|191739503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892184|NCT00697515|191739504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95892185|NCT05394025|191739514|SUPERIORITY||Interaction|0.02||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||likelihood ratio test||Beta for time by COVID-19 status|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.18|-0.13|0.77
95892186|NCT05394025|191739514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.67|||likelihood ratio test||Beta coefficient for mean difference in mean longitudinal I/ADL score|Null hypothesis no difference in trends of I/ADL scores between Veterans with COVID-19 and comparators. We used adjusted linear mixed model (LMM) to model I/ADL scores over time (i.e., survey cycles) and by COVID-19 status. The LMM included an interaction term for time and COVID-19 status. LMM models were fitted with random intercepts (i.e., patient ID) and slopes (i.e., survey cycle). LMMs included fixed effects for patient baseline age, sex, and care assessment needs score.||0.67|-0.44|0.60
95892187|NCT02063516|191739547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated that 80 adult patients randomized from different surgical department would have 80% power to detect a difference in 2 point in mean. Sampling size was determined using 2 sided t-test (alpha=0.05).||||0.04
95892188|NCT02063516|191739548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.836
95892189|NCT02063516|191739549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 30 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0035
95892190|NCT02063516|191739549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 60 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.003
95892191|NCT02063516|191739549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 90 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.0042
95892192|NCT02063516|191739549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Amount of air added at 120 minutes to maintain cuff pressure 60cmH2O||||0.004
95892193|NCT05413369|191739584|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). Non-inferiority p-value was calculated from a non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous oral anti-diabetic drug(OADs) as fixed effects,and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.07|-0.33|<0.001
95892194|NCT05413369|191739585|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.35|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups and randomization stratum of previous as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c continuous value as covariate||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in HbA1c||-0.05|-0.35|0.003
95892195|NCT05413369|191739586|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups, randomization stratums of HbA1c and previous OADs as fixed effects, and baseline body weight continuous value as covariate.||Statistical analysis for change from baseline in body weight||-0.66|-2.32|<0.001
95892196|NCT05413369|191739587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.25|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% at Week 24||2.85|1.25|<0.001
95892197|NCT05413369|191739588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.76|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24||3.76|1.79|<0.001
95892198|NCT05413369|191739589|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment group, randomization stratum of previous OADs, and continuous baseline value of HbA1c and body weight.||Statistical analysis for percentage of participants reaching HbA1c value \<7% with no body weight gain at Week 24 and no hypoglycemia during treatment||3.60|1.52|<0.001
95892199|NCT03033511|191739631|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.84|0.537
95892200|NCT03033511|191739632|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.36||stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.92|0.237
95892201|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean of Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.35||||||Change at Week 6||2.35|-3.08|
95892202|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-10.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-6.29||||||Change at Week 12||-6.29|-14.58|
95892203|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-27.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.19|-9.16||||||Change at Week 18||-9.16|-46.19|
95892204|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-18.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.28|1.39||||||Change at Week 24||1.39|-38.28|
95892205|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-1.37||||||Change at Week 30||-1.37|-42.63|
95892206|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 36||||
95892207|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 42||||
95892208|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-56.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 48||||
95892209|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 60||||
95892210|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 66||||
95892211|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change at Week 78||||
95892212|NCT03033511|191739633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|-6.19||||||Change at Final Visit||-6.19|-12.16|
95892213|NCT00189228|191739690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||This is not a drug study.||||<0.01
95892214|NCT04327388|191739691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|1.402|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.402|0.751|0.9561
95892215|NCT04327388|191739691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.135||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.835|1.543|||Log-rank test|Analyzed based on logrank test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|Hazard ratio for estimation of treatment effect of each sarilumab dose versus placebo was assessed by cox proportional hazard model stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.|||1.543|0.835|0.3376
95892216|NCT04327388|191739692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|5.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||5.81|-9.27|0.6280
95892217|NCT04327388|191739692|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2||||0.8478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|7.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|By Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by severity of illness (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids (Yes, No) as entered in IRT.||||7.41|-6.93|0.8478
95892218|NCT04351087|191739892|EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis based on (MCID) for the KOOS-Pain, alpha 0.05 \& SD 15 points, 88 patients (44/group) would be required to detect a 9-point difference between treatment groups with 80% power. Due to change in regulatory requirements during accrual, enrollment was halted at 79 patients with 71 meeting inclusion criteria. A repeated power calculation demonstrated that the study achieved 56% power to detect a between-group difference in excess of the 9-point MCID for the KOOS-Pain.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|12.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.92|-8.57|0.69
95892219|NCT03886220|191739895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.086|9.546||P-value for test of difference between elagolix dose group and placebo is by pooling the results from a logistic regression model including treatment as the main effect and baseline MBL volume as a covariate in each dataset from multiple imputation.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.546|1.086|0.035
95892220|NCT02448654|191739896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.18
95892221|NCT02448654|191739897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
95892222|NCT02448654|191739898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.037
95892223|NCT02461225|191739899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0005
95892224|NCT02461225|191739900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95892225|NCT00651755|191739905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.33|||90% CI||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,CP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|1.08|
95892226|NCT00651755|191739906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|ratio Geometric mean AUC|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.86|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group|||0.86|0.65|
95892227|NCT00651755|191739907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|0.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||equivalence analysis|The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment to the control group|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC of Analyte, 4-OHCP, between Aprepitant treatment to control Group|||1.13|0.83|
95892228|NCT00651755|191739908|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.33|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte, VC, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.33|0.82|
95892229|NCT00651755|191739909|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||||90.0|1.02|1.15|||equivalence analysis||The geometric mean AUC ratio is the ratio of geometric mean AUC between aprepitant treatment and the control group.|||1.15|1.02|
95892230|NCT00651755|191739910|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The absence of pharmacokinetic drug interactions can be determined if the 90% CI of the geometric mean AUC ratio between 2 groups is within 0.80 to 1.25.|Ratio Geometric Mean AUC|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.32|||equivalence analysis||Ratio Geometric Mean AUC (Area Under Curve) of Analyte,PL, Between Aprepitant treatment to control Group.|||1.32|1.01|
95892231|NCT02404285|191739911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95892232|NCT02404285|191739913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95892233|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 1: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
95892234|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93||||||Serotype 3: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.78|
95892235|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||||||Serotype 4: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.93|0.71|
95892236|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||Serotype 5: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.94|0.74|
95892237|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.88||||||Serotype 6A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.88|0.66|
95892238|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95||||||Serotype 6B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.95|0.73|
95892239|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.96||||||Serotype 7F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.96|0.77|
95892240|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.05||||||Serotype 9V: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.05|0.82|
95973570|NCT02382016|191920444|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-171.48||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.67|-119.3||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in TPR (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||-119.30|-223.67|0.0001
95973571|NCT02382016|191920445|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.03||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.91||No adjustment was made for multiplicity for secondary endpoints, therefore all corresponding p-values provided are of an exploratory nature.|ANCOVA||The estimated value refers to a between-treatment analysis of change from baseline to Week 12 in SVO2 (LS mean difference macitentan 10 mg - placebo).|||2.91|-2.85|0.9844
95973572|NCT01171807|191920469|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95892241|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13||||||Serotype 14: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.13|0.89|
95892242|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97||||||Serotype 18C: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.74|
95892243|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.9||||||Serotype 19A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.90|0.71|
95892244|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91||||||Serotype 19F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.91|0.70|
95892245|NCT03760146|191739966|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.97||||||Serotype 23F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.97|0.70|
95892246|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.62||||||Serotype 8: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||0.62|0.49|
95892247|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|2.12||||||Serotype 10A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.63|
95892248|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|2.01||||||Serotype 11A: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.01|1.52|
95892249|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.72||||||Serotype 12F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.72|1.27|
95892250|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|3.71||||||Serotype 15B: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||3.71|2.62|
95892251|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.32||||||Serotype 22F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.32|1.70|
95892252|NCT03760146|191739967|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.57||||||Serotype 33F: Geometric mean ratio (20vPnC/Saline vs 13vPnC/PPSV23) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.57|1.21|
95892253|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.26||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.84|
95892254|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.92|
95892255|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.38|0.87|
95892256|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.72|
95892257|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.53||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.53|0.95|
95892258|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.56||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|1.00|
95892259|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.07|0.74|
95892260|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.26|0.83|
95892261|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.54|1.01|
95892262|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.68||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.06|
95892263|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.25||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.25|0.85|
95892264|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.22|0.80|
95892265|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.22||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.22|1.27|
95892266|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.2||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.20|0.78|
95892267|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.28|0.84|
95892268|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.56||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.96|
95892269|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.39||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.39|0.88|
95892270|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.56||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.56|0.88|
95892271|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.17|0.69|
95892272|NCT03760146|191739968|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.3||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 2 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.30|0.81|
95892273|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5||||||Serotype 1: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.50|1.01|
95892274|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.16||||||Serotype 3: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.16|0.87|
95892275|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|4.13||||||Serotype 4: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.13|2.65|
95892276|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||Serotype 5: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.36|0.91|
95892277|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.83||||||Serotype 6A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.83|3.06|
95892278|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.26||||||Serotype 6B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.26|2.73|
95892279|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.91||||||Serotype 7F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.91|1.30|
95892280|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|4.33||||||Serotype 9V: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.33|2.83|
95973573|NCT03907410|191920486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|28.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Experiment phase adherence (Months 1-3) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||28|2|
95973574|NCT03907410|191920486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.0||||||Multivariate comparison of Observation phase adherence (Months 4-6) comparing Arm 1 (Full Intervention arm) to Arm 3 (Active control). Arm 3 is used as the reference. This randomized controlled trial was powered for Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 comparisons, hence the Arm 1 vs. Arm 3 outcome data for adherence to the inhaled corticosteroid regime. The study did not have sufficient power for Arm 2 comparisons.||7|-20|
95892281|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|2.96||||||Serotype 14: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.96|1.93|
95973575|NCT05062759|191920493|OTHER||Geometric Least square (LS) mean ratio|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|0.98||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model.||0.98|0.43|
95973576|NCT05062759|191920493|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.15||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.15|0.60|
95892282|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.04||||||Serotype 18C: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||4.04|2.53|
95892283|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.81||||||Serotype 19A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.81|1.91|
95892284|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|2.68||||||Serotype 19F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.68|1.76|
95892285|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|6.32||||||Serotype 23F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||6.32|3.65|
95892286|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.12||||||Serotype 8: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.12|1.38|
95892287|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.0||||||Serotype 10A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.00|1.31|
95892288|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.68||||||Serotype 11A: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.68|1.04|
95892289|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.41||||||Serotype 12F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.41|1.51|
95892290|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.05||||||Serotype 15B: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.05|1.13|
95892291|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2||||||Serotype 22F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||2.20|1.30|
95892292|NCT03760146|191739969|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority for a serotype was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR for that serotype was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio of GMTs|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.79||||||Serotype 33F: GMR (20vPnC Cohort 3 vs 20vPnC Cohort 1 60-64 years of age) and the 2-sided 95% CI||1.79|1.10|
95892293|NCT06002958|191740005|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.815|0.255|||||Inner|||0.255|-0.815|
95892294|NCT06002958|191740005|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.503|0.545|||||Outer|||0.545|-0.503|
95892295|NCT06002958|191740005|OTHER||Cohen's d|-0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.225|||||Individual|||0.225|-0.850|
95892296|NCT06002958|191740005|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.534|||||Process|||0.534|-0.850|
95973577|NCT05062759|191920493|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.37||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.37|0.71|
95892297|NCT02446990|191740011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.96|0.1969
95892298|NCT02446990|191740012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.3461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.94|0.3461
95892299|NCT02446990|191740013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.2493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|0.94|0.2493
95892300|NCT02446990|191740014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.26|||Regression, Cox|||||1.26|0.89|0.5162
95892301|NCT02446990|191740015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.88|0.1647
95892302|NCT02446990|191740016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.90|0.6024
95892303|NCT02446990|191740017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.75|0.1458
95892304|NCT02446990|191740018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9790
95892305|NCT02446990|191740019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.22|||Regression, Cox|||||1.22|0.92|0.4299
95892306|NCT02446990|191740020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.88|0.5916
95892307|NCT02446990|191740021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.6963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.89|0.6963
95892308|NCT02446990|191740022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.96|0.2222
95973578|NCT05062759|191920494|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
95973579|NCT05062759|191920494|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|2.17||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.17|0.72|
95892309|NCT02446990|191740023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.3671
95892310|NCT02446990|191740024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.5285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.87|0.5285
95892311|NCT01252940|191740028|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between treatment groups in the percentages of virologic success was constructed using normal approximation. Noninferiority was assessed using a conventional 95% CI approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%. It would be concluded that the FTC/RPV/TDF STR group was not inferior to the SBR group if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference (FTC/RPV/TDF STR - SBR) in the response rate was greater than -12%.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.1||||||||9.1|-1.6|
95892312|NCT03939897|191740041|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.506|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5060
95892313|NCT03939897|191740044|OTHER|This test is used to compare the survival distributions of different groups in a survival analysis. It's a nonparametric test.||||||0.2989|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2989
95892314|NCT00277212|191740096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.552||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|1.03||stratified Log-Rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|Log Rank||Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index modd episode as stratification factor, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.030|0.296|0.058
95892315|NCT00277212|191740097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.671||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|1.011||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.011|0.446|0.055
95892316|NCT00277212|191740098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.354||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified log-rank test, conrolling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.354|0.454|0.381
95892317|NCT00277212|191740099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.871||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.128||p-value for equality of survival curves|Log Rank|stratified Log-Rank Test, controlling for type of index mood episode|aripiprazole/placebo; Cox's proportional hazards model, with type of index mood episode as stratification facto, and randomized treatment group as covariate.|||1.128|0.672|0.295
95892318|NCT00277212|191740101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatement Difference|2.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.57||ANOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=index mood episode) used for baseline comparisons. ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons|ANCOVA||Aripiprazole vs. placebo|Week 52 LOCF||3.57|0.91|0.001
95892319|NCT00277212|191740102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||aripiprazole/placebo|Week 52 LOCF||1.07|0.29|0.073
95892320|NCT00277212|191740102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Any Time||||0.194
95892321|NCT00277212|191740103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||relative risk|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52 LOCF||8.94|1.30|0.007
95892322|NCT00277212|191740103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95892323|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|1.09||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects and index mood episode as covariate, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||1.09|-2.37|0.467
95892324|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.78||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 12||0.78|-0.06|
95892325|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||1.30|0.19|
95892326|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||1.86|0.08|
95892327|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.92||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||1.92|-0.08|
95892328|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||1.26|0.31|0.001
95892329|NCT00277212|191740104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.04||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariates=index mood episode \& baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from baseline||1.04|0.23|0.002
95892330|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.34||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, with double-blind treatment as main effects, is used for Baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.34|-0.35|0.971
95892331|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.51||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 8||0.51|-0.03|
95892332|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.60|-0.13|
95973580|NCT05062759|191920494|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.07||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||2.07|0.73|
95973581|NCT05062759|191920494|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.48||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.48|0.54|
95973582|NCT05062759|191920495|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.04||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.04|0.52|
95973583|NCT05062759|191920495|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.29||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.29|0.72|
95973584|NCT05062759|191920495|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.46||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.46|0.73|
95892333|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.55||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.55|-0.06|
95892334|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.65||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.65|-0.06|
95892335|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.52||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.52|-0.04|0.095
95973585|NCT05062759|191920496|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.25||||||Influenza A H1N1 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.25|0.51|
95973586|NCT05062759|191920496|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.28||||||Influenza A H3N2 Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.28|0.42|
95973587|NCT05062759|191920496|OTHER||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.99||||||Influenza B Victoria Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.99|0.49|
95973588|NCT05062759|191920496|OTHER||Geometeric LS mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.52||||||Influenza B Yamagata Lineage Ratio of placebo over tezepelumab. Results based on ANCOVA model||1.52|0.70|
95973589|NCT04981366|191920503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95973590|NCT04981366|191920504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95892336|NCT00277212|191740110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripirazole - placebo|Highest change from Baseline||0.63|-0.01|0.061
95892337|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.458||95.0|-0.25|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA model, controlling for treatment, is used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.11|-0.25|0.458
95892338|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.26|-0.05|
95892339|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 24||0.20|-0.11|
95892340|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.42||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 36||0.42|0.00|
95892341|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at week 52||0.16|-0.05|
95892342|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.11||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.11|-0.22|0.515
95892343|NCT00277212|191740111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.23||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.23|-0.16|0.730
95892344|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||Means, mean differences, 95% confidence intervals for the differences, and the p-values are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANOVA|ANOVA, controlling for treatment, used for baseline estimates.|aripiprazole - placebo|Baseline||0.20|-0.08|0.435
95892345|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 8||0.30|0.04|
95973591|NCT04981366|191920505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973592|NCT04981366|191920506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||We applied the restricted maximum likelihood, compound symmetry covariance structure, and Kenward-Roger degrees of freedom approximation. To maintain the significance level at 0.05, the primary endpoints were assessed using Hochberg's procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95973593|NCT04981366|191920507|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973594|NCT04981366|191920508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973595|NCT04981366|191920509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95973596|NCT04981366|191920510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973597|NCT04981366|191920511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973598|NCT04981366|191920512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973599|NCT04981366|191920513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973600|NCT04981366|191920514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95973601|NCT04981366|191920515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.033
95973602|NCT04981366|191920516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
95973603|NCT04981366|191920517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
95892346|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 24||0.17|-0.11|
95892347|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 36||0.13|-0.13|
95892348|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.14||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 52||0.14|-0.08|
95892349|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.17||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Change from Baseline at Week 52 (LOCF)||0.17|-0.06|0.358
95892350|NCT00277212|191740112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.31||Means, treatment differences between aripiprazole and placebo, 95% confidence intervals for the differences and the p-values for treatment comparisons are based on ANOVA/ANCOVA model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA (main effects=double-blind treatment, covariate=baseline assessment) used for mean change from baseline comparisons.|aripiprazole - placebo|Highest Change from Baseline||0.31|0.03|0.021
95892351|NCT05620576|191740113|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.82|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.82|-0.61|
95892352|NCT05620576|191740114|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.99|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.99|-0.47|
95892353|NCT05620576|191740115|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.78|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.78|-0.11|
95892354|NCT05620576|191740116|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.96|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.96|-0.56|
95892355|NCT05620576|191740117|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|7.75|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||7.75|-9.41|
95892356|NCT05620576|191740118|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.24|-0.51|
95892357|NCT05620576|191740119|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.08|-0.11|
95892358|NCT05620576|191740120|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|23.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.05|152.33|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||152.33|-108.05|
95892359|NCT02666183|191740123|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-2.251||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.051|0.55|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.550|-5.051|0.162
95892360|NCT02666183|191740123|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-3.663||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.538|-0.789|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.789|-6.538|0.007
95892361|NCT02666183|191740123|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.413||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.464|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.464|-4.290|0.714
95892362|NCT02666183|191740124|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.531||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.297|0.234|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.234|-1.297|0.173
95892363|NCT02666183|191740124|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.456||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.241|-0.671|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.671|-2.241|0.001
95892364|NCT02666183|191740124|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.925||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.711|-0.139|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||-0.139|-1.711|0.021
95892365|NCT02666183|191740125|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.984||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.939|0.971|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.971|-2.939|0.323
95892366|NCT02666183|191740125|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-1.768||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|0.249|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||0.249|-3.785|0.086
95892367|NCT02666183|191740125|OTHER||Estimated marginal mean difference|-0.784||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.794|1.226|||ANCOVA|Covariates: DCG age, gender, race, income||||1.226|-2.794|0.443
95892368|NCT00666757|191740126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the remission rates at 12 week endpoint between treatment groups.||||0.26
95892369|NCT00666757|191740127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-week endpoint.||||0.07
95892370|NCT00666757|191740128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). Repeated Measures Analysis. The analysis will contrast the remission remission rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.03
95892371|NCT00666757|191740129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.09
95973604|NCT04981366|191920518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.027
95973605|NCT04981366|191920519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.145
95973606|NCT04981366|191920520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95973607|NCT04981366|191920521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.551
95973608|NCT04981366|191920522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95973609|NCT04981366|191920523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95973610|NCT04981366|191920524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95973611|NCT04981366|191920525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95973612|NCT04981366|191920526|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973613|NCT04981366|191920527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
95973614|NCT04981366|191920528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.613
95973615|NCT04981366|191920529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.944
95973616|NCT04981366|191920530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
95973617|NCT04981366|191920531|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973618|NCT04981366|191920532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973619|NCT04981366|191920533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973620|NCT04981366|191920535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95892372|NCT00666757|191740130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Categorical, pseudo-likelihood-based repeated measures approach (MMRM-CAT). The analysis will contrast the response rates at 12-week endpoint.||||0.001
95892373|NCT00666757|191740131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
95892374|NCT00666757|191740132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.001
95892375|NCT00666757|191740133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.003
95892376|NCT00666757|191740134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis.Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.01
95973621|NCT04981366|191920536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973622|NCT04981366|191920537|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973623|NCT04981366|191920538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973624|NCT04981366|191920539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.017
95973625|NCT04981366|191920540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973626|NCT04981366|191920541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.949
95973627|NCT04981366|191920542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.993
95973628|NCT04981366|191920543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.601
95973629|NCT04981366|191920544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.408
95973630|NCT04981366|191920545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.082
95973631|NCT04981366|191920546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.550
95973632|NCT04981366|191920547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.700
95973633|NCT04981366|191920548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.254
95973634|NCT04981366|191920549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.373
95973635|NCT04981366|191920550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.407
95973636|NCT04981366|191920551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.051
95973637|NCT04981366|191920552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.385|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
95973638|NCT04981366|191920553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.239
95973639|NCT04981366|191920554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.463
95973640|NCT04981366|191920555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
95973641|NCT04981366|191920556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.469
95973642|NCT04981366|191920557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95973643|NCT04981366|191920558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.064
95973644|NCT04981366|191920559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0314|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0314
95973645|NCT04981366|191920560|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0147
95973646|NCT04981366|191920561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95973647|NCT04981366|191920562|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95973648|NCT04981366|191920563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95973649|NCT00069108|191920599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.00584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.24|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.24|0.87|0.00584
95973650|NCT00069108|191920600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|While the study was not designed to demonstrate non-inferiority in PFS based on IRC assessments the pre-specified margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.00223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Chi-squared||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population|||1.17|0.74|0.00223
95973651|NCT00069108|191920601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.37||||||||1.37|0.91|
95973652|NCT00069108|191920602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||||1.47|0.95|
95973653|NCT00069108|191920603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.77||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.79|0.4028
95973654|NCT00069108|191920604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.01||p-value is for difference between response rates.|Chi-squared|||||2.01|0.81|0.2911
95973655|NCT00069108|191920605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin (1.30) was compared with the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR, XELOX vs FOLFOX-4) in the population.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.23||||||||1.23|0.87|
95973656|NCT00069108|191920607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.68||||||||1.68|0.79|
95973657|NCT00069108|191920608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||||||||1.12|0.81|
95892377|NCT00666757|191740135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.02
95892378|NCT00666757|191740136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.20
95892379|NCT00666757|191740137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Only those patients who had at least moderate pain at baseline (defined as baseline BPI Average 24-Hour Pain Score greater than or equal to 3). Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
95892380|NCT00666757|191740138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.03
95892381|NCT00666757|191740139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at 12-Week endpoint.||||0.002
95892382|NCT00666757|191740140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
95892383|NCT00666757|191740141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.07
95892384|NCT00666757|191740142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||||||0.34
95892385|NCT00666757|191740143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.02
95892386|NCT00666757|191740144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.01
95892387|NCT00666757|191740145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.97
95892388|NCT00666757|191740146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.32
95892389|NCT00666757|191740147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed absolute score||||0.12
95892390|NCT00666757|191740148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||Between group P-value|ANCOVA|||Transformed Absolute Score||||0.16
95892391|NCT00666757|191740149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.002
95892392|NCT00666757|191740150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated Measures Analysis. Treatment comparisons will include the contrast between treatment groups at endpoint.||||0.53
95892393|NCT01231581|191740151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.32|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios are estimated using a Pike estimator.|||1.32|0.66|0.352
95892394|NCT05954052|191740158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|14.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For the analysis of (ABC) scores at baseline and 12 weeks in this single-arm, open-label pilot study (n=6 participants, all with paired data including the early dropout), we use superiority test, This aligns with the study's hypothesis that oral glutathione supplementation would lead to an improvement (i.e., a decrease in ABC scores, indicating reduced irritability). Superiority testing evaluates whether the post-treatment mean (or median) is significantly lower than the baseline||14.24|-6.24|0.1807
95892395|NCT01649375|191740182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||3.67|0.90|0.0967
95892396|NCT01649375|191740182|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.96|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||8.96|2.14|<.0001
95892397|NCT01649375|191740183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.48|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||7.48|1.19|0.0194
95892398|NCT01649375|191740183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.07|||<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|12.44|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||12.44|2.06|<.0004
95892399|NCT01649375|191740184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|0.41|<0.0001
95892400|NCT01649375|191740184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|0.37|<0.0001
95892401|NCT01649375|191740185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.26|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.26|2.31|0.0003
95892402|NCT01649375|191740185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.47|24.12|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||24.12|3.47|<.0001
95892403|NCT01649375|191740186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.37|-1.77|<0.0001
95892404|NCT01649375|191740186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-2.04|0.0002
95892405|NCT01649375|191740187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|0.66|0.0110
95892406|NCT01649375|191740187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.105||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.32|1.96|0.0002
95973658|NCT02783768|191920610|OTHER|Testing for difference in the outcome measure according to the exposure (which was not a treatment) in a randomized crossover setting.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.98||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.012|23.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Measurements were included for participants with at least one valid MRI measurement.|"Within-person effects of e-cigarette exposure on pulmonary microvascular blood flow (PMBF) was assessed via mixed models accounting for order effects.~Null hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure is NOT associated with a change in PMBF.~Alternative hypothesis: e-cigarette exposure IS associated with a change in PMBF.~Power calculation: not applicable since this was a pilot/feasibility study."||23.94|4.012|0.012
95973659|NCT00899548|191920655|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.52|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.52|1.23|.0002
95973660|NCT00899548|191920656|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.19||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio||1.32|1.07|0.001
95973661|NCT00899548|191920659|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.45|||Gehan|Distributions compared between using the Gehan test, which gives more weight to early differences.||||2.45|1.18|.001
95973662|NCT00679627|191920671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95973663|NCT00679627|191920672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.37|0.011
95973664|NCT00679627|191920673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95973665|NCT00679627|191920674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95973666|NCT00679627|191920677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.269||||||Baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.269
95973667|NCT00679627|191920677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.835||||||Month 24|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.835
95973668|NCT00679627|191920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||||||Orientation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.194
95973669|NCT00679627|191920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353||||||Registration subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.353
95973670|NCT00679627|191920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Attention and Calculation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95892407|NCT01649375|191740188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.748||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.48|-3.43|0.0096
95892408|NCT01649375|191740188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.16|-4.09|0.0005
95892409|NCT01649375|191740189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||16.21|1.13|0.0325
95892410|NCT01649375|191740189|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|15.01|||Regression, Logistic|Missing ASAS responses considered nonresponders||||15.01|1.02|0.0471
95892411|NCT01124604|191740194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||||95.0|-1.04|0.8|||||Test for no difference between treatments was derived from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with factors treatment, disease and Baseline pain intensity as covariate.|||0.80|-1.04|
95892412|NCT01856790|191740211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.05
95892413|NCT01856790|191740212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.002
95892414|NCT01856790|191740214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.97
95892415|NCT01856790|191740218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||.001
95973671|NCT00679627|191920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||||||Recall subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
95973672|NCT00679627|191920678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.088||||||Language subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.088
95973673|NCT00679627|191920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Initiation subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.010
95973674|NCT00679627|191920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||||||Planning and Organization subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.043
95973675|NCT00679627|191920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Effective Performance subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95973676|NCT00679627|191920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Basic subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95973677|NCT00679627|191920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.054||||||Instrumental subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.054
95973678|NCT00679627|191920679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||||||Leisure subscale|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
95973679|NCT01886378|191920707|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|423.594||||0.1518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.66|1002.85||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||1002.85|-155.66|0.1518
95973680|NCT01886378|191920708|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.011||||0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.01||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||0.01|-0.04|0.3964
95892416|NCT01856790|191740219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon Matched Pairs signed rank tests|||||||0.005
95892417|NCT04091646|191740223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|9.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||9.76|2.51|<0.0001
95892418|NCT04091646|191740224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|7.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.52|1.46|0.0033
95892419|NCT04091646|191740224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.78||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|7.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|IGA Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||7.38|1.94|0.0002
95892420|NCT04091646|191740225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
95892421|NCT04091646|191740225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
95892422|NCT04091646|191740225|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Erythema Score||||<0.0001
95892423|NCT04091646|191740226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|17.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 2||17.13|1.49|0.0065
95892424|NCT04091646|191740226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 4||13.38|2.15|0.0002
95892425|NCT04091646|191740226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data||Erythema Success at Week 8||6.63|1.50|0.0021
95892426|NCT04091646|191740227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 2 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
95892427|NCT04091646|191740227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 4 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
95892428|NCT04091646|191740227|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 8 Scaling Score||||<0.0001
95892429|NCT04091646|191740228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 2||4.33|0.90|0.0759
95892430|NCT04091646|191740228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 4||4.61|1.18|0.0122
95892431|NCT04091646|191740228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|Scaling Success at Week 8||6.55|1.74|0.0003
95892432|NCT04091646|191740230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||7.63|1.72|0.0007
95892433|NCT04091646|191740230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|6.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||6.68|1.63|0.0009
95892434|NCT04091646|191740230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data|Common OR stratified by pooled study site and baseline IGA per randomization with no imputation of missing data.|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||6.35|1.60|0.0007
95892435|NCT01921829|191740231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95892436|NCT01921829|191740232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95892437|NCT01921829|191740234|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
95892438|NCT01921829|191740235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.58
95892439|NCT01921829|191740236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95892440|NCT01921829|191740237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95892441|NCT01921829|191740238|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
95892442|NCT01921829|191740239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95892443|NCT01921829|191740240|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
95892444|NCT01921829|191740241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95892445|NCT01921829|191740242|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
95892446|NCT01921829|191740243|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
95892447|NCT01921829|191740244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95892448|NCT01921829|191740245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95892449|NCT01921829|191740246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95892450|NCT01921829|191740247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95892451|NCT01921829|191740248|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
95892452|NCT01921829|191740249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95892453|NCT01921829|191740250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.95
95892454|NCT01921829|191740251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.95
95892455|NCT03090100|191740274|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|14.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|19.2|||z-test|||||19.2|9.2|<0.001
95892456|NCT03090100|191740274|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95892457|NCT03090100|191740275|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 10%|Difference in percentage|4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.9|||z-test|||||8.9|-0.2|<0.001
95892458|NCT03090100|191740275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.062
95892459|NCT03090100|191740276|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-1.7||||||||-1.7|-12.2|
95892460|NCT03090100|191740277|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.2||||||||1.2|-6.0|
95973681|NCT01886378|191920709|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|4.671||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.86||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||9.86|-0.52|0.0777
95892461|NCT03090100|191740278|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|15.5||||||||15.5|3.8|
95892462|NCT03090100|191740279|OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|17.4||||||||17.4|5.8|
95892463|NCT03090100|191740280|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|14.5||||||||14.5|4.9|
95892464|NCT03090100|191740281|OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.2||||||||13.2|2.3|
95892465|NCT03090100|191740282|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-3.5|
95892466|NCT03090100|191740283|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.4||||||||3.4|-6.2|
95892467|NCT03090100|191740284|OTHER||Difference in percentage|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.3||||||||15.3|4.2|
95892468|NCT03090100|191740285|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.9||||||||3.9|-4.2|
95892469|NCT03090100|191740286|OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-5.0|
95892470|NCT00952341|191740292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.007
95892471|NCT00952341|191740293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.942
95892472|NCT00952341|191740294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.~The apriori significance level was set at 0.05.~There was no adjustment for multiplicity."||||0.001
95892473|NCT00952341|191740295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||"Adjusted by gender and concomitant~chemotherapy."||||0.003
95892474|NCT00952341|191740296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.882
95892475|NCT00952341|191740297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted by gender and concomitant chemotherapy.||||0.001
95892476|NCT02293655|191740303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Baseline Time point||||0.55
95892477|NCT02293655|191740303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at MPH Maintenance Visit (Week 8)||||.30
95892478|NCT02293655|191740303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (Week 9)||||.28
95892479|NCT02293655|191740303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (Week 10)||||.00
95892480|NCT02293655|191740303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (Week 12)||||.01
95892481|NCT02293655|191740304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.4||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at baseline timepoint||||.32
95892482|NCT02293655|191740304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Maintenance Time Point (week 8)||||.90
95892483|NCT02293655|191740304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.007
95892484|NCT02293655|191740304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|56.6||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.26
95892485|NCT02293655|191740304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|123.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.6||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.01
95892486|NCT02293655|191740305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Baseline||||.33
95973682|NCT01886378|191920710|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|181.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|386.45||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||386.45|-23.70|0.0830
95892487|NCT02293655|191740305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.5||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Maintenance (week 8)||||.06
95892488|NCT02293655|191740305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|108.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.8||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 1 (week 9)||||.05
95892489|NCT02293655|191740305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|118.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.2||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 2 (week 10)||||.008
95892490|NCT02293655|191740305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.9||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison at Randomization Phase 3 (week 12)||||.07
95892491|NCT02063854|191740320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.1346
95892492|NCT02063854|191740320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested using t-test at a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711|||||||t-test, 1 sided|With a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of 1.5%.||||||0.6711
95892493|NCT02063854|191740320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.001||||||||0.001|-1.920|
95892494|NCT02063854|191740320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.617|-0.794||||||||-0.794|-2.617|
95892495|NCT02063854|191740320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|1.658||||||||1.658|-0.166|
95892496|NCT03538158|191740331|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.7||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.7|299.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,131)=.07||||299.1|-287.7|.82
95973683|NCT01886378|191920711|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|-0.185||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||-0.02|-0.35|0.0320
95973684|NCT01886378|191920712|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|12.44||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|26.6||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||26.60|-1.72|0.0850
95973685|NCT01886378|191920713|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|2.16||||0.3754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|6.94||The LS Mean, standard error (SE), 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||6.94|-2.62|0.3754
95973686|NCT01886378|191920714|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|0.816||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|5.97||The LS Mean, SE, 95% CI, and 2-sided p-value are from the GEE model.|GEE model|||||5.97|-4.34|0.7564
95973687|NCT01886378|191920715|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|8.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|12.08||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model|||||12.08|5.67|<0.0001
95973688|NCT01886378|191920716|SUPERIORITY||LS mean|9.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|17.54||The GEE model included the change from Baseline for each parameter as the dependent variable, time as the categorical variable, and adjusted for Baseline measurement with compound symmetry covariance structure.|GEE model||LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-values are based on the GEE model.|||17.54|1.87|0.0152
95973689|NCT01270971|191920744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95892497|NCT03538158|191740332|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,75)=.03||||4.4|-3.5|.97
95892498|NCT00706979|191740340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of any ever-occurring quit attempt.||1.4|1.1|0.008
95892499|NCT00706979|191740341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate of 7 days of abstinence at some point during the study.||1.7|1.0|0.09
95892500|NCT00706979|191740342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the primary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for the primary outcome of any 24hr quit attempt.||1.5|1.1|0.004
95892501|NCT00706979|191740343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used to examine the secondary hypothesis that NRT-enhanced PQAs would yield a higher rate for 7 days of abstinence at the six month follow-up.||1.6|0.9|0.3
95973690|NCT01270971|191920745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95973691|NCT01270971|191920746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95973692|NCT01270971|191920747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95973693|NCT02673515|191920773|OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of changes from baseline to 4 weeks between groups was tested with student´s t-test or Mann Whitney-U-Test||||0.797
95973694|NCT02641496|191920782|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.027||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Treatment 1 to Treatment 4 (approximately first 30 days of treatment)||||0.027
95973695|NCT02641496|191920782|OTHER|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||Last 30 Days of 1 Year Study||||0.919
95973696|NCT02641496|191920783|OTHER|||||||0.696||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.696
95973697|NCT02641496|191920784|OTHER|||||||0.593||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; two-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.593
95973698|NCT02641496|191920785|OTHER|||||||0.925||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05; one-tailed|ANOVA|||||||0.925
95973699|NCT04546789|191920799|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.82||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.82|0.86|
95973700|NCT04546789|191920799|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|2.38||||||Moderate hepatic impairment vs Normal hepatic impairment||2.38|1.60|
95973701|NCT04546789|191920800|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.99||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.99|0.77|
95973702|NCT04546789|191920800|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.26||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.26|1.51|
95892502|NCT02337907|191740366|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.124||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.163|0.7907
95892503|NCT02337907|191740366|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.125|0.171||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.171|-0.125|0.7622
95892504|NCT02337907|191740366|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.8789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.152||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.152|-0.130|0.8789
95892505|NCT02337907|191740366|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.285|0.006||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.006|-0.285|0.0609
95892506|NCT02337907|191740366|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.074||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.074|-0.135|0.5687
95892507|NCT02337907|191740367|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.120|-0.101|0.8694
95892508|NCT02337907|191740367|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.109|-0.116|0.9512
95973703|NCT04546789|191920827|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|1.17||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.17|0.55|
95973704|NCT04546789|191920827|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.63||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.63|0.42|
95973705|NCT04546789|191920830|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|2.25||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.25|0.93|
95973706|NCT04546789|191920830|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|3.29||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.29|1.98|
95973707|NCT04546789|191920831|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.39||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||2.39|0.86|
95973708|NCT04546789|191920831|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.87|3.14||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||3.14|1.87|
95973709|NCT04546789|191920832|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|1.08||||||Mild Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||1.08|0.45|
95973710|NCT04546789|191920832|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|0.5||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment vs Normal Hepatic Function||0.50|0.30|
95973711|NCT04016558|191920860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.007
95973712|NCT04016558|191920861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.006
95973713|NCT04016558|191920862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.82
95892509|NCT02337907|191740367|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.115|-0.105|0.9321
95892510|NCT02337907|191740367|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.025|-0.199|0.1288
95892511|NCT02337907|191740367|SUPERIORITY|H1-0: Mean NTB response of pooled doses of 10 mg QD, 25 mg QD, 25 mg BID and 50 mg QD = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.||0.061|-0.098|0.6492
95892512|NCT02337907|191740368|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.5287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|2.77||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||2.77|-1.43|0.5287
95892513|NCT02337907|191740368|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.099||0.7105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.76||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.76|-2.57|0.7105
95892514|NCT02337907|191740368|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.03||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.03|-1.16|0.3822
95892515|NCT02337907|191740368|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.61||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||1.61|-2.59|0.6472
95892516|NCT02337907|191740369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.64||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.64|-0.46|0.7551
95973714|NCT04016558|191920863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
95973715|NCT04016558|191920864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
95973716|NCT04016558|191920866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
95973717|NCT04016558|191920867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.39
95973718|NCT04016558|191920868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.01
95973719|NCT00529958|191920869|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based on 88 ACL-deficient patients with surgical intervention and an ACL-QOL score of 74.5 (SD=20.1) at a mean 39-month follow-up, a minimal clinically important difference of 10 points, power=0.80 and p=0.05.|||||<|0.05||||||A Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was used in the sample size calculation, resulting in 90 patients per group. With a 20% lost-to-follow-up rate, the final sample size was 108 patients per group for a total of 324 patients.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using a 5% significance level for all analyses. The ACL-QOL scores for each study group were analyzed using adjusted Bonferroni comparisons and repeated-measures analyses, using a mixed-model analysis of variance for treatment group over time of assessment."||||<0.05
95973720|NCT03464097|191920898|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.55|0.99|0.0539
95892517|NCT02337907|191740369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.8||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.80|-0.29|0.3643
95892518|NCT02337907|191740369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.60|-0.45|0.7822
95892519|NCT02337907|191740369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.65||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.65|-0.43|0.6889
95892520|NCT02337907|191740370|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.15||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.15|-0.52|0.1595
95892521|NCT02337907|191740370|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.01||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.01|-0.77|0.2455
95973721|NCT03464097|191920899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.65|0.86|0.1503
95973722|NCT03464097|191920900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.29|0.92|0.1121
95973723|NCT03464097|191920901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.35|0.91|0.1163
95973724|NCT03464097|191920902|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.20|0.98|0.0561
95973725|NCT03464097|191920903|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.86|0.60|0.5061
95973726|NCT03464097|191920904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.44|0.82|0.1179
95973727|NCT03464097|191920905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.94|0.0769
95973728|NCT03464097|191920906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|7.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.98|0.92|0.0623
95973729|NCT03464097|191920907|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.00|0.89|0.1162
95973730|NCT03464097|191920908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.11|0.85|0.2143
95973731|NCT03464097|191920909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.57|0.97|0.0663
95973732|NCT03464097|191920910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|18.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.64|0.78|0.0774
95973733|NCT03464097|191920912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.33|1.06|0.0308
95973734|NCT03464097|191920913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.95|0.57|0.8745
95973735|NCT03464097|191920914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.78|1.04|0.0361
95973736|NCT02401867|191920952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|We selected our initial sample size of 150 participants to detect a clinically meaningful % discordance between the two sampling approaches and achieve 90% power at the 0.05 alpha-level using McNemar's test adjusted for analysis of clustered matched-pair data.||||||0.29||||||Statistical significance was determined at an a priori threshold of p \<0.05|McNemar|Degrees of freedom = 1||Comparing the concordance of the HPV DNA-positive results to the cervical provider swab HPV DNA test results (reference) using the McNemar's test, a two-sample test for binomial proportions for matched-pair data. Null hypothesis: The sensitivities between swab 1 (self-vaginal) and swab 2 (provider-cervical) are equal \[ H0 : p1 = p2 \]||||.29
95973737|NCT02401867|191920952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92||A priori threshold: p\<0.05|Kappa||Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.|Concordance of HPV DNA detection between self-swab and provider swab assessed via an unweighted Kappa (K) statistic to determine the percentage agreement beyond that expected by chance.||0.92|0.58|<0.001
95973738|NCT02401867|191920952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity|71.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.82|88.72|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed sensitivity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||88.72|47.82|
95973739|NCT02401867|191920952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assessed specificity of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).|Specificity|98.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.59|99.78|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|||99.78|93.59|
95892522|NCT02337907|191740370|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.13||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||3.13|-0.57|0.1732
95892523|NCT02337907|191740370|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.31||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.||4.31|0.63|0.0088
95892524|NCT02876900|191740371|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.634||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.64||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-1.64|-8.06|0.003
95892525|NCT02876900|191740371|SUPERIORITY|Assuming an effect size of 0.35 on the change in PANSS total score from baseline to Week 6 for the 2 pairwise comparisons between each active asenapine maleate transdermal patch treatment arm and placebo, the power for detecting a statistically significant HP-3070 advantage was approximately 0.90, having 204 evaluable participants per each treatment arm using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.025 for each comparison.|Least Square Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|-3.4||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the truncated Hochberg procedure with a truncation factor y=0.9. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-3.4|-9.81|<0.001
95892526|NCT02876900|191740372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
95973740|NCT02401867|191920952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.56|98.54|||||Used exact confidence intervals.|Assessed positive predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.54|63.56|
95973741|NCT02401867|191920952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative predictive value|94.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.9|98.04|||||Used exact confidence intervals|Assessed negative predictive value of vaginal self-swab HPV DNA with respect to provider cervical HPV DNA (reference test).||98.04|88.90|
95973742|NCT02795429|191920958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561|||||||||||Bayesian Logistic Regression Model||Posterior probability that the odds ratio (ORRspartalizumab +capmatinib to ORRspartalizumab) was ≥ 1|||||
95973743|NCT02482870|191920986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square value = 2.424; degrees of freedom = 1||Sample size was calculated according to the first 60 patients. To obtain 90% power with an alpha error of 0.05, a total of 378 patients were required. Considering a possible drop-out rate of 2.5% due to unexpected complications, we aimed for 388 patients.||||0.119
95973744|NCT02482870|191920987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|4.6||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.6|3|<0.0001
95973745|NCT02482870|191920988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.4|0.5|<0.0001
95973746|NCT02482870|191920989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.67||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|t value = -11.224, degrees of freedom = 773.99||"For each patient, the difference between Cormack-Lehane score and Mallampati class was calculated for each laryngoscope. As an example, the first patient had a Mallampati score 3. Macintosh laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 2, therefore the difference is - 1, calculated as 2 - 3. In the same patient, King Vision video laryngoscope provided a Cormack-Lehane score of 1, therefore the difference is - 2, calculated as 1 - 3. T-test was used to compare the differences."||-0.67|-0.95|<0.0001
95973747|NCT02482870|191920990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-square test with Yates' continuity correction: chi-square = 0.101; degrees of freedom = 1||||||0.75
95973748|NCT04363801|191920999|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05|||Log Rank|||||2.05|0.98|0.9676
95973749|NCT04363801|191921016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.3799
95973750|NCT04363801|191921019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8679|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.8679
95973751|NCT04363801|191921019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9676|||||||Log Rank|Stratified Log-rank Test||||||0.9676
95892527|NCT02876900|191740372|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.25||Adjusted p-value was calculated according to the Hochberg procedure. Adjustment for multiple comparisons uses a parallel gatekeeping procedure.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||The mixed model for repeated measures includes treatment, country, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates, and participant as random effect. The correlation of repeated measures within a participant is estimated with an unstructured covariance matrix. The Kenward-Rogers method is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom.||-0.25|-0.64|<0.001
95892528|NCT00620828|191740382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Patient cohort was inclusive of patient undergoing single TKA from June 2007 to July 2008. Effect size was calculated for the numeric pain rating scale at the immediate post-operative period, 4-hour, 8-hour , 12-hour, and 24-hour time periods as a means to assess post-operative pain control.||||<0.05
95892529|NCT00620828|191740383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Significant differences in Fentanyl PCA pump usage across study arms were assessed for the 4-8h,8-12h,and 12h-24h time frames.||||.05
95892530|NCT00620828|191740384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||This analysis was performed on data collected 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
95892531|NCT00620828|191740385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Knee extension and knee flexion measured at 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
95892532|NCT00620828|191740386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Straight leg raise data collected at 4-hours, 8-hours, 12-hours and 24-hours post-operatively for patient cohort.||||.05
95892533|NCT00003641|191740391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.964|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.964
95892534|NCT00003641|191740392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified on the stratification factors used for randomization||||||0.558
95973752|NCT04363801|191921019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.05||||||||3.05|0.74|
95973753|NCT04363801|191921019|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.05||||||||2.05|0.98|
95892535|NCT01412021|191740393|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892536|NCT01412021|191740394|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892537|NCT01412021|191740395|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892538|NCT01412021|191740396|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892539|NCT01412021|191740397|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892540|NCT01412021|191740399|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892541|NCT01412021|191740401|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892542|NCT01412021|191740402|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|redundancy is not taken into consideration||||||< 0.0001
95892543|NCT01412021|191740403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892544|NCT01412021|191740404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95973754|NCT04363801|191921020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.4||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|33.6|||Mantel Haenszel||Common Risk Difference and 95% CI: estimated by stratified Newcombe method, weighted by minimum risk|||33.6|-18.4|0.2649
95973755|NCT04363801|191921020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||16.9|-12.2|0.379
95892545|NCT01412021|191740405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892546|NCT01412021|191740406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892547|NCT01412021|191740407|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892548|NCT01412021|191740408|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892549|NCT01412021|191740409|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892550|NCT01412021|191740410|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892551|NCT01412021|191740411|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892552|NCT01412021|191740413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0132
95973756|NCT01981473|191921026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||As there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|Logistic regression was to be used but the model was not fit as there were no antibodies in the etanercept group. Fisher's exact test was used.||This sample was to provide \>95% power to detect a difference of 12% in the proportion of participants positive for antidrug antibodies between the group of participants treated with a soluble receptor TNF inhibitor (etanercept) and the group of participants treated with mAB TNF inhibitors (adalimumab and infliximab) (5% vs 17%, respectively), using a Chi square test with continuity correction, an alpha of 0.05, and attrition rate of 15%.||||<0.0001
95973757|NCT00757588|191921047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.24||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-0.24|-0.59|<0.0001
95892553|NCT01412021|191740414|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95973758|NCT00757588|191921048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3829.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1165.99||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6122.4|-1537.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1537.1|-6122.4|0.0011
95973759|NCT00757588|191921049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.2|-8.7||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-8.7|-37.2|0.0016
95973760|NCT00757588|191921050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.732||0.3958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|5.28||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||5.28|-13.32|0.3958
95892554|NCT01412021|191740415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892555|NCT01412021|191740416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892556|NCT01412021|191740417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892557|NCT01412021|191740418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892558|NCT01412021|191740419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892559|NCT01412021|191740420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892560|NCT01412021|191740421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892561|NCT01412021|191740422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95892562|NCT05778786|191740436|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.0 logMAR was used.|Least-Square Mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 9 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.||-0.10||
95892563|NCT05778786|191740437|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 62 points was used.|Least-quares mean|69.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|65.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 165 subjects provide at least 99% statistical power to test for superiority.|||65.2|
95892564|NCT05778786|191740438|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.974|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.989|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.989|0.950|
95892565|NCT05778786|191740439|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0054|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|0.997|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.976|
95892566|NCT05778786|191740440|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.80 was used|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.989|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|0.997|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|Method used is Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.99 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible interval.||0.997|0.977|
95892567|NCT05778786|191740441|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 0.05 was used.|Mean Central Posterior Proportion|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.01|||Bayesian beta-binomial model|Bayesian beta- binomial model for correlated binary data||It was calculated using a Bayesian beta-binomial model for correlated data with a reference rate of 0.01 and an intraclass correlation of 0.70, that 100 subjects were required to test for superiority to achieve a minimum statistical power of 99% with 95% central posterior credible Interval.||0.010|0.000|
95892568|NCT05778786|191740442|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 58 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|66.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|61.2||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||61.2|
95892569|NCT05778786|191740443|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 61 points was used.|Least-squares Mean|69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|66.6||||Linear Mixed Model|||It was calculated using a 1-sided one sample mean t-test with a type I error rate of 0.025 that 135 subjects provide at least 97% statistical power to test for superiority.|||66.6|
95892570|NCT00663052|191740464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact||Primary endpoint used 95% CI to compare to prespecified target rates for each treatment arm.|With 125 participants/group, estimation was: 1)approximately 90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 50% in ETN 50 mg QW, assuming true rate is 65% or greater; 2)90% power to reject null hypothesis- PASI 75 response rate at 24 weeks: 60% in 50 mg BIW, assuming true rate is 74% or greater. The 95% CI widths on these are approximately ±8.8%, indicating PASI 75 for ETN 50 mg QW and ETN 50 mg BIW must be at least 58.8% \& 68.8%, respectively to reject null hypotheses.||29.88|6.80|0.0015
95892571|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|10.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||10.16|-3.88|0.3605
95892572|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.91||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|29.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||29.32|6.50|0.0013
95892573|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.51|31.7|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||31.70|7.51|0.0011
95892574|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|20.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.77|30.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||30.40|9.77|<.0001
95892575|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.38||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|23.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.37|5.39|0.0010
95973761|NCT00757588|191921052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.1||Significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted mean difference for saxagliptin groups vs placebo in Week 24 (LOCF). Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: difference between week t and baseline values = baseline values + treatment + metformin use|||-1.1|-5.6|
95973762|NCT02563522|191921061|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.7||||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|45.81|||Fisher Exact|No imputation was performed for subjects with missing response data||The statistical hypotheses were H0: Pt = Pc versus Ha: Pt ≠ Pc, where Pt and Pc are the proportions of subjects with a confirmed target would closure by the 4-month follow-up for Active (Engensis) and Control (Placebo) groups, respectively. The hypothesis testing was a two-sided alpha of 0.05||45.81|-12.37|0.3455
95973763|NCT05754333|191921071|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.9|||paired t Test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||1.9|1.2|<0.001
95973764|NCT05754333|191921072|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.8|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|||1.8|1.2|<0.001
95973765|NCT05754333|191921073|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||1.7|1.0|<0.001
95892576|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.75||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|19.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.16|2.35|0.0087
95892577|NCT00663052|191740465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.46||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|20.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.15|2.77|0.0068
95892578|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.5||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|4.32|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||4.32|-1.31|0.2435
95892579|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.64||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|7.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||7.67|-4.40|0.5929
95892580|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.44||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|24.86|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||24.86|2.02|0.0156
95892581|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|25.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.89|37.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||37.47|12.89|<.0001
95892582|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.84||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|33.85|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||33.85|9.82|0.0003
95892583|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.23|31.38|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||31.38|8.23|0.0006
95892584|NCT00663052|191740466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.34||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.88|6.80|0.0015
95973766|NCT05754333|191921075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
95973767|NCT05754333|191921076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
95973768|NCT05754333|191921077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
95973769|NCT05754333|191921078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
95973770|NCT05754333|191921079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
95973771|NCT05754333|191921080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||||||||||Mean Difference is calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
95973772|NCT05754333|191921081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|||||
95973773|NCT05754333|191921082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|||||
95973774|NCT05754333|191921083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|||||
95973775|NCT05754333|191921084|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 1 Point Higher|67.01|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 1 point higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
95892585|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was not applicable as the percentage of participants achieving 90% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
95892586|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|2.81|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||2.81|-2.77|1.0000
95892587|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||11.07|-3.20|0.2611
95892588|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|18.37||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|28.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||28.45|8.30|0.0002
95892589|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|17.31||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|29.19|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||29.19|5.43|0.0031
95892590|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.92||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|28.04|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||28.04|3.80|0.0081
95892591|NCT00663052|191740467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|16.78||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|29.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||29.10|4.46|0.0064
95892592|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74||The P-value at Week 2 was to be calculated by Fisher Exact method but was not estimable as the percentage of participants achieving 100% improvement in PASI in both treatment groups were 0%.||||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
95892593|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
95892594|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.46||||0.4983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|1.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||1.29|-4.21|0.4983
95892595|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|1.57||||0.4957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|6.37|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||6.37|-3.23|0.4957
95892596|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.14||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|9.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||9.52|-3.24|0.3115
95892597|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.99||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||15.10|-1.13|0.0773
95892598|NCT00663052|191740468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.53||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|13.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.87|-2.82|0.1830
95892599|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.3|-2.3|0.0103
95892600|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.6|-3.0|0.0031
95892601|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-1.7|-4.4|<0.0001
95973776|NCT05754333|191921084|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 2 point higher|40.4|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 2 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
95973777|NCT05754333|191921084|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 3 point higher|20.2|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 3 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated.|||||
95973778|NCT05754333|191921084|SUPERIORITY||POP with at least 4 point higher|2.1|||||||||||||Difference in average index ureter conspicuity scores between NIR-F \& WL across all timepoints was calculated for each participant. These were categorized based on if NIR-F score was at least 4 points higher. POP meeting this criterion was estimated|||||
95973779|NCT05754333|191921085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.2|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||2.2|1.6|<0.001
95973780|NCT05754333|191921085|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.431||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.431|-0.011|
95973781|NCT05754333|191921085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||1.5|0.8|<0.001
95973782|NCT05754333|191921085|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.053|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.282||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.282|-0.181|
95973783|NCT05754333|191921085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.6|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||2.6|1.9|<0.001
95973784|NCT05754333|191921085|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.464||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.464|0.030|
95973785|NCT05754333|191921086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.0|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter (left or right) for each participant.|For reader 2||2.0|1.4|<0.001
95973786|NCT05754333|191921086|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.219|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.429||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.429|-0.013|
95892602|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
95892603|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-1.5|-4.0|<0.0001
95892604|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.8|-3.3|0.0012
95892605|NCT00663052|191740469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.7|-3.4|0.0042
95892606|NCT00663052|191740470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 50. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
95892607|NCT00663052|191740470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 75. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||<0.0001
95892608|NCT00663052|191740470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 90. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0053
95892609|NCT00663052|191740470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of treatment groups for PASI 100. Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0432
95892610|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.74|-0.74|
95892611|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-0.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||1.44|-2.90|1.0000
95892612|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|3.67|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||3.67|-3.58|1.0000
95892613|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.1||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|12.47|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||12.47|-0.26|0.0401
95892614|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.29||||0.4415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|11.54|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||11.54|-4.95|0.4415
95892615|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.6||||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|17.87|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||17.87|-0.67|0.0617
95892616|NCT00663052|191740471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.64||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|18.24|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||18.24|-0.96|0.0720
95892617|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|-1.45||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|2.16|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||2.16|-5.07|0.6223
95892618|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.21||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|13.98|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||13.98|-1.56|0.1000
95892619|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.59||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.53|26.65|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.65|4.53|0.0037
95892620|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|22.04||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.75|34.33|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||34.33|9.75|0.0004
95892621|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|25.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||25.97|0.94|0.0285
95892622|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|15.05||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|27.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||27.43|2.67|0.0139
95892623|NCT00663052|191740472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.56||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.38|31.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||31.74|7.38|0.0012
95892624|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.01||||0.3956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|16.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.03|-6.01|0.3956
95892625|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.66||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|21.14|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.14|-3.82|0.1754
95892626|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|25.72|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||25.72|1.90|0.0207
95892627|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|19.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|29.53|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||29.53|9.23|<0.0001
95892628|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|13.54||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|23.29|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||23.29|3.79|0.0044
95892629|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.62||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|20.13|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||20.13|1.11|0.0223
95892630|NCT00663052|191740473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|20.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.78|1.96|0.0133
95892631|NCT00663052|191740474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear (0,1). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0003
95892632|NCT00663052|191740474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Comparison between treatment groups for PGA Clear/Almost Clear/Mild (0,1,2). Log rank test used to compare groups; CI based on product-limit method.||||0.0022
95892633|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||-0.0|-0.3|0.0193
95892634|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.4|0.0114
95892635|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.5|0.0006
95892636|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
95892637|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.5|0.0058
95892638|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.1|-0.6|0.0018
95973787|NCT05754333|191921086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 3||1.4|0.8|<0.001
95973788|NCT05754333|191921086|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.043|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.272||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.272|-0.191|
95892639|NCT00663052|191740475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.2|-0.6|0.0009
95892640|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.6396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.6396
95892641|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0074
95892642|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.9|0.0007
95892643|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95892644|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.1|-0.8|0.0040
95892645|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.3|-0.9|0.0004
95973789|NCT05754333|191921086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.5|||Sign test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the index ureter(left or right) for eachparticipant.|For reader 4||2.5|1.8|<0.001
95973790|NCT05754333|191921086|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.451||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.451|0.014|
95892646|NCT00663052|191740476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||-0.1|-0.5|0.1799
95892647|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.7757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.3|-0.2|0.7757
95892648|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.2112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2112
95892649|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.5467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||0.2|-0.3|0.5467
95892650|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.3684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.1|-0.4|0.3684
95892651|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||-0.2046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||0.1|-0.4|-0.2046
95973791|NCT05754333|191921087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||1.8|1.1|<0.001
95973792|NCT05754333|191921087|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.116|0.529||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 2||0.529|0.116|
95973793|NCT05754333|191921087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||1.3|0.6|<0.001
95973794|NCT05754333|191921087|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.4||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 3||0.400|-0.048|
95973795|NCT05754333|191921087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.3|||paired t test||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||2.3|1.6|<0.001
95973796|NCT05754333|191921087|OTHER|It quantifies the degree of concordance between two measurements|correlation coefficient|0.297|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.495||||||CCC between BICR and investigator (95% CI), Reader 4||0.495|0.070|
95892652|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||0.0|-0.5|0.0649
95892653|NCT00663052|191740477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-0.3|0.8683
95892654|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.2|-0.3|0.8898
95892655|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.1|-0.7|0.0090
95892656|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.4||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.2|-0.7|0.0028
95973797|NCT05754333|191921088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
95973798|NCT05754333|191921088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
95973799|NCT05754333|191921088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
95973800|NCT05754333|191921089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 2||||
95973801|NCT05754333|191921089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 3||||
95892657|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.3|-0.9|0.0001
95892658|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.3|-0.9|<0.0001
95892659|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-0.8|0.0016
95892660|NCT00663052|191740478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-0.6|0.0602
95892661|NCT00663052|191740481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|0.42||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.55|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||8.55|-7.70|1.0000
95973802|NCT05754333|191921089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|Difference from WL in Means, Reader 4||||
95973803|NCT05754333|191921090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
95973804|NCT05754333|191921090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
95892662|NCT00663052|191740481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.94||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|13.63|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.63|-5.75|0.4213
95892663|NCT00663052|191740481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.98||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|13.35|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.35|-5.38|0.4039
95892664|NCT00663052|191740481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|2.5||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|11.88|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||11.88|-6.87|0.6168
95892665|NCT00663052|191740482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.2||||0.862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||||2.3|-2.8|0.8620
95892666|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.68||||0.3525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|17.4|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||17.40|-6.05|0.3525
95892667|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|27.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||27.20|2.19|0.0202
95973805|NCT05754333|191921090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
95973806|NCT05754333|191921091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
95973807|NCT05754333|191921091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
95892668|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.41||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|26.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||26.64|2.17|0.0178
95892669|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|21.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|32.03|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||32.03|11.02|<0.0001
95973808|NCT05754333|191921091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
95973809|NCT05754333|191921092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-m in WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
95973810|NCT05754333|191921092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
95973811|NCT05754333|191921092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
95973812|NCT05754333|191921093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
95973813|NCT05754333|191921093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
95973814|NCT05754333|191921093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
95973815|NCT05754333|191921094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 2||||
95973816|NCT05754333|191921094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 3||||
95973817|NCT05754333|191921094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL scores and NIR-F scores at 30-min timepoint.|For reader 4||||
95892670|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.53||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||20.64|0.43|0.0325
95892671|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.04||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|21.97|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||21.97|2.10|0.0129
95892672|NCT00663052|191740483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.28||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|21.3|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||21.30|1.26|0.0209
95973818|NCT05754333|191921095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 2||||
95973819|NCT05754333|191921095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 3||||
95973820|NCT05754333|191921095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between NIR-F scores at each time point and the 30-min WL score of the ureter of interest (left; right) for each participant.|For reader 4||||
95973821|NCT05754333|191921096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 2||||
95973822|NCT05754333|191921096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 3||||
95973823|NCT05754333|191921096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||||||||||Mean Difference was calculated by averaging over the differences between WL score at 30-min time point and the NIR-F score at the end of surgery across all participants.|For reader 4||||
95973824|NCT04874415|191921107|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||5.3|-6.2|
95973825|NCT04874415|191921107|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Fixed step count is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||4.6|-9.4|
95973826|NCT04874415|191921107|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|3.1|||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-11|
95973827|NCT04874415|191921107|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.8|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||9.8|-1.0|
95892673|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|12.1||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|24.44|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||24.44|-0.24|0.0461
95892674|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.83||||0.1314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|20.1|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||20.10|-2.44|0.1314
95892675|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.2||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|21.74|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||21.74|0.65|0.0289
95892676|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|8.52||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|17.07|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||17.07|-0.04|0.0433
95892677|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.06||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|15.43|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||15.43|-1.32|0.0902
95892678|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.79||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|16.26|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||16.26|-0.68|0.0630
95892679|NCT00663052|191740484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|7.7||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|16.93|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||16.93|-1.53|0.0907
95973828|NCT04874415|191921108|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-686.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2997.0|1626.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||1626|-2997|
95973829|NCT04874415|191921108|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2340.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4794.0|115.0|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||115|-4794|
95973830|NCT04874415|191921108|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1293.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3477.0|890.0|||||||Loss framed incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|890|-3477|
95892680|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|3.25||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||15.90|-9.39|0.6255
95892681|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.3||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|21.45|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||21.45|-2.85|0.1292
95892682|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.86||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|22.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||22.78|0.94|0.0251
95892683|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|14.16||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|24.64|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||24.64|3.68|0.0055
95892684|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|11.99||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|22.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||22.20|1.78|0.0159
95892685|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|9.05||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|19.18|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||19.18|-1.08|0.0672
95892686|NCT00663052|191740487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.51||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|20.75|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||20.75|0.27|0.0351
95892687|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|6.24||||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|16.58|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||16.58|-4.11|0.2283
95892688|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.49||||0.2326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|14.66|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||14.66|-3.68|0.2326
95892689|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||18.52|1.47|0.0165
95892690|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|10.0||||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|18.52|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||18.52|1.47|0.0165
95892691|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.85||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|13.15|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||13.15|-3.46|0.2536
95892692|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|5.6||||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|13.78|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||13.78|-2.59|0.1761
95892693|NCT00663052|191740488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion difference|4.01||||0.3943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|13.2|||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||13.20|-5.18|0.3943
95892694|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.3||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 2||0.8|-1.5|0.5748
95892695|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.2||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 4||-0.0|-2.4|0.0471
95892696|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 8||-0.7|-3.3|0.0025
95892697|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-2.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||-0.9|-3.5|0.0009
95892698|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 16||-0.7|-3.1|0.0015
95892699|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.5||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 20||-0.2|-2.7|0.0197
95892700|NCT00663052|191740489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-1.3||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.0|-2.6|0.0506
95892701|NCT00663052|191740490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.04||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.09|0.00|0.0435
95892702|NCT00663052|191740490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.05||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.10|0.01|0.0275
95892703|NCT00663052|191740491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|0.0||||0.9473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.7|-0.7|0.9473
95892704|NCT00663052|191740491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean change|-0.1||||0.8217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.6|-0.8|0.8217
95892705|NCT00663052|191740492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.7||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||0.0|-1.4|0.0539
95892706|NCT00663052|191740492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of Adjusted Mean Change|-0.5||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a factor and baseline measurement as a covariate were used for comparisons between treatment groups.||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||0.2|-1.3|0.1494
95892707|NCT00663052|191740498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2139
95892708|NCT00663052|191740498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
95892709|NCT00663052|191740500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 12||||0.2443
95892710|NCT00663052|191740500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between treatment groups at Week 24||||1.0000
95892711|NCT00663052|191740501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 12||||0.0807
95892712|NCT00663052|191740501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1454|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of treatment groups at Week 24||||0.1454
95892713|NCT03989440|191740600|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-1.48|0.59
95892714|NCT03989440|191740601|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.56||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.62|0.13
95892715|NCT03989440|191740602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-2.81|0.16
95892716|NCT03989440|191740603|SUPERIORITY||% Difference in responder rate|-9.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.3|25.4|||Fisher Exact|||||25.4|-43.3|0.68
95892717|NCT04608500|191740632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|5.54|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||5.54|2.16|<0.0001
95892718|NCT04608500|191740633|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.263||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.064|1.499||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||||1.499|1.064|0.0077
95892719|NCT04608500|191740634|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.193||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.024|1.39||The p-value is for the null hypothesis that the combined risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test Stratified by Analysis Center||||1.390|1.024|0.0189
95892720|NCT04608500|191740635|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.05|16.54|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||||16.54|6.05|<0.0001
95892721|NCT04608500|191740636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||5.99|2.77|<0.0001
95892722|NCT04608500|191740636|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.793|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|6.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment, Baseline inflammatory lesion count, and analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||6.63|3.52|<0.0001
95892723|NCT04608500|191740637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.715||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|2.605||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 4||2.605|1.129|0.0114
95892724|NCT04608500|191740637|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.319||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.082|1.607||p-value is for the null hypothesis that the risk ratio equals 1.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by analysis center.||Statistical Analysis For Week 8||1.607|1.082|0.0061
95892725|NCT02515942|191740659|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||||-0.06|-0.64|0.0636
95892726|NCT02515942|191740659|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.29||||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.59|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.00|-0.59|0.1019
95892727|NCT02515942|191740659|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Least squares mean for change from baseline from ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal), baseline lesion size as covariates after multiple imputations.||0.35|-0.24|0.5987
95892728|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.5029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.11|-0.11|0.5029
95892729|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6820
95892730|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||0.14|-0.07|0.6826
95892731|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.12||||0.1545|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.28|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.03|-0.28|0.1545
95892732|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.02|-0.29|0.1398
95892733|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||0.14|-0.16|0.4717
95892734|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.05|-0.45|0.0530
95892735|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.17||||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.37|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.03|-0.37|0.1386
95892736|NCT02515942|191740660|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.7087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||0.27|-0.11|0.7087
95892737|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.72||||0.9243|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.15|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.29|-5.15|0.9243
95892738|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.51||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.91|-1.89|0.3929
95892739|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.23||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.85|5.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.61|0.85|0.0418
95892740|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.32||||0.5632|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.91|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||2.27|-2.91|0.5632
95892741|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.25|3.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||3.83|-1.25|0.2575
95892742|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.61||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 8||4.12|-0.91|0.2058
95892743|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||0.57|-4.44|0.8392
95892744|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effecgt|-0.12||||0.5255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||2.35|-2.59|0.5255
95892745|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.81||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.61|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 15||4.24|-0.61|0.1685
95892746|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment|-2.01||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.45|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||0.43|-4.45|0.8544
95973831|NCT04874415|191921108|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2424.0|2153.0|||||Daily step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2153|-2424|
95973832|NCT04874415|191921109|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.05|
95892747|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.03||||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|4.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.44|-0.38|0.1402
95892748|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.03||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.67|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||6.40|1.67|0.0150
95892749|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.14||||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.39|-2.11|0.4682
95892750|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.38||||0.4125|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.84|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.60|-1.84|0.4125
95892751|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.24||||0.4431|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.94|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 30||2.42|-1.94|0.4431
95892752|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.04||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.72|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.63|-3.72|0.6924
95892753|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.61||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.26|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.04|-3.26|0.6160
95892754|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.44||||0.4149|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.06|-2.18|0.4149
95892755|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.29||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.27|3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.85|-1.27|0.2582
95892756|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.81||||0.3402|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|3.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.34|-1.72|0.3402
95892757|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.48||||0.5976|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.03|-2.99|0.5976
95892758|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.5||||0.5916|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.3|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.29|-3.30|0.5916
95892759|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.05|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.45|-3.05|0.5564
95892760|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.4625|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.53|2.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||2.93|-2.53|0.4625
95892761|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.94||||0.8221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.64|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||0.76|-4.64|0.8221
95973833|NCT04874415|191921109|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||||Fixed step count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.07|
95973834|NCT04874415|191921109|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|0.06|-0.02|
95973835|NCT04874415|191921109|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using linear regression including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.04|-0.04|
95973836|NCT04874415|191921110|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|10.3|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||10.3|-10.3|
95973837|NCT04874415|191921110|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
95973838|NCT04874415|191921110|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||12.7|-12.7|
95973839|NCT04874415|191921110|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
95973840|NCT04874415|191921111|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2311.0|2311.0|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2311|-2311|
95973841|NCT04874415|191921111|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0000004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|27.9|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||27.9|-27.9|
95973842|NCT04874415|191921111|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||6.8|-6.9|
95973843|NCT04874415|191921111|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.0|125.0|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||125|-126|
95973844|NCT04874415|191921112|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.9|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.9|-3.9|
95973845|NCT04874415|191921112|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.6|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.6|-2.6|
95973846|NCT04874415|191921112|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.02|-0.02|
95892762|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.98||||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.68|3.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.64|-1.68|0.3179
95892763|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.92||||0.0773|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.55|0.29|0.0773
95892764|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.81|-3.71|0.6708
95892765|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.99||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.71|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.74|-3.71|0.6790
95892766|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.72|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.64|-2.72|0.5070
95892767|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.3||||0.5487|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.44|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.84|-3.44|0.5487
95892768|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.25||||0.6973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.35|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.85|-4.35|0.6973
95892769|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.95||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.11|-4.00|0.6548
95892770|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.35||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.76|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.05|-3.76|0.5533
95892771|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.25|4.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.46|-2.25|0.3358
95973847|NCT04874415|191921112|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|22.8|||||Daily Step Count goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||22.8|-22.8|
95892772|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.46||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||4.77|-1.85|0.2850
95892773|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.55||||0.5778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.14|3.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.04|-4.14|0.5778
95892774|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.3||||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.24|5.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.85|-1.24|0.2018
95892775|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.85||||0.1457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.62|6.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.32|-0.62|0.1457
95892776|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.56||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.29|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||3.18|-4.29|0.5758
95892777|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.85||||0.3833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.84|4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.55|-2.84|0.3833
95892778|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.41||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.21|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.02|-2.21|0.3083
95892779|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.54||||0.7063|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.19|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.11|-5.19|0.7063
95892780|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.14||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.46|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.74|-1.46|0.2227
95892781|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||7.21|0.15|0.0907
95973848|NCT04874415|191921113|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|38.2|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||38.2|-38.3|
95973849|NCT04874415|191921113|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.3|-0.3|
95973850|NCT04874415|191921113|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0006|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.8|-0.8|
95973851|NCT04874415|191921113|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.4|-0.4|
95892782|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.17||||0.4799|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.23|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.57|-4.23|0.4799
95892783|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.2||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||4.14|-4.54|0.5237
95892784|NCT02515942|191740662|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.37||||0.5451|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.62|3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.87|-4.62|0.5451
95892785|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.4609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.79|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.09|-1.79|0.4609
95892786|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.3771|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.37|-1.44|0.3771
95892787|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.32||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.24|-1.60|0.4161
95892788|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.88||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.26|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||-0.49|-5.26|0.9385
95892789|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.4||||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.76|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||1.96|-2.76|0.5862
95973852|NCT04874415|191921114|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|31.5|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||31.5|-31.4|
95973853|NCT04874415|191921114|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|44.5|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||44.5|-44.3|
95973854|NCT04874415|191921114|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|14.2|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||14.2|-2.7|
95892790|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.48||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||4.82|0.14|0.0875
95892791|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.53||||0.4059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|3.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.37|-2.32|0.4059
95892792|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.24||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.58|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||4.05|-1.58|0.2860
95973855|NCT04874415|191921114|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|2.4|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.4|-13.3|
95892793|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.71||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||3.52|-2.10|0.3727
95892794|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.91||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.85|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||3.66|-1.85|0.3360
95892795|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.95||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.24|6.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||6.66|1.24|0.0316
95892796|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.04||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.32|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||5.76|0.32|0.0762
95892797|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.68||||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.75|6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||6.61|0.75|0.0544
95892798|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.91||||0.1955|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.77|-0.95|0.1955
95892799|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.77||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.65|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||1.12|-4.65|0.7844
95892800|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.49||||0.2973|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.11|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||5.08|-2.11|0.2973
95892801|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.33||||0.3127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.18|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||4.84|-2.18|0.3127
95892802|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.16||||0.5227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.67|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.36|-3.67|0.5227
95892803|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.63||||0.7643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.54|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.28|-4.54|0.7643
95892804|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.38||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||1.48|-4.25|0.7331
95892805|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.25||||0.4557|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.59|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||3.09|-2.59|0.4557
95892806|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.29||||0.4549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.97|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.55|-2.97|0.4549
95892807|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.93||||0.3535|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.26|4.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||4.13|-2.26|0.3535
95892808|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.65||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.54|3.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||3.84|-2.54|0.3970
95892809|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.78||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.99|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.55|-1.99|0.2714
95892810|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.72||||0.2741|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.97|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.41|-1.97|0.2741
95892811|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.5084|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.74|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||3.62|-3.74|0.5084
95892812|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.82||||0.1537|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||6.37|-0.73|0.1537
95892813|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.79||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.69|5.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||5.27|-1.69|0.2542
95892814|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.03||||0.6504|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||2.40|-4.46|0.6504
95892815|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.3||||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.78|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.38|-2.78|0.3405
95892816|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.41||||0.2194|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.59|6.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||6.42|-1.59|0.2194
95973856|NCT04874415|191921115|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.1|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.1|-3.1|
95973857|NCT04874415|191921115|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||2.3|-2.3|
95892817|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.11||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.87|5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||5.09|-2.87|0.3596
95892818|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.04|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||3.90|-4.04|0.5086
95973858|NCT04874415|191921115|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.4|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||3.4|-3.4|
95973859|NCT04874415|191921115|SUPERIORITY|Main effects of each intervention factor were estimated using generalized linear models with log link, including all prespecified two-way interactions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.5|-0.5|
95892819|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.33||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.57|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.23|-1.57|0.2211
95892820|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.4||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.47|6.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||6.26|-1.47|0.2126
95892821|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.56||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.44|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.55|-1.44|0.2053
95892822|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.2||||0.2353|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.72|6.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||6.12|-1.72|0.2353
95892823|NCT02515942|191740663|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.36||||0.5471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.24|3.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||3.53|-4.24|0.5471
95892824|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.74||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||-0.11|-5.38|0.0913
95892825|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.28||||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||2.33|-2.89|0.4454
95892826|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.16|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 2||5.08|-0.16|0.8861
95973860|NCT04874415|191921116|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00000001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00002|0.00002|||||Once daily text message is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.00002|-0.00002|
95973861|NCT04874415|191921116|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Fixed Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
95973862|NCT04874415|191921116|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||||Loss Framed Incentive is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.03|-0.03|
95892827|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.16||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.49|3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.80|-1.49|0.7130
95892828|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.37||||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||5.01|-0.26|0.8759
95892829|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.22||||0.7256|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.39|3.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 29||3.82|-1.39|0.7256
95892830|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.17||||0.3111|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.22|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.88|-4.22|0.3111
95892831|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.7||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.73|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||1.34|-4.73|0.2360
95892832|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.53||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.55|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 57||2.49|-3.55|0.4110
95892833|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.13||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.57|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||2.83|-2.57|0.5247
95973863|NCT04874415|191921116|SUPERIORITY|Main effects were estimated using generalized linear models with log link. No interactions were included (failure to converge).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000003|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.004|||||Daily Step Count Goal is reference group. Least-squares means (marginal means) were calculated, averaging across levels of the other factors with equal weighting (asbalanced).|||0.004|-0.004|
95973864|NCT00440999|191921120|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis tested the non-inferiority of the PA group compared to the comparator group with regard to the crude cure rate on Day 14 using the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) (Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction) and a 10% non-inferiority margin. Non-inferiority was claimed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in cure rates on Day 14 was \>10%.|Difference in cure rate|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.4|||||Conclusion: non-inferiority between PA \& chloroquine.|"Null hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group is inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%.~Was tested against the alternative:~Alternative hypothesis: The cure rate on Day 14 for the PA group was not inferior to the cure rate on Day 14 for the chloroquine group by more than 10%."||1.4|-2.6|
95973865|NCT01037244|191921129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|6.73|||ANCOVA|Baseline Domain Score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||6.73|3.36|<0.0001
95973866|NCT01037244|191921129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|8.86|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||8.86|5.49|<0.0001
95973867|NCT01037244|191921129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|7.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|9.63|||ANCOVA|Baseline domain score and pooled sites as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||9.63|6.27|<0.0001
95973868|NCT01037244|191921130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.72|25.48|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.48|11.72|<0.0001
95973869|NCT01037244|191921130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|29.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.13|35.9|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||35.90|22.13|<0.0001
95892834|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.37||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.04|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.70|-6.04|0.0534
95892835|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.5||||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.18|-0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 85||-0.82|-6.18|0.0475
95892836|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.92||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.11|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||-0.74|-7.11|0.0575
95892837|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.16||||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.29|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||0.97|-5.29|0.1876
95892838|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.76||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.38|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 113||4.91|-1.38|0.7644
95892839|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.85||||0.0838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.42|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||-0.28|-7.42|0.0838
95892840|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.38||||0.4444|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.89|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||3.13|-3.89|0.4444
95892841|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|3.47||||0.8977|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|6.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 141||6.97|-0.04|0.8977
95892842|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4917|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.92|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.82|-2.92|0.4917
95892843|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.05||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.89|2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.79|-2.89|0.4909
95892844|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.4992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.82|2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 169||2.81|-2.82|0.4992
95892845|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.09||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.25|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||2.07|-4.25|0.3285
95892846|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.45||||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.57|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||0.67|-5.57|0.1568
95892847|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.36||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.46|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 197||1.74|-4.46|0.2867
95892848|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.93||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.51|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||-0.35|-7.51|0.0798
95892849|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-1.47||||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||2.06|-5.00|0.2962
95892850|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|2.46||||0.8163|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 225||5.98|-1.05|0.8163
95973870|NCT01037244|191921130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|31.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|38.34|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||38.34|24.68|<0.0001
95973871|NCT01037244|191921131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
95973872|NCT01037244|191921131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
95973873|NCT01037244|191921131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
95973874|NCT01037244|191921131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||||<0.0001
95973875|NCT01037244|191921132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.59|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.59|0.30|<0.0001
95973876|NCT01037244|191921132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.83|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.83|0.54|<0.0001
95892851|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.64||||0.0708|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.81|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||-0.47|-6.81|0.0708
95892852|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.46||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.67|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||3.59|-2.67|0.5750
95892853|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|4.1||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 253||7.17|1.03|0.9560
95973877|NCT01037244|191921132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95|||ANCOVA|p-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline PSAE score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.95|0.66|<0.0001
95892854|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.22||||0.1283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.86|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||0.42|-6.86|0.1283
95892855|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.28||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.88|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||1.33|-5.88|0.2085
95892856|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|0.94||||0.6335|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.61|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 281||4.49|-2.61|0.6335
95892857|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.64||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.31|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||1.03|-6.31|0.1778
95892858|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.33|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||2.94|-4.33|0.4027
95892859|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.94||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.64|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 309||5.53|-1.64|0.7570
95973878|NCT01037244|191921133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|16.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.23|22.11|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||22.11|11.23|<0.0001
95892860|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-3.9||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.03|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||0.23|-8.03|0.1132
95892861|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|-2.71||||0.1965|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||1.37|-6.80|0.1965
95892862|NCT02515942|191740664|SUPERIORITY|Least squares mean for change from baseline from repeated measures mixed effect model with treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction, baseline lesion location (foveal vs. extrafoveal), baseline lesion type (unifocal vs. multifocal) and baseline value as fixed effects, and unstructured covariance for observations within the same subject.|Treatment Effect|1.18||||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.85|5.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at Day 337||5.21|-2.85|0.6471
95892863|NCT01762943|191740673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=1.40, df=2,26||||||.27
95892864|NCT01762943|191740674|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F=6.29, df=1,28||||||.018
95892865|NCT00456521|191740715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.56|-2.86|||ANCOVA|||||-2.86|-5.56|<0.001
95892866|NCT00456521|191740716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89|||<|0.001||95.0|2.02|4.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.13|2.02|<0.001
95973879|NCT01037244|191921133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|22.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.11|28.03|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||28.03|17.11|<0.0001
95892867|NCT00456521|191740717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|4.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.37|1.95|<0.001
95892868|NCT00456521|191740718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-4.82|<0.001
95892869|NCT00456521|191740719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95892870|NCT00456521|191740720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.53||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95892871|NCT00456521|191740721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|4.95|||ANCOVA|||||4.95|1.52|<0.001
95892872|NCT00456521|191740722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.04|||ANCOVA|||||5.04|1.23|0.001
95892873|NCT00456521|191740723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95892874|NCT00456521|191740724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.98||||0.165|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.165
95892875|NCT00456521|191740725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.79||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.79|-3.34|
95892876|NCT00456521|191740726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|1.86||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.86|-7.26|
95892877|NCT00456521|191740727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.14||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||4.14|0.97|
95892878|NCT00456521|191740728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.49||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.49|0.25|
95892879|NCT00456521|191740729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.87||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.87|-0.70|
95892880|NCT00456521|191740730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.63||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.63|-0.85|
95892881|NCT00456521|191740731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.6||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.60|-0.78|
95892882|NCT00456521|191740732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-1.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-1.42|-9.16|
95892883|NCT04302389|191740735|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within-subject comparison at two timepoints (baseline, 3 months)||||<0.001
95892884|NCT00930579|191740825|OTHER|This study used two-sided t-tests to compare changes within group- before and after metformin treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis: there will be no statistically significant change between the amount of Ki-67 (protein involved in cell proliferation) in participants' tumor cells before and after taking the prescribed dose of Metformin, as measured at the 5% significance level.||||0.98
95892885|NCT00525733|191740913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95892886|NCT03054870|191740915|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
95892887|NCT03054870|191740916|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was determined from a separate study where 6 blinded readers read and re-read 75 Xe-133 planar ventilation imaging studies in 2 read sessions separated by a minimum of 4 weeks. The readers scored the 6 regions of the lung using the same ventilation scoring metric used in this study. Based on analysis of the read/re-read results, 60% was established as a suitable margin for establishing the non-inferiority of Technegas compared to Xe-133.|||||<|0.0141||||||P-value is one-sided; for testing non-inferiority the associated critical value for PA is provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval.|Mixed Models Analysis|Binary agreement scores between Technegas and Xe-133 ventilation scores by subject-lung region served as the dependent variable in the model.||PA between Technegas and Xe-133 from analysis of each of the 3 blinded readers' ventilation scores was subjected to the following test of null (H0) versus alternate hypotheses (HA): H0: PA \<= 60% versus HA: PA \> 60%. The original sample size of 240 subjects was based on 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.025. For the unplanned interim analysis of 200 subjects, testing for non-inferiority used one-sided alpha=0.0141 (critical value provided by lower bound of the 97.18% confidence interval).|Binary agreement scores were analyzed for each reader separately using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement (PA). For the study to be considered a success, the null hypothesis had to be rejected for at least 2 of the 3 blinded readers for the primary efficacy endpoint.|||<0.0141
95973880|NCT01037244|191921133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|28.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.98|33.79|||ANOVA|p-values are obtained from ANOVA model with pooled site as a covariate.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||33.79|22.98|<0.0001
95973881|NCT01037244|191921134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.61|||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.61|1.17|<0.0001
95892888|NCT03054870|191740917|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of inter-observer percent agreement were obtained as follows. For each reader-pair, binary agreement scores by subject and lung region were analyzed using a generalized linear model with SAS® PROC GENMOD. The logit function (log odds ratio) was specified as the link function, and subject was specified as a repeated measure to allow for correlations between lung regions within a subject. The estimate of the intercept of the model using generalized estimating equation (GEE) methodology provided an overall estimate of the agreement and corresponding confidence interval in terms of the log odds ratio. Simple algebra was used to obtain the corresponding estimates and confidence intervals in terms of percent agreement.|||
95892889|NCT03054870|191740918|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For each pair of readers, by lung region estimates of kappa statistics and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were generated from cross-tabulation frequencies of the readers' ventilation scores using SAS® PROC FREQ and the AGREE option.|||
95973882|NCT01037244|191921134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.99|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.99|1.54|<0.0001
95892890|NCT02009046|191740919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.60|0.75|0.6430
95892891|NCT02009046|191740919|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.39|0.3718
95892892|NCT02009046|191740920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.37|0.67|0.8083
95892893|NCT02009046|191740920|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.13|0.32|0.1083
95892894|NCT02009046|191740921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.10|0.35|0.1006
95892895|NCT02009046|191740921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.53|0.16|0.2117
95892896|NCT02009046|191740922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.78|1.05|0.0218
95892897|NCT02009046|191740922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.75|1.09|0.0211
95892898|NCT02009046|191740923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.73|0.90|0.1763
95892899|NCT02009046|191740923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.58|0.45|0.5869
95892900|NCT02009046|191740924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.44|0.75|0.8102
95892901|NCT02009046|191740924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.34|0.39|0.2956
95892902|NCT02009046|191740925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.56|0.82|0.4645
95892903|NCT02009046|191740925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.40|0.43|0.3809
95892904|NCT02009046|191740926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.1335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.09|0.52|0.1335
95892905|NCT02009046|191740926|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.06|0.29|0.0741
95892906|NCT02009046|191740927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.01|0.54|0.9085
95892907|NCT02009046|191740927|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.8059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||3.62|0.36|0.8059
95892908|NCT02009046|191740928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||1.71|0.44|0.6861
95892909|NCT02009046|191740928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9973|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.|No results provided, as model would not converge.|||||0.9973
95892910|NCT02009046|191740929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||2.80|1.39|0.0002
95892911|NCT02009046|191740929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|Multilevel model to account for classroom/school clusters. Adjusted for student/classroom gender, student/classroom sexual experience, pretest score.||||5.09|1.44|0.0030
95892912|NCT00973479|191740941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95892913|NCT00973479|191740942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95892914|NCT00973479|191740943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
95892915|NCT00973479|191740944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95892916|NCT00973479|191740945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA of van der Waerden scores|||||||<0.001
95892917|NCT01265849|191740958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4051||||||For the primary efficacy measure a two-sided p-value of 0.05 or less is considered to be statistically significant in comparing the LI+CIZ+SOC treatment vs. SOC alone for superiority.|Log Rank|Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||The primary objective was to compare overall survival in the LI + CIZ + SOC group to that in the SOC alone group for superiority of the former.||||0.4051
95892918|NCT01265849|191740958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5402|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.5402
95892919|NCT01265849|191740958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.32|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.32|0.89|0.4128
95892920|NCT01265849|191740958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7181|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.7181
95892921|NCT01265849|191740958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Log Rank|This log Rank p-value is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.9480
95892922|NCT01265849|191740958|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.42|0.81|0.6101
95892923|NCT01265849|191740959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.0478
95892924|NCT01265849|191740959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0137
95892925|NCT01265849|191740959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.95|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||0.95|0.48|0.0236
95892926|NCT01265849|191740959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4115|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4115
95892927|NCT01265849|191740959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2862|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|||This HR is presented as (LI + SOC) / SOC. A HR \< 1.0 favors LI+SOC. Wald p-value for this HR is 0.3859.|||0.2862
95892928|NCT01265849|191740959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.29|0.52|0.3859
95892929|NCT01265849|191740960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7304||||||P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|This Log Rank P-value is based on an unstratified analysis.||The secondary endpoint LRC failure is analyzed similar to the primary OS endpoint. The primary comparison is LI+CIZ+SOC vs SOC; LI+SOC vs SOC results are also reported.||||0.7304
95892930|NCT01265849|191740960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-values are reported unadjusted for multiplicity.|Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.7171
95892931|NCT01265849|191740960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.36|0.79|0.8020
95892932|NCT01265849|191740960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4231|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.4231
95892933|NCT01265849|191740960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6998|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6998
95892934|NCT01265849|191740960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.69|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.69|0.81|0.3944
95892935|NCT01265849|191740961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6142|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.6142
95892936|NCT01265849|191740961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3024|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.3024
95892937|NCT01265849|191740961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.42082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.28|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.28|0.55|0.42082
95892938|NCT01265849|191740961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9784|||||||Log Rank|The Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.9784
95892939|NCT01265849|191740961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8461||||||This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.|Log Rank|||||||0.8461
95892940|NCT01265849|191740961|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.8131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.65|||Regression, Cox||A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.65|0.53|0.8131
95892941|NCT01265849|191740962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3303|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is from an unstratified analysis.||This secondary endpoint PFS is analyzed similar to OS and LRC.||||0.3303
95892942|NCT01265849|191740962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.6669
95892943|NCT01265849|191740962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.31|0.90|0.3728
95892944|NCT01265849|191740962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5739|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5739
95892945|NCT01265849|191740962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8162|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.8162
95892946|NCT01265849|191740962|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.43|0.84|0.4728
95892947|NCT01265849|191740963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1797|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.1797
95892948|NCT01265849|191740963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.0159
95892949|NCT01265849|191740963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio of \< 1.0 would favor LI + CIZ + SOC.|||1.04|0.55|0.0896
95892950|NCT01265849|191740963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5175|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on an unstratified analysis.||||||0.5175
95892951|NCT01265849|191740963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Log Rank|This Log Rank statistic is based on a stratified analysis.||||||0.4530
95892952|NCT01265849|191740963|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||Regression, Cox|The Cox Proportional Hazards Model included terms for treatment, tumor stage, tumor location, and geographic region.|A Hazard Ratio \< 1.0 would favor LI + SOC.|||1.30|0.54|0.4376
95892953|NCT01265849|191740964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.395||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at first administration (Month2), thus the study did not have the power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.2100
95892954|NCT01265849|191740964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.401||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|Approximately 30% of participants completed the QOL instrument at last administration (Month 36), thus the study did not have power for QoL comparisons. These completer analyses are descriptive only.||||0.1701
95892955|NCT01265849|191740965|SUPERIORITY|This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Median Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.397||0.5871|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|LI + CIZ + SOC, Standard of Care (SOC)||||0.5871
95892956|NCT01265849|191740965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Positive value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.1700
95892957|NCT01265849|191740966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.183||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6296
95892958|NCT01265849|191740966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.103||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for head and neck pain at Long Term Follow-up Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7454
95892959|NCT01265849|191740966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.7452|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, tumor location \& stage, geographic region, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.7452
95892960|NCT01265849|191740966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496||0.771|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for swallowing at Month 2 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit, and baseline with compound symmetry.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.7710
95892961|NCT01265849|191740967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.185||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + CIZ + SOC.|||||0.6337
95892962|NCT01265849|191740967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.962||0.945|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for head and neck pain at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.9450
95892963|NCT01265849|191740967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.4071|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI+ CIZ + SOC.|||||0.4071
95892964|NCT01265849|191740967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.347||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value for Long Term Follow-up for Swallowing at Month 36 is not adjusted for multiplicity.|Repeated Measures ANCOVA (RMANCOVA)|RMANCOVA with fixed stratification factors, trt, visit, trt\*visit, and baseline, with a compound symmetry correlation structure.|Negative value for the difference (Mean Difference (Net)) favors LI + SOC.|||||0.0296
95892965|NCT01265849|191740968|SUPERIORITY|Statistical tests were for a significant treatment effect in the Cox Proportional Hazards model including treatment, disease stage, tumor location, and geographical region.|% of significant test results|21.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|26.9||"Under the null hypothesis of no effect the expected number of significant test results would be balanced between treatments.~The expected number (%) of statistically significant results would be approximately 14 (5%) of 282."|Regression, Cox|||"Treatment comparisons of LI+CIZ+SOC v. SOC were repeated at all levels of HP, HP ratios, and HP combinations for endpoints OS, PFS, and LRC.~Significant outcomes for the treatment term in the model (two-sided p\<0.05) were accumulated."||26.9|17.0|<0.05
95892966|NCT01265849|191740969|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|11.2|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||11.2|5.6|<.0001
95892967|NCT01265849|191740969|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|14.7|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||14.7|4.7|<0.0001
95892968|NCT01265849|191740970|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|15.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.8|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + CIZ + SOC and SOC.||20.8|9.6|<0.0001
95892969|NCT01265849|191740970|SUPERIORITY||Percent (%) of Participants|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|28.9|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis is that percent (%) of participants with an objective response (CR+PR) is the same for LI + SOC and SOC.||28.9|8.2|<0.0001
95892970|NCT01265849|191740971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0007
95892971|NCT01265849|191740971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative that response is predictive of increased survival in subjects receiving LI + SOC.||||0.0434
95892972|NCT01265849|191740971|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.||||<0.0001
95892973|NCT01265849|191740972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0101|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + CIZ + SOC.||||0.0101
95892974|NCT01265849|191740972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4843|||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for low risk participants receiving LI + SOC.||||0.4843
95892975|NCT01265849|191740972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0067||||||The null hypothesis is that survival is unrelated to objective response versus the alternative hypothesis that objective response is predictive of increased survival for participants receiving LI, considering both treatment groups combined.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0067
95892976|NCT01265849|191740973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.152|0.801|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI (combined arms LI + CIZ + SOC, LI + SOC) is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.801|0.152|0.0131
95892977|NCT01265849|191740973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.246||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.787|||Regression, Cox|||Null hypothesis is that the Hazard Ratio (HR) for low risk subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC is \>=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that subjects responding to LI + CIZ + SOC are at reduced risk of death (HR \< 1.0).||0.787|0.077|0.0181
95892978|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-5.96|0.0631
95892979|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|-2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.20|-8.33|0.0008
95892980|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-0.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.61|-6.73|0.0188
95892981|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-2.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.63|-8.80|0.0003
95892982|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.77|-0.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.65|-6.77|0.0177
95892983|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.855||95.0|-2.72|3.27||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.27|-2.72|0.8550
95892984|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|0.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.91|-5.08|0.1719
95892985|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|2.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.50|-3.49|0.7469
95892986|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|0.49||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.49|-5.55|0.1001
95892987|NCT00362115|191740974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|2.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.47|-3.52|0.7294
95892988|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|-1.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-10.84|0.0111
95892989|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.51|-6.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.08|-15.51|< 0.0001
95892990|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.53|-5.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.10|-14.53|< 0.0001
95892991|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|-7.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.52|-17.02|< 0.0001
95892992|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-3.76||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.76|-13.19|0.0005
95892993|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|7.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.17|-2.06|0.2768
95892994|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|2.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.51|-6.74|0.3688
95892995|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.48|-5.75|0.6293
95892996|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.06|-8.25|0.1298
95892997|NCT00362115|191740975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.41|0.9315
95892998|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.17|-3.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.09|-13.17|0.0016
95892999|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.17|-5.09||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.09|-15.17|< 0.0001
95893000|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.72|-17.80|< 0.0001
95893001|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-16.36|< 0.0001
95893002|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-5.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.63|-15.75|< 0.0001
95893003|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-4.96|0.9909
95893004|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|2.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.92|-6.96|0.4213
95973883|NCT01037244|191921134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.73|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.73|2.30|<0.0001
95973884|NCT01037244|191921135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.03|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.03|0.81|<0.0001
95973885|NCT01037244|191921135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.26|1.04|<0.0001
95973886|NCT01037244|191921135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.59|1.37|<0.0001
95973887|NCT01037244|191921136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.93|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||0.93|0.21|0.0019
95973888|NCT01037244|191921136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.1|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.10|0.38|<0.0001
95973889|NCT01037244|191921136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.21|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||1.21|0.49|<0.0001
95893005|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.0646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-9.59|0.0646
95893006|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-8.15|0.2107
95893007|NCT00362115|191740976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.54|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.54|0.3059
95893008|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.98|-5.69|0.1653
95893009|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-0.81||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.81|-7.50|0.0151
95893010|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|-0.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-6.70|0.0480
95893011|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-1.08||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-7.81|0.0098
95893012|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.98|-7.68|0.0113
95893013|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.3416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|4.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.84|-1.68|0.3416
95893014|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|3.06||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.06|-3.49|0.8973
95893015|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.84|-2.69|0.7292
95973890|NCT01037244|191921137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.19|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.19|1.13|<0.0001
95893016|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|2.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.79|-3.79|0.7646
95973891|NCT01037244|191921137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.29|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||2.29|1.23|<0.0001
95973892|NCT01037244|191921137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|3.09|||ANCOVA|P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with Baseline domain score and pooled site as covariates.||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||3.09|2.03|<0.0001
95973893|NCT01037244|191921138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|12.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|17.4|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||17.40|7.29|<0.0001
95893017|NCT00362115|191740977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-3.67|0.8133
95893018|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.51|-4.51||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.51|-12.51|< 0.0001
95893019|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.31|-8.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.90|-17.31|< 0.0001
95893020|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-7.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.95|-16.27|< 0.0001
95893021|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-12.46||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.46|-21.07|< 0.0001
95893022|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.58|-9.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.17|-17.58|< 0.0001
95893023|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.3735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.58|-2.10|0.3735
95893024|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.1668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|1.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.20|-6.91|0.1668
95893025|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.3629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|2.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.15|-5.86|0.3629
95893026|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.67|-2.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.36|-10.67|0.0022
95893027|NCT00362115|191740978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.93|-7.18|0.1303
95893028|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.72|-8.12|< 0.0001
95893029|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.65||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.65|-11.33|< 0.0001
95893030|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-11.52|< 0.0001
95893031|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.91|-13.73|< 0.0001
95893032|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|-6.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.64|-12.31|< 0.0001
95893033|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.61||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.61|-0.56|0.1249
95893034|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.4542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-3.79|0.4542
95893035|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|1.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.44|-3.97|0.3574
95893036|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.18|-0.57||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-6.18|0.0184
95893037|NCT00362115|191740979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.70|-4.77|0.1450
95893038|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.46|-3.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.26|-12.46|0.0009
95893039|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.46|-8.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.77|-18.46|< 0.0001
95893040|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-7.63||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.63|-17.21|< 0.0001
95893041|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|-12.92||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.92|-22.83|< 0.0001
95893042|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|-8.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.84|-18.52|< 0.0001
95893043|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|4.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.58|-4.25|0.9424
95893044|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|-0.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-10.26|0.0189
95893045|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-9.01|0.0612
95893046|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|-5.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.07|-14.63|< 0.0001
95893047|NCT00362115|191740980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|-1.0||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-10.33|0.0175
95893048|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-0.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-7.26|0.0108
95893049|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|-4.55||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-11.16|< 0.0001
95893050|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|-5.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.26|-11.82|< 0.0001
95893051|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|-7.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.20|-13.98|< 0.0001
95893052|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.52|-5.9||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.90|-12.52|< 0.0001
95893053|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.59||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.59|-1.45|0.3060
95893054|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.02||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-5.37|0.1823
95973894|NCT01037244|191921138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.23|24.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.36|14.23|<0.0001
95893055|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|0.29||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-6.01|0.0751
95893056|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|-1.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-8.18|0.0034
95893057|NCT00362115|191740981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-0.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-6.72|0.0306
95893058|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.33||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.33|-13.90|0.0061
95893059|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-17.56|0.0002
95893060|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.34|-6.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.28|-18.34|< 0.0001
95893061|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.75|-11.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.34|-23.75|< 0.0001
95893062|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.86|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-19.86|< 0.0001
95893063|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|5.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.28|-5.74|0.9355
95893064|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.41|2.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-9.41|0.2223
95893065|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|1.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.35|-10.19|0.1328
95893066|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.61|-3.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.70|-15.61|0.0016
95893067|NCT00362115|191740982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-11.70|0.0437
95893068|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-0.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.16|-8.39|0.0417
95893069|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|-1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.84|-10.44|0.0053
95893070|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|-3.56||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.56|-12.12|0.0004
95893071|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-5.16||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.16|-13.97|< 0.0001
95893072|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-5.03||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.03|-13.60|< 0.0001
95893073|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.85|-2.97|0.6372
95893074|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.05|0.6588
95893075|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|1.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.47|-6.72|0.2082
95893076|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-8.57|0.0437
95893077|NCT00362115|191740983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|-0.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-8.19|0.0495
95893078|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-3.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.97|-14.74|0.0007
95893079|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|-7.73||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.73|-19.02|< 0.0001
95893080|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-4.83||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-16.00|0.0003
95893081|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.11|-11.47||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.47|-23.11|< 0.0001
95893082|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-18.01|< 0.0001
95893083|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.2594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|8.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||8.01|-2.17|0.2594
95893084|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.26|-6.46|0.6859
95893085|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|7.15||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.15|-3.43|0.4898
95893086|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|0.53||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-10.55|0.0760
95893087|NCT00362115|191740984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|5.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.21|-5.44|0.9647
95893088|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-3.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.43|-11.13|0.0002
95893089|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-6.97||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.97|-15.01|< 0.0001
95893090|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|-4.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.64|-12.59|< 0.0001
95893091|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|-9.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.50|-17.79|< 0.0001
95893092|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|-4.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.70|-12.69|< 0.0001
95893093|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|5.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||5.62|-1.63|0.2790
95893094|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|2.1||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.10|-5.53|0.3772
95893095|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|4.43||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-3.11|0.7302
95893096|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|-0.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-8.31|0.0302
95893097|NCT00362115|191740985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.7644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.38||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.38|-3.22|0.7644
95893098|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.19|-12.70|0.0001
95893099|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|-9.24||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.24|-18.19|< 0.0001
95893100|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-7.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.80|-16.66|< 0.0001
95893101|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-13.35||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-13.35|-22.51|< 0.0001
95893102|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.21|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-18.21|< 0.0001
95893103|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.6905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|4.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.91|-3.26|0.6905
95973895|NCT01037244|191921138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.14|24.18|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled sites as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||24.18|14.14|<0.0001
95893104|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|-0.13||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-8.76|0.0433
95893105|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|1.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.31|-7.22|0.1736
95893106|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|-4.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.23|-13.08|0.0001
95893107|NCT00362115|191740986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-0.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANOVA|||||-0.14|-8.77|0.0429
95893108|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.77|0.0009
95893109|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.33|-5.32||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.32|-11.33|< 0.0001
95893110|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-5.67||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.67|-11.63|< 0.0001
95893111|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.34|-8.18||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.18|-14.34|< 0.0001
95893112|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.37|-6.36||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.36|-12.37|< 0.0001
95893113|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|4.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.50|-0.98|0.2068
95893114|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|1.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.25|-4.56|0.2622
95893115|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|0.88||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.88|-4.85|0.1730
95893116|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|-1.62||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.62|-7.56|0.0025
95893117|NCT00362115|191740987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|0.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.20|-5.60|0.0681
95893118|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.28|-3.87||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.87|-13.28|0.0004
95893119|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.26|-7.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.42|-17.26|< 0.0001
95893120|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-6.78||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.78|-16.51|< 0.0001
95893121|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-9.25||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.25|-19.38|< 0.0001
95893122|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|-7.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.70|-17.53|< 0.0001
95893123|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.1479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|7.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||7.72|-1.17|0.1479
95893124|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|4.19||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-5.16|0.8382
95893125|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|4.82||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.82|-4.42|0.9317
95893126|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|2.37||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.37|-7.29|0.3169
95893127|NCT00362115|191740988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|3.91||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.91|-5.44|0.7488
95893128|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.98|-3.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.40|-9.98|< 0.0001
95893129|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.76|-5.86||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.86|-12.76|< 0.0001
95893130|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-5.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.22|-12.05|< 0.0001
95893131|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.92|-6.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.79|-13.92|< 0.0001
95893132|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|-6.2||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.20|-13.11|< 0.0001
95893133|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|4.4||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||4.40|-1.83|0.4188
95893134|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.95|-4.62|0.4255
95893135|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|2.58||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.58|-3.91|0.6869
95893136|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.1678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|1.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.01|-5.77|0.1678
95893137|NCT00362115|191740989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|1.6||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.60|-4.96|0.3132
95893138|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|-3.52||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.52|-12.48|0.0005
95893139|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|-5.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.93|-15.24|< 0.0001
95893140|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-5.44||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.44|-14.70|< 0.0001
95893141|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.95|-8.42||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.42|-17.95|< 0.0001
95893142|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-7.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.48|-16.74|< 0.0001
95893143|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.8103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|3.75||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.75|-4.79|0.8103
95893144|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.34||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-7.57|0.1702
95893145|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|1.84||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.84|-7.02|0.2504
95893146|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-1.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-10.28|0.0144
95893147|NCT00362115|191740990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|-0.21||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.21|-9.06|0.0402
95893148|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.41|-2.04||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.41|0.0014
95893149|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.82|-4.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.22|-10.82|< 0.0001
95893150|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-4.93||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.93|-11.51|< 0.0001
95893151|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.49|-5.72||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.72|-12.49|< 0.0001
95893152|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|-4.3||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.30|-10.87|< 0.0001
95893153|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.5519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|3.95||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.95|-2.11|0.5519
95893154|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|1.79||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.79|-4.54|0.3938
95893155|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|1.07||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.07|-5.21|0.1949
95893156|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-6.21|0.0732
95893157|NCT00362115|191740991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|1.7||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.70|-4.59|0.3669
95893158|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-3.41||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-14.94|0.0019
95893159|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.15|-4.26||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.26|-16.15|0.0008
95893160|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.85||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-14.88|0.0040
95893161|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.96|-6.22||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.22|-18.96|0.0001
95893162|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-4.89||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.89|-16.85|0.0004
95893163|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.3499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|2.98||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.98|-8.39|0.3499
95893164|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.2115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.14||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.14|-9.61|0.2115
95893165|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|3.54||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||3.54|-8.34|0.4279
95893166|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|0.17||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.17|-12.41|0.0566
95893167|NCT00362115|191740992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.5||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.50|-10.30|0.1435
95893168|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|0.68||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.68|-6.16|0.1162
95893169|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|1.48||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.48|-5.69|0.2494
95893170|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.4247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|2.12||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.12|-5.01|0.4247
95893171|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.3007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|1.8||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.80|-5.79|0.3007
95893172|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.1195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|0.77||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-6.67|0.1195
95893173|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.23||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.23|-5.76|0.2032
95893174|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|2.01||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.01|-5.27|0.3787
95893175|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.5967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|2.64||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.64|-4.59|0.5967
95893176|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.31||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||2.31|-5.36|0.4345
95893177|NCT00362115|191740993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|1.28||P-value from analysis of covariance with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-6.24|0.1954
95893178|NCT03341533|191740994|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in NPIS between the two groups.|difference in medians|0.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.39
95893179|NCT03341533|191740995|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in MME use on the hospital floor between groups.|Difference of medians|-4.5||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual care|||||0.88
95893180|NCT03341533|191740996|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the outpatient MME consumption will be the same across the two groups.|difference in medians|-7.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice packs - Usual Care|||||0.75
95893181|NCT03341533|191740997|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that the postoperative BPI pain severity score will be the same between groups|difference in medians|-0.3||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis||Ice Packs - Usual Care|||||0.80
95893182|NCT00455429|191741016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.600
95893183|NCT00455429|191741016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.822
95893184|NCT00455429|191741016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.656
95893185|NCT00455429|191741017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.9|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||2.90|-9.70|0.427
95893186|NCT00455429|191741017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|4.82|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.82|-7.37|0.922
95893187|NCT00455429|191741017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|4.21|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||4.21|-6.49|0.919
95893188|NCT00455429|191741018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.15||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|23.18|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||23.18|-15.83|0.941
95893189|NCT00455429|191741018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|33.52|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||33.52|-5.12|0.196
95893190|NCT00455429|191741018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|31.86|||Dunnett-Hsu|||||31.86|-2.00|0.096
95893191|NCT00455429|191741019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.460
95893192|NCT00455429|191741019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.479
95893193|NCT00455429|191741019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.462
95893194|NCT00455429|191741020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.363
95893195|NCT00455429|191741020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.968
95893196|NCT00455429|191741020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.501
95893197|NCT00455429|191741021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.333
95893198|NCT00455429|191741021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.527
95893199|NCT00455429|191741021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.353|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.353
95893200|NCT00455429|191741022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.631
95893201|NCT00455429|191741022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.523
95893202|NCT00455429|191741022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.101
95893203|NCT00455429|191741023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.429
95893204|NCT00455429|191741023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
95893205|NCT00455429|191741023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.107
95893206|NCT00455429|191741024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.097
95893207|NCT00455429|191741024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.077
95893208|NCT00455429|191741024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
95893209|NCT00455429|191741025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.566
95893210|NCT00455429|191741025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.382
95893211|NCT00455429|191741025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.282
95893212|NCT00455429|191741026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.206
95893213|NCT00455429|191741026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.433
95893214|NCT00455429|191741026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.290
95893215|NCT00455429|191741027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.484|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.484
95893216|NCT00455429|191741027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.952
95893217|NCT00455429|191741027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.350
95893218|NCT05517382|191741036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At baseline||||0.20
95893219|NCT05517382|191741036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Post game||||0.59
95893220|NCT05517382|191741036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At 3 month||||0.94
95893221|NCT05517382|191741036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||GEE|Controlling for baseline thriving status, this reflects the interaction between the intervention group and time.||||||0.55
95893222|NCT05517382|191741037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.1759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At post game.||0.04|-0.23|0.1759
95893223|NCT05517382|191741037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.0857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Group effect.|At 3 month||0.02|-0.35|0.0857
95893224|NCT00449644|191741085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.77||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|61.23|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||61.23|2.26|0.0034
95893225|NCT00449644|191741086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.8|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||3.80|1.57|<0.0001
95893226|NCT00449644|191741087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.53|||Cox-proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||||6.53|1.51|0.0022
95893227|NCT00449644|191741088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.59|||Cox proportional hazards model|Treatment, lung cavitation and pooled center were used as covaritates.||MGIT negative (Responders)||2.59|1.05|0.0290
95893228|NCT00449644|191741089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|38.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.38||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97|63.88|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 8||63.88|13.97|0.003
95893229|NCT00449644|191741089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.12||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|42.17|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||42.17|-10.70|0.237
95893230|NCT00449644|191741089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.02||0.5564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|39.18|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 104 (Stage 1 Trial End)||39.18|-21.37|0.5564
95893231|NCT00449644|191741090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.59|36.83|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 24||36.83|5.59|0.008
95893232|NCT00449644|191741090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|31.51|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 72||31.51|-1.21|0.069
95893233|NCT00449644|191741090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|35.08|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment as covariate||Week 120||35.08|1.28|0.035
95893234|NCT03642717|191741096|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95893235|NCT03642717|191741099|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95893236|NCT03642717|191741100|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in body weight at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95893237|NCT03642717|191741101|OTHER|||||||0.0076||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0076
95893238|NCT03642717|191741102|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test was applied comparing the difference in mean of change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at Last Visit versus at Baseline.|Paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95893239|NCT02587065|191741108|OTHER||Spearman's correlation coefficient|-0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.02|||Mixed-effects REML regression|||Adjusted change of convenience satisfaction domain of TSQM-9.||2.02|-3.72|0.56
95893240|NCT04665050|191741119|OTHER|Estimated difference and confidence interval (CI) are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Erythema||12.7|-12.7|
95893241|NCT04665050|191741119|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|7.3|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Pain||7.3|-30.0|
95893242|NCT04665050|191741119|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|14.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Injection Site Swelling||14.1|-14.1|
95893243|NCT04665050|191741120|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|17.5|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Fatigue||17.5|-9.4|
95893244|NCT04665050|191741120|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|9.9|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Arthralgia||9.9|-9.9|
95893245|NCT04665050|191741120|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.6|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Myalgia||13.6|-17.5|
95893246|NCT04665050|191741120|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|12.7|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|Headache||12.7|-12.7|
95893247|NCT04665050|191741121|OTHER|Estimated difference and CI are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|7.1|||||V116 minus PNEUMOVAX™23|||7.1|-7.1|
95893248|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.4|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.40|1.07|
95893249|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.11|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||2.11|0.69|
95893250|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.24|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.24|1.24|
95893251|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.57|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.57|1.04|
95893252|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||1.86|0.71|
95893253|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.58|1.24|
95893254|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.00|1.19|
95893255|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.0|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||5.00|1.47|
95893256|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||3.89|1.52|
95893257|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.83|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||4.83|1.20|
95893258|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|4.17|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.17|1.59|
95893259|NCT04665050|191741122|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% confidence interval CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.56|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.56|1.46|
95893260|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.21|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 3||2.21|1.08|
95893261|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.6|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 7F||3.60|1.36|
95893262|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.23|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 19A||3.23|1.45|
95893263|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.99|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 22F||3.99|1.36|
95893264|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.37|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 33F||2.37|0.97|
95893265|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.68|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 8||2.68|1.32|
95893266|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|3.74|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 9N||3.74|1.49|
95893267|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|3.65|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 10A||3.65|1.28|
95893268|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 11A||2.89|1.28|
95893269|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|6.27|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 12F||6.27|1.94|
95893270|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.31|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 17F||4.31|1.92|
95893271|NCT04665050|191741123|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.25|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 20A||3.25|1.30|
95893272|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|3.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.88|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||6.88|1.86|
95893273|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|6.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|10.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||10.98|3.54|
95893274|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.39|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||4.39|1.23|
95893275|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|10.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.39|18.78|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||18.78|5.39|
95893276|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|42.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|90.03|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||90.03|19.67|
95893277|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|12.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|21.94|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||21.94|6.97|
95893278|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|24.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.65|52.86|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||52.86|11.65|
95893279|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|25.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|44.93|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||44.93|14.65|
95893280|NCT04665050|191741124|OTHER|GMT ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMT Ratio|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.72|23.47|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||23.47|8.72|
95893281|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 6A||5.19|1.73|
95893282|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|13.98|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15A||13.98|4.61|
95893283|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|5.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 15C||5.58|1.77|
95893284|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|13.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.45|20.19|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 16F||20.19|8.45|
95893285|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|14.09|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23A||14.09|5.19|
95893286|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.72|6.36|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 23B||6.36|2.72|
95893287|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|28.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.59|49.58|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 24F||49.58|16.59|
95893288|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|10.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.71|15.73|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 31||15.73|6.71|
95893289|NCT04665050|191741125|OTHER|GMC ratio and 95% CI are estimated from a cLDA model.|GMC Ratio|15.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.62|21.9|||||V116/PNEUMOVAX™23|Serotype 35B||21.90|11.62|
95893290|NCT00853723|191741129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline by day 15 in all three arms.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.0005
95893291|NCT00853723|191741130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stasistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893292|NCT00853723|191741131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test of means for the percentage change in PINP and CTX using two one-sided tests applied to data from the parallel group design with a sample size of 31 in the PTH(1-34) group and 62 in the combined PTHrP(1-36) group achieved 80% power at 2.5% significant level for two-sided hypothesis testing (adjusted for the hypothesis testing at two key endpoints).|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline at Day 60 and at Day 90 for the PTH group and at day 90 for the PTHrP 400 and PTHrP 600 groups .|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95893293|NCT00853723|191741132|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in PTHrP 400 and 600 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893294|NCT00853723|191741133|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893295|NCT00853723|191741134|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical signifcance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
95893296|NCT00853723|191741135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds with percent change from baseline in all Arms/groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||>0.05
95893297|NCT00853723|191741136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline at Day 15 and 30 in the PTHrP 400 group and at Day 15 in the PTHrP 600 group|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
95893298|NCT00853723|191741137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to PTH group on Day 60 compared to the PTHrP 400|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893299|NCT00853723|191741137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the PTH group on Day 30 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 60 compared to the PTHRp 600 group|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
95973896|NCT01037244|191921139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|25.43|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.43|10.70|<0.0001
95973897|NCT01037244|191921139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|23.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.12|30.94|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||30.94|16.12|<0.0001
95973898|NCT01037244|191921139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.92|43.59|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||43.59|28.92|<0.0001
95973899|NCT01037244|191921140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.79|25.6|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||25.60|10.79|<0.0001
95973900|NCT01037244|191921140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|25.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.82|32.69|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||32.69|17.82|<0.0001
95973901|NCT01037244|191921140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|36.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.63|44.36|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||44.36|29.63|<0.0001
95973902|NCT01037244|191921141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|19.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|27.26|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||27.26|12.69|<0.0001
95973903|NCT01037244|191921141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|27.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.29|34.88|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||34.88|20.29|<0.0001
95893300|NCT00853723|191741137|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value correspond to the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and Day 15 and 30 compared to the PTHrP 600 group.|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
95893301|NCT00853723|191741138|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the increase from baseline to D90 in the PTHrP 400 group.|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
95893302|NCT00853723|191741139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p value corresponds to an increased from baseline at all time points in all Arms/groups as well as to the increase in the in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 60 and 90 compared to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups .|F-test, one way analysis of variance|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893303|NCT00853723|191741139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to the comparison of the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15 to the PTHrP 600 and PTH groups|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
95893304|NCT00853723|191741140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds to an increase compared to baseline in the PTHrP 600 group at D15 and D30|F-test, one way analysis of variance|The threshold for stastistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893305|NCT00853723|191741140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||the reported p-value corresponds to change from baseline in the PTHrP 400 group at Day 15,30, 60 and 90 and the PTH group at day 90.|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.005
95893306|NCT00853723|191741141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate. See primary outcomes.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The reported p-value corresponds the PTH group on Day 15 compared to the PTHrP 400 group and to the PTHrP 600 group at Day 30 and Day 60|Kruskal-Wallis|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.05
95893307|NCT00853723|191741141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations for this study were determined considering the expected effects of PTHrP (1-36) relative to PTH (1-34) on the primary endpoints of P1NP and CTX after 3 months of treatment relative to baseline using previously published data as weel as anticipated attrition rate.|||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|||||Thre reported p-value correspond to the PTH group compared to the PTHrp 600 group at day 15|Kruskal-Wallis|the threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||||<0.0005
95973904|NCT01037244|191921141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.57|45.03|||ANCOVA|"P-values are obtained from ANCOVA model with proportion of yes responses during the baseline period and pooled site as covariates."||540 subjects were randomized with 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme to achieve approximately 135 eligible subjects randomized to each of the 4 treatment groups (WC3043 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo). 135 subjects for each group vs. Placebo will provide at least 90% power with effect size from 0.41-0.44, 0.74-0.90 and 0.46-0.95 on 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg groups, respectively. Adjusted power is at least 90% using Bonferroni adjustment on hierarchical testing procedure.||45.03|30.57|<0.0001
95893308|NCT00877058|191741148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.48|||Chi-squared|||||0.48|0.15|<0.05
95893309|NCT00877058|191741148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.24|0.68|||Chi-squared|||||0.68|0.24|0.001
95893310|NCT00877058|191741149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.52|||Chi-squared|||||2.52|0.96|<0.05
95893311|NCT00877058|191741149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.08|||Chi-squared|||||2.08|0.79|<0.05
95893312|NCT00877058|191741150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.31|<0.05
95893313|NCT00877058|191741150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.02|||Chi-squared|||||1.02|0.33|<0.05
95893314|NCT05477875|191741156|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.538
95893315|NCT05477875|191741157|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.538|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.538
95893316|NCT05477875|191741158|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
95893317|NCT05477875|191741159|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and PROWL-SS from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.851|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.851
95893318|NCT05477875|191741160|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and QIRC from (1-100) as the dependent variable."|||||<|0.543|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.543
95893319|NCT05477875|191741161|EQUIVALENCE|"Alpha = 0.05, two-way ANOVA with Group x Time Points as fixed factors and OSDI from (0-48) as the dependent variable."||||||0.725|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.725
95893320|NCT05477875|191741162|EQUIVALENCE|Two-way ANOVA using group and intervention as fixed factors were analyzed, with outcome variable p-value reported below, threshold 0.05.||||||0.516|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.516
95893321|NCT01881230|191741169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.692||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.629|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.629|1.089|0.0183
95893322|NCT01881230|191741169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|0.904|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||0.904|0.373|0.0152
95893323|NCT01881230|191741169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.8599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.597|||Log Rank|||For stratified analysis, the stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox proportional hazards model were used, where the stratification factor is the disease free interval (\<= 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.597|0.676|0.8599
95893324|NCT01881230|191741172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.375||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|2.143|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||2.143|0.882|0.1579
95893325|NCT01881230|191741172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.2945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.221|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.221|0.520|0.2945
95893326|NCT01881230|191741172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.101||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.708|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratios and associated two-sided 95% confidence intervals were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard model. The stratification factor is the disease free interval (≤ 1 year; \> 1 year).||1.708|0.710|0.6691
95893327|NCT01925404|191741181|SUPERIORITY|We fitted difference-in-differences (DID) models between the two measurement waves and four study arms. The effect of the intervention was modeled as the wave by study arm interaction. All models used random effects to account for intra-class correlation within each park as well as fixed effects to account for observation times (time of day, weekend versus weekdays).||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold. p=0.05|negative binomial distribution|||Comparison of change from baseline;||||.0063
95893328|NCT03616912|191741183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|1.09|0.016
95973905|NCT01498653|191921156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|28.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|36.9|||ANCOVA|||||36.9|20.1|<0.001
95973906|NCT03421431|191921161|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|12.46||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|24.891|||ANCOVA|||||24.891|0.029|0.0495
95973907|NCT03421431|191921161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.257||||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.754|18.268|||ANCOVA|||||18.268|-5.754|0.3039
95973908|NCT03421431|191921161|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.203||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.615|16.021|||ANCOVA|||||16.021|-3.615|0.2130
95973909|NCT03421431|191921162|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.717||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.455|||ANCOVA|||||7.455|1.980|0.0009
95973910|NCT03421431|191921162|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.934||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.766|3.635|||ANCOVA|||||3.635|-1.766|0.4946
95973911|NCT03421431|191921162|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.783||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.708|5.858|||ANCOVA|||||5.858|1.708|0.0005
95893329|NCT03616912|191741184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|0.79|0.470
95893330|NCT03616912|191741185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.45|0.63|0.839
95893331|NCT03616912|191741185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.80|0.391
95893332|NCT03616912|191741187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.53|0.820
95893333|NCT03616912|191741187|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.67|0.565
95893334|NCT03616912|191741188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.52|0.598
95893335|NCT03616912|191741188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.50|0.674
95893336|NCT03616912|191741189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.70|-1.65|0.979
95893337|NCT03616912|191741189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.32|-2.03|0.678
95893338|NCT03616912|191741190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.42|0.43|0.965
95893339|NCT03616912|191741190|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.92|0.51|0.661
95893340|NCT03616912|191741191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-0.61|0.578
95893341|NCT03616912|191741191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.433||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-1.29|0.309
95973912|NCT03421431|191921163|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.076||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.214|||ANCOVA|||||0.214|-0.062|0.2756
95973913|NCT03421431|191921163|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.003||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.131|||ANCOVA|||||0.131|-0.136|0.9686
95973914|NCT03421431|191921163|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.079||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.184|||ANCOVA|||||0.184|-0.026|0.1406
95973915|NCT03421431|191921164|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.125||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.363|||ANCOVA|||||0.363|-0.613|0.6130
95973916|NCT03421431|191921164|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.049||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.521|0.423|||ANCOVA|||||0.423|-0.521|0.8366
95973917|NCT03421431|191921164|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.076||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.315|||ANCOVA|||||0.315|-0.466|0.7015
95973918|NCT03421431|191921165|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.186||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.240|-0.613|0.3875
95973919|NCT03421431|191921165|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.248||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|-0.657|0.2331
95973920|NCT03421431|191921165|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.061||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|0.395|||ANCOVA|||||0.395|-0.272|0.7164
95973921|NCT03421431|191921166|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.311|||ANCOVA|||||0.311|0.110|<0.0001
95973922|NCT03421431|191921166|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.046||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.143|||ANCOVA|||||0.143|-0.051|0.3480
95973923|NCT03421431|191921166|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.243|||ANCOVA|||||0.243|0.085|<0.0001
95973924|NCT03421431|191921167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.299||||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.645|0.047|||ANCOVA|||||0.047|-0.645|0.0897
95973925|NCT03421431|191921167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.251||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|0.085|||ANCOVA|||||0.085|-0.586|0.1411
95973926|NCT03421431|191921167|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.048||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.23|||ANCOVA|||||0.230|-0.326|0.7330
95973927|NCT03421431|191921168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|51.873||||0.9143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-901.574|1005.32|||ANCOVA|||||1005.320|-901.574|0.9143
95973928|NCT03421431|191921168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|404.168||||0.3718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.519|1297.854|||ANCOVA|||||1297.854|-489.519|0.3718
95973929|NCT03421431|191921168|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-352.295||||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1091.308|386.719|||ANCOVA|||||386.719|-1091.308|0.3466
95973930|NCT03421431|191921169|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.173||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.264|||ANCOVA|||||0.264|0.081|0.0003
95973931|NCT03421431|191921169|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.025||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.113|||ANCOVA|||||0.113|-0.062|0.5685
95973932|NCT03421431|191921169|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.219|||ANCOVA|||||0.219|0.075|<0.0001
95973933|NCT03421431|191921170|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.133||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.252|-0.015|||ANCOVA|||||-0.015|-0.252|0.0282
95973934|NCT03421431|191921170|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.068||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.046|||ANCOVA|||||0.046|-0.182|0.2412
95973935|NCT03421431|191921170|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.066||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.027|||ANCOVA|||||0.027|-0.158|0.1649
95973936|NCT03421431|191921171|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.009||||0.4357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.032|||ANCOVA|||||0.032|-0.014|0.4357
95973937|NCT03421431|191921171|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.023|||ANCOVA|||||0.023|-0.021|0.8989
95973938|NCT03421431|191921171|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.026|||ANCOVA|||||0.026|-0.011|0.4120
95973939|NCT03421431|191921172|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.731||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.095|-0.368|||ANCOVA|||||-0.368|-3.095|0.0134
95973940|NCT03421431|191921172|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.327||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.656|1.001|||ANCOVA|||||1.001|-1.656|0.6263
95973941|NCT03421431|191921172|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.404||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.487|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.487|0.0115
95973942|NCT03421431|191921173|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.723||||0.4608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|6.253|||ANCOVA|||||6.253|-13.700|0.4608
95973943|NCT03421431|191921173|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.377||||0.6238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.962|7.207|||ANCOVA|||||7.207|-11.962|0.6238
95893342|NCT03616912|191741192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.84|0.287
95893343|NCT03616912|191741192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference Final Values|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-0.99|0.113
95893344|NCT02404311|191741224|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
95973944|NCT03421431|191921173|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.346||||0.7367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.268|6.576|||ANCOVA|||||6.576|-9.268|0.7367
95973945|NCT03421431|191921174|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.407||||0.8302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.287|3.474|||ANCOVA|||||3.474|-4.287|0.8302
95973946|NCT03421431|191921174|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28||||0.5053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.192|2.632|||ANCOVA|||||2.632|-5.192|0.5053
95973947|NCT03421431|191921174|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.873||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|3.366|||ANCOVA|||||3.366|-1.620|0.4760
95973948|NCT03421431|191921175|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.91||||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.171|0.351|||ANCOVA|||||0.351|-12.171|0.0639
95973949|NCT03421431|191921175|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.064||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.971|3.843|||ANCOVA|||||3.843|-7.971|0.4884
95973950|NCT03421431|191921175|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.846||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.156|1.464|||ANCOVA|||||1.464|-9.156|0.1532
95973951|NCT03421431|191921176|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.978|0.058|||ANCOVA|||||0.058|-0.978|0.0811
95973952|NCT03421431|191921176|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.117||||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.367|0.601|||ANCOVA|||||0.601|-0.367|0.6312
95973953|NCT03421431|191921176|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.577||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.143|||ANCOVA|||||-0.143|-1.011|0.0099
95973954|NCT03421431|191921189|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.356||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|3.034|||ANCOVA|||||3.034|-0.322|0.1120
95973955|NCT03421431|191921189|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.647||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|2.24|||ANCOVA|||||2.240|-0.947|0.4229
95973956|NCT03421431|191921189|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|1.996|||ANCOVA|||||1.996|-0.577|0.2764
95973957|NCT03421431|191921190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.008||||0.5606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.037|||ANCOVA|||||0.037|-0.020|0.5606
95973958|NCT03421431|191921190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.004|0.1002
95973959|NCT03421431|191921190|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.014||||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.008|||ANCOVA|||||0.008|-0.036|0.2002
95973960|NCT03421431|191921191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-178.787||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1098.454|740.88|||ANCOVA|||||740.880|-1098.454|0.7014
95973961|NCT03421431|191921191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|52.307||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.934|935.547|||ANCOVA|||||935.547|-830.934|0.9070
95973962|NCT03421431|191921191|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-231.094||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-967.273|505.086|||ANCOVA|||||505.086|-967.273|0.5360
95973963|NCT03421431|191921192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-753.153||||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2183.92|677.614|||ANCOVA|||||677.614|-2183.920|0.2985
95973964|NCT03421431|191921192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|139.107||||0.8413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1236.689|1514.902|||ANCOVA|||||1514.902|-1236.689|0.8413
95973965|NCT03421431|191921192|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-892.26||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2011.705|227.186|||ANCOVA|||||227.186|-2011.705|0.1168
95973966|NCT03421431|191921193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|33.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.984|48.998|||ANCOVA|||||48.998|17.984|<0.0001
95973967|NCT03421431|191921193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|30.814|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.802|45.825|||ANCOVA|||||45.825|15.802|<0.0001
95973968|NCT03421431|191921193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.677||||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.946|15.3|||ANCOVA|||||15.300|-9.946|0.6757
95973969|NCT03421431|191921194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|21.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.533|38.067|||ANCOVA|||||38.067|4.533|0.0134
95973970|NCT03421431|191921194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.847||||0.4686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.116|21.811|||ANCOVA|||||21.811|-10.116|0.4686
95973971|NCT03421431|191921194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|15.453||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.699|28.206|||ANCOVA|||||28.206|2.699|0.0181
95973972|NCT03421431|191921195|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.324||||0.0557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|8.756|||ANCOVA|||||8.756|-0.108|0.0557
95973973|NCT03421431|191921195|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.305||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.955|6.566|||ANCOVA|||||6.566|-1.955|0.2867
95973974|NCT03421431|191921195|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.019||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|5.429|||ANCOVA|||||5.429|-1.390|0.2437
95973975|NCT03421431|191921196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.019||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.491|3.53|||ANCOVA|||||3.530|-3.491|0.9913
95973976|NCT03421431|191921196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.995||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.323|4.314|||ANCOVA|||||4.314|-2.323|0.5530
95973977|NCT03421431|191921196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.976||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.665|1.713|||ANCOVA|||||1.713|-3.665|0.4729
95973978|NCT01959516|191921203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0250
95973979|NCT01959516|191921204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1439
95973980|NCT01178671|191921217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95973981|NCT01178671|191921218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95973982|NCT01178671|191921219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.14
95973983|NCT01178671|191921220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.50
95973984|NCT01178671|191921221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.023
95973985|NCT01178671|191921222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.31
95973986|NCT01178671|191921223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.7||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|1.1|0.042
95973987|NCT01178671|191921224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95973988|NCT01178671|191921225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95973989|NCT01178671|191921226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.65
95973990|NCT01078675|191921235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|-42.88|-45.44|-40.32||P-value\<0.001 at Month 24. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is made for individual age group.|ANCOVA|P-value is two-sided and based on ANCOVA using age group as the fixed factor, and study centre and the baseline value as covariates.||||-40.32|-45.44|<0.001
95973991|NCT00819390|191921265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.428
95893345|NCT02404311|191741224|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
95893346|NCT02404311|191741224|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|-0.015||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
95973992|NCT00819390|191921265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|No other adjustments.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms/groups with respect to change in percent CD8 HLA-DR+/CD38+ from baseline to week 12.||||0.247
95973993|NCT01200589|191921302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49||||||||1.49|0.89|
95973994|NCT00986973|191921318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95973995|NCT00986973|191921319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.82
95973996|NCT00986973|191921320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.46
95973997|NCT00986973|191921321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.071
95893347|NCT02404311|191741225|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 1086C\_D7gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
95893348|NCT02404311|191741225|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to 96ZM651.D11gp120.avi after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
95893349|NCT02404311|191741225|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.895|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to TV1c8\_D11gp120.avi/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
95973998|NCT00986973|191921322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.25
95973999|NCT00986973|191921323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman test|Non-parametric test was used to examine neuropsychological outcomes||||||0.050
95974000|NCT00986973|191921324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95974001|NCT02294227|191921325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|5.66|||Chi-squared|||||5.66|1.66|0.0002
95974002|NCT02294227|191921325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.97|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.97|1.76|0.0003
95974003|NCT01337115|191921344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.55|45.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between mean VAS pain scores. Power 80%. Null hypothesis states there is no difference between pains scores in both groups||45.34|11.55|0.001
95974004|NCT01337115|191921345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||||||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in patient satisfaction distribution by the three categories used (Bad; Reasonable; Good/Very Good) between groups.|Fisher's exact test|Fisher's Exact test allows to test for the significance of the distribution in the results table with three categories.||||||0.537
95974005|NCT01337115|191921346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|28.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. Power 80%||28.33|5.52|0.006
95974006|NCT01337115|191921347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|11.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis states there is no difference between both groups. Power 80% to detect 15% difference in means||11.83|-16.93|0.723
95974007|NCT02411357|191921372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage Chi-square trend test|||||||<.001
95974008|NCT01551212|191921413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|8.91|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||8.91|-0.74|0.097
95974009|NCT01551212|191921414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.99||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.92|||ANCOVA|factors: treatment, center, HCV-Class (positive, negative) and lab MELD (≤ 30 vs \> 30) covariate: baseline value||||13.92|2.06|0.0085
95974010|NCT01551212|191921415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.699
95974011|NCT00600886|191921427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.942||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.168|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusting for randomization stratification factor||Overall - All patients||3.168|1.190|0.007
95974012|NCT00600886|191921427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.337|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|4.79||||||Post surgery - patients with prior surgery but no previous medical treatment for acromegaly||4.790|1.140|
95893350|NCT02404311|191741226|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0215
95893351|NCT02404311|191741226|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0003
95893352|NCT02404311|191741226|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.228||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0010
95893353|NCT02404311|191741227|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to C.1086C\_V1\_V2 Tags after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
95893354|NCT02404311|191741227|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-96ZM651.02 V1v2 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||<.0001
95893355|NCT02404311|191741227|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|6.099||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|IgG Ab binding to gp70-TV1.GSKvacV1V2/293F after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.0002
95893356|NCT02404311|191741228|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||1.0000
95893357|NCT02404311|191741228|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.6698|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.6698
95893358|NCT02404311|191741228|OTHER||Proportion Difference (Net)|0.125||||0.1435|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|McNemar||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.1435
95974013|NCT00600886|191921427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|3.234||||||De novo - patients with de novo disease who refused pituitary surgery or for whom pituitary surgery was contraindicated.||3.234|0.846|
95974014|NCT03075410|191921483|OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.34|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.34|0.87|
95974015|NCT03075410|191921484|OTHER||Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.26|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is use|||1.26|0.71|
95974016|NCT03075410|191921485|OTHER||Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.23|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter Cmax. Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect. Variance Components covariance structure is used.|||1.23|0.76|
95974017|NCT03075410|191921486|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.23|||||Fixed Effect Model has been used to assess Food Effect for the log transformed parameter t1/2 Treatment in the fed/fasted state is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.23|0.64|
95974018|NCT03075410|191921487|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|2.5|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimation is used to calculate the 90% confidence interval.|||2.50|-0.50|
95974019|NCT03075410|191921491|OTHER||Slope|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.1|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 5mg Day 1-14||1.10|1.09|
95974020|NCT03075410|191921491|OTHER||Slope|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.08|||||Mixed Effect Model has been used to assess Steady State. Day is fitted as a Fixed Effect. Participant is fitted as Random Effect Variance Components covariance structure is used.|Repeat GSK3036656 15mg Day 1-14||1.08|1.07|
95974021|NCT03075410|191921492|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.1|||||A slope of 1 indicates the pharmacokinetics are dose proportional. A slope greater than 1 indicates the increase in PK is greater than proportional to dose.||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|1.10|0.82|
95974022|NCT03075410|191921493|OTHER||Slope|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.39|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.39|1.24|
95974023|NCT03075410|191921494|OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.11|||||Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect and Participant is fitted as Random Effect. An Unstructured covariance structure is used.|||1.11|0.81|
95974024|NCT03075410|191921495|OTHER||Slope|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.33|||||Day 1.Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.33|1.15|
95974025|NCT03075410|191921495|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.90|
95974026|NCT03075410|191921496|OTHER||Slope|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.46|||||Day 1. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.46|0.92|
95974027|NCT03075410|191921496|OTHER||Slope|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.22|||||Day 14. Power Model has been used to assess Dose Proportionality. Log-e(dose) is fitted as Fixed Effect.|||1.22|0.89|
95974028|NCT00585195|191921533|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|131.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.59|179.63||||||||179.63|96.59|
95893359|NCT02404311|191741229|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|0.965||||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to 1086 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.9661
95893360|NCT02404311|191741229|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.118||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to TV1 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.8593
95893361|NCT02404311|191741229|OTHER||Geometric Mean difference (Net)|1.138||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed-Rank||Difference = Month 12.5 (5th vaccination) - Month 6.5 (4th vaccination)|CD4+ T Cell Responses to ZM96 gp120 after the fourth (month 6.5) versus the fifth vaccination (month 12.5)||||0.4396
95893362|NCT00278954|191741241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SABI per subject per year|0.0||||0.01||99.0|0.0|0.101|||Poisson regression with log link||Mean SABI rate = 0 per subject per year. 1-sided 99% upper confidence bound could not be calculated.|The estimated serious acute bacterial infection (SABI) rate was calculated by dividing no. of infections by no.of subject years. The exponential of the upper limit of the 98% 2-sided Confidence Interval (CI) gave the upper, 1-sided, 99% confidence bound, estimated using Poisson regression. The equivalent upper bound per subject year was obtained by dividing this figure by total subject years.||0.101|0|0.01
95893363|NCT01334723|191741302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||||95.0|0.35|0.412|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.412|0.350|
95893364|NCT01334723|191741302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.294||||||95.0|0.235|0.368|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.368|0.235|
95893365|NCT01334723|191741303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||||95.0|0.562|0.668|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.668|0.562|
95893366|NCT01334723|191741303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.542||||||95.0|0.427|0.689|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.689|0.427|
95893367|NCT01334723|191741304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519||||||95.0|0.472|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.472|
95893368|NCT01334723|191741304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.436||||||95.0|0.333|0.57|||||A time-to-event analysis was used to evaluate the likelihood of AUR or prostate surgery.|||0.570|0.333|
95893369|NCT00791518|191741320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2||||||95.0|0.1|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and are adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.1|
95893370|NCT00791518|191741321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.3||||||95.0|0.2|0.4|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||0.4|0.2|
95893371|NCT00791518|191741326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.7||||||95.0|-0.4|1.7|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<80% group minus \>=80% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||1.7|-0.4|
95893372|NCT00791518|191741327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.2|2.1|||||Least squares mean differences are calculated as \<50% group minus \>=50% group and was adjusted for Investigator.|||2.1|-0.2|
95893373|NCT00720057|191741330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The treatment differences between the two groups were tested each at the 5% two-sided significant level using a hierarchal testing procedure to control the overall type 1 error. SPID16-24 was eligible for testing only after a statistically significant difference between the two arms with respect to SPID0-24 was observed. The SPIDs were analyzed via ANCOVA model with treatment and trial site as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity score as the covariate.||||<0.001
95893374|NCT00720057|191741331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95893375|NCT00720057|191741332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95893376|NCT00720057|191741333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistics are from the Kaplan-Meier method. The median for naproxen treatment arm was not estimable from Kaplan-Meier method, therefore it is presented as the maximum value from the full range.||||<0.001
95893377|NCT00720057|191741334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95893378|NCT00720057|191741335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95893379|NCT04949165|191741336|NON_INFERIORITY|The study employed a non-inferiority design with a non-inferiority margin of 1 g/dL for haemoglobin levels at 4 months, a 1-sided alpha level of 0.025, at least 85% power and under the assumption that the true difference in the means was 0.3 g/dL. The estimated sample size also allowed for up to 10% loss to follow- up or iron supplementation for those initially not requiring supplements, thus the sample size was 292.||||||0.025||||||Non-inferiority threshold of -1 g/dL for the lower bound of the 97.5% CI.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
95893380|NCT00579826|191741350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95893381|NCT00579826|191741351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95893382|NCT00579826|191741352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95893383|NCT00579826|191741353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95893384|NCT00579826|191741354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95893385|NCT04191382|191741355|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.63||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 400 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||1.63|0.72|
95893386|NCT04191382|191741355|OTHER|Other descriptive analysis|Ratio of Geometric Means|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.12||||||Geometric LS-means ratio of proportional change was the ratio of geometric LS-means of the proportional change between groups (Amcenestrant 200 mg versus Letrozole 2.5 mg).||2.12|0.95|
95893387|NCT01748643|191741360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95893388|NCT01748643|191741361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95893389|NCT01748643|191741362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95893390|NCT01748643|191741363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.97
95893391|NCT01748643|191741364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.64
95893392|NCT01748643|191741365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.58
95893393|NCT06049043|191741366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.84|-14.02|0.26
95893394|NCT06049043|191741367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.84||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|5.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.85|-13.43|0.44
95893395|NCT06049043|191741368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.10|-0.66|0.62
95893396|NCT06049043|191741369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|15.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.18|-2.50|0.16
95893397|NCT06049043|191741369|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.04|-0.13|0.28
95893398|NCT06049043|191741370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|11.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.28|-7.31|0.67
95893399|NCT06049043|191741370|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.08|-0.12|0.69
95893400|NCT06049043|191741371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.18|-0.09|0.09
95893401|NCT06049043|191741371|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.59|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.59|-0.86|0.71
95893402|NCT06049043|191741372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|-0.07|0.08
95893403|NCT06049043|191741372|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Controlled for participant characteristics at baseline.||||0.48|-1.21|0.39
95893404|NCT06049043|191741374|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.82|-0.95|0.89
95893405|NCT00768300|191741379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.66||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) based on core pathology review.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with strata of baseline presence of pulmonary hypertension and whether a surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|||2.66|1.14|0.010
95893406|NCT00768300|191741381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|4.29||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.805|9.376||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||9.376|-0.805|0.086
95893407|NCT00768300|191741382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|2.85||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|7.9||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and its 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||7.90|-2.20|0.250
95893408|NCT00768300|191741383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|16.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|37.0||P-value was calculated using the Van Elteren test with strata of baseline presence of PH and whether a SLB was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review.|Van Elteren test||The point estimate and 95% CI were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect for percent change from baseline.|||37.00|-5.00|0.150
95893409|NCT00768300|191741386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|0.5||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||The p-value was based on a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by baseline pulmonary hypertension (Yes/No) and surgical lung biopsy was performed with definite or probable UIP based on core pathology review (Yes/No).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The point estimate and 95% confidence interval were based on the Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of treatment effect|||1.00|0.00|0.793
95893410|NCT01082965|191741401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Leasts Square (LS) Mean|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.265||0.9742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.58||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype, site as covariates.||0.58|-0.60|0.9742
95893411|NCT01082965|191741402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.51|0.9638
95974029|NCT00585195|191921533|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|172.14|331.93||||||||331.93|172.14|
95974030|NCT00585195|191921533|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|201.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.33|291.58||||||||291.58|139.33|
95974031|NCT00585195|191921534|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|216.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|161.41|289.56||||||||289.56|161.41|
95974032|NCT00585195|191921534|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|350.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.09|868.23||||||||868.23|141.09|
95974033|NCT00585195|191921534|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|365.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|263.22|507.31||||||||507.31|263.22|
95974034|NCT00585195|191921537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|15.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.89|22.26||||||||22.26|10.89|
95974035|NCT00585195|191921538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|20.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.59|29.18||||||||29.18|14.59|
95974036|NCT00585195|191921540|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|157.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|136.89|180.97||||||||180.97|136.89|
95974037|NCT00585195|191921541|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|132.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.1|148.1||||||||148.10|119.10|
95974038|NCT02112838|191921567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-910.6|950.5|||ANCOVA|||||950.5|-910.6|0.97
95893412|NCT01082965|191741403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.53|0.2548
95893413|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.18|0.6316
95893414|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.6256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.6256
95893415|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.5847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Whole Brain Gray: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.12|0.5847
95893416|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.09|-0.46|0.1555
95893417|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.51|0.2416
95893418|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.26||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.26|-0.33|0.8070
95893419|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.59|0.6828
95893420|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.26|0.8987
95893421|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.28|0.8922
95893422|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.7555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.52||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.52|-0.39|0.7555
95893423|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.1928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.79||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.79|-0.18|0.1928
95893424|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Temporal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.49|-0.26|0.4946
95893425|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.40|-0.56|0.7029
95893426|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.1085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.68|0.1085
95893427|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Medial Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.44|0.3588
95893428|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.53|-0.20|0.3053
95893429|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.36||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.36|-0.36|0.9861
95893430|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.41|0.6558
95893431|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.51||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.51|-0.53|0.9471
95893432|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.23||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.23|-0.77|0.2136
95893433|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.67||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Superior Prefrontal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.67|-0.47|0.6435
95893434|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.02|-0.41|0.0659
95893435|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.7687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.31||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.31|-0.41|0.7687
95893436|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.1||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Inferior Parietal Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.10|-0.73|0.1061
95893437|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.19||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.19|-0.41|0.3925
95893438|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.58|0.1991
95893439|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.24||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Insula: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.24|-0.45|0.5176
95893440|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.18||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.18|-0.50|0.3140
95974039|NCT02112838|191921567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-399.7||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1320.8|521.3|||ANCOVA|||||521.3|-1320.8|0.40
95893441|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.6348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.29|-0.46|0.6348
95974040|NCT00557947|191921591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of INTRADERMAL SUTURE successful subjects) does not exceed 12%.|difference proportions of successes (%)|4.8||||0.2188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.9|||McNemar||The level of significance for statistical testing was 0.05 for this study.|||10.9|-0.0|0.2188
95974041|NCT00557947|191921592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||0.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95974042|NCT00557947|191921593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3877||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.3877
95974043|NCT00557947|191921594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.7539
95974044|NCT00557947|191921595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||0.0|||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95893442|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Precuneus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.12|-0.64|0.1491
95893443|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.4226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.59|0.4226
95893444|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.9778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.5||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.50|-0.49|0.9778
95893445|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.9456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Anterior Cingulate Cortex: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.43|-0.40|0.9456
95893446|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.15||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.15|-0.55|0.2299
95893447|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.28|-0.54|0.5069
95893448|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.3524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Amygdala: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.45|0.3524
95893449|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.358||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.47||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.47|-0.80|0.4182
95893450|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.326||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.04||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||1.04|-0.42|0.3630
95893451|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.9837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Thalamus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.74|-0.73|0.9837
95893452|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.0974
95893453|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.27|-0.04|0.1246
95893454|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Basal Ganglia: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.20|0.6190
95893455|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.25||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.25|-0.39|0.6350
95974045|NCT01370590|191921597|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10 mg/20 mg combination tablet was considered equivalent to co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg, if the two-sided 97.5% expanded confidence intervals of the treatment difference in least squares means for percent change in LDL-C from baseline after 6 weeks of treatment (combination minus co-administration) was contained within -4% and 4% (equivalence margins).|Difference in Least-square Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.7|3.3|||ANCOVA|||It was anticipated that 85% of the enrolled participants would be evaluable to achieve 95% power in order to establish equivalence between the Ezetimibe/Atorvastatin Fixed Dose Combination and the co-administration of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin with respect to percent change from baseline in LDL-C after 6 weeks of treatment using two one-sided tests each at 2.5% α-level, assuming the underlying true treatment difference is ±1.4% and that the standard deviation of the difference is 12.8%.||3.3|-1.7|
95893456|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.8205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.40|0.8205
95893457|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.14||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Hippocampus: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.14|-0.42|0.2959
95893458|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.194||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 1, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.32|-0.56|0.5520
95893459|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.45||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.45|-0.50|0.9046
95893460|NCT01082965|191741404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.02||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 4 on Day 8, Landau: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||-0.02|-0.62|0.0402
95893461|NCT01082965|191741405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.11||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.82|31.82||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||31.82|-21.82|0.6880
95893462|NCT01082965|191741405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.143||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|30.87||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||30.87|-11.30|0.3157
95893463|NCT01082965|191741405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.921||0.3228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.56|33.28||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||33.28|-13.56|0.3228
95893464|NCT01082965|191741406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.479||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.12||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total IR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||4.12|-12.90|0.2540
95893465|NCT01082965|191741406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|5.37||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total DR: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||5.37|-4.17|0.7684
95893466|NCT01082965|191741407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.17|-0.09|0.4940
95893467|NCT01082965|191741407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.22||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.22|-0.02|0.1031
95893468|NCT01082965|191741407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.3277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.16||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Detection Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.16|-0.06|0.3277
95893469|NCT01082965|191741407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.6585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 1, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.05|0.6585
95893470|NCT01082965|191741407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.8863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 0 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.08|-0.07|0.8863
95893471|NCT01082965|191741407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13||Statistical significance level alpha (2-sided) was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change at Hour 5 on Day 8, Identification Task: MMRM was used with treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender, ApoE genotype, site as covariates.||0.13|-0.06|0.4388
95893472|NCT01566461|191741408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||z-test|||||||<0.001
95893473|NCT01566461|191741409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95974046|NCT01370590|191921598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-square means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.8|
95974047|NCT01370590|191921599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-squares mean|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.2|-0.6|
95974048|NCT01370590|191921600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-1.3|
95974049|NCT01370590|191921601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.6|
95974050|NCT01370590|191921602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least-squares means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|6.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Analyses were based on log-transformed data.||6.3|-3.2|
95974051|NCT01315353|191921624|SUPERIORITY|Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Cumulative rate difference|1.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.9||||||The lower bound of the (lower) one-sided 95% confidence interval was provided.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN2+ with 95% one-sided confidence interval.|||-7.9|
95974052|NCT01315353|191921625|OTHER|||||||0.94||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified by ART use at screening.||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to time to CIN2+.||||0.94
95974053|NCT01315353|191921626|OTHER||Cumulative rate difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|13.6|||||Confidence interval estimation was stratified by ART use at screening using Greenwood's variance with the inverse of this variance used for the stratum weights.|Treatment comparison was made using the difference (arm B - arm A) in the stratified Kaplan-Meier estimate for the week 130 cumulative rate of CIN3+ with 95% two-sided confidence interval.||13.6|-4.8|
95974054|NCT01315353|191921627|OTHER|||||||0.445||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to rate of premature study discontinuation.||||0.445
95974055|NCT01315353|191921628|OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value for the week 26 comparison. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 26.||||1.000
95974056|NCT01315353|191921628|OTHER|||||||0.279||||||"P-value for the week 52 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 52.||||0.279
95974057|NCT01315353|191921628|OTHER|||||||0.781||||||"P-value for the week 78 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 78.||||0.781
95974058|NCT01315353|191921628|OTHER|||||||0.375||||||"P-value for the week 104 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 104.||||0.375
95974059|NCT01315353|191921628|OTHER|||||||0.444||||||"P-value for the week 130 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with abnormal cervical cytology results at week 130.||||0.444
95974060|NCT01315353|191921629|OTHER|||||||0.132||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.132
95974061|NCT01315353|191921630|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||0.227
95974062|NCT01315353|191921631|OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value for the week 26 comparison.~The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance used for the two-sided test was 0.05."|Fisher Exact|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm A and Arm B with respect to the proportion of participants with hr-HPV at week 26.||||1.000
95974063|NCT03035201|191921634|OTHER|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean from linear contrast|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Not adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||Marginal effect of cocoa flavonal versus cocoa placebo based on the mean difference between linear contrasts.|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol.|0.08|-0.02|<0.05
95893474|NCT01566461|191741410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95893475|NCT01566461|191741411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
95893476|NCT01566461|191741412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95893477|NCT01566461|191741413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95893478|NCT01566461|191741414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.859
95893479|NCT01566461|191741415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95893480|NCT01566461|191741416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
95893481|NCT01566461|191741417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95893482|NCT01566461|191741418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
95893483|NCT01566461|191741419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95893484|NCT01566461|191741420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95893485|NCT01566461|191741421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.095
95893486|NCT01566461|191741422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.878
95893487|NCT01566461|191741423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.590
95893488|NCT01566461|191741424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
95893489|NCT01566461|191741425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
95893490|NCT01566461|191741426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
95893491|NCT01566461|191741427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.049
95893492|NCT01559012|191741428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32||A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01 and a beta \> 0.90.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test. P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant||This is an analysis between groups of intervention clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||3.32|1.05|0.001
95893493|NCT01559012|191741428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|1.83|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This is a within patient variation between clonidine and placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean +/- Standard Deviation (SD).||3.24|0.43|<0.02
95893494|NCT01559012|191741429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|11.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within groups clonidine versus placebo. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||11.5|1.78|0.009
95893495|NCT01559012|191741429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size modeling for crossover studies (MGH Mallinckrodt General Clinical Research Center) showed that a total of 12 patients were needed in order to detect a difference of 2 points of PUQE score between the two groups at P \< 0.01|within patient variation|7.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|12.83|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis within-patient. Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD.||12.83|2.17|<0.01
95893496|NCT01559012|191741430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of percentage of positivity|0.3||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.47|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"All patients were treated with TD clonidine for 5 days and switched to placebo for 5 days, or the other way round~Allocation order randomized"||0.47|0.04|0.000
95893497|NCT01559012|191741431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean values|0.8||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.57|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||1.57|0.13|0.013
95893498|NCT01559012|191741432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||days off-therapy %|29.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical signiﬁcance was assessed by the use of Mann-Whitney U test P \< 0.05 was deﬁned as statistically signiﬁcant . Data are presented as mean + SD. .||||0.051
95893499|NCT01559012|191741433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.0||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0089
95893500|NCT01559012|191741436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|10.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.9|0.9|0.01
95893501|NCT01559012|191741437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.3|0.3|0.055
95893502|NCT00946712|191741438|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.04|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.04|0.83|0.22
95893503|NCT00946712|191741439|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.12|0.75|0.40
95893504|NCT00946712|191741440|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.00|0.66|0.054
95893505|NCT00946712|191741442|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.1|||Log Rank|A stratified log rank test was used.||||1.10|0.88|0.83
95893506|NCT00946712|191741444|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.48
95893507|NCT00946712|191741445|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|A stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was conducted.||||||0.060
95893508|NCT01787175|191741488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in time to complete A&P|-17.73||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.24|-0.23|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will require the same amount of time to complete assessments and plans using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||-0.23|-35.24|0.047
95893509|NCT01787175|191741489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Value of problem scores for A&P complete|0.04||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09|||Mixed-effects linear model|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||0.09|-0.01|0.15
95893510|NCT01787175|191741490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: Participants will receive the same proportion of acceptable scores for assessments and plans completed using either IMM or CPRS. Power calculation: With 2 replications per subject, and assuming an ICC of 0.15, a two-sided alpha 0.05 comparison adjusted for 5 multiple comparisons (adjusted alpha = 0.01), and power of 80%, an N of 32 clinicians was required for each group (32 using IMM, and 32 using CPRS).||2.98|1.22|0.005
95893511|NCT02867709|191741491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.22||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.22|1.09|0.0285
95893512|NCT02867709|191741491|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.29||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.29|1.14|0.0129
95893513|NCT02867709|191741492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.02|0.0711
95893514|NCT02867709|191741492|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.2||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, underlying symptom as explanatory variables.||||2.20|1.25|0.0129
95893515|NCT02867709|191741493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.17||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.17|1.25|0.0711
95893516|NCT02867709|191741493|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.32||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.32|1.35|0.0129
95893517|NCT02867709|191741494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.48||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.48|1.33|0.0711
95893518|NCT02867709|191741494|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.92||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.92|1.59|0.0129
95893519|NCT02867709|191741495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.53||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.53|1.04|0.0711
95893520|NCT02867709|191741495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, medication use for migraine prevention, baseline headache severity were explanatory variables in model.||||2.83|1.20|0.0129
95893521|NCT02867709|191741496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.72||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.72|0.96|0.1833
95893522|NCT02867709|191741496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.02||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, photophobia were explanatory variables.||||2.02|1.14|0.0167
95974064|NCT03035201|191921635|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed test of the null hypothesis of no differences between groups.|Mean difference of linear contrasts|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Not adjusted|Wald test||Marginal effects of multivitamin versus multivitamin placebo|Marginal comparisons from a repeated measures model using a linear contrast to estimate the mean differences between baseline versus average values across follow-up.|Wald test of a linear contrast from the mixed effects analysis....see protocol|0.12|0.02|<0.05
95893523|NCT02867709|191741497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.83||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.83|1.04|0.1066
95893524|NCT02867709|191741497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.84||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, phonophobia were explanatory variables.||||1.84|1.05|0.0440
95974065|NCT03035201|191921636|EQUIVALENCE|Proportional hazards regression -- unadjusted two-sided test|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.11||Not adjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo|||1.11|0.52|0.15
95893525|NCT02867709|191741498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.49|0.81|0.9522
95893526|NCT02867709|191741498|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51||P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons across primary and secondary endpoints and multiple doses.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, historical triptan response, migraine prevention medication, baseline headache severity, nausea were explanatory variables.||||1.51|0.83|0.9522
95893527|NCT03722017|191741538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.006
95893528|NCT03722017|191741538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.110
95893529|NCT03722017|191741538|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow-Up Timepoint||||0.060
95893530|NCT03722017|191741539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.049||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 applies to the Hospital Discharge Timepoint||||0.738
95893531|NCT03722017|191741539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 applies to the SNF Discharge Timepoint||||0.995
95893532|NCT03722017|191741539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 applies to the 90 Day Follow Up Timepoint||||0.721
95893533|NCT00525174|191741548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was performed comparing the proportions of patients in each treatment group who had no improvement or worsening in amblyopic eye visual acuity from baseline to 24 weeks (change from baseline \<= +4 letters for E-ETDRS testing).||||0.02
95893534|NCT00525174|191741549|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.76|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||The trial was designed as a non-inferiority study. The sample size was computed to be 170 subjects to have 90% power and a type I error rate of 5% for a noninferiority limit of 0.075 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), based on assumed standard deviation of 24-week visual acuity scores of 0.16 logMAR, a correlation between baseline and final acuities of 0.20, and 10% noncompletion of the study primary outcome examination.||0.76||
95893535|NCT00525174|191741549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.83|||ANCOVA|The logMAR visual acuity scores were adjusted for baseline amblyopic eye acuity.||In addition to the test of non-inferiority, an efficacy test of Patching over Bangerter filters was also completed.||0.83|-0.06|0.09
95893536|NCT00525174|191741549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment group difference in rate of improvement was evaluated using a population averaged linear mixed model after performing an inverse transformation of time to obtain linearity.||||0.20
95893537|NCT00525174|191741549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The relationship between the fellow eye blur from the Bangerter filter at baseline and amblyopic improvement at the 24-week outcome was evaluated with an ANCOVA model with acuity in the fellow eye being categorized as better than versus equal to or worse than acuity in the amblyopic eye.||||0.49
95893538|NCT00525174|191741549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The association of fixation preference while the Bangerter filter was over the fellow eye at baseline (amblyopic eye, fellow eye, alternates) with 24-week amblyopic eye acuity was evaluated in an ANCOVA model.||||0.21
95893539|NCT00525174|191741551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic eye visual acuity within 1 line of the fellow eye or better.||||0.27
95893540|NCT00525174|191741552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients in each treatment group with amblyopic visual acuity 20/25 or better at 24 weeks.||||0.86
95893541|NCT00525174|191741552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0|||||Regression, Cox|||The time to first achieve amblyopic eye visual acuity of 20/25 or better was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model.||||0.28
95893542|NCT00525174|191741553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression was used to compare the proportion of patients with 3 or more lines of amblyopic eye visual acuity improvement from baseline to 24 weeks.||||0.61
95893543|NCT00525174|191741556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.90
95893544|NCT00525174|191741557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to evaluate change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels from baseline to 24 weeks by treatment group.||||0.88
95893545|NCT00525174|191741559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||A treatment group difference in the fellow eye visual acuity at 24 weeks was evaluated in an ANCOVA model adjusted for the baseline fellow eye acuity.||||0.07
95893546|NCT00525174|191741559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportion of subjects in each treatment group who tested 2 or more logMAR lines worse in the fellow eye at 24 weeks compared with baseline.||||0.21
95974066|NCT03035201|191921637|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted 2-sided test|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32||Unadjusted|Regression, Cox||Comparison group is placebo.|||1.32|0.63|0.62
95974067|NCT03035201|191921638|EQUIVALENCE|Cocoa Flavonal minus Placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test comparing linear contrasts|Cocoa Flavonal minus placebo|||0.08|-0.02|0.24
95893547|NCT00525174|191741560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 6 weeks.||||0.03
95893548|NCT00525174|191741561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of impact of treatment at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
95893549|NCT00525174|191741562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.90
95893550|NCT00525174|191741563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the adverse effects subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.01
95893551|NCT00525174|191741564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 6 weeks.||||0.12
95893552|NCT00525174|191741565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of the compliance subscale at 24 weeks.||||0.001
95893553|NCT00525174|191741566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 6 weeks.||||<0.001
95893554|NCT00525174|191741567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A t-test was used to evaluate treatment group difference of social stigma at 24 weeks.||||<0.001
95893555|NCT02310919|191741582|NON_INFERIORITY|For the non-inferiority hypothesis testing of the primary outcome, a one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the relative risk. The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard trigger if the lower bound of the one-sided CI of the relative risk is not less than 0.8 (i.e. risk reduction limit of 20%).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.83|||Using the standard trigger as the reference, the relative risk (i.e. risk ratio) (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the probability of the outcome was calculated using log-binomial regression models with application of GEE.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The alternative trigger will be considered non-inferior to the standard hCG trigger if it is at least 80% as effective at inducing oocyte competence. Considering a cluster size of 15 oocytes and an estimated intra-cluster correlation of 0.1, we calculated that approximately 50 participants were needed in each study arm when the non-inferiority difference is -0.1 (i.e. 20% of 0.5 total competent proportion) with a power of 0.8 and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|||0.83|
95893556|NCT02310919|191741583|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in number of oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.01|0.71|0.06
95893557|NCT02310919|191741584|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|generalized linear model with log link|Comparison was done using generalized linear modeling with log link function.|The numerator was the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the number of MII oocytes retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.04|0.72|0.13
95893558|NCT02310919|191741585|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in oocyte maturity rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.05|0.90|0.47
95893559|NCT02310919|191741586|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||0.97|0.76|0.01
95893560|NCT02310919|191741587|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in ICSI fertilization rate retrieved between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.10|0.90|0.95
95893561|NCT02310919|191741588|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the percentage of high quality cleavage-stage embryos between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.12|0.81|0.52
95893562|NCT02310919|191741589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|log-binomial regression with GEE||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|||1.16|0.84|0.87
95893563|NCT02310919|191741590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.74||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Fisher Exact||The numerator was the probability of the outcome with the alternative trigger, and the denominator was the probability of the outcome with the standard trigger.|The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in livebirths in fresh transfers between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||1.74|0.59|1.0
95893564|NCT02310919|191741591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in bloating scores from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.98
95893565|NCT02310919|191741592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in abdominal circumference from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.39
95893566|NCT02310919|191741593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the change in body weight from day of baseline ultrasound to post-trigger day 5 between the patients triggered with low dose hCG plus FSH co-trigger and the standard hCG trigger.||||0.41
95893567|NCT02310919|191741594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893568|NCT02310919|191741595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893569|NCT02310919|191741596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95893570|NCT02310919|191741597|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893571|NCT02310919|191741598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95893572|NCT02310919|191741599|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893573|NCT02310919|191741600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893574|NCT02310919|191741601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95974068|NCT03035201|191921639|EQUIVALENCE|two-sided|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts: cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Cocoa flavonal minus placebo|Unadjusted 2-tailed test||0.09|-0.04|0.41
95974069|NCT03035201|191921640|EQUIVALENCE|2 sided test, multivitamin minus placebo|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|2-sided test, unadjusted||0.11|0.01|0.02
95974070|NCT03035201|191921641|EQUIVALENCE|2-sided, unadjusted|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.126||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison of linear contrasts|Multivitamin minus placebo|Multivitamin minus placebo||0.126|0.002|0.04
95893575|NCT02310919|191741602|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893576|NCT02310919|191741603|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893577|NCT02310919|191741604|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893578|NCT02310919|191741605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95893579|NCT02310919|191741606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893580|NCT02310919|191741607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95893581|NCT02310919|191741608|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95893582|NCT02310919|191741609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95893583|NCT02310919|191741610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The statistical significance was based on a two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95893584|NCT03244865|191741611|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be verified if the RMSE between the two systems is within 7 BPM. A complete power analysis was not included as this is a pilot study.|||||<|0.1||||||Pilot Study|t-test, 2 sided|||There is only one ARM in the study. Standard monitoring and LaborView monitoring will be collected simultaneously and analyzed.||||<.1
95893585|NCT03336216|191741623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.19|1.82||||||||1.82|1.19|
95893586|NCT03336216|191741623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.77|1.3||||||||1.30|0.77|
95893587|NCT03336216|191741623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|0.6|1.03||||||||1.03|0.60|
95893588|NCT03336216|191741624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|60.0|1.33|2.02||||||||2.02|1.33|
95893589|NCT03336216|191741624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||||60.0|0.87|1.46||||||||1.46|0.87|
95893590|NCT03336216|191741624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||||60.0|0.55|0.94||||||||0.94|0.55|
95893591|NCT03336216|191741627|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.8||||0.6537||95.0|-5.5|9.0||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||9.0|-5.5|0.6537
95893592|NCT03336216|191741627|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|12.5||||0.0951||95.0|3.1|21.9||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||21.9|3.1|0.0951
95893593|NCT03336216|191741627|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|5.0||||0.5171||95.0|-8.0|18.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||18.1|-8.0|0.5171
95893594|NCT03336216|191741628|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|-0.8||||0.8505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|7.7||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||7.7|-9.4|0.8505
95893595|NCT03336216|191741628|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|1.5||||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|12.8||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.8|-9.9|0.8144
95893596|NCT03336216|191741628|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference|0.7||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|12.1||Stratified CMH test stratified by ECOG and prior chemotherapy.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method of weighting|||12.1|-10.7|0.9087
95893597|NCT03336216|191741631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.96|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.96|0.76|
95893598|NCT03336216|191741631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.86|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.86|0.59|
95893599|NCT03336216|191741631|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.46|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model by ECOG and type of prior chemotherapy|||1.46|0.45|
95893600|NCT01023581|191741658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.37||For each set of comparisons in the primary analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected only if both comparisons between a combination and its constituent doses were statistically significant at the 2-sided 2.5% level.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary efficacy analysis consisted of 2 separate sets of comparisons between each BID combination of alogliptin and metformin (alogliptin/metformin 12.5/500 mg BID and 12.5/1000 mg BID) and its constituent doses of alogliptin and metformin. The null hypothesis was that the combination of alogliptin and metformin had no additional effect on glycemic control at Week 26 either when compared with the constituent dose of alogliptin or with the constituent dose of metformin.||-0.37|-0.96|<0.001
95893601|NCT01023581|191741658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||||-0.27|-0.87|<0.001
95893602|NCT01023581|191741658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.71|-1.29|<0.001
95893603|NCT01023581|191741658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment and geographic region as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||||-0.16|-0.73|<0.001
95893604|NCT01046682|191741713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Using data from a different population, ie, patients with peripheral artery disease, and a different intervention, ie, omega-3 fatty acids, 15 participants were needed per group to achieve 80% power to detect a difference in means of -3.6% (the difference between the control group mean of -0.3% and a treatment group mean of 3.3%) assuming a common standard deviation of 3.3 using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. 5 patients added to each arm in case nonparametric.||||<0.05
95893605|NCT02864251|191741774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.0||Log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression (\>= 1% vs \<1%/indeterminate/not evaluable), brain metastases (presence vs absence), smoking history (current/former vs never smoker), and prior osimertinib use (yes vs no) from IRT.|Log Rank||Arm A over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.00|0.56|0.0528
95893606|NCT02864251|191741774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.99|||||Arm B over Arm C Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||2.99|1.43|
95893607|NCT02864251|191741775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (Arm A over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.12|0.62|0.2180
95893608|NCT02864251|191741775|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||||Hazard Ratio (Arm B over Arm C) is based on a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||1.52|0.75|
95893609|NCT02864251|191741776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.16|||||Strata adjusted odds ratio (Arm A over Arm C) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||2.16|0.75|
95893610|NCT01232920|191741780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
95893611|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|1.535||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95.||1.535|0.109|
95893612|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.282||||||Univariate Cox regression: Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.282|0.430|
95893613|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|2.425||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-MET.||2.425|0.306|
95893614|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.453||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker PTEN.||1.453|0.164|
95893615|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|3.16||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||3.160|0.377|
95893616|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|4.132||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||4.132|0.409|
95893617|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|6.197||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||6.197|0.226|
95893618|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|10.47||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||10.470|0.378|
95893619|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
95974071|NCT02390050|191921642|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
95974072|NCT02390050|191921642|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
95974073|NCT02390050|191921642|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
95893620|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
95974074|NCT02390050|191921643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 5 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.3|0.8|0.1308
95974075|NCT02390050|191921643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 10 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||5.1|0.8|0.1294
95974076|NCT02390050|191921643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.3|||Regression, Logistic|Treatment, country, baseline HbA1c and prior anti-diabetic treatment status as predictor variables and a dependable variable of 1 (\<7%) or 0 (\>7%).||Odds ratio of having at least 1 post-baseline HbA1c value \<7% in the 20 mg bexagliflozin group was compared to placebo group.||10.3|1.7|0.0015
95974077|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.36||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-1.13|
95974078|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.38||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.38|-1.15|
95974079|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.61||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.61|-1.38|
95974080|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.52||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.52|-1.53|
95893621|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.743|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|6.72||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||6.720|0.082|
95893622|NCT00885755|191741784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|4.199||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.199|0.274|
95893623|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.79||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER2.||1.790|0.120|
95893624|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.394|3.518||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \<median / ≥median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||3.518|0.394|
95893625|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|2.514||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker c-met.||2.514|0.268|
95893626|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.183|1.768||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the marker PTEN.||1.768|0.183|
95893627|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|2.733||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Membrane H-Score: \< median / ≥median) for the biomarker HER2.||2.733|0.242|
95893628|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|3.632||||||Univariate Cox regressionHazard ratio (Mutation Status: Wild type / Mutation) for the biomarker PI3K amino acids.||3.632|0.337|
95893629|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|5.336||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||5.336|0.172|
95893630|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.666|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|9.305||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: FF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||9.305|0.298|
95893631|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.732|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|12.783||||||Hazard ratio (Phenotype: VF / VV) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||12.783|0.235|
95893632|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|4.968||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / HR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||4.968|0.067|
95893633|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.956|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|9.319||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HH / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||9.319|0.098|
95893634|NCT00885755|191741787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.292|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|5.64||||||Univariate Cox regression Hazard ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H.||5.640|0.296|
95893635|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.641||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Positive / Negative) for the biomarker p95 HER 2.||0.641|0.001|
95893636|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.208|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.6||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\<median) for the biomarker IGF1R.||2.600|0.017|
95974081|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.94||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.94|-1.95|
95974082|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.01||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.01|-2.01|
95893637|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.143|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|27.103||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥ median /\<median) for the biomarker c-MET.||27.103|0.169|
95893638|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|23.396||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Cytoplasm H-Score: ≥ median /\< median) for the biomarker PTEN.||23.396|0.150|
95893639|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|8.075||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Membrane H-Score: ≥median /\< median) for the biomarker HER2.||8.075|0.091|
95893640|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.148|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|1.9||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (PI3K mutation status: WT versus M) for the biomarker PI3K Amino Acids.||1.900|0.012|
95893641|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|18.915||||||Univariate logistic regressionOdds ratio (Phenotype: FF / VF) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIIa F176V.||18.915|0.053|
95893642|NCT00885755|191741795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.945||||||Univariate logistic regression Odds ratio (Phenotype: HR / RR) for the biomarker FC Gamma Receptor IIa R166H||1.945|0.004|
95893643|NCT00755131|191741822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size determination was based on a t-test assuming a normal distribution with non-equal variance with the mean and standard deviation for the experimental group (postinfarction patients) of HMGB1 levels equal to 15 ± 7 and 2 ± 1 ng/dl for the control group derived from a previous study, respectively. The required sample size was calculated to be 30 subjects per group to detect on the size of one SD with α value of 0.05 (two-sided) and power (1 - β) of 0.8.||||<0.05
95893644|NCT00755131|191741823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95893645|NCT00755131|191741824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95893646|NCT02424383|191741832|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from Target LesionRevascularization (TLR) were reported through 12 months with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. In addition, Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were created.|||
95893647|NCT02424383|191741833|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Freedom from composite of safety events from the time following the index procedure through 30 days post procedure were reported with frequency counts, percentages and 95% confidence intervals from exact binomial test. Kaplan-Meier tables and curves were also calculated.|||
95893648|NCT04649164|191741861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests comparing peer mentors' baseline and 16-week scores, and caregiver mentees' baseline and 16-week scores, respectively||||0.36
95893649|NCT04649164|191741863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95893650|NCT04649164|191741864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95893651|NCT04649164|191741865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95893652|NCT04649164|191741868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95893653|NCT01549964|191741872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.34||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.34|-0.77|<0.001
95893654|NCT01549964|191741872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.49||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.49|0.15|<0.001
95893655|NCT01549964|191741872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-0.60|-1.03|<0.001
95893656|NCT01549964|191741872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||0.23|-0.12|0.524
95893657|NCT01549964|191741873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.08||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.08|1.00|0.050
95893658|NCT01549964|191741873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.67||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.23|<0.001
95893659|NCT01549964|191741873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|11.42||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.42|2.24|<0.001
95893660|NCT01549964|191741873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39||P-Value was obtained from a logistic model with treatment, schedule, baseline HbA1c as explanatory variables.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.50|0.493
95893661|NCT01549964|191741874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-16.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-16.6|-33.8|<0.001
95893662|NCT01549964|191741874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.7||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||1.7|-12.0|0.142
95893663|NCT01549964|191741874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.001
95893664|NCT01549964|191741874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|-4.2||MMRM model with treatment, country, schedule, visit and visit by treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates with an unstructured covariance structure.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|||||-4.2|-18.1|0.002
95893665|NCT02439320|191741908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.0|1.6|<0.001
95893666|NCT02439320|191741908|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.6|2.0|<0.001
95893667|NCT02439320|191741909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.2|1.3|<0.001
95893668|NCT02439320|191741909|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.1|1.3|<0.001
95893669|NCT02439320|191741910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.1|1.8|<0.001
95893670|NCT02439320|191741910|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.3|1.9|<0.001
95893671|NCT02439320|191741911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.8|1.1|=0.029
95893672|NCT02439320|191741911|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.4|1.3|=0.002
95893673|NCT02439320|191741912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.5|0.3|<0.001
95893674|NCT02439320|191741912|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.4|0.2|<0.001
95893675|NCT02439320|191741913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.1|0.5|0.120
95893676|NCT02439320|191741913|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.035
95893677|NCT02439320|191741915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.386
95893678|NCT02439320|191741915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.9|0.470
95893679|NCT02439320|191741916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|1.1|0.006
95893680|NCT02439320|191741916|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|1.0|0.037
95893681|NCT02439320|191741917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.4|1.5|<0.001
95893682|NCT02439320|191741917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||02.2|1.4|<0.001
95893683|NCT02245841|191741920|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||< .001
95893684|NCT02245841|191741921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
95893685|NCT02245841|191741922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.002
95893686|NCT02245841|191741923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||0.050
95893687|NCT02245841|191741924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Analysis performed was two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test. Median differences with interquartile range are reported in outcome measure data.||||<0.001
95893688|NCT03343483|191741928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.93|-2.21|.896
95893689|NCT03343483|191741929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.80
95893690|NCT03343483|191741930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95893691|NCT03343483|191741931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.58
95893692|NCT03343483|191741932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.73
95893693|NCT03343483|191741933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
95893694|NCT01835743|191741934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.00005
95893695|NCT01835743|191741935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-test for two independent samples to compare the change in VAS scores across the evaluation period between the two procedure administration groups||||||<0.0001
95893696|NCT03144180|191741958|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.|Confidence Interval for a mean|49.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.459|82.571||||||||82.571|15.459|
95893697|NCT03144180|191741959|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.0295||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
95893698|NCT03144180|191741960|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided two-sample t-test with 80% power, an alpha of 0.05, and a common standard deviation of 14 seconds was used to determine the sample size.||||||0.403||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.403
95893699|NCT00117559|191741961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95893700|NCT02449174|191741962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8958|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.8958
95893701|NCT02449174|191741963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.2059
95893702|NCT01154218|191742057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|99.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.49|108.33||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.33|91.49|
95893703|NCT01154218|191742057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|106.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|116.35||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||116.35|98.26|
95893704|NCT01154218|191742057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|85.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.88|93.25||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.25|78.88|
95893705|NCT01154218|191742058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|108.66||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.66|91.30|
95893706|NCT01154218|191742058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|107.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.58|117.35||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||117.35|98.58|
95893707|NCT01154218|191742058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|85.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.45|93.22||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||93.22|78.45|
95893708|NCT01154218|191742061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|106.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.55|118.51||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||118.51|96.55|
95893709|NCT01154218|191742061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|111.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.47|123.33||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||123.33|100.47|
95893710|NCT01154218|191742061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|86.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.89|95.43||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of crizotinib was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||95.43|77.89|
95893711|NCT01154218|191742064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.16|110.97||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.97|90.16|
95893712|NCT01154218|191742064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.11|120.77||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.77|98.11|
95893713|NCT01154218|191742064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|74.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.55|82.98||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||82.98|67.55|
95893714|NCT01154218|191742065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|100.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|110.73||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.73|90.46|
95893715|NCT01154218|191742065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.03|120.02||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||120.02|98.03|
95893716|NCT01154218|191742065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|76.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.23|84.74||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||84.74|69.23|
95893717|NCT01154218|191742066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.84|112.31||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||112.31|92.84|
95893718|NCT01154218|191742066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.98|119.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.75|98.98|
95893719|NCT01154218|191742066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted means|71.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.46|79.05||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-06260182 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||79.05|65.46|
95893720|NCT02188589|191742111|EQUIVALENCE|The difference between the mean baseline and mean follow-up NOSE scores was evaluated by paired t-test with significance indicated by p\<0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95893721|NCT00323492|191742129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.034||95.0|-0.86|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were applied.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.86|0.034
95893722|NCT00323492|191742130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.031||95.0|-0.67|-0.03||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum text|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.03|-0.67|0.031
95893723|NCT00323492|191742131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.009||95.0|-0.18|-0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.02|-0.18|0.009
95893724|NCT00323492|191742132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wicoxon Rank Sum test|no adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||-0.27|-1.01|< 0.001
95893725|NCT00323492|191742133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.51||95.0|-0.44|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.19|-0.44|0.51
95893726|NCT00323492|191742134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.79||95.0|-0.03|0.02||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.|Difference is for Truvada minus Maintain Baseline Regimen. The non-parametric estimate of the difference between groups (Hodges-Lehmann) and its 95% confidence intervals (Moses) are provided.|Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||0.02|-0.03|0.79
95974083|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.76||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.76|-2.12|< 0.0001
95974084|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.91||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.91|-2.26|< 0.0001
95974085|NCT02390050|191921644|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.08||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline weight as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in body weight from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-1.08|-2.43|< 0.0001
95974086|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.06|-0.90|
95974087|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.48||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.31|
95974088|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.62||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.62|-1.45|
95974089|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.48||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.48|-1.39|
95974090|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.72||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.72|-1.62|
95974091|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|-0.65||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.65|-1.55|
95974092|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.41||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.41|-1.29|0.0002
95974093|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.6||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.60|-1.49|< 0.0001
95974094|NCT02390050|191921645|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.63||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline FPG as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in FPG from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.63|-1.52|< 0.0001
95974095|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.51||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||3.51|-3.90|
95974096|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.28||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.28|-6.09|
95974097|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-0.58||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.58|-7.93|
95974098|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.13||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.13|-2.50|
95974099|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.56||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.56|-4.03|
95974100|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|0.14||||||Week 2: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.14|-4.45|
95974101|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.9||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.90|-4.57|
95974102|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|0.34||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||0.34|-7.12|
95893727|NCT00323492|191742135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.86
95893728|NCT00323492|191742137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: changes from baseline in the two treatment groups are different (two sided).||||0.65
95893729|NCT00323492|191742138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.11
95893730|NCT00323492|191742138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: no indication of shift from 0 in distribution of change from baseline. Alternative Hypothesis: shift from 0 is observed in distribution of change from baseline.||||0.34
95893731|NCT00323492|191742139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||No adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|No adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: treatment is not associated with the observed virologic response. Alternative Hypothesis: treatment is associated with the observed virologic response||||1.00
95893732|NCT01466387|191742153|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC TF+YF+MenACWY-CRM/GMC TF+YF.|Ratio of GMC|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.6|0.81|
95893733|NCT01466387|191742154|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT TF+YF+MenACWY/GMT TF+YF.|Ratio of GMT.|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.41||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 29) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between one dose of typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to typhoid Vi polysaccharide and yellow fever vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.41|0.65|
95893734|NCT01466387|191742155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMT JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMT JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and centers as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean titers between the second dose of Japanese Encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese Encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.16|0.7|
95893735|NCT01466387|191742156|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|GMC JE + Rab + MenACWY-CRM/GMC JE + Rab.|Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity (postvaccination, day 57) was that the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI around the observed ratio of geometric mean concentrations between the second dose of Japanese encephalitis and third dose of rabies virus vaccines given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM197 to Japanese encephalitis and rabies virus vaccines given alone was greater than 0.5.||1.17|0.71|
95893736|NCT03011307|191742181|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in score on a scale|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.2|0|0.75
95893737|NCT03011307|191742182|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||0.2|0.0|0.057
95974103|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.2||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.20|-6.21|
95893738|NCT03011307|191742183|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference in Daily Steps|-402.0||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|553.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||553|-1358|0.41
95893739|NCT03011307|191742184|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|344.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|173.0|515.0||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Slope Difference|||"The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.~The slope is the number of daily steps divided by the natural log of time in days."||515|173|<0.001
95893740|NCT03011307|191742185|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Intercept Difference: score on a scale|-5.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-2.3||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline World Health Organization Disability Assessment Score 2.0 value, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-2.3|-9.5|0.002
95893741|NCT03011307|191742186|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference|1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||2.4|0.6|0.001
95893742|NCT03011307|191742187|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00035||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00085|0.0015||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Intercept difference: Opioid probability|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||.0015|-.00085|0.537
95893743|NCT03011307|191742188|SUPERIORITY|A likelihood-ratio test for change in pain was conducted for each outcome comparing a model with and without oxytocin treatment group. A statistically significant result is interpreted as evidence to support that the oxytocin treatment impacts some element of change after surgery (i.e, intercept or slope).|Slope Difference: Opioid probability|-0.166||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|-0.16||P value not adjusted for multiple comparisons, with threshold of statistical significance set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||The estimates were conducted using a linear mixed effects model contrasting differences in the oxytocin group versus placebo. In all cases, these differences are adjusted for prognostic variables including baseline pain, baseline opioid use, age, sex, baseline PROMIS depression and number of other painful conditions.||-0.160|-0.172|0.010
95893744|NCT03011307|191742189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Scores were compared statistically at baseline and 2 months between groups using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||.55
95893745|NCT03011307|191742190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared over time from baseline to 2 months using a generalized linear model with time as a fixed factor.||||0.46
95893746|NCT03011307|191742191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Groups were compared between preoperative and 2 month postoperative sessions using linear regression with time as a fixed factor.||||0.38
95893747|NCT00567892|191742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|4.0||All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|Since the assumptions of parametric tests were not met we used non-parametric tests for the analysis.||The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to rTMS sham was not different from 0.||4|-6|0.944
95893748|NCT00567892|191742215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|The assumptions of parametric tests were not met.|All statistical tests were two-sided and were evaluated at the α = 0.05 level of significance.|The null hypothesis for this study was the difference between the change in THI score due to 4 weeks active rTMS treatment and the change in THI score due to 4 weeks rTMS sham was not different from 0.||10|-9|0.674
95893749|NCT04254978|191742220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact binomial distribution|||Comparison of the true response rate of bomedemstat to a fixed efficacy target of 5%: Null hypothesis (H0): p ≤ 0.05 versus alternate hypothesis (H1): p \> 0.05||||<.0001
95974104|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.66||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||2.66|-2.15|
95893750|NCT00380393|191742237|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|52.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|69.1|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||69.1|28.1|<0.001
95893751|NCT00380393|191742237|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|55.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|70.4|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum||70.4|31.4|<0.001
95893752|NCT00380393|191742238|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|70.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||70.0|31.2|<0.001
95974105|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|1.38||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.38|-3.42|
95974106|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.54||||||Week 6: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||1.54|-3.22|
95974107|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.16||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|1.94||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||1.94|-6.26|0.3001
95974108|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-4.41||||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-0.33||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.33|-8.49|0.0343
95974109|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.83||||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|0.28|||ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in SBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.28|-7.95|0.0679
95974110|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.24||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.25||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.25|-4.73|0.0776
95974111|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.47||||0.2415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|1.0||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||1.00|-3.95|0.2415
95974112|NCT02390050|191921646|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.04||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|0.46||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline SBP as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS mean change in DBP from baseline to week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||0.46|-4.54|0.1086
95974113|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||0.03|-0.20|
95974114|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
95974115|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.02||||||Week 2: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 2 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.02|-0.24|
95974116|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.28||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.28|-0.62|
95974117|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.32||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.32|-0.66|
95974118|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.36||||||Week 6: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 6 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.36|-0.70|
95974119|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.34||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 5 mg group and Placebo group||-0.34|-0.76|< 0.0001
95974120|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.47||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 10 mg group and Placebo group||-0.47|-0.89|< 0.0001
95974121|NCT02390050|191921647|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.59||P-value from Type III F-test|ANCOVA|Study center, treatment, visit and a treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; prior anti-diabetic treatment and baseline HbA1c as covariates||Week 12: Difference in LS Mean change in HbA1c (%) from baseline to Week 12 was obtained by comparing Bexagliflozin 20 mg group and Placebo group||-0.59|-1.01|< 0.0001
95974122|NCT01912456|191921657|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95974123|NCT01912456|191921657|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95893753|NCT00380393|191742238|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|56.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.2|71.2|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area or distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.2|34.2|<0.001
95974124|NCT01912456|191921657|OTHER||||||=|0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.114
95974125|NCT01912456|191921658|OTHER||difference in percentages of responder|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.7||||||||29.7|-2.8|
95974126|NCT01912456|191921659|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.001
95974127|NCT01912456|191921659|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.018
95974128|NCT01912456|191921659|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= 0.31
95974129|NCT00231153|191921665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|2.25||||0.082||95.0|-0.3|4.81||The primary null hypothesis was tested using the CMH chi-square test stratified region: North America or Europe. Alpha for this test will be 0.05, tow-tailed. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Adequate power was provided to test the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between treatment groups for LCSI. Overall LCSI rate was assumed to be approx. 7.5%, with reduction of LCSI by 40% with omiganan. LCSI rates in placebo and omiganan groups would be 9.375% and 5.625%. Sample size of 1548 in MITT set would provide 80% power to detect this difference between treatments. Sample size was also increased by 19% to account for deaths, for total of 1850 planned patients.||4.81|-0.30|0.082
95974130|NCT00231153|191921666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|3.67||||0.002||95.0|1.4|5.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.93|1.40|0.002
95974131|NCT00231153|191921667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Net percentage difference|11.4|||<|0.001||95.0|6.7|16.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.11|6.70|<0.001
95974132|NCT00604279|191921679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predetermined margin for non-inferiority of paliperidone palmitate was 5.5 points|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||||95.0|-5.2|0.63|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.63|-5.20|
95974133|NCT00604279|191921680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||||95.0|-2.14|3.12|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||3.12|-2.14|
95974134|NCT00604279|191921681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||||95.0|-0.33|0.1|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||||0.10|-0.33|
95974135|NCT00604279|191921682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||||95.0|-0.67|7.5|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Quality of sleep||7.50|-0.67|
95974136|NCT00604279|191921682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-5.04|2.9|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor, and baseline value as a covariate was used.||Statistical Analysis for Daytime drowsiness||2.90|-5.04|
95974137|NCT00604279|191921683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate of relative risk|0.9||||||95.0|0.81|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.81|
95974138|NCT00596427|191921698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared.||||<0.01
95974139|NCT00596427|191921699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups was compared.||||<0.001
95974140|NCT00596427|191921700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|This model had fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and a random subject effect.||Comparison of change from baseline between groups (treatment effect)||||<0.1
95974141|NCT00596427|191921701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.01
95974142|NCT00596427|191921702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.05
95974143|NCT00596427|191921703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Change from baseline between groups were compared (treatment effect)||||<0.1
95974144|NCT00596427|191921704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.05
95974145|NCT00596427|191921705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||0.6
95974146|NCT00596427|191921706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||0.3
95974147|NCT00596427|191921707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.0001
95974148|NCT00596427|191921708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||Treatment effect of change from baseline||||<0.01
95974149|NCT00596427|191921709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1||95.0|||||mixed-effects regression models|||||||<0.1
95974150|NCT00320541|191921710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0||||Statistical significance at 0.05 level was required.|Fisher Exact|||Assuming the response rate for the PB arm is 34% and the addition of gemcitabine will improve it to 54%, then a sample size of 170 evaluable participants (85 per arm) will give an 80% statistical power to detect the difference, using a 1-sided test at the significance level of 0.05. Confidence levels are exact binomial 95% Confidence Intervals.||||0.117
95974151|NCT00320541|191921711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.247
95974152|NCT00320541|191921712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
95974153|NCT00320541|191921713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.010
95974154|NCT00320541|191921714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.119
95974155|NCT00320541|191921715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.023
95974156|NCT00320541|191921716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.002
95974157|NCT00320541|191921717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.004
95974158|NCT00320541|191921718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.067
95974159|NCT00320541|191921719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment arm and baseline assessment.||||||0.036
95974160|NCT04281004|191921722|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95893754|NCT00380393|191742239|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|55.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|71.7|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||71.7|31.0|0.0003
95893755|NCT00380393|191742239|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.3|<0.001
95893756|NCT00380393|191742240|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|73.0|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.0|34.8|<0.001
95893757|NCT00380393|191742240|OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|59.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|73.9|||Regression, Cox||Point estimate of VE was not adjusted for site, age, bednet use, area and distance from health center.|Vaccine efficacy against P. falciparum.||73.9|37.1|<0.001
95893758|NCT01536496|191742272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-square test||||0.04
95893759|NCT00159588|191742287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||Between-group analysis|Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.056
95893760|NCT00159588|191742288|SUPERIORITY|Between-group analysis||||||0.012||||||Between-group analysis|t-test, 2 sided|Kruskal-Wallis test||Kruskal-Wallis test||||0.012
95893761|NCT03865329|191742293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95893762|NCT03865329|191742294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95893763|NCT03865329|191742296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95893764|NCT03865329|191742297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95893765|NCT00265616|191742303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95893766|NCT00265616|191742304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.67
95893767|NCT00265616|191742305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95893768|NCT00265616|191742307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
95893769|NCT00265616|191742308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95893770|NCT02596854|191742335|NON_INFERIORITY|α=0.025 with a margin of Δ=0.5 were used for non-inferiority testing|Median Difference (Net)|-0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3522|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|-0.269||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Notably, no separate comparative statistical analysis was performed for the 1.5T and 3.0T subgroups, which were pooled for analysis. All patients underwent both synthetic MR and commercial conventional MR in a single arm.|Non-inferiority of synthetic MR versus conventional commercial MR the hypothesis can be stated as H0: S ≤ -Δ and HA: S \> -Δ.|To mitigate possible bias, the hypothesis test was executed via pre-programmed SAS module, which does not show the data for individual synthetic and conventional group values. The data for these individual groups is thus not currently available as part of the study report held by the sponsor or submitted to FDA. Thus, this data cannot be presented without additional analysis (re-programming) of the original SAS used to perform the study. Data were only reported as the difference between synthetic - conventional to determine non-inferiority, and data for individual crossovers (synthetic vs. conventional) were not calculated.The raw conventional scan images and those post-processed with the research software were combined as pre-specified in the study protocol|-0.269|-0.428|<0.001
95893771|NCT03314584|191742362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=21.662, df = 1||||||<0.000
95893772|NCT03314584|191742363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=5.624, df=1||||||0.004
95893773|NCT03314584|191742364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=3.092, df=1||||||0.046
95893774|NCT03314584|191742365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.022, df=1||||||0.018
95893775|NCT03314584|191742366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.279, df=1||||||0.598
95893776|NCT03314584|191742367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.101, df=1||||||0.296
95893777|NCT03314584|191742368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.672, df = 1||||||0.033
95893778|NCT03314584|191742369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=0.268, df=1||||||0.606
95893779|NCT03314584|191742370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.142, df=1||||||0.287
95893780|NCT03314584|191742371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=4.039, df=1||||||0.049
95893781|NCT03314584|191742372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F=1.084, df=1||||||0.338
95893782|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.35|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.35|0.96|0.1351
95893783|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.41|1.01|0.0383
95893784|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.43|1.02|0.0325
95893785|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.68|||ANOVA|||CREM; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.68|1.20|<0.0001
95893786|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.82|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.82|1.16|0.0015
95893787|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.93|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.93|1.24|0.0002
95893788|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.17|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.17|1.38|<0.0001
95893789|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.18|||ANOVA|||DUSP1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.18|1.40|<0.0001
95893790|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.81|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.81|1.22|0.0001
95893791|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.85|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.85|1.25|<0.0001
95893792|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.05|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.05|1.38|<0.0001
95893793|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.89|||ANOVA|||FOSL2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.89|1.28|<0.0001
95893794|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.07|1.16|0.0034
95893795|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.07|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.07|1.17|0.0029
95974161|NCT04281004|191921723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.869
95974162|NCT04281004|191921724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.007
95974163|NCT04281004|191921724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.953
95974164|NCT04281004|191921724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.841
95974165|NCT04281004|191921724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.137
95893796|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.33|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||2.33|1.30|0.0003
95893797|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.08|||ANOVA|||IRS2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||2.08|1.17|0.0027
95974166|NCT04281004|191921725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.614
95974167|NCT04281004|191921726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.594
95974168|NCT04281004|191921727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.663
95974169|NCT04281004|191921727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.416
95974170|NCT04281004|191921727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.890
95974171|NCT04281004|191921727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Clustered version of the Wilcoxon test||||||0.192
95974172|NCT04281004|191921728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 1.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.057
95974173|NCT04281004|191921728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.528||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 3.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.528
95974174|NCT04281004|191921728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.210
95974175|NCT04281004|191921728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||Significance of treatment effect at month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model analysis is used to account for correlation between eyes in the same participant.||||||0.853
95974176|NCT03794908|191921795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|10.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at mid-treatment.||10.64|-3.03|0.28
95974177|NCT03794908|191921795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|The comparison was done using a mixed model with assessments at 3 time points (pre-treatment, mid-treatment, and end of treatment).||Test of between-arm difference at end of treatment.||11.40|-2.44|0.21
95974178|NCT03645057|191921800|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.433
95974179|NCT03645057|191921801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.836|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.836
95974180|NCT03645057|191921802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.073
95974181|NCT03645057|191921803|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.989
95974182|NCT03645057|191921804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.565|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.565
95974183|NCT03645057|191921805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.479
95974184|NCT03645057|191921806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.577|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.577
95974185|NCT03645057|191921807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.439
95974186|NCT03645057|191921808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.242
95974187|NCT00084266|191921819|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The final p-value was compared against an O'Brien-Fleming boundary of 0.048.||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-squared test was used to calculate p-value. P-value was calculated for participants with clinical outcome as cure."||||0.042
95893798|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.34|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||2.34|1.01|0.0448
95893799|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.83|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||2.83|1.24|0.0033
95893800|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.3|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||3.30|1.42|0.0004
95893801|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.001||95.0|1.34|3.08|||ANOVA|||NR4A2; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||3.08|1.34|0.0010
95893802|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.8718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.43|0.74|0.8718
95893803|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.63|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.63|0.86|0.3078
95893804|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.66|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.66|0.86|0.2909
95893805|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.91|||ANOVA|||PDE4A; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.91|0.99|0.0539
95893806|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.7393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.54|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||1.54|0.74|0.7393
95893807|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.74|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||1.74|0.84|0.2967
95893808|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.98|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||1.98|0.95|0.0934
95893809|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||1.97|0.95|0.0919
95893810|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|3.51|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg||3.51|2.11|<0.0001
95893811|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|3.9|||ANOVA|||SNF1LK; Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg||3.90|2.37|<0.0001
95893812|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|4.23|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg||4.23|2.54|<0.0001
95893813|NCT00464568|191742410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratios|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.59|4.27|||ANOVA|||RGS1; Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg||4.27|2.59|<0.0001
95893814|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.5545|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.79598||0.647226|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model|||Placebo vs GSK256066 1 mcg: VASP||||0.647226
95893815|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-0.3816|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.00754||0.95084|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: VASP||||0.95084
95893816|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.0256|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.24118||0.53499|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 50 mcg: VASP||||0.53499
95893817|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.3371|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5459||0.81527|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: VASP||||0.81527
95893818|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-2.8053|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88217||0.32998|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo Vs GSK256066 1 mcg: pVASP||||0.32998
95893819|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.6602|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.30724||0.65729|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 10 mcg: pVASP||||0.65729
95893820|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|0.156|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73976||0.89831|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 50 mcg: pVASP||||0.89831
95893821|NCT00464568|191742425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean treatment difference|-1.5165|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.70748||0.84479|||||||Mixed effects analysis of variance model||The mean treatment difference was calculated as treatment minus placebo|Placebo vs GSK256066 200 mcg: pVASP||||0.84479
95893822|NCT02255981|191742431|OTHER|Non-inferiority could be considered if the outcomes were comparable to the most known studies yet published or, in the case of non-treatable disorder, if the acupuncture treatment got to maintain the VA and prevent the losses. There are many known studies with conventional treatment and estimations of the worsening of vision in this pathologies on the time without treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.392|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Using the SPSS program and the non-parametrical technic of Wilcoxon it was determined the p-value.~It should be noted that the null hypothesis is that all these eyes should have a zero gain or perhaps a loss in VA at two years of follow-up."|t-test, 1 sided|From this estimation, it is induced that there are differences in results before and after the treatment.|The datum corresponds to the difference in letters seen between exams at the start and the final examination for all participants. Calculi were made by a Microsoft Excel Descriptive Statistics program.|"Besides that it is of interest to compare with the published studies outcomes, realized with anti-VEGF treatments, and with the known expectations of AV lost without treatment, the data were converted in letters ETDRS chart and here are registered the mean number of letters gained or lost in each group.~Ho: Differences between mean measurements before and after are similar H1: Differences between mean measurements before and after are different."|The null hypothesis was no gain or loss in VA. The alternative hypothesis was stabilization or some gain in letters seen over the baseline count.The published studies report a small gain in VA in about a third of participants and only in cases of NV-AMD with conventional treatment, and an expectancy of loss of vision in the other non treated or non-treatable macular diseases. Some of the participants in this trial had had ocular injections without positive change. Non-inferiority in this trial means outcomes of similar magnitude to the known studies.|||<0.05
95893823|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 3: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893824|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893825|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0007|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 3 versus Month 6: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
95893826|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within-group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893827|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2531|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 6 versus Month 9: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2531
95893828|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||within group p-value|mixed effect model|||Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893829|NCT01480076|191742438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2299|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Difference of Month 9 versus Month 12: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2299
95893830|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893831|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5405|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5405
95893832|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893833|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893834|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7272
95893835|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893836|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893837|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7484|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7484
95893838|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893839|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893840|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1877|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1877
95893841|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893842|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893843|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5460
95893844|NCT01480076|191742439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline PCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893845|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893846|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9073|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9073
95893847|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
95893848|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893849|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5542|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5542
95893850|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893851|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893852|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5810
95893853|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0140
95893854|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893855|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4138
95893856|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
95893857|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893858|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6453|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6453
95974188|NCT00084266|191921831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.9344
95974189|NCT00084266|191921832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.5985
95893859|NCT01480076|191742440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MCS score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0090
95893860|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893861|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2475|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2475
95893862|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893863|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893864|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
95893865|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893866|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893867|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1262|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1262
95893868|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893869|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893870|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8858|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8858
95893871|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893872|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893873|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2111|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2111
95893874|NCT01480076|191742441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.0072|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0072
95893875|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893876|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5577|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5577
95974190|NCT00084266|191921833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Statistical comparison of survival analysis was performed.Log rank method was used to calculate p-value.||||0.8590
95974191|NCT01535014|191921834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95974192|NCT01535014|191921834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95974193|NCT01535014|191921834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
95974194|NCT01535014|191921835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95974195|NCT01535014|191921835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95974196|NCT01535014|191921836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95974197|NCT01535014|191921836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95974198|NCT01535014|191921837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 12, 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95974199|NCT01535014|191921837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||For week 16, 20, 24|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95974200|NCT01535014|191921838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95974201|NCT01535014|191921838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
95974202|NCT01535014|191921839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
95974203|NCT01535014|191921839|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.75
95974204|NCT01535014|191921840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.02
95974205|NCT01535014|191921840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Health Domain||||0.63
95974206|NCT01535014|191921840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.60
95974207|NCT01535014|191921840|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Health Domain||||0.98
95974208|NCT01215422|191921842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.15||||Regression, Logistic||||||0.15|>0.05
95974209|NCT01215422|191921843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||The p-value represents the comparison of the two interventions combined and compared against baseline for Grades III and IV summed together.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.03
95974210|NCT01215422|191921846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R-squared|0.16|||>|0.05||95.0||||Correlation between years of experience (all anesthesiologists, pooled) and time to intubation (both GS and KS VLSs, pooled)|Correlation|||||||>0.05
95974211|NCT02047643|191921877|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.45
95974212|NCT02047643|191921878|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided Fisher Exact test||||||.66
95974213|NCT02113241|191921884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
95974214|NCT02113241|191921884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.089
95974215|NCT02113241|191921885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.003
95893877|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893878|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893879|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9365|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9365
95893880|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893881|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893882|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2008
95893883|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.0102|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
95893884|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893885|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7134
95974216|NCT02113241|191921885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.248
95974217|NCT02113241|191921886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.161
95974218|NCT02113241|191921886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.079
95974219|NCT02113241|191921887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.067
95974220|NCT02113241|191921887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.918
95974221|NCT02113241|191921888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.128
95974222|NCT02113241|191921888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
95974223|NCT02113241|191921889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.433
95974224|NCT02113241|191921889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.407
95974225|NCT02113241|191921890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
95974226|NCT02113241|191921890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.826||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.826
95974227|NCT02113241|191921891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.791
95893886|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0066
95893887|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893888|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8202|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8202
95893889|NCT01480076|191742442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder status, visit by responder status interaction, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
95893890|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893891|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1324|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1324
95893892|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893893|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893894|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4759|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4759
95893895|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
95893896|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error||||<0.0001
95974228|NCT02113241|191921891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.413
95974229|NCT02113241|191921892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.075
95974230|NCT02113241|191921892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.432
95974231|NCT02113241|191921893|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
95974232|NCT02113241|191921893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.835
95974233|NCT02113241|191921894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
95974234|NCT02113241|191921894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.778
95974235|NCT02113241|191921895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.338
95974236|NCT02113241|191921895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.309
95974237|NCT02113241|191921896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.049
95893897|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2489
95893898|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0017
95893899|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893900|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0126|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0126
95893901|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95974238|NCT02113241|191921896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.563
95974239|NCT02113241|191921897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.850
95974240|NCT02113241|191921897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.206
95893902|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
95893903|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1758|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1758
95893904|NCT01480076|191742443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0246|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the total activity limitation score of PRIMUS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0246
95893905|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893906|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0111
95893907|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893908|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893909|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0970
95893910|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893911|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893912|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0789|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0789
95974241|NCT02113241|191921898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.006
95974242|NCT02113241|191921898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.950
95974243|NCT02113241|191921899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.011
95974244|NCT02113241|191921899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.454
95974245|NCT02113241|191921900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.652
95974246|NCT02113241|191921900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.055
95893913|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893914|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893915|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0284
95893916|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893917|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893918|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0108
95974247|NCT02113241|191921901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.254
95974248|NCT02113241|191921901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.787
95974249|NCT02113241|191921902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.129
95974250|NCT02113241|191921902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.365
95974251|NCT02113241|191921903|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||<0.001
95974252|NCT02113241|191921903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.175
95974253|NCT02113241|191921904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.392
95974254|NCT02113241|191921904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.123
95974255|NCT02113241|191921905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.176
95974256|NCT02113241|191921905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.268
95974257|NCT02113241|191921906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.064
95974258|NCT02113241|191921906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.462||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.462
95974259|NCT02113241|191921907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.346
95974260|NCT02113241|191921907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis between before and after the intervention||||0.002
95974261|NCT01209780|191921940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if for all three strains the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 10 percentage points.|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||2|-4|
95893919|NCT01480076|191742444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder Versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893920|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893921|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8392
95893922|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0162|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0162
95893923|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893924|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6956|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6956
95893925|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0042|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
95893926|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893927|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7949|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7949
95893928|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0679|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0679
95893929|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
95893930|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8053|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8053
95893931|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2638|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2638
95893932|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
95893933|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8502
95893934|NCT01480076|191742445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of current health state of EQ-5D scores, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0917
95893935|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1795|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1795
95893936|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0715|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0715
95893937|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.2065|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2065
95893938|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1649|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1649
95893939|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4894
95893940|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.8611|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8611
95893941|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0073
95893942|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1343|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1343
95893943|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.09||0.6468|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6468
95893944|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6441|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6441
95893945|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2176|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2176
95893946|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.91||0.2814|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2814
95893947|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7533|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7533
95893948|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0653|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0653
95893949|NCT01480076|191742446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0876|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0876
95893950|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0281
95893951|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
95893952|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3400
95893953|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0012
95893954|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7490
95893955|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.3592|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3592
95893956|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0015
95893957|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2967|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2967
95893958|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.8735|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8735
95893959|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1696|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1696
95893960|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0089
95974262|NCT01209780|191921940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|14.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||14|6|
95974263|NCT01209780|191921940|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV if, for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the difference between the seroconversion rates (Seroconversion control - Seroconversion investigational), at 21 days after last vaccination, does not exceed 10 percentage points|Vaccine group difference (%)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.0||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to the control TIV against B influenza strain||3|-5|
95893961|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.83||0.0297|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0297
95893962|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8806|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8806
95893963|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2170
95893964|NCT01480076|191742447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.2392|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage impairment while working due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2392
95893965|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
95893966|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1259|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
95893967|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.5312|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5312
95893968|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0022
95893969|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4968
95893970|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64||0.6283|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6283
95893971|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
95893972|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6631
95974264|NCT01209780|191921942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.56||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H1N1 influenza strain||1.56|1.11|
95893973|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.477|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4770
95893974|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4027
95893975|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1077|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1077
95893976|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98||0.1781|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1781
95893977|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2422|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2422
95893978|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0994|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0994
95893979|NCT01480076|191742448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.2194|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of percentage overall work impairment due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2194
95893980|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893981|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
95893982|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
95893983|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893984|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2777
95974265|NCT01209780|191921942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|1.64||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against A/H3N2 influenza strain||1.64|1.34|
95974266|NCT01209780|191921942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigational TIV was to be considered non-inferior to the control TIV, if for all three strains, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of the GMTs (GMTcontrol/GMTinvestigational) at 21 days after last vaccination does not exceed 1.5|Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07||||||Non-inferiority of investigational TIV to licensed control TIV against B influenza strain||1.07|0.85|
95893985|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
95893986|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893987|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1078|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1078
95893988|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87||0.0082|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0082
95893989|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893990|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1838
95893991|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||0.0364|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0364
95893992|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95893993|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1714
95893994|NCT01480076|191742449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.1259|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder versus Non-responder: Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, visit and responder group interaction, baseline of regular activity productivity loss due to MS, baseline EDSS score, MS disease type, age, gender, total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months and country as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1259
95893995|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95893996|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95893997|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95893998|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0004
95893999|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95974267|NCT02318797|191921951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||<0.0001
95894000|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894001|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894002|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0069
95894003|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894004|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894005|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
95894006|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0006
95894007|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894008|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894009|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894010|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
95894011|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894012|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894013|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0047
95894014|NCT01480076|191742450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0118|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline PCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0118
95894015|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894016|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894017|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894018|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1398|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1398
95894019|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894020|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894021|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894022|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0935|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0935
95894023|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894024|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894025|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894026|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0760
95894027|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894028|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0019
95894029|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0037
95894030|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2489|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2489
95894031|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894032|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
95894033|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0052
95894034|NCT01480076|191742451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7714|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MCS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7714
95894035|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894036|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894037|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894038|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894039|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894040|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894041|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894042|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894043|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894044|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894045|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894046|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894047|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894048|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894049|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894050|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0009
95894051|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894052|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894053|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
95894054|NCT01480076|191742452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
95894055|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894056|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894057|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894058|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
95974268|NCT02318797|191921951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.0019
95894059|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894060|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894061|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894062|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
95974269|NCT02318797|191921952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4103
95974270|NCT02318797|191921952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
95974271|NCT02318797|191921952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4068|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4068
95894063|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894064|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894065|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894066|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0097
95894067|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894068|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894069|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95974272|NCT02318797|191921952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2656|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.2656
95974273|NCT02318797|191921953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4582|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.4582
95974274|NCT02318797|191921953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
95974275|NCT02318797|191921953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.05
95974276|NCT02318797|191921953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1792|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.1792
95974277|NCT02318797|191921954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.2179
95974278|NCT02318797|191921954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time from baseline (only conducted if treatment by time interaction test non-significant)||||<0.0001
95974279|NCT02318797|191921954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4797|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment by time interaction||||0.4797
95974280|NCT02318797|191921954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for gender by treatment interaction (only calculated if gender by treatment by time non-significant)||||0.0014
95974281|NCT02318797|191921955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0058
95974282|NCT02318797|191921956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.0014
95974283|NCT02318797|191921957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0001
95974284|NCT02318797|191921958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5566|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment by time interaction test||||0.5566
95974285|NCT02318797|191921958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
95974286|NCT02318797|191921959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.002
95974287|NCT02318797|191921960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0029|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0029
95974288|NCT02318797|191921961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0021
95974289|NCT02318797|191921962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1183|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1183
95974290|NCT02318797|191921962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0569|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.0569
95974291|NCT02318797|191921963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0745|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0745
95974292|NCT02318797|191921963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||<0.0001
95974293|NCT02318797|191921964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1653|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.1653
95974294|NCT02318797|191921964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1772|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.1772
95974295|NCT02318797|191921965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||<0.0001
95974296|NCT02318797|191921966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0202|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.0202
95894070|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0103|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0103
95894071|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894072|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894073|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894074|NCT01480076|191742453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1227|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1227
95894075|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894076|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894077|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1754|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1754
95894078|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0192|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0192
95894079|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894080|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894081|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
95894082|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0157
95894083|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894084|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
95894085|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1012
95974297|NCT02318797|191921967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for treatment by time interaction||||0.4715
95974298|NCT02318797|191921967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9209|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test for change over time (only calculated if treatment by time interaction non-significant)||||0.9209
95894086|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0749
95894087|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894088|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0455
95894089|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4699|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4699
95894090|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0235|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0235
95894091|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894092|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1978
95894093|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1977|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1977
95894094|NCT01480076|191742454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the total ALS score, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2250
95894095|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894096|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894097|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894098|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0649|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0649
95894099|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894100|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894101|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894102|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
95894103|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894104|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894105|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
95894106|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1850
95894107|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894108|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894109|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894110|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0887|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
95894111|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894112|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894113|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0011
95894114|NCT01480076|191742455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1853|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1853
95974299|NCT03513588|191921980|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-31.28|-16.7|||ANCOVA|||||-16.70|-31.28|<0.001
95974300|NCT03513588|191921980|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-39.78|-27.47|||ANCOVA|||||-27.47|-39.78|<0.001
95974301|NCT01275131|191922003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.95||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.37|20.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 2/6||20.54|7.37|0.0009
95974302|NCT01275131|191922003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|18.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.55|24.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day was performed using a compound symmetric covariance matrix.||Comparison at Stage 1, Day 4/8||24.72|11.55|<0.0001
95894115|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894116|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0005
95894117|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
95894118|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
95894119|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894120|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894121|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0024
95894122|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0669|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0669
95894123|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0018
95894124|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
95894125|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0190
95894126|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0106
95894127|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0009
95974303|NCT01275131|191922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|16.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.86|20.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 2/7||20.97|11.86|<0.0001
95974304|NCT01275131|191922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.55|18.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 3/8||18.65|9.55|<0.0001
95974305|NCT01275131|191922005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.32||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|9.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, day, and interaction of treatment with day. A compound symmetric covariance matrix was assumed.||Comparison at Stage 3, Day 5/10||9.88|0.77|0.0552
95974306|NCT00705523|191922036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|beta=-0.67, exp(beta)=0.51, chi-squared(1) = 0.2.71||Self-reported drinking results, as gathered by the TLFB, were compared by the generalized estimating equations (GEE) (Diggle et al., 1994), using Poisson models for counts of drinking and heavy drinking days, and logistic regression models for absence/presence binary indicators of drinking. In the GEE model, the pre-treatment of the response was included as a covariate, together with the treatment group indicator, and a linear time effect.||||0.10
95894128|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1937
95974307|NCT02858349|191922091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.05|0.0042
95974308|NCT03581825|191922137|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens are greater than 40 points.|Least-Square Mean|56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|61.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||61.4|51.2|
95974309|NCT03581825|191922138|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control was concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference was above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least-Square Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.4|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||7.4|-0.5|
95974310|NCT00903682|191922139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The hypothesis is that the proportion of patients with at least 1 treatment-emergent Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse event, observed between Baseline through Week 12 and judged to be at least possibly drug-related, is significantly lower in the ETR arm than in the EFV arm. Assuming a significance level of 5%, a sample size of 75 subjects per arm would provide over 90% power to detect a 29% difference in treatment-emergent, drug-related Grade 1-4 neuropsychiatric adverse events.||||<0.001
95974311|NCT00903682|191922140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|15.23|||||Difference in proportion of response ETR minus EFV|||15.23|-12.00|
95974312|NCT00511901|191922155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95974313|NCT00511901|191922156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 3 weeks||||1.00
95974314|NCT00511901|191922156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3||||0.17||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 8 weeks||||0.17
95974315|NCT00511901|191922156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.59||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM at 12 weeks||||0.59
95974316|NCT00511901|191922157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95974317|NCT00511901|191922158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 3 weeks||||0.66
95974318|NCT00511901|191922158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 8 weeks||||1.00
95974319|NCT00511901|191922158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.53||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Grip strength at 12 weeks||||0.53
95974320|NCT00511901|191922159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 3 weeks||||0.96
95974321|NCT00511901|191922159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 8 weeks||||1.00
95974322|NCT00511901|191922159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.66||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SPPB at 12 weeks||||0.66
95974323|NCT00511901|191922160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.64||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 3 weeks||||0.64
95974324|NCT00511901|191922160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.83||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 8 weeks||||0.83
95974325|NCT00511901|191922160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FACIT at 12 weeks||||0.46
95974326|NCT00511901|191922161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.57||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 3 weeks||||0.37
95974327|NCT00511901|191922161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.39||||0.69||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 8 weeks||||0.69
95974328|NCT00511901|191922161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.36||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Activity Counts at 12 weeks||||0.36
95974329|NCT00511901|191922162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.97||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 3 weeks||||0.97
95974330|NCT00511901|191922162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.46||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 8 weeks||||0.46
95974331|NCT00511901|191922162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||POMS at 12 weeks||||0.68
95974332|NCT03110185|191922165|OTHER|Correlation||||||0.0761||||||Delirium Incidence. There were no multiple comparisons, but includes age as a regressor. a priori threshold was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized logistic regression for delirium incidence and total DMN fc with age as a regressor.||||||0.0761
95974333|NCT03430206|191922182|OTHER|||||||0.206|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.206
95974334|NCT03430206|191922183|OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.101
95974335|NCT03430206|191922184|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.371
95974336|NCT03430206|191922186|OTHER|||||||0.601|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.601
95894129|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0445
95894130|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6475
95894131|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
95894132|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0386|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0386
95894133|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0219|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0219
95894134|NCT01480076|191742456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0076
95894135|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1471|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1471
95894136|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5503|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5503
95894137|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3854|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3854
95894138|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4893|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4893
95894139|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2166|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2166
95894140|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4149|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4149
95894141|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3849
95894142|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8980
95894143|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0046
95894144|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0594
95894145|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2975|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2975
95894146|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7155|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7155
95894147|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5070
95894148|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5848
95894149|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8020
95974337|NCT03430206|191922187|OTHER|||||||0.738|||||||Regression, Negative Binomial|||||||0.738
95974338|NCT04118374|191922209|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANOVA|||||1.8|-0.5|<0.01
95974339|NCT04737187|191922210|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.77||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|Overall Survival Median analysis: The primary estimand was defined to assess the effect of the randomized treatments on the survival duration in all participants regardless of whether or not intercurrent events had occurred (treatment policy strategy).||0.77|0.49|< 0.001
95974340|NCT04737187|191922214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.54||Stratified log-rank test, with a target p-value \< 0.025 for level of significance.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated with stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|PFS Median analysis: A hierarchical testing method was used to control type I error and handle key secondary endpoint analysis. When the primary outcome measure significant testing was then performed sequentially on the key secondary outcome measure. statistically significant at 0.05 level.||0.54|0.36|< 0.001
95974341|NCT05227703|191922223|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
95894150|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2540
95894151|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9057
95894152|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9679|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9679
95894153|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5875|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5875
95974342|NCT05227703|191922223|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
95974343|NCT05227703|191922224|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
95894154|NCT01480076|191742457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of work time missed due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7440
95894155|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0032
95894156|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0828|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0828
95894157|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7756|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7756
95894158|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2200
95894159|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
95894160|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0061
95894161|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6258|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6258
95894162|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6987|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6987
95894163|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0025
95894164|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0021
95894165|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4385|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4385
95894166|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2275|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2275
95894167|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0446
95894168|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5757|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5757
95894169|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8936|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8936
95894170|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5675|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5675
95894171|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2539|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.2539
95894172|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6673|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6673
95894173|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0849
95894174|NCT01480076|191742458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1187|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of impairment while working due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1187
95894175|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0022
95974344|NCT05227703|191922224|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
95894176|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0299
95894177|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8135|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8135
95894178|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3526|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3526
95974345|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.5|-4.0|0.1167
95894179|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
95894180|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0039
95894181|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6924|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.6924
95894182|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7639|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.7639
95894183|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0013
95894184|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0011
95894185|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4340
95894186|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4224|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.4224
95894187|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1628
95974346|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||2.3|-2.1|0.9254
95974347|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.8792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.8|-3.3|0.8792
95894188|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5666|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5666
95894189|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8315|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.8315
95894190|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3852|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.3852
95894191|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0652|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0652
95894192|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5719|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.5719
95894193|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9237|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.9237
95894194|NCT01480076|191742459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of overall work impairment due to MS, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1310
95894195|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894196|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894197|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
95894198|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0003
95894199|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894200|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894201|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0002
95894202|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0102
95894203|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894204|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894205|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0001
95894206|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0012
95894207|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894208|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894209|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0026
95894210|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0161
95894211|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, RRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894212|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, SPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||<0.0001
95894213|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1151|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PPMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.1151
95894214|NCT01480076|191742460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, PRMS. Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, baseline of percentage of regular activity productivity loss, MS type, age, gender, country, visit and MS type interaction, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced within the past 12 months as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-participant error.||||0.0040
95894215|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894216|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6769|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6769
95894217|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894218|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5780
95894219|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894220|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894221|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894222|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8886|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8886
95894223|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894224|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3221|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3221
95894225|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894226|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894227|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894228|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4668|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4668
95894229|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894230|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5695|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5695
95894231|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0058
95894232|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0010
95974348|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.0|-2.0|0.5094
95974349|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.4487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-4.8|0.4487
95974350|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.6|-2.2|0.4852
95894233|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894234|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2040
95894235|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894236|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6306|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6306
95894237|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non- responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894238|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0020
95894239|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894240|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4052|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4052
95894241|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894242|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8626|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8626
95894243|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
95894244|NCT01480076|191742461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.0263|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline PCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0263
95894245|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894246|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8999|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8999
95894247|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894248|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7156|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7156
95894249|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0050
95894250|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0490
95894251|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894252|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2740
95894253|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894254|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5556|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5556
95894255|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894256|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0476
95974351|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||3.1|-4.2|0.7593
95894257|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894258|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8627
95894259|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894260|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4312
95894261|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0305|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0305
95894262|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.2059|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2059
95894263|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0008
95894264|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3685|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3685
95894265|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0016
95894266|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9862|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9862
95894267|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.5561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5561
95894268|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.2281|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2281
95894269|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0006
95894270|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6004|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6004
95894271|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894272|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9040
95894273|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0401|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0401
95894274|NCT01480076|191742462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.0651|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the 2-way and 3-way interactions among them, baseline MCS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0651
95894275|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894276|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4540
95894277|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894278|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2949|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2949
95894279|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894280|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0046
95974352|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.6792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||4.3|-2.8|0.6792
95974353|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.4|-5.9|0.3983
95894281|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894282|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5020
95894283|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894284|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2157|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2157
95894285|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894286|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
95894287|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894288|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3435|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3435
95894289|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894290|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1357|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1357
95894291|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
95894292|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0511
95894293|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894294|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8703
95894295|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95974354|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.3859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||5.9|-2.3|0.3859
95894296|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9049|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9049
95894297|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0019
95894298|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0033
95894299|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894300|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4087|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4087
95894301|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894302|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2755
95894303|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0251|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0251
95894304|NCT01480076|191742463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.0989|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 physical score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0989
95894305|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894306|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8767|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8767
95894307|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894308|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3673|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3673
95894309|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0004
95894310|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.0273|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0273
95894311|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894312|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9091
95894313|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894314|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7718|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7718
95894315|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894316|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
95894317|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894318|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2720
95894319|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894320|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4767|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4767
95894321|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0553|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0553
95894322|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.0632|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0632
95894323|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894324|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9398|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9398
95894325|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894326|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5655|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5655
95974355|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.2925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.1|-7.0|0.2925
95974356|NCT05227703|191922225|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||6.4|-2.5|0.3914
95974357|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.02|-0.27|0.0865
95974358|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.9921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 1-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.14|-0.14|0.9921
95974359|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.18|-0.18|0.9720
95974360|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.6621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 2-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.21|-0.14|0.6621
95974361|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.29|0.3617
95974362|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.5456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.25|-0.13|0.5456
95974363|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.19|-0.24|0.8459
95894327|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.0204|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0204
95894328|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1414|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1414
95894329|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894330|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6279|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6279
95894331|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894332|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2239|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2239
95894333|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67||0.0049|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0049
95894334|NCT01480076|191742464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.3457|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline MSIS-29 psychological score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3457
95894335|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894336|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2087|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2087
95894337|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894338|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4487|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4487
95894339|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0013|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0013
95894340|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.0188|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0188
95894341|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894342|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4243|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4243
95894343|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894344|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9989
95894345|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0207|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0207
95894346|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.0161|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0161
95894347|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894348|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4256|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4256
95894349|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894350|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3313|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3313
95894351|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0238|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0238
95894352|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0150
95894353|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894354|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0171|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0171
95894355|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0007
95894356|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5146
95894357|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0003
95894358|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.1224|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1224
95894359|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0168|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0168
95894360|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2272|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2272
95894361|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0570
95894362|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5832|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5832
95894363|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.0561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0561
95894364|NCT01480076|191742465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.2971|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the total ALS score, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2971
95894365|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894366|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0029
95894367|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894368|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8041|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8041
95894369|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894370|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0026
95894371|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894372|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0689|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0689
95894373|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894374|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7182|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7182
95894375|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894376|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0061
95894377|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894378|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0179
95894379|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894380|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6911|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6911
95894381|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894382|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.0666|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0666
95894383|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894384|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0158|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
95894385|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894386|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6684|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6684
95894387|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894388|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
95894389|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894390|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0042
95894391|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894392|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7329|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7329
95894393|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894394|NCT01480076|191742466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0242
95894395|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
95894396|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9151|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9151
95894397|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894398|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6128|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6128
95894399|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0331|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0331
95894400|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1919|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1919
95894401|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95974364|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.3922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 4-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.30|-0.12|0.3922
95974365|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.11|-0.37|0.2915
95974366|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 5-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.33|-0.14|0.4425
95974367|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.05|-0.48|0.1165
95974368|NCT05227703|191922226|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.8265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.29|-0.23|0.8265
95974369|NCT05227703|191922227|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||2.33|0.68|0.4597
95974370|NCT05227703|191922227|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were from a logistic regression with treatment group, geographic region and baseline value as a covariate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||1.16|0.28|0.1205
95894402|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4481|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4481
95894403|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894404|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5454
95894405|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0516|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0516
95894406|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0175|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0175
95894407|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0001
95894408|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9371
95894409|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
95894410|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5475|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5475
95974371|NCT05227703|191922234|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0493
95974372|NCT05227703|191922234|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.2|0.0|0.0226
95974373|NCT05227703|191922234|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.6845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.6845
95974374|NCT05227703|191922234|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8950
95974375|NCT05227703|191922235|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.5073
95974376|NCT05227703|191922235|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.4650
95974377|NCT05227703|191922235|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.0672
95974378|NCT05227703|191922235|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8030
95894411|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0699
95894412|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.587|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5870
95894413|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
95894414|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9926|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9926
95894415|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0027
95894416|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6368|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6368
95894417|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3358|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3358
95894418|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5089|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5089
95894419|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0141
95894420|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4280
95894421|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0002
95974379|NCT05227703|191922236|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|-0.1|0.8259
95974380|NCT05227703|191922236|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 3-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.0|-0.1|0.5936
95974381|NCT05227703|191922236|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 15 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 15 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.0253
95974382|NCT05227703|191922236|SUPERIORITY|Least-squares mean difference from Placebo and CIs were estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, geographic region, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction and Baseline value as a covariate. Participant was included as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.|LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Emraclidine 30 mg - Placebo|Week 6-- Emraclidine 30 mg versus Placebo||0.1|0.0|0.2710
95974383|NCT03319849|191922252|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|-0.0082|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0082|-0.0890|0.0186
95974384|NCT03938545|191922294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.4|||=|0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|54.1||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 680 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||54.1|-11.3|=0.1993
95974385|NCT03938545|191922294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||=|0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|53.2||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 340 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||53.2|-4.8|=0.1016
95894422|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3827|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3827
95894423|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0748|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0748
95894424|NCT01480076|191742467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5663|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the current health state of EQ-5D index scores, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5663
95894425|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1544|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1544
95894426|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0167|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0167
95894427|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3868|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3868
95894428|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2214|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2214
95974386|NCT03938545|191922294|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.3|||=|0.2963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|7.3||p-values were obtained from a Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by smoking status at baseline comparing RVT-1401 255 mg/Week group to placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The risk difference was obtained from a weighted average of the difference within each stratum using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel weights.|||7.3|-24.0|=0.2963
95974387|NCT03938545|191922296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-60.085|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.857|-31.313|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-31.313|-88.857|<0.001
95974388|NCT03938545|191922296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.927|-38.358|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-38.358|-91.927|<0.001
95974389|NCT03938545|191922296|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-37.323|||=|0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.455|-4.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||||-4.190|-70.455|=0.0284
95974390|NCT03938545|191922297|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-73.003|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.309|-63.697|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-63.697|-82.309|<0.001
95974391|NCT03938545|191922297|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-59.005|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.821|-50.19|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-50.190|-67.821|<0.001
95974392|NCT03938545|191922297|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-51.836|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.66|-41.012|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||Week 13||-41.012|-62.660|<0.001
95974393|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-81.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.203|-69.777|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-69.777|-93.203|<0.001
95974394|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.562|-56.62|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-56.620|-78.562|<0.001
95974395|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-67.233|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.073|-53.394|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG1||-53.394|-81.073|<0.001
95974396|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-74.865|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.898|-62.832|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-62.832|-86.898|<0.001
95974397|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.799|-41.596|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-41.596|-64.799|<0.001
95974398|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.398|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.552|-39.245|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG2||-39.245|-67.552|<0.001
95974399|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-88.764|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.039|-74.489|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-74.489|-103.039|<0.001
95974400|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-65.714|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.742|-52.686|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-52.686|-78.742|<0.001
95974401|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-66.685|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.157|-50.214|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG3||-50.214|-83.157|<0.001
95974402|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-68.722|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.877|-56.568|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-56.568|-80.877|<0.001
95894429|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0743
95894430|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.22||0.1601|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1601
95894431|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1251|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1251
95894432|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1764
95894433|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5528
95894434|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1080
95894435|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.4644|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4644
95894436|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.91||0.0887|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0887
95894437|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0071|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0071
95894438|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0640
95894439|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1552|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1552
95974403|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-55.554|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.182|-43.926|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-43.926|-67.182|<0.001
95974404|NCT03938545|191922298|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-53.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.948|-38.21|||ANCOVA|The model included baseline value of the corresponding parameter, smoking stratum, and treatment group as covariates.||IgG4||-38.210|-67.948|<0.001
95974405|NCT02647320|191922302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.755|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.211|0.309|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.309|-0.211|.755
95974406|NCT02647320|191922302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.371|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.371|-0.160|.512
95974407|NCT02647320|191922302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.566|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.312|0.151|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.151|-0.312|.566
95974408|NCT02647320|191922302|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.655|-0.197|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.197|-0.655|.002
95974409|NCT02647320|191922303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.76|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||0.58|-9.76|.144
95894440|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5979|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5979
95894441|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.4444|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4444
95894442|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.27||0.3863|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3863
95894443|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6352|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6352
95894444|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1265|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1265
95894445|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6161|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6161
95894446|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5280
95894447|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51||0.1769|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1769
95894448|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.24||0.4743|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4743
95894449|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6901|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6901
95894450|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0245|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0245
95894451|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7707|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7707
95894452|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4989|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4989
95894453|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.31||0.0387|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0387
95894454|NCT01480076|191742468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.4635|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % work time missed due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4635
95894455|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1392|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1392
95894456|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1448
95894457|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0187|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0187
95894458|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2920
95894459|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.3968|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3968
95894460|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.642|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6420
95974410|NCT02647320|191922303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.14|4.31|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.31|-6.14|.773
95974411|NCT02647320|191922303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.963|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.73|4.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.48|-4.73|.963
95974412|NCT02647320|191922303|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.64|1.42|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||1.42|-7.64|.258
95974413|NCT02647320|191922304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.74|2.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.43|-15.74|.228
95974414|NCT02647320|191922304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.894|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|9.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||9.84|-8.36|.894
95974415|NCT02647320|191922304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.846|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.97|7.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||7.08|-8.97|.846
95894461|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0100
95894462|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8634|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8634
95894463|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0134|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0134
95894464|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8147
95894465|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.4035|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4035
95894466|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.25||0.7385|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7385
95894467|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0139
95894468|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5207|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5207
95894469|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0091
95894470|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2312|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2312
95894471|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.7578|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7578
95894472|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.42||0.5575|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5575
95894473|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4486|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4486
95894474|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0102|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0102
95894475|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1185|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1185
95894476|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7523
95894477|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.0214|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0214
95894478|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.12||0.9826|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9826
95894479|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6627|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6627
95894480|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4674|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4674
95894481|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2965
95894482|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1778|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1778
95894483|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65||0.3903|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3903
95894484|NCT01480076|191742469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.53||0.2794|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % impairment while working due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2794
95894485|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
95894486|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1166|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1166
95894487|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0451
95894488|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9327|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9327
95894489|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.28||0.4177|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4177
95894490|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.64||0.5885|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5885
95894491|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0059
95894492|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3467|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3467
95894493|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0654|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0654
95894494|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3965|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.3965
95974416|NCT02647320|191922304|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.82|3.93|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.93|-11.82|.409
95894495|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8548
95894496|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.35||0.2405|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2405
95974417|NCT02647320|191922305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.83|5.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.73|-2.83|.576
95974418|NCT02647320|191922305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.53|3.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.12|-5.53|.646
95974419|NCT02647320|191922305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.52|4.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.08|-3.52|.902
95894497|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0056
95894498|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8105|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8105
95894499|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0470
95894500|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6067|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6067
95894501|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.56||0.4309|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4309
95894502|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.09||0.9761|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9761
95894503|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6261|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.6261
95894504|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0860
95894505|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2884|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2884
95894506|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8854|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8854
95894507|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88||0.1226|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1226
95894508|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.07||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7249
95894509|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5129|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5129
95894510|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1138|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1138
95894511|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1086|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1086
95894512|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5746|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.5746
95894513|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.1831|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1831
95894514|NCT01480076|191742470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8917|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the % overall work impairment due to MS, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.8917
95894515|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894516|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1152|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1152
95894517|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894518|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4578|||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.4578
95894519|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.0125|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0125
95894520|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.0158|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Overall, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0158
95894521|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894522|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2894|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2894
95894523|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894524|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7230
95894525|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0038
95894526|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 3, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0097
95894527|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894528|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0628|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0628
95894529|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95974420|NCT02647320|191922305|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.35|2.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||2.13|-5.35|.478
95974421|NCT02647320|191922306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.22||0.072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.57|-0.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.64|-14.57|.072
95974422|NCT02647320|191922306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.794|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.15|5.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.92|-8.15|.794
95974423|NCT02647320|191922306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.45|5.94|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||5.94|-6.45|.946
95974424|NCT02647320|191922306|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.431|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.99|3.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.18|-8.99|.431
95974425|NCT02647320|191922307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.54||0.228|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.43|3.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||3.78|-24.43|.228
95974426|NCT02647320|191922307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.62||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||14.77|-13.70|.951
95974427|NCT02647320|191922307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.852|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.96|11.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||11.13|-13.96|.852
95974428|NCT02647320|191922307|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.608|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.13|8.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||8.48|-16.13|.608
95894530|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9232|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9232
95894531|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.1249|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.1249
95894532|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.42||0.0093|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 6, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0093
95894533|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894534|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0937
95894535|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894536|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7814|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7814
95894537|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.2561|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.2561
95894538|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07||0.0255|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 9, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0255
95894539|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894540|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7241|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.7241
95894541|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||<0.0001
95894542|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0427|||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0427
95894543|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.0498|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.0498
95894544|NCT01480076|191742471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of LS means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.9078|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effect model|||Month 12, Responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy) versus Non-responder (Not Taking Additional MS Therapy): Mixed effect model for repeated measures with visit, responder group, additional MS therapy, the two-way and three-way interactions among them, baseline of the regular activity productivity loss, age, gender, country, baseline EDSS score and total number of relapses experienced as fixed effects. An unstructured covariance was used to model within-patient error.||||0.9078
95894545|NCT02120950|191742498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||||1.6|-2.9|0.5480
95894546|NCT02120950|191742499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|4.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.3|-3.1|0.7402
95894547|NCT02120950|191742501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.2|0.0|0.0682
95894548|NCT02120950|191742502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on treatment difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of the LS mean changes using an ANOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects.|||0.3|-0.1|0.1640
95894549|NCT02120950|191742505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-5.6||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 5||3.7|-14.9|0.2348
95894550|NCT02120950|191742505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-2.2||||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 10||8.6|-13.1|0.6877
95894551|NCT02120950|191742505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-4.0||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Gained ≥ 15||6.5|-14.5|0.4556
95894552|NCT02120950|191742506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|1.7||||0.5372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 5||7.2|-3.7|0.5372
95894553|NCT02120950|191742506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|0.6||||0.7569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 10||4.7|-3.4|0.7569
95894554|NCT02120950|191742506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-0.6||||0.7402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|Category of Lost ≥ 15||3.1|-4.3|0.7402
95974429|NCT02647320|191922308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.289||0.728|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.932|30.566|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||30.566|-19.932|.728
95974430|NCT02647320|191922308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.853||0.837|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.446|22.914|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||22.914|-29.446|.837
95974431|NCT02647320|191922308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.747||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.352|19.051|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||19.051|-26.352|.791
95974432|NCT02647320|191922308|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.472||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-62.283|-17.787|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-17.787|-62.283|.003
95894555|NCT02120950|191742507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference in %|-6.0||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12|||5.9|-17.8|0.3244
95894556|NCT02120950|191742508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with leakage in FA at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||0.6|-0.9|0.7109
95894557|NCT02120950|191742509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|1.1||||0.8355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|11.3|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for CST at baseline and Week 52. Baseline values were not carried forward.||11.3|-9.2|0.8355
95894558|NCT02120950|191742510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4|||ANCOVA||Point estimate, 95% CI and p-value are based on difference (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) of LS mean changes using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12 as fixed effects, baseline value as covariate.|The analysis population included only subjects with values for NEI VFQ-25 score at baseline and Week 52.||1.4|-2.9|0.5069
95894559|NCT02120950|191742511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference %|-0.6||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.1||The p-value is calculated from the 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CI is based on the treatment difference in % (AFL-sham - AFL-PDT) using the Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by ethnicity and qualification for rescue therapy at Week 12.|||5.1|-6.3|0.8423
95894560|NCT01589445|191742512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.47|<|0.161||95.0|-88.0|118.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TC||118|-88.0|<0.161
95894561|NCT01589445|191742512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|143.22|<|0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.0|976.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||TG||976|-397.0|<0.913
95974433|NCT02647320|191922309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.396||0.83|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-29.312|38.087|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||38.087|-29.312|.830
95894562|NCT01589445|191742512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.59|<|0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|19.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HDL||19.0|-35.0|<0.322
95894563|NCT01589445|191742512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.05|<|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.8|76.2||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||LDL||76.2|-113.8|<0.210
95894564|NCT01589445|191742513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.41|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, Multiple Logistic Regression (MLR), OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA||The group 001 was divided according to Pro12Pro and Pro12Ala groups.There was no Ala12Ala group.These two groups were compared also in accordance with all parameters (glycemic levels, insulin levels, lipid profiles, BMI).|Change from Baseline in FSG at 3rd month||8.0|-7.9|<0.05
95894565|NCT01589445|191742514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.07|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||2.4|-4.4|>0.05
95894566|NCT01589445|191742515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.27||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||||0.27|-0.40|<0.001
95894567|NCT01589445|191742515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.25|<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.12|15.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA IR||15.52|-14.12|<0.004
95894568|NCT01589445|191742516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.46|<|0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-346.4|328.1||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA B||328.10|-346.40|<0.808
95894569|NCT01589445|191742516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.0|<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.7|180.0||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||HOMA S||180|-148.70|<0.025
95894570|NCT01589445|191742517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.04|26.52||Category: Univariate \& Multivariate analysis. (ANOVA, Pair t tests, MLR, OR, Pearson Correlation)|ANOVA|||FSI||26.52|-27.04|<0.039
95894571|NCT02053753|191742577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometrc Means (CP4:CP2)|1.084|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.181|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.181|0.995|
95894572|NCT02053753|191742578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 2 treatments were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means were between 0.80 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric Means (CP4:CP2)|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|1.131|||||The ratio and confidence interval of the geometric means are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||1.131|0.934|
95894573|NCT00499096|191742589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95894574|NCT01289847|191742597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||one-sample Poisson rate|||For the primary efficacy analysis, the SABI rate for GAMMAPLEX and the upper bound of its one-sided 99% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by using the exact method for a one-sample Poisson rate.||||0.01
95894575|NCT01289847|191742598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|99.0|||||one-sample Poisson method|||||||0.01
95894576|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.82|0.68|0.000
95894577|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|1.14|0.000
95894578|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.17|0.93|0.000
95894579|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.80|0.755
95894580|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.83|0.95|0.426
95894581|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.77|0.930
95894582|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.72|0.000
95894583|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.42|1.10|0.000
95894584|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.19|0.98|0.000
95894585|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.14|0.84|0.755
95894586|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.52|0.84|0.426
95894587|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.12|0.81|0.930
95894588|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.84|0.74|0.000
95974434|NCT02647320|191922309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.335||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.354|57.848|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||57.848|-9.354|.235
95974435|NCT02647320|191922309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|17.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.72||0.331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.03|46.529|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||46.529|-12.030|.331
95974436|NCT02647320|191922309|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-29.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.393||0.091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.254|-0.775|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-0.775|-58.254|.091
95974437|NCT02647320|191922310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.835|16.815|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||16.815|-13.835|.873
95894589|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.32|1.08|0.000
95894590|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.26|1.08|0.000
95894591|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.13|0.60|0.755
95894592|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||2.52|0.82|0.426
95894593|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Smoker)||1.40|0.70|0.930
95894594|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Non-smoker)||0.60|0.49|0.000
95894595|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.76|1.29|0.000
95894596|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|1.93|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.93|1.54|0.000
95894597|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Non-smoker)||1.17|0.72|0.755
95894598|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Ex-smoker)||1.95|0.78|0.426
95894599|NCT03441633|191742603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Smoker)||1.20|0.70|0.930
95894600|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.09|0.90|0.000
95894601|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.25|0.98|0.000
95894602|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.45|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.45|0.94|0.164
95894603|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.22|0.87|0.826
95974438|NCT02647320|191922310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.505||0.395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.79|7.604|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||7.604|-23.790|.395
95974439|NCT02647320|191922310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.306||0.761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.247|11.185|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||11.185|-16.247|.761
95974440|NCT02647320|191922310|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.22|-14.236|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-14.236|-41.220|<0.001
95894604|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|0.94|0.190
95894605|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.57|0.18|0.526
95894606|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||0.91|0.77|0.000
95894607|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.24|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.24|1.01|0.000
95894608|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.83|0.76|0.164
95894609|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.26|0.95|0.826
95894610|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.13|0.77|0.190
95894611|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.65|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.65|0.62|0.526
95894612|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.45|1.28|0.000
95894613|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.35|1.14|0.000
95894614|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.95|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.95|0.98|0.164
95894615|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.41|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.41|0.76|0.826
95974441|NCT02647320|191922311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.001||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.441|12.221|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.221|-27.441|.527
95894616|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.76|0.82|0.190
95894617|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.5|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||4.50|0.17|0.526
95974442|NCT02647320|191922311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.532|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.927|12.138|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.138|-26.927|.532
95894618|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (No intake)||1.42|1.16|0.000
95894619|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.43|1.10|0.000
95894620|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.64|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Risk consumption)||1.64|0.49|0.164
95894621|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (No intake)||1.34|0.84|0.826
95894622|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Moderate intake)||1.23|0.66|0.190
95894623|NCT03441633|191742604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.36|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Risk consumption)||2.36|0.09|0.526
95894624|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.53|1.20|0.000
95894625|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.15|0.89|0.014
95894626|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.99|0.77|0.000
95894627|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.97|0.75|0.000
95894628|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.97|0.74|0.013
95894629|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.31|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.31|0.84|0.157
95894630|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.82|0.124
95894631|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.61|0.062
95894632|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.22|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.22|0.78|0.079
95894633|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.38|0.86|0.140
95974443|NCT02647320|191922311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.421||0.672|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.635|12.807|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||12.807|-21.635|.672
95894634|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.45|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.45|1.17|0.000
95894635|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.09|0.87|0.014
95894636|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.12|0.91|0.000
95894637|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.05|0.85|0.000
95894638|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||0.93|0.74|0.013
95894639|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.13|0.76|0.157
95894640|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.20|0.81|0.124
95894641|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.96|0.65|0.062
95894642|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.48|1.02|0.079
95894643|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.49|0.99|0.140
95894644|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.05|0.88|0.000
95894645|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.99|0.84|0.014
95894646|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.9|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||0.90|0.76|0.000
95894647|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||0.91|0.77|0.000
95894648|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.00|0.85|0.013
95894649|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.54|0.68|0.157
95894650|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.29|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.29|0.53|0.124
95894651|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.13|0.48|0.062
95894652|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.33|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.33|0.57|0.079
95894653|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.59|0.67|0.140
95894654|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.47|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||0.47|0.32|0.000
95894655|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||0.97|0.73|0.014
95894656|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.91|1.51|0.000
95894657|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|2.1|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||2.10|1.65|0.000
95894658|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.08|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.08|0.82|0.013
95894659|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 1 - Urban area)||1.80|1.00|0.157
95894660|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.88|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 2 - Urban area)||1.88|1.04|0.124
95894661|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 3 - Urban area)||1.05|0.55|0.062
95894662|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 4 - Urban area)||1.26|0.67|0.079
95894663|NCT03441633|191742605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Quintile 5 - Urban area)||1.15|0.56|0.140
95894664|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.25|0.91|0.000
95894665|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.23|0.58|0.202
95894666|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.09|0.88|0.000
95894667|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.93|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.93|0.76|0.003
95894668|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.03|0.66|0.083
95894669|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.18|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.18|0.68|0.011
95894670|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.06|0.75|0.227
95894671|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.47|1.03|0.000
95894672|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.16|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.16|0.88|0.000
95894673|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.66|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.66|0.58|0.202
95974444|NCT02647320|191922311|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-31.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.229||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-48.482|-14.676|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-14.676|-48.482|.002
95894674|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.04|0.87|0.000
95894675|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.95|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.95|0.80|0.003
95894676|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.17|0.80|0.083
95894677|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.06||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||1.05|0.02|0.011
95894678|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||0.98|0.72|0.227
95974445|NCT02647320|191922312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.298|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|3.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||3.60|-15.90|.298
95974446|NCT02647320|191922312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.37|-6.27|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-6.27|-26.37|.008
95894679|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.35|0.99|0.000
95894680|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|1.82|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.82|1.47|0.000
95894681|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.25|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||3.25|0.98|0.202
95894682|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.38|1.20|0.000
95894683|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.00|0.88|0.003
95974447|NCT02647320|191922312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.074|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.31|-0.75|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-0.75|-18.31|.074
95974448|NCT02647320|191922312|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.96|-18.38|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 2||-18.38|-35.96|<0.001
95974449|NCT02647320|191922313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.04|8.63|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||8.63|-11.04|.840
95894684|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.28|0.56|0.083
95894685|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.58|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||8.58|0.13|0.011
95894686|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.42|0.75|0.227
95894687|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocoumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.55|0.81|0.000
95894688|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.76|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.76|1.28|0.000
95894689|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.73|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||2.73|0.36|0.202
95894690|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.43|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.43|1.15|0.000
95894691|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||1.06|0.86|0.003
95894692|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.68|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (18.5 - 25 kg per m\^2 Normal)||1.68|0.95|0.083
95894693|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|6.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\<18.5 kg per m\^2 Underweight)||6.21|0.18|0.011
95894694|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (25 - 30 kg per m\^2 Overweight)||1.17|0.72|0.227
95894695|NCT03441633|191742606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.87|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (\>30 kg per m\^2 Obese)||0.87|0.50|0.000
95894696|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.75|0.61|0.000
95894697|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.15|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.15|0.63|0.052
95894698|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants||0.80|0.67|0.000
95894699|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.03|0.61|0.052
95894700|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.36|1.17|0.000
95894701|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.27|0.45|0.052
95894702|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants||1.21|0.95|0.000
95894703|NCT03441633|191742607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.84|0.40|0.052
95894704|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.17|-0.26|0.000
95974450|NCT02647320|191922313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.94|-1.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-1.91|-21.94|.050
95974451|NCT02647320|191922313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31||0.227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.21|2.33|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||2.33|-15.21|.227
95894705|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.01|-0.18|0.001
95894706|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.15|-0.23|0.000
95894707|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.04|-0.19|0.001
95894708|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.53|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.53|0.47|0.000
95894709|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.02|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.02|-0.32|0.001
95894710|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.23|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (HAS - BLED)||0.23|0.12|0.000
95894711|NCT03441633|191742608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (HAS - BLED)||-0.10|-0.37|0.001
95894712|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.24|0.000
95894713|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.12|-0.35|0.000
95894714|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.18|-0.28|0.000
95894715|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.11|-0.31|0.000
95894716|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.25|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.25|0.17|0.000
95894717|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.30|-0.70|0.000
95894718|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.14|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHADS2)||0.14|0.01|0.000
95894719|NCT03441633|191742609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHADS2)||-0.20|-0.54|0.000
95894720|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.26|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.26|-0.42|0.000
95894721|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.19|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.19|-0.46|0.000
95894722|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.32|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.32|-0.45|0.000
95894723|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.15|-0.39|0.000
95894724|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.24|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||0.24|0.14|0.000
95894725|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.37|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.37|-0.86|0.000
95894726|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.01|-0.18|0.000
95894727|NCT03441633|191742610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.21|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (CHA2DS2Vasc)||-0.21|-0.64|0.000
95894728|NCT03441633|191742611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.3|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||5.30|0.77|0.008
95894729|NCT03441633|191742611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.12|0.33|0.008
95894730|NCT03441633|191742611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||1.99|0.20|0.008
95894731|NCT03441633|191742611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants||0.86|0.18|0.008
95894732|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.75|1.14|0.000
95894733|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.82|0.55|0.000
95894734|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.01|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||2.01|0.03|0.000
95894735|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.04|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||2.04|1.23|0.000
95894736|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.57|0.34|0.000
95894737|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.73|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||3.73|0.02|0.000
95894738|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.84|0.52|0.000
95894739|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.36|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||1.36|0.95|0.000
95894740|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.41|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||3.41|0.06|0.000
95894741|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.85|0.50|0.000
95894742|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||1.37|0.90|0.000
95894743|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|5.85|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||5.85|0.22|0.000
95894744|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|3.99|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||3.99|2.86|0.000
95894745|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.13|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.13|0.09|0.000
95894746|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.52|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||1.52|0.11|0.000
95894747|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.91|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.91|0.78|0.000
95894748|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.09|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.09|0.00|0.000
95894749|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||18.00|0.07|0.000
95894750|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.75|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Poor adherence)||0.75|0.45|0.000
95894751|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Good adherence)||0.63|0.41|0.000
95894752|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.01|123.8|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Over adherence)||123.80|11.01|0.000
95894753|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.86|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Poor adherence)||1.86|0.91|0.000
95894754|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Good adherence)||0.17|0.05|0.000
95894755|NCT03441633|191742612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|46.5|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Over adherence)||46.50|2.81|0.000
95894756|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.92|0.000
95894757|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.83|||Chi-squared|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.83|1.15|0.000
95894758|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.27|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.27|0.93|0.000
95894759|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.47|||Chi-squared|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.47|0.96|0.000
95894760|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.01|0.79|0.000
95894761|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.82||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|7.55|||Chi-squared|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||7.55|3.14|0.000
95894762|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||1.67|1.19|0.000
95894763|NCT03441633|191742613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.05|||Chi-squared|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (Discontinuation first year)||4.05|2.12|0.000
95894764|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.24|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||4.24|3.02|0.000
95894765|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.98|||ANOVA|||Dabigatran vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||0.98|-0.77|0.000
95894766|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.17|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||2.17|0.84|0.000
95894767|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.8|||ANOVA|||Rivaroxaban vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||2.80|1.16|0.000
95894768|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.39|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||1.39|0.41|0.000
95894769|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.18|||ANOVA|||Acenocumarol vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||-0.18|-4.32|0.000
95894770|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.52||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.56|29.48|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in naive participants (NDDDs)||29.48|27.56|0.000
95894771|NCT03441633|191742614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|4.9|||ANOVA|||Warfarin vs. Apixaban in non-naive participants (NDDDs)||4.90|-1.05|0.000
95894772|NCT01520363|191742617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.182|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.294||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.086|0.722|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t= -1.291; p=.211|.722|-3.086|.211
95894773|NCT01520363|191742617|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.345|1.432|||t-test, 2 sided|df=22||||1.432|-1.345|.949
95894774|NCT01520363|191742618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.456||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.785|1.451||df=20|t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=0.622; p=.541|1.451|-0.785|.541
95894775|NCT01520363|191742618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.956||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.206||df=23|t-test, 2 sided||||t=-.069; p=0.946|1.206|-1.290|.946
95894776|NCT01520363|191742619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.116||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.609|1.154|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=-0.342; p=0.736|1.154|-1.609|.736
95894777|NCT01520363|191742619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.143|1.961|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.548; p=0.589|1.961|-1.143|.589
95894778|NCT01520363|191742620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.429|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.203||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.886|0.029|||t-test, 2 sided|df=20|||t=-2.044; p=0.05|0.029|-2.886|.05
95894779|NCT01520363|191742620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.042|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.862||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.589|1.672|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.053; p=0.958|1.672|-1.589|0.958
95894780|NCT01520363|191742621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.227|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.897|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=0.706; p=0.488|0.897|-0.442|0.488
95894781|NCT01520363|191742621|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.535||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.874|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.782; p=0.442|0.874|-0.394|0.442
95894782|NCT01520363|191742622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.682|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.317||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|1.709|||t-test, 2 sided|df=21|||t=1.380; p=0.182|1.709|-0.346|0.182
95894783|NCT01520363|191742622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.864|<|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.929|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=3.112; p=0.005|1.929|0.391|<0.005
95894784|NCT01520363|191742623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.091|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.504||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|1.644|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.122; p=0.90|1.644|-1.463|0.90
95894785|NCT01520363|191742623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.551||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.573|1.533|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.941; p=0.356|1.533|-0.573|0.356
95894786|NCT01520363|191742624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.136|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.493|||t-test, 2 sided||||t=0.209; p=0.836|1.493|-1.220|0.836
95894787|NCT01520363|191742624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.698||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.993|1.233|||t-test, 2 sided|df=24|||t=0.222; p=0.826|1.233|-0.993|0.826
95894788|NCT01520363|191742625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.18||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|5.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.05|-11.80|0.42
95894789|NCT01520363|191742626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|4.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.96|-7.02|<0.73
95894790|NCT01520363|191742627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4615|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8016||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3603|28.2834|||t-test, 2 sided|df=12|||t=0.903; p=0.371|28.2834|-11.3603|0.371
95894791|NCT01520363|191742627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.9917|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0163||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4553|16.4387|||t-test, 2 sided|df=11|t=0.960; p=0.358|||16.4387|-6.4553|0.358
95894792|NCT01520363|191742628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.09412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.06228||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27756|15.4658|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|t=0.530; p=0.603|||15.46580|-9.27756|0.603
95894793|NCT01520363|191742628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.21479||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04665|8.9038|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.810; p=0.432|||8.90380|-4.04665|0.432
95894794|NCT01520363|191742629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.765|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.276||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.745|25.275|||t-test, 2 sided|df=16|||t=1.846; p=0.083|25.275|-1.745|0.083
95894795|NCT01520363|191742629|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.378||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|15.802|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|||t=1.952; p=0.073|15.802|-0.802|0.073
95894796|NCT01520363|191742630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7474|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.711||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1269|16.6217|||t-test, 2 sided|df=18|t=0.612; p=0.549|||16.6217|-9.1269|0.549
95894797|NCT01520363|191742630|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7143|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5084||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8174|10.246|||t-test, 2 sided|df=13|t=0.162; p=0.874|||10.2460|-8.8174|0.874
95894798|NCT01520363|191742631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8167|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2609||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2046|23.8379|||t-test, 2 sided|df=17|t=0.402; p=0.693|||23.8379|-16.2046|0.693
95894799|NCT01520363|191742631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.8994||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6102|16.2902|||t-test, 2 sided|df=14|t=0.117; p=0.909|||16.2902|-14.6102|0.909
95894800|NCT01520363|191742632|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-2.17|0.21
95894801|NCT01520363|191742633|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.15|-0.66|0.28
95894802|NCT01272830|191742660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data.||||0.0063
95894803|NCT01272830|191742660|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
95894804|NCT01272830|191742661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0226||||||Significance threshold p\<0.5|paired|||Change from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.0226
95894805|NCT01272830|191742661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0375||||||Significance threshold P\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.0375
95894806|NCT01272830|191742661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.0391
95894807|NCT01272830|191742661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||paired t-test|||Changes from baseline data (HSS pain walking)||||0.2137
95894808|NCT01272830|191742661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1312|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (HSS total score)||||0.1312
95894809|NCT01272830|191742661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1578|||||||paired t-test|||Change from baseline data (KSS knee pain)||||0.1578
95894810|NCT01272830|191742662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|t-test|||Changes from baseline data||||0.0083
95894811|NCT01272830|191742662|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significant threshold p\<0.05|paired t-test|||Change from baseline data||||>0.05
95894812|NCT01272830|191742663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|ANOVA|||Change from baseline data||||0.01
95894813|NCT01272830|191742663|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||paired t-test|Significant threshold p\<0.05||Changes from baseline data||||>0.05
95894814|NCT00751348|191742683|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-measles was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|1.66||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-measles seroconversion rates.||1.66|-3.77|<0.05
95894815|NCT00751348|191742683|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-mumps was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-5.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.38||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-mumps seroconversion rates.||0.38|-10.4|<0.05
95894816|NCT00751348|191742683|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-rubella was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.34|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|2.06||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-rubella seroconversion rates.||2.06|-1.88|<0.05
95974452|NCT02647320|191922313|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.83|-4.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 4||-4.43|-21.83|0.13
95974453|NCT02647320|191922314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.642|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.77|13.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||13.88|-7.77|.642
95894817|NCT00751348|191742683|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for evaluation of non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Priorix-Tetra Group minus Priorix+Varilrix Group) in seroconversion rate for anti-VZV was above -10%.|Difference in percentage|-1.06|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|1.44||The P-value for all reactogenicity comparisons was below (\<) 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra® vaccine vs Priorix™ and Varilrix™ administered as concomitant vaccine 42-56 days after vaccination at Day 0 in terms of anti-varicella zoster virus (anti-VZV) seroconversion rates.||1.44|-3.07|<0.05
95894818|NCT05389657|191742733|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.617||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|2.283|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on training completion, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||2.283|0.167|0.47
95894819|NCT05389657|191742734|SUPERIORITY||adjusted group difference unstandardized|-1.268||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.618|1.083|||Regression, Linear|multilevel linear regression with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation||We used linear multilevel models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on knowledge acquisition at post-training, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline FBT-KA score, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||1.083|-3.618|.29
95894820|NCT05389657|191742735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|19.293|||Regression, Logistic|multilevel logistic regression||We used logistic multilevel models to examine the impact of training assignment (reference = live training) on engagement in FBT consultation at 12 months, with a random intercept at the agency level. Covariates included baseline intent to seek FBT consultation, prior level of training and/or experience in FBT, attitudes towards evidence-based practice (MPAS), perceived importance of eating disorder treatment to organization, and training preference.||19.293|0.070|0.92
95894821|NCT00108160|191742769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.356||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||Our null hypothesis was that no significant effect of mupirocin ointment (treatment) on S. aureus re-infection would be seen at 18 months compared with placebo ointment. Based on prior studies, we estimated that 198 participants would need to be enrolled assuming a 20% dropout rate; 84 participants per arm would be required to detect a 66% decrease in re-infection from 30% to 10% with a significance level alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.9.||||0.356
95894822|NCT00878709|191742785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.9|||Log Rank|The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.90|0.49|0.008
95894823|NCT00878709|191742787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.212|||Log Rank|||The 2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test (stratification factors: prior Trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<=3 or \>=4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative). The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified cox proportional hazard model were also presented.||1.212|0.747|0.6914
95894824|NCT00878709|191742788|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ (DFS-DCIS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.83|0.45|
95894825|NCT00878709|191742790|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.05|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Distant disease free survival (DDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.05|0.52|
95894826|NCT00878709|191742792|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.04|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Time to distant recurrence (TTDR) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||1.04|0.51|
95894827|NCT00878709|191742796|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||The Log-rank test is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|Invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in neratinib arm compared to placebo arm.||0.92|0.57|0.008
95894828|NCT00878709|191742798|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.89|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||0.89|0.56|
95894829|NCT00878709|191742799|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.01|0.6|
95974454|NCT02647320|191922314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.52|6.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||6.68|-15.52|.512
95894830|NCT00878709|191742800|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||||The hazard ratio is estimated by stratified Cox model. The Cox model is stratified by prior trastuzumab (concurrent or sequential), nodal status (\<= 3 or \>= 4) and ER/PgR status (positive or negative).|||1.03|0.60|
95894831|NCT00403273|191742830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95974455|NCT02647320|191922314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.81||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.66|5.54|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||5.54|-13.66|.486
95894832|NCT00403273|191742831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||comparison of proportions|0.65|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made, since we analyzed only one primary outcome. 19 patients per group were needed for 80% power and 24 patients per group for 90% power to detect a difference of 43% in proportion with primary outcome|comparison of proportions|compare proportion of patients with clinically meaningful change in 0-10 VAS pain (at least 2-point reduction on VAS pain) at 2-mths \& all timepoints|we hypothesized a greater proportion with meaningful reduction in pain on 0-10 scale in intervention versus placebo group.|For primary outcome analysis, we compared the proportion of responders with clinically meaningful change \[improvement\] in 0-10 VAS Pain, i.e. those with 2-point reduction in 0-10 VAS pain score at 2-mths, in the 2 groups using comparison of proportions. Proportion of responders were also analyzed at all efficacy timepoints using generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling. We used GEE for between-group comparisons in secondary outcomes at all efficacy endpoints, adjusted for baseline scores.||||<0.05
95894833|NCT00403273|191742832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95894834|NCT00403273|191742833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95894835|NCT00403273|191742834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95894836|NCT00403273|191742835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95974456|NCT02647320|191922314|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.31|-7.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 8||-7.16|-26.31|.004
95974457|NCT02647320|191922315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.09|4.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||4.70|-22.09|.285
95974458|NCT02647320|191922315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.94||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.73|-5.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-5.49|-31.73|.020
95974459|NCT02647320|191922315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.6|-1.35|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-1.35|-24.60|.067
95974460|NCT02647320|191922315|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.76|-6.03|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure|||Difference in change at week 12||-6.03|-28.76|.012
95974461|NCT00081770|191922317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.567||95.0|0.79|1.14||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.14|0.79|0.567
95974462|NCT00081770|191922317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.195||95.0|0.9|1.3||Holm's method for multiplicity adjustment was to be used to control the overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. However, since there was no significant difference in the overall SVR rates between the three groups, no Type-1 error adjustment was made.|Regression, Logistic|The p-value is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors (viral load and race).|The odds ratio is based on the logistic regression model that includes treatment and baseline stratification factors: viral load (≤600,000 IU/mL vs \>600,000 IU/mL) and race (Black vs non-Black).|||1.30|0.90|0.195
95974463|NCT00081770|191922319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|39.9||||||95.0|36.9|42.9|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||42.9|36.9|
95974464|NCT00081770|191922319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|36.0||||||95.0|33.1|39.0|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||39.0|33.1|
95974465|NCT00081770|191922319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0||||||95.0|42.0|48.1|||||Percentage of participants with undetectable HCV-RNA at Treatment Week 12|||48.1|42.0|
95974466|NCT03435497|191922321|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.017
95894837|NCT00403273|191742836|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95974467|NCT03435497|191922322|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.6|0.2|.05
95974468|NCT03435497|191922323|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
95894838|NCT00502697|191742849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The original proposed sample size for this study was 300. This sample size was based on previous evidence that indicated that a reduction of 15% in the rate of preterm birth would be detectable with groups of 150. Because of concerns with systemic changes in the study's health care delivery environment, an interim analysis was conducted after 200 women had delivered. As a result of that analysis a decision was made to stop recruitment.||||.64
95894839|NCT00589108|191742906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.64
95894840|NCT00589108|191742906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the mean maximum flexion between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.80
95894841|NCT00589108|191742907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Function Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.06
95894842|NCT00589108|191742908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference for the Knee Society Pain Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.87
95894843|NCT00589108|191742909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 2 years post-surgery.||||0.44
95894844|NCT00589108|191742909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the Knee Society Stair Climbing Score between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.08
95894845|NCT00589108|191742910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANOVA|||P-value for the difference between the percentage of knees surviving between the three groups at 5 years post-surgery.||||0.92
95894846|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894847|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894848|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894849|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894850|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894851|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894852|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894853|NCT03026257|191742921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||<0.0001
95894854|NCT03760796|191743013|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.88||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||0.88|0.26|0.018
95894855|NCT03760796|191743014|OTHER|A Markov Model of cost-effectiveness, based on 30-day readmission rates, was built to assess the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of adopting the Corrie Platform compared to standard of care for post AMI patients; taking into account the estimated cost of Corrie ($2,750 per patient for a 1-year use term). The reported value is a ratio of the relative cost of intervention compared to the standard of care divided by the change in the outcome, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).|Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||A negative ICER means the intervention cost is lower than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive. A positive ICER means the intervention cost is greater than the cost of standard of care, while the denominator was positive.|||||
95894856|NCT03760796|191743028|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.98||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for hospital site and a propensity score inclusive of individual level baseline characteristics.||||2.98|0.69|0.33
95894857|NCT02211131|191743041|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.58|0.96||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.96|0.58|0.070
95894858|NCT02211131|191743042|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|0.97||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.97|0.60|0.092
95894859|NCT02211131|191743044|OTHER||Treatment Difference|4.3||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|15.3||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||An 80% approximate exact CI for between-arm differences in binary rate is calculated using Wilson's score method with continuity correction.|||15.3|-6.9|0.594
95894860|NCT02211131|191743045|OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.4|21.6||The two-sided p-value is based on the Pearson's Chi-square test.|Chi-squared||80% exact CI for binary rate of each arm is calculated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||21.6|7.4|0.003
95894861|NCT02211131|191743050|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.36|0.81||Unstratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Unstratified Hazard Ratio (T-VEC + Surgery / Surgery)|||0.81|0.36|0.050
95894862|NCT05664490|191743061|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.22||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 12|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.22|0.64|0.44
95894863|NCT05664490|191743062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link and robust standard errors to assess the effect of our intervention on reduced CMD symptoms at Week 12.|The reference category for the risk ratio presented is the Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm.|||1.42|0.71|0.99
95894864|NCT05664490|191743063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.89||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to estimate to assess the effect of our intervention on PrEP adherence at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category for the risk ratio.|||1.89|1.03|0.03
95894865|NCT05664490|191743064|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.29||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Poisson regression|We used Poisson regression with a log-link to assess the effect of the intervention on common mental disorders at Week 4.|The Standard of Care Mental Health Services arm was the reference category.|||1.29|0.50|0.37
95894866|NCT01928862|191743068|OTHER||Treatment difference|-31.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.8|0.8||||||Confidence interval (CI) of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||0.8|-58.8|
95894867|NCT01928862|191743068|OTHER||Treatment Difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|36.9||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||36.9|-25.3|
95894868|NCT01928862|191743068|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.5|26.3||||||CI of the difference in proportions between each Prepopik® group and PEG within each age group was calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method.||26.3|-33.5|
95894869|NCT00481195|191743088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0439||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment ands concurrent treatment for bipolar disorders as factors. A significant treatment-by baseline interaction was observed in the total score that violates the assumption of parallelism on which an ANCOVA is based, so the data was analyzed using ANOVA without baseline as a covariate rather than ANCOVA.||||0.0439
95894870|NCT00481195|191743089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0795
95894871|NCT00481195|191743090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0272||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0272
95894872|NCT00481195|191743091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0802||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0802
95894873|NCT00481195|191743092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2407||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2407
95894874|NCT00481195|191743093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0502||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0502
95894875|NCT00481195|191743094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0612||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0612
95894876|NCT00481195|191743095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1980
95894877|NCT00481195|191743096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8960
95894878|NCT00481195|191743097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2575||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2575
95894879|NCT00481195|191743098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3129||95.0||||P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel chi-square test adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3129
95894880|NCT00481195|191743099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1565||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1565
95894881|NCT00481195|191743100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6737||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6737
95894882|NCT00481195|191743101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2249||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2249
95894883|NCT00481195|191743102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0862||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0862
95894884|NCT00481195|191743103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9281
95894885|NCT00481195|191743104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4428||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.4428
95894886|NCT00481195|191743105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0965
95894887|NCT00481195|191743106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5389||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5389
95894888|NCT00481195|191743107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0793
95894889|NCT00481195|191743108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3814||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3814
95894890|NCT00481195|191743109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8099||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.8099
95894891|NCT00481195|191743110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0968
95894892|NCT00481195|191743111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1605||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1605
95894893|NCT00481195|191743112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1869||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.1869
95894894|NCT00481195|191743113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0817||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.0817
95894895|NCT00481195|191743114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3712||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3712
95894896|NCT00481195|191743115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5427||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.5427
95894897|NCT00481195|191743116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3463||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.3463
95894898|NCT00481195|191743117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.2730
95894899|NCT00481195|191743118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7791||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.7791
95894900|NCT00481195|191743119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.9007
95894901|NCT00481195|191743120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6431||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean and standard error of the LS mean for each treatment group and the p-value for the treatment comparison is from an ANCOVA with treatment and concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder as factors, and the baseline value as covariate.||||0.6431
95894902|NCT00481195|191743121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6631||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder.||||||0.6631
95894903|NCT00481195|191743122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9768||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.9768
95974469|NCT03435497|191922324|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.012
95894904|NCT00481195|191743123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9873||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment fro bipolar disorder||||||0.9873
95974470|NCT03435497|191922325|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical logistic repeated-measures regressions in which the response may have come from either follow-up, and the predictors were an indicator for study arm, the baseline value of the outcome, the follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|67.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||67.7|1.5|0.022
95974471|NCT00601419|191922328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.556
95974472|NCT00601419|191922329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Male and Female in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.845
95974473|NCT00601419|191922330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With TSH deficiency and Without TSH deficiency in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.038
95974474|NCT00601419|191922331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past history. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With past history and Without past history in the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.013
95974475|NCT00601419|191922332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no association between Initial Dose and the frequency of treatment related adverse events."||||=0.037
95974476|NCT00601419|191922332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Initial Dose. The null hypothesis is that there is no linear trend in the frequency of treatment related adverse events across increasing levels of initial dose."||||=0.063
95974477|NCT00601419|191922334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between \<65 years of age and \>=65 years of age in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.019
95894905|NCT00481195|191743124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4567||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4567
95894906|NCT00481195|191743125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6475||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.6475
95894907|NCT00481195|191743126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5066||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.5066
95974478|NCT00601419|191922335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between male and female in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=1.000
95974479|NCT00601419|191922336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was ACTH deficiency. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between With ACTH deficiency and Without ACTH deficiency in the efficacy of somatropin."||||=0.037
95894908|NCT00481195|191743127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4438||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for concurrent treatment for bipolar disorder||||||0.4438
95894909|NCT03583996|191743134|OTHER||Negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR)|0.293|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.882||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI ≤18.3 was the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) for negative likelihood ratio (NLR) to rule out an NLR of \>0.52. For the null and alternate hypotheses, the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \>0.52 and the upper limit of the 95% CI was NLR \<=0.52, respectively. The confidence level for the CI was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.882|0.097|
95894910|NCT03583996|191743134|OTHER||Sensitivity|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.775|0.982||||||The performance goal for validation of DSI \<= 18.3 was the observed sensitivity must have been \>0.85. The confidence level for the confidence interval (CI) was adjusted to maintain a 1-sided type I error rate of 0.025.||0.982|0.775|
95894911|NCT03583996|191743135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.094|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|1.143||The odds ratio was for a 1-unit increase in DSI based on continuous DSI.|Regression, Logistic|Unadjusted (no covariates)||||1.143|1.047|<0.0001
95894912|NCT03583996|191743135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.163|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographic covariates, including age, race, sex, BMI, and ethnicity.||||1.163|1.058|<0.0001
95894913|NCT03583996|191743135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.145|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, compensated cirrhosis (CP class A)||||1.145|1.041|<0.001
95894914|NCT03583996|191743135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.089|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|1.142|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for severity of liver disease covariates, decompensated cirrhosis (CP class B)||||1.142|1.038|<0.001
95894915|NCT02404350|191743136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|5.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||5.79|2.78|<0.0001
95894916|NCT02404350|191743136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|4.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||4.87|2.35|<0.0001
95894917|NCT02404350|191743136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.16|6.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Statistical values were calculated from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-a status -naive or Incidence Rate) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||6.63|3.16|<0.0001
95894918|NCT02404350|191743137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0061|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0061
95894919|NCT02404350|191743137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||\*For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0048
95894920|NCT02404350|191743137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|||||||Non-parametric ANCOVA model||For the Statistical Test of the Hypothesis for the Secondary Outcome, The Estimation Parameter is the Standard Error of the Difference in Mean and not Standard Error of the Mean|Secukinumab 300 mg With Load compared to Placebo Estimate (for the difference in mean), SE and p-value are from a non-parametric ANCOVA model (Koch, 1998) with the change from baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score (or Erosion Score or Joint Space Narrowing Score) as the dependent variable, treatment and randomization stratum (TNFa status -naive or IR ) as factors, and weight and baseline van der Heijde total modified Sharp score as covariates.||||0.0003
95894921|NCT02404350|191743138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|18.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||18.63|5.52|<0.0001
95894922|NCT02404350|191743138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|21.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||21.37|6.37|<0.0001
95894923|NCT02404350|191743138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|34.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||34.12|9.56|<0.0001
95894924|NCT02404350|191743139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|8.83|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||8.83|2.31|<0.0001
95974480|NCT03719170|191922343|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0000684|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.000413||||||"Power Calculation:~Assuming approximately the same number of eligible subjects in each VISN (with an average of 10,563 candidates per VISN) and an Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.12, randomizing 17 VISNs will give more than 80% power to detect % days on PPI of 75% vs. 50%, 85% vs. 60%, 80% vs. 55%, or 70% vs. 45%, but to detect a difference between 70% vs. 50%, power is only 61% using 0.05 level 2-sided test."||0.000413|-0.0003|
95894925|NCT02404350|191743139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||11.87|3.18|<0.0001
95894926|NCT02404350|191743139|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.43|24.48|||Regression, Logistic|||"Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.~Missing responses are imputed as non-responders."||24.48|6.43|<0.0001
95894927|NCT02404350|191743140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|8.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||8.73|3.30|<0.0001
95894928|NCT02404350|191743140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|10.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||10.32|3.93|<0.0001
95894929|NCT02404350|191743140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a logistic regression model with treatment and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors and baseline weight as a covariate.||12.00|4.61|<0.0001
95894930|NCT02404350|191743141|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure|Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.15|-0.32|<0.0001
95894931|NCT02404350|191743141|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.14|-0.32|<0.0001
95894932|NCT02404350|191743141|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast inj LS mean (Change)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% confidence interval, and p-value are from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||||-0.24|-0.42|<0.0001
95894933|NCT02404350|191743142|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
95894934|NCT02404350|191743142|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Contrast in LS Mean (Change)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.47|-0.85|<0.0001
95894935|NCT02404350|191743142|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast in LS mean (Change)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS Mean, 95% CI, and p-value are from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||Mixed model with treatment regimen, analysis visit and randomization stratum (TNF-alpha status -naïve or IR) as factors, weight and baseline score as continuous covariates, and treatment by analysis visit and baseline score by analysis visit as interaction terms, using an unstructured covariance structure||-0.67|-1.05|<0.0001
95894936|NCT02404350|191743143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.19|0.47|0.2250
95894937|NCT02404350|191743143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.70|0.29|0.0004
95974481|NCT02245672|191922353|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95974482|NCT02245672|191922353|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established.For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95974483|NCT02245672|191922354|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.237|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for the FEV1 AUEC0-12 clinical endpoint|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.237|1.016|
95974484|NCT02245672|191922355|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||MGR001 (Test) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95894938|NCT02404350|191743143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.44||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.69|0.28|0.0004
95974485|NCT02245672|191922355|SUPERIORITY|In order for the bioequivalence results to be valid, assay sensitivity had to be established. For assay sensitivity, the following comparisons were performed using the Full Analysis Set for each co-primary endpoint: MGR001 versus placebo, and Advair Diskus versus placebo. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated if the p-values for active treatment versus placebo were less than 0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Advair Diskus (Reference) vs Placebo||||<0.0001
95974486|NCT02245672|191922356|EQUIVALENCE|A linear analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted for the endpoint and least-squares (LS) means were derived for each treatment. To assess equivalence, LS means (one for Test and one for Reference) from the ANCOVA models were used to generate Test/Reference ratios and 90% CIs were calculated by using Fieller's theorem. To demonstrate equivalence, the 90% CIs were each required to be wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).|Ratio (MGR001/Advair Diskus)|1.069|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.22|||||Bioequivalence was established between active treatments (MGR001 and Advair Diskus) for change from baseline in trough FEV1 endpoint on Day 29|Equivalence of MGR001 and Advair Diskus is established if the ratio of the LS means and 90% confidence interval are wholly contained within the interval 0.80-1.25 (i.e., 80%-125%).||1.220|0.938|
95974487|NCT00362453|191922357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-118.8||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.66|-53.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-53.94|-183.66|0.0005
95974488|NCT00362453|191922358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-324.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.98|-135.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-135.22|-513.98|0.001
95974489|NCT00362453|191922358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-183.2||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-372.58|6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||6.18|-372.58|0.06
95974490|NCT00362453|191922358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.68|84.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 week||84.08|-294.68|0.3
95894939|NCT02404350|191743144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.22|0.0004
95974491|NCT00362453|191922359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.9||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.04|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 week||7.24|-53.04|0.1
95974492|NCT00362453|191922359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|15.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 week||15.34|-44.94|0.3
95974493|NCT00362453|191922359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.79|26.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||26.49|-33.79|0.8
95974494|NCT00362453|191922360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.81|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-2.09|-131.81|0.05
95894940|NCT02404350|191743144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.19|0.0003
95894941|NCT02404350|191743144|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.44|0.13|<0.0001
95894942|NCT03969992|191743195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||A closed test procedure is used to protect the type I error rate; the order of testing was: AeroFact high dose compared to control and if significant (p-value \<0.05), the AeroFact low dose was compared to the control.|Generalized estimating equation method|||||||0.1924
95894943|NCT02063737|191743213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3882||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8272|0.0508|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusting for shift length|Adjusted difference between intervention groups (intervention - control) from the linear mixed model adjusting for shift length and repeated measures within individuals.|||0.0508|-0.8272|0.0830
95974495|NCT00362453|191922360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.01|18.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||18.71|-111.01|0.2
95974496|NCT00362453|191922361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.49|-3.82|0.01
95974497|NCT00362453|191922361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||1.02|-2.31|0.4
95974498|NCT00362453|191922361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||1.70|-1.62|1.0
95974499|NCT00362453|191922362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-0.66|-2.75|0.002
95974500|NCT00362453|191922362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||0.51|-1.58|0.3
95974501|NCT00362453|191922362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||0.02|-2.09|0.06
95974502|NCT00362453|191922363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.88||||5e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|-5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-5.84|-15.91|0.00005
95974503|NCT00362453|191922363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.12||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.15|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||-0.08|-10.15|0.05
95974504|NCT00362453|191922363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.06|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-0.91|-11.06|0.02
95974505|NCT00362453|191922364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.08||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|110.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||110.50|-10.34|0.1
95894944|NCT02063737|191743214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0114
95894945|NCT02063737|191743215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||.99
95894946|NCT02063737|191743216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline measure||||||0.0927
95894947|NCT02063737|191743217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for the baseline measure||||||0.0578
95894948|NCT02063737|191743218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.69
95894949|NCT02063737|191743219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.65
95974506|NCT00362453|191922364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.07|102.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Week||102.50|-15.07|0.1
95974507|NCT00362453|191922364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.61||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.36|78.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||78.59|-49.36|0.7
95974508|NCT00362453|191922365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||0.34|-0.54|0.7
95974509|NCT00362453|191922365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||0.52|-0.37|0.7
95974510|NCT00362453|191922365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 weeks||0.34|-0.55|0.6
95974511|NCT00362453|191922366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|-1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Week||-1.77|-11.63|0.009
95974512|NCT00362453|191922366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||-0.37|-10.23|0.04
95974513|NCT00362453|191922366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.83|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Week||-3.97|-13.83|0.0006
95974514|NCT00362453|191922367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||1.39|0.03|0.04
95974515|NCT00362453|191922367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||1.53|0.17|0.02
95974516|NCT00362453|191922367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||1.64|0.28|0.007
95974517|NCT00362453|191922368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|12.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||12.36|2.50|0.004
95974518|NCT00362453|191922368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.51||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|9.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||9.45|-0.42|0.08
95974519|NCT00362453|191922368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|11.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.25|1.38|0.01
95974520|NCT00362453|191922369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Weeks||6.57|-6.15|0.9
95974521|NCT00362453|191922369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||24 Weeks||6.25|-6.47|1.0
95974522|NCT00362453|191922369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.77||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||48 Weeks||11.13|-1.59|0.10
95894950|NCT02063737|191743220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.95
95894951|NCT02063737|191743221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.21
95894952|NCT02063737|191743222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.51
95894953|NCT02063737|191743223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.28
95894954|NCT02063737|191743224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.0930
95894955|NCT02063737|191743225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.56
95894956|NCT02063737|191743226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusting for baseline measure||||||0.20
95894957|NCT00335972|191743330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For MAP with a noninferiority delta of 7.5 mmHg and expected the SD of 12, we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. Incorporating the two interim and one final analyses, we thus planned a maximum sample size of N=71/group (N=142 total).|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-5.0||Noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest). Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing and 97.5% CI were reported.|repeated measures ANOVA||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-5|-13|<0.001
95894958|NCT00335972|191743330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.0|-4.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-4|-13|<0.001
95894959|NCT00335972|191743331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority. For VRS pain, the standard deviation (SD) was expected to be about 1.75, such that with a noninferiority delta of 1, we needed a maximum of N= 66 per group|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.1||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil arm|||-1.1|-2.7|<0.001
95974523|NCT00719563|191922379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0737|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.0737
95894960|NCT00335972|191743331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.8|-0.9||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI).|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority test||-0.9|-2.8|<0.001
95974524|NCT00420017|191922392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.86|||Chi-squared|||||0.86|0.16|0.02
95974525|NCT00420017|191922393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95974526|NCT00420017|191922394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.097
95974527|NCT00420017|191922395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
95974528|NCT04256603|191922396|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||wilcox two sample test||||0.67
95974529|NCT02901041|191922403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.45|-1.41|.98
95974530|NCT02901041|191922404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.83||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.26|-1.92|.13
95974531|NCT02901041|191922405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.03||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.33, df=72.65||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.17|.19
95974532|NCT02901041|191922406|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.99, df=56.00||||0.00|-0.34|.05
95974533|NCT02901041|191922407|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.37,df=79.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.17|-0.11|.71
95974534|NCT02901041|191922408|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.59,df=56.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.26|.12
95974535|NCT02901041|191922409|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.89|10.18|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.03, df=79.00||||10.18|-9.89|.98
95974536|NCT02901041|191922410|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.8||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.43|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.52, df=56.00||||1.83|-13.43|.13
95974537|NCT02901041|191922411|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.06|198.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.32,df=61.00||||198.20|-144.06|.75
95974538|NCT02901041|191922412|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|99.05||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.11|309.21|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.95, df=46.00||||309.21|-111.11|.35
95974539|NCT02901041|191922413|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.67, df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.40|-1.69|.51
95974540|NCT02901041|191922414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.61,df=36||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.98|-1.82|.55
95974541|NCT02901041|191922415|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|4.45|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.07,df=58.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||4.45|-4.15|.95
95974542|NCT02901041|191922416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.34||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|11.62|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.82, df=38.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||11.62|-4.93|.42
95909251|NCT01939548|191776647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.445||0.3488|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.85|5.45||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), PANSS Total baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value of PANSS Total by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||5.45|-0.85|0.3488
95974543|NCT02901041|191922417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.8||Equal variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.39, df=36.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.80|-0.15|.17
95909252|NCT01939548|191776648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.476||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.13|1.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.67|-2.13|0.8786
95974544|NCT02901041|191922418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.97||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.53, df=24.05||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.97|-0.14|0.14
95974545|NCT02901041|191922419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|7.16||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.51,df=39.34||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||7.16|-1.03|.14
95974546|NCT02901041|191922420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.18||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|10.75||Equality of variance was not assumed.|t-test, 2 sided|t=0.85, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||10.75|-4.39|.40
95974547|NCT02901041|191922421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.81||Equal variances were not assumed when conducting the t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|t=1.97, df=38.37||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.81|-0.01|.06
95974548|NCT02901041|191922422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t=.06, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||1.05|-1.00|.96
95974549|NCT02901041|191922423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.03||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|9.64|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.53,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||9.64|-5.58|.60
95974550|NCT02901041|191922424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.27, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.03|-0.15|.21
95974551|NCT02901041|191922425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.74,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.04|-0.60|.09
95974552|NCT02901041|191922426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-1.69, df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.07|-0.78|.10
95974553|NCT02901041|191922427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t=0.25,df=57.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline (pre-treatment). The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||0.19|-0.15|0.80
95974554|NCT02901041|191922428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|3.34|||t-test, 2 sided|t=-0.84,df=39.00||A t-test was used to compare means between conditions at baseline post-treatment. The null hypothesis was that the difference in group means is zero.||3.34|-14.56|.41
95974555|NCT03249714|191922429|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.064|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.232|||negative binominal regression model|||||0.232|0.018|<0.001
95974556|NCT03249714|191922430|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.136||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.513||Statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level|negative binomial regression|||||0.513|0.036|0.003
95974557|NCT03249714|191922430|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||negative binominal regression|Indicates statistical significance (2-sided) at the 0.05 level.||||0.000|0.000|< 0.001
95974558|NCT03249714|191922431|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.284||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.62|||negative binominal regression|||||0.620|0.130|0.002
95974559|NCT03249714|191922432|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.42||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|1.25|||negative binominal regression|||||1.250|0.141|0.119
95974560|NCT03818204|191922441|OTHER||||||>=|0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of angular position was modeled using linear mixed-effects (multiple regression) models. The five angles were randomly mapped for the dependent variable interpalpebral fissure. Because there were repeated measurements on each eye and each participant might respond differently to each angular position, participant and angular position within participant-eye were included as random effects.||||>=0.46
95974561|NCT01996813|191922442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.115||||0.0553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.034||The exact p-value was estimated|Regression, Logistic|The method was exact logistic regression||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of a cerebral desaturation event between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||1.034|0.002|.0553
95894961|NCT00335972|191743332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was based on being able to detect noninferiority on both analgesia (pain score and opioids) and hemodynamic responses, and superiority on at least one of them with 90% power and significance level of 0.025 for each of noninferiority and superiority.we needed a maximum of N= 65 per group. We assumed for opioids that the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) was about 0.4, resulting in a similar sample size (64/group) with noninferiority deltas of 20% of the observed mean|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||noninferiority confidence intervals are 95% (alpha of 0.05/2=0.025 in direction of interest)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean difference: Dexmedetomidine arm - Remifentanil|||-5|-10|<0.001
95894962|NCT00335972|191743332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|-3.0||Bonferroni correction was used for superiority testing since superiority on either hemodynamics or pain control would be interpreted as Dex better than Remi (alpha=0.0125 = 0.025/2, 97.5% CI)|repeated measures ANOVA model||mean difference: dexmedetomidine arm - remifentanil arm|superiority||-3|-10|<0.001
95894963|NCT01358357|191743345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||A hazard ratio of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for the lurasidone arm vs.placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model.Cox model included treatment effect as fixed effect, and stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||It was assumed that the recurrence event rates during the double-blind phase were to be 24% and 39% for subjects treated with lurasidone and placebo, respectively. A total of 120 recurrence events were required to achieve 90% power to detect the 15% difference in subjects who had a recurrence event during the double-blind phase between the treatment groups using a log-rank test with two sided alpha level of 0.05.||1.04|0.49|<0.078
95894964|NCT01358357|191743346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||<|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98||A HR of time to discontinuation and corresponding 95% Wald CI were est. for lurasidone arm vs.the placebo arm, using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect,stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||0.98|0.54|<0.034
95894965|NCT01358357|191743347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.08||A HR of time to recurrence and its corresponding 95% Wald CI were estimated for lurasidone arm vs. placebo arm,using a Cox proportional hazards model. Model included treatment effect including treatment as a fixed effect stratified by pooled country.|Cox Proportional hazard Model|||||1.08|0.48|0.113
95894966|NCT01358357|191743349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.09||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.12||analysis of ANCOVA model contains treatment ,pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.29|0.406
95894967|NCT01358357|191743350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.11||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.26|0.162
95894968|NCT01358357|191743351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.07||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.13||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.27|0.496
95894969|NCT01358357|191743352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pool country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.8|0.128
95894970|NCT01358357|191743353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasdione vs.Placebo|-0.5||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-1.9|0.485
95894971|NCT01358357|191743354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.8|0.582
95894972|NCT01358357|191743355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.01||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.5|0.420
95894973|NCT01358357|191743356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.2||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.6|0.788
95894974|NCT01358357|191743357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.380
95974562|NCT01996813|191922443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.22|60.39|||t-test, 2 sided|A Satterthwaite correction was used to adjust the degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the average length of surgery between patients wearing versus not wearing thigh-high compression stockings during shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position||60.39|20.22|<.001
95894975|NCT01358357|191743358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference lurasidone vs.Placebo|0.37||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|2.88||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model contains treatment, and pooled country, and mood stabilizer (lithium or divalproex) as fixed factors and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.88|-2.14|0.772
95974563|NCT00879762|191922463|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|0.868|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.868|0.398|
95974564|NCT00879762|191922464|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 2.5. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio is less than 2.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|0.853|||||A survival analysis for interval censored data was performed to estimate the hazard ratio. The 95% CI for the hazard ratio was estimated using bootstrap.|Null hypothesis: Median time to seroconversion among participants receiving one standard dose in Group B is 2.5-fold higher compared to participants receiving one high dose in Group A (hazard ratio = 2.5).||0.853|0.384|
95894976|NCT03200899|191743359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.926
95894977|NCT03200899|191743360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.750
95894978|NCT03200899|191743361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.129
95894979|NCT03200899|191743362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.152
95894980|NCT03200899|191743363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.037
95894981|NCT03200899|191743364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.297
95894982|NCT03200899|191743365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.293
95894983|NCT03200899|191743366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
95894984|NCT01344161|191743373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust mean differences on all variables.||||||0.001
95894985|NCT01713868|191743388|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was significant, we presented results from the interaction model.||||||0.03||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.34. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.01. Adjusted education only effect p=0.74. Adjusted mHealth only effect p=0.02. Adjusted mHealth and education effect: p=0.03|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction.We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||0.03
95894986|NCT01713868|191743389|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect: p=0.22. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.08.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up,this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
95909253|NCT01939548|191776648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.502||0.4483|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.08|0.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.79|-3.08|0.4483
95894987|NCT01713868|191743390|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.07. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.54|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
95894988|NCT01713868|191743391|SUPERIORITY|GEE logistic regression accounted for within-hospital clustering, individual-level \& hospital-level covariates. We converted aORs to aRDs (95% CI) using the BF/BF group as the control group prevalence and reported separate effects of the 2 interventions. We fit multiplicative interaction models with indicator variables for education, mHealth, and their interaction. As the interaction between interventions was not significant, we only presented main effects model.|||||<|0.001||||||Adjusted education effect p=0.33. Adjusted mHealth effect p\<0.001. Test for interaction p=0.29.|Regression, Logistic|||Sample size provided power of detecting the effect of an individual intervention in the presence of interaction. We assumed pre-study prevalence of a safe sleep practice ranging from 50% to 60% across hospitals. We powered the study to detect a 10 percentage point difference between two study groups, and determined that an analysis sample of n=1280 (320 per treatment group) was needed for 80% power (testing at two-sided p\<0.05). Allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, this led to a sample of n=1600.||||<0.001
95894989|NCT01713868|191743392|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
95894990|NCT01713868|191743393|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
95894991|NCT01713868|191743394|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
95894992|NCT01713868|191743395|OTHER|Causal mediation analysis|Difference in proportions|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||We performed causal mediation analyses to estimate the Total Effect of intervention on a categorical outcome as the difference in the proportion with the outcome for those who received the intervention and were positive on the mediator vs. those who received the control and were negative on the mediator. Significance is determined through 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with CIs not including 0.0 indicating significant effects.|||
95894993|NCT03265249|191743455|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|29.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29|-17.5|0.80
95894994|NCT00644969|191743488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|21.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.78|1.03|0.0457
95894995|NCT00644969|191743489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.18||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|50.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.71|0.75|0.0901
95894996|NCT00644969|191743490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.68|0.82|0.1524
95894997|NCT00644969|191743490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||2.05|0.45|0.9235
95894998|NCT00644969|191743491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|-0.99|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 12 treatment difference||-0.99|-6.32|0.0077
95894999|NCT00644969|191743491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|3.52|||ANCOVA||Least squares mean difference|Week 24 treatment difference||3.52|-3.99|0.9022
95895000|NCT03161483|191743492|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|11.4||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.57|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.00|-6.57|0.214
95895001|NCT03161483|191743492|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.0||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|19.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.48|-9.77|0.512
95974565|NCT00879762|191922470|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.97|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||0.97|-0.20|
95895002|NCT03161483|191743492|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.12|33.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.42|4.12|0.011
95974566|NCT00879762|191922471|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 1. Non-inferiority of Group B is concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in the log2.5 transformed peak titers between groups is less than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||||Estimate and corresponding 95% confidence interval are calculated on the log2.5 scale.|Null hypothesis: The mean difference in log2.5 transformed peak titers between Group A and Group B \>= 1.||1.00|-0.17|
95974567|NCT01313637|191922510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.198|0.122|<0.001
95895003|NCT03161483|191743493|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|10.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|27.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.97|-7.66|0.264
95895004|NCT03161483|191743493|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.5||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.00|-8.45|0.399
95895005|NCT03161483|191743493|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|19.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|33.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.36|4.01|0.012
95895006|NCT03161483|191743494|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|24.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.38|53.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.11|-12.38|0.446
95895007|NCT03161483|191743494|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|5.3|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.64|39.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||39.38|-27.64|>0.999
95895008|NCT03161483|191743494|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|14.2||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.54|44.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.48|-19.54|0.488
95895009|NCT03161483|191743495|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.4||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|24.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.07|-2.74|0.092
95895010|NCT03161483|191743495|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-5.3||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.43|8.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.06|-18.43|0.434
95895011|NCT03161483|191743495|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|8.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|19.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.65|-3.88|0.182
95895012|NCT03161483|191743496|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|12.1||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|23.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.78|-2.98|0.098
95895013|NCT03161483|191743496|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|-4.3||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|8.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.92|-17.36|0.521
95895014|NCT03161483|191743496|SUPERIORITY||Stratified difference|6.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|18.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.55|-5.24|0.267
95895015|NCT03161483|191743497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.5|-0.2|0.116
95895016|NCT03161483|191743497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-0.1|0.094
95895017|NCT03161483|191743497|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||0.8|-0.6|0.881
95895018|NCT03161483|191743498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|-0.4|0.160
95895019|NCT03161483|191743498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.6|0.0|0.056
95895020|NCT03161483|191743498|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.3||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||1.6|-1.0|0.621
95895021|NCT03161483|191743500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.5|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.5|-4.7|0.546
95895022|NCT03161483|191743500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.6||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||2.4|-3.7|0.681
95895023|NCT03161483|191743500|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.4|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||4.4|-1.6|0.350
95895024|NCT03161483|191743501|SUPERIORITY|\<= 7.5 mg/day|Stratified difference|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|15.91|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||15.91|-15.13|>0.999
95895025|NCT03161483|191743501|SUPERIORITY|\< 10 mg/day|Stratified difference|-3.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.74|13.0|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||13.00|-17.74|>0.999
95895026|NCT03161483|191743502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|2.8||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.6|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||11.6|-6.0|0.535
95895027|NCT03161483|191743502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|4.2||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|12.2|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||12.2|-3.9|0.309
95895028|NCT03161483|191743502|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|6.5||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.1|||longitudinal data analysis model|||||14.1|-1.0|0.091
95895029|NCT02767427|191743505|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence test on data from a parallel-group design with sample sizes of 18 in the reference group and 18 in the treatment group achieves 80% power. The significance was set at 5%. The standard deviation was 1.00, and the equivalence limits were set at -1.00 and 1.00.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Two one-sided t-tests were conducted with 18 in each group.||||||<0.05
95895030|NCT03917420|191743540|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|-0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95895031|NCT03917420|191743541|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.152|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95895032|NCT03917420|191743542|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95895033|NCT03917420|191743543|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman's Rho|0.285|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95895034|NCT04753164|191743559|OTHER|Mixed effects model for Repeated Measures: Change from baseline in the number of BE days per week = baseline number of BE days per week + sex (Male; Female) + BMI group (\< 30 ; ≥ 30 kg/m2) + treatment + visit + treatment × visit + baseline × visit.|LS Mean Difference to Placebo|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69|||Mixed effects model f. repeated measures|||||0.69|-0.69|0.9992
95895035|NCT00694369|191743560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|"Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value~for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)."||||||<0.001
95895036|NCT00694369|191743560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|ANOVA|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
95895037|NCT00694369|191743560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.06||||||95.0|-1.37|1.48|||||Difference in Least squares means (LS Means) (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.48|-1.37|
95895038|NCT00694369|191743560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen) is -4.45.|Difference in LS Means|0.43||||||95.0|-0.73|1.6|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus ibuprofen)|||1.60|-0.73|
95895039|NCT00694369|191743560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus cetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|3.9||||||95.0|2.04|5.76|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.76|2.04|
95895040|NCT00694369|191743560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority bound (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine) is -2.41.|Difference in LS Means|4.27||||||95.0|2.61|5.94|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib minus acetaminophen/codeine)|||5.94|2.61|
95895041|NCT00694369|191743560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.38||||||95.0|-1.8|1.05|||||Difference in LS Means (etoricoxib 120 mg minus etoricoxib 90 mg)|||1.05|-1.80|
95895042|NCT00694369|191743560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|10.59||||||95.0|8.72|12.47|||||Difference in LS Means (ibuprofen 2400 mg minus placebo)|||12.47|8.72|
95895043|NCT00694369|191743560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.75||||||95.0|4.53|8.97|||||Difference in LS Means (acetaminophen 2400 mg/codeine 240 mg minus placebo)|||8.97|4.53|
95895044|NCT00694369|191743561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant).||||||<0.001
95895045|NCT00694369|191743561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Step-down manner was used (p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was reported only if the p-value for 120-mg dose comparison is significant)||||||<0.001
95895046|NCT00694369|191743561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used, and the nominal p-value for 90-mg dose comparison was not reported.||||||0.161
95895047|NCT00694369|191743561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.014
95895048|NCT00694369|191743561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0||||0.05 critical level was used.|stratified Wilcoxon rank sum test|Nominal p-value was provided in lieu of the 95% CI. Step-down manner was used.||||||0.007
95895049|NCT02907359|191743580|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19||OS between Guadecitabine vs Treatment Choice using stratified log-rank test. Due to pre-specified hierarchical testing plan, other endpoints were not evaluated for statistical significance.|Stratified Log-rank test|||||1.19|0.74|0.6063
95895050|NCT03089606|191743611|OTHER|2-tailed Fisher's exact test||||||0.08|||||||2-tailed Fisher's exact test|||Null hypothesis. No association between baseline C11-AMT PET SUVmax value and antitumor response to pembrolizumab.||||0.08
95895051|NCT03965962|191743617|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 2) was greater than (\>) -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|4.35||||||||4.35|-2.33|
95895052|NCT03965962|191743617|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 95 % CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference of the percentages between the test group (Group 1) and control group (Group 3) was \> -5% at Day 28.|Difference in Percentage|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|6.5||||||||6.50|-1.32|
95895053|NCT02590939|191743635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95895054|NCT02590939|191743636|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95895055|NCT02590939|191743637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.666
95895056|NCT02590939|191743638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95895057|NCT02590939|191743639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95895058|NCT02590939|191743640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
95974568|NCT01313637|191922510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.162|0.086|<0.001
95895059|NCT02590939|191743641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95895060|NCT02590939|191743642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||Statistical significance threshold set to 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.062
95895061|NCT00944450|191743651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for AUC geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05||||||90.0|1.02|1.07||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.07|1.02|
95895062|NCT00944450|191743652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified equivalence bounds = (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax geometric mean ratio (B/A)|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07||||||90.0|0.94|1.22||||||100 mg MK0431 monohydrate (Phase III/FMI formulation) (B) vs. 100 mg MK0431 anhydrous (Phase IIB formulation) (A)||1.22|0.94|
95895063|NCT01774786|191743657|SUPERIORITY|The study was designed to have 80% power to show a significant difference with respect to the primary endpoint.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||The actual p-value significance threshold required for OS was 0.0455, after alpha spent at the interim analysis was taken into account.|Stratified Log-Rank|Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis. The null hypothesis is that the survival distribution of OS is the same in the two treatment arms.||1.00|0.71|0.0565
95895064|NCT01774786|191743657|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.99|0.72|
95895065|NCT01774786|191743658|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||As pre-specified in the protocol, a p-value was only to be calculated for PFS if OS was statistically significant.|||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Primary Analysis||0.86|0.62|
95895066|NCT01774786|191743658|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.85|||||A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the HR between the pertuzumab arm vs. the placebo arm.|Final Analysis||0.85|0.62|
95895067|NCT01774786|191743659|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
95895068|NCT01774786|191743659|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Primary Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
95895069|NCT01774786|191743660|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Objective Response|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|15.91|||||Difference in objective response was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||15.91|0.89|
95895070|NCT01774786|191743660|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.89|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|Final Analysis of Objective Response Rate||1.89|1.04|
95895071|NCT01774786|191743661|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.06|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Primary Analysis||1.06|0.64|
95895072|NCT01774786|191743661|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.98|||||HR was calculated as pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm. Stratified analysis by geographic region, HER2 status, and prior gastrectomy.|Final Analysis||0.98|0.62|
95895073|NCT01774786|191743662|OTHER|Exploratory|Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|9.07|||||Difference in clinical benefit rate was calculated as the pertuzumab arm minus placebo arm.|||9.07|-2.34|
95895074|NCT01774786|191743662|OTHER|Exploratory|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.88|||||Odds ratio was calculated as the pertuzumab arm vs. placebo arm.|||1.88|0.86|
95895075|NCT03556579|191743671|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.36|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.36|-1.01|
95895076|NCT03556579|191743671|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.81|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|Without Distance Filter||-0.81|-1.45|
95974569|NCT01313637|191922510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.238|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.276|0.200|<0.001
95974570|NCT01313637|191922510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus UMEC 125 µg.|||0.112|0.046|<0.001
95974571|NCT01313637|191922510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.148|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 125/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.148|0.081|<0.001
95974572|NCT04218084|191922515|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures analysis|Difference in LS mean|-7.73||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.03|-2.42|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures|||Week 24||-2.42|-13.03|0.0043
95974573|NCT01468831|191922552|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|26.1|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||26.1|-10.6|
95974574|NCT01468831|191922553|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974575|NCT01468831|191922554|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.||||
95974576|NCT01468831|191922555|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.3|-3.9|
95974577|NCT01468831|191922556|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||0.3|-4.5|
95974578|NCT01468831|191922557|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|2.5|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.5|-7.5|
95895077|NCT03556579|191743672|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|-4.55|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-4.55|-13.16|
95895078|NCT03556579|191743672|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.24|-20.62|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-20.62|-29.24|
95895079|NCT03556579|191743673|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.15|
95974579|NCT01468831|191922558|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.4|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2.4|-9.4|
95974580|NCT01468831|191922559|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|2.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||2|-9.5|
95974581|NCT01468831|191922560|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||28.6|-17.1|
95974582|NCT01468831|191922561|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-51.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|70.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-231.2|127.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||127.6|-231.2|
95974583|NCT01468831|191922562|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-45.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|153.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-522.6|431.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||431.6|-522.6|
95974584|NCT01468831|191922563|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|163.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-513.1|487.6|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||487.6|-513.1|
95974585|NCT01468831|191922564|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|156.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-487.0|468.0|||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||468|-487|
95974586|NCT01468831|191922565|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974587|NCT01468831|191922566|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974588|NCT01468831|191922567|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974589|NCT01468831|191922567|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974590|NCT01468831|191922567|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974591|NCT01468831|191922568|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974592|NCT01468831|191922568|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95974593|NCT01468831|191922568|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95895080|NCT03556579|191743674|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.65|||Generalized linear mixed model|Generalized Linear mixed model with a lognormal distribution using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||||0.65|0.46|
95895081|NCT03556579|191743675|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.15|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||-0.15|-1.07|
95974594|NCT03401229|191922569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.852|-0.289||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.289|-0.852|<0.0001
95974595|NCT03401229|191922570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.083||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate. Both of the co-primary endpoints were tested at 0.01 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||The primary analysis compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in total NPS and/or the change from baseline in NBS are similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: Both of the change from baseline in total NPS and the change from baseline in NBS are different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.083|-0.458|0.0048
95974596|NCT03401229|191922571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.212||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.087|0.664||Since both primary endpoints were significant at significant level of 0.01 level, this endpoint was tested at significant level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.664|-11.087|0.0821
95974597|NCT03401229|191922572|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.02||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal because test for change from baseline in SNOT-22 at week 40 was not statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery and/or SCS use for NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.02|0.55|0.0660
95974598|NCT03401229|191922573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.36||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of first NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.36|0.53|0.5008
95974599|NCT03401229|191922574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.074||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.074|-0.361|0.0029
95974600|NCT03401229|191922575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.141||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NPS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NPS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.141|-0.810|0.0054
95974601|NCT03401229|191922576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.477|-0.096||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in NBS is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in NBS is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.096|-0.477|0.0032
95974602|NCT03401229|191922577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.492||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.741|-1.243||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-1.243|-13.741|0.0188
95895082|NCT03556579|191743676|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.23|||Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.23|0.14|
95974603|NCT03401229|191922578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.237||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.389|-0.084||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline DSS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in DSS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in DSS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.084|-0.389|0.0023
95974604|NCT03401229|191922579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.856||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.281|0.57||Based on pre-specified testing strategy, this endpoint was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following WP (WP for NP surgery), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline LMS score of benralizumab with placebo. H0: The change from baseline in LMS score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline in LMS score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.570|-2.281|0.2375
95895083|NCT03556579|191743677|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|-25.46|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||-25.46|-31.66|
95895084|NCT03556579|191743677|SUPERIORITY|"Superiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below 0.~No sample size calculation was performed for this study since historical data was not available for either study lens for any of the primary endpoints."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.555|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.48|-10.27|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test Minus Control.|||-10.27|-20.48|
95895085|NCT00744627|191743678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|-1.88||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||P-values were tested at the 5% level of significance (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||-1.88|-5.74|<0.001
95895086|NCT00744627|191743679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.2||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis||||-1.20|-3.39|<0.001
95974605|NCT03401229|191922580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.43||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.43|0.51|0.5419
95974606|NCT03401229|191922581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.06||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.06|0.44|0.0913
95974607|NCT03401229|191922582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.97||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The odds ratio estimate was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for region (US/non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||This endpoint compared the proportion of subjects with NP surgery or SCS\_NP between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The proportion is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The proportion is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.97|0.44|0.0362
95974608|NCT03401229|191922583|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Regression, Cox|A Cox proportional hazards model including covariates treatment group, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status.||The endpoint compared the rate of incidence of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) is benralizumab vs placebo and HR less than 1 indicates longer time to event||1.10|0.53|0.1505
95895087|NCT00744627|191743680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
95895088|NCT00744627|191743681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.901||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-0.18||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-0.18|-3.74|0.031
95895089|NCT00744627|191743682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.496|3.83||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with explanatory variables for treatment and Baseline HAM-A score.||||3.830|1.496|<0.001
95895090|NCT00744627|191743683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.6||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \<0.05, hierarchical testing continues.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||||-2.60|-7.61|<0.001
95895091|NCT00744627|191743684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.774||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|14.25||SF-36 social functioning subscore was the last endpoint to be tested in the hierarchical testing sequence.|Mixed model for repeated measurements|P-values were from a MMRM with Baseline-by-week, center, week and week-by-treatment as factors in the analysis.||Results presented are for the number of participants at week 8 only.||14.25|3.32|0.002
95895092|NCT03706794|191743737|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|43.0||||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.829
95895093|NCT03706794|191743738|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
95895094|NCT03706794|191743739|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|45.5||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
95895095|NCT03706794|191743740|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|46.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.633
95895096|NCT03706794|191743741|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U|52.0||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.315
95895097|NCT02530450|191743742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Testing the change between two time points within each group using Wilcoxon signed rank test.||||< 0.05
95895098|NCT00566150|191743761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.29
95895099|NCT00566150|191743762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups at week 6.||||0.07
95895100|NCT00566150|191743763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0||||Statistical significance was p\<0.05|Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test was used to test for significance between groups.||Week 6||||.038
95895101|NCT00566150|191743764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.79||95.0||||Unadjusted. Statistical significance was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed categorical effects: group (as a between-subjects factor), time (as a within-subjects factor), group x time interaction.||Comparison of changes in outcome between treatment groups.||||0.79
95895102|NCT02586896|191743807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
95895103|NCT02586896|191743809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95895104|NCT02586896|191743810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.09
95895105|NCT02586896|191743811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
95895106|NCT02678676|191743863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.04||No adjustment to the p-value|Regression, Cox|||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.04|0.88|0.3444
95895107|NCT02678676|191743864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16||||||Test for statistical difference between pioglitazone and placebo with respect to time of first occurrence of the primary composite outcome event.||1.16|0.83|
95895108|NCT04646499|191743867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Sign test|||||||0.34
95895109|NCT04646499|191743868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Sign test|||||||0.024
95895110|NCT04646499|191743869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||Sign test|||||||0.083
95895111|NCT04646499|191743870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Sign test|||||||0.049
95895112|NCT04646499|191743871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Sign test|||||||0.31
95895113|NCT01538862|191743876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.82
95895114|NCT01400516|191743879|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value \< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed model||control-teriparatide|||||0.28
95895115|NCT01412866|191743882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.08
95895116|NCT00004888|191743958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.642||||||||0.642|0.31|
95895117|NCT00004888|191743958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|0.457|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.61||||||||0.61|0.309|
95895118|NCT00136084|191743963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.1559||95.0|0.832|3.205||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.041 so that the overall level of the study is maintained at 0.05 across the 4 interim analyses and the final analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value was computed using a Monte Carlo approximation (10000 permutations) to an exact, risk-group stratified, test.|The odds ratio is defined as the ratio of the odds that a LDAC patient is MRD positive to the odds that a HDAC patient is MRD positive.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that HDAC and LDAC result in the same proportion of patients with positive MRD after 22 days. Power calculations indicate that enrollment of a total of 186 MRD-evaluable patients in a 5-stage O'Brien-Fleming group sequential design gives 80% power at the 5% level to detect a change in the MRD-positive proportion from 0.50 to 0.30. The design was developed using East statistical software.||3.205|.832|.1559
95895119|NCT00136084|191743964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.733||||||95.0|0.449|0.922|||Binomial proportion|||Estimate of the proportion of negative minimal residual disease.||.922|.449|
95895120|NCT00136084|191743965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.931||||||95.0|0.772|0.992|||Binomial proportion|||||.992|.772|
95895121|NCT00136084|191743966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial proportion|0.9||||||95.0|0.735|0.979|||Binomial proportion|||||.979|.735|
95895122|NCT00136084|191743968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95895123|NCT00136084|191743969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.0139||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0365|0.00873|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.00873|-0.0365|0.2287
95895124|NCT02174848|191743987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone.||||0.0500
95895125|NCT02174848|191743987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the extension study, during which patients in both groups received deferiprone.||||0.9781
95895126|NCT02174848|191743988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0206|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.0206
95895127|NCT02174848|191743989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2684|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.2684
95895128|NCT02174848|191743990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0821|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This comparison is for the initial study, during which patients in the placebo-DFP group received placebo and patients in the DFP-DFP group received deferiprone||||0.0821
95895129|NCT02174848|191743990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5885|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the placebo-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the extension study; for the DFP-DFP group, the comparison is of the scores at the start vs. the end of the initial study||||0.5885
95895130|NCT02174848|191743991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3306|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3306
95895131|NCT01714310|191744012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Group: F=.31, df=1/140|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.58
95895132|NCT01714310|191744012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.03, df=1/140||||||.85
95895133|NCT01714310|191744012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=1.28, df=1/140||||||.26
95895134|NCT01714310|191744013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Group: F=0.00, df=1/44|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.97
95895135|NCT01714310|191744013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0002||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=136.22, df=1/44||||||<.0002
95895136|NCT01714310|191744013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=64.90, df=1/44||||||<.0001
95895137|NCT01714310|191744014|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=41.85, df=1/89, p\<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
95895138|NCT01714310|191744015|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.65, df=1/92, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
95895139|NCT01714310|191744016|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=40.35, df=1/89, p \< .0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
95895140|NCT01714310|191744017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Time: F=26.36, df=1/29, p \<.0001.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression of outcome change over time within single group.||||||<0.0001
95895141|NCT01714310|191744018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Group: F=.60, df=1/157|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.44
95895142|NCT01714310|191744018|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=22.39, df=1/157||||||<.0001
95895143|NCT01714310|191744018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=4.40, df=1/157||||||.04
95895144|NCT01714310|191744019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Group: F=3.81, df=1/145|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|||No significant group\*time interactions. Group trend likely due to baseline differences.|||.05
95895145|NCT01714310|191744019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Tie: F=15.28, df=1/145||||||.0001
95895146|NCT01714310|191744019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=5.42, df=1/145||||||.02
95895147|NCT01714310|191744020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|Chi Square = .10, df=1, p=.76||||||.76
95895148|NCT01714310|191744021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Group: F=.78, df=1/220|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline through week 12) and time2 (weeks 4-12).||||||.38
95895149|NCT01714310|191744021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.42
95895150|NCT01714310|191744021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.66, df=1/220||||||.13
95895151|NCT01714310|191744022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Group: F=1.56, df=1/222|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.21
95895152|NCT01714310|191744022|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=63.11, df=1/222||||||<.0001
95895153|NCT01714310|191744022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=12.86, df=1/222||||||.0004
95895154|NCT01714310|191744023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Group: F=5.42, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.02
95974609|NCT03401229|191922587|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.79||||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|Negative Bionomial Model|Model included treatment, US/non-US and prior use of SCS\_NP with total number of courses of SCS\_NP as outcome and log of follow-up time as an offset||The endpoint compared the rate of SCS\_NP use between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The rate is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: the rate is different between benralizumab and placebo. Rate ratio is benralizumab vs placebo and Rate ratio less than 1 indicates less likely of SCS\_NP use.||1.15|0.54|0.2189
95974610|NCT03401229|191922588|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.854||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.101|-0.608||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.608|-3.101|0.0036
95974611|NCT03401229|191922589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.028||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||0.028|-0.360|0.0941
95974612|NCT03401229|191922590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|-0.027||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||-0.027|-0.399|0.0246
95974613|NCT03401229|191922591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.672||||0.5833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.074||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||3.074|-1.730|0.5833
95895155|NCT01714310|191744023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.77, df=1/223||||||.18
95895156|NCT01714310|191744023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.47, df=1/223||||||.49
95895157|NCT01714310|191744024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Group: F=.02, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.90
95895158|NCT01714310|191744024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=1.60, df=1/223||||||.21
95895159|NCT01714310|191744024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=.12, df=1/223||||||.73
95895160|NCT01714310|191744025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Group: F=2.05, df=1/223|Mixed Models Analysis|Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).||||||.15
95895161|NCT01714310|191744025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F=.29, df=1/223||||||.59
95895162|NCT01714310|191744025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Partial linear regression using mixed model, assessing outcome variable over time (baseline to study week 12) and time2 (study weeks 4-12).|Mixed Models Analysis|Time2: F=2.15, df=1/223||||||.14
95895163|NCT00436748|191744100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa QW group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||<0.001
95895164|NCT00436748|191744100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.293|||||||Exact|||The null hypothesis for the Darbepoetin Alfa Q2W group was that the correction proportion (p) ≤ 0.8 ; Th alternative hypothesis was that p \> 0.8. The correction proportion was compared with 0.8 using the exact method to test the null hypothesis at a 1-sided overall significance level of 0.025.||||0.293
95895165|NCT04452331|191744125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for clinical site||Diastolic BP||||0.06
95895166|NCT04452331|191744125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.90
95895167|NCT04452331|191744127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
95895168|NCT04452331|191744128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.10
95895169|NCT04452331|191744129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.44
95895170|NCT04452331|191744130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.01
95895171|NCT04452331|191744131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.01
95895172|NCT04452331|191744132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.54
95895173|NCT04452331|191744133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.74
95895174|NCT04452331|191744134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.03
95895175|NCT04452331|191744134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.06
95895176|NCT04452331|191744135|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||<0.001
95895177|NCT04452331|191744135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, negative binomial|||||||0.03
95895178|NCT04452331|191744136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||<0.001
95895179|NCT04452331|191744136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, poisson|||||||0.08
95895180|NCT04452331|191744137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||<.001
95895181|NCT04452331|191744137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression including random effect of visit, to incorporate clustering of prescriptions within visits.||||||0.98
95895182|NCT04452331|191744138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.20
95895183|NCT04452331|191744138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Regression, Linear|||Systolic BP||||0.82
95974614|NCT03401229|191922592|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.684||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|5.502||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA following hybrid WP/WOCF and MI (assuming MAR), adjusting for treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||5.502|-0.134|0.0619
95974615|NCT03401229|191922593|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.057||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.129|1.015||This endpoint was not a part of the pre-specified testing strategy and was not tested for statistical significance. The p-value was considered nominal.|ANCOVA|Following WP (WP for NP surgery rescued subjects), model included treatment, baseline score, region (US/Non-US) and baseline comorbid asthma status||This endpoint compared the changes from baseline score between benralizumab and placebo. H0: The change from baseline score is similar between benralizumab and placebo. H1: The change from baseline score is different between benralizumab and placebo.||1.015|-11.129|0.1020
95895184|NCT04452331|191744138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.12
95895185|NCT04452331|191744138|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||Diastolic BP||||0.10
95895186|NCT03754959|191744146|OTHER||Ratio|97.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|106.2|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.2|90.2|
95895187|NCT03754959|191744146|OTHER||Ratio|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.9|102.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|||102.4|89.9|
95895188|NCT03754959|191744146|OTHER||Ratio|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.3|106.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.1|96.3|
95895189|NCT03754959|191744146|OTHER||Ratio|93.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.8|101.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||101.1|86.8|
95895190|NCT03754959|191744146|OTHER||Ratio|93.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
95895191|NCT03754959|191744146|OTHER||Ratio|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|96.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||96.7|83.8|
95895192|NCT03754959|191744147|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.6|116.9|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||116.9|95.6|
95974616|NCT00690820|191922616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95974617|NCT00690820|191922617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95974618|NCT00690820|191922618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95974619|NCT00690820|191922619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95974620|NCT00690820|191922620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95974621|NCT00690820|191922621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.671
95974622|NCT00690820|191922622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.003
95974623|NCT00690820|191922623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.023
95974624|NCT01122862|191922624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.03|-0.45|0.0915
95974625|NCT01122862|191922625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.9||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments being compared.||1.90|1.42|<0.0001
95974626|NCT01122862|191922626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.21|-0.14|0.6682
95974627|NCT01122862|191922626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.92|0.57|<0.0001
95974628|NCT01122862|191922627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.05|-0.44|0.1100
95974629|NCT01122862|191922627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.93||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.93|1.44|<0.0001
95974630|NCT01122862|191922628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.03||||0.728||95.0|-0.16|0.23||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||0.23|-0.16|0.7280
95974631|NCT01122862|191922628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with factors for treatment, period and subject (random) with baseline as a covariate|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments being compared.||1.08|0.68|<0.0001
95974632|NCT01249274|191922658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.36|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is the risk ratio estimate for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for the treatment variable.|||1.36|1.04|0.010
95895193|NCT03754959|191744147|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.5|129.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||129.6|106.5|
95895194|NCT03754959|191744147|OTHER||Ratio|112.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.9|123.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.1|102.9|
95895195|NCT03754959|191744147|OTHER||Ratio|110.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|135.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||135.1|90.1|
95895196|NCT03754959|191744147|OTHER||Ratio|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.5|110.1|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||110.1|84.5|
95895197|NCT03754959|191744147|OTHER||Ratio|89.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|106.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA model on the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||106.4|74.9|
95895198|NCT03754959|191744148|OTHER||Ratio|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|114.8|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.8|84.2|
95895199|NCT03754959|191744148|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.9|109.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||109.3|87.9|
95895200|NCT03754959|191744148|OTHER||Ratio|117.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.6|134.6|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||134.6|102.6|
95895201|NCT03754959|191744148|OTHER||Ratio|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.5|104.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||104.4|85.5|
95895202|NCT03754959|191744148|OTHER||Ratio|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|99.3|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||99.3|87.3|
95895203|NCT03754959|191744148|OTHER||Ratio|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.3|114.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 1 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||114.0|84.3|
95895204|NCT03754959|191744149|OTHER||Ratio|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|112.1|||||Ratio is calculated with Placebo+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||112.1|81.3|
95895205|NCT03754959|191744149|OTHER||Ratio|105.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.5|122.0|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 10mg +Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||122.0|91.5|
95895206|NCT03754959|191744149|OTHER||Ratio|116.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.9|148.7|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 25 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||148.7|90.9|
95895207|NCT03754959|191744149|OTHER||Ratio|106.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.4|123.4|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 50 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||123.4|92.4|
95895208|NCT03754959|191744149|OTHER||Ratio|83.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.2|98.9|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 100 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||98.9|71.2|
95895209|NCT03754959|191744149|OTHER||Ratio|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|103.5|||||Ratio is calculated with BI 1358894 200 mg+Midazolam on day 14 in the nominator and the Midazolam on day -1 in the denominator.|The statistical model used for the analysis of the secondary endpoints was an ANOVA mode lon the logarithmic scale including 'treatment' ('midazolam' and 'midazolam + Placebo/BI') as fixed effect and 'subject' as random effect. The analysis was performed separately for Day 1 and Day 14.||103.5|73.5|
95895210|NCT01420289|191744154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80|10|0.086
95895211|NCT01420289|191744155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|100.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||100|10|<0.05
95895212|NCT01067768|191744158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||The primary outcome analysis was performed using relative risk (RR) between the rate of urinary tract infection per 1,000 days of exposure of the test subjects to intervention and that of patients undergoing routine care.|The sample size was calculated for the primary outcome. An infection rate 15 per 1,000 urinary catheter days in the control group and an expected reduction in the intervention group 40% clinically important effect. Mapping one to one, 5% alpha error and beta error 20%.||1.3|0.50|
95895213|NCT01067768|191744159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||The difference between groups was evaluated with a U test Mann Whitney. The difference was statistically significant with p values less than 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: On average catheterization are the same in patients with daily review of the indication and control group patients||||0.016
95895214|NCT04064294|191744181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.63
95895215|NCT04064294|191744182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 78||||||0.09
95895216|NCT04064294|191744183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Chi-squared|threshold for significance is 0.05, degrees of freedom = 2||||||0.011
95895217|NCT04064294|191744184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 75||||||0.033
95895218|NCT02932904|191744185|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.78||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA with last observation carried forward (LOCF) model was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||4.78|0.69|0.009
95895219|NCT02932904|191744185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.017||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.05||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.05|-0.95|0.303
95895220|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.627||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.37|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.37|-0.10|0.072
95895221|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.5|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.50|0.09|0.035
95895222|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.846||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|2.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.89|-0.44|0.149
95974633|NCT01249274|191922659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|30.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|290.04|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||290.04|3.18|0.003
95974634|NCT01249274|191922659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|16.65||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|235.52|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction term for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 and 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure||235.52|1.18|0.038
95895223|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.48|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.48|-0.78|0.303
95895224|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.78|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.78|0.22|0.028
95895225|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.15|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.15|-1.33|0.645
95895226|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.77|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.77|0.06|0.043
95895227|NCT02932904|191744186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|2.49|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||2.49|-1.14|0.465
95895228|NCT02932904|191744187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.41|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.41|-2.84|0.009
95895229|NCT02932904|191744187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.35|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.35|-2.93|0.123
95895230|NCT02932904|191744187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.1|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.10|-3.61|0.039
95895231|NCT02932904|191744187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.929||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-0.66|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.66|-4.32|0.008
95974635|NCT01249274|191922660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is the risk ratio for the treatment x time interaction term. Time was treated as a continuous variable and progesterone was the reference group for treatment.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||1.15|0.87|0.99
95974636|NCT01249274|191922661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.34||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|7.88|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at 3-mo post-trial follow-up. Time treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|We calculated that a sample size of 50 women would have 80% power to detect a significant (p\<0.05) difference between groups if the effect size for the primary outcome was large.||7.88|0.23|0.75
95974637|NCT01249274|191922661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.84|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Negative binomial distribution, log link, and first-order autoregressive covariance structure|Estimated value is RR for treatment\*time interaction for placebo at week 12. Time was treated as a 3-level categorical variable; week 0 (ref), week 12 \& 3-month post-trial follow-up. Treatment variable reference group was progesterone.|||5.84|0.24|0.84
95974638|NCT01249274|191922662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1030
95974639|NCT01249274|191922663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Score Statistic For Type 3 GEE Analysis|0.01||||0.9116|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Estimating Equation|Gamma distribution, logit link, 1st-order autoregressive covariance structure; p-value is for chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic|Estimated value is chi-sq (df=1) for type 3 GEE analysis score statistic for week\*treatment interaction term.|||||0.9116
95974640|NCT01249274|191922666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.71||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|20.5|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||20.50|1.09|0.048
95974641|NCT01249274|191922667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|13.3|||Regression, Cox||Ratio presented is for placebo versus progesterone|||13.30|0.92|0.06
95974642|NCT01287065|191922671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.293|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg PM minus Placebo|||0.462|0.293|
95974643|NCT01287065|191922671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.337|0.507|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minus Placebo|||0.507|0.337|
95974644|NCT01287065|191922671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.125|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference =FF/VI 100/25 µg AM minusFF/VI 100/25 µg PM|||0.036|-0.125|
95974645|NCT01259726|191922676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<=0.0001
95974646|NCT01259726|191922676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95974647|NCT01259726|191922676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95974648|NCT01259726|191922677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
95974649|NCT01259726|191922677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.002
95974650|NCT01259726|191922677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.088|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.088
95974651|NCT01259726|191922678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.054|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.054
95974652|NCT01259726|191922678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.008
95974653|NCT01259726|191922678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.101
95974654|NCT01259726|191922679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
95974655|NCT01259726|191922679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.066
95974656|NCT01259726|191922679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment comparison with placebo using two-sided Chi-Square test at significance level p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||=0.045
95895232|NCT02932904|191744187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-0.75|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.75|-4.78|0.007
95974657|NCT01776424|191922724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.86||Independent DSMB recommended to stop rivaroxaban/aspirin arms on 06FEB2017. At first interim analysis(\~50% events) the log-rank test statistic for one primary comparison had crossed the modified Haybittle-Peto boundary(z=4) consistently over 3 months|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.86|0.66|0.00004
95974658|NCT01776424|191922724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.03|0.79|0.11490
95974659|NCT01776424|191922725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.05|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||2.05|1.40|<0.00001
95974660|NCT01776424|191922725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.84|||Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.84|1.25|0.00003
95974661|NCT01776424|191922726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.83|0.63|0.00001
95974662|NCT01776424|191922726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.06437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.01|0.77|0.06437
95974663|NCT01776424|191922727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.85|0.65|0.00001
95974664|NCT01776424|191922727|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.03995||95.0|0.77|0.99||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.77|0.03995
95895233|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.612||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.71|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.71|-1.70|0.419
95974665|NCT01776424|191922728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.01062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||0.96|0.71|0.01062
95974666|NCT01776424|191922728|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.66418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||Nominal p-value|Log Rank|Log-rank test (stratified by pantoprazole randomization)|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model|||1.12|0.84|0.66418
95974667|NCT02513303|191922736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2942|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2942
95974668|NCT01691768|191922737|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.21||||Univariate Linear Mixed Models were used to analyze primary outcome.|The least square mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the least square mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|Intent to treat population (all participants who were randomized, met pre-randomization eligibility criteria and who have post-enrollment follow-up data) was used for this analyses.|The primary endpoint was compared using univariate linear mixed model with compound symmetry structure.|0.21|-1.16|
95974669|NCT01691768|191922737|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that we would need to enrol 700 women after taking into account the anticipated loss-to follow-up in order to provide 90% power to demonstrate whether gel use in women attending family planning (intervention) services is similar to, but no more than 20% lower than, gel use among women attending CAPRISA research clinics (control)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.48||||Univariable Linear Mixed Models was used for the analyses|We calculated the difference in means between the two arms. The mean from the intervention arm was the minuend and the mean from the control arm was the subtrahend.|This is the analyses from the per protocol population (excluding all subsequent data collected from participants who were not dispensed product for more than 120 days).||0.48|-0.98|
95974670|NCT01691768|191922738|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.35|||z-test|We used z-test to compare incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HIV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HIV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|The power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.35|0.40|0.928
95974671|NCT01691768|191922739|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.96||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.04|||z-test|We used z-test to compare pregnancy incidence rates between the arms. We did not use log-rank test because we did not present survival curves.|We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the pregnancy incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the pregnancy incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|Power was not calculated for all the secondary outcomes.||2.04|0.45|0.895
95974672|NCT01691768|191922740|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Log-binomial|||Power was not calculated for all secondary outcomes.||1.24|0.94|0.304
95974673|NCT01691768|191922741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.455
95974674|NCT01691768|191922743|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|0.33||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.32|||z-test||We calculated incidence rate ratio, where the HPV incidence rate for the intervention arm represents the numerator and the HPV incidence rate for the control arm represents the denominator.|||1.32|0.06|0.097
95974675|NCT01691768|191922744|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.18|||Regression, Log-binomial|||||1.18|0.70|0.462
95974676|NCT00887432|191922746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84||Significance level of 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test, df=86||Evaluated the change in PSA under the vitamin D and placebo conditions using the combined data (n=87).||0.84|-0.36|0.431
95974677|NCT00887432|191922747|SUPERIORITY|Comparing the mean PSA slopes between conditions (on vitamin D versus on placebo).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.00019||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00042|0.000045||Significance level of 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.000045|-0.00042|0.112
95974678|NCT01809002|191922749|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint tested non-inferiority as compared to collagen nerve cuff and superior to no treatment. Non-inferiority is defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI about the difference of \> -2 and the upper limit of the 95% CI for s2PD for Avance of \< 13 in ITT table.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|1.574|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using a pre-defined standard statistical analysis with a non-response/failure assigned a worst-case scenario value of 16mm.||1.574|-1.087|
95974679|NCT01809002|191922750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.035
95974680|NCT01809002|191922750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
95974681|NCT01809002|191922751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||The number and percentage of all treated subjects who recovered s2PD in the target repair at Month 12 (i.e., s2PD of 2 - 15 mm) were summarized by repair type. Differences between the repair types were assessed using a logistic regression analysis.|Regression, Logistic|||Responders were defined as subjects achieving s2PD of 2-15 mm on the target nerve repair.||||0.915
95974682|NCT01809002|191922752|SUPERIORITY||LS Means difference|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6316|5.9541||Pre-injury baseline was defined as s2PD in the contralateral digit associated with the target digit.|ANCOVA|This analysis was assessed in the ITT population, at Month 12 using the LS Mean differences from a repeated measures ANCOVA model.||||5.9541|-11.6316|
95974683|NCT01809002|191922753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792|||||||Kaplan-Meier median and 95% CI|Differences between the repair types were assessed with a KM log-rank test that was appropriate for the handing of interval-censored data.||||||0.792
95974684|NCT01809002|191922754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed to detect a distribution shift of the MRCC score between repairs with PNA and repairs with nerve cuff at Month 12.||||||0.526
95974685|NCT01809002|191922755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"This analysis compares the change in 12 Month Pain VAS scores from Baseline. Missing or incomplete data was extrapolated using a pre-defined repeated measures modeling approach for calculations in this analysis.~This analysis assesses each treatment group for clinically meaningful improvement in VAS from Baseline assuming a Meaningful Clinically Important Difference delta of 20 points (mm)."||||
95974686|NCT01809002|191922757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.012
95974687|NCT01809002|191922758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis was completed utilizing a one-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.||||||0.037
95974688|NCT01809002|191922759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was utilized for this analysis.||||||0.021
95974689|NCT00953745|191922815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||||||paired t-test thresholded at cluster level significance of p=0.001; family-wise error multiple comparisons corrected|t-test, 1 sided|||A region of increased relative Fluorodopa (FDOPA) uptake in the right medial caudate was anticipated for the aripiprazole augmentation responders over the 6 weeks of augmentation treatment (Weeks 10-16).||||0.029
95974690|NCT00953745|191922816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95974691|NCT00953745|191922816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.366
95974692|NCT00704405|191922817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|53.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.5|69.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||69.1|34.5|<0.001
95974693|NCT00704405|191922817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|64.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|78.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||78.3|45.2|<0.001
95974694|NCT00704405|191922817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|59.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.2|73.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||73.4|40.2|<0.001
95974695|NCT00704405|191922820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|47.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.2|63.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 19.0%) that achieved SVR24 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||63.2|29.2|<0.001
95974696|NCT00704405|191922821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|90.2|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||90.2|69.5|
95974697|NCT00704405|191922821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|86.7|||||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO-treated participants (i.e., 9.5%) that achieved cEVR and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||86.7|60.1|
95974698|NCT00704405|191922822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percentage|35.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|53.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method||Adjusted difference subtracts the percentage of PBO patients (36.6%) with undetectable HCV RNA at Week 48 and stratifies by prior treatment response.|||53.4|15.5|
95974699|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.938
95895234|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.85|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 1, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.85|-1.51|0.581
95974700|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.451||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.451
95974701|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.819||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.819
95974702|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.5||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.500
95974703|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<.001
95974704|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.001
95974705|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
95974706|NCT06020118|191922829|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following ccIIV4 if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10) following ccIIV4 vaccination for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
95974707|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.894||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.894
95974708|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.104||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.104
95974709|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.815||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.815
95974710|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.814||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.814
95974711|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
95974712|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
95974713|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
95974714|NCT06020118|191922830|SUPERIORITY|95% exact Clopper-Pearson confidence boundaries and the p-values were calculated using a logistic regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI (in a subset of samples) titer (≥1:40) pre- and post-ccIIV4 immunization for each 2023-24 influenza vaccine antigen.|Regression, Logistic|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
95974715|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.699||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.699
95974716|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.88||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.880
95974717|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.72||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.720
95974718|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.238||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.238
95974719|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.28||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.280
95974720|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.094||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.094
95974721|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.216||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.216
95974722|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.||||||0.436||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.436
95974723|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.615||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.615
95895235|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.56|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.56|-1.69|0.938
95974724|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
95974725|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.87||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||0.870
95974726|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.||Post-vaccine: Antigen A(H3N2)||||<0.001
95974727|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.64||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||0.640
95974728|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Victoria||||<0.001
95974729|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.444||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Pre-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||0.444
95974730|NCT06020118|191922831|SUPERIORITY|P values and confidence intervals for the geometric mean titer ratio were estimated using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression accounting for site clustering.|||||<|0.001||||||GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.|Regression, Linear|||Post-vaccine: Antigen B/Yamagata||||<0.001
95974731|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.793||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||0.793
95974732|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.326||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||0.326
95974733|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.933||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||0.933
95974734|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.||||||0.424||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||0.424
95974735|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H1N1)pdm09||||<0.001
95974736|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: A(H3N2)||||<0.001
95974737|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Victoria||||<0.001
95974738|NCT06020118|191922832|SUPERIORITY|95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.|||||<|0.001||||||Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.|Regression, Linear|||Antigen: B/Yamagata||||<0.001
95974739|NCT03756129|191922839|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.25||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.67|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-4.83|-11.67|0.0013
95974740|NCT03756129|191922839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.71||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.22|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo. The MIJ821 treatment arms vs placebo are primary."||-2.20|-9.22|0.0196
95974741|NCT03756129|191922840|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.06||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.06|-3.06|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.06|-11.06|0.0130
95974742|NCT03756129|191922840|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.37||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.57|-3.18|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: Pooled MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg minus placebo."||-3.18|-11.57|0.0133
95895236|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.814||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.17|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 2, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.17|-2.04|0.592
95895237|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.886||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.89|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.89|-1.60|0.870
95895238|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.27|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 3, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.27|-3.16|0.098
95895239|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.24|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.24|-2.39|0.532
95974743|NCT03756129|191922841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.09||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.37|0.19|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||0.19|-10.37|0.1082
95974744|NCT03756129|191922841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.42||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.83|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg weekly minus placebo."||-0.02|-10.83|0.0993
95974745|NCT03756129|191922841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46||||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-11.78|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.16 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||-1.15|-11.78|0.0598
95974746|NCT03756129|191922841|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.06||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.86|2.74|||ANCOVA|||"Comparison of adjusted arithmetic mean: Mean Difference: MIJ821 0.32 mg/kg biweekly minus placebo."||2.74|-8.86|0.2491
95895240|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.907||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.03|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 4, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||-0.03|-3.60|0.046
95895241|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.018||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.97|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||1.97|-2.03|0.977
95895242|NCT02932904|191744188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|0.25|||ANCOVA with LOCF|||Week 5, ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||0.25|-3.68|0.087
95895243|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||5.201|0.037|0.515
95895244|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|7.051|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.051|0.049|0.677
95895245|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|11.912|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.912|0.181|0.720
95895246|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|7.861|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||7.861|0.053|0.732
95895247|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|11.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 1||11.303|0.066|0.913
95895248|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.507|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.507|0.090|0.164
95895249|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.287|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.287|0.050|0.098
95895250|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|3.731|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||3.731|0.383|0.758
95895251|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.107|1.814|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.814|0.107|0.256
95895252|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|1.561|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||1.561|0.059|0.154
95974747|NCT03373201|191922858|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|76.7|||ANOVA|||||76.7|44.0|<.0001
95974748|NCT03373201|191922859|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|85.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.3|106.6|||ANOVA|||||106.6|64.3|<.0001
95974749|NCT03373201|191922860|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.0|-26.2|<.0001
95974750|NCT03373201|191922861|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS means|-74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-54.3|||ANOVA|||||-54.3|-94.8|<.0001
95974751|NCT03373201|191922862|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|-0.5||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-0.9|0.0083
95974752|NCT03373201|191922863|SUPERIORITY||Difference between LS Means.|6.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|1.6|0.0099
95974753|NCT01101477|191922870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The patients with at lease one episode of hypoxemia (SPaO2\<90%) during FB were analyzed by Chi-square test. P value less 0.05 means significance, 2-sided.||||0.05
95974754|NCT00720941|191922876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority is defined as excluding a difference of greater than 25% in the hazards. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval must be \<1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8982|1.2195|||||The HR is estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR is adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase (\<=1.5xULN, \>1.5xULN).|||1.2195|0.8982|
95974755|NCT01072877|191922900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.27|||ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-3.72|=0.0001
95974756|NCT01072877|191922900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.29|||ANCOVA|||||-2.29|-4.80|<0.0001
95895253|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|1.497|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||1.497|0.087|0.160
95895254|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|2.679|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||2.679|0.252|0.744
95895255|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|9.317|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||9.317|0.636|0.194
95895256|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.181|4.261|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||4.261|0.181|0.871
95895257|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|8.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 3||8.037|0.497|0.329
95895258|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.119|1.514|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||1.514|0.119|0.187
95895259|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|2.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||2.476|0.273|0.729
95895260|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|9.917|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||9.917|0.739|0.133
95895261|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|4.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.961|0.266|0.852
95895262|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|8.472|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||8.472|0.585|0.240
95895263|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||1.789|0.166|0.317
95895264|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using the rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as the response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.233|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||3.233|0.410|0.790
95974757|NCT01072877|191922900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-1.48|||ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-3.98|<0.0001
95974758|NCT01072877|191922900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-2.46|||ANCOVA|||||-2.46|-4.84|<0.0001
95974759|NCT01072877|191922901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.17|=0.0001
95974760|NCT01072877|191922901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||||-0.86|-1.65|<0.0001
95974761|NCT01072877|191922901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||||-1.06|-1.85|<0.0001
95974762|NCT01072877|191922901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.23|||ANCOVA|||||-1.23|-1.98|<0.0001
95974763|NCT01072877|191922902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.66|=0.0001
95974764|NCT01072877|191922902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.0001
95974765|NCT01072877|191922902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.53|||ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.97|<0.0001
95974766|NCT01072877|191922902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||||-0.68|-1.11|<0.0001
95974767|NCT02864381|191922917|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.1||P-value is derived from Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) stratification factor status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio is derived from CMH test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||6.1|0.4|0.8
95895265|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.888|14.911|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||14.911|0.888|0.073
95895266|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|8.902|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||8.902|0.442|0.371
95895267|NCT02932904|191744189|SUPERIORITY|Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals and p-values are from logistic regression model using rate of subjects that shifted from normal at baseline to abnormal after baseline as response and explanatory variables for treatment, baseline CSFQ-14 total score, and gender.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.027|17.063|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 5||17.063|1.027|0.046
95895268|NCT02932904|191744192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.51||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.51|1.25|0.002
95895269|NCT02932904|191744192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|3.73||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||3.73|-0.47|0.129
95895270|NCT02932904|191744193|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.078|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.43||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||6.43|2.19|<0.001
95895271|NCT02932904|191744193|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.17||The comparisons were between each vortioxetine dose (10 or 20 mg) and paroxetine, and the Holm-Bonferroni method was used to adjust for multiplicity and control the familywise type I error rate at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA with LOCF|||ANCOVA model with the LOCF method was used for p-value with treatment, pooled center, and gender as fixed factors and with baseline CSFQ-14 total score as a covariate.||5.17|0.95|0.005
95895272|NCT04534764|191744194|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|High Luminance Low Contrast||0.006|-0.039|
95895273|NCT04534764|191744194|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the upper confidence limit of LSM difference is below the non-inferiority margin 0.05 logMAR.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0114|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control.|Low Luminance High Contrast||0.031|-0.014|
95895274|NCT03373383|191744205|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|17.2|||=|0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|33.9||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||33.9|-3.8|=0.102
95974768|NCT02864381|191922918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.189||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.189|0.589|0.306
95974769|NCT02864381|191922919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.786||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.257||P-value is derived from log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio is derived from Cox model stratified by PD-L1 stratification factor status, the Nivolumab alone arm serves as the reference.|||1.257|0.491|0.312
95974770|NCT02525861|191922934|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.398|||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
95895275|NCT03373383|191744205|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.1|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.4||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.4|-1.2|=0.064
95895276|NCT03373383|191744205|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|19.2|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|35.5||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp(diff)), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||35.5|-1.2|=0.063
95974771|NCT02525861|191922935|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.259|||<|0.001|||||||mixed-effects model|||Statistical analysis was collected and assessed based on functional A1P1 Levels at baseline and On-treatment BAL visit.||||<0.001
95974772|NCT00388453|191922943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.05
95895277|NCT03373383|191744205|SUPERIORITY||Percent reduction|12.4|||=|0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|30.1||Adjusted p-values were from the Hochberg step-up procedure within SAS® Proc Multtest to control Type I error.|ANCOVA|||Percent reduction over placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-exp\[diff\]), where diff was the model estimate of the log ratio between each PSL group and placebo group.||30.1|-9.7|=0.248
95895278|NCT03373383|191744206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72|||=|0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.39||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||8.39|0.88|=0.081
95895279|NCT03373383|191744206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||=|0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.41||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||7.41|0.76|=0.137
95895280|NCT03373383|191744206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|6.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||6.89|0.68|=0.192
95895281|NCT03373383|191744206|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|9.42||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo was calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||9.42|1.05|=0.041
95895282|NCT03373383|191744210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09|||=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.3||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||4.30|1.02|=0.045
95895283|NCT03373383|191744210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.93||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.93|0.93|=0.079
95895284|NCT03373383|191744210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||=|0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.02||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group (each PSL dose group referenced to the placebo group), region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.02|0.68|=0.338
95895285|NCT03373383|191744210|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||=|0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.87||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|||PSL dose/Placebo calculated using logistic regression with categorical factors for treatment group, Region (Europe, Non-Europe), Baseline SV2A use (0, 1) and log-transformed Baseline seizure frequency as a continuous covariate.||3.87|0.91|=0.087
95895286|NCT03373383|191744211|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.4|||=|0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|21.89||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.89|-6.59|=0.316
95895287|NCT03373383|191744211|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.99|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|23.26||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||23.26|-3.15|=0.133
95895288|NCT03373383|191744211|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|8.19|||=|0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|21.37||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||21.37|-3.95|=0.203
95895289|NCT03373383|191744211|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.39|||=|0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.65|17.79||Nominal p-values were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Dose group comparisons to Placebo p-value were based on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. The Hodges-Lehmann nonparametric estimator was used to estimate the median difference between each PSL dose group versus placebo, along with the corresponding 95% CI of the estimate.||17.79|-13.65|=0.784
95895290|NCT03317431|191744212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD1 expression.||||<0.01
95895291|NCT03317431|191744213|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DRD2 expression.||||>0.01
95895292|NCT03317431|191744214|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with TH expression.||||>0.01
95895293|NCT03317431|191744215|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with DDC expression.||||>0.01
95895294|NCT03317431|191744216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Analysis the relationship between the duration of mechanical ventilation with Ac-a-tubulin expression.||||<0.01
95895295|NCT04007523|191744223|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.653|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.653
95895296|NCT04007523|191744223|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.614|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.614
95895297|NCT04007523|191744223|OTHER|Fisher's Exact Test||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
95895298|NCT00867451|191744245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<.05
95895299|NCT02039674|191744268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|26.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|42.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||||42.1|8.9|0.0016
95895300|NCT02039674|191744269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0858|||||||Exact binomial distribution for testing|HO: ORR ≤20% versus H1: ORR \>20%||||||0.0858
95895301|NCT02039674|191744271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.00252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.83|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||0.83|0.35|0.00252
95895302|NCT02039674|191744272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test||||1.12|0.45|0.06762
95895303|NCT01826487|191744274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.415||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|33.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05. Secondary endpoints were tested for significance, only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method including stratification factors for age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years), duration of use of corticosteroids at baseline (approx. \>=6 to \<12 months vs. \>=12 months), and baseline 6MWD category (\>=350 meters vs \<350 meters), as well as baseline 6MWD as covariate.||33.39|-7.44|0.213
95895304|NCT01408030|191744285|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.97|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.97
95895305|NCT01408030|191744286|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.47|||||||ANOVA|||||||.47
95895306|NCT01408030|191744287|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.|||||<|0.001||||||"A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyze ESS for drug and time (baseline, week 12) effects.~Listed P value is for time effect."|Mixed Models Analysis|Clinical site and patient were included in the model as random effects.||||||<0.001
95895307|NCT01408030|191744288|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values and random effect of clinic site.||||||0.43
95895308|NCT01408030|191744289|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.42
95895309|NCT01408030|191744290|OTHER|Two sided testing was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95895310|NCT02486042|191744360|OTHER|T-test for equality in means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.22
95895311|NCT02486042|191744360|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.15
95895312|NCT02486042|191744360|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T0 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.78
95895313|NCT02486042|191744364|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.43
95895314|NCT02486042|191744364|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.44
95895315|NCT02486042|191744364|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T1 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.50
95895316|NCT02486042|191744365|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STAT-3 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
95895317|NCT02486042|191744365|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of PPAR-gamma in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.001
95895318|NCT02486042|191744365|OTHER|T-test for equality of means. The p-value threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there was no difference in the average dCt values for relative gene expression of STC-1 in T2 blood samples in the Standard of Care versus Omegaven group||||0.01
95895319|NCT01527682|191744378|OTHER||Proportion|76.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.1|89.4|||||||The statistical analysis was performed according to study design. Using a Fleming single stage design (A'Hern approach) setting the probability of erroneously concluding that the responders rate is greater than 35% at 5% (one-sided alpha=0.05) and the probability of correctly concluding that the responders rate is at least 50% at 80% (beta error = 0.20), the minimum number of responder eyes was set at 31 out of 68, since this result is associated with a lower limit of the 90% exact confidence interval of 35.2%.|89.4|64.1|
95895320|NCT04365556|191744398|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<.05|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95895321|NCT04365556|191744399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.69
95895322|NCT02496533|191744402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported anxiety as self-reported change of VAS between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.001
95895323|NCT02496533|191744403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported systolic blood pressure measurements between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.02
95895324|NCT02496533|191744403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-Value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses were performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported diastolic blood pressure between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.09
95895325|NCT02496533|191744404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.009||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported respiration rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.009
95895326|NCT02496533|191744405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.45||||||No multiple comparisons were conducted in this analysis. P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. No interim analyses performed.|ANOVA|||H0: No difference in reported pulse rate between Baseline and After Imaging time points between the Massage and No Massage groups After Imaging.||||<0.45
95895327|NCT04920123|191744471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.997
95895328|NCT04920123|191744472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.500
95895329|NCT04920123|191744473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.821
95895330|NCT04920123|191744474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.995
95895331|NCT04920123|191744475|NON_INFERIORITY|Higher scores indicate more severe depression.||||||0.076|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.076
95974773|NCT00655863|191922975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-307.229|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-443.168|-171.29||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD and placebo groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curver for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-171.290|-443.168|<0.001
95895332|NCT04920123|191744476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 1 sided|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||0.432
95895333|NCT04920123|191744477|SUPERIORITY|Null hypothesis: no improvement or worse with intervention Alternative hypothesis: improvement with intervention||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.750
95895334|NCT00591942|191744489|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI were used|KM Survival Curves|0.5637||||0.5637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.5637
95895335|NCT04654117|191744536|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel model predicting the effect of the overall consultation model on manual adherence, averaged across clinicians.|unstandardized beta|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
95895336|NCT04654117|191744537|SUPERIORITY||unstandardized beta|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
95895337|NCT04654117|191744538|OTHER|multilevel modeling|multilevel modeling|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel modeling|||||||<.05
95895338|NCT04654117|191744539|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA|17.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95974774|NCT00655863|191922975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-253.711|||<|0.001||95.0|-394.161|-113.262||p-value and confidence interval presented without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis that there was no difference between Alogliptin 25 mg QD + Pioglitazone 30 mg QD and placebo QD groups was tested at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The ANCOVA model used for the change in postprandial incremental area the curve for total triglycerides includes treatment and statin use as fixed effects and baseline AUC(0-8h) for total triglycerides as a covariate.||-113.262|-394.161|<0.001
95974775|NCT03548987|191922993|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment policy estimand||-13.50|-16.00|<0.0001
95974776|NCT03548987|191922993|OTHER||Treatment difference|-15.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-14.13|||MMRM (mixed model repeated measurement)|||Hypothetical estimand||-14.13|-16.52|<0.0001
95974777|NCT04572841|191923030|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.02||||||Analysis was performed for change from baseline using a mixed model for repeated measures with visit, intervention group (SAR441344 and Placebo), and visit by intervention group interaction as fixed categorical effects, and participant specific baseline ESSDAI as continuous covariate.||2.02|-1.39|
95974778|NCT00712673|191923053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.312||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.312|-0.657|<0.0001
95974779|NCT00712673|191923053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.193||Stepwise testing procedure applied to control type 1 error: lixisenatide (morning) compared with placebo (combined), if found statistically significant, then lixisenatide (evening) compared with placebo (combined).|ANCOVA|||To detect 0.5%(or 0.4%) difference between 1 lixisenatide arm and placebo(combined), 225 patients in lixisenatide arm, 170 in placebo(combined) would provide a power of 97% (or 87%) assuming common standard deviation=1.3% with 2-sided test at 5% significance. Statistical testing:2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance(ANCOVA)included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c(\<8.0,\>=8.0%),BMI(\<30,\>=30 kg/m\^2),country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.193|-0.540|<0.0001
95974780|NCT01211197|191923110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.75|105.67|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted.||105.67|95.75|
95974781|NCT01211197|191923110|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.85|100.33|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||100.33|89.85|
95974782|NCT01211197|191923111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|99.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|107.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||107.49|91.76|
95974783|NCT01211197|191923111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|64.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.97|73.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||73.87|55.97|
95974784|NCT01211197|191923112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.03|106.11|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||106.11|96.03|
95974785|NCT01211197|191923112|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|94.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.22|99.87|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||99.87|89.22|
95974786|NCT01211197|191923113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.59|111.25|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.25|95.59|
95895339|NCT04654117|191744540|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
95895340|NCT04654117|191744541|OTHER|multilevel model|multilevel model (beta)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||multilevel model|||||||<.05
95895341|NCT04544293|191744567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Difference from placebo|||9.4|2.5|0.0007
95895342|NCT04544293|191744568|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.9||Modelled using MMRM adjusted for baseline % predicted DLCOadj, treatment, visit, region, severity stratification and treatment-visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference from Placebo|||10.9|2.9|0.0008
95895343|NCT04544293|191744569|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.59||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.79|-11.40|0.0072
95895344|NCT04544293|191744570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.81||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.52|-14.10|0.0149
95895345|NCT04544293|191744571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.06|0.0845
95895346|NCT04544293|191744572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.87||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|-10.76|0.1046
95895347|NCT04544293|191744573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.99||||0.1216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.57|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.59|-13.57|0.1216
95974787|NCT01211197|191923113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|96.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.23|107.78|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||107.78|87.23|
95974788|NCT01211197|191923114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|102.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.87|111.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||111.15|93.87|
95974789|NCT01211197|191923114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|100.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.7|110.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||110.51|91.70|
95974790|NCT01211197|191923115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|103.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.3|112.39|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fasted divided by individual tablets fasted||112.39|95.30|
95974791|NCT01211197|191923115|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|75.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.68|88.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV.|Ratio calculated as FDC fed divided by FDC fasted||88.64|63.68|
95974792|NCT00325039|191923123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success rate (RMUS-TMUS)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.6||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||9.6|-3.6|
95974793|NCT00325039|191923124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-4.1||||0.14||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Although the primary aim of the study was designed as an equivalence trial, the secondary aims were considered as superiority tests.||||0.14
95974794|NCT00325039|191923125|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was an equivalence trial and was designed to have 80% power to show equivalence between the two sling procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. The margin of +/- 12 was chosen on the basis of clinical considerations and a calculation of the number of patients it was feasible to enroll in the trial.|difference in success (RMUS - TMUS)|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|14.3||||||With 294 women/arm, the study would have 80% power to show equivalence between the two procedures, with an equivalence margin of +/- 12 percentage points, at a two-sided significance level of 5%. A planned time-to-event interim analysis of the primary outcome (objective treatment success) was conducted when 33% of the anticipated treatment failures occurred. We adjusted the primary outcome analysis for this interim look by assigning nominal alpha values of 0.049 to the 95% confidence intervals.||14.3|-1.6|
95974795|NCT00325039|191923126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to quality of life, as measured by the IIQ.||||0.47
95974796|NCT00325039|191923127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The UDI measure was compared using a two-sample t test.||||0.41
95974797|NCT05007808|191923133|SUPERIORITY|ANCOVA model with Change from Baseline to Week 4/EOT as the outcome (dependent) variable, treatment as the independent variable, and baseline score as covariate. The p-value was derived from the t-test for the comparison of adjusted LS means between the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.6742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.081|0.701|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.701|-1.081|0.6742
95895348|NCT04544293|191744574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline compared to placebo.|||1.03|0.07|0.0234
95895349|NCT04544293|191744575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.84|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.83|-8.84|0.1043
95974798|NCT00926211|191923167|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Initial planned sample size of 26 would provide approximately 90% power if the survival rate in the implanted transected follicles is at least 40%. Sample size used was 36 with 35 participants completing the 9 month study.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.023|ONE_SIDED|97.5||3.9||t-test comparison to the upper limit of the non-inferiority margin|t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test compared to the non-inferiority margin of 4 follicles.|The number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested using the computer assisted method was subtracted from the number of implanted hairs surviving that were harvested manually.|The hypothesis to be tested is one of non-inferiority. Tests of non-inferiority are one-sided tests and the significance level will be 0.025.||3.9||0.023
95974799|NCT00926211|191923168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study was powered for the primary efficacy outcome.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.146|<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.004||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||Paired data with each subject as their own control (treatment was randomly assigned to the left or right side of the scalp). Paired difference was analyzed.|||-.004|<0.001
95974800|NCT01242800|191923169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was used for arm comparison||||||0.32
95974801|NCT02186847|191923265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.73|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.10|Reference level = Chemoradiation|The study was powered to detect an improvement of the 1-year progression-free survival rate from 50% (no metformin) to 65% (metformin) or equivalently a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.622, at one-sided type 1 error of 0.1 and 85% power with at least 102 progression-free survival events.||1.73|0.77|0.7563
95974802|NCT02186847|191923266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.68|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.68|0.64|0.8910
95974803|NCT02186847|191923267|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-side significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
95974804|NCT02186847|191923268|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.4075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.34|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||2.34|0.71|0.4075
95974805|NCT02186847|191923269|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.8|||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = Chemoradiation|||1.80|0.47|0.6266
95974806|NCT03727438|191923297|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||alpha=.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Model parameters included a common intercept (baseline means constrained to be equal), stratification variables, timepoint, and arm by timepoint.||"Analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. All available data, including observations from participants who dropped out of the study, were used for primary and secondary analyses. Our modeling estimation approach was conducted with full-likelihood methods, providing unbiased treatment effect estimates under a missing-data framework known as missing at random (MAR)."||-2.4|-5.0|<0.01
95974807|NCT03727438|191923298|EQUIVALENCE|alpha= .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-12.5||alpha = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-26.7|<0.01
95974808|NCT03727438|191923299|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-12.0||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-29.1|<0.01
95974809|NCT03727438|191923300|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|alpha = 0.05||||14.3|7.7|<0.01
95974810|NCT03727438|191923301|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|0.1||Alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-12.5|> 0.05
95974811|NCT03727438|191923302|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||alpha =.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.5|-.4|>0.05
95974812|NCT03727438|191923303|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = .05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.9||alpha = .05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|0.2|<0.05
95974813|NCT06729606|191923304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.55||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula \[HFNC\]/non-invasive ventilation \[NIV\] or invasive mechanical ventiliation \[IMV\]/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.55|0.80|0.54
95974814|NCT06729606|191923305|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.41|0.77|0.78
95974815|NCT06729606|191923306|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.08|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.08|0.94|0.10
95974816|NCT06729606|191923307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.44|0.95|0.15
95974817|NCT06729606|191923308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.79|0.71
95974818|NCT02491632|191923317|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
95974819|NCT02491632|191923317|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
95974820|NCT02491632|191923317|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
95974821|NCT02491632|191923317|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
95974822|NCT02491632|191923318|OTHER||||||=|0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.003
95974823|NCT02491632|191923318|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
95895350|NCT02968979|191744607|OTHER|||||||0.0032|||||||likelihood-ratio test|||Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns.||||0.0032
95895351|NCT02968979|191744607|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Chi-squared|||"Statistical Analysis 2 for Frequency of the Different Stages of Cachexia, excluding the refractory cachexia stage, in the General NSCLC Population According to Molecular Abnormalities Associated With NSCLC.~Statistical analysis applies to all rows and columns."||||0.0008
95895352|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895353|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895354|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895355|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895356|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER|||||||0.1085|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.1085
95895357|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER|||||||0.0482||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||0.0482
95895358|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895359|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895360|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895361|NCT02968979|191744617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Without refractory cachexia|Kruskal-Wallis|Without refractory cachexia||Statistical analysis compares all cachexia stages.||||<0.0001
95895362|NCT00788827|191744647|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each participants Hba1c (%) lab result was analysed pre and post stem cell infusion to achieve 2 mean readings per participant.||||<0.05
95895363|NCT00729183|191744651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|4.32|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) Model|||A longitudinal ANCOVA was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[BL\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted Least Squares (LS) mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||4.32|2.66|<0.001
95895364|NCT00729183|191744652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.9||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.9|-12.3|
95895365|NCT00729183|191744653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|12.3||||||Estimated difference (versus Placebo) and CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||12.3|-3.2|
95974824|NCT02491632|191923318|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
95974825|NCT02491632|191923318|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
95974826|NCT02491632|191923319|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
95974827|NCT02491632|191923319|OTHER||||||<|0.065|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.065
95974828|NCT02491632|191923319|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
95974829|NCT02491632|191923319|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||<.001
95974830|NCT02491632|191923320|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||<.001
95974831|NCT02491632|191923320|OTHER||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.30
95974832|NCT02491632|191923320|OTHER||||||=|0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 8||||=.19
95974833|NCT02491632|191923320|OTHER||||||=|0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change between Baseline and Day 29||||=.27
95974834|NCT01605292|191923338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95974835|NCT01605292|191923339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95974836|NCT01605292|191923340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95974837|NCT01605292|191923341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
95974838|NCT01605292|191923342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95974839|NCT01605292|191923343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95974840|NCT01605292|191923344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.75
95974841|NCT01605292|191923346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95974842|NCT02425644|191923359|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.695||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.536|0.902|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.902|0.536|0.0003
95974843|NCT02425644|191923360|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.32|-5.83|0.0019
95974844|NCT02425644|191923361|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.444|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.364|0.542|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.542|0.364|<.0001
95974845|NCT02425644|191923362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.2939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.58|0.2939
95974846|NCT02425644|191923363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.57|0.3720
95974847|NCT01786174|191923364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|9.96|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||9.96|-7.17|0.746
95974848|NCT01786174|191923365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|2.03|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||2.03|-1.53|0.780
95974849|NCT01786174|191923366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.99|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||3.99|-5.00|0.823
95974850|NCT01786174|191923368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|12.33|||Random slopes model|||Fingolimod vs. Placebo Weeks 0-4||12.33|-3.78|0.294
95974851|NCT06472297|191923421|OTHER|Single group|Median Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was required due to a single primary outcome.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare paired within-participant mean glucose values between Phase A and Phase B.|The median difference represents the median change in mean glucose between Phase A and Phase B.|||||0.8
95974852|NCT04097379|191923423|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|71.327||0.2366||90.0|-68.7|172.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||172.1|-68.7|0.2366
95974853|NCT04097379|191923423|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|38.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.1||0.2892|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-76.7|153.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||153.1|-76.7|0.2892
95974854|NCT03064893|191923435|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||A minimum of 4 days between the two arms was considered clinically significant.||3.9|-0.7|0.15
95974855|NCT02120716|191923642|OTHER|Logistic regression analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|51.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.2|0.6|0.13
95974856|NCT02120716|191923643|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7|||<|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The reported percentages were captured at two separate time points (baseline, and at 4-Month Follow-Up).||33.0|4.2|<0.015
95974857|NCT01326533|191923644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||<0.01
95974858|NCT01326533|191923645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value as covariate||||||0.013
95974859|NCT04079803|191923646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0088 and CFB was 13.4. In percent change from baseline with these two subjects removed, P=0.004.|||0.087
95974860|NCT04079803|191923646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0006 and CFB was 16.9. In percent change from baseline with this subject removed, P=0.0004.|||0.01
95895366|NCT00729183|191744654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|6.42|||LDA|||A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||6.42|4.36|<0.001
95895367|NCT00729183|191744655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.25|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.25|0.88|<0.001
95895368|NCT00729183|191744655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|4.26|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.26|2.39|<0.001
95895369|NCT00729183|191744656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.35|0.60|0.001
95895370|NCT00729183|191744656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|4.93|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||4.93|2.69|<0.001
95895371|NCT00729183|191744657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.29|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.29|1.09|<0.001
95895372|NCT00729183|191744657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.08|6.89|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||6.89|4.08|<0.001
95895373|NCT00729183|191744658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.35|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||1.35|0.07|0.030
95895374|NCT00729183|191744658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.43|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.43|0.97|<0.001
95895375|NCT00729183|191744659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.71||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.73|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.73|0.69|0.001
95895376|NCT00729183|191744659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.78|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||3.78|1.62|<0.001
95895377|NCT00729183|191744660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.16||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.95|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||0.95|-0.63|0.697
95895378|NCT00729183|191744660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.22||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.18|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||2.18|0.27|0.013
95895379|NCT00729183|191744661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|9.99|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||9.99|6.03|<0.001
95895380|NCT00729183|191744661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|13.97|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||13.97|8.96|<0.001
95895381|NCT00729183|191744662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|5.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|7.58|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||7.58|3.77|<0.001
95895382|NCT00729183|191744662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.98|11.77|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain an estimate of the between-treatment difference in aBMD together with its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Screening Visit \[Baseline\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. The weighted LS mean is based on the described model. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||11.77|6.98|<0.001
95895383|NCT00729183|191744663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-54.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.81|-43.26|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-43.26|-64.81|<0.001
95895384|NCT00729183|191744663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.22|-28.96|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-CTx (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and baseline value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo||-28.96|-62.22|<0.001
95895385|NCT00729183|191744664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.77|-12.92|||LDA|||MONTH 12: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 12 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||-12.92|-37.77|<0.001
95895386|NCT00729183|191744664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-9.07||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|5.56|||LDA|||MONTH 24: A longitudinal ANCOVA model was used to obtain geometric LS mean percent change from BL in s-P1NP (back-transformation of the log-transformed fraction from BL) and its 95% CI. The model, applied on all time points during treatment (Baseline \[Randomization\], Month 6, Month 12, Month 18, Month 24), included treatment, region, time and interaction between treatment and time as fixed effects, and BL value as covariate. Difference in LS Means at Month 24 = Odancatib 50 mg minus Placebo.||5.56|-23.69|0.225
95974861|NCT04079803|191923647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P\<0.0001 and CFB was -19.8.|||<0.0001
95974862|NCT04079803|191923647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.001 and CFB was -14.9.|||0.0012
95974863|NCT04079803|191923648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -3.2.|||0.005
95974864|NCT04079803|191923648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.003 and CFB was -2.5.|||0.002
95974865|NCT04079803|191923649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -681.|||0.0002
95895387|NCT03608774|191744665|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.36||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. P-value was derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|Chi-squared||Protocol pre-specified an interim analysis of the primary outcome using O'Brien-Fleming bounds to maintain an overall 5% alpha level. The trial was stopped at the interim analysis. Estimates were derived using stage-wise ordering of the sample space.|||0.36|0.16|<0.001
95895388|NCT03608774|191744666|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||||||||0.22|0.00|
95895389|NCT03608774|191744667|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.01|
95895390|NCT03608774|191744668|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.38||||||||0.38|0.15|
95895391|NCT03608774|191744669|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
95895392|NCT03608774|191744670|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.28|
95895393|NCT01586819|191744671|SUPERIORITY||Z score|-3.3902||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have lower scores on the facial wrinkle severity scale post-treatment.||||.002
95895394|NCT01586819|191744672|SUPERIORITY||Z score|3.6115||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that subjects receiving Botox A as an added pre-treatment would have higher difference scores, pre- to post-treatment, on the facial wrinkle severity scale suggesting a more pronounced effect of the chemical peel in combination with the Botox A therapy.||||.001
95895395|NCT03979638|191744679|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-10.8||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||4.0|-23.5|0.1424
95895396|NCT03979638|191744679|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-6.1||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||11.2|-20.8|0.4602
95974866|NCT04079803|191923649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0005 and CFB was -527.|||0.0005
95974867|NCT04079803|191923650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -78.5.|||0.0003
95895397|NCT03979638|191744679|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-7.8||||0.4181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||12.5|-24.4|0.4181
95895398|NCT03979638|191744679|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-16.7||||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||2.6|-32.3|0.0855
95895399|NCT03979638|191744680|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-20.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-9.5|-29.9|0.0010
95895400|NCT03979638|191744680|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-17.7||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-3.3|-29.9|0.0186
95974868|NCT04079803|191923650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0058||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0008 and CFB was -51.0.|||0.0058
95974869|NCT04079803|191923651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes two 100 mg subjects who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing two subjects with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0001 and CFB was -23.7.|||0.0001
95895401|NCT03979638|191744680|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-19.4||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-1.9|-33.9|0.0320
95895402|NCT03979638|191744680|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-27.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-10.8|-40.3|0.0026
95895403|NCT03979638|191744681|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-14.5|-39.5|0.0005
95895404|NCT03979638|191744681|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-28.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-15.0|-39.7|0.0003
95895405|NCT03979638|191744681|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-29.5||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.7|-13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-13.2|-42.7|0.0014
95895406|NCT03979638|191744681|SUPERIORITY||Estimated percent change|-32.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-16.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Intention To Treat (ITT), statistical analysis follows a Mixed Model which uses log-transformation|Percent change difference between BLU-5937 and placebo was estimated by 100 x \[e\^diff - 1\] where 'e' = exponent of difference; and 'diff' = the treatment mean difference from mixed model of change from baseline based on log-transformed data.|||-16.4|-45.3|0.0006
95895407|NCT04448210|191744686|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.25
95895408|NCT04448210|191744687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||ANOVA|||||||.72
95895409|NCT04448210|191744688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||.16
95895410|NCT04448210|191744689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||||||.43
95895411|NCT04448210|191744690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
95895412|NCT04448210|191744691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANOVA|||||||.38
95895413|NCT04448210|191744692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
95895414|NCT04448210|191744693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||||||.94
95895415|NCT04448210|191744694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||.30
95895416|NCT02531321|191744750|OTHER|Unpaired t test with Welch's correction|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95974870|NCT04079803|191923651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||P value adjusted for multiplicity of 6 co-primary endpoints (p\<0.008 required for significance).|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This primary analysis includes one 50 mg subject who showed no detectable simufilam in plasma at return visits (their exclusion was not prespecified in the Statistical Analysis Plan).|In a secondary analysis removing one subject with no detectable simufilam in plasma, P=0.0002 and CFB was -20.9.|||0.0001
95974871|NCT04079803|191923652|OTHER||Effect size|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
95974872|NCT04079803|191923652|OTHER||Effect size|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
95974873|NCT04079803|191923653|OTHER||Effect size|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was almost identical (0.45) when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
95895417|NCT00851799|191744753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-4.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.9|-0.4||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||-0.4|-8.9|0.013
95895418|NCT00851799|191744753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|-2.8||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|1.5||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort A: ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.5|-7.0|0.15
95974874|NCT04079803|191923653|OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Reported effect size vs. placebo was calculated with Hedge's g (for groups of 20 or fewer) but was identical when calculated by Cohen's d.|This study was not powered for statistical significance on cognitive measures.||||
95974875|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.0078
95974876|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for IL-6.||||0.019
95974877|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0002
95974878|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for sTREM2.||||0.0007
95895419|NCT00851799|191744753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in annual rate of change|1.9||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.4|6.2||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference in the rate of CIMT change (Cohort C: DRV/RTV + FTC/TDF - Cohort B: RAL + FTC/TDF) was estimated by mixed effects linear regression model that adjusted for screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The primary hypothesis was that rate of change of CIMT would be faster over 144 weeks in participants initiating a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) compared with a RAL-containing regimen. However, In the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||6.2|-2.4|0.31
95895420|NCT00851799|191744754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.63|1.11||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort A: ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF - Cohort C: DRV/RTV+FTC/TDF); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||1.11|-0.63|0.53
95895421|NCT00851799|191744754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Change (%)|-0.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.98|0.55||Inference was assessed against a type I error of 2.5% to account for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear||The difference in change in relative FMD (Cohort B - Cohort A and C); estimated by linear regression that adjusted for study entry BA diameter and screening HIV-1 RNA level and Framingham risk score stratification factors.|The study was designed to compare change from study entry to week 24 in brachial artery (BA) flow mediated dilation (FMD) between a RTV-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen (the pooled ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups) and a RAL-containing regimen. However, in the event of a significant difference between ATV/RTV and DRV/RTV groups, the study was designed to make all pairwise treatment group comparisons.||0.55|-0.98|0.53
95974879|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
95974880|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for HMGB1.||||0.0001
95974881|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.0001
95974882|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for albumin.||||0.046
95974883|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.012
95974884|NCT04079803|191923654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Secondary CSF biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|General Linear Model for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and baseline measurement as the covariate.||This analysis is for Immunoglobulin G.||||0.014
95974885|NCT04079803|191923655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.005
95974886|NCT04079803|191923655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to alpha7nAChR was expressed as ratios of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of alpha7nAChR (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.009
95895422|NCT01113879|191744785|OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|85.0|||||Weighted Tau U|||Weighted Tau U effect size mean values in Block 1 of treatment (no aerobic exercise or stretching) were compared to weighted Tau U mean values in Block 2 of treatment (aerobic exercise or stretching adjuvant).||||< 0.001
95895423|NCT01852292|191744819|OTHER|Double Criteria for PFS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.646|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.94||||||||0.94|0.44|
95895424|NCT01852292|191744820|OTHER|Double criteria for OS|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04||||||||1.04|0.49|
95895425|NCT02431754|191744840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0937|||||||Normal approximation (Z-test)|||||||0.0937
95895426|NCT02431754|191744841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|-1.69|0.1485
95895427|NCT01275066|191744879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.35||0.0174||95.0||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.0174
95895428|NCT01275066|191744879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.29||0.9542||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category as covariates.||||||0.9542
95974887|NCT04079803|191923655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
95974888|NCT04079803|191923655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||As secondary endpoints, lymphocyte biomarkers were not adjusted for multiplicity.|ANOVA|ANOVA was used instead of ANCOVA due to the range in baseline values; it was deemed more appropriate to compare to each subject's own baseline value.||Change from baseline in FLNA linkage to TLR4 in subject lymphocytes. FLNA linkage to TLR4 was expressed as the ratio of densitometric units of immunoblot bands of TLR4 (probed with a specific antibody) to densitometric units of total FLNA.||||0.01
95974889|NCT04079803|191923656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.01
95974890|NCT04079803|191923656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test.||||||0.02
95974891|NCT04079803|191923656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|This p value is for the main effect of treatment of the ANOVA.||||||0.009
95974892|NCT04079803|191923657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95974893|NCT04079803|191923657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
95974894|NCT02594826|191923667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|114.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the calculated p-value, which is adjusted for age, marital status, prior screening, health insurance, and having a healthcare provider.||||114.9|11.1|<0.001
95974895|NCT02594826|191923668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Regression, Linear|Controlling for: marital status, education, language spoken at home, health insurance, regular physician, language of physician, ever had Pap test.||The null hypothesis is that the two conditions would not differ in their knowledge following program participation. The study biostatistician conducted full regression models to examine change in knowledge (from pre- to post-program) within each group and across groups over time. The models controlled for relevant covariates.||||0.005
95974896|NCT00307125|191923671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis by Fisher's exact test counting participants with 50% decrease in anti-HLA antibodies at any time within 12 months post treatment initiation||||>0.999
95974897|NCT00307125|191923676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95974898|NCT00307125|191923677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95974899|NCT04677179|191923707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|11.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.32|0.03|0.750
95974900|NCT04677179|191923707|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|6.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.21|0.10|0.838
95974901|NCT04677179|191923708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.30|0.10|0.563
95974902|NCT04677179|191923708|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.17|0.759
95974903|NCT04677179|191923709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.93|0.02|0.163
95974904|NCT04677179|191923709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.77|0.11|0.439
95974905|NCT04677179|191923710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|9.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.88|0.17|0.821
95974906|NCT04677179|191923710|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|5.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.49|0.37|0.572
95974907|NCT04677179|191923711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|10.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.16|0.14|0.886
95974908|NCT04677179|191923711|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|4.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.18|0.14|0.784
95974909|NCT04677179|191923712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.43|0.06|0.331
95974910|NCT04677179|191923712|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.52|0.10|0.407
95974911|NCT04677179|191923713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|6.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.00|0.38|0.564
95974912|NCT04677179|191923713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.51||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|10.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.97|0.21|0.681
95974913|NCT04677179|191923714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|10.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.4|-3.3|0.317
95974914|NCT04677179|191923714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.1|-2.3|0.238
95974915|NCT04677179|191923715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.935||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.17|31.6|||ANCOVA|||||31.60|-12.17|0.378
95974916|NCT04677179|191923715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.406||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|19.88|||ANCOVA|||||19.88|-21.78|0.928
95974917|NCT04508023|191923717|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.15|||Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by the time from COVID-19 positive test to randomization.||||2.15|0.63|0.626
95974918|NCT01668667|191923727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.745||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|-0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.52|-4.62|0.014
95974919|NCT01668667|191923727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|-0.54|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate.|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||-0.54|-4.68|0.014
95974920|NCT01668667|191923727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.767||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.53|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity will be made for these analyses.|The change from baseline data is analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pooled site as the main effects and the baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score as a covariate|The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the change from Baseline to the end of treatment in the IRLS Rating Scale total score. All comparisons will be made at the two-sided 0.05 level of significance.||0.53|-3.63|0.144
95974921|NCT01668667|191923728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.95|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.95|1.30|0.004
95974922|NCT01668667|191923728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|3.77|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.77|1.23|0.007
95974923|NCT01668667|191923728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis method used was logistic regression with terms of pooled site and treatment.|"The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no difference between GEn and placebo in the proportion of subjects who are responders with much improved or very much improved on the investigator-rated CGI-I at the end of treatment."||3.94|1.27|0.005
95974924|NCT01668667|191923729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For the mean change from Baseline for IRLS Rating Scale total score at the EOT, the linear contrast test based on an analysis of variance with treatment effect was used to detect linear dose-response trends across increasing levels of GEn dosage.||||0.022
95974925|NCT01668667|191923729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Overall treatment effect||||0.072
95974926|NCT01668667|191923730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||A significant p-value will indicate a nonzero linear effect across increasing levels of GEn dosage.|Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.012
95974927|NCT02988622|191923731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1205|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5499||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0492
95974928|NCT02988622|191923732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.241|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0817||0.0817|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0817
95974929|NCT02988622|191923733|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3659|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7951||0.0686|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0686
95974930|NCT02988622|191923734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0843|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5789||0.6278|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6278
95974931|NCT02988622|191923735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3373|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7619||0.0848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0848
95974932|NCT02988622|191923736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2195|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0788||0.3418|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3418
95974933|NCT02988622|191923737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2375|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5528||0.1752|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1752
95974934|NCT02988622|191923739|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5685||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0281
95974935|NCT00413972|191923802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95974936|NCT00413972|191923802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95974937|NCT00413972|191923802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95895429|NCT01275066|191744880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.4935||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.4935
95895430|NCT01275066|191744880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.7783||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline 3MSCT as covariates.||||||0.7783
95895431|NCT01275066|191744881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95895432|NCT01275066|191744881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.0001||||||Hochberg multiplicity adjustment - results considered statistically significant if both of p-values are p\<0.05 or either of p-values is p\<0.025.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA of change from baseline with treatment, age group, baseline 6MWT category, and baseline uKS normalized for creatinine, as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95895433|NCT01933048|191744939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.43|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H1N1||||0.43
95895434|NCT01933048|191744939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.8|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||A/H3N2||||0.80
95895435|NCT01933048|191744939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.55|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Yamagata||||0.55
95895436|NCT01933048|191744939|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|non-inferiority||||||0.16|||||||Farrington-Manning Method|based on margin of 0.05||B/Brisbane||||0.16
95895437|NCT04476030|191744977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.9|-3.0|0.0004
95895438|NCT04476030|191744978|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||-0.5|-2.7|0.0054
95895439|NCT04476030|191744979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.2477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||0.6|-2.2|0.2477
95895440|NCT04476030|191744979|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.5|-1.6|0.9248
95895441|NCT04476030|191744980|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-1.8|0.4458
95895442|NCT04476030|191744981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15|Generalized estimating equation is abbreviated as GEE in the method of estimation section.|1.69|0.78|0.4946
95895443|NCT04476030|191744981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.3579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.24|0.55|0.3579
95895444|NCT04476030|191744982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.24|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||2.24|0.89|0.1417
95895445|NCT04476030|191744982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.44|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline HAMD-17 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 42||1.44|0.62|0.7872
95895446|NCT04476030|191744983|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.1|-0.4|0.1993
95895447|NCT04476030|191744984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.47|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 3||3.47|1.21|0.0079
95895448|NCT04476030|191744984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline CGI-S score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|Day 15||1.62|0.74|0.6588
95895449|NCT04476030|191744985|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.8|-3.4|0.2322
95895450|NCT04476030|191744986|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.68|0.76|0.5439
95895451|NCT04476030|191744987|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.69|||Binary Response Model||GEE for binary response model was used with factors for treatment, baseline MADRS total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.69|0.70|0.7054
95895452|NCT04476030|191744988|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline HAM-A total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||0.7|-1.7|0.4188
95895453|NCT04476030|191744990|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.0|||MMRM||Model used was the MMRM with treatment, baseline PHQ-9 total score, antidepressant use (SSRI/SNRI), assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects with unstructured covariance structure.|||1.0|-1.4|0.7758
95895454|NCT00218296|191745018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.99|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.99|0.26|0.04
95895455|NCT00218296|191745019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.83|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.83|0.07|0.019
95895456|NCT00218296|191745020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.94|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the usual care condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.94|0.18|0.03
95895457|NCT00218296|191745021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|.002
95895458|NCT00218296|191745022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.03|||Chi-squared|There were no adjustments in the analysis.|The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||1.03|0.20|0.056
95895459|NCT00218296|191745023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.48||There were no adjustments in the analysis.|Chi-squared||The reference group for the odds ratio estimate is the Usual Care Condition, i.e., the immediate cessation condition.|The null hypothesis was that the Usual Care Group (i.e. the immediate cessation group) and the Reduction Group had the same cessation rate. The alternative hypothesis was that they had different cessation rates. Two-sided test with a type I error of 0.05 was used.||0.48|0.004|0.002
95895460|NCT02623803|191745024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1459|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1459
95895461|NCT02623803|191745025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2050
95895462|NCT02623803|191745026|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3989|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3989
95895463|NCT02623803|191745027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5285
95895464|NCT02623803|191745028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0697|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0697
95895465|NCT02623803|191745029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1029
95895466|NCT02623803|191745030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3136
95895467|NCT02623803|191745031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2196
95895468|NCT02623803|191745032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3057|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3057
95895469|NCT02623803|191745033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
95895470|NCT02623803|191745034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5314
95895471|NCT02623803|191745035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3166
95895472|NCT02623803|191745036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2363|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2363
95974938|NCT02668185|191923810|SUPERIORITY|Generalised linear mixed model with a Poisson error structure|Mean Difference (Net)|29.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.39|42.87||Intention to treat adjusted means.|generalised linear mixed model with a Po|Adjusted for intention to treat||||42.87|17.39|<0.0001
95895473|NCT02623803|191745037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9171
95974939|NCT02668185|191923811|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|50.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95974940|NCT02668185|191923812|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95974941|NCT02668185|191923813|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95974942|NCT02668185|191923814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95974943|NCT01013597|191923819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95895474|NCT02623803|191745038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4194|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4194
95895475|NCT02623803|191745039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
95895476|NCT02623803|191745040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5107
95895477|NCT02623803|191745041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8339|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8339
95895478|NCT02623803|191745042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8927
95974944|NCT02678247|191923822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.3|0.8|<0.001
95974945|NCT02678247|191923823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.04|-0.06|0.664
95974946|NCT02678247|191923824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|-0.23||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.23|-3.17|0.026
95974947|NCT02678247|191923825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.42||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.42|-2|0.847
95974948|NCT02678247|191923826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.87|<|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.34||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.017|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.34|-2.42|<0.017
95895479|NCT03249779|191745051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0396
95895480|NCT03249779|191745052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1330
95895481|NCT01675882|191745053|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.81||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.11|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05. Thus, no conclusion can be made on the comparison of viaskin peanut 50 µg vs placebo.||3.11|1.05|0.0292
95895482|NCT01675882|191745053|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.64||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.85|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05. The subsequent comparison of viaskin peanut 100 µg versus placebo is not statistically significant at p\<0.05.||2.85|0.95|0.1074
95895483|NCT01675882|191745053|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.0||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.38|||Fisher Exact|||The three pair-wise comparisons of viaskin peanut versus placebo were analyzed using the Bonferroni stepwise procedure, keeping the overall false-positive (alpha) risk below 5%. The comparison of viaskin peanut 250 µg versus placebo is statistically significant at p\<0.05.||3.38|1.18|0.0108
95895484|NCT01675882|191745054|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.95||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|6.49|||Fisher Exact|||||6.49|1.34|0.0035
95895485|NCT01675882|191745054|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.38||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||||5.47|1.04|0.0453
95895486|NCT01675882|191745054|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|2.77||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.14|||Fisher Exact|||||6.14|1.25|0.0076
95895487|NCT01675882|191745055|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.5||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.7112
95895488|NCT01675882|191745055|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.47||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.28|||Fisher Exact|||||2.28|0.10|0.4048
95895489|NCT01675882|191745055|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.75||||0.4705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.95|||Fisher Exact|||||4.95|0.62|0.4705
95895490|NCT01675882|191745056|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|0.5||||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.90|0.13|0.5921
95974949|NCT02678247|191923827|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.58||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.77||p-value was adjusted using a Bonferonni correction with alpha set at 0.025|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.77|-0.53|0.7
95974950|NCT02678247|191923828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||7.0|-1.6|0.20
95974951|NCT02678247|191923829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.7||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||3.7|-6.0|0.62
95974952|NCT02678247|191923830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|5.3||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||5.3|-0.2|0.07
95974953|NCT02678247|191923831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.1||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||1.1|-5.4|0.18
95974954|NCT02678247|191923832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||0.9|-0.4|0.47
95974955|NCT02678247|191923833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.0||alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||2.0|-1.4|0.68
95974956|NCT03534284|191923842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6761||||||0.05 threshold for significance; no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 7||||0.6761
95974957|NCT03534284|191923843|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8375|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: average CBT-I=Trazodone=Placebo at week 25||||0.8375
95974958|NCT03316300|191923866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.13|<0.0001
95895491|NCT01675882|191745056|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.43||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.88|||Fisher Exact|||||2.88|0.71|0.3260
95895492|NCT01675882|191745056|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk|1.05||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38|||Fisher Exact|||||2.38|0.46|1.0000
95895493|NCT01675882|191745057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|70.2||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|193.69||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on log transformed values for peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The least squares (LS) mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||193.69|-2.41|0.0607
95895494|NCT01675882|191745057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|97.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.45|237.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||237.82|14.45|0.0150
95895495|NCT01675882|191745057|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|242.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.03|482.65||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||482.65|100.03|<0.0001
95895496|NCT01675882|191745058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|73.9||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|225.85||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||225.85|2.96|0.0372
95895497|NCT01675882|191745058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|96.7||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|278.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||278.11|12.92|0.0143
95895498|NCT01675882|191745058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|260.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.83|625.95||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||625.95|89.83|<0.0001
95895499|NCT01675882|191745059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.1||||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|236.0||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||236.00|-59.58|0.6596
95974959|NCT06609135|191923884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
95974960|NCT06609135|191923885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.045
95895500|NCT01675882|191745059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|8.9||||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|189.96||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||189.96|-65.90|0.8702
95895501|NCT01675882|191745059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.9||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|562.31||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||562.31|-5.50|0.0630
95895502|NCT01675882|191745060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-80.2||||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.22|782.24||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||782.24|-237.22|0.6776
95974961|NCT06609135|191923886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
95974962|NCT06609135|191923887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.49
95974963|NCT06609135|191923888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
95895503|NCT01675882|191745060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|158.8||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.1|1478.83||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1478.83|-166.10|0.5068
95895504|NCT01675882|191745060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|53.8||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-193.9|1085.38||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the peanut protein eliciting dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline eliciting dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean peanut protein eliciting dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1085.38|-193.90|0.7972
95895505|NCT01675882|191745061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|120.0||||0.0444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|321.8||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||321.80|2.30|0.0444
95895506|NCT01675882|191745061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|147.6||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.67|365.51||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||365.51|19.67|0.0175
95895507|NCT01675882|191745061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|386.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|159.67|771.16||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the cumulative reactive dose at Month 12, including treatment group, baseline cumulative reactive dose, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean peanut protein cumulative reactive dose for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||771.16|159.67|<0.0001
95895508|NCT01675882|191745062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.6||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||0.52|-1.55|0.2510
95895509|NCT01675882|191745062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|-0.2||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.05||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.05|-1.24|0.6820
95895510|NCT01675882|191745062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|0.8||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.47||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the OFC symptom scores at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline OFC symptom scores, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group is the estimated mean OFC score for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.47|-0.42|0.2117
95895511|NCT01675882|191745064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|17.4||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|38.82||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||38.82|1.17|0.0337
95974964|NCT06609135|191923889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.56
95974965|NCT06609135|191923890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
95974966|NCT06609135|191923891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 31 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 32 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.09
95974967|NCT06609135|191923892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
95974968|NCT06609135|191923893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 32 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation at 33 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.44
95895512|NCT01675882|191745064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|26.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.38|49.45||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||49.45|8.38|0.0020
95895513|NCT01675882|191745064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|20.0||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|40.91||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all Baseline covariates in the analysis set.||40.91|3.85|0.0120
95895514|NCT01675882|191745068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||1.90|0.72|<0.0001
95895515|NCT01675882|191745068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.01||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||2.01|0.79|<0.0001
95895516|NCT01675882|191745068|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS mean|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.11||P-value was based on type III sum of squares from an ANCOVA model on log transformed values for the immunological marker at Month 12, including treatment group, Baseline marker, age-strata and country as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The LS mean for any given treatment group was the estimated mean for a participant in that treatment group with the mean value for all baseline covariates in the analysis set.||3.11|1.39|<0.0001
95895517|NCT01604343|191745079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|33.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.8|22.8|< 0.001
95895518|NCT01604343|191745079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|32.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.6|21.6|< 0.001
95895519|NCT01604343|191745080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95895520|NCT01604343|191745080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||van der waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95895521|NCT01604343|191745081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.226|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||||-0.17|-0.29|<0.001
95974969|NCT06609135|191923894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of FLS values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
95974970|NCT06609135|191923895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical Analysis assessed correlation of GI values at 34 weeks between participants that were successful in discontinuation of non-invasive ventilation by 36 weeks postmenstrual age and those that were unsuccessful.||||0.59
95974971|NCT00112047|191923896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming 70% response rate for each group at Week 48, 500 participants (250 per group) were sufficient to achieve at least 85% power to establish non-inferiority between the 2 study groups with a delta of 13%. The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||18.6|4.3|0.002
95974972|NCT00112047|191923897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|9.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|16.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||16.6|1.6|0.021
95895522|NCT01604343|191745081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.256|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.32|<0.001
95895523|NCT01604343|191745082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.4|13.1|< 0.001
95974973|NCT00112047|191923898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|11.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|18.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||18.6|3.7|0.004
95974974|NCT00112047|191923899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|7.9||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum-weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 48 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||15.6|0.1|0.058
95974975|NCT00112047|191923900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.003
95974976|NCT00112047|191923901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is equal between the two treatment groups. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with Loss of Virologic Response through Week 48 is different between the two treatment groups.||||0.046
95974977|NCT00112047|191923902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 48 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.026
95974978|NCT00112047|191923903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 48 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||||0.063
95974979|NCT00112047|191923904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.06||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum-weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.06|-0.16|0.31
95974980|NCT00112047|191923905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|31.74||||0.002||95.0|8.96|54.52||The change from baseline to Week 48 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 48 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||54.52|8.96|0.002
95974981|NCT00112047|191923906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in percentages|12.7||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|21.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.1|4.3|0.004
95895524|NCT01604343|191745082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.6|16.1|< 0.001
95895525|NCT01604343|191745083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|20.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|16.4|< 0.001
95895526|NCT01604343|191745083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.0|15.8|< 0.001
95895527|NCT01604343|191745084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|3.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|1.4|0.001
95895528|NCT01604343|191745084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.8|4.6|< 0.001
95895529|NCT00449956|191745158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||||95.0|-1.3|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||-0.06|-1.30|
95895530|NCT00449956|191745158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 1.2 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||||95.0|-0.22|0.78|||||An analysis of covariance model with a factor for treatment and time-matched baseline as a covariate was used to compute 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.22|
95895531|NCT03167879|191745166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.79|40.49||||||||40.49|2.79|
95895532|NCT03167879|191745167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||||||||2.09|0.25|
95895533|NCT03167879|191745168|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|257.6||||||||257.6|0.02|
95895534|NCT02972632|191745173|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895535|NCT02972632|191745173|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895536|NCT02972632|191745174|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895537|NCT02972632|191745174|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895538|NCT02972632|191745175|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 6 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895539|NCT02972632|191745175|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895540|NCT02972632|191745176|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895541|NCT02972632|191745177|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95895542|NCT02972632|191745178|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change at Week 12 relative to baseline||||<0.001
95974982|NCT00112047|191923907|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|6.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|15.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the percentage of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the percentage of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 96 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||15.0|-2.3|0.158
95974983|NCT00112047|191923908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Ther percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
95974984|NCT00112047|191923909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||The distribution of time to loss-of-virologic response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.124
95974985|NCT00112047|191923910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 96 is different between the 2 treatment groups.||||0.025
95974986|NCT00112047|191923911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 96 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.41
95974987|NCT00112047|191923912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|-0.05||||0.45||95.0|-0.17|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 96 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.17|0.45
95974988|NCT00112047|191923913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||stratum-weighted difference|32.93||||0.036||95.0|0.87|64.99||The change from baseline to Week 96 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline through Week 96 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||64.99|0.87|0.036
95895543|NCT03450707|191745187|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.5||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.~Lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) for patients who expired."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 24 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||2.50|-1.82|0.72
95895544|NCT03450707|191745188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.58|||Regression, Linear|||As AUC-VO2s turned out to be normally distributed, we used a linear regression model to compare mean AUC-VO2s between treatment groups controlling for average temperature.||0.58|-1.34|0.43
95895545|NCT03450707|191745189|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test, testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the distribution of 72-hour lactates between thiamine and placebo groups.|No parameter estimated other than p-value = 0.88 from Wilcoxon rank-sum test.|||0.88
95895546|NCT03450707|191745190|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH specific activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||0.80|0.01|0.072
95895547|NCT03450707|191745191|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.7||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH activity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||4.7|0.1|0.044
95895548|NCT03450707|191745192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.5||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.0|200.0||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in PDH quantity between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||200.0|-297.0|0.828
95895549|NCT03450707|191745195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.22||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model.||||4.22|0.47|0.10
95895550|NCT03450707|191745197|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in Basal Respiration between the thiamine and placebo groups at 24 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.|Mean difference uses a non-logged version of the variable.|||1.6|-3.6|0.43
95895551|NCT03450707|191745198|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.78||Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is the global p-value from the mixed model. P-value is obtained from a model that uses a log-transformed version of the variable.||||1.78|-0.27|0.02
95974989|NCT00112047|191923914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 48 to Week 96 in limb fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are not equal||||<0.001
95895552|NCT03387813|191745200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.05|0.74|0.1624
95895553|NCT03387813|191745204|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.44|0.6||||||||0.60|0.44|
95895554|NCT03387813|191745208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.03|0.70|0.0958
95895555|NCT03387813|191745212|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.01|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.01|0.68|0.0644
95895556|NCT03387813|191745216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.77|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.77|0.61|0.8867
95974990|NCT00112047|191923915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.025
95974991|NCT00112047|191923916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The change from Week 48 to Week 96 in trunk fat was compared between the 2 treatment groups; the P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 to Week 96 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
95974992|NCT00112047|191923917|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|21.6||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||21.6|4.2|0.004
95974993|NCT00112047|191923918|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|17.0||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||"Null Hypothesis: the proportion of responders (who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group.~Alternative Hypothesis: the proportion of responders who achieved and maintained confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL \[defined by the TLOVR algorithm\]) through Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than in the CBV+EFV group."||17.0|-0.8|0.082
95974994|NCT00112047|191923919|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|11.6||||0.009||95.0|3.1|20.1||The difference and 95% CI are stratum weighted on baseline CD4 using normal approximation. The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||20.1|3.1|0.009
95974995|NCT00112047|191923920|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The definition of clinical non-inferiority used a 'delta' of 0.13 (response rate was expressed as a decimal-valued number between 0 and 1). The EFV+FTC+TDF group was declared non-inferior to the CBV+EFV group if the lower confidence bound was \> -0.13.|Difference in proportions|10.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|19.0||The p-value for the superiority test is from Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test stratified on baseline CD4 cell count.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|No other adjustments were made.||Null hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group. Alternative hypothesis: The percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL at Week 144 in the EFV+FTC+TDF group is no more than 13% worse than the CBV+EFV group.||19.0|1.8|0.019
95974996|NCT00112047|191923921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||The distribution of loss of virological response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.003
95974997|NCT00112047|191923922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with loss of virologic response (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) through Week 144 for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.056
95974998|NCT00112047|191923923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 400 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.066
95895557|NCT03387813|191745220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||1.70|0.70|0.7119
95895558|NCT03387813|191745224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.3484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.47|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.47|-4.16|0.3484
95895559|NCT03387813|191745224|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.6684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|2.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.26|-3.51|0.6684
95895560|NCT03387813|191745226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.71|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.71|-2.68|0.9901
95895561|NCT03387813|191745226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||||4.24|-1.29|0.2947
95895562|NCT03387813|191745228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.5741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|18.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.60|-10.32|0.5741
95895563|NCT03387813|191745228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.7077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|18.27|||t-test, 1 sided|||||18.27|-12.41|0.7077
95895564|NCT03387813|191745231|EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence was met if the lower limit of the CI of ln(HR) for the primary endpoint in Elevated NT-proBNP/BNP only vs. prior HFH only subjects is \> -0.2877 and the upper limit is \< 0.2877.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.55||||||||0.55|0.38|
95895565|NCT03387813|191745235|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95895566|NCT03387813|191745239|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95895567|NCT03387813|191745243|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95895568|NCT03387813|191745249|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.54|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.54|0.39|<0.0001
95895569|NCT03387813|191745250|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.76|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.76|0.53|<0.001
95895570|NCT03387813|191745255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||2.78|0.29|0.0160
95895571|NCT03387813|191745255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.56|0.03|0.0427
95895572|NCT03387813|191745255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group.||2.08|0.19|0.0188
95895573|NCT03387813|191745255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Systolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.92|-0.66|0.3405
95895574|NCT03387813|191745255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.6174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Diastolic Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||0.99|-0.59|0.6174
95895575|NCT03387813|191745255|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.4231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of PA Mean Pressure at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group.||1.38|-0.58|0.4231
95895576|NCT03387813|191745256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Systolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0214
95895577|NCT03387813|191745256|OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Diastolic Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.1002
95895578|NCT03387813|191745256|OTHER|||||||0.0402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of PA Mean Pressure AUC between Treatment and Control group.||||0.0402
95895579|NCT03387813|191745257|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|37.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|75.52||0.6227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.38|185.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 6 months between Treatment vs Control group||185.77|-111.38|0.6227
95895580|NCT03387813|191745258|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|59.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|76.87||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.44|211.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in BNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||211.01|-91.44|0.4373
95895581|NCT03387813|191745259|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|468.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|256.65||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.09|973.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 6months between Treatment vs Control group||973.30|-37.09|0.0692
95895582|NCT03387813|191745260|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference (T vs C)|284.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|268.72||0.2903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.27|813.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparisons of change from baseline in NT-proBNP levels at 12 months between Treatment vs Control group||813.60|-244.27|0.2903
95895583|NCT03387813|191745261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.78|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.78|0.53|<0.0001
95895584|NCT03387813|191745262|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.81|||Anderson-Gill model (robust sandwich)|||||0.81|0.57|<0.0001
95895585|NCT01094548|191745286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95895586|NCT01094548|191745290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.431||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|1.185|||Log Rank|||||1.185|0.157|0.0940
95895587|NCT01094548|191745291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.666||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.698|||Log Rank|||||1.698|0.261|0.3919
95895588|NCT00606892|191745293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Significant treatment or treatment-by-time interactions were followed up by post hoc comparisons of placebo vs. varenicline for time (Pre- vs. Post-Nicotine infusion) and testing block (Smoking Block vs. Negative Affect Block).|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model with fixed main effect terms of treatment (placebo or varenicline) and time of measurement (Pre-Nicotine or Post-Nicotine) was utilized. Interactions between main effect terms were also analyzed.||||<0.05
95895589|NCT00606892|191745294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.0|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|F(1,10)=1.1||||||<0.3
95895590|NCT00606892|191745295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant, based on 2-tailed tests. Significant treatment, or treatment-by-time interactions were followed by post hoc comparisons. To account for multiple testing, significance was set at p\<0.016.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect repeated-measures crossover model including fixed main effects for treatment condition (placebo or varenicline), time of measurement and interactions between treatment and time, was utilized. Because multiple measurements were collected before and after each nicotine dose, a change score (maximum post dose score - pre dose baseline) was used in the analysis.||||<0.05
95895591|NCT00606892|191745296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Post hoc comparisons of effects of varenicline versus placebo for different nicotine doses were performed and significance was adjusted for multiple testing using a p value of P\<0.016|ANOVA|Two-tailed tests were applied for main effects with P\<0.05||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures, crossover model was used with fixed main effects for treatment (placebo or varenicline), and time after treatment. Interactions between main effects were also analyzed.||||<0.05
95895592|NCT04630093|191745343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline vs. 6 months after receiving panel-based pharmacogenetic testing||||0.001
95895593|NCT01405963|191745360|OTHER||Treatment Difference|7.65||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|16.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||16.60|-1.30|0.09
95895594|NCT01405963|191745360|OTHER||Treatment Difference|9.91||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|18.23|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||18.23|1.59|0.02
95895595|NCT01405963|191745361|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.35||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|1.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||1.10|-9.80|0.11
95895596|NCT01405963|191745361|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-4.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.71|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.39|-9.71|0.07
95895597|NCT01405963|191745365|OTHER||Treatment Difference|8.57||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|17.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||17.13|0.01|0.05
95895598|NCT01405963|191745365|OTHER||Treatment Difference|10.27||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|21.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||21.00|-0.46|0.06
95895599|NCT01405963|191745366|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-6.08||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.60|-11.56|0.03
95895600|NCT01405963|191745366|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-7.44||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|-0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||-0.66|-14.22|0.03
95895601|NCT01405963|191745367|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.68|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.68|-0.01|0.05
95895602|NCT01405963|191745367|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.39||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.84|-0.06|0.08
95895603|NCT01405963|191745368|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.53|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.53|0.03|0.03
95895604|NCT01405963|191745368|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.33||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in early asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.66|-0.01|0.06
95895605|NCT01405963|191745369|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.70|0.12|0.01
95895606|NCT01405963|191745369|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.42||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.72|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and Day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.72|0.11|0.01
95895607|NCT01405963|191745370|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.24||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 42 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.45|0.04|0.02
95895608|NCT01405963|191745370|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.18||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.44|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and day -14 value as covariate.|Treatment difference estimate (tezepelumab minus placebo) is mean estimate based on ANCOVA.|Treatment difference in late asthmatic response at day 84 was evaluated using a repeated-measures ANCOVA that included study treatment and study visit as independent variables, treatment by study visit as an interaction term, and the corresponding baseline value (as measured 14 days before the first dose of a study drug) as a model covariate.||0.44|-0.07|0.15
95895609|NCT00746941|191745379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7132|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.7132
95895610|NCT00746941|191745380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9086|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.9086
95895611|NCT01354496|191745399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.18|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.18|0.897|
95895612|NCT01354496|191745400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.922|1.22|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.22|0.922|
95895613|NCT01354496|191745401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|1.16|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.16|0.896|
95895614|NCT01354496|191745402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.15|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.15|0.882|
95895615|NCT01354496|191745404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.951|
95895616|NCT01354496|191745404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.943|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.905|0.983|||||AUC0-∞ was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.983|0.905|
95895617|NCT01354496|191745405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.04|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||1.04|0.926|
95895618|NCT01354496|191745405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.891|0.993|||||Cmax was log-transformed and analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with fixed factors for formulation, sequence, and period, and random factor for participant.|||0.993|0.891|
95895619|NCT01324349|191745407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank||Median difference equals control median minus Hemostatic Patch median in minutes.|The primary effectiveness endpoint was time to hemostasis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival distribution and to obtain the estimated median time to hemostasis for each treatment. Subjects who did not achieve hemostasis by 10 minutes were to be censored as of that time point. For each treatment, 95% Brookmeyer-Crowley confidence intervals for the median were computed based upon the sign test.||||<0.0001
95895620|NCT01324349|191745408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.2||||0.0339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|47.3|||Suissa and Shuster test||Risk difference equals percentage hemostasis for Hemostatic Patch minus percentage hemostasis for control.|The secondary effectiveness endpoint was hemostasis within 3 minutes. The number and percentage of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes are presented for each treatment group. The proportions of subjects who achieved hemostasis within 3 minutes were compared between treatments using the Suissa and Shuster test. Additionally, a 95% Blyth-Still-Casella confidence interval for the true proportion was computed for each treatment.||47.3|1.9|0.0339
95895621|NCT01324349|191745409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.5029|||||||Fisher Exact||Risk difference equals percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in control group minus percent of subjects with any treatment emergent adverse events in Hemostatic Patch group.|The incidence of subjects experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (defined under this protocol as Adverse Events) was summarized by MedDRA system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) for each treatment group for the safety population. Tests for differences between the two treatments in the proportion of subjects experiencing any adverse event were made using Fisher's Exact Test.||||0.5029
95895622|NCT00244712|191745412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the ABC/3TC to the TDF/FTC would be declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 \[ABC/3TC minus TDF/FTC\] was -12% or greater.|difference in response percentage|0.39||||0.913||95.0|-6.63|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response percentage = percentage in Arm 1 minus percentage in Arm 2|||7.40|-6.63|0.913
95895623|NCT01332149|191745434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.01|-0.58|0.0559
95895624|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.47|0.0527
95895625|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.50|0.0279
95895626|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.48|0.0508
95895627|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
95895628|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.02||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.46|0.0672
95895629|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.00|-0.48|0.0469
95895630|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.03|-0.51|0.0280
95895631|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.06|-0.54|0.0140
95895632|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.01|-0.49|0.0375
95974999|NCT00112047|191923924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||The distribution of pure virological failure was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and compared between treatment groups using a baseline CD4 stratum-weighted log-rank test.|Log Rank|No other adjustments were made.||Null Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is equal for the 2 treatment groups. Alternative Hypothesis: The percentage of participants with pure virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA \< 50 c/mL) at Week 144 is different between the 2 treatment groups||||0.30
95975000|NCT00112047|191923925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.08||The change from baseline to Week 144 in HIV-1 RNA was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in plasma HIV-1 RNA for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||0.08|-0.16|0.39
95975001|NCT00112047|191923926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.3||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|78.55||The change from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count was compared between the 2 treatment groups using baseline CD4 stratum-weighted CI around the mean difference. P-value is from a stratum weighted Van Elteren test.|Van Elteren|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from baseline toWeek 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from baseline to Week 144 in CD4 cell count for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different.||78.55|4.05|0.089
95975002|NCT00112047|191923927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Limb Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.001
95975003|NCT00112047|191923928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Trunk Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||0.011
95975004|NCT00112047|191923929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|No other adjustments were made||Null Hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are equal. Alternative hypothesis: Changes from Week 48 baseline to Week 144 in Total Body Fat for the EFV+FTC+TDF and CBV+EFV groups are different||||<0.001
95975005|NCT00112047|191923939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) limb fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.16
95975006|NCT00112047|191923940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) trunk fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.049
95975007|NCT00112047|191923941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Null Hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is equal to zero. Alternative hypothesis: Change from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96) total body fat value is not equal to zero.||||0.055
95975008|NCT00112047|191923942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||<0.001
95975009|NCT00112047|191923943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.12
95975010|NCT00112047|191923944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.037
95975011|NCT00112047|191923945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (very satisfied, not very satisfied) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.013
95895633|NCT01332149|191745435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.105||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.05||All analyses were two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Overall change was estimated from the mixed effect model treatment main effect.|Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.46|0.0164
95975012|NCT00112047|191923946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||"The number and proportion of participants in each category (bothers, does not bother) were summarized. The P-value for the category shift from Week 144 baseline within a treatment group was calculated using the McNemar test."|McNemar|||Null Hypothesis: There is no category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a category shift from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.70
95975013|NCT00112047|191923947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the PCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.95
95975014|NCT00112047|191923948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0||||P-value is from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||Null Hypothesis: There is no change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a change in the MCS score from Week 144 (Atripla baseline) to Week 240 (Atripla Week 96).||||0.23
95975015|NCT03274687|191923950|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -5.||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 90% power for this endpoint and 91% power for the bowel endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.98
95895634|NCT01332149|191745437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.07|-0.49|0.1340
95895635|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.13|-0.37|0.3438
95895636|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.2482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.40|0.2482
95895637|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.1||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.10|-0.41|0.2249
95895638|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.05|-0.46|0.1094
95895639|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.09|-0.41|0.2095
95895640|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.00|-0.50|0.0531
95895641|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.44|0.1628
95895642|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.02||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.02|-0.48|0.0770
95895643|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.07||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.07|-0.43|0.1651
95895644|NCT01332149|191745438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.04||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Overall change from baseline analysis. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||0.04|-0.40|0.1006
95895645|NCT01332149|191745439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.74||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||1.74|0.93|0.1309
95895646|NCT01332149|191745442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.628||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||-0.05|-6.45|0.0463
95895647|NCT01332149|191745443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.2748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.05|-0.19|0.2748
95895648|NCT01332149|191745445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.577||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|1.97||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.97|-4.22|0.4758
95895649|NCT01332149|191745446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|7.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||7.67|-1.05|0.1363
95895650|NCT01332149|191745447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.371||0.8808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.90|-2.49|0.8808
95895651|NCT01332149|191745448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.4||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.40|-0.03|0.0887
95895652|NCT01332149|191745449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.53||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||1.53|0.72|0.7929
95895653|NCT01332149|191745450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.973||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|4.92||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||4.92|-2.83|0.5960
95895654|NCT01332149|191745451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.536||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.67||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||2.67|-3.36|0.8216
95895655|NCT01332149|191745452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.177||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|1.49||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||1.49|-3.14|0.4829
95895656|NCT01332149|191745453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.00|-0.29|0.0431
95895657|NCT01332149|191745454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.01||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||0.01|-0.28|0.0602
95895658|NCT01332149|191745456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.24||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.24|-0.57|0.4172
95895659|NCT01332149|191745457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and study center as factors and the corresponding baseline score as a covariate in the model.||||0.23|-0.62|0.3724
95895660|NCT05083442|191745469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.9|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||1.9|-0.4|0.19
95895661|NCT05083442|191745470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA||Estimated difference between groups from analysis of covariance with baseline fat mass included as the covariate.|Groups were compared using analysis of covariance with baseline included as the covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.745
95895662|NCT03711162|191745530|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.12||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|97.6||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.||||97.6|-52.3|0.5525
95975016|NCT03274687|191923951|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference in mean change score (∆2 - ∆1) is -6.||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis (H0): mean change score of HYPORT (∆2) is worse than that of COPORT (∆1), specifically ∆2 - ∆1 \< -5. Alternative hypothesis (HA): ∆2 is not worse than ∆1, specifically ∆2 - ∆1 ≥ -5. The study sample size is based on 91% power for this endpoint and 90% power for the urinary endpoint (resulting in 81.9% statistical power to reject the null hypothesis for both endpoints) and a one-sided alpha=0.025 with an overall type I error of 0.05 with a Bonferroni adjustment.||||0.96
95975017|NCT03274687|191923952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.70
95975018|NCT03274687|191923952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.67
95975019|NCT03274687|191923952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.66
95975020|NCT03274687|191923953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of RT||||0.0011
95975021|NCT03274687|191923953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months||||0.93
95975022|NCT03274687|191923953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1 year||||0.30
95975023|NCT03274687|191923954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Protocol definition of biochemical failure||||0.29
95975024|NCT03274687|191923954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level 0.05||Phoenix definition of biochemical failure||||0.22
95975025|NCT03274687|191923955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.96
95975026|NCT03274687|191923956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.35
95975027|NCT03274687|191923957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.41
95975028|NCT03274687|191923958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||Two-sided significance level 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.60
95975029|NCT03274687|191923960|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.47||Two-side significance level 0.05|Log Rank||Reference = COPORT|||9.47|0.26|0.61
95975030|NCT03274687|191923961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher adverse event of any attribution||||0.53
95975031|NCT03274687|191923961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher gastrointestinal adverse event of any attribution||||0.6929
95975032|NCT03274687|191923961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2605|||||||Chi-squared|||Patients with any grade 3 or higher genitourinary adverse event of any attribution||||0.2605
95975033|NCT03442985|191923972|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.109||||0.2556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|7.638||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg versus (vs) Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.638|0.583|0.2556
95975034|NCT03442985|191923972|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.04||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|15.373||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||15.373|0.601|0.1788
95975035|NCT03442985|191923972|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.441||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|7.234||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new OCs was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||7.234|0.287|0.6570
95975036|NCT03442985|191923973|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4412.6||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15257.3|6432.1||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6432.1|-15257.3|0.4252
95975037|NCT03442985|191923973|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-4640.9||||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15570.8|6289.0||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||6289.0|-15570.8|0.4053
95975038|NCT03442985|191923973|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|-228.3||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11265.0|10808.4||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testings due to small sample size.|Unadjusted estimation equation model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The mean difference in the change from baseline for total OC volume was estimated using an unadjusted estimation equation model with independent working covariance matrix to address potential correlation within the same family members.||10808.4|-11265.0|0.9677
95975039|NCT03442985|191923974|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.643||||0.5025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|2.335|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.335|0.177|0.5025
95975040|NCT03442985|191923974|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.528||||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||2.175|0.128|0.3763
95975041|NCT03442985|191923974|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|3.123|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression was adjusted for the following covariates: baseline age, sex, and Ext1/2 mutation status.||||3.123|0.215|0.7714
95975042|NCT03442985|191923975|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.951||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.451||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.451|0.623|0.8155
95975043|NCT03442985|191923975|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.003||||0.9918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|1.699||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.699|0.592|0.9918
95975044|NCT03442985|191923975|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.055||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.589||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = compound symmetry was used.|Negative binomial regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of new or worsening deformities was estimated using an unadjusted negative binomial regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||1.589|0.700|0.7997
95975045|NCT03442985|191923976|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.548||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.772|3.108||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Palovarotene 5.0 mg: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||3.108|0.772|0.2186
95975046|NCT03442985|191923976|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.655||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|4.052||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 2.5 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||4.052|0.676|0.2700
95975047|NCT03442985|191923976|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.069||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|2.178||The p-values were not adjusted for multiple testing due to small sample size. The correlation matrix type = independent was used.|Poisson regression model|||Palovarotene 5.0 mg vs Placebo: The annualized rate for number of MO-related surgeries was estimated using an unadjusted poisson regression model, offsetted by log-transformed follow-up time (years) to obtain annualized rate.||2.178|0.524|0.8546
95975048|NCT01138007|191924092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squared Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7||The p-value was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates. The multiplicity was adjusted by Dunnett's step-down procedure.|ANCOVA||The confidence interval was estimated based on the ANCOVA model including Baseline MADRS score and region as covariates.|||1.7|-2.7|0.853
95975049|NCT01138007|191924092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||||95.0|||||||In the analysis plan, the second comparison of interest was not to be performed if the first comparison failed to show statistical significance.|||||
95975050|NCT02656160|191924183|OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||tonic||||0.85
95975051|NCT02656160|191924183|OTHER|||||||0.322||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phasic activity||||0.322
95975052|NCT02656160|191924184|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||P\<0.05 considered statistically significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95975053|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.78||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.78|1.10|
95975054|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.32|0.90|
95975055|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.13||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.13|1.19|
95975056|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.62||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.62|0.93|
95975057|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.63|17.08||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||17.08|8.63|
95975058|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|3.48||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.48|1.82|
95975059|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|3.87||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.87|1.98|
95975060|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.08||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||4.08|2.00|
95895663|NCT03711162|191745530|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.53||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.5|47.1||P-value: based on random coefficient regression model (linear slope model) on FVC values.|Coefficient Regression Model|Treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each treatment group on basis of time-by-treatment interaction term from mixed model.||||47.1|-100.5|0.4776
95895664|NCT03711162|191745531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.56|0.9648
95895665|NCT03711162|191745531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.84|0.60|0.8530
95895666|NCT03711162|191745532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.05|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||2.05|0.50|
95895667|NCT03711162|191745532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.88|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards for time to respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.88|0.47|
95895668|NCT03711162|191745533|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||3.3|-4.4|0.7850
95895669|NCT03711162|191745533|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3||||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LS mean difference (95% CI) per treatment group with treatment, time (categorical), treatment-by-time interaction, stratum and baseline SGRQ total score as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||4.1|-3.4|0.8617
95895670|NCT03711162|191745534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|85.7|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||85.7|-46.9|
95895671|NCT03711162|191745534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|35.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated slopes for each study group on the basis of the time-by-treatment interaction term from the mixed model.|||35.8|-93.9|
95895672|NCT03711162|191745535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.95|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||1.95|0.68|
95895673|NCT03711162|191745535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.09|||||Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a logistic regression.|||2.09|0.74|
95895674|NCT03711162|191745536|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|19.0|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||19.0|-11.5|
95895675|NCT03711162|191745536|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|16.8|||||The treatment effect was determined by using estimated least square mean difference between each active treatment group and placebo from the mixed model.|||16.8|-11.1|
95895676|NCT03711162|191745537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.78|0.65|
95895677|NCT03711162|191745537|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.98|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause hospitalization.|||1.98|0.76|
95895678|NCT03711162|191745540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.81|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.81|0.44|
95895679|NCT03711162|191745540|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.5|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first acute IPF exacerbation.|||3.50|0.42|
95895680|NCT03711162|191745541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
95895681|NCT03711162|191745541|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality or hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
95895682|NCT03711162|191745542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.08|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||4.08|0.66|
95895683|NCT03711162|191745542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all cause mortality, hospitalization for non-elective lung transplant or hospitalization for qualifying for lung transplant.|||2.61|0.36|
95895684|NCT03711162|191745543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.91|0.59|
95895685|NCT03711162|191745543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to first all-cause mortality or hospitalization that meets \>=10% absolute decline in %FVC or respiratory-related hospitalization.|||1.46|0.43|
95975061|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.21||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.21|0.64|
95975062|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.51||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.51|1.39|
95975063|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.41||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.41|1.56|
95895686|NCT03711162|191745544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.91|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.91|0.59|
95975064|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.28||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.28|0.72|
95975065|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.67|7.33||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||7.33|3.67|
95975066|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.73||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.73|1.08|
95895687|NCT03711162|191745544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval originated from a Cox proportional hazards model for time to all-cause mortality or respiratory-related hospitalizations.|||1.46|0.43|
95975067|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.19|0.81|
95895688|NCT03034954|191745573|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||Reported p-value represents Time (baseline to post-tDCS) x Condition (Active or Sham) interaction for all OLTT Accuracy Measures. If the multivariate statistic is not significant no univariate statistical analyses are completed.|Repeated Measures ANOVA|repeated measures (OLTT baseline and post-tDCS); between-subjects (active vs. sham)||We used a multivariate statistic to compare OLTT means (Free Recall Total Error, Free Recall Average Error, Cued Recall Total Error, Cued Recall Average Error, Recognition Total Correct) at baseline (Version B) to post HD-tDCS OLTT means (Version C), by groups (active vs. sham). The overall statistic represents the simultaneous comparison of baseline OLTT measures to post HD-tDCS OLTT measures.||||.300
95895689|NCT03034954|191745575|OTHER|||||||0.044||||||Statistic represents the interaction between Time (baseline to post-tDCS) by Condition (Active vs. Sham).|Repeated Measures ANOVA|||A Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham). The multivariate analyses included OLTT Response Times (i.e., Free Recall Average Response Time, Cued Recall Average Response Time, Recognition Average Response Time)||||.044
95895690|NCT03034954|191745575|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Free Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.006
95895691|NCT03034954|191745578|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Cued Recall Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.15
95895692|NCT03034954|191745580|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||Univariate analysis of the OLTT Recognition Average Time to Respond following significant multivariate repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline OLTT (Version B) to post-tDCS OLTT (Version C) across the treatment groups (Active vs. Sham).||||.3
95895693|NCT03034954|191745585|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||MANOVA|||A Multivariate ANOVA was used to compare Active vs. Sham groups on discriminability measures (i.e. 0-back d', 2-back d', semantic 2-back d') and calculated working memory measures (i.e., 2-back d' minus 0-back d', semantic 2-back d' minus 0-back d').||||.450
95895694|NCT03034954|191745586|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared tests were conducted to determine group differences in actual condition assignment vs. estimated/perceived condition||||.078
95895695|NCT03034954|191745587|OTHER|||||||0.233|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.233
95975068|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.77||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.77|1.07|
95895696|NCT03034954|191745589|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.600
95895697|NCT03034954|191745590|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.999
95895698|NCT03034954|191745591|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.281
95895699|NCT03034954|191745592|OTHER|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.082
95895700|NCT03034954|191745593|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.490
95895701|NCT03034954|191745594|OTHER|||||||0.488|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.488
95895702|NCT03034954|191745595|OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.219
95895703|NCT04865354|191745597|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority to be concluded if least squares means difference upper confidence limit is less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0034|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.009||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.||LSM results based on general linear mixed effects model with terms for lens, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject as a random effect|Difference = PRECISION1 minus Clariti 1-Day|||0.009||
95895704|NCT01344369|191745598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.08|112.75|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||112.75|93.08|
95895705|NCT01344369|191745599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|104.66|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||104.66|96.66|
95895706|NCT01344369|191745600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|105.48|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||105.48|96.43|
95975069|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4||||||95.0|1.01|1.8||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.80|1.01|
95895707|NCT01344369|191745601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|100.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|108.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.00|93.69|
95895708|NCT01344369|191745602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.76|100.77|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.77|92.76|
95895709|NCT01344369|191745603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|96.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.22|100.84|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.84|92.22|
95895710|NCT00110812|191745604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|134.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|198.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||198|70|<.001
95895711|NCT00110812|191745604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|133.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|199.0||Adjusted for 3 pairwise comparisons.|ANOVA|stratified by geographic region and adjusted for baseline CD4.||||199|68|<.001
95895712|NCT00110812|191745606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.54|.08|.01
95895713|NCT00110812|191745606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.6|||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA.||||.60|.12|.003
95975070|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.15||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.15|1.30|
95895714|NCT00110812|191745607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|65.8||||0.009||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with stratification by region and adjustment for baseline CD4||||||.009
95895715|NCT00110812|191745607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|58.2||||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|stratified by region and adjusted for baseline CD4||||||.02
95895716|NCT00110812|191745610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.08||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|43.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 alone compared to patients not taking IL-2.|||43.6|0.59|.14
95895717|NCT00110812|191745610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|53.6|||Regression, Cox|Unadjusted, stratified by region.|Patients taking IL-2 plus pericycle HAART compared to patients not receiving IL-2|||53.6|0.80|.08
95895718|NCT00110812|191745611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 without ART vs control group|||.99|.34|.048
95895719|NCT00110812|191745611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.62|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 with pericycle HAART compared to control|||.62|.17|<.001
95975071|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.12||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.24|
95975072|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.79||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.79|1.03|
95975073|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5||||||95.0|1.11|1.98||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.98|1.11|
95895720|NCT00110812|191745612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.64|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.64|0.03|.03
95895721|NCT00110812|191745612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||ANOVA|Stratified by region and adjusted for baseline HIV-RNA||||0.85|0.24|<.001
95895722|NCT00110812|191745615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|5.45|||Regression, Cox|Stratification by region.|IL-2 group compared to control group|||5.45|0.38|.59
95895723|NCT00110812|191745616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.4||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Last measured CD4 is imputed if month 24 CD4 count is missing. Analysis is adjusted for baseline CD4.|IL-2 group minus control group CD4.|||||.05
95895724|NCT00110812|191745618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.97|||Regression, Cox||IL-2 groups vs. control|||.97|.52|.03
95895725|NCT02342704|191745635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 4||||0.1260
95895726|NCT02342704|191745635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3525|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 4||||0.3525
95895727|NCT02342704|191745635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0127|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 12||||0.0127
95895728|NCT02342704|191745635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0299|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 12||||0.0299
95895729|NCT02342704|191745635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||Week 24||||0.0123
95895730|NCT02342704|191745635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||negative binomial regression|p-value is based on negative binomial regression model, adjusted for baseline GD lesion count||Week 24||||0.0076
95895731|NCT02342704|191745636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5318|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T1 Lesion Volume Change||||0.5318
95895732|NCT02342704|191745636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0528|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||T2 Lesion Volume Change||||0.0528
95895733|NCT02342704|191745638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2632|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|p-value is based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the 2 treatment groups||||||0.2632
95895734|NCT00934544|191745645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meir estimate|28.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.6|21.3|<0.0001
95895735|NCT01218516|191745656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|1.63||Per Primary Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.92|0.3519
95895736|NCT01218516|191745656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.1555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.03|1.74||Per Final Analysis Cut-Off Date|Log Rank|||||1.74|1.03|0.1555
95895737|NCT01632891|191745661|SUPERIORITY|Test used alpha level of 0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare proportions of Pf SCP clearance between treatment arms||||1.00
95895738|NCT04206293|191745712|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||3.6|-0.2|0.0736
95895739|NCT04206293|191745712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.5259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.8|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.8|-1.5|0.5259
95895740|NCT04206293|191745713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.4|-2.8|0.8848
95895741|NCT04206293|191745713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-1.8|0.9505
95895742|NCT04206293|191745714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.0|1.4|0.0007
95895743|NCT04206293|191745714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.9|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||3.9|0.9|0.0033
95895744|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|-0.07|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.070|-0.119|<0.0001
95895745|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.048|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Uf: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.048|-0.094|<0.0001
95895746|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.061|-0.116|<0.0001
95895747|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|-0.061|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ue: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.061|-0.102|<0.0001
95895748|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0003||95.0|-0.116|-0.041|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.041|-0.116|0.0003
95975074|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.12||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||2.12|1.16|
95975075|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.47|0.86|
95975076|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.69||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.69|1.16|
95975077|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.54|0.87|
95975078|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.84||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2.||1.84|0.94|
95975079|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.87||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.87|2.03|
95975080|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||1.13|0.84|
95975081|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|2.76||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.76|1.92|
95975082|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.42||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.42|1.55|
95975083|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|2.67||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.67|1.84|
95975084|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|5.93||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.13|
95975085|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|3.49||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.49|2.41|
95975086|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|3.52||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.52|2.34|
95975087|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|5.93||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.93|4.01|
95975088|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.79||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.79|1.91|
95975089|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|2.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||2.66|2.02|
95975090|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|3.6||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||3.60|2.44|
95975091|NCT00427895|191924228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.31||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures in 13vPnC participants between Cohort 1 and Cohort 3.||5.31|3.31|
95975092|NCT00427895|191924229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|39.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|45.1||||||||45.1|33.0|
95975093|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|5.09||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||5.09|2.32|
95975094|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.16||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.13|
95975095|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.98||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.98|0.88|
95975096|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.97||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.97|2.04|
95975097|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.0||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.00|1.50|
95975098|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|7.99||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||7.99|2.76|
95975099|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.97||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.97|0.93|
95975100|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.39||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.39|0.99|
95975101|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.5||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.50|1.37|
95975102|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.68||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.68|1.78|
95975103|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|4.01||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||4.01|1.77|
95975104|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|6.13||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||6.13|1.99|
95975105|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.08||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.08|2.87|
95975106|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.3||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.30|2.26|
95895749|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.044|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ur: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.044|-0.103|0.0001
95895750|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.045|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 28||-0.045|-0.117|0.0002
95895751|NCT04206293|191745715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|-0.052|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ua: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.052|-0.103|<0.0001
95895752|NCT04206293|191745716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.5786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.022|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.022|-0.038|0.5786
95895753|NCT04206293|191745716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.002|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q1: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.002|-0.049|0.0690
95895754|NCT04206293|191745716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.012|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.012|-0.054|0.1934
95895755|NCT04206293|191745716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.006|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q2: Change from Baseline to Day 84||-0.006|-0.062|0.0194
95895756|NCT04206293|191745716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.028|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.028|-0.001|0.0652
95895757|NCT04206293|191745716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.024|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Q3: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.024|-0.001|0.0756
95895758|NCT04206293|191745717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.8409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|5.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||5.10|-6.19|0.8409
95895759|NCT04206293|191745717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.9183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|8.35|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||8.35|-9.18|0.9183
95895760|NCT04206293|191745718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|70.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|77.0||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.0|282.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||282|-142|0.4128
95895761|NCT04206293|191745718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.0||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.0|191.0|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||191|-355|0.3851
95895762|NCT04206293|191745719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|13.93|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||13.93|-0.89|0.0798
95895763|NCT04206293|191745719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.27||0.1142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|12.67|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||12.67|-1.55|0.1142
95895764|NCT04206293|191745720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.2592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.71|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 28||2.71|-0.78|0.2592
95895765|NCT04206293|191745720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|2.57|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Ra: Change from Baseline to Day 84||2.57|-0.38|0.1341
95895766|NCT04206293|191745720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.2138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.61|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 28||15.61|-3.79|0.2138
95895767|NCT04206293|191745720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|17.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Rz: Change from Baseline to Day 84||17.20|-0.77|0.0700
95895768|NCT04206293|191745721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.91|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||4.91|-4.70|0.9608
95895769|NCT04206293|191745721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.6192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|4.64|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||4.64|-7.48|0.6192
95895770|NCT04206293|191745722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.16|-0.20|0.8322
95895771|NCT04206293|191745722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.04|-0.25|0.1334
95895772|NCT04206293|191745723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.78||0.5221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.56|11.38|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||11.38|-21.56|0.5221
95895773|NCT04206293|191745723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.07||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|24.03|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||24.03|-10.55|0.4174
95895774|NCT04206293|191745724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.3052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.44|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||8.44|-2.90|0.3052
95895775|NCT04206293|191745724|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|9.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|15.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||15.50|4.48|0.0016
95895776|NCT04206293|191745725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.73|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.73|-0.33|0.1672
95895777|NCT04206293|191745725|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.21|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.21|-0.10|0.0881
95975107|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.8||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.80|1.72|
95975108|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|10.19||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.19|4.09|
95895778|NCT04206293|191745726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.17|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||1.17|-0.02|0.0577
95895779|NCT04206293|191745726|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.45|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.45|-0.85|0.5224
95895780|NCT04206293|191745727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.2|-0.6|0.2666
95895781|NCT04206293|191745727|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.7|-0.3|0.4366
95895782|NCT04206293|191745728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.3|-0.6|0.4197
95895783|NCT04206293|191745728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||a\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.5|-0.6|0.9140
95895784|NCT04206293|191745728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-0.6|0.7604
95895785|NCT04206293|191745728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||b\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.6|-1.0|0.5936
95895786|NCT04206293|191745728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.1|-0.9|0.0808
95895787|NCT04206293|191745728|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||L\*: Change from Baseline to Day 84||0.2|-1.0|0.1633
95895788|NCT04206293|191745729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||0.4|-1.6|0.1977
95895789|NCT04206293|191745729|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||1.7|-2.2|0.7535
95895790|NCT04206293|191745730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|12.85|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 28||12.85|-4.16|0.2905
95895791|NCT04206293|191745730|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|17.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.84|31.69|||Mixed ANOVA|Mixed ANOVA model was used for repeated measures with factors: Zone as fixed(treated,control),time as fixed(D0,D28,D84),zone by time interaction.||Change from Baseline to Day 84||31.69|2.84|0.0241
95895792|NCT01988571|191745755|SUPERIORITY|Power described in protocol.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7787||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for multiple imputation of missing data||Linear models adjusting for baseline values and utilized multiple imputation for missing data.||||0.84
95895793|NCT00004412|191745765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of ulcers undergoing partial and complete healing compared at 12 weeks. Mean Ulcer areas were calculated utilizing computerized planimetry, ulcer area tracings, and photography for baseline and 12 weeks and compared between the two study Arms.||||0.05
95895794|NCT01451775|191745767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|84.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.856|87.344|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||87.344|80.856|
95975109|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.63||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.63|1.83|
95975110|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.03||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.03|2.41|
95895795|NCT01451775|191745767|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0178|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8988|0.9746||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||0.9746|0.8988|
95895796|NCT01451775|191745768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability study with standard bioequivalence range of 80% to 125%. Ratio calculated as empa 25mg fed divided by empa 25mg fasted.|Geometric mean ratio|63.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.736|70.439|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|||70.439|56.736|
95895797|NCT01451775|191745768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an analysis of dose proportionality|Slope|0.9065|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0495|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8011|1.012||Does proportionality would be assumed if the 95% confidence interval includes one.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with logarithm of the dose fitted as a continuous covariate and sequence, subjects within sequence, period included as categorical variables.||||1.0120|0.8011|
95895798|NCT02016482|191745784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|53.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For US regulatory purposes, ranked first secondary endpoint.||53.6|32.8|< 0.001
95895799|NCT02016482|191745785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.8|53.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked sixth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, this was the primary endpoint.||53.2|30.8|< 0.001
95895800|NCT02016482|191745786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|-44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|-36.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked first secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked second secondary endpoint.||-36.0|-53.5|< 0.001
95895801|NCT02016482|191745787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked second secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked third secondary endpoint.||11.3|1.8|0.008
95895802|NCT02016482|191745788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Percent Change|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-2.0||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked third secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fourth secondary endpoint.||-2.0|-3.3|< 0.001
95895803|NCT02016482|191745789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Ranked fourth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked fifth secondary endpoint.||-2.2|-3.6|< 0.001
95895804|NCT02016482|191745790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|57.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|82.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Ranked fifth secondary endpoint. For US regulatory purposes, ranked sixth secondary endpoint.||82.0|33.8|0.002
95895805|NCT02016482|191745791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.2|31.3|< 0.001
95895806|NCT02016482|191745792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||56.5|33.2|< 0.001
95895807|NCT02016482|191745793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.6|10.6|< 0.001
95895808|NCT02016482|191745794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|46.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||46.9|25.0|< 0.001
95895809|NCT02016482|191745795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|20.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.0|6.5|<0.001
95895810|NCT02016482|191745796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.8|-4.3|< 0.001
95895811|NCT02016482|191745797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.8|-46.9|< 0.001
95895812|NCT02016482|191745798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-23.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-23.7|-33.5|< 0.001
95975111|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|10.82||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||10.82|3.13|
95975112|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.84||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.84|1.30|
95975113|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.78||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||4.78|2.02|
95975114|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.76||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.76|1.87|
95975115|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|6.58||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||6.58|2.97|
95975116|NCT00427895|191924230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|9.41||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||9.41|3.20|
95975117|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|11.2||||||Serotype 1: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.2|1.9|
95975118|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|8.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.1|-0.3|
95975119|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.2||||||Serotype 4: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-0.2|
95975120|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|7.2||||||Serotype 5: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|-2.6|
95975121|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|26.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.7|31.7||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||31.7|21.7|
95975122|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|12.0||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|3.2|
95975123|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|17.4||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||17.4|7.3|
95975124|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|19.5||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||19.5|8.7|
95975125|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.8||||||Serotype 14: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.8|-5.6|
95975126|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.5|2.6|
95975127|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.1|1.2|
95975128|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|Difference in Percentage|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.2||||||Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.||3.2|-5.5|
95975129|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|29.3||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (13vPnC - 23vPS) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||29.3|17.0|
95975130|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|7.5||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.5|-0.2|
95975131|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.1||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.1|-3.6|
95975132|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|5.5||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.5|-0.4|
95975133|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.9||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.9|-5.8|
95975134|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|4.8||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||4.8|-0.4|
95975135|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.2||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.2|0.8|
95895813|NCT02016482|191745799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-41.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-41.9|-58.3|< 0.001
95975136|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.2||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.2|0.6|
95975137|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.9||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||7.9|-0.3|
95975138|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Perecentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||8.7|-0.1|
95975139|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.5||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||2.5|-3.8|
95975140|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||1.9|-2.1|
95975141|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.2||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.2|-2.4|
95975142|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 2 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|-4.7|
95975143|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|10.6||||||Serotype 1: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||10.6|4.3|
95975144|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.9||||||Serotype 3: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.9|-0.3|
95975145|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.9||||||Serotype 4: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.9|2.1|
95975146|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|9.1||||||Serotype 5: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.1|1.4|
95975147|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.1||||||Serotype 6A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||6.1|1.7|
95975148|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.3||||||Serotype 6B: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||9.3|4.1|
95975149|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|11.6||||||Serotype 7F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.6|5.4|
95975150|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|11.4||||||Serotype 9V: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||11.4|4.8|
95975151|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|14.9||||||Serotype 14: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.9|8.0|
95975152|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.7||||||Serotype 18C: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||5.7|0.9|
95895814|NCT02016482|191745800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|12.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|2.4|0.004
95895815|NCT02016482|191745801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|26.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.8|10.1|< 0.001
95895816|NCT02016482|191745802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.9||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-1.9|-3.1|< 0.001
95895817|NCT02016482|191745803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.0|-30.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-30.4|-50.0|< 0.001
95895818|NCT02016482|191745804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.6|-15.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-23.6|< 0.001
95895819|NCT02016482|191745805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-6.1||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-6.1|-10.0|< 0.001
95895820|NCT02016482|191745806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-71.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.3|-55.0||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-55.0|-87.3|< 0.001
95895821|NCT02016482|191745807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.6|63.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 75||63.5|38.6|< 0.001
95895822|NCT02016482|191745807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|65.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 50||65.0|39.9|< 0.001
95895823|NCT02016482|191745807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|52.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 90||52.9|29.0|< 0.001
95895824|NCT02016482|191745807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|36.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||PASI 100||36.9|15.8|< 0.001
95895825|NCT02016482|191745808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|52.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.8|63.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||63.7|40.8|< 0.001
95895826|NCT02016482|191745809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|34.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|15.3|< 0.001
95895827|NCT02016482|191745810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|90.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|108.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||108.3|72.5|< 0.001
95895828|NCT02016482|191745811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-8.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-8.4|-13.9|< 0.001
95895829|NCT02016482|191745812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-80.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.9|-63.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-63.3|-97.9|< 0.001
95895830|NCT02016482|191745813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-37.8||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-37.8|-64.0|< 0.001
95895831|NCT02016482|191745814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-57.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-42.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-42.4|-73.1|< 0.001
95895832|NCT02016482|191745815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.001
95895833|NCT02016482|191745816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|-21.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-21.6|-33.9|< 0.001
95895834|NCT02016482|191745817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-4.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-4.5|-7.8|< 0.001
95895835|NCT02016482|191745818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|24.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0||24.3|7.1|< 0.001
95895836|NCT02016482|191745818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|37.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DLQI = 0/1||37.4|16.7|< 0.001
95895837|NCT02016482|191745819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Absenteeism||2.5|-1.0|0.416
95895838|NCT02016482|191745819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.6||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Presenteeism||-11.6|-22.9|< 0.001
95895839|NCT02016482|191745819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|-9.3||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Overall work impairment||-9.3|-21.0|< 0.001
95895840|NCT02016482|191745819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-15.4||Across all strata, P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||Activity impairment||-15.4|-27.3|< 0.001
95895841|NCT02016482|191745820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|0.1|< 0.001
95975153|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.1||||||Serotype 19A: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||3.1|0.3|
95975154|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|12.0||||||Serotype 19F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||12.0|5.4|
95895842|NCT02016482|191745821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.8||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||9.8|1.2|0.012
95895843|NCT02016482|191745822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS anxiety score||-0.1|-2.0|0.025
95895844|NCT02016482|191745822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS depression score||-0.4|-2.3|0.005
95895845|NCT02016482|191745823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|6.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If zero frequency occurred, strata were dropped and p-value was calculated based on chi-square test (or adjusted chi-square test based on Campbell \[2007\]).|Chi-squared|||||6|-0.9|0.164
95895846|NCT02016482|191745824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-2.1||P values were calculated from ANCOVA with treatment center stratum, Baseline value, and treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-3.4|< 0.001
95895847|NCT05876273|191745825|OTHER|The statistical analysis included general linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC) and a covariate the 1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC. The data was analyzed using the GLM procedures of IBM SPSS 28.0.||||||0.2||||||1-hour average CGM level prior to initiating either controller was included as a covariate in the analysis. This covariate was used to compute the adjusted performance differences between NAP and UMPC.|GLM with Repeated Measures|General linear models (GLM), with repeated measures (NAP vs UMPC)||||||0.2
95895848|NCT03712410|191745920|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.186||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.1860
95895849|NCT03712410|191745920|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.2752||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.2752
95895850|NCT03712410|191745920|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.6233||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6233
95895851|NCT03712410|191745921|OTHER|Group Comparison||||||0.5638||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5638
95895852|NCT03712410|191745921|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9848||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9848
95895853|NCT03712410|191745921|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.9169||||||p-value for Difference (FollowUp-Baseline) Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9169
95895854|NCT03712410|191745922|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95895855|NCT03712410|191745922|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95895856|NCT03712410|191745922|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0155||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Traditional PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0155
95895857|NCT03712410|191745922|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95895858|NCT03712410|191745922|OTHER|Group Comparisons|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95895859|NCT03712410|191745922|OTHER|Group Comparisons||||||0.0504||||||p-value for Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI-R) for arm Online PISCES|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0504
95895860|NCT00314236|191745930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.011
95895861|NCT00314236|191745931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.033
95975155|NCT00427895|191924231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than -0.10.|Difference in Percentage|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|14.7||||||Serotype 23F: Difference (cohort 3 - cohort 1) in proportions, expressed as a percentage presented along with exact 2-sided 95%CI.||14.7|6.8|
95975156|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.51||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.51|1.52|
95975157|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.99||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.99|0.95|
95895862|NCT01465464|191745934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|1.352|||Log Rank|||||1.352|0.878|0.435
95895863|NCT00544076|191745938|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin that would be possible to detect (had the protocol reached intended accrual) was 20%,|||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments were made.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.1
95895864|NCT00544076|191745939|OTHER||||||>|0.1||||||no adjustments done|Chi-squared|no adjustments||compare percentage of patients potent at 6 and 18 months across pairs of treatment arms (arm I vs arm II, arm I vs arm III, arm II vs arm III)||||>0.1
95895865|NCT00544076|191745940|OTHER||||||>|0.2||||||no adjustments done.|ANOVA|||||||>0.2
95895866|NCT00544076|191745941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||no adjustments|ANOVA|no adjustments for df||"ANOVA test to compare difference of penile length (from baseline to month 18) across arms.~calculations are underpowered, as study did not accrue or retain patients as intended, and many patients declined to have measurements taken."||||0.08
95895867|NCT02136576|191746007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||"This p-value is for the Air Schiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||0.72
95895868|NCT02136576|191746007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the Air VAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
95895869|NCT02136576|191746007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||"This p-value is for the WaterSchiff comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.77
95895870|NCT02136576|191746007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||"This p-value is for the WaterVAS comparison.~The threshold of significance was 0.05 and no multiple comparisons were necessary."|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assuming the control group may exhibit a modest improvement in dentinal hypersensitivity (\~5%) whereas the two test groups should demonstrate a more significant improvement (\~30%). Assuming a common standard deviation of 25%, we will have 58% power to detect a difference between the 3 groups using one way analysis of variance, with 10 subjects per group, and setting alpha to 0.05 (nQuery Advisor, Version 7.0). Up to 13 subjects per group will be recruited, to allow for a 20% dropout rate.||||.93
95895871|NCT04903249|191746020|OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
95895872|NCT04903249|191746021|OTHER|||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.293
95895873|NCT04903249|191746022|OTHER|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
95895874|NCT04903249|191746028|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
95895875|NCT04903249|191746029|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95895876|NCT04903249|191746030|OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.327
95895877|NCT04903249|191746031|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.479
95895878|NCT04903249|191746032|OTHER|||||||0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.424
95895879|NCT04903249|191746033|OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.279
95895880|NCT04903249|191746034|OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
95975158|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.64||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.64|1.47|
95895881|NCT01951157|191746035|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|48.4||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed.||48.4|13.2|
95895882|NCT01951157|191746035|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|37.9||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||37.9|5.7|
95895883|NCT01951157|191746035|SUPERIORITY||The exact binomial estimator|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|46.7||||||The exact binomial estimator and its 95%CI was used. A pre-planned Bayesian supportive analysis test comparing PFS4 was performed||46.7|12.6|
95895884|NCT01951157|191746036|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.3873|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.3873
95895885|NCT01951157|191746040|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified|||||=|0.0177|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.0177
95895886|NCT01951157|191746041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Pre-specified||||||0.3526|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3526
95895887|NCT01951157|191746042|SUPERIORITY|Pre-specified||||||0.9026|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9026
95895888|NCT01951157|191746042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9862|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.9862
95895889|NCT01951157|191746042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8057|||||||Wilcoxon signed ranks test repeat analys|||Changes in QoL scores over time were calculated and tested for statistical significance by means of ilcoxon signed ranks test repeat-measure analyses of variance.||||0.8057
95895890|NCT04809220|191746043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-0.43|<.001
95895891|NCT04809220|191746044|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.47|<.001
95895892|NCT04809220|191746045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c ≤6.5%||1.87|0.71|0.560
95895893|NCT04809220|191746045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.45|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLM)|||For HbA1c \< 7%||2.45|1.05|0.028
95895894|NCT04809220|191746046|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-14.4|<.001
95895895|NCT04809220|191746047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||Morning premeal-fasting||-2.7|-11.7|0.002
95895896|NCT04809220|191746047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.9|||ANCOVA|||Morning 2-hour post meal||-1.9|-18.3|0.016
95895897|NCT04809220|191746047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.3|||ANCOVA|||Midday premeal||-2.3|-14.2|0.007
95895898|NCT04809220|191746047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Midday 2-hour post meal||-4.5|-20.5|0.002
95895899|NCT04809220|191746047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.5|||ANCOVA|||Evening premeal||1.5|-9.3|0.158
95895900|NCT04809220|191746047|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.7|||ANCOVA|||Evening 2-hour post meal||-3.7|-19.0|0.004
95895901|NCT04809220|191746048|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.8|0.213
95895902|NCT02970968|191746105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0099
95895903|NCT02970968|191746106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0160
95895904|NCT02970968|191746107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
95895905|NCT02970968|191746108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0223|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0223
95895906|NCT02970968|191746109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0497
95895907|NCT02970968|191746110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0207
95895908|NCT02970968|191746111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0429|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0429
95895909|NCT02970968|191746112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95895910|NCT02970968|191746113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0003
95895911|NCT02970968|191746114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.023
95895912|NCT02970968|191746115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0078|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0078
95895913|NCT02970968|191746116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0294
95895914|NCT02970968|191746117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0229
95895915|NCT02970968|191746118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0018
95895916|NCT02970968|191746119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0013
95895917|NCT02970968|191746120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0001
95895918|NCT02970968|191746121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
95895919|NCT02970968|191746122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0164|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0164
95895920|NCT02970968|191746123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0053|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0053
95895921|NCT02970968|191746124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.0020
95895922|NCT00071812|191746132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|18.8||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|32.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||32.8|4.8|0.0097
95895923|NCT00071812|191746132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.4||||0.1677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|22.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||22.7|-3.9|0.1677
95895924|NCT00071812|191746132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|12.2||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|25.8||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||25.8|-1.3|0.0796
95895925|NCT00071812|191746133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|5.4||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.7||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||13.7|-3.0|0.2074
95895926|NCT00071812|191746133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.1||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||12.2|-4.0|0.3177
95895927|NCT00071812|191746133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|9.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||19.2|0.3|0.0418
95895928|NCT00071812|191746134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|2.7||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|9.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||9.3|-4.0|0.4299
95895929|NCT00071812|191746134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-1.5||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||3.3|-6.3|0.5393
95895930|NCT00071812|191746134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data.||5.4|-5.6|0.9769
95895931|NCT00071812|191746135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1752||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.1752
95895932|NCT00071812|191746135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.3440
95895933|NCT00071812|191746135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4308||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have any ACR response were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have an ACR response and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.4308
95895934|NCT00071812|191746138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0958||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation.||||0.0958
95895935|NCT00071812|191746138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7864||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.7864
95895936|NCT00071812|191746138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.0051
95895937|NCT00071812|191746139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0960
95895938|NCT00071812|191746139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2859||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.2859
95895939|NCT00071812|191746139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0109||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required rescue RA medications were declared nonresponders, as were patients who dropped out or were missing Week 24 data. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 were censored at the last visit or exit visit, whichever occurred first. Patients who did not have good or moderate improvement in DAS28 and discontinued from the study prior to study completion were censored at the last date on study.||||0.0109
95895940|NCT00071812|191746140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.1940
95895941|NCT00071812|191746140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2561||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.2561
95895942|NCT00071812|191746140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8707||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||||0.8707
95895943|NCT01888497|191746305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|13.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.85|17.4||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam versus (vs) placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||17.40|10.85|<0.001
95895944|NCT01888497|191746305|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was 2.4 cm.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|2.33|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.33|-0.66|
95895945|NCT01888497|191746305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|1.02||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.51||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||2.51|-0.39|0.134
95895946|NCT01888497|191746305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.98||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For primary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||3.98|1.01|<0.001
95895947|NCT01888497|191746306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.47||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.47|0.26|<0.001
95895948|NCT01888497|191746306|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 0.1 m/sec.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.05|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.05|-0.07|
95895949|NCT01888497|191746306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.02|0.012
95895950|NCT01888497|191746306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|0.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.12||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||0.12|0.01|0.014
95895951|NCT01888497|191746307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|103.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|130.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||130.50|72.00|<0.001
95975159|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.12||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.12|0.92|
95895952|NCT01888497|191746307|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|For gabapentin versus placebo comparison, the non-inferiority margin for upper limit of 95% CI was 8 lanes.|Hodges-Lehman estimate|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|16.5|||||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||16.50|-4.00|
95895953|NCT01888497|191746307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|3.0||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.0||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||9.00|-3.00|0.213
95895954|NCT01888497|191746307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman estimate|11.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.5||Statistical comparison was performed at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of treatment difference was reported.|For secondary endpoint sequential order of testing: triazolam vs placebo; gabapentin vs placebo; diphenhydramine citrate vs gabapentin; diphenhydramine citrate vs placebo. If comparison at preceding step was significant, only then subsequent comparisons were considered significant.||20.50|4.00|0.003
95895955|NCT03240575|191746308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.105|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.105|-0.001|0.0543
95895956|NCT03240575|191746309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.144|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.144|0.037|0.0011
95895957|NCT03240575|191746310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.058|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.058|-0.048|0.8593
95895958|NCT03240575|191746311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.156|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects, and baseline as well as baseline by visit interaction as covariates.||||0.156|0.040|0.0010
95895959|NCT05124665|191746317|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing between two study arms is equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Cluster adjusted for household.||||12.9|1.6|0.004
95975160|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.16||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.16|1.01|
95895960|NCT05124665|191746317|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is proportion of contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between the two study arms|Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Estimated value and confidence interval reflects the values multiplied by 100 (converting decimal to percentage).|||10|2|0.006
95975161|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.59||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.67|
95975162|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.92|0.94|
95975163|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.23|0.80|
95975164|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.59|0.68|
95975165|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||1.66|0.80|
95895961|NCT05124665|191746318|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the change in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms.|Slope|2.2||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Van Rie Perceived TB and HIV Stigma scales adapted and validated in the Ugandan context are used. Scores range from 0 to 100 (standardized scale)||6.9|-2.5|0.358
95895962|NCT05124665|191746319|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the difference in stigma score is equivalent between the two study arms|Slope|2.61||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.59|-1.38|0.199
95895963|NCT05124665|191746320|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is no effect from perceived HIV Stigma on HIV Test Uptake|Coefficient from Structural Equation|0.00087||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00007|0.00167|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.00167|0.00007|0.03
95895964|NCT05124665|191746321|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that TB stigma has no effect of HIV test uptake|Coefficient Structural Equation Model|0.0002||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.0011|||Structural Equation Modeling|||||0.0011|-0.0007|0.64
95895965|NCT05124665|191746322|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that proportion of index patient nominated household contacts accepting HIV testing is equivalent between two study arms||||||0.452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.452
95895966|NCT05124665|191746323|NON_INFERIORITY|Hypothesis is that the first tester's decision to test does not impact subsequent household contacts decision to test for HIV.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.76|0.86|0.264
95895967|NCT05124665|191746324|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis is that the index patient and contact nominations will match equally regardless of study arm.|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95895968|NCT04144166|191746326|OTHER||||||||||||||See above|||"Mean value for visual CRT and median value for device CRI were calculated for each participant. 3 values were measured (each) for CRT and CRI. Mean value is equal to SUM(m1,m2,m3)/3.~Median value was then calculated for the set (57) of calculated mean visual CRT and mean device CRI. Median value is equal to the middle value of the series of mean values. All measurements are in units of seconds."|See above|||
95895969|NCT00913744|191746337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|12.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|28.4|||Fisher Exact|P-value is from Fisher's exact test, comparing sham and ocriplasmin.||||28.4|-3.7|0.262
95895970|NCT00116831|191746339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma volume|-4.58||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895971|NCT00116831|191746340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen volume|0.32||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895972|NCT00116831|191746341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel volume|-3.56||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895973|NCT00116831|191746343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for atheroma area|-0.13||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895974|NCT00116831|191746344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for lumen area|0.02||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895975|NCT00116831|191746345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean diff (RSG-GLP) for vessel area|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895976|NCT00116831|191746348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.64||||0.1221||95.0|-1.457|0.173|||ANCOVA|||||0.173|-1.457|0.1221
95895977|NCT00116831|191746349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-5.12||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895978|NCT00116831|191746351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-1.72||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895979|NCT00116831|191746353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Model adjusted mean diff. (RSG-GLP)|-0.11||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895980|NCT00116831|191746354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.1||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895981|NCT00116831|191746355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.88||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895982|NCT00116831|191746356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-47.23||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895983|NCT00116831|191746357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-16.9||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895984|NCT00116831|191746359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to GLP as % difference from GLP|30.591||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895985|NCT00116831|191746360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.642||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895986|NCT00116831|191746361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|7.316||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895987|NCT00116831|191746362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|15.731||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895988|NCT00116831|191746363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|3.998||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895989|NCT00116831|191746364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|11.728||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895990|NCT00116831|191746365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-6.768||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895991|NCT00116831|191746366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-14.478||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895992|NCT00116831|191746367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|-0.462||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895993|NCT00116831|191746368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.0164||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895994|NCT00116831|191746369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.118||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895995|NCT00116831|191746370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference (RSG-GLP)|0.14||||||95.0||||||||||||
95895996|NCT00805935|191746374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95895997|NCT00805935|191746374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95895998|NCT00805935|191746374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the menotropin treatments arms.||||0.481
95895999|NCT00805935|191746374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparing Progesterone vaginal insert to Progesterone in oil within the follitropin beta treatment group.||||0.483
95896000|NCT00283439|191746426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9654||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.9654
95896001|NCT00283439|191746426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.8690
95896002|NCT00283439|191746426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7133||||||One-sided test|Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.7133
95896003|NCT00283439|191746427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.294
95896004|NCT00283439|191746427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.608|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.608
95896005|NCT00283439|191746427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.603|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.603
95896006|NCT00283439|191746428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.091
95896007|NCT00283439|191746428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.300
95896008|NCT00283439|191746428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Satterhwaite t-test|||||||0.881
95896009|NCT00283439|191746429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.576
95896010|NCT00283439|191746429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.588
95896011|NCT00283439|191746429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
95896012|NCT02643251|191746438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3361|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3361
95896013|NCT00526058|191746451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the Futura system to the Secura system would be demonstrated if the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the two systems (Secura-Futura) in percent change of LDL-C measurements from pre- to post-treatment is less than the noninferiority margin 5.7%.||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95896014|NCT00735371|191746464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0056
95896015|NCT00735371|191746464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95975166|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.79||||||95.0|1.07|3.0||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||3.00|1.07|
95975167|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.24||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS).||2.24|0.95|
95975168|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.12||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.12|1.53|
95975169|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.91||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.91|1.06|
95975170|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|3.55||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||3.55|1.71|
95896016|NCT00735371|191746464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95896017|NCT00735371|191746465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0235||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0235
95896018|NCT00735371|191746465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95896019|NCT00735371|191746465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95896020|NCT04120610|191746536|OTHER||Correlation|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.41||||||Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.41|0.10|
95896021|NCT04120610|191746537|OTHER||Correlation|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.03|-0.46|
95896022|NCT04120610|191746537|OTHER||Correlation|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.51|
95896023|NCT04120610|191746537|OTHER||Correlation|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and ABI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.14|-0.38|
95896024|NCT04120610|191746538|OTHER||Correlation|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.12||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.12|-0.52|
95896025|NCT04120610|191746538|OTHER||Correlation|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.15||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||-0.15|-0.52|
95896026|NCT04120610|191746538|OTHER||Correlation|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.02||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and TBI. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.02|-0.47|
95896027|NCT04120610|191746539|OTHER||Correlation|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.36|-0.08|
95896028|NCT04120610|191746539|OTHER||Correlation|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.39||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.39|-0.02|
95896029|NCT04120610|191746539|OTHER||Correlation|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.47||||||Correlation of change in acceleration time and Rutherford Classification. Descriptive analysis of endpoint with no hypothesis.||0.47|-0.02|
95896030|NCT00176592|191746540|SUPERIORITY|This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison. This includes p value for rank sum test treatment comparison of intention to treat study population.||||<0.05
95896031|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|7.76||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|13.37|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 2||13.37|2.14|.0434
95896032|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|16.29||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.32|21.25|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 3||21.25|11.32|.0003
95896033|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|15.98||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|25.26|||ANCOVA|||ALA Day 1 vs Day 4||25.26|6.7|.0198
95896034|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|10.69||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|22.49|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 2||22.49|-1.67|.158
95896035|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|24.52||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|37.74|||ANCOVA|||PGB Day 1 vs Day 3||37.74|11.3|.0127
95896036|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|28.45||||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.64|47.27|||ANCOVA|||PBG Day 1 vs Day 4||47.27|9.64|.0328
95975171|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.74||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.74|1.45|
95975172|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.76||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.76|1.50|
95975173|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.58|1.32|
95975174|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.62||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.62|1.46|
95975175|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.91||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.91|1.32|
95975176|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.97||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||1.97|0.94|
95975177|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.03||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.03|1.08|
95975178|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|5.12||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||5.12|2.19|
95975179|NCT00427895|191924233|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMC Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.83||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMC ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC/23vPS - 23vPS/23vPS).||2.83|1.41|
95975180|NCT04661150|191924253|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|23.8||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|44.7|||Chi-squared|||||44.7|1.3|0.079
95975181|NCT04661150|191924258|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-4.8||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.9|18.9|||Chi-squared|||||18.9|-27.9|0.739
95975182|NCT04661150|191924259|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|4.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|21.4|||Fisher Exact|||||21.4|-10.9|>0.999
95975183|NCT03342664|191924261|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.62|1.72|||||Odds ratio of MIS over MM with value above 1 indicating a better outcome for MIS|||1.72|0.62|
95975184|NCT03342664|191924264|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.79|||||Odds ratio of MIS over MM with value above 1 indicating a better outcome for MIS|||1.79|0.64|
95975185|NCT01651403|191924272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||< 0.001
95975186|NCT01651403|191924272|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test without adjusting for strata at baseline||||||< 0.001
95975187|NCT01651403|191924273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.935|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.935
95975188|NCT01651403|191924274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.001
95975189|NCT01651403|191924276|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
95975190|NCT01651403|191924278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||0.002
95975191|NCT01651403|191924280|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
95975192|NCT01651403|191924282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
95975193|NCT01651403|191924284|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
95975194|NCT01651403|191924286|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
95975195|NCT01651403|191924288|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||>0.999
95975196|NCT01651403|191924296|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
95975197|NCT01651403|191924297|OTHER|Comparison of the difference in percentages|Exact Chan-Zhang method|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|25.1||||||||25.1|-6.9|
95975198|NCT01651403|191924298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|two-sided superiority test||||||0.007
95975199|NCT01651403|191924300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for age at baseline and region strata||||||<0.001
95896037|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|12.2||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|489.8|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 2||489.8|-465.4|.9993
95896038|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|454.5||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.87|1109.86|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 3||1109.86|-200.87|.2915
95896039|NCT02180412|191746556|OTHER||Slope|326.12||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.0|944.25|||ANCOVA|||Total Porphyrins Day 1 vs Day 4||944.25|-292|.4382
95896040|NCT02739269|191746580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.479
95896041|NCT02739269|191746581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95896042|NCT02244580|191746582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.726|||Regression, Cox|||||0.726|0.246|0.0018
95896043|NCT02244580|191746583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.71|||Regression, Cox|||||0.71|0.25|0.001
95896044|NCT01228747|191746586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.24|-44.02||Statistical testing was 2-sided, and was performed using a significance (α) level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical hypotheses, null hypothesis (H0) and alternate hypothesis (H1), are stated below:~H0: μLEV = μPBO vs. H1: μLEV ≠ μPBO~ANCOVA on the endpoint percentage change from Combined Baseline of GTC seizures per week using treatment and country as factors (categorical predictors) and Combined Baseline GTC seizure frequency per week as a covariate (a continuous predictor) where μLEV and μPBO are adjusted means for LEV and PBO, respectively."||-44.02|-68.24|<0.0001
95896045|NCT00537381|191746608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.728||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.112|2.686|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.686|1.112|0.014
95896046|NCT00537381|191746609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.795|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.795
95896047|NCT00537381|191746610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
95896048|NCT00537381|191746611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.476||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|2.522|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval was estimated from a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as the only explanatory factor.|||2.522|0.853|0.163
95896049|NCT00680901|191746615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (PE population)||1.12|0.73|0.3492
95896050|NCT00680901|191746616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||Stratified log-rank test was conducted stratifying for prior adjuvant/neo-adjuvant treatment use and region.|Log Rank||Pike estimator of HR was based on the stratified log rank test.|Primary Analysis: OS (ITT population)||1.10|0.74|0.3244
95975200|NCT04404166|191924303|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of proportions between groups using a chi-square test; two-sided α=0.05.|Risk Difference (RD)|24.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.0|33.0||Comparison of proportions (PINGS 2 vs Standard of Care), ITT population.|Chi-squared|Two-sided α=0.05; single primary endpoint, no multiplicity adjustment.|The estimation parameter is the risk difference (PINGS minus Standard of Care) with corresponding 95% confidence interval.|Null hypothesis: no difference in the proportion achieving SBP \<140 mmHg at 12 months between PINGS 2 and Standard of Care. Analysis conducted using an intention-to-treat approach. Clinic blood pressure was measured by blinded assessors using an automated validated device. Two-sided α=0.05 was used for hypothesis testing. This outcome was prespecified as the single primary endpoint; no multiplicity adjustment was applied.||33|15|<0.001
95896051|NCT05544786|191746632|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.77|124.53|||||The ratios (and 90% confidence Intervals \[CIs\]) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||124.53|102.77|
95896052|NCT05544786|191746632|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.75|134.2|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||134.20|110.75|
95896053|NCT05544786|191746632|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|125.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.43|137.61|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||137.61|114.43|
95896054|NCT05544786|191746632|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|121.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.42|132.79|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||132.79|110.42|
95896055|NCT05544786|191746633|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|113.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.96|125.4|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||125.40|102.96|
95896056|NCT05544786|191746633|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.02|135.22|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||135.22|111.02|
95896057|NCT05544786|191746633|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|126.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|139.27|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||139.27|115.00|
95896058|NCT05544786|191746633|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|122.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.11|134.57|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||134.57|111.11|
95896059|NCT05544786|191746634|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|110.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.01|122.82|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||122.82|99.01|
95975201|NCT04404166|191924304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.2||Unadjusted analysis comparing mean HBP SCP scores at 12 months between PINGS 2 and Standard of Care. Adjustment for baseline imbalances (stroke type and diabetes status) did not materially change the result.|t-test, 2 sided||Negative value indicates lower mean self-management score in PINGS 2 vs Standard of Care.|The null hypothesis was that mean self-management scores (HBP SCP) would not differ between the PINGS 2 intervention and Standard of Care at 12 months. Power calculations were based on detecting a clinically meaningful difference in systolic blood pressure, the primary outcome; this secondary outcome was exploratory.||1.2|-8.3|0.14
95975202|NCT04404166|191924305|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided α=0.05.|RD = PINGS - SOC (1/200 vs 2/210).|Null: no difference between arms in participants with ≥1 cardiovascular ED encounter or re-hospitalization over 12 months. Per-protocol analysis.||||0.9
95896060|NCT05544786|191746634|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|140.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.57|157.01|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||157.01|126.57|
95896061|NCT05544786|191746634|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|149.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.86|168.96|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||168.96|132.86|
95896062|NCT05544786|191746634|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|147.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.4|165.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||165.83|130.40|
95896063|NCT05544786|191746635|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.31|107.23|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||107.23|87.31|
95896064|NCT05544786|191746635|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.38|96.26|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||96.26|78.38|
95896065|NCT05544786|191746635|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|99.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.39|112.8|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||112.80|87.39|
95896066|NCT05544786|191746635|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|79.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.07|89.73|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||89.73|70.07|
95896067|NCT05544786|191746636|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|95.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.45|106.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||106.44|86.45|
95896068|NCT05544786|191746636|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|86.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.96|95.98|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||95.98|77.96|
95896069|NCT05544786|191746636|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|88.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.97|106.83|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||106.83|72.97|
95975203|NCT04404166|191924306|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|6.3|||Chi-squared|Two-sided α=0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Risk difference = PINGS - SOC (16/244 vs 12/256).|Null: no difference in proportion of participants experiencing ≥1 MACE during 12-month follow-up. Events adjudicated blindly.||6.3|-2.6|0.5
95975204|NCT04404166|191924307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted comparison of mean EQ-5D scores (α=0.05).|Mean difference = PINGS - SOC; higher scores represent better quality of life.|Null: no difference in mean EQ-5D scores between arms at 12 months. Secondary/exploratory outcome; power based on primary endpoint.||5|-4.4|0.9
95896070|NCT05544786|191746636|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|77.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.04|93.76|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||93.76|64.04|
95896071|NCT05544786|191746637|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with water (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|101.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.71|118.44|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water (fasted)||118.44|87.71|
95975205|NCT04404166|191924308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.93||Unadjusted comparison of 12-month mean Hill-Bone scores.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference calculated as PINGS 2 minus Standard of Care.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean Hill-Bone adherence scores between PINGS 2 and Standard of Care at 12 months. Secondary, exploratory outcome; analysis conducted using the intention-to-treat population.||0.93|-0.34|0.4
95896072|NCT05544786|191746637|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with infant formula (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|92.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.52|107.38|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with infant formula (fasted)||107.38|79.52|
95896073|NCT05544786|191746637|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|97.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.4|120.1|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted)||120.10|78.40|
95896074|NCT05544786|191746637|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect for comparison: powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed) group versus tablets group.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.92|87.19|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg tablets (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||87.19|56.92|
95896075|NCT05544786|191746638|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.08|103.37|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.37|90.08|
95896076|NCT05544786|191746639|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|96.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.13|103.59|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||103.59|90.13|
95896077|NCT05544786|191746640|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|98.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.28|110.36|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.36|87.28|
95896078|NCT05544786|191746641|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|78.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.42|85.07|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||85.07|72.42|
95896079|NCT05544786|191746642|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|87.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.45|110.92|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||110.92|69.45|
95896080|NCT05544786|191746643|OTHER|The analysis used a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within a sequence as a random effect.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Mean|72.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.87|92.68|||||The ratios (and 90% CIs) are expressed as percentages.|Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fasted) Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding (fed)||92.68|56.87|
95896081|NCT05218018|191746654|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
95896082|NCT04681482|191746665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of MB between cohorts.||0.70|0.54|<0.001
95896083|NCT04681482|191746667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of stroke/SE between cohorts.||1.03|0.66|0.088
95896084|NCT04681482|191746669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used to compare the risk of net clinical benefit between cohorts.||0.76|0.60|<0.001
95896085|NCT00896337|191746678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||9-month major adverse event rate|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|8.5||A one-sided exact-test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the Epic-treated cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 17.0%.|One-sided exact-test|||MAE rate was compared to a predefined performance goal of 17.0%, based on literature-derived expected rate of 8.0% for iliac stenting plus a 9.0% margin. Study had 87% statistical power to show the MAE rate (accounting for 9-month attrition of \<=15%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 9-month MAE rate of 8.0%. If the exact one-sided 95% upper confidence bound of the observed rate is lower than the performance goal, the Epic stent would be considered to have acceptable performance.||8.5|0.9|<0.0001
95909254|NCT01939548|191776649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.809||0.3201|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|1.85||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.85|-0.23|0.3201
95896086|NCT00828191|191746745|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by calculating a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and the test group considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Difference in pregnancy rates|-2.5||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.4|||Fisher Exact|||"The non -inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was that the ongoing pregnancy rate (oPR) in the test group (Pe)was lower than the oPR in the control group (Pc)against the alternative one that the oPR in the test group was equal to or higher than the oPR in the control group.~H0 : Pc\>= Pe + d(-10%) H1 : Pc\< Pe + d(-10%)"||4.4|-9.4|0.52
95896087|NCT00828191|191746746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.0|||ANOVA|||||4.0|-7.6|0.54
95896088|NCT00828191|191746747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-8.8|0.62
95975206|NCT04404166|191924309|SUPERIORITY|mean difference based on those with Month 12 MPR available|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.6||Unadjusted comparison of 12-month mean MPR between arms (α=0.05).|t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as PINGS 2 minus Standard of Care.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) between PINGS 2 and Standard of Care at 12 months. Secondary exploratory outcome; analysis conducted using the intention-to-treat population.||2.6|-6.4|0.4
95975207|NCT04404166|191924310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted comparison, α=0.05.|Mean difference = PINGS - SOC; higher scores indicate better health literacy.|Null hypothesis: no difference in mean health literacy scores between PINGS and SOC at 12 months.||0.78|-0.11|0.14
95975208|NCT04404166|191924311|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|Unadjusted comparison; α=0.05.|Mean difference is PINGS - SOC; negative values favor PINGS (lower disability).|Null: no difference in mean mRS scores between PINGS and SOC at 12 months.||0.19|-0.32|0.6
95975209|NCT02881957|191924320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sided t-test evaluated comparing length of stay in vitamin D3 vs. placebo treated patients utilizing patients as randomized (e.g., intent-to-treat) using a p\<0.05 as significant. Adverse events were monitored until discharge.||||0.2
95975210|NCT02881957|191924321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
95975211|NCT02881957|191924322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3
95975212|NCT02881957|191924323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95975213|NCT02881957|191924324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95975214|NCT02881957|191924325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.99
95975215|NCT02881957|191924326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.6
95975216|NCT02881957|191924327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.7
95975217|NCT02881957|191924328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.4
95975218|NCT02881957|191924329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||Adverse events were monitored until patient discharge from the hospital.||||0.1
95975219|NCT03301220|191924330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.67|||Log Rank|||||0.67|0.36|<0.0001
95975220|NCT01880528|191924367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95975221|NCT01880528|191924368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0337|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0337
95975222|NCT01880528|191924369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0427|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0427
95975223|NCT01880528|191924370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0237
95975224|NCT00081497|191924371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in Slope Mean|-0.029||||0.013||95.0|-0.051|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with a population level (fixed effect) intercept and slope and a subject level (random effect) intercept and slope.||The statistical analysis represents the primary outcome measure results.||-0.007|-0.051|0.0130
95975225|NCT00081497|191924372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|-6.787||||0.0027||95.0|-11.123|-2.45|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 1 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup \>60.||-2.450|-11.123|0.0027
95975226|NCT00081497|191924372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|2.33||||0.1268||95.0|-0.685|5.345|||Mixed Effects Model|||Statistical Analysis 2 represents the post-hoc outcome results for difference in slope mean of eGFR subgroup ≤ 60.||5.345|-0.685|0.1268
95975227|NCT03815058|191924406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.49|0.3284
95975228|NCT03456076|191924437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.45|||Log Rank|||||0.45|0.13|.0001
95975229|NCT03456076|191924437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Log Rank|||||0.43|0.13|.0001
95975230|NCT06336603|191924444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
95975231|NCT06336603|191924445|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
95975232|NCT06336603|191924446|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< .001
95975233|NCT03814746|191924453|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.55|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.55|0.76|> 0.999
95975234|NCT03814746|191924453|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.27|0.62|> 0.999
95975235|NCT03814746|191924454|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.70|0.87|
95975236|NCT03814746|191924454|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.17|||negative binomial regression model|||||1.17|0.59|
95975237|NCT03814746|191924459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.97|0.92|
95975238|NCT03814746|191924459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Cox Model|for time to first occurrence of VOC||||1.58|0.72|
95975239|NCT03814746|191924459|SUPERIORITY|for time to second occurrence of VOC|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.04|||Cox Model|||||2.04|0.81|
95975240|NCT03814746|191924459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.54|||Cox Model|for time to second occurrence of VOC||||1.54|0.59|
95975241|NCT03814746|191924460|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.43|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.43|0.75|
95896089|NCT01883427|191746748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Not significant|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Too few included to reach power||||>0.05
95975242|NCT03814746|191924460|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.14|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.14|0.59|
95975243|NCT03814746|191924460|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.59|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.59|0.77|
95975244|NCT03814746|191924460|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized rate of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.25|0.60|
95975245|NCT03814746|191924461|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.85|
95975246|NCT03814746|191924461|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.38|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of all visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.38|0.57|
95975247|NCT03814746|191924461|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.09|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||2.09|0.77|
95975248|NCT03814746|191924461|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.44|||Negative binomial regression model|for the Annualized days of VOC-related visits to clinics, emergency rooms and hospitalizations||||1.44|0.52|
95975249|NCT04434664|191924478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within-individual across periods)||||-0.7|-6.8|0.017
95975250|NCT04434664|191924479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||0.7|-1.8|0.36
95975251|NCT04434664|191924480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||7.1|-14.6|0.49
95975252|NCT04434664|191924481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||2.8|-4.8|0.59
95975253|NCT04434664|191924482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||2.0|0.3|0.008
95975254|NCT04434664|191924483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||3|-7|0.43
95975255|NCT04434664|191924484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||4|-13|0.25
95975256|NCT04434664|191924485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||0.04|-0.05|0.71
95975257|NCT04434664|191924486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||2|-1|0.59
95975258|NCT04434664|191924487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||0.2|-2|0.13
95975259|NCT04434664|191924488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (within individual)||||1|-0.1|0.09
95896090|NCT02013167|191746749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by age (\< 35 years; ≥ 35 years), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).|Hazard ratio obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicated a lower average event rate and longer survival time for blinatumomab relative to SOC chemotherapy.|||0.93|0.55|0.012
95896091|NCT02013167|191746750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|26.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||26.2|9.6|< 0.001
95896092|NCT02013167|191746751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|19.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|28.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors: age (\< 35 vs. ≥ 35), prior salvage therapy (yes vs. no), and prior allogeneic HSCT (yes vs. no).||||28.7|9.9|< 0.001
95896093|NCT02013167|191746752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71|||||The hazard ratio estimates were obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival for Blinatumomab relative to SOC Chemotherapy.|||0.71|0.43|
95896094|NCT02818218|191746811|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.0005||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.161|0.17|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.170|-0.161|0.944
95975260|NCT02446886|191924535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Previously published reproducibility of our MWF imaging (FAST-T2) has been established to be +/- 2.0 Our hypothesis for this study was the monthly ACTH would lead to greater remylination in acute MS lesions. However, to reach this goal, improvement must be beyond established reproducibility. Note: Since MWF is a fraction of myelin water to total water, it does not have a unit.||||0.04
95975261|NCT02446886|191924540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65||||0.077|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed-effects models were implemented to assess the variables of interest (lesion MWF) among patients randomized to once versus the monthly ACTH treatment group. The modeling strategy accounts for multiple lesions per patient, repeated measurements (longitudinal analysis) and the following covariates were always considered: patient age, gender, disease duration, individual T2w lesion volume, time on disease modifying treatments (DMT) prior to enrollment, and DMT during the study.|Linear mixed-effects models were implemented|||0.077
95975262|NCT01257425|191924628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin defined as 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.08|||ANCOVA|||||1.08|0.88|
95896095|NCT02818218|191746812|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.11|0.42|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.42|0.11|<0.001
95896096|NCT02818218|191746813|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.19|0.48|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CVP. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CVP, and vice versa|||0.48|0.19|<0.001
95896097|NCT02818218|191746815|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.07||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.1|0.24|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.24|-0.10|0.298
95975263|NCT01257425|191924629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.06|||ANCOVA|||||1.06|0.82|
95975264|NCT01257425|191924630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin is 0.8 to 1.25|Ratio of AUC values|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.02|||ANCOVA|||||1.02|0.81|
95975265|NCT01257425|191924632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.09|0.85
95975266|NCT01257425|191924633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.98
95975267|NCT01257425|191924634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.84
95975268|NCT01296347|191924635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95975269|NCT01296347|191924636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 weeks||||0.71
95975270|NCT01296347|191924636|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 month||||1.0
95975271|NCT01296347|191924636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6 months||||0.32
95975272|NCT01296347|191924638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95975273|NCT01296347|191924639|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95975274|NCT01296347|191924640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95975275|NCT01296347|191924641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95975276|NCT05814666|191924660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6039||||||Fisher's Exact 1-Tailed p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6039
95975277|NCT04947527|191924707|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-4.2|0.279
95896098|NCT02818218|191746816|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.05|0.37|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.37|0.05|0.002
95975278|NCT04947527|191924708|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages/proportions|-14.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-2.1|||Chi-squared|||||-2.1|-26.7|0.023
95975279|NCT04947527|191924709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.133
95975280|NCT01439360|191924721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|63.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|51.8|72.3|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort.|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for vaccine efficacy (VE) is above (\>) 25%.||72.3|51.8|
95975281|NCT01439360|191924722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy (VE)|49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|41.8|56.8|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for age category and stratified for cohort|VE was defined as the hazard ratio of cases of influenza A and or B disease in subjects receiving D-QIV vaccine in contrast with subjects receiving non-influenza vaccine control subtracted from 1.|The efficacy of the D-QIV vaccine would be demonstrated if the LL of the two-sided 97.5% CI for VE is above 15%.||56.8|41.8|
95975282|NCT03459846|191924761|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.387|||Regression, Cox|||||1.387|0.641|0.789
95975283|NCT03459846|191924762|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.606|||Regression, Cox|||||1.606|0.719|0.728
95975284|NCT03459846|191924763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|3.778|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.778|0.821|0.142
95975285|NCT02922413|191924771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||2-sided Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.029
95975286|NCT03081052|191924777|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome (e.g. PGD grade 3 (PGD-3)) of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of PGD-3 under iEPO treatment is 0.30 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.19, we will need 200 lung transplant patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.049||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.064|0.162|||two one sided test p-value|||||0.162|-0.064|0.019
95975287|NCT03081052|191924778|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated sample size based on equivalence test of the incidence rates of a binary outcome of two treatment groups as an illustration. Assuming the incidence rate of moderate or severe RV failure under iEPO treatment is 0.113 and acceptable margin of the equivalence is ± 0.15, we will need 224 heart failure patients to have 80% power to detect an actual difference at α=0.05 between two treatment group under this margin.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.025||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.066|0.116|||two one-sided test p-value|||||0.116|-0.066|0.012
95975288|NCT03081052|191924779|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0|||Log Rank|||||3|-3|0.747
95975289|NCT03081052|191924779|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann Location Shift|0.0||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1|-1|0.638
95975290|NCT03081052|191924781|OTHER||mean ratio|1.19||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||log-linear regression|||||1.87|0.76|0.453
95975291|NCT03081052|191924781|OTHER||mean ratio|0.94||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.56|||log-linear regression|||||1.56|0.57|0.816
95975292|NCT03081052|191924782|OTHER||mean ratio|1.03||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||log-linear regression|||||1.41|0.75|0.864
95975293|NCT03081052|191924782|OTHER||mean ratio|0.97||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||log-linear regression|||||1.28|0.73|0.825
95975294|NCT03081052|191924783|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.61|||Chi-squared|||||2.61|0.78|0.251
95975295|NCT03081052|191924783|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Chi-squared|||||2.5|0.58|0.619
95975296|NCT03081052|191924785|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|23.82|||Fisher Exact|||||23.82|0.19|0.614
95975297|NCT03081052|191924785|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.5424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.12|||Fisher Exact|||||2.12|0.17|0.5424
95975298|NCT00826111|191924787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0534||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.0122|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.01220|-0.1390|0.88
95975299|NCT00826111|191924788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.224|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.224|-0.286|0.79
95975300|NCT00826111|191924789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.0136|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.0136|-0.580|0.16
95975301|NCT00826111|191924790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.515||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|2.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.77|-1.35|0.29
95975302|NCT00826111|191924791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0077|0.0174|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0174|-0.0077|0.37
95975303|NCT00826111|191924792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0042||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0037|0.1481|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1481|-0.0037|0.21
95975304|NCT00826111|191924793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|16.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||16.46|-1.76|0.10
95975305|NCT00826111|191924794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|10.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.51|-9.31|0.89
95975306|NCT00826111|191924795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|6.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.91|-10.31|0.66
95975307|NCT00567268|191924815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.004
95975308|NCT00567268|191924816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
95896099|NCT02818218|191746817|SUPERIORITY||correlation coefficient|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.17|0.47|||Repeated measures correlation (rmcorr)||The repeated measures correlation coefficient (r\_rm) was calculated to assess the association between SVC and CI. It ranges from -1 to +1, with values closer to +1 indicating that increases in SVC are associated with increases in CI, and vice versa|||0.47|0.17|<0.001
95896100|NCT04041869|191746836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In order to test the effect of the intervention on physical activity, linear mixed models examined changes in steps per day from study baseline (week 0) to the end of the active intervention (week 8).||||<0.01
95896101|NCT01336738|191746841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.29||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% confidence interval (CI) were based on LS mean. A mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.29|-0.13|0.6803
95896102|NCT01336738|191746841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.28||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.28|-0.71|0.0017
95896103|NCT01336738|191746841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8|-0.36||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.36|-0.80|0.0003
95896104|NCT01336738|191746841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.91|-0.5||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.50|-0.91|<0.0001
95896105|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.292||0.4757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|14.2||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||14.20|-6.64|0.4757
95896106|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.296||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|11.75||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.75|-9.11|0.8031
95896107|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.364||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|7.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.34|-13.78|0.5490
95896108|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.58|-4.55||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-4.55|-25.58|0.0051
95975309|NCT00567268|191924816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.003|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The risk factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||=0.003
95896109|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.31|7.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||7.46|-12.31|0.6291
95975310|NCT00567268|191924817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
95975311|NCT00567268|191924818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the age and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
95896110|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.001||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|13.72||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.72|-5.98|0.4396
95975312|NCT00567268|191924818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was age. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of age categories."||||<0.001
95975313|NCT00567268|191924819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure . The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.008
95975314|NCT00567268|191924819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.002|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was severity of partial epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the degree of severity of partial epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||=0.002
95896111|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|3.34||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.34|-16.46|0.1934
95896112|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.039||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|-7.4||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-7.40|-27.24|0.0007
95896113|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|13.37||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.37|-7.11|0.5479
95896114|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.209||0.4276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39|6.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||6.12|-14.39|0.4276
95975315|NCT00567268|191924820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.018|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.018
95975316|NCT00567268|191924821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
95975317|NCT00567268|191924821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||<0.001
95975318|NCT00567268|191924822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.025|||||||Cochran-Armitage|||"The factor tested was baseline creatinine clearance. The null hypothesis was that there was no linear trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across increasing levels of the baseline creatinine clearance."||||=0.025
95975319|NCT00567268|191924823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.043|||||||Chi-squared|||"The factor tested was non-drug therapy. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the non-drug therapy and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||=0.043
95975320|NCT01630434|191924900|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.091||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.01|||Wald Method|||||-0.01||0.004
95975321|NCT01630434|191924900|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin, which is here taken to be 0.04.|difference of proportion|-0.038||||0.06|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.045|||Wald Method|||||0.045||0.06
95975322|NCT01630434|191924901|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|-0.015||||0.0003|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.016|||Wald Method|||||0.016||0.0003
95975323|NCT01630434|191924901|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 5%.|Difference of proportions|0.006||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.044|||Wald Method|||||0.044||0.027
95975324|NCT01630434|191924902|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.035||||0.118|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.091|||Wald Method|||||0.091||0.118
95975325|NCT01630434|191924902|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 7.5%.|Difference of proportions|0.065||||0.389|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.124|||Wald Method|||||0.124||0.389
95975326|NCT01630434|191924903|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%|Difference of proportions|0.043|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.071||||||||0.071||
95975327|NCT01630434|191924903|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 4%.|Difference of proportions|0.054|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.087||||||||0.087||
95975328|NCT01630434|191924904|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.7.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.047|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.047||<0.0001
95975329|NCT02434939|191924922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|a clinically significant difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3. assuming both treatments are on average equal, 240 patients provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV low dose ketamine is non inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|13.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.2|-2.2|0.18
95975330|NCT02434939|191924925|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A clinically meaningful difference in validated pain scores was defined as 1.3.Assuming both treatments are on average equal, a sample size of 240 patients (120 per group) provided 95% power to demonstrate that IV LDK is non-inferior to IV morphine with a 0.05 level of significance.||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95975331|NCT00394953|191924926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.79|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The proportion of responders treated with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta versus the proportion of responders treated with darbepoetin alpha during the evaluation period.||3.79|1.83|<0.0001
95975332|NCT04262817|191924936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
95975333|NCT04262817|191924936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.34
95975334|NCT04262817|191924937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.38
95975335|NCT04262817|191924937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.85
95975336|NCT04262817|191924938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.39
95975337|NCT04262817|191924938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.77
95975338|NCT04262817|191924939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.43
95975339|NCT04262817|191924939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.05
95975340|NCT04262817|191924940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.05
95975341|NCT04262817|191924940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.04
95975342|NCT04262817|191924941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Nicotine type.||||0.01
95975343|NCT04262817|191924941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Flavor type.||||0.38
95975344|NCT02240693|191924942|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.223||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.223|-0.074|0.3236
95975345|NCT02240693|191924942|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.3694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.082||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.082|-0.220|0.3694
95975346|NCT02240693|191924942|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.139||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.139|-0.171|0.8374
95975347|NCT02240693|191924942|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.199||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.199|-0.106|0.5484
95975348|NCT02240693|191924942|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.092|0.121||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.121|-0.092|0.7905
95975349|NCT02240693|191924943|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.8973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|2.04||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|2.04|-2.33|0.8973
95975350|NCT02240693|191924943|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|3.63||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|3.63|-0.82|0.2141
95975351|NCT02240693|191924943|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.67||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.67|-2.64|0.6553
95975352|NCT02240693|191924943|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.144||0.7166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|2.69|-1.85|0.7166
95975353|NCT02240693|191924944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.46|-0.49|0.9491
95896115|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.235||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|2.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||2.92|-17.69|0.1596
95975354|NCT02240693|191924944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.84||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.84|-0.15|0.1699
95975355|NCT02240693|191924944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.33|-0.69|0.4948
95975356|NCT02240693|191924944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.58||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.58|-0.42|0.7548
95975357|NCT02240693|191924945|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.081||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.89||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.89|-2.40|0.8137
95975358|NCT02240693|191924945|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.5801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.6||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|1.60|-2.84|0.5801
95975359|NCT02240693|191924945|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|1.0||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|1.00|-3.25|0.2978
95975360|NCT02240693|191924945|SUPERIORITY|Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess between-group differences in the modelled changes from baseline to Week 12.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.072||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|-0.39||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|ANCOVA||Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|The dependent variable was the change from the baseline score at Week 12. The model included fixed, categorical covariates of treatment as well as fixed continuous covariates of baseline score.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|-0.39|-4.64|0.0209
95975361|NCT02240693|191924946|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.12||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 10 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.120|-0.101|0.8694
95975362|NCT02240693|191924946|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.9512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.109||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences.|0.109|-0.116|0.9512
95975363|NCT02240693|191924946|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.115||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 50 mg QD minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.115|-0.105|0.9321
95975364|NCT02240693|191924946|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.1288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.199|0.025||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (BI 409306 25 mg twice daily (BID) minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|"Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction.~The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses."|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.025|-0.199|0.1288
95896116|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-12.6||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-12.60|-33.06|<0.0001
95896117|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.63|10.43||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||10.43|-12.63|0.8509
95896118|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.17|3.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||3.12|-20.17|0.1505
95896119|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|5.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||5.08|-18.31|0.2662
95896120|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.818||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.97|-10.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-10.07|-32.97|0.0003
95896121|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.68|11.66||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||11.66|-15.68|0.7724
95896122|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.986||0.9202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.47|13.07||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||13.07|-14.47|0.9202
95975365|NCT02240693|191924946|SUPERIORITY|H0: The dose group with the peak response in the respective model Mean NTB response = Mean NTB response of placebo.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.6492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.061||p-value was nominal and not adjusted.|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to model degrees of freedom.|Mean difference (Pooled BI 409306 minus Placebo matching BI 409306)|Mixed Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) includes fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit, current Acetylcholine Esterase Inhibitor (AChEI) use (Yes, No), and treatment-by-visit interaction, as well as the continuous fixed covariates of baseline, and baseline-by-visit interaction. The study identifier is also a categorical covariate for the twin studies analyses.|The mean difference is actually adjusted mean of difference and the dispersion value is standard error of differences|0.061|-0.098|0.6492
95975366|NCT00822523|191925005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 1 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 1 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 1||||0.61
95975367|NCT00822523|191925005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 2 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 2 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 2||||0.787
95975368|NCT00822523|191925005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 4||||0.234
95975369|NCT00822523|191925005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 14 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 14 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 14||||0.256
95975370|NCT00822523|191925005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and day 21 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and day 21 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and day 21||||0.292
95975371|NCT00822523|191925005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test comparing baseline and month 4 H0: There is no change in mean force between baseline and month 4 HA: There is change in mean force between baseline and month 4||||0.589
95975372|NCT00822523|191925006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in the three baseline force measurements H0: There no significant difference in the three baseline force measurements HA: There is a significant difference in the three baseline force measurements||||0.636
95975373|NCT00822523|191925006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing change in baseline force by treatment arm. H0: There is no difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm HA: There is a difference in mean baseline force by treatment arm||||0.178
95975374|NCT00822523|191925007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.995|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change (from baseline) in force for contrast of day 14 and day 21 H0: There is no difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21 HA: There is a difference in percent change in force between day 14 and day 21||||0.995
95975375|NCT00822523|191925007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2088|||||||Repeated measure ANOVA|||"Repeated measure ANOVA assessing percent change in force from baseline for day 14 and 21 by treatment arm.~H0: There is no significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm HA: There is a significant different in percent change in force by treatment arm"||||0.2088
95975376|NCT00822523|191925009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
95975377|NCT00822523|191925009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
95975378|NCT00822523|191925009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
95975379|NCT00822523|191925011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
95975380|NCT00822523|191925011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
95975381|NCT00822523|191925011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
95975382|NCT00822523|191925012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
95975383|NCT00822523|191925012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
95975384|NCT00822523|191925012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
95975385|NCT00822523|191925013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
95975386|NCT00822523|191925013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
95975387|NCT00822523|191925013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
95975388|NCT00822523|191925014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
95975389|NCT00822523|191925014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
95975390|NCT00822523|191925014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
95975391|NCT00822523|191925015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||0.0374
95975392|NCT00822523|191925015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.188
95975393|NCT00822523|191925015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
95975394|NCT00822523|191925016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
95975395|NCT00822523|191925016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
95854096|NCT01780506|191667694|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-3.0|4.0||P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|||4.0|-3.0|0.78
95896123|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.998||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.18||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||12.18|-15.40|0.8183
95896124|NCT01336738|191746842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-24.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.821||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-11.53||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||-11.53|-38.40|0.0003
95896125|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1|0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.03|-0.10|0.2327
95896126|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.04||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.04|-0.08|0.3580
95896127|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.07||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.07|-0.20|0.0036
95896128|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.12|0.01||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.01|-0.12|0.1251
95896129|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.3466|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.06||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.06|-0.11|0.3466
95896130|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|-0.03||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.03|-0.20|0.0439
95896131|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|-0.09||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.09|-0.27|0.0040
95975396|NCT00822523|191925016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.8||||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.104
95975397|NCT00822523|191925017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
95975398|NCT00822523|191925017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
95896132|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.29|0.0009
95975399|NCT00822523|191925017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
95975400|NCT00822523|191925018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
95975401|NCT00822523|191925018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
95975402|NCT00822523|191925018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.7||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.188
95975403|NCT00822523|191925019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
95975404|NCT00822523|191925019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
95975405|NCT00822523|191925019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.5||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.391
95975406|NCT00822523|191925020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
95975407|NCT00822523|191925020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
95975408|NCT00822523|191925020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.0374
95975409|NCT00822523|191925021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 4||||<0.0001
95975410|NCT00822523|191925021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.9||||0.0374|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Day 14||||0.0374
95975411|NCT00822523|191925021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||r value|0.4||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman Correlation Test|||Month 4||||0.505
95975412|NCT03567434|191925022|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.283||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Frequency (Burst/Min)||||0.283
95975413|NCT03567434|191925022|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst incidence would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.92||||||The original hypothesis was that resting MSNA burst frequency would be higher the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis on Burst Incidence (Burst/100hb)||||0.920
95975414|NCT03567434|191925024|SUPERIORITY|The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.||||||0.888||||||The original hypothesis was that sympathetic baroreflex sensitivity would be blunted the morning after evening binge alcohol when compared to fluid control condition. A p-value of \< 0.05 was used for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.888
95975415|NCT02181387|191925028|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
95975416|NCT02181387|191925028|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
95975417|NCT05269355|191925037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.83|||Regression, Cox|||||0.83|0.45|0.0017
95975418|NCT05437510|191925043|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|84.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.493|92.411|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||92.411|69.493|<0.0001
95975419|NCT05437510|191925044|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|77.71||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.249|93.432|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization.||93.432|39.249|0.0014
95854097|NCT02224560|191667735|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-21.57||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.79|-6.67|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-6.67|-34.79|0.0047
95854098|NCT02224560|191667735|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.19||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.24|-7.69|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.69|-31.24|0.0016
95854099|NCT02224560|191667736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.85||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|8.47||Calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|1.75|0.0006
95854100|NCT02224560|191667736|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|7.26||Calculated using a CMH test stratified by age group (2-5, 6-11, 12-17 and 18-55 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.26|1.47|0.0030
95854101|NCT02224560|191667737|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-18.76||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-4.43|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-4.43|-31.80|0.0091
95854102|NCT02224560|191667737|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.47||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.37|-7.47|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Calculated using the Hodges-Lehmann approach|||-7.47|-30.37|0.0015
95854103|NCT02224560|191667738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||3.30|1.02|0.0439
95896133|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|0.02||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.02|-0.23|0.1405
95896134|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.36|-0.12||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.12|-0.36|0.0067
95896135|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|-0.24||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.24|-0.50|0.0001
95896136|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.46|0.0002
95896137|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.17||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||0.17|-0.18|0.4887
95896138|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.002|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|-0.22||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.22|-0.57|0.0020
95896139|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.41||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.41|-0.76|<0.0001
95896140|NCT01336738|191746843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.42||One-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 80% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline, baseline-by-time interaction as the covariates, time was repeated for participant.||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
95896141|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.2067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.73||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.73|-0.16|0.2067
95896142|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.48||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.48|-0.40|0.8602
95896143|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.42||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.42|-0.47|0.9200
95896144|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.9||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.90|0.02|0.0399
95896145|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.77||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.77|-0.18|0.2266
95896146|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.8493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.52|-0.43|0.8493
95896147|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.46||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.46|-0.49|0.9511
95896148|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.11|0.1369
95896149|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.92||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.92|-0.15|0.1562
95896150|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.4913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.35||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.35|-0.72|0.4913
95896151|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.71||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.71|-0.36|0.5130
95896152|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.12||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.12|0.06|0.0298
95896153|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.363||0.3196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.08||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.08|-0.35|0.3196
95896154|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.67||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.67|-0.77|0.8884
95896155|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.84||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.84|-0.59|0.7325
95975420|NCT05437510|191925045|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.676|98.813||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for France: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||98.813|63.676|<0.0001
95975421|NCT05437510|191925045|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|83.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.589|97.593||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for UK: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||97.593|33.589|0.0036
95975422|NCT05437510|191925045|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.62||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.74|92.595||Adjusted p-value is reported.|Exact method using binomial distribution|||Statistical analysis for Germany: The adjusted 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization. Adjustment based on Bonferroni-Holm procedure.||92.595|29.740|0.0051
95975423|NCT05437510|191925046|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|57.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.36|70.76|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||70.760|40.360|<0.0001
95975424|NCT05437510|191925046|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|52.48||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.121|72.36|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||72.360|20.121|0.0039
95975425|NCT05437510|191925046|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|58.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.115|78.049|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||78.049|25.115|0.0024
95854104|NCT02224560|191667738|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression model with treatment group as a fixed factor|Odds of participant recording a lower score (improvement) on a continuous scale|||4.66|1.41|0.0020
95854105|NCT00728689|191667740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4591|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.4591
95896156|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.357||0.3395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.04||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.04|-0.36|0.3395
95896157|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.7514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7514
95896158|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.94||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.94|-0.68|0.7529
95896159|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.411||0.9638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.83||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||0.83|-0.79|0.9638
95896160|NCT01336738|191746845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.404||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.47||Two-sided p-value was calculated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Treatment difference and 95% CI were based on LS mean. A MMRM analysis was performed with treatment, time and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects, baseline as the covariate, time was repeated for participant.||1.47|-0.12|0.0962
95896161|NCT02586012|191746877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95896162|NCT02586012|191746878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95975426|NCT05437510|191925046|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|70.74||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.567|89.396|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of all-cause LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.396|29.567|0.0037
95896163|NCT02586012|191746879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95896164|NCT02453113|191746880|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The statistical end point of the study will be the changes in density of CD11c+ dermal dendritic cells between two biopsies from a study subject where one sample is subjected to laser irradiation and the other is the control. For assessment of statistical significance, we will apply a paired sample t-test.|||
95896165|NCT04013191|191746977|OTHER||Point Estimate|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.725|1.19|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.19|0.725|
95896166|NCT04013191|191746978|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.894|1.67|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.67|0.894|
95896167|NCT04013191|191746979|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.893|1.68|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.68|0.893|
95896168|NCT04013191|191746980|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.26|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.26|0.829|
95896169|NCT04013191|191746981|OTHER||Point Estimate|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.908|1.53|||ANOVA|||The ANOVA model included the fixed effects of age group. The natural logs were taken of the dependent variables and back-transformed after the analysis.||1.53|0.908|
95896170|NCT04482179|191746987|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
95896171|NCT04482179|191746988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.05
95896172|NCT01904604|191747015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|33.8|10.2|57.5||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||57.5|10.2|0.005
95896173|NCT01904604|191747015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|36.0|12.6|59.4||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups. Subjects who did not complete the Week 52 oral food challenge were counted as treatment failures.||59.4|12.6|0.003
95896174|NCT01904604|191747015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|2.2|-25.8|30.1||A one-sided test was used with the a priori threshold for statistical significance of 0.0125. No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Barnard's statistic|||||30.1|-25.8|0.48
95896175|NCT01904604|191747019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.80
95896176|NCT01904604|191747019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.008
95896177|NCT01904604|191747019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made to the p-value.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The two-sided t approximation was used.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between treatment groups.||||0.01
95896178|NCT02904057|191747023|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Imputed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
95896179|NCT02904057|191747023|SUPERIORITY||Difference between proportion|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.4|98.8|||Fisher Exact|||Observed Data: Difference between proportion of treatment responders and control responders (P\[treatment\] - P\[control\] with CI was calculated using an exact approach.||98.8|73.4|<0.0001
95896180|NCT03240133|191747036|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-6.98||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.37|-2.6|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 750mg berotralstat or placebo.||-2.6|-11.37|0.0024
95896181|NCT03240133|191747036|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|-2.1||||0.6424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|7.29|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 500mg berotralstat or placebo.||7.29|-11.49|0.6424
95896182|NCT03240133|191747036|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons were performed separately at each time point using a mixed effect linear model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and predose 3-symptom composite VAS score as a covariate.|Difference in Least Square Means|0.57||||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.03|||Mixed effect linear model|||Change in HAE attack symptoms from pre-dose to 4 hours post-dose was assessed following treatment with either 250mg berotralstat or placebo.||6.03|-4.9|0.8283
95896183|NCT03240133|191747037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.196||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.559|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 750 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.196 that of a placebo attack.||0.559|0.069|0.0029
95896184|NCT03240133|191747037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.472||||0.4048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|2.988|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 500 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.472 that of a placebo attack.||2.988|0.074|0.4048
95896185|NCT03240133|191747037|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.587||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|4.733|||logistic mixed effect model|||Analyses were performed using a generalized logistic model including treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect. The odds of a berotralstat 250 mg-treated-attack requiring SOC-Rx was 0.587 that of a placebo attack.||4.733|0.073|0.5984
95896186|NCT01481116|191747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95896187|NCT01481116|191747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 78: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95896188|NCT01481116|191747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95896189|NCT01481116|191747043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.18||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Regression, Logistic|||Day 1 up to Week 104: Odds Ratios, corresponding confidence interval, and p-values were calculated using logistic regression with factors for treatment, country, schedule and baseline HbA1c value.||0.18|0.09|<0.001
95896190|NCT01481116|191747044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.08||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||0.08|-2.70|0.065
95896191|NCT01481116|191747044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.678||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.11||The testing procedure at 2-sided significance level of 0.025 was as follows: 1) TAK-875 25 mg vs. glimepiride, 2) TAK-875 50 mg plus metformin vs. glimepiride. If P-value was not greater than 0.025 at Step 1, then Step 2 was carried out.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Treatment, schedule and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors and with baseline value and baseline value by visit interaction as covariates.||Change at Week 78||-0.11|-2.78|0.034
95896192|NCT02633956|191747147|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|25.3||||||||25.30|2.28|
95896193|NCT02633956|191747147|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|20.3||||||||20.30|-2.18|
95896194|NCT02633956|191747147|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|20.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.33|32.92||||||||32.92|7.33|
95896195|NCT02633956|191747148|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.75||||||||0.75|0.07|
95896196|NCT02633956|191747148|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|-0.25|
95896197|NCT02633956|191747148|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.89||||||||0.89|0.14|
95896198|NCT02633956|191747149|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|103.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.58|242.81||||||||242.81|-35.58|
95896199|NCT02633956|191747149|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|114.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|68.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|251.13||||||||251.13|-21.53|
95896200|NCT02633956|191747149|OTHER|Estimation|Least Square Mean Difference|215.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|79.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.84|374.26||||||||374.26|55.84|
95896201|NCT02121483|191747189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7276|1.1704|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-inf. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed.|||1.1704|0.7276|
95896202|NCT02121483|191747190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1088|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7356|1.1838|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and AUC0-tz. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1838|0.7356|
95896203|NCT02121483|191747191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.8554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1481|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5504|1.1603|||||Dose proportionality was assessed based on a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and Cmax. Based on the estimate for the slope parameter β, a 2-sided 95% CI for the slope was computed.|||1.1603|0.5504|
95896204|NCT02107599|191747197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Asymptotic Z-test|||||||0.0001
95896205|NCT02107599|191747198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0060
95896206|NCT02107599|191747198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.1229
95975427|NCT05437510|191925047|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.271|91.357|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.357|67.271|<0.0001
95975428|NCT05437510|191925047|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.283|96.459|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.459|60.283|<0.0001
95975429|NCT05437510|191925047|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.2||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.084|97.183|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.183|50.084|0.0004
95975430|NCT05437510|191925047|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.36||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.006|92.518|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.518|29.006|0.0055
95975431|NCT05437510|191925048|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|75.31||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.012|91.747|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.747|38.012|0.0013
95975432|NCT05437510|191925048|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|78.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.823|97.697|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.697|-5.823|0.0620
95975433|NCT05437510|191925048|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|91.01||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.156|99.791|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||99.791|38.156|0.0060
95975434|NCT05437510|191925048|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|26.01||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.329|89.162|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of very severe RSV LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||89.162|-337.329|0.9851
95975435|NCT05437510|191925049|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|43.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.677|58.057|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||58.057|24.677|<0.0001
95975436|NCT05437510|191925049|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|34.78||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.148|59.648|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||59.648|-4.148|0.0754
95975437|NCT05437510|191925049|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|40.67||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|62.156|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||62.156|8.211|0.0177
95975438|NCT05437510|191925049|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|66.38||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.952|86.137|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through Day 151 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||86.137|25.952|0.0046
95896207|NCT02107599|191747198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Monte Carlo test|||Evaluate whether the VisQ interpretation significantly improves the reliability of Amyvid Scan interpretation.||||0.0260
95896208|NCT05583903|191747210|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95896209|NCT05583903|191747211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.26
95896210|NCT05583903|191747212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95896211|NCT05583903|191747213|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95896212|NCT05583903|191747214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95896213|NCT05583903|191747215|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95896214|NCT05583903|191747216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95975439|NCT05437510|191925054|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|82.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.826|91.49|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||91.490|67.826|<0.0001
95975440|NCT05437510|191925054|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|86.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.34|96.464|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||96.464|60.340|<0.0001
95896215|NCT05583903|191747217|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.77
95896216|NCT05583903|191747218|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95975441|NCT05437510|191925054|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|85.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|97.311|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||97.311|52.850|0.0002
95975442|NCT05437510|191925054|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|74.39||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.077|92.525|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of RSV LRTI hospitalizations through Day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||92.525|29.077|0.0054
95975443|NCT05437510|191925055|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|41.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.073|56.333|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Overall:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||56.333|23.073|<0.0001
95896217|NCT05583903|191747219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95896218|NCT05583903|191747220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95896219|NCT05583903|191747221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.23
95896220|NCT05583903|191747222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.63
95896221|NCT05583903|191747223|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95896222|NCT05583903|191747224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95896223|NCT01052545|191747244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the incidence rates per 1,000 bed-days and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for urine cultures ordered, ASB overtreatment and CAUTI under-treatment in each study period.|Regression, Logistic|to test whether there was a significant difference in monthly urine cultures ordered between the two study sites over time.||||||<0.05
95896224|NCT01052545|191747250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||We used χ2 test, Fisher's exact test and one-way ANOVA to determine if patient-level covariates differed between the baseline, intervention and maintenance periods at each study site.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95896225|NCT01907828|191747262|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier analysis performed to provide freedom from atrial fibrillation rates at one year for each randomization arm using date of ablation procedure to date of first event.||||0.22
95896226|NCT01907828|191747266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2766|||||||Paired Student's t-test|||||||0.2766
95896227|NCT01907828|191747267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.7663
95896228|NCT01907828|191747270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.21||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|0.88|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months||0.88|-12.61|0.0849
95896229|NCT01907828|191747270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|-2.52|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.52|-9.12|0.0014
95896230|NCT01907828|191747270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.21||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|8.02|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 12 months.||8.02|-14.16|0.5599
95896231|NCT01907828|191747270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.42||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.87|-2.99|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 12 months||-2.99|-13.87|0.0052
95896232|NCT01907828|191747271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.84||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|1.93|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||1.93|-13.34|0.1326
95896233|NCT01907828|191747271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|-3.83|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-3.83|-10.06|0.0002
95896234|NCT01907828|191747271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.41||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.47|-0.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ASBP at 24 months||-0.70|-16.47|0.0354
95896235|NCT01907828|191747271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.53||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.75|-4.91|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ADBP at 24 months||-4.91|-15.75|0.0015
95896236|NCT01907828|191747272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|11.3|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 12 months.||11.3|-6.0|0.5399
95896237|NCT01907828|191747272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.8||0.8489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in Office Diastolic Blood Pressure (ODBP) at 12 months||3.8|-4.6|0.8489
95896238|NCT01907828|191747272|SUPERIORITY|Change in Office Systolic Blood Pressure (OSBP) at 12 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.0||0.7999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|18.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||||18.6|-14.6|0.7999
95896239|NCT01907828|191747272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.4|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 12 months||3.4|-14.2|0.2076
95896240|NCT01907828|191747273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.3||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.1|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||9.1|-7.9|0.8820
95896241|NCT01907828|191747273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0||0.8019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||4.7|-3.7|0.8019
95896242|NCT01907828|191747273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.9||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|19.6|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in OSBP at 24 months||19.6|-4.8|0.2177
95896243|NCT01907828|191747273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.5||0.4502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|5.2|||Paired Student's t-test|||Change in ODBP at 24 months||5.2|-11.2|0.4502
95896244|NCT01073865|191747274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The lower limit of the CI of the difference is greater than or equal to -17.5%. This non-inferiority margin was pre-defined in the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|13.9|||||%PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - %PFS at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in %PFS at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||13.90|-11.40|
95896245|NCT01073865|191747275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|9.67|||||ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 10.8mg - ORR at 24 weeks for Zoladex 3.6mg|CI for the difference (10.8 mg-3.6 mg) in ORR at 24 weeks calculated using the score method recommended by Newcombe et al||9.67|-15.47|
95896246|NCT04414553|191747277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||This compares pre/post data.||||0.29
95896247|NCT04414553|191747278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95896248|NCT04414553|191747279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.21
95896249|NCT04414553|191747280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.018
95896250|NCT04414553|191747281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.062
95896251|NCT00167934|191747303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
95896252|NCT00167934|191747304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95896253|NCT00923559|191747324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04||0.006||95.0|2.64|14.74||Null hypothesis MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 68.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||14.74|2.64|.006
95896254|NCT00923559|191747325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.68||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 69.3||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||4.68|0.46|.018
95896255|NCT00923559|191747326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.75||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom = 73.4||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.75|-0.21|.266
95896256|NCT00923559|191747327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.32||p-value unadjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.32|0.00|.052
95896257|NCT00923559|191747328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.08|||Regression, Linear|Degrees of freedom (df) = 61.2||see under the PIR-GAS||-0.08|-1.61|.031
95896258|NCT00923559|191747329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom (df) = 71.2||Null hypothesis: MIP and CHC care should yield equal outcomes. For power calculations, studies on the EPDS and the SPSQ were used. An estimated power of .80 and a two-tailed significance of .05 would necessitate between 29 and 60 participants. Forty dyads per group were chosen.||0.31|-0.05|.158
95896259|NCT00847288|191747337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.0||Cox proportional hazard model was fitted with the group effect and other key baseline variables. The p-value for the main group effect is 0.0043, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.5, monthly vs quarterly.|Regression, Cox|||"Let TM and TQ denote the median survival time to initiation of clinical action in monthly and quarterly review groups respectively. Null Hypothesis (HO): The time to initiation of clinical action is not affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM=TQ Alternative Hypothesis (HA): The time to initiation of clinical action is affected by review frequency (monthly versus quarterly): TM≠TQ~Cox proportional hazard model will be fitted to estimate the hazard ratio."||2.0|1.1|0.0043
95896260|NCT00847288|191747339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.74|||logistic GEE for repeated observations|||The probability of action taken in three months interval is evaluated using the generalized estimating equations (GEE) method under a logistic regression model. Univariate analysis is performed first for potential predictors and only those with a p-value less than 0.10 through univariate analysis are included in the multivariate model. Here we report the odds ratio of monthly arm against quarterly arm, adjusting for OptiVol crossing, new or chronic device, and AF or no AF.||1.74|1.20|0.0001
95975444|NCT05437510|191925055|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|32.19||||0.1003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.188|57.545|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for France:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||57.545|-7.188|0.1003
95975445|NCT05437510|191925055|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|39.83||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.449|60.911|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for UK:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||60.911|8.449|0.0164
95975446|NCT05437510|191925055|SUPERIORITY||Efficacy|64.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.386|84.478|||Exact method using binomial distribution|||"Statistical analysis for Germany:~The 2-sided 95% CI for the efficacy was calculated by an exact method assuming a binomial distribution of the number of hospitalizations for all-cause LRTI through day 181 post-dosing/randomization in the nirsevimab group conditional on the total number in both groups accounting for the follow-up time post-dosing/randomization."||84.478|23.386|0.0058
95975447|NCT00892723|191925161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.87
95975448|NCT00892723|191925161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.86
95975449|NCT00892723|191925161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.11
95975450|NCT00892723|191925161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.91
95975451|NCT00892723|191925162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
95975452|NCT00892723|191925162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.82
95975453|NCT00892723|191925162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.23
95975454|NCT00892723|191925162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.71
95975455|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.73
95975456|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.94
95975457|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.14
95975458|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.68
95975459|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.56
95975460|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.32
95975461|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.33
95975462|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.65
95975463|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.21
95975464|NCT00892723|191925163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (rank sum)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.90
95975465|NCT00892723|191925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.||||||0.16
95975466|NCT00892723|191925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustment was used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.74
95896261|NCT04258605|191747351|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 1 and 2 years|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<.0001
95896262|NCT04258605|191747352|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
95896263|NCT04258605|191747353|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
95896264|NCT04258605|191747354|OTHER|P-values account for preoperative versus postoperative mean values at 3-6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"The small sample size of arm ASHCOM Shoulder System subjects - Fracture humeral stem of 2 cases is too low for a statistical analysis."||||<0.001
95896265|NCT00082433|191747391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0005||95.0|0.69|0.9|||Log Rank|||The analysis was conducted when 903 progressions or deaths (446 in combination:457 in capecitabine) were observed in 960 participants.||.90|.69|.0005
95896266|NCT00082433|191747392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.44|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.50|1.44|<.0001
95896267|NCT00082433|191747396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wei-Lachin|||There was a statistically significant difference between groups in change from baseline FBSI score favoring capecitabine. A mean change from baseline of 2.5 was considered a clinically meaningful difference (minimally important difference or MID). On-treatment mean changes in the FBSI did not reach the MID in either group.||||<0.0001
95896268|NCT00082433|191747397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1162||95.0|0.78|1.03||The test was stratified by (taxane resistance \[yes/no\], measurable disease versus non-measurable disease, prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease \[yes/no\], and anthracycline resistance \[yes/no\]).|Log Rank|The analysis was conducted at the 0.05 level and no adjustments were performed||This primary analysis was a comparison between the 2 treatment arms using a 2-sided, α=0.05 level log-rank test (to reject the null hypothesis of equality of survival). The analysis was conducted when 880 deaths (430 in combination:450 in capecitabine) were observed from the 1221 randomized participants.||1.03|.78|.1162
95975467|NCT00892723|191925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||||||0.45
95975468|NCT00892723|191925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.079
95975469|NCT00892723|191925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.16
95975470|NCT00892723|191925164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|For this early phase study, no adjustments were used.||||||0.45
95975471|NCT04659863|191925210|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.17|-7.34||||||||-7.34|-59.17|
95896269|NCT00082433|191747397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0231||95.0|0.75|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||This prespecified secondary analysis was a Cox model adjusted for age, Karnofsky performance status, number of organ sites, estrogen receptor status, hepatic impairment, time from diagnosis, liver/lung metastases.||.98|.75|.0231
95896270|NCT03003520|191747453|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95896271|NCT03003520|191747453|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.477||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their CD8 density.||||0.872
95896272|NCT03003520|191747454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0403
95896273|NCT03003520|191747454|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of total cells.||||0.523
95896274|NCT03003520|191747455|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95975472|NCT00511472|191925241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.15||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.71|69.5|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-Breakfast for Titration Group 1||69.50|22.71|0.001
95975473|NCT00511472|191925241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.68|72.88|||ANOVA|||For the least square mean difference - baseline in the ANOVA model = glucose value at Titration Day 1 pre-breakfast for Titration Group 2||72.88|27.68|<0.001
95975474|NCT00446992|191925243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||<0.001
95975475|NCT00446992|191925244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||.043
95975476|NCT00446992|191925245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.690
95975477|NCT00446992|191925246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.691|TWO_SIDED||||||Intervariate|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.691
95896275|NCT03003520|191747455|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.583||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their PDL1 % of tumor cells.||||0.557
95896276|NCT03003520|191747456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662||||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.662
95896277|NCT03003520|191747456|SUPERIORITY||AUC-ROC|0.6||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance defined as 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) is the estimated parameter. Responders were compared to non-responders by ranking them according to their IFNG-Score.||||0.399
95896278|NCT00653224|191747458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.33|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis for the primary endpoint is expressed as follows: 'The mean 24-hr reflective T5SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.33|<0.001
95896279|NCT00653224|191747459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
95896280|NCT00653224|191747460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.47|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.47|<0.001
95896281|NCT00653224|191747461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in overall RQLQ score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in overall RQLQ score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.52|<0.001
95896282|NCT00653224|191747462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.042||95.0|-0.49|-0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.01|-0.49|0.042
95896283|NCT00653224|191747463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.014||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.52|0.014
95896284|NCT00653224|191747464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.036||95.0|-0.51|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ activities score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ activities score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-0.51|0.036
95975478|NCT00446992|191925247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.877
95975479|NCT00446992|191925248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.003
95975480|NCT00446992|191925249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= .005
95975481|NCT00446992|191925250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.696
95975482|NCT00446992|191925251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Univariate linear regression|||Baseline compared to Week 16||||= 0.013
95896285|NCT00653224|191747465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.01||95.0|-0.48|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.48|0.010
95896286|NCT00653224|191747466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.026||95.0|-0.43|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.43|0.026
95896287|NCT00653224|191747467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.018||95.0|-0.45|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ sleep score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.45|0.018
95975483|NCT00406653|191925252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA 3mg/kg, \~10mg/kg, 30/\~10mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=91%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 25%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=45%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=99%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=25%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=55%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||2.4|0.6|0.611
95975484|NCT00406653|191925255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.44||Due to randomization misspecification, 2:2:2:1 ratio applied instead of planned 2:1:2:2 (placebo, ABA mg/kg, \~10 mg/kg, 30/\~10 mg/kg). Only \~half intended number assigned to ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg arm and \~double intended number assigned to ABA 3 mg/kg arm|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Second primary comparison (conditional on first): power=80%, sample size=134, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%|All participants who prematurely discontinued for any reason considered not to have achieved clinical response. Normal approximation used if number of responses in treatment group was ≥5. Otherwise an exact method was used.|Conditional on abatacept (ABA) 30/\~10 mg/kg vs placebo (PLA)comparison being statistically significant at 5% significance level, ABA \~10 mg/kg vs PLA to be tested at 5% signficance level. Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1).First comparison: power=95%,sample size=134,expected PLA response rate=15%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=35%. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata||3.44|0.4|
95975485|NCT00406653|191925256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.436
95975486|NCT00406653|191925263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.112
95975487|NCT00731120|191925302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.71||Hierarchical testing stopped at 10 mg versus placebo for HAM-A total score at Week 8 in the testing sequence, a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||P-values were tested at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 10 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||0.71|-2.45|0.279
95975488|NCT00731120|191925302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.791||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.74||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with treatment and center as fixed factors and baseline HAM-A as a covariate.||||0.74|-2.36|0.306
95975489|NCT01519466|191925337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.32||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.12|-1.55|0.0926
95975490|NCT01519466|191925337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||||||||||||||||
95975491|NCT01519466|191925338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.3251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.27|0.3251
95975492|NCT01519466|191925338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.51||||||||||||||||
95896288|NCT00653224|191747468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.002||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.002
95896289|NCT00653224|191747469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.006||95.0|-0.41|-0.07||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.07|-0.41|0.006
95896290|NCT00653224|191747470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.003||95.0|-0.47|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ N-N/E symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ non-nose/eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.47|0.003
95896291|NCT00653224|191747471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
95896292|NCT00653224|191747472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.57|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.57|<0.001
95896293|NCT00653224|191747473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.61|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ practical pbs. score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ practical problems score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.61|<0.001
95896294|NCT00653224|191747474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.18||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.18|-0.59|<0.001
95896295|NCT00653224|191747475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.55|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
95896296|NCT00653224|191747476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.59|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ nasal symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.59|<0.001
95975493|NCT01519466|191925339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hyperglycaemia, glucose above 10mmol/l (180mg/dL)||0.58|-0.33|0.5798
95975494|NCT01519466|191925339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypoglycaemia, glucose below 3.9mmol/l (70mg/dL)||0.06|-0.68|0.0960
95975495|NCT01519466|191925339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.53||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Treatment Satisfaction||6.71|2.01|0.0007
95975496|NCT03552822|191925341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95896297|NCT00653224|191747477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.21|-0.63|<0.001
95896298|NCT00653224|191747478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.56|-0.17||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.17|-0.56|<0.001
95975497|NCT03552822|191925342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.037
95975498|NCT03552822|191925343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95975499|NCT03552822|191925344|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95975500|NCT03552822|191925345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
95975501|NCT03552822|191925346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.159
95975502|NCT03552822|191925347|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95975503|NCT03552822|191925348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95975504|NCT03552822|191925349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
95975505|NCT00561951|191925358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.002||95.0|-0.56|-0.13||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.13|-0.56|0.002
95975506|NCT00561951|191925358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.6|-0.17||The closed testing procedure was used in order to control the probability of a type 1 error.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.17|-0.60|<0.001
95975507|NCT00561951|191925360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.002||95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-0.91|0.002
95975508|NCT00561951|191925360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.32|-1.01|<0.001
95975509|NCT00561951|191925362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.003||95.0|-1.07|-0.22|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.22|-1.07|0.003
95896299|NCT00653224|191747479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ eye symptoms score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-0.63|<0.001
95896300|NCT00653224|191747480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.53|<0.001
95896301|NCT00653224|191747481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.52|-0.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 3 (week 1) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.15|-0.52|<0.001
95896302|NCT00653224|191747482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|-0.14||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in RQLQ emotional score at visit 4 (week 2) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.14|-0.53|<0.001
95896303|NCT00653224|191747483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.32|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.32|<0.001
95896304|NCT00653224|191747484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.39|-0.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T5SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the mean of T5SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T5SS over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.36|-1.39|<0.001
95896305|NCT00653224|191747485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.2|-0.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.49|-1.20|<0.001
95896306|NCT00653224|191747486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.35|-1.18|<0.001
95896307|NCT00653224|191747487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.45||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean T4SS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean T4SS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean T4SS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.45|-1.17|<0.001
95896308|NCT00653224|191747488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.17|-0.31||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.31|-1.17|<0.001
95975510|NCT00561951|191925362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.002||95.0|-1.09|-0.23|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.23|-1.09|0.002
95975511|NCT00561951|191925364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.002||95.0|-0.63|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.14|-0.63|0.002
95975512|NCT00561951|191925364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.03||95.0|-0.52|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||-0.03|-0.52|0.030
95896309|NCT00653224|191747489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.005||95.0|-1.26|-0.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.22|-1.26|0.005
95896310|NCT00653224|191747490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.18|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TNSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TNSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TNSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-1.18|<0.001
95896311|NCT00653224|191747491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.87|-0.3||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.30|-0.87|<0.001
95896312|NCT00653224|191747492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.91|-0.24||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.24|-0.91|<0.001
95896313|NCT00653224|191747493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.86|-0.28||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean TOSS is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Mean TOSS including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean TOSS over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.28|-0.86|<0.001
95896314|NCT00653224|191747494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.13||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.13|-0.34|<0.001
95896315|NCT00653224|191747495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.34|<0.001
95896316|NCT00653224|191747496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.33|-0.12||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the sneezing mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Sneezing Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The sneezing mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.12|-0.33|<0.001
95896317|NCT00653224|191747497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.11||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.11|-0.32|<0.001
95975513|NCT00561951|191925366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.624||95.0|-0.18|0.11|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.11|-0.18|0.624
95975514|NCT00561951|191925366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.129||95.0|-0.26|0.03|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance model with the treatment group, region as fixed effects and baseline values as a covariate was used.||The significance level was 0.05 (2-sided).||0.03|-0.26|0.129
95975515|NCT03261700|191925425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on Empowerment via the Personal Progress Scale Revised||||<.05
95975516|NCT03261700|191925426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of groups on self-efficacy via the General Self-Efficacy Scale||||<.05
95975517|NCT01281969|191925453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|3.15||p-value is unadjusted. a priori threshold for statistical significance is .05|ANCOVA|F(1,34)=0.62, p=.44||Analysis of covariance model controlling for baseline scores. A priori power calculations based on the Perlmutter et al. study (IVIG effect size 1.2) suggested that a sample size of 16 per group would be sufficient to detect an effect size of 1.0 with 80% power.||3.15|-7.1|0.44
95896318|NCT00653224|191747498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.008||95.0|-0.3|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.30|0.008
95896319|NCT00653224|191747499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.09||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the rhinorrhea mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Rhinorrhea Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The rhinorrhea mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.09|-0.30|<0.001
95896320|NCT00653224|191747500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.384||95.0|-0.15|0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.06|-0.15|0.384
95896321|NCT00653224|191747501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.063||95.0|-0.24|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.24|0.063
95896322|NCT00653224|191747502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.124||95.0|-0.19|0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal congestion mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Congestion Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal congestion mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.02|-0.19|0.124
95896323|NCT00653224|191747503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.002||95.0|-0.28|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.28|0.002
95896324|NCT00653224|191747504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.016||95.0|-0.28|-0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.03|-0.28|0.016
95896325|NCT00653224|191747505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.003||95.0|-0.27|-0.06||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the nasal pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Nasal Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The nasal pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.06|-0.27|0.003
95896326|NCT00653224|191747506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.088||95.0|-0.2|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.20|0.088
95975518|NCT01281969|191925454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||p-value is not adjusted.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mean rank sum in the placebo group = 19.92; mean rank sum in the IVIG group = 15.97. Z = -1.18, p=.12||The Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare CGI-Improvement ratings (an ordinal variable) at week 6. Power calculation was based on CYBOCS as primary outcome.||||.12
95975519|NCT01281969|191925455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4||||||p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|X2 = 0.72, p=.40||Chi-squared test was used to compare distribution of responders by randomization group. Power calculation was based on CY-BOCS (primary outcome).||||.40
95975520|NCT02618642|191925466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3879|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.3879
95896327|NCT00653224|191747507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.117||95.0|-0.23|0.03||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.03|-0.23|0.117
95896328|NCT00653224|191747508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.065||95.0|-0.21|0.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the post-nasal drip mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Post-Nasal Drip Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The post-nasal drip mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.01|-0.21|0.065
95896329|NCT00653224|191747509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
95896330|NCT00653224|191747510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.002||95.0|-0.33|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.33|0.002
95896331|NCT00653224|191747511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.32|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular pruritus mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Pruritus Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular pruritus mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.32|<0.001
95896332|NCT00653224|191747512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.3|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.30|<0.001
95896333|NCT00653224|191747513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.006||95.0|-0.29|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over Week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.29|0.006
95896334|NCT00653224|191747514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular itching/burning mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Itching/Burning Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular itching/burning mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
95975521|NCT02618642|191925466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5361|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter were compared||||0.5361
95975522|NCT02618642|191925467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4669|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) vs the control group (placebo) (n=15) were compared.||||0.4669
95975523|NCT02618642|191925467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4161|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4161
95975524|NCT02618642|191925468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9596|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.9596
95975525|NCT02618642|191925468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0907|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0907
95975526|NCT02618642|191925469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||the results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared.||||0.0110
95975527|NCT02618642|191925469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||0.1165
95975528|NCT02618642|191925470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||he results in the irradiated group (n=45) and the control group (n=15) were compared||||0.0200
95975529|NCT02618642|191925470|SUPERIORITY|comparison was conducted of the results obtained with a different filter (groups v, x, y,||||||0.0014|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0014
95896335|NCT00653224|191747515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.31|<0.001
95896336|NCT00653224|191747516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.011||95.0|-0.29|-0.04||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
95896337|NCT00653224|191747517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular tearing/watering mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Tearing/Watering Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular tearing/watering mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
95896338|NCT00653224|191747518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.004||95.0|-0.27|-0.05||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.05|-0.27|0.004
95896339|NCT00653224|191747519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.34|-0.1||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.10|-0.34|<0.001
95896340|NCT00653224|191747520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the ocular redness mean score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on the Ocular Redness Mean Score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The ocular redness mean score over the total treatment period is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-0.29|<0.001
95896341|NCT00653224|191747521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
95896342|NCT00653224|191747522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||If the p-value is lower than 5% the distribution is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Lehmann, 1975 page 23) is generally used to detect 'shift alternatives'. That is, the two distributions have the same general shape, but one of them is shifted relative to the other by a constant amount under the alternative hypothesis.||||<0.001
95896343|NCT00653224|191747523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.027||95.0|-2.56|-0.16||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.16|-2.56|0.027
95975530|NCT05497284|191925471|OTHER|Probability (LTP001 is better than placebo)|Slope|-2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|1.3||Probability that LTP001 is better than placebo is 10.3%|Baysesian random slope model|Bayesian random slope model to assess the difference in reduction rate (slope) in years between the treatment group and placebo group.||||1.3|-6.9|
95975531|NCT03816891|191925481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-40.82|0.0347
95975532|NCT03816891|191925481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-28.5||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-28.5|-54.9|<0.0001
95975533|NCT03816891|191925481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.6|23.3||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||23.3|-49.6|<0.0001
95896344|NCT00653224|191747524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.554||95.0|-1.56|0.84||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.84|-1.56|0.554
95896345|NCT00653224|191747525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.015||95.0|-2.72|-0.29||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 1) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.29|-2.72|0.015
95896346|NCT00653224|191747526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.016||95.0|-8.34|-0.86||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.86|-8.34|0.016
95896347|NCT00653224|191747527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.33||||0.017||95.0|-7.88|-0.79||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.79|-7.88|0.017
95896348|NCT00653224|191747528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.25||||0.027||95.0|-8.02|-0.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 2) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.47|-8.02|0.027
95896349|NCT00653224|191747529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44||||0.023||95.0|-8.25|-0.63||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.63|-8.25|0.023
95896350|NCT00653224|191747530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.56||||0.015||95.0|-8.23|-0.89||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.89|-8.23|0.015
95896351|NCT00653224|191747531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.11||||0.036||95.0|-7.95|-0.27||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 3) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.27|-7.95|0.036
95896352|NCT00653224|191747532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.51||||0.102||95.0|-9.95|0.93||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.93|-9.95|0.102
95896353|NCT00653224|191747533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.493||95.0|-5.66|2.78||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||2.78|-5.66|0.493
95896354|NCT00653224|191747534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.117||95.0|-9.91|1.15||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 4) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||1.15|-9.91|0.117
95896355|NCT00653224|191747535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.58||||0.409||95.0|-15.65|6.49||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.49|-15.65|0.409
95896356|NCT00653224|191747536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54||||0.432||95.0|-16.1|7.01||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||7.01|-16.10|0.432
95896357|NCT00653224|191747537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.45||95.0|-15.46|6.99||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 5) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||6.99|-15.46|0.450
95896358|NCT00653224|191747538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37||||0.251||95.0|-17.4|4.67||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||4.67|-17.40|0.251
95896359|NCT00653224|191747539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.258||95.0|-19.48|5.36||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.36|-19.48|0.258
95896360|NCT00653224|191747540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.96||||0.288||95.0|-17.13|5.22||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 6) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||5.22|-17.13|0.288
95896361|NCT00653224|191747541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.34|-2.47||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.47|-9.34|<0.001
95896362|NCT00653224|191747542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.88|-3.35||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-3.35|-9.88|<0.001
95896363|NCT00653224|191747543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69||||0.001||95.0|-9.16|-2.21||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in the WPAI:AS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in WPAI-AS score (dimension 7) at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-2.21|-9.16|0.001
95896364|NCT00653224|191747544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.027||95.0|-1.29|-0.08||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at endpoint visit is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.08|-1.29|0.027
95896365|NCT00653224|191747545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.535||95.0|-0.7|0.37||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 1 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||0.37|-0.70|0.535
95896366|NCT00653224|191747546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.042||95.0|-1.26|-0.02||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the mean change from baseline in ESS score is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA on change from baseline in ESS score including treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline mean score as covariate.|The difference presented is 'Levocetirizine 5 mg - Placebo'|The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The mean change from baseline in ESS score at week 2 is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||-0.02|-1.26|0.042
95896367|NCT00653224|191747547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171||95.0||||If the p-value of this estimated difference is lower than 5% the change from baseline is considered as different between the two treatment groups.|Repeated measure analysis (CATMOD)|||The Null Hypothesis is expressed as follows: 'The change from baseline to endpoint visit in score category (ESS score \< 8 or \>= 8) is not different from subjects treated with levocetirizine than subjects treated with placebo.'||||0.171
95896368|NCT01166594|191747580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95896369|NCT01633944|191747583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.67||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-1.07|0.0012
95896370|NCT01633944|191747584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥30% pain reduction||||0.0012
95896371|NCT01633944|191747584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by stratum (dose level)||Responders with ≥50% pain reduction||||0.0754
95896372|NCT03354429|191747669|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.96|0.71|0.015
95896373|NCT03354429|191747670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||0.93|0.68|0.004
95896374|NCT03354429|191747671|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07||The hypothesis was tested at the 4.996% two-sided significance level to account for the planned interim analysis with the overall type I error preserved at 5%. A hierarchical test sequence was used to address the issue of multiple testing|Regression, Logistic|NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) score and history of stroke (yes/no) included as covariates|Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||1.07|0.89|0.613
95896375|NCT03354429|191747672|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|9.14|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.14|1.74|0.001
95896376|NCT03354429|191747673|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|9.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||9.02|1.48|0.005
95896377|NCT03354429|191747674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|6.43|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||6.43|1.67|<0.001
95896378|NCT03354429|191747675|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.02|||Regression, Cox||Placebo is the reference group (denominator)|||7.02|3.28|<0.001
95896379|NCT00386256|191747676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
95896380|NCT00386256|191747677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics to assess demographic and medical characteristics, safety, text messaging or phone adherence, exercise adherence, and patient satisfaction. T-tests were used to determine significant differences between the HB text messaging and telephone groups (with inpatients and outpatients combined within each group). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0 for Windows.||||<.05
95896381|NCT00782210|191747680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
95975534|NCT03816891|191925481|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA model with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-5.3|-31.6|0.0061
95975535|NCT03816891|191925482|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.44|0.81|0.1093
95975536|NCT03816891|191925483|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-1.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||||-1.90|-41.62|0.0325
95975537|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.85|0.75||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.75|-22.85|0.0657
95975538|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|0.56||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||0.56|-27.48|0.0595
95975539|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.55|-0.33||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.33|-30.55|0.0455
95975540|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-1.93||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-1.93|-37.11|0.0305
95975541|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.69|-0.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.38|-36.69|0.0456
95975542|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.06|-2.88||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-2.88|-38.06|0.0236
95975543|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.75||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|-1.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-1.15|-40.45|0.0385
95975544|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.60|-40.82|0.0347
95975545|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|1.44||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||1.44|-36.06|0.0694
95975546|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.93||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.08|0.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||0.90|-35.08|0.0621
95975547|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52||0.2619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|8.37||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||8.37|-30.0|0.2619
95975548|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|4.5||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.50|-32.48|0.1344
95975549|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.17||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.71|0.27||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||0.27|-36.71|0.0533
95975550|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.82|-1.74||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-1.74|-40.82|0.0335
95896382|NCT00782210|191747680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.139|<0.0001
95896383|NCT00782210|191747681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.128|0.054|<0.0001
95896384|NCT00782210|191747681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.137|0.064|<0.0001
95896385|NCT00782210|191747682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.233|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.113|<0.0001
95896386|NCT00782210|191747682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.108|<0.0001
95896387|NCT00782210|191747683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
95896388|NCT00782210|191747683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.139|<0.0001
95896389|NCT00782210|191747684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.144|<0.0001
95896390|NCT00782210|191747684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.156|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.156|<0.0001
95896391|NCT00782210|191747685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.133|<0.0001
95896392|NCT00782210|191747685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.130|<0.0001
95896393|NCT00782210|191747686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.136|<0.0001
95896394|NCT00782210|191747686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.123|<0.0001
95896395|NCT00782210|191747687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.134|<0.0001
95896396|NCT00782210|191747687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.131|<0.0001
95896397|NCT00782210|191747688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
95896398|NCT00782210|191747688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.075|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.075|<0.0001
95896399|NCT00782210|191747689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.059|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.059|<0.0001
95896400|NCT00782210|191747689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.127|0.054|<0.0001
95896401|NCT00782210|191747690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.061|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.135|0.061|<0.0001
95896402|NCT00782210|191747690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.138|0.064|<0.0001
95896403|NCT00782210|191747691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.049|<0.0001
95896404|NCT00782210|191747691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.051|<0.0001
95896405|NCT00782210|191747692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.054|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.054|<0.0001
95896406|NCT00782210|191747692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.048|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|0.048|<0.0001
95896407|NCT00782210|191747693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.145|0.069|<0.0001
95896408|NCT00782210|191747693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.068|<0.0001
95896409|NCT00782210|191747694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.055|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.130|0.055|<0.0001
95896410|NCT00782210|191747694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.053|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.129|0.053|<0.0001
95896411|NCT00782210|191747695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.115|<0.0001
95896412|NCT00782210|191747695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.131|<0.0001
95896413|NCT00782210|191747696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.217|0.137|<0.0001
95896414|NCT00782210|191747696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.230|0.150|<0.0001
95896415|NCT00782210|191747697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
95896416|NCT00782210|191747697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.132|<0.0001
95896417|NCT00782210|191747698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.123|<0.0001
95896418|NCT00782210|191747698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.124|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.124|<0.0001
95896419|NCT00782210|191747699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.216|0.134|<0.0001
95896420|NCT00782210|191747699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.110|<0.0001
95896421|NCT00782210|191747700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.128|<0.0001
95896422|NCT00782210|191747700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.121|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.121|<0.0001
95896423|NCT00782210|191747701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.359|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.359|0.216|<0.0001
95896424|NCT00782210|191747701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.258|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.258|<0.0001
95896425|NCT00782210|191747702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.224|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.224|<0.0001
95896426|NCT00782210|191747702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.255|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.255|<0.0001
95896427|NCT00782210|191747703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.181|<0.0001
95896428|NCT00782210|191747703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.220|<0.0001
95896429|NCT00782210|191747704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.348|0.201|<0.0001
95896430|NCT00782210|191747704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.219|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.219|<0.0001
95896431|NCT00782210|191747705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.161|<0.0001
95896432|NCT00782210|191747705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
95896433|NCT00782210|191747706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.319|0.169|<0.0001
95896434|NCT00782210|191747706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.346|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.346|0.196|<0.0001
95896435|NCT00782210|191747707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.076|0.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.218|0.076|<0.0001
95896436|NCT00782210|191747707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.113|<0.0001
95896437|NCT00782210|191747708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.059|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.059|0.0003
95896438|NCT00782210|191747708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0001||95.0|0.069|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.213|0.069|0.0001
95896439|NCT00782210|191747709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0019||95.0|0.043|0.187|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.187|0.043|0.0019
95896440|NCT00782210|191747709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.233|0.088|<0.0001
95896441|NCT00782210|191747710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.057|0.0005
95896442|NCT00782210|191747710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.089|0.235|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.089|<0.0001
95896443|NCT00782210|191747711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0261||95.0|0.01|0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.156|0.010|0.0261
95896444|NCT00782210|191747711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.05|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.050|0.0010
95896445|NCT00782210|191747712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0154||95.0|0.018|0.165|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.165|0.018|0.0154
95896446|NCT00782210|191747712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0011||95.0|0.049|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.049|0.0011
95896447|NCT00782210|191747713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0006||95.0|0.057|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.057|0.0006
95896448|NCT00782210|191747713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.229|0.080|<0.0001
95896449|NCT00782210|191747714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0134||95.0|0.019|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.168|0.019|0.0134
95896450|NCT00782210|191747714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0025||95.0|0.04|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.040|0.0025
95896451|NCT00782210|191747715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.339|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.339|0.187|<0.0001
95896452|NCT00782210|191747715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.225|0.376|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.376|0.225|<0.0001
95896453|NCT00782210|191747716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.188|0.341|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.341|0.188|<0.0001
95896454|NCT00782210|191747716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.216|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.368|0.216|<0.0001
95896455|NCT00782210|191747717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.328|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.328|0.174|<0.0001
95896456|NCT00782210|191747717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001||95.0|0.203|0.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.358|0.203|<0.0001
95896457|NCT00782210|191747718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.174|<0.0001
95896458|NCT00782210|191747718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.338|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.338|0.183|<0.0001
95896459|NCT00782210|191747719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.153|<0.0001
95896460|NCT00782210|191747719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.154|<0.0001
95896461|NCT00782210|191747720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.327|0.168|<0.0001
95896462|NCT00782210|191747720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.181|<0.0001
95896463|NCT00782210|191747721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.422|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.422|0.181|<0.0001
95896464|NCT00782210|191747721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.37|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.370|0.128|<0.0001
95896465|NCT00782210|191747722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.253||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.005|21.709|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||21.709|5.005|0.0018
95896466|NCT00782210|191747722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.248||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.114|23.8|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.800|7.114|0.0003
95896467|NCT00782210|191747723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.849|25.523|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||25.523|8.849|<0.0001
95896468|NCT00782210|191747723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.259|22.86|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models by week, with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.860|6.259|0.0006
95896469|NCT00782210|191747724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.878|-0.162|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.162|-0.878|0.0045
95896470|NCT00782210|191747724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.005|-0.291|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.291|-1.005|0.0004
95896471|NCT00782210|191747725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.979|-0.185|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.185|-0.979|0.0041
95896472|NCT00782210|191747725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.792|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.394|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.394|-1.189|0.0001
95896473|NCT00782210|191747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.104|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.799|-0.409|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.409|-1.799|0.0019
95896474|NCT00782210|191747726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.354|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.74|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.740|-2.130|<0.0001
95896475|NCT00782210|191747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
95896476|NCT00782210|191747727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.3|-0.7|<0.0001
95896477|NCT00782210|191747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
95896478|NCT00782210|191747728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
95896479|NCT00782210|191747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
95896480|NCT00782210|191747729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.2|-0.7|<0.0001
95896481|NCT00782210|191747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0109||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0109
95896482|NCT00782210|191747730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0031||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
95896483|NCT00782210|191747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.016|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.016|0.522|0.0658
95896484|NCT00782210|191747731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|1.107|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.107|0.576|0.1701
95896485|NCT00782210|191747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.313|1.374|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.374|0.313|0.2754
95896486|NCT00782210|191747732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.9792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.961|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.961|0.521|0.9792
95896487|NCT00782210|191747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.078|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.078|0.506|0.1194
95896488|NCT00782210|191747733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.811|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.174|||Regression, Cox|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.174|0.561|0.2570
95896489|NCT00782210|191747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.7815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5524|1.1054|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1054|0.5524|0.1631
95896490|NCT00782210|191747734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1467||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6015|1.1889|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.1889|0.6015|0.3342
95896491|NCT00782210|191747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2664||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2947|1.4556|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.4556|0.2947|0.2985
95896492|NCT00782210|191747735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4103||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5464|2.3003|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.3003|0.5464|0.7550
95896493|NCT00782210|191747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.2911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5438|1.2008|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2008|0.5438|0.2911
95896494|NCT00782210|191747736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|0.8485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1686||0.4086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5743|1.2535|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.2535|0.5743|0.4086
95896495|NCT01610791|191747742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in ALT from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
95896496|NCT01610791|191747742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in AST from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
95975551|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.58|0.31||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||0.31|-38.58|0.0536
95975552|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.11|-1.03||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-1.03|-37.11|0.0388
95975553|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.92||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.94|22.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||22.95|-43.94|0.5181
95975554|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.3||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.08|19.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||19.47|-45.08|0.4142
95975555|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.85||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|19.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||19.72|-42.94|0.4450
95975556|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.23|25.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||25.89|-38.23|0.6897
95975557|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.66||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.25|23.81||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||23.81|-42.25|0.5636
95975558|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.85||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.64|19.04||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||19.04|-43.64|0.4190
95975559|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.88||0.3818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|19.24||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||19.24|-47.76|0.3818
95975560|NCT03816891|191925485|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.61||0.2957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.97|17.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||17.13|-52.97|0.2957
95975561|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.98|12.83||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||12.83|-17.98|0.7379
95975562|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|9.17||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||9.17|-28.90|0.3022
95896497|NCT01610791|191747743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diffrence in total cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
95975563|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.15||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.07|0.82||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.82|-36.07|0.0606
95975564|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.65||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|5.66||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||5.66|-37.28|0.1448
95975565|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.65||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-0.18||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.18|-39.06|0.0480
95975566|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.95||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|3.85||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||3.85|-40.30|0.1032
95896498|NCT01610791|191747743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in LDL cholesterol from baseline to Week 24||||<0.001
95896499|NCT04164901|191747767|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.39|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.56|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.56|0.27|<0.0000001
95896500|NCT04164901|191747770|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|15.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio was calculated with placebo as the control (denominator).|||15.25|1.56|0.003
95896501|NCT04164901|191747777|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.35||||2.4e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.54|||Kaplan-Meier|||||0.54|0.23|0.00000024
95896502|NCT05358821|191747801|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference|3.3657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2539|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8566|3.8749|||T-test||Difference was calculated as HP - HD.|||3.8749|2.8566|<0.0001
95896503|NCT04609020|191747821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.61|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|40.58|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||40.58|<0.0001
95896504|NCT04609020|191747822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.36|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|29.61|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||29.61|<0.0001
95896505|NCT04609020|191747823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.23|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|21.5|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||21.50|<0.0001
95896506|NCT04609020|191747824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.56|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|17.65|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||17.65|<0.0001
95896507|NCT04609020|191747825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.25|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|37.48|||P-value is calculated based on 1-sided t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test (if the normality assumption is not met) at 0.025 significance level.|t-test, 1 sided||||||37.48|<0.0001
95896508|NCT02462967|191747857|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
95896509|NCT02462967|191747857|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
95896510|NCT02462967|191747858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.447
95896511|NCT02462967|191747858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
95896512|NCT02462967|191747859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.522
95896513|NCT02462967|191747859|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
95896514|NCT02462967|191747860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
95896515|NCT02462967|191747860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.492
95896516|NCT02462967|191747861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.832
95896517|NCT02462967|191747861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.558
95896518|NCT02462967|191747862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.362
95896519|NCT02462967|191747862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.602
95896520|NCT02462967|191747863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.633
95896521|NCT02462967|191747863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.814
95896522|NCT01461096|191747868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.47|1.31||P-value was unadjusted for multiple comparisons and a P-value less than 5% was the threshold for statistical significance.|generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996)|The generalized log-rank test (Sun 1996) was performed to evaluate whether participants in the two arms had the same survival rate.|qHPV group represented the numerator for the hazard ratio and Placebo group represented the denominator.|||1.31|0.47|0.350
95896523|NCT04889625|191747873|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.017|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Distance (4m)||0.017|-0.017|
95896524|NCT04889625|191747873|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0108|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|-0.008|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Intermediate (64cm)||-0.008|-0.051|
95896525|NCT04889625|191747873|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control lens with respect to binocular HLHC distance, intermediate and near visual acuity. A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used; (0.05) logMAR is approximately half a line on an ETDRS chart.|least-square mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0129|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|-0.011|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A - delefilcon A|Near (40cm)||-0.011|-0.062|
95896526|NCT04889625|191747874|NON_INFERIORITY|This study was powered to demonstrate the primary hypotheses. However, the final sample size calculation was deemed large enough to test for Non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control. A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used.|least-square mean difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.5|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A (C3)- delefilcon A|||10.5|2.0|
95896527|NCT00404352|191747876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
95896528|NCT00404352|191747876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.008
95896529|NCT00404352|191747876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.009
95896530|NCT00404352|191747877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||<0.001
95896531|NCT00404352|191747877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.002
95896532|NCT00404352|191747877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.774|||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test was stratified for controlling randomization stratification factors.||||||0.774
95896533|NCT03663283|191747883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0197|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0197
95896534|NCT03663283|191747884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.584|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||0.584
95896535|NCT03663283|191747884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3 weeks||||.5800
95896536|NCT03663283|191747885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95896537|NCT03663283|191747886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||72 hours||||.7018
95896538|NCT03663283|191747886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 3||||.5327
95975567|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.39||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.66|0.22||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||0.22|-41.66|0.0523
95975568|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.86||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.62|-1.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.90|-41.62|0.0325
95975569|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.13||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|32.12||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||32.12|-22.83|0.7274
95975570|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.63||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.47|5.39||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||5.39|-33.47|0.1523
95975571|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.61||0.9649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.93|31.24||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||31.24|-29.93|0.9649
95975572|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|4.25||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.25|-30.48|0.1351
95896539|NCT03552575|191747887|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||1.0|-4.8|0.19
95896540|NCT03552575|191747888|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.85||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.16|0.63|0.31
95896541|NCT03552575|191747889|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.87||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, and use of diuretics at baseline||||1.22|0.62|0.41
95896542|NCT03552575|191747890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-6.8|0.10
95896543|NCT03552575|191747891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.0|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||2.0|-6.6|0.29
95896544|NCT03552575|191747892|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.9|-2.0|0.46
95896545|NCT03552575|191747893|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.6|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for randomized treatment, baseline value of the outcome, use of diuretics at baseline and time from randomization to cardiac MRI||||0.6|-3.5|0.16
95896546|NCT03552575|191747894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.56
95896547|NCT03792672|191747897|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean (LSM) difference|115.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|144.0||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-128.0|359.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||359|-128|0.4278
95896548|NCT03792672|191747897|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|338.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|147.0||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|585.0||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||585|90.5|0.0269
95896549|NCT03792672|191747898|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.388|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.5089|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.595||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.595|-1.37|0.5089
95896550|NCT03792672|191747898|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.773||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.773|-1.19|0.7208
95896551|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.8|42.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||42.8|-14.8|0.4174
95975573|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.01||0.7258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.75|26.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||26.07|-36.75|0.7258
95975574|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.14||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|23.36||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||23.36|-35.81|0.6646
95896552|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1||0.3832|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.3|31.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 50 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||31.5|-25.3|0.3832
95896553|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.23|6.58||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.58|-7.23|0.9368
95896554|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16||0.379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.32|10.7||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 100 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.7|-3.32|0.3790
95896555|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|18.2||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||18.2|-3.44|0.2580
95896556|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.45|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 200 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||20.2|-1.45|0.1524
95896557|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.06|29.4||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||29.4|5.06|0.0220
95896558|NCT03792672|191747899|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|9.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|21.8||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LICI 300 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||21.8|-2.59|0.1927
95896559|NCT03792672|191747900|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.59||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|10.5||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||10.5|-21.8|0.5590
95896560|NCT03792672|191747900|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.72||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.5|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 2 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||0.242|-32.5|0.1049
95896561|NCT03792672|191747900|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-16.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.5||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.4|6.06||Based on mixed model analysis, with treatment, period, sequence, treatment-by-period interaction as fixed factors, participant within sequence as a random factor, baseline as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||6.06|-39.4|0.2238
95896562|NCT03792672|191747900|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.6||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.3|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SICI 5 ms peak-to-peak amplitude||4.56|-41.3|0.1847
95896563|NCT00453999|191747903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Differences between groups by log-rank statistic stratified by oxygen saturation and duration of illness at randomization, and flu season.||||||0.306
95896564|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Sore Throat: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896565|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Nasal Congestion: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896566|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cough: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896567|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Aches and Pains: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896568|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Fatigue: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896569|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Headache: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896570|NCT00453999|191747904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Feeling Feverish: change from Baseline at Days 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 14||||>0.05
95896571|NCT00453999|191747905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.276
95896572|NCT00453999|191747907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.994
95896573|NCT00453999|191747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 12 hours||||>0.05
95896574|NCT00453999|191747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 24 hours||||>0.05
95896575|NCT00453999|191747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 36 hours||||>0.05
95896576|NCT00453999|191747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 48 hours||||>0.05
95896577|NCT00453999|191747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 72 hours||||>0.05
95896578|NCT00453999|191747908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Change from Baseline at 96 hours||||>0.05
95896579|NCT00802412|191747918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.5|0.4|0.51
95896580|NCT00802412|191747918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.55|||Regression, Cox|||||2.55|0.66|.45
95896581|NCT04382911|191747939|EQUIVALENCE|A 2x2 table was constructed among all patients with histopathologically identified endometriosis (true positive) to compare sensitivity for FES PET/MRI versus sensitivity of conventional MRI.||||||0.317|||||||McNemar|||||||0.317
95896582|NCT04382911|191747942|OTHER|A random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of the pain rating, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age) was performed. The investigators included physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.748||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.24
95896583|NCT04382911|191747942|OTHER|The investigators will implement a random effects linear regression model, modeling SUV-max as a function of EHP-30, while controlling for patient-level covariates (BMI, race, age). The investigators will include physician as a random effect to account for physician-level correlation.|Slope|0.406||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95896584|NCT01417481|191747943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
95896585|NCT01417481|191747944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
95896586|NCT01417481|191747945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
95896587|NCT01417481|191747946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.061
95896588|NCT01417481|191747947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.068
95896589|NCT01417481|191747948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|The hypothesis was that glycine will improve inflammatory biomarkers, and thus statistical significance was set at one-tail.||||||=0.040
95896590|NCT01417481|191747949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
95896591|NCT01417481|191747950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.05
95896592|NCT01417481|191747951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||<0.01
95896593|NCT01417481|191747952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|Due to the cross-over, a paired analysis was done. The hypothesis was that glycine will improve variables, and thus significance was set at one-tail.||||||>0.05
95896594|NCT02614547|191747953|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.081||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.77|-3.67|||MMRM|||Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measure (MMRM) used an unstructured covariance model time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-3.67|-20.77|0.008
95896595|NCT02614547|191747954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|37.67|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||37.67|0.49|0.198
95896596|NCT02614547|191747954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
95896597|NCT02614547|191747954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|62.08|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||62.08|0.70|0.086
95896598|NCT02614547|191747955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.33||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|1152.71|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||1152.71|1.56|0.008
95896599|NCT02614547|191747955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.003
95896600|NCT02614547|191747955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|140.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||140.57|1.01|0.030
95896601|NCT02614547|191747956|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.536||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-4.22|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.22|-27.50|0.010
95896602|NCT02614547|191747956|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.448||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-4.5|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.50|-27.43|0.009
95896603|NCT02614547|191747956|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.213||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.05|-4.09|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment||-4.09|-26.05|0.010
95896604|NCT02614547|191747957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|90.81|||Fisher Exact|||60 Hours||90.81|0.73|0.080
95896605|NCT02614547|191747957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|239.57|||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||239.57|1.31|0.023
95896606|NCT02614547|191747957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.67||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|142.2|||Fisher Exact|||Day 30||142.20|1.04|0.030
95896607|NCT02614547|191747958|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.466||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|-0.86|||MMRM|||60 Hours: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-0.86|-11.24|0.025
95896608|NCT02614547|191747958|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.427||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-1.34|||MMRM|||Day 7: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.34|-11.57|0.016
95896609|NCT02614547|191747958|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.568||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-1.35|||MMRM|||Day 30: MMRM used an unstructured covariance model for time points within participant. Fixed effects were treatment, baseline total score, assessment time point, and time point-by-treatment.||-1.35|-12.25|0.018
95896610|NCT02614547|191747960|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.461||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|7.04|||ANCOVA|||60 Hours||7.04|-3.30|0.457
95896611|NCT02614547|191747960|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.47||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.55|||ANCOVA|||Day 7||4.55|-7.50|0.613
95896612|NCT02614547|191747960|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.871||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|3.93|||ANCOVA|||Day 30||3.93|-8.13|0.474
95896613|NCT03778931|191748015|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.546||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|0.768|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.768|0.387|0.0005
95896614|NCT03778931|191748016|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.697||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|0.88|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.880|0.552|0.0018
95896615|NCT03778931|191748017|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.592||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|0.958||The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||The analysis was performed using a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no); the CI calculated using a profile likelihood approach.||0.958|0.361|0.0325
95896616|NCT03778931|191748018|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.742||||0.0697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.025|||Log Rank|The p-value was generated by using a two-sided stratified log-rank test.|Applied a stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model with ties=Efron and the stratification factors: ESR1-mutational status (ESR1-mut vs ESR1-wt), prior treatment with fulvestrant (yes vs no) and presence of visceral metastases (yes vs no).|||1.025|0.536|0.0697
95896617|NCT05045144|191748071|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.13|0.92|
95896618|NCT05045144|191748071|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.05|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 1 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.05|0.85|
95896619|NCT05045144|191748071|OTHER|The lot-to-lot consistency is demonstrated only if two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the 3 pair-wise geometric mean ratios of RSV MAT IgG ELISA concentration falls within 0.67 and 1.5.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate lot-to-lot consistency of the immune responses of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the RSV MAT vaccine, as measured by ELISA in terms of IgG GMCs at Day 31.||1.03|0.83|
95975575|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.71||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|32.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||32.38|-29.20|0.9151
95975576|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.32||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.66|-2.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.07|-39.66|0.0304
95975577|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.62||0.5209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.96|24.17||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||24.17|-45.96|0.5209
95896620|NCT05045144|191748072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for the A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.82|0.63|
95896621|NCT05045144|191748072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.1|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||1.10|0.79|
95896622|NCT05045144|191748072|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated for B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by Flu D-QIV vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.93|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of HI GMTs of Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.93|0.69|
95896623|NCT05045144|191748073|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of RSV MAT vaccine is demonstrated for RSV A neutralizing antibody titers, if the LL of the 95% CI on the GMT ratio (RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine divided by RSV MAT vaccine) is greater than 0.67 at Day 31 post vaccination.|GMC ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.97|||GMC ratio|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the RSV MAT vaccine when co-administered with Flu D-QIV vaccine, compared to RSV MAT vaccine given alone as measured by the ratio of GMTs of RSV A neutralizing antibody titers at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||0.97|0.78|
95896624|NCT05045144|191748074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|3.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|10.29|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against A/Tasmania/503/2020 (H3N2) IVR-221 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.29|-3.44|
95896625|NCT05045144|191748074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|10.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Washington/02/2019 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.32|-2.04|
95896626|NCT05045144|191748074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of Flu D-QIV vaccine is demonstrated with respect to the SCR difference for Flu D-QIV antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain, if the upper limit (UL) of the 95% CI on the SCR difference (Flu D-QIV vaccine minus RSV MAT + Flu D-QIV vaccine) is less than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of 10% at Day 31 post vaccination.|Difference of Proportion|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|10.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the immunological non-inferiority of the Flu D-QIV vaccine when co-administered with RSV MAT vaccine compared to Flu D-QIV vaccine given alone as measured by the difference of proportion of participants achieving seroconversion for HI antibody titers against B/Phuket/3073/2013 strain at 30 days post administration (Day 31).||10.58|-2.46|
95896627|NCT00500370|191748099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
95896628|NCT00500370|191748100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||<0.0001
95896629|NCT00500370|191748101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6766||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.6766
95896630|NCT00500370|191748102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0393
95896631|NCT00500370|191748103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1808
95896632|NCT00500370|191748104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
95896633|NCT00500370|191748105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6651||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6651
95896634|NCT00500370|191748106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1204||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.1204
95896635|NCT00500370|191748107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8479||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.8479
95896636|NCT00500370|191748108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2151||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2151
95896637|NCT00500370|191748109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7619||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7619
95975578|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.93||0.5254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.46|26.2||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||26.20|-49.46|0.5254
95975579|NCT03816891|191925487|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.16|23.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||23.53|-51.16|0.4458
95975580|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.22|-2.76||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-2.76|-24.22|0.0149
95975581|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.67|3.44||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.44|-23.67|0.1399
95975582|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.68|2.42||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||2.42|-23.68|0.1078
95896638|NCT00500370|191748110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8973||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8973
95896639|NCT00500370|191748111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6507||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6507
95896640|NCT00500370|191748112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2593||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2593
95896641|NCT00500370|191748113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2919||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.2919
95896642|NCT00500370|191748114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0293||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Analysis pertains to change at endpoint (Week 24)||||0.0293
95896643|NCT00483223|191748116|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: no association between expression ratio and response rate Ha: Participants with expression ratio greater than 2 would have higher response rate||||0.54
95896644|NCT01101841|191748119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95896645|NCT01101841|191748119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95896646|NCT01101841|191748120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||Week 24 persistence of effect|Logit model|||||||0.0066
95896647|NCT01101841|191748135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0368||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0368
95896648|NCT01101841|191748135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0064||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0064
95896649|NCT02896400|191748149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including BNI (BNI only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to the 8 arms that do not include BNI (Control, NRT only, QL only, Text only, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text)||2.8|1.1|.01
95896650|NCT02896400|191748149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms that include NRT (NRT only, BNI+NRT, NRT+QL, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include NRT (Control, BNI only, QL only, Text only, BNI+QL, BNI+Text, QL+Text, BNI+QL+Text)||3.2|1.3|.001
95896651|NCT02896400|191748149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including QL intervention (QL only, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to all 8 arms that did not include QL (Control, BNI only, NRT only, Text only, BNI+NRT, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, BNI+NRT+Text)||2.2|0.9|0.14
95896652|NCT02896400|191748149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|adjusted for gender, age, race/ethnicity, baseline daily cigarette consumption||8 arms including Text (Text only, BNI+Text, NRT+Text, QL+Text, BNI+NRT+Text, BNI+QL+Text, NRT+QL+Text, BNI+NRT+QL+Text) compared to 8 arms that do not include Text (Control, BNI only, NRT only, QL only, BNI+NRT, BNI+QL, NRT+QL, BNI+NRT+QL)||1.7|0.7|0.64
95896653|NCT02984020|191748160|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total treatment duration of Xeljanz as factor||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
95896654|NCT02984020|191748160|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.64|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including other past/present disease as factor||||3.59|1.64|<0.0001
95896655|NCT02984020|191748171|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.82|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple logistic regression including total duration of treatment with Xeljanz as factor||||1.82|1.11|0.0053
95975583|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.72|1.56||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.56|-26.72|0.0798
95975584|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||0.1405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.83|3.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||3.34|-22.83|0.1405
95896656|NCT00394212|191748185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||95.0||||P-value from non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test comparing treatments.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Based on a 2-group test of means for unequal variance and unequal sample size (2:1 randomization ratio) with alpha = 0.05 and a power of 80%, the sample size required was 132; 88 subjects in the Transoral Suturing arm and 44 in the Sham Endoscopy arm. The study was prematurely discontinued due to reasons unrelated to safety and effectiveness and therefore was underpowered for evaluation of the primary and secondary hypotheses.||||0.066
95896657|NCT00394212|191748186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieving 15% EWL at 6 months for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.317
95896658|NCT00394212|191748187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.019
95896659|NCT00394212|191748188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value from two-sided Fisher's exact test comparing percents achieved for the two treatments.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.174
95896660|NCT00430092|191748242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95896661|NCT04304001|191748266|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||For each arm, the proportion of participants who receive colorectal cancer screening by 12 months was computed. The chi-square test was used to compare the two treatment arms for screening receipt. If the proportion of participants receiving colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm is at least 15% higher than that in the control arm, the intervention was determined to be effective.||||<0.05
95896662|NCT04304001|191748267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the knowledge scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since knowledge was a continuous variable,the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
95896663|NCT04304001|191748268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bivariate analyses was conducted for the self-efficacy scale to compare differences between the intervention and control arms. Since self-efficacy was a continuous variable, the values between study arms were compared using two-sample independent t-tests.||||<0.05
95896664|NCT02272413|191748283|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was to be rejected in favor of equivalence if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio in best ORR between the treatments was entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7697|0.9506|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9506|0.7697|
95975585|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.43|4.9||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.90|-22.43|0.2026
95975586|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.3646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.52|11.37||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||11.37|-29.52|0.3646
95896665|NCT02272413|191748283|EQUIVALENCE|Additional analysis of the primary endpoint was performed for Japan according to a local protocol amendment Japan. For the submission in Japan, to conclude on equivalence, the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of best ORR between the treatments had to be entirely contained within the equivalence margins of 0.736 to 1.359.|Ratio of best ORR|0.855|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7543|0.97|||Log-binomial regression|||Analysis was based on a log-binomial regression model with subsequent transformation of the estimated parameter (ratio of best ORR) respective CIs to the ratio scale. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus Non-East Asian).||0.9700|0.7543|
95896666|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.37|||Score exact method|||At least 1 AE selected for comparability assessment, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.37|0.99|
95896667|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.88|||Score exact method|||Infusion reactions, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.88|0.88|
95896668|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.32|||Score exact method|||Thromboembolic events, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.32|0.64|
95896669|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.76|||Score exact method|||Febrile neutropenia, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||2.76|0.51|
95896670|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|32.82|||Score exact method|||Gastrointestinal perforations, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||32.82|0.79|
95896671|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.39|||Score exact method|||Hypertension, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.39|0.66|
95896672|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Score exact method|||Proteinuria, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.57|0.74|
95896673|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.79|||Score exact method|||Pulmonary haemorrhage, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||10.79|0.28|
95896674|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.74|||Score exact method|||Other hemorrhages, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||1.74|0.88|
95896675|NCT02272413|191748284|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.57|||Score excat method|||Wound healing complications/ abscesses/ fistulas, risk ratio X (BI 695502) versus Y (US-licensed Avastin®) was defined as (a/(a+b))/(c/(c+d)), where 'a' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group X, 'a+b' was the total number of patients in treatment group X, 'c' was the number of patients with TEAEs selected for comparability within treatment group Y and 'c+d' was the total number of patients in treatment group Y.||3.57|0.47|
95896676|NCT02272413|191748285|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.45|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.45|1.02|
95896677|NCT02272413|191748286|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.51|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.51|1.00|
95896678|NCT02272413|191748287|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.48|||Cox-proportional hazards regression|||Analysis based on a Cox-proportional hazards regression model. The model included the following explanatory variables: treatment, sex (male versus female), smoking status (never smoked versus current/ex-smoker), NSCLC stage (recurrent versus Stage IV) and ethnicity (East Asian origin versus non East Asian).||1.48|0.88|
95896679|NCT01479621|191748296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed followed by pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo.||||0.0001
95975587|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|2.5||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||2.50|-23.52|0.1106
95975588|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.74||0.2623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.11|10.2||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||10.20|-35.11|0.2623
95896680|NCT01479621|191748296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.149||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.233||The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest Fp MDPI dose (100 mcg twice daily) indicated significantly greater time averaged FEV1 mean than placebo.|mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the second analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.233|0.066|0.0005
95896681|NCT01479621|191748296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.126||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.208|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the third analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.208|0.044|0.0027
95896682|NCT01479621|191748296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.111||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.194|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fourth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.194|0.028|0.0086
95896683|NCT01479621|191748296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.052||||0.2227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.136|||mixed model for repeated measures|||This is the fifth analysis in the fixed-sequence testing procedure employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level.||0.136|-0.032|0.2227
95896684|NCT01479621|191748297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0017
95896685|NCT01479621|191748297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.29||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.28|31.29||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||31.29|5.28|0.0060
95896686|NCT01479621|191748297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|20.32||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|33.03||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||33.03|7.61|0.0018
95896687|NCT01479621|191748297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.75||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|24.64||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||24.64|-1.15|0.0741
95896688|NCT01479621|191748297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|21.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.73|34.72||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||34.72|8.73|0.0011
95896689|NCT01479621|191748298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0434||||||Significance at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast evaluated the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo).||||0.0434
95896690|NCT01479621|191748298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|11.06||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|23.66||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||23.66|-1.54|0.0852
95896691|NCT01479621|191748298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|12.78||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|25.04||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||25.04|0.52|0.0411
95896692|NCT01479621|191748298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.28||||0.1428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|21.69||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||21.69|-3.14|0.1428
95896693|NCT01479621|191748298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|18.23||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.64|30.82||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||30.82|5.64|0.0046
95896694|NCT01479621|191748299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|2.76||||0.66685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|15.6|||GEE|The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||15.60|-10.07|0.66685
95975589|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.21||0.2095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.27|9.03||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||9.03|-38.27|0.2095
95975590|NCT03816891|191925489|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|10.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||10.13|-42.30|0.2127
95975591|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|20.56||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||20.56|0.43|0.2474
95975592|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.49||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|24.27||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||24.27|0.83|0.0687
95975593|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.89||||0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|34.48||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||34.48|1.38|0.0145
95975594|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.89||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.89|1.24|0.0235
95975595|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|13.26||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||13.26|1.09|0.0334
95975596|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.32||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||11.32|0.95|0.0618
95975597|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.1748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.15||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||8.15|0.70|0.1748
95975598|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||9.44|0.81|0.1093
95975599|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||9.44|0.81|0.1093
95975600|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.8||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||6.80|0.60|0.2610
95975601|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.71||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||5.71|0.59|0.2867
95975602|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|6.01||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.01|0.59|0.2874
95975603|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|10.05||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||10.05|0.94|0.0527
95975604|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|8.73||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||8.73|0.82|0.0936
95975605|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|10.21||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||10.21|0.84|0.0830
95975606|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.33||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||5.33|0.53|0.3786
95975607|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.99||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||3.99|0.12|0.6949
95975608|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|10.66||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||10.66|0.31|0.5288
95975609|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|23.37||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||23.37|0.43|0.2613
95975610|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.81||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||14.81|0.34|0.4208
95975611|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.7884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.76||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||8.76|0.20|0.7884
95975612|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|16.04||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||16.04|0.45|0.2982
95975613|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18||||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|23.37||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||23.37|0.43|0.2613
95896695|NCT01479621|191748299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|6.76||||0.26741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.94||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||18.94|-5.43|0.26741
95896696|NCT01479621|191748299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||estimated mean difference from placebo|10.45||||0.09964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|23.15||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||23.15|-2.24|0.09964
95896697|NCT01479621|191748299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|12.78||||0.03825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|25.11||The model contained covariates for sex, age, and treatment. The baseline level was estimated for all subjects combined, adjusted for covariates.|GEE|||The generalized estimating equation (GEE) algorithm was used to fit the model, using a robust estimator for the variance which provided a proper adjustment for possible correlation between the 2 measurements on each subject. This model was used to obtain 2-sided 95% confidence limits for the difference in treatment effects of Fp MDPI versus placebo.||25.11|0.44|0.03825
95896698|NCT01479621|191748300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2841||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.2841
95896699|NCT01479621|191748300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||<0.0001
95975614|NCT03816891|191925490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.4208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|14.81||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||14.81|0.34|0.4208
95975615|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.65||0.5172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.42|18.6||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||18.60|-36.42|0.5172
95975616|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.77||0.1228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.02|6.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||6.53|-53.02|0.1228
95975617|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.99||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.95|26.84||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||26.84|-81.95|0.3129
95975618|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.36||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.11|5.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||5.72|-44.11|0.1277
95975619|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.36||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.76|-0.92||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.92|-50.76|0.0424
95975620|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.06||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.08|11.85||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||11.85|-77.08|0.1465
95896700|NCT01479621|191748300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0008
95896701|NCT01479621|191748300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Significance at 0.05|Log Rank|||Comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0010
95896702|NCT01479621|191748306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.114||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|-0.033||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.033|-0.195|0.0058
95896703|NCT01479621|191748306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.034||||0.4083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.114||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.114|-0.046|0.4083
95975621|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.68||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.71|-2.59||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-2.59|-53.71|0.0316
95975622|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.59||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.63|-4.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-4.95|-47.63|0.0169
95896704|NCT01479621|191748306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.011||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.089||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.089|-0.068|0.7882
95896705|NCT01479621|191748306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.002||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.078||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.078|-0.082|0.9586
95896706|NCT01479621|191748306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.062||||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.018||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.018|-0.143|0.1306
95896707|NCT01479621|191748307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-17.66||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.43|-4.89||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-4.89|-30.43|0.0068
95896708|NCT01479621|191748307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.69||||0.9135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|13.23||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||13.23|-11.84|0.9135
95896709|NCT01479621|191748307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.67||||0.6689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.58|14.92||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||14.92|-9.58|0.6689
95896710|NCT01479621|191748307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.69||||0.3691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.12|6.74||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.74|-18.12|0.3691
95896711|NCT01479621|191748307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.24||||0.5072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.31|16.78||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||16.78|-8.31|0.5072
95896712|NCT01479621|191748308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-15.26||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.63|-2.88||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||-2.88|-27.63|0.0158
95896713|NCT01479621|191748308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.48||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.69|7.721||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||7.721|-16.69|0.4709
95896714|NCT01479621|191748308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-2.68||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.55|9.19||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||9.19|-14.55|0.6572
95896715|NCT01479621|191748308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.98||||0.3292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|6.05||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||6.05|-18.01|0.3292
95896716|NCT01479621|191748308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|3.05||||0.6237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|15.26||Significance at 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||||15.26|-9.16|0.6237
95896717|NCT02872116|191748312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.59|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.59|<0.0001
95896718|NCT02872116|191748313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|98.0|0.56|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.56|<0.0001
95896719|NCT01874262|191748335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95896720|NCT04180020|191748364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95975623|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.1||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|26.59||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||26.59|-40.80|0.6641
95975624|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.26||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.94|-4.53||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-4.53|-49.94|0.0199
95975625|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.96||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.67|30.51||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||30.51|-44.67|0.6980
95975626|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.7||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|7.13||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.13|-36.05|0.1838
95975627|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.99||0.2078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.5|14.98||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||14.98|-64.50|0.2078
95975628|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.95||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|22.41||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||22.41|-52.72|0.4090
95975629|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.54||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.92|32.23||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||32.23|-57.92|0.5580
95975630|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.43||0.0486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.3|-0.16||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.16|-50.30|0.0486
95975631|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.73||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.06|20.78||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||20.78|-54.06|0.3613
95975632|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.93||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.24|36.08||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||36.08|-52.24|0.7042
95975633|NCT03816891|191925492|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.27||0.3602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.17|31.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||31.89|-83.17|0.3602
95975634|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.97||0.5896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.83|10.26||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||10.26|-17.83|0.5896
95975635|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.75||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|13.93||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||13.93|-17.29|0.8292
95975636|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.23||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.39|10.8||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||10.80|-22.39|0.4852
95975637|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.42||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||10.42|-27.24|0.3731
95975638|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.44|12.48||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||12.48|-28.44|0.4360
95975639|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.54||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.36|15.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||15.15|-27.36|0.5655
95975640|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.77||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.93|16.49||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||16.49|-26.93|0.6302
95975641|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.23|15.67||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||15.67|-28.23|0.5671
95975642|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.86||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.93|29.83||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||29.83|-22.93|0.935
95975643|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.08||0.9982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|20.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||20.34|-20.30|0.9982
95896721|NCT02442778|191748455|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment,visit,treatment-by-visit,baseline,baseline-by-visit,baseline Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation/Aggression(NPI AA)(≤6 vs. \>6),falls risk assessment,baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications,cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.5|-2.7|0.789
95896722|NCT02442778|191748455|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.0|-5.0|0.200
95896723|NCT02442778|191748456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.484
95896724|NCT02442778|191748456|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.704
95896725|NCT02442778|191748457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.9|0.416
95896726|NCT02442778|191748457|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.3|0.066
95896727|NCT02442778|191748458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.249
95896728|NCT02442778|191748458|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.5|0.199
95896729|NCT02442778|191748459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.7|-0.7|0.975
95896730|NCT02442778|191748459|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-1.0|0.334
95896731|NCT02442778|191748460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.2|-2.4|0.934
95896732|NCT02442778|191748460|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||3.4|-1.2|0.342
95896733|NCT02442778|191748461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.6|-0.7|0.888
95896734|NCT02442778|191748461|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.1|-1.3|0.019
95896735|NCT02442778|191748462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||4.0|-2.9|0.756
95975644|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.42||0.8102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.48|23.51||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||23.51|-18.48|0.8102
95975645|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|19.97||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||19.97|-21.70|0.9334
95975646|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.73||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|14.29||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||14.29|-24.92|0.5873
95975647|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.82||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.61|10.96||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||10.96|-28.61|0.3737
95975648|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78||0.3631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|10.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||10.72|-28.70|0.3631
95975649|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.06||0.5585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|14.34||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.34|-26.20|0.5585
95975650|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.65||0.8889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.58|34.58||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||34.58|-39.58|0.8889
95975651|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.15||0.7099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.67|29.7||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||29.70|-42.67|0.7099
95975652|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.2||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|30.19||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||30.19|-42.40|0.7270
95975653|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.45||0.8366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.47|33.16||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||33.16|-40.47|0.8366
95975654|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.17||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.99|33.69||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||33.69|-42.99|0.8013
95975655|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.23||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.56|29.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||29.15|-43.56|0.6810
95975656|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.69||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|33.58||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||33.58|-41.08|0.8347
95975657|NCT03816891|191925494|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.42||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.18|35.33||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||35.33|-38.18|0.9358
95975658|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.08||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|17.35||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week. Program:|ANCOVA|||Week 1||17.35|-15.20|0.8948
95975659|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.55||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.58|13.86||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||13.86|-16.58|0.8581
95975660|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.02||0.2797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|7.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||7.38|-24.93|0.2797
95975661|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|11.64||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||11.64|-26.67|0.4333
95975662|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.44|8.95||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||8.95|-30.44|0.2774
95975663|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.77||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|7.82||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||7.82|-31.55|0.2308
95975664|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.99||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.34|5.91||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||5.91|-34.34|0.1617
95975665|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.16||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|7.89||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||7.89|-33.05|0.2220
95896736|NCT02442778|191748462|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||-0.2|-7.0|0.038
95975666|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.15||0.6195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.54|15.38||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||15.38|-25.54|0.6195
95975667|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.96||0.4984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.86|13.27||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||13.27|-26.86|0.4984
95975668|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.8147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.75|17.99||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||17.99|-22.75|0.8147
95975669|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.94||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.01|16.07||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||16.07|-24.01|0.6917
95975670|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|17.43||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||17.43|-24.24|0.7437
95975671|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.34||0.7663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.26|19.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||19.47|-26.26|0.7663
95975672|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.71||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.61|14.75||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||14.75|-28.61|0.5157
95896737|NCT02442778|191748463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.468
95896738|NCT02442778|191748463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.158
95896739|NCT02442778|191748464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.4|-0.2|0.400
95896740|NCT02442778|191748464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.2|-0.3|0.566
95896741|NCT02442778|191748465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.3|-0.2|0.751
95896742|NCT02442778|191748465|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.1|-0.3|0.320
95896743|NCT02442778|191748466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.4|-1.8|0.782
95896744|NCT02442778|191748466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.0||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.0|-2.1|0.991
95896745|NCT02442778|191748467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.2||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.2|0.0|0.038
95896746|NCT02442778|191748467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||0.5|-0.6|0.911
95896747|NCT02442778|191748469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||2.6|-0.6|0.236
95896748|NCT02442778|191748469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. \> 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts.|MMRM|||||1.9|-1.3|0.684
95896749|NCT01165138|191748475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.222|||ANCOVA|||||0.222|0.051|0.002
95896750|NCT01165138|191748475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.172|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|||||0.258|0.087|<0.001
95896751|NCT01165138|191748475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.036||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.12|||ANCOVA|||||0.120|-0.048|0.405
95896752|NCT01165138|191748476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.186||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.310|0.062|0.003
95896753|NCT01165138|191748476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.302|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.426|||ANCOVA|||||0.426|0.178|<0.001
95896754|NCT01165138|191748476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.236|||ANCOVA|||||0.236|-0.005|0.060
95896755|NCT02120794|191748493|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority test with an A1C margin of 0.4% and a significance level of 0.025 (one-sided).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.125|0.395||||||||0.395|0.125|
95896756|NCT01644175|191748497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.5|-39.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-39.3|-52.5|<0.0001
95896757|NCT01644175|191748498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.2|-43.6||Threshold for significance was ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-43.6|-56.2|<0.0001
95896758|NCT01644175|191748499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-41.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.3|-53.6|<0.0001
95896759|NCT01644175|191748500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-43.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.3|-55.3|<0.0001
95975673|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.41||0.5115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|14.09||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||14.09|-27.86|0.5115
95896760|NCT01644175|191748501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-30.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.3|-41.3|<0.0001
95896761|NCT01644175|191748502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|-32.0||Threshold for significance ≤0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.0|-43.0|<0.0001
95896762|NCT01644175|191748503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.5|-31.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.4|-43.5|<0.0001
95896763|NCT01644175|191748504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|-34.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.4|-46.4|<0.0001
95896764|NCT01644175|191748505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-29.3|<0.0001
95896765|NCT01644175|191748506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|-32.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.7|-43.7|<0.0001
95896766|NCT01644175|191748507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-33.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-33.9|-46.2|<0.0001
95896767|NCT01644175|191748508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-21.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-31.1|<0.0001
95896768|NCT01644175|191748509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-43.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|-34.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-34.3|-51.6|<0.0001
95896769|NCT01644175|191748510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|89.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||89.8|16.5|<0.0001
95896770|NCT01644175|191748511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|50.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|121.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||121.0|20.6|<0.0001
95975674|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.3||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.68|39.0||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||39.00|-33.68|0.8795
95896771|NCT01644175|191748512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-7.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-7.9|-21.3|<0.0001
95896772|NCT01644175|191748513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|11.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||11.0|3.6|0.0001
95896773|NCT01644175|191748514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.8699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||7.0|-8.3|0.8699
95896774|NCT01495585|191748545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||0.03
95896775|NCT01495585|191748545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Student t-test was used on the change in serum log HDV RNA after 28 days of therapy with lonafarnib.||||<0.0001
95896776|NCT01495585|191748546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95896777|NCT01495585|191748546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
95896778|NCT00181961|191748556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.016
95896779|NCT01399593|191748625|SUPERIORITY||Proportion difference|-3.9||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|16.3|||Fisher Exact|||||16.3|-23.9|0.76
95896780|NCT02223767|191748680|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
95896781|NCT02223767|191748681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
95896782|NCT02347527|191748687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.038
95975675|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.73|34.48||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||34.48|-37.73|0.9254
95896783|NCT02347527|191748687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
95896784|NCT02347527|191748688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.010
95896785|NCT02347527|191748689|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.040
95896786|NCT02347527|191748689|OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Pearson's correlation|||Relationship between change in high-calorie food ratings and subsequent food intake (kcals).||||0.92
95896787|NCT01956110|191748729|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing pregnancy rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.1||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.1|-5.9|
95896788|NCT01956110|191748730|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above the pre-specified non-inferiority limit of -8.0%. Thus, non-inferiority of FE 999049 to GONAL-F with regard to ongoing implantation rate was demonstrated.|Treatment difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.8||||||The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was -8.0% (absolute). Non-inferiority was evaluated based on a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.8|-6.1|
95896789|NCT01956110|191748731|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||3.4|-6.7|
95896790|NCT01956110|191748732|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI was well above -8.0% (pre-specified non-inferiority limit for the co-primary endpoints). Thus, the result was supportive of the co-primary endpoint analyses.|Treatment difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.2||||||Treatment groups were compared using a two-sided 95% CI derived based on the asymptotic normal distribution. The treatment comparison was adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37 and 38-40 years) by using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across age-strata.||4.2|-7.0|
95896791|NCT01956110|191748733|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.001||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=15 oocytes retrieved||||=0.001
95896792|NCT01956110|191748733|OTHER|A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor. A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.|||||=|0.002||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: \<4 or \>=20 oocytes retrieved||||=0.002
95896793|NCT01956110|191748734|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.291||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade)||||=0.291
95896794|NCT01956110|191748734|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.644||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe)||||=0.644
95896795|NCT01956110|191748734|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.005||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Preventive interventions||||=0.005
95896796|NCT01956110|191748734|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.046||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.046
95896797|NCT01956110|191748734|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions||||=0.019
95896798|NCT01956110|191748735|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35- 37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||=|0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.57||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison: Cycle cancelled due to poor response||2.57|0.74|=0.302
95896799|NCT01956110|191748735|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a logistic regression model with treatment and age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years) as factors.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||P-value corresponds to test for treatment difference.|Likelihood ratio test|||Treatment comparison:Triggering with GnRH agonist||0.9|0.2|0.019
95896800|NCT01956110|191748736|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.692|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of oocytes retrieved||||=0.692
95896801|NCT01956110|191748737|OTHER|"A logistic regression model was fitted to the data including AMH, log(AMH)\^2, treatment group and interactions between treatment group and AMH and treatment group and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor.~A second logistic regression model (nested within the first model) was fitted including AMH and log(AMH)\^2 in the linear predictor."|||||=|0.019||||||Inclusion of treatment provides a better fit to the data|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||The relation between ovarian response potential (AMH at screening) and probability of achieving the targeted response was modelled using logistic regression models.||||=0.019
95896802|NCT01956110|191748738|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.909|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of metaphase II oocytes||||=0.909
95896803|NCT01956110|191748739|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).||||||0.53|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Fertilisation rate||||0.53
95896804|NCT01956110|191748740|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.59|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of embryos||||=0.59
95896805|NCT01956110|191748740|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.414|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good quality embryos||||=0.414
95896806|NCT01956110|191748741|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.344|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of blastocysts||||= 0.344
95896807|NCT01956110|191748741|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.58|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Good-quality blastocysts||||= 0.58
95896808|NCT01956110|191748742|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||<|0.001|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Total gonadotropin dose||||<0.001
95896809|NCT01956110|191748743|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using the van Elteren test adjusted for age (\<35, 35-37, and 38-40 years).|||||=|0.062|||||||van Elteren|||Treatment comparison: Number of stimulation days||||=0.062
95896810|NCT01956110|191748744|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using a chi-square test.|||||=|0.178|||||||Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison: Investigator-requested gonadotropin dose adjustments||||=0.178
95896811|NCT01956110|191748750|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.32||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (any grade)||||0.320
95896812|NCT01956110|191748750|OTHER|Nested logistic regression models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The full logistic regression model included treatment as factor, log(AMH) as covariate and the interaction term. The nested model did not include treatment and the interaction term.||||||0.39||||||Inclusion of treatment does not provide a better fit to the data.|Likelihood ratio test|Likelihood ratio test comparing the reduced model including only AMH to the full model including AMH, treatment group and interactions.||Treatment comparison: Late OHSS (moderate/severe)||||0.390
95896813|NCT00654381|191748784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.7|-1.04|<0.0001
95896814|NCT00654381|191748784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-0.71|-1.05|<0.0001
95896815|NCT00654381|191748785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.15|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||||-0.15|-0.49|0.0003
95896816|NCT00654381|191748785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline HbA1c, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
95896817|NCT00654381|191748789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-14.0|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.0|-25.4|<0.0001
95896818|NCT00654381|191748789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-14.7|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs placebo at week 12||-14.7|-26.2|<0.0001
95896819|NCT00654381|191748790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 5 mg vs Voglibose at week 26||-0.9|-13.0|0.0239
95896820|NCT00654381|191748790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment,baseline FPG, and number of previous antidiabetic medication||Linagliptin 10 mg vs voglibose at week 26||-3.8|-15.8|0.0015
95896821|NCT00994448|191748826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|34.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||t test for mean of days retained in the bupropion versus placebo groups||34.3|1.8|0.08
95896822|NCT02704364|191748836|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.4||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||28.0|-68.0|0.434
95896823|NCT02704364|191748836|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.0||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|71.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||71.0|-41.0|0.646
95896824|NCT01205165|191748895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||P-value is calculated from Wilcoxon signed rank test to compare difference between baseline and week12|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Baseline and Week 12||||0.00000
95896825|NCT04652479|191748983|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0028
95896826|NCT04652479|191748983|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0005
95896827|NCT04652479|191748984|OTHER|||||||0.0027||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0027
95896828|NCT04652479|191748984|OTHER|||||||0.0043||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0043
95896829|NCT04652479|191748985|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
95896830|NCT04652479|191748985|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|Mixed effects model|||Within-group analysis||||0.0003
95896831|NCT04652479|191748986|OTHER|||||||0.161||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.161
95896832|NCT04652479|191748986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.66||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.201
95896833|NCT04652479|191748986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-67.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
95896834|NCT04652479|191748987|OTHER|||||||0.145||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Between-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.145
95896835|NCT04652479|191748987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.88||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.111
95896836|NCT04652479|191748987|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided||Change in percentage|Within-group analysis of change from baseline||||0.001
95896837|NCT00811577|191748991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.57
95896838|NCT00811577|191748991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.56
95896839|NCT00811577|191748991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.61
95896840|NCT00811577|191748991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using serial gate-keeping to preserve the 5% overall type I error of 1-4 two-sided tests, 2-sided Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. Computer graphics were used to display outcomes at Month 12, compare paired differences of outcomes between the 2 dosages and placebo, and show time trends in mean outcomes. Repeated measures regression models (GEE models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD) were used to examine longitudinal outcomes with terms for treatment and trocar location adjusted for key covariates.||||0.80
95896841|NCT00811577|191748992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.47
95896842|NCT00811577|191748992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.080
95896843|NCT00811577|191748992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.96
95896844|NCT00811577|191748992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Using a 100 mm VAS scale, each photograph was assessed by two raters, who, in an end-of-study session, were presented with photographs in their longitudinal sequence, but blinded as to dosage group. These data were used for an inter-rater concordance analysis and also to compare the placebo, 3 and 10 mg dosages.||||0.22
95896845|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.87
95896846|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.15
95896847|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.77
95896848|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.75
95896849|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.050
95896850|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.83
95896851|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.37
95896852|NCT00811577|191748993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.43
95896853|NCT00811577|191748994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.16
95896854|NCT00811577|191748994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.14
95896855|NCT00811577|191748994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.69
95896856|NCT00811577|191748994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.89
95896857|NCT00811577|191748994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.30
95896858|NCT00811577|191748994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Statistical analysis included line plots of paired differences vs. time, univariate p-values from Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and repeated measures regression models in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD.||||0.46
95896859|NCT00811577|191748995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.086
95896860|NCT00811577|191748995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.66
95896861|NCT00811577|191748995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.069
95896862|NCT00811577|191748995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.68
95896863|NCT00811577|191748995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.095
95896864|NCT00811577|191748995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||For this early phase study, multiple comparisons adjustments were not used.|Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||Agreement between the two rater evaluations was assessed by tabulating the difference of the two ratings. Statistical methods for paired data were used to compare the two dosages of AZX100 to placebo.||||0.62
95896865|NCT00811577|191748996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.44
95896866|NCT00811577|191748996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (signed rank)|||A regression analysis was run to compare alpha-SMA between 3 mg and 10 mg AZX100 and placebo, adjusted for the subject's gender and age. GEE regression in SAS/STAT PROC GENMOD was used because it properly handled the correlations among the three observations for each subject.||||0.41
95896867|NCT02641379|191749003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1002|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.1002
95896868|NCT02641379|191749003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype I, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0184
95896869|NCT02641379|191749003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \< 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||0.0910
95896870|NCT02641379|191749003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||For Genotype IV, Week 4 response \>= 600 U/ml: Comparison of Group A versus Group B was carried out using the Chi-Square test.||||1.0000
95896871|NCT02641379|191749004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021||||||The SVR rate i.e., 32.1% participants with genotype I who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 20.3 to 46.0 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype I.||||0.0021
95896872|NCT02641379|191749004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3031||||||The SVR rate i.e., 20.0% participants with genotype IV who achieved SVR with 95 % confidence interval of 0.5 to 71.6 in groups A1+B1 was compared with SVR rate in group E using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method .|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of Groups A1+B1 versus group E stratified by genotype IV||||0.3031
95896873|NCT01455012|191749019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-160.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.23|-107.45||The analysis of this primary efficacy variable was performed using a two-sided alpha level of 5 %.|ANCOVA||The treatment effect was estimated on the basis of the Least Square Mean (LSM) of the difference as well as on the 95 % Confidence Interval and the p-value for that difference. Difference to Placebo was calculated as Rotigotine-Placebo.|The 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) and the p-value for the mean difference between Rotigotine and Placebo was obtained from a linear Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment and Baseline antihypertensive use and a covariate for the Baseline number of nocturnal elevations of Systolic Blood Pressure that are associated with Periodic Limb Movements (PLMs).||-107.45|-213.23|<0.0001
95896874|NCT01667978|191749074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95896875|NCT00603746|191749252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.001||95.0|0.18|0.37|||ANCOVA|||||0.370|0.180|<0.001
95896876|NCT00603746|191749252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.272|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.178|0.367|||ANCOVA|||||0.367|0.178|<0.001
95896877|NCT00603746|191749252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.264|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.171|0.357|||ANCOVA|||||0.357|0.171|<0.001
95896878|NCT00603746|191749252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.320|0.131|<0.001
95896879|NCT00603746|191749252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.291|||ANCOVA|||||0.291|0.105|<0.001
95896880|NCT00692770|191749296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||=|0.258329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.134||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.134|0.78|=0.258329
95896881|NCT00692770|191749297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.891|||=|0.121383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081||One sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|=0.121383
95896882|NCT00692770|191749298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.995|||=|0.484742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|1.3||One-sided P-value was stratified by region, risk of recurrence and previous curative treatment.|Log Rank|||||1.3|0.761|=0.484742
95896883|NCT00692770|191749299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.052|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D index score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||0.052|0.025|<0.0001
95896884|NCT00692770|191749300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.978|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.797|4.159|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted Area Under Curve (AUC) between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the EQ-5D VAS score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||4.159|1.797|<0.0001
95896885|NCT00692770|191749301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|6.7|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-HEP score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||6.7|3.5|<0.0001
95896886|NCT00692770|191749302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used to estimate the mean difference in the timeadjusted AUC between the two treatment groups, with covariates for baseline scores and stratification factors. To test the treatment effect, a mixed linear model (random coefficient model) was used for the FACT-G score. Statistical tests were performed with a 2 sided type I error of 5%.||3.6|1.4|<0.0001
95896887|NCT00692770|191749303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.562|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|1.965|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||1.965|1.241|
95896888|NCT00692770|191749304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|2.17|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.170|1.407|
95896889|NCT00692770|191749305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.206|2.018|||||Significance of the biomarker main effect (RFS) and its corresponding hazard ratio estimate (HR) with 95% CI were reported. HR was expressed as high/low biomarker levels.|||2.018|1.206|
95896890|NCT05627518|191749389|OTHER||Ratio|1.9954|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8399|2.1641|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|The Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.1641|1.8399|<0.0001
95896891|NCT05627518|191749389|OTHER||Ratio|2.125|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9664|2.2963|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|AUClast: Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.2963|1.9664|<0.0001
95896892|NCT05627518|191749390|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|2.3167|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0922|2.5652|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treatment A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||2.5652|2.0922|<0.0001
95896893|NCT05627518|191749391|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.757|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7009|0.8177|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8177|0.7009|<0.0001
95896894|NCT05627518|191749391|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.7684|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7102|0.8313|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.8313|0.7102|<0.0001
95896895|NCT05627518|191749392|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2548|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1999|0.3247|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3247|0.1999|<0.0001
95896896|NCT05627518|191749393|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
95896897|NCT05627518|191749393|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.5277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9076|4.2799|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||4.2799|2.9076|<0.0001
95896898|NCT05627518|191749394|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|3.0245|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5098|3.6446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment B (1x100 mg test formulation) divided by treament A (4x25 mg reference formulation)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fasted (treatment B) vs. reference formulation fasted ( treatment A). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||3.6446|2.5098|<0.0001
95896899|NCT05627518|191749395|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4131|0.5867|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUCinf comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5867|0.4131|<0.0001
95896900|NCT05627518|191749395|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.4923|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4047|0.5989|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean AUClast comparing treatment C (fed) versus treatment B (fasted). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.5989|0.4047|<0.0001
95854106|NCT00728689|191667741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-τ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0048
95975676|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.34||0.7718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|31.47||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||31.47|-41.68|0.7718
95975677|NCT03816891|191925496|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.38||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|36.98||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||36.98|-36.34|0.9855
95975678|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.21||0.7508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29|32.54||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||32.54|-44.29|0.7508
95975679|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.26||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.26|32.55||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||32.55|-40.26|0.8260
95975680|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|31.96||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||31.96|-44.95|0.7259
95975681|NCT03816891|191925496|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.66||0.6826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|29.92||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||29.92|-44.61|0.6826
95975682|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.43||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.96|-10.97||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-10.97|-44.96|0.0018
95975683|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.83|-4.77||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-4.77|-37.83|0.0127
95975684|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.1547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.54|4.84||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||4.84|-29.54|0.1547
95975685|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|7.01||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||7.01|-31.78|0.2048
95975686|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.58||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|27.58||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||27.58|-29.28|0.9508
95975687|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.74||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.07|13.19||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||13.19|-22.07|0.6140
95975688|NCT03816891|191925498|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.12||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.94|27.66||from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||27.66|-44.94|0.6207
95975689|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.89|-2.71||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-2.71|-16.89|0.0079
95975690|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.69|-3.06||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.06|-23.69|0.0122
95975691|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.02||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-1.02|-22.80|0.0328
95975692|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|-2.15||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.15|-25.36|0.0212
95975693|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.95|8.72||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||8.72|-25.95|0.3112
95975694|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-3.61||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-3.61|-26.75|0.0113
95975695|NCT03816891|191925500|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.11||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.2|13.68||Calculated from ANCOVA models including treatment as fixed effect, sex, atopy and baseline value as covariates by week.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||13.68|-29.20|0.4540
95896901|NCT05627518|191749396|OTHER|Ratio|Ratio|0.2522|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.3211|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment C (1x100 mg test formulation fed) divided by treament B (100 mg test formulation fasted)|Ratio of geometric mean Cmax comparing test formulation fed (treatment C) vs. reference formulation fasted (treatment B). This is a relative comparison, thus there is no unit. The ratio is given under the Estimated value.||0.3211|0.1980|<0.0001
95896902|NCT00749775|191749412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896903|NCT00749775|191749412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896904|NCT00749775|191749412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896905|NCT00749775|191749412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean systolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896906|NCT00749775|191749413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 4 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896907|NCT00749775|191749413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 8 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95975696|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|9.64||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||9.64|0.16|0.8436
95975697|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.4922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|13.75||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||13.75|0.29|0.4922
95975698|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|36.91||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||36.91|1.61|0.0064
95975699|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|20.91||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||20.91|1.26|0.0201
95975700|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|10.55||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||10.55|0.82|0.0841
95896908|NCT00749775|191749413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at 12 weeks does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896909|NCT00749775|191749413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|A one-sided paired t-test was performed to test the hypothesis.||The null hypothesis is that the mean diastolic blood pressure at last evaluation date does not differ from that at baseline.||||<0.001
95896910|NCT01096784|191749438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0642||95.0|||||CMH Row Mean Score Test|||||||0.0642
95896911|NCT03761628|191749452|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|40.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|23.3|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% CI for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||23.3|
95896912|NCT03761628|191749453|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Proportion with reduction|72.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|89.3||||||||89.3|49.8|
95896913|NCT03761628|191749455|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|52.7||||||||52.7|0.3|
95896914|NCT03761628|191749455|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.9||||||||45.9|0|
95896915|NCT05459129|191749467|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pCR Rates|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.23|99.9||||||||99.90|-33.23|
95896916|NCT05459129|191749468|SUPERIORITY||Difference in pRR|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|87.72||||||||87.72|-21.05|
95896917|NCT05459129|191749469|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|3.91|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of median EFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||3.91|0.11|
95896918|NCT05459129|191749470|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.43|||||HR was estimated by Cox regression. Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made in terms of media RFS per arm or HR between the arms.|||6.43|0.13|
95896919|NCT05459129|191749472|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.99|88.32||||||||88.32|-54.99|
95975701|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.14||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|15.22||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||15.22|1.12|0.0292
95975702|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|15.0||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||15.00|0.51|0.2259
95975703|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|20.95||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||20.95|1.41|0.0104
95896920|NCT05459129|191749473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|64.75|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|3 Months Analysis||64.75|-31.42|
95896921|NCT05459129|191749473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.34|53.34|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made.|6 Months Analysis||53.34|-53.34|
95975704|NCT03816891|191925504|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|214.44||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||214.44|0.89|0.0434
95975705|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0093||||||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||||0.0093
95975706|NCT03816891|191925504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|189.25||Calculated from CMH test with sex and atopy as stratification factors and placebo as reference within corresponding cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||189.25|1.10|0.0290
95975707|NCT03816891|191925505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|948.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||948.31|5.35|<0.0001
95896922|NCT05459129|191749474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.83|38.16|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|3 Months Analysis||38.16|-64.83|
95896923|NCT05459129|191749474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.49|63.82|||||Due to the early termination of the study, the limited sample size and follow-up time no meaningful conclusions can be made|6 Months Analysis||63.82|-50.49|
95896924|NCT01103934|191749645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95975708|NCT03816891|191925505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|83.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||83.47|1.62|0.0019
95975709|NCT03816891|191925505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.84||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|68.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||68.26|1.14|0.0117
95896925|NCT01103934|191749646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95975710|NCT03816891|191925506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|22.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.14|3.34|<0.0001
95896926|NCT00559962|191749649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07|||ANOVA|||One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between AEGR-755 5 mg and placebo.||7.07|2.30|<0.001
95896927|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|7.57||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||7.57|2.27|<0.001
95975711|NCT03816891|191925506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|19.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.79|2.91|<0.0001
95975712|NCT03816891|191925506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.75|0.80|0.1252
95975713|NCT03816891|191925507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|17.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.47|1.83|0.0017
95896928|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|7.07||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||7.07|2.30|<0.001
95896929|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|6.1||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||6.10|1.73|<0.001
95896930|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.31|11.33||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||||11.33|4.31|<0.001
95896931|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|5.72||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||5.72|1.58|<0.001
95896932|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|11.11||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||11.11|4.22|<0.001
95896933|NCT00559962|191749650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|9.86||(All comparisons)|ANOVA|||One-way ANOVA to compare the absolute change from baseline to Week 12 in percent hepatic fat between active treatment groups and placebo||9.86|5.16|<0.001
95975714|NCT03816891|191925507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.99|1.19|0.0196
95975715|NCT03816891|191925507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.40|0.6213
95975716|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.7|-1.8|<0.0001
95975717|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.1|-1.2|0.0287
95975718|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||0.1|-1.0|0.1123
95975719|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
95975720|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.4|-2.0|0.0044
95975721|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.4|-2.0|0.0046
95975722|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-1.8|-3.6|<0.0001
95975723|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.6|-2.3|0.0011
95975724|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-0.2|-1.9|0.0171
95896934|NCT02346136|191749667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37||Tested as two-tailed p\<0.025 to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.62
95896935|NCT02346136|191749668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.535||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.57|0.182|0.194
95896936|NCT02346136|191749669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.24|-2.53|.50
95896937|NCT02346136|191749670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait NW velocity variable||.05|-.04|.85
95896938|NCT02346136|191749670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Gait DT velocity variable||.06|-.02|.26
95896939|NCT02346136|191749671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.04|0.84
95896940|NCT02346136|191749672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.22|-0.61|.26
95896941|NCT02346136|191749673|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.3|-13.9|.92
95896942|NCT02346136|191749674|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.28||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.9|-17.2|.88
95896943|NCT02346136|191749675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical component score||3.71|-2.00|.55
95896944|NCT02346136|191749675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental component score||2.21|-4.41|.51
95896945|NCT02346136|191749676|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.41|-1.60|.69
95896946|NCT02346136|191749677|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|7.26||to accommodate two co-primary outcomes|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.26|-2.98|0.41
95896947|NCT02346136|191749679|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.476||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Poisson reg with fixed effects of age, baseline SPPB, baseline CES-D, and falls in prev year and random intercept and trt by site pair|Numerator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Tai Chi. Denominator of risk ratio is the rate among participants at sites receiving Health Education.|||1.05|0.216|0.060
95896948|NCT02346136|191749680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.94|-0.40|0.13
95896949|NCT05619692|191749701|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|3.73||The p-value was obtained using MMRM model which included treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and WAIS-IV at baseline as continuous covariates.|MRMM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.73|-0.64|0.1642
95896950|NCT00915798|191749744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.56||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.46
95896951|NCT00915798|191749744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|6.64||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Diagnosis by smoking status interaction.|Parietal BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers||||0.012
95896952|NCT00915798|191749744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|211.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Main effect for smoking status.|Occipital BOLD during abstinence in smokers and nonsmokers.||||0.04
95896953|NCT00915798|191749744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|1.6||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Frontal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.22
95896954|NCT00915798|191749744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.43||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Parietal BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.51
95896955|NCT00915798|191749744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||F|0.16||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05||Occipital BOLD smoking versus nonsmoking in smokers with ADHD compared to control smokers.||||0.69
95896956|NCT00384813|191749747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||regression coefficient|0.33||||0.23||||||For both baseline to 4 month analyses (see above p value) and baseline to 10 month analyses, the variable of intervention group did not contribute significant additional variance.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
95896957|NCT00087633|191749752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.4|-20.8|0.725
95854107|NCT00728689|191667742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, AUC0-∞ was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0997
95854108|NCT00728689|191667743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. Firstly, a parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms. Secondly, Cmax was analyzed on a log scale, to assess bioequivalence between Form I and Form V.||||0.0422
95854109|NCT00728689|191667744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8581|||||||ANOVA|||A sample size of 12 subjects was chosen to provide a statistical power of 80% to detect a 25% difference of the Form V mean between the Form I and Form V doses at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for this crossover design. A parametric (normal theory) general linear model was applied and an ANOVA for a 2-way crossover design was employed to examine the differences among the 2 forms.||||0.8581
95854110|NCT01523366|191667745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-167.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-197.0|-137.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel|||-137.4|-197.0|<.001
95854111|NCT01523366|191667746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-135.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.3|-98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||-98.0|-172.3|<.001
95854112|NCT01523366|191667746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-168.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.0|-133.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose||-133.7|-204.0|<.001
95854113|NCT01523366|191667747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-150.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.9|-124.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus Clopidogrel|Analysis at 2 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-124.1|-176.9|<.001
95854114|NCT01523366|191667747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-140.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-168.4|-111.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours on Day 7 after multiple doses||-111.9|-168.4|<.001
95854115|NCT01523366|191667747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-130.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.0|-103.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model contained treatment group, period, and sequence as fixed effects, and a random effect for participant within sequence|Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of dosing interval on Day 8||-103.2|-158.0|<.001
95854116|NCT05179785|191667842|OTHER|||||||0.2938909|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.29389090
95854117|NCT05179785|191667842|OTHER|||||||0.97863544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.97863544
95854118|NCT05179785|191667842|OTHER|||||||0.60236264|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.60236264
95854119|NCT05179785|191667842|OTHER|||||||0.35845126|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35845126
95854120|NCT05179785|191667842|OTHER|||||||0.91766025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.91766025
95854121|NCT05179785|191667842|OTHER|||||||0.09605169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delayed discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delayed discounting task"||||0.09605169
95854122|NCT05179785|191667843|OTHER|||||||0.50030946|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.50030946
95975725|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.1|-4.0|<0.0001
95975726|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.8|-2.6|0.0002
95975727|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.2|-1.6|0.1146
95975728|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
95975729|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-1.2|-3.0|<0.0001
95854123|NCT05179785|191667843|OTHER|||||||0.3751738|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.37517380
95975730|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-0.3|-2.1|0.0087
95975731|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-2.4|-4.3|<0.0001
95975732|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-1.4|-3.3|<0.0001
95854124|NCT05179785|191667843|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
95975733|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.6|-2.5|0.0013
95975734|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-2.4|-4.4|<0.0001
95975735|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-1.6|-3.6|<0.0001
95975736|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-0.4|-2.4|0.0048
95854125|NCT05179785|191667843|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
95896958|NCT03316885|191749772|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
95896959|NCT03316885|191749773|OTHER|The performance target in support of the primary effectiveness was percentage of eyes achieving objective monocular BCDVA at 1 year postoperative (Visit 5A) compared to the a priori SPE percentage of 92.5%. This is for the All Implanted Analysis Set (AAS) (as reported in EN ISO 11979-7:2014).|Comparison|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||100.0||||||||100.0||
95896960|NCT00409292|191749811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||binomial hypothesis test|||||||0.10
95896961|NCT02350309|191749817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.0262|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-2.12|0.0262
95896962|NCT02350309|191749817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|||The mixed model included treatment, period and sequence as fixed effects, baseline (predose) measurement as a covariate, and participant nested within treatment sequence as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis||||||-4.46|<0.0001
95975737|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.4|-4.5|<0.0001
95975738|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.6|-3.6|<0.0001
95854126|NCT05179785|191667843|OTHER|||||||0.47876971|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.47876971
95896963|NCT02350309|191749818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0215||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||0.0215
95896964|NCT02350309|191749818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
95896965|NCT02350309|191749818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated based on non-missing two-way contingency table between placebo and study treatment.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
95896966|NCT00207142|191749828|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Efficacy at Week 48 on the Switch Arm was considered to be non-inferior to the Continuation Arm if the lower limit of the 95% Confidence Interval was greater than -15%.|Difference in proportions|2.9||||||95.0|-9.8|15.5|||Normal approximation|||The planned sample size of 178 randomized subjects (89 on each regimen) provides at least 80% power to demonstrate that the response rate on ATV is within a 15% margin of the response rate on ATV/RTV assuming: a 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rate between treatment regimens (switch-continuation); a response rate of 85% in both the Continuation and Switch regimens; a margin of -15% for the difference in response rates between treatment regimens.||15.5|-9.8|
95896967|NCT00207142|191749829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|5.0||||||95.0|-6.0|16.1|||Normal Approximation|||||16.1|-6.0|
95854127|NCT05179785|191667843|OTHER|||||||0.21798816|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21798816
95854128|NCT05179785|191667844|OTHER|||||||0.75298499|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75298499
95854129|NCT05179785|191667844|OTHER|||||||0.16043787|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.16043787
95854130|NCT05179785|191667844|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
95854131|NCT05179785|191667844|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
95854132|NCT05179785|191667844|OTHER|||||||0.67902693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.67902693
95854133|NCT05179785|191667844|OTHER|||||||0.33832977|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.33832977
95854134|NCT05179785|191667845|OTHER|||||||0.73357221|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.73357221
95854135|NCT05179785|191667845|OTHER|||||||0.43954526|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.43954526
95854136|NCT05179785|191667845|OTHER|||||||0.4419898|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.44198980
95975739|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.3|-2.3|0.0124
95975740|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-2.5|-4.5|<0.0001
95854137|NCT05179785|191667845|OTHER|||||||0.39565784|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.39565784
95896968|NCT00207142|191749830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||||95.0|0.5|1.88|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen.||1.88|0.50|
95896969|NCT00207142|191749831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||||95.0|0.37|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Covariate in the model: treatment regimen||1.90|0.37|
95854138|NCT05179785|191667845|OTHER|||||||0.35602382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.35602382
95896970|NCT00207142|191749832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in means at Week 48|7.0||||||95.0|-38.0|53.0|||Normal approximation|||||53|-38|
95896971|NCT01554618|191749845|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HbA1c value (continuous) and baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.19|-1.51|0.012
95975741|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-1.7|-3.8|<0.0001
95975742|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-0.6|-2.7|0.0021
95975743|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-2.4|-4.6|<0.0001
95854139|NCT05179785|191667845|OTHER|||||||0.30499144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.30499144
95854140|NCT05179785|191667846|OTHER|||||||0.81601415|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.81601415
95896972|NCT01554618|191749848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.7||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting plasma glucose value, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting plasma glucose by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.7|-49.0|0.119
95975744|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-1.9|-4.0|<0.0001
95975745|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-0.9|-3.0|0.0005
95854141|NCT05179785|191667846|OTHER|||||||0.20563452|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20563452
95854142|NCT05179785|191667846|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
95854143|NCT05179785|191667846|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
95854144|NCT05179785|191667846|OTHER|||||||0.21947623|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.21947623
95854145|NCT05179785|191667846|OTHER|||||||0.45535329|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.45535329
95854146|NCT05179785|191667847|OTHER|||||||0.83462055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.83462055
95854147|NCT05179785|191667847|OTHER|||||||0.21582586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.21582586
95854148|NCT05179785|191667847|OTHER|||||||0.59574875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.59574875
95854149|NCT05179785|191667847|OTHER|||||||0.75948776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.75948776
95854150|NCT05179785|191667847|OTHER|||||||0.7238414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.72384140
95854151|NCT05179785|191667847|OTHER|||||||0.00477281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre).~One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task"||||0.00477281
95854152|NCT05179785|191667848|OTHER|||||||0.20047055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.20047055
95854153|NCT05179785|191667848|OTHER|||||||0.77922802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.77922802
95854154|NCT05179785|191667848|OTHER|||||||0.29196708|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.29196708
95854155|NCT05179785|191667848|OTHER|||||||0.05605962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.05605962
95854156|NCT05179785|191667848|OTHER|||||||0.57368284|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.57368284
95854157|NCT05179785|191667848|OTHER|||||||0.56397238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.56397238
95854158|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.86107891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.86107891
95975746|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-2.4|-4.6|<0.0001
95975747|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-1.8|-4.1|<0.0001
95975748|NCT03816891|191925508|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-0.5|-2.7|0.0044
95975749|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-2.4|-4.7|<0.0001
95975750|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.6|-3.8|<0.0001
95975751|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.2|-2.4|0.0231
95854159|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.62228799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62228799
95975752|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
95975753|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-1.7|-4.0|<0.0001
95975754|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-0.4|-2.7|0.0074
95975755|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.5|-4.8|<0.0001
95975756|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-2.1|-4.3|<0.0001
95975757|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-0.7|-3.0|0.0013
95975758|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-2.6|-4.8|<0.0001
95854160|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
95854161|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
95854162|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.79477883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.79477883
95854163|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.12634435|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (dorsal anterior cingulate cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.12634435
95975759|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-2.1|-4.3|<0.0001
95896973|NCT01554618|191749849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.189||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, and treatment group by visit interaction, baseline body weight, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline body weight by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-3.59|0.307
95896974|NCT01554618|191749850|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|94.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|95.26||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.6|285.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline fasting insulin, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline fasting insulin by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix.||285.5|-95.6|0.323
95975760|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-0.8|-3.0|0.0010
95975761|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.5|-4.8|<0.0001
95896975|NCT01554618|191749851|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
95975762|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.0|-4.2|<0.0001
95975763|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.5|-2.8|0.0040
95896976|NCT01554618|191749851|SUPERIORITY||Difference|14.8||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c ≤ 6.5%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||27.7|1.9|0.077
95896977|NCT01554618|191749851|SUPERIORITY||Difference|22.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|39.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Exenatide versus Placebo. Difference was the risk difference of the 2 proportions.|"Treatment difference in HbA1c \< 7.0%:~Treatment group comparison was based on CMH test stratified by screening HbA1c (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%). P-value was from the general association statistic."||39.0|6.5|0.020
95896978|NCT01554618|191749853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in SBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline SBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline SBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||2.4|-8.0|0.284
95896979|NCT01554618|191749853|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in DBP:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline DBP, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline DBP by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||5.1|-2.0|0.376
95896980|NCT01554618|191749855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|90.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|69.207||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.27|238.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-B:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-B, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-B by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||238.00|-57.27|0.211
95896981|NCT01554618|191749855|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|6.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Exenatide versus Placebo|"Treatment difference in HOMA-S:~Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in the change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using a MMRM including treatment group, region, visit, treatment group by visit interaction, baseline HOMA-S, screening HbA1c (\< 9.0% or ≥ 9.0%), and baseline HOMA-S by visit interaction as fixed effects, using an unstructured covariance matrix."||6.29|-19.80|0.289
95896982|NCT00405548|191749868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95896983|NCT00405548|191749869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95975764|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-1.9|-4.2|<0.0001
95896984|NCT00405548|191749870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95896985|NCT00405548|191749871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the BNP group.||||0.004
95975765|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-1.6|-3.9|<0.0001
95896986|NCT00405548|191749871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A p-value of less 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.||Mean LV filling pressure was compared from baseline to 12 weeks within the Placebo group.||||0.43
95896987|NCT00962104|191749876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|-3.91||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline CAARS-Inv:SV 18-Item Total ADHD Symptom score .|ANCOVA|||||-3.91|-7.66|<0.001
95896988|NCT00962104|191749877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|7.56||First gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline AAQoL total score.||||7.56|1.97|<0.001
95896989|NCT00962104|191749878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.56||Second gated secondary outcome measure. A gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 QoL measures. Treatments were compared stepwise until an outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|ANCOVA|Least Squares Mean difference between 2 treatment groups from Type III sum of squares analysis of covariance model:Change=treatment+country+baseline.||||1.56|-5.20|0.289
95896990|NCT00962104|191749879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|-4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.22|-8.13|<0.001
95896991|NCT00962104|191749880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|-4.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.14|-8.21|<0.001
95896992|NCT00962104|191749881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-1.45||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.73|0.001
95975766|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-0.4|-2.7|0.0087
95896993|NCT00962104|191749881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|-3.31||This is the p-value for the Raw MI score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-3.31|-9.28|<0.001
95896994|NCT00962104|191749881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.75|-4.78||This is the p-value for the Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-4.78|-14.75|<0.001
95896995|NCT00962104|191749882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.93||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|0.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Behavioral Regulation Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-4.18|0.092
95896996|NCT00962104|191749882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.62||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|1.28||This is the p-value for the Raw MI Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.28|-4.52|0.272
95975767|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.4|-3.8|<0.0001
95975768|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.0|-3.4|0.0003
95975769|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.1|-2.4|0.359
95975770|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-0.9|-3.3|0.0005
95975771|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-0.6|-3.1|0.0027
95975772|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||0.1|-2.3|0.0657
95975773|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.7|-3.1|0.0021
95975774|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.3|-2.7|0.0172
95975775|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.3|-2.1|0.1344
95975776|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
95975777|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-0.2|-2.6|0.0260
95975778|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||0.4|-1.9|0.2150
95975779|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-0.2|-2.6|0.0271
95975780|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||0.0|-2.5|0.0502
95896997|NCT00962104|191749882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.55||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.32||This is the p-value for the Raw Global Executive Composite Index score. Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-8.43|0.153
95975781|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||0.7|-1.7|0.4138
95896998|NCT00962104|191749883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.001
95896999|NCT00962104|191749884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with term for treatment and country.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95897000|NCT00962104|191749885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.6||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.71|0.869
95897001|NCT00962104|191749886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5||Statistical significance was assessed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment, country, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.50|-0.59|0.870
95897002|NCT03274986|191749887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.131||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.131|-0.197|<0.001
95897003|NCT03274986|191749888|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 0.1 logMAR.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.073||The hypothesis test was based on a two-sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.05, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF). The 1-sided 95% Upper Confidence Limit is presented.|||0.073||
95897004|NCT03274986|191749889|OTHER||Difference in depth of focus|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis testing was not pre-specified.|||Difference in depth of focus (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||||
95897005|NCT03274986|191749893|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.115||2-sided p-value reported. A hypothesis test was based on a two sample t-test, with a type I error rate of 0.025, 1-sided.|t-test, 2 sided||Least squares mean difference (DFT015 - SN60WF)|||-0.115|-0.197|<0.001
95897006|NCT03274986|191749894|OTHER||Difference in percentage|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.65|27.37|||||95% CI for the difference (DFT015 - SN60WF) is estimated using Miettinen-Nurminen method (1985).|||27.37|9.65|
95897007|NCT01434290|191749899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.19
95897008|NCT01434290|191749899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||One sample z-test|one-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.35 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.08
95897009|NCT01434290|191749900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.18
95897010|NCT01434290|191749900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤40% was considered acceptable, ≥60% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used. For a given arm, if the null hypothesis of p ≤ 0.40 is rejected, then conclude that the regimen given on that arm is unacceptable. However if it not rejected for both bowel \& urinary domains, then that regimen will be considered acceptable for further use in a Phase III study.||||0.38
95897011|NCT01434290|191749905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
95897012|NCT01434290|191749905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[Bowel one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.03
95897013|NCT01434290|191749905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.09
95897014|NCT01434290|191749905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-side significance level of 0.017||\[Urinary one-year results\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the normality of the data.||||0.43
95897015|NCT01434290|191749906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||One-sample z-test|One-sided 0.025 significance level||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.39
95897016|NCT01434290|191749906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||One sample z-test|One-side significance level of 0.025||≤35% was considered acceptable, ≥55% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.21
95897017|NCT01434290|191749907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||one sampe z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.44
95897018|NCT01434290|191749907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||One sample z-test|One-sided significance level of 0.025||≤38% was considered acceptable, ≥58% unacceptable. Each arm analyzed separately. Average score and standard error of each arm calculated and one-sample z-test for proportion with significance level of 0.025 was used.||||0.53
95897019|NCT01434290|191749908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.16
95897020|NCT01434290|191749908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year Index Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.03
95897021|NCT01434290|191749908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.83
95897022|NCT01434290|191749908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level of 0.017.||\[One-year VAS Score\] Originally the t-test was planned to test if the change in each arm is different from 0. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney was used instead due to the non-normality of the data. Each arm analyzed separately.||||0.86
95897023|NCT02281552|191749911|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD to IR 5 mg BID was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of differences between the treatment groups (MR 11 mg QD - IR 5 mg BID) at Week 12 was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.6.|Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69||||||Analysis was conducted using a linear mixed effect model with repeated measures (MMRM), which included treatment (tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID), visit, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||0.69|0.17|
95897024|NCT01524627|191749934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0004
95897025|NCT01524627|191749934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95897026|NCT00615056|191749954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.273||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.108||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.108|0.769|0.8268
95897027|NCT00615056|191749954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.041||||0.5498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|1.041||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.041|0.553|0.5498
95897028|NCT00615056|191749955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.238||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||2.238|0.820|0.8828
95897029|NCT00615056|191749955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.689||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.273||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified for ECOG performance status (0 versus 1) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes versus no).||1.273|0.373|0.1159
95897030|NCT00615056|191749956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|17.7|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||17.7|-15.8|0.4552
95897031|NCT00615056|191749956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|18.0|||Chi-squared|||One-sided Pearson chi square test at alpha = 0.15 significance level was used.||18.0|-19.1|0.5235
95897032|NCT00717769|191749961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.519
95897033|NCT00717769|191749961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.032
95897034|NCT00717769|191749961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.008
95897035|NCT00717769|191749961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.006
95897036|NCT00717769|191749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.533|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 8||||0.533
95897037|NCT00717769|191749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 15||||0.009
95897038|NCT00717769|191749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 22||||0.002
95897039|NCT00717769|191749963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Day 29||||0.003
95897040|NCT02196324|191749988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0111
95897041|NCT02196324|191749989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|=|0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.8|= 0.0248
95897042|NCT02196324|191749990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|0.0005
95897043|NCT02196324|191749996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0||||||Week 2||-0.0|-1.4|
95897044|NCT02196324|191749996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1||||||Week 4||-0.1|-1.7|
95897045|NCT02196324|191749996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.2||p-value assume equal variance|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||-0.2|-2.0|0.0175
95897046|NCT02196324|191749997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Week 2||1.6|-3.1|
95897047|NCT02196324|191749997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||||||Week 4||2.3|-2.7|
95897048|NCT02196324|191749997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.1||||||Week 8||2.1|-3.6|
95897049|NCT02196324|191749998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||||||Week 2||0.1|-0.4|
95897050|NCT02196324|191749998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||||||Week 4||0.2|-0.4|
95897051|NCT02196324|191749998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 8||0.1|-0.6|
95897052|NCT02196324|191749999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.72||p-value assume equal variance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.72|-0.02|0.0625
95897053|NCT00023673|191750038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Lung V20||||0.62
95897054|NCT00023673|191750038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Lung V20||||0.22
95897055|NCT00023673|191750039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Lung toxicity (\<Grade 3 vs. \>= Grade 3): Mean Lung Dose||||0.30
95897056|NCT00023673|191750039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Lung Dose||||0.17
95897057|NCT00023673|191750039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|2-sided significance level = 0.05||Esophagitis toxicity (\<Grade 2 vs. \>= Grade 2): Mean Esophageal Dose||||0.08
95897058|NCT00773175|191750090|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.5||||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.2|86.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.2|-221.2|0.5064
95897059|NCT00773175|191750090|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.0||||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|102.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||102.7|-54.6|0.0325
95897060|NCT00773175|191750091|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-174.7||||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-340.3|-9.1||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||-9.1|-340.3|0.8915
95975782|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.1|-2.4|0.0738
95975783|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.3|-2.2|0.1247
95975784|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||0.8|-1.7|0.4572
95975785|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.1|-2.4|0.0617
95975786|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.1|-2.4|0.677
95975787|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-1.7|0.4688
95975788|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.2|-2.2|0.1093
95897061|NCT00773175|191750091|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.6||||0.5469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.5|20.3||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||20.3|-137.5|0.5469
95897062|NCT00773175|191750093|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.0||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.6|86.7||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department plus hospital stay|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||86.7|-220.6|0.5035
95897063|NCT00773175|191750093|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|103.2||P-value for the test of the null hypothesis that the volume delivered via a hylenex-facilitated subcutaneous infusion was ≤85% of the volume delivered intravenously.|ANOVA|Emergency department stay only|Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous|||103.2|-54.0|0.0314
95897064|NCT00773175|191750097|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
95897065|NCT00773175|191750097|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
95897066|NCT00773175|191750098|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.5|9.4|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||9.4|-69.5|
95897067|NCT00773175|191750098|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.3|-3.1|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||-3.1|-77.3|
95897068|NCT00773175|191750100|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.5|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||5.5|0.3|
95897069|NCT00773175|191750100|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.7|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||4.7|-0.2|
95897070|NCT00773175|191750101|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.9|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department plus hospital stay|||1.9|-2.8|
95897071|NCT00773175|191750101|NON_INFERIORITY|Subcutaneous administration would not be deemed as inferior if the volume infused subcutaneous is ≥85% of the volume infused intravenously.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8|||||Treatment difference: subcutaneous minus intravenous; Emergency department stay only|||0.8|-3.4|
95897072|NCT00773175|191750112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3|||||Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||0.3|0.1|
95897073|NCT00773175|191750113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANOVA|From Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model with center and treatment as factors.|Treatment difference = SC minus IV.|||0.0|-0.9|0.0658
95897074|NCT00773175|191750114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.9|||ANOVA|From ANOVA model with center and treatment as factors|Treatment difference = SC minus IV|||2.9|-4.8|0.6208
95897075|NCT00773175|191750116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0685||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.0685
95897076|NCT00773175|191750116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||0.0004
95897077|NCT00773175|191750116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6861||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 3||||||0.6861
95897078|NCT00773175|191750116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2323||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.2323
95897079|NCT00773175|191750117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Effectiveness||||||0.0033
95897080|NCT00773175|191750117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Degree of difficulty||||||< 0.0001
95897081|NCT00773175|191750118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2012||||||CMH test controlling for Center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 1||||||0.2012
95897082|NCT00773175|191750118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 2||||||< 0.0001
95897083|NCT00773175|191750118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 4||||||0.1302
95897084|NCT00773175|191750118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 5||||||0.0852
95897085|NCT00773175|191750118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0275||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Question 6||||||0.0275
95897086|NCT00773175|191750124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0247
95897087|NCT00773175|191750125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007||||||CMH test controlling for center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0007
95897088|NCT02822508|191750170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.034
95897089|NCT03064126|191750171|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.166||||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0553||||Chi-squared||||||0.0553|0.0017
95897090|NCT03064126|191750172|NON_INFERIORITY|A Chi-Square Test was used to assess the hypothesis for the difference in 12-month MAE-free rate with non-inferiority margin (-10%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.106|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.0248||||Chi-squared||||||0.0248|<0.0001
95897091|NCT04649151|191750200|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on geometric least squares means \[GLSM\]) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.237|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||1.237|0.940|
95897092|NCT04649151|191750201|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%. and a point estimator \>-5% (minimum threshold)|percentage difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.9|||||SRR difference of P203 vs P301|||1.9|-2.1|
95897093|NCT04649151|191750202|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of the 95% CI of noninferiority margin of 1.5. GMR point estimate \>=0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|5.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.477|5.745|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.745|4.477|
95897094|NCT04649151|191750203|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin of 10%. Lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference \>-10%.|SRR Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4|||||SRR difference of P203 BD-Day 29 vs P301 Day 57|||2.4|-0.8|
95897095|NCT04649151|191750204|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of GMC (based on GLSM\] was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>1|GMR|48.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.765|53.065|||||GMR of P203 vs P301|||53.065|43.765|
95897096|NCT04649151|191750207|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of Geometric Mean value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold).|GMR|4.493|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.972|5.083|||||GMR of GMC at BD-Day 29 P203 vs GMC at Day 57 P301|||5.083|3.972|
95897097|NCT04649151|191750210|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|60.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|78.6|||VE|Vaccine efficacy (VE, percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||78.6|26.6|
95897098|NCT04649151|191750211|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|72.2|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||72.2|-16.5|
95897099|NCT04649151|191750212|OTHER||VE|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2||NA = not estimable (not reached).||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.||||61.2|
95897100|NCT04649151|191750213|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|VE|89.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|98.9|||VE|VE (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).||||98.9|51.0|
95897101|NCT03400332|191750251|OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.94||||0.7416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.45|||Log Rank|||||1.45|0.61|0.7416
95897102|NCT00048542|191750257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||The study was sized to detect a difference in the proportion of subjects (40%) between placebo and the active adalimumab dose group who would experience disease flare assuming a placebo rate of 70% vs. a rate of 30% in the active group. Assuming a binomial distribution, an alpha of 0.05, 80% power, two-sided test, and an initial monotherapy responder rate of 70%, a minimum of 29 subjects were needed per treatment group within the appropriate strata.||||0.031
95897103|NCT00048542|191750259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||Chi-square test|||||||0.015
95897104|NCT00048542|191750260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
95897105|NCT00048542|191750261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.031
95897106|NCT00048542|191750262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.061
95975789|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.1196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.3|-2.2|0.1196
95975790|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||0.9|-1.5|0.5763
95975791|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-2.4|0.0661
95897107|NCT00048542|191750262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
95897108|NCT00048542|191750263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.103
95897109|NCT00048542|191750263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.028
95897110|NCT00048542|191750264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.156
95897111|NCT00048542|191750264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Pearson's Chi-square test|||||||0.002
95897112|NCT02775344|191750291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.198
95897113|NCT02775344|191750292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.393
95897114|NCT03909165|191750300|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.21||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf Geometric Mean (GM) / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.21|0.56|
95897115|NCT03909165|191750300|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.98||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.98|1.00|
95897116|NCT03909165|191750300|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|1.11||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.11|0.60|
95897117|NCT03909165|191750300|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.56||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-inf GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.56|0.96|
95897118|NCT03909165|191750300|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.62||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-inf GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM.||1.62|1.03|
95897119|NCT03909165|191750300|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.13||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-inf GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-inf GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-inf GM.||1.13|0.70|
95897120|NCT03909165|191750301|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.23||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.23|0.67|
95854164|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.62461968|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.62461968
95897121|NCT03909165|191750301|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.69||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.69|0.92|
95897122|NCT03909165|191750301|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.08||||||2 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.08|0.64|
95897123|NCT03909165|191750301|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.06||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = Birth to 27 days AUC0-1hr GM / 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.06|0.70|
95897124|NCT03909165|191750301|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.29||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months AUC0-1hr GM / 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM.||1.29|0.89|
95897125|NCT03909165|191750301|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.17||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months AUC0-1hr GM / 6 months to \< 2 years AUC0-1hr GM.||1.17|0.80|
95897126|NCT03909165|191750303|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.4||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.40|0.61|
95897127|NCT03909165|191750303|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.7||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||1.70|0.70|
95897128|NCT03909165|191750303|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.36||||||2 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.36|0.63|
95897129|NCT03909165|191750303|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.26||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = Birth to 27 days Cmax GM / 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM.||1.26|0.70|
95897130|NCT03909165|191750303|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.89||||||4 mg/kg Cmax GMR = 28 days to \< 3 months Cmax GM / 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM.||0.89|0.52|
95897131|NCT03909165|191750303|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.43||||||4 mg/kg AUC0-1hr GMR = 3 to \< 6 months Cmax GM / 6 months to \< 2 years Cmax GM.||1.43|0.83|
95897132|NCT03909165|191750308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.18||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age groups.|Log Rank|||The Hazard Ratio (HR) for the pairwise comparison of Sugammadex 2 mg/kg vs. Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with covariates of treatment, age (continuous) and stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent.||4.18|1.37|= 0.0002
95897133|NCT03909165|191750309|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|29.5||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 2 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||29.5|-14.2|
95897134|NCT03909165|191750309|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|26.7||||||The difference in percentage of participants with an AE in sugammadex 4 mg/kg group versus the Neostigmine + (Glycopyrrolate or Atropine) group was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent and age group.||26.7|-13.5|
95897135|NCT02402452|191750336|OTHER||Geometric Least-Square Mean(GLSM)Ratio %|172.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.93|305.33||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUClast. A 90% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio of AUClast for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||305.33|97.93|
95897136|NCT02402452|191750337|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|171.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.65|300.38||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir AUCinf. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of AUCinf for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||300.38|97.65|
95897137|NCT02402452|191750338|OTHER||GLSM Ratio (%)|145.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.77|252.48||||||An ANOVA appropriate for parallel design was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of voxilaprevir Cmax. A 90% CI was constructed for the GLSM ratio of Cmax for the comparison groups using two 1-sided tests.||252.48|83.77|
95897138|NCT03746522|191750342|OTHER|||||||0.0006||||||P-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0006
95897139|NCT03746522|191750343|OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025|Rubin's Rule|||||||0.0005
95897140|NCT03746522|191750344|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha=0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
95897141|NCT03746522|191750345|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was one-sided and compared with alpha = 0.025.|Rubin's Rule|||||||<0.0001
95897142|NCT02659020|191750363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.945||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|1.397||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.397|0.639|0.775
95897143|NCT02659020|191750373|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.667||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.385|1.158||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.158|0.385|0.148
95897144|NCT02659020|191750374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.007||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.007|0.476|0.055
95897145|NCT02659020|191750374|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.398||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank|||||1.398|0.490|0.482
95854165|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.51324793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.51324793
95854166|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
95854167|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
95854168|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.60543603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.60543603
95854169|NCT05179785|191667849|OTHER|||||||0.75565448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre) (posterior parietal cortex). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.75565448
95854170|NCT05179785|191667850|OTHER|||||||0.09266386|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.09266386
95854171|NCT05179785|191667850|OTHER|||||||0.53980185|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.53980185
95854172|NCT05179785|191667850|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
95854173|NCT05179785|191667850|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
95854174|NCT05179785|191667850|OTHER|||||||0.30223686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining delayed choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.30223686
95897146|NCT02659020|191750375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.589||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|3.179||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||3.179|0.794|0.1891
95897147|NCT02659020|191750375|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.668||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|7.71||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||7.710|0.923|0.0642
95897148|NCT02659020|191750376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.106||||0.7724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|2.194||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.194|0.558|0.7724
95897149|NCT02659020|191750376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.513|2.911||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Exact Mantel-Haenszel test||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||2.911|0.513|0.6508
95897150|NCT02659020|191750377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.661||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.041||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.041|0.419|0.073
95897151|NCT02659020|191750377|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.395|1.253||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|||1.253|0.395|0.225
95897152|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.834|1.764||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.764|0.834|0.332
95975792|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-2.4|0.0622
95975793|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.8|-1.6|0.4677
95897153|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.813||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|1.287||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||1.287|0.514|0.389
95897154|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.598||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.926||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||0.926|0.386|0.020
95897155|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.442||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.442|0.622|0.821
95897156|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.509||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||1.509|0.574|0.812
95897157|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|2.055||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||2.055|0.893|0.162
95975794|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.1|-2.2|0.0854
95897158|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.881||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.413||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||1.413|0.550|0.619
95897159|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.134||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.724||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||1.724|0.746|0.597
95897160|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.381||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||1.381|0.425|0.380
95975795|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.1|-2.3|0.0768
95975796|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||0.5|-1.9|0.2560
95975797|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||-0.1|-2.5|0.0337
95975798|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.1|-2.3|0.0778
95975799|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||0.6|-1.8|0.3218
95975800|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.0|-2.3|0.0549
95897161|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.723||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Fatigue||1.723|0.635|0.877
95897162|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.102||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|2.139||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Nausea and vomiting||2.139|0.568|0.791
95897163|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.443||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Pain||1.443|0.454|0.487
95897164|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.85||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Dyspnoea||1.850|0.556|0.976
95897165|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.694||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.25||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Insomnia||3.250|0.882|0.111
95897166|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.979||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Appetite loss||1.979|0.620|0.760
95975801|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.0|-2.4|0.0543
95975802|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.6|-1.7|0.3759
95897167|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|2.135||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Constipation||2.135|0.586|0.747
95897168|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.367||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.576||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Diarrhoea||2.576|0.726|0.330
95975803|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-0.1|-2.5|0.0286
95975804|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||0.0|-2.4|0.0477
95975805|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||0.5|-1.8|0.2699
95975806|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||-0.1|-2.5|0.0294
95897169|NCT02659020|191750378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.373||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|2.965||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Log Rank||Stratified by number of prior systemic therapies for locally advanced or metastatic disease (0 vs ≥1), histological tumor type (leiomyosarcoma vs non-leiomyosarcoma), and ECOG PS (0 vs1).|Financial difficulties||2.965|0.636|0.411
95975807|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.1|-2.3|0.0702
95975808|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.6|-1.7|0.3636
95975809|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-0.1|-2.5|0.0273
95975810|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.1|-2.2|0.0785
95854175|NCT05179785|191667850|OTHER|||||||0.39166649|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test examining immediate choices on the delay discounting task (post versus pre). One participant was excluded from the EEG data analysis due to lack of immediate choices on the delay discounting task||||0.39166649
95854176|NCT05179785|191667851|OTHER|||||||0.0265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0265
95854177|NCT05179785|191667851|OTHER|||||||0.1053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.1053
95854178|NCT05179785|191667851|OTHER|||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test (post versus pre)||||0.0033
95854179|NCT04852302|191667852|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.81||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|0.86||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean difference between the paired observations is zero.||0.86|-4.47|0.168
95854180|NCT04852302|191667853|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported depression was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.59||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|1.69||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||1.69|-2.29|0.752
95854181|NCT04852302|191667854|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 3-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.26||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|4.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||4.34|-13.67|0.285
95854182|NCT04852302|191667854|EQUIVALENCE|We evaluated the same group to determine whether their reported anxiety via the Death and Dying Distress Scale was the same, worse, or better at 6-months compared to baseline.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.22||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.74|7.34||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons as this was exploratory.|paired sample t-Test, 2-sided|||||7.34|-11.74|0.628
95854183|NCT02105740|191667881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.178||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|5.11|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for both arms with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis first compared the difference of means between hypnosis and control groups during three weeks.||5.110|0.224|0.034
95854184|NCT02105740|191667881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.856||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.253|6.08|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the second week in the hypnosis group.||6.080|1.253|0.004
95854185|NCT02105740|191667881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.827||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.918|7.582|||ANOVA|||The clinical significance was considered with a difference of 3 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a statistical power of 95%, significance level of 5%. Statistical analysis compared the difference in pain average between the first and the third week in the hypnosis group.||7.582|2.918|0.000
95854186|NCT02105740|191667882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of anxiety at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
95854187|NCT02105740|191667882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Statistical analysis evaluated if the difference of averages of depression at the hypnosis and control groups in the third week.||||
95854188|NCT00551642|191667884|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.734|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Chi-square|||||||0.7340
95854189|NCT00979940|191667890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
95854190|NCT03155724|191667905|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial, one-sided|||The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the binomial proportion of 'improved' patients to 3.0% with power of 80% and type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0224. A pre-planned interim analysis at 45 patients required a type 1 error (alpha) of 0.0026 to demonstrate significance.||||<0.0001
95975811|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.7|-1.6|0.4111
95975812|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.0|-2.4|0.0471
95975813|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.2|-2.2|0.0891
95975814|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||0.7|-1.6|0.4820
95975815|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||-0.2|-2.6|0.0222
95897170|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Settings 1 and 2.|Slope|-0.0099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01572||0.5291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04075|0.02095||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 1 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.02095|-0.04075|0.5291
95897171|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 3.|Slope|0.1329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0174|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0988|0.1671||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 3 is significantly different from the slope for Setting 2|||0.1671|0.09880|<0.001
95897172|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was a difference between Setting 2 and Setting 4.|Slope|0.2016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.2371||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction.|Mixed Models Analysis||Setting 2 was considered as the reference and the estimate reflects whether the slope for Setting 4 is significantly different from the slope for Setting|||0.2371|0.1660|<.0001
95897173|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
95897174|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after controlling for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level)||||0.242
95897175|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
95897176|NCT04521166|191750381|OTHER|A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).|Slope|0.002||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model was used to assess whether there was an effect of working memory on the primary outcome measure (speech intelligibility) after accounting for age and degree of hearing loss (decibel hearing level).||||0.242
95897177|NCT02703636|191750394|OTHER|The MMRM model contained visit as a fixed effect, baseline MMSE score as a covariate and patient as a random effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided||change at week 24|||0.16|-0.87|0.1750
95897178|NCT01494610|191750411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.366|1.665|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.665|1.366|
95897179|NCT01494610|191750411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.369|1.864|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is a comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.864|1.369|
95897180|NCT01494610|191750411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.421|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.584|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.584|1.274|
95897181|NCT01494610|191750412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|0.971|||||Data reflect Asthma + COPD participants. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.971|0.886|
95897182|NCT01494610|191750412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.939|||||Data reflect participants with asthma only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||0.939|0.848|
95897183|NCT01494610|191750412|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Estimates of within-par. coefficient of variation for AUC(0-tau) of FP and weighted mean (0-12 h) serum cortisol from previous studies showed that a sample size of 52 par. would have approximately 90% power to demonstrate biocomparability with respect to the two co-primary endpoints. The study was powered on the analysis of asthma and COPD par. as a combined group. A two one-sided t-test procedure with α=0.05 for each one-sided test was used. Biocomparability limits of 0.8 and 1.25 were used.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.889|1.049|||||Data reflect participants with COPD only. The ratio of adjusted geometric means is the comparision of treatment administered by the capsule-based inhaler and the MDPI.|||1.049|0.889|
95897184|NCT02161718|191750440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.53|0.746
95897185|NCT02161718|191750441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.37|||Andersen-Gill Recurrent-Event Cox Model|||||1.37|0.43|0.372
95897186|NCT02161718|191750442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.56|0.963
95897187|NCT01857063|191750443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-0.01||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|||||0.10|-0.11|0.913
95897188|NCT01857063|191750445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.16||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline Weighted TNSS as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.16|-0.17|0.953
95897189|NCT01857063|191750446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal congestion score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.07|-0.07|0.974
95897190|NCT01857063|191750447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline nasal discharge score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.182
95897191|NCT01857063|191750448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA) model with baseline sneezing score as a covariate, sequence, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.|LDA|||||0.05|-0.01|0.161
95897192|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|61.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.1|71.2|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||71.2|52.1|
95897193|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|56.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|66.0|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||66.0|46.4|
95897194|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.988|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.312|127.576||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||127.576|11.312|<0.0001
95897195|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|30.023|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.971|100.481||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||100.481|8.971|<0.0001
95897196|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|24.1|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||24.1|2.7|
95897197|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|18.9|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Etanercept Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||18.9|-2.9|
95897198|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.756|||=|0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.114|2.768||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. ETN.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.768|1.114|=0.0152
95897199|NCT02346240|191750454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388|||=|0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|2.175||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. ETN|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||2.175|0.886|=0.1523
95897200|NCT02346240|191750455|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.33|57.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||57.63|39.33|
95897201|NCT02346240|191750455|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.88|46.96|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.96|28.88|
95975816|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.1|-2.3|0.0682
95975817|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.7|-1.7|0.4112
95975818|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||-0.1|-2.5|0.0307
95975819|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||0.3|-2.0|0.1538
95975820|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||0.7|-1.7|0.4047
95975821|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||-0.2|-2.5|0.0260
95975822|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||0.3|-2.1|0.1223
95975823|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||0.6|-1.7|0.3641
95975824|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||-0.1|-2.6|0.0284
95975825|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||0.3|-2.1|0.1534
95975826|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||0.7|-1.7|0.3914
95975827|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||-0.2|-2.6|0.0265
95975828|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||0.4|-2.0|0.1682
95975829|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.4699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||0.7|-1.6|0.4699
95975830|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||-0.2|-2.5|0.0241
95975831|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1064||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||0.2|-2.1|0.1064
95975832|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||0.5|-1.7|0.2948
95975833|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-0.1|-2.5|0.0282
95975834|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.2|-2.1|0.1074
95897202|NCT02346240|191750455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|56.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.787|404.555||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||404.555|7.787|<0.0001
95975835|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||0.5|-1.7|0.3061
95897203|NCT02346240|191750455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.566|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.061|264.196||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||264.196|5.061|=0.0004
95975836|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.1|-2.2|0.0705
95975837|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.5|-1.9|0.2405
95975838|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||0.6|-1.7|0.3726
95975839|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.0|-2.3|0.0554
95975840|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.5|-1.8|0.2386
95975841|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.5147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.8|-1.5|0.5147
95975842|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.2|-2.1|0.1116
95975843|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.3|-2.0|0.1266
95975844|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||0.6|-1.6|0.3822
95975845|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.1|-2.2|0.0720
95975846|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.6|-1.7|0.3434
95975847|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.5061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||0.8|-1.5|0.5061
95975848|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||-0.1|-2.3|0.0366
95897204|NCT02346240|191750456|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.68|46.98|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||46.98|20.68|
95897205|NCT02346240|191750456|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.18|43.8|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||43.80|18.18|
95975849|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||0.2|-2.0|0.1181
95897206|NCT02346240|191750456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|39.949|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.407|189.828||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||189.828|8.407|<0.0001
95975850|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||0.9|-1.3|0.7078
95897207|NCT02346240|191750456|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.084|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.363|167.179||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||167.179|7.363|<0.0001
95897208|NCT02346240|191750457|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|70.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.15|79.59|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||79.59|62.15|
95897209|NCT02346240|191750457|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|64.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.12|73.63|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||73.63|55.12|
95897210|NCT02346240|191750457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|76.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.952|324.094||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||324.094|17.952|<0.0001
95897211|NCT02346240|191750457|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.135|233.782||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||233.782|13.135|<0.0001
95897212|NCT02346240|191750458|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.59|64.35|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||64.35|45.59|
95897213|NCT02346240|191750458|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|44.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.39|54.49|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||54.49|35.39|
95975851|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||0.1|-2.1|0.0868
95975852|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.1683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||0.3|-1.9|0.1683
95897214|NCT02346240|191750458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.717|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.741|170.198||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||170.198|9.741|<0.0001
95897215|NCT02346240|191750458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.165|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.504|113.453||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||113.453|6.504|<0.0001
95897216|NCT02346240|191750459|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|48.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.22|63.41|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 400 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||63.41|34.22|
95897217|NCT02346240|191750459|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.58|53.38|||Regression, Logistic|Estimated responder rate, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.|Estimate and 95 % CI for difference in proportion of responders for CZP 200 mg Q2W (RS) versus Placebo Q2W (RS).|The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||53.38|25.58|
95975853|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||1.1|-1.2|0.8909
95975854|NCT03816891|191925508|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.1|-2.3|0.0671
95897218|NCT02346240|191750459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.65|356.602||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 400 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||356.602|14.650|<0.0001
95897219|NCT02346240|191750459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.527|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.002|245.256||The p-value is evaluated at a 2-sided significance level for CZP 200 mg vs. PBO|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios, CIs, p-values based on a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, region, prior biologic exposure.||The statistical analysis of the co-primary efficacy variables and key secondary efficacy variables accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure.||245.256|10.002|<0.0001
95897220|NCT02942017|191750462|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.019||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.48|||MMRM|||Mixed effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.48|-4.52|0.0160
95897221|NCT02942017|191750463|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|3.07|||MMRM|||MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.07|-1.98|0.6710
95897222|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.87|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.87|-2.06|0.4216
95897223|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.905||0.3947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|1.02|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.02|-2.57|0.3947
95897224|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.962||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.96|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.96|-2.86|0.3280
95897225|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.994||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.83|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.83|-3.12|0.2522
95897226|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.55|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-3.78|0.1431
95897227|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.113||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|0.36|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|-4.06|0.0991
95897228|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.155||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-4.71|0.0389
95897229|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.108||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-1.28|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.28|-5.67|0.0022
95897230|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.429||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.4|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.40|-6.08|0.0255
95897231|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.356||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.66|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.66|-4.73|0.1375
95897232|NCT02942017|191750464|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.46|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||2.46|-3.11|0.8170
95897233|NCT02942017|191750465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.7|||GEE method|||Hour 60: Generalized estimating equation (GEE) method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.7|1.2|0.0168
95897234|NCT02942017|191750465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.6|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model.||6.6|1.0|0.0482
95897235|NCT02942017|191750465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.0|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. An exchangeable working correlation structure is assumed for the model parameters estimation.||2.0|0.3|0.5857
95897236|NCT02942017|191750466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.9||Hour 60:|GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||7.9|1.5|0.0033
95897237|NCT02942017|191750466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.3|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||9.3|1.5|0.0046
95897238|NCT02942017|191750466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. The HAM-D remission at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||1.5|0.3|0.3085
95897239|NCT02942017|191750467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|-2.42|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.42|-14.29|0.0063
95897240|NCT02942017|191750467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-9.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.83|-2.68|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-2.68|-16.83|0.0074
95897241|NCT02942017|191750467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.149||0.6637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|7.63|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D subscales at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D subscales, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||7.63|-4.88|0.6637
95975855|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.6|-1.7|0.3325
95975856|NCT03816891|191925508|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.8912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||1.1|-1.2|0.8912
95897242|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.21|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.41|0.5132
95897243|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.61|0.1672
95897244|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.178||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.65|0.0963
95897245|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.4803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.49|0.4803
95897246|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.05|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.71|0.0844
95897247|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.1325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.09|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.68|0.1325
95897248|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.79|0.0332
95897249|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.1273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.08|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.67|0.1273
95897250|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.66|0.1059
95897251|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.82|0.0683
95897252|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.28|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.64|0.4458
95975857|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.1|-2.2|0.0612
95975858|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-1.9|0.1879
95975859|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||1.0|-1.3|0.7696
95975860|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||0.2|-2.1|0.1211
95975861|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.3908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||0.7|-1.7|0.3908
95975862|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||1.4|-1.1|0.8036
95975863|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||0.2|-2.3|0.0928
95975864|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||0.8|-1.7|0.4439
95975865|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||1.1|-1.4|0.7769
95975866|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.1|-2.3|0.0742
95975867|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.3|-2.2|0.1496
95975868|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||0.8|-1.6|0.4901
95975869|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.2|-2.3|0.0895
95975870|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.4572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.8|-1.8|0.4572
95975871|NCT03816891|191925508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.4|-1.1|0.8157
95975872|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-7.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-7.5|-21.6|<0.0001
95975873|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||-0.5|-14.5|0.0368
95975874|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|2.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 1||2.1|-12.0|0.1700
95897253|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.7|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.70|-0.21|0.2905
95897254|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.3096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.55|||MMRM|||Depressed Mood, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.55|-0.18|0.3096
95897255|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.1925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.55|0.1925
95897256|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0101
95897257|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.09|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.56|0.1546
95897258|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.05|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 12:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.62|0.0901
95897259|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 24:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.62|0.0717
95897260|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.0|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.68|0.0468
95897261|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.2222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.56|0.2222
95897262|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.60|0.0682
95975875|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-15.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-15.3|-35.1|<0.0001
95975876|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-4.1|-23.7|0.0056
95975877|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-3.6|-23.3|0.0076
95897263|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Hour 72:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.72|0.0147
95897264|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.04|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 7:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.68|0.0837
95897265|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.5828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.46|0.5828
95897266|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.5674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.24|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.43|0.5674
95897267|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4|||MMRM|||Feeling of Guilt, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.18|0.4613
95897268|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 2:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3240
95897269|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 4:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.24|0.3023
95897270|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 8:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.4127
95897271|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2819
95897272|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3884
95897273|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.07|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 36:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.25|0.2750
95897274|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 48:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.27|0.1811
95897275|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 60:MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3854
95897276|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.3822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||MMRM|||Suicide, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.23|0.3822
95975878|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-21.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-21.5|-42.5|<0.0001
95975879|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-6.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-6.7|-27.7|0.0014
95975880|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 3||-1.2|-22.3|0.0296
95975881|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-25.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-25.0|-46.9|<0.0001
95897277|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.9255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.9255
95897278|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.6714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.22|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.14|0.6714
95897279|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.18|0.9838
95897280|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.8884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.15|||MMRM|||Suicide, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.17|0.8884
95897281|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097||0.6996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.16|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.23|0.6996
95897282|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4426
95897283|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.20|0.8743
95975882|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-9.7|-31.4|0.0002
95975883|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||3.2|-18.6|0.1652
95975884|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.1|-27.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-27.3|-49.1|<0.0001
95975885|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-13.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-13.7|-35.3|<0.0001
95975886|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-2.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 5||-2.7|-24.5|0.0146
95975887|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.2|-27.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-27.8|-50.2|<0.0001
95975888|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-16.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-16.7|-38.8|<0.0001
95975889|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 6||-6.4|-28.5|0.0022
95897284|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.12|0.3498
95897285|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.56|0.0839
95897286|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.2595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.13|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.49|0.2595
95897287|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.66|0.0560
95897288|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.6187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.27|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.45|0.6187
95897289|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.07|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Hour 72 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.07|-0.72|0.0187
95897290|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.1|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.62|0.1531
95897291|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.197||0.3341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.58|0.3341
95897292|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.8969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.46|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.46|-0.40|0.8969
95975890|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-39.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.8|-27.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-27.4|-50.8|<0.0001
95975891|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8|-18.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-18.8|-41.8|<0.0001
95975892|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.87||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-4.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 7||-4.5|-27.7|0.0069
95975893|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.1|-28.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-28.0|-52.1|<0.0001
95897293|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.5862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.44|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Early, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.25|0.5862
95897294|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.34|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.13|0.3776
95897295|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.9029
95975894|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-18.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-18.5|-42.3|<0.0001
95975895|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.3|-26.2|0.0194
95897296|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.6173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.3|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.30|-0.18|0.6173
95897297|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.2433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.10|0.2433
95897298|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 24 MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0234
95897299|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.0|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.55|0.0540
95897300|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.01|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.58|0.0406
95897301|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.56|0.0295
95897302|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.04|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.50|0.0925
95897303|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.52|0.1631
95897304|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.14|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.60|0.2213
95897305|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.9175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.39|-0.36|0.9175
95897306|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.165||0.6763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.26|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Middle, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.40|0.6763
95897307|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3805
95897308|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.6073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.32|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.19|0.6073
95897309|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.2|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.27|0.7848
95897310|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.25|0.9038
95897311|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.32|0.6869
95975896|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-28.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-28.1|-53.2|<0.0001
95975897|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-20.1|-44.9|<0.0001
95975898|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 9||-5.3|-30.2|0.0054
95897312|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.29|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.26|0.9272
95897313|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.31|0.6931
95897314|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.23|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.29|0.8262
95897315|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.54|0.0749
95897316|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.09|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.45|0.1923
95897317|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.03|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.03|-0.73|0.0326
95897318|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.21|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.47|0.4440
95897319|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.7057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.22|||MMRM|||Insomnia-Late, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.32|0.7057
95897320|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.13|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.42|0.2865
95897321|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.35|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.33|0.9475
95897322|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.61|0.1880
95897323|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.29|-0.51|0.5950
95897324|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.41|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 24 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.41|-0.39|0.9636
95897325|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.28|-0.50|0.5836
95897326|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.1|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.63|0.1568
95897327|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.79|-0.09|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Work and Activities, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.79|0.0155
95897328|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.76|0.0504
95897329|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.1865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.14|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.14|-0.70|0.1865
95897330|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.0|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.87|0.0518
95897331|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.53|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.42|0.8330
95897332|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.42|||MMRM|||Work and Activities, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.34|0.8440
95975899|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-27.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-27.9|-53.4|<0.0001
95975900|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-22.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-22.5|-47.8|<0.0001
95897333|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.33|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.15|0.4602
95897334|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.43|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.03|0.0891
95897335|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.3088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.11|0.3088
95897336|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.24|0.8560
95897337|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.25|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.24|0.9702
95897338|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.8001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.25|0.8001
95975901|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 10||-9.1|-34.4|0.0009
95975902|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-27.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-27.8|-54.1|<0.0001
95975903|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-22.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-22.1|-48.3|<0.0001
95897339|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.32|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.32|-0.11|0.3223
95897340|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.3385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.09|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.09|-0.26|0.3385
95897341|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.7003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.24|||MMRM|||Retardation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.24|-0.16|0.7003
95897342|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||-0.02|-0.41|0.0311
95975904|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.61||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|-5.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 11||-5.1|-31.2|0.0067
95975905|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|-28.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-28.2|-54.5|<0.0001
95897343|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.06|-0.26|0.1976
95897344|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.24|0.5489
95897345|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.7992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.13|||MMRM|||Retardation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects||0.13|-0.17|0.7992
95897346|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.40|0.0573
95975906|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-19.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-19.1|-45.3|<0.0001
95975907|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.6|-27.6|0.0279
95975908|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.9|-25.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-25.4|-51.9|<0.0001
95975909|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.7|-20.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-20.5|-46.7|<0.0001
95975910|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-4.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 13||-4.6|-30.8|0.0085
95897347|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0431
95897348|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.09|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.52|0.0060
95897349|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.55|0.0215
95897350|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0422
95897351|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.01|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.51|0.0433
95897352|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.10|-0.57|0.0051
95897353|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.04|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.48|0.0973
95897354|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.13|||MMRM|||Agitation, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.13|-0.63|0.0036
95897355|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.0|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.52|0.0498
95975911|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|-28.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-28.4|-55.4|<0.0001
95975912|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-24.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-24.1|-51.1|<0.0001
95975913|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.8|-8.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 14||-8.0|-34.8|0.0020
95975914|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-29.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-29.4|-55.9|<0.0001
95975915|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.4|-24.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-24.0|-50.4|< 0.0001
95897356|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.39|0.5111
95897357|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.5839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.22|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.39|0.5839
95897358|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07|||MMRM|||Agitation, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.33|0.1905
95897359|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.54|0.1767
95897360|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.24|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.47|0.5182
95897361|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.53|0.3930
95897362|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.50|0.5212
95975916|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.67||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 15||-8.2|-34.5|0.0016
95975917|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|-28.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-28.3|-55.0|<0.0001
95975918|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-23.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-23.1|-49.7|<0.0001
95975919|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-5.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-5.2|-31.7|0.0067
95975920|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-35.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|-21.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-21.4|-49.0|<0.0001
95975921|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-18.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-18.1|-46.0|<0.0001
95975922|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 17||-4.1|-31.7|0.0111
95975923|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.8|-16.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-16.1|-43.8|<0.0001
95897363|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.50|0.4741
95897364|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.4482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.51|0.4482
95897365|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.06|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.06|-0.69|0.0963
95897366|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.18|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.18|-0.86|0.0030
95897367|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.177||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.63|0.1116
95897368|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.17|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.17|-0.86|0.0040
95975924|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-12.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-12.5|-40.6|0.0003
95975925|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.4|-27.8|0.0445
95975926|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-10.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-10.2|-38.1|0.0008
95975927|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||-7.7|-36.0|0.0027
95975928|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 19||1.2|-26.7|0.0724
95975929|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-7.6|-35.7|0.0028
95975930|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|-3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-3.3|-31.9|0.0158
95975931|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||3.6|-24.2|0.1468
95897369|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.8253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.43|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 14 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.43|-0.54|0.8253
95897370|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.53|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 21 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.53|-0.30|0.5795
95897371|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.4032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.51|||MMRM|||Anxiety Psychic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.51|-0.21|0.4032
95897372|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.33|0.6117
95897373|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.16|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.35|0.4716
95897374|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.6041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.6041
95897375|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.53|0.0424
95897376|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.23|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.32|0.7622
95975932|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-3.2|-31.7|0.0167
95975933|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||-2.2|-31.0|0.0242
95975934|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 21||5.3|-22.6|0.2240
95975935|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-1.5|-30.3|0.0310
95975936|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||-0.4|-29.4|0.0437
95897377|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.11|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.40|0.2689
95897378|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.1|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 48 : MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.44|0.2110
95897379|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.34|0.5873
95897380|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.01|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.01|-0.46|0.0450
95975937|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 22||8.2|-19.9|0.4123
95975938|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.46||0.0808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||1.6|-27.8|0.0808
95975939|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.1064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||2.6|-26.8|0.1064
95897381|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.57|0.0847
95897382|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.6|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.60|-0.16|0.2522
95897383|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.21|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.43|0.5026
95897384|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.22|||MMRM|||Anxiety Somatic, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.38|0.5911
95897385|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.18|0.5800
95975940|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.4366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 23||8.6|-19.9|0.4366
95897386|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.6754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.31|0.6754
95897387|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.42|-0.04|0.1006
95897388|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.35|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.35|-0.13|0.3588
95897389|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.5807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.28|0.5807
95897390|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.4241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.31|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.13|0.4241
95897391|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.7984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.26|0.7984
95975941|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-28.3|0.0644
95975942|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.41||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||0.8|-28.5|0.0633
95897392|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.22|0.8732
95975943|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 24||9.1|-19.4|0.4775
95975944|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|2.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||2.7|-26.2|0.1106
95975945|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||2.5|-26.4|0.1043
95975946|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|10.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 25||10.0|-18.4|0.5630
95897393|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.8621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.19|0.8621
95897394|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.45|0.1087
95897395|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.2153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.09|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.41|0.2153
95975947|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.7|-27.9|0.0629
95975948|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.34||0.0523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||0.1|-28.8|0.0523
95975949|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 26||8.6|-19.6|0.4420
95975950|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||2.0|-26.4|0.0908
95975951|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.32||0.0688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||1.0|-27.9|0.0688
95975952|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 27||6.4|-21.9|0.2802
95975953|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||-1.2|-29.8|0.0337
95975954|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||1.0|-27.8|0.0673
95975955|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 28||7.6|-21.1|0.3564
95975956|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||0.3|-27.6|0.0558
95975957|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.5|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||-0.2|-28.5|0.0471
95975958|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 29||8.1|-19.7|0.4101
95975959|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.16||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-1.7|-29.9|0.0287
95897396|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.07|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.51|0.1422
95897397|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.114||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.27|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms Gastrointestinal, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.19|0.7211
95897398|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.23|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.18|0.8224
95897399|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.6362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.31|0.6362
95897400|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.18|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.18|-0.31|0.6094
95897401|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.0|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.00|-0.49|0.0457
95975960|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.0427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||-0.5|-29.1|0.0427
95975961|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1||0.2828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 30||6.4|-21.7|0.2828
95975962|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||-1.6|-29.7|0.0294
95975963|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.0636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||0.8|-27.5|0.0636
95975964|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 31||7.7|-20.0|0.3812
95975965|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.06||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-1.8|-29.7|0.0270
95975966|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.0|-26.9|0.0679
95975967|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0||0.4452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|8.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||8.5|-19.2|0.4452
95897402|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5691
95897403|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.12|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.40|0.2942
95897404|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.19|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.35|0.5389
95897405|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.4061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.40|0.4061
95897406|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.56|0.0990
95897407|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.08|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.08|-0.63|0.0108
95897408|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.04|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.59|0.0889
95897409|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.49|-0.18|0.3721
95975968|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||-0.2|-28.2|0.0467
95975969|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.0829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||1.6|-26.1|0.0829
95975970|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.89||0.5263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 33||9.2|-18.0|0.5263
95975971|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||-2.6|-31.0|0.0210
95975972|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||0.7|-27.6|0.0623
95897410|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.5513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.2|||MMRM|||Somatic Symptoms General, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.20|-0.36|0.5513
95897411|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.01|0.0748
95897412|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.3545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.09|0.3545
95897413|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.14|0.6531
95897414|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.19|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.26|0.7520
95897415|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.23|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.26|0.8861
95897416|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.13|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.13|-0.38|0.3280
95897417|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.05|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.46|0.1123
95975973|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.4899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 34||9.1|-18.9|0.4899
95975974|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||-1.7|-29.9|0.0281
95975975|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||3.3|-24.7|0.1318
95975976|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.4458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|8.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 35||8.5|-19.1|0.4458
95975977|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-2.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||-2.3|-30.4|0.0229
95897418|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.1|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.36|0.2541
95897419|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.09|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-0.09|-0.66|0.0110
95897420|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.27|-0.36|0.7720
95897421|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.52|0.6311
95897422|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.6877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.33|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.33|-0.50|0.6877
95975978|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.11||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||2.2|-25.9|0.0978
95975979|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 36||7.6|-19.8|0.3792
95975980|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|-1.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||-1.7|-30.2|0.0290
95975981|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15||0.1306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|3.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||3.3|-25.0|0.1306
95975982|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.3923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 37||7.8|-19.8|0.3923
95975983|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||-1.9|-30.3|0.0265
95975984|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||3.6|-24.5|0.1456
95975985|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.5138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 38||9.2|-18.3|0.5138
95975986|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-1.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||-1.9|-29.8|0.0265
95975987|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05||0.0986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||2.2|-25.7|0.0986
95975988|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 39||7.3|-20.0|0.3600
95897423|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186||0.2465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.58|||MMRM|||Genital Symptoms, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.58|-0.15|0.2465
95897424|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.36|0.1279
95897425|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.1|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.26|0.3946
95897426|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.23|0.6694
95897427|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.04|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.04|-0.36|0.1113
95897428|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.5811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.23|-0.13|0.5811
95897429|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.25|0.6794
95897430|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.25|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.25|-0.14|0.6031
95897431|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.15|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.24|0.6673
95897432|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.16|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.16|-0.25|0.6472
95897433|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.8654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.22|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.22|-0.26|0.8654
95897434|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.48|0.2101
95897435|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.21|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.21|-0.30|0.7128
95897436|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.09|||MMRM|||Hypochondriasis, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.27|0.3297
95897437|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.4493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.19|-0.08|0.4493
95897438|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.31|||MMRM|||Loss of weight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.31|-0.01|0.0717
95975989|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||-1.5|-29.5|0.0303
95975990|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||2.2|-25.7|0.0979
95975991|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|7.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 40||7.4|-19.9|0.3664
95975992|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||1.5|-26.3|0.0806
95975993|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.01||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||5.3|-22.4|0.2260
95975994|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.3835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 41||7.6|-19.7|0.3835
95975995|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||0.5|-26.7|0.0594
95897439|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.02|0.1054
95897440|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.36|0.01|0.0408
95897441|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.38|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.38|0.03|0.0233
95975996|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.2189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|5.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||5.1|-22.2|0.2189
95975997|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 42||9.1|-17.8|0.5238
95975998|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.92||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|2.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||2.9|-24.5|0.1204
95897442|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.26|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.26|-0.09|0.3610
95897443|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.32|-0.08|0.2358
95975999|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||2.6|-24.4|0.1129
95976000|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 43||7.6|-19.3|0.3911
95897444|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.17|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.17|-0.16|0.9492
95897445|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.12|-0.28|0.4352
95897446|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.44|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.44|-0.05|0.1176
95897447|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.7812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.40|-0.30|0.7812
95897448|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.5085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.24|-0.48|0.5085
95897449|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.34|||MMRM|||Loss of Weight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.34|-0.28|0.8274
95976001|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.93||0.0784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||1.4|-26.0|0.0784
95976002|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.3046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|6.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||6.5|-20.7|0.3046
95976003|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 44||9.1|-17.9|0.5205
95976004|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.0388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||-0.7|-27.3|0.0388
95976005|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||2.5|-24.2|0.1105
95976006|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.68||0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|10.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 45||10.7|-15.7|0.7039
95976007|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||ls|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|1.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||1.8|-25.2|0.0885
95976008|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|3.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||3.7|-23.1|0.1535
95976009|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76||0.8975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 46||12.5|-14.2|0.8975
95976010|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.96||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.6|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||0.9|-26.6|0.0674
95976011|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3025||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|6.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||6.5|-20.8|0.3025
95897450|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 2: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3675
95897451|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 4: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1818
95897452|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 8: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.01|-0.17|0.0826
95897453|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 12: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.07|-0.11|0.6436
95897454|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 24: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.15|0.1827
95976012|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.8964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|12.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 47||12.7|-14.5|0.8964
95976013|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.7|-26.1|0.0633
95976014|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.81||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|4.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||4.0|-22.9|0.1665
95976015|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.7748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|11.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||11.4|-15.3|0.7748
95976016|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.04||0.1239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.8|3.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||3.0|-24.8|0.1239
95976017|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.17||0.3647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|7.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||7.6|-20.7|0.3647
95976018|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|16.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 49||16.0|-12.5|0.8056
95976019|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||2.6|-26.4|0.1079
95976020|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||8.6|-20.6|0.4174
95897455|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 36: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.09|0.9859
95897456|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 48: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6672
95897457|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.15|-0.03|0.2031
95897458|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11|||MMRM|||Insight, Hour 72: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.11|-0.07|0.6664
95897459|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.05|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.05|-0.13|0.3417
95897460|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.6622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.08|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 14: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.12|0.6622
95897461|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 21: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.11|0.9087
95897462|NCT02942017|191750468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.8263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||MMRM|||Insight, Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in HAM-D individual item score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline HAM-D individual item score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms were explanatory variables included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.10|-0.08|0.8263
95897463|NCT02942017|191750469|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.612||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.06|-1.66|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||-1.66|-8.06|0.0033
95897464|NCT02942017|191750469|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.154||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|0.72|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.72|-7.84|0.1017
95897465|NCT02942017|191750469|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.884||0.9845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.79|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for analysis. The change from baseline in MADRS total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline MADRS total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||3.79|-3.72|0.9845
95897466|NCT02942017|191750470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|12.5|||GEE method|||Hour 60: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||12.5|2.0|0.0005
95897467|NCT02942017|191750470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4|||GEE method|||Day 7: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||8.4|1.0|0.0478
95897468|NCT02942017|191750470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.6|||GEE method|||Day 30: GEE method was used for analysis. CGI-I response at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline CGI-S score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model.||4.6|0.5|0.4399
95897469|NCT02942017|191750471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.041||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.9|||MMRM|||Change at Hour 60: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.90|-3.24|0.2636
95897470|NCT02942017|191750471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.4897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.43|||MMRM|||Change at Day 7: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.43|-2.96|0.4897
95897471|NCT02942017|191750471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.59|||MMRM|||Change at Day 14: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.59|-4.30|0.1341
95897472|NCT02942017|191750471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|0.85|||MMRM|||Change at Day 21: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||0.85|-4.76|0.1691
95897473|NCT02942017|191750471|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.149||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.97|||MMRM|||Change at Day 30: MMRM was used for the analysis. The change from baseline in GAD-7 total score at each visit was the dependent variable. Treatment, baseline GAD-7 total score, pooled center, baseline antidepressant use, visit time point, and visit time point-by-treatment interaction terms as explanatory variables were included in the model. All explanatory variables including pooled center were treated as fixed effects.||1.97|-2.60|0.7852
95897474|NCT00329407|191750481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This was a within subject analysis. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in least squares means values obtained for the baseline and week 10 assessment weeks.||-3.14|-6.58|<0.0001
95897475|NCT00329407|191750482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||There would a significant reduction in COWAT scores between baseline and Week 10.|Mixed Models Analysis|The Dunnett-Hsu adjustment was used to correct for multiple comparisons.||This is a within subject comparison of COWAT scores botained for the baseline session and the Week 10 session. The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference between these scores.||||0.001
95897476|NCT00978068|191750483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.59||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.97|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||0.97|0.36|0.04
95897477|NCT00978068|191750484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional-Hazards|||||||0.13
95897478|NCT00978068|191750485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|11.16|||Negative Binomial Regression||Group 1 represents the numerator for the rate ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the rate ratio.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria in Group 2 would be 0.70 episodes per person-year and estimated that we would need a sample of 300 participants for the study to have 80% power to show a 35% reduction in the incidence of malaria in Group 1, at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. We then observed an incidence of malaria in Group 2 that was higher than anticipated (2.19 episodes/person-yr) and revised the sample size to 150 participants, who would be followed for at least 6 months.||11.16|0.06|0.87
95897479|NCT00978068|191750486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||1.12|0.45|0.14
95897480|NCT00978068|191750487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.68|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in same participant.|Group 1 represents the numerator for the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator for the hazard ratio.|||0.68|0.14|0.004
95897481|NCT00978068|191750488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.76|||Cox Proportional-Hazards|Adjustment for repeated measures in the same patient.|Group 1 represents the numerator in the hazard ratio. Group 2 represents the denominator in the hazard ratio.|||0.76|0.22|0.004
95897482|NCT01806896|191750509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.56|2.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effects and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Day 28)||2.15|-3.56|0.68
95897483|NCT01806896|191750511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.79|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Left VS)||0.52|-0.72|0.79
95897484|NCT01806896|191750511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.51||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Cue Rew\>Neut Right VS)||0.51|-0.80|0.70
95897485|NCT01806896|191750511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.51|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|0.4||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Left VS)||0.40|-0.89|0.51
95897486|NCT01806896|191750511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.04||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Treatment differences are based on a mixed effect model including treatment as fixed effect and baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Out\_win\_Rew\>Out\_win N Right VS)||0.04|-1.10|0.13
95897487|NCT01806896|191750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|13.18||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Neutral) Day 28||13.18|1.43|0.04
95897488|NCT01806896|191750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|13.45||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Positive) Day 28||13.45|1.69|0.03
95897489|NCT01806896|191750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|13.15||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Emotional Incentive-Negative) Day 28||13.15|1.41|0.04
95897490|NCT01806896|191750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.91|6.87||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.01 Euro) Day 28||6.87|-4.91|0.78
95897491|NCT01806896|191750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|10.67||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-0.1 Euro) Day 28||10.67|-1.11|0.18
95897492|NCT01806896|191750514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean|16.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.46|22.24||2-sided p-value|ANCOVA|Mixed effect model including treatment, incentive and treatment\*incentive as fixed effects; baseline, age, gender and CAG repeats as covariates.||PF-02545920 versus Placebo (Monetary Incentive-1 Euro) Day 28||22.24|10.46|<0.01
95897493|NCT03750903|191750529|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95897494|NCT03548584|191750530|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
95897495|NCT03548584|191750531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
95897496|NCT03548584|191750532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.63||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Aggressive Behavior||-0.63|-3.28|0.0040
95897497|NCT03548584|191750532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-0.14||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Physically Nonaggressive Behavior||-0.14|-2.68|0.0296
95897498|NCT03548584|191750532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.24||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.28||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Verbally Agitated Behavior||-0.28|-2.21|0.0113
95897499|NCT03548584|191750532|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.18||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Hiding and Hoarding||0.18|-0.90|0.1941
95897500|NCT03548584|191750533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85||||0.4242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.93||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||2.93|-1.24|0.4242
95897501|NCT03548584|191750533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.14||||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|1.34||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 4||1.34|-3.63|0.3665
95897502|NCT03548584|191750533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.32||||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|0.5||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.50|-5.15|0.1065
95897503|NCT03548584|191750533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.05||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-2.05|-8.12|0.0011
95897504|NCT03548584|191750533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|-3.4||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-3.40|-9.54|<.0001
95897505|NCT03548584|191750533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.32||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|-1.87||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-1.87|-8.77|0.0026
95897506|NCT03548584|191750534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05||||0.3048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.16|-0.05|0.3048
95897507|NCT03548584|191750534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.7058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.12||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||0.12|-0.17|0.7058
95897508|NCT03548584|191750534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 6||0.10|-0.23|0.4516
95897509|NCT03548584|191750534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||-0.08|-0.46|0.0052
95897510|NCT03548584|191750534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.08||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 10||-0.08|-0.47|0.0060
95897511|NCT03548584|191750534|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||MMRM method with model terms of treatment, trial site, visit, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit interaction were used for analysis.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||-0.07|-0.47|0.0078
95897512|NCT03548584|191750535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||0.26|-0.05|0.1975
95897513|NCT03548584|191750535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||-0.06|-0.44|0.0084
95897514|NCT03548584|191750535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||-0.06|-0.46|0.0101
95897515|NCT03548584|191750535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||-0.15|-0.59|0.0008
95897516|NCT03548584|191750535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||-0.12|-0.55|0.0023
95897517|NCT03548584|191750535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||-0.09|-0.57|0.0070
95897518|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/= 20%: Week 2||1.91|0.64|0.7290
95897519|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.09||||0.6196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 4||1.52|0.78|0.6196
95897520|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.16||||0.2718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 6||1.53|0.88|0.2718
95897521|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.52||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 8||1.93|1.19|0.0004
95897522|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.42||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 10||1.76|1.15|0.0006
95897523|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.41||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=20%: Week 12||1.72|1.15|0.0004
95897524|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.22||||0.7211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 2||3.85|0.39|0.7211
95897525|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 4||2.14|0.57|0.7606
95976021|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.39||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|12.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 50||12.6|-16.7|0.7815
95976022|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||1.6|-27.0|0.0802
95976023|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.48||0.1386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||3.6|-25.9|0.1386
95976024|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26||0.5101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|9.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 51||9.6|-19.2|0.5101
95976025|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.25||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||2.2|-26.5|0.0972
95976026|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.61||0.4454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|9.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||9.2|-20.9|0.4454
95976027|NCT03816891|191925509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.28||0.7638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|16.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed ( ≥ 10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||16.6|-12.2|0.7638
95897526|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.12||||0.5902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 6||1.68|0.74|0.5902
95897527|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.7||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 8||2.54|1.14|0.0054
95976028|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|20.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||20.86|0.18|0.5673
95976029|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3173||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||||0.3173
95976030|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.7668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|29.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||29.41|0.08|0.7668
95976031|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|51.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||51.82|0.76|0.0520
95976032|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|28.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||28.14|0.17|0.5457
95976033|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77||||0.1053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|79.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||79.79|0.57|0.1053
95897528|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.59||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 10||2.26|1.11|0.0066
95897529|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=30%: Week 12||2.23|1.18|0.0017
95897530|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.11||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 2||5.97|0.20|0.9074
95976034|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.3||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|88.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||88.33|1.45|0.0043
95976035|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|18.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||18.08|0.06|1.0000
95976036|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|79.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||79.12|0.59|0.1006
95976037|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95976038|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.0193
95976039|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||||0.0463
95976040|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.95||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|112.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||112.81|2.26|0.0002
95976041|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.82||||0.0917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|54.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||54.99|0.62|0.0917
95976042|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.81||||0.1006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|79.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||79.12|0.59|0.1006
95976043|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0001
95976044|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0035
95897531|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.98||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 4||2.64|0.36|0.9625
95897532|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.26||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 6||2.53|0.63|0.5120
95897533|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.98||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|3.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 8||3.79|1.03|0.0244
95897534|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.86||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 10||3.18|1.08|0.0161
95897535|NCT03548584|191750536|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.62||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\>/=40%: Week 12||2.61|1.00|0.0347
95897536|NCT03548584|191750537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|0.64||||0.1503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||1.16|0.35|0.1503
95897537|NCT03548584|191750537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.07||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||1.67|0.69|0.7559
95897538|NCT03548584|191750537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.23||||0.2246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||1.72|0.88|0.2246
95897539|NCT03548584|191750537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.38||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||1.87|1.02|0.0276
95897540|NCT03548584|191750537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.46||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||1.89|1.12|0.0031
95897541|NCT03548584|191750537|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.47||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.89|1.14|0.0017
95897542|NCT03548584|191750538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.1||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||3.03|0.40|0.8549
95976045|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||||0.0269
95976046|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||<0.0001
95897543|NCT03548584|191750538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.95||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||3.32|1.14|0.0093
95897544|NCT03548584|191750538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.56||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||2.22|1.10|0.0083
95897545|NCT03548584|191750538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||2.58|1.32|<.0001
95897546|NCT03548584|191750538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.57||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||2.09|1.18|0.0005
95897547|NCT03548584|191750538|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Response Rate|1.32||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||1.69|1.03|0.0160
95897548|NCT02096835|191750549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
95897549|NCT02096835|191750550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
95897550|NCT02096835|191750551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.503
95897551|NCT02096835|191750552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.571
95897552|NCT00293384|191750556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.57||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||85% statistical power|Simon optimal design|||Optimal Simon design for phase II study. p0=45% p1=65%.||||0.10
95897553|NCT00293384|191750557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.63||||||||||||||||||
95897554|NCT00293384|191750559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95897555|NCT00640510|191750598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of at least 15 patients per group was necessary to verify that the decrease in PANSS-EC total score was significantly greater in the IM olanzapine group than the placebo group using Student's t-test with a power of 90% at a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||0.940
95897556|NCT00640510|191750599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 15 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95976047|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.0009
95897557|NCT00640510|191750599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 30 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.620
95897558|NCT00640510|191750599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 60 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.784
95897559|NCT00640510|191750599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value for Change from Baseline to 90 minutes. Change = Timepoint minus baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.756
95897560|NCT00640510|191750600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95897561|NCT00640510|191750601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 30 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95897562|NCT00640510|191750601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 60 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95897563|NCT00640510|191750601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 90 Minutes.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95897564|NCT00640510|191750601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for 2 Hours.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95976048|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||||0.0098
95976049|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|258.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||258.26|3.21|<0.0001
95976050|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.16||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|79.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||79.08|1.31|0.0074
95897565|NCT01276314|191750602|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||The p-value was analyzed for SJS/TEN participants with \>10% body surface area detachment.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.01
95897566|NCT01276314|191750602|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||This p-value was analyzed for DRESS participants.|Kaplan-Meier analysis|||For evaluating the time taken to heal skin erosion, the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates method was performed. Differences were considered statistically significant at P values of less than 0.05.||||0.06
95897567|NCT02365636|191750612|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.726||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.726|-0.094|0.130
95897568|NCT02365636|191750612|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.24||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.652||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the daily average NRS scores at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the daily average NRS scores as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.652|-0.167|0.245
95976051|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|26.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||26.06|0.37|0.2466
95976052|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|56.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||56.49|2.37|0.0005
95976053|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.06||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|29.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||29.37|1.25|0.0140
95976054|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|18.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||18.07|0.76|0.0823
95976055|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|35.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||35.02|2.51|0.0002
95976056|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.65||||0.0197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|18.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||18.10|1.20|0.0197
95976057|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||15.69|0.99|0.0392
95976058|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|61.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||61.09|3.18|<0.0001
95976059|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.54||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|42.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||42.37|1.72|0.0036
95976060|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|24.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||24.23|0.81|0.0638
95976061|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|32.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.07|2.28|0.0005
95976062|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|16.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.19|1.03|0.0379
95976063|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||8.78|0.46|0.3367
95976064|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.73||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|38.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||38.51|2.46|0.0003
95976065|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.72||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|24.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||24.75|1.82|0.0017
95976066|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.0831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|10.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||10.83|0.79|0.0831
95976067|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|28.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||28.06|2.58|0.0001
95976068|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|15.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||15.94|1.41|0.0087
95976069|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.1361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|9.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||9.37|0.73|0.1361
95976070|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|44.56||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||44.56|3.08|<0.0001
95976071|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|21.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||21.75|1.51|0.0058
95976072|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16||||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|13.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||13.03|0.77|0.1036
95976073|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|948.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||948.31|5.35|<0.0001
95976074|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.62||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|83.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||83.47|1.62|0.0019
95976075|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.48||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|68.26||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||68.26|1.14|0.0117
95976076|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|19.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||19.76|2.46|<0.0001
95976077|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.74||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||10.74|1.23|0.0173
95976078|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.2598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||6.00|0.63|0.2598
95976079|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|13.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||13.11|1.98|0.0003
95976080|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|8.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||8.02|1.05|0.0402
95976081|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||5.51|0.70|0.2003
95976082|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|9.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||9.67|1.52|0.0034
95976083|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||5.80|0.92|0.0749
95897569|NCT02365636|191750613|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.32||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.735||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.735|-0.093|0.128
95897570|NCT02365636|191750613|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.27||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.688||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.688|-0.140|0.194
95976084|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|5.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||5.02|0.82|0.1248
95976085|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||6.03|1.09|0.0278
95976086|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.97||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.97|0.48|0.7001
95976087|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.84|0.46|0.7844
95976088|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||6.44|1.12|0.0249
95976089|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|6.54||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||6.54|1.09|0.0303
95976090|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.12|0.69|0.2601
95976091|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.46|0.94|0.0691
95976092|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.0538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.52||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.52|0.98|0.0538
95976093|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||2.94|0.52|0.6258
95976094|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||2.63|0.50|0.7407
95976095|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.06|0.57|0.5218
95976096|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||2.34|0.43|0.9855
95976097|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||2.68|0.50|0.7407
95976098|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.17|0.76|0.1843
95976099|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||2.77|0.54|0.6364
95976100|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.40|0.45|0.9206
95976101|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.87|0.52|0.6473
95976102|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||2.15|0.40|0.8733
95976103|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||2.68|0.50|0.7380
95976104|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||3.43|0.63|0.3768
95976105|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (\>= 10 years vs. \< 10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||2.41|0.45|0.9363
95976106|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.18|0.60|0.4558
95976107|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.24|0.57|0.4883
95976108|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||1.96|0.36|0.6970
95976109|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.16|0.60|0.4601
95976110|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.51|0.63|0.3758
95976111|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.02|0.36|0.7248
95976112|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.11|0.60|0.4550
95976113|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.35|0.64|0.3672
95976114|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.35|0.47|0.9120
95976115|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.35|0.65|0.3506
95976116|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.4969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.16|0.58|0.4969
95976117|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.19|0.42|0.9265
95976118|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.79|0.72|0.2440
95976119|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.15|0.59|0.4829
95976120|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||2.61|0.51|0.7382
95976121|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.41|0.47|0.8833
95976122|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.41|0.44|0.9385
95976123|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.82|0.35|0.5975
95897571|NCT02365636|191750614|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.28||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.128|0.691||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.691|-0.128|0.177
95897572|NCT02365636|191750614|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.204|0.614||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the average NRS pain scores recorded in the morning as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.614|-0.204|0.325
95897573|NCT02365636|191750615|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.741||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.741|-0.158|0.202
95976124|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||3.13|0.61|0.4491
95976125|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||4.05|0.72|0.2348
95976126|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.38|0.46|0.9087
95976127|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.42|0.66|0.3349
95976128|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.4806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.17|0.58|0.4806
95976129|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||2.15|0.42|0.8998
95976130|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||3.12|0.60|0.4618
95976131|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.6154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.93|0.53|0.6154
95976132|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.34|0.45|0.9442
95976133|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.08|0.60|0.4580
95976134|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.95||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.95|0.52|0.6275
95976135|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.36||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.36|0.65|0.3558
95976136|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.4749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.04|0.60|0.4749
95976137|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.46|0.64|0.3672
95976138|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.37|0.65|0.3462
95976139|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.82|0.56|0.5856
95976140|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||3.58|0.64|0.3563
95976141|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.82|0.54|0.6165
95976142|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.10|0.60|0.4532
95976143|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.27||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.27|0.58|0.4691
95976144|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||3.32|0.64|0.3703
95976145|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.9319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.15||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.15|0.43|0.9319
95976146|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.94||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.94|0.52|0.6374
95897574|NCT02365636|191750615|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.457||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.621||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in the weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening at week 4 as the dependent variable; week, pooled study center, treatment, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, baseline weekly average of the worst NRS pain scores recorded in the evening as covariate; and patient as a random effect.||0.621|-0.280|0.457
95897575|NCT02365636|191750616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.456|1.856||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.856|0.456|0.815
95897576|NCT02365636|191750616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.117||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.117|0.520|0.893
95897577|NCT02365636|191750616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|1.55||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||1.550|0.357|0.430
95897578|NCT02365636|191750616|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.494|2.088||5% level of significance|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% improvement. P-value, odds ratio and CI for odds ratio are calculated using logistic model including response (yes/no) as dependent variable, treatment group and pooled study sites as factors.||2.088|0.494|0.967
95897579|NCT02365636|191750617|SUPERIORITY||LSM of difference with placebo|2.2||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|5.92||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.92|-1.55|0.251
95897580|NCT02365636|191750617|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|5.07||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||5.07|-2.46|0.495
95897581|NCT02365636|191750617|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|3.1||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|7.06||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||7.06|-0.84|0.123
95897582|NCT02365636|191750617|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|2.8||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|6.77||5% level of significance.|miex model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 4. The MMRM used pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||6.77|-1.12|0.160
95897583|NCT02365636|191750618|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|1.3||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|6.48||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||6.48|-3.81|0.609
95897584|NCT02365636|191750618|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference with placebo|2.1||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|7.19||5% level of significance|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes study center, treatment, and baseline.||||7.19|-3.05|0.427
95897585|NCT02365636|191750619|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.43||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.43|-0.07|0.166
95897586|NCT02365636|191750619|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.51||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 2 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.51|0.00|0.046
95897587|NCT02365636|191750619|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.53|-0.08|0.152
95976147|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||3.42|0.65|0.3457
95976148|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.37|0.47|0.8906
95976149|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.68|0.47|0.7882
95976150|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.59||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.59|0.49|0.7898
95976151|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.18|0.44|0.9521
95976152|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||3.05|0.53|0.6001
95897588|NCT02365636|191750619|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Week 4 Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with pooled study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as fixed factors and patient as a random factor. The unstructured covariance matrix for repeated observations within patients was used.||0.46|-0.16|0.342
95897589|NCT02365636|191750620|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.2||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.7||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at Week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.70|-0.22|0.311
95897590|NCT02365636|191750620|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.73||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.73|-0.20|0.262
95897591|NCT02365636|191750620|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.5||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.97||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.97|-0.03|0.065
95976153|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.6054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.80|0.55|0.6054
95976154|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.6042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||1.81|0.36|0.6042
95976155|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.73||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||3.73|0.64|0.3465
95976156|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.64|0.50|0.7427
95976157|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.30|0.47|0.9218
95976158|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||3.30|0.57|0.4909
95976159|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||3.31|0.65|0.3616
95976160|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.55|0.51|0.7578
95976161|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||4.24|0.71|0.2369
95976162|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.12|0.41|0.8774
95976163|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||2.55|0.51|0.7578
95976164|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||3.33|0.58|0.4691
95976165|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.95||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||1.95|0.38|0.7272
95976166|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.35|0.47|0.9080
95976167|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||3.05|0.53|0.6001
95976168|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||1.76|0.35|0.5599
95976169|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.17|0.43|0.9274
95976170|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.47|0.44|0.9333
95976171|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.50|0.50|0.7796
95897592|NCT02365636|191750620|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.76||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.76|-0.23|0.296
95897593|NCT02365636|191750621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.245
95897594|NCT02365636|191750621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.304||||||5% level of significance|Regression, Cox|||||||0.304
95897595|NCT02365636|191750622|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.33||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.33|-0.61|0.556
95897596|NCT02365636|191750622|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.31||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.31|-0.65|0.482
95897597|NCT02365636|191750622|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.3||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.28||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.28|-0.81|0.333
95897598|NCT02365636|191750622|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.62|0.833
95897599|NCT02365636|191750623|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.2||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.41||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.41|-0.75|0.563
95897600|NCT02365636|191750623|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-0.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.5||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 2. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.50|-0.64|0.804
95897601|NCT02365636|191750623|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.1||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.71||5% level of significance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4 The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.71|-0.49|0.714
95897602|NCT02365636|191750623|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.55||5% level of siignificance|mixed model for repeated measures|||Change from baseline at week 4. The inferential model includes study center, week, treatment, and treatment by week interaction as the fixed factors; baseline as a covariate and unstructured variance-covariance structure in the initial model.||0.55|-0.64|0.871
95897603|NCT01454934|191750635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.41||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.41|0.95|0.1343
95897604|NCT01454934|191750636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.32||P-value was calculated from a 2-sided long-rank test stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was based on a Cox regression model including treatment as covariate, and histology, TPC option, and geographic region as strata.|OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||1.32|0.90|0.3946
95897605|NCT01454934|191750637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3034||||||The P-value was stratified by histology, TPC option, and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OS was compared between eribulin and TPC testing the following null hypothesis: H0: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is equal to OS in Arm B (TPC) against the alternative: H1: OS in Arm A (eribulin) is not equal to OS in Arm B (TPC).||||0.3034
95897606|NCT02624284|191750647|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on latency to smoke. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.94
95897607|NCT02624284|191750648|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on number of cigarettes smoked. Age, sex, race, nicotine dependence, and pre-session craving for negative affect relief (QSU-B Factor 2) were included as covariates.||||||0.53|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
95897608|NCT02624284|191750650|SUPERIORITY|Analysis: Multiple regression predicting main effects of dose on days of abstinence. Age, sex, race and nicotine dependence were included as covariates.||||||0.78|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.78
95897609|NCT00958776|191750663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.55|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.55|0.69|0.973
95897610|NCT00958776|191750665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.72|0.75|0.558
95897611|NCT00958776|191750666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||1.31|0.59|0.633
95897612|NCT00958776|191750667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio was calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at Baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.32|0.92|0.747
95897613|NCT00958776|191750669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.98|||Wilcoxon-Gehan statistic|Analysis stratified by duration of illness at randomization, ICU status and use of supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.|The hazard ratio is calculated using a Cox regression model with factors of duration of illness at randomization, ICU status at baseline, use of supplemental oxygen at baseline, influenza season, and influenza type.|||2.98|0.41|0.303
95897614|NCT00958776|191750671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.768
95976172|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.8861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.44|0.46|0.8861
95976173|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.03||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.03|0.36|0.7331
95976174|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.78|0.35|0.5686
95976175|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.84|0.55|0.6010
95976176|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.40|0.43|0.9732
95976177|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.32|0.46|0.9378
95976178|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.5799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.92|0.55|0.5799
95976179|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.44|0.42|0.9790
95976180|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.64|0.51|0.7299
95976181|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.64|0.51|0.7357
95976182|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.51|0.28|0.3243
95976183|NCT03816891|191925510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.63|0.32|0.4364
95976184|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18||||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|44.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||44.60|0.60|0.0957
95976185|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|28.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||28.14|0.17|0.5457
95976186|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.14||||0.3797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|41.51||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1||41.51|0.24|0.3797
95976187|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|38.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||38.75|1.64|0.0042
95976188|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.08||||0.0383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|26.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||26.09|0.99|0.0383
95976189|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|28.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||28.92|1.02|0.0357
95976190|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|77.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||77.91|3.86|<0.0001
95976191|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|26.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||26.01|0.97|0.0408
95897615|NCT00958776|191750672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis stratified by symptom onset prior to randomization, Baseline ICU status, need for supplemental oxygen at Baseline, influenza season and type.||||||0.758
95897616|NCT02530294|191750683|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95897617|NCT02530294|191750684|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||<0.001
95897618|NCT02530294|191750685|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||< 0.001
95897619|NCT02530294|191750686|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95897620|NCT02530294|191750687|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.001
95976192|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|28.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 3||28.92|1.02|0.0357
95976193|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.51|62.54||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||62.54|4.51|<0.0001
95976194|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|18.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||18.78|1.31|0.0116
95976195|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|8.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||8.82|0.43|0.3738
95976196|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|320.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||320.77|6.06|<0.0001
95976197|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.11||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|268.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||268.93|2.73|0.0002
95976198|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.02||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|166.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5||166.84|1.74|0.0029
95976199|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|67.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||67.78|4.70|<0.0001
95976200|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|37.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||37.44|2.60|0.0002
95976201|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.87||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|22.53||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6||22.53|1.53|0.0055
95976202|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|45.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||45.75|4.37|<0.0001
95976203|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|22.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||22.25|2.11|0.0005
95976204|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|14.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 7||14.41|1.25|0.0160
95976205|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.37|45.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.75|4.37|<0.0001
95976206|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|20.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||20.33|1.93|0.0009
95976207|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|14.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||14.04|1.25|0.0151
95897621|NCT02506816|191750688|OTHER|The P-valor Wilcoxon method is a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test used to evaluate changes from baseline H-score values of the three biomarkers.||||||0.033||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of 3 biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.033
95897622|NCT02506816|191750689|OTHER|The differences in the change from baseline of different biomarkers were evaluated by the P-valor Wilcoxon method, a non-parametric statistical hypothesis test.||||||0.03||||||In order to adjust the multiple comparisons made, Benjamini-Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) 10% method was used.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||After having analyzed the H-score for each of several biomarkers, we calculated the change from baseline subtracting post-treatment H-score from baseline H-score. Data were expressed as mean value and relative standard deviation.||||0.03
95897623|NCT01948375|191750692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95897624|NCT01948375|191750694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.007||95.0|1.26|4.4||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.007|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||4.40|1.26|0.007
95897625|NCT01948375|191750695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.006||||||"for the comparison of difference of acupuncture pain in two periods between the two groups,t=-2.88, p=0.006.~t=-2.88 refers to the t value of t test."|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=0.006
95897626|NCT01948375|191750696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63|||=|0.048||95.0|1.01|2.64||For the comparison of direct effect of placebo needle and real needle, p=0.048|Generalized Estimating Equation|||||2.64|1.01|=0.048
95897627|NCT04537806|191750704|SUPERIORITY||Proc Genmod|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|31.8|||Chi-squared||Estimates for treatment, and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using Proc Genmod method, with treatment as a factor and age groups as a covariate variable.|||31.8|-31.8|1.0000
95897628|NCT03019627|191750717|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.83|||=|0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.34|5.68|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis||5.68|-13.34|=0.428
95897629|NCT03019627|191750717|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|0.16|||=|0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.45|9.76|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis||9.76|-9.45|=0.974
95897630|NCT03019627|191750718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.12|||=|0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|6.91|||ANCOVA|||frequency statistical analysis - week 4||6.91|-9.14|=0.783
95897631|NCT03019627|191750718|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-3.82|||=|0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|6.41|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 8||6.41|-14.1|=0.461
95976208|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.35|69.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||69.06|5.35|<0.0001
95976209|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|38.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||38.09|3.48|<0.0001
95976210|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.12||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|20.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9||20.20|1.86|0.0013
95976211|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|43.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||43.82|4.89|<0.0001
95976212|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.44|26.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||26.76|3.44|<0.0001
95976213|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|11.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10||11.90|1.48|0.0049
95976214|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|21.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||21.77|3.17|<0.0001
95976215|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.92||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||13.92|2.20|<0.0001
95976216|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 11||5.86|0.85|0.0939
95976217|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|20.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||20.31|2.91|<0.0001
95976218|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.93|2.51|<0.0001
95976219|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.28||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||5.28|0.77|0.1425
95976220|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.61|27.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||27.64|3.61|<0.0001
95976221|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|22.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||22.43|3.08|<0.0001
95976222|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13||8.60|1.17|0.0194
95976223|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|23.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||23.77|3.50|<0.0001
95976224|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|20.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||20.70|3.11|<0.0001
95976225|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|7.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 14||7.87|1.12|0.0266
95897632|NCT03019627|191750718|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-15.3|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-4.97|||ANCOVA|||Frequency statistical analysis - week 12||-4.97|-25.6|=0.004
95897633|NCT03019627|191750718|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|2.55|||=|0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|10.82|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 4||10.82|-5.72|=0.544
95897634|NCT03019627|191750718|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|1.06|||=|0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.12|11.24|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 8||11.24|-9.12|=0.837
95897635|NCT03019627|191750718|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-13.8|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Severity statistical analysis - week 12||3.88|-23.7|=0.007
95897636|NCT03019627|191750719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.7|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||week 4||-0.01|-1.38|=0.046
95897637|NCT03019627|191750719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.3|||=|0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.44|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.44|-1.05|=0.425
95897638|NCT03019627|191750719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.09|||=|0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.58|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.58|-0.76|=0.788
95897639|NCT03019627|191750720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.71|||=|0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.54|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.54|-1.95|=0.265
95897640|NCT03019627|191750720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-1.38|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||week 8||-0.17|-2.59|=0.026
95897641|NCT03019627|191750720|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.6|||=|0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.70|-1.90|=0.361
95897642|NCT03019627|191750721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.25|||=|0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.25|||ANCOVA|||week 4||0.25|-0.76|=0.323
95897643|NCT03019627|191750721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|0.03|||=|0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.62|||ANCOVA|||week 8||0.62|-0.55|=0.908
95897644|NCT03019627|191750721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.12|||=|0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.52|||ANCOVA|||week 12||0.52|-0.76|=0.702
95897645|NCT03019627|191750722|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|5.75|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|9.48|||ANCOVA|||||9.48|2.02|=0.003
95897646|NCT01236196|191750733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.11
95897647|NCT01236196|191750734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.80
95897648|NCT01236196|191750735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95897649|NCT01236196|191750736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95897650|NCT02103478|191750747|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|2.876|||||Course 1|||2.876|-3.165|
95897651|NCT02103478|191750747|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.463|3.288|||||Course 2|||3.288|-3.463|
95897652|NCT02103478|191750747|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.074|0.899|||||Course 1|||0.899|-6.074|
95897653|NCT02103478|191750747|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence intervals for the difference (oral - IV) were generated using an ANOVA model separately for Course 1 and Course 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|4.888|||||Course 2|||4.888|-5.080|
95897654|NCT03762083|191750763|OTHER|The clinical performance endpoint - Clinical cure rate on Day 7 - was calculated and presented together with a one-sided 95% CI based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Clinical cure rate|81.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|63.1|||||||"It was assumed that the true cure rate was equal to 70%, therefore 22 patients were needed to obtain 90% chance (90% power) to show that the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed cure rate was above 40%.~Hypotheses for the primary clinical performance endpoint:~* Null hypothesis: Clinical cure rate is less than or equal to 40%.~* Alternative hypothesis (one-sided): Clinical cure rate is above 40%."|||63.1|
95897655|NCT03762083|191750764|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 1.|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.7|97.0||||||||97.0|63.7|
95897656|NCT03762083|191750765|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 2.|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|98.8||||||||98.8|68.3|
95897657|NCT03762083|191750766|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Prop. negative for Amsel criterion 3.|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
95976226|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.85|28.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||28.00|3.85|<0.0001
95976227|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|21.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||21.86|3.04|<0.0001
95976228|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.36||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|9.29||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 15||9.29|1.22|0.0172
95976229|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.34|22.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||22.14|3.34|<0.0001
95897658|NCT03762083|191750768|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 14|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|27.3||||||||27.3|0.1|
95976230|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|19.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||19.79|2.91|<0.0001
95976231|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.1252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||5.75|0.80|0.1252
95897659|NCT03762083|191750768|OTHER|Results are based on the exact binomial distribution (Clopper-Pearson).|Recurrence rate Day 35|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.6||||||||20.6|0|
95976232|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|20.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||20.75|3.09|<0.0001
95976233|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|22.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||22.40|3.30|<0.0001
95976234|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|8.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17||8.34|1.38|0.0074
95897660|NCT01203072|191750769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level for Cochran-Armitage test and comparison using Shirley-Williams method was set at one-sided, 0.025. For other tests, significance level and confidence coefficient were set at two-sided, 0.05 and 0.95, respectively, unless specified|Cochran-Armitage|||As the primary analysis, the dose-response relationship in the incidence of thromboembolic event was verified using the Cochran-Armitage test.||||<0.001
95897661|NCT05179421|191750802|OTHER|NONMEM applies nonlinear mixed effects modeling to evaluate the relationship between predicted drug concentration after administration from known pharmacokinetics and a pharmacodynamic effect, in this case being a reduction in pain from sustained heat application.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores over time will first be modeled using NONMEM with derived parameters of maximum effect (Emax) and doses to produce a 50% and 90% maximum drug effect (C50 and C90, respectively), the steepness of the dose response curve (γ), and the time to peak effect. Inter-subject variability (e.g., biological variability) will evaluate additive, proportional, and exponential models. Residual intrasubject variability (e.g., noise) will typically require an additive and multiplicative error model.||||<0.05
95897662|NCT01120210|191750805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.0595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.016|0.564|||ANCOVA|one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||0.564|-0.016|0.0595
95897663|NCT01120210|191750805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.064|0.595||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||0.595|0.064|0.0215
95897664|NCT01120210|191750805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.214|0.921||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in cardiac index (CI) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.921|0.214|0.0049
95897665|NCT01120210|191750806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.4729|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.312|2.131||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.131|-2.312|0.4729
95897666|NCT01120210|191750806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.164|1.464||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||1.464|-4.164|0.2123
95897667|NCT01120210|191750806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.58||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.639|0.483||one-sided p-value and one-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||90% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||0.483|-5.639|0.0821
95897668|NCT01120210|191750807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.7682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.527|1.879||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.879|-2.527|0.7682
95897669|NCT01120210|191750807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.764|4.235||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||4.235|-1.764|0.4107
95897670|NCT01120210|191750807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.046|5.372||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in heart rate (HR) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||5.372|-1.046|0.1811
95897671|NCT01120210|191750808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|4.718||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||4.718|-6.060|0.8030
95897672|NCT01120210|191750808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.781|3.801||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.801|-7.781|0.4923
95897673|NCT01120210|191750808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.251|3.708||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.708|-11.251|0.3152
95897674|NCT01120210|191750809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.36||||0.1561||95.0|-8.047|1.331||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.331|-8.047|0.1561
95897675|NCT01120210|191750809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.482|-0.622||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-0.622|-10.482|0.0282
95897676|NCT01120210|191750809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.08||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.818|-2.332||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-2.332|-11.818|0.0043
95897677|NCT01120210|191750810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.9769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.347|16.823||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||16.823|-16.347|0.9769
95897678|NCT01120210|191750811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98||||0.8297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.592|20.551||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEDV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||20.551|-16.592|0.8297
95897679|NCT01120210|191750812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.352|3.968||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in LVEF at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.968|-3.352|0.8650
95897680|NCT01120210|191750813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.3748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.204|3.102||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in FS at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||3.102|-1.204|0.3748
95897681|NCT01120210|191750814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.08||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.198|18.359||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||18.359|-4.198|0.2123
95897682|NCT01120210|191750814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.78||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.016|19.575||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||19.575|-2.016|0.1083
95897683|NCT01120210|191750814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.557|25.771||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||25.771|2.557|0.0180
95976235|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|9.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||9.33|1.66|0.0015
95976236|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|12.4||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||12.40|2.04|0.0003
95976237|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.23|0.78|0.1667
95897684|NCT01120210|191750815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38||||0.4841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.308|2.554||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||2.554|-5.308|0.4841
95976238|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.12||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|7.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||7.41|1.31|0.0087
95976239|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|7.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||7.87|1.35|0.0079
95976240|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 19||3.63|0.71|0.2631
95976241|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||6.05|1.11|0.0263
95897685|NCT01120210|191750815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.567|3.594||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SV at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.594|-5.567|0.6665
95897686|NCT01120210|191750815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02||||0.6904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.107|6.148||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PASP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||6.148|-4.107|0.6904
95897687|NCT01120210|191750816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.197|3.588||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||3.588|-2.197|0.6304
95897688|NCT01120210|191750816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.851|3.153||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||3.153|-3.851|0.8420
95897689|NCT01120210|191750816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.6658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.138|2.669||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in PADP at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||2.669|-4.138|0.6658
95897690|NCT01120210|191750817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-264.36||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-529.875|1.147||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 5 ng/kg/min dose.||1.147|-529.875|0.0510
95897691|NCT01120210|191750817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-383.32||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.781|-173.867||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 15 ng/kg/min dose.||-173.867|-592.781|0.0006
95897692|NCT01120210|191750817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-527.77||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-764.07|-291.478||two-sided p-value and two-sided alpha=0.05|ANCOVA|||95% confidence intervals and p values represent the placebo-subtracted LS mean change from baseline in SVR at the end of the 30 ng/kg/min dose.||-291.478|-764.070|0.0001
95897693|NCT04296396|191750818|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority design assumed a noninferiority margin of 5%. For 90% power and 0.025 significance level 1-sided, a total sample size of 4,300 participants was required to state that the IOPP is not inferior to the fixed amount of 20 tablets. Given the short window to assess pain at 1-week post-discharge, a 20% missing rate was incorporated which gives a final sample size of 5,500 (2,750 per group).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|3.37|||||The risk difference is the rate in the fixed group minus the rate in the IOPP group. IOPP was to be determined as non-inferior if the lower 95% confidence limit for the risk difference is -5 percentage points or greater (i.e., closer to zero).|||3.37|-2.03|
95897694|NCT04296396|191750819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|96.25|0.99|1.51|||Chi-squared||Confidence interval is 96.25% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||1.51|0.99|0.046
95897695|NCT04296396|191750820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95897696|NCT04296396|191750821|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-5.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.6|-3.5|||quantile regression||Confidence interval is 97.5% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-3.5|-6.6|<0.001
95897697|NCT04296396|191750822|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.75|-19.2|-10.8|||quartile regression||Confidence interval is 98.75% due to false discovery rate adjustment|||-10.8|-19.2|<0.001
95897698|NCT04296396|191750823|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||quantile regression|||||0|0|1.0
95897699|NCT04296396|191750824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.85|0.52
95897700|NCT04296396|191750825|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1.00|0.98|0.15
95897701|NCT05320029|191750832|NON_INFERIORITY|If the two-side 95%CI limit of the difference between the two groups is greater than the non-inferiority margin of -10%, the non-inferiority hypothesis of this study is valid|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0458|0.0458|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.0458|-0.0458|<0.05
95976242|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||5.46|0.96|0.0643
95976243|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.3954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.27||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.27|0.63|0.3954
95976244|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.61|0.86|0.1083
95976245|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||5.69|0.96|0.0613
95976246|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21||4.47|0.82|0.1354
95976247|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||3.82|0.72|0.2362
95976248|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||5.17|0.88|0.0949
95976249|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 22||3.04|0.58|0.5013
95976250|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.16|0.61|0.4386
95976251|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|6.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||6.24|0.99|0.0504
95976252|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.3781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 23||3.32|0.64|0.3781
95976253|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.21|0.79|0.1535
95976254|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.99|0.87|0.0925
95976255|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.1948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||4.07|0.75|0.1948
95976256|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||3.17|0.61|0.4304
95976257|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||5.31|0.89|0.0873
95976258|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25||3.38|0.64|0.3683
95976259|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||3.48|0.66|0.3203
95976260|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||4.98|0.82|0.1284
95976261|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 26||4.11|0.76|0.1790
95897702|NCT01702233|191750855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All statistical analyses were of exploratory nature. A one-sided test of non-inferiority of Traumeel®S with respect to dexamethasone at level 0.025 was computed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as qualitative factor and the baseline value of the abduction rotation pain VAS for active external rotation as a covariate. The test decision was based on a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval . The non-inferiority margin was set to 13 mm on a 0-100 mm VAS scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||97.5|||ANCOVA|||||97.5||<0.05
95897703|NCT00393939|191750929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9222||||0.2651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7156|1.1885||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Independent radiology assessment||1.1885|0.7156|0.2651
95976262|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||2.91|0.56|0.5470
95976263|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.2612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||4.16|0.68|0.2612
95976264|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 27||3.11|0.57|0.5071
95976265|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||3.19|0.61|0.4175
95897704|NCT00393939|191750929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6921|1.0589||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||Investigator's assessment||1.0589|0.6921|0.0753
95897705|NCT00393939|191750930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.33||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Independent radiology assessment||2.33|1.17|0.0018
95976266|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||4.32|0.68|0.284
95897706|NCT00393939|191750930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.02||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Investigator's assessment||2.02|1.03|0.0172
95976267|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.33||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28||2.33|0.46|0.9281
95976268|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.69|0.51|0.6987
95976269|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||3.41|0.56|0.4794
95976270|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.52||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29||2.52|0.48|0.8164
95976271|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.93||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.93|0.56|0.5484
95976272|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||3.76|0.62|0.3596
95897707|NCT00393939|191750932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1539||||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9209|1.4458||1-sided stratified log-rank test adjusted for baseline stratification factors (number of metastatic sites, estrogen receptor status, and disease-free interval from prior adjuvant treatment)|Log Rank|||||1.4458|0.9209|0.8933
95897708|NCT02388997|191750951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variences|||||||0.59
95897709|NCT02388997|191750952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.58
95897710|NCT02388997|191750953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.87
95897711|NCT02388997|191750954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.55
95897712|NCT02388997|191750955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||2-sample t-test with unequal variances|||||||0.6
95897713|NCT02388997|191750957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||The p value is based on the fold change (ratio) of the geometric means of the time (days) to peak symptoms among asthmatics in the omalizumab/placebo treatment groups.|2-sample t-test on the log scale|||||||0.037
95897714|NCT01110915|191750965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||2.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \>=10%.||2.5||<0.0001
95897715|NCT01110915|191750966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||||||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
95897716|NCT01110915|191750967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||5.9|-5.0|<0.0001
95897717|NCT01110915|191750968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.5||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-6.1|0.0010
95897718|NCT01110915|191750969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.1||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.6|0.0001
95897719|NCT01110915|191750970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
95897720|NCT01110915|191750971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Complication rate at 4 months|7.7|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.9||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Kaplan-Meier method|||Null hypothesis: the system-related complication rate between the implant procedure and the 4-months visit \>= 20%.||10.9||<0.05
95897721|NCT03985813|191750972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||Threshold for significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.083
95897722|NCT03985813|191750973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Threshold for statistical significance P\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95897723|NCT02434770|191751044|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.08|0.65|
95897724|NCT02434770|191751044|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.34|0.87|
95897725|NCT02434770|191751045|EQUIVALENCE|Primary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to demonstrate the equivalence of two lots of BBIBP bOPV in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The immune response of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared equivalent if the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the serotype-specific GMT ratio for both serotypes was contained within (0.5, 2.0).|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||||Lot 1 / Lot 2|||1.15|0.73|
95897726|NCT02434770|191751045|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody GMTs. The two Lots combined would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the serotype-specific GMT ratio of BBIBP Lots 1+2 over WHO control for both serotypes was \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|1.79|||||BBIBP bOPV Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.79|1.21|
95897727|NCT02434770|191751046|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For serotype 1||4.6|-0.5|
95897728|NCT02434770|191751046|NON_INFERIORITY|Primary efficacy objective 2 of this study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the two lots of BBIBP bOPV combined to the WHO control in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The immune response of the combined lots of BBIBP bOPV would be declared non-inferior to the WHO control if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in percent responders is greater than negative 10, provided the two lots are declared equivalent.|Difference in seroconversion rate|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.6|||||BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|For Serotype 3||5.6|-0.1|
95897729|NCT02434770|191751046|OTHER|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.1|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 1||2.1|-3.0|
95897730|NCT02434770|191751046|NON_INFERIORITY|Secondary efficacy objective 1 of this study was to show consistency of the two lots in terms of post-vaccination anti-polio neutralizing antibody seroconversion rates. The two lots would be declared consistent if the upper and lower limits of the 95% CI for the difference in seroconversion rates is within 10 percentage points of the observed difference for both serotypes.|Difference in seroconversion rate|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|2.8|||||Lot 1 - Lot 2|For Serotype 3||2.8|-2.6|
95976273|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 30||2.78|0.53|0.6414
95976274|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.20|0.60|0.4233
95897731|NCT02434770|191751047|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.63|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.63|0.89|
95897732|NCT02434770|191751048|OTHER||Difference in seroprotection rate|-0.09||||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|4.48|||Fisher's exact 1-tailed test|Fisher's exact 1-tailed test of a lower rate in Lots 1+2|BBIBP bOPV (Lot 1 + Lot 2) - BioFarma bOPV|||4.48|-3.86|0.5586
95897733|NCT02434770|191751049|NON_INFERIORITY|To show non-inferiority of Lots 1+2 combined versus BioFarma bOPV Control, the lower limit of the 95% CI must be \> 0.5.|Ratio of Geometric Mean Titers|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.38|||||Lot 1 + Lot 2 / BioFarma bOPV|||1.38|0.71|
95897734|NCT00245765|191751065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|40.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|150.3|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||150.3|13.7|<0.001
95897735|NCT00245765|191751065|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|292.6|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||292.6|23.5|<0.001
95976275|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||3.70|0.62|0.3632
95976276|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 31||2.49|0.49|0.8018
95976277|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.02|0.55|0.5465
95897736|NCT00245765|191751066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|64.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|1169.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors. Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.||||1169.1|12.7|<0.001
95897737|NCT00245765|191751066|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|162.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|2999.2|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with treatment and baseline severity of psoriasis as factors.|Confidence limits are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|||2999.2|31.4|<0.001
95897738|NCT02917031|191751086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.595||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline, saxagliptin versus placebo.||1.850|-7.040|0.252
95897739|NCT02917031|191751087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.631||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.635|2.373|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin: Change from baseline||2.373|-5.635|0.425
95976278|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||4.14|0.68|0.2560
95976279|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.10|0.42|0.8810
95976280|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.24|0.43|0.9701
95976281|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||3.96|0.62|0.3331
95976282|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33||2.11|0.40|0.8386
95976283|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.28||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.28|0.61|0.4091
95976284|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.57||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||3.57|0.61|0.3746
95897740|NCT02917031|191751088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|2.197|||ANCOVA|||"Saxagliptin vs Placebo:~Change from baseline"||2.197|-1.996|0.925
95897741|NCT02917031|191751089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.605||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||0.760|-7.970|0.105
95897742|NCT02917031|191751090|SUPERIORITY||Ratio for relative change|0.971||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.777|1.214|||ANCOVA|||Saxagliptin vs placebo: Change from baseline||1.214|0.777|0.796
95897743|NCT02449356|191751092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95897744|NCT02449356|191751093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95897745|NCT04269161|191751098|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority is 10 seconds such that the device is no worse than 10 seconds on average than manual mode. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.885||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-3.27||The p-value is significant at 0.01.|t-test, 2 sided||The difference is time to re-establish in automatic mode minus time to re-establish in manual mode. (a negative number favors automatic mode)|A sample requirement of 48 patients was determined based on a pilot study to provide 88% power, and 0.05 significance (two sided) to show the mean difference is less than 10 seconds based on a 2x2 crossover design. Considering patient drop-out, a sample size of n=40 drops power to 82%.||-3.27|-16.51|0.003
95976285|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 34||2.49|0.49|0.8018
95976286|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.79||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.79|0.51|0.6717
95976287|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.41|0.41|0.9850
95976288|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 35||2.31|0.43|0.9983
95976289|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.5311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.02|0.56|0.5311
95976290|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||2.99|0.50|0.6628
95976291|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.09||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 36||3.09|0.56|0.5208
95976292|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||2.55|0.46|0.8483
95976293|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.2||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||3.20|0.50|0.6232
95976294|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37||2.61|0.46|0.8312
95976295|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||3.30|0.55|0.5083
95976296|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.86|0.44|0.8111
95976297|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 38||2.68|0.46|0.8089
95976298|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||2.37|0.41|0.9723
95976299|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||2.58|0.39|0.9883
95976300|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 39||1.98|0.35|0.6781
95909255|NCT01939548|191776649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.813||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|1.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.90|-0.19|0.2961
95976301|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.86|0.50|0.6924
95976302|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.47|0.40|0.9883
95976303|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||2.18|0.39|0.8581
95897746|NCT04269161|191751099|OTHER|The difference is defined as the difference of proportion of time in the target range of SpO2 in modes, automatic minus manual. Our study is a 2-treatment, 24-period crossover design that accounts for first-order carryover effects, indicating a slightly higher power than a 2x2. Each subject acted as their own control. The study was defined as intention to treat, such that manual adjustments during the automated arm would be included in that arm.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.018||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.034||The threshold for statistical significance is p=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two-sample t test with equal variances. Linear mixed model patient random effects, adjusted for site, sex, race, weight, gestational age, bed type.|Treatment difference = automatic - manual. A positive number favors automatic.|The difference in the proportion of time in the target saturation is calculated between the automatic and manual models. For each 6-hour time block, we calculate the proportion of time the patient stays within the prescribed SpO2 range.||.034|0.003|.02
95897747|NCT01896895|191751100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. First step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 50 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||-0.6|-1.9|=0.0004
95897748|NCT01896895|191751100|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|||=|0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||The difference in change of JRS severity subscore between treatment groups was analyzed by an ANCOVA according to a hierarchical test procedure. Second step of hierarchy is hypothesis of superiority of 25 unit dose group NT 201 compared to placebo. This was tested confirmatory (α=0.05, 2-sided) by an ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site, and gender as fixed factors and baseline JRS severity subscore and age as covariates based on LS means comparison. Missing values were imputed by LOCF.||0.2|-1.1|=0.1452
95897749|NCT04300296|191751103|OTHER||Posterior median difference|-13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|19.3|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||19.3|-44.8|
95897750|NCT04300296|191751103|OTHER||Posterior median difference|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|40.7|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||40.7|-17.0|
95897751|NCT04300296|191751103|OTHER||Posterior median difference|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|35.4|||||Bayesian model to obtain the posterior distribution of the treatment difference between AIN457 and placebo|||35.4|-25.4|
95976304|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.37|0.41|0.9723
95976305|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||2.63|0.38|0.9937
95897752|NCT02896127|191751130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.69|||Regression, Logistic||||"PTFU=post-treatment follow-up (12 weeks after last study treatment)~95% confidence intervals are from a score method with continuity correction."|3.69|1.65|<.0001
95897753|NCT02583256|191751149|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
95897754|NCT02583256|191751149|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
95976306|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41||1.98|0.35|0.6781
95976307|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.37|0.41|0.9723
95976308|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||2.63|0.38|0.9937
95976309|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.98||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 42||1.98|0.35|0.6781
95897755|NCT02583256|191751149|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
95976310|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.57||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.57|0.44|0.8892
95976311|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||3.21|0.50|0.6296
95976312|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 43||2.02|0.36|0.7271
95976313|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.42||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.42|0.40|0.9636
95976314|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||2.00|0.32|0.6355
95976315|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 44||1.64|0.28|0.3901
95976316|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.36||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||3.36|0.54|0.5177
95976317|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.49|0.40|0.9910
95976318|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45||2.01|0.35|0.7064
95976319|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||2.77|0.44|0.8373
95976320|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||3.11|0.44|0.7614
95976321|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 46||1.83|0.31|0.5301
95976322|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.80|0.44|0.8248
95976323|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||2.32|0.35|0.8374
95976324|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 47||1.67|0.29|0.4088
95976325|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.5||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.50|0.39|0.9745
95976326|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.4916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.84||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.84|0.28|0.4916
95976327|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.35|0.23|0.1854
95976328|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||2.77|0.44|0.8373
95897756|NCT02583256|191751149|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
95897757|NCT02583256|191751150|SUPERIORITY|Superiority criterion for the GMT ratio: Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.3|1.1|
95897758|NCT02583256|191751150|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.0||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.0|0.9|
95897759|NCT02583256|191751150|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.3|1.1|
95897760|NCT02583256|191751150|SUPERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should exceed 1.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.3||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.3|1.1|
95897761|NCT02583256|191751151|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.51|1.28|
95897762|NCT02583256|191751151|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.14||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2||1.14|0.99|
95897763|NCT02583256|191751151|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.58||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.58|1.27|
95897764|NCT02583256|191751151|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.51||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.51|1.22|
95897765|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.32||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.32|1.07|
95897766|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.09|0.90|
95897767|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.25|1.01|
95897768|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of aQIV-aQIV/aQIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.27||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.27|0.98|
95897769|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||1.5|1.3|
95897770|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||1.1|0.9|
95897771|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||1.4|1.2|
95897772|NCT02583256|191751152|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of QIV-aQIV/QIV-QIV HI GMT should not fall below 0.667.|GMT ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||1.5|1.2|
95897773|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.6||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||8.6|-4.9|
95897774|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||7.3|-5.6|
95897775|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|10.4||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||10.4|-1.8|
95897776|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.5||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||8.5|-3.3|
95897777|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|9.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.17||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H1N1.||16.17|3.11|
95897778|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|-3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.02|2.15||||||Comparison performed for strain A/H3N2.||2.15|-10.02|
95897779|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|12.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.73|19.12||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Yamagata.||19.12|6.73|
95897780|NCT02583256|191751153|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower bound of two-sided 95% CI on the difference between SCR should not be below -10%.|SCR difference|8.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.54||||||Comparison performed for strain B/Victoria.||14.54|2.17|
95897781|NCT04027218|191751171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|2.79|||McNemar|||||2.79|2.34|0.001
95897782|NCT04027218|191751171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.13|||McNemar|||||2.13|1.70|0.002
95897783|NCT04027218|191751171|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|1.92|||McNemar|||||1.92|1.87|0.004
95897784|NCT04027218|191751172|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.179||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95897785|NCT04027218|191751172|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.619||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95897786|NCT04027218|191751172|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.099||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000
95897787|NCT04027218|191751173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.073||||0.863|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.863
95897788|NCT04027218|191751173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.267||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.205
95897789|NCT04027218|191751173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.858||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the number of negative changes, which implies participants with decrease in VAS score.|||||0.391
95897790|NCT04027218|191751175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.672||||0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.502
95897791|NCT04027218|191751175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.327||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.744
95897792|NCT04027218|191751175|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.885||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated value corresponds with the absorbance comparing hemolysis in blood samples performed by clinical practice against to the corresponding intervention.|||||0.059
95976329|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.83|0.29|0.5051
95976330|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49||1.24|0.21|0.1375
95976331|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.82|0.49|0.7180
95976332|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||2.13|0.37|0.7838
95897793|NCT00494494|191751177|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Our estimate of a clinically relevant increase is 25 microns. With these specifications, the sample size that is required to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided 0.05 significance level is about 10 per group.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8||0.7029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|8.91|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between the 2 groups. Standard methods were used for power calculation to determine the sample size needed to have 0.90 power for the comparison between two groups at the two-sided significance of 0.05.||8.91|-3.27|0.7029
95897794|NCT00494494|191751178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.56||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|6.43|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.43|-2.41|0.1937
95897795|NCT00494494|191751179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6||0.5066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|16.52|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.52|-3.12|0.5066
95897796|NCT00494494|191751180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.227|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.227|-0.13|0.5099
95897797|NCT00494494|191751181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.64||0.5005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|3.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.55|-1.49|0.5005
95897798|NCT03907683|191751191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0098|0.3185|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday move more messages would not differ from zero||0.3185|.0098|0.037
95897799|NCT03907683|191751191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12538|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07674||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0274|0.2781|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday sit less messages would not differ from zero||0.2781|-0.0274|.106
95897800|NCT03907683|191751191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13746||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0262|0.521|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekday inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||.5210|-.0262|.076
95897801|NCT03907683|191751191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.30563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16136||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0156|0.6268|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend move more messages would not differ from zero||.6268|-.0156|.062
95897802|NCT03907683|191751191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.277|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10676||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0645|0.4895|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend sit less messages would not differ from zero||.4895|.0645|0.11
95897803|NCT03907683|191751191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.10837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16895||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2279|0.4447|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis was that the mean steady state response to weekend inspirational quote messages would not differ from zero||0.4447|-0.2279|.523
95897804|NCT02075840|191751200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, stratified|0.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.65|||Log Rank|||Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||0.65|0.34|<0.0001
95897805|NCT02075840|191751202|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.7|||Log Rank|Stratified hazard ratio and p-value are stratified for covariates Race (Asian vs Non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC.||||0.70|0.36|<0.0001
95897806|NCT02075840|191751204|SUPERIORITY|IRC, RECIST v1.1 Stratified Analysis (by race (Asian vs non-Asian) and CNS metastases at baseline by IRC)|Cause-Specific Hazard Ratio|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.10|<0.0001
95897807|NCT02075840|191751206|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|7.4||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|16.5||Stratified analysis|Mantel Haenszel|||||16.50|-1.71|0.0936
95897808|NCT02075840|191751208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.2405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.48|0.2405
95897809|NCT02075840|191751219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.19|||Log Rank|Stratified analysis||Fatigue||1.19|0.46|0.2079
95897810|NCT02075840|191751219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.1137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.15||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||3.15|0.88|0.1137
95897811|NCT02075840|191751221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.74||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Coughing||1.74|0.44|0.7042
95897812|NCT02075840|191751221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.92||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Dyspnea||2.92|1.05|0.0285
95897813|NCT02075840|191751221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.61||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in arm and shoulder||2.61|0.79|0.2377
95897814|NCT02075840|191751221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.1||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Pain in chest||1.10|0.24|0.0796
95897815|NCT02075840|191751221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.68||Stratified analysis|Log Rank|||Composite score||1.68|0.72|0.6435
95897816|NCT06034496|191751228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.012
95897817|NCT06034496|191751228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.33
95897818|NCT06034496|191751228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Session (baseline, follow-up) x CES|ANOVA|||||||.85
95897819|NCT06034496|191751229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.6
95897820|NCT06034496|191751229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.9
95897821|NCT06034496|191751229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.05
95897822|NCT06034496|191751230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
95897823|NCT06034496|191751230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.17
95897824|NCT06034496|191751230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||CES x Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.73
95897825|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.18
95897826|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897827|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.53
95897828|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.07
95897829|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||CES x Session|ANOVA|||||||.46
95897830|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.01
95897831|NCT06034496|191751231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.29
95897832|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.10
95897833|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897834|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.81
95897835|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
95897836|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.35
95897837|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897838|NCT06034496|191751232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.40
95897839|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||STAI-T CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.23
95897840|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||STAI-T Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.45
95897841|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-T CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
95897842|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||STAI-S CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.40
95897843|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Time main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897844|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897845|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||STAI-S CES x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.20
95897846|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||STAI-S CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.39
95897847|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||STAI-S Session x Time interaction|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897848|NCT06034496|191751233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||STAI-S CES x Time x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.38
95897849|NCT06034496|191751234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.85
95897850|NCT06034496|191751234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.69
95897851|NCT06034496|191751234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.4
95897852|NCT06034496|191751235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.13
95897853|NCT06034496|191751235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.26
95897854|NCT06034496|191751235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.44
95897855|NCT06034496|191751236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||CES main effect|ANOVA|||||||.36
95897856|NCT06034496|191751236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||Session main effect|ANOVA|||||||.00
95897857|NCT06034496|191751236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||CES x Session interaction|ANOVA|||||||.96
95897858|NCT03523117|191751266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.3108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3108
95897859|NCT03523117|191751267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95897860|NCT03523117|191751268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95897861|NCT03523117|191751269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95897862|NCT02915029|191751270|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested was that the intervention will increase patient activation.|Mean Difference (Net)|8.7||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|15.5|||ANCOVA|Primary outcome was change in PAM total score, adjusted for baseline level. Adjusting for family clustering with generalized estimated equations.|This reflects the between-group difference for the within-person change scores in PAM total score adjusting for baseline values per person.|Group 1(usual care) is the comparison group, group 2 is the intervention group.|Applied generalized estimating equations (GEE) to account for within family (household) clustering.|15.5|1.9|0.01
95897863|NCT03277261|191751292|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.268|0.615||GEE (Generalized Estimating Equation) model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.615|0.268|<0.0001
95897864|NCT03277261|191751293|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.033|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.058||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.058|0.019|<0.0001
95897865|NCT03277261|191751294|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.076|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.104||GEE model for the relapse count per participant with logarithmic link function, treatment, region, and baseline EDSS strata as covariates and log (years of treatment) as offset.|Negative Binomial Model|||||0.104|0.056|<0.0001
95897866|NCT03277261|191751296|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|5.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.536|8.375||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata and log transformed baseline MRI lesion counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.375|3.536|<0.0001
95897867|NCT03277261|191751297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (Ublituximab/Teriflunomide)|0.872|||=|0.4669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.261||Logistic regression model with treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, and log-transformed baseline MRI counts (T1 unenhancing, T2, Gd enhancing) as covariates.|Logistic Regression|||||1.261|0.603|=0.4669
95897868|NCT03277261|191751298|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.072|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|-0.036||The model includes treatment, region, baseline EDSS strata, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline volume (cube root transformed) as covariates and an unstructured covariance matrix.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.036|-0.107|<0.0001
95897869|NCT00835497|191751325|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|86.5||||||90.0|81.8|91.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||91.6|81.8|
95897870|NCT00835497|191751326|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.9|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.9|94.2|
95897871|NCT00835497|191751327|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|97.0||||||90.0|94.2|99.8|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||99.8|94.2|
95897872|NCT00835497|191751328|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|88.9||||||90.0|83.5|94.6|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||94.6|83.5|
95897873|NCT00835497|191751329|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|92.7||||||90.0|88.4|97.1|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.1|88.4|
95897874|NCT00835497|191751330|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on pharmacokinetic parameters of AUC0-t, AUCinf and Cmax.|Test/Ref Ratio of LS Means x 100|93.0||||||90.0|88.8|97.5|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125.|||97.5|88.8|
95897875|NCT01282424|191751373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The null hypothesis is ≤ 20%.|Exact binomial test|||||||< 0.0001
95897876|NCT02741115|191751388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.092|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation used.||It was estimated that a sample size of 198 participants per group would provide 90% power to detect a mean treatment group difference in change from baseline to Week 26 in maximal VO2 scores of 10% (ie, an improvement of 2.8 mL/kg/min in the udenafil group compared to 0 in the control group, assuming a Type I error of 0.05 and standard deviation of 7.235). A difference of 2.8, equivalent to a 10% increase from a baseline of 28 mL/kg/min, represents approximately 0.4 standard deviations.||||0.092
95897877|NCT02741115|191751389|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analytical model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2.||||||0.024
95897878|NCT02741115|191751390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.591
95897879|NCT02741115|191751391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.169
95897880|NCT02741115|191751392|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment mean difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.012
95897881|NCT02741115|191751393|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference in the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.029
95897882|NCT02741115|191751394|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.321||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.011
95897883|NCT02741115|191751395|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.903||0.696|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.696
95897884|NCT02741115|191751396|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.915|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||||||0.915
95897885|NCT02741115|191751397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.363||0.891|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline maximal VO2. LOCF imputation.||LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.||||0.891
95897886|NCT02741115|191751398|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.691|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group, with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (child reported)||||||0.691
95897887|NCT02741115|191751399|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.544||0.985|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline physical functioning (parent reported).||||||0.985
95897888|NCT02741115|191751400|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.039||0.273|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (child reported).||||||0.273
95897889|NCT02741115|191751401|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.327||0.966|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline psychosocial health summary score (parent reported).||||||0.966
95897890|NCT02741115|191751402|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.706|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (Treatment II).||||||0.706
95897891|NCT02741115|191751403|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.707||0.382|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (perceived physical appearance)||||||0.382
95897892|NCT02741115|191751404|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.611||0.236|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (treatment anxiety).||||||0.236
95897893|NCT02741115|191751405|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.543|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (cognitive problems).||||||0.543
95897894|NCT02741115|191751406|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.352|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline cardiac module scale (communication problems).||||||0.352
95897895|NCT02741115|191751407|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.684||0.533|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, child reported).||||||0.533
95897896|NCT02741115|191751408|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.057||0.654|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (age 8-12, parent reported).||||||0.654
95897897|NCT02741115|191751409|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment groups were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.963|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors: ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, child reported)||||||0.963
95897898|NCT02741115|191751410|SUPERIORITY|LS mean differences between treatment group were analyzed.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171||0.246|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean was the estimated treatment difference from the analysis model.|ANCOVA|Fixed factors of ventricular morphology and treatment group with a continuous covariate of Baseline total score (ages 13-18, parent reported).||||||0.246
95897899|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER|||||||0.0011||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= 0.05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Esteem (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0011
95897900|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER|||||||0.0719||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Purpose in Life (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.0719
95897901|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER|||||||0.7991||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Locus of Control (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.7991
95897902|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER|||||||0.2208||||||Threshold for statistical significance: P \<= .05. As this was an exploratory analysis only, p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Efficacy (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).||||0.2208
95897903|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Esteem). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
95897904|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Purpose in Life). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
95897905|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Locus of Control). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
95897906|NCT06425458|191751415|OTHER||Spearman partial correlation coefficient|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Efficacy). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.||||
95897907|NCT02742103|191751492|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.124|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|-0.005|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||-0.005|-0.296|
95897908|NCT02742103|191751493|OTHER||Rate difference (CSL112 - placebo)|-0.103|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.025|||Newcombe-Wilson|||||0.025|-0.277|
95897909|NCT02533921|191751509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6749||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1706|2.8338|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||2.8338|0.1706|0.0272
95897910|NCT02533921|191751510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8267||0.1761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7569|0.5097|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.5097|-2.7569|0.1761
95897911|NCT02533921|191751511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3889||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2291|0.3059|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.3059|-1.2291|0.2369
95897912|NCT02533921|191751512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1309||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9349|0.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|||0.6730|-0.9349|0.7484
95897913|NCT02533921|191751513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6878|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4789||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6338|0.2581|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.2581|-1.6338|0.1529
95897914|NCT02533921|191751514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3934||0.6834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9382|0.6167|||Mixed Models Analysis||Compares the palliative care plus usual care group to the usual care group.|Comparing the mean within group change from baseline to 6 months between groups. The null hypothesis is there is no mean difference between groups.||0.6167|-0.9382|0.6834
95897915|NCT02215070|191751527|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
95897916|NCT02215070|191751529|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.006
95897917|NCT02215070|191751530|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95897918|NCT00533949|191751533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.76|||Log Rank||Reference group = 60 gy|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.76|1.09|0.0042
95897919|NCT00533949|191751533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.35|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|The trial was a two-by-two factorial design with radiation therapy dose as one treatment factor and cetuximab as the other. A log-rank test for each factor at one-sided α of 0.0125 (α of 0.0250 for both factors to account for multiple comparisons) would yield power of 80% to detect an improvement in median survival from 17.1 to 24 months after 339 deaths were reported out of 500 patients. For RT analysis, the comparison was arms 1 \& 3 vs arms 2 \& 4; for cetuximab, arms 1 \& 2 vs arms 3 \& 4.||1.35|0.84|0.29
95897920|NCT00533949|191751534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47|||Log Rank||Reference level = 60 Gy|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.47|0.95|0.12
95897921|NCT00533949|191751534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank||Reference level = cetuximab|Progression-free survival is estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.22|0.80|0.89
95976333|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.5795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 50||1.83|0.34|0.5795
95976334|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.5517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||3.14|0.54|0.5517
95976335|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.89||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||1.89|0.34|0.6060
95976336|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 51||2.02|0.38|0.7491
95976337|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.63|0.45|0.8593
95976338|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.32||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.32|0.23|0.1868
95976339|NCT03816891|191925511|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.41||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.41|0.26|0.2436
95976340|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0841||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.0841
95976341|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3442
95976342|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.3083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|33.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||33.01|0.31|0.3083
95976343|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|22.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.64|0.21|0.4905
95976344|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|21.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||21.08|0.15|0.6379
95976345|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.37||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|36.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||36.68|1.48|0.0073
95976346|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|14.66||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||14.66|0.49|0.2453
95976347|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|4.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||4.90|0.04|0.4853
95976348|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|10.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||10.68|1.15|0.0205
95976349|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05||||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.78||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.78|0.95|0.0548
95976350|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.96||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||2.96|0.19|0.6853
95976351|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.65||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|17.47||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||17.47|1.83|0.0017
95976352|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||10.99|1.19|0.0196
95976353|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.6213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||4.69|0.40|0.6213
95976354|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.44||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|23.73||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||23.73|2.33|0.0003
95976355|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.84||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|15.58||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||15.58|1.50|0.0060
95976356|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|6.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||6.07|0.54|0.3432
95976357|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.96||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|13.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||13.37|1.84|0.0012
95976358|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|8.11||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||8.11|1.27|0.0121
95897922|NCT00533949|191751535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Gray's test||Reference level = 60 Gy|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.53|0.89|0.24
95897923|NCT00533949|191751535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.1|||Gray's test||Reference level = cetuximab|Local-regional failure was estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Comparisons by RT level and by cetuximab assignment are performed separately and tested with a two-sided significance level of 0.05 for each comparison.||1.10|0.64|0.22
95976359|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.08||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.08|0.41|0.8315
95897924|NCT00533949|191751536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Esophagitis: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
95897925|NCT00533949|191751536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2533|||||||Chi-squared|||PNEUMONITIS: Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of esophagitis and the worst grade of pneumonitis at any time were classified by binary groupings of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2533
95976360|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.35||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.35|0.61|0.4161
95897926|NCT00533949|191751537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||Only those toxicities reported as possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment were considered. The worst grade of of toxicity at any time was classified by a binary grouping of \< grade 3 and \>= grade 3. Comparisons were made using a two-sided chi-square test.||||0.52
95976361|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.82|0.54|0.6277
95897927|NCT00533949|191751539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0233|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||FACT-TOI-LCS was assessed and changes from baseline to 3 months calculated and grouped using a 2 point decline as the threshold. Comparisons of decline vs no decline by RT level were from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test and controlling for cetuximab assignment using a two-side significance level of 0.05.||||0.0233
95897928|NCT00533949|191751540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.92
95897929|NCT00533949|191751541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.19
95897930|NCT00533949|191751542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.33|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of overall survival by EGFR group||1.33|0.68|0.78
95976362|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.64||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.64|0.29|0.4128
95976363|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.30|0.42|0.9726
95976364|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.39|0.46|0.9070
95976365|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.14|0.21|0.0944
95976366|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.88||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.88|0.37|0.6513
95976367|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.82|0.35|0.5924
95897931|NCT00533949|191751542|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||Regression, Cox||Reference level = EGFR H-Score \< 200|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by EGFR group||1.65|0.74|0.61
95897932|NCT00533949|191751543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95897933|NCT00533949|191751544|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.001||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.002||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Univariate model with GTV as a continuous variable||1.002|1.000|0.06
95976368|NCT03816891|191925512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.38|0.27|0.2313
95897934|NCT00533949|191751544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.001||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.004||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in GTV|Multivariate model with GTV as a continuous variable, adjusting for planned radiation therapy dose group (60 Gy or 74 Gy) and the interaction of GTV and planned dose.|P-Value for the interaction of GTV and planned dose = 0.77|1.004|0.997|0.78
95976369|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.3137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|33.17||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||33.17|0.31|0.3137
95976370|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.5982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|25.75||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.75|0.16|0.5982
95976371|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.3244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|25.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||25.38|0.31|0.3244
95976372|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.58||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|59.86||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||59.86|0.96|0.0266
95976373|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|42.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||42.80|0.63|0.0892
95976374|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|37.67||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||37.67|0.44|0.1864
95976375|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.27||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|45.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||45.55|1.89|0.0020
95976376|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.42||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|32.22||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||32.22|1.28|0.0141
95976377|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|10.89||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||10.89|0.34|0.4485
95976378|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|9.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.55|1.14|0.0235
95976379|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|9.59||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.59|1.13|0.0252
95976380|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|3.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.14|0.27|0.9062
95976381|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.55||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|13.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||13.19|1.57|0.0041
95976382|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|13.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||13.39|1.66|0.0025
95976383|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.76||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||6.76|0.73|0.1632
95976384|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|10.65||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||10.65|1.57|0.0030
95976385|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.01||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.91||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||13.91|1.80|0.0014
95976386|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.82||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.82|0.62|0.3017
95976387|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|10.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||10.48|1.67|0.0018
95976388|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.31||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|10.99||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||10.99|1.69|0.0017
95976389|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.5365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.55||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.55|0.52|0.5365
95976390|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.46||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.46|0.46|0.8774
95976391|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.7||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.70|0.50|0.7261
95976392|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.63|0.31|0.4195
95976393|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.31|0.42|0.9759
95976394|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.6857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.81|0.51|0.6857
95976395|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.04|0.19|0.0633
95976396|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.88||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.88|0.36|0.6466
95976397|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.23||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.23|0.41|0.9298
95976398|NCT03816891|191925513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.49||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.49|0.29|0.3143
95976399|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1656||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.1656
95976400|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3026||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3026
95976401|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442||||||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||||0.3442
95976402|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6||||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|45.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||45.07|0.47|0.1641
95976403|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|25.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||25.61|0.20|0.5103
95976404|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.5457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|22.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.02|0.19|0.5457
95976405|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.44||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||22.44|0.80|0.0722
95976406|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|16.01||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.01|0.51|0.2215
95897935|NCT00533949|191751545|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of overall survival time by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.94
95897936|NCT00533949|191751545|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to local-regional failure by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.72
95976407|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|5.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||5.06|0.03|0.4872
95976408|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|9.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||9.68|0.95|0.0550
95976409|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.3519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|6.1||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.10|0.52|0.3519
95976410|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.34||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.34|0.22|0.8266
95897937|NCT00533949|191751545|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.02|||Regression, Cox||Corresponding to a one unit increase in SUV|Univariate model of time to distant metastasis by PET SUV as a continuous variable||1.02|0.98|0.79
95897938|NCT00727194|191751547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-1.05||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||-1.05|-7.45|0.0144
95976411|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.99||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|30.3||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.30|2.11|0.0009
95976412|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.93||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|18.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||18.39|1.32|0.0116
95976413|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.2127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|10.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||10.60|0.59|0.2127
95976414|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|22.61||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||22.61|2.17|0.0006
95897939|NCT00727194|191751547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.71||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.37||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.37|-10.80|0.1170
95897940|NCT00727194|191751548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95897941|NCT00727194|191751548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|||||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0606
95897942|NCT00727194|191751549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|0.91||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||||0.91|-4.08|0.1873
95976415|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.61||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|14.43||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||14.43|1.47|0.0061
95976416|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.2317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|6.9||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||6.90|0.62|0.2317
95976417|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|9.81||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||9.81|1.36|0.0093
95976418|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.8||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||8.80|1.21|0.0183
95897943|NCT00727194|191751549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.57||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-0.17||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.17|-6.97|0.0410
95897944|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.94|18.6||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Physical Functioning||18.60|-16.94|0.9190
95897945|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.86||||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.05|23.33||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning||23.33|-39.05|0.5931
95897946|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|3.13||||0.7319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|22.89||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Role Physical||22.89|-16.64|0.7319
95976419|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.45||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||3.45|0.40|0.7648
95976420|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.68||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.68|0.65|0.3370
95897947|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-7.14||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.36|31.08||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Physical||31.08|-45.36|0.6910
95897948|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.42||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.18|3.34||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Bodily Pain||3.34|-22.18|0.1311
95897949|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.86||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|11.36||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Bodily Pain||11.36|-41.08|0.2406
95897950|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.17||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|14.62||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||General Health||14.62|-0.29|0.0578
95976421|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.16||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||3.16|0.57|0.5054
95976422|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.24||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.24|0.19|0.1341
95897951|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.43||||0.5073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|31.11||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health||31.11|-16.26|0.5073
95897952|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.17||||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|11.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Vitality||11.72|-3.39|0.2474
95897953|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68||||0.8085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|20.88||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Vitality||20.88|-26.24|0.8085
95897954|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.46||||0.0716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|1.21||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Social Functioning||1.21|-24.13|0.0716
95897955|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.07||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.68|9.54||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Functioning||9.54|-41.68|0.1966
95897956|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.81||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|5.99||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Role Emotional||5.99|-29.60|0.1701
95897957|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.95||||0.7422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.58|44.48||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Role Emotional||44.48|-32.58|0.7422
95897958|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.9007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|7.67||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Health||7.67|-6.83|0.9007
95897959|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.86||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|43.29||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Health||43.29|-7.57|0.1519
95897960|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.07||||0.6807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|6.72||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Physical Component Score||6.72|-4.57|0.6807
95897961|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.79|4.32||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Component Score||4.32|-16.79|0.2226
95976423|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.25|0.43|0.9628
95976424|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.39||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.39|0.46|0.9185
95897962|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.1505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Paired t-test|||Mental Component Score||1.26|-7.10|0.1505
95897963|NCT00727194|191751550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.55||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|19.87||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||19.87|-8.77|0.4151
95976425|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.00|0.18|0.0496
95976426|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.04||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.04|0.38|0.7785
95897964|NCT00727194|191751551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.25||||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|10.44||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t-test|||Forced Vital Capacity||10.44|-3.94|0.3377
95897965|NCT00727194|191751551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.57||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|12.56||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Forced Vital Capacity||12.56|-33.71|0.3391
95897966|NCT00727194|191751551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|4.35||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|paired t test|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.35|-4.35|1.0000
95897967|NCT00727194|191751551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.57||||0.2292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.87|4.73||No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|||Negative Inspiratory Force||4.73|-17.87|0.2292
95897968|NCT05036642|191751565|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.02
95897969|NCT05036642|191751566|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.01
95897970|NCT05036642|191751567|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in measurements from 'no device' (baseline) to 'with device.'||||0.48
95897971|NCT04368429|191751570|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was greater than (\>) -10% for the serogroup A.|Difference in percentage|20.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.38|28.75|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup A||28.75|11.38|
95897972|NCT04368429|191751570|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup C.|Difference in percentage|33.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|41.5|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup C||41.50|26.20|
95976427|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||2.13|0.42|0.8857
95897973|NCT04368429|191751570|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup Y.|Difference in percentage|34.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.66|41.64|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup Y||41.64|26.66|
95897974|NCT04368429|191751570|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage was \>-10% for the serogroup W.|Difference in percentage|38.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|46.53|||||95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Serogroup W||46.53|28.93|
95897975|NCT03633396|191751595|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|3.77|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM including fixed effects of treatment, history of plaque psoriasis, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.|Least-squares mean difference = Imsidolimab - Placebo|The change from Baseline in PPPASI at Week 16 was analyzed using a a general linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). The model included fixed effects for treatment, history of plaque psoriasis (Yes/No), visit, treatment by visit interaction, and Baseline PPPASI score as covariate.||3.77|-4.05|0.944
95897976|NCT03633396|191751597|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.879|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|2.686|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPASI score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||2.686|0.288|
95897977|NCT03633396|191751598|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment as fixed effect, history of plaque psoriasis and Baseline PPPIGA score as covariates and using multiple imputation for missing data.|||13.9|0.5|
95897978|NCT00667342|191751606|OTHER|The association between response and Ktrans at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
95897979|NCT00667342|191751607|OTHER|The association between response and Vp at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0573|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0573
95897980|NCT00667342|191751608|OTHER|The association between response and Ve at Week 10 was evaluated.||||||0.0863|||||||Logistic Regression|||||||0.0863
95897981|NCT01221441|191751633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
95976428|NCT03816891|191925514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.62||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.62|0.31|0.4174
95976429|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|22.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||22.87|0.18|0.5673
95897982|NCT01221441|191751634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The primary efficacy evaluation based on IKDC and the VAS were tested at week 52 evaluated 100 mm VAS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in IKDC or VAS scores at week 52 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for both the IKDC and the VAS are rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
95897983|NCT01221441|191751635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated KOOS with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for KOOS is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
95897984|NCT01221441|191751636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Kenward-Roger's method.||"The efficacy evaluation at week 104 evaluated Lysholm score with the following superiority hypothesis:~HO: μTG = μPC vs. HA: μTG ≠ μPC, where μTG and μPC are the mean change from baseline in KOOS scores at week 104 for patients in the TG-C and placebo control groups, respectively. If the null hypotheses for Lysholm score is rejected, it the clinical effect of TG-C is concluded to be superior to that of the control."||||<0.01
95897985|NCT00326612|191751648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0||||||||||||
95976430|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17||||0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|32.21||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||32.21|0.31|0.3139
95976431|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|22.83||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||22.83|0.16|0.6197
95897986|NCT00326612|191751649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.2|3.9||||||||3.9|0.2|
95897987|NCT00326612|191751650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.4|2.7||||||||2.7|0.4|
95897988|NCT00326612|191751651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.2|8.2||||||||8.2|0.2|
95897989|NCT00326612|191751652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.0|67.3||||||||67.3|0.0|
95897990|NCT00326612|191751653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|0.2|140.7||||||||140.7|0.2|
95897991|NCT02477020|191751728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.442||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.26|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|||1.35|-12.26|0.115
95976432|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|60.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||60.25|0.80|0.0480
95897992|NCT02477020|191751729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.508||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||2.19|-3.77|0.602
95976433|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.44||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|48.12||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||48.12|0.62|0.0945
95976434|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.29||||0.1745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|40.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||40.60|0.45|0.1745
95976435|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.49||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|27.25||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||27.25|1.10|0.0233
95976436|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|16.53||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.53|0.63|0.1422
95976437|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.77||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||11.77|0.31|0.4810
95976438|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.83||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|8.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||8.60|0.93|0.0628
95976439|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.1149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.87||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||6.87|0.80|0.1149
95976440|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.48||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||3.48|0.30|0.9726
95976441|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.76||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.0||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||11.00|1.28|0.0134
95976442|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.31||||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.06||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||9.06|1.21|0.0148
95976443|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.71||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||6.71|0.73|0.1611
95976444|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|9.6||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||9.60|1.44|0.0061
95976445|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|7.18||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||7.18|1.13|0.0228
95976446|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.37||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 18||4.37|0.61|0.3331
95976447|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|4.38||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||4.38|0.78|0.1718
95976448|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.66||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||4.66|0.83|0.1219
95976449|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.45||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||2.45|0.40|0.9755
95976450|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.02|0.38|0.7579
95976451|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.19||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||2.19|0.42|0.9213
95976452|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.14||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||1.14|0.21|0.1001
95976453|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.05||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.05|0.39|0.7945
95976454|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||2.69|0.51|0.7214
95897993|NCT02477020|191751729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.229||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|2.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||2.19|-6.62|0.322
95897994|NCT02477020|191751729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|2.1||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.10|-9.02|0.221
95897995|NCT02477020|191751729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|4.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||4.11|-8.33|0.504
95897996|NCT02477020|191751729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-3.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.231||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.48||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PANSS total score was used as covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||2.48|-10.30|0.229
95897997|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.562||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 1||0.38|-1.84|0.195
95897998|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.786||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|0.36||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.36|-2.74|0.132
95897999|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.959||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.84|-0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 3||-0.05|-3.84|0.045
95898000|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.025||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.49||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 4||0.49|-3.56|0.135
95898001|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 5||0.14|-4.17|0.067
95898002|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.31||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Positive symptoms, Change at Week 6||0.31|-4.11|0.092
95898003|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.46||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 1||1.46|-0.78|0.548
95898004|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.756||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.88||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 2||0.88|-2.11|0.420
95898005|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.818||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 3||1.76|-1.47|0.857
95976455|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||1.07|0.20|0.0727
95976456|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.72||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.72|0.32|0.4871
95976457|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.85|0.35|0.6037
95976458|NCT03816891|191925515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.22||Calculated from CMH tests adjusted by the randomization stratification variables: sex and years since the first nodule observed (≥10 vs. \<10 years).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||1.22|0.23|0.1323
95976459|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.6|-3.8|<0.0001
95976460|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-1.2|-3.3|<0.0001
95976461|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.3|-2.5|0.0125
95976462|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-2.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.0|-3.8|<0.0001
95976463|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-1.0|-2.9|<0.0001
95976464|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.2|-2.1|0.0198
95976465|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-1.2|-3.4|<0.0001
95976466|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.9|-3.2|0.0004
95976467|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.2|-2.1|0.0969
95976468|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-1.3|-3.7|<0.0001
95976469|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||ls|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.8|-3.2|0.0012
95976470|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||0.6|-1.9|0.3212
95898006|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.936||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|1.26||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 4||1.26|-2.44|0.527
95898007|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 5||1.71|-2.01|0.875
95898008|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|1.13||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Negative symptoms, Change at Week 6||1.13|-2.58|0.441
95898009|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.406||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 1||0.43|-1.17|0.362
95898010|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 2||0.83|-1.26|0.687
95898011|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.618||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.76||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 3||0.76|-1.68|0.458
95898012|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.704||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|1.4||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 4||1.40|-1.38|0.991
95898013|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.782||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 5||0.82|-2.27|0.354
95898014|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.804||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Disorganized thoughts, Change at Week 6||0.33|-2.85|0.119
95898015|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.469||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 1||0.60|-1.25|0.493
95898016|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 2||1.03|-0.96|0.949
95898017|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.604||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 3||0.33|-2.06|0.153
95898018|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 4||1.35|-1.34|0.994
95898019|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.679||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 5||0.73|-1.96|0.365
95898020|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.653||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Hostility, Change at Week 6||0.17|-2.41|0.088
95898021|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 1||1.03|-0.54|0.535
95898022|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.502||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 2||0.58|-1.40|0.412
95898023|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.522||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 3||0.55|-1.52|0.354
95898024|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.85||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 4||0.85|-1.49|0.589
95898025|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.569||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 5||0.60|-1.65|0.360
95898026|NCT02477020|191751730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.58||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS Marder five-factor score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction, and Baseline PANSS Marder five-factor score-by-week interaction.|Anxiety, Change at Week 6||0.58|-1.93|0.288
95898027|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|0.47||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 1||0.47|-1.87|0.238
95898028|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.784||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|0.83||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 2||0.83|-2.27|0.359
95898029|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.38||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 3||0.38|-3.34|0.119
95898030|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|0.8||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 4||0.80|-3.21|0.238
95898031|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.35||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 5||0.35|-3.81|0.102
95898032|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|0.56||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Positive Score, Change at Week 6||0.56|-3.77|0.145
95898033|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.504||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 1||1.06|-0.93|0.902
95898034|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MMRM|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.693||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.78||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 2||0.78|-1.96|0.396
95898035|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.722||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 3||1.06|-1.79|0.612
95898036|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.856||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.33||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 4||1.33|-2.06|0.670
95898037|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.892||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.55||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 5||1.55|-1.98|0.807
95898038|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|0.54||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS Negative Score, Change at Week 6||0.54|-2.83|0.182
95898039|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.801||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.65||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 1||1.65|-1.52|0.933
95898040|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.66||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 2||1.66|-2.89|0.596
95898041|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.455||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|1.57||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 3||1.57|-4.18|0.371
95898042|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.625||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|2.84||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 4||2.84|-3.58|0.821
95898043|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.621||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|1.6||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 5||1.60|-4.81|0.323
95898044|NCT02477020|191751731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.732||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.98||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. PANSS subscale score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PANSS subscale score-by-week interaction.|PANSS General Score, Change at Week 6||0.98|-5.87|0.161
95976471|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.8|-3.2|0.0011
95898045|NCT02477020|191751732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.263|10.624|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 1||10.624|1.263|0.017
95898046|NCT02477020|191751732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.782||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.287|6.014|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 2||6.014|1.287|0.009
95976472|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-0.6|-3.0|0.0044
95976473|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||0.7|-1.8|0.3635
95976474|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.3|-2.7|0.0172
95898047|NCT02477020|191751732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.818||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.877|3.771|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 3||3.771|0.877|0.108
95976475|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.1|-2.6|0.0401
95898048|NCT02477020|191751732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.222||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.583|2.561|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 4||2.561|0.583|0.596
95898049|NCT02477020|191751732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.542||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.292|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 5||3.292|0.722|0.263
95898050|NCT02477020|191751732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.253||95.0|0.725|3.388|||Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline PANSS total score.|Week 6||3.388|0.725|0.253
95976476|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.7627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||1.1|-1.4|0.7627
95898051|NCT02477020|191751733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 1||0.14|-0.23|0.619
95898052|NCT02477020|191751733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.05||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 2||0.05|-0.48|0.116
95898053|NCT02477020|191751733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||-0.11|-0.77|0.009
95898054|NCT02477020|191751733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 4||0.00|-0.72|0.049
95898055|NCT02477020|191751733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 5||-0.09|-0.85|0.016
95898056|NCT02477020|191751733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.035||95.0|-0.83|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||-0.03|-0.83|0.035
95898057|NCT02477020|191751734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.21||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 1||0.21|-0.29|0.746
95898058|NCT02477020|191751734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.03||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 2||-0.03|-0.72|0.034
95976477|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.1|-2.0|0.0827
95976478|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.3|-1.9|0.1315
95976479|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||1.4|-0.8|0.6133
95976480|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.3136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.5|-1.6|0.3136
95976481|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.3218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.5|-1.6|0.3218
95976482|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.3|-0.8|0.6576
95976483|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.3|-1.9|0.1565
95976484|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||0.4|-1.7|0.2280
95898059|NCT02477020|191751734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.17||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 3||-0.17|-0.97|0.006
95898060|NCT02477020|191751734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.013
95898061|NCT02477020|191751734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.09||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 5||-0.09|-1.03|0.020
95898062|NCT02477020|191751734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline CGI-S score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline CGI-S score-by-week interaction.|Week 6||-0.18|-1.15|0.007
95898063|NCT02477020|191751735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|8.267||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 1||8.267|0.899|0.077
95898064|NCT02477020|191751735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.331||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.055|5.153||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 2||5.153|1.055|0.036
95898065|NCT02477020|191751735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.208|5.99||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 3||5.990|1.208|0.015
95898066|NCT02477020|191751735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.737||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|3.735||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 4||3.735|0.807|0.158
95898067|NCT02477020|191751735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.798|3.789||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 5||3.789|0.798|0.164
95898068|NCT02477020|191751735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.523|7.77||No multiplicity adjustment.|Regression, Logistic||TAK-063 versus Placebo. The p-values were obtained using a logistic regression model adjusting for treatment and the Baseline CGI-S score.|Week 6||7.770|1.523|0.003
95898069|NCT02477020|191751736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.547||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|4.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||4.86|-1.26|0.246
95976485|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||1.1|-1.0|0.9400
95976486|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.5|-1.8|0.2760
95976487|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||0.7|-1.6|0.4096
95976488|NCT03816891|191925516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.8177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||1.3|-1.0|0.8177
95898070|NCT02477020|191751736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.767||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.69||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|Least square mean difference||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BACS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction|Change at Week 6||5.69|-1.30|0.216
95898071|NCT02477020|191751737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.664||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|2.91||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BNSS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||2.91|-3.67|0.820
95898072|NCT02477020|191751737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|1.18||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline BNSS total score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline BACS total score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||1.18|-6.93|0.163
95898073|NCT02477020|191751738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.769||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|6.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||6.19|-0.81|0.131
95898074|NCT02477020|191751738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.313||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|7.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline PSP score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline PSP score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||7.19|-1.96|0.260
95898075|NCT02477020|191751739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.855||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|3.73||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 3||3.73|-3.61|0.973
95898076|NCT02477020|191751739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least mean square difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.255||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.92||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Least square means, differences and p-values were obtained using a MMRM.|MMRM||TAK-063 - Placebo. Baseline UPSA-B composite score was used as a covariate, pooled center, week and treatment as fixed factors, the treatment-by-week interaction and Baseline UPSA-B composite score-by-week interaction.|Change at Week 6||3.92|-5.00|0.812
95976489|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-145.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.24||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.6|-73.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-73.3|-216.6|0.0001
95976490|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-106.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.82||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.2|-35.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-35.5|-177.2|0.0035
95976491|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-182.2|-37.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-37.6|-182.2|0.0031
95898077|NCT01802775|191751746|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.5||||||Treatment difference was edoxaban - clopidogrel. For the treatment difference, 95% Confidence interval was calculated using a normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||9.5|-17.3|
95898078|NCT00120042|191751795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We planned that up to 300 women would be recruited. This sample size would achieve 80% poer at a 5% significance level to detect a reduction from 40% placental retention rate with no specific therapy (Group 1) to 20% with Group 2 or 3. An interim analysis was planned after 240 women had been recruited.||||0.05
95898079|NCT00120042|191751796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95898080|NCT01049919|191751828|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.31|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||1.31|0.31|0.224
95898081|NCT01049919|191751829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.671
95898082|NCT01049919|191751830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714||||||Treatment-by-week p-value is reported.|Repeated measures model|The statistical analysis model includes treatment group, week, treatment-by-week, and baseline pain measurement.||||||0.714
95898083|NCT01049919|191751832|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.85|||Proportional Hazards Regression|||||0.85|0.16|0.018
95976492|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.2|-46.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-46.4|-105.2|<0.0001
95976493|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-55.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.14||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.3|-25.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-25.5|-85.3|0.0003
95976494|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-43.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-13.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-13.1|-73.5|0.0053
95976495|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.28||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.6|-0.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.5|-84.6|0.0472
95976496|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.11||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.7|-12.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-12.3|-95.7|0.0115
95976497|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.28||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|10.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||10.9|-73.2|0.1453
95976498|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-88.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.58||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.5|-33.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-33.6|-142.5|0.0017
95976499|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.87||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-126.8|-16.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-16.7|-126.8|0.0110
95898084|NCT00792610|191751856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05|<|0.05||95.0|0.05|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Chi-square analysis and Fischer's exact test were used for comparing group proportions between seropositive and seronegative participants. GMT and their 95% confidence intervals were also calculated using the software developed by Kirkman, T.W. (18) An ANOVA test was performed to compare the difference of the three groups at one, six and seven months categorized by the anti-HBs titers at 7-10 days after the booster.||.15|.05|<0.05
95898085|NCT00079274|191751859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.68|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.68|0.92|0.15
95898086|NCT00079274|191751860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.92|||Regression, Cox|HR and p-value reported from a multivariate Cox PH regression model, adjusted for number of nodes, histologic grade, and T stage.||||1.92|0.85|0.25
95898087|NCT00079274|191751861|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
95898088|NCT00079274|191751862|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided chi-squared test||||||<0.001
95898089|NCT00554749|191751885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43|<|0.001||95.0|1.69|2.49|||paired t-test|Paired t-test of SSQ at baseline vs at 6 months, degrees of freedom=6. Difference in SSQ is reported.||||2.49|1.69|<0.001
95898090|NCT03417141|191751887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.014
95976500|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.46||0.0681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.5|3.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||3.9|-108.5|0.0681
95898091|NCT03417141|191751887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 24||||0.006
95898092|NCT03417141|191751888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.093
95898093|NCT03417141|191751889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95898094|NCT03417141|191751890|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95898095|NCT00613509|191751927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9406
95898096|NCT00613509|191751927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio test|||||||0.9179
95898097|NCT00739752|191751930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||=|0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12|||Regression, Poisson|||The two gain-framed groups were compared to the two loss-framed groups using poisson regression.||1.12|.88|=.885
95898098|NCT00739752|191751930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.31|||Regression, Poisson|||Groups receiving any framed interventions (gain-framed or loss-framed) were compared to those in the two non-framed control groups.||1.31|1.06|<.01
95898099|NCT00739752|191751930|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.28|||Regression, Poisson|||The 3 vaccine-recommended groups were compared with the 3 vaccine-offered groups using poisson regression.||1.28|1.05|<.01
95898100|NCT03465878|191751931|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.999||||0.9813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.918|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.09|0.918|0.9813
95898101|NCT03465878|191751931|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.06||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.976|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.976|0.1638
95898102|NCT03465878|191751931|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.01||||0.7623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.10|0.933|0.7623
95898103|NCT03465878|191751931|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.04||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.13|0.962|0.2952
95898104|NCT03465878|191751931|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|0.901|0.4052
95898105|NCT03465878|191751931|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.02||||0.5314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.11|0.948|0.5314
95898106|NCT01833403|191751933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95898107|NCT02702401|191751935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|0.987|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.987|0.609|0.0186
95898108|NCT02702401|191751936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.781||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.611|0.998|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.998|0.611|0.0238
95898109|NCT02702401|191751937|OTHER||Difference in Percent|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|19.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||19.5|7.7|
95898110|NCT02702401|191751939|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.688||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.877||One-sided p-value stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level.|Log Rank||Cox regression model with Efron's method (treatment as covariate) stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion and alfa-fetoprotein level|||0.877|0.540|0.0011
95898111|NCT01686646|191751953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|3.5||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.5||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||6.5|0.4|0.0248
95976501|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.79||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-17.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-17.8|-72.3|0.0013
95976502|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.96||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-6.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-6.4|-61.5|0.0161
95976503|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|11.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||11.4|-44.0|0.2466
95976504|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-32.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.17||0.0451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-0.7|-64.6|0.0451
95976505|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.43||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|10.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||10.2|-54.8|0.1770
95976506|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.54||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|26.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||26.1|-39.3|0.6893
95976507|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-37.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-9.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-9.6|-65.0|0.0087
95976508|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-29.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-0.8|-57.7|0.0439
95976509|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.33||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|18.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||18.9|-37.8|0.5110
95976510|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.76||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|1.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||1.1|-57.2|0.0592
95898112|NCT01686646|191751953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||4.1|-0.6|0.1513
95898113|NCT01686646|191751953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.6||Not significant based on hierarchical testing.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favoured the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in change from baseline in number of valid responses from RVIP task.||6.6|1.1|
95898114|NCT01686646|191751954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.1||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of accurate responses from the RVIP.||6.1|-0.2|0.0696
95898115|NCT01686646|191751954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.2||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||5.2|0.3|
95898116|NCT01686646|191751954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.9||A hierarchical testing procedure was used such that p-values were only presented if the preceding treatment comparison was statistically significant (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with factors for treatment group and season, and baseline score as a covariate.|A positive difference favored the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference in treatments in the change from baseline in the number of valid responses from the RVIP.||3.9|-1.7|
95898117|NCT02540954|191751963|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5 letters.|Least squares mean difference|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.96|||ANCOVA|||||1.96|-1.51|< 0.0001
95898118|NCT02540954|191751964|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority margin is 7%.|Treatment difference in %|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.0||||||||6.0|-3.7|
95898119|NCT02540954|191751969|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.152|0.392||||||||0.392|-4.152|
95976511|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.21||0.2327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|11.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||11.8|-48.3|0.2327
95976512|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.16||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|26.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||26.4|-33.5|0.8173
95976513|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.06||0.0725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||2.5|-57.1|0.0725
95976514|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.25||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.5|6.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||6.8|-53.5|0.1285
95976515|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.82||0.6911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||23.4|-35.2|0.6911
95976516|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.2283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|11.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||11.7|-48.6|0.2283
95976517|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.6||0.3049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|14.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||14.8|-46.9|0.3049
95898120|NCT03925727|191751971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.0|||ANCOVA|||||6|-3.2|0.5533
95898121|NCT03925727|191751972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.0192
95898122|NCT00249470|191751978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|16.56|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||16.56|2.03|.004
95898123|NCT00249470|191751979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||=|0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.08|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.08|0.40|=0.82
95898124|NCT00249470|191751980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|9.37|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||9.37|1.21|0.04
95898125|NCT00844545|191752050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|65.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.01|93.36|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||With at least 12 patients enrolled and assuming a null hypothesis of no post-dose change from baseline in mean platelet count, the study had approximately 88% power to detect as statistically significant an effect size (mean change from baseline/standard deviation) of at least 1 when using a one sample t-test with a two-sided α=0.05. All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-002A (adult) and C08-002B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||93.36|37.01|<0.0001
95898126|NCT00844545|191752051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|82.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||96|57|
95898127|NCT00844545|191752052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
95898128|NCT00844545|191752053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|86.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||86|38|
95898129|NCT00844545|191752054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95898130|NCT00844545|191752055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|111.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.12|125.13|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||125.13|98.12|<0.0001
95898131|NCT00844545|191752056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
95898132|NCT00844545|191752057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||99|64|
95898133|NCT00844545|191752058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|93.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||93|50|
95898134|NCT00844545|191752059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: protocol C08-002A for adult patients with aHUS and protocol C08-002B, a similar protocol, for patients \< 18 years of age for adolescent patients with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95898135|NCT02566759|191752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.6662|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5969|0.7355||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) is equal to (=) a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.7355|0.5969|
95898136|NCT02566759|191752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.7795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6597|0.8993|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.8993|0.6597|
95898137|NCT02566759|191752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) Mean Ratio|0.362|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3043|0.4301||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed lease square (LS) Means.||0.4301|0.3043|
95976518|NCT03816891|191925517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.62||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.6|25.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||25.2|-36.6|0.7172
95976519|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|-12.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-12.0|-24.1|<0.0001
95976520|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-5.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-5.6|-17.8|0.0002
95898138|NCT02566759|191752071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|1.799|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4625|2.2116||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.2116|1.4625|
95898139|NCT02566759|191752074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.872|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8145|0.9296||||||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9296|0.8145|
95898140|NCT02566759|191752074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.9135|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8062|1.0209|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||1.0209|0.8062|
95898141|NCT02566759|191752074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4324|0.5777||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.5777|0.4324|
95898142|NCT02566759|191752074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|3.1275||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||3.1275|2.1000|
95976521|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-3.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.8|-15.9|0.0017
95976522|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-13.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-13.9|-28.0|<0.0001
95976523|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-5.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-5.4|-19.3|0.0006
95898143|NCT02566759|191752075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8505|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7925|0.9084|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b are the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90 % CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9483, 1.0517) for the dose range of 10 mg to 750 mg.||0.9084|0.7925|<0.001
95976524|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.0|-13.9|0.0497
95976525|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-20.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.9|-12.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-12.3|-28.9|<0.0001
95976526|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-8.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-8.0|-24.6|0.0002
95898144|NCT02566759|191752075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.8415|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7618|0.9212|||Power model|||Dose proportionality was evaluated using the following power model: ln (PK Parameter) = a+b\*ln (dose), where a and b were the intercept and slope of the line, respectively. Dose proportionality was declared when the 90% CI of the slope lies entirely within the critical region (0.9139, 1.0861) for the dose range of 30 mg to 400 mg.||0.9212|0.7618|<0.001
95898145|NCT02566759|191752075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|0.543|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4797|0.6149||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||0.6149|0.4797|
95898146|NCT02566759|191752075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Ratio|2.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9592|2.7854||||||The point estimate and CI were obtained by taking the antilog of the difference in the log transformed LS Means.||2.7854|1.9592|
95898147|NCT01126541|191752078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided).||||||0.465|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change from Day 1 to Week 24 (initial treatment)||||0.465
95976527|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.6|-17.5|0.0362
95976528|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-13.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-13.2|-28.8|<0.0001
95976529|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|-7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-7.7|-23.5|0.0001
95976530|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-2.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-2.5|-18.3|0.0100
95976531|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-4.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-4.3|-21.1|0.0035
95976532|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-1.2|-18.3|0.0255
95976533|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.2869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|3.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||3.9|-13.1|0.2869
95976534|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|0.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||0.8|-15.4|0.0760
95976535|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||3.6|-12.8|0.2673
95976536|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|6.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||6.8|-9.6|0.7320
95976537|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||0.7|-16.4|0.0726
95976538|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||5.4|-12.1|0.4475
95976539|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|6.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||6.9|-10.5|0.6854
95976540|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||4.5|-13.3|0.3287
95976541|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.9752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||8.7|-9.0|0.9752
95976542|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.5761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||11.2|-6.2|0.5761
95898148|NCT01126541|191752078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 1st retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.161
95898149|NCT01126541|191752078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean ±SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)||||||0.524|||||||Student t-test|||Arm A vs. Arm B: Change from 2nd retreatment to 24 weeks after||||0.524
95898150|NCT01126541|191752079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Primary objective to demonstrate noninferiority of retreatment with one 1000 mg rituximab infusion. Mean plus or minus (±)SD of the DAS28-CRP AUC at 24 months = 2218 ±967 (based on EDWARDS, REFLEX and DANCER study data). H0 (null hypothesis): Arm B - Arm A \>20%. H1: Arm B - Arm A ≤ 20%. Power = 80%; Larger difference clinically acceptable = 20% = 444; Significance level of 2.5% (one-sided)|Adjusted difference|51.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.22|233.98|||||Covariate analysis with baseline DAS28-CRP value as covariate|||233.98|-131.22|
95898151|NCT01126541|191752099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 to Week 104||||0.389
95898152|NCT01126541|191752099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||1st retreatment to Week 104||||0.374
95898153|NCT01126541|191752099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Weel 24 to Week 104||||0.277
95898154|NCT01126541|191752100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.278
95898155|NCT01126541|191752100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Oral cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||0.887
95898156|NCT01126541|191752100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||IV cortisone: Week 24 to Week 104||||<0.001
95976543|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54||0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|4.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||4.1|-13.9|0.2817
95976544|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|4.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||4.8|-13.3|0.3554
95976545|NCT03816891|191925518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|7.7||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||7.7|-10.4|0.7713
95976546|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-16.9|-32.8|<0.0001
95976547|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-8.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-8.6|-24.6|<0.0001
95976548|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-5.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-5.3|-21.2|0.0013
95976549|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.5|-19.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-19.1|-36.5|<0.0001
95898157|NCT05107128|191752133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5||The p-value was obtained from Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.5|-2.7|0.1675
95898158|NCT05107128|191752134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.4872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and UHDRS - Independence Scale at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||1.1|-2.4|0.4872
95898159|NCT05107128|191752135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.4089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.9||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and SDMT score at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||6.9|-17.0|0.4089
95976550|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-8.2|-25.4|0.0002
95976551|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||0.0|-17.2|0.0511
95898160|NCT05107128|191752136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|3.19||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and a baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||3.19|-1.78|0.5766
95898161|NCT05107128|191752137|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.39||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and baseline value as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.39|-2.13|0.1777
95898162|NCT05107128|191752138|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|7.3||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and Hi-DEF at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||7.3|0.4|0.0291
95898163|NCT05107128|191752139|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The p-value was obtained from MMRM model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction as categorical covariates, and CGI at baseline as a continuous covariate.|MMRM||Difference was calculated as SAGE-718 - placebo.|||0.1|-0.3|0.2923
95976552|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-17.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-17.1|-37.8|<0.0001
95976553|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-11.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-11.5|-32.3|<0.0001
95976554|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.6|-21.8|0.0386
95976555|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-18.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-18.4|-37.8|<0.0001
95976556|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-11.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-11.5|-31.0|<0.0001
95976557|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-3.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 16||-3.0|-22.5|0.0108
95976558|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-8.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-8.4|-29.6|0.0006
95976559|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-3.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||-3.8|-25.3|0.0084
95976560|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|4.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 18||4.4|-17.1|0.2422
95976561|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|-1.5||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||-1.5|-21.9|0.0249
95976562|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24||0.1497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|2.8||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||2.8|-17.9|0.1497
95976563|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|8.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 20||8.2|-12.4|0.6910
95976564|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.68||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|-1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||-1.0|-23.4|0.0331
95976565|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.3709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|6.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||6.2|-16.6|0.3709
95898164|NCT01018264|191752144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.2||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value|This represents the effect size between solifenacin and placebo.|||||0.53
95898165|NCT01018264|191752145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95898166|NCT01018264|191752146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.35||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.22
95898167|NCT01018264|191752147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.27||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
95898168|NCT01018264|191752148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Effect size|0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
95898169|NCT00812929|191752149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.56|
95898170|NCT00812929|191752149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.32|
95898171|NCT00812929|191752149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.18||||||||3.18|-2.52|
95898172|NCT00812929|191752149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|5.37||||||||5.37|-0.31|
95898173|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.638|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|5.75||||||2 Hours||5.75|-0.72|
95898174|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|2.58||||||9.5 Hours||2.58|-2.34|
95898175|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|5.84||||||2 Hours||5.84|-0.64|
95898176|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.247|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.22||||||9.5 Hours||3.22|-1.70|
95898177|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|6.03||||||2 Hours||6.03|-0.45|
95898178|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.95||||||9.5 Hours||5.95|1.02|
95898179|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|9.54||||||2 Hours||9.54|3.06|
95898180|NCT00812929|191752150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|4.73||||||9.5 Hours||4.73|-0.19|
95898181|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|3.25|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.25|-1.37|
95898182|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.8|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||1.80|-1.66|
95898183|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.63|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||2.63|-0.82|
95898184|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|3.43|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.43|-1.19|
95898185|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.878|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.95|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||2.95|-0.51|
95898186|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.873|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.9|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.90|-1.55|
95976566|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.6924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|9.1||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 32||9.1|-13.7|0.6924
95976567|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|3.2||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||3.2|-19.6|0.1583
95976568|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.77||0.7193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||9.3|-13.5|0.7193
95898187|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.82|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||3.82|-0.80|
95898188|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.879|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.03|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||5.03|1.57|
95898189|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|1.62|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||1.62|-1.83|
95898190|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.169|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.48|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|2 Hours||5.48|0.86|
95898191|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.877|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.84|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|9.5 Hours||3.84|0.38|
95898192|NCT00812929|191752151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.44|||||Estimates and 95% confidence intervals for treatment difference between each active dose and placebo for each challenge time point were calculated.|24 Hours||3.44|-0.00|
95898193|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.21|0.71|
95976569|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64||0.7589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|12.9||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 48||12.9|-9.4|0.7589
95898194|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.06|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||2.06|0.59|
95898195|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.43|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.43|0.93|
95898196|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||2.48|0.81|
95898197|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.66|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.66|1.01|
95898198|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.25|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.25|0.86|
95898199|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.69|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||3.69|1.19|
95898200|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.75|10.94|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||10.94|2.75|
95898201|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.64|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||3.64|1.00|
95898202|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.48|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|2 Hours||6.48|2.00|
95898203|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|3.87|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|9.5 Hours||3.87|1.07|
95898204|NCT00812929|191752152|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|12.71|||||Hazard ratio = ratio of likelihood of recovery at any time on active treatment vs placebo|24 Hours||12.71|2.90|
95898205|NCT02504372|191752195|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.96|||||HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.96|0.68|
95898206|NCT02504372|191752196|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.13499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||1.16|0.59|0.13499
95898207|NCT02504372|191752197|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.01327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.97|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.97|0.62|0.01327
95898208|NCT02504372|191752204|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.00143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91|||Regression, Cox|One-sided p-value was based on the permutation test with multivariate Cox regression model.|HR and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were based on multivariate Cox regression model with treatment adjusted by stage, PD-L1 status, adjuvant chemotherapy, region, histology, and smoking status.|||0.91|0.63|0.00143
95898209|NCT02975934|191752205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.69|||Log Rank|||||0.69|0.36|<0.001
95898210|NCT02975934|191752206|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.80|0.47|<0.001
95898211|NCT02975934|191752207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.68|0.5044
95898212|NCT02975934|191752208|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.78|0.9368
95898213|NCT05429203|191752225|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.8
95898214|NCT05429203|191752226|OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1
95898215|NCT05429203|191752227|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
95898216|NCT05429203|191752228|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
95898217|NCT05429203|191752229|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95898218|NCT05429203|191752230|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95976570|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.1642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|3.4||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||3.4|-20.0|0.1642
95976571|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.2611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||5.0|-18.4|0.2611
95898219|NCT05429203|191752231|OTHER|||||||0.7||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.7
95898220|NCT05429203|191752232|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
95898221|NCT05429203|191752233|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95898222|NCT05429203|191752234|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95898223|NCT05429203|191752235|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95898224|NCT05429203|191752236|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95898225|NCT00433654|191752238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: rate \> 10%||1.7||<0.001
95898226|NCT00433654|191752239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.0||||||95.0||||P-value and confidence interval could not be calculated because both groups were 100% successful.|Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||
95898227|NCT00433654|191752240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
95898228|NCT00433654|191752241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|1.9|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
95898229|NCT00433654|191752242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|Difference in percentages|2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||Null hypothesis: success rate MRI group \<= success rate control group - 10%||||<0.001
95898230|NCT00433654|191752243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage|8.3|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||10.7|||exact test of binomial proportions|||Null hypothesis: Percentage of subjects with complication \> 20%||10.7||<0.001
95898231|NCT00357370|191752254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.32|-1.08|
95898232|NCT00357370|191752254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.4|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-0.40|-1.16|
95898233|NCT00357370|191752255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4753|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|7.48|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||7.48|-38.37|
95898234|NCT00357370|191752255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.33|-4.55|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||-4.55|-50.33|
95898235|NCT00357370|191752259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8302|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|4.6|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||4.60|-10.69|
95898236|NCT00357370|191752259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.17|5.12|||||ANCOVA was applied. No formal statistical testing was performed to compare between treatment groups.|||5.12|-10.17|
95898237|NCT02644967|191752266|OTHER|Estimation||||||0.0158||||||P-value of the overall response tested against the null rate of 11% based on 1-sided exact (Clopper-Pearson) test.|One-sided Clopper-Pearson test|||Testing the best overall confirmed response rate against the historical control rate of 0.11 (extracted from the literature review).||||0.0158
95898238|NCT02644967|191752267|OTHER|Estimation|Kaplan-Meier|5.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.0|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of median PFS in months.|||7.00|3.65|
95898239|NCT02644967|191752268|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at six (6) months.|Kaplan-Meier|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.3|94.2|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at six (6) months.|||94.2|74.3|
95898240|NCT02644967|191752269|OTHER|Landmark analysis of overall survival at twelve (12) months.|Kaplan-Meier|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.7|72.4|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of percentage of participants surviving at twelve (12) months.|||72.4|44.7|
95898241|NCT05422053|191752282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||End of Control-IQ Use (13 Weeks) compared to Control-IQ Start||||<0.001
95898242|NCT00280566|191752304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Log Rank|alpha = 0.05 level of significance||Equality of Survival Curves across the treatment groups.||||0.0104
95898243|NCT00280566|191752305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0047|||||||Log Rank|No adjustment made for multiple comparisons||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0047
95898244|NCT00280566|191752306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205||||||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||alpha = 0.05 level of significance||||0.0205
95898245|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1247|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1: Difference in Change during Period 2 MMRM ANCOVA: center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1247
95976572|NCT03816891|191925519|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|10.3||Estimated from ANCOVA models with treatment and randomization stratification factors of sex and years since the first nodule observed (i.e., ≥10 vs. \<10 years) as fixed effect factors, baseline as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 52||10.3|-13.2|0.8076
95976573|NCT02254278|191925561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||binomial|One-sided significance level=0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.04
95976574|NCT02254278|191925561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||bionmial|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Assuming a binomial distribution, 140 eligible patients per arm were required for 80% power and 1-sided type I error rate of 10% to test the null hypothesis of 2-year PFS rate ≤ 85% against the alternative hypothesis of \> 85% with a binomial test. The arms are not compared to each other; they are each tested separately against the null hypothesis.||||0.23
95976575|NCT02254278|191925562|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.9|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||0.90|0.17|0.02
95976576|NCT02254278|191925563|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.08|||Log Rank|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||5.08|0.4|0.58
95976577|NCT02254278|191925564|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.95||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = IMRT 5 weeks|||2.95|0.31|0.93
95976578|NCT02254278|191925565|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||End of RT||||<0.0001
95976579|NCT02254278|191925565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||One month after end of RT||||0.17
95976580|NCT02254278|191925565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Six months after end of RT||||0.16
95976581|NCT02254278|191925565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||One year after end of RT||||0.26
95976582|NCT02254278|191925565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-side significance level = 0.05||Two years after the end of RT||||0.82
95976583|NCT02254278|191925567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Progression-free survival: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.3
95976584|NCT02254278|191925567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||binomial test|One-sided significance level = 0.10||Local-regional control: The null hypothesis of negative predictive value ≤ 90% was tested against the alternative of \> 90% with a 1-sided binomial test at the 0.10 level.||||0.07
95976585|NCT02254278|191925568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.28
95976586|NCT02254278|191925569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.03
95976587|NCT02254278|191925573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.08
95976588|NCT02254278|191925574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95976589|NCT06729593|191925609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.11||Proportional odds model stratified by disease severity (high flow nasal canula(HFNC)/non-invasive ventilation(NIV) or invasive mechanical ventiliation(IMV)/ECMO) at study entry to determine the odds of being in a better category at day 90.|Proportional odds model||Summary odds ratio for being in a better category, active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.11|0.45|0.96
95976590|NCT06729593|191925610|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.42|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.42|0.39|0.37
95976591|NCT06729593|191925611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||2.14|0.37|0.80
95976592|NCT06729593|191925612|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.67|0.64|0.88
95976593|NCT06729593|191925613|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.5|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for active/placebo (95% confidence interval); pvalue|||1.50|0.43|0.50
95976594|NCT06679764|191925614|SUPERIORITY|Non-parametric analysis due to non-normal distribution. AQLB \< PENG \< Control for median morphine use. Significant pairwise differences: PENG vs Control, AQLB vs Control, and PENG vs AQLB (P=0.035).||||||0.035||||||Overall comparison of 24-h postoperative morphine consumption across the three groups used the Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric).|Kruskal-Wallis|||Comparison of total 24-h postoperative morphine consumption across three groups using Kruskal-Wallis test; post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction.||||0.035
95898246|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.7515|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7515
95898247|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.3074|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3074
95976595|NCT00147823|191925623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Using baseline (6 wk) and two year post operative predicted effects data, and setting desirable power to detect our effects to 80%||The sample size provided at least 80% power at a 5% alpha level to detect a medium to large effect in patients receiving Vitoss alone compared to combination therapy consisting of Vitoss with Bone Marrow Aspirate. Since a random coefficients model was used to analyze the data, the sample size calculation was estimated under this model assuming a 3% attrition rate between all measurement times.||||<0.01
95976596|NCT00147823|191925624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.01
95976597|NCT02892344|191925643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.182|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.148|<0.001
95976598|NCT02892344|191925644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.218|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|-0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.143|-0.293|<0.001
95976599|NCT02892344|191925645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.132|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.105|<0.001
95976600|NCT02892344|191925646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.176|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.207|0.145|<0.001
95976601|NCT02892344|191925647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.061|0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FVC||0.139|0.061|<0.001
95976602|NCT02892344|191925647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.288|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.345|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pre-dose trough FEF25-75%||0.345|0.231|<0.001
95976603|NCT02892344|191925648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|32.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Morning PEF||32.4|22.1|<0.001
95976604|NCT02892344|191925648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean Evening PEF||31.2|21.0|<0.001
95976605|NCT02892344|191925651|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.204|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|-0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.131|-0.277|<0.001
95976606|NCT02892344|191925652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Night-time number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.05|-0.16|<0.001
95976607|NCT02892344|191925652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Daytime number of puffs of rescue medication||-0.08|-0.22|<0.001
95976608|NCT02892344|191925653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.8|4.3|<0.001
95976609|NCT02892344|191925654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.234|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.234|0.064|<0.001
95976610|NCT02892344|191925657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.59|||Regression, Cox|||||0.59|0.14|<0.001
95976611|NCT03938454|191925658|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|45.98||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|65.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% percent reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||65.36|23.50|0.0676
95976612|NCT03938454|191925664|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|50.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.94|67.36||P-value is from one-sided Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test with at least 25% reduction from Baseline (adjusted for 26 weeks) as outcome variable.|Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test|||||67.36|27.94|0.0259
95976613|NCT05888103|191925687|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-47.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.35|-42.65|||ANCOVA|||||-42.65|-52.35|<0.0001
95976614|NCT05888103|191925688|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-69.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-62.86|||ANCOVA|||||-62.86|-76.60|<0.0001
95976615|NCT05888103|191925689|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-77.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.86|-69.8|||ANCOVA|||||-69.80|-85.86|<0.0001
95976616|NCT05888103|191925690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-226.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-244.77|-208.45|||ANCOVA|||||-208.45|-244.77|<0.0001
95976617|NCT05888103|191925691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-28.07|||ANCOVA|||||-28.07|-34.91|<0.0001
95976618|NCT05888103|191925692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.24|-63.69|||ANCOVA|||||-63.69|-79.24|<0.0001
95976619|NCT05888103|191925693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.94||||0.3743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|9.42|||ANCOVA|||||9.42|-3.55|0.3743
95976620|NCT05888103|191925694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.07||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.68|||ANCOVA|||||3.68|-1.54|0.4228
95976621|NCT05888103|191925695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-40.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.57|-36.57|||ANCOVA|||||-36.57|-44.57|<0.0001
95976622|NCT05888103|191925696|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-72.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.56|-65.13|||ANCOVA|||||-65.13|-79.56|<0.0001
95976623|NCT05888103|191925697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-36.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.72|-32.96|||ANCOVA|||||-32.96|-40.72|<0.0001
95976624|NCT05888103|191925698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-41.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.28|-37.47|||ANCOVA|||||-37.47|-46.28|<0.0001
95976625|NCT05888103|191925699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.05||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|5.93|||ANCOVA|||||5.93|-1.84|0.3011
95976626|NCT05888103|191925700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.13||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|8.35|||ANCOVA|||||8.35|-2.09|0.2403
95976627|NCT05888103|191925701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-30.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.58|-19.95|||ANCOVA|||||-19.95|-40.58|<0.0001
95976628|NCT05888103|191925702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.76|||ANCOVA|||||0.76|0.60|<0.0001
95898248|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0758|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0758
95898249|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.0162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0162
95898250|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0003|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0003
95898251|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.0242|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0242
95898252|NCT00280566|191752307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0161|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0161
95976629|NCT05888103|191925703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.01||||0.5877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|13.91|||ANCOVA|||||13.91|-7.88|0.5877
95976630|NCT05888103|191925704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.96||||0.5019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.17|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-31.17|0.5019
95898253|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0088|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0088
95898254|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.3677|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3677
95898255|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0734|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0734
95898256|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9166|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9166
95898257|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2791|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2791
95976631|NCT04987307|191925710|SUPERIORITY||Difference percentage (%)|2.1||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.8||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using nonresponder imputation (NRI).|Logistic regression model|||||12.8|-8.6|0.70
95898258|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.146|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1460
95898259|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.7301|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7301
95898260|NCT00280566|191752308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8162|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8162
95898261|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0013
95898262|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1167|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1167
95976632|NCT04987307|191925710|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|12.6||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||12.6|-8.6|0.72
95898263|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0188|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0188
95898264|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3413|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3413
95898265|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.276|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2760
95898266|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0085|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0085
95898267|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1317|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1317
95976633|NCT04987307|191925710|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|3.1||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|14.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||14.2|-8.0|0.58
95976634|NCT04987307|191925711|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|-1.1||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|14.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||14.2|-16.3|0.89
95976635|NCT04987307|191925711|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.7||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|20.6||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||20.6|-11.1|0.56
95976636|NCT04987307|191925711|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|20.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||20.7|-11.7|0.59
95898268|NCT00280566|191752309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1666|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1666
95898269|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0023|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 1 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0023
95898270|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1412|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 2 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.1412
95898271|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0861|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0861
95898272|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.5992|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5992
95898273|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5873|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5873
95898274|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2116|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2116
95898275|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1847|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1847
95898276|NCT00280566|191752310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.9972|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9972
95898277|NCT00280566|191752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.5954|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5954
95898278|NCT00280566|191752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.3414|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3414
95898279|NCT00280566|191752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.9745|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate||||0.9745
95898280|NCT00280566|191752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.5627|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5627
95898281|NCT00280566|191752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.741|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.7410
95976637|NCT04987307|191925712|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|4.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|17.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||17.2|-8.7|0.52
95976638|NCT04987307|191925712|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.2||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||12.2|-11.8|0.97
95976639|NCT04987307|191925712|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|1.5||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|14.0||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression mode|||||14.0|-11.1|0.82
95976640|NCT04987307|191925713|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|16.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||16.7|-11.6|0.72
95976641|NCT04987307|191925713|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.3||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|23.1||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||23.1|-6.6|0.28
95976642|NCT04987307|191925713|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.3||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||23.3|-7.1|0.30
95976643|NCT04987307|191925714|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|8.46||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||16.9|0.0|0.11
95976644|NCT04987307|191925714|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|2.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.7||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||7.7|-3.4|0.46
95976645|NCT04987307|191925714|SUPERIORITY||Difference %|0.14||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|4.3||P-value was unadjusted and obtained from logistic regression model including stratification factors as covariates (prior experience with ≥1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) using NRI.|Logistic regression model|||||4.3|-4.0|0.94
95976646|NCT04987307|191925715|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was obtained from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.39
95976647|NCT04987307|191925715|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.2||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||P-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.3|0.49
95976648|NCT04987307|191925715|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||P-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model which includes stratification factors (prior experience with ≥ 1 biologic or targeted small molecule, corticosteroid use at randomization) as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.76
95976649|NCT02072434|191925752|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.43||||||||1.43|0.12|
95898282|NCT00280566|191752311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.9632|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9632
95898283|NCT00280566|191752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9538|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9538
95898284|NCT00280566|191752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.8541|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8541
95898285|NCT00280566|191752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1084|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1084
95898286|NCT00280566|191752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.038|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0380
95898287|NCT00280566|191752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.2649|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2649
95898288|NCT00280566|191752312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2394|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.2394
95898289|NCT00280566|191752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8117|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 4 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.8117
95898290|NCT00280566|191752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.0443|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 8 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.0443
95898291|NCT00280566|191752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3039|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 12 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.3039
95898292|NCT00280566|191752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.9953|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 16 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.9953
95898293|NCT00280566|191752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.1653|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 20 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.1653
95898294|NCT00280566|191752313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5771|||||||MMRM ANCOVA|MMRM ANCOVA = mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance.|Mean Difference (Final Values) = Least Squares Mean|Week 24 mixed effects repeated measures analysis of covariance (MMRM ANCOVA): center, subject within center as random effects; treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.||||0.5771
95898295|NCT01147653|191752314|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in GMFM-66 is the same on Autologous Umbilical Cord Blood and Placebo||3.7|-2.6|0.72
95898296|NCT01147653|191752315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95976650|NCT02072434|191925753|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.55||||||||3.55|0.64|
95898297|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.473
95898298|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.377|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Bodily Pain/Discomfort change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.377
95898299|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Family Cohesion change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.844
95898300|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.322
95898301|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month General Health Perceptions change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.927
95898302|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Global Behavior change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.199
95898303|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Growth and Development change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.294
95898304|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Overall Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.726
95898305|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Emotional change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.315
95898306|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Parental Impact-Time change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.396
95898307|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Physical Abilities change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.381
95898308|NCT01147653|191752316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Temperament and Moods change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.869
95898309|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12 month Access to Services change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous Cord Blood Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.055
95898310|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Emotional Well Being and Self Esteem change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.121
95898311|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month 2 Family Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.647
95898312|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Functioning change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.170
95898313|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Pain and Impact of Disability change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.410
95898314|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Participation and Physical Health change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.200
95898315|NCT01147653|191752317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The 12-month Social wellbeing and acceptance change score is identically distributed in patients assigned Autologous UCB Reinfusion First and Placebo First.||||0.225
95898316|NCT01147653|191752320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.290
95898317|NCT01147653|191752323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.697
95898318|NCT01147653|191752324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.912
95898319|NCT01147653|191752325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.544
95898320|NCT01147653|191752326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95898321|NCT01147653|191752327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95898322|NCT01147653|191752328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
95898323|NCT01147653|191752329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.099
95976651|NCT02072434|191925754|OTHER||Difference between percentages|-0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|0.15||||||||0.15|-1.59|
95976652|NCT00120406|191925755|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is 10%.|||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|z-test, one-sided|||||||<0.01
95898324|NCT01147653|191752330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
95898325|NCT01147653|191752331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
95898326|NCT01147653|191752332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95976653|NCT00120406|191925756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||||<0.01
95976654|NCT01570036|191925792|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier Survival Analysis|||||1.25|.31|0.18
95976655|NCT01570036|191925794|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||Comparison of the mean LVEF from baseline to 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months; this time period includes the therapy period of trastuzumab.|ANOVA|||||||0.02
95976656|NCT01570036|191925794|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||The mean LVEF compared at baseline to 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months; this time period includes the duration of trastuzumab therapy and 1 year after completion of trastuzumab therapy.|ANOVA|||||||0.58
95976657|NCT01570036|191925794|OTHER|||||||0.65||||||Evaluating LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model, this analysis compared cardiac ejection fraction over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
95976658|NCT01570036|191925794|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between randomization arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.91
95976659|NCT01570036|191925794|OTHER|||||||0.81||||||This analysis evaluated LVEF at all time points with a linear mixed regression model between the arms over time.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.81
95898327|NCT01147653|191752333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.310
95898328|NCT01147653|191752335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of Modified Ashworth Scale scores is the same at 1-year post-infusion with autologous cord blood and placebo.||||0.233
95898329|NCT01147653|191752339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
95898330|NCT01147653|191752340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||0.05
95898331|NCT01147653|191752340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and Placebo.||||0.15
95898332|NCT01147653|191752340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of the 1-year GMFM-66 change score is the same for patients infused with Low doses of autologous umbilical cord blood and placebo.||||0.21
95898333|NCT01147653|191752341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The population distribution of differences between observed and expected GMFM-66 change scores at 1-year post-infusion is the same for patients receiving Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||||<0.01
95898334|NCT01147653|191752342|SUPERIORITY|H0: The population distribution of the Peabody Gross Motor Quotient change score 1 year post-infusion with autologous umbilical cord blood is the same in patients receiving a Low infused dose and a High infused dose.||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95898335|NCT01147653|191752343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.38|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0: The true mean 1-year change in normalized whole brain connectivity is the same in patients infused with Low and High doses of autologous umbilical cord blood.||0.38|0.01|0.04
95898336|NCT01502644|191752344|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|32.2|||Linear Mixed Modeling|Group, group×week, average baseline pain, and opioid use at baseline were entered as fixed effects using an autoregressive covariance structure.||||32.2|3.7|0.01
95898337|NCT01302392|191752408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.4172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.249||Based on 1-sided test.|Log Rank|Analysis was stratified by the number of previous therapies (3 vs 4 vs ≥ 5) and geographical region (Europe vs. non-Europe)||||1.249|0.760|0.4172
95898338|NCT01077960|191752420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95898339|NCT01077960|191752421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95898340|NCT01077960|191752422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95898341|NCT01077960|191752423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95898342|NCT01077960|191752424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95976660|NCT01570036|191925795|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related local toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||The safety group consisted of any patients who received NPS with GM-CSF or placebo with GM-CSF inoculations.||||0.149
95976661|NCT01570036|191925795|OTHER|||||||0.901|||||||Chi-squared|Comparison of the maximum related systemic toxicity experienced per patient and compared between treatment arms.||||||0.901
95976662|NCT01942720|191925803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|-0.7||||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman test|||Relationship of total PillCam SB Lewis score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.631
95976663|NCT01942720|191925803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coeficient|0.022||||0.882|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of total PillCam SB CECDEIS score with PGA score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.882
95976664|NCT01942720|191925804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.735|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI Lewis scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
95898343|NCT01077960|191752425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95898344|NCT01696032|191752460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0654|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0654
95976665|NCT01942720|191925804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.726|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB TI CECDEIS scores with TI SES-CD score at baseline visit||||<0.001
95976666|NCT01942720|191925805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.493||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB Lewis score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||0.002
95976667|NCT01942720|191925805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.531|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam SB CECDEIS score with TI SES-CD score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
95976668|NCT01942720|191925806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB Lewis score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
95976669|NCT01942720|191925806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sperman correlation coefficient|0.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sperman correlation|||Relationship of PillCam total SB CECDEIS score change with TI Leis score change from baseline visit to 6 month follow-up||||<0.001
95976670|NCT02977988|191925808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||150 day period was selected for this outcome for a conceptual reason; that being, residential treatment average length of stay||||<0.05
95976671|NCT02977988|191925809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Negative Binomial Hurdle Model|||||||<0.05
95976672|NCT02977988|191925810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95976673|NCT03780725|191925815|OTHER||Mean relative change from baseline|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|47.7|||||||||||Mean relative change from baseline (Cycle 1) to on treatment (Cycle 2) is reported.|"The mean relative change is calculated as first deriving the relative change from baseline for each selected lesion at each time point (96hours, 144hours):~100 \* (SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle2 - SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1) / SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1 Then, we calculate the mean over all evaluable lesions (at each time point) At last, the mean relative change is the lower mean value across time points."||||
95976674|NCT03780725|191925816|OTHER||Mean relative change from baseline|-5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.2|||||||||||Mean relative change from baseline (Cycle 1) to on treatment (Cycle 2) is reported.|"The mean relative change is calculated as first deriving the relative change from baseline for each selected lesion at each time point (96hours, 144hours):~100 \* (SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle2 - SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1) / SUVpeak,lesion,timepoint,cycle1 Then, we calculate the mean over all evaluable lesions (at each time point) At last, the mean relative change is the lower mean value across time points."||||
95976675|NCT01128894|191925824|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value was from a 1-sided t test testing whether or not the difference of least square means (albiglutide - liraglutide) was less than or equal to the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.34|0.08|0.0846
95976676|NCT01128738|191925831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|50.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.1|62.3|||Fisher Exact||Percentage difference was estimated as BTX 50 U minus placebo.|||62.3|38.1|<0.001
95976677|NCT00973362|191925879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|88.8||||||||88.8|53.1|
95976678|NCT00973362|191925879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|62.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.2|65.9||||||||65.9|59.2|
95976679|NCT00973362|191925879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|5.8||||||||5.8|3.4|
95976680|NCT00973362|191925879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.6||||||||99.6|98.1|
95976681|NCT00973362|191925879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95976682|NCT00973362|191925879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.1|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Positive Result) / absolute risk of APTIMA HPV (Negative Result) \] .|||13.1|1.8|
95976683|NCT00973362|191925880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|84.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|94.5||||||||94.5|62.4|
95976684|NCT00973362|191925880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity (%)|48.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|52.2||||||||52.2|45.2|
95976685|NCT00973362|191925880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Positive Predictive Value [PPV] (%)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.4||||||||4.4|2.9|
95976686|NCT00973362|191925880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Negative Predictive Value [NPV] (%)|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.1|99.8||||||||99.8|98.1|
95976687|NCT00973362|191925880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95976688|NCT00973362|191925880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|16.7|||||The relative risk of CIN2+ is defined as the \[ absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Positive Result) / absolute risk of FDA-Approved HPV DNA Assay (Negative Result) \] .|||16.7|1.4|
95976689|NCT00973362|191925881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity(%)|86.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.4|92.3||||||||92.3|78.4|
95976690|NCT00973362|191925881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificty|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.6|66.0||||||||66.0|59.6|
95976691|NCT00973362|191925881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|22.0||||||||22.0|18.1|
95976692|NCT00973362|191925881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV|97.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|98.8||||||||98.8|96.5|
95976693|NCT00973362|191925881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence (%)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95976694|NCT00973362|191925882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity (%)|88.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.5|93.8||||||||93.8|80.5|
95976695|NCT00973362|191925882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity(%)|55.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.3|59.3||||||||59.3|52.3|
95976696|NCT00973362|191925882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||PPV(%)|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|20.4||||||||20.4|17.0|
95976697|NCT00973362|191925882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||NPV(%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.2|98.8||||||||98.8|96.2|
95976698|NCT00973362|191925882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Prevalence(%)|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898345|NCT00376168|191752472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
95898346|NCT00376168|191752472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||threshold for statistical significance = 0.025|one-sample t-test|one-sample t-test (combined) to test the null hypothesis that percent change = 0||"The primary efficacy analysis was based on two one-sample t-tests (one for each treatment group) to determine if the percent change in spleen volume is different than zero.~With 12 patients in each treatment group, there was greater than 95% power to detect a change of 20% or more using a one-sample t-test (alpha=0.025, 2-sided test to allow for each group to be tested separately) to evaluate the primary outcome of percent change in spleen volume after nine months."||||<0.0001
95976699|NCT02888665|191925889|OTHER||see above|||||||||||see above. target ORR was not met.|||see above. target ORR was not met.|The primary objective of the phase II design compared ORR with historical rates (Judson et al. Lancet Onc., 2014). A 2-stage design with null hypothesis of 15% using a 1-sided 0.05 α level test has 85% power to detect an increase to 35%. This required up to 35 patients. After 2 responses in stage 1 (20 pts), the study moved to stage 2 (15 pts). If 10 responses were seen (29%), this would have ruled out an ORR of 15%. The study was closed when it became clear we would not meet this benchmark.|see above. target ORR was not met.|||
95976700|NCT05192382|191925894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.806|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.444|455.821|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||455.821|8.444|<0.0001
95976701|NCT05192382|191925895|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.906|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|-0.706|||ANCOVA|||||-0.706|-1.106|<0.0001
95976702|NCT05192382|191925896|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.637|79.156|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||79.156|5.637|<0.0001
95976703|NCT05192382|191925897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.776|23.483|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine irrespective of dose levels with Placebo has been presented.||23.483|2.776|<0.0001
95976704|NCT05192382|191925898|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-5.423||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|-1.776|||ANCOVA|||||-1.776|-9.070|0.0039
95976705|NCT02683941|191925915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.95|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for interactive web response system (IWRS) tumour subtype (typical versus \[vs\] atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.95|0.48|0.866
95976706|NCT02683941|191925916|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.88|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.88|0.48|0.837
95976707|NCT02683941|191925917|OTHER||Percentage difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|37.86||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (central review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||37.86|-10.97|
95976708|NCT02683941|191925917|OTHER||Percentage difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.69|26.53||||||The treatment difference compares lanreotide to placebo (local review). The 95% exact unconditional CI was used for ORR difference.||26.53|-22.69|
95976709|NCT02683941|191925918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5|||Log Rank|||The hazard ratio and the 95% CI were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified for IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) using the exact method for ties. P-value of stratified log rank test comparing lanreotide to placebo with strata based on the IWRS tumour subtype (typical vs atypical) stratification factor.||1.50|0.50|0.582
95976710|NCT00426153|191925924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Rank-sum test|||P values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.048
95976711|NCT00426153|191925925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0||||P values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.045
95976712|NCT00426153|191925926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P Values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant|Rank sum|||||||0.98
95976713|NCT00150969|191925928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95976714|NCT00150969|191925935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95976715|NCT00696761|191925968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95976716|NCT00696761|191925969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||The Kruskal-Wallis test, analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test were used to compare changes from baseline to endpoint after treatment.||||<0.05
95976717|NCT00343252|191925973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.642
95976718|NCT00343252|191925974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of worst back pain from baseline at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.683
95976719|NCT00343252|191925975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 6-month endpoint.||||0.809
95976720|NCT00343252|191925976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Chi-square|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with at least a 30% reduction in the severity of average back pain from baseline to the 12-month endpoint.||||0.986
95976721|NCT00343252|191925977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.85|0.746
95976722|NCT00343252|191925978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.25||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in worst back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.25|0.86|0.719
95976723|NCT00343252|191925979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction for average back pain at the 6-month endpoint.||1.26|0.86|0.681
95898347|NCT00376168|191752473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0041
95898348|NCT00376168|191752473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
95898349|NCT00376168|191752474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0010
95898350|NCT00376168|191752474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||<0.0001
95898351|NCT00376168|191752475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0460
95898352|NCT00376168|191752475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||95.0|||||One-sample t-test|||For each of the secondary endpoints, a one-sample t-test (% change in liver volume, mean change in hemoglobin and platelet count) was examined first for each dose using the step-down approach. Next, a mixed effects model that included dose and time, with subject as a random effect, was fit to examine whether there was a difference between dose groups, for those outcomes that were tested in the step-down approach.||||0.0031
95898353|NCT02203591|191752517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95898354|NCT02203591|191752517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95898355|NCT02203591|191752517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95976724|NCT00343252|191925980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.23||Comparison of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves between treatment groups was conducted using log-rank, significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the time to first occurrence of a \>=30% reduction in average back pain at the 12-month endpoint.||1.23|0.86|0.789
95898356|NCT02203591|191752517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95898357|NCT02203591|191752517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95898358|NCT02203591|191752517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95898359|NCT02203591|191752517|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.6|86.6||||||||86.6|75.6|
95898360|NCT02203591|191752517|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|81.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.3|87.1||||||||87.1|76.3|
95898361|NCT02203591|191752517|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|83.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|88.4||||||||88.4|77.9|
95898362|NCT02203591|191752517|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|38.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|45.6||||||||45.6|32.3|
95898363|NCT02203591|191752517|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.1|53.7||||||||53.7|40.1|
95898364|NCT02203591|191752517|OTHER|95% confidence interval generation|Mean value|53.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.3|59.6||||||||59.6|46.3|
95898365|NCT02203591|191752518|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||||3M CHG/IPA C - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|||-0.10|-0.57|
95898366|NCT02203591|191752518|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferior margin of 0.5 log10/cm\^2|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.44|0.74|||||3M CHG/IPA CH - Inguinal minus ChloraPrep - Inguinal|Since there are two investigational products a Hochberg step-up procedure was used to adjust for multiplicity.||0.74|-0.44|
95898367|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898368|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898369|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898370|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898371|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898372|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898373|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898374|NCT02203591|191752519|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898375|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898376|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898377|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898378|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898379|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898380|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898381|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898382|NCT02203591|191752520|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898383|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898384|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898385|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898386|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898387|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898388|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.22|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95976725|NCT00343252|191925981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 3-month endpoint.||||0.968
95976726|NCT00343252|191925982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.568
95976727|NCT00343252|191925983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.932||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with a reduction in disability at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.932
95976728|NCT00343252|191925984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 6-month endpoint.||||0.814
95976729|NCT00343252|191925985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.572||95.0||||No adjustments for multiplicity were performed.|ANCOVA|The model includes terms for treatment, pooled site, baseline glucocorticoid usage status (yes/no), and baseline score.||Tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in the proportion of participants with an improvement in quality of life at the 12-month endpoint.||||0.572
95898389|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898390|NCT02203591|191752521|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898391|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.95|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898392|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898393|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898394|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|2.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898395|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898396|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898397|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898398|NCT02203591|191752522|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|5.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898399|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898400|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898401|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898402|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|3.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898403|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898404|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898405|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95976730|NCT00343252|191925988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.600
95898406|NCT02203591|191752523|OTHER|Calculate mean value|Mean value|6.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95898407|NCT04115358|191752527|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898408|NCT04115358|191752528|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898409|NCT04115358|191752529|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898410|NCT04115358|191752530|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898411|NCT04115358|191752531|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898412|NCT04115358|191752532|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898413|NCT04115358|191752533|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898414|NCT04115358|191752534|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95976731|NCT00343252|191925989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0||||P-value is for responder versus non-responder.|Chi-squared|||||||0.399
95976732|NCT00343252|191925990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.89|0.453
95898415|NCT04115358|191752535|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898416|NCT04115358|191752536|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898417|NCT04115358|191752537|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898418|NCT04115358|191752538|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898419|NCT04115358|191752539|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898420|NCT04115358|191752540|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95976733|NCT00343252|191925991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.91|0.353
95976734|NCT00343252|191925992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.943
95898421|NCT04115358|191752541|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898422|NCT04115358|191752542|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898423|NCT04115358|191752543|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898424|NCT04115358|191752544|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95976735|NCT00343252|191925993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.553
95898425|NCT04115358|191752545|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898426|NCT04115358|191752546|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898427|NCT04115358|191752547|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898428|NCT04115358|191752548|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898429|NCT04115358|191752549|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898430|NCT04115358|191752550|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898431|NCT04115358|191752551|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898432|NCT04115358|191752552|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898433|NCT04115358|191752553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898434|NCT04115358|191752554|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898435|NCT04115358|191752555|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898436|NCT04115358|191752556|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898437|NCT04115358|191752557|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898438|NCT04115358|191752558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-Square Test was used to compare qualitative data.The results were evaluated at the significance level of p\<0,05.||||>0.05
95898439|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.019|0.264
95976736|NCT02076178|191925994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Any Grade 2 or higher event, any Grade 2 or higher event Vs Cabotegravir||||<0.01
95976737|NCT01054846|191926013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|2.696|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Differences between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||<0.01
95976738|NCT01054846|191926013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|1.351|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Difference between Survey 1 and Survey 2||||>0.05
95976739|NCT03021954|191926024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is in the intervention group, we expect a decrease in the area of the levator hiatus at 40 days and 3 months post-partum. Power 90 % confidence interval β = 0.10, α = 0.05||||0.086
95976740|NCT03021954|191926025|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is platelet rich plasma can maintain or increase levator ani muscle contractions post-partum||||0.29
95898440|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.079|-0.013|0.165
95898441|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.071|-0.020|0.271
95898442|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.100|0.010|0.018
95898443|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.055||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.101|0.010|0.018
95898444|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.078|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.124|0.032|<0.001
95976741|NCT01592864|191926026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.2|-0.6|<0.0001
95976742|NCT01592864|191926027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.3||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||-0.3|-0.6|<0.0001
95976743|NCT01592864|191926028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|22.8||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favours first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||22.8|11.1|<0.0001
95898445|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.052||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.097|0.023
95898446|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.045||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.000|-0.091|0.051
95898447|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.053||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|-0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-0.007|-0.098|0.023
95898448|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.023||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.021|-0.068|0.306
95898449|NCT01573624|191752561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.068|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.023|-0.068|0.330
95898450|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.3|9.5|<0.001
95976744|NCT01592864|191926029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.9||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons, as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as fixed factor and baseline Schiff Score as covariate.|Difference is 0.454% SnF minus 0.76% NaMFP such that a positive difference favors first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered change from baseline to be same for both treatments.||13.9|5.4|<0.0001
95898451|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||23.9|10.9|<0.001
95898452|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|25.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||25.1|12.1|<0.001
95976745|NCT01881750|191926031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Effects Regression Model|||Group X Time Interaction Cohen's d||||0.42
95976746|NCT00051363|191926038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074||||||"2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).~After correction for multiple comparisons (sequential Bonferroni) P Value=0.0444 (NS)"|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.0074
95976747|NCT00051363|191926038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2254||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M E/F Function- SWMT-OMD.||||0.2254
95976748|NCT00051363|191926039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4538||||||DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.4538
95976749|NCT00051363|191926039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||||||2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.0860
95976750|NCT00051363|191926039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2103||||||6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Parametric survival analysis|Parametric survival analyses were conducted using by-visit comparisons for A/P Function- PFN-TOTL since these data were right censored at 60.||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M A/P Function- PFN-TOTL.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."||||0.2103
95976751|NCT00051363|191926040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7936||||||DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7936
95976752|NCT00051363|191926040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5444||||||2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.5444
95976753|NCT00051363|191926040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7569||||||6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR; P\<0.0307 indicates statistical significance for raw P values (after adjustment for O'Brien-Fleming spending across 3 interim analyses).|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M L/M Function- BSRT-SR.||||0.7569
95976754|NCT00051363|191926041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5606||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5606
95976755|NCT00051363|191926041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6487||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.6487
95976756|NCT00051363|191926041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5667||||||"2M L/M Function- PN-RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.5667
95976757|NCT00051363|191926041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3972||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3972
95898453|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|29.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.4|16.5|<0.001
95898454|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|28.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.4|15.5|<0.001
95898455|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.5|20.6|<0.001
95898456|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-4.7|-17.6|<0.001
95898457|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.1|-16.1|0.004
95898458|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-1.9|-14.9|0.012
95898459|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||2.3|-10.6|0.209
95898460|NCT01573624|191752562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.4|-11.6|0.124
95898461|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|22.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||22.9|9.5|<0.001
95898462|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||24.0|10.5|<0.001
95898463|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|28.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||28.0|14.4|<0.001
95898464|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|35.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||35.5|22.1|<0.001
95898465|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||29.6|16.2|<0.001
95898466|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.8|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.4|19.8|<0.001
95898467|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-3.5|-17.2|0.003
95898468|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||-2.5|-16.2|0.007
95898469|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||1.5|-12.3|0.126
95898470|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2||||0.523||95.0|-4.6|9.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||9.1|-4.6|0.523
95898471|NCT01573624|191752563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||3.1|-10.5|0.290
95898472|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.036
95898473|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.064
95898474|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.1|-0.3|0.335
95898475|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||-0.1|-0.5|0.012
95898476|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No pairwise comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF alone were done unless overall F-test for treatment effect was statistically significant at 5% level. Multiplicity across these comparisons was controlled using a step-down closed testing procedure, whereby statistical comparison of the highest dose of FF + UMEC and FF alone was initially performed, and subsequent comparisons at lower doses continued in a step-down manner if preceding comparison was statistically significant at 5% level.||0.0|-0.5|0.023
95898477|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
95898478|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|0.0|0.104
95898479|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.5|0.0|0.062
95898480|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.6|0.1|0.006
95898481|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.217
95898482|NCT01573624|191752564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||No adjustments were made for comparisons between doses of FF + UMEC and FF + VI.||0.4|-0.1|0.143
95898483|NCT03306264|191752577|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of Least Square Mean (LSM) for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.66|105.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||105.6|92.66|
95898484|NCT03306264|191752577|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-24 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.23|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.23|
95898485|NCT03306264|191752583|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.8|104.6|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.6|91.80|
95898486|NCT03306264|191752583|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-inf ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.2|108.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||108.8|91.20|
95898487|NCT03306264|191752584|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.88|104.8|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.8|91.88|
95898488|NCT03306264|191752584|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-last ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|107.2|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||107.2|89.75|
95898489|NCT03306264|191752585|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.74|104.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|MDS or CMML: IV Decitabine Versus MDS or CMML: ASTX727||104.5|91.74|
95898490|NCT03306264|191752585|EQUIVALENCE|ASTX727 and IV decitabine were to be considered equivalent if the 2-sided 90% CI of the 5-day AUC0-8 ratio of LSM for oral/IV was contained entirely within the range of 0.80 - 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSM|97.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|106.5|||||Analysis was based on ANOVA model with treatment, cycle, and sequence as fixed effects, and participant nested in sequence as a random effect (ratio is Oral/IV).|AML: IV Decitabine Versus AML: ASTX727||106.5|89.32|
95898491|NCT04399161|191752605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Children||||0.123
95898492|NCT04399161|191752605|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison among Elderly||||0.314
95898493|NCT00457197|191752606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline drinks/day used as covariate.||||0.4709
95898494|NCT00457197|191752607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline percent heavy drinking days included as covariate.||||0.1272
95898495|NCT00457197|191752608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9642|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline GGT used as covariate.||||0.9642
95898496|NCT00457197|191752609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7222|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline AST used as covariate.||||0.7222
95976758|NCT00051363|191926041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3973||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3973
95976759|NCT00051363|191926041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055||||||"6M L/M Function- PN-RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M L/M Function- PN-RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline PN-RT and months since randomization were also included as covariates."||||0.3055
95976760|NCT00051363|191926042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3699||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3699
95976761|NCT00051363|191926042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9673||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9673
95976762|NCT00051363|191926042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3426||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3426
95898497|NCT00457197|191752610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline ALT used as covariate.||||0.1412
95898498|NCT00457197|191752611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7071|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline HRSD used as covariate.||||0.7071
95898499|NCT00457197|191752612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2569|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline IDS-SR used as a covariate.||||0.2569
95898500|NCT00457197|191752613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8814|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline YMRS used as a covariate.||||0.8814
95898501|NCT00457197|191752614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2473|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline PACS used as a covariate.||||0.2473
95976763|NCT00051363|191926042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3901||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3901
95976764|NCT00051363|191926042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9464||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9464
95976765|NCT00051363|191926042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4372||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-MedRT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.4372
95976766|NCT00051363|191926043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9656||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9656
95976767|NCT00051363|191926043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6765||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.6765
95976768|NCT00051363|191926043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5288||||||"2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.5288
95898502|NCT02114879|191752622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Marginal Model|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.007
95898503|NCT02114879|191752623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95898504|NCT02114879|191752624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95898505|NCT02114879|191752625|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The p-value refers to the time by group interaction. The statistical significance in this test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This Primary analysis used a marginal model with time (baseline and discharge), condition (EMR vs SOC), and time x condition as fixed effects, with an unstructured covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC).||||0.96
95898506|NCT02114879|191752626|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Discharged Home Vs Discharged to Institution and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95898507|NCT02114879|191752627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The p-value is calculated from a 2x2 Contingency Table consisting of rows that represent Yes/No Rehospitalization and columns that represent the EMR and SOC groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.85
95898508|NCT00330551|191752628|SUPERIORITY||t-test|0.77|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.058|||t-test, 2 sided||||t(80)=5.3, p\<.001|1.058|0.483|=.05
95898509|NCT00330551|191752629|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.001
95898510|NCT00330551|191752630|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.83
95898511|NCT00330551|191752631|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||A priori hypothesis was that long-acting injectible risperidone would lead to greater duration of work/school attendance than oral risperidone.||||=.20
95898512|NCT00330551|191752632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||||||.71
95898513|NCT00330551|191752633|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.57|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.57
95898514|NCT00330551|191752635|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.16|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.16
95898515|NCT00330551|191752636|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.41|||||||ANOVA|||||||=.41
95898516|NCT03120013|191752646|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95976769|NCT00051363|191926043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7807||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.7807
95976770|NCT00051363|191926043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9603||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.9603
95898517|NCT03120013|191752647|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95898518|NCT03120013|191752648|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95898519|NCT03120013|191752649|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95898520|NCT03120013|191752650|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95898521|NCT03120013|191752651|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.006
95898522|NCT03120013|191752652|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95898523|NCT03120013|191752653|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.043
95898524|NCT05409235|191752654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.578|8.449|||Mantel Haenszel|MH test is adjusted for the randomization stratification factor (Screening DRSS score 47 or 53 or 61B).|A single imputation (non-response) when applying composite variable strategy. MI based for missing data at Week 24, assuming MAR when applying hypothetical strategy. Kept in the analysis when applying treatment policy strategy.|The study was powered to provide a 90% probability to detect a 20% difference between each treatment arm and the combined vehicle control.||8.449|-10.578|0.5730
95898525|NCT05409235|191752654|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.152||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.178|8.874|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.874|-11.178|0.5750
95898526|NCT05409235|191752655|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|3.119||||0.7276|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.314|11.592|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.592|-5.314|0.7276
95898527|NCT05409235|191752655|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|5.779||||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.424|14.982|||Mantel Haenszel|||||14.982|-3.424|0.8492
95898528|NCT05409235|191752656|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.863||||0.3097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.036|4.309|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.309|-8.036|0.3097
95898529|NCT05409235|191752656|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.596||||0.3414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.021|4.829|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.829|-8.021|0.3414
95898530|NCT05409235|191752657|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.899||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4378|1.8467|||Log Rank|||||1.8467|0.4378|0.397
95898531|NCT05409235|191752657|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.113||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5596|2.2117|||Log Rank|||||2.2117|0.5596|0.605
95898532|NCT05409235|191752658|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-10.622||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.972|0.728|||Mantel Haenszel|||||0.728|-21.972|0.0619
95898533|NCT05409235|191752658|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-4.942||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.897|7.013|||Mantel Haenszel|||||7.013|-16.897|0.2483
95898534|NCT05409235|191752659|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.807||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4675|1.392|||Log Rank|||||1.3920|0.4675|0.237
95898535|NCT05409235|191752659|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.279||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7795|2.0981|||Log Rank|||||2.0981|0.7795|0.766
95898536|NCT05409235|191752660|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-6.389||||0.2022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.994|6.215|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.215|-18.994|0.2022
95898537|NCT05409235|191752660|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.043||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.07|11.984|||Mantel Haenszel|||||11.984|-14.070|0.4476
95898538|NCT05409235|191752661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.843||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.533|1.334||log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor|Log Rank|||||1.334|0.533|0.268
95898539|NCT05409235|191752661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.738|1.775|||Log Rank|||||1.775|0.738|0.304
95898540|NCT05409235|191752662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4573|2.657|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.6570|0.4573|0.428
95898541|NCT05409235|191752662|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.119||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|2.7846|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||2.7846|0.4500|0.419
95898542|NCT05409235|191752663|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.26|4.172|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.172|-7.260|0.6716
95898543|NCT05409235|191752663|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.412||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.025|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||2.200|-9.025|0.8414
95898544|NCT05409235|191752664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5325||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8478|1.7827|||ANCOVA|||||1.7827|-2.8478|0.647
95898545|NCT05409235|191752664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2849||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6356|0.0658|||ANCOVA|||||0.0658|-4.6356|0.945
95898546|NCT05409235|191752665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.108||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6722|1.8276|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.8276|0.6722|0.367
95898547|NCT05409235|191752665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4295|1.1981|||odds ratio|Odds ratio and p-value are from a proportional odds model with covariates for treatment group and the randomization stratification factor||||1.1981|0.4295|0.857
95898548|NCT05409235|191752666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1531||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-38.793|47.0991|||ANCOVA|||||47.0991|-38.7930|0.437
95898549|NCT05409235|191752666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.2461||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.2538|26.7616|||ANCOVA|||||26.7616|-59.2538|0.733
95898550|NCT05409235|191752667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0634||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.9712|13.098|||ANCOVA|||||13.0980|-4.9712|0.770
95898551|NCT05409235|191752667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0507||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.1046|8.0032|||ANCOVA|||||8.0032|-10.1046|0.424
95898552|NCT05409235|191752668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0205||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1043|0.1452|||ANCOVA|||||0.1452|-0.1043|0.606
95898553|NCT05409235|191752668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0083||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1161|0.1326|||ANCOVA|||||0.1326|-0.1161|0.544
95898554|NCT05409235|191752669|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-1.544||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.247|9.158|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.158|-12.247|0.406
95898555|NCT05409235|191752669|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|1.763||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.114|12.64|||Mantel Haenszel|||||12.640|-9.114|0.605
95898556|NCT05409235|191752670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5068|1.6556|||Log Rank|||||1.6556|0.5068|0.404
95898557|NCT05409235|191752670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.128||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6399|1.9868|||Log Rank|||||1.9868|0.6399|0.624
95898558|NCT05409235|191752671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.947||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2473|3.6295|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.||||3.6295|0.2473|0.478
95898559|NCT05409235|191752671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.296||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3688|4.5512|||Log Rank|Comparisons are made using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor||||4.5512|0.3688|0.631
95898560|NCT05409235|191752672|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-13.7727||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.1319|-0.4134|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-0.4134|-27.1319|0.0450
95898561|NCT05409235|191752672|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-3.8234||||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.1549|10.5081|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.5081|-18.1549|0.3304
95898562|NCT05409235|191752673|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-14.8877||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.6462|-2.1293|||Mantel Haenszel|||||-2.1293|-27.6462|0.0275
95898563|NCT05409235|191752673|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentage of participants|-7.5535||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0688|5.9617|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.9617|-21.0688|0.1790
95898564|NCT01723228|191752674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8||||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.05|||repeated measures model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||2.05|-0.48|0.2204
95898565|NCT01723228|191752675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||0.81|-0.99|0.8428
95898566|NCT01723228|191752676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.4796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|1.3|||ANCOVA|The statistical model is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||1.30|-2.74|0.4796
95898567|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.93|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC||2.93|0.89|0.1148
95898568|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1052|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC||||0.1052
95898569|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.75|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Cognition||1.75|0.52|0.8857
95898570|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9945|TWO_SIDED|||||For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGIC Cognition||||0.9945
95898571|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.43|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Behavior||2.43|0.56|0.6909
95898572|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6639|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Behavior||||0.6639
95898573|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.3204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.68|||Proportional Odds Model|The statistical model is a proportional odds model with terms for treatment, center, and age.||CGIC Functional Abilities||2.68|0.72|0.3204
95898574|NCT01723228|191752677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|For the CMH p-value, the statistical model is a CMH test controlling for center with scores=modridit option.||CGIC Functional Abilities||||0.3331
95898575|NCT01723228|191752678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.49|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-0.49|-4.47|0.0151
95898576|NCT01723228|191752679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|-1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|The statistical model is a repeated measures model with visit by treatment interaction, center, baseline score, and age as fixed effects.||||-1.08|-3.53|0.0003
95898577|NCT02026115|191752686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
95898578|NCT02026115|191752687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Experimental group performed worse than usual care.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.02
95898579|NCT02026115|191752688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
95898580|NCT02026115|191752689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.36
95898581|NCT02026115|191752690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.01
95898582|NCT02026115|191752691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95898583|NCT04074317|191752719|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001||||||Least-squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95898584|NCT04074317|191752719|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.||||||0.694|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.694
95898585|NCT04074317|191752719|EQUIVALENCE|Treatment groups were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and patient within sequence as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95898586|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-21.29||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.23|-1.36|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||-1.36|-41.23|0.041
95898587|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-7.45||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|16.54|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||16.54|-31.43|0.453
95898588|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|13.85||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|36.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose Levels: \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 90 minutes||36.15|-8.46|0.161
95898589|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-23.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.37|-12.48|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||-12.48|-35.37|<0.001
95898590|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|3.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.0|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||14.00|-7.80|0.564
95898591|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|27.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.96|38.09|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 180 minutes||38.09|15.96|<0.001
95898592|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|-1.74||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|13.22|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||13.22|-16.70|0.813
95898593|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|2.35||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|16.17|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||16.17|-11.47|0.730
95898594|NCT04074317|191752720|EQUIVALENCE|H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: means are not equal across the treatment groups.|LS Mean Difference|4.09||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|19.15|||ANOVA|||Plasma Glucose \>180 mg/dL: 0 to 360 minutes||19.15|-10.97|0.582
95898595|NCT04074317|191752726|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80-125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|37.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.36|43.75||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||43.75|31.36|<0.0001
95898596|NCT04074317|191752727|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|435.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha = 0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.0001
95898597|NCT04074317|191752728|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|60.44||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.41|80.43||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.43|45.41|0.0075
95898598|NCT04074317|191752728|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|93.32||||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.14|124.16||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA|Based on Least-Squares geometric means for ln-transformed data.|"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||124.16|70.14|0.6773
95898599|NCT04074317|191752728|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|97.43||||0.8768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.94|130.14||Results of the statistical evaluation of ANOVA (alpha=0.05) for the hypothesis of equal treatment effects.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||130.14|72.94|0.8768
95898600|NCT04074317|191752729|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|44.51|65.11||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was ana analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||65.11|44.51|<0.0001
95898601|NCT04074317|191752729|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|73.16||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.06|87.67||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||87.67|61.06|0.0192
95898602|NCT04074317|191752729|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|135.91||||0.0244|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.1|163.31||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||163.31|113.10|0.0244
95898603|NCT04074317|191752730|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|73.53||||0.2541|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.2541
95976771|NCT00051363|191926043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3075||||||"6M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.~Data were reciprocal transformed for analysis and back-transformed for reporting."|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M A/P Function- PVT-Slo10%RT.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. Months since randomization were also included as covariate."||||0.3075
95976772|NCT00051363|191926044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4262||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.4262
95976773|NCT00051363|191926044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3161||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.3161
95898604|NCT04074317|191752730|OTHER||Ratio of least-squares means|103.89|||>|0.9999|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as PRAM least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||>0.9999
95898605|NCT04074317|191752730|OTHER||Ratio of least-square means|141.29||||0.1747|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||||0.1747
95898606|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|53.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.59|64.83||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||64.83|43.59|<0.0001
95898607|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|65.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.02|78.8||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||78.80|54.02|0.0018
95898608|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|122.73||||0.2391|TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.33|148.66||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 90 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||148.66|101.33|0.2391
95909256|NCT01939548|191776649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743||0.6015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.57|1.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.35|-0.57|0.6015
95898609|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.58|61.73||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||61.73|47.58|<0.0001
95898610|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|71.29||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.99|80.69||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||80.69|62.99|0.0002
95898611|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|131.55||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.01|149.17||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 180 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||149.17|116.01|0.0026
95976774|NCT00051363|191926044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1835||||||2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.1835
95976775|NCT00051363|191926044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2462||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2462
95976776|NCT00051363|191926044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2069||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.2069
95976777|NCT00051363|191926044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5235||||||6M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M L/M Function- BSRTDR-TotRec.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ. A pre-randomization baseline BSRTDR-TotRec was also included as a covariate."||||0.5235
95898612|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|51.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.74|56.39||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||56.39|46.74|<0.0001
95898613|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|78.24||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.39|85.76||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as PRAM geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||85.76|71.39|0.0003
95898614|NCT04074317|191752731|EQUIVALENCE|"Bioequivalence would require the 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratio to be contained within the 80 - 125% range.~H0: Means are equal between treatment groups. Ha: Means are not equal across the treatment groups."|Ratio of geometric least-squares means|152.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.91|167.22||Bonferroni-adjusted p-value to maintain the overall Type 1 error rate at 0.05.|ANOVA||"Ratio calculated as Regular Insulin geometric least-squares mean divided by the Regular Insulin + Pramlintide geometric least-squares mean, expressed as a percentage.~Confidence interval on the ratio, expressed as a percentage."|AUC 0 to 360 The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the ln-transformed data with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||167.22|138.91|<0.0001
95898615|NCT02573324|191752738|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|Terms abbreviated below: O6-methylguaninemethlytransferese (MGMT); Recursive Partitioning Analysis (RPA); EGFRde2-7 (EGFRvIII)||1.26|0.82|0.633
95898616|NCT02573324|191752738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.704
95898617|NCT02573324|191752739|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.24|0.76|0.504
95898618|NCT02573324|191752739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.599
95976778|NCT00051363|191926045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5419||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5419
95898619|NCT02573324|191752740|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world, and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.80|0.76|0.773
95898620|NCT02573324|191752740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.740
95898621|NCT02573324|191752741|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||Weighted log-rank P-value: Stratified Fleming-Harrington (ρ = 0, γ = 0.2) test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.27|0.71|0.381
95898622|NCT02573324|191752741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||Log-rank P-value (1-sided): Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank|||||||0.409
95898623|NCT02573324|191752742|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.01|0.70|0.029
95898624|NCT02573324|191752743|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.93||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||0.93|0.56|0.002
95898625|NCT02573324|191752744|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.329||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.626||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.626|1.087|0.994
95898626|NCT02573324|191752745|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.185||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.446||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.446|0.972|0.938
95898627|NCT02573324|191752746|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.136||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.921|1.402||Stratified log-rank test was used. Stratified by randomization stratification factors namely: MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status.|Log Rank||Based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including treatment, MGMT methylation status, RPA class, region of the world and EGFRvIII mutation status as covariates.|||1.402|0.921|0.814
95898628|NCT01610700|191752784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-5.93||||0.124||95.0|-13.52|1.65|||ANCOVA|||The change in the primary impairment was compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.65|-13.52|0.124
95898629|NCT01610700|191752785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.56|0.37|||ANCOVA|||The change in the spasticity visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.37|-14.56|0.062
95898630|NCT01610700|191752786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.88||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.73|8.96|||ANCOVA|||The change in the pain visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||8.96|-12.73|0.731
95898631|NCT01610700|191752787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-3.3||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|5.21|||ANCOVA|||The change in the muscle spasm visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||5.21|-11.82|0.443
95976779|NCT00051363|191926045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8900
95898632|NCT01610700|191752788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-6.85||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.31|6.6|||ANCOVA|||The change in the tremor visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.60|-20.31|0.311
95898633|NCT01610700|191752789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|2.38|||ANCOVA|||The change in bladder problems visual analogue scale score was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.38|-14.90|0.154
95898634|NCT01610700|191752790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||The proportion of subjects with better/much better assessments was compared between groups using a Fisher's Exact Test.||2.43|0.77|0.293
95898635|NCT01610700|191752792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|2.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Beck's Depression Inventory score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.50|-1.11|0.450
95898636|NCT01610700|191752793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.18|||ANCOVA|||The change baseline in the mean Fatigue Severity Scale Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.18|-0.43|0.427
95976780|NCT00051363|191926045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0031
95976781|NCT00051363|191926045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8703||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8703
95898637|NCT01610700|191752795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.72||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.82|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total 28-item General Health Questionnaire score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.82|-2.38|0.647
95898638|NCT01610700|191752797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean total bladder control test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.54|-1.77|0.889
95898639|NCT01610700|191752800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean sleep quality 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||-0.08|-14.11|0.047
95898640|NCT01610700|191752801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-4.53||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|2.4|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean sleep amount 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||2.40|-11.45|0.198
95898641|NCT01610700|191752802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-1.36||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.07|||ANCOVA|||The from baseline in the mean feeling upon wakening 100 mm visual analogue scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||6.07|-8.80|0.717
95898642|NCT01610700|191752803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.47||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.07|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Barthel Activities for Daily Living scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||0.07|-1.01|0.087
95898643|NCT01610700|191752807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|1.81||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|3.6|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Guy's Neurological Disability Scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||3.60|0.02|0.048
95898644|NCT01610700|191752808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.11||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|1.64|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in the mean Atkinson Morley Information Processing Battery test score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA with baseline primary impairment score as the covariate.||1.64|-1.85|0.904
95898645|NCT01706952|191752809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|For surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% confidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. We used the average per patient over time.||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 13 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). A power study was per formed with a power of 80% and a clinically significant difference in bleeding between the sides of 20% with a significance level of 5% (p \< 0.05).|"For the primary objective of surgical field grade, we calculated the mean within sides treated with cocaine vs adrenaline and assessed its difference, reporting a 95% con- fidence interval as calculated by a Student t test. As all of these values were measured over time, we used the average per patient over time. The total blood loss per side within subjects was also calculated, with 95% confidence interval again calculated by a Student t test. Once again, we took the average per patient over time as the main outcome.~Finally, we used a linear regression with surgical field improvement as the outcome and HR, MAP, or etCO2 as covariates, to investigate which variables may be related to the outcome. As these measures were taken over time, we used repeated measures analysis to investigate how these items correlate over time.~In addition to the operating surgeon, the statistician was blinded to the vasoconstrictor allocation."|||0.05
95898646|NCT04456699|191752849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.9774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.97|1.00|0.9774
95898647|NCT04456699|191752849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.75||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.49|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||2.49|1.23|0.9993
95898648|NCT04456699|191752850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.21|0.54|0.1527
95898649|NCT04456699|191752850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, number of induction cycles and mutation status.|||1.30|0.59|0.2491
95898650|NCT04456699|191752851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.2||||0.5272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||6.5|-7.0|0.5272
95898651|NCT04456699|191752851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.2||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Based on stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method. One-sided p-value for testing H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior FOLFOX/CAPOX + Bev induction response, cycles and mutation status.|||2.3|-9.7|0.9020
95898652|NCT04452188|191752855|EQUIVALENCE|Prior studies suggest a 25-50% reduction in oxidative stress in normoxia relative to supra-physiologic oxygen. A 20% difference was considered clinically meaningful, and a sample size of 42 total participants was anticipated to achieve at least 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level. However, an interim analysis recommended by the DSMB after enrollment of 29 patients revealed a significant difference in the primary outcome between the groups, and enrollment was thus stopped.|||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||Each participant's post-operative samples were normalized to their baseline sample and described as a fold-of-change from baseline.||||<0.01
95898653|NCT04452188|191752857|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the post-operative length of stay between the two groups.||||0.66
95898654|NCT04452188|191752858|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the days alive and out of ICU at 30 days since surgery between the two groups||||0.66
95898655|NCT04452188|191752859|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95898656|NCT04452188|191752860|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.49
95898657|NCT04452188|191752861|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95898658|NCT04452188|191752862|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95898659|NCT04452188|191752863|OTHER||||||<|0.1||||||To provide a more conservative estimate of significance, the Hochberg sequential procedure was used for adjustment of multiple comparisons in the serum biomarker data including the primary outcome.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.1
95898660|NCT01458171|191752971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.45||||||||0.450||
95898661|NCT01458171|191752971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Annualized Rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.523||||||||0.523||
95898662|NCT02800148|191753060|EQUIVALENCE|provides 85% power of success|equivalence ratio|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|115.5||No p-value as calculated for bioequivalence, just a T/R ratio and 90% confidence interval|Fieller's method|||||115.5|96.1|
95898663|NCT06561217|191753062|NON_INFERIORITY|A predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.05 was used. The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, non-inferiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.00007515||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is Inf due to the test being one-sided. Alternative hypothesis: true median location shift is greater than -0.05|A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the primary null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was non-inferior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction by at least 5% (i.e., noninferiority margin).|||0.00007515|<0.001
95898664|NCT06561217|191753062|SUPERIORITY|The primary study was powered on a retrospective, paired, superiority design to evaluate abstraction accuracy of elements commonly used to help screen patients for clinical trials.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality of paired differences in chart-level accuracy (alpha = 0.05). A one-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test the null hypothesis of whether chart-level accuracy of the Human+AI arm for EHR chart abstraction was superior to the chart-level accuracy of a Human-alone arm abstraction.||||0.002
95898665|NCT06561217|191753063|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: True difference is equal to 0. Alternate hypothesis: true difference is not equal to 0|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A two-sided, paired Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (alpha = 0.05) was employed to test for difference between chart-level efficiency of the Human+AI arm and chart-level efficiency of the Human-alone arm abstraction.||2.55|-1.25|0.513
95898666|NCT02321462|191753066|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the difference was higher than the predefined noninferiority margin (-15%).|Adjusted difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|3.29|||||To investigate noninferiority of Eziclen compared to Fortrans®, the adjusted difference between these 2 groups was calculated with 95% CI of the adjusted difference.|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status (No IBD, IBD) was used.||3.29|-4.22|
95898667|NCT02321462|191753067|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.15|||=|0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||ANOVA|A 2-way analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score.||0.28|0.02|=0.0249
95898668|NCT02321462|191753067|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.22|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score.||0.22|0.01|=0.0382
95898669|NCT02321462|191753067|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.06|||=|0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Left Colon BBPS Score.||0.16|-0.04|=0.2538
95898670|NCT02321462|191753067|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.33|||=|0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.62|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Global BBPS Score.||0.62|0.04|=0.0256
95898671|NCT02321462|191753068|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.11|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Right Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.24|-0.02|=0.0840
95898672|NCT02321462|191753068|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.08|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.18|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for Transverse Colon BBPS Score (per protocol population).||0.18|-0.02|=0.1320
95898673|NCT02321462|191753069|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-6.94|||=|0.2199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of polyps.||3.64|-17.53|=0.2199
95898674|NCT02321462|191753069|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|1.87|||=|0.6325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|9.99|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of adenomas.||9.99|-6.25|=0.6325
95898675|NCT02321462|191753069|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-1.55|||=|0.7086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.64|6.54|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||Treatment difference for detection of other lesions.||6.54|-9.64|=0.7086
95898676|NCT02321462|191753070|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.01|||=|0.9927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||3.14|-3.12|=0.9927
95898677|NCT02321462|191753071|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-0.3|||=|0.7039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||1.27|-1.88|=0.7039
95898678|NCT02321462|191753072|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|0.1|||=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||ANOVA|A 2-way ANOVA with covariates for centre, age group (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||0.25|-0.05|=0.1891
95898679|NCT02321462|191753073|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|13.35|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.37|20.32|||Regression, Logistic|A multivariate logistic regression model, adjusted on centre, age class (≤65; \>65), gender and IBD status was used.||||20.32|6.37|=0.0011
95898680|NCT03080961|191753096|OTHER||SADE percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.7||||||SADE rate after minimally 26 days of VIBLOK treatment will be assessed by calculating the upper limit of the 2-sided exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval which needs to be below 10%. With a sample size of 36, an exact two-sided 95.0% confidence interval for a single proportion would show that the SADE incidence is below 10% at an expected incidence of 0.1%.||7.7|0.0|
95898681|NCT03080961|191753097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis will evaluate the difference in detection rate between pre and post-VIBLOK swabs. For each person the number of swabs with shedding only pre-VIBLOK will be assessed, and then the number of swabs with shedding only post-VIBLOK will be subtracted. A number above 0 indicates a decreased detection rate after VIBLOK. With an 8% anticipated asymptomatic shedding rate, 80% power, 50 subjects taking samples for 28 days are needed to show a 50% reduction.||||0.248
95898682|NCT03080961|191753098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95898683|NCT03238911|191753100|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|-51.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose was compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95% CI, adjusting for strata (underlying disease and screening s-phosphate) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.|"Power:~The power was set to 80%. Assuming incidences of 15% for iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 40% for ferric carboxymaltose, 49 subjects in each treatment group were required to detect a difference between the treatment groups. The significance level was set to 5%."||-51.5|-77.4|<0.0001
95898684|NCT03238911|191753101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8979|||||||Log Rank|||The time with hypophosphatemia from baseline to day 35 was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier plot. The treatment groups were compared by a log-rank test. Only subjects who had one or more s-phosphate value(s) \<2 mg/dL were included.||||0.8979
95898685|NCT03238911|191753102|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose will be compared to ferric carboxymaltose by estimation of the risk difference and the associated 95 % CI, adjusting for strata (type of underlying disease (women with IDA due to gynaecological blood losses; yes/no) and screening s-phosphate level (\< or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)) using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||-23.3|-52.2|<0.0001
95898686|NCT03238911|191753103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
95898687|NCT03238911|191753103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.27|0.85|<0.0001
95898688|NCT03238911|191753103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.25|0.81|<0.0001
95898689|NCT03238911|191753103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.60|1.10|<0.0001
95898690|NCT03238911|191753103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.32|0.75|<0.0001
95898691|NCT03238911|191753103|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.39|0.86|<0.0001
95898692|NCT03238911|191753104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.32|20.79|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||20.79|10.32|<0.0001
95898693|NCT03238911|191753104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.62|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|26.62|<0.0001
95898694|NCT03238911|191753104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.71|39.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||39.84|25.71|<0.0001
95898695|NCT03238911|191753104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.89|50.32|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||50.32|33.89|<0.0001
95898696|NCT03238911|191753104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|41.48|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||41.48|23.09|<0.0001
95898697|NCT03238911|191753104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.33|44.78|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||44.78|27.33|<0.0001
95898698|NCT03238911|191753106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-105.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-131.04|-80.45|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-80.45|-131.04|<0.0001
95898699|NCT03238911|191753106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.95|-38.58|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-38.58|-82.95|<0.0001
95976782|NCT00051363|191926045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1838||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.1838
95898700|NCT03238911|191753106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-293.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-368.15|-218.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-218.30|-368.15|<0.0001
95898701|NCT03238911|191753106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-117.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.6|-83.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-83.33|-151.60|<0.0001
95898702|NCT03238911|191753106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.8|-40.61|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-40.61|-101.80|<0.0001
95898703|NCT03238911|191753106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-19.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-19.39|-54.92|<0.0001
95898704|NCT03238911|191753107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-99.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-136.42|-61.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-61.76|-136.42|<0.0001
95898705|NCT03238911|191753107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-25.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-25.90|-72.80|<0.0001
95898706|NCT03238911|191753107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-191.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.47|-140.09|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-140.09|-242.47|<0.0001
95898707|NCT03238911|191753107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-100.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-137.19|-64.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-64.20|-137.19|<0.0001
95898708|NCT03238911|191753107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.78|-24.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-24.96|-71.78|<0.0001
95898709|NCT03238911|191753107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0||||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|5.06|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.06|-35.04|0.1411
95898710|NCT03238911|191753108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.59|-1.08|0.5620
95898711|NCT03238911|191753108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|0.38|0.0126
95898712|NCT03238911|191753108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|2.02|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.02|-1.19|0.6080
95898713|NCT03238911|191753108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||4.05|0.12|0.0379
95898714|NCT03238911|191753108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17||||0.2368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|3.12|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||3.12|-0.78|0.2368
95898715|NCT03238911|191753108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.8287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.75|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.75|-2.18|0.8287
95898716|NCT03238911|191753109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.81|29.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||29.73|18.81|<0.0001
95898717|NCT03238911|191753109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.83|22.67|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||22.67|8.83|<0.0001
95898718|NCT03238911|191753109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|28.22|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||28.22|12.07|<0.0001
95898719|NCT03238911|191753109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.49|38.96|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||38.96|25.49|<0.0001
95898720|NCT03238911|191753109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.79|30.95|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||30.95|14.79|<0.0001
95898721|NCT03238911|191753109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.6||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|17.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||17.82|3.39|0.0043
95898722|NCT03238911|191753110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.0|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.00|-0.34|0.0552
95898723|NCT03238911|191753110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.13|-0.60|0.0023
95898724|NCT03238911|191753110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.21|-0.80|0.0008
95898725|NCT03238911|191753110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.49|-1.11|<0.0001
95898726|NCT03238911|191753110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.28|-1.01|0.0006
95898727|NCT03238911|191753110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.23|-0.94|0.0014
95898728|NCT03238911|191753111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|5.71|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||5.71|-7.96|0.7447
95976783|NCT00051363|191926045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0739||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-BehMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0739
95976784|NCT00051363|191926046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.0450
95976785|NCT00051363|191926046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4512||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4512
95898729|NCT03238911|191753111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|-0.63|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-0.63|-18.78|0.0363
95898730|NCT03238911|191753111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.9242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|9.59|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||9.59|-10.56|0.9242
95898731|NCT03238911|191753111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.17||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.84|0.49|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.49|-22.84|0.0602
95898732|NCT03238911|191753111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.2||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.68|-7.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-7.73|-28.68|0.0008
95898733|NCT03238911|191753111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.75|-6.83|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-6.83|-32.75|0.0031
95898734|NCT03238911|191753112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.104|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.104|-0.029|0.2670
95898735|NCT03238911|191753112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.142|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.142|0.028|0.0040
95898736|NCT03238911|191753112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.127|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.127|0.001|0.0472
95898737|NCT03238911|191753112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.171|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.171|0.031|0.0050
95898738|NCT03238911|191753112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.172|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.172|0.029|0.0061
95898739|NCT03238911|191753112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055||||0.1282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.126|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.126|-0.016|0.1282
95898740|NCT03238911|191753114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.4618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.37|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.37|-0.82|0.4618
95898741|NCT03238911|191753114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.20|-0.54|0.3660
95898742|NCT03238911|191753114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.30|-0.25|0.8580
95898743|NCT03238911|191753114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.74|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.74|0.05|0.0257
95898744|NCT03238911|191753114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.77|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.77|0.19|0.0016
95898745|NCT03238911|191753114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.76|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||0.76|0.07|0.0185
95898746|NCT03238911|191753115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.84||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.26|7.57|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||7.57|-37.26|0.1922
95898747|NCT03238911|191753115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.28||||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.24|43.68|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||43.68|-80.24|0.5601
95898748|NCT03238911|191753115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-71.02||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.74|-1.3|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-1.30|-140.74|0.0459
95898749|NCT03238911|191753115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-207.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.82|-145.84|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-145.84|-268.82|<0.0001
95898750|NCT03238911|191753115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.81|-32.39|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.39|-124.81|0.0010
95898751|NCT03238911|191753115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.79||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.75|-28.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-28.82|-88.75|0.0002
95898752|NCT03238911|191753116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|55.33|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 1~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||55.33|26.30|<0.0001
95898753|NCT03238911|191753116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.61||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|11.53|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 7~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||11.53|1.69|0.0089
95898754|NCT03238911|191753116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.92|-32.03|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 8~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||-32.03|-54.92|<0.0001
95898755|NCT03238911|191753116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.68||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.04|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 14~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.04|-5.41|0.3730
95976786|NCT00051363|191926046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6672||||||2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.6672
95976787|NCT00051363|191926046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8197||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8197
95898756|NCT03238911|191753116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.4778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|2.9|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 21~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||2.90|-6.15|0.4778
95898757|NCT03238911|191753116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.3575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|1.98|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Day 35~Change from baseline was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach. All subjects with post-baseline data were included with their observed data.~The model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, strata, day, treatment-by-day interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariates of the parameters baseline value, and baseline value-by-day interaction."||1.98|-5.44|0.3575
95898758|NCT03238911|191753117|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The rate difference with 95% Newcombe confidence interval, adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, could not be estimated due to lack of events. Thus, the unadjusted treatment difference is presented together with 95% Wald-based confidence interval. The p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.||-3.6|-20.1|0.0050
95898759|NCT02239536|191753118|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95898760|NCT02239536|191753119|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95898761|NCT02239536|191753119|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95898762|NCT06893809|191753120|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|20.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||Sixty male patients scheduled for TURP surgery were divided into three equal groups. The results were evaluated at a 95% confidence interval, with significance set at p \< 0.05. This was achieved using SPSS 15.0. Between-group comparisons were performed using One-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and Friedman tests. Within-group comparisons used Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests, and Friedman tests were used for differences over time.||20|10|0.05
95898763|NCT06893809|191753120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was applied. Non-parametric method used due to ordinal scale structure.|Kruskal-Wallis||Patient and surgeon satisfaction were compared across study arms.|The aim of this analysis is to compare the three groups in terms of patient and surgeon satisfaction using a superiority approach. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in satisfaction scores between the groups. Statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.||0|0|>0.05
95898764|NCT06893809|191753122|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|Non-parametric test used due to ordinal scale and non-normal distribution.|Sensory block levels compared across study arms using numerical dermatomal codes.|||1.6|0.5|0.05
95898765|NCT06893809|191753124|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.93|||Kruskal-Wallis||Dermatomal regression levels were compared across groups at 60 minutes.|||0.93|0.07|<0.05
95898766|NCT00368940|191753162|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.13|0.005
95898767|NCT00368940|191753163|SUPERIORITY||Cohen D at week 12|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.20|0.001
95898768|NCT00368940|191753164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0268
95898769|NCT00368940|191753165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95898770|NCT04589559|191753182|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.67|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in cardiac-related interoceptive fear.|||0.67|-3.67|0.152
95898771|NCT04589559|191753183|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-6.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.69|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in trait anxiety.|||-0.69|-11.71|0.031
95976788|NCT00051363|191926046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.989||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9890
95976789|NCT00051363|191926046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5029||||||6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Generalized Linear Models (GLM) were run by visit (2M and 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 6M E/F Function- SWMT-ActMD.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.5029
95898772|NCT04589559|191753184|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change score|-1.9||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A negative value of the estimation parameter of mean change score indicates a reduction in negative affect.|||2.21|-6.01|0.323
95898773|NCT04589559|191753185|OTHER|Paired-samples t-test|Mean change in the measure|0.58||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired-samples t-test|A positive value of the estimation parameter of mean change in the measure indicates an increase in heart rate variability.|||1.33|-0.16|0.112
95976790|NCT00051363|191926047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9518||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.9518
95898774|NCT02664038|191753186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-8.23|2.588|||ANCOVA|covaried for days of heavy drinking over the 30 days prior to randomization.||||2.588|-8.23|<.05
95898775|NCT02664038|191753187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|-3.26|3.61|||ANCOVA|Days of heavy drinking 30 days prior to randomization||||3.61|-3.26|<.05
95898776|NCT02664038|191753188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.77|TWO_SIDED|0.05|1.45|4.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measure with Baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks||||4.43|1.45|.77
95898777|NCT02664038|191753189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.61|<.05
95898778|NCT02664038|191753190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05|0.19|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.11|.19|.05
95898779|NCT04875520|191753199|NON_INFERIORITY|Overall rate compared using GEE model includes any person affiliated with the school who tested positive at least once during the study period that the schools reported to us that were positive. This includes people in our testing program and not in our testing program.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01845||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04981|0.01292|||generalized estimating equations|||||0.01292|-0.04981|0.25
95898780|NCT01192152|191753234|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.045|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.025|1.065|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.065|1.025|
95898781|NCT01192152|191753234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|103.05||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95898782|NCT01192152|191753234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.61||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95976791|NCT00051363|191926047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4108||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4108
95976792|NCT00051363|191926047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4528||||||2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.4528
95976793|NCT00051363|191926047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8391||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Mild OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8391
95976794|NCT00051363|191926047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2771||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Moderate OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.2771
95976795|NCT00051363|191926047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8961||||||6M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh (Severe OSA); P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values. Outcome formulated as dichotomized variable (\<=2 vs. \>=3) based on a 5th percentile cut-off used in pilot studies per test developer suggestion.|Mixed Models Analysis|Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were utilized to account for repeated measures (DX, 2M, 6M).||"Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for covariate adjusted 2M E/F Function- SAT-D-NumRuCh.~Covariates were designated in the a priori secondary analysis plan as being the most likely to explain variation in the outcomes. Covariates included: study arm, OSA severity, sex, race, % of total sleep time oxygen saturation \< 85% (PSG), age \< 60 years, WASI Verbal IQ, and WASI Performance IQ."||||0.8961
95976796|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||||||DX- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.6540
95976797|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9778||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.9778
95976798|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8314||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.8314
95898783|NCT01192152|191753235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.035|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.009|1.062|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.062|1.009|
95898784|NCT01192152|191753235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|101.16||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95898785|NCT01192152|191753235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|97.72||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95976799|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5018||||||DX- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5018
95976800|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0052||||||2M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0052
95976801|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2476||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.2476
95976802|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7520
95976803|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||2M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
95909257|NCT01939548|191776649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761||0.7787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.77|1.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.19|-0.77|0.7787
95976804|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||6M- MWT-MSL; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0022
95898786|NCT01192152|191753237|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.053|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||1.053|0.948|
95898787|NCT01192152|191753237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95898788|NCT01192152|191753237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|24.88||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95898789|NCT01192152|191753254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.833|0.959|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.959|0.833|
95898790|NCT01192152|191753254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|8713.4||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment B||||
95898791|NCT01192152|191753254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|9746.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
95898792|NCT01192152|191753255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of geometric least squares means|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.848|0.968|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.968|0.848|
95898793|NCT01192152|191753255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|8377.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95898794|NCT01192152|191753255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|9246.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for Treatment A||||
95898795|NCT01192152|191753257|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|ratio of geometric least squares means|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.859|0.98|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a 5-mg saxagliptin tablet plus two 500-mg metformin XR tablets under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided at least 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf.||0.980|0.859|
95898796|NCT01192152|191753257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1055.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment B||||
95898797|NCT01192152|191753257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean (ng*hr/mL)|1151.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for Treatment A||||
95898798|NCT03022617|191753272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.89||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95898799|NCT00094653|191753280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.85|0.55|0.0004
95898800|NCT00094653|191753281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.87|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.87|0.51|0.0026
95898801|NCT00094653|191753281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Stratified Log Rank||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) and log-rank test p-values were stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.30|0.83|0.7575
95898802|NCT00094653|191753283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
95898803|NCT00094653|191753283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
95898804|NCT00094653|191753283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
95976805|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.7630
95898805|NCT00094653|191753285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.00|0.66|
95898806|NCT00094653|191753285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.83|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||0.83|0.50|
95898807|NCT00094653|191753285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.53|||||Cox model for Hazard ratios (HR) were stratified by M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior treatment with IL-2 (Yes vs. No).|||1.53|1.01|
95898808|NCT00094653|191753287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0433||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0433
95898809|NCT00094653|191753287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95976806|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.5170
95898810|NCT00094653|191753287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0402||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0402
95898811|NCT00094653|191753290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0179||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0179
95898812|NCT00094653|191753290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
95898813|NCT00094653|191753290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0429||95.0||||P-values were computed using CMH test stratified by baseline M-stage at randomization (M0, M1a, M1b vs. M1c) and prior IL-2 treatment (Yes vs. No).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0429
95898814|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.2805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.6|-2.5|0.2805
95898815|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||8.2|-5.0|0.6300
95898816|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|6.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Global quality of life change from baseline||6.8|-3.9|0.6026
95898817|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.1219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|8.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||8.9|-1.1|0.1219
95898818|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|11.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||11.0|-0.9|0.0978
95898819|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Physical change from baseline||3.8|-6.0|0.6590
95898820|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||11.7|-3.0|0.2480
95898821|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.4742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|12.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||12.0|-5.6|0.4742
95898822|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Role change, change from baseline||8.3|-6.1|0.7597
95898823|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.2|-4.7|0.9119
95898824|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.7616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||5.0|-6.9|0.7616
95898825|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.6266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|6.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Cognitive change from baseline||6.0|-3.6|0.6266
95976807|NCT00051363|191926048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||6M- MWT-MSL (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Chop-lump Wilcoxon|Chop-lump test was selected due to a high frequency of scores at the twenty-minute ceiling.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Objective Sleepiness/Alertness- MWT-MSL.||||0.0002
95898826|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||4.8|-4.8|0.9984
95898827|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||3.7|-7.8|0.4873
95898828|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Emotional change from baseline||6.7|-2.7|0.3938
95898829|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||5.2|-8.1|0.6695
95898830|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||4.6|-11.3|0.4041
95898831|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|8.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Social change from baseline||8.3|-4.5|0.5538
95976808|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9291||||||DX- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9291
95898832|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||2.4|-10.3|0.2259
95898833|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.6168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|5.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||5.7|-9.6|0.6168
95898834|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Fatigue change from baseline||4.3|-8.2|0.5329
95898835|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.9397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||5.0|-4.7|0.9397
95898836|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||4.6|-7.1|0.6716
95898837|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|6.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Nausea and Vomiting change from baseline||6.2|-3.3|0.5497
95898838|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||0.3|-12.8|0.0625
95898839|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.3214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.9|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||3.9|-11.9|0.3214
95898840|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.4898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Pain change from baseline||4.2|-8.7|0.4898
95898841|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|0.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||0.6|-11.8|0.0761
95898842|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8||||0.3187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||3.7|-11.2|0.3187
95898843|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Dyspnea change from baseline||4.2|-7.9|0.5548
95898844|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||3.1|-12.1|0.2450
95898845|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep disturbance change from baseline||8.2|-10.0|0.8464
95898846|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.3351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|3.7|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Sleep Disturbance change from baseline||3.7|-10.9|0.3351
95898847|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.6291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite loss change from baseline||5.5|-9.1|0.6291
95898848|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.1|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||10.1|-7.4|0.7675
95898849|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.3911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.0|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Appetite Loss change from baseline||4.0|-10.2|0.3911
95898850|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-0.2|-12.9|0.0431
95898851|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-2.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||-2.4|-17.4|0.0101
95898852|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|9.5|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Constipation change from baseline||9.5|-2.8|0.2796
95898853|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||10.8|-2.2|0.1940
95898854|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||14.8|-0.9|0.0821
95976809|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6152||||||DX- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.6152
95976810|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||||||DX- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.7040
95976811|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9537||||||DX- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for DX Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.9537
95976812|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||2M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0004
95976813|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886||||||2M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3886
95976814|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||2M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0236
95976815|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||2M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 2M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
95976816|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||6M- ESS-TS; Comparison of means by visit only; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0005
95976817|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3796||||||6M- ESS-TS (Mild OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.3796
95976818|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106||||||6M- ESS-TS (Moderate OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0106
95976819|NCT00051363|191926049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||6M- ESS-TS (Severe OSA); Comparison of means by visit and Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) severity; P\<0.05 indicates statistical significance for P values.|Regression, Linear|Regression analyses for the ESS used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) for an over-dispersed binomial distribution.||Comparison of means (regression estimates) between arms for 6M Subjective Sleepiness/Alertness- ESS-TS.||||0.0010
95976820|NCT01992393|191926053|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||GEE|||||||0.036
95976821|NCT01992393|191926054|OTHER|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.042
95976822|NCT01992393|191926054|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU||||0.204
95976823|NCT01992393|191926055|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.129
95976824|NCT01992393|191926055|OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.978
95976825|NCT01992393|191926056|OTHER|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.128
95976826|NCT01992393|191926056|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.015
95976827|NCT01992393|191926057|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.759
95976828|NCT01992393|191926057|OTHER|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.471
95976829|NCT01992393|191926058|OTHER|||||||0.775|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.775
95976830|NCT01992393|191926058|OTHER|||||||0.433|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.433
95976831|NCT01992393|191926059|OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.936
95976832|NCT01992393|191926059|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 16 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.600
95976833|NCT01992393|191926060|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.560
95976834|NCT01992393|191926060|OTHER|||||||0.305|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A two-sided two sample t-test comparing difference of values from baseline and 12 week between TIME and TAU.||||0.305
95976835|NCT05741372|191926071|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|127.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|189.6|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 23.6%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||189.6|85.4|
95976836|NCT05741372|191926071|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|745.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|464.9|1196.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 28.1%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||1196|464.9|
95976837|NCT05741372|191926072|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|183.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.3|287.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 26.6%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||287.5|117.3|
95976838|NCT05741372|191926072|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1712.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1006.7|2912.2|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 31.7%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||2912.2|1006.7|
95976839|NCT05741372|191926073|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.0|115.3|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 10.3%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||115.3|81.0|
95898855|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.8|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Diarrhea change from baseline||3.8|-9.0|0.4169
95898856|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.2|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||4.2|-7.5|0.5717
95898857|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|8.4|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||8.4|-5.6|0.6949
95898858|NCT00094653|191753292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|2.6|||ANCOVA||Least square mean can be defined as a linear combination of estimated effects, from a linear model. These means are based on ANCOVA model with covariate variables as baseline score, M-stage and prior-IL2 treatment at randomization, and treatment.|Financial Impact change from baseline||2.6|-8.8|0.2849
95898859|NCT04552587|191753411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared change from baseline to follow up in our single group of caregivers.||||0.23
95898860|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.214
95898861|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.017
95898862|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.457
95898863|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.580
95898864|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.275
95898865|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95898866|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.007
95898867|NCT03037528|191753459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.142
95976840|NCT05741372|191926073|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|93.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.9|115.3|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||115.3|75.9|
95976841|NCT05741372|191926074|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|78.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.8|97.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||97.5|63.8|
95898868|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.027
95898869|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.000
95898870|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.054
95898871|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
95898872|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
95898873|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
95898874|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
95898875|NCT03037528|191753460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.163
95898876|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.018
95898877|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
95898878|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.134
95898879|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95898880|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.048
95898881|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.066
95898882|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.045
95898883|NCT03037528|191753461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.053
95898884|NCT01339390|191753469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3941|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.4937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7347|1.5229||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 12 months, comparing the change in weight from 12 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.5229|-.7347|0.4937
95976842|NCT05741372|191926074|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.0|107.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 14.8%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||107.5|65.0|
95898885|NCT01339390|191753469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5893|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5759||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5395|1.7181||calculated after fitting the data to a repeated measures mixed model to control for repeated subject and random site and group effects|t-test, 2 sided|accounted for repeated measures and random effects|The difference is expressed as the Move (arm 2) group minus the Move Out (arm 1) group|This is the analysis at 24 months, comparing the change in weight from 24 months to baseline in our Move Out (arm 1) vs Move (arm 2) groups||1.7181|-0.5395|0.3062
95898886|NCT04847674|191753470|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.027||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2276|0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1740|-0.2276|0.7914
95898887|NCT04847674|191753470|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.011||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2126|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1900|-0.2126|0.9115
95898888|NCT04847674|191753472|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.026||||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0733|0.1261|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1261|-0.0733|0.6001
95898889|NCT04847674|191753472|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.5922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.1276|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1276|-0.0732|0.5922
95898890|NCT04847674|191753472|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.027||||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0744|0.1277|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1277|-0.0744|0.6017
95976843|NCT05741372|191926075|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.2|114.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 9.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||114|83.2|
95976844|NCT05741372|191926075|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|94.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.2|113.5|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 10.9%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||113.5|78.2|
95976845|NCT05741372|191926076|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|87.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.0|102.9|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 9.7%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||102.9|74.0|
95976846|NCT05741372|191926076|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|83.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.8|101.7|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 11.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||101.7|68.8|
95976847|NCT05741372|191926077|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|88.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.6|108.8|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 12.2%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||108.8|71.6|
95976848|NCT05741372|191926077|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|115.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|148.0|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 14.5%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||148.0|90.2|
95976849|NCT05741372|191926078|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|76.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.1|96.6|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 2/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 13.4%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||96.6|61.1|
95976850|NCT05741372|191926078|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|96.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.4|126.1|||||Ratio \[%\]=(adjusted geometric mean Group 3/adjusted geometric mean Group 1)\*100. Total gCV = 15.9%.|The adjusted geometric means ratio based on ANOVA was calculated by using least square means, the 90% CI by using residual error from quantiles from t-distribution. These quantities were back-transformed to original scale.||126.1|73.4|
95976851|NCT02961218|191926079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.55|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.85||probability reduction of average pain score in ACZ885 \> Placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Lower limit and upper limit represents the credibility interval from the Bayesian analysis.|||0.85|-1.03|0.55
95976852|NCT02961218|191926081|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.408||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.253|0.658|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.658|0.253|0.002
95976853|NCT02961218|191926082|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.752|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.657|0.862|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.862|0.657|<.001
95976854|NCT02961218|191926083|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.682||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.547|0.849|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.849|0.547|0.004
95976855|NCT02961218|191926084|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.718||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.556|0.925|||Mixed-effect Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.925|0.556|0.032
95976856|NCT02961218|191926091|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|3.4|||Generalized Linear Model (GLM)|||||3.40|0.58|0.455
95976857|NCT00602667|191926101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|21.23||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||21.23|1.17|
95976858|NCT00602667|191926101|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.84||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.84|0.40|
95976859|NCT00602667|191926102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|8.22||||||The historical control included 10 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as intermediate risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||8.22|0.42|
95976860|NCT00602667|191926102|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.79||||||The historical control included 14 medulloblastoma patients treated during 1998-2006 who would have been classified as high risk according to SJYC07 criteria (section 13.1.3 of protocol).||1.79|0.31|
95898891|NCT04847674|191753472|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.022||||0.6664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0796|0.1239|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEV1 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1239|-0.0796|0.6664
95898892|NCT04847674|191753473|OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (HL) estimator|0.4||||0.7261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|3.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.31|-2.33|0.7261
95898893|NCT04847674|191753473|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.5||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|3.32|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.32|-3.56|0.7650
95898894|NCT04847674|191753473|OTHER||HL estimator|0.2||||0.7942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|3.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||3.04|-2.44|0.7942
95898895|NCT04847674|191753473|OTHER||HL estimator|-0.8||||0.6147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|2.55|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Change from baseline in weekly average of rescue medication use over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified on randomization stratification factors.||2.55|-3.81|0.6147
95898896|NCT04847674|191753475|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083||||0.4394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2971|0.1301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1301|-0.2971|0.4394
95898897|NCT04847674|191753475|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.089||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.1231|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||0.1231|-0.3020|0.4051
95898898|NCT04847674|191753478|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.093||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1031|0.2893|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2893|-0.1031|0.3485
95898899|NCT04847674|191753478|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.033||||0.7432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1644|0.2296|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 12 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2296|-0.1644|0.7432
95976861|NCT02739412|191926176|SUPERIORITY|Power calculations were not performed in this study.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||This is an open label feasibility study to assess the efficacy and safety of a 4 week course of daily subcutaneous IL-2 injections to increase peripheral blood CD4 Tregs. Results are expressed as median, IQR and comparison were performed using one way or two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's multiple comparison test. For all comparisons, a p\< 0.05 was considered significant.||||< 0.01
95976862|NCT05135000|191926240|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7||||0.6843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.2|0.6843
95976863|NCT01444651|191926280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in HOMA-IR (3 month minus baseline value), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline HOMA-IR.||||0.34
95976864|NCT01444651|191926281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda Index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.18
95976865|NCT01444651|191926282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the difference in EndoPAT (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline values.||||0.76
95898900|NCT04847674|191753478|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.087||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2920|-0.1180|0.4014
95898901|NCT04847674|191753478|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.2153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in FEF25-75 over 16 weeks: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline FEF25-75 as a covariate.||0.2153|-0.1960|0.9259
95898902|NCT04847674|191753480|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.42|-0.43|0.9829
95898903|NCT04847674|191753480|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.52|-0.32|0.6302
95976866|NCT01444651|191926283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in insulinogenic index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.06
95976867|NCT01444651|191926284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in oral disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil versus placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.009
95976868|NCT01444651|191926285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||beta estimate|8.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to model the change in Matsuda disposition index (3-month minus baseline), comparing tadalafil to placebo groups after adjusting for baseline value.||||0.05
95898904|NCT04847674|191753480|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.35|-0.54|0.6707
95898905|NCT04847674|191753480|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACQ-6 at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACQ-6 as a covariate.||0.43|-0.44|0.9940
95898906|NCT04847674|191753481|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.4683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.26|-2.71|0.4683
95976869|NCT01672788|191926293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.93|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.93|96.89|
95976870|NCT01672788|191926293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|103.29|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||103.29|97.40|
95976871|NCT01672788|191926294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.94|105.41|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||105.41|97.94|
95976872|NCT01672788|191926294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|103.08|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.08|94.24|
95976873|NCT01672788|191926295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.89|105.71|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.71|96.89|
95976874|NCT01672788|191926295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.41|103.3|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||103.30|97.41|
95976875|NCT01672788|191926296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|102.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.75|106.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||106.81|98.75|
95976876|NCT01672788|191926296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.94|106.27|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||106.27|95.94|
95976877|NCT01672788|191926297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.39|104.09|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||104.09|95.39|
95976878|NCT01672788|191926297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.82|102.15|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.15|93.82|
95976879|NCT01672788|191926298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 12.5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 12.5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.95|105.21|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||105.21|97.95|
95976880|NCT01672788|191926298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Considered characteristic is empa 5mg fixed-dose divided by empa 5mg free dose .|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|102.81|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|||102.81|94.50|
95976881|NCT02464228|191926339|OTHER|||||||0|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.000
95976882|NCT02464228|191926339|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
95976883|NCT02464228|191926339|OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Wilson approximation|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||0.026
95976884|NCT02464228|191926339|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Null hypothesis H0: PORR = 10% versus HA: PORR \> 10% will be tested at a = 0.05 significance level using a two-sided binomial test. The choice of test statistics was driven by the method used for interval estimation.||||1.000
95898907|NCT04847674|191753481|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.2239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||0.75|-3.16|0.2239
95898908|NCT04847674|191753481|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.5389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.32|-2.51|0.5389
95898909|NCT04847674|191753481|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in ACT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline ACT as a covariate.||1.00|-2.75|0.3564
95898910|NCT04847674|191753482|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.27|-0.62|0.4436
95898911|NCT04847674|191753482|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 12: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.32|-0.56|0.5970
95898912|NCT04847674|191753482|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose A versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.26|-0.68|0.3769
95898913|NCT04847674|191753482|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Change from baseline in AQLQT at Week 16: TEV-53275 Dose B versus Placebo|Analysis was performed using an MMRM with treatment group, week, randomization factors, and treatment group by week interaction as fixed effects, and baseline AQLQ as a covariate.||0.29|-0.64|0.4595
95898914|NCT00378703|191753498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm B (bevacizumab and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk)||||0.89
95898915|NCT00378703|191753498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm C (bevacizumab and sorafenib) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.54
95898916|NCT00378703|191753498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Progression-free survival was compared between Arm D (sorafenib and temsirolimus) and Arm A (bevacizumab alone) using stratified log rank test, stratified on prior cytokine or vaccine therapy and risk category (low/intermediate/high risk).||||0.68
95898917|NCT00378703|191753501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0076
95898918|NCT00378703|191753501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.0085
95898919|NCT00378703|191753501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3006|TWO_SIDED|||||Each combination arm was compared with the bevacizumab alone arm. Since there were 3 pairwise comparisons, a Bonferroni--adjusted p-value of 0.017 was considered to be statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||The response rate of each combination arm was compared to that of the bevacizumab alone arm.||||0.3006
95898920|NCT03181542|191753516|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95898921|NCT03181542|191753517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.40
95898922|NCT03181542|191753518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Jonckheere-Terpstra Test|||||||0.90
95898923|NCT00247728|191753525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.072||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.072
95898924|NCT00247728|191753525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size is based on the paper 'Two-stage selection and testing design for comparative clinical trials', Thall, PF, Simon, R and Ellenberg, SS. Biometrika (1988),75,(2),303-310.||||||0.298||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.298
95898925|NCT00247728|191753526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.087||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.087
95898926|NCT00247728|191753526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.653||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.653
95898927|NCT01462357|191753528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.15||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of seroconversion rates (SCR): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.15|-1.16|
95976885|NCT02952001|191926348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.050. No adjustments made or required for multiplicity.|Log-rank chi-square test|||The null hypothesis of no difference in the survival time distributions was tested.||||0.562
95976886|NCT01117454|191926352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank with continuity correction||||||0.008
95976887|NCT01681628|191926353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|24.0||This was an a priori threshold.|t-test, 2 sided|||Means and differences were calculated for both groups before (time 1) and after treatment (or no treatment) (time 2). Also, the differences in mean scores from time 1 to 2 were compared between the two groups, the primary outcome. The numbers in the groups were considered adequate based on previous similar studies. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in any mean change in scores from time 1 to 2, between both groups.||24.0|16.1|<0.001
95976888|NCT01681628|191926353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|34.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in PCL-C scores from before to after treatment.||34.7|29.1|<0.001
95976889|NCT01681628|191926353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|17.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Changes in PCL-C scores for control group after no treatment.||17.1|11.4|<0.001
95976890|NCT01681628|191926353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|22.5|||t-test, 2 sided|Degrees of freedom 94||Change in control group PCL-C scores after treatment, that is from time 2 to time 3.||22.5|17.1|<0.001
95976891|NCT01681628|191926354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi-squared test of any change in PCL-C from time 1 to time 2.||||<0.001
95976892|NCT01681628|191926354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of participants with PCL score > 50|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage with diagnostic scores in the wait list group after no treatment at times 1 and 2.||||<0.001
95976893|NCT01681628|191926354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|39.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95976894|NCT01681628|191926355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|20.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Both the original treatment and control groups were combined as both groups had been treated at a similar time before the nineteen month assessment. The null hypothesis was that there had been no change in the PCL-C scores at nineteen months compared to one week following treatment.||20.5|15.2|<0.001
95976895|NCT03226392|191926540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.018|||ANCOVA|||||0.018|-0.080|0.214
95976896|NCT03226392|191926541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|0.035|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.19|0.035
95976897|NCT03226392|191926542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.093||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.20|0.893
95976898|NCT03226392|191926543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||ANCOVA|||||0.17|-0.07|0.448
95976899|NCT00402363|191926552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||||1.46|0.90|0.263
95976900|NCT00402363|191926553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Log Rank|||||2.92|0.92|0.089
95976901|NCT00402363|191926553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.98|0.081
95976902|NCT00402363|191926554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.91|0.213
95976903|NCT00402363|191926554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Log Rank|||||2.69|0.83|0.171
95976904|NCT00402363|191926555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.53|||Regression, Cox|||||1.53|0.98|0.082
95976905|NCT00402363|191926556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.89|0.331
95976906|NCT00402363|191926556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.11|||Log Rank|||||2.11|0.79|0.297
95976907|NCT00402363|191926557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.168
95976908|NCT00402363|191926558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Regression, Cox|||||1.43|0.90|0.270
95976909|NCT00402363|191926558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.95|||Log Rank|||||1.95|0.73|0.486
95976910|NCT00402363|191926559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.94|0.167
95976911|NCT00402363|191926560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.81|0.565
95898928|NCT01462357|191753528|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Gardasil 2 dose Group minus Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 5%.|Difference in SCR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.14||||||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of SCR: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||1.14|-1.15|
95898929|NCT01462357|191753529|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.69|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-16 in terms of Geometric Mean Titers (GMT): To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.69|0.54|
95898930|NCT01462357|191753529|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to GMT was shown if, one month after the last dose, for both anti-HPV-16 and anti-HPV-18 antibodies, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the GMT ratio (Gardasil 2 dose Group divided by Cervarix 2 dose Group) was below 2.|GMT ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.26|||ANOVA|||Immune response to anti-HPV-18 in terms of GMT: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is non-inferior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7), in initially seronegative subjects.||0.26|0.20|
95898931|NCT01462357|191753530|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-18 antibodies.|GMT ratio|4.52||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|5.13|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-18 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||5.13|3.97|0.0001
95898932|NCT01462357|191753530|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was shown if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the ratio of GMTs (Cervarix 2 dose Group divided by Gardasil 2 dose Group) was above 1 for anti-HPV-16 antibodies.|GMT ratio|1.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.91|||ANOVA|||Anti-HPV-16 immune response: To evaluate sequentially if the immunogenicity (as determined by ELISA) of Cervarix vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months is superior to that of Gardasil vaccine administered according to a 2-dose schedule at 0, 6 months, in 9-14 year-old females, 1 month after the last dose (Month 7) regardless of serostatus.||1.91|1.49|0.0001
95898933|NCT01393743|191753578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-30.81||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.49|-15.244||The P-value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-15.244|-45.49|0.0001
95898934|NCT01393743|191753579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0019
95898935|NCT01393743|191753581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-23.45||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.668|-8.518||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.||-8.518|-40.668|0.0018
95898936|NCT01393743|191753582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.25||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.054|26.989||The P value is based on a rank analysis of covariance with treatment and pooled country as factors, and prerandomization seizure frequency as a covariate.|ANCOVA||The median difference to placebo and the 95% confidence interval are based on the Hodges-Lehmann method.|Median Difference to Placebo for Absence Seizures||26.989|-53.054|0.3478
95898937|NCT01393743|191753582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.87||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.338|59.938|||ANCOVA|||Median Difference to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizure||59.938|-15.338|0.61
95898938|NCT01393743|191753583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1826||||||The P value is based on non-missing values and is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pooled country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1826
95898939|NCT01393743|191753584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4653|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Absence Seizures||||0.4653
95898940|NCT01393743|191753584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P Value Compared to Placebo for Myoclonic Seizures||||0.3694
95898941|NCT00556842|191753589|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-9.18|-3.56||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC total at 24 months.||-3.56|-9.18|
95898942|NCT00556842|191753589|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.42|-0.44||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC pain at 24 months.||-0.44|-1.42|
95898943|NCT00556842|191753589|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.65|-0.23||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC stiffness at 24 months.||-0.23|-0.65|
95898944|NCT00556842|191753589|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.97|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-7.11|-2.83||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on function (WOMAC) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for WOMAC function at 24 months.||-2.83|-7.11|
95898945|NCT00556842|191753590|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.38|1.36||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on mobility (TUG) was estimated. We analyzed the TUG as a dichotomous outcome with the following categories: a) patients who complete the test in ≤12 seconds, and b) those who require \>12 seconds to complete the test or were unable to complete the test. We selected 12 seconds as the cut-off because this was the threshold used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The TUG was summarized using odds ratios and 99% CIs.||1.36|0.38|
95898946|NCT00556842|191753591|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.33|3.14||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 PCS at 24 months.||3.14|-0.33|
95976912|NCT00402363|191926560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.15|||Log Rank|||||3.15|0.89|0.103
95976913|NCT00402363|191926561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.92|0.185
95976914|NCT00402363|191926562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.83|0.461
95976915|NCT00402363|191926562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.86|||Log Rank|||||2.86|0.79|0.206
95976916|NCT00402363|191926563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Cox|||||1.57|0.92|0.188
95976917|NCT00402363|191926564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.07||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|2.08|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.08|-0.09|0.290
95976918|NCT00402363|191926564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.063||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.02|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.02|-0.08|0.479
95976919|NCT00402363|191926564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.039||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.49|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||1.49|-0.06|0.218
95976920|NCT00402363|191926565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.321||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|2.21|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.21|-0.18|0.218
95976921|NCT00402363|191926565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.216||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|3.14|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.14|-0.14|0.188
95976922|NCT00402363|191926565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.181||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.10|-0.10|0.097
95976923|NCT00402363|191926566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.242||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.17|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.17|-0.19|0.239
95976924|NCT00402363|191926566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.249||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|4.31|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4.31|-0.09|0.152
95976925|NCT00402363|191926566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||median difference (Hodges-Lehmann)|0.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.11|||non-parametric ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.08|0.094
95976926|NCT04266301|191926593|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.847||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.671|1.07||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very high risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.070|0.671|0.0825
95976927|NCT04266301|191926594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|1.076||||||||1.076|0.693|
95976928|NCT04266301|191926595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.921||||0.2132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13||P Value is 1-sided|Log Rank|log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor (Intermediate risk MDS, High risk MDS, Very High risk MDS, CMML-2) as per IRT||||1.130|0.750|0.2132
95976929|NCT04266301|191926596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4692||||||P Value is 1-sided|negative binomial regression model|negative binomial regression model with log link stratified by randomization stratification factor as per IRT and baseline transfusion status||||||0.4692
95898947|NCT00556842|191753591|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.38|3.05||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (SF-12) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for SF-12 MCS at 24 months.||3.05|-0.38|
95898948|NCT00556842|191753592|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.03|0.11||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D utility index at 24 months.||0.11|-0.03|
95898949|NCT00556842|191753592|EQUIVALENCE|Please refer to the protocol paper for details of the power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.02|3.46||||||Using a multi-level model, the effect of THA versus HA on quality of life (EQ-5D) was estimated. We chose an alpha level of 0.01. The results below are the mean difference in score for EQ-5D VAS at 24 months.||3.46|-2.02|
95898950|NCT01032135|191753594|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95898951|NCT01032135|191753595|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95898952|NCT01032135|191753596|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95898953|NCT01032135|191753601|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.68|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.68|0.23|0.0007
95898954|NCT01032135|191753601|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.27|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.27|0.23|0.16
95898955|NCT01032135|191753601|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.60|0.48|0.79
95898956|NCT01032135|191753606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.29|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.29|-1.87|0.009
95898957|NCT01032135|191753606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.52|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.52|-2.20|0.23
95898958|NCT01032135|191753606|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.34||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.85|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.85|-1.52|0.58
95898959|NCT01032135|191753611|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.58|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.58|0.19|0.0001
95898960|NCT01032135|191753611|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.54|0.29|0.36
95898961|NCT01032135|191753611|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.54|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.54|0.58|0.45
95898962|NCT01032135|191753616|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.09||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.39|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||-0.39|-1.80|0.003
95898963|NCT01032135|191753616|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|-1.10|0.10
95898964|NCT01032135|191753620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.14|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||1.14|0.38|0.13
95898965|NCT01032135|191753620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.12|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.12|0.33|0.71
95898966|NCT01032135|191753620|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.4|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||3.40|0.64|0.36
95898967|NCT01032135|191753623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.13||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.6|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.60|-0.94|0.75
95898968|NCT01032135|191753623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.84||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.3|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||0.30|-1.98|0.16
95898969|NCT01032135|191753623|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.04|||Chi-squared|||The statistical analyses used data from all follow up assessments.||2.04|-0.85|0.42
95976930|NCT04266301|191926597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.4865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.4|0.7|0.4865
95976931|NCT04266301|191926598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.5743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.2||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||2.2|1|0.5743
95976932|NCT04266301|191926599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7||P Value is 1-sided|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|exact CMH Chi-square statistic, adjusting for randomization stratification factor as per IRT.||||1.7|0.8|0.2126
95976933|NCT04266301|191926602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.576|0.875||||||||0.875|0.576|
95976934|NCT04266301|191926603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.038||||||||1.038|0.640|
95976935|NCT02175004|191926623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.12|-9.56||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 78||-9.56|-26.12|<0.001
95976936|NCT02175004|191926623|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-8.95||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS+7 Composite Score at Week 156||-8.95|-31.27|<0.001
95976937|NCT02175004|191926624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2||P-value=MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 78||0.20|-0.32|0.638
95898970|NCT03400033|191753624|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.21|
95898971|NCT03400033|191753625|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-8.12||||0.3354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.66|29.41|||ANCOVA|||||29.41|-45.66|0.3354
95898972|NCT03400033|191753626|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.1||||||||0.10|-0.37|
95898973|NCT03400033|191753627|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was above the non-inferiority margin of - 15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|11.18||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|19.56|||Van Elteren's test||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||19.56|2.83|0.0034
95898974|NCT03400033|191753628|OTHER||Difference in response rate|0.1645||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.27|0.06|0.0007
95898975|NCT03400033|191753629|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|4.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group and region.|||4.22|0.26|0.5308
95898976|NCT03400033|191753630|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.73||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|1.56|||MMRM||SBP|||1.56|-9.03|0.083
95898977|NCT03400033|191753630|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.23||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|0.54|||MMRM||DBP|||0.54|-4.99|0.057
95898978|NCT03400033|191753630|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.6||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.67|||MMRM||MAP|||0.67|-5.86|0.059
95898979|NCT03400033|191753631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|3.72|||ANCOVA||SBP|||3.72|-4.73|0.407
95898980|NCT03400033|191753631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.19|||ANCOVA||DBP|||1.19|-3.29|0.179
95898981|NCT03400033|191753631|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.78|||ANCOVA||MAP|||1.78|-3.50|0.261
95898982|NCT03400033|191753632|OTHER||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.7||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94|||Negative binomial model|||||0.94|0.52|0.0093
95898983|NCT03400033|191753634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||MMRM||Week 8|||0.01|-0.32|0.0323
95898984|NCT03400033|191753634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06|||MMRM||Week 12|||0.06|-0.29|0.0921
95898985|NCT03400033|191753634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||MMRM||Week 28|||0.08|-0.29|0.1291
95898986|NCT03400033|191753634|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.06|||MMRM||Week 52|||0.06|-0.36|0.0859
95898987|NCT00749931|191753638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95898988|NCT00749931|191753639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative reduction|0.47||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95898989|NCT03993938|191753646|OTHER|Delta PVI percentage change and Delta LAP (v-wave) percentage change were correlated using Spearman's rank correlation - two-tailed.|Spearman's rank correlation|0.34||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's rank correlation|||||||0.066
95976938|NCT02175004|191926624|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heart Rate to Deep Breathing Score at Week 156||0.29|-0.30|0.965
95976939|NCT02175004|191926625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.5||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 78||-0.50|-1.68|<0.001
95976940|NCT02175004|191926625|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.66||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.05||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Nerve Conduction Score at Week 156||0.05|-1.38|0.067
95976941|NCT02175004|191926626|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|3.36||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 78||3.36|-2.67|0.821
95976942|NCT02175004|191926626|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|1.9||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Heat-Pain Sensory Score at Week 156||1.90|-6.21|0.293
95976943|NCT02175004|191926627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.78||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|-0.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 78||-0.03|-5.53|0.047
95976944|NCT02175004|191926627|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.07||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.13||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the mNIS +7 Component: Touch-Pressure Sensory Score at Week 156||-0.13|-6.00|0.041
95976945|NCT02175004|191926628|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-17.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.92|-8.03||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the NIS Composite Score at Week 52 of Year 4||-8.03|-26.92|<0.001
95976946|NCT02175004|191926629|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.17||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Cranial Nerves Score Score at Week 52 of Year 4||0.17|-0.19|0.941
95976947|NCT02175004|191926630|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.97|-2.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Muscle Weakness Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.16|-16.97|0.011
95976948|NCT02175004|191926631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.05||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|1.18||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Reflexes Score at Week 52 of Years 4||1.18|-3.28|0.356
95976949|NCT02175004|191926632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|-2.19||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the NIS Component: Sensory Score at Week 52 of Years 4||-2.19|-8.58|<0.001
95976950|NCT02175004|191926633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.31||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|-1.14||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||-1.14|-17.48|0.026
95976951|NCT02175004|191926633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.41|1.62||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 156||1.62|-16.41|0.107
95976952|NCT02175004|191926633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.72||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|9.77||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 52 of Year 4||9.77|-15.22|0.669
95976953|NCT02175004|191926634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.3||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|1.15||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Change From CS2 Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Questionnaire Total Score at Week 78||1.15|-13.75|0.097
95898990|NCT01153581|191753649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95898991|NCT03467425|191753659|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.51||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, Baseline CAT score, number of exacerbations in the prior year, actual prior medication use strata and country.|Regression, Logistic||Statistical comparison is presented for combined data of responders, non-responders and those with imputed CAT score at Week 24.|||1.51|1.13|<0.001
95898992|NCT03467425|191753660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.073|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with covariates of treatment group, Baseline FEV1, actual prior medication use strata, country and timing of spirometry.|||0.073|0.026|<0.001
95898993|NCT03467425|191753661|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.53|||Regression, Logistic||Analysis was performed using logistic regression model with covariates of treatment group, actual prior medication use strata and country.|||4.53|0.87|0.103
95898994|NCT00689481|191753684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.016
95976954|NCT02175004|191926634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.89||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.88|1.11||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change from Baseline in the Norfolk QoL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 156||1.11|-18.88|0.081
95976955|NCT02175004|191926634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.87||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.89|5.16||P-value= MMRM with fixed categorical effects for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, each of 3 randomization stratification factors, fixed covariates for parent study baseline value, baseline-by-time interaction.|MMRM|||Change From Baseline in the Norfolk QOL-DN Physical Functioning/Large Fiber Neuropathy Domain Score at Week 52 of Year 4||5.16|-28.89|0.171
95976956|NCT01369511|191926643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.527
95976957|NCT01369511|191926643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.291
95976958|NCT01369511|191926643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 12||||0.129
95976959|NCT01369511|191926644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.751
95976960|NCT01369511|191926644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.066
95976961|NCT01369511|191926644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 8||||0.031
95976962|NCT01369511|191926644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.315
95898995|NCT00689481|191753684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of the homogeneity of the odds ratio using a 0.1 significance level.||Consistency of results across investigative centers was verified using the Breslow-Day test of homogeneity the odds ration using a significance level of 0.1||||0.843
95898996|NCT00689481|191753685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.034
95898997|NCT00689481|191753686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||P-value is significant based on the Holm stepwise closed testing procedure to control multiplicity for the key secondary analyses if primary analysis was significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center.||||||0.004
95898998|NCT00689481|191753687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.052
95898999|NCT00689481|191753688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||||||0.033
95899000|NCT00689481|191753689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had mild disease at baseline||||0.859
95899001|NCT00689481|191753689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center||Comparison of calcipotriene foam and vehicle foam for patients who had moderate disease at baseline||||0.015
95899002|NCT04733157|191753690|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.69|0.33
95899003|NCT03337724|191753708|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.02||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.45|0.71|0.9237
95899004|NCT03337724|191753709|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.0||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.4|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.40|0.71|0.9965
95899005|NCT03337724|191753717|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.58|||||Stratification was done prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, tumor PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration status (PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations vs. PTEN alterations with no PIK3CA/AKT1-activating mutations).|||1.58|0.73|
95899006|NCT03337724|191753717|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.37|||||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).|||1.37|0.65|
95976963|NCT01369511|191926644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.002
95976964|NCT01369511|191926644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values are from type 3 tests.|Mixed Models Analysis|||at Week 16||||0.007
95976965|NCT00676065|191926648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
95899007|NCT03337724|191753720|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.22|||Log Rank||Stratification variables were: prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy (yes vs. no), region, prior therapy with a PI3K or mTOR inhibitor (yes vs. no).||Stratified Analysis|2.22|0.83|0.2162
95899008|NCT04976530|191753783|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.07||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.58|0.72|0.748
95899009|NCT04976530|191753784|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.33||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.04|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.04|0.86|0.202
95899010|NCT04976530|191753785|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||1.73|0.79|0.451
95899011|NCT04976530|191753786|SUPERIORITY||win ratio|1.59||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.46|||Finkelstein Schoenfeld test|||||2.46|1.02|0.041
95899012|NCT04976530|191753787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
95899013|NCT04976530|191753788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.079
95976966|NCT00676065|191926648|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, hypertension and family history|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||0.9|0.2|
95899014|NCT04976530|191753789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
95899015|NCT04976530|191753790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95899016|NCT04084769|191753805|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|6.95||||||Serogroup A||6.95|-3.58|
95899017|NCT04084769|191753805|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.6||||||Serogroup C||1.60|-5.50|
95976967|NCT00676065|191926649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.7|0.8|
95976968|NCT00676065|191926649|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.0|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, current duration of use, and family history of VTE.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.0|0.5|
95976969|NCT00676065|191926650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing LNG is higher or equal to 2.||1.4|0.5|
95899018|NCT04084769|191753805|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.14||||||Serogroup Y||1.14|-4.09|
95899019|NCT04084769|191753805|OTHER|95% CI of the difference in percentage was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction.|Difference in percentage|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|2.07||||||Serogroup W||2.07|-4.72|
95976970|NCT00676065|191926650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The LASS study was designed to analyse rare events (incidence rate \<1 per 1,000 woman-years and ≥ 1 per 10,000 WY). 300,000 WY of observation would be sufficient to exclude a two-fold risk of rare events in users of DRSP compared to other oral contraceptives with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and an one-sided α of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, educational level and age at menarche.|Tested null hypotheses: the breast cancer hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. OCs containing other progestogens is higher or equal to 2.||1.5|0.6|
95899020|NCT00445328|191753835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is based on chi-square test with alpha as 0.01.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95899021|NCT00445328|191753837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Major Bleeding||||1.0000
95899022|NCT00445328|191753840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1355||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1355
95976971|NCT05630001|191926691|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority and primary objective was considered met if the lower bound of the estimated two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is greater than -1 g/dL.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95976972|NCT05630001|191926692|SUPERIORITY|Superiority and the key secondary objective was considered met if the lower bound of the estimated two-sided 95% CI was \> 0 g/dL.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95976973|NCT03946670|191926710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.769|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||||0.769
95976974|NCT03946670|191926711|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.749||||0.1022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|1.173|||Log Rank|stratified by the randomization stratification factor IPSS-R category||||1.173|0.479|0.1022
95976975|NCT03946670|191926712|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|1.212|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.212|0.521|
95899023|NCT04477304|191753848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.07||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.07|-0.12|<0.001
95899024|NCT04477304|191753849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.16||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.16|-0.23|<0.001
95899025|NCT04477304|191753850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.06|-0.10|<0.001
95899026|NCT04477304|191753851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.03||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.03|-0.08|<0.001
95899027|NCT04477304|191753852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|-0.01||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.01|-0.03|0.392
95899028|NCT04477304|191753853|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Left-Censored Tobit Regression||Assuming a clinic-level intraclass correlation of 0.01, alpha 0.025, 86 clinics, and 5.5 clinicians per-clinic (N = 473), it was calculated we would have over 85% power for a one-tailed test detecting a 12% reduction in MME from baseline to intervention.||-0.05|-0.13|<0.001
95976976|NCT03946670|191926713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.808|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.205|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per Interactive Response Technology (IRT)|||1.205|0.542|
95976977|NCT03946670|191926714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.343|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.343|0.589|
95976978|NCT03946670|191926715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.440|0.570|
95976979|NCT03946670|191926717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.838|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||1.838|0.240|
95976980|NCT03946670|191926718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.588|2.601|||||Cox model stratified by IPSS-R score as per IRT|||2.601|0.588|
95899029|NCT02782949|191753860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||||||0.3990
95899030|NCT02782949|191753863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.74
95899031|NCT00827372|191753878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With a sample size of 14 evaluable subjects, we will have 80% power to detect a change in excess arm volume of .8 standard deviations using a two-sided paired t-test. We will have 90% power to detect a difference of .9 standard deviations. A Paired T-Test was used to test the difference in arm volume from the second baseline measurement to Cycle 2 only.||||0.0658
95899032|NCT00827372|191753879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used to compare the IFP affected at first versus affected at last reading.||||0.0061
95976981|NCT02875977|191926745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|4.119|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of completing half of the recommended PFPT visits between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||4.119|0.782|0.17
95899033|NCT00827372|191753880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0143|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A Paired T-Test was used for the difference in the impedance ratio from the second baseline to cycle 2, day 1||||0.0143
95899034|NCT03892889|191753920|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test was used based on the prospective phase efficacy sample when applicable.|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95899035|NCT00630877|191753923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95899036|NCT00630877|191753925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
95899037|NCT00630877|191753926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
95899038|NCT00630877|191753927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
95899039|NCT00630877|191753928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Spearman rank-order correlation|||||||<0.0001
95899040|NCT00630877|191753929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||0.002
95899041|NCT00630877|191753930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Independent groups t-test|||||||<0.001
95899042|NCT02873923|191753946|OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.68|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.68|0.63|
95899043|NCT02873923|191753947|OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.005|||||||As of today, the meta-analytic surrogacy evaluation scheme proposed by Buyse and Burzykowski et al. is considered as the most statistically rigorous method for the validation of surrogate endpoints. This approach requires individual-patient data (IPD) from multiple randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar design and treatment to address surrogacy from a multi-level framework. At the patient level, the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the final endpoint regardless of the treatment (individual level association). At the trial level, the treatment effect on the surrogate endpoint should be correlated and predictive of the treatment effect on the final endpoint (trial-level association). Individual-level and trial-level associations estimated using weighted linear regression and the two-stage model introduced by Buyse and Burzykowski.|0.005|0.00|
95899044|NCT01639001|191753951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.565||The study was to be considered positive if the 1-sided log-rank test for PFS, stratified for baseline stratification factors (ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases) was significant at the 0.02496level.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis H0: λ=1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis HA: λ \< 1.0, where λ is the hazard ratio (HR; Crizotinib/Chemotherapy). Evaluation of 160 PFS events in the 2 arms using a 1-sided log-rank test at the 0.025 level of significance was required to detect a HR of 0.64 with 80% power.||0.565|0.286|<0.0001
95899045|NCT01639001|191753952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.869|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.34|53.398||If the PFS endpoint was significant, ORR was to be considered significant if 2-sided p-value from Pearson chi-square test was \<= 0.04992.|2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment difference in ORR (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||53.398|30.340|<0.0001
95899046|NCT01639001|191753953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056||||0.6172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.521||If the PFS and ORR endpoints were significant, OS was to be considered significant if 1-sided, log-rank test stratified for ECOG, ethnicity and metastases was \<= 0.02496.|1 sided stratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model stratified by ECOG PS, ethnicity, and brain metastases. Assuming proportional hazards, a hazard ratio less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of crizotinib.|||1.521|0.734|0.6172
95899047|NCT01639001|191753954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|8.906||||0.1204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.275|20.086|||2-sided pearson chi-square test||Treatment Difference in DCR Rate (%)|The confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on normal distribution.||20.086|-2.275|0.1204
95899048|NCT01639001|191753958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.246|0.493|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.493|0.246|<0.0001
95899049|NCT01639001|191753959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.669||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|1.338|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||1.338|0.335|0.1270
95899050|NCT01639001|191753960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.277|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.412|||1 sided unstratified log-rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.412|0.186|<0.0001
95899051|NCT01639001|191753961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.432|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.61||2-sided Hochberg adjusted p-values|2 sided unstratified log rank||Based on the Cox Proportional hazards model.|||0.610|0.307|<0.0001
95899052|NCT01639001|191753962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|11.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 Global QoL. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||11.11|3.79|<0.0001
95899053|NCT01639001|191753962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.613||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.49|0.73|0.0140
95899054|NCT01639001|191753962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.652||||0.2427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 emotional functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||4.42|-1.12|0.2427
95899055|NCT01639001|191753962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7267|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 physical functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||9.30|4.15|<0.0001
95899056|NCT01639001|191753962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.8109||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|10.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 role functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.47|3.15|0.0003
95899057|NCT01639001|191753962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.594||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 social functioning. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||10.06|1.13|0.0140
95899058|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0432||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 appetite loss. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-2.30|-9.79|0.0016
95899059|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.5026||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 constipation. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||8.47|0.53|0.0263
95899060|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.94|18.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 diarrhea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||18.68|12.94|<0.0001
95899061|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7449|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 dyspnea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-4.19|-11.30|<0.0001
95976982|NCT02875977|191926746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.564||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|1.014|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of initiating PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||1.014|0.314|0.056
95976983|NCT02875977|191926747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.044||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|The statistical test of the hypothesis excludes the three individuals with unknown PFPT discharge status||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of discharge from PFPT between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||2.110|0.517|0.90
95976984|NCT02875977|191926748|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|-1.4262||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Among those who initiated PFPT therapy, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the number of days to initiating PFPT therapy between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||||0.16
95976985|NCT02875977|191926749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5481||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6149|8.7028|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the change from pre-PFPT to post-PFPT UDI-6 scores between those assigned to standard versus experimental counseling||8.7028|-17.6149|0.50
95976986|NCT00820027|191926750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.49||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.08|||longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.08|-0.89|0.018
95976987|NCT00820027|191926750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.14|||LDA|Estimate from LDA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.||||-0.14|-0.95|0.009
95976988|NCT00820027|191926751|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.85|0.56|<0.001
95976989|NCT00820027|191926751|SUPERIORITY||Between-Treatment Ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.82|||ANOVA|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||0.82|0.54|<0.001
95976990|NCT00820027|191926752|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-3.3|0.506
95976991|NCT00820027|191926752|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
95976992|NCT00820027|191926752|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-3.8|>0.999
95976993|NCT00820027|191926752|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.5|-1.3|0.316
95976994|NCT00820027|191926752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.7|-1.7|>0.999
95976995|NCT00820027|191926752|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||3.8|-1.7|>0.999
95976996|NCT00820027|191926752|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.5||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-2.5|0.309
95976997|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.1|-9.2|0.054
95976998|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.2|-8.4|0.209
95976999|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.3|-8.4|0.227
95977000|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.9||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.6|-3.7|0.415
95977001|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||2.8|-3.0|0.965
95977002|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|2.3||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||8.4|-1.3|0.227
95977003|NCT00820027|191926753|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.8||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.6|-1.7|0.437
95977004|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|4.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.5|-5.3|0.806
95977005|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.4|-7.4|0.278
95977006|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||3.9|-5.7|0.971
95977007|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-3.2|0.786
95977008|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||1.0|-5.2|0.184
95977009|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-0.1||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||5.7|-3.9|0.971
95977010|NCT00820027|191926754|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||0.6|-5.8|0.113
95977011|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|6.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||6.0|-17.0|0.365
95977012|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-7.2||||0.222||95.0|-18.8|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||4.2|-18.8|0.222
95977013|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|5.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.9|-17.2|0.349
95977014|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.2||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|9.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||9.0|-8.7|0.965
95977015|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.6||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|7.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||7.3|-10.5|0.718
95977016|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|5.5||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|17.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Placebo vs. Ibuprofen 1800 mg||17.2|-5.9|0.349
95977017|NCT00820027|191926755|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.8||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|10.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||10.6|-7.0|0.684
95977018|NCT00820027|191926756|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.36|
95977019|NCT00820027|191926756|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority reached if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the between-treatment difference (Etoricoxib minus Ibuprofen) in LS means is no greater than 1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.22||||||||0.22|-0.42|
95977020|NCT00820027|191926757|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
95977021|NCT00820027|191926757|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.18|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.18|0.85|
95977022|NCT00820027|191926757|OTHER|Estimate from ANOVA model with terms for baseline pain intensity, type of anesthesia, treatment, day, and interaction of day by treatment.|Between-Treatment Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23|||||A ratio \<1 indicates a beneficial effect of Etoricoxib.|||1.23|0.89|
95977023|NCT01294683|191926808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.434|0.936|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.936|-1.434|0.654
95899062|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4915||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|-3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 fatigue. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.17|-9.82|0.0001
95977024|NCT01294683|191926808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.304||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.427|3.768|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.768|-0.427|0.090
95977025|NCT01294683|191926809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.206||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.303|0.779|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.779|-1.303|0.563
95899063|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6165||||0.2099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.27|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 financial difficulties. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.04|-9.27|0.2099
95899064|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7756||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|-3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 insomnia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.06|-10.49|0.0004
95899065|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.519||||0.0902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 nausea and vomiting. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.40|-5.43|0.0902
95899066|NCT01639001|191753963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.4349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.42|-5.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-C30 pain. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.45|-11.42|<0.0001
95899067|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8547||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|-1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 alopecia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.56|-8.15|0.0039
95899068|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.9957||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 coughing. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-3.14|-10.85|0.0004
95977026|NCT01294683|191926809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
95977027|NCT01294683|191926811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.87||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|3.118|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||3.118|-0.858|0.166
95977028|NCT01294683|191926814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.617||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|2.023|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||2.023|-0.575|0.255
95977029|NCT01294683|191926814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.395||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.091|2.966|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Period III||2.966|-2.091|0.690
95977030|NCT01294683|191926815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.967|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||Periods I/II||0.967|-0.967|>0.999
95977031|NCT01294683|191926816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-1.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.301|5.252|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Periods I/II||5.252|-7.301|
95977032|NCT01294683|191926816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.889|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.599|9.338|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||9.338|-7.599|
95977033|NCT01294683|191926817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.412|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|3.45||||||Periods I/II||3.450|-4.280|
95977034|NCT01294683|191926817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.533|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.916|2.619|||||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|Period III||2.619|-3.916|
95977035|NCT01794923|191926818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||||0.200
95977036|NCT01794923|191926818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|7.6||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|19.92|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||19.92|-4.81|0.230
95977037|NCT01794923|191926818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.81|7.99|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||7.99|-16.81|0.484
95977038|NCT01794923|191926818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|12.0||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|25.25|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (PSR), sex, and baseline muscle soreness with movement (MSM) terms.||25.25|-1.32|0.077
95977039|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.860
95977040|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|7.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.38|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||32.38|-18.30|0.584
95899069|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5181||||0.7082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dysphagia. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||2.20|-3.23|0.7082
95899070|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6471|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-5.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 dyspnoea. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-5.44|-11.85|<0.0001
95899071|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2504||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 haemoptysis. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.36|-2.86|0.1284
95899072|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2363||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in arm or shoulder. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.49|-7.98|0.0265
95977041|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|28.06|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.06|-22.77|0.838
95977042|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|31.61|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||31.61|-22.81|0.750
95977043|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.533
95977044|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-13.9||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.81|13.95|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||13.95|-41.81|0.326
95977045|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|28.94|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||28.94|-26.98|0.945
95977046|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-14.9||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.85|15.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||15.03|-44.85|0.327
95977047|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.988
95977048|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.31|41.81|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||41.81|-48.31|0.887
95977049|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.88|42.5|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||42.50|-47.88|0.907
95977050|NCT01794923|191926819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.95|47.83|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||47.83|-48.95|0.982
95977051|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.630
95977052|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.14|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-0.39|0.342
95977053|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.34|0.600
95977054|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.23|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.34|0.691
95977055|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.091|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.091
95977056|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.16|-0.44|0.351
95977057|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.04|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||-0.04|-0.64|0.029
95977058|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.52|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-0.13|0.238
95977059|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.305
95977060|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.20|-0.54|0.370
95977061|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.09|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.09|-0.66|0.130
95977062|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.51|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.51|-0.28|0.561
95977063|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.209
95977064|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.19|-0.68|0.277
95977065|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.05|-0.82|0.085
95977066|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.61|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-0.32|0.546
95899073|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2237||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|-0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in chest. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.71|-7.74|0.0185
95899074|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5901||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 pain in other parts. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-1.23|-7.95|0.0075
95899075|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6732||||0.2848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 peripheral neuropathy. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||1.39|-4.74|0.2848
95899076|NCT01639001|191753964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.398||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented for QLQ-LC13 sore mouth. Estimated change from baseline was from a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||-0.24|-4.56|0.0296
95899077|NCT01639001|191753965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.9136||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D VAS subscale score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||6.98|0.85|0.0123
95899078|NCT01639001|191753966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0425||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||From a repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, visit day and baseline EQ-5D Index score (intercept and visit day are included as random effects). P-values and confidence intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity.||0.08|0.00|0.0320
95899079|NCT01639001|191753968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Overall percent agreement|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.914|0.949|||||95% CI for agreement rate is calculated by the Wilson (Score) Confidence Limit method with alpha=0.05|||0.949|0.914|
95899080|NCT01639001|191753968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kappa|0.847|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8065|0.8875|||||Kappa coefficient is a statistic which measures inter-rater agreement for qualitative (categorical) items.|||0.8875|0.8065|
95899081|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899082|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899083|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899084|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899085|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0006
95899086|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899087|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1131|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1131
95899088|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0026
95899089|NCT02610868|191753988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2569|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2569
95899090|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899091|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899092|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899093|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899094|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3130
95899095|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899096|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1054
95899097|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95899098|NCT02610868|191753989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1663|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1663
95899099|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899100|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899101|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899102|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899103|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1100
95899104|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899105|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.0000
95899106|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899107|NCT02610868|191753991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
95899108|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899109|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899110|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899111|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899112|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899113|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95899114|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9016|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9016
95899115|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0753|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0753
95899116|NCT02610868|191753992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4992|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4992
95899117|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899118|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899119|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899120|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899121|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4567|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4567
95899122|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899123|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8115|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8115
95899124|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899125|NCT02610868|191753993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3282
95899126|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899127|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899128|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899129|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899130|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3786|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3786
95899131|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899132|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7787|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7787
95977067|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.185
95899133|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899134|NCT02610868|191753995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3825|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3825
95899135|NCT02665481|191754037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.07|-0.15|0.50
95899136|NCT02665481|191754037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.19|-0.04|0.18
95899137|NCT02665481|191754037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.17|-0.04|0.23
95899138|NCT02665481|191754037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.47
95899139|NCT02665481|191754038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.19|-0.02|0.12
95899140|NCT02665481|191754038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.07|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||0.07|-0.15|0.44
95899141|NCT02665481|191754038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.18|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.18|-0.03|0.17
95899142|NCT02665481|191754038|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.11|-0.12|0.93
95899143|NCT02665481|191754039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.46||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.27|7.34|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||7.34|-14.27|0.53
95899144|NCT02665481|191754039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.16||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-6.44|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||-6.44|-33.88|0.004
95899145|NCT02665481|191754039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.04||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|13.85|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6)||13.85|-7.76|0.58
95899146|NCT02665481|191754039|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|7.46|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||7.46|-19.98|0.37
95899147|NCT02665481|191754040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|68.36|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||68.36|-22.95|0.33
95899148|NCT02665481|191754040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.35||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.18|73.88|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18)||73.88|-23.18|0.31
95899149|NCT02665481|191754040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.18||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.83|28.48|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||28.48|-62.83|0.46
95899150|NCT02665481|191754040|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.11||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.41|69.64|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||69.64|-27.41|0.39
95899151|NCT02665481|191754041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.01|-0.02|0.37
95899152|NCT02665481|191754041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.10
95899153|NCT02665481|191754041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.02|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.02|-0.004|0.21
95899154|NCT02665481|191754041|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.00|-0.02|0.09
95899155|NCT02665481|191754042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.69|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6)||0.69|-0.38|0.57
95899156|NCT02665481|191754042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.55|-0.58|0.96
95899157|NCT02665481|191754042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.29|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.29|-0.78|0.37
95899158|NCT02665481|191754042|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.57|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||0.57|-0.57|0.99
95899159|NCT02665481|191754043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.33|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 6).||2.33|-0.47|0.19
95899160|NCT02665481|191754043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.77|||Marginal Model|||Time x MBSR (Month 0 and Month 18).||2.77|-0.19|0.09
95899161|NCT02665481|191754043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.83|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 6).||0.83|-1.97|0.42
95899162|NCT02665481|191754043|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.94|||Marginal Model|||Time x Exercise (Month 0 and Month 18).||1.94|-1.01|0.54
95899163|NCT05446909|191754110|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95899164|NCT05446909|191754111|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95899165|NCT05446909|191754112|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95899166|NCT05446909|191754113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95899167|NCT05446909|191754114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.754
95899168|NCT05446909|191754115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.985
95899169|NCT05446909|191754116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.877
95977068|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.26|-0.64|0.400
95899170|NCT05773287|191754121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.509||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.509
95899171|NCT05773287|191754122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.552
95899172|NCT00086580|191754153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|0.795|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model was stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.795|0.467|<0.001
95977069|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.03|-0.88|0.067
95977070|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.71|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.25|0.350
95977071|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.493|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.493
95977072|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.48|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.48|-0.53|0.922
95977073|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.22|-0.80|0.265
95977074|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.81|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.81|-0.28|0.342
95977075|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.311
95977076|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.58|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.58|-0.49|0.865
95977077|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.18|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.89|0.193
95977078|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.97|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.97|-0.17|0.170
95977079|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.383|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.383
95977080|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.62|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.62|-0.48|0.802
95977081|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.24|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.24|-0.87|0.260
95977082|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.98|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.21|0.199
95977083|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.139
95977084|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.8|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.80|-0.35|0.441
95977085|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.18|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.18|-0.96|0.183
95977086|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.23|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.23|-0.00|0.050
95977087|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.221
95977088|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.79|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.40|0.526
95977089|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.23|-0.96|0.232
95899173|NCT00086580|191754154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in overall response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of Overall Response.||0.15|-0.03|0.178
95899174|NCT00086580|191754154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in complete response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.|Difference and confidence interval (CI) calculated using the recommended method by Altman et al.|Comparison of complete response (CR).||0.15|0.02|0.018
95899175|NCT00086580|191754155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.648||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.449|0.937||P-value presented is adjusted for multiple tests using Hochberg procedure for 3 clinically important secondary endpoints: ORR, CR rates and OS.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group||||0.937|0.449|0.042
95899176|NCT00086580|191754156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.752|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.752|0.420|<0.001
95899177|NCT00086580|191754158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.718||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.951|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.951|0.543|0.021
95899178|NCT00086580|191754166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.059|||Regression, Cox|||||1.059|0.531|0.102
95899179|NCT00086580|191754167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.292|0.671|||Regression, Cox|||||0.671|0.292|<0.001
95899180|NCT00086580|191754168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.066||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.619|1.836|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||1.836|0.619|0.819
95899181|NCT00086580|191754169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.416|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.69|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model||||0.690|0.250|<0.001
95899182|NCT00086580|191754172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH chi-square test for a difference in response rates between treatments stratified by Rai Stage Group.||||0.08|0.01|0.014
95899183|NCT00673452|191754211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) Model: PGI-S = baseline PGI-S + treatment + pooled investigator + visit + treatment-by-visit + baseline-by-visit.||Patients treated with 60-120 mg duloxetine for 12 weeks compared with placebo will show greater improvement in symptoms as assessed by Patient's Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I). Sample size determined using 2-sided t-test with significance level of 0.05, and discontinuation rate of 5% without postbaseline data. With 261 patients per arm, study has approximately 85% power to detect treatment group difference of -0.4 points (standard deviation of 1.5) in PGI-I between treatment groups.||||<0.001
95899184|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.31||P-value for Worst Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.19|<0.001
95899185|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.61||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24||P-value for Least Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.24|-0.99|0.001
95899186|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.35||P-value for Average Pain Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.35|-1.13|<0.001
95899187|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.31||P-value for Pain Right Now Severity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.31|-1.20|<0.001
95899188|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.49||P-value for General Activity Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.39|<0.001
95899189|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.49||P-value for Mood Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.49|-1.41|<0.001
95899190|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.36||P-value for Walking Ability Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.36|-1.24|<0.001
95899191|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.32||P-value for Normal Work Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.21|<0.001
95899192|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.52||P-value for Relations with Other People Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.38|<0.001
95899193|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.39||P-value for Sleep Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.39|-1.35|<0.001
95899194|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.86||P-value for Enjoyment of Life Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.86|-1.92|<0.001
95899195|NCT00673452|191754212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.52||P-value for Average Interference. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BPI Score change from baseline to LOCF endpoint = BPI baseline + treatment + pooled investigator|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.52|-1.33|<0.001
95899196|NCT00673452|191754213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.25||P-value for General Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.41|0.005
95899197|NCT00673452|191754213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.15||P-value for Physical Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-1.30|0.013
95899198|NCT00673452|191754213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.32||P-value for Mental Fatigue. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.52|0.003
95899199|NCT00673452|191754213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.26||P-value for Reduced Activity. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.26|-1.49|0.005
95899200|NCT00673452|191754213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.38||P-value for Reduced Motivation. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MFI subscale change from baseline at endpoint = MFI subscale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.38|-1.49|<0.001
95899201|NCT00673452|191754214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.53||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BDI-II Total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BDI-II total score + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.53|-3.25|0.007
95899202|NCT00673452|191754215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.16||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: CGI-S score change from baseline at endpoint = CGI-S score baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.16|-0.51|<0.001
95899203|NCT00673452|191754216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.27||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: BAI total score change from baseline to endpoint = baseline BAI total + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.27|-1.13|0.907
95899204|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.22||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.67||P-value for Bodily Pain. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.67|1.76|0.003
95899205|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.41|9.43||P-value for General Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||9.43|3.41|<0.001
95899206|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.41|10.47||P-value for Mental Health. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.47|4.41|<0.001
95899207|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|8.88||P-value for Physical Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.88|2.06|0.002
95977090|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.19|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.19|-0.08|0.089
95977091|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.190
95977092|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.85|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.85|-0.31|0.365
95977093|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.27|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.27|-0.89|0.295
95899208|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.78||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.11|16.45||P-value for Role-Emotional. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||16.45|3.11|0.004
95899209|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.59||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|8.11||P-value for Role-Physical. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||8.11|-4.93|0.632
95899210|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|10.61||P-value for Social Functioning. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||10.61|2.73|<0.001
95899211|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|7.79||P-value for Vitality. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||7.79|0.84|0.015
95899212|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.14||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.64||P-value for Physical Component Summary (PCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||2.64|-0.35|0.134
95899213|NCT00673452|191754217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.6||P-value for Mental Component Summary (MCS). The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: SF-36 subscale change from baseline at endpoint = SF-36 subscale at baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||5.60|2.05|<0.001
95899214|NCT00673452|191754218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.13||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: MGH-CPFQ change from baseline at endpoint = MGH-CPFQ baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||0.13|-2.05|0.083
95899215|NCT00673452|191754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.32||P-value for Mood. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.32|-1.18|<0.001
95899216|NCT00673452|191754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.22||P-value for Anxiety. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.22|-1.05|0.003
95899217|NCT00673452|191754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.25||P-value for Pain. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-1.19|0.003
95899218|NCT00673452|191754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.0||P-value for Sleep. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.00|-0.97|0.050
95899219|NCT00673452|191754219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value for Stiffness. P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Likert scale change from baseline at endpoint = Likert scale baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
95899220|NCT00673452|191754220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95899221|NCT00673452|191754221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95899222|NCT00673452|191754222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.82||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|3.88||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.88|-0.25|0.084
95977094|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.20|-0.05|0.069
95977095|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.197
95977096|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.92|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.92|-0.29|0.309
95977097|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.33|-0.89|0.359
95977098|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.25|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.25|-0.05|0.072
95977099|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.151
95977100|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.32|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.32|-0.10|0.090
95977101|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.889
95977102|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.42|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.42|-0.10|0.088
95977103|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.673
95977104|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.41|0.393
95899223|NCT00673452|191754222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.52||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.84||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP). A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||1.84|-0.79|0.434
95977105|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.78|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.78|-0.67|0.887
95977106|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.04|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.04|-0.51|0.507
95977107|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.873
95977108|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.0|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.00|-0.58|0.605
95977109|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.86|||ANOVA|||26 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.86|-0.72|0.860
95977110|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.98|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.98|-0.71|0.751
95977111|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.528
95977112|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.52|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.52|-1.09|0.486
95977113|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.02|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||1.02|-0.60|0.610
95977114|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.37|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.37|-1.36|0.261
95977115|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.943
95977116|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.68|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.68|-0.96|0.733
95977117|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.77|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.77|-0.87|0.902
95977118|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.79|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.79|-0.97|0.840
95977119|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.758
95977120|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.54|-1.12|0.493
95977121|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.82|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.82|-0.84|0.974
95977122|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.61|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.61|-1.16|0.543
95899224|NCT00673452|191754223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.96||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|3.26||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||3.26|0.67|0.003
95977123|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.238|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||||0.238
95977124|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.14|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.14|-1.46|0.106
95977125|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.71|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.71|-0.90|0.817
95977126|NCT01794923|191926820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.3|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||0.30|-1.43|0.197
95977127|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.702|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.702
95977128|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.8||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|15.53|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||15.53|-9.91|0.664
95977129|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.77|9.68|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||9.68|-15.77|0.637
95977130|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.9||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|19.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||19.57|-7.85|0.401
95977131|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.926
95977132|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.51|21.1|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||21.10|-29.51|0.743
95977133|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.55|26.08|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.08|-24.55|0.952
95977134|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.0||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|22.3|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||22.30|-32.25|0.719
95977135|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.284|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.284
95977136|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-19.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.21|8.28|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||8.28|-46.21|0.171
95977137|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.08|29.42|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||29.42|-25.08|0.875
95977138|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-21.1||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|8.23|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline MSM terms.||8.23|-50.50|0.157
95977139|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.699|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||||0.699
95977140|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-17.8||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.58|26.9|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||26.90|-62.58|0.433
95977141|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.73|43.78|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||43.78|-45.73|0.966
95977142|NCT01794923|191926821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-16.9||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.08|31.36|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline spontaneous muscle soreness (SMS) terms.||31.36|-65.08|0.491
95977143|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.219
95899225|NCT00673452|191754224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95977144|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.08|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.08|-0.37|0.214
95977145|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.29|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.29|-0.16|0.555
95977146|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.03|-0.45|0.090
95977147|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.161|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.161
95977148|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.01|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.01|-0.55|0.056
95977149|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.16|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.16|-0.40|0.395
95899226|NCT00673452|191754225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.45||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANCOVA|Model: Change = baseline + treatment + pooled investigator.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Duloxetine minus Placebo.|||-0.45|-1.21|<0.001
95899227|NCT02556710|191754275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score||||||0.94
95899228|NCT02556710|191754276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WOMAC score||||||0.53
95899229|NCT02556710|191754277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||Adjusted for baseline WOMAC Score.|ANCOVA|||||||0.35
95899230|NCT04524403|191754283|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.24||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.01|-1.52|0.7870
95977150|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.15|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.15|-0.45|0.324
95977151|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.246|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.246
95977152|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.05|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.05|-0.68|0.094
95977153|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.24|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.24|-0.50|0.491
95977154|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-0.58|0.359
95977155|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.294
95977156|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.1|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.10|-0.74|0.136
95977157|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-0.65|0.293
95977158|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.36|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.55|0.682
95977159|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.747
95977160|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.34|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.60|0.592
95977161|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.3|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.64|0.473
95977162|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.55|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.55|-0.46|0.866
95977163|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.776|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.776
95977164|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.43|-0.59|0.761
95977165|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.33|-0.69|0.477
95977166|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.65|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-0.44|0.705
95977167|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.600
95977168|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.56|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.56|-0.52|0.931
95977169|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.3|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.30|-0.78|0.381
95977170|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.85|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.85|-0.32|0.371
95977171|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.670
95977172|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.58|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.58|-0.54|0.941
95977173|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.34|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.34|-0.78|0.437
95899231|NCT04524403|191754283|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.75||||0.4018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.51|-1.01|0.4018
95899232|NCT04524403|191754284|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.02|-1.03|0.5228
95899233|NCT04524403|191754285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.781||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.802|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.802|0.661|0.2537
95899234|NCT04524403|191754285|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|2.722|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.722|0.308|0.8740
95899235|NCT04524403|191754286|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.021|-0.021|0.9870
95899236|NCT04524403|191754286|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.008||||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.029|-0.013|0.4624
95899237|NCT00991302|191754295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|stratified by dosing complexity||"Treatment comparison was made using a Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified by dosing complexity.~The test was not stratified by region of enrollment due to dosing complexity and region of enrollment were almost identical: almost all (exception with two) participants in the US region were on QD and all participants in the Peru region were on BID or TID."||||0.52
95899238|NCT01709318|191754303|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|26.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||26.5|-4.3|
95899239|NCT01709318|191754303|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|24.8|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||24.8|-5.7|
95899240|NCT01709318|191754303|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|33.1|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||33.1|-1.7|
95899241|NCT01709318|191754303|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||25.4|-5.7|
95899242|NCT01709318|191754303|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|27.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||27.4|-3.5|
95899243|NCT01709318|191754303|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|15.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||15.9|-10.7|
95899244|NCT01709318|191754304|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|16.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||16.4|-3.6|
95899245|NCT01709318|191754304|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
95899246|NCT01709318|191754304|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|17.5|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||17.5|-3.8|
95899247|NCT01709318|191754304|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|18.9|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||18.9|-2.5|
95899248|NCT01709318|191754304|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|13.4|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||13.4|-5.0|
95899249|NCT01709318|191754304|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on a LDA model with terms for treatment, cycle and the interaction cycle by treatment and stratum:starter/switcher followed by Miettinen and Nurminen's method. Non-inferiority criterion was met if the upper bound of the 95% CI of the difference is less than or equal to 10%.|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|11.0|||||95% CI adjusted for multiplicity (Dunnett)|||11.0|-6.2|
95899250|NCT01709318|191754305|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.08||||0.096|||||||LDA|||||||0.096
95899251|NCT01709318|191754305|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.993|||||||LDA|||||||0.993
95899252|NCT01709318|191754305|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.08||||0.124|||||||LDA|||||||0.124
95899253|NCT01709318|191754305|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.05||||0.845|||||||LDA|||||||0.845
95899254|NCT01709318|191754305|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||0.976|||||||LDA|||||||0.976
95899255|NCT01709318|191754305|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.03||||0.995|||||||LDA|||||||0.995
95899256|NCT01709318|191754306|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis (LDA) model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.01||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
95899257|NCT01709318|191754306|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.19||||0.996|||||||LDA|||||||0.996
95899258|NCT01709318|191754306|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.06||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
95899259|NCT01709318|191754306|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.04||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
95899260|NCT01709318|191754306|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|0.09||||1|||||||LDA|||||||1.000
95899261|NCT01709318|191754306|OTHER|Based on longitudinal data analysis model: generalized linear mixed model with terms for stratum, ring group, cycle (and the interaction of cycle by ring group), and continuous response variable.|Difference of LS Mean|-0.24||||0.998|||||||LDA|||||||0.998
95899262|NCT03370341|191754313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.56
95899263|NCT03370341|191754314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that of no difference in levels of IA between Active and Sham stimulation. A paired samples t-test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed).||||.38
95899264|NCT01312909|191754367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||2.37|0.59|0.6337
95899265|NCT01312909|191754367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.1114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model with terms treatment, age strata, body weight strata and pooled center. A testing order was used to control type I error. 1mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo first, and if statistically significant difference was observed, the 0.5 mg Varenicline twice daily group was tested against placebo.||3.39|0.88|0.1114
95899266|NCT01312909|191754368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||2.38|0.62|0.5793
95899267|NCT01312909|191754368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.51|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 12||3.51|0.91|0.0932
95899268|NCT01312909|191754368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.50|0.61|0.5647
95899269|NCT01312909|191754368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.2917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 24||2.96|0.72|0.2917
95899270|NCT01312909|191754368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.5616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||2.69|0.58|0.5616
95899271|NCT01312909|191754368|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.78|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from separate logistic regression models of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||Week 52||3.78|0.84|0.1300
95899272|NCT01312909|191754370|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.6|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.60|-1.69|0.3540
95899273|NCT01312909|191754370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.7574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.98|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.98|-1.35|0.7574
95899274|NCT01312909|191754370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.84|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.84|-1.53|0.5676
95899275|NCT01312909|191754370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.47|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.47|-1.92|0.2356
95899276|NCT01312909|191754370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.38|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||1.38|-1.03|0.7730
95899277|NCT01312909|191754370|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|0.45|||Longitudinal repeated measures model|||Week 52: Analysis was performed using longitudinal repeated measures model with the change from baseline average number of Cigarettes Smoked as the dependent variable, including terms treatment, visit, age strata, body weight strata, pooled center, baseline measure and treatment by visit interaction.||0.45|-1.99|0.2166
95899278|NCT01312909|191754371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||1.90|0.34|0.6133
95899279|NCT01312909|191754371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 24: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||4.79|1.07|0.0335
95899280|NCT01312909|191754371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||2.65|0.37|0.9874
95899281|NCT01312909|191754371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|6.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 9 through Week 52: Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment, pooled center, age strata and body weight strata.||6.55|1.19|0.0188
95899282|NCT02391948|191754400|OTHER||mean population value age 12|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.8|98.6||||||||98.6|97.8|
95899283|NCT02391948|191754400|OTHER||mean population value age 12|89.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.6|91.1||||||||91.1|86.6|
95899284|NCT02391948|191754400|OTHER||mean population value age 12|50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.5|53.6||||||||53.6|46.5|
95899285|NCT02391948|191754400|OTHER||mean population value age 12|25.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|27.0||||||||27.0|23.7|
95899286|NCT02391948|191754400|OTHER||mean population value age 12|6.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|7.38||||||||7.38|5.66|
95899287|NCT02391948|191754401|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.49||||||||0.49|0.38|
95899288|NCT02391948|191754401|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.77||||||||0.77|0.60|
95899289|NCT02391948|191754401|OTHER||mean population value age 12|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||||||||1.07|0.79|
95899290|NCT02391948|191754401|OTHER||mean population value age 12|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.54||||||||1.54|1.22|
95899291|NCT02391948|191754401|OTHER||mean population value age 12|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|2.31||||||||2.31|2.01|
95899292|NCT02391948|191754402|OTHER||mean population value|4.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.43|4.54||||||||4.54|4.43|
95899293|NCT02391948|191754402|OTHER||mean population value|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.2||||||||4.20|3.99|
95899294|NCT02391948|191754402|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.75|4.25||||||||4.25|3.75|
95899295|NCT02391948|191754402|OTHER||mean population value|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|3.19||||||||3.19|2.73|
95899296|NCT02391948|191754402|OTHER||mean population value|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|1.75||||||||1.75|1.44|
95899297|NCT02391948|191754403|OTHER||mean population value|1362.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1313.6|1410.7||||||||1410.7|1313.6|
95899298|NCT02391948|191754403|OTHER||mean population value|1096.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1028.8|1158.62||||||||1158.62|1028.80|
95899299|NCT02391948|191754403|OTHER||mean population value|592.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|533.79|652.72||||||||652.72|533.79|
95899300|NCT02391948|191754404|OTHER||mean population value|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|4.07||||||||4.07|3.91|
95899301|NCT02391948|191754404|OTHER||mean population value|3.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.39|3.6||||||||3.60|3.39|
95899302|NCT02391948|191754404|OTHER||mean population value|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|3.37||||||||3.37|3.08|
95899303|NCT02391948|191754404|OTHER||mean population value|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|2.93||||||||2.93|2.67|
95899304|NCT02391948|191754404|OTHER||mean population value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|1.91||||||||1.91|1.67|
95977174|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.84|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.84|-0.36|0.429
95977175|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.484|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.484
95977176|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.78|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.78|-0.38|0.504
95977177|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.4|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-0.77|0.528
95977178|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.01|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.01|-0.24|0.229
95977179|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.536
95977180|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.70|-0.49|0.728
95977181|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.35|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-0.84|0.414
95977182|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.99|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.29|0.280
95977183|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.402|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.402
95977184|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.81|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.81|-0.41|0.513
95899305|NCT02391948|191754405|OTHER||mean population value|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|9.0|0.47|0.72||||||||0.72|0.47|
95977185|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.36|||ANOVA|||11 hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.36|-0.86|0.424
95977186|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.1|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.10|-0.21|0.178
95899306|NCT02391948|191754405|OTHER||mean population value|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.3||||||||1.30|0.91|
95899307|NCT02391948|191754405|OTHER||mean population value|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||||||||0.89|0.48|
95899308|NCT02391948|191754405|OTHER||mean population value|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.65||||||||1.65|1.12|
95977187|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.442|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.442
95977188|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.91|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.91|-0.33|0.357
95977189|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.49|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.49|-0.75|0.675
95977190|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.09|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.09|-0.25|0.215
95977191|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.643|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.643
95977192|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.99|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.99|-0.46|0.466
95977193|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.64|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.64|-0.81|0.818
95977194|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.13|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||1.13|-0.43|0.373
95977195|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.984|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.984
95899309|NCT02391948|191754405|OTHER||mean population value|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.08|2.6||||||||2.60|2.08|
95899310|NCT02391948|191754406|OTHER||mean population value age 12|70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|72.0||||||||72.0|69.1|
95899311|NCT02391948|191754406|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|65.0||||||||65.0|59.4|
95899312|NCT02391948|191754406|OTHER||mean population value age 12|62.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.9|65.0||||||||65.0|60.9|
95899313|NCT02391948|191754406|OTHER||mean population value age 12|58.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.7|59.7||||||||59.7|56.7|
95899314|NCT02391948|191754406|OTHER||mean population value age 12|51.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.2|53.6||||||||53.6|50.2|
95899315|NCT02391948|191754407|OTHER||mean population value age 12|78.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.0|80.4||||||||80.4|76.0|
95899316|NCT02391948|191754407|OTHER||mean population value age 12|66.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.5|68.5||||||||68.5|63.5|
95899317|NCT02391948|191754407|OTHER||mean population value age 12|60.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|63.3|||mean population value age 12|||||63.3|57.3|
95899318|NCT02391948|191754407|OTHER||mean population value age 12|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|40.3||||||||40.3|35.6|
95899319|NCT02391948|191754407|OTHER||mean population value age 12|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|16.5||||||||16.5|12.4|
95899320|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.02|||||Data from all GMFCS levels was used, country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in family-centredness outcome.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||2.02|1.06|
95899321|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.03|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||2.03|1.07|
95899322|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in the amount of focus on environment.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.38|0.96|
95899323|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in focus on participation.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.58|1.07|
95899324|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of physical therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.58|0.72|
95899325|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.28|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of occupational therapy services.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.28|0.74|
95899326|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in amount of speech and language therapy.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Participation outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.60|0.97|
95899327|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.88|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.88|1.00|
95899328|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.44|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.44|0.78|
95899329|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.26|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor family-centred service.||1.26|0.54|
95899330|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.87|1.00|
95899331|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.53|0.83|
95899332|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor parents' perception of needs being met.||1.3|0.59|
95899333|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.29|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.29|0.9|
95899334|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22||||||Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.22|0.86|
95899335|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor degree of focus on environment (assistive devices, equipment, home/school modifications).||1.13|0.7|
95899336|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.31|0.9|
95899337|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.32|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.32|0.91|
95977196|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.68|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.68|-0.79|0.874
95899338|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor focus on participation (structured play/recreation/leisure activities).||1.24|0.76|
95977197|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.74|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.74|-0.73|0.990
95977198|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.73|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.73|-0.85|0.875
95977199|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.841
95977200|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.57|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.57|-1.01|0.580
95899339|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.15|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.15|.7|
95977201|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.77|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.77|-0.81|0.958
95977202|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.65|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.65|-1.05|0.643
95899340|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.48|.74|
95899341|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.21|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life -Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.21|.72|
95899342|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.5|.89|
95899343|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.38|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of occupational therapy.||1.38|.65|
95899344|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Child Engagement in Daily Life - Self Care outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.31|.81|
95899345|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.39|.87|
95899346|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.25|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Six Minute Walk Test outcome for the predictor amount of speech and language therapy.||1.25|.6|
95899347|NCT02391948|191754408|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.53|||||Country was included as a model covariate. OR represents the odds of children developing 'better than expected' (top 10%) vs 'as expected' (central 80%) for each unit change in parents' perception of needs being met.|Logistic regression comparing children progressing better than expected to those progressing as expected on the Early Clinical Assessment of Balance outcome for the predictor amount of physical therapy services.||1.53|.92|
95977203|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.299
95899348|NCT02391948|191754412|OTHER||population average|2319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1460.0|3218.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3218|1460|
95899349|NCT02391948|191754412|OTHER||population average|1858.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1233.0|2530.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||2530|1233|
95899350|NCT02391948|191754413|OTHER||population average|5240.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3874.0|6670.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||6670|3874|
95899351|NCT02391948|191754413|OTHER||population average|4319.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3258.0|5443.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||5443|3258|
95899352|NCT02391948|191754414|OTHER||population average|108.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|151.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||151|67|
95899353|NCT02391948|191754414|OTHER||population average|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|145.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||145|58|
95899354|NCT02391948|191754414|OTHER||population average|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||35|0|
95899355|NCT02391948|191754415|OTHER||population average|2815.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2025.0|3650.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3650|2025|
95899356|NCT02391948|191754415|OTHER||population average|3109.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2502.0|3739.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model.||3739|2502|
95977204|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-0.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.31|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.26|0.230
95977205|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.94|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.94|-0.63|0.694
95899357|NCT02391948|191754415|OTHER||population average|1056.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|471.0|1665.0||||||The outcome was modelled as a function of age using a linear mixed effects model, and the population value at age 12 years was estimated from the model. This analysis combined children in GMFCS Levels III-V.||1665|471|
95899358|NCT01969838|191754425|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was calculated for the difference in splenic response rate (SRR) at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.6\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared noninferior to RUX in SRR at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.09||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.16|0.02|0.014
95899359|NCT01969838|191754426|NON_INFERIORITY|To evaluate the noninferiority of MMB over RUX, a conventional 2-sided CI was calculated for the difference in TSS response rate at Week 24: delta = prob(MMB) - 0.67\*prob(RUX). If the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for delta was greater than 0, MMB was declared to be noninferior to RUX in TSS response rate at Week 24. The 2-sided 95% CI of delta was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions. This is called the noninferiority proportion difference.|Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.08|-0.08|0.98
95899360|NCT01969838|191754427|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.43|||Negative Binomial Model, Adjusted||A smaller ratio represents larger benefit.|||0.43|0.19|<0.001
95899361|NCT01969838|191754428|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A larger proportion represents larger benefit.|||0.26|0.09|<0.001
95899362|NCT01969838|191754429|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference - Stratified CMH|-0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A smaller proportion represents larger benefit.|||-0.02|-0.19|0.019
95899363|NCT01993108|191754430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
95899364|NCT01993108|191754430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.118|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.118
95899365|NCT01993108|191754430|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.349|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.349
95899366|NCT01993108|191754430|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
95899367|NCT01993108|191754431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.019
95899368|NCT01993108|191754431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.240
95899369|NCT01993108|191754431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.081|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.081
95899370|NCT01993108|191754431|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.247|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.247
95899371|NCT01993108|191754432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.049
95899372|NCT01993108|191754432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.497|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.497
95977206|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.21|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.21|-1.48|0.140
95899373|NCT01993108|191754432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.814
95899374|NCT01993108|191754432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.593|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.593
95899375|NCT01993108|191754433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.926
95899376|NCT01993108|191754433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.126|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.126
95899377|NCT01993108|191754433|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.852
95899378|NCT01993108|191754433|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.552|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.552
95977207|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.503
95899379|NCT00456092|191754434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.2||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||10.20|1.72|0.002
95899380|NCT00456092|191754434|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.88||A p-value \< 0.025 (2-sided) is considered statistically significant, after adjusting for two treatment comparisons using the Bonferroni procedure.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||13.88|2.40|< 0.001
95899381|NCT00456092|191754437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|24.67|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||24.67|1.06|0.056
95899382|NCT00456092|191754437|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.95||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|32.35|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||32.35|1.49|0.012
95977208|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.35|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.35|-1.28|0.262
95899383|NCT00456092|191754438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|47.54|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||47.54|0.61|0.204
95899384|NCT00456092|191754438|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|37.88|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||37.88|0.45|0.371
95899385|NCT00456092|191754439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.568||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.11|0.79|0.264
95899386|NCT00456092|191754439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.91|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.91|1.00|0.071
95899387|NCT00456092|191754440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.305||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.57|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.57|0.66|0.549
95899388|NCT00456092|191754440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.03|0.53|1.000
95899389|NCT00456092|191754441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.34|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.34|0.98|0.083
95899390|NCT00456092|191754441|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.44|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.44|0.77|0.279
95899391|NCT00456092|191754442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.66|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.66|0.66|0.548
95899392|NCT00456092|191754442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.11|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||2.11|0.52|1.000
95899393|NCT00456092|191754445|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|11.58||||0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.136
95899394|NCT00456092|191754445|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|13.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment as the factor.|Treatment Difference = Apremilast 20 mg BID - Placebo|||||0.080
95899395|NCT00456092|191754446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.211|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||1.211|0.745|0.650
95899396|NCT00456092|191754446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.265||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.024|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.024|0.791|0.283
95899397|NCT00456092|191754447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.337||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.26|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.260|0.791|0.253
95899398|NCT00456092|191754447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.023||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|8.63|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||8.630|1.059|0.026
95899399|NCT00456092|191754448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.006||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|2.215|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||2.215|0.457|0.984
95899400|NCT00456092|191754448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.872||||0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|4.797|||Chi-squared||Based on a proportional hazards model comparing the hazard functions associated with the treatment and placebo.|||4.797|0.158|0.836
95899401|NCT00456092|191754453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.4||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.308
95899402|NCT00456092|191754453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Mental Component||||0.003
95899403|NCT00456092|191754453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.6||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.182
95977209|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.75|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.75|-0.88|0.871
95899404|NCT00456092|191754453|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model including treatment group, methotrexate use, and baseline score.|Adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) was based on the ANOVA model described above.|Physical Component||||0.026
95899405|NCT00456092|191754454|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.016
95899406|NCT00456092|191754454|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model using treatment group, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.105
95899407|NCT00456092|191754456|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.3||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors and baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.028
95899408|NCT00456092|191754456|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|ANOVA model with treatment, methotrexate use, and interaction of treatment group and methotrexate use as factors with baseline score as the covariate.|The adjusted mean difference (Apremilast-Placebo) is based on an ANOVA model described above.|||||0.004
95977210|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.48|-1.27|0.373
95899409|NCT03228680|191754476|NON_INFERIORITY|The pre-specified non-inferiority (NI) margin was -3.0 oocytes. The NI was evaluated based on the two-sided 95% CI from the ANOVA on 'number of oocytes retrieved' with treatment and AMH stratum as fixed factors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||||If the lower bound of 95% CI was well above pre-specified NI limit of -3.0 oocytes, then NI of FE 999049 to FOLLISTIM with respect to number of oocytes retrieved in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation would be demonstrated|Mean number of oocytes retrieved.||-0.1|-2.3|
95977211|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.413|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.413
95977212|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.4|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.40|-1.22|0.317
95977213|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.97|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.97|-0.66|0.708
95977214|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.31|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.31|-1.44|0.202
95977215|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||||0.190
95899410|NCT03228680|191754477|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|10.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with at least one gestational sac 5-6 weeks after transfer.||10.6|-7.5|
95899411|NCT03228680|191754478|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with positive beta-hCG.||9.6|-9.5|
95899412|NCT03228680|191754479|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of participants with vital pregnancy.||10.8|-6.7|
95899413|NCT03228680|191754480|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|12.8|||||The difference (FE 999049-FOLLISTIM) in rates was estimated and a two-sided 95% Cl was constructed using the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results across AMH strata.|Percentage of implanted embryos 5-6 weeks after transfer.||12.8|-8.9|
95899414|NCT03228680|191754482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.244||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with blastocyst transfer cancellation.||||0.244
95977216|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.11|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.11|-1.44|0.094
95977217|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.76|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.76|-0.80|0.960
95977218|NCT01794923|191926822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.2|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMS terms.||0.20|-1.48|0.132
95977219|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.163
95977220|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|4.6||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|11.02|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.02|-1.86|0.162
95899415|NCT03228680|191754483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \<4 oocytes retrieved (low response).||||0.254
95899416|NCT03228680|191754483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 4-7 oocytes retrieved (moderate response).||||0.041
95899417|NCT03228680|191754483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.705||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 8-14 oocytes retrieved (targeted response).||||0.705
95899418|NCT03228680|191754483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with 15-19 oocytes retrieved (hyperresponse).||||0.183
95899419|NCT03228680|191754483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with \>= (more than equal to) 20 oocytes retrieved (severe hyperresponse).||||0.030
95899420|NCT03228680|191754484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.893||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \< 15 pmol/L (\<4 oocytes retrieved)||||0.893
95899421|NCT03228680|191754484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=15 oocytes retrieved)||||0.002
95899422|NCT03228680|191754484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||P-value based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Proportion of participants with extreme ovarian responses: AMH \>= 15 pmol/L (\>=20 oocytes retrieved)||||0.021
95899423|NCT03228680|191754486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with early OHSS (any grade).||||0.017
95899424|NCT03228680|191754486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.035
95899425|NCT03228680|191754486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (any grade) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.006
95899426|NCT03228680|191754486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportion of participants with early OHSS (moderate/severe) and/or preventive interventions.||||0.009
95977221|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.9||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|4.57|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||4.57|-8.42|0.559
95977222|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|6.5||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|13.45|||ANOVA|||0-24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.45|-0.44|0.066
95977223|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.957
95899427|NCT03228680|191754487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (any grade).||||0.968
95899428|NCT03228680|191754487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||P-value was based on likelihood ratio chi-square test.|Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors.||Proportions of participants with late OHSS (moderate/severe).||||0.582
95899429|NCT03228680|191754488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles on stimulation Day 6 was analyzed.||||0.198
95899430|NCT03228680|191754489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of follicles at end-of-stimulation was analyzed.||||0.036
95899431|NCT03228680|191754490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.592
95899432|NCT03228680|191754491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The average size of 3 largest follicles was analyzed.||||0.286
95899433|NCT03228680|191754492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The fertilization rate (number of oocytes with 2 pronuclei divided by the number of oocytes retrieved) was analyzed.||||0.395
95977224|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|13.33|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||13.33|-11.20|0.864
95977225|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|11.45|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||11.45|-13.30|0.883
95977226|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|15.22|||ANOVA|||24-48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||15.22|-11.24|0.767
95977227|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.243
95977228|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-8.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|3.7|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||3.70|-20.12|0.176
95977229|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|14.03|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||14.03|-10.00|0.741
95977230|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-10.2||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.07|2.62|||ANOVA|||48-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||2.62|-23.07|0.118
95977231|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.920
95977232|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.64|16.23|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||16.23|-24.64|0.685
95899434|NCT03228680|191754493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.001
95899435|NCT03228680|191754493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 was analyzed.||||0.004
95977233|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|19.19|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.19|-22.04|0.892
95899436|NCT03228680|191754494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<.001
95977234|NCT01794923|191926823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.82|19.25|||ANOVA|||0-72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||19.25|-24.82|0.804
95977235|NCT01794923|191926824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.533|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||||0.533
95899437|NCT03228680|191754494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of good-quality blastocysts on Day 5 was analyzed.||||<0.001
95899438|NCT03228680|191754495|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.03||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.09||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH on stimulation Day 6.||1.09|0.98|0.228
95899439|NCT03228680|191754495|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH on stimulation Day 6.||1.17|0.81|0.777
95899440|NCT03228680|191754496|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.94||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of FSH at end-of-stimulation.||0.94|0.84|<0.001
95977236|NCT01794923|191926824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.38|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.38|-0.38|0.266
95977237|NCT01794923|191926824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.05|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.05|-0.74|0.730
95977238|NCT01794923|191926824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR, sex, and baseline SMSM terms.||1.30|-0.61|0.479
95977239|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.189
95977240|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.17|0.389
95977241|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.19|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.05|0.273
95977242|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANOVA|||1 Hour: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.01|-0.25|0.069
95977243|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.716|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.716
95977244|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.15|0.735
95899441|NCT03228680|191754496|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.17||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of LH at end-of-stimulation.||1.39|1.00|0.057
95899442|NCT03228680|191754497|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.71|0.002
95899443|NCT03228680|191754498|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of estradiol at end-of-stimulation.||0.95|0.76|0.003
95899444|NCT03228680|191754499|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|1.02||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.16||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone on stimulation Day 6.||1.16|0.89|0.814
95899445|NCT03228680|191754500|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of progesterone levels at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.68|<0.001
95899446|NCT03228680|191754501|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.92||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A on stimulation Day 6.||0.92|0.73|<0.001
95899447|NCT03228680|191754502|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.88||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin A at end-of-stimulation.||0.88|0.72|<0.001
95899448|NCT03228680|191754503|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B on stimulation Day 6.||0.93|0.75|<0.001
95899449|NCT03228680|191754504|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.88||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||The P-value corresponds to the two-sided F-test of treatment effect.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment and AMH stratum (\<15 pmol/L and ≥15 pmol/L) as fixed factors and log-baseline as covariate.|Mean ratio is equal to FE 999049/FOLLISTIM.|Circulating levels of Inhibin B at end-of-stimulation.||0.99|0.79|0.027
95899450|NCT03228680|191754505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694||||||2-sided|van Elteren test|P-value was based on van Elteren test adjusted for AMH strata.||The number of stimulation days at end-of-stimulation.||||0.694
95899451|NCT02099721|191754515|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is a hazard ratio significantly above 0.70.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.57|||||The hazard ratio, estimated by a Cox proportional hazard model, has time to first treated VT/VF for 1.5 Prevention in the numerator, with Secondary Prevention in the denominator.|"H0: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) ≤ 0.70~HA: Hazard ratio of Implanted 1.5 patients (Group C) to implanted secondary patients (Group A) \> 0.70"||0.57|0.38|
95977245|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.08|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.08|-0.19|0.414
95977246|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.17|||ANOVA|||2 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.17|-0.11|0.652
95977247|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.622
95899452|NCT02099721|191754516|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio significantly below 1 indicates reduced mortality in the 1.5 implanted group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.66||The p-value is for the effect of treatment group on time to death, adjusting for the baseline covariates of age, gender, QRS duration, ischemic cardiomyopathy, LBBB, NYHA classification, diabetes, LVEF, syncope, NSVT and PVCs.|Wald chi-square||Multiple imputations were employed to account for missing baseline covariates.|The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of implanted to non-implanted 1.5 patients = 1. The alternative is that the ratio is not equal to 1.||0.66|0.40|< 0.0001
95899453|NCT03670810|191754575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.56|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.73|2.56|<0.001
95899454|NCT03670810|191754575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|6.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.77|3.07|<0.001
95977248|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.17|0.830
95977249|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.26|0.442
95977250|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.29|||ANOVA|||3 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.11|0.358
95977251|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.714
95899455|NCT03670810|191754576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|6.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.76|2.10|<.001
95899456|NCT03670810|191754576|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.13|12.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.67|4.13|<.001
95899457|NCT03670810|191754577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|3.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.57|2.05|<0.001
95899458|NCT03670810|191754577|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.53|2.04|<0.001
95899459|NCT03670810|191754578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.01|2.11|<0.001
95899460|NCT03670810|191754578|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.53|<0.001
95899461|NCT03670810|191754579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|2.05|<0.001
95899462|NCT03670810|191754579|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|7.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|2.77|<0.001
95899463|NCT03670810|191754580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.04|1.30|0.004
95899464|NCT03670810|191754580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|6.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.94|2.41|<0.001
95899465|NCT03670810|191754581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|6.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.02|1.80|<0.001
95977252|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.19|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.29|0.683
95977253|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.14|-0.34|0.413
95977254|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.31|||ANOVA|||4 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.21|0.699
95977255|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.244
95977256|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.26|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.21|0.833
95899466|NCT03670810|191754581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.42|1.97|<0.001
95899467|NCT03670810|191754582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.33|1.48|<0.001
95899468|NCT03670810|191754582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|3.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.67|1.65|<0.001
95899469|NCT03670810|191754583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.78|1.10|0.031
95899470|NCT03670810|191754583|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|13.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.25|2.40|<0.001
95899471|NCT03670810|191754584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.35|1.29|<0.001
95899472|NCT03670810|191754584|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|1.21|0.001
95899473|NCT03670810|191754585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.65|0.33|<0.001
95899474|NCT03670810|191754585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.30|<0.001
95899475|NCT03670810|191754586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|4.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.28|1.79|<0.001
95899476|NCT03670810|191754586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.20|<0.001
95899477|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|53.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||53.37|0.77|0.086
95899478|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.24||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|59.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Freedom 30 Min. Postdose||59.08|0.89|0.065
95899479|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||6.68|1.42|0.004
95899480|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|14.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Free 1 Hour Postdose||14.44|3.43|<0.001
95899481|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min Postdose 100 mg||2.03|0.98|0.065
95899482|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 30 Min. Postdose 200 mg||2.52|1.25|0.001
95899483|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 100 mg||3.06|1.74|<0.001
95899484|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Pain Relief 1 Hour Postdose 200 mg||2.88|1.64|<0.001
95977257|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.07|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.07|-0.41|0.156
95977258|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.46|||ANOVA|||5 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.06|0.128
95977259|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.359
95977260|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.43|-0.12|0.278
95899485|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min 100 mg||1.71|0.71|0.651
95899486|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 30 Min. 200 mg||1.98|0.85|0.220
95899487|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 100 mg||1.54|0.78|0.593
95899488|NCT03670810|191754588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Freedom from MBS 1 Hour 200 mg||1.98|1.04|0.030
95899489|NCT03670810|191754589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.092
95899490|NCT03670810|191754589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.211
95899491|NCT03670810|191754590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|2.01|<0.001
95899492|NCT03670810|191754590|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.26|2.12|<0.001
95899493|NCT03670810|191754591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.056
95899494|NCT03670810|191754591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267|||||||ANOVA|||Social Functioning||||0.267
95899495|NCT03670810|191754591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 100 mg||||0.003
95899496|NCT03670810|191754591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Migraine Symptoms 200 mg||||0.002
95899497|NCT03670810|191754591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Feeling/Concerns 100 mg||||0.014
95899498|NCT03670810|191754591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||Feelings/Concerns 200 mg||||0.018
95899499|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment - Agree Strongly Agree||1.62|0.96|0.101
95899500|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Recommend Treatment Agree/Strongly Agree||1.67|0.99|0.063
95899501|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.16|0.68|0.376
95899502|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Willing to Take This Treatment Again - Agree/Strongly Agree||1.03|0.60|0.082
95899503|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.62|0.96|0.096
95899504|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Extremely/Very Satisfied||1.80|1.06|0.016
95899505|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Prefer This Treatment||1.49|0.84|0.445
95899506|NCT03670810|191754592|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.89|0.243
95899507|NCT03670810|191754593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.142
95899508|NCT03670810|191754594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.40|1.42|0.004
95899509|NCT03670810|191754594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|9.47|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.47|2.22|<0.001
95899510|NCT03670810|191754595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.74|<0.001
95899511|NCT03670810|191754595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.20|2.50|<0.001
95899512|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.36|0.75|0.953
95899513|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea||1.41|0.78|0.768
95899514|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Phonophobia||0.71|0.39|<0.001
95899515|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Regression, Linear|||Phonophobia||0.62|0.34|<0.001
95899516|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.63|0.36|<0.001
95899517|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Photophobia||0.71|0.40|<0.001
95899518|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||1.25|0.17|0.129
95899519|NCT03670810|191754596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting||2.43|0.52|0.769
95899520|NCT00678691|191754597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||all p-values come from one model analysis and are therefore included in free text as such|piecewise model|A piecewise statistical model results for between group differences: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8||Authors expected armodafinal to work better than placebo reducing BFI scale scores by 30%. A piecewise statistical model was used to compare baseline scores against those over through week 8. Piecewise results for between group differences for BFI Scores: P=.390 (baseline through week 5), p=.775 (week 5 - week 8).||||<0.05
95899521|NCT03192150|191754599|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the primary efficacy endpoint was two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|||||<|0.0001||||||P-values were from a Chi-Square test (with continuity correction) of differences between treatments in the proportion of participants with ACC Grade 0 who did not receive rescue medication versus all other grades combined.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if 1 or more of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||||||< 0.0001
95899522|NCT03192150|191754600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.311||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.311|4.074||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 1||4.074|1.311|0.0054
95899523|NCT03192150|191754600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.967|6.519||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 8||6.519|1.967|< 0.0001
95899524|NCT03192150|191754600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.909|6.426||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 15||6.426|1.909|< 0.0001
95899525|NCT03192150|191754600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.659|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.987|6.736||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 18||6.736|1.987|< 0.0001
95899526|NCT03192150|191754600|SUPERIORITY|Statistical hypotheses testing for the secondary efficacy endpoints were two-sided and performed using a significance (alpha) level of 0.05.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.952||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.596|5.462||P-values were from a Chi-Square test with continuity correction.|Chi-squared, Corrected|A Fisher's exact test was used if ≥ 1 of the cells had an expected frequency of ≤ 5.||Statistical analysis of proportion of participants who achieved a pain score of 0 on the VAS on Day 29||5.462|1.596|0.0008
95899527|NCT01420302|191754601|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95899528|NCT03759223|191754653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95899529|NCT03759223|191754653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||0:24 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95899530|NCT03759223|191754653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||12:12 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.58
95899531|NCT00780572|191754743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9396||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7068|1.249|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2490|0.7068|0.6680
95899532|NCT00727857|191754744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.51|1.22|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. Least Squares (LS) mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.22|0.51|<0.0001
95899533|NCT00727857|191754744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.5|1.18|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.18|0.50|<0.0001
95899534|NCT00727857|191754744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.8919||95.0|-0.37|0.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.33|-0.37|0.8919
95899535|NCT00727857|191754745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8||||0.0005||95.0|7.8|27.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||27.7|7.8|0.0005
95899536|NCT00727857|191754745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1||||0.0021||95.0|5.5|24.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||24.7|5.5|0.0021
95899537|NCT00727857|191754745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5981||95.0|-12.5|7.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.2|-12.5|0.5981
95899538|NCT00727857|191754746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.5074||95.0|-1.43|2.88|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.88|-1.43|0.5074
95899539|NCT00727857|191754746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.93||||0.0047||95.0|0.9|4.95|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.95|0.90|0.0047
95899540|NCT00727857|191754746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.0435||95.0|0.06|4.33|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.33|0.06|0.0435
95899541|NCT00727857|191754747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.629||||0.3158||95.0|-0.602|1.861|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.861|-0.602|0.3158
95899542|NCT00727857|191754747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.619||||0.0067||95.0|0.452|2.785|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.785|0.452|0.0067
95899543|NCT00727857|191754747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.989||||0.1094||95.0|-0.223|2.201|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.201|-0.223|0.1094
95899544|NCT00727857|191754748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.88||||0.5963||95.0|-4.71|13.97|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||13.97|-4.71|0.5963
95899545|NCT00727857|191754748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0265||95.0|2.88|22.24|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||22.24|2.88|0.0265
95977261|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.22|-0.33|0.699
95977262|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||6 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.172
95977263|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.515
95977264|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.37|-0.19|0.527
95899546|NCT00727857|191754748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.33||||0.1053||95.0|-1.77|18.07|||ANCOVA||The estimate of the median percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals were based on the Hodges-Lehmann method and the distribution-free confidence interval.|Nonparametric ANCOVA based on Tukey's normal rank transformation with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate.||18.07|-1.77|0.1053
95899547|NCT00727857|191754749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.0806||95.0|-0.2|3.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.1|-0.2|0.0806
95899548|NCT00727857|191754749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-9.6|-6.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-6.5|-9.6|<0.0001
95899549|NCT00727857|191754749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-11.1|-7.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-7.9|-11.1|<0.0001
95899550|NCT00727857|191754750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.73||||0.0324||95.0|0.31|7.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||7.14|0.31|0.0324
95899551|NCT00727857|191754750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78||||0.0233||95.0|-7.05|-0.52|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.52|-7.05|0.0233
95899552|NCT00727857|191754750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.9|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-10.90|<0.0001
95977265|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.19|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.19|-0.37|0.545
95977266|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||ANOVA|||7 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.47|-0.12|0.250
95977267|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.568|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.568
95977268|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.41|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.41|-0.16|0.381
95899553|NCT00727857|191754751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.0993||95.0|-0.93|10.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.72|-0.93|0.0993
95899554|NCT00727857|191754751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.367||95.0|-8.14|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.01|-8.14|0.3670
95899555|NCT00727857|191754751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.46||||0.0119||95.0|-13.26|-1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-1.66|-13.26|0.0119
95899556|NCT00727857|191754752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31||||0.0423||95.0|-8.48|-0.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.15|-8.48|0.0423
95899557|NCT00727857|191754752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.08|-4.12|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-4.12|-12.08|<0.0001
95899558|NCT00727857|191754752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.79||||0.728||95.0|-7.93|0.35|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.35|-7.93|0.728
95899559|NCT00727857|191754753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.9231||95.0|-7.94|8.76|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.76|-7.94|0.9231
95899560|NCT00727857|191754753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.3082||95.0|-3.86|12.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.19|-3.86|0.3082
95899561|NCT00727857|191754753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75||||0.3753||95.0|-4.56|12.07|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||12.07|-4.56|0.3753
95977269|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.26|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.31|0.863
95977270|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.46|||ANOVA|||8 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.46|-0.16|0.330
95899562|NCT00727857|191754754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4||||0.4999||95.0|-44.6|91.4|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||91.4|-44.6|0.4999
95899563|NCT00727857|191754754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.2||||0.0531||95.0|-0.9|129.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||129.3|-0.9|0.0531
95899564|NCT00727857|191754754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.9||||0.2369||95.0|-26.9|108.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with a term for treatment and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||108.7|-26.9|0.2369
95899565|NCT00727857|191754755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5023||95.0|-0.09|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.19|-0.09|0.5023
95899566|NCT00727857|191754755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
95899567|NCT00727857|191754755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.25|-0.53|<0.0001
95899568|NCT00727857|191754756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7||||0.2849||95.0|-16.5|55.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||55.9|-16.5|0.2849
95899569|NCT00727857|191754756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-77.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-112.4|-42.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-42.8|-112.4|<0.0001
95899570|NCT00727857|191754756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-97.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-133.4|-61.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-61.2|-133.4|<0.0001
95899571|NCT00727857|191754757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2894||95.0|-4.5|15.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.1|-4.5|0.2894
95977271|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.167
95899572|NCT00727857|191754757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8463||95.0|-10.3|8.5|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||8.5|-10.3|0.8463
95899573|NCT00727857|191754757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2||||0.2124||95.0|-16.0|3.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||3.6|-16.0|0.2124
95899574|NCT00727857|191754758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.804||95.0|-19.4|15.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||15.0|-19.4|0.8040
95899575|NCT00727857|191754758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.5||||0.0008||95.0|12.0|45.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||45.0|12.0|0.0008
95899576|NCT00727857|191754758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.6||||0.0005||95.0|13.4|47.8|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||47.8|13.4|0.0005
95977272|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.5|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.50|-0.09|0.165
95977273|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.21|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.21|-0.39|0.564
95977274|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.62|||ANOVA|||9 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.62|-0.02|0.068
95977275|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.131
95977276|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.56|-0.06|0.119
95899577|NCT00727857|191754759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.9604||95.0|-83.3|79.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||79.2|-83.3|0.9604
95899578|NCT00727857|191754759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.3||||0.0004||95.0|62.5|218.0|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||218.0|62.5|0.0004
95977277|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.23|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.39|0.616
95977278|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.66|||ANOVA|||10 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.01|0.056
95977279|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.255
95977280|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.57|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.57|-0.08|0.144
95977281|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.31|-0.34|0.935
95899579|NCT00727857|191754759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|142.3||||0.0006||95.0|61.3|223.3|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||223.3|61.3|0.0006
95899580|NCT00727857|191754760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.9922||95.0|-64.4|65.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||65.1|-64.4|0.9922
95899581|NCT00727857|191754760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.7||||0.0004||95.0|49.7|173.7|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||173.7|49.7|0.0004
95899582|NCT00727857|191754760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|111.4||||0.0008||95.0|46.8|175.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||175.9|46.8|0.0008
95977282|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||ANOVA|||11 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.61|-0.10|0.153
95977283|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.128|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.128
95977284|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.63|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.63|-0.02|0.067
95977285|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.33|-0.33|0.999
95977286|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||ANOVA|||12 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.66|-0.05|0.088
95977287|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.195
95977288|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.67|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.67|-0.12|0.175
95899583|NCT00727857|191754761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.0072||95.0|-1.86|-0.29|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.29|-1.86|0.0072
95899584|NCT00727857|191754761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.3682||95.0|-0.41|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.41|0.3682
95977289|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.30|-0.50|0.610
95977290|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.81|||ANOVA|||24 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.81|-0.05|0.083
95977291|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.884|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.884
95977292|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.35|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.35|-0.43|0.833
95977293|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.29|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.29|-0.49|0.620
95977294|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.48|||ANOVA|||30 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.48|-0.36|0.788
95899585|NCT00727857|191754761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42||||0.0004||95.0|0.64|2.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.20|0.64|0.0004
95899586|NCT00727857|191754762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1986||95.0|-0.02|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.10|-0.02|0.1986
95899587|NCT00727857|191754762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1487||95.0|-0.1|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-0.10|0.1487
95899588|NCT00727857|191754762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0076||95.0|-0.14|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.02|-0.14|0.0076
95899589|NCT00727857|191754763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.2384||95.0|-0.21|0.83|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.83|-0.21|0.2384
95899590|NCT00727857|191754763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4617||95.0|-0.69|0.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.31|-0.69|0.4617
95899591|NCT00727857|191754763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0593||95.0|-1.02|0.02|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.02|-1.02|0.0593
95899592|NCT00727857|191754764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.5044||95.0|-0.54|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.10|-0.54|0.5044
95899593|NCT00727857|191754764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.0004||95.0|-2.22|-0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.64|-2.22|0.0004
95899594|NCT00727857|191754764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.53|-0.89|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.89|-2.53|<0.0001
95899595|NCT00727857|191754765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0017||95.0|-2.64|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-0.62|-2.64|0.0017
95899596|NCT00727857|191754765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.01|2.94|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||2.94|1.01|<0.0001
95899597|NCT00727857|191754765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.59|4.61|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.61|2.59|<0.0001
95899598|NCT00727857|191754766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.76||||0.2466||95.0|-2.61|10.14|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||10.14|-2.61|0.2466
95899599|NCT00727857|191754766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52||||0.0063||95.0|-14.63|-2.42|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.42|-14.63|0.0063
95899600|NCT00727857|191754766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.29||||0.0002||95.0|-18.65|-5.93|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.93|-18.65|0.0002
95899601|NCT00727857|191754767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.2069||95.0|-2.93|0.64|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.64|-2.93|0.2069
95899602|NCT00727857|191754767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.0052||95.0|0.73|4.15|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||4.15|0.73|0.0052
95899603|NCT00727857|191754767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.81|5.36|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.36|1.81|<0.0001
95899604|NCT00727857|191754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.609||95.0|-1.28|0.75|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.75|-1.28|0.6090
95899605|NCT00727857|191754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.6169||95.0|-1.22|0.72|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.72|-1.22|0.6169
95977295|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.755
95899606|NCT00727857|191754768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.974||95.0|-0.99|1.03|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.03|-0.99|0.9740
95899607|NCT00727857|191754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.615||95.0|-3.09|5.21|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||5.21|-3.09|0.6150
95977296|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.34|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.34|-0.45|0.787
95899608|NCT00727857|191754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.2346||95.0|-6.38|1.57|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||1.57|-6.38|0.2346
95899609|NCT00727857|191754769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47||||0.1001||95.0|-7.61|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||0.67|-7.61|0.1001
95899610|NCT00727857|191754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.1217||95.0|-0.76|6.48|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - pioglitazone|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||6.48|-0.76|0.1217
95899611|NCT00727857|191754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0009||95.0|-9.36|-2.44|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone \& metformin - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-2.44|-9.36|0.0009
95977297|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.25|-0.56|0.455
95899612|NCT00727857|191754770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|-12.36|-5.16|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Pioglitazone - metformin|One-way ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and the baseline value as a covariate. LS mean change and LS mean of the treatment difference reported.||-5.16|-12.36|<0.0001
95899613|NCT01868633|191754776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95899614|NCT02457325|191754807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
95899615|NCT02457325|191754808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.457
95899616|NCT02457325|191754809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
95899617|NCT02457325|191754810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.953|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.953
95899618|NCT02457325|191754811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.693|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.693
95899619|NCT02457325|191754812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.158|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.158
95977298|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.53|||ANOVA|||36 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.33|0.654
95977299|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.370
95977300|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.24|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.51|0.472
95977301|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.53|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.53|-0.23|0.427
95977302|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.11|||ANOVA|||48 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.69|0.159
95899620|NCT02457325|191754813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.192|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.192
95899621|NCT02457325|191754814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.512
95899622|NCT02457325|191754815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
95899623|NCT02457325|191754816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.730
95899624|NCT02457325|191754817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.835
95899625|NCT03385239|191754822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-27.0||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-10.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in percent (%) change from baseline (CFB) based on difference in least square mean (LSM) of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-10|-41|0.0042
95899626|NCT03385239|191754822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-48.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-48|-66|<0.0001
95899627|NCT03385239|191754822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.0|-54.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-54|-70|<0.0001
95899628|NCT03385239|191754822|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|-53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|||-53|-69|<0.0001
95899629|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-30.0||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|-8.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoC III||-8|-47|0.0123
95899630|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-68.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-58.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-58|-76|<0.0001
95977303|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.480
95899631|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-65.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-65|-80|<0.0001
95899632|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-74.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Apo-C III||-66|-80|<0.0001
95899633|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||7|-11|0.568
95977304|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.15|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.15|-0.59|0.238
95977305|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.32|-0.42|0.794
95977306|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.23|||ANOVA|||54 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.23|-0.57|0.395
95977307|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.400
95977308|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.11|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.11|-0.61|0.176
95899634|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-12.0||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||-3|-19|0.008
95899635|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-3.0||||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||6|-12|0.4476
95899636|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-8.0||||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|TC||0|-16|0.0606
95899637|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|7.0||||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|26.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||26|-10|0.4509
95899638|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|4.0||||0.6746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|23.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||23|-12|0.6746
95899639|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|29.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|53.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||53|9|0.0032
95899640|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|32.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|LDL-C||32|-6|0.1996
95899641|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|12.0||||0.0373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|24.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||24|1|0.0373
95899642|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|49.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||49|21|<0.0001
95899643|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|57.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||57|28|<0.0001
95977309|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.26|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.26|-0.47|0.573
95899644|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|HDL-C||44|18|<0.0001
95899645|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-7.0||||0.2826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||6|-18|0.2826
95899646|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-14|-34|<0.0001
95899647|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-15.0||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-4.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-4|-26|0.0118
95899648|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-20.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-9.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|Non-HDL-C||-9|-29|0.0009
95977310|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.24|||ANOVA|||60 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.24|-0.53|0.466
95977311|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||||0.092
95977312|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.04|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.04|-0.67|0.086
95977313|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.45|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||0.45|-0.27|0.616
95899649|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-21.0||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|-6.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-6|-34|0.0086
95899650|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-53.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|-44.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-44|-60|<0.0001
95899651|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-50.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-50|-64|<0.0001
95899652|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|-52.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|VLDL-C||-52|-66|<0.0001
95899653|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|2.0||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|13.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||13|-7|0.6801
95899654|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-16.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|-7.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-7|-24|0.0007
95899655|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-5.0||||0.3183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|5.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||5|-14|0.3183
95899656|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|-10.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-1.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoB||-1|-19|0.024
95977314|NCT01794923|191926825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|||72 Hours: Analysis was performed using an ANOVA model with treatment, baseline categorical PSR and sex terms.||-0.02|-0.79|0.040
95977315|NCT01794923|191926826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.751|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||||0.751
95977316|NCT01794923|191926826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.20|-0.28|0.696
95899657|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|5.0||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||11|-1|0.0936
95977317|NCT01794923|191926826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.29|-0.21|0.760
95977318|NCT01794923|191926826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Weighted Gamma Statistic|-0.1||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline categorical PSR (BLPSR) and sex.||0.16|-0.36|0.463
95977319|NCT00710021|191926839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
95977320|NCT00710021|191926840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.038
95977321|NCT00710021|191926841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
95977322|NCT00710021|191926842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95977323|NCT00710021|191926843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.31
95977324|NCT00710021|191926844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifit1 expression.||||||0.019
95977325|NCT00710021|191926845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.28
95977326|NCT00710021|191926846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Ifi44 expression.||||||0.050
95977327|NCT00710021|191926847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.29
95977328|NCT00710021|191926848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline Mx1 expression.||||||0.014
95977329|NCT00710021|191926849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.96
95899658|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|21.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||21|8|<0.0001
95977330|NCT00710021|191926850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C3 level.||||||0.67
95977331|NCT00710021|191926851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.59
95977332|NCT00710021|191926852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline serum C4 level.||||||0.65
95977333|NCT00710021|191926853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.86
95977334|NCT00710021|191926854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977335|NCT00710021|191926855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|F-tests derived from the GLM|The test was for the comparison of pooled Vitamin D versus Placebo after adjustment for baseline SELENA-SLEDAI score.||||||0.62
95977336|NCT00710021|191926856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977337|NCT00710021|191926857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977338|NCT00710021|191926858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977339|NCT00710021|191926859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977340|NCT00710021|191926860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977341|NCT00710021|191926861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977342|NCT00710021|191926862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977343|NCT00710021|191926863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977344|NCT00710021|191926864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95977345|NCT00710021|191926865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The p-value compares the Placebo with the pooled Vitamin D treatment group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Note that none of the Grade 3 or above events were considered by the investigators to be related to study treatment.||||||0.10
95977346|NCT04526197|191926875|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|0.881|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.776|1.001||||||||1.001|0.776|
95977347|NCT04526197|191926876|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.077||||||||1.077|0.959|
95977348|NCT04526197|191926877|OTHER|Confidence Interval|Ratio of geometric LS means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.954|1.07||||||||1.070|0.954|
95977349|NCT02910739|191926881|OTHER|The pharmacokinetic condition to initiate Part 2 of the study would be met if the point estimate for the AUC0-∞ ratio of geometric means (participants with moderate HI / healthy matched control participants) exceeds 1.5.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.3|||||GMR = geometric least squares mean (GLSM) for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-∞; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.83|
95977350|NCT02910739|191926882|OTHER||GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.5|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on Cmax; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.50|0.77|
95977351|NCT02910739|191926883|OTHER||GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-last; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.31|0.82|
95977352|NCT02910739|191926884|OTHER||GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.27|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on AUC0-24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.27|0.80|
95977353|NCT02910739|191926885|OTHER||GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.3|||||GMR = GLSM for moderate HI participants / GLSM for healthy participants.|Per study protocol, the purpose of this analysis is only to estimate the effect of moderate HI on C24hr; no hypothesis testing was planned for this outcome measure.||1.30|0.90|
95977354|NCT04417127|191927017|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the primary outcome was conducted using a doubly-robust generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data on baseline covariates; Rubin's rule was used for variance estimation. The GEE model included the intervention arm, used an independence working correlation matrix and variance was estimated using a sandwich variance estimator for clustered data.|Odds Ratio, log|0.84||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12||Baseline values of variables (county, gender, age, education, income, viral load) were used for differential dropout adjustment for the primary comparison and differential dropout and confounding adjustments for comparisons to matched participants.|Wald test|Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Microfinance with Usual Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|The intervention effect was estimated using the log odds ratio coefficient associated with the intervention in the GEE. The primary hypothesis test of intervention effect was conducted using a Wald test and 95% Wald-based confidence intervals.|For the primary outcome, the primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all randomized participants comparing viral suppression at 18-months. Following studies of the effect of financial interventions, we powered the study to have at least 80% power to detect a 15% additive increase in viral suppression among microfinance group members receiving integrated community care compared to those receiving facility-based care, assuming 15% dropout.||1.12|0.63|0.23
95977355|NCT04417127|191927017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.19||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Integrated, Community-based Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||3.19|1.48|<0.001
95977356|NCT04417127|191927017|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.42||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.92||Hypothesis: Microfinance with Usual (Facility-based) Care \> Usual (Facility-based) Care in terms of viral suppression at 18-months.|Wald test|||A secondary analysis of the primary outcome included a comparison of viral suppression at 18- months, between each of the two randomized trial arms and the non-randomized, prospectively-followed, frequency-matched participants who were not engaged in microfinance. The secondary analysis used the same analytic model as the primary analysis, assuming no clustering in the non-randomized sample.||1.92|1.05|0.023
95977357|NCT04417127|191927018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|3.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|4.26|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||4.26|2.58|<0.001
95977358|NCT04417127|191927018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|9.55|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||9.55|6.00|<0.001
95977359|NCT04417127|191927018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|2.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.06|||Wald test|||The retention in care analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis that included all enrolled participants and used the same analysis methods as those for the viral suppression (primary outcome) analysis. The retention in care analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity and should be considered hypothesis generating.||3.06|2.14|<0.001
95977360|NCT04417127|191927019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.595|2.183|||Wald test|||||2.183|-2.595|
95977361|NCT04417127|191927020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4478|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.194|||Wald test|||||-0.194|-0.701|
95899659|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||25|11|<0.0001
95977362|NCT01177787|191927097|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.669|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.503
95977363|NCT01176968|191927101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.581|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.446|0.756||All analyses for primary endpoint were tested at two-sided, α-level of 0.05, without adjusting for multiplicity.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio, and p-value for the Primary Analysis based on a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), with/without previous MI, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI anterior or non-anterior.||0.756|0.446|< 0.0001
95977364|NCT01176968|191927102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.562||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.308|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||6.308|0.050|0.6406
95977365|NCT01176968|191927103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.726||||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.99|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||1.990|0.265|0.5338
95977366|NCT01176968|191927105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.083||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||2.040|0.575|0.8042
95977367|NCT01176968|191927106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.598||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.791|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||0.791|0.452|0.0003
95977368|NCT01176968|191927107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.069||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|5.371|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||5.371|0.213|0.9353
95977369|NCT01176968|191927108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.6||||0.3757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|4.525|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio, 95% CI of hazard ratio, p-value for all secondary endpoints based on Cox proportional hazard model with treatment as the major factor, adjusted for baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, index MI location, time of first dose administered post onset of index symptom.||4.525|0.566|0.3757
95977370|NCT01176968|191927109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45||||0.1744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.65|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with observed value as the dependent variable, treatment as a major factor, and baseline QRS duration, baseline eGFR, with/without previous MI, time (in hours) of first dose administered post onset of index symptom, and location of index MI (anterior versus all other locations) as covariates.||0.65|-3.55|0.1744
95899660|NCT03385239|191754824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference in % CFB|14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference in % CFB based on difference in LSM of log (Primary Analysis Time Point/Baseline) was estimated.|ApoA-I||20|7|<0.0001
95899661|NCT03385239|191754825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|27.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||27.20|0.41|0.2591
95899662|NCT03385239|191754825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.54|740.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||740.02|9.54|<0.0001
95899663|NCT03385239|191754825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|322.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.31|5130.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||5130.99|20.31|<0.0001
95899664|NCT03385239|191754825|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|342.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.72|4933.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||4933.89|23.72|<0.0001
95977371|NCT01176968|191927110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.14||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.14|-0.10|0.7123
95977372|NCT01176968|191927110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13||ANCOVA was used for between-treatment comparisons of the LSMeans, 95% CI of LSMEANS, LSMeans difference, 95% CI of LSMeans difference, and p-value with observed value at the given time point as variable.|ANCOVA|||For the Between-Treatment difference for Eplerenone and Placebo groups of observed value taken at Month 6 visit, ANCOVA model was performed for LAD based on the LOCF method including treatment groups with/without adjustments for baseline eGFR (in mL/min/1.73 m2), previous MI (yes/no), time (in hours) of first dose administered post-onset of symptom, index MI location (anterior versus all others) as covariates.||0.13|-0.05|0.4105
95977373|NCT01176968|191927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95977374|NCT01176968|191927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.5552
95977375|NCT01176968|191927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Aldosterone, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95899665|NCT03385239|191754826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|69.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.88|0.02|0.9119
95899666|NCT03385239|191754826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.18||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|542.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||542.48|1.36|0.0306
95899667|NCT03385239|191754826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.54||||0.0344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|514.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||514.20|1.27|0.0344
95899668|NCT03385239|191754826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.47||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|866.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||866.49|2.28|0.0123
95899669|NCT01574703|191754830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.37
95899670|NCT01574703|191754831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.53
95899671|NCT01574703|191754832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||P-value for the treatment effect from the Log-Rank test stratified by Cohort.|Log Rank|||Statistical analysis for overall treatment comparison.||||0.34
95899672|NCT01574703|191754833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.49||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|4.23||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.23|-5.22|0.8375
95977376|NCT01176968|191927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95899673|NCT01574703|191754833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.05||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||5.05|-5.20|0.9780
95899674|NCT01574703|191754833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13||||0.6142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.27|-5.54|0.6142
95899675|NCT01574703|191754833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42||||0.8602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|5.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||5.13|-4.28|0.8602
95899676|NCT01574703|191754833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.64||||0.7217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.88||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.88|-4.15|0.7217
95899677|NCT01574703|191754833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.06||||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|3.28||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.28|-5.41|0.6322
95899678|NCT01574703|191754834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07||||0.9687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|3.34||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||3.34|-3.48|0.9687
95899679|NCT01574703|191754834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56||||0.7905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|4.7||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||4.70|-3.58|0.7905
95899680|NCT01574703|191754834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|2.94||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.94|-3.36|0.8962
95977377|NCT01176968|191927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95977378|NCT01176968|191927111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Serum Cortisol, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.3347
95977379|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0005
95977380|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95899681|NCT01574703|191754834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.63||||0.7767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|4.98||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||4.98|-3.72|0.7767
95899682|NCT01574703|191754834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|2.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.85|-3.13|0.9260
95899683|NCT01574703|191754834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.77||||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|3.31||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.31|-4.85|0.7113
95977381|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon-Rank Sum test|||For Biomarker- PIIINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.1558
95977382|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0008
95977383|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95977384|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Galecting 3, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0293
95977385|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1723|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.1723
95977386|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- PINP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0295
95977387|NCT01176968|191927112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- PINP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0865
95977388|NCT01176968|191927113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0944
95977389|NCT01176968|191927113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||0.0360
95977390|NCT01176968|191927113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- ICTP, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.6459
95977391|NCT01176968|191927114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95977392|NCT01176968|191927114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Signed Rank Test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, signed rank test for change from baseline at Month 6 within treatment difference was used to derive p-value.||||< 0.0001
95977393|NCT01176968|191927114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0801|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test|||For Biomarker- Interleukin-6, Wilconxon rank-sum test for between treatment difference at Month 6 was used to derive p-value.||||0.0801
95977394|NCT05193500|191927127|OTHER|||||||0.085||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|one-sample t-test, compared to 0.5 (chance)||||||0.085
95977395|NCT05193500|191927127|OTHER|||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.049
95977396|NCT05193500|191927128|OTHER|||||||0.015||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95977397|NCT02982187|191927149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.114|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.047||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||11.047|<0.001
95977398|NCT02982187|191927149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.744|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.512||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||10.512|<0.001
95977399|NCT02982187|191927150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.248||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.416||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.416|0.029
95977400|NCT02982187|191927150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.855||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.394||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.394|0.026
95899684|NCT01574703|191754835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.57||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|4.13||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||4.13|-5.27|0.8117
95977401|NCT02982187|191927151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.459||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.459|0.400
95977402|NCT02982187|191927151|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
95899685|NCT01574703|191754835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.78||||0.7303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.65||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.65|-5.21|0.7303
95899686|NCT01574703|191754835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.5946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.21||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||3.21|-5.60|0.5946
95899687|NCT01574703|191754835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|3.85||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.85|-4.27|0.9200
95899688|NCT01574703|191754835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.62||||0.7236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|2.84||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.84|-4.09|0.7236
95899689|NCT01574703|191754835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.42||||0.8201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|3.17||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||3.17|-4.01|0.8201
95899690|NCT01574703|191754836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|2.81||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.81|-3.22|0.8932
95899691|NCT01574703|191754836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.63||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.63|-3.09|0.8747
95899692|NCT01574703|191754836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|2.15||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.15|-3.35|0.6710
95977403|NCT02982187|191927152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.268||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||9.268|<0.001
95977404|NCT02982187|191927152|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.974|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.239||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||7.239|<0.001
95899693|NCT01574703|191754836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.9886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|3.27||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||3.27|-3.32|0.9886
95899694|NCT01574703|191754836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.39||||0.7631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.14||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.14|-2.92|0.7631
95977405|NCT02982187|191927153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.237||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.124||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||1.124|0.067
95977406|NCT02982187|191927153|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.357||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.219||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||2.219|0.003
95977407|NCT02982187|191927154|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||stratified exact logistic model|||Sub study 1: DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|These statistics were only presented when the model successfully converged. A stratified exact logistic model was used with participant included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|||
95899695|NCT01574703|191754836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.37||||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.5||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.50|-3.23|0.8022
95899696|NCT01574703|191754837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.91||||0.6441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.96||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||2.96|-4.78|0.6441
95899697|NCT01574703|191754837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.69||||0.7327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|3.26||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||3.26|-4.63|0.7327
95899698|NCT01574703|191754837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.99||||0.6109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.82||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||2.82|-4.80|0.6109
95977408|NCT02982187|191927154|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.732||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397||The upper bound of the 95% CI could not be calculated due to the low number of events and is therefore displayed as NA.||stratified exact logistic model||Odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value obtained from a stratified exact logistic model. Participant is included in the model as fixed strata, treatment option in the exact statement and period included as a fixed effect.|Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA|||0.397|0.500
95977409|NCT02982187|191927155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 1:DISKUS + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
95977410|NCT02982187|191927155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|This method of analysis does not take sequence of treatment option into account||Sub study 2:Turbuhaler + HandiHaler vs ELLIPTA||||<0.001
95977411|NCT02982187|191927159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95977412|NCT02982187|191927159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95977413|NCT02982187|191927160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95977414|NCT02982187|191927160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95977415|NCT02604433|191927164|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|14.53||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||14.53|2.17|<0.0001
95977416|NCT02604433|191927164|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|10.0|
95977417|NCT02604433|191927164|SUPERIORITY||Common Risk Difference|16.5||||||95.0|9.9|23.1|||||Luspatercept - Placebo|||23.1|9.9|
95977418|NCT02604433|191927165|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|18.26||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the CMH test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate for outcomes 2-4, the testing procedure was implemented strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing that erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group from Week 13 to Week 24 (primary endpoint).||18.26|2.27|<0.0001
95977419|NCT02604433|191927166|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|18.79||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and 33% hematological improvement was achieved in the luspatercept group in outcome 2.||18.79|0.96|0.0402
95977420|NCT02604433|191927167|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.92||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|86.29||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio, 95% CIs, and p-value were estimated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization. To control the overall Type 1 error rate, the testing procedure was done strictly in order: the test for this outcome was only conducted when there was evidence showing erythroid response was achieved in the luspatercept group for the primary endpoint, and achievement of objective in the luspatercept group in outcomes 2+3.||86.29|1.65|0.0017
95977421|NCT02604433|191927168|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.93||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline transfusion burden as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LSM = least squares mean||-0.93|-1.76|<0.0001
95977422|NCT02604433|191927169|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.2||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.51||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA||luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 P-value ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline LIC as covariates. LS = least square||1.51|-1.10|0.7598
95977423|NCT02604433|191927170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-68.0||||0.2552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|49.7||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferasirox: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||49.7|-185.8|0.2552
95977424|NCT02604433|191927170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-76.4||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-612.9|460.1||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferiprone: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||460.1|-612.9|0.7746
95977425|NCT02604433|191927170|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-147.3||||0.5186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-673.1|378.5||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline ICT as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Deferoxamine Mesilate / Deferoxamine: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||378.5|-673.1|0.5186
95977426|NCT02604433|191927171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-342.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-498.3|-186.87||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests|ANCOVA|Estimates based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline serum ferritin as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||-186.87|-498.30|<0.0001
95977427|NCT02604433|191927172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0||||0.9201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Total Hip Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.01|0.9201
95977428|NCT02604433|191927172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates are based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline BMD measurement as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Lumbar Spine Bone Mineral Density: Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least squares||0.01|-0.02|0.4620
95899699|NCT01574703|191754837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.93||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.93|-2.48|0.8707
95899700|NCT01574703|191754837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.48||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.48|-2.63|0.9531
95899701|NCT01574703|191754837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|2.39||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.39|-2.99|0.8262
95899702|NCT01574703|191754838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.59||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.67||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Bupropion.||1.67|-2.84|0.6105
95899703|NCT01574703|191754838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.32||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.01||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and NRT patch.||2.01|-2.65|0.7895
95899704|NCT01574703|191754838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.48||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|1.8||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Varenicline and Placebo.||1.80|-2.75|0.6804
95899705|NCT01574703|191754838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27||||0.8127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|2.49||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and NRT patch.||2.49|-1.95|0.8127
95977429|NCT02604433|191927173|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.22||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|0.04||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|ANCOVA|Estimates were based on an ANCOVA model with geographical regions defined at randomization and baseline myocardial T2\* as covariates.|luspatercept - placebo|Change from baseline at Week 48 LS = least square||0.04|-4.48|0.0543
95899706|NCT01574703|191754838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.11||||0.9218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|2.25||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between Bupropion and Placebo.||2.25|-2.04|0.9218
95977430|NCT02604433|191927174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Health Domain Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.666
95977431|NCT02604433|191927174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total Score - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.384
95977432|NCT02604433|191927175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||Physical Functioning Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.918
95977433|NCT02604433|191927175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||General Health Domain - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.857
95899707|NCT01574703|191754838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16||||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.0||P-values are for the risk differences of pairwise comparisons based on the logistic regression model with terms Baseline Cardiovascular Risk, treatment, cohort, region, and treatment by cohort interaction.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis between NRT patch and Placebo.||2.00|-2.32|0.8841
95899708|NCT00025883|191754845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within GLD group.||||<0.001
95899709|NCT00025883|191754845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A null hypothesis of interest is there is no significant change over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) in response to metreleptin within PLD group.||||0.004
95899710|NCT00025883|191754846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within GLD group.||||0.05
95899711|NCT00025883|191754846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Triglycerides were log transformed for analysis due to non-normal distribution. Changes in triglycedies in response to metreleptin over three time points (baseline, 6 months, 12 months) are tested within PLD group.||||0.02
95899712|NCT01387607|191754853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1906||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.36||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.36|-1.10|0.0001
95899713|NCT01387607|191754854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4376||||0.1397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8732|2.3667||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into much/very much improved and other.||2.3667|0.8732|0.1397
95899714|NCT01387607|191754854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4626||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8596|2.4886||Based on the combined categories from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mentel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|Statistical analysis performed for PGIC endpoint re-categorized into any improvement (participants who were very much improved or much improved or minimally improved) and other.||2.4886|0.8596|0.1510
95899715|NCT01387607|191754855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6804||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.32||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-6.30|0.0762
95899716|NCT01387607|191754856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8924||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2007|2.9827||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||2.9827|1.2007|0.0044
95899717|NCT01387607|191754857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9683||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1151|3.4742||From Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Overall odds ratio was calculated based on Mantel-Haenszel method as pregabalin versus placebo.|||3.4742|1.1151|0.0189
95899718|NCT01387607|191754858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.427|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0152||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|0.54||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.54|-7.39|0.0900
95899719|NCT01387607|191754859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.527|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1858||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.83||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for snoring.||6.83|-1.77|0.2485
95899720|NCT01387607|191754859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.265||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|2.1||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for awaken short of breath.||2.10|-6.81|0.2993
95899721|NCT01387607|191754859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4485||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|13.85||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for sleep adequacy.||13.85|4.21|0.0003
95899722|NCT01387607|191754860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1114||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.51||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for quantity of sleep.||0.51|0.07|0.0106
95977434|NCT02604433|191927175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839||||||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided|||PCS - Change from Baseline at Week 24||||0.839
95977435|NCT02604433|191927178|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.6||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|32.9||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds ratio 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-value were estimated from the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the geographical regions defined at randomization.||32.9|1.8|0.0015
95977436|NCT02604433|191927181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-67.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.63|-10.91||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 33% Transfusion Burden Reduction||-10.91|-123.63|0.0195
95977437|NCT02604433|191927181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.24||||0.7473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.87|201.34||Significance level of 0.050 for 2-sided tests.|t-test, 2 sided||luspatercept - placebo|≥ 50% Transfusion Burden Reduction||201.34|-144.87|0.7473
95977438|NCT02168842|191927210|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.61|0.073
95899723|NCT01387607|191754860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6428||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|7.43||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis for somnolence||7.43|0.96|0.0112
95899724|NCT01387607|191754861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6438||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|0.18||From the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.18|-6.29|0.0637
95977439|NCT02168842|191927211|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison the risk of need for dyskinesia in Isradipine group to the risk in a placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.01|||Log Rank|||||3.01|0.78|0.21
95977440|NCT02168842|191927212|EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of the risk of need for antiparkinsonian therapy in Isradipine group to the risk in placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.56|0.35
95977441|NCT01067326|191927234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in EPCs from baseline to 4 months||||0.02
95977442|NCT01067326|191927235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||.006
95977443|NCT01067326|191927236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 4 months.||||0.04
95977444|NCT01067326|191927237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value for intergroup comparison of change from baseline to month 4||||0.94
95977445|NCT00078754|191927246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.622
95977446|NCT00078754|191927247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||LHA score main effect.|ANCOVA|The LHA Score F\[1,83\] = 4.91, p = 0.029; Condition F\[2,83\] = 0.20, p = 0.815; Condition x LHA Score F\[2,83\] = 0.255, p = 0.799.||The hypothesis was that subjects with LHA Scores = 18 or more would respond better to divalproex (than fluoxetine) while those with LHA scores = or \< 17 would respond better to fluoxetine (than divalproex).||||0.029
95977447|NCT00078754|191927247|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Baseline OAS-M Aggression score as covariate.||ANCOVA at endpoint with baseline OAS-M AGG score as covariate.||||0.80
95977448|NCT04668586|191927248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.006
95977449|NCT04668586|191927249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.008
95977450|NCT04668586|191927251|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95977451|NCT04668586|191927252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|Adjusted for four-category stratification group.||||||0.09
95977452|NCT00178126|191927254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95977453|NCT04837040|191927273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.526|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.733|999.999|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine versus placebo has been presented.||999.999|13.733|<0.0001
95977454|NCT04837040|191927274|SUPERIORITY||least squares means difference|-0.791|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.057|-0.525|||ANCOVA|||||-0.525|-1.057|<0.0001
95977455|NCT04837040|191927275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.609||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.864|181.355|||exact logistic regression model|||Treatment comparison of all participants receiving paltusotine versus placebo has been presented.||181.355|2.864|0.0003
95977456|NCT04837040|191927276|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-5.164||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.536|-0.792|||ANCOVA|||||-0.792|-9.536|0.0216
95977457|NCT04647526|191927293|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.55|0.0088
95977458|NCT03282240|191927316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.958|1.224||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.224|0.958|
95977459|NCT03282240|191927316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.881|1.129||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.129|0.881|
95977460|NCT03282240|191927316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|0.932||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||0.932|0.744|
95977461|NCT03282240|191927316|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups is \> 0.667 for each of the comparisons.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.066||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||1.066|0.842|
95977462|NCT03282240|191927317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|2.7||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||2.70|-7.66|
95977463|NCT03282240|191927317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.53||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.53|-7.04|
95977464|NCT03282240|191927317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|3.42||||||A/H3N2: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||3.42|-4.83|
95977465|NCT03282240|191927317|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in seroconversion was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the differences of seroconversion rates between groups is \> -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|0.86||||||A/H1N1: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference is based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||0.86|-7.37|
95899725|NCT01387607|191754862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.87||Logistic regression model includes treatment and pooled center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.87|0.67|0.6767
95899726|NCT01387607|191754863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.5||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.50|-1.26|<0.0001
95899727|NCT01387607|191754864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7785||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.42|-1.92||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-1.92|-32.42|0.0273
95899728|NCT01387607|191754865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0677||0.8082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||0.15|-0.12|0.8082
95899729|NCT01387607|191754866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||-0.41|-0.89|<0.0001
95899730|NCT01387607|191754867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7309||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|22.55||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||22.55|-7.76|0.3388
95899731|NCT01387607|191754868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.765|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2115||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.18||From a repeated measures analysis (MMRM) with treatment, pooled center, week, and treatment-by-week interaction as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|||||1.18|0.35|0.0003
95899732|NCT01387607|191754869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8414||0.3186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.82||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.82|-2.50|0.3186
95899733|NCT01387607|191754870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0404||0.7149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.43||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.43|-1.67|0.7149
95899734|NCT01387607|191754871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.2442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|2.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||2.11|-0.54|0.2442
95899735|NCT01387607|191754872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.616|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4019||0.1332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.34|1.11||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.11|-8.34|0.1332
95899736|NCT01387607|191754873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3595||0.2934||95.0|-1.09|0.33||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.09|0.2934
95899737|NCT01387607|191754874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3621||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.12||From the analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) with treatment and pooled center as factors, and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.54|0.0226
95899738|NCT04099524|191754877|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
95899739|NCT04099524|191754877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95899740|NCT04099524|191754878|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|chi-square|3.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
95899741|NCT04099524|191754879|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||multiple correction adjusted p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.||||<0.05
95899742|NCT04099524|191754880|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was based on evaluating whether active tDCS is superior than sham tDCS on outcomes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance||||<0.05
95899743|NCT01513317|191754928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.082||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who had a reduction in RBC transfusion to treat the anemia of MDS.|||0.20|-0.03|0.271
95977466|NCT03282240|191927318|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.804|2.315||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.315|1.804|
95977467|NCT03282240|191927318|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in GMTs was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups was \> 1.5 for comparison group.|GMT Ratio (QIV-HD/TIV-HDs)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.802|2.288||||||The 2-sided 95% CI is based on the Student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.||2.288|1.802|
95977468|NCT03282240|191927320|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|29.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.78|33.29||||||B Yamagata: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||33.29|24.78|
95977469|NCT03282240|191927320|SUPERIORITY|Superiority in seroconversion was observed if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference of seroconversion rates between groups is \> 10% for each applicable comparison.|Difference in Percentage|20.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.5|24.61||||||B Victoria: The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.||24.61|16.5|
95977470|NCT03566810|191927353|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square(LS)Mean%|98.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.2|105.64||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||105.64|92.20|
95977471|NCT03566810|191927353|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|99.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|106.05||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||106.05|93.15|
95977472|NCT03566810|191927354|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|107.44||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||107.44|91.08|
95899744|NCT01513317|191754929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.07||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.93|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the change from baseline hemoglobin levels at Week 13.|||0.93|-0.79|0.872
95977473|NCT03566810|191927354|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|96.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.87|104.46||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.46|89.87|
95977474|NCT03566810|191927355|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||0.00|-0.50|
95899745|NCT01513317|191754930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.042||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants achieving hemoglobin improvement at Week 13.|||0.15|-0.06|0.494
95899746|NCT01513317|191754931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.002||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated parameter is the difference in proportion of participants who did not require a blood transfusion in the 8 weeks of treatment before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.09|-0.09|0.986
95899747|NCT01513317|191754932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.96||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|6.27|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means for changes from baseline in bone marrow blasts at Week 13.|||6.27|-2.35|0.363
95899748|NCT01513317|191754933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|-1.69||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.17|||ANCOVA||The estimated parameter is the difference in LS means of the number of RBC transfusions during the 8 weeks of treament before unblinding at Week 13.|||0.17|-3.55|0.073
95899749|NCT01777997|191754958|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, repeated measures (GEE)|||Estimated mean change from baseline to weeks 24-48 on ART from repeated measures (GEE) model, against the null hypothesis of zero change. Estimated mean represents on ART levels minus pre-ART levels.||||0.001
95899750|NCT02660359|191754981|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-8.97||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-4.44|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-4.44|-13.5|0.0001
95899751|NCT02660359|191754981|SUPERIORITY|If both p-values for the 2 primary tests (the test of Dysport® 800 U vs. placebo and the test of Dysport® 600 U vs. placebo) were lower than 0.05, both were declared statistically significant. If 1 of the primary tests had a p-value greater than or equal to 0.05, then the other test was declared statistically significant if its p-value was lower than 0.025 and only the significant dose continued in the hierarchal testing strategy.|LS Mean Difference|-9.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.41|-5.12|||MMLM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[Botulinum toxin \[BTX\]-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (weekly number of UI episodes) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||-5.12|-14.41|<0.0001
95977475|NCT03566810|191927355|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Median point estimate difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||0.50|-0.50|
95977476|NCT03566810|191927357|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|97.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.38|104.86||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fasting conditions.||104.86|91.38|
95977477|NCT03566810|191927357|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.00% - 125.00%.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean Percentage|98.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.37|104.14||||||Statistical Comparison of Test GXR Versus Reference GXR under Fed conditions.||104.14|92.37|
95977478|NCT02087748|191927367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0324
95977479|NCT02087748|191927368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3688
95977480|NCT02087748|191927369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0275|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0275
95977481|NCT03078907|191927372|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean|13.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.366|40.944|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Freedson '98||40.944|13.366|
95977482|NCT03078907|191927372|OTHER||LS means|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.782|15.396|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in MVPA (minutes), Freedson '98||15.396|-10.782|
95977483|NCT03078907|191927372|OTHER||LS mean|17.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|41.619|||ANCOVA|||Daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (minutes), Koster '16||41.619|-6.003|
95977484|NCT03078907|191927373|OTHER||LS mean|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.204|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.713|3.06|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Freedson '98||3.060|-1.713|
95977485|NCT03078907|191927373|OTHER||LS mean|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.658|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.351|1.258|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in MVPA (%), Freedson '98||1.258|-1.351|
95977486|NCT03078907|191927373|OTHER||LS mean|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.104|3.618|||ANCOVA|||Percentage of daily time spent in non-sedentary activity (%), Koster '16||3.618|-1.104|
95977487|NCT03078907|191927374|OTHER||LS mean|20.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.632|146.958|||ANCOVA|||Volume of total daily activities (counts / minute)||146.958|-105.632|
95899752|NCT02660359|191754982|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|45.55||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.09|340.69|||Generalised linear mixed model (GLMM)|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline- by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||340.69|6.09|0.0002
95899753|NCT02660359|191754982|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was included in the hierarchical analysis and was tested for both doses at the 0.05 level using a hierarchical methodology.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.69||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|240.58|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||240.58|4.17|0.0009
95899754|NCT02660359|191754983|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.55||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|7.34||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo.||7.34|1.72|0.0007
95977488|NCT03078907|191927374|OTHER||LS means|27.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|65.291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.945|156.976|||ANCOVA|||Volume of non-sedentary activity (counts/minute), Koster '16||156.976|-101.945|
95977489|NCT03078907|191927375|OTHER||LS means|58409.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|64985.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70444.0|187263.0|||ANCOVA|||||187263|-70444|
95977490|NCT03078907|191927376|OTHER||LS means|201.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.212|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-242.977|646.163|||ANCOVA|||||646.163|-242.977|
95977491|NCT03078907|191927377|OTHER||LS means|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.366|0.51|||ANCOVA|||||0.510|-0.366|
95977492|NCT04356183|191927403|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95977493|NCT04356183|191927404|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95977494|NCT04356183|191927405|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95977495|NCT03865940|191927425|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Testing null hypothesis that guanfacine has no effect on time from injection to return to baseline.||||||0.374
95977496|NCT03865940|191927426|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values less than 0.05 considered significant.|Regression, Logistic|Analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeated measures. Effect of study drug was tested using a four degree-of-freedom test.||||||<0.001
95977497|NCT03865940|191927427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.775
95977498|NCT03865940|191927428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Regression, Linear|The analysis adjusted for pre-injection score and accounted for repeat measures.The results of the analyses tested using a two degree-of-freedom test.||||||0.099
95977499|NCT03865940|191927429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||Proportional Odds Regression|The analysis was not adjusted for baseline factors.||||||0.907
95977500|NCT03865940|191927430|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for use of pain medication at baseline||||||0.373
95977501|NCT00568321|191927439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.687|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Least square (LS) mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.50|0.687
95977502|NCT00568321|191927439|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.25|0.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||LS mean difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.19|-1.25|0.111
95977503|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.399|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.79|0.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.79|0.399
95977504|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.32|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-1.06|0.189
95977505|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.33|0.802
95899755|NCT02660359|191754983|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|6.07||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥30% Improvement Level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||6.07|1.43|0.0037
95899756|NCT02660359|191754983|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.79||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||7.79|2.03|<0.0001
95899757|NCT02660359|191754983|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by- visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.33||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥50% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||5.33|1.40|0.0034
95899758|NCT02660359|191754983|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|15.58||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 600 U versus Placebo||15.58|3.5|<0.0001
95899759|NCT02660359|191754983|SUPERIORITY|Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|11.24||This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|GLMM|||Treatment comparison at ≥75% Improvement level: Dysport® 800 U versus Placebo||11.24|2.48|<0.0001
95899760|NCT02660359|191754985|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|96.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|139.19|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||139.19|53.10|<0.0001
95899761|NCT02660359|191754985|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|90.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.07|134.48|||MMRM|||Treatment group, visit (Week 6), treatment-by-visit interaction, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX-naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and study baseline value (total volume per void) as fixed effect variables, and subject as a random effect.||134.48|47.07|<0.0001
95899762|NCT02660359|191754986|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|175.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.9|227.0|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||227.0|122.90|<0.0001
95899763|NCT02660359|191754986|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|168.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|113.6|223.1|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MCC as covariates.||223.1|113.6|<0.0001
95899764|NCT02660359|191754987|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-24.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-24.4|-41.5|<0.0001
95899765|NCT02660359|191754987|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|-32.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-23.4|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of MDP as covariates.||-23.4|-41.5|<0.0001
95977506|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.582|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.61|0.582
95977507|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.36|0.789
95899766|NCT02660359|191754988|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|152.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.2|206.5|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||206.5|99.2|<0.0001
95899767|NCT02660359|191754988|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|LS Mean Difference|169.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|111.7|227.6|||ANCOVA|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors (aetiology of NDO \[SCI or MS\], prior intradetrusor \[BTX- naïve or BTX-non-naïve\]) and baseline value of Vol@1stIDC as covariates.||227.6|111.7|<0.0001
95899768|NCT02660359|191754989|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.05|137.09|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by-visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||137.09|7.05|<0.0001
95899769|NCT02660359|191754989|SUPERIORITY|This secondary endpoint was not included within the hierarchical testing procedure and was analysed for exploratory purposes only to compare each Dysport® dose to placebo at a 0.05 type one error rate.|Odds Ratio (OR)|28.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|126.25|||GLMM|||Treatment group, recorded stratification factors, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study baseline-by- visit interaction and study baseline weekly number of UI episodes as fixed effect.||126.25|6.24|<0.0001
95899770|NCT01694706|191754990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|120.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.2||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.09|141.88|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||141.88|102.09|0.3420
95977508|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.29|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-0.94|0.290
95899771|NCT01694706|191754990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.8||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.21|116.76|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||116.76|76.21|0.0962
95977509|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.568|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.65|0.568
95899772|NCT01694706|191754991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.4||0.3993|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.19|169.628|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||169.628|83.190|0.3993
95977510|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.27|0.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.20|-1.27|0.116
95899773|NCT01694706|191754991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|53.0||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.783|133.03|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||133.030|65.783|0.2204
95899774|NCT01694706|191754992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|121.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.0||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.32|143.74|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir after a high-fat meal divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||143.74|102.32|0.3765
95899775|NCT01694706|191754992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|no formal testing, investigation of bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.4||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.25|117.67|||ANOVA|Ratio calculated as Faldaprevir and Omeprazole divided by Faldaprevir in fasting|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||117.67|76.25|0.0946
95899776|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity.|Mean treatment difference|-1.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg pooled - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.22|-1.73|<0.0001
95899777|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.11|-0.69|0.0069
95899778|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.60|-1.18|<0.0001
95977511|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.40|-1.11|0.218
95977512|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.06|0.261
95977513|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.11|0.252
95977514|NCT00568321|191927440|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.182|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|0.36|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.36|-1.26|0.182
95977515|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.84|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.46|0.683
95977516|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.31|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|0.46|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.46|-0.85|0.310
95977517|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.668|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.78|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.78|-0.46|0.668
95977518|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|0.26|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.26|-0.99|0.165
95899779|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-0.90|-1.47|<0.0001
95899780|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral Semaglutide 20 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.09|-1.68|<0.0001
95899781|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.30|-1.89|<0.0001
95899782|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.14|-1.72|<0.0001
95899783|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast dose-escalation - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.04|-1.64|<0.0001
95899784|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis||Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg - Placebo|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||-1.27|-1.85|<0.0001
95899785|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 2.5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||1.45|0.87|<0.0001
95899786|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 5 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.96|0.38|<0.0001
95899787|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.37||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 10 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.67|0.08|0.0116
95899788|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.18||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 20 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.47|-0.12|0.2440
95977519|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.55|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.55|0.546
95899789|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.26|-0.34|0.7973
95977520|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.19|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.92|0.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-0.92|0.190
95977521|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-0.60|0.467
95977522|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.153|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 1 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-0.94|0.153
95977523|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.632|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.54|0.632
95977524|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.094|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|0.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.14|-1.22|0.094
95977525|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|0.61|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.61|-0.68|0.468
95977526|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.167|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.03|0.167
95977527|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-0.72|0.394
95977528|NCT00568321|191927441|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|0.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Weeks 5 to 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.21|-1.04|0.138
95977529|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.764|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.51|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.51|0.764
95899790|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.13||||0.3901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.42|-0.16|0.3901
95899791|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.22||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.52|-0.09|0.1612
95899792|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.17||||0.2669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.46|-0.13|0.2669
95899793|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.26||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.56|-0.05|0.0989
95899794|NCT01923181|191754993|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Treatment difference|0.09||||0.5565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Oral semaglutide 40 mg fast-dose escalation - Oral semaglutide 40 mg slow-dose escalation|Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The analysis was based on mixed model for repeated measurements with treatment, stratum and country as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate, all nested within visit. Group mean estimates were adjusted according to observed baseline distribution.||0.39|-0.21|0.5565
95899795|NCT01257204|191755007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|4.9|36.8|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.8|4.9|
95899796|NCT01257204|191755007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|20.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.9|36.3|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||36.3|3.9|
95899797|NCT01257204|191755016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.8|26.7|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||26.7|-6.8|
95899798|NCT01257204|191755016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.4|24.2|||||The difference in the percentage of participants with antiviral response between daclatasvir and placebo was presented with a difference estimate (daclatasvir - placebo) and 80% confidence Interval.|||24.2|-9.4|
95899799|NCT00548808|191755019|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 0.4% for HbA1c was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.17|-0.25|0.716
95899800|NCT00548808|191755020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279||95.0||||P-value for 16 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.279
95977530|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.75|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.54|0.750
95977531|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|1.03|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.03|-0.46|0.734
95977532|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.77|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.77|-0.73|0.514
95977533|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.76|4.5|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.50|-1.76|0.765
95899801|NCT00548808|191755020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.846||95.0||||P-value for 32 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.846
95899802|NCT00548808|191755020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.741||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in HbA1c = Treatment + Baseline + Country + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit (Type 3 sums of squares).||||||0.741
95977534|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.43|3.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.86|-2.43|0.646
95977535|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.22|0.895
95977536|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.34|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.34|-0.50|0.776
95977537|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.944|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.03|0.944
95977538|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.835|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.31|0.835
95977539|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.955|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|6.37|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||6.37|0.09|0.955
95977540|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.884|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|5.49|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.49|-0.88|0.884
95977541|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.737|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|1.28|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.28|-0.57|0.737
95977542|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.74|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.74|0.628
95977543|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.925|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.43|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.43|-0.10|0.925
95977544|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.518|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.79|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.75|0.518
95899803|NCT00548808|191755021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.5||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 16 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.50|0.41|0.465
95899804|NCT00548808|191755021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.28||P-value for Patients Achieving HbA1c \<7% at 16 Weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.28|0.51|0.365
95899805|NCT00548808|191755021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.95||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.95|0.65|0.683
95899806|NCT00548808|191755021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 32 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.68|0.810
95899807|NCT00548808|191755021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.01||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<6.5% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||2.01|0.69|0.555
95899808|NCT00548808|191755021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.64||P-value for patients achieving HbA1c \<7% at 48 weeks.|Regression, Logistic|Generalized Estimating Equation model with fixed effects for treatment, country, sulfonylurea use, baseline HbA1c, visit, and visit\*treatment.||||1.64|0.67|0.829
95899809|NCT00548808|191755023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.604
95899810|NCT00548808|191755023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814||95.0||||P-value for Week 32 Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.814
95899811|NCT00548808|191755023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0||||P-value for 48 Week Change from Baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Analysis: Change in Blood Glucose = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use + Visit + Treatment\*Visit||||||0.582
95899812|NCT00548808|191755026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.04||P-value for Cholesterol.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.04|-0.26|0.162
95899813|NCT00548808|191755026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-value for Triglycerides.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.05|-0.30|0.165
95899814|NCT00548808|191755026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09||P-value for Low Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.09|-0.18|0.510
95899815|NCT00548808|191755026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model: Lab Result = Treatment + Baseline + Country + HbA1c stratum + Sulfonylurea use (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro LM minus Insulin Glargine.|||0.06|-0.02|0.382
95899816|NCT04622254|191755032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899817|NCT04622254|191755033|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899818|NCT04622254|191755034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899819|NCT04622254|191755035|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899820|NCT04622254|191755036|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899821|NCT04622254|191755037|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899822|NCT04622254|191755038|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899823|NCT04622254|191755039|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899824|NCT04622254|191755040|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899825|NCT04622254|191755041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899826|NCT04622254|191755042|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899827|NCT04622254|191755043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899828|NCT04622254|191755044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899829|NCT04622254|191755044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95899830|NCT04622254|191755045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899831|NCT04622254|191755045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899832|NCT02652624|191755048|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 470 participants (\~235 participants per treatment group) would provide at least 87% power to detect a non-inferiority margin of 4% difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the 2 treatment groups. This was based on the assumptions that both treatment groups have 2% of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL (based on Gilead Genvoya and Stribild studies) and that the significance level of the test is at a 1-sided 0.025 level.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-2.9|2.9|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the B/F/TAF group was at least 4% higher than the rate in the SBR group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in the B/F/TAF group was less than 4% higher than that in the SBR group.||2.9|-2.9|
95899833|NCT02652624|191755048|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95899834|NCT02652624|191755049|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of B/F/TAF would be established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.001% CI of the difference between the treatment groups (B/F/TAF group - SBR group) in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL is greater than -10%.|Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-3.7|4.5|||||The difference in percentages between treatment groups and their 95.001% CIs were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||4.5|-3.7|
95899835|NCT02652624|191755049|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95899836|NCT02652624|191755050|OTHER||Difference in least square means|3.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.0|||ANOVA||Difference in least squares means and its 95% CI were from ANOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect in the model.|||34|-27|0.84
95899837|NCT00739336|191755063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Piecewise linear multilevel models with multiple observations nested within each participant were used. Random components (intercept, slope) were introduced into the model to account for dependence among measurements within a participant and assessed by nested model comparisons using the deviance statistic (difference in -2LL).||||<0.01
95899838|NCT01560624|191755080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.97|||Cox proportion-hazard model|||||0.97|0.56|0.0275
95899839|NCT01560624|191755080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0391|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0391
95899840|NCT01560624|191755081|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimate location shift|7.0||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|0|0.0913
95899841|NCT01560624|191755082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95899842|NCT01560624|191755083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0028
95899843|NCT00451282|191755084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
95899844|NCT00451282|191755085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.89
95899845|NCT00451282|191755086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.69
95899846|NCT00451282|191755087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.18
95899847|NCT01797536|191755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR= Mild Hepatic Insufficiency Geometric Mean (GM) divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
95899848|NCT01797536|191755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.31|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.31|0.40|
95899849|NCT01797536|191755091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|1.61|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.61|0.48|
95899850|NCT01797536|191755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.34|
95899851|NCT01797536|191755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
95899852|NCT01797536|191755092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.13|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.13|0.35|
95899853|NCT01797536|191755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.05|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.05|0.32|
95899854|NCT01797536|191755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.14|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.14|0.35|
95977545|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.81|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.49|4.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.88|-1.49|0.810
95899855|NCT01797536|191755093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.08|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.32|
95899856|NCT01797536|191755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.34|1.08|||||GMR = Mild Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.08|0.34|
95899857|NCT01797536|191755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|1.25|||||GMR = Moderate Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.25|0.38|
95899858|NCT01797536|191755094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.43|||||GMR = Severe Hepatic Insufficiency GM divided by Healthy Control GM|Back-transformed least-squares mean and confidence interval from linear fixed effect model performed on natural log-transformed values||1.43|0.43|
95899859|NCT00436280|191755114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.512|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.217|1.206|||||Comparing GCB versus non-GCB|Comparing GCB versus non-GCB||1.206|0.217|
95899860|NCT00436280|191755115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.989|||||Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression|Comparing High Expression versus Low Expression||1.989|0.388|
95899861|NCT03732638|191755129|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-1.46|0.0099
95977546|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.72|3.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.70|-2.72|0.600
95977547|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.18|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.18|-0.73|0.651
95899862|NCT03732638|191755130|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.9|0.2|0.0438
95899863|NCT03732638|191755131|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-1.34|0.0017
95899864|NCT03732638|191755132|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.31||P-value ≥ 0.05; therefore, all secondary endpoints listed after this endpoint in the hierarchy were not tested.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.80|0.3868
95899865|NCT01448850|191755170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.25||Data was analyzed using Poisson regression with Pearson correction, adjusting for treatment, background therapy and history of previous exacerbations.|Poisson regression|||||1.25|0.68|0.645
95899866|NCT03773757|191755247|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q patient over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8719
95899867|NCT03773757|191755248|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of SM-EOLD over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.8389|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8389
95899868|NCT03773757|191755249|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of PHQ-8 over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model that included a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.3431|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3431
95899869|NCT03773757|191755250|SUPERIORITY|Longitudinal measures of NPI-Q caregiver distress over 24 months were compared between the two groups using mixed effects model including a group indicator variable, time since baseline, and an interaction between group and time as independent variables. Unstructured variance-covariance matrix was used to adjust for within-subject correlations over time. Predicted differences in mean scores between the two groups at each time point were estimated using the contrast procedures in the mixed model.||||||0.6612|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6612
95977548|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.73|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.73|-1.21|0.342
95977549|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.768|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.44|1.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.14|-0.44|0.768
95977550|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|0.41|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.41|-1.19|0.211
95977551|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|3.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.85|-2.73|0.610
95977552|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|1.91|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.91|-4.76|0.241
95977553|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.45|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.45|-0.50|0.789
95977554|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.57|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.88|0.570
95977555|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.782|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.19|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.19|-0.43|0.782
95977556|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.295|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.55|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.55|-1.08|0.295
95977557|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|5.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||5.11|-1.62|0.804
95977558|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.655|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|4.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||4.22|-2.58|0.655
95977559|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|0.86|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.86|-1.13|0.409
95977560|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-1.03|0.482
95977561|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.592|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.71|0.592
95977562|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.368|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.66|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.66|-1.00|0.368
95899870|NCT03773757|191755251|SUPERIORITY|A zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model was used to compare the mean numbers of hospitalization/ED events between the two groups. The ZIP model consists of a combination of a standard Poisson distribution for count data and a binary logistic regression model to account for additional zero events exceeding what would be expected from an underlying Poisson distribution.||||||0.0007|||||||Zero-Inflated Poisson Regression Model|||||||0.0007
95899871|NCT01469065|191755253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|84.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.16|92.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test. Formal statistical inference was not performed thus p value was not reported.||92.15|78.16|
95899872|NCT01469065|191755253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|97.53||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.53|82.69|
95899873|NCT01469065|191755253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.27|94.63||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.63|80.27|
95899874|NCT01469065|191755253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|78.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.06|85.03||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||85.03|72.06|
95899875|NCT01469065|191755266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|82.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.06|89.9||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||89.90|76.06|
95899876|NCT01469065|191755266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.6|92.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.77|78.60|
95899877|NCT01469065|191755266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|85.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.59|92.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.76|78.59|
95899878|NCT01469065|191755266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|75.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.78|82.39||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in MDG (Day 13) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||82.39|69.78|
95977563|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.98|2.88|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.88|-3.98|0.396
95899879|NCT01469065|191755266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference between Test and Reference|-35.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-52.89|-18.78||||||Treatment difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean.||-18.78|-52.89|
95977564|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|3.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.69|-3.21|0.545
95977565|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.04|1.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-1.04|0.486
95977566|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.75|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Worst pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-1.33|0.324
95977567|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.563|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.92|-0.76|0.563
95899880|NCT01469065|191755267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|86.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.13|92.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||92.70|81.13|
95899881|NCT01469065|191755267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.24|97.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.44|85.24|
95899882|NCT01469065|191755267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|87.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.44|93.04||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.04|81.44|
95899883|NCT01469065|191755267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|77.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.91|83.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Glucose AUC(2-6) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||83.34|72.91|
95899884|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|100.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|107.96||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.96|92.70|
95899885|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|99.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.04|107.43||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.43|92.04|
95899886|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|101.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.1|109.84||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.84|94.10|
95899887|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 2|96.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.69|104.52||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 2 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.52|89.69|
95899888|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|95.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.82|103.44||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.44|88.82|
95899889|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|98.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.37|106.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||106.64|91.37|
95899890|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|99.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.3|107.73||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.73|92.30|
95899891|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 3|94.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|102.1||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 3 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.10|87.53|
95899892|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.5|100.91||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.91|86.50|
95899893|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|92.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.81|100.15||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.15|85.81|
95899894|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|94.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.08|101.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||101.64|87.08|
95899895|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 6|87.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.2|94.81||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 6 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.81|81.20|
95899896|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.72|104.67||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.67|89.72|
95899897|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|103.76||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||103.76|88.90|
95899898|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|99.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.64||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||107.64|92.21|
95899899|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 10|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.46|102.11||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 10 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.11|87.46|
95899900|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|86.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.32|93.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||93.69|80.32|
95899901|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|87.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.34|94.93||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||94.93|81.34|
95899902|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|91.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.55|98.7||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.70|84.55|
95899903|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 14|88.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.0|95.74||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 14 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||95.74|82.00|
95899904|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.75|97.69||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||97.69|83.75|
95899905|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|90.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.03|98.08||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||98.08|84.03|
95899906|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|102.34||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||102.34|87.69|
95899907|NCT01469065|191755268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%) at Day 15|93.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|100.77||||||Test-to-Reference ratio of log-transformed change from baseline and 90% confidence interval (CI) of log-transformed change from baseline at Day 15 were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in FPG was analyzed using mixed effects model with country, treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.77|86.17|
95899908|NCT01469065|191755269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|112.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.84|127.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||127.50|99.84|
95899909|NCT01469065|191755269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|102.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.78|114.85||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||114.85|90.78|
95899910|NCT01469065|191755269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|111.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|125.18||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||125.18|98.50|
95899911|NCT01469065|191755269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.46|109.48||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in Insulin AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||109.48|85.46|
95899912|NCT01469065|191755270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|107.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|116.3||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||116.30|98.69|
95977568|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Average pain): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.56|-1.16|0.282
95899913|NCT01469065|191755270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|92.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.26|100.5||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||100.50|85.26|
95977569|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.409|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.99|3.01||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||3.01|-3.99|0.409
95899914|NCT01469065|191755270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|96.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.51|104.27||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||104.27|88.51|
95899915|NCT01469065|191755270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Test-to-Reference Ratio (%)|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.38|99.65||||||Test-to-Reference ratio and 90% confidence interval (CI) were based on adjusted geometric mean. Natural log-transformed change from baseline in C-peptide AUC(2-6) (Day 14) was analyzed using ANCOVA with country and treatment as fixed effect and log-transformed baseline as covariate. Placebo is the reference; the active drug group is the test.||99.65|84.38|
95899916|NCT04542070|191755272|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.2|-0.5|
95899917|NCT04542070|191755272|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.2|-0.5|
95899918|NCT04542070|191755273|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0|||||Difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK|||2.0|-0.6|
95899919|NCT04542070|191755273|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper limit of a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL at Month 12 (OLI and BIK)/Month 11 (D2I) between the two treatment arms (Q2M - BIK) is less than 4%.|Adjusted difference in percentage|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||||Adjusted difference in percentage = percentage of Q2M - percentage of BIK. Based on cochran-mantel haenszel stratified analysis was adjusted for the baseline stratification factors gender at birth and baseline BMI.|||2.0|-0.7|
95899920|NCT04292730|191755331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|2.483||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||2.483|1.092|0.0174
95899921|NCT04292730|191755331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.952||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable.|Proportional odds model|||Primary analysis||1.952|0.880|0.1826
95899922|NCT04292730|191755331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.497||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||2.497|1.095|0.0168
95899923|NCT04292730|191755331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.917||P-value was calculated using proportional odds model with treatment as the independent variable and baseline clinical status as a nominal covariate.|Proportional odds model|||Secondary analysis||1.917|0.862|0.2186
95899924|NCT04292730|191755332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|4.8||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.7||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.7|-5.2|0.3633
95899925|NCT04292730|191755332|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Percentages|12.0||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|21.8||P-value was calculated from the Fisher exact test to compare each RDV group and the SOC group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.8|1.6|0.0201
95899926|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.2|43.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||43.3|17.2|
95899927|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|45.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.9|59.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||59.3|30.9|
95899928|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|47.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|62.1||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo to historical control of 10% response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1500 mg + placebo with CR and PR.|||62.1|32.8|<0.001
95899929|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|31.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||57.3|11.3|
95899930|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.3|71.5||Comparision of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg to 10% historical response rate|t-test, 1 sided||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving lapatanib 1000 mg + pazopanib 400 mg with CR and PR.|||71.5|43.3|<0.001
95899931|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|29.7|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||29.7|-8.3|0.485
95899932|NCT00558103|191755337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|27.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percent difference in the percentage of participants with CR and PR.|||52.0|2.3|0.116
95899933|NCT01556204|191755347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||This p-value is from a single comparison between two arms for operative time.|t-test, 2 sided|||Variance estimates for this power analysis were taken from Nezhat C, et al, 2010. We determined that 37 subjects in each arm were needed to detect a difference of ≥ 32 minutes in operating time between conventional and robotic surgery for endometriosis with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05.||||0.71
95899934|NCT01556204|191755348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: Baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||Secondary analysis for pain at baseline for robotic vs conventional laparoscopy for endometriosis.||||0.53
95899935|NCT01556204|191755348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||This applies to Row title: 6-weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 weeks comparison between robotic and laparoscopy.||||0.53
95899936|NCT01556204|191755348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||This applies to Row title: 6-months|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scores at 6 months for robotic vs laparoscopy.||||0.48
95899937|NCT02318693|191755363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-8.8||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|6.2|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||6.2|-23.8|0.245
95899938|NCT02318693|191755364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-5.9||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-0.6|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.6|-11.3|0.029
95899939|NCT02318693|191755365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-12.8||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Breakfast. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-25.1|0.041
95899940|NCT02318693|191755365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-14.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-0.5|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Lunch. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||-0.5|-28.1|0.043
95899941|NCT02318693|191755365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|5.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|20.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||Comparison: Change from Baseline in Maximum Incremental Postprandial Glucose Levels at Dinner. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||20.4|-10.3|0.509
95899942|NCT02318693|191755366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|15.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.8|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|Model included terms for treatment, time and time-by-treatment interaction with a constraint that mean baseline is the same for both treatment groups.||The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||28.8|2.5|0.020
95899943|NCT02318693|191755367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.3|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 70 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.3|-2.5|0.134
95899944|NCT02318693|191755367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.6||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 60 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.4|-1.5|0.226
95899945|NCT02318693|191755367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.0||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||constrained longitudinal analysis model|||Comparison: Change in Baseline in Percentage of Hypoglycemic Values \< 50 mg/dL. The comparison was conducted at the α=0.05 (2-sided) significance level.||0.0|-0.1|0.332
95899946|NCT02915744|191755378|OTHER||ESMO-MCBS (v1.0)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95899947|NCT03591575|191755380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Patients who reached the serum ferritin threshold at any time point prior to Month 12 were withdrawn from the study as per protocol, so that they could begin on standard chelation therapy. For these individuals, imputed data were used to estimate the values that would likely have been seen at Month 12 had they remained in the study.||||0.0446
95899948|NCT03591575|191755381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||he p-value shown here is for the difference between the groups at Month 12.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0446
95899949|NCT00813358|191755382|NON_INFERIORITY|NI=7%|KM product-limit estimator|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|100.0||||||||100|97.4|
95899950|NCT04011475|191755407|OTHER|||||||0.0276|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0276
95899951|NCT04011475|191755407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.6665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.604|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group B using group B as reference.|||1.604|0.47|0.6665
95899952|NCT04011475|191755407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.377||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|5.221|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group A versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.221|1.083|0.0310
95899953|NCT04011475|191755407|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.716||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.901|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) was from Cox regression comparing group B versus group C using group C as reference.|||5.901|1.250|0.0116
95899954|NCT04011475|191755408|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.04|0.43|0.0756
95899955|NCT04011475|191755408|OTHER||Rate ratio|4.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|8.4|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||8.40|2.27|< 0.0001
95899956|NCT04011475|191755408|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.34||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.68|0.17|0.0022
95899957|NCT04011475|191755409|OTHER||Rate ratio|1.25||||0.7394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|4.65|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||4.65|0.34|0.7394
95899958|NCT04011475|191755410|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.11|0.38|0.1116
95899959|NCT04011475|191755410|OTHER||Rate ratio|3.78||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|7.88|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||7.88|1.81|0.0004
95899960|NCT04011475|191755410|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.41||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.89|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.89|0.19|0.0239
95899961|NCT04011475|191755411|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.71||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.61|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group A versus Group B using Group B as the reference group.|||1.61|0.32|0.4164
95977570|NCT00568321|191927442|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.76|2.39||P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.|Repeated Measures Model|||Week 16 (Pain severity): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.39|-4.76|0.293
95977571|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.03|0.62|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.62|-1.03|0.343
95977572|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.576|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-0.75|0.576
95977573|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.10|0.460
95977574|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.435|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.15|0.94|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.94|-1.15|0.435
95977575|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|0.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.22|-1.62|0.104
95977576|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.47|-1.42|0.204
95977577|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.931|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.58|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.58|-0.08|0.931
95977578|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.67|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.67|-0.04|0.941
95977579|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|2.01|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.01|-0.08|0.936
95977580|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.965|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.11|2.23|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.23|0.11|0.965
95977581|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.855|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.51|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.51|-0.33|0.855
95899962|NCT04011475|191755411|OTHER||Rate ratio|7.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|30.8|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group B versus Group C using Group C as the reference group.|||30.8|1.59|0.0100
95899963|NCT04011475|191755411|OTHER||Rate ratio|0.2||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.91|||Z-test||The rate ratio was from Poisson regression for Group C versus Group A using Group A as the reference group.|||0.91|0.04|0.0377
95899964|NCT04011475|191755412|OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2035
95899965|NCT04011475|191755413|OTHER|||||||0.1858|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.1858
95899966|NCT04011475|191755414|OTHER|||||||0.0144|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0144
95899967|NCT04011475|191755414|OTHER|||||||0.9219|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9219
95899968|NCT04011475|191755414|OTHER|||||||0.959|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.9590
95899969|NCT04011475|191755415|OTHER|||||||0.2909|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2909
95899970|NCT04011475|191755415|OTHER|||||||0.1618|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.1618
95899971|NCT04011475|191755415|OTHER|||||||0.4695|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.4695
95899972|NCT04011475|191755416|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||> 0.9999
95899973|NCT04011475|191755416|OTHER|||||||0.2516|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.2516
95899974|NCT04011475|191755416|OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Pair t-test|Pair t-test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.0036
95899975|NCT04011475|191755417|OTHER|||||||0.6189|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.6189
95899976|NCT04011475|191755417|OTHER|||||||0.7656|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.7656
95899977|NCT04011475|191755417|OTHER|||||||0.3594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon test was used for assessing the intra-group difference.||||||0.3594
95899978|NCT04011475|191755418|OTHER|||||||0.0483|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test was applied for assessing the inter-group difference.||||||0.0483
95899979|NCT00274716|191755441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-5.3|0.157
95899980|NCT00274716|191755441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-7.1|0.010
95899981|NCT00274716|191755441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-6.4|0.042
95899982|NCT00274716|191755441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-2.1|0.517
95899983|NCT00274716|191755441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||2.3|-3.9|0.602
95899984|NCT00274716|191755442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||-0.1|-9.7|0.046
95899985|NCT00274716|191755442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.9|-8.7|0.108
95899986|NCT00274716|191755442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||0.8|-9.0|0.099
95899987|NCT00274716|191755442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|4.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||4.1|-5.7|0.752
95899988|NCT00274716|191755442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|5.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline mean trough SiDBP as a continuous variable||||5.0|-4.7|0.941
95899989|NCT00274716|191755443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.7|-2.2|<0.001
95899990|NCT00274716|191755443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-0.4|-1.9|0.003
95899991|NCT00274716|191755443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
95899992|NCT00274716|191755443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.0|-0.5|0.462
95899993|NCT00274716|191755443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline weight as a continuous variable||||1.3|-0.2|0.118
95899994|NCT00274716|191755444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.1|-3.7|0.059
95899995|NCT00274716|191755444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-1.7|-5.5|<0.001
95899996|NCT00274716|191755444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||0.5|-3.3|0.136
95899997|NCT00274716|191755444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||1.4|-2.2|0.686
95899998|NCT00274716|191755444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline waist as a continuous variable||||-0.3|-4.0|0.022
95899999|NCT00274716|191755445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.7|-20.8|0.005
95900000|NCT00274716|191755445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.5|-16.7|0.066
95900001|NCT00274716|191755445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||4.4|-13.4|0.319
95977582|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.765|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.38|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.38|-0.54|0.765
95977583|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.84|0.85|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.85|-0.84|0.504
95977584|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.643|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.06|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.06|-0.67|0.643
95977585|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-1.09|0.486
95977586|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|1.24|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.24|-0.91|0.600
95900002|NCT00274716|191755445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||0.8|-16.4|0.077
95900003|NCT00274716|191755445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|5.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline LDL-C as a continuous variable||||5.1|-12.2|0.418
95900004|NCT00274716|191755446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.2|-11.3|0.015
95900005|NCT00274716|191755446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||1.1|-9.2|0.124
95900006|NCT00274716|191755446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||7.2|-3.1|0.429
95900007|NCT00274716|191755446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-3.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-3.4|-13.3|0.001
95900008|NCT00274716|191755446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline HDL-C as a continuous variable||||-1.1|-11.1|0.018
95900009|NCT00274716|191755447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|22.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||22.8|-12.9|0.587
95900010|NCT00274716|191755447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|12.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||12.8|-23.5|0.562
95900011|NCT00274716|191755447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|20.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.4|-15.8|0.802
95900012|NCT00274716|191755447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|20.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||20.5|-15.2|0.772
95900013|NCT00274716|191755447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|10.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment group and ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM; yes or no) as class variables and baseline TG as a continuous variable||||10.6|-25.9|0.409
95900014|NCT04193202|191755452|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference|0.75||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.44|||Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline LCQ total score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12|||1.44|0.06|0.034
95900015|NCT04193202|191755453|OTHER||Estimated Difference|-6.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|-1.97||Nominal p value, not controlled for multiplicity|Longitudinal ANCOVA|The model included terms for treatment group, visit, interaction of treatment by visit, gender, and baseline mean weekly cough severity VAS score.|The estimated difference is the treatment difference in model based mean change from baseline at Week 12.|||-1.97|-11.88|0.006
95900016|NCT01268644|191755459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P value comparing baseline to week 12|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.14
95900017|NCT01268644|191755460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P value comparing week 0 with week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95900018|NCT01268644|191755461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P value comparing week 0 to week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95900019|NCT01268644|191755462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.75
95900020|NCT01663259|191755482|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion event-free at 1 and 2 years calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals were calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
95900021|NCT01663259|191755483|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Survival proportion estimates at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
95900022|NCT01663259|191755484|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Estimates of proportion LRP event-free at 1 and 2 years were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and the 2-sided, 95% confidence intervals calculated by the Greenwood method. All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 software and R version 3.5.2.|||
95900023|NCT02595684|191755487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
95900024|NCT02595684|191755487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.635|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.635
95900025|NCT02595684|191755488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.380
95900026|NCT02595684|191755488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.441|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.441
95900027|NCT02595684|191755489|SUPERIORITY|||||||515|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0515
95900028|NCT02595684|191755489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
95900029|NCT02595684|191755490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
95900030|NCT02595684|191755490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
95900031|NCT02595684|191755491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
95900032|NCT02595684|191755491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.779
95900033|NCT02595684|191755492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
95900034|NCT02595684|191755492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.767
95900035|NCT02595684|191755493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
95900036|NCT02595684|191755493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
95900037|NCT02595684|191755494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
95900038|NCT02595684|191755494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
95900039|NCT02595684|191755495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
95900040|NCT02595684|191755495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.086
95900041|NCT02595684|191755496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.285
95900042|NCT02595684|191755496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.854
95900043|NCT02595684|191755497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
95900044|NCT02595684|191755497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
95900045|NCT02595684|191755498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
95900046|NCT02595684|191755498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
95900047|NCT02595684|191755499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.722
95900048|NCT02595684|191755499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
95900049|NCT02595684|191755500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
95900050|NCT02595684|191755500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.314
95900051|NCT02595684|191755501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.058
95900052|NCT02595684|191755501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.952
95900053|NCT02595684|191755502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.128
95900054|NCT02595684|191755502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
95900055|NCT02595684|191755503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.092
95900056|NCT02595684|191755503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.374
95900057|NCT03160703|191755504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.2681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.01|-0.05|0.2681
95977587|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|0.82|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.82|-1.05|0.418
95977588|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.99|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.95|0.515
95977589|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.456|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.93|0.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.81|-0.93|0.456
95977590|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.82|0.97|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.97|-0.82|0.556
95977591|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.19|0.448
95977592|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.95|0.600
95977593|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|0.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.52|-1.41|0.225
95977594|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.387|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|0.83|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-1.18|0.387
95977595|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.657|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.67|0.657
95977596|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|1.4|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.40|-0.43|0.808
95977597|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.742|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.57|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.57|-0.68|0.742
95977598|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|2.14|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.14|-0.16|0.923
95977599|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.01|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-1.01|0.490
95977600|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|1.2|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.20|-0.86|0.609
95977601|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.71|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.71|-1.10|0.362
95977602|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.61|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.77|0.610
95977603|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|0.93|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.93|-1.37|0.376
95900058|NCT03160703|191755504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.02|-0.08|0.0043
95900059|NCT03160703|191755504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.05|-0.12|<.0001
95900060|NCT03160703|191755504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.08||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||-0.08|-0.15|<.0001
95900061|NCT03160703|191755504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|0.0779
95900062|NCT03160703|191755504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.1||Statistical significance set at 5% level|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment and smoking status as factors and baseline pre-prophylaxis overall MLSI score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.10|0.03|0.0001
95977604|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|1.6|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.60|-0.73|0.733
95977605|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.33|0.69|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-1.33|0.303
95977606|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.97|1.12|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.12|-0.97|0.548
95900063|NCT01513291|191755505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.33153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.3|0.33153
95900064|NCT01513291|191755506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|21.6|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||21.6|-3.4|
95900065|NCT01513291|191755507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.9|||||Risk difference (MK-6096 - Placebo) was estimated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||8.9|-4.0|
95900066|NCT01513291|191755508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.24008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Constrained Longitudinal Analysis (cLDA)||Risk difference is for MK-6096 - Placebo. The cLDA model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period (≤8, \>8) as covariates|||0.4|-1.4|0.24008
95900067|NCT01513291|191755509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.43093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.0|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Screening (Baseline) Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||2.0|0.7|0.43093
95900068|NCT01513291|191755510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized linear mixed effects model||Odds ratio is for MK-6096 / Placebo. The generalized linear mixed effects model included terms for treatment, time, treatment-by-time interaction, monthly migraine days during the Treatment Period 1 (≤8, \>8) as covariates.|||1.5|0.7|0.97370
95900069|NCT01034397|191755549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Wrist region: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900070|NCT01034397|191755549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||||||2nd and 5th MCP joints: Tocilizumab versus placebo|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.026
95900071|NCT01034397|191755549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Total synovitis score: Tocilizumab versus placebo; Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900072|NCT01034397|191755550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||||||Percentage Change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.421
95900073|NCT01034397|191755551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||||||Absolute change in OMERACT RAMRIS global score; Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.434
95900074|NCT01034397|191755554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Wrist region; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900075|NCT01034397|191755554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||Change in 2nd to 5th MCP; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.065
95900076|NCT01034397|191755554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Change in Total synovitis; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900077|NCT01034397|191755556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Absolute Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900078|NCT01034397|191755557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage Change in Bone erosion; Tocilizumab versus placebo. Since one-sided t-test was used all effects in the opposite direction of what was predicted have a p-value=1.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900079|NCT01034397|191755560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Percentage Change in Bone oedema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.266
95900080|NCT01034397|191755561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||Absolute Change in Bone edema; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.337
95900081|NCT01034397|191755564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.114||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (global); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.114
95900082|NCT01034397|191755565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.239||||||Absolute Change in DCE-MRI EER; Tocilizumab versus placebo.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.239
95900083|NCT01034397|191755568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||Percentage change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.271
95900084|NCT01034397|191755569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||||||Absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (MCP); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.370
95977607|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-0.77|0.609
95900085|NCT01034397|191755572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Percentage and absolute change in DCE-MRI EER (wrist); Placebo versus Tocilizumab|t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900086|NCT01034397|191755577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95900087|NCT01034397|191755580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.067
95900088|NCT01034397|191755582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
95900089|NCT01034397|191755584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
95900090|NCT01034397|191755586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||<0.001
95900091|NCT01034397|191755586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||Change from Baseline to Week 12|Friedman's T test|||||||0.500
95900092|NCT01034397|191755587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
95900093|NCT01034397|191755590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
95900094|NCT01034397|191755592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.002
95900095|NCT01034397|191755594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.118
95900096|NCT01034397|191755596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900097|NCT01034397|191755598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.437
95900098|NCT01034397|191755599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||1.00
95900099|NCT01034397|191755602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.190
95900100|NCT01034397|191755604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.051
95900101|NCT04574362|191755606|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||13.0|5.4|<0.0001
95900102|NCT04574362|191755607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||20.0|9.6|<0.0001
95900103|NCT04574362|191755608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||23.3|13.0|<0.0001
95900104|NCT04574362|191755609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|22.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||22.3|11.4|<0.0001
95900105|NCT04574362|191755610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-8.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||-8.0|-15.0|<0.0001
95900106|NCT04574362|191755611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk differences and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.2|4.3|<0.0001
95900107|NCT04574362|191755612|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|7.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Within the family of key secondary endpoints, multiplicity was controlled using the Hochberg procedure.|Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||11.0|4.4|<0.0001
95900108|NCT04574362|191755613|SUPERIORITY||Risk difference|-0.7||||0.2057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||0.4|-1.9|0.2057
95900109|NCT04574362|191755613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.9702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||1.1|-1.1|0.9702
95900110|NCT04574362|191755613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||2.8|-0.7|0.2419
95900111|NCT04574362|191755613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|4.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||4.8|-0.1|0.0597
95900112|NCT04574362|191755613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.4||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||8.4|2.1|0.0012
95900113|NCT04574362|191755614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.6809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.5||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|15 minutes post-dose||2.5|-3.9|0.6809
95900114|NCT04574362|191755614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||0.2586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.0||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|30 minutes post-dose||6.0|-1.6|0.2586
95900115|NCT04574362|191755614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|45 minutes post-dose||8.8|0.2|0.0421
95900116|NCT04574362|191755614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.3||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|60 minutes post-dose||11.3|1.8|0.0066
95900117|NCT04574362|191755614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.9||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|90 minutes post-dose||14.9|4.8|0.0002
95900118|NCT04574362|191755615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.4||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|2.8||Nominal p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference and associated 95% CI were calculated from Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by use of prophylactic medication and country. The risk difference was tested at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05.|||2.8|-23.5|0.1148
95900119|NCT00047463|191755637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis was that the groups would be similar in tolerance. This was a pilot study so we did not do a power calculation.||||0.26
95900120|NCT03217136|191755640|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|41.1||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||41.1|-2.6|
95900121|NCT03217136|191755641|OTHER|The Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used.|Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.9||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.9|-12.9|
95900122|NCT03217136|191755642|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|4.93||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||4.93|-26.67|
95900123|NCT03217136|191755643|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.18|-2.89||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||-2.89|-30.18|
95900124|NCT03217136|191755644|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|9.61||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||9.61|-23.66|
95900125|NCT03217136|191755645|OTHER|The difference in percentage was based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by age group with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. If there was a zero count in any class of the stratum, the groups with the lower count were pooled with its near age group stratum in the model.|Difference in Percentage|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.59|1.39||||||Difference in Percentage (C/T+MTZ minus MERO)||1.39|-27.59|
95900126|NCT03402243|191755663|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a total menthol ban smoked relative to those randomized to a menthol cigarette ban|||1.75|1.1|
95900127|NCT03402243|191755663|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.11|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol cigarettes ban relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.11|0.68|
95900128|NCT03402243|191755663|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.45|||||Baseline adjusted model estimated mean ratio in cigarettes smoked per day of those randomized to a menthol ban for cigarettes and e-cigarettes relative to those randomized to no menthol ban|||1.45|0.99|
95900129|NCT03402243|191755663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Average number of puffs per participants over the 6 week study period||||0.349
95900130|NCT03402243|191755664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of cigarette packs selected||||0.185
95900131|NCT03402243|191755664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison among groups in number of e-cigarette liquid units selected||||0.076
95900132|NCT03402243|191755665|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95900133|NCT03969212|191755670|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.68|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|0.93|||GEE|||The odds ratio (OR) shown represents the odds of Baloxavir Marboxil (BMX) versus the odds of Placebo.||0.93|0.50|= 0.013
95900134|NCT03969212|191755671|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.75|||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.5|1.12|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.12|0.50|= 0.1550
95900135|NCT03969212|191755672|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo}]|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.55|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.55|
95900136|NCT03969212|191755673|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.46|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.46|
95900137|NCT03969212|191755674|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|0.91|||GEE model|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.91|0.48|
95900138|NCT03969212|191755675|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.09|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.09|0.48|
95900139|NCT03969212|191755676|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.53|0.94|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||0.94|0.53|
95900140|NCT03969212|191755677|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.59|1.06||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.06|0.59|
95900141|NCT03969212|191755678|OTHER||Adjusted OR (BMX vs Placebo)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.49|1.07|||Two-Sided P-value|||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.07|0.49|
95900142|NCT03969212|191755679|OTHER||Odds Ratio (BMX vs Placebo)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.38|0.48|1.04||||||The OR shown represents the odds of BMX versus the odds of Placebo.||1.04|0.48|
95977608|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.59|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|1.1|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (CS): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-0.83|0.590
95900143|NCT01109316|191755682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline HbA1c.|This was the primary gated analysis.||0.76|0.20|
95900144|NCT01109316|191755683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.52|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.52|-0.07|
95900145|NCT01109316|191755683|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mmol/L was used.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.56|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age Stratum + Baseline HbA1c; where participant is treated as a random effect.|||0.56|-0.05|
95900146|NCT01109316|191755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.51|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.51|-0.29|
95900147|NCT01109316|191755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.73|-0.41|
95900148|NCT01109316|191755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.24|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.24|-0.18|
95900149|NCT01109316|191755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.27|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.27|-0.56|
95900150|NCT01109316|191755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.6|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.60|-0.48|
95977609|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.27|-1.07|0.556
95977610|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.443|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|1.11|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (GA): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-1.32|0.443
95977611|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.99|1.07|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.07|-0.99|0.527
95900151|NCT01109316|191755684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.65|||||Least Squares Mean Difference of Daily Bolus Insulin = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Sequence + Period + Baseline Insulin Basal/Bolus/Total Dose + Age Stratum.|||0.65|-0.85|
95900152|NCT01109316|191755685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.14|-0.02|
95900153|NCT01109316|191755685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.18|||||Least Squares Mean Difference = Insulin Lispro 6 Day minus Insulin Aspart 6 Day; adjusted for Treatment + Period + Sequence + Baseline HbA1c.|||0.18|0.01|
95900154|NCT01109316|191755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.75|0.50|
95900155|NCT01109316|191755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.67|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c ≤6.5% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.67|0.29|
95900156|NCT01109316|191755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.41|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Aspart 6 Day.|||1.41|0.56|
95900157|NCT01109316|191755686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.64|||||Odds Ratio of HbA1c \<7% for Insulin Lispro 6 Day versus Insulin Lispro 2 Day.|||1.64|0.66|
95900158|NCT01109316|191755687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
95900159|NCT01109316|191755688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.164
95900160|NCT01109316|191755688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value computed using a negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period, and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.185
95900161|NCT01109316|191755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.736
95900162|NCT01109316|191755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.006
95900163|NCT01109316|191755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||1.00
95900164|NCT01109316|191755689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value computed using Treatment comparison Gart's Test. Participants represented in both treatment groups and with non-missing incidence value in each treatment period are used for p-value calculation.|Gart's Test|||||||0.017
95900165|NCT01109316|191755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.471
95900166|NCT01109316|191755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Reservoir Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
95900167|NCT01109316|191755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.737||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.737
95900168|NCT01109316|191755690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Premature Infusion Set Change. P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||<0.001
95900169|NCT01109316|191755692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.006
95900170|NCT01109316|191755692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is computed using negative binomial test including factors for treatment, period and sequence.|Negative Binomial Test|||||||0.002
95900171|NCT01109316|191755693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.060
95900172|NCT01109316|191755693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0||||P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Body Weight.|Crossover Model|||||||0.486
95900173|NCT01109316|191755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.056
95900174|NCT01109316|191755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805||95.0||||P-value is for Systolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.805
95900175|NCT01109316|191755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.020
95900176|NCT01109316|191755694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value is for Diastolic Blood Pressure. P-value computed using crossover model. Response = Treatment + Sequence + Period + Age stratum + Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure.|Crossover Model|||||||0.051
95900177|NCT04646616|191755799|NON_INFERIORITY|This is a single-group, of outcome measured at baseline and at 3 months. We hypothesized there would be an improvement or sustainability of the protective behaviours.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||This is a single-group study. Selected outcomes were measured at baseline (first interaction with the community popular opinion leader (POL) and 3 months after.||0.39|-0.12|0.28
95900178|NCT04646616|191755800|OTHER|Test of proportions|difference in proportion|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.07|||Test of proportions|||Two sample test of proportions, testing whether the proportion of participants who lack health access at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.07|-0.08|0.85
95900179|NCT04646616|191755801|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who had a SAVAME factor at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.19|-0.04|0.19
95900180|NCT04646616|191755802|OTHER|Test of proportions.|difference in proportion|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.18|||Test of proportions|||Test of proportions. Testing whether the proportion of participants who lack access to SAVAME related services at baseline and 3 months is equal (null hypothesis)||0.18|-0.04|0.23
95900181|NCT03049813|191755806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms - anergia||||||0.027
95900182|NCT03049813|191755806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0765||||||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|||||||0.0765
95900183|NCT03049813|191755807|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||One-sided p value|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms anergia||||||0.062
95900184|NCT03049813|191755808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Adjusting for baseline year of study participation, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, negative symptoms - anergia|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
95900185|NCT03049813|191755809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One-sided p value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.013
95900186|NCT03049813|191755810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia). One sided p-value.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
95977612|NCT00568321|191927449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|1.22|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (NW): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.22|-0.95|0.583
95977613|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|0.27|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.27|-1.81|0.111
95977614|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.523|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 1: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.02|0.523
95977615|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|1.81|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.81|-0.28|0.887
95977616|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.903|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.23|1.92|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.92|-0.23|0.903
95900187|NCT03049813|191755811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692||||||Mixed-effects linear regression models. Covariates include: baseline year, problematic substance use, social cognition, community functioning, and negative symptoms (anergia).|Regression, Linear|||For this analysis, only participants who completed both pre-test and posttest were included. If someone completed a pre-test SSPA, but not a posttest SSPA, they were not included in the analysis.||||0.692
95900188|NCT02144675|191755816|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<.05
95900189|NCT01813019|191755817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
95900190|NCT01559311|191755819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1734|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H01: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2a vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2a~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2a is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in CRT-P ON Gp,"||||0.1734
95900191|NCT01559311|191755819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H03: μ LVEF, 1= μ LVEF, 2b vs H1a: μ LVEF, 1 \< μ LVEF, 2b~* Where μ LVEF, 1 is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in DDDR Gp.~* μ LVEF, 2b is the mean of LVEF at month 12 in the CRT-P OFF Gp"||||0.1439
95900192|NCT01559311|191755820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6276|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H02: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2a vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2a~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* μLVESV, 2a is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the CRT-P ON group"||||0.6276
95900193|NCT01559311|191755820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"* H04: μ LVESV, 1 = μ LVESV, 2b vs H1b: μ LVESV, 1 \> μ LVESV, 2b~* Where, μLVESV, 1 is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in the DDDR Group,~* and μLVESV, 2b is the mean of LVESV at month 12 in CRT-P OFF group."||||0.5871
95900194|NCT04590495|191755853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9460
95900195|NCT04590495|191755854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5699|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.5699
95900196|NCT04590495|191755855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6068
95900197|NCT04590495|191755856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903|||||||Mann Whitney U Test|||||||0.9030
95900198|NCT04590495|191755857|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2668
95900199|NCT04590495|191755858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8749||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score|paired t test|||||||0.8749
95900200|NCT04590495|191755859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922||||||adjusted for baseline VAMS score for physical sedation|paired t test|||||||0.7922
95900201|NCT04590495|191755860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9925||||||adjusted for baseline SSS score|paired t test|||||||0.9925
95977617|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.02|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.02|-1.11|0.472
95977618|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.628|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.3|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 4: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.30|-0.87|0.628
95900202|NCT04590495|191755861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2628||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.2628
95900203|NCT04590495|191755862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0347||||||adjusted for baseline scores|paired t test|||||||0.0347
95900204|NCT04590495|191755863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.6331
95900205|NCT04590495|191755864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.472||||||adjusted for baseline score|paired t test|||||||0.4720
95900206|NCT04590495|191755865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0200
95900207|NCT04590495|191755866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||adjusted for baseline reaction time|paired t test|||||||0.0620
95900208|NCT00853658|191755867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.03|0.85|0.1724
95900209|NCT00853658|191755867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority) Non-Diabetic patients||1.07|0.85|0.4579
95900210|NCT00853658|191755867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Pre-specified Non-inferiority margin 1.104 is used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.90|0.0368
95977619|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|0.64|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-1.58|0.243
95900211|NCT00853658|191755867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||(superiority)||1.10|0.90|0.9118
95900212|NCT02908529|191755870|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95900213|NCT04497987|191755872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.26|<0.001
95900214|NCT04497987|191755873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.67|0.27|<0.001
95977620|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|0.87|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.87|-1.42|0.346
95977621|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.467|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.19|1.08|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.08|-1.19|0.467
95900215|NCT04497987|191755874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.94|0.46|0.021
95900216|NCT01966926|191755893|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|chi square|2.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was unadjusted, with an a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \<.05.|Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||||||.15
95900217|NCT01966926|191755894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.96||||0.61||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold of \<0.05 for statistical significance|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.61
95900218|NCT01966926|191755895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.95||||0.5||||||P-value is unadjusted; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.50
95900219|NCT01966926|191755896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.87||||0.15||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,27||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.15
95900220|NCT01966926|191755897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.91||||0.3||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 2,26||Repeated measures analysis from baseline to six months.||||0.30
95900221|NCT01966926|191755898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power not calculated due to small sample size and pilot study intent.|Wilks' Lambda|0.93||||0.17||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|MANOVA|Degrees of freedom: 1,28||Repeated measures analysis from three to six months.||||0.17
95900222|NCT03890367|191755950|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.2|5.68|
95977622|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.85|1.47|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 8: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.47|-0.85|0.670
95977623|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.55|0.76|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.76|-1.55|0.286
95900223|NCT03890367|191755951|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
95900224|NCT03890367|191755952|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|12.7|21.0||||||||21.0|12.7|
95900225|NCT03890367|191755953|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>0%.|Difference in Percentage|10.43|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.68|16.2||||||||16.20|5.68|
95900226|NCT03890367|191755954|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.3|2.28||||||||2.28|-2.30|
95900227|NCT03890367|191755955|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
95900228|NCT03890367|191755956|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.06|1.64||||||||1.64|1.06|
95900229|NCT03890367|191755957|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.83|9.85||||||||9.85|1.83|
95900230|NCT03890367|191755958|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
95900231|NCT03890367|191755959|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.04|9.18||||||||9.18|5.04|
95900232|NCT03890367|191755960|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI was calculated based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 97.5% CI of the percentage difference between compared groups was \>-10%.|Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.71|2.67||||||||2.67|-2.71|
95900233|NCT03890367|191755961|NON_INFERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1/1.5.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
95900234|NCT03890367|191755962|SUPERIORITY|The two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of post-vaccination GMTs was calculated using normal approximation of log-transformed titers. The superiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI of the ratio of GMTs between compared groups was \>1.|GMT Ratio|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.82|2.84||||||||2.84|1.82|
95900235|NCT00320281|191755963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.432||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.432
95900236|NCT01856140|191755965|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.52
95900237|NCT01856140|191755965|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.47
95900238|NCT01856140|191755965|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.52
95900239|NCT01856140|191755966|OTHER|||||||0.227|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.227
95900240|NCT01856140|191755966|OTHER|||||||0.573|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.573
95900241|NCT01856140|191755966|OTHER|||||||0.588|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.588
95900242|NCT01856140|191755967|OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.262
95900243|NCT01856140|191755967|OTHER|||||||0.631|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks.||||0.631
95900244|NCT01856140|191755967|OTHER|||||||0.796|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.796
95900245|NCT01856140|191755968|OTHER|||||||0.337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at baseline||||0.337
95900246|NCT01856140|191755968|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 6 weeks||||0.078
95900247|NCT01856140|191755968|OTHER|||||||0.439|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups at post-injection 12 weeks.||||0.439
95900248|NCT02139644|191755977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.154||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.267|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.267|0.041|0.0076
95900249|NCT02139644|191755977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.131||||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.25|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.250|0.011|0.0322
95900250|NCT02139644|191755977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.335||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.216|0.453|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.453|0.216|0.0000
95900251|NCT02139644|191755977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.325||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.447|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.447|0.203|0.0000
95900252|NCT02139644|191755978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.262||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.168|0.356|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.356|0.168|0.0000
95900253|NCT02139644|191755978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.266||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.36|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.172|0.0000
95900254|NCT02139644|191755978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.151||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.244|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.244|0.057|0.0017
95900255|NCT02139644|191755978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.119||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.212|||ANCOVA|Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.212|0.025|0.0132
95900256|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.926||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|19.471||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.471|2.380|0.0123
95900257|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|7.018||||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.531|15.567||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||15.567|-1.531|0.1074
95900258|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|20.824||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.253|29.395||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.395|12.253|0.0000
95900259|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|21.273||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.728|29.818||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||29.818|12.728|0.0000
95900260|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|9.898||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.349|18.447||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.447|1.349|0.0233
95900261|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|14.255||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.732|22.778||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||22.778|5.732|0.0011
95900262|NCT02139644|191755979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|10.347||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.822|18.872||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||18.872|1.822|0.0175
95977624|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.598|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.35|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.35|-1.00|0.598
95977625|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.453|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-1.26|0.453
95900263|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.165||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.08||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.080|-0.251|0.0002
95900264|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.143||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.229|0.0010
95900265|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.23||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|-0.144||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.144|-0.315|0.0000
95900266|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.194||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|-0.109||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.109|-0.279|0.0000
95900267|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.064||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.021||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.021|-0.150|0.1381
95900268|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.051||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.035||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.035|-0.136|0.2438
95900269|NCT02139644|191755980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.029||||0.5095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.057||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.057|-0.114|0.5095
95900270|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.463||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|-0.209||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.209|-0.716|0.0004
95900271|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.464||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.718|-0.211||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.211|-0.718|0.0003
95900272|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.675||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.928|-0.421||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.421|-0.928|0.0000
95900273|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.704||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.45||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.450|-0.957|0.0000
95900274|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.212||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.042||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.042|-0.465|0.1014
95900275|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.239||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.492|0.014||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.014|-0.492|0.0640
95977626|NCT00568321|191927452|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.28|1.17|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16: LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.17|-1.28|0.472
95977627|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.548|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|1.56|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.56|-1.81|0.548
95977628|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|2.96|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.96|-0.48|0.117
95977629|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.779|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.69|0.98|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.98|-2.69|0.779
95977630|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.52|2.25|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.25|-1.52|0.375
95977631|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.881|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|0.54|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.54|-3.26|0.881
95977632|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|1.52|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.52|-2.33|0.636
95900276|NCT02139644|191755981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.241||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|0.013||Significance level of 0.05|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.013|-0.494|0.0626
95900277|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1679||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1679
95900278|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1701||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1701
95900279|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0437||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.0437
95900280|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1718||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.1718
95900281|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3134||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.3134
95900282|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.993||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9930
95977633|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.905|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|0.39|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||0.39|-3.46|0.905
95900283|NCT02139644|191755982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||||||0.9999
95900284|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.301||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.508||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.508|0.094|0.0044
95900285|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.458||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.458|0.048|0.0155
95900286|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.676||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.676|0.270|0.0000
95900287|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.23||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.437||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.437|0.023|0.0293
95900288|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.172||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.372||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.372|-0.028|0.0913
95900289|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.023||||0.8216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.223|0.177||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.177|-0.223|0.8216
95900290|NCT02139644|191755983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.071||||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|0.133||Significance level of 0.05|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.133|-0.275|0.4934
95900291|NCT00600821|191755986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.093||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.761||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.761|0.679|0.639
95977634|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|2.0|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Learning): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||2.00|-2.00|0.499
95977635|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.56|0.297
95977636|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.035|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.74|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 2 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.74|0.09|0.035
95977637|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.222|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|1.31|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.31|-0.48|0.222
95977638|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.069|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.7|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 6 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.70|-0.09|0.069
95977639|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.68|1.15|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.15|-0.68|0.338
95977640|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.381|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|1.09|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 12 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.09|-0.75|0.381
95977641|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|1.21|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.21|-0.64|0.306
95977642|NCT00568321|191927466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.44|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.04|||Repeated Measures Model|P-value was based on repeated measures model from pairwise comparisons, and was 1-sided.||Week 16 (Delayed): LS Mean Difference was estimated from the repeated measures model with participant as random effect; treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||1.04|-0.87|0.440
95977643|NCT03215758|191927474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0238||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.088|||ANCOVA|||||0.088|-0.006|0.088
95977644|NCT03215758|191927475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.16|0.278
95977645|NCT03215758|191927476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.30|0.429
95977646|NCT03215758|191927477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.069||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.15|-0.12|0.777
95977647|NCT01676909|191927478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.362
95977648|NCT01676909|191927479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.026
95977649|NCT01676909|191927480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To test hypothesis 1, regarding the three SF-12 subscales, a linear mixed effects models was used. All available data were used from all three assessment time points. Group, time, and group-by-time terms were included in the model. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to post-intervention, the significance test of the group-by-post-intervention coefficient was performed. A logistic mixed model for change in proportion with an ED visit was used to test hypothesis 2.||||0.032
95977650|NCT01676909|191927481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A logistic mixed effects model over two 6-month time periods (prior to baseline and between baseline and the 6-month follow-up visit) was used. Terms in the model included group, binary time (pre-f/u versus pre-baseline), and group by time interaction. Two-sided alpha = .05 level tests were used. The hypothesis that the proportion with ER visits would decrease in the Living Well group versus the control group was tests by test of the interaction term.||||.64
95977651|NCT01676909|191927482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||<.0001
95977652|NCT01676909|191927483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
95977653|NCT01676909|191927484|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.544
95977654|NCT01676909|191927485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.699
95977655|NCT01676909|191927486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.006
95977656|NCT01676909|191927487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.762
95977657|NCT01676909|191927488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.326
95977658|NCT01676909|191927489|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.667|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.667
95977659|NCT01676909|191927490|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.142
95977660|NCT01676909|191927491|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.342
95977661|NCT01676909|191927492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.563|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.563
95977662|NCT01676909|191927493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.004
95977663|NCT01676909|191927494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.727
95977664|NCT01676909|191927495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.446
95977665|NCT01676909|191927496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.459
95977666|NCT01676909|191927497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.038
95900292|NCT00600821|191755987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|1.689||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.20 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by 1-sided log rank test, stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy.||1.689|0.739|0.699
95977667|NCT01676909|191927498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.238
95977668|NCT01676909|191927499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.011
95977669|NCT01676909|191927500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.709
95977670|NCT01676909|191927501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.134
95977671|NCT01676909|191927502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.045
95977672|NCT01676909|191927503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.099
95977673|NCT01676909|191927504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.852
95977674|NCT01676909|191927505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.285
95977675|NCT01676909|191927506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The same mixed model used for testing hypothesis 1 was used to test treatment effects on secondary scale outcomes (Hypothesis 3: health-related self-efficacy, patient activation; Hypothesis 4: six subscales of the Measure of Self-Management Behaviors) and several other pre-specified outcomes. To test for a group difference in mean change from baseline to follow-up (hypothesis 5) on all primary and secondary outcomes, the significance test of the group-by-follow-up coefficient was performed.||||0.222
95977676|NCT00823901|191927541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95977677|NCT01376349|191927542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95977678|NCT01376349|191927542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95977679|NCT03952806|191927551|SUPERIORITY||Least Square mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.30|-0.60|0.4656
95977680|NCT04652726|191927576|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-28.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.81|-21.27|||ANCOVA|||||-21.27|-35.81|<.0001
95977681|NCT04652726|191927577|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.24|-22.36|||MMRM|||||-22.36|-36.24|<.0001
95977682|NCT04652726|191927578|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-49.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.18|-36.81|||ANCOVA|||||-36.81|-63.18|<.0001
95977683|NCT04652726|191927579|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-19.73|||ANCOVA|||||-19.73|-31.68|<.0001
95977684|NCT04652726|191927580|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.18||||0.1419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.48|5.12|||ANCOVA|||||5.12|-17.48|0.1419
95977685|NCT04652726|191927581|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-19.97|||ANCOVA|||||-19.97|-33.63|<.0001
95900293|NCT00600821|191755988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.676||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|1.107|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by gender and prior adjuvant therapy. Risk ratio in comparison to the Bevacizumab group was calculated assuming all other factors as constant.||1.107|0.412|0.9422
95900294|NCT02066298|191756024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||exact binomial test|a priori threshold for significance was 0.025||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.14
95900295|NCT02066298|191756024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||a priori threshold for significance was 0.025|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. The trial was designed to provide power of 0.85 for a 0.20 difference between the proportions being compared at a significance level of 0.025.||||0.029
95900296|NCT02066298|191756024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either mometasone is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which mometasone is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to mometasone. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.001
95900297|NCT02066298|191756024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||this analysis is considered exploratory|exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was that, among those participants for which either tiotropium is not equal to placebo, the proportion for which tiotropium is superior to placebo is equal to the proportion for which placebo is superior to tiotropium. This was an exploratory analysis and there were no power considerations.||||0.45
95900298|NCT02033889|191756055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.71|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.71|-1.05|<0.001
95900299|NCT02033889|191756055|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.53|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another anti-hyperglycemic agent, AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.53|-0.87|<0.001
95900300|NCT02033889|191756057|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|5.4|-2.1|
95900301|NCT02033889|191756057|OTHER||Difference in % vs Placebo/Glimepiride|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|4.7|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct the 95% CI|4.7|-2.5|
95900302|NCT02033889|191756058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-38.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|-31.99|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-31.99|-44.50|<0.001
95900303|NCT02033889|191756058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-20.48|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-20.48|-32.90|<0.001
95900304|NCT02033889|191756059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.03|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.03|-2.16|<0.001
95977686|NCT04652726|191927582|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-19.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.65|-13.75|||ANCOVA|||||-13.75|-24.65|<.0001
95977687|NCT00744523|191927649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of the primary endpoint|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||5.2|||t-test, 1 sided||"Parameter Dispersion Type of Standard Error of the mean is meant to state that 'mean is the mean of proportions in the sense of a central-limit theorem"|The ARMOUR trial tested the null hypothesis that the MACCE rate was greater than or equal to the Performance Goal (PG) of 13% versus the alternative hypothesis that the true MACCE rate was less than the PG. The sample size was calculated based on 90% power and a Type I error rate of 0.05 (one-sided). The Performance Goal was calculated from results of carotid artery stenting trials that utilized embolic protection devices (EPD).||5.2||<0.05
95900305|NCT02033889|191756059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.11|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.11|-2.24|<0.001
95900306|NCT02033889|191756060|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|7.62|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|7.62|2.64|<0.001
95977688|NCT00784693|191927677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|1.69||||||Week 8: Analysis was based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) model with main effects of treatment, contraceptive use and baseline severity of pain.||1.69|-0.87|
95977689|NCT02349451|191927697|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|39.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|57.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||57.7|17.2|<0.001
95900307|NCT02033889|191756060|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.06|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|5.06|1.81|<0.001
95900308|NCT02033889|191756061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|-2.19|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-2.19|-6.81|<0.001
95900309|NCT02033889|191756061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-1.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.39|-5.96|0.002
95900310|NCT02033889|191756062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.42||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-0.98|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.98|-3.86|0.001
95900311|NCT02033889|191756062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.82||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|-0.39|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis||||Based on the cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.39|-3.24|0.013
95900312|NCT02033889|191756063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|13.9|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|13.90|2.10|<0.001
95900313|NCT02033889|191756063|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.1||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|8.22|||Regression, Logistic||||Adjusted odds ratio based on a logistic regression model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication (metformin monotherapy or metformin + another AHA), menopausal status, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous). Missing data imputed using a multiple imputation procedure based on cLDA prediction modeling with fixed effects as in the primary analysis, which allows for participants with missing data to be included in the analysis.|8.22|1.17|0.023
95977690|NCT02349451|191927697|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|50.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|67.4||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group. The a priori statistical significance threshold is P = 0.025.|Fisher Exact|||||67.4|28.1|<0.001
95977691|NCT02349451|191927698|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-3.3||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|12.1||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||12.1|-18.5|0.723
95977692|NCT02349451|191927698|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.215
95977693|NCT02349451|191927699|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|24.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|39.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.3|3.9|0.021
95977694|NCT02349451|191927699|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|-0.9||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|14.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||14.8|-16.5|0.611
95977695|NCT02349451|191927699|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|40.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|55.8||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||55.8|20.1|<0.001
95977696|NCT02349451|191927699|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|15.9||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|31.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||31.3|-0.3|0.039
95977697|NCT02349451|191927700|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|18.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|29.7||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.7|1.5|0.034
95977698|NCT02349451|191927700|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|7.3||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||19.9|-5.8|0.185
95977699|NCT02349451|191927700|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|27.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.0||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||39.0|9.6|0.004
95977700|NCT02349451|191927700|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|16.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|29.3||P-value is calculated by one-sided Fisher's exact test to test whether ABT-122 treatment group is superior to adalimumab group.|Fisher Exact|||||29.3|2.3|0.017
95900314|NCT02033889|191756064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-16.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-11.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-11.2|-22.2|<0.001
95900315|NCT02033889|191756064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-14.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|-9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method.|Miettinen \& Nurminen method was used to construct both the 95% CI and derive p-value for the difference between the proportions (i.e. percentages).||||-9.4|-20.9|<0.001
95900316|NCT02033889|191756083|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-0.71|
95900317|NCT02033889|191756083|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.83|0.37|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.37|-0.83|
95900318|NCT02033889|191756084|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.39|0.00|
95900319|NCT02033889|191756084|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.99|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.99|-0.38|
95900320|NCT02033889|191756085|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.68|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.68|-0.15|
95900321|NCT02033889|191756085|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.48|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.48|-0.33|
95900322|NCT02033889|191756086|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.39|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.39|-0.76|
95977701|NCT02349451|191927701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
95977702|NCT02349451|191927701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.561
95977703|NCT02349451|191927701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with placebo group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||<0.001
95977704|NCT02349451|191927701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||Kolmogorov-Smirnov test based on the empirical distribution function is applied to get the p-value of comparing the ABT-122 treatment group with adalimumab group.|Kolmogorov-Smirnov test|||||||0.106
95977705|NCT02349451|191927702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.57||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-1.58|<0.001
95977706|NCT02349451|191927702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.13||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.23||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.23|-0.48|0.479
95977707|NCT02349451|191927702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.89||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-1.90|<0.001
95977708|NCT02349451|191927702|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.10|-0.81|0.012
95977709|NCT02349451|191927703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-0.53||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.81|<0.001
95977710|NCT02349451|191927703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.36||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.36|-0.54|0.696
95977711|NCT02349451|191927703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.77||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.77|-2.04|<0.001
95977712|NCT02349451|191927703|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-0.77|0.151
95977713|NCT02349451|191927704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-2.19||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-2.19|-4.14|<0.001
95977714|NCT02349451|191927704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.81||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.12||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-1.51|0.021
95977715|NCT02349451|191927704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-1.75||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.75|-3.70|<0.001
95977716|NCT02349451|191927704|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.32||Two-sided p-value is calculated from ANCOVA model with treatment group as the fixed factor and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.06|0.288
95900323|NCT02033889|191756086|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.35|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.35|-0.78|
95900324|NCT02033889|191756090|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.88|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.88|-0.53|
95900325|NCT02033889|191756090|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-0.88|0.51|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.51|-0.88|
95900326|NCT02033889|191756091|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.98|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.98|-0.48|
95900327|NCT02033889|191756091|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.91|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.91|-0.51|
95900328|NCT02033889|191756092|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.04|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.04|-0.95|
95900329|NCT02033889|191756092|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.23|-0.66|
95977717|NCT02604199|191927716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.011||Mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit.|MMRM|Within-subject covariance is unstructured.||||0.011|-0.183|0.0810
95977718|NCT02604199|191927716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.309|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|-0.212||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.212|-0.406|<.0001
95977719|NCT02604199|191927716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|-0.124||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||||-0.124|-0.322|<.0001
95977720|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.003||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.003|-0.181|0.0583
95977721|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|-0.085||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||-0.085|-0.267|0.003
95900330|NCT02033889|191756093|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.72|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.72|-0.61|
95900331|NCT02033889|191756093|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.78|
95900332|NCT02033889|191756097|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.56|-1.01|
95977722|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.181|0.006||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 15||0.006|-0.181|0.0670
95977723|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.011||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||0.011|-0.151|0.0875
95977724|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.100|-0.259|<.0001
95900333|NCT02033889|191756097|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|97.0|-1.06|0.5|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.50|-1.06|
95900334|NCT02033889|191756098|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.13|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|1.13|-0.58|
95900335|NCT02033889|191756098|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.93|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.93|-0.70|
95900336|NCT02033889|191756099|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.24|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.24|-1.44|
95900337|NCT02033889|191756099|OTHER||Difference in the least Squares Means|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.05|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior antihyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.05|-1.12|
95900338|NCT02033889|191756100|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.65|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.65|-0.77|
95900339|NCT02033889|191756100|OTHER||Difference in the Least Squares Means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.85|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti hyperglycemic medication (Metformin monotherapy or Metformin + another AHA), baseline eGFR (continuous), menopausal status, and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.85|-0.50|
95900340|NCT03223298|191756121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean change (from pre-op) in Jaw Pain compared between the Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.80
95900341|NCT03223298|191756122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-month mean Jaw Function Limitation Scale score compared between Botox group and placebo group.||||0.50
95900342|NCT03223298|191756123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO with Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.30
95900343|NCT03223298|191756123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in MIO without Pain at 3-months post-intervention compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.50
95900344|NCT03223298|191756124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change at 3 months post intervention - General Health Score, compared between Botox group and Placebo group.||||0.40
95900345|NCT02348489|191756133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate (%)|1.92||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|96.0|-3.67|7.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The complete response rate was compared between the treatment groups using a Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test at an alpha level of 0.04 stratified to adjust for stratification factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||7.5|-3.67|0.482
95900346|NCT02348489|191756134|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14|||Stratified log-rank|||Overall survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the treatment groups using a 2-sided stratification log-rank test, stratified by the same factors used at randomization: age (\<75 or \>=75), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1, 2-3), study center region (North American, Europe, Rest of World), and secondary AML (secondary to MDS or other antecedent hematologic disorder) or poor-risk cytogenetics (Yes, No/Unknown).||1.14|0.83|0.7328
95900347|NCT02214147|191756148|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.8|||||Least Squares Geometric Means Ratio= Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||1.80|1.12|
95900348|NCT02214147|191756149|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|3.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.33|4.43|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||4.43|2.33|
95900349|NCT02214147|191756150|OTHER|The effect of hepatic impairment on alisertib PK. Combined analysis of moderate and severe hepatic impairment in reference to normal hepatic function.|Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|3.53|||||Least Squares Geometric Mean Ratio=Moderate + Severe Hepatic Impairment/Normal Hepatic Function|||3.53|1.84|
95900350|NCT01591746|191756186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95977725|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.027||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 29||-0.027|-0.191|0.0099
95977726|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|-0.057||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.057|-0.229|0.0017
95900351|NCT01591746|191756187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95900352|NCT01591746|191756188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Right breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.45
95900353|NCT01591746|191756188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Left breast initial percent volume expansion||||0.98
95900354|NCT01591746|191756189|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95900355|NCT01591746|191756190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95900356|NCT01591746|191756191|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95900357|NCT05421078|191756192|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
95900358|NCT05421078|191756192|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
95900359|NCT05421078|191756192|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
95900360|NCT05421078|191756193|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||p value is calculated||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
95900361|NCT05421078|191756193|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
95900362|NCT05421078|191756193|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
95900363|NCT05421078|191756194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-25.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.387|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.53|-15.14||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.14|-36.53|<.0001
95900364|NCT05421078|191756194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-33.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.378|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.01|-22.66||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-22.66|-44.01|<.0001
95900365|NCT05421078|191756194|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.323|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-25.55||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-25.55|-46.68|<.0001
95900366|NCT05421078|191756195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
95900367|NCT05421078|191756195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
95900368|NCT05421078|191756195|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
95900369|NCT05421078|191756196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
95900370|NCT05421078|191756196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
95900371|NCT05421078|191756196|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
95900372|NCT05421078|191756197|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.626|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.37|-16.04||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-16.04|-38.37|<.0001
95900373|NCT05421078|191756197|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-31.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.609|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.36|-20.1||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-20.10|-42.36|<.0001
95900374|NCT05421078|191756197|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-25.8||p value is calculated|ANCOVA|||||-25.80|-47.83|<.0001
95900375|NCT05421078|191756198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
95900376|NCT05421078|191756198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
95900377|NCT05421078|191756198|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
95900378|NCT05421078|191756199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
95900379|NCT05421078|191756199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
95900380|NCT05421078|191756199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
95900381|NCT05421078|191756200|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.83|-12.18||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-12.18|-25.83|<.0001
95900382|NCT05421078|191756200|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|-15.62||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-15.62|-29.28|<.0001
95900383|NCT05421078|191756200|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-24.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.406|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.62|-18.1||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.10|-31.62|<.0001
95900384|NCT05421078|191756201|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
95900385|NCT05421078|191756201|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
95900386|NCT05421078|191756201|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
95900387|NCT05421078|191756202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
95900388|NCT05421078|191756202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
95900389|NCT05421078|191756202|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
95900390|NCT05421078|191756203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-14.31||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.31|-33.56|<.0001
95900391|NCT05421078|191756203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.849|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.01|-18.76||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-18.76|-38.01|<.0001
95900392|NCT05421078|191756203|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.08|-19.03||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-19.03|-38.08|<.0001
95900393|NCT05421078|191756204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
95900394|NCT05421078|191756204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
95900395|NCT05421078|191756204|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
95900396|NCT05421078|191756205|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
95900397|NCT05421078|191756205|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
95900398|NCT05421078|191756205|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
95900399|NCT05421078|191756206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|133.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.205|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|112.85|153.36||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||153.36|112.85|<.0001
95900400|NCT05421078|191756206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|147.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|127.17|167.64||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||167.64|127.17|<.0001
95900401|NCT05421078|191756206|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|155.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|135.93|176.02||p value is calculated|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||176.02|135.93|<.0001
95900402|NCT05944250|191756227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95900403|NCT05944250|191756231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
95900404|NCT05944250|191756231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
95900405|NCT05944250|191756231|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||1
95900406|NCT05944250|191756231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>50% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.15
95900407|NCT05944250|191756232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 1||||1
95900408|NCT05944250|191756232|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 2||||1
95900409|NCT05944250|191756232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 3||||0.59
95900410|NCT05944250|191756232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Wounds that reach \>70% healing from baseline per investigator assessment at Month 4||||0.09
95900411|NCT03235024|191756239|EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 52 per group would achieve \>80% power to reject the null hypothesis of equal means when the population mean difference is μ1 - μ2 = (-1.4) - (-5.3) = 3.9 with a standard deviation for both groups of 7.0 and with a significance level (alpha) of 0.025 using a 1-sided 2-sample equal variance t-test.||||||0.0228||||||At Week 2|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0228
95900412|NCT02357576|191756246|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of PNAC in the two groups.||||||0.617|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.617
95900413|NCT02357576|191756247|OTHER|Percentage and frequencies were used to describe the incidence of severe PNAC.||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.450
95900414|NCT02357576|191756248|OTHER|The Kaplan Meier curve was used to evaluated the time to first PNAC event.||||||0.2716|||||||Log Rank|A log rank test was used to test the equality of the survival curve between the two groups.||||||0.2716
95900415|NCT00261716|191756265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Intent to treat analysis||||.33
95900416|NCT00261716|191756266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=36||intent to treat analysis||||.75
95900417|NCT00261716|191756267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|degrees of freedom=17||||||.41
95900418|NCT00261716|191756268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|Fishers exact= 1.0; one degree of freedom||intent to treat --all participants who obtained at least one job||||>.05
95900419|NCT00261716|191756268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>.05
95900420|NCT00261716|191756269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect- F(1,12)=..85||Intent to treat analysis||||.37
95900421|NCT00261716|191756269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F(1,54)=.2.05||||||.16
95900422|NCT00261716|191756269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F (1,54)=.. 24||||||.63
95900423|NCT00261716|191756270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=.26||intent to treat analysis||||.62
95900424|NCT00261716|191756270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect F (1,58)=.21 ,.||||||.65
95900425|NCT00261716|191756270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect F(1,58)=.06||||||.81
95900426|NCT00261716|191756271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status effect F(1,12)=1.95,||Intent to treat analysis||||.19
95900427|NCT00261716|191756271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|time effect (1.54)=2.99,||||||.09
95900428|NCT00261716|191756271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|employment status X time effect (F(1,54)=.74||||||.39
95900429|NCT00128180|191756272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
95977727|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|-0.18||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.180|-0.349|<.0001
95977728|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 43||-0.035|-0.209|0.0072
95977729|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.197|-0.039||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.039|-0.197|0.0043
95977730|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|-0.221||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.221|-0.376|< 0.0001
95977731|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.1||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 57||-0.100|-0.261|<.0001
95977732|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|-0.035||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.035|-0.228|0.0084
95977733|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.243||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.243|-0.433|<.0001
95977734|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|-0.108||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 71||-0.108|-0.304|0.0001
95977735|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|0.004||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||0.004|-0.195|0.0589
95977736|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.433|-0.236||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.236|-0.433|<.0001
95977737|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.137||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 85||-0.137|-0.340|<.0001
95977738|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.028||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.028|-0.236|0.0138
95977739|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|-0.252||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.252|-0.458|<.0001
95977740|NCT02604199|191927717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.117||MMRM includes terms of parameter baseline as continuous covariate, and treatment and visit as fixed factors, interaction of treatment and visit, and interaction of parameter baseline and visit. Within-subject covariance is unstructured.|MMRM|||Day 99||-0.117|-0.329|0.0001
95977741|NCT02604212|191927741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.159|||MMRM|||||0.159|-0.243|0.6815
95977742|NCT02604212|191927741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.438|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.638|-0.237|||MMRM|||||-0.237|-0.638|<.0001
95977743|NCT02604212|191927741|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|-0.223|||MMRM|||||-0.223|-0.569|<.0001
95977744|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|-0.044|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.044|-0.372|0.0131
95977745|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|-0.082|||MMRM|||Day 15||-0.082|-0.412|0.0036
95977746|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|0.113|||MMRM|||Day 15||0.113|-0.192|0.6136
95977747|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.08|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.080|-0.249|0.3104
95977748|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.008|||MMRM|||Day 29||-0.008|-0.340|0.0401
95977749|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.063|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.063|-0.242|0.2494
95977750|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.042|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.042|-0.380|0.0149
95900430|NCT02047110|191756282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||26.6|-12.1|0.2652
95900431|NCT02047110|191756282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4129|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|20.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||20.8|-15.9|0.4129
95900432|NCT02047110|191756282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, ASAS 40 response at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|To control the type I error rate, the primary endpoint was tested in a hierarchical fixed sequence approach. The proportion of patients achieving ASAS 40 response at Week 12 was pairwise compared in the following sequence: risankizumab 180 mg vs. placebo (1.) and risankizumab 90 mg vs. placebo (2.). The significance level was 5% (1-sided). The comparison risankizumab 18 mg vs. placebo was not included in the formal testing sequence; an exploratory p-value was provided.||17.0|-21.8|0.4243
95900433|NCT02047110|191756283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0229
95900434|NCT02047110|191756283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.3||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||0.1|-0.6|0.1038
95900435|NCT02047110|191756283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.5||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.1||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||-0.1|-0.7|0.0101
95900436|NCT02047110|191756284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.0||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|33.8||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||33.8|-4.6|0.0238
95977751|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.149|||MMRM|||Day 43||-0.149|-0.489|0.0003
95900437|NCT02047110|191756284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.1||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|35.3||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||35.3|-0.8|0.0120
95900438|NCT02047110|191756284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.0465
95977752|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.045|||MMRM|||Day 29||0.045|-0.262|0.1655
95977753|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.324|0.023|||MMRM|||Day 57||0.023|-0.324|0.0889
95977754|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.497|-0.147|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.147|-0.497|0.0004
95977755|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|-0.017|||MMRM|||Day 57||-0.017|-0.326|0.0298
95977756|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.007|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.007|-0.361|0.0415
95977757|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.441|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.261|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.261|-0.620|<.0001
95977758|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.257|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.413|-0.1|||MMRM|||Day 71||-0.100|-0.413|0.0015
95977759|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.096|||MMRM|||Day 85||0.096|-0.268|0.3510
95977760|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.219|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.219|-0.590|<.0001
95977761|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.481|-0.156|||MMRM|||Day 85||-0.156|-0.481|0.0002
95977762|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.341|0.04|||MMRM|||Day 99||0.040|-0.341|0.1198
95977763|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|-0.325|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.325|-0.708|<.0001
95977764|NCT02604212|191927742|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|-0.197|||MMRM|||Day 99||-0.197|-0.535|<.0001
95977765|NCT02604212|191927743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0867|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0867
95977766|NCT02604212|191927743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6285|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6285
95977767|NCT02604212|191927743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7214|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7214
95977768|NCT02604212|191927744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0325
95977769|NCT02604212|191927744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
95900439|NCT02047110|191756285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.4|19.4|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||19.4|-19.4|
95977770|NCT02604212|191927744|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95977771|NCT02604212|191927745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0824|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0824
95977772|NCT02604212|191927745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2217
95977773|NCT02604212|191927745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1409|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1409
95977774|NCT02604212|191927746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0625
95977775|NCT02604212|191927746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0684|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0684
95977776|NCT02604212|191927746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2105|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2105
95977777|NCT02604212|191927747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1750
95977778|NCT02604212|191927747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0229|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0229
95977779|NCT02604212|191927747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0294
95977780|NCT02604212|191927748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4615|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4615
95977781|NCT02604212|191927748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0508|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0508
95977782|NCT02604212|191927748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0769|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0769
95977783|NCT02604212|191927749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0699|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0699
95977784|NCT02604212|191927749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0179|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0179
95977785|NCT02604212|191927749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0430
95977786|NCT02604212|191927750|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95977787|NCT02604212|191927750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
95977788|NCT02604212|191927750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0849
95977789|NCT01498289|191927796|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.41|0.83
95977790|NCT01498289|191927797|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.50|0.02
95977791|NCT01498289|191927798|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.61|0.20
95977792|NCT01498289|191927799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
95977793|NCT01498289|191927800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q1 ERCC1||1.40|0.44|0.41
95977794|NCT01498289|191927800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q2 ERCC1||1.02|0.32|0.06
95977795|NCT01498289|191927800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q3 ERCC1||1.58|0.49|0.66
95977796|NCT01498289|191927800|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for Q4 ERCC1||1.31|0.42|0.30
95977797|NCT03318809|191927802|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and confidence interval (CI) are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
95977798|NCT03318809|191927803|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.27|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.27|0.88|
95977799|NCT03318809|191927806|OTHER|Analysis of Variance|Ratio (Group 1/Group 2)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|2.1|||||The ratio and CI are based on natural log scale data converted back to the original scale.|||2.10|0.73|
95977800|NCT00809523|191927811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Data were analyzed at the follow up timepoint (4 weeks) to test for differences between the experimental groups.||||0.007
95977801|NCT00809523|191927812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95977802|NCT00752622|191927828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to evaluation Week 10.||||<.0001
95977803|NCT00752622|191927828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 30 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
95977804|NCT00752622|191927828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Infliximab from Induction baseline to Week 54 of the Observational Phase.||||<.0001
95977805|NCT05358717|191927836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-8.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.34|-23.59|< 0.0001
95900440|NCT02047110|191756285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.3|18.3|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||18.3|-18.3|
95900441|NCT02047110|191756285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6|||||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|p-values are not presented as they were not meaningful; 3 treatment groups had only a single patient with partial remission.||26.6|-12.1|
95900442|NCT02047110|191756286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.0||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.5|43.1||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||43.1|5.5|0.0092
95900443|NCT02047110|191756286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|30.5||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||30.5|-5.9|0.1243
95900444|NCT02047110|191756286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.5||||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|31.4||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 12, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||31.4|-7.1|0.1198
95900445|NCT02047110|191756287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.4||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.2||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||0.2|-1.0|0.1241
95900446|NCT02047110|191756287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|0.3||||0.3033|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.0||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||1.0|-0.5|0.3033
95977806|NCT05358717|191927836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.45|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.10|-34.45|< 0.0001
95977807|NCT02640157|191927854|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.1||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.1|-5.6|
95977808|NCT02640157|191927854|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|percentage of participants|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.2|98.4||||||||98.4|92.2|
95977809|NCT02640157|191927854|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm A was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.2|3.7||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm A - Arm B).||3.7|-6.2|
95977810|NCT02640157|191927855|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.0||||||Difference in SVR12 rates (Arm C - Arm A)||4.0|-4.8|
95977811|NCT02640157|191927855|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Percentage of participants|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|91.0|98.8||||||||98.8|91.0|
95977812|NCT02640157|191927855|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority: a) the lower bound (LB) of the 95%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or b) the LB of the 95%CI for the difference was below the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 97.5%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was \>92%; or c) the LB of the 97.5%CI for the difference was above the non-inferiority margin of -6% and the LB of the 95%CI for the SVR12 rate within Arm C was below 92%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.4|4.6||||||||4.6|-5.4|
95977813|NCT00803270|191927921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of proportions|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.44|||Fisher Exact|||||0.44|-0.28|0.99
95900447|NCT02047110|191756287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median estimate by Hodges-Lehmann method|-0.2||||0.3203|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.4||One sided p-value from Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Wilcoxon rank-sum test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Moses method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||0.4|-0.8|0.3203
95900448|NCT02047110|191756288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.2639|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.1|26.6||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper-Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 18 mg minus Placebo."|||26.6|-12.1|0.2639
95900449|NCT02047110|191756288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.9|25.7||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups.|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 90 mg minus Placebo."|||25.7|-10.9|0.2691
95900450|NCT02047110|191756288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.8|17.0||The Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test was used to test the difference in the proportion of patients achieving the endpoint at Week 24, between treatment groups|Suissa-Shuster unconditional exact test||"The confidence interval for the difference in proportion between the treatment groups was obtained by the Clopper- Pearson method. Difference calculated as risankizumab 180 mg minus Placebo."|||17.0|-21.8|0.4174
95900451|NCT03296163|191756297|EQUIVALENCE|"Equivalence analysis was based on the risk ratio (RR) (MB02/EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[0.73, 1.36\].~The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the RR and corresponding 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI)."|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.06|||||Direction of comparison is: For RR: MB02/EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (0.758, 1.092)|||1.060|0.780|
95900452|NCT03296163|191756297|EQUIVALENCE|The ORR estimate was stratified using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimate of the risk difference (RD) (MB02-EU-approved Avastin) with an equivalence margin predefined \[-12%, 12%\] and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.51|2.47|||||Direction of comparison is: For RD: MB02 - EU-approved Avastin. 95% CI was also calculated: (-11.76, 3.71)|||2.47|-10.51|
95977814|NCT00803270|191927922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference of proportions|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.87||Fisher's Exact Test of equality of percent meeting optimal outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||0.87|0.03|0.08
95977815|NCT02092220|191927931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.59|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-12.56||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided||Bionic Pancreas Arm - Usual Care Arm|||-12.56|-28.00|<0.0001
95900453|NCT03296163|191756298|OTHER|Hazard ratio of MB02 versus EU-approved Avastin; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in MB02; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in EU-approved Avastin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.187|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.44||||||||1.44|0.98|
95900454|NCT03296163|191756299|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.108|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.485||||||||1.485|0.827|
95900455|NCT01959581|191756322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA||||<.05
95900456|NCT03495908|191756330|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 0.4% HbA1c|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2207||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6654|0.2241||Non-inferiority p-value based on the 0.4% non-inferiority margin|Mixed Models Analysis||RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference. Upper confidence interval 0.22 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|RHI - RAI estimated treatment difference (ETD) in HbA1c. Per-protocol analysis is the pre-specified primary outcome.||0.2241|-0.6654|0.007
95900457|NCT03495908|191756331|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||||0.82|||||||Fisher Exact|||Post-randomization prevalence of hypoglycemia based on 7-point glucose profiles.||||.82
95900458|NCT03495908|191756332|SUPERIORITY|Analysis of the 7-point profiles within the ITT population (n=136)|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.925||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|2.217||Results are from a Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Regression, Poisson|Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach|The incidence rate ratio quantitates the risk of hypoglycemia in the RHI group (RR numerator) compared with the RAI group (RR numerator). Results from Poisson regression model with repeated measures; generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach.|Level 1 (≤70 mg/dL or (\<3.9 mmol/L)) and level 2 hypoglycemia (\<54 mg/dL (\<3.0 mmol/L)) events are analyzed. No level 3 events were reported for either group.||2.217|0.386|0.861
95977816|NCT02092220|191927932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8||Repeated measures model.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
95900459|NCT03495908|191756333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01073||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03674|0.01528|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|RHI versus RAI for Insulin Intent-to-treat Population N=136 Mixed Model Estimates for Insulin TDD U/kg I||0.01528|-0.03674|0.415
95977817|NCT00523718|191927997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.24
95977818|NCT03219320|191928005|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95977819|NCT02445196|191928006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed the condition by time (baseline to posttreatment) interaction effects covarying PTSD treatment. Following the ITT principle, data from all randomized participants were analyzed and multiple imputation replaced missing values. A power analysis indicated that to achieve 80% power to detect an effect size in the magnitude (i.e., d = 0.25 to .33) with alpha of .05 and a correlation between repeated measures of .5, 60 participants per condition would be needed.||||.035
95977820|NCT02445196|191928007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.086
95977821|NCT02445196|191928008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.007
95977822|NCT02445196|191928009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.72||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.005
95977823|NCT02445196|191928010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.113
95900460|NCT03495908|191756334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0776||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2139|1.0587|||Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Comparison (RHI-RAI) Estimated Treatment Difference (ETD) mixed effects model analysis|||1.0587|-3.2139|0.320
95900461|NCT03495908|191756335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-265.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.6|-243.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated Treatment Difference (RHI-RAI) from repeated measures mixed model least squares estimates|||-243.11|-288.60|<0.0001
95900462|NCT03495908|191756336|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in A1C Non-inferiority Margin is 0.4%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1317||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5838|0.3205||p-value for non-inferiority|Mixed Models Analysis||Between Group Difference (RHI-RAI) mixed effects repeated measures model analysis.Upper confidence interval 0.32 is less than the 0.4% non-inferiority margin.|Intent-to-treat secondary outcome of HbA1c response for assessment of non-inferiority of RHI compared to RAI||0.3205|-0.5838|0.02
95900463|NCT03304379|191756338|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.63|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.971|-0.286||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.286|-0.971|= 0.0003
95900464|NCT03304379|191756338|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|||>|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.154|-0.383||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a MMRM model with baseline, randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction"||-0.383|-1.154|> 0.0001
95900465|NCT03304379|191756339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.981|-0.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using a Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction.||-0.290|-0.981|= 0.0003
95900466|NCT03304379|191756339|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.198|-0.443||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||"(mFAS)~Analyses were based on a multiple imputation approach using an Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with baseline randomization strata, baseline, treatment, visit and treatment by-visit interaction."||-0.443|-1.198|<0.0001
95900467|NCT03304379|191756340|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.581|||=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.195|2.092||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||2.092|1.195|= 0.0013
95900468|NCT03304379|191756341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|||=|0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.009||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|MMRM|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analyses are based on a multiple imputation approach using Mixed-Effect Model With Repeated Measure (MMRM) model.||-0.009|-0.28|= 0.0365
95909258|NCT01939548|191776649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|3.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||3.29|-0.02|0.2068
95909259|NCT01939548|191776649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.73|2.69||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|General Subscale Score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.69|-0.73|0.4611
95977824|NCT02217436|191928011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95977825|NCT02217436|191928012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95977826|NCT02656420|191928013|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical significance of the treatment effect (p \< 0.01) for the lower doses compared to the high dose as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.57||Using a linear mixed effects model with random intercepts and slope, SF level (in the log scale) was regressed on categorical treatment group (medium dose and low dose; high as the reference) as well as day (continuous variable).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis is that the urinary sulforaphane levels are equal across treatment arms. Sulforaphane metabolite levels were measured daily for 10 days in each arm.||-1.57|-1.89|<0.001
95977827|NCT02656420|191928014|SUPERIORITY|To summarize first 12-hour SPMA levels over the study course by participant, the SPMA geometric mean (in the log scale) for each individual was calculated and used as the outcome. Treatment arms (placebo, fifth, half and full doses) were independent (categorical) variables in a linear regression model with placebo as the reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.2|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|140.9|||Regression, Linear||This Estimation Parameter was based on the comparison between the full dose group and the placebo group.|All broccoli sprout arms were compared with the placebo arm.||140.9|10.6|<0.05
95977828|NCT03662139|191928043|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
95977829|NCT03662139|191928043|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|0.99|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Test - Retest Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd assessments in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.99|0.915|<0.05
95977830|NCT03662139|191928043|SUPERIORITY||ICC|0.983|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|0.998|||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient(ICC)|Two-way random-effect model|Reliability estimates were interpreted as follows: \>0.90=excellent; 0.75-0.90=good; 0.50-0.75=medium; \<0.50=low|Interrater Reliability (Difference between 1st and 2nd evaluators in Cerebral Palsy group)||0.998|0.882|<0.01
95977831|NCT03662139|191928044|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
95977832|NCT03662139|191928044|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|0.724|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test|The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.||Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Pediatric Balance Scale (PBS) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.05
95977833|NCT03662139|191928045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
95977834|NCT03662139|191928045|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.828|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) scores in Cerebral Palsy group||||<0.01
95977835|NCT03662139|191928046|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Between group difference||||<0.01
95977836|NCT03662139|191928046|SUPERIORITY||Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs)|-0.673|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation Test||The level of relationship was classified as follows \<0.30=small/negligible; 0.30-0.50=low; 0.50-0.70=moderate; 0.70-0.90=high; \>0.90=very high.|Correlation between Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) and Four Square Step Test (FSST) scores in Cerebral Palsy group.||||<0.05
95977837|NCT04796896|191928054|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if:~The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.224|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.413||||||||1.413|1.061|
95977838|NCT04796896|191928055|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|0.995|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.139||||||||1.139|0.870|
95977839|NCT04796896|191928055|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|1.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.101|1.434||||||||1.434|1.101|
95977840|NCT04796896|191928056|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.6||||||||1.6|-2.2|
95977841|NCT04796896|191928057|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.5||||||||1.5|-2.5|
95900469|NCT02802345|191756360|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|2.3|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.|"H0: There is no difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone.~Ha: There is a difference in the mean change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 12 between treatment with nintedanib co-administered with sildenafil and treatment with nintedanib alone."|2.30|-3.33|0.7191
95900470|NCT02802345|191756361|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.198||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|1.39|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 12 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned. Data collected after Visit 5 (planned 12 weeks after start of study treatment) were not used for this analysis.||1.39|-7.27|0.1823
95900471|NCT02802345|191756362|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.1809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.02|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline SGRQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline SGRQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||1.02|-5.40|0.1809
95900472|NCT02802345|191756363|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.529||0.3421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.39|2.58|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|The Roger- Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Adjusted mean difference (Nintedanib +placebo vs Nintedanib+sildenafil) is based on all analyzed patients in the model (not only patients with a measurement at baseline and at 24 weeks)|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) included fixed effects for treatment, visit, presence of any echocardiographic signs, baseline UCSD SOBQ total score as covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline UCSD SOBQ total score-by-visit interaction terms using an unstructured covariance matrix. No imputation was planned.||2.58|-7.39|0.3421
95977842|NCT04796896|191928057|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.4||||||||2.4|-0.8|
95977843|NCT04796896|191928058|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.897|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.158|4.808||||||||4.808|3.158|
95977844|NCT04796896|191928058|NON_INFERIORITY|"The noninferiority of GM value (based on GLSM) was considered demonstrated if the following were true:~The lower bound of the 95% CI of the GMR was \>0.667 based on the noninferiority margin of 1.5, and the GMR point estimate ≥0.8 (minimum threshold)."|GMR|3.982|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.404|4.657||||||||4.657|3.404|
95977845|NCT04796896|191928060|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.4|
95977846|NCT04796896|191928060|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of the SRR was considered demonstrated if the following were true: The lower bound of the 95% CI of the SRR difference was \>-10% based on the noninferiority margin of 10% and the SRR difference point estimate was ≥-5% (minimum threshold).|percentage difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.4||||||||2.4|-2.2|
95977847|NCT04796896|191928069|OTHER|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.706|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.325|0.873|||||Vaccine efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.873|0.325|
95977848|NCT04796896|191928069|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.409|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.509|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.509|0.287|
95900473|NCT02802345|191756364|SUPERIORITY||Percentage ratio (%)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage ratio = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) / (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Relative risk, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||1.20|0.58|
95977849|NCT04796896|191928069|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.324|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.474|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.474|0.127|
95977850|NCT04796896|191928070|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.683|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.882|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.882|0.151|
95900474|NCT02802345|191756364|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference (%)|-5.37||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Within strata confidence limits are calculated according to Wald. Percentage difference = (% of Nintedanib+sildenafil) - (% of Nintedanib+placebo).|Risk difference, Comparison of treatment groups is calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the categorical covariate presence of any echocardiographic signs indicative of right heart dysfunction (yes/no), adjusted Mantel-Haenszel type risk ratios and risk differences with 95% confidence are presented.||5.52|-16.25|0.334
95900475|NCT00395044|191756365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.029
95900476|NCT00550836|191756373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||It was calculated that 39 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have 80% to detect a difference in median survival of 6 vs. 9.7 months for GE vs. PGE respectively with a minimum follow up of 6 months. Sample size was determined using a 1-sided log-rank test at alpha=0.20.||||0.36
95900477|NCT00550836|191756374|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95900478|NCT00550836|191756375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.419
95900479|NCT00550836|191756376|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
95900480|NCT00515827|191756386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||95.0||||P-value is 2-sided and is not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.546
95900481|NCT03254134|191756424|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|0.97||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of stroke for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.970|0.534|
95900482|NCT03254134|191756425|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.994||||||There was no formal hypothesis testing.|The hazard ratio of systemic embolism for the dabigatran group as compared to the warfarin group and its 95% CI were estimated from the propensity score matched group using a Cox regression model with treatment group as the dependent variable|0.994|0.303|
95900483|NCT01071512|191756429|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data from subjects, including those who dropped out early.||||0.17
95900484|NCT01071512|191756430|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.6
95900485|NCT01071512|191756431|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.3
95900486|NCT01071512|191756432|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.02
95900487|NCT01071512|191756433|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis used all available data||||0.9
95900488|NCT02188485|191756434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Thwarted belonging (INQ-TB) at 10 week follow-up||||.278
95900489|NCT02188485|191756434|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|Perceived burden (INQ-PB) at 10-week follow-up||||.591
95900490|NCT02188485|191756435|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.511|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.511
95900491|NCT02188485|191756436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||This mean difference is not identical to the mean difference presented in the summary table because this mean difference was adjusted for random effects in the model.|||||.014
95900492|NCT00308711|191756437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kaplan-Meier|1595.5||||0.974||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Log Rank||This was a Kaplan-Meier analysis of median time to vaginal delivery. Cervidil was compared separately to MVI 100 and MVI 50.|Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in time to vaginal delivery for MVI 100 compared to time to vaginal delivery for Cervidil.||||0.974
95900493|NCT00308711|191756437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1977.0||||0.011||95.0|1977.0|2253.0|||Log Rank|||||2253|1977|0.011
95900494|NCT00308711|191756438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority (NI) margin was within 15% relative to the rate of cesarean section for the comparator (Cervidil 10 mg dinoprostone vaginal insert).|Cox Proportional Hazard|27.8||||0.64||95.0|23.61|32.31|||Fisher Exact|||||32.31|23.61|0.64
95900495|NCT00308711|191756438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was rate of cearean section within 15% of Cervidil rate.|Cox Proportional Hazard|28.0||||0.59||95.0|23.86|32.42|||Fisher Exact|||||32.42|23.86|0.59
95900496|NCT01848990|191756470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.05||||0.4516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.18|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 participants (Pt) being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.18|-0.08|0.4516
95900497|NCT01848990|191756471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference ≤0.40, it is concluded that Hylenex recombinant preadministration is noninferior to standard CSII.|least squares mean treatment difference|0.14||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, standard rapid-acting insulin CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|Sample size calculated based on approximately 400 Pt being enrolled. No more than 10% dropout rate at 6 months allowed at least 270 Hylenex and 90 standard CSII Pt to reach primary metabolic endpoint evaluation. Assuming HbA1c standard deviation of 0.7% and population difference of 0% between treatments, Pt reaching primary efficacy endpoint would provide \>90% power to demonstrate HbA1c noninferiority at margin of 0.4% using confidence bound from 2-tailed 95% confidence interval.||0.28|-0.01|0.0711
95900498|NCT01848990|191756472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.69||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0105
95900499|NCT01848990|191756472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0130
95900500|NCT01848990|191756472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.78||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0511
95900501|NCT01848990|191756472|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.34||||0.1176|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1176
95900502|NCT01848990|191756473|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.81||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<56 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.0456
95900503|NCT01848990|191756473|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.92||||0.2322|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \<=70 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.2322
95900504|NCT01848990|191756473|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.87||||0.1365|TWO_SIDED|||||Nocturnal HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.1365
95900505|NCT01848990|191756473|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.07||||0.8909|TWO_SIDED|||||Severe HEs|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.8909
95900506|NCT01848990|191756474|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.98||||0.7292|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7292
95900507|NCT01848990|191756474|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|0.95||||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5895
95900508|NCT01848990|191756475|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.04||||0.5414|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>240 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.5414
95900509|NCT01848990|191756475|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|rate ratio|1.03||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|||||SMBG \>300 mg/dL|negative binomial model||Hylenex/Standard CSII|||||0.7110
95900510|NCT01848990|191756476|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-3.4||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|7.5||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.5|-14.2|0.5394
95900511|NCT01848990|191756476|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|4.3||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|14.8||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.8|-6.1|0.4151
95900512|NCT01848990|191756476|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.6||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||9.6|-9.5|0.9930
95900513|NCT01848990|191756476|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.9||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-6.4|0.9410
95900514|NCT01848990|191756477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-4.8||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|4.7||Breakfast|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-14.3|0.3239
95900515|NCT01848990|191756477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|10.2||Lunch|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||10.2|-7.4|0.7540
95900516|NCT01848990|191756477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.7904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|7.2||Dinner|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.2|-9.5|0.7904
95900517|NCT01848990|191756477|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.6||||0.4016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.4||Overall|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||3.4|-8.5|0.4016
95900518|NCT01848990|191756478|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.4||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.9|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.9|-5.6|0.5260
95900519|NCT01848990|191756479|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.5||||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.7|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||4.7|-3.7|0.8049
95900520|NCT01848990|191756480|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8955||||||HbA1c \<7.0%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8955
95900521|NCT01848990|191756480|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%||||||0.8926||||||HbA1c ≤6.5%|Chi-squared|||||||0.8926
95900522|NCT01848990|191756481|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.13||||0.7735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.03|-0.76|0.7735
95900523|NCT01848990|191756482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-1.1||||0.4948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.0||Daily bolus dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.0|-4.1|0.4948
95900524|NCT01848990|191756482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.3||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.2||Daily basal dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||5.2|-0.5|0.1099
95900525|NCT01848990|191756482|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.4||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6||Daily total dose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.6|-3.7|0.5830
95900526|NCT01848990|191756483|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.1|-1.0|0.8778
95900527|NCT01848990|191756484|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.1||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.1|-6.3|0.3233
95900528|NCT01848990|191756486|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.0||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|7.8||Average glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7.8|-5.8|0.7708
95900529|NCT01848990|191756486|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|1.8||||0.6058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.6||Median glucose|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||8.6|-5.0|0.6058
95900530|NCT01848990|191756486|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.7||||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.5||Average daily standard deviation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||2.5|-4.0|0.6571
95900531|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-2.2||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|6.9||Time per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||6.9|-11.3|0.6252
95900532|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-5.5||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|14.9||Time per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||14.9|-25.9|0.5929
95977851|NCT04796896|191928070|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.48|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.480|-0.007|
95977852|NCT04796896|191928070|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|-0.068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|0.352|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.352|-0.832|
95977853|NCT04796896|191928071|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.416|0.965|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.965|-0.416|
95977854|NCT04796896|191928071|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.466|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.574|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.574|0.328|
95977855|NCT04796896|191928071|OTHER|The 95% CI of the ratio was calculated using the exact method conditional upon the total number of cases, adjusting for person-years.|Vaccine Efficacy|0.432|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.576|||||Vaccine Efficacy (percent), was defined as 1 - ratio of incidence rate (mRNA-1273 vs. placebo).|||0.576|0.232|
95977856|NCT02021292|191928073|SUPERIORITY||ratio of geometric means|0.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The null hypothesis (change of PVR at rest in Week 16 in percent of baseline PVR in subjects treated with placebo or macitentan is the same) is tested on the primary endpoint by means of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the log(e) transformed % of baseline PVR at rest at Week 16.||0.99|0.70|0.0410
95977857|NCT02021292|191928074|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|34.04||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|65.2||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline in 6MWD at Week 24 is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||65.2|2.9|0.0326
95977858|NCT02021292|191928075|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.39||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.43||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Statistical model is Analysis of Covariance including Borg dyspnea index at baseline as a covariate, with Treatment as factor in the model.||0.43|-1.21|0.3492
95977859|NCT02021292|191928076|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|1.464||To control multiplicity across all endpoints, secondary endpoints were analyzed in sequence using hierarchical approach based on order and significance as pre-specified in protocol eliminating further adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is the odds of worsening are the same in the placebo and the macitentan group. Logistic regression is used for Treatment Group vs. Placebo comparison to generate odds ratio, confidence levels, and p-values with treatment and WHO functional class at baseline as factors in the model.||1.464|0.001|0.0962
95977860|NCT02021292|191928077|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.81||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.95||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||The same statistical model as for the predefined analysis (ANCOVA) was applied, including 13 subjects with corrected hemodynamic values.||0.95|0.70|0.0098
95977861|NCT02021292|191928078|SUPERIORITY||Model-adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.79||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.93|0.68|0.0061
95977862|NCT02021292|191928079|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|0.85||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.99||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed % of baseline PVR at Week 16 adjusted by treatment as a factor and log transformed PVR at baseline as a covariate.||||0.99|0.73|0.0414
95900533|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|6.9||||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|28.3||Time per day \>70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||28.3|-14.4|0.5207
95900534|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-23.3||||0.4754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.8|41.2||Time per day \<140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||41.2|-87.8|0.4754
95900535|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|23.9||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|88.6||Time per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||88.6|-40.7|0.4644
95900536|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Time per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
95900537|NCT01848990|191756487|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|18.4||||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|74.4||Time per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||74.4|-37.5|0.5151
95900538|NCT01848990|191756488|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-33.5||||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.9|48.9||Area per day \<56 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||48.9|-115.9|0.4216
95900539|NCT01848990|191756488|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-84.7||||0.5697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-379.2|209.8||Area per day ≤70 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||209.8|-379.2|0.5697
95900540|NCT01848990|191756488|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|342.9||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6772.3|7458.2||Area per day ≥140 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||7458.2|-6772.3|0.9241
95900541|NCT01848990|191756488|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|2.8||||0.9232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.2|59.8||Area per day outside of 71 to 180 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||59.8|-54.2|0.9232
95900542|NCT01848990|191756488|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|258.2||||0.9423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6792.2|7308.7||Area per day outside of 71 to 139 mg/dL|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Least squares mean treatment difference (Hylenex minus Standard CSII)|||7308.7|-6792.2|0.9423
95900543|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Leisure activities|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5246
95900544|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Work life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.8|0.6380
95900545|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Local or long distance travel|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.4|-0.7|0.5719
95900546|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.2||||0.4052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Vacations|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.4052
95900547|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Do physically|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.7240
95900548|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Family life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6876
95900549|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Friendships and social life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6478
95900550|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||Close personal relationship|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.6|0.9744
95900551|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||Sex life|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.8|-0.3|0.3177
95900552|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.2087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||Physical appearance|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.7|-0.2|0.2087
95900553|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||Self-confidence|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.4|0.7907
95900554|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.3||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||Motivation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.8|0.3444
95900555|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.2||||0.2175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||The way people in general react|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.1|0.2175
95900556|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.4||||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||Feelings about the future|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.0|0.2062
95900557|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6||Financial situation|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.5|0.8762
95900558|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Living situation and conditions|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.5|-0.5|0.8900
95900559|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|-0.5||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2||Depend on others|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.2|-1.1|0.1367
95900560|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.3||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9||Freedom to eat|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.9|-0.3|0.3144
95900561|NCT01848990|191756489|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||Freedom to drink|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.6|-0.4|0.6869
95900562|NCT01848990|191756490|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
95900563|NCT01848990|191756491|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.1||||0.9081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||DTSQs|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.3|-1.1|0.9081
95900564|NCT01848990|191756491|NON_INFERIORITY|prespecific non-inferiority margin of 0.4%|least squares mean treatment difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6||DTSQc|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment (Hylenex, Standard CSII) as a fixed effect|Hylenex minus Standard CSII|||1.6|-1.5|0.9840
95900565|NCT00594256|191756499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||=0.002
95900566|NCT00594256|191756500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.02
95977863|NCT02021292|191928080|SUPERIORITY||least squares (LS) mean difference|37.19||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|73.83||This is the post-hoc analysis and p-value is an exploratory p-value.|ANCOVA|Statistical model is ANCOVA including 6MWD at baseline as a covariate, with treatment as factor in the model.||||73.83|0.54|0.0468
95977864|NCT00819286|191928101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||3 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.003
95977865|NCT00819286|191928101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||6 Month CT Scores (Plates vs Wires)||||0.01
95977866|NCT00819286|191928102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Plates vs Wires||||0.93
95977867|NCT04658186|191928118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.31||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.61|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the restricted mean event time (RMET), with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||1.61|-1.00|0.647
95977868|NCT04658186|191928118|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|0.81||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.09|||Wald Chi-square||Results obtained from generalized linear model for RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as effect of interest.|||2.09|-0.47|0.214
95900567|NCT00594256|191756501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.04
95900568|NCT00594256|191756502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||0.8
95977869|NCT04658186|191928121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.0||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.27|||Wald Chi-square||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.27|-0.27|0.124
95900569|NCT00594256|191756503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Open label baseline final paired t test||||<0.01
95900570|NCT00298038|191756527|SUPERIORITY|Analysis based on the overall comparison of time to the first breakthrough overt HE episode between rifaximin and placebo groups adjusting for analysis region, using the Cox proportional hazards model (Score test, \[that is, Log rank test stratified by analysis region\]) with a 2-sided test at a significance level of 0.05 under the proportional hazards assumption.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.276|0.641|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.641|0.276|<0.0001
95900571|NCT00672477|191756579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||< 0.0001
95900572|NCT00672477|191756580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.0001
95900573|NCT01040871|191756618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.529|2.037|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by IPI score|Odds ratio: VR-CAP CR rate relative to R-CHOP CR rate|||2.037|0.529|0.915
95900574|NCT02451748|191756642|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.5378||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.5378
95977870|NCT04658186|191928121|SUPERIORITY||Difference in RMET|1.22||||0.064||95.0|-0.07|2.51|||Wald Chi-sqaure||Results were obtained from a generalized linear model for the RMET, with gender and age at baseline as covariates and treatment group as the effect of interest.|||2.51|-0.07|0.064
95977871|NCT03801902|191928126|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"If 0-1 of initial 6 evaluable patients on an arm have a safety event, then the regimen will be deemed safe and that arm will continue to the second part of the study to enroll 6 additional evaluable patients. However, if 2 or more of the 6 patients develop a safety event, then that arm is considered not safe and will not continue to second part. The probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% is at least 77%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, then the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is at least 70%.~If fewer than 4 of the total of 12 evaluable patients on an arm experience a safety event, then the treatment will be considered tolerable. With a cohort of 12 patients, the probability of the treatment being judged to be too toxic when the true toxicity rate is ≥ 40% at least 78%. If the true toxicity rate is ≤ 18%, the probability that the treatment will be deemed to be safe is 85%."|||
95977872|NCT02993523|191928142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.723||Stratified log-rank test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|Log Rank||HR from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).|||0.723|0.465|<0.001
95977873|NCT02993523|191928143|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by age (18 - \< 75, ≥ 75) and cytogenetic risk (intermediate, poor).||||||<0.001
95977874|NCT03694418|191928151|OTHER||Incident Rate Ratio|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.95|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.95|1.02|<0.05
95977875|NCT01806129|191928170|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|3.31|||||Odds ratio represents the odds of adopting the appropriate reproductive health management for patients with intervention compared to the odds among patients without intervention. Odds ratio was calculated by GEE analysis.|||3.31|1.29|
95977876|NCT00986440|191928323|SUPERIORITY||Z statistic for difference|3.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||2-sided P value for z test|||||||<0.0001
95977877|NCT00986440|191928323|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95977878|NCT00986440|191928324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0380
95977879|NCT00986440|191928324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1773|||||||Peto-Peto-Prentice|||||||0.1773
95977880|NCT00986440|191928324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2844
95977881|NCT00986440|191928324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Tarone-Ware|||||||0.1140
95977882|NCT00986440|191928325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1213|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1213
95977883|NCT01783041|191928329|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
95977884|NCT01783041|191928330|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|This analysis applies to all sub-scales that were compared between the 2 study groups.||||||<0.05
95977885|NCT01783041|191928331|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Reported p values have been calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|Differences between the groups were analyzed using a two sided t-test.||||||<0.05
95977886|NCT01783041|191928332|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||These are calculated p values.|ANOVA|Differences in continuous and categorical variables were compared using ANOVA and either Chi square test or Fisher's exact test, respectively.||||||<0.05
95977887|NCT01966471|191928333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.827||95.0|0.71|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.71|0.8270
95977888|NCT01966471|191928334|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9291||95.0|0.77|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.77|0.9291
95977889|NCT01966471|191928335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8756||95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.74|0.8756
95977890|NCT01966471|191928336|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9341||95.0|0.75|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.75|0.9341
95977891|NCT01966471|191928337|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.4577||95.0|0.61|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.61|0.4577
95977892|NCT01966471|191928338|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.2864||95.0|0.83|1.84|||Log Rank|||||1.84|0.83|0.2864
95977893|NCT00593957|191928353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.40
95977894|NCT00593957|191928353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.62
95977895|NCT00593957|191928353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.38||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.38
95977896|NCT00593957|191928355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.38|||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there would be no significant difference in social abilities as measured by the SSI score in this treatment group baseline to 6 months post-treatment.||||<0.10
95977897|NCT00593957|191928355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||<|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.50
95977898|NCT00593957|191928355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||<|0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.48
95977899|NCT00593957|191928356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.947|||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95977900|NCT03170154|191928385|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.99|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 92.5 for the AAS at 12 months.|||||
95977901|NCT03170154|191928386|OTHER||1-sided 95% Upper CL|99.98|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||Historical comparison to EN ISO 11979-7:2014: SPE rate of at least 96.7 for the BAS at 12 months.|||||
95977902|NCT02460666|191928431|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3
95977903|NCT02460666|191928432|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
95977904|NCT02460666|191928433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
95977905|NCT02460666|191928434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95977906|NCT05089656|191928454|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.25|0.51|0.0074
95977907|NCT05089656|191928455|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means - difference|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.22|-0.33|0.1097
95977908|NCT05089656|191928456|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.599||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||2.71|0.34|0.0122
95977909|NCT05089656|191928457|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.836||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change from baseline at End of Follow-up Period 1||3.12|-0.22|0.0873
95977910|NCT05089656|191928458|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||4.57|0.90|0.0879
95977911|NCT05089656|191928459|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.6448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||End of Followup Period 1 (Week 52)||3.56|0.46|0.6448
95977912|NCT00148954|191928477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|1.11|0.003
95977913|NCT05344092|191928517|OTHER|Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app intervention score (approximately 4 week) for the VetEd Mobile Application user group.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.84||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.40
95977914|NCT05344092|191928519|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.92
95977915|NCT05344092|191928520|OTHER|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test comparing baseline score to post-mobile app use score (approximately Week 4) for users of the VetEd mobile app.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.68
95977916|NCT00992511|191928522|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.46||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.46|0.77|
95977917|NCT00992511|191928522|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: upper limit (UL) of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMT between the initial process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A INI 2D Group) and (over) new process-manufactured vaccine (GSK2340272A NEW 2D Group) was less than or equal to (≤) 2.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.61||||||To evaluate the immunological non-inferiority (in terms of vaccine-homologous virus H1N1 Haemagglutinin Inhibition \[HI\] antibody geometric mean titres \[GMTs\]) of the new process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen compared to the initial process-manufactured A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like antigen, 21 days after first vaccination in healthy subjects aged 18 to 60 years.||1.61|0.86|
95977918|NCT04682977|191928553|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.04
95977919|NCT04682977|191928554|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.26
95900575|NCT02451748|191756642|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.919||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.919
95900576|NCT02451748|191756642|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.4255||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7 was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.4255
95900577|NCT02451748|191756642|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.1037||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and second visit is as follows.||||0.1037
95900578|NCT02451748|191756642|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0008||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the first and third visit is as follows.||||0.0008
95900579|NCT02451748|191756642|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA||||||0.0001||||||Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|A priori threshold was \<0.05.||The mean mRNA expression for IL-7R was compared between all three visits simultaneously in RA Peripheral Blood Nonnuclear Cells. The comparison between the second and third visit is as follows.||||0.0001
95900580|NCT00408993|191756650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.617||95.0||||Treatment effects were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05 and interaction effects at 0.10. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator and Baseline.||With 104 patients per arm, the study has at least 85% power to detect a treatment group difference of -1.20 points in baseline to endpoint mean change on the BPI 24-hour average pain score between Duloxetine and Placebo. Sample size determined using a two-sided t-test with alpha=0.05, and assuming a common standard deviation of 2.5 and a discontinuation rate of 25%.||||0.617
95900581|NCT00408993|191756651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0||||P-value for Worst Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.070
95900582|NCT00408993|191756651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||P-value for Least Pain Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.151
95900583|NCT00408993|191756651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value for Pain Right Now Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.012
95900584|NCT00408993|191756651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value for Average Interference Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.077
95900585|NCT00408993|191756652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.036
95900586|NCT00408993|191756653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955||95.0||||P-value for Visit 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.955
95900587|NCT00408993|191756653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Visit 4|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.004
95900588|NCT00408993|191756653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value for Visit 5|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.037
95900589|NCT00408993|191756653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Visit 6|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||<0.001
95900590|NCT00408993|191756653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0||||P-value for Visit 7|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures: Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Visit, Baseline, baseline MDD status, Treatment\*Visit and Baseline\*Visit.||||||0.028
95977920|NCT04682977|191928555|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.51|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF-Control|||||0.51
95900591|NCT00408993|191756654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.207
95900592|NCT00408993|191756655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.008
95900593|NCT00408993|191756657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value for 5-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.364
95900594|NCT00408993|191756657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value for 8-Item Score|ANCOVA|Model=Treatment, Pooled Investigator, Baseline and Major Depressive Disorder status at baseline.||||||0.590
95900595|NCT00408993|191756658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.620
95900596|NCT00408993|191756659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.324||95.0|||||ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.324
95900597|NCT00408993|191756660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642||95.0||||P-value for Systolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.642
95900598|NCT00408993|191756660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0||||P-value for Diastolic Blood Pressure|ANOVA|Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator||||||0.601
95900599|NCT00408993|191756661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0||||P-value for Chloride|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.014
95900600|NCT00408993|191756661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.005
95900601|NCT00408993|191756661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for Sodium|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.011
95977921|NCT04682977|191928556|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.23
95900602|NCT00408993|191756661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||P-value for triglycerides|ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-value.||||||0.044
95900603|NCT00408993|191756662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANOVA|Sums of squares from ANOVA on the ranks: Model=Treatment and Pooled Investigator for treatment effects p-values.||||||0.017
95900604|NCT04086472|191756673|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.31||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|7.64|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||7.64|-10.25|0.808
95900605|NCT04086472|191756673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.51||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|2.43|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||2.43|-15.46|0.229
95900606|NCT04086472|191756673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.81||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.58|3.96|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.96|-13.58|0.363
95900607|NCT04086472|191756673|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.92||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.87|3.02|||ANOVA|||Treatment vs. Placebo||3.02|-14.87|0.273
95900608|NCT04086472|191756674|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.57|37.78|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||37.78|-36.57|
95977922|NCT04682977|191928557|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.44
95977923|NCT04682977|191928558|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.47||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.22
95900609|NCT04086472|191756674|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||15.53|-56.70|
95900610|NCT04086472|191756674|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.09|20.01|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|||20.01|-53.09|
95900611|NCT04086472|191756674|OTHER|Treatment vs. Placebo|Difference in percentage|-22.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|15.53|||||95% CI based on the Chan and Zhang exact method|Treatment vs. Placebo||15.53|-56.70|
95900612|NCT01532687|191756683|SUPERIORITY|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.017|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study was originally designed with overall one-sided alpha of 5%, where a total of 73 patients (36 in the gemcitabine + placebo arm, and 37 in the gemcitabine + pazopanib arm) were required to achieve 80% power to detect a 2.5 month increase in median PFS (a hazard ratio of 0.55) between the two treatment arms. Study was closed early by the sponsor due to slow accrual and funds and thus was under powered.||||0.017
95900613|NCT01532687|191756683|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.195|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Comparison between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup||||0.195
95900614|NCT01532687|191756683|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.079|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Statistical results are for the 'other' sarcoma subgroup (n = 38)||||0.079
95900615|NCT01532687|191756685|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups||||||0.5||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the number of subjects and successes (n = 4)|One-sided Proportions Test|||Statistical results are for the full randomized population (n = 54). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction)||||0.5
95900616|NCT01532687|191756685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of small number of participants (n = 16) and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Liposarcoma group (n = 16). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for the secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the groups.||||0.3
95900617|NCT01532687|191756685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Yate's continuity correction was applied because of the small number of participants and successes (n = 2).|One-sided Proportion Test|||Statistical results are for the Other Sarcoma group (n = 38). The study tests whether gemcitabine plus pazopanib is superior to gemcitabine plus placebo (one-sided proportion test with Yate's continuity correction). Analysis was not powered for secondary endpoints. Given the study closed early due to slow enrollment, we do not anticipate detecting a statistical difference between the two groups.||||0.8
95900618|NCT01532687|191756686|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.481|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival estimated among all randomized participants (n = 54)||||0.481
95900619|NCT01532687|191756686|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.353|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival compared between the two arms for the liposarcoma subgroup (n = 16)||||0.353
95977924|NCT04682977|191928559|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.91
95977925|NCT04682977|191928560|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.78
95900620|NCT01532687|191756686|OTHER|Log-log plots revealed crossing of the curves at late time points, indicating a possible interaction between treatment arms over time. We used the Gehan-Wilcoxon test, which weights early differences between groups, to test whether there is a difference between the treatment arms early in the study.||||||0.408|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||Overall survival comparison between the two treatment arms for the other sarcoma group (n = 38)||||0.408
95900621|NCT04116229|191756687|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI restricted fraction, or putative cellularity, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.28
95900622|NCT04116229|191756687|EQUIVALENCE|"Alternative hypothesis: people with normal-weight BMI have lower DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, than people with obesity.~Null hypothesis: DBSI hindered fraction, or putative vasogenic edema, is not different between normal-weight and obese groups."|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Independent-Samples Median Test|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.||||0.03
95900623|NCT04116229|191756688|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|-0.69||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
95900624|NCT04116229|191756688|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative vasogenic edema (DBSI HF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cogntive function is not related to DBSI HF."|Slope|0.52||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
95900625|NCT04116229|191756688|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse crystallized cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Crystallized cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|-0.45||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.01
95900626|NCT04116229|191756688|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: Worse fluid cognitive function will relate to greater putative cellularity (DBSI RF) in white matter tracts.~Null hypothesis: Fluid cognitive function is not related to DBSI RF."|Slope|0.22||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.10
95900627|NCT04116229|191756689|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.18|||>|0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.46
95900628|NCT04116229|191756689|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of insulin, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Insulin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.22|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||>0.5
95900629|NCT04116229|191756690|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.15||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.62
95900630|NCT04116229|191756690|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of leptin, a pro-inflammatory marker and satiety hormone, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Leptin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.07||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.82
95900631|NCT04116229|191756691|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
95977926|NCT04682977|191928561|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (adjusted)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Sidak correction for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate Effect size calculated using Cohen's d|Treatment Difference = IPROACTIF - Control|||||0.83
95977927|NCT04682977|191928562|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.67
95900632|NCT04116229|191756691|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of ghrelin, an anti-inflammatory marker and hunger hormone, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Ghrelin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
95900633|NCT04116229|191756692|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.19||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.53
95900634|NCT04116229|191756692|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: greater HOMA-IR, where higher HOMA-IR indicates greater insulin resistance, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: HOMA-IR levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.21||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.5
95900635|NCT04116229|191756693|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.09
95977928|NCT04682977|191928563|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.77
95977929|NCT04682977|191928564|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.79
95977930|NCT04682977|191928565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.44
95977931|NCT04682977|191928566|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r||||||0.65
95977932|NCT04682977|191928567|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.66
95977933|NCT04682977|191928568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.81
95977934|NCT04682977|191928569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A non-parametric test was used due to non-normal distribution of data. Effect size calculated using rank biserial correlation r.||||||0.89
95977935|NCT01383161|191928570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.5
95977936|NCT01383161|191928570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95900636|NCT04116229|191756693|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of IL-10, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: IL-10 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.45
95977937|NCT01383161|191928570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95977938|NCT01383161|191928571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
95977939|NCT01383161|191928571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
95977940|NCT01383161|191928571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95977941|NCT01383161|191928572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.05
95977942|NCT01383161|191928572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95977943|NCT01383161|191928572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8
95977944|NCT01383161|191928573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.08
95977945|NCT01383161|191928573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
95977946|NCT01383161|191928573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95977947|NCT01383161|191928574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.04
95977948|NCT01383161|191928574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95900637|NCT04116229|191756694|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.38||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.19
95900638|NCT04116229|191756694|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory marker, will relate to lower levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: Adiponectin levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.2||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.52
95900639|NCT04116229|191756695|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|-0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.90
95900640|NCT04116229|191756695|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of TNF-alpha, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: TNF-alpha levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.87
95900641|NCT04116229|191756696|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.34||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.26
95900642|NCT04116229|191756696|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of MCP-1, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: MCP-1 levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.12||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.71
95900643|NCT04116229|191756697|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI restricted fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI RF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.19||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study. Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups.||||0.54
95977949|NCT01383161|191928574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95977950|NCT01383161|191928575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||mixed-effects general linear model|||||||0.3
95977951|NCT01383161|191928575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95977952|NCT01383161|191928575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95977953|NCT03588728|191928591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.781
95977954|NCT03588728|191928592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.409
95977955|NCT03588728|191928593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term.||Test of between-subjects effects||||.697
95977956|NCT03588728|191928594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates interaction term.||Test of between subjects effects||||.193
95977957|NCT03588728|191928595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.185
95977958|NCT03588728|191928596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|P value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-measures effects||||.198
95977959|NCT03588728|191928597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||ANOVA|||Test of between-subjects effects||||.638
95977960|NCT03588728|191928598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effectd||||.574
95977961|NCT03588728|191928599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Test of between-subjects effects||||.564
95977962|NCT03588728|191928600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|p-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjects effects||||.998
95977963|NCT03588728|191928601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||ANOVA|P-value indicates the interaction term||Tests of between-subjecs effects||||.348
95977964|NCT00186069|191928602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||Fisher Exact|||||1.86|0.77|0.68
95977965|NCT00186069|191928603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95977966|NCT00186069|191928604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.95
95977967|NCT01323634|191928646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.037|0.124|||ANCOVA|||||0.124|0.037|<0.001
95977968|NCT01182194|191928650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|92.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.53|100.03|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||100.03|85.53|
95900644|NCT04116229|191756697|OTHER|"Alternative hypothesis: higher levels of CRP, a pro-inflammatory marker, will relate to higher levels of putative neuroinflammation in white matter tracts as measured by DBSI hindered fraction after controlling for BMI.~Null hypothesis: CRP levels will not be related to DBSI HF in white matter tracts after controlling for BMI."|Slope|0.09||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold: p \< 0.05|Regression, Linear|||"This is a pilot study with a small sample. Power to detect significant results is therefore low in the current study.~Analyses performed across normal-weight and obese groups."||||0.77
95900645|NCT02002767|191756701|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean(GLSM) Ratio|149.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.62|190.49||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||190.49|116.62|
95900646|NCT02002767|191756702|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|149.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.97|192.11||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||192.11|116.97|
95900647|NCT02002767|191756703|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.76|135.38||||||A sample size of 8 evaluable participants in each renal function group (normal and severely impaired) will provide at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that participants with severe renal impairment have a minimum increase of 100% in AUC0-last, AUCinf, or Cmax of velpatasvir compared to participants with normal renal function.||135.38|90.76|
95900648|NCT03915548|191756750|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.54||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,747)=0.88|||.54
95900649|NCT03915548|191756751|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.09||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,746.4)=2.64|||.09
95900650|NCT03915548|191756752|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.55||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|Poisson model with log link; multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,717)=0.7|||.55
95900651|NCT03915548|191756753|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||F(3,394.7)=0.18|||.99
95900652|NCT03915548|191756754|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Overall score adjusted P = 0.99 Physical subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Social subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Emotional subscale adjusted P = 0.99 Functional subscale adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degree-of-freedom test|||"Group by time interaction:~Overall score: F(3,731.3)=0.03 Physical subscale: F(3,744.5)=0.23 Social subscale: F(3,740.6)=0.32 Emotional subscale: F(3,743)=0.46 Functional subscale: F(3,746.1)=0.3"|||0.99
95900653|NCT03915548|191756755|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Active coping adjusted P = 0.99 Planning adjusted P = 0.21 Positive reframing adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Active planning: F(3,746)=0.8 Planning: F(3,744.8)=2.93 Positive reframing = F(3,742)=0.21|||0.99
95900654|NCT03915548|191756756|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Disengagement: F(3,741.2)=5.09 Reengagement: F(3,745.7)=0.81|||0.02
95900655|NCT03915548|191756757|OTHER|Group by time interaction (difference in trajectory)||||||0.99||||||Anxiety adjusted P = 0.99 Depression adjusted P = 0.99|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|||Anxiety: F(3,737.5)=0.17 Depression: F(3,733.6)=0.85|||0.99
95900656|NCT03915548|191756758|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.54||Importance subscale: Adjusted P = .09 Performance subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001 Satisfaction subscale: Adjusted P = \<.001|Mixed Models Analysis|multiple-degrees-of-freedom test|Importance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.26 (-.01, 0.54) Performance subscale: Cohen's d = 0.60 (0.32, 0.87) Satisfaction subscale: Cohen's d = 0.76 (0.48, 1.02)|||0.54|-.01|.09
95900657|NCT03091751|191756778|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-224.88|245.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||||245.70|-224.88|0.77
95977969|NCT01182194|191928651|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.66|101.96|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.96|95.66|
95977970|NCT01182194|191928652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.35|101.7|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.70|95.35|
95977971|NCT01182194|191928653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|101.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|109.08|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||109.08|94.36|
95977972|NCT01182194|191928654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|102.71|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||102.71|94.55|
95977973|NCT01182194|191928655|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.07|103.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||103.46|96.07|
95977974|NCT01585987|191928659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.439||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.085|1.908||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its associated two-sided 80% confidence interval (CI) was estimated via a stratified Cox model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model|||1.908|1.085|0.0972
95977975|NCT01585987|191928660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.588||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.199|2.103||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank|||||2.103|1.199|0.0336
95977976|NCT01585987|191928661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.874||||0.6433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.602|1.269||Significance level used: 0.2|Log Rank||HR was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment arm as the only covariate in the model.|||1.269|0.602|0.6433
95977977|NCT01585987|191928663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0549||||0.3686|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.7009|47.6447||Significance level used: 0.2|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||47.6447|0.7009|0.3686
95900658|NCT03091751|191756779|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3068||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1501|0.4635|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.4635|0.1501|0.002
95977978|NCT03291587|191928664|SUPERIORITY|With 418 analyzable participants across 13 clinics per group, we have 80% power to detect a group difference in primary outcome (7-day abstinence). This assumes control abstinence rate will be 10% versus 20% intervention rate using a 2-sided Z-test for proportions with alpha=0.05 (2-sided). To account for the clustering we used an intra-class correlation value of 0.03. We plan to enroll 1114-1300 patients (or approximately 42-50 per site) to conservatively allow for 25%- 35.5% loss to follow-up.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.967||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.652|1.433|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A generalized estimating equation marginal model was used in an intent-to-treat analysis to predict the 7-day tobacco use binary outcome. A binomial distribution with logit link was specified with group, time, and the interaction of group by time included as covariates while allowing intercept and time to vary by participants within site with an exchangeable working correlation matrix designation.||1.433|0.652|0.865
95977979|NCT02197767|191928668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.072
95977980|NCT02197767|191928669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.068
95977981|NCT00267631|191928701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.026
95900659|NCT03091751|191756780|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|2.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.3|-8.9|0.30
95900660|NCT03091751|191756781|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0058||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0119|0.0003|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.0003|-0.0119|0.16
95900661|NCT03091751|191756782|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.609||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.344|-1.879|||t-test, 1 sided|||||-1.879|-13.344|0.02
95900662|NCT01161329|191756787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|It was estimated that 128 individuals would be required for 80 % Power with a type I error of 5% to detect a 2-point difference in BBS with a standard deviation of +/- 4 points. Because of the slow recruitment and the statistically significant improvements observed in the primary outcome in the intervention group during an interim analysis the study was finalized with fewer participants than had been initially calculated.||||||0.001||||||The Bonferroni method was used to assess longitudinal Changes and correct for multiple comparisons, with significance set at p\<0.016 to minimize the risk for type I errors.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the effects on the outcome measures. Between-group differences for all outcome measures were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test.||||0.001
95900663|NCT01161329|191756788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||The p-value for the man differnece in SPPB between grpoups att three months was 0.09|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95977982|NCT00381303|191928702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.85|0.68||P-Value for difference (Female - Male): Test for non-inferiority (Delta=15%)|Regression, Logistic|Estimates from logistic regression analysis include baseline log10 viral load and baseline CD4 cell count as covariates and gender as a factor.||"Confidence interval of the difference in proportion of response between two sexes estimated by:~* Application of delta method to be obtained Standard Error (SE)~* Calculation of lower and upper bound using normal approximation to the difference in response rates"||0.68|-19.85|0.30
95977983|NCT03933774|191928775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The degree of hyperpigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.002
95977984|NCT03933774|191928776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.479||||||P value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|McNemar|||Null hypothesis: The number of participants who showed ≥75% repigmentation is the same between the tretinoin applied side and placebo applied side.||||0.479
95977985|NCT01777269|191928777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.79|||mixed-model repeated-measures|||||-5.79|-10.22|<0.001
95977986|NCT01777269|191928778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|-2.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-2.21|-6.01|<0.001
95977987|NCT01777269|191928778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|-4.41|||Adjusted mean difference||Month 3|||-4.41|-8.45|<0.001
95977988|NCT01777269|191928778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-9.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.31|-6.77|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-6.77|-11.31|<0.001
95977989|NCT01777269|191928778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-8.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-6.67|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-6.67|-10.96|<0.001
95977990|NCT01777269|191928780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.23|-0.62|0.37
95977991|NCT01777269|191928780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.24|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.24|-0.71|0.33
95977992|NCT01777269|191928780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||0.15|-0.88|0.16
95977993|NCT01777269|191928780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.17|-1.19|0.009
95977994|NCT01777269|191928780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.46||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.07|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||0.07|-0.99|0.091
95977995|NCT01777269|191928781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-1.7|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.70|-4.07|<0.001
95977996|NCT01777269|191928781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-3.9|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-3.90|-6.59|<0.001
95977997|NCT01777269|191928781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.34|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-5.34|-8.30|<0.001
95977998|NCT01777269|191928781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.51|-5.59|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-5.59|-8.51|<0.001
95977999|NCT01777269|191928781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.47|-5.38|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-5.38|-8.47|<0.001
95978000|NCT01777269|191928782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.94||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.21|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-0.21|-1.67|0.012
95978001|NCT01777269|191928782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.93||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.17|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.17|-1.69|0.017
95978002|NCT01777269|191928782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.88|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.88|-2.57|<0.001
95978003|NCT01777269|191928782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-0.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.30|-2.01|0.009
95978004|NCT01777269|191928782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.01|-1.65|0.047
95978005|NCT01777269|191928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-0.85|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.85|-2.45|<0.001
95978006|NCT01777269|191928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-1.47|0.24
95978007|NCT01777269|191928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.27||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.36|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.36|-2.19|0.006
95978008|NCT01777269|191928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|-0.72|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.72|-2.74|<0.001
95978009|NCT01777269|191928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.34||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.28|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.28|-2.40|0.013
95978010|NCT01777269|191928783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.83|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.83|-3.12|<0.001
95978011|NCT01777269|191928784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.03|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-0.03|-0.78|0.036
95978012|NCT01777269|191928784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.37|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||0.37|-0.37|1.00
95978013|NCT01777269|191928784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.26||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||0.15|-0.67|0.21
95978014|NCT01777269|191928784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.15|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-0.15|-1.09|0.009
95978015|NCT01777269|191928784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.45||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.01|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||0.01|-0.91|0.056
95978016|NCT01777269|191928784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.58||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.08|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-0.08|-1.08|0.023
95978017|NCT01777269|191928785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-2.1|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Week 2|||-2.10|-3.89|<0.001
95978018|NCT01777269|191928785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.06|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 1|||-1.06|-3.15|<0.001
95978019|NCT01777269|191928785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.98|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 3|||-0.98|-3.25|<0.001
95978020|NCT01777269|191928785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|-1.3|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 6|||-1.30|-3.76|<0.001
95978021|NCT01777269|191928785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-0.05|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 9|||-0.05|-2.56|0.042
95978022|NCT01777269|191928785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.14|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Month 12|||-2.14|-4.87|<0.001
95978023|NCT01777269|191928786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|-5.49|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=2 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.49|-10.07|<0.001
95978024|NCT01777269|191928786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-4.99|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=3 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-4.99|-9.79|<0.001
95978025|NCT01777269|191928787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|-5.35|||mixed-model repeated-measures||Par. with IPSS change from baseline \>=25 points improvement at any time post-baseline visit|||-5.35|-10.22|<0.001
95978026|NCT00504881|191928789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction over Placebo|7.3|||=|0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|15.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA on log-transformed partial seizure frequency per week over the treatment period, with log-transformed baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate, and including terms for treatment and stratification factors.||15.9|-2.2|=0.125
95978027|NCT01009554|191928812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0905||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.306||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.306|-0.054|0.168
95978028|NCT01009554|191928814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.139||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.139|-0.127|0.928
95978029|NCT01009554|191928815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0718||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.378||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter values (L, a, and b) and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.378|0.092|0.002
95978030|NCT01009554|191928816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1235||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.286||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.286|-0.205|0.741
95978031|NCT01009554|191928817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1386||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.115||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.115|-0.437|0.249
95900664|NCT01260922|191756793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.07|107.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.51|97.07|
95978032|NCT01009554|191928818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1398||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.479|0.077||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value L and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.077|-0.479|0.154
95978033|NCT01009554|191928819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0746||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|-0.047||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.047|-0.343|0.011
95978034|NCT01009554|191928820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0703|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|-0.195||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.195|-0.474|<0.001
95978035|NCT01009554|191928821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0939||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.401|-0.027||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline tooth color parameter value b and age (in years) as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.027|-0.401|0.025
95978036|NCT01009554|191928822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0562||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.168||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.168|-0.055|0.319
95978037|NCT01009554|191928823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0668|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|0.405||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.405|0.139|<0.001
95978038|NCT01009554|191928824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.398|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.565||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.565|0.231|<0.001
95978039|NCT01009554|191928825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0271||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.084||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.084|-0.024|0.270
95978040|NCT01009554|191928826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0324|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.202||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.202|0.073|<0.001
95978041|NCT01009554|191928827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0399|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.273||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.273|0.114|<0.001
95978042|NCT01009554|191928828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0273||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|-0.020|0.217
95978043|NCT01009554|191928829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.200|0.073|<0.001
95978044|NCT01009554|191928830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0406|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.114|0.276||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area over all tooth sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.276|0.114|<0.001
95978045|NCT01009554|191928831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0716||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|0.197||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.197|-0.087|0.444
95978046|NCT01009554|191928832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.517||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.517|0.182|<0.001
95978047|NCT01009554|191928833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|0.754||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.754|0.331|<0.001
95978048|NCT01009554|191928834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0344||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.1||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.100|-0.037|0.361
95978049|NCT01009554|191928835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.256||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.256|0.092|<0.001
95978050|NCT01009554|191928836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0504|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.164|<0.001
95978051|NCT01009554|191928837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0345||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.102||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.102|-0.035|0.331
95978052|NCT01009554|191928838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0414|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.259||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.259|0.095|<0.001
95978053|NCT01009554|191928839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.368||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for interproximal (mesial and distal) sites and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.368|0.162|<0.001
95978054|NCT01009554|191928840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0726||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.282||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.282|-0.006|0.060
95978055|NCT01009554|191928841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.338|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.510|0.165|<0.001
95900665|NCT01260922|191756794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Slope|94.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|97.46|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||97.46|92.11|
95900666|NCT02248922|191756795|OTHER|||||||0.4099|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4099
95900667|NCT02248922|191756796|OTHER|||||||0.6961|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6961
95900668|NCT02248922|191756797|OTHER|||||||0.354|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3540
95900669|NCT02248922|191756798|OTHER|||||||0.591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5910
95900670|NCT02248922|191756799|OTHER|||||||0.4249|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4249
95900671|NCT02248922|191756800|OTHER|||||||0.3963|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3963
95900672|NCT02248922|191756801|OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3502
95900673|NCT02708745|191756804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
95900674|NCT02708745|191756805|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.18
95900675|NCT02708745|191756806|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||For the barrier 'not having enough time to discuss vaccine concerns', P=0.78. For the barrier 'not realizing until late in visit that parent had vaccine concerns', P=0.37. For the barrier 'not understanding parent specific vaccine concerns', P=0.66.|Chi-squared|||||||0.78
95900676|NCT01298063|191756814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|92.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.6||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.96|126.27||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||126.270|67.960|0.1998
95900677|NCT01298063|191756814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6||0.144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.278|124.549||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.549|72.278|0.1440
95900678|NCT01298063|191756815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|109.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.3||0.2002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.683|144.947||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||144.947|82.683|0.2002
95900679|NCT01298063|191756815|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|126.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.8||0.5281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.028|187.159||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||187.159|86.028|0.5281
95900680|NCT01298063|191756816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|90.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.8||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.915|122.705||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||122.705|66.915|0.2309
95900681|NCT01298063|191756816|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Relative bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio|94.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.563|124.764||P-value for ratio outside interval 80 - 125 percent|ANOVA|Adjusted (by treatment) geometric mean ratio|The standard deviation is actually the intra individual geometric coefficient of variation|||124.764|71.563|0.1546
95900682|NCT04632940|191756825|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8912||0.5553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.308|1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.251|-2.308|0.5553
95900683|NCT00835406|191756834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-36 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|97.94||||||90.0|90.96|105.45|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||105.45|90.96|
95978056|NCT01009554|191928842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.394|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.612||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.612|0.176|<0.001
95978057|NCT01009554|191928843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.143||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.143|0.002|0.045
95900684|NCT00835406|191756835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA will be performed on ln-transformed Ae0-35 and Rmax at the α level of 0.05.|Ratio of the mean|100.36||||||90.0|92.85|108.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||108.48|92.85|
95978058|NCT01009554|191928844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0415|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.26||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.260|0.095|<0.001
95978059|NCT01009554|191928845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.3||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.300|0.094|<0.001
95978060|NCT01009554|191928846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0355||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.147||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.147|0.006|0.034
95978061|NCT01009554|191928847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.247||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.247|0.089|<0.001
95978062|NCT01009554|191928848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0516|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|0.296||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the gingival region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.296|0.091|<0.001
95978063|NCT01009554|191928849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.042||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.042|-0.082|0.524
95978064|NCT01009554|191928850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.133||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.133|-0.024|0.172
95978065|NCT01009554|191928851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0439||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.028|0.203||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.203|0.028|0.010
95978066|NCT01009554|191928852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.015||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.015|-0.043|0.348
95978067|NCT01009554|191928853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.062||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.062|-0.012|0.185
95978068|NCT01009554|191928854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0196||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.088||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.088|0.010|0.014
95978069|NCT01009554|191928855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.024||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.024|-0.040|0.623
95900685|NCT02550652|191756918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|28.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|-3.4|0.1145
95900686|NCT02550652|191756918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|12.3||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|80.0|2.1|22.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference in Percentage of Participants||||22.6|2.1|0.1145
95900687|NCT02550652|191756919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246||95.0|3.0|37.2||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.2|3.0|0.0246
95900688|NCT02550652|191756919|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|20.1||||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|80.0|8.9|31.3||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.3|8.9|0.0246
95900689|NCT02550652|191756920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0744|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0744
95900690|NCT02550652|191756921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015||95.0|4.7|38.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.7|4.7|0.0150
95900691|NCT02550652|191756921|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|21.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|80.0|10.6|32.8||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.8|10.6|0.0150
95900692|NCT02550652|191756922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.4||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.4|-17.5|0.8461
95900693|NCT02550652|191756922|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-2.0||||0.8461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.1|8.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.1|-12.1|0.8461
95900694|NCT02550652|191756923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3530
95900695|NCT02550652|191756924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.491||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.491|-1.13|<0.0001
95900696|NCT02550652|191756924|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.019|-0.602||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||-0.602|-1.019|<0.0001
95900697|NCT02550652|191756925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.275||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.275|0.081|0.0004
95900698|NCT02550652|191756925|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.178||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.115|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|0.115|0.0004
95900699|NCT02550652|191756926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.052|0.124|||ANCOVA|Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).||||0.124|0.052|<0.0001
95900700|NCT02550652|191756926|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.088|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.065|0.112||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|ANCOVA|||||0.112|0.065|<0.0001
95900701|NCT02550652|191756927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09||95.0|-2.4|30.1||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.1|-2.4|0.0900
95900702|NCT02550652|191756927|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|13.9||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|80.0|3.2|24.5||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.5|3.2|0.0900
95900703|NCT02550652|191756928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.6|-6.4|0.1838
95900704|NCT02550652|191756928|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|10.6||||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|21.7||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-0.5|0.1838
95900705|NCT02550652|191756929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|24.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.6|-10.0|0.3726
95900706|NCT02550652|191756929|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|7.3||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|18.6||"Stratified by race (Afro Caribbean/African American vs. Others) and region (US vs. non-US sites).~Statistically significant at pre-specified alpha of 20%"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-4.0|0.3726
95900707|NCT01706250|191756940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.98||0.6779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6779
95900708|NCT01706250|191756940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|7.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.51||0.2847|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for NIL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.2847
95900709|NCT01706250|191756940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.35||0.6894|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for TL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV at Wk 8||||0.6894
95900710|NCT01706250|191756941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.1||0.9909|||||||Signed Rank|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.9909
95900711|NCT01706250|191756941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.91||0.6671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||IL count for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV- BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.6671
95900712|NCT01706250|191756941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.05||0.0632|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: IL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0632
95900713|NCT01706250|191756942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.31||0.7385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7385
95900714|NCT01706250|191756942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.77||0.7296|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7296
95900715|NCT01706250|191756942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.11||0.3774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: NIL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.3774
95900716|NCT01706250|191756943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.53||0.7634|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.7634
95900717|NCT01706250|191756943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.61||0.4087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.4087
95900718|NCT01706250|191756943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.4||0.2455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Percent change for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: TL count, BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2455
95900719|NCT01706250|191756944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
95900720|NCT01706250|191756944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||0.125|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.1250
95900721|NCT01706250|191756944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.625|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.6250
95900722|NCT01706250|191756944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in ISGA for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||1.0000
95900723|NCT01706250|191756945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
95900724|NCT01706250|191756945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Erythema for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
95900725|NCT01706250|191756946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22||1|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.00
95900726|NCT01706250|191756946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||1.0000
95900727|NCT01706250|191756947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Peeling, for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||1.0000
95900728|NCT01706250|191756948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.67||0.5313||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5313
95900729|NCT01706250|191756948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.5000
95900730|NCT01706250|191756948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.75|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.7500
95900731|NCT01706250|191756948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.25|||||||Signed rank|||Change, in Redness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
95900732|NCT01706250|191756949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.2131|||||||Signed Rank)|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.2131
95900733|NCT01706250|191756949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.16||0.2656||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.2656
95900734|NCT01706250|191756949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.2344||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2344
95978070|NCT01009554|191928856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.061||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.061|-0.013|0.192
95978071|NCT01009554|191928857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.099||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the body region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.099|0.014|0.009
95978072|NCT01009554|191928858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0384||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.071||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.071|-0.081|0.893
95978073|NCT01009554|191928859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.116||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.116|-0.073|0.655
95900735|NCT01706250|191756949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.3594||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Dryness for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3594
95900736|NCT01706250|191756950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32||0.6172|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.6172
95900737|NCT01706250|191756950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.3984|||||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.3984
95900738|NCT01706250|191756950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1||0.0781||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.0781
95900739|NCT01706250|191756950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.375||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Burning for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.3750
95900740|NCT01706250|191756951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||1||95.0|||||[Signed Rank]|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||1.0000
95900741|NCT01706250|191756951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.0625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.0625
95900742|NCT01706250|191756951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.2500
95978074|NCT01009554|191928860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0693||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.359||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.359|0.084|0.002
95978075|NCT01009554|191928861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0187||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.035||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.035|-0.039|0.914
95900743|NCT01706250|191756951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.25||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Itching for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.2500
95900744|NCT01706250|191756952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.5||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 1 (within group)||||0.5000
95900745|NCT01706250|191756952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Signed Rank|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||0.75||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 2 (within group)||||0.7500
95900746|NCT01706250|191756952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||0.4531||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 4 (within group)||||0.4531
95900747|NCT01706250|191756952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.625||95.0|||||Signed Rank|||Change, in Scaling for MAXCLARITY II Vs PROACTIV: from BL to Wk 8 (within group)||||0.6250
95900748|NCT02486406|191756977|SUPERIORITY||Wilson's score method|98.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.7|99.7||||||According to the Highlights of Prescribing Information of PEGASYS, the SVR24 rate was 47% among 45 treatment-naïve pediatric participants with HCV GT1 in the NV17424 trial. To show that the DAA regimen is superior to this current standard of care by 20%, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the SVR12 rate across all participants in the study must be greater than 67%.||99.7|91.7|
95900749|NCT01196871|191756981|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.439|3.548|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% confidence interval (CI) are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.548|2.439|
95900750|NCT01196871|191756981|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.431|3.56|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.560|2.431|
95900751|NCT01196871|191756981|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|2.354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.826|3.035|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.035|1.826|
95900752|NCT01196871|191756981|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|2.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.839|3.068|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||3.068|1.839|
95900753|NCT01196871|191756982|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.843|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.843|1.440|
95978076|NCT01009554|191928862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0229||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.056||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.056|-0.035|0.646
95900754|NCT01196871|191756982|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.546|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.3|1.838|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.838|1.300|
95900755|NCT01196871|191756984|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|1.14|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.140|0.921|
95900756|NCT01196871|191756984|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects mode Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.256|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.026|1.538|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.538|1.026|
95900757|NCT01196871|191756986|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.034|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.152|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.152|0.929|
95978077|NCT01009554|191928863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.163||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.163|0.040|0.001
95978078|NCT01009554|191928864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.037||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.037|-0.034|0.930
95978079|NCT01009554|191928865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.060|-0.029|0.486
95900758|NCT01196871|191756986|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.972|1.164|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 2 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.164|0.972|
95900759|NCT01196871|191756988|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUC0-t Ratio|1.059|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.818|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUC0-t Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.818|
95900760|NCT01196871|191756988|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|AUCinfinity Ratio|1.052|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.371|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 AUCinfinity Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.371|0.807|
95900761|NCT01196871|191756989|OTHER|Geometric means for each treatment combination is obtained from the linear mixed effects model Log (parameter) = Intercept + ß\*Treatment + Error.|Cmax Ratio|0.997|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.259|||||The ratios of the geometric means (combination/alone) and its 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|Statistical Analysis of Stage 1 Cmax Data: Point estimates for the geometric means and their 90% CI are obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean and the lower and upper bounds of the 90% CI of the natural log-transformed data.||1.259|0.791|
95900762|NCT02442830|191757000|OTHER|Log rank test||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||.002
95900763|NCT03851016|191757020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of depressive symptoms between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the GDS-12R at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in depressive symptoms."||||.113
95900764|NCT03851016|191757021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Mancova|||"Null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Presence of Meaning (POM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the POM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in POM."||||.123
95900765|NCT03851016|191757022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mancova|||"The null hypothesis is that there would be no difference in change of Search for Meaning (SFM) between Life Story Book Intervention and Usual Care. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) models with the SFM at baseline as the covariate, and the treatment group and study site as factors. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.~A sample size of 20 was needed to provide 90% power to detect a 5 point difference in SFM."||||.910
95900766|NCT02797262|191757025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the IPAM score between two groups.||||0.57
95900767|NCT02797262|191757027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the intervention period (week 0-16) between two groups.||||0.08
95900768|NCT02797262|191757027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the change of the plasma HIV RNA levels during the post-intervention period (week 16-28) between two groups.||||0.23
95900769|NCT02797262|191757027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment Difference = Intervention - Control|Compared the plasma HIV RNA levels during week 4-28 between two groups.||||0.03
95900770|NCT02553746|191757029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.748
95900771|NCT02553746|191757030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.498
95900772|NCT02553746|191757031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.171
95900773|NCT02553746|191757032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.162
95900774|NCT02553746|191757033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.104
95900775|NCT02553746|191757034|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.005
95900776|NCT01404312|191757103|NON_INFERIORITY|"Non-inferiority margin: 1.25 events per 100 person-years.~Sample size determination was based on the assumption of a primary endpoint rate of 2.0/100 person-years, with a one-sided 0.025 alpha level, and targeting at least 90% power. This required a sample size of approximately 2500. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for loss to follow-up, interim monitoring, and to allow for subgroup analyses with reasonable power."|Incidence Rate Difference|-0.0231|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-0.346|0.3|||||"Estimate given as Incidence rate in Arm A - Incidence Rate in Arm B (negative favors Arm A).~Incidence rate units: Events per 100 person-years"|Mantel-Haenszel method used for estimating standardized incidence rate in each arm and incidence rate difference.||0.300|-0.346|
95900777|NCT01404312|191757104|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.016||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.002||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any SAE occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm A = Proportion of participants with SAE in Arm B."||0.002|-0.035|0.073
95900778|NCT01404312|191757105|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0058||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.007||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact||Estimate given as: Proportion Arm A - Proportion Arm B|"Comparison of the proportion of participants with any targeted adverse event occurrence between arms A and B.~H0: Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm A = Proportion of participants with a targeted adverse event in Arm B."||0.007|-0.019|0.405
95900779|NCT01404312|191757106|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.093|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.315|3.332|||||"Estimate given as: Odds of being in higher category (more stringent management due to toxicity) for Arm B compared with arm A~Not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|"Odds ratio of being in higher category estimated from proportional odds model~H0: Odds ratio of being in higher category for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||3.332|1.315|
95978080|NCT01009554|191928866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.18||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the facial region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.180|0.045|0.001
95900780|NCT01404312|191757107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3078||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Log Rank|||H0: Survival curve Arm A = Survival curve Arm B||||0.3078
95900781|NCT01404312|191757108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.396||||0.2802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|2.559||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Hazard Ratio||Hazard ratio given as: Arm B hazard / Arm A hazard, i.e. HR \> 1 favors arm A|"Competing risk analysis using the Fine-Gray model, treating TB-related deaths as competing risks, and other deaths including deaths of unknown cause as the event of interest.~H0: Hazard Ratio for Arm A vs Arm B = 1"||2.559|0.762|0.2802
95900782|NCT03143829|191757113|OTHER|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences at week 10||||0.083
95900783|NCT03143829|191757114|OTHER|||||||0.099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive comparison||||.099
95900784|NCT03143829|191757115|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison at time 4||||.558
95900785|NCT03143829|191757116|OTHER|||||||0.153|||||||Chi-squared|||descriptive comparison of resource use||||.153
95900786|NCT00673049|191757193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.091||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.909|1.31||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.024 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|Nominal p-values were reported without adjustment for the interim analysis.||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.310|0.909|0.35
95900787|NCT00673049|191757194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.287||One-sided significance level at alpha=0.001 was used. Two-sided p-value was reported.|Log Rank|||P-value was calculated using log-rank test stratified by gender (Male or Female), ECOG performance status (less than or equal to \[=\<1\] or 2), and region (United States/Canada, European Union, rest of world). The stratified Cox proportional hazards model was fitted to estimate the hazard ratio, using the same stratification variables as above.||1.287|0.898|0.426
95900788|NCT00673049|191757195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|1.668||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|5.1|||Chi-squared|||||5.1|-1.7|0.338
95900789|NCT01222494|191757237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.01
95900790|NCT01222494|191757238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.04
95900791|NCT01222494|191757239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.70
95978081|NCT01009554|191928867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1006||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.320|-0.080|0.237
95978082|NCT01009554|191928868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.743||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.743|0.298|<0.001
95978083|NCT01009554|191928869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.839||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain score for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.839|0.295|<0.001
95978084|NCT01009554|191928870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0491||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.16||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.160|-0.036|0.210
95978085|NCT01009554|191928871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.372||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.372|0.153|<0.001
95900792|NCT01222494|191757240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The p-value refers to the treatment group term in the model. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p \< 0.05.|ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used to test for differences between groups at endpoint, controlling for baseline values.||||0.003
95900793|NCT01174030|191757241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.392|||<|0.001||95.0|2.637|26.71|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||26.710|2.637|<0.001
95900794|NCT01174030|191757241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.269||||0.549||95.0|0.586|2.747|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||2.747|0.586|0.549
95978086|NCT01009554|191928872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.411||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain intensity for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.411|0.151|<0.001
95900795|NCT01174030|191757241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.738||||0.027||95.0|1.097|12.742|||GEE:Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||12.742|1.097|0.027
95900796|NCT01174030|191757242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.683||||0.003||95.0|1.388|5.188|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model||||5.188|1.388|.003
95900797|NCT01174030|191757242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.892||||0.056||95.0|0.98|3.651|||GEE: Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.651|0.980|0.056
95900798|NCT01174030|191757242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.885||||0.074||95.0|0.946|3.756|||GEE:Logit link Function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.756|0.946|0.074
95900799|NCT01174030|191757243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.582|||<|0.001||95.0|2.755|15.723|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalize Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||15.723|2.755|<0.001
95900800|NCT01174030|191757243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.853||||0.093||95.0|0.903|3.802|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||3.802|0.903|0.093
95900801|NCT01174030|191757243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.365||||0.054||95.0|0.96|5.825|||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||5.825|0.960|0.054
95900802|NCT03779997|191757244|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.02||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Log-linear GEE regression|||Null hypothesis: no difference in the percentage of urine drug tests (UDT) negative for opioids between the two treatment arms.Treatment-as-usual (TAU) is the reference group.||1.02|0.60|0.07
95900803|NCT03779997|191757245|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.1||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment arms in the percentage of patients engaged in treatment at week 12. TAU is the reference group.||1.10|0.65|0.20
95900804|NCT03779997|191757246|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.16||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs|||Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the percentage of participants engaged in treatment at week 24 post-randomization. TAU is the reference group.||1.16|0.45|0.18
95900805|NCT03779997|191757247|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.7||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms on the number of consecutive weeks with UDT negative for opioids.||2.7|-0.9|0.31
95900806|NCT03779997|191757248|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the number of participants who self-reported illicit opioid use at week 12.||2.26|0.23|0.57
95900807|NCT03779997|191757249|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.066||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.15||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|GEE Poisson regression||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in the mean number of days adherent to buprenorphine by self-report.||1.15|0.89|0.88
95900808|NCT03779997|191757251|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.24||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who had one or more urine drug tests negative for buprenorphine.||3.24|0.42|0.77
95900809|NCT03779997|191757252|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Poisson regression with robust SEs||TAU is the reference group.|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in number of participants who tested positive for stimulants at week 12.||1.43|0.32|0.30
95900810|NCT03779997|191757253|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.32||0.05 a priori threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided||TAU is the reference group|Null hypothesis: No difference between arms in mean treatment satisfaction scores||0.32|-0.29|0.91
95900811|NCT00097591|191757254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|0.927||The primary outcome measure was analyzed first in the UA/NSTEMI population, followed by All ACS subjects, followed by the STEMI population.|Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For UA/NSTEMI population||0.927|0.726|0.002
95900812|NCT00097591|191757254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.793||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|0.968|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|||For STEMI population||0.968|0.649|0.019
95900813|NCT00097591|191757254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.902|||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For All ACS population||0.902|0.732|<0.001
95978087|NCT01009554|191928873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0496||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.165||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.165|-0.033|0.187
95900814|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.314||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|1.559|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major or Minor Bleeding||1.559|1.107|0.002
95900815|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.315||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.028|1.683|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding||1.683|1.028|0.029
95900816|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.517||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|2.126|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - Life-threatening events (LT)||2.126|1.083|0.015
95900817|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.191||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.158|11.113|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Fatal||11.113|1.1580|0.002
95900818|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.119||||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|2.152|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Symptomatic intracranial hemorrage (ICH)||2.152|0.582|0.736
95900819|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.617||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.159|5.908|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring inotropes||5.908|1.159|0.016
95900820|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.998||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|1.885|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring surgical intervention||1.885|0.528|0.995
95900821|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.499||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|2.379|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Major Bleeding - LT - Requiring transfusion (\>=4 units)||2.379|0.945|0.084
95978088|NCT01009554|191928874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.364||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.364|0.148|<0.001
95978089|NCT01009554|191928875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0669|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.406||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as a factor and baseline mean stain area for the lingual region and smoking status as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||0.406|0.140|<0.001
95978090|NCT01405937|191928881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
95978091|NCT01405937|191928881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The Type-I error rate over the multiple tests comparisons was controlled by the Hochberg testing procedure.|exact test for binomial proportion|||The null hypothesis that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was 20% versus the alternative that the percentage of participants achieving SVR24 of vaniprevir treatment was over 20% was tested.||||<0.001
95978092|NCT01231516|191928929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority of DTG 50 mg and RAL at Week 48 can be concluded if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in percentages (DTG - RAL) is greater than -12%. If non-inferiority were established, superiority would be tested at the nominal 5% level based on a pre-specified testing procedure.|Difference in percentage|7.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.2||P-value is for test of superiority.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted difference in proportion which is based on the difference in percentage, adjusted for Baseline (BL) stratification factors.|Analysis was adjusted for BL stratification factors: HIV-1 RNA (\<=50000 versus \[vs\]\>50000 c/mL), darunavir-ritonavir use without primary protease inhibitor mutations (yes vs no), and phenotypic susceptibility score (2 vs \<2) to background regimen.|||14.2|0.7|0.030
95978093|NCT04427501|191928945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58||||||||0.58|0.15|
95978094|NCT04427501|191928945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31||||||||0.31|0.04|
95978095|NCT04427501|191928946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.4||||||||0.40|0.13|
95900822|NCT00097591|191757255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.313||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.656|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||For the subset of non-CABG TIMI Minor Bleeding||1.656|1.040|0.022
95900823|NCT00097591|191757256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.784|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|0.894|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.894|0.688|<0.001
95900824|NCT00097591|191757256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.794|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.896|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.896|0.703|<0.001
95978096|NCT04427501|191928947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.6921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|-0.35|0.6921
95900825|NCT00097591|191757257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|0.876|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 30 days||0.876|0.672|<0.001
95900826|NCT00097591|191757257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.901|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||Through 90 days||0.901|0.705|<0.001
95900827|NCT00097591|191757258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.838|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.921|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.921|0.762|<0.001
95900828|NCT00097591|191757259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.919|||Log Rank|Clinical presentation, UA/NSTEMI versus STEMI, was used as a stratification factor.||||0.919|0.751|<0.001
95900829|NCT02312310|191757260|SUPERIORITY|Test of trend across doses.||||||0.393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in outcome from baseline to 12 weeks tested using mixed effects models controlling for baseline measures, treatment, sex, age, and education.|||The flavanol effect on the change in each outcome from baseline to 12 weeks was tested using linear mixed effects models controlling for the respective baseline measures, four categories of treatment, sex, age, and education. Regression adjusted mean within-group tests of change were estimated and tested for statistical significance from the model. The primary test used for assessing the treatment effect was the linear trend contrast from the model across: placebo, low, medium and high dose. The model for cognitive measures incorporated additional outcome measurement times at 4 weeks and 20 weeks and included categorical time (4, 12, 20 weeks) as a predictor as well as a treatment (4 category) by time interaction, and a random intercept to control for repeated measures within individuals (results for 4 and 20 weeks not presented).|||.393
95900830|NCT00048724|191757265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.452||||0.1439||95.0|0.88|2.396|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The primary scientific hypothesis is that, 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of clinical events in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.396|0.880|0.1439
95900831|NCT00048724|191757266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.564||||0.007||95.0|1.13|2.166|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Age (\<= 50 years, \>50 years) and participation in a prior study (yes, no) were stratification factors.|Hazard ratio represents results of untreated control relative to treatment.|The secondary hypothesis is that 0.5 ug/kg subcutaneous once weekly PegIntron as maintenance therapy is efficacious, when compared to no treatment, in the prevention of disease progression in adult subjects with compensated cirrhosis (Metavir F4), secondary to Chronic Hepatitis C, who have failed to respond to therapy with any α interferon plus ribavirin.||2.166|1.130|0.0070
95900832|NCT02809976|191757267|OTHER|single group/descriptive analysis||||||0.02|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.02
95900833|NCT03264157|191757281|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis is p-p0 ≤ -0.1. The alternative hypothesis is p-p0 \> -0.1, where p is the proportion of subjects with anti-rabies titer of \>0.5 IU/mL at Day 14 in subjects receiving BPL HRIG + vaccine and p0 is the proportion receiving comparator HRIG + vaccine. We reject the null hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level, and conclude that p-p0 \> -0.1, if the lower bound of an exact 95% binomial confidence interval exceeds -0.1.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|||The threshold for this test is \<=0.025.|Farrington and Manning test||||||-0.05|0.0006
95900834|NCT03264157|191757282|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non inferiority margin was 20%. The lower bound of the 95% CI required should be greater than 0.8 to conclude non-inferiority.|lower 95% CI|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94||||||||0.94|0.74|
95900835|NCT03264157|191757283|SUPERIORITY||95% CI|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Data analyzed as log normal. The value presented is the untransformed value of the difference between means.|||||
95900836|NCT03264157|191757284|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|-0.05||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Farrington and Manning test|||||0.10|-0.05|0.0006
95900837|NCT03264157|191757285|NON_INFERIORITY|The same methodology was used as the primary endpoint for each visit. The statistical analysis is presenting the Day 14 data.|lower 95% CI|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Farrington and Manning test||For Day 14, all subjects achieved the endpoint (RVNA titer \> LLOQ). Since the statistic to measure the performance is a proportion, the proportion is 1 and no variance is calculable.|||0|0|0
95900838|NCT01163682|191757287|NON_INFERIORITY|"This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 2 points on the BPI-SF worst pain score, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.~Null Hypothesis: electro-acupucture does not prevent taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.90|0.25
95900839|NCT01163682|191757288|NON_INFERIORITY|This tests determined the odds of an increase of greater than or equal to 5 points on the FACT-NTX scale, from baseline to 16 weeks, among those in the intervention arm (electo-acupuncture), compared to those in the control arm (sham acupuncture). This change was considered to be clinically meaningful.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.97|0.09
95900840|NCT00414050|191757316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Modified Process Hepatitis B vaccine-5µg (micrograms) declared non-inferior to RECOMBIVAX HB™ if the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval for the ratio of Geometric Mean Titers (Modified Process Vaccine 5 micrograms/RECOMBIVAX HB™) was \>= 0.67. The study had 98 percent power for this test, based on an assumption of true equality.|Ratio of geometric means|1.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.35||||||Comparison of Induced (effected) Geometric Mean Titer for the Modified Hepatitis B Process Vaccine and RECOMBIVAX Hepatitis B vaccine.||2.35|1.69|
95900841|NCT02138214|191757317|OTHER|||||||0.567||||||p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.567
95900842|NCT02138214|191757318|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.110
95900843|NCT02138214|191757320|OTHER|||||||0.758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
95900844|NCT02138214|191757322|OTHER|||||||0.236|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.236
95900845|NCT02138214|191757323|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
95900846|NCT02138214|191757324|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.400
95900847|NCT03509948|191757344|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|79.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|95.35||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.35|66.40|
95900848|NCT03509948|191757345|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|92.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.37|95.95||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.95|88.37|
95900849|NCT03509948|191757346|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|90.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.99|97.2||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||97.20|84.99|
95900850|NCT03509948|191757348|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|1.75||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||1.75|0.25|
95900851|NCT03509948|191757350|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Least Squares Mean|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.55|95.41||||||Fed/Fasted Ratio||95.41|87.55|
95900852|NCT00799617|191757361|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||0.78|0.38|<0.001
95900853|NCT00799617|191757362|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.45||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes is the odds ratio for achieving the outcome versus not achieving the outcome among men assigned to testosterone versus those assigned to placebo.||2.45|0.83|0.20
95900854|NCT00799617|191757363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.84|0.83|0.30
95900855|NCT00799617|191757364|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|67.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||67|14|.003
95900856|NCT00799617|191757365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|8.7||Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors.|Regression, Linear|||||8.7|4.8|<.001
95900857|NCT00799617|191757366|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.79||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.~The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors."||0.79|-0.92|.88
95900858|NCT00799617|191757367|SUPERIORITY|Dichotomous hemoglobin response is an increase of 1g/dL or more from baseline.|Odds Ratio (OR)|31.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|277.8||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a logistic mixed model with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|The statistical analysis was intent-to-treat by a logistic mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.||||277.8|3.7|.002
95900859|NCT00799617|191757368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|3.74||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.74|2.13|<0.001
95900860|NCT00799617|191757369|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|3.61||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, use of PDE5 inhibitors||||3.61|1.68|<0.001
95900861|NCT00799617|191757370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.09||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|11.18||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.18|-3.00|0.28
95900862|NCT00799617|191757371|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.00|0.90|0.15
95978097|NCT04427501|191928947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.71|0.2110
95978098|NCT04427501|191928947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.76|-0.13|0.1630
95900863|NCT00799617|191757372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.29||The P value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|0.20|0.03
95900864|NCT00799617|191757373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.21||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.46||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.46|-0.04|0.06
95900865|NCT00799617|191757374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.5||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|0.31|0.03
95900866|NCT00799617|191757375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|0.02|0.04
95900867|NCT00799617|191757376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.19||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.19|-0.79|<0.001
95900868|NCT00799617|191757377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.72||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.23||The p value for the treatment effect was determined with the use of a logistic mixed model with a random effect for participant for dichotomous outcomes and a linear mixed model with a random effect for participant for continuous outcomes.|Treatment Effect|||||-0.23|-1.20|0.004
95900869|NCT00799617|191757378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|80.0||Determined by linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||80|13|.006
95900870|NCT00799617|191757379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|26.0||Determined by a linear mixed model with all balancing factors and baseline outcome value as covariates and a random effect for participant.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference in change from baseline for participants assigned to testosterone v. placebo, with adjustment for balancing factors: baseline testosterone, age, site, trial participation, use of antidepressants, PDE5 inhibitors, baseline outcome.|||26|-80|.31
95900871|NCT00799617|191757380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||3.7|2.1|<.001
95900872|NCT00799617|191757381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|5.3||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||5.3|3.2|<.001
95900873|NCT00799617|191757382|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.0|0.9|<.001
95978099|NCT04427501|191928947|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.14|-1.00|0.0099
95900874|NCT00799617|191757383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.5|0.5|<.001
95900875|NCT00799617|191757384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."||1.7|0.8|<.001
95978100|NCT04427501|191928952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.86||||||||1.86|1.13|
95978101|NCT04427501|191928952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
95978102|NCT04427501|191928952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.53||||||||2.53|1.06|
95978103|NCT04427501|191928953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.93||||||||1.93|1.17|
95978104|NCT04427501|191928953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.09||||||||2.09|1.33|
95978105|NCT04427501|191928953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.9||||||||2.9|1.22|
95978106|NCT04427501|191928954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.64||||||||0.64|0.18|
95978107|NCT04427501|191928954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.38||||||||0.38|0.07|
95900876|NCT00799617|191757385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|809.0||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||809|5.3|<.001
95900877|NCT00799617|191757386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|10.9||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||10.9|6.0|<.001
95900878|NCT00799617|191757387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.2||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||7.2|4.3|<.001
95900879|NCT00799617|191757388|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.6||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.6|1.1|<.001
95978108|NCT04427501|191928954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|0.06|
95978109|NCT04427501|191928955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.94|-1.46|<0.0000000
95978110|NCT04427501|191928955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.34|<0.0000000
95978111|NCT04427501|191928955|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||3.777e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.45|0.00003777
95978112|NCT04427501|191928956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
95978113|NCT04427501|191928956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.111||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.130
95978114|NCT04427501|191928956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.012
95978115|NCT04427501|191928957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.355||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.007
95978116|NCT04427501|191928957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.237||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.033
95978117|NCT04427501|191928957|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.017
95978118|NCT04427501|191928958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.64|-0.31|0.499
95978119|NCT04427501|191928958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.31|-0.64|0.492
95978120|NCT04427501|191928958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.86|-0.11|0.125
95978121|NCT04427501|191928958|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.89|0.069
95978122|NCT04427501|191928959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.04|0.034
95978123|NCT04427501|191928959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.91|0.69|0.594
95978124|NCT04427501|191928959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.79|0.291
95978125|NCT04427501|191928959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.40|0.88|0.143
95978126|NCT04427501|191928960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.14|0.014
95978127|NCT04427501|191928960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.64|0.828
95900880|NCT00799617|191757389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.7|0.3|.005
95900881|NCT00799617|191757390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.4|0.5|<.001
95900882|NCT00799617|191757391|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.09||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||2.09|0.25|.01
95900883|NCT00799617|191757392|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.36||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.36|-0.01|.052
95900884|NCT00799617|191757393|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.58||"Treatment effect is the mean difference in the change from baseline between testosterone and placebo arms.~The P-Value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by multivariable linear regression adjusted for balancing factors."|Regression, Linear|||||1.58|-0.45|0.27
95900885|NCT00799617|191757394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.19||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||0.19|-0.76|.24
95900886|NCT00799617|191757395|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.65||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.65|-1.89|.89
95900887|NCT00799617|191757396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.51||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.88||The estimated difference and P-value were determined by a linear mixed-model with a random effect for participants using outcomes at month 6 and month 12.|Mixed Models Analysis||The difference is the mean difference in the change from baseline to 6 months to 12 months in participants allocated to testosterone vs placebo adjusted for balancing factors.|A positive estimated difference indicates greater increases, smaller decreases, or both for the testosterone group compared with the placebo group.||1.88|-12.91|.14
95900888|NCT00799617|191757397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.39||The P-value for the significance of the treatment effect was determined by a linear mixed model for continuous outcomes with a random intercept for participant.|Mixed Models Analysis||Intent-to-treat analysis by a linear mixed effects model adjusted for balancing factors.|||1.39|0.48|<.001
95900889|NCT01312766|191757423|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The one-way Analysis of Variance with Least-Squares means was performed to calculate the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between the two treatments. If the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval of the difference between means (hMG-IBSA minus Menopur®) was greater than -2.1, then hMG-IBSA would be considered to be not-inferior to the comparator.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.43|||ANOVA|||||3.43|0.43|0.012
95900890|NCT01312766|191757424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95900891|NCT01312766|191757426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.90
95900892|NCT01312766|191757427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95978128|NCT04427501|191928960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.02|1.09|0.022
95978129|NCT04427501|191928960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.43|0.90|0.119
95978130|NCT04427501|191928963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.04|0.098
95978131|NCT04427501|191928963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.51|0.09|0.165
95978132|NCT04427501|191928963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.10|0.191
95900893|NCT01312766|191757430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95900894|NCT01312766|191757431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.002
95900895|NCT01312766|191757432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95978133|NCT04427501|191928963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.18|0.04|0.075
95978134|NCT04427501|191928964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.616
95978135|NCT04427501|191928964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.281
95978136|NCT04427501|191928964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.815
95978137|NCT04427501|191928964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.334
95978138|NCT05266586|191928971|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
95978139|NCT05266586|191928972|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
95900896|NCT01312766|191757433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95900897|NCT01312766|191757434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95978140|NCT05266586|191928973|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.59|-48.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-48.18|-68.59|<.0001
95978141|NCT05266586|191928974|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
95978142|NCT05266586|191928975|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
95978143|NCT05266586|191928976|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-58.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.195|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.47|-47.83|||ANCOVA|||||-47.83|-68.47|<.0001
95978144|NCT05266586|191928977|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
95978145|NCT05266586|191928978|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
95978146|NCT05266586|191928979|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-38.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.397|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.07|-27.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.63|-49.07|<.0001
95978147|NCT05266586|191928980|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
95978148|NCT05266586|191928981|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
95978149|NCT05266586|191928982|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-37.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.465|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.07|-26.35|||ANCOVA|||||-26.35|-48.07|<.0001
95978150|NCT05266586|191928983|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
95978151|NCT05266586|191928984|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
95978152|NCT05266586|191928985|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-35.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.23|-28.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.13|-43.23|<.0001
95978153|NCT05266586|191928986|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
95978154|NCT05266586|191928987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
95978155|NCT05266586|191928988|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-22.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.991|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.21|-14.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-14.36|-30.21|<.0001
95978156|NCT03951220|191929008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7343
95978157|NCT03951220|191929009|OTHER|Correlation|Spearman (r)|0.39||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.68|||Spearman's rank correlation coeffcieitn|||||0.68|0.00|0.0445
95978158|NCT03951220|191929010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0079||||||Dunn's multiple comparisons test|Kruskal-Wallis|||For baseline P1NP||||0.0079
95978159|NCT03951220|191929010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0482||||||Dunn's multiple comparison test|ANOVA|||For baseline sclerostin||||0.0482
95900898|NCT01312766|191757435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.61
95900899|NCT00023452|191757443|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.24|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.01|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the rate in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the rate in the 9INH arm.|||0.01||
95978160|NCT03951220|191929021|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test|||||||0.015
95978161|NCT03951220|191929024|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.007
95978162|NCT00692978|191929031|EQUIVALENCE|Log transformed parametric ANOVA|||||<|0.05||||||calculated|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95978163|NCT05461794|191929036|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|23.9|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||23.9|0.3|
95978164|NCT05461794|191929036|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|19.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||19.5|-9.3|
95978165|NCT05461794|191929038|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.61|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||1.61|0.45|
95978166|NCT05461794|191929039|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||6.8|0.9|
95978167|NCT05461794|191929039|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.7|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||3.7|0.3|
95978168|NCT05461794|191929039|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|43.3|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||43.3|-1.5|
95978169|NCT05461794|191929039|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|28.4|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||28.4|-24.5|
95900900|NCT00023452|191757444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Rate|-0.21|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.04|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.04||
95900901|NCT00023452|191757445|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.25|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.03|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.03||
95900902|NCT00023452|191757446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95900903|NCT00023452|191757447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 3 Drug Toxicity||||0.24
95900904|NCT00023452|191757447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Grade 4 Drug Toxicity||||0.59
95900905|NCT00023452|191757448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
95900906|NCT00023452|191757450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95900907|NCT00023452|191757451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95900908|NCT00023452|191757452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority test statistic was based on the difference of the nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimators. The asymptotic variance of the test statistic was obtained through Greenwood's formula and a two-sided 95% CI was constructed for the difference. If the upper bound of the CI was smaller than the noninferiority margin 0.75%, then the null hypothesis would be rejected and noninferiority could be claimed.|Difference in Cumulative TB Disease Rate|-0.19|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.06|||||The difference in cumulative TB disease rate is the percentage in the 3RPT/INH arm minus the percentage in the 9INH arm.|||0.06||
95900909|NCT01940705|191757493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.578||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Skills scale||||0.001
95978170|NCT05461794|191929040|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.8|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||40.8|0.7|
95900910|NCT01940705|191757493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.235||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Analysis for Hearing Aid Skills and Knowledge test Knowledge scale||||0.003
95900911|NCT01940705|191757494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.956||||0.414|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.414
95978171|NCT05461794|191929040|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.9|||||The odds ratio was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||2.9|0.1|
95900912|NCT01940705|191757495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.847
95900913|NCT03328897|191757515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.77|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.77|-5.70|<0.001
95978172|NCT05461794|191929040|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.5|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||29.5|-2.3|
95978173|NCT05461794|191929040|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|13.8|||||The risk difference was estimated along with their exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics.|||13.8|-34.7|
95978174|NCT05461794|191929041|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.96|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||0.96|0.29|
95900914|NCT03328897|191757515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.738|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-2.33|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.33|-5.24|<0.001
95900915|NCT03328897|191757516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.555|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|-7.14|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-7.14|-13.25|<0.001
95900916|NCT03328897|191757516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.14|-6.1|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-6.10|-12.14|<0.001
95900917|NCT03328897|191757517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|-4.24|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-4.24|-7.59|<0.001
95900918|NCT03328897|191757517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.842|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-3.69|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-3.69|-7.00|<0.001
95900919|NCT03328897|191757518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.27|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.27|<0.001
95900920|NCT03328897|191757518|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|15.06|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.06|3.29|<0.001
95900921|NCT03328897|191757519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|32.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.37|3.88|<0.001
95900922|NCT03328897|191757519|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|17.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||17.17|2.01|0.001
95900923|NCT03328897|191757520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.95|1.51|<0.001
95900924|NCT03328897|191757520|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.41|0.002
95900925|NCT03328897|191757521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-2.3|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-2.3|-5.7|<0.001
95900926|NCT03328897|191757521|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.8|||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures(MMRM)|||||-1.8|-5.1|<0.001
95900927|NCT03328897|191757522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.33|||Regression, Cox|||||2.33|1.25|<0.001
95900928|NCT03328897|191757522|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.25|||Regression, Cox|||||2.25|1.22|0.001
95900929|NCT01175824|191757529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the LS mean between the two treatment arms (twice-daily insulin lispro Low Mixture minus the comparator arm) at 24 weeks is \<0.4%.|LS mean difference|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.04||||||||-0.04|-0.38|
95900930|NCT01175824|191757530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1858||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1858
95900931|NCT01175824|191757531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3588||95.0||||HbA1c concentration \<7%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.3588
95900932|NCT01175824|191757531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5958||95.0||||HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5958
95900933|NCT01175824|191757532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0827||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 12 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0827
95900934|NCT01175824|191757532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5353||95.0||||p-value is for the Week 24 comparison|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5353
95900935|NCT01175824|191757536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2833||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 12.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2833
95900936|NCT01175824|191757536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0176||95.0||||p-value is for the comparison at Week 24.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0176
95900937|NCT01175824|191757542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05||||Superiority will be concluded if of 95% CI upper limit for treatment difference (2x-daily insulin lispro LM minus the comparator arm) at 24 wks is \<0%||||-0.05|-0.39|
95900938|NCT00767000|191757547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.22|-0.80|<0.001
95900939|NCT00767000|191757547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.93|-0.36|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.36|-0.93|<0.001
95900940|NCT00767000|191757547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.1|-0.53|||Contrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.53|-1.10|<0.001
95900941|NCT00767000|191757547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
95900942|NCT00767000|191757548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.6|-17.5|||Constrained longitudial model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.5|-55.6|<0.001
95900943|NCT00767000|191757548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.7||||0.005||95.0|-45.4|-8.1|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-8.1|-45.4|0.005
95900944|NCT00767000|191757548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-35.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.0|-16.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-16.0|-54.0|<0.001
95900945|NCT00767000|191757548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-36.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-55.9|-17.9|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||-17.9|-55.9|<0.001
95900946|NCT00767000|191757549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8||||0.791||95.0|-11.6|15.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||15.2|-11.6|0.791
95900947|NCT00767000|191757549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.3||||0.121||95.0|-2.7|23.2|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||23.2|-2.7|0.121
95900948|NCT00767000|191757549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.169||95.0|-22.6|4.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||4.0|-22.6|0.169
95900949|NCT00767000|191757549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.7||||0.321||95.0|-6.6|20.0|||Constrained longitudinal model|||Analysis for change from baseline to Week 14||20.0|-6.6|0.321
95900950|NCT00127790|191757563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.010
95900951|NCT00127790|191757563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.581|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.581
95900952|NCT00127790|191757563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.011|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.011
95900953|NCT00127790|191757564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.33|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.33
95900954|NCT00127790|191757564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.112|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.112
95900955|NCT00127790|191757564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.737|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.737
95900956|NCT00127790|191757565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.063|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.063
95900957|NCT00127790|191757565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.786|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores||||0.786
95900958|NCT00127790|191757565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.039|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.039
95900959|NCT00127790|191757566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.2||||0.016|||||||Generlaized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.016
95900960|NCT00127790|191757566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4||||0.187|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.187
95900961|NCT00127790|191757566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.2||||0.015|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||Two-tailed comparison of pre-post scores.||||0.015
95900962|NCT02057757|191757615|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 1.25 Days.||||||0.5634|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.5634
95900963|NCT02057757|191757616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||The p-value for each time point was calculated; Day 3|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.645
95900964|NCT02057757|191757616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||The p-value for each value was calculated (Day 7).|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.989
95900965|NCT02057757|191757616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.809
95900966|NCT02057757|191757616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.671
95900967|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4277||||||Cough|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.4277
95900968|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4022||||||Sore Throat|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.4022
95900969|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5957||||||Fatigue|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5957
95900970|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0446||||||Nasal Discharge|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0446
95900971|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8628||||||Difficulty Breathing|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.8628
95900972|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Headache|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.16
95900973|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1234||||||Muscle Pain|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.1234
95900974|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2155||||||Nausea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.2155
95900975|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5176||||||Vomiting|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5176
95900976|NCT02057757|191757618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6986||||||Diarrhea|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.6986
95900977|NCT02057757|191757619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Fay - Shaw|||||||0.9850
95900978|NCT02057757|191757620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.681||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.681
95978175|NCT05461794|191929041|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.82|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by the selected stratification factors PD-L1 tumor area positivity score (\>=10% versus \< 10%)|||4.82|0.79|
95978176|NCT05461794|191929042|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.7|||||The crude odds ratio was estimated along with exact unconditional 95% CIs constructed by the tail method based on the score statistics|||2.7|0.1|
95978177|NCT02083705|191929044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesised that during neonatal CPR, CC+SI will reduce the time needed to achieve ROSC. Our aim was to examine if CC+SI reduces ROSC compared with 3:1 C:V CPR in preterm infants \<33 weeks of gestation.~For this pilot study, based on the local incidence of CPR in preterm neonates, a convenient sample size of five patients per group was enrolled. Our primary outcome was time to achieve ROSC measured using ECG."||||0.05
95978178|NCT01598311|191929045|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in adjusted percentage of cured subjects was \> -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.6||||||||7.6|-4.9|
95978179|NCT01598311|191929047|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the adjusted difference in sustained response was \> 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|12.2||||||||12.2|-3.6|
95900979|NCT02057757|191757620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.341
95900980|NCT02057757|191757620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.321||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.321
95900981|NCT02057757|191757620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.957
95900982|NCT02057757|191757620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.788||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.788
95900983|NCT02057757|191757620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.544||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.544
95900984|NCT02057757|191757621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.671
95900985|NCT02057757|191757621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.325
95900986|NCT02057757|191757621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
95900987|NCT02057757|191757621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
95900988|NCT02057757|191757621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.311||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.311
95900989|NCT02057757|191757622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Any Time|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.973
95900990|NCT02057757|191757622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575||||||Day 0|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.575
95978180|NCT01078220|191929054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|9.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||9.21|3.91|
95900991|NCT02057757|191757622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.548
95900992|NCT02057757|191757622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 7|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
95900993|NCT02057757|191757622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 14|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
95900994|NCT02057757|191757622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Day 28|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.987
95900995|NCT02057757|191757623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||Pneumonia|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.928
95900996|NCT02057757|191757623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9669||||||ARDS|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9669
95900997|NCT02057757|191757623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0832||||||Bronchitis|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0832
95900998|NCT02057757|191757624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years ) - Global Assessment: Have you felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay - Shaw|||||||0.0360
95900999|NCT02057757|191757624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Adults (\>= 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you functioning as well as you were before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.0380
95901000|NCT02057757|191757624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5035||||||Children (\< 18 Years) - Global Assessment: Have you/your child felt as good as you did before you had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.5035
95901001|NCT02057757|191757624|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9231||||||Children (\<18 Years) - Global Assessment: Are you/your child functioning as well as you/your child were before you/your child had the respiratory illness?|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9231
95901002|NCT02057757|191757628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9785||||||No Detectable Virus on Day 3|Fay-Shaw|||||||0.9785
95901003|NCT01416194|191757637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
95901004|NCT01416194|191757637|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.2|0.4|0.91
95901005|NCT01416194|191757638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
95901006|NCT01416194|191757638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.4|0.5|0.76
95901007|NCT01416194|191757639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.3|0.01
95901008|NCT01416194|191757639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.4|0.37
95901009|NCT01416194|191757640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.5|0.10
95901010|NCT01416194|191757640|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.2|0.4|0.19
95901011|NCT01416194|191757641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
95901012|NCT01416194|191757641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.1|0.4|0.90
95901013|NCT01416194|191757642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||2.5|1.4|<0.01
95901014|NCT01416194|191757642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.7|0.74
95978181|NCT01078220|191929054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|7.08|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|||7.08|1.18|
95978182|NCT01078220|191929058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.3|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||2.3|1.17|
95978183|NCT01078220|191929058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.35|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.35|0.82|
95978184|NCT01078220|191929058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.98|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-14 after vaccination.||1.98|0.53|
95978185|NCT01078220|191929058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.21|||unconditional logistic regression||Relative risk was approximated by odds ratio, obtained from conditional logistic regression.|Days 1-60 after vaccination.||1.21|0.5|
95978186|NCT04223856|191929059|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.377|0.538||P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.005.|Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.538|0.377|<0.00001
95978187|NCT04223856|191929060|SUPERIORITY|P value was calculated using stratified log-rank test. The p-value threshold for statistical significance is 0.01548.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.468|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.582|||Log Rank||HR was calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.582|0.376|<0.00001
95978188|NCT03454828|191929082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
95978189|NCT06515483|191929083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.254||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.254|-0.095|0.323
95978190|NCT06515483|191929083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.036||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.084||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day PLI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.084|-0.156|0.371
95978191|NCT06515483|191929083|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.115||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.031||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in PLI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||0.031|-0.262|0.120
95978192|NCT06515483|191929084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.078||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.204||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.204|-0.048|0.270
95978193|NCT06515483|191929084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.033||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day MGI between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.033|-0.203|0.071
95978194|NCT06515483|191929084|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.077|||t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in MGI from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.077|-0.249|<0.001
95978195|NCT06515483|191929085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|6.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing baseline BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at baseline were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||6.85|-6.23|0.902
95978196|NCT06515483|191929085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.46|0.02||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Comparing 30-day BOMP between groups|Due to non-normally distributed data, differences in each index between the experimental and control groups at 30 days were compared using non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests.||0.02|-16.46|0.006
95978197|NCT06515483|191929085|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.53||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.31|-0.75||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparing the mean difference in BOMP from baseline to 30 days between groups|||-0.75|-16.31|0.032
95978198|NCT02616614|191929123|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80,1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.03||||||||1.03|0.88|
95978199|NCT02616614|191929123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95978200|NCT02616614|191929123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95978201|NCT02616614|191929124|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\] for the PP population.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.11||||||||1.11|0.90|
95978202|NCT02616614|191929124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95978203|NCT02616614|191929124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0006
95978204|NCT02616614|191929125|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.022|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.087|0.043|||||Equivalence was based on difference in the number of subjects with success. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval (-0.20, +0.20).||0.043|-0.087|
95978205|NCT02748018|191929126|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.4||||||||-0.4||
95901015|NCT01416194|191757643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.6|0.3|<0.01
95901016|NCT01416194|191757643|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.9|0.4|0.01
95901017|NCT01416194|191757644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.1|<0.01
95901018|NCT01416194|191757644|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.2|0.06
95978206|NCT02748018|191929127|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.6||||||||-3.6||
95978207|NCT02748018|191929128|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
95978208|NCT02748018|191929129|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
95978209|NCT02748018|191929130|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
95978210|NCT02748018|191929131|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.2||||||||-0.2||
95978211|NCT02748018|191929132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.9||||||||-0.9||
95978212|NCT02748018|191929133|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
95978213|NCT02748018|191929134|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.7||||||||-3.7||
95978214|NCT02748018|191929135|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) During Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|14.5||||||||||14.5|
95978215|NCT02748018|191929136|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.8||||||||||8.8|
95978216|NCT02748018|191929137|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-2.6||||||||-2.6||
95978217|NCT02748018|191929138|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.3||||||||-0.3||
95978218|NCT02748018|191929139|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-1.9||||||||-1.9||
95978219|NCT02748018|191929140|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.3||||||||0.3||
95978220|NCT02748018|191929141|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.7||||||||-4.7||
95978221|NCT02748018|191929142|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.9|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|11.1||||||||||11.1|
95978222|NCT02748018|191929143|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|9.9||||||||||9.9|
95978223|NCT02748018|191929144|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-3.1||||||||-3.1||
95978224|NCT02748018|191929145|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.0||||||||0.0||
95978225|NCT02748018|191929146|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 2%. Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.7||||||||0.7||
95978226|NCT02748018|191929147|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%. Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
95901019|NCT01416194|191757645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.7|0.3|<0.01
95901020|NCT01416194|191757645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.4|0.5|0.38
95901021|NCT01416194|191757647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.5|0.9|0.24
95901022|NCT01416194|191757647|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.6|0.8|0.59
95901023|NCT01416194|191757648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.0|0.6|0.03
95978227|NCT02748018|191929148|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.2||||||||0.2||
95978228|NCT02748018|191929149|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%) during Night|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|8.3||||||||||8.3|
95978229|NCT02748018|191929150|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Target Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|3.3||||||||||3.3|
95978230|NCT02748018|191929151|SUPERIORITY|Test of Treatment Effect on Time in Hypoglycemic Range (%)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||-0.1||||||||-0.1||
95978231|NCT02748018|191929152|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Effect on Change in A1C with Multiple Imputation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.1||||||||0.1||
95978232|NCT03952585|191929153|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.42|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||19.46|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||19.46||
95978233|NCT03952585|191929153|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimated 9-month PFS = 96.5% and lower acceptable threshold = 91.8%, resulting in a non-inferiority margin of 4.7%. H0: HR = 2.4; alternative hypothesis (HA): HR=1.0. One-sided type I error rate of 10% (20% after Bonferroni adjustment for each experimental arm comparison), 80% power, 24 months of accrual with 1 year of additional follow-up, and 1% increasing yearly rate of drop-out up to 3%, a log rank test requires 22 events from 266 patients per comparison resulting in 133 patients per arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||14.85|||||Reference level = Arm 1|The null hypothesis (H0) for each comparison in phase II will be rejected if the 90% upper confidence of the hazard ratio (HR) (experimental arm / standard arm) is less than HR=2.4.||14.85||
95978234|NCT03952585|191929156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|20.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|403.31|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||403.31|1.05|
95978235|NCT03952585|191929156|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|12.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|287.93|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||287.93|0.58|
95978236|NCT03952585|191929157|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|9.46|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||9.46|0.34|
95978237|NCT03952585|191929157|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|8.45|||||Cause-specific; reference level = Arm 1|||8.45|0.24|
95978238|NCT03952585|191929158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|46.41|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||46.41|0.67|
95978239|NCT03952585|191929158|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|41.74|||||Reference level = Arm 1|||41.74|0.57|
95978240|NCT01214187|191929194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2072|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Carbon monoxide group) minus (Change from baseline to Week 12 for Placebo group)|||||0.2072
95978241|NCT01214187|191929195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.5882|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|Difference = (Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.5882
95978242|NCT01214187|191929196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.7401|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated Measure ANOVA|difference=(change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.7401
95901024|NCT01416194|191757648|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.1|0.6|0.19
95901025|NCT01416194|191757649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||0.5|0.2|<0.01
95901026|NCT01416194|191757649|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Regression, Linear|||The hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazard regression models was used for comparison of event rates of the primary and secondary endpoints in each treatment group. Statistical two-sided tests was used with a significance level of 0.05.||1.3|0.3|0.24
95901027|NCT02732847|191757665|OTHER|Chi square tests used to compared groups||||||0.924||||||A p-value of \< 0.05 was considered|Chi-squared|||||||0.924
95901028|NCT00009737|191757666|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25 in a first step, and then of 1.20 in a second step.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.00|0.75|0.053
95901029|NCT00009737|191757667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||0.99|0.74|0.041
95901030|NCT00009737|191757668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was tested by comparing the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio to the non-inferiority margin of 1.25|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.01||For difference between arms, \< 0.001 for non-inferiority|Wald Chi-Square Test|||||1.01|0.69|0.071
95901031|NCT02652780|191757672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.008||||0.8783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.102|||ANCOVA|||A mixed model of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used with change from baseline at Week 48 as the response, and participants, eyes of the participant as random factor, treatment and baseline LogMAR value as covariates in the model. P-value is used to assess the significance of the difference between All-GS010 and All-Sham with respect to change of LogMAR from baseline.||0.102|-0.119|0.8783
95901032|NCT04188041|191757696|OTHER|see above||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired data was used to test for significant change in confidence.||||0.02
95901033|NCT04177693|191757708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.112
95901034|NCT04177693|191757709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.613
95978243|NCT01214187|191929197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.14||0.0099|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA|Difference=(Change from baseline to week 12 for CO group) minus (Change from baseline to week 12 for placebo group)|||||0.0099
95901035|NCT04177693|191757710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.202
95901036|NCT04177693|191757711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.508
95901037|NCT04177693|191757712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.237|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.237
95901038|NCT04177693|191757713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.327|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.327
95901039|NCT04177693|191757714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.633
95901040|NCT04177693|191757715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.146
95901041|NCT04177693|191757716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
95901042|NCT04177693|191757717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95901043|NCT04177693|191757718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.24
95901044|NCT03224468|191757719|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 85.2% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.40|0.15|<0.001
95901045|NCT03224468|191757720|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in scale score for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher score for MM).|The mean difference in scale scores between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's scale scores at baseline.||0.4|-1.4|0.50
95978244|NCT01214187|191929198|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.8124|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measure ANOVA||||||0.8124
95901046|NCT03224468|191757721|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 84.3% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.24|-0.30|0.90
95901047|NCT03224468|191757722|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 83.6% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||0.39|-0.38|0.93
95909260|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.591||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.19|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|0.19|0.1083
95978245|NCT00998426|191929203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the p value for the meter by time interaction|Random intercept model|||A random intercept model was used to fit the five subjects' glucose reading data over time. The fixed effect glucose meters, time effect and their interactions were included in the model.||||0.59
95978246|NCT02308007|191929204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.030
95978247|NCT02308007|191929204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.073
95978248|NCT02308007|191929204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0204
95978249|NCT02308007|191929204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0493|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified by race (black, white, or other race)||||0.0493
95978250|NCT02308007|191929205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.015
95978251|NCT02308007|191929205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Difference for Terconazole/metronidazole vaginal gel cures minus metronidazole vaginal gel cures||||0.193
95978252|NCT02308007|191929206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.012
95978253|NCT02308007|191929206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.918
95978254|NCT03153137|191929220|SUPERIORITY|For each stage, the p-value from the ANCOVA model including randomized treatment, geographical region, and baseline peak VO2 was used to construct the final adjusted p-value.|Median unbiased estimate and repeated CI|0.62|||=|0.193|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.62|1.85||Final adjusted p-value (from weighted inverse normal combination test)|ANCOVA|||Due to adaptive nature of the design, the main analysis was conducted on FAS using the inverse normal combination method with pre-specified weights to combine first and second stage p-values.||1.85|-0.62|= 0.1930
95978255|NCT00195507|191929247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.64|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Treatment and center as main effects, and baseline score as a covariant.||||-0.43|-0.64|<0.001
95978256|NCT00195507|191929248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95978257|NCT00195507|191929250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
95978258|NCT00323297|191929332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.722||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.843|17.087||A sequential closed-testing procedure was implemented for all secondary endpoints. If no statistically significant treatment effect was found for the primary endpoint then statistical tests were not to be performed on the secondary endpoints.|ANCOVA|The mean difference in method of estimation is the difference between Sildenafil - placebo.||"The estimated sample size was based upon the primary endpoint. A sample size of 51 subjects per treatment group was required to detect a difference of 30 meters between treatments with 80% power at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 60 meters.~This primary statistical analysis was carried for Week 12 data."||17.087|-21.843|0.5802
95978259|NCT00852592|191929341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.005
95978260|NCT00852592|191929342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.004
95901048|NCT03224468|191757723|SUPERIORITY|Power was determined to be 90.4% using a Monte Carlo simulation approach in which data were simulated from a multi-level linear regression model with a subject-varying random intercept, a shared baseline across WLC and MMC, and fixed effects for a change over each time point. Simulated data were fit with a linear model estimated via GEE - simulations were repeated 1000 times and power was estimated as the proportion where the contrast between WLC and MM had p\<0.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.43||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using per Benjamini \& Hochberg (1995) across the five primary outcome measures. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates were obtained using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with robust standard errors obtained by the sandwich estimator.|Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's number of symptoms at baseline.||-0.43|-1.30|<0.001
95901049|NCT03224468|191757724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of symptoms for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values denote higher number of symptoms for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at weeks 4 and 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||2.5|-1.0|
95901050|NCT03224468|191757726|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|3.5|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the congruency cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||3.5|-19.0|
95901051|NCT03224468|191757727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.9|-2.2|||||Estimate is the mean difference in the switching cost on response time for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate higher cost for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||-2.2|-45.9|
95901052|NCT03224468|191757728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.011|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate better ability to identify target items for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.011|-0.007|
95901053|NCT03224468|191757729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of total errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.7|-1.8|
95901054|NCT03224468|191757730|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|0.3|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number of repetition errors for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate greater number of errors for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.3|-7.4|
95901055|NCT03224468|191757731|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||||Estimate is the mean difference in discriminability for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recognize previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||0.1|-0.2|
95901056|NCT03224468|191757732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||||Estimate is the mean difference in number recalled for MM above and beyond WLC (positive values indicate a greater ability to recall previously studied words for MM).|The mean difference in number of symptoms between the MM and WLC groups was estimated via a linear model with a dummy-coded contrast (0 for WLC, 1 for MM). The model adjusted for change at week 12 of the study, and for a subject's score at baseline.||1.0|-0.2|
95901057|NCT04713748|191757734|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Interclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.0001
95901058|NCT00406029|191757736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.753
95901059|NCT00406029|191757736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline at endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.162
95901060|NCT00406029|191757736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-2.1|0.049
95901061|NCT00406029|191757736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2||The alpha threshold for statistical significance is 0.049 (2-sided).|ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-2.2|0.019
95901062|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.9|0.935
95901063|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.326
95901064|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.7|0.070
95901065|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.9|0.020
95901066|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.0|0.982
95901067|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.5|0.281
95901068|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.6|0.261
95901069|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.4|0.447
95901070|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.378
95901071|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.7|0.299
95901072|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.6|0.377
95901073|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-1.3|0.707
95901074|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.4|0.562
95901075|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.7|0.156
95901076|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.6|0.292
95901077|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.2|0.034
95901078|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.762
95901079|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.9|0.092
95901080|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.3|0.013
95901081|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.4|-2.5|0.005
95901082|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.293
95901083|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.0|0.095
95901084|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.04||95.0|-2.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-2.3|0.040
95901085|NCT00406029|191757737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-2.5|0.011
95901086|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.470
95901087|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.6|0.505
95901088|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.114
95901089|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.042
95901090|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.8|0.684
95901091|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.7|0.489
95901092|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.305
95901093|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.6|0.451
95901094|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.5|0.680
95901095|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.466
95978261|NCT01106404|191929345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.865|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.765||||Fisher Exact||In this ITT analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|"ITT analysis:~Hypothesis: The percentage of subjects who succeed must be greater than 25%. H0: p ≤ 0.25 HA: p \> 0.25"|||0.765|< 0.001
95978262|NCT01106404|191929345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.901|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.807||||Fisher Exact||In this completed case analysis, the combined percentage of subjects with improved pain relief and/or convenience during the AdaptiveStim programming relative to the manual programming in both groups was reported.|Completed case analysis|||0.807|< 0.001
95978263|NCT01106404|191929346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||binomial proportion|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.003|0.098|||||The combined percentage of subjects with worsened pain relief was reported.|||0.098|0.003|
95978264|NCT01106404|191929347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|51.9|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
95978265|NCT01106404|191929348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.93|<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
95978266|NCT01106404|191929348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||< 0.001
95978267|NCT02430051|191929355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjusted for attained age and first or second clinic visit.||||||0.01
95978268|NCT02430051|191929356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed-effects regression model|Adjustment for attained age and first and second clinic visit.||||||0.25
95978269|NCT02430051|191929357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95901096|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.8|0.450
95978270|NCT02430051|191929358|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95978271|NCT02430051|191929359|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95978272|NCT02430051|191929360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95901097|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.523
95901098|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.6|0.309
95901099|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.3|0.136
95901100|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.2|0.106
95901101|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.3|0.144
95901102|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.1|0.954
95901103|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.152
95978273|NCT02430051|191929361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95978274|NCT02430051|191929362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95978275|NCT02430051|191929363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95978276|NCT02430051|191929364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95978277|NCT02430051|191929365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
95978278|NCT02430051|191929366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Multivariate linear regression|Adjusted for autism severity, IQ, dental fear and anxiety, sensory over-responsivity, general anxiety, expressive communication, gender, and age.||||||<0.0001
95978279|NCT02430051|191929367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||General linear mixed model|||||||0.61
95978280|NCT00372385|191929384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.758||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.424|5.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.340|1.424|0.0026
95978281|NCT00372385|191929384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.709||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|3.212|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.212|0.910|0.959
95978282|NCT00372385|191929384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.589||||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|1.125|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.125|0.309|0.1089
95978283|NCT00372385|191929385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.632||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.359|5.097|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.097|1.359|0.0041
95978284|NCT00372385|191929385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.864|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.050|0.864|0.1324
95978285|NCT00372385|191929385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.591||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.311|1.126|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.126|0.311|0.1099
95978286|NCT02411578|191929390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the crossover trial primary analysis, analyzed events were study treatment events meeting the following criteria: a) a survey was completed in the smart phone application, b) the initial BG measurement was 40 to 69 mg/dL, c) BG measurements were performed at both the 15-minute (in a window of 13 to 20 minutes) and 30-minute (28 to 40 minutes) time points, and d) appropriate treatment including dose was taken both at the initial and 15-minute time points.||||0.99
95978287|NCT02411578|191929391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.34
95978288|NCT02411578|191929392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.01
95978289|NCT02411578|191929393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.02
95978290|NCT02411578|191929394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.86
95978291|NCT02411578|191929395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.95
95978292|NCT02411578|191929396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.78
95978293|NCT02411578|191929397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.21
95978294|NCT02411578|191929398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.09
95978295|NCT02411578|191929399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.49
95978296|NCT02411578|191929400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.63
95978297|NCT02411578|191929401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.41
95901104|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.3|0.012
95901105|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
95901106|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.3|0.151
95901107|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.235
95901108|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|0.5|0.007
95901109|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.1|0.033
95901110|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.757
95901111|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.5|0.341
95901112|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.024
95901113|NCT00406029|191757738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.049
95901114|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.3|0.151
95901115|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.1|0.930
95901116|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.6|0.343
95901117|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.9|0.746
95901118|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.5|0.222
95901119|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.0|0.673
95901120|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.7|0.415
95901121|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.3|0.968
95901122|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.0|0.543
95901123|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.4|0.967
95901124|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.8|0.411
95901125|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.6|0.864
95901126|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.449
95901127|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.0|0.411
95901128|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.0|0.576
95901129|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.9|0.603
95901130|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.4|0.842
95901131|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-1.9|0.558
95901132|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|-0.6|0.245
95901133|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.5|0.930
95901134|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.5|0.759
95901135|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.4|0.374
95901136|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
95901137|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-2.1|0.607
95901138|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.907
95901139|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-2.1|0.368
95901140|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.1|0.654
95901141|NCT00406029|191757739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.769
95901142|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.055
95901143|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.0|0.071
95901144|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.288
95901145|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.764
95901146|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.342
95901147|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.611
95901148|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.424
95901149|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.991
95901150|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.3|0.185
95901151|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.0|0.597
95901152|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.5|0.090
95901153|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.686
95901154|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.0|0.501
95901155|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.6|0.764
95901156|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.9|0.715
95901157|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.7|0.924
95901158|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.2|0.264
95901159|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.7|0.976
95978298|NCT02411578|191929402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.80
95978299|NCT02411578|191929403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.13
95901160|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.9|0.626
95901161|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.925
95901162|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.0|0.849
95901163|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.7|0.755
95901164|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.8|0.863
95901165|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.5|0.477
95901166|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.0|0.432
95901167|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.909
95901168|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.812
95901169|NCT00406029|191757740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.540
95901170|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.7|0.829
95978300|NCT02411578|191929404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed with generalized linear mixed model with an identity link. Due to violations of normality, rank transformations were used in model.||||||0.70
95901171|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.0|0.042
95901172|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.204
95901173|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|0.1|0.035
95901174|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.696
95901175|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.625
95901176|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.478
95901177|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.5|0.380
95901178|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-1.2|0.925
95901179|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.285
95901180|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.5|0.296
95901181|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-0.5|0.241
95901182|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.9|0.571
95901183|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.032
95901184|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.4|0.214
95978301|NCT02411578|191929405|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.93
95901185|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.051
95978302|NCT02411578|191929406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.66
95901186|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.9|0.572
95901187|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.1|0.041
95901188|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.5|0.240
95901189|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.4|0.0|0.047
95901190|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.5|0.228
95901191|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.1|0.030
95901192|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|0.0|0.059
95901193|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.2|0.021
95901194|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-0.6|0.428
95901195|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|0.2|0.025
95901196|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-0.1|0.064
95901197|NCT00406029|191757741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|0.0|0.047
95901198|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.345
95901199|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.6|0.468
95901200|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.596
95901201|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-0.2|0.107
95901202|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.8|0.348
95901203|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.1|0.938
95901204|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.1|0.897
95901205|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.8|0.518
95901206|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.2|0.311
95901207|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.0|0.597
95901208|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.925
95901209|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.478
95901210|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.5|0.995
95901211|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|0.0|0.057
95901212|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.6||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-0.9|0.431
95901213|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-0.2|0.099
95901214|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-1.5|0.847
95901215|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.2|0.093
95901216|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-0.9|0.471
95901217|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|-0.2|0.102
95901218|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.9|0.415
95901219|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.0|0.0|0.051
95901220|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-0.3|0.103
95901221|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|0.3|0.022
95901222|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.2|0.903
95901223|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-0.1|0.074
95901224|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.4|0.185
95978303|NCT02411578|191929407|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Proportions of successes in each arm were compared using a generalized linear mixed model with a logistic link function, random participant effect to account for correlated data from some pts having multiple events, and adjustment for baseline BG.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95901225|NCT00406029|191757742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.6|0.0|0.054
95901226|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.985
95901227|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.3|0.556
95901228|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.776
95978304|NCT01323621|191929418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.029||||0.267||95.0|-0.022|0.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA analysis was conducted with covariates for country, smoking status, reversibility, and Baseline FEV1.|||0.080|-0.022|0.267
95978305|NCT02876835|191929427|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was achieved if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 1.25.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|
95901229|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.4|0.777
95901230|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.5|0.920
95901231|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.1|0.155
95901232|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.843
95901233|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.673
95901234|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.612
95901235|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.4|0.512
95978306|NCT02876835|191929428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13||||||||0.13|0.03|
95978307|NCT02876835|191929429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.670884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19||The p-value was compared against 0.008333 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.89|0.670884
95901236|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.269
95901237|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.516
95978308|NCT02876835|191929430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.800813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.22||The p-value was compared against 0.012500 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.93|0.800813
95978309|NCT02876835|191929431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.886195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24||The p-value was compared against 0.025000 based on the Holm-Bonferonni adjustment.|Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.886195
95978310|NCT02876835|191929432|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.98||||0.36947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine and Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.84|0.369470
95978311|NCT02876835|191929433|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.20|0.87|0.6197
95978312|NCT02876835|191929434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.58|0.91|0.8976
95901238|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.8|0.597
95901239|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.7|0.766
95901240|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.9|0.428
95901241|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.7|0.796
95901242|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.988
95901243|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.786
95978313|NCT02876835|191929435|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.6581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.40|0.80|0.6581
95901244|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.702
95978314|NCT02876835|191929436|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||2.07|0.85|0.8940
95978315|NCT02876835|191929437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.23|||Chi-squared||Overall HR is presented using Model 1. Model 1 assumed a common treatment effect, regardless of number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a Prentice, Williams and Peterson(PWP) model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.23|0.98|0.9422
95978316|NCT02876835|191929437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
95978317|NCT02876835|191929437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.39|||Chi-squared||Second Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.39|0.82|0.6789
95978318|NCT02876835|191929437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.37||||0.9016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.19|||Chi-squared||Third Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 2. Model 2 assumed treatment effect differs by number of events experienced. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||2.19|0.85|0.9016
95901245|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.371
95901246|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.981
95901247|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.3|0.282
95901248|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.7|0.550
95901249|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.5|0.720
95901250|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.742
95901251|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.2|0.211
95901252|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.906
95901253|NCT00406029|191757743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.868
95901254|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.6|0.747
95901255|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.140
95901256|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.148
95901257|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-1.2|0.005
95901258|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.8|0.256
95901259|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.343
95901260|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.102
95901261|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.161
95978319|NCT02876835|191929437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.8862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.24|||Chi-squared||First Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.24|0.95|0.8862
95901262|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.150
95978320|NCT02876835|191929437|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.46|||Chi-squared||Subsequent Event Hazard ratio is presented using Model 3. Model 3 assumed treatment effect for first event differs from a common effect for subsequent events. HR was estimated using a PWP model, with treatment, dialysis type and region as covariates.|||1.46|0.92|0.8989
95978321|NCT02876835|191929438|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.33|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.33|0.88|0.7673
95978322|NCT02876835|191929439|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.15|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.15|0.96|0.8601
95978323|NCT02876835|191929440|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.6207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.22|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.22|0.86|0.6207
95978324|NCT02876835|191929441|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.9393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.26|0.97|0.9393
95978325|NCT02876835|191929442|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.9412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.56|0.95|0.9412
95978326|NCT02876835|191929443|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model with treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, and region as covariates.|||1.84|0.88|0.8994
95901263|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
95901264|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.013
95901265|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-0.9|0.120
95901266|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.6|0.971
95901267|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.456
95901268|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.1|-1.2|0.018
95901269|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-0.9|0.175
95901270|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-0.3|0.422
95901271|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.4|0.651
95901272|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.1|-1.0|0.096
95901273|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.5|0.860
95901274|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-0.8|0.511
95901275|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.9|0.286
95901276|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.3|-1.4|0.004
95901277|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.060
95978327|NCT02876835|191929444|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.92||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.13|0.75|0.2073
95901278|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.8|0.345
95901279|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-0.7|0.439
95978328|NCT02876835|191929445|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|1.0||||0.5068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.19|0.84|0.5068
95901280|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-1.4|0.004
95978329|NCT02876835|191929446|SUPERIORITY||Subdistribution hazard ratio|0.88||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.54|||Wald test||Subdistribution hazard ratio was estimated using Fine \& Gray's proportional subdistribution hazard regression model with treatment group, Baseline ESA use, and region as covariates.|||1.54|0.51|0.3285
95901281|NCT00406029|191757750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-1.1|0.040
95901282|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.1|0.743
95901283|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.2|0.225
95901284|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.2|0.252
95901285|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-2.3|0.173
95901286|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-1.3|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|-1.3|0.757
95978330|NCT02876835|191929447|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.05|
95978331|NCT02876835|191929448|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for current ESA use and region was used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||11.4|5.2|<0.0001
95978332|NCT02876835|191929449|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|7.11|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||7.11|2.04|
95978333|NCT02876835|191929450|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.57|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.57|0.53|<0.0001
95978334|NCT02876835|191929451|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.91|||||Hodges-Lehmann estimate of the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa) and associated two-sided asymptotic 95% CI is presented.|||5.91|1.90|
95978335|NCT02876835|191929452|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.56|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.56|0.52|<0.0001
95978336|NCT02876835|191929453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.7916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.9|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.90|-0.79|0.7916
95978337|NCT02876835|191929453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.9581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.38|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.38|-0.09|0.9581
95978338|NCT02876835|191929453|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.6||||0.9241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.43|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||1.43|-0.22|0.9241
95978339|NCT02876835|191929454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.02|||ANCOVA||For SBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||1.02|-1.18|0.4420
95978340|NCT02876835|191929454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.11||||0.6369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.75|||ANCOVA||For DBP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.75|-0.52|0.6369
95978341|NCT02876835|191929454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.74|||ANCOVA||For MAP: Treatment group comparisons were based on an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, current ESA use at randomization, region and Baseline value.|||0.74|-0.65|0.5490
95978342|NCT02876835|191929455|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|0.88||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||Negative binomial model||Ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs estimated using negative binomial model with treatment,current ESA use at randomization and region as covariates and logarithm of time on treatment as offset variable for treatment group comparison.|||0.98|0.79|0.0074
95978343|NCT02876835|191929457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.94|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, current ESA use and region.|||0.94|0.42|0.0113
95901287|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.1|0.581
95901288|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.195
95901289|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-2.4|0.272
95901290|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-1.7|0.758
95901291|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.6||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-2.1|0.416
95901292|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-2.5|0.174
95901293|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.0|-1.1|0.547
95901294|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-0.8|0.372
95901295|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.5|-1.4|0.942
95901296|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-2.8|0.082
95901297|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.8||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-2.3|0.267
95901298|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-1.5|0.801
95901299|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.753
95978344|NCT02876835|191929458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.11|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region,Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions|||0.11|-0.83|0.9320
95901300|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-3.1|0.087
95978345|NCT02876835|191929458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.36|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.36|-0.59|0.6761
95901301|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.9|0.796
95901302|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-1.3|0.621
95901303|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-1.8|0.784
95901304|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-3.5|0.024
95901305|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.6|0.963
95901306|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-0.8|0.331
95901307|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-1.4|0.898
95901308|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.0|-3.0|0.058
95901309|NCT00406029|191757751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-1.3|0.832
95901310|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.3|-2.0|0.365
95901311|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.4|0.476
95901312|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|5.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.6|-2.0|0.343
95901313|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-6.8|0.103
95901314|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-6.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.0|0.224
95901315|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.4||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.448
95901316|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.7||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.4|0.154
95901317|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-1.1|-8.5|0.010
95901318|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.6|0.540
95901319|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.7|0.646
95901320|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-4.9|0.608
95901321|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.9||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.1|-6.0|0.343
95901322|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.7||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.9|-2.5|0.419
95901323|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-2.8|0.562
95901324|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|2.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.7|-5.3|0.525
95901325|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.0||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-7.0|0.148
95901326|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.3||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.9|-5.4|0.546
95901327|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.7||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.3|-7.6|0.068
95901328|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.5||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-6.5|0.208
95901329|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-7.5|0.099
95901330|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.8||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.1|-3.6|0.731
95978346|NCT02876835|191929458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.12||||0.3335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.67|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.67|-0.43|0.3335
95978347|NCT02876835|191929458|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.41|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-0.81|0.7423
95978348|NCT02876835|191929459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.8268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.32|||MMRM||Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.32|-0.90|0.8268
95978349|NCT02876835|191929459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6851
95978350|NCT02876835|191929459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.35|||MMRM||Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.35|-1.01|0.8316
95978351|NCT02876835|191929459|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.35||||0.8032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46|||MMRM||Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.46|-1.16|0.8032
95978352|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34||||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.28|||MMRM||B pain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.28|-0.95|0.8562
95978353|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.6849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47|||MMRM||B pain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.47|-0.77|0.6849
95978354|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.24|||MMRM||B pain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.24|-1.22|0.9074
95978355|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.32|||MMRM||B pain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.32|-1.26|0.8765
95978356|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.4|||MMRM||GH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.40|-0.56|0.6252
95978357|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.29|||MMRM||GH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.29|-0.68|0.7852
95978358|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1||||0.3614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.66|||MMRM||GH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.66|-0.46|0.3614
95978359|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.5991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.54|||MMRM||GH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.54|-0.70|0.5991
95978360|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.27|||MMRM||MH,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.27|-0.88|0.8526
95978361|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.4673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.61|||MMRM||MH,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.61|-0.56|0.4673
95978362|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.33|||MMRM||MH,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.33|-0.95|0.8262
95978363|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.51|||MMRM||MH,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.51|-1.00|0.7380
95901331|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-4.5|0.861
95901332|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-5.2|0.621
95901333|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-6.4|0.288
95901334|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.1|-3.5|0.861
95901335|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.0|0.954
95901336|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.6||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.3|-5.5|0.419
95901337|NCT00406029|191757752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.9|0.088
95901338|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.2|-3.5|0.924
95901339|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|3.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.1|-3.8|0.840
95901340|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.4|0.599
95901341|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.6||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-6.0|0.134
95901342|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-4.1|3.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.3|-4.1|0.846
95901343|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.3||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.0|-2.3|0.467
95978364|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.5997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.62|||MMRM||RE,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.62|-0.80|0.5997
95978365|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26||||0.7649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.45|||MMRM||RE,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.45|-0.98|0.7649
95978366|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.8175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.18|0.8175
95978367|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.43|||MMRM||RE,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.43|-1.47|0.8591
95901344|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|2.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.5|-4.8|0.533
95901345|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.1||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.5|-6.7|0.094
95901346|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-3.7|0.994
95901347|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.5|0.944
95901348|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.2|-5.1|0.424
95901349|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||-0.2|-7.8|0.042
95901350|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.7||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|-0.4|0.075
95901351|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.9||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||7.8|0.0|0.052
95901352|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.9|-4.0|0.975
95901353|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.2||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-5.2|0.541
95901354|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|3.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.7|-4.1|0.931
95901355|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.0||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||2.8|-4.7|0.618
95901356|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.8||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|1.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.9|-5.6|0.341
95901357|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.2||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-6.0|0.256
95901358|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.8||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||6.0|-2.4|0.399
95901359|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.4||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|5.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||5.4|-2.5|0.477
95901360|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-6.8|0.172
95978368|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.9588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.06|||MMRM||RP,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.06|-1.06|0.9588
95978369|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.8761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.23|||MMRM||RP,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.23|-0.90|0.8761
95978370|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.7|||MMRM||RP,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.70|-0.58|0.4293
95978371|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.6983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.53|||MMRM||RP,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.53|-0.92|0.6983
95978372|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.62||||0.9743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.0|||MMRM||SF,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.00|-1.25|0.9743
95978373|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.31|||MMRM||SF,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.31|-0.94|0.8405
95978374|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.6459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.56|||MMRM||SF,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.56|-0.82|0.6459
95901361|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.3||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.7|-6.2|0.254
95901362|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||3.8|-3.6|0.972
95901363|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||4.0|-3.5|0.891
95901364|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-2.8||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-6.6|0.143
95901365|NCT00406029|191757753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.2||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-6.8|0.083
95901366|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.2|0.154
95901367|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.380
95901368|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.3|0.288
95901369|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 2 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.4|0.355
95901370|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|94.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.831
95901371|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.2|-1.2|0.198
95901372|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.792
95901373|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 4 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-0.8|0.749
95901374|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-0.8|0.896
95901375|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.5|0.480
95901376|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.4||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.4|0.285
95901377|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 6 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.3|-0.3|0.212
95901378|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.9|0.883
95901379|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.9|-0.9|0.947
95901380|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.1|0.663
95901381|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.7||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 8 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.6|-0.3|0.157
95901382|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.4|0.283
95901383|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.1||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.0|0.768
95901384|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.4|-1.3|0.334
95901385|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 10 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.6|-1.2|0.465
95901386|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.8|-1.2|0.688
95901387|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.9||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.8|0.0|0.062
95901388|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||0.7|-1.2|0.579
95901389|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to Week 12 obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.2|-0.7|0.644
95901390|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.825
95901391|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.5||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.4|-0.3|0.233
95901392|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.0|-0.8|0.853
95901393|NCT00406029|191757754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.2||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1|||ANCOVA|||LS means treatment difference in change from baseline to endpoint obtained from an ANCOVA model with effect for treatment and baseline covariate.||1.1|-0.6|0.592
95901394|NCT00113516|191757755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.405|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.315|0.494|||Kaplan-Meier||The probability of survival along with the corresponding confidence interval (CI) (for the log \[-log (1-year survival rate)\]) was calculated using a normal approximation and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival rate itself.|The study was designed to test the null hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is 0.40 versus the alternative hypothesis that the true one-year probability of survival is at least 0.55. The sample size was determined using a One-Sample Survival design, assuming alpha=0.05 (1-sided), power= 0.90, 6 month accrual, a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, and an expectation that approximately 5% of subjects may be lost to follow-up.||0.494|0.315|
95901395|NCT00113516|191757759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|38.2||||||||38.2|18.2|
95901396|NCT00113516|191757773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.474
95901397|NCT00113516|191757774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.836
95901398|NCT00113516|191757774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.071
95901399|NCT00113516|191757774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.393
95978375|NCT02876835|191929460|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.38||||0.8272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.41|||MMRM||SF,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions|||0.41|-1.17|0.8272
95978376|NCT02876835|191929461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.02|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||-0.02|-1.09|0.9786
95978377|NCT02876835|191929461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.6642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.44|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.44|-0.68|0.6642
95978378|NCT02876835|191929461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1||||0.6261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.52|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.52|-0.72|0.6261
95901400|NCT00113516|191757774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.029
95901401|NCT00113516|191757774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.247
95901402|NCT00113516|191757775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.305
95901403|NCT00113516|191757776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.738
95901404|NCT00113516|191757776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.438
95901405|NCT00113516|191757776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.236||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.236
95901406|NCT00113516|191757776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.287||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.287
95901407|NCT00113516|191757776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.772
95901408|NCT00113516|191757777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||||0.537
95901409|NCT00113516|191757778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 1, Day 28||||0.813
95901410|NCT00113516|191757778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 1||||0.849
95901411|NCT00113516|191757778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 2, Day 28||||0.121
95901412|NCT00113516|191757778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 1||||0.582
95901413|NCT00113516|191757778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Cycle 3, Day 28||||0.383
95901414|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.15|0.61|0.6782
95901415|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.30|0.77|0.1980
95901416|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.8||||0.1344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.98|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.98|0.82|0.1344
95901417|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
95901418|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.6||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|11.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 1||11.13|1.19|0.0153
95901419|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
95901420|NCT00113516|191757779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
95901421|NCT00113516|191757780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.39|0.65|0.5070
95901422|NCT00113516|191757780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.82|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||2.82|0.63|0.4474
95901423|NCT00113516|191757780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.95|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.95|0.40|0.7599
95978379|NCT02876835|191929461|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49||||0.9161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.21|-1.19|0.9161
95901424|NCT00113516|191757780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
95901425|NCT00113516|191757780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.58|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||3.58|0.43|0.6878
95978380|NCT02876835|191929462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.24|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.24|-0.88|0.8703
95978381|NCT02876835|191929462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.13||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.67|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.67|-0.41|0.3167
95978382|NCT02876835|191929462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.78|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.78|-0.47|0.3155
95901426|NCT00113516|191757780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
95901427|NCT00113516|191757781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.62|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.62|0.39|0.5277
95901428|NCT00113516|191757781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.29|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.29|0.58|0.4660
95901429|NCT00113516|191757781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.44|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.44|0.52|0.5337
95901430|NCT00113516|191757781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
95901431|NCT00113516|191757781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.2948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|7.07|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.07|0.54|0.2948
95901432|NCT00113516|191757781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \>=Median Cutpoint group hazard to \<Median Cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
95901433|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.56|0.7824
95901434|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.47|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.47|0.77|0.1918
95901435|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.3|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||4.30|0.85|0.1093
95901436|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.4809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.39|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||3.39|0.56|0.4809
95901437|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|13.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||13.85|1.26|0.0110
95901438|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|14.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||14.37|0.52|0.2085
95901439|NCT00113516|191757782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|23.57|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||23.57|0.08|0.8084
95901440|NCT00113516|191757783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.5215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.53|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.53|0.62|0.5215
95901441|NCT00113516|191757783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.49|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.49|0.72|0.2504
95901442|NCT00113516|191757783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.11|0.42|0.8766
95901443|NCT00113516|191757783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.8|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||0.80|0.12|0.0109
95901444|NCT00113516|191757783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.5627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||4.18|0.46|0.5627
95901445|NCT00113516|191757783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.4637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||8.12|0.38|0.4637
95901446|NCT00113516|191757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.84|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.84|0.39|0.6682
95901447|NCT00113516|191757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.6854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.00|0.49|0.6854
95901448|NCT00113516|191757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.6028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.37|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.37|0.49|0.6028
95901449|NCT00113516|191757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.13|0.13|0.0712
95901450|NCT00113516|191757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.9||||0.3411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.15|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||7.15|0.50|0.3411
95901451|NCT00113516|191757784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|38.48|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||38.48|0.28|0.3200
95901452|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.4768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.17|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.17|0.70|0.4768
95901453|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.13|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.13|0.84|0.1484
95901454|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.8957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.18|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||2.18|0.50|0.8957
95901455|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.85|0.33|0.5681
95978383|NCT02876835|191929462|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.41|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented,with factors for treatment, time,current ESA use at randomization, region, BL value and BL value by time \& treatment by time interactions.|||0.41|-1.06|0.8069
95978384|NCT02876835|191929463|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.0234||||0.9724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0474|0.0005|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0005|-0.0474|0.9724
95978385|NCT02876835|191929464|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.2687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.9|-1.5|0.2687
95978386|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.40|0.9780
95978387|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|0.23|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.23|-2.18|0.9430
95901456|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|10.88|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||10.88|1.35|0.0074
95901457|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.1637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.70|0.06|0.1637
95901458|NCT00113516|191757785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.4328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|29.12|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||29.12|0.23|0.4328
95901459|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.4269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.21|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||2.21|0.72|0.4269
95901460|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.86|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||1.86|0.51|0.9290
95901461|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.8195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.91|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||1.91|0.44|0.8195
95901462|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.38|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.38|0.26|0.2210
95901463|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||1.85|0.24|0.4297
95901464|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.11|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||1.11|0.06|0.0522
95901465|NCT00113516|191757786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.0|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||7.00|0.05|0.6949
95901466|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.65|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 1||1.65|0.51|0.7660
95901467|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.23|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 1, Day 28||3.23|0.72|0.2682
95901468|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.7|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 1||3.70|0.69|0.2726
95901469|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.55|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 2, Day 28||1.55|0.22|0.2787
95901470|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.4||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|17.56|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 1||17.56|1.09|0.0241
95901471|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.4||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|48.81|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 3, Day 28||48.81|0.59|0.0943
95901472|NCT00113516|191757787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|11.79|||Log Rank||HR was based upon the ratio of \> = median cutpoint group hazard to \< median cutpoint group.|Cycle 5, Day 28||11.79|0.04|0.8084
95901473|NCT00812812|191757796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|2.5|||ANCOVA||Mean difference was estimated as paroxetine minus placebo.|||2.5|-11.7|0.198
95901474|NCT04327934|191757801|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.018|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.018
95901475|NCT04327934|191757802|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.|||||<|0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.016
95978388|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.77|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.77|-1.98|0.8042
95901476|NCT04327934|191757802|EQUIVALENCE|We compared across groups and within groups over time.||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95901477|NCT04327934|191757805|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Friedman's tests to compare slopes|Friedman's test|||||||0.05
95901478|NCT04327934|191757807|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95901479|NCT04327934|191757807|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
95901480|NCT04327934|191757808|EQUIVALENCE|We compared groups across treatments||||||0.0023|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0023
95901481|NCT04327934|191757809|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
95901482|NCT04327934|191757810|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
95901483|NCT04165291|191757816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.01
95901484|NCT04165291|191757817|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||.08
95901485|NCT04165291|191757818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.116|||||||Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance|||||||.116
95901486|NCT04165291|191757819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.146|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95901487|NCT04165291|191757820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||||||.13
95901488|NCT04165291|191757821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||.35
95901489|NCT00752908|191757829|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95901490|NCT01649856|191757831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|8.2||||0.076||95.0|-1.1|17.5|||Chi-squared|||||17.5|-1.1|0.076
95901491|NCT02755831|191757870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test||||<0.05
95901492|NCT02755831|191757871|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<.05
95901493|NCT02755831|191757872|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences at individual time points.||||||<0.05
95901494|NCT02755831|191757873|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Friedman Test|Friedman's test was used to analyze differences with a post hoc Wilcoxon Ranked Sign test to compare differences in treatment group only.||||||<0.05
95901495|NCT02755831|191757874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test used to compare mean difference in hospital costs at time of delivery.||||||<0.05
95901496|NCT04551105|191757938|SUPERIORITY||different in area under the LROC curve|0.0374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.019|0.0557|||OR-DBM model|||||0.0557|0.0190|<0.05
95901497|NCT04551105|191757939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.78|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95901498|NCT04551105|191757940|SUPERIORITY||different in sensitivity|-0.0013|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2307|0.2281|||McNemar|||||0.2281|-0.2307|<0.05
95901499|NCT04551105|191757940|SUPERIORITY||different in specificity|0.1065|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.2122|||McNemar|||||0.2122|0.0008|<0.05
95901500|NCT04551105|191757940|SUPERIORITY||different in PPV|-0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1824|0.0104|||McNemar|||||0.0104|-0.1824|<0.05
95901501|NCT04551105|191757940|SUPERIORITY||different in NPV|0.086|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0104|0.1824|||McNemar|||||0.1824|-0.0104|<0.05
95901502|NCT02447991|191757941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.33||||||Significance level p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.33
95901503|NCT02447991|191757942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.18||||||Signficant at p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication||||<0.18
95901504|NCT02447991|191757943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.62||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.62
95901505|NCT02447991|191757944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.19||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportions of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience freedom from vestibular symptoms (i.e., severity rating of Grade 0) at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.19
95901506|NCT02447991|191757945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.14||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.14
95901507|NCT02447991|191757946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.72||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.72
95901508|NCT02447991|191757947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.48||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication.||||<0.48
95901509|NCT02447991|191757948|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.35||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting as measured by the proportion of treated episodes in which subjects experience a reduction in severity rating from Grade 3/2 to Grade 1/0 at 1 hour after taking study medication..||||<0.35
95901510|NCT02447991|191757949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.022||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with effectiveness of study medication||||<0.022
95901511|NCT02447991|191757949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.418||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with side effects of study medication||||<0.418
95901512|NCT02447991|191757949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.674||||||Significance of threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with convenience of study medication||||<0.674
95901513|NCT02447991|191757949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||Significance of threshold of p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 48 hours after each attack treated with overall satisfaction of study medication||||<0.016
95901514|NCT02447991|191757950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.009||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on physical well-being||||<0.009
95901515|NCT02447991|191757950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.467||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Regression, Linear|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo on mental well-being||||<0.467
95901516|NCT02447991|191757951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.013||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients.This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to fatigue.||||<0.013
95901517|NCT02447991|191757951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.021||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Logistic regression with GEE|GEE=generalized estimating equations - this accounts for repeated measures within patients. This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be tolerated as well as placebo with regard to sleepiness/drowsiness||||<0.021
95901518|NCT02447991|191757952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.76||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of vertigo measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.76
95901519|NCT02447991|191757953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.041||||||Significance threshold p \< 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of unsteadiness/dizziness episodes measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.041
95901520|NCT02447991|191757954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.12||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of headaches measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.12
95901521|NCT02447991|191757955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.051||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of photophobia/phonophobia measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.051
95901522|NCT02447991|191757956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.006||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of sensitivity to motion measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.006
95901523|NCT02447991|191757957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67||||||Significance threshold p\<0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|This analysis applies to proportion of treated episodes.||Hypothesis: Rizatriptan will be superior to placebo in reducing the severity of nausea/vomiting measured by the proportion of treated episodes that subjects rate at grade 1/0 24 hours after taking study medication.||||<0.67
95901524|NCT00459134|191757964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.0||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis is that sexual function will be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||3.00|-1.67|0.576
95978389|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.03|||MMRM||Tired/LE/Weak domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-3.11|0.9770
95978390|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.9905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.2|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.20|-2.20|0.9905
95978391|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65||||0.8939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.37|||LS mean difference||CP/SOB,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.37|-1.67|0.8939
95978392|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.66|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.66|-1.70|0.8070
95901525|NCT00459134|191757965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|7.89||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups.||The null hypothesis was that quality of life would be the same in both groups at 12 weeks. A mixed effect repeated measures model constrained such that the baseline means were equal in the two groups was used to test this hypothesis.||7.89|1.09|0.010
95901526|NCT00829621|191757966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||=0.36
95901527|NCT02276495|191757982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.668
95901528|NCT02276495|191757983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95901529|NCT02276495|191757984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.013
95901530|NCT01660412|191757992|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.00|0.85|<0.0001
95901531|NCT03551210|191758000|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority bound was designated at the level of -15%|Difference in percentage|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|13.0||||||||13.0|-0.7|
95901532|NCT03551210|191758000|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||=|0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.29|0.49|=0.499
95901533|NCT03551210|191758001|OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.3|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.7|||Barnard's test|||Visit 2||9.7|-0.6|=0.08
95901534|NCT03551210|191758001|OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.7|||=|0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.8|||Barnard's test|||Visit 3||9.8|-2.0|=0.246
95901535|NCT03551210|191758002|OTHER||||||=|0.154|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.154
95901536|NCT03551210|191758003|OTHER||||||=|0.14|||||||Log Rank|||||||=0.14
95901537|NCT03551210|191758004|OTHER||||||=|0.26|||||||Barnard test|||||||=0.26
95901538|NCT03551210|191758005|OTHER||||||=|0.14||||||Visit 2 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||=0.14
95901539|NCT03551210|191758005|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 3 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
95901540|NCT03551210|191758005|OTHER|||||||0.515||||||Visit 4 assessment|Barnard's test|||||||0.515
95901541|NCT01782131|191758012|NON_INFERIORITY|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme. The p-Value is based on the one-sided non-inferiority test. Non-inferiority of posaconazole vs. voriconazole is established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than 10%.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-5.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|1.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.0|-11.6|<.0001
95901542|NCT01782131|191758013|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|8.8||||||||8.8|-8.2|
95901543|NCT01782131|191758014|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.9||||||||4.9|-9.9|
95901544|NCT01782131|191758015|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|13.1||||||||13.1|-6.9|
95901545|NCT01782131|191758016|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Estimated Difference in Percent|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-13.9|
95901546|NCT01782131|191758017|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk) and using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme.|Difference in Percent|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|10.1||||||||10.1|-11.2|
95901547|NCT01782131|191758018|OTHER||Survival Rate in Percent|60.7||||0.2767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.8|67.8||Based on Stratified Log-Rank method stratified by the risk for mortality/poor outcome (high risk, not high risk).|Kaplan-Meier|From product-limit (Kaplan-Meier) method for censored data.||Analysis of Time to All-Cause Mortality Through Day 114: Posaconazole vs. Voriconazole||67.8|52.8|0.2767
95901548|NCT01782131|191758019|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|20.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|42.7||||||||42.7|-4.1|
95901549|NCT01782131|191758020|OTHER|Based on Miettinen and Nurminen's method.|Difference in Percent|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|28.6||||||||28.6|-6.9|
95901550|NCT01782131|191758021|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.3||||0.8305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Abnormal Hepatic Laboratory Value||3.6|-2.9|0.8305
95901551|NCT01782131|191758021|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-3.6||||0.3633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||CNS and Visual Disturbances||4.2|-11.3|0.3633
95901552|NCT01782131|191758021|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-2.8||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Dermatologic Reactions||3.4|-9.1|0.3724
95901553|NCT01782131|191758021|OTHER||Difference in Percent|1.0||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Adrenal Insufficiency or Temporal Hypotension||5.5|-3.4|0.6431
95901554|NCT01782131|191758022|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen|Difference in Percent|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|2.8||||||||2.8|-2.8|
95901555|NCT01782131|191758023|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.4||||||||-2.4|-17.9|
95901556|NCT01782131|191758024|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8||||||||9.8|-6.1|
95901557|NCT01782131|191758025|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.7||||||||2.7|-5.6|
95901558|NCT01782131|191758026|OTHER|Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percent|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|4.5||||||||4.5|-11.0|
95901559|NCT00071487|191758042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|7.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using a last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.2|-19.4|0.3677
95901560|NCT00071487|191758042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|20.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||20.6|-8.7|0.4244
95901561|NCT00071487|191758042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|6.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||6.6|-19.6|0.3296
95901562|NCT00071487|191758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6423||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.6423
95901563|NCT00071487|191758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8536||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.8536
95901564|NCT00071487|191758043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9705||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Patients who required protocol-prohibited medications were considered to have a flare on the date the prohibited medication was started or date of the first flare, whichever came first. Patients who withdrew from the study for reasons other than SLE disease manifestations or hospitalization related to SLE or who missed 2 or more consecutive visits were censored at the time of the last assessment.||||0.9705
95901565|NCT00071487|191758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||4.1|-22.4|0.1763
95901566|NCT00071487|191758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.7112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|14.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||14.3|-20.9|0.7112
95901567|NCT00071487|191758044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|7.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||7.5|-22.2|0.3320
95901568|NCT00071487|191758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.1287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|8.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation. If patient required a protocol-prohibited medication, the SELENA SLEDAI score of the last visit prior to the use of the prohibited medication was used.||8.4|-65.6|0.1287
95901569|NCT00071487|191758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98||||0.8807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|42.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||42.1|-36.2|0.8807
95901570|NCT00071487|191758045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.41||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.1|7.3||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data was handled by using LOCF imputation.||7.3|-68.1|0.1131
95901571|NCT00071487|191758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|10.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||10.4|-13.8|0.7823
95901572|NCT00071487|191758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.4||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|3.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||3.4|-18.2|0.1774
95978393|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|0.13|||MMRM||CP/SOB,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-2.49|0.9615
95978394|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.76||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.39|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.39|-1.91|0.9015
95978395|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.03|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.03|-2.32|0.9781
95978396|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77||||0.8778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|0.53|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|-2.07|0.8778
95901573|NCT00071487|191758046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.6406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.1|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||9.1|-14.8|0.6406
95901574|NCT00071487|191758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.7822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|29.1||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||29.1|-38.6|0.7822
95901575|NCT00071487|191758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|15.4||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||15.4|-45.3|0.3332
95901576|NCT00071487|191758047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|21.5||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|t-test, 2 sided|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI.||21.5|-46.9|0.4660
95901577|NCT00071487|191758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5615||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.5615
95901578|NCT00071487|191758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.7593
95901579|NCT00071487|191758048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2273||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Log Rank|||Missing data for BILAG were handled as described previously for SELENA SLEDAI (SLE Flare Index).||||0.2273
95978397|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.65||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|-0.19|||MMRM||Cog domain,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.19|-3.11|0.9864
95901580|NCT00071487|191758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|-7.1||||0.4355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|10.6||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||10.6|-24.7|0.4355
95901581|NCT00071487|191758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|4.4||||0.6669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|24.2||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||24.2|-15.5|0.6669
95901582|NCT00071487|191758049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from placebo|17.7||||0.0882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|37.9||P-value was not adjusted for multiple testing.|Likelihood ratio chi-squared|||Patients who dropped out or had missing data were considered failures.||37.9|-2.5|0.0882
95901583|NCT01176591|191758051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95901584|NCT01176591|191758052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95901585|NCT01176591|191758053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95901586|NCT01176591|191758054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95901587|NCT01176591|191758056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.035
95978398|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.3|0.9725
95901588|NCT01073618|191758057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Efficacy rate (percent)|75.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.36|78.94|||Normal approximation to binomial||Confidence Interval (CI) by normal approximation to binomial.|Efficacy Rate (treatment effective) = Percentage of evaluable participants with clinical response of cure or improvement||78.94|71.36|
95901589|NCT00924950|191758075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8571||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0008
95901590|NCT01602315|191758080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||median HR|0.99||||||||||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Bayesian Cox proportional hazard (PH) model.||||
95901591|NCT01602315|191758080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.82|||Regression, Cox|||||1.82|0.69|0.643
95901592|NCT01602315|191758080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from central data \[SLD (C)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||0.97|0.30|0.039
95901593|NCT01602315|191758083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier method (median)|43.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|88.0|||||days|||88.0|27.0|
95901594|NCT01602315|191758089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.79|0.313
95901595|NCT01602315|191758090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier (median)|294.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.0|463.0||||||||463.0|172.0|
95901596|NCT01602315|191758104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.49|0.235
95901597|NCT01602315|191758104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||Adjusted on Covariates: treatment, sum of longest diameters from local data \[SLD (L)\], Hemaglobin (Hgb) and White Blood Cells (WBC).||1.02|0.4|0.062
95901598|NCT00982319|191758116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95901599|NCT01722331|191758122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|56.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6|62.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||62.8|49.6|<0.001
95901600|NCT01722331|191758122|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|64.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||64.1|51.0|<0.001
95901601|NCT01722331|191758123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|52.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|58.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||58.5|44.8|<0.001
95978399|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.7188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.8|-1.5|0.7188
95901602|NCT01722331|191758123|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|50.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.6|57.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||57.4|43.6|<0.001
95901603|NCT01722331|191758127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.8|38.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.8|26.8|<0.001
95901604|NCT01722331|191758127|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|32.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.9|38.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||38.0|25.9|<0.001
95901605|NCT01722331|191758128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.2|8.3|<0.001
95901606|NCT01722331|191758128|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||17.3|8.0|<0.001
95901607|NCT01722331|191758130|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-6.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.8|-8.6|<0.001
95901608|NCT01722331|191758130|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-7.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-6.5|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Terms for time, the interaction of time by treatment, body weight (\<=90 kg, \>90 kg), and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no).||||-6.5|-8.3|<0.001
95901609|NCT01722331|191758131|OTHER||Difference in percentages|38.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|45.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||45.4|31.9|<0.001
95901610|NCT01722331|191758131|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|42.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by body weight (\<=90kg, \>90kg) and prior exposure to biologic therapy for psoriasis (yes/no). P-values are not adjusted for multiplicity.||||42.5|29.3|<0.001
95901611|NCT03556761|191758132|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.81|||Regression, Linear|||||0.81|0.20|0.03
95901612|NCT03556761|191758133|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.51|||Regression, Cox|||||1.51|0.95|0.12
95901613|NCT03556761|191758134|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.25|0.14
95978400|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.8903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.5|-2.3|0.8903
95978401|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0||||0.5011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6|||MMRM||SOB, no activity,Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.6|-1.6|0.5011
95978402|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.2|0.9716
95901614|NCT03556761|191758135|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.64|0.36
95901615|NCT03556761|191758136|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.02||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||||.13|-0.09|0.76
95901616|NCT03556761|191758137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95901617|NCT03556761|191758138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|28.59||||||||28.59|0.32|
95901618|NCT03556761|191758139|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.39|0.03
95901619|NCT00693992|191758140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.47|0.0006
95901620|NCT00693992|191758141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.89
95901621|NCT00693992|191758143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0061
95901622|NCT00693992|191758144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8393
95901623|NCT01863446|191758256|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting 1 and Lighting2||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.334
95901624|NCT01863446|191758256|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test comparing Lighting3 vs Lighting 4||||||0.423|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.423
95901625|NCT01863446|191758257|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting1 vs Lighting2||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.780
95901626|NCT01863446|191758257|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test of Lighting3 vs Lighting4||||||0.791|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.791
95901627|NCT01863446|191758258|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.883
95901628|NCT01863446|191758258|SUPERIORITY|Unpaired t-test||||||0.271|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.271
95901629|NCT02114892|191758259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
95901630|NCT02114892|191758260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.859|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.859
95901631|NCT02114892|191758261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.070
95901632|NCT02114892|191758262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.338|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.338
95901633|NCT02114892|191758263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.278|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.278
95901634|NCT02114892|191758264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95901635|NCT02114892|191758265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.083|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.083
95901636|NCT02114892|191758266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95901637|NCT02114892|191758267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95901638|NCT02114892|191758268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.946|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
95901639|NCT02114892|191758269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.365|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.365
95901640|NCT02114892|191758270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.557
95901641|NCT02114892|191758271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95901642|NCT02114892|191758272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95901643|NCT02114892|191758273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.672
95901644|NCT02832674|191758279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint was an evaluation of the proportion of subjects with ≥ 20 mm2 lift at Day 90.||||0.05
95901645|NCT02832674|191758280|OTHER|Binomial test of proportions||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
95901646|NCT02832674|191758281|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of all effectiveness endpoints was conducted on the ITT population and on the PP population.|The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
95901647|NCT02832674|191758282|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
95901648|NCT02832674|191758283|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
95901649|NCT02832674|191758284|OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared||||The summary included number and percentage of subjects in each of the categories and the 2 sided Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. a binomial test of proportions tested the improvement at Day 90 and Day 180.|||0.025
95901650|NCT00718042|191758302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Specificity|99.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.79|99.91|||Point Estimate||Numerator = All blood donors tested nonreactive from all True Negative blood donors (16,223) Denominator = All True Negative blood donors (16,246) True Negative excludes donor specimens positive by supplemental testing (3)|||99.91|99.79|
95901651|NCT00718042|191758304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.7|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|96.70|
95901652|NCT00718042|191758307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|99.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.4|99.8|||Percentage Negative|||||99.8|97.4|
95901653|NCT02443298|191758311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.18|1.81|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.81|1.18|0.0255
95901654|NCT02443298|191758312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2|1.79|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|This was analyzed by using a Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment and the stratification factor of OCS use at baseline as fixed effects.||1.79|1.20|0.0131
95901655|NCT02443298|191758313|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.4937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.2366|1.8044|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.8044|1.2366|0.0065
95901656|NCT02443298|191758314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4619|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|1.57|||Cox proportional hazards model||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Time to first event is obtained from fitting a Cox proportional-hazards model including treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate||1.57|0.88|0.4619
95901657|NCT02443298|191758315|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.1317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.555|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8652|1.4803|||Negative binomial regression||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|Annualized rate is obtained from fitting a negative binomial regression including logarithm of the exposure as an offset, treatment, and OCS use at baseline as covariate.||1.4803|0.8652|0.5550
95901658|NCT02443298|191758316|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.104|0.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||0.026|-0.104|0.4423
95901659|NCT02443298|191758317|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.126|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|Unstructured covariance structure for within-patient variation|Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting a mixed effect repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, OCS use at baseline, test day, treatment-by-test day interaction, baseline, and baseline-by-test day interaction as covariates patient as a random effect.||-0.009|-0.126|0.1377
95978403|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3||||0.6908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.4|0.6908
95978404|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-1.8|0.7462
95978405|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.0|||MMRM||S-SB,Resting, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.0|-2.9|0.9770
95978406|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.3|-3.2|0.9471
95978407|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.9|-2.6|0.8330
95978408|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.8918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.7|-3.2|0.8918
95978409|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.2||||0.9986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1|||MMRM||Diff std for LT, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.1|-5.4|0.9986
95978410|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.4||||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week8:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.1|-1.2|0.3035
95901660|NCT02443298|191758318|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|0.297|||ANCOVA||Comparison of Risankizumab to Placebo|The adjusted mean (SE) are obtained from fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model separately for each week including treatment, OCS use at baseline, and baseline as covariates. The weekly averages of daily measurements are calculated before fitting the model.||0.297|0.000|0.1985
95901661|NCT03095417|191758319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.747
95901662|NCT03095417|191758320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.032
95901663|NCT03095417|191758321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.264
95901664|NCT03095417|191758322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.511|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.511
95901665|NCT03095417|191758323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.677
95901666|NCT03095417|191758324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.815|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.815
95901667|NCT03095417|191758325|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.719
95901668|NCT03095417|191758326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.346
95901669|NCT03095417|191758327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.910
95901670|NCT03095417|191758328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.794
95901671|NCT03095417|191758329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.626|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.626
95901672|NCT03095417|191758330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.774
95901673|NCT02571452|191758331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-0.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.55|-6.65|.021
95901674|NCT02571452|191758332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.30|-1.26|.568
95901675|NCT02571452|191758333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|-2.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.33|-5.87|<.001
95901676|NCT02571452|191758334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-1.61|.173
95901677|NCT02822794|191758340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL+RBV 12 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
95901678|NCT02822794|191758340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Binomial test|P-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority of SOF/VEL +RBV 24 Weeks (GT1) over the performance goal of 50%.||||||<0.001
95901679|NCT04788147|191758369|OTHER|"The modified 3+3 design with 6 patients at the 'Recommended RefleXion FDG Dose level' aims to ensure that the observed proportion of patients below activity threshold to be less than 33%.~Probability of Observations at Most 1 of 6 below Activity Threshold True below activity rate 40% 30% 20% 10% Probability at most 1 of 6 patients below activity threshold 0.233 0.420 0.655 0.886"||||||||||||||||"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|"Statistical analysis of the primary endpoint is not applicable to Cohort I. A modified 3+3 design was utilized wherein meeting the activity level threshold, not dose-limiting toxicity, is the endpoint. The RRFD is primarily based upon the lower FDG dose level where 5 to 6 out of 6 subjects have an Activity Concentration greater than 5 kBq/ml."|||
95901680|NCT01731171|191758381|OTHER|The effect of treatment was calculated using logistic regression and the Cox proportional hazard function employing age, gender, and race as covariates.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic||Values less than one favor adjunctive probiotic treatment, while values higher than one favor the placebo.|||||=.029
95901681|NCT01731171|191758382|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.022
95901682|NCT01731171|191758383|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||=.009
95901683|NCT01731171|191758384|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||=.017
95901684|NCT01410110|191758385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|6.25||a prior threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df = 40||t-test for equality of means||6.25|-11.57|.55
95901685|NCT01410110|191758386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|2.05||Time X Condition|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models allows for all randomized participants (N=48) to be included in the model.||F Test (df = 1,39.32), Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition||2.05|-1.73|.86
95901686|NCT01410110|191758387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.39||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||2.39|-7.36|<.31
95901687|NCT01410110|191758388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.08||a priori threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|df=39||||2.08|-1.77|.87
95901688|NCT01410110|191758389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,36.86)||1.33|-2.07|.67
95901689|NCT01410110|191758390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition, F Test F (df = 1,42.4)||.83|-1.67|.50
95901690|NCT01410110|191758391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,70.15)||2.01|.32|.008
95901691|NCT01410110|191758392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|2.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.169|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,37.8)||3.93|.169|.03
95901692|NCT01410110|191758393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|9.46||a priori p-value is .05. for two-tailed test. Positive estimated value is in the direction of the experimental condition.|Mixed Models Analysis|Time X Condition||Type III Fixed Effects for Time X Condition F Test (df = 1,39.8)||9.46|-1.73|.17
95901693|NCT02442700|191758405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95901694|NCT02617589|191758407|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.58|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.58|1.09|0.0037
95901695|NCT02617589|191758408|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.71|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.71|1.19|
95901696|NCT02617589|191758412|SUPERIORITY|Hazard Ratio is Nivolumab over Temozolomide|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|1.31||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.55|||Log-rank test stratified|Log-rank test stratified by complete or partial resection at baseline as entered into the IVRS.||||1.55|1.10|0.0024
95901697|NCT03282955|191758413|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin= 1.151||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.025
95901698|NCT03221257|191758455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.9326|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9326
95901699|NCT03221257|191758456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9968|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9968
95901700|NCT03221257|191758457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46||||0.7489|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7489
95901701|NCT03221257|191758458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2||||0.8898|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8898
95901702|NCT03221257|191758459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3826
95901703|NCT03221257|191758460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.2819|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2819
95901704|NCT03221257|191758461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.7534|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7534
95901705|NCT03221257|191758462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1701
95901706|NCT03221257|191758463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3515
95901707|NCT03221257|191758464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.51||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1177
95901708|NCT03221257|191758465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.98||||0.1931|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1931
95901709|NCT03221257|191758466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|121.3||||0.1811|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1811
95901710|NCT03221257|191758467|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.433||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED||||||Stratified log rank|||||||0.3261
95901711|NCT03221257|191758468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.454
95901712|NCT01009099|191758478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Co-variates included in the analysis were time walked on the constant workrate test at baseline and adherence (sessions completed/expected).||The outcomes compared were time walked on the constant workrate treadmill test measured in minutes.||||0.63
95901713|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||||95.0|1.5|1.79|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.79|1.50|
95901714|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||||95.0|1.17|1.41|||||Hazard ratio for hospitalization or emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.41|1.17|
95901715|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||||95.0|1.59|2.0|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||2.00|1.59|
95901716|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for emergency department visit for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
95901717|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||||95.0|1.41|1.94|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.94|1.41|
95901718|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||||95.0|1.26|1.76|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with oral steroid fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.76|1.26|
95901719|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||||95.0|1.23|1.57|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for IP compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.57|1.23|
95901720|NCT01331694|191758479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||||95.0|1.17|1.51|||||Hazard ratio for outpatient visit with antibiotic fill for TIO compared to FSC; HR estimate adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, pre-initial treatment comorbidities, and COPD-related utilization|||1.51|1.17|
95901721|NCT01516879|191758482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.08|-52.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 52 in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.85|-61.08|<0.001
95901722|NCT01516879|191758483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-53.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-53.3|-62.3|<0.001
95901723|NCT01516879|191758484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|75.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|79.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by the stratification factor. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with a missing value at Week 52.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||79.7|70.8|<0.001
95901724|NCT01516879|191758485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.57|-54.45|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-54.45|-60.57|<0.001
95901725|NCT01516879|191758486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-33.11|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.11|-37.19|<0.001
95901726|NCT01516879|191758487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-30.68|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-30.68|-36.21|<0.001
95901727|NCT01516879|191758488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.25|-46.28|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-46.28|-54.25|<0.001
95901728|NCT01516879|191758489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.56|-40.85|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-40.85|-47.56|<0.001
95901729|NCT01516879|191758490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.41|-33.87|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-33.87|-40.41|<0.001
95901730|NCT01516879|191758491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.79|-42.63|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-42.63|-49.79|<0.001
95901731|NCT01516879|191758492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.15|-18.55|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.55|-26.15|<0.001
95978411|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.4||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week12:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.2|-3.1|0.9563
95901732|NCT01516879|191758493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-11.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.21|-5.86|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-5.86|-17.21|<0.001
95901733|NCT01516879|191758494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.56|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||7.56|3.28|<0.001
95901734|NCT01516879|191758495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-18.08|||Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||-18.08|-40.23|<0.001
95901735|NCT01516879|191758496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|3.48|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment group and stratification factor as covariates.|Treatment difference using placebo as the reference.|||3.48|-3.76|0.94
95901736|NCT00508742|191758504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.65||||||||0.65|0.47|
95901737|NCT00508742|191758505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.9||||||Month 7: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.9|0.5|
95901738|NCT00508742|191758505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 12: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
95901739|NCT00508742|191758505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.5||||||Month 13: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.5|0.3|
95901740|NCT00508742|191758505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7||||||Month 18: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.7|0.4|
95901741|NCT00508742|191758505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||||||Month 24: 13vPnC/7vPnC, odds ratio was calculated using a logistic regression model with treatment group as the independent variable.||0.8|0.4|
95901742|NCT04160260|191758513|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.2|107.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-48) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg intravenous (IV) omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log Geometric Mean (GM) AUC(0-48) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.98 (0.2091).||107.5|84.2|
95901743|NCT04160260|191758514|EQUIVALENCE|Omadacycline 300 mg PO provided equivalent total exposure as measured by AUC relative to omadacycline 100 mg IV.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.0|115.5|||||A t-test on the natural log-transformed PK parameter AUC(0-24) was performed to obtain the Geometric Mean Ratio and its confidence interval.|Comparison was performed with the 100 mg IV omadacycline treatment group (data were obtained from 6 completed studies-NCT numbers not available). Using the Day 1 plasma concentration profile of the 100 mg IV QD dosing from these studies, a BID dosing on Day 1 and a QD dosing on Day 2 was simulated using the superposition principle. Log GM AUC(0-24) of omadacycline for the 100 mg IV omadacycline group was as follows:Participants analyzed=63; GM (SD)=9.26 (0.1985).||115.5|88.0|
95901744|NCT01227512|191758521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9495||||||The alpha level was set at 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|Participants who used rescue therapy within first 7 days of treatment period were censored at time they started the rescue therapy.||||||0.9495
95901745|NCT01227512|191758522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.146||95.0|-0.7|0.11||alpha level was set at 0.05. p-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|Includes factors of treatment, study center and covariate baseline.||||0.11|-0.70|0.1460
95901746|NCT01227512|191758523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.315||95.0|-0.57|0.19|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 24 hours post-dose.||0.19|-0.57|0.3150
95901747|NCT01227512|191758523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.5381||95.0|-0.57|0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||P value corresponds to 72 hours post-dose.||0.30|-0.57|0.5381
95901748|NCT01227512|191758524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.2702||95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was derived from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.21|-0.73|0.2702
95901749|NCT01227512|191758525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.0019||95.0|1.43|6.11||P-value was derived from an ANCOVA model with treatment and clinical center as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.11|1.43|0.0019
95901750|NCT01227512|191758526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5128||||||p-value was derived from Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by treatment. Participants who received rescue therapy were censored at the time of receiving rescue therapy.|Generalized Wilcoxon Test|||||||0.5128
95901751|NCT01227512|191758527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.1||||0.5795||95.0|0.79|1.52||P-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.52|0.79|0.5795
95901752|NCT01227512|191758528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.33||||0.1568||95.0|0.07|1.65||p-value was derived using a CMH test stratified by hyponatremia symptoms severity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.07|0.1568
95901753|NCT04666441|191758553|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.88|0.0004
95901754|NCT04666441|191758553|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.99|<0.0001
95901755|NCT04666441|191758553|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.89|0.0007
95901756|NCT04666441|191758553|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-1.05|<0.0001
95901757|NCT04666441|191758553|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0006||95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.88|0.0006
95901758|NCT04666441|191758553|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007||95.0|-0.87|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.24|-0.87|0.0007
95901759|NCT04666441|191758554|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.72|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||||-0.23|-0.72|0.0002
95901760|NCT04666441|191758554|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.82|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||||-0.32|-0.82|<0.0001
95901761|NCT04666441|191758554|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
95901762|NCT04666441|191758554|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002||95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.75|0.0002
95901763|NCT04666441|191758554|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.004||95.0|-0.62|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.62|0.0040
95901764|NCT04666441|191758554|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0007||95.0|-0.67|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.67|0.0007
95901765|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.82|<0.0001
95901766|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.90|<0.0001
95901767|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.97|<0.0001
95901768|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.58|-1.19|<0.0001
95901769|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.84|<0.0001
95901770|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.95|<0.0001
95901771|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.98|<0.0001
95901772|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.64|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.25|<0.0001
95901773|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.37|-0.87|<0.0001
95901774|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.42|-0.93|<0.0001
95901775|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-0.99|<0.0001
95901776|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.61|-1.25|<0.0001
95901777|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.80|<0.0001
95901778|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.38|-0.89|<0.0001
95901779|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.43|-0.97|<0.0001
95901780|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.15|<0.0001
95901781|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.76|<0.0001
95901782|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.83|<0.0001
95901783|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.82|<0.0001
95901784|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.95|<0.0001
95901785|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.73|0.0002
95901786|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.31|-0.82|<0.0001
95901787|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-0.87|<0.0001
95901788|NCT04666441|191758555|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.16|<0.0001
95901789|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-0.64|0.0005
95901790|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|<0.0001
95901791|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-0.75|<0.0001
95901792|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.32|-0.88|<0.0001
95901793|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.21|-0.69|0.0003
95901794|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.77|<0.0001
95901795|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.78|<0.0001
95901796|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.41|-0.98|<0.0001
95901797|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.25|-0.72|<0.0001
95901798|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.28|-0.74|<0.0001
95901799|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.30|-0.79|<0.0001
95901800|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.40|-0.99|<0.0001
95901801|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.63|0.0009
95901802|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.23|-0.69|0.0001
95901803|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-0.77|<0.0001
95901804|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.34|-0.92|<0.0001
95901805|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.57|0.0046
95901806|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.15|-0.62|0.0011
95901807|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.13|-0.62|0.0029
95901808|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.08|-0.66|0.0120
95901809|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^4 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.09|-0.56|0.0062
95901810|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^5 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-0.62|0.0011
95901811|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^6 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.17|-0.66|0.0011
95901812|NCT04666441|191758556|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Baseline Viral Load \>10\^7 copies/mL Difference vs. Placebo (log10 copies/mL)||-0.29|-0.87|0.0001
95901813|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.007||95.0|-0.85|-0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.14|-0.85|0.0070
95901814|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.33|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.33|-1.06|0.0002
95901815|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0008||95.0|-1.0|-0.26|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.26|-1.00|0.0008
95978412|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week28:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||1.5|-2.3|0.6548
95901816|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0125||95.0|-0.85|-0.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.10|-0.85|0.0125
95978413|NCT02876835|191929465|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.4||||0.9832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Diff sleep, Week52:Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, BL value and BL value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.2|-4.5|0.9832
95901817|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0696||95.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||0.03|-0.70|0.0696
95901818|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 3 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.07|-0.79|0.0187
95978414|NCT02876835|191929466|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.08|||MMRM||Week 8: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 8 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.08|-0.05|0.6917
95978415|NCT02876835|191929466|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||MMRM||Week 12: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 12 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.11|-0.01|0.9510
95901819|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.52|-1.39|<0.0001
95901820|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.53|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.64|-1.53|<0.0001
95901821|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
95901822|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.60|-1.50|<0.0001
95901823|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.46|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.46|-1.34|<0.0001
95901824|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-0.48|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 5 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.48|-1.35|<0.0001
95901825|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0004||95.0|-1.23|-0.35|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.35|-1.23|0.0004
95901826|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0058||95.0|-1.08|-0.18|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.18|-1.08|0.0058
95901827|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0046||95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.20|-1.11|0.0046
95901828|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0019||95.0|-1.18|-0.27|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.27|-1.18|0.0019
95901829|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.33|-0.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.44|-1.33|<0.0001
95901830|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0079||95.0|-1.04|-0.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 7 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.16|-1.04|0.0079
95901831|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0515||95.0|-0.9|0.0|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.00|-0.90|0.0515
95901832|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1864||95.0|-0.77|0.15|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.15|-0.77|0.1864
95901833|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.2866||95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.21|-0.72|0.2866
95901834|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.647||95.0|-0.58|0.36|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.36|-0.58|0.6470
95901835|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.028||95.0|-0.97|-0.06|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.06|-0.97|0.0280
95901836|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0854||95.0|-0.84|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 15 (log10 copies/mL)||0.05|-0.84|0.0854
95901837|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.07|-0.69|0.1078
95901838|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2235||95.0|-0.62|0.14|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.14|-0.62|0.2235
95901839|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1369||95.0|-0.68|0.09|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.09|-0.68|0.1369
95901840|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.661||95.0|-0.48|0.31|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.31|-0.48|0.6610
95901841|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0284||95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||-0.05|-0.81|0.0284
95901842|NCT04666441|191758560|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.08||95.0|-0.71|0.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||Difference vs. Placebo, by Day 22 (log10 copies/mL)||0.04|-0.71|0.0800
95901843|NCT02517905|191758579|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-2.7||||0.8661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|28.2|||ANOVA|||||28.2|-33.5|0.8661
95901844|NCT02517905|191758580|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-4.0||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|10.2|||ANOVA|||||10.2|-18.2|0.5780
95901845|NCT02517905|191758581|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|5.9||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|52.1|||ANOVA|||||52.1|-40.2|0.8010
95901846|NCT01114516|191758607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Kaplan Meier survival analysis||||0.018
95901847|NCT01114516|191758608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.05||||||||2.05|1.06|
95901848|NCT01114516|191758609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.393
95901849|NCT00132769|191758613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|1.48||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|4.18|||ANCOVA|||||4.18|-1.21|0.278
95901850|NCT00132769|191758614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent|-5.66||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.45|13.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.13|-24.45|0.543
95901851|NCT00132769|191758621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio between treatments|0.84||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.12|||ANCOVA|||||1.12|0.63|0.225
95901852|NCT01431508|191758622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 and Baseline||||<0.05
95901853|NCT02669329|191758667|OTHER||success proportion|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|93.4||||||||93.4|72.9|
95901854|NCT00822510|191758672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95901855|NCT00822510|191758674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|0.79|||||ANOVA|||||||.79
95901856|NCT00822510|191758675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95901857|NCT00822510|191758676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95901858|NCT00822510|191758677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|0.71|||||ANOVA|||||||.71
95901859|NCT00822510|191758678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|0.01|||||ANOVA|||||||.01
95901860|NCT04419493|191758680|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.87|110.1|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.10|94.87|
95901861|NCT04419493|191758682|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|105.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|99.18|112.88|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||112.88|99.18|
95901862|NCT04419493|191758684|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00% .|Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio (%)|102.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|92.83|94.79|110.12|||||Geometric Least Squares Mean ratio is: Alteplase, TPA-02/Alteplase, TPA-05. Standard Error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient variation.|"The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected geometric least squares means Alteplase, TPA-02 vs. Alteplase, TPA-05 is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.~The statistical model used for the analysis of this endpoints was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale.~This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. All effects were considered as fixed."||110.12|94.79|
95901863|NCT03119766|191758685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.85|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.85|0.04|0.041
95901864|NCT03119766|191758685|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Fixed factor Treatment and random factor research center were used in mixed model. Difference in mean changes between groups was estimeted."|Mean changes of GIS scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared. Influence of between center variation was estimated.||1.74|0.04|0.041
95901865|NCT03119766|191758686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 1 point.||||0.067
95901866|NCT03119766|191758686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 2 points.||||0.029
95901867|NCT03119766|191758686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 3 points.||||0.082
95901868|NCT03119766|191758686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 4 points.||||0.046
95901869|NCT03119766|191758686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||Fisher Exact|||Test for comparison percentage of patients with reduction ≥ 5 points.||||0.111
95901870|NCT03119766|191758687|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|2.15|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of NDI scores after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.15|-0.93|0.435
95901871|NCT03119766|191758688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.26|||ANOVA||Results are presented as estimated differences of Least Squares Means according to ANOVA model|Mean changes of SF-36 scores (physical health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||1.26|-2.00|0.655
95901872|NCT03119766|191758688|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.1|||ANOVA|||Mean changes of SF-36 scores (mental health domain) after 8 weeks of treatment were compared.||2.10|-0.79|0.375
95901873|NCT03119766|191758689|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95901874|NCT03119766|191758690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Side effects analysis.||||0.08
95901875|NCT03119766|191758690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Therapeutic effect||||0.139
95901876|NCT03119766|191758690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.251|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Efficacy index analysis.||||0.251
95901877|NCT02034578|191758692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.04||||||B versus A||1.040|0.873|
95978416|NCT02876835|191929466|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.04||||0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||MMRM||Week 28: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 28 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.03|-0.11|0.1136
95978417|NCT02876835|191929466|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.8859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.13|||MMRM||Week 52: Model was fitted from Baseline up to Week52 and model adjusted Week 52 data has been presented, with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.13|-0.03|0.8859
95978418|NCT02876835|191929467|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2||||0.7716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.33|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, current ESA use at randomization, region, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.33|-0.74|0.7716
95978419|NCT00954421|191929474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.61|-4.65|||two-sided sign-rank test||p-value assessed via sign-rank test (pre-planned method)|The null hypothesis is that the mean change in Tremor Rating Scale score from baseline to six months post-implant (with VIM and VO stimulators turned ON) will be zero||-4.65|-30.61|.026
95978420|NCT00954421|191929475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.1||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5||Sign rank test was pre-planned for P-value|Sign-Rank test||p-value assessed using sign rank test|The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when both stimulators are on (VIM and VO), versus when both stimulators are off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having both stimulators on versus both stimulators off)||14.5|2.2|0.011
95978421|NCT00954421|191929475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.49||0.68||95.0|-4.96|6.42|||two-sided sign rank test|two sided sign rank test as pre-planned||The null hypothesis is that difference in change in Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) score from baseline to 6 months when VO is on and VIM is off, versus when VIM is on and VO is off, will be zero (i.e., that there will be no difference in effect between having exclusively VIM versus VO on)||6.42|-4.96|.68
95978422|NCT02979925|191929480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.246
95978423|NCT02979925|191929481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.651
95978424|NCT02979925|191929482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.902
95978425|NCT05629962|191929488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.954
95978426|NCT05245097|191929495|OTHER|For the multiple imputation, a total of 50 imputed datasets will be calculated (Graham et al.). Fully conditional specification (FCS) discriminant function method will be used to impute missing primary endpoint using the baseline covariates of age, sex, race, ethnicity, mobility level, and BIMS Score. The FCS logistic method was replaced with the FCS discriminant function method due to a quasi-separation caused by only one observed primary endpoint event in the treatment group.||||||0.004||||||The null hypothesis was tested at a one-sided 0.025 level of significance using a logistic regression analysis to compare treatment groups while controlling for propensity score.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.004
95978427|NCT05245097|191929496|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The hip fracture due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95978428|NCT05245097|191929496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95978429|NCT05245097|191929497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The emergency department visit due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple ED visits due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.001
95978430|NCT05245097|191929498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The hospitalization due to fall rate was compared between treatment groups using firth logistic regression while controlling for propensity score. A one-sided 0.025 level of significance was used.|Regression, Logistic|Subjects with multiple hospitalizations due to falls are only counted once.||||||0.003
95978431|NCT00883051|191929523|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend|||||||<0.0001
95978432|NCT00883051|191929524|OTHER|A hierarchical test procedure was applied only for analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for trend]|||||||=0.0006
95978433|NCT05090995|191929541|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95978434|NCT05090995|191929542|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95978435|NCT05090995|191929543|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95978436|NCT05090995|191929544|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95978437|NCT05090995|191929545|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline consequences||||<.0001
95901878|NCT02034578|191758692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.805|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.749|0.865||||||C versus A||0.865|0.749|
95978438|NCT05090995|191929545|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||<.0001
95978439|NCT05090995|191929546|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95978440|NCT05090995|191929547|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Effect of baseline sleep scores||||<.0001
95978441|NCT05090995|191929547|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For effects with time||||0.04
95978442|NCT05090995|191929548|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment group and time||||0.02
95978443|NCT05090995|191929548|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||0.02
95978444|NCT05090995|191929548|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||0.0007
95901879|NCT02034578|191758694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.924|1.01||||||B versus A||1.010|0.924|
95978445|NCT05090995|191929548|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95978446|NCT05090995|191929549|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effect of day of the week.||||0.0001
95978447|NCT05090995|191929550|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For interaction between treatment condition and time||||0.04
95978448|NCT05090995|191929550|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of sex||||<.0001
95901880|NCT02034578|191758694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.896|0.942||||||C versus A||0.942|0.896|
95901881|NCT02034578|191758695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.926|1.011||||||B versus A||1.011|0.926|
95901882|NCT02034578|191758695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.922|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.899|0.947||||||C versus A||0.947|0.899|
95909261|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.611||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.27|1.84||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Anxiety/depression symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.84|0.27|0.0869
95978449|NCT05090995|191929550|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Main effects of type of day of the week (weekday vs. weekend)||||<0.0001
95978450|NCT05090995|191929550|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95978451|NCT00467285|191929559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of changes in BMD at 6months compared to baseline||||<0.05
95978452|NCT03019796|191929648|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.040
95978453|NCT03019796|191929649|OTHER|||||||0.054|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures||||||0.054
95978454|NCT03019796|191929650|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.040
95978455|NCT03019796|191929651|OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.321
95978456|NCT03019796|191929652|OTHER|||||||0.401|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.401
95978457|NCT03019796|191929653|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|REPEATED MEASURES||||||0.021
95978458|NCT00475033|191929702|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||-0.1|-5.3|
95978459|NCT00475033|191929703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Ratio of GMs (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.48|0.96|
95978460|NCT00475033|191929704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.7|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PT: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.6|
95978461|NCT00475033|191929704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FHA: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.3|-1.3|
95978462|NCT00475033|191929704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRN: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||4.2|-1.7|
95978463|NCT00475033|191929704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|1.2|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|FIM: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage||1.2|-5.5|
95978464|NCT00475033|191929705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Meningococcal C: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||1.4|-1.4|
95978465|NCT00475033|191929706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.5|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|Meningococcal C: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.50|1.08|
95978466|NCT00475033|191929711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.27|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PT: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.27|1.02|
95978467|NCT00475033|191929711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.25|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FHA: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.25|1.01|
95901883|NCT00116805|191758699|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 160 subjects in the TDF group and 80 subjects in the ADV group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the TDF treatment was inferior to the ADV treatment (the difference in proportions was less than -0.080) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the TDF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|54.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|63.6||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x upper limit of the normal range \[ULN\] or \> 4 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT was used to evaluate difference between groups in proportion of complete responders.||||63.6|44.6|<0.001
95978468|NCT00475033|191929711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.24|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRN: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.24|0.89|
95901884|NCT00116805|191758700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|63.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.8|72.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||72.3|53.8|<0.001
95978469|NCT00475033|191929711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.02|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|FIM: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.02|0.78|
95978470|NCT00475033|191929712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||0.1|-4.4|
95901885|NCT00116805|191758701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|9.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Two-sided 95% CIs, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment group differences.||||9.3|-12.0|0.801
95978471|NCT00475033|191929713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||||CI for the ratio were back transformations of a CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC, 7vPnC).|PRP in Hib: Ratio of geometric means (13vPnC, 7vPnC)||1.12|0.75|
95978472|NCT00475033|191929714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 treatment groups was \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.4|||||Exact 2-sided CI for the difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.|PRP: Difference in proportions (13vPnC, 7vPnC) expressed as a percentage.||3.4|-9.4|
95978473|NCT01389765|191929723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatment states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.05|0.97|
95978474|NCT01389765|191929724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyzed was a ratio of geometric LS means between the 2 treatments states (fed/fasted), and the 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||||1.01|0.92|
95901886|NCT00116805|191758706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference in zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||||17.2|-5.6|0.320
95901887|NCT00116805|191758712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|26.1||P-value corresponds to a Z-test. Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||26.1|1.1|0.032
95901888|NCT00116805|191758713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|1.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||||1.9|-21.5|0.100
95901889|NCT00116805|191758718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.4||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||16.4|-4.2|0.245
95901890|NCT00116805|191758718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.9||P-value for HBeAg seroconversion corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg seroconversion.||14.9|-5.5|0.363
95901891|NCT00116805|191758719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|11.9||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).||This information pertains to HBeAg loss.||11.9|-11.3|0.963
95901892|NCT00116805|191758719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|11.7||P-value above for HBeAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and Cl are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \>4 x ULN).||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBe.||11.7|-10.4|0.904
95901893|NCT00116805|191758720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|19.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||19.9|1.9|0.018
95901894|NCT00116805|191758720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|10.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval (CI) are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg seroconversion.||10.2|-1.5|0.148
95901895|NCT00116805|191758721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.5||P-value above for HBsAg loss corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to HBsAg loss.||6.5|-4.8|0.757
95901896|NCT00116805|191758721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.9||P-value above corresponds to Z-test of the null hypothesis that stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 4 x ULN or \> 4 x ULN).|Z-test|||This information pertains to seroconversion to anti-HBs.||5.9|-4.2|0.733
95901897|NCT01627249|191758733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||5.7|1.4|<0.001
95901898|NCT01627249|191758733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||4.2|0.1|0.034
95901899|NCT01627249|191758733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs. Bevacizumab||3.2|-0.4|0.12
95901900|NCT01627249|191758734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.1|-48.6|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||-48.6|-91.1|<0.001
95901901|NCT01627249|191758734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|-1.2|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||-1.2|-36|0.036
95901902|NCT01627249|191758734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.2|-31.3|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||-31.3|-71.2|<0.001
95901903|NCT01627249|191758735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|10.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Bevacizumab||10.1|2.9|0.001
95901904|NCT01627249|191758735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.0|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs. Ranibizumab||8.0|1.4|0.0031
95901905|NCT01627249|191758735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.8|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||4.8|-1.1|0.21
95901906|NCT01627249|191758736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.7|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab||2.7|-1.3|0.69
95901907|NCT01627249|191758736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.5|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Aflibercept vs Ranibizumab||1.5|-2.3|0.69
95901908|NCT01627249|191758736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1|||ANCOVA||Reported P-values have been adjusted for multiple treatment group comparisons.|Ranibizumab vs Bevacizumab||3.1|-0.9|0.69
95901909|NCT01159938|191758747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.30|-0.78|0.617
95901910|NCT01159938|191758747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.23|0.732
95901911|NCT01159938|191758747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.73||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-1.20|0.715
95901912|NCT01159938|191758747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-0.85|0.177
95901913|NCT01159938|191758747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.53|-0.94|0.579
95978475|NCT01389765|191929725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Analyzed were the median of paired differences between the 2 treatment states (fed versus fasted) and the 90% confidence interval.||||1.50|0.50|0.0031
95901914|NCT01159938|191758747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.21||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 30-min pre-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.21|-1.19|0.167
95901915|NCT01159938|191758748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.10|0.676
95901916|NCT01159938|191758748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-1.27|0.957
95901917|NCT01159938|191758748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.85||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-1.68|0.513
95901918|NCT01159938|191758748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.28||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.28|-0.47|0.623
95978476|NCT03645954|191929726|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95978477|NCT03645954|191929727|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95978478|NCT03645954|191929728|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95978479|NCT03645954|191929729|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95978480|NCT03645954|191929730|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95978481|NCT03645954|191929731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95901919|NCT01159938|191758748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.57||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.57|-0.51|0.916
95901920|NCT01159938|191758748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 60-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.73|0.413
95901921|NCT01159938|191758749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.34||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.94|0.724
95901922|NCT01159938|191758749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.57||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.2||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||2.20|-1.05|0.479
95901923|NCT01159938|191758749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|1.41||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.41|-1.76|0.825
95901924|NCT01159938|191758749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.25||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-0.65|0.378
95901925|NCT01159938|191758749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.46||The p-value is for the LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120 mins post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.84|0.553
95901926|NCT01159938|191758749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.42||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 120-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.42|-0.83|0.512
95901927|NCT01159938|191758750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.51||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.51|-1.09|0.466
95901928|NCT01159938|191758750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.44||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.72||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-1.60|0.449
95901929|NCT01159938|191758750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.15||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.96||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.96|-1.25|0.792
95901930|NCT01159938|191758750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.63|0.493
95901931|NCT01159938|191758750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.10|-1.25|0.091
95901932|NCT01159938|191758750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.9||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 180-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.90|-0.39|0.425
95901933|NCT01159938|191758751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.4||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-1.36|0.275
95901934|NCT01159938|191758751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.784||95.0|-1.44|1.1||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||1.10|-1.44|0.784
95901935|NCT01159938|191758751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.79||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|0.43||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in aortic arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.43|-2.01|0.197
95901936|NCT01159938|191758751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.11||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.90|0.122
95901937|NCT01159938|191758751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.31||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.31|-1.16|0.246
95901938|NCT01159938|191758751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in PWV at 240-min post-breakfast in brachial arteries. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|||||0.33|-1.06|0.298
95901939|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.49||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-0.48||P-value is for the Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||-0.48|-6.50|0.024
95901940|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.25||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.09||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 60-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|The LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||3.09|-2.59|0.859
95901941|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.19||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|0.87||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.87|-5.25|0.155
95901942|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.3||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.30|-3.46|0.685
95901943|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.84||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|1.64||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||1.64|-5.33|0.292
95901944|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.04||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|5.33||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 180-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||5.33|-1.25|0.216
95901945|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.87||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|0.18||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.18|-5.92|0.065
95901946|NCT01159938|191758752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|2.8||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PWA at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||2.80|-2.96|0.954
95901947|NCT01159938|191758753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.27||P-value is for Least Square (LS) mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.27|-0.31|0.905
95901948|NCT01159938|191758753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.42||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.69||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 120-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.69|0.14|0.004
95901949|NCT01159938|191758753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.23|-0.41|0.584
95901950|NCT01159938|191758753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.44||P-value is for LS mean difference (high minus low postprandial glucose) in change in PAT at 240-min post-breakfast. Significance was assessed at the 2-sided 5% level.|ANCOVA|LS mean was adjusted for age, BMI, visit, group, condition, group by condition, and random participant.||||0.44|-0.19|0.436
95901951|NCT02039505|191758790|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.37||||0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|2.399|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.399|0.779|0.2722
95901952|NCT02039505|191758791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|7.108|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||7.108|1.168|0.0210
95901953|NCT02039505|191758797|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|3.596|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.596|0.762|0.1980
95901954|NCT02039505|191758798|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.3168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.755|2.356|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||2.356|0.755|0.3168
95901955|NCT02039505|191758799|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.48||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.407|8.626|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.626|1.407|0.0067
95901956|NCT02039505|191758800|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.49||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.409|8.642|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||8.642|1.409|0.0066
95901957|NCT02039505|191758801|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.02||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.677|6.033|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||6.033|0.677|0.2090
95901958|NCT02039505|191758802|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|3.38||||0.1571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|17.981|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||CMH test was used for analysis. Prior TNFα antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||17.981|0.636|0.1571
95901959|NCT01154166|191758820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean for treatment difference|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.26|||ANCOVA||The estimated value indicates the treatment difference for the adjusted mean for Ropinirole PR and placebo.|||-1.26|-2.27|<0.001
95901960|NCT04265755|191758833|OTHER|Adjusted analysis utilizes a logistic regression model which includes age, sex, dose switch, Baseline value of interest, and mPRS as covariates and presents the mPRS estimates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13|||Regression, Logistic||Based on a 1 standard deviation increase in mPRS.|Odds of achieving at least 50% reduction from Baseline in mean MMD over months 4, 5, and 6 in relation to mPRS.||1.13|0.90|0.86
95901961|NCT01168999|191758877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95901962|NCT01168999|191758878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95901963|NCT01168999|191758879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95901964|NCT01168999|191758880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95901965|NCT01168999|191758881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||0.05
95901966|NCT01168999|191758882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Repeated Measure ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95901967|NCT00563797|191758888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||F=7.73|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison is between baseline and during treatment.||||0.014
95901968|NCT00563797|191758889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||F=36.32|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of baseline and post-treatment||||.0001
95901969|NCT00563797|191758890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.025
95901970|NCT00563797|191758891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.019
95901971|NCT01276327|191758894|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.11|102.81|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.11|
95901972|NCT01276327|191758895|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|94.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.08|99.55|||Unscaled average Bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||99.55|89.08|
95901973|NCT01276327|191758896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together.|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|79.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.65|85.72|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||85.72|74.65|
95901974|NCT01276327|191758897|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|97.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|106.51|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||106.51|88.90|
95901975|NCT01276327|191758898|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|99.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|102.81|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric Standard error of mean was calculated.|||102.81|97.10|
95901976|NCT01276327|191758899|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|101.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.18|105.67|||Unscaled average bioequivalence||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||105.67|98.18|
95901977|NCT01276327|191758900|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence of the FDC tablet compared with the individual tablets of linagliptin and pioglitazone administered together|Adjusted gMean Ratio (Test/Ref) (%)|80.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.6|86.34|||Scaled average bioequivalence (SABE)||Geometric standard error of mean was calculated.|||86.34|75.60|
95901978|NCT00807092|191758903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.666||||95.0|-1.332|1.306||A statistical significant threshold p less than 0.025|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean IAUC(0-4hours) as covariate|BIAsp 30 - BHI 30|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment greater than or equal to 0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4hours) of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4hours) of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment less than 0 mol\*h/L"||1.306|-1.332|
95901979|NCT00807092|191758904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.2412||95.0|-0.802|3.157||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Breakfast|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for breakfast:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for breakfast after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||3.157|-0.802|0.2412
95978482|NCT00174265|191929752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0148||95.0||||The test of hypothesis was a 2-tailed test with alpha=0.05 (0.049 to adjust for one interim analysis).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in NSA Scale total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Day 365.||||0.0148
95978483|NCT00174265|191929753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||95.0||||Significant level adjusted for one interim analysis was set as 0.049 two-sided.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measurements|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change from Baseline in QLS total score between asenapine and olanzapine at Week 52.||||0.8100
95978484|NCT03231943|191929810|OTHER||Power model|0.9476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8982|0.9971|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-inf) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9971|0.8982|
95978485|NCT03231943|191929811|OTHER||Power model|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8877|0.9683|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9683|0.8877|
95978486|NCT03231943|191929812|OTHER||Power Model|0.9352|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.9734|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9734|0.8970|
95978487|NCT03231943|191929813|OTHER||Power model|0.7968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6424|0.9512|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-tau) from all active doses in Part 1|||0.9512|0.6424|
95978488|NCT03231943|191929814|OTHER||Power model|0.789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6149|0.9631|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Ctrough) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9631|0.6149|
95978489|NCT03231943|191929815|OTHER||Power model|0.7955|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6562|0.9349|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9349|0.6562|
95978490|NCT03231943|191929820|OTHER||Power model|0.737|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5649|0.9091|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (Cmax) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9091|0.5649|
95978491|NCT03231943|191929821|OTHER||Power model|0.7397|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5576|0.9218|||||The statistical model (power model) is based on the PK parameters (AUC0-24) from all active doses in Part 2|||0.9218|0.5576|
95978492|NCT01215175|191929850|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
95978493|NCT01215175|191929851|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||||95.0|-7.9|26.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.6|-7.9|
95978494|NCT01215175|191929851|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-15.5|22.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||22.9|-15.5|
95978495|NCT01215175|191929852|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-11.5|11.5|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||11.5|-11.5|
95978496|NCT01215175|191929853|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.2|10.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||10.6|-12.2|
95978497|NCT01215175|191929853|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-12.3|12.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||12.3|-12.3|
95978498|NCT01215175|191929854|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0||||||95.0|-7.4|28.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||28.3|-7.4|
95978499|NCT01215175|191929855|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||||95.0|-10.6|30.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||30.9|-10.6|
95978500|NCT01215175|191929855|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||||95.0|-19.1|26.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||26.0|-19.1|
95978501|NCT01920594|191929871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2228.14||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-292.84|4749.11|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as least square (LS) mean difference (final values) of S-100B Protein \[test\] and S-100B Protein \[reference\].|||4749.11|-292.84|0.0820
95978502|NCT01920594|191929872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|777.95||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.04|1979.94|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference (final values) of GFAP \[test\] and GFAP \[reference\].|||1979.94|-424.04|0.1997
95978503|NCT01920594|191929878|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|1.77||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.9|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of S-100B\[test\] and S-100B\[reference\].|||3.90|0.80|0.1530
95978504|NCT01920594|191929879|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of comparison (Ratio)|3.13||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|14.26|||ANOVA||The point estimate was calculated as Geometric mean ratio of GFAP\[test\] and GFAP\[reference\].|||14.26|0.69|0.1377
95978505|NCT01920594|191929880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.95|47.17|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Erythropoietin\[test\] and Erythropoietin\[reference\].|||47.17|21.95|<.0001
95978506|NCT01920594|191929881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54||||0.2404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.45|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Lactate Dehydrogenase\[test\] and Lactate Dehydrogenase\[reference\].|||1.45|-0.37|0.2404
95978507|NCT01920594|191929882|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|925.88||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|1862.49|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Tau Protein\[test\] and Tau Protein\[reference\].|||1862.49|-10.73|0.0526
95978508|NCT01920594|191929883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.11||||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.87|||ANCOVA||The point estimate was calculated as LS mean difference final values of Neuron Specific Enolase\[test\] and Neuron Specific Enolase\[reference\].|||8.87|-0.65|0.0893
95978509|NCT01920594|191929888|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|1.84||||0.5012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.32|||ANOVA|||For Troponin I||11.32|0.30|0.5012
95978510|NCT01920594|191929888|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric mean|0.75||||0.8053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|8.57|||ANOVA|||For Troponin T||8.57|0.07|0.8053
95978511|NCT02960113|191929903|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing nausea equal between groups||||0.98
95978512|NCT02960113|191929904|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||Bonferroni-adjusted P-value, calculated as two times the nominal p-value because there are two primary outcomes|Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: Percent experiencing vomiting equal across groups||||0.90
95978513|NCT02960113|191929905|OTHER|Null hypothesis: Mean scores equal across treatment groups||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95978514|NCT02960113|191929906|OTHER|Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||||0.91|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95978515|NCT02960113|191929907|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.80
95978516|NCT02960113|191929908|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.82
95978517|NCT02960113|191929909|OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: means equal across treatment groups||||0.93
95978518|NCT02960113|191929910|OTHER|Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||||||0.55
95978519|NCT02960113|191929911|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.71
95978520|NCT02960113|191929912|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.55
95978521|NCT02960113|191929913|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|d.f.=2||Null hypothesis: percent of vomiting equal across treatment groups||||0.20
95978522|NCT00863109|191929915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Within-group comparison of Worry domain between BL Visit and WK72 Visit||||0.027
95978523|NCT00863109|191929916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in MCS||||0.038
95978524|NCT00863109|191929917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Emotional Function domain||||0.014
95978525|NCT00863109|191929917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in Worry domain||||0.009
95978526|NCT00863109|191929917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Student´s t-test for paired samples|||Between-group comparison of change from baseline in CLDQ-HCV Global domain||||0.022
95978527|NCT00440700|191929942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|15.5|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed models analysis was used to determine if there were any differences in anxiety levels in patients who listen to music as compared to headphones only or usual ICU care.||||<0.05
95901980|NCT00807092|191758904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.216||0.794||95.0|-2.724|2.087||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Lunch|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for lunch:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for lunch after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||2.087|-2.724|0.794
95901981|NCT00807092|191758904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.749||||0.3093||95.0|-2.2|0.703||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; corresponding baseline (week 0) value of mean IAUC(0-4h) as covariate (breakfast/lunch/dinner)|Dinner|"Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis for dinner:~The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mol\*h/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean IAUC (0-4h) of BIAsp 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean IAUC(0-4h) of BHI 30 for dinner after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mol\*h/L"||0.703|-2.2|0.3093
95901982|NCT00807092|191758905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0891||95.0|-0.069|0.964||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in mean FBG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in mean FBG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.964|-0.069|0.0891
95901983|NCT00807092|191758907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.0472||95.0|0.006|0.984||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of mean FBG as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in FPG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in FPG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.984|0.0060|0.0472
95901984|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.676||95.0|-0.41|0.63||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 2) value of BG as covariate|Before breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.63|-0.41|0.676
95901985|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.026||95.0|0.15|2.31||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after breakfast|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.31|0.15|0.026
95901986|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.5||95.0|-0.53|1.08||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.08|-0.53|0.5
95901987|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.747||95.0|-0.86|1.19||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after lunch|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.19|-0.86|0.747
95901988|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.581||95.0|-1.23|0.69||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Before dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.69|-1.23|0.581
95901989|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.326||95.0|-1.42|0.48||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|2 hours after dinner|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.48|-1.42|0.326
95901990|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.643||95.0|-0.61|0.99||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Bedtime|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.99|-0.61|0.643
95901991|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.008||95.0|0.21|1.33||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|3 AM|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.33|0.21|0.0080
95901992|NCT00807092|191758908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27||||0.274||95.0|-0.22|0.75||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of BG as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of SMBG :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in BG of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in BG of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.75|-0.22|0.274
95901993|NCT00807092|191758909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.062||95.0|-0.05|2.04||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Breakfast|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||2.04|-0.05|0.062
95901994|NCT00807092|191758909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.933||95.0|-1.12|1.22||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Lunch|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.22|-1.12|0.933
95901995|NCT00807092|191758909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.922||95.0|-1.16|1.05||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Dinner|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||1.05|-1.16|0.922
95901996|NCT00807092|191758909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.313||95.0|-0.28|0.85||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of prandial BG increment as covariate|Average|"For each endpoint of Prandial Blood Glucose Increment :The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 mmol/L against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in prandial BG increment of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in prandial BG increment of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 mmol/L"||0.85|-0.28|0.313
95901997|NCT00807092|191758910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.371||0.6149||95.0|-0.547|0.921||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (visit 2) value of mean MAGE as covariate||The full analysis set using LOCF (Last Observation Carried Forward) consists of all randomised subjects who had been exposed to at least one dose of the trial products.||0.921|-0.547|0.6149
95901998|NCT00807092|191758911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.328|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.5706||95.0|-0.813|1.468||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of GA as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in GA of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in GA of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 %"||1.468|-0.813|0.5706
95901999|NCT00807092|191758912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.8598||95.0|-0.243|0.243||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of HbA1c as covariate||"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 % against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Change in HbA1c of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Change in HbA1c of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0%"||0.243|-0.243|0.8598
95978528|NCT00440700|191929944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis||Usual care was the reference comparison group.|Length of mechanical ventilatory support was assessed among all 3 groups. Usual usual care was the reference group as compared to the experimental patient-directed music group.||||<0.05
95978529|NCT00440700|191929945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|5.0|||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cortisol levels were compared among all 3 groups.||||<0.05
95978530|NCT04533451|191929965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0385|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0385
95978531|NCT04533451|191929967|EQUIVALENCE|Relatively large sample size and groups are independent.||||||0.9829|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9829
95978532|NCT02634346|191929990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-2.8|-10.0|<0.001
95902000|NCT00807092|191758913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.671||95.0|-0.307|0.198||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 3.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.198|-0.307|0.671
95978533|NCT02634346|191929990|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-1.7|-8.9|0.004
95978534|NCT02634346|191929991|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.14|-0.61|0.002
95978535|NCT02634346|191929991|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model for repeated measures is based on observed data without imputation of missing data.||||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
95978536|NCT01346488|191929995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978537|NCT01346488|191929995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95978538|NCT01346488|191929995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978539|NCT01346488|191929995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978540|NCT01346488|191929995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||1.0000
95978541|NCT01346488|191929995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978542|NCT01346488|191929996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978543|NCT01346488|191929996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95978544|NCT01346488|191929996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978545|NCT01346488|191929996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978546|NCT01346488|191929996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0054
95978547|NCT01346488|191929996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978548|NCT01346488|191929997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95978549|NCT01346488|191929997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95978550|NCT01346488|191929997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978551|NCT01346488|191929997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95978552|NCT01346488|191929997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0592||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||0.0592
95978553|NCT01346488|191929997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978554|NCT01346488|191929998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978555|NCT01346488|191929998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||<0.0001
95902001|NCT00807092|191758913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.7544||95.0|-0.088|0.064||A statistical significant threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Treatment and strata as factors; baseline (week 0) value of duration of hypoglycaemic events as covariate|Blood glucose below 2.5 mmol/l|"The null hypothesis (H0) was:~H0: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment =0 hours against the alternative hypothesis(H1): H1: Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BIAsp 30 after 6 weeks of treatment-Duration of Hypoglycaemic Events Based on CGMS of BHI 30 after 6 weeks of treatment≠0 hours"||0.064|-0.088|0.7544
95902002|NCT01282710|191758923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04627||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between SureCALL® and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||.04627
95902003|NCT01282710|191758923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1676||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Agreement between TOCO and IUPC Contraction Peak Events~Null hypothesis: the mean peak difference between TOCO and IUPC is equal to 0. Alternative hypothesis: the mean peak difference is not equal to 0."||||0.1676
95902004|NCT01854554|191758929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Gray's test|Cumulative Incidence Function treating progressive disease (RANO) or death before cognitive function decline as a competing risk.||||||.74
95978556|NCT01346488|191929998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||<0.0001
95978557|NCT01346488|191929998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95978558|NCT01346488|191929998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
95978559|NCT01346488|191929998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978560|NCT01346488|191929999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978561|NCT01346488|191929999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95902005|NCT01854554|191758930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||.60
95902006|NCT01854554|191758931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.24
95902007|NCT02461589|191758936|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.77|-1.30|<0.0001
95902008|NCT02461589|191758936|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.08|-1.61|<0.0001
95902009|NCT02461589|191758936|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.42|-1.95|<0.0001
95902010|NCT02461589|191758936|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.60|-2.12|<0.0001
95902011|NCT01978119|191758963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non- inferiority was demonstrated if lower limit of the CI (0.025 one sided significance level) for the difference of the mean change from Baseline in trough FEV1 of FSC administered BID by capsule-based unit dose DPI versus FSC administered BID by multi-dose DPI is greater than -125 milliliter (mL).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.08|||Repeated Measures Mixed Models|||||0.080|-0.024|
95902012|NCT01978119|191758964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.352|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.039|0.334||||||||0.334|-1.039|
95902013|NCT01978119|191758965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.927||||||||0.927|-0.372|
95902014|NCT01978119|191758966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.088|||||Day 28 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.088|-0.074|
95902015|NCT01978119|191758966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.022||||||95.0|-0.049|0.092|||||Day 56 Change from Baseline Analysis|||0.092|-0.049|
95902016|NCT01978119|191758967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|10.05||||||||10.05|-1.34|
95902017|NCT01978119|191758968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.20|
95902018|NCT01978119|191758970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|2.46||||||||2.46|-6.97|
95902019|NCT01978119|191758971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||||0.5|-0.9|
95902020|NCT01978119|191758972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|3.11||||||||3.11|-4.64|
95902021|NCT02162810|191758973|OTHER||||||<|0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||Due to the number of 0 cell counts, it is not possible to do individual statistics for each complication, so we looked at the incidence of complications overall between the two arms.||||<.62
95902022|NCT02162810|191758974|OTHER||||||<|0.61|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.61
95902023|NCT02162810|191758975|OTHER||||||<|0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Degloving||||<.87
95902024|NCT02162810|191758975|OTHER||||||<|0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Ventral Chordee||||<.64
95902025|NCT02162810|191758975|OTHER||||||<|0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||Improvement category: Chordee with Plication||||<.85
95902026|NCT01958918|191759028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1850
95902027|NCT03698773|191759043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.16
95902028|NCT03698773|191759044|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95902029|NCT01599650|191759049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS mean|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|12.8|||ANOVA|||||12.8|7.3|<0.0001
95902030|NCT01599650|191759049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|11.6|||ANOVA|||||11.6|5.8|<0.0001
95902031|NCT01129141|191759062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.86|-11.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-22.86|<.0001
95902032|NCT02076412|191759080|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.8||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|27.1|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for treatment difference (risk difference) was based on the normal approximation|||27.1|0.5|0.1519
95902033|NCT02076412|191759085|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01||||0.4927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.05|0.4927
95902034|NCT02076412|191759086|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.09||P-value from a two-sided two-sample t-test, testing for a difference in means between fostamatinib and placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.09|-0.32|0.2499
95902035|NCT00958880|191759087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|10.46||||0.015||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.015
95902036|NCT00958880|191759088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.03||||0.575||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||.575
95902037|NCT01971346|191759089|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||Type III TNF-alpha p-value=0.36. Type III IFN-alpha p-value=0.36. Interaction was not included in this model.|Regression, Linear|||A cumulative score reflecting change in PASI during the course of treatment was calculated and treated as a continuous response variable. Linear modeling was done to determine if change in PASI score was associated with the baseline TNF-alpha signal, baseline IFN-alpha signal and/or an interaction between these two signals.||||0.38
95902038|NCT01971346|191759090|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.03 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.38 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.31|ANOVA|||The strength of the TNF-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if TNF-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.03
95978562|NCT01346488|191929999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978563|NCT01346488|191929999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978564|NCT01346488|191929999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
95978565|NCT01346488|191929999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978566|NCT01346488|191930000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||<0.0001
95978567|NCT01346488|191930000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978568|NCT01346488|191930000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95902039|NCT01971346|191759091|OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Test of Hypotheses for Between subject effect of PASI profile p-value=0.34 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time p-value=0.73 Test of Hypotheses for Within subject effect of Time\*PASI profile p-value=0.57|ANOVA|||The strength of the IFN-alpha cytokine signals will be treated as a response variable in a univariate repeated measure analysis of variance, with PASI response profile and time as covariates. Testing if IFN-alpha signals are significantly altered during the course of etanercept therapy and if such changes differ between subjects with different PASI response profiles.||||0.34
95902040|NCT01181895|191759231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.048|0.188||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Vilanterol 25 µg OD versus Placebo.|||0.188|-0.048|0.244
95902041|NCT01181895|191759231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.113||P-value for the adjusted treatment difference for Salmetarol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|ANCOVA||The estimated value represents the adjusted treatment difference in the weighted mean 0-24 hour FEV1 (Liters) at Week 12 for Salmeterol 50 µg BID versus Placebo.|||0.113|-0.124|0.926
95902042|NCT03047447|191759239|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with HgA1c for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95902043|NCT03047447|191759240|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with weight for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
95902044|NCT03047447|191759241|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with BMI for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
95902045|NCT03047447|191759242|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with body fat mass for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
95902046|NCT03047447|191759243|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|Change over time from week 0 to week 10 with blood ketones for experimental ketogenic group vs.control exercise and non-exercise groups.||||||0.001
95902047|NCT02055352|191759251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A change of 5-10% from baseline values is considered to be clinically important. The estimated adjusted treatment difference for budesonide 400 μg twice a day/ indacaterol 150 μg once daily minus fixed combination of fluticasone/ salmeterol 250/ 50 μg twice daily was displayed along with the associated one-sided 97.5% confidence interval. If the lower limit of this confidence interval was to the right (i.e. above) - 10 mL, then non-inferiority could be claimed.||||||0.004|||||||Mixed effects General linear model|||||||0.004
95902048|NCT03794089|191759260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline GAD-7 total scores||||0.035
95902049|NCT03794089|191759261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline PHQ-9 total scores||||0.231
95902050|NCT03794089|191759262|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.393||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.393
95902051|NCT03794089|191759262|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
95902052|NCT03794089|191759262|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.013||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.013
95902053|NCT03794089|191759262|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.049||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Anxiety subscale total from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.049
95902054|NCT03794089|191759263|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.008
95902055|NCT03794089|191759263|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||<0.001
95902056|NCT03794089|191759263|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
95902057|NCT03794089|191759263|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.008||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Depression subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.008
95902058|NCT03794089|191759264|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.44||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.440
95902059|NCT03794089|191759264|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.022||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.022
95902060|NCT03794089|191759264|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.032
95902061|NCT03794089|191759264|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.091||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in DASS-21 Stress subscale total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.091
95902062|NCT03794089|191759265|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.058||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.058
95902063|NCT03794089|191759265|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.032||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.032
95978569|NCT01346488|191930000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978570|NCT01346488|191930000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||= 0.0005
95978571|NCT01346488|191930000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95902064|NCT03794089|191759265|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.007||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.007
95902065|NCT03794089|191759265|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.044||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in OASIS total score from Baseline to Post assessment (16 weeks)||||0.044
95902066|NCT03794089|191759266|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.328||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 4 weeks||||0.328
95902067|NCT03794089|191759266|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.148||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.148
95902068|NCT03794089|191759266|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to 12 weeks||||0.002
95902069|NCT03794089|191759266|SUPERIORITY|Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in ODSIS total from Baseline to Post-assessment (16 weeks)||||0.069
95902070|NCT03794089|191759267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=0.05|ANCOVA|||comparisons of groups at post-assessment controls for baseline Q-LES-Q-SF total scores||||0.928
95902071|NCT03794089|191759268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05|Fisher Exact|degrees of freedom = 1||Testing null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.402
95902072|NCT03794089|191759269|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||<0.001
95902073|NCT03794089|191759270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|Used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||.006
95978572|NCT01346488|191930001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978573|NCT01346488|191930001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95978574|NCT01346488|191930001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978575|NCT01346488|191930001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978576|NCT01346488|191930001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
95978577|NCT01346488|191930001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978578|NCT01346488|191930002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978579|NCT01346488|191930002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978580|NCT01346488|191930002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978581|NCT01346488|191930002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978582|NCT01346488|191930002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978583|NCT01346488|191930002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978584|NCT01346488|191930003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978585|NCT01346488|191930003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95978586|NCT01346488|191930003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978587|NCT01346488|191930003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978588|NCT01346488|191930003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
95978589|NCT01346488|191930003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978590|NCT01346488|191930004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978591|NCT01346488|191930004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978592|NCT01346488|191930004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978593|NCT01346488|191930004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978594|NCT01346488|191930004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978595|NCT01346488|191930004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978596|NCT01346488|191930005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978597|NCT01346488|191930005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95978598|NCT01346488|191930005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978599|NCT01346488|191930005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978600|NCT01346488|191930005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
95978601|NCT01346488|191930005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978602|NCT01346488|191930006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 12 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978603|NCT01346488|191930006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 24 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978604|NCT01346488|191930006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 36 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978605|NCT01346488|191930006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||Week 48 (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978606|NCT01346488|191930006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978607|NCT01346488|191930006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|McNemar|||at final assessment (Remission)||||< 0.0001
95978608|NCT01346488|191930007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 12||||< 0.0001
95978609|NCT01346488|191930007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 24||||< 0.0001
95978610|NCT01346488|191930007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 36||||< 0.0001
95978611|NCT01346488|191930007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||Week 48||||< 0.0001
95978612|NCT01346488|191930007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at discontinuation of ADA therapy||||< 0.0001
95978613|NCT01346488|191930007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value adjusted for multiplicity|Paired t-test|||at final assessment||||< 0.0001
95978614|NCT01008696|191930010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8849||||||Homozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8849
95978615|NCT01008696|191930010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Heterozygous extensive metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.8650
95978616|NCT01008696|191930010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||Poor metabolizer|Chi-squared|||||||0.2660
95978617|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7734||||||Change at Day 57: Heartburn|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7734
95978618|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6414||||||Change at Day 57: Regurgitation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6414
95978619|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7809||||||Change at Day 57: Globus sensation|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7809
95978620|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8294||||||Change at Day 57: Chronic cough|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8294
95978621|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9874||||||Change at Day 57: Epigastric pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.9874
95978622|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2776||||||Change at Day 57: Non cardiac chest pain|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.2776
95902074|NCT03794089|191759271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|used Satterthwaite method given unequal variances||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.004
95902075|NCT03794089|191759272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<=.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Testing the null hypothesis of no difference between groups||||0.002
95902076|NCT01763567|191759286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902077|NCT01763567|191759287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902078|NCT01763567|191759288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent of events correctly detected|88.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902079|NCT01763567|191759289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|85.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902080|NCT01763567|191759290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of false alert|56.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902081|NCT01075074|191759304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Corrected for 6 comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|||A sample size of 23 subjects per group was estimated to achieve 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in the aggregated QOR40 score for the 3 study groups to be compared assuming an overall standard deviation of 12.||||0.006
95978623|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6295||||||Change at Day 57: Hoarseness|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.6295
95978624|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5335||||||Change at Day 57: Dysphagia|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5335
95978625|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8068||||||Change at Day 57: Abdominal distension|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.8068
95978626|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.568||||||Change at Day 57: Bloating|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5680
95978627|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5913||||||Change at Day 57: Post-prandial discomfort|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5913
95902082|NCT01075074|191759304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|1|0.03
95902083|NCT01075074|191759304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|31.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||31|2|0.01
95902084|NCT01075074|191759304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|12.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||12|-16|1.0
95902085|NCT01075074|191759305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||P values is corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
95902086|NCT01075074|191759305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||Corrected for 6 comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0003
95902087|NCT01075074|191759305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|300.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||300|98|0.0004
95902088|NCT01075074|191759305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|195.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.0|278.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||278|98|0.0003
95902089|NCT01075074|191759305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.0|83.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||83|-105|0.86
95902090|NCT01075074|191759306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0005
95902091|NCT01075074|191759306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||50|8|0.01
95902092|NCT01075074|191759306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|40.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|47.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||47|12|0.003
95902093|NCT01075074|191759306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|-18|0.95
95902094|NCT01075074|191759307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0||||Corrected for multiple comparisons (n=6).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.03
95902095|NCT01075074|191759307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.01
95902096|NCT01075074|191759307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|60.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||60|0|0.04
95902097|NCT01075074|191759307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|30.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||30|-30|0.92
95902098|NCT00491244|191759317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.21|||Chi-squared|||||2.21|1.46|< 0.001
95902099|NCT00491244|191759318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.61||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.65|0.35
95902100|NCT01229228|191759319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.417|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7891|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.923|27.91|||ANCOVA|||||27.910|16.923|<0.001
95978628|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5566||||||Change at Day 57: Early satiety|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5566
95978629|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7047||||||Change at Day 57: Nausea|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.7047
95978630|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3654||||||Change at Day 57: Vomitting|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.3654
95978631|NCT01008696|191930011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531||||||Change at Day 57: Belching|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5310
95978632|NCT01008696|191930012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5032|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.5032
95978633|NCT01324323|191930041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean (%)|179.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.3|200.7|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||200.7|160.3|
95978634|NCT01324323|191930042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|178.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.4|199.4|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||199.4|159.4|
95978635|NCT01324323|191930043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|179.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.5|201.0|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||201.0|160.5|
95978636|NCT01324323|191930044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of the Geometric Mean|159.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.8|186.5|||ANOVA||"Ratio (Romidepsin + rifampin/Romidepsin) and 90% CI of the ratio of geometric means are from an ANOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and subject as random effect on the natural log transformed PK values."|||186.5|135.8|
95978637|NCT01324323|191930045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.01|||Wilcoxon signed-rank|||"Note: The median, median difference (romidepsin + rifampin minus romidepsin) and 90% CI of the median difference are from Hodges-Lehmann Estimate. The P-value is from Wilcoxon signed-rank test."||1.01|-1.0|0.7910
95978638|NCT02967354|191930050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5875||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5875
95978639|NCT02967354|191930051|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0065||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0065
95978640|NCT02967354|191930052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0072
95978641|NCT02967354|191930053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9472||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9472
95978642|NCT02967354|191930054|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048||||||Treshold for significance P\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.0048
95978643|NCT01821378|191930055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.1||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-8.4|0.255
95978644|NCT01821378|191930055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-10.3|||<|-0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-14.9|<-0.001
95978645|NCT01821378|191930056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.49|0.169
95978646|NCT01821378|191930056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-0.83|<0.001
95978647|NCT01821378|191930057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.8|0.706
95978648|NCT01821378|191930057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.3|0.003
95978649|NCT01821378|191930058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.5|0.8|0.173
95978650|NCT01821378|191930058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|5.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.2|2.0|<0.001
95978651|NCT01821378|191930059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.1|-14.3|0.023
95978652|NCT01821378|191930060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-2.9|0.464
95978653|NCT01821378|191930060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-4.1|0.122
95978654|NCT01821378|191930061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-1.7|0.258
95978655|NCT01821378|191930061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|6.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.1|3.2|<0.001
95978656|NCT01821378|191930062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.70|0.052
95978657|NCT01821378|191930063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.084||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.149|||ANCOVA|||||0.149|0.018|0.012
95978658|NCT01821378|191930063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.138|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|0.194|||ANCOVA|||||0.194|0.081|<0.001
95978659|NCT01821378|191930064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-6.6|0.992
95978660|NCT01821378|191930064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-14.4|0.044
95978661|NCT01821378|191930065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.45|0.578
95978662|NCT01821378|191930065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.20|-0.96|0.003
95978663|NCT02260882|191930066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 3. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
95978664|NCT02260882|191930066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 6B. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
95978665|NCT02260882|191930066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 23F. The statistical success criterion for demonstrating greater geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks postvaccination is that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval in Geometric Mean Fold Rise will be greater than 1 for all 3 serotypes.||||<0.001
95978666|NCT01862640|191930078|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-3.77|||=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|-0.17|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||-0.17|-7.38|=0.0404
95978667|NCT01862640|191930078|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|||=|0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.86|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||3.86|-3.40|=0.9015
95978668|NCT01862640|191930079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|||=|0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.06|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.06|-0.39|=0.1566
95978669|NCT01862640|191930079|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.09|||=|0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.32|||Mixed-effect model repeated measure|||||0.32|-0.14|=0.4440
95978670|NCT02511678|191930118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0746||||||The 1-sided p-value was based on a t-test against a performance goal of -2.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0746
95978671|NCT02708095|191930142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.27|0.73|0.392
95978672|NCT02708095|191930142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|3.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.29|1.02|0.041
95978673|NCT02708095|191930143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.19|0.71|0.440
95978674|NCT02708095|191930143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.62|1.15|0.015
95978675|NCT02708095|191930144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.26||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-1.23|0.600
95978676|NCT02708095|191930144|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.58||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.39|-1.55|0.243
95978677|NCT02708095|191930145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.16||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.45|0.285
95978678|NCT02708095|191930145|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Vaules)|-0.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.62|0.026
95978679|NCT05640648|191930165|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||2.09|1.62|<0.001
95978680|NCT05640648|191930166|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|7.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|26.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||26.95|2.06|0.002
95978681|NCT05640648|191930167|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.25||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects poisson model adjusting for time and group (paired healthcentres, based on randomization)||||2.42|0.65|0.50
95978682|NCT05640648|191930170|OTHER||Incidence Rate Ratio|4.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|10.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects Poisson model adjusting for time and group level (paired health centres, based on randomization) cluster||||10.91|2.07|<0.001
95978683|NCT00458341|191930171|OTHER|||||||0.133||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.133
95902101|NCT00359762|191759320|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority test was based on the upper 1-sided 97.5% CI for the hazard ratio of Exenatide/Glimepiride;the upper bound was compared to 1.25: if \<1.25, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is more than 1.25 times greater than the risk with Glimepiride is rejected.Superiority test was based on the 2-sided 95% CI for the hazard ratio. If CI excludes 1, the hypothesis that the risk of treatment failure with Exenatide is equal to that with Glimepiride is rejected.|Hazard Ratio|0.748||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|0.899|||Regression, Cox|Time to treatment failure was modeled using Cox regression with treatment and baseline HbA1c as predictive terms.||The null hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (H1) for the primary analysis (i.e., non-inferiority) are:H0: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \>=1.25.H1: hazards of treatment for Exenatide/hazards of treatment for Glimepiride \< 1.25. With 527 patients in each arm, the study would have approximately 90% power to conclude non-inferiority of Exenatide to Glimepiride.||0.899|0.623|0.0020
95902102|NCT00359762|191759321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|99.95|||||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier survival curves for time to treatment failure were compared between treatment groups using log rank test.||||0.0315
95902103|NCT00359762|191759322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed-model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||9.25|-12.58|0.7648
95902104|NCT00359762|191759323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.399||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.88|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change in HOMA-B from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-28.88|0.0528
95902105|NCT00359762|191759324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.06|-0.07|0.9040
95902106|NCT00359762|191759325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.05|0.2500
95902107|NCT00359762|191759326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|8.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||8.27|-9.40|0.9001
95902108|NCT00359762|191759327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.966||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|20.95|||ANCOVA|||Change in DI30/DG30 ratio from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||20.95|1.44|0.0246
95902109|NCT00359762|191759328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||7.81|1.53|0.0036
95902110|NCT00359762|191759329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.128||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|11.5|||ANCOVA|||Change in disposition index from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.50|3.15|0.0006
95902111|NCT00359762|191759330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.04|-0.31|0.0128
95978684|NCT00458341|191930171|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 1 versus Day 14 of Cycle 1||||0.190
95978685|NCT00458341|191930171|OTHER|||||||0.123||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.123
95978686|NCT00458341|191930171|OTHER|||||||0.592||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline of Cycle 2 versus Day 14 of Cycle 2||||0.592
95978687|NCT00458341|191930172|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
95978688|NCT00458341|191930172|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 1 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
95978689|NCT00458341|191930172|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.021
95978690|NCT00458341|191930172|OTHER|||||||0.518|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of Cycle 2 data. Analysis was to compare the observed rate with the null hypothesis response rate of 10%.||||0.518
95978691|NCT04029480|191930190|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Bayesian Means|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.29||||||This analysis is based on a Bayesian ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule. The 95% confidence interval actually refers to a credible interval.||-0.29|-1.06|
95978692|NCT04029480|191930191|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|9.3||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||9.3|-22.2|
95902112|NCT00359762|191759331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0015
95902113|NCT00359762|191759332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.34|-1.03|<.0001
95902114|NCT00359762|191759333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
95902115|NCT00359762|191759334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.424|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-1.97|-3.64|<.0001
95902116|NCT00359762|191759335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.327|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.55|||ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (2 hours) plasma glucose from baseline to endpoint was analyzed by an ANCOVA model that includes treatment and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<=7.3%, \>7.3% to \<=8.2%, \>8.2%) as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.55|-2.84|<.0001
95902117|NCT00359762|191759336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.31|-4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-4.49|-6.31|<.0001
95902118|NCT00359762|191759337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-2.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.79|-7.61|<.0001
95902119|NCT00359762|191759338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.24|-3.18|0.0228
95902120|NCT00359762|191759339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.805||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and visit by treatment interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.86|-2.30|0.3737
95902121|NCT00359762|191759340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-0.08|-0.43|0.0042
95902122|NCT00359762|191759341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.18|-0.13|0.7914
95902123|NCT00359762|191759342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.10|0.02|0.0011
95902124|NCT00359762|191759343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.37|||Negative Binomial Model|||The number of hypoglycemic episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a negative binomial model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||0.37|0.22|<.0001
95902125|NCT00359762|191759344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis includes treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value at Period III as a covariate. The compound symmetric covariance structure was assumed.||0.55|-0.00|0.0508
95978693|NCT04029480|191930192|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|2.8||||||This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.8|-25.9|
95978694|NCT04029480|191930193|OTHER||Difference in Percent|0.0|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
95978695|NCT04029480|191930194|OTHER||Difference in Percent|-1.8|||||||||||||No confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. CIs were computed only for those endpoints where at least ≥8 participants in the combined ertugliflozin group or ≥2 participants in the placebo group had events.|This analysis is based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||||
95978696|NCT04029480|191930195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.66||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.10|-1.23|0.021
95978697|NCT04029480|191930196|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||This analysis is based on an ANCOVA model including terms for Baseline A1C, treatment, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), and insulin use (yes/no) at Screening and calculated by Rubin's Rule.||-0.33|-1.39|0.001
95978698|NCT04029480|191930197|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-29.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|-13.6|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.6|-44.4|0.001
95902126|NCT00701389|191759347|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the 90% CI is less than 5 mmHg, the primary hypothesis would be supported.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|3.0|||Mixed Effect Model|||100 mg sumatriptan/600 mg telcagepant minus 100 mg sumatriptan/telcagepant placebo||3.0|0.0|
95902127|NCT00701389|191759348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model|||sumatriptan placebo/600 mg telcagepant minus sumatriptan placebo/telcagepant placebo||2.7|-0.2|
95902128|NCT04808609|191759357|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|6.76|||Fisher Exact|||||6.76|0.24|0.77
95902129|NCT04808609|191759358|OTHER|feasibility test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.78|||Chi-squared|||||3.78|0.43|0.66
95902130|NCT04808609|191759359|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.86|-0.44|0.59
95978699|NCT04029480|191930198|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.03||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||cLDA|||This analysis is a based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-0.35|-1.70|0.003
95978700|NCT04029480|191930199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-33.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|-13.1|||cLDA|||This analysis is based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, age (10 to 14 years/15 to 17 years), insulin use (yes/no), interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the model estimated a single baseline mean (applicable to all treatment groups).||-13.1|-53.0|0.001
95978701|NCT01005459|191930215|OTHER|unpaired t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
95978702|NCT01005459|191930215|OTHER|unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||>|0.05|||||||unpaired t-test compared between groups|||||||>0.05
95978703|NCT03049735|191930216|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|54.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|64.78||P-value was stratified by baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL or ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix + E2/NETA minus placebo.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix + E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||64.78|44.3|<0.0001
95978704|NCT03049735|191930217|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|46.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.31|56.35||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America or Rest of World). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference was relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||56.35|37.31|<0.0001
95978705|NCT03049735|191930218|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-61.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5|-48.6||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance. Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-48.6|-73.5|<0.0001
95902131|NCT04808609|191759359|OTHER|feasibility|Cohen's D|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||Results from Paired T-Test assessing the with-subject time effect on exhaled CO in ppm from baseline to 12 weeks||0.74|0.07|0.02
95902132|NCT04808609|191759360|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.78|-0.46|0.61
95902133|NCT04808609|191759361|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.80|-0.42|0.55
95902134|NCT04808609|191759362|OTHER|feasibility test|Cohen's D|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|-0.61|0.99
95902135|NCT00562159|191759363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|-0.4|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.40|-2.22|=0.005
95902136|NCT00562159|191759364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.26|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.26|-1.46|=0.015
95902137|NCT00562159|191759365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|||=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.06|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.06|-0.96|=0.084
95902138|NCT00562159|191759366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.05|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.05|-0.48|=0.022
95902139|NCT00618657|191759382|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902140|NCT00618657|191759382|OTHER||Standard Error|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95902141|NCT02710630|191759386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|119.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.838|139.834|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||139.834|101.838|
95978706|NCT03049735|191930219|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|28.26|||=|0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.68|52.84||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||52.84|3.68|= 0.0377
95902142|NCT02710630|191759386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|52.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|168.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.341|84.158|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||84.158|33.341|
95902143|NCT02710630|191759386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|59.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.255|76.955|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.955|45.255|
95902144|NCT02710630|191759386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.698|133.53|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.530|87.698|
95902145|NCT02710630|191759386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|110.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.939|129.297|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.297|93.939|
95902146|NCT02710630|191759387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.569|140.579|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||140.579|99.569|
95902147|NCT02710630|191759387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|57.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|132.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|38.502|85.837|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||85.837|38.502|
95902148|NCT02710630|191759387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|61.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|69.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.13|79.72|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||79.720|48.130|
95902149|NCT02710630|191759387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|108.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|55.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.704|133.629|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||133.629|87.704|
95902150|NCT02710630|191759387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.238|127.281|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.281|91.238|
95902151|NCT02710630|191759388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|118.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.627|137.621|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.621|101.627|
95902152|NCT02710630|191759388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|87.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.404|109.722|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||109.722|69.404|
95902153|NCT02710630|191759388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|71.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.828|86.648|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||86.648|58.828|
95902154|NCT02710630|191759388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|116.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.516|135.41|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.410|100.516|
95902155|NCT02710630|191759388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|109.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.452|127.75|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||127.750|94.452|
95902156|NCT02710630|191759389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.783|135.491|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||135.491|98.783|
95902157|NCT02710630|191759389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|50.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.519|80.689|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||80.689|31.519|
95902158|NCT02710630|191759389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|56.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.388|74.122|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||74.122|43.388|
95902159|NCT02710630|191759389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|52.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.554|130.732|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||130.732|87.554|
95902160|NCT02710630|191759389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|40.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.399|125.432|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||125.432|91.399|
95902161|NCT02710630|191759390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.74|137.644|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||137.644|96.740|
95902162|NCT02710630|191759390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|54.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|138.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.818|81.774|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||81.774|35.818|
95902163|NCT02710630|191759390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|58.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|71.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|45.489|76.431|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||76.431|45.489|
95902164|NCT02710630|191759390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.846|131.836|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||131.836|85.846|
95902165|NCT02710630|191759390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|103.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.74|122.628|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||122.628|87.740|
95902166|NCT02710630|191759391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|115.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.063|134.13|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: A1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||134.130|99.063|
95902167|NCT02710630|191759391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|83.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|62.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.033|106.163|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: B1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||106.163|66.033|
95902168|NCT02710630|191759391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|68.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.452|83.782|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: C1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||83.782|56.452|
95902169|NCT02710630|191759391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|107.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.616|129.51|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: D1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||129.510|88.616|
95902170|NCT02710630|191759391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio [Test/Reference]|106.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.625|124.114|||||"The adjusted geometric mean (gMean) ratio \[%\] calculated as Dabigatran Etexilate Tablet: E1/Dabigatran Etexilate Capsule: Ref.~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) \[%\]."|||124.114|91.625|
95902171|NCT01762761|191759392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|93.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.26|7.29|<0.001
95902172|NCT01762761|191759393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|66.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||66.33|8.54|<0.001
95902173|NCT01762761|191759394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|18.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||18.94|3.84|<0.001
95902174|NCT01762761|191759395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.59|0.13|0.001
95902175|NCT01762761|191759396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.64|0.21|0.306
95902176|NCT01762761|191759397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|9.34|||Log Rank|||||9.34|4.01|<0.001
95902177|NCT01762761|191759398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.37|0.05|<0.001
95902178|NCT01762761|191759399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|131.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||131.12|2.09|0.008
95902179|NCT01762761|191759400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
95902180|NCT01762761|191759401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||van Elteren stratified rank test|||||||<0.001
95902181|NCT01038921|191759448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those subjects were on Melatonin was compared to the average change in systolic blood pressure from pre-treatment baseline to post-treatment at 10 weeks when those same subjects were on Placebo using an intent-to-treat mixed model. Power was estimated based on having 30 subjects completing both the melatonin arm and the placebo arm.||||0.013
95902182|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.660
95978707|NCT03049735|191930220|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|47.56||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL). Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||47.56|18.36|<0.0001
95902183|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.734
95902184|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.629
95902185|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.752
95902186|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.512
95902187|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95902188|NCT03161314|191759533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95902189|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.128|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.128
95902190|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.889
95902191|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.793|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.793
95902192|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.602
95902193|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.574
95902194|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95902195|NCT03161314|191759534|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95902196|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.374
95902197|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.674
95902198|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.781
95902199|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.778
95902200|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.727
95902201|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.014
95902202|NCT03161314|191759535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
95902203|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.390
95902204|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.770
95902205|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.603
95902206|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.922
95902207|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.560
95902208|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.181|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.181
95902209|NCT03161314|191759536|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95902210|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.334
95902211|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.766
95902212|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.598
95902213|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.682
95902214|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.707
95902215|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.008
95902216|NCT03161314|191759537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.002
95902217|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.287
95902218|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2 weeks after the intervention||||0.861
95978708|NCT03049735|191930221|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|2.0||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||2|-26.3|0.0921
95902219|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||4 weeks after the intervention||||0.641
95902220|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||1-month follow-up||||0.864
95902221|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||2-month follow-up||||0.888
95902222|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||0.262
95902223|NCT03161314|191759538|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Within group comparison||||<0.001
95902224|NCT00403546|191759541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||1.12|-1.09|0.980
95902225|NCT00403546|191759541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.95|0.08|0.033
95902226|NCT00403546|191759541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.77|-0.32|0.171
95902227|NCT00403546|191759541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.62|-0.62|0.380
95902228|NCT00403546|191759541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.08|-1.32|0.840
95902229|NCT00403546|191759542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.88|-1.23|0.737
95902230|NCT00403546|191759542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||0.80|-1.09|0.764
95902231|NCT00403546|191759542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.32|-0.82|0.642
95902232|NCT00403546|191759542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||0.83|-1.50|0.570
95902233|NCT00403546|191759542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.17|-1.34|0.894
95902234|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.82||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|5.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Baseline||5.05|-8.68|0.599
95902235|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.53||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|9.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 1||9.37|-2.31|0.235
95902236|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|8.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 2||8.57|-3.80|0.449
95902237|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.64||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|10.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 4||10.56|-3.28|0.301
95902238|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.13|6.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 6||6.63|-8.13|0.842
95902239|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.33||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||SBP at Week 8||14.09|-1.43|0.109
95902240|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Baseline||4.02|-5.62|0.741
95902241|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 1||6.19|-3.32|0.552
95902242|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.83||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 2||7.84|-2.18|0.268
95902243|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|6.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 4||6.56|-4.53|0.719
95902244|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.86||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 6||2.96|-8.68|0.334
95902245|NCT00403546|191759544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.38||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||DBP at Week 8||10.37|-1.61|0.151
95902246|NCT00403546|191759546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.77||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed models analysis with random slopes||At Baseline||9.50|-3.97|0.416
95902247|NCT00403546|191759546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||4.33|-3.59|0.854
95902248|NCT00403546|191759546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||6.58|-2.68|0.406
95902249|NCT00403546|191759546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.23|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||2.21|-8.23|0.256
95902250|NCT00403546|191759546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||4.45|-7.20|0.642
95902251|NCT00403546|191759548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Baseline||0.20|-1.55|0.135
95902252|NCT00403546|191759548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 2||1.21|-0.33|0.262
95902253|NCT00403546|191759548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 4||1.49|-0.33|0.209
95902254|NCT00403546|191759548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 6||1.07|-1.01|0.950
95902255|NCT00403546|191759548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 8||1.76|-0.61|0.340
95902256|NCT01504438|191759561|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.29
95902257|NCT01504438|191759562|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
95902258|NCT01504438|191759563|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
95902259|NCT01504438|191759564|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95902260|NCT02480621|191759567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.10
95902261|NCT05061446|191759568|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
95902262|NCT05061446|191759568|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
95902263|NCT05061446|191759569|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
95902264|NCT05061446|191759569|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.52|46.12||||||||46.12|6.52|
95902265|NCT05061446|191759570|OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|40.24||||||||40.24|-0.24|
95978709|NCT03049735|191930222|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-7.3||Based on analysis of covariance model with treatment, randomization stratification factors, Baseline MBL volume, geographic region (North America, Rest of World), and Baseline values as covariate. Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||||-7.3|-23|0.0002
95978710|NCT03049735|191930223|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-28.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|-21.5||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Assessed at a 2-sided α = 0.05 significance level. LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||-21.5|-36.3|<0.0001
95978711|NCT03049735|191930226|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95902266|NCT05061446|191759570|OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.68|52.48||||||||52.48|10.68|
95902267|NCT05061446|191759571|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|19.29||||||||19.29|-5.96|
95902268|NCT05061446|191759571|OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|15.3||||||||15.30|-4.78|
95902269|NCT05061446|191759572|OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|53.6||||||||53.60|-1.22|
95902270|NCT05061446|191759572|OTHER||Difference in percentage|45.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|71.68||||||||71.68|19.30|
95902271|NCT00684424|191759597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||R-ratio|-56.723|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.9499||||95.0|||||summary statistic|||R-ratio of seizure frequency summaries = \[(t-b)/(t+b)\]\*100; where t= treatment seizure frequency and b= baseline seizure frequency.||||
95902272|NCT02610140|191759638|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.215||||0.859125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). P-value is calculated based on alpha level 0.0125.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by Time to progression (TTP) on 1st line treatment.|PFS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1,738|0.850|0.859125
95902273|NCT02610140|191759639|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.655624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.506||1-sided p-value from log-rank test (stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment). Alpha spending/boundary for interim was 0.00245. Alpha boundary value for final analysis was 0.02421.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (anetumab ravtansine/vinorelbine) was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with Wald CIs, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment.|OS anetumab ravtansine / vinorelbine||1.506|0.763|0.655624
95902274|NCT02610140|191759644|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate symptoms|4.65||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|17.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||17.51|-8.20|0.244
95902275|NCT02610140|191759645|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.313747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|1.779|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.779|0.386|0.313747
95902276|NCT02610140|191759646|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.378916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|1.533|||Log Rank|one-sided log-rank test stratified by time to progression (TTP) on first line treatment||Anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine||1.533|0.557|0.378916
95902277|NCT02610140|191759647|SUPERIORITY||Difference (%) improvement rate of pain|6.64||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by TTP on 1st line treatment||||22.68|-9.40|0.214
95902278|NCT02610140|191759650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|39.3||||||||39.3|0.1|
95902279|NCT02610140|191759650|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|35.9||||||||35.9|0.0|
95902280|NCT00887341|191759651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.238
95902281|NCT00887341|191759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.121
95902282|NCT00887341|191759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.809|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.809
95902283|NCT00887341|191759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.367|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.367
95902284|NCT00887341|191759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.339
95902285|NCT00887341|191759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.017
95902286|NCT00887341|191759658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.451
95902287|NCT00887341|191759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.377
95902288|NCT00887341|191759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.387
95902289|NCT00887341|191759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.304
95902290|NCT00887341|191759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.509|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.509
95902291|NCT00887341|191759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.110
95902292|NCT00887341|191759659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504|||||||Chi-squared|||Final visit||||0.504
95978712|NCT03049735|191930231|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95902293|NCT00887341|191759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4||||0.327
95902294|NCT00887341|191759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.786
95902295|NCT00887341|191759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.482|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.482
95902296|NCT00887341|191759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.680
95902297|NCT00887341|191759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.690
95902298|NCT00887341|191759660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.516
95902299|NCT00887341|191759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||0.970
95902300|NCT00887341|191759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 12||||0.587
95902301|NCT00887341|191759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||0.184
95902302|NCT00887341|191759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||Week 20||||0.600
95902303|NCT00887341|191759661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Chi-squared|||Final Visit||||0.937
95902304|NCT01591681|191759670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||Sample size was computed to be 45 participants using the system for 42 nights (21 nights with system active and 21 control nights) for a total of 1,890 nights in order to have 90% power with a type 1 error rate of 5% to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in nocturnal hypoglycemia assuming a true population rate of 30% of control nights and 15% of intervention nights with hypoglycemia after adjusting for the correlation from repeated nights and misclassification due to sensor inaccuracy.||||<0.001
95902305|NCT01591681|191759671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||<0.001
95902306|NCT01591681|191759672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
95902307|NCT01591681|191759673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
95902308|NCT01591681|191759674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
95902309|NCT01591681|191759675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.71
95902310|NCT01591681|191759676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.62
95902311|NCT01591681|191759677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures logistic regression|Was used to test differences using mixed effects and a within subject autocorrelation structure to account for multiple nights from the same subject.||||||0.10
95902312|NCT01591681|191759678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||<0.001
95902313|NCT01591681|191759679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.98
95902314|NCT01591681|191759680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Repeated measures regression model|Repeated measures regression model was used accounting for correlated data from the same participant and for the overnight measures.||||||0.93
95902315|NCT01312961|191759709|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.28||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg vs. Placebo|Analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment groups and stratification factor (prior ICS/LABA combination therapy dose) as covariates.||0.280|0.021|<0.0001
95902316|NCT03837496|191759733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.66||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.27||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||Analysis comparing the change in monthly adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||1.27|-2.59|.504
95902317|NCT03837496|191759733|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.17||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1||a priori threshold p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in weekly adherence rates to adjuvant endocrine therapy across the study period adjusting for distress and receipt of ovarian suppression.||-0.10|-0.44|.225
95902318|NCT03837496|191759734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.66||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in self-reported endocrine therapy adherence between groups on the MARS-5 scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||0.66|-0.40|.630
95902319|NCT03837496|191759735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|6.44||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in satisfaction with adjuvant endocrine therapy between groups on the CTSQ from baseline to 12 weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||6.44|-1.27|.186
95902320|NCT03837496|191759736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.91||a priori threshold p \< 0.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline values of criterion outcomes, distress and receipt of ovarian suppression||Analysis comparing the change in symptom distress between groups on the BCPT scale from baseline to 12-weeks post-baseline adjusting for distress, receipt of ovarian suppression, and baseline values of criterion outcome.||1.91|-3.49|.562
95902321|NCT01130740|191759768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a comparison of 6-month outcomes between the two study groups. (Primary comparison is for 12 months.)||||0.158
95902322|NCT01130740|191759768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the 12-month comparison between the 2 study groups, which is the primary study analysis.||||0.008
95902323|NCT01130740|191759769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.274|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the between-group 12-month comparison.||||0.274
95902324|NCT01130740|191759770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.177
95902325|NCT01016834|191759794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For the primary analyses and other PPMQ-R variables, the mean of the differences between each subject's rating of overall treatment satisfaction at the end of study based on the subject's experience using Sumavel DosePro and the rating at baseline based on the subject's pre-study triptan treatment were compared using a two-sided paired t-test at the 5% level of significance||||0.0007
95902326|NCT06748040|191759817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.2||P-value less than 0.05 is considered as statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.2|-2.4|0.4852
95902327|NCT01543256|191759849|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority margin was 20%||||||0.008|||||||Exact non-inferiority|||||||.008
95902328|NCT01543256|191759850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.568
95902329|NCT01543256|191759851|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
95902330|NCT01543256|191759852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.99
95902331|NCT01543256|191759853|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.519
95902332|NCT01543256|191759854|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Negative binomial|||||||<.001
95902333|NCT03809182|191759868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in plasmatic glucose levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.38
95902334|NCT03809182|191759869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A p-value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in insulin levels between dexmedetomidine and 0.9% sodium-chloride groups.||||0.02
95902335|NCT05349617|191759875|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|86.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.0|90.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||90.3|80|<0.0001
95902336|NCT05349617|191759876|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|90.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.0|117.0||Both coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||117|69|<0.0001
95902337|NCT05349617|191759882|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|79.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.3|84.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||84.6|72.3|<0.0001
95902338|NCT05349617|191759882|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|74.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|80.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically (Day 15 tested prior to Day 183), such that each was only tested if both coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||80.1|67.1|<0.0001
95902339|NCT05349617|191759883|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|42.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|56.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||56|32|<0.0001
95902340|NCT05349617|191759883|SUPERIORITY||[GMT Ratio]|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|35.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model covers site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming log titers' normality. p-value tests equivalence of mean titers between groups.|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||35|22|<0.0001
95902341|NCT05349617|191759884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
95902342|NCT05349617|191759884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
95902343|NCT05349617|191759884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95 percent CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
95902344|NCT05349617|191759885|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|94.6|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||94.6|86.0|<0.0001
95902345|NCT05349617|191759885|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|94.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||96.5|89.2|<0.0001
95902346|NCT05349617|191759885|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|91.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|94.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||94.8|86.3|<0.0001
95902347|NCT05349617|191759885|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.9|87.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||87.5|75.9|<0.0001
95902348|NCT05349617|191759885|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|88.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|92.0|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||92.0|82.4|<0.0001
95902349|NCT05349617|191759885|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|82.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.2|86.8|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of SNA response percentages between groups.|SNA response rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||86.8|75.2|<0.0001
95902350|NCT01880424|191759888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001||95.0|1.21|2.09||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||2.09|1.21|0.0010
95902351|NCT01880424|191759889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.83|3.58||Statistical significance (p\<0.05) was required in both co-primary efficacy parameters to meet the primary efficacy objective; both p-values met this criterion.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographic region|Odds ratio for response rate (linaclotide : placebo)|Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the linaclotide dose and placebo in the proportion of 12-week Abdominal Pain/Abdominal Discomfort Responders or there is no difference in the proportion of 12-week IBS Degree of Relief Responders. With 800 planned patients, the statistical power was expected to be approximately 95%, with an overall type I error rate controlled at the 0.05 level (2-sided), based on assumptions from NCT00948818 (LIN-MD-31) study data.||3.58|1.83|<0.0001
95902352|NCT00982020|191759901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures analysis terms included baseline BMI, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, intervention group\*visit.||||||0.150
95902353|NCT00982020|191759902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model terms included: baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, and region.||||||0.520
95902354|NCT00982020|191759904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.008
95902355|NCT00982020|191759905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.266
95902356|NCT00982020|191759906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, baseline age, gender, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.954
95902357|NCT00982020|191759907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103||||||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.103
95902358|NCT00982020|191759908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||||||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM analysis terms included baseline, intervention group, visit, region, and intervention group\*visit.||||||0.436
95902359|NCT04088097|191759914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||.01
95902360|NCT04088097|191759915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||||||.75
95902361|NCT04088097|191759916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||.03
95902362|NCT00086346|191759919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Rank ANCOVA|||||||0.342
95902363|NCT00086346|191759920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison between treatment groups of percentages of patients with biopsy-confirmed acute rejection.||||0.017
95902364|NCT00086346|191759921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||1 way ANOVA, two sided|||||||>0.05
95902365|NCT00086346|191759922|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori criterion for declaring non-inferiority was a lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) having a ≥ 5% difference in graft loss. -5.2 is \< 5 % difference.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||||95.0|-5.2|2.8|||||Weighted difference in percentage of graft loss: (CNI% minus SRL%); negative values are favorable to CNI group|||2.8|-5.2|
95902366|NCT05209191|191759944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95902367|NCT05209191|191759946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test.||||.38
95902368|NCT05209191|191759947|SUPERIORITY||Chi square|52.07||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.001
95902369|NCT01807585|191759952|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was determined by the application of a Z-test with a 10% non-inferiority margin as well as examination of confidence intervals.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.6|||One tailed Z-test|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||7.6|-0.7|<0.0001
95902370|NCT02504645|191759955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2631|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2631
95902371|NCT02819726|191759957|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|95.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.07|104.37||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||104.37|87.07|
95978713|NCT03049735|191930232|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95902372|NCT02819726|191759957|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|93.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.54|102.15||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.15|85.54|
95902373|NCT02819726|191759957|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.49|107.45||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with fixed effect for treatment||107.45|89.49|
95978714|NCT03049735|191930233|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix plus E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95902374|NCT02819726|191759958|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.91|101.81||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.81|86.91|
95902375|NCT02819726|191759958|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ration|94.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.21|102.16||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.16|87.21|
95902376|NCT02819726|191759958|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|100.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.68|108.65||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||108.65|92.68|
95902377|NCT02819726|191759959|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|96.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.52|102.46||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.46|90.52|
95978715|NCT03049735|191930234|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Log-rank test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World) from the proportional hazard regression model comparing relugolix + E2/NETA with placebo.|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95902378|NCT02819726|191759959|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.64|105.05||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.05|92.64|
95902379|NCT02819726|191759959|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|109.14||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||109.14|96.14|
95978716|NCT03049735|191930235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0377
95978717|NCT03049735|191930236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||0.0117
95978718|NCT03049735|191930237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World). Lower limit of normal is Hgb \< 11.6 g/dL.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0084
95902380|NCT02819726|191759960|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.03|101.23||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||101.23|89.03|
95902381|NCT02819726|191759960|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|105.3||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||105.30|92.61|
95902382|NCT02819726|191759960|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|104.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.54|110.95||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||110.95|97.54|
95902383|NCT02819726|191759961|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|89.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.2|102.79||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||102.79|77.20|
95902384|NCT02819726|191759961|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.72|118.56||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||118.56|88.72|
95902385|NCT02819726|191759961|EQUIVALENCE|Standard acceptance limits for bioequivalence (80.00% to 125.00%) for all treatment comparisons|GLS Mean Ratio|115.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.51|133.21||||||The statistical comparison of the loge-transformed primary parameters between treatments is based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment||133.21|99.51|
95902386|NCT02819726|191759962|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.106|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.106|-0.422|0.2402
95902387|NCT02819726|191759962|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.063|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.063|-0.469|0.1346
95902388|NCT02819726|191759962|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence between 2 study treatments would be declared if the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at week 24 in entirely contained within the equivalence margin of \[-0.6,0.6\]|LS Means Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.224|||ANCOVA|||Least square means and CIs were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only||0.224|-0.314|0.7429
95902389|NCT02819726|191759971|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.6068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.428|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.250|-0.428|0.6068
95902390|NCT02819726|191759971|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.249|0.5990
95902391|NCT02819726|191759971|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.532|||ANCOVA|||Week 53 (EOS) MabThera vs Rituxan. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and Baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.532|-0.165|0.3053
95902392|NCT02819726|191759972|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|23.03||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||23.03|-4.74|
95902393|NCT02819726|191759972|OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|11.22||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||11.22|-15.95|
95902394|NCT02819726|191759972|OTHER||Difference (%)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.47|2.45||||||Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||2.45|-25.47|
95902395|NCT02819726|191759973|OTHER||Difference (%)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|22.46||||||ACR20 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||22.46|-4.07|
95902396|NCT02819726|191759973|OTHER||Difference (%)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.22|17.03||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.03|-10.22|
95902397|NCT02819726|191759973|OTHER||Difference (%)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|7.51||||||ACR50 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||7.51|-19.10|
95902398|NCT02819726|191759973|OTHER||Difference (%)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|21.22||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||21.22|-1.52|
95902399|NCT02819726|191759973|OTHER||Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|17.13||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||17.13|-6.69|
95902400|NCT02819726|191759973|OTHER||Difference (%)|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58|||TWO_SIDED|92.0|-15.68|6.41||||||ACR70 Week 52 (EOS) assessment. The 95% CIs for ACR response rate and difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% confidence intervals are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP value as a covariate.||6.41|-15.68|
95902401|NCT02819726|191759974|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.991||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.671|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.671|-3.230|0.1997
95902402|NCT02819726|191759974|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.996||0.9098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|1.848|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||1.848|-2.074|0.9098
95902403|NCT02819726|191759974|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|3.15|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||3.150|-0.817|0.2480
95902404|NCT02819726|191759974|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.909|0.996|||ANCOVA|||Tender Joint Count (TJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||0.996|-4.909|0.1931
95978719|NCT03049735|191930238|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95902405|NCT02819726|191759974|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||-0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.722|2.184|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||2.184|-3.722|-0.77
95902406|NCT02819726|191759974|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.4352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|4.18|||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joint Count (SJC) Week 52 (EOS) assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate.||4.180|-1.805|0.4352
95902407|NCT02819726|191759975|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.541|2.226|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||2.226|-10.541|0.2008
95902408|NCT02819726|191759975|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.242||-0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.771|5.994|||ANOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||5.994|-6.771|-0.39
95902409|NCT02819726|191759975|OTHER||LS Means Difference|3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.268||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.665|10.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Physician's Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline||10.204|-2.665|0.2498
95902410|NCT02819726|191759976|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.592||0.7322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0302|5.841|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.841|-8.0302|0.7322
95902411|NCT02819726|191759976|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.623||0.5418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.347|4.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||4.920|-9.347|0.5418
95978720|NCT03049735|191930239|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95902412|NCT02819726|191759976|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633||0.7869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.136|6.169|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Pain Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||6.169|-8.136|0.7869
95978721|NCT03049735|191930240|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95902413|NCT02819726|191759977|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.443||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.062|5.496|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.496|-8.062|0.7097
95902414|NCT02819726|191759977|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453||0.6683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.317|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||5.317|-8.280|0.6683
95902415|NCT02819726|191759977|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.494||0.9548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.078|6.682|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) Participants Disease Activity Assessment. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline)||6.682|-7.078|0.9548
95902416|NCT02819726|191759978|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.339|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.000|-0.339|0.0505
95902417|NCT02819726|191759978|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.1141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.033|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI (0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.033|-0.307|0.1141
95902418|NCT02819726|191759978|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.7111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.204|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) HAQ-DI )0-3). Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||0.204|-0.139|0.7111
95902419|NCT02819726|191759979|OTHER||LS Means Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.871||0.8183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.113|3.253|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||3.253|-4.113|0.8183
95902420|NCT02819726|191759979|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.868||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.164|5.191|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.191|-2.164|0.4186
95902421|NCT02819726|191759979|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.885||0.3035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.768|5.655|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 (EOS) CRP. Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Change from Study Day 1 (Baseline).||5.655|-1.768|0.3035
95902422|NCT02819726|191759980|OTHER||LS Means Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.413|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.413|-0.375|0.9249
95978722|NCT03049735|191930241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95978723|NCT03049735|191930242|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value for testing difference between Relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95978724|NCT03049735|191930243|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95978725|NCT03049735|191930244|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL) and geographic region (North America, Rest of World).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95978726|NCT03049735|191930245|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95978727|NCT03049735|191930246|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95978728|NCT03049735|191930248|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Treatment, visit, region, Baseline MBL and treatment by visit interaction included as fixed effects. The multiple visits for each participant were the repeated measures as random effect within each participant and an unstructured covariance.|Mixed Models Analysis|LS means and p-value for test of difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95978729|NCT03049735|191930255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline MBL volume (\< 225 mL, ≥ 225 mL).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0002
95978730|NCT02146326|191930282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
95978731|NCT02146326|191930283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.80
95902423|NCT02819726|191759980|OTHER||LS Measn Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.442|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.442|-0.351|0.05
95902424|NCT02819726|191759980|OTHER||LS Means Diference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.8962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 52 ( EOS) Least square means and confidence intervals were estimated from an ANCOVA model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-ESR value as a covariate. ANCOVA model contains treatment group only.||0.430|-0.376|0.8962
95902425|NCT02819726|191759981|OTHER||Difference (%)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|7.83||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||7.83|-2.56|
95902426|NCT02819726|191759981|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|6.67||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||6.67|-4.74|
95902427|NCT02819726|191759981|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|3.39||||||Week 52 (EOS) Major Clinical Response. The 95% CIs for major clinical response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.39|-6.75|
95902428|NCT02819726|191759982|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.9||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.90|-6.9|
95902429|NCT02819726|191759982|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|3.86||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||3.86|-7.07|
95978732|NCT02146326|191930284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.54
95978733|NCT02146326|191930285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.94
95978734|NCT02146326|191930286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.96
95978735|NCT02146326|191930287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
95978736|NCT02146326|191930288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.47
95902430|NCT02819726|191759982|OTHER||Differnce (%)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|5.83||||||Week 52 (EOS). Clinical remission is defined as score of Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) smaller than 3.3. The 95% CIs for clinical remission rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method. The adjusted difference and its 95% CI are from a logistic regression model containing treatment group as a factor and baseline DAS28-CRP as a covariate.||5.83|-6.05|
95902431|NCT02819726|191759983|OTHER||Difference (%)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|15.1||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||15.10|-12.59|
95902432|NCT02819726|191759983|OTHER||Difference (%)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.75|14.03|||Difference (%)|||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||14.03|-13.75|
95902433|NCT02819726|191759983|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.14|12.91||||||Week 52 EULAR score 'Good'. EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response was classified using the individual amount of change in the DAS28-CRP score. The 95% CIs for EULAR response rate and treatment difference were derived using the Wilson Score method.||12.91|-15.14|
95978737|NCT02146326|191930289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.60
95902434|NCT02819726|191759989|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-137.1|181.3||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||181.3|-137.1|
95902435|NCT02819726|191759989|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|69.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-91.8|230.8||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||230.8|-91.8|
95902436|NCT02819726|191759989|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day 15 \[AUEC(0-d15)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|47.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-112.5|207.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||207.2|-112.5|
95902437|NCT02819726|191759989|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|310.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-187.9|809.4||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||809.4|-187.9|
95902438|NCT02819726|191759989|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|296.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.8|806.1||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||806.1|-213.8|
95902439|NCT02819726|191759989|OTHER|Statistical comparison of CD19+ B-cell pharmacokinetic parameters at Day week \[AUEC(0-w24)\]|Statistical Comparisons Difference|-14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-527.4|498.2||||||The statistical comparison of the between treatments is based on an analysis of covariance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for treatment and a covariate for baseline value.||498.2|-527.4|
95902440|NCT00844194|191759998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.1|||ANCOVA|with last observation carried forward (LOCF)||||-1.10|-1.89|< 0.0001
95902441|NCT00844194|191759998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSmean|-1.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||||-1.04|-2.30|< 0.0001
95978738|NCT02146326|191930290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
95978739|NCT02146326|191930291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.83
95902442|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-5.1||||||Serotype 1: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-5.1|-12.1|
95978740|NCT02146326|191930292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
95978741|NCT02146326|191930293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.37
95978742|NCT02146326|191930294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.13
95902443|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-10.8||||||Serotype 3: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-10.8|-20.1|
95902444|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-4.9||||||Serotype 4: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.9|-12.0|
95978743|NCT02146326|191930295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.93
95902445|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-0.8||||||Serotype 5: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.8|-7.8|
95902446|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||||||Serotype 6A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-0.2|-4.6|
95902447|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-1.2||||||Serotype 6B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-1.2|-7.0|
95902448|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.7||||||Serotype 7F: 2-sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.7|-2.7|
95902449|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-4.6||||||Serotype 9V: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-4.6|-11.3|
95902450|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.6||||||Serotype 14: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.6|-3.1|
95902451|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||Serotype 18C: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||1.9|-3.1|
95978744|NCT02146326|191930296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
95978745|NCT02146326|191930297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.21
95978746|NCT02146326|191930299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on clinician burnout and patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.17
95978747|NCT02146326|191930300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95978748|NCT02146326|191930301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95978749|NCT02146326|191930302|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
95978750|NCT02146326|191930303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.04
95978751|NCT02146326|191930304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.34
95978752|NCT02146326|191930305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.71
95978753|NCT02146326|191930306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.22
95978754|NCT02146326|191930307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.11
95978755|NCT02146326|191930308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
95902452|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.5||||||Serotype 19A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.5|-2.6|
95902453|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||||||Serotype 19F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||2.0|-1.5|
95902454|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison was conducted for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|-3.9||||||Serotype 23F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-3.9|-11.4|
95902455|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|14.0||||||Serotype 8: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||14.0|8.6|
95902456|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.3||||||Serotype 10A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||0.3|-6.9|
95902457|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|7.1||||||95.0|4.2|10.2||||||Serotype 11A: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||10.2|4.2|
95902458|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|-18.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-14.0||||||Serotype 12F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||-14.0|-22.1|
95902459|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|15.4||||||Serotype 15B: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.4|10.2|
95902460|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|15.5||||||Serotype 22F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||15.5|10.3|
95902461|NCT04382326|191760122|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 23F (13vPnC serotype with the lowest percentage, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|percentage difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5||||||Serotype 33F: 2-Sided CI were calculated based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage||4.5|-2.2|
95978756|NCT02146326|191930309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.55
95978757|NCT02146326|191930310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.91
95978758|NCT02146326|191930311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.48
95978759|NCT02146326|191930312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.67
95978760|NCT02146326|191930313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.77
95978761|NCT02146326|191930314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.59
95902462|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.76||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.63|
95902463|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.73||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.73|0.61|
95902464|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.7|0.86||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.70|
95902465|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
95902466|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.85|0.70|
95902467|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.79||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.79|0.62|
95902468|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.82||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.70|
95902469|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.73|0.88||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.88|0.73|
95902470|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.00|0.81|
95902471|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74||||||95.0|0.67|0.82||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.82|0.67|
95902472|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.94|0.77|
95978762|NCT02146326|191930315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.64
95978763|NCT02146326|191930316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.05
95978764|NCT02146326|191930317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.06
95902473|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.96|0.78|
95902474|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC was to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.72||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.57|
95902475|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|2.06||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.06|1.71|
95902476|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|2.94||||||95.0|2.64|3.26||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||3.26|2.64|
95902477|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|1.84||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.84|1.51|
95902478|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.79|0.97||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.97|0.79|
95902479|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.95||||||95.0|5.39|6.55||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||6.55|5.39|
95902480|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|5.01||||||95.0|4.54|5.52||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.52|4.54|
95978765|NCT02146326|191930318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.84
95978766|NCT02146326|191930319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.14
95978767|NCT02146326|191930320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis was used to examine the BREATHE intervention effect on patient processes, engagement, and outcomes as compared to MI after the intervention by adjusting for the baseline scores and the implementation site.||||0.45
95978768|NCT03153111|191930321|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|1.02||||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.19|0.88|0.7923
95978769|NCT03153111|191930322|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.17|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-8.17|0.2172
95978770|NCT03153111|191930323|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.3665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||||0.02|-0.05|0.3665
95978771|NCT03891524|191930353|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||MCP-mod analysis|||||||0.0004
95978772|NCT03891524|191930354|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||MCP-MOD analysis|||||||0.7188
95978773|NCT01474863|191930368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.86
95978774|NCT02038920|191930369|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.958|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||3.958|0.816|0.1448
95978775|NCT02038920|191930370|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|23.953|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group|||23.953|0.532|0.1779
95978776|NCT02038920|191930376|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.673|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||MLN0002 group/placebo group. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used for analysis. Prior tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) antagonist use (yes/no) was used as stratification factor.|||4.673|0.720|0.1963
95902481|NCT04382326|191760123|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results were from serotype 1 (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.99|4.85||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.85|3.99|
95902482|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.4||||||Diphtheria: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||-1.4|-7.5|
95978777|NCT02038920|191930378|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.473|160.972|||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||160.972|1.473|0.0094
95978778|NCT02038920|191930379|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.6534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.254|8.844|||Pearson's Chi-square Test||MLN0002 group/placebo group.|||8.844|0.254|0.6534
95978779|NCT02038920|191930380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2059|||||||Pearson's Chi-square Test|||||||0.2059
95978780|NCT03040622|191930389|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95978781|NCT03040622|191930390|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.009
95978782|NCT03040622|191930391|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95978783|NCT03824639|191930413|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95978784|NCT03824639|191930414|OTHER|Cohen's d will be used to estimate the effect size for comparing change in outcome measurements over 6 months in the exercise group to the control group. This effect size will be used for sample size calculations.|Cohen's d|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95978785|NCT04498169|191930505|SUPERIORITY|With a sample size of up-to 20 subjects within a treatment group, the study had 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant mean change from baseline, assuming the true effect size (mean change / SD) was 0.577 or larger (e.g. assuming the true mean change from baseline was 34.6 μm and the SD was 60 μm), a one sample t-test and a two-sided alpha = 0.10.||||||0.0021|||||||One-sample t-test (within group)|||The primary analysis used the mITT population with available data per subject at eye level (ie., ODO). Robustness analyses was also performed based on the MI methodology under different assumptions of missingness and intercurrent events (where missing data or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or AEs were imputed using FCS regression method and missing data for all other reasons were imputed using worst within subject observation prior to the intercurrent event).||||0.0021
95978786|NCT00221195|191930519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The Wilcoxin signed-rank test was used to compare the frequency of bleeds between the prophylaxis and on-demand periods.||||<0.001
95978787|NCT01829360|191930617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|The significance of fixed effects (e.g.,treatment) was evaluated using Wald tests||||||<0.05
95978788|NCT01829360|191930617|OTHER|A secondary analysis was performed to examine individual differences in treatment outcomes. This was done collapsed across all arms because the difference between the arms/treatments was not significant in the primary analysis. This was done by adding predictors to the primary analysis model to determine if learner characteristics were significantly related to growth in word defining. All continuous learner characteristics were grand mean centered.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95978789|NCT01829360|191930618|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The interim definition data were analyzed with the primary pre-/post-definition data to capture growth across the entire treatment period.||||<0.05
95978790|NCT01603082|191930655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.7|-123.5|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|||-123.5|-194.7|<0.001
95978791|NCT01603082|191930656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.2||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 0.5 hours after the loading dose||9.7|-50.5|0.182
95978792|NCT01603082|191930656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-158.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.4|-127.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at 8 hours after the loading dose.||-127.7|-189.4|<0.001
95978793|NCT01603082|191930656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-10.7|||t-test, 2 sided||Ticagrelor minus clopidogrel.|Analysis at end of PCI.||-10.7|-76.5|0.010
95978794|NCT00846885|191930658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|110.0||||||90.0|103.0|117.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||117|103|
95978795|NCT00846885|191930659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|106.0||||||90.0|102.0|111.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111|102|
95978796|NCT00846885|191930660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|105.0||||||90.0|101.0|110.0|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||110|101|
95902483|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||||||Tetanus: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||1.7|-1.0|
95902484|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-3.5|3.1||||||Pertussis (PT): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.5|
95902485|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-2.5|3.9||||||Pertussis (FHA): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.9|-2.5|
95902486|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.7|2.2||||||Pertussis (PRN): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.2-Sided CIs are calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.2|-4.7|
95902487|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|2.9||||||HBsAg: 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||2.9|-3.2|
95902488|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.4|3.2||||||Poliovirus (Type 1): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.2|-3.4|
95902489|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-2.4|4.6||||||Poliovirus (Type 2): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||4.6|-2.4|
95902490|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.2|3.1||||||Poliovirus (Type 3): 2-Sided CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.1|-3.2|
95978797|NCT04884763|191930661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.35||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.35|-0.76|0.567
95978798|NCT04884763|191930662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.21||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.21|-0.91|0.778
95978799|NCT04884763|191930663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.88||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.96||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.96|-0.20|0.105
95978800|NCT04884763|191930664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.5||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|42.7||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||42.7|-7.6|0.163
95902491|NCT04382326|191760124|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage differences (20vPnC - 13vPnC) was greater than -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||Hib (≥0.15 μg/mL): 2-Sided CI were calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method for the difference in proportions, expressed as a percentage.||3.0|-3.0|
95902492|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.72||||||Serotype 1: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.72|0.59|
95902493|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.76||||||Serotype 3: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.76|0.64|
95902494|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7||||||95.0|0.63|0.78||||||Serotype 4: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.78|0.63|
95902495|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.69||||||95.0|0.61|0.77||||||Serotype 5: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.77|0.61|
95902496|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.65|0.81||||||Serotype 6A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.65|
95902497|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.7||||||Serotype 6B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.70|0.51|
95902498|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||||95.0|0.69|0.81||||||Serotype 7F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.81|0.69|
95902499|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.8||||||Serotype 9V: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.80|0.65|
95978801|NCT04884763|191930665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|1.01||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.01|-1.13|0.910
95902500|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.71|0.89||||||Serotype 14: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.89|0.71|
95902501|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.7|0.84||||||Serotype 18C: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.84|0.70|
95902502|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.86||||||Serotype 19A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.72|
95902503|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.79||||||95.0|0.73|0.86||||||Serotype 19F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.86|0.73|
95902504|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|Comparison for the 13 matched serotypes for 20vPnC is to the corresponding serotype in 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared for if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the IgG GMR of 20vPnC to 13vPnC for the serotype is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.75||||||Serotype 23F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC-13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.75|0.58|
95902505|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.98||||||95.0|1.81|2.16||||||Serotype 8: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||2.16|1.81|
95902506|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.32||||||95.0|1.18|1.49||||||Serotype 10A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.49|1.18|
95902507|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.52||||||95.0|1.39|1.67||||||Serotype 11A: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.67|1.39|
95902508|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.6||||||95.0|0.54|0.67||||||Serotype 12F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||0.67|0.54|
95978802|NCT04884763|191930666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.8||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.80|-0.83|0.972
95902509|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.39|5.3||||||Serotype 15B: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||5.30|4.39|
95902510|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|4.06||||||95.0|3.68|4.48||||||Serotype 22F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||4.48|3.68|
95902511|NCT04382326|191760125|NON_INFERIORITY|For the additional 7 serotypes, the compared results are from serotype 19A (13vPnC serotype with the lowest GMC, not including serotype 3) in the 13vPnC group. Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (20vPnC/lowest 13vPnC) was greater than 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.64||||||95.0|1.46|1.83||||||Serotype 33F: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - lowest 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the IgG concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.83|1.46|
95902512|NCT04382326|191760133|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.29||||||95.0|1.05|1.58||||||Measles: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.58|1.05|
95902513|NCT04382326|191760134|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38||||||Mumps: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.38|0.85|
95902514|NCT04382326|191760135|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.48||||||Rubella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution).||1.48|1.02|
95902515|NCT04382326|191760136|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR of 20vPnC group to 13vPnC group is greater than 0.5 (2-fold NI margin).|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17||||||Varicella: GMR and 2-Sided CI were calculated by exponentiating the mean difference (20vPnC - 13vPnC) of the logarithms of the concentrations and the corresponding CI (based on the Student's t distribution)||1.17|0.84|
95902516|NCT03017508|191760138|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.34||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test on VAS scores during speech comparing sublingual riluzole to placebo||||0.056
95902517|NCT00389324|191760141|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The administration effect between SC and IV was assessed by exponentiation of the difference in least squares means between study phases (Test minus Reference) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio between study phases (Test/Reference) for AUC. The Test (SC) was to be considered non-inferior to Reference (IV) if the lower bound of 90% CIs for the geometric LSM ratios of AUC between the Test and Reference was above 0.80 (80%).|Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|0.888||||||90.0|0.861|0.917|||ANOVA||An adjusted steady-state area under the concentration vs. time curve following SC administration based on IV dosing schedule was calculated as AUC0-τ,SC multiplied by 3 or 4 for subjects on every-3-week or every-4-week IV dosing schedule.|The IV phase was considered as the Reference study phase and the SC phase as the Test study phase. The ANOVA included calculation of least-squares means (LSM), differences between adjusted means and the standard error associated with these differences.||0.917|0.861|
95902518|NCT01381172|191760226|OTHER|The primary analysis employed a Bayesian repeated measures linear model to estimate group differences in mean pVO2 at 24 weeks from baseline, with 30% borrowing of information (70% down-weighting) from the corresponding treatment group difference observed in the FIX-5 study subgroup. The Bayesian posterior probability would need to be \> 0.975 to be considered a positive result with statistical significance.||||||0.975||||||The posterior probability (Pr) that the mean difference in pVO2 (Δ3) between device and control groups is greater than zero must exceed 0.975 to meet the primary effectiveness endpoint.|Bayesian posterior probability|||The FIX-HF-5C Study was a study designed to confirm the preliminary evidence reported in the FIX-HF-5 subgroup analysis demonstrating improvement in subjects with LVEF 25-45% and NYHA class III-IV. A Bayesian statistical approach was employed to leverage the data available, particularly the pVO2 results, from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup.||||0.975
95978803|NCT04884763|191930667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|5.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.43|0.18|0.037
95978804|NCT04884763|191930668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.43||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||3.43|-3.95|0.885
95902519|NCT02753751|191760237|SUPERIORITY|The Mantel-Haenszel test was used, accounting for each hospital as an individual stratum, and to obtain the pooled relative risks across hospitals without adjusting for other baseline factors. (Alert arm is the numerator, control arm is the denominator.) Patients discharged prior to 14 days without an outcome of interest were assumed to be free of that outcome at 14 days. A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13||A p-value of \<=0.04 was considered statistically significant to account for the interim analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In our retrospective analysis of patients with AKI at 3 potential study hospitals, the composite outcome was 24.5%. A clinically meaningful relative reduction in this risk would be 20%. 5,024 patients (2,512 in each group) would have 90% power to detect a difference in outcome at least this extreme at a two-sided alpha of 0.05 as calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. We have elected to increase this number by 20% to account for potential contamination.||1.13|0.93|0.67
95902520|NCT02667912|191760246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|21.4||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||21.4|0.3|0.045
95902521|NCT02667912|191760249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95902522|NCT02667912|191760250|OTHER|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
95902523|NCT02667912|191760251|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.4|-11.9|0.27
95902524|NCT02667912|191760252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-3.7|0.17
95902525|NCT02667912|191760255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.213
95902526|NCT02667912|191760256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.041
95902527|NCT02667912|191760257|OTHER|||||||0.304|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.304
95902528|NCT02667912|191760258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95902529|NCT02667912|191760259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95978805|NCT04884763|191930669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.81|-0.87|0.474
95902530|NCT02667912|191760260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95902531|NCT02667912|191760261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95902532|NCT02667912|191760262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95902533|NCT02667912|191760263|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
95902534|NCT02667912|191760264|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95902535|NCT02667912|191760265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.324
95902536|NCT02667912|191760266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
95902537|NCT02667912|191760267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.238
95902538|NCT02667912|191760268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.969|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.969
95902539|NCT02667912|191760269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95902540|NCT05101252|191760270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR for distance.|Least-square Mean|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.14|-0.01|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 22 subjects were required to test for superiority for distance.||-0.01|-0.14|
95902541|NCT05101252|191760270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for intermediate.|Least-square Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-0.06|0.07|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 12 subjects were required to test for superiority for intermediate.||0.07|-0.06|
95902542|NCT05101252|191760270|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 98.75% confidence interval of was below 0.17 logMAR for near.|Least-square Mean|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|0.02|0.16|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 90% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for superiority for near.||0.16|0.02|
95902543|NCT05101252|191760271|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower bound of the 98.75% confidence interval was above 32.|Least-square Mean|50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|98.75|43.1|58.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.||It was calculated using a 2-sided one sample mean t-test with a family wise type I error rate of 5% (1.25% individually) with at least 99% statistical power, that 13 subjects were required to test for superiority for CLUE vision scores.||58.5|43.1|
95902544|NCT05101252|191760272|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the least-square mean difference was below 0.05 logMAR.|LSM Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|LSM difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated using a 2 independent sample means t-test with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5% with at least 95% statistical power, that 60 subjects were required to test for non-inferiority of the Test compared to the Control for distance (4m).||0.05|-0.05|
95902545|NCT01700946|191760278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
95902546|NCT01700946|191760279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.105
95902547|NCT01700946|191760280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1181|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1181
95978806|NCT04884763|191930670|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.56||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.56|-1.94|0.822
95978807|NCT04884763|191930671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.51||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.91||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.91|-0.88|0.455
95978808|NCT04884763|191930672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|27.0||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||27.0|-12.8|0.467
95978809|NCT04884763|191930673|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.07||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||1.07|-0.79|0.755
95978810|NCT04884763|191930674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.71||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||0.71|-1.18|0.613
95978811|NCT04884763|191930675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.22||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||4.22|0.94|0.003
95902548|NCT01168934|191760283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|43.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.68|47.56||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0 - ∞)(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||47.56|39.68|
95902549|NCT01168934|191760286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|44.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.9|48.78||||||Natural log transformed AUClast(dn) of crizotinib was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences was exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||48.78|40.90|
95902550|NCT02799082|191760337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"The percentages stated relate to the total number of subjects for the respective week and treatment.~Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by center"|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95902551|NCT02799082|191760338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95902552|NCT02799082|191760346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95902553|NCT02799082|191760347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95902554|NCT01208233|191760360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.735||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.41|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|LOCF was used to impute missing data.||||1.31|0.41|0.4962
95902555|NCT01208233|191760360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.561||||0.2517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.29|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was based on OC.||||1.07|0.29|0.2517
95902556|NCT01208233|191760361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.942||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.972|5.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||5.254|-4.972|0.9716
95902557|NCT01208233|191760362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2392||0.1417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.401|20.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||20.177|1.401|0.1417
95902558|NCT01208233|191760363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4241||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.351|-3.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic hand||-3.310|-17.351|0.0611
95902559|NCT01208233|191760363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2899||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.011|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||4.480|-4.011|0.9433
95902560|NCT01208233|191760364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.812|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8448||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-21.668|-3.957|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Paretic to non-paretic hand ratio (%)||-3.957|-21.668|0.0654
95902561|NCT01208233|191760365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.76|0.54|0.9510
95902562|NCT01208233|191760366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.854||||0.7234|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||LOCF was used to impute missing data.||1.51|0.48|0.7234
95902563|NCT01208233|191760367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6755||0.6759|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.156|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.589|-1.156|0.6759
95902564|NCT01208233|191760368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||BI \>=95, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.81|0.4213
95902565|NCT01208233|191760368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.651||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.92|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BI=100, LOCF was used to impute missing data.||2.98|0.92|0.2760
95902566|NCT01208233|191760369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.599|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4547||0.2118|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|11.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.348|-0.150|0.2118
95902567|NCT01208233|191760370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7844||0.5541|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.252|3.375|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.375|-1.252|0.5541
95902568|NCT01208233|191760371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4178||0.426|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.874|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.205|-0.874|0.4260
95902569|NCT01208233|191760372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.477|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4394||0.65|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.547|9.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L+R)/28 × 100%||9.500|-4.547|0.6500
95902570|NCT01208233|191760372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.874|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7431||0.5671|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.834|12.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L/14) × 100%||12.583|-4.834|0.5671
95902571|NCT01208233|191760372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2816||0.843|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.771|7.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(R/14) × 100%||7.870|-5.771|0.8430
95902572|NCT01208233|191760373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0733||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.011|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||(L R)/(L+R)||0.201|0.011|0.1512
95902573|NCT01208233|191760374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5041||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.929|-0.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.629|-1.929|0.0128
95902574|NCT01208233|191760375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1226||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.248|-0.070|0.4713
95902575|NCT01208233|191760382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7201||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.026|2.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Non-paretic hand||2.995|-4.026|0.8501
95902576|NCT01891734|191760387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95902577|NCT01891734|191760388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d|0.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95902578|NCT00129259|191760390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value for testing treatment effect uses change in ln(AUC+1) as the outcome variable and adjusts for baseline ln(AUC+1).||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC does not differ between treatment groups after adjusting for baseline C-peptide AUC.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in the 4-hour C-peptide AUC differs between the treatment groups after adjusting for baseline values."||||0.002
95902579|NCT00129259|191760391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline HbA1c.||"Null hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline (pre-treatment) to Month 24 does not differ between treatment groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Month 24 differs between treatment groups."||||0.697
95902580|NCT00129259|191760392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA adjusts for baseline daily insulin use per kg||"Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg does not differ between the treatment and control groups.~Alternative hypothesis: The mean change from baseline to Month 24 in daily insulin use per kg differs between the treatment and control groups."||||0.110
95902581|NCT00139997|191760393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95902582|NCT04745169|191760411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95902583|NCT04745169|191760412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95902584|NCT04745169|191760413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95902585|NCT04745169|191760414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95902586|NCT04745169|191760415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95902587|NCT04745169|191760416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95902588|NCT04745169|191760417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95902589|NCT04745169|191760418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95902590|NCT04745169|191760419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95902591|NCT00489970|191760432|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.16|4.17|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.17|-1.16|
95902592|NCT00489970|191760432|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.52|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-1.52|
95902593|NCT00489970|191760432|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.41|4.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||4.15|-3.41|
95902594|NCT00489970|191760432|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the seroprotection rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in percentage|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.69|2.07|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the seroprotection rate was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group and Control group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to seroprotection rate against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.07|-3.69|
95902595|NCT00489970|191760434|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.31|1.79|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||1.79|1.31|
95902596|NCT00489970|191760434|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.62|6.01|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.01|4.62|
95902597|NCT00489970|191760434|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Boostrix Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|3.62|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.07|4.25|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Boostrix Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||4.25|3.07|
95902598|NCT00489970|191760434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PT GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|1.64||||||97.5|1.33|2.03|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PT one month following vaccination||2.03|1.33|
95902599|NCT00489970|191760434|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-FHA GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.37|6.36|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-FHA one month following vaccination||6.36|4.37|
95902600|NCT00489970|191760434|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limits of the 97.5% CIs for the anti-PRN GMC ratios (Adacel Group divided by Infanrix Group in APV-039) were greater than or equal to 0.67|GMC ratio|4.47|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|3.58|5.57|||GMC ratio|The associated CI was derived using the method proposed by G.Y. Zou and A. Donner \[Zou, 2008\]||To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Tdap vaccine, Boostrix (Adacel Group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a three dose series of Infanrix vaccine in infants in the German household contact efficacy study APV-039, with respect to antibodies against anti-PRN one month following vaccination||5.57|3.58|
95902601|NCT00489970|191760435|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.67|2.85|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.85|-14.67|
95902602|NCT00489970|191760435|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.63|7.79|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||7.79|-10.63|
95902603|NCT00489970|191760435|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against diphtheria antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-8.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.33|2.73|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against diphtheria antigen, one month following vaccination.||2.73|-20.33|
95902604|NCT00489970|191760435|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against tetanus antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.98|0.15|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against tetanus antigen, one month following vaccination.||0.15|-22.98|
95902605|NCT00489970|191760436|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.09|3.08|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.08|-9.09|
95902606|NCT00489970|191760436|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-13.16|-1.4|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||-1.40|-13.16|
95902607|NCT00489970|191760436|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Boostrix group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-10.32|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-17.5|-3.38|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Boostrix group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||-3.38|-17.50|
95902608|NCT00489970|191760436|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PT antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.03|5.57|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PT antigen, one month following vaccination.||5.57|-10.03|
95902609|NCT00489970|191760436|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against FHA antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response rate|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.38|8.66|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against FHA antigen, one month following vaccination.||8.66|-2.38|
95902610|NCT00489970|191760436|NON_INFERIORITY|One month after vaccination, the lower limit of the 97.5% CI for the difference between groups in the booster response rate \[a second dose of Boostrix (Adacel group) minus the first dose of Boostrix (Control group)\] against PRN antigen was greater than or equal to -10% (clinical limit for non-inferiority).|Difference in booster response|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.53|3.18|||||Standardized asymptotic 97.5% CI for the group difference in the Booster response was calculated.|To demonstrate that the immune response elicited by a second dose of Boostrix vaccine (Adacel group) was non-inferior to the immune response elicited by a first dose of Boostrix vaccine (Control group), with respect to booster response against PRN antigen, one month following vaccination.||3.18|-14.53|
95902611|NCT04837482|191760471|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of AGN-190584 was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the least-square mean difference between AGN-190584 and vehicle was greater than the pre-specified margin of -0.25.|Least-Square (LS) Mean|-0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0602||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed-effects model with repeated measures||||-0.103|-0.346|0.0006
95902612|NCT02979535|191760479|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.16||||||Antigen HPV-16||1.16|0.773|
95902613|NCT02979535|191760479|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.21||||||Antigen HPV-18||1.21|0.803|
95902614|NCT02979535|191760480|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.46||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 1||1.46|0.653|
95902615|NCT02979535|191760480|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.911|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.654|1.27||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 2||1.27|0.654|
95902616|NCT02979535|191760480|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.17||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 3||1.17|0.727|
95902617|NCT02979535|191760480|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.931|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.18||||||Dengue Virus Serotype 4||1.18|0.733|
95902618|NCT04820673|191760494|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P\<0.0001, calculated by t-test, corresponds to baseline response group domain scores in comparison to week-12 domain scores (CFB). CFB is calculated using available matching data for each domain. Higher domain scores indicate higher disease burden.|t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12 vs Baseline||||<.0001
95902619|NCT00587587|191760496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value compares overall incidence of AEs between groups, ie Apligraf 12/17 and Control 10/13.~UADE is defined in 21CFR812.3(s)"|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test used to evaluate treatment differences between Apligraf subjects and Control subjects experiencing any AEs.||||1.0000
95902620|NCT00587587|191760497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5863||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5863
95902621|NCT00587587|191760498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3783||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3783
95902622|NCT00587587|191760499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar firmness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7149
95902623|NCT00587587|191760500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Treatment differences in scar thickness evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.1670
95902624|NCT00587587|191760501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7221|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.7221
95902625|NCT00587587|191760502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Global assessments analyzed as ordinal ranks. Treatment differences in global assessment evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.4080
95902626|NCT00587587|191760503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9556||0.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences evaluated using a 2-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test with pooled variances.||||0.9556
95902627|NCT02646423|191760514|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
95902628|NCT02646423|191760515|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.16||||||||1.16|0.86|
95902629|NCT02646423|191760516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||||||||0.19|-0.16|
95902630|NCT02646423|191760517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|1.05||||||||1.05|-1.81|
95902631|NCT02646423|191760518|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.27||||||||1.27|-1.96|
95902632|NCT02646423|191760519|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.66||||||||1.66|-0.94|
95902633|NCT02646423|191760520|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||||||||0.03|-0.09|
95902634|NCT02646423|191760521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||||||||1.51|0.46|
95902635|NCT02646423|191760522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.56||||||||1.56|0.64|
95902636|NCT02646423|191760523|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.81||||||||2.81|0.64|
95902637|NCT02646423|191760524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|6.62||||||||6.62|0.60|
95902638|NCT02646423|191760525|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.35||||||||1.35|0.72|
95902639|NCT02646423|191760526|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.48||||||||1.48|0.86|
95902640|NCT00466193|191760531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95902641|NCT00466193|191760533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||p-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95902642|NCT00466193|191760536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0041||95.0||||P-value is for treatment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0041
95902643|NCT01303627|191760575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Statistical analyses were performed x2 test or Mann Whitney U test as approriate. A p value of \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||The incidence of complications on removal of the cLMA has been reported 54 % in awake patients group A power analysis indicated that a minimum 16 patients in each group were required to demonstrate a difference that 50% reduction the complications (a power of 80% and α error 0.05).||||<0.05
95902644|NCT00659269|191760588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95902645|NCT03447769|191760589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.14||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|||1.14|0.78|0.258
95902646|NCT03447769|191760594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.58||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 \<1%||1.58|0.76|0.676
95902647|NCT03447769|191760594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.05||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥1% and \<49%||1.05|0.34|0.036
95902648|NCT03447769|191760594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.43||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test|PD-L1 ≥50%||2.43|0.73|0.823
95902649|NCT03447769|191760595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.72||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 \< median||1.72|0.87|0.872
95902650|NCT03447769|191760595|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.33||1-sided p-value|Stratified log-rank test||The HR for DFS was calculated, along with its 95% confidence interval, from a stratified Cox model using the same stratification factors as those for the log-rank test.|CD8 ≥ median||1.33|0.62|0.303
95902651|NCT00908960|191760606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|43.17|||Fine and Gray regression|||||43.17|1.03|0.06
95902652|NCT04796610|191760635|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||2.98|.1|0.49
95902653|NCT04796610|191760636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.82||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|146.91||Model is adjusted for participant age|Regression, Logistic||Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||146.91|1.93|.011
95902654|NCT04796610|191760637|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.97|||Regression, Linear|Model is adjusted for participant age|Results are presented for an indicator where 0=control and 1=intervention|||0.97|0.07|.03
95902655|NCT02401672|191760638|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95902656|NCT02401672|191760639|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95902657|NCT02401672|191760640|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95902658|NCT02401672|191760641|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95902659|NCT01736852|191760658|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of 10%, α = 0.025, power = 0.80,||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||.ample size calculations were performed using an expected rate of 4% for each group,a one-sided exact test, α = 0.025, power = 0.80, non-inferiority margin of 10% resulting in a sample size of 124 patients or 62 patients per treatment arm.||||0.06
95902660|NCT03029208|191760663|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.14|||||An ANCOVA model including randomization stratification factors Baseline Hgb and treatment was performed to obtain a point estimate and two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (daprodustat-darbepoetin alfa).|||0.14|-0.34|
95902661|NCT03029208|191760664|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|19.4||||0.8949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|49.9|||ANCOVA||An ANCOVA model was used to compare the difference in this average monthly IV iron dose between arms, including factors for Baseline dose, treatment and the randomization stratification factors.|||49.9|-11.0|0.8949
95902662|NCT03029208|191760665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.23||||0.8168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|10.27|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||10.27|-3.82|0.8168
95902663|NCT03029208|191760665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.21||||0.9793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|8.26|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.26|0.17|0.9793
95902664|NCT03029208|191760665|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.1||||0.9597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|8.7|||MMRM||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||8.70|-0.51|0.9597
95902665|NCT03029208|191760666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|4.53|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in SBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.53|-4.72|0.4840
95902666|NCT03029208|191760666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.99||||0.9156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.82|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in DBP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.82|-0.85|0.9156
95902667|NCT03029208|191760666|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29||||0.7966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|4.33|||ANCOVA||The difference in change from Baseline in MAP at the derived end of treatment was analyzed with an ANCOVA model including terms for treatment, prognostic randomization stratification factors.|||4.33|-1.76|0.7966
95902668|NCT03029208|191760667|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of exacerbation rate|1.01||||0.5174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Negative binomial model||Model estimated exacerbation rates, ratio of model estimated exacerbation rates and CIs were estimated using a negative binomial model for the treatment group comparison.|||1.39|0.73|0.5174
95902669|NCT03029208|191760669|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.75 g/dL.|LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.36|||||The difference in change from Baseline in post-randomization Hgb at Week 52 was analyzed with a MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms.|||0.36|-0.29|
95902670|NCT03029208|191760670|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|-0.8||||0.5411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|10.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for treatment and randomization stratification factors were used to compare the number of responders between the treatment groups.|||10.7|-12.2|0.5411
95902671|NCT03029208|191760671|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was to be established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference was greater than non-inferiority margin of -15%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|11.27|||||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate of Treatment Difference has been reported.|||11.27|-4.45|
95902672|NCT03029208|191760672|SUPERIORITY||Probability|0.54||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.61|||van Elteren test||Mann-Whitney estimate (Probability) of the treatment effect has been presented.|||0.61|0.46|0.1538
95902673|NCT03029208|191760673|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.66|||Wald test||Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment group, dialysis type and dialysis start manner.|||3.66|0.31|0.5348
95978812|NCT04884763|191930676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.08||A two-sided 5% significance level was used for all tests without multiplicity adjustment between multiple endpoints.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model included factors for treatment group, time, and their interaction, with time repeated within subject. Gender as a covariate.|For difference calculation, Arm A - Arm B|Based on two-sided paired t-tests and two-sample t-tests, all conducted at a 5% significance level, this pilot study had 80% power to detect effect sizes of 0.9 for changes over time within groups and effect sizes of 1.2 for differences between groups. To account for dropout, the study enrolled 15 patients per group, for a total of 30 patients.||5.08|-2.70|0.536
95978813|NCT00448435|191930687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin + or - 15 L/min|Mean Difference (Net)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.91||0.6383||95.0|-9.1|14.69||Confidence Interval|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between treatments \[(SLM + FP)- SFC\](SE) 2.8 (5.91)||14.69|-9.10|0.6383
95978814|NCT00412971|191930701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in recurrence rate|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.05
95978815|NCT01387230|191930717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.202|0.052|<0.001
95978816|NCT01387230|191930717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.152|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.229|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 125 µg minus Placebo.|||0.229|0.076|<0.001
95978817|NCT03027557|191930724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
95978818|NCT03027557|191930725|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
95902674|NCT03029208|191760674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39||||0.6641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.44|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.44|-2.22|0.6641
95902675|NCT03029208|191760674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.89|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.89|-0.63|0.1030
95902676|NCT03029208|191760674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|2.48|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.48|-1.51|0.3157
95902677|NCT03029208|191760674|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.31||||0.8855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.84|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL PCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.84|-3.46|0.8855
95902678|NCT03029208|191760675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.67||||0.7146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.66|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.66|-2.99|0.7146
95978819|NCT03027557|191930726|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0019
95978820|NCT03027557|191930727|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.096|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.096
95978821|NCT03027557|191930728|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
95978822|NCT03027557|191930729|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
95978823|NCT03027557|191930730|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0027|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0027
95978824|NCT03027557|191930731|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.081|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.081
95978825|NCT03027557|191930732|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0071|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0071
95978826|NCT03027557|191930733|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
95978827|NCT03027557|191930734|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
95978828|NCT03027557|191930735|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.38|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.38
95978829|NCT03027557|191930740|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.83
95978830|NCT03027557|191930743|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95978831|NCT03027557|191930744|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0077|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0077
95978832|NCT03027557|191930745|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
95978833|NCT03027557|191930746|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.011
95978834|NCT03027557|191930747|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
95978835|NCT03027557|191930748|SUPERIORITY||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
95978836|NCT03027557|191930749|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
95978837|NCT03027557|191930750|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.0001
95978838|NCT03027557|191930751|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.0001
95902679|NCT03029208|191760675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.53||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|0.76|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.76|-3.82|0.9050
95902680|NCT03029208|191760675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.32||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|2.28|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.28|-2.91|0.5950
95902681|NCT03029208|191760675|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL MCS domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.70|-3.17|0.5619
95902682|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14||||0.4523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|2.49|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.49|-2.21|0.4523
95902683|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.5222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|2.43|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.43|-2.57|0.5222
95902684|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|5.02|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||5.02|-0.35|0.0440
95902685|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.61||||0.9523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL bodily pain domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||0.46|-5.68|0.9523
95902686|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.4811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.91|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.91|-1.82|0.4811
95902687|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.11|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.11|-1.56|0.3834
95902688|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26||||0.3983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.24|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.24|-1.72|0.3983
95978839|NCT03027557|191930753|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.5
95902689|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.5617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.15|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL general health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.15|-2.51|0.5617
95902690|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.15||||0.8336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|1.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.18|-3.48|0.8336
95902691|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.41||||0.9188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.57|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||0.57|-3.40|0.9188
95902692|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|1.99|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.99|-2.96|0.6495
95902693|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.27||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.56|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL mental health domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||2.56|-3.09|0.5737
95902694|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|2.82|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||2.82|-2.15|0.3963
95902695|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|3.25|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||3.25|-2.01|0.3220
95902696|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|3.18|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||3.18|-2.13|0.3485
95902697|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.49||||0.8064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.9|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-emotional domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.90|-4.87|0.8064
95978840|NCT03027557|191930754|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.85
95978841|NCT03027557|191930755|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22|||||||ANOVA|||||||= 0.22
95978842|NCT03027557|191930756|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.18|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||= 0.18
95978843|NCT02554903|191930774|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.7393||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5798|0.9426|||ANCOVA|||||0.9426|0.5798|0.0158
95978844|NCT02340091|191930783|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9194|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.97||||||||0.97|0.80|
95902698|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29||||0.8687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|0.98|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||0.98|-3.57|0.8687
95902699|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.71||||0.2435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|2.7|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||2.70|-1.29|0.2435
95902700|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.41|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.41|-3.15|0.7747
95902701|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73||||0.7141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|1.81|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL role-physical domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.81|-3.26|0.7141
95902702|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.03||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|1.59|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 8.|||1.59|-3.65|0.7803
95902703|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.18||||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.0|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 12.|||1.00|-3.35|0.8556
95902704|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.77|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.77|-2.61|0.4763
95902705|NCT03029208|191760676|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.73||||0.3208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.8|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL social functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||3.80|-2.35|0.3208
95902706|NCT03029208|191760677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02||||0.791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.46|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||1.46|-3.50|0.7910
95902707|NCT03029208|191760677|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.45||||0.8648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|1.14|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL vitality domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.14|-4.03|0.8648
95902708|NCT03029208|191760678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.19|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain score was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 28.|||2.19|-2.75|0.5879
95902709|NCT03029208|191760678|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.43||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|1.26|||MMRM||SF-36 HRQoL physical functioning domain scor was analyzed using an MMRM approach with an unstructured covariance matrix to compare the difference in LS means between arms at Week 52.|||1.26|-4.12|0.8525
95902710|NCT03029208|191760679|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.3154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.14|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.14|-0.09|0.3154
95902711|NCT03029208|191760680|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.7651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|5.9|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||5.9|-12.7|0.7651
95902712|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.43||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|-0.82|||MMRM||Tired/Low energy/Weak domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-0.82|-12.05|0.9875
95902713|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.11||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|0.3|||MMRM||Chest pain/Shortness of breath domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.30|-8.52|0.9663
95902714|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.6||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|-1.35|||MMRM||Cognitive domain: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||-1.35|-11.84|0.9930
95902715|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.03||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.19|2.12|||MMRM||Shortness of breath, no activity: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.12|-8.19|0.8765
95902716|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.27||||0.9464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|0.94|||MMRM||Severity-short breath, Resting: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.94|-9.48|0.9464
95902717|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.31||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|2.47|||MMRM||Difficulty standing for long time: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||2.47|-13.09|0.9101
95902718|NCT03029208|191760681|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.52||||0.9586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.86|||MMRM||Difficulty sleeping: MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.86|-13.90|0.9586
95902719|NCT03029208|191760682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 8 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.53|0.02|0.9810
95902720|NCT03029208|191760682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.6743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.26|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 12 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.26|-0.17|0.6743
95902721|NCT03029208|191760682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.16||||0.8997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 28 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.40|-0.09|0.8997
95902722|NCT03029208|191760682|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.8835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.47|||MMRM||MMRM model was fitted from Baseline up to Week 52 with factors for treatment, time, dialysis type, dialysis start manner, Baseline value and Baseline value by time and treatment by time interactions.|||0.47|-0.12|0.8835
95978845|NCT01163721|191930818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.13||P-value is from an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline HbA1c value as covariate. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, there were no adjustments for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|||Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%, 60 evaluable participants would provide 93% power to detect a statistically significant -1.0% difference in change from baseline HbA1c at Week 12 between ranolazine and placebo (2-sided alpha = 0.05). 80 participants were randomized to ensure at least 60 evaluable participants.||-0.13|-0.93|0.010
95978846|NCT01163721|191930819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in LSM|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.83||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|10.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||10.2|-41.0|0.234
95978847|NCT01163721|191930820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.38||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|16.2||P-value is from an ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline HbA1c stratification as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||16.2|-21.1|0.794
95978848|NCT03254485|191930828|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.35|||ANCOVA|||||0.35|-0.95|=0.3681
95978849|NCT03254485|191930829|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.74|||=|0.2817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.38|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.90|-47.38|=0.2817
95902723|NCT03893448|191760686|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-4.8|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-0.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site erythema Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-9.3|= 0.039
95902724|NCT03893448|191760686|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-0.4|||=|0.836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site induration Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||3.7|-4.6|= 0.836
95902725|NCT03893448|191760686|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.9|||=|0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|7.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site pain Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||7.6|-1.9|= 0.235
95978850|NCT03254485|191930830|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.297|||=|0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.591|0.997|||ANCOVA|||||0.997|-1.591|=0.6508
95902726|NCT03893448|191760686|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|2.4|||=|0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Injection site swelling Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||6.5|-1.7|= 0.260
95902727|NCT03893448|191760687|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||=|0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Decreased appetite Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.8|-6.3|= 0.446
95978851|NCT03602261|191930883|OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5536
95978852|NCT03226275|191930891|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.25|106.09||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting state||106.09|93.25|
95978853|NCT03226275|191930891|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.95|100.73||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||100.73|92.95|
95902728|NCT03893448|191760687|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|1.0|||=|0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Irritability Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||5.1|-3.0|= 0.622
95902729|NCT03893448|191760687|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|-3.0|||=|0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Somnolence (drowsiness) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-7.6|= 0.202
95978854|NCT03226275|191930891|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.02|108.76||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.76|90.02|
95978855|NCT03226275|191930891|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|103.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.53|111.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||111.20|95.53|
95978856|NCT03226275|191930892|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|97.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.29|103.74||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||103.74|92.29|
95902730|NCT03893448|191760687|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Urticaria (Hives) Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.3|-2.4|= 0.985
95902731|NCT03893448|191760688|OTHER||Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.4|-0.4|
95902732|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.8|-5.2|< 0.001
95902733|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
95902734|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.6|-4.0|< 0.001
95902735|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.2|-4.2|< 0.001
95902736|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.001
95902737|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.3|-6.6|< 0.001
95902738|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.1|-1.9|< 0.001
95902739|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.6|-2.8|< 0.001
95902740|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||1.6|-1.6|< 0.001
95978857|NCT03226275|191930892|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|100.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.03||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||106.03|94.37|
95978858|NCT03226275|191930892|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|93.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.56|104.2||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||104.20|84.56|
95978859|NCT03226275|191930892|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|106.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.82|116.08||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||116.08|97.82|
95978860|NCT03226275|191930893|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||0.50|0.00|
95978861|NCT03226275|191930893|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.0||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||0.00|-1.00|
95902741|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||0.7|-2.6|< 0.001
95902742|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.8|-3.2|< 0.001
95902743|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-0.4|-2.1|< 0.001
95902744|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||2.7|-3.2|< 0.001
95902745|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|6.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|9.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||9.2|4.6|< 0.001
95902746|NCT03893448|191760689|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being \>-10 percentage points (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F This analysis represents the difference between response rate to Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 and lowest response (Serotype 23F at 91.8) in recipients of Prevnar 13™ for shared serotypes, excluding serotype 3. Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||-1.3|-7.8|< 0.001
95978862|NCT03226275|191930893|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
95978863|NCT03226275|191930893|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Median Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||0.50|-1.00|
95978864|NCT03226275|191930895|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.61|106.79||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fasting State||106.79|93.61|
95978865|NCT03226275|191930895|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.38|104.28||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fasting State||104.28|93.38|
95978866|NCT03226275|191930895|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|98.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.75|108.15||||||Statistical Comparison of Bisoprolol in Fed State||108.15|89.75|
95978867|NCT03226275|191930895|EQUIVALENCE|Results based on a mixed-effects model with sequence, treatment, and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect.|Geometric Least Square Mean Percentage|104.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.11|112.66||||||Statistical Comparison of Amlodipine in Fed State||112.66|96.11|
95978868|NCT01436071|191930912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.213|||ANCOVA|||||0.213|0.026|0.012
95978869|NCT03808688|191930922|OTHER|Descriptive statistics included the number of subjects/eyes(n), mean, SD, median, minimum, and maximum for continuous variables, and frequency and percentages for categorical variables.||||||||||||||||Cohorts assessed versus baseline treatment|All efficacy data were summarized at each timepoint using appropriate descriptive statistics for the overall populations as well as separately for monotherapy and concomitant therapy groups.|||
95978870|NCT02137512|191930931|SUPERIORITY|No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978871|NCT02137512|191930931|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978872|NCT02137512|191930931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95978873|NCT02137512|191930932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95978874|NCT02137512|191930932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978875|NCT02137512|191930932|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978876|NCT02137512|191930933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95978877|NCT02137512|191930933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978878|NCT02137512|191930933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95902747|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.59|< 0.001
95902748|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
95902749|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.03|0.88|< 0.001
95902750|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.66|< 0.001
95902751|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.52|||=|0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.58|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.58|0.48|= 0.167
95902752|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.71|< 0.001
95902753|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.71|< 0.001
95902754|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.00|0.84|< 0.001
95902755|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.78|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.78|0.63|< 0.001
95978879|NCT02137512|191930934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978880|NCT02137512|191930934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978881|NCT02137512|191930934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95978882|NCT02137512|191930935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978883|NCT02137512|191930935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978884|NCT02137512|191930935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95978885|NCT02137512|191930936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95978886|NCT02137512|191930936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978887|NCT02137512|191930936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95978888|NCT02137512|191930937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95978889|NCT02137512|191930937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95978890|NCT02137512|191930937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95978891|NCT02137512|191930938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95978892|NCT02137512|191930938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95902756|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.83|0.70|< 0.001
95902757|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
95902758|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.79|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.79|0.69|< 0.001
95902759|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.99|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.99|0.80|< 0.001
95902760|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|3.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.33|3.98|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||3.98|3.33|< 0.001
95978893|NCT02137512|191930938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95978894|NCT02137512|191930939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95978895|NCT02137512|191930939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95978896|NCT02137512|191930939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95978897|NCT02137512|191930940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95978898|NCT02137512|191930940|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95902761|NCT03893448|191760690|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.39|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.35 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.39|1.10|< 0.001
95978899|NCT02137512|191930940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95978900|NCT02137512|191930941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978901|NCT02137512|191930941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978902|NCT02137512|191930941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95978903|NCT02137512|191930942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95978904|NCT02137512|191930942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978905|NCT02137512|191930942|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978906|NCT02137512|191930943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978907|NCT02137512|191930943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978908|NCT02137512|191930943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95978909|NCT02137512|191930944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978910|NCT02137512|191930944|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978911|NCT02137512|191930944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95978912|NCT02137512|191930945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95978913|NCT02137512|191930945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978914|NCT02137512|191930945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95978915|NCT02137512|191930946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978916|NCT02137512|191930946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95978917|NCT02137512|191930946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95978918|NCT02137512|191930947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978919|NCT02137512|191930947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978920|NCT02137512|191930947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95978921|NCT02137512|191930948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95978922|NCT02137512|191930948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95978923|NCT02137512|191930948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95978924|NCT02137512|191930949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978925|NCT02137512|191930949|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978926|NCT02137512|191930949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95978927|NCT02137512|191930950|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978928|NCT02137512|191930950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95978929|NCT02137512|191930950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.99
95978930|NCT02137512|191930951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95978931|NCT02137512|191930951|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978932|NCT02137512|191930951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95978933|NCT02137512|191930952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95978934|NCT02137512|191930952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978935|NCT02137512|191930952|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978936|NCT02137512|191930953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978937|NCT02137512|191930953|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978938|NCT02137512|191930953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95978939|NCT02137512|191930954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95978940|NCT02137512|191930954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978941|NCT02137512|191930954|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978942|NCT02137512|191930955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95902762|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.72|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 1 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.72|0.62|< 0.001
95902763|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
95902764|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.84|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 4 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.84|0.71|< 0.001
95902765|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.69|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 5 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.69|0.58|< 0.001
95902766|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.65|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.65|0.54|< 0.001
95902767|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.81|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 6B GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.81|0.67|< 0.001
95902768|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.77|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 7F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.77|0.65|< 0.001
95978943|NCT02137512|191930955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978944|NCT02137512|191930955|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978945|NCT02137512|191930956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.001
95978946|NCT02137512|191930956|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978947|NCT02137512|191930956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95978948|NCT02137512|191930957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95978949|NCT02137512|191930957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978950|NCT02137512|191930957|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978951|NCT02137512|191930958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978952|NCT02137512|191930958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978953|NCT02137512|191930958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978954|NCT02137512|191930959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978955|NCT02137512|191930959|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95902769|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 9V GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.67|< 0.001
95902770|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.89|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 14 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.89|0.73|< 0.001
95902771|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.93|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 18C GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.93|0.78|< 0.001
95902772|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.8|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19A GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.80|0.68|< 0.001
95902773|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.86|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 19F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.86|0.74|< 0.001
95902774|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.68|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 23F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||0.68|0.56|< 0.001
95902775|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|4.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|5.11|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F IgG GMC for Serotype 22F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||5.11|4.30|< 0.001
95978956|NCT02137512|191930959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95978957|NCT02137512|191930960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95978958|NCT02137512|191930960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978959|NCT02137512|191930960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978960|NCT02137512|191930961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978961|NCT02137512|191930961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95978962|NCT02137512|191930961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95978963|NCT02137512|191930962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978964|NCT02137512|191930962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978965|NCT02137512|191930962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95978966|NCT02137512|191930963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95978967|NCT02137512|191930963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95978968|NCT02137512|191930963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95978969|NCT02137512|191930964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95978970|NCT02137512|191930964|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978971|NCT02137512|191930964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95978972|NCT02137512|191930965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978973|NCT02137512|191930965|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978974|NCT02137512|191930965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95978975|NCT02137512|191930966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95902776|NCT03893448|191760691|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of V114 to Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.5 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|2.83|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F IgG GMC for Serotype 33F in recipients of V114 was compared to the lowest IgG GMC (Serotype 4 at 1.60 ug/mL) for shared serotype in recipients of Prevnar 13™, excluding serotype 3. GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||2.83|2.36|< 0.001
95902777|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Diphtheria toxoid % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.1|-2.6|< 0.001
95902778|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Tetanus toxoid: % ≥0.1 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.4|< 0.001
95902779|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis toxin (PT): % ≥ 5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.9|-0.7|< 0.001
95902780|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-1.3|< 0.001
95902781|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis fimbrae types 2/3 (FIM 2/3): % ≥20 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||7.1|-3.1|< 0.001
95902782|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Pertussis pertactin (PRN): % ≥5 EU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||6.8|-3.2|< 0.001
95902783|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 1: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.8|-0.7|< 0.001
95902784|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 2: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
95902785|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Poliovirus 3: % NAb ≥1:8 dilution Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.6|-0.6|< 0.001
95978976|NCT02137512|191930966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978977|NCT02137512|191930966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95978978|NCT02137512|191930967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95978979|NCT02137512|191930967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95978980|NCT02137512|191930967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.86
95978981|NCT02137512|191930968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978982|NCT02137512|191930968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978983|NCT02137512|191930968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.74
95902786|NCT03893448|191760692|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Haemophilus influenzae Type B polyribosylribitol phosphate (Hib-PRP): % ≥0.15 ug/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.5|-4.3|< 0.001
95902787|NCT03893448|191760693|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PT GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.89|< 0.001
95902788|NCT03893448|191760693|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FHA GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.09|0.87|< 0.001
95902789|NCT03893448|191760693|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - FIM 2/3 GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.28|0.91|< 0.001
95902790|NCT03893448|191760693|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with V114 to Pentacel™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (V114/Prevnar 13™) being \>0.67 (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Pertussis - PRN GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.19|0.84|< 0.001
95902791|NCT03893448|191760694|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VAQTA™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||p value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||2.2|-1.6|< 0.001
95902792|NCT03893448|191760695|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.3||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Measles antigen ≥255 mIU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||1.3|-1.8|< 0.001
95902793|NCT03893448|191760695|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Mumps antigen ≥10 mumps Ab units/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.2|-3.8|< 0.001
95902794|NCT03893448|191760695|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with V114 to M-M-R™ II administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -5% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Rubella antigen ≥10 IU/mL Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-2.3|< 0.001
95902795|NCT03893448|191760696|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to VARIVAX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||0.5|-3.2|< 0.001
95978984|NCT02137512|191930969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978985|NCT02137512|191930969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978986|NCT02137512|191930969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95978987|NCT02137512|191930970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95978988|NCT02137512|191930970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95978989|NCT02137512|191930970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95978990|NCT02137512|191930971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95978991|NCT02137512|191930971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95978992|NCT02137512|191930971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.62
95978993|NCT02137512|191930972|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95978994|NCT02137512|191930972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95978995|NCT02137512|191930972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95978996|NCT02137512|191930973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95978997|NCT02137512|191930973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95978998|NCT02137512|191930973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95978999|NCT02137512|191930974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95979000|NCT02137512|191930975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95979001|NCT02137512|191930976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95979002|NCT02137512|191930977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95979003|NCT02137512|191930978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95979004|NCT02137512|191930979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95979005|NCT02137512|191930980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95979006|NCT02137512|191930981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95979007|NCT02137512|191930982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95979008|NCT03872453|191930986|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|4.2||||0.1214|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.3|10.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.7|-2.3|0.1214
95979009|NCT03872453|191930986|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.0||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.4|13.7||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.7|0.4|0.0113
95979010|NCT03872453|191930986|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.7||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|98.3|1.1|14.3||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.3|1.1|0.0055
95979011|NCT03872453|191930987|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|5.4||||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.8|13.6||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.6|-2.8|0.1162
95979012|NCT03872453|191930987|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.3||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.1|16.5||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|0.1|0.0155
95979013|NCT03872453|191930987|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|8.9||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.7|17.0||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.0|0.7|0.0094
95979014|NCT03872453|191930988|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.1||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.3|15.4||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.4|-1.3|0.0439
95979015|NCT03872453|191930988|SUPERIORITY|The stratified percentage difference between zavegepant group and placebo was tested at a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of 0.0167.|Stratified Percentage Difference|7.5||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-0.8|15.9||Threshold for significance at 0.0167 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||If the coprimary endpoint tests were both significant for a zavegepant dose group versus placebo, the secondary endpoints were tested for that zavegepant dose group versus placebo using a hierarchical gate-keeping procedure in the order the endpoints are reported, with each test in the hierarchy conducted at alpha = 0.0167. If a test in the hierarchy was not significant, any further tests on endpoints in the sequence were not considered significant for any zavegepant dose group versus placebo.||15.9|-0.8|0.0302
95979016|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.026||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R' and represented in the text as adjusted p-value.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60 years and \>/= 60 years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.026
95979017|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.496||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on adiponectin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||0.496
95902796|NCT03893448|191760697|NON_INFERIORITY|A conclusion of non-inferiority of HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with V114 to HIBERIX™ administered concomitantly with Prevnar 13™ is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentages (V114 - Prevnar 13™) being greater than -10% (1-sided p-value \<0.025).|Percentage Point Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||-0.5|-2.2|< 0.001
95902797|NCT03893448|191760698|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|92.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.47|101.47|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||101.47|83.47|< 0.001
95979018|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on leptin levels was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
95979019|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
95979020|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of age on IGF1 and 2 levels were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (\<60years and \>/=60years) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
95979021|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin, leptin, IGF1 and 2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||>0.05
95979022|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.014||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of adiponectin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.014
95979023|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.006||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of leptin was analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.006
95979024|NCT04697264|191931010|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.019||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||The influence of menopausal status on levels of IGF1 and IGF2 were analysed by dividing the population into binary groups (pre-menopausal and menopausal) to facilitate comparison.||||0.019
95979025|NCT04697264|191931011|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.033||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of LVSI on adiponectin levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of LVSI) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.033
95979026|NCT04697264|191931011|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.||||||0.015||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of MELF on TNF levels were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations (presence and absence of MELF) to facilitate comparisons.||||0.015
95902798|NCT03893448|191760698|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.16|33.26|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||33.26|26.16|< 0.001
95902799|NCT03893448|191760699|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|95.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.1|96.5||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||96.5|93.1|< 0.001
95902800|NCT03893448|191760699|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|85.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|87.7||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.||87.7|82.3|< 0.001
95902801|NCT03893448|191760700|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|68.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.1|75.02|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 22F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||75.02|63.10|< 0.001
95979027|NCT04697264|191931011|OTHER|Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis.|||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||Effects of tumour grade (Grade 1/2), stage (Stage 1/ \>/=1), histology (type 1 and type 2), and MSI (presence or absence) on the biomarker levels (adiponectin, leptin, IGF 1 and 2, IL6 and TNF) were assessed using multivariate linear regression, with binary categorisations to facilitate comparisons.||||>0.05
95979028|NCT04697264|191931012|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.0001
95902802|NCT03893448|191760700|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|44.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.04|49.14|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|Serotype 33F GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||49.14|41.04|< 0.001
95902803|NCT03893448|191760703|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Point Difference|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|19.2||p-value is 1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||V114-Prevnar 13™|Estimated difference, CI, and p-value are based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method||19.2|12.1|< 0.001
95902804|NCT03893448|191760704|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|1.87|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.87|1.61|< 0.001
95902805|NCT03893448|191760705|SUPERIORITY||GMC Ratio (V114 / Prevnar 13™)|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.46|||t-test, 1 sided||V114/Prevnar 13™|GMC ratio, CI, and p-value are calculated using the t-distribution with the variance estimate from a serotype-specific linear model utilizing the natural log-transformed antibody concentrations as the response and a single term for vaccination group.||1.46|1.25|< 0.001
95902806|NCT01070810|191760733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.40
95902807|NCT01070810|191760734|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||Time to shock reversal was complicated by a high incidence of death prior to the event. To account for this we classified death as a competing risk event and used the estimated cumulative incidence function (CIF) to illustrate the comparison of CIFs between the two treatment groups using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. We tested the subdistribution hazards of these two CIF functions and obtained the estimated hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals.||1.62|0.61|0.97
95902808|NCT01070810|191760735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95902809|NCT01070810|191760736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95902810|NCT01070810|191760737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.10
95902811|NCT03056690|191760749|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Week 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (week 8) and treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|LSMean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.07|||MMRM|||||0.07|-0.76|0.086
95902812|NCT03056690|191760755|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.2||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|12.5|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||12.5|-11.9|0.551
95902813|NCT03056690|191760756|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.9||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|19.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||19.1|-5.2|0.202
95902814|NCT03056690|191760757|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|13.8|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||13.8|-10.5|0.451
95902815|NCT03056690|191760758|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.1||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|18.1|||Fisher Exact|CI for each treatment group and the difference of the proportions is an exact unconditional confidence interval based on Santner-Snell approach.||||18.1|-6.2|0.174
95902816|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.235|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.86|1.9||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 2||1.90|-4.86|0.235
95902817|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|0.89||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 4||0.89|-6.84|0.103
95902818|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.154|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.78|1.6||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Function Subscale: Week 8||1.60|-6.78|0.154
95902819|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.238|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.45|1.77||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 2||1.77|-4.45|0.238
95902820|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.22|-0.24||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 4||-0.24|-7.22|0.039
95902821|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.93|0.81||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Symptoms Subscale: Week 8||0.81|-6.93|0.097
95902822|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean DIfference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|0.04||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 2||0.04|-2.03|0.057
95902823|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|-0.29||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 4||-0.29|-2.39|0.018
95902824|NCT03056690|191760759|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|0.3||MMRM analysis model is performed with change from baseline (Weeks 2, 4, and 8) as response; treatment, center (pooled where necessary), time (Weeks 2, 4 and 8), treatment\*time as fixed effects, baseline and baseline\*time as covariates.|MMRM|||Overall Impact Subscale: Week 8||0.30|-2.02|0.111
95902825|NCT03056690|191760760|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.092|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.05|0.75||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Function Subscale||0.75|-7.05|0.092
95902826|NCT03056690|191760760|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.065|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.85|0.28||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Symptoms subscale||0.28|-6.85|0.065
95902827|NCT03056690|191760760|SUPERIORITY||LSMean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.15|-0.01||ANCOVA model is performed with change from baseline at the EOT timepoint as response treatment and center (pooled where necessary) as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall Impact Subscale.||-0.01|-2.15|0.049
95902828|NCT03056690|191760761|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||Likelihood test|||Week 2||2.24|0.91|0.192
95902829|NCT03056690|191760761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|2.07||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihod test|||Week 4||2.07|0.86|0.285
95902830|NCT03056690|191760761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.87||The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test. p-value is for the comparison of ASP0819 15 mg with Placebo from the above described proportional odds model.|Likelihood test|||EOT||1.87|0.78|0.486
95902831|NCT03056690|191760762|SUPERIORITY|The 90% 2-sided CI is based on profile likelihood and 2-sided p-value is based on likelihood test.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|2.05|||Likelihood test|||Week 8||2.05|0.85|0.305
95902832|NCT01944046|191760785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.503||||||not adjusted primary outcome|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline, age category, functionality category||||||0.503
95902833|NCT01944046|191760786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||not adjusted primary outcome, p threshold 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|adjustment for value at week 24,||||||0.61
95902834|NCT00366626|191760818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.32||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|3.69|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by two medication (naltrexone vs placebo) design. The main hypothesis was that the effect of naltrexone (mean naltrexone drinking - placebo drinking) would be greater in the 40asp subjects than in the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis there would be no gene by medication interaction. The mean difference above is then the difference in the size of the naltrexone effect in the two genotypes, equivalent to the interaction.||3.69|-1.85|0.51
95902835|NCT00366626|191760819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.1||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.11|||ANOVA|||This was a 2 gene (asn40asn vs 40asp) by 2 medication (naltrexone vs. placebo)interaction analysis. The main hypothesis was that subjects who had 40asp OPRM1 allele would a greater naltrexone effect on drinking (Placebo - Naltrexxone) than the asn40asn subjects. Thus the null hypothesis was the gene by medication interaction.||4.11|-1.22|0.28
95902836|NCT00153101|191760829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8462||95.0|0.92|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.92|0.8462
95902837|NCT00153101|191760829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.0019||97.5|0.93|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.93|0.0019
95902838|NCT00153101|191760830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9086||95.0|0.93|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.93|0.9086
95902839|NCT00153101|191760830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin was 1.13|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.0004||97.5|0.9|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.90|0.0004
95902840|NCT00153101|191760831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.4535||95.0|0.93|1.17|||Regression, Cox|||||1.17|0.93|0.4535
95902841|NCT00153101|191760831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9421||95.0|0.89|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.89|0.9421
95902842|NCT00153101|191760832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2909||95.0|0.94|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.94|0.2909
95902843|NCT00153101|191760832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2534||95.0|0.94|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.94|0.2534
95902844|NCT00153101|191760833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2248||95.0|0.79|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.79|0.2248
95902845|NCT00153101|191760833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1829||95.0|0.79|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.79|0.1829
95902846|NCT00153101|191760834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4984||95.0|0.82|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.82|0.4984
95902847|NCT00153101|191760834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.1203||95.0|0.97|1.29|||Regression, Cox|||||1.29|0.97|0.1203
95902848|NCT00153101|191760835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.15|||Regression, Cox|||||2.15|0.73|0.4221
95902849|NCT00153101|191760835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.7305||95.0|0.51|1.6|||Regression, Cox|||||1.60|0.51|0.7305
95902850|NCT00153101|191760836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6248||95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Cox|||||1.45|0.54|0.6248
95902851|NCT00153101|191760836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.36|0.0751
95902852|NCT00153101|191760837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3682||95.0|0.63|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.63|0.3682
95902853|NCT00153101|191760837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6014||95.0|0.69|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.69|0.6014
95902854|NCT00153101|191760838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.255||95.0|0.91|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.91|0.2550
95902855|NCT00153101|191760838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.5297||95.0|0.86|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.86|0.5297
95902856|NCT00153101|191760839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.4593||95.0|0.82|1.56|||Regression, Cox|||||1.56|0.82|0.4593
95902857|NCT00153101|191760839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7468||95.0|0.68|1.32|||Regression, Cox|||||1.32|0.68|0.7468
95902858|NCT00153101|191760840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.5461
95902859|NCT00153101|191760840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3436||95.0|0.68|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.68|0.3436
95902860|NCT00153101|191760841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0133||95.0|0.8|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.80|0.0133
95902861|NCT00153101|191760841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1251||95.0|0.84|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.84|0.1251
95902862|NCT00153101|191760842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0213||95.0|0.67|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.67|0.0213
95902863|NCT00153101|191760842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.2396||95.0|0.75|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.75|0.2396
95902864|NCT00153101|191760843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.0111||95.0|0.83|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.83|0.0111
95902865|NCT00153101|191760843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.0606||95.0|0.85|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.85|0.0606
95902866|NCT00153101|191760844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.0082||95.0|1.05|1.35|||Regression, Cox|||||1.35|1.05|0.0082
95902867|NCT00153101|191760844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.2164||95.0|0.95|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.95|0.2164
95902868|NCT00153101|191760845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3732||95.0|0.83|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.83|0.3732
95902869|NCT00153101|191760845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.3633||95.0|0.94|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.94|0.3633
95902870|NCT00153101|191760846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.2713||95.0|0.97|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.97|0.2713
95902871|NCT00153101|191760846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.515||95.0|0.95|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.95|0.5150
95902872|NCT00153101|191760847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3485||95.0|0.77|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.10|0.77|0.3485
95902873|NCT00153101|191760847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.1235||95.0|0.96|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without diabetes at baseline||1.36|0.96|0.1235
95902874|NCT00153101|191760848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.869||95.0|0.89|1.11|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.11|0.89|0.8690
95902875|NCT00153101|191760848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.4337||95.0|0.94|1.17|||Chi-squared|||for subjects with available Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline||1.17|0.94|0.4337
95902876|NCT00153101|191760849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2666||95.0|0.83|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.05|0.83|0.2666
95902877|NCT00153101|191760849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.4784||95.0|0.85|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||for subjects without atrial fibrillation at baseline||1.08|0.85|0.4784
95902878|NCT00153101|191760850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0483||95.0|0.76|1.0|||Regression, Cox|||||1.00|0.76|0.0483
95902879|NCT00153101|191760851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2192||95.0|0.81|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.81|0.2192
95902880|NCT00153101|191760852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7764||95.0|0.85|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.85|0.7764
95902881|NCT00153101|191760853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0574||95.0|0.62|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.62|0.0574
95902882|NCT00153101|191760854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.1365||95.0|0.64|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.64|0.1365
95902883|NCT00153101|191760855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.694||95.0|0.82|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.82|0.6940
95902884|NCT00153101|191760856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.58||||0.0245||95.0|1.06|2.35|||Regression, Cox|||||2.35|1.06|0.0245
95902885|NCT00153101|191760857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5798||95.0|0.36|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.36|0.5798
95902886|NCT00153101|191760858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0006||95.0|0.65|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||||0.89|0.65|0.0006
95902887|NCT00153101|191760859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.0085||95.0|0.48|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.48|0.0085
95902888|NCT00153101|191760860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0015||95.0|0.69|0.92|||Regression, Cox|||||0.92|0.69|0.0015
95902889|NCT00153101|191760861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.39||||0.0101||95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||||1.79|1.08|0.0101
95902890|NCT00153101|191760862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9563||95.0|0.82|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.82|0.9563
95902891|NCT00153101|191760863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.0868||95.0|0.98|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|0.98|0.0868
95902892|NCT00153101|191760864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0172||95.0|0.6|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.60|0.0172
95902893|NCT00153101|191760865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1431||95.0|0.78|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.78|0.1431
95902894|NCT00153101|191760866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8974||95.0|0.81|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.81|0.8974
95902895|NCT01975389|191760875|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.021469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.65|0.021469
95902896|NCT01975389|191760876|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.007597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.93|0.60|0.007597
95902897|NCT01975389|191760877|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.035958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.99|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.99|0.68|0.035958
95902898|NCT01975389|191760878|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.015694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.95|0.64|0.015694
95902899|NCT01975389|191760879|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.814224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.46|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.46|0.62|0.814224
95902900|NCT01975389|191760880|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.018053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.96|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.96|0.65|0.018053
95902901|NCT01975389|191760881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.446033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.50|0.446033
95902902|NCT01975389|191760882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.029977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.97|0.57|0.029977
95902903|NCT01975389|191760883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44||||0.162615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.44|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.44|0.14|0.162615
95902904|NCT01975389|191760884|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.051534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.00|0.59|0.051534
95902905|NCT01975389|191760885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
95902906|NCT01975389|191760886|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.294331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.24|0.50|0.294331
95902907|NCT01975389|191760888|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.104998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.09|0.41|0.104998
95902908|NCT01975389|191760889|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.34|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.34|0.60|0.601200
95902909|NCT01975389|191760890|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.678061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.67|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.67|0.72|0.678061
95902910|NCT01975389|191760891|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.010457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.94|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.94|0.63|0.010457
95902911|NCT01975389|191760892|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.509847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.01|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||2.01|0.71|0.509847
95902912|NCT01975389|191760893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.002981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||0.90|0.58|0.002981
95902913|NCT01975389|191760894|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.748975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.70|0.748975
95979029|NCT04697264|191931013|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||>0.05
95979030|NCT04697264|191931014|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparison were performed using the Benjamini and Hochberg approach in 'R'.|Regression, Linear|||To compare biomarker levels between study and control populations, a linear regression model was used, adjusting for BMI, diabetes, and parity, which are the unmatched factors between the study and control groups. This adjustment aimed to mitigate the confounding impact of these factors, considering their individual influence on the risk of endometrial cancer.||||<0.05
95979031|NCT04697264|191931015|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
95979032|NCT04697264|191931015|OTHER|||||||0.09||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||0.09
95979033|NCT04697264|191931015|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the association between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the study population at baseline."||||>0.05
95979034|NCT04697264|191931016|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between adiponectin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.004
95979035|NCT04697264|191931016|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between leptin and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||0.0002
95979036|NCT04697264|191931016|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Univariate linear regression was initially performed, followed by multivariate regression using the significant associations from the univariate analysis. P value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Regression, Linear|||"The impact of BMI on biomarker levels was assessed by categorising the population into two groups-normal weight and overweight/obese-for straightforward comparison.~Here, we present the associations between IL6, TNFα, IGF1, and IGF2 and the BMI of the control population at baseline."||||>0.05
95979037|NCT04697264|191931017|OTHER|||||||0.0007||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0007
95979038|NCT04697264|191931018|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Leptin levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||>0.05
95979039|NCT04697264|191931018|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF1 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||0.004
95979040|NCT04697264|191931018|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustments to the p-values for multiple comparisons were performed using Benjamini and Hochberg approach on 'R'.|Mixed Models Analysis|||IGF2 levels were compared between the day 0 and 6 months post-operative bloods.||||<0.0001
95979041|NCT04697264|191931020|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.0001
95979042|NCT04697264|191931020|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin and their receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||<0.05
95979043|NCT04697264|191931020|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin receptors were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and fat tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
95979044|NCT04697264|191931021|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of adiponectin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymph node tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.0002
95979045|NCT04697264|191931021|OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Expression of leptin was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.011
95979046|NCT04697264|191931021|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of IL6 receptor (IL6R) was studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||0.009
95979047|NCT04697264|191931021|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The expression of adiponectin receptor, leptin receptor, IGF1 and IGF 2 receptors, IL6, TNF, IGF1 and IGF2 were studied in endometrial cancer tissue and lymphnode tissue using qRT-PCR.||||>0.05
95979048|NCT04697264|191931022|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating adiponectin levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using correlation studies.||||>0.05
95979049|NCT04697264|191931023|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating leptin, IGF1 and IGF2 levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
95979050|NCT04697264|191931024|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation test|||Circulating IL6 and TNF levels and the expression of these markers and their receptors in endometrial tissue were compared using Pearson's correlation studies.||||>0.05
95979051|NCT01448213|191931028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.17
95979052|NCT01448213|191931029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0005
95979053|NCT03503513|191931033|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.2|||differences in incidence rate ratio|An incidence rate ratio per person/month was determined by comparing the total number of UTIs in relation to time points.||comparison between pre and during treatment rates of UTI||0.20|0.03|<0.0001
95854191|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.781||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.195|1.366|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.366|0.195|0.0091
95979054|NCT03503513|191931034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13|<|0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.3||a priori threshold p value of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Baseline to end of 6 month treatment score comparisons; (higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for incontinence pre-post comparison; small sample size did not allow for power calculation.||0.3|-7.9|<0.06
95979055|NCT03503513|191931034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.09|<|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7||a priori threshold p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||(higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications)|NBSS Domain score for storage and voiding; pre-post comparison. Due to small sample size (n=11) no power calculations were conducted.||1.7|-3.8|<0.39
95979056|NCT03503513|191931034|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.99|<|0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Higher numbers represent more symptoms or complications referred as consequences.|Pre and post test comparisons of mean NBSS scores for the consequences domain. Power calculations were not conducted due to small sample size.||0.8|-4.6|<0.14
95979057|NCT03503513|191931035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.99|<|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-6.8|<0.34
95979058|NCT01621230|191931087|OTHER|The median (first and third quartile) lengths of the second stage of labor were estimated at 28min (15, 58) in women without epidural analgesia. Assuming a one-third increase in the length of the second stage to 37min due to epidural bupivacaine, a sample size of 155 per arm (310 total) was required for 80% power to detect such a difference using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test.||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95979059|NCT01621230|191931090|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.55
95979060|NCT01621230|191931091|OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.57
95979061|NCT00733304|191931113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.362|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.31||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||2.31|-3.18|
95979062|NCT00733304|191931113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.659|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|-0.46||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||-0.46|-7.13|
95979063|NCT00733304|191931113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|-0.78||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus screening visit||-0.78|-7.52|
95979064|NCT00733304|191931113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.53||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms etc.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus screening visit||0.53|-7.53|
95902914|NCT01975389|191760895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.626157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.32|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were obtained from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and complete statin intolerance with treatment as a covariate.||1.32|0.63|0.626157
95902915|NCT01975389|191760896|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.91|-55.89|||MMRM|||Least square (LS) mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-55.89|-57.91|<0.001
95902916|NCT01975389|191760897|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-73.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.11|-72.5|||MMRM|||LS mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-72.50|-75.11|<0.001
95902917|NCT01975389|191760898|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-39.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.55|-38.06|||ANCOVA|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-38.06|-40.55|<0.001
95979065|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|42.29||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||For Month 1 versus Screening visit||42.29|-25.72|
95979066|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.177|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.73|33.31||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||33.31|-35.73|
95979067|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.08|30.86||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||30.86|-41.08|
95979068|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|28.0||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||28.00|-47.83|
95979069|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.996|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|40.33||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||40.33|-35.50|
95979070|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.931|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|51.2||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 1 versus Screening visit||51.20|-33.09|
95979071|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.05|41.57||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 2 versus Screening visit||41.57|-44.05|
95979072|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|59.06||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 3 versus Screening visit||59.06|-28.28|
95979073|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.183|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.28|27.63||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 4 versus Screening visit||27.63|-61.28|
95979074|NCT00733304|191931114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.83|41.51||ANCOVA model was used to perform statistical analysis based on treatment, visit, fixed effect terms, Baseline OCT central subfield as covariate, and participant within treatment as a random effect term.|ANCOVA|||Month 5 versus Screening visit||41.51|-45.83|
95979075|NCT00537485|191931140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-3.7|0.002
95979076|NCT00537485|191931141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||44.6|16.7|<0.001
95979077|NCT00537485|191931141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|26.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|40.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||40.2|12.0|<0.001
95902918|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.81|-50.94|||MMRM|||Non-HDLC: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.94|-52.81|<0.001
95902919|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-16.86|||MMRM|||VLDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-16.86|-19.96|<0.001
95902920|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-29.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.44|-26.96|||MMRM|||RLP-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-26.96|-31.44|<0.001
95902921|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-51.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.37|-50.42|||MMRM|||Apo B: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-50.42|-52.37|<0.001
95902922|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|7.5|||MMRM|||HDL-C: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||7.50|6.33|<0.001
95902923|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|4.9|||MMRM|||Apo A-I: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||4.90|3.90|<0.001
95979078|NCT01601847|191931150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.94|||Poisson|Poisson regression using GEE with robust variance estimation (e.g. Zou, American Journal Epidemiology, 2004)||||0.94|0.47|0.02
95902924|NCT01975389|191760899|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-37.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-37.22|||MMRM|||Total cholesterol: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and complete statin intolerance.||-37.22|-38.75|<0.001
95902925|NCT01975389|191760900|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.83|||MMRM|||Triglycerides: LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.83|0.81|<0.001
95902926|NCT01975389|191760900|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.69|||MMRM|||Lp(a): LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the Difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance. The 95% CI was derived by exponentiating the LS-mean difference confidence interval from the log scale.||0.69|0.67|<0.001
95902927|NCT01975389|191760901|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.09|||MMRM|||LS-mean differences, associated 95% CI and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and complete statin intolerance.||1.09|1.02|0.002
95902928|NCT00360334|191760902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.71|||<|0.001||95.0|2.62|8.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the primary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the primary outcome||8.46|2.62|<0.001
95979079|NCT01601847|191931150|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.522||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.897|||logistic regression with GEE|||||0.897|0.304|0.0185
95979080|NCT01601847|191931151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For secondary outcomes, GEE is used to assess randomization arm association.||||0.228
95979081|NCT01601847|191931152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.798
95979082|NCT04464265|191931165|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = BOLD Response During Sedation - BOLD Response During Baseline|The null hypothesis is no difference in BOLD response between sedated state and baseline. For an fMRI study of cognitive function, Desmond and Glover (J. Neurosci. Methods., 2002) reported that about 25 subjects are necessary to achieve 80% power for a 0.5% increase of activity. We analyzed 27 subjects that fulfilled the suggested optimal group size for reliable statistics in functional MRI studies (also see Thirion et al., Neuroimage, 2007).||||<0.001
95902929|NCT00360334|191760903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001||95.0|3.11|10.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||10.64|3.11|<0.001
95979083|NCT04464265|191931166|OTHER|Our study adopted a within-subject design, which is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The P-value below indicates if propofol administration has a statistically significant impact on the brain activity in response to sensory stimuli.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, as only one comparison was performed.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = Squeeze Pressure During Sedation - Squeeze Pressure During Baseline|||||<0.001
95902930|NCT00360334|191760904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95902931|NCT00360334|191760905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.28||95.0|0.44|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.26|0.44|0.280
95902932|NCT00360334|191760906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.191||95.0|0.42|1.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.19|0.42|0.191
95902933|NCT00360334|191760907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.363||95.0|0.66|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||3.07|0.66|0.363
95979084|NCT01063829|191931167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95979085|NCT01063829|191931167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95979086|NCT01063829|191931167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
95902934|NCT00360334|191760909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95902935|NCT00360334|191760910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95902936|NCT00360334|191760911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95902937|NCT00360334|191760912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95902938|NCT00360334|191760913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||||<0.001
95902939|NCT00360334|191760914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.91||||0.001||95.0|3.7|210.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||210.54|3.70|0.001
95979087|NCT01063829|191931168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95979088|NCT01063829|191931168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.126
95979089|NCT01063829|191931168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.148
95979090|NCT01063829|191931169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95979091|NCT01063829|191931169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95979092|NCT01063829|191931169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.321
95979093|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.225|0.766|||||LS mean and confidence interval (CI) were based on back log-transformation of those from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.|||0.766|0.225|
95979094|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.187|0.446|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||0.446|0.187|
95979095|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.517|1.203|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.203|0.517|
95902940|NCT00360334|191760916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.014
95902941|NCT00360334|191760917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||||0.100
95902942|NCT00360334|191760918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.125
95902943|NCT00360334|191760919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.471||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.471
95902944|NCT00360334|191760920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.601||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.601
95902945|NCT00360334|191760921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.650
95979096|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.794|1.949|||||LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|||1.949|0.794|
95979097|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.7||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.329|1.472|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.472|0.329|0.5320
95902946|NCT00360334|191760922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95902947|NCT00360334|191760923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.667
95902948|NCT00360334|191760924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.675||||0.139||95.0|0.401|1.136|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||1.136|0.401|0.139
95902949|NCT00360334|191760925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.317||||0.001||95.0|0.159|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||0.630|0.159|0.001
95902950|NCT00360334|191760926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.716||95.0|0.235|2.705|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio (OR) = odds of a patient in the exenatide arm achieving the secondary outcome divided by the odds of a patient in the insulin glargine arm achieving the secondary outcome||2.705|0.235|0.716
95902951|NCT00360334|191760927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.113
95902952|NCT00360334|191760928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||<0.001
95902953|NCT00360334|191760929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||ANCOVA on ranks|||||||0.740
95902954|NCT02752048|191760952|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.378||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.757|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.000|-6.757|0.596
95902955|NCT02752048|191760952|OTHER|Change in time to rise from the floor from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.349||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|4.918|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.918|-2.220|0.433
95902956|NCT02752048|191760953|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.484||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|0.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.650|-1.618|0.382
95902957|NCT02752048|191760953|OTHER|Change in 10-m walk/run test from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.397||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.817|-1.610|0.501
95902958|NCT02752048|191760954|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.363|1.298|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.298|-2.363|0.549
95902959|NCT02752048|191760954|OTHER|Change in time to up and go from baseline to Week 24 were calculated to evaluate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.225||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.801|1.351|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.351|-1.801|0.767
95902960|NCT04286594|191761003|OTHER|Change in single group over time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.667|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.051|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.457|14.876|||t-test, 1 sided|||||14.876|8.457|<0.001
95902961|NCT01162005|191761112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95902962|NCT04564833|191761122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95902963|NCT04564833|191761122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95902964|NCT04564833|191761123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3954|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3954
95902965|NCT04564833|191761123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0682|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0682
95902966|NCT04564833|191761124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6755|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6755
95902967|NCT04564833|191761124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6758|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6758
95902968|NCT04564833|191761125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
95902969|NCT04564833|191761125|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9999
95979098|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|4.013|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||4.013|0.900|0.2700
95979099|NCT01284062|191931170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|3.0||||0.0666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.403|6.409|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||6.409|1.403|0.0666
95979100|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.466|1.048||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.048|0.466|
95979101|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.552|1.185||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.185|0.552|
95979102|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.488|1.027||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.027|0.488|
95979103|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.195||||||Week 2: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.195|0.500|
95902970|NCT01172938|191761126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for baseline disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||28.3|9.7|0.0001
95902971|NCT01172938|191761126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the CMH weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|In order to maintain the Type 1 error at the 0.05 significance level, the Hochberg procedure was to be used. The results of the endpoint were to be considered statistically significant if both the 30 mg apremilast dose versus placebo comparison and the 20 mg versus placebo comparison were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level, or one of the comparisons was statistically significant at the 0.025 level.||20.4|2.2|0.0166
95902972|NCT01172938|191761127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.159||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|-0.06|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.060|-0.258|0.0017
95979104|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.631|1.328||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.328|0.631|
95979105|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.339|0.655||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.655|0.339|
95979106|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.669|1.269||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.269|0.669|
95902973|NCT01172938|191761127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.113||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|-0.014|||ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||Pairwise comparisons (30 mg vs placebo and 20 mg vs placebo) were conducted conditional on the primary endpoint results. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant for both apremilast dose groups, pairwise comparisons for the HAQ-DI were to be evaluated at the 0.05 level using the Hochberg procedure. If only one apremilast dose was statistically significant, then only the comparison between that apremilast dose and placebo was conducted for the HAQ-DI score, at the 0.025 level.||-0.014|-0.211|0.0252
95902974|NCT01172938|191761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|30.9||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||30.9|13.4|<0.0001
95902975|NCT01172938|191761128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|20.7||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||20.7|4.2|0.0038
95902976|NCT01172938|191761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|-0.08||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.080|-0.283|0.0005
95979107|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.388|0.779||||||Week 4: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.779|0.388|
95979108|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.454|1.331||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.331|0.454|
95979109|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.236|0.553||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.553|0.236|
95979110|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.757|1.722||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.722|0.757|
95979111|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.338|0.788||||||Week 8: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.788|0.338|
95979112|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.374|1.084||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.084|0.374|
95979113|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.122|0.297||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||0.297|0.122|
95979114|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.623|1.465||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.465|0.623|
95979115|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.411|1.076||||||Week 12: LS mean and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.||1.076|0.411|
95979116|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.16||||0.7352|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.663|2.021|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.021|0.663|0.7352
95979117|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9754|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.586|1.753|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.753|0.586|0.9754
95979118|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.11||||0.8277|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.609|2.008|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 2: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.008|0.609|0.8277
95979119|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.51||||0.0885|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.313|0.846|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.846|0.313|0.0885
95979120|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.01||||0.9856|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.617|1.644|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.644|0.617|0.9856
95979121|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.6||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.361|1.0|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 4: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.000|0.361|0.1996
95979122|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.46||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.233|0.926|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.926|0.233|0.1553
95979123|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.47||||0.4633|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.748|2.882|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.882|0.748|0.4633
95979124|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.66||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.335|1.316|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 8: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||1.316|0.335|0.4409
95979125|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|0.3||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.15|0.598|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||0.598|0.150|0.0283
95979126|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.5||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.758|2.97|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.970|0.758|0.4434
95902977|NCT01172938|191761129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.135||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|-0.034||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.034|-0.236|0.0091
95902978|NCT01172938|191761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.42||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||4.13|0.71|0.0056
95902979|NCT01172938|191761130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||3.40|-0.00|0.0504
95902980|NCT01172938|191761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.7||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|26.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The 2-sided p-value is based on the CMH test adjusting for baseline DMARD use.|Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.6|0.0017
95902981|NCT01172938|191761131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|18.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||18.9|-1.2|
95902982|NCT01172938|191761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-2.8||Secondary endpoints from the placebo-controlled period (Weeks 16 and 24) were analyzed in a hierarchical fashion to control the Type I error rate as described above.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-2.8|-12.9|0.0023
95902983|NCT01172938|191761132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.7|-10.8|
95902984|NCT01172938|191761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.2|
95902985|NCT01172938|191761133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
95902986|NCT01172938|191761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.4|-1.1|
95902987|NCT01172938|191761134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.3|
95902988|NCT01172938|191761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-2.34|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.34|-7.41|
95902989|NCT01172938|191761135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-4.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|-1.86|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.86|-6.92|
95902990|NCT01172938|191761136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.31|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.31|-0.76|
95902991|NCT01172938|191761136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.25|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.25|-0.70|
95979127|NCT01284062|191931177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio|1.04||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.51|2.141|||ANCOVA||LS mean ratio and CI were based on back log-transformation of those from the ANCOVA model.|Week 12: P-value was calculated from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group, baseline (in log scale).||2.141|0.510|0.9372
95902992|NCT01172938|191761137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.23|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.23|0.43|
95902993|NCT01172938|191761137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.03|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.03|-1.77|
95902994|NCT01172938|191761138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|3.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|5.4|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||5.40|1.72|
95902995|NCT01172938|191761138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.88|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||3.88|0.21|
95902996|NCT01172938|191761139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|34.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||34.0|15.2|
95902997|NCT01172938|191761139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|3.4|
95902998|NCT01172938|191761140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.7|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-5.7|-15.4|
95902999|NCT01172938|191761140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-2.2|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-2.2|-12.0|
95903000|NCT01172938|191761141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.0|-1.6|
95903001|NCT01172938|191761141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.6|
95903002|NCT01172938|191761142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.3|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.3|-1.2|
95979128|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|25.53|59.81|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||59.81|25.53|
95979129|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|43.59|74.43|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||74.43|43.59|
95979130|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|34.74|65.26|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||65.26|34.74|
95979131|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|6.58|31.96|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||31.96|6.58|
95979132|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|18.33||||0.4495|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.13|39.98|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||39.98|-6.13|0.4495
95979133|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|8.33||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.37|30.54|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||30.54|-15.37|0.7177
95979134|NCT01284062|191931182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-26.28||||0.2016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-46.45|-3.15|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-3.15|-46.45|0.2016
95979135|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|7.14|34.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||34.22|7.14|
95979136|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|20.08|49.88|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||49.88|20.08|
95979137|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|18.75|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.4|33.92|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||33.92|9.40|
95979138|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.0|11.22|||||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|||11.22|0.00|
95979139|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|16.67||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.33|35.76|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||35.76|-5.33|0.4082
95979140|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|2.08||||1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.8|19.99|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||19.99|-17.80|1.0000
95979141|NCT01284062|191931183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-16.67||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-34.22|-1.95|||Fisher Exact||CI was assessed by Wilson score method.|Two-sided p-value was calculated by Fisher's exact test.||-1.95|-34.22|0.2200
95979142|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.332|-0.3||||||||-0.300|-2.332|
95979143|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.19|-1.374||||||||-1.374|-3.190|
95979144|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.178|-1.419||||||||-1.419|-3.178|
95979145|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.761|0.19||||||||0.190|-1.761|
95979146|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.3639|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.335|0.403|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.403|-2.335|0.3639
95979147|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.98||||0.3446|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.32|0.355|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||0.355|-2.320|0.3446
95903003|NCT01172938|191761142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||0.1|-1.5|
95903004|NCT01172938|191761143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-6.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.75|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-3.75|-9.00|
95903005|NCT01172938|191761143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|-4.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|-1.79|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-1.79|-7.03|
95903006|NCT01172938|191761144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.46|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.46|-0.94|
95903007|NCT01172938|191761144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.22|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||-0.22|-0.70|
95903008|NCT01172938|191761145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean Difference|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.1|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||4.10|0.32|
95903009|NCT01172938|191761145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean DIfference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.29|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and baseline DMARD use as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.|||2.29|-1.50|
95979148|NCT01284062|191931184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53||||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.884|1.945|||ANCOVA|||P-value was analyzed from ANCOVA model with terms for treatment group and baseline.||1.945|-0.884|0.6285
95979149|NCT05696236|191931239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95979150|NCT05696236|191931240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95979151|NCT05696236|191931241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95979152|NCT05341700|191931243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of PINP between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.246
95979153|NCT05341700|191931244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of CTX between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.714
95979154|NCT05341700|191931245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.309
95979155|NCT05341700|191931246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of IGF1 between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.308
95979156|NCT05341700|191931247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ferritin between RUN and RUN+J.||||0.207
95979157|NCT01372410|191931262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Day 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
95979158|NCT01372410|191931262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Pooled Day 7 and 8 analysis.|Wald Test|||||||<0.0001
95979159|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.058|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.168|0.058|<0.001
95979160|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.158|0.045|<0.001
95979161|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.068|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.179|0.068|<0.001
95979162|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|0.239|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.239|0.127|<0.001
95979163|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.182|0.069|<0.001
95979164|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.139|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|0.083|<0.001
95979165|NCT01372410|191931263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.045|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.157|0.045|<0.001
95979166|NCT02178553|191931352|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.8|-0.1|0.142
95979167|NCT02178553|191931353|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.101
95979168|NCT02178553|191931354|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9|0.4|0.014
95979169|NCT02178553|191931355|NON_INFERIORITY|We determined that a difference of 1 unit between groups would be the bound for non-inferiorty.|Confidence Interval|1.0||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.0|-0.3|0.375
95979170|NCT04561765|191931413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.051
95979171|NCT04561765|191931413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.206
95979172|NCT04561765|191931413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge||||0.765
95979173|NCT04561765|191931413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at follow-up.||||0.991
95979174|NCT04561765|191931413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.963
95979175|NCT04561765|191931413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P values at discharge.||||0.916
95979176|NCT04561765|191931414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.005
95979177|NCT04561765|191931414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.270
95854192|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.664||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|1.167|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.167|0.161|0.0098
95903010|NCT01172938|191761146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|16.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.7|-10.1|
95903011|NCT01172938|191761146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|21.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.1|-6.5|
95903012|NCT01172938|191761147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|19.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.3|-13.4|
95903013|NCT01172938|191761147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-9.1|
95903014|NCT01172938|191761148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|29.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||29.3|9.0|
95903015|NCT01172938|191761148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|26.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.8|6.4|
95903016|NCT01172938|191761149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|26.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.5|-0.1|
95903017|NCT01172938|191761149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|25.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||25.0|-2.4|
95903018|NCT01172938|191761150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|24.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.6|-6.8|
95979178|NCT04561765|191931414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.177
95903019|NCT01172938|191761150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|24.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||24.2|-8.7|
95979179|NCT04561765|191931414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P Value at follow-up.||||0.300
95979180|NCT04561765|191931414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.996
95979181|NCT04561765|191931414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.334|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.334
95979182|NCT04561765|191931416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.212
95979183|NCT04561765|191931416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.965|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.965
95979184|NCT04561765|191931416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.294
95979185|NCT04561765|191931416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.207
95979186|NCT04561765|191931416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.158
95979187|NCT04561765|191931416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.988
95979188|NCT04561765|191931418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.295
95979189|NCT04561765|191931418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.718|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.718
95979190|NCT04561765|191931418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.738
95903020|NCT01172938|191761151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|35.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||35.5|17.1|
95903021|NCT01172938|191761151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|23.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.1|5.4|
95903022|NCT01172938|191761152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.8|3.7|
95903023|NCT01172938|191761152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|16.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.0|3.0|
95903024|NCT01172938|191761153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||6.5|-0.4|
95903025|NCT01172938|191761153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|8.7|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.7|0.8|
95903026|NCT01172938|191761154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|14.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|21.5|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||21.5|8.3|
95979191|NCT04561765|191931418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.797|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.797
95979192|NCT04561765|191931418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.260
95903027|NCT01172938|191761154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|16.1|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||16.1|4.0|
95903028|NCT01172938|191761155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|14.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.2|4.8|
95903029|NCT01172938|191761155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|8.3|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||8.3|1.2|
95903030|NCT01172938|191761156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|17.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||17.9|-2.8|
95903031|NCT01172938|191761156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|23.0|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||23.0|0.8|
95903032|NCT01172938|191761157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|14.8|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||14.8|-17.7|
95903033|NCT01172938|191761157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|19.6|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||19.6|-14.8|
95903034|NCT01172938|191761158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|28.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||28.2|6.6|
95979193|NCT04561765|191931418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.616|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.616
95979194|NCT04561765|191931419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.333
95979195|NCT04561765|191931419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.003
95979196|NCT04561765|191931419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.106
95979197|NCT04561765|191931419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.541
95903035|NCT01172938|191761158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|27.9|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||27.9|5.6|
95903036|NCT01172938|191761159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.4|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||22.4|-10.7|
95979198|NCT04561765|191931419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.202
95903037|NCT01172938|191761159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|26.2|||||Adjusted difference is the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of baseline DMARD use with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. The 2-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.|||26.2|-8.5|
95979199|NCT04561765|191931419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.791|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.791
95979200|NCT04561765|191931420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.026
95979201|NCT04561765|191931420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.15
95979202|NCT04561765|191931420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.745
95979203|NCT04561765|191931420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.021
95979204|NCT04561765|191931420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.155
95979205|NCT04561765|191931420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.652
95979206|NCT04561765|191931421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.343
95903038|NCT01485861|191761242|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.1606|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.56|0.1606
95903039|NCT01485861|191761242|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.2|||Log Rank|||||1.20|0.66|0.5300
95979207|NCT04561765|191931421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.995
95979208|NCT04561765|191931421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at discharge.||||0.371
95979209|NCT04561765|191931421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.228
95979210|NCT04561765|191931421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||P value at follow-up.||||0.282
95979211|NCT04561765|191931421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.986
95979212|NCT04561765|191931422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.421
95979213|NCT04561765|191931422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|Reported p-values are based on Tukey's HSD post-hoc adjustment to one-way ANOVA.||||||0.556
95979214|NCT03471871|191931439|OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.36||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.07||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.07|-0.78|0.099
95979215|NCT03471871|191931439|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.14||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||0.14|-0.72|0.176
95979216|NCT03471871|191931440|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.83||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.83|-1.95|0.948
95979217|NCT03471871|191931441|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.76||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.76|-1.72|0.639
95979218|NCT03471871|191931441|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.08||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||1.08|-3.40|0.297
95979219|NCT03471871|191931442|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.17||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|AHI was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||||2.17|-2.22|0.979
95979220|NCT03471871|191931443|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.185||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.405||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<90%||0.405|-0.034|0.095
95979221|NCT03471871|191931443|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.245||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.464||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||When SpO2 is \<90%||0.464|0.025|0.030
95979222|NCT03471871|191931443|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.067||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.067|-0.058|0.885
95979223|NCT03471871|191931443|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.044||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.107||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<85%||0.107|-0.018|0.158
95979224|NCT03471871|191931443|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.005||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.005|-0.002|0.462
95979225|NCT03471871|191931443|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.006||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||SpO2 is \<80%||0.006|-0.001|0.166
95979226|NCT03471871|191931445|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.46||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.46|-0.31|0.699
95979227|NCT03471871|191931445|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.61||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: Mean SpO2 during TST||0.61|-0.11|0.169
95903040|NCT01485861|191761242|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (prostate-specific antigen \[PSA\] only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.54|0.1689
95903041|NCT01485861|191761242|SUPERIORITY|Strata are: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.69|0.7484
95903042|NCT01485861|191761243|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.22|0.0064
95903043|NCT01485861|191761243|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.83|||Log Rank|||||0.83|0.25|0.0285
95903044|NCT01485861|191761261|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.62|0.4170
95903045|NCT01485861|191761261|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.3|||Log Rank|||||1.30|0.67|0.6712
95903046|NCT01485861|191761261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.27|0.62|0.5164
95903047|NCT01485861|191761261|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.44|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.44|0.72|0.8955
95903048|NCT01485861|191761262|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.33|0.1472
95903049|NCT01485861|191761262|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.87|||Log Rank|||||0.87|0.23|0.0157
95903050|NCT01485861|191761265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.97|||Log Rank|||||0.97|0.51|= 0.0665
95903051|NCT01485861|191761265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||=|0.9319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.33|||Log Rank|||||1.33|0.73|= 0.9319
95903052|NCT01485861|191761265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||=|0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.97|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior Enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||0.97|0.50|= 0.0710
95903053|NCT01485861|191761265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.789|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.31|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.31|0.70|= 0.7890
95903054|NCT01485861|191761266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||=|0.2906|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.37|= 0.2906
95903055|NCT01485861|191761266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||=|0.2716|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.22|||Log Rank|||||1.22|0.35|= 0.2716
95979228|NCT03471871|191931446|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.312||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.558|1.181||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<90%||1.181|-0.558|0.472
95979229|NCT03471871|191931446|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.067||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.258||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<85%||0.258|-0.124|0.479
95979230|NCT03471871|191931446|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.023||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 1: SpO2 is \<80%||0.023|-0.019|0.852
95979231|NCT03471871|191931446|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.088||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.431|0.607||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<90%||0.607|-0.431|0.733
95979232|NCT03471871|191931446|OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.228||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: When SpO2 is \<85%||0.228|-0.117|0.518
95979233|NCT03471871|191931446|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.006||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.026||P-Value was at the 0.05 level of significance.|mixed effect model|SPO2 was analyzed by mixed effect model, which included fixed effects for sequence, period, treatment a random effect for participant within sequence.||Day 8: SpO2 is \<80%||0.026|-0.015|0.576
95979234|NCT00866697|191931448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.911||The P-value from the stratified log-rank test was adjusted for the two stratification factors.|Log Rank||The Hazard Ratio was estimated using a Pike estimator.|||0.911|0.643|0.0021
95979235|NCT00866697|191931449|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.145|||Log Rank|Stratified Log-Rank P-Value.|"The HR was estimated using a Pike estimator.~CIs were estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method."|||1.145|0.805|0.6431
95903056|NCT01485861|191761267|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|1.97|||=|0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.25|14.18|||Chi-squared|||||14.18|-10.25|= 0.7913
95903057|NCT01485861|191761267|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Difference in response rates|-1.22|||=|0.8675|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.24|10.8|||Chi-squared|||||10.80|-13.24|= 0.8675
95903058|NCT01485861|191761268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|11.43|||=|0.4176|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.43|58.32|||Chi-squared|||||58.32|-11.43|= 0.4176
95903059|NCT01485861|191761268|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|15.43|||=|0.2802|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.58|38.44|||Chi-squared|||||38.44|-7.58|= 0.2802
95903060|NCT01485861|191761269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|9.58|||=|0.3646|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.65|26.8|||Chi-squared|||||26.80|-7.65|= 0.3646
95903061|NCT01485861|191761269|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|0.22|||=|0.9821|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.89|16.33|||Chi-squared|||||16.33|-15.89|= 0.9821
95903062|NCT01485861|191761270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-3.17|||=|0.8489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.93|24.58|||Chi-squared|||||24.58|-30.93|= 0.8489
95903063|NCT01485861|191761270|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|12.38|||=|0.5186|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.36|41.12|||Chi-squared|||||41.12|-16.36|= 0.5186
95903064|NCT01485861|191761271|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|3.8|||Log Rank|||||3.80|0.45|= 0.6780
95903065|NCT01485861|191761271|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||=|0.8372|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.24|3.02|||Log Rank|||||3.02|0.24|= 0.8372
95903066|NCT01485861|191761271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.7733|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|3.5|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||3.50|0.17|= 0.7733
95903067|NCT01485861|191761271|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.46|||=|0.4227|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|16.59|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||16.59|0.36|= 0.4227
95903068|NCT01485861|191761272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.3173|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.3173
95903069|NCT01485861|191761272|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|999.99|||=|0.6171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0||NA = Not estimable due to limited number of events observed||Log Rank||\>||||0.00|= 0.6171
95903070|NCT01485861|191761273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|3.75|||=|0.6652|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.47|17.97|||Chi-squared|||||17.97|-10.47|= 0.6652
95903071|NCT01485861|191761273|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|7.48|||=|0.3734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.29|21.24|||Chi-squared|||||21.24|-6.29|= 0.3734
95903072|NCT01485861|191761274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
95903073|NCT01485861|191761274|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|4.41|||=|0.7633|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.76|28.58|||Chi-squared|||||28.58|-19.76|= 0.7633
95903074|NCT01485861|191761275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|2.24|||=|0.8317|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.07|19.54|||Chi-squared|||||19.54|-15.07|= 0.8317
95903075|NCT01485861|191761275|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|5.14|||=|0.6139|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.6|21.88|||Chi-squared|||||21.88|-11.60|= 0.6139
95903076|NCT01485861|191761276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|34.85|||=|0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.14|62.56|||Chi-squared|||||62.56|7.14|= 0.0505
95903077|NCT01485861|191761276|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|-9.6|||=|0.4989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.54|13.35|||Chi-squared|||||13.35|-32.54|= 0.4989
95903078|NCT01485861|191761279|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.8483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.47|||Log Rank|||||1.47|0.61|= 0.8483
95903079|NCT01485861|191761279|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.65|||Log Rank|||||1.65|0.70|= 0.7850
95903080|NCT01485861|191761279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.8847|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.65|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.65|0.66|= 0.8847
95903081|NCT01485861|191761279|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||=|0.8647|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.63|||Log Rank|||Strata were: prior enzalutamide (Yes vs. No), progression factor (PSA only vs. other), and number of prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (one vs. more than one).||1.63|0.67|= 0.8647
95903082|NCT01485861|191761280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||=|0.8271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.39|= 0.8271
95903083|NCT01485861|191761280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||=|0.7383|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|2.02|||Log Rank|||||2.02|0.35|= 0.7383
95903084|NCT04289753|191761349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.69||||||||0.69|0.46|
95903085|NCT04289753|191761350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
95903086|NCT04289753|191761351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.0||||||||1.0|0.70|
95903087|NCT01242527|191761385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.68||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-2.89||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.89|-40.70|0.005
95903088|NCT01242527|191761385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-21.19||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.32|-2.29||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-2.29|-40.32|0.007
95903089|NCT01242527|191761385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Placebo adjusted % change from baseline|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|-8.38||P-value adjusted with Dunnett's procedure for multiple comparisons of Epanova vs olive oil|ANCOVA p-value on ranked data|ANCOVA model with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|ANCOVA on log-scale TG with baseline value as covariate, and treatment and user/non-user of lipid-altering drugs as factors|||-8.38|-45.12|<0.001
95903090|NCT03169153|191761470|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects repeated measures|||||||<0.0001
95909262|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.575||0.8601|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.84|0.64||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.64|-0.84|0.8601
95903091|NCT00439777|191761471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events will give a power of 90% to demonstrate that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided alpha=0.05). The mean overall incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and therefore 1465 patients per group would be needed. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2067||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.68|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.68|0.75|0.0026
95903092|NCT00439777|191761472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.56||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox||The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.||1.56|0.86|0.33
95903093|NCT00439777|191761473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.14|0.63|0.275
95903094|NCT00439777|191761474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.93|0.70|0.55
95903095|NCT00439777|191761475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3289||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.79|0.49|0.85
95979236|NCT00447382|191931475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.04||||0.649||95.0|0.86|1.26|||ANOVA|Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data).|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|"Null hypothesis:Treatment with detemir produced with the NN729 process result in a similar change in cross reacting antibody levels as the NN304 process. Alternative hypothesis: change in antibody levels differ after treatment with detemir produced by the two manufacturing processes.~The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA."||1.26|0.86|0.649
95979237|NCT00447382|191931477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.03||||0.758||95.0|-0.21|0.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.15|-0.21|0.758
95979238|NCT00447382|191931478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated treatment difference|-0.1||||0.812||95.0|-0.89|0.7|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as covariate.|The estimated treatment difference calculated is the NN729-NN304 treatment difference for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this difference was also calculated|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA.||0.7|-0.89|0.812
95979239|NCT00447382|191931480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|0.93||||0.15||95.0|0.84|1.03|||ANOVA|Adjustments:Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.03|0.84|0.15
95979240|NCT00447382|191931481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Ratio|1.0||||0.966||95.0|0.87|1.15|||ANOVA|Adjustments: Treatment, previous insulin detemir exposure and country as fixed effects and the baseline value as a covariate. (Log transformed data)|The treatment ratio calculated is the NN729-NN304 ratio for the change from baseline to Week 52. The 95% confidence interval for this ratio was also calculated.|The statistical analysis applies to the change from baseline to week 52 which was analysed using ANOVA. The analysis was based on an assumption of a log-normal distribution for antibody data and was thus built on log-transformed data.||1.15|0.87|0.966
95979241|NCT02673619|191931500|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.1|75.1||||||||75.1|-21.1|
95979242|NCT02673619|191931500|OTHER||Percentage difference|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.2|59.2||||||||59.2|-10.2|
95979243|NCT02673619|191931501|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-59.7|32.0||||||||32.0|-59.7|
95979244|NCT02673619|191931501|OTHER||Percentage Difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.8|52.1||||||||52.1|-18.8|
95979245|NCT02673619|191931505|OTHER||Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.0|59.7||||||||59.7|-32.0|
95903096|NCT00439777|191761476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08756||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||If the primary efficacy analysis shows that rivaroxaban is non-inferior to the comparator, the principal safety outcome was to be compared between treatment groups to maintain the overall type I error of 0.05 (2-sided) (a closed testing procedure).|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.07|0.76|0.23
95979246|NCT02673619|191931505|OTHER||Percentage Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.7|42.3||||||||42.3|-27.7|
95979247|NCT01703663|191931528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||absolute difference|-5.73||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|2.97|||ANOVA|||||2.97|-14.4|0.183
95903097|NCT03062891|191761500|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.54||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.4|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline anxiety symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.40|-1.33|.572
95903098|NCT03062891|191761501|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.08||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.98|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline depression symptoms and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.98|-1.82|.934
95903099|NCT03062891|191761502|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.07||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|2.89|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between attentional problems and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.89|-0.76|.253
95903100|NCT03062891|191761503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.2||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.1|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline paranois and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.10|-0.70|.215
95903101|NCT03062891|191761503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.14||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.11|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline hallucinations and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.11|-0.83|.254
95903102|NCT03062891|191761503|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.27||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.59|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline cognitive disorganization and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.59|-2.13|.778
95903103|NCT03062891|191761504|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.67|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline positive mental health and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||1.67|-2.16|.800
95903104|NCT03062891|191761505|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.44|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline perceived stress and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||2.44|-1.25|.525
95903105|NCT03062891|191761506|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|3.03|||Regression, Linear|||This analysis looked at the interaction between baseline threatening life events and group on the change in insomnia symptoms across the intervention. The results of the interaction are reported here.||3.03|-0.43|.140
95903106|NCT03062891|191761507|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.25|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in anxiety symptoms across the intervention period.||-0.25|-4.90|.030
95903107|NCT03062891|191761508|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.01|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in depression symptoms across the intervention period.||1.01|-2.24|.456
95903108|NCT03062891|191761509|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.34||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|0.53|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes attentional problems across the intervention period.||0.53|-5.21|.110
95903109|NCT03062891|191761510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-0.07|||Generalized estimating equations|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (paranoia) across the intervention period.||-0.07|-3.31|.041
95903110|NCT03062891|191761510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.22||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.48|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (hallucinations) across the intervention period.||0.48|-0.92|.531
95903111|NCT03062891|191761510|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.37||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.11|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in psychotic experiences (cognitive disorganization) across the intervention period.||0.11|-0.84|.130
95903112|NCT03062891|191761511|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.3|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in positive mental health across the intervention period.||1.30|-1.17|.916
95903113|NCT03062891|191761512|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.03||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|-0.23|||Generalized estimating equation|||This analysis looked at the effect of group on changes in perceived stress across the intervention period.||-0.23|-3.83|.027
95903114|NCT03062891|191761514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline anxiety symptoms and exploding head syndrome||2.40|0.77|.296
95903115|NCT03062891|191761514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline insomnia symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.02|0.47|.065
95903116|NCT03062891|191761514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline depression symptoms and exploding head syndrome||1.15|0.39|.145
95903117|NCT03062891|191761514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between baseline life stress and exploding head syndrome||2.19|0.73|.398
95903118|NCT03062891|191761514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Assocation between sleep paralysis and exploding head syndrome||2.38|1.24|.001
95903119|NCT02127307|191761515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.446|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3227|0.6156||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox proportional hazards model|||"AdreView-Heart Failure Group with H/M \<1.60 vs. H/M ≥1.60:~Data analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model to demonstrate the relationship of consensus numeric H/M ratio and time to adverse cardiac events to identify participants with higher risk of death. Hazard (risk) of a death for a participant with H/M ratio at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/Hh (t)=Ψ,where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.6156|0.3227|<0.0001
95979248|NCT03444324|191931529|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis of this endpoint was to test non-inferiority in the Per-protocol Set. The final analysis was performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Non-inferiority was to be demonstrated if the upper confidence limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the least squares mean (LSM) was less than the non-inferiority margin (150 mL).|Difference in LSM|-279.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-552.38|-6.48||p-value from Van Elteren test, stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to = 2,000 mL and \>2,000 mL)|Van Elteren test|||||-6.48|-552.38|<0.001
95903120|NCT04737538|191761538|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-8.8|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-8.8|-13.3|<0.0001
95903121|NCT04737538|191761539|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.4488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||2.4|-1.6|0.4488
95903122|NCT04737538|191761540|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-9.1|||Non-parametric method (Van Elteren test)|||||-9.1|-13.8|<0.0001
95903123|NCT03735862|191761542|OTHER|Paired t-Test|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.001
95903124|NCT03735862|191761543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Difference between baseline and follow-up||||<0.0001
95903125|NCT01422070|191761557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.88|||generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation adjusts the confidence interval for the correlation of outcomes within-centre.|The fully adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis showed an OR of 0.63 in favour of the presence of an intermediate care unit in the hospital|The null hypothesis was that hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units with intermediate care unit in the hospital is similar to that of the patients admitted to intensive care units without intermediate care unit in the hospital||0.88|0.45|<0.05
95903126|NCT01072201|191761584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95903127|NCT01072201|191761585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95903128|NCT01072201|191761586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups||||0.05
95903129|NCT01720069|191761587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.772
95903130|NCT01720069|191761588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.891
95903131|NCT01720069|191761589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
95903132|NCT01720069|191761590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.063
95903133|NCT01720069|191761591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.054|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.054
95903134|NCT01720069|191761592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.168
95903135|NCT01720069|191761592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.363
95903136|NCT01720069|191761592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.805
95903137|NCT04028388|191761594|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.65|0.56|0.1465
95903138|NCT04028388|191761598|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.76||||0.4576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|7.93|||Log Rank|||DOR is calculated in the subpopulation of subjects experiencing a response (CR or PR). Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome.||7.93|0.39|0.4576
95903139|NCT04028388|191761599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.0776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.48|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome"||3.48|0.65|0.0776
95903140|NCT04028388|191761601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.49|||Log Rank|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.49|0.79|0.2539
95903141|NCT04028388|191761602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.3062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Difference between the cohorts is tested with Log-rank test and estimated using Univariate Cox model.~Wilcoxon test is used if proportional hazards assumption is not fulfilled. Hazard Ratio \< 1 means that tested drug (ModraDoc006/r) has better outcome."||2.42|0.76|0.3062
95903142|NCT03779841|191761608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.58|0.1612
95903143|NCT03779841|191761608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.37|0.79|0.7789
95903144|NCT03779841|191761609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2972|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.2972
95979249|NCT03444324|191931530|OTHER||Difference in response rate|38.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|50.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model stratified by predictive blood loss (\> 1,000 mL to ≤ 2,000 mL and \> 2,000 mL).||||50.3|26|<0.001
95979250|NCT03444324|191931531|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95903145|NCT03779841|191761609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8722|||||||stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren)|||P-value is obtained from stratified Wilcoxon (Van Elteren) test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8722
95903146|NCT03779841|191761610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.96|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.96|0.50|0.9814
95903147|NCT03779841|191761610|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.97|0.50|0.9715
95903148|NCT03779841|191761611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1281|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.1281
95903149|NCT03779841|191761611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||Log Rank|||P-value is from stratified log-rank test versus Placebo with type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years) as stratification factors.||||0.8820
95903150|NCT03779841|191761612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.57|0.1623
95903151|NCT03779841|191761612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.7776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.78|0.7776
95903152|NCT03779841|191761613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.1603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.56|0.1603
95979251|NCT03444324|191931537|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-15.5|||<|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.83|126.88|||ANOVA|||||126.88|-157.83|<0.831
95903153|NCT03779841|191761613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.80|0.6706
95903154|NCT03779841|191761614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.10|0.55|0.1583
95903155|NCT03779841|191761614|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.6694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.43|0.80|0.6694
95903156|NCT03779841|191761615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2578
95903157|NCT03779841|191761615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.7526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.47|0.76|0.7526
95903158|NCT03779841|191761616|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.2549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.18|0.55|0.2549
95903159|NCT03779841|191761616|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.8544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.45|0.73|0.8544
95979252|NCT03444324|191931538|OTHER||Difference in LSM|12.4|||=|0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.84|113.66|||ANOVA|||||113.66|-88.84|=0.809
95979253|NCT03444324|191931539|OTHER||Difference in proportion|-4.8|||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||-0.7|-8.9|=0.022
95979254|NCT04600336|191931544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.11||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.76|-4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.46|-13.76|0.0019
95979255|NCT04600336|191931544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.48|-9.70|0.0732
95979256|NCT04600336|191931547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0120
95979257|NCT04600336|191931550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0057
95979258|NCT00726622|191931641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Assuming a baseline rate of 90% oncologic success for the open resection arm, the sample size provided 80% power to declare non-inferiority if oncologic success rates were truly identical, using a 1-sided z score with α = .10 for falsely declaring non-inferiority when the true oncologic success rate for laparoscopic resection was 84%. Calculations were based on a 2-sample binomial non-inferiority calculation with a 90% success rate for the control group and a 6% non-inferiority margin.||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95903160|NCT03779841|191761617|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.1718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.14|0.48|0.1718
95903161|NCT03779841|191761617|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.3801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.27|0.54|0.3801
95903162|NCT03779841|191761618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.5531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.39|0.54|0.5531
95903163|NCT03779841|191761618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.4213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.33|0.51|0.4213
95903164|NCT03779841|191761619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.73|0.49|0.8040
95979259|NCT00594516|191931657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of (-2, 2). A prespecified equivalence margin of (-2,2) was used for equivalence analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||||95.0|-0.09|0.28||||||Comparison of Tapentadol IR to ER analysis of variance model with factors for treatment, double blind cross-over period and subject.||0.28|-0.09|
95979260|NCT01423812|191931680|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p value||||<0.05
95979261|NCT01423812|191931681|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95979262|NCT02856893|191931691|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|67.2|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|56.4|75.9|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till + blood test/progression then Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||75.9|56.4|
95979263|NCT02856893|191931691|OTHER|The decision rule is based on confidence intervals. The treatment strategy will be considered feasible (H0 is rejected) if the lower bound of the 84% two-sided confidence interval of the PFS rate at 18 months is greater than 40%.|Kaplan-Meier survival rate|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|84.0|42.3|63.5|||||"The population parameter is PFS Rate at 18 months in the Gefitinib till progression than Osimertinib arm. The decision rule is based on the lower bound of the estimated confidence interval around the point estimate."|Each arm will be assessed individually against a historical control with a single proportion test. The test is designed to reject a PFS rate at 18 months of 40% (null hypothesis) at the 0.08 significance level. Under the alternative hypothesis of a PFS rate at 18 months of 60%, 49 patients are required to reach a power of 84%.||63.5|42.3|
95979264|NCT01233869|191931701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|5.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 1 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus pooled bosutinib.||5.74|2.02|<0.0001
95979265|NCT01233869|191931701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 2 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: bosutinib 200 mg/day versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||4.22|-0.50|0.1234
95979266|NCT01233869|191931701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.06||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|5.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 3 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 200 mg/day.||5.23|0.93|0.0050
95903165|NCT03779841|191761619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.98|0.61|0.7573
95903166|NCT03779841|191761620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.69||||0.4065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.67|0.28|0.4065
95903167|NCT03779841|191761620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28||||0.5257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.70|0.60|0.5257
95903168|NCT03779841|191761621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.1612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.11|0.55|0.1612
95903169|NCT03779841|191761621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.35|0.74|0.9966
95903170|NCT03779841|191761622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.52|0.30|0.3374
95903171|NCT03779841|191761622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||2.45|0.62|0.5403
95903172|NCT03779841|191761623|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.94||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|13.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||13.42|1.16|0.0163
95903173|NCT03779841|191761623|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.7||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|9.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||9.64|0.76|0.1101
95903174|NCT03779841|191761624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.16|0.64|0.3339
95903175|NCT03779841|191761624|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.4614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-values and Risk Ratios (and their corresponding 95% CI) for each pairwise comparison of AGN-151607 versus Placebo are obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test controlling for type of surgery (presence or absence of valve surgery) and age group (\< 65 or ≥ 65 years).||1.42|0.85|0.4614
95903176|NCT01612546|191761625|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95903177|NCT02062502|191761640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||3.2|-3.2|<0.001
95903178|NCT02062502|191761641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on fold-difference, excluding a decrease of 1.5 fold or more.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.06|0.85|<0.001
95903179|NCT02062502|191761641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Antibody Response Rate|97.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.4|98.9|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||98.9|94.4|<0.001
95903180|NCT00795600|191761675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.364||0.849||95.0|-7.404|6.114||H01 (hypothesis): Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.114|-7.404|0.849
95903181|NCT00795600|191761676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.478||0.948||95.0|-7.588|6.407||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||6.407|-7.588|0.948
95979267|NCT01233869|191931701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.1336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 4 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400 mg/day.||8.05|-1.03|0.1336
95979268|NCT01233869|191931701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis 5 is comparison of annualized rate of kidney enlargement: placebo versus bosutinib 400/200 mg/day.||7.30|2.65|<0.0001
95979269|NCT01158651|191931723|SUPERIORITY|The treatment regimen was considered promising for further study if after 48 weeks of treatment there was at least a 25% response rate compared to an expected response rate of 5% or less, which was considered evidence of an unpromising regimen. Assuming the true response rate is 5%, the binomial distribution was used to calculate Type I errors and power.|Proportion responding|0.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4872|0.8764|||Exact test|||||0.8764|0.4872|<0.001
95903182|NCT00795600|191761677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|498.7||0.696||95.0|-805.8|1198.5||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1198.5|-805.8|0.696
95903183|NCT00795600|191761678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|192.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|515.4||0.71||95.0|-844.0|1229.7||H01: Micro detemir = micro NPH against the alternative H01: Microl detemir ≠ micro NPH.|ANCOVA|||The primary objective and endpoint of the trial was to compare the change in trunk fat mass (g) between insulin detemir versus insulin NPH at baseline and at week 26. A standard deviation of 5% was chosen based on a previous trial. A difference in trunk fat mass of 5% was considered clinically relevant also according to this trial.||1229.7|-844.0|0.710
95903184|NCT00795600|191761679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|288.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|766.41||0.709||95.0|-1252.0|1828.4|||ANCOVA|||||1828.4|-1252.0|0.709
95903185|NCT00795600|191761680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.732||0.948||95.0|-5.668|5.313|||ANCOVA|||||5.313|-5.668|0.948
95903186|NCT00795600|191761681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1151.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|810.48||0.162||95.0|-2780.0|477.33|||ANCOVA|||||477.33|-2780.0|0.162
95903187|NCT00795600|191761682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.131||95.0|-6.34|0.846|||ANCOVA|||||0.846|-6.340|0.131
95903188|NCT00795600|191761683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|368.69||0.766||95.0|-851.3|630.51|||ANCOVA|||||630.51|-851.3|0.766
95903189|NCT00795600|191761684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.662||0.716||95.0|-3.949|2.729|||ANCOVA|||||2.729|-3.949|0.716
95903190|NCT00795600|191761685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.695||0.483||95.0|-0.906|1.888|||ANCOVA|||||1.888|-0.906|0.483
95903191|NCT00795600|191761686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.909||0.952||95.0|-3.721|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|-3.721|0.952
95903192|NCT00795600|191761687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||0.711||95.0|-1.778|1.221|||ANCOVA|||||1.221|-1.778|0.711
95903193|NCT00795600|191761688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.854||0.397||95.0|-5.31|2.141|||ANCOVA|||||2.141|-5.310|0.397
95903194|NCT00795600|191761689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.916|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.985||0.421||95.0|-30.99|13.159|||ANCOVA|||||13.159|-30.99|0.421
95903195|NCT00795600|191761690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.216||0.42||95.0|-17.55|7.43|||ANCOVA|||||7.430|-17.55|0.420
95903196|NCT00795600|191761691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.007||0.705||95.0|-31.1|21.178|||ANCOVA|||||21.178|-31.10|0.705
95903197|NCT00795600|191761692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.776||0.341||95.0|-14.19|5.007|||ANCOVA|||||5.007|-14.19|0.341
95903198|NCT00795600|191761693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.902||95.0|-0.064|0.073|||ANCOVA|||||0.073|-0.064|0.902
95903199|NCT00795600|191761694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.839||95.0|-8.525|6.947|||ANCOVA|||||6.947|-8.525|0.839
95903200|NCT00795600|191761695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.607||95.0|-0.105|0.062|||ANCOVA|||||0.062|-0.105|0.607
95903201|NCT00795600|191761696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.777|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.719||0.635||95.0|-9.254|5.7|||ANCOVA|||||5.700|-9.254|0.635
95903202|NCT00795600|191761697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.628||95.0|-0.663|0.403|||ANCOVA|||||0.403|-0.663|0.628
95903203|NCT00795600|191761698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.46||0.535||95.0|-46.03|24.182|||ANCOVA|||||24.182|-46.03|0.535
95903204|NCT00795600|191761699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.332||0.66||95.0|-10.65|6.813|||ANCOVA|||||6.813|-10.65|0.660
95903205|NCT00795600|191761726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.518||95.0|-2.572|1.313|||ANCOVA|||||1.313|-2.572|0.518
95903206|NCT00795600|191761727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283||0.673||95.0|-3.123|2.032|||ANCOVA|||||2.032|-3.123|0.673
95903207|NCT00795600|191761728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.386||0.738||95.0|-2.319|3.25|||ANCOVA|||||3.250|-2.319|0.738
95903208|NCT00795600|191761729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.168||0.346||95.0|-2.3|6.423|||ANCOVA|||||6.423|-2.300|0.346
95903209|NCT00795600|191761730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.726|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.173||0.781||95.0|-10.71|14.167|||ANCOVA|||||14.167|-10.71|0.781
95903210|NCT01248884|191761736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
95903211|NCT01248884|191761736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.3||||||||2.3|-2.25|
95853707|NCT00981656|191666166|OTHER|No testing is done, conclusions are made based on the confidence interval.||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis = this treatment will result in 75% of participants free from radical cystectomy at 3 years. A lower confidence bound of 60% will be promising enough to pursue this regimen further. A sample size of 33 analyzable patients provides a one-sided 97.5% lower bound of 60% relative to the hypothesized 75%. In terms of type I error, this design provides a 2.5% chance of observing a 3-year percentage less than 60% if the true rate is 75%.|If the lower confidence interval (CI) limit was above 60% then the regimen would be considered promising enough to warrant further study for this treatment regimen. If the lower limit was below 25% then the treatment would not be considered worthy of further study. If the lower limit fell between 25% and 60%, the investigators would consider the possibility of further investigation.|||
95853708|NCT01684917|191666178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
95853709|NCT01684917|191666178|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
95853710|NCT01684917|191666179|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
95903212|NCT01248884|191761736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to diphteria antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
95903213|NCT01248884|191761736|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to tetanus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK2177744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subject was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.25|2.27||||||||2.27|-2.25|
95903214|NCT01248884|191761738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.11|1.44||||||||1.44|1.11|
95903215|NCT01248884|191761738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 1) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.14|1.54||||||||1.54|1.14|
95903216|NCT01248884|191761738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PT) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.1|1.43||||||||1.43|1.1|
95903217|NCT01248884|191761738|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to pertussis antigen (anti-PRN) was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5% confidence interval (CI) on the GMC ratio (Infanrix hexa Group divided by GSK2177744 Group 2) was below or equal to 1.5.|GMC ratio|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.37|1.84||||||||1.84|1.37|
95903218|NCT01248884|191761739|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-3.52|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.19|3.0||||||||3|-10.19|
95903219|NCT01248884|191761739|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to PRP antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa Group minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.53|7.7||||||||7.7|-6.53|
95903220|NCT01248884|191761740|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.27|4.63||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||4.63|-3.27|
95979270|NCT01191541|191931728|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of DNR alone to DNR+ARA-C in the rate of DFS at 2 years. Assuming a 95% rate of DFS in the two groups, a margin of -15% , 5% type 1 error, 80% power, 30 evaluable patients per group were required to draw a noninferiority conclusion.|||||<|0.05||||||the p-value is not adjusted|Log Rank|||The characteristics of all of the included patients were summarized using cross-tabulations (for categorical variables) and quantiles. Nonparametric tests were used to analyse comparisons between groups .EFS、disease-free survival (DFS) and OS were estimated using the Kaplan -Meier method, and log-rank tests were used. All P values were two-sided, and those with values of 0.05 or less were considered to be statistically significant.||||<0.05
95903221|NCT01248884|191761740|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.57|2.36||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (ELISA)||2.36|-4.57|
95903222|NCT01248884|191761740|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 1) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.62|3.8||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.8|-4.62|
95903223|NCT01248884|191761740|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority in terms of immune response to hepatitis B (HBs) antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 97.5 confidence interval (CI) on the group difference (Infanrix hexa minus GSK217744 Group 2) in the percentage of seroprotected subjects was below or equal to 10%.|Difference in percentage|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.07|3.02||||||Immune response non-inferiority - anti-HBs (CLIA)||3.02|-5.07|
95903224|NCT02585895|191761754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|74.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|86.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by screening LDL-C level|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||86.8|44.6|< 0.0001
95903225|NCT02585895|191761755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-52.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.18|-41.3|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-41.30|-64.18|< 0.0001
95903226|NCT02585895|191761756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-46.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.85|-36.9|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.|Treatment difference used apheresis as the reference.|||-36.90|-55.85|< 0.0001
95903227|NCT02585895|191761757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-35.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.39|-28.21|||Repeated measures linear effects model|Model included treatment group, screening LDL-C level, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit as covariates.||||-28.21|-43.39|< 0.0001
95903228|NCT00736996|191761765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with PIO was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
95903229|NCT00736996|191761765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0125|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided p-value \< 0.0125 (=0.05/4) to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||The mean change in domain score with EET was compared with the mean change in domain score with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline domain score.||||<0.0125
95903230|NCT00736996|191761766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
95903231|NCT00736996|191761766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
95903232|NCT00736996|191761767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with PIO was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
95903233|NCT00736996|191761767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The mean change with EET was compared with the mean change with Placebo in a linear regression conditioned on the stratification categories (MCI subtype and number of APOE ε4 alleles) and the baseline level of the outcome variable.||||<0.05
95903234|NCT02660944|191761768|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 85 RSLV-132 versus placebo||4.15|-3.42|0.845
95903235|NCT02660944|191761768|SUPERIORITY|Two-sample t-test with Satterthwaite approximation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Day 169 RSLV-132 versus placebo||3.70|-4.66|0.818
95903236|NCT01243944|191761803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|32.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.04|1337.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1337|5.04|< 0.0001
95903237|NCT01243944|191761804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|1144.0|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1144|4.24|<0.0001
95903238|NCT01243944|191761805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.57||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|9.06|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated using stratified exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test by adjusting for the WBC/platelet status (abnormal vs normal) at baseline.||||9.06|1.50|0.0016
95903239|NCT02673697|191761828|NON_INFERIORITY|"The primary analysis will calculate the Bayesian posterior probability that the difference \[MACCECONTROL~\- MACCEPERCEVAL\] is lower than 0.05 (predetermined non-inferiority margin): The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis."||||||0.9914||||||The null hypothesis will be rejected, and non-inferiority concluded, if the posterior probability exceeds 0.9775 at the final analysis.|Bayesian|||"A the primary analysis will compare Perceval valve (Treatment arm) vs. standard sutured stented valve (Control arm) on the Per Protocol population.~A one-sided non-inferiority test, using the non-inferiority margin Δ=0.05, will be performed to compare the two arms on the proportion of subjects that are event-free at one year (primary analysis)."||||0.9914
95903240|NCT00289341|191761830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for injection site reaction only||||0.001
95903241|NCT00289341|191761830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||for all other adverse events||||>0.2
95903242|NCT00289341|191761832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Linear Spline model|||||||0.016
95903243|NCT01385059|191761846|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95903244|NCT00022516|191761847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.06|||Log Rank|||||1.06|0.6|0.14
95903245|NCT00022516|191761848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.65|0.3570
95903246|NCT00022516|191761849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.3178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.62|0.3178
95903247|NCT00022516|191761850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.6|0.06
95903248|NCT03321019|191761851|OTHER||F-statistic|8.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degree of freedom - 3, 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||<.0001
95903249|NCT03321019|191761852|OTHER||F-statistic|0.44||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to control for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3. 278||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.72
95903250|NCT03321019|191761853|OTHER||F-statistic|3.048||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Dunnett's T3 method was used to account for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|degrees of freedom: 3, 229||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.02
95903251|NCT03321019|191761854|OTHER||F-statistic|2.939||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value was adjusted in the analysis for multiple comparisons using Tukey's method.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 231||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.034
95903252|NCT03321019|191761855|OTHER||F-statistic|1.494||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|||||Tukey's method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|Degrees of freedom - 3, 274||Healthy controls were compared to PD participants across each of the 3 visits. PD participants were compared between visits 1, 2 and 3.||||0.022
95909263|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.593||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.33|0.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Disorganized thought symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.20|-1.33|0.3454
95903253|NCT00856583|191761896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 patient years of exposure (PYE) were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.117||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.5|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the WRT+30 days period.||1.500|0.831|0.05
95903254|NCT00856583|191761896|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 90% CI for the estimated all-cause mortality ratio was \<1.5 (pre-specified), the null hypothesis was rejected. With this limit, 7,600 PYE were required to ensure 80% power at the 5% significance level of rejecting the null hypothesis when assuming a mortality of 2 deaths per 100 PYE. As the actual mortality was only about half that anticipated, more exposure was necessary and the duration of the study increased markedly.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.684|1.405|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.|The hazard ratio is calculated as sertindole (numerator) versus risperidone (denominator).|The basis for the statistical analysis of the first primary outcome was the null hypothesis of an excess mortality in sertindole-treated patients compared to the mortality in risperidone-treated patients for the ORT period.||1.405|0.684|<0.05
95903255|NCT00856583|191761897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.84||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.55|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), region, year since start of enrollment||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||5.55|1.45|0.0022
95903256|NCT00856583|191761898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.78|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age and sex.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of the secondary primary outcome (one patient in the risperidone group reported more than one occurrence of this event) was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.78|0.63|0.29
95903257|NCT00856583|191761899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.41|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.41|0.36|0.34
95903258|NCT00856583|191761900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.28|0.40|0.26
95903259|NCT00856583|191761901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|4.98|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy).||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||4.98|0.91|0.081
95903260|NCT00856583|191761902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.32|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.32|0.33|0.24
95979271|NCT02119325|191931731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-4.64||||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.26|-0.03||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial glucose peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with glucose as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||-0.03|-9.26|0.0487
95979272|NCT02119325|191931732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Mean|-6.79||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.02|20.44||Statistical significance at the 5% level was required for both co-primary endpoints in order to progress to formal assessment of secondary endpoints.|ANOVA||Difference is test minus placebo such that a positive difference means the test has higher Cmax|"H0: There was no difference in the post prandial triglyceride peak for participants with IFG between the test and placebo.~The primary parameter was analysed using a mixed effects model with triglyceride as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and subject as random effect."||20.44|-34.02|0.6116
95979273|NCT02558231|191931758|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|0.96||||0.4239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|0.86|0.4239
95979274|NCT02558231|191931759|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-1.43||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.393|16.538|||ANCOVA|||||16.538|-19.393|0.8758
95979275|NCT02558231|191931760|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.03||||0.8529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.371|||ANCOVA|||||1.371|0.770|0.8529
95979276|NCT02558231|191931762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.834|1.386|||ANCOVA|||||1.386|-2.834|0.4998
95979277|NCT02558231|191931763|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.003|0.83|||ANCOVA|||||0.830|-1.003|0.8528
95979278|NCT02558231|191931764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.368|74.178|||ANCOVA|||||74.178|-69.368|0.9474
95979279|NCT02558231|191931765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.066|0.328|||ANCOVA|||||0.328|-0.066|0.1902
95979280|NCT02558231|191931766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.737|0.327|||ANCOVA|||||0.327|-2.737|0.1227
95979281|NCT02558231|191931767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09|||Log Rank|||||1.09|0.32|0.0867
95979282|NCT03836807|191931768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.020
95979283|NCT03836807|191931769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95979284|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|5.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at Baseline (at 0')||5.0|-5.5|0.914
95979285|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||7.4|-4.9|0.685
95979286|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-0.3||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||6.8|-7.4|0.930
95903261|NCT00856583|191761903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, last previous antipsychotic treatment (mono-/polytherapy), year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of mortality hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.85|0.70|0.59
95903262|NCT00856583|191761904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.29|0.66|0.65
95903263|NCT00856583|191761905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.99|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, duration of schizophrenia, time since last suicide attempt, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||0.99|0.45|0.044
95903264|NCT00856583|191761906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted for: age, sex, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of time to 1st occurence of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.57|1.01|0.040
95903265|NCT00856583|191761907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.43|||Cox Proportional Hazard|Adjusted: disease duration, time since last suicide attempt, last antipsychotic medication (a-/typicals/both), region, year since start of enrollment.||The basis for the statistical analysis of this secondary outcome was the null hypothesis of hazard ratio equal to 1 for the sertindole-treated patients versus risperidone-treated patients during the WRT+30 days period.||1.43|1.28|<0.0001
95903266|NCT02328326|191761908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.18|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAM, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAM is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAM score compared to patient participants in PACT.||5.18|0.02|0.048
95903267|NCT02328326|191761909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|2.67|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of ukpds, insulin use, site, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline. Reference for comparison is PACT.|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in ukpds 5 year risk score is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' 5-year cardiovascular event risk.||2.67|-0.87|0.32
95903268|NCT02328326|191761910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.71||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.22|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Healthy Eating, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Healthy Eating is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' Healthy Eating scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.22|0.20|0.01
95903269|NCT02328326|191761911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of A1c, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in A1c is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' A1c score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.51|-0.17|0.33
95903270|NCT02328326|191761912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.82||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.35|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SBP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SBP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' SBP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.35|-7.00|0.18
95903271|NCT02328326|191761913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.19|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.19|-0.95|0.83
95903272|NCT02328326|191761914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.93|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PEPPI, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PEPPI is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PEPPI score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.93|-0.71|0.79
95979287|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.1||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||6.1|-10.3|0.615
95979288|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.5||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|0.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||0|-17.0|0.051
95903273|NCT02328326|191761915|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.4|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Cho to HDL Ratio, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40.|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Chol to HDL Ratio is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly decrease patient participants' Chol to HDL Ratio score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.40|-0.09|0.21
95903274|NCT02328326|191761917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.53|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of IOCQ, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in IOCQ is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' IOCQ score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.53|0.08|0.01
95903275|NCT02328326|191761918|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent distribution among categories|difference in count|-1.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||Difference in count of those who stopped smoking in CO-IMPACT vs. those who stopped smoking in PACT.|||0.17
95903276|NCT02328326|191761919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Physical Activity, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Physical activity is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Physical activity score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.47|-0.56|0.87
95903277|NCT02328326|191761920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Sugar Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Sugar Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Sugar Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.68|-0.22|0.31
95903278|NCT02328326|191761921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.89|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Blood Pressure Home Testing, insulin use, randomization strat. variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Blood Pressure Home Testing is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Blood Pressure Home Testing score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.89|-0.76|0.87
95903279|NCT02328326|191761922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.23|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for BL value of Take Oral Meds as Prescribed, insulin use, randomization strat variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Oral Meds as Prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Oral Meds as Prescribed score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.23|-0.42|0.56
95903280|NCT02328326|191761923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.41|||Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for baseline value of Take Insulin as Prescribed, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Take Insulin as prescribed is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Take Insulin as Prescribed compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.41|-0.26|0.67
95903281|NCT02328326|191761924|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Foot Care is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Foot Care score compared to patient participants in PACT.|Median Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.75|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Foot Care, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|0.75|-0.22|0.29
95903282|NCT02328326|191761925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of SE, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in SE is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly change patient participants' SE scores compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.71|0.09|0.01
95903283|NCT02328326|191761926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.55|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of Lorig\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in Lorig\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' Lorig\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||0.55|-0.34|0.67
95979289|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-8.4||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|-0.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||-0.3|-16.6|0.043
95979290|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-1.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||-1.3|-16.7|0.023
95979291|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-10.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|-2.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||-2.7|-18.2|0.009
95979292|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-9.3||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||-1.7|-17.0|0.018
95979293|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-5.5||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||2.6|-13.6|0.182
95979294|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-4.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|3.2|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 4h||3.2|-12.9|0.236
95979295|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-3.6||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5h||3.5|-10.6|0.320
95979296|NCT03836807|191931770|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|-2.2||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.6|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||5.6|-10.0|0.572
95979297|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.7||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|8.4|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||8.4|-3.1|0.361
95979298|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|4.2||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|12.3|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 10'||12.3|-3.8|0.298
95979299|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|8.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|19.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 15'||19.8|-2.1|0.112
95979300|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|36.8|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 30'||36.8|7.8|0.003
95979301|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|21.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|36.7|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 45'||36.7|5.6|0.008
95979302|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|18.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|34.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1h||34.0|3.3|0.018
95979303|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|37.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 1.5h||37.0|7.7|0.003
95903284|NCT02328326|191761927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.16|||Regression, Linear||Net difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in CSIS is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' CSIS score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.16|-0.60|0.53
95903285|NCT02328326|191761928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.25|||Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline value of PAID\_CP, insulin use, randomization stratification variables: care partner not in home and PAM cutoff of 40|Net difference defined as 12 months minus baselineNet difference defined as 12 months minus baseline|The null hypothesis was that change (baseline to 12 months) in PAID\_CP is the same for CO-IMPACT (intervention) compared to PACT (control). The alternative hypothesis is that that COIMPACT will significantly increase patient participants' PAID\_CP score compared to patient participants in PACT.||1.25|-0.61|0.50
95903286|NCT01418209|191761945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
95903287|NCT01418209|191761945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||p-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold of statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.02
95903288|NCT01418209|191761946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||<0.001
95903289|NCT01418209|191761946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures||VMS frequency values were log transformed for modeling.||||0.005
95903290|NCT01418209|191761948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.01
95903291|NCT01418209|191761948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.07
95903292|NCT01418209|191761950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo.||||<0.001
95979304|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|22.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|36.1|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 2h||36.1|8.0|0.003
95979305|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|16.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|30.0|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 3h||30.0|3.4|0.015
95979306|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|10.8||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|23.9|||ANOVA|||at 4h||23.9|-2.2|0.103
95979307|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|5.9||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|17.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 5'||17.5|-5.6|0.311
95979308|NCT03836807|191931771|SUPERIORITY||adjusted least square mean|2.8||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|14.5|||ANOVA|The ANOVA model included fixed effect terms for clinical site, time point and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||at 6h||14.5|-9.0|0.638
95979309|NCT03836807|191931772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||in the ITT population||||0.007
95979310|NCT03836807|191931772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|||in the PP population||||0.009
95979311|NCT03836807|191931773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.004
95979312|NCT03836807|191931774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.002
95979313|NCT03836807|191931775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.480
95903293|NCT01418209|191761950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-values from active treatment vs. placebo contrasts in a repeated measures linear model of outcome as a function of treatment arm, clinical site, week, and baseline outcome. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|repeated measures linear model|Robust standard errors were calculated using generalized estimating equations to account for within-participant correlation between repeated measures.||Outcome differences between active treatment and placebo||||0.03
95903294|NCT01306617|191761978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.547|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||For the percentage of subjects with HCV RNA suppressed below the LLOD from Week 4 through Week 12, if it was assumed that 60% of subjects would be successfully suppressed from Week 4 through Week 12, then 20 subjects in arm 1 would give a 95% 2-sided confidence interval (CI) of (38.5%, 81.5%), 10 subjects in arm 2 would give a 95% CI of (29.6%, 90.4%), and 15 subjects in arm 3 would give a 95% CI of (35.2%, 84.8%) for the percentage of subjects suppressed using the binomial exact method.||||0.547
95903295|NCT01306617|191761978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.207
95903296|NCT01306617|191761979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
95903297|NCT01306617|191761980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.061
95903298|NCT01306617|191761980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.375|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.375
95903299|NCT01306617|191761981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
95903300|NCT01306617|191761981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
95903301|NCT01306617|191761982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.312
95903302|NCT01306617|191761982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Arm, baseline log10 HCV RNA level (\<=800,000, \>800,000), IL-28B genotype (CC, non-CC), and HCV subgenotype (1a, 1b) were used as strata.||||||0.012
95903303|NCT01306617|191761983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.395
95903304|NCT01306617|191761983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.010
95903305|NCT01306617|191761984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
95903306|NCT03283670|191762035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 25% nitrous oxide||||0.55
95903307|NCT03283670|191762035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21, 25% nitrous oxide vs placebo at 24 hours||||0.47
95903308|NCT03283670|191762035|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.87||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||HAMD-21 at 2 Hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.49
95903309|NCT03283670|191762035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, placebo vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.34
95903310|NCT03283670|191762035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 2 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.94
95903311|NCT03283670|191762035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HAMD-21 at 24 hours, 25% nitrous oxide vs 50% nitrous oxide||||0.80
95903312|NCT00019682|191762049|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95903313|NCT00019682|191762050|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Unadjusted 2 tail p value.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
95903314|NCT00019682|191762051|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95903315|NCT00019682|191762052|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-G scale||||>0.05
95903316|NCT00019682|191762052|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||FACT-F scale||||>0.05
95903317|NCT00019682|191762052|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SF-36 scale||||>0.05
95903318|NCT00019682|191762052|NON_INFERIORITY|Evaluated inferiority in quality of life outcomes between arms.|||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||SDS scale||||>0.05
95903319|NCT02199691|191762060|NON_INFERIORITY|95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|15.0||||||Serogroup A||15|3.4|
95903320|NCT02199691|191762060|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|29.0||||||Serogroup C||29|20.3|
95903321|NCT02199691|191762060|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|16.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|20.2||||||||20.2|12.3|
95903322|NCT02199691|191762060|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|24.8||||||Serogroup W||24.8|14.2|
95903323|NCT02199691|191762061|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|10.5||||||Serogroup A||10.5|-0.8|
95903324|NCT02199691|191762061|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||Serogroup C||2.4|-2.5|
95903325|NCT02199691|191762061|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.2||||||Serogroup Y||1.2|-4.3|
95903326|NCT02199691|191762061|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \> -10%.|Percentage Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.6||||||Serogroup W||2.6|-7.3|
95903327|NCT02199691|191762062|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|0.99||||||PT: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.99|0.722|
95903328|NCT02199691|191762062|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.746|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|0.842||||||FHA: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.842|0.661|
95903329|NCT02199691|191762062|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|0.903||||||PRN: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.903|0.627|
95903330|NCT02199691|191762062|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio was \>2/3.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.878||||||FIM: Geometric Mean Ratio||0.878|0.525|
95903331|NCT02199691|191762063|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.3||||||Serogroup Diphtheria||1.3|-3.3|
95903332|NCT02199691|191762063|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.9||||||Serogroup Tetanus||1.9|-1.2|
95903333|NCT02199691|191762064|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||HPV Type 6||6.3|-1.8|
95903334|NCT02199691|191762064|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||HPV Type 11||3.9|-1.3|
95903335|NCT02199691|191762064|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 16||3.6|-1.9|
95903336|NCT02199691|191762064|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI of the difference was calculated from the Wilson Score Method without continuity correction. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between the 2 percentages was \>-10%.|Percentage Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.6||||||HPV Type 18||3.6|-1.9|
95903337|NCT03117387|191762068|OTHER|Bland-Altman analysis estimates bias between TOF-Cuff and electromyography.|bias|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|0.05|-0.05|0.05||||||"Paired measurements were compared using a Bland-Altman analysis modified for repeated measurements (http://sec.lumc.nl/method\_agreement\_analysis, Leiden, the Netherlands).~This Bland-Altman analysis corrects for between subject variability of repeated paired measurements in individual subjects."||0.05|-0.05|
95903338|NCT05955560|191762069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||A two-sided paired t-test was used and p-value derived. The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95903339|NCT04621500|191762074|OTHER|The sequencing transcriptional profile cannot be analyzed by a statistical method.|||||||||||||||||In this open label study, the RNA sequencing transcription analysis was performed to assess if the transcriptome would be modified by vitamin D supplementation and it uniformaly was.|||
95903340|NCT04295564|191762094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|155.9||This is a calculate p value|Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for the correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing||||155.9|8.3|<0.05
95903341|NCT04295564|191762095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient test.||||1.1|0.1|<0.02
95903342|NCT04295564|191762096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|121.0||This is a calculated p value|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value adjusted for correlation between twin pairs and gestational age at birth (stratification variable), sex, and length at outpatient testing.||||121|4.5|<0.05
95903343|NCT04295564|191762097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31||This is a calculated p value|Regression, Logistic|||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
95903344|NCT04295564|191762097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for gestational age at birth (stratification variable)||||1.31|0.27|>0.05
95903345|NCT04401579|191762111|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|1.00|0.047
95903346|NCT04401579|191762127|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.0||||||||0|-12|
95903347|NCT04401579|191762128|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0||||||||0|-10|
95903348|NCT04401579|191762138|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|1.01|0.44
95903349|NCT04401579|191762148|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.06|0.002
95903350|NCT04401579|191762149|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|1.05|0.005
95903351|NCT04401579|191762150|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.44|||Log Rank|||||1.44|1.07|0.003
95903352|NCT04401579|191762153|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.68||||||This analysis is for Asian participants.||1.68|0.73|
95903353|NCT04401579|191762153|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.5||||||This analysis is for Black or African American participants.||1.50|0.75|
95903354|NCT04401579|191762153|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.37||||||This analysis is for White participants.||1.37|0.93|
95903355|NCT04401579|191762153|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74||||||This analysis is for Race of Other participants.||1.74|1.03|
95903356|NCT04401579|191762154|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.6||||||This analysis is for Not Hispanic or Latino participants||1.60|1.08|
95903357|NCT04401579|191762154|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31||||||This analysis is for Hispanic or Latino participants.||1.31|0.89|
95903358|NCT04401579|191762155|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.46||||||This analysis is for Male participants.||1.46|1.04|
95903359|NCT04401579|191762155|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32||||||This analysis is for Female participants.||1.32|0.85|
95979314|NCT01699789|191931776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.57|
95903360|NCT03320070|191762156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5076|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5076
95903361|NCT03320070|191762158|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95903362|NCT03320070|191762160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0848|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0848
95903363|NCT03320070|191762162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2005
95903364|NCT03320070|191762164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9416
95903365|NCT03320070|191762166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1853|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1853
95903366|NCT00987467|191762208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95903367|NCT00321919|191762236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.778976||||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.14|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first cardiovascular event in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|The null hypothesis stated that there was no difference with regard to the event-free distribution of the combined endpoint of all protocol specified cardiovascular events between Early Epoetin beta therapy and Late Epoetin beta therapy groups.||1.14|0.53|0.2036
95903368|NCT00321919|191762237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.744575||||0.4833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.7|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of an event of the time to death due to cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.70|0.33|0.4833
95903369|NCT00321919|191762239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.658259||||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to death for all causes in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy treatment group.|||1.15|0.38|0.1391
95903370|NCT00321919|191762242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.804594||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.51|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of time to first cardiovascular intervention in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group|||1.51|0.43|0.4985
95903371|NCT00321919|191762244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82046||||0.3419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.23|||Regression, Cox||The Cox regression model was used to estimate the relative risk of the time to first hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons in Late Epoetin beta therapy group compared to the Early Epoetin beta therapy group.|||1.23|0.55|0.3419
95903372|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 1.||||0.0029
95903373|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of General health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0081
95903374|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental health scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0005
95903375|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Mental Health scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0965
95903376|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0004
95903377|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.9864
95903378|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0097
95903379|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Physical Role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1670
95903380|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0058
95903381|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1455|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Social function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.1455
95903382|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.0009
95903383|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Vitality function scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.0123
95903384|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.3155
95903385|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7076|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Bodily pain scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.7076
95903386|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 1||||0.1291
95903387|NCT00321919|191762251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from Baseline in the Score of Emotional role scale of Quality of life for Year 2||||0.5528
95903388|NCT01148810|191762261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bayesian analysis|0.96|||||||||||||||Probability that the difference (BAF312-Placebo) is greater than the threshold|||
95903389|NCT02165722|191762272|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
95903390|NCT02165722|191762272|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||<0.001
95903391|NCT02165722|191762272|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.||||<0.001
95853711|NCT01684917|191666180|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
95979315|NCT01699789|191931777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.26||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.26|0.48|
95853712|NCT01684917|191666181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
95853713|NCT01684917|191666181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
95853714|NCT01684917|191666181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline vs 12 weeks||||<0.05
95853715|NCT01684917|191666183|SUPERIORITY|"Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group"|||||<|0.05||||||calculated. The reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||"Baseline vs 12 weeks. Statistical Analysis was performed only for the Diet Arm/Group."||||<0.05
95853716|NCT00459316|191666187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Two-sided p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. There were no adjustments for multiple outcomes.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between CD4% strata.||||0.03
95853717|NCT00459316|191666188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||Two sided-p-value \<0.05 was specified as statistically significant a priori. No adjustment for multiple primary outcomes was made.|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences between CD4% strata.||||0.01
95853718|NCT00423579|191666251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0||95.0|-18.9|-10.1|||Student's t test for independent data||Difference in percentage change in mean LDL-C values (change from baseline to week 6) between the two treatment groups. (Ezetimibe \[EZ\]/Simvastatin \[S\] \[10/20mg\] + S \[placebo\] group minus the EZ/S \[10mg/placebo\] + S \[40mg\] group)|||-10.1|-18.9|0.0000
95853719|NCT02392637|191666253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.62
95853720|NCT02392637|191666254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.39
95853721|NCT01761877|191666256|OTHER|Mixed Models Analysis|||||<|0.05||||||A p value was calculated for change in breast density from baseline to 12 months separately for each study arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The study was designed to assess change in breast density using fat/water MRI after 12 months of sulindac intervention in postmenopausal breast cancer patients taking aromatase inhibitors for the treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. A non-randomized observation arm was included with the same eligibility criteria to assess change in breast density over 12 months using the fat/water MRI method of quantifying breast density. Change was examined separately for each arm.||||<0.05
95853722|NCT01761877|191666257|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95853723|NCT01761877|191666258|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||A p value of \<0.05 was selected for change in each arm. The study did not include a direct comparison between the two arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95853724|NCT00412984|191666313|SUPERIORITY|With an average 2.1 years follow-up and assuming a stroke rate of 1.20 per hundred patient-years, \~18,000 randomized subjects allocated in a 1:1 ratio to apixaban or warfarin group would be needed to achieve the desired power. These calculations assumed an incidence of 1% loss to follow-up. Non-inferiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be assessed first. If non-inferiority (using a NI margin of 1.38) is demonstrated then, superiority for the primary efficacy endpoint will be tested|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.95||2-sided P-value for superiority test|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status. (experienced, naïve).|apixaban / warfarin|With 448 subjects with confirmed strokes or systemic emboli, study would have at least 90% power to meet both regulatory definitions of non-inferiority described in the following: (1) the non-inferiority (NI) of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk (RR) was less than 1.38; (2) the NI of apixaban relative to warfarin was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 99% CI for RR was less than 1.44.||.95|.66|0.0114
95853725|NCT00412984|191666315|SUPERIORITY|"4 key objectives were tested using a closed testing procedure. NI for the primary efficacy will be tested 1st. If NI is demonstrated then~1. superiority for the primary efficacy will be tested~2. if superiority for the primary efficacy is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for MB will be tested~3. if superiority for MB is~   1. not demonstrated, stop~  2. demonstrated, then superiority for all cause death will be tested All tests will be done at 1-sided α = 0.025"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.8|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment group as a covariate; stratified by investigative site and prior warfarin/vitamin K antagonist status.|apixaban / warfarin|||0.80|0.60|<.0001
95854193|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 15|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.542||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|1.058|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 15|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.058|0.025|0.0398
95979316|NCT01699789|191931778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.97||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.|In an analysis of change from baseline in likelihood of Poor Mental Health Quality of Life, CEP showed a significant advantage at 6 months, but not at 12 months.|0.97|0.61|
95979317|NCT01699789|191931779|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.3|0.7|
95979318|NCT01699789|191931780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients at 3 years to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
95979319|NCT01699789|191931781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.59||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.59|1.19|
95979320|NCT01699789|191931782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.04|1.03|
95903392|NCT02165722|191762272|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series initiation vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95903393|NCT02165722|191762273|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.||||||0.001
95979321|NCT01699789|191931783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.98||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.98|1.14|
95979322|NCT01699789|191931784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.96||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.96|0.38|
95979323|NCT01699789|191931785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.70|0.69|
95903394|NCT02165722|191762273|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95903395|NCT02165722|191762273|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95903396|NCT02165722|191762273|OTHER|Chi-square tests performed to test for differences in cumulative HPV series completion vaccination rates from baseline to post-intervention between intervention and control clinics.|||||>|0.05||||||Statistical significance for two-sided tests was set at a type I error (alpha) equal to 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95903397|NCT02509624|191762298|OTHER||%Geometric least-square mean(GLSM) ratio|105.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.08|143.23||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||143.23|77.08|
95903398|NCT02509624|191762298|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|142.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.52|168.84||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||168.84|120.52|
95903399|NCT02509624|191762298|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|110.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.99|140.49||||||AUCinf of selonsertib||140.49|86.99|
95903400|NCT02509624|191762298|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|62.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.84|87.81||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||87.81|43.84|
95903401|NCT02509624|191762298|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|66.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.72|120.21||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||120.21|36.72|
95903402|NCT02509624|191762298|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|103.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.75|206.83||||||AUCinf of GS-607509||206.83|51.75|
95903403|NCT02509624|191762299|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|99.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.38|135.92||||||AUClast of selonsertib||135.92|73.38|
95903404|NCT02509624|191762299|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|141.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.5|169.55||||||AUClast of selonsertib||169.55|118.50|
95903405|NCT02509624|191762299|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|112.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.69|143.65||||||AUClast of selonsertib||143.65|87.69|
95903406|NCT02509624|191762299|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.06|86.98||||||AUClast of GS-607509||86.98|43.06|
95903407|NCT02509624|191762299|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|61.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|33.62|110.91||||||AUClast of GS-607509||110.91|33.62|
95903408|NCT02509624|191762299|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|96.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|48.47|190.67||||||AUClast of GS-607509||190.67|48.47|
95903409|NCT02509624|191762300|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|88.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.83|105.1||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.10|74.83|
95903410|NCT02509624|191762300|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|91.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.76|105.52||||||Cmax of selonsertib||105.52|78.76|
95903411|NCT02509624|191762300|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|100.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.73|119.88||||||Cmax of selonsertib||119.88|83.73|
95903412|NCT02509624|191762300|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|71.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.58|93.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||93.50|54.58|
95903413|NCT02509624|191762300|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|46.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.59|67.54||||||Cmax of GS-607509||67.54|32.59|
95903414|NCT02509624|191762300|OTHER||% GLSM ratio|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|130.5||||||Cmax of GS-607509||130.50|67.60|
95903415|NCT04321460|191762325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.564||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|16.039|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16.039|1.66|0.007
95903416|NCT04321460|191762326|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.716||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.898|14.268|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||14.268|1.898|0.002
95903417|NCT02223390|191762339|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two conditions.||||||0.08||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05. The p-value presented corresponds to the time by condition interaction parameter.|Mixed Models Analysis|To assess changes in PTSD symptoms over time by intervention condition, linear mixed models were fit using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS.||Statistical analyses reported below is for PCL - Total at 3 months.||||0.08
95903418|NCT02223390|191762340|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 60 was chosen as adequate to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a pilot RCT with two conditions.||||||0.05||||||A priori threshold was defined as p\<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95903419|NCT01659021|191762356|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.37||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank||Hazard Ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are from the proportional hazard model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|||0.37|0.18|<0.0001
95903420|NCT01659021|191762357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.17|34.76||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||34.76|8.17|<0.0001
95903421|NCT01659021|191762358|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|483.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.63|2467.02||P-value was calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and 95% CIs were calculated from the CMH Chi-square test stratified by stratification factors.|||2467.02|94.63|<0.0001
95903422|NCT01659021|191762359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.15||P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors (17p deletion/TP53 mutation, IGHV mutation, and disease status).|Log Rank|||||1.15|0.54|0.247
95903423|NCT01659021|191762360|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model without any adjustments.|||0.51|0.17|
95903424|NCT01666002|191762362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95903425|NCT01666002|191762363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95903426|NCT01169467|191762403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.395
95903427|NCT03108924|191762412|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.13||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.13|0.53|
95903428|NCT03108924|191762415|OTHER||GMR|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|4.41||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||4.41|2.01|
95903429|NCT03108924|191762415|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.96||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.96|2.82|
95903430|NCT03108924|191762415|OTHER||GMR|4.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|7.59||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.59|2.95|
95903431|NCT03108924|191762417|OTHER||GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.08||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.08|0.54|
95903432|NCT03108924|191762420|OTHER||GMR|3.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.01|5.2||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||5.20|2.01|
95903433|NCT03108924|191762420|OTHER||GMR|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.49|6.7||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||6.70|2.49|
95903434|NCT03108924|191762420|OTHER||GMR|4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.65|7.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||7.39|2.65|
95903435|NCT03108924|191762422|OTHER||GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD HD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.03|0.52|
95903436|NCT03108924|191762425|OTHER||GMR|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|3.56||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.56|1.22|
95903437|NCT03108924|191762425|OTHER||GMR|1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.25||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.25|1.10|
95903438|NCT03108924|191762425|OTHER||GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.19||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||3.19|1.13|
95903439|NCT03108924|191762427|OTHER||GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.9||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD / GM for ESRD Non-HD|||1.90|0.88|
95903440|NCT03108924|191762430|OTHER||GMR|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.5||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.50|0.23|
95903441|NCT03108924|191762430|OTHER||GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.35||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.35|0.14|
95903442|NCT03108924|191762430|OTHER||GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.34||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for ESRD Non-HD / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.34|0.13|
95903443|NCT03108924|191762432|OTHER||GMR|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.39||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Moderate RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.39|0.25|
95903444|NCT03108924|191762432|OTHER||GMR|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||Categorical Analysis|GMR = GM for Severe RI / GM for Healthy Controls|||0.16|0.07|
95903445|NCT02703844|191762437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0089
95903446|NCT00801684|191762451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The difference between the active treatment was compared to placebo. For a null hypothesis, the difference would equal 0 (zero).||||<0.0001
95903447|NCT00614939|191762454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.12|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.12|-0.71|0.007
95903448|NCT00614939|191762455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.847||0.339||95.0|-37.91|13.22|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||13.22|-37.91|0.339
95903449|NCT00614939|191762456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.938||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|29.93|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||29.93|-38.65|0.798
95903450|NCT00614939|191762457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|44.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.815||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.93|106.94|||ANCOVA|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||106.94|-18.93|0.164
95903451|NCT00614939|191762458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.713|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.74|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||0.74|-2.10|
95903452|NCT00614939|191762459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.941|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.67|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.67|-2.14|
95903453|NCT00614939|191762460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.709|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|5.93|||Footnote|\*Adjusted for baseline FPG||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||5.93|-1.05|
95903454|NCT00614939|191762461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.37|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=26 for saxagliptin and n=34 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline HbA1c"||||-0.37|-1.27|
95903455|NCT00614939|191762462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.475|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.28|18.33|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||18.33|-54.28|
95903456|NCT00614939|191762463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.326|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.77|34.3|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||34.30|-65.77|
95903457|NCT00614939|191762464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|53.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.44|68.26|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||68.26|-144.44|
95903458|NCT00614939|191762465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|1.04|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=17 for saxagliptin and n=16 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.04|-2.99|
95903459|NCT00614939|191762466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.405|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|1.89|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=5 for saxagliptin and n=11 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||1.89|-3.66|
95903460|NCT00614939|191762467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.04|3.76|||Repeated Measures|"Number of subjects with observed values at Week 52 was n=2 for saxagliptin and n=5 for placebo.~\*Adjusted for baseline FPG"||"Additional details about the analysis, such as null hypothesis and power calculation:~Due to a statistically significant treatment-by-baseline renal impairment interaction, fasting plasma glucose results were analyzed separately for each baseline renal impairment category."||3.76|-8.04|
95903461|NCT01854827|191762470|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
95903462|NCT01854827|191762471|SUPERIORITY|Percent was evaluated relative to 80% where statistical superiority was demonstrated if the one-sided, 90% Clopper-Pearson lower confidence bound was \> 80%.|Percent of patients|79.3|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|63.2||||||||The lower bound of the 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval was \< 80%, therefore the study failed to achieve the feasibility definition stated in the protocol.||63.2|
95903463|NCT01854827|191762472|OTHER|Percents with serious AEs prior to liver transplant were calculated, along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bounds.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
95903464|NCT01854827|191762473|OTHER|Percent of patients with level 3-5 toxicity are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence interval lower bound.|Percent of patients|89.7|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|75.4||||||||||75.4|
95903465|NCT01854827|191762474|OTHER|Percent of patients with other expected AEs are presented along with one-sided 90% Clopper-Pearson confidence limit lower bound.|Percent of patients|27.6|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0|14.5||||||||||14.5|
95903466|NCT01854827|191762475|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.5486|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared to the historical placebo control from the START study (n=64): PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||2.38||0.5486
95903467|NCT01854827|191762476|SUPERIORITY|One-sided testing for superiority of IVIG relative to historical control.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.8455|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22|||Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical control of START study placebo (N=64). PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684||1.22||0.8455
95903468|NCT01854827|191762477|SUPERIORITY|One-sided.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29||||0.8431|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.24||One-sided|Regression, Logistic|||IVIG was compared for superiority to the historical START placebo control (N=64).||1.24||0.8431
95903469|NCT01854827|191762478|SUPERIORITY|One-sided for IVIG superior to historical START placebo control. PMID: 24794368 NCT00294684|Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9|||||ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.1||||||K-M estimates for survival for IVIG vs the historical START placebo control are provided, along with one-sided 90% upper bounds of the confidence intervals.||2.1||
95979324|NCT01699789|191931786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.09||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N= 249), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.09|0.32|
95979325|NCT01699789|191931787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.95||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.95|0.28|
95903470|NCT02079805|191762509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|1.78||||||Telmisartan 40 mg, Azilsartan 20 mg||1.78|-0.89|
95903471|NCT04079933|191762552|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|8.27|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square (LS) means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||8.27|-33.5|0.2347
95903472|NCT04079933|191762552|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9||||0.2905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|10.2|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||10.2|-33.9|0.2905
95903473|NCT04079933|191762553|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.72||||0.9433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|99.4|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in urinary total NNAL||99.4|-107|0.9433
95903474|NCT04079933|191762553|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.2||||0.8264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.0|97.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in urinary total NNAL||97.5|-122|0.8264
95903475|NCT04079933|191762554|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.10|-4.35|0.4903
95903476|NCT04079933|191762554|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in nicotine equivalents||2.07|-4.88|0.4251
95903477|NCT04079933|191762555|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.83||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||13.5|-33.2|0.4060
95903478|NCT04079933|191762555|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3||||0.4165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|14.7|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in nicotine equivalents||14.7|-35.4|0.4165
95903479|NCT04079933|191762556|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-269.0||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1773.0|1235.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1235|-1773|0.7240
95979326|NCT01699789|191931788|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.88||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.88|0.14|
95979327|NCT01699789|191931789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||Median cut point for baseline variable.|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.52|
95903480|NCT04079933|191762556|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|50.5||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1566.0|1667.0|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in S-PMA||1667|-1566|0.9508
95903481|NCT04079933|191762557|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.1524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|7.12|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||7.12|-45.1|0.1524
95903482|NCT04079933|191762557|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|16.3|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in S-PMA||16.3|-40.4|0.4014
95903483|NCT04079933|191762558|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.507||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.946|-0.0674|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.0674|-0.946|0.0241
95903484|NCT04079933|191762558|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.367||||0.1292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.843|0.108|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in carboxyhemoglobin||0.108|-0.843|0.1292
95903485|NCT04079933|191762559|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-0.803|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||-0.803|-19.2|0.0333
95979328|NCT01699789|191931790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.41||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition||1.41|0.69|
95979329|NCT01699789|191931791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.46||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.46|0.70|
95903486|NCT04079933|191762559|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76||||0.1767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in carboxyhemoglobin||3.08|-16.6|0.1767
95903487|NCT04079933|191762560|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.51||||0.2961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|1.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||1.34|-4.36|0.2961
95903488|NCT04079933|191762560|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in exhaled carbon monoxide||2.03|-4.12|0.5015
95903489|NCT04079933|191762561|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1||||0.2048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|6.68|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in exhaled carbon monoxide||6.68|-30.9|0.2048
95903490|NCT04079933|191762561|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|12.8|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to control in exhaled carbon monoxide||12.8|-27.4|0.4731
95979330|NCT01699789|191931792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=298), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||4.94|1.40|<.01
95903491|NCT04079933|191762562|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|-2.47|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.47|-5.25|<0.0001
95979331|NCT01699789|191931793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.21|0.66|
95979332|NCT01699789|191931794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.40|0.61|
95979333|NCT01699789|191931795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.25||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.25|0.34|
95979334|NCT01699789|191931796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.82||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=553), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||0.82|0.30|
95979335|NCT01699789|191931797|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|5.8||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=588), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.80|1.39|
95979336|NCT01699789|191931798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|24.9||||||Adjusted analyses used multiply imputed data (N=410), weighted for eligible sample for enrollment; Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||24.9|1.5|
95979337|NCT01699789|191931799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.57||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.57|0.59|
95979338|NCT01699789|191931800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.22|||||When analyzed as change from baseline, CEP showed significant reductions in likelihood of behavioral health hospitalizations at 6 months (P \< 0.01) and 12 months (P \< 0.01).|Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.22|.40|
95979339|NCT01699789|191931801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.66|.66|
95979340|NCT01699789|191931802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a generalized estimating equation logistic regression model adjusted for covariates, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 1,018 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.42|0.74|
95979341|NCT01699789|191931803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.05||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.05|.60|
95979342|NCT01699789|191931804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.32||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.32|0.72|
95979343|NCT01699789|191931805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.39||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a logit link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.39|0.55|
95903492|NCT04079933|191762562|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|-2.34|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline in cigarettes smoked per day||-2.34|-5.14|<0.0001
95903493|NCT04079933|191762563|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-14.5|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in Least Square means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Percent Change from baseline = study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.5|-30.5|<0.0001
95903494|NCT04079933|191762563|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day|Mean Difference (Net)|-22.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|-14.1|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~%Change from baseline = study group +visit +study group\*visit +CPD +Sex +Race +BMI +Age +subject +random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix."|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study in cigarettes smoked per day||-14.1|-30.4|<0.0001
95903495|NCT04079933|191762564|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.408||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|0.0673|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0673|-0.884|0.0919
95903496|NCT04079933|191762564|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.405||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.886|0.0751|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence||0.0751|-0.886|0.0975
95903497|NCT04079933|191762564|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.31||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|0.499|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS mean percent change between study groups using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 1:~Change from baseline=study group + visit + study group\*visit + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.499|-17.1|0.0643
95903498|NCT04079933|191762564|EQUIVALENCE|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.84||||0.0517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|0.0661|||t-test, 2 sided||"Difference in LS means (Test - Control) using Mixed Effects Repeated Measures Model 2:~Change from baseline= study group + visit + study group\*visit + CPD + Sex + Race + BMI + Age + subject + random error, fitted with unstructured covariance matrix"|"Statistical Analysis of Difference in Percent Change from Baseline in Total Score of Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence between the Study Groups.~Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of percent change from baseline to end of study for Fagerstrom Test score for Cigarette Dependence"||0.0661|-17.7|0.0517
95979344|NCT01699789|191931806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.29||||||Intent-to-treat analyses of repeated measures were developed including all participants with data at baseline, 6-month, or 12-month. Missing data were imputed. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) with a log link function was used with adjustment for covariates.||1.29|0.65|
95979345|NCT01699789|191931807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a linear regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.2|
95979346|NCT01699789|191931808|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||0.8|0.1|
95979347|NCT01699789|191931809|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||3.7|0.4|
95979348|NCT01699789|191931810|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.8|
95979349|NCT01699789|191931811|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.1||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.1|0.5|
95979350|NCT01699789|191931812|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.6|0.7|
95979351|NCT01699789|191931813|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||4.0|0.3|
95903499|NCT04079933|191762565|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.216||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.2160
95903500|NCT04079933|191762565|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.0648||||0.0648|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quit attempts from baseline to end of study||||0.0648
95903501|NCT04079933|191762566|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.5977||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent levels of change in quitting intentions from baseline to end of study||||0.5977
95903502|NCT04079933|191762567|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL|Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|35.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of NNAL; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of NNAL||35.5|-15.5|0.4388
95903503|NCT04079933|191762568|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites|Mean Difference (Net)|0.45||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of nicotine metabolites||1.38|-0.48|0.3390
95903504|NCT04079933|191762569|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA|Mean Difference (Net)|-205.0||||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-745.0|334.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of S-PMA; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of S-PMA||334|-745|0.4526
95903505|NCT04079933|191762570|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carboxyhemoglobin||0.2|-0.2|0.9440
95903506|NCT04079933|191762571|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will have equivalent levels of change in mean exposure of carbon monoxide; Alternate hypothesis = The Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT have equivalent levels of change from baseline to end of study in mean exposure of carbon monoxide||1|-1|0.7484
95903507|NCT04079933|191762572|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1 (Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will be equivalent; Alternate hypothesis = Cigarette consumption (CPD) determined using the Day 1(Weekly Recall) and Day 8 (Daily Tracking using IVRS) methods will NOT be equivalent||0|0|0.9992
95903508|NCT04079933|191762594|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.1661||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.1661
95903509|NCT04079933|191762594|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study|Probability|0.2139||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Estimated value is the probability of observed distribution assuming the null hypothesis|Null hypothesis = Test and Control groups will have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study; Alternate hypothesis = Test and Control groups will NOT have equivalent number of subjects in subgroups based on urinary total NNAL change from baseline to end of study||||0.2139
95903510|NCT01144338|191762641|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||||1.004|0.832|0.061
95903511|NCT01144338|191762642|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1.3 vs. H1: HR \< 1.3|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.004|||Regression, Cox|||This analysis uses the same endpoint and cox regression method as the primary efficacy analysis. However, the statistical hypothesis is a non-inferiority test with a margin of HR=1.3.||1.004|0.832|< 0.001
95903512|NCT01144338|191762643|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.77|0.016
95903513|NCT01144338|191762644|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.76|0.096
95903514|NCT01144338|191762645|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.10|0.85|0.622
95903515|NCT01144338|191762646|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||||1.03|0.70|0.095
95903516|NCT01144338|191762647|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.94|0.402
95903517|NCT01144338|191762648|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of EQW over Placebo H0: HR ≥ 1 vs. H1: HR \< 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.78|0.485
95979352|NCT01699789|191931814|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.7|0.4|
95979353|NCT01699789|191931815|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.6|0.2|
95903518|NCT02059148|191762654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.38||||||||1.38|1.11|
95903519|NCT02059148|191762655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.23||||||||1.23|1.05|
95903520|NCT02059148|191762656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.95||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|1.00|0.0006
95903521|NCT02255175|191762708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.501, df=33||||||.620
95903522|NCT02255175|191762709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.185, df=33||||||.855
95903523|NCT02255175|191762710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=-.310, df=33||||||.758
95903524|NCT02255175|191762711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.653, df=33||||||.518
95903525|NCT02255175|191762712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.465, df=33||||||.645
95903526|NCT02255175|191762713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=2.56, df=33||||||.015
95903527|NCT02255175|191762714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.705, df=33||||||.486
95903528|NCT02255175|191762715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t=.216, df=33||||||.831
95903529|NCT02255175|191762716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|F(1,33)=17.91||||||.0002
95903530|NCT05799495|191762723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.671|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3178||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.08|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.262|-1.080|0.0181
95903531|NCT05799495|191762723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3562||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.26|-0.344|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.344|-1.260|0.0127
95903532|NCT05799495|191762723|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.506|-0.827|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.827|-1.506|<.0001
95903533|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3402||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.046|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.170|-1.046|0.0378
95903534|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3718||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.782|-0.826|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.826|-1.782|0.0003
95903535|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.509|-0.788|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3||-0.788|-1.509|<.0001
95903536|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2732||0.5931|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.287|0.416|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.416|-0.287|0.5931
95903537|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2914||0.508|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.369|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.381|-0.369|0.5080
95903538|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.501|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10||0.073|-0.501|0.1692
95903539|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2004||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.497|0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.019|-0.497|0.1172
95903540|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2178||0.3979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.337|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.224|-0.337|0.3979
95903541|NCT05799495|191762724|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1655||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.595|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||-0.170|-0.595|0.0109
95903542|NCT04177108|191762744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49||||0.0098||95.0|0.28|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.28|0.0098
95903543|NCT04177108|191762744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.2396||95.0|0.42|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.42|0.2396
95903544|NCT04177108|191762744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9809||95.0|0.63|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.63|0.9809
95903545|NCT04177108|191762745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.6805||95.0|0.55|2.51|||Log Rank|||||2.51|0.55|0.6805
95903546|NCT04177108|191762745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.6314||95.0|0.55|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.55|0.6314
95903547|NCT04177108|191762745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9164||95.0|0.52|2.06|||Log Rank|||||2.06|0.52|0.9164
95903548|NCT01175226|191762766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
95903549|NCT03299192|191762771|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This feasibility study is small and not designed to look at outcome statistics|GEE with Ancova features|||||||.001
95903550|NCT00983580|191762776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.448
95979354|NCT01699789|191931816|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Poisson regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.8|0.4|
95979355|NCT01699789|191931817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.6|1.2|
95979356|NCT01699789|191931818|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.5||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.5|0.5|
95979357|NCT01699789|191931819|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.3||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||8.3|1.0|
95979358|NCT01699789|191931820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.7|
95979359|NCT01699789|191931821|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|0.5|
95979360|NCT01699789|191931822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||2.0|1.0|
95903551|NCT00983580|191762777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This statistical analysis compares the difference between the number of patients with No adenoma recurrence at 12 months with those with adenoma recurrence at 12 months.||||0.358
95903552|NCT00983580|191762779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.513
95903553|NCT01652716|191762783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1349||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||Mixed model for repeated measure (MMRM)|Based on a repeated measures mixed model including fixed categorical effects of treatment||||-0.10|-0.63|0.0072
95979361|NCT01699789|191931823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline and covariates, and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. We weighted data for 980 clients to characteristics of the eligible sample, with item-level imputation for missing data and wave-level imputation for missing surveys. Weights account for non-enrollment among eligible clients and attrition.||1.7|0.6|
95979362|NCT01699789|191931824|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.5|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.50|0.83|>.05
95979363|NCT01699789|191931825|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.23|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||1.52|0.99|>0.05
95903554|NCT01652716|191762784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2247|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2247
95903555|NCT01652716|191762785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.841||0.1656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|1.3||Adjusted|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-21.7|0.1656
95903556|NCT01652716|191762786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4497||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.28|-0.48|0.3744
95903557|NCT01652716|191762787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.8957||0.0985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|58.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||58.64|-5.16|0.0985
95903558|NCT05204134|191762792|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95903559|NCT05204134|191762793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95903560|NCT05204134|191762794|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95903561|NCT05204134|191762795|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95903562|NCT05204134|191762796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95903563|NCT05204134|191762797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95903564|NCT05204134|191762798|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903565|NCT05204134|191762799|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903566|NCT05204134|191762800|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903567|NCT05204134|191762801|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between 2 week run-in and 13 weeks Control-IQ use with adaptation.||||<0.001
95903568|NCT05204134|191762802|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903569|NCT05204134|191762803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903570|NCT05204134|191762804|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903571|NCT05204134|191762805|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903572|NCT05204134|191762806|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903573|NCT05204134|191762807|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903574|NCT05204134|191762808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903575|NCT05204134|191762809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903576|NCT05204134|191762810|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95903577|NCT05204134|191762811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.17
95903578|NCT05204134|191762812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95903579|NCT05204134|191762813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95903580|NCT01968434|191762862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The sample size was calculated to detect a 0.75 point difference between any two treatment groups with a 90% power and p\<0.05. Such sample size was 60 subject which was elevated ot 75 subjects per group to account for drop outs. For comparison of cough evaluation before and after treatment a paired Student t test was used.||||<0.01
95903581|NCT01968434|191762863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95903582|NCT01968434|191762864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95903583|NCT00612313|191762867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||The estimated rate of time spent well was evaluated using a Poisson regression with adjustment for CDRS-R score at the end of the acute phase, age group, and gender.|Regression, Poisson||Differencein percentages represents estimated percentage for medication management + CBT Arm minus estimated percentage for medication management only Arm.|||||.02
95903584|NCT00791765|191762871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
95903585|NCT00791765|191762872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
95903586|NCT00791765|191762873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided pairwise van Elteren's test|Stratified by baseline body mass index group||Comparison of week 24 outcome to week 12 outcome (see Outcome Measure 1)||||<0.0001
95903587|NCT00791765|191762874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided test with modified ridit scores stratified by baseline body mass index group||||||<0.0001
95903588|NCT04537923|191762875|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.24|<0.001
95903589|NCT04537923|191762876|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.70|-1.08|<0.001
95903590|NCT04537923|191762876|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.92|-1.30|<0.001
95903591|NCT04537923|191762876|NON_INFERIORITY|0.3% noninferiority margin.|LS Mean Difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.11|-1.49|<0.001
95903592|NCT04537923|191762877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.36|2.25|<0.0001
95903593|NCT04537923|191762877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.88|4.27|<0.0001
95903594|NCT04537923|191762877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.37|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.75|5.37|<0.0001
95903595|NCT04537923|191762878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-9.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.9|-11.5|<0.001
95903596|NCT04537923|191762878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.9|-14.5|<0.001
95903597|NCT04537923|191762878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|-15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.0|-16.7|<0.001
95903598|NCT04537923|191762879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-30.8|<0.001
95903599|NCT04537923|191762879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-25.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.4|-40.6|<0.001
95903600|NCT04537923|191762879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3|-23.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.8|-39.3|<0.001
95903601|NCT04537923|191762880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-5.0|0.682
95903602|NCT04537923|191762880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.4|-9.9|0.010
95903603|NCT04537923|191762880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|-7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.5|-16.0|<0.001
95903604|NCT04537923|191762881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.66|11.83|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.83|5.66|<0.001
95903605|NCT04537923|191762881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.44|24.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.96|11.44|<0.001
95903606|NCT04537923|191762881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.49|32.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.93|14.49|<0.001
95903607|NCT04537923|191762882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.36|43.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||43.46|18.36|<0.001
95903608|NCT04537923|191762882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.76|94.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||94.39|36.76|<0.001
95903609|NCT04537923|191762882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.49|127.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||127.33|47.49|<0.001
95903610|NCT04537923|191762883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|0.5|0.005
95903611|NCT04537923|191762883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
95903612|NCT04537923|191762883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||||3.3|1.2|<0.001
95903613|NCT04537923|191762884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.3|0.020
95903614|NCT04537923|191762884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.2|||ANCOVA|||||4.2|1.5|<0.001
95903615|NCT04537923|191762884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|0.7|0.004
95903616|NCT01261611|191762885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 210 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
95903617|NCT01261611|191762885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline, baseline TWSTRS Total score, baseline BTX status and pooled centre as explanatory variables was performed.||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport and Placebo arms was performed. A total of 213 subjects were included in the analysis.||||<0.0001
95903618|NCT01261611|191762885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline TWSTRS Total score, BTX status at baseline and pooled centre as explanatory variables had been performed. The non-inferiority margin was 3 points.|LS mean difference|1.532|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.819|3.883||||||A pre-specified analysis of the LS mean difference between the Dysport NG and Dysport arms was performed. A total of 315 subjects were included in the analysis.||3.883|-0.819|
95903619|NCT00746954|191762950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparisons among groups||||0.45
95903620|NCT01808690|191762971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted multivariable models, which included sex, pubertal status, change in BMI, and baseline M/I.||Insulin function was defined as M/I (mg/kg/min)/(insulin). Power calculations were based on data from a small study in youth with poorly controlled T1DM, which reported a significant increase in M/I in the 11 participants treated with Metformin. On the basis of the effect size reported in that study, a sample size of 25 per group and an alpha of 0.05 provided us with 93% power to detect a difference of 1 SD in the primary outcome of M/I.||||0.005
95903621|NCT01808690|191762972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of the variable, sex, age, change in VO2peak, change in insulin sensitivity, and treatment condition.||||||0.46
95903622|NCT01808690|191762973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
95903623|NCT01808690|191762974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.04
95903624|NCT01808690|191762975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for the baseline value of BMI percentile, diabetes duration, and A1c.||||||0.01
95979364|NCT01699789|191931826|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.99||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||2.99|1.00|
95979365|NCT01699789|191931827|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|5.54||||||Intent-to-treat, comparative-effectiveness analyses with intervention status as the independent variable, using a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline covariates. Data were multiply imputed and weighted for eligible sample for enrollment, accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization.||5.54|1.24|
95979366|NCT01786239|191931874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0493
95979367|NCT01295281|191931876|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Two catheters were tested regarding subjects' perception when using them, in a cross over design. After using each catheter for 1 week the subjects were asked: Do you experience discomfort when using your catheter?, and the subjects were supposed to answer Yes or No. The hypothesis to be investigated was that the tolerability/perception was about the same for each type of catheter, i.e. the POBE 2.0 should be non-inferior compared to PVC. H0: p(disc. POBE - Yes) = p(disc. PVC - Yes)"||||||0.0066|||||||McNemar|||The size of the target population was estimated by calculating 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of a possible difference between the two catheter types. The width of the interval was decided on the proportion of patients who would prefer one or the other catheter. Max width was seen when both proportions were 0.5. A total of 90 evaluable subjects limited the maximum width to 0.41, which was considered narrow enough from a scientific point of view, why this sample size was used in the study.||||0.0066
95903625|NCT01808690|191762976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Threshold for statistical significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in SBP, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.03
95903626|NCT01808690|191762977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||Threshold for significance P=0.05|Regression, Linear|We also fitted mutlivariable models, which included changed in systolic blood pressure, change in BMI, and change in M/I.||||||0.8
95979368|NCT00292461|191931889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.240
95979369|NCT00292461|191931890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.460
95979370|NCT00292461|191931891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.079
95979371|NCT00292461|191931892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.860
95979372|NCT04484259|191931908|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin 45 PRU|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|38.0||||||The primary end point was non-inferiority of Ticagrelor 60 mg monotherapy vs. aspirin plus Ticagrelor 60 mg||38|-23|
95979373|NCT04498832|191931918|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of GMTs was greater than (\>) 1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|3.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H1N1||3.20|2.46|
95903627|NCT03586648|191762995|SUPERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than 32 points.|Least-square Mean|39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|45.9|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.||Data only from the first period will be used if period effect is significant.||45.9|32.7|
95979374|NCT04498832|191931918|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|A/H3N2-like||2.50|2.03|
95979375|NCT04498832|191931918|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|2.81|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Victoria-like||2.81|2.31|
95979376|NCT04498832|191931918|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of GMTs was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95%CI for the ratio of GMTs was \>1 between groups for each of the comparisons.|GMT ratio|3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|3.42|||||The 2-sided 95% CI was based on the student t-distribution of logarithmic transformation of the individual titers. Antilog transformations were applied to the results.|B/Yamagata||3.42|2.85|
95903628|NCT03586648|191762996|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistically superiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the confidence intervals of the Test lens is greater than -5 points.|Least-square Mean Difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-3.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.||-3.3|-19.7|
95903629|NCT02041195|191762998|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.26||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|-1.72||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.72|-6.81|0.004
95903630|NCT02041195|191762998|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.63||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.23|-1.03|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|One-sided p-value.|A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.03|-6.23|0.012
95903631|NCT02041195|191763000|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.24|-1.89||One sided p-value.|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.89|-5.24|<0.001
95903632|NCT02041195|191763002|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|-1.0|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance||A longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effects for treatment, timepoint, treatment-by-timepoint, baseline weight as covariate, and participant as random effect was used.|||-1.00|-3.44|0.002
95903633|NCT02395120|191763012|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.08||We addressed the issue of multiple testing, both multiple comparisons and multiple sites, using a gatekeeper approach. The use of 0.05 alpha level for each test maintained a 0.05 family-wise alpha level for the six tests (three at each site).|Regression, Logistic||||The primary outcome analysis utilized generalized estimating equations (GEE) with a logit link for the binary dental care receipt outcome. The GEE analysis was conducted using dental care receipt outcomes as restorative care alone (ICDAS codes ≥3), as well as combined preventive (i.e. sealants) and restorative care (ICDAS codes ≥1). Models were fit separately to the overall data (all sites combined), the combined EC and WA sites (based on our original plan of two predominantly low-income school districts), and the BD schools alone. Each model included, as covariates, indicator variables for intervention, site (except for the model with BD alone), child grade, and caregiver demographic variables (race, education, marital status). Corresponding estimated odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed.|3.08|1.21|<0.05
95903634|NCT00674986|191763015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.54|||Fisher Exact|||||0.54|0.01|0.0416
95903635|NCT00674986|191763016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95903636|NCT00674986|191763017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2777||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2777
95903637|NCT00674986|191763018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1160
95903638|NCT00674986|191763019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1146||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1146
95903639|NCT00674986|191763020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0470
95903640|NCT00674986|191763021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95903641|NCT01997398|191763023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences in baseline and 6-month postoperative scores were assessed using a series of repeated measures general linear models with a single within-subjects factor and no between-subjects factors.|Repeated measures general linear models|||||||<0.001
95903642|NCT00492349|191763068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
95903643|NCT00492349|191763069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||||||All treatment main and interaction effect p-values were \> 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline CPT Detectability served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||>0.05
95903644|NCT00492349|191763070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||Mixed model ANCOVA in which baseline Antisaccade Errors served as the covariate and Smoking status and measurement occasions were between and within-groups factors, respectively.||||<0.05
95903645|NCT02212028|191763072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|126.0|||ANOVA|||||126|10|0.022
95903646|NCT02212028|191763073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.005
95903647|NCT03822533|191763085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.089|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean difference using independent samples t-test.||0.089|-0.059|0.69
95903648|NCT03822533|191763085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.063||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||Presenting β-values from linear regression analysis for group variable adjusted for baseline differences in EQ-5D-3L-index. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||0.063|-0.093|
95903649|NCT03822533|191763086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-891.0|164.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||164|-891|0.17
95903650|NCT03822533|191763086|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-364.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-870.0|143.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis||||143|-870|
95903651|NCT03822533|191763087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-616.0|150.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent-samples t-test. Dependent variable cost items, independent variable group (physiotherapist or physician assessment)||150|-616|0.23
95903652|NCT03822533|191763087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-233.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.0|139.0||The linear regression analysis was needed to calculate the incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER). The p-value from this test was not relevant for the ICER calculation.|Regression, Linear|First step in a cost-efficiency analysis.||Linear regression analysis. The results from this analysis were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (mean difference in costs divided by mean difference in QALYs).||139|-605|
95903653|NCT03822533|191763090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.0||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.0|314.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||314|-219|0.72
95903654|NCT03822533|191763091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-178.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-239|<0.01
95903655|NCT03822533|191763092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.2|-42|0.01
95903656|NCT03822533|191763093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.0||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|36.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||36|-59|0.62
95903657|NCT03822533|191763094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|15.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15|-13|0.87
95903658|NCT03822533|191763095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.0||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-728.0|220.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||220|-728|0.27
95903659|NCT03822533|191763096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.0|118.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||118|-113|0.96
95903660|NCT01138124|191763105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.75|1.51|<0.0001
95903661|NCT01138124|191763105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.82||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|1.34|0.0001
95903662|NCT01138124|191763105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.52||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.36|0.98|0.0627
95903663|NCT01138124|191763105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.2183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.85|0.2183
95903664|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.28|1.86|<0.0001
95903665|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy"|||3.85|1.66|<0.0001
95979377|NCT04498832|191931919|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|29.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|33.5|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H1N1||33.5|25.7|
95979378|NCT04498832|191931919|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|32.0|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|A/H3N2-like||32.0|24.0|
95903666|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|5.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.03|1.51|0.001
95903667|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.49|1.32|0.0042
95903668|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.8||||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.97|0.0645
95979379|NCT04498832|191931919|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|31.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|35.2|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Victoria-like||35.2|27.4|
95903669|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.1232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.11|0.87|0.1232
95903670|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.55||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.78|0.17|0.3160
95903671|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.48||||0.2234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||1.57|0.15|0.2234
95903672|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.76|0.3071
95903673|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.17||||0.6062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.11|0.65|0.6062
95903674|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.31||||0.5205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.97|0.58|0.5205
95903675|NCT01138124|191763106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.57|0.48|0.8042
95903676|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|4.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.86|2.04|<0.0001
95903677|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.46|1.85|<0.0001
95903678|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.75||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.13|1.47|0.0015
95903679|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.45||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.62|1.31|0.0053
95903680|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.94|0.0777
95903681|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.5||||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.69|0.83|0.1762
95903682|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.82||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.28|0.29|0.6990
95903683|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.5274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.01|0.26|0.5274
95903684|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3245
95903685|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.07|0.64|0.6388
95903686|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.11||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.51|0.49|0.796
95903687|NCT01138124|191763107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.94||||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.15|0.41|0.8772
95903688|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.47|1.88|<0.0001
95903689|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||4.11|1.71|<0.0001
95903690|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.19||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|4.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.25|1.12|0.0212
95903691|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95||||0.0522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||3.81|0.99|0.0522
95903692|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.87||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.05|0.0337
95903693|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.64||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.95|0.92|0.0947
95903694|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.42||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.64|0.3928
95903695|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.21||||0.6502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.72|0.54|0.6502
95903696|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.34||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.75|0.3275
95903697|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.6365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.08|0.64|0.6365
95903698|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.01||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.42|0.9858
95903699|NCT01138124|191763108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, neuropathic pain, epilepsy."|||2.12|0.36|0.7671
95903700|NCT01138124|191763109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|1.22|0.0031
95903701|NCT01138124|191763109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.68||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.49|1.13|0.0095
95903702|NCT01138124|191763109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.65||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.99|0.91|0.0970
95903703|NCT01138124|191763109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.1123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.97|0.89|0.1123
95903704|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.53||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||4.44|1.44|0.0012
95903705|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.14|1.32|0.0034
95903706|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.18||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.32|0.9|0.0856
95903707|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.14||||0.0996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|0.87|0.0996
95903708|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.63|0.98|0.0563
95903709|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.77||||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.43|0.92|0.0896
95903710|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.4||||0.5308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|4.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.01|0.49|0.5308
95903711|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.39||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.02|0.48|0.5458
95903712|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.87||||0.7744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.19|0.35|0.7744
95903713|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.11|0.33|0.6999
95903714|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.32||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.47|0.39|0.6528
95903715|NCT01138124|191763110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.3||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.47|0.38|0.6722
95903716|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|3.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||5.85|1.79|<0.0001
95903717|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.9||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|5.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.28|1.59|0.0005
95903718|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.54||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.25|1.03|0.042
95903719|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.4||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|5.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.98|0.96|0.0603
95903720|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.65|0.69|0.3762
95903721|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.33||||0.4073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.63|0.68|0.4073
95903722|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.95||||0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.12|0.29|0.9294
95903723|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.29|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.29|0.3|0.9875
95903724|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.19||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.54|0.66
95903725|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.1||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.45|0.5|0.8110
95903726|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|4.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.96|0.58|0.3336
95903727|NCT01138124|191763111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.63||||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.84|0.55|0.3782
95903728|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.89||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.88|0.92|0.0841
95903729|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.75||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.63|0.85|0.1313
95903730|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.03||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|5.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.34|0.78|0.1488
95903731|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.05||||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||5.46|0.77|0.1495
95903732|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|2.44||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|4.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.22|1.42|0.0013
95903733|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.34||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.07|1.35|0.0026
95903734|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.78||||0.2421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.69|0.68|0.2421
95903735|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.7||||0.2899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||4.53|0.64|0.2899
95903736|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.29|0.42|0.9723
95903737|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||2.13|0.39|0.8206
95903738|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.82|0.35|0.8135
95903739|NCT01138124|191763112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, hypertension, diuretic use, diabetes, neuropathic pain, and epilepsy."|||3.86|0.34|0.8173
95903740|NCT00262834|191763123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.42
95903741|NCT00262834|191763124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare the differences (post-pre) between groups.||||||0.50
95979380|NCT04498832|191931919|SUPERIORITY|Superiority on seroconversions was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in percentage between groups was \> 0% for each of the comparisons.|Difference in percentage|35.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|39.3|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the difference was based on the Wilson score method without continuity correction.|B/Yamagata||39.3|31.4|
95903742|NCT00262834|191763125|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95903743|NCT00377819|191763139|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.35%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.25|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.25|0.44|<0.0001
95903744|NCT00377819|191763140|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -0.22%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.63|1.73|||Repeated Measures Model||Based on repeated measures model adjusting for treatment, length of prior alendronate stratification variable, visit, baseline value, machine type, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline value by machine type interaction|||1.73|0.63|<0.0001
95979381|NCT04908189|191931929|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
95979382|NCT04908189|191931930|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
95903745|NCT00377819|191763141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren Stratified Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95903746|NCT00996996|191763142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed response.|||100|90|
95903747|NCT00996996|191763143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a response.|||100|94|
95903748|NCT00996996|191763144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR.|||80|59|
95903749|NCT00996996|191763144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CCR.|||6|0|
95903750|NCT00996996|191763144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|85.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + confirmed CCR.|||85|65|
95903751|NCT00996996|191763144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|26.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed PR.|||26|9|
95903752|NCT00996996|191763145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|74.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|84.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR.|||84|64|
95979383|NCT04908189|191931932|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||3.105|0.980|0.0002
95903753|NCT00996996|191763145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CCR.|||8|0|
95903754|NCT00996996|191763145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|87.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a CR + CCR.|||87|68|
95903755|NCT00996996|191763145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|29.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a PR.|||29|11|
95903756|NCT01227889|191763171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.6||The p value from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|Log Rank||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR from a stratified log-rank test was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.60|0.26|<0.0001
95903757|NCT01227889|191763172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.61|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||0.61|0.20|
95903758|NCT01227889|191763173|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.18|||||HRs were estimated using a Pike estimator. HR was adjusted for disease stage at screening.|||1.18|0.57|
95903759|NCT02203019|191763183|EQUIVALENCE|Outcome comparison used the Mann Whitney U test||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.107
95903760|NCT02203019|191763184|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.260
95903761|NCT02203019|191763185|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Mann Whitney U test.||||||0.376|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.376
95903762|NCT02203019|191763186|EQUIVALENCE|Outcomes were compared using a Chi square test.||||||0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.739
95903763|NCT04535037|191763187|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of group GMC ratio (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was above 0.5.|Adjusted GMC Ratio|0.917|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.185||||The 95% CI for GMC ratio derived from an ANOVA model on log10 transformed concentration was used. GMC was adjusted for DTPA vaccination of the mother.||To demonstrate that the Haemophilus influenzae type b(Hib) response of Infanrix Hexa Group is non-inferior to the Vaxelis Group in terms of anti-PRP GMCs, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.185|0.710|
95903764|NCT04535037|191763188|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the non inferiority of anti-PRP GMC ratio was met and the LL of the 2 sided 95% CI on group difference in the percentage (Infanrix Hexa over Vaxelis group) was more than -10%.|Difference in Percentage|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|1.49||||The 2 sided 95% CI of group difference in seroconversion rate (Inv\_group minus Com\_group) was computed based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.||To demonstrate that the Hib response in Infanrix Hexa group is non-inferior to Vaxelis Group in terms of percentage of subjects with anti-PRP antibody concentrations ≥ 5 µg/mL, 1 month post-booster vaccination.||1.49|-14.10|
95903765|NCT02031276|191763196|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.6||||0.0955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) exposure.||27.5|-2.2|0.0955
95903766|NCT02031276|191763197|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|13.4||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|30.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||30.1|-3.3|0.1151
95903767|NCT02031276|191763198|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|12.0||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||20.6|3.5|0.0057
95979384|NCT04908189|191931935|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
95979385|NCT04908189|191931939|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0643|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02831||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0088|0.1198|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1198|0.0088|0.0231
95979386|NCT04908189|191931939|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03126||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.0697|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0697|-0.0528|0.7865
95979387|NCT04908189|191931939|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0515|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03386||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1179|0.0148|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||0.0148|-0.1179|0.1280
95903768|NCT02031276|191763199|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|18.7||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||33.0|4.4|0.0104
95903769|NCT02031276|191763200|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|2.4||||0.4977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||9.2|-4.5|0.4977
95903770|NCT02031276|191763201|OTHER||difference in percentage of participants|7.4||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistics for the difference are calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel risk difference stratified by anti-TNF exposure.||13.0|1.7|0.0107
95903771|NCT02731131|191763228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
95979388|NCT04908189|191931939|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean differnce|-0.0541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0346||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1219|0.0137|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.0137|-0.1219|0.1180
95979389|NCT04908189|191931939|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03511||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1814|-0.0438|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.0438|-0.1814|0.0013
95979390|NCT04908189|191931944|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4384||0.1147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|1.551|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||1.551|-0.168|0.1147
95979391|NCT04908189|191931944|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5147||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.991|3.008|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||3.008|0.991|0.0001
95979392|NCT04908189|191931944|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|2.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5421||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.105|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||3.105|0.980|0.0002
95979393|NCT04908189|191931948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.6159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.396|0.827|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.827|-1.396|0.6159
95979394|NCT04908189|191931948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.625||0.1847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.396|2.054|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||2.054|-0.396|0.1847
95979395|NCT04908189|191931948|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|2.464|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.464|-0.174|0.0888
95903772|NCT02731131|191763230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95903773|NCT02731131|191763231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
95903774|NCT02731131|191763232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.30
95903775|NCT02731131|191763233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.50
95903776|NCT01055639|191763234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95903777|NCT01055639|191763235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95903778|NCT01055639|191763236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95903779|NCT01055639|191763237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95903780|NCT01055639|191763238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.87
95903781|NCT01055639|191763239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95903782|NCT01055639|191763240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95903783|NCT01055639|191763241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95903784|NCT01055639|191763242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.00
95903785|NCT01614210|191763248|OTHER||percentage decrease in Ki67 after 7 days|||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
95903786|NCT04495712|191763255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.71
95903787|NCT04495712|191763256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.07
95903788|NCT04495712|191763257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95903789|NCT03669081|191763261|OTHER|The null hypothesis for the test was no difference between groups.||||||0.006||||||The significance level for this test was 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|We used an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test due to the skewed nature of the morphine equivalents data and the small sample sizes in each group.||||||0.006
95903790|NCT03669081|191763262|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.029|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.029
95979396|NCT04908189|191931949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.3|-1.6|0.1924
95903791|NCT03669081|191763263|NON_INFERIORITY|We conducted a 1-sided non-inferiority test using an alpha level of 0.025, for a comparison of the fold change of creatinine levels (pre-operative creatinine/post-operative creatinine) in the Toradol group. Our minimum non-inferiority margin was 0.5, ie the post-operative creatinine level could only increase to at most two times the pre-operative creatinine level.|||||<|0.0001||||||This p-value was compared to a significance threshold of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The safety outcome was used to power our study.To achieve 90% power at a 2.5% significance level for testing that the post-surgery creatinine increase is at most two-fold (where 1.5 fold is expected), or alternatively for the pre-surgery creatinine group to be ≥0.5 times the post-surgery, we need 17 subjects in the toradol group. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority test (one sided t-test) using a coefficient of variation of 0.25 based on preliminary data.||||<0.0001
95903792|NCT03669081|191763264|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95903793|NCT03669081|191763265|OTHER|The null hypothesis was no difference between groups.|||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95903794|NCT01308749|191763267|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No analyses were completed, this is descriptive only and is an absolute value (number of participants).|||
95903795|NCT01308749|191763271|EQUIVALENCE|Within group test of difference using t-scores adjusted by baseline score, no correction for multiple comparisons, nonparametric model||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95903796|NCT01308749|191763273|EQUIVALENCE|t-test between groups||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|no adjustment for multiple comparison. non parametric||||||0.23
95903797|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.132|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.132
95903798|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.658|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.658
95903799|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.142
95979397|NCT04908189|191931949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.7601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.8|-1.20|0.7601
95903800|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.207|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.207
95903801|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.077|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.077
95903802|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.331|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.331
95903803|NCT02828111|191763285|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.117|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.117
95903804|NCT02828111|191763289|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.038|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.038
95903805|NCT02828111|191763289|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.099|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.099
95903806|NCT02828111|191763289|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.198|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.198
95903807|NCT02828111|191763289|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.757|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and using Baseline value as a covariate||at Week 12||||0.757
95903808|NCT02828111|191763290|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.043|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.043
95903809|NCT02828111|191763290|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.312|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.312
95903810|NCT02828111|191763290|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at Week 12||||0.353
95903811|NCT02828111|191763290|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.093|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 2% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.093
95903812|NCT02828111|191763290|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of combined patidegib gel 4% once daily and twice daily compared with vehicle gel at Week 12.||||1.000
95903813|NCT02828111|191763290|OTHER|Pairwise comparison||||||0.157|||||||Fisher Exact|||This is the analysis of all four patidegib gel treatment groups combined compared with combined vehicle gel at Week 12.||||0.157
95903814|NCT00383435|191763321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95903815|NCT00383435|191763321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95903816|NCT00383435|191763322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95903817|NCT00383435|191763322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.029|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.029
95903818|NCT00383435|191763323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95903819|NCT00383435|191763323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.059|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.059
95903820|NCT02347761|191763332|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mea Difference (SE)|0.1036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0663|0.1409||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|MMixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of this endpoint|standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1409|0.0663|<0.0001
95979398|NCT04908189|191931949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||2.4|0.1|0.0303
95903821|NCT02347761|191763332|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 215 subjects per treatment would give \~ 90% power to detect a treatment difference of 80 mL in the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 between each of the 2 SUN-101 dose groups and placebo at alpha= 0.05, assuming a standard deviation of 255 mL and using a 2-sided test.|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0961|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01896|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1334||The primary null hypothesis for this study is that the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for the SUN-101 50 mcg dose is equal to the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 12 for Placebo.|Mixed Model Repeat Measurement|to control the family-wise Type I error rate,the Hochberg procedure(a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure)was used for comparisons of the endpoint.|Standard error of the least squares mean|The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1334|0.0589|<0.0001
95979399|NCT04908189|191931949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.4747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||1.7|-0.8|0.4747
95903822|NCT02347761|191763333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.1264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02076|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0856|0.1672||In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|Least squares mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1672|0.0856|<0.0001
95903823|NCT02347761|191763333|SUPERIORITY|In order to control the family-wise Type I error rate, the Hochberg procedure (a tree-structured gatekeeping procedure) was used for comparisons of the primary efficacy endpoints and the key secondary efficacy endpoints.|LS mean (SE)|0.1052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0206|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0647|0.1457|||LS mean (SE)|||The change from baseline in trough FEV1 was analyzed using mixed model repeated measures including terms for treatment, cardiovascular risk, background LABA use, visit week, visit week by treatment interaction, and baseline FEV1 as a covariate. An unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1457|0.0647|<0.0001
95903824|NCT01047683|191763350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.6|-21.5||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.01 for the primary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|A standard deviation of 45% in the TG measurements and a significance level of P \< 0.01 required a sample size of 69 completed patients per treatment group to provide greater than or equal to 90% power to detect a difference of 30% between AMR101 and placebo in the percentage of change from baseline in the fasting TG levels.||-21.5|-46.6|<0.0001
95903825|NCT01047683|191763350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|-5.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-5.6|-33.3|0.0051
95903826|NCT01047683|191763351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-28.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.4|-13.9||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05 for secondary and exploratory endpoints.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-13.9|-43.4|0.0005
95903827|NCT01047683|191763351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.3||||0.1152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|-0.7|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-0.7|-30.3|0.1152
95979400|NCT04908189|191931949|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||2.0|-0.4|0.2017
95979401|NCT04908189|191931951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.4459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.276|0.122|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.122|-0.276|0.4459
95979402|NCT04908189|191931951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1164||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.004|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||-0.004|-0.460|0.0461
95979403|NCT04908189|191931951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.598|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1321|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|-0.339|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.339|-0.857|<0.0001
95979404|NCT04908189|191931951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.605|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.882|-0.327|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.327|-0.882|<0.0001
95979405|NCT04908189|191931951|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1455|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.071|-0.501|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.501|-1.071|<0.0001
95979406|NCT04908189|191931952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.3525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9227||0.7025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|2.1609|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||2.1609|-1.4560|0.7025
95903828|NCT01047683|191763352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-13.6||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-6.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-6.3|-20.2|0.0006
95903829|NCT01047683|191763352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|2.2|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||2.2|-12.3|0.2367
95903830|NCT01047683|191763353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.5||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-3.2||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-3.2|-13.5|0.0019
95903831|NCT01047683|191763353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.9|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||1.9|-7.8|0.2367
95903832|NCT01047683|191763354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|8.1||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||8.1|-12.9|0.6768
95903833|NCT01047683|191763354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.3022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|15.6|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||15.6|-5.4|0.3022
95903834|NCT01047683|191763355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|-11.3||Nonparametric analysis p values were planned using Wilcoxon rank-sum test for each comparison between AMR101 and placebo. Comparisons between AMR101 and placebo were made using a significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank-sum test|A prespecified step-down testing procedure was used to control Type I error rate using 4 g/day vs placebo then, if significant, 2 g/day vs placebo.|Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-11.3|-25.0|<0.0001
95903835|NCT01047683|191763355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-1.4|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test||Median differences between the treatment groups and 95% CIs were estimated with the Hodges-Lehmann method.|||-1.4|-15.1|0.0182
95903836|NCT03586999|191763392|SUPERIORITY||proportion|0.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0||||The proportion achieving a complete response will be calculated and will compared to null proportion of 30%. The population proportion for complete response rate, p-value and 90% confidence intervals for the complete response rate will be calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was to be suspended, if, at any time, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the true probability of achieving a complete response falls below 30% while assuming the treatment drug will elicit a 56% complete response rate. Statistically significant evidence for this low complete response rate is defined as an observed complete response rate whose upper one-sided 90% confidence limit is 0-30%. Sample size calculations were made assuming 80% power.||||.1
95903837|NCT04096560|191763402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|26.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.07|32.73||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||32.73|20.07|<0.001
95903838|NCT04096560|191763402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.68|36.07||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||36.07|23.68|<0.001
95903839|NCT04096560|191763402|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|35.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.73|41.34||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||41.34|28.73|<0.001
95903840|NCT04096560|191763409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-6.16||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-6.16|-14.07|<0.001
95903841|NCT04096560|191763409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-7.56||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-7.56|-15.20|<0.001
95903842|NCT04096560|191763409|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|-9.09||The analysis used a linear MMRM with fixed effects for baseline (Day -1 mean values), treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction. Visit was repeated factor in the model.|MMRM|The unstructured covariance structure was used for the repeated statement.||||-9.09|-16.96|<0.001
95903843|NCT04096560|191763410|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.05|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.317||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the generalized estimating equation (GEE) Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.317|0.007|=0.002
95903844|NCT04096560|191763410|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.2|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.767||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.767|0.050|=0.019
95903845|NCT04096560|191763410|SUPERIORITY||IRR|0.15|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.482||The incidence rate was the exponentiated LS means and the IRR was the exponentiated LS mean differences from the GEE Poisson regression model.|MMRM|The Poisson regression with natural log link was on the count of cataplexy per week.||||0.482|0.047|=0.001
95903846|NCT01255358|191763415|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary analysis on ICARS Total score has been conducted on the ITT Population employing carry-forward and carry-backward procedures for missing data imputation, in order to evaluate all enrolled patients.||-0.9|-7.1|0.02
95903847|NCT01255358|191763416|OTHER|Changes from baseline (V1) at V2, V4 and V7 were analyzed with a RMANOVA design with age and ICARS at baseline as covariates. A Wilcoxon non-parametric test between visits was performed when the overall analysis was significant in order to help determine timing of effects|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Overall analysis on the PP Population||-2|-8.4|0.0031
95903848|NCT01255358|191763421|OTHER|VABS Total score and subscales have been analyzed with a RMANOVA design, using age as covariate (dichotomized as Low- or High-, using median age as threshold).|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VABS total score at V7||1.8|0.8|<0.0001
95903849|NCT01255358|191763422|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|1|<0.0001
95903850|NCT00534352|191763424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmin as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|95.47||||||90.0|82.77|110.1||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmin)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmin. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.1|82.77|
95979407|NCT04908189|191931952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-1.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93331||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2023|0.4562|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.4562|-3.2023|0.1413
95979408|NCT04908189|191931952|SUPERIORITY||Adjused mean difference|-3.7522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.10374||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9155|-1.589|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-1.5890|-5.9155|0.0007
95979409|NCT04908189|191931952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-4.8072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0388|-2.5757|||ANOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-2.5757|-7.0388|<0.0001
95979410|NCT04908189|191931952|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-6.2006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2284|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6082|-3.793|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-3.7930|-8.6082|<0.0001
95903851|NCT00534352|191763424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Cmax as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|102.6||||||90.0|92.91|113.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Cmax)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Cmax. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||113.3|92.91|
95903852|NCT00534352|191763424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for AUC24 as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|LS means of ratios|98.97||||||90.0|89.23|109.8||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (AUC24)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of AUC24. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||109.8|89.23|
95979411|NCT04908189|191931956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05613||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0782|0.1419|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 2||0.1419|-0.0782|0.5707
95979412|NCT04908189|191931956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06303||0.1862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2069|0.0402|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0402|-0.2069|0.1862
95979413|NCT04908189|191931956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07854||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4497|-0.1418|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.1418|-0.4497|0.0002
95979414|NCT04908189|191931956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4889|-0.1635|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.1635|-0.4889|<0.0001
95979415|NCT04908189|191931956|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4743|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08735|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6455|-0.3031|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3031|-0.6455|<0.0001
95903853|NCT00534352|191763424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was shown for Css,av as the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the LSmean ratio was within the 80-125% limits.|Least Square (LS) mean ratio|99.3||||||90.0|89.39|110.3||No p-values.|Mixed Models Analysis (Css,av)|The linear mixed effects model was controlled for treatment as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect.|The results are for the mean ratio of Css,av. Numerator: Treatment B Denominator: Treatment A|Previous studies showed that the intrasubject variability on the log transformed Cmax and AUC12h of TMC125 was less than or equal to 40%. Based on this and with complete data on 20 patients, the 90% CI of the true ratio of the means was expected to be contained within 81-124% of the observed ratio of the means.||110.3|89.39|
95903854|NCT03880578|191763448|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The outcome measure is change over time between treatment groups, reported as a mean adjusted difference.|change in the composite score of the ThyPRO between groups|||-5.7|-14.9|<0.001
95903855|NCT03880578|191763449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-4.34|0.06
95903856|NCT03880578|191763450|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||MAD obtained after log transformation of TSH|||2.03|1.27|<0.001
95903857|NCT03880578|191763451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT3||-0.35|-0.87|<0.001
95903858|NCT03880578|191763451|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||FT4||0.15|-1.81|0.12
95903859|NCT03880578|191763452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.5|-14.6|<0.001
95903860|NCT02504294|191763475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded since the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference in percentage was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-12.5%).|Difference in Percentage|-1.3975|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6503|4.8553||||||Clustered binomial analysis using logistic regression method was performed and generalized estimating equation method was used to construct 95 percent (%) two-sided confidence intervals (CIs).||4.8553|-7.6503|
95903861|NCT02504294|191763476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1062.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|803.95||0.1874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2643.2|519.2|||ANCOVA|||P-value was calculated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as factor and baseline ESA dose as covariate.||519.2|-2643.2|0.1874
95903862|NCT03855189|191763497|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903863|NCT03855189|191763497|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||<0.01
95903864|NCT03855189|191763497|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from ANOVA.||||0.06
95903865|NCT03855189|191763498|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
95903866|NCT03855189|191763498|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95903867|NCT03855189|191763498|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.50
95903868|NCT03855189|191763501|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95979416|NCT04908189|191931959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07069||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2144|0.0627|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.0627|-0.2144|0.2836
95979417|NCT04908189|191931959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09431|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7396|-0.3699|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.3699|-0.7396|<0.0001
95979418|NCT04908189|191931959|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5835|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.10162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7826|-0.3843|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.3843|-0.7826|<0.0001
95903869|NCT03855189|191763501|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903870|NCT03855189|191763501|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
95903871|NCT03855189|191763502|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
95903872|NCT03855189|191763502|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903873|NCT03855189|191763502|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
95903874|NCT03855189|191763503|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
95903875|NCT03855189|191763503|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
95903876|NCT03855189|191763503|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.81
95903877|NCT03855189|191763504|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
95903878|NCT03855189|191763504|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903879|NCT03855189|191763504|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.17
95979419|NCT04908189|191931960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.1|-0.4|0.2143
95903880|NCT03855189|191763505|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903881|NCT03855189|191763505|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
95903882|NCT03855189|191763505|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.39
95903883|NCT03855189|191763506|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903884|NCT03855189|191763506|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903885|NCT03855189|191763506|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
95903886|NCT03855189|191763507|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
95903887|NCT03855189|191763507|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95903888|NCT03855189|191763507|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.54
95903889|NCT03855189|191763508|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95979420|NCT04908189|191931960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 8||-0.2|-0.8|0.0001
95979421|NCT04908189|191931960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||-0.4|-1.0|<0.0001
95979422|NCT04908189|191931960|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||-0.4|-0.9|<0.0001
95903890|NCT03855189|191763508|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95903891|NCT03855189|191763508|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.71
95903892|NCT03855189|191763509|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903893|NCT03855189|191763509|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903894|NCT03855189|191763509|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.77
95903895|NCT03855189|191763510|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.11
95903896|NCT03855189|191763510|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
95903897|NCT03855189|191763510|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.60
95903898|NCT03855189|191763511|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903899|NCT03855189|191763511|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903900|NCT03855189|191763511|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.59
95903901|NCT03855189|191763512|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
95903902|NCT03855189|191763512|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95903903|NCT03855189|191763512|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.43
95903904|NCT03855189|191763513|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
95903905|NCT03855189|191763513|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.08
95903906|NCT03855189|191763513|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.96
95903907|NCT03855189|191763514|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95903908|NCT03855189|191763514|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903909|NCT03855189|191763514|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.64
95903910|NCT03855189|191763515|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.25
95903911|NCT03855189|191763515|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
95903912|NCT03855189|191763515|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.26
95903913|NCT03855189|191763516|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903914|NCT03855189|191763516|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903915|NCT03855189|191763516|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.09
95979423|NCT04908189|191931963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.801||0.8316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.91|3.15|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Absenteeism||3.15|-3.91|0.8316
95979424|NCT04908189|191931963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.827||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|0.63|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Presenteeism||0.63|-6.54|0.1060
95979425|NCT04908189|191931963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|1.05|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Work Productivity||1.05|-6.47|0.1578
95979426|NCT04908189|191931963|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-7.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.719|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.22|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Activity Impairment||-4.22|-10.96|<0.0001
95979427|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01224||0.8487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0291|0.0239|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Utility Score||0.0239|-0.0291|0.8487
95979428|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0365|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01531||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0065|0.0665|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Utility Score||0.0665|0.0065|0.0171
95979429|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Mobility||0.1|-0.1|0.9254
95979430|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Mobility||0.0|-0.2|0.0566
95979431|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Ajudted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Self-Care||0.1|-0.1|0.8933
95979432|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Self-Care||0.0|-0.2|0.0738
95979433|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Usual Activities||0.1|-0.1|0.6176
95979434|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.1544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Usual Activities||0.0|-0.2|0.1544
95903916|NCT03855189|191763517|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.05
95903917|NCT03855189|191763517|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903918|NCT03855189|191763517|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
95903919|NCT03855189|191763518|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
95903920|NCT03855189|191763518|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95979435|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Pain/Discomfort||0.1|-0.2|0.4707
95979436|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Pain/Discomfort||0.0|-0.3|0.0114
95979437|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.6594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.6594
95903921|NCT03855189|191763518|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.53
95979438|NCT04908189|191931964|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.7123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16 Anxiety/Depression||0.1|-0.1|0.7123
95979439|NCT04908189|191931965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.97|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 4||0.97|-0.99|0.9834
95903922|NCT03855189|191763519|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
95903923|NCT03855189|191763519|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903924|NCT03855189|191763519|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.02
95903925|NCT03855189|191763520|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
95903926|NCT03855189|191763520|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95979440|NCT04908189|191931965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.82|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 12||0.82|-1.39|0.6099
95903927|NCT03855189|191763520|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.34
95903928|NCT03855189|191763521|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903929|NCT03855189|191763521|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903930|NCT03855189|191763521|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.04
95903931|NCT03855189|191763522|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.06
95903932|NCT03855189|191763522|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903933|NCT03855189|191763522|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
95903934|NCT03855189|191763523|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.13
95903935|NCT03855189|191763523|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903936|NCT03855189|191763523|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.07
95903937|NCT03855189|191763524|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.03
95903938|NCT03855189|191763524|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||<0.01
95903939|NCT03855189|191763524|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise treatment comparison based on t-test from an analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.01
95903940|NCT00167544|191763530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|30.29|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis of total brain tissue volume was performed using multiple linear regression controlling for postmenstrual age at MRI scan to adjust for differences in timing at MRI. The distributions of potentially important confounding variables at baseline were compared in the two groups using parametric and non-parametric tests as appropriate. All analyses were performed using STATA 11.0. Please see PubMed: 23140612.||30.29|-19.49|<0.05
95903941|NCT04307186|191763534|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."|||||<|0.0001||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 1||||<0.0001
95903942|NCT04307186|191763534|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.5775||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 2||||0.5775
95903943|NCT04307186|191763534|OTHER|"McNemar test was used for the exploratory analysis of difference between the percentage of participants greatly prefer/prefer gadoquatrane and greatly prefer/prefer gadobutrol."||||||0.3173||||||P-Value was calculated. p \< 0.05 indicates a difference between the two reads; p \> 0.05 indicates the observed data do not contradict equality.|McNemar|||Reader 3||||0.3173
95903944|NCT04307186|191763535|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of gadoquatrane versus gadobutrol was evaluated using CIs based on the t-distribution. A non-inferiority margin of 1 was used, i.e. meaning that a 95% two-sided CI for the mean difference gadoquatrane minus gadobutrol score must exclude the value -1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13||P-Value was calculated. Non-inferiority was achieved with a one-sided p-value lower than 0.025.|t-test, 1 sided|||Average reader||0.13|-0.24|<0.0001
95903945|NCT04307186|191763536|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.34|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.34|1.06|
95903946|NCT04307186|191763536|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.25|0.94|
95903947|NCT04307186|191763537|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|2.28|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.28|1.87|
95903948|NCT04307186|191763537|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|2.25|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||2.25|1.86|
95903949|NCT04307186|191763538|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.43|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.43|1.11|
95903950|NCT04307186|191763538|OTHER|95% two-sided CIs based on a t-distribution for the difference of combined pre- and post-contrast minus pre-contrast scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.32|||||Descriptive comparison of the result following gadobutrol with the result following gadoquatrane.|Average Reader||1.32|1.05|
95909264|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.789||0.3273|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.79||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.79|-0.24|0.3273
95979441|NCT04908189|191931965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.2205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.4|||ANCOVA||The adjusted mean difference and p-value are based on the total randomized population, which is 312 for Deucravacitinib and 312 for Placebo|Week 16||0.40|-1.71|0.2205
95979442|NCT05118204|191931982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.346||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|16.54|||Fisher Exact|||||16.540|0.050|1.00
95979443|NCT00607022|191931987|OTHER|Kruskal-Wallis values between each loading group and for Wilcoxon Signed Rank for measures on the mesial vs buccal side of the implant.|||||>|0.05||||||0.0501 \< p \< 0.9797|Kruskal-Wallis|Kruskal-Wallis test evaluated ISQ at each time point..||Comparison between loading groups at 16 weeks - loading at baseline, Loading at 6 weeks, and loading at 12 weeks. Scores for all groups were compared at 16 weeks from implant placement..||||>0.05
95979444|NCT01313650|191931988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC 62.5 µg minus Placebo.|||0.155|0.076|<0.001
95979445|NCT01313650|191931988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=VI 25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.112|0.032|<0.001
95979446|NCT01313650|191931988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.167|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.207|0.128|<0.001
95979447|NCT01313650|191931988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.052||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.087|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus UMEC 62.5 µg.|||0.087|0.017|0.004
95979448|NCT01313650|191931988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.095|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 minus VI 25 µg.|||0.130|0.060|<0.001
95979449|NCT04409353|191931992|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.47||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|1.81||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.81|-0.87|0.4884
95979450|NCT04409353|191931992|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 30, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.16||||0.8095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.43||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The primary analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 7, 15, 21, and 30, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.43|-1.12|0.8095
95979451|NCT04409353|191931993|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.79||||0.3101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.32||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.32|-0.74|0.3101
95979452|NCT04409353|191931993|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 60, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.42||||0.6328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|1.3||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.30|-2.13|0.6328
95903951|NCT02265237|191763573|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|92.4|100.0|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||100.0|92.4|
95903952|NCT02265237|191763573|SUPERIORITY|97.5% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV GT4-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|96.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|86.7|99.2|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||99.2|86.7|
95903953|NCT02265237|191763573|SUPERIORITY|97.5% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 67% to achieve superiority. The predefined threshold of 67% was based on historical SVR rates for HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected subjects treated with pegIFN/RBV.|Percentage of Participants|93.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|82.6|97.7|||||The confidence interval was calculated using the Wilson score method.|The overall 2-sided significance level of 0.05 was split between Part I (arms A and B) and Part II (arm C) using a Bonferroni corrected alpha level of 0.025 for each part. Additionally, a fixed sequence procedure for Part I was used to proceed through the primary efficacy comparisons in the following order: 1) test of superiority of arm B and 2) test of superiority of arm A. The primary outcome within Arm C was tested with a Bonferroni-corrected Type 1 error rate of 0.025 for superiority.||97.7|82.6|
95903954|NCT02265237|191763574|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|-3.39||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|3.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part I (arm A and B), since superiority was demonstrated for both arms in the primary outcome measures, testing continued to the first secondary outcome measure.||3.07|-9.85|0.304
95903955|NCT02265237|191763575|SUPERIORITY|Treatment differences (with 95% confidence intervals) and corresponding P-value for the specified comparisons were estimated using stratum adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportion and continuity-corrected variance, adjusting for IFN/RBV treatment history (treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced).|Stratum-Adjusted MH Difference|6.45||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|13.81|||Mantel Haenszel|||Within Part II (arm C), since superiority was demonstrated for the primary outcome measure, testing continued to the second secondary outcome measure.||13.81|-0.91|0.086
95903956|NCT02207829|191763598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alternate hypothesis: the difference between the trt means (umeclidinium minus tiotropium) would be \> -50 milliliters (mL). If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance level) of the statistical test should fall above -50 mL, then umeclidinium may be deemed statistically non-inferior to tiotropium. If the lower CI (2.5% 1-sided significance) of the statistical testing exceeded 0 then, umeclidinium may be deemed statistically superior to tiotropium.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.088|0.029|<0.001
95903957|NCT04122443|191763601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9||||||||1.9|0.3|
95903958|NCT04122443|191763602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|29.0||||||||29|-3|
95903959|NCT04122443|191763603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|23.0||||||||23|-5|
95903960|NCT04122443|191763604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|21.0||||||||21|-10|
95903961|NCT00377234|191763640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Null hypothesis: Preference rate (including patients not expressing treatment preference and considering order treatments were received) for monthly ibandronate = 50%. Null hypothesis is rejected if P-value was below significance threshold of P \<0.05|Garts Test|||||||<0.0001
95903962|NCT00377234|191763640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-values for the primary analysis test whether the overall preference rate for ibandronate equals 50%. Preference within each sequence is not tested.|Prescott Test|||||||<0.0001
95903963|NCT01024569|191763659|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-2.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.027
95903964|NCT01024569|191763660|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||Mixed Effects Random Regression analysis was used to assess the effects of study condition on Hope outcomes.||||0.020
95903965|NCT01024569|191763661|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.029
95903966|NCT01024569|191763662|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||0.042
95903967|NCT01024569|191763663|SUPERIORITY||MIXREG Estimate|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Effects Random Regression|||||||.001
95903968|NCT00626522|191763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.28|||ANCOVA|||||0.280|0.131|<0.0001
95903969|NCT00626522|191763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.329|||ANCOVA|||||0.329|0.180|<0.0001
95903970|NCT00626522|191763668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.34|||ANCOVA|||||0.340|0.191|<0.0001
95903971|NCT01928719|191763673|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|5.58|||Regression, Cox||The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||5.58|1.95|<0.0001
95903972|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|5.81||Testing the effect of treatment group in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Age Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|The reference group is Same Nicotine Content Group.||5.81|1.99|<0.0001
95903973|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.03||Testing the effect of age group (ages 30-39) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 30-39 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.03|0.26|0.06
95903974|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.66||Testing the effect of age group (ages 40-49) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 40-49 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.66|0.17|<0.002
95903975|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 50-59) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 50-59 to Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||0.65|0.16|<0.002
95903976|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.18||Testing the effect of age group (Ages 60-65) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and BMI.|The direction of comparison is Age group 60-65 to the Age group 18-29.|The reference group is Age equals 18-29.||1.18|0.13|0.1
95903977|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.66||Testing the effect of working status in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Age, and BMI.||The reference group is not currently working.|The direction of comparison is currently working to not currently working.|2.66|0.92|0.1
95903978|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.67||Testing the effect of BMI Normal Weight group (\>=18.5 \& \<25) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Normal Weight (\>=18.5 \& \<25) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight (\<18.5)||0.67|0.1|0.006
95903979|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92||Testing the effect of BMI Overweight group (\>=25 \& \< 30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Overweight (\>=25 \& \< 30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.92|0.13|0.034
95903980|NCT01928719|191763674|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||Testing the effect of BMI Obese group (\>=30) in a Multivariable Cox Regression Model.|Regression, Cox|Adjusting for Treatment Group, Working Status, and Age.|The direction of comparison is Obese (\>=30) to Underweight (\<18.5) group.|The reference group is BMI Underweight group (\<18.5)||0.77|0.13|0.011
95903981|NCT01928719|191763675|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|-1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-1.75|-6.44|0.0006
95903982|NCT01928719|191763676|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-136.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.7|-101.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-101.7|-171.7|<.0001
95903983|NCT01928719|191763677|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.03||||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||-0.38|-7.68|0.0305
95903984|NCT01928719|191763678|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.81||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||3.33|0.28|0.0207
95903985|NCT01928719|191763679|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.4191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time, group, and time-by-group interaction; treating baseline scores for outcomes as covariates|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. same nicotine content cigarettes.|||0.23|-0.56|0.4191
95903986|NCT00414700|191763680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion||Test for superiority||||0.003
95903987|NCT00414700|191763681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||Test for superiority||||0.010
95903988|NCT00414700|191763682|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = -9 % points|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||||95.0|-3.28|6.9|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline Overall KOOS score, age, associated lesion(s) and location of lesion.||||6.90|-3.28|
95903989|NCT05732454|191763734|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.76|||=|0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|8.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||8.83|-16.36|=0.5580
95903990|NCT05732454|191763735|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.07|||=|0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|28.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor (disease severity as measured by baseline IGA score 3 \[moderate\], 4 \[severe\]) derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach was used.||28.85|-10.70|=0.3685
95903991|NCT05732454|191763736|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean|-29.22|||=|0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.53|-2.9|||Rubin's rule|||Jump-to-Control (JTC) method was used for evaluation. A complete imputed dataset was analyzed using analysis of covariance model including effects of treatment group, actual stratification factor, and baseline value. Multiple results of the treatment comparison were combined using Rubin's rules, reporting the combined treatment difference, its standard error, 95% CI and 2-sided p-value, across the visits.||-2.90|-55.53|=0.0303
95903992|NCT01153633|191763751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2317||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.2317
95903993|NCT01153633|191763755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4905
95903994|NCT01153633|191763756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9945||95.0||||F-test (2-sided), ANCOVA with baseline target ulcer size as covariate|F-test|||||||0.9945
95903995|NCT01054820|191763788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change from baseline. Study powered at 95 percent (%) to detect a mean change of at least 1.2 units, with assumed standard deviation of at most 3.2 units.||||<0.0001
95903996|NCT01054820|191763789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|McNemar|||||||<0.0001
95903997|NCT01054820|191763790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95903998|NCT01054820|191763791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95903999|NCT01054820|191763792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95904000|NCT01054820|191763793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95904001|NCT01054820|191763796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is unadjusted. All statistical tests were 2-sided and employed a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95904002|NCT00760929|191763837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4301||90.0|0.58|1.21|||Wald Test|||||1.21|0.58|0.4301
95904003|NCT00760929|191763837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0342||90.0|0.42|0.9|||Wald Test|||||0.90|0.42|0.0342
95904004|NCT01175382|191763844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to compare mean changes from baseline to 6 weeks among groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used for imputation of missing data.||||<.0001
95904005|NCT01175382|191763845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test for differences in mean change from 6 weeks to 12 weeks in voiding frequency controlling for age and 6 week frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||.0013
95904006|NCT01175382|191763846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2933|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in 24-hour voiding frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline voiding frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.2933
95904007|NCT01175382|191763847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test means changes among the groups adjusting for baseline values and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0051
95904008|NCT01175382|191763848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1402|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change score among groups controlling for age and baseline score||||.1402
95904009|NCT01175382|191763849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Nocturia among groups adjusting for baseline values of nocturia and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||0.0015
95979453|NCT04409353|191931993|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.16||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.64||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.64|-0.33|0.1260
95904010|NCT01175382|191763850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance comparing mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire from baseline to 6 weeks among groups after controlling for baseline value and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data.||||<.0001
95904011|NCT01175382|191763851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Analysis of Covariance comparing mean chance in IPSS from baseline to 6 weeks among groups controlling for baseline IPSS values and age.~Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data."||||<.0001
95904012|NCT01175382|191763852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0022
95904013|NCT01175382|191763853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0222|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0222
95904014|NCT01175382|191763854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0217|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.0217
95904015|NCT01175382|191763855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in Urgency Score from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week Urgency Score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.6690
95904016|NCT01175382|191763856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0812|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Incontinence Episodes from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and frequency of incontinence episodes at 6 weeks. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0812
95904017|NCT01175382|191763857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance used to test whether mean changes in nocturia from 6 weeks to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week nocturia frequency. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.5578
95904018|NCT01175382|191763858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0279|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for age and 6 week OAB-q score. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.0279
95904019|NCT01175382|191763859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2553|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in the International Prostate Symptom Scale (IPSS) from 6 to 12 weeks differed among groups||||0.2553
95904020|NCT01175382|191763860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3165|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3165
95904021|NCT01175382|191763861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8153|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8153
95904022|NCT01175382|191763862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5536|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5536
95904023|NCT01175382|191763863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2035|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Nocturia frequency differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Nocturia frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.2035
95904024|NCT01175382|191763864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0549|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Urgency Score differed among the groups after adjusting for Urgency Scoe and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0549
95904025|NCT01175382|191763865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Incontinent Episodes differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Incontinent episodes frequency and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||0.5070
95904026|NCT01175382|191763866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0529|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance testing whether mean change in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire differed among the groups after adjusting for baseline Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing data||||.0529
95904027|NCT01175382|191763867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|||||||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance to test whether mean change in International Prostate Symptom Score from Baseline to 12 weeks differed among groups after controlling for baseline International Prostate Symptom Score and age. Last Observation Carried Forward was used to impute missing values.||||0.2384
95904028|NCT00706121|191763878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||Log binomial regression|||||1.02|0.9|0.96
95904029|NCT00706121|191763879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Log binomial regression|||||1.08|0.78|0.32
95904030|NCT00706121|191763881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||Log binomial regression|||||1.07|0.77|0.24
95904031|NCT00706121|191763882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.1|||Log binomial regression|||||1.10|0.96|0.38
95904032|NCT02334800|191763943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|73.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.81|93.71||||||||93.71|57.81|
95904033|NCT02334800|191763943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.57|146.79||||||||146.79|90.57|
95904034|NCT02334800|191763943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.0|170.19||||||||170.19|105.00|
95904035|NCT02334800|191763944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|94.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.93|129.03||||||||129.03|69.93|
95904036|NCT02334800|191763944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.69|159.95||||||||159.95|86.69|
95904037|NCT02334800|191763944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.63|176.43||||||||176.43|95.63|
95904038|NCT02334800|191763945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|83.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.37|105.43||||||||105.43|65.37|
95904039|NCT02334800|191763945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.73|170.53||||||||170.53|105.73|
95904040|NCT02334800|191763945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|176.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.28|224.63||||||||224.63|139.28|
95904041|NCT02334800|191763946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|72.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.43|93.93||||||||93.93|56.43|
95904042|NCT02334800|191763946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.58|149.11||||||||149.11|89.58|
95904043|NCT02334800|191763946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.38|173.73||||||||173.73|104.38|
95904044|NCT02334800|191763947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|82.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.83|105.71||||||||105.71|63.83|
95904045|NCT02334800|191763947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.82|173.6||||||||173.60|104.82|
95904046|NCT02334800|191763947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|178.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|138.62|229.57||||||||229.57|138.62|
95904047|NCT02334800|191763950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.06|147.68||||||||147.68|78.06|
95904048|NCT02334800|191763950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|137.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.96|189.12||||||||189.12|99.96|
95904049|NCT02334800|191763950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric mean|172.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.25|236.96||||||||236.96|125.25|
95904050|NCT00575588|191763979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||||||||0.16|-0.05|
95904051|NCT00575588|191763980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|-28.5||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Fisher Exact|||||-28.5|-38.1|<0.0001
95904052|NCT00575588|191763981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.7|-1.7||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-2.7|<0.0001
95904053|NCT00575588|191763982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|-0.0001||Between group comparison significant after controlling overall alpha of the study|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0001|-0.0046|0.040
95904054|NCT00575588|191763983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Repeated Measures|||||0.06|-0.17|
95904055|NCT00575588|191763984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.0||||||||-30.0|-39.8|
95904056|NCT00575588|191763985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|-2.2|||Repeated Measures|||||-2.20|-3.32|
95904057|NCT00575588|191763986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0007|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|-0.0022|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0022|-0.0048|
95904058|NCT04118348|191763991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.46|7.36|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||7.36|4.46|<.001
95904059|NCT04118348|191763991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|6.27|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||6.27|3.79|<.001
95904060|NCT04118348|191763991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.19|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.19|1.28|<.001
95904061|NCT04118348|191763991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|4.29|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||4.29|2.73|<.001
95904062|NCT04118348|191763991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|3.66|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||3.66|2.32|<.001
95904063|NCT04118348|191763991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.43|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.43|0.96|.114
95904064|NCT04118348|191763992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.15|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||4.15|2.02|<.001
95904065|NCT04118348|191763992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.3|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||3.30|1.57|<.001
95904066|NCT04118348|191763992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||HMT-only is the numerator|Passive control was set as the reference group.||2.27|1.04|.030
95904067|NCT04118348|191763992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.59|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.59|1.37|<.001
95904068|NCT04118348|191763992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.06|||Regression, Logistic||BPA-only is the numerator|HMT was set as the reference group.||2.06|1.06|.021
95904069|NCT04118348|191763992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.71|||Regression, Logistic||BPA+HMT is the numerator|BPA was set as the reference group.||1.71|0.95|.107
95904070|NCT00148343|191763993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.75|||||Mixed model analysis. Slope is in reference to treatment x time interaction for full 36 weeks|||2.75|-0.2|
95904071|NCT00148343|191763994|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.05|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to from baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks.|||-0.09|-10.05|<0.05
95904072|NCT00148343|191763995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.096|14.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to start of treatment to end of follow up at 36 weeks|||14.716|-14.096|<0.05
95904073|NCT00148343|191763996|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|8.89|||||Mixed models analysis. Slope refers to baseline to final follow up at 36 weeks|||8.89|-12.79|
95904074|NCT00148343|191763997|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope is in reference to baseline to end of follow-up at 36 weeks|||0.057|-0.045|<0.05
95904075|NCT00941603|191763998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.2|||ANOVA|Least-square (LS) means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.2|-7.2|0.06
95904076|NCT00941603|191763998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|0.6||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.|ANOVA|||||0.6|-6.7|0.10
95904077|NCT00941603|191763998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-5.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||-2.0|-9.4|<0.01
95979454|NCT04409353|191931993|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.51||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|1.03||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-PI score obtained at Days 60 and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PI t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.03|-2.05|0.5150
95904078|NCT00941603|191763998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.3||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|2.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.4|-5.0|0.48
95904079|NCT00941603|191763998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.3|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||3.3|-4.0|0.85
95904080|NCT00941603|191763999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.4|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||0.4|-6.5|0.09
95904081|NCT00941603|191763999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-3.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-0.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-0.2|-7.1|0.04
95904082|NCT00941603|191763999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-4.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-1.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||-1.0|-7.9|0.01
95904083|NCT00941603|191763999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.0|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||2.0|-4.9|0.41
95904084|NCT00941603|191763999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|0.7||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.2|||ANOVA|LS means and LS standard errors based on ANOVA model extracting effects due to treatment, gender, and primary diagnosis.||||4.2|-2.7|0.68
95904085|NCT01343407|191764022|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means (LSM)|-22.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.7|-8.7|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-8.7|-35.7|0.011
95904086|NCT01343407|191764022|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-18.9||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.1|-5.8|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-5.8|-32.1|0.023
95904087|NCT01343407|191764023|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.48||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.72|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 52.2 (90% CI: 28.3, 68.2). The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.72|0.32|0.006
95904088|NCT01343407|191764023|OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (LSMR)|0.58||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.81|||Linear mixed effects model||||% Inhibition: 42.4 (90% CI: 19.3, 58.8) The % Inhibition of FEV1\*hr (reduction of the allergen-induced LAR) for MK-1029 vs Placebo was calculated as 100\*(1-LSMR).|0.81|0.41|0.012
95904089|NCT01343407|191764024|OTHER||LSM Difference|85.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.3|106.4|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||106.4|65.3|<0.001
95904090|NCT01343407|191764024|OTHER||LSM Difference|83.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.9|102.7|||Linear mixed effects model||Full inhibition is ≥74% inhibition of blood eosinophil CD11b expression at trough|||102.7|63.9|<0.001
95904091|NCT00833924|191764033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of 30-day freedom from MAE|99.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.4|100.0|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 30-day Freedom from MAE for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (88%).||100|95.4|<0.01
95904092|NCT00833924|191764034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||12-month Device Success Rate|97.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.4|99.4|||Exact binomial test|||Null hypothesis: The 12-month device success for patients treated with the Zenith® Low Profile AAA Endovascular Graft does not meet the performance goal (84%).||99.4|92.4|<0.01
95904093|NCT00782340|191764048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
95904094|NCT00782340|191764049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHDAS composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.003
95904095|NCT00782340|191764050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.010
95904096|NCT00782340|191764051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.003
95904097|NCT00782340|191764052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including a factor for randomized treatment along with the OHSA composite value at randomization as a covariate.||||||0.009
95904098|NCT00782340|191764053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||<0.001
95904099|NCT00782340|191764054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the this endpoint was not positive, no additional statistical analyses will be performed on secondary endpoints.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.327
95979455|NCT04409353|191931994|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.43||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.61|0.25|.0180
95979456|NCT04409353|191931994|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.5742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.82||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PCS SF-6 score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PCS SF-6 t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.82|-1.48|0.5742
95979457|NCT04409353|191931995|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.39||||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.62||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- Anxiety score obtained at Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.62|-1.85|0.7338
95979458|NCT04409353|191931995|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.63||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.6||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Anxiety score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Anxiety t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.60|-1.34|0.5279
95979459|NCT04409353|191931996|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.19||||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|2.94||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.94|-0.56|0.1833
95979460|NCT04409353|191931996|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33||||0.7006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance score obtained at Days 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Sleep Disturbance t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.37|-2.04|0.7006
95979461|NCT04409353|191931997|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.76||||0.1913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.15|0.50|0.1913
95979462|NCT04409353|191931997|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance without the continuity correction.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was used to compare the association between time (baseline and day 90) and response (yes or no) while stratifying for the treatment groups. The null hypothesis is that the common odds ratio of the association between time and response across the treatment groups is equal to 1, versus the alternative hypothesis that the common odds ratio is not equal to 1.||1.24|0.55|0.3670
95979463|NCT04409353|191931998|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.83||||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|0.33||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||0.33|-1.98|0.1619
95904100|NCT03207750|191764085|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-D antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-D concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.79||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-D antibodies.||0.79|-0.80|
95979464|NCT04409353|191931998|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.04||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|1.24||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS- PF score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-PF t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.24|-1.31|0.9569
95979465|NCT04409353|191931999|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.03||||0.9727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.86||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||1.86|-1.80|0.9727
95979466|NCT04409353|191931999|OTHER|Primary inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for Day 90, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the primary endpoint between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|0.43||||0.6427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.26||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline PROMIS-Depression score obtained for Day 15, 30, 60, and 90, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline PROMIS-Depression t-score as a continuous covariate.||2.26|-1.40|0.6427
95979467|NCT04409353|191932000|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|691.58||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-602.98|1986.14||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1986.14|-602.98|0.2910
95979468|NCT04409353|191932000|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly steps between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|405.68||||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-741.79|1553.15||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly steps obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline average weekly steps as a continuous covariate.||1553.15|-741.79|0.4842
95979469|NCT04409353|191932001|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|1.0||||0.4228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.49||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Distraction-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||3.49|-1.48|0.4228
95979470|NCT04409353|191932001|OTHER|The inference will be based on the treatment comparison of least squares means for week 12, and a p-value will be presented for this time period only. The null hypothesis is that the mean difference in the change in the average weekly sleep scores between the treatment groups and the sham control group is zero, versus the alternative hypothesis that these differences are not zero.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.28||||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|2.37||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||Skills-Based VR - Sham VR|The analysis will compare the treatment groups, separately, to the control group using a linear mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The repeated measures are the change from baseline average weekly sleep scores obtained at weeks 1 thorough 12, respectively. The model will include fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, and the baseline sleep score as a continuous covariate.||2.37|-2.92|0.8363
95979471|NCT04409353|191932002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.44||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||1.44|0.48|0.514
95979472|NCT04409353|191932002|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.36||A two-sided test performed at the 0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Logistic||Sham VR as the reference group.|"Responder status (Yes vs. No) will be analyzed as the dependent variable using logistic regression, with terms for treatment groups and baseline PROMIS-PI as predictors. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups, versus the alternative hypothesis that there a difference exists between the treatment groups."||2.36|0.78|0.280
95979473|NCT04252287|191932041|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.8|||ANCOVA|||||7.8|0.8|0.016
95979474|NCT04252287|191932042|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|29.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.4|344.1|||ANCOVA|||||344.1|-284.4|0.852
95979475|NCT02684357|191932052|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|72.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.8|78.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||78.2|66.8|< 0.001
95979476|NCT02684357|191932053|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|78.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.4|84.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.5|72.4|< 0.001
95979477|NCT02684357|191932054|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|47.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.9|54.2||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.2|40.9|< 0.001
95979478|NCT02684357|191932055|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|48.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.9|54.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||54.6|41.9|< 0.001
95979479|NCT02684357|191932056|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|62.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.5|68.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||68.9|55.5|< 0.001
95979480|NCT02684357|191932057|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|36.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.6|25.7|< 0.001
95979481|NCT02684357|191932058|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|38.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||38.5|16.7|< 0.001
95979482|NCT02684357|191932059|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.5|12.0|< 0.001
95904101|NCT03207750|191764085|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-T antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-T concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.77||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 0.1 IU/mL) of anti-T antibodies.||0.77|-0.79|
95904102|NCT03207750|191764086|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-HB antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-HB concentration|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.16||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective concentrations (≥ 10 mIU/mL) of anti-HB antibodies.||0.16|-1.90|
95904103|NCT03207750|191764087|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 1 concentration|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.15||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 1 antibodies.||1.15|-0.60|
95979483|NCT02684357|191932060|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|37.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||37.0|17.0|< 0.001
95979484|NCT02684357|191932061|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.1|36.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||36.4|16.1|< 0.001
95979485|NCT02684357|191932062|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|40.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.9|19.6|< 0.001
95979486|NCT02684357|191932063|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
95979487|NCT02684357|191932064|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.9|40.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.1|18.9|< 0.001
95979488|NCT02684357|191932065|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|28.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.8|9.5|< 0.001
95979489|NCT02684357|191932066|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|18.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|28.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||28.3|7.8|< 0.001
95979490|NCT02684357|191932067|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|31.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.4|9.1|< 0.001
95979491|NCT02684357|191932068|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.375|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.102|-5.648|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.648|-7.102|< 0.001
95904104|NCT03207750|191764087|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 2 concentration|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.98||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 2 antibodies.||0.98|-1.02|
95904105|NCT03207750|191764087|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentration (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-polio 3 concentration|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.84||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with seroprotective titers (≥ 8 ED50) of anti-poliovirus type 3 antibodies.||0.84|-0.87|
95904106|NCT03207750|191764088|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PT antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.03|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PT antibodies.||1.03|0.86|
95904107|NCT03207750|191764088|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-FHA antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-FHA antibodies.||1.08|0.92|
95904108|NCT03207750|191764088|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRN antibodies should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for anti-PRN antibodies.||1.10|0.86|
95979492|NCT02684357|191932069|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|84.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.0|90.4||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||90.4|79.0|< 0.001
95979493|NCT02684357|191932070|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||39.6|18.5|< 0.001
95904109|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 1 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 1.||1.14|0.93|
95904110|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 3 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.11|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 3.||1.11|0.91|
95979494|NCT02684357|191932071|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|14.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|23.5||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the comparison of 2 treatment groups. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||23.5|5.9|0.001
95904111|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 4 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.09|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 4.||1.09|0.90|
95904112|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 5 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 5.||1.17|0.94|
95904113|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6A.||1.12|0.92|
95904114|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 6B should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 6B.||1.12|0.83|
95904115|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 7F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 7F.||1.08|0.91|
95979495|NCT03714425|191932077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The primary research objective to measure perceived improvement in pain at three months was assessed using a two-sample t-test of PGIC scores between the two treatment groups using a type I error rate of 0.05 (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|Most of the analyses involved delta scores reflecting changes within subjects, though we compared PGIC raw scores rather than change scores.||||||<0.05
95979496|NCT01658826|191932093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.63|||non-linear mixed effects model|||||0.63|0.30|<0.0001
95979497|NCT03877432|191932101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 1T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.012
95979498|NCT03877432|191932101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 2T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.017
95979499|NCT03877432|191932101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 3T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.003
95979500|NCT03877432|191932101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||All data were presented as means ± standard deviations (SDs). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the effects of 4T stimulation amplitude changes on bladder capacity.||||0.004
95979501|NCT04223791|191932117|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (DOR/ISL-BIC/FTC/TAF) is less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.96||p-value for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen||Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||1.96|-1.19|<.001
95979502|NCT04223791|191932118|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|3.4|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||3.4|-10.4|
95979503|NCT04223791|191932119|OTHER|Difference between treatment groups|Difference in % (DOR/ISL- BIC/FTC/TAF)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.6|||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|||2.6|-2.7|
95979504|NCT04223791|191932132|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|Model included terms for baseline weight, sex, race, and treatment.|Treatment difference for DOR/ISL group-BIC/FTC/TAF group.|||0.39|-0.99|0.392
95979505|NCT02462928|191932137|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.2|0.3|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.3|-8.2|
95979506|NCT02462928|191932137|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, if the lower limit of 95.1% Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference between an abicipar group and ranibizumab was greater than or equal to -10%, non-inferiority of abicipar was established.|Percentage Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-8.7|0.0|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as stratification factor.|||0.0|-8.7|
95979507|NCT02462928|191932138|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-4.7|-0.1|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.1|-4.7|
95979508|NCT02462928|191932138|NON_INFERIORITY|For hypothesis testing, non-inferiority of abicipar is established if the lower limit of the CI is \> - 5.0 letters.|LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-6.0|-1.3|||||MMRM included treatment, region, BL BCVA, BL CRT ≤400 or \>400, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit-by-BL BCVA interaction, and treatment-by-visit interaction term as covariates using an unstructured covariance matrix.|||-1.3|-6.0|
95979509|NCT02462928|191932139|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.8|20.9|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||20.9|-3.8|
95979510|NCT02462928|191932139|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-10.1|14.7|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, CRT, choroidal neovascularization lesion type, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||14.7|-10.1|
95979511|NCT02462928|191932140|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-11.5|2.1|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||2.1|-11.5|
95979512|NCT02462928|191932140|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-14.7|-1.5|||||The 95.1% CI for the weighted difference were calculated based on the Newcombe method using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights and baseline BCVA (≤55 vs \>55 letters) as the stratification factor.|||-1.5|-14.7|
95979513|NCT02462928|191932141|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.7|0.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||-0.0|-3.7|
95979514|NCT02462928|191932141|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of abicipar was demonstrated if the lower limit of CI for the treatment difference was greater than zero.|LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-2.7|1.0|||||MMRM was used for analyses with covariates (treatment, region, baseline BCVA, visual function questionnaire (VFQ) score, visit, visit by baseline BCVA and treatment by visit interaction) with unstructured covariance matrix.|||1.0|-2.7|
95979515|NCT00395863|191932142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
95904116|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 9V should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 9V.||1.14|0.93|
95979516|NCT00395863|191932142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95979517|NCT00395863|191932142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||< 0.0001
95979518|NCT00395863|191932143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0001
95979519|NCT00395863|191932143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.001
95979520|NCT00395863|191932143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.0002
95979521|NCT00395863|191932144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Reader 1|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95979522|NCT00395863|191932144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 2|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95979523|NCT00395863|191932144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Reader 3|wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.0001
95979524|NCT00395863|191932145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.3||Mean difference of MultiHance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.30|0.14|<0.0001
95979525|NCT00395863|191932146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|0.22|0.38||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.38|0.22|<0.0001
95979526|NCT00395863|191932147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19|<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.33|0.18|<0.0001
95979527|NCT00395863|191932148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|59.78||0.0062||95.0|20.72|61.26||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||61.26|20.72|0.0062
95979528|NCT00395863|191932149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.64||0.0027||95.0|16.57|45.33||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||45.33|16.57|0.0027
95979529|NCT00395863|191932150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|25.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|37.37||0.02||95.0|12.41|37.67||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||37.67|12.41|0.02
95979530|NCT00395863|191932151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.51||0.0019||95.0|14.28|51.25||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||51.25|14.28|0.0019
95979531|NCT00395863|191932152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|43.16||0.0008||95.0|16.75|50.47||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||50.47|16.75|0.0008
95904117|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 14 should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 14.||1.13|0.89|
95904118|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 18C should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 18C.||1.14|0.92|
95904119|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19A should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.15|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19A.||1.15|0.93|
95904120|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 19F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 19F.||1.12|0.95|
95904121|NCT03207750|191764089|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided 95% CI on GMC ratios (HRV PCV-free Liquid group over HRV Lyophilized group) for S. pneumoniae serotype 23F should be ≥ 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||ANOVA|ANOVA model that included the vaccine group as fixed effect.||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of GMC ratios for Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) serotype 23F.||1.10|0.87|
95904122|NCT03207750|191764090|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-5%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|2.28||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 0.15 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||2.28|-1.94|
95904123|NCT03207750|191764091|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in seroprotective concentrations (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) for each of anti-PRP antibodies should be ≥-10%.|Difference in anti-PRP concentration|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.75|3.99||||||Non-inferiority of the immune responses to 3 doses of Pediarix, Hiberix and Prevenar 13 when co-administered with 2 doses of the PCV-free liquid HRV vaccine, as compared to when co-administered with lyophilized HRV vaccine in terms of group difference in percentage of subjects with concentrations (≥ 1.0 µg/mL) of anti-PRP antibodies.||3.99|-5.75|
95979532|NCT00395863|191932153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.5||0.0026||95.0|14.63|52.81||Mean difference of Multihance minus Magnevist|t-test, 2 sided|||||52.81|14.63|0.0026
95979533|NCT01493557|191932154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.31||||0.2554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|29.49|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||29.49|-6.54|0.2554
95979534|NCT01493557|191932155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.3165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|24.58|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||24.58|-11.24|0.3165
95904124|NCT03207750|191764092|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PT antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PT antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
95904125|NCT03207750|191764092|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for FHA antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to FHA antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
95904126|NCT03207750|191764092|OTHER|p-value on the difference in seroresponse (HRV PCV-free Liquid group minus HRV Lyophilized group) between groups should be \<=0.025 for PRN antigen.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value was computed by integrating on p-values of 1 sided test with alpha=0.025 \& the posterior probability of the cut-off in HRV Lyophilized group||To rule out 10% decrease in seroresponse to PRN antigen in subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with PCV-free-Liquid-HRV vaccine compared to subjects who received Pediarix co-administered with currently licensed lyophilized HRV vaccine where seroresponse was defined as percentage of subjects who showed a concentration above a threshold that led to 95% seroresponse in HRV lyophilized group.||||<.0001
95904127|NCT03198000|191764172|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.055|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.055|-0.140|0.392
95904128|NCT03198000|191764172|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (-0.22, 0.44)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.107|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.107|-0.086|0.828
95904129|NCT03198000|191764173|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|1.411|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.411|0.539|0.576
95904130|NCT03198000|191764173|EQUIVALENCE|Prespecified equivalence interval of (0.80, 1.25)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.552|1.368|||GEE model|GEE model with treatment as factor.||||1.368|0.552|0.544
95904131|NCT03198000|191764174|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.074|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.074|-0.085|0.893
95904132|NCT03198000|191764174|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.084|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.084|-0.073|0.886
95904133|NCT03198000|191764175|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.177|0.02|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.020|-0.177|0.117
95904134|NCT03198000|191764175|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.041|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.041|-0.153|0.255
95904135|NCT03198000|191764177|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.78|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.78|-0.05|0.085
95904136|NCT03198000|191764177|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.64|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.64|-0.18|0.269
95904137|NCT03198000|191764178|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.10|-0.60|0.162
95904138|NCT03198000|191764178|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.14|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.14|-0.55|0.234
95904139|NCT03198000|191764179|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.19|-0.48|0.398
95904140|NCT03198000|191764179|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence interval was specified for this time point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.13|||ANCOVA|Mixed effect ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.13|-0.54|0.233
95904141|NCT04433767|191764219|OTHER||Slope|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||||< 0.001
95904142|NCT04433767|191764221|OTHER||Intercept|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.32|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.32|0.04|0.0127
95904143|NCT04433767|191764222|OTHER||Intercept|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.51|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.51|0.17|0.0005
95904144|NCT04433767|191764223|OTHER||Intercept|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.42|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.42|-0.04|0.1027
95904145|NCT04433767|191764224|OTHER||Intercept|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.37|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||0.37|-0.18|0.4846
95904146|NCT04433767|191764225|OTHER||Intercept|9.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.77||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.28|62.36|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||62.36|-44.28|0.7290
95904147|NCT04433767|191764226|OTHER||Intercept|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43||0.9196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.28|4.78|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, sex, education, and baseline task performance.||||4.78|-5.28|0.9196
95904148|NCT04433767|191764227|OTHER||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.33|0.01|0.033
95904149|NCT04433767|191764228|OTHER||Slope|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.35|0.01|0.041
95904150|NCT04433767|191764229|OTHER||Slope|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-4.45|-17.81|0.001
95904151|NCT04433767|191764230|OTHER||Slope|-12.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.94|-5.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-5.33|-19.94|0.001
95904152|NCT04433767|191764231|OTHER||Slope|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.15|<0.001
95904153|NCT04433767|191764232|OTHER||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.34|-0.92|0.001
95904154|NCT04433767|191764233|OTHER||Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.18|-0.65|<0.001
95904155|NCT04433767|191764234|OTHER||Slope|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age and gender.||||0.23|-1.17|0.183
95904156|NCT04433767|191764235|OTHER||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.13|-0.74|0.170
95904157|NCT04433767|191764236|OTHER||Slope|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.80|0.00|0.051
95904158|NCT04433767|191764237|OTHER||Slope|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||-0.11|-0.33|<0.001
95904159|NCT04433767|191764238|OTHER||Slope|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.69|0.17|0.002
95904160|NCT04433767|191764239|OTHER||Slope|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||0.83|0.21|0.002
95904161|NCT04433767|191764240|OTHER||Slope|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses adjusted for age and gender.||||1.23|-1.05|0.876
95904162|NCT00298233|191764241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|conditional univariate logistic regressi|analysis stratified by study site||Based on previous studies, assumption was made that 30% of children and 55% of adults treated with standard dose oseltamivir would test negative for virus on day five. This would require a sample size of 242 patients to show a 20% absolute improvement in cessation of viral shedding with 85% power and a two sided α of 0.05. To allow for study withdrawals, the target sample size was set at 300 patients.||||0.42
95904163|NCT00298233|191764242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.54
95904164|NCT00298233|191764243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel chi-square stratified by study site||||||0.54
95904165|NCT00298233|191764244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.48
95904166|NCT00298233|191764245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.66
95904167|NCT00298233|191764246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||Significance assessed at the 5% level for a two-sided comparison|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.58
95904168|NCT02371369|191764247|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
95904169|NCT02371369|191764248|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0043|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0043
95904170|NCT02371369|191764249|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
95904171|NCT02371369|191764250|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||0.0019
95904172|NCT02371369|191764251|OTHER|Treatment comparison analysis|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||Treatment comparison between the pexidartinib and placebo groups at Week 25||||<0.0001
95904173|NCT03238001|191764272|NON_INFERIORITY|In order to show non-inferiority, a lower 90% confidence limit (CL) for the difference in kappa scores would need to be greater than or equal to -0.20. The 90% confidence interval was calculated based on 5000 bootstrapped differences in kappa scores.|Lower 90% CL for difference in Kappas|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.05|||||90% CI for Kappa of DCTclock/MoCA - Kappa of MMSE/MoCA (estimated with bootstrap method using 5000 bootstraps).|A two-one-sided tests approach was taken, where, prior to analysis, it was determined that a delta (equivalence margin) of 0.20 would be considered a significant difference between the DCTclock/MoCA kappa and the MMSE/MoCA kappa. The reasoning behind this determination can be found in the study's statistical analysis plan.||0.05|-0.12|
95904174|NCT00839072|191764287|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LS means) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax does not exceed 125%.|Ratio of the mean|59.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|50.99|69.81|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||69.81|50.99|
95904175|NCT00839072|191764288|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUCT is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|78.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|88.51|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||88.51|69.70|
95904176|NCT00839072|191764289|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC∞ is between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of the mean|80.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.67|90.68|||||Trazodone Contramid® OAD/Desyrel®|||90.68|70.67|
95904177|NCT05003791|191764293|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95904178|NCT05003791|191764294|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95904179|NCT05003791|191764295|OTHER|This was a cross-sectional design|||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95904180|NCT00156065|191764333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8619||||||95.0|0.6912|0.9644|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9644|0.6912|
95904181|NCT00156065|191764333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.8834||||||95.0|0.7744|0.955|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9550|0.7744|
95904182|NCT00156065|191764333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Loss of Effect|0.9376||||||95.0|0.7631|0.9952|||||Loss of effect = increase in total PANSS \>=30% from start of current study; subjective worsening of schizophrenia/request for dose increase; Clinical Global Impressions of Severity of Illness score \>=6; discontinuation for lack of efficacy.|||0.9952|0.7631|
95904183|NCT00566228|191764359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.08|||Log Rank|||||2.08|0.62|0.690
95904184|NCT00566228|191764362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.679|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.679
95904185|NCT03521635|191764369|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.0|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release|Mean changes from baseline of PDSS-2 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||4.0|-2.7|0.688
95904186|NCT03521635|191764370|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by patients were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.8|-1.2|0.690
95904187|NCT03521635|191764370|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of NHQ score by caregivers were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.1|-2.7|0.376
95904188|NCT03521635|191764371|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep night-time sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.9|0.333
95904189|NCT03521635|191764371|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep overall night sleep score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.3|-0.8|0.374
95909265|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806||0.3963|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|1.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Negative symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.72|-0.35|0.3963
95904190|NCT03521635|191764371|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.5|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of SCOPA-Sleep daytime sleepiness score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.4|0.352
95904191|NCT03521635|191764372|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of EMO sore were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||0.2|-0.8|0.259
95904192|NCT03521635|191764373|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PDSS-2 score \<18 were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||2.54|0.36|0.9373
95979535|NCT01493557|191932156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.41||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|35.98|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||35.98|0.71|0.0273
95979536|NCT01493557|191932157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.22|28.4|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.40|-44.22|0.7104
95979537|NCT01493557|191932158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.94|40.44|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||40.44|-32.94|1.0000
95979538|NCT01493557|191932159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.25|28.77|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% Confidence interval (CI) and the difference between the two strategies were calculated using the Clopper Pearson approach.|Evaluation of GIS was based on Last observation carried forward (LOCF) data up to the last observed time or up to adding the second management strategy.||28.77|-41.25|1.0000
95979539|NCT01493557|191932163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.9|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for the Duration of gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS).||8.9|-9.9|
95979540|NCT01493557|191932163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.3|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Complete effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||6.3|-3.5|
95979541|NCT01493557|191932163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|48.5|||||Mean difference = (Mean number of days for Pradaxa w/meal) - (Mean number of days for pantoprazole).|Mean difference for Time to first complete effectiveness. Partial effectiveness of a gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS) management strategy can only be measured at a point in time. Because the same or a different GIS could occur after a time of effective GIS management, the patients who indicated some degree of effectiveness at one visit may not be the same patients who experience effectiveness at a subsequent visit.||48.5|-8.2|
95904193|NCT03521635|191764374|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.24||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|7.49|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of EMO score were performed with treatment and baseline as the independent variables.||7.49|0.73|0.1611
95904194|NCT03521635|191764375|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.2|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of PDQ-8 score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.3|0.517
95904195|NCT03521635|191764376|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of CGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
95904196|NCT03521635|191764377|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.44||||0.2374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|36.85|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio (OR) between Pramipexole Sustained Release and Pramipexole Immediate Release groups.|Logistic regression analyses for responder rate at week 18 of PGI-I were performed with treatment as the independent variable.||36.85|0.57|0.2374
95904197|NCT03521635|191764378|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.7|||REML-based repeated measures approach|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach was applied.|Mean difference was calculated as Pramipexole Sustained Release minus Pramipexole immediate Release.|Mean changes from baseline of ESS score were analysed using a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) - based repeated measures approach. Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit in the maintenance period, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous, fixed covariates of baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction.||1.7|-1.4|0.820
95904198|NCT02250612|191764383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.93
95904199|NCT02250612|191764383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.92
95904200|NCT02250612|191764383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.23
95904201|NCT02250612|191764383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95904202|NCT02250612|191764383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.25
95904203|NCT02250612|191764383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
95904204|NCT02250612|191764384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
95904205|NCT02250612|191764384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.38
95904206|NCT02250612|191764384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.85
95904207|NCT02250612|191764384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.412|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.412
95904208|NCT02250612|191764384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.79
95904209|NCT02250612|191764384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
95904210|NCT04389762|191764396|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95904211|NCT04389762|191764397|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95904212|NCT04389762|191764398|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95904213|NCT04389762|191764399|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95904214|NCT04389762|191764400|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95904215|NCT04389762|191764401|OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
95904216|NCT04389762|191764402|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.031
95904217|NCT02239679|191764440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0166|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0166
95904218|NCT02239679|191764446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0102||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0102
95904219|NCT02239679|191764446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0089||||||no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0089
95904220|NCT02239679|191764447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||no adjustments for multiple comparisons|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||0.0004
95904221|NCT02239679|191764447|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||no adjustment for multiple comparison|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by site||||||<0.0001
95904222|NCT02099838|191764511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
95904223|NCT02099838|191764511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0650
95904224|NCT02099838|191764511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HbA1c between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
95904225|NCT02099838|191764512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
95904226|NCT02099838|191764512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0849||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0849
95904227|NCT02099838|191764512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of FPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0005
95904228|NCT02099838|191764513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
95904229|NCT02099838|191764513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2428||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2428
95904230|NCT02099838|191764513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2hPPG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0003
95904231|NCT02099838|191764514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.0001
95904232|NCT02099838|191764514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group.. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7353
95904233|NCT02099838|191764514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of fasting insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0013
95904234|NCT02099838|191764515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1147||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1147
95904235|NCT02099838|191764515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4006||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4006
95904236|NCT02099838|191764515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of 2-hour postprandial insulin between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0614
95904237|NCT02099838|191764516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3795
95904238|NCT02099838|191764516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4236||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.4236
95904239|NCT02099838|191764516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TC between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||1.0000
95904240|NCT02099838|191764517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3151||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3151
95904241|NCT02099838|191764517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6963
95904242|NCT02099838|191764517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3204||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TG between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3204
95904243|NCT02099838|191764518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0038||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0038
95904244|NCT02099838|191764518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3812||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3812
95904245|NCT02099838|191764518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of HDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0108
95904246|NCT02099838|191764519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5476||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5476
95904247|NCT02099838|191764519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1248||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.1248
95904248|NCT02099838|191764519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of LDL between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3620
95904249|NCT02099838|191764520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5636||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5636
95904250|NCT02099838|191764520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3681||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.3681
95904251|NCT02099838|191764520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2589||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of ALT between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.2589
95904252|NCT02099838|191764521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7972||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7972
95904253|NCT02099838|191764521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7801
95904254|NCT02099838|191764521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8744||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of AST between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8744
95904255|NCT02099838|191764522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8034||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.8034
95904256|NCT02099838|191764522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7675||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.7675
95904257|NCT02099838|191764522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6918||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of TBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.6918
95904258|NCT02099838|191764523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0339||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Pioglitazone and Metformin group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0339
95904259|NCT02099838|191764523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0997||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between before and after treatment in Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.0997
95904260|NCT02099838|191764523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5015||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05; the change was statistical significant with P-value less than 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of DBil between Pioglitazone and Metformin group and Placebo group. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05.||||0.5015
95904261|NCT02417246|191764524|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|222.2||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|131.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC from 0 to 24 hours (0-24) for patients on the 50mg dose of brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared by a paired t-test (n=28)||||131.2|-41.1|0.3
95904262|NCT02417246|191764524|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER falls within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||The analysis included a total of 20 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||0.95|0.76|
95904263|NCT02417246|191764524|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare mean values of AUC0-24 for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 16% difference in AUC.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|176.5||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|74.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average AUC0-24 for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||74.3|-60.0|0.8
95904264|NCT02417246|191764524|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the AUC0-24 for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.01||This analysis included 21 individuals who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients.||||||1.01|0.86|
95904265|NCT02417246|191764525|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.7||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|6.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||6.6|-1.5|0.2
95904266|NCT02417246|191764525|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic B to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.95||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic B and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than the initial plan of including 38 patients||||||0.95|0.79|
95904267|NCT02417246|191764525|EQUIVALENCE|A paired t-test was used to compare the mean values of Cmax for brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A at the 50mg dose. With a sample size of 38, at an alpha level of 0.025 (0.05/2 comparisons), using a 2-sided paired t-test, we would have \>80% power to detect a 11% difference in Cmax.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Average Cmax for patients on the 50mg dose who were administered brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A were compared using a paired t-test (n=29)||||2.3|-7.3|0.3
95904268|NCT02417246|191764525|EQUIVALENCE|A bioequivalence (BE) test was performed for patients who were administered the 50mg dose. BE was declared if the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of Cmax for Generic A to brand name metoprolol ER fell within 0.8 to 1.25|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.23||The analysis included a total of 29 patients on Generic A and brand name metoprolol ER, which is less than a pre-planned sample size of 38.||||||1.23|1.02|
95904269|NCT02417246|191764526|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic B, adjusting for quartile, (quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0858|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0858
95904270|NCT02417246|191764526|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was used to model medication effect on HRV comparing brand name metoprolol ER to Generic A, adjusting for quartile,(quartile\*med) interaction, and treatment assignment.|Slope|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||p for medication\*quartile interaction considered significant if p\<0.025.|||||0.0168
95904271|NCT02417246|191764527|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-2.39||||0.203|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.203
95979542|NCT00702845|191932183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence margins of -3 and +5 were applied for the difference in the mean number of oocytes between the treatment groups. Org 36286 treatment was considered equivalent to the reference treatment (recFSH) if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference was between -3 and +5 oocytes.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.9|||ANOVA|||||3.9|1.2|<0.001
95979543|NCT00813319|191932206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||This comparison is for participants in the Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to the General Health Promotion condition||||>.05
95979544|NCT00813319|191932207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||=.52
95979545|NCT00813319|191932208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||This comparison is for total doses received (26 in Girls OnGuard/HPV Awareness condition compared to 17 in General Health Promotion condition)||||=.12
95904272|NCT02417246|191764527|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|-0.543||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.671
95904273|NCT02417246|191764527|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory SBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.371||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.200
95904274|NCT02417246|191764527|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour ambulatory DBP by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|-2.329||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
95904275|NCT02417246|191764528|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic B.|Slope|1.233||||0.333|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.333
95904276|NCT02417246|191764528|EQUIVALENCE|A mixed effect model for repeated measures was performed to model the 24-hour HR by quartile for 35 patients receiving brand name metoprolol ER and Generic A.|Slope|1.134||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.368
95904277|NCT02265705|191764613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|6.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.9|2.5|0.001
95904278|NCT02265705|191764614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.31|0.001
95979546|NCT03434353|191932218|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.4|26.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) \& corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status (positive,negative).|||26.4|-30.4|
95979547|NCT03434353|191932218|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-24.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.2|-0.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||-0.2|-49.2|
95904279|NCT02265705|191764615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||||-0.79|-1.25|0.001
95979548|NCT03434353|191932218|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-17.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|8.2|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||8.2|-43.7|
95979549|NCT03434353|191932220|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 1 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.7|
95979550|NCT03434353|191932220|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.1|4.3|||||The percentage difference (Group 3 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.3|-38.1|
95979551|NCT03434353|191932220|OTHER||Percentage Difference|-16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|4.4|||||The percentage difference (Group 5 - Group 2) and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI were calculated by using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions, stratified by baseline HBeAg status (positive, negative).|||4.4|-37.9|
95979552|NCT02953639|191932235|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.38|-2.11|0.730
95979553|NCT02953639|191932235|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.02|-1.47|0.793
95979554|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.91||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Attention/Vigilance)||1.64|-3.46|0.556
95979555|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.27||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.59|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Attention/Vigilance)||2.05|-2.59|0.848
95979556|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.16|-2.08|0.973
95979557|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.57||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Reasoning and Problem Solving)||2.67|-1.53|0.651
95979558|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.44||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.89|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Social Cognition)||1.08|-3.89|0.350
95979559|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.18||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Social Cognition)||4.50|-0.14|0.121
95979560|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Speed of Processing)||1.83|-2.10|0.911
95904280|NCT02265705|191764616|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3||||||||3.3|-0.5|
95904281|NCT02265705|191764617|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-12.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-2.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-2.9|-28.0|0.004
95904282|NCT02265705|191764618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.2|0.002
95979561|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Speed of Processing)||2.03|-1.99|0.987
95979562|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Verbal Learning)||1.93|-2.62|0.803
95979563|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.94||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.26|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Verbal Learning)||1.38|-3.26|0.502
95979564|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.11||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.74|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Visual Learning)||2.52|-2.74|0.945
95979565|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.11||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.54|3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Visual Learning)||3.76|-1.54|0.488
95979566|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.37||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (Working Memory)||0.64|-3.38|0.262
95979567|NCT02953639|191932236|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.89||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (Working Memory)||1.23|-3.01|0.489
95979568|NCT02953639|191932237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.63||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.78|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA I total raw score)||0.52|-3.78|0.211
95979569|NCT02953639|191932237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.35||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA I total raw score)||2.52|-1.81|0.787
95979570|NCT02953639|191932237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.28||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.37|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II total raw score)||0.94|-0.37|0.477
95979571|NCT02953639|191932237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.91||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II total raw score)||1.58|0.23|0.028
95979572|NCT02953639|191932237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||0.91|-1.51|0.683
95979573|NCT02953639|191932237|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.04||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.13|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (VPA II recognition total raw score)||1.22|-1.13|0.954
95979574|NCT02953639|191932238|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.45||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM I)||3.17|-0.27|0.164
95979575|NCT02953639|191932238|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.56||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM I)||2.14|-1.02|0.559
95979576|NCT02953639|191932238|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.12||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (LM II)||1.94|-1.70|0.912
95979577|NCT02953639|191932238|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.36||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.93|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (LM II)||1.22|-1.93|0.706
95979578|NCT02953639|191932239|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||1.15|0.94|0.527
95979579|NCT02953639|191932239|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.04||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.17|0.92|0.636
95979580|NCT02953639|191932240|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.36||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.91|-3.63|0.323
95979581|NCT02953639|191932240|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.95||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||1.88|-3.77|0.579
95979582|NCT02953639|191932241|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.67||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.27|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.94|-2.27|0.493
95979583|NCT02953639|191932241|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.12||||0.926|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.32|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||2.07|-2.32|0.926
95979584|NCT02953639|191932242|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.02||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.17|-0.22|0.839
95979585|NCT02953639|191932242|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.15|-0.27|0.625
95979586|NCT02953639|191932243|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.03||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.28|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84||0.23|-0.28|0.865
95979587|NCT02953639|191932243|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.01||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168||0.29|-0.31|0.964
95979588|NCT02953639|191932244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|3.27||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|6.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||6.95|-0.40|0.142
95979589|NCT02953639|191932244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.32||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.04|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Cognition \& Vitality Score)||2.40|-7.04|0.416
95979590|NCT02953639|191932244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|1.98||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.86|5.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||5.83|-1.86|0.394
95979591|NCT02953639|191932244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.71||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.44|4.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Psychosocial Score)||4.87|-3.44|0.776
95979592|NCT02953639|191932244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|2.43||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Day 84 (SQLS Total Score)||5.94|-1.09|0.254
95979593|NCT02953639|191932244|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.57||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.64|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Day 168 (SQLS Total Score)||3.50|-4.64|0.816
95979594|NCT01830855|191932251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.14||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.14|0.93|
95979595|NCT01830855|191932251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.13||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.13|0.92|
95979596|NCT01830855|191932251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.12||||||PMB80 \[A22\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB80.||1.12|0.88|
95979597|NCT01830855|191932251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.85|
95979598|NCT01830855|191932251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.06||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948.||1.06|0.86|
95979599|NCT01830855|191932251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMTs|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.14||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]: The lot consistency criteria was achieved if the 95% CI for all pairwise GMRs between lots are within (0.5, 2), for the strain PMB2948||1.14|0.88|
95979600|NCT03034460|191932299|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.158|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied CD5024 1% Cream on one side of face and CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo on other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (CD5024 1% Cream \[n=48\] versus CD5024 1% Cream Matched Placebo \[n=48\]).||||= 0.158
95979601|NCT03034460|191932299|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon rank signed test|||This analysis was performed in participants applied Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde on one side of face and Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo on the other side of face for paired difference between Active - Vehicle (Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde \[n=22\] versus Adapalene Benzoyl Peroxyde Matched Placebo \[n=22\]).||||= 0.002
95904283|NCT02265705|191764619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-1.2|0.001
95904284|NCT02265705|191764620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.3|0.001
95904285|NCT01046643|191764642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.222
95904286|NCT01046643|191764642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.107
95904287|NCT01046643|191764642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.127
95904288|NCT01046643|191764642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.954
95904289|NCT01046643|191764642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.385
95904290|NCT01046643|191764642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.310
95904291|NCT01046643|191764643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.594||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.594
95904292|NCT01046643|191764643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.653
95904293|NCT01046643|191764644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.452
95904294|NCT01046643|191764644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.868
95904295|NCT01046643|191764644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.549
95904296|NCT01046643|191764644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.124||95.0||||Category = Medial Frontal Cortex|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Medial Frontal Cortex~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.124
95904297|NCT01046643|191764644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0||||Category = Left Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Left Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.158
95904298|NCT01046643|191764644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||Category = Right Hippocampus|t-test, 2 sided|||"Category = Right Hippocampus~p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05"||||.055
95904299|NCT01046643|191764645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.561||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.561
95904300|NCT01046643|191764645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for null hypothesis = \<0.05||||.726
95904301|NCT01767116|191764668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion because the point estimate was 100%..|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
95904302|NCT01767116|191764668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN-RBV was analyzed; the lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 73% to achieve noninferiority.|Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the primary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
95904303|NCT01767116|191764669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority of the rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment for the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus placebo RBV treatment group as compared with the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group was analyzed using a noninferiority margin of -10.5%. The lower confidence bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed -10.5% to achieve noninferiority.|Difference in Percentage of Participants|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.4|||||95% CI was calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a -10% margin, a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per arm provides \>95% power to demonstrate noninferiority of ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus Placebo RBV compared with ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV (normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a 1-sample test for superiority).||1.4|-0.5|
95904304|NCT01767116|191764670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95979602|NCT02294682|191932342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|97.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|85.1||||||GSK2140944 1500 mg||||85.1|
95979603|NCT02294682|191932342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Microbio Response Urogenital Gonorrhea|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|84.7||||||GSK2140944 3000 mg||||84.7|
95979604|NCT01516970|191932360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2434||||||The discontinuation rates were compared with a statistical test (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\]-Test) with p-value: 0.2434|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2434
95904305|NCT01767116|191764671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.2|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the Wilson score method for the single proportion; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.2|
95904306|NCT01767116|191764671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percentage of Participants|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.6|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution; the lower confidence bound for the percentage of participants with sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment must exceed 84% to achieve superiority.|For the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment, based on a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 and an underlying rate of 92% or higher in each arm, a sample size of 200 participants per treatment arm provides \>90% power to demonstrate superiority of each regimen to the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV therapy (84%) (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion in a one-sample test for superiority).||100.0|98.6|
95904307|NCT00968669|191764674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.435
95904308|NCT00968669|191764674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.828|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.828
95904309|NCT00968669|191764674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||ANOVA|Missing mean ACQ scores at Day 92 was imputed by last observation carried forward||||||0.628
95904310|NCT00968669|191764675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.271
95904311|NCT00968669|191764675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.319|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.319
95904312|NCT00968669|191764675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.502
95904313|NCT00968669|191764676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.756
95904314|NCT00968669|191764676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||0.047
95904315|NCT00968669|191764676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pairwise Poisson Regression|||||||1.000
95904316|NCT00968669|191764677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1764|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1764
95904317|NCT00968669|191764677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4031
95904318|NCT00968669|191764677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95904319|NCT00968669|191764678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8475|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8475
95904320|NCT00968669|191764678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0811
95904321|NCT00968669|191764678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95904322|NCT00968669|191764679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.938||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.144
95904323|NCT00968669|191764679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.618||||0.395|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.395
95904324|NCT00968669|191764679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.863|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.863
95904325|NCT00968669|191764680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.162||||0.717|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma and steroid use||||||0.717
95904326|NCT00968669|191764680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.467||||0.07|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.070
95904327|NCT00968669|191764680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.934|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.934
95904328|NCT00968669|191764681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.813
95904329|NCT00968669|191764681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.290
95904330|NCT00968669|191764681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.303|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.303
95904331|NCT00968669|191764682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.764
95904332|NCT00968669|191764683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.986|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 treatment was compared to placebo||||0.986
95904333|NCT00968669|191764684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.955||||0.7171|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7171
95904334|NCT00968669|191764684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.6219|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6219
95904335|NCT00968669|191764684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.6182|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.6182
95904336|NCT00968669|191764685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952||||0.712|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.7120
95904337|NCT00968669|191764685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.928||||0.5086|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5086
95904338|NCT00968669|191764685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.5184|||||||Log Rank|Stratified by atopic asthma status and steroid use||||||0.5184
95904339|NCT00968669|191764686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.837
95904340|NCT00968669|191764686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.756
95904341|NCT00968669|191764686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.224
95904342|NCT00968669|191764687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.409
95904343|NCT00968669|191764687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.847
95904344|NCT00968669|191764687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|||||||Two-sample t-test|||||||0.968
95904345|NCT00968669|191764688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.208
95904346|NCT00968669|191764689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.574|||||||Fisher Exact|||Combined MEDI-528 dose groups versus placebo||||0.574
95904347|NCT03836287|191764695|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.72|1.47|0.0004
95904348|NCT03836287|191764696|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.543||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.42|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||||-11.00|-48.42|0.0019
95904349|NCT01949480|191764697|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.643
95904350|NCT01949480|191764699|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.077|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS at rest.||||.077
95904351|NCT01949480|191764699|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is calculated for the NRS during deep inspiration at 24 hrs.||||0.39
95904352|NCT01949480|191764700|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.605
95904353|NCT01949480|191764701|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value is for the Local Anesthetic infused in 24 hrs.||||0.104
95904354|NCT01949480|191764702|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.308
95904355|NCT01949480|191764703|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.487|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.487
95904356|NCT01949480|191764704|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.493
95904357|NCT01949480|191764705|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.574|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.574
95904358|NCT01949480|191764706|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.913|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.913
95904359|NCT01949480|191764707|NON_INFERIORITY|To detect an effect size of 0.92 SD units with a power of 81% and alpha level of 0.05, a total sample size of 40 patients (20 patients/group) was calculated.||||||0.783|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.783
95904360|NCT04102501|191764710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5858
95904361|NCT04102501|191764711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8061
95904362|NCT00780962|191764747|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|0.6|||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|6.0|||Wald|||"The study was powered to find a 10% absolute risk reduction in the rate of contrast-induced nephropathy (a=.05, 90% power). We initially estimated the need for 600 patients and repowered to 800 patients after the 1st interim analysis. The study was halted for futility at the 2nd interim analysis.~Reported here 357 (89.4%) of the 399 enrolled subjects who completed a second blood draw at the time the study closed."||6.0|-4.8|>0.5
95904363|NCT03176693|191764748|EQUIVALENCE|A power analysis was calculated based on findings reported by Weingarten et al. of more frequent episodes of hypotension (defined as difference of mean systolic blood pressure \<30% from baseline) in phenoxybenzamine compared with doxazosin (15.7% versus 5.1%). Using a standard deviation of 16 and 11 (derived from reported interquartile ranges, assuming normal distribution), respectively, to achieve 80% power using an alpha =.05, a total sample size of 56 patients was determined.||||||0.56||||||Threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: hemodynamic instability time will not differ between arms||||.56
95904364|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.541|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.001
95904365|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Cough or Shortness of Breath||||0.356
95904366|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.001
95904367|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.962|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Diarrhea||||0.962
95904368|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.651|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty falling or staying asleep||||0.651
95904369|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY|Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difficulty remembering||||0.230
95904370|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.275|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Dizziness||||0.275
95904371|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.987|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.987
95904372|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.132||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fever, chills, sweats||||0.037
95979605|NCT01516970|191932361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8839||||||The percentage of participants with TEAEs were compared with a statistical test (Fisher's Exact Test) with p-value: 0.8839.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.8839
95979606|NCT03823404|191932366|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0455||||||The interim analysis was conducted at significance level of 0.05 and the significance level was adjusted for final analysis.|mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||||<0.0455
95979607|NCT03823404|191932367|SUPERIORITY||||||<|455|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0455
95979608|NCT02645760|191932374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.26 points in mean 11-point NRS pain score between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||<0.001
95904373|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.534|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Nausea or vomiting||||0.534
95904374|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Neuropathy||||0.002
95979609|NCT02645760|191932375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 2.68 points in mean disability score (RMDQ score) between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.009
95979610|NCT02645760|191932376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.79 centimeter in mean range of motion between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.013
95979611|NCT02645760|191932377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||It was calculated that 38 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the 2 arms would have at least 80% power to detect a difference of 0.30 centimeter in mean repositioning error between core stabilization exercise and conventional treatment from baseline to week 7.||||0.012
95979612|NCT02366728|191932392|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.072
95979613|NCT02366728|191932392|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
95979614|NCT02366728|191932393|OTHER|||||||0.0195|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0195
95979615|NCT02366728|191932394|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
95979616|NCT02366728|191932395|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.40
95979617|NCT02366728|191932396|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.16
95979618|NCT02366728|191932396|OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.078
95979619|NCT02366728|191932397|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.64
95979620|NCT02366728|191932398|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.29
95904375|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.349|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Skin problems||||0.349
95979621|NCT01002456|191932400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.2|||||Proportional odds ratio to measure the trend of change in concordance with guideline recommendations, with Arm 1 as the comparator.|||3.2|1.1|
95979622|NCT01026142|191932427|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02||The primary endpoint, IRF-assessed PFS, is tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.|Log Rank|Two-sided and stratified by: prior CNS disease present/absent, measurable disease at baseline, and response to trastuzumab in 1L metastatic setting.|The stratified Cox proportional hazard model will be used to estimate the HR between the two treatment arms and its 95% CI.|"The null hypothesis for the primary endpoint is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the two treatment groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the survival distributions of IRF-assessed PFS in the treatment and the control arms are different:~H0: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> = IRF PFS\<control\> vs. H1: IRF PFS\<pertuzumab\> ≠ IRF PFS\<control\>"||1.02|0.65|0.0731
95979623|NCT00728481|191932441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a histologic response||||1.00
95979624|NCT00728481|191932446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison between arms for a symptomatic response||||0.76
95979625|NCT00778622|191932449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0806||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HbA1c was covariate.||"Standard deviation assumed for changes from baseline in HbA1c maximally was 1.0 across the baseline BMI subgroups. 97 participants in a single subgroup would be sufficient to estimate mean change in HbA1c with precision of 0.20% within the subgroup. Given number of baseline BMI subgroups and no correction for reason of multiplicity was made to the 95% CI within each BMI subgroup, total sample size calculated as 291. Sample size used the method CI for mean for one group in nQuery Advisor v6.0."||||0.0806
95979626|NCT00778622|191932449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1984||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1984
95979627|NCT00778622|191932449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0232||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0232
95979628|NCT00778622|191932449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3589||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3589
95979629|NCT00778622|191932450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4614||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in FPG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline FPG was covariate.||||||0.4614
95979630|NCT00778622|191932450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4696||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4696
95979631|NCT00778622|191932450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5305||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5305
95979632|NCT00778622|191932450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9145||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9145
95904376|NCT02897141|191764757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Weight loss or wasting||||0.020
95904377|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Physical functioning scale||||0.001
95904378|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02||0.458|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to physical health scale||||0.458
95904379|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.91||0.725|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Role limitations due to emotional problems scale||||0.725
95904380|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY|\[Not specified\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.807|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|\[Not specified\]|\[Not specified\]|Energy/fatigue scale|\[Not specified\]|||0.807
95904381|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being scale||||0.693
95979633|NCT00778622|191932451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0305||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TC at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TC was covariate.||||||0.0305
95979634|NCT00778622|191932451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0080
95904382|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.128|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning scale||||0.128
95904383|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain scale||||0.007
95904384|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||General health scale||||0.960
95904385|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.47||0.836|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical health summary scale||||0.836
95904386|NCT02897141|191764758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.822|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental health summary scale||||0.822
95904387|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.529|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Function||||0.529
95904388|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Anxiety||||0.312
95904389|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.841|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Depression||||0.841
95979635|NCT00778622|191932451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0422||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0422
95979636|NCT00778622|191932452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4508||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in LDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline LDL-C was covariate.||||||0.4508
95904390|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.848|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fatigue||||0.848
95904391|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Disturbance||||0.208
95904392|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.754|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Satisfaction with participation in social roles||||0.754
95904393|NCT02897141|191764759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.454|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain interference||||0.454
95904394|NCT02897141|191764760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.252|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.252
95979637|NCT00778622|191932452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0526
95979638|NCT00778622|191932452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1295||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1295
95979639|NCT00778622|191932453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1431||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in HDL-C at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline HDL-C was covariate.||||||0.1431
95979640|NCT00778622|191932453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4066||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4066
95979641|NCT00778622|191932453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4071||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4071
95979642|NCT00778622|191932454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Interpretation based on 2-sided 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|Change from baseline in TG at Week 16 was dependent variable, BMI was fixed main effect, baseline TG was covariate.||||||0.0210
95979643|NCT00778622|191932454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2507||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2507
95904395|NCT02897141|191764761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||CASE adherence index||||0.017
95904396|NCT02897141|191764761|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06||0.338|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Visual analogue scale||||0.338
95904397|NCT02897141|191764762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.743|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Overall||||0.743
95904398|NCT02897141|191764762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Quality of life||||0.166
95904399|NCT02897141|191764762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.899|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived usefulness||||0.899
95904400|NCT02897141|191764762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.803|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Perceived ease of use||||0.803
95904401|NCT02897141|191764762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Model controlled for age, sex, race, education, and CD4 count ; a=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||User Control||||0.480
95904402|NCT01312467|191764771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.773|TWO_SIDED||||||A paired t-test|||||||> 0.773
95904403|NCT03285477|191764775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
95904404|NCT03285477|191764776|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
95979644|NCT00778622|191932454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6546||||||Interpretation of two-by-two comparison based on 2-sided 5% significance level without correction for multiplicity. For lipids, no comparison between overweight and obese was performed.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6546
95979645|NCT01505010|191932465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the baseline 24-h systolic blood pressure|Difference at 6 months in 24-h systolic blood pressure (control minus intervention)|We used mixed models to compare blood pressure changes between randomized groups at 6 months, while adjusting for the baseline blood pressure; statistical significance was a P-value less than 0.05 on two-sided tests.||||0.018
95979646|NCT01505010|191932466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between control and intervention group at 6 months||||0.86
95979647|NCT01505010|191932467|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcocon rank sum test||||0.032
95979648|NCT01505010|191932467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95979649|NCT04556396|191932497|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4|||Chi-squared|||||0.4|0.1|<0.01
95904405|NCT00560833|191764787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.3|<0.01
95904406|NCT00560833|191764787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.2||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-3.1|<0.01
95904407|NCT00560833|191764787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
95904408|NCT00560833|191764787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-2.9|<0.01
95904409|NCT00560833|191764789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-2.0|0.06
95904410|NCT00560833|191764789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.0|<0.01
95904411|NCT00560833|191764789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.9||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.9|<0.01
95904412|NCT00560833|191764789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.5||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.6|<0.01
95904413|NCT00560833|191764790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.09|0.62
95904414|NCT00560833|191764790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
95904415|NCT00560833|191764790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.13|0.01
95904416|NCT00560833|191764790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.01|-0.12|0.02
95979650|NCT01839487|191932517|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.01||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.01|0.54|0.058
95904417|NCT00560833|191764791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.07|-0.06|1.0
95904418|NCT00560833|191764791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.09|0.72
95904419|NCT00560833|191764791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.13
95904420|NCT00560833|191764791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Dunnet-adjusted from ANCOVA with factors for treatment and (pooled) center and a covariate for baseline value.|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.15
95904421|NCT01085318|191764792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|864.1||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.061
95904422|NCT01085318|191764793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|644.99|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95904423|NCT01944631|191764878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.359||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.321|0.095|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.095|-1.321|0.0895
95904424|NCT01944631|191764879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|0.113|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.113|-0.464|0.2310
95904425|NCT01944631|191764880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.304||0.1465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.042|0.156|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||0.156|-1.042|0.1465
95904426|NCT01944631|191764881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.728|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.102||0.8148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|6.845|||ANCOVA||Difference calculated as bisolviral minus placebo|||6.845|-5.390|0.8148
95904427|NCT01944631|191764882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1887|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratifying for the variable 'baseline TSS'||||||0.1887
95904428|NCT01944631|191764883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1069||||0.6954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.666|1.84|||Regression, Logistic||A value greater than one favours bisolviral|||1.840|0.666|0.6954
95904429|NCT01262651|191764884|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.41||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.16|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.16|0.00|0.0854
95904430|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.03|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-1.03|-1.72|
95904431|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (mg)|21.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.99|42.64|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||42.64|9.99|
95904432|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.61|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.61|3.20|
95904433|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.68|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.68|0.70|
95904434|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.88|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||0.88|0.50|
95904435|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MED (mg)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.41|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||3.41|0.75|
95904436|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||TD (mg)|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|5.63|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.63|2.20|
95904437|NCT02019719|191764896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||MAD (mg)|8.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|11.44|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||11.44|6.51|
95904438|NCT00434057|191764925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Sensitivity to melanoma|98.0||||0.05||95.0|95.1|100.0|||exact mid-P||"Of 127 melanomas, 114 melanomas had a pre-biopsy diagnosis of Melanoma can not be ruled out or Not melanoma, which qualified them for primary endpoint analysis of sensitivity. MelaFind correctly identified 112/114 melanomas."|MelaFind's sensitivity to cutaneous melanoma and 95% confidence intervals were determined.||100|95.1|0.05
95904439|NCT00434057|191764925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Specificty of MelaFind and examining dermatologists on the same set of pigmented skin lesions.||||0.02
95904440|NCT02896855|191764928|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.99|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.99|0.49|0.0418
95904441|NCT02896855|191764928|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.71||||0.0556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.01|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the primary analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.01|0.50|0.0556
95904442|NCT02896855|191764928|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.81|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.81|0.45|0.0008
95904443|NCT02896855|191764928|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.85|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|This was for the final analysis. Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||0.85|0.47|0.0019
95904444|NCT02896855|191764930|OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.68||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.03|||Log Rank|A two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.03|0.45|0.0658
95904445|NCT02896855|191764930|OTHER||Unstratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||Log Rank|This two-sided log-rank test was unstratified.|This unstratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.06|0.46|0.0864
95904446|NCT02896855|191764932|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Statistical test is stratified by disease type and hormone receptor status.|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1126
95904447|NCT02896855|191764932|OTHER||Difference in Objective Response|9.98||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|22.6|||Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|The difference in objective response is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo. 95% CI was calculated using Hauck-Anderson method.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||22.60|-2.65|0.1108
95904448|NCT02896855|191764933|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78||||0.2867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24|||Log Rank|Two-sided log-rank test was used, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status.|This stratified Hazard Ratio (HR) is calculated as Arm B: Pertuzumab versus Arm A: Placebo. Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by disease type and hormone-receptor status, was used to estimate HR and its 95% CI.|Hypothesis testing is considered exploratory in this bridging study.||1.24|0.49|0.2867
95904449|NCT02896855|191764940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.75|||||The treatment difference for change from baseline to maximum on-treatment decrease in LVEF is defined as Arm B: Pertuzumab minus Arm A: Placebo.|||0.75|-1.96|
95904450|NCT00304070|191764951|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.89||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 90% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.44
95904451|NCT00304070|191764951|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.53||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 50% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.40
95904452|NCT00304070|191764951|OTHER||2 Year EFS|0.55||||8.53e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||2-year KM estimate|||We will test the 2-year EFS is 15% using the asymptotic distribution of the complementary log-log distribution of the Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimate.||||0.00000853
95904453|NCT00320216|191764958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi square test|Stratified by baseline weight \[\<=90kg vs \> 90 kg\].||||||<0.001
95904454|NCT00320216|191764958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95904455|NCT00320216|191764958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95904456|NCT00320216|191764958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||To control for the multiplicity for the primary endpoint analysis, the 4 pairwise comparisons between ustekinumab groups and placebo were performed sequentially at alpha = 0.05. The order of testing was prespecified from high to low doses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis:No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo at an overall significant level of 0.05. Sample Size: With 300 participants (60 in each treatment group), simulation studies were conducted to calculate the power to detect a treatment difference in primary endpoint between ustekinumab groups and placebo using a CMH test with stratification by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg). For all the scenarios evaluated, the power is \>99% at an overall significance level of 0.05.||||<0.01
95904457|NCT00320216|191764959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95904458|NCT00320216|191764959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||||||<0.001
95904459|NCT00320216|191764959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|||||||<0.001
95904460|NCT00320216|191764959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi square|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 90kg vs \> 90 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between any ustekinumab group and placebo.||||<0.001
95904461|NCT00779246|191764967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis was that ASC and CHG would be no different in preventing acquisition of MRSA.||2.9|0.5|>0.05
95904462|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY|No formal sample size estimation was undertaken due to the exploratory nature of the study. Statistical comparisons of the 7 mean changes from baseline to different time-points (0-24 hours) were undertaken in one mixed effects model of analysis taking into account the cross-over nature of the study and the multiple time points within each period to explore a possible treatment effect in this small proof of concept study. Change from baseline at 0.5 hours is presented in this section|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 0.5 hours||1.19|-1.23|0.9733
95904463|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.4942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|0.79||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1 hour. The change from baseline at 1 hour was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.79|-1.64|0.4942
95904464|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.6866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 1.5 hours. The change from baseline at 1.5 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.97|-1.46|0.6866
95904465|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 2 hours. The change from baseline at 2 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.32|-2.11|0.1488
95904466|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.86||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 4 hours. The change from baseline at 4 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.86|-1.57|0.5644
95904467|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.51||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 8 hours, The change from baseline at 8 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||0.51|-1.91|0.2561
95904468|NCT04153409|191764971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|1.2||No adjustment for multiple comparisons has been made due to the exploratory nature of the study|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is Active-Placebo|Change from baseline at 24 hours. The change from baseline at 24 hours was extracted from the mixed model analysis including all time points.||1.20|-1.22|0.9875
95904469|NCT00574587|191764980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||95% Confidence interval|54.0|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|20.0|34.0|74.0|||Simon's Mimimax 2-stage design|||||74|34|<0.10
95904470|NCT00121238|191764991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95904471|NCT01380327|191764995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.98).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT -high dose, Placebo - high dose||2.3|1.2|0.001
95904472|NCT01380327|191764995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.18) vs. low dose group (numerator=2.69).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||3.1|1.7|<0.0001
95904473|NCT01380327|191764996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.32).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||1.4|1.1|<0.0001
95904474|NCT01380327|191764996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.04) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.14).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||1.2|1.0|0.11
95904475|NCT01380327|191764997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value and associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. high dose group (numerator=1.57).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||2.4|1.0|0.06
95904476|NCT01380327|191764997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value \& associated CI is the ratio of change (baseline to post-baseline) in placebo group (denominator=1.03) vs. low dose group (numerator=1.45).|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||2.2|0.9|0.13
95904477|NCT01380327|191764998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|-12.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (-7.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - high dose, placebo - high dose||7.5|-33.2|0.21
95904478|NCT01380327|191764998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment effect|13.5||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|34.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value\& associated CI is the treatment effect: baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in high dose group (19.2) minus baseline to post-baseline change in measurement in placebo group (5.7) .|Analysis compared cockroach SLIT - low dose, placebo - low dose||34.1|-7.1|0.20
95904479|NCT03732209|191765005|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|7.155||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||Reported values in outcome measures data table reflect mean change in glycosylated hemoglobin for each group (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.017
95904480|NCT03732209|191765006|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|4.885||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA||The values reported in the outcome measures data table reflect mean change in AUC (Session 2 - Session 1)|Due to minimal data being available at Weeks 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only baseline (Week 0) and Week 8 data were included in the analysis.||||.042
95904481|NCT03732209|191765007|SUPERIORITY||F value, group x time interaction|2.33||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value reflects the interaction between group (episodic future thinking, control) and time (baseline, Week 8)|ANOVA|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.146
95904482|NCT03732209|191765008|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.23||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to minimal data available at Week 16 and 24 due to COVID-19-related attrition, only ratings from Week 8 were included in the analysis.||||.042
95904483|NCT00823082|191765076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95904484|NCT00823082|191765077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95979651|NCT01839487|191932519|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-high was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.10|0.30|0.092
95979652|NCT01839487|191932519|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG for HA-low was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.31|0.59|0.514
95979653|NCT01839487|191932520|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.22||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.68||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||p-Value and relative risk were based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method using KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||1.68|0.88|0.225
95979654|NCT01839487|191932521|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.19||Threshold for significance at 0.1 level.|Log Rank|P-value was based on stratified log-rank test with the KPS category at screening as the stratification factor.||Hazard ratio PAG/AG was based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the KPS category (70-80% and 90-100%) at screening using AG as the reference arm.||1.19|0.70|0.495
95979655|NCT02383589|191932528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|45.15||The analysis was stratified by the stratification factors applied at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.15|14.70|<0.0001
95979656|NCT02383589|191932529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95979657|NCT02383589|191932530|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.29||The model was adjusted for the following covariates in addition to log (each participant's duration in study) as an offset: treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline PDAI activity score, and baseline prednisone dose.|Negative Binominal Regression|||||0.29|0.05|<0.0001
95979658|NCT02383589|191932531|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.83||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|11.81||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||11.81|1.97|0.0003
95979659|NCT02383589|191932532|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.39||P-value is from a stratified log-rank test used to test the time to first disease flare between the RTX and MMF treatment arms over the 52-week treatment period, adjusting for the stratification factors applied at randomization|Log Rank|||||0.39|0.06|<0.0001
95979660|NCT02383589|191932533|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Estimated Means|-2.872||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.577|-1.167||P-value is from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with unstructured covariance matrix, adjusting for treatment, region, duration of illness, baseline DLQI score, visit, and an interaction terms for visit × baseline DLQI score and visit × treatment|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-1.167|-4.577|0.0012
95979661|NCT00789867|191932546|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0002
95979662|NCT00789867|191932547|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
95979663|NCT00789867|191932548|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.06
95904485|NCT00823082|191765078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6115|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||At ICU discharge visit||||0.6115
95904486|NCT00823082|191765079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1211|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||0.1211
95904487|NCT00823082|191765079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||1.000
95904488|NCT00823082|191765080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.4870
95904489|NCT00823082|191765081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.3897
95979664|NCT00789867|191932549|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.08
95979665|NCT00789867|191932550|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.22
95979666|NCT00789867|191932551|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.003
95979667|NCT02973425|191932606|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.68||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.6|||Regression, Cox|||The primary hypothesis was tested through a time-to-event analysis implemented using Cox proportional hazards models||2.60|1.09|0.02
95979668|NCT02973425|191932607|OTHER||Linear regression|0.03||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||For hypothesis 3, we compared the mean score on the SEQ-12 and its subscales at 6 months, adjusting for baseline.||||0.03
95979669|NCT02973425|191932608|OTHER|Six-month OR, 95%CI, and P value were calculated from generalized estimating equation marginal models with a logit link and an exchangeable correlation matrix.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|3.68||Analysis models were adjusted by study site, having quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline, cigarettes per day measured at baseline, quit attempts in the past 12 months measured at baseline.|Chi-squared|||||3.68|1.01|0.048
95979670|NCT02973425|191932609|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||During the first 3 weeks from randomization, both the Take a Break and comparison groups reported the number of cigarettes smoked daily (by texting); texting response rate (responded on at least 1 day).||||0.01
95979671|NCT02012296|191932616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95979672|NCT02012296|191932617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.21
95979673|NCT02012296|191932620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0012
95979674|NCT02012296|191932621|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95979675|NCT02012296|191932622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0002
95904490|NCT00823082|191765082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95904491|NCT00823082|191765083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0004
95904492|NCT00823082|191765084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0209
95904493|NCT00823082|191765085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Number of units of packed red blood cells||||0.7433
95904494|NCT00823082|191765085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7453|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of fresh frozen plasma||||0.7453
95904495|NCT00823082|191765085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Units of platelets||||0.2705
95904496|NCT00823082|191765086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4460
95904497|NCT00823082|191765087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4936
95904498|NCT00823082|191765088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Follow-up visit||||1.000
95904499|NCT00823082|191765088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||ICU discharge visit||||0.6218
95904500|NCT00823082|191765089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9574|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.9574
95904501|NCT00823082|191765090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7489|||||||Hodges-Lehmann test|||||||0.7489
95904502|NCT03452917|191765091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-8.0||||Chi-squared||||||-8.0|0.82
95904503|NCT03452917|191765091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.66|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-6.5||||Chi-squared||||||-6.5|0.66
95904504|NCT03452917|191765092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.44
95979676|NCT03739762|191932623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.85||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.91|-10.79|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||The sample size of 284 ensured 90% power to detect a 41-minute difference in sitting time between I-STAND and the attention control from baseline to 6 months, assuming a standard deviation (SD) of 97 minutes/day for change in sitting time (based on our pilot data), and 15% loss to follow-up. Sample and power calculations were performed using R software version 3.5 \[39\] via simulation, assuming specified SDs and differences between means.||-10.79|-52.91|0.003
95979677|NCT03739762|191932624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.48||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.28|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||-0.28|-6.68|.033
95979678|NCT03739762|191932625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.16|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.16|-1.63|.784
95979679|NCT03739762|191932626|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.38|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||2.38|-2.61|.927
95979680|NCT03739762|191932627|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.47|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.47|-0.42|.916
95904505|NCT03452917|191765092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
95904506|NCT03452917|191765093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5.4|-0.9|0.12
95904507|NCT03452917|191765093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.6|-2.5|0.41
95904508|NCT03452917|191765094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|3.5|||Chi-squared|||||3.5|-8.3|0.42
95904509|NCT03452917|191765094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||Chi-squared|||||3.9|-8.0|0.49
95904510|NCT03452917|191765095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.6|||Chi-squared|||||8.6|-7.8|0.93
95904511|NCT03452917|191765095|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|13.3|||Chi-squared|||||13.3|-2.8|0.20
95904512|NCT03452917|191765096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.8|||Chi-squared|||||3.8|-7.7|0.50
95904513|NCT03452917|191765096|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||||3.7|-7.8|0.48
95904514|NCT03452917|191765097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6|||Chi-squared|||||2.6|-6.0|0.49
95904515|NCT03452917|191765097|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.0|||Chi-squared|||||4.0|-4.9|0.85
95904516|NCT00144339|191765101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.9524||95.0|-4.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-4|0.9524
95979681|NCT03739762|191932628|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.36|||Regression, Linear|The model fit was a linear regression model with GEE on the outcome change from baseline.||||0.36|-1.09|.325
95979682|NCT03627767|191932657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.424||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.424|0.286|< 0.0001
95904517|NCT00144339|191765102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.2074||95.0|-2.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|Random-effects model|Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||6|-2|0.2074
95904518|NCT00144339|191765103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2488||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2488
95904519|NCT00144339|191765104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0145||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.0145
95904520|NCT00144339|191765105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.299||95.0|-12.0|4.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||4|-12|0.2990
95904521|NCT00144339|191765106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.8375||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.8375
95904522|NCT00144339|191765107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.1143||95.0|-14.0|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||2|-14|0.1143
95904523|NCT00144339|191765108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.787||95.0|-9.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||7|-9|0.7870
95904524|NCT00144339|191765109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.784||95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Arbitrary covariance matrix; fixed treatment effect; individual patients are random; rate of decline estimated as the slope of the random effects model|Linear random effects model||0.3|-0.2|0.7840
95979683|NCT03627767|191932657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.176|0.27||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.270|0.176|< 0.0001
95979684|NCT03627767|191932657|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|0.78||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.780|0.503|< 0.0001
95979685|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||=|0.9495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.1|-1.0|= 0.9495
95979686|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||=|0.5717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.6|= 0.5717
95979687|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.9|-1.7|
95979688|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.1|47.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.8|33.1|< 0.0001
95979689|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.1|< 0.0001
95979690|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|29.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.9|14.3|
95979691|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|42.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.0|28.1|< 0.0001
95979692|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.4|44.6|< 0.0001
95979693|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.8||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.8|8.1|
95979694|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.2|< 0.0001
95979695|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.9|< 0.0001
95979696|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.6|5.9|
95979697|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|32.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.5|18.5|< 0.0001
95979698|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|49.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.7|35.3|< 0.0001
95904525|NCT00144339|191765110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2705||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.2705
95904526|NCT00144339|191765111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.306
95904527|NCT00144339|191765112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8103||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.8103
95904528|NCT00144339|191765113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9814||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Rank-sum test|Rate calculated as (measure on 30days after completion of treatment - measure on day 1 )/ years in between||||||0.9814
95904529|NCT00144339|191765114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||Log Rank|Cox regression with treatment|Median estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
95979699|NCT03627767|191932658|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|25.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.6|
95979700|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
95904530|NCT00144339|191765115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.81|0.91|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio calculated as estimated number of events in tio/number of events in placebo|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.91|0.81|<0.0001
95904531|NCT00144339|191765116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3481||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3481
95904532|NCT00144339|191765117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0011||95.0|0.83|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided||Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.|Poisson regression adjusted for overdispersion and treatment exposure||0.95|0.83|0.0011
95904533|NCT00144339|191765118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1766||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1766
95904534|NCT00144339|191765119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0024||95.0|0.78|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|Cox regression||0.95|0.78|0.0024
95979701|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions. P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.||0.0|0.0|
95979702|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.0|0.0|
95904535|NCT00144339|191765120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.3413||95.0|0.82|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of events between tiotropium bromide and placebo|||1.07|0.82|0.3413
95904536|NCT00144339|191765121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.8624||95.0|0.87|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided||Ratio of estimated number of days of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation leading to hospitalization between tio and placebo|Poisson regression adjusting for overdispersion with Pearson's method adjusting for treatment exposure. The logarithm of treatment exposure is used as offset when building the Poisson model.||1.18|0.87|0.8624
95904537|NCT00144339|191765122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.077|0.098|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.098|0.077|<.0001
95904538|NCT00144339|191765123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.037|<.0001
95904539|NCT00144339|191765124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.087|<.0001
95904540|NCT00144339|191765125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.069|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.069|0.047|<.0001
95904541|NCT00144339|191765126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.115|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.115|0.091|<.0001
95904542|NCT00144339|191765127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.054|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.042|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.042|<.0001
95904543|NCT00144339|191765128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.104|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.104|0.078|<.0001
95904544|NCT00144339|191765129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.04|0.066|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.066|0.040|<.0001
95904545|NCT00144339|191765130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.107|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.107|0.081|<.0001
95904546|NCT00144339|191765131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.049|<.0001
95904547|NCT00144339|191765132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.109|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.109|0.081|<.0001
95904548|NCT00144339|191765133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.047|0.075|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.075|0.047|<.0001
95904549|NCT00144339|191765134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.114|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.114|0.085|<.0001
95904550|NCT00144339|191765135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.051|0.08|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.080|0.051|<.0001
95904551|NCT00144339|191765136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.095|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.11|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.110|0.080|<.0001
95904552|NCT00144339|191765137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.045|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.045|<.0001
95904553|NCT00144339|191765138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.103|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.103|0.073|<.0001
95904554|NCT00144339|191765139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.033|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.033|<.0001
95904555|NCT00144339|191765140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.168|0.211|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.211|0.168|<.0001
95979703|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|50.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.1|35.3|< 0.0001
95904556|NCT00144339|191765141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.073|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.073|0.037|<.0001
95904557|NCT00144339|191765142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.204|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.18|0.228|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.228|0.180|<.0001
95904558|NCT00144339|191765143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.034|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.034|<.0001
95979704|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|49.1|< 0.0001
95904559|NCT00144339|191765144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.173|0.222|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.222|0.173|<.0001
95904560|NCT00144339|191765145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.07|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.070|0.026|<.0001
95904561|NCT00144339|191765146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.194|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.221|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.221|0.167|<.0001
95904562|NCT00144339|191765147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.026|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.026|<.0001
95904563|NCT00144339|191765148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.189|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.216|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.216|0.161|<.0001
95904564|NCT00144339|191765149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.035|0.084|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.084|0.035|<.0001
95904565|NCT00144339|191765150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.213|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.213|0.157|<.0001
95904566|NCT00144339|191765151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047||||0.0005||95.0|0.021|0.074|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.074|0.021|0.0005
95904567|NCT00144339|191765152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.229|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.229|0.170|<.0001
95904568|NCT00144339|191765153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.038|0.093|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.093|0.038|<.0001
95904569|NCT00144339|191765154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.215|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.215|0.154|<.0001
95904570|NCT00144339|191765155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046||||0.002||95.0|0.017|0.076|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.076|0.017|0.0020
95904571|NCT00144339|191765156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.139|<.0001
95904572|NCT00144339|191765157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0365||95.0|0.002|0.061|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.061|0.002|0.0365
95904573|NCT00144339|191765158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.147|<.0001
95904574|NCT00144339|191765159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038||||0.0002||95.0|0.018|0.058|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.058|0.018|0.0002
95979705|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|17.9||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.9|7.9|
95904575|NCT00144339|191765160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.161|0.21|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.210|0.161|<.0001
95904576|NCT00144339|191765161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037||||0.0018||95.0|0.014|0.06|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.060|0.014|0.0018
95904577|NCT00144339|191765162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.151|0.201|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.201|0.151|<.0001
95904578|NCT00144339|191765163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0069||95.0|0.009|0.055|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.055|0.009|0.0069
95904579|NCT00144339|191765164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.127|<.0001
95979706|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|53.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.0|37.9|< 0.0001
95904580|NCT00144339|191765165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.002||95.0|0.015|0.065|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.065|0.015|0.0020
95904581|NCT00144339|191765166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.194|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.194|0.139|<.0001
95904582|NCT00144339|191765167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.0165||95.0|0.006|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|0.006|0.0165
95904583|NCT00144339|191765168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.199|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.199|0.141|<.0001
95904584|NCT00144339|191765169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.0248||95.0|0.004|0.059|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.059|0.004|0.0248
95904585|NCT00144339|191765170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.196|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.196|0.136|<.0001
95904586|NCT00144339|191765171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.0004||95.0|0.022|0.078|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.078|0.022|0.0004
95904587|NCT00144339|191765172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.192|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.192|0.130|<.0001
95904588|NCT00144339|191765173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.0809||95.0|-0.003|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.003|0.0809
95904589|NCT00144339|191765174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.182|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.182|0.119|<.0001
95904590|NCT00144339|191765175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026||||0.0915||95.0|-0.004|0.057|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.057|-0.004|0.0915
95904591|NCT00144339|191765176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.535|-2.226|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.226|-3.535|<.0001
95904592|NCT00144339|191765177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.771|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.461|-2.081|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.081|-3.461|<.0001
95904593|NCT00144339|191765178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.593|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.352|-1.834|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.834|-3.352|<.0001
95904594|NCT00144339|191765179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.191|-1.576|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.576|-3.191|<.0001
95904595|NCT00144339|191765180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.423|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.277|-1.569|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.569|-3.277|<.0001
95904596|NCT00144339|191765181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.345|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.229|-2.462|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-2.462|-4.229|<.0001
95904597|NCT00144339|191765182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.818|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.742|-1.894|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.894|-3.742|<.0001
95904598|NCT00144339|191765183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.303|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.266|-1.34|||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||-1.340|-3.266|<.0001
95904599|NCT00144339|191765184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0242||95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||0.98|0.74|0.0242
95904600|NCT00144339|191765185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0339||95.0|0.76|0.99|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years ; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|Hazard ratio of all cause mortality vital status was information followed-up after discontinuation; vital status information up to 1440 days after the start of treatment was used||0.99|0.76|0.0339
95904601|NCT00144339|191765186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0859||95.0|0.79|1.02|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tio vs. placebo|||1.02|0.79|0.0859
95904602|NCT00144339|191765187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1936||95.0|0.67|1.08|||Log Rank||Cox regression with treatment; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.08|0.67|0.1936
95904603|NCT00144339|191765188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.2377||95.0|0.71|1.09|||Log Rank||Cox regression; cut-off at 4 years plus 30 days; vital status form intended at 4 years; hazard ratio shown as tiotropium bromide vs. placebo|||1.09|0.71|0.2377
95904604|NCT00144339|191765189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.029||95.0|0.73|0.98|||Z-test|incidence rate = number of patients with event/ time at risk|Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.98|0.73|0.0290
95904605|NCT00144339|191765190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.44||||0.1158||95.0|0.91|2.26|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||2.26|0.91|0.1158
95904606|NCT00144339|191765191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.7725||95.0|0.68|1.33|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.33|0.68|0.7725
95904607|NCT00144339|191765192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.25||||0.2666||95.0|0.84|1.87|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.87|0.84|0.2666
95904608|NCT00144339|191765193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.59||||0.0337||95.0|0.37|0.96|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.96|0.37|0.0337
95904609|NCT00144339|191765194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.58||||0.0537||95.0|0.33|1.01|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.01|0.33|0.0537
95904610|NCT00144339|191765195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.71||||0.0403||95.0|0.52|0.99|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.99|0.52|0.0403
95904611|NCT00144339|191765196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0001||95.0|0.77|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.77|0.0001
95904612|NCT00144339|191765197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|1.2||||0.4789||95.0|0.73|1.98|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.98|0.73|0.4789
95904613|NCT00144339|191765198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.84||||0.0014||95.0|0.76|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.76|0.0014
95904614|NCT00144339|191765199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.61||||0.0236||95.0|0.4|0.94|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.94|0.40|0.0236
95904615|NCT00144339|191765200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.95||||0.5064||95.0|0.81|1.11|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||1.11|0.81|0.5064
95904616|NCT00144339|191765201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio of incidence rates|0.69||||0.0104||95.0|0.52|0.92|||Z-test||Rate ratio of incidence rates (tiotropium/placebo)|||0.92|0.52|0.0104
95904617|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|1.12|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.12|-1.42|
95904618|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.17|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.17|-0.93|
95904619|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.47|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.47|-0.75|
95904620|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.62|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.62|-1.15|
95904621|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.03|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.03|-0.51|
95904622|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on influenza risk|||1.01|0.99|
95904623|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
95904624|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
95904625|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|0.99|
95904626|NCT01156701|191765247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
95904627|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||0.36|-1.17|
95904628|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.03|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.03|-0.80|
95904629|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.18|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.18|-0.75|
95904630|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.85|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||0.85|-0.89|
95904631|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.11|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.11|-0.31|
95904632|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on asthma risk|||1.00|0.99|
95904633|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
95904634|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.99|
95904635|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.01|0.99|
95904636|NCT01156701|191765248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
95904637|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.54|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.54|-0.61|
95904638|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||-0.04|-0.45|
95904639|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.09|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.09|-0.39|
95904640|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.81|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.81|-0.38|
95904641|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.02|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.02|-0.22|
95904642|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.02|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on pneumonia risk|||1.02|0.99|
95904643|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|1.00|
95904644|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|1.00|
95904645|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.02|1.00|
95904646|NCT01156701|191765249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
95904647|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|3.4|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||3.40|-0.83|
95904648|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.47|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.47|-0.98|
95904649|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.67|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.67|-0.85|
95904650|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.76|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||3.76|-0.70|
95904651|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.12|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.12|-0.44|
95904652|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on bronchitis risk|||1.03|0.99|
95904653|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.99|
95904654|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.01|0.99|
95904655|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.99|
95904656|NCT01156701|191765250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|1.00|
95904657|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|2.79|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||2.79|-3.08|
95904658|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.25|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||0.25|-2.39|
95904659|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.35|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||0.35|-2.51|
95904660|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|4.14|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||4.14|-2.29|
95904661|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.59|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||0.59|-0.58|
95904662|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.03|||||Direct effect of Zanamivir prophylaxis on risk of any respiratory diagnosis|||1.03|0.97|
95904663|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Total effect of zanamivir prophylaxis|||1.00|0.98|
95904664|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.0|||||Direct effect of zanamivir prophylaxis when index is treated|||1.00|0.98|
95904665|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04|||||Risk in cohort 1 minus risk in cohort 2|||1.04|0.98|
95904666|NCT01156701|191765251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.0|||||Protective effect of zanamivir on susceptible risk|||1.00|0.99|
95904667|NCT02232893|191765274|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95904668|NCT01764945|191765277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.69|92.54|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||92.54|73.69|
95904669|NCT01764945|191765277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.65|94.3|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||94.30|73.65|
95904670|NCT01764945|191765277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|83.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.69|94.28|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||94.28|74.69|
95904671|NCT01764945|191765277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.94|97.04|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||97.04|88.94|
95904672|NCT01764945|191765277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.55|101.43|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||101.43|91.55|
95904673|NCT01764945|191765277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.88|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||99.24|89.88|
95904674|NCT01764945|191765278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|74.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.44|83.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||83.83|65.44|
95904675|NCT01764945|191765278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|73.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.33|84.68|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||84.68|63.33|
95904676|NCT01764945|191765278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.94|89.99|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||89.99|68.94|
95904677|NCT01764945|191765278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.42|85.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||85.84|71.42|
95904678|NCT01764945|191765278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.54|88.46|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||88.46|69.54|
95904679|NCT01764945|191765278|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|78.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.35|87.94|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||87.94|69.35|
95904680|NCT01764945|191765279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|82.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.98|88.55|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment B : treatment A)."||88.55|75.98|
95904681|NCT01764945|191765279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|80.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.58|87.83|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment C : treatment A)."||87.83|74.58|
95904682|NCT01764945|191765279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|79.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.84|84.67|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 40 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment D : treatment A)."||84.67|74.84|
95904683|NCT01764945|191765279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|91.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.53|95.84|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment F : treatment E)."||95.84|87.53|
95904684|NCT01764945|191765279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|94.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.76|99.24|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment G : treatment E)."||99.24|89.76|
95904685|NCT01764945|191765279|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing).|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.42|97.63|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation.|"relative bioavailability comparison of 120 mg faldaprevir soft gelatine capsules compared with the equivalent dose of an oral solution.~(treatment H : treatment E)."||97.63|88.42|
95904686|NCT02911948|191765290|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was strictly below 0.0% for null hypothesis (H0): D=0.0% against the alternative (HA): D≠0.0%, where D is the mean difference (IDegLira - IDeg).|Treatment contrast|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.06|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and pre-trial anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate.||-1.06|-1.50|<0.0001
95904687|NCT02854540|191765319|OTHER||Mean difference (percent)|59.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95904688|NCT01587651|191765322|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was assessed using a 95% CI of the difference in mean PRU between ticagrelor and prasugrel (2 arms combined). Under the assumption of 0 difference in mean PRU between prasugrel 10 mg QD MD and ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD, a common SD of 60 PRU (based on previous DSI studies and published data), and a drop-out rate not exceeding 15%, a sample size of 105 allows for the 95% CI to stay within ± 45 PRU (non-inferiority margin) with a power of 90%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|67.2||||||ANCOVA model included treatment as a main effect and pre-randomization baseline PRU as a covariate. The combined prasugrel groups were modeled as a single treatment. If the upper limit of the CI for the mean difference was not greater than 45 PRU, then the PD response to prasugrel 10 mg QD MD was deemed noninferior to that achieved by ticagrelor 90 mg BID MD.||67.2|24.9|
95904689|NCT00754845|191765328|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Log Rank|Stratified by the stratification factors at randomization||||0.91|0.48|0.01
95904690|NCT00754845|191765329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.007
95904691|NCT00754845|191765330|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.73|0.83
95904692|NCT00754845|191765331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.01
95904693|NCT03965052|191765332|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95904694|NCT03965052|191765334|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Lissamine green treatment groups||||1.000
95904695|NCT03965052|191765334|OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fluorescein treatment groups||||0.667
95904696|NCT03965052|191765335|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95904697|NCT03965052|191765336|OTHER|||||||0.977|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||the analysis was per protocol||||0.977
95904698|NCT03965052|191765338|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
95904699|NCT00358735|191765343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95904700|NCT00358735|191765344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95904701|NCT00358735|191765345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0004
95904702|NCT00358735|191765347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.953
95904703|NCT00358735|191765348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.050
95904704|NCT00358735|191765349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.010
95904705|NCT00358735|191765350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.507
95904706|NCT00358735|191765351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.052
95904707|NCT00358735|191765352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.798
95904708|NCT00358735|191765353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.036
95904709|NCT03325712|191765362|OTHER||Slope|0.8188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0725|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6966|0.941|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9410|0.6966|
95904710|NCT03325712|191765363|OTHER||Slope|0.7708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0747|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6449|0.8967|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.8967|0.6449|
95904711|NCT03325712|191765364|OTHER||Slope|0.7167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4922|0.9412|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9412|0.4922|
95904712|NCT03325712|191765365|OTHER||Slope|0.6825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1344|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4556|0.9094|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% CI for the slope was computed. Perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope of 1. Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|The basic model for the investigation of dose proportionality is a power model that describes the functional relationship between the dose and PK endpoints. Statistical hypotheses were not tested in a confirmatory sense.||0.9094|0.4556|
95904713|NCT03325712|191765366|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|102.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.18|121.25||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||121.25|87.18|
95904714|NCT03325712|191765366|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|93.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.94|108.32||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||108.32|79.94|
95904715|NCT03325712|191765366|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.59|116.42||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||116.42|103.59|
95904716|NCT03325712|191765366|OTHER||Ratio ( T/R)|108.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|127.66||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||127.66|92.00|
95904717|NCT03325712|191765366|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.43|128.79||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||128.79|92.43|
95904718|NCT03325712|191765367|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.99|119.31||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"Placebo matching BI 705564. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||119.31|83.99|
95904719|NCT03325712|191765367|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|84.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.29|98.62||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 2. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||98.62|72.29|
95904720|NCT03325712|191765367|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|109.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|126.88||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 3. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||126.88|94.34|
95904721|NCT03325712|191765367|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|95.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.75|114.21||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 5. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.21|79.75|
95904722|NCT03325712|191765367|OTHER||Ratio (T/R)|90.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.75|114.59||||Standard deviation is intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%).|The effect of BI 705564 on midazolam is estimated by the ratio of the geometric mean (T/R) and confidence interval (CI). CI is calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.|"BI 705564 dose group 4. Relative bioavailability of midazolam is analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale including random effects for subjects and fixed effects for time point."||114.59|70.75|
95904723|NCT00380068|191765368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.64|<|0.001||95.0|11.8|29.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||29.3|11.8|<0.001
95904724|NCT00380068|191765369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.11|<|0.001||95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||-0.3|-0.8|<0.001
95904725|NCT00380068|191765370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.001||95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||-0.2|-1.0|0.001
95904726|NCT00380068|191765371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-25.5||||||95.0|-33.6|-16.3|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.3|-33.6|
95904727|NCT00380068|191765372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change from baseline|-29.2||||||95.0|-39.8|-16.6|||||Percent change from baseline derived from Geometric Mean Ratio|||-16.6|-39.8|
95904728|NCT00380068|191765373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95904729|NCT00380068|191765374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Statistical test performed on actual change from baseline WHO functional Class (eg, a change from WHO Class III to II is -1; a change from WHO Class IV to II is -2; etc).|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||<0.001
95904730|NCT00380068|191765375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 24||||||<0.001
95904731|NCT00380068|191765376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test on change from Baseline to Week 48||||||<0.001
95904732|NCT00380068|191765377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|89.4||||||95.0|84.4|92.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||92.8|84.4|
95904733|NCT00380068|191765378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|84.1||||||95.0|78.2|88.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||88.6|78.2|
95904734|NCT00380068|191765379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.4|97.4|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.4|91.4|
95904735|NCT00380068|191765380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|92.9||||||95.0|88.3|95.8|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||95.8|88.3|
95904736|NCT00380068|191765381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.0||||||95.0|88.5|97.9|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.9|88.5|
95904737|NCT00380068|191765382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|90.0||||||95.0|81.6|94.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||94.7|81.6|
95904738|NCT00380068|191765383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|97.1||||||95.0|93.6|98.7|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||98.7|93.6|
95904739|NCT00380068|191765384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent event free|95.3||||||95.0|91.2|97.6|||||Estimate obtained through Kaplan-Meier methods|||97.6|91.2|
95904740|NCT01297062|191765385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI), equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.21|-0.5||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.50|-2.21|
95904741|NCT01297062|191765386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.88|-1.16||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-1.16|-2.88|
95904742|NCT01297062|191765387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is established if the upper limit of 2-sided 90% CI, equivalent to the upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI, for change from baseline in QTcP (exenatide - placebo) is below 10 msec.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|-0.15||No adjustment on CI for the primary outcome measure.|Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Exenatide versus Placebo), Day, Time, Period, Sequence, and Day-Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept.|60 evaluable subjects gives more than 90% power to show non-inferiority of exenatide versus placebo, using t-test in 2-way crossover, alpha=0.05, true difference of 5 msec, and standard deviation of the within-subject difference of 10.04 msec.||-0.15|-2.11|
95904743|NCT01297062|191765388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.82|8.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||8.12|2.82|
95904744|NCT01297062|191765389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.46|12.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||12.67|8.46|
95904745|NCT01297062|191765390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.71|13.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||The MMRM includes Treatment (Moxifloxacin versus Placebo), Time, Period, Sequence, and Time-Treatment interaction as fixed effects, subject random intercept. Multiplicity adjusted CI for the mean difference is shown.|Assay sensitivity of moxifloxacin is established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 90% CI for difference in change from baseline in QTcP (moxifloxacin - placebo) is greater than 5 msec.||13.13|8.71|
95904746|NCT01297062|191765393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0008||||0.5962|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0017|0.0033|||Mixed Models Analysis||The linear mixed-effects model includes placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP as response, plasma exenatide concentration as covariate, fixed intercept of zero, subject random slope.|The analysis is to test the significance of the linear regression slope (null hypothesis: slope equal to zero) between placebo-adjusted change from baseline in QTcP and exenatide concentration.||0.0033|-0.0017|0.5962
95904747|NCT03191903|191765394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5874|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5874
95904748|NCT03191903|191765395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0829|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0829
95904749|NCT03191903|191765396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4673
95904750|NCT03191903|191765397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9408|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9408
95904751|NCT03191903|191765398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7770
95904752|NCT03191903|191765399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7590
95904753|NCT03191903|191765400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8309|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8309
95904754|NCT03191903|191765401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6215|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6215
95904755|NCT03191903|191765402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.216|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2160
95904756|NCT03191903|191765403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7026
95904757|NCT03191903|191765404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0438|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0438
95904758|NCT00384085|191765475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.56||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.52||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|0.97|0.0628
95904759|NCT00384085|191765476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of Lantus/Apidra-1 would be established if the upper limit of the 2 sided, 99.75% CI for the difference in the mean change from baseline between Lantus/Apidra-1 and Novolog Mix 70/30 was \<0.5%.|Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.34||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.15||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0025 level for noninferiority testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.82|0.0359
95904760|NCT00384085|191765477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.64||The type I error was controlled by performing a 2-tailed comparison at a p=0.0475 level for superiority testing.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.64|1.04|0.0313
95904761|NCT00384085|191765478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean of difference|-0.31||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.63|0.0565
95904762|NCT00384085|191765479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.85|1.12|0.0140
95904763|NCT00384085|191765480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.02||||0.9268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.61|0.9268
95904764|NCT00384085|191765480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.11||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.73|1.19|0.0107
95904765|NCT00384085|191765480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.06||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.61|1.17|0.0121
95904766|NCT05912400|191765504|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).|Spearman's Rho|||||||<0.01
95904767|NCT05912400|191765504|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
95904768|NCT05912400|191765504|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
95904769|NCT05912400|191765504|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index)||||||0.88
95904770|NCT05912400|191765504|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
95904771|NCT05912400|191765505|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation btwn ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain)||||||0.54
95904772|NCT05912400|191765505|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
95904773|NCT05912400|191765505|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
95904774|NCT05912400|191765505|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
95904775|NCT05912400|191765505|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
95904776|NCT05912400|191765506|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.36
95904777|NCT05912400|191765506|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and vitamin D levels.||||||0.51
95904778|NCT05912400|191765507|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||<0.01
95904779|NCT05912400|191765507|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Current (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for current pain).||||||0.54
95904780|NCT05912400|191765508|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.02
95904781|NCT05912400|191765508|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) and NRS-11 Best (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for best pain).||||||0.36
95904782|NCT05912400|191765509|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho was used to analyze correlation between OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.03
95904783|NCT05912400|191765509|OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||Spearman's Rho|Spearman's rho used to analyze correlation between ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& NRS-11 Worst (Numeric Pain Rating Scale for worst pain).||||||0.94
95904784|NCT05912400|191765510|OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: OCR (Oxygen Consumption Rate) and FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.88
95904785|NCT05912400|191765510|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Spearman's Rho|Correlation: ECAR (Extracellular Acidification Rate) \& FACIT-F TOI (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue, Trial Outcome Index).||||||0.53
95904786|NCT02605954|191765516|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the ABC/3TC+3rd Agent group at Week 24, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval was expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 24.|Difference in Percentages|-4.4||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|-9.4|0.15
95904787|NCT02605954|191765517|NON_INFERIORITY|With 200 participants randomized to switch to the E/C/F/TAF FDC group at Day 1 and 100 participants randomized to the delayed switch group at Week 12, the lower limit of the observed one sided 97.5% confidence interval will be expected to be greater than -0.120 (ie, non-inferiority margin of 12%) with \> 90% power when the percentage of responders in both treatment groups for the primary endpoint is at least 90% at Week 12.|Difference in Percentages|-3.8||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact|||||1.6|-8.3|0.17
95904788|NCT02605954|191765519|OTHER||Difference in least square mean|-36.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|9.0|||ANOVA|||||9|-80|0.11
95904789|NCT02508480|191765609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect.||||0.66
95904790|NCT02508480|191765610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884||||||Group effect for Proactive Coping|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Proactive Coping."||||0.884
95904791|NCT02508480|191765610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||Group effect for Avoidant Coping.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.~The p-value reported below is for group effect for Avoidant Coping."||||0.543
95904792|NCT02508480|191765611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.135
95904793|NCT02508480|191765612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the interpersonal function subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.25
95904794|NCT02508480|191765612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The p-value represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared on the intrapsychic foundations subscale using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.118
95904795|NCT02508480|191765613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The p-value is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction. The p-value reported below is for group effect for tcpm\_days\_participated.||||0.917
95904796|NCT02508480|191765614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The p-value above is for the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.017
95904797|NCT02508480|191765615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.597||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.597
95904798|NCT02508480|191765616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.076
95904799|NCT02508480|191765617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978||||||The p-value above represents the overall group effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The two study arms were compared using mixed models analysis controlling for baseline scores. Variables included in the model were- baseline score, group, time, and group by time interaction.||||0.978
95904800|NCT01221597|191765628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0005
95904801|NCT01221597|191765629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0451|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0451
95904802|NCT01221597|191765630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95904803|NCT01221597|191765631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0268
95904804|NCT01221597|191765632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0800
95904805|NCT01221597|191765633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3085|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3085
95904806|NCT01221597|191765634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6321|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.6321
95904807|NCT01221597|191765635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7965|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7965
95904808|NCT01221597|191765636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95904809|NCT00690755|191765663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||.001
95904810|NCT02830594|191765680|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.6|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.60
95904811|NCT02830594|191765681|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.87|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.87
95904812|NCT02830594|191765682|EQUIVALENCE|Specifically, a sample-size of 14 patients will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.71 using a paired t-test with a 0.05 one-sided significance level. The effect size is the mean difference divided by the standard deviation of the difference.||||||0.64|||||||Paired t Test|||||||0.64
95904813|NCT01934218|191765692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.7|||Basic longitudinal model|||||2.7|-2.7|0.988
95904814|NCT01934218|191765693|OTHER|Euflexxa would be considered superior to Gel-One if the difference in mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 was 5 mm or greater (on the 100mm VAS pain scale). If the difference in mean change values were within 5 mm, Gel-One would not be considered inferior to Euflexxa.||||||||||||||||A post-hoc non-inferiority comparison of the Gel-One mean change from baseline in VAS pain score at week 26 (Following 50-foot walk test) against the same assessment collected from subjects treated with Euflexxa in a separate study (PMID:19539353) was also performed.|Change from baseline (95% CI) for Euflexxa was -25.7 (-29.0, -22.4) and the difference between Euflexxa and Gel-One (95% CI) was -3.8 (-inf, -0.3).|||
95904815|NCT00762320|191765728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=4||||||=.004
95904816|NCT00762320|191765733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=7||||||<.001
95904817|NCT03819660|191765768|OTHER||percentage|38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95904818|NCT01136291|191765774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The homogeneity between the groups was compared by the Student's t test or the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables.A comparison between values before and after the study group session was performed by the Student's t test. The effect of the exercise was evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA, where the effect of time and group were evaluated on pressure, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI)and World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnarie domains.||||<0.05
95904819|NCT02308033|191765786|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95904820|NCT02308033|191765787|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95904821|NCT02308033|191765788|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of normal Nugent scores at 7-14 days||||<0.001
95904822|NCT02308033|191765789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Comparison of the number of subjects whose reported their symptoms completely resolved||||0.034
95904823|NCT04773015|191765797|OTHER|||||||0.6371|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6371
95904824|NCT04773015|191765798|OTHER|||||||0.1448|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1448
95904825|NCT04773015|191765799|OTHER|||||||0.1507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1507
95904826|NCT04773015|191765800|OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1189
95904827|NCT04964089|191765819|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin (NI) is 4.5 letters.|Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-3.88|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA as covariates.||||-0.29|-3.88|0.0083
95904828|NCT01664078|191765826|OTHER|The Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis set includes all subjects who had the aortic bifurcate device introduced into the body. This ITT analysis set will be used for all safety and clinical assessment endpoints.||||||0.47|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95904829|NCT03149328|191765839|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.3||||||Threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis is that both groups are the same.||||0.30
95904830|NCT03149328|191765840|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates).||||||0.28|||||||ANCOVA|||We will examine the trajectories of outcome measures for patients in the comparator and intervention groups. The area under the curve (AUC) will be calculated for each trajectory during the period that the patient is participating to create a summary score. Null Hypothesis = both groups are the same||||0.28
95904831|NCT03149328|191765841|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of hospitalizations"||||0.22
95904832|NCT03149328|191765841|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.1||||||Threshold for statistical Significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups in the number of emergency room visits"||||0.10
95904833|NCT03149328|191765842|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.18||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.18
95904834|NCT03149328|191765843|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)||||||0.79||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||0.79
95904835|NCT03149328|191765844|EQUIVALENCE|Based on a power analysis for an ANCOVA comparing 2 groups using the area under the curve approach, a total sample 459 (655 x 70% response rate) will provide 80% power to detect effect sizes (f2) of moderate magnitude at a statistical significance level of 0.05 (e.g., f2 ranging from 0.15 for 1 covariate to 0.19 for 10 covariates)|||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for statistical significance p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||"Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used as the method of analysis to compare outcomes of both groups while controlling for within- and between-group differences, such as comorbidities, gender, age and dialysis type. ANCOVA is necessary to control for baseline and potential confounders.~Null hypotheses = No difference between groups"||||<0.001
95979707|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.4|69.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.5|56.4|< 0.0001
95979708|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|24.7||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||24.7|10.7|
95979709|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.6|48.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.5|33.6|< 0.0001
95979710|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|58.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.3|65.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||65.2|51.3|< 0.0001
95979711|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.6|
95979712|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|42.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||42.8|27.8|< 0.0001
95979713|NCT03627767|191932659|OTHER||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.3|62.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.4|48.3|< 0.0001
95904836|NCT02877485|191765863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.9||"Statistical Tests:~Independent t-test to assess differences in mean change in NOSE scores when comparing the two study groups, and p\<0.05 deemed statistically significant"|t-test, 2 sided||Change in Mean NOSE score from baseline to post saline versus change in NOSE score from baseline to post intranasal steroid.|"1\) H0: mean change in NOSE score from baseline after in study group 1 = mean change in NOSE score from baseline in study group 2~Power calculation: To detect a 20% difference in NOSE scores with 80% power and a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 required 20 participants per study group, for a total of 40 participants."||8.9|-6.0|0.7
95904837|NCT02877485|191765864|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-tests to assess differences in mean NOSE score when the treatment groups were combined (saline arm+ steroid arm) at five post-operative time intervals compared to the combined preoperative baseline scores. Significance at p\<0.05.|Paired t-test|||H0: Mean pre- treatment baseline patient NOSE score = Mean post- treatment baseline patient NOSE score.||||<0.001
95904838|NCT01461668|191765925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.86|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval for the odds ratio is based upon the inversion Fisher's exact test|||1.86|0.08|0.320
95979714|NCT03627767|191932659|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|28.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||28.5|12.1|
95979715|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.7|||=|0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.7|-0.3|= 0.1848
95979716|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.6|-0.9|= 0.5971
95979717|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||0.4|-1.1|
95979718|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|49.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|56.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||56.8|42.0|< 0.0001
95904839|NCT03248739|191765953|EQUIVALENCE|Based on occlusion data from the previously referenced prospective study, as well as a P-value of 0.05 and power of 0.80, the study will need to include 90 patients to demonstrate statistical significance. To ensure that power is adequate, we will plan to enroll 120 patients (60 in each arm).||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.23
95904840|NCT01914926|191765958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Chi-Square test||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We estimated a sample size of 200 patients assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive diltiazem and metoprolol would achieve 80% power to detect non-inferiority using a one-sided two sample t-test. The margin of equivalence is -10.||||.0001
95904841|NCT01227681|191765959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: there is significant deterioration of UPDRS part III scores from baseline to post G-CSF injection one year||||0.64
95904842|NCT03214367|191765975|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.16|0.060
95904843|NCT03214367|191765975|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin = 0.4% for HbA1c|LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.04|0.003
95904844|NCT03214367|191765976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-27.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|-20.6|||ANCOVA|||||-20.6|-35.3|<0.001
95904845|NCT03214367|191765976|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|5.0|0.002
95904846|NCT03214367|191765977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||||-21.2|-41.1|<0.001
95904847|NCT03214367|191765977|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.3|||ANCOVA|||||4.3|-17.6|0.235
95904848|NCT03214367|191765986|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.16|0.184
95904849|NCT03740490|191765988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Each outcome was modeled using a mixed-effects regression with the change score as the dependent variable and treatment group (Smart-T vs. QuitGuide) as the predictor, restricted to participants who received or would have received that type of message.||0.08|-0.28|0.284
95904850|NCT03740490|191765989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.11|0.477
95904851|NCT03740490|191765990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-0.05|0.456
95904852|NCT03740490|191765991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.13|-0.56|0.215
95904853|NCT00823719|191766199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|69.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|85.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + DHAP treatment.|||85.7|48.2|
95904854|NCT00823719|191766199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.4|71.9|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Ofatumumab + ICE treatment.|||71.9|36.4|
95904855|NCT00823719|191766199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|61.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.4|73.5|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OR for participants receiving Total Ofatumumab + Chemotherapy treatment.|||73.5|47.4|
95904856|NCT00373334|191766234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.528||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.528
95904857|NCT00373334|191766234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.341
95904858|NCT00373334|191766235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.746
95904859|NCT00373334|191766235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.262
95904860|NCT00373334|191766236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.609||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 2.5 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.609
95904861|NCT00373334|191766236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.938||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of nizatidine 5.0 group to placebo group. P-value is for overall difference between groups (not comparison of individual categories).||||0.938
95904862|NCT02103439|191766282|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions between the difference in the early virological response rate with Algeron and PegIntron should be higher than the non-inferiority margin of 0.2 (-20%)||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.227
95904863|NCT02103439|191766283|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval between the difference in rate of rapid virological response with Algeron and PegIntron should be more than the non-inferiority margin (-20 %)|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.05
95904864|NCT03905655|191766321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95904865|NCT03905655|191766321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95904866|NCT03905655|191766321|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95904867|NCT03905655|191766322|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95904868|NCT03905655|191766322|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95904869|NCT03905655|191766322|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95904870|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904871|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904872|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904873|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904874|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904875|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904876|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904877|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904878|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904879|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.001
95904880|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904881|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904882|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||<0.001
95904883|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.002
95904884|NCT03905655|191766323|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904885|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904886|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904887|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904888|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904889|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904890|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904891|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904892|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904893|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904894|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904895|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904896|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904897|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904898|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904899|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904900|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904901|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904902|NCT03905655|191766324|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904903|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904904|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904905|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904906|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904907|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904908|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904909|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904910|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904911|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904912|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904913|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904914|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904915|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904916|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904917|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904918|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904919|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904920|NCT03905655|191766325|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904921|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904922|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904923|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904924|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904925|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904926|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904927|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95979719|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|71.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||71.7|59.3|< 0.0001
95904928|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95979720|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|22.3||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|10.3|
95904929|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904930|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904931|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904932|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904933|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Day 3 values||||1.000
95904934|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||1.000
95904935|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||1.000
95904936|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||1.000
95904937|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||1.000
95904938|NCT03905655|191766326|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||1.000
95904939|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.006
95904940|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.003
95904941|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.004
95904942|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.006
95904943|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.002
95904944|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.141
95904945|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.081
95904946|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.160
95904947|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.184
95904948|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.046
95904949|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 1 values||||0.379
95904950|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 2 values||||0.308
95904951|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 4 values||||0.794
95904952|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 8 values||||0.297
95904953|NCT03905655|191766327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Week 12 values||||0.007
95904954|NCT03905655|191766328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.123
95904955|NCT03905655|191766328|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.000
95904956|NCT03905655|191766328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.266
95904957|NCT00413153|191766329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Initial samples size of N=16 calculated to provide 80% power to detect a 30% change in muscle glucose uptake between groups. Student's t-test used to compare change from baseline and determine treatment effect (net difference over time between the ATV/r vs. LPV/r groups).||||0.035
95904958|NCT00413153|191766330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs. LPV/r)||||0.12
95904959|NCT00413153|191766331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.002
95904960|NCT00413153|191766332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.02
95979721|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|50.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.2|35.2|< 0.0001
95979722|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|62.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|69.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.2|56.0|< 0.0001
95979723|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|27.4||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.4|12.3|
95979724|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|46.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.9|32.1|< 0.0001
95904961|NCT00413153|191766333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95904962|NCT00413153|191766334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.72
95904963|NCT00413153|191766335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.22
95904964|NCT00413153|191766336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Ancova|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.004
95904965|NCT00413153|191766337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Repeated Measures ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA, controlling for baseline values, used to assess treatment effect of the randomization over 6 months (net difference over time between ATV/r vs.LPV/r).||||0.0002
95979725|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|56.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|63.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||63.7|49.8|< 0.0001
95979726|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|9.3|
95904966|NCT04969250|191766341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.73
95904967|NCT04969250|191766342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.40
95904968|NCT04969250|191766343|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
95904969|NCT04969250|191766344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95904970|NCT02119416|191766349|OTHER|Maximum heart rate after 2 mg/kg of caffeine compared to baseline was assessed using a mixed effects regression model. Sex and pubertal stage were included in the model as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|mixed effects regression|||||||<0.05
95904971|NCT02119416|191766349|OTHER|We compared means of our dependent variables after administration of different doses of caffeine.|||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was set prior to the analysis and all comparisons were planned.|ANCOVA|||We used repeated measures ANOVAS and conducted planned comparisons between groups as post-hoc tests.||||< 0.05
95904972|NCT02119416|191766350|OTHER|mixed effects regression models were used with sex and pubertal stage as time invariant predictors.|||||<|0.05|||||||mixed effects regression|||order was included in the analysis. We examined caffeine dose.||||<0.05
95904973|NCT02119416|191766350|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95904974|NCT03593655|191766365|SUPERIORITY||incidence rate ratio|1.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.12||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|generalized estimating equation|Poisson (log) link, adjusted for period, offset of number of visits per period, exchangeable correlation structure, and robust errors.|The incidence rate ratio compares FTC/TDF to the dapivirine vaginal ring.|Comparison of the proportion of participants experiencing a grade 2 adverse event between products, with a null hypothesis of no difference.||1.12|0.90|0.92
95904975|NCT01458574|191766470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using Non-responder imputation (NRI).||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
95979727|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|40.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||40.4|25.7|< 0.0001
95979728|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.6|58.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.8|44.6|< 0.0001
95979729|NCT03627767|191932660|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|27.6||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||27.6|10.8|
95979730|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.6|||=|0.3994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.4|-3.3|= 0.3994
95979731|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.5542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|7.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.8|-4.1|= 0.5542
95979732|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.0|-6.5|
95979733|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|44.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.9|30.2|< 0.0001
95979734|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.8|69.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||69.8|56.8|< 0.0001
95904976|NCT01458574|191766470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|37.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.6|21.4|<0.0001
95904977|NCT01458574|191766471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|32.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.5|16.0|<0.0001
95904978|NCT01458574|191766471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|41.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.0|24.2|<0.0001
95904979|NCT01458574|191766472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|43.2|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.2|17.4|<0.0001
95904980|NCT01458574|191766472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
95979735|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|33.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||33.4|17.7|
95979736|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.9|44.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.0|29.9|< 0.0001
95904981|NCT01458574|191766473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|30.6|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||30.6|14.8|<0.0001
95979737|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|61.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.0|47.3|< 0.0001
95979738|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|25.5||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.5|8.9|
95904982|NCT01458574|191766473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
95904983|NCT01458574|191766474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
95904984|NCT01458574|191766474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.1|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.1|13.5|<0.0001
95904985|NCT01458574|191766475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|35.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.5|18.1|<0.0001
95904986|NCT01458574|191766475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.3|37.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||37.7|20.3|<0.0001
95904987|NCT01458574|191766476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||28.3|14.1|<0.0001
95904988|NCT01458574|191766476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.0|33.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||33.8|19.0|<0.0001
95904989|NCT01458574|191766477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
95904990|NCT01458574|191766477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|44.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.8|57.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||57.2|31.8|<0.0001
95904991|NCT01458574|191766477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|41.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||41.4|18.7|<0.0001
95904992|NCT01458574|191766477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.1|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|31.1|<0.0001
95979739|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|37.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|22.7|< 0.0001
95904993|NCT01458574|191766478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|35.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||35.0|13.8|<0.0001
95904994|NCT01458574|191766478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.7|52.3|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||52.3|28.7|<0.0001
95904995|NCT01458574|191766479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|39.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||39.7|20.9|<0.0001
95979740|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|53.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||53.8|39.6|< 0.0001
95904996|NCT01458574|191766479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|37.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|46.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||46.4|28.1|<0.0001
95904997|NCT01458574|191766479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|40.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||40.2|22.4|<0.0001
95904998|NCT01458574|191766479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|41.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.5|32.9|<0.0001
95979741|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|25.3||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.3|8.5|
95979742|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|34.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||34.3|20.4|< 0.0001
95979743|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|43.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.7|50.9||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||50.9|36.7|< 0.0001
95979744|NCT03627767|191932661|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|25.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.2|8.4|
95979745|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.3|||=|0.9313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|8.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.1|-7.5|= 0.9313
95979746|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.1|||=|0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.7|-9.8|= 0.6043
95979747|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-10.0|
95979748|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|16.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.5|6.6|< 0.0001
95979749|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|19.4|< 0.0001
95979750|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|20.4||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.4|6.6|
95979751|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||18.0|7.7|< 0.0001
95979752|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|32.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||32.0|19.9|< 0.0001
95979753|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|20.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.6|6.3|
95979754|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|16.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||16.8|6.5|< 0.0001
95904999|NCT01458574|191766480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|29.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|38.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.7|20.9|<0.0001
95905000|NCT01458574|191766480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|49.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||49.0|31.4|<0.0001
95905001|NCT01458574|191766481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
95905002|NCT01458574|191766481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|32.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||32.4|16.4|<0.0001
95905003|NCT01458574|191766481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||31.2|15.3|<0.0001
95905004|NCT01458574|191766481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|38.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||38.2|21.9|<0.0001
95905005|NCT01458574|191766482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|23.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.7|10.6|<0.0001
95905006|NCT01458574|191766482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.7|14.0|<0.0001
95905007|NCT01458574|191766483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|4.5|0.0006
95905008|NCT01458574|191766483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.7|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||11.7|1.5|0.0092
95905009|NCT01458574|191766483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
95905010|NCT01458574|191766483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.9|5.5|<0.0001
95979755|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|31.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.8|19.6|< 0.0001
95979756|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.2||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.2|7.0|
95979757|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|20.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||20.0|9.2|< 0.0001
95979758|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|30.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.5|18.4|< 0.0001
95979759|NCT03627767|191932662|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|17.2||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||17.2|2.7|
95979760|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.8|||=|0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.5|-5.0|= 0.6082
95979761|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.2|||=|0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|7.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||7.0|-6.7|= 0.9640
95979762|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|4.4||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||4.4|-9.1|
95979763|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.2|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|31.2|< 0.0001
95979764|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|52.7|< 0.0001
95979765|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|29.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.0|12.7|
95979766|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.6|41.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.2|26.6|< 0.0001
95979767|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|55.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|62.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||62.3|48.2|< 0.0001
95979768|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|30.2||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.2|13.2|
95979769|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|36.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||36.7|22.7|< 0.0001
95979770|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.4|52.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||52.7|38.4|< 0.0001
95979771|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|24.6||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.6|7.4|
95979772|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|19.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|26.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.8|13.0|< 0.0001
95979773|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.8|48.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.1|32.8|< 0.0001
95979774|NCT03627767|191932663|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|30.0||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.0|11.8|
95979775|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The least squares mean (LSM) differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9207
95979776|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|= 0.9998
95979777|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.3|
95905011|NCT01458574|191766484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
95905012|NCT01458574|191766484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|3.0||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||5.8|0.3|0.0350
95905013|NCT01458574|191766485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|17.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|24.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.0|10.3|<0.0001
95905014|NCT01458574|191766485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|22.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.0|8.5|<0.0001
95905015|NCT01458574|191766485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|22.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||22.5|8.8|<0.0001
95905016|NCT01458574|191766485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|27.0|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.0|12.7|<0.0001
95905017|NCT01458574|191766486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|16.4|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.4|5.9|<0.0001
95905018|NCT01458574|191766486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.7|7.7|<0.0001
95905019|NCT01458574|191766487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|17.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||17.9|6.3|<0.0001
95905020|NCT01458574|191766487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|8.1||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||13.5|2.8|0.0021
95905021|NCT01458574|191766487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|10.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|16.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||16.2|5.0|0.0004
95905022|NCT01458574|191766487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||18.6|6.8|<0.0001
95905023|NCT01458574|191766488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.6||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.0|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||9.0|2.1|0.0029
95905024|NCT01458574|191766488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|7.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||7.8|1.4|0.0064
95905025|NCT01458574|191766490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-1.9|-3.2|<0.0001
95905026|NCT01458574|191766490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-2.2|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 24||-2.2|-3.5|<0.0001
95905027|NCT01458574|191766490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-1.7|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-1.7|-3.4|<0.0001
95905028|NCT01458574|191766490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.5|||Linear mixed effect model|||At Week 52||-2.5|-4.1|<0.0001
95905029|NCT01458574|191766491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|40.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|55.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||55.3|25.0|<0.0001
95905030|NCT01458574|191766491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
95979778|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.5|< 0.0001
95905031|NCT01458574|191766491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|50.3|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||50.3|21.6|<0.0001
95905032|NCT01458574|191766491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
95905033|NCT01458574|191766492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|31.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|44.8|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||44.8|18.8|<0.0001
95905034|NCT01458574|191766492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|42.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|56.5|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||56.5|27.9|<0.0001
95905035|NCT01458574|191766493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|38.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.4|53.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||53.8|23.4|<0.0001
95905036|NCT01458574|191766493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|64.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||64.1|32.7|<0.0001
95905037|NCT01458574|191766493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|48.8|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||48.8|20.1|<0.0001
95905038|NCT01458574|191766493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|46.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|61.4|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||61.4|31.0|<0.0001
95905039|NCT01458574|191766494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.9||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.2|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||23.2|2.6|0.0074
95905040|NCT01458574|191766494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|13.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|24.1|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 24: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||24.1|2.4|0.0103
95905041|NCT01458574|191766494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|27.5|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.5|6.2|0.0018
95905042|NCT01458574|191766494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.7||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|27.9|||CMH chi-square test|||At Week 52: P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||27.9|5.5|0.0029
95905043|NCT01458574|191766495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|7.9||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|15.7|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||15.7|0.1|0.0419
95905044|NCT01458574|191766495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|11.1||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|19.9|||CMH chi-square test|||P-value based on CMH chi-square test stratified by induction study treatment and baseline remission status. Difference and its 95% CI based on normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions. Missing data were imputed using NRI.||19.9|2.3|0.0121
95905045|NCT02279641|191766529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|133.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.0|159.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||159|111|
95905046|NCT02279641|191766529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|67.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.2|70.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||70.7|65.2|
95905047|NCT02279641|191766531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.3|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|93.3|
95905048|NCT02279641|191766531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
95905049|NCT02279641|191766531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
95905050|NCT02279641|191766532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.9|112.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||112|94.9|
95905051|NCT02279641|191766532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.1|65.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||65.7|58.1|
95905052|NCT02279641|191766534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|89.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.8|98.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||98.0|81.8|
95905053|NCT02279641|191766534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|119.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|125.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||125|114|
95905054|NCT02279641|191766535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|87.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.3|96.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||96.6|79.3|
95905055|NCT02279641|191766535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|193.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|177.0|210.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||210|177|
95905056|NCT02279641|191766535|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|105.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|94.4|
95905057|NCT02279641|191766538|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||111|87.7|
95905058|NCT02279641|191766539|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
95905059|NCT02279641|191766540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|104.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||104|88.4|
95905060|NCT02279641|191766541|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|101.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|117.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effect for treatment and random effects for subjects. GLMSRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||117|86.7|
95905061|NCT03980470|191766543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.198
95905062|NCT03980470|191766544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95905063|NCT03980470|191766545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95979779|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.8|-3.6|< 0.0001
95979780|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.7||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.4|
95979781|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-2.0|< 0.0001
95979782|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-2.5|< 0.0001
95905064|NCT03980470|191766546|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95905065|NCT03980470|191766547|OTHER|Bland-Altmann analysis (bias)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95979783|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.9|
95979784|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.7|= 0.0039
95979785|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.5|< 0.0001
95979786|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.4||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.3|
95905066|NCT01682837|191766548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95905067|NCT01682837|191766549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95905068|NCT01682837|191766550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.16
95979787|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.2|= 0.1488
95905069|NCT01682837|191766551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.70
95905070|NCT01682837|191766552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.42
95905071|NCT01682837|191766553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95905072|NCT01682837|191766554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.64
95905073|NCT01682837|191766555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95905074|NCT01682837|191766556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95905075|NCT01365494|191766559|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be achieved if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the post vaccination (day 14) ratio of GMCs between the groups (GMCGroup Zagreb / GMCGroup Essen) was greater than 0.667|Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 14|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate non-inferiority in immune response of the Zagreb postexposure schedule of Rabipur to that of the conventional Essen postexposure schedule at study day 14||1.19|0.89|
95905076|NCT01365494|191766561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 7|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.48|||ANOVA|||||0.48|0.3|
95905077|NCT01365494|191766561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of GMCs-Zagreb and Essen at day 42|0.96||||||95.0|0.86|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|0.86|
95905078|NCT03021187|191766563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.3|-0.7|< 0.0001
95905079|NCT03021187|191766563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.7|-1.1|< 0.0001
95905080|NCT03021187|191766563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-1.4|< 0.0001
95905081|NCT03021187|191766563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.7|<0.0001
95979788|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.0|= 0.0003
95979789|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3||||||Pruritus VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|
95979790|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.2|= 0.9294
95909266|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5|1.78||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||1.78|-0.50|0.4713
95905082|NCT03021187|191766563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.2|<0.0001
95909267|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.895||0.1787|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|2.36||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Positive symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||2.36|0.06|0.1787
95979791|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|= 0.4081
95979792|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.3|
95979793|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.1|< 0.0001
95979794|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.0|-2.7|< 0.0001
95979795|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.9|
95979796|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.2|= 0.0035
95979797|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-1.6|< 0.0001
95979798|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-0.8|
95979799|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||=|0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0136
95979800|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
95979801|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-0.8|
95979802|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.0|= 0.2887
95905083|NCT03021187|191766563|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.6|<0.0001
95905084|NCT03021187|191766564|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.0|-1.8|0.0392
95905085|NCT03021187|191766564|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.0|-3.0|0.0001
95905086|NCT03021187|191766564|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-2.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, interaction strata and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.3|-4.2|<0.0001
95905087|NCT03021187|191766564|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.9||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|0.0111
95909268|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.4123|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.9||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.90|-0.20|0.4123
95905088|NCT03021187|191766564|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.8|-3.2|<0.0001
95905089|NCT03021187|191766564|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-3.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, region, strata and the interaction strata as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-3.0|-4.4|<0.0001
95979803|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.6|= 0.0025
95979804|NCT03627767|191932666|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2||||||Sleep Loss VAS: Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.0|
95979805|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||=|0.4244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.4|-1.4|= 0.4244
95905090|NCT03021187|191766584|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.02||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.02|0.53|0.0627
95905091|NCT03021187|191766584|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.89||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.89|0.44|0.0083
95905092|NCT03021187|191766584|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.81||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.81|0.40|0.0019
95905093|NCT03021187|191766585|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.08||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.08|0.53|0.1210
95905094|NCT03021187|191766585|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.74||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.74|0.32|0.0007
95905095|NCT03021187|191766585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.73||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox|||Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, interaction strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.73|0.31|0.0006
95905096|NCT03351049|191766616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Compare the effectiveness of reactive support surfaces with and without low air loss in preventing pressure injuries||||0.8
95905097|NCT00718718|191766617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
95905098|NCT00718718|191766617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.052
95905099|NCT00718718|191766617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.026
95905100|NCT00718718|191766617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.104
95905101|NCT00718718|191766618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95905102|NCT00718718|191766618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95979806|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-0.3|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||2.4|-3.1|= 0.8092
95979807|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.0||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||1.0|-4.1|
95979808|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|46.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.2|54.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||54.2|39.2|< 0.0001
95979809|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|63.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.2|70.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||70.0|57.2|< 0.0001
95979810|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|23.5||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.5|10.4|
95979811|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|41.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|48.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||48.7|33.9|< 0.0001
95979812|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|59.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|66.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||66.7|53.1|< 0.0001
95979813|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|10.8|
95979814|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.6|44.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||44.4|29.6|< 0.0001
95979815|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|61.7||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||61.7|47.6|< 0.0001
95979816|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|26.0||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.0|9.4|
95979817|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|37.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.4|22.6|< 0.0001
95979818|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|50.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|58.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||58.1|43.8|< 0.0001
95979819|NCT03627767|191932667|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|29.5||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||29.5|12.8|
95905103|NCT00718718|191766618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95905104|NCT00718718|191766618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95905105|NCT00718718|191766618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Van Der Waerden ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95905106|NCT00718718|191766619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.148
95905107|NCT04369469|191766623|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.0205||||0.6059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1703|0.1293||One-sided Mantel-Haenszel test of the difference in two proportions stratified by intubated or not intubated on Day 1 and a family-wise Type I error of 0.025.|Mantel Haenszel||Two-sided 95% confidence interval using the Sato variance estimator, combined overall imputations.|||0.1293|-0.1703|0.6059
95979820|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.4|||=|0.7232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||8.8|-6.1|= 0.7232
95905108|NCT02939105|191766645|OTHER||success proportion|86.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.3|96.2||||||||96.2|69.3|
95905109|NCT01802411|191766647|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|13.1||||0.5598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|57.0|||ANCOVA|||||57|-31|0.5598
95905110|NCT01812044|191766656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.035
95905111|NCT01812044|191766656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.189|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.189
95905112|NCT01812044|191766656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value based on Wilcoxon rank sum test of difference in medians between groups.||||||0.298
95905113|NCT02670629|191766665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95905114|NCT01344460|191766675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|18.3|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Majority reader; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||15.2|<0.000
95905115|NCT01344460|191766675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|16.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 1; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||13.2|<0.000
95905116|NCT01344460|191766675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|24.0|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|Cluster adjusted McNemar||Blinded reader 2; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||20.5|<0.000
95905117|NCT01344460|191766675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|17.4|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Blinded reader 3; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||14.3|<0.000
95905118|NCT01344460|191766675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|25.6|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||McNemar|||Clinical investigator; Superiority analysis; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||21.9|<0.000
95905119|NCT01344460|191766676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-2.2|
95905120|NCT01344460|191766676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-9.7|
95905121|NCT01344460|191766676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||5.1|
95905122|NCT01344460|191766676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||-5.8|
95905123|NCT01344460|191766676|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.7|
95905124|NCT01344460|191766677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Majority reader; The percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.0|
95905125|NCT01344460|191766677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 1; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||9.1|
95905126|NCT01344460|191766677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 2; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||7.6|
95979821|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.2|||=|0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||5.4|-9.8|= 0.5694
95979822|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.8||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.8|-11.2|
95979823|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|29.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|35.8||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||35.8|22.2|< 0.0001
95979824|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.2|64.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||64.5|51.2|< 0.0001
95979825|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|37.0||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.0|20.8|
95905127|NCT01344460|191766677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Blinded reader 3; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.2|
95905128|NCT01344460|191766677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|using a -7.5% non-inferiority margin|Percentage difference|13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0||Not Appropriate, upper intervals were not used in the statistical analysis and were not of interest for the study.||The cluster-adjusted two-sided 95% CI|||Clinical investigator; the percentage difference was calculated as gadobutrol-enhanced minus unenhanced MRA.|||11.0|
95905129|NCT01344460|191766678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|46.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||46.2|
95905130|NCT01344460|191766678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|51.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|43.6||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||43.6|
95905131|NCT01344460|191766678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|54.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|45.5||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||45.5|
95905132|NCT01344460|191766678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|53.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|44.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||44.8|
95905133|NCT01344460|191766678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|71.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|64.7||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||64.7|
95905134|NCT01344460|191766679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.9|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.9||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Majority reader|||94.9|
95905135|NCT01344460|191766679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 1|||93.8|
95905136|NCT01344460|191766679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|96.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|95.2||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 2|||95.2|
95979826|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|37.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||37.2|23.9|< 0.0001
95979827|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|48.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.1|55.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||55.6|42.1|< 0.0001
95979828|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|26.6||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||26.6|9.8|
95979829|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|31.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.5|18.4|< 0.0001
95979830|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|39.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|46.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||46.5|32.7|< 0.0001
95979831|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|22.8||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.8|6.3|
95979832|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|31.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.2|18.1|< 0.0001
95979833|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|38.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|45.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||45.3|31.6|< 0.0001
95979834|NCT03627767|191932668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|22.3||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||22.3|5.6|
95979835|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.0|||=|0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||11.3|-5.3|= 0.4815
95979836|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.8|||=|0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|6.6||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||6.6|-10.3|= 0.6748
95979837|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|3.2||||||Week 12: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||3.2|-13.4|
95979838|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|30.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||30.3|17.8|< 0.0001
95979839|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.6|49.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||49.0|35.6|< 0.0001
95979840|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|26.6||||||Week 16: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions||26.6|10.2|
95979841|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|24.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.2|31.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||31.0|18.2|< 0.0001
95905137|NCT01344460|191766679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|95.8|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|94.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Blinded Reader 3|||94.8|
95905138|NCT01344460|191766679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage|98.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.8||||One sided 95% confidence interval|||Clinical investigator|||97.8|
95979842|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.7|47.3||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 28: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||47.3|33.7|< 0.0001
95905139|NCT01344460|191766682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.28|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA Minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded Reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
95905140|NCT01344460|191766682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.14|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at normal point||||
95905141|NCT01344460|191766682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.15|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Unenhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
95905142|NCT01344460|191766682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diameter difference|-0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01|||||||||Mean Difference|||CTA minus Gadobutrol-Enhanced MRA for blinded reader on vessel DIA at narrowest point||||
95979843|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.1||||||Week 28: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||24.1|7.6|
95979844|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.6|25.1||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.1|12.6|< 0.0001
95979845|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|41.5||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||41.5|27.6|< 0.0001
95979846|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|23.7||||||Week 40: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||23.7|7.5|
95979847|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|25.0||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||25.0|12.4|< 0.0001
95979848|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|39.2||P-value was adjusted by disease severity at baseline and randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52: Difference in percentage (PF-04965842 - Placebo) and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||39.2|25.4|< 0.0001
95979849|NCT03627767|191932676|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|21.7||||||Week 52: Difference in percentage and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum and disease severity at baseline using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.||21.7|5.6|
95979850|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.5|= 0.7373
95979851|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.8092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.7|= 0.8092
95979852|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.8|
95979853|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.0|-6.1|< 0.0001
95979854|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.5|-7.6|< 0.0001
95979855|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-2.4|
95979856|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.7|-5.3|< 0.0001
95979857|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.9|-6.4|< 0.0001
95979858|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.3||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.1|
95979859|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.5|= 0.0150
95979860|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-4.7|< 0.0001
95979861|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-2.3|
95979862|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-2.4|= 0.3616
95979863|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-4.3|= 0.0012
95979864|NCT03627767|191932677|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.8||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.8|-3.0|
95979865|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.6|||=|0.3339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.8|-0.6|= 0.3339
95979866|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.5|||=|0.4653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-0.8|= 0.4653
95979867|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.1|-1.3|
95979868|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.3|-6.2|< 0.0001
95979869|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-4.3|-8.2|< 0.0001
95979870|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.3||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-3.6|
95979871|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.1|-1.8|= 0.9083
95905143|NCT02120924|191766701|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.05|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the ratio of Test/Reference means was contained within the interval \[0.80, 1.25\].|The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to Week 12 in the inflammatory (papules and pustules) lesion counts in PP population.||1.05|0.92|
95905144|NCT02120924|191766702|EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided, continuity-corrected, 90% CI on the Test-to-Reference difference for the proportion of subjects with treatment success on the IGE was constructed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.044|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.028|0.116|||||Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CI for the difference was contained within the interval \[-0.20, +0.20\].|||0.116|-0.028|
95905145|NCT03483623|191766703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905146|NCT03483623|191766704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905147|NCT03483623|191766705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905148|NCT03483623|191766706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905149|NCT03483623|191766707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905150|NCT03483623|191766708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905151|NCT03483623|191766709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905152|NCT03483623|191766710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS|ANOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to all combinations-NATO WELP, NATO FIS, RAVEN WELP, RAVEN FIS||||0.0001
95905153|NCT01884350|191766711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.24||||0.8117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.7||P-value (two-sided) corresponds to the two-sample t-tests for difference in percentage of adherence at Week 24|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-2.18|0.8117
95905154|NCT01884350|191766712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
95905155|NCT01884350|191766712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is from a paired t-test comparing percent adherence at 12 and 24 Weeks. Only participants with available data at both Study Days 85 and 169 are included.|paired t-test|||Percent adherence at 12 Weeks v. Percent adherence at 24 Weeks||||<0.0001
95979872|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||=|0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|-3.0|= 0.2439
95979873|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-2.6|
95979874|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.7|-2.4|= 0.7405
95979875|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||=|0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-4.1|= 0.0410
95979876|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-3.1|
95979877|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||=|0.4026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.4|-3.5|= 0.4026
95979878|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.9|||=|0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-4.2|= 0.0944
95979879|NCT03627767|191932678|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-2.5|
95905156|NCT01884350|191766713|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|F-test p-value is obtained from the one-way ANOVA model||||||0.8707|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8707
95979880|NCT03627767|191932679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.211|0.341||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate p-value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).||0.341|0.211|< 0.0001
95979881|NCT03627767|191932679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.136||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.136|0.070|< 0.0001
95979882|NCT03627767|191932679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.255|0.516||A stratified log-rank test with age group and disease severity as stratification variables was performed to evaluate P value.|Log Rank|||A Cox regression model with treatment, age group and disease severity as stratification covariates was used to estimate the hazard ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||0.516|0.255|< 0.0001
95979883|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7556
95979884|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.1|||=|0.7484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.4|= 0.7484
95979885|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.5|-0.5|
95979886|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.6|< 0.0001
95979887|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.9|< 0.0001
95905157|NCT01884350|191766713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|4.68||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.68|-2.88|0.6399
95905158|NCT01884350|191766713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|3.29||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|-3.45|0.9616
95905159|NCT01884350|191766713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.6341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.24||P-values are obtained from the Cochran t-test for pairwise comparison between groups (two-sided).|t-test, 2 sided|||||4.24|-2.60|0.6341
95905160|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1924||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1924
95905161|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0305||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0305
95905162|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0107||||||Mini-mental state examination score|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0107
95905163|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6982||||||Higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6982
95905164|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7277||||||Higher professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7277
95905165|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7581||||||Intermediate occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7581
95905166|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2328||||||Large employers and higher managerial and adm. occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2328
95905167|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507||||||Lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.7507
95905168|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0091||||||Lower supervisory and technical occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0091
95905169|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673||||||Never worked and long-term unemployed vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.6730
95905170|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||Routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0117
95905171|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Semi-routine occupations vs UKSOC1|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1910
95905172|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9559||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistent Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.9559
95905173|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0264||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0264
95905174|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087||||||\<=2 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.1087
95905175|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0679||||||\>=3 Drink/Day Average vs None|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.0679
95979888|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.7|
95979889|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.2|= 0.0242
95979890|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-1.4|= 0.0012
95979891|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.6|
95905176|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2128||||||Paroxysmal vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.2128
95905177|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3739||||||Permanent vs Persistant Atrial Fibrillation|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.3739
95979892|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-1.3|= 0.1240
95979893|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.6|= 0.0107
95979894|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-0.8|
95979895|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-1.1|= 0.3139
95979896|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.3|= 0.0853
95905178|NCT01884350|191766714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||VKA status: Naive vs. Non-Naive|Wald Chi-square test|||||||0.843
95979897|NCT03627767|191932680|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.7|
95979898|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||=|0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.8|0.0|= 0.0674
95979899|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||=|0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.1|= 0.1437
95979900|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.5|
95905179|NCT02730819|191766773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
95905180|NCT02730819|191766774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P-values of 0.05 or lower were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
95905181|NCT04098939|191766874|EQUIVALENCE|Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|0.39|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|Bland-Altman plots|Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|||Analysis of Bland-Altman plots|1.04|0.26|<0.05
95905182|NCT01983293|191766875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95979901|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
95905183|NCT03147248|191766880|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change from baseline of DAS28 (CRP) at Week 22 was greater that the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.6.|Difference of Least square mean|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||The least squares means and standard errors, estimate of treatment difference (CT-P13 SC 120 mg - CT-P13 IV 3 mg/kg), and 2-sided 95% CI obtained from the ANCOVA model.|Primary efficacy analysis were analyzed using an ANCOVA considering the treatment as fixed effect and country, serum CRP concentration at Week 2 (≤0.6 mg/dL vs. \>0.6 mg/dL), and body weight at Week 6 (≤100 kg vs. \>100 kg) as covariates.||0.52|0.02|
95905184|NCT03750552|191766885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.58|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.58|-1.05|0.574
95905185|NCT03750552|191766886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.284||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.28|-0.84|0.331
95905186|NCT03750552|191766887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.376||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.48|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.48|-1.01|0.481
95905187|NCT03750552|191766888|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.17|-0.12|0.740
95905188|NCT03750552|191766889|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease type|The assumed common risk difference estimate and standard error are calculated using Mantel-Haenszel stratum weights and the Sato variance estimator. Mantel-Haenszel confidence limits are shown.|||0.24|-0.02|0.0903
95905189|NCT00581230|191766895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0003
95905190|NCT00581230|191766896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||0.0001
95905191|NCT03508843|191766946|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
95905192|NCT03508843|191766947|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<.001
95905193|NCT03508843|191766948|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||McNemar|||||||>.05
95905194|NCT03814889|191766949|OTHER|||||||0.00025|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|Paired, ordinal data||||||0.00025
95905195|NCT03814889|191766950|OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Rank|||||||0.0014
95905196|NCT03814889|191766951|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95905197|NCT03814889|191766952|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
95905198|NCT03814889|191766955|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxcon Signed-Ranks|||||||0.001
95905199|NCT04256733|191766974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
95905200|NCT04256733|191766975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.57
95905201|NCT04256733|191766976|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95905202|NCT04542343|191766977|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.246|3.754|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.75400|2.24600|<0.01
95905203|NCT04542343|191766978|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.256785|-2.343215|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.343215|-4.256785|<0.001
95979902|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-1.8|< 0.0001
95905204|NCT04542343|191766983|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21818|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36828|-0.06809|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.06809|-0.36828|<0.01
95905205|NCT04542343|191766984|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00459|0.10788|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.10788|0.00459|<0.05
95905206|NCT04723576|191766995|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.189||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|1.446|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||1.446|-1.068|.77
95905207|NCT04723576|191766996|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.238||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.785|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.785|-0.310|.39
95905208|NCT04723576|191766997|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.232||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.618|0.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.153|-0.618|.24
95979903|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-0.4|
95905209|NCT04723576|191766998|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.134||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.352|-0.085|.23
95905210|NCT04723576|191766999|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|-0.051||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.44
95905211|NCT04723576|191767000|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Odds Ratio, log|-0.051||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.078|||Repeated measure logistic regression|using GEE method|Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care.|||0.078|-0.179|.85
95905212|NCT04723576|191767001|OTHER|Standard 2-sided non-equivalence test|Median Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||Effect sizes are the difference between SFA minus Usual Care|||0.484|-0.025|.08
95905213|NCT00924885|191767002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary end-point was the 'overall pain experience', evaluated as described previously. Assuming the mean overall pain in the RN group to be 27 mm (value chosen after analysis of data from a previous study, Cerne et al., 2006) on VAS, with a standard deviation (SD) of 21.5 mm, 121 patients in each group would be needed to demonstrate a decrease in overall pain of 8 mm (30%) with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05 (two-tailed tests).||||0.04
95905214|NCT00784810|191767004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|As above.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.002|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To achieve a study with 80% power at the 1-sided 5% significance level, for the purposes of demonstrating non inferiority, a sample size of 98 subjects per treatment group was required, i.e. a total of 196 subjects completing the study.|||-5.65|0.002
95905215|NCT00377676|191767045|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to test the primary hypothesis at a one-sided alpha = .05 and have a power of 0.9, when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the total number of subjects with all-cause SAEs that must be observed during the study was found to be 235. Assuming the placebo rate is 0.08, the required sample size was found to be 2991.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.27||Using the Lan and Demets alpha spending function for O'Brien-Fleming boundaries and the overall one-sided significance level of 5%, a level of 0.04068 was to be used at the interim analysis and 0.03938 at the time of the final analysis.|Regression, Cox||cycloset to placebo|||1.27||<0.05
95905216|NCT00377676|191767046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||In order to test the hypothesis for serious cardiovascular adverse events as for the primary endpoint at a one-sided alpha = 0.5 when the non-inferiority margin is 1.5, the final sample size of 3000 to 3300 subjects was to provide at least 62% power, assuming a hypothetical rate of events of 3.43%, or 103 to 113 cardiovascular SAEs. Upon demonstration of non-inferiority - a 2 sided using 95% CI was used to assess for superiority.||.96|.35|<0.05
95905217|NCT00377676|191767047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4|<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||If the standard deviation of HbA1c level is about 1.0% and the baseline and 24 week scores have a correlation of 0.50 then the effect size is 0.5%/1.0% = 0.50. For the metformin/SU analysis, 160 subjects assuming a standard deviation of 1.0% would provide a power of 90% power to detect differences in mean changes of 0.5% or larger.||||<0.001
95905218|NCT00377676|191767048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95905219|NCT03317002|191767058|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
95905220|NCT03317002|191767058|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.08||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.001
95905221|NCT03317002|191767059|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.04|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05||<0.001
95905222|NCT03317002|191767059|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.09||||0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12||0.001
95905223|NCT02528214|191767106|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only the primary and the first 4 secondary outcome measures were included in the procedure.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|28.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|40.67||Threshold for significance at two-sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference represents reduction difference i.e. dupilumab - placebo.|The outcome measure was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included percentage reduction of OCS dose at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment group, baseline eosinophil level, optimized OCS dose at baseline, region as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||40.67|15.81|< 0.0001
95905224|NCT02528214|191767108|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|7.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved the 50% OCS dose reduction criterion as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||7.67|2.06|< 0.0001
95905225|NCT02528214|191767109|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|8.39||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant achieved a reduction of OCS dose to \<5 mg/day at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||8.39|2.39|< 0.0001
95905226|NCT02528214|191767110|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included binary status of whether or not a participant achieved their maximum possible reduction of OCS dose per protocol at Week 24 as the response variable, treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed by using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||4.73|1.4|0.0024
95905227|NCT02528214|191767111|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if previous endpoints were statistically significant).|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w v Placebo q2w|The outcome measure was analyzed using a logistic regression model. The model included the binary status of whether or not a participant no longer required OCS at Week 24 as the response variable, and treatment groups, optimized OCS dose at baseline, regions, and baseline eosinophil level subgroups as covariates. Missing data was imputed using a pattern mixture model by multiple imputation approach.||5.1|1.47|0.0015
95905228|NCT00407537|191767120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-3.89||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|It was estimated that each study site would on average complete 8 evaluable participants, therefore enrolling 164 sites, 1968 participants would provide at least 90% power to detect a 10% relative reduction in the 10-year predicted risk of total CHD at 12 months (as calculated from the Framingham model) from the control arm based on a two-sided t-test with a 5% significance level.||-3.89|-5.55|<0.001
95905229|NCT00407537|191767121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|-3.93||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-3.93|-5.58|<0.001
95905230|NCT00407537|191767122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.72||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.72|-1.23|<0.001
95905231|NCT00407537|191767123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-0.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.59||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-0.59|-1.16|<0.001
95979904|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.1136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.0|= 0.1136
95979905|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0276
95979906|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.5|
95979907|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||=|0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-1.5|= 0.0108
95979908|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.6|||=|0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.0|-1.3|= 0.0677
95979909|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.7|-0.2|
95979910|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.5|||=|0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.1|-1.1|= 0.1320
95979911|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.3|||=|0.2975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.9|= 0.2975
95979912|NCT03627767|191932681|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.2|
95979913|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|||=|0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.4|-1.3|= 0.3531
95979914|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||=|0.9282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.9|-0.8|= 0.9282
95979915|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.3|-0.4|
95979916|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|-5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.0|-7.3|< 0.0001
95979917|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-8.1|-10.3|< 0.0001
95979918|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.1||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.1|-4.0|
95979919|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-2.9|-6.2|< 0.0001
95979920|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-5.1|-8.3|< 0.0001
95905232|NCT00407537|191767124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.15||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.15|-1.56|<0.001
95979921|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.9||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.9|-3.3|
95979922|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.6|||=|0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.7|-4.5|= 0.0082
95979923|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.6|-7.4|< 0.0001
95979924|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.6||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.6|-4.2|
95979925|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.4|||=|0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.2|-4.5|= 0.0313
95979926|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-3.0|-7.1|< 0.0001
95979927|NCT03627767|191932682|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.3||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.3|-4.1|
95979928|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.4832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|= 0.4832
95979929|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.1|||=|0.6553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.3|= 0.6553
95979930|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||||||Week 12: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.3|-0.2|
95979931|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.1|-1.5|< 0.0001
95979932|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.7|-2.2|< 0.0001
95979933|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||||||Week 16: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.4|-0.9|
95979934|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.0|-1.7|< 0.0001
95905233|NCT00407537|191767125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSMean difference|-1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-1.14||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model||Value at a given visit as response. Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|||-1.14|-1.57|<0.001
95905234|NCT00407537|191767130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||<|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-0.88|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.88|-5.42|<0.007
95905235|NCT00407537|191767131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|||<|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.37|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-0.37|-2.86|<0.011
95905236|NCT00407537|191767132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-3.5|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-3.50|-8.00|<0.001
95905237|NCT00407537|191767133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-1.92|||Mixed-effect linear model|||||-1.92|-4.42|<0.001
95905238|NCT00407537|191767134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
95905239|NCT00407537|191767134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
95905240|NCT00407537|191767134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
95905241|NCT00407537|191767134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effects linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
95905242|NCT00407537|191767135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
95905243|NCT00407537|191767135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
95905244|NCT00407537|191767135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
95905245|NCT00407537|191767135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
95979935|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.8|-2.5|< 0.0001
95979936|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 28: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
95979937|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.4|< 0.0001
95979938|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.2|< 0.0001
95979939|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||||||Week 40: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.5|-1.1|
95979940|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.8|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.3|-1.2|= 0.0020
95979941|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-1.2|-2.2|< 0.0001
95979942|NCT03627767|191932683|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.6||||||Week 52: The LSM differences between treatment groups were derived from the statistical model. MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline disease severity, randomization strata, baseline value and an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.6|-1.3|
95905246|NCT00407537|191767136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.71|-34.17||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||TC||-34.17|-43.71|<0.001
95905247|NCT00407537|191767136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.64|-30.99||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-30.99|-39.64|<0.001
95905248|NCT00407537|191767136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|2.13||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||2.13|-0.14|0.087
95905249|NCT00407537|191767136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-14.7||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-14.70|-32.60|<0.001
95905250|NCT00407537|191767137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.57|-28.56||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Total cholesterol||-28.56|-37.57|<0.001
95905251|NCT00407537|191767137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-25.95||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||LDL||-25.95|-33.70|<0.001
95905252|NCT00407537|191767137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.86||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|mixed-effect linear model|||HDL||1.86|-0.71|0.379
95905253|NCT00407537|191767137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.72|-7.81||Baseline value, country, and treatment were used as fixed effect and site was used as a random effect and a compound-symmetry (CS) variance-covariance matrix was used for subjects from the same site.|Mixed-effect linear model|||Triglycerides||-7.81|-28.72|<0.001
95905254|NCT05046795|191767153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|150.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.727|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.145|197.671|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||197.671|104.145|<0.0001
95905255|NCT05046795|191767154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|144.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.192|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.61|186.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||186.088|102.610|<0.0001
95905256|NCT05046795|191767155|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|287.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.473|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|211.933|363.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.570|211.933|<0.0001
95905257|NCT05046795|191767156|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|105.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.89|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.6|139.12|||ANCOVA|||||139.12|72.60|<0.0001
95905258|NCT05046795|191767157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|154.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|28.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.86|210.78|||ANCOVA|||||210.78|98.86|<0.0001
95905259|NCT05046795|191767158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-8.49|0.0064
95905260|NCT05046795|191767159|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.84|1.16|0.0144
95905261|NCT01866410|191767166|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4
95905262|NCT01866410|191767167|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5
95905263|NCT00553267|191767170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.77|-1.75||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.75|-3.77|<0.0001
95905264|NCT00553267|191767170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.86|-1.84||Doses tested against A10 in a hierarchical manner to address issues of multiplicity. T80/A10 was tested first, then T40/A10.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||"Testing that the combination treatments are superior to monotherapy A10.~The number of patients in the treatment arms ensure the tests have over 90% power."||-1.84|-3.86|<0.0001
95905265|NCT00553267|191767171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.15|-2.16|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.16|-5.15|<0.0001
95905266|NCT00553267|191767171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.35|-2.36|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.36|-5.35|<0.0001
95905267|NCT00553267|191767172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.21|0.002
95905268|NCT00553267|191767172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91|||<|0.001||95.0|1.37|2.65|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.65|1.37|<0.001
95905269|NCT00553267|191767173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004||95.0|1.3|4.25|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.25|1.30|0.004
95905270|NCT00553267|191767173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.004||95.0|1.29|4.22|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||4.22|1.29|0.004
95905271|NCT00553267|191767174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.002||95.0|1.21|2.34|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.34|1.21|0.002
95905272|NCT00553267|191767174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.68|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.68|1.38|<0.001
95905273|NCT00553267|191767175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.027||95.0|1.04|2.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.00|1.04|0.027
95905274|NCT00553267|191767175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.008||95.0|1.12|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.15|1.12|0.008
95905275|NCT00553267|191767176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.006||95.0|1.14|2.21|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.21|1.14|0.006
95905276|NCT00553267|191767176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.002||95.0|1.2|2.32|||Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistics adjusted for country effect||||2.32|1.20|0.002
95905277|NCT00553267|191767177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.006
95905278|NCT00553267|191767177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|Stratified (for country) Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||<0.001
95905279|NCT01306162|191767189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|191.0|240.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation.|150mg DE + 400mg DR same time (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||240|191|1.0000
95905280|NCT01306162|191767189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|130.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0||0.6697|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.0|151.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||151|112|0.6697
95905281|NCT01306162|191767189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|236.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.8||0.9992||90.0|173.0|321.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||321|173|0.9992
95905282|NCT01306162|191767189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|162.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.1||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.0|221.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||221|119|0.9171
95905283|NCT01306162|191767190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|187.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.3||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.0|215.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||215|162|0.9999
95905284|NCT01306162|191767190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.2||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|138.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||138|95|0.2207
95905285|NCT01306162|191767190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|225.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.1||0.9946||90.0|156.0|326.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||326|156|0.9946
95905286|NCT01306162|191767190|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|133.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.0||0.6221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|190.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||190|94|0.6221
95905287|NCT01306162|191767191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|214.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.7||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|241.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||241|190|1.0000
95905288|NCT01306162|191767191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.3||0.7223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.0|155.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||155|113|0.7223
95905289|NCT01306162|191767191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|258.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9993||90.0|182.0|365.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||365|182|0.9993
95905290|NCT01306162|191767191|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|159.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.5||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|222.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||222|114|0.8875
95905291|NCT01306162|191767192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtB: TrtA (%)|180.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.6||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|90.0|156.0|207.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR (TrtB) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||207|156|0.9998
95905292|NCT01306162|191767192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtC: TrtA (%)|114.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.1866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.0|136.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR 2h later (TrtC) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||136|95|0.1866
95905293|NCT01306162|191767192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtD: TrtA (%)|234.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.7||0.9958||90.0|160.0|340.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid same time (TrtD) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||340|160|0.9958
95905294|NCT01306162|191767192|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioavailability|Geometric mean ratio TrtE: TrtA (%)|126.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.6||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.0|179.0||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|ANOVA with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as random effect.|The standard deviation is actually the Geometric coefficient of variation|150mg DE + 400mg DR bid 2h later (TrtE) vs 150mg DE (TrtA)||179|89|0.5164
95905295|NCT01660763|191767245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.2|108.98|||ANCOVA|||||108.98|66.20|<0.001
95905296|NCT01910519|191767266|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M183-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0039
95979943|NCT02267603|191932700|OTHER|The null hypothesis will be rejected if 3 or more responses are observed in 24 patients. This design yields a type I error rate of 0.10 and power of 0.90 when the true response rate is 25%. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 16 months will be estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Unless otherwise stated, all statistical tests will be conducted at the α=0.05 (1-sided) level.||||||||||||||||The protocol was designed w/ a standard Simon 2 stage design. Null hypothesis that true response rate is 5% was tested against a 1-sided alternative. In stage 1, 9 patients were accrued. If no responses in these 9 patients, study was to stop. Otherwise,15 more patients were to be accrued for a total of 24 patients. Study was amended to increase number of patients to 50, following discussion w/ pharmaceutical collaborator and FDA.|ORR will be estimated as the # of responders as a % of the # of eligible participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. If a substantial amount of primary endpoint data are missing (at least 1 value missing from more than 20% of participants), using nonparametric estimation to estimate the ORR requires the missing completely at random assumption may give misleading results. In this case, analyses of the primary endpoint will be performed using parametric generalized linear models fit by maximum likelihood. These methods provide unbiased estimation and inferences under the parametric modeling assumptions and the assumption that the missing data are missing at random (MAR). MAR assumes that the probability of an observation being missing may depend upon the observed responses and upon observed covariates. A generalized linear model for the ORR will use a binomial error distribution. The model will include as covariates all available baseline predictors of the missing outcomes.|||
95979944|NCT00528567|191932731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank|Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.||||1.07|0.72|0.1810
95979945|NCT00528567|191932733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.17|||Log Rank|Stratification factors are Axillary nodal status, Choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, Hormone receptor status, Surgery||||1.17|0.74|0.5247
95979946|NCT00528567|191932735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.71|0.1966
95979947|NCT00528567|191932736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.64|0.2318
95979948|NCT00528567|191932739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.2792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.1|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.10|0.72|0.2792
95979949|NCT00528567|191932741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.07|0.72|0.1832
95979950|NCT00528567|191932743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.12|||Log Rank||Stratification factors were axillary nodal status, choice of adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status, surgery.|||1.12|0.72|0.3309
95979951|NCT00729781|191932801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|57.8||||0.19|ONE_SIDED|97.5|42.2||||One-sided, binomial exact test|||This study had two independent primary endpoints (cosmetic and functional improvement). Therefore, the assumed type I error rate for each was 2.5% in order to maintain an overall 5% type I error rate. For each endpoint, the percent of subjects with improvement of the total number implanted was to be compared to a rate of 50% using a one-sided, binomial exact test. If the p-value was \< 0.025, the objective would have been met.|||42.2|0.19
95979952|NCT00729781|191932802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of subjects with improvement|15.6|||>|0.99|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.05||||One-sided, binomial exact test||||||0.05|>0.99
95979953|NCT02378220|191932811|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.28||P-value for 30 days measure.|Regression, Poisson|||||1.28|0.32|0.21
95979954|NCT02378220|191932811|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.82||P-Value for 60 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||0.82|0.27|0.007
95979955|NCT02378220|191932812|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.62||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.21||P-Value for 30 days measure|Regression, Poisson|||||1.21|0.31|0.16
95979956|NCT02378220|191932812|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.99|||Regression, Poisson|||||0.99|0.34|0.045
95979957|NCT02378220|191932813|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.31|0.10
95979958|NCT02378220|191932814|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1|||Log Rank|||||1.10|0.33|0.09
95979959|NCT00312221|191932825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8562|0.1054|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 20 and BTDS 5 during the 12-week double-blind phase|||0.1054|-0.8562|0.126
95905297|NCT01910519|191767266|OTHER|||||||0.0368|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M115-cytokines-receptors cluster at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0368
95905298|NCT01910519|191767266|OTHER|||||||0.0465|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M74-transcriptional targets of glucocorticoid receptor at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0465
95905299|NCT01910519|191767266|OTHER|||||||0.0411|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M58-B cell development/activation at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0411
95905300|NCT01910519|191767266|OTHER|||||||0.0067|||||||ANOVA|||Correlation of vaccine-induced blood transcription modules (BTMs) M114.0-TBA at day 1 with MN titers at day 42||||0.0067
95905301|NCT04266028|191767267|OTHER|No statistical analyses were performed.|no statistical analyses were performed|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No statistical analyses were performed||||No statistical analyses were performed.|No statistical analyses were performed.|||
95979960|NCT00312221|191932825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.14||95.0|-0.8455|0.1189|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.1189|-0.8455|0.140
95979961|NCT00312221|191932826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.20|-1.47|0.007
95979962|NCT00312221|191932826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.17|||ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||-0.17|-1.47|0.011
95979963|NCT00312221|191932827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0054|2.0397|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.0397|-3.0054|0.707
95979964|NCT00312221|191932827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4459|0.8706|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||0.8706|-4.4459|0.187
95979965|NCT00312221|191932828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6177|3.693|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and BTDS 20 during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||3.6930|-5.6177|0.685
95979966|NCT00312221|191932828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4415|2.8255|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment comparison between BTDS 5 and oxycodone immediate-release during the 12-week double-blind phase.|||2.8255|-6.4415|0.443
95979967|NCT01807923|191932838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.62|5.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than (\<)18 versus greater than equal to (\>=18) years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||5.44|2.62|<0.0001
95979968|NCT01807923|191932838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.01|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.01|1.18|0.0003
95979969|NCT01807923|191932839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|9.19|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||9.19|4.27|<0.0001
95979970|NCT01807923|191932839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.33||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.8|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.80|1.86|0.0006
95979971|NCT01807923|191932840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.1122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.35|-0.04|0.1122
95979972|NCT01807923|191932840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.32|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.32|-0.07|0.1938
95979973|NCT01807923|191932841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.88||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.05||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||7.05|0.70|0.0168
95979974|NCT01807923|191932841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.5||||0.3569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|4.69|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.69|-1.69|0.3569
95979975|NCT01807923|191932842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9378|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8786|4.5941||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.5941|1.8786|<0.0001
95979976|NCT01807923|191932842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0592||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.292|3.2819||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.2819|1.2920|0.0023
95979977|NCT01807923|191932843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.7186||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|0.9987|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9987|0.5170|0.0491
95979978|NCT01807923|191932843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6643||||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4749|0.9291||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.9291|0.4749|0.0169
95905302|NCT00952653|191767271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|71.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.08|78.33|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||78.33|65.08|
95905303|NCT00952653|191767272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.04|93.74|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||93.74|79.04|
95905304|NCT00952653|191767273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|92.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.43|97.97|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||97.97|87.43|
95905305|NCT00952653|191767274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.96|110.11|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference). Based on the sample size, this study has at least 85% power overall to demonstrate the lack of an interaction \[that is, equivalence in both AUCinf and Cmax and both midazolam and 1-hydroxy midazolam\], where overall study power is to be based on the product of the individual powers of the parameters of interest.||110.11|92.96|
95905306|NCT00952653|191767275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|72.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.04|78.72|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||78.72|66.04|
95905307|NCT00952653|191767278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ratio of adjusted geometric means|87.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.42|94.96|||||Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|DVS SR + Midazolam (test) versus Midazolam (reference)||94.96|80.42|
95905308|NCT02276482|191767300|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.5|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||13.5|-6.3|
95905309|NCT02276482|191767301|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.8|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||10.8|-3.4|
95905310|NCT02276482|191767302|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.4|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||4.4|-12.9|
95905311|NCT02276482|191767303|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||7.7|-7.4|
95905312|NCT02276482|191767304|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The difference (Tedizolid minus Comparator group) in the clinical success rate and 95% confidence interval calculated using the unstratified method of Miettinen and Nurminen.|||0.0|0.0|
95905313|NCT01165281|191767309|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to demonstrate that the upper limit of the confidence interval of intergroup differences in change from baseline is not higher than the noninferiority margin of 1 with a 1-tailed significance level of 0.025 and 90% power, the sample size was calculated to be 133 patients in each group for a total of 266 patients. Assuming approximately 20% of patients would be excluded from the analyses, the target sample size was 330 patients.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.506|0.383|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the JNS024 ER group was not inferior to oxycodone CR as defined by the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between JNS024 ER and oxycodone CR on the mean change from baseline of the NRS pain intensity score during the last 3 days of study drug administration. It was to be concluded that JNS024 ER is not inferior to oxycodone CR if the upper 95% confidence limit is less than 1 point.||0.383|-0.506|0.786
95905314|NCT02099006|191767339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired T test||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.30
95905315|NCT02099006|191767339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.33
95905316|NCT02099006|191767339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.65
95905317|NCT02099006|191767339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline and baclofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.25
95905318|NCT02099006|191767339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in daily genital pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1.0
95905319|NCT02099006|191767340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of loperamide cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.31
95905320|NCT02099006|191767340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketamine cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||1
95905321|NCT02099006|191767340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of gabapentin cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.66
95905322|NCT02099006|191767340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of ketoprofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.42
95905323|NCT02099006|191767340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired||Null hypothesis - that the improvement in tampon test pain would be no different with the daily application of amitriptyline/baclofen cream than with the daily application of a placebo cream.||||0.79
95905324|NCT02091167|191767343|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||We powered for a medium effect size based on our previous study with effect size (partial ղ2) of 0.10384 for the main within-subject factor in the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures. With a power of 80%, and a two-sided probability of a type I error of 5%, the resulting minimum sample size was 30 participants. To account for waiving or dropouts we increased the estimated sample size to approximately 10%, resulting in 33 subjects in total (approximately 16 to 17 subjects in each group).|"Most of data (age, patterns of crack-cocaine use, 5-items OCCS) were normally distributed according to the D'Agostino \& Pearson normality test, thus they were analyzed by parametric tests. Between-group (sham- and real tDCS) comparisons were conducted by unpaired Student´s t-tests. For all other non-parametric data (gender, schooling, employment, marital state and tobacco use), Chi-square or Fisher tests were used to compare sham and real tDCS groups.~Besides the two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by Bonferroni-corrected t-tests, linear regression analyses were done over craving scores obtained along the 4-week treatment (five time-points measurements) for both groups. Additional comparisons between initial and final OCDS scores were done by paired t-tests for each group, and differences between final and initial scores were compared between sham-tDCS and real tDCS groups with unpaired t-test."|||0.05
95905325|NCT02091167|191767344|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Two patients from each group were lost to follow-up after their discharge from the hospital.||||0.05
95905326|NCT03403634|191767358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||significance level = 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|df = 11. one-sided as post treatment increases were of interest. the fold changes were log-transformed prior to inferences.||||||0.046
95905327|NCT05932290|191767363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.71|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.71|0.37|<.0001
95905328|NCT05932290|191767364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64|||Regression, Cox||IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.|||0.64|0.22|.0003
95905329|NCT05932290|191767367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88|||Regression, Cox||HRs were estimated using unadjusted Cox proportional hazard models.|||0.88|0.47|.0062
95905330|NCT05932290|191767368|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.77|||Regression, Cox|IPTW HRs were estimated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and confidence intervals were estimated using robust error variances.||||0.77|0.27|.0032
95905331|NCT00932893|191767393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.371|0.638||To control family-wise Type 1 error, a step-down procedure was applied in following order: PFS, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR). Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025.|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score, brain metastases, and prior epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR TKI) treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) from the stratified Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.638|0.371|<0.0001
95905332|NCT00932893|191767394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.854||||0.1145||95.0|0.661|1.104||Statistical significance: 1-sided at alpha=0.025|Log Rank|||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG PS score, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified Cox proportional hazards model were also presented.||1.104|0.661|0.1145
95905333|NCT00932893|191767396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.394|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.463|4.676||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||4.676|2.463|<0.0001
95905334|NCT00932893|191767397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.502|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.297|1.741||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||1.741|1.297|<0.0001
95905335|NCT00932893|191767398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.697|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.368|2.103||Statistical significance: 2-sided at alpha=0.0004.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was obtained from CMH test stratified by ECOG PS, brain metastases, and prior EGFR TKI treatment. The risk ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the stratified CMH test were also reported.||2.103|1.368|<0.0001
95905336|NCT00932893|191767404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.497|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.373|0.661|||Log Rank|||The p-value was obtained from 2-sided unstratified log-rank test. The hazard ratio and corresponding 95% CI from the Cox Proportional Hazards model were also presented.||0.661|0.373|<0.0001
95905337|NCT02207816|191767429|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|74.38||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.0|97.14|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||97.14|-130|0.2235
95905338|NCT02207816|191767429|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-9.57||||0.8972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-339.0|72.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||72.64|-339|0.8972
95905339|NCT02207816|191767429|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.58||||0.5333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.0|78.0|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.00|-119|0.5333
95905340|NCT02207816|191767429|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.2||||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.9|83.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||83.69|-90.9|0.3523
95905341|NCT02207816|191767430|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|53.68||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|81.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||81.13|-13.7|0.0930
95905342|NCT02207816|191767430|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.33||||0.5035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.1|64.82|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||64.82|-67.1|0.5035
95905343|NCT02207816|191767430|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|32.08||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.1|69.87|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||69.87|-53.1|0.3504
95905344|NCT02207816|191767430|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|37.57||||0.2704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.4|73.01|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||73.01|-44.4|0.2704
95905345|NCT02207816|191767431|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.26||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|7.69|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||7.69|-20.0|0.4434
95905346|NCT02207816|191767431|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-8.1||||0.2634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|5.7|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||5.70|-23.9|0.2634
95905347|NCT02207816|191767431|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.62||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|13.13|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||13.13|-13.7|0.9278
95905348|NCT02207816|191767431|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|5.32||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|17.09|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/ incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||17.09|-8.12|0.4189
95905349|NCT02207816|191767432|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|82.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||82.90|-32.2|0.1302
95905350|NCT02207816|191767432|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.9||||0.6897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.9|65.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||65.90|-96.9|0.6897
95905351|NCT02207816|191767432|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.9||||0.5299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.9|70.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.90|-82.9|0.5299
95905352|NCT02207816|191767432|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|25.4||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.1|70.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||70.70|-84.1|0.5307
95905353|NCT02207816|191767433|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|46.2||||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|81.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||81.80|-45.0|0.1853
95905354|NCT02207816|191767433|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.0||||0.3828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.3|76.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.60|-69.3|0.3828
95905355|NCT02207816|191767433|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|31.2||||0.4112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.5|72.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.70|-66.5|0.4112
95905356|NCT02207816|191767433|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.8||||0.4121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|72.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||72.50|-67.6|0.4121
95905357|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|58.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||58.80|15.70|<0.0001
95905358|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine effiicacy|42.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.4|60.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||60.80|17.40|<0.0001
95905359|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.0||||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|33.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||33.90|-6.60|0.0883
95905360|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.0||||0.1889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|31.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.70|-10.7|0.1889
95905361|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|16.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|34.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||34.00|-5.90|0.0770
95905362|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|20.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||20.70|-25.8|1.0000
95905363|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.8||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|46.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||46.90|-17.5|0.1624
95905364|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-2.3||||0.9112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.6|29.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||29.00|-47.6|0.9112
95905365|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|9.2||||0.4023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|30.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||30.10|-18.0|0.4023
95905366|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.4||||0.7091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|18.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||18.90|-34.5|0.7091
95905367|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-1.4||||0.9361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|23.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.60|-34.7|0.9361
95905368|NCT02207816|191767434|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-6.8||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.0|19.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent parasitemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||19.60|-42.0|0.6280
95905369|NCT02207816|191767435|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.4987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3779.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-3779|0.4987
95905370|NCT02207816|191767435|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4051.0|100.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent severe anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||100.0|-4051|1.0000
95905371|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-254.6||||0.1025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3399.0|32.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||32.50|-3399|0.1025
95905372|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-398.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4642.0|-3.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||-3.20|-4642|0.0284
95905373|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.7||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|79.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||79.20|-78.8|0.3543
95905374|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.0|63.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||63.20|-151|1.0000
95905375|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|44.0||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|88.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||88.00|-120|0.3809
95905376|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|39.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.0|86.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||86.90|-140|0.5490
95905377|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-46.3||||0.3239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.0|36.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||36.20|-249|0.3239
95905378|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|47.6||||0.2184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|84.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 1 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||84.10|-54.5|0.2184
95905379|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-116.8||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-476.0|10.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||10.30|-476|0.0724
95905380|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-81.0||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-393.0|27.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 2 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||27.90|-393|0.2055
95905381|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-18.4||||0.8138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.0|57.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||57.90|-245|0.8138
95905382|NCT02207816|191767436|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|24.4||||0.7887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.0|78.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) against prevalent moderate anemia assessed at Year 3 was estimated as 1-RR, where RR is the risk ratio (proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||78.40|-148|0.7887
95905383|NCT02207816|191767437|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|40.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.84|59.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||59.39|12.84|0.0077
95905384|NCT02207816|191767437|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-4.52||||0.7922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|24.8|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||24.80|-45.3|0.7922
95905385|NCT02207816|191767437|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.03||||0.0802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.22|51.67|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||51.67|-4.22|0.0802
95905386|NCT02207816|191767437|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|33.87||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.13|55.32|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||55.32|2.13|0.0387
95905387|NCT02207816|191767438|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|36.69||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|53.07|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||53.07|14.60|0.0028
95905388|NCT02207816|191767438|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|10.14||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|31.64|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||31.64|-18.1|0.4430
95905389|NCT02207816|191767438|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|30.99||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|50.04|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||50.04|4.67|0.0245
95905390|NCT02207816|191767438|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|34.24||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.74|52.61|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model without random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of severe malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||52.61|8.74|0.0122
95905391|NCT02207816|191767439|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|23.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.93|30.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||30.71|15.93|<.0001
95905392|NCT02207816|191767439|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.81|26.71|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group).||26.71|10.81|<.0001
95905393|NCT02207816|191767439|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|15.55||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.72|23.54|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||23.54|6.72|0.0009
95905394|NCT02207816|191767439|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|13.15||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|21.39|||Negative binomial regression|Mixed model with over-dispersion parameter estimated from the random effect \[Lievens, 2011\].||Vaccine efficacy (VE)/incidence comparison against all episodes of clinical malaria were estimated as 1-incidence ratio (IR; total number of events/follow-up time in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the total number of events/follow-up time in the Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group).||21.39|4.05|0.0056
95905395|NCT02207816|191767440|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.5||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|54.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.00|10.00|0.0053
95905396|NCT02207816|191767440|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|11.7||||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|35.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||35.20|-20.0|0.4255
95905397|NCT02207816|191767440|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|29.2||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|51.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||51.40|-2.40|0.0479
95905398|NCT02207816|191767440|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|18.1||||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|42.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||42.80|-16.9|0.2346
95905399|NCT02207816|191767441|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|35.9||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|54.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||54.40|10.30|0.0051
95905400|NCT02207816|191767441|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|14.0||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|37.1|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||37.10|-17.3|0.3340
95905401|NCT02207816|191767441|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|28.5||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|50.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||50.50|-2.90|0.0511
95905402|NCT02207816|191767441|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|20.3||||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|44.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Meenjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||44.20|-13.5|0.1729
95905403|NCT02207816|191767444|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|50.1||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.0|99.2|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||99.20|-859|0.6244
95905404|NCT02207816|191767444|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-5.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1358.0|92.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||92.30|-1358|1.0000
95905405|NCT02207816|191767444|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-188.9||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15000.0|76.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||76.80|-15000|0.6244
95905406|NCT02207816|191767444|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7509.0|98.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group) over the entire follow-up period (from Year 0 to Year 3).||98.80|-7509|1.0000
95905407|NCT02207816|191767445|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||0.6869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2098.0|71.5|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||71.50|-2098|0.6869
95905408|NCT02207816|191767445|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-406.0||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4650.0|-7.8|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||-7.80|-4650|0.0213
95905409|NCT02207816|191767446|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-98.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12000.0|89.6|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||89.60|-12000|1.0000
95905410|NCT02207816|191767446|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-304.8||||0.2154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20000.0|59.9|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||59.90|-20000|0.2154
95905411|NCT02207816|191767447|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-24.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0|73.3|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||73.30|-526|1.0000
95905412|NCT02207816|191767447|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-77.1||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-725.0|55.0|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[5-17M\] Group over the proportion in VeroRab Comparator \[5-17M\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||55.00|-725|0.3834
95905413|NCT02207816|191767447|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-297.5||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19000.0|60.7|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||60.70|-19000|0.3740
95905414|NCT02207816|191767447|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine efficacy|-498.1||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27000.0|27.4|||Two-sided Fisher Exact test|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was estimated as 1-the risk ratio (RR; proportion of subjects reporting events in the GSK257049 Comparator \[6-12W\] Group over the proportion in Menjugate Comparator \[6-12W\] Group), from Month 0 (study start of Malaria-055) to Year 3 (study end of Malaria-076).||27.40|-27000|0.1240
95905415|NCT06111742|191767452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Induction||||<0.001
95905416|NCT06111742|191767452|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OR entry||||<0.001
95905417|NCT06111742|191767453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.022
95905418|NCT06111742|191767455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95905419|NCT00713648|191767457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean (Lambda)|0.048||||||95.0|0.0094|0.2501|||Poisson model (log-link)|The estimated rate was adjusted for age and overdispersion which was estimated by Pearson's chi-square statistic divided by its degrees of freedom.|Mean (Lambda) refer to the estimate of the annualised bleeding rate|||0.2501|0.0094|
95905420|NCT03555396|191767462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|6.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.46|-13.53|0.483
95905421|NCT03555396|191767463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.637
95905422|NCT03555396|191767464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.54||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|18.49||Difference in mean change in adherence from baseline to 6 month follow-up between individuals in the intervention and control arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multilevel linear mixed model with random effects (dyad \& intercept); adjusting for participant age, sex, baseline adherence, and partner HIV status||||18.49|0.59|0.037
95905423|NCT03555396|191767465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher's Exact Test used for small sample sizes||||||0.621
95979979|NCT01807923|191932844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||0.96|-0.16|0.1565
95979980|NCT01807923|191932844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.86|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.86|-0.26|0.2992
95979981|NCT01807923|191932845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.098||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.233|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.2330|-0.0370|0.1539
95979982|NCT01807923|191932845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0781||||0.2713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.2176|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.2176|-0.0615|0.2713
95979983|NCT01807923|191932846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.692||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0396
95979984|NCT01807923|191932846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0385
95979985|NCT01807923|191932847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6565||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4266|1.0103|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||1.0103|0.4266|0.0552
95979986|NCT01807923|191932847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6438||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4142|1.0005|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.0005|0.4142|0.0512
95979987|NCT01807923|191932848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.006||||0.5604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0142|0.0262|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0262|-0.0142|0.5604
95979988|NCT01807923|191932848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0095||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0109|0.0298|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0298|-0.0109|0.3613
95979989|NCT01807923|191932849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.9|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||4.9|-0.7|0.1342
95979990|NCT01807923|191932849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.4||||0.3071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.2|-1.3|0.3071
95979991|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|9.96|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||9.96|1.03|0.0160
95979992|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.8||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|10.35|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||10.35|1.25|0.0126
95979993|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.18||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.23|-1.13|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-1.13|-7.23|0.0074
95905424|NCT03073603|191767491|NON_INFERIORITY|We performed a non-inferiority test for the proportions of the drug continuation and drug discontinuation arms experiencing a new MS relapse and/or MRI Brain Lesion over the course of the study duration. The non-inferiority margin used was 8%.|Difference in proportion|0.0753||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.15|||Exact binomial test|Exact binomial test for difference in two proportions||We tested the null hypothesis of inferiority with the proportion of disease events (i.e., new MS relapse and/or MRI brain lesion) for the drug discontinuation group being 8% greater than the proportion for the drug continuation group under the alternative that the two rates are equal.||0.1500|0.0063|0.521
95905425|NCT03073603|191767492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.766
95905426|NCT03073603|191767493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.604
95905427|NCT03073603|191767494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
95905428|NCT03073603|191767495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.354|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.354
95905429|NCT03073603|191767496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.831|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.831
95905430|NCT03073603|191767497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.252
95905431|NCT03073603|191767498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.983
95905432|NCT03073603|191767499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.155
95905433|NCT03073603|191767500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.748
95905434|NCT03073603|191767501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.773|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.773
95905435|NCT03073603|191767502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.224
95905436|NCT03073603|191767503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962
95905437|NCT03073603|191767504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95905438|NCT03073603|191767505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.406|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.406
95905439|NCT03073603|191767506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.348
95905440|NCT03073603|191767507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
95905441|NCT03073603|191767508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.575
95905442|NCT03073603|191767509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
95905443|NCT03073603|191767510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
95905444|NCT03073603|191767511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95905445|NCT01369342|191767541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905446|NCT01369342|191767541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905447|NCT01369342|191767542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||0.009
95905448|NCT01369342|191767542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905449|NCT01369342|191767543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905450|NCT01369342|191767543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905451|NCT01369342|191767544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905452|NCT01369342|191767544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905453|NCT01369342|191767545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95905454|NCT01369342|191767545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used to control alpha at 0.05 over the outcome measures.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test, stratified by study region (Asia, Eastern Europe, or rest of world) and CDAI score (=\< 300 or \>300).||||||< 0.001
95979994|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.74||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|-1.63|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.63|-7.85|0.0029
95905455|NCT03204279|191767565|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|0.076||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs AUC0-inf|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.55
95905456|NCT03204279|191767565|OTHER|No comparison between the two dose groups is performed, thus no statistical test is applied. In the next section the goodness of fit of the loess function correlating exposure and response is reported.|Pearson R|-0.041||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|loess (Local regression or polynomial)|The p-value represents the probability found if the correlation coefficient was zero (null hypothesis).|R is the Pearson correlation is a coefficient statistic that measures linear correlation between two variables CR in the delayed phase vs Cmax|The population consist of all patients having CR in the delayed phase and AUC0-inf and Cmax, there is no comparison between the two dose groups.||||0.75
95905457|NCT04827212|191767602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|||||P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.037
95979995|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.61||||0.7721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.71|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.71|-3.50|0.7721
95905458|NCT04827212|191767603|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline values as there was a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95905459|NCT04827212|191767604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|||||adjusted for multiple comparisons- P\<0.025; controlled for baseline value due to a significant difference between groups at baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
95905460|NCT04827212|191767605|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
95905461|NCT04827212|191767606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.18
95905462|NCT04827212|191767607|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.86
95905463|NCT04827212|191767608|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95905464|NCT04827212|191767609|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95905465|NCT04827212|191767610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95905466|NCT04827212|191767611|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
95905467|NCT04827212|191767612|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
95979996|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.08||||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|7.25|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.25|-1.09|0.1472
95905468|NCT04827212|191767613|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95905469|NCT04827212|191767614|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95905470|NCT04827212|191767615|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95905471|NCT04827212|191767616|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95905472|NCT04827212|191767617|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95905473|NCT04827212|191767618|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95905474|NCT04827212|191767619|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.41
95905475|NCT04827212|191767620|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95905476|NCT04827212|191767621|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.9||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95905477|NCT04827212|191767622|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95905478|NCT04827212|191767623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.94
95905479|NCT04827212|191767624|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.72
95905480|NCT04827212|191767625|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance threshold was set at P\<0.0167|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95905481|NCT02479412|191767626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05697||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08626|0.1401|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||0.1401|-0.08626|0.6379
95905482|NCT02479412|191767626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05663||0.1827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03645|0.1885|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs.PBO||0.1885|-0.03645|0.1827
95905483|NCT02479412|191767626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1478|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05679||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03494|0.2606|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2606|0.03494|0.0108
95905484|NCT02479412|191767627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.214||0.1342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|1.528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||1.528|-11.24|0.1342
95905485|NCT02479412|191767627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-4.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.075|-16.75|0.0016
95905486|NCT02479412|191767627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.18|-8.319|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-8.319|-21.18|<0.0001
95905487|NCT02479412|191767628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.139||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.06|-3.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 µg vs. PBO||-3.642|-24.06|0.0084
95905488|NCT02479412|191767628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.088||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.37|-4.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 µg vs. PBO||-4.149|-24.37|0.0062
95905489|NCT02479412|191767628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.137||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|-9.689|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 µg vs. PBO||-9.689|-30.10|0.0002
95905490|NCT02479412|191767629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05856||0.6036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08579|0.1468|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.1468|-0.08579|0.6036
95905491|NCT02479412|191767629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01744|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05869||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09912|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1340|-0.09912|0.7670
95905492|NCT02479412|191767629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1561|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05874||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03943|0.2728|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.2728|0.03943|0.0093
95905493|NCT02479412|191767630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03467|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05377||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1415|0.07213|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.07213|-0.1415|0.5207
95905494|NCT02479412|191767630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05336||0.5983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07778|0.1342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1342|-0.07778|0.5983
95905495|NCT02479412|191767630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05371||0.2538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04501|0.1684|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1684|-0.04501|0.2538
95905496|NCT02479412|191767631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05743||0.6945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1367|0.09144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.09144|-0.1367|0.6945
95905497|NCT02479412|191767631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.000314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05755||0.9957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1146|0.114|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1140|-0.1146|0.9957
95905498|NCT02479412|191767631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05774||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04637|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||0.1830|-0.04637|0.2398
95905499|NCT02479412|191767632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.877||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.335|22.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||22.01|-1.335|0.0819
95905500|NCT02479412|191767632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.253|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.881||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.427|16.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||16.93|-6.427|0.3741
95905501|NCT02479412|191767632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.926||0.0374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7481|24.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||24.29|0.7481|0.0374
95905502|NCT02479412|191767633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.384||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.039|26.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||26.43|5.039|0.0044
95905503|NCT02479412|191767633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.419||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.534|25.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||25.06|3.534|0.0098
95905504|NCT02479412|191767633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.459||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.068|30.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||30.75|9.068|0.0004
95905505|NCT02479412|191767634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7189|0.03179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.03179|-0.7189|0.0723
95905506|NCT02479412|191767634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1903||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8631|-0.1073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||-0.1073|-0.8631|0.0124
95905507|NCT02479412|191767634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1914|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|-0.4224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4224|-1.183|<0.0001
95905508|NCT02479412|191767635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1051||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5159|-0.09836|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09836|-0.5159|0.0044
95905509|NCT02479412|191767635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1824|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1059||0.0883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3927|0.02789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.02789|-0.3927|0.0883
95905510|NCT02479412|191767635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.2205|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.2205|-0.6397|<0.0001
95905511|NCT02479412|191767636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1651|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09139||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3466|0.01638|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||0.01638|-0.3466|0.0741
95905512|NCT02479412|191767636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09204||0.3265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2736|0.09201|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.09201|-0.2736|0.3265
95905513|NCT02479412|191767636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09176||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4354|-0.07092|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.07092|-0.4354|0.0070
95905514|NCT02479412|191767637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1626||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7414|-0.09563|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.09563|-0.7414|0.0116
95905515|NCT02479412|191767637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1794|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1628||0.2732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5027|0.1438|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.1438|-0.5027|0.2732
95905516|NCT02479412|191767637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1636|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.091|-0.4411|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.4411|-1.091|<0.0001
95905517|NCT02479412|191767638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04982||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2057|-0.007755|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||-0.007755|-0.2057|0.0349
95905518|NCT02479412|191767638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05015||0.1052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1817|0.01756|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||0.01756|-0.1817|0.1052
95905519|NCT02479412|191767638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05044||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3028|-0.1025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||-0.1025|-0.3028|0.0001
95905520|NCT02479412|191767639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.673|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2946||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08779|1.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 58 μg vs. PBO||1.258|0.08779|0.0247
95905521|NCT02479412|191767639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2965||0.1521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1607|1.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 250 μg vs. PBO||1.017|-0.1607|0.1521
95905522|NCT02479412|191767639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2987||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3483|1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||AZD7594 800 μg vs. PBO||1.535|0.3483|0.0022
95905523|NCT02479412|191767643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|272.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|237.43|312.05|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||312.05|237.43|<0.0001
95905524|NCT02479412|191767643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|676.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|580.91|786.95|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||786.95|580.91|<0.0001
95905525|NCT02479412|191767644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|337.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|290.8|392.43|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 250 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||392.43|290.80|<0.0001
95905526|NCT02479412|191767644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Estimate (%)|964.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|816.13|1140.13|||ANOVA|||AZD7594 800 μg versus AZD7594 58 μg||1140.13|816.13|<0.0001
95905527|NCT01571362|191767665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.14||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was if unadjusted p was less than or equal to (\<=) 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Null Hypothesis: No treatment difference. Power was 90%, 2-sided Alpha of 0.05, with assumed difference of 1 point and assumed standard deviation of 2.4 points.||-0.14|-1.11|0.0114
95905528|NCT01571362|191767666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.7547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and Baseline score and final total daily dose of Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||1.29|-0.94|0.7547
95905529|NCT01571362|191767667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1272|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid)||||||0.1272
95905530|NCT01571362|191767668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid and non-opioid).||||||0.0210
95905531|NCT01571362|191767669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0248|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0248
95905532|NCT01571362|191767670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0090
95905533|NCT01571362|191767671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0874|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH test was stratified by prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid).||||||0.0874
95905534|NCT01571362|191767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
95905535|NCT01571362|191767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
95905536|NCT01571362|191767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
95905537|NCT01571362|191767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
95905538|NCT01571362|191767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
95905539|NCT01571362|191767672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to end of the OL Period for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
95905540|NCT01571362|191767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Worst Pain Score||||<0.0001
95905541|NCT01571362|191767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Least Pain Score||||<0.0001
95905542|NCT01571362|191767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Average Pain Score||||<0.0001
95905543|NCT01571362|191767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Right Now||||<0.0001
95905544|NCT01571362|191767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Severity Index||||<0.0001
95905545|NCT01571362|191767673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Pain Interference Index||||<0.0001
95905546|NCT01571362|191767674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.18|-1.06|0.0056
95905547|NCT01571362|191767674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0090
95905548|NCT01571362|191767674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.16|-0.91|0.1684
95905549|NCT01571362|191767674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
95905550|NCT01571362|191767675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.193||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2||-0.02|-0.78|0.0412
95905551|NCT01571362|191767675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.48|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4||-0.48|-1.27|<0.0001
95905552|NCT01571362|191767675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.08|0.0055
95905553|NCT01571362|191767675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.27|<0.0001
95905554|NCT01571362|191767676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.27|-1.02|0.0007
95905555|NCT01571362|191767676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.16|0.0006
95905556|NCT01571362|191767676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.18|-1.11|0.0070
95905557|NCT01571362|191767676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.44|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.44|-1.31|<0.0001
95905558|NCT01571362|191767677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.23|-1.05|0.0022
95979997|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.49||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|10.58|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||10.58|0.40|0.0345
95979998|NCT01807923|191932850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|11.89|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||11.89|1.55|0.0109
95979999|NCT02469896|191932861|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.875||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.377|||Fisher Exact|||||1.377|0.556|0.602
95905559|NCT01571362|191767677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.21|0.0003
95905560|NCT01571362|191767677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.23|0.0078
95980000|NCT02469896|191932862|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||No statistical data was obtain because no patients died during the trial.|||
95980001|NCT02469896|191932863|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.099||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.902|2.099||Unadjusted|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.099|-1.902|0.922
95905561|NCT01571362|191767677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.62|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.62|-1.52|<0.0001
95905562|NCT01571362|191767678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.21|-0.95|0.0022
95980002|NCT02469896|191932864|SUPERIORITY||Difference of slopes|-0.008||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.761|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.745|-0.761|0.983
95980003|NCT02469896|191932866|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.15||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|2.337|||t-test, 2 sided|||PBMC IL-6 fold-change||2.337|0.566|0.684
95905563|NCT01571362|191767678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.37|-1.15|0.0002
95905564|NCT01571362|191767678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||-0.16|-1.06|0.0078
95980004|NCT02469896|191932866|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.344||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.331|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.331|0.663
95980005|NCT02469896|191932866|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric means|1.198||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.080|0.691|0.500
95980006|NCT02469896|191932867|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.047|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.217|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.217|0.010|<0.001
95980007|NCT02469896|191932867|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.306||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.059|0.828|0.247
95980008|NCT02469896|191932867|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|19.591|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.143|34.446|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||34.446|11.143|<0.001
95980009|NCT02469896|191932867|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.264||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.791|0.892|0.185
95980010|NCT02469896|191932867|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.396||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|3.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.206|0.608|0.427
95980011|NCT02469896|191932867|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.893||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.100|0.725|0.285
95980012|NCT02469896|191932868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.167||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.643|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.643|0.043|0.011
95980013|NCT02469896|191932868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|0.741||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|2.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.405|0.228|0.604
95980014|NCT02469896|191932868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|2.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.823|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.740|1.823|<0.001
95980015|NCT02469896|191932868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.431|0.813|0.587
95980016|NCT02469896|191932868|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.078||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.595|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.595|0.728|0.697
95980017|NCT02469896|191932869|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of fold change|1.785|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.121|1.502|<0.001
95980018|NCT02019420|191932871|NON_INFERIORITY|Difference in ITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid). Noninferiority is declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI \> -10.|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.7|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||4.7|-8.2|
95980019|NCT02019420|191932872|OTHER|Difference in mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|7.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||7.1|-10.3|
95980020|NCT02019420|191932873|OTHER|Difference in ITT clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-0.5|-14.7|
95980021|NCT02019420|191932874|OTHER|Difference in CE clinical success (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|2.1|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||2.1|-15.1|
95980022|NCT02019420|191932875|OTHER|Difference in MSSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|9.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||9.5|-12.5|
95980023|NCT02019420|191932876|OTHER|Difference in MRSA mITT all-cause mortality (linezolid - tedizolid)|Difference in all-cause mortality|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|18.9|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||18.9|-12.8|
95980024|NCT02019420|191932877|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
95980025|NCT02019420|191932878|OTHER|Difference in ME-1 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-4.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-4.5|-21.7|
95980026|NCT02019420|191932879|OTHER|Difference in mITT favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-3.5|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-3.5|-21.5|
95980027|NCT02019420|191932880|OTHER|Difference in ME-2 favorable response (tedizolid - linezolid)|Difference in clinical success|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-1.2|||||Difference and 95% CI were calculated with the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification.|||-1.2|-26.2|
95980028|NCT02510560|191932883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.115
95980029|NCT02510560|191932883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
95980030|NCT02510560|191932884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.714|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.714
95980031|NCT02510560|191932884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.243|||||||Stratified Van Elteren Test|||||||0.243
95980032|NCT01294150|191932886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Assuming unequal variances comparing mean improvement in the UL group to 125% of the mean improvement in the Control group. A p-value of 0.025 or less associated with UL is considered evidence of statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95905565|NCT01571362|191767678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.54|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.54|-1.35|<0.0001
95905566|NCT01571362|191767679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 2.||-0.04|-0.78|0.0285
95905567|NCT01571362|191767679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 4.||-0.11|-0.85|0.0106
95905568|NCT01571362|191767679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.4529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.27|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 8.||0.27|-0.60|0.4529
95905569|NCT01571362|191767679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.25|-1.06|0.0018
95905570|NCT01571362|191767680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.258||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.20|-1.22|0.0061
95905571|NCT01571362|191767680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.19|-1.28|0.0087
95905572|NCT01571362|191767680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.06|-1.18|0.0769
95905573|NCT01571362|191767680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.289||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|-0.53|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.53|-1.67|0.0002
95905574|NCT01571362|191767681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.06|-0.95|0.0250
95905575|NCT01571362|191767681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.43|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.43|-1.36|0.0002
95905576|NCT01571362|191767681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.29|0.0038
95905577|NCT01571362|191767681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.46|<0.0001
95905578|NCT01571362|191767682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.38|-1.22|0.0002
95905579|NCT01571362|191767682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.32|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.32|-1.25|0.0010
95905580|NCT01571362|191767682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.25|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.25|-1.32|0.0041
95905581|NCT01571362|191767682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
95905582|NCT01571362|191767683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.14|-1.06|0.0115
95905583|NCT01571362|191767683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.16|-1.17|0.0099
95905584|NCT01571362|191767683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.307||0.0222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.10|-1.31|0.0222
95905585|NCT01571362|191767683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.264||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.50|-1.54|0.0001
95905586|NCT01571362|191767684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.24|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||-0.24|-1.09|0.0025
95905587|NCT01571362|191767684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.31|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||-0.31|-1.23|0.0012
95905588|NCT01571362|191767684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.19|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||-0.19|-1.27|0.0078
95905589|NCT01571362|191767684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.56|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/Early Termination.||-0.56|-1.52|<0.0001
95905590|NCT01571362|191767685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.04|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 2.||0.04|-0.86|0.0727
95905591|NCT01571362|191767685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 4.||0.00|-0.94|0.0501
95905592|NCT01571362|191767685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.37|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 8.||0.37|-0.67|0.5704
95905593|NCT01571362|191767685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening to Week 12/ Early Termination.||-0.16|-1.12|0.0096
95905594|NCT01571362|191767686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-27.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.968||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.34|-6.16|||ANCOVA||Difference between treatment groups evaluated by ANCOVA with treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||-6.16|-49.34|0.0120
95905595|NCT01571362|191767687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.5||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.29|95.55|||ANCOVA||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the average daily rescue acetaminophen during the Titration Period and final total daily study medication dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|||95.55|-103.29|0.9390
95905596|NCT01571362|191767693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 20% loss of analgesic response||||0.0014
95905597|NCT01571362|191767693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 30% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0024
95905598|NCT01571362|191767693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 40% loss of analgesic response.||||0.0006
95905599|NCT01571362|191767693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0021|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors||Time to 50% loss of analgesic response||||0.0021
95905600|NCT01571362|191767695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Wilcoxon test, survival analysis|P-value from Wilcoxon test with treatment and opioid stratum as factors.||||||0.006
95905601|NCT01571362|191767705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to the End of Open-Label Titration Period.||||<0.0001
95905602|NCT01571362|191767706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline.||||<0.0001
95905603|NCT01571362|191767707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.584||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.1||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 2.||0.10|-2.20|0.0733
95905604|NCT01571362|191767707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.642||0.2783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.57||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 4.||0.57|-1.96|0.2783
95905605|NCT01571362|191767707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 8.||1.93|-0.77|0.3951
95980033|NCT03684642|191932900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.14|-0.20|
95980034|NCT03684642|191932900|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Efpeglenatide vs. Dulaglutide was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between groups was \<=0.3%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||||||A hierarchical step-down testing procedure was used to control type 1 error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with the treatment groups, randomization strata, and geographical region as fixed classification effects, and baseline HbA1c value as a continuous covariate.||0.09|-0.25|
95980035|NCT03684642|191932900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7064||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7064
95980036|NCT03684642|191932900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3427||||||Threshold for significance at the level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.3427
95980037|NCT01621542|191932919|OTHER|None specified||||||||||||||||The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|The MTD could not be established for this study as no DLTs occurred at doses up to and including 27.0 mg|||
95980038|NCT01368042|191932923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.9||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.03
95980039|NCT01368042|191932924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.2||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.05
95980040|NCT01368042|191932925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.4||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=231 (paired samples)|||||0.003
95980041|NCT01368042|191932926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.5|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
95980042|NCT01368042|191932927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
95980043|NCT01368042|191932928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.3|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
95980044|NCT01368042|191932929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|34.8|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
95980045|NCT01368042|191932930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.9||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.38
95980046|NCT01368042|191932931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||<0.001
95980047|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Physical functioning scale||||0.03
95980048|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to physical health scale||||0.02
95905606|NCT01571362|191767707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.9063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.28||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Screening to Week 12.||1.28|-1.14|0.9063
95905607|NCT01571362|191767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.463||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted change from Baseline to Week 2.||0.18|-1.65|0.1139
95905608|NCT01571362|191767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.577||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.44||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 4.||0.44|-1.84|0.2264
95905609|NCT01571362|191767708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.619||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.63||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Model-adjusted Change from Baseline to Week 8.||1.63|-0.81|0.5074
95905610|NCT01571362|191767709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
95905611|NCT01571362|191767710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Bowker's test of symmetry|||||||<0.0001
95980049|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Role functioning due to emotional problems scale||||0.01
95980050|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Energy/fatigue scale||||<0.001
95980051|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Emotional well-being scale||||0.002
95980052|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Social functioning scale||||0.002
95980053|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||Bodily pain scale||||<0.001
95980054|NCT01368042|191932932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||General health perceptions scale||||0.56
95980055|NCT01368042|191932933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.6||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.001
95980056|NCT01368042|191932934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.03
95980057|NCT01368042|191932935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=235 (paired samples)|||||0.06
95980058|NCT01368042|191932936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.7||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.84
95980059|NCT01368042|191932937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n=234 (paired samples)|||||0.67
95980060|NCT01368042|191932938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|324.8||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test-paired samples||n= 215 (paired samples)|||||0.02
95980061|NCT01368042|191932939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Generalized Estimating Equation approach|Generalized Estimating Equation approach (autoregressive structure)||||||0.12
95980062|NCT03739437|191932947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.384
95980063|NCT03622619|191932988|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95905612|NCT01571362|191767711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2211|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.2211
95905613|NCT01571362|191767712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5767|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.5767
95905614|NCT01571362|191767715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by opioid stratum.||||||0.0004
95905615|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Functioning.||||<0.0001
95905616|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Physical.||||<0.0001
95905617|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Bodily Pain.||||<0.0001
95905618|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for General Health.||||<0.0001
95905619|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Vitality.||||<0.0001
95905620|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Social Functioning.||||<0.0001
95980064|NCT03622619|191932989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95980065|NCT03622619|191932990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
95980066|NCT03622619|191932991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Burning/stinging||||||0.90
95980067|NCT03622619|191932991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Grittiness/foreign body sensation||||||0.30
95980068|NCT03622619|191932991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66||||||Dryness|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95980069|NCT03622619|191932991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Blurred vision|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95980070|NCT03622619|191932991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Overall discomfort|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95980071|NCT03610165|191932996|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.04|-0.03|0.757
95980072|NCT03610165|191932997|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||7|-12|0.715
95980073|NCT03610165|191932998|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-3.3|0.328
95905621|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Role-Emotional.||||<0.0001
95905622|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Health.||||<0.0001
95905623|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Physical Component Score.||||<0.0001
95905624|NCT01571362|191767716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label Titration Period for Mental Component Score.||||0.0026
95905625|NCT01571362|191767717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, Mental Health, Physical Component Score, and Mental Component Score||||<0.0001
95905626|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952||0.5181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Functioning.||2.49|-1.26|0.5181
95980074|NCT03610165|191932999|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.011|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.011|-0.001|0.376
95980075|NCT03610165|191933000|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.226
95980076|NCT03610165|191933001|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.00|-0.67|0.610
95980077|NCT03610165|191933002|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.302
95980078|NCT03610165|191933003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.67|-0.67|0.889
95980079|NCT03610165|191933004|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.403
95980080|NCT02113579|191933005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|24.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05) with estimated difference of \>= 20%, testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 4, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||<0.001
95980081|NCT02113579|191933006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.68|-9.87||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 4. Family-wise error was controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-9.87|-18.68|<0.001
95980082|NCT02113579|191933007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|13.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.844|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.83|17.08||Per statistical analysis plan, if experimental rinse was significantly better than placebo (p\<0.05), testing proceeded to Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Week 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Week 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||17.08|9.83|<0.001
95905627|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.998||0.9733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.93||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Physical.||1.93|-2.00|0.9733
95905628|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.18||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Bodily Pain.||4.18|0.57|0.0100
95905629|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.764||0.4712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.95||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for General Health Perceptions.||0.95|-2.06|0.4712
95905630|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.091||0.2898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.99||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Vitality.||0.99|-3.30|0.2898
95905631|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.044||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.54||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Social Functioning.||3.54|-0.57|0.1565
95905632|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.79||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Role-Emotional.||1.79|-3.52|0.5220
95905633|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.995||0.9865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Health.||1.98|-1.94|0.9865
95905634|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.885||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|2.77||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Physical Component Score.||2.77|-0.72|0.2491
95905635|NCT01571362|191767718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.5219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Randomization Baseline for Mental Component Score.||1.43|-2.80|0.5219
95905636|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.111||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|3.71||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Functioning.||3.71|-0.67|0.1731
95905637|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Physical.||3.32|-1.12|0.3290
95905638|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Bodily Pain.||4.45|0.33|0.0232
95905639|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.858||0.8139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.49||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for General Health Perceptions.||1.49|-1.89|0.8139
95905640|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.117||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|1.75||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Vitality.||1.75|-2.65|0.6878
95905641|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.12||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Social Functioning.||4.12|-0.13|0.0658
95905642|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.374||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|2.94||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Role-Emotional.||2.94|-2.48|0.8670
95905643|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.7259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|2.45||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Health.||2.45|-1.71|0.7259
95905644|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.007||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|3.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Physical Component Score.||3.65|-0.32|0.0989
95905645|NCT01571362|191767719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.142||0.9969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Difference between treatment groups in change from Screening for Mental Component Score.||2.25|-2.25|0.9969
95905646|NCT01571362|191767720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95905647|NCT01571362|191767721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95905648|NCT01571362|191767722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95905649|NCT01571362|191767723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95905650|NCT01571362|191767724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0168||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.065||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||0.065|-0.001|0.0605
95905651|NCT01571362|191767725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.999||0.7196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.66||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors; Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of study drug during the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||4.66|-3.22|0.7196
95905652|NCT01571362|191767726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0172||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.055||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.013|0.2280
95905653|NCT01571362|191767727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|6.3||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||6.30|-1.77|0.2701
95905654|NCT01571362|191767728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain.||||0.3822
95905655|NCT01571362|191767728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
95905656|NCT01571362|191767728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
95905657|NCT01571362|191767728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to End of Open-Label for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain.||||<0.0001
95905658|NCT01571362|191767729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Work Time Missed due to Low Back Pain||||0.0017
95905659|NCT01571362|191767729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Impairment while Working due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
95905660|NCT01571362|191767729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Overall Work Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
95905661|NCT01571362|191767729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Screening Period value to Randomization Baseline for % Activity Impairment due to Low Back Pain||||<0.0001
95905662|NCT01571362|191767730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|1.43||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.43|-10.06|0.1389
95905663|NCT01571362|191767730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|5.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.80|-11.56|0.5094
95905664|NCT01571362|191767730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.043||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|5.26||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.26|-10.81|0.4944
95905665|NCT01571362|191767731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.295||0.1201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|1.81||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||1.81|-15.33|0.1201
95905666|NCT01571362|191767731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.288||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|5.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.62|-15.60|0.3497
95905667|NCT01571362|191767731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.532||0.6008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|6.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||6.65|-11.41|0.6008
95905668|NCT01571362|191767732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.986||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|2.62||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||2.62|-17.29|0.1458
95905669|NCT01571362|191767732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.496||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.38|3.68||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.68|-22.38|0.1558
95905670|NCT01571362|191767732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.582||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.25|5.98||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.98|-16.25|0.3604
95905671|NCT01571362|191767733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.389||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|0.46||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.46|-8.95|0.0768
95905672|NCT01571362|191767733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684||0.7109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|6.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||6.29|-4.30|0.7109
95905673|NCT01571362|191767733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|0.85||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Randomization Baseline score and final total daily dose of the Titration Period as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.85|-9.14|0.1031
95905674|NCT01571362|191767734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.776||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|0.8||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.80|-10.26|0.0926
95905675|NCT01571362|191767734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.414||0.6437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.42|5.24||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||5.24|-8.42|0.6437
95905676|NCT01571362|191767734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.391||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|5.65||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||5.65|-7.84|0.7480
95905677|NCT01571362|191767735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.666||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|-3.07||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-3.07|-21.68|0.0098
95905678|NCT01571362|191767735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.336||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.63|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.25|-23.63|0.0186
95905679|NCT01571362|191767735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|0.32||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.32|-18.72|0.0581
95905680|NCT01571362|191767736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.168||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|-2.25||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.25|-22.87|0.0177
95905681|NCT01571362|191767736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.998||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|-2.14||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-2.14|-26.19|0.0219
95905682|NCT01571362|191767736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.589||0.0679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.47|0.78||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||0.78|-21.47|0.0679
95905683|NCT01571362|191767737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.654||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.72|-2.27||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-2.27|-12.72|0.0052
95905684|NCT01571362|191767737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.999||0.1249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|1.29||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||1.29|-10.54|0.1249
95905685|NCT01571362|191767737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.818||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.64||Treatment and prior pain analgesic (opioid or non-opioid) as categorical factors and the Screening score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||Week 12/ET||-2.64|-13.74|0.0040
95905686|NCT04386096|191767775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95905687|NCT04386096|191767777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.30
95905688|NCT04386096|191767777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Pre-Intention Factors||||0.71
95905689|NCT04386096|191767778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.29
95905690|NCT04386096|191767778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent Intention to take/give ADHD medicine regularly||||0.19
95905691|NCT04386096|191767779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95905692|NCT04386096|191767780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95905693|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Seek||||0.10
95905694|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Child Express||||0.51
95905695|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Seek||||0.84
95905696|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Parent Express||||0.93
95905697|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Adolescent: Joint/Options||||0.43
95905698|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Seek||||0.94
95905699|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Child Express||||0.79
95905700|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Seek||||0.61
95980083|NCT02113579|191933008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.809|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-4.11||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-4.11|-11.23|<0.001
95980084|NCT02113579|191933009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.975|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|6.62||Per statistical analysis plan, Hochberg's method at significance level 0.05 was applied to jointly evaluate secondary outcomes Mean Cold Air Stimulus VAS Score at Wk 2 and Mean Tactile Sensitivity Score at Wk 2. Family-wise error controlled at 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||6.62|2.78|<0.001
95980085|NCT02113579|191933010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Success rate difference (%)|15.44||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Study center and mean baseline cold air stimulus VAS score as covariate. For subjects with no score at Week 2, non-response was imputed.|Estimated by calculating the model predicted success probabilities assuming all subjects received 12027-033 and then assuming all subjects received placebo, and then calculating mean of subjects' differences between these predicted probabilities.|The null hypothesis was no difference in success rates between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in success rates between treatment groups.||||0.002
95905701|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Parent Express||||0.10
95905702|NCT04386096|191767782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Parent: Joint/Options||||0.98
95905703|NCT04402866|191767844|OTHER||Common Odds Ratio|1.142||||0.6137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.846|||Van Elteren test||Common Odds Ratio (TD-0903 vs. placebo) and corresponding 95% Wald confidence interval (CI) were obtained from the proportional odds regression model of RFD adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.||1.846|0.706|0.6137
95905704|NCT04402866|191767845|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|LS mean difference|-0.51||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.95|20.92|||Mixed model repeated measures model|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||20.92|-21.95|0.962
95905705|NCT04402866|191767846|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.5918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.922|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 7||1.922|0.692|0.5918
95905706|NCT04402866|191767846|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.105||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.878|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 14|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|1.878|0.651|0.6978
95905707|NCT04402866|191767846|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|2.388|||Van Elteren test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 21|Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|2.388|0.702|0.3990
95905708|NCT04402866|191767846|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|2.299|||Van Elteren test||Between-group comparisons analyzed using a proportional odds model adjusting for baseline age strata (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years).|Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group on Day 28||2.299|0.605|0.6445
95905709|NCT04402866|191767847|OTHER|Since this was a Phase 2 study, it was not powered for any of the secondary endpoints.|Risk Difference (RD)|5.06||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.63||The p-value was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by baseline age group (≤ 60 years vs. \> 60 years)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||Part 2: TD-0903 - Parallel-Group 3 mg versus Part 2: Matching Placebo - Parallel-Group||14.63|-4.50|0.3005
95905710|NCT03579459|191767868|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|Geometric Mean ratio (GMR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||Confidence intervals (CIs) were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
95905711|NCT03579459|191767868|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.18|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.18|0.86|
95905712|NCT03579459|191767868|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.17|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin A||1.17|0.85|
95905713|NCT03579459|191767868|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.87|
95905714|NCT03579459|191767868|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.31|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.31|0.88|
95905715|NCT03579459|191767868|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 95% confidence interval of GMC ratio was within the interval (0.5, 2).|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23|||||CIs were back transformations of confidence levels based on the Student t distribution for the mean logarithm of the concentrations|Toxin B||1.23|0.83|
95905716|NCT04420221|191768065|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-74.76||||0.8042||92.5|-680.61|36.62|||Log Rank|One-sided Group Sequential Design with non-binding beta, yielding two CIs based on cumulative alpha (92.5%) and beta (80.5%) spending|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||36.62|-680.61|0.8042
95905717|NCT04420221|191768066|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-38.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-245.77|40.86|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||40.86|-245.77|
95905718|NCT04420221|191768067|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy (VE)|-75.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.41|17.46|||||Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is defined as 1 minus the hazard ratio times 100.|||17.46|-295.41|
95905719|NCT01040130|191768071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0002||95.0|1.065|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 5 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.221|1.065|0.0002
95905720|NCT01040130|191768071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio to placebo|1.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0003||95.0|1.062|1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline endurance time and period as fixed and patient as random effect. Means, CI back-transformed.|Olo 10 mcg divided by Placebo|||1.219|1.062|0.0003
95905721|NCT01040130|191768072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.112|<0.0001
95905722|NCT01040130|191768072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.104|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.245|0.104|<0.0001
95905723|NCT01040130|191768073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.0007||95.0|-1.205|-0.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.326|-1.205|0.0007
95905724|NCT01040130|191768073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0051||95.0|-1.077|-0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.192|-1.077|0.0051
95905725|NCT01040130|191768074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.325|0.191|<0.0001
95905726|NCT01040130|191768074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.294|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.226|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.362|0.226|<0.0001
95905727|NCT01040130|191768075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.107|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.252|0.107|<0.0001
95905728|NCT01040130|191768075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0003||95.0|0.064|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.210|0.064|0.0003
95905729|NCT01040130|191768076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.0447||95.0|-0.204|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.002|-0.204|0.0447
95905730|NCT01040130|191768076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.2132||95.0|-0.166|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.037|-0.166|0.2132
95905731|NCT01040130|191768077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.5698||95.0|-0.391|0.216|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.216|-0.391|0.5698
95905732|NCT01040130|191768077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1003||95.0|-0.05|0.561|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.561|-0.050|0.1003
95905733|NCT01040130|191768078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0784||95.0|-0.258|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.014|-0.258|0.0784
95905734|NCT01040130|191768078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1013||95.0|-0.252|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.023|-0.252|0.1013
95905735|NCT01040130|191768079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0015||95.0|-0.339|-0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.081|-0.339|0.0015
95905736|NCT01040130|191768079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.503|-0.243|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.243|-0.503|<0.0001
95905737|NCT01040130|191768080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0005||95.0|0.052|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.185|0.052|0.0005
95905738|NCT01040130|191768080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0073||95.0|0.025|0.159|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.159|0.025|0.0073
95905739|NCT01040130|191768081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.275|0.136|<0.0001
95905740|NCT01040130|191768081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.285|0.146|<0.0001
95905741|NCT01040130|191768082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.9239||95.0|-0.115|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.127|-0.115|0.9239
95905742|NCT01040130|191768082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.7368||95.0|-0.144|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.102|-0.144|0.7368
95905743|NCT01040130|191768083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.8302||95.0|-0.146|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.146|0.8302
95905744|NCT01040130|191768083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0202||95.0|-0.292|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.292|0.0202
95905745|NCT01040130|191768084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.056|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.123|0.056|<0.0001
95980086|NCT02113579|191933011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|-3.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-3.43|-9.92|<0.001
95980087|NCT02113579|191933012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.75||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-7.75|-15.30|<0.001
95905746|NCT01040130|191768084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.068|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.134|0.068|<0.0001
95905747|NCT01040130|191768085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.258|0.191|<0.0001
95905748|NCT01040130|191768085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.193|0.259|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.259|0.193|<0.0001
95905749|NCT01040130|191768086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0006||95.0|0.046|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.167|0.046|0.0006
95905750|NCT01040130|191768086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0017||95.0|0.037|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.158|0.037|0.0017
95905751|NCT01040130|191768087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.227|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.342|0.227|<0.0001
95905752|NCT01040130|191768087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.233|0.348|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.348|0.233|<0.0001
95905753|NCT01040130|191768088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.207|0.429|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.429|0.207|<0.0001
95905754|NCT01040130|191768088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001||95.0|0.192|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.414|0.192|<0.0001
95905755|NCT01040130|191768089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001||95.0|0.47|0.701|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg minus Placebo|||0.701|0.470|<0.0001
95905756|NCT01040130|191768089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.618|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001||95.0|0.502|0.734|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects repeated measures with treatment, baseline and period as fixed and patient as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg minus Placebo|||0.734|0.502|<0.0001
95905757|NCT01827904|191768138|SUPERIORITY|Percent change from Baseline at the 3 Month visit in the Exablate test vs. Sham control arms was tested using the t-test.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|alpha = 0.05 for the hypothesis test. H0: M3ExAblate ≤ M3Sham H1: M3ExAblate \> M3Sham||"Note that the Crossover group was a rescue treatment group and not integral to the experimental design statistical analysis."||||<0.001
95905758|NCT01292603|191768182|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A standard non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the ratio of Ctrough was used. The non-inferiority limit corresponds to a maximal 20 percent (%) loss in Ctrough which is considered acceptable given the high variability and range of Ctrough data, with an 80% power and a one-sided alpha of 0.05.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.269|1.852|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.852|1.269|
95905759|NCT01292603|191768183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.242|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.242|0.979|
95905760|NCT01292603|191768184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.719|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.792|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||0.792|0.653|
95905761|NCT01292603|191768185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|14.884|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.215|19.755|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||19.755|11.215|
95905762|NCT01292603|191768186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.895|1.139|||||Ratio based on geometric scale and adjusted for the covariate tumor load at baseline.|||1.139|0.895|
95905763|NCT01760239|191768196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95905764|NCT01760239|191768197|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.046
95905765|NCT01760239|191768198|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95905766|NCT00778648|191768199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.023
95905767|NCT02008890|191768231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.53|0.50|0.5722
95905768|NCT02008890|191768231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.6|||Regression, Logistic|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||6.60|1.04|0.0411
95905769|NCT02008890|191768232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.9431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|3.47|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||3.47|-4.59|0.9431
95905770|NCT02008890|191768232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.13||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|0.88|||Regression, Linear|with factors treatment, country, body weight at baseline visit (\> 90 kg or \>= 90kg) and presence of plaque-type psoriasis||||0.88|-7.14|0.1576
95905771|NCT02349295|191768314|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|8.48||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi).|Regression, Logistic|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.||||8.48|2.65|<0.001
95905772|NCT02349295|191768314|OTHER|1\) uses a Wald's test , 2) Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used to calculate the response rates.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.78|||Regression, Logistic|||model includes: treatment, geographic region, and TNFi experience (inadequate responder to 1 TNFi, inadequate responder to 2 TNFi, or intolerance to a TNFi)||6.78|2.12|<0.001
95905773|NCT01259713|191768340|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the interim analysis performed when 50% of the subjects had completed the study, an alpha of 0.0003 was spent. Therefore, the significance level for the 2-sided test in the primary analysis at the end of the study was 0.0497 (corresponding to 95.03% confidence interval (CI)).|Relative risk reduction|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.03|-0.32|0.66||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|A two-group Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level and 2:1 allocation of 354 randomized subjects (236 AmBisome, 118 placebo) would have 81% power to detect a relative reduction of 75% if the rate of IFI is 10% in the placebo group (based on unpublished data from the German Multicenter Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Working Group (GMALL) and consistent with the published rate of 16.4% in patients with hematological malignancies undergoing remission induction).||0.66|-0.32|0.24
95905774|NCT01259713|191768341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.5||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.50|-0.11|0.15
95905775|NCT01259713|191768342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|-0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.47|-0.94|0.97
95905776|NCT01259713|191768343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|||||||0.33
95905777|NCT01259713|191768344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.25||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.53||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|||0.53|-0.19|0.22
95905778|NCT01259713|191768345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
95905779|NCT01259713|191768346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.32
95905780|NCT01259713|191768347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was from the log-rank test stratified by region.|Log Rank|Participants without consolidation/salvage therapy dates were censored using the earlier of the Early Termination and Study Completion dates.||||||0.69
95905781|NCT01259713|191768348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction|0.08||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.19||P-value was from a stratum-adjusted (stratified by region) CMH test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk reduction = 1 - risk ratio.|Participants were not stratified for leukemia risk.||0.19|-0.04|0.20
95905782|NCT02388724|191768354|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence intervals of the difference was more than -10% (non-inferiority margin), non-inferiority for Vonoprazan relative to Lansoprazole was declared.|Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.822|6.087||||||||6.087|-3.822|
95905783|NCT02388724|191768355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|15.371||||||2 Weeks||15.371|-1.054|
95905784|NCT02388724|191768355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.763|8.395||||||4 Weeks||8.395|-4.763|
95905785|NCT00765843|191768434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||baseline comparisons||||0.78
95905786|NCT00765843|191768434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|||one month comparisons||||0.21
95905787|NCT00765843|191768434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||three months comparisons||||0.93
95905788|NCT01592435|191768637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95905789|NCT01592435|191768638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||||||level of significance (alpha) = 0.05 All p-values were calculated (and verified) by our statistician and are correct. They were rounded to fit four digits.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.00
95905790|NCT01981564|191768647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||ANOVA F=3.55, df=1, p=0.06||||0.06
95905791|NCT02395042|191768664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.15||||0.142|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.142
95905792|NCT02395042|191768664|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.92||||0.319|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.319
95905793|NCT02395042|191768665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.46||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.024
95905794|NCT02395042|191768665|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.02||||0.137|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and stratification (baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 5 or \> 5) as factors.||||||0.137
95905795|NCT04642638|191768736|OTHER||Difference in median|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.7|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% confidence interval (CI).|||6.70|0.00|
95905796|NCT04642638|191768736|OTHER||Difference in median|13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|17.8|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||17.80|3.30|
95905797|NCT04642638|191768736|OTHER||Difference in median|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|0.0|||||Post-baseline change from baseline in IFN-gamma ELISpot response magnitudes was compared between groups using differences in medians and associated non-parametric 95% CI.|||0.00|-10.00|
95905798|NCT04642638|191768737|OTHER||Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.632|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||3.632|1.720|
95905799|NCT04642638|191768737|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.638|5.7|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons.|||5.700|2.638|
95905800|NCT04642638|191768737|OTHER||GMFR Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.893|||||95% CI of GMFR ratio is based on t-distribution, where GMFR ratio is based on the between-treatment-group comparisons|||0.893|0.512|
95905801|NCT00511004|191768752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.2|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.2
95905802|NCT00511004|191768753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95905803|NCT03394924|191768836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.6||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52|0.6|0.106
95905804|NCT03394924|191768836|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|65.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||65.22|0.75|0.063
95905805|NCT03394924|191768840|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.47||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.32|-1.39|0.616
95905806|NCT03394924|191768840|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|2.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total bilirubin.||2.16|-1.78|0.844
95905807|NCT03394924|191768840|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.32|-1.67|0.18
95905808|NCT03394924|191768840|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for conjugated bilirubin.||0.44|-1.71|0.239
95905809|NCT03394924|191768840|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.21||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.73|-0.31|0.116
95905810|NCT03394924|191768840|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.72||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for unconjugated bilirubin.||2.28|-0.84|0.36
95905811|NCT03394924|191768841|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-25.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.07|-11.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-11.04|-40.07|0.001
95905812|NCT03394924|191768841|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.35||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.1|-5.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for ALT.||-5.6|-37.1|0.009
95905813|NCT03394924|191768841|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-10.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-10.35|-32.48|0.000
95905814|NCT03394924|191768841|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-8.87|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for AST.||-8.87|-32.8|0.001
95905815|NCT03394924|191768841|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-86.49||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.78|-49.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-49.21|-123.78|0.000
95980088|NCT02113579|191933013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.422||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-0.45||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups.||-0.45|-6.04|0.023
95905816|NCT03394924|191768841|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-115.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.04|-75.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for GGT.||-75.22|-155.04|0.000
95905817|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.66||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|9.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||9.79|-63.1|0.148
95905818|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-28.99||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.02|10.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HA.||10.05|-68.02|0.142
95905819|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.09||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.51|-5.68|0.02
95905820|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.79||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PIIINP.||-0.97|-6.6|0.009
95905821|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-41.96||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.47|-8.44|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-8.44|-75.47|0.015
95980089|NCT02113579|191933014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-3.93||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided), with no multiple comparisons adjustment.|Repeated Measures Model|Analysis included Weeks 2 and 4 data. Terms included treatment, visit, study center, baseline value, treatment-by-visit and baseline-by-visit.|For subjects without post-baseline data, the baseline value was carried forward to Week 2. An unstructured covariance pattern was assumed.|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean outcome between treatment groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean outcome between treatment groups||-3.93|-11.29|<0.001
95980090|NCT02592551|191933026|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare in ratios of intratumoral cytotoxic T cells to regulatory T cells (CD8/Treg) between pre and post of MEDI4736+Tremelimumab||||0.109
95980091|NCT02592551|191933027|OTHER|Compare the tissue biomarker for the immune response of ICOS+ CD4 T cells to before and after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||||1
95980092|NCT02592551|191933028|OTHER|||||||0.461|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) before and after treatment with combination MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab||||0.461
95980093|NCT02592551|191933029|OTHER|||||||0.954|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg (ratio of CD8/treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and after MEDI4736 alone||||0.954
95980094|NCT02592551|191933030|OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tissue biomarker immune response of CD8 and Treg(ratio of CD8/Treg) after MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab, and at day 1 of untread control group||||0.799
95980095|NCT02592551|191933033|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and after MEDI-4736 alone||||0.418
95980096|NCT02592551|191933034|OTHER|||||||0.932|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Compare tumor expression programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) after combination therapy (MEDI-4736 and Tremelimumab) and before and at day 1 of untreated||||0.932
95980097|NCT00698451|191933060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|72.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.4|83.5|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||||83.5|58.4|0.05
95980098|NCT00056862|191933121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: first phase decline in HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.002
95905822|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-46.56||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.91|-11.21|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TIMP 1.||-11.21|-81.91|0.011
95905823|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-9.73||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-1.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||-1.75|-17.7|0.018
95905824|NCT03394924|191768842|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.73||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|1.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for PRO C3.||1.95|-15.41|0.125
95905825|NCT03394924|191768843|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.37||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||||-0.18|-0.56|0.000
95905826|NCT03394924|191768843|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||||-0.13|-0.54|0.002
95905827|NCT03394924|191768844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||||-0.04|-0.65|0.026
95905828|NCT03394924|191768844|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.05|-0.57|0.104
95905829|NCT03394924|191768845|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.81||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.17|50.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||50.78|-37.17|0.757
95905830|NCT03394924|191768845|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|31.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|77.97|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fibrinogen.||77.97|-14.42|0.174
95905831|NCT03394924|191768845|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.98||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||1.23|-3.18|0.378
95905832|NCT03394924|191768845|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-3.1||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for CRP.||-0.83|-5.38|0.008
95905833|NCT03394924|191768846|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.34||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||3.76|-3.07|0.841
95905834|NCT03394924|191768846|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.49||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for IL6.||1.04|-6.01|0.163
95905835|NCT03394924|191768846|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||-0.05|-1.02|0.03
95905836|NCT03394924|191768846|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TNF α.||0.09|-0.9|0.11
95905837|NCT03394924|191768847|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.27|-0.25|0.944
95905838|NCT03394924|191768847|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.03||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for haptoglobin.||0.24|-0.3|0.83
95905839|NCT03394924|191768847|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.1|-0.19|0.546
95980099|NCT00056862|191933123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the second phase slopes of HCV RNA are the same for the two groups||||0.2
95905840|NCT03394924|191768847|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.02||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for alpha2 macroglobulin.||0.13|-0.18|0.785
95905841|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.08|-0.43|0.176
95905842|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TG.||0.23|-0.3|0.783
95905843|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.64||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.03|-1.31|0.061
95905844|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.63||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for TC.||0.08|-1.34|0.08
95905845|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.08||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.37|-0.21|0.584
95905846|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.22||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for HDL-C.||0.08|-0.51|0.148
95905847|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.5||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.05|-1.04|0.074
95905848|NCT03394924|191768848|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for LDL-C.||0.28|-0.87|0.304
95905849|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.82|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||0.82|-0.32|0.378
95980100|NCT00056862|191933124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: the time to negativity for the two groups are same||||0.047
95905850|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for duration.||1.23|0.07|0.03
95905851|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.53||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.03|0.04|0.036
95980101|NCT04178967|191933156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
95980102|NCT04178967|191933157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.4|42.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.2|24.4|<0.000001
95980103|NCT04178967|191933158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7||||0.308463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.7|-0.3|0.308463
95905852|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.18||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for degree.||1.69|0.67|0.000
95905853|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||0.96|-0.92|0.971
95905854|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.01||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for direction.||1.99|0.04|0.042
95905855|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||1.14|-0.4|0.336
95905856|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.46||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for disability.||2.26|0.67|0.000
95905857|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.48||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.25|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||1.25|-0.29|0.214
95905858|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for distribution.||2.02|0.44|0.003
95905859|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.21||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|4.9|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||4.9|-0.47|0.103
95905860|NCT03394924|191768849|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.35||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.57|9.13|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for total.||9.13|3.57|0.000
95905861|NCT03394924|191768850|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|12.48||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|30.06|||ANCOVA|||||30.06|-5.09|0.16
95905862|NCT03394924|191768850|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|25.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.67|43.48|||ANCOVA|||||43.48|7.67|0.006
95905863|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.15||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|2.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||2.43|-2.72|0.908
95905864|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for symptoms.||1.27|-4.09|0.298
95905865|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.91||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.76|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||3.76|0.07|0.042
95905866|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.47||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|5.38|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for itch.||5.38|1.55|0.001
95905867|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.04|-4.96|0.839
95905868|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.32||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.36|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for fatigue.||4.36|-5.00|0.891
95905869|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.26||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|2.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||2.77|-2.25|0.834
95905870|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for cognition.||3.92|-1.33|0.327
95905871|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.12||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||1.62|-5.86|0.262
95905872|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.78||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|3.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for social.||3.12|-4.68|0.69
95905873|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.62||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||0.95|-2.19|0.433
95905874|NCT03394924|191768851|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for emotional.||2.03|-1.28|0.653
95905875|NCT03394924|191768855|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.34||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.51|74.18|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||74.18|-71.51|0.971
95905876|NCT03394924|191768855|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.54||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.86|79.95|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19.||79.95|-68.86|0.882
95905877|NCT03394924|191768855|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-51.66||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.27|35.96|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||35.96|-139.27|0.242
95905878|NCT03394924|191768855|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-94.3||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.85|-3.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4.||-3.75|-184.85|0.042
95905879|NCT03394924|191768855|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-24.57||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.03|51.89|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||51.89|-101.03|0.52
95905880|NCT03394924|191768855|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.96||||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.07|67.16|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA.||67.16|-103.07|0.672
95905881|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|44.54||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.97|295.06|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||295.06|-205.97|0.611
95905882|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-29.98||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-411.28|351.31|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC0-8.||351.31|-411.28|0.819
95905883|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|24.41||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-251.92|300.74|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||300.74|-251.92|0.818
95905884|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-10.53||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-435.33|414.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for FGF19 AUC2-8.||414.27|-435.33|0.948
95905885|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-91.7||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-475.92|292.51|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||292.51|-475.92|0.412
95905886|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-250.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-605.33|104.98|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC0-8.||104.98|-605.33|0.094
95905887|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-83.7||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-279.15|111.75|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||111.75|-279.15|0.266
95905888|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-238.19||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-470.22|-6.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for C4 AUC2-8.||-6.15|-470.22|0.047
95905889|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|28.41||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-180.2|237.02|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||237.02|-180.2|0.694
95905890|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-39.5||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.32|185.32|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC0-8.||185.32|-264.32|0.615
95905891|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.93||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.6|235.46|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||235.46|-229.6|0.974
95905892|NCT03394924|191768856|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-26.05||||0.793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.24|231.15|||ANCOVA|||Analysis for BA AUC2-8.||231.15|-283.24|0.793
95905893|NCT00364858|191768876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Agresti and Min|-0.176||||||95.0|-0.357|0.058||||||Difference in proportion of Clinical Success = (Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q4 - Proportion of participants with Clinical Success Q2).||0.058|-0.357|
95905894|NCT02005471|191768881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified analysis: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.18|<.0001
95905895|NCT02005471|191768881|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
95905896|NCT02005471|191768883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.28|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.28|0.13|<.0001
95905897|NCT02005471|191768883|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.3|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.30|0.14|<.0001
95980104|NCT04178967|191933159|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.1||||0.001607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|12.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.0|4.1|0.001607
95980105|NCT04178967|191933160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.9||||4e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|29.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.6|14.2|0.000004
95980106|NCT04178967|191933161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|13.3|0.000008
95905898|NCT02005471|191768885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.57|0.21|<.0001
95905899|NCT02005471|191768885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.56|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.56|0.22|<.0001
95905900|NCT02005471|191768887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.49|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factor: geographic region.||0.49|0.09|<.0001
95905901|NCT02005471|191768887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.46|0.09|<.0001
95905902|NCT02005471|191768888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
95905903|NCT02005471|191768888|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
95905904|NCT02005471|191768889|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.88|33.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for rates were constructed using Pearson- Clopper method. 95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.33|17.88|<.0001
95905905|NCT02005471|191768889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.97|15.37|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||15.37|3.97|
95905906|NCT02005471|191768890|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|25.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.63|33.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.51|16.63|<.0001
95905907|NCT02005471|191768890|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.88|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.88|2.68|
95905908|NCT02005471|191768891|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|24.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|33.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||33.10|16.00|<.0001
95905909|NCT02005471|191768891|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|7.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||7.85|2.68|
95905910|NCT02005471|191768893|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|||0.74|0.37|0.0002
95905911|NCT02005471|191768893|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.76|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.76|0.39|0.0003
95905912|NCT02005471|191768895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.29|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.29|0.17|<.0001
95905913|NCT02005471|191768895|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.31|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.31|0.19|<.0001
95905914|NCT02005471|191768899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.39|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: 17p deletion, risk status, geographic region.||0.39|0.23|<.0001
95905915|NCT02005471|191768899|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox regression model.|Unstratified Analysis||0.41|0.25|<.0001
95905916|NCT02005471|191768900|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negativity Rates|49.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.44|57.64|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||57.64|40.44|<.0001
95905917|NCT02005471|191768900|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|17.85|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||17.85|6.50|
95905918|NCT02005471|191768901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD negative rates|13.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.99|18.82|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI was computed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||18.82|7.99|<.0001
95905919|NCT02005471|191768901|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|69.35|||||OR was estimated using logistic regression model. The 95% CI was computed using Wald test.|||69.35|3.82|
95905920|NCT01308580|191768943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 1.214|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|98.89||1.184|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 relative to 25 mg/m\^2 dose group was considered non-inferior if the upper bound of 1-sided 98.89% confidence interval of hazard ratio (20 mg/m\^2 versus 25 mg/m\^2) was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.214.||1.184||
95980107|NCT04178967|191933162|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.53|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.9|-20.2|||ANCOVA|||||-20.2|-34.9|<0.000001
95980108|NCT04178967|191933163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|36.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.5|20.0|<0.000001
95980109|NCT04178967|191933164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.4|21.0|<0.000001
95980110|NCT04178967|191933165|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.57|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-26.0|||ANCOVA|||||-26.0|-41.2|<0.000001
95980111|NCT04178967|191933166|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-20.3|<0.000001
95980112|NCT04178967|191933167|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.022921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.4|1.4|0.022921
95980113|NCT04178967|191933168|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-3.5|||ANCOVA|||||-3.5|-6.3|<0.000001
95905921|NCT01308580|191768943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.922||||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|The hazard ratio for OS was estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization. Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2 was considered to be superior to 20 mg/m\^2 dose if the lower bound of 1-sided 95% confidence interval of hazard ratio was greater than 1.|||0.922|
95905922|NCT01308580|191768944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.099|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.24|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.24|0.974|
95980114|NCT04178967|191933169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.9||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.6|22.2|0.000001
95905923|NCT01308580|191768945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.331|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.331|0.902|
95905924|NCT01308580|191768947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.025|1.393|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio was estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.393|1.025|
95980115|NCT04178967|191933170|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.0||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|43.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||43.8|22.2|0.000001
95980116|NCT04178967|191933171|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.09|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.4|-26.8|||ANCOVA|||||-26.8|-47.4|<0.000001
95980117|NCT04178967|191933172|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-0.9|<0.000001
95980118|NCT04178967|191933173|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.000571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.1|9.6|0.000571
95980119|NCT04178967|191933174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.469221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.2|-0.4|0.469221
95980120|NCT04178967|191933175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.113194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|-0.1|0.113194
95980121|NCT04178967|191933176|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.2||||0.00023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|18.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.7|7.7|0.000230
95980122|NCT04178967|191933177|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.46816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.3|-0.4|0.468160
95980123|NCT04178967|191933178|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.11577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.8|-0.1|0.115770
95980124|NCT04178967|191933179|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.000252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|8.2|0.000252
95980125|NCT04178967|191933180|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.76|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.93|-24.59|||ANCOVA|||||-24.59|-36.93|<0.000001
95980126|NCT04178967|191933182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.238245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|35.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.1|-9.5|0.238245
95980127|NCT04178967|191933182|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.8||||0.612427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.3|-17.8|0.612427
95980128|NCT04178967|191933183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.6||||0.033876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|62.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.5|2.6|0.033876
95980129|NCT04178967|191933183|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||0.407417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|44.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||44.3|-17.5|0.407417
95980130|NCT04178967|191933184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.159281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|52.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||52.0|-11.4|0.159281
95980131|NCT04178967|191933184|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.4||||0.16495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|51.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.4|-10.6|0.164950
95980132|NCT04178967|191933185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.179704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|51.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||51.2|-12.2|0.179704
95980133|NCT04178967|191933185|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.3||||0.08308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|55.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.1|-6.5|0.083080
95980134|NCT04178967|191933186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.29||||0.176748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.46|2.87|||ANCOVA|||||2.87|-15.46|0.176748
95980135|NCT04178967|191933186|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.183151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.48|2.99|||ANCOVA|||||2.99|-15.48|0.183151
95980136|NCT04178967|191933187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|||UK||0.1|0.1|0.000001
95980137|NCT04178967|191933187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|||US||0.1|0.0|0.000001
95980138|NCT04178967|191933188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.005304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|1.3|0.005304
95980139|NCT04178967|191933189|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.7|<0.000001
95980140|NCT04178967|191933190|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.241275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.85|2.03|||ANCOVA|||||2.03|-7.85|0.241275
95980141|NCT04178967|191933191|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.000116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|-1.36|||ANCOVA|||||-1.36|-4.12|0.000116
95980142|NCT04178967|191933192|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.645132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|3.67|||ANCOVA|||||3.67|-5.86|0.645132
95980143|NCT04178967|191933193|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75||||3.1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.47|||ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-4.03|0.000031
95905925|NCT01308580|191768949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.251|||||Cabazitaxel 20 mg/m\^2 vs Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m\^2|Hazard ratio is estimated using a Cox Proportional Hazards regression model. The Cox proportional hazard model was adjusted by measurability of the disease at baseline, ECOG PS score at baseline, and region at the time of randomization.||1.251|0.874|
95905926|NCT02010060|191768971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.074
95905927|NCT02010060|191768971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in waist circumference between AERO and CON||||0.684
95905928|NCT02010060|191768971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison between the AERO group and the AERO-PA group||||0.180
95905929|NCT02010060|191768972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO-PA group and the CON group||||0.011
95905930|NCT02010060|191768972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.16
95905931|NCT02010060|191768972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body fat between the AERO and AERO-PA group||||0.258
95905932|NCT02010060|191768973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||ANCOVA|||Comparison of body weight between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.104
95905933|NCT02010060|191768973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the CON and AERO groups||||0.578
95905934|NCT02010060|191768973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in body weight between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.300
95905935|NCT02010060|191768974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.002
95905936|NCT02010060|191768974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) AERO and CON groups||||0.314
95905937|NCT02010060|191768974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in cardiorespiratory fitness (L/min) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.041
95905938|NCT02010060|191768975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.891
95905939|NCT02010060|191768975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.417|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the CON and AERO groups||||0.417
95905940|NCT02010060|191768975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin sensitivity between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.484
95905941|NCT02010060|191768976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.274
95905942|NCT02010060|191768976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.461
95905943|NCT02010060|191768976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in Low density lipoprotein (LDL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.739
95905944|NCT02010060|191768977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.837|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.837
95905945|NCT02010060|191768977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.895|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.895
95905946|NCT02010060|191768977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.744|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.744
95905947|NCT02010060|191768978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL)||||0.067
95905948|NCT02010060|191768978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between the CON and AERO groups||||0.254
95905949|NCT02010060|191768978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in total cholesterol (mg/dL) between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.501
95905950|NCT02010060|191768979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO-PA and CON groups||||0.456
95905951|NCT02010060|191768979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the CON and AERO groups||||0.422
95905952|NCT02010060|191768979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in triglyceride level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.136
95905953|NCT02010060|191768980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.483
95905954|NCT02010060|191768980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose between the CON and AERO groups||||0.274
95905955|NCT02010060|191768980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in glucose level between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.685
95905956|NCT02010060|191768981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between CON and AERO-PA groups||||0.489
95905957|NCT02010060|191768981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.652|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the CON and AERO groups||||0.652
95905958|NCT02010060|191768981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in systemic inflammation between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.822
95905959|NCT02010060|191768982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON group and the AERO-PA group||||<0.001
95905960|NCT02010060|191768982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the CON and the AERO group||||0.648
95905961|NCT02010060|191768982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes in steps between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||<0.001
95905962|NCT02010060|191768983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in kilocalories (dietary intake) between CON and AERO-PA group||||0.226
95905963|NCT02010060|191768983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake between the CON and the AERO groups||||0.215
95905964|NCT02010060|191768983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.957|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in caloric intake (kilocalories) between the AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.957
95905965|NCT02010060|191768984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between the CON and AERO-PA group||||0.337
95905966|NCT02010060|191768984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin level between the AERO and CON groups||||0.770
95905967|NCT02010060|191768984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515|||||||ANCOVA|||Change in insulin concentration between AERO and AERO-PA groups||||0.515
95905968|NCT00844857|191768989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis (MMRM) terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment \* visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.~A conservative estimate of effect size of 0.4 was used in the sample size estimation for this study. A randomized ratio of 2:1 provided a 90% power with an effect size of 0.4."||||0.003
95905969|NCT00844857|191768990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.035
95905970|NCT00844857|191768991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.003
95905971|NCT00844857|191768992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. Ordinal Logistic Regression Model terms include baseline CDRS-R, baseline YMRS, and treatment.|Ordinal Logistic Regression|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.007
95905972|NCT00844857|191768993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.527
95905973|NCT00844857|191768994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. MMRM terms included baseline, country, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.030
95905974|NCT00844857|191768995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) Model terms included baseline, country, and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.002
95905975|NCT00844857|191768996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
95905976|NCT00844857|191768997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
95905977|NCT00844857|191768997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667||||||P-value for Suicidal Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.667
95905978|NCT00844857|191768997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.309||||||P-value for Suicidal Ideation or Behavior. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||0.309
95905979|NCT00844857|191768998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
95905980|NCT00844857|191768999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545||||||P-value for ADHDRS-IV-PI Total Score. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.545
95905981|NCT00844857|191769000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.066
95905982|NCT00844857|191769001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
95905983|NCT00844857|191769002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in proportions between OFC and placebo.||||1.00
95905984|NCT00844857|191769003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline, country and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.050
95905985|NCT00844857|191769004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
95905986|NCT00844857|191769005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Fasting Glucose. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.980
95905987|NCT00844857|191769005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Cholesterol. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
95905988|NCT00844857|191769005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Fasting Triglycerides. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
95905989|NCT00844857|191769006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||0.005
95905990|NCT00844857|191769007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
95905991|NCT00844857|191769008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. ANCOVA Model terms included baseline and treatment.|ANCOVA|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there was no difference in mean changes from baseline to up to Week 8 between OFC and placebo.||||<0.001
95905992|NCT00570674|191769015|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
95905993|NCT00570674|191769016|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.01
95905994|NCT00570674|191769017|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Sign test|||||||0.52
95905995|NCT00570674|191769018|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Sign test|||||||0.39
95905996|NCT03069482|191769019|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.063|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.377|=|0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.754
95905997|NCT03069482|191769020|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.103|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.369||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Zero inflated negative binomial mixed methods regression.||||2.6|1.2|0.044
95905998|NCT03069482|191769021|OTHER||Percent accrual relative to target N|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||The goal of this outcome was to determine whether the trial could reach its enrollment target (90 participants).|||
95905999|NCT03069482|191769022|OTHER||Percent retention relative to target|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||||We calculated the percent of retained participants relative to the retention target (N = 62)|||
95906000|NCT03069482|191769023|OTHER||Percent of respondents|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95906001|NCT03069482|191769025|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|8.29574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|16.453|||Yuen's trimmed mean t-test|||||16.453|0.138|0.046
95906002|NCT03069482|191769026|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|7.79514|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.867|17.457|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||17.457|-1.867|0.109
95906003|NCT03069482|191769027|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|2.22222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.50537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.492|8.943|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||8.943|-4.492|0.50537
95906004|NCT03069482|191769028|SUPERIORITY||Trimmed mean difference|5.83333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.27411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|16.54|||Yuen's trimmed means t-test|||||16.54|-4.88|0.27411
95906005|NCT00907153|191769075|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.017||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.0|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.000|-0.034|0.05
95906006|NCT00907153|191769076|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.62|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||3.62|-5.89|0.62
95906007|NCT00907153|191769077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|7.02|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.02|-14.32|0.48
95906008|NCT00907153|191769078|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.51||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|-0.96|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||-0.96|-12.07|0.02
95906009|NCT00907153|191769079|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|16.54|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||16.54|-3.97|0.22
95906010|NCT00907153|191769080|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.84||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.29|37.98|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||37.98|-210.29|0.33
95906011|NCT00907153|191769081|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|17.34|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||17.34|-42.94|0.39
95906012|NCT00907153|191769082|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.08||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.9|11.78|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||11.78|-161.9|0.09
95906013|NCT00907153|191769083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.59|34.06|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||34.06|-32.59|0.96
95906014|NCT00907153|191769084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.08||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|7.99|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||7.99|-1.84|0.21
95980144|NCT04178967|191933194|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.974417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.27|0.974417
95906015|NCT00907153|191769085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.43|24.64|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||24.64|-24.43|0.99
95906016|NCT00907153|191769086|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.93||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|6.26|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||6.26|-10.12|0.62
95906017|NCT00907153|191769087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|20.85|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||20.85|-20.29|0.98
95906018|NCT00907153|191769088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.24||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.61|55.08|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||55.08|-34.61|0.64
95906019|NCT00907153|191769089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.81|8.51|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||8.51|-22.81|0.88
95980145|NCT04178967|191933195|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.084769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-9.1|0.084769
95980146|NCT00628251|191933205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.56||If the observed p-value for the combined olaparib groups is \<0.02 (1-sided) then the result will be regarded as statistically significant.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 mg bd (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.56|0.51|0.6604
95980147|NCT00628251|191933205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.7794||95.0|0.48|1.74||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.74|0.48|0.7794
95980148|NCT00628251|191933205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.62||An observed p-value of \<0.005 (1-sided) will be regarded as statistically significant for a given pairwise comparison.|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA (1 or 2) and platinum sensitivity (sensitive=1 or resistant/refractory=0).||Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33). A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib.||1.62|0.45|0.6604
95980149|NCT00628251|191933206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.32||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.32|0.79|0.1291
95980150|NCT00628251|191933206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|7.01||2-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|Analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||7.01|0.55|0.3131
95980151|NCT00628251|191933206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|9.76|||Regression, Logistic|The analysis was performed using logistic regression with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|An odds ratio \>1 favoured olaparib|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||9.76|0.81|0.1079
95980152|NCT00628251|191933212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.7||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 or 400 (n=64) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.70|0.41|0.5781
95980153|NCT00628251|191933212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.55||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 200 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||1.55|0.27|0.3417
95980154|NCT00628251|191933212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.27||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model with factors for treatment, BRCA status and platinum sensitivity.|A hazard ratio of \<1 favoured olaparib.|Analysis of olaparib 400 (n=32) versus liposomal doxorubicin (n=33).||2.27|0.44|0.9877
95980155|NCT04721821|191933222|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44||||||||1.44|0.82|
95980156|NCT04721821|191933223|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16||||||||1.16|0.44|
95980157|NCT04721821|191933224|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27||||||||1.27|0.73|
95980158|NCT04721821|191933225|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.88||||||||1.88|0.79|
95980159|NCT04721821|191933226|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.67||||||||1.67|0.79|
95980160|NCT04721821|191933227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.76||||||||1.76|0.94|
95980161|NCT04721821|191933228|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.89||||||||1.89|0.70|
95980162|NCT04721821|191933229|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.32||||||||1.32|0.69|
95980163|NCT04721821|191933230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.16||||||||2.16|0.81|
95980164|NCT04721821|191933231|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.87||||||||1.87|0.81|
95980165|NCT04721821|191933232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.66||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.66|0.80|
95980166|NCT04721821|191933232|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.65|0.75|
95906020|NCT00907153|191769090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.15||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.41|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||2.41|-8.70|0.25
95906021|NCT00907153|191769091|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|44.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.13|61.48|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||61.48|27.13|<0.001
95980167|NCT04721821|191933233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.99||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|0.57|
95906022|NCT00907153|191769092|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|5.2|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||5.20|-2.08|0.38
95906023|NCT00907153|191769093|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.84||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.34|13.67|||Regression, Linear|Model-based differences adjusted for oral contraceptive use and season.||||13.67|-29.34|0.46
95906024|NCT01002872|191769101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.037
95906025|NCT01002872|191769102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.721
95906026|NCT01002872|191769103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.897
95906027|NCT01002872|191769104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
95906028|NCT01002872|191769105|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.416
95906029|NCT01002872|191769106|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.672|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.672
95980168|NCT04721821|191933233|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.75||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.75|0.49|
95980169|NCT04721821|191933234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.58|0.79|
95980170|NCT04721821|191933234|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.35||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.35|0.60|
95980171|NCT04721821|191933235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.29||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.29|0.77|
95980172|NCT04721821|191933235|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.71|0.82|
95980173|NCT04721821|191933236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.24|0.81|
95980174|NCT04721821|191933236|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.62|0.50|
95980175|NCT04721821|191933237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.31||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.31|-0.88|
95980176|NCT04721821|191933237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.27||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.27|-2.73|
95980177|NCT04721821|191933238|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|2.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.02|-1.24|
95980178|NCT04721821|191933238|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|2.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.84|-0.92|
95980179|NCT04721821|191933239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.56||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.56|-1.68|
95980180|NCT04721821|191933239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.99||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.99|-0.51|
95980181|NCT04721821|191933240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|0.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-2.66|
95980182|NCT04721821|191933240|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-3.52|
95980183|NCT04721821|191933241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.44||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.44|-2.30|
95980184|NCT04721821|191933241|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.62||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.62|-2.60|
95980185|NCT04721821|191933242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.35|0.80|
95980186|NCT04721821|191933242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.67|0.86|
95980187|NCT04721821|191933242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.54||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.54|0.57|
95980188|NCT04721821|191933242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.41||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.41|0.77|
95980189|NCT04721821|191933242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.89|
95980190|NCT04721821|191933242|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.60|0.85|
95980191|NCT04721821|191933243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.34|0.59|
95980192|NCT04721821|191933243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.15|0.39|
95980193|NCT04721821|191933243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.83||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.83|0.34|
95980194|NCT04721821|191933243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.42|0.56|
95980195|NCT04721821|191933243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.8||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.80|0.46|
95980196|NCT04721821|191933243|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.48|0.19|
95980197|NCT04721821|191933244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.45|0.86|
95980198|NCT04721821|191933244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.26||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.26|0.67|
95980199|NCT04721821|191933244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.09||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.09|0.44|
95906030|NCT01002872|191769107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.955
95906031|NCT01002872|191769108|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95906032|NCT01002872|191769109|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0066|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0066
95980200|NCT04721821|191933244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.38|0.74|
95980201|NCT04721821|191933244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.52||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.52|0.69|
95980202|NCT04721821|191933244|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.33||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.33|0.46|
95980203|NCT04721821|191933245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.77|0.78|
95980204|NCT04721821|191933245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.95||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.95|0.71|
95980205|NCT04721821|191933245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.39||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||2.39|0.45|
95980206|NCT04721821|191933245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.40|0.50|
95906033|NCT03912259|191769112|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|32.65||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was derived by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline disease severity (IGA=3 vs. IGA=4).||||32.65|11.37|<.0001
95906034|NCT01217073|191769164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.50|-0.93|<0.001
95906035|NCT01217073|191769164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.45||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.45|-0.88|<0.001
95906036|NCT01217073|191769164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.27||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.27|-0.70|<0.001
95906037|NCT01217073|191769164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.28||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.28|-0.71|<0.001
95906038|NCT01217073|191769164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.28||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.06||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.06|-0.50|0.012
95906039|NCT01217073|191769165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|18.4||||||||18.4|-6.2|
95906040|NCT01217073|191769165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|24.7||||||||24.7|-0.1|
95906041|NCT01217073|191769165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|18.0||||||||18.0|-6.5|
95906042|NCT01217073|191769165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|17.7||||||||17.7|-6.8|
95906043|NCT01217073|191769165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|14.5||||||||14.5|-9.8|
95906044|NCT01217073|191769166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.1||||||||4.1|-4.1|
95906045|NCT01217073|191769166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
95980207|NCT04721821|191933245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.83||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.83|0.49|
95906046|NCT01217073|191769166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.0||||||||4.0|-4.1|
95906047|NCT01217073|191769166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4||||||||2.4|-4.9|
95906048|NCT01217073|191769166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|7.9||||||||7.9|-1.7|
95980208|NCT04721821|191933245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.95|0.33|
95980209|NCT04721821|191933246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.49|0.76|
95980210|NCT04721821|191933246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.37|0.55|
95980211|NCT04721821|191933246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.2||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||1.20|0.32|
95980212|NCT04721821|191933246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 20||1.30|0.59|
95980213|NCT04721821|191933246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.86||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 50||1.86|0.65|
95980214|NCT04721821|191933246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||||95.0|0.62|3.28||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis: mACR 70||3.28|0.62|
95906049|NCT01217073|191769167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|13.1||||||||13.1|-9.8|
95906050|NCT01217073|191769168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-9.1|
95906051|NCT01217073|191769169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-44.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|-30.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-30.7|-59.0|<0.001
95906052|NCT01217073|191769169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-41.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.3|-27.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-27.8|-55.3|<0.001
95906053|NCT01217073|191769169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.9|-21.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-21.3|-48.9|<0.001
95980215|NCT04721821|191933247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.15||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.15|0.94|
95980216|NCT04721821|191933247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.84||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.84|0.68|
95980217|NCT04721821|191933248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.67||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.67|0.41|
95980218|NCT04721821|191933248|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.07|0.62|
95980219|NCT04721821|191933249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.52|0.66|
95980220|NCT04721821|191933249|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.74||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.74|0.64|
95980221|NCT04721821|191933250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.94||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.94|0.80|
95980222|NCT04721821|191933250|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.87||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.87|0.76|
95980223|NCT04721821|191933251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.27||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.27|0.73|
95980224|NCT04721821|191933251|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.23||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.23|0.63|
95980225|NCT04721821|191933252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
95980226|NCT04721821|191933252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.01|
95906054|NCT01217073|191769169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-33.5|||<|0.001||95.0|-47.3|-19.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-19.7|-47.3|<0.001
95906055|NCT01217073|191769169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-18.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-4.8||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-4.8|-32.9|0.009
95906056|NCT01217073|191769170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-21.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-13.4||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-13.4|-29.4|<0.001
95906057|NCT01217073|191769170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|-5.7||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-5.7|-21.3|<0.001
95906058|NCT01217073|191769170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-6.3||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.3|-22.2|<0.001
95906059|NCT01217073|191769170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-19.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-11.2||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-11.2|-26.9|<0.001
95980227|NCT04721821|191933253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.08|
95980228|NCT04721821|191933253|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.11|
95980229|NCT04721821|191933254|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.07|
95980230|NCT04721821|191933254|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.05|
95980231|NCT04721821|191933255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.07|-0.06|
95980232|NCT04721821|191933255|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.12|
95980233|NCT04721821|191933256|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.09|
95980234|NCT04721821|191933256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.09|-0.06|
95980235|NCT04721821|191933257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|0.90|
95980236|NCT04721821|191933257|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.94||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.94|0.54|
95980237|NCT04721821|191933258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.11|0.53|
95980238|NCT04721821|191933258|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.61|0.72|
95906060|NCT01217073|191769170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-2.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.5||With terms for treatment, prior AHA therapy status, geographic region (Japan/ex-Japan), and the interaction of time by treatment, time by prior AHA therapy status, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||5.5|-10.4|0.539
95906061|NCT03561090|191769177|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|0.055||||0.6346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.281|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an mixed models repeated measures (MMRM) model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.281|-0.172|0.6346
95906062|NCT03561090|191769178|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.035||||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.221|||MMRM||Treatment difference (IW-3718 - placebo)|Treatment difference calculated as LSM change from baseline at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo based on an MMRM model with week (categorical), treatment group, week-by-treatment group, and week-by-baseline value interactions, baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present), and baseline WHSS (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3) as fixed effect terms and baseline value as a covariate, with subject as a random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used.||0.221|-0.151|0.7101
95906063|NCT03561090|191769179|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage of responders|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|3.7|||||95% confidence interval (CI) for Difference in Responder Rates is obtained using the Newcombe CI.|||3.7|-14.7|
95906064|NCT03561090|191769179|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.2531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio for Response (IW-3718 : placebo)|Treatment difference was calculated as the difference in the responder rates at Week 8; IW-3718 - placebo. The 95% CI for the difference in the responder rates was obtained using the Newcombe CI. P value was based on the odds ratio for the response rate (IW-3718:placebo) obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline esophagitis status and baseline heartburn severity level (\< 3 vs. ≥ 3).||1.17|0.56|0.2531
95906065|NCT03561090|191769180|SUPERIORITY||Proportion ratio|0.938||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.382||Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Negative binomial model||Proportion Ratio (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI: Placebo + PPI)|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||1.382|0.636|0.7445
95906066|NCT03561090|191769180|OTHER|Negative binomial model was used to deal with data overdispersion.|Difference in Proportion Ratio|-0.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.074|||||Difference in Proportion Ratio, (1500 mg IW-3718 BID + PPI) - (Placebo + PPI).|Poisson regression including the fixed categorical effect of treatment, the baseline esophagitis status (present vs. not present) and baseline WHSS (\<3 vs. ≥3), the covariate of baseline proportion of heartburn-free days, and with the diary entry duration (in days) as a weight variable adjusted in the model was applied.||0.074|-0.103|
95906067|NCT00958919|191769209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|9.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||||9.38|2.69|.0004
95906068|NCT00958919|191769210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.85|0.49|.024
95906069|NCT00958919|191769211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95906070|NCT00958919|191769212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95906071|NCT00958919|191769213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95906072|NCT00321854|191769269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.6503||95.0|-2.2|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.2|0.6503
95906073|NCT00321854|191769270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.9568||95.0|-1.7|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-1.7|0.9568
95980239|NCT04721821|191933259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.21||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.21|0.73|
95906074|NCT00321854|191769271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.3|-3.2|||ANCOVA|||||-3.2|-6.3|<0.0001
95906075|NCT00321854|191769272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.8|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-5.8|<0.0001
95906076|NCT00321854|191769273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.1|<0.0001
95906077|NCT00321854|191769274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8693||95.0|-1.8|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.8|0.8693
95906078|NCT00321854|191769275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.8155||95.0|-1.5|1.9|||ANCOVA|||||1.9|-1.5|0.8155
95906079|NCT00321854|191769276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.0|-3.0|||ANCOVA|||||-3|-6|<0.0001
95906080|NCT00321854|191769277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||||-2.6|-5.4|<0.0001
95980240|NCT04721821|191933259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.39|0.77|
95980241|NCT04721821|191933260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.64|
95906081|NCT00321854|191769278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.9|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-3.9|<0.0001
95906082|NCT00321854|191769279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7999||95.0|-1.5|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|-1.5|0.7999
95980242|NCT04721821|191933260|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.64||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.64|0.69|
95980243|NCT04721821|191933261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.59||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.59|0.84|
95980244|NCT04721821|191933261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.32||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.32|0.65|
95980245|NCT04721821|191933262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.03|
95906083|NCT00321854|191769280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7395||95.0|-1.1|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.5|-1.1|0.7395
95906084|NCT00321854|191769281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2|-4.5|<0.0001
95906085|NCT00321854|191769282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.0|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-4|<0.0001
95906086|NCT00321854|191769283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0002||95.0|-2.7|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.7|0.0002
95906087|NCT00321854|191769284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9256||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9256
95906088|NCT00321854|191769285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9792||95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.9792
95906089|NCT00321854|191769286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-1.7|0.0001
95906090|NCT00321854|191769287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.6|<0.0001
95906091|NCT00321854|191769288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-1.5|<0.0001
95906092|NCT00321854|191769289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0376||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-0.5|0.0376
95906093|NCT00321854|191769290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1607||95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1607
95906094|NCT00321854|191769291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0173||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|0.0173
95906095|NCT00321854|191769292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0007||95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|0.0007
95906096|NCT00321854|191769293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.4381||95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.4381
95906097|NCT00321854|191769294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.796||||0.5116||95.0|0.403|1.573|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.573|0.403|0.5116
95906098|NCT00321854|191769295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.7913||95.0|0.403|3.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The ordinal responses (3 levels) were analysed using the proportional odds model extension of logistic regression||3.299|0.403|0.7913
95906099|NCT00321854|191769296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1702||95.0|-1.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.3|0.1702
95906100|NCT00321854|191769297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0009||95.0|-2.2|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.2|0.0009
95906101|NCT00321854|191769298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0005||95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0005
95906102|NCT00321854|191769299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0422||95.0|-1.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0|-1.4|0.0422
95906103|NCT00321854|191769300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.573||||0.2149||95.0|-1.823|0.677|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.677|-1.823|0.2149
95906104|NCT00321854|191769301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.031||||0.0001||95.0|-3.125|-0.938|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-0.938|-3.125|0.0001
95906105|NCT00321854|191769302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.2605||95.0|0.0|0.026|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.026|0|0.2605
95906106|NCT00321854|191769303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.0|0.089|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.089|0|<0.0001
95906107|NCT00321854|191769304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.0489||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0489
95906108|NCT00321854|191769305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.0||||0.0282||95.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||5|0|0.0282
95906109|NCT00321854|191769321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.8397||95.0|-5.4|4.4|||ANCOVA|||||4.4|-5.4|0.8397
95906110|NCT01816594|191769326|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participantss||||0.811
95906111|NCT01816594|191769327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.830
95906112|NCT01816594|191769328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.786
95906113|NCT01816594|191769329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.286
95906114|NCT01816594|191769330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.177|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||wild type cohort||||0.177
95906115|NCT01816594|191769331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||mutant cohort||||0.929
95906116|NCT01816594|191769332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.811
95906117|NCT01816594|191769333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.840
95906118|NCT01816594|191769334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.724|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.724
95906119|NCT01816594|191769335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||All participants||||0.964
95906120|NCT01816594|191769336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - pCR||||0.546
95906121|NCT01816594|191769337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - pCR||||0.949
95906122|NCT01816594|191769338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER+ participants - ORR||||0.053
95906123|NCT01816594|191769339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||For ER- participants - ORR||||0.949
95906124|NCT01816594|191769340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.666
95906125|NCT01816594|191769341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.803|||||||Fisher Exact|(one-sided)||||||0.803
95906126|NCT02566031|191769342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.093|||ANCOVA|||||0.093|0.011|0.0129
95906127|NCT02566031|191769343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.098|||ANCOVA|||-45 min||0.098|0.017|0.0058
95906128|NCT02566031|191769343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.091|||ANCOVA|||-15min||0.091|0.009|0.0161
95906129|NCT02566031|191769344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.646|||ANCOVA|||||0.646|-0.033|0.0767
95906130|NCT02566031|191769345|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.16|||ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.77|0.1008
95906131|NCT01059565|191769347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|0.91||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|5.06||"To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.~A gate-keeping procedure to control family-wise Type 1 error was established a priori for primary and key secondary endpoints."|ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||"The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.~A sample size of 50 participants per group provided at least 80% power to detect an 8.5% difference in mean AUCave of relative change from baseline in FEV1 % predicted through Week 24 using a two-sided 0.05-level test, assuming a common standard deviation of 15."||5.06|-3.24|0.663
95906132|NCT01059565|191769348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4158||||||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|Negative binomial regression|The negative binomial regression model included an offset parameter which accounted for potential differing study durations due to discontinuations.||The primary analysis was a test for superiority. Null hypothesis was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.4158
95906133|NCT01059565|191769349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.18||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.78||To correct for multiplicity, a family alpha spending rule was used to control the type 1 error rate of alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||1.78|-4.43|0.939
95906134|NCT01059565|191769350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.77||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.86|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.86|-3.33|0.711
95906135|NCT01059565|191769351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.6||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|4.49|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||4.49|-3.30|0.762
95906136|NCT01059565|191769352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.95||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.54|8.44|||ANCOVA|The AUCs of changes from baseline were compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA methods with baseline value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.44|-4.54|0.553
95906137|NCT01059565|191769353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.99||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.28|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||7.28|-1.20|0.170
95980246|NCT04721821|191933262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.04|
95980247|NCT04721821|191933263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.05|-0.05|
95980248|NCT04721821|191933263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.07|
95980249|NCT04721821|191933264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.02||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.02|-0.06|
95980250|NCT04721821|191933264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.04|
95980251|NCT04721821|191933265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.06|
95980252|NCT04721821|191933265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.03||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.03|-0.10|
95980253|NCT04721821|191933266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.04||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.04|-0.05|
95980254|NCT04721821|191933266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.06|-0.06|
95980255|NCT04721821|191933267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|2.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.45|-2.65|
95980256|NCT04721821|191933267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|3.11||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||3.11|-2.59|
95980257|NCT04721821|191933268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|4.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.38|-2.71|
95980258|NCT04721821|191933268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.95||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.95|-5.12|
95980259|NCT04721821|191933269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.94|
95980260|NCT04721821|191933269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|2.42||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.42|-3.61|
95980261|NCT04721821|191933270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|3.05||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||3.05|-4.39|
95980262|NCT04721821|191933270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.19|-0.48||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||-0.48|-9.19|
95980263|NCT04721821|191933271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|2.82||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||2.82|-3.59|
95980264|NCT04721821|191933271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.49||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.49|-2.97|
95980265|NCT04721821|191933272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.34||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.73|
95980266|NCT04721821|191933272|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.34|0.66|
95980267|NCT04721821|191933273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.73|0.62|
95980268|NCT04721821|191933273|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.6||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|0.50|
95980269|NCT04721821|191933274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.19||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.19|0.64|
95980270|NCT04721821|191933274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.26||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.26|0.60|
95980271|NCT04721821|191933275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.46|0.55|
95980272|NCT04721821|191933275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.51|0.47|
95980273|NCT04721821|191933276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.38||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.38|0.60|
95980274|NCT04721821|191933276|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.5||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.50|0.56|
95980275|NCT04721821|191933277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|4.11||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.11|-0.69|
95980276|NCT04721821|191933277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|2.77||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.77|-2.79|
95980277|NCT04721821|191933278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|1.6||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.60|-5.02|
95980278|NCT04721821|191933278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|4.96||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.96|-2.85|
95980279|NCT04721821|191933279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|1.45||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||1.45|-3.75|
95980280|NCT04721821|191933279|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.47||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||2.47|-3.54|
95980281|NCT04721821|191933280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|4.73||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||4.73|-2.36|
95980282|NCT04721821|191933280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.07||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||1.07|-7.36|
95980283|NCT04721821|191933281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|5.41||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||5.41|-0.66|
95980284|NCT04721821|191933281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|4.71||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||4.71|-2.69|
95980285|NCT04721821|191933282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.40|-0.16|
95980286|NCT04721821|191933282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.45||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.45|-0.21|
95980287|NCT04721821|191933283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.43||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.43|-0.40|
95980288|NCT04721821|191933283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.29||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.29|-0.74|
95906138|NCT01059565|191769354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-2.57||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|5.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||5.49|-10.62|0.528
95906139|NCT01059565|191769355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.62||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|8.34|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||8.34|-1.11|0.132
95906140|NCT01059565|191769356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.14||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value was based on a Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure model that included terms for treatment, visit, baseline, and treatment/visit interaction.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||0.56|-0.29|0.531
95906141|NCT01059565|191769357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.93||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.48|||ANCOVA|Baseline was included as a covariate in this model.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||2.48|-0.62|0.232
95906142|NCT01059565|191769358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.103
95906143|NCT01059565|191769359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.646|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.646
95906144|NCT01059565|191769360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the AZLI and placebo treatment groups versus the alternative hypothesis that there was a difference.||||0.284
95906145|NCT02219932|191769367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.26|||Regression, Logistic||fampridine vs. placebo|Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||2.26|1.15|0.006
95906146|NCT02219932|191769367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.104|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.178||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||0.178|0.030|
95906147|NCT02219932|191769367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.7||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline MSWS-12 score, baseline TUG speed, age, screening Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data handled by multiple imputation. Hypothesis testing was performed at the 2-sided 5% significance level overall, with adjustment for testing multiple secondary endpoints.||1.70|1.06|
95906148|NCT02219932|191769368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||2.07|1.04|0.030
95906149|NCT02219932|191769368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference for Adjusted Proportions|0.092|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.175||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||0.175|0.009|
95906150|NCT02219932|191769368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.51||||||Based on logistic regression, adjusting for baseline TUG speed, screening EDSS score and prior aminopyridine. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.||1.51|0.99|
95906151|NCT02219932|191769369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.925|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|-1.5|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||-1.50|-5.13|< 0.001
95906152|NCT02219932|191769370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.95|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.95|-0.13|0.141
95906153|NCT02219932|191769371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.573||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.86|||mixed model for repeated measures|||||1.86|-0.38|0.197
95906154|NCT01869491|191769381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.31|<0.0001
95906155|NCT01869491|191769382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.29|0.0004
95906156|NCT01869491|191769383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.32|0.0001
95906157|NCT01869491|191769384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.32|0.0004
95906158|NCT01869491|191769385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95906159|NCT01869491|191769386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0433|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0433
95906160|NCT01869491|191769387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0503|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0503
95980289|NCT04721821|191933284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.10|-0.51|
95980290|NCT04721821|191933284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.42|
95980291|NCT04721821|191933285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.34|
95980292|NCT04721821|191933285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.31||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.31|-0.69|
95980293|NCT04721821|191933286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.32||||||Month 6 follow-up visit analysis||0.32|-0.37|
95980294|NCT04721821|191933286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.59||||||Month 12 follow-up visit analysis||0.59|-0.30|
95906161|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-0.03|
95906162|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.214|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference = GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.13|0.25|
95906163|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.80|-0.20|
95906164|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.95|-0.24|
95906165|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.09|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg- Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||1.09|-0.05|
95906166|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||0.69|-0.61|
95906167|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.11|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.11|0.15|
95906168|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.86|-0.06|
95906169|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||0.77|-0.29|
95906170|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.12|0.10|
95906171|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||1.08|0.09|
95906172|NCT00833989|191769426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.73|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||0.73|-0.39|
95906173|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|19.71|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference =GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 4||19.71|-0.60|
95906174|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|18.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||18.26|-1.32|
95906175|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|11.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.24|-11.1|
95906176|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.631|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|23.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||23.15|0.01|
95906177|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.411|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|19.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||19.89|-2.35|
95906178|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|13.21|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||13.21|-12.2|
95906179|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|20.66|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||20.66|-1.34|
95906180|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.198|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|18.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||18.13|-3.22|
95906181|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|1.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.60|-22.9|
95906182|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.134|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|22.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, visit 7||22.24|-3.07|
95906183|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|18.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.15|-6.37|
95906184|NCT00833989|191769427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.768|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|10.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||10.84|-17.1|
95906185|NCT00833989|191769428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.047|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.81|12.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||12.86|-15.81|
95906186|NCT00833989|191769428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|9.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.852|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|23.8|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||23.80|-4.08|
95906187|NCT00833989|191769428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.41|9.6|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||9.60|-20.41|
95906188|NCT00833989|191769428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.87|18.07|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||18.07|-22.87|
95906189|NCT00833989|191769428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.95|26.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||26.00|-15.95|
95906190|NCT00833989|191769428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|12.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change in Total Fugl-Meyer assessment= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.15|-32.29|
95906191|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.147|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||10.61|-10.4|
95906192|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|13.26|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||13.26|-7.75|
95906193|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|15.88|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||15.88|-6.17|
95906194|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|14.45|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||14.45|-12.1|
95906195|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.426|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|15.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||15.12|-11.0|
95906196|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||11.68|-16.1|
95906197|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.664|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.18|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.18|-12.9|
95906198|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.595||||95.0|-12.4|14.43|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||14.43|-12.4|
95906199|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|13.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||13.32|-15.2|
95906200|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.953|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|16.4|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||16.40|-11.9|
95906201|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.909|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|17.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||17.55|-10.5|
95906202|NCT00833989|191769429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.328|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|14.39|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||14.39|-15.4|
95906203|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|8.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||8.65|-5.33|
95906204|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|6.96|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||6.96|-7.56|
95906205|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.534|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|11.78|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||11.78|-2.67|
95906206|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|9.89|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.89|-5.78|
95906207|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.958|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 5||5.72|-10.4|
95906208|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.978|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|9.55|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 5||9.55|-6.68|
95906209|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|11.85|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||11.85|-4.94|
95906210|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.235|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|9.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.12|-8.15|
95906211|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|9.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||9.50|-7.97|
95906212|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.205|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|11.61|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 7||11.61|-5.53|
95906213|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.376|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|6.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 7||6.32|-11.5|
95906214|NCT00833989|191769430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.396|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|12.69|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Affected Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Affected Baseline + Unaffected Baseline"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 7||12.69|-5.22|
95906215|NCT00833989|191769431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 4||||0.9260
95906216|NCT00833989|191769431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5647|||||||Fisher Exact|||Visit 6||||0.5647
95906217|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|0.49|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 3||0.49|-3.17|
95906218|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 3||1.57|-1.95|
95906219|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|-1.02|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 3||-1.02|-4.83|
95906220|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.868|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|1.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.08|-2.47|
95906221|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|1.44|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||1.44|-1.98|
95906222|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.904|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.92|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||0.92|-2.77|
95906223|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|1.57|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.57|-3.64|
95906224|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.278|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|2.24|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.24|-2.97|
95906225|NCT00833989|191769432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.408|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline = Treatment + Visit + Treatment \* Visit + Baseline|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||1.408|-0.66|
95906226|NCT00833989|191769433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.584|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|45.04|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.04|-6.11|
95906227|NCT00833989|191769433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.131|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|45.64|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 4||45.64|-3.66|
95906228|NCT00833989|191769433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|38.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 4||38.50|-14.9|
95906229|NCT00833989|191769433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|34.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||34.06|-2.63|
95906230|NCT00833989|191769433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.835|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|29.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||29.50|-6.38|
95906231|NCT00833989|191769433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.641|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.08|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Barthel Total Score= Treatment + Visit + Treatment \*Visit|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||12.08|-27.1|
95906232|NCT00833989|191769434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.12|3.43|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.43|-4.12|
95906233|NCT00833989|191769434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.856|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|3.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.62|-3.96|
95906234|NCT00833989|191769434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.037|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|3.01|||ANCOVA||Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo Day 90 MoCA = Treatment + Day 5 MoCA|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||3.01|-5.31|
95906235|NCT00833989|191769435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.408|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|2.63|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 1 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.63|-3.12|
95906236|NCT00833989|191769435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.3|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment + Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 5 mg/kg, Visit 6||4.30|-1.20|
95906237|NCT00833989|191769435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.98|||ANCOVA||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo.~Day 90 GDS Score= Treatment+Day 5 GDS Score"|Placebo Vs GSK249320 15 mg/kg, Visit 6||2.98|-3.09|
95906238|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.289|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2639|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.841|0.264|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.264|-0.841|
95980295|NCT03531788|191933309|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor provide data per participant during testing of upper extremity activities/tasks and were collected while wearing the device (Kinova and WREX) and without the device (Kinova and WREX). For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|Due to the small sample size, we utilized change in activity count data when comparing two upper limb testing sessions: one without the use of an arm support device (Kinova or WREX) and one while using the arm support device. For each upper extremity task, we summed all activity count data for all tasks completed. We then computed means and standard deviations. Data presented are within group data change and not between group data comparisons.|||
95980296|NCT03531788|191933310|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Activity counts from the ActiGraph GT9x activity monitor were collected during baseline (without a device) and throughout the 4 week device trial (with the device). For each time period, activity count data were averaged across the day. We then compared the baseline time period to the device trial period to understand the difference in movement and upper extremity positioning during the device trial. Data presented are within group change scores and not between group data comparisons.|Counts from each axis (x, y, z) were measured across baseline and during the 4-week trial to explore arm movement and positioning during the use of an upper extremity arm device. Counts (within each participant) were summed. A change score from trial minus baseline was calculated for each axis. We provide an average change score and standard deviation across participants with Kinova and participants with WREX.|||
95980297|NCT03531788|191933311|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Three goals were identified for each participant and scored without using an arm support device to serve as a baseline measure of abilities. These scores were compared to the scores achieved on the same goals using the arm support device.|We compared the change in GAS scores when using an arm support device on three goal areas identified as important for each participant. For each goal, we measured abilities at baseline and with the device (Kinova and WREX). We calculated the change in score for each goal and averaged these change scores across all participants. While our groups are too small to complete statistical tests to estimate the significance of the differences participants noted in activity and independence while using both arm supports, our results quantify the amount of increased success participants noted with the use of the arm support device.|||
95980298|NCT00698932|191933314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.34|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||-0.34|-0.65|<0.0001
95980299|NCT00698932|191933315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.39|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-0.39|-1.06|<0.0001
95980300|NCT00698932|191933316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.053|<|0.0001||95.0|-19.12|-7.13|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline FPG||||-7.13|-19.12|<0.0001
95980301|NCT00698932|191933317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-182.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.4||0.001||95.0|-289.0|-74.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-74|-289|0.001
95980302|NCT00698932|191933318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3280.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|980.0||0.001||95.0|-5214.0|-1345.0|||ANCOVA|\*adjusted for baseline PPG AUC||||-1345|-5214|0.001
95980303|NCT00698932|191933319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.9|24.9|||ANCOVA|||||24.9|8.9|<0.0001
95980304|NCT02281357|191933390|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the average percentage change in OCS dose on tralokinumab was equal to the average percentage change in OCS dose on placebo.|LS Mean difference|-7.78||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|6.15|||ANCOVA|The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model utilised a sandwich estimator for the variance.|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate. No interaction terms were included in the model. All group comparisons from the ANCOVA model were based on Type III sums of squares.|Comparison of percent change from baseline in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||6.15|-21.70|0.271
95906239|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2637|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.862|0.241|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.241|-0.862|
95906240|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.303|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3172|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|0.361|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 4 Day 30||0.361|-0.966|
95906241|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1841|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.184|0.593|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.593|-0.184|
95906242|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1846|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.284|0.494|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.494|-0.284|
95906243|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2602|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.965|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 100%, Visit 7 Day 112||0.965|-0.132|
95906244|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8652|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.961|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.961|-0.650|
95980305|NCT02281357|191933391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.73|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of OCS dose ≤5.0 mg: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.73|0.65|0.442
95980306|NCT02281357|191933392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|The model included treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline OCS dose as a continuous covariate.||Comparison of ≥50% reduction in OCS dose: tralokinumab vs placebo.||2.74|0.70|0.356
95980307|NCT02281357|191933393|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.12|||Negative binomial||Treatment group, OCS dose at baseline, and number of exacerbations in the previous year are included in the model as covariates.|Comparison of AAER: tralokinumab vs placebo.||1.12|0.57|0.186
95906245|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8324|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|1.213|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.213|-2.249|
95906246|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0383|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.436|1.898|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 4 Day 30||1.898|-2.436|
95906247|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5862|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.031|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.031|-0.420|
95906248|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.183|1.168|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.168|-1.183|
95906249|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.506|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|3.077|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 110%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.077|-0.064|
95980308|NCT01162239|191933399|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.62
95980309|NCT01162239|191933400|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.91
95980310|NCT04667247|191933516|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.94||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95980311|NCT04667247|191933519|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|1.022||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95980312|NCT04667247|191933521|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|4.828||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.061
95980313|NCT04667247|191933522|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.526||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.100
95980314|NCT04667247|191933523|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.005||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95980315|NCT04667247|191933524|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|3.036||||0.162|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||.162
95980316|NCT04667247|191933526|OTHER||ratio of frequencies|0.151||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.00
95980317|NCT04667247|191933527|SUPERIORITY||F value|1.908||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.174
95980318|NCT04667247|191933528|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.038||||0.846|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.846
95980319|NCT04667247|191933529|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.041||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.841
95980320|NCT04667247|191933530|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.261||||0.612|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.612
95980321|NCT04667247|191933531|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.161||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.690
95980322|NCT04667247|191933532|SUPERIORITY||F value|2.671||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.109
95980323|NCT04667247|191933533|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.039||||0.844|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.844
95980324|NCT04667247|191933534|SUPERIORITY||F value|4.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.044
95980325|NCT04667247|191933535|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.001||||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||.989
95906250|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2976|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.056|4.344|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.344|-1.056|
95906251|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.681|2.219|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.219|-2.681|
95906252|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4796|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.279|2.91|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.910|-3.279|
95906253|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.622|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.428|2.672|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.672|-1.428|
95906254|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|1.356|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.356|-2.560|
95906255|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.281|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|4.736|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 120%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.736|-0.610|
95980326|NCT04667247|191933536|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.186||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.010
95980327|NCT04667247|191933537|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.345||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Group by Day interaction|||||.560
95980328|NCT04667247|191933538|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.143||||0.707|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.707
95980329|NCT04667247|191933539|SUPERIORITY||F value|0.09||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Day by Group interaction|||||0.765
95980330|NCT04667247|191933540|SUPERIORITY||F value|7.835||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||0.005
95980331|NCT04667247|191933541|SUPERIORITY||F value|16.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||day by group interaction|||||<0.001
95980332|NCT04124614|191933565|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-5.59||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-2.38|||MMRM|||||-2.38|-8.79|0.0007
95980333|NCT04124614|191933566|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-0.47||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.17|||MMRM|||||-0.17|-0.76|0.0019
95980334|NCT04124614|191933567|SUPERIORITY|MMRM method with model terms: treatment, (pooled) study center, previous pharmacological treatment intervention for PTSD (yes/no), visit, treatment by visit and baseline by visit interaction.|Treatment Difference|-12.03||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|-4.62|||MMRM|||||-4.62|-19.44|0.0016
95980335|NCT00713817|191933584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.89||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.56|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||2.56|-0.78|0.273
95980336|NCT00713817|191933585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|4.62||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|13.75|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||13.75|-4.51|0.296
95980337|NCT00713817|191933586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Chi-square|0.048||||0.826||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to treatment failure was analysed using Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis methodology. The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution function between treatments was assessed using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate.||||0.826
95980338|NCT00713817|191933587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-7.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|9.62|||Hodges-Lehmann|||The difference in loss of response cumulative distribution functions between treatments was assessed using the Wilcoxon test with an estimate of the median difference between groups in response level (percent change from baseline) provided by the Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||9.62|-39.7|0.54
95906256|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4588|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.494|4.607|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.607|-1.494|
95906257|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2336|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|2.041|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.041|-3.102|
95906258|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.471|3.101|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.101|-3.471|
95906259|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2689|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.996|3.367|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||3.367|-1.996|
95906260|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.838|1.726|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||1.726|-2.838|
95906261|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4792|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.884|5.322|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 130%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.322|-0.884|
95906262|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.631|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.589|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|4.958|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||4.958|-1.696|
95906263|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.508|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2985|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.219|2.203|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||2.203|-3.219|
95906264|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.369|3.588|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 4 Day 30||3.588|-3.369|
95906265|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5675|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.446|4.15|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 1 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||4.150|-2.446|
95906266|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2918|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.074|2.359|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 5 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||2.359|-3.074|
95906267|NCT00833989|191769436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7306|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.937|5.308|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||"Mean difference= GSK249320 15 mg/kg - Placebo~Change from Baseline= Treatment + Visit + Treatment\* Visit + Baseline"|Stimulation Level 140%, Visit 7 Day 112||5.308|-1.937|
95906268|NCT04313881|191769447|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.5218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|1.312||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.312|0.585|0.5218
95906269|NCT04313881|191769448|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.203||||0.1299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.947|1.528||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.528|0.947|0.1299
95906270|NCT04313881|191769450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.821||||0.2563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|1.155||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.155|0.584|0.2563
95980339|NCT00713817|191933588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimate mean treatment difference|-0.08||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.29|||ANCOVA|||The two groups were compared using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline severity as a covariate and study centre group and treatment group as factors. Due to the low power of the test for interaction the test was performed at the 10% level of significance and a 95% confidence interval (CI) was presented for the difference between treatments.||1.29|-1.45|0.902
95980340|NCT00713817|191933589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.557||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.293|8.261|||Regression, Logistic|||The two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated the parent Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs). The interaction between treatment group and parent RCTs was investigated, but was dropped from the model if found to have little influence. The test was performed at the 10% significance level. The final model was then treatment group and parent RCTs, i.e. the treatment effect was adjusted for parent RCTs baseline.||8.261|0.293|0.603
95980341|NCT01798992|191933655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.685
95980342|NCT01798992|191933656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in rate of LVEF improvement according to treatment group.||||0.071
95980343|NCT05097716|191933668|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|103.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.66|109.77|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||109.77|96.66|
95980344|NCT05097716|191933669|EQUIVALENCE|90% CI|ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.01|106.62|||||The comparison was Test vs. Reference (Ritlecitinib + Tolbutamide vs. Tolbutamide).|||106.62|92.01|
95980345|NCT00791258|191933674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|75.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|78.5||||||||78.5|73.0|
95980346|NCT00791258|191933675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.8|86.5||||||||86.5|81.8|
95980347|NCT00791258|191933676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|71.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.3|74.1||||||12 week analysis||74.1|68.3|
95980348|NCT00791258|191933676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|84.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.4|87.0||||||20 week analysis||87.0|82.4|
95980349|NCT00791258|191933677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-13.8|-15.4|<0.0001
95980350|NCT00791258|191933677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-15.7|-17.7|<0.0001
95980351|NCT00791258|191933677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|-20.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-20.9|-22.7|<0.0001
95980352|NCT00791258|191933677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-25.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-25.0|-27.0|<0.0001
95980353|NCT00791258|191933677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-25.7|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-25.7|-27.8|<0.0001
95980354|NCT00791258|191933678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-7.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||4 week analysis||-7.6|-8.6|<0.0001
95906271|NCT04313881|191769452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|1.212||95% CI for transfusion independence rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method. 2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.212|0.427|0.2191
95906272|NCT04313881|191769453|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.979||||0.8788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|1.285||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.285|0.746|0.8788
95906273|NCT04313881|191769454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.96||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on unstratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.960|0.203|0.0375
95906274|NCT04313881|191769455|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.947||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.629|1.426||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||1.426|0.629|0.7950
95906275|NCT04313881|191769456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.343||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.343|0.522|0.4610
95980355|NCT00791258|191933678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||8 week analysis||-8.5|-9.7|<0.0001
95980356|NCT00791258|191933678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-11.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||12 week analysis||-11.4|-12.5|<0.0001
95980357|NCT00791258|191933678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-14.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||16 week analysis||-14.0|-15.2|<0.0001
95980358|NCT00791258|191933678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||20 week analysis||-13.8|-15.1|0.0001
95980359|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure||-13.4|-16.2|<0.0001
95980360|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-14.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-14.8|-17.8|<0.0001
95980361|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-10.8|-14.1|<0.0001
95980362|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-11.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-11.6|-15.7|<0.0001
95980363|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-11.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-11.2|-14.7|<0.0001
95980364|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|-10.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||systolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-10.9|-14.3|<0.0001
95980365|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.3|-8.5|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure||-8.5|-10.3|<0.0001
95980366|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-9.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-9.6|-11.7|<0.0001
95980367|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|-6.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-6.4|-8.8|<0.0001
95980368|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-10.0|-7.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 2 hours of dose||-7.2|-10.0|<0.0001
95980369|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 4 hours of dose||-6.8|-9.2|<0.0001
95980370|NCT00791258|191933690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.8|-6.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||diastolic blood pressure during last 6 hours of dose||-6.6|-8.8|<0.0001
95980371|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|-19.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean systolic blood pressure||-19.3|-22.6|<0.0001
95980372|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-21.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime systolic blood pressure||-21.4|-25.1|<0.0001
95980373|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-15.6|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime systolic blood pressure||-15.6|-19.4|<0.0001
95980374|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|-17.4|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-17.4|-21.7|<0.0001
95980375|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-16.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-16.3|-20.2|<0.0001
95980376|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-16.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Systolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-16.0|-19.7|<0.0001
95980377|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-12.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure||-12.2|-14.4|<0.0001
95980378|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-13.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean daytime diastolic blood pressure||-13.8|-16.2|<0.0001
95980379|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-9.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean nighttime diastolic blood pressure||-9.8|-12.4|<0.0001
95980380|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-10.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 2 hours of dose||-10.8|-13.8|<0.0001
95980381|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-10.2|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 4 hours of dose||-10.2|-12.9|<0.0001
95906276|NCT04313881|191769457|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.297||2-sided P-value was based on stratified log-rank test, stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model, stratified by stratification factors.|||1.297|0.802|0.8720
95980382|NCT00791258|191933691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|-10.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||Diastolic blood pressure - last 6 hours of dose||-10.0|-12.6|<0.0001
95980383|NCT03829241|191933739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Model-based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline score, baseline score-by-visit interaction as covariates, and participant as random effect.||1.30|-1.45|0.917
95980384|NCT00314249|191933751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.38||||||95.0|-8.56|-4.19|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.19|-8.56|
95980385|NCT00314249|191933752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53||||||95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||ANOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors.||-0.38|-0.69|
95980386|NCT00314249|191933753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.69||||||95.0|-3.27|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-3.27|
95980387|NCT00314249|191933754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.001||95.0|1.45|2.94||Closed testing procedure used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia syndrome tested prior to fibromyalgia pain|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with treatment group, baseline pain score, and baseline SF-36 PCS score as explanatory variables.||2.94|1.45|<0.001
95980388|NCT00314249|191933755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001||95.0|1.38|2.51||Closed testing procedure was used to control overall type 1 error rate at 5%: fibromyalgia pain tested after statistically significant fibromyalgia syndrome test|Regression, Logistic|||The test of no difference in the responder rate between milnacipran and placebo groups was performed using a logistic regression model with the treatment group and baseline pain score as explanatory variables.||2.51|1.38|<0.001
95980389|NCT00314249|191933756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.65||||||95.0|0.86|2.44|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.44|0.86|
95980390|NCT01187550|191933760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.194
95980391|NCT01187550|191933761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.752||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.752
95980392|NCT01187550|191933762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.710
95980393|NCT01187550|191933763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.265
95980394|NCT01187550|191933764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.308
95906277|NCT04313881|191769458|SUPERIORITY|2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.605||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.857||2-sided P-value, odds ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by stratification factors (geographic region, cytogenetic risk status, and bone marrow blast percentage).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for response rate was based on Clopper-Pearson exact method.|||0.857|0.428|0.0048
95906278|NCT04313634|191769466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.611|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.611
95906279|NCT04313634|191769467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.020
95906280|NCT04313634|191769468|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95906281|NCT04313634|191769469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.149
95906282|NCT04313634|191769471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
95980395|NCT01187550|191933765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For total cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.078
95980396|NCT01187550|191933765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For HDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.033
95980397|NCT01187550|191933765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For LDL-cholesterol: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.041
95980398|NCT01187550|191933765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.091||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||For triglycerides: Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate p-value.||||0.091
95980399|NCT00129623|191933766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9613|5.2838||The primary analysis was an ANOVA (two way classification), including treatment group and time since menopause (as a binary variable; 0.5-3 years, \>3 years) as independent factors.|ANOVA|||"H0 (null hypothesis): There was no statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD).~H1 (alternative hypothesis): There was a statistically significant difference between monthly treatment with 150 mg oral IBN and monthly treatment with placebo in relative change from baseline of mean lumbar spine (L2-L4 BMD)."||5.2838|2.9613|<0.0001
95980400|NCT00129623|191933772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|30.56||||||Lumbar BMD: Adjusted treatment effect - The treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||30.56|5.12|
95980401|NCT00129623|191933772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|19.42||||||Proximal femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable and the treatment group (oral IBN 150 mg once monthly/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||19.42|3.80|
95980402|NCT00129623|191933772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.17|36.79||||||Lumbar Spine and Proximal Femur BMD: The adjusted treatment effect and 95% C.I. were represented by presenting OR. These were estimated by fitting a logistic regression model, with responder outcome (responder/non-responder) as the dependent variable, and treatment group (oral IBN150 mg/Placebo) and time since menopause as the independent variables. An OR of \>1 indicated participants treated with IBN were more likely to have BMD above or equal to baseline relative to those treated with placebo.||36.79|5.17|
95980403|NCT00596934|191933775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in each collected parameter will be evaluated using a paired t-test. If data are skewed such as in triglyceride levels, nonparametric tests will be used. P\<0.05 will be considered significant. If a significant difference can be demonstrated between baseline and 1-year results, a large scale, placebo-controlled trial will be designed using the data obtained from this pilot study||||0.015
95980404|NCT00596934|191933776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95980405|NCT00596934|191933777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074||||||p = 0.074|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
95980406|NCT00596934|191933778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95980407|NCT00596934|191933779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95980408|NCT00596934|191933780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.023
95980409|NCT00596934|191933781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||||||p-value = 0.195.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
95980410|NCT00596934|191933782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
95980411|NCT05178134|191933783|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set to -15% (on an absolute scale)|Difference in response rates|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.108|0.069||||||||0.069|-0.108|
95980412|NCT03239483|191933791|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||Fisher Exact|||two-sided Fisher's Exact Test||||0.072
95980413|NCT03239483|191933796|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||This is a calculated p-value. P-values of 1.0 are possible when using the Fisher Exact test method.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95980414|NCT03239483|191933797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.591
95980415|NCT00006392|191933821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.95|1.35||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.35|0.95|< .01
95980416|NCT00006392|191933821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.87|1.24||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 96% power to detect a 25% reduction in prostate cancer for either agent vs. Placebo.||1.24|0.87|< .01
95980417|NCT00006392|191933821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.01||99.0|0.88|1.25||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Per study design, with a sample size of 32,400 men, using a 1-sided alpha=.005 level (equivalent to a 2-sided alpha=.01 level) there was 99% power to detect a 44% reduction in prostate cancer for combination vs. Placebo.||1.25|.88|< .01
95980418|NCT00006392|191933822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||>|0.05||99.0|0.64|1.55||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.55|.64|> .05
95980419|NCT00006392|191933822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.72||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.72|0.73|> .01
95980420|NCT00006392|191933822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||>|0.01|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.9|1.16||The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and lung cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at lung cancer incidence. A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.16|0.90|>.01
95980421|NCT00006392|191933823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.73||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.73|0.69|> .05
95980422|NCT00006392|191933823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.66|1.67||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||1.67|0.66|> .05
95980423|NCT00006392|191933823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|2.0||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The trial was designed to study prostate cancer and colorectal cancer has a lower incidence rate, there was limited power to look at colorectal cancer incidence.||2.00|0.82|> .05
95906283|NCT00395876|191769497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6||||0.0002||95.0|18.4|54.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||54.8|18.4|0.0002
95906284|NCT00395876|191769498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.1385||95.0|-3.1|25.8||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.8|-3.1|0.1385
95906285|NCT00395876|191769499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.9||||0.0093||95.0|7.1|42.6||Stratified by baseline weight (\< 30 kg, ≥ 30 kg)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||42.6|7.1|0.0093
95980424|NCT00006392|191933824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.91|1.17||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.17|0.91|> .05
95980425|NCT00006392|191933824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.15||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.15|0.89|> .05
95906286|NCT02270450|191769508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||A p-value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|"A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of good days between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management."||||0.50
95980426|NCT00006392|191933824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||>|0.05||99.0|0.9|1.16||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|The power to look at all cancer incidence is greater than 90%.||1.16|0.90|> .05
95980427|NCT00006392|191933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||>|0.05||99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo is the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
95980428|NCT00006392|191933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.82|1.19||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox||The placebo was the denominator.|Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.19|0.82|> .05
95980429|NCT00006392|191933825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||Only results from overall survival are presented as the number of cancer-specific deaths is too few to be meaningful.||1.13|0.77|> .05
95980430|NCT00006392|191933826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.88|1.09||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.09|0.88|> .05
95980431|NCT00006392|191933826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.92|1.13||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.13|0.92|> .05
95980432|NCT00006392|191933826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.89|1.1||A 99% CI (rather than a 95% CI) was used to adjust for the multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared||The placebo was the denominator.|||1.10|0.89|> .05
95980433|NCT01186796|191933835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95980434|NCT01186796|191933836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
95980435|NCT01186796|191933837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||"Unit of mass secreted per burst is in ug/L. An automated deconvolution method was used and mathematically verified by direct statistical proof and empirically validated using hypothalamopituitary sampling and a simulated pulsatile time series."|ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
95980436|NCT01186796|191933838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
95980437|NCT01186796|191933839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Two-way ANOVA in a 2x4 factorial nested design with repeated measures.||||||<0.05
95906287|NCT02270450|191769509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the length of the initial hospital stay between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.64
95980438|NCT01936909|191933846|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||ANOVA|||This test reflects a comparison between baseline and 2 weeks (both rows).||||>0.20
95980439|NCT01936909|191933847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Paired analysis versus baseline||||<0.01
95980440|NCT01936909|191933848|SUPERIORITY|Log-rank test||||||0.12|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.12
95980441|NCT05105789|191933877|SUPERIORITY|"One-sample binomial test. Null hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is at most 91%.~Alternative hypothesis: NPV of BinaxNOW at Home testing is greater than 91%."|Kappa Co-efficient|100.0||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|100.0|||one-sample binomial test||binary outcome|Negative Predictive Value||100|95|0.0015
95980442|NCT05105789|191933877|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.3308|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.3308
95980443|NCT05105789|191933877|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR of 99%||||||0.0536|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0536
95906288|NCT02270450|191769510|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares NG tube use vs no NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.60
95906289|NCT02270450|191769511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the number of days of NG tube use between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.47
95906290|NCT02270450|191769512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for nausea severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.001
95906291|NCT02270450|191769512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.63||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for vomiting severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.008
95906292|NCT02270450|191769512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for bloating severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.04
95906293|NCT02270450|191769512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for pain severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management. An interaction term between treatment and pathway was included.||||0.01
95980444|NCT05105789|191933878|EQUIVALENCE|Concordance between the PCR test results will be evaluated by calculating the Kappa statistic which will be reported along with corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval. The nonparametric bootstrap technique will be used to construct the confidence interval. A kappa statistic of \>0.95 will be considered as sufficient to define lollipop swab test non-inferior to the gold-standard PCR testing of nasal swabs.|Kappa Co-efficient|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||Kappa statistics for Nasal Swab PCR vs Lollipop Swab PCR||1.00|0.78|
95980445|NCT05105789|191933879|NON_INFERIORITY|a non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.201|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Sensitivity H0: Sens-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Sens-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.2010
95980446|NCT05105789|191933879|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin of δ=5% and a sensitivity/specificity of PCR testing of 99%||||||0.0705|||||||one-sample binomial test|||Specificity H0: Spec-0.99 ≤ 0.05 vs. HA: Spec-0.99 \> -0.05||||0.0705
95980447|NCT02632721|191933932|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.081|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
95980448|NCT02632721|191933932|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
95980449|NCT02632721|191933932|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.028|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
95906294|NCT02270450|191769512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A linear regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares the MDASI-GI Symptom Assessment score for constipation severity between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.007
95906295|NCT02270450|191769513|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||For all secondary analyses, p-values should be interpreted cautiously as no adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A parallel logistic regression model was applied to the combined data from the randomized and Patient Choice (non-randomized) pathways, using the intention to treat principle with a treatment indicator variable (surgical vs non-surgical management) based on assignment. The model compares ability to eat between patients assigned to surgery and patients and patients assigned to non-surgical management.||||0.52
95906296|NCT02270450|191769514|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for treatment, pathway, admitting attending physician specialty, Zubrod performance status, baseline albumin, and primary cancer site.|Comparing surgery to non-surgical management.|A Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by pathway (randomized vs Patient Choice) was used to estimate the effect of treatment assignment (surgery vs non-surgical management) on overall survival.||1.09|0.45|0.12
95906297|NCT01968213|191769532|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.365|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|0.451|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.451|0.295|<0.0001
95906298|NCT01968213|191769533|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.354|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.45|||Regression, Cox||||Analysis is performed by randomization strata of HRD classification by CTA, best response, and penultimate platinum progression-free interval.|0.450|0.278|<0.0001
95906299|NCT01392560|191769545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-19.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0011|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for all patients||||0.0011
95906300|NCT01392560|191769545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for all patients||||<0.0001
95980450|NCT02632721|191933932|OTHER||Posterior probability of the DLT rate ly|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
95980451|NCT02632721|191933932|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.16, 0.33)|0.012|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.16, 0.33) (target dosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
95980452|NCT02632721|191933932|OTHER||Probability of DLT rate in [0.33, 1)|0.0|||||||||||||Posterior probability of the DLT rate lying in the interval \[0.33,1) (overdosing) is reported.|Bayesian logistic regression model (BLRM) with overdose control was used to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), defined as highest dose with less than 25% risk of the true DLT rate being equal to or above 33%.||||
95980453|NCT04207801|191933942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Efficacy of AUR101 was tested against placebo with respect to the primary endpoint (PASI75 response). A sample size of 25 in each of the three arms provided an 80% power with a one-sided Type I error of 0.05, if the true placebo response rate was 7% and the response rate on investigational arm(s) was 35%. The sample size was increased to 30 to account for \~ 15-20% dropouts over the study period.||||0.01
95980454|NCT01572675|191933949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
95980455|NCT01572675|191933949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||p-student|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for duration of prescription at enrollment||||<0.001
95906301|NCT01392560|191769545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from baseline|-33.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
95906302|NCT01392560|191769545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-44.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for hyperfilterers||||<0.0001
95906303|NCT01392560|191769545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.1524|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under euglycaemia condition for non-hyperfilterers||||0.1524
95906304|NCT01392560|191769545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7||0.7585|||||||Paired t-test||Estimated value = mean of end of treatment - baseline|Test of the difference between baseline and end of treatment under hyperglycaemia condition for non-filterers||||0.7585
95906305|NCT02558010|191769552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was calculated, and does not indicate the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95906306|NCT01218438|191769635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.012|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.024|||Poisson|||||0.024||<0.0001
95980456|NCT01572675|191933954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Duration of treatment comparison (More than one year vs Up to thirty days) for intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use. The analysis assessed whether long-term treatment was more correlated with intermittent selective COX-2 inhibitor use compared to short-term treatment.||||<0.001
95980457|NCT01572675|191933957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.104|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.104
95980458|NCT01572675|191933957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.0049
95980459|NCT01572675|191933957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.618|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for controlled BP (SBP \<140 mmHg and DBP \<90 mmHg) at study entry||||0.618
95980460|NCT01572675|191933958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.012
95980461|NCT01572675|191933958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.175|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for medical history of arterial hypertension||||0.175
95980462|NCT01572675|191933960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.701|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® \[Initiation\] vs Arcoxia® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.701
95980463|NCT01572675|191933960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Celebrex® \[Initiation\] vs Celebrex® \[Renewal\]) for significant past treatments||||0.007
95980464|NCT01572675|191933960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.955|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparison (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for significant past treatments||||0.955
95980465|NCT01572675|191933963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) for previous treatment with other agents prior to initiation of Arcoxia® and Celebrex® for the main study indications||||0.049
95980466|NCT01572675|191933966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.165|||||||Chi-squared|||Group comparsion (Arcoxia® vs Celebrex®) of adverse events experienced during treatment||||0.165
95980467|NCT00223678|191933968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.849
95980468|NCT02499770|191934013|OTHER||||||=|0.0097||||||The p-value was calculated using the stratified log-rank test to account for the baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as the stratification factor. Significance level was set as two-sided 0.2.|Stratified log-rank test|p-value calculated using stratified log-rank test with baseline ECOG status (0-1 vs 2) as stratification factor. Significance level was two-sided 0.2.||||||= 0.0097
95980469|NCT02564926|191934064|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.346|-1.819|||ANCOVA|||||-1.819|-3.346|<0.001
95980470|NCT02564926|191934065|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-0.46||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|-0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.094|-0.821|0.014
95980471|NCT02564926|191934066|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|3.113|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.113|0.673|0.343
95980472|NCT02564926|191934067|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/dL)|-18.25||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.14|-5.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.351|-31.140|0.006
95906307|NCT05054816|191769778|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections.||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
95980473|NCT02564926|191934068|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.667|-2.631|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.631|-4.667|<0.001
95980474|NCT02564926|191934069|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm)|-2.21||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.785|-0.635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.635|-3.785|0.006
95980475|NCT02564926|191934070|OTHER||LS mean difference (kg/m2)|-1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.742|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.990|-1.742|<0.001
95980476|NCT02564926|191934071|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-6.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.969|-2.641|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.641|-10.969|0.002
95906308|NCT05054816|191769779|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
95980477|NCT02564926|191934072|OTHER||LS mean difference (mmHg)|-2.61||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.829|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.600|-5.829|0.110
95980478|NCT02564926|191934073|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-17.55||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.603|-6.489|||ANCOVA|||||-6.489|-28.603|0.002
95980479|NCT02564926|191934074|OTHER||LS mean difference (cm2)|-18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.561|-9.218|||ANCOVA|||||-9.218|-27.561|<0.001
95980480|NCT02564926|191934075|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|0.063|||ANCOVA|||||0.063|-0.127|0.503
95980481|NCT02564926|191934076|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.992|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.540|-1.992|<0.001
95980482|NCT02564926|191934077|OTHER||LS mean difference (ng/mL)|657.71||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.325|1297.101|||ANCOVA|||||1297.101|18.325|0.044
95980483|NCT02564926|191934078|OTHER||LS mean difference (mg/L)|-0.12||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.858|0.625|||ANCOVA|||||0.625|-0.858|0.756
95980484|NCT02564926|191934079|OTHER||LS mean difference (%)|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-1.082|||ANCOVA|||||-1.082|-2.807|<0.001
95980485|NCT00823303|191934080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|On the basis of prior published reports, we estimated a 5% rate of hypercalcemia with paricalcitol and a 30% rate with calcitriol. To have a 90% power to detect a difference at the P=0.05 confidence level, 42 patients per group were needed. Assuming a 30% dropout rate over the course of the study, we planned to randomize 110 patients.||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.36
95980486|NCT00601250|191934081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.5|-0.78|<0.0001
95980487|NCT00601250|191934082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.431|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.333|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.333|-0.530|<0.0001
95980488|NCT00601250|191934083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.721|-0.471|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.471|-0.721|<0.0001
95980489|NCT00601250|191934084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.785|-0.512|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-0.512|-0.785|<0.0001
95906309|NCT05054816|191769780|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
95906310|NCT05054816|191769781|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between two conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
95906311|NCT05054816|191769782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons between three conditions: investigative feature, comparative feature 1, comparative feature 2|ANOVA|The data were protected against deviations from sphericity by modifying degrees of freedom using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections||Previous research with subjective ratings has repeatedly shown that data collected with 15-25 participants can yield significant results.||||<0.05
95906312|NCT02693665|191769792|SUPERIORITY|First measure of congruence was taken at 2 weeks post-baseline for controls, or immediately post-Session 2 for intervention dyads. Analysis presented here assessed differences between groups in agreement. This represents the underlying data without examining the pattern of congruence for each dyad over time. Longitudinal latent class analysis of congruence in responses over time between adolescents/families was conducted at the person not variable level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|9.57|||longitudinal latent class analysis|examined the pattern of change over time.||"Analysis was at the level of the dyad. AIM 1. To evaluate the efficacy of FACE-TC on patient-family congruence in treatment preferences.~H1a: FACE-TC participants will better maintain congruence over time, compared to controls.~H1b: Development of congruence may not be homogeneous and FACE-TC may influence the pattern of congruence development."||9.57|1.09|<0.05
95906313|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.00743162|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.928|1.094||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at baseline comparing intervention and control.||1.094|0.928|<0.05
95906314|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05037501|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96438584|1.14403138||The generalized mixed effect models are taking into account missingness by attrition. There were not missing values for the outcomes or predictors that we used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model forced age, gender, race, family education, family income under the Federal Poverty level, on/off treatment.||Emotional distress-anxiety analysis at 3 months post baseline comparing intervention and control. We hypothesized that anxiety would be lower in the intervention group compared to controls.||1.14403138|0.96438584|<0.05
95906315|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY|See earlier comments.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01136067|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92887892|1.10116656||See earlier comments.|t-test, 2 sided|See earlier comments.||This is analysis for 6 month outcomes of Emotional-distress - anxiety. See details in 3 month outcomes.||1.10116656|0.92887892|<0.05
95906316|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14070431|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04444724|1.2458325|||t-test, 2 sided||See earlier comments.|These are the 12 month outcomes for Emotional distress - anxiety. See earlier comments.||1.24583250|1.04444724|<0.05
95906317|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98078271|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89845609|1.07065301|||t-test, 2 sided|||This analysis is for the outcome Emotional distress - depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that adolescent in the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms compared to controls at 3, 6, and 12 month outcomes. The following are the baseline comparisons between control and intervention which were controlled for in the 3, 6, and 12 month analysis of outcomes.||1.07065301|0.89845609|<0.05
95906318|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04007715|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94970156|1.13905306|||t-test, 2 sided|||The results here are for the outcome variable Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms at 3 month outcomes. We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower depressive symptoms than controls.||1.13905306|0.94970156|<0.05
95906319|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07347088|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9806271|1.17510491|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesize that Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms would be lower in intervention adolescents compared to controls at 6 months post intervention.||1.17510491|0.98062710|<0.05
95906320|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11582434|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01653156|1.22481585|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have lower scores on Emotional Distress - Depressive symptoms compared to controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.22481585|1.01653156|<0.05
95906321|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.98803061|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89065531|1.09605195|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would have no differences in fatigue at baseline if randomization was successful. In this analysis we examine the baseline results.||1.09605195|0.89065531|<0.05
95906322|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13509797|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01959639|1.26368376|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention arm would report less Fatigue at 3 months outcome compared to controls.||1.26368376|1.01959639|<0.05
95906323|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04944737|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94281417|1.16814089|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Fatigue at 6 months post baseline compared to control adolescents.||1.16814089|0.94281417|<0.05
95980490|NCT00601250|191934085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.3|-14.96|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.96|-27.3|<0.0001
95906324|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11042568|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99383841|1.24068981|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that intervention adolescents would report less Fatigue than controls at 12 months post baseline.||1.24068981|0.99383841|<0.05
95906325|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9683347|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88658183|1.05762611|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that there would be no differences at baseline between intervention and control adolescents with respect to Pain Interference.||1.05762611|0.88658183|<0.05
95906326|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04450374|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95307464|1.1447037|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 3 months post baseline.||1.14470370|0.95307464|<0.05
95906327|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07182133|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97835451|1.17421748|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that adolescents randomized to the intervention compared to controls would report less Pain Interference at 6 months post baseline.||1.17421748|0.97835451|<0.05
95906328|NCT02693665|191769793|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|1.09964781|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.00051223|1.20860622|||t-test, 2 sided|||We hypothesized that at 12 month outcome adolescents randomized to the intervention would report less Pain Interference compared to control adolescents.||1.20860622|1.00051223|<0.05
95906329|NCT02693665|191769794|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace Subscale at 3 months post intervention||1.09|0.88|<0.05
95906330|NCT02693665|191769794|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.97|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.08|0.88|<0.05
95906331|NCT02693665|191769794|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Meaning and Peace subscale at 12 months post intervention||1.02|0.82|<0.05
95906332|NCT02693665|191769794|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale score at 3 months post intervention||1.16|0.73|<0.05
95906333|NCT02693665|191769794|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale at 6 months post intervention||1.21|0.76|<0.05
95906334|NCT02693665|191769794|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.92|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Faith subscale scores at 12 months post intervention||1.17|0.72|<0.05
95906335|NCT02693665|191769795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.15|||GEE model|||Caregiver Strain subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.15|-0.42|<0.05
95906336|NCT02693665|191769795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.36|||GEE model|||Positive Caregiving Appraisal subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.36|0.02|<0.05
95906337|NCT02693665|191769795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||GEE model|||Caregiver Distress subscale at 3 months post-intervention comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.32|-0.35|<0.05
95906338|NCT02693665|191769795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.38|||GEE model|||Family Well-Being subscale at 3 months post-intervention, comparing intervention to TAU, controlling for baseline levels.||0.38|-0.07|<0.05
95906339|NCT02693665|191769797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Intervention effect for quality of adolescent communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income and on active treatment.|It is the standard error of the slope, but this was not an option.|Quality of communication analysis for adolescents||||0.47
95980491|NCT00601250|191934086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.0001||95.0|-21.76|-11.29|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.29|-21.76|<0.0001
95906340|NCT02693665|191769797|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|Testing intervention effect for family member quality of communication score controlling for age, gender, race, income nd on active treatment.|This is standard error of the slope.|Quality of communication analysis for family member.||||<0.01
95906341|NCT02693665|191769803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent positive score comparing intervention with TAU.||||<0.05
95906342|NCT02693665|191769803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Adolescent negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
95906343|NCT02693665|191769803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member positively worded score comparing intervention with treatment as usual.||||<0.05
95980492|NCT00601250|191934087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.0001||95.0|-22.44|-11.01|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-11.01|-22.44|<0.0001
95980493|NCT00601250|191934088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.81|-14.84|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-14.84|-26.81|<0.0001
95980494|NCT00601250|191934089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.395|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.41|8.013|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||8.013|2.410|<0.0001
95906344|NCT02693665|191769803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Family member negative worded score comparing intervention to TAU.||||<0.05
95909269|NCT01939548|191776650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.441||0.3202|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|0.13||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Uncontrolled hostility/excitement symptom score comparison of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.13|-1.01|0.3202
95980495|NCT00601250|191934091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.456||||0.0016||95.0|1.907|15.614|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||15.614|1.907|0.0016
95980496|NCT00601250|191934093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.754|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.486|5.669|||Regression, Logistic|||"Linagliptin vs. Placebo~The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication."||5.669|2.486|<0.0001
95980497|NCT00601250|191934094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-67.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.69|-39.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-39.58|-94.69|<0.0001
95980498|NCT00601250|191934095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-41.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.71|-21.89|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin vs. Placebo||-21.89|-61.71|<0.0001
95980499|NCT00708175|191934098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.24||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and baseline BMD as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||The sample size was calculated using a precision approach to estimate the difference between the pioglitazone and placebo treatment groups in the percent change from baseline in BMD.||0.24|-1.33|0.170
95980500|NCT00708175|191934099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.56||P-value is from a 1-way ANCOVA with treatment group as a factor and the Month 12 BMD value as a covariate. There were no multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.91|0.640
95980501|NCT01791803|191934121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|11.4||||||||11.4|1.1|
95980502|NCT01791803|191934121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.7||||||||9.7|1.04|
95980503|NCT01791803|191934122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|6.2||||Adjusted for gender, marital status, diagnosis at enrollment.||||6.2|0.8|
95980504|NCT01791803|191934122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.0||||||||10|1.2|
95980505|NCT01791803|191934123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking status at 12 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or pulmonary diagnosis||||< 0.001
95980506|NCT01791803|191934123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison of smoking stars at 26 weeks after hospitalization for a cardiac or a pulmonary illness||||0.07
95980507|NCT00257166|191934147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-2.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-2.31|-8.12|0.0005
95980508|NCT00257166|191934148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.2545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9422||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1045|-1.4046|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4046|-5.1045|0.0006
95980509|NCT00257166|191934148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4184||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3705|-0.8009|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.8009|-6.3705|0.0117
95980510|NCT00257166|191934148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.8665|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7154||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2345|-1.4985|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-1.4985|-8.2345|0.0047
95980511|NCT00257166|191934149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0989||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5696|-0.1812|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 1: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.1812|-0.5696|0.0002
95980512|NCT00257166|191934149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.5596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1355|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8256|-0.2936|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.2936|-0.8256|<0.0001
95980513|NCT00257166|191934149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6798|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0024|-0.3572|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 3: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3572|-1.0024|<0.0001
95906345|NCT00686166|191769857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Exact binomal test|||||||0.18
95906346|NCT01552213|191769860|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.53|0.32
95906347|NCT01552213|191769861|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.32
95906348|NCT01552213|191769862|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
95906349|NCT01552213|191769863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95906350|NCT01552213|191769864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.75
95906351|NCT01552213|191769865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.95
95906352|NCT01552213|191769866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95906353|NCT01552213|191769867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95906354|NCT01552213|191769868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95906355|NCT01552213|191769869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.42
95906356|NCT01552213|191769870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95906357|NCT01552213|191769871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95906358|NCT01552213|191769872|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95906359|NCT01552213|191769873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.56
95906360|NCT00000392|191769913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.18
95906361|NCT03667053|191769923|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The treatment group difference between dasiglucagon and placebo was evaluated inferentially using a pairwise two-sided log rank test stratified by injection site and age group.||||<0.001
95906362|NCT03667053|191769924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0073||||||Assessed at 30 minutes. Note that p-value was 0.0005 at 10 minutes and \<0.0001 at 15 and 20 minutes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group and injection site. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0073
95906363|NCT03667053|191769925|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was \<0.0001 at all time points (10, 15, 20 and 30 minutes)|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30, 20, 15, and 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95906364|NCT01426191|191769950|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95906365|NCT01426191|191769951|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95906366|NCT01043432|191769972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regressions were utilized to model the outcomes of interest as a function of SA, TBI group, and the interaction between the two groups.||||>.05
95906367|NCT04307004|191769974|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure when attended - mean systolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended).|||1.1|0.5|< 0.0001
95906368|NCT04307004|191769974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure when attended - mean diastolic blood pressure when not attended (i.e., unattended)|||0.7|0.3|< 0.0001
95906369|NCT04307004|191769975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in systolic blood pressure = mean systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.5|-3.0|< 0.0001
95906370|NCT04307004|191769975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Paired T Test, 2-sided||Mean difference in diastolic blood pressure = mean diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring - mean diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring.|||-1.4|-2.5|< 0.0001
95906371|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - Attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - Left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.32|< 0.001
95906372|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure measurements and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 with attended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.60|0.24|< 0.001
95906373|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.56|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.56|0.33|< 0.001
95906374|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 587 participants with unattended office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.19|< 0.001
95906375|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.74|0.47|< 0.001
95906376|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 554 participants with out-of-office blood pressure measurements and valid LVMI measurements. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|0.25|< 0.001
95906377|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.44|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with HBPM data and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.44|0.19|< 0.001
95906378|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index|beta coefficient|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on HBPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|0.05|0.01
95980514|NCT00257166|191934149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1761||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0342|-0.3426|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate was used for the analysis.||-0.3426|-1.0342|0.0001
95906379|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.59|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.59|0.32|< 0.001
95906380|NCT04307004|191769977|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM Dependent variable - left ventricular mass index.|beta coefficient|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.55|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI). This analysis included 533 participants with data on ABPM and valid LVMI. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.55|0.16|< 0.001
95980515|NCT00257166|191934150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Mixed effects repeated measures ANCOVA model with center and participant within center as random effects, treatment, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects was used for the analysis.||-0.34|-1.18|0.0004
95980516|NCT02039726|191934170|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.983|||P-value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||0.983|0.584|0.0185
95906381|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - attended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.08|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.08|-0.47|0.17
95906382|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - attended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.15|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between attended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on attended office blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.15|-0.70|0.20
95906383|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended systolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.02|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.02|-0.55|0.07
95906384|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - unattended diastolic blood pressure. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between unattended diastolic blood pressure and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 555 participants with complete data on unattended diastolic blood pressure and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.06|-0.80|0.09
95906385|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.31|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.31|-0.29|0.94
95906386|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|"Independent variable - awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.~Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio."|beta coefficient|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.66|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between awake diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 523 participants with complete data on ABPM and UACR. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.66|-0.21|0.31
95906387|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.26|-0.28|0.94
95906388|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on HBPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete HBPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.36|-0.40|0.93
95906389|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep systolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep systolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.40|-0.21|0.54
95906390|NCT04307004|191769978|OTHER|Independent variable - asleep diastolic blood pressure on ABPM. Dependent variable - urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.|beta coefficient|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.68|||Regression, Linear|||We determined the association between asleep diastolic blood pressure on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). This analysis included 505 participants with complete ABPM and UACR data. This analysis combined across study arms as prespecified in the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan.||0.68|-0.16|0.23
95906391|NCT02647359|191770033|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|10.76||||0.4868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.914|43.434||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age and baseline Maximum Reading Speed (both eyes) as covariates, and treatment as a factor.||43.434|-21.914|0.4868
95980517|NCT02039726|191934171|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.2034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.157|||P value for HR=1 (1-sided)|||Stratified analysis - stratification factors include prior therapy and response (Relapsed in ≤6 months (not post-HSCT), Refractory, or relapsed in ≤6 months post allogeneic HSCT), and pre-selected chemotherapy (High intensity chemotherapy \[MEC or FLAG-IDA\], or low intensity chemotherapy \[LoDAC\]).||1.157|0.697|0.2034
95980518|NCT01681810|191934181|OTHER|Paired t-test comparing insulin stimulated glucose disposal at end of 12 weeks on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) insulin stimulated glucose disposal.||||||0.2068|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2068
95980519|NCT01681810|191934182|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.||||||0.0074||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0074
95906392|NCT01270347|191770070|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from Baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted was \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.86||||0.1481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|4.39|||ANCOVA||Estimates were determined from an analysis of covariance model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), and age (12 to 18 years, \> 18 years), and Baseline FEV1 (\< 55%, . 55%).|||4.39|-0.66|0.1481
95906393|NCT01270347|191770071|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|4.968||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|10.59|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), \& baseline as a covariate.|||10.590|-0.653|0.0830
95906394|NCT01270347|191770072|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in FEV1 percent predicted is \> -4%.|LSMean difference|1.57||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.272|3.411|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from a repeated measures model with terms for treatment, visit, the interaction between treatment group and visit, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline as a covariate.|||3.411|-0.272|0.0945
95906395|NCT01270347|191770075|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Sputum Density is \> -4%|LSMean difference|0.44||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.88|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline organism log density.|||0.88|-0.01|0.0530
95980520|NCT01681810|191934183|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95980521|NCT01681810|191934184|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing blood pressure over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) blood pressure.|||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95980522|NCT01681810|191934185|OTHER|One-way repeated measures ANOVA comparing methemoglobin percent over time on nitrite drug to baseline (pre-drug) methemoglobin percent.||||||0.0127||||||Bonferroni adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||||||0.0127
95980523|NCT00785044|191934206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Analysis was performed using the null hypothesis for the AUC stated as: H0: θ ≤A versus H1: θ \>A, where the AUC (θ) value was: 'A' selected based on the diagnostic utility desired from the use of myocardial 123 I-mIBG uptake measured using H/M ratio. A smooth parametric model of the ROC curve was fitted to the data. The AUC for the resulting model was calculated and 95% confidence interval for the AUC was reported. The hypothesis was tested using the Z-statistics at 'A' at level of 0.70.|Mean|0.581|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.532|0.63||At 0.05 level of significance.|Z-statistic|||"Analysis was performed on all HF participants from both groups AdreView™ - HF Group (With No Adverse Cardiac Events) and AdreView™ - HF Group (With Adverse Cardiac Events) based on H/M ratio."||0.630|0.532|<0.001
95980524|NCT01086410|191934229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.12|0.87|
95980525|NCT01086410|191934229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.1|||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||1.10|0.86|
95980526|NCT01086410|191934229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of least square gometric mean|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.41|||||Analysis performed using ANCOVA with covariates of region, sex, age, treatment, and the log of the Baseline values.|||0.41|0.28|
95980527|NCT00763971|191934251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|-15.7|||ANCOVA|||||-15.7|-21.5|<0.001
95980528|NCT00763971|191934251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|-10.2|||ANCOVA|||||-10.2|-15.9|<0.001
95980529|NCT00763971|191934252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|63.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|74.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||74.1|53.0|<0.001
95980530|NCT00763971|191934252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in percentages|46.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.6|57.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.7|34.6|<0.001
95980531|NCT00763971|191934253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-17.0|||ANCOVA|||||-17.0|-25.5|<0.001
95980532|NCT00763971|191934253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-10.9|||ANCOVA|||||-10.9|-19.3|<0.001
95980533|NCT00763971|191934255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|11.5|||ANCOVA|||||11.5|6.1|<0.001
95980534|NCT00763971|191934255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|10.0|||ANCOVA|||||10.0|4.6|<0.001
95980535|NCT00763971|191934256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.4|<0.001
95980536|NCT00763971|191934256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS means|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
95980537|NCT01301456|191934285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-21.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.766||0.219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-43.26|0.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||0.93|-43.26|0.219
95980538|NCT01301456|191934285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-34.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.189||0.034|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.2|-14.16|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-14.16|-54.20|0.034
95980539|NCT01301456|191934285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-33.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.806||0.044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-54.5|-12.84|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||-12.84|-54.50|0.044
95980540|NCT01301456|191934285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.111||0.857|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-24.16|18.31|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 30||18.31|-24.16|0.857
95980541|NCT01301456|191934286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.251||0.419|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.54|0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.12|-0.54|0.419
95906396|NCT01270347|191770077|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the LS mean difference 95% CI for relative change from baseline to Day 28 in Respiratory Domain of the CFQ-R is \> -4%|LSMean difference|3.19||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|6.32|||ANCOVA||Estimates are determined from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, region (US, non-US), age (12-18 years, \>18 years), baseline FEV1 (\<55%, \>=55%), and baseline value.|||6.32|0.05|0.0463
95906397|NCT02085408|191770079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.3|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio : clofarabine/(daunorubicin \& cytarabine)|||1.30|0.94|
95906398|NCT02085408|191770080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.94
95906399|NCT02486328|191770095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95906400|NCT02486328|191770096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95906401|NCT02486328|191770097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95906402|NCT02486328|191770098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95906403|NCT02486328|191770099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95906404|NCT02486328|191770100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95906405|NCT01201629|191770130|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95906406|NCT01201629|191770131|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95906407|NCT02105948|191770136|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted for FEV1,smoking status and offset of log (time in on-and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.036
95906408|NCT02105948|191770136|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.82|||=|0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.98||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||0.98|0.68|=0.029
95906409|NCT02105948|191770137|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Adjusted p-value to account for two treatment comparisons|Negative Binomial Model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|>0.999
95906410|NCT02105948|191770137|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|0.98|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||Unadjusted p-value.|Negative binomial mode||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no.of moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period)|||1.12|0.85|=0.731
95906411|NCT02105948|191770138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.036
95906412|NCT02105948|191770138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/placebo)|0.75|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||0.94|0.60|=0.012
95906413|NCT02105948|191770139|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.598
95906414|NCT02105948|191770139|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.16|||=|0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.75||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.75|0.77|=0.479
95906415|NCT02105948|191770140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|>0.999
95906416|NCT02105948|191770140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.2|||=|0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.2||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||3.2|-2.8|=0.901
95906417|NCT02105948|191770141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|>0.999
95906418|NCT02105948|191770141|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.8|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.5|-2.0|=0.244
95906419|NCT02105948|191770142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Adjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|>0.999
95906420|NCT02105948|191770142|SUPERIORITY||Hazard ratio (Mepolizumab/Placebo)|0.89|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.05||Unadjusted p-value|Cox Proportional Hazards Model||Analysis performed using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1 and smoking status|||1.05|0.75|=0.160
95906421|NCT02105948|191770143|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Adjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|>0.999
95906422|NCT02105948|191770143|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio (mepolizumab/placebo)|1.1|||=|0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49||Unadjusted p-value|Negative binomial model||Analysis using a negative binomial model with covariates of treatment, geographic region, no. moderate/severe exacerbations in previous year, Baseline percent predicted FEV1, smoking status and offset of log (time in on- and off-treatment period).|||1.49|0.81|=0.556
95906423|NCT02105948|191770144|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|>0.999
95906424|NCT02105948|191770144|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|0.7|||=|0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline SGRQ Total Score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||2.9|-1.5|=0.532
95906425|NCT02105948|191770145|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Adjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|>0.999
95906426|NCT02105948|191770145|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (Mepolizumab - Placebo)|-0.6|||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis||Analysis performed using mixed model repeated measures with covariates of baseline CAT score, geographic region, smoking status, treatment and visit, plus interaction terms for visit by Baseline and visit by treatment group.|||0.4|-1.5|=0.252
95906427|NCT01581281|191770146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.34|1.48||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 (= 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for amitriptyline relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.48|0.34|0.2636
95906428|NCT01581281|191770146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.39|1.68||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to placebo. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.68|0.39|0.4821
95980542|NCT01301456|191934286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.224||0.077|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|-0.12|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.12|-0.71|0.077
95980543|NCT01301456|191934286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.147|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.65|-0.04|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.04|-0.65|0.147
95980544|NCT01301456|191934286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244||0.086|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.76|-0.11|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.11|-0.76|0.086
95980545|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.663|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.16|16.37|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||16.37|-8.16|0.663
95980546|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.472||0.825|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-13.03|9.25|||mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.25|-13.03|0.825
95980547|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.791||0.878|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.2|12.92|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.92|-10.20|0.878
95906429|NCT01581281|191770146|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|98.3|0.49|1.59||A Bonferroni approach was used to control the type I error rate. Because there were three comparisons of interest, the Bonferroni corrected level of significance is 0.017 ( = 0.05 / 3).|Regression, Logistic|||"Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds of successful primary endpoint for topiramate relative to amitriptyline. The analyses followed the intention to treat principle, imputing an outcome of failure for any participant who withdrew early for any reason or did not provide week 24 headache diary data (endpoint data). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days)."||1.59|0.49|0.6107
95906430|NCT01581281|191770147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.9137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|5.95|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||5.95|-6.64|0.9137
95906431|NCT01581281|191770147|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.84||||0.1331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|1.49|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.49|-11.16|0.1331
95906432|NCT01581281|191770147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.49||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|9.87|||Regression, Linear|||The mean change from baseline in PedMIDAS score over time for the three groups was assessed using a linear regression model for each of the three pairwise comparisons (Amitriptyline relative to placebo, Topiramate relative to placebo, and Amitriptyline relative to Topiramate), adjusted for the baseline PedMIDAS score. The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||9.87|-0.88|0.1011
95906433|NCT01581281|191770148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.59|1.15||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.15|-2.59|0.3553
95906434|NCT01581281|191770148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-2.52|1.24||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.24|-2.52|0.4143
95906435|NCT01581281|191770148|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.9038|TWO_SIDED|98.3|-1.68|1.52||Each comparison was tested using a Bonferroni corrected significance level of 0.017 (0.05/3).|Regression, Linear|||Another major secondary objective was to determine if the change in absolute headache days from baseline to week 24 differed between treatment groups. This objective was assessed using linear regression models, with three pairwise comparisons between treatment groups (Amitriptyline vs. Placebo, Topiramate vs. Placebo, and Amitriptyline vs. Topiramate). The models, and corresponding odds ratios, were adjusted for the two stratification variables (age and baseline number of headache days).||1.52|-1.68|0.9038
95906436|NCT01581281|191770149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.1557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.05|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.05|0.85|0.1557
95906437|NCT01581281|191770149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||5.62|0.95|0.0754
95906438|NCT01581281|191770149|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.62|||Fisher Exact|||Tolerability was assessed by calculating the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group. Concerns regarding tolerability would be raised if the upper bound of a confidence interval was less than 65% or if the percent of subjects who completed the entire 24 week treatment period in either of the active treatment groups was significantly less than the placebo group.||1.62|0.49|0.7611
95980548|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.829||0.936|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.89|12.33|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||12.33|-10.89|0.936
95980549|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.037||0.959|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.46|17.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||17.82|-16.46|0.959
95980550|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-32.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.872||0.011|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.07|-16.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-16.85|-48.07|0.011
95906439|NCT01581281|191770150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3038|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.3038
95906440|NCT01581281|191770150|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||1.000
95906441|NCT01581281|191770150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2139|||||||Fisher Exact|||The occurrence of treatment-related SAE's was assessed in two ways: 1) percentage of subjects who experience any treatment-related SAE in each of the three groups was compared using Fishers exact test; 2) rates of treatment-emergent SAS's across the three groups were compared using a Poisson regression model. However, due to the small number of SAEs that were deemed treatment-emergent (4 in AMI, 1 in TPM, 0 in PBO), the parameter estimates did not converge for the Poisson regression model.||||0.2139
95906442|NCT00584727|191770153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere by having more eyes see 20/20||||<0.0001
95906443|NCT00584727|191770154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1334||||95.0|0.3625|0.7155|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus etafilcon A sphere.|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||0.7155|0.3625|
95906444|NCT00584727|191770155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2161||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Aletrnative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees.||||0.2161
95906445|NCT00584727|191770156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1328||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric by having more eyes within 5 degrees||||0.1328
95906446|NCT00584727|191770157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1393||||95.0|0.1529|0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference was senofilcon A toric minus alphafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to alphafilcon A toric.||0.4890|0.1529|
95906447|NCT00584727|191770158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Alternative hypothesis was senofilcon A toric was superior to etafilcon A sphere.||||<0.0001
95906448|NCT03301051|191770163|OTHER|Vaccine Efficacy (VE) of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - attack rate in vaccinated participants \[ARV\]/attack rate in unvaccinated participants \[ARU\]) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|48.6|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI).|||48.6|17.6|
95906449|NCT03301051|191770164|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|38.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.6|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|27.6|
95906450|NCT03301051|191770165|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|33.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|48.5|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.5|14.9|
95906451|NCT03301051|191770166|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|48.0|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||48.0|25.1|
95906452|NCT03301051|191770167|OTHER|VE of VLP vaccine versus placebo = (1 - ARV/ARU) x 100%.|Vaccine Efficacy|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||||The VE success criterion is defined as a \>40% lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI.|||11.3|0.8|
95906453|NCT01359735|191770191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 04|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.263
95906454|NCT01359735|191770191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 13|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
95906455|NCT01359735|191770192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Over weeks 1 through 4 or Week 4?|Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95906456|NCT01359735|191770193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0594
95906457|NCT01359735|191770194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1354|ONE_SIDED|||||3 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1354
95906458|NCT01359735|191770194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||12 Weeks|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.5000
95906459|NCT01359735|191770195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 3 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0841
95906460|NCT01359735|191770195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|||||Week 12 Post-surgery|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.1780
95906461|NCT01358526|191770196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.77||A gate-keeping strategy and a Bonferroni-Holm method was used to control the family-wise (primary and secondary efficacy analysis) error rate at the 5% level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis of pain data using a pattern mixture model framework||||0.77|0.13|0.0055
95906462|NCT01358526|191770197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-model repeated measures analysis|Mean difference (final values) is the treatment comparison estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis with effect for treatment, time (weeks 4, 8, 12), treatment by time interaction, and prerandomization value. Subject is a random effect.|||9.8|0.9|0.0191
95906463|NCT01358526|191770198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||"The proportion of subjects responding much improved and very much improved was summarized by treatment group and compared between groups using an exact test"|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0002
95906464|NCT01358526|191770199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 30%||||0.0006
95906465|NCT01358526|191770200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test: responder as dependent variable, treatment as explanatory variable, dose at time of randomization as stratifying factor||Proportion of subjects with a response to treatment that is ≥ 50%||||0.0018
95906466|NCT00627705|191770243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||mixed effects regression models|F= 0.81||Cohen's d = 0.30||||0.449
95906467|NCT00627705|191770245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale (F = 6.80; p = \<.001; d = .96).|Mixed effects regression models|||F values were derived from the interaction of participant group (NAC vs. placebo) and time (week) in mixed effects regression models. Cohen's d was computed based on the standardized mean difference in the change from baseline to week 12.||||<.001
95906468|NCT00627705|191770247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|||||||mixed effects regression models|degrees of freedom were 1, 22||F-values were derived from the interaction of Participant Group (NAC vs. Placebo) and Time (Week) in mixed effects regression models.||||.141
95906469|NCT03387852|191770250|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.423|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|0.88|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 300 mg vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||0.88|0.203|=0.0214
95906470|NCT03387852|191770250|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio|0.52|||=|0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|1.057|||Regression, Logistic||SAR440340 + Dupilumab vs. Placebo|Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value derived from logistic regression with treatment, baseline eosinophil strata, region, background ICS dose level at randomization and number of exacerbation events (defined as required use of systemic \[oral and/or parenteral\] steroid treatment, or required hospitalization or emergency room visit) within 1 year prior to screening.||1.057|0.256|=0.0709
95906471|NCT01410448|191770266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0921|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0921
95906472|NCT05183022|191770395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
95906473|NCT00240487|191770396|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary outcome variable is the mean PaO2/FiO2 in each group after 8 hours of study participation to determine whether timing of treatment with nitric oxide impacts outcome (immediate treatment versus delayed treatment).|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in mean PaO2/FiO2 ratios between the two groups will help to determine whether order of therapy (immediate treatment with nitric oxide versus delayed treatment with nitric oxide) impacts outcomes.||||>0.05
95906474|NCT02120027|191770413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.986||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.64|0.949
95906475|NCT02120027|191770414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.86|0.88|0.193
95906476|NCT02120027|191770415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.53|0.70|0.872
95906477|NCT02120027|191770416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.339||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.26|0.79|0.272
95906478|NCT02120027|191770417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.153||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.73|0.567
95906479|NCT00985725|191770428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-12.7|0.0009
95906480|NCT00985725|191770429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.7|0.0465
95906481|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||Behavioral recognition index||-0.9|-9.4|0.0181
95906482|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||Inhibit subscale||-0.7|-7.7|0.0204
95906483|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-1.4|||ANCOVA|||Shift subscale||-1.4|-9.8|0.0090
95906484|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Emotional control subscale||0.4|-7.9|0.0793
95906485|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Self-monitor subscale||0.6|-7.0|0.1014
95906486|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||Metacognition index||-4.3|-13.7|0.0002
95906487|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|||Initiate subscale||-4.2|-12.9|0.0002
95906488|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-4.5|||ANCOVA|||Working memory subscale||-4.5|-13.7|0.0001
95906489|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Plan/Organize subscale||-3.1|-11.9|0.0010
95906490|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Task monitor subscale||-0.3|-9.4|0.0357
95906491|NCT00985725|191770430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-2.8|||ANCOVA|||Organization of materials subscale||-2.8|-11.1|0.0012
95906492|NCT00985725|191770435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.0|-10.9|0.1731
95906493|NCT00993655|191770443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||Assume that the 9-month PD rate in IV arm (Arm 1) will be 40% (based on experience with data from NCIC CTG OV.16 and that of NCRI UK). The target sample size of 200 will enable the detection of a 19% difference between Arms 1 and 3 in 9 month progression disease rate post randomization with 80% power at two-sided 0.05 level.||||0.065
95906494|NCT00993655|191770444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.75|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||1.75|0.85|0.27
95906495|NCT00993655|191770445|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.13|||Log Rank|Adjusting for stratification factors at randomization||||2.13|0.74|0.40
95906496|NCT02314624|191770446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Depression subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.734
95906497|NCT02314624|191770446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Anxiety subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.27
95906498|NCT02314624|191770446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Stress subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used a Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.75
95906499|NCT02314624|191770446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analyses were performed on each subscale individually. This is the p-value for the Suicide subscale.|Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.812
95906500|NCT02314624|191770447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.036
95906501|NCT02314624|191770448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.664
95906502|NCT02314624|191770449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.764
95906503|NCT02314624|191770450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.440
95906504|NCT02314624|191770451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.09
95906505|NCT02314624|191770452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.19
95906506|NCT02314624|191770453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.15
95906507|NCT02314624|191770454|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 1 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
95906508|NCT02314624|191770455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.14
95906509|NCT02314624|191770456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.22
95980551|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.212||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-18.67|13.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.45|-18.67|0.833
95980552|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-23.47|9.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.05|-23.47|0.565
95980553|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.713||0.703|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.52|9.02|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||9.02|-16.52|0.703
95980554|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.827||0.008|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-37.07|-13.85|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.85|-37.07|0.008
95980555|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.061||0.253|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-22.51|1.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.32|-22.51|0.253
95980556|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.198||0.128|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-26.57|-2.38|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-2.38|-26.57|0.128
95980557|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.421||0.196|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-30.17|-0.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-0.13|-30.17|0.196
95906510|NCT02314624|191770457|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||<.001
95906511|NCT02314624|191770458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 3 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.001
95906512|NCT02314624|191770459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|GEE Type III chi squared distribution with 2 degrees of freedom was used to examine between-condition change over time from baseline.||We used the Generalized Linear Model to examine the between-condition change over time on study outcomes. We computed the design effects due to this nested design to determine the extent to which the intraclass correlation due to clustering and size of the cluster affected the analyses. Design effects ranged up to 1.8. Because all were under 2.0, we did not adjust analyses to account for clustering effects.||||.99
95906513|NCT02131272|191770471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered fulfilled if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between detemir and NPH was below or equal to 0.4%. The sample size was set to ensure 80% power for the full analysis set (FAS). However, efficacy conclusions cannot be drawn from the analysis due to low number of subjects included in the trial.|Least squares mean difference|0.17||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.09||p value is reported for 1 sided test|Mixed Models Analysis|||HbA1c measurements were analysed with a mixed model for repeated measurements with an unstructured covariance matrix. The model included treatment, visit, age group, prior antidiabetic therapy and interaction between prior antidiabetic therapy and age group as fixed factors and the HbA1c baseline value as covariate. Interactions between visit and all factors and covariates were also included in the model.||1.09|-0.74|0.3075
95906514|NCT04162769|191770478|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.605|=|0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.228|2.674|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||2.674|-23.228|=0.1198
95906515|NCT04162769|191770478|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-8.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.515|=|0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.544|4.002|||ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.002|-21.544|=0.1783
95906516|NCT04162769|191770479|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.34|=|0.9826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.52|18.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.11|-18.52|=0.9826
95906517|NCT04162769|191770479|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.78|=|0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|32.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||32.21|-6.12|=0.1891
95906518|NCT04162769|191770480|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38|=|0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.29|16.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||16.64|-12.29|=0.7694
95906519|NCT04162769|191770480|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|=|0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|34.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.00|0.79|=0.0450
95906520|NCT04162769|191770481|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-14.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.295|=|0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.406|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.352|-28.406|=0.0558
95906521|NCT04162769|191770481|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-10.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.134|=|0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.737|3.397|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||3.397|-24.737|=0.1363
95906522|NCT04162769|191770482|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.33|=|0.7143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|26.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.41|-18.00|=0.7143
95906523|NCT04162769|191770482|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.09|=|0.6488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|26.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||26.87|-16.62|=0.6488
95906524|NCT04162769|191770483|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.22|=|0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||28.80|-11.27|=0.3981
95906525|NCT04162769|191770483|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.17|=|0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|35.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||35.15|-4.72|=0.1410
95906526|NCT04162769|191770484|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.65|=|0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.61|23.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||23.38|-6.61|=0.2690
95906527|NCT04162769|191770484|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.09|=|0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.56|18.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||18.25|-9.56|=0.5428
95906528|NCT04162769|191770485|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.721|=|0.7163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.089|12.466|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||12.466|-18.089|=0.7163
95906529|NCT04162769|191770485|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.602|=|0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.284|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||1.805|-28.284|=0.0840
95906530|NCT03317977|191770515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
95906531|NCT01483924|191770568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The difference in change in PASI score from baseline to Week 12 was compared all active treatment groups and the placebo group||||0.9048
95906532|NCT01483924|191770569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1975|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.1975
95906533|NCT01483924|191770570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6349
95906534|NCT01483924|191770571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6212|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.6212
95906535|NCT02890381|191770572|OTHER||% vaccine recipients with solicited AEs|64.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.0|86.0||||||||86|35|
95906536|NCT02890381|191770572|OTHER||% placebo recipients with solicited AEs|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.0|100.0||||||||100|61|
95906537|NCT02890381|191770573|OTHER||% vaccinees with unsolicited AEs|36.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.0|65.0||||||||65|14|
95906538|NCT02890381|191770573|OTHER||% placebo with unsolicited AEs|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.0|85.0||||||||85|15|
95906539|NCT02890381|191770578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since the sample sizes are unequal, at the suggestion of the DSMB statistician, a 1-sided Fisher's exact test was used to test the hypothesis that the proportions of \>=4-fold rises were higher in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.64
95906540|NCT02890381|191770579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.73
95906541|NCT02415400|191770614|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority (NI) margin = 1.2|||||<|0.0001|||||||1-sided p-value for NI test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 1) Non-inferiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
95906542|NCT02415400|191770614|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
95906543|NCT02415400|191770615|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|2.23|||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||2.23|1.58|<0.0001
95906544|NCT02415400|191770616|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||2-sided p-value for superiority test|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 2) Superiority for the primary endpoint.||||<0.0001
95906545|NCT02415400|191770617|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.94|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||0.94|0.75|0.0033
95906546|NCT02415400|191770618|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.2219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.2|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 3) Superiority for all-cause death and all-cause rehospitalization.||1.20|0.96|0.2219
95906547|NCT02415400|191770619|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.13|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for apixaban vs VKA: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.13|0.75|0.4370
95906548|NCT02415400|191770620|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.07|||2-sided p-value|||Separate hierarchical testing was performed for aspirin vs placebo: 4) Superiority for all-cause death and ischemic events.||1.07|0.70|0.1742
95906549|NCT03825380|191770621|NON_INFERIORITY|"Primary tested:Non-inferiority of T4032 to Lumigan® on the change from baseline in IOP using a MMRM. 3 independent models will be performed, one for each time point (8:00, 10:00~\& 16:00). The 95% CI for treatment effect (difference T4032 - Lumigan) will be estimated at Wk 12. NI will be achieved if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups (T4032 - Lumigan) is lower than the margin of +1.5 mmHg for each of the 3 time points 8:00, 10:00 \& 16:00."|Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.62|0.453
95906550|NCT02081846|191770631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.047
95980558|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.393||0.012|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-41.84|-14.51|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-14.51|-41.84|0.012
95906551|NCT02081846|191770632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
95906552|NCT02081846|191770633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||censored Poisson model|||||||0.82
95906553|NCT02081846|191770634|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Poisson model|||||||<0.01
95980559|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-22.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.773||0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-36.65|-8.32|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-8.32|-36.65|0.047
95980560|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-28.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.837||0.023|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-44.19|-13.06|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||-13.06|-44.19|0.023
95980561|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.576||0.711|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.77|22.93|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||22.93|-12.77|0.711
95906554|NCT02081846|191770635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
95906555|NCT02081846|191770636|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
95906556|NCT02081846|191770637|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.12
95906557|NCT03265600|191770654|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Unadjusted bivariate logistic regression|||||||0.006
95906558|NCT03265600|191770655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.25||||||0.19
95906559|NCT03265600|191770656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.36||||||0.12
95906560|NCT03265600|191770657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.34||||||0.08
95906561|NCT03265600|191770658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.57||||||<0.001
95906562|NCT03265600|191770659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.41||||||0.03
95906563|NCT03265600|191770660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.15||||||0.31
95906564|NCT03265600|191770661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.22||||||0.26
95906565|NCT03265600|191770662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: -0.58||||||<0.001
95906566|NCT03265600|191770663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Cohen's d: 0.75||||||<0.001
95906567|NCT00567242|191770699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2801|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1077|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0709|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Intention Group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since this is a repeated measures t test, the data are presented as the mean and standard deviation for for the post-treatment laterality index minus the pre-treatment laterality index."||-0.0709||<.05
95906568|NCT00567242|191770699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1832|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2768|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.3546|||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Control Group will show a significant rightward shift in lateral frontal lateral indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~H0: The Control group will show no shift in lateral frontal laterality indices from pre-treatment to post-treatment.~Since the analysis to test these hypotheses is a repeated-measures t-test, the mean and standard deviation are given for post-treatment laterality index minus pre-treatment laterality index."||0.3546||<.05
95906569|NCT00567242|191770700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-1.81||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||-1.81|<.05
95906570|NCT00567242|191770701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.26||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H1: The Intention Group would show more improvement across treatment than the Control Group.~H0: The Intention Group and the Control Group would not show any difference in improvement across treatment."|||0.26|<.05
95906571|NCT01181050|191770702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.9334||95.0|-0.54|0.5|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.50|-0.54|0.9334
95906572|NCT01181050|191770703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.8293||95.0|-0.46|0.58|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.58|-0.46|0.8293
95906573|NCT01181050|191770704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8867||95.0|-0.65|0.56|||Mixed effect model repeated measures|||||0.56|-0.65|0.8867
95906574|NCT04773587|191770719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.881|4.647|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.647|1.881|<0.0001
95906575|NCT04773587|191770720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.359|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site with multiple imputation of missing observations|Difference in vIGA-AD Success at Week 4||4.359|1.640|<0.0001
95906576|NCT04773587|191770721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.186|3.319|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||3.319|1.186|0.0089
95906577|NCT04773587|191770722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|5.457|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.457|1.450|0.0016
95906578|NCT04773587|191770723|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.161|12.511|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|WI-NRS Success at Week 1||12.511|1.161|0.0159
95906579|NCT04773587|191770724|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.102|4.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|EASI-75 at Week 4||4.795|2.102|<0.0001
95906580|NCT04773587|191770725|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.707|3.843|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study stie and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 4||3.843|1.707|<0.0001
95906581|NCT04773587|191770726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.926|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 2||7.926|2.310|<0.0001
95980562|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.365||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.86|21.66|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||21.66|-10.86|0.666
95906582|NCT04773587|191770727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.815|229.388|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Success at Week 1||229.388|2.815|<0.0001
95906583|NCT04773587|191770728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.217|5.911|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 2||5.911|2.217|<0.0001
95906584|NCT04773587|191770729|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.705|7.007|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|Stratified by pooled study site and vIGA-AD randomization strata with multiple imputation of missing observations|vIGA-AD Score of 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' at Week 1||7.007|1.705|0.0002
95906585|NCT02522715|191770740|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||two-sided exact binomial test|||One-sample binomial test with null hypothesis that the percentage of participants with PSA response 1 is equal to 25%.||||<0.01
95906586|NCT01808313|191770748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.53|64.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||64.66|42.53|<0.001
95906587|NCT01808313|191770749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.72|80.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||80.00|48.72|<0.001
95906588|NCT01808313|191770751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 12||||<0.001
95906589|NCT01808313|191770751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Week 24||||0.003
95906590|NCT01808313|191770752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|0.519|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 12|||0.519|0.366|<0.001
95906591|NCT01808313|191770752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|0.453|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Week 24|||0.453|0.303|<0.001
95906592|NCT00622167|191770788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||0.0|||||Not done|||Plaque characteristics including plaque cross-sectional diameter, area measurements, plaque volume, and plaque morphology would be compared between IBIVUS, DSCT and angiography.||||0
95906593|NCT01462344|191770796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority comparison was statistically significant if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI falls below 2.675, the non-inferiority margin, and the non-inferiority test one-sided p-value \<0.025.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.285||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|2.272|||Regression, Cox||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||2.272|0.726|0.006
95980563|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.333||0.807|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-19.27|13.17|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||13.17|-19.27|0.807
95980564|NCT01301456|191934288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.877||0.603|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-10.15|23.72|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||23.72|-10.15|0.603
95980565|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.551||0.387|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.24|1.21|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.21|-0.24|0.387
95980566|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.501||0.309|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.14|1.18|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.18|-0.14|0.309
95980567|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.518||0.956|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.65|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.65|-0.71|0.956
95980568|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.542||0.089|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.24|1.67|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 8: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.67|0.24|0.089
95980569|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.923||0.434|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.48|1.95|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.95|-0.48|0.434
95980570|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.15|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.14|2.35|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.35|0.14|0.150
95980571|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861||0.752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.86|1.41|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.41|-0.86|0.752
95980572|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.492|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|1.79|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 15: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.79|-0.55|0.492
95980573|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.358|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|2.4|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.40|-0.40|0.358
95980574|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.33|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.33|0.110
95980575|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.993||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.56|2.05|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.05|-0.56|0.461
95980576|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.021||0.286|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.23|2.45|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 22: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.45|-0.23|0.286
95980577|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.172||0.362|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.45|2.63|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.63|-0.45|0.362
95980578|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.069||0.179|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|2.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.88|0.07|0.179
95906594|NCT01462344|191770796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0019|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0024|0.0063|||||Estimated for Absolute risk difference|||0.0063|-0.0024|
95906595|NCT01462344|191770797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.012|||||Estimated for Hazard ratio|||1.012|0.729|
95906596|NCT03086447|191770805|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of monocular VA better than equal to 20/40 with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agresti-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable VA throughout the study.|Proportion of eyes with overall acceptable VA assessed throughout the study period (up to 4-week) in the Test group was compared to the historical control acceptable rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100|96.5|
95906597|NCT03086447|191770806|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens fit with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable lens fit at fitting (visit 1).|Proportion of eyes with acceptable lens fit assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
95906598|NCT03086447|191770807|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of lens stability with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.5|100.0||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Binomial proportion with Agrestic-Coull||All eyes (100%) in the Test group had acceptable stability at fitting.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable stability assessed at fitting (visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||100.0|96.5|
95906599|NCT03086447|191770808|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects in the Test group is sufficient to demonstrate statistical acceptance of absolute rotation with a minimum of 90% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 95% with a correlation of 0.8 between eyes.|Least square mean proportion|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.5|99.9||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Linear mixed model with binomial dist.||Above 80% of eyes in the Test group had acceptable rotation.|Proportion of eyes with acceptable absolute rotation assessed at 15-minute upon insertion (fitting, visit 1) in the Test group was compared to the historical control rate of 80%. Lower 95% confidence limit was compared to 0.8.||99.9|97.5|
95906600|NCT03086447|191770809|OTHER|It was deemed that a total of 135 subjects per each study group is sufficient to demonstrate no statistical difference in the CS incidence rate between the Test and Control groups with a minimum of 80% statistical power using the reference incidence rate of 0.005% with a correlation of 0.3 between eyes within subject.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.437||All primary hypotheses were simultaneously evaluated using a significance level of 0.05 following the intersection-union principal. All primary hypotheses must be met to claim success of the study objectives.|Bayesian beta-binomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior estimate (Test over Control) was used to test no difference between the Test and Control groups.|odds ratio calculated as Test over Control|Proportion of eyes with unacceptable corneal staining (CS) throughout all planned and unplanned visits in the Test group was compared to that in the Control group.||1.437|0.004|
95906601|NCT03086447|191770810|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.5|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||11.5|2.1|
95906602|NCT03086447|191770811|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9|||Linear mixed model|A 95% confidence interval for the least square mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority of the Test relative to the Control groups.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|Sample size calculation was performed considering the effect size of 5 (Test minus Control) to achieve a minimum statistical power of 90% at a 5% significance level.||0.9|-7.2|
95906603|NCT03086447|191770812|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.5 was used. This margin is based on a 10% difference in the distribution between the Test and Control groups.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.22|||Generalized LMM w/ binomial dist.||Odds ratio of Test over Control was calculated.|Proportion of eyes with optimal VA assessed at fitting in the Test group was compared to the Control group.||3.22|0.98|
95906604|NCT00435370|191770824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95906605|NCT02625623|191770840|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.41|0.88|0.8078
95906606|NCT02625623|191770841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.21|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||2.21|1.36|1.0000
95906607|NCT02625623|191770843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.709||||0.8764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The treatment arms were compared by 1-sided CMH test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||||0.8764
95906608|NCT00360529|191770859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0454||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0454
95906609|NCT00360529|191770859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024||95.0||||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||||0.0024
95906610|NCT00360529|191770860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2606||95.0|-1.0|3.7||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||3.7|-1.0|0.2606
95906611|NCT00360529|191770860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.066||95.0|-0.1|4.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||4.6|-0.1|0.066
95906612|NCT00360529|191770861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.1601||95.0|-2.9|0.5||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|-2.9|0.1601
95906613|NCT00360529|191770861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.0001||95.0|-5.6|-2.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-2.2|-5.6|0.0001
95906614|NCT00360529|191770862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1144||95.0|-0.3|0.0||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.0|-0.3|0.1144
95906615|NCT00360529|191770862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0001||95.0|-0.5|-0.2||Hierarchical ordering used for multiple endpoints, and Hochberg used for multiple dose comparisons. P-values ordered (p1≤p2). If p2≤0.05 then all doses significant. If p1≤0.025 then reject null for p1|ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||-0.2|-0.5|0.0001
95906616|NCT00360529|191770863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.0173||95.0|0.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||0.4|0.0|0.0173
95906617|NCT00360529|191770863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||0.5|0.2|0.0001
95906618|NCT00360529|191770864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.0071||95.0|0.4|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||2.6|0.4|0.0071
95906619|NCT00360529|191770864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.0001||95.0|1.4|3.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, centre and baseline as a covariate||Flibanserin 100 mg qhs versus placebo||3.6|1.4|0.0001
95906620|NCT00360529|191770865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|34.7||||0.0513||95.0|29.0|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 25 mg bid versus placebo||40.4|29.0|0.0513
95906621|NCT00360529|191770865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage responders|38.6||||0.0059||95.0|32.6|44.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Model includes treatment and centre||Flibanserin 50 mg qhs versus placebo||44.6|32.6|0.0059
95906622|NCT01316926|191770866|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8556|0.99|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||0.9900|0.8556|
95906623|NCT01316926|191770867|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.0467|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratio between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0467|0.8460|
95906624|NCT01316926|191770868|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a bioequivalence study. The study was performed to fulfill an official requirement of the Brazilian Regulatory Agency - ANVISA - upon manufacturing a site change.|Ratio T formulation/R formulation|0.9333|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8502|1.0246|||||Coefficient Variation (intra-individual). The ratios between the geometric means of the test and reference formulations was calculated.|||1.0246|0.8502|
95906625|NCT02298192|191770886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.|Treatment Contrast|0.12||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was tested against the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority as given by H0: D ≥0.30% against HA: D \<0.30%.||0.28|-0.04|0.012
95906626|NCT00785291|191770997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.45||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.45|1.00|0.054
95906627|NCT00785291|191770997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.87||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative). P-values are for a test of inferiority 2-sided and are unadjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank tests are used for the two primary comparisons of PFS within an experimental arm relative to PFS within the control arm. The family-wise error rate will be controlled at a one-sided 0.025 level. This is achieved in a 3-arm trial with a common control group by conducting the marginal log-rank tests with a one-sided α = 0.0135. Sample size calculations are based on having high power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36, in the control arm as compared to the experimental arms.||1.87|1.28|<0.0001
95906628|NCT00785291|191771001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.47|0.92|0.20
95906629|NCT00785291|191771001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.61||Tests were stratified by prior taxane therapy (yes/no) and hormone receptor status (positive/negative).|Log Rank|||||1.61|1.01|0.038
95906630|NCT00920426|191771021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.547|-1.632||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment as fixed effect, and Baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.632|-2.547|<0.001
95906631|NCT00920426|191771047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.804|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.173|-1.436||ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect, and baseline HIV-1 RNA as covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-1.436|-2.173|<0.001
95906632|NCT00920426|191771048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95906633|NCT01106833|191771061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 6 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.63
95906634|NCT01106833|191771061|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportion of participants with treatment success at 24 months is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.44
95906635|NCT01106833|191771062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of overall survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.205
95906636|NCT01106833|191771063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of progression-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.141
95906637|NCT01106833|191771064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the rate of failure-free survival during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.775
95906638|NCT01106833|191771065|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without relapse was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the rate of relapse during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.396
95906639|NCT01106833|191771066|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.219||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without initiation of secondary therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of initiation of secondary immunosuppressive therapy for chronic GVHD during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.219
95980579|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.092||0.342|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.38|2.49|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.49|-0.38|0.342
95980580|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.129||0.272|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.22|2.75|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 29: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.75|-0.22|0.272
95980581|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.317||0.979|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.77|1.7|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||1.70|-1.77|0.979
95980582|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.568|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.27|0.88|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||0.88|-2.27|0.568
95906640|NCT01106833|191771067|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death without discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy is considered a competing risk for this endpoint||The null hypothesis is that the rate of discontinuation of systemic immunosuppressive therapy during the first two years post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.706
95906641|NCT01106833|191771068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.127
95906642|NCT01106833|191771068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.562||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.562
95906643|NCT01106833|191771068|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median prednisone dose at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.129
95980583|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.311|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.34|2.82|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.82|-0.34|0.311
95980584|NCT01301456|191934290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.71|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.18|2.13|||Mixed meal tolerance test|||Day 50: Repeated measures analysis of change is performed with change from baseline as dependent variable, treatment as a factor and baseline as covariate.||2.13|-1.18|0.710
95980585|NCT00578786|191934416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|53.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||53.3|22.7|
95980586|NCT00578786|191934416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.1|43.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||43.8|21.1|
95980587|NCT00578786|191934416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|40.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.1|55.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||55.7|26.1|
95906644|NCT01106833|191771069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.586
95906645|NCT01106833|191771069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in prednisone dose from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.140
95906646|NCT01106833|191771070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at baseline is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.582
95906647|NCT01106833|191771070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.208
95906648|NCT01106833|191771070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.431||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median serum creatinine level at 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.431
95906649|NCT01106833|191771071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 6 months post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.147
95906650|NCT01106833|191771071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis is that the median change in serum creatinine level from baseline to 1 year post-randomization is equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.863
95980588|NCT00578786|191934416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|75.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|43.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||43.7|28.3|
95906651|NCT01106833|191771072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.620
95906652|NCT01106833|191771072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.258
95906653|NCT01106833|191771072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.036
95906654|NCT01106833|191771072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the patient-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.369
95980589|NCT00578786|191934417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|44.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||44.7|5.1|
95980590|NCT00578786|191934417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|94.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|41.6|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5.0 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||41.6|14.2|
95980591|NCT00578786|191934417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.4|52.0|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||52.0|22.4|
95906655|NCT01106833|191771073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.450
95980592|NCT00578786|191934417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|29.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|89.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|38.7|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||38.7|20.4|
95980593|NCT00578786|191934418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|97.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||26.8|-13.4|
95980594|NCT00578786|191934418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|23.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|100.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|37.8|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||37.8|8.7|
95906656|NCT01106833|191771073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.301||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.301
95906657|NCT01106833|191771073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.750
95906658|NCT01106833|191771073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the provider-reported severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.444
95906659|NCT01106833|191771074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.238||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.238
95980595|NCT00578786|191934418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|84.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|45.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. LOCF method of imputation.|||45.1|10.9|
95906660|NCT01106833|191771074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 6 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.546
95906661|NCT01106833|191771074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 1 year post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.756
95906662|NCT01106833|191771074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of patients in the NIH Consensus Criteria severity and vital status categories considered at 2 years post-randomization are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.554
95906663|NCT01106833|191771075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.685
95906664|NCT01106833|191771075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.105
95906665|NCT01106833|191771075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.039
95906666|NCT01106833|191771075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.278
95980596|NCT00578786|191934418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|20.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|30.1|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||30.1|10.6|
95906667|NCT01106833|191771075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.804||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean PCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.804
95906668|NCT01106833|191771076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.631||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.631
95980597|NCT00578786|191934419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|95.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|20.3|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||20.3|-18.9|
95980598|NCT00578786|191934419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|101.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|33.5|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||33.5|4.2|
95906669|NCT01106833|191771076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.759
95906670|NCT01106833|191771076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.391
95906671|NCT01106833|191771076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.222
95906672|NCT01106833|191771076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean MCS scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.527
95906673|NCT01106833|191771077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at baseline are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.763
95906674|NCT01106833|191771077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.133
95906675|NCT01106833|191771077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.953||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 6 months are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.953
95906676|NCT01106833|191771077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 1 year are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.398
95906677|NCT01106833|191771077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.309||||||Two-sided testing was performed using a significance level of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Independent samples t-test||The null hypothesis is that the mean FACT-BMT scores at 2 years are equal for those receiving either Sirolimus, Calcineurin Inhibitor, and Prednisone or Sirolimus and Prednisone for treatment of chronic GVHD.||||0.309
95906678|NCT00886340|191771078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||controlled for site, income, race/ethnicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||pilot test, used 20% of sample required for a full test of the hypothesis||||0.08
95906679|NCT00464815|191771090|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference (Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group) in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|7.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|14.87||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenA vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup A (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.87|1.63|
95906680|NCT00464815|191771090|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate Difference|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|4.18||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenC vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup C (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||4.18|-1.65|
95906681|NCT00464815|191771090|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.78|14.14||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenW-135 vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup W-135 (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||14.14|4.78|
95906682|NCT00464815|191771090|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the lower limit (LL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference \[Nimenrix Group minus Mencevax ACWY Group\] in the percentage of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response was greater than or equal to (≥) the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Rate difference|15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|21.37||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine versus Mencevax ACWY vaccine in term of rSBA-MenY vaccine response, the standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the difference in rSBA vaccine response rate for the meningococcal serogroup Y (Nimenrix Group rate minus Mencevax ACWY Group rate) one month after vaccination was computed.||21.37|9.89|
95906683|NCT00464815|191771091|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: the upper limit (UL) of the 2-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio of the percentages of subjects with any Grade 3 general symptom was lower than or equal to (≤) the pre-defined clinical limit of 3.0.|Risk Ratio (RR)|4.02||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|24.6|||Chi-squared|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of Nimenrix™ vaccine versus Mencevax™ vaccine in terms of incidence of any Grade 3 general (solicited and unsolicited) symptom, the 2-sided standardised asymptotic 95% CI for the ratio between Nimenrix and Mencevax groups (Nimenrix over Mencevax) in the percentage of subjects with any grade 3 general symptom within 4 days after vaccination was computed for the safety analysis in study MenACWY-TT-036.||24.6|0.68|0.1456
95906684|NCT05554237|191771103|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|83.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.67|93.29|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only)|||93.29|74.67|
95906685|NCT05554237|191771105|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|92.23|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.23|87.24|
95906686|NCT05554237|191771108|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|89.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.47|92.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (for CTB 800 mg + AVP 1350 mg versus CTB 800mg only|||92.41|87.47|
95906687|NCT05554237|191771128|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|104.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.94|128.5|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||128.50|84.94|
95906688|NCT05554237|191771128|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|129.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.37|140.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||140.58|119.37|
95906689|NCT05554237|191771128|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.68|116.08|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||116.08|88.68|
95906690|NCT05554237|191771128|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.48|101.59|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||101.59|74.48|
95906691|NCT05554237|191771130|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.67|117.8|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||117.80|88.67|
95906692|NCT05554237|191771130|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|133.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.84|149.36|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||149.36|119.84|
95906693|NCT05554237|191771130|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.7|110.1|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|Cis-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||110.10|90.70|
95906694|NCT05554237|191771130|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.27|105.63|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted) for CTB 400 mg + AVP 1350 mg only|Trans-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||105.63|75.27|
95906695|NCT05554237|191771136|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|93.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.37|112.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||112.02|78.37|
95906696|NCT05554237|191771136|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|113.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|144.76|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI-CTB Day 6 versus Day 7||144.76|88.31|
95906697|NCT05554237|191771136|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|107.06||||||90.0|92.77|123.54|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||123.54|92.77|
95906698|NCT05554237|191771136|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|80.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.32|95.27|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||95.27|68.32|
95906699|NCT05554237|191771136|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|89.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.7|116.02|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||116.02|69.70|
95906700|NCT05554237|191771136|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.08|113.41|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.41|84.08|
95906701|NCT05554237|191771137|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|115.87|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||115.87|90.37|
95906702|NCT05554237|191771137|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|117.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.61|138.0|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||138.00|100.61|
95906703|NCT05554237|191771137|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.12|128.98|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.98|104.12|
95906704|NCT05554237|191771137|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|85.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.37|103.32|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||103.32|70.37|
95906705|NCT05554237|191771137|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|97.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.83|121.06|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||121.06|78.83|
95906706|NCT05554237|191771137|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|102.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.8|111.58|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||111.58|94.80|
95906707|NCT05554237|191771152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|105.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.64|128.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||128.39|86.64|
95906708|NCT05554237|191771152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|134.24||||||90.0|51.81|347.81|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||347.81|51.81|
95906709|NCT05554237|191771152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|91.17||||||90.0|79.54|104.51|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||104.51|79.54|
95906710|NCT05554237|191771152|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|115.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.46|185.9|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||185.90|71.46|
95906711|NCT05554237|191771154|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|114.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.1|130.43|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||130.43|101.10|
95906712|NCT05554237|191771154|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|140.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.17|189.34|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|AVI- Day 6 versus Day 7||189.34|104.17|
95906713|NCT05554237|191771154|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|101.46||||||90.0|90.79|113.39|||||Analysis was performed using mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||113.39|90.79|
95980599|NCT00578786|191934419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.1|45.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||45.4|10.1|
95980600|NCT00578786|191934419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|26.4|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||26.4|6.8|
95980601|NCT00578786|191934421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.38|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.38|-0.55|
95980602|NCT00578786|191934421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.23|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.23|-0.94|
95980603|NCT00578786|191934421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-1.00|
95980604|NCT00578786|191934421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.393|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.2|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.20|-0.69|
95980605|NCT00578786|191934422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.76|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.76|-0.31|
95980606|NCT00578786|191934422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.477|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.03|-0.68|
95980607|NCT00578786|191934422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.18|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.18|-1.12|
95980608|NCT00578786|191934422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.02|-0.52|
95980609|NCT00578786|191934423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.593|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.74|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 2.5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.74|-0.33|
95980610|NCT00578786|191934423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.22|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 5 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.22|-0.51|
95980611|NCT00578786|191934423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.03|||||Applies to Ambrisentan 10 mg group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||-0.03|-0.93|
95980612|NCT00578786|191934423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.467|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||||Applies to Ambrisentan combined group only. Missing values were imputed using last-observation-carried forward method (LOCF) based on post-baseline observations.|||0.11|-0.39|
95980613|NCT00038727|191934444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.81|0.87
95980614|NCT00038727|191934444|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||||1.25|0.79|0.95
95980615|NCT02871778|191934449|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|1.519||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|2.995|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.995|0.044|0.0437
95980616|NCT02871778|191934449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.509|2.589|||Mixed-effects Model|||||2.589|-2.509|0.9755
95980617|NCT02871778|191934449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.318||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|4.856|||Mixed-effects Model|||||4.856|-0.22|0.0731
95980618|NCT02871778|191934449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.799||||0.5373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.751|3.348|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.348|-1.751|0.5373
95980619|NCT02871778|191934449|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.838||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.368|3.045|||Mixed-effects Model|||||3.045|-1.368|0.453
95980620|NCT00369785|191934484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in immediate recall memory at 24 weeks||||.62
95980621|NCT00369785|191934485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference in discrimination memory between the two groups||||.007
95980622|NCT03933397|191934486|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.909
95980623|NCT03346057|191934568|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-17.5|0.026
95980624|NCT03346057|191934568|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-6.2||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|0.2|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||0.2|-17.3|0.058
95906714|NCT05554237|191771154|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|123.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.25|137.67|||||Model is a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect (Japanese participants fed vs fasted and Chinese participants fed vs fasted)|HPA- Day 6 versus Day 7||137.67|110.25|
95906715|NCT01715805|191771199|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (LSMD)|-0.2||||0.7948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine + ADT - Placebo + ADT|||1.2|-1.6|0.7948
95906716|NCT01715805|191771200|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-0.7||||0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||MMRM with treatment group, study center, visit, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, and the baseline value and baseline by-visit interaction as the covariates was used for analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis||Cariprazine +ADT - Placebo + ADT|||0.5|-1.9|0.2784
95906717|NCT04009291|191771214|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.2635
95906718|NCT04009291|191771214|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.6999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.6999
95906719|NCT04009291|191771214|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1394
95906720|NCT04009291|191771215|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.1281
95906721|NCT04009291|191771215|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||> 0.9999
95906722|NCT04009291|191771215|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Fisher's exact test is used to compare differences in the proportion of subjects meeting the composite primary endpoint in the TransCon PTH versus pooled placebo group||||= 0.0604
95906723|NCT00688636|191771246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0005
95906724|NCT01572727|191771251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.68||||||||1.68|0.82|
95906725|NCT04053764|191771259|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|7.14||||||||7.14|0.53|
95906726|NCT04053764|191771261|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.31||||||||2.31|0.23|
95906727|NCT04053764|191771262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.02||||||PCR Improvement||3.02|0.29|
95906728|NCT04053764|191771262|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.2||||||Stable PCR||3.20|0.18|
95906729|NCT04053764|191771263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.53|4.65||||||From baseline to 3 months||4.65|-5.53|
95906730|NCT04053764|191771263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|11.4||||||From baseline to 6 months||11.40|-2.02|
95906731|NCT04053764|191771263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|11.68||||||From baseline to 9 months||11.68|-3.58|
95906732|NCT04053764|191771263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|13.67||||||From baseline to 12 months||13.67|-3.28|
95906733|NCT04053764|191771266|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.21||||||||1.21|0.09|
95906734|NCT02935062|191771271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
95906735|NCT02935062|191771272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.011
95906736|NCT02195986|191771300|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the primary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the primary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|-0.0062|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1209|0.1084||||||The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT -PR \< -.20 or PT -PR \> .20 versus HA : -.20 ≤ PT -PR ≤ .20 Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PR = cure rate of reference treatment.||0.1084|-0.1209|
95906737|NCT02195986|191771301|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.3766|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2743|0.479|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4790|0.2743|<0.0001
95906738|NCT02195986|191771301|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.3542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.4514|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the primary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.4514|0.2570|<0.0001
95906739|NCT02195986|191771302|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established for the secondary endpoint if the 90% confidence interval for the difference of responder rates (test - reference) from baseline to Day 8 for the secondary endpoint is contained within \[-0.20, 0.20\], using the per-protocol population.|Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0687|0.1686||||||||0.1686|-0.0687|
95980625|NCT03346057|191934568|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|8.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||8.6|-17.8|0.730
95906740|NCT02195986|191771303|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of test product vs placebo|Difference|0.1387||||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.3054|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.3054|-0.0280|0.1092
95906741|NCT02195986|191771303|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test of reference product vs placebo|Difference|0.1196||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0491|0.2883|||Chi-squared|||Both the test and reference products should both be statistically superior to placebo (p\<0.05, two-sided) using the Chi squared test with Yate's correction for the secondary endpoint responder rate, using the ITT study population and last observation carried forward. The compound hypothesis to test was: H0: PT - PP ≤ 0 versus HA: PT - PP \> 0; Where PT = cure rate of test treatment, and PP = cure rate of placebo.||0.2883|-0.0491|0.1805
95906742|NCT02251990|191771363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value was based on a one-sided asymptotic test for a binomial proportion. A one-sided p-value \<0.0125 was considered supportive of a conclusion that the true SVR12 is \>73%.|one-sided asymptotic test|||A one-sided Wald test was used to test the null hypothesis, which was that the SVR12 rate for the ITG was ≤ the historical reference rate of 73%. The historical reference SVR rate for treatment-naive genotype 1 predominantly Asian participants treated with pegylated interferon/ribavirin was derived from 2 studies (PMCID: PMC417, PMCID: PMC3644280) after adjusting for an expected improved safety profile related to an interferon-free regimen.||||<0.001
95906743|NCT02251990|191771364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|9.6||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||9.6|-10.6|
95906744|NCT02251990|191771365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.9||||||Estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for between-treatment differences (ITG minus DTG) in the percentage of participants with events using the Miettinen and Nurminen method.||0.9|-4.2|
95906745|NCT00535730|191771368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis of VZV antibody titers is 92%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the VZV antibody GMT ratio\[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>0.67.||||||0.244||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the VZV antibody responses at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to that in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly||||0.244
95906746|NCT00535730|191771370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 1 sided|The one-sided p-value for testing acceptability for GMFR is computed based on t-test. CI is computed based on the t distribution||The hypothesis was that ZOSTAVAX™ elicits an acceptable VZV antibody response when administered concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23.||||<0.001
95906747|NCT00535730|191771371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||"The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody response to serotype 3 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who~receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly."||||<0.001
95906748|NCT00535730|191771372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 14 at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
95906749|NCT00535730|191771373|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 19A at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
95906750|NCT00535730|191771374|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power for the noninferiority hypothesis regarding PnPs antibody titer is \~99%. The noninferiority margin is the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the PnPs antibody GMT ratio \[concomitant/nonconcomitant\] being \>05.|||||<|0.001||95.0||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.025. There is no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|longitudinal regression model|Week 4 postvac, estimated responses, GMT ratio, 95% CI, p-value based on a longitudinal regression model adjusting for prevac titers and age (years)||The hypothesis was that the GMT of the PnPs antibody responses to serotype 22F at 4 weeks postvaccination in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ concomitantly with PNEUMOVAX™ 23 will be noninferior to those in subjects who receive ZOSTAVAX™ nonconcomitantly.||||<0.001
95906751|NCT02512575|191771435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0238|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|0.887||||||||0.887|0.807|
95906752|NCT02512575|191771438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|0.991||||||||0.991|0.869|
95906753|NCT02512575|191771439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.917|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0364|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.856|0.978||||||||0.978|0.856|
95906754|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11||||||||1.11|0.960|
95906755|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.08||||||||1.08|0.929|
95906756|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.14||||||||1.14|0.987|
95906757|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|1.13||||||||1.13|0.983|
95906758|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.995|1.15||||||||1.15|0.995|
95906759|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.25||||||||1.25|1.09|
95906760|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.24||||||||1.24|1.07|
95906761|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.29||||||||1.29|1.11|
95906762|NCT02512575|191771440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27||||||||1.27|1.11|
95906763|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.872|1.26||||||||1.26|0.872|
95906764|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.874|1.26||||||||1.26|0.874|
95906765|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|1.1||||||||1.10|0.745|
95906766|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.762|1.1||||||||1.10|0.762|
95906767|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.876|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.728|1.05||||||||1.05|0.728|
95906768|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|1.03||||||||1.03|0.716|
95906769|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.21||||||||1.21|0.842|
95906770|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.22||||||||1.22|0.846|
95906771|NCT02512575|191771441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.687|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.572|0.825||||||||0.825|0.572|
95906772|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.861|1.12||||||||1.12|0.861|
95906773|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.961||||||90.0|0.846|1.09||||||||1.09|0.846|
95906774|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.829|1.07||||||||1.07|0.829|
95906775|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.861|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.757|0.979||||||||0.979|0.757|
95906776|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.848|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.745|0.964||||||||0.964|0.745|
95906777|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|1.05||||||||1.05|0.815|
95906778|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.03||||||||1.03|0.798|
95906779|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.893|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.02||||||||1.02|0.784|
95906780|NCT02512575|191771442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (Active Vs Placebo)|0.691||||||90.0|0.608|0.785||||||||0.785|0.608|
95906781|NCT01201057|191771443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.006
95906782|NCT01201057|191771444|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95906783|NCT01201057|191771445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.025
95906784|NCT03240692|191771458|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and frontal Default Mode Network (fDMN) functional connectivity||||0.036
95906785|NCT03240692|191771458|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and medial Default Mode Network (mDMN) functional connectivity||||0.008
95906786|NCT03240692|191771458|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and left Default Mode Network (lDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.06
95906787|NCT03240692|191771458|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||False Discovery Corrected (FDR) p value. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of subgenual Anterior Cingulate Cortex (sgACC) and right Default Mode Network (rDMN) functional connectivity.||||0.017
95906788|NCT00683644|191771460|OTHER|The observed power in THQ for zinc is 0.16, and that for placebo is 0.06.|||||>|0.05||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95906789|NCT00683644|191771461|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.89
95906790|NCT00683644|191771461|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.36
95906791|NCT00683644|191771462|OTHER|||||||0.64||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.64
95906792|NCT00683644|191771462|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05|paired t test|||||||0.93
95906793|NCT03858803|191771480|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95980626|NCT03346057|191934569|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-14.9||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.8|-4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-4.0|-28.8|0.007
95980627|NCT03346057|191934569|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-12.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-0.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||-0.8|-26.1|0.036
95906794|NCT03858803|191771481|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906795|NCT03858803|191771482|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906796|NCT03858803|191771483|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906797|NCT03858803|191771484|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906798|NCT03858803|191771485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906799|NCT03858803|191771486|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906800|NCT03858803|191771487|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906801|NCT03858803|191771488|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906802|NCT03858803|191771489|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906803|NCT03858803|191771490|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||MANOVA|||||||<.05
95906804|NCT02352948|191771525|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.93|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.93|0.42|
95906805|NCT02352948|191771525|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.05|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.05|0.61|0.109
95906806|NCT02352948|191771526|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.04|0.49|
95906807|NCT02352948|191771526|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.01|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||1.01|0.59|0.056
95906808|NCT02352948|191771527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.3|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.30|0.74|0.885
95906809|NCT02352948|191771527|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||1.11|0.56|0.153
95906810|NCT02352948|191771528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The z-test statistic is the ratio of log-transformed ratio of the cumulative hazards in the 2 treatment arms divided by square root of the variance.|z-test|The variance is estimated using the delta method and Greenwood's formula.||For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||||0.063
95906811|NCT02352948|191771529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.12|0.68|0.282
95906812|NCT02352948|191771529|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.92|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|As part of the contribution of components analysis for sub-study B, durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||0.92|0.49|0.011
95906813|NCT02352948|191771530|OTHER|Sub-study A was not powered and thus no formal statistical comparisons were performed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|10.1|||||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study A: durvalumab monotherapy treatment arm was compared with SoC.||10.10|1.61|
95906814|NCT02352948|191771530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.94|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||5.94|1.10|0.037
95906815|NCT02352948|191771530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with durvalumab monotherapy.||1.89|0.51|0.923
95906816|NCT02352948|191771530|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|8.61|||Regression, Logistic||The analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for SoC therapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine versus erlotinib) and histology (squamous versus all other histology types), with 95% CI calculated by profile likelihood.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with tremelimumab monotherapy.||8.61|0.91|0.109
95906817|NCT02352948|191771534|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.85|||Log Rank|The P-value arises from a stratified log-rank test adjusting for SoC therapy and histology, with ties handled by the Breslow approach.|Hazard ratio and CI are estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazards model with Breslow method to control for ties, stratification factors SoC therapy, and histology in strata statement, and CI is calculated using profile likelihood approach.|For sub-study B: durvalumab plus tremelimumab treatment arm was compared with SoC.||0.85|0.49|0.002
95906818|NCT00234065|191771568|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper 95% CI limit for the HR of cilostazol to aspirin was 1.33 (4/3) or lower , cilostazol would be non-inferior to aspirin.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.743||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.981||The log-rank test was used to verify the superiority of CLZ to ASA only if non-inferiority was verified. The adjusted significance level for the superiority test of the endpoint was set at 0.0471 (two-tailed) according to the O'Brien-Fleming method.|Log Rank|||Statistical Analysis 1 for Number of Patients With First Occurrence of Stroke||0.981|0.564|0.0357
95906819|NCT00234065|191771569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.88||||0.4189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.2|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.200|0.645|0.4189
95980628|NCT03346057|191934569|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-9.9||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|3.6|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||3.6|-27.6|0.158
95906820|NCT00234065|191771570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.898||||0.4582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.194|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||1.194|0.675|0.4582
95980629|NCT03346057|191934570|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-0.9||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.0|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||4.0|-9.4|0.637
95980630|NCT03346057|191934570|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||1.5|-10.6|0.134
95980631|NCT03346057|191934570|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-1.7||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference, 95% confidence interval, and p-value||5.8|-14.7|0.577
95906821|NCT00234065|191771571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|2.313|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||2.313|0.497|0.8600
95906822|NCT00234065|191771572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.799||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.994|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.994|0.643|0.0437
95906823|NCT00234065|191771573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.458||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.711|||Log Rank|||Analyses were done using the full analysis set (FAS) of patients, as predetermined in the protocol. The full analysis set excluded patients who failed to satisfy inclusion criteria and those who violated exclusion criteria.||0.711|0.296|0.0004
95906824|NCT00126438|191771574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.73||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.73|0.18|0.001
95906825|NCT00126438|191771574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.18|0.001
95906826|NCT00126438|191771574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.72||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.72|0.17|0.001
95906827|NCT04414696|191771638|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.5|-3.3|
95906828|NCT04414696|191771639|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.5|14.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||14.5|-23.5|
95906829|NCT04414696|191771640|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.5||||||||9.5|-1.9|
95906830|NCT04414696|191771641|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|21.5|||||Multivariable linear regression|||21.5|-18.9|
95980632|NCT03346057|191934571|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.5||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||18.5|-2.6|
95980633|NCT03346057|191934571|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.1||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||13.1|-9.3|
95980634|NCT03346057|191934571|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|17.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||17.7|-8.4|
95980635|NCT03346057|191934572|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|14.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||14.3|-5.5|
95980636|NCT03346057|191934572|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.3||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||9.3|-9.2|
95980637|NCT03346057|191934572|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.7||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||12.7|-15.1|
95906831|NCT04414696|191771642|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-3.7|
95906832|NCT04414696|191771643|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|4.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||4.2|-7.7|
95906833|NCT04414696|191771644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|2.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||2.1|-1.2|
95906834|NCT04414696|191771645|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.1|-1|
95980638|NCT03346057|191934573|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|3.8||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 2 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||3.8|-11.8|
95980639|NCT03346057|191934573|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|8.4||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 4 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||8.4|-8.1|
95906835|NCT04414696|191771646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.2|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.2|-3.4|
95906836|NCT04414696|191771647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.3|||||Multivariable linear regression|||1.3|-4.9|
95906837|NCT01466985|191771672|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.37|||<|0.001||90.0|-1.6|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.60|<0.001
95906838|NCT01466985|191771672|SUPERIORITY|Doravirine was declared superior to placebo when the upper bound of the 90% CI was \<-1.|LS mean difference|-1.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.51|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-1.51|<0.001
95906839|NCT04250727|191771698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.601
95906840|NCT02943408|191771701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.90
95906841|NCT02943408|191771702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.99
95906842|NCT02943408|191771703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
95906843|NCT02943408|191771704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.85
95980640|NCT03346057|191934573|OTHER||Estimated Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.1||||||The percentage of participants experiencing one or more ECIs was compared between the Sugammadex 16 mg/kg arm and the Neostigmine plus Glycopyrrolate arm. Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by NMBA and ASA was used to provide estimated between-treatment difference and 95% confidence interval||11.1|-13.5|
95906844|NCT02943408|191771705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.43
95980641|NCT00705432|191934655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||34.1|19.1|<0.0001
95980642|NCT00705432|191934655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|35.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.8|20.8|<0.0001
95906845|NCT02943408|191771706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.82
95906846|NCT02943408|191771707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.50
95906847|NCT02943408|191771708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.56
95906848|NCT02943408|191771709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.92
95906849|NCT02943408|191771710|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.65
95906850|NCT02943408|191771711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.35
95906851|NCT02985866|191771714|SUPERIORITY|The first co-primary end point was superiority of CLC over SAP in terms of CGM-measured time below 70 mg/dL. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
95906852|NCT02985866|191771715|NON_INFERIORITY|The second co-primary end point was noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 180 mg/dL, with a noninferiority limit of 5%. The treatment groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect. Missing baseline data were handled by direct likelihood method. Model residuals were confirmed to be approximately normally distributed.|||||<|0.0001||||||To address the issue of multiple comparisons with 2 primary outcomes, the intervention was considered effective only if both co-primary outcomes were statistically significant at 5% level. P value for noninferiority NI (prespecified NI limit = 5%).|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Statistical analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and all participants with any amount of post randomization data were included in all analyses.||||<0.0001
95906853|NCT02985866|191771716|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95906854|NCT02985866|191771717|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95906855|NCT02985866|191771718|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95980643|NCT00705432|191934655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|19.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.9|1.6|0.0440
95980644|NCT00705432|191934655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|29.7||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|47.1|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||47.1|12.2|0.0035
95906856|NCT02985866|191771719|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95906857|NCT02985866|191771720|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95906858|NCT02985866|191771721|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95906859|NCT02985866|191771722|SUPERIORITY|Same as for primary outcome 1|||||<|0.05||||||All secondary analyses were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate at a 10% level for statistical significance. All secondary P values reported are two-sided.|Mixed Models Analysis|The groups were compared using linear models while adjusting for age, corresponding baseline value, previous CGM use, and a random center effect.||Same as for the primary outcomes||||<0.05
95906860|NCT04953390|191771726|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95906861|NCT04953390|191771727|OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||||||.029
95906862|NCT04953390|191771728|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95906863|NCT04953390|191771729|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|T-test done on DIR2 and DIR3 results only, as the conditions were equal for these two settings. DIR1 was tested in a different condition.||All three DIR settings were tested, but only the DIR2 and DIR3 were compared in t-test. This is because DIR1 mic setting was tested in a different condition (i.e. softer noise).||||.14
95906864|NCT04953390|191771732|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0003
95906865|NCT00184548|191771735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.934||||||Two-sided significance level 5%|Regression, Logistic|||Test for Odds ratio=1, corresponding to a null hypothesis of no difference in mortality for patients who died between groups for Blunt Trauma. Odds-ratio is adjusted for baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury (P/F \> 200). Missing covariates are imputed by the mean value.||||0.934
95906866|NCT00184548|191771735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.589||95.0|0.64|2.17||Two-sided significance level 5%|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||Treatment groups are compared using a Cox Proportional Hazards model with treatment as factor and adjusting for age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score(GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.17|0.64|0.589
95906867|NCT00184548|191771737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS means|0.9||||0.308||95.0|-0.83|2.63|||ANCOVA|||Baseline covariates: Age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma -Scale Score (GCS), International Normalized Ratio (INR) and acute lung injury.||2.63|-0.83|0.308
95906868|NCT00184548|191771739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|1.0||||0.038||95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|0.038
95906869|NCT00184548|191771740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.175||||0.384||95.0|0.817|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.690|0.817|0.384
95906870|NCT00184548|191771741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann shift estimate|2.0||||0.03||95.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||4|0|0.030
95906871|NCT02184611|191771742|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.113|0.194||Analysis was performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, Baseline, smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.194|0.113|<0.001
95906872|NCT02184611|191771743|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5||Analysis performed using a MMRM model with covariates of treatment, BDI focal score, smoking status, country, Day, Day by BDI focal score and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||UMEC versus Placebo.||1.5|0.3|0.004
95906873|NCT02184611|191771744|OTHER||Least square Mean difference|0.125|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.147||Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 min and 5 min pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status and country.|ANCOVA|||UMEC versus Placebo.||0.147|0.103|<0.001
95906874|NCT02184611|191771753|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-4.39||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.21|-1.58||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.58|-7.21|0.002
95906875|NCT02184611|191771753|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.59||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.61|-1.57||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-1.57|-7.61|0.003
95906876|NCT02184611|191771753|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-3.03||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|0.1||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 168, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.10|-6.15|0.058
95906877|NCT02184611|191771754|OTHER||Least sqaure mean difference|-1.49||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.17||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 28, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.17|-2.81|0.027
95980645|NCT00705432|191934656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||35.2|19.2|<0.0001
95906878|NCT02184611|191771754|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.68||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 84, UMEC Vs Placebo.||-0.68|-3.51|0.004
95906879|NCT02184611|191771754|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.68||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.86||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, Baseline (score prior to dosing on Day 1), smoking status, country, Day, Day by Baseline and Day by treatment interactions.|MMRM|||Day 128, UMEC Vs Placebo.||0.86|-2.22|0.386
95906880|NCT00160680|191771757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|||=|0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.5|||ANCOVA|||||1.50|-0.96|=0.667
95906881|NCT02071173|191771819|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 87%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.5|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.0|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 87%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 87%|||97.0|
95906882|NCT02071173|191771820|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 85%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|96.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|93.8|||||||Ho: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 85%, Ha: The Implant through 6-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 85%|||93.8|
95906883|NCT02071173|191771821|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|94.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|92.0|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||92.0|
95906884|NCT02071173|191771822|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 75%. Lower one-sided 97.5% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|91.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|88.2|||||||Ho: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V ≤ 75%, Ha: Percentage of PCT less than or equal to 2.5V \> 75%|||88.2|
95906885|NCT02071173|191771823|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|98.2|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.5|||||||Ho: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 93%, Ha: The Implant through 3-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 93%|||97.5|
95906886|NCT02071173|191771824|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 94%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit exceeded performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.8|||||||Ho: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate ≤ 94%, Ha: The 3- through 24-month lead-related complication-free rate \> 94%|||98.8|
95906887|NCT02071173|191771825|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 1.5 Volts. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|0.56|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.58||||||Ho: The 3-month mean PCT ≥ 1.5 Volts, Ha: The 3-month mean PCT \< 1.5 Volts||0.58||
95906888|NCT02071173|191771826|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|17.4|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||16.7|
95906889|NCT02071173|191771827|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 3 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|16.1|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|15.1|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 3 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 3 mV|||15.1|
95906890|NCT02071173|191771828|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|776.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|753.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||753|
95906891|NCT02071173|191771829|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 300 ohms. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|805.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|763.0|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean pacing impedance ≤ 300 ohms, Ha: The 3-month mean pacing impedance \> 300 ohms|||763|
95906892|NCT02071173|191771830|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 4.5 seconds. Upper one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If upper confidence limit was lower than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|3.14|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.2||||||Ho: The mean detection time ≥ 4.5 seconds, Ha: The mean detection time \< 4.5 seconds||3.20||
95906893|NCT02071173|191771831|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 5 mV. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Mean|18.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|6.2|||||||Ho: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude ≤ 5 mV, Ha: The 3-month mean sensed amplitude \> 5 mV|||6.2|
95906894|NCT02071173|191771832|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|468.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|463.0|472.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||472|463|
95906895|NCT02071173|191771833|OTHER|Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed.|Mean|702.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|659.0|744.0||||||Ho: Pacing impedance ≤ 300 Ω or pacing impedance ≥ 1200 Ω, Ha: 300 Ω \< Pacing impedance \< 1200 Ω||744|659|
95906896|NCT02071173|191771834|SUPERIORITY|Single group test comparison to a performance goal of 93%. Lower one-sided 95% confidence limit was compared to the performance goal. If lower confidence limit was greater than the performance goal, null hypothesis was rejected.|Percent|99.5|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.4|||||||Ho: Percent of successful conversion ≤ 93%, Ha: Percent of successful conversion \> 93%|||98.4|
95906897|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|-3.0|
95906898|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-2.1|
95906899|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-1.4|
95906900|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-6.2|
95906901|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.3|
95906902|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.9|-0.7|
95906903|NCT00515502|191771837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.7|-0.1|
95906904|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.92|-2.47|
95906905|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|2.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.64|-0.57|
95906906|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.26|-0.35|
95906907|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-4.11|
95906908|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.33|-1.44|
95906909|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.257|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|5.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.28|0.24|
95906910|NCT00515502|191771838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|7.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.02|0.34|
95906911|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-5.0|
95906912|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-7.6|
95906913|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.7|-2.2|
95906914|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.2|-4.7|
95906915|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-7.7|
95906916|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-11.2|
95906917|NCT00515502|191771839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.0|-5.9|
95906918|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.39|-6.23|
95906919|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.834|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.79|-5.56|
95906920|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.474|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|6.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.07|-3.82|
95906921|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.69|-5.07|
95906922|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.562|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.38|-7.84|
95906923|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.898|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-7.97|
95906924|NCT00515502|191771840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.618|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.02|-6.39|
95906925|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-5.1|
95906926|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-4.6|
95906927|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6|-0.0|
95906928|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-5.9|
95906929|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.3|-3.5|
95906930|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.1|-3.5|
95906931|NCT00515502|191771841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.4|1.0|
95906932|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.87|-5.08|
95906933|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.006|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.50|-3.53|
95906934|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.335|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.88|-0.46|
95906935|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.50|-6.13|
95906936|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.366|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.07|-2.38|
95906937|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.514|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|4.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.82|-1.22|
95906938|NCT00515502|191771842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.867|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.25|1.81|
95906939|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.256|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.21|-9.82|
95906940|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.09|-4.70|
95906941|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.268|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.06|6.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.98|-10.06|
95906942|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.347|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.50|-13.84|
95906943|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.264|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|10.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.37|-6.65|
95906944|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.08|-2.35|
95906945|NCT00515502|191771843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.634|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|14.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.85|-7.59|
95906946|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.961|4.365|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.365|-4.961|
95906947|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2776|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.495|5.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.627|-3.495|
95906948|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0952|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.247|4.122|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.122|-8.247|
95906949|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1891|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.003|6.726|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.726|-6.003|
95906950|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.873|5.554|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.554|-6.873|
95906951|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.704|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.064|7.473|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.473|-6.064|
95906952|NCT00515502|191771844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.424|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2233|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.84|5.993|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.993|-10.84|
95906953|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.542|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|5.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.15|-4.98|
95906954|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.507|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.34|-3.65|
95906955|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.49|5.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.19|-7.49|
95906956|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.296|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.24|-6.89|
95906957|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.279|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|6.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.94|-6.13|
95906958|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.516|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.67|-5.34|
95906959|NCT00515502|191771845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.087|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.97|7.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.32|-8.97|
95906960|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.492|5.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.419|-2.492|
95906961|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9457|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.647|4.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.144|-3.647|
95906962|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5254|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.687|2.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.396|-7.687|
95906963|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6352|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.671|7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.840|-2.671|
95906964|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5993|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.308|4.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.067|-6.308|
95906965|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.336|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.952|3.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.280|-7.952|
95906966|NCT00515502|191771846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3802|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.96|1.504|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.504|-11.96|
95906967|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-9.7|
95906968|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.9|
95906969|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-13.5|
95906970|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-11.8|
95906971|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.4|-6.1|
95906972|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.5|-6.1|
95906973|NCT00515502|191771847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.2|-10.9|
95906974|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-3.6|
95906975|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.4|-2.0|
95906976|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-3.9|
95906977|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.6|-3.6|
95906978|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-3.3|
95906979|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|-2.0|
95906980|NCT00515502|191771848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.9|-4.1|
95906981|NCT03945188|191771880|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.88|26.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.63|12.88|<0.001
95906982|NCT03945188|191771881|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
95906983|NCT03945188|191771882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.03|29.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.32|13.03|<0.001
95906984|NCT03945188|191771883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.99|34.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.39|18.99|<0.001
95906985|NCT03945188|191771884|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.46|33.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.63|15.46|<0.001
95906986|NCT03945188|191771885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.17|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.60|16.17|<0.001
95906987|NCT03945188|191771886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.78|22.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.98|10.78|<0.001
95906988|NCT03945188|191771887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.39|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|11.39|<0.001
95906989|NCT03945188|191771888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.42|32.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.36|18.42|<0.001
95906990|NCT03945188|191771889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.66|21.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.03|10.66|<0.001
95906991|NCT03945188|191771890|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||38.02|18.51|<0.001
95906992|NCT03945188|191771891|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.79|34.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.07|15.79|<0.001
95906993|NCT03945188|191771892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|34.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.84|17.48|<0.001
95906994|NCT03945188|191771893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.49|16.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.14|6.49|<0.001
95906995|NCT03945188|191771894|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|15.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.73|4.73|<0.001
95906996|NCT03945188|191771895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.79|26.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.98|13.79|<0.001
95906997|NCT03945188|191771896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.93|13.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||13.38|4.93|<0.001
95906998|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.49|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|12.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||12.95|0.02|=0.049
95906999|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.32|22.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||22.74|7.32|<0.001
95907000|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.06|25.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||25.63|8.06|<0.001
95907001|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.71|30.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||30.61|12.71|<0.001
95907002|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.98|32.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||32.51|14.98|<0.001
95907003|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|30.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||30.24|11.83|<0.001
95907004|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.08|34.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||34.56|17.08|<0.001
95907005|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|32.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||32.14|14.80|<0.001
95907006|NCT03945188|191771897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.92|34.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||34.82|17.92|<0.001
95907007|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.59|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||7.30|-0.11|=0.057
95907008|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.88|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|11.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||11.90|1.86|=0.007
95907009|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.14|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|16.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||16.20|4.09|=0.001
95907010|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.89|22.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||22.83|9.89|<0.001
95907011|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|21.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||21.52|9.23|<0.001
95907012|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|23.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||23.75|11.85|<0.001
95907013|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.45|21.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||21.04|7.45|<0.001
95907014|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.25|25.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||25.81|14.25|<0.001
95907015|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.91|21.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||21.35|8.91|<0.001
95907016|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.16|22.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||22.87|12.16|<0.001
95907017|NCT03945188|191771898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.75|25.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||25.98|13.75|<0.001
95907018|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.83|||=|0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|14.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||14.68|-5.01|=0.336
95907019|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.06|27.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.15|7.06|<0.001
95907020|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.15|30.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.19|10.15|<0.001
95907021|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.45|33.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||33.43|13.45|<0.001
95907022|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.67|34.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.83|15.67|<0.001
95907023|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.77|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||38.64|19.77|<0.001
95907024|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|35.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||35.69|16.47|<0.001
95907025|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.35|38.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.02|19.35|<0.001
95907026|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|37.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.55|19.30|<0.001
95907027|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.55|38.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||38.64|20.55|<0.001
95907028|NCT03945188|191771899|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.18|35.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||35.68|17.18|<0.001
95907029|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.93|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|15.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2||15.81|-3.96|=0.240
95907030|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.48|27.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4||27.53|7.48|<0.001
95907031|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|30.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8||30.94|10.92|<0.001
95907032|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12||34.10|14.15|<0.001
95907033|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|34.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16||34.13|14.89|<0.001
95907034|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.13|39.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20||39.01|20.13|<0.001
95907035|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.88|36.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24||36.02|16.88|<0.001
95907036|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|38.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32||38.68|20.01|<0.001
95907037|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|28.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.71|37.95|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40||37.95|19.71|<0.001
95907038|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.97|39.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48||39.03|20.97|<0.001
95907039|NCT03945188|191771900|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|36.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 52||36.07|17.60|<0.001
95907040|NCT03945188|191771901|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|35.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.90|10.20|<0.001
95907041|NCT03945188|191771902|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|31.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.45|45.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.28|18.45|<0.001
95907042|NCT05098054|191771905|OTHER||Geometric Least-squares mean(GLSM) Ratio|214.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|446.45|||||"Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||446.45|103.47|
95907043|NCT05098054|191771905|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|145.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.18|273.98|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||273.98|77.18|
95907044|NCT05098054|191771906|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|299.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.75|801.17|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||801.17|111.75|
95907045|NCT05098054|191771906|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|130.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.02|220.26|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||220.26|77.02|
95907046|NCT05098054|191771907|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|316.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.68|849.97|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Moderate HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Moderate HI)"|||849.97|117.68|
95907047|NCT05098054|191771907|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|135.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.22|200.57|||||"Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs from the mixed effects model.~Geometric LSM Ratio (GMR) = 100\*(Mild HI/Normal Hepatic Function (Matched to Mild HI)"|||200.57|91.22|
95907048|NCT04794803|191771914|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.02164|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.02164
95907049|NCT04794803|191771914|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.20043|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: Supplemental oxygen requirement based on PaO2/FiO2||||= 0.20043
95907050|NCT04794803|191771914|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.30215|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first invasive mechanical ventilation||||= 0.30215
95907051|NCT04794803|191771914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5637|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first admission to ICU||||0.56370
95907052|NCT04794803|191771914|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.00132|||||||Log Rank|||Sensitivity analysis of time to event for each single component of the primary endpoint: time to first use of a rescue medication for any reason||||= 0.00132
95907053|NCT04794803|191771915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison at week 1||||0.731
95907054|NCT04794803|191771915|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||1.000
95907055|NCT04794803|191771915|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
95907056|NCT04794803|191771916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||Fisher Exact|||at baseline||||0.353
95907057|NCT04794803|191771916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 1||||0.401
95907058|NCT04794803|191771916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Fisher Exact|||At Day 2||||0.066
95907059|NCT04794803|191771916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Fisher Exact|||At week 1||||0.102
95907060|NCT04794803|191771916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.314|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOT||||0.314
95907061|NCT04794803|191771916|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||at EOS||||1.000
95907062|NCT04794803|191771917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||>0.999
95980646|NCT00705432|191934656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR rates|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||36.8|21.5|<0.0001
95907063|NCT04794803|191771917|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||>0.999
95907064|NCT04794803|191771917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.050
95907065|NCT04794803|191771917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change of VAS scale.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0227
95907066|NCT04794803|191771918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 1||||0.122
95907067|NCT04794803|191771918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At Day 2||||0.985
95907068|NCT04794803|191771918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.857|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at week 1||||0.857
95907069|NCT04794803|191771918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.436|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||at EOT||||0.436
95907070|NCT04794803|191771918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||At EOS||||0.350
95907071|NCT04794803|191771919|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.596|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.596
95907072|NCT04794803|191771919|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.667|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.667
95907073|NCT04794803|191771919|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.037|||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.037
95980647|NCT00705432|191934656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|21.3||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square test|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||40.2|2.3|0.0366
95907074|NCT04794803|191771919|SUPERIORITY|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening||||||0.293||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.293
95907075|NCT04794803|191771920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening and|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||0.539
95907076|NCT04794803|191771920|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||1.000
95907077|NCT04794803|191771920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||0.102
95907078|NCT04794803|191771920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||0.119
95907079|NCT04794803|191771920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.515||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for worsening|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||0.515
95907080|NCT04794803|191771921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.366
95907081|NCT04794803|191771921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.489
95907082|NCT04794803|191771921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.486
95907083|NCT04794803|191771922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.790
95907084|NCT04794803|191771922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.961
95907085|NCT04794803|191771922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.619||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative quantity|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.619
95907086|NCT04794803|191771923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
95907087|NCT04794803|191771923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 1||||1.000
95907088|NCT04794803|191771923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Day 2||||0.678
95907089|NCT04794803|191771923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Week 1||||1.000
95907090|NCT04794803|191771923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
95907091|NCT04794803|191771923|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOS||||1.000
95907092|NCT04794803|191771924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.696||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.696
95980648|NCT00705432|191934656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||The difference in SVR|27.2||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|45.3|||Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Chi-square|Adjustments were made for the baseline stratification factors: viral load (\>400,000 vs. ≤400,000 IU/mL) and Genotype (1a vs 1b).||||45.3|9.0|0.0107
95980649|NCT01667107|191934664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.53||||0.139|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.139
95980650|NCT01667107|191934664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman rank correlation coefficient|0.59||||0.057|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||Spearman rank correlation between concurrent BAL and serum posaconazole concentrations||||0.057
95907093|NCT04794803|191771924|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||>0.999
95907094|NCT04794803|191771924|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.596||||||p-values are referred to a-sided Wilcoxon test for cumulative duration|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||0.596
95907095|NCT04794803|191771925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||Baseline||||1.000
95907096|NCT04794803|191771925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 1||||1.000
95907097|NCT04794803|191771925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||Day 2||||1.000
95907098|NCT04794803|191771925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion||week 1||||1.000
95907099|NCT04794803|191771925|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Fisher's Exact test for proportion|Fisher Exact|||EOT||||1.000
95907100|NCT04794803|191771927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.760
95907101|NCT04794803|191771927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1||||0.394
95907102|NCT04794803|191771927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.141
95907103|NCT04794803|191771927|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
95907104|NCT04794803|191771928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||baseline||||0.500
95907105|NCT04794803|191771928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1||||0.112
95907106|NCT04794803|191771928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.277||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT||||0.277
95907107|NCT04794803|191771928|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS||||>0.999
95907108|NCT04794803|191771929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2027||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.2027
95907109|NCT04794803|191771929|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||1.0000
95907110|NCT04794803|191771929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4469||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 1 vs baseline||||0.4469
95907111|NCT04794803|191771929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2466||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.2466
95907112|NCT04794803|191771929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1752||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.1752
95907113|NCT04794803|191771930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.6441
95907114|NCT04794803|191771930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3529||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3529
95907115|NCT04794803|191771930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3581||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.3581
95907116|NCT04794803|191771930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1666||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.1666
95907117|NCT04794803|191771930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0851
95907118|NCT04794803|191771931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3359||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.3359
95907119|NCT04794803|191771931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3136||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.3136
95907120|NCT04794803|191771931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0441||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.0441
95907121|NCT04794803|191771931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0965||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.0965
95907122|NCT04794803|191771931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0519||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.0519
95907123|NCT04794803|191771932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 1 vs baseline||||0.470
95907124|NCT04794803|191771932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 2 vs baseline||||0.425
95907125|NCT04794803|191771932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 1 vs baseline||||0.086
95907126|NCT04794803|191771932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOT vs baseline||||0.600
95907127|NCT04794803|191771932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.717||||||p-values are referred to a two-sided Wilcoxon test for differences in the change.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EOS vs baseline||||0.717
95907128|NCT04149405|191771933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95907129|NCT04149405|191771934|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95907130|NCT04149405|191771935|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95907131|NCT04149405|191771936|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95907132|NCT04124926|191771937|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in EE rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|12.23||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||12.23|4.49|<0.0001
95907133|NCT04124926|191771938|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.53||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||15.53|1.80|<0.0001
95980651|NCT05315947|191934666|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for Cmax was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7814|0.9686||||||||0.9686|0.7814|
95980652|NCT05315947|191934667|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence between the BRV tablet (reference) and BRV dry syrup (test) formulations were concluded if the 90% CI limits for AUC(0-t) was within the 0.80 to 1.25 range.|Ratio of Dry Syrup/ Tablet|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9756|1.003||||||||1.003|0.9756|
95980653|NCT00232141|191934673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.3914||95.0|-0.83|0.32||The analysis procedures planned will control the Type I error for the primary analysis. No multiplicity adjustment is needed for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Primary hypotheses : null (H0): µA=µP vs alternative (HA): µA≠µP (µA and µP represent true means for primary endpoint in active treatment \& placebo groups respectively). Assumptions in power calculation: 2-sided test with type I error at α =0.05, type II error at β =0.10, \& a common s.d of 2.2 for primary endpoint (based on previous clinical trial data). With n=150 subjects/ group (300 subjects overall) at least 90% power to detect a treatment difference of at least 1.1 in primary endpoint||0.32|-0.83|0.3914
95980654|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0131||95.0|-0.81|-0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.10|-0.81|0.0131
95980655|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0393||95.0|-0.96|-0.02||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.02|-0.96|0.0393
95980656|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0554||95.0|-1.08|0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||0.01|-1.08|0.0554
95980657|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1513||95.0|-0.99|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.15|-0.99|0.1513
95980658|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3345||95.0|-0.89|0.3||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.30|-0.89|0.3345
95907134|NCT04124926|191771938|NON_INFERIORITY|The noninferiority of each dose group of vonoprazan to lansoprazole was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points for the difference in maintenance of healing rates between treatments (vonoprazan minus lansoprazole).|difference in percentage|7.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|14.09||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||14.09|0.21|<0.0001
95907135|NCT04124926|191771938|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0136||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0136
95907136|NCT04124926|191771938|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.||||||0.0436||||||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test|||||||0.0436
95907137|NCT04124926|191771939|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.03|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||7.03|-1.60|
95907138|NCT04124926|191771940|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|17.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.44|27.43||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.43|7.44|0.0008
95907139|NCT04124926|191771941|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|2.3||||0.4392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.04||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in sustained resolution rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||8.04|-3.50|0.4392
95907140|NCT04124926|191771942|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.84|27.58||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||27.58|11.84|<0.0001
95907141|NCT04124926|191771943|SUPERIORITY|Observed p-value and not a formal test per the preplanned fixed-sequence testing procedure. The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|6.1||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|11.6||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in EE healing rates between vonoprazan 20 mg and lansoprazole 30 mg was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||11.60|0.53|0.0348
95907142|NCT04124926|191771944|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 20 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|15.7||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.44||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||28.44|2.50|0.0196
95980659|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0879||95.0|-1.13|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.08|-1.13|0.0879
95907143|NCT04124926|191771944|SUPERIORITY|The superiority of the vonoprazan 10 mg group to lansoprazole group p-value was evaluated with a Farrington and Manning test with the null hypothesis difference ≤0 versus the alternative hypothesis difference \>0.|difference in percentage|13.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|26.14||2-sided p-value.|Farrington and Manning test||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in maintenance rates between each vonoprazan group and lansoprazole 15 mg group was calculated via the Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||26.14|0.02|0.0490
95907144|NCT04124926|191771945|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|6.72|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.72|-2.63|
95907145|NCT04124926|191771945|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the CI was greater than -15%, noninferiority would be concluded.|difference in mean percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|6.84|||||The 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in mean percentage of 24-hour heartburn-free days between each vonoprazan group and the lansoprazole group was calculated from Welch's t-test.|||6.84|-2.27|
95907146|NCT02167074|191771952|OTHER|The chi-square test (with Yates' correction when appropriate) or the Fisher exact test was used to compare the two needle types|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95980660|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0307||95.0|-1.32|-0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.07|-1.32|0.0307
95980661|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0156||95.0|-1.36|-0.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.14|-1.36|0.0156
95980662|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0981||95.0|-1.15|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.15|0.0981
95980663|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.306||95.0|-0.93|0.29||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.29|-0.93|0.3060
95980664|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.1874||95.0|-1.08|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.21|-1.08|0.1874
95980665|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1025||95.0|-1.22|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.11|-1.22|0.1025
95980666|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0662||95.0|-1.3|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||0.04|-1.30|0.0662
95980667|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.1856||95.0|-1.21|0.24||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.24|-1.21|0.1856
95980668|NCT00232141|191934674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7925||95.0|-0.66|0.5||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.50|-0.66|0.7925
95980669|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.1191||95.0|0.802|5.935||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||5.935|0.802|0.1191
95980670|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.5041||95.0|0.666|2.301||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||2.301|0.666|0.5041
95980671|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.6859||95.0|0.638|1.985||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||1.985|0.638|0.6859
95980672|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.414||95.0|0.735|2.116||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.116|0.735|0.4140
95980673|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.7852||95.0|0.644|1.794||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.794|0.644|0.7852
95907147|NCT00845663|191772003|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|101.33||||||90.0|92.84|110.58|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor has been used as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||110.58|92.84|
95907148|NCT00845663|191772004|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125% bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.7||||||90.0|89.06|107.19|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as the basis for calculation of estimated value and confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||107.19|89.06|
95907149|NCT00845663|191772005|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Use of the 80-125 % bioequivalence range. If 90% confidence interval for ratio of geometric LS Means (percent) is included within these limits, the devices are considered bioequivalent.|ratio of geometric LS Means (percent)|97.54||||||90.0|87.33|108.94|||ANOVA|ANOVA for log-transformed values with treatment as factor was taken as a basis for calculation of estimated value and the confidence interval.|Ratio is Auto-injection device/Pre-filled syringe|Bioequivalence testing by using the 90% Confidence Interval||108.94|87.33|
95907150|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907151|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907152|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0013
95907153|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907154|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907155|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907156|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907157|NCT05585307|191772025|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907158|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907159|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907160|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907161|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907162|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907163|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95980674|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7399||95.0|0.654|1.817||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.817|0.654|0.7399
95980675|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.1055||95.0|0.913|2.701||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||2.701|0.913|0.1055
95980676|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2107||95.0|0.829|2.401||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.401|0.829|0.2107
95980677|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.527||95.0|0.697|2.046||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||2.046|0.697|0.5270
95980678|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.6845||95.0|0.513|1.546||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.546|0.513|0.6845
95980679|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7737||95.0|0.522|1.619||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||1.619|0.522|0.7737
95980680|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8853||95.0|0.597|1.818||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||1.818|0.597|0.8853
95980681|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7712||95.0|0.612|1.946||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||1.946|0.612|0.7712
95980682|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9586||95.0|0.574|1.796||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.796|0.574|0.9586
95980683|NCT00232141|191934675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.3482||95.0|0.486|1.283||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.283|0.486|0.3482
95980684|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1132||95.0|0.882|2.969||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||2.969|0.882|0.1132
95980685|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4687||95.0|0.731|1.978||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||1.978|0.731|0.4687
95980686|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1546||95.0|0.877|2.375||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||2.375|0.877|0.1546
95980687|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.4216||95.0|0.7444|2.025||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||2.025|0.7444|0.4216
95907164|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907165|NCT05585307|191772026|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value was calculated from two-sided t-test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95907166|NCT01972841|191772046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.01||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.49|0.072
95907167|NCT01972841|191772046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.04||Nominal p-value|Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.04|-0.44|0.033
95907168|NCT01972841|191772046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA||Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.58|0.001
95980688|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.7479||95.0|0.556|1.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||1.527|0.556|0.7479
95980689|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3842||95.0|0.481|1.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||1.330|0.481|0.3842
95980690|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.845||95.0|0.627|1.769||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||1.769|0.627|0.8450
95980691|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.864|2.527||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||2.527|0.864|0.1602
95980692|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6815||95.0|0.66|1.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||1.890|0.660|0.6815
95980693|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5635||95.0|0.486|1.482||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||1.482|0.486|0.5635
95980694|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.49||95.0|0.699|2.104||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||2.104|0.699|0.4900
95980695|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1602||95.0|0.856|2.575||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||2.575|0.856|0.1602
95980696|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5819||95.0|0.663|2.079||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||2.079|0.663|0.5819
95980697|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2796||95.0|0.768|2.432||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||2.432|0.768|0.2796
95980698|NCT00232141|191934676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.5437||95.0|0.534|1.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint-BOCF||1.390|0.534|0.5437
95980699|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.5425||95.0|-3.44|6.52||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Disturbance.||6.52|-3.44|0.5425
95980700|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3184||95.0|-0.75|0.25||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Quantity||0.25|-0.75|0.3184
95980701|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.9886||95.0|-5.81|5.72||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Adequacy||5.72|-5.81|0.9886
95907169|NCT01972841|191772046|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.47|0.052
95909270|NCT01939548|191776651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.7399|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.19|-0.11|0.7399
95980702|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.5742||95.0|-3.53|6.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Awaken Short of Breath or with Headache||6.35|-3.53|0.5742
95980703|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.5775||95.0|-3.54|6.33||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Somnolence||6.33|-3.54|0.5775
95980704|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.004||95.0|3.02|15.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Snoring||15.66|3.02|0.0040
95980705|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.5882||95.0|-2.83|4.97||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index I||4.97|-2.83|0.5882
95980706|NCT00232141|191934677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.4516||95.0|-2.3|5.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Sleep Problems Index II||5.14|-2.30|0.4516
95980707|NCT00232141|191934678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5105||95.0|-0.51|1.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Anxiety||1.03|-0.51|0.5105
95980708|NCT00232141|191934678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.2513||95.0|-0.3|1.14||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Depression||1.14|-0.30|0.2513
95980709|NCT00232141|191934679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5834||95.0|-0.38|0.67||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Severity Index||0.67|-0.38|0.5834
95980710|NCT00232141|191934679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7783||95.0|-0.43|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pain Interference Index||0.57|-0.43|0.7783
95980711|NCT00232141|191934680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4776||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.34|-0.73|0.4776
95980712|NCT00232141|191934681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0077
95980713|NCT00232141|191934682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3852||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3852
95907170|NCT01972841|191772047|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.01||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.01|-0.57|0.040
95907171|NCT01972841|191772047|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.11||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.67|0.006
95907172|NCT01972841|191772047|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.21||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.21|-0.76|0.001
95980714|NCT00232141|191934683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.3097||95.0|-0.03|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Burning||0.10|-0.03|0.3097
95980715|NCT00232141|191934683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6147||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Pressing||0.04|-0.07|0.6147
95980716|NCT00232141|191934683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6838||95.0|-0.05|0.07||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paroxysmal||0.07|-0.05|0.6838
95980717|NCT00232141|191934683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6479||95.0|-0.07|0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Evoked||0.04|-0.07|0.6479
95980718|NCT00232141|191934683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1849||95.0|-0.02|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Paresthesia/dysesthesia||0.11|-0.02|0.1849
95980719|NCT00232141|191934683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.5898||95.0|0.0|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Total Score||0|0|0.5898
95980720|NCT00232141|191934684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6865||95.0|-0.45|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Static mechanical allodynia||0.68|-0.45|0.6865
95980721|NCT00232141|191934684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.3787||95.0|-0.71|0.27||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Dynamic mechanical allodynia||0.27|-0.71|0.3787
95980722|NCT00232141|191934684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.7704||95.0|-0.79|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Punctate hyperalgesia testing area||0.59|-0.79|0.7704
95980723|NCT00232141|191934684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.6088||95.0|-0.82|0.48||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Temporal summation to tactile stimuli||0.48|-0.82|0.6088
95980724|NCT00232141|191934684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.3767||95.0|-0.93|0.35||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold allodynia testing area||0.35|-0.93|0.3767
95980725|NCT00232141|191934684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7689||95.0|-0.64|0.86||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Cold hyperalgesia testing area||0.86|-0.64|0.7689
95907173|NCT01972841|191772047|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-0.84|<0.001
95907174|NCT01972841|191772048|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|10.0||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.00|-2.29|0.219
95907175|NCT01972841|191772048|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|14.89||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||14.89|2.61|0.005
95907176|NCT01972841|191772048|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.35|27.68||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||27.68|15.35|<0.001
95907177|NCT01972841|191772048|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|17.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.58|23.9||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was needed for testing combination therapy vs. its 2 monotherapy components.|Adjustment for multiplicity across primary and the first secondary endpoint as well as across the 2 combination doses was made using a sequential Bonferroni-based testing procedure.|Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||23.90|11.58|<0.001
95907178|NCT01972841|191772049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-4.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|-2.27|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.27|-6.98|<0.001
95907179|NCT01972841|191772049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|-3.44|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.44|-8.17|<0.001
95980726|NCT00232141|191934685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1277||95.0|-0.86|0.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||||0.11|-0.86|0.1277
95980727|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0469||95.0|-0.71|0.0||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.00|-0.71|0.0469
95980728|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0067||95.0|-1.08|-0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||-0.18|-1.08|0.0067
95980729|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.031||95.0|-1.1|-0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 3||-0.05|-1.10|0.0310
95907180|NCT01972841|191772049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|-4.76|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.76|-9.50|<0.001
95907181|NCT01972841|191772049|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|-3.74|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-3.74|-8.46|<0.001
95907182|NCT01972841|191772050|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.52|-0.03|0.077
95907183|NCT01972841|191772050|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.55|0.00|0.050
95907184|NCT01972841|191772050|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.008
95907185|NCT01972841|191772050|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.65|||ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made for this comparison.||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\< 65, ≥ 65 years), previous overactive bladder medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.65|0.10|0.007
95907186|NCT01972841|191772051|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.04|0.72|0.135
95907187|NCT01972841|191772051|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.09|0.75|0.282
95907188|NCT01972841|191772051|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||0.85|0.59|<0.001
95907189|NCT01972841|191772051|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.06|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, ≥65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, log(number of incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) at baseline included as a covariate and number of valid diary days at EoT as the offset variable.||1.06|0.73|0.172
95907190|NCT01972841|191772052|SUPERIORITY||least squares mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-0.01|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.offset variable.||-0.01|-3.27|0.074
95907191|NCT01972841|191772052|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.3|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.30|-2.96|0.025
95907192|NCT01972841|191772052|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.73|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.73|-4.00|<0.001
95907193|NCT01972841|191772052|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|0.05|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy group from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-3.23|0.024
95907194|NCT01972841|191772056|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.76|-0.39|0.520
95907195|NCT01972841|191772056|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.34|-0.82|0.413
95907196|NCT01972841|191772056|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.50|0.002
95907197|NCT01972841|191772056|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffrence|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||0.02|-1.13|0.060
95907198|NCT01972841|191772057|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.04|0.70|0.110
95907199|NCT01972841|191772057|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.1|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.10|0.73|0.288
95907200|NCT01972841|191772057|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.79|0.53|<0.001
95907201|NCT01972841|191772057|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of urgency incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary bet. the given combination group \& the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65,≥ 65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of urgency incontinence episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate \& postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.68|0.084
95907202|NCT01972841|191772058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.09|0.114
95907203|NCT01972841|191772058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.13|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.13|-3.10|0.034
95907204|NCT01972841|191772058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-1.12|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-1.12|-4.09|<0.001
95907205|NCT01972841|191772058|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.71|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.71|-3.70|0.012
95907206|NCT01972841|191772059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.46|0.134
95907207|NCT01972841|191772059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.02|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.45|0.043
95907208|NCT01972841|191772059|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean diffeence|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.15|-0.59|<0.001
95907209|NCT01972841|191772059|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.019|TWO_SIDED|5.0|-0.54|-0.1|||Stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50mg ) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.10|-0.54|0.019
95907210|NCT01972841|191772060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.03|-0.69|0.074
95980730|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2088||95.0|-0.86|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 4||0.19|-0.86|0.2088
95907211|NCT01972841|191772060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.09|-0.82|0.014
95907212|NCT01972841|191772060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.28|-1.01|<0.001
95907213|NCT01972841|191772060|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.51|-1.24|<0.001
95907214|NCT01972841|191772061|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.96|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.96|0.81|0.006
95980731|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1849||95.0|-0.87|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 5||0.17|-0.87|0.1849
95980732|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0452||95.0|-1.09|-0.01||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||-0.01|-1.09|0.0452
95980733|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0359||95.0|-1.18|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 7||-0.04|-1.18|0.0359
95907215|NCT01972841|191772061|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.88|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.88|0.74|<0.001
95907216|NCT01972841|191772061|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.00|0.84|0.049
95980734|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0184||95.0|-1.26|-0.12||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 8||-0.12|-1.26|0.0184
95980735|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1043||95.0|-1.06|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 9||0.10|-1.06|0.1043
95980736|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1053||95.0|-1.04|0.1||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.10|-1.04|0.1053
95980737|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.144||95.0|-1.03|0.15||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 11||0.15|-1.03|0.1440
95980738|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0866||95.0|-1.17|0.08||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 12||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
95980739|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0359||95.0|-1.3|-0.04||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 13||-0.04|-1.30|0.0359
95980740|NCT00232141|191934686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0711||95.0|-1.3|0.05||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.05|-1.30|0.0711
95980741|NCT00232141|191934688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0685||95.0|-0.89|0.03||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.03|-0.89|0.0685
95980742|NCT00232141|191934688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.928||95.0|-0.52|0.57||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.57|-0.52|0.9280
95980743|NCT00232141|191934688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6672||95.0|-0.71|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.71|0.6672
95980744|NCT00232141|191934688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9731||95.0|-0.57|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.57|0.9731
95980745|NCT00232141|191934688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.9045||95.0|-0.61|0.69||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.69|-0.61|0.9045
95980746|NCT00232141|191934688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8298||95.0|-0.53|0.66||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.66|-0.53|0.8298
95907217|NCT01972841|191772061|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of nocturia episodes used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.94|0.79|0.001
95907218|NCT01972841|191772062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.06|-1.28|0.073
95907219|NCT01972841|191772062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.48|-1.83|0.001
95907220|NCT01972841|191772062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.17|-1.18|0.140
95907221|NCT01972841|191772062|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.54|-1.88|<0.001
95907222|NCT01972841|191772063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.01|-0.19|0.065
95907223|NCT01972841|191772063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
95907224|NCT01972841|191772063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.02|-0.18|0.100
95907225|NCT01972841|191772063|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.07|-0.26|0.001
95907226|NCT01972841|191772064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.27|0.80|0.938
95907227|NCT01972841|191772064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.25|0.79|0.967
95907228|NCT01972841|191772064|SUPERIORITY||Standard Error of the Mean|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||0.92|0.58|0.008
95907229|NCT01972841|191772064|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Negative binomial regression|||Rate ratio of number of incontinence episodes during the 7-day diary between the given combination group and the given monotherapy group calculated from a negative binomial regression model incl. treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), geographic region and previous OAB medication (yes, no) as factors, baseline log(number of pads used divided by number of valid diary days) included as a covariate and postbaseline number of valid diary days as offset variable.||1.02|0.64|0.069
95907230|NCT01972841|191772065|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.64|-1.73|0.958
95907231|NCT01972841|191772065|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.11|-2.27|0.500
95907232|NCT01972841|191772065|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-3.62|0.028
95907233|NCT01972841|191772065|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.31|-3.13|0.108
95907234|NCT01972841|191772066|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.25|-0.25|0.993
95907235|NCT01972841|191772066|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.19|-0.30|0.650
95907236|NCT01972841|191772066|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.02|-0.52|0.035
95907237|NCT01972841|191772066|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate||0.08|-0.43|0.169
95907238|NCT01972841|191772067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.003
95907239|NCT01972841|191772067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.11|0.004
95907240|NCT01972841|191772067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|1.95|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.95|1.29|<0.001
95980747|NCT00232141|191934689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8605||95.0|-0.52|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.44|-0.52|0.8605
95980748|NCT00232141|191934689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8348||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.58|0.8348
95980749|NCT00232141|191934689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2227||95.0|-0.83|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.19|-0.83|0.2227
95980750|NCT00232141|191934689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4753||95.0|-0.73|0.34||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.34|-0.73|0.4753
95980751|NCT00232141|191934689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6017||95.0|-0.4|0.68||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.68|-0.40|0.6017
95980752|NCT00232141|191934689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6158||95.0|-0.38|0.64||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.64|-0.38|0.6158
95980753|NCT00232141|191934690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.239||95.0|-0.69|0.17||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.17|-0.69|0.2390
95980754|NCT00232141|191934690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9444||95.0|-0.49|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.45|-0.49|0.9444
95907241|NCT01972841|191772067|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.68|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline logarithm of mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.68|1.10|0.004
95907242|NCT01972841|191772068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.5|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.50|1.01|0.039
95907243|NCT01972841|191772068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.59|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.59|1.07|0.009
95907244|NCT01972841|191772068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.77|||overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.77|1.19|<0.001
95907245|NCT01972841|191772068|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.84|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate||1.84|1.23|<0.001
95907246|NCT01972841|191772069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.64|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.64|1.07|0.011
95907247|NCT01972841|191772069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.75|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.75|1.14|0.002
95907248|NCT01972841|191772069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.06|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.06|1.32|<0.001
95907249|NCT01972841|191772069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.07|||Overdispersed binomial regression|||Odds ratio from a overdispersed binomial regression model (Williams' method) including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.33|<0.001
95907250|NCT01972841|191772070|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.11|-0.41|<0.001
95907251|NCT01972841|191772070|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.54|<0.001
95907252|NCT01972841|191772070|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
95907253|NCT01972841|191772070|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.20|-0.50|<0.001
95907254|NCT01972841|191772072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|5.94|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.94|1.69|<0.001
95907255|NCT01972841|191772072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|6.29|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.29|2.03|<0.001
95907256|NCT01972841|191772072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|7.15|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.15|2.88|<0.001
95907257|NCT01972841|191772072|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.43|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.43|1.17|0.002
95907258|NCT01972841|191772073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.65|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.65|1.60|0.001
95907259|NCT01972841|191772073|SUPERIORITY||Lest squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.40|2.34|<0.001
95907260|NCT01972841|191772073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|6.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.55|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|3.55|<0.001
95907261|NCT01972841|191772073|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|1.27|0.003
95907262|NCT01972841|191772074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|6.63|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.63|1.84|0.001
95907263|NCT01972841|191772074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.22|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|2.42|<0.001
95980755|NCT00232141|191934690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7386||95.0|-0.63|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.63|0.7386
95980756|NCT00232141|191934690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3493||95.0|-0.79|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.28|-0.79|0.3493
95980757|NCT00232141|191934690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6596||95.0|-0.46|0.73||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.73|-0.46|0.6596
95980758|NCT00232141|191934690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4075||95.0|-0.31|0.77||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.77|-0.31|0.4075
95907264|NCT01972841|191772074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|7.75|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.75|2.93|<0.001
95907265|NCT01972841|191772074|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.81|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.81|2.01|<0.001
95907266|NCT01972841|191772075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.85|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.85|1.98|<0.001
95907267|NCT01972841|191772075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|6.86|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||6.86|1.98|<0.001
95907268|NCT01972841|191772075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|7.32|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||7.32|2.42|<0.001
95907269|NCT01972841|191772075|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|5.72|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||5.72|0.84|0.008
95907270|NCT01972841|191772076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.21|0.33|0.022
95907271|NCT01972841|191772076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|4.19|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (solifenacin 5 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.19|0.31|0.023
95980759|NCT00232141|191934691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0202||95.0|-1.01|-0.09||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.09|-1.01|0.0202
95980760|NCT00232141|191934691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8865||95.0|-0.55|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.47|-0.55|0.8865
95980761|NCT00232141|191934691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9964||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.54|-0.54|0.9964
95980762|NCT00232141|191934691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5993||95.0|-0.7|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.70|0.5993
95980763|NCT00232141|191934691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3553||95.0|-0.33|0.9||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.90|-0.33|0.3553
95907272|NCT01972841|191772076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.74|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 25 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.74|0.85|0.005
95907273|NCT01972841|191772076|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.89|||ANCOVA|||Difference of the adjusted mean calculated by subtracting the adjusted mean of the monotherapy group (mirabegron 50 mg) from the adjusted mean of the combination group (solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg) based on the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||2.89|-0.99|0.337
95907274|NCT01972841|191772089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.69|1.02|0.035
95907275|NCT01972841|191772089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.81|1.09|0.009
95907276|NCT01972841|191772089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.93|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.93|1.16|0.002
95907277|NCT01972841|191772089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.73|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.73|1.04|0.023
95907278|NCT01972841|191772090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.69|0.88|0.224
95907279|NCT01972841|191772090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.96|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.96|1.02|0.037
95907280|NCT01972841|191772090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.67|1.47|<0.001
95907281|NCT01972841|191772090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.26|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.26|1.21|0.002
95907282|NCT01972841|191772091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.72|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.72|0.97|0.077
95907283|NCT01972841|191772091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.87|0.321
95907284|NCT01972841|191772091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||2.53|1.46|<0.001
95907285|NCT01972841|191772091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline OAB-q subscale as a covariate.||1.53|0.88|0.294
95907286|NCT01972841|191772092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.53|0.89|0.251
95907287|NCT01972841|191772092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.64|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.64|0.95|0.107
95907288|NCT01972841|191772092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||2.07|1.23|<0.001
95907289|NCT01972841|191772092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.85|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours during the last 3 days as a covariate.||1.85|1.08|0.012
95907290|NCT01972841|191772093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.67|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.67|1.01|0.044
95907291|NCT01972841|191772093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.84|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.84|1.11|0.006
95907292|NCT01972841|191772093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.9|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.90|1.13|0.004
95907293|NCT01972841|191772093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.08|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of micturitions per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.08|1.23|<0.001
95907294|NCT01972841|191772094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.92|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||1.92|1.13|0.004
95907295|NCT01972841|191772094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.11|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.11|1.24|<0.001
95907296|NCT01972841|191772094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.07|1.22|0.001
95907297|NCT01972841|191772094|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours as a covariate.||2.04|1.21|0.001
95907298|NCT01972841|191772095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.78|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.78|0.98|0.065
95907299|NCT01972841|191772095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.27|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.27|1.24|0.001
95907300|NCT01972841|191772095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.36|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.36|1.32|<0.001
95907301|NCT01972841|191772095|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.04|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.04|1.12|0.007
95907302|NCT01972841|191772096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||1.87|1.11|0.007
95907303|NCT01972841|191772096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.17|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.17|1.28|<0.001
95907304|NCT01972841|191772096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.3|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.30|1.34|<0.001
95907305|NCT01972841|191772096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.19|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors and baseline PPBC as a covariate.||2.19|1.29|<0.001
95907306|NCT01972841|191772097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.45|0.87|0.381
95907307|NCT01972841|191772097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||1.70|1.01|0.040
95907308|NCT01972841|191772097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.0|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.00|1.21|0.001
95907309|NCT01972841|191772097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.03|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale as covariates.||2.03|1.21|0.001
95907310|NCT01972841|191772098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.095
95907311|NCT01972841|191772098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.62|0.98|0.073
95907312|NCT01972841|191772098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.13|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||2.13|1.29|<0.001
95907313|NCT01972841|191772098|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.63|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline OAB-q HRQL total score as covariates.||1.63|0.98|0.067
95907314|NCT01972841|191772099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.52|0.91|0.210
95907315|NCT01972841|191772099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.89|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.89|1.13|0.004
95907316|NCT01972841|191772099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.06|1.23|<0.001
95907317|NCT01972841|191772099|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.05|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of lncontinence episodes per 24 hours and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.05|1.23|<0.001
95907318|NCT01972841|191772100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.46|0.88|0.335
95907319|NCT01972841|191772100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.81|1.09|0.009
95907320|NCT01972841|191772100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.02|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.02|1.21|0.001
95907321|NCT01972841|191772100|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.21|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q symptom bother scale and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.21|1.33|<0.001
95907322|NCT01972841|191772101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.43|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.43|0.86|0.416
95907323|NCT01972841|191772101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.59|0.96|0.105
95907324|NCT01972841|191772101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.16|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||2.16|1.28|<0.001
95907325|NCT01972841|191772101|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.87|||Logistic regression|||Odds ratio from a logistic regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<65, \>=65 years), previous OAB medication (yes, no) and geographic region as factors, and baseline mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours, baseline OAB-q HRQL total score and baseline PPBC as covariates.||1.87|1.12|0.005
95907326|NCT00710424|191772239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated treatment effect|-0.12||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.36|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in treatment effect indicates an improvement in pain in favour of Sativex.|The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments.||0.36|-0.60|0.634
95907327|NCT00710424|191772240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.153||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|4.61|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean neuropathic pain scale scale score at the end of treatment was to be compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model was to include treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||4.61|-3.87|0.865
95907328|NCT00710424|191772241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Estimated mean treatment difference|-0.45||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.15|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean sleep quality numerical rating scale score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.15|-1.04|0.139
95907329|NCT00710424|191772242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.301||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.981|||Regression, Logistic|||In the analysis of Subject Global Impression of Change, the two treatment groups were compared using ordinal logistic regression and the proportional odds model. The model incorporated centre group as a factor.||1.981|0.855|0.219
95907330|NCT00710424|191772243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.05||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.42|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in mean brief pain inventory (short form) composite score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline mean usage as a covariate.||0.42|-0.51|0.841
95907331|NCT00710424|191772244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.03|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in weighted health state index score at the end of treatment was compared between treatment groups using ANCOVA. The model included treatment and centre group as factors and baseline symptom score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.06|0.523
95907332|NCT00710424|191772245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||estimated mean treatment difference|-0.17||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.24|||ANCOVA|||The model used for the analysis of the end of study value was ANCOVA with baseline value as a covariate and treatment group and centre group as main effect. The test was performed at the 10% significance level as a possible indicator of an interactive effect. The null hypothesis was one of no difference between treatments. A negative difference in adjusted means indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.||0.24|-0.59|0.410
95907333|NCT00710424|191772248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.857||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|1.37|||Regression, Logistic|||The numbers of responders were to be analysed using the difference in proportions and the odds ratio comparing the treatment groups with the provision of 95% CIs for the difference and odds ratio.||1.370|0.537|0.521
95907334|NCT01111123|191772297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||CI of 95%|Log Rank|||Probabilities of PGA not worsening were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method with a comparison between treatment group survival curves evaluated by the log-rank test statistic. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio for worsening of PGA (equivalent to a relative risk adjusted for follow-up time) and a corresponding 95-percent confidence interval.||||<0.05
95907335|NCT01111123|191772298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Secondary outcomes, including subject self-assessment and signs of psoriasis ratings, were analyzed as continuous dependent variables in these statistical models. Mixed modeling analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare the relationships between psoriasis symptoms over time in the placebo and steroid treatment groups||||<0.05
95907336|NCT01986881|191772299|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.848|1.114||Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.114|0.848|<0.001
95907337|NCT01986881|191772299|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.887|1.211|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.211|0.887|0.002
95907338|NCT01986881|191772299|NON_INFERIORITY|1-sided p-value and the non-inferiority margin is a hazard ratio of 1.3.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.6|0.773|1.065|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.065|0.773|<0.001
95907339|NCT01986881|191772301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.51||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|cLDA Model|||||-0.51|-0.78|<0.001
95907340|NCT01986881|191772301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.44||"Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum, and the interaction of time by treatment. The stratum was (insulin alone or insulin+metformin) and Time was a categorical variable."|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.44|-0.71|<0.001
95907341|NCT01986881|191772303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.22||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||0.16|-0.60|0.247
95907342|NCT01986881|191772303|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.35||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.02||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||0.02|-0.72|0.063
95907343|NCT01986881|191772305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.53||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA Model|||||-0.53|-0.98|<0.001
95907344|NCT01986881|191772305|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.43||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, and the interaction of time by treatment.|cLDA model|||||-0.43|-0.89|<0.001
95907345|NCT01986881|191772306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.034|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.034|0.750|0.108
95907346|NCT01986881|191772306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.725|1.057|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.057|0.725|0.150
95907347|NCT01986881|191772306|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.735|1.068|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.068|0.735|0.188
95907348|NCT01986881|191772307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.767|1.113|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.113|0.767|0.385
95907349|NCT01986881|191772307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.739|1.139|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.139|0.739|0.417
95907350|NCT01986881|191772307|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.75|1.154|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.154|0.750|0.494
95907351|NCT01986881|191772308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.63|1.036|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.036|0.630|0.081
95907352|NCT01986881|191772308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.638|1.137|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|"Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.~Renal"||||1.137|0.638|0.258
95907353|NCT01986881|191772308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.8|0.568|1.028|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.028|0.568|0.065
95907354|NCT01986881|191772309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.038||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.038|0.823|0.183
95907355|NCT01986881|191772309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.086|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.086|0.831|0.450
95907356|NCT01986881|191772309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|1.029|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.029|0.785|0.123
95907357|NCT01986881|191772310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.259|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.259|0.861|0.676
95907358|NCT01986881|191772310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.949|1.451|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.451|0.949|0.139
95907359|NCT01986881|191772310|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.141|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.141|0.727|0.416
95907360|NCT01986881|191772311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.365||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|||1.365|0.820|0.663
95907361|NCT01986881|191772311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.845|1.505||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.505|0.845|0.415
95907362|NCT01986881|191772311|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.334||A two-sided p-value compared Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and two-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that includes treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||1.334|0.736|0.953
95907363|NCT01986881|191772312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.902||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing All Ertugliflozin versus Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.902|0.539|0.006
95907364|NCT01986881|191772312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.932|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.932|0.502|0.016
95907365|NCT01986881|191772312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.964|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||0.964|0.524|0.028
95907366|NCT01986881|191772313|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.081||Hazard ratio, CI, and 2-sided p-value comparing Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the stratified Cox proportional hazards model that included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.|Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.081|0.797|0.340
95907367|NCT01986881|191772313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.784|1.117|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.117|0.784|0.463
95907368|NCT01986881|191772313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.1|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Model included treatment as an explanatory factor and cohort category as a stratification factor.||||1.100|0.771|0.363
95907369|NCT01986881|191772314|SUPERIORITY|Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach includes confirmed events that occurred between the randomization date and the on-study censor date.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.898|1.131||||||||1.131|0.898|
95907370|NCT01986881|191772314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.219||||||||1.219|0.937|
95907371|NCT01986881|191772314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|1.085||||||||1.085|0.828|
95907372|NCT01986881|191772315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.945||||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study. The on-study approach included confirmed events that occurred between randomization date and the on-study censor date.||0.945|0.716|
95907373|NCT01986881|191772315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|0.935|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||0.935|0.673|
95907374|NCT01986881|191772315|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|1.001|||||Ertugliflozin vs Placebo, based on the Andersen-Gill model for the recurrent events at the end of study.|||1.001|0.725|
95907375|NCT01986881|191772316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.46|||cLDA Model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.46|-0.55|<0.001
95907376|NCT01986881|191772316|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.44|||cLDA model|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.44|-0.53|<0.001
95907377|NCT01986881|191772317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.43|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.43|-0.54|<0.001
95907378|NCT01986881|191772317|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.45|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.45|-0.55|<0.001
95907379|NCT01986881|191772318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.3||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis||Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo|||-0.30|-0.45|<0.001
95907380|NCT01986881|191772318|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.32||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|Ertugliflozin vs. Placebo.||||-0.32|-0.46|<0.001
95907381|NCT01986881|191772320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.31||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.21||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA|||||-0.21|-0.41|0.001
95907382|NCT01986881|191772320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|cLDA model|||||-0.26|-0.46|<0.001
95907383|NCT01986881|191772335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-17.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.49|-15.63|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.63|-19.49|<0.001
95907384|NCT01986881|191772335|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.03|-13.17|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-13.17|-17.03|<0.001
95907385|NCT01986881|191772342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
95907386|NCT01986881|191772342|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
95907387|NCT01986881|191772343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
95907388|NCT01986881|191772343|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|Log-Rank Test for the comparison to Placebo was based on all data (including for those participants who never had the event).||||||<0.001
95907389|NCT01986881|191772351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-2.1|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-3.45|<0.001
95907390|NCT01986881|191772351|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.21|<0.001
95907391|NCT01986881|191772352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|-3.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-2.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.45|-3.85|<0.001
95907392|NCT01986881|191772352|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-1.89|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.89|-3.28|<0.001
95907393|NCT01986881|191772353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-1.86|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-3.57|<0.001
95907394|NCT01986881|191772353|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-1.85|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.85|-3.56|<0.001
95907395|NCT01986881|191772355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-1.52|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.52|-3.68|<0.001
95907396|NCT01986881|191772355|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|-1.71|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.71|-3.87|<0.001
95907397|NCT01986881|191772358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.56|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.56|-1.37|<0.001
95907398|NCT01986881|191772358|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Means Squares|-0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.47|-1.28|<0.001
95907399|NCT01986881|191772359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.39|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.39|-1.22|<0.001
95907400|NCT01986881|191772359|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.41|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.41|-1.24|<0.001
95907401|NCT01986881|191772360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.16|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.16|-1.19|0.010
95907402|NCT01986881|191772360|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.71||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.2|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.20|-1.22|0.006
95907403|NCT01986881|191772362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.78||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.1||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.10|-1.46|0.024
95907404|NCT01986881|191772362|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|-0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.13||cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-0.13|-1.48|0.020
95907405|NCT01986881|191772365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.77|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.77|-2.07|<0.001
95907406|NCT01986881|191772365|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.47|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.47|-1.78|<0.001
95907407|NCT01986881|191772366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-2.24|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.24|-2.67|<0.001
95907408|NCT01986881|191772366|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-1.86|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.86|-2.28|<0.001
95907409|NCT01986881|191772367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|-2.22|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.22|-2.83|<0.001
95907410|NCT01986881|191772367|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.83|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.83|-2.39|<0.001
95907411|NCT01986881|191772369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-2.1|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-2.10|-2.97|<0.001
95907412|NCT01986881|191772369|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.68|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.68|-2.52|<0.001
95907413|NCT01986881|191772372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.15|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-1.15|-2.41|
95907414|NCT01986881|191772372|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.56|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.56|-1.82|
95907415|NCT01986881|191772373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.18|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|-0.18|-1.58|
95907416|NCT01986881|191772373|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|0.49|-0.91|
95907417|NCT01986881|191772374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.08|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.08|-0.59|
95907418|NCT01986881|191772374|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the least squares means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|||1.95|0.28|
95907419|NCT01986881|191772376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Lease Squares Means|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.66|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.66|0.31|
95907420|NCT01986881|191772376|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.84|||||||Based on cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment. Time was treated as a categorical variable.|2.84|0.49|
95907421|NCT01986881|191772400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.9|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|0.9|-2.8|
95907422|NCT01986881|191772400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.1|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|2.1|-1.6|
95907423|NCT01986881|191772401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|8.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.4|-5.8|
95907424|NCT01986881|191772401|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|5.4|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|5.4|-9.2|
95907425|NCT01986881|191772402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.4|-17.7|
95907426|NCT01986881|191772402|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-19.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|-1.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|-1.2|-37.5|
95907427|NCT01986881|191772403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|20.5|||||||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method|20.5|-5.1|
95907428|NCT01986881|191772403|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|14.2|||||||Miettinen and Nurminen method|14.2|-12.3|
95907429|NCT01986881|191772405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.0|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|3.0|-2.9|
95980764|NCT00232141|191934691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2771||95.0|-0.25|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.88|-0.25|0.2771
95907430|NCT01986881|191772405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.6|||||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|1.6|-4.0|
95980765|NCT00232141|191934692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2352||95.0|-0.82|0.2||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.20|-0.82|0.2352
95980766|NCT00232141|191934692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7607||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.60|0.7607
95907431|NCT01986881|191772408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-25.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.84|-17.96|||CLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-17.96|-32.84|<0.001
95907432|NCT01986881|191772408|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-19.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-11.68|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-11.68|-26.80|<0.001
95907433|NCT01986881|191772409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.13|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.37|<0.001
95907434|NCT01986881|191772409|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.13|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.13|-2.12|<0.001
95980767|NCT00232141|191934692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6563||95.0|-0.64|0.4||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.40|-0.64|0.6563
95980768|NCT00232141|191934692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8319||95.0|-0.58|0.47||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.47|-0.58|0.8319
95980769|NCT00232141|191934692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3086||95.0|-0.28|0.89||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.89|-0.28|0.3086
95907435|NCT01986881|191772410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.83|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||3.83|1.61|<0.001
95907436|NCT01986881|191772410|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio Relative to Placebo|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, stratum for insulin sub-study, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.12|1.64|<0.001
95907437|NCT01986881|191772411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.32||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-0.3|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.30|-4.35|0.025
95907438|NCT01986881|191772411|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-2.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-0.82|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.82|-4.94|0.006
95907439|NCT01986881|191772412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.38||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.81|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.81|-1.56|0.533
95907440|NCT01986881|191772412|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.6||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.6|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.60|-1.81|0.326
95907441|NCT01986881|191772415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-12.22||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.03|2.06|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.06|-27.03|0.105
95907442|NCT01986881|191772415|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-13.53||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.0|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.00|-28.06|0.068
95907443|NCT01986881|191772416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.52||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.75|-1.79|0.418
95907444|NCT01986881|191772416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.07||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.18|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.18|-2.32|0.092
95907445|NCT01986881|191772417|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.48||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.17|0.52|0.460
95907446|NCT01986881|191772417|SUPERIORITY||Odds ratio relative to placebo|1.62||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.35|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||4.35|0.61|0.335
95907447|NCT01986881|191772418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.73||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.45|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.45|-2.00|0.255
95907448|NCT01986881|191772418|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|2.81||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|7.48|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||7.48|-1.85|0.235
95907449|NCT01986881|191772419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.98||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|4.86|||cLDA model|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.86|-0.91|0.178
95907450|NCT01986881|191772419|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|1.73||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|4.58|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR, stratum (insulin alone or insulin + metformin), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||4.58|-1.11|0.230
95907451|NCT01986881|191772420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-31.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.68|-22.07|||CLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-22.07|-40.68|<0.001
95907452|NCT01986881|191772420|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-30.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-20.72|||cLDA|cLDA model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-20.72|-40.23|<0.001
95907453|NCT01986881|191772421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-1.24|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.24|-2.65|<0.001
95907454|NCT01986881|191772421|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous), and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.84|-2.30|<0.001
95907455|NCT01986881|191772422|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|8.42|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||8.42|2.00|<0.001
95907456|NCT01986881|191772422|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio relative to placebo|5.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|12.49|||Regression, Logistic|Model fitted with fixed effects for treatment, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR (continuous).||Missing data imputed using the cLDA model fitted with fixed effects as in the primary analysis.||12.49|2.86|<0.001
95907457|NCT01986881|191772423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.85||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.3|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||2.30|-4.00|0.597
95980770|NCT00232141|191934692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.7972||95.0|-0.48|0.62||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.62|-0.48|0.7972
95980771|NCT00232141|191934693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.1863||95.0|-0.94|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.18|-0.94|0.1863
95907458|NCT01986881|191772423|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-1.57||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|1.73|||cLDA|The model had fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.73|-4.87|0.351
95907459|NCT01986881|191772424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.68||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.25|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.25|-2.60|0.490
95907460|NCT01986881|191772424|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the Least Squares Means|-0.05||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.96|||cLDA|Model with fixed effects for treatment, time, baseline eGFR (continuous) and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.96|-2.07|0.958
95907461|NCT04333420|191772457|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-16.4||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|20.3|||Linear repeated measures model|||||20.3|-53.2|0.3677
95907462|NCT04333420|191772458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|1.056|||Regression, Cox|including stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by site; 61 patients from sites with no events (no death) or from single patient sites with death factually make no contribution to the analysis outcome.||1.056|0.502|0.0941
95907463|NCT04333420|191772458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|0.955|||Regression, Cox|Without stratification by site||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) without stratification by site; Post-hoc analysis||0.955|0.476|0.0266
95907464|NCT04333420|191772458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.648||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Including random effect for site (frailty model)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including random effect for site (frailty model); Post-hoc analysis||0.929|0.453|0.0181
95907465|NCT04333420|191772458|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.613||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.873|||Regression, Cox|Including stratification by country||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death) including stratification by country; Post-hoc analysis||0.873|0.430|0.0067
95907466|NCT04333420|191772458|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.2|||Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation of missing values|Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the Confidence Interval are given in percent|Sensitivity analysis; 369 patients were included in this analysis including the patient that was randomized in error and not treated. Missing values were imputed by multiple imputation.||-1.2|-20.8|0.0293
95907467|NCT04333420|191772458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0407|||||||Log Rank|||Post-hoc analysis||||0.0407
95907468|NCT04333420|191772459|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.651||||0.6494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|4.135|||Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + BSC)||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 28-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death)||4.135|0.103|0.6494
95907469|NCT04333420|191772463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|1.039|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional hazards regression model with outcome 60-day all-cause mortality (censored time to event variable with event = Death); Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||1.039|0.519|0.0815
95907470|NCT04333420|191772464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.352||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.762|17.465|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 15||17.465|-2.762|0.1553
95907471|NCT04333420|191772464|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.078||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.968|18.125|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients with an improvement in the 8-point ordinal scale; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|At Day 28||18.125|-1.968|0.1181
95907472|NCT04333420|191772465|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.081||||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.949|2.787|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference (IFX-1 - Placebo) of percentage of patients developing acute kidney failure; Risk difference and lower/upper limit of the CI are given in percent|||2.787|-6.949|0.4105
95907473|NCT04333420|191772466|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.297|0.978||p-value refers to hazard ratio from cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model for first renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Cox|Covariate: Treatment (IFX-1 + SOC)||||0.978|0.297|0.0422
95907474|NCT02621931|191772468|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|-1.15||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-1.15|-2.46|<0.0001
95907475|NCT02621931|191772468|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.45||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||-1.45|-2.76|<0.0001
95907476|NCT02621931|191772470|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.97||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-0.97|-2.48|<0.0001
95907477|NCT02621931|191772470|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-1.09||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-2.61|<0.0001
95907478|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/placebo/placebo to Placebo||||<0.0001
95907479|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 1: Active 675/225/225 to Placebo||||<0.0001
95907480|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
95907481|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 2||||<0.0001
95907482|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
95907483|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Month 3||||<0.0001
95907484|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
95907485|NCT02621931|191772471|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance. P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline preventive medication use.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Overall||||<0.0001
95907486|NCT02621931|191772472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95907487|NCT02621931|191772472|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95907488|NCT02621931|191772473|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference from placebo|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.73||0.05 level of significance|ANCOVA|||||-1.73|-2.95|<0.0001
95907489|NCT02621931|191772474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95907490|NCT02621931|191772474|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95907491|NCT02621931|191772475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||0.0004
95907492|NCT02621931|191772475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||0.05 level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Due to the deviation from the normal distribution assumption of the data, the primary analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as outlined in the SAP.||||<0.0001
95907493|NCT03035292|191772494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||This value of \<0.05 is the calculated p value where the a priori threshold for statistical significance is considered to be p=0.05.|McNemar|||Sample size was based on a cataract prevalence of 20% in the enriched population and a predicted difference of 15% sensitivity and specificity between tests.||||<0.05
95907494|NCT03035292|191772496|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The calculated p value was \<0.05. A priori threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Evidence of superiority of intervention 2 over intervention 1 requires a significant difference in specificity of the intervention 1 and 2 between ethnicity groups.||||<0.05
95907495|NCT03252587|191772504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.5|0.0006
95907496|NCT03252587|191772504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.4|1.0|0.0210
95907497|NCT03252587|191772504|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||2.9|0.8|0.0781
95907498|NCT03252587|191772505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||4.8|1.4|0.0011
95907499|NCT03252587|191772505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0434
95907500|NCT03252587|191772505|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.1|0.9|0.0439
95907501|NCT03252587|191772506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.4|0.0012
95980772|NCT00232141|191934693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.31||0.5953||95.0|-0.77|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.44|-0.77|0.5953
95907502|NCT03252587|191772506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||3.0|0.8|0.0795
95907503|NCT03252587|191772506|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||3.2|0.9|0.0673
95907504|NCT03252587|191772507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|8.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||8.5|1.9|0.0002
95907505|NCT03252587|191772507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||4.5|0.9|0.0371
95907506|NCT03252587|191772507|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.1|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||5.1|1.1|0.0168
95907507|NCT03252587|191772508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|43.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||43.0|2.5|0.0006
95907508|NCT03252587|191772508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|22.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||22.0|1.5|0.0058
95907509|NCT03252587|191772508|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|31.0|||Regression, Logistic|1-sided||BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||31.0|2.2|0.0009
95907510|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-4.4|0.0131
95907511|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.4156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.8|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||1.8|-2.3|0.4156
95907512|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.2|-4.5|0.0151
95907513|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.4|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.4|-2.2|0.0029
95907514|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.2|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.2|-1.6|0.0516
95907515|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||0.0|-1.8|0.0298
95907516|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 3 mg vs Placebo||-0.5|-2.0|0.0010
95907517|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 6 mg vs Placebo||0.1|-1.5|0.0343
95907518|NCT03252587|191772509|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||Longitudinal Repeated Measures|||Tender + Swollen BMS-986165 12 mg vs Placebo||-0.3|-1.9|0.0050
95907519|NCT01654549|191772560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95907520|NCT01654549|191772560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95907521|NCT01654549|191772560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
95907522|NCT01654549|191772560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.01
95907523|NCT01654549|191772560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.10
95907524|NCT02192502|191772578|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means is 1.15.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.44|||generalized linear model|This analysis used linear mixed model with repeated measurements with an unstructured correlation structure.||Assuming that NGAL values follow a log normal distribution as in previous studies with a coefficient of variation of 25%, we need 52 patients per group to have 90% power at the 0.025 significance level to be able to claim non-inferiority of HES to albumin using a non-inferiority delta of a ratio of geometric means of 1.15. After Adjusting for the interim monitoring and five potential dropouts and five pilot patients (which were not included in the analyses), we planned to enroll 140 patients||1.44|0.57|0.15
95907525|NCT02192502|191772579|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.78||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|12.1|||Chi-squared|||||12.1|0.64|0.92
95907526|NCT02192502|191772580|NON_INFERIORITY|the non-inferiority delta was 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|5.0|0.21|0.95|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||0.95|0.21|0.002
95907527|NCT02192502|191772581|NON_INFERIORITY|the delta for non-inferiority is 1.15|geometric mean ratio|0.98||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.1|||Regression, Linear|IL-18 was log-transformed||||2.10|0.45|0.31
95907528|NCT02192502|191772582|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority delta was 1.15|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|<0.001
95907529|NCT00295750|191772637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|1.9||||||97.5|-1.8|5.7||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.7|-1.8|
95907530|NCT00295750|191772637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority limit was -10 percentage points.|Difference in cumulative probability|0.9||||||97.5|-3.2|5.0||||||A non-inferiority assessment determined whether degarelix was non-inferior to leuprolide with respect to the cumulative probability of testosterone \<=0.5 ng/mL from Day 28 to Day 364.||5.0|-3.2|
95980773|NCT00232141|191934693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.508||95.0|-0.73|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.36|-0.73|0.5080
95980774|NCT00232141|191934693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5842||95.0|-0.7|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.39|-0.70|0.5842
95980775|NCT00232141|191934693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4286||95.0|-0.35|0.83||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.83|-0.35|0.4286
95980776|NCT00232141|191934693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5766||95.0|-0.4|0.71||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.71|-0.40|0.5766
95980777|NCT00232141|191934694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5493||95.0|-0.73|0.39||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.39|-0.73|0.5493
95907531|NCT00295750|191772638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95907532|NCT00295750|191772638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95907533|NCT00295750|191772639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95907534|NCT00295750|191772639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95907535|NCT00295750|191772641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
95907536|NCT00295750|191772641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 14||||<0.0001
95907537|NCT00295750|191772641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
95980778|NCT00232141|191934694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9875||95.0|-0.58|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.59|-0.58|0.9875
95980779|NCT00232141|191934694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6931||95.0|-0.68|0.45||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.45|-0.68|0.6931
95907538|NCT00295750|191772641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Percentage change from baseline to Day 28||||<0.0001
95907539|NCT00295750|191772642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.8||||||95.0|79.8|90.1|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.1|79.8|
95907540|NCT00295750|191772642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|91.1||||||95.0|85.9|94.5|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||94.5|85.9|
95907541|NCT00295750|191772642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cumulative probability|85.9||||||95.0|79.9|90.2|||||95% confidence interval for the cumulative probability of completing the study without prostate specific antigen failure from Day 0 to Day 364.|||90.2|79.9|
95907542|NCT01988779|191772675|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.505|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.505
95907543|NCT01988779|191772677|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.390
95907544|NCT01988779|191772678|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the non-inferiority limit of topical therapy is 20% of that for oral therapy.||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.036
95907545|NCT02275065|191772687|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907546|NCT02275065|191772687|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907547|NCT02275065|191772687|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907548|NCT02275065|191772687|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907549|NCT02275065|191772690|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907550|NCT02275065|191772690|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907551|NCT02275065|191772690|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95980780|NCT00232141|191934694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4614||95.0|-0.34|0.75||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.75|-0.34|0.4614
95907552|NCT02275065|191772690|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907553|NCT02275065|191772691|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907554|NCT02275065|191772691|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95980781|NCT00232141|191934694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1467||95.0|-0.16|1.06||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.06|-0.16|0.1467
95980782|NCT00232141|191934694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2819||95.0|-0.25|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.25|0.2819
95980783|NCT00232141|191934695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8727||95.0|-0.55|0.46||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.46|-0.55|0.8727
95907555|NCT02275065|191772691|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95980784|NCT00232141|191934695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6897||95.0|-0.65|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.65|0.6897
95907556|NCT02275065|191772691|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Comparison was made using the t-test at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95907557|NCT00377403|191772704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significnace was p less than or equal to 0.05|ANOVA|Adjusted for disease severity at baseline||We used analysis of variance, controlling for disease severity at baseline to test the null hypothesis that there was no difference between study groups at this point in time.||||0.83
95907558|NCT00417079|191772761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||A 2-sided significance level of 0.0452 was used for the final analysis based on an interim analysis performed after 307 events with an adjusted significance level of 0.016 based on the O'Brien-Fleming type 1 error spending function.|Log Rank|Analysis was performed by using a log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status (0-1 versus 2)||The study required an estimated sample size of 720 patients (360 per arm) in order to detect a 25% reduction in the hazard ratio for death in the cabazitaxel group relative to the mitoxantrone group with 90% power. The final analysis was planned for when 511 deaths had occurred.||||<0.0001
95907559|NCT00417079|191772762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95907560|NCT00417079|191772763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0005
95907561|NCT00417079|191772764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.76|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.76|0.49|<0.0001
95907562|NCT00417079|191772765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||0.90|0.63|0.0010
95907563|NCT00417079|191772766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0002
95907564|NCT00417079|191772767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.19|||Log Rank|Log-rank comparisons stratified according to disease measurability and ECOG performance status.|Hazard ratio (HR) \< 1 favours the cabazitaxel group and \> 1 favours the mitoxantrone group.|||1.19|0.69|0.5192
95907565|NCT00417079|191772768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6286||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6286
95907566|NCT02194621|191772827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
95907567|NCT02194621|191772828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.001
95907568|NCT02194621|191772829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||>0.05
95980785|NCT00232141|191934695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7527||95.0|-0.6|0.44||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.44|-0.60|0.7527
95980786|NCT00232141|191934695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6394||95.0|-0.67|0.41||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.41|-0.67|0.6394
95980787|NCT00232141|191934695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1188||95.0|-0.13|1.11||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||1.11|-0.13|0.1188
95980788|NCT00232141|191934695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2685||95.0|-0.24|0.87||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.87|-0.24|0.2685
95980789|NCT00232141|191934696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4991||95.0|-0.74|0.36||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.36|-0.74|0.4991
95907569|NCT02194621|191772830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.002
95907570|NCT00866840|191772866|OTHER|||||||||||||||||No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|No objective responses were seen in the first phase and accrual was stopped.|||
95907571|NCT00809757|191772869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.412|0.342|||||Difference is Placebo MDI minus Levalbuterol UDV|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.342|-1.412|
95980790|NCT00232141|191934696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.6094||95.0|-0.73|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.43|-0.73|0.6094
95980791|NCT00232141|191934696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3669||95.0|-0.76|0.28||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.28|-0.76|0.3669
95980792|NCT00232141|191934696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7641||95.0|-0.43|0.59||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.59|-0.43|0.7641
95907572|NCT00809757|191772869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.714|0.335|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations||0.335|-1.714|
95980793|NCT00232141|191934696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.9428||95.0|-0.51|0.55||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.55|-0.51|0.9428
95980794|NCT00232141|191934696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.9508||95.0|-0.52|0.49||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.49|-0.52|0.9508
95907573|NCT00809757|191772869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.771|||||Difference is Levalbuterol UDV minus Levalbuterol MDI|195 subjects were randomized in order to achieve 150 subjects completing the study. The sample size was set based on FDA requirements, and was outside of statistical considerations.||0.771|-1.080|
95909271|NCT01939548|191776651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.2747|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|Mixed Models Analysis||The estimation method used was restricted maximum likelihood.|Analysis of change at Week 12. Linear mixed-effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site; random effect: participant. Also included effects for treatment by time interaction and baseline value by treatment interaction and background antipsychotics.||0.29|-0.02|0.2747
95980795|NCT00232141|191934697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0073||95.0|-1.18|-0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||-0.19|-1.18|0.0073
95907574|NCT00833638|191772908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 2.5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of subjects achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.086
95907575|NCT00833638|191772908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.006
95907576|NCT00833638|191772908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.019
95907577|NCT00833638|191772908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|Model response = treatment + pooled site + severity of erectile dysfunction at baseline.||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.022
95980796|NCT00232141|191934697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.2202||95.0|-0.96|0.22||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.22|-0.96|0.2202
95907578|NCT00833638|191772908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. A fixed-sequence test was used within each dose group at each time point (days 4, 3, 2, 1) and adjusted for multiple dose-placebo comparisons using the Bonferroni method. Testing started on day 4 and stopped when p\>.025.|Regression, Logistic|||The null-hypothesis was tested that there is no statistically significant difference in the onset of efficacy between tadalafil 5 mg and placebo as determined by the earliest day on which the cumulative percentage of participants achieving at least 1 successful intercourse (within 4 days of starting treatment) is statistically significantly different between active drug and placebo.||||0.573
95980797|NCT00232141|191934697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.1824||95.0|-0.95|0.18||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.18|-0.95|0.1824
95980798|NCT00232141|191934697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1872||95.0|-0.98|0.19||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.19|-0.98|0.1872
95980799|NCT00232141|191934697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.4374||95.0|-0.38|0.88||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.88|-0.38|0.4374
95980800|NCT00232141|191934697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4406||95.0|-0.36|0.82||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.82|-0.36|0.4406
95980801|NCT00232141|191934698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2277||95.0|-0.86|0.21||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 1||0.21|-0.86|0.2277
95980802|NCT00232141|191934698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8407||95.0|-0.71|0.58||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 2||0.58|-0.71|0.8407
95980803|NCT00232141|191934698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8809||95.0|-0.62|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 6||0.53|-0.62|0.8809
95980804|NCT00232141|191934698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6288||95.0|-0.72|0.43||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 10||0.43|-0.72|0.6288
95980805|NCT00232141|191934698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9739||95.0|-0.59|0.61||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Week 14||0.61|-0.59|0.9739
95980806|NCT00232141|191934698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.8926||95.0|-0.61|0.53||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|ANCOVA|||Table above shows results of statistical analysis for Endpoint||0.53|-0.61|0.8926
95907579|NCT00833638|191772909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|18.34||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||18.34|5.72|<0.001
95907580|NCT00833638|191772909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.48|19.12||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction were included.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 1 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||19.12|6.48|<0.001
95907581|NCT00833638|191772910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.51|22.29||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.29|8.51|<0.001
95907582|NCT00833638|191772910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.5|27.31||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 2 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||27.31|13.50|<0.001
95907583|NCT00833638|191772911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|21.71||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.71|6.83|<0.001
95907584|NCT00833638|191772911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.07|28.01||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||28.01|13.07|<0.001
95907585|NCT00833638|191772912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.42|22.06||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||22.06|6.42|<0.001
95907586|NCT00833638|191772912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.94|29.67||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 4 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||29.67|13.94|<0.001
95907587|NCT00833638|191772913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|21.55||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg."||21.55|6.30|<0.001
95907588|NCT00833638|191772913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|26.75||No adjustment for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Included were terms for baseline value of the efficacy variable, treatment, site, and the baseline-by-treatment interaction.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of participants who answered yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 5 exist between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg."||26.75|11.40|<0.001
95907589|NCT00833638|191772914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.301
95907590|NCT00833638|191772914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0||||No adjustment for multiplicity.|Log Rank|||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the time to onset of efficacy exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.046
95980807|NCT00232141|191934701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7136||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7136
95980808|NCT00232141|191934702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729||95.0||||All statistical tests of hypotheses were two-sided and at the 5% level of significance. All p-values for secondary or supportive analyses will be considered descriptive. No multiplicity adjustment was made for this two-group study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6729
95907591|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907592|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907593|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907594|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907595|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907596|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907597|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
95907598|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.001
95907599|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
95907600|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
95907601|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.002
95907602|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.009
95907603|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.038
95907604|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=14. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907605|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=13. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907606|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=12. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907607|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=11. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907608|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=10. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907609|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=9. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907610|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=8. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907611|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=7. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907612|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=6. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907613|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=5. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907614|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for day \<=4. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907615|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for day \<=3. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.003
95980809|NCT00782288|191934706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Measures were compared between Baseline, Treatment \& Recovery periods to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin dose levels. Kruskal-Wallis equity of population rank test was performed on the changes Day 28 minus Day 1. To compare the change from baseline to treatment period between the two arms, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed. To determine whether induced sputum Il-8 returned to baseline at the final visit, a one sample sign test was performed.||||>0.05
95980810|NCT00782288|191934712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline,Treatment and Recovery periods were compared to determine if changes from baseline differed between placebo and the two digitoxin doses.||||>0.05
95907616|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||P-value for day \<=2. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.008
95907617|NCT00833638|191772915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246||95.0||||P-value for day \<=1. No adjustment for multiplicity.|Regression, Logistic|Response = Treatment + Pooled Site + Severity of ED at Baseline.||"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the precentage of successful intercourse attempts exists between participants who received placebo and participants who received tadalafil 5 mg, measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||0.246
95907618|NCT00833638|191772916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.05|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received placebo in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving placebo) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907619|NCT00833638|191772917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 2.5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907620|NCT00833638|191772918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.16|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the proportion of successful intercourse attempts exist in patients who received tadalfil 5 mg in the double-blind treatment period when comparing their proportion of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg) and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907621|NCT00833638|191772919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.11|||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||the estimated mean difference shows changes in the double-blind treatment phase minus changes in the open label treatment phase|"Tested was the null-hypothesis that no differences in the percentages of successful intercourse attempts exist in participants who received tadalafil 2.5 mg in the double-blind treatment period and did not respond to treatment when comparing their percentage of succesful intercourse attempts between the double-blind treatment period and the open-label treatment period (while receiving tadalafil 5 mg), measured by a response of yes to the sexual encounter profile diary question number 3."||||<0.001
95907622|NCT01669122|191772944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
95907623|NCT01669122|191772944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
95907624|NCT01669122|191772944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.97|0.91|
95907625|NCT01669122|191772945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.02||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.02|0.93|
95907626|NCT01669122|191772945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.03||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||1.03|0.94|
95907627|NCT01669122|191772945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing Bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.88|
95907628|NCT01669122|191772946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
95907629|NCT01669122|191772946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|0.99||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.99|0.93|
95907630|NCT01669122|191772946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Testing bioequivalence|Treatment Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|0.96||||||Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.96|0.90|
95907631|NCT01669122|191772947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.2208
95907632|NCT01669122|191772947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.25|-0.25|0.5695
95907633|NCT01669122|191772947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Based on Hodges Lehmann estimate|Null hypothesis considered no difference in the treatments being compared.||0.50|0.00|0.0063
95907634|NCT00765193|191772950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36|||<|0.01||95.0|2.12|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||The primary outcomes were the calculation of the absolute and relative risks of missing a skin cancer when TBSE is not performed, as well as the number of patients needed to examine by TBSE to find a skin cancer. The secondary outcome was to assess the magnitude of false-positive results obtained by TBSE||2.62|2.12|<0.01
95907635|NCT04370054|191772967|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.49|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-0.91||One-sided p-value is reported.|Generalized linear model (GLM)||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-0.91|-6.06|=0.0040
95907636|NCT04370054|191772968|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086||||||One-sided p-value is reported.|One-sided exact binomial proportion test|||||||=0.0086
95907637|NCT04370054|191772969|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated measures negative binomial regression model was used to test non-inferiority with non-inferiority margin = 3 bleeds/year at the one-sided alpha level = 0.025.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.45||One-sided p-value is reported.|Repeated measures GLM||Difference in mean = Mean PF-07055480 Total ABR - Mean FVIII Prophylaxis Total ABR.|A repeated measures GLM was used with bleeds as dependent variable in negative binomial distribution, an interaction of duration by treatment, and 'participant' as random and treatment \& duration of follow-up as fixed effect.||-2.45|-5.57|<0.0001
95907638|NCT04370054|191772970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.47|108.89||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference = (PF-07055480 AIR - FVIII Prophylaxis AIR).|||108.89|-139.47|<0.0001
95980811|NCT01554488|191934734|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|2.92||||||All of the comparisons were based on mixed effects linear regression models with visit and group\*visit as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. Confidence intervals for the treatment difference (group\*visit interaction) were constructed using the Wald method.||2.92|-5.03|
95980812|NCT01479829|191934743|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|5.3466||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 5.3466.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the response rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||.02
95980813|NCT01479829|191934744|SUPERIORITY||Chi-square value|13.3821|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The chi-square value with 1 degree of freedom was 13.3821.|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the remission rate between patients assigned to the intervention cohort or control cohort.||||<.001
95980814|NCT02877927|191934745|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.3|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||10.3|-0.2|
95980815|NCT02877927|191934746|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.9|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||8.9|-2.2|
95980816|NCT02877927|191934747|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used for the analysis.|treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was constructed based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method without stratification. Treatment difference for a response of clinical success was calculated as omadacycline minus linezolid.|||5.6|-0.6|
95980817|NCT02142738|191934768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.68||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.68|0.37|<0.001
95980818|NCT02142738|191934769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.86||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test|Regression, Cox|Treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||||0.86|0.47|0.002
95980819|NCT02142738|191934770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentages|16.6||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.0||One-sided p-value for testing|Miettinen & Nurminem method|Stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous)||H0: difference in %=0 vs. H1: difference in % \>0||27.0|6.0|0.0011
95980820|NCT00621751|191934780|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|36.7||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||CBZ (up to 800 mg daily) vs placebo significantly improves behavior (Rasch NPI irritability \& aggression rated by observer) baseline to day-42 among individuals \>6 months post-traumatic brain injury and moderate-severe irritability.|ANCOVA|||The primary outcome was a composite measure of observer-rated NPI-I \& NPI-A domains transformed to a Rasch logit scale ranging 0 (best) to 100 (worse) units (i.e., observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores). Mean day-42 observer-rated NPI-I/A Rasch construct scores were compared between the placebo vs. carbamazepine groups using ANCOVA with baseline score as covariate.||||0.60
95980821|NCT00621751|191934781|OTHER|A prespecified secondary analysis compared proportions of participants that experienced a decrease of \> 1 MCID in the NPI-I/A Rasch construct score (i.e., participants that are considered to have meaningful reduction in irritability/aggression) from baseline to day-42 between the groups using a chi-square test. MCID was defined as 0.5 times the standard deviation of baseline scores.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< .05
95980822|NCT04439071|191934800|OTHER|||||||0.949|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.949
95980823|NCT04439071|191934819|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Log Rank|||Time to respiratory improvement was compared between treatment groups using stratified log-rank test.||||0.033
95980824|NCT00892177|191934820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95980825|NCT00892177|191934821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference|0.1||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.262|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference in proportion|||0.262|-0.052|0.22
95980826|NCT00892177|191934823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.4|0.61|0.7
95907639|NCT04370054|191772972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4076.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4728.3|-3423.8||One-sided p-value is reported.|Paired t-test||Treatment Difference (FVIII Consumption post-IP Infusion - FVIII Consumption during FVIII Prophylaxis).|||-3423.8|-4728.3|<0.0001
95907640|NCT01712009|191773021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|4.1|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|||4.1|-16.7|
95907641|NCT01712009|191773021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|6.3|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|||6.3|-14.5|
95907642|NCT01712009|191773021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|12.4|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|||12.4|-8.0|
95907643|NCT01712009|191773022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|6.0|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||6.0|-14.4|
95907644|NCT01712009|191773022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.8|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cyces||7.8|-12.5|
95907645|NCT01712009|191773022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.0|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Dfference across all treatment cycles||12.0|-8.3|
95907646|NCT01712009|191773023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.2|||||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||3.2|-6.5|
95907647|NCT01712009|191773023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6|||||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all cycles||3.6|-6.1|
95907648|NCT01712009|191773023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|4.9|||||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all cycles||4.9|-4.1|
95907649|NCT01712009|191773024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.0|-0.7|0.0881
95907650|NCT01712009|191773024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-0.7|0.0443
95907651|NCT01712009|191773024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.3|-0.4|0.8007
95907652|NCT01712009|191773025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-1.1|0.1466
95907653|NCT01712009|191773025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.0|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.0|-1.3|0.0411
95907654|NCT01712009|191773025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.5|-0.8|0.5689
95907655|NCT01712009|191773026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0775||95.0|-3.0|0.2|||ANOVA||Naproxen minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||0.2|-3.0|0.0775
95907656|NCT01712009|191773026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Loratadine minus No Prophylaxis|Difference across all treatment cycles||-0.1|-3.1|0.0329
95907657|NCT01712009|191773026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.7572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||ANOVA||Loratadine minus Naproxen|Difference across all treatment groups||1.2|-1.7|0.7572
95907658|NCT01258608|191773037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7382|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.737||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.737||0.7382
95907659|NCT01258608|191773038|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.922||||0.3156|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.288||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.288||0.3156
95907660|NCT01258608|191773039|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.007||||0.6121|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.346||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test-stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.346||0.6121
95907661|NCT01258608|191773040|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.6925|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.43||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.430||0.6925
95907662|NCT01258608|191773041|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.909||||0.3088|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.191||P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from stratified log-rank test - stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratio comparing Mapatumumab to placebo obtained from Cox proportional hazards model with covariate adjustment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and ECOG performance status.|||1.191||0.3088
95980827|NCT00892177|191934824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.7|||Kaplan Meier|||||1.7|0.76|0.52
95980828|NCT00892177|191934825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.223||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The estimate is the net difference between Arm A and Arm B total score using information from all cycles. A negative value means that Arm A has a lower quality of life and a positive value means Arm A has a higher reported quality of life.|||||0.96
95980829|NCT00892177|191934826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6325|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6325
95980830|NCT01372150|191934842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|4.48|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM)|Adjusted mean difference = placebo - fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||4.48|-1.06|0.226
95907663|NCT01258608|191773042|OTHER||Response rate difference|5.4||||0.5458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|26.6||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.6|-16.8|0.5458
95907664|NCT01258608|191773043|OTHER||Response rate difference|6.7||||0.3479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|26.2||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||26.2|-13.4|0.3479
95907665|NCT01258608|191773044|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-20.7||||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|1.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||1.8|-40.8|0.0198
95907666|NCT01258608|191773045|OTHER||Disease control rate difference|-5.8||||0.6558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|13.8||Nominal P-value for comparison of treatment groups obtained from Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||13.8|-25.4|0.6558
95907667|NCT00440531|191773063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|75.7||||||95.0|68.0|82.2||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||82.20|68|
95907668|NCT00440531|191773063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||single-group percentage|68.0||||||95.0|59.8|75.5||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the primary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||75.50|59.80|
95907669|NCT00440531|191773064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Single-Group Percentage|84.0||||||95.0|77.0|89.6||||||No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of subjects with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) for ENGERIX-B™ at 1 month post vaccination 3, among subjects who were seronegative at baseline.||89.60|77|
95980831|NCT01372150|191934842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|2.3|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||2.30|-3.23|0.739
95907670|NCT00447057|191773068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.438|0.897|||Log Rank|Log-rank test with 1-sided alpha of 0.20||||0.897|0.438|0.0047
95907671|NCT00447057|191773069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3909|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3909
95907672|NCT00447057|191773070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1808|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1808
95907673|NCT00447057|191773071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.457|0.887||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.887|0.457|0.0034
95907674|NCT00447057|191773072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.981||1-sided significance level of 0.20|Log Rank|||||0.981|0.465|0.0190
95907675|NCT00677833|191773078|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for the difference in ACPR (PCR corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|-2.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of Azithromycin/Chloroquine (AZ-CQ) at Day 28 is less than that of Artemether/Lumefantrine (AL); Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-2.18|-16.02|
95907676|NCT00677833|191773079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. The drug (AZ-CQ) was considered non-inferior with respect to this primary endpoint if the lower bound of this 95% CI was \>= -10% points.|ACPR percent difference|-6.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|-0.05|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||Null hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is less than that of AL; Alternative hypothesis: proportion of participants with ACPR (PCR-corrected) of AZ-CQ at Day 28 is greater than or equal (non-inferior) to that of AL by a non-inferiority margin of -0.1.||-0.05|-12.10|
95907677|NCT00677833|191773080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
95980832|NCT01372150|191934843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.46|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - Fluoxetine|Fluoxetine versus Placebo||0.46|-0.11|0.224
95980833|NCT01372150|191934843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.27|||MMRM||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo - DVS SR|DVS SR versus Placebo||0.27|-0.29|0.944
95907678|NCT00677833|191773080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.15|-1.32|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-1.32|-12.15|
95907679|NCT00677833|191773080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.82|-0.75|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-0.75|-12.82|
95907680|NCT00677833|191773080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-6.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|0.76|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||0.76|-14.59|
95980834|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.924||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.924
95907681|NCT00677833|191773080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-8.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-0.18|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-0.18|-17.08|
95980835|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||||0.698
95980836|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.214
95980837|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||||0.113
95980838|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.314
95980839|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||||0.659
95980840|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.577
95980841|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||||0.187
95980842|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.051
95980843|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.266||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||||0.266
95980844|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.095
95980845|NCT01372150|191934844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.852||||||"P-value obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||||0.852
95980846|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|1.335|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 1||1.335|0.226|0.186
95980847|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|2.567|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 1||2.567|0.382|0.984
95980848|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.795||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|1.465|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 2||1.465|0.431|0.462
95980849|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.726||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|1.324|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 2||1.324|0.399|0.297
95980850|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.688||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.391|1.21|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Fluoxetine versus Placebo - Week 3||1.210|0.391|0.194
95980851|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.419|1.277|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 3||1.277|0.419|0.272
95980852|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.748||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|1.314|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 4||1.314|0.426|0.313
95980853|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.171|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 4||1.171|0.376|0.157
95980854|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.579||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.319|1.05|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 6||1.050|0.319|0.072
95907682|NCT00677833|191773081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.14|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||1.14|-8.40|
95907683|NCT00677833|191773081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.79|3.04|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||3.04|-10.79|
95907684|NCT00677833|191773081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|2.22|||Kaplan-Meier, curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-corrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||2.22|-13.55|
95907685|NCT00677833|191773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|-0.15|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 7.||-0.15|-9.93|
95980855|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|1.149|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 6||1.149|0.356|0.135
95980856|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.465||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.249|0.871|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|Flouxetine versus Placebo - Week 8||0.871|0.249|0.017
95907686|NCT00677833|191773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.54|-0.88|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||-0.88|-14.54|
95907687|NCT00677833|191773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-15.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.24|-3.94|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-3.94|-26.24|
95980857|NCT01372150|191934845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.751||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|1.357|||Regression, Logistic||Logistic Regression using Response (Y/N) at each time point (excluding Week 9) as a response variable and treatment, age group and country as factors.|DVS SR versus Placebo - Week 8||1.357|0.415|0.343
95980858|NCT00823823|191934846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The frequency of loss of reduction during the study period was compared across casting groups using a two-sided chi-square test with alpha = 0.05.||||1.00
95907688|NCT00677833|191773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-21.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.14|-9.39|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-9.39|-34.14|
95980859|NCT01338415|191934872|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.399|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||4.399|0.470|
95980860|NCT01338415|191934872|OTHER|||||||0.0526||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate WHO FC at baseline is related to the time to PAH worsening|Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0526
95980861|NCT01338415|191934872|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.169||||||95.0|0.371|3.681|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||3.681|0.371|
95907689|NCT00677833|191773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-18.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|-5.43|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-5.43|-31.05|
95907690|NCT00677833|191773082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.33|-5.65|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-5.65|-31.33|
95907691|NCT00677833|191773083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.25|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 14.||1.25|-10.60|
95907692|NCT00677833|191773083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-13.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.21|-1.92|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 21.||-1.92|-24.21|
95907693|NCT00677833|191773083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-19.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-7.08|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 28.||-7.08|-32.16|
95907694|NCT00677833|191773083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR percent difference|-16.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.42|-3.33|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)-(AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 35.||-3.33|-29.42|
95907695|NCT00677833|191773083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ACPR Percent difference|-16.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|-3.83|||Kaplan-Meier curves|||A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in ACPR (PCR-uncorrected) proportions \[(AZ-CQ)- (AL)\] using the normal approximation to the binomial with continuity correction was constructed based on the estimated ACPR proportions from the Kaplan-Meier curves and their standard errors estimated by the Greenwood formula. Estimates for Day 42.||-3.83|-30.04|
95907696|NCT00677833|191773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-5.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.02|-0.75|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.75|-11.02|
95907697|NCT00677833|191773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-1.95|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.95|-13.14|
95907698|NCT00677833|191773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.61|-1.6|||large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-1.60|-13.61|
95907699|NCT00677833|191773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-2.87|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.87|-15.64|
95907700|NCT00677833|191773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-7.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.45|-0.97|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-0.97|-14.45|
95907701|NCT00677833|191773090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-8.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.43|-1.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-1.60|-15.43|
95907702|NCT00677833|191773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-9.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.27|-0.74|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 7||-0.74|-18.27|
95980862|NCT01338415|191934872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076||||||p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit|log(e) likelihood ratio|||Test of improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.076
95980863|NCT01338415|191934873|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.935|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|6.428|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with treatment as covariate (treatment-only univariate model)||6.428|0.582|
95980864|NCT01338415|191934873|OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||Regression, Cox|p-value \<= 10% indicates that the covariate is related to the time to the time to death up to end-of-study||Post-hoc analysis: Cox proportional hazard regression univariate model with WHO FC at baseline (FC III vs FC I/II) as covariate||||0.0085
95980865|NCT01338415|191934873|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.437|5.052|||Regression, Cox|||Post-hoc analysis: Treatment Hazard Ratio (HR) in the multivariate model with treatment and WHO FC at baseline as covariates||5.052|0.437|
95980866|NCT01338415|191934873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||log(e) likelihood ratio|p-value \<= 10% indicates an improvement in model fit||Test of the improvement in model fit from the univariate to the multivariate model with WHO FC at baseline as covariate||||0.014
95980867|NCT01178333|191934883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.98||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.36|||Regression, Cox|||||4.36|0.90|0.09
95980868|NCT01178333|191934883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.66|||Regression, Cox|||||2.66|0.65|0.45
95980869|NCT01178333|191934885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.76||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|40.87|||Regression, Cox|||||40.87|0.55|0.15
95980870|NCT01178333|191934885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|11.25|||Regression, Cox|||||11.25|0.16|0.78
95980871|NCT01178333|191934886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.38||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|5.79|||Regression, Cox|||||5.79|0.98|0.06
95980872|NCT01178333|191934886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.21|||Regression, Cox|||||4.21|0.87|0.11
95980873|NCT01178333|191934887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.22|||Regression, Cox|||||5.22|1.50|0.001
95980874|NCT01178333|191934887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|1.12|0.02
95980875|NCT01178333|191934890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95907703|NCT00677833|191773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.23|-1.55|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 14||-1.55|-19.23|
95907704|NCT00677833|191773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-12.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-4.04|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 21||-4.04|-21.45|
95907705|NCT00677833|191773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-2.6|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 28||-2.60|-19.62|
95907706|NCT00677833|191773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-10.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.97|-1.71|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 35||-1.71|-18.97|
95907707|NCT00677833|191773091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference|-11.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.14|-2.28|||Large sample approximation to binomial|||Day 42||-2.28|-20.14|
95907708|NCT00677833|191773092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2564|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.2564
95907709|NCT00677833|191773093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||<0.0001
95907710|NCT00677833|191773096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier, log rank|||Time to event data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier curve.||||0.0006
95907711|NCT04493216|191773099|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|5.7|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 100 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||5.7|-24.0|
95907712|NCT04493216|191773099|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|11.6|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 150 mg+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||11.6|-13.5|
95980876|NCT01178333|191934891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.37
95980877|NCT01178333|191934892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95980878|NCT01178333|191934893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
95980879|NCT01178333|191934894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.66
95980880|NCT01178333|191934895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95980881|NCT01178333|191934896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.55|||Regression, Cox|||||4.55|1.35|0.003
95980882|NCT01178333|191934896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.85|||Regression, Cox|||||2.85|0.96|0.07
95980883|NCT01178333|191934898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is to compare three groups.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.01
95980884|NCT01178333|191934899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||||1.49|0.56|0.72
95980885|NCT01178333|191934899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.54|0.34
95980886|NCT05395104|191934901|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.0865|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9724|1.2141||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2141|0.9724|
95980887|NCT05395104|191934903|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1174|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9784|1.2762||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2762|0.9784|
95980888|NCT05395104|191934904|OTHER|Ratio = Geometric least squares mean (test)/geometric least squares mean (reference)|Ratio|1.1239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9887|1.2776||||||Midazolam + Cefiderocol: single 5-mg dose of midazolam + 2 g cefiderocol (Day 15)||1.2776|0.9887|
95980889|NCT01892306|191934919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-A were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||.02
95980890|NCT01892306|191934920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the HAM-D were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.02
95980891|NCT01892306|191934921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Scores on the CSQ were analyzed using a mixed-effects linear regression analysis over 6 timepoints.||||0.24
95980892|NCT01892306|191934922|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores.||||.62
95980893|NCT01892306|191934922|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline DERS scores||||.03
95980894|NCT01892306|191934923|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.95
95980895|NCT01892306|191934923|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ACS scores.||||0.03
95980896|NCT01892306|191934924|OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.87
95980897|NCT01892306|191934924|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline ASI scores||||0.37
95980898|NCT01892306|191934925|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO- Neuroticism scores.||||0.17
95980899|NCT01892306|191934925|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear Regression - Dependent variable: HAM-A symptom change; Independent variable: Baseline NEO-Neuroticism scores||||.04
95980900|NCT01892306|191934926|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||0.007
95980901|NCT01892306|191934926|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Fisher's z-transformed values for functional connectivity between anterior insula and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were entered in separate treatment group-specific linear regression models as the independent variable with change in primary outcomes (HAM-D) as dependent variable.||||.14
95980902|NCT00744211|191934960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<0.05; Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95907713|NCT04493216|191773099|OTHER||Differences in percentage of participant|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.2|0.3|||||Differences in percentage of participant = Percentage of participant in GSK3640254 200 mg+ Placebo+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF - Percentage of participant in DTG+ ABC/3TC or FTC/TAF|||0.3|-31.2|
95907714|NCT03563716|191773130|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|6.14|||||95% CI for odds ratio was constructed using the Wald method.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||6.14|1.07|
95907715|NCT03563716|191773131|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.9|||||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression.|Stratified analysis based on PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx, tumor histology status, and tobacco history.||0.90|0.37|
95907716|NCT01644734|191773143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: no change in the total CAT score between baseline and after 3 months.||||<0.001
95907717|NCT02216123|191773144|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.161|4.982|||||Confidence interval for the treatment difference was based on the Newcombe method. Percent treatment difference (TQ+CQ-PQ+CQ) has been presented.|||4.982|-4.161|
95980903|NCT00744211|191934961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Pairwise tests of individual groups means were compared by adjusted probabilities (Bonferroni method).|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95980904|NCT00744211|191934962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95907718|NCT02216123|191773146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.984||||||95.0|0.577|1.678|||||Hazards ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.678|0.577|
95907719|NCT02216123|191773147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.815|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|1.503|||||Hazard ratio was estimated from Cox Proportional Hazards Model with treatment and region as covariates. A hazard ratio\<1 indicates a lower chance of relapse with TQ+CQ compared to PQ+CQ.|||1.503|0.442|
95907720|NCT05159622|191773182|EQUIVALENCE|A net effect of 6 fluid oz/day (SD=1) was hypothesized among adult parents, assuming two sided alpha=0.05, power = 80%, and a minimum sample size of 60 adults.|Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05. P-value of the interaction between treatment group and change in beverage consumption (fl oz/day).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95907721|NCT05159622|191773183|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95907722|NCT05159622|191773184|EQUIVALENCE|This was an exploratory outcome and therefore statistical power was not based on a hypothesis of this outcome.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95980905|NCT00744211|191934963|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square tests for differences between groups.||||||0.015||||||P-value is associated with the hematological/lymphatic adverse event.|Chi-squared|||||||0.015
95980906|NCT04422990|191934964|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in mean CLCDVA was declared if the upper confidence limit was less than 0.10 logMAR.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Mixed effects repeated measures model||Least squares mean difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity).|||0.01|-0.01|
95907723|NCT05159622|191773185|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome as for infants/toddlers based on parent-report|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95907724|NCT05159622|191773186|EQUIVALENCE|Exploratory outcome|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.95||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95907725|NCT03318523|191773191|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-value were based on a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.3||||0.8976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.888|4.287|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.287|-4.888|0.8976
95907726|NCT03318523|191773191|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.5||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|4.312|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||4.312|-3.310|0.7960
95907727|NCT03318523|191773191|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.08||||0.9695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.805|3.956|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 52||3.956|-3.805|0.9695
95907728|NCT03318523|191773192|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.28||||0.9093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.035|4.483|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||4.483|-5.035|0.9093
95907729|NCT03318523|191773192|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|1.55||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|5.44|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||5.440|-2.336|0.4327
95907730|NCT03318523|191773192|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.17||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.051|3.719|||Mixed Model with repeated Measures|||Change From Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Total Score at Week 72||3.719|-4.051|0.9330
95907731|NCT03318523|191773194|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.41||||0.8828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.013|5.825|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.825|-5.013|0.8828
95907732|NCT03318523|191773194|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.84||||0.7019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.458|5.128|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measure|||||5.128|-3.458|0.7019
95907733|NCT03318523|191773194|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.99||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.323|5.301|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||5.301|-3.323|0.6519
95907734|NCT03318523|191773196|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.851|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||0.794|-1.851|0.4327
95980907|NCT04422990|191934965|NON_INFERIORITY|Proportion of subjects was used for the statistical analysis. Noninferiority in proportion of subjects achieving CLCDVA 20/20 or better in each eye was declared if the lower confidence limit was greater than -0.10.|Difference in proportion|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|Generalized linear mixed model||Lens difference (LID018869 minus Biofinity)|||0.02|-0.04|
95980908|NCT05417607|191934988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.86||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|6.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.22|1.27|0.0047
95980909|NCT05417607|191934989|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.9||0.2383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|6.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||6.02|-1.6|0.2383
95907735|NCT03318523|191773196|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.13||||0.8155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|1.225|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.225|-0.965|0.8155
95907736|NCT03318523|191773196|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.22||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.899|1.334|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 52||1.334|-0.899|0.7015
95980910|NCT05417607|191934990|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.58||0.3426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group pre- and post-intervention.||0.80|-2.22|0.3426
95980911|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.46||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.44|21.89|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.89|10.44|0.0008
95980912|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.11|23.07|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.07|11.11|<0.0001
95980913|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.5||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.28|25.3|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||25.30|13.28|0.0002
95980914|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.47|23.57|||Paired t-test|||Reader 1: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||23.57|13.47|<0.0001
95980915|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.62|23.05|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||23.05|16.62|<0.0001
95980916|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.16|26.03|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||26.03|14.16|<0.0001
95980917|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.44|24.56|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||24.56|19.44|<0.0001
95980918|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.45|26.99|||Paired t-test|||Reader 2: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||26.99|15.45|<0.0001
95980919|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|21.64|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||21.64|2.02|0.0268
95980920|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.45|22.82|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 1||22.82|9.45|<0.0001
95980921|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.59||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.04|18.24|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||18.24|6.04|0.0028
95980922|NCT03740997|191934995|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.04|21.61|||Paired t-test|||Reader 3: Difference Between Non-contrast and OPTISON Dose Level 2||21.61|10.04|<0.0001
95980923|NCT01750931|191935008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.45||||0.4396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.4|105.59|||ANOVA|||||105.59|99.40|0.4396
95980924|NCT01750931|191935010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|105.02||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.69|110.63|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-t between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||110.63|99.69|0.9712
95980925|NCT01750931|191935010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Percent ratio|102.31||||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.05|105.69|||ANOVA||Comparison of AUC0-infinity between group GSK-meloxicam 15 mg and Mobic-meloxicam 15 mg|||105.69|99.05|0.9951
95980926|NCT01829425|191935015|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%.|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney|Due dispersion, medians were calculated. Exact Mann Whitney test was used for this analysis.|Hypnotherapy - Pharmacotherapy. % difference in median % change in UUI episodes with lower bounds \> - 5% would be consistent with non-inferiority||||5|<.025
95980927|NCT01829425|191935016|NON_INFERIORITY|The study design will use a non-inferiority design to compare the primary outcome (change in UUI episodes in the hypnotherapy versus pharmacotherapy groups). With respect to the outcome variable of percent reduction in UUI episodes as determined by bladder diaries, we will use a one-sided non- inferiority test at level alpha = 0.25 and a non-inferiority margin of 5%. If|Difference in median % change between gr|5.0|||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|5.0||||Exact Mann Whitney||||||5|<.025
95980928|NCT00800683|191935033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||For patients who received rescue medication during the course of the trial, the Oracle Clinical (OC) technique was utilised for all efficacy endpoints and the values were set to missing after the rescue medication was administered.||-0.31|-0.89|< 0.0001
95980929|NCT00800683|191935034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.03|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.03|< 0.0001
95980930|NCT00800683|191935035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.90|< 0.0001
95980931|NCT00800683|191935036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.96|< 0.0001
95980932|NCT00800683|191935037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||||-0.39|-1.05|< 0.0001
95980933|NCT00800683|191935038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.06|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.06|< 0.0001
95980934|NCT00800683|191935039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-0.96|< 0.0001
95907737|NCT03318523|191773197|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-1.03||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.276|0.213|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||0.213|-2.276|0.1038
95907738|NCT03318523|191773197|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.09||||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.933|1.103|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.103|-0.933|0.8689
95907739|NCT03318523|191773197|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.01||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.026|1.003|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 72||1.003|-1.026|0.9820
95907740|NCT03318523|191773197|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.26||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.563|1.04|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.040|-1.563|0.6930
95907741|NCT03318523|191773197|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.03||||0.9606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.053|1.001|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||1.001|-1.053|0.9606
95907742|NCT03318523|191773197|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.24||||0.6512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.269|0.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart I Score at Week 96||0.794|-1.269|0.6512
95907743|NCT03318523|191773198|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.44||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.889|1.007|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.007|-1.889|0.5497
95907744|NCT03318523|191773198|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.197|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.197|-1.200|0.9980
95907745|NCT03318523|191773198|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|1.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 52||1.070|-1.374|0.8069
95909272|NCT01939548|191776652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.7219|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.31|-0.17|0.7219
95907746|NCT03318523|191773199|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.21||||0.7968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.372|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.372|-1.786|0.7968
95980935|NCT00800683|191935040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-1.02|< 0.0001
95980936|NCT00800683|191935041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1199||95.0||||P-value calculated using a Fisher's exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1199
95980937|NCT00800683|191935042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.103||||0.2225||95.0|0.003|3.978|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||3.978|0.003|0.2225
95980938|NCT00800683|191935043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.816||||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|15.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin vs Placebo. The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c, previous anti-diabetic medication and creatinine clearance||15.756|0.042|0.8927
95980939|NCT00800683|191935044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.43||0.8802||95.0|-24.36|20.91|||ANCOVA|||||20.91|-24.36|0.8802
95980940|NCT00800683|191935045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.19||0.7848||95.0|-18.47|13.98|||ANCOVA|||||13.98|-18.47|0.7848
95980941|NCT00800683|191935046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.09||0.1878||95.0|-26.74|5.31|||ANCOVA|||||5.31|-26.74|0.1878
95980942|NCT00800683|191935047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.5781||95.0|-11.28|20.12|||ANCOVA|||||20.12|-11.28|0.5781
95980943|NCT00800683|191935048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8||0.2954||95.0|-26.67|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-26.67|0.2954
95980944|NCT00800683|191935049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.27||0.5984||95.0|-12.02|20.75|||ANCOVA|||||20.75|-12.02|0.5984
95980945|NCT00800683|191935050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.53||0.4085||95.0|-9.82|23.96|||ANCOVA|||||23.96|-9.82|0.4085
95980946|NCT00800683|191935051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.17||0.8698||95.0|-14.84|17.52|||ANCOVA|||||17.52|-14.84|0.8698
95980947|NCT01006265|191935054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.226|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.384|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.384|0.133|<0.0001
95980948|NCT01006265|191935054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.289|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.289|0.100|<0.0001
95980949|NCT01006265|191935054|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect (rate ratio)|0.566||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.952|||Negative binomial regression model|||||0.952|0.337|0.0318
95980950|NCT01390272|191935058|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||1.6|-5.9|0.26
95980951|NCT01390272|191935059|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-4.9|0.50
95980952|NCT01390272|191935060|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Constrained longitudinal model adjusting for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||||2.4|-5.6|0.43
95980953|NCT01390272|191935062|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.6|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 6 months||1.6|0.7|0.83
95980954|NCT01390272|191935063|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.4|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 12 months||1.4|0.5|0.53
95980955|NCT01390272|191935064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status.||Comparison at 18 months.||2.3|0.9|0.09
95980956|NCT01390272|191935067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.5|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and diabetes control.||||1.5|0.7|0.95
95980957|NCT01390272|191935068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link.Adjusted for baseline stratification variable of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 12 months||2.1|0.9|0.12
95907747|NCT03318523|191773199|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.53||||0.4211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|1.827|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.827|-0.766|0.4211
95907748|NCT03318523|191773199|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.15||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.448|1.143|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 72||1.143|-1.448|0.8166
95980958|NCT01390272|191935069|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.9|||Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized Estimating Equation with a Logit Link. Adjusted for baseline stratification variables of diabetes status and blood pressure control.||Comparison at 18 months||1.9|0.8|0.30
95980959|NCT01177384|191935070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.44||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline A1C.|ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-0.79|<.001
95980960|NCT01177384|191935071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|-7.0||The ANCOVA model included terms for treatment and prior AHA therapy status (on acarbose monotherapy, or on acarbose in combination with other AHA(s)) and a covariate for baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-7.0|-21.8|<.001
95980961|NCT01196533|191935074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||||||||||||||All data in the outcome measure table is presenting the percentage of error.|||
95980962|NCT00911625|191935077|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.502||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.341|18.341|||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the two treatment cohorts on their average blood glucose level||18.341|-19.341|.958
95980963|NCT00911625|191935078|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.0828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|1.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the odds of experiencing at least one blood glucose level below 70 mg/dL between the two treatment cohorts.||1.114|0.172|.0828
95980964|NCT01557348|191935091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
95980965|NCT01557348|191935092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0588
95980966|NCT01557348|191935093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1126||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 6||||0.1126
95980967|NCT01557348|191935093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2342||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in TJC at Month 12||||0.2342
95980968|NCT01557348|191935094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4168||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 6||||0.4168
95980969|NCT01557348|191935094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5867||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in SJC at Month 12||||0.5867
95980970|NCT01557348|191935095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 6||||0.8758
95980971|NCT01557348|191935095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4849||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in CRP at Month 12||||0.4849
95980972|NCT01557348|191935096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0086||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 6||||0.0086
95980973|NCT01557348|191935096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2918||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in ESR at Month 12||||0.2918
95980974|NCT01557348|191935097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0764||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0764
95907749|NCT03318523|191773199|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.53||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|1.24|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.240|-2.310|0.5535
95907750|NCT03318523|191773199|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.52||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.881|1.922|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.922|-0.881|0.4654
95907751|NCT03318523|191773199|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.36||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|1.763|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart II Score at Week 96||1.763|-1.051|0.6184
95907752|NCT03318523|191773200|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.59||||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.742|3.925|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.925|-2.742|0.7274
95907753|NCT03318523|191773200|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.66||||0.6385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.094|3.411|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||3.411|-2.094|0.6385
95907754|NCT03318523|191773200|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, baseline MDS-UPDRS score, baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.1||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.718|2.91|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 52||2.910|-2.718|0.9467
95907755|NCT03318523|191773201|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.85||||0.6112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.423|4.114|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||4.114|-2.423|0.6112
95909273|NCT01939548|191776652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.192||0.9315|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.26|0.23||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.2 significance level. No multiple comparisons adjustment was made.|ANOVA|||Analysis of change at Week 12. Mixed effect repeated measures model used. Fixed effects: treatment, time (visit), baseline value, investigator site, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction; random effect: participant.||0.23|-0.26|0.9315
95907756|NCT03318523|191773201|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.86||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.806|3.52|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||3.520|-1.806|0.5270
95907757|NCT03318523|191773201|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.06||||0.9673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.608|2.719|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 72||2.719|-2.608|0.9673
95907758|NCT03318523|191773201|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.65||||0.7455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.274|4.569|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||4.569|-3.274|0.7455
95907759|NCT03318523|191773201|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|-0.1||||0.9506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|2.997|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||2.997|-3.192|0.9506
95907760|NCT03318523|191773201|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with delayed start group, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MDS-UPDRS score as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, region, PD subtype, prior use of PD medication, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS score, corresponding baseline MDS-UPDRS by time interaction, baseline striatum SBR values and baseline striatum SBR value by time interaction.|Difference|0.69||||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.422|3.794|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline in MDS-UPDRS Subpart III Score at Week 96||3.794|-2.422|0.6643
95907761|NCT03318523|191773202|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.005||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0548|0.0438|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0438|-0.0548|0.8274
95907762|NCT03318523|191773202|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0504|0.0323|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0323|-0.0504|0.6671
95907763|NCT03318523|191773202|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.033||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0751|0.0098|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0098|-0.0751|0.1313
95907764|NCT03318523|191773203|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.009||||0.7079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0562|0.0382|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0382|-0.0562|0.7079
95907765|NCT03318523|191773203|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.0||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.0392|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0392|-0.0400|0.9835
95909274|NCT00295022|191776668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|-1.88|||ANCOVA|||||-1.88|-4.35|<0.001
95909275|NCT00295022|191776668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.18|||ANCOVA|||||0.18|-2.04|=0.001
95909276|NCT00295022|191776668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-3.43|<0.001
95980975|NCT01557348|191935097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0587||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.0587
95980976|NCT01557348|191935098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0443||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 6||||0.0443
95980977|NCT01557348|191935098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Disease at Month 12||||0.4802
95980978|NCT01557348|191935099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2026||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 6||||0.2026
95980979|NCT01557348|191935099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0295||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in Participant's Visual Analogue Scale Pain Score at Months 12||||0.0295
95980980|NCT01557348|191935100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6||||0.3370
95980981|NCT01557348|191935100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1515||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 12||||0.1515
95980982|NCT01557348|191935101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3253||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 6||||0.3253
95980983|NCT01557348|191935101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3535||||||LsMean and p-value are based on an ANCOVA model adjusted for significant factors leading to selection of new biologic therapy and unbalanced baseline covariates.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of least squares mean change from Baseline in duration of morning stiffness at month 12||||0.3535
95907766|NCT03318523|191773203|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.027||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0682|0.0134|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0134|-0.0682|0.1869
95907767|NCT03318523|191773204|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.008||||0.7585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0625|0.0456|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0456|-0.0625|0.7585
95907768|NCT03318523|191773204|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|0.006||||0.7808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0391|0.052|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0520|-0.0391|0.7808
95980984|NCT03427125|191935109|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95980985|NCT03427125|191935110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0020
95980986|NCT05390580|191935158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.24
95980987|NCT05390580|191935159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.0001
95980988|NCT05390580|191935160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.26
95980989|NCT05390580|191935161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; quadratic time terms captured U-shaped cytokine/WBC patterns. Interaction p-values tested trajectory differences between taVNS and sham.||||0.14
95980990|NCT05390580|191935163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Repeated measures were analyzed with longitudinal mixed-effects models (FDA guidance), using subject as a random effect. This accounted for irregular timing, missing data, and time-varying covariates. Models included treatment, time since last known normal, and their interaction; linearly for in-hospital NIHSS scores based on panel data plots. Interaction terms were utilized to delineate differences amongst trajectories of the outcome of interest.||||0.69
95907769|NCT03318523|191773204|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted mean, difference with placebo, 95% CI, and p-value were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in DaT/SPECT parameter as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, region, time, treatment group-by-time interaction, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score, baseline MDS-UPDRS part I+II+III total score by time interaction, baseline DaT/SPECT values and baseline DaT/SPECT by time interaction.|Difference|-0.022||||0.3532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0691|0.0248|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.0248|-0.0691|0.3532
95907770|NCT03232983|191773206|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric Least Squares Means (LSMeans) were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.07|0.992|
95907771|NCT03232983|191773206|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.04|0.962|
95980991|NCT05390580|191935164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated using a mixed model that includes a random effect for person, based on actual day of the mRS, 90 day assessment. Restricted to participants who survived to an mRS assessment for day 90 , leaving 14 participants (28 mRS scores) in the treatment group and 17 participants (34 mRS scores) in the sham group.||||0.48
95980992|NCT05390580|191935165|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.49|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in hypotension.||||0.49
95907772|NCT03232983|191773207|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.20|1.00|
95907773|NCT03232983|191773207|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Geometric LSMeans were controlled for injection site, study period, and sequence as fixed effects, and subject within sequence as a random effect.||1.25|1.04|
95907774|NCT02633800|191773208|OTHER|Both Log-rank test and Cox regression analysis did not adjust stratification factors.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9291||||0.8342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4856|1.7778||Unstratified Log-rank p-value|Log Rank|||Heregulin-high population - Patritumab vs Placebo||1.7778|0.4856|0.8342
95980993|NCT05390580|191935166|EQUIVALENCE|Here we were testing if there were any safety differences based on treatment. This was a pilot exploratory trial, for which we may be underpowered.||||||0.66|||||||Regression, Logistic|||To assess our dichotomous safety endpoints, we used logistic regression models constructed to assess differences in bradycardia.||||0.66
95980994|NCT05564299|191935178|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||||0.053
95980995|NCT03672461|191935211|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.29||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value. Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||Null Hypothesis: Yoga is not associated with improvement in change from baseline in Total Urinary Incontinence Episodes||0.6|-0.01|0.056
95980996|NCT03672461|191935212|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.03||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.2|-0.15|0.757
95980997|NCT03672461|191935213|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.22||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.45|0|0.048
95980998|NCT03672461|191935214|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.82||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|15.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||15.23|-13.6|0.911
95980999|NCT03672461|191935215|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|3.13||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|6.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.13|0.13|0.041
95981000|NCT03672461|191935216|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.07||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.3|-0.16|0.564
95981001|NCT03672461|191935217|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.3||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.3|-1.69|0.764
95981002|NCT03672461|191935218|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.53|-1.78|0.883
95981003|NCT03672461|191935219|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.6|-0.83|0.753
95981004|NCT03672461|191935220|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.28||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.07|-1.63|0.685
95981005|NCT03672461|191935221|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.24||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.43|-0.95|0.691
95981006|NCT03672461|191935222|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.19||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.34|-0.95|0.743
95981007|NCT03672461|191935223|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.98||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.93|0.03|0.043
95981008|NCT03672461|191935224|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.99||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||5.84|-3.87|0.689
95981009|NCT03672461|191935225|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.74|-9.54|0.276
95907775|NCT01640808|191773223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.124||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05. Adjustment of multiplicity considering interim analysis is conducted by the Lan DeMets' method of α consumption function.|Log Rank|||||1.124|0.720|0.351
95907776|NCT01640808|191773224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.875||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|1.085||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.706|0.222
95907777|NCT01640808|191773225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.108||A two-sided significance level was set at 0.05.|Log Rank|||||1.108|0.703|0.279
95907778|NCT00989768|191773236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36|<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||In this study the null hypothesis was that BoNT-A1 had the same effect (halus)than the BoNT-A2.||||<0.0001
95907779|NCT00989768|191773237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95907780|NCT00989768|191773238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95907781|NCT00989768|191773239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95907782|NCT04818346|191773246|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.49|-8.32|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-8.32|-34.49|0.0015
95907783|NCT04818346|191773246|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-20.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.63|-6.51|||MMRM|||||-6.51|-33.63|0.0040
95907784|NCT04818346|191773246|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-18.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-4.64|||MMRM|||||-4.64|-31.40|0.0086
95907785|NCT04818346|191773247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|220.998|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||220.998|0.398|0.3574
95907786|NCT04818346|191773247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.5||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|273.479|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||273.479|0.573|0.1992
95907787|NCT04818346|191773247|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.9913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|126.386|||Wald test||Logistic regression: (response at Week 24 = treatment + stratification factor \[T-BSA involvement 8%-20%/\>20%\]).|||126.386|0.103|0.9913
95907788|NCT02273141|191773272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in success rate|8.22||||0.038|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, the primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||The hypothesis was to demonstrate non-inferiority (NI) of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with successful overall bowel cleansing as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-0.50|0.038
95907789|NCT02273141|191773273|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in excellent plus good rate|3.2||||0.027|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-5.56|||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (2 alternative primary endpoints): To be declared superior, primary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis was to demonstrate NI of NER1006 regimen to SP+MS (10% margin). Success rate was no. of patients with highly effective cleansing of the colon ascendens as proportion of no. of patients in each group. Treatment effect was NER1006 success rate - SP+MS success rate. A Hochberg procedure was used to control Type I error since there were 2 alternative primary endpoints. An alpha level of 1.25% 1-sided was used. A closed testing procedure used to evaluate superiority if NI was met.|||-5.56|0.027
95907790|NCT02273141|191773274|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|2.42||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.35|11.12||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.12|-6.35|0.154
95907791|NCT02273141|191773275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in ADR|3.27||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|11.91||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in ADR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.91|-5.56|0.212
95907792|NCT02273141|191773276|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|4.43||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.36|13.1||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||13.10|-4.36|0.064
95981010|NCT03672461|191935226|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|0.1||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.34|-0.15|0.448
95907793|NCT02273141|191773277|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To be declared non-inferior, the key secondary endpoint must show a difference in rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits.|Difference in PDR|2.95||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|11.51||To be declared superior, the key secondary endpoint must demonstrate non-inferiority and show a significant advantage for NER1006 relative to SP+MS with 1-sided p-value \<0.025, the threshold for statistical significance.|Fisher Exact|||If at least one of the alternative primary endpoints was met, then key secondary endpoints for the same colon region as met by the primary endpoint were evaluated hierarchically in a pre-specified order. The difference in PDR was calculated as NER1006 rate - SP+MS rate using 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Formal testing was to proceed in the hierarchy if preceding key secondary endpoint met non-inferiority. This procedure ensured overall Type I error control at 2.5% 1-sided.||11.51|-5.96|0.278
95907794|NCT00529399|191773281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.98
95907795|NCT00529399|191773281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||"The calculation for the concentration of c-peptide is a weighted average of the 6 timed measurements of c-peptide in nano-moles/Liter. We try to distinguish this calculation from the AUC by referring to it as the AUC mean and may be expressed algebraically as the AUC/(120 min.); thus, the units are the same as the y-axis."||||0.51
95907796|NCT01506193|191773299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for measles was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.78||||||"Immune response for anti-measles antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-measles seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.78|-1.82|
95907797|NCT01506193|191773299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for mumps was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|6.67||||||"Immune response for anti-mumps antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-mumps seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||6.67|-3.04|
95907798|NCT01506193|191773299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for rubella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.29||||||"Immune response for anti-rubella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-rubella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.29|-1.23|
95907799|NCT01506193|191773299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroconversion rates for varicella was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroconversion rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|2.03||||||"Immune response for anti-varicella antibodies~Non-inferiority of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine co-administered with Meningitec® conjugate vaccine compared to the first dose of Priorix-Tetra™ vaccine alone with respect to anti-varicella seroconversion rates (SCRs) at Day 42 after dose 1."||2.03|-1.87|
95907800|NCT01506193|191773300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with respect to seroresponse for rSBA-MenC was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI around the difference in seroprotection rates between groups would be \[-10%\] or higher.|Difference in percentage|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|2.24||||||"Immune response for rSBA-MenC antibodies~Non-inferiority of Meningitec® conjugate vaccine co-administered with Priorix-Tetra™ compared to Meningitec® conjugate vaccine alone with respect to rabbit complement serum bactericidal assay (rSBA-MenC) antibody seroprotection rates (SPRs) at Day 42 after vaccination."||2.24|-3.39|
95907801|NCT06242444|191773310|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.465||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|13.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||13.28|3.42|0.0012
95907802|NCT06242444|191773311|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|43.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|||43.76|30.90|<.0001
95907803|NCT06242444|191773312|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|8.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.87|-0.97|0.1138
95907804|NCT06242444|191773314|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|8.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Test Dentifrice minus Reference Dentifrice.|||8.64|-4.21|0.4930
95907805|NCT06242444|191773318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.462||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|9.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||9.32|-0.52|0.0789
95907806|NCT06242444|191773318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.408||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||7.81|-1.82|0.2178
95907807|NCT06242444|191773319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.69|41.54|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||41.54|28.69|<.0001
95907808|NCT06242444|191773319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|27.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|33.21|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||33.21|21.14|<.0001
95907809|NCT06242444|191773320|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.97|1.53|<.0001
95907810|NCT06242444|191773320|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||1.78|1.42|<.0001
95907811|NCT06242444|191773321|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.362|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 4 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.362|0.252|<.0001
95981011|NCT03672461|191935227|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-0.29||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.28|-0.86|0.319
95907812|NCT06242444|191773321|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0257|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.293|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference was calculated as Reference Dentifrice minus Placebo Control Dentifrice.|At 12 hours of intra-oral exposure||0.293|0.190|<.0001
95981012|NCT03672461|191935228|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|1.21||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|8.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||8.67|-6.25|0.747
95907813|NCT02046980|191773326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.02839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|7.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.31|1.58|0.02839
95907814|NCT02046980|191773326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.67||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|5.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.67|1.25|0.0366
95907815|NCT04575467|191773333|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-2.37|||Paired t-test|||||-2.37|-7.17|<0.01
95907816|NCT04575467|191773333|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-4.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|-2.73|||Paired t-test|||||-2.73|-6.97|<0.01
95907817|NCT04575467|191773333|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat thickness difference|-2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.83|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.01|||Paired t-test|||||-0.01|-5.95|<0.05
95907818|NCT04575467|191773334|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-114.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.88|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-171.99|-56.81|||Paired t-test|||||-56.81|-171.99|<0.01
95907819|NCT04575467|191773334|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-155.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|64.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.1|-87.3|||Paired t-test|||||-87.30|-223.10|<0.01
95907820|NCT04575467|191773334|SUPERIORITY||Mean absolute fat volume difference|-119.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-237.86|-0.47|||Paired t-test|||||-0.47|-237.86|<0.05
95907821|NCT00449176|191773399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.001||95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.001
95907822|NCT02491671|191773407|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.219||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.891|1.583|||Chi-squared|||||1.583|0.891|0.171
95907823|NCT02491671|191773408|SUPERIORITY||z|0.288|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test Unadjusted variance 274999.00 Adjustment for ties --21069.78 Adjusted variance 253929.22 z = 0.288; Prob \> \|z\| = 0.7735"|||||>0.05
95981013|NCT03672461|191935229|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.76||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.459
95907824|NCT02491671|191773409|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.351||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.879|||Chi-squared|||||1.879|0.657|0 .307
95907825|NCT01967732|191773431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|77.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.69|95.63|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for Cmax, therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||95.63|62.69|
95907826|NCT01967732|191773432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|74.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.52|90.14|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|LS mean ratio (THS 2.2 - Group 1:CC - Group 1)|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the nicotine bioavailability (ratio of THS 2.2:CC) for AUC(0-last), therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||90.14|61.52|
95907827|NCT00936858|191773433|OTHER||6 month PFS probability|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||We will declare the trial a success after observing 7 or more patients with PFS within 6 months. The study will have alpha = 0.092 and power =0.970, assuming a 6 month PFS probability of 0.12 for the null and a PFS probability of 0.35 as the alternative hypothesis.||||
95981014|NCT03672461|191935230|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|4.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||4.65|-10.2|0.556
95907828|NCT03336619|191773456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3765|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Analysis used a Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3765
95907829|NCT03336619|191773457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6331|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.6331
95907830|NCT03336619|191773458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7382|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.7382
95907831|NCT03336619|191773459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3236|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset to enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.3236
95907832|NCT03336619|191773460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0483|||||||Gehan-Wilcoxon|Gehan-Wilcoxon test stratified by time from symptom onset at enrollment and influenza vaccination status.||||||0.0483
95907833|NCT03762135|191773485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||This relates to the entirety of the 6-week period.|GEE Linear Regression|Generalized Estimation Equation Linear Regression||||||0.044
95981015|NCT03672461|191935231|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-3.26||||0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||6.7|-13.2|0.516
95981016|NCT03672461|191935232|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.38||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||0.91|-5.68|0.154
95981017|NCT03672461|191935233|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.22||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.72|-7.17|0.375
95907834|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||||95.0|-2.9|2.8||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||2.8|-2.9|
95907835|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.5||||||95.0|0.4|6.6||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.6|0.4|
95981018|NCT03672461|191935234|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.75||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||1.5|-5|0.287
95981019|NCT03672461|191935235|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.58||adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.58|-3.85|0.147
95981020|NCT03672461|191935236|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-1.37||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|2.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.61|-5.36|0.495
95981021|NCT03672461|191935237|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|-2.82||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|2.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||2.59|-8.22|0.303
95981022|NCT03672461|191935238|SUPERIORITY||Model based LS mean difference|2.97||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|7.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for baseline value Repeated measures mixed models, unstructured variance co-variance matrix||||7.51|-1.56|0.196
95981023|NCT00315939|191935246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||=0.001
95907836|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.6|9.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||9.7|4.6|
95907837|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.6||||||95.0|0.4|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.4|
95907838|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|7.2||||||95.0|4.4|10.0||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||10.0|4.4|
95907839|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|3.7||||||95.0|0.6|6.7||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean Difference in injection pain on VAS after injection of different volumes was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain.||6.7|0.6|
95907840|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.4||||||95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||2.9|-2.1|
95907841|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.7|1.9||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. Mean difference in injection pain on VAS after injection at different speeds was calculated as least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS after injection at different speeds.||1.9|-2.7|
95907842|NCT01680328|191773487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|9.0||||||95.0|6.7|11.3||||||Though the sample size was not based on any formal sample size or power calculations as no statistical tests were pre-specified to address the endpoints, a sample size of 80 completers was derived from a simulation study. The mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen was calculated as the least square mean estimate of the mean difference in injection pain on a VAS (mm) between the thighs and abdomen.||11.3|6.7|
95907843|NCT01680328|191773488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||||95.0|0.5|1.4|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.4|0.5|
95907844|NCT01680328|191773488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.2|3.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.5|1.2|
95907845|NCT01680328|191773488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||||95.0|1.4|3.0||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||3.0|1.4|
95907846|NCT01680328|191773488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.8|1.4|
95907847|NCT01680328|191773488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||||95.0|1.4|4.6||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||4.6|1.4|
95907848|NCT01680328|191773488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.7|1.5||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'larger volume versus smaller', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the larger volume - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.5|0.7|
95907849|NCT01680328|191773489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.7|1.8||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.8|0.7|
95907850|NCT01680328|191773489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||||95.0|0.6|1.2||||||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', and 'higher speed versus lower', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain for the higher speed - i.e. a worse condition. The odd ratios for unacceptable injection pain are based on a statistical model for all acceptance pain data.||1.2|0.6|
95907851|NCT01680328|191773490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7||||||95.0|2.4|5.5|||Odds ratio (OR)|||Acceptance of pain was rated subjectively as yes or no by the subject after each injection. The odds are calculated as 'no versus yes', so that an odds ratio above 1 corresponds to a higher frequency of unacceptable pain in the thighs - i.e. a worse condition.||5.5|2.4|
95907852|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
95907853|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-0.8|1.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.6|-0.8|
95907854|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
95907855|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
95907856|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.8|1.7||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.7|-0.8|
95907857|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-0.7|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.7|
95907858|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.3|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.3|
95907859|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.0||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.0|-0.4|
95907860|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.1||||||95.0|-0.1|2.3||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.3|-0.1|
95907861|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|2.3||||||95.0|1.0|3.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||3.5|1.0|
95907862|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.4||||||95.0|0.2|2.6||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||2.6|0.2|
95907863|NCT01680328|191773491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-0.6|1.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the abdomen at different volume and speed combinations.||1.8|-0.6|
95907864|NCT01680328|191773492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.3||||||95.0|-0.9|1.5||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||1.5|-0.9|
95907865|NCT01680328|191773492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.4|2.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.1|-0.4|
95907866|NCT01680328|191773492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.6||||||95.0|0.3|2.8||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.8|0.3|
95907867|NCT01680328|191773492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|4.9||||||95.0|3.7|6.1||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||6.1|3.7|
95907868|NCT01680328|191773492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.7||||||95.0|0.5|2.9||||||Backflow (absorbed amount of liquid 2 minutes (±30 sec) after the injection with filter-paper rated according to the liquid scale) was analysed using a mixed ANOVA approach and calculated as the mean differences in backflow in the thigh at different volume and speed combinations.||2.9|0.5|
95907869|NCT00127608|191773499|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean viral load between samples stored in liquid and samples stored dry was compared.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for all 2 by 2 comparisons.|The Geometric Mean Ratio of the viral load was calculated for dry over liquid storage condition.|||||<0.0001
95907870|NCT00127608|191773500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle fluid)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4451||||0.0038||95.0|-0.769|-0.1213|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1213|-0.7690|0.0038
95907871|NCT00127608|191773500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Papule swab minus Vesicle swab)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.432||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7605|-0.1035|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||-0.1035|-0.7605|0.0060
95907872|NCT00127608|191773500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Difference in mean viral load (in log10) (Vesicle fluid minus Vesicle swab)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.00132||||0.9952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3171|0.3435|||ANOVA|Tukey adjustments were made for the comparison.||||0.3435|-0.3171|0.9952
95907873|NCT00127608|191773500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)|Geometric mean ratio|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.76|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle fluid)||0.76|0.17|
95907874|NCT00127608|191773500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.79|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Papule swab over Vesicle swab)||0.79|0.17|
95907875|NCT00127608|191773500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)|Geometric mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.21|||ANOVA|||Geometric mean ratio of viral load (Vesicle fluid over Vesicle swab)||2.21|0.48|
95907876|NCT05090709|191773516|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
95907877|NCT05090709|191773516|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Stiffness values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
95907878|NCT05090709|191773521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907879|NCT05090709|191773521|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907880|NCT05090709|191773526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
95907881|NCT05090709|191773526|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Sit-to-stand velocity values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
95907882|NCT05090709|191773531|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907883|NCT05090709|191773531|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907884|NCT05090709|191773533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907885|NCT05090709|191773533|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including both time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907886|NCT05090709|191773538|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
95907887|NCT05090709|191773538|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||Muscle tone values were analysed as a percentage change from baseline measurements to normalise group variances.||||> 0.05
95907888|NCT05090709|191773543|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907889|NCT05090709|191773543|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907890|NCT05090709|191773548|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907891|NCT05090709|191773548|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907892|NCT05090709|191773553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907893|NCT05090709|191773553|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907894|NCT05090709|191773558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907895|NCT05090709|191773558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907896|NCT05090709|191773563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907897|NCT05090709|191773563|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||> 0.05
95907898|NCT05090709|191773568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907899|NCT05090709|191773568|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Including partial eta squared large effect size.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA including all 5 time points in the analysis.||||||< 0.05
95907900|NCT03775200|191773569|OTHER|For this primary analysis, a sample size of 216 randomised participants (72:72:72) will provide 90% power at the alpha = 0.05 level to detect a 6-point difference in average MADRS total score between the optimal therapeutic dose of COMP360 and COMP360 1 mg, assuming the common standard deviation (SD) is 11.0.|Least Mean Square Difference|-6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - missing not at random (MNAR) and missing at random (MAR) imputation for missing data.|LSM difference of COMP360 25 mg compared to COMP360 1 mg.|The primary analysis was the comparison between COMP360 (25 mg or 10 mg) versus COMP360 1 mg. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg. The alternative hypothesis was that were was a difference in mean change from Baseline in MADRS total score at Week 3 for COMP360 25 mg or COMP360 10 mg versus COMP360 1 mg.||-2.9|-10.2|<0.05
95907901|NCT03775200|191773570|OTHER||Least Mean Square Difference|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypothetical strategy estimand - MNAR and MAR imputation for missing data.||Sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint using the per-protocol analysis set.||-1.8|-9.4|<0.05
95907902|NCT04605978|191773571|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|5.49|||||Missing data and data post intercurrent event were imputed for the statistical analysis as specified in the statistical analysis plan.|||5.49|-0.61|
95907903|NCT00483184|191773592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Results were expressed as mean or number. Normal distributed data among the treatment groups were compared by One-way ANOVA test, non-normal distributed data were compared by Kruskal Wallis test, and then Bonferroni post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. Differences from baseline within treatment groups were evaluated by repeated measures ANOVA test for normal distributed data, Freidman test for non-normal distributed data.||||0.404
95907904|NCT01992380|191773594|OTHER||ICC|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.988|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.988|0.935|
95907905|NCT01992380|191773595|OTHER||ICC|0.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.926|0.986|||||Assessed the agreement between the test and retest imaging of the combination VOI SUVr|Intraclass correlation coefficient \[ICC(2,1)\] analysis from Shrout and Fleiss||0.986|0.926|
95907906|NCT01618162|191773626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.87|||ANCOVA|||Superiority of IDegLira versus placebo therapy would be concluded if the 95% CI for the treatment differences for change in HbA1c lied entirely below 0%; implying that the two-sided p-value calculated by the ANCOVA model for testing the hypothesis of no difference between treatments was less than 5%.||-0.87|-1.18|< 0.001
95907907|NCT00338884|191773633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (ORR) (percent)|35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.7|44.8|||||ORR=proportion of subjects with confirmed CR or PR, relative to total subjects who received at least 1 dose of study medication, had a baseline disease assessment, and had the correct histological cancer type.|||44.8|26.7|
95907908|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5581|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5581
95907909|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7635|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7635
95907910|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8366
95907911|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0278
95907912|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1988|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1988
95907913|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2898|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2898
95907914|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3567|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3567
95907915|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4547|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4547
95907916|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
95907917|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3259
95907918|NCT00338884|191773639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
95907919|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7154|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7154
95907920|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6263
95907921|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9608
95907922|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0300
95907923|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0927|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0927
95907924|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2873
95907925|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3018|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3018
95907926|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4161|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4161
95907927|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3069|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3069
95907928|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2920
95907929|NCT00338884|191773640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2409
95907930|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
95907931|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6251
95907932|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1639|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1639
95907933|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2782|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2782
95907934|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8627|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8627
95907935|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4620
95907936|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7575|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7575
95907937|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3566|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3566
95907938|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2809
95907939|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8758
95907940|NCT00338884|191773642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2702|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2702
95907941|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
95907942|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8555
95907943|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2259
95907944|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2074|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2074
95907945|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4779
95907946|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3628
95907947|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5460
95907948|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3637
95907949|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2229
95907950|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9759
95907951|NCT00338884|191773643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
95907952|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5784|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5784
95907953|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9625
95907954|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
95907955|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.0513
95907956|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4051
95907957|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2548
95907958|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5091|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5091
95907959|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3133
95907960|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9278|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.9278
95907961|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4070
95907962|NCT00338884|191773645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.2703
95907963|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7267|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 1 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.7267
95907964|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8286|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8286
95907965|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6867|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6867
95907966|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.0450
95907967|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1740
95907968|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2703
95907969|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3659|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3659
95907970|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3391|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3391
95907971|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9800
95907972|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3350
95907973|NCT00338884|191773646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2179|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2179
95907974|NCT00338884|191773649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0680
95907975|NCT00338884|191773650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1159
95907976|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8519|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8519
95907977|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5879|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5879
95907978|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4757|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4757
95907979|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1933|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1933
95907980|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4187|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4187
95907981|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3795|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3795
95907982|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||1.0000
95907983|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6333|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6333
95907984|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8679|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8679
95907985|NCT00338884|191773652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.592|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5920
95907986|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6939|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6939
95907987|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5871|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5871
95907988|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4572|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4572
95907989|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1120
95907990|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4896|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4896
95907991|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.2369
95907992|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6709|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6709
95907993|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6382
95907994|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8481|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8481
95907995|NCT00338884|191773653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
95907996|NCT00338884|191773655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0292|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR Versus PD||||0.0292
95907997|NCT00338884|191773656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||CR or PR or (SD \> = 12 Weeks) Versus PD||||0.1087
95907998|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3386|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3386
95907999|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1949|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.1949
95908000|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7037|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7037
95908001|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5748|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5748
95908002|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.747|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.7470
95908003|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4703|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.4703
95908004|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.8162
95908005|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5465|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.5465
95908006|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3495|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.3495
95908007|NCT00338884|191773658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR Versus PD)||||0.6397
95908008|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4632|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 3 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4632
95908009|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 5 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.1701
95908010|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 7 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8204
95908011|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 9 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.5162
95908012|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9437|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 13 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9437
95908013|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 17 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.4013
95908014|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9595|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 21 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.9595
95908015|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6249|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 25 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.6249
95908016|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 29 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.3731
95908017|NCT00338884|191773659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8263|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Day 1, Week 33 (CR or PR or \[SD \> = 12 Weeks\] Versus PD)||||0.8263
95908018|NCT02013622|191773662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||The null hypothesis of zero in mean change from Baseline in PANSS Total Score at Week 16 was tested at significance level of 0.05. Since this is an exploratory trial, no methods to control type I error rate were performed.||||<0.0001
95908019|NCT02013622|191773663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
95908020|NCT02013622|191773664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||<0.0001
95908021|NCT02013622|191773667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0003
95908022|NCT02013622|191773668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0002
95908023|NCT02013622|191773669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0177
95908024|NCT02013622|191773670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 effectiveness||||<0.0001
95908025|NCT02013622|191773670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 side effects||||0.0031
95908026|NCT02013622|191773670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 convenience||||0.0005
95908027|NCT02013622|191773670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method with model terms: baseline, visit, and baseline by visit interaction.||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in TSQM-14 global satisfaction||||<0.0001
95908028|NCT02013622|191773671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5133|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (go cues)||||0.5133
95908029|NCT02013622|191773671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3774|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task p-inhibition failures (no-go cues)||||0.3774
95908030|NCT02013622|191773672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8897|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (go cues)||||0.8897
95908031|NCT02013622|191773672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in Go/No-go task mean reaction time (no-go cues)||||0.3401
95908032|NCT02013622|191773673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DDT||||0.4265
95908033|NCT02013622|191773674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2923|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Delay Discounting Task k value||||0.2923
95908034|NCT02013622|191773674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DPDT for Probability Discounting Task h value||||0.9416
95908035|NCT02013622|191773675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in DRT||||0.1815
95908036|NCT02013622|191773676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6648|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for food||||0.6648
95908037|NCT02013622|191773676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9812|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16 in AUC for money||||0.9812
95908038|NCT02013622|191773678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis at Week 16||||0.0306
95908039|NCT00420992|191773686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: P=0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons necessary.|ANCOVA|Model included treatment as factor and baseline pain score as covariate.||Null hypothesis: mean change from baseline is the same for ALO-01 and placebo.||||0.0445
95908040|NCT06269484|191773741|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.24|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.24|-0.24|
95908041|NCT06269484|191773741|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.55|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.55|0.09|
95908042|NCT06269484|191773741|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.55|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.55|0.09|
95908043|NCT06269484|191773742|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.82|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.62|-2.82|
95908044|NCT06269484|191773742|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.56|-1.66|
95908045|NCT06269484|191773742|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||2.25|0.09|
95908046|NCT06269484|191773743|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.43|-2.48|
95908047|NCT06269484|191773743|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.34|-2.42|
95908048|NCT06269484|191773743|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.94|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||1.09|-0.94|
95908049|NCT06269484|191773744|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.49|-1.10|
95908050|NCT06269484|191773744|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||1.52|-0.09|
95908051|NCT06269484|191773744|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||1.81|0.23|
95908052|NCT06269484|191773745|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.39|-0.40|
95908053|NCT06269484|191773745|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.93|0.12|
95908054|NCT06269484|191773745|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.92|0.14|
95908055|NCT06269484|191773746|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.22|-0.66|
95908056|NCT06269484|191773746|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.71|-0.18|
95908057|NCT06269484|191773746|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.92|0.05|
95908058|NCT06269484|191773747|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.775|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.836|-0.714|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-0.714|-2.836|
95908059|NCT06269484|191773747|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.637|0.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||0.639|-1.637|
95908060|NCT06269484|191773747|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.183|2.371|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||2.371|0.183|
95908061|NCT06269484|191773748|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-0.417|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Note: Model assumption was violated due to skewed data distribution and the results should not be interpreted.|||-0.417|-9.700|
95908062|NCT06269484|191773748|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.736|4.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Note: Model assumption was violated due to skewed data distribution and the results should not be interpreted.|||4.624|-4.736|
95908063|NCT06269484|191773748|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.388|9.617|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Note: Model assumption was violated due to skewed data distribution and the results should not be interpreted.|||9.617|0.388|
95908064|NCT06269484|191773749|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.15|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.15|-0.31|
95908065|NCT06269484|191773749|OTHER|No test was performed.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.02|0.41|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.41|0.02|
95908066|NCT06269484|191773749|OTHER|No test was performed..|Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.49|||Proportions used for comparison|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.|Risk difference for proportions presented. The associated CI is the exact unconditional 90% (two-sided) computed based on score statistic.|||0.49|0.09|
95908067|NCT06269484|191773750|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|-3.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-3.8|-15.0|
95908068|NCT06269484|191773750|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-6.1|-17.7|
95908069|NCT06269484|191773750|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.1|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||3.0|-8.1|
95908070|NCT06269484|191773751|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.7|-3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-3.4|-9.7|
95908071|NCT06269484|191773751|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|-7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-7.6|-14.1|
95908072|NCT06269484|191773751|OTHER|No test was performed.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparisons are done as Zibo adjusted Zibo/Dapa, Placebo adjusted Zibo/Dapa or Placebo adjusted Zibo.||||-1.1|-7.4|
95908073|NCT02701985|191773752|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|4.27||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.55|29.08|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 3 point reduction from baseline in ESSDAI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||29.08|-20.55|0.7955
95908074|NCT02701985|191773753|OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|1.14||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|26.19|||Chi-square with Schouten Correction|||The proportion of patients who have ≥ 1 point reduction from baseline in ESSPRI score after 12 weeks of treatment was compared between the two treatment arms using a Pearson Chi-square test (two sided p-values, alpha 0.05). The difference in proportions and corresponding 95% CI are provided. Patients with missing data at Week 12 will be treated as non-responders in the analysis.||26.19|-23.92|0.9877
95908075|NCT02701985|191773754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.13||||0.8905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.78|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||1.78|-2.04|0.8905
95908076|NCT02701985|191773755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.64|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.64|-1.08|0.6077
95908077|NCT02701985|191773756|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-2.06||||0.2846||95.0|-5.87|1.75|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||1.75|-5.87|0.2846
95908078|NCT02701985|191773757|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.33||||0.8134||95.0|-2.43|3.08|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable||3.08|-2.43|0.8134
95908079|NCT02701985|191773761|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.87||||0.4266||95.0|-1.3|3.03|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||3.03|-1.30|0.4266
95908080|NCT02701985|191773762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.6429||95.0|-0.21|0.34|||Mixed Model of Repeated Measures|||A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) approach incorporating all observed data up to 12 weeks of treatment was used. The MMRM included the absolute change from baseline as the dependent variable.||0.34|-0.21|0.6429
95908081|NCT05525494|191773772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received portal (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
95908082|NCT05525494|191773772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received text (any type) reminder/recall messages to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.98|
95908083|NCT05525494|191773772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received pre-appointment reminder/recall messages (portal and text) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.02|1.00|
95908084|NCT05525494|191773772|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.01|||||Adjusted risk ratio. These results compare arms which received a tailored reminder/recall messages based on their responses to a pre-commitment questionnaire (any type) to the arm receiving no reminder/recall messages (control).|Comparing the risk of receiving an influenza vaccination||1.01|0.99|
95908085|NCT02474927|191773806|OTHER|Descriptive (Pre-Post)||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.36
95908086|NCT02474927|191773807|OTHER|Descriptive (pre-post)||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.16
95908087|NCT01420848|191773828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||It was used the Post Hoc and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups.||||0.006
95908088|NCT01420848|191773828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0||||The statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was verified the normality of data distribution and the homogeneity of variance.~It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days)."||||0.023
95908089|NCT01420848|191773829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||After ANOVA it was performed Post Hoc Test and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA)of the medium difference among the groups in the 3rd (12 sessions) Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)||||0.012
95908090|NCT01420848|191773829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||After ANOVA, the Post Hoc Test was done and the statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|||"It was carried out the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the medium difference among the groups at the follow-up (after 15 days).~Hypothesis: there is at least one difference among the groups (State Anxiety)."||||0.005
95908091|NCT02163733|191773844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%.|Geometric mean ratio|106.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.82|118.6|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. Least squares geometric mean ratio (LSGMR) Fed = 7847, Fasted = 7399.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||118.60|94.82|
95908092|NCT02163733|191773845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CIs being within 70% to 143%|Geometric mean ratio|92.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.4|105.68|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. Linear mixed-effects model with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect. LSGMR Fed = 208.0, Fasted = 224.3.|Study sized so experiment-wise power for the 90% CIs of geometric mean ratios for both AUC and Cmax of AZD9291 being within 70-143% was 90% (95% for each parameter). Within patient CV assumed to be 34%. A 6% change in exposure was also assumed.||105.68|81.40|
95908093|NCT02163733|191773853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|81.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.86|113.83|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 497.6, Fasted = 613.2.|AZ5104||113.83|57.86|
95908094|NCT02163733|191773853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|88.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.21|119.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 235.0, Fasted = 266.4.|AZ7550||119.32|65.21|
95908095|NCT02163733|191773854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|76.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.31|106.32|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 9.163, Fasted = 11.95.|AZ5104||106.32|55.31|
95908096|NCT02163733|191773854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric mean ratio|82.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.99|112.74|||||Fed / Fasted ratio. No pre-specified margins for equivalence test for metabolites, but analysed for consistency with AZD9291 analysis. Linear mixed-effects model with treatment as fixed effect. LSGMR Fed = 4.236, Fasted = 5.109.|AZ7550||112.74|60.99|
95908097|NCT02157779|191773870|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.68||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|-1.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Method used: Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the HLM analyses.||-1.01|-10.32|.017
95908098|NCT02157779|191773871|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, end of treatment, 3 mo f/u, and/or 6 mo f/u) were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|0.06|-0.33|0.19
95908099|NCT02157779|191773872|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score||Population Description: All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|-0.09|-0.75|.011
95908100|NCT02157779|191773873|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.11||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the analyses.||0.11|-0.63|0.16
95908101|NCT02157779|191773874|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.65||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|-1.09||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 weeks (end of treatment), 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the statistical analyses.||-1.09|-22.20|.031
95908102|NCT02157779|191773875|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.6||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.||All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 12 (end of treatment), 3 month, and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the statistical analysis.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|2.60|0.51|0.004
95908103|NCT02157779|191773876|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.15||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.37|3.07||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis process.||3.07|-7.37|0.416
95908104|NCT02157779|191773877|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-13.72||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.94|-1.5||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the analyses.||-1.50|-25.94|0.028
95908105|NCT02157779|191773878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|GLM Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance of means grouped by sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12||All randomized participants with at least one DAR completed in each time frame (sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) were included in the analyses. The mean DAR scores for sessions 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12 were calculated and used as outcome variables in the GLM repeated measures ANOVA.||||0.13
95908106|NCT02157779|191773879|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|-0.063||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (week 4, week 8, week 12 (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analyses.||-0.063|-1.578|0.030
95908107|NCT02157779|191773880|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.085||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|-0.011||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.011|-0.158|0.021
95908108|NCT02157779|191773881|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.073||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were used in the HLM analysis. Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.073|-0.283|0.246
95908109|NCT02157779|191773882|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.01||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment were used in the statistical analysis. Data were winsorized and log 10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness.||-0.01|-0.27|0.036
95908110|NCT02157779|191773883|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.026||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.1614||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.1614|-0.213|0.786
95908111|NCT02157779|191773884|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Threshold for significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Data were winsorized and log10 transformed to counter high levels of skewness. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.13|-0.18|0.744
95908112|NCT02157779|191773885|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.85||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.038|-0.663||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4 week, 8 week, 12 week, 3 month and/or 6 month follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||-0.663|-3.038|0.002
95908113|NCT02157779|191773886|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.518|0.524||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data.||0.524|-2.518|0.186
95908114|NCT02157779|191773887|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.26||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|3.09||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||3.09|-0.560|0.164
95908115|NCT02157779|191773888|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.92||Threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, Controlling for Baseline Score|A positive difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically higher than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (4wk, 8wk, 12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||2.92|-0.26|0.100
95908116|NCT02157779|191773889|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|0.27||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.||"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI, indicating less symptomatic distress.|0.27|-12.85|0.060
95908117|NCT02157779|191773890|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.271||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.083|-0.458||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||-0.458|-6.083|0.023
95908118|NCT02157779|191773891|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.28||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.82||Threshold for significance was 0.025|ANCOVA|Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance, controlling for baseline score.|A negative difference means that the adjusted mean for CBI is numerically lower than that for SI.|"All randomized participants with at least one post-baseline assessment (12 week (end of treatment), 3 mo and/or 6 mo follow-up) were included in the HLM analysis.~Full Information Maximum Likelihood was used to account for missing data."||0.82|-3.39|0.23
95908119|NCT00386880|191773911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||During the acute migraine attack, 90% of allodynic subjects and 75% of subjects without allodynia had phonophobia.||||0.59
95908120|NCT01362140|191773998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||"The primary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants with at least~1 RBC transfusion from week 5 to the EOTP was lower in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if the incidence of RBC transfusion in the darbepoetin alfa group was lower and had a p-value \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Chi-square test."||||0.008
95908121|NCT01362140|191773999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The overall 2-sided CMH test with IPSS score as stratification factor.||If the primary hypothesis was confirmed, the secondary hypothesis to be tested was that the percentage of participants achieving an IWG erythroid response during the 24-week double-blind treatment period was greater in the darbepoetin alfa group than in the placebo group. This hypothesis was confirmed if erythroid response was higher in the darbepoetin alfa group and the p-value was \< 0.05 from a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the IPSS as a stratification factor.||||0.017
95908122|NCT03998618|191774025|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.12||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.25||P-value for study group x time interaction. Two-tailed p-values \<.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. multiply imputed data were used in analyses.||||0.25|-0.01|.018
95908123|NCT03998618|191774026|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.11||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.24|-0.02|.037
95908124|NCT03998618|191774027|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.07||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.2||P-value for study group x time interaction. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance = 0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.20|-0.06|.355
95908125|NCT03998618|191774028|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.08||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21||P-value for study group x time interaction for physical quality of life. Probabilities for the secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.21|-0.04|.167
95908126|NCT03998618|191774028|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for social/family quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.03|.105
95908127|NCT03998618|191774028|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.09||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.22||P-value for study group x time interaction for emotional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.22|-0.04|.142
95908128|NCT03998618|191774028|SUPERIORITY||partial correlation|0.13||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||P-value for study group x time interaction for functional quality of life. Probabilities for the six secondary outcomes were Sidak adjusted for correlated multiple outcomes (adjusted probability for significance=0.0085).|Mixed Models Analysis|degrees of freedom = 234. Multiply imputed data were used.||||0.26|0.01|.006
95908129|NCT01994954|191774031|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03||||||A two-sided P-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as a statistically significant result.|t-test, 2 sided|||The trial was designed to have 97% power at a type I error rate of 5% to detect a 25% intervention effect with respect to the primary outcome. this was done using an independent sample t-test. P-value was calculated, and a p-value of 0.05 or less was interpreted as statistically significant result.||||<0.03
95908130|NCT01994954|191774032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Power calculations were based on the primary analysis (t-test comparing changes). A sample size of 130 would have given 80% power, with 0.05 two sided type 1 error rate, to detect a 20% absolute difference in emotional role limitation on the PedsQL v2.0, which we considered to be statistically significant.||||0.38
95908131|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|Inequality test.||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||0.45
95908132|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 and to 42.||||<0.001
95908133|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.88|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.88
95908134|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
95908135|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.21
95908136|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||<0.001
95908137|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.77|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.77
95908138|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.004
95908139|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.08
95908140|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 42.||||0.38
95908141|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.49
95908142|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 42.||||0.156
95908143|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 42.||||0.125
95908144|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95908145|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.72
95908146|NCT02962908|191774057|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 42.||||0.34
95908147|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
95908148|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.030
95908149|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.87
95908150|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.075|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.075
95908151|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.076|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.076
95908152|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for IL-2 from day 0 to day 180.||||<0.001
95908153|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
95908154|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD4+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
95908155|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
95908156|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IFN-gamma from day 0 to day 180.||||0.55
95908157|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
95908158|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for TNF-alpha from day 0 to day 180.||||0.91
95908159|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.21|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.21
95908160|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for IL2 from day 0 to day 180.||||0.48
95908161|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.62
95908162|NCT02962908|191774058|OTHER|inequality||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the difference in median fold increase in number of CD8+ T cells positive for CD107a from day 0 to day 180.||||0.23
95908163|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
95908164|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
95908165|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.23
95908166|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.056
95908167|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.74
95908168|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
95908169|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
95908170|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.010
95908171|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.096
95908172|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.049|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IFNgamma responders on day 180.Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.049
95908173|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.91
95908174|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ TNF alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.39
95908175|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.94|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.94
95908176|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ IL-2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||<0.001
95908177|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.044|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.044
95908178|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.98|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of CD4+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.98
95908179|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.48
95908180|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.28|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.28
95908181|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.7|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.70
95908182|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.175|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.175
95908183|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.24|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.24
95908184|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.8|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.80
95908185|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.023|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.023
95908186|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.015|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 42. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.015
95908187|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.81|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.81
95908188|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.34|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IFN-gamma responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.34
95908189|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.3|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.30
95908190|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.105|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ TNF-alpha responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.105
95908191|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.38|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.38
95908192|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.44|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ IL2 responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.44
95908193|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.58|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.58
95908194|NCT02962908|191774059|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.43|||||||Chi squared or Fisher's exact test|||Comparison of CD8+ CD107a responders on day 180. Differences considered significant if p-value \<0.05.||||0.43
95908195|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.25
95908196|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.0
95908197|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL-2 at day 42||||1.00
95908198|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||1.00
95908199|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||<0.001
95908200|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||<0.001
95908201|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 42||||<0.001
95908202|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.31|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 42||||0.31
95908203|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.48
95908204|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
95908205|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||1.00
95908206|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||0.59
95908207|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||<0.001
95908208|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||0.013
95908209|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing IL2 at day 180||||<0.001
95908210|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD4+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
95908211|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
95908212|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 42||||0.55
95908213|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 42||||1.00
95908214|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||0.29
95908215|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
95908216|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing IFN-gamma at day 180||||1.00
95908217|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing TNF-alpha at day 180||||1.00
95908218|NCT02962908|191774060|OTHER|inequality test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of responders determined by MIMOSA analysis of CD8+ T-cell producing CD107a at day 180||||1.00
95908219|NCT02962908|191774061|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.59
95908220|NCT02962908|191774061|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 42. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.001
95908221|NCT02962908|191774061|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||0.61
95908222|NCT02962908|191774061|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of median fold-increase in IFN-gamma secretion as measured by ELISA on day 180. p\<0.05 considered statistically significant.||||<0.001
95908223|NCT02962908|191774062|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||0.113
95908224|NCT02962908|191774062|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 42. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 42."||||<0.001
95908225|NCT02962908|191774062|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||Chi-squared|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||0.399
95908226|NCT02962908|191774062|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"Comparison of number of responders on day 180. A subject was considered a responder if an increase of secreted IFNgamma of at least two fold was observed from day 0 to day 180."||||<0.001
95908227|NCT02962908|191774064|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42 post-vaccination.||||<0.001
95908228|NCT02962908|191774064|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 42.||||<0.001
95908229|NCT02962908|191774064|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
95908230|NCT02962908|191774064|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of geometric mean IgG titers specific to FLU-v antigens on day 180.||||<0.001
95908231|NCT02962908|191774067|OTHER|||||||0.662|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.662
95908232|NCT02962908|191774067|OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Fisher Exact|||Differences in the infection rates against any of the strains tested between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.168
95908233|NCT02962908|191774068|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||The study was not powered to detected statistical significant differences in this outcome.|||>0.05
95908234|NCT02962908|191774068|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||Study not powered to detect statistically significant differences|||>0.05
95908235|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison in the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
95908236|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the duration of symptoms between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.578
95908237|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.513|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.513
95908238|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.200
95908239|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.658
95908240|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the symptom peak between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.640
95908241|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.127|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.127
95908242|NCT02962908|191774069|OTHER|||||||0.201|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the average symptom score between treatment group and corresponding placebo.||||0.201
95908243|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.85
95908244|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.042
95908245|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.69
95908246|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.198|||||||Fisher Exact|||comparison between groups on day 180||||0.198
95908247|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.092|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison between groups on day 42||||0.092
95908248|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 42||||<0.001
95908249|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of groups on day 180||||0.27
95908250|NCT02962908|191774070|OTHER|inequality test|||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||comparisons between groups on day 180||||<0.001
95908251|NCT04951336|191774096|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.04||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95908252|NCT04951336|191774097|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.06||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95908253|NCT04951336|191774098|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1.000
95908254|NCT04951336|191774099|SUPERIORITY||ratio of frequencies|1.68||||0.359|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.359
95908255|NCT04951336|191774100|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||Differences were considered statistically significant for p-values \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,150)=6.374. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"The LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
95908256|NCT04951336|191774101|SUPERIORITY|age was included as a covariate||||||0.002||||||p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,157)=4.286. The analysis was repeated using log-transformed values and the resultant p value was also \< 0.05||"LME analysis compared antibodies between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across four time points (days 3, 14, 28, and 6 months). At baseline, participants with detectable anti-CoV-2 antibodies were deemed previously exposed and those with no or very low anti-CoV-2 Abs previously unexposed. Accordingly, all longitudinal analyses excluded baseline antibody data."||||0.002
95908257|NCT04951336|191774102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,325)=1.898. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||0.060
95908258|NCT04951336|191774103|SUPERIORITY|LME analysis compared symptoms between two grouping factors, (1) Treatment Group (FoTv vs. Placebo) and (2) Exposure Stratum (previously exposed vs. unexposed), across 5 time points (days 1-5)||||||0.326|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(8,309)=1.156. Age was included as a covariate in this analysis.||||||0.326
95908259|NCT07165366|191774112|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.48||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for significance was alpha=0.05|ANOVA|degrees of freedom for ANOVA F-statistic were 2 for numerator d.f. and 118 denominator d.f.||Null Hypothesis is that there will be no difference in enamel hardness when different concentrations are used on enamel surfaces.||||0.231
95908260|NCT01077830|191774123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.09|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death (any cause) reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death (any cause) in the Placebo arm|||2.09|0.84|
95908261|NCT01077830|191774124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.06|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of death from cancer reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of death from cancer in the Placebo arm|||6.06|0.30|
95908262|NCT01077830|191774125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.11|||||Hazard Ratio obtained by dividing the crude rate of new cancers reported in the Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 arm by the crude rate of newly diagnosed cancers in the the Placebo arm|||1.11|0.27|
95908263|NCT01194570|191774128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|29.337||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.618|51.456||P-value from a ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL 25-Foot Timed Walk (25-FTW), Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates (back-transformed) based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-baseline(BL)/BL) = log(BL 25-FTW) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL 25-FTW)\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = -(OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.||51.456|-1.618|0.0404
95908264|NCT01194570|191774129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.924||P-value is from ranked ANCOVA on Percent Change from BL adjusting for rank of BL T2 lesion volume, Geographical Region (US vs ROW) and Age (\<=45, \> 45 years); missing observations imputed with LOCF.|Ranked ANCOVA|||Estimates (back-transformed) are based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix: log(Post-BL/BL) = log(BL T2 lesion volume) + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + log (BL T2 lesion volume)\*Week.||0.924|0.876|< 0.0001
95908265|NCT01194570|191774130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative Reduction (%)|17.475||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.206|29.251|||MMRM||Relative reduction was calculated as -Relative change = - (Ocrelizumab response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using the Bootstrap method.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Percentage Change = Brain Volume at Week 24 + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Brain Volume at Week 24\*Week. Relative reduction was calculated as - Relative change = - (OCR response-Placebo response)/Placebo response\*100%. The 95% CI for relative reduction was obtained using Bootstrap method.||29.251|3.206|0.0206
95908266|NCT01194570|191774131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.377|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.6034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.048|1.802|||MMRM||Difference in adjusted mean was calculated as Ocrelizumab SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score - Placebo SF-36 Physical Component Summary Score.|Estimates are from analysis based on MMRM using unstructured covariance matrix: Change = Baseline PCS Score + Geographical Region (US vs. ROW) + Age (\<=45, \> 45 years) + Week + Treatment + Treatment\*Week (repeated values over Week) + Baseline PCS Score\*Week.||1.802|-1.048|0.6034
95908267|NCT04171102|191774133|OTHER|||||||0.028||||||\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.028
95908268|NCT01751126|191774134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.76||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.27||ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.27|0.26|0.007
95908269|NCT01751126|191774134|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.67||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment as well as the baseline CFS and the exposure to Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) seasons (Hochberg procedure).||||1.18|0.16|0.010
95908270|NCT00876915|191774151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.695||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.235|1.89|||stratified Cox|||||1.890|0.235|0.4795
95908271|NCT00876915|191774152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.019||||0.0252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|131.632|||stratified Cox|||||131.632|1.236|0.0252
95908272|NCT02673398|191774166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.01|||t-test, 2 sided||Patients with higher risk scores were more likely to require a dose reduction. The lack of significance is most likely due to the small sample size.|Student's t-test was used to assess if geriatric risk score differed depending on whether or not a participant had a dose reduction (mean difference log2 risk = no dose modification - dose modification).||0.01|-0.82|0.05
95908273|NCT02673398|191774166|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Linear regression was used to assess whether log2 geriatric toxicity risk score was a risk factor for the number of course completed.||||0.39
95908274|NCT02673398|191774167|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.093|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0398||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||The older the participant the lower the steady state value.|Least squares regression was used to assess the relationship between steady state neratinib concentration and age||||0.03
95908275|NCT02673398|191774167|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Geriatric risk score was not predictive of steady state concentration.|Least squares regression was used to determine if geriatric toxicity risk score at baseline was predictive of steady state neratinib concentration.||||0.57
95908276|NCT02178059|191774189|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|88.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.03|96.02|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||96.02|81.03|
95908277|NCT02178059|191774190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8052|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.17|||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||||0.17|-0.17|0.8052
95908278|NCT02178059|191774194|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Approximately 34 healthy volunteers will be entered into the study in order to complete 30 evaluable volunteers. Based on the study SD-001-0268, a residual intra-individual standard deviation of 0.300/sqrt(2) = 0.212 can be expected on the natural log scale. With 30 completed volunteers there will be a 93% chance that the upper limits of two-sided 90% CI for Cmax and AUC ratios are \<1.25 provided that the true mean ratios are \<1.05.|Ratio of geometric means (%)|91.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.82|98.58|||||Comparison of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 (test) to Bricanyl Turbuhaler M2 (reference)|No increase in the exposure of plasma terbutaline after administration of Bricanyl Turbuhaler M3 will be concluded if the upper bound of the 90% CIs for the ratios of AUC and Cmax are both below 1.25||98.58|84.82|
95908279|NCT03073148|191774206|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3577|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3577
95908280|NCT03073148|191774206|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.9917|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.9917
95908281|NCT03073148|191774207|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.3239|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.3239
95908282|NCT03073148|191774207|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.8343|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.8343
95908283|NCT03073148|191774208|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.4134|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.4134
95908284|NCT03073148|191774208|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1192|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1192
95908285|NCT03073148|191774210|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1753||||||Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1753
95908286|NCT03073148|191774210|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.1843|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1843
95908287|NCT03073148|191774211|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.0765|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.0765
95908288|NCT03073148|191774211|EQUIVALENCE|alpha = 0.05||||||0.152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA comparing baseline, 1 day after treatment, and final assessment.||||||0.1520
95908289|NCT03595579|191774282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.001
95908290|NCT03595579|191774283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95908291|NCT02858050|191774285|OTHER|||||||0.548306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.548306
95908292|NCT03384173|191774300|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95908293|NCT03384173|191774301|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.16||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.37|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.37|-0.07|0.17
95908294|NCT03384173|191774302|OTHER|Correlation, Pearson r|Pearson r correlation|0.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.33|||Pearson r correlation|||||0.33|-0.11|0.32
95908295|NCT03384173|191774304|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 30-39.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is Secondary analysis #4, baseline values before caffeine dose.||||<0.01
95908296|NCT03384173|191774305|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non parametric test|||||<|0.001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Control group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.001
95908297|NCT03384173|191774306|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U non parametric t test|||||<|0.01||||||"A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.~A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup \>60% ' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary outcome #4, baseline caffeine values by subgroup||||<0.01
95908298|NCT03384173|191774307|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is secondary outcome #4, baseline values before caffeine dose||||<0.0001
95908299|NCT03384173|191774308|OTHER|Mann Whitney U non-parametric t-test|||||<|0.05||||||A-priori threshold p\<0.05 for 'subgroup 20-29.99%' vs 'baseline value before caffeine dose'.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison group is Secondary Outcome #4, baseline before dose of caffeine.||||<0.05
95908300|NCT04493931|191774309|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.753|1.184||||||||1.184|0.753|
95908301|NCT04493931|191774310|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.742|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.742|-0.750|
95908302|NCT04493931|191774311|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.959|1.249||||||||1.249|0.959|
95908303|NCT04493931|191774312|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.059|1.265||||||||1.265|1.059|
95908304|NCT04493931|191774313|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.158|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.062|1.264||||||||1.264|1.062|
95908305|NCT04493931|191774314|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.635|0.84||||||||0.840|0.635|
95908306|NCT04493931|191774315|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
95908307|NCT04493931|191774316|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.467|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.492|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate|||0.492|-1.000|
95908308|NCT04493931|191774317|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.476|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.433|0.525||||||||0.525|0.433|
95908309|NCT04493931|191774318|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.435|0.526||||||||0.526|0.435|
95908310|NCT04493931|191774319|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.533|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.274|1.845||||||||1.845|1.274|
95908311|NCT04493931|191774320|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
95908312|NCT04493931|191774321|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|-0.233|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||-0.233|-1.000|
95908313|NCT04493931|191774322|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.217|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.085|1.363||||||||1.363|1.085|
95908314|NCT04493931|191774323|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.121|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.983|1.278||||||||1.278|0.983|
95908315|NCT04493931|191774324|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.242|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.046|1.475||||||||1.475|1.046|
95908316|NCT04493931|191774325|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|0.000|
95908317|NCT04493931|191774326|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.8|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.800|-0.250|
95908318|NCT04493931|191774327|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.622|2.278||||||||2.278|1.622|
95908319|NCT04493931|191774328|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.902|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.619|2.234||||||||2.234|1.619|
95908320|NCT04493931|191774352|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.051|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.824|1.34||||||||1.340|0.824|
95908321|NCT04493931|191774353|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.250|0.000|
95908322|NCT04493931|191774354|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.25|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||1.250|-0.500|
95908323|NCT04493931|191774355|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.094|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.987|1.212||||||||1.212|0.987|
95908324|NCT04493931|191774356|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.209||||||||1.209|0.991|
95908325|NCT04493931|191774359|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.0|||||The median difference and the 90% CI of the median difference were from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||0.000|-0.250|
95908326|NCT04493931|191774362|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.214|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.473||||||||1.473|1.000|
95908327|NCT04493931|191774363|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.097|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.27||||||||1.270|0.948|
95908328|NCT04493931|191774364|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.221||||||||1.221|0.939|
95908329|NCT04493931|191774365|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.292||||||||1.292|0.930|
95908330|NCT04493931|191774379|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.499|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.441|0.565||||||||0.565|0.441|
95908331|NCT04493931|191774380|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.521||||||||0.521|0.370|
95908332|NCT04493931|191774381|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.372|0.516||||||||0.516|0.372|
95908333|NCT04493931|191774382|OTHER||Ratio of geometric LS mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.129||||||||1.129|0.950|
95908334|NCT04493931|191774406|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.304|2.363||||||||2.363|1.304|
95908335|NCT04493931|191774407|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.833|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.769|0.902||||||||0.902|0.769|
95908336|NCT04493931|191774408|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.745|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.653|0.85||||||||0.850|0.653|
95908337|NCT04493931|191774409|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.782|1.018||||||||1.018|0.782|
95908338|NCT04493931|191774410|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.876|1.528||||||||1.528|0.876|
95908339|NCT04493931|191774411|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|1.142|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.016|1.283||||||||1.283|1.016|
95908340|NCT04493931|191774412|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.603|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.521|0.699||||||||0.699|0.521|
95908341|NCT04493931|191774413|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.526|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.448|0.618||||||||0.618|0.448|
95908342|NCT02548455|191774450|EQUIVALENCE|Freedom from left ventricular lead-related complications through 3 months was estimated to be 96.0% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 92.6% based on the Promote Q IDE study (NCT00990665), and 98.3% with a 95% lower confidence bound of 97.7% based on data from the Quadripolar Post-Approval study (NCT01555619).|Kaplan-Meier Estimate|85.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"The hypothesis for the endpoint is:~H0: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) ≤ 85% H1: Freedom from LV lead-related complications through 3 months (91 days) \> 85%~A total of 85 subjects were required to have at least 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 5% significance level at three months (91 days) post-implant or attempted implant. After accounting for 9% attrition, the required sample size was 94 subjects."||||0.05
95908343|NCT00420199|191774453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.76|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of erosion score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||0.76|-1.77|
95908344|NCT00420199|191774454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.103||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score method between abatacept and placebo at Day 113 based on a nonparametric analysis of covariance model. Baseline and changes from baseline of the total wrist synovitis scores were ranked, and the model included the rank score for change from baseline as the dependent variable with treatment group as a main effect and the rank score for baseline as an additional covariate.||||0.103
95908345|NCT00420199|191774456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of Edema/Osteitis score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-0.96|-6.00|
95908346|NCT00420199|191774459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference from Placebo|-4.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-1.42|||ANCOVA|||Comparison in the change from baseline of RAMRIS score using the OMERACT 6 RA MRI score method between Abatacept and Placebo at Day 113 was based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). Change from BL = Post-BL measurement-BL value. Adjustment was based on ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and BL value a covariate.||-1.42|-8.00|
95908347|NCT00420199|191774473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparison in change from baseline of wrist synovitis using OMERACT 6 rheumatoid arthritis magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score method between ABA and PLA at Day 113 based on a parametric analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA). The model included the score change from baseline as the dependent variable, treatment group as a main effect and baseline score as an additional covariate.||||0.078
95908348|NCT00917579|191774480|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34||||||90.0|91.33|99.52|||ANOVA|Values were back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. AUClast + (Clast\*/kel), where Clast\* was the predicted plasma concentration at the last quantifiable time point estimated from the log-linear regression analysis.|Natural log transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Adjusted mean difference (Test-Ref) and 90% CI was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean and 90% CI for the ratio. Alternative hypothesis of bioequivalence: (H1: θL \<=µT - µR \<=θU); null hypothesis of inequivalence: (Ho: µT - µR \<θL or µT - µR \>θU).||99.52|91.33|
95908349|NCT00917579|191774481|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both the AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%). AUCinf method of determination includes AUC last calculated value.|ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.79||||||90.0|91.07|100.76|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means. Log-linear trapezoidal method.|Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence interval was obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.76|91.07|
95908350|NCT00917579|191774482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence of the two treatments was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of adjusted geometric means for both AUCinf and Cmax fell within (80%, 125%).|ratio of adjusted geometric means|91.41||||||90.0|83.39|100.2|||ANOVA|Values have been back-transformed from the log scale.|Parameter estimate = ratio (%) (test/reference) of adjusted geometric means.|Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals were obtained from the model and exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric mean (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence interval for the ratio.||100.20|83.39|
95908351|NCT01137474|191774485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9251||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-1.24||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis. With 253 patients per group, there is \>80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 mm Hg at alpha=0.05, assuming a common SD of 14 mm Hg.||-1.24|-4.87|0.0010
95908352|NCT01137474|191774486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.33||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in the double-blind treatment period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. With 253 subjects per group, there is \>98% power to detect a difference of 0.4% at a=0.05, assuming a common SD of 1.1%.||-0.33|-0.59|<0.0001
95908353|NCT01137474|191774487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0091||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|-0.91||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|ANCOVA|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||-0.91|-4.88|0.0043
95908354|NCT01137474|191774488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5811||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|0.14||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test performed since previous tests were significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction. Data after rescue were not included in the analysis.||0.14|-2.15|0.0843
95908355|NCT01137474|191774489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6866|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|0.73||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at 2-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline to week 12 LOCF was calculated using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as covariate. Data after rescue are excluded from blood pressure analyses.||0.73|-1.96|
95908356|NCT01137474|191774490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0717|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.18||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at two-sided alpha=0.05 to control the family-wise Type I error rate related to primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Test not performed since previous tests were not significant.|Longitudinal repeated measures analysis|Only Week 12 data are presented; data from all weeks in double-blind period were included in the longitudinal repeated measures model.||Change from baseline to week 12 was calculated using a longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline value and baseline value by week interaction.||-0.18|-0.46|
95908357|NCT00423176|191774493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||||95.0|-1.14|0.25|||||For days 1-29|||0.25|-1.14|
95908358|NCT00423176|191774493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.82||||||95.0|-1.65|0.0|||||For follow-up days 30-43|||0.00|-1.65|
95908359|NCT00423176|191774494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||||95.0|-0.5|18.2|||||Change from baseline to endpoint|||18.2|-0.5|
95908360|NCT05072080|191774502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.0|97.5||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups. All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 22||97.5|95.0|<0.0001
95908361|NCT05072080|191774504|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|206.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|183.0|232.0||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo).|Day 22||232|183|<0.0001
95908362|NCT05072080|191774506|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.14|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.14|0.85|
95908363|NCT05072080|191774506|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.12|0.84|
95908364|NCT05072080|191774506|EQUIVALENCE|Success criterion was pairwise GMT ratios (104:105, 105:106, 104:106) each with a two-sided 95% CI within \[0.667; 1.5\].|GMT Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1|||||All 3 coprimary endpoints were required to be met for success, so no multiple comparisons were performed. GMT estimates and 95% CIs are derived from an ANOVA model that includes site and product lot as fixed effects assuming normality of log titers.|||1.10|0.82|
95908365|NCT05072080|191774508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|96.8||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 15||96.8|94.3|<0.0001
95908366|NCT05072080|191774508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.7|85.6||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 183||85.6|81.7|<0.0001
95908367|NCT05072080|191774508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.8|48.1||Key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically, such that each was only tested if all 3 coprimary endpoints and prior key secondary endpoints were met, so no multiple comparisons were performed.|Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|Day 8||48.1|43.8|<0.0001
95908368|NCT05072080|191774510|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|13.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|14.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 8||14|11|<0.0001
95908369|NCT05072080|191774510|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|144.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.0|162.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 15||162|128|<0.0001
95908370|NCT05072080|191774510|SUPERIORITY||GMT Ratio|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|46.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA model includes site and treatment group as fixed effects, assuming normality of log titers. p-value tests equivalence of group GMTs on log scale|Ratio of GMTs is (PXVX0317:placebo)|Day 183||46|37|<0.0001
95908371|NCT05072080|191774512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 8||||<0.0001
95908372|NCT05072080|191774512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 15||||<0.0001
95908373|NCT05072080|191774512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 22||||<0.0001
95908374|NCT05072080|191774512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||GMFI estimates and 95% CIs are based on t-statistics assuming a normal distribution of the log fold increase in titer. p-value tests equality of log fold increase in titer between groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 183||||<0.0001
95908375|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|91.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 8||91.9|88.7|<0.0001
95908376|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|98.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|99.3||p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Chi-squared||Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 15||99.3|97.2|<0.0001
95908377|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|98.5|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 22||98.5|95.8|<0.0001
95908378|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|96.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.8|97.9|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|SNA titers ≥15 at Day 183||97.9|94.8|<0.0001
95908379|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.5|66.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 8||66.7|62.5|<0.0001
95908380|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.3|98.4|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 15||98.4|96.3|<0.0001
95908381|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.1|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 22||98.1|95.5|<0.0001
95908382|NCT05072080|191774514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|91.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.4|92.7|||Chi-squared|p-value is from a two-sided chi-square test of equality of seroresponse percentages between groups.|Seroresponse rate difference is (PXVX0317 minus placebo).|≥4-fold rise over baseline at Day 183||92.7|89.4|<0.0001
95908383|NCT03712891|191774516|OTHER|t-test||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95908384|NCT04566666|191774517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1011
95908385|NCT04566666|191774517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2666|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2666
95908386|NCT04566666|191774517|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7394|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7394
95908387|NCT04566666|191774518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1376|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1376
95908388|NCT04566666|191774518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1254|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1254
95908389|NCT04566666|191774518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2349|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2349
95908390|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||Binomial proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.3||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||7.3|0.0|
95908391|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.7||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||11.7|0.4|
95908392|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|1.8|0.0|9.4||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||9.4|0.0|
95908393|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.5||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 100||11.5|0.1|
95908394|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|46.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.5|61.7||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||61.7|32.5|
95908395|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|47.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.3|60.9||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||60.9|34.3|
95908396|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|56.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.4|69.3||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||69.3|42.4|
95908397|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|65.1||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 50||65.1|34.9|
95908398|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|27.2||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||27.2|5.9|
95908399|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|28.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|42.1||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||42.1|17.8|
95908400|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|26.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|39.7||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||39.7|15.5|
95908401|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|31.4||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 75||31.4|7.8|
95908402|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|7.3||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||7.3|0.0|
95908403|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|16.5||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||16.5|1.9|
95908404|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|17.0||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||17.0|1.9|
95908405|NCT04566666|191774520|SUPERIORITY||binomial proportion|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.5||||||The data represents the Statistical Analysis for PASI 90||11.5|0.1|
95908406|NCT06379893|191774535|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|15.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|22.8|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 1||22.8|8.3|<0.001
95908407|NCT06379893|191774536|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|13.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|20.9|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||20.9|5.2|0.001
95908408|NCT06379893|191774537|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2.1||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.3|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||11.3|-7.1|0.653
95908409|NCT06379893|191774538|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|707.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|278.9|1135.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||1135|278.9|0.001
95908410|NCT06379893|191774538|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|487.3||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|952.6|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||952.6|22|0.040
95908411|NCT06379893|191774538|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|130.8||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.6|627.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||627.2|-365.6|0.603
95908412|NCT06379893|191774539|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.028||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.049|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||0.049|-0.105|0.473
95908413|NCT06379893|191774539|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.009||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.091|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.091|-0.074|0.835
95908414|NCT06379893|191774539|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.11||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.198|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.198|0.023|0.014
95908415|NCT06379893|191774540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.261||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.717|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||0.717|-0.196|0.261
95908416|NCT06379893|191774540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.249||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.685|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||0.685|-0.188|0.263
95908417|NCT06379893|191774540|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.053||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|0.617|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||0.617|-0.512|0.854
95908418|NCT06379893|191774542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2415.2||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1466.3|6296.8|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||6296.8|-1466.3|0.221
95908419|NCT06379893|191774542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|3041.7||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-868.5|6951.9|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||6951.9|-868.5|0.127
95908420|NCT06379893|191774542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-2428.7||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7177.5|2320.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||2320.1|-7177.5|0.314
95908421|NCT06379893|191774543|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|3409.9||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2911.4|9731.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||9731.2|-2911.4|0.289
95908422|NCT06379893|191774543|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|3552.3||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3240.4|10345.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||10345.1|-3240.4|0.303
95908423|NCT06379893|191774543|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-7820.7||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15512.8|-128.5|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-128.5|-15512.8|0.046
95908424|NCT06379893|191774544|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-8.392|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.196|-6.588|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-6.588|-10.196|<0.001
95908425|NCT06379893|191774544|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-11.882|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.946|-9.818|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-9.818|-13.946|<0.001
95908426|NCT06379893|191774544|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-15.929|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.32|-13.537|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.537|-18.320|<0.001
95908427|NCT06379893|191774547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-1.2|-1.7|<0.001
95908428|NCT06379893|191774547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.7|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-1.7|-2.2|<0.001
95908429|NCT06379893|191774547|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.3|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-2.3|-2.9|<0.001
95908430|NCT06379893|191774548|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-26.529|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.929|-21.129|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 1||-21.129|-31.929|<0.001
95908431|NCT06379893|191774548|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-36.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|-30.269|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 2||-30.269|-42.090|<0.001
95908432|NCT06379893|191774548|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-48.834|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.692|-41.976|||MMRM|||Change From Baseline at Week 3||-41.976|-55.692|<0.001
95908433|NCT06379893|191774549|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-9.213|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.011|-7.415|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-7.415|-11.011|<0.001
95908434|NCT06379893|191774549|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-12.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.519|-10.621|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-10.621|-14.519|<0.001
95908435|NCT06379893|191774549|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-16.408|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.669|-14.146|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-14.146|-18.669|<0.001
95908436|NCT06379893|191774550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-8.912|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.401|-6.423|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||-6.423|-11.401|<0.001
95908437|NCT06379893|191774550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-11.699|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.177|-9.221|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||-9.221|-14.177|<0.001
95908438|NCT06379893|191774550|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-16.166|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.858|-13.473|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Week 3||-13.473|-18.858|<0.001
95908439|NCT06379893|191774551|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||0.1|-0.3|0.237
95908440|NCT06379893|191774551|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.2||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 14||0.0|-0.4|0.071
95908441|NCT06379893|191774551|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
95908442|NCT06379893|191774552|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.05|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 7||0.05|0.02|<0.001
95908443|NCT06379893|191774552|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.07|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 14||0.07|0.04|<0.001
95908444|NCT06379893|191774552|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.09|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline at Day 21||0.09|0.05|<0.001
95908445|NCT01570829|191774592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0352|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0352
95908446|NCT01570829|191774593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95908447|NCT01570829|191774594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95908448|NCT01570829|191774595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Breslow-Day test p-value is 0.98||||||0.0001
95908449|NCT01570829|191774596|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95908450|NCT01570829|191774597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95908451|NCT01570829|191774598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with waist circumference data.||||0.67
95908452|NCT01570829|191774598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with hip circumference data.||||0.26
95908453|NCT01570829|191774599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Physical Health domain data.||||0.40
95908454|NCT01570829|191774599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, and 24 endpoint between Dietressa and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|ANOVA|||This analysis applies to rows with Mental Health domain data.||||0.34
95908455|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.69 to 1.38. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.28 to 1.36.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with overall neurocognitive performance at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of 14 individual neuropsychological measures assessing attention, processing speed, visuospatial skills, language, memory, executive function and motor skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.001
95908456|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.96 to 1.89. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.89 to 1.77.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with processing speed at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing speed of cognitive information processing, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.005
95908457|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 2.44. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.82 to 2.00.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with attention at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing attentional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||< 0.01
95908458|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -1.76 to 0.95. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.18 to 0.84.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with executive function at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing working memory, set shifting, mental flexibility and problem solving, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||<0.07
95908459|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.30 to 1.94. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.83 to 2.11.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with language at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal fluency and naming skills, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.09
95908460|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.00 to 1.68. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.33 to 1.90.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with memory at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing verbal and nonverbal learning and memory, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||.72
95908461|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -2.04 to 2.51. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -2.21 to 2.24.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with visuospatial skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing visuospatial and visuoconstructional abilities, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.65
95908462|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|Range of z-scores at baseline: -4.04 to 1.33. Range of z-scores at Year 1 follow-up: -1.24 to 2.37.||Repeated Measures ANOVA with motor skills at baseline and follow-up, computed as z-scored derived composite score of multiple neuropsychological measures assessing fine motor speed and dexterity, across time as the within-group factor and HIV serostatus and age group as between-group factors.||||0.79
95908463|NCT00675766|191774600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|ONE_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|One-sided Fisher's exact test with 1 degree of freedom.||Fisher's exact test compared the frequency of older and younger HIV+ adults who converted from neurocognitively intact to neurocognitively impaired on memory over a one year time period. We hypothesized that the older group would exhibit a greater proportion of individuals who declined during this interim.||||.044
95908464|NCT01569438|191774630|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.2||one-sided|Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||0.2|-1.6|0.0734
95908465|NCT01569438|191774631|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2726|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|1.8||one-sided|Mixed Model With Repeated Measures|||MMRM approach was used to model the change from baseline as a function of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, baseline score, and baseline score by week interaction.||1.8|-3.9|0.2726
95908466|NCT01569438|191774632|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.3603|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|1.1||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||1.1|-1.7|0.3603
95908467|NCT01569438|191774633|OTHER||Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.1183|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|0.6||one-sided|ANCOVA|||The one-way ANCOVA model was used to calculate change from baseline as a function of treatment and baseline score.||0.6|-3.5|0.1183
95908468|NCT01018394|191774636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.1||A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||The percentage of participants who reduced tobacco use by greater or equal to 50% from baseline was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. A one tailed P of less than 0.2 was considered sufficient evidence to warrant a larger study.||5.1|0.7|0.108
95908469|NCT01951625|191774669|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.122|||=|0.1506|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.07|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test at the significance level of 5 percent (%). Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the pooled treatment group and the placebo group is difference of means on the log scale.||0.07|-0.32|= 0.1506
95908470|NCT01951625|191774669|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.2494|||=|0.0483|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0|-0.5|= 0.0483
95908471|NCT01951625|191774669|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0731|||=|0.3042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.16|-0.31|= 0.3042
95908472|NCT01951625|191774669|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|-0.0396|||=|0.3841|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.18|-0.26|= 0.3841
95908473|NCT01951625|191774669|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.0151|||=|0.5444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 1 sided|||In case of a significant result in the primary analysis of the primary endpoint, pairwise comparisons to Placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In case of non-significance of the primary analyses, these secondary analyses were specified as exploratory only.||0.24|-0.21|= 0.5444
95908474|NCT05616962|191774684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||0.473
95908475|NCT05616962|191774685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03199|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.03199
95908476|NCT05616962|191774686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate||||||0.408
95908477|NCT05616962|191774687|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908478|NCT05616962|191774688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908479|NCT05616962|191774689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908480|NCT05616962|191774690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908481|NCT05616962|191774691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908482|NCT05616962|191774692|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908483|NCT05616962|191774693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908484|NCT05616962|191774694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908485|NCT05616962|191774695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908486|NCT05616962|191774696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908487|NCT05616962|191774697|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908488|NCT05616962|191774698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908489|NCT05616962|191774699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908490|NCT05616962|191774700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"Reported p-value was calculated, did not attempt to indicate threshold for statistical significance. Significance was evaluated at \<0.05. P-values were reported to the thousandths place and those less than 0.001 were reported as \<0.001."|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate including the changes from Baseline to months 1, 2, and 3||||||<0.001
95908491|NCT05616962|191774702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00463|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00463
95908492|NCT05616962|191774703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23077|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.23077
95908493|NCT05616962|191774704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00849|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.00849
95908494|NCT00857207|191774705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|dependent variable: post-treatment outcome; independent variables:pre-treatment measurement and group indicator.||Linear regression of change of cTOL time to first move in GMT versus BHW group||||0.0004
95908495|NCT00857207|191774705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||total time will significantly improve 10 weeks from post||||0.012
95908496|NCT00857207|191774705|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Time to first move will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline to indicate better planning||||0.98
95908497|NCT00857207|191774706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.42||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired T-test, Behavioral Regulation Index will improve at week 10 from baseline||||0.15
95908498|NCT00857207|191774706|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired t-test of Metacognitive Index, MI will improve at 10 weeks compared to baseline.||||0.24
95908499|NCT00857207|191774707|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||optimal moves will significantly increase at 10 weeks from baseline||||0.30
95908500|NCT04098406|191774710|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.4304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|27.3|||MMRM|||||27.3|-11.9|0.4304
95908501|NCT04098406|191774711|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|19.7|||MMRM|||||19.7|-12.4|0.6519
95908502|NCT04098406|191774712|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.6158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|94.0|||MMRM|||||94.0|-56.4|0.6158
95908503|NCT04098406|191774717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.6|||MMRM|||||3.6|-1.6|0.4249
95908504|NCT04098406|191774718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0350
95908505|NCT04098406|191774720|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.1||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|23.9|||ANCOVA|||||23.9|-5.8|0.2237
95908506|NCT04098406|191774721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.103|0.815|||Log Rank|||||0.815|0.103|0.0125
95908507|NCT04098406|191774723|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.6|||MMRM|||||1.6|0.2|0.0177
95908508|NCT03014674|191774727|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.11|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.11|0.98|
95908509|NCT03014674|191774727|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for Cmax.|Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for Cmax has been presented|||1.12|0.99|
95908510|NCT03014674|191774728|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t)|Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.15|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.15|1.01|
95908511|NCT03014674|191774728|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-t).|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.12|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-t) has been presented|||1.12|0.97|
95908512|NCT03014674|191774728|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.13|||||Ratio (autoinjector/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.13|1.00|
95908513|NCT03014674|191774728|EQUIVALENCE|Interpretation of the comparability of the autoinjector and safety syringe with the reconstituted lyophilized drug product was guided by a two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric mean of test treatment to reference treatment in the range (0.80, 1.25) for AUC (0-inf).|Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.09|||||Ratio (safety syringe/lyophilized drug) for AUC(0-inf) has been presented|||1.09|0.95|
95908514|NCT00833560|191774804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|85.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.5|88.8|||Two - sided binomial test|||||88.8|81.5|<0.0001
95908515|NCT00833560|191774805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|87.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.6|91.0|||Two-sided binomial test|||||91.0|83.6|<0.0001
95908516|NCT00414817|191774808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.03|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value based on linear regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|Estimated adherence was approximately 2 percentage points higher for intervention group than for usual care group.|In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable to reflect the fact that our adherence measure becomes more accurate and reliable with longer follow-up. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above. Also, sensitivity analyses that included daily oral steroid users and those with fewer than 3 months of follow-up yielded similar results to those presented here.||.030|.006|.002
95908517|NCT00414817|191774809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Regression, Linear|2-tailed p-value adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline adherence.||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||0.04|-0.23|0.175
95908518|NCT00414817|191774810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.06||2-tailed p-value based on overdispersed Poisson regression adjusted for site, age, sex, co-morbid COPD, baseline use of short acting beta agonists, and baseline mMPR|overdispersed Poisson regression|||In all of our analyses we used duration of follow-up as a weighting variable. This weighting is reflected both in the formal statistical analyses and in the presentation of means and standard deviations given above.||1.06|0.96|0.852
95908519|NCT03382782|191774812|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.36||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = (3, 172)||||||.025
95908520|NCT03382782|191774813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.243||||0.784|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.784
95908521|NCT03382782|191774813|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.810
95908522|NCT03382782|191774814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.77||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.174
95908523|NCT03382782|191774814|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.15||||0.286|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.286
95908524|NCT03382782|191774815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.261
95908525|NCT03382782|191774815|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.912
95908526|NCT03382782|191774817|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 172||||||0.11
95908527|NCT03382782|191774818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean systolic blood pressure||||0.09
95908528|NCT03382782|191774818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.63||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 3, 156||Mean diastolic blood pressure||||0.05
95908529|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY|Intention-to-treat analyses. General Health subscale.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||||||0.121
95908530|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.71||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses. General Health subscale.||||0.193
95908531|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.181||||0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.835
95908532|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.43||||0.513|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Bodily Pain subscale.||||0.513
95908533|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.37||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.097
95908534|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Physical Functioning subscale.||||0.184
95908535|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.06||||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intention-to-treat analyses. Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.347
95908536|NCT03382782|191774820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.361||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses, Emotional Well-Being subscale.||||0.549
95908537|NCT03382782|191774821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.157||||0.855|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Degrees of freedom = 2,182||Intention-to-treat analyses||||.855
95908538|NCT03382782|191774821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||0.915|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.915
95908539|NCT03382782|191774823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 2, 182||Intent-to-treat analyses||||0.508
95908540|NCT03382782|191774823|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom = 1, 118||As-treated analyses||||0.198
95908541|NCT01316510|191774825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary outcome (percentage of bifidobacteria in the final stool specimen)||||<0.01
95908542|NCT01316510|191774826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Secondary outcome (length of hospital stay) for all 24 infants (this included two infants with intestinal atresia, both in the placebo group)||||0.44
95908543|NCT00428090|191774831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.8|0.074
95908544|NCT00428090|191774831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.0|-3.0|0.338
95908545|NCT00428090|191774831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-3.5|0.602
95908546|NCT00428090|191774832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.7|0.131
95908547|NCT00428090|191774832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.8|-2.4|0.315
95908548|NCT00428090|191774832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-3.5|0.105
95908549|NCT00428090|191774833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
95908550|NCT00428090|191774833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
95908551|NCT00428090|191774833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.4|-3.1|0.131
95908552|NCT00428090|191774834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-0.3|0.663
95908553|NCT00428090|191774834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.4|0.891
95908554|NCT00428090|191774834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in APOE e4 neg cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|||0.3|-0.7|0.414
95908555|NCT00428090|191774835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix||||0.3|-0.3|0.913
95908556|NCT00428090|191774835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.276
95908557|NCT00428090|191774835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in All except e4/e4's cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.025
95908558|NCT00428090|191774836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
95908559|NCT00428090|191774836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
95908560|NCT00428090|191774836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
95908561|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-2.0|0.116
95908562|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.9|0.816
95908563|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.1|0.318
95908564|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.3|-1.1|0.839
95908565|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.0|-0.3|0.165
95908566|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-3.4|0.073
95908567|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-2.2|0.272
95908568|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-2.2|0.297
95908569|NCT00428090|191774837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-3.1|0.131
95908570|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.3|0.133
95908571|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.2|0.958
95908572|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.5|0.085
95908573|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.0|-0.4|0.102
95908574|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.3|0.380
95908575|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.7|0.006
95908576|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-0.2|0.939
95908577|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.4|0.307
95908578|NCT00428090|191774838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-0.8|0.009
95908579|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.5|-1.6|0.957
95908580|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-1.4|0.693
95908581|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.7|-2.2|0.798
95908582|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|-1.7|0.958
95908583|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.1|-2.1|0.998
95908584|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.639||95.0|-1.7|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-1.7|0.639
95908585|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.1|0.797
95908586|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.7|-2.9|0.942
95908587|NCT00428090|191774839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-4.8|0.213
95908588|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.3|-2.1|0.919
95908589|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.4|-1.5|0.649
95908590|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.1|0.279
95908591|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.8|0.498
95908592|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg in at Week 16 Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.6|-1.7|0.489
95908593|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.0||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.0|0.5|0.024
95908594|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||4.2|-1.6|0.385
95908595|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|2.8||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.8|-3.0|0.944
95908596|NCT00428090|191774840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|7.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||7.5|-0.4|0.078
95908597|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-0.8|0.635
95908598|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-0.2|0.194
95908599|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 8 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-1.3|0.325
95908600|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-0.1|0.109
95908601|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|0.1|0.032
95908602|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 16 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.7|0.189
95908603|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.3|-1.1|0.288
95908604|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.819
95908605|NCT00428090|191774841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.5|0.306
95908606|NCT00428090|191774842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.199
95908607|NCT00428090|191774842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.08|-0.01|0.094
95908608|NCT00428090|191774842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.09||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.09|-0.02|0.187
95908609|NCT00428090|191774842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.01|0.134
95908610|NCT00428090|191774842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.05|-0.05|0.958
95908611|NCT00428090|191774842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.07|-0.03|0.374
95908612|NCT00428090|191774843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.2||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.2|-4.6|0.493
95908613|NCT00428090|191774843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||3.7|-3.2|0.883
95908614|NCT00428090|191774843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.2||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.2|-9.3|0.130
95908615|NCT00428090|191774843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.4|-6.6|0.198
95908616|NCT00428090|191774843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|2.6||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||2.6|-5.9|0.441
95908617|NCT00428090|191774843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||5.1|-5.8|0.898
95908618|NCT00428090|191774845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||-0.1|-2.1|0.027
95908619|NCT00428090|191774845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.5||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.5|-1.6|0.278
95908620|NCT00428090|191774845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 12 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.1|-1.2|0.993
95908621|NCT00428090|191774845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 2 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.4|-2.0|0.196
95908622|NCT00428090|191774845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Comparison between Placebo and RSG XR 8 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.7|-1.9|0.353
95908623|NCT00428090|191774845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||Comparison between Placebo and Donepezil 10 mg at Week 24 in Full population cohort|Mixed model for repeated measures|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.9|-2.2|0.427
95908624|NCT00428090|191774846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.7|0.886
95908625|NCT00428090|191774846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.6|-0.8|0.710
95908626|NCT00428090|191774846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||1.8|0.1|0.030
95908627|NCT00428090|191774847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.0|0.139
95908628|NCT00428090|191774847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.1|-0.1|0.846
95908629|NCT00428090|191774847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|Mixed model for repeated measures with restricted maximum likelihood estimation and an unstructured covariance matrix|Difference in adjusted least square means was shown (Active treatment minus Placebo); n = Number of par. with evaluable data|||0.2|-0.1|0.864
95908630|NCT00361140|191774867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||.007
95908631|NCT00361140|191774868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|6.27||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|42.48|||Gray|Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141-1154.||Sample size: dependent on dose escalation. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is reached, a total of 30 patients will be accrued to that level. If maximally tolerated AUC is level 1, a total of 30 patients will be treated on this level using tacrolimus and methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis. This will provide 95% confidence intervals for 100-day non-relapse mortality and non-fatal toxicities with ½ widths not exceeding 0.18. Hazard ratios were calculated per the method of Gray (reference given)||42.48|0.92|.07
95908632|NCT02298361|191774878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|1.93|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||1.93|1.60|
95908633|NCT02298361|191774878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|2.72|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of gaining Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||2.72|1.91|
95908634|NCT02298361|191774879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.94|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to within-clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.94|0.53|
95908635|NCT02298361|191774879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.67|||Generalized estimating equation|GEE model clustered by clinic, adjusted for demographics, number of visits, new/established patient at first visit, and household factors.|Adjusted odds of losing Medicaid: intervention patients (numerator) relative to control clinic comparison patients (denominator)|||0.67|0.45|
95908636|NCT05072457|191774880|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||"MANOVA analysis with independent variable being the intervention condition (type of microphone used) and dependent variable being the performance on lateralization task.~Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in lateralization test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group."||||<.05
95908637|NCT05072457|191774881|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Independent variable: intervention condition (type of microphone used), Dependent variable: performance on spatial hearing task. Null hypothesis: There will be no statistically significant difference in spatial hearing test scores between the Roger On and the Roger Select in the experimental group.||||>.05
95908638|NCT02623322|191774893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
95908639|NCT02623322|191774893|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
95908640|NCT02623322|191774894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.25|6.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.19|-12.25|0.3031
95908641|NCT02623322|191774894|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event rates (Wald)|-3.03||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-12.82|6.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.76|-12.82|0.3324
95908642|NCT02623322|191774898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.62|1.37|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.37|0.62|0.7858
95908643|NCT02623322|191774898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.36|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=1||1.36|0.59|0.5170
95908644|NCT02623322|191774898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|0.89|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||0.89|0.45|0.0312
95908645|NCT02623322|191774898|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2044|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.04|||Wilcoxon|||Total Symptom Score of \<=7||1.04|0.53|0.2044
95908646|NCT01786512|191774917|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0047|0.0176|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0176|0.0047|0.0007
95908647|NCT01786512|191774917|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|0.0315|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.0315|0.0184|<0.0001
95908648|NCT01786512|191774918|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.65|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||7.65|1.50|0.0036
95908649|NCT01786512|191774918|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.72|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||6.72|0.53|0.0217
95908650|NCT01786512|191774919|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.035|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.035|-0.194|0.1732
95908651|NCT01786512|191774919|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.179|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|-0.062|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.062|-0.295|0.0027
95908652|NCT01786512|191774920|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.1899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.033|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.033|-0.166|0.1899
95908653|NCT01786512|191774920|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|-0.028|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.028|-0.231|0.0128
95908654|NCT01786512|191774921|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.2177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.79|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||0.79|-3.47|0.2177
95908655|NCT01786512|191774921|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-0.81|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-0.81|-5.12|0.0070
95908656|NCT01786512|191774922|OTHER||Treatment difference|-822.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.0||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1516.0|-127.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-127|-1516|0.0205
95908657|NCT01786512|191774922|OTHER||Treatment difference|-970.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.0||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1672.0|-268.0|||Repeated Measures||Repeated measures model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, interaction of treatment with scheduled visit and the baseline value as covariates.|||-268|-1672|0.0069
95908658|NCT02450331|191774925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.081|||Log Rank|||||1.081|0.735|0.2446
95908659|NCT02450331|191774926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.3172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.109|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis based on PDL1 status, tumor stage after resection, and nodal status.||1.109|0.726|0.3172
95908660|NCT02450331|191774927|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.836||||0.2235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.626|1.116|||Log Rank|||||1.116|0.626|0.2235
95908661|NCT02450331|191774928|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|1.134|||Log Rank|||||1.134|0.743|0.4291
95908662|NCT02450331|191774929|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.1994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.070|0.722|0.1994
95908663|NCT02080871|191774935|OTHER|This was a single-arm study designed to compare the primary outcome result to a performance goal based on published literature. The null hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of study device is at least 17%. The alternate hypothesis was the probability of a subject experiencing a Major Adverse Event (MAE) with use of the study device is less than 17%.|||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial exact test|||The sample size obtains over 90% power to statistically show the probability that a subject will experience an MAE with use of the study device is less than 17% when 12% or less of the subjects are lost to follow up prior to 9 months.||||<0.001
95908664|NCT03148470|191775018|OTHER|||||||0.932||||||This p-value refers to the effect of stimulation (cTBS vs iTBS).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.932
95908665|NCT03148470|191775019|OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.642
95908666|NCT04322604|191775055|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|80.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|87.9|||Fisher Exact|||||87.9|70.1|<0.0001
95908667|NCT04322604|191775056|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|1.5||||0.3427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.7|-1.6|0.3427
95908668|NCT04322604|191775057|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|-41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1|-34.2|||ANCOVA|||||-34.2|-48.1|<0.0001
95908669|NCT04322604|191775058|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|81.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|88.8|||Fisher Exact|||||88.8|71.7|<0.0001
95908670|NCT04322604|191775059|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|39.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|52.2|||Fisher Exact|||||52.2|25.4|<0.0001
95908671|NCT04322604|191775060|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|7.0||||0.3549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.6|||Fisher Exact|||||21.6|-7.4|0.3549
95908672|NCT04322604|191775061|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference from Placebo|8.3||||0.2262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|22.7|||Fisher Exact|||||22.7|-6.3|0.2262
95908673|NCT04322604|191775062|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference from Placebo|5.0||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24 Percent Change from Baseline||16.0|-6.1|0.3812
95908674|NCT02308748|191775106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.8||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.3|-25.2|0.025
95908675|NCT02308748|191775106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|-14.1||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in QTc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-14.1|-25.2|0.025
95908676|NCT02308748|191775106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.2||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|-18.3||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with mexiletine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-18.3|-28.0|0.025
95908677|NCT02308748|191775106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-15.5||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in J-Tpeakc interval on the ECG measured in milliseconds when dofetilide is administered with lidocaine compared to when dofetilide is administered alone at evening dose on treatment day.||-15.5|-25.5|0.025
95908678|NCT02308748|191775107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.7||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed according to the Bonferroni method.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7|-1|0.025
95908679|NCT00736645|191775108|OTHER|||||||0.5137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5137
95908680|NCT00736645|191775108|OTHER|||||||0.8994|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8994
95908681|NCT00736645|191775108|OTHER|||||||0.3463|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3463
95908682|NCT00736645|191775109|OTHER|||||||0.2609|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2609
95908683|NCT00736645|191775109|OTHER|||||||0.7504|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7504
95908684|NCT00736645|191775109|OTHER|||||||0.9727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9727
95908685|NCT04184791|191775118|OTHER|A linear mixed-effects analysis of variance (LM-ANOVA) model was used to determine the effect of L-Dopa, frequency, the interaction of levodopa and frequency, and the interaction of frequency and contact pairs on gait parameters. The fixed effects were L-Dopa condition (ON vs. OFF), stimulation frequency (LFS;60 Hz vs. HFS;180 Hz), contact pairs \[1-(R)/1-(L); 2-(R)/2-(L); 3-(R)/3-(L); 4-(R)/4-(L)\], and assistive device (presence vs. absence) and the patient effect was considered random.|||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95908686|NCT01321554|191775141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.14|0.31||||||||0.31|0.14|
95908687|NCT04128293|191775157|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.877|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7585|1.0152|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-infinity).|||1.0152|0.7585|
95908688|NCT04128293|191775159|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.892|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7778|1.0239|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of AUC(0-t).|||1.0239|0.7778|
95908689|NCT04128293|191775161|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.946|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8594|1.0404|||||Relative bioavailability between treatment A and B assessed using analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects, participant as a random effect was performed on the natural log-transformed parameter of Cmax.|||1.0404|0.8594|
95908690|NCT04128293|191775164|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.533||||0.4252|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||The median difference and the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the median difference was estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||2.0000|-1.0000|0.4252
95908691|NCT04128293|191775164|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.3125|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|5.25||The p-value was assessed based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The median difference and the 90% confidence interval of the median difference were estimated from Hodges-Lehmann estimate.|||5.2500|-0.7500|0.3125
95908692|NCT02249819|191775266|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for mean change from baseline in naming accuracy in the anodal vs. sham tDCS conditions Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean change of naming accuracy between anodal and sham tDCS conditions. A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).||||||0.694||||||The wilcoxon sign-ranked test was performed for this crossover design study in which subjects underwent measures across 2 study conditions (paired samples: mean change in anodal vs. sham condition). A significance level of 0.05 was used (two-sided).|wilcoxon sign-ranked test|Western Aphasia Battery used as a screening tool on admission only, to characterize level of severity. It was NOT an outcome measure.||||||0.694
95908693|NCT00558428|191775275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-4.9|-2.38|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-2.38|-4.90|<0.0001
95908694|NCT00558428|191775275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64|<|0.0001||95.0|-6.18|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-3.66|-6.18|<0.0001
95908695|NCT00558428|191775275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-2.66|-0.14|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-0.14|-2.66|
95908696|NCT00558428|191775275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||||95.0|-3.93|-1.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline and country effect||||-1.43|-3.93|
95908697|NCT05224050|191775295|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in the DASS-21 total score from baseline to 2-weeks post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.54||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|2.89||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of the mean for the DASS-21 total scores at Baseline and at 2-weeks post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session|||2.89|-6.98|0.40
95908698|NCT05224050|191775295|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 2-weeks post-quit and 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.98|-6.84|0.26
95908699|NCT05224050|191775295|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference in the DASS-21 total scores from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|0.71||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the difference of mean DASS-21 total scores at 1-month post-quit and 3-month follow up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow up session.|||0.71|-6.21|0.11
95908700|NCT05224050|191775298|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare changes in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Day.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.88|17.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Baseline to Quit Date. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=22 participants who attended their Quit Date session.|||17.53|9.88|<0.001
95908701|NCT05224050|191775298|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.02||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from Quit Date to 2-weeks Post-Quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=20 participants who attended their 2-weeks post-quit session.|||1.06|-0.83|0.80
95908702|NCT05224050|191775298|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 2-weeks post-quit to 1=month post-quit.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.97||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|1.45||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 2-weeks post-quit to 1-month post-quit. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=19 participants who attended their 1-month post-quit session.|||1.45|-1.41|0.97
95908703|NCT05224050|191775298|OTHER|A paired-samples t-test was used to evaluate smoking reduction in participants from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference represents the average difference in cigarettes smoked per day from 1-month post-quit to 3-month follow-up. The reported estimated value is based on data from the n=16 participants who attended their 3-month follow-up session.|||-0.17|-4.17|0.04
95908704|NCT01627327|191775305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.022||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.055|||ANCOVA|||||0.055|-0.012|0.201
95908705|NCT01175850|191775314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Z-test|Z-test of two proportions was used to compare treatment groups for all randomized subjects.||||||<0.001
95908706|NCT01175850|191775315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95908707|NCT01175850|191775316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95908708|NCT01175850|191775317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.926
95908709|NCT01175850|191775318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95908710|NCT01175850|191775319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95908711|NCT01175850|191775320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.859
95908712|NCT01175850|191775321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.999
95908713|NCT01175850|191775322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.096
95908714|NCT01175850|191775323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95908715|NCT01175850|191775324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.121
95908716|NCT01175850|191775325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95908717|NCT01175850|191775326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95908718|NCT01175850|191775327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.095
95908719|NCT01175850|191775328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.590
95908720|NCT01175850|191775329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.302|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.302
95908721|NCT01175850|191775330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.111|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.111
95908722|NCT01175850|191775331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
95908723|NCT01175850|191775332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
95908724|NCT00831779|191775334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.4685||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.75|36.1||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||36.10|5.75|0.0059
95908725|NCT00831779|191775335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.4984||0.0598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|57.48||Secondary endpoint was tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||57.48|-1.22|0.0598
95908726|NCT03901326|191775346|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of ICA without obstructive CAD or intervention within 90 days||||0.05
95908727|NCT03901326|191775346|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Rate of patients underwent revascularization||||<0.001
95908728|NCT03901326|191775347|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.3|||Regression, Cox|||||1.30|0.59|0.80
95908729|NCT03901326|191775348|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95908730|NCT03901326|191775349|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95908731|NCT01814371|191775351|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.757|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.757
95908732|NCT01814371|191775352|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95908733|NCT01814371|191775353|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.687|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.687
95908734|NCT01814371|191775354|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95908735|NCT01814371|191775355|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.811|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.811
95908736|NCT01814371|191775356|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95908737|NCT01814371|191775357|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95908738|NCT01814371|191775358|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
95908739|NCT01814371|191775359|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.007|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.007
95908740|NCT01814371|191775360|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.005
95908741|NCT01814371|191775361|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95908742|NCT01814371|191775362|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of before and after decolonization protocol.||||||0.84|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.84
95908743|NCT01814371|191775364|NON_INFERIORITY|testing non-inferiority of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.381|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.381
95908744|NCT01814371|191775365|EQUIVALENCE|testing equivalence of individualized approach compared to household approach.||||||0.143|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.143
95908745|NCT04683926|191775366|OTHER||AUC(0-36) Estimate (β1)|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
95908746|NCT04683926|191775366|OTHER||AUC(inf) Estimate (β1)|1.0223|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
95908747|NCT04683926|191775366|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|AUC(0-inf) fed/fasted ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.12||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.12|1.05|
95908748|NCT04683926|191775367|OTHER||Cmax Estimate (β1)|0.9899|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of dose proportionality following 10, 20 and 30 mg fasted using a mixed-effects model based on a power function: ln(dependent variable) = β1×ln(Dose) + ln(β0) + ε. Random slope and intercept. 90% CI of β1 acceptance range of 0.8-1.25 modified to account for ratio of dose levels in this study as follows: \[1+ln(0.8)/ln(3), 1+ln(1.25)/ln(3)\], giving acceptance range of \[0.7969, 1.2031\]. If the 90% CI of β1 is within \[0.7969, 1.2031\], dose-proportionality is proven for the PK parameter.||||
95908749|NCT04683926|191775367|EQUIVALENCE|Absent food effect will be established if the 90% CI for the ratio of population geometric means between fed and fasted 30 mg doses, based on log-transformed data, is contained in the equivalence limits of 0.80-1.25 for AUC0-inf and Cmax.|Cmax 90% fed/fasted ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.28||||||Analysis of food effect on desmetramadol in the evaluable population using natural logarithm-transformed PK exposure parameters of desmetramadol enantiomers following administration of 30 mg desmetramadol in the fed and fasted states.||1.28|1.08|
95908750|NCT01692782|191775369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The 4 mg and 8 mg SEP 225289 groups were compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||
95908751|NCT01692782|191775369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38||||0.076|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-values of SEP 225289 4 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.||The 4 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.076
95908752|NCT01692782|191775369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value of SEP 225289 8 mg versus placebo at Week 4 was adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The 8 mg SEP 225289 group was compared to placebo using a MMRM analysis. The MMRM model included treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled center, baseline ADHD RS-IV with adult prompts score, and treatment-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used for the within subject correlation.||||0.019
95908753|NCT02161133|191775375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.712
95908754|NCT02161133|191775376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95908755|NCT02161133|191775377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.45||0.244|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.244
95908756|NCT02161133|191775378|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.057
95908757|NCT02161133|191775379|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.382|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.382
95908758|NCT02161133|191775380|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.703|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.703
95908759|NCT02161133|191775381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.168
95908760|NCT02161133|191775382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95908761|NCT01515410|191775388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.86||||0.0471||95.0|-13.62|-0.09||This p-value indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|No subjects early-terminated from the study.||"Percent OFF Time (%)"||-0.09|-13.62|0.0471
95908762|NCT04341116|191775389|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.0|||Fisher Exact|||||27|-6.5|.28
95908763|NCT00868439|191775395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95908764|NCT00868439|191775396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.027
95908765|NCT00868439|191775397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.101
95908766|NCT00868439|191775398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
95908767|NCT00868439|191775399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.136|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.136
95908768|NCT00868439|191775400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.015
95908769|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.641|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.247|2.159|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=12.514||Age of mother bearing, \<=30 years vs \>30 years||2.159|1.247|<0.001
95908770|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.793||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.01|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.529||Household register, local vs nonlocal||1.010|0.622|0.060
95908771|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.369||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.672|32.479|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.524||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||32.479|1.672|0.006
95908772|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.443||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.001|11.843|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.671||Mother's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||11.843|1.001|0.102
95908773|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.064||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|10.067|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.984||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs postgraduate or above||10.067|0.933|0.159
95908774|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.321||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|7.589|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.191||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||7.589|0.710|0.662
95908775|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.306|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|4.277|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=13.525||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||4.277|0.399|<0.001
95908776|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.217||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|6.831|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.095||Family monthly income per capita, \<=600 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||6.831|0.719|0.043
95908777|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.089||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.739|5.906|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=6.549||Family monthly income per capita, 600 to 1999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.906|0.739|0.010
95908778|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.983||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|5.583|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.313||Family monthly income per capita, 2000 to 4999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||5.583|0.704|0.021
95908779|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.344|3.267|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.824||Family monthly income per capita, 5000 to 7999 RMB vs \>=10000 RMB||3.267|0.344|0.364
95908780|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.347|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.838||||3.347|0.100|0.175
95908781|NCT00952367|191775408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.516|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.666|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=25.960||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.666|0.400|<0.001
95908782|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.255||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|1.044|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.610||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||1.044|0.062|0.057
95908783|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.981|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.228||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.981|0.451|0.040
95908784|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.182||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.844|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.074||Feeding manners within 6 months, pure breast feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.844|0.758|0.044
95908785|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.707||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.191|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=4.316||Feeding manners within 6 months, mixed feeding vs pure formula milk feeding||1.191|0.420|0.038
95908786|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|92.229||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.993|2130.5|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=7.438||Father's education level, illiteracy vs postgraduate or above||2130.500|3.993|0.006
95908787|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.671||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.537|40.608|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.079||Father's education level, elementary school vs postgraduate or above||40.608|0.537|0.778
95908788|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.83||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|35.956|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.096||Father's education level, junior high school vs postgraduate or above||35.956|0.649|0.756
95908789|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.513||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.474|26.03|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.807||Father's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||26.030|0.474|0.179
95908790|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.029||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.412|22.292|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.131||Father's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||22.292|0.412|0.077
95908791|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.984||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.968|1.0|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.648||Living space per capita, continuous variables||1.000|0.968|0.056
95908792|NCT00952367|191775409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.729||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.522|1.018|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=3.432||Vaccination history of Hib, no vs yes||1.018|0.522|0.064
95908793|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.871|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=5.538||Birth information, preterm birth vs full-term birth||0.871|0.221|0.019
95908794|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.546|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.423|0.703|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=21.938||Household register, local vs nonlocal||0.703|0.423|<0.001
95908795|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.137||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|9.652|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.341||Mother's education level, illiteracy vs graduate or above||9.652|0.473|0.559
95908796|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.596|5.394|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=0.238||Mother's education level, elementary school vs graduate or above||5.394|0.596|0.626
95908797|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.972||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|5.562|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.691||Mother's education level, junior middle school vs graduate or above||5.562|0.699|0.193
95908798|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.907||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|5.353|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=1.081||Mother's education level, senior high school/vocational high school/technical secondary school vs postgraduate or above||5.353|0.679|0.298
95908799|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.233||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|3.464|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=2.395||Mother's education level, college/university vs postgraduate or above||3.464|0.439|0.122
95908800|NCT00952367|191775410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.666||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.855|||Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom=1, Wald Chi-Square=10.233||Whether have brothers or sisters, no vs yes||0.855|0.520|0.001
95908801|NCT00579280|191775415|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95908802|NCT00579280|191775416|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95908803|NCT00579280|191775417|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908804|NCT00579280|191775418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.05
95908805|NCT00579280|191775419|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908806|NCT00579280|191775420|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908807|NCT00579280|191775421|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|Differences in response (70% or greater improvement) and remission (50% or greater improvement) rates between the groups.||||||<0.05
95908808|NCT00579280|191775422|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908809|NCT00579280|191775423|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908810|NCT00579280|191775424|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908811|NCT00579280|191775425|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95908812|NCT01693068|191775426|OTHER|A log-rank test stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (using the interactive voice response system \[IVRS\] value) will tested the null hypothesis of no difference between the Pimasertib (first line) and the Dacarbazine treatment groups at the 5% level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.83|||Stratified Log Rank Test||The Hazard Ratio is obtained from the Cox Proportional Hazards model based on dacarbazine and pimasertib only stratified by baseline ECOG Performance Status.|||0.83|0.42|0.0022
95908813|NCT01239030|191775440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0046|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0046
95908814|NCT04403698|191775441|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (CTX-I) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||<0.01
95908815|NCT04403698|191775442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||linear mixed models were used to compare bone turnover markers (PINP) between both treatment groups. These models were performed with an intention to treat approach, where drop-outs were considered as non-responders. The models accounted for repeated measures.||||0.05
95908816|NCT04403698|191775443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups at week 48||||0.042
95908817|NCT04403698|191775444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in patient numbers exceeding reference ranges between both treatment groups.||||0.042
95908818|NCT00977665|191775447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.603||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.677|2.47||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|repeated measures model|Fixed effects: categorical week in trial by treatment interaction, center, and baseline UMSARS score.||||2.470|-3.677|0.6984
95908819|NCT00977665|191775456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.189|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|2.186||||||||2.186|0.646|
95908820|NCT02300220|191775478|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.071||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.676|||Regression, Cox|||The primary endpoint was assessed using a Cox's proportional hazard model with pre-specified adjustment for patient's self-reported history of exacerbations over the previous year and with stratification for study centre. The onset of exacerbation will be monitored up to 90 days or at patient withdrawal.||1.676|0.684|0.764
95908821|NCT02300220|191775479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.703
95908822|NCT02300220|191775481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
95908823|NCT04322682|191775484|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.1|0.61|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.61|0.081
95908824|NCT04322682|191775485|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.19|0.291
95908825|NCT04322682|191775486|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.03|||Chi-squared|||||1.03|0.60|0.077
95908826|NCT04322682|191775487|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.09|||Chi-squared|||||1.09|0.25|0.080
95908827|NCT04322682|191775488|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99||P-Value is for the comparison of the treatment group within patients with Covid-19 confirmed by PCR.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic-regression model including the treatment group, the PCR-confirmed Covid-19 subgroup factor (yes/no) and their interaction was performed.||||0.99|0.57|0.042
95908828|NCT02238379|191775492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.003
95908829|NCT02238379|191775492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) by Hemisphere (Left, Right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||.034
95908830|NCT02238379|191775492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Face Type|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
95908831|NCT02238379|191775492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Spray Type by Face Type Interaction|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||P300 Analysis||||.03
95908832|NCT02238379|191775492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.22||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) by Face Type (Infant, Adult) by Emotion (Distress, Neutral) ANOVA||LPP Analysis||||>.22
95908833|NCT02238379|191775493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.14||||||No Main Effects or Interactions|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo) and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||N170 Analysis||||>.14
95908834|NCT02238379|191775493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.17||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||P300 Analysis||||>.17
95908835|NCT02238379|191775493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.27||||||No difference between Spray Types|t-test, 2 sided|Paired samples t-test comparing Spray Type (Oxytocin vs Placebo)||LPP Analysis||||>.27
95908836|NCT02238379|191775494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Main Effect of Emotion|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.006
95908837|NCT02238379|191775494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray Type (Oxytocin, Placebo), Face Type (Infant, Adult), Emotion (Neutral, Distressed), and Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.01
95908838|NCT02238379|191775495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Main Effect of Spray|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.03
95908839|NCT02238379|191775495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Main Effect of Hemisphere|ANOVA|Spray (oxytocin, placebo) by Hemisphere (left, right) ANOVA||Only relevant for N170||||.008
95908840|NCT02238379|191775496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
95908841|NCT02238379|191775498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
95908842|NCT02238379|191775499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
95908843|NCT02238379|191775500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||correlation|||||||.05
95908844|NCT04891419|191775539|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|91.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|95.9||P-value is based on the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||95.9|83.7|<.0001
95908845|NCT04891419|191775540|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.2|59.9||P-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis||95% CI estimated using mixed effects model.|||59.9|49.2|<.0001
95908846|NCT04891419|191775541|SUPERIORITY||Control Difference|42.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|48.0||95% CI and p-value estimated using mixed effects model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.0|37.6|<.0001
95908847|NCT04891419|191775542|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|93.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.1|97.2||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||97.2|86.1|<.0001
95908848|NCT04891419|191775543|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|92.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.9|96.5||P-value is based on Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact||95% exact unconditional confidence interval for between-group difference in responder rate.|||96.5|84.9|<.0001
95908849|NCT01055769|191775544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|97.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.11|102.75||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.75|93.11|
95908850|NCT01055769|191775545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio|113.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.26|122.75||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||122.75|105.26|
95908851|NCT01055769|191775546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios. Linezolid 600 mg oral suspension was the Test treatment, while linezolid 600 mg tablet was the Reference treatment.|Adjusted Geometric means ratio|97.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.92|102.63||||||Natural log transformed AUCinf of linezolid was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||102.63|92.92|
95908852|NCT02235493|191775549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in MPOMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total MPOMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median MPOMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.0625
95908853|NCT02235493|191775550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on a nonparametric sign test to determine whether the median of change from Baseline in POMA-G score differs from 0. No multiple comparisons or multiplicity adjustments were conducted.|Sign test|||Videos were reviewed and scored by 3 independent raters who were masked to patient identifiers and the clinic visits and dates when the videos were recorded. Each rater scored the individual components required for the calculation of the total POMA-G score for each evaluable patient video. The median of the scores across the 3 raters was obtained for each individual component and summed to generate the median POMA-G score used in the analyses.||||0.1250
95908854|NCT02979262|191775558|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||Repeated Measures GLM|Time 2 at 16 weeks||||||>.10
95908855|NCT02979262|191775559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
95908856|NCT02979262|191775560|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
95908857|NCT02979262|191775561|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
95908858|NCT02979262|191775562|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.1|||||||GEE|||||||>.10
95908859|NCT02979262|191775563|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||GEE|||||||<.01
95908860|NCT01962493|191775577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.1||Analysis based on square root transformation. Results back transformed for interpretation.|ANCOVA|Results were obtained from ANCOVA model with Site, Treatment, Treatment X Site, Smoking Status as fixed effects and baseline MLSI as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment. A negative difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis stated that there was no difference between treatment groups||0.10|-0.51|0.1313
95908861|NCT04814654|191775609|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.989
95908862|NCT04814654|191775609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.60|0.949
95908863|NCT04814654|191775609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.61|0.882
95908864|NCT04814654|191775610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0726|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0726
95908865|NCT04814654|191775611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.918|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||12 month timepoint||||0.918
95908866|NCT04814654|191775611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.948|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.948
95908867|NCT04814654|191775611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0766
95908868|NCT04814654|191775612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Chi-squared|||12 months||||0.1839
95908869|NCT04814654|191775612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Chi-squared|||18 months||||.127
95908870|NCT04814654|191775613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7313|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7313
95908871|NCT04814654|191775614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1839|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1839
95908872|NCT04814654|191775615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2667
95908873|NCT04814654|191775616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.999
95908874|NCT04814654|191775617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1414|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1414
95908875|NCT04814654|191775618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.425
95908876|NCT04814654|191775630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9183|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.9183
95908877|NCT00789815|191775631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A preliminary study was performed to determine the sample size before this trial. 15 and 15 patients undergoing FB received BIS-guided propofol sedation and clinical-judged midazolam sedation, respectively. The incidences of hypoxemia were 0.33 and 0.20, respectively. The selected sample size of 225 in each group will yield 90% power for detecting a clinically meaningful difference of 0.13 at the 5.0% level of significance. To allow for 10% missing data, we recruited 250 patients per group.||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypoxemia occured during FB with BIS-guided propofol infusion is higher than that with clinical-judged midazolam administration.~Power calculation is described below."||||0.05
95908878|NCT00789815|191775632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis: the incidence of hypotension during FB in patients of study group is higher than that in the control group.||||0.05
95908879|NCT00789815|191775633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95908880|NCT00789815|191775634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95908881|NCT00789815|191775635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95908882|NCT00789815|191775636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis: the global tolerance of patients in study is worse than that in the control group.||||0.05
95908883|NCT00789815|191775637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95908884|NCT00789815|191775638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95908885|NCT00514943|191775664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.188|8.202||P-value obtained from fitting an ANCOVA model including treatment, stratification factor prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance of target lesions.|ANCOVA|Receipt of prior chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic disease and the baseline sum of longest distance for target lesions are covariates|Mean difference calculated is actually the adjusted mean difference.|||8.202|-11.188|0.7606
95908886|NCT00514943|191775677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.942||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.387|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.387|0.640|0.764
95908887|NCT00514943|191775678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.434|1.212|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.212|0.434|0.219
95908888|NCT00514943|191775679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.067||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|1.608|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio, 95% CI and p-value are calculated from the Cox proportional hazards model stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies for R/M setting (0 or \>=1)|||1.608|0.708|0.758
95908889|NCT01490502|191775688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
95908890|NCT01490502|191775688|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.05|||Regression, Cox|||||2.05|0.67|0.57
95908891|NCT01490502|191775689|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Andersen Gill model for recurrent events|||||||0.07
95908892|NCT01490502|191775690|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.45|||Negative Binomial Model|||||3.45|0.94|0.07
95908893|NCT01490502|191775691|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|1.47||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.46|||Negative Binomial Model|||||2.46|0.88|0.14
95908894|NCT01490502|191775692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.60
95908895|NCT01490502|191775693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The average rate of change in MSFC Z-score over time was analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in the MSFC Z-score between treatment arms.||||0.20
95908896|NCT01490502|191775694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in 2.5% low-contrast acuity was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in low-contrast acuity between treatment arms.||||0.67
95908897|NCT01490502|191775695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Rate of change in quality of life was analyzed using a linear mixed effects model with unstructured covariance structure and random intercepts. The p-value is a test of whether there is a difference in the rate of change in health-related quality of life between treatment arms.||||0.21
95908898|NCT01490502|191775696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.13
95908899|NCT01490502|191775697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95908900|NCT03813238|191775703|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The LS mean of the change in MDCRS part II total score from baseline to Week 15 was compared (TEV-50717 arm versus placebo) using a 1-sided test for superiority at a nominal significance level of α=0.025.||1.19|-3.49|0.335
95909277|NCT01022762|191776705|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be shown if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was less than 0.4%. This corresponds to a one-sided test with a significance level of 2.5% of the hypothesis.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||||95.0|-0.115|0.143||The p-value corresponds to one-sided hypotheses of superiority with a significance level of 2.5%.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model was with treatment, centre as explanatory variables and baseline HbA1c value as covariate.|If non-inferiority of repaglinide alone was shown, a test for superiority would be performed based on FAS. Superiority of repaglinide alone over gliclazide alone would be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference was lower than 0%.|H0: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \>= 0.4%. H1: Change from baseline in HbA1c of repaglinide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment - change from baseline in HbA1c of gliclazide therapy at 16 weeks of treatment \< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 85%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||0.143|-0.115|
95909278|NCT00605280|191776716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|4.3||Adjusted for glycolated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values not carried forward for missing post-baseline data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.30|1.32|0.0047
95909279|NCT00605280|191776717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.1904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||2.53|0.85|0.1904
95909280|NCT00605280|191776718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.34|0.74|0.2466
95909281|NCT00605280|191776719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||3.26|0.86|0.1388
95909282|NCT00605280|191776720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.99|0.07|0.0468
95909283|NCT00605280|191776721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|11.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||11.55|0.73|0.1124
95909284|NCT00605280|191776722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||1.42|0.16|0.1788
95909285|NCT00605280|191776723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||18.06|1.45|0.0048
95909286|NCT00605280|191776724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean|3.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|6.54|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||6.54|1.25|0.0040
95909287|NCT00605280|191776725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean|4.57||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.29|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post baseline data.||||7.29|1.85|0.0011
95909288|NCT00605280|191776726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.74|0.24|0.0023
95909289|NCT00605280|191776727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for HbA1c, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and baseline VA. Baseline values were not carried forward for any missing post-baseline data.||||0.69|0.23|0.0008
95909290|NCT01302119|191776728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95909291|NCT01302119|191776729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95909292|NCT01302119|191776730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95909293|NCT01302119|191776731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95909294|NCT00827918|191776736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|5.8|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||5.8|-7.0|0.8590
95909295|NCT00827918|191776736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.2534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|3.1|||Difference in the Least Squares Mean|||||3.1|-11.7|0.2534
95909296|NCT00827918|191776739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.4976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.64|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||2.64|0.62|0.4976
95909297|NCT00827918|191776739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|5.09|||Generalized linear mixed analysis model|||||5.09|0.95|0.0653
95909298|NCT00827918|191776740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.3|-0.4|0.8199
95909299|NCT00827918|191776740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.4|-0.4|0.9486
95909300|NCT00827918|191776741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.0|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||2.0|-2.0|0.9937
95909301|NCT00827918|191776741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.2406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.9|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||0.9|-3.6|0.2406
95909302|NCT00827918|191776742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.2|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.2|-2.0|0.5953
95909303|NCT00827918|191776742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.6|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||1.6|-2.0|0.8567
95909304|NCT01371851|191776783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0529||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The analysis was applied to urine data obtained at all time points during weeks 1-8.||||0.05
95909305|NCT03969719|191776793|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.44||||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.37|-1.25|||ANCOVA|||||-1.25|-22.37|0.0696
95909306|NCT03969719|191776793|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.64||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.18|-3.89|||ANCOVA|||||-3.89|-24.18|0.0288
95909307|NCT03969719|191776794|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.6336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.36|0.6336
95909308|NCT03969719|191776794|EQUIVALENCE|The comparisons of PF-06835919 to placebo was performed at a Type I error rate of 10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.1266|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.52|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.52|0.1266
95909309|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.87
95909310|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.78
95909311|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.67
95909312|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.52
95909313|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.39
95909314|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.06||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.18|-0.05|0.26
95909315|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.31
95909316|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.22
95909317|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.14
95909318|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.09
95909319|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.05
95909320|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.09|-0.20|0.03
95909321|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.85
95909322|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.79
95909323|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.71
95909324|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.61
95909325|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.51
95909326|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.23|-0.06|0.41
95909327|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.47
95909328|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.36
95909329|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.26
95909330|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.19
95909331|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.13
95909332|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.14|-0.16|0.09
95909333|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.78
95909334|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.69
95909335|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.59
95909336|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.50
95909337|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.39
95909338|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.11|0.30
95729125|NCT02761980|191428327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.142
95909339|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.68
95909340|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.59
95909341|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.50
95909342|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.40
95909343|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.30
95909344|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FEV1, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-0.14|0.22
95909345|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.41
95909346|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.32
95909347|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.24
95909348|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.16
95909349|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.11
95909350|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.08||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 28. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.13|-0.19|0.07
95909351|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.41
95909352|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.32
95909353|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.25
95909354|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.18
95909355|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.12
95909356|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.15||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 56. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.15|-0.20|0.07
95909357|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.45
95909358|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.37
95909359|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.30
95909360|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.22
95909361|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.17
95909362|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 112. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.17|-0.20|0.12
95909363|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.72
95909364|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.65
95909365|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.57
95909366|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.48
95909367|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.39
95909368|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 168. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.24|-0.13|0.30
95909369|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.76
95909370|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.71
95909371|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.65
95909372|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.59
95909373|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.53
95909374|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 280. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.32|-0.15|0.46
95909375|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.68
95909376|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.02 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.61
95909377|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.04 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.55
95909378|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.06 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.46
95909379|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.08 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.40
95909380|NCT02130193|191776825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is greater than 0.10 L is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|FVC, Day 364. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.28|-0.15|0.33
95909381|NCT02130193|191776829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.013
95909382|NCT02130193|191776829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.006
95909383|NCT02130193|191776829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.003
95909384|NCT02130193|191776829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|0.001
95909385|NCT02130193|191776829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|2.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.977|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.43|0.92|<0.001
95909386|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.17||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.17|-2.81|0.60
95909387|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|2.37||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.37|-3.11|0.65
95909388|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|1.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.45|-4.43|0.83
95909389|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.53||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.90|-4.07|0.78
95909390|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|2.28||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.28|-3.82|0.73
95909391|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|2.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.26|-4.01|0.72
95909392|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.58||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.09||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.09|-4.15|0.73
95909393|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.69||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|1.76||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.76|-4.71|0.81
95909394|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.22||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.22|-4.66|0.76
95909395|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|0.99||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.99|-5.66|0.91
95909396|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.73||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|2.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.13|-4.73|0.71
95909397|NCT02130193|191776830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.74||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|2.04||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.04|-4.77|0.78
95909398|NCT02130193|191776834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.278
95909399|NCT02130193|191776834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.138
95909400|NCT02130193|191776834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.05
95909401|NCT02130193|191776834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.011
95909402|NCT02130193|191776834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|1.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.242||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.63||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.63|0.71|0.002
95909403|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.62
95909404|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.64
95909405|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.81
95909406|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.77
95909407|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.71
95909408|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.70
95909409|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.74
95909410|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.79
95909411|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.77
95909412|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.90
95909413|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.66
95909414|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.74
95909415|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.43
95909416|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.45
95909417|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.67
95909418|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.62
95909419|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.55
95909420|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.55
95909421|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.59
95909422|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.65
95909423|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.63
95909424|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.81
95909425|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.52
95909426|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.60
95909427|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.24
95909428|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.28
95909429|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.50
95909430|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.43
95909431|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.37
95909432|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.38
95909433|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.43
95909434|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.51
95909435|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.50
95909436|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.70
95909437|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.38
95909438|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -2 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.45
95909439|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.04||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.23|-4.55|0.11
95909440|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.21||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.03|3.6||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.60|-5.03|0.15
95909441|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.29||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|2.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.27|-6.60|0.32
95909442|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.31||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.07||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.07|-5.92|0.28
95909443|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.55|-5.70|0.23
95909444|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|3.05||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.05|-6.46|0.24
95909445|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.45||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|2.9||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.90|-6.75|0.29
95909446|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|3.3||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.30|-6.93|0.36
95909447|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|3.18||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.18|-7.04|0.35
95909448|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-3.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|1.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.87|-8.74|0.57
95909449|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.72||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|4.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||4.20|-6.20|0.25
95909450|NCT02130193|191776835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|3.45||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -3 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-PRO, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||3.45|-6.91|0.32
95909451|NCT02130193|191776836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.477
95909452|NCT02130193|191776836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.343
95909453|NCT02130193|191776836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.221
95909454|NCT02130193|191776836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.116
95909455|NCT02130193|191776836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.82||Posterior probability that the treatment ratio (DNX 75 mg/ placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.82|0.55|0.052
95909456|NCT02130193|191776837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 1.0 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.212
95909457|NCT02130193|191776837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.9 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.111
95909458|NCT02130193|191776837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.8 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.049
95909459|NCT02130193|191776837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.7 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.012
95909460|NCT02130193|191776837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.11||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0.6 is presented.|Bayesian Cox analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||2.11|0.73|0.001
95909461|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.64
95909462|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.75
95909463|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.77
95909464|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.74
95909465|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.67
95909466|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.69
95909467|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.72
95909468|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.71
95909469|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.66
95729126|NCT02761980|191428327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.822
95909470|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.84
95909471|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.65
95909472|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.71
95909473|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.13
95909474|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.27
95909475|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.31
95909476|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.29
95909477|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.23
95909478|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.26
95909479|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.28
95909480|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.29
95729127|NCT02761980|191428327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.671
95909481|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.23
95909482|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.45
95909483|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.24
95909484|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.28
95909485|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.72||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|1.25||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.25|-1.53|0.26
95729128|NCT02761980|191428327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.514
95909486|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|1.1||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.10|-1.91|0.41
95909487|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.98||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.98|-2.09|0.46
95909488|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.87||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.87|-2.23|0.43
95909489|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.83||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.27||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.27|-1.88|0.36
95909490|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.26||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.26|-1.99|0.39
95909491|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.08||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.08|-2.10|0.42
95909492|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|1.14||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.14|-2.11|0.42
95909493|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.23||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.23|-2.14|0.35
95909494|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.89||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-2.71|0.58
95909495|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.41|-2.15|0.36
95909496|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|1.13||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-breath, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||1.13|-2.36|0.41
95729129|NCT02761980|191428327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.191
95909497|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.66
95909498|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.66
95909499|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.91
95909500|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.79
95909501|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.84
95909502|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.81
95909503|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.76
95909504|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.84
95909505|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.83
95909506|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.94
95909507|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.84
95909508|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.81
95909509|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.01
95909510|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.02
95909511|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.15
95909512|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.05
95727429|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.1396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.55|0.94|0.1396
95909513|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.08
95909514|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.08
95909515|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.06
95909516|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.14
95909517|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.14
95909518|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.29
95909519|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.15
95909520|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -1 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.13
95909521|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.84|0.06
95909522|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.39||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-0.94|0.09
95909523|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.46|0.37
95909524|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.44||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.44|-1.16|0.18
95909525|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.41||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.41|-1.24|0.24
95909526|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.47||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.47|-1.23|0.24
95909527|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.56||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.56|-1.14|0.19
95909528|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.43|0.32
95909529|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.38||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.38|-1.49|0.32
95909530|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.49||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.2||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.20|-1.68|0.52
95909531|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|0.48||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.48|-1.45|0.33
95909532|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|0.55||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-chest, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.55|-1.36|0.29
95909533|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.43
95909534|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.29
95909535|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.70
95909536|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.71
95909537|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.61
95909538|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.48
95909539|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.58
95729130|NCT02761980|191428328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the proportional hazards (PH) model with treatment term in the model.|hazard ratio|||||||0.997
95909540|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.83
95909541|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.74
95909542|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.89
95909543|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.59
95909544|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than 0 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.77
95909545|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 1 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.59|0.01
95909546|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.35||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.85||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 2 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.85|-0.53|0.01
95909547|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 3 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-0.94|0.09
95909548|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.5||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 4 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.50|-0.92|0.09
95909549|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.61||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 5 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.61|-0.82|0.05
95909550|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 6 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.69|0.02
95909551|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.36||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.62||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 7 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.62|-0.79|0.04
95909552|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.43||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 8 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.43|-1.12|0.22
95909553|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.52||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 9 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.52|-1.07|0.14
95909554|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.43||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.29||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 10 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.29|-1.40|0.36
95909555|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.69||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 11 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.69|-0.89|0.07
95909556|NCT02130193|191776840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Posterior mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.54||Posterior probability that the treatment difference (DNX 75 mg-placebo) is less than -0.7 is presented.|Bayesian analysis|P-value is actually a posterior probability.|EXACT-RS-cough, 12 month. Data presented are for 95% equal-tailed credible intervals|||0.54|-1.12|0.17
95909557|NCT01297959|191776845|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.39
95909558|NCT01297959|191776846|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|p-value was based on a logistic regression (Chi-square test) model with treatment group as a factor, adjusting for the stratification factors.||||||0.34
95909559|NCT02085252|191776894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0318||||||A 2-sided significance level of 5% was used. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the two treatment strategies.||||0.0318
95909560|NCT02460692|191776902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||This is the primary comparison.||||0.78
95727430|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.46||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.86|1.15|0.0016
95909561|NCT02460692|191776902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is the secondary comparison.||||0.070
95909562|NCT02460692|191776902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||This is an exploratory comparison||||0.044
95909563|NCT02460692|191776903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.27
95909564|NCT02460692|191776903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.96
95909565|NCT02460692|191776903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The average change of impact scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.30
95909566|NCT02460692|191776904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.44
95909567|NCT02460692|191776904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The average pain change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.53
95909568|NCT02460692|191776904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||The average NPS change at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.18
95909569|NCT02460692|191776905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
95909570|NCT02460692|191776905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||The average change of learning scores at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.94
95909571|NCT02460692|191776905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||The average change of learning score at the treatment period (weeks 5-8) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||.90
95909572|NCT02460692|191776906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.93
95909573|NCT02460692|191776906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.92
95909574|NCT02460692|191776906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||The average change of total time completing task in grooved pegboard test on dominant hand (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.85
95909575|NCT02460692|191776907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||The average change in Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.89
95909576|NCT02460692|191776907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.13
95909577|NCT02460692|191776907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The average change in WAIS-III test score (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.14
95909578|NCT02460692|191776908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|Unstructured covariance model|||||||0.10
95727431|NCT00395083|191424639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Log Rank|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
95909579|NCT02460692|191776908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.67
95909580|NCT02460692|191776908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||The average change of total mood disturbance scores (weeks 5-8, at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the two arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.25
95909581|NCT02460692|191776909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.84
95909582|NCT02460692|191776909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.91
95909583|NCT02460692|191776909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||The average change of beck score (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model, excluding main group effect|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.75
95909584|NCT02460692|191776910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
95727432|NCT00395083|191424640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.70|0.62
95909585|NCT02460692|191776910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.080
95909586|NCT02460692|191776910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
95909587|NCT02460692|191776911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.60
95909588|NCT02460692|191776911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.40
95909589|NCT02460692|191776911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.72
95909590|NCT02460692|191776912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.19
95909591|NCT02460692|191776912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.70
95909592|NCT02460692|191776912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||The average change of pain sensitivity (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.36
95909593|NCT02460692|191776913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.14
95909594|NCT02460692|191776913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.60
95909595|NCT02460692|191776913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in withdrawal intensity from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||.34
95909596|NCT02460692|191776914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.34
95909597|NCT02460692|191776914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.007
95909598|NCT02460692|191776914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.055
95909599|NCT02460692|191776915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.69
95909600|NCT02460692|191776915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.79
95909601|NCT02460692|191776915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||unstructured covariance model|||||||0.97
95909602|NCT02460692|191776916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
95909603|NCT02460692|191776916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
95909604|NCT02460692|191776916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Area under the time concentration curve (AUC) was calculated as the aggregate effect of response and compared between the arms.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95909605|NCT02460692|191776917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.084
95909606|NCT02460692|191776917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.98
95909607|NCT02460692|191776917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in negative impact of withdrawal from week 8 to week 10 was compared between the two arms.||||0.085
95909608|NCT02460692|191776918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.95
95909609|NCT02460692|191776918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.78
95909610|NCT02460692|191776918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99||||||The average change of pain tolerance (weeks 5-8 at the treatment period) from baseline were compared between the arms using an unstructured covariance model.|unstructured covariance model|||||||0.99
95909611|NCT00981084|191776936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.19||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .19
95909612|NCT00981084|191776936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0005||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the RVLT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .0005
95909613|NCT00981084|191776936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT learning, yeilding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .21
95909614|NCT00981084|191776936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.1||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the BVMT delay, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||= .10
95727433|NCT00395083|191424641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Regression, Cox|||||6.17|1.46|0.003
95909615|NCT00981084|191776937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to exame whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the CPT, yielding a difference score. we conducted an independent samples t test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.33
95909616|NCT00981084|191776938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Stroop, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.37
95909617|NCT00981084|191776939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a crossover design to examine whether a single dose of armodafinil would improve cognition in MS. For hypothesis testing analyses, we used a statistical approach that accounts for period (session) effects. We subtracted session 2 performance from session 1 performance on the Word Generation, yielding a difference score. We conducted an independent samples t-test with treatment order as the independent variable (A/P vs. P/A) and the difference score as the dependent variable.||||.53
95909618|NCT01112579|191776940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|14.9|||ANCOVA|||||14.9|-2.0|0.3
95909619|NCT01112579|191776941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.1||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-845.8|633.6|||ANCOVA|||||633.6|-845.8|0.79
95909620|NCT01112579|191776942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.2|-1.6|0.93
95909621|NCT00818753|191776946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.08|12.76||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 110mg BID vs Heparin||12.76|0.08|
95909622|NCT00818753|191776946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||||95.0|0.13|16.82||p-values were not presented as the study was exploratory and not powered to to detect a difference in the treatments|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Dabigatran 150mg BID vs Heparin||16.82|0.13|
95909623|NCT04154787|191776962|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios on Day 169|Adjusted geometric mean ratio|1.37||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.08||Calculated at one-sided 10% level from a lower-tailed test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.08|0.90|0.2670
95909624|NCT04154787|191776965|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted geometric mean ratios|0.81||||0.4598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.42||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 15||1.42|0.47|0.4598
95909625|NCT04154787|191776965|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratios|1.3||||0.4528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.61||Calculated from a two-sided test at the 0.05 significance level|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||Comparison of adjusted geometric mean ratios: Test vs Ref.|Day 169||2.61|0.65|0.4528
95909626|NCT02532179|191777002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|4.29||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.29|2.09|<0.001
95909627|NCT02532179|191777003|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|3.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.77|5.25||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.25|2.77|<0.001
95909628|NCT02532179|191777004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Ratio|6.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.87|11.06||Null hypothesis: there is no difference in immune modulation over time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|3.87|<0.001
95909629|NCT01337674|191777007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.42|5.98|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||5.98|-8.42|
95909630|NCT01337674|191777007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.92|9.49|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||9.49|-4.92|
95909631|NCT01337674|191777007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.31|8.62|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||8.62|-5.31|
95909632|NCT01337674|191777007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Met versus PBO + Met is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.06|5.88|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||5.88|-8.06|
95909633|NCT01337674|191777008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|6.75|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 1||6.75|-2.85|
95909634|NCT01337674|191777008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.71|-1.11|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Semi-recumbent, Day 7||-1.11|-10.71|
95909635|NCT01337674|191777008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.47|-1.03|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 1||-1.03|-11.47|
95909636|NCT01337674|191777008|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis: the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the difference in maximum change from baseline for MK-4618 + Amlo versus PBO + Amlo is \<20 mmHg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.79|3.65|||||The estimated parameter is mean maximum change from baseline for placebo minus MK-4618. Mean and confidence interval for the difference were obtained from linear mixed effects model performed on the maximum increase from baseline values.|Standing, Day 7||3.65|-6.79|
95909637|NCT01787097|191777024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95909638|NCT02293395|191777050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5|||Log Rank|||||1.5|0.8|0.584
95909639|NCT01023568|191777070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|26.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Glidescope - direct laryngoscopy|||26|7|>0.99
95909640|NCT01023568|191777070|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The GlideScope and Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were individually assessed for non-inferiority on time to intubation vs direct laryngoscopy at the 0.025 significance level using an a priori specified non-inferiority delta of seven seconds (about 40% of the expected standard deviation of 18 sec and not thought to be clinically important).|Median Difference (Final Values)|17.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Truview PCD - direct laryngoscopy|||28|6|>0.99
95909641|NCT01023568|191777071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.28
95909642|NCT01023568|191777072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||2|1|> 0.99
95909643|NCT01023568|191777072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|1-tailed Wilcoxon sum-rank test|"The median difference was Hodges-Lehmann estimation and the confidence intervals were exact confidence limits. The SAS NPAR1WAY procedure was used for test and estimation."|The Cormack-Lehane grade with a grade 1 (best grade) to 4 (worst grade) was analyzed as an ordinal outcome.||0|0|0.18
95909644|NCT01023568|191777073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95909645|NCT01023568|191777074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95909646|NCT00224770|191777075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.324|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=14.8, 95% upper limit=25.1; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||16.2||0.324
95909647|NCT00224770|191777075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.633|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=7.1, 95% upper limit=29.7; medical rate=9.5, 95% upper limit=20.5; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of mortality within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of mortality than the medical arm.||11.2||0.633
95909648|NCT00224770|191777076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.174|ONE_SIDED|95.0||11.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=6.9; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of procedure-related mortality within 7 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of procedure-related mortality than the medical arm.||11.7||0.174
95909649|NCT00224770|191777077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.437|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=5.4; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.437
95909650|NCT00224770|191777077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.5|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that rate of cerebritis, meningitis and ventriculitis within 30 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of these infections than medical.||1.5||0.750
95909651|NCT00224770|191777078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.409|ONE_SIDED|95.0||9.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=5.6, 95% upper limit=13.7; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||9.6||0.409
95909652|NCT00224770|191777078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.75|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.2|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=0.0, 95% upper limit=19.3; medical rate=2.4, 95% upper limit=10.8; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate|Null hypothesis is that rate of symptomatic rebleeding 72 hours post last dose is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher rate of symptomatic rebleeding than the medical arm.||2.2||0.750
95909653|NCT00224770|191777079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.468
95909654|NCT00224770|191777079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.294|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.294
95909655|NCT00224770|191777080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.395
95909656|NCT00224770|191777080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of the mRS values for both groups are the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||0.175
95909657|NCT00224770|191777081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
95909658|NCT00224770|191777081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the distributions of percentage of blood clot resolved are the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis is that the distributions are not the same.||||<0.0001
95909659|NCT00224770|191777082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided test||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||<0.0001
95909660|NCT00224770|191777082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign test|Two-sided||Null hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is 0. The alternative hypothesis is that the median percent resolved is not equal to 0.||||0.791
95909661|NCT00224770|191777083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5||0.189|ONE_SIDED|95.0||26.6|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|MISTIE rate=34.6, 95% upper limit=46.9; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers MISTIE rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether MISTIE surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||26.6||0.189
95909662|NCT00224770|191777083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.9||0.156|ONE_SIDED|95.0||43.7|||Fisher Exact|One-sided test|ICES rate=42.9, 95% upper limit=67.5; medical rate=23.7, 95% upper limit=37.7; comparison considers ICES rate minus medical rate.|Null hypothesis is that the proportion with mRS score of 0-3 at 180 days is the same between the two groups. The alternative hypothesis tests whether ICES surgical management has a higher proportion than the medical arm.||43.7||0.156
95909663|NCT00437645|191777084|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Statistical analysis for non-inferiority of valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg to amlodipine 10 mg alone with a non-inferiority margin of 3 mm Hg|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||||-0.44|-3.00|
95909664|NCT00297115|191777089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|58.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|75.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||75|41|<0.0001
95909665|NCT00297115|191777090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.815|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.935||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Poisson regression|||||0.935|0.710|0.0035
95909666|NCT00297115|191777091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|79.0||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||79|44|<0.0001
95909667|NCT00297115|191777092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|2.137||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|Cox proportional hazards regression||The statistical analysis is based on the ITT Analysis Set (n= 772 in the roflumilast group, n= 796 in the placebo group).|||2.137|0.689|0.5028
95909668|NCT00297115|191777093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference calculated as ratio|1.0593||||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9356|1.1994||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model including last observation carried forward (LOCF) method||||1.1994|0.9356|0.3627
95909669|NCT00297115|191777094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.489||No adjustment of the significance level was done as a hierarchical approach for hypotheses testing was used.|ANCOVA|Repeated measurements analysis (change from baseline over 52 weeks of treatment taking all post-randomization measurements into account).||||0.489|0.082|0.0059
95909670|NCT02586025|191777095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|17.45||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.89|28.01||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.01|6.89|0.0014
95909671|NCT02586025|191777096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.36||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|28.83||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||28.83|7.89|0.0008
95909672|NCT02586025|191777097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|29.15||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.15|7.60|0.0010
95909673|NCT02586025|191777098|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|18.83||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.14|29.51||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm. Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||29.51|8.14|0.0006
95909674|NCT02586025|191777100|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|10.4||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|19.69||Two-sided significance level of 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease category (early-stage and locally advanced) and hormone-receptor status (positive for ER and/or PgR or negative for both)|Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||19.69|1.12|0.0125
95909675|NCT02586025|191777101|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for EFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.89|0.32|0.0140
95909676|NCT02586025|191777101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-8.16||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-2.32|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||-2.32|-14.00|0.0062
95727434|NCT00395083|191424642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.17|||Log Rank|||||6.17|1.46|0.002
95729131|NCT02761980|191428328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.998
95909677|NCT02586025|191777101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-9.17||||0.0429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.05|-0.29|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.29|-18.05|0.0429
95909678|NCT02586025|191777101|SUPERIORITY||Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates|-11.1||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.95|-1.24|||Z-test||The difference in EFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in EFS Event-Free Rates at 5 Years||-1.24|-20.95|0.0274
95909679|NCT02586025|191777102|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.88|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for DFS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||0.88|0.30|0.0140
95909680|NCT02586025|191777102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-5.47||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|0.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||0.21|-11.15|0.0592
95909681|NCT02586025|191777102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-9.0||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.69|-0.3|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||-0.30|-17.69|0.0426
95909682|NCT02586025|191777102|SUPERIORITY||Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates|-10.97||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|-1.21|||Z-test||The difference in DFS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in DFS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||-1.21|-20.73|0.0276
95909683|NCT02586025|191777103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.19|||Stratified log-rank|Two-sided log-rank test used, stratified by disease category (early-stage/locally advanced) \& hormone-receptor status (ER+ \&/or PgR+ or ER- \& PgR-)|The hazard ratio was calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|Hazard Ratio for OS Event in the Pertuzumab arm vs. Placebo arm||1.19|0.23|0.1181
95909684|NCT02586025|191777103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|0.46||||0.3162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.36|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 1 year||1.36|-0.44|0.3162
95909685|NCT02586025|191777103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-6.02||||0.0529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.11|0.08|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 3 years||0.08|-12.11|0.0529
95909686|NCT02586025|191777103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in OS Event-Free Rates|-3.89||||0.2616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.9|||Z-test||The difference in OS event-free rates was calculated as the Placebo arm minus the Pertuzumab arm.|Difference in OS Event-Free Rates at 5 years||2.90|-10.69|0.2616
95909687|NCT02586025|191777109|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.93|||||Pertuzumab, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm minus Placebo, Trastuzumab, Docetaxel arm|||0.93|-1.62|
95909688|NCT00175825|191777121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|9.8|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|24.0|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||24.0|-7.2|=0.240
95909689|NCT00175825|191777121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.9|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|28.2|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||28.2|-0.8|=0.062
95909690|NCT00175825|191777121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent reduction over Placebo|22.1|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|34.3|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with baseline seizure frequency per week and each of the stratification factors as independent variables.||34.3|7.6|=0.004
95909691|NCT04186780|191777200|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|2.5||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group in total cholesterol.|||||0.59
95909692|NCT04186780|191777201|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.8284|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group and intervention group.|||||0.8284
95729132|NCT02761980|191428328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||P-value, HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the PH model with treatment term in the model.|Hazard Ratio|||||||0.997
95909693|NCT04186780|191777202|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between T0 and T66 in the placebo group compared to the intervention group.|||||0.0058
95909694|NCT04186780|191777203|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Reduced difference in TBARS in the placebo group compared to the intervention group at T66.|||||0.0384
95909695|NCT04186780|191777204|SUPERIORITY|"The differences between Shiitake and placebo groups were analyzed by the Chi-square test, Exact of Fisher test and Student's t-test.~Descriptions of all biochemical and oxidative stress parameters were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. To investigate the differences in biochemical parameters between the groups, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with repeated measurements was applied. All results of biochemical parameters and oxidative stress were normalized to logarithmic scale."|Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P \< 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.|ANOVA||Difference between placebo group and intervention group of T66.|||||0.0352
95909696|NCT00772590|191777220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95909697|NCT00863655|191777254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Log Rank|||||0.54|0.35|<0.0001
95909698|NCT00430248|191777275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of febuxostat 40 mg to allopurinol was declared if the value of the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was greater than -10%.|Difference in percentage|3.1||||||95.0|-1.9|8.1||||||The primary comparison was between febuxostat 40 mg and allopurinol treatment groups.||8.1|-1.9|
95909699|NCT00430248|191777275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233||95.0||||The test for superiority was performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.233
95909700|NCT00430248|191777275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|24.9|||<|0.001||95.0|20.1|29.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||29.8|20.1|<0.001
95909701|NCT00430248|191777275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|21.9|||<|0.001||95.0|17.0|26.8||Comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact test (two-tailed 0.05 significance level).|Fisher Exact|||||26.8|17.0|<0.001
95909702|NCT00430248|191777276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
95909703|NCT00430248|191777276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909704|NCT00430248|191777276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909705|NCT00430248|191777277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
95909706|NCT00430248|191777277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909707|NCT00430248|191777277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909708|NCT00430248|191777278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.578
95909709|NCT00430248|191777278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909710|NCT00430248|191777278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909711|NCT00430248|191777279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.426
95909712|NCT00430248|191777279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909713|NCT00430248|191777279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909714|NCT00430248|191777280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.050
95909715|NCT00430248|191777280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909716|NCT00430248|191777280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909717|NCT00430248|191777281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.428
95909718|NCT00430248|191777281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909719|NCT00430248|191777281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909720|NCT00430248|191777282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.041
95909721|NCT00430248|191777282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909722|NCT00430248|191777282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909723|NCT00430248|191777283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.083
95909724|NCT00430248|191777283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909725|NCT00430248|191777283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909726|NCT00430248|191777284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.421||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.421
95909727|NCT00430248|191777284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909728|NCT00430248|191777284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909729|NCT00430248|191777285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.520
95909730|NCT00430248|191777285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909731|NCT00430248|191777285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909732|NCT00430248|191777286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.195
95909733|NCT00430248|191777286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909734|NCT00430248|191777286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909735|NCT00430248|191777287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.196
95909736|NCT00430248|191777287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909737|NCT00430248|191777287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 (two-tailed).|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95909738|NCT00430248|191777288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.079
95909739|NCT00430248|191777288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909740|NCT00430248|191777288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909741|NCT00430248|191777289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.685
95909742|NCT00430248|191777289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909743|NCT00430248|191777289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909744|NCT00430248|191777290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.153||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.153
95909745|NCT00430248|191777290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909746|NCT00430248|191777290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909747|NCT00430248|191777291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||0.050
95909748|NCT00430248|191777291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909749|NCT00430248|191777291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is from contrast within the framework of the ANOVA with significance at the 0.05 level.|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95909750|NCT00677235|191777311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.449
95909751|NCT03871595|191777322|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.36|103.83|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||103.83|95.36|
95909752|NCT03871595|191777323|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|70.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.67|78.44|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||78.44|62.67|
95909753|NCT03871595|191777324|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R [%]|99.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.64|104.11|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. The standard deviation is actually the intraindividual geometric Coefficient of Variation \[%\].|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale was used which included effects accounting for sources of variation: 'sequence' (fixed effect), 'subjects within sequences' (random effect), 'period' (fixed effect) and 'treatment' (fixed effect).||104.11|95.64|
95909754|NCT00952822|191777331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.052||||||90.0|-0.117|0.012||||||||0.012|-0.117|
95909755|NCT00952822|191777332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence limits of -0.223 to 0.223 in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence; 2001.|Difference of Least-Squares Means|-0.016||||||90.0|-0.076|0.043||||||||0.043|-0.076|
95909756|NCT03786952|191777369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.453
95909757|NCT03786952|191777370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.931
95909758|NCT03786952|191777371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
95909759|NCT03786952|191777372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.399
95909760|NCT03786952|191777373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.872|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.872
95909761|NCT03786952|191777374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.998
95909762|NCT03786952|191777375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95909763|NCT03786952|191777376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.992
95909764|NCT03786952|191777377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.519
95909765|NCT03786952|191777378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95909766|NCT03786952|191777379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.457
95909767|NCT03786952|191777380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.415|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.415
95909768|NCT03786952|191777381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.923
95909769|NCT03786952|191777382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.981
95729133|NCT02761980|191428329|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.67||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.48|||ANCOVA|||||1.48|-0.13|0.101
95909770|NCT03786952|191777383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.627
95909771|NCT03786952|191777384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.901
95909772|NCT03786952|191777385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.166
95909773|NCT03786952|191777386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.252
95909774|NCT03292146|191777387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95909775|NCT03292146|191777388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95909776|NCT03292146|191777389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.06
95909777|NCT03292146|191777389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Matched pairs|||||||0.01
95909778|NCT03440372|191777392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.7|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.70|1.19|0.0049
95909779|NCT03440372|191777393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.43|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.43|1.09|0.0179
95909780|NCT03440372|191777394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.93|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||1.93|0.83|0.2720
95909781|NCT03440372|191777395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.15|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.15|1.07|0.0193
95909782|NCT03440372|191777396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
95909783|NCT03440372|191777397|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.05|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.05|0.79|0.3167
95909784|NCT03440372|191777398|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.77|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.77|0.73|0.2978
95909785|NCT03440372|191777399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.72|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.72|0.82|0.1895
95909786|NCT03440372|191777400|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.97|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.97|1.00|0.0452
95909787|NCT03440372|191777401|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.14|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.14|1.08|0.0173
95909788|NCT03440372|191777402|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.20|0.97|0.0670
95909789|NCT03440372|191777403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.16|||Mantel Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test||||2.16|0.95|0.0835
95909790|NCT05711641|191777404|OTHER|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|VAS was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
95909791|NCT05711641|191777405|OTHER|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|Tinnitus loudness was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
95909792|NCT05711641|191777406|OTHER|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).||||||||||||||||"The alternative hypothesis of this study is that 10% lidocaine, applied topically to the external auditory canal (EAC), acts on tinnitus intensity differently than placebo, while the null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the action of lidocaine and placebo on tinnitus intensity.~The analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS for Windows software version 22.0 and tabulated using the Microsoft-Excel 2010 software, and the tests were performed with a significance level of 5%."|MML was described with the use of summary measures, and the variations between the applied substances were compared with the use of Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) with normal marginal distribution and identity binding function, assuming an interchangeable correlation matrix between the substances (McCullagh; Nelder, 1989).|||
95909793|NCT00951483|191777424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized test statistic (z-score)|-2.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that C-reactive protein (CRP) is no different between the experimental and healthy control cohorts at 12 weeks.||||.001
95729134|NCT02761980|191428329|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.16||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-0.41|0.582
95909794|NCT00951483|191777425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.544|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-D-7 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-D-7 score.||||<.001
95909795|NCT00951483|191777426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.627|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-17 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-17 score.||||<.001
95909796|NCT00951483|191777427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAMD-21 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAMD-21 score.||||<.001
95909797|NCT00951483|191777428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline HAM-A score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) HAM-A score.||||<.001
95909798|NCT00951483|191777429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-4.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline BDI score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) BDI score.||||<.001
95909799|NCT00951483|191777430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z-score|-3.911|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the intervention cohort's baseline PSS-14 score and end of treatment (i.e., 12 week) PSS-14 score.||||<.001
95909800|NCT02342886|191777431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|9.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|23.89|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||23.89|-4.13|
95909801|NCT02342886|191777432|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed using the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between the percentage of patients who are classified as having an unfavourable status on the intervention (6 months moxifloxacin + 200 mg PA-824 + pyrazinamide) and the control regimen (2 months HRZE/ 4 months HR). The intervention was considered to be non-inferior to the control arm if the upper bound 95% CI was \< 12%.|Treatment difference: unfavourable rate|6.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|15.4|||||(DS-TB: 6 Months Moxifloxacin + PA-824 (200 mg) + Pyrazinamide) - (DS-TB: 2 Months HRZE/ 4 Months HR).|||15.40|-2.15|
95909802|NCT01662882|191777441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0253
95909803|NCT01662882|191777441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0004
95909804|NCT01662882|191777441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4184||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.4184
95909805|NCT01662882|191777441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test comparing the proportion of amyloid positive subjects between clinical diagnosis groups.||||0.0008
95909806|NCT01662882|191777442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance P value testing for an overall difference in the mean cortical SUVR between the clinical diagnostic groups.||||0.0039
95909807|NCT01662882|191777442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0357||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0357
95909808|NCT01662882|191777442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.0010
95909809|NCT01662882|191777442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2118||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance contrast P value testing for difference in the mean cortical SUVR||||0.2118
95909810|NCT03053050|191777443|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.1||||0.4941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.0||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.0|-8.3|0.4941
95909811|NCT03053050|191777443|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.3||||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.0||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.0|-6.6|0.9321
95909812|NCT03053050|191777445|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.2593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|2.9||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.9|-10.8|0.2593
95909813|NCT03053050|191777445|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-0.9||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|6.1||Difference between SEL 6 mg vs Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||6.1|-7.9|0.8080
95909814|NCT03053050|191777447|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-2.0||||0.5636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.8||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.7|0.5636
95909815|NCT03053050|191777447|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-1.9||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.9||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||4.9|-8.6|0.5915
95909816|NCT03053050|191777449|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-3.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2||Difference between SEL 18 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||2.2|-8.5|0.2455
95909817|NCT03053050|191777449|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|-4.0||||0.1371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|1.3||Difference between SEL 6 mg and Placebo, 95% CI and p-value were obtained by stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method with baseline diabetes mellitus status and ELF test score as stratification factors.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.3|-9.3|0.1371
95909818|NCT04958785|191777473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.147|1.409|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio (HR) along with its 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.|||1.409|0.147|0.1617
95909819|NCT04958785|191777475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|10.938|||||Odds ratios and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using chi-square test.|||10.938|0.379|
95909820|NCT00415610|191777510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The repeated measure analysis of the hourly average SBP was calculated with and without adjusting for baseline NIHSS and age.|repeated measure|Adjusted for initial deficit severity of using baseline NIHSS instead of GCS to better discriminate among patients with GCS score \> 8.||The hourly average (of maximum and minimum) SBP measurements were graphed with box-and-whiskers plot. In addition, a repeated measures analysis of the 25 average SBP (baseline and subsequent 24 hourly measures) was conducted with a mixed effects model (assuming autoregressive covariance structure in SAS version 9.1 PROC MIXED) to determine statistically the effect of treatment intensity (tier) on the average SBP over the 24 hrs with and without adjustment for baseline NIHSS score and age.||||< 0.01
95909821|NCT00415610|191777511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Observed average SBP change at 2 hrs after treatment initiation between subjects who did or did not have neurologic deterioration within 24 hrs.|Wilcoxon rank sum test|Mean decrease measured for subjects with neurological deterioration and subjects without neurological deterioration.||Done as a surrogate to evaluate the relationship between early SBP reduction and safety events.||||< .5
95909822|NCT01197508|191777662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.79||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.79|-0.53|1.000
95909823|NCT01197508|191777662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.13|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.13|-1.22|1.000
95909824|NCT01197508|191777662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|2.22|||MMRM|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.22|-1.21|1.000
95909825|NCT01197508|191777663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.12|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.12|0.45|0.144
95909826|NCT01197508|191777663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.17|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.17|0.47|0.203
95909827|NCT01197508|191777663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.82|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.82|0.32|0.005
95909828|NCT01197508|191777664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.45|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.45|0.54|0.636
95909829|NCT01197508|191777664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.2|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.20|0.44|0.215
95909830|NCT01197508|191777664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.35|0.034
95909831|NCT01197508|191777665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.99|0.36|0.711
95909832|NCT01197508|191777665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.85|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.85|0.34|0.594
95909833|NCT01197508|191777665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.65|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.65|0.50|0.749
95909834|NCT01197508|191777666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.96|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.96|0.28|0.037
95909835|NCT01197508|191777666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.25|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.25|0.38|0.222
95727435|NCT04192799|191424643|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.85||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.85|0.65|<0.001
95909836|NCT01197508|191777666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||0.98|0.28|0.042
95909837|NCT01197508|191777667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.27|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.27|0.48|0.913
95909838|NCT01197508|191777667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.01|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||2.01|0.42|0.841
95909839|NCT01197508|191777667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate.||1.39|0.26|0.239
95909840|NCT01197508|191777668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.705||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|2.481|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.481|-0.288|0.120
95909841|NCT01197508|191777668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|2.354|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.354|-0.452|0.184
95909842|NCT01197508|191777668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.711||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|3.484|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAMD-17 total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||3.484|0.692|0.003
95909843|NCT01197508|191777669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.131||95.0|-0.05|0.42|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.42|-0.05|0.131
95909844|NCT01197508|191777669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.31|-0.17|0.551
95909845|NCT01197508|191777669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization CGI-S total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.30|-0.19|0.645
95909846|NCT01197508|191777670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.99|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.99|0.38|0.046
95909847|NCT01197508|191777670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.0|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||1.00|0.38|0.051
95909848|NCT01197508|191777670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||TC-5214 is the numerator in the OR, OR\>1 represents a result in favor of TC-5214.|Logistic regression model including treatment and pooled center as fixed effects and the randomization Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) as a covariate.||0.98|0.37|0.040
95909849|NCT01197508|191777671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|2.03|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.03|-0.58|0.273
95909850|NCT01197508|191777671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.0|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.00|-0.65|0.315
95909851|NCT01197508|191777671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.51|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization HAM-A total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||2.51|-0.13|0.078
95909852|NCT01197508|191777672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.19|-0.68|0.590
95909853|NCT01197508|191777672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|1.14|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.14|-0.74|0.679
95909854|NCT01197508|191777672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.53|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.53|-0.35|0.215
95909855|NCT01197508|191777673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.01|0.052
95909856|NCT01197508|191777673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.3|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.30|-1.11|0.874
95909857|NCT01197508|191777673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.24|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.24|-0.19|0.099
95909858|NCT01197508|191777674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.95|-0.77|0.394
95909859|NCT01197508|191777674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|1.63|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.63|-1.11|0.712
95909860|NCT01197508|191777674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.38|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.38|-0.41|0.167
95909861|NCT01197508|191777675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.95|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.95|0.02|0.046
95909862|NCT01197508|191777675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.79|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.79|-1.17|0.681
95909863|NCT01197508|191777675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.84|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization MADRS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.84|-0.19|0.087
95909864|NCT01197508|191777676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.736||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.464|2.427||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.427|-0.464|1.000
95909865|NCT01197508|191777676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.746||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.188||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.188|-0.740|1.000
95909866|NCT01197508|191777676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.762||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.649|2.346||The adjusted p-value protects the overall family-wise error rate by taking into account the multiple comparisons between the TC-5214 doses for both the primary efficacy variable (MADRS) and the key secondary efficacy variable (SDS).|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.346|-0.649|1.000
95909867|NCT01197508|191777677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.61|-0.54|0.914
95909868|NCT01197508|191777677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.81|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.81|-0.36|0.446
95909869|NCT01197508|191777677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.75|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS work/school domain score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.75|-0.47|0.656
95909870|NCT01197508|191777678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.82|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.82|-0.21|0.248
95909871|NCT01197508|191777678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.7|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.70|-0.34|0.498
95909872|NCT01197508|191777678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS social life domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.32|0.441
95909873|NCT01197508|191777679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
95909874|NCT01197508|191777679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.74|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.74|-0.30|0.402
95909875|NCT01197508|191777679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.88|||MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization SDS family life/home responsibilities domain score. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.88|-0.18|0.197
95909876|NCT01197508|191777680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.643||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.697|1.756|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.756|-4.697|0.371
95909877|NCT01197508|191777680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.597|1.967|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||1.967|-4.597|0.432
95909878|NCT01197508|191777680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.672||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.992|0.573|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF % maximum total score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.573|-5.992|0.105
95909879|NCT01197508|191777681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.09|-0.29|0.312
95909880|NCT01197508|191777681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.21|-0.18|0.885
95909881|NCT01197508|191777681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 15 score as covariate, treatment as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.01|-0.37|0.067
95909882|NCT01197508|191777682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.05|-0.33|0.152
95909883|NCT01197508|191777682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||0.02|-0.37|0.078
95909884|NCT01197508|191777682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with randomization Q-LES-Q-SF item 16 as a fixed effect and pooled center as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.41|0.033
95909885|NCT01197508|191777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0181||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0465|0.0245||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0245|-0.0465|0.543
95729135|NCT02761980|191428329|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.72|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||0.72|-0.43|0.614
95909886|NCT01197508|191777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.0361||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0361|-0.0360|0.998
95909887|NCT01197508|191777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0432|0.0308||Analysis for change in EQ-5D index score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||0.0308|-0.0432|0.743
95909888|NCT01197508|191777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.56||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.56|-6.10|0.244
95909889|NCT01197508|191777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|2.18||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||2.18|-5.59|0.389
95909890|NCT01197508|191777683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|1.16||Analysis of change in EQ-5D VAS score from randomization (Week 8) to end of treatment (Week 16)|MMRM|||MMRM model includes treatment, pooled center, visit and treatment by visit interaction as explanatory variables and the randomization EQ-5D VAS total score as a covariate. Treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction are fixed effects in the model; pooled center is a random effect.||1.16|-6.79|0.165
95909891|NCT03466086|191777693|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.238|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|2.59||Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is greater than 0.|Multivariate Bayesian Model|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|Mean Difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|||2.59|-2.35|
95909892|NCT03466086|191777694|SUPERIORITY|Superiority will be declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval of the difference between Test and Control is less than 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.951|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.37|||Multivariate Bayesian Analysis|The correlation between measurements across periods were modeled using unstructured variance-covariance matrix.||This was a pilot study and the sample size was not based on any empirical power calculation.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|3.37|-0.40|
95729136|NCT02761980|191428329|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.32|||ANCOVA|||||1.32|-0.29|0.212
95909893|NCT00716092|191777719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.0|-11.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) was to be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-11.9|-28.0|<0.0001
95909894|NCT00716092|191777720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001||95.0|12.4|23.9||There was no adjustment for multiple primary endpoints, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the endpoint WMG was not successful, any analysis of the GLP-1 (AUEC 0-24h) will be considered descriptive.|ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||23.9|12.4|<0.0001
95909895|NCT00716092|191777721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0283||95.0|-20.4|-1.2|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-1.2|-20.4|0.0283
95909896|NCT00716092|191777722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.3|<|0.0001||95.0|-147.0|-66.0|||ANCOVA|The primary analyses are based upon a model containing only BI1356 and Placebo. Sitagliptin values come from a different model containing all 3 groups||BI1356 minus Placebo||-66.0|-147.0|<0.0001
95909897|NCT00716092|191777723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.1274||95.0|-1.7|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-1.7|0.1274
95909898|NCT00716092|191777724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.313||95.0|-2.7|8.2|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||8.2|-2.7|0.3130
95909899|NCT00716092|191777725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.2281||95.0|-3.3|13.8|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||13.8|-3.3|0.2281
95909900|NCT00716092|191777726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.6||0.223||95.0|-14.0|59.5|||ANCOVA|These measured values and statistical analysis come from a mixed model containing all three treatment groups, and adjusted as already described.||BI 1356 minus Sitagliptin. This analysis comparing BI1356 to Sitagliptin was conducted as an exploratory analysis at the time of analysing the study data. The study was not powered for such a comparison.||59.5|-14.0|0.2230
95909901|NCT02219048|191777729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0909|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2243|0.0805|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 1||0.0805|-0.2243|
95909902|NCT02219048|191777729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2362|0.0523|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 2||0.0523|-0.2362|
95909903|NCT02219048|191777729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0837|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2536|0.0274|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 3||0.0274|-0.2536|
95909904|NCT02219048|191777729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0829|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1971|0.0812|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline at Week 4||0.0812|-0.1971|
95909905|NCT02219048|191777729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.0837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0742|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2081|0.0406|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Over Week 1 to 4||0.0406|-0.2081|
95909906|NCT02219048|191777732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.285|0.106|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline Averaged Over Week 1 to 4||0.106|-0.285|
95909907|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.017|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.003|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.76|22.794|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 1||22.794|-10.760|
95909908|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.228|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.926|27.108|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 2||27.108|-13.926|
95909909|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.954|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.673|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.644|20.552|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 3||20.552|-18.644|
95909910|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.069|17.333|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB at Week 4||17.333|-26.069|
95909911|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.503|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.323|19.92|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Morning PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||19.920|-15.323|
95909912|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.961|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.248|19.519|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 1||19.519|-17.248|
95909913|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.956|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.871|19.54|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 2||19.540|-13.871|
95909914|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.652|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.933|11.185|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 3||11.185|-27.933|
95909915|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.245|22.356|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB at Week 4||22.356|-23.245|
95909916|NCT02219048|191777734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.212|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.317|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.52|16.096|||Longitudinal Analysis of Covariance|LANCOVA model contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment/baseline by week interaction, baseline value, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Evening PEF: CFB Averaged Over 4 Weeks||16.096|-18.520|
95909917|NCT01032733|191777737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||This trial represented a pilot study, which was designed to demonstrate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of the intervention; therefore, a power analysis was not conducted. The statistical analyses consisted of descriptive and intent-to-treat (ITT) modeling procedures.||||<0.05
95909918|NCT01032733|191777738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95909919|NCT01032733|191777739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95909920|NCT01032733|191777740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95909921|NCT01032733|191777741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95909922|NCT02436330|191777742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0615||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1344|0.0115||We checked the distribution of bmiz changes between baseline and 6 months, and there is one subject from control group had bigger changes than others. After excluding this subject, the results are still similar with previous.|t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0115|-0.1344|0.0967
95909923|NCT02436330|191777743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0775||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1485|-0.00652|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.00652|-0.1485|0.0335
95909924|NCT02436330|191777744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.1|-5.2|0.991
95909925|NCT02436330|191777745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|11.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11|-9|0.851
95909926|NCT02436330|191777746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.8|-11.7|0.501
95909927|NCT02436330|191777747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2971||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0224|0.5718|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5718|0.0224|0.035
95909928|NCT02436330|191777748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9464||||0.2207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4954|0.6025|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.6025|-2.4954|0.2207
95909929|NCT02436330|191777749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0491||||0.4164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6407|1.5425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5425|-3.6407|0.4164
95909930|NCT02436330|191777750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2433.7||||0.812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18579.7|23447.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23447.2|-18579.7|0.812
95909931|NCT02436330|191777751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2837||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3037|0.8711|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8711|-0.3037|0.3326
95909932|NCT02436330|191777752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2995||||0.1856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2051|0.8041|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.8041|-0.2051|0.1856
95909933|NCT02436330|191777753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-247.9||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-531.7|35.8686|||t-test, 2 sided|||||35.8686|-531.7|0.0849
95909934|NCT02436330|191777754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2048||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3835|1.974|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.9740|-10.3835|0.176
95909935|NCT02436330|191777755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.2151||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|13.457|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.457|0.973|0.0247
95909936|NCT02436330|191777756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8169||||0.2764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4147|0.7808|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7808|-2.4147|0.2764
95909937|NCT02436330|191777757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7958||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.235|-0.3566|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3566|-1.2350|0.0008
95909938|NCT02436330|191777758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7024||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9377|4.3425|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.3425|-2.9377|0.6974
95909939|NCT02436330|191777760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2122|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2122
95909940|NCT02436330|191777761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.61||||0.1265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|8.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.33|-1.15|0.1265
95909941|NCT02436330|191777762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3671|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3671
95909942|NCT02436330|191777763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4892
95909943|NCT05120115|191777767|EQUIVALENCE|Examined differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|ANOVA|||||||0.05
95909944|NCT05120115|191777768|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95909945|NCT05120115|191777769|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between conditions||||||0.05||||||Used Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95909946|NCT01113502|191777770|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (mg)|300.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95909947|NCT00995501|191777776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2|0.45|0.86
95909948|NCT00995501|191777776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.45|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2|0.45|0.87
95909949|NCT00995501|191777776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.49|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with light anesthesia vs. 4 arms with deep anesthesia||2.2|0.49|0.90
95909950|NCT00995501|191777777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.37|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with intensive glucose control vs. 4 arms with conventional glucose control||2.3|0.37|0.8
95909951|NCT00995501|191777777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.43|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Compare 4 arms with Dexamethasone vs. 4 arms with Placebo||2.7|0.43|0.84
95909952|NCT00995501|191777777|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|99.6|0.42|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.7|0.42|0.87
95909953|NCT01274182|191777826|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.106|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.21|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.210|1.010|
95909954|NCT01274182|191777826|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.925|1.108|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.108|0.925|
95909955|NCT01274182|191777826|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.208|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|PK bioequivalence is defined as AUC(0-inf) of the drugs being comparable, i.e. the two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of the geometric means (GP2013/MabThera) is within the predefined bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25.||1.208|0.989|
95909956|NCT01274182|191777827|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.076|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.184|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.184|0.979|
95909957|NCT01274182|191777827|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.131|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.027|1.244|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.244|1.027|
95909958|NCT01274182|191777827|EQUIVALENCE|The PK parameters were transformed prior to analysis using a logarithmic transformation. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the transformed data including treatment group only as a factor in the model. The confidence interval for the difference between the two products on the transformed scale was obtained from the ANOVA model, which was then be back-transformed (exp base e) to obtain the confidence interval for the ratio on the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.946|1.167|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude bioequivalence the 90% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25.||1.167|0.946|
95909959|NCT01274182|191777828|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|0.989|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.004|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and Rituxan arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.004|0.974|
95909960|NCT01274182|191777828|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.003|1.04|||||GP2013 arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalencelimits of 0.8-1.25||1.040|1.003|
95909961|NCT01274182|191777828|EQUIVALENCE|Ratio of geometric means and 95% confidence interval were estimated by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on log-transformed PD parameter with treatment as the factor. Results were then back-transformed to the original scale.|Geometric mean ratio|1.033|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|1.05|||||Rituxan arm is the numerator and MabThera arm is the denominator|To conclude equivalence the 95% CI must be entirely within the standard equivalence limits of 0.8-1.25||1.050|1.016|
95909962|NCT01274182|191777829|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6.~LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|0.24|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 - LS mean of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.240|-0.397|
95909963|NCT01274182|191777829|NON_INFERIORITY|"The non-inferiority margin is further justified by the EULAR criteria which define no response as change from baseline being \< 0.6. LS means, standard errors and 95% CI were estimated by a repeated measures mixed model with treatment, time and treatment\*time interaction term as categorical variables and baseline DAS28 as a continuous variable.~A negative change from baseline represents an improvement in assessment of rheumatoid arthritis."|LS Mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.328|0.462|||||The direction of comparison is LS mean of GP2013 Part I - LS mean of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the upper 95% CI should be less than or equal to 0.6. This margin was statistically justified by the results of the REFLEX (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA) trial (Cohen et al 2006) providing a 95% CI for the mean difference between rituximab/MTX and MTX alone of (-1.74;-1.25). The margin of 0.6 was determined by retaining more than 50% of the reference treatment effect which was considered clinically acceptable.||0.462|-0.328|
95909964|NCT01274182|191777830|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|23.08|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 - response rate of Rituxan|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||23.08|-3.54|
95909965|NCT01274182|191777830|NON_INFERIORITY|The predefined noninferiority margin of 0.15 for ACR20 is based on the historical placebo-controlled phase III study to evaluate the response rate benefit of adding rituximab to the conventional small molecule-based treatment of patients with RA (Cohen et al. 2006).|Response rate difference (%)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|13.6|||||The direction of comparison is response rate of GP2013 Part I - response rate of MabThera|To conclude non-inferiority the lower 95% CI should be greater than -15.0%.||13.60|-14.74|
95909966|NCT01970982|191777835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|23.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.41|28.95||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on MHBMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||28.95|18.41|<0.001
95909967|NCT01970982|191777836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|52.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.67|61.17||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on 3-HPMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||61.17|45.67|<0.001
95909968|NCT01970982|191777837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|15.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.09|18.78||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on S-PMA levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||18.78|13.09|<0.001
95909969|NCT01970982|191777838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|47.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.3|50.08||The primary endpoints were tested using a multiple testing procedure to preserve the overall alpha level by simultaneously testing the endpoints using a closed procedure with each test performed at an alpha level of 2.5% one sided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on COHb levels with product, sex, cigarette consumption, and baseline value as covariates.|LS mean ratio THS 2.2:CC|"The hypothesis to be tested is that the geometric mean level on Day 5 of the biomarker of exposure for THS 2.2 is lower relative to CC.~Analysis of the BoExp was conducted on the natural log scale in order to test the following hypothesis (one sided test with 2.5% type I error probability):~* Null hypothesis (H0): m1≥m2~* Alternative hypothesis (H1): m1\<m2 Where m1 and m2 are the geometric means of the BoExp levels on Day 5 for THS 2.2 and CC respectively."||50.08|44.30|<0.001
95909970|NCT00419263|191777865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|P-value is based on the treatment parameter from the Cox Regression Model including treatment, current smoking behavior, and geographic region.||||||0.377
95909971|NCT00419263|191777866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
95909972|NCT00419263|191777867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is based on the log-rank statistic controlling for current smoking behavior and geographic region.|Log Rank|||||||0.537
95909973|NCT00419263|191777868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95909974|NCT00419263|191777869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95909975|NCT00419263|191777870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.409
95909976|NCT00419263|191777871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|||||The differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test controlling for current smoking behavior.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.327
95909977|NCT03015402|191777880|SUPERIORITY|Pre-randomization characteristics of 2 groups will be presented using the median (IQR) or frequency tables at each study sequence. The difference of mPAP during submax exercise compared between placebo and nitrite at 10 weeks (i.e. week 10 RHC of placebo vs week 10 RHC of nitrite) using parametric PK-cross analysis (i.e. ANOVA to determine the sequence, period, carryover, \& treatment effects). Post-exercise values before \& after crossover will be compared between 2 groups using similar approach.||||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.20
95909978|NCT01786967|191777915|SUPERIORITY|This was a pilot study to provide preliminary data to inform future sample size estimates for a larger more definitive trial|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there will be no difference in treatment benefit scale between the two groups||1.71|0.53|1.0
95909979|NCT01786967|191777916|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.95|||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the rate of moderate to severe adverse events.||.95|.76|1.0
95909980|NCT02816138|191777935|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|For change in depression severity (MADRS) over time, we used a linear mixed effects model with autoregressive of order 1 (AR(1)) temporal process.||||||<0.001
95909981|NCT02816138|191777936|OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.761
95909982|NCT02816138|191777937|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.084
95909983|NCT02816138|191777938|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessing for change from baseline to 12-weeks||||0.073
95909984|NCT02816138|191777939|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.002
95909985|NCT02816138|191777940|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||<0.001
95909986|NCT02816138|191777941|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||||||0.049
95909987|NCT02816138|191777942|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.502
95909988|NCT02816138|191777943|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.049
95909989|NCT02816138|191777944|OTHER|||||||0.068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank test||||||0.068
95909990|NCT01345630|191777985|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the analysis of the primary endpoint conducted at Week 48, the alternative hypothesis was to test for non-inferiority of MVC+DRV/r to FTC/TDF+DRV/r with a non-inferiority margin of -10%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|-4.24||||||The difference in the percentages between the maraviroc and the emtricitabine/tenofovir treatment arms and the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference was provided using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method over the two assays and the screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels (\>=100,000 copies/mL or \<100,000 copies/mL). The sample size was chosen to yield a power of ≥90%. The 95% CIs and mean difference (final values) are presented as percentages above.||-4.24|-14.83|
95909991|NCT01345630|191777993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0303|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1343|-0.0157||||||The difference in proportions of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 48 between the \[MVC+DRV/r\] and the \[FTC/TDF+DRV/r\] treatment arms, with two-sided 95% confidence interval, is shown for those patients who were R5 by genotype (including all who were originally randomized to ESTA and were R5 by genotype upon retesting), via the maximum likelihood (ML) method.||-0.0157|-0.1343|
95909992|NCT01345630|191777998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|23.6|||ANCOVA|||Results were from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||23.6|-24.4|0.9750
95909993|NCT01345630|191777999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-1.5|-3.1|<0.0001
95909994|NCT01345630|191778000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|127.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.5|178.8|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||178.8|76.5|<0.0001
95909995|NCT01345630|191778001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.1|||ANCOVA|||Results were from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||3.1|1.1|<0.0001
95909996|NCT01345630|191778002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: Treatment group, Screening plasma HIV RNA concentration, Screening Tropism Assay, Baseline value of the response variable.||-0.07|-0.15|<0.0001
95909997|NCT01345630|191778003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.861||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-658.181|809.903|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||809.903|-658.181|0.8379
95909998|NCT01345630|191778004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.3376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.094|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.094|-0.033|0.3376
95909999|NCT01345630|191778005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.023|0.004|0.0043
95910000|NCT01345630|191778006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.022|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.022|-0.005|0.2273
95910001|NCT01345630|191778007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.018|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.018|-0.007|0.4188
95910002|NCT01345630|191778008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.17|0.94|||ANCOVA|||Results are from ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, and Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||0.94|-5.17|0.1722
95910003|NCT01345630|191778009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-126.78||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.34|-35.23|||ANCOVA|||Results are from an ANCOVA model with change from Baseline as the response variable and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment group, age, race, Screening BMI, Baseline value of the response variable. Treatment differences are estimated using LS means with factor levels weighted according to overall analysis population proportions.||-35.23|-218.34|0.0071
95910004|NCT00662857|191778019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.846|1.141|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.141|0.846|
95910005|NCT00662857|191778020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.823|1.099|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge to 2 x 15 U cartridges of TI.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||1.099|0.823|
95910006|NCT00662857|191778021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.3531|||||||Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3531
95910007|NCT00662857|191778022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.366|0.578|||||"Geometric Mean Ratio of serum insulin from a single 30 U cartridge of TI to 10 U sc insulin lispro.~Based on pair-wise comparisons from analysis of covariance fitting the model: natural log of parameter = cohort, treatment, visit, subject (cohort)."|||0.578|0.366|
95910008|NCT05674890|191778093|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.49||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||0.297
95910009|NCT05674890|191778094|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
95910010|NCT05674890|191778095|EQUIVALENCE|"Any deviation greater that +/- 0.60 (Effect size/Stdev OR 0.15/0.25=0.60) between device means was considered non-equivalent."|Mean Difference (Net)|-48.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|56.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Prior to patient enrollment, a power calculation was conducted to assess the ability of our analyses to reliably detect differences between the HFA and SSVR. With a sample size of 80, assumed effect size of 0.15, standard deviation of 0.25, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.50, and significance level of 0.05, our analysis reaches a power of 0.87.||||<0.001
95910011|NCT02274857|191778116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2179
95910012|NCT02274857|191778117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2782|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2782
95910013|NCT02274857|191778118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7266|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7266
95910014|NCT02274857|191778119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3522|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3522
95910015|NCT00117676|191778121|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|With a sample size of 200 subjects in the tenofovir DF group and 100 subjects in the adefovir dipivoxil group, a two group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a one-sided 0.025 significance level would have 95% power to reject the null hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was inferior to the adefovir dipivoxil treatment (difference in proportions was less than -0.100) in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the tenofovir DF treatment was not inferior.|Difference in proportions|23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|33.8||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted (baseline ALT ≥ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) difference is 0.|Z-test|||A two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), stratified by baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN) was used to evaluate the difference (tenofovir DF - adefovir dipivoxil) in the proportion of complete responders between treatment groups.||33.8|13.2|<0.001
95910016|NCT00117676|191778122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|39.2||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Difference, standard error of the difference, and the CI are stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT category (≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||39.2|21.3|<0.001
95910017|NCT00117676|191778123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|8.0||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals, stratified by baseline ALT (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN), were used to evaluate treatment arm differences.|Z-test|||||8.0|-5.2|0.672
95910018|NCT00117676|191778128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|14.9||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the stratum-adjusted difference is zero. Confidence interval stratum adjusted based on baseline ALT (≤ 2 x ULN, \> 2 x ULN).|Z-test|||||14.9|-4.5|0.293
95910019|NCT00117676|191778134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|8.5||Statistical tests were not adjusted for baseline ALT stratum. Analysis set included only randomized and treated participants with baseline ALT \> ULN (biochemically evaluable analysis set).|Z-test|P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.||||8.5|-10.2|0.859
95910020|NCT00117676|191778135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3||P-value corresponds to a Z-test of the null hypothesis that the ALT stratum-adjusted difference is zero.|Z-test|Difference, standard error of the difference, and confidence interval are stratum adjusted (baseline ALT ≤ 2 x ULN or \> 2 x ULN).||||15.3|-5.5|0.359
95729137|NCT02761980|191428329|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.53||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.34|||ANCOVA|||||1.34|-0.28|0.202
95910021|NCT01250990|191778158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||p value is for comparison between changes in reverse cholesterol transport in niacin versus placebo groups after 12 weeks of treatment.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a pilot study to assess the effects of niacin on reverse cholesterol transport. The null hypothesis is that niacin has no effect on reverse cholesterol transport.||||0.8
95910022|NCT04496219|191778181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to instillation adherence||||0.97
95910023|NCT04496219|191778181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p value relates to missed visits.||||0.17
95910024|NCT04496219|191778182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5638|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Constipation Symptoms.||||0.5638
95910025|NCT04496219|191778182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1753|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Diarrhea Symptoms.||||0.1753
95910026|NCT04496219|191778182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Urinary Symptoms.||||0.2062
95910027|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8092|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Global Health.||||0.8092
95910028|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5492|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Physical Function.||||0.5492
95910029|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6464|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Emotional Function.||||0.6464
95910030|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Social Function.||||0.586
95910031|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8999|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Fatigue Symptoms.||||0.8999
95910032|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2007|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Pain Symptoms.||||0.2007
95910033|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9921|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Malaise Symptoms.||||0.9921
95910034|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5723|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Role Function.||||0.5723
95910035|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Cognitive Function.||||0.812
95910036|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Nausea Symptoms.||||0.96
95910037|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Dyspnoea Symptoms.||||0.1062
95910038|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3259|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Insomnia Symptoms.||||0.3259
95910039|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9664|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Appetite Loss Symptoms.||||0.9664
95910040|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4564|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Finances.||||0.4564
95910041|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1036|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intravesical Symptoms.||||0.1036
95910042|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1789|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Worries.||||0.1789
95910043|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Bloating Symptoms.||||0.5186
95910044|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Sexual Function.||||0.0757
95910045|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1174|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Male Sex Problems.||||0.1174
95910046|NCT04496219|191778183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3129|||||||Chi-squared|||For the patient survey, the two arms will be compared using chi-squared. This analysis is for Intimacy.||||0.3129
95910047|NCT03364751|191778185|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.068||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.196|-0.060|0.297
95910048|NCT03364751|191778185|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.064||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.146|-0.273|0.550
95910049|NCT03364751|191778186|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.043||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.171|-0.084|0.502
95910050|NCT03364751|191778186|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.189|-0.229|0.851
95910051|NCT03364751|191778187|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.224|-0.085|0.376
95910052|NCT03364751|191778187|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.025||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3: Difference between Cigarette and DualUse||0.279|-0.229|0.848
95910053|NCT03364751|191778187|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.092||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and IQOS||0.247|-0.064|0.246
95910054|NCT03364751|191778187|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.105||||0.417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6: Difference between Cigarette and Dual Use||0.150|-0.359|0.417
95910055|NCT02413580|191778203|OTHER|The hypothesis test is to test the null hypothesis: H0: μd = 0 versus alternative hypothesis Ha: μd ≠ 0 where μd is the mean change from Baseline to Day 14. The Shapiro-Wilk test is used to test the normality. If the assumptions for parametric test are met, a paired t-test (comparison between the pre- and post-treatment) is used to test for the treatment effect. Otherwise, a non-parametric test (Wilcoxon signed rank test) is used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.957|-4.787|||Paired t-test|||||-4.787|-7.957|<0.001
95910056|NCT01812655|191778212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|45.0|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = PD group - VR group|||45.0|2.4|0.029
95910057|NCT01812655|191778212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference = VR group - SC group|||28.9|-9.5|0.32
95910058|NCT01812655|191778213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.223||||0.26||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.26
95910059|NCT01812655|191778213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.119||||0.59||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||.59
95910060|NCT01812655|191778213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.059||||0.6||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between desire for distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||.60
95910061|NCT01812655|191778214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||semipartial correlation|-0.276||||0.15||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.15
95910062|NCT01812655|191778214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.347||||0.18||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.18
95910063|NCT01812655|191778214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|0.21||||0.054||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Engagement with Distraction and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.054
95910064|NCT01812655|191778214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.102||||0.61||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC State Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.61
95910065|NCT01812655|191778214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial Correlation|-0.622||||0.007||95.0|||||Semipartial Correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and STAIC Trait Anxiety measured at Baseline for all participants|||||0.007
95910066|NCT01812655|191778214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Semipartial correlation|-0.217||||0.045||95.0|||||Semipartial correlation||Semipartial correlation between Belief in Distraction's Efficacy and Procedural Pain (Outcome Measure #1) for all participants|||||0.045
95910067|NCT01596582|191778220|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
95910068|NCT01596582|191778221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95910069|NCT01596582|191778222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95910070|NCT01596582|191778223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95910071|NCT01596582|191778224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95910072|NCT01596582|191778225|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The p-value for each comparison was non-significanct.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95910073|NCT01596582|191778226|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.51
95910074|NCT01596582|191778227|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.62
95910075|NCT01596582|191778228|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95910076|NCT01596582|191778229|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
95910077|NCT00540124|191778241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.073
95910078|NCT00540124|191778241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.186
95910079|NCT00540124|191778242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
95910080|NCT00540124|191778242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.155
95910081|NCT00540124|191778242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.108
95910082|NCT00540124|191778242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.112
95910083|NCT00540124|191778243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.137
95910084|NCT00540124|191778243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95910085|NCT00540124|191778243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.118
95910086|NCT00540124|191778243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95910087|NCT00540124|191778243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.207||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.207
95910088|NCT00540124|191778243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.581
95910089|NCT00540124|191778244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.306||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.306
95910090|NCT00540124|191778244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
95910091|NCT00540124|191778244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.203
95910092|NCT00540124|191778244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
95910093|NCT00540124|191778244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.169
95910094|NCT00540124|191778244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
95910095|NCT00540124|191778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.206
95910096|NCT00540124|191778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value for 4 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.457
95910097|NCT00540124|191778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.892
95910098|NCT00540124|191778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value for 8 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.593
95910099|NCT00540124|191778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.887||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.887
95910100|NCT00540124|191778245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), time (visit), baseline value, and time\*treatment interaction. Model used an unstructured covariance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
95910101|NCT00540124|191778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
95910102|NCT00540124|191778246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.415||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.415
95910103|NCT00540124|191778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.176
95910104|NCT00540124|191778247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.921||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.921
95910105|NCT00540124|191778248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.429||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.429
95910106|NCT00540124|191778248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.304||95.0||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test with modified ridit scores controlling for alpha block use (yes/no) and lower urinary tract symptom severity as stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.304
95910107|NCT00540124|191778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.254
95910108|NCT00540124|191778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.359||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Waking Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.359
95910109|NCT00540124|191778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.098
95910110|NCT00540124|191778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Sleeping Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.632
95910111|NCT00540124|191778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.102
95910112|NCT00540124|191778249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Total Voids. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.348
95910113|NCT00540124|191778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.208
95910114|NCT00540124|191778250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.985
95910115|NCT00540124|191778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.385
95910116|NCT00540124|191778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Terminal Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.595
95910117|NCT00540124|191778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.704
95910118|NCT00540124|191778251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.439||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Post Micturation Dribble. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values for pairwise comparison of change difference based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.439
95910119|NCT00540124|191778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.838||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.838
95910120|NCT00540124|191778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmax. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.831
95910121|NCT00540124|191778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.696||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.696
95910122|NCT00540124|191778252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change Qmean. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.257
95910123|NCT00540124|191778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.709||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.709
95910124|NCT00540124|191778253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494||95.0||||P-value for 12 Week Change. Change=Endpoint minus baseline. P-values are from an ANCOVA with effects for treatment, prior alpha blocker use (yes/no), and baseline value, and were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||||||0.494
95910125|NCT00774579|191778261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6
95910126|NCT00774579|191778262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1
95910127|NCT05899686|191778311|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as ANOVA p\<0.05||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Maximum percent change from baseline (light transmittance) during 60 heart beats after the tetanic stimulus were compared between the three stimulus locations using ANOVA||||0.65
95910128|NCT02170025|191778312|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.7|6.0||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 0.5 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 14. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||6.0|-8.7|
95910129|NCT02170025|191778312|OTHER||Bayesian analysis|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.4|2.4||||||Treatment effect describes the difference in outcomes between 1.0 mg riociguat and placebo on Day 28. This was an exploratory analysis. For sample size determination a probabilistic assessment on predicted point estimates and width of credible intervals was performed.||2.4|-12.4|
95910130|NCT02459574|191778332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.156|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.25||Bonferonni corrected alpha of 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy|Primary Analysis - AVATAR-AF vs Anti-Arrhythmic Therapy||0.250|0.097|<0.0001
95910131|NCT02459574|191778332|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.6061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|2.154||Bonferonni corrected alpha 0.05/2 = 0.025|Log Rank||95% Wald Confidence Limits Point estimate relates to AVATAR-AF in relation to Conventional Ablation|Secondary analysis of Primary Outcome measure - AVATAR-AF vs Conventional Ablation||2.154|0.639|0.6061
95910132|NCT00251745|191778351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95910133|NCT00251745|191778351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95910134|NCT00251745|191778351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15505||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.15505
95910135|NCT00251745|191778353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.00001
95910136|NCT00251745|191778353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95910137|NCT00251745|191778353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3874||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.38740
95910138|NCT00636649|191778359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.993|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-TASK||||0.993
95910139|NCT00636649|191778359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-EMOT||||0.185
95910140|NCT00636649|191778359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-DIS||||0.196
95910141|NCT00636649|191778359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-AVD||||0.759
95910142|NCT00636649|191778359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||CISS-SOC||||0.396
95910143|NCT00636649|191778360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.579|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.579
95910144|NCT00636649|191778361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-RES||||0.225
95910145|NCT00636649|191778361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-DIS||||0.498
95910146|NCT00636649|191778361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724|||||||ANCOVA|||TFEQ-HUN||||0.724
95910147|NCT04508699|191778369|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.36
95910148|NCT04508699|191778370|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95910149|NCT04508699|191778371|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95910150|NCT04508699|191778372|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95910151|NCT04508699|191778373|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95910152|NCT04508699|191778374|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
95910153|NCT04508699|191778375|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
95910154|NCT04508699|191778376|OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||reported p-value was calculated, is not indicating the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.00001
95910155|NCT01984697|191778424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|2.53|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.53|1.83|<0.001
95910156|NCT01984697|191778424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.36|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.36|1.73|<0.001
95910157|NCT01984697|191778424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.11|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.11|2.93|<0.001
95910158|NCT01984697|191778425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.8|<0.001
95910159|NCT01984697|191778425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
95910160|NCT01984697|191778425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
95910161|NCT01984697|191778426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|2.82|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.82|2.03|<0.001
95910162|NCT01984697|191778426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|2.88|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.88|2.09|<0.001
95910163|NCT01984697|191778426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|5.94|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.94|4.32|<0.001
95910164|NCT01984697|191778427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.14|<0.001
95910165|NCT01984697|191778427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.15|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.15|2.29|<0.001
95910166|NCT01984697|191778427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|5.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.37|3.84|<0.001
95910167|NCT01984697|191778428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|2.96|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.96|2.05|<0.001
95910168|NCT01984697|191778428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|2.92|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.92|2.04|<0.001
95910169|NCT01984697|191778428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.06|<0.001
95910170|NCT01984697|191778429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|3.0|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.00|2.10|<0.001
95910171|NCT01984697|191778429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|3.12|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.12|2.20|<0.001
95910172|NCT01984697|191778429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.08|4.45|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.45|3.08|<0.001
95910173|NCT01984697|191778430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.50|<0.001
95910174|NCT01984697|191778430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|3.5|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.50|2.55|<0.001
95910175|NCT01984697|191778430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|6.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|7.43|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||7.43|5.36|<0.001
95910176|NCT01984697|191778431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.03|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.03|1.38|<0.001
95910177|NCT01984697|191778431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|1.99|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.99|1.37|<0.001
95910178|NCT01984697|191778431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.37|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.37|1.61|<0.001
95910179|NCT01984697|191778432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.87|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.87|1.36|<0.001
95910180|NCT01984697|191778432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.05|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.05|1.51|<0.001
95910181|NCT01984697|191778432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|3.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|3.61|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.61|2.64|<0.001
95910182|NCT01984697|191778433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT ratio|2.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|3.01|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.01|2.15|<0.001
95910183|NCT01984697|191778433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|2.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|3.16|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.16|2.30|<0.001
95910184|NCT01984697|191778433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the GMT ratio for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years / Young Women 16 to 26 years is \>0.67.|GMT Ratio|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|5.86|||ANOVA|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||5.86|4.23|<0.001
95910185|NCT01984697|191778434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
95910186|NCT01984697|191778434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.0|<0.001
95910187|NCT01984697|191778434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.3|-1.1|<0.001
95910188|NCT01984697|191778435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
95910189|NCT01984697|191778435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
95910190|NCT01984697|191778435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.2|-1.0|<0.001
95910191|NCT01984697|191778436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
95910192|NCT01984697|191778436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
95910193|NCT01984697|191778436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||3.8|0.1|<0.001
95910194|NCT01984697|191778437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.8|-1.7|<0.001
95910195|NCT01984697|191778437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
95910196|NCT01984697|191778437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
95910197|NCT01984697|191778438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
95910198|NCT01984697|191778438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.0|<0.001
95910199|NCT01984697|191778438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.0|-1.1|<0.001
95910200|NCT01984697|191778439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
95910201|NCT01984697|191778439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.0|-0.7|<0.001
95910202|NCT01984697|191778439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||4.6|0.7|<0.001
95910203|NCT01984697|191778440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||1.7|-1.7|<0.001
95910204|NCT01984697|191778440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
95910205|NCT01984697|191778440|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
95910206|NCT01984697|191778441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
95910207|NCT01984697|191778441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.0|<0.001
95910208|NCT01984697|191778441|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the seroconversion percentage difference for Girls and Boys 9 to 14 Years - Young Women 16 to 26 years is \> -5.|Seroconversion percentage difference|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|One-sided non-inferiority test at alpha=0.025 level||||2.1|-1.1|<0.001
95910209|NCT01224925|191778467|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|842.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|693.0|991.0|||Log Rank|||The power calculation was based on the intention to show a 30% difference in success rates. The following parameters were used (binomial scale): type I error: 5%; expected success rate in the CH group: 55% (based on Barthel et al. 2000); minimal difference between success rates not to be overlooked: 30%; type II error: 5%. The calculations revealed the need for 64 subjects in each group. After adding 20% for eventual drop-outs, we planned to recruit 160 subjects in one year.||991|693|<0.01
95910210|NCT01224925|191778467|SUPERIORITY||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|1201.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1068.0|1335.0|||Log Rank|||||1335|1068|<0.01
95910211|NCT01224925|191778468|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95910212|NCT00949884|191778481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.3|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and the baseline DBP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis was that there was no difference in change in seated diastolic blood pressure from baseline to end of treatment. Sample size of 900, this study had 90% power to detect a true difference in mean change from baseline in mean trough SDBP of 2.0 mmHg for Combined Olmesartan vs Losartan.||-1.3|-3.8|<0.0001
95910213|NCT00949884|191778482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.0001
95910214|NCT00949884|191778483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.9|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline SSBP as a covariate.||||-1.9|-5.8|0.0001
95910215|NCT00949884|191778484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure value as a covariate.||||-1.5|-3.8|<0.0001
95910216|NCT00949884|191778486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.1121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.2|-2.0|0.1121
95910217|NCT00949884|191778486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.1|-2.0|0.0783
95910218|NCT00949884|191778487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.7|-2.9|0.2312
95910219|NCT00949884|191778487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment as a fixed effect and the seated cuff diastolic blood pressure value at week 4 (with last observation carried forward) as a covariate.||||0.3|-3.2|0.0979
95910220|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910221|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||0.0001
95910222|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910223|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910224|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
95729138|NCT02761980|191428329|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.55|||ANCOVA|||||0.55|-0.58|0.965
95910225|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910226|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2755||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.2755
95910227|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1646||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.1646
95910228|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910229|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910230|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910231|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||<0.0001
95729161|NCT02337933|191428445|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95910232|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0010
95729162|NCT02337933|191428446|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95729163|NCT02337933|191428447|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95729164|NCT02337933|191428448|OTHER|||||||0.308|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.308
95729165|NCT02337933|191428449|OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.575
95910233|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0011
95910234|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910235|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910236|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0005
95910237|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0004
95910238|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0023
95910239|NCT00949884|191778488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0012
95910240|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910241|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<140 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910242|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0009
95910243|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<135 mmHg||||0.0007
95910244|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0347||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0347
95729166|NCT02337933|191428450|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.169
95729167|NCT02337933|191428451|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.373
95729168|NCT02337933|191428452|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95910245|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<130 mmHg||||0.0280
95910246|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0519||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0519
95910247|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0605||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving systolic blood pressure goal of \<120 mmHg||||0.0605
95910248|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0001
95729169|NCT02337933|191428453|OTHER|||||||0.049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.049
95910249|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<90 mmHg||||0.0003
95910250|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0070
95729170|NCT02337933|191428454|OTHER|||||||0.224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.224
95910251|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<85 mmHg||||0.0066
95910252|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0061
95910253|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0096||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving diastolic blood pressure goal of \<80 mmHg||||0.0096
95910254|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910255|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<140/90 mmHg||||<0.0001
95910256|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0047
95910257|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<135/80 mmHg||||0.0063
95910258|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0589
95910259|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0594||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<130/80 mmHg||||0.0594
95910260|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0476
95910261|NCT00949884|191778489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0657||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is from the logistic regression with treatment as the main effect and baseline SSBP or SDBP as covariates.||Percentage of participants achieving blood pressure goal of \<120/80 mmHg||||0.0657
95910262|NCT00949884|191778490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3250
95910263|NCT00949884|191778490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure as a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in systolic blood pressure.||1.5|-4.4|0.3491
95910264|NCT00949884|191778490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.7|-3.2|0.2085
95729171|NCT02337933|191428455|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.116
95729172|NCT02337933|191428456|OTHER|||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.953
95910265|NCT00949884|191778490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 4 in diastolic blood pressure.||0.8|-3.0|0.2542
95910266|NCT00949884|191778491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.5|-6.6|0.0209
95910267|NCT00949884|191778491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in systolic blood pressure.||-0.6|-6.6|0.0186
95910268|NCT00949884|191778491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.5|0.0175
95910269|NCT00949884|191778491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline mean 24-hour ABPM blood pressure is a covariate.||Change from baseline at week 8 in diastolic blood pressure.||-0.4|-4.4|0.0177
95910270|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.7|-5.2|0.3104
95910271|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.9|0.3653
95910272|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.5|-4.1|0.1197
95910273|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1654
95910274|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.4362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.9|-4.4|0.4362
95910275|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||1.8|-4.5|0.4039
95910276|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.2|-3.1|0.3929
95910277|NCT00949884|191778492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||1.3|-3.0|0.4259
95910278|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.2|-6.8|0.0396
95910279|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime systolic blood pressure||-0.3|-6.8|0.0345
95910280|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.8|0.0324
95910281|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Daytime diastolic blood pressure||-0.2|-4.7|0.0363
95910282|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.5|0.0988
95910283|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime systolic blood pressure||0.5|-6.4|0.0926
95910284|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.5|0.0900
95729173|NCT02337933|191428457|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.999
95910285|NCT00949884|191778493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||Nighttime diastolic blood pressure||0.3|-4.4|0.0942
95910286|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-5.4|0.3229
95910287|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||2.0|-5.1|0.3863
95910288|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.6|-4.5|0.1277
95910289|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-4.3|0.1799
95910290|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-5.1|0.2708
95910291|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||1.6|-5.0|0.3133
95910292|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.1621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.9|0.1621
95910293|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-3.7|0.2314
95910294|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2461
95910295|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|1.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||1.3|-5.0|0.2558
95910296|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-3.8|0.1700
95910297|NCT00949884|191778494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.8|-3.7|0.2011
95910298|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.4|-7.0|0.1895
95910299|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour systolic blood pressure||1.8|-6.5|0.2701
95910300|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.1328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.7|-5.2|0.1328
95910301|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.9|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||2 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.9|-4.9|0.1778
95910302|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.2|-7.3|0.0620
95910303|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.1011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.6|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour systolic blood pressure||0.6|-6.9|0.1011
95910304|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.0249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.4|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.4|-5.6|0.0249
95910305|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.0|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||4 hour diastolic blood pressure||0.0|-5.2|0.0497
95910306|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.1|-7.1|0.0552
95910307|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour systolic blood pressure||0.3|-6.8|0.0767
95910308|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.3|-5.3|0.0279
95910309|NCT00949884|191778495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed effect and baseline mean daytime and nighttime ABPM blood pressure was a covariate.||6 hour diastolic blood pressure||-0.1|-5.0|0.0434
95910310|NCT00949884|191778496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Diastolic blood pressure||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
95910311|NCT00949884|191778496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.7|||ANCOVA|Treatment is a fixed effect and baseline blood pressure is a covariate.||Systolic blood pressure||-4.7|-12.5|<0.0001
95910312|NCT02597907|191778506|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95910313|NCT03896009|191778564|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95910314|NCT03896009|191778565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95910315|NCT01904864|191778567|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6|||Regression, Linear||Change at 12 weeks compared|||1.6|0.4|<0.001
95910316|NCT02629991|191778579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.059
95910317|NCT02629991|191778580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.088
95910318|NCT02629991|191778581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.027
95910319|NCT02629991|191778582|SUPERIORITY|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.16|||||||Mixed effects model|||||||0.16
95910320|NCT02629991|191778583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.69
95910321|NCT02629991|191778584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.|Mixed effects model|||||||0.034
95910322|NCT02629991|191778585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.009
95910323|NCT02629991|191778586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.033|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.033
95910324|NCT02629991|191778587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.78
95910325|NCT02629991|191778588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Mixed effects model|Mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, including main effects for time and treatment group and a time by treatment interaction term.||||||0.53
95910326|NCT02799784|191778589|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval around the (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg versus TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg) treatment difference is above -50 milliliter then UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg was to be considered non-inferior to TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.080|0.026|<0.001
95910327|NCT04570436|191778623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|26.2||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of diazepam, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 = 15"|||26.2|<0.0001
95910328|NCT04570436|191778623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.3581|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.7||0.3581
95910329|NCT04570436|191778623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.3051|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||14.3||0.3051
95910330|NCT04570436|191778623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83||0.2179|ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo.~H0: μT - μP ≥ δ3 versus Ha: μT - μP \< δ3 where δ3 =11"||13.5||0.2179
95910331|NCT04570436|191778623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.3||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.3|<0.0001
95910332|NCT04570436|191778623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|16.7||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||16.7|<0.0001
95910333|NCT04570436|191778623|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|17.4||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether gabapentin (T) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than diazepam (C) were:~H0: μC - μT ≤ δ2 versus Ha: μC - μT \> δ2 where δ2 =0"|||17.4|<0.0001
95910334|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|325.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.38||0.0023|ONE_SIDED|90.0|138.2||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||138.2|0.0023
95910335|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|140.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-82.7|363.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||363.7|-82.7|0.2157
95910336|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|155.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.25||0.172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-68.3|379.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||379.1|-68.3|0.1720
95910337|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.01||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|435.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||435.5|-11.0|0.0622
95910338|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-185.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.04||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-409.0|37.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||37.94|-409|0.1031
95910339|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-170.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|112.97||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-394.0|52.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||52.71|-394|0.1334
95910340|NCT04570436|191778625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-114.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.59||0.3189|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-338.0|110.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.8|-338|0.3189
95910341|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.362|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|46.89||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||46.89|<0.0001
95910342|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.348||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.61|27.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.74|6.61|0.0016
95910343|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.79|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.96|10.79|0.0001
95910344|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.352|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.92|33.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.07|11.92|<0.0001
95910345|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.312|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-49.1|-28.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.1|-49.1|<0.0001
95910346|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.308|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.9|-23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.9|-44.9|<0.0001
95910347|NCT04570436|191778626|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.8|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-43.8|<0.0001
95910348|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|234.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.174|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|90.0|171.7||||Mixed Models Analysis||||||171.7|<0.0001
95910349|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.86|141.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||141.5|-8.86|0.0834
95910350|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|99.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.128||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.75|174.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||174.4|23.75|0.0103
95910351|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|97.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.048||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|90.0|22.05|172.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||172.4|22.05|0.0116
95910352|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-169.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-244.0|-93.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-93.4|-244|<0.0001
95910353|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-136.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.036||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-211.0|-60.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-60.7|-211|0.0005
95910354|NCT04570436|191778628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-138.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.243||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-213.0|-62.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-62.2|-213|0.0004
95910355|NCT03882879|191778643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95910356|NCT03882879|191778644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95910357|NCT03882879|191778645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||Between-group two-sided t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.76
95910358|NCT03882879|191778646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95910359|NCT03882879|191778647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.20
95910360|NCT03574597|191778652|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.89|||Regression, Cox|||Data from the in-trial period. The outcome measure was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment as categorical fixed factor. Participants without events of interest were censored at the end of their in-trial period.||0.89|0.72|< 0.0001
95910361|NCT00162370|191778681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014|||||||Regression, Cox|||The null hypothesis evaluated is that the scores are not associated with outcome. Of the two measures, wall motion index is considered to be the primary endpoint measure. The cardiac event rate will be summarized by categorical levels of wall motion index score and the difference in wall motion index score.||||0.014
95910362|NCT00162370|191778682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.0001
95910363|NCT03905330|191778696|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3691|=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.845|-0.334|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The difference between maralixibat and placebo treatment groups in the mean change in the average ItchRO(Obs) severity score between baseline and Weeks 15-26||-0.334|-1.845|= 0.0063
95910364|NCT03905330|191778697|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-186.723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.9501|=|0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-293.454|-79.992|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-79.992|-293.454|= 0.0013
95910365|NCT03905330|191778698|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.263|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.727|-0.674|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.674|-1.727|< 0.0001
95910366|NCT03905330|191778699|SUPERIORITY||Least-Square mean|-160.403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.1827|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.836|-99.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-99.970|-220.836|< 0.0001
95910367|NCT03905330|191778700|OTHER||||||=|0.0736|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0736
95910368|NCT03905330|191778701|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.041|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0410
95910369|NCT03905330|191778702|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0023|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0023
95910370|NCT03905330|191778703|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004|||||||Bernard's exact test|||||||= 0.0004
95910371|NCT03624504|191778723|OTHER|Assume expected performance to be 94%. The Objective Performance Criterion (OPC) is set at 83% (same performance threshold in FDA approved global study). Assumes 0.05 significance level, 2-sided, 80% power and 10% study attrition.|Kaplan-Meier survival probability (%)|97.6||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|99.4||The threshold for significance was 0.05.|z test, 1-sided||The major complication free rate (i.e. survival probability) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|"Null hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is less than or equal to 83%~Alternative hypothesis: Major complication free rate at 6 months post-implant is greater than 83%."||99.4|90.6|0.0021
95910372|NCT02782169|191778728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95910373|NCT01215292|191778768|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80% power to detect 20% difference in ITT|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95910374|NCT01215292|191778769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95910375|NCT01215292|191778770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95910376|NCT05380947|191778781|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|183.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 39.7%|||183.6|99.7|
95910377|NCT05380947|191778781|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.6|81.6|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.8%|||81.6|67.6|
95910378|NCT05380947|191778781|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|110.0|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 13.8%|||110.0|85.8|
95910379|NCT05380947|191778782|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|139.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.7|221.3|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 62.3%|||221.3|87.7|
95910380|NCT05380947|191778782|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|53.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.5|70.8|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 31.0%|||70.8|40.5|
95910381|NCT05380947|191778782|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|87.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.8|113.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 30.5%|||113.2|66.8|
95910382|NCT05380947|191778783|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R)|129.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.2|173.4|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T1/R) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) =36.6%|||173.4|96.2|
95910383|NCT05380947|191778783|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1)|74.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.6|81.7|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T2/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 9.0%|||81.7|68.6|
95910384|NCT05380947|191778783|OTHER|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including effects for sequence, subjects nested within sequences, period, and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1)|96.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.3|110.2|||||Unit of adjusted geometric means ratio (T3/T1) is %. Unit of 90% Confidence Interval is %. Intra-individual coefficient of variation (gCV) = 14.2%|||110.2|85.3|
95910385|NCT01563536|191778794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Maximal Decrease)|-1.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|-0.13||Pre-specified 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline log10 HCV RNA values as a covariate and with an effect for treatment arm.||||-0.13|-2.81|0.035
95910386|NCT01860703|191778796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|5.01||||||||5.01|1.02|
95910387|NCT01860703|191778802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.26|7.19||||||||7.19|3.26|
95910388|NCT01860703|191778805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|13.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.1|15.75||||||||15.75|11.10|
95910389|NCT02532556|191778808|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95910390|NCT02532556|191778809|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxan signed-rank test|||||||<0.05
95910391|NCT00538590|191778823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.95
95910392|NCT00538590|191778825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||1.00
95910393|NCT00538590|191778826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.40
95910394|NCT00538590|191778827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: post-operative intraocular pressure change in ologen group is equal to that in Mitomycin-C group.||||0.91
95910395|NCT02453685|191778850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference at week 32|0.18||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||"'Treatment difference' refers to BIAsp 30 minus Basal-bolus"|Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measurements including treatment, region, and strata as fixed effects, HbA1c at baseline as covariate, interactions between all fixed effects and visit and using an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.36|0.01|0.0435
95910396|NCT00416182|191778857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2
95910397|NCT00416182|191778858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value of \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
95910398|NCT00416182|191778859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value \< 0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95910399|NCT00416182|191778860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P \<0.05 is considered significant|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
95910400|NCT02291679|191778863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.2||P-value is obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||5.20|1.76|< 0.0001
95910401|NCT02291679|191778864|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.841|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.176||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a least squares (LS) mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.176|0.505|< 0.0001
95910402|NCT02291679|191778865|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|1.438||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||1.438|0.636|< 0.0001
95910403|NCT02291679|191778866|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.806||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.806|0.450|< 0.0001
95910404|NCT02291679|191778867|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.329|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|-0.21||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.210|-0.449|< 0.0001
95910405|NCT02291679|191778868|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.87||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region.|||4.87|1.47|0.0008
95910406|NCT02291679|191778869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|4.2||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||4.20|1.58|< 0.0001
95910407|NCT02291679|191778870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.26||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||3.26|1.42|0.0002
95910408|NCT02291679|191778871|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.17||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for geographic region and baseline stratum.|||2.17|1.03|0.0342
95910409|NCT02291679|191778872|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.319||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.09||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||-0.090|-0.548|0.0063
95910410|NCT02291679|191778873|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.178||||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.391|0.036||P-value is based on a pairwise comparison versus placebo in an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA||Linaclotide - Placebo. Estimate and 95% CI are based on a LS mean difference from an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and baseline value as covariate.|||0.036|-0.391|0.1028
95910411|NCT02291679|191778874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.8||P-value is obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Placebo as reference. Odds ratio and 95% CI for the odds ratio are obtained from the CMH tests controlling for baseline SBM stratum and geographic region.|||4.80|1.61|0.0001
95910412|NCT02276222|191778884|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (SE)|0.0084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01012||0.4041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0114|0.0283|||ANCOVA|||||0.0283|-0.0114|0.4041
95910413|NCT01031810|191778885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.25|19.86|||paired t-test 2 sided|||Compare the mean differences between baseline (week00) and week12 hamd17 summary scores||19.86|3.25|0.012
95910414|NCT00506493|191778914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Binomial Proportions|42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.01|ONE_SIDED|97.5|30.0|||The percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and successfully converted out of AF following treatment (ptest) will exceed the percent of patients off Class I and III AADs and convereted out of AF, as reported in literature (pcontrol=22.1%)|Fisher Exact|||"The specific test hypothesis is as follows:~H0: ptest ≤ 22.1% Ha: ptest \> 22.1%"|||30.0|<0.01
95910415|NCT00506493|191778915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||binomial proportions|6.7|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||14.9|||Fisher Exact|||||14.9||<0.0001
95910416|NCT04676425|191778924|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|2.01|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||2.01|0.70|
95910417|NCT04676425|191778925|OTHER||Least-Squares Geometric Mean Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.74|||||Moderate hepatic impairment participants represent the numerator and healthy participants represent the denominator in the geometric mean ratio.|||1.74|0.86|
95910418|NCT00949715|191778931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.2352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||HO: Pacing at selective RV sites (mid-septum or apex) has no different impact on the change in LVEF after 24 months follow-up. With 12% SD and 80 subjects in groups will have 90% power to detect an absolute difference in LVEF of 6.2% at 24 months follow-up at an alpha level of 0.05.||10.8|-2.7|0.2352
95910419|NCT00949715|191778932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.7405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|5.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Packing at selective RV sites (mid-Septum or apex) has no different impact on LVEF change from 2 weeks to 24 months.||5.5|-7.6|0.7405
95910420|NCT00949715|191778933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.3||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Ho: Pacing at selective sites (RVS or RVA) has no different impact on LV end systolic volume||2.4|-25.1|0.1051
95910421|NCT00949715|191778934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.9||||0.9835||95.0||||Adjusting for age and gender|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank Sum||Ho: The AT/AF burden in the RVS group is the same as the RVA group.||||0.9835
95910422|NCT05050578|191778974|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, visit, lens by visit interaction, period, sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = LID18869 minus AOHG. Sign is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
95910423|NCT04149925|191778979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||Significant when p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95910424|NCT00990964|191778985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.929|0.951||||||||.951|.929|
95910425|NCT00990964|191778986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||One sample proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.965|0.98||||||||.980|.965|
95910426|NCT00998400|191778987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.030
95910427|NCT00998400|191778988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910428|NCT00998400|191778989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910429|NCT00998400|191778990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Kaplan-Meier Survival analysis|||||||>0.05
95910430|NCT00998400|191778991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910431|NCT00998400|191778992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910432|NCT00998400|191778993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||0.013
95910433|NCT00998400|191778994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910434|NCT00998400|191778995|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910435|NCT00998400|191778996|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910436|NCT00998400|191778997|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910437|NCT00998400|191778998|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Repeated Measures ANOVA|All analyses were performed by using intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, where missing values were managed by means of multiple imputations procedure.||||||>0.05
95910438|NCT03675451|191779015|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.99|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||0.99|0.74|
95910439|NCT03675451|191779016|OTHER|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Proportion of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0|||||Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.|Clopper-Pearson (Exact) 95% confidence interval to assess precision of finding.||1.00|0.66|
95910440|NCT04082442|191779062|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0001
95910441|NCT04082442|191779063|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.34
95910442|NCT05131165|191779076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.056
95910443|NCT05131165|191779076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.062
95910444|NCT05131165|191779077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.364
95910445|NCT05131165|191779077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.409
95910446|NCT05131165|191779078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.158
95910447|NCT05131165|191779078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.017
95910448|NCT05131165|191779079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.654||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.654
95910449|NCT05131165|191779079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance (alpha) = 0.05|ANCOVA|||The analyses utilized control as the reference group, and thus, the values reported include control mean and standard error as the reference value (derived from an ordinary least squared regression without controls). The results for the intervention groups are derived from the multiple regression model that controlled for other participant characteristics, including demographics, intrinsic motivation and habit strength at baseline.||||0.035
95910450|NCT05131165|191779081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5468
95910451|NCT05131165|191779081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5255|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The analyses compared the change in viral suppression status of the participants from baseline to month 9. For each participant, we derived the change in viral suppression status by subtracting two binary variables - one indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at baseline (based on their chart records from around 3 months prior to baseline) and the other indicating whether the participant was virally suppressed at around month 9 of the study.||||0.5255
95910452|NCT00840801|191779089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A stratified score test was used to test the non-inferiority with a margin of -10% at 2.5% type I error (one-sided).|||||<|0.001|||||||Stratified score test|||Non-inferiority Test on Seropositive Response Rate||||<0.001
95910453|NCT01242748|191779104|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Degarelix was considered to be non-inferior to goserelin with regard to the hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates as the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.774||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.106|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio of PSA PFS failure rates was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with time to PSA PFS failure as dependent and treatment as independent variables and adjusted for baseline PSA category, prostate cancer stage, weight and geographical region. Degarelix was to be considered non-inferior to goserelin if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the adjusted hazard ratio was less than or equal to the non-inferiority margin of 1.33.||1.106|0.542|0.1589
95910454|NCT01242748|191779105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.783||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.574|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.070|0.574|0.1244
95910455|NCT01242748|191779106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.263||||||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.263|0.580|
95910456|NCT01242748|191779107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.511||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.739|7.09|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||7.090|1.739|0.0005
95910457|NCT01242748|191779108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.739||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|1.108|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.108|0.493|0.143
95910458|NCT01242748|191779109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.595||||0.2212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.259|1.368|||Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model.||1.368|0.259|0.2212
95910459|NCT00335452|191779112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|6.1||||0.3037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.6||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||16.6|-5.8|0.3037
95910460|NCT00335452|191779113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|logistic regression model including terms for ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI).||||||0.012
95910461|NCT00335452|191779114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|3.1||||0.6047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|14.0||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (ASA high dose versus ASA low dose) is estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for Clopidogrel treatment regimen.|||14.0|-9.2|0.6047
95910462|NCT00335452|191779115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|-6.5||||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|9.9||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||9.9|-26.0|0.4579
95910463|NCT00335452|191779115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|17.6||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|30.5||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for qualifying condition.|||30.5|2.2|0.0262
95910464|NCT00335452|191779115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0355||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Chi-squared|Interaction chi-squared test of the Cox proportional hazards model.||||||0.0355
95910465|NCT00335452|191779116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|14.7||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|26.3||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) Log-rank test. No adjustment was made.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||26.3|1.2|0.0332
95910466|NCT00335452|191779117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model including a term for Clopidogrel treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg or 600/150/75 mg).||||||0.945
95910467|NCT00335452|191779118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|32.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|45.8||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is ≤0.05.|Log Rank|Two-sided stratified by ASA dose level (low or high) and qualifying condition (UA/NSTEMI or STEMI) log-rank test.|The relative risk reduction (high dose treatment regimen (600/150/75 mg) versus standard treatment regimen (300/75/75 mg)) is estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model controlling for ASA dose level and qualifying condition.|||45.8|16.2|0.0004
95910468|NCT02736825|191779119|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin of 15% between two independent percentages using the z-test with unpooled variance||||||0.367|||||||Z-test|||||||0.3670
95910469|NCT02901626|191779138|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||||||||1.20|0.83|
95910470|NCT02901626|191779139|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.0||||||||8|-4|
95910471|NCT02901626|191779140|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.8||||||||0.80|-1.06|
95910472|NCT02901626|191779141|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.71||||||||1.71|0.92|
95910473|NCT02901626|191779142|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55||||||||1.55|0.93|
95910474|NCT02901626|191779143|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.45||||||||1.45|0.93|
95910475|NCT02901626|191779144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.82||||||||1.82|0.92|
95910476|NCT02901626|191779145|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19||||||||1.19|0.79|
95910477|NCT02901626|191779146|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.39||||||||2.39|0.61|
95910478|NCT02901626|191779147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31||||||||1.31|0.79|
95910479|NCT02901626|191779148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.04||||||||2.04|0.55|
95910480|NCT02901626|191779149|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
95910481|NCT02901626|191779150|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94||||||||1.94|0.95|
95910482|NCT02901626|191779151|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.11||||||||2.11|1.00|
95910483|NCT02901626|191779152|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.18||||||||1.18|0.88|
95910484|NCT02901626|191779153|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|12.0||||||||12|-12|
95910485|NCT02901626|191779154|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
95910486|NCT02901626|191779155|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|14.0||||||||14|-12|
95910487|NCT02901626|191779156|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|15.7||||||||15.7|0.06|
95910488|NCT02901626|191779157|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.65||||||||2.65|0.25|
95910489|NCT02901626|191779158|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.9||||||||1.90|0.17|
95910490|NCT02901626|191779159|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.96||||||||1.96|0.68|
95910491|NCT02901626|191779160|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.27||||||||1.27|0.71|
95910492|NCT02901626|191779161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41||||||||1.41|0.37|
95910493|NCT02901626|191779162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.37||||||||3.37|0.39|
95910494|NCT02901626|191779163|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.29||||||||1.29|0.78|
95910495|NCT02901626|191779164|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.1||||||||1.10|0.58|
95910496|NCT02901626|191779165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|12.57||||||||12.57|0.48|
95910497|NCT02901626|191779166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.58||||||||1.58|0.27|
95910498|NCT02901626|191779167|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.97||||||||0.97|0.47|
95910499|NCT02901626|191779168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.66||||||||2.66|0.09|
95910500|NCT02901626|191779169|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.37||||||||1.37|0.81|
95910501|NCT02901626|191779170|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0|0|
95910502|NCT02901626|191779171|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|36.0||||||||36|-16|
95910503|NCT02052310|191779194|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference in least square (LS) means from MI ANCOVA model between the 2 treatment groups lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.079|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation (MI) strategy by combining the results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.287|0.079|0.0005
95910504|NCT02052310|191779195|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI was analyzed from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||7.7|-0.7|
95910505|NCT02052310|191779196|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference for the responder rates (roxadustat minus epoetin alfa) calculated based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach, adjusting for stratification factors, was greater than -15%.|Responder Rate Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|8.7||||||For the difference of responder rates between 2 treatment groups, the CI analyzed was from the Miettinen \& Nurminen approach adjusting for randomization stratification factors.||8.7|-0.1|
95910506|NCT02052310|191779197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in LS means of change from baseline Hb averaged over Weeks 28 to 52 lay entirely above -0.75 g/dL.|LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (≤8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||0.296|0.032|0.0148
95910507|NCT02052310|191779198|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference between roxadustat and epoetin alfa (roxadustat - epoetin alpha) was less than 0.|LS Mean Difference|-18.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.584|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.448|-15.232|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Treatment comparison was made using a MMRM with baseline LDL cholesterol as a covariate, and treatment, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||-15.232|-21.448|<0.0001
95910508|NCT02052310|191779199|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin was fixed as a difference of -0.75.|LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.8178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA multiple imputation||Treatment comparison was made using the multiple imputation strategy by combining the results of ANCOVA model with baseline Hb as a covariate, and treatment, region and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular/thromboembolic medical history (yes vs. no) as factors.||0.217|-0.171|0.8178
95910509|NCT02052310|191779200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00028||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|||Treatment comparison was made using an ANCOVA model with baseline iron repletion status, treatment, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects.||||0.00028
95910510|NCT02052310|191779201|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin for the difference between groups was 1.8.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.3284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.791|2.016|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|||Analysis was done using a Cox Proportional Hazards model adjusting for baseline Hb and other stratification factors except mean qualifying screening hemoglobin (\<= 8.0 vs. \>8.0 g/dL) as fixed effects.||2.016|0.791|0.3284
95910511|NCT02416492|191779211|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||||0.0401
95910512|NCT02416492|191779212|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||0.3|-1.7|0.1655
95910513|NCT02416492|191779213|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|2.7||||0.3398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||8.3|-2.9|0.3398
95910514|NCT02416492|191779214|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-2.6||||0.8974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.2|37.1||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|||Adjusted LS mean and treatment group difference in change from baseline at Week 24 were modeled using an MMRM including the following variables: treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline FMMS score, baseline FMMS score by visit interaction, GOS-E score at screening, and GOS-E score at screening by visit interaction.||37.1|-42.2|0.8974
95910515|NCT02416492|191779215|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49||||0.8534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|4.8||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Upper Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.80|-5.77|0.8534
95910516|NCT02416492|191779215|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.41||||0.8443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|4.6||MMRM: Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM included treatment, visit, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E scores, baseline endpoints \& GOS-E by visit interaction, treatment-by-visit interaction||Change from Baseline in NeuroQOL Lower Extremity Function T Score at Week 24||4.60|-3.78|0.8443
95910517|NCT02093663|191779217|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|9.88|||Uncorrected Chi-squared Test|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (last observation carried forward \[LOCF\] and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||9.88|1.04|0.039
95910518|NCT02093663|191779218|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.34||P-value were based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-value s were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.34|0.42|0.981
95910519|NCT02093663|191779219|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was calculated based on Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||100.0|-19.3|0.400
95910520|NCT02093663|191779220|OTHER||Difference in proportions|50.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|100.0||P-value was based on a Fisher's exact test.|Fisher Exact|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate.||100.0|-19.3|0.333
95910521|NCT02093663|191779221|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|-5.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.4||P-value is based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm as a factor and baseline DUCS score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||2.4|-13.1|0.168
95910522|NCT02093663|191779222|OTHER||Difference in proportions|24.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|50.6||P-value was based on a continuity-corrected chi-squared test. PUCAI Score was compared between treatment arms using a continuity corrected chi-squared test. Expected cell counts are very low (\< 5), then Fisher's Exact Test is alternative method.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||50.6|-1.6|0.131
95910523|NCT02093663|191779223|OTHER||Difference in Proportions Percentage|-6.5||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|12.3||P-value is based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||12.3|-25.3|0.539
95910524|NCT02093663|191779224|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-16.2||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|3.6||P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by prior response status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||3.6|-36.0|0.129
95910525|NCT02093663|191779225|OTHER||Difference in Least squares Mean|3.0||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.4||P-value was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) including treatment arm and with prior response status.|ANCOVA|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||7.4|-1.4|0.182
95910526|NCT02093663|191779226|OTHER||Difference in proportions|-9.0||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|11.0||P-value was based on a CMH test adjusted by prior response status. Participants with remission (PUCAI \<10) at double-blind maintenance phase at Week 26 was compared between treatment arms using a CMH test stratifying by Week 8 responder status.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This study is not powered to detect differences between treatment groups and other sensitivity analysis (LOCF and complete case) intended to examine the robustness of the treatment estimate. This was an estimation study, and p-values were presented as descriptive statistics.||11.0|-29.1|0.194
95910527|NCT00508404|191779238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.45|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||4.45|1.02|
95910528|NCT00508404|191779239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.93|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.93|0.88|
95910529|NCT00508404|191779240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.89|||||The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the KRAS Wild-type group relative to the odds in the KRAS Mutant group.|||3.89|0.30|
95910530|NCT00508404|191779241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.283|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.614|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.614|0.130|
95910531|NCT00508404|191779242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.642|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.721|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||2.721|0.990|
95910532|NCT00508404|191779243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.464|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.703|||||Hazard ratio presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.703|0.306|
95910533|NCT00508404|191779244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.252|0.618|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||0.618|0.252|
95910534|NCT00508404|191779245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.756|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.43|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.430|0.400|
95910535|NCT00508404|191779246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.503|1.002|||||Hazard ratio is presented as Wild-type KRAS:Mutant KRAS. A value \< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and longer time to event for Wild-type KRAS relative to Mutant KRAS.|||1.002|0.503|
95910536|NCT00508404|191779248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in rates|8.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|19.08||||||||19.08|-4.01|
95910537|NCT01804816|191779264|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
95910538|NCT01804816|191779265|EQUIVALENCE|a = 0.05||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Based on results from prior small clinical trials we estimate the need for 20 patients enrolled to reach 80% statistical power.||||0.005
95910539|NCT01804816|191779265|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95910540|NCT01804816|191779265|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.441|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.441
95910541|NCT01804816|191779266|EQUIVALENCE|a=0.05||||||0.729|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.729
95910542|NCT01123382|191779281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Group X time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|we included a random intercept for each individual participant. We used a first-order antedependent covariance structure.||To detect a minimum clinically important difference of 2 points2 on the BPI-SF3 with an anticipated standard deviation for each mean of 2.5, estimated from a prior study, with an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, for five waves of data, a sample size of 10 participants per group was necessary. With anticipated dropouts, a sample size of at least 12 participants per group was required.||||0.04
95910543|NCT01123382|191779282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.059|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.059
95910544|NCT01123382|191779283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||||||group x time interaction 0.543|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.543
95910545|NCT01123382|191779284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time interaction 0.33|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95910546|NCT01123382|191779285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||group x time 0.61|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95910547|NCT01123382|191779286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||||||group x time interaction 0.398|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.398
95910548|NCT01123382|191779287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||group x time interaction 0.46|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.46
95910549|NCT01123382|191779288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||||||group x time interaction 0.59|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95910550|NCT01123382|191779289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||||||group x time interaction 0.69|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.69
95910551|NCT00330174|191779292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Drinking outcomes were analyzed using multiple linear regression, controlling for site and baseline drinking level. Drinking and psychiatric symptoms assessed over time were examined using repeated measures (intercept only) mixed linear models (PROC MIXED in SAS). Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.2; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). All tests were two-tailed and p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.64
95910552|NCT00834106|191779296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.7|91.1|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||91.1|43.7|
95910553|NCT00834106|191779297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.3|96.7|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||96.7|38.3|
95910554|NCT00834106|191779298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|100.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.3|100.0|||Exact test, 1-sided||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\]. The pre-specified success criterion was that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for vaccine efficacy excludes 0%.|||100|32.3|0.0072
95910555|NCT00834106|191779304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|91.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.8|97.4|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||97.4|79.8|
95910556|NCT00834106|191779305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine efficacy|93.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.9|99.2|||||Vaccine efficacy = 100 \* \[1 - (incidence rate with V501 / incidence rate with placebo)\].|||99.2|72.9|
95910557|NCT01755702|191779312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.9|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.90|0.83|0.2840
95910558|NCT01755702|191779312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.01|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||2.01|0.86|0.2008
95910559|NCT01755702|191779312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.74|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.74|0.78|0.4552
95910560|NCT01755702|191779312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.71|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||||1.71|0.75|0.5579
95910561|NCT01755702|191779312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.61|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.61|0.72|0.7214
95910562|NCT01755702|191779312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.45|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Null hypothesis considered no difference between the treatments in comparison.||1.45|0.62|0.8192
95910563|NCT02954354|191779328|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|-17.8||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||The primary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms was a comparison of baloxavir with placebo in all participants in the intention-to-treat infection population. Statistical tests were performed at the 0.05 significance level.||-17.8|-35.8|<0.0001
95910564|NCT02954354|191779328|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||<0.0001
95910565|NCT02954354|191779329|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.3||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|6.6||Adjusted p-value, two-sided significance level of 0.05|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||A secondary analysis of time to alleviation of symptoms, consisting of a comparison between the 20 to 64 years of age stratum of the baloxavir group and the oseltamivir group, was conducted if statistical significance was observed in the primary analysis in order to maintain the overall Type I error.||6.6|-6.6|0.7560
95910566|NCT02954354|191779329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3761||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Log rank test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Analysis using the stratified log rank test was performed as a sensitivity analysis.||||0.3761
95910567|NCT02954354|191779330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
95910568|NCT02954354|191779330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
95910569|NCT02954354|191779330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
95910570|NCT02954354|191779330|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
95910571|NCT02954354|191779330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4767||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.4767
95910572|NCT02954354|191779330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3353||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3353
95910573|NCT02954354|191779331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
95910574|NCT02954354|191779331|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
95910575|NCT02954354|191779331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0852||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0852
95910576|NCT02954354|191779331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0063
95910577|NCT02954354|191779331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6187||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.6187
95910578|NCT02954354|191779331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8637||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|||Day 9||||0.8637
95910579|NCT02954354|191779332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6145||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.6145
95910580|NCT02954354|191779332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2505||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.2505
95910581|NCT02954354|191779332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.419||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4190
95910582|NCT02954354|191779332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0095||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0095
95910583|NCT02954354|191779332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7393||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.7393
95910584|NCT02954354|191779332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0049||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0049
95910585|NCT02954354|191779333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2266||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||0.2266
95910586|NCT02954354|191779333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1379||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||0.1379
95910587|NCT02954354|191779333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5479||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.5479
95910588|NCT02954354|191779333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0241
95910589|NCT02954354|191779333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0898||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0898
95910590|NCT02954354|191779333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2548||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.2548
95910591|NCT02954354|191779334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
95910592|NCT02954354|191779334|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
95910593|NCT02954354|191779334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.0008
95910594|NCT02954354|191779334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0132||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0132
95910595|NCT02954354|191779334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9307||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9307
95910596|NCT02954354|191779334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1677||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.1677
95910597|NCT02954354|191779335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
95910598|NCT02954354|191779335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
95910599|NCT02954354|191779335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.8010
95910600|NCT02954354|191779335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9451||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.9451
95910601|NCT02954354|191779335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2256||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.2256
95910602|NCT02954354|191779335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3332||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.3332
95910603|NCT02954354|191779336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
95910604|NCT02954354|191779336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
95910605|NCT02954354|191779336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||<0.0001
95910606|NCT02954354|191779336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||<0.0001
95910607|NCT02954354|191779336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.0010
95910608|NCT02954354|191779336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.0002
95910609|NCT02954354|191779337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 2||||<0.0001
95910610|NCT02954354|191779337|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 3||||<0.0001
95910611|NCT02954354|191779337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4148||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 4||||0.4148
95910612|NCT02954354|191779337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0338||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 5||||0.0338
95910613|NCT02954354|191779337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9619||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 6||||0.9619
95910614|NCT02954354|191779337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8491||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Day 9||||0.8491
95910615|NCT02954354|191779338|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
95910616|NCT02954354|191779339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0313
95910617|NCT02954354|191779340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
95910618|NCT02954354|191779341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|van Elteren test|Van Elteren test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.2424
95910619|NCT02954354|191779342|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-72.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-48.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-48.0|-72.0|<0.0001
95910620|NCT02954354|191779343|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|-24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-24.0|-72.0|<0.0001
95910621|NCT02954354|191779344|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.0|0.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||0.0|-120.0|0.0020
95910622|NCT02954354|191779345|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-24.0||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|24.0||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||24.0|-48.0|0.0102
95910623|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.5973
95910624|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.0010
95910625|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
95910626|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
95910627|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
95910628|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0115||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.0115
95910629|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.1298
95910630|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.1170
95910631|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0757||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.0757
95910632|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9453||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.9453
95910633|NCT02954354|191779346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8657||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.8657
95910634|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0458||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.0458
95910635|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7565||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.7565
95910636|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.3297
95910637|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||0.4442
95910638|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6029||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.6029
95910639|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9881||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.9881
95910640|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9257||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.9257
95910641|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5317||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.5317
95910642|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2144||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2144
95910643|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.0413
95910644|NCT02954354|191779347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0409||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.0409
95910645|NCT02954354|191779348|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-19.8|||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
95910646|NCT02954354|191779349|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.4194||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4194
95910647|NCT02954354|191779350|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||<0.0001
95910648|NCT02954354|191779351|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.4856||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.4856
95910649|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.7173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.7|-0.5|0.7173
95910650|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||-0.4|-1.7|0.0009
95910651|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||-1.1|-2.4|<0.0001
95910652|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||-1.2|-2.4|<0.0001
95910653|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||-0.9|-2.0|<0.0001
95910654|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||-0.5|-1.5|0.0001
95910655|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.2|-0.8|0.1979
95910656|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.1|-0.8|0.1079
95910657|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.3|-0.6|0.5805
95910658|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.5|-0.4|0.8057
95910659|NCT02954354|191779352|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.6|0.9525
95910660|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||12 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.4091
95910661|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||24 hours||0.8|-0.3|0.3073
95910662|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||36 hours||0.3|-0.8|0.3465
95910663|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||48 hours||0.7|-0.3|0.4285
95910664|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||72 hours||0.6|-0.4|0.6703
95910665|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||96 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7187
95910666|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||120 hours||0.7|-0.1|0.1350
95910667|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||144 hours||0.5|-0.3|0.7046
95910668|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||168 hours||0.6|-0.2|0.2765
95910669|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||192 hours||0.8|0.0|0.0274
95910670|NCT02954354|191779353|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline composite symptom score baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12)and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) as covariates.||216 hours||0.6|-0.3|0.6001
95910671|NCT02954354|191779354|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-17.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|-11.9||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||-11.9|-21.1|<0.0001
95910672|NCT02954354|191779355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9225||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.9225
95910673|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7866||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.7866
95910674|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||<0.0001
95910675|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||<0.0001
95910676|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||48 hours||||<0.0001
95910677|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||<0.0001
95910678|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||96 hours||||0.7044
95910679|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8512||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.8512
95910680|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8783||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||144 hours||||0.8783
95910681|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8291||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.8291
95910682|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
95910683|NCT02954354|191779356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9312||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.9312
95910684|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2953||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||12 hours||||0.2953
95910685|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5414||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||24 hours||||0.5414
95910686|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2079||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||36 hours||||0.2079
95910687|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7771||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||48 hours||||0.7771
95910688|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0215||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||72 hours||||0.0215
95910689|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||96 hours||||0.8033
95910690|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4157||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||120 hours||||0.4157
95910691|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5908||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||144 hours||||0.5908
95910692|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2975||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||168 hours||||0.2975
95910693|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8644||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||192 hours||||0.8644
95910694|NCT02954354|191779357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5573||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.m|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||216 hours||||0.5573
95910695|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.06|-0.24|0.2557
95910696|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||-0.22|-0.46|<0.0001
95910697|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.29||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||-0.29|-0.52|<0.0001
95910698|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.27||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||-0.27|-0.48|<0.0001
95910699|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||-0.13|-0.31|<0.0001
95910700|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Dfference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.4484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.06|-0.13|0.4484
95910701|NCT02954354|191779358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||0.11|-0.07|0.5963
95910702|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||12 hours||0.24|-0.02|0.0937
95910703|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.16||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||24 hours||0.16|-0.05|0.3343
95910704|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||36 hours||0.10|-0.09|0.9258
95910705|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.6574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.06||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||48 hours||0.06|-0.10|0.6574
95910706|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||72 hours||0.07|-0.09|0.8520
95910707|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||96 hours||0.11|-0.05|0.4532
95910708|NCT02954354|191779359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with baseline composite symptom score and region (Japan/Asia, Rest of the world) and body temperature at baseline as covariates.||120 hours||0.13|-0.02|0.1570
95910709|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-23.1||||0.0001||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.0001
95910710|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-9.0||||0.0298||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.0298
95910711|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-11.8||||0.0297||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.0297
95910712|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-20.7||||0.0027||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal Congestion||||0.0027
95910713|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.9||||0.0003||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world)||Feverishness or chills||||0.0003
95727436|NCT04192799|191424644|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.19||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.19|1.06|<0.001
95910714|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-8.1||||0.0094||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.0094
95910715|NCT02954354|191779360|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-15.3||||0.0007||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.0007
95910716|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|6.8||||0.6623||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Cough||||0.6623
95910717|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.8||||0.8184||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Sore throat||||0.8184
95910718|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.3||||0.9989||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Headache||||0.9989
95910719|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|1.7||||0.3706||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Nasal congestion||||0.3706
95910720|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.1||||0.9973||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Feverishness or chills||||0.9973
95910721|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.7||||0.676||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Muscle or joint pain||||0.6760
95910722|NCT02954354|191779361|SUPERIORITY||Difference|2.2||||0.4241||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||Fatigue||||0.4241
95910723|NCT02954354|191779362|SUPERIORITY|The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Difference|-39.5||||0.0563|||||||Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.0563
95910724|NCT02954354|191779363|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-0.6||||0.7176||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Generalized Wilcoxon test|Generalized Wilcoxon test stratified by composite symptom scores at baseline (≤ 11 or ≥ 12) and region (Japan/Asia or Rest of the world).||||||0.7176
95910725|NCT02954354|191779364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6728||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.6728
95910726|NCT02954354|191779365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2217||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiplicity, testing was conducted at the two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Any Complications||||0.2217
95910727|NCT03039023|191779390|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.2||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.20
95910728|NCT03039023|191779390|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910729|NCT03039023|191779390|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910730|NCT03039023|191779390|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910731|NCT03039023|191779390|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.27||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.27
95910732|NCT03039023|191779391|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.10
95910733|NCT03039023|191779391|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.0002||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.0002
95910734|NCT03039023|191779391|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
95910735|NCT03039023|191779391|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.006||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.006
95910736|NCT03039023|191779391|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.79||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.79
95910737|NCT03039023|191779392|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.28||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.28
95910738|NCT03039023|191779392|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910739|NCT03039023|191779392|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910740|NCT03039023|191779392|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910741|NCT03039023|191779392|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.11||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.11
95910742|NCT03039023|191779393|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.005||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.005
95910743|NCT03039023|191779393|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
95910744|NCT03039023|191779393|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.001
95910745|NCT03039023|191779393|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.009||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.009
95910746|NCT03039023|191779393|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
95910747|NCT03039023|191779394|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.93||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.93
95910748|NCT03039023|191779394|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.01||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.01
95910749|NCT03039023|191779394|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.003||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.003
95910750|NCT03039023|191779394|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.04||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.04
95910751|NCT03039023|191779394|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.99||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.99
95910752|NCT03039023|191779395|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
95910753|NCT03039023|191779395|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910754|NCT03039023|191779395|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.|||||<|0.0001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||<0.0001
95910755|NCT03039023|191779395|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.001||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.001
95910756|NCT03039023|191779395|EQUIVALENCE|For equivalence testing, the difference was assumed to be 0.||||||0.02||||||A p-value \<0.05 was considered significant.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||0.02
95910757|NCT03701399|191779419|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country, baseline score as a covariate|All SCA participants||0.34|-0.47|0.7581
95910758|NCT03701399|191779419|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Model based summary statistics were from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, randomization stratum (SCA genotype group), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and country.|SCA3 genotype participants||-0.01|-1.11|0.0450
95910759|NCT00448448|191779444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|The success rate was adjusted for the propensity score (probability of receiving a brace) and the duration of follow-up.||||3.46|1.08|<0.0267
95910760|NCT06060457|191779502|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.625|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.686||||||RSV-A: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.686|0.570|
95910761|NCT06060457|191779502|OTHER||GMR|0.638|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.584|0.697||||||RSV-B: Arm 1 versus Arm 2||0.697|0.584|
95910762|NCT01255592|191779510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.59|0.17|0.004
95910763|NCT01255592|191779511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of AZD5069 80 mg to placebo|0.64||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and baseline as covariates. The analysis was done on log-transformed data. The results were back-transformed after the analysis on the log scale.||0.84|0.49|0.008
95910764|NCT01255592|191779512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.298||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|12.33|||ANCOVA|||The 24-hour sputum weight on Visit 4 was compared between groups using ANCOVA (additive model) with treatment and inhaled corticosteroids/P. aeruginosa infection as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate.||12.33|1.22|0.047
95910765|NCT01255592|191779513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.26|-0.05|0.284
95910766|NCT01255592|191779514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.929|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.14|-0.12|0.929
95910767|NCT01255592|191779515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.966|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.10|-0.11|0.966
95910768|NCT01255592|191779516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.791|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.17|-0.13|0.791
95910769|NCT01255592|191779517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.433|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model used TDI as the response variable with treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and BDI as covariates.||0.6|-1.6|0.433
95910770|NCT01255592|191779518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.935|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.81|14.13|||ANCOVA|||Morning PEF: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||14.13|-12.81|0.935
95910771|NCT01255592|191779518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.35||0.654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.02|15.64|||ANCOVA|||Evening PEF: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||15.64|-9.02|0.654
95910772|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.329|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Describe your breathing: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.36|-0.09|0.329
95910773|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.664|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.16|0.27|||ANCOVA|||How often do you cough?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.27|-0.16|0.664
95910774|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.152|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Night time symptom score: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.54|-0.04|0.152
95910775|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|0.05|||ANCOVA|||What color is your sputum?: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.05|-0.80|0.150
95910776|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.248|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.35|||ANCOVA|||The amount of sputum you produced: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.35|-0.06|0.248
95910777|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.45|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Type of sputum: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||-0.04|-0.45|0.053
95910778|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.179|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.42|||ANCOVA|||How do you feel?: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.42|-0.04|0.179
95910779|NCT01255592|191779519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.942|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Number of puffs of inhalers: Analysis of covariance includes treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.68|-0.75|0.942
95910780|NCT01255592|191779520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.374||0.625|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.32|4.0|||ANCOVA|||Total score: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.00|-7.32|0.625
95910781|NCT01255592|191779520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.342||0.151|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.49|0.74|||ANCOVA|||Symptom domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||0.74|-10.49|0.151
95910782|NCT01255592|191779520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.524||0.773|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.91|6.28|||ANCOVA|||Activity domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.28|-8.91|0.773
95910783|NCT01255592|191779520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.845||0.92|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.84|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Impact domain: Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.07|-6.84|0.920
95910784|NCT01255592|191779521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.69||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|1.14|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.14|0.42|0.220
95910785|NCT01255592|191779522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.05|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||6.54|3.05|<0.001
95910786|NCT01255592|191779523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.92||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.26|0.68|0.670
95910787|NCT01255592|191779524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.99||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.27|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.27|0.78|0.968
95910788|NCT01255592|191779525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.43||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.24|0.91|0.193
95910789|NCT01255592|191779526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|4.79|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||4.79|2.19|<0.001
95910790|NCT01255592|191779527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.02||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.48|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.48|0.71|0.917
95910791|NCT01255592|191779528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|0.17||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|1.08|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.08|0.03|0.111
95910792|NCT01255592|191779529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.33||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.26|0.79|0.367
95910793|NCT01255592|191779530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.54||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||2.40|0.98|0.112
95910794|NCT01255592|191779531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.05||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.12|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.12|0.98|0.241
95910795|NCT01255592|191779532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|5.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.18|7.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||7.23|4.18|<0.001
95910796|NCT01255592|191779533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.16||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.47|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.47|0.92|0.281
95910797|NCT01255592|191779534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|1.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.28|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||1.91|1.28|0.001
95910798|NCT01255592|191779535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of LS means|6.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|8.35|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance included treatment, inhaled corticosteroids, Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and baseline as covariates.||8.35|4.42|<0.001
95910799|NCT02472652|191779538|OTHER||change in prolactin|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95910800|NCT02713711|191779539|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.3262|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.3262
95910801|NCT02713711|191779539|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.01
95910802|NCT02713711|191779539|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.||||||0.0646|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||0.0646
95910803|NCT02713711|191779539|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA. Sample was calculated with power of 80% and alpha of 0.05.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|repeated measures ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intragroup analysis||||||<0.001
95910804|NCT02713711|191779539|SUPERIORITY|Two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni post-test) for intergroup analysis.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95910805|NCT02713711|191779540|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2080
95910806|NCT02713711|191779540|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.0136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0136
95910807|NCT02713711|191779540|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.2987|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2987
95910808|NCT02713711|191779540|SUPERIORITY|paired-t test (intragroup analysis)||||||0.8347|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8347
95910809|NCT02713711|191779540|SUPERIORITY|two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test (intergroup analysis)||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0001
95910810|NCT04525547|191779564|OTHER|||||||0.817|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8170
95910811|NCT04525547|191779565|OTHER|||||||0.6533|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6533
95910812|NCT01783418|191779592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline and Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.613
95910813|NCT01783418|191779593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.957
95910814|NCT01783418|191779594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||.256
95910815|NCT01783418|191779595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.97
95910816|NCT01783418|191779596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention||||0.241
95910817|NCT01783418|191779597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.358
95910818|NCT01783418|191779598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Baseline, Post-intervention (8 weeks)||||0.95
95910819|NCT02563002|191779599|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.79|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.79|0.45|0.0001
95910820|NCT02563002|191779600|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.03|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log rank test|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.03|0.53|0.0359
95910821|NCT02563002|191779601|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.0||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|22.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||22.6|1.0|0.0159
95910822|NCT03662074|191779604|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The pre-specified analysis plan as per the protocol is to proceed to the second stage of recruitment for additional participants if the response proportion exceeds the historical control of 10%.|||
95910823|NCT03387579|191779630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.590
95910824|NCT03387579|191779630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.224|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.224
95910825|NCT03387579|191779630|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95910826|NCT03387579|191779631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.471
95910827|NCT03387579|191779632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.525
95910828|NCT03387579|191779633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.753
95727437|NCT04192799|191424645|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mean Ratio|0.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.09||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Gamma Regression with Log Link Function|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||1.09|0.80|0.37
95910829|NCT03387579|191779634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.008
95910830|NCT03387579|191779635|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.127
95910831|NCT03387579|191779636|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95910832|NCT03387579|191779637|SUPERIORITY||estimate|8.553||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.249|||||0.046
95910833|NCT03387579|191779637|SUPERIORITY||estimate|7.023||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.376|||||0.040
95910834|NCT03387579|191779637|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-1.53||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% Historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.231|||||0.718
95910835|NCT03387579|191779638|SUPERIORITY||estimate|13.436||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.440|||||0.003
95910836|NCT03387579|191779638|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.936||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 3.553|||||0.270
95910837|NCT03387579|191779638|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-9.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 4.416|||||0.034
95910838|NCT03387579|191779639|SUPERIORITY||estimate|42.674||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus Smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 15.216|||||0.006
95910839|NCT03387579|191779639|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.117||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.771|||||0.305
95910840|NCT03387579|191779639|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-31.557|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 67.673|||||<0.001
95910841|NCT03387579|191779640|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.593||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.848|||||0.835
95910842|NCT03387579|191779640|SUPERIORITY||estimate|-0.522||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.050|||||0.799
95910843|NCT03387579|191779640|SUPERIORITY||estimate|0.714||||0.714|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus Intralipid 20% reduction|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 2.758|||||0.714
95910844|NCT03387579|191779641|SUPERIORITY||estimate|11.162||||0.379|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intralipid 20% reduction versus smoflipid 20%|standard error 12.626|||||0.379
95910845|NCT03387579|191779641|SUPERIORITY||estimate|3.853||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|||||Intralipid 20% historic versus smoflipid 20%|Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 10.615|||||0.717
95910846|NCT03387579|191779641|SUPERIORITY|Intralipid 20% historic versus intralipid 20% reduction|estimate|-7.31||||0.576|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||standard error 13.025|||||0.576
95910847|NCT03387579|191779642|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
95910848|NCT03387579|191779642|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||ROP||||1.00
95910849|NCT03387579|191779643|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95910850|NCT03387579|191779643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.640
95910851|NCT03387579|191779643|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95910852|NCT03387579|191779644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.211|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.211
95910853|NCT03387579|191779645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.720
95910854|NCT03387579|191779646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.500
95910855|NCT03387579|191779647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.774
95910856|NCT03387579|191779648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
95910857|NCT03387579|191779649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.475
95910858|NCT03086330|191779705|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.24|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-1.24|-1.61|<0.0001
95910859|NCT03086330|191779706|OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-2.93|||ANCOVA|||The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, stratification factor and region as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including stratification factor and region as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-2.93|-4.70|<0.0001
95910860|NCT01446666|191779770|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||The HCC detection rate was defined as the number of patients with HCC detected by a given modality divided by the total number of patients with HCC detected by all modalities and by follow-up dynamic CT scan. The HCC detection rates from ultrasonography and MRI were compared.||||<0.01
95910861|NCT01446666|191779771|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
95910862|NCT01446666|191779772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.01
95910863|NCT01446666|191779773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.004
95910864|NCT00939874|191779775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95910865|NCT02231177|191779777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.27|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.27|0.99|
95910866|NCT02231177|191779778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.17|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.22|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.22|1.01|
95910867|NCT02231177|191779779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.06|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.06|0.91|
95910868|NCT02231177|191779780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.13|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.13|0.98|
95910869|NCT02231177|191779781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.81|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.98|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg: Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||0.98|0.83|
95910870|NCT02231177|191779782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.07|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.07|0.87|
95910871|NCT02231177|191779783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.12|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.12|0.93|
95910872|NCT02231177|191779784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.61|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg : Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.00|0.84|
95910873|NCT02231177|191779785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|96.12|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.77|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Olodaterol (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Olodaterol 10 µg). No formal testing.||1.77|0.98|
95910874|NCT02231177|191779786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|72.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.24|||ANOVA|ANOVA on the logarithmic scale with fixed effect for treatment, period, sequence, centre and random effect for subject within sequence and centre.|The standard deviation is actually the geometric intra-individual coefficient of variation.|Comparison of Tiotropium (Tiotropium+Olodaterol 5/10 μg; Tiotropium 5 µg). No formal testing.||1.24|0.79|
95910875|NCT03945292|191779813|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-66.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.18|-56.45||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|NAFLD=non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NSH=non-alcoholic steatohepatitis||||-56.45|-77.18|< 0.0001
95910876|NCT03945292|191779813|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-90.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.72|-79.34||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-79.34|-100.72|< 0.0001
95910877|NCT03945292|191779813|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-97.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.21|-86.94||From a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, presence of metabolic syndrome, presence of NAFLD or NASH, baseline serum Z-AAT as covariate, and subject as a random effect.|MMRM|||||-86.94|-108.21|< 0.0001
95910878|NCT03945292|191779817|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-129.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|36.409||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.52|-53.11||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-53.11|-205.52|0.0021
95910879|NCT03945292|191779817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-124.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|37.207||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-201.9|-46.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-46.15|-201.9|0.0035
95910880|NCT03945292|191779817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-140.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.906||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-205.27|-75.89||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline total liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-75.89|-205.27|0.0002
95910881|NCT03945292|191779819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-98.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.291||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.53|-55.6||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-55.6|-140.53|0.0001
95910882|NCT03945292|191779819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-109.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.616|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.81|-64.32||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-64.32|-154.81|< 0.0001
95910883|NCT03945292|191779819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-118.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.95|-82.12||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline soluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-82.12|-153.95|< 0.0001
95910884|NCT03945292|191779821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-180.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|74.087||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.77|-25.64||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-25.64|-335.77|0.0247
95910885|NCT03945292|191779821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-163.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|73.513||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-317.65|-9.93||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-9.93|-317.65|0.0382
95910886|NCT03945292|191779821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-193.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|63.089||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-325.25|-61.15||Model based summary statistics are from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effect factors treatment group and baseline insoluble liver Z-AAT protein as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-61.15|-325.25|0.0064
95910887|NCT02684006|191779841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|0.79||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.790|0.475|0.0001
95910888|NCT02684006|191779842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.057||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.057|0.701|0.1509
95910889|NCT02684006|191779843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.84||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.840|0.563|0.0002
95910890|NCT02684006|191779844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.039||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||1.039|0.749|0.1338
95910891|NCT02684006|191779853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|0.768||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|||||0.768|0.565|<.0001
95910892|NCT02684006|191779854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|0.754||||||||0.754|0.551|
95910893|NCT01895972|191779966|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The reduction from baseline in IOP was significant at all post-baseline assessment time points through Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||comparison vs. baseline||||<0.001
95910894|NCT04085328|191779970|NON_INFERIORITY|Predefined margin of 0.05 for noninferiority|Difference in proportion|-0.0154|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.0015|||Generalized linear model|Proportion of events was analyzed using a generalized linear model, with a logit link function, accounting for within-subject correlation.|Difference in proportion = LID015385 minus Biofinity.|||-0.0015||
95910895|NCT00514735|191779971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||In order to maintain the overall level of significance at the α=0.025 level after a planned interim analysis using α=0.003, this test will actually be performed using an adjusted α=0.0245 at the completion of the study.|Chi-squared|||"H0: Pa ≤ Pm Ha: Pa \> Pm~where Pa is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of successfully treated subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||<0.0001
95910896|NCT00514735|191779972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1427||||||An exact, one-sample binomial test was conducted at a one-sided α=0.025 level of significance.|Fisher Exact|||"H0: Pa ≥ 0.16 Ha: Pa \< 0.16~where Pa is the proportion of acute safety failures in the ablation management arm."||||0.1427
95910897|NCT00514735|191779973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This objective was not statistically powered. The non-inferiority chronic safety margin was 0.06.||||||0.0033|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"H0: Pa ≥ Pm + 0.06 Ha: Pa \< Pm + 0.06~where Pa is the proportion of failed subjects in the ablation management arm and Pm is the proportion of failed subjects in the optimal medical management/drug therapy arm."||||0.0033
95910898|NCT00514735|191779975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LAD from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.35
95910899|NCT00514735|191779976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||"H0: μa = μm Ha: μa ≠ μm~where μa is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Ablation Management arm, and μm is the change of LVEF from baseline to 6 month in Medical Management arm."||||0.06
95910900|NCT00514735|191779977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95910901|NCT00514735|191779978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
95910902|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4.||5.2|-10.4|0.517
95910903|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||6.5|-8.9|0.763
95910904|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.5||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.3|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||13.3|-2.3|0.164
95910905|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||10.5|-9.2|0.900
95910906|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|8.4|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||8.4|-11.1|0.788
95910907|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||11.8|-8.2|0.722
95910908|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|4.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||4.9|-18.2|0.260
95910909|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||6.8|-16.1|0.422
95910910|NCT01218126|191780032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|8.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||8.2|-15.1|0.564
95910911|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|38.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||38|-39|0.968
95910912|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|31.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||31|-45|0.715
95910913|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||66|-10|0.152
95910914|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||40|-45|0.922
95910915|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-34|0.694
95910916|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|79.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||79|-6.3|0.094
95910917|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||58|-26|0.456
95910918|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||61|-22|0.355
95910919|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|49.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|91.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||91|6.7|0.023
95910920|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|65.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||65|-21|0.320
95910921|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||67|-19|0.267
95910922|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.0||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||67|-20|0.289
95910923|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|49.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||49|-37|0.786
95910924|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||76|-10|0.134
95910925|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|29.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||74|-15|0.191
95910926|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|46.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||46|-38|0.852
95910927|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.0||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|60.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||60|-24|0.397
95910928|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.0||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||58|-28|0.494
95910929|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|40.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||40|-31|0.807
95910930|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||51|-20|0.386
95910931|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.0||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|67.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||67|-4.8|0.089
95910932|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|43.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||43|-45|0.958
95910933|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||50|-37|0.766
95910934|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.06||95.0|-1.7|87.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||87|-1.7|0.060
95910935|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|35.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||35|-53|0.678
95910936|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0||||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|54.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||54|-33|0.636
95910937|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|38.0||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|83.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||83|-6.5|0.094
95910938|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|37.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||37|-49|0.772
95910939|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|61.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||61|-24|0.387
95910940|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.0||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|69.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||69|-18|0.243
95910941|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.0||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.0|25.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||25|-62|0.398
95910942|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27.0||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||70|-16|0.214
95910943|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||58|-30|0.526
95910944|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|34.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||34|-53|0.671
95910945|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|64.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||64|-23|0.355
95910946|NCT01218126|191780033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|50.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FEV1 for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||50|-38|0.781
95910947|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.0|93.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||93|-66|0.742
95910948|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.0|48.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||48|-109|0.446
95910949|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|57.0||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|137.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||137|-22|0.157
95910950|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.0|74.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||74|-93|0.826
95910951|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.773||95.0|-95.0|70.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||70|-95|0.773
95910952|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|47.0||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|131.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||131|-38|0.277
95910953|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.0||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.0|132.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||132|-43|0.319
95910954|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||103|-71|0.716
95910955|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-14|0.098
95910956|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||100|-80|0.832
95910957|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|114.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||114|-64|0.579
95910958|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|42.0||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.0|133.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||133|-49|0.369
95910959|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.0||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|58.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||58|-121|0.487
95910960|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|95.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||95|-82|0.887
95910961|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.0|123.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||123|-59|0.486
95910962|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.0||||0.604||95.0|-113.0|66.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||66|-113|0.604
95910963|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.0||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|82.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||82|-97|0.872
95910964|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|43.0||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0|134.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Pre-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||134|-48|0.355
95910965|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|80.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||80|-65|0.839
95910966|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.0||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.0|84.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||84|-60|0.741
95910967|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|71.0||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|143.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||143|-1.8|0.056
95910968|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.0|57.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||57|-107|0.554
95910969|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.0||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.0|51.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||51|-110|0.472
95910970|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|66.0||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|149.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||149|-16|0.116
95910971|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|76.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||76|-98|0.805
95910972|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.0||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.0|100.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||100|-73|0.763
95910973|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|75.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|163.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||163|-13|0.096
95910974|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.0||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.0|56.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 16||56|-118|0.485
95910975|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0|103.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 16||103|-69|0.704
95910976|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|72.0||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|159.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 16||159|-16|0.108
95910977|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-64.0||||0.147||95.0|-151.0|23.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 20||23|-151|0.147
95910978|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.0||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.0|75.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 20||75|-98|0.792
95910979|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.0||||0.275||95.0|-39.0|138.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 20||138|-39|0.275
95910980|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.0|59.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||59|-115|0.530
95910981|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|96.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||96|-77|0.827
95910982|NCT01218126|191780034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|35.0||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.0|124.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Post-Bronchodilator FVC for Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||124|-53|0.434
95910983|NCT01218126|191780035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||2.2|-3.3|0.686
95910984|NCT01218126|191780035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|4.2|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||4.2|-1.2|0.279
95910985|NCT01218126|191780035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.9|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.9|-4.6|0.193
95910986|NCT01218126|191780035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.5|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||3.5|-2.7|0.803
95910987|NCT01218126|191780035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||5.0|-1.2|0.229
95910988|NCT01218126|191780035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|1.8|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.8|-4.5|0.390
95910989|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.01|0.91|0.157
95910990|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||0.95|0.86|0.000
95910991|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.96|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.96|0.86|0.000
95910992|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.072||95.0|0.9|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.00|0.90|0.072
95910993|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.95|0.85|0.000
95910994|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.83|0.000
95910995|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.99||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.05|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.05|0.93|0.728
95910996|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.97|0.86|0.002
95910997|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.95|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.95|0.84|0.001
95910998|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.07|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.07|0.95|0.823
95910999|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.02|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.02|0.90|0.153
95911000|NCT01218126|191780037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.01|0.90|0.126
95911001|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.87||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.12|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 4||1.12|0.68|0.291
95911002|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 4||1.00|0.61|0.046
95911003|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 4||0.94|0.57|0.014
95911004|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 8||1.32|0.82|0.755
95911005|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.77||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.97|0.60|0.029
95911006|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.94|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 8||0.94|0.58|0.015
95911007|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 12||1.17|0.71|0.468
95911008|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.73||||0.011||95.0|0.57|0.93|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 12||0.93|0.57|0.011
95911009|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.82|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 12||0.82|0.50|0.000
95911010|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.22|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 2.5 mg at Week 24||1.22|0.74|0.696
95911011|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.04|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg at Week 24||1.04|0.64|0.099
95911012|NCT01218126|191780038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||mixed model repeated measures||Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, region, smoking status at screening (stratum), history of exacerbations, baseline, visit, visit by baseline and visit by treatment interactions.|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg at Week 24||1.11|0.67|0.256
95911013|NCT01218126|191780039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.0||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.54|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 2.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Losmapimod 2.5 mg versus Placebo||1.54|0.64|0.989
95911014|NCT01218126|191780039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.915||95.0|0.64|1.5|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 7.5 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 7.5 mg||1.50|0.64|0.915
95911015|NCT01218126|191780039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.74||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.18|||Negative Binomial regression model|Covariates of treatment, group, smoking status, history of exacerbations and region, with logarithm of time on treatment as an offset variable.|Rate ratio= (Rate of exacerbation in Losmapimod 15 mg arm) / (Rate of exacerbation in placebo arm)|Placebo versus Losmapimod 15 mg||1.18|0.47|0.210
95911016|NCT02963974|191780045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed CNC Word scores from 3 months through 24 months to evaluate change over time with device use. Scores were converted to Rau prior to analysis.||||< 0.001
95911017|NCT02963974|191780045|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analyzed pre-op to 3 month post activation CNC Word scores to test superiority of cochlear implant use to pre-operative hearing aid use.||||< 0.001
95911018|NCT02963974|191780047|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05. This was a two-way repeated measures ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores at 12 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
95911019|NCT02963974|191780048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed BKB-SIN SNR-50 scores across all time points (6, 12, and 24 months post activation) to evaluate the impact of time, device use (CI off vs on), and masker location (front, to the affected ear, or to the normal hearing ear) on hearing in noise.||||< 0.001
95911020|NCT02963974|191780052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01911||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed overall RMS error at 3, 9, 18, and 24 months post activation to evaluate the impact of device use (CI off vs on) and time on localization.||||0.01911
95911021|NCT02963974|191780053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Speech subtest.||||< 0.001
95911022|NCT02963974|191780053|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Spatial subtest.||||0.001
95911023|NCT02963974|191780053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores across time to investigate change in scores over time: Qualities subtest.||||< 0.001
95911024|NCT02963974|191780054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores over time.||||< 0.001
95911025|NCT02963974|191780055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: General Fatigue Subtest||||0.1009
95911026|NCT02963974|191780055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Sleep Fatigue Subtest||||0.109
95911027|NCT02963974|191780055|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1733||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of scores to evaluation change over time: Cognitive Fatigue Subtest||||0.1733
95911028|NCT00567190|191780077|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.75|0.51|<0.0001
95911029|NCT00567190|191780077|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.76||Tested at two-sided 5% significance level|Log Rank (unstratified)|Unstratified|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0) was that the survival distributions of PFS in the two treatments arms (pertuzumab vs. placebo) are the same. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the survival distribution of PFS in the experimental arm (pertuzumab) and control arm (placebo) are different.||0.76|0.52|<0.0001
95911030|NCT00567190|191780078|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|End-of-Study OS Analysis: This end-of-study OS analysis is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.82|0.58|<0.0001
95911031|NCT00567190|191780078|SUPERIORITY|Exploratory|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.68||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.84||Exploratory|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Event-Driven Final OS Analysis: This final OS analysis was event-driven and planned to take place after a total of 385 deaths had occurred. It is considered exploratory only as the confirmatory OS analysis for statistical interpretation had previously occurred at the second interim OS analysis.||0.84|0.56|0.0002
95911032|NCT00567190|191780078|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|Second Interim OS Analysis: For this second interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.739, p≤0.0138.||0.84|0.52|0.0008
95911033|NCT00567190|191780078|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.64||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.88||The threshold for statistical significance was HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.|Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio (HR) is comparing pertuzumab with placebo arms.|First Interim OS Analysis: For this first interim OS analysis, the pre-defined O'Brien-Fleming stopping boundary for the Lan-DeMets α-spending function was: HR≤0.603, p≤0.0012.||0.88|0.47|0.0050
95911034|NCT00567190|191780079|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.81|||Log Rank (stratified)|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|PFS by Investigator - Stratified||0.81|0.59|<0.0001
95911035|NCT00567190|191780080|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Objective Response Rates|10.83||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|17.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Difference in the objective response rates between arms is calculated as Pertuzumab arm minus Placebo arm. The 95% CI was calculated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|Difference in Objective Response (CR + PR) Between Arms||17.5|4.2|0.0011
95911036|NCT00567190|191780080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.54||||||Odds Ratio for Objective Response (CR + PR)||2.54|1.26|
95911037|NCT00567190|191780081|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85||||||||0.85|0.51|
95911038|NCT00567190|191780082|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.16||Stratified by prior treatment status and region.|Log Rank (stratified)||Hazard ratio is comparing Pertuzumab arm with Placebo arm.|||1.16|0.81|0.7161
95911039|NCT00567190|191780091|OTHER|||||||0.7174|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|||Wilcoxon Test of Maximum Decrease in LVEF From BL||||0.7174
95911040|NCT00374322|191780121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.08||The p-value was calculated from a stratified log-rank test, stratifying for hormone receptor status, time since initial diagnosis, and lymph node involvement.|Log Rank||Estimate of the treatment hazard ratio (HR) was calcuated using the pike estimator.|||1.08|0.77|0.286
95911041|NCT00251862|191780137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|8.3||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|14.2|||Chi-squared|||Sample size and power considerations focused on a two-group comparison of the DA alone versus control study arms for the primary outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test completion at 12 months. Based on crude estimates of baseline test completion rates, we calculated that a target sample of 275 subjects per arm provided greater than 80% power of detecting a 54% vs. 40% difference at the P\<0.05 level.||14.2|-2.2|0.046
95911042|NCT00251862|191780137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute Difference|6.0||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|16.5|||Chi-squared|||||16.5|0.2|0.153
95911043|NCT00251862|191780138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Pairwise comparisons: DA+YDR vs. Control, P\<0.001; DA alone vs. Control, P\<0.001|ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared on cumulative pre-test and post-test knowledge through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
95911044|NCT00251862|191780139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
95911045|NCT00251862|191780140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||The three study groups were compared through separate one-factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA); followed pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni's adjusted multiple comparison procedure.||||<0.001
95911046|NCT00572195|191780158|OTHER||Wilson score interval|77.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.1|81.9|||||The value is for all serious adverse events, regardless of device relation.||95% confidence interval estimated using the Wilson score interval|81.9|71.1|
95911047|NCT00572195|191780159|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||For all 6-month periods, from 6 months through 9 years post-implant, p \<0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.05
95911048|NCT00572195|191780161|OTHER||GEE estimated intercept|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|49.2|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||49.2|46.8|<0.0001
95911049|NCT00572195|191780161|OTHER||Slope|0.0||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|||||0.1|-0.2|0.6729
95911050|NCT00861614|191780176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Log Rank||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.96|0.71|0.0127
95911051|NCT00861614|191780178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.82|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||0.82|0.61|
95911052|NCT00861614|191780180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|4.0|||||Ipilimumab over placebo|||4.00|0.02|
95911053|NCT00838682|191780200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95911054|NCT00838682|191780201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95911055|NCT00838682|191780202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95911056|NCT00838682|191780203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95911057|NCT00838682|191780204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95911058|NCT00838682|191780205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95911059|NCT02305381|191780206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.50|-2.01|< 0.0001
95911060|NCT02305381|191780206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Superiority for change in HbA1c was claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the estimated difference was below 0%.|Hierarchical testing was performed as per sequence listed below:Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in HbA1c: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 1.0 mg vs placebo. Change in body weight: semaglutide 0.5 mg vs placebo. Analysis was performed using MMRM with treatment, country and stratification variable (HbA1c at screening \[≤8.0% or \>8.0%\] crossed with use of metformin \[yes or no\]; 2 by 2 levels) as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate||-1.10|-1.61|< 0.0001
95911061|NCT02276066|191780214|OTHER|We performed a delta analysis, by graphing the difference between the two measurements, we wanted to visually assess the degree of agreement or discrepancy between the two methods. We were looking to evaluate the consistency, accuracy, or bias between different measurement techniques.|||||<|0.05|||||||Delta analysis|||||||<0.05
95911062|NCT03386032|191780222|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means.||Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.||||<0.05
95911063|NCT03386032|191780223|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Model adjusted means. Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left miss||"Change from baseline in variables were analyzed separately using a mixed model for repeated measures with Subject nested within treatment (random effect), and Treatment, Week, Treatment-by-Week, Age \& Baseline (fixed effects). Last Observation was Carried Forward (LOCF) for drops. Sporadic missing data were left missing.~Significance level: 0.05 (2-sided)"||||<0.05
95911064|NCT01493687|191780243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95911065|NCT01493687|191780244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-6.13|||ANCOVA|||||-6.13|-10.12|<0.001
95911066|NCT01493687|191780245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95911067|NCT02323646|191780246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0019|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0019
95911068|NCT02323646|191780246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0063|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0063
95911069|NCT02323646|191780247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0237|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0237
95911070|NCT02323646|191780247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0272|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0272
95911071|NCT02323646|191780248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0145|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0145
95911072|NCT02323646|191780248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0662|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test.|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 1.||||0.0662
95911073|NCT02323646|191780248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0061|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0061
95911074|NCT02323646|191780248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0296|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage change in the last value on drug Course 2.||||0.0296
95911075|NCT02323646|191780249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2642|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2642
95911076|NCT02323646|191780249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4383|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.4383
95911077|NCT02323646|191780249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5333|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5333
95911078|NCT02323646|191780249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8791|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8791
95911079|NCT02323646|191780249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3666|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3666
95911080|NCT02323646|191780249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up||||0.3450
95911081|NCT02323646|191780250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0473|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0473
95911082|NCT02323646|191780250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0191|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0191
95911083|NCT02323646|191780250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0749
95911084|NCT02323646|191780250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0233
95911085|NCT02323646|191780250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7569|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7569
95911086|NCT02323646|191780250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5399|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5399
95911087|NCT02323646|191780251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1683
95911088|NCT02323646|191780251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.256|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.2560
95911089|NCT02323646|191780251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4997|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.4997
95911090|NCT02323646|191780251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1334|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.1334
95911091|NCT02323646|191780251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.0323
95911092|NCT02323646|191780251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
95911093|NCT02323646|191780252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6356|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.6356
95911094|NCT02323646|191780252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9539|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9539
95911095|NCT02323646|191780252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5219|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5219
95911096|NCT02323646|191780252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2678|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.2678
95911097|NCT02323646|191780252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3086|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3086
95911098|NCT02323646|191780252|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.3847
95911099|NCT02323646|191780253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8393|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8393
95911100|NCT02323646|191780253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1361
95911101|NCT02323646|191780253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0382|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0382
95911102|NCT02323646|191780253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6273|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.6273
95911103|NCT02323646|191780253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8237|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.8237
95911104|NCT02323646|191780253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.1370
95911105|NCT02323646|191780254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7949|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.7949
95911106|NCT02323646|191780254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1928|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1928
95911107|NCT02323646|191780254|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||1.0000
95911108|NCT02323646|191780254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3920
95911109|NCT02323646|191780254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.5410
95911110|NCT02323646|191780254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4602|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4602
95911111|NCT02323646|191780255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9536|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.9536
95911112|NCT02323646|191780255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1355|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1355
95911113|NCT02323646|191780255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9396
95911114|NCT02323646|191780255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9102|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.9102
95911115|NCT02323646|191780255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6266|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6266
95911116|NCT02323646|191780255|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.9302
95911117|NCT02323646|191780256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.817|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8170
95911118|NCT02323646|191780256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8177|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.8177
95911119|NCT02323646|191780256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3167|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.3167
95911120|NCT02323646|191780256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.5503
95911121|NCT02323646|191780256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6929|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.6929
95911122|NCT02323646|191780256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7260
95911123|NCT02323646|191780257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3896|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.3896
95911124|NCT02323646|191780257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1358|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1358
95911125|NCT02323646|191780257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.7903
95911126|NCT02323646|191780257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8206|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8206
95911127|NCT02323646|191780257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7891|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.7891
95911128|NCT02323646|191780257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2, Week 24 Follow-up Visit||||0.4010
95911129|NCT02323646|191780258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0294|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.0294
95911130|NCT02323646|191780258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1934|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 1||||0.1934
95911131|NCT02323646|191780258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.0442
95911132|NCT02323646|191780258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8314|||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||Percentage Change from BL: Course 2||||0.8314
95911133|NCT00089141|191780272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.66||||0.22||95.0|0.7|3.7||P values are 2 sided and are based on likelihood ratio statistics.|Regression, Cox|Analysis for all endpoints was stratified by number of affected organs and type of conditioning regimen.|For all analyses, MMF arm in numerator, and placebo arm in denominator. Hazard ratio estimate includes 3 efficacy success events that occurred after two years in the placebo arm.|||3.7|0.7|.22
95911134|NCT00089141|191780273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.65||||0.03||95.0|1.1|2.6|||Regression, Cox|Statistical analysis did not count treatment continuing beyond 2 years as efficacy failure (n = 2 in each arm).||||2.6|1.1|.03
95911135|NCT00089141|191780274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.55||95.0|0.7|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|0.7|.55
95911136|NCT00089141|191780275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.48||95.0|0.4|6.0|||Regression, Cox|||||6.0|0.4|.48
95911137|NCT00089141|191780276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74||||0.17||95.0|0.8|3.9|||Regression, Cox|adjusted for risk category||||3.9|0.8|.17
95911138|NCT00089141|191780277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.41||95.0|0.5|5.0|||Regression, Cox|||||5.0|0.5|.41
95911139|NCT00089141|191780278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.14||95.0|0.9|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.9|.14
95911140|NCT00089141|191780279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.99||||0.1||95.0|0.9|4.3|||Regression, Cox|||||4.3|0.9|.10
95911141|NCT00089141|191780280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.34||95.0|0.08|2.1|||Regression, Cox|||||2.1|.08|.34
95911142|NCT00089141|191780281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.28||95.0|0.7|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||||3.2|0.7|.28
95911143|NCT00508261|191780287|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|4.71||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, at month 1.||4.71|-0.33|
95911144|NCT00508261|191780287|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|6.24||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup C, at month 1.||6.24|0.73|
95911145|NCT00508261|191780287|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|4.64||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup W-135, at month 1.||4.64|-0.36|
95911146|NCT00508261|191780287|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority: The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with serum bactericidal antibodies using baby rabbit complement (rSBA) titer ≥1:8 is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|6.18||||||Demonstration of the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix vaccine co-administered with combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of bactericidal antibodies to Neisseria meningitidis serogroup Y, at month 1.||6.18|0.71|
95911147|NCT00508261|191780288|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PT (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertussis toxoid (PT), at month 1.||1.12|0.83|
95911148|NCT00508261|191780288|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-FHA (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.13||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA), at month 1.||1.13|0.85|
95911149|NCT00508261|191780288|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the GMC ratio for anti-PRN (ELISA) is greater than or equal to a pre-defined clinical limit of delta = 0.67.|Adjusted GMC ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||||||Demonstration of non-inferiority of combined Infanrix-hexa vaccine co-administered with Nimenrix vaccine to Infanrix-hexa vaccine given alone in terms of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of antibodies to pertactin (PRN), at month 1.||1.1|0.78|
95911150|NCT00508261|191780289|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentages of subjects with anti-HBs antibody concentrations ≥10 mIU/ml is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.6||||||||4.6|-1.47|
95911151|NCT00508261|191780290|NON_INFERIORITY|Criterion for non-inferiority (1 month after the first study vaccination): The lower limit of the two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the group difference in the percentage of subjects with anti-PRP concentrations (ELISA) ≥1.0 μg/mL is greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical limit of -10%.|Difference in percentages|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|4.5||||||||4.5|-1.45|
95911152|NCT00180479|191780316|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculation for endpoint of in-segment LL at 240 days is based on these assumptions: one-tailed non-inferiority= (δ)=0.025, Power=99%, Randomization ratio 2:1, True mean in-seg. LL is assumed to be 0.24 mm in both arms.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Primary endpoint analyzed for intent-to-treat \& per-treatment evaluable pop. Hypothesis test based on per-subject analysis of intent-to-treat pop. using analysis lesion. The null hypothesis evaluated using non-inferiority test with asymptotic test statistic.||||<0.0001
95911153|NCT00180479|191780317|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 89% statistical power based on major secondary endpoint to prove non-inferiority of XIENCE® V to TAXUS®, non-inferiority delta=5.5%, true TVF rate 9.4% in both arms with overall 5% alpha (one-sided), assuming 1% subject dropout rate.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority Z statistic. Non-inferiority was defined as a one-sided alpha of 0.05 and a difference in TVF rate of no more than 5.5%.||||<0.0001
95911154|NCT03315143|191780360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-cardiovascular (non-CV) death treated as a competing event.||0.88|0.63|<0.001
95911155|NCT03315143|191780361|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.82|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.82|0.55|<0.001
95911156|NCT03315143|191780362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.12|||Cox proportional hazards model|||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.12|0.73|=0.35
95911157|NCT03315143|191780363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.83||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.83|0.63|
95911158|NCT03315143|191780364|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.89||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.89|0.65|
95911159|NCT03315143|191780365|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||1.08|0.46|
95911160|NCT03315143|191780366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction.||1.18|0.83|
95911161|NCT03315143|191780367|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||||||The estimates of the HR and corresponding 2-sided 95% CI was to be provided by a marginal Cox proportional hazard model stratified by region and ejection fraction, with non-CV death treated as a competing event.||0.91|0.65|
95911162|NCT02459262|191780380|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures: In-transformed antibody concentrations as dependent variable; dose level, time, presence of adjuvant and dose\*time interaction as fixed effects; subjects as random effects||||||0.0193||||||Adjuvant effect at Day 85, the primary immunological endpoint|ANOVA|Adjuvant effect, with higher antibody concentration values after all dose levels of vaccine was significant at all time points (D29, D43, D57, Day 85)||The objectives for Part A were to evaluate the effect of adjuvant and to inform the selection of dose levels for Part B. The study was not powered for inter-group comparisons.||||0.0193
95911163|NCT02459262|191780381|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95911164|NCT02459262|191780382|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95911165|NCT02943941|191780384|OTHER|||||||0.429|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.429
95911166|NCT02943941|191780385|OTHER|||||||0.059||||||Pressure during coughing versus normal breathing initially measured at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.059
95911167|NCT02943941|191780386|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95911168|NCT00105235|191780395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|0.423|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||.423|.086|
95911169|NCT00105235|191780396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0|
95911170|NCT00105235|191780398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.3|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.3|0.04|
95911171|NCT00105235|191780399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Exact Binomial Confidence Interval|||||0.2|0.01|
95911172|NCT04998604|191780404|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-1.25||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the type-I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analysis. Testing was performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05.||-1.25|-1.96|<0.001
95911173|NCT04998604|191780405|SUPERIORITY|At each post-baseline visit, each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|9.7||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9.7|6.3|<0.001
95911174|NCT04998604|191780406|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.61||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.61|-1.01|<0.001
95911175|NCT04998604|191780407|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
95911176|NCT04998604|191780408|SUPERIORITY|Each of the imputed complete data was analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, study treatment (dupilumab, omalizumab), prior surgery (yes, no), ICS doses (low, medium/high), presence of AERD (yes, no), region (EE, ROW) as covariates.|LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.33||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-1.33|-2.15|<0.001
95911177|NCT03286751|191780430|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.01||||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.05|0.974|0.5495
95911178|NCT03286751|191780430|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.02||||0.2236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.986|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.06|0.986|0.2236
95911179|NCT03286751|191780430|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|1.03||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.997|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.07|0.997|0.0727
95911180|NCT03286751|191780431|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.97||||0.5749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.87|0.5749
95911181|NCT03286751|191780431|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1578
95911182|NCT03286751|191780431|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LSMeans|0.92||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.03|0.83|0.1351
95911183|NCT01301391|191780432|SUPERIORITY||Single proportion|0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.74||A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||H0:p≤ 25% vs H1:p\> 25% with an interesting PFS-3 rate of 50% (median PFS of 3 months), alpha=0.05 and beta=0.10, 30 evaluable patients are required for a single stage trial. If at the end of the trial 12 or more out of 30 evaluable patients are alive and progression-free at 3 months since the treatment start date, the null hypothesis are rejected. A Fleming multiple-testing procedure is applied. If \>=4 successes out of the first 15 patients are observed, accrual will continue up to 30.||0.74|0.33|<0.001
95911184|NCT03088267|191780523|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.6||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.17|||ANCOVA|||||-2.17|-14.94|0.0118
95911185|NCT03088267|191780524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.8||||0.1128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|42.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 30 minutes post-dose||42.50|-4.94|0.1128
95911186|NCT03088267|191780524|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|60.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.91|87.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison at 3 hours postdose||87.75|32.91|0.0003
95911187|NCT05417620|191780528|OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.21||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.31||Threshold for significance: 0.05.|Regression, Poisson|||"This statistical analysis is done at the district level where counts of initiations in intervention districts are compared to standard of care districts. In the measure type we report rate = average counts of PrEP initiations per number of study months."||3.31|0.44|0.707
95911188|NCT04393441|191780539|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction,Baseline total staining stratum(TSS),and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|2.27|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline in Total Staining Score at Day 90: The null hypothesis was that 011516X tear formulation was to be considered noninferior to Systane Ultra MD if the upper limit of 2-sided confidence interval (CI) was less than 2.3 units.||2.27|0.01|0.0475
95911189|NCT04393441|191780540|OTHER|No formal hypothesis was planned. The p-value for treatment differences is reported for reference.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.32||0.9001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.03|34.14|||MMRM|MMRM with fixed effects=treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, Baseline TSS, and Baseline TSS by visit interaction.||||34.14|-30.03|0.9001
95911190|NCT01422408|191780570|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.|||||<|0.001||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||<0.001
95911191|NCT01422408|191780570|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.36||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equation) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||0.36|0|0.001
95911192|NCT01422408|191780571|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.002||||||2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal dryness from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in symptoms of dyspareunia from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||0.002
95911193|NCT01422408|191780571|OTHER|Exact McNemar's test was used to test if the proportion of severe symptoms at baseline are equal to the proportion of severe symptoms at the end of the study.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.09||Since there are two-co-primary endpoints, the significance level is 2.5%|McNemar|||"GEE (general estimating equations) methods were planned as a secondary analysis of the primary endpoints. Missing data for some of the weeks prevented these models from converging and we could not obtain valid results with these methods. Since this is a secondary analysis, we decided to compare symptom severity at baseline vs. week 4 (end of study). Symptoms are considered severe for scores 3 or 4 and not severe for scores 0, 1, 2"||1.09|0|0.062
95911194|NCT01422408|191780572|OTHER|Two-sided test that the change is different from zero. Not tested against alternative treatment; single arm study.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.001
95911195|NCT01422408|191780573|OTHER|2.5% significance level to account for two co-primary endpoints.||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The secondary endpoints (i.e., change in symptoms of vaginal itching from the baseline to 4 weeks, and change in vaginal index score from the baseline to 4 weeks) will be analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test with 2.5% significance level to account for two co-secondary endpoints.||||0.002
95911196|NCT01422408|191780575|OTHER|||||||0.1029||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1029
95911197|NCT01422408|191780576|OTHER|||||||0.2678||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2678
95911198|NCT01422408|191780577|OTHER|||||||0.2472||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2472
95911199|NCT01422408|191780578|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
95911200|NCT01422408|191780579|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
95911201|NCT01422408|191780580|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
95911202|NCT01422408|191780581|OTHER|||||||0.6587||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6587
95911203|NCT01422408|191780582|OTHER|||||||0.8772||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8772
95911204|NCT01422408|191780583|OTHER|||||||0.7395||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7395
95911205|NCT01422408|191780584|OTHER|||||||0.9618||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9618
95911206|NCT01422408|191780585|OTHER|||||||0.5113||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.5113
95911207|NCT01422408|191780586|OTHER|||||||0.8833||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.8833
95911208|NCT01422408|191780587|OTHER|||||||0.7983||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.7983
95911209|NCT01422408|191780588|OTHER|||||||0.4937||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.4937
95911210|NCT01422408|191780589|OTHER|||||||0.9106||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.9106
95911211|NCT01422408|191780590|OTHER|||||||0.507||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.507
95911212|NCT01422408|191780591|OTHER|||||||0.3676||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.3676
95911213|NCT01422408|191780592|OTHER|||||||0.6023||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.6023
95911214|NCT01422408|191780593|OTHER|||||||0.08531||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.08531
95911215|NCT01422408|191780594|OTHER|||||||0.2011||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.2011
95911216|NCT01422408|191780595|OTHER|||||||0.1187||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison. Significance level of 0.05. Since this endpoint is of an exploratory nature and the significance is well above the threshold, not much more consideration was given to the issue of multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA rather than ANOVA since normal distribution of residuals may be suspect.||In order to compare the response between groups, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used.||||0.1187
95911217|NCT02953938|191780596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|-1.49|0.3680
95911218|NCT02953938|191780597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.58|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.042||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.67|-0.48|||ANOVA|||||-0.48|-12.67|0.0349
95911219|NCT02953938|191780598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.051||0.2707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.158|||ANOVA|||||0.158|-0.045|0.2707
95911220|NCT02953938|191780600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.32||||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.65|85.28|||ANOVA|||||85.28|-62.65|0.7602
95911221|NCT00724152|191780601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Null hypothesis: The Cognitive Behavioral Therapy group would not demonstrate decreased distress at post-treatment as compared to the Tinnitus Education group on the primary outcome measure (THI) between pre-treatment and post-treatment.||||<0.05
95911222|NCT03371082|191780604|EQUIVALENCE|The limits of the lower and upper equivalence margin were -11.3 and 11.3, respectively.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|6.5|||||The asymptotic standard error was planned and is reported above.|This is a two-arm study.||6.5|-5.4|
95911223|NCT02279043|191780619|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|4.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.88|0.16|0.89
95911224|NCT02279043|191780620|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95911225|NCT02279043|191780621|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95911226|NCT02279043|191780621|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.59||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.11|0.08|0.02
95911227|NCT02279043|191780622|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95911228|NCT02279043|191780623|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95911229|NCT02279043|191780624|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.20|0.75|0.34
95911230|NCT02279043|191780625|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.05|0.49|0.99
95911231|NCT02279043|191780626|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.95|0.08
95911232|NCT02279043|191780627|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.58|1.05|0.03
95911233|NCT02279043|191780627|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||0.97|0.04|0.03
95911234|NCT02279043|191780628|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|1.42|<0.01
95911235|NCT02279043|191780628|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.84|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects logistic regression||Multivariate analysis adjusting for cluster, as association was significant in bivariate test.||1.35|0.33|<0.01
95911236|NCT02279043|191780629|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.93
95911237|NCT02279043|191780630|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.74|0.52|0.68
95911238|NCT02279043|191780631|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.93|0.08|0.33
95911239|NCT00810264|191780653|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary safety endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, non-inferiority test comparing a binomial proportion (overall SAEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with a non-inferiority delta of 5%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Proportion|||||||<0.0001
95911240|NCT04557930|191780665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||We tested the association between exposure to the intervention and the incidence of ACP billing in the pre- and post-intervention periods using a mixed effects logistic regression model, adjusting for time, patient and hospital covariates.||1.06|0.88|0.41
95911241|NCT04557930|191780665|SUPERIORITY|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Overall effect allowing effect heterogeneity across steps \<0.001 Interaction effect \<0.001|Step 1 cohort|||1.19|0.89|0.74
95911242|NCT04557930|191780665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 2 cohort|1.36|0.98|0.09
95911243|NCT04557930|191780665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 3 cohort|1.33|0.97|0.11
95911244|NCT04557930|191780665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Step 4 cohort|Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.||0.76|0.57|<0.001
95911245|NCT04557930|191780665|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sensitivity analysis of the association between the intervention and ACP billing, adjusted for time, patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, and the interaction between step of the trial and the intervention.|Step 5 cohort|1.19|0.89|0.49
95911246|NCT00313820|191780678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.578||95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and country as factors and baseline pain score as covariate.||Modelled Results: Endpoint Mean Pain Score Pregabalin vs Placebo||0.4|-0.7|0.578
95911247|NCT00313820|191780678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.294||95.0||||Interaction p-value based on adding interaction term to the main model.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results: Treatment by country interaction||||0.294
95911248|NCT00313820|191780679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.161||95.0|-0.8|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.8|0.161
95911249|NCT00313820|191780679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.062||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results||0.0|-1.0|0.062
95911250|NCT00313820|191780679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.024||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.024
95911251|NCT00313820|191780679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.026||95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.1|0.026
95911252|NCT00313820|191780679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.105||95.0|-0.9|0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9 Modelled Results||0.1|-0.9|0.105
95911253|NCT00313820|191780679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.592||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12 Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.592
95911254|NCT00313820|191780680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.087||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Responders||||0.087
95911255|NCT00313820|191780681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.622||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for country under the null hypothesis of no treatment difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Responders||||0.622
95911256|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.027||95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1; Modelled Results||-0.1|-1.0|0.027
95911257|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.038||95.0|-1.0|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; Modelled Results||-0.0|-1.0|0.038
95911258|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004||95.0|-1.2|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 3; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.2|0.004
95911259|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.005||95.0|-1.1|-0.2||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 6; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.1|0.005
95911260|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.078||95.0|-0.9|0.0||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 9; Modelled Results||0.0|-0.9|0.078
95911261|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.663||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.663
95911262|NCT00313820|191780682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.627||95.0|-0.6|0.4||Estimated from a repeated measures linear mixed model with treatment, week, country and treatment by week interaction as factors and baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Endpoint \[Week 12 or ET\]; Modelled Results||0.4|-0.6|0.627
95911263|NCT00313820|191780683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.741||95.0|-7.0|5.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||5.0|-7.0|0.741
95911264|NCT00313820|191780684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.216||95.0|-1.0|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Burning Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-1.0|0.216
95911265|NCT00313820|191780684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.76||95.0|-0.4|0.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.6|-0.4|0.760
95911266|NCT00313820|191780684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.36||95.0|-0.7|0.3||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) general linear model with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.3|-0.7|0.360
95911267|NCT00313820|191780684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.239||95.0|-0.8|0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.2|-0.8|0.239
95911268|NCT00313820|191780684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.118||95.0|-1.0|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||P/D Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.1|-1.0|0.118
95911269|NCT00313820|191780684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.138||95.0|-6.5|0.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Total Score Week 12 \[LOCF\]; Modelled Results||0.9|-6.5|0.138
95911270|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.086||95.0|-10.3|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance; Modelled Results||0.7|-10.3|0.086
95911271|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72||0.039||95.0|0.4|15.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Snoring score; Modelled Results||15.1|0.4|0.039
95911272|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.169||95.0|-9.1|1.6||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Awaken SOB or headache; Modelled Results||1.6|-9.1|0.169
95911273|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.03||95.0|0.0|0.7||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity; Modelled Results||0.7|0.0|0.030
95911274|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44||0.013||95.0|1.8|15.4||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy; Modelled Results||15.4|1.8|0.013
95911275|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.399||95.0|-2.8|7.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Somnolence; Modelled Results||7.1|-2.8|0.399
95911276|NCT00313820|191780685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.049||95.0|-8.4|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and the baseline assessment as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Overall sleep problems index; Modelled Results||-0.0|-8.4|0.049
95911277|NCT00313820|191780686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.201||95.0|0.8|2.9||Estimated from a logistic regression model with treatment and the baseline assessment as factors.|Regression, Logistic||Standard error of the mean = standard error of the odds ratio.|Modelled Results||2.9|0.8|0.201
95911278|NCT00313820|191780687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.015||95.0|-1.8|-0.2||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Anxiety score; Modelled Results||-0.2|-1.8|0.015
95911279|NCT00313820|191780687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.6||95.0|-0.6|1.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12 \[LOCF\] Depression score; Modelled Results||1.0|-0.6|0.600
95911280|NCT00313820|191780688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.566||95.0|-0.1|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.1|0.566
95911281|NCT00313820|191780689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.22||95.0|-1.8|7.9||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and coutntry as factors and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||7.9|-1.8|0.220
95911282|NCT00313820|191780690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.144||95.0|-0.5|0.1||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treament and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||0.1|-0.5|0.144
95911283|NCT00313820|191780691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.049||95.0|-0.6|0.0||Estimated from ANCOVA (general linear model) with treatment and country as factors.|ANCOVA|||Modelled Results||-0.0|-0.6|0.049
95911284|NCT04102579|191780708|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|-1.95||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|Results were analyzed using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis. The model included the screening period baseline TMC as a covariate, and treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as fixed effects. Participant was included as a random effect.||-1.95|-4.37|<0.0001
95911285|NCT04102579|191780709|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|29.65||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|45.37||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||45.37|10.77|0.0007
95911286|NCT04102579|191780710|OTHER||Percent Difference in Responders|26.31||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|43.74||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|Fisher Exact||Percent Difference in Responders (%) = Valbenazine - Placebo|||43.74|6.32|0.0062
95911287|NCT04102579|191780711|OTHER||LS Means Difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.3304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|4.31||Statistical significance achieved if p-value \<0.05.|MMRM||LS Means Difference = Valbenazine - Placebo|LS mean was based on the MMRM model which included corresponding baseline value of the Neuro-QoL Upper Extremity Function T-score as a covariate; treatment group, visit, baseline-by-visit interaction, and treatment group-by-visit interaction as fixed effects; and participant as a random effect.||4.31|-1.46|0.3304
95911288|NCT00605202|191780724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||P-value of the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms|t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis applies to the change in the plasma potassium (baseline to 2 weeks) between arms||||0.007
95911289|NCT05168579|191780731|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|69.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||69.6|2.76|<0.001
95911290|NCT01564368|191780733|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve (AUC)|0.53||||0.484|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.61||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC1 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.61||0.484
95911291|NCT01564368|191780733|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.6||||0.017|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.68||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC2 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.68||0.017
95911292|NCT01564368|191780733|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.61||||0.013|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.69||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) is considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in Apparent Diffusion Coefficients (ADC3 - ADC0)/ADC0 (Test: %change in ADC; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.69||0.013
95911293|NCT01564368|191780734|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV1 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
95911294|NCT01564368|191780734|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.63|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.71||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV2 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.71||<0.001
95911295|NCT01564368|191780734|SUPERIORITY||area under the curve|0.68|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.75||Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons adjustment, where p\<0.003 (0.05/15) was considered statistically significant.|Z-test|The empirical AUC was tested by using variance derived from the method of DeLong|Receiver operating characteristic curve and AUC were estimated empirically, and its 95% CI was constructed using variance derived from DeLong's method|Receiver Operating Characteristic curves and the corresponding Area Under the Curve (AUC), were estimated for the change in functional tumor volumes (FTV3 - FTV0)/FTV0 (Test: %change in FTV; Reference: pCR) detect a difference of 0.15 between the AUC under H0: AUC=0.5 and an AUC under the alternative hypothesis of 0.65. It was assumed that the number of pCR non-responders would be approximately 2.7 times greater than the number of complete responders||0.75||<0.001
95911296|NCT01564368|191780735|EQUIVALENCE|no equivalence margin was used.||||||0.032|||||||z-test|||AUC (optimized) = AUC (ΔADC)||||0.032
95911297|NCT01181726|191780779|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|104.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.22|116.25|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||116.25|94.22|
95911298|NCT01181726|191780780|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.91|101.02|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.02|93.91|
95911299|NCT01181726|191780781|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|101.3|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||101.30|94.05|
95911300|NCT01181726|191780782|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.06|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.06|92.21|
95911301|NCT01181726|191780783|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.21|99.39|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.39|91.21|
95911302|NCT01181726|191780784|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.51|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference (R) and test (T) product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||99.51|91.18|
95911303|NCT01181726|191780785|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|107.0|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||107.00|92.21|
95911304|NCT01181726|191780786|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.18|99.38|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.38|91.18|
95911305|NCT01181726|191780787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|95.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|99.47|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||99.47|91.17|
95911306|NCT01181726|191780788|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.44|102.61|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.61|93.44|
95911307|NCT01181726|191780789|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.92|101.78|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.78|93.92|
95911308|NCT01181726|191780790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.42|105.3|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||105.30|94.42|
95911309|NCT01181726|191780791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.71|103.87|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||103.87|94.71|
95911310|NCT01181726|191780792|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|101.21|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.21|94.55|
95911311|NCT01181726|191780793|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.54|101.6|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.60|94.54|
95911312|NCT01181726|191780794|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.22|102.74|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.74|93.22|
95911313|NCT01181726|191780795|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|102.46|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.46|93.66|
95911314|NCT01181726|191780796|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.17|104.11|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.11|94.17|
95911315|NCT01181726|191780797|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|99.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.39|104.1|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||104.10|94.39|
95911316|NCT01181726|191780798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.03|101.56|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||101.56|94.03|
95911317|NCT01181726|191780799|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA is to be used to identify the source contributions by factors including subjects, period, formulation and potential interactions. The geometric mean ratio together with the ANOVA residual mean error term are used to identify the statistical basis for the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population means (Test \[T\]/Reference\[R\]) of the identified metrics (e.g. AUC, Cmax).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|97.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.11|102.02|||||This analysis was for informational purposes only and was not used to establish bioequivalence.|||102.02|94.11|
95911318|NCT01264380|191780800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.6||||||The point estimate and 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||7.60|2.83|
95911319|NCT01264380|191780801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|5.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.99|8.55||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma AUC geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||8.55|2.99|
95911320|NCT01264380|191780802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Mean|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.81|3.32||||||The point estimate and 90% CI of vemurafenib plasma Cmax geometric means ratios of the Fed to Fasted conditions following an oral administration of a single dose of 960 mg vemurafenib were analyzed.||3.32|1.81|
95911321|NCT00677352|191780851|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sertraline was concluded to be non-inferior to paroxetine when the upper limit of the CI fell below the non-inferiority margin of 4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.6|||ANCOVA|||The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the intergroup difference (sertraline group - paroxetine group) of the mean reduction in the PAS total score at each dose during the treatment phase was calculated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a factor and baseline PAS total score as a covariate.||1.6|-2.5|
95911322|NCT00677352|191780857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05 (two-sided).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0062
95911323|NCT02182973|191780866|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95911324|NCT02182973|191780867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.875
95911325|NCT02182973|191780868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
95911326|NCT02740049|191780871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0002
95911327|NCT02740049|191780872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3994||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus the VR588 (10-7M) treatment group|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical differences is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.3994
95911328|NCT02740049|191780873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||P value is the comparison between the IFN/TNF induction group versus VR588 (10-7M) treatment group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical difference is determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test or a Wilcoxon signed rank test as appropriate.||||0.0104
95911329|NCT01814748|191780875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.12||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.49|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||0.49|-0.26|0.535
95911330|NCT01814748|191780876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.0||||||||13.0|-13.8|
95911331|NCT01814748|191780877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|-2.0||||||||||||||||||
95911332|NCT01814748|191780878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|4.2||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|24.4|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||24.4|-16.1|0.685
95911333|NCT01814748|191780879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.7||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|9.7|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.||||9.7|-17.1|0.586
95911334|NCT01814748|191780880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|13.1|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||13.1|-14.0|
95911335|NCT01814748|191780881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group rate difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|15.5|||Mietinnen and Nurminen|||||15.5|-7.4|
95911336|NCT00409682|191780895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.29||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.14|23.71||There is no adjustment for multiple comparison on the primary outcome measure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose group.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The P value is from the CMH test adjusted for infliximab use and response status at Week 4. The primary analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) using the non-responder (NRI) imputation method.||23.71|-3.14|0.075
95911337|NCT00409682|191780896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|22.97||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical remission in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% CIs for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||22.97|-2.62|0.100
95911338|NCT00409682|191780897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.72||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|24.89||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||24.89|-3.45|0.073
95911339|NCT00409682|191780898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.51||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|27.04||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||A significance test for any individual major secondary efficacy endpoint in the hierarchy was to be inferential only if the hypothesis tests of all preceding major secondary efficacy endpoints were statistically significant at 0.050.|The point estimates for the number of subjects who achieved PCDAI clinical response in each treatment group and the difference in number between the groups were provided. The P value and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the difference were provided. The analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the non-responder imputation (NRI) method.||27.04|-0.01|0.038
95911340|NCT00409682|191780899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.903||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.66||The hierarchical stepwise closed testing procedure was implemented to control the overall significance level at 0.05 in the ITT population.|ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|"Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 26, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% CI for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.~The P value is from the ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor, adjusted for the baseline value, and the strata (response status at Week 4 and prior infliximab experience)."||1.66|-9.86|0.161
95911341|NCT00409682|191780900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.941||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|4.88|||ANCOVA||Difference is between adalimumab High-dose and adalimumab Low-dose groups. Baseline means include subjects who had both Baseline and post-Baseline measurements.|Analyzed as change from Baseline to Week 52, and compared between the two treatment groups. The estimated treatment mean difference, P values, and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference were provided. Analysis was conducted in the ITT population for OC.||4.88|-6.88|0.735
95911342|NCT05614089|191780933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.43
95911343|NCT05614089|191780933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time-in-range), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in serious hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.008
95911344|NCT05614089|191780934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||6-month (primary)||||0.71
95911345|NCT05614089|191780934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Since this is one of two coprimary outcomes (this outcome and % time in serious hypoglycemia), a win (p\<0.025 for benefit) on either outcome will be considered to be a positive trial.|Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % TIR at baseline||12-month||||0.64
95911346|NCT05614089|191780935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||6-month||||0.54
95911347|NCT05614089|191780935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time in hypoglycemia at baseline||12-month||||0.07
95911348|NCT05614089|191780936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||6-month||||0.58
95911349|NCT05614089|191780936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and % time above range at baseline||12-month||||0.21
95911350|NCT05614089|191780937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||6-month||||0.70
95911351|NCT05614089|191780937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and number of nocturnal events at baseline||12-month||||0.02
95911352|NCT05614089|191780938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||6-month||||0.81
95911353|NCT05614089|191780938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and HbA1c at baseline||12-month||||0.29
95911354|NCT05614089|191780939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.98
95911355|NCT05614089|191780939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.61
95911356|NCT05614089|191780940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 6-month||||0.83
95911357|NCT05614089|191780940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial regression model adjusted for age at screening and study site||Through 12-month||||0.09
95911358|NCT05614089|191780941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||6-month||||0.95
95911359|NCT05614089|191780941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Symptoms score at baseline||12-month||||0.73
95911360|NCT05614089|191780942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||6-month||||0.81
95911361|NCT05614089|191780942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and PedsQL 3.2 DM Diabetes Management score at baseline||12-month||||0.44
95911362|NCT05614089|191780943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||6-month||||0.04
95911363|NCT05614089|191780943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|Multivariable generalized linear regression model adjusted for age at screening, study site, and ITSQ at baseline||12-month||||0.10
95911364|NCT02521285|191780973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
95911365|NCT02521285|191780973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.149|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.149
95911366|NCT02521285|191780974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
95911367|NCT02521285|191780975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.382|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.382
95911368|NCT02521285|191780975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95911369|NCT02521285|191780976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95911370|NCT02521285|191780976|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1
95911371|NCT02521285|191780977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.234
95911372|NCT02521285|191780977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.442
95911373|NCT02521285|191780978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.645
95911374|NCT02521285|191780978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.878|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.878
95911375|NCT02521285|191780986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
95911376|NCT02521285|191780987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.397|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference between arms||||0.397
95911377|NCT02521285|191780987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in arms.||||0.983
95911378|NCT02521285|191780988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
95911379|NCT02521285|191780988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.203
95911380|NCT02521285|191780989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
95911381|NCT02521285|191780989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
95911382|NCT02521285|191780990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.281
95911383|NCT02521285|191780990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
95911384|NCT02521285|191780991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
95911385|NCT02521285|191780991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.195
95911386|NCT02521285|191780992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.755
95911387|NCT02521285|191780992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.432|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.432
95911388|NCT02521285|191780993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
95911389|NCT02521285|191780993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.189|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.189
95911390|NCT02521285|191780994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
95911391|NCT02521285|191780994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.161|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.161
95911392|NCT02521285|191780997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.518
95911393|NCT02521285|191780998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.876
95911394|NCT02521285|191780998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.505
95911395|NCT02521285|191780999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.463
95911396|NCT02521285|191780999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
95911397|NCT02521285|191781000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.105
95911398|NCT02521285|191781000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95911399|NCT05701995|191781013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|23.6|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||23.6|2.5|0.0001
95911400|NCT05701995|191781013|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|30.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||30.4|2.4|0.0003
95911401|NCT05701995|191781014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set||4.4|1.2|0.0107
95911402|NCT05701995|191781014|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.7|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||4.7|1.2|0.0175
95911403|NCT05701995|191781015|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.2|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set||-1.2|-2.9|<0.0001
95911404|NCT05701995|191781015|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.3|||Covariance model|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||-1.3|-3.0|<0.0001
95911405|NCT05701995|191781016|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.9||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|17.4|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH)|||Full Analysis Set Sub-population||17.4|2.0|0.0004
95911406|NCT03937219|191781050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94|||Log Rank|||||0.94|0.57|0.0131
95911407|NCT02038894|191781083|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study for evaluating respiratory complications with intubated and insufflated techniques found a difference in the incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%, a power analysis was determined. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference. We elected to do an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||Threshold for significance \<0.05 Comparing SPO2 \<95%|Mean equality test|||||0.14|0|<0.0001
95911408|NCT02038894|191781083|NON_INFERIORITY|A previous study found an incidence of respiratory complications of 9.1%. 200 subjects per group was estimated provide 82% power to detect a difference when conducting a two- sided test at a significance level of a = 0.05.We did an interim analysis when 60 children per group were recruited because of a clinical impression that one of the techniques had a grossly divergent incidence of respiratory complications. Based on the results of that interim analysis, recruitment was discontinued|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.27||p\<0.05. Sp02\<85%|Mean equality test||Odds ratios were calculated to the respiratory complications comparing the different groups and by regrouping by the differences in airway management (IS + IP vs NA) and by the medication used for anesthesia maintenance (IS vs IP + NA)|||0.27|0|0.0001
95911409|NCT02038894|191781084|NON_INFERIORITY|No previous data was available to calculate a power calculation for the secondary outcome.||||||0.901||||||Threshold of Significance|Mean equality test|||Total OR Time||||0.901
95727438|NCT04192799|191424646|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.27||Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant, not adjusted for multiple comparison.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||12.27|0.14|0.81
95911410|NCT00386022|191781085|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH as a function of dose in young or old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||LH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95911411|NCT00386022|191781085|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the LH response to GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.03||||||LH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the LH and FSH responses to graded doses of GnRH between younger and older postmenopausal women||||<0.03
95911412|NCT00386022|191781085|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH as a function of dose in younger or older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.001||||||FSH % change with dose|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95911413|NCT00386022|191781085|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no difference in the FSH response to GnRH between young and old postmenopausal women|||||<|0.005||||||FSH % change with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.005
95911414|NCT00386022|191781086|EQUIVALENCE|null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.01||||||LH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measured ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95911415|NCT00386022|191781086|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH in younger and older postmenopausal women|||||<|0.0001||||||FSH amplitude response with estrogen|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95911416|NCT00386022|191781086|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the FSH response to GnRH|||||<|0.02||||||FSH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||<0.02
95911417|NCT00386022|191781086|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis will be accepted if there is no effect of age on the effect of estrogen on the LH response to GnRH|||||=|0.4||||||LH amplitude response to estrogen with age|Repeated measures ANCOVA|||||||=0.4
95911418|NCT03266770|191781094|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.29|-1.07|0.83
95727439|NCT04192799|191424647|EQUIVALENCE|Testing was two-sided and p-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Slope|0.05||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, time period; interaction term for hospital and time period, random effect for practice group.||||0.11|-0.01|0.12
95911419|NCT00101933|191781096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||95.0||||Since a treatment-by-visit interaction remains in the final model, the results were analyzed by visit. The results shown are for the last month in the blinded phase (month 3-4).|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0017
95911420|NCT00101933|191781098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate per 1000 years of stimulation|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|17.79|||No statistical test||The rate is calculated per 1000 subject years of follow-up based on 406 subject years of stimulation. The confidence interval is the 95% Poisson confidence interval. Per protocol, only definite and probable SUDEP were included in the calculation.|||17.79|0.60|
95911421|NCT00101933|191781099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact test. The numbers presented in this analysis are the number of subjects who were responders based on a responder definition including all subjects with 50% or greater improvement in total seizure count.||||0.830
95911422|NCT00101933|191781100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.105
95911423|NCT00101933|191781101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.498
95911424|NCT00101933|191781102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95911425|NCT00101933|191781103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387||95.0||||Since a visit-by-treatment interaction did not remain in the final model, the results shown are for the entire blinded phase.|Generalized Estimating Equations|This analysis is adjusted for significant baseline covariates.||The numbers presented are the percentage reduction in the number of seizures in each group. A negative percentage change indicates a seizure reduction.||||0.0387
95911426|NCT00101933|191781104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Numbers provided indicate the percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency of each participant's most severe seizures. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.||||0.047
95911427|NCT01515748|191781166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152||||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.049.|Stratified Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison was stratified based on site and TNM classification (T4/N-, T2/N+, T3-4/N+).||||0.0152
95911428|NCT00803452|191781176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95911429|NCT01971723|191781190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Groups were compared against each other at the two different time points and against themselves at the same time points.||This statistical analysis is for the squat one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||.38
95911430|NCT01971723|191781190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the bench press one repetition maximum outcomes, only.||||0.0001
95911431|NCT01971723|191781190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for the deadlift one repetition maximum measures, only.||||.3
95911432|NCT01971723|191781190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis compares the outcomes of the total weight lifted.||||0.0001
95911433|NCT01971723|191781191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911434|NCT01971723|191781192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical measurement is for cholesterol measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911435|NCT01971723|191781192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for glucose measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911436|NCT01971723|191781192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for HDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911437|NCT01971723|191781192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for LDL measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911438|NCT01971723|191781192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis for the triglyceride measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911439|NCT01971723|191781193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911440|NCT01971723|191781194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911441|NCT01971723|191781195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911442|NCT01971723|191781196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911443|NCT01971723|191781197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911444|NCT01971723|191781198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95911445|NCT01971723|191781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for deadlift volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911446|NCT01971723|191781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for auxiliary squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911447|NCT01971723|191781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||This statistical analysis is for squat volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911448|NCT01971723|191781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for bench volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911449|NCT01971723|191781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total squat volume measures, only.||||>.05
95911450|NCT01971723|191781199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This statistical analysis is for total weight lifted volume measure outcomes, only.||||>.05
95911451|NCT01971723|191781200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911452|NCT01971723|191781201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95911453|NCT01971723|191781202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95911454|NCT03017079|191781223|NON_INFERIORITY|a:0.05;β：0.01 P=.046||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P=.046||||0.05
95911455|NCT03017079|191781224|NON_INFERIORITY|a 0.05|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95911456|NCT03017079|191781225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
95911457|NCT03017079|191781227|NON_INFERIORITY|According to the rule of a=0.05, P\<0.05 means that the hypothesis was true|||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.05
95911458|NCT04450108|191781228|SUPERIORITY|The change of FeNO values will be estimated in ANCOVA with baseline values as the covariable and will be reported as percent change together with the 95%-confidence interval.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Since the effect size of the change (mean change / standard deviation) is on the order of 1 (resulting in N=10 and 13 for power = 80% and 90%, respectively) and therefore large, the sample size is not determined by the primary objective but by the necessity to achieve representative data of FeNO measurement data over all age groups, measurement ranges (\<, ≥ cut off) and sites. Thus, 120 subjects will be recruited.||||<0.001
95911459|NCT01165775|191781284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2155|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2155
95911460|NCT03355326|191781294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.971
95911461|NCT03355326|191781295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.900
95911462|NCT03355326|191781296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.648
95911463|NCT03355326|191781297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.967
95911464|NCT03355326|191781298|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95911465|NCT03355326|191781299|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95911466|NCT03355326|191781300|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95911467|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911468|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911469|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Total cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911470|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||< 0.001
95911471|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911472|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.||||||0.126|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Inpatient cost comparison||||0.126
95911473|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911474|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911475|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Outpatient cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911476|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911477|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911478|NCT04295005|191781301|OTHER|Group differences in the costs incurred after treatment initiation were evaluated based on an incremental cost approach using the Bang and Tsiatis estimator with possibly censored data.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bang and Tsiatis|||Medication cost comparison.||||< 0.001
95911479|NCT00608582|191781310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.028||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|Post-hoc paired t-tests were performed.||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 Mo. Post rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.028
95911480|NCT00608582|191781310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||p\<.05 considered significant; Pairwise comparisons not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment.||||<0.05
95911481|NCT00608582|191781310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.237||||||p\<0.05 considered significant. Pairwise comparisons were not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired, t-tests were performed if the ANOVA yields a significant interaction (p\<0.05, two-sided) for Baseline vs. 2 Mo. after last Sham rTMS treatment.||||<0.237
95911482|NCT00608582|191781311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||0.414
95911483|NCT00608582|191781311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.822||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.822
95911484|NCT00608582|191781311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.835||||||p\<0.05 considered significant|ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA is performed with a significance level of p\<0.05 (two-sided). Factors: Time (Baseline vs. 2 months after last rTMS treatment) and Group (Real vs. Sham).||||<0.835
95911485|NCT00685945|191781332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The effect of bradykinin on net t-PA release was determined using general linear model-repeated measures ANOVA in which the between-subject variable was gender, and the within-subjects variables were drug (control, +L-NMMA, +L-NMMA plus isosorbide, or +L-NMMA plus sildenafil) and dose of bradykinin.||||0.04
95911486|NCT00685945|191781333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||<0.001
95911487|NCT00847405|191781341|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.64||||||90.0|95.93|111.97|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||111.97|95.93|
95911488|NCT00847405|191781342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|102.81||||||90.0|97.95|107.91|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||107.91|97.95|
95911489|NCT00847405|191781343|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|103.25||||||90.0|98.35|108.41|||||Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval for the ln-transformed geometric mean between the reference and test product fall within the interval of 80-125%.|||108.41|98.35|
95911490|NCT01782742|191781381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.03|-0.13|0.22
95911491|NCT01782742|191781382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.428|2.428|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.428|-4.428|0.57
95911492|NCT01782742|191781383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.625||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.029|6.279|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.279|-5.029|0.83
95911493|NCT01782742|191781384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.000|0.000|
95911494|NCT01782742|191781385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.375||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.674|8.924|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.924|-9.674|0.94
95911495|NCT01782742|191781386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.563||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.975|11.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.100|-1.975|0.18
95911496|NCT01782742|191781394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.006||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.021|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.021|-0.010|0.46
95911497|NCT01782742|191781395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.040|-0.020|0.53
95911498|NCT03810534|191781396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.62
95911499|NCT03810534|191781397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.31
95911500|NCT03810534|191781398|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.93
95911501|NCT03810534|191781399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.60
95911502|NCT03810534|191781400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.53
95911503|NCT03810534|191781401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.57||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.83
95911504|NCT03810534|191781402|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.75
95911505|NCT03810534|191781403|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.50
95911506|NCT03810534|191781404|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.48
95911507|NCT03810534|191781405|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The final estimated mean difference is based on a linear mixed model that adjusts for time and is not equal to the difference in the unadjusted, observed means.|||||.22
95911508|NCT03810534|191781406|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.88
95911509|NCT03810534|191781407|SUPERIORITY||Mean ratio|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.23
95911510|NCT03092375|191781415|OTHER|Study is not intended to be powered|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.48|5.12|||||Excludes re-infection and death|The difference in the percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure (Defined as increase of \>1 log10 IU/mL above nadir during treatment, or HCV RNA \>= 15 IU/mL at end of treatment with at least 6 weeks of treatment between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.||5.12|-9.48|
95911511|NCT03092375|191781416|OTHER|The difference in the percentage of subjects with post-treatment relapse between Arms A and B are summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|5.49||||||||5.49|-10.49|
95911512|NCT03092375|191781417|OTHER|Difference in percentage of subjects with on-treatment virologic failure between Arms C and D will be summarized with two-sided 95% Wilson score intervals|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|22.08||||||||22.08|-3.03|
95911513|NCT03092375|191781418|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.85|10.22||||||Excludes re-infection and death||10.22|-13.85|
95911514|NCT03092375|191781419|OTHER|Study was not powered to compare efficacy|Logistic Regression Contrast Estimate|-0.812||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.947|0.323|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Comparison of Arm Pair A/C versus B/D overall on mITT population|||0.323|-1.947|0.161
95911515|NCT03092375|191781419|OTHER|Study is not powered to compare efficacy of 12 wks vs 16 weeks of treatment|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.89||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|1.076|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression contrast estimates with Wald confidence intervals and Chi-square p values|Difference in proportion of SVR12 rates for 12 vs 16 weeks on mITT Comparing Cirrhotic subjects versus non-cirrhotic subjects.|||1.076|-1.239|0.890
95911516|NCT03092375|191781419|OTHER|Study is not powered|Logistic regression contrast estimate|0.977||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|2.694|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of 12 weeks vs 16 weeks in Genotype 1b vs non-1b||2.694|-0.740|0.265
95911517|NCT02790073|191781423|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95911518|NCT02790073|191781424|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95911519|NCT02790073|191781425|OTHER|Within group comparison vs baseline||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95911520|NCT00944658|191781426|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.139
95911521|NCT00944658|191781427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.58
95911522|NCT00944658|191781428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||ANCOVA|Rank Ancova||||||0.108
95911523|NCT03928028|191781450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.507
95911524|NCT03928028|191781450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.017
95911525|NCT03928028|191781450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.139
95911526|NCT03928028|191781451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compare mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+CRTp||||.389
95911527|NCT03928028|191781451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.447
95911528|NCT03928028|191781451|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||<.001
95911529|NCT03928028|191781452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.778
95911530|NCT03928028|191781452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.297
95911531|NCT03928028|191781452|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.062||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.062
95911532|NCT03928028|191781453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.069
95911533|NCT03928028|191781453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.323||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.323
95911534|NCT03928028|191781453|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.225
95911535|NCT03928028|191781454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.196
95911536|NCT03928028|191781454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.812
95911537|NCT03928028|191781454|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.499
95911538|NCT03928028|191781455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.446||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.446
95911539|NCT03928028|191781455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.647
95911540|NCT03928028|191781455|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.765
95911541|NCT03928028|191781456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.425||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares mothers in FBT to mothers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.425
95911542|NCT03928028|191781456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares fathers in FBT to fathers in FBT+Parent-focused CRT||||.630
95911543|NCT03928028|191781456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance = .15|generalized estimating equation|||This analysis compares adolescents in FBT to adolescents in FBT+Adolescent-focused CRT||||.854
95911544|NCT02802501|191781460|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.693|||Cox Proportional Hazard||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.693|0.285|<0.001
95911545|NCT02802501|191781461|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.722|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|2.875|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \>1 then there are higher chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to Primaquine+DHA-PQP.|||2.875|1.031|
95911546|NCT02802501|191781462|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.431|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Primaquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.431|0.155|
95911547|NCT02802501|191781463|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|0.686|||||If hazard ratio was found to be \<1 then there are lower chances of relapse with Tafenoquine+DHA-PQP compared to DHA-PQP only.|||0.686|0.273|
95911548|NCT05067439|191781482|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|288.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|240.56|346.73||||||Omeprazole 10 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + omeprazole 10 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||346.73|240.56|
95911549|NCT05067439|191781483|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|139.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.98|159.74||||||Caffeine 100 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUCinfCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||159.74|121.98|
95911550|NCT05067439|191781484|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|110.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.45|117.17||||||Efavirenz 50 mg was Reference and abrocitinib 200 mg + efavirenz 50 mg was Test. Natural log-transformed AUClastCR was analyzed using a mixed effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect and estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and 90% CIs were obtained. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CI.||117.17|103.45|
95911551|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.118||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.118|-0.086|0.8530
95911552|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7558||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.7558
95911553|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.08||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.080|-0.119|0.7920
95911554|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6991||||||The p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.6991
95911555|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.128||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.128|-0.071|0.8530
95911556|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5736||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.5736
95911557|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.0639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.235||The p-value presented is computed in the course of the closing testing procedure.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.235|0.027|0.0639
95911558|NCT00514683|191781489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0136||||||Additionally the p-value from the hierarchical testing procedure was calculated as a sensitivity analysis|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with fixed terms for treatment\*time, gender\*height, gender\*age and random terms for patient effect, patient\*time.||||||0.0136
95911559|NCT00514683|191781490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.2774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|4.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.01|-1.15|0.2774
95911560|NCT00514683|191781490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.312||0.4014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.68|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.68|-1.48|0.4014
95911561|NCT00514683|191781490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.324||0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.46|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.46|0.26|0.0314
95911562|NCT00514683|191781490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.319||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|7.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.56|2.37|0.0002
95911563|NCT00514683|191781491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.05|0.3644
95911564|NCT00514683|191781491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.4525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.13|-0.06|0.4525
95911565|NCT00514683|191781491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.18|0.00|0.0471
95911566|NCT00514683|191781491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.26|0.08|0.0004
95911567|NCT00514683|191781492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|4.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.26|-2.43|0.5920
95911568|NCT00514683|191781492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.6155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|4.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.20|-2.49|0.6155
95911569|NCT00514683|191781492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.43|0.0271
95911570|NCT00514683|191781492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|8.83|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.83|2.11|0.0015
95911571|NCT00514683|191781493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.692||0.5601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|4.31||ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|ANCOVA||Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.31|-2.34|0.5601
95911572|NCT00514683|191781493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.694||0.6366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|4.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.13|-2.53|0.6366
95911573|NCT00514683|191781493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.702||0.0246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|7.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||7.18|0.49|0.0246
95911574|NCT00514683|191781493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|8.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||8.78|2.10|0.0015
95911575|NCT00514683|191781494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.911||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.637|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.637|0.506|0.7543
95911576|NCT00514683|191781494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.6704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.631|2.045|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.045|0.631|0.6704
95911577|NCT00514683|191781494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.657||||0.1649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|1.189|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.189|0.363|0.1649
95911578|NCT00514683|191781494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.415||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.227|0.757|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.757|0.227|0.0041
95911579|NCT00514683|191781495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|3.102|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.102|0.526|0.5882
95911580|NCT00514683|191781495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.078|1.081|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.081|0.078|0.0653
95911581|NCT00514683|191781495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|1.154|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.154|0.106|0.0847
95911582|NCT00514683|191781495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.271|1.977|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.977|0.271|0.5383
95911583|NCT00514683|191781496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.39|-0.51|0.3658
95911584|NCT00514683|191781496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.478||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.27|-0.61|0.4956
95911585|NCT00514683|191781496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.482||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.31|0.41|0.0051
95911586|NCT00514683|191781496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.483||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.07|0.17|0.0211
95911587|NCT00514683|191781497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.428||||0.1021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|1.184|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.184|0.155|0.1021
95911588|NCT00514683|191781497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.682||||0.4318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.773|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.773|0.262|0.4318
95911589|NCT00514683|191781497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.412||||0.0934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.146|1.161|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.161|0.146|0.0934
95911590|NCT00514683|191781497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.313||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.108|0.903|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.903|0.108|0.0317
95911591|NCT00514683|191781498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.6443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|3.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.51|-5.66|0.6443
95911592|NCT00514683|191781498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.5656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.18|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||3.18|-5.80|0.5656
95911593|NCT00514683|191781498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.18|4.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.64|-4.18|0.9181
95911594|NCT00514683|191781498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.387||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|5.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.63|-3.77|0.6970
95911595|NCT00514683|191781499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.9811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|4.96|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||4.96|-4.84|0.9811
95911596|NCT00514683|191781499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.412||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|5.75|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.75|-3.74|0.6772
95911597|NCT00514683|191781499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.379||0.8631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|5.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||5.09|-4.27|0.8631
95911598|NCT00514683|191781499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523||0.5942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|6.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||6.31|-3.62|0.5942
95911599|NCT00514683|191781500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.715||0.2716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|2.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.19|-0.62|0.2716
95911600|NCT00514683|191781500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.696||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.56|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.56|-1.18|0.7871
95911601|NCT00514683|191781500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.685||0.8721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.24|-1.46|0.8721
95911602|NCT00514683|191781500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.734||0.8523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|1.31|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.31|-1.58|0.8523
95911603|NCT00514683|191781501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.093||||0.7997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|2.175|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.175|0.549|0.7997
95911604|NCT00514683|191781501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.916||||0.7989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.467|1.797|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.797|0.467|0.7989
95911605|NCT00514683|191781501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|1.508|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.508|0.403|0.4596
95911606|NCT00514683|191781501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.665||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.341|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.341|0.330|0.2548
95911607|NCT00514683|191781502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.051||||0.8887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|2.122|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.122|0.521|0.8887
95911608|NCT00514683|191781502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.216||||0.5758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.410|0.613|0.5758
95911609|NCT00514683|191781502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.993||||0.9829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.949|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.949|0.506|0.9829
95911610|NCT00514683|191781502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.972||||0.9375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.985|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.985|0.476|0.9375
95911611|NCT00514683|191781503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1456||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.188|0.385|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.385|-0.188|0.4998
95911612|NCT00514683|191781503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1399||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.120|-0.430|0.2679
95911613|NCT00514683|191781503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.195|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.195|-0.355|0.5678
95911614|NCT00514683|191781503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1448||0.4053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.406|0.164|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.164|-0.406|0.4053
95911615|NCT00514683|191781504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.892||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.710|0.465|0.7307
95911616|NCT00514683|191781504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.317||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|2.458|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||2.458|0.706|0.3869
95911617|NCT00514683|191781504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.8237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|1.741|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.741|0.498|0.8237
95911618|NCT00514683|191781504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.676||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.878|3.202|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.202|0.878|0.1177
95911619|NCT00514683|191781505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-11.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.5111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.86|22.37|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||22.37|-44.86|0.5111
95911620|NCT00514683|191781505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.234||0.4176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.11|18.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||18.76|-45.11|0.4176
95911621|NCT00514683|191781505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.506||0.9454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|31.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||31.34|-33.60|0.9454
95911622|NCT00514683|191781505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.98||0.7101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.08|39.72|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||39.72|-27.08|0.7101
95911623|NCT00514683|191781506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2271||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.392|0.502|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.502|-0.392|0.8090
95911624|NCT00514683|191781506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2158||0.3995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.242|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.242|-0.606|0.3995
95911625|NCT00514683|191781506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2193||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.399|0.464|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.464|-0.399|0.8822
95911626|NCT00514683|191781506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2257||0.5338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.303|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.303|-0.584|0.5338
95911627|NCT00514683|191781507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3272||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.532|0.755|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.755|-0.532|0.7329
95911628|NCT00514683|191781507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3109||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.533|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.533|-0.690|0.8009
95911629|NCT00514683|191781507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3159||0.6358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.472|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.472|-0.771|0.6358
95911630|NCT00514683|191781507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3252||0.3064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.307|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.307|-0.973|0.3064
95911631|NCT00514683|191781508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.906|0.540|0.9646
95911632|NCT00514683|191781508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.994||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||1.844|0.536|0.9850
95911633|NCT00514683|191781508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.123||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.604|2.089|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.089|0.604|0.7136
95911634|NCT00514683|191781508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.551||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.906|||Regression, Logistic|An ordinal logistic regression model with fixed terms for treatment, baseline of corresponding continuous value, region.|Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo. Negative change indicates worsening.|||2.906|0.828|0.1705
95911635|NCT00514683|191781509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.01|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.01|-2.69|0.0479
95911636|NCT00514683|191781509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.09|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||0.09|-2.58|0.0685
95911637|NCT00514683|191781509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.684||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|-0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.43|-3.12|0.0099
95911638|NCT00514683|191781509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.683||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated.|||-0.32|-3.01|0.0152
95911639|NCT00514683|191781510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.253||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|3.64|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.64|-5.22|0.7250
95911640|NCT00514683|191781510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.213||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|1.07|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.07|-7.63|0.1389
95911641|NCT00514683|191781510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.221||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|0.39|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.39|-8.35|0.0741
95911642|NCT00514683|191781510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.262||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.57|-1.67|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-1.67|-10.57|0.0071
95911643|NCT00514683|191781511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.183||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|3.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||3.20|-9.32|0.3370
95911644|NCT00514683|191781511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.126||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|1.81|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.81|-10.49|0.1659
95911645|NCT00514683|191781511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.138||0.1897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.05|-10.29|0.1897
95911646|NCT00514683|191781511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.184||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.86|-3.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-3.34|-15.86|0.0028
95911647|NCT00514683|191781512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.586||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|4.58|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.58|-5.59|0.8458
95911648|NCT00514683|191781512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||2.51|-7.48|0.3286
95911649|NCT00514683|191781512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.548||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.59|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||1.59|-8.43|0.1799
95911650|NCT00514683|191781512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.597||0.0948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|0.76|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.76|-9.46|0.0948
95911651|NCT00514683|191781513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.484||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|4.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||4.79|-4.98|0.9708
95911652|NCT00514683|191781513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.1069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.74|0.85|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.85|-8.74|0.1069
95911653|NCT00514683|191781513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.453||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.31|0.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.34|-9.31|0.0682
95911654|NCT00514683|191781513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.494||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|-2.26|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||-2.26|-12.06|0.0043
95911655|NCT00514683|191781514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.31|0.72|0.2698
95911656|NCT00514683|191781514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.01|0.90|0.0891
95911657|NCT00514683|191781514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|5.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||5.66|1.29|0.0069
95911658|NCT00514683|191781514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on an Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to adjust for region effect.|In case of missing data, patient has been set to non-responder. Odds ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||4.61|1.05|0.0341
95911659|NCT00514683|191781515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1015||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.178|0.222|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.222|-0.178|0.8288
95911660|NCT00514683|191781515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.332|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.332|-0.051|0.1506
95911661|NCT00514683|191781515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0977||0.1059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.351|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.351|-0.034|0.1059
95911662|NCT00514683|191781515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1008||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.556|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.556|0.160|0.0004
95911663|NCT00514683|191781516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.7789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.153|0.115|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.115|-0.153|0.7789
95911664|NCT00514683|191781516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0652||0.3149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.194|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.194|-0.063|0.3149
95911665|NCT00514683|191781516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0654||0.7062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.153|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.153|-0.104|0.7062
95911666|NCT00514683|191781516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0675||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.255|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Positive change indicates worsening.|||0.255|-0.010|0.0703
95911667|NCT00514683|191781517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0884||0.4792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.236|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.236|-0.111|0.4792
95911668|NCT00514683|191781517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0839||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.268|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.268|-0.062|0.2221
95911669|NCT00514683|191781517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0843||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.287|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.287|-0.044|0.1510
95911670|NCT00514683|191781517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0874||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.509|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.509|0.165|0.0001
95911671|NCT00514683|191781518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0609||0.1129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.217|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.217|-0.023|0.1129
95911672|NCT00514683|191781518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0584||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.199|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.199|-0.031|0.1498
95911673|NCT00514683|191781518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0585||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.224|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.224|-0.006|0.0632
95911674|NCT00514683|191781518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0604||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.32|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.320|0.083|0.0009
95911675|NCT00514683|191781519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0676||0.6306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.100|-0.165|0.6306
95911676|NCT00514683|191781519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.7426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.149|0.106|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.106|-0.149|0.7426
95911677|NCT00514683|191781519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0651||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.121|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.121|-0.134|0.9209
95911678|NCT00514683|191781519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0671||0.7701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.152|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with fixed terms for treatment, baseline, region.|Mean difference to placebo is calculated. Negative change indicates worsening.|||0.152|-0.112|0.7701
95911679|NCT00514683|191781520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.6671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.93||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.93|0.36|0.6671
95911680|NCT00514683|191781520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8||||0.5926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.84||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.84|0.34|0.5926
95911681|NCT00514683|191781520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.27||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.27|0.18|0.1381
95911682|NCT00514683|191781520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.16||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.7||Based on the statistic of ln(risk ratio) having a normal distribution N\[0,\[ (1/number with at least one exacerbation in Nintedanib group) + (1//number with at least one exacerbation in placebo) \] \]|Negative binomial model|Default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable (logarithm of the follow-up time), for gender, height, age and region as fixed effects.|Risk ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.70|0.03|0.0150
95911683|NCT00514683|191781521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|2.336|||Negative binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||2.336|0.347|0.8282
95911684|NCT00514683|191781521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.5326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|1.938|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.938|0.278|0.5326
95911685|NCT00514683|191781521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49||||0.1944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.438|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||1.438|0.167|0.1944
95911686|NCT00514683|191781521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.22||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.882|||Negative Binomial model||Risk ratio is actually Rate Ratio. Rate ratio is calculated based on Negative binomial model with default log link function and adjusted for an off-set variable and age, height, gender, region (all effects fixed).|||0.882|0.056|0.0324
95911687|NCT00514683|191781522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|1.765|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.765|0.326|0.5206
95911688|NCT00514683|191781522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.841||||0.6862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.362|1.952|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.952|0.362|0.6862
95911689|NCT00514683|191781522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.384|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.384|0.193|0.1891
95911690|NCT00514683|191781522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.035|0.711|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.711|0.035|0.0161
95911691|NCT00514683|191781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.173||||0.7449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|3.072|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||3.072|0.448|0.7449
95911692|NCT00514683|191781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.316||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|1.209|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.209|0.083|0.0925
95911693|NCT00514683|191781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.19||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.911|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||0.911|0.040|0.0379
95911694|NCT00514683|191781523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.225||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|1.065|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.065|0.048|0.0600
95911695|NCT00514683|191781524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.055||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.713|1.563|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.563|0.713|0.7883
95911696|NCT00514683|191781524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.8293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.646|1.419|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.419|0.646|0.8293
95911697|NCT00514683|191781524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.805||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.216|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.216|0.534|0.3030
95911698|NCT00514683|191781524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.6505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|1.369|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with fixed terms for treatment, gender, age, height, region.|Hazard ratio lower than 1 favours the treatment group over placebo.|||1.369|0.605|0.6505
95911699|NCT04810221|191781529|OTHER|Paired T-test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.54|||Paired T-test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.54|-0.17|0.31
95911700|NCT04810221|191781530|OTHER|Paired T test 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.75|||Paired T test 0||||Additional statistical analysis were: Bland Altman plot and linear regression analysis.|0.75|-0.24|0.32
95911701|NCT02347657|191781543|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|4.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||4.8|3.1|<0.0001
95911702|NCT02347657|191781544|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|8.3|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||8.3|5.3|<0.0001
95911703|NCT02347657|191781545|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate Ratio|0.65||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.88|||Negative Binomial Regression|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.88|0.48|0.0054
95911704|NCT02347657|191781546|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.4127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.19|||MMRM|||Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure to control the overall type I error for tested at α = 0.05.||0.19|-0.08|0.4127
95911705|NCT00762450|191781725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|paired t-tests||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95911706|NCT04274894|191781731|NON_INFERIORITY|"The hypothesis for the primary safety analysis is:~H0: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT ≥ 3 mmHg Vs. H1: Change in 24-hour average SBP from Baseline to EOT \< 3 mmHg"|LS Mean Change from Baseline to EOT|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.13||||||The primary endpoint of change from Baseline to End of Treatment (EOT) in average 24-hour SBP was evaluated using a linear regression model with change in average 24-hour SBP from Baseline to EOT as the dependent variable, centralized baseline average 24-hour SBP, ongoing medical history of hypertension, and pooled study center as covariates in the per protocol population.||3.13|0.63|
95911707|NCT03848403|191781743|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means Difference|-21.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.48|-26.90|<0.0001
95911708|NCT03848403|191781743|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-21.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.39|-15.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.88|-26.39|<0.0001
95911709|NCT03848403|191781743|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.55||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.75|-4.65|0.8341
95911710|NCT05007392|191781797|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage|35.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|44.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P value based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by baseline SUA level and baseline body mass index (BMI) level.|The difference of percentage and stratified 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||44.37|27.36|<0.001
95911711|NCT05007392|191781798|NON_INFERIORITY|The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -10% in the analysis.|Difference of percentage|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|14.17|||||The difference of percentage and stratified 95% CI was based on Mantel-Haenszel method.|||14.17|-3.69|
95911712|NCT00696410|191781862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.068
95911713|NCT00696410|191781862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.022
95911714|NCT00696410|191781863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.71
95911715|NCT00696410|191781863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.33
95911716|NCT00696410|191781864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.69
95911717|NCT00696410|191781864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.004
95911718|NCT00696410|191781865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.48
95911719|NCT00696410|191781865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.39
95911720|NCT00696410|191781866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Sign test|||p value represents test of paired (within patient) difference||||0.92
95911721|NCT00696410|191781866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||p value tests difference between the marker in CHF patients at time 0 and Health Controls (between group)||||0.22
95911722|NCT03184792|191781867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5|||<|0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|12.4|||ANOVA|||||12.4|6.6|<0.000
95911723|NCT03184792|191781867|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|17.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.0|3.7|0.010
95911724|NCT03184792|191781868|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95911725|NCT03063294|191781874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.5|||||"The difference in difference equals the follow-up minus baseline change in Hassles scale results for the toolkit plus coaching clinics, minus the follow-up minus baseline change in the Hassles scale results for the toolkit only clinics."|"Zero-inflated negative binomial regression was used to obtain predicted mean Hassles scale scores for the toolkit only clinics and toolkit plus coaching clinics at baseline and follow-up, adjusting for study design and characteristics of survey respondents. The difference-in-difference was then computed as described below, under method of estimation. Bootstrap resampling was used to calculate the 95% confidence intervals around the predicted means and the difference-in-difference."||0.50|-0.47|
95911726|NCT02134587|191781879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00001
95911727|NCT02134587|191781880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95911728|NCT03764072|191781938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2107||||||Dose response Model - Linear|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.2107
95911729|NCT03764072|191781938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0766||||||Dose response Model - Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0766
95911730|NCT03764072|191781938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0989||||||Dose response Model - Logistic|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0989
95911731|NCT03764072|191781938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0927||||||Dose-response Model - Sigmoid Emax|Multiple Comparison Procedure-Modelling|||||||0.0927
95911732|NCT03764072|191781940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3162
95911733|NCT03764072|191781940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4613|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4613
95911734|NCT03764072|191781940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4095|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4095
95911735|NCT03764072|191781940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1570
95911736|NCT03764072|191781940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9843|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9843
95911737|NCT03764072|191781941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8714|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8714
95911738|NCT03764072|191781941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5815|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5815
95911739|NCT03764072|191781941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4308|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4308
95911740|NCT03764072|191781941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4434
95911741|NCT03764072|191781941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.855|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.8550
95911742|NCT03764072|191781942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6870
95911743|NCT03764072|191781942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1515|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1515
95911744|NCT03764072|191781942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6030
95911745|NCT03764072|191781942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1361|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1361
95911746|NCT03764072|191781942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5640
95911747|NCT03764072|191781943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.5405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.67|||Regression, Cox|||||2.67|0.60|0.5405
95911748|NCT03764072|191781943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.27|||Regression, Cox|||||2.27|0.49|0.9011
95911749|NCT03764072|191781943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.9127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||||2.26|0.48|0.9127
95911750|NCT03764072|191781943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.56|||Regression, Cox|||||2.56|0.60|0.5619
95911751|NCT03764072|191781943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||||2.79|0.50|0.7090
95911752|NCT03764072|191781944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.72|||Regression, Cox|||||2.72|0.61|0.5141
95911753|NCT03764072|191781944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.12|||Regression, Cox|||||2.12|0.45|0.9614
95911754|NCT03764072|191781944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.14|||Regression, Cox|||||2.14|0.46|0.9756
95911755|NCT03764072|191781944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.5582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.57|||Regression, Cox|||||2.57|0.60|0.5582
95911756|NCT03764072|191781944|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.71|||Regression, Cox|||||2.71|0.49|0.7543
95911757|NCT00201864|191782062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9102|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9102
95911758|NCT00803101|191782067|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|25.8||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % participants with effective hemostasis||The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||25.8|2.8|
95911759|NCT00803101|191782068|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 80 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|45.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|56.4||No P-value is provided as non-inferiority was assessed via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.|Newcombe-Wilson score method|The Newcombe-Wilson score method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex-plasma) in the % pts with rapid decrease of the INR.||The analysis of rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with INR ≤ 1.3 at 30 minutes after the end of infusion.||56.4|31.9|
95911760|NCT02026232|191782074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95911761|NCT00676130|191782086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||<|0.05||95.0|-9.3|15.0|||Chi-squared|||The study was powered to detect a difference in cure rate of 98% in the intervention group vs. 85% in the control group, with 2-sided alpha 0.05. This would yield a number needed to treat of 7.7 for intervention vs. control, and required 144 subjects to achieve 80% power. No data were analyzed until study completion.||15|-9.3|<0.05
95911762|NCT00676130|191782087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.3|||Chi-squared|||We assessed the rate of progression to abscess in the two groups.||6.3|-6.5|<0.05
95911763|NCT00106184|191782102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|No confidence intervals as no parameters were estimated.||Proportional hazards model||||=0.74
95911764|NCT00106184|191782103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|Difference in baseline muscle enzymes therefore tested the difference in the proportions adjusting for the baseline values.||||||>0.90
95911765|NCT00106184|191782104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||>0.90
95911766|NCT01892345|191782113|OTHER|Treatment Effect|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.197|||Stratified Log-Rank Test||HR based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Confidence interval = Wald confidence interval. HR for eculizumab compared with placebo represented a 94.2% reduction in the risk of relapse, 95% Wald confidence interval (80.3%, 98.3%).|||0.197|0.017|<0.0001
95911767|NCT02623855|191782133|SUPERIORITY|Our hypothesis was that park prescriptions with group visits would have a superior result than park prescriptions alone.||||||0.6099|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study is powered for our primary outcome, caregiver stress as measured by the 10-item perceived stress s score (PSS10). Normative data from population samples show a mean PSS10 score of 13.2 points with a standard deviation of 6.35 points and a within-subject correlation coefficient of 0.77 over 2 weeks.We powered the study to detect a three point difference in the change of the PSS10. This effect size is consistent with other estimates of a clinically significant change.||||0.6099
95911768|NCT02623855|191782135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0085
95911769|NCT02623855|191782137|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1749
95911770|NCT01889186|191782154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Clopper-Pearson exact method|||The ORR for ABT-199 was tested to reject the null hypothesis of ORR = 40%. If the null hypothesis is rejected and the ORR is higher than 40%, then ABT-199 has been shown to have an ORR significantly higher than 40%.The p-value is from the exact binomial distribution comparing ABT-199 ORR to the 40% historical control rate.||||<0.001
95911771|NCT04710927|191782168|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95911772|NCT04710927|191782168|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95911773|NCT01058304|191782199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.67||||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.87|0.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis compares study Arm 1 and Arm 2 at 24-week follow-up, with 12-week data also included in the response trajectory.~The hypothesis being tested is that group-based PT (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement WOMAC scores compared to individual PT (Arm 2)"||0.538|-5.87|0.1024
95911774|NCT01058304|191782199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in greater improvements in WOMAC scores at 24-week follow-up (12 weeks after the end of the group program) when compared to usual PT care (Arm 2).||2.04|-4.64|0.444
95911775|NCT01058304|191782200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.113||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.463|0.238|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis compares Arms 1 and 2 at 12-week follow-up. The hypothesis being tested is that the group-based PT program (Arm 1) will result in a significantly greater improvement in SPPB scores compared with the individual PT program (Arm 2).||0.238|-0.463|0.527
95911776|NCT02496767|191782201|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9365||0.3782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.089|5.503|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||5.503|-2.089|0.3782
95911777|NCT02496767|191782201|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0245||0.7625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.359|4.583|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.583|-3.359|0.7625
95911778|NCT02496767|191782201|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1081||0.8394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.711|4.566|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||4.566|-3.711|0.8394
95911779|NCT02496767|191782202|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.12|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.12|-0.50|0.4521
95911780|NCT02496767|191782202|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.68|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.68|-1.00|0.7120
95911781|NCT02496767|191782202|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.53|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.53|-1.19|0.4510
95911782|NCT02496767|191782203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0374|0.0351|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0351|-0.0374|0.9505
95911783|NCT02496767|191782203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0066||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0317|0.045|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0450|-0.0317|0.7336
95911784|NCT02496767|191782203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0088||||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0303|0.0479|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||0.0479|-0.0303|0.6593
95911785|NCT02496767|191782204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.818||||0.2369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.141|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.141|0.587|0.2369
95911786|NCT02496767|191782204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.372|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.372|0.711|0.9420
95911787|NCT02496767|191782204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.933||||0.6853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.304|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.304|0.668|0.6853
95911788|NCT02496767|191782205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.066||||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.698|1.627|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.627|0.698|0.7667
95911789|NCT02496767|191782205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.904||||0.6619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|1.419|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.419|0.577|0.6619
95911790|NCT02496767|191782205|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.5856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|1.386|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.386|0.561|0.5856
95911791|NCT02496767|191782206|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.103||0.9991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|2.17|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||2.17|-2.17|0.9991
95911792|NCT02496767|191782206|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.138||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|1.43|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.43|-3.04|0.4808
95911793|NCT02496767|191782206|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.165||0.6082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.69|||Repeated-measures mixed model|||||1.69|-2.89|0.6082
95911794|NCT02496767|191782207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.776||||0.2602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.206|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.206|0.500|0.2602
95911795|NCT02496767|191782207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.094||||0.6748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.662|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.662|0.720|0.6748
95911796|NCT02496767|191782207|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.938||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.609|1.443|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio for tirasemtiv vs placebo|||1.443|0.609|0.7694
95911797|NCT03477279|191782208|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.3|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||7.3|-5.6|
95911798|NCT03477279|191782209|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|14.0|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||14.0|-0.8|
95911799|NCT03477279|191782210|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|21.7|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||21.7|-1.7|
95911800|NCT03477279|191782211|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|32.3|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||32.3|0.9|
95911801|NCT03477279|191782212|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|31.8||||||||31.8|-1.6|
95911802|NCT03477279|191782213|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|8.5|||||Male Partners of Women in Couple - Male Partners of Women in Individual|||8.5|-13.2|
95911803|NCT03477279|191782214|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|10.7|||||Couple (HIV+ Women) - Individual (HIV+ Women)|||10.7|-10.0|
95911804|NCT03477279|191782215|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|13.9||||||||13.9|1.7|
95911805|NCT02277990|191782233|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.36|0.98||The 0.05 critical value for assessing the primary endpoint was adjusted to 0.0488, to account for a planned interim analysis.|Regression, Cox|The Cox regression was stratified according to device type (pacemaker or CRT-P vs. ICD or CRT-D).||||0.98|0.36|0.0406
95911806|NCT02277990|191782234|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.47|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.47|0.0248
95911807|NCT02277990|191782235|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority test was performed on the as-treated cohort, per the statistical analysis plan. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio was 1.33 (i.e., the hazard ratio for complications in the envelope group vs. the control group must be significantly lower than 1.33).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.77|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.77|<0.01
95911808|NCT02277990|191782236|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.12|0.4|0.98|||Regression, Cox|||||0.98|0.40|0.0402
95911809|NCT00715429|191782289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||||||Daily cramp rate at baseline\& on treatment, were calculated as % of each subjects total # of cramps, for comparison among subjects. Change in % cramp rates from baseline to treatment was computed for each subject in vit D and placebo groups.|t-test, 2 sided|T test was used to compare the change in % cramp rate from baseline to treatment for each subject in each treatment group.||||||0.27
95911810|NCT00406133|191782291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age 8-14 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||The study was to test whether the use of CGM will lower A1c at 26 weeks. The estimated sample size was 110 for each age group, which will provide 90% power to detect a difference between treatment groups in each of the age groups assuming a population difference of 0.5%, a two-tailed test with type I error rate of 5%, standard deviation of the 6 month HbA1c values of 0.9, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.58.||||0.29
95911811|NCT00406133|191782291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value for age 15-24 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||0.52
95911812|NCT00406133|191782291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||"A P value of 0.0167 was considered the significance level for the primary analysis in each age group to maintain an overall type I error rate of 0.05.~P value is for age \>=25 group."|ANCOVA|Performed in each age group and adjusted for the baseline A1c and clinical center.||||||<0.001
95911813|NCT00406133|191782292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||P-value was for the comparison of RT-CGM group and Control group.|ANCOVA|Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||A sample size of 120 subjects was planned to have 90% power to detect a difference in this outcome between treatment groups, assuming a population difference of 29 min/day, standard deviation of the 26-week values of 59 min/day, correlation between baseline and 26-week values of 0.66, an α=0.05, and no more than 15% losses to follow-up.||||0.16
95911814|NCT00406133|191782293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
95911815|NCT00406133|191782293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95911816|NCT00406133|191782293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95911817|NCT00406133|191782293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 8-14 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.74
95911818|NCT00406133|191782293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the 15-24 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||0.48
95911819|NCT00406133|191782293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P-value is for N(%) of subjects with \>=1 severe hypo event with seizure or comma in the \>=25 year age group.|Fisher Exact|||The proportions of patients experiencing one or more severe hypoglycemic events in each treatment group were compared using Fisher's exact test. Incidences of hypoglycemic events were compared and confidence intervals for the treatment group difference calculated using permutation tests. Similar analyses were performed for the subset of hypoglycemic events associated with seizure or coma.||||1.0
95911820|NCT00406133|191782294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.53
95911821|NCT00406133|191782294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
95911822|NCT00406133|191782294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95911823|NCT00406133|191782295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.58
95911824|NCT00406133|191782295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.85
95911825|NCT00406133|191782295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.002
95911826|NCT00406133|191782296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.18
95911827|NCT00406133|191782296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for the baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.44
95911828|NCT00406133|191782296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||<0.001
95911829|NCT00406133|191782297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.29
95911830|NCT00406133|191782297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.79
95911831|NCT00406133|191782297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.41
95911832|NCT00406133|191782298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Continuous glucose monitoring data in both groups following the 26-week visit (blinded use in the control group and unblinded use in the continuous glucose monitoring group) were used to estimate the amount of time per day the glucose level was hypoglycemic (\<=70 mg/dL and \<=50 mg/dL), hyperglycemic (\>180 mg/dL and \>250 mg/dL), and in the target range (71 to 180 mg/dL).||||0.50
95911833|NCT00406133|191782298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.99
95911834|NCT00406133|191782298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.10
95911835|NCT00406133|191782299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 8-14 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.66
95911836|NCT00406133|191782299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for 15-24 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.48
95911837|NCT00406133|191782299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||||||P-value for the comparison of treatment groups at 26wks adjusting for baseline for \>=25 years age group.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the corresponding baseline value, baseline glycated hemoglobin level, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||||0.07
95911838|NCT00406133|191782300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center.||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center).||||<0.001
95911839|NCT00406133|191782301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Based on the ranks of the 26wk values using VDW scores, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, clinical center and type of continuous glucose monitor.||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||<0.001
95911840|NCT00406133|191782302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.03
95911841|NCT00406133|191782303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.04
95911842|NCT00406133|191782303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||||||P-value for the 15-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.46
95911843|NCT00406133|191782303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||P-value for the \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.003
95911844|NCT00406133|191782304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value for 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.24
95911845|NCT00406133|191782304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.98
95911846|NCT00406133|191782304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.48
95911847|NCT00406133|191782305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.005
95911848|NCT00406133|191782306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Percentages of values less than or greater than a given threshold were converted to minutes per day by multiplying by 1,440. A nonparametric approach was followed using an ANCOVA based on ranks of the 26 week values, adjusted for the baseline value, clinical center, and type of continuous glucose monitor.||||0.05
95911849|NCT00406133|191782307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||||||P-value representative of 13 and 26 weeks combined.|ANCOVA|||Glucose variability was assessed by computing the absolute rate of change.||||0.39
95911850|NCT00406133|191782308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95911851|NCT00406133|191782309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatment differences|408148.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176644.0|3475108.0||||||"ICER = Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio is defined as the mean difference in costs between the treatment groups divided by the mean difference in QALY (quality-adjusted life-year) between the treatment groups:~(mean cost\[CGM\] - mean cost \[control\]) / (mean QALY\[CGM\] - mean QALY\[SMBG\]).~Units are dollars per QALY."||3475108|-176644|
95911852|NCT00406133|191782310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||P-value for the 8-14 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.009
95911853|NCT00406133|191782310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
95911854|NCT00406133|191782310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95911855|NCT00406133|191782311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.18
95911856|NCT00406133|191782311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||||||P-value for 15-24 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.84
95911857|NCT00406133|191782311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for \>=25 year old age group.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.02
95911858|NCT00406133|191782312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-value for 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||Within each age group, in addition to the primary ANCOVA analysis, pre-specified 26-week binary glycated hemoglobin outcomes (relative decrease by \>=10%, 26-week level \<7.0%, absolute decrease by \>=0.5%, relative increase by \>=10%, absolute increase by \>=0.5%) were evaluated in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.01
95911859|NCT00406133|191782312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||||||P-value for 14-24 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.80
95911860|NCT00406133|191782312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||P-value for \>=25 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.005
95911861|NCT00406133|191782313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||P-value for the 8-14 year age group|Regression, Logistic|||A post-hoc defined binary outcome of 26-week glycated hemoglobin \<7.0% with no severe hypoglycemic events was analyzed in logistic regression models, adjusted for baseline glycated hemoglobin level and clinical center.||||0.02
95911862|NCT00406133|191782313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67||||||P-value for the 15-24 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.67
95911863|NCT00406133|191782313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||P-value for the \>=25 year old age group|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
95911864|NCT00406133|191782314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
95911865|NCT00406133|191782315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||0.002
95911866|NCT00406133|191782316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Other preplanned secondary outcomes included change in A1c from baseline to 26 weeks in an ANCOVA model (adjusted for baseline A1c and clinical center) and 26-week binary A1c outcomes (decrease and increase in A1C from baseline by \>=0.3% and 26-week value \<7.0%) evaluated similarly using logistic regression models.||||<0.001
95911867|NCT04672941|191782320|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the CAT score at each visit. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-5.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|-4.89|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) total CAT Score estimates.|||-4.89|-5.67|
95911868|NCT04672941|191782321|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with CAT response \>= 10 as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|7.186|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.745|8.987|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit.|||8.987|5.745|< 0.001
95911869|NCT04672941|191782322|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was EQ-VAS score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|12.6|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, mean change from Baseline (3 months - baseline) of EQ-VAS based on non-responder imputation.|||12.60|11.00|
95911870|NCT04672941|191782323|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with mobility as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.14|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.14|3.90|< 0.001
95911871|NCT04672941|191782324|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with self-care as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.35|2.96|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||2.96|2.35|< 0.001
95911872|NCT04672941|191782325|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with usual activities as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|5.12|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||5.12|3.89|< 0.001
95911873|NCT04672941|191782326|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with pain/discomfort as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|3.85|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.85|3.00|< 0.001
95911874|NCT04672941|191782327|OTHER|The logistic generalized estimating equations (GEE) model with anxiety/depression as dependent variable. Visit, Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates and unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|3.73|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for Visit (3 months / baseline (reference)).|||3.73|2.95|< 0.001
95911875|NCT04672941|191782333|OTHER|Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) assuming random missingness was fitted. The dependent variable was the mMRC score. Visit, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group, smoking habits, pack years, sex, age, and comorbidities appearing at a rate greater than 5% were entered as covariates.|Score on a scale|-0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.51|||||Least Square Mean for Visit, change from baseline (3 months - baseline) of mMRC based on non-responder imputation.|||-0.51|-0.60|
95911876|NCT01091948|191782338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|Intubations accomplished with another device due to difficulty with assigned device and those took \>180 s were considered as failed intubations.||||||0.19
95911877|NCT01091948|191782339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35|||ANCOVA||The mean intubation difficulty score was tested after logarithmic transformation, and then back transformed for the estimated treatment effect.|||1.35|0.58|0.58
95911878|NCT01091948|191782340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.33|0.95|0.15
95911879|NCT01091948|191782341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.67||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|0.28|0.57
95911880|NCT01091948|191782342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.09|0.93|0.79
95911881|NCT01091948|191782343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|proportional odds logistic regression model||||2.76|0.45|0.82
95911882|NCT03933826|191782398|SUPERIORITY||Average treatment estimate (ATE)|0.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.4||We tested the hypothesis that the average treatment effect (ATE) is different from zero. This was the only hypothesis test in our primary manuscript, and so no adjustment for multiple comparisons is necessary.|TMLE|TMLE stands for targeted maximum likelihood estimation|The causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with radical cystectomy versus with bladder-sparing therapy. A positive value indicates greater physical functioning associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.4|-0.6|<0.05
95911883|NCT03933826|191782401|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater urinary health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.9|-0.5|
95911884|NCT03933826|191782404|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-9.0|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater sexual health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-9.0|-14.7|
95911885|NCT03933826|191782407|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates worse bowel health associated with radical cystectomy.|||-0.3|-2.5|
95911886|NCT03933826|191782410|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.6|||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater financial health associated with radical cystectomy.|||2.6|0.2|
95911887|NCT03933826|191782413|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.6|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates lower anxiety associated with radical cystectomy.|-1.6|-3.1|
95911888|NCT03933826|191782416|SUPERIORITY|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A negative value indicates less depression associated with radical cystectomy.|-0.3|-1.8|
95911889|NCT03933826|191782419|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome. We presented an estimate of the average treatment effect (ATE).|TMLE|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||||||The ATE is interpreted as the causal mean difference in outcomes if all patients had been treated with RC versus having been treated with BST. A positive value indicates greater quality of life associated with radical cystectomy.|0.04|0.01|
95911890|NCT03933826|191782422|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.59|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \> 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a greater chance of surviving without recurrence than those who choose BST.|||1.59|1.33|
95911891|NCT03933826|191782425|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without metastasis than those who choose BST.|||1.03|0.94|
95911892|NCT03933826|191782428|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.88|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving without cancer progression than those who choose BST.|||0.88|0.73|
95911893|NCT03933826|191782431|OTHER|We did not conduct a hypothesis test for this outcome.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.01|||||Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose RC have a lower chance of surviving cancer than those who choose BST.|||1.01|0.96|
95911894|NCT03933826|191782434|SUPERIORITY|Inverse probability weighted risk ratios calculated using quasi-Poisson regression|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.08|||||A weighted risk ratio \< 1 implies that participants who choose radical cystectomy have a lower chance of surviving than those who choose bladder-sparing therapy.|||2.08|0.38|
95911895|NCT02638948|191782446|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|4.9||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|20.1||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.1|-10.2|0.5224
95911896|NCT02638948|191782446|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|11.8||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|27.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||27.2|-3.6|0.1360
95911897|NCT02638948|191782446|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|20.7||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||20.7|-20.5|0.9922
95911898|NCT02638948|191782447|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|16.5||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||16.5|-16.0|1.0000
95911899|NCT02638948|191782447|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|5.6||||0.2058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|21.9||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||21.9|-10.5|0.2058
95911900|NCT02638948|191782447|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference (%)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|22.2||Threshold for significance = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||22.2|-22.5|1.0000
95911901|NCT04506775|191782484|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.|Mean Error|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \<5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively.||||||||
95911902|NCT04506775|191782485|NON_INFERIORITY|As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|Mean Error|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively||As per the FDA standard ANSI/AAMI SP10:2008 or the newly adopted ISO 81060-3:2022 standard, the mean error should be \< 5mmHg or \<6mmHg and the standard deviation should be \<8mmHg or \<10mmHg respectively|||
95911903|NCT00394355|191782487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.261|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.261
95911904|NCT00394355|191782487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.644|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.644
95911905|NCT00394355|191782488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.359|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.359
95911906|NCT00394355|191782488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.390
95911907|NCT00394355|191782489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.169|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.169
95911908|NCT00394355|191782489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.526|||||||ANOVA|||"Least squares mean percent changes were obtained from the two-way ANOVA model with treatment and BMD scan center effects. Results shown use percent change as a response.~Pooled Standard deviation from the ANOVA model with treatment effects."||||0.526
95911909|NCT00394355|191782490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||<0.001
95911910|NCT00394355|191782490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Least square means and Pstd (pooled standard deviations) are obtained from the ANOVA model with treatment effects.||||0.023
95911911|NCT01648348|191782492|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.73|0.57
95911912|NCT01648348|191782493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95911913|NCT01648348|191782494|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.69|||Log Rank|||||1.69|0.66|0.82
95911914|NCT01648348|191782496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95911915|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Future uncertainty symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.55
95911916|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Visual disorder symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.16
95911917|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Motor dysfunction symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.99
95911918|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Communication deficit symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.75
95911919|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headaches symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.17
95911920|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Seizures symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.90
95911921|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Drowsiness symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.82
95911922|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Itchy skin symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.15
95911923|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Hair loss symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.77
95911924|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Weakness of legs symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.10
95911925|NCT01648348|191782497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Bladder control symptom scale/item t-test, 2-sided, unpooled.||||0.65
95911926|NCT01648348|191782498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||proportion test|||||||0.83
95911927|NCT01024608|191782510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
95911928|NCT01024608|191782511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.001
95911929|NCT01024608|191782512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.48||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|Results obtained from ANCOVA with treatment, baseline and center in the model.||||-0.1|-0.8|0.005
95911930|NCT01024608|191782513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean treatment diff from placebo|-0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||A priori threshold for statistical significance is p\<0.05|ANCOVA|The repeated measures ANCOVA included covariate adjustment for baseline, day, treatment, and the treatment by day interaction||||-0.2|-0.9|0.002
95911931|NCT06916468|191782514|OTHER||Proportion|86.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Binomial test|Comparing preference to 50/50 baseline||||||<0.001
95911932|NCT06916468|191782515|OTHER||Proportion|13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Proportion|Out of the 53 participants , what proportion preferred the device without the cotton dampener on majority of anatomical sites||||||<0.001
95911933|NCT04922554|191782516|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|14.15||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.2182
95911934|NCT04922554|191782517|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in response rates|22.15||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||Nominal p-values are provided for descriptive purposes.|Chi-squared|Analysis stratified by prior NTM antibiotic treatment was not performed due to small sample size in one randomization stratification subgroup.||||||0.0460
95911935|NCT04922554|191782526|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.8||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|7.52||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||7.52|-6.01|0.8240
95911936|NCT04922554|191782527|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.1||||0.2149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|13.2||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.20|-3.03|0.2149
95911937|NCT04922554|191782528|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|8.3||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|18.88||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||18.88|-2.31|0.1230
95911938|NCT04922554|191782529|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|5.5||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|12.43||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||12.43|-1.41|0.1168
95911939|NCT04922554|191782530|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|6.5||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|13.66||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||13.66|-0.66|0.0743
95911940|NCT04922554|191782531|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|7.1||||0.0899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|15.23||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||15.23|-1.13|0.0899
95911941|NCT04922554|191782532|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.5||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.59||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||8.59|-7.60|0.9019
95911942|NCT04922554|191782533|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|13.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.43|21.89||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||21.89|5.43|0.0015
95911943|NCT04922554|191782534|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|0.9||||0.8269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|9.05||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison of Omadacycline and Placebo for activity score has been presented.|||9.05|-7.26|0.8269
95911944|NCT04922554|191782534|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.2||||0.9584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|7.35||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for impact score has been presented|||7.35|-7.74|0.9584
95911945|NCT04922554|191782534|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.0||||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.88|2.92||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for symptom score has been presented.|||2.92|-12.88|0.2123
95911946|NCT04922554|191782534|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-0.8||||0.8161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.99||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA||Treatment comparison between Omadacycline and Placebo for total score has been presented.|||5.99|-7.58|0.8161
95911947|NCT04922554|191782535|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Least square mean difference|-5.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|-2.38||ANCOVA analyzed change from baseline using treatment, prior antibiotic use, and baseline score as factors. LS mean difference = Omadacycline minus Placebo.|ANCOVA|||||-2.38|-8.95|0.0010
95911948|NCT04922554|191782536|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|39.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.66|62.56|||Fisher Exact|||||62.56|16.66|0.0020
95911949|NCT04922554|191782537|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Difference in improvement rates|15.41||||0.3051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|39.93|||Fisher Exact|||||39.93|-9.10|0.3051
95911950|NCT04922554|191782538|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.3552|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.3552
95911951|NCT04922554|191782539|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0753|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0753
95911952|NCT04922554|191782541|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|11.87|||Chi-squared|||||11.87|1.24|0.0168
95911953|NCT04922554|191782542|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0233|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0233
95911954|NCT04922554|191782543|OTHER|Endpoints are summarized using descriptive statistics. Inferential testing of pre-specified hypothesis was not completed.||||||0.0349|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0349
95911955|NCT01529008|191782545|SUPERIORITY||Proportion treatment responder Differenc|-0.08||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.18|||Fisher Exact||"Percentage of treatment responders in PREOB® group is 60.9% ((14/23)\*100), compared with 69.2% ((18/26)\*100) in Placebo.~Difference in percentage is -8.3 Difference in treatment responders proportion: PREOB® (0.609) - Placebo (0.692) = -0.08"|||0.18|-0.35|0.539
95911956|NCT00939731|191782569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|101.09||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||101.09|84.84|
95911957|NCT00939731|191782572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|92.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.86|100.68||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||100.68|84.86|
95911958|NCT00939731|191782573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Means|98.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|108.48||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of PF-02341066 was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CI for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||108.48|90.18|
95911959|NCT02940574|191782622|OTHER|Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|||||<|0.08||||||Linear mixed-effect analyses, exploring whether a single-dose of OT could reduce amygdala connectivity, revealed a tentative effect of 'treatment' (F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))|Mixed Models Analysis|(F(1,36)=2.00; p=.08 (one-sided))||||||<0.08
95911960|NCT00261495|191782650|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.29||||0.011||95.0|-0.27|0.84||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|LS mean difference has been presented, which was calculated as hydromorphone minus oxycodone.|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.84|-0.27|0.011
95911961|NCT00261495|191782651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.706||95.0|-0.32|0.47||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure was stopped here, subsequent tests were exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.47|-0.32|0.706
95911962|NCT00261495|191782652|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Tested using 95% confidence interval approach. The non-inferiority margin was 1.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.53|0.29||Statistical significance level was 0.05. Two-sided 95% CI of the treatment difference based on LS means \& error terms obtained from ANCOVA (covariate: baseline; factors: country, previous pain treatment, underlying disease, and treatment).|ANCOVA|If the right side of CI\<1 then the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of the alternative, and non-inferiority of OROS hydromorphone was concluded.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was less than or equal to 1.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline with OROS hydromorphone compared with SR oxycodone was greater than 1.~Sample size needed to detect a clinically significant difference of 1 was 151 per treatment arm (standard deviation = 2.4, significance level 0.025 one-sided, based on 90% power)."||0.29|-0.53|<0.001
95911963|NCT00261495|191782653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.87||||0.065||95.0|-5.94|0.19||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.19|-5.94|0.065
95911964|NCT00261495|191782654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.348||95.0|-0.62|0.22||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.22|-0.62|0.348
95911965|NCT00261495|191782655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.616||95.0|-0.54|0.32||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|ANCOVA|Superiority of OROS hydromorphone compared to SR oxycodone was evaluated.|Mean difference was calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|"Null hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was equal to zero.~Alternative hypothesis: Difference in change from baseline between hydromorphone and oxycodone was not equal to zero."||0.32|-0.54|0.616
95911966|NCT00261495|191782656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used. A closed hierarchical testing approach was used to control the overall Type I error. Hierarchical testing procedure has been stopped, test is exploratory in nature.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-squared statistic stratified for country was used.||"Null hypothesis: There is no association between study medication and dose escalation.~Alternative hypothesis: There is an association between study medication and dose escalation."||||0.249
95911967|NCT00261495|191782657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.05||95.0|0.0|0.84||0.05 two-sided testing, exploratory comparison|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.84|-0.00|0.050
95911968|NCT00261495|191782658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.105||95.0|-0.06|0.67||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-0.06|0.105
95911969|NCT00261495|191782659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.058||95.0|-0.01|0.79||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.79|-0.01|0.058
95911970|NCT00261495|191782660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.21||95.0|-0.13|0.59||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hdromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.59|-0.13|0.210
95911971|NCT00261495|191782661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.941||95.0|-4.87|4.52||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.52|-4.87|0.941
95911972|NCT00261495|191782662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.073||95.0|-0.03|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.03|0.073
95911973|NCT00261495|191782663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.431||95.0|-0.52|0.22||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.22|-0.52|0.431
95911974|NCT00261495|191782664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.835||95.0|-0.4|0.33||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.33|-0.40|0.835
95911975|NCT00261495|191782665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51||||0.837||95.0|-5.36|4.35||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.35|-5.36|0.837
95911976|NCT00261495|191782666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.832||95.0|-0.38|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.38|0.832
95911977|NCT00261495|191782667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.143||95.0|-0.1|0.71||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.71|-0.10|0.143
95911978|NCT00261495|191782668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.345||95.0|-0.23|0.64||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.64|-0.23|0.345
95911979|NCT00261495|191782669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.552||95.0|-0.33|0.61||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.61|-0.33|0.552
95911980|NCT00261495|191782670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.042||95.0|0.02|0.93||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.93|0.02|0.042
95911981|NCT00261495|191782671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.33||||0.171||95.0|-0.14|0.81||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.81|-0.14|0.171
95911982|NCT00261495|191782672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.475||95.0|-0.31|0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.65|-0.31|0.475
95911983|NCT00261495|191782673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23||||0.359||95.0|-0.26|0.72||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.72|-0.26|0.359
95911984|NCT00261495|191782674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.611||95.0|-0.52|0.3||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.30|-0.52|0.611
95911985|NCT00261495|191782675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.526||95.0|-0.6|0.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.31|-0.60|0.526
95911986|NCT00261495|191782676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.769||95.0|-0.49|0.36||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.36|-0.49|0.769
95911987|NCT00261495|191782677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.843||95.0|-0.4|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.40|0.843
95911988|NCT00261495|191782678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.45|0.44||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.44|-0.45|0.977
95911989|NCT00261495|191782679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.977||95.0|-0.47|0.49||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.49|-0.47|0.977
95911990|NCT00261495|191782680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.902||95.0|-0.51|0.45||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.45|-0.51|0.902
95911991|NCT00261495|191782682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.36||||0.169||95.0|-5.74|1.02||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.02|-5.74|0.169
95911992|NCT00261495|191782683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.89||||0.245||95.0|-5.09|1.31||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.31|-5.09|0.245
95911993|NCT00261495|191782684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.64||||0.071||95.0|-5.51|0.23||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.23|-5.51|0.071
95911994|NCT00261495|191782685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.03||||0.297||95.0|-5.85|1.8||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.80|-5.85|0.297
95911995|NCT00261495|191782686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.41||||0.205||95.0|-1.32|6.14||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.14|-1.32|0.205
95911996|NCT00261495|191782687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.35||||0.107||95.0|-7.43|0.73||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.73|-7.43|0.107
95911997|NCT00261495|191782688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6||||0.475||95.0|-2.8|6.0||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||6.00|-2.80|0.475
95911998|NCT00261495|191782689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.16||||0.02||95.0|-7.67|-0.65||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||-0.65|-7.67|0.020
95911999|NCT00261495|191782690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.88||95.0|-0.3|0.26||0.05 two-sided test|ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.30|0.880
95912000|NCT00261495|191782691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.320
95912001|NCT00261495|191782696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.575
95912002|NCT00261495|191782697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Exploratory comparison||||0.807
95912003|NCT00261495|191782698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.61||||0.118||95.0|-5.88|0.67|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.67|-5.88|0.118
95912004|NCT00261495|191782699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.956||95.0|-3.08|2.91|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.91|-3.08|0.956
95912005|NCT00261495|191782700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.299||95.0|-0.08|0.26|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.26|-0.08|0.299
95912006|NCT00261495|191782701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.471||95.0|-4.2|1.95|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxymorphone|Exploratory comparison||1.95|-4.20|0.471
95912007|NCT00261495|191782702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.84||||0.025||95.0|0.48|7.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.19|0.48|0.025
95912008|NCT00261495|191782703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4||||0.556||95.0|-5.61|10.42|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||10.42|-5.61|0.556
95912009|NCT00261495|191782704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.12||||0.551||95.0|-9.11|4.88|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||4.88|-9.11|0.551
95912010|NCT00261495|191782705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.98||||0.207||95.0|-7.63|1.66|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.66|-7.63|0.207
95912011|NCT00261495|191782706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.46||||0.123||95.0|-5.6|0.68|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.68|-5.60|0.123
95912012|NCT00261495|191782707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.602||95.0|-4.27|2.48|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.48|-4.27|0.602
95912013|NCT00261495|191782708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.647||95.0|-2.14|3.44|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||3.44|-2.14|0.647
95912014|NCT00261495|191782709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.627||95.0|-0.17|0.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||0.10|-0.17|0.627
95912015|NCT00261495|191782710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.414||95.0|-4.45|1.84|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||1.84|-4.45|0.414
95912016|NCT00261495|191782711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.05||||0.01||95.0|0.94|7.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.16|0.94|0.010
95912017|NCT00261495|191782712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.955||95.0|-7.2|7.62|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.62|-7.20|0.955
95912018|NCT00261495|191782713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.669||95.0|-4.72|7.34|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||7.34|-4.72|0.669
95912019|NCT00261495|191782714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.595||95.0|-3.15|5.49|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||5.49|-3.15|0.595
95912020|NCT00261495|191782715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.543||95.0|-3.98|2.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference calculated: hydromorphone minus oxycodone|Exploratory comparison||2.10|-3.98|0.543
95912021|NCT05383417|191782729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
95912022|NCT05383417|191782730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.18
95912023|NCT05383417|191782731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 2||||||0.007
95912024|NCT05383417|191782731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
95912025|NCT05383417|191782732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.03
95912026|NCT05383417|191782732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 7||||||0.04
95912027|NCT05383417|191782733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day 1||||||0.04
95912028|NCT05383417|191782734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Day2||||||0.02
95912029|NCT05383417|191782735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95912030|NCT05383417|191782736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95912031|NCT05383417|191782737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95912032|NCT05383417|191782738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.39
95912033|NCT05383417|191782739|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95912034|NCT05383417|191782740|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95912035|NCT03243422|191782741|SUPERIORITY||change in Standard Deviation|0.002||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Three-level linear mixed effects model with an unstructured covariance matrix from the baseline and the year 3 in-person neurocognitive assessment||||0.081|-0.077|0.96
95912036|NCT03243422|191782742|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.079||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.187||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.187|-0.029|0.15
95912037|NCT03243422|191782743|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.02||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.078||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.078|-0.118|0.69
95912038|NCT03243422|191782744|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.017||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.104||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.104|-0.070|0.70
95912039|NCT03243422|191782745|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.33||Secondary outcomes were evaluated with Hochberg modification to the Bonferroni adjustment estimates are considered statistically significant if the largest p-value is \<0·05.|Regression, Cox|Discrete-time interval model||||1.33|0.61|0.59
95912040|NCT03243422|191782746|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.191||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was restricted to ARIC participants who were enrolled in ACHIEVE||0.360|0.022|0.027
95912041|NCT03243422|191782747|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.061||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.028|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.028|-0.151|0.18
95912042|NCT01083654|191782761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.55|0.20|.262
95912043|NCT00643123|191782765|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
95912044|NCT04074590|191782769|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate is better than placebo: Prob (diff\>0)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.314
95912045|NCT04074590|191782769|OTHER|A Bayesian analysis of clinical remission rate (based on total Mayo score) with binomial distribution, was modelled with baseline total Mayo score and treatment group as explanatory variables, to compare the remission rates between LYS006 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-3.29||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-18.02|13.23||Posterior probability that clinical remission rate \>15% over placebo: Prob (diff\>0.15)|Bayesian analysis||90% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||13.23|-18.02|0.037
95912046|NCT01355458|191782771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||GEE: Logit link function|Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods with Logit link function and marginal expectation model.||||||<0.001
95912047|NCT00509236|191782772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||||<0.001
95912048|NCT00509236|191782773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|-4.8||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|5.6||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent).|Miettinen & Nurminen|||||5.6|-15.7|0.336
95912049|NCT00509236|191782774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % Affected|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|16.5||||||||16.5|-10.9|
95912050|NCT00509236|191782775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-26.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-15.3|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-15.3|-38.0|<0.001
95912051|NCT00509236|191782775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline in LS Mean|-31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-19.9|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||-19.9|-42.6|<0.001
95912052|NCT00509236|191782775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|20.7||||||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline FPG.||20.7|-11.5|
95912053|NCT00509236|191782776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (not on oral antihyperglycemic agent, or on oral antihyperglycemic agent), and a covariate for baseline A1c.||0.49|-0.18|
95912054|NCT00530062|191782777|OTHER||Difference in adjusted mean|0.946||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.293|4.185||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using the mixed-effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of center, sequence, treatment group and period, and random effect of the participant within sequence.||4.185|-2.293|0.5595
95912055|NCT02227875|191782787|NON_INFERIORITY|Mixed-Effect Model for Repeated Measures|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.098|0.218||||||||0.218|-0.098|
95912056|NCT02709005|191782794|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction. The statistical informational goal for the study of 90 participants eligible in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) efficacy population was an ad-hoc sample size determined by logistical considerations, as there was insufficient pilot data upon which to base more formal sample size calculations.||0.08|-0.26|0.420
95912057|NCT02709005|191782795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.33||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants Experiencing Solicited Events between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with solicited urogenital AEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.33|-0.06|0.200
95912058|NCT02709005|191782796|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||No SAEs were reported; therefore the Fisher's Exact Test was not performed.||||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with related SAEs between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||||
95912059|NCT02709005|191782797|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.08|-0.13|>0.999
95912060|NCT02709005|191782798|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.01||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Therapeutic Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with therapeutic cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||-0.01|-0.24|0.035
95912061|NCT02709005|191782803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14||The test was conducted using a Fisher's exact test at the 5% two-sided level of significance level without adjustment for multiplicity.|Fisher Exact||Difference in Proportion of Participants with Clinical Cure between 5% Monolaurin Vaginal Gel and Placebo Gel|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in participants with clinical cure between study arms, with a two-sided alternative considering the possibility of a difference in either direction.||0.14|-0.18|>0.999
95912062|NCT03494166|191782806|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm variable in the mixed model, reflecting average difference of group means over time (weeks 1-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.25||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 13 repeated measures of symptom severity index, adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC (average over time).|"The null hypothesis was that the means in two arms were equal, the alternative hypothesis was that the means were not equal.~We planned to randomize 224 survivors in approximately 3:1 ratio in the first randomization; power was 0.92 to detect the adjusted d=0.54 in the comparison of the SMSH and SMSH+TIPC in the first randomization. The planned number of 224 was exceeded because more survivors than planned were determined to have high need for symptom management."||1.25|-3.90|.31
95912063|NCT03494166|191782807|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the variable reflecting trial arm from the second randomization in the mixed model. This parameter reflected average difference between means of two groups over time (weeks 5-13).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|4.55||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed effects models were used for 9 repeated measures of symptom severity index (weeks 5-13), adjusting for baseline value.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. The required sample size was 60 per group for .80 power or greater in two-tailed tests at the 0.05 level of significance using the effect size of Cohen's d=0.54 (adjusted for baseline and repeated measures). The actual sample size was smaller (61 total) due to the higher than planned rate of response to the SMSH alone by week 4.||4.55|-8.91|.52
95912064|NCT03494166|191782808|SUPERIORITY|Key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the first randomization variable in the linear regression model.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|1.81||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear||The mean of group that started with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that started with SMSH+TIPC.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||1.81|-2.63|.71
95912065|NCT03494166|191782809|SUPERIORITY|The key parameter was the coefficient for the trial arm from the second randomization variable in linear regression model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|5.01||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was .05.|Regression, Linear|The model included the adjustment for baseline value of the outcome.|The mean of the group that continued with SMSH alone minus the mean of the group that had TIPC added to the SMSH after week 4.|The null hypothesis was that the means of two groups were equal. The alternative hypothesis was that the means of two groups were not equal. Sample size was determined by the power calculation for the primary outcome.||5.01|-6.53|.79
95912066|NCT03532308|191782810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76||||||This is for the effect of treatment with time, risk stratification and treatment\*time interaction in the model.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.76
95912067|NCT03720938|191782816|SUPERIORITY|A sample size of 26 children per group was needed with the assumption of Cohen's d = 0.8, the alpha error of 0.05 and a power of 80%.||||||0.001||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.001
95912068|NCT03720938|191782816|OTHER|||||||0.0002535||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.0002535
95912069|NCT03720938|191782816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000397||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight.||||0.000397
95912070|NCT03720938|191782817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||The outcome of weight z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z scores.||||0.005
95912071|NCT03720938|191782817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable weight z score.||||0.002
95912072|NCT03720938|191782817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00386||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality. Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom correction method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||||0.00386
95912073|NCT03720938|191782818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of weight was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.000
95912074|NCT03720938|191782818|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.06e-06||||||"Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.~Adjusted for cluster effect, and small sample sizes, baseline value and age."|Linear mixed effects model|Satterthwaite's correction method for denominator degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000306
95912075|NCT03720938|191782818|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-06||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index.||||0.00000367
95912076|NCT03720938|191782819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of body mass index z score was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the body mass index z score at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.000
95912077|NCT03720938|191782819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001402||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body mass index z score.||||0.0001402
95912078|NCT03720938|191782819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.000235||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable body index z score.||||0.000235
95912079|NCT03720938|191782820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259||||||The outcomes of fat ratio was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis (ANCOVA) adjusted for the fat ratio at baseline and confounding variable age.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.259
95912080|NCT03720938|191782820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.220
95912081|NCT03720938|191782820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.250006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable fat ratio.||||0.250006
95912082|NCT03720938|191782821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.000
95912083|NCT03720938|191782821|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted for the weight at baseline and confounding variable age.||||||1.196e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of visual reaction time was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.00001196
95912084|NCT03720938|191782821|SUPERIORITY||||||‬|2.82e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time.||||0.0000282‬
95912085|NCT03720938|191782822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcome of visual reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the visual reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.000
95912086|NCT03720938|191782822|SUPERIORITY|||||||9e-08||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.00000009
95912087|NCT03720938|191782822|SUPERIORITY|||||||55||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable visual reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||000000055
95912088|NCT03720938|191782823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.000
95912089|NCT03720938|191782823|SUPERIORITY|||||||1.633e-05||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.00001633
95912090|NCT03720938|191782823|SUPERIORITY|||||||3.67e-05||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of dominant hand.||||0.0000367
95912091|NCT03720938|191782824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||The outcomes of auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for the auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.008
95912092|NCT03720938|191782824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006
95912093|NCT03720938|191782824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006602||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable auditory reaction time of non-dominant hand.||||0.006602
95912094|NCT03720938|191782825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615648||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for sports competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.615648
95912095|NCT03720938|191782825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.608
95912096|NCT03720938|191782825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.60938||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of sports competence.||||0.60938
95912097|NCT03720938|191782826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for physical condition competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.094
95912098|NCT03720938|191782826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||The outcome of self-perception for physical condition competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of physical condition competence.||||0.085
95912099|NCT03720938|191782826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08818||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.||||0.08818
95912100|NCT03720938|191782827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058102||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for strength competence at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.058102
95912101|NCT03720938|191782827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.051
95912102|NCT03720938|191782827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0534||||||The outcome of self-perception for strength competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of strength competence.||||0.0534
95912103|NCT03720938|191782828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638505||||||The outcome of self-perception for body attractiveness was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for body attractiveness at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.638505
95912104|NCT03720938|191782828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.632||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted for cluster effect in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.632
95912105|NCT03720938|191782828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of body attractiveness.||||0.63280
95912106|NCT03720938|191782829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007061||||||The outcome of self-perception of global physical self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global physical self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.007061
95912107|NCT03720938|191782829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.005
95912108|NCT03720938|191782829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00603||||||Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood since restricted maximum likelihood assumes a strong normality.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global physical self-worth.||||0.00603
95912109|NCT03720938|191782830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002879||||||The outcome of self-perception for global self-worth was tested for any difference between groups by covariate analysis.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for self-perception for global self-worth at baseline and confounding variable age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002879
95912110|NCT03720938|191782830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.002
95912111|NCT03720938|191782830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00238||||||The outcome of self-perception for sports competence was tested for any difference between groups by linear mixed-effects model analysis.|Linear mixed-effects model|Adjusted by Satterthwaite's degrees of freedom method for cluster effect, and small sample sizes in addition to baseline value and age.||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two groups for the dependent variable self-perception of global self-worth.||||0.00238
95912112|NCT03720938|191782831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.194||||||Tested the significance of gender between genders|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Enjoyment scale of physical activity sports in intervention group between male and female genders"||||0.194
95912113|NCT03720938|191782832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the Active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from sports category.||||0.809
95912114|NCT03720938|191782833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from balance category.||||0.843
95912115|NCT03720938|191782834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.247|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from aerobic category.||||0.247
95912116|NCT03720938|191782835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis was the absence of difference between the two genders in the active video game group for the variable of enjoyment from training category.||||0.543
95912117|NCT02110901|191782856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.61|0.254
95912118|NCT02110901|191782857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0|||Log Rank|||||1.00|0.43|0.048
95912119|NCT02110901|191782858|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.109
95912120|NCT02110901|191782859|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.035
95912121|NCT02634788|191782860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|81.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.283|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.82|110.04|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||110.04|53.82|<0.0001
95912122|NCT02634788|191782860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|36.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.099||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|63.93|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.93|8.43|0.0108
95912123|NCT02634788|191782860|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|35.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.02||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.86|63.05|||ANCOVA|The analysis included treatment and site as main effects and Baseline pain intensity as the covariate.||||63.05|7.86|0.0120
95912124|NCT00855595|191782879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0903|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0903
95912125|NCT02755597|191782903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.656|||=|0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.913|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.913|0.471|=0.012
95912126|NCT02755597|191782904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
95912127|NCT02755597|191782906|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.753|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.753|0.343|<0.001
95912128|NCT02755597|191782911|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191|||=|0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.802|1.77|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||1.770|0.802|=0.385
95912129|NCT02755597|191782912|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.571|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.805|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio was estimated by Cox proportional hazards model|Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||0.805|0.405|=0.001
95912130|NCT02755597|191782913|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||=0.019
95912131|NCT02755597|191782914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Stratified Analysis; Stratification factors: Prior exposure to proteasome inhibitors (naïve versus sensitive), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 versus 2 or 3)||||<0.001
95912132|NCT01069354|191782915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95912133|NCT01069354|191782916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Binomial proportion, two-sided Fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|||91 (90.1%) of 101 subjects had a ≥ 2.0 cm lower VAS Score in treatment versus control NLF at Time 0||||<0.0001
95912134|NCT01069354|191782917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95912135|NCT01069354|191782918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95912136|NCT01069354|191782919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95912137|NCT01069354|191782920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95912138|NCT01069354|191782921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5663||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5663
95912139|NCT01069354|191782922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3197||||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3197
95912140|NCT00166296|191782925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|2.141|||Fisher Exact|||||2.141|0.075|0.441
95912141|NCT00166296|191782926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95912142|NCT00166296|191782927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.443||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.443
95912143|NCT00166296|191782928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.930
95912144|NCT04581200|191782929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.80|-1.63|0.61
95912145|NCT04581200|191782930|OTHER|This is an exploratory pilot trial|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-2.66|0.89
95912146|NCT04581200|191782931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.30|-2.58|0.81
95912147|NCT04581200|191782932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.14|-2.98|0.75
95912148|NCT04581200|191782933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.74|-0.57|0.45
95912149|NCT04581200|191782934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.13|-0.13|0.98
95912150|NCT04581200|191782935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95912151|NCT04581200|191782936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
95912152|NCT04711603|191782939|SUPERIORITY||Placebo difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.42|||MMRM|||||-0.42|-1.52|<0.001
95912153|NCT03138733|191782962|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the difference in response rates in the mITT population was greater than -15%, the non-inferiority of ceftobiprole to daptomycin therapy was to be concluded.|Adjusted proportion difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|11.1||||||The observed difference in percentage of responders at PTE (ceftobiprole group minus the daptomycin group) were determined and a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the observed difference was computed, with adjustment for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights were used for the stratum weight in the calculation of the CI||11.1|-7.1|
95912154|NCT03138733|191782963|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|9.5|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||9.5|-8.3|
95912155|NCT03138733|191782964|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.0|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||13|-2.9|
95912156|NCT03138733|191782965|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|5.2|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||5.2|-6.2|
95912157|NCT03138733|191782966|OTHER||Adjusted proportion difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.8|||||The two-sided 95% CI was computed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method adjusted for actual stratum (dialysis status and prior antibacterial treatment use)|||4.8|-4.6|
95912158|NCT04252742|191782971|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.45|-4.46||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-4.46|-11.45|< 0.001
95912159|NCT04252742|191782972|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-3.92||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.92|-10.80|< 0.001
95912160|NCT04252742|191782973|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.87||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.87|-10.34|< 0.001
95912161|NCT04252742|191782974|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-7.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-3.34||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.34|-10.76|< 0.001
95912162|NCT04252742|191782975|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-6.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|-3.27||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-3.27|-10.37|< 0.001
95912163|NCT04252742|191782976|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-1.07||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.22||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates.|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.22|-1.92|0.013
95912164|NCT04252742|191782977|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.48||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.11||Nominal p-value is presented without multiplicity adjustment|Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as covariates|Erenumab 140 mg SC Q4W - Placebo|||-0.11|-0.85|0.011
95912165|NCT01542957|191783080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-3.35|0.60
95912166|NCT01542957|191783081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.25|-0.71|0.21
95912167|NCT01542957|191783082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.01||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.12|-0.14|0.84
95912168|NCT02220894|191783089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.86||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.86|0.58|0.0003
95912169|NCT02220894|191783090|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.91||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.91|0.65|0.0012
95912170|NCT02220894|191783091|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||0.93|0.71|0.0013
95912171|NCT02220894|191783092|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.0||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.00|0.69|0.0260
95912172|NCT02220894|191783093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.2134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.10|0.80|0.2134
95912173|NCT02220894|191783094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.19||One-sided p-value based on stratified log-rank test|Log Rank||Hazard ratio based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||1.19|0.93|0.7964
95912174|NCT02220894|191783095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|7.0||||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.6||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and histology (squamous vs. nonsquamous).|||14.6|-0.6|0.0353
95912175|NCT02220894|191783096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|4.6||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|10.9||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||10.9|-1.7|0.0744
95912176|NCT02220894|191783097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage (DP)|0.6||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.4||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percentages=0 vs. H1: difference in percentages \>0|Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen||DP for pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs. non-East Asia), ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), PD-L1 expression status (TPS=≥50% vs. TPS=1-49%) and histology (squamous vs. non-squamous).|||5.4|-4.2|0.4060
95912177|NCT01499082|191783100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"Stepwise closed testing approach was used to assess non-inferiority and superiority sequentially:~1. Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus: Upper bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0.4%.~2. Superiority (only if non-inferiority has been demonstrated): Upper bound of two-sided 95% CI for difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint between HOE901-U300 and Lantus on mITT population is \<0."|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.112|0.107||||||Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the HbA1c baseline value as a covariate.||0.107|-0.112|
95912178|NCT01499082|191783101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A one-sided test (at alpha=0.025) for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed in case the non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 vs Lantus for the primary endpoint was demonstrated. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with treatment as a factor and stratified on strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%).||0.93|0.67|0.0045
95912179|NCT01499082|191783102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.6909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.254|||ANCOVA|||Change in pre-injection SMPG was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0 and \>=8.0%), and country as fixed effects and using the pre-injection SMPG baseline value as a covariate. A test for superiority of HOE901-U300 over Lantus was to be performed one-sided at level alpha = 0.025 if previous analysis for nocturnal hypoglycemia was significant.||0.254|-0.383|0.6909
95912180|NCT01499082|191783111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.298||||||Analysis was performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment regimen and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.298|-0.189|
95912181|NCT00079001|191783123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Superiority and futility analysis were conducted for time to first SRE. Lan-Demets analog of the Emerson-Fleming sequential boundary was used to maintain overall significance level of α = .05 while conducting interim analyses on time to first SRE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.174||Because of early termination, conditional power was performed under the alternative hypothesis. This is the probability that zoledronic acid is superior to placebo, given time to first SRE data at interim analysis under alternative hypothesis.|Log Rank||Patients randomly assigned to zoledronic acid were compared with patients assigned to placebo|The null hypothesis was that the hazard ratio is greater than or equal to 1.0 versus the alternative hypothesis that the hazard ratio is less than 0.77. With a target of 470 SREs, log-rank statistic had 88% power to detect a 23% decrease in hazard of SRE (equivalent to an increase in median time to SRE from 30 months to 39 months), assuming a one-sided type I error rate of .05.||1.174|0|0.385
95912182|NCT00079001|191783124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.12|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.12|0.70|0.29
95912183|NCT00079001|191783125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.07|||Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors: performance status, prior SRE, and serum alkaline phosphatase.|Zoledronic acid versus placebo group|||1.07|0.74|0.22
95912184|NCT05805657|191783126|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-7.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Immediate TranS-C (Standard/Adapted combined) versus UC-DT on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.||||<0.001
95912185|NCT05805657|191783126|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|2.22||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep disturbance from pre to post.|Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||||||0.52
95912186|NCT05805657|191783126|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.89||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.02
95912187|NCT05805657|191783126|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-6.26||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.04
95912188|NCT05805657|191783126|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-10.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep disturbance.||||0.001
95912189|NCT05805657|191783128|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-6.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in sleep- related impairment from pre to post.||||0.001
95912190|NCT05805657|191783128|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.36||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep-related impairment from pre to post.||||0.72
95912191|NCT05805657|191783128|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.9||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.30
95912192|NCT05805657|191783128|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.79||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.78
95912193|NCT05805657|191783128|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-4.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep-related impairment.||||0.15
95912194|NCT05805657|191783129|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.55||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in Composite Sleep Health Score from pre to post.||||0.09
95912195|NCT05805657|191783129|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.05||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in sleep health from pre to post.||||0.11
95912196|NCT05805657|191783129|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.45||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.59
95912197|NCT05805657|191783129|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.72||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting sleep health.||||0.14
95912198|NCT05805657|191783129|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.89||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting sleep health.||||0.06
95912199|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.33||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.002
95912200|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.57|-0.83|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.83|-3.57|0.002
95912201|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-2.76||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-1.08|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and functional impairment (Sheehan Disability Scale) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI). The parameter of interest was the indirect effect at post||-1.08|-4.44|0.001
95912202|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|0.84||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in functional impairment from pre to post.||||0.78
95912203|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.41||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.49
95912204|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-1.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.27
95912205|NCT05805657|191783130|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-2.07||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting functional impairment.||||0.09
95912206|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|-4.25||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Treatment condition (Standard/Adapted TranS-C versus UC-DT) on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.002
95912207|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.95||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.36|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.36|-3.54|0.02
95912208|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient of indirect effect|-1.62||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.38|||SEM|||Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test whether the relationship between TranS-C condition (Immediate vs. UC-DT) and psychiatric symptoms (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure) at post was mediated by sleep-related impairment (PROMIS-SRI) at post. The parameter of interest was the indirect effect.||-0.38|-2.87|0.01
95912209|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Time by treatment interaction coeff.|1.79||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Intent-to-treat, multilevel modeling|||Standard TranS-C versus Adapted TranS-C on change in psychiatric symptoms from pre to post.||||0.56
95912210|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-3.46||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Acceptability of intervention measure (AIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.34
95912211|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
95912212|NCT05805657|191783131|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-5.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) predicting psychiatric symptoms.||||0.01
95912213|NCT04058353|191783157|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|3.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.7|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|2.2|<0.0001
95912214|NCT04058353|191783158|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-23.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-20.1|-26.1|<0.0001
95912215|NCT04058353|191783160|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|12.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.1|5.3|<0.0001
95912216|NCT02618616|191783171|OTHER||least square difference|8.7||||0.8495|ONE_SIDED|90.0|8.4|||The 1-sided p-value tests if the ZPL-389 Least square (LS) mean is \< the placebo LS mean.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA of PASI at Week 12|||8.4|0.8495
95912217|NCT02618616|191783172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.562||||0.9058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-50||1.16|0.27|0.9058
95912218|NCT02618616|191783172|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.946||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|2.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic Regression PASI-75||2.25|0.4|0.5422
95912219|NCT04425902|191783216|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.94|
95912220|NCT04425902|191783217|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.32|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.32|0.95|
95912221|NCT04425902|191783218|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.08|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.08|0.83|
95912222|NCT04425902|191783221|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
95912223|NCT04425902|191783222|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|2.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||2.14|0.71|
95912224|NCT04425902|191783223|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.69|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.69|0.72|
95912225|NCT04425902|191783226|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.2|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.20|0.97|
95912226|NCT04425902|191783227|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.21|0.98|
95912227|NCT04425902|191783228|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.17|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.17|0.92|
95912228|NCT04425902|191783231|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.88|
95912229|NCT04425902|191783232|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.89|
95912230|NCT04425902|191783233|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.18|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.18|0.93|
95912231|NCT04425902|191783236|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.75|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.75|0.72|
95912232|NCT04425902|191783237|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.73|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.73|0.54|
95912233|NCT04425902|191783238|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.78|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.78|0.73|
95912234|NCT04425902|191783241|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.11|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.11|0.80|
95912235|NCT04425902|191783242|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.79|
95912236|NCT04425902|191783243|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.12|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.12|0.73|
95912237|NCT04425902|191783246|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.94|
95912238|NCT04425902|191783247|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.92|
95912239|NCT04425902|191783248|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.63|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.63|0.96|
95912240|NCT04425902|191783251|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|1.03|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.03|0.52|
95912241|NCT04425902|191783252|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.82|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||0.82|0.45|
95912242|NCT04425902|191783253|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|1.14|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.14|0.54|
95912243|NCT04425902|191783359|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.71|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.71|0.49|
95912244|NCT04425902|191783360|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.16|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.16|0.74|
95912245|NCT04425902|191783361|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.72|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.72|0.43|
95912246|NCT04425902|191783364|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
95912247|NCT04425902|191783365|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.29|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.29|0.75|
95912248|NCT04425902|191783366|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.22|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.22|0.73|
95912249|NCT04425902|191783369|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.3|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.30|0.93|
95912250|NCT04425902|191783370|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.19|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.19|0.83|
95912251|NCT04425902|191783371|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.44|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.44|0.88|
95912252|NCT04425902|191783374|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.75|
95912253|NCT04425902|191783375|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.09|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.09|0.76|
95912254|NCT04425902|191783376|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.1|||||A mixed-effect model with treatment as a fixed effect and measurements within participant as repeated measures was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter.|||1.10|0.65|
95912255|NCT01392300|191783392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-0.7|<0.001
95912256|NCT01392300|191783393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|0.1|0.003
95912257|NCT01392300|191783394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|7.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.52|2.43|<0.001
95912258|NCT01392300|191783395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|1.56|<0.001
95912259|NCT01392300|191783396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.48||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.61|1.33|0.004
95912260|NCT01392300|191783397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|5.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.57|1.76|<0.001
95912261|NCT01392300|191783398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.34|1.10|0.021
95912262|NCT01392300|191783399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|5.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.05|1.32|0.006
95912263|NCT01392300|191783400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|6.72|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.72|2.06|<0.001
95912264|NCT01392300|191783401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.46|1.40|0.002
95912265|NCT01392300|191783402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.22|0.90|0.102
95912266|NCT01392300|191783403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|5.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.23|1.67|<0.001
95912267|NCT01392300|191783404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.37|0.002
95912268|NCT01392300|191783405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.69|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.69|0.95|0.069
95912269|NCT01392300|191783406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.00|1.05|0.034
95912270|NCT01392300|191783407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|0.82|0.169
95912271|NCT01392300|191783408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.18|0.49|0.920
95912272|NCT01392300|191783409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|6.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.91|1.83|<0.001
95912273|NCT01392300|191783410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.28|0.007
95912274|NCT01392300|191783411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.41|1.15|0.018
95912275|NCT01392300|191783412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
95912276|NCT01392300|191783413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.011
95912277|NCT01392300|191783414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.032
95912278|NCT01392300|191783415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.6|<0.001
95912279|NCT01392300|191783416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.5|<0.001
95912280|NCT01392300|191783417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.029
95912281|NCT01392300|191783418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
95912282|NCT01392300|191783419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.019
95912283|NCT01392300|191783420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.137
95912284|NCT01392300|191783421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.013
95912285|NCT01392300|191783422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.131
95912286|NCT01392300|191783423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.714
95912287|NCT01392300|191783424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-0.5|<0.001
95912288|NCT01392300|191783425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.008
95912289|NCT01392300|191783426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.062
95912290|NCT01392300|191783427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.006
95912291|NCT01392300|191783428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.076
95912292|NCT01392300|191783429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.416
95912293|NCT01392300|191783430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
95912294|NCT01392300|191783431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.3|0.175
95912295|NCT01392300|191783432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.140
95912296|NCT01392300|191783433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
95912297|NCT01392300|191783434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.018
95912298|NCT01392300|191783435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.3|0.105
95912299|NCT01392300|191783436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.016
95912300|NCT01392300|191783437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|0.014
95912301|NCT01392300|191783438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.220
95912302|NCT01392300|191783439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.2|0.429
95912303|NCT01392300|191783440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.884
95912304|NCT01392300|191783441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.2|0.844
95912305|NCT04791761|191783442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores before medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.8
95912306|NCT04791761|191783442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: No difference in average pain scores after medication between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.7
95912307|NCT04791761|191783443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the emergency department or urgent care post-operatively between opioid and non-opioid groups.||||0.2
95912308|NCT01544998|191783456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.26
95912309|NCT01544998|191783457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.90
95912310|NCT01544998|191783458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.003
95912311|NCT01544998|191783459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||0.14
95912312|NCT01544998|191783460|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PSD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
95912313|NCT01544998|191783461|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This was a within PDD reporting group comparison; between PSD and PDD groups were not compared.||||<0.001
95912314|NCT02487498|191783462|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 97.5% one -sided confidence interval (CI) \> -20 mL|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023|||Linear Mixed Model|||Ho: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d; Ha: QVA149 27.5/12.5 μg b.i.d. is non-inferior to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg q.d.||-0.0023|-0.0342|0.415
95912315|NCT02487498|191783463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0342|-0.0023||||||||-0.0023|-0.0342|
95912316|NCT02487498|191783464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01132|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0313|0.0131||||||||0.0131|-0.0313|
95912317|NCT02487498|191783465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00874|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0086|0.0258||||||||0.0258|-0.0086|
95912318|NCT00755222|191783485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.001
95912319|NCT00755222|191783486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.046
95912320|NCT00755222|191783487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.164
95912321|NCT00755222|191783488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.442|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.442
95912322|NCT00755222|191783489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.095
95912323|NCT00331344|191783497|OTHER||Dose Level VIa|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose level VIa (mitoxantrone hydrochloride 12 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes, ixabepilone 30mg/m2 IV over 3 hours on day 1, pegfilgrastim 6mg SC on day 2, oral prednisone twice daily on days 1-21) was determined to be MTD, based on 1 event of DLT at VIa.|Cohorts of 3 patients will be enrolled at each dose level; if 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT) is observed then the cohort will be expanded to 6 patients. If a second DLT is observed, the previous dose level will be considered the MTD. If all observed DLT are due to neuropathy (specific to ixabepilone), then we would consider the previous dose level of Ixabepilone the MTD for that drug, and escalate mitoxantrone hydrochloride as described above to a maximum dose of 12 mg/m\^2.||||
95912324|NCT02228967|191783499|OTHER||||||=|0.274||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.274
95912325|NCT02228967|191783500|OTHER||||||=|0.083|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.083
95912326|NCT02228967|191783501|OTHER||||||=|0.028|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.028
95912327|NCT02228967|191783502|OTHER||||||=|0.708|||||||Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.708
95912328|NCT02228967|191783503|OTHER||||||=|0.197||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tets (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.197
95912329|NCT02228967|191783504|OTHER||||||=|0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||=0.023
95912330|NCT02228967|191783505|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparisons tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare mean differences at follow-up.||||<0.001
95912331|NCT02228967|191783506|OTHER||||||=|0.348||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures--General Linear Model|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||=0.348
95912332|NCT02228967|191783507|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.345|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203||0.091|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.091
95912333|NCT02228967|191783508|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.278|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||.278
95912334|NCT02228967|191783509|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.029
95912335|NCT02228967|191783510|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Repeated Measures GLM|||Data were analyzed using a GLM repeated measures approach. A priori means comparison tests (usual care vs. SBIRT intervention) with Bonferroni corrections were used to compare means differences at follow-up.||||0.897
95912336|NCT02228967|191783511|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.15
95912337|NCT02228967|191783512|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.20
95912338|NCT02228967|191783513|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.38
95912339|NCT02228967|191783514|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05||||||0.48|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.48
95912340|NCT02228967|191783515|OTHER|A priori alpha set at 0.05.||||||0.09|||||||Linear mixed effects|||Linear mixed-effects models were used to analyze 5 pooled datasets derived from multiple imputation for intent to treat analyses.||||0.09
95912341|NCT02228967|191783516|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.08
95912342|NCT02228967|191783517|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.11
95912343|NCT02228967|191783518|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Linear mixed effects|||A priori alpha set at 0.05||||0.84
95912344|NCT00520975|191783519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
95912345|NCT00520975|191783520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||Regression, Cox|||||1.97|0.61|0.75
95912346|NCT01342458|191783530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sample size was calculated based on pain WOMAC score and was accomplished using a moderate effect size (f=0.30). Standard deviation estimates were taken from our previous study. A sample size of 56 patients was needed to provide 80% power for detecting a moderate effect difference between the highest and lowest group pain means, with an alpha level of 0.05, a statistical design of F test of repeated measures (between and within effects), and assuming a 10% loss to follow-up.||||0.006
95912347|NCT01342458|191783530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc newman keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912348|NCT01342458|191783530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912349|NCT01342458|191783530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.82||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||0.001
95912350|NCT01342458|191783530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912351|NCT01342458|191783531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.015
95912352|NCT01342458|191783531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912353|NCT01342458|191783531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912354|NCT01342458|191783531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912355|NCT01342458|191783531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912356|NCT01342458|191783532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
95912357|NCT01342458|191783532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912358|NCT01342458|191783532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912359|NCT01342458|191783532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912360|NCT01342458|191783532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912361|NCT01342458|191783533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||<0.001
95912362|NCT01342458|191783533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912363|NCT01342458|191783533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.69||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||0.019
95912364|NCT01342458|191783533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912365|NCT01342458|191783533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912366|NCT01342458|191783534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.019
95912367|NCT01342458|191783534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912368|NCT01342458|191783534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|1.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912369|NCT01342458|191783534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 3rd month.||||<0.001
95912370|NCT01342458|191783534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect size|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||post hoc Newman-Keuls|||From baseline to 6th month.||||<0.001
95912371|NCT01342458|191783535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.425
95912372|NCT01342458|191783536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a casewise two-way ANOVA for repeated measures (two independent groups and three repeated measures/assessments), followed by a post hoc Newman-Keuls test to verify the interaction effect of group vs. time between T0 (baseline), T3 (3th month) and T6 (6th month).||||0.443
95912373|NCT01342458|191783537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in paracetamol intake at 6-month.||||<0.001
95912374|NCT04382924|191783543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.0001|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.025
95912375|NCT03261271|191783575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6489||||||P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6489
95912376|NCT03261271|191783576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0323|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0323
95912377|NCT03261271|191783577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95912378|NCT03261271|191783578|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95912379|NCT03261271|191783579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from Baseline to Study End.||||0.09
95912380|NCT03261271|191783579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Difference between groups from baseline to pre-surgery.||||0.04
95912381|NCT02798211|191783605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.51||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|7.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||7.45|1.65|0.0011
95912382|NCT02798211|191783605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR20 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||4.15|0.89|0.0961
95912383|NCT02798211|191783606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.68|0.22|0.3330
95912384|NCT02798211|191783606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of dactylitis in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.14|0.0841
95912385|NCT02798211|191783607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.30|0.21|0.1618
95912386|NCT02798211|191783607|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||1.13|0.19|0.0898
95912387|NCT02798211|191783608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.75|0.09|0.0125
95912388|NCT02798211|191783608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.7|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.70|0.09|0.0086
95912389|NCT02798211|191783609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.92|0.13|0.0338
95912390|NCT02798211|191783609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of presence of enthesitis (SPARCC and LEI) in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks||0.93|0.14|0.0359
95912391|NCT02798211|191783610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|6.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|21.88|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||21.88|1.81|0.0038
95912392|NCT02798211|191783610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.77||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|16.77|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR50 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.77|1.36|0.0149
95912393|NCT02798211|191783611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|10.5||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|81.3|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, week 16||81.30|1.36|0.0243
95912394|NCT02798211|191783611|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.42||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|43.64|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of ACR70 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||43.64|0.67|0.1120
95912395|NCT02798211|191783612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|24.16|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||24.16|3.73|<0.0001
95912396|NCT02798211|191783612|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|16.24|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI75 response by visit - in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.24|2.51|0.0001
95912397|NCT02798211|191783613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|30.45|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||30.45|3.19|<.0001
95912398|NCT02798211|191783613|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|16.21|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI90 response in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||16.21|1.68|0.0043
95912399|NCT02798211|191783614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|14.38||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|111.53|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PASI100 response by visit in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 300 mg s.c. injection, week 16||111.53|1.86|0.0107
95912400|NCT02798211|191783614|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|77.9|||Regression, Logistic|Statistical analysis (logistic regression) of PAS100 response by in treatment period 1 (non-responder imputation)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection, week 16||77.90|1.24|0.0307
95912401|NCT02798211|191783615|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-1.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection, 16 weeks|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.203"|-0.65|-1.45|<.0001
95912402|NCT02798211|191783615|SUPERIORITY||LS Means of Treatment Difference|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.43|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in DAS28-CRP score in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|"LS Mean of Treatment Difference~0.207"|-0.43|-1.24|<.0001
95912403|NCT02798211|191783616|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Treatment Difference|-0.21||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by in treatment period 1 (LOCF)||secukinumab 300mg s.c. injection|"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~0.081"|-0.05|-0.37|0.0107
95912404|NCT02798211|191783616|SUPERIORITY|secukinumab 150 mg s.c. injection|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.13||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||ANCOVA|Statistical analysis (ANCOVA) of change from baseline in HAQ-DI score by visit - in treatment period 1 (LOCF)|||"Standard Error of Treatment Difference~-0.083"|0.03|-0.30|0.1109
95912405|NCT00659984|191783649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.2||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|13.9|||Cochran Armitage Trend Test|||||13.9|-3.4|0.363
95912406|NCT01972529|191783653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|42.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|58.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion versus (vs) placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||58.1|27.2|<0.0001
95912407|NCT01972529|191783653|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|49.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.6|68.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||68.2|31.6|<0.0001
95912408|NCT01972529|191783654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion vs placebo|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.6|75.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||75.8|53.6|<0.0001
95912409|NCT01972529|191783654|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentage vs placebo|67.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|83.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value is stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the elective procedure within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||83.4|51.6|<0.0001
95912410|NCT01972529|191783655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|32.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||32.5|22.5|<0.0001
95912411|NCT01972529|191783655|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|41.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|P-value is based on Wilcoxon rank sum test for each avatrombopag treatment group vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||41.5|25.5|<0.0001
95912412|NCT00252538|191783667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||All statistics employed Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 17.0. Analysis of variances were used to compare viral responses in genotypes of interest, employing Scheffe's post-hoc analyses. Repeated-measure mixed-effect analyses were used to compare changes in subjective symptoms over time, including age, gender, and self identified race as covariates. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses examining time until MDD development were compared using theMantel-Cox log rank test.||||>0.05
95912413|NCT00118716|191783670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6||LS Mean Difference, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for maximal percent change in FEV1 following exercise challenge at Week 4.||5.6|0.5|0.021
95912414|NCT00118716|191783671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.58||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-value were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diff was calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for post-dose FEV1 AUC Day 1.||0.58|0.24|<0.001
95912415|NCT00118716|191783672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|17.6||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for AM PEF||17.6|-1.5|0.097
95912416|NCT00118716|191783673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.1||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA||LS Mean Diffs were calculated as FSC 100/50mcg BID-FP 100mcg BID.|FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID PM PEF.||12.1|-4.8|0.396
95912417|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.43||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 2||0.43|-0.08|0.168
95912418|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.4||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Week 4.||0.40|-0.18|0.465
95912419|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.42||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for activity limitation at Endpoint.||0.42|-0.10|0.222
95912420|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.09||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 2.||0.09|-0.29|0.294
95912421|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Week 4.||0.19|-0.24|0.828
95912422|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.22||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for emotional function at Endpoint.||0.22|-0.19|0.903
95912423|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 2.||0.14|-0.30|0.464
95912424|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Week 4.||0.17|-0.32|0.551
95912425|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.18||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for symptoms at Endpoint.||0.18|-0.30|0.633
95912426|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.15||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values are from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 2.||0.15|-0.22|0.700
95912427|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.2||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Week 4.||0.20|-0.23|0.860
95912428|NCT00118716|191783676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.21||LS Mean Diff, SE, CI, and p-values were from an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, investigator, age stratum, and baseline value.|ANCOVA|||FSC 100/50mcg BID versus FP 100mcg BID for overall score at Endpoint.||0.21|-0.19|0.919
95912429|NCT00855062|191783680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.512|0.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|||"The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes of U NP Sum between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.~The sample size calculation showed that 100 (50 participants in each group) were required to detect the clinically meaningful difference of 0.5 with 85% power, 0.05 Type I error, two-sample and two-sided test."||0.460|-0.512|0.370
95912430|NCT00855062|191783682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.043|0.062||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of participants feeling better in the minocycline group after 24 week treatment is the same as the one in the placebo group."||0.062|0.043|0.613
95912431|NCT00855062|191783683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.661||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.661
95912432|NCT00855062|191783684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.941||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the 48-week survival curve for the first Grade ≥ 2 toxicity and/or sign and symptoms in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.941
95912433|NCT00855062|191783685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.63||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.23|43.45||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||43.45|-27.23|0.647
95912434|NCT00855062|191783686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.51||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.07|74.6||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CD4 counts.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 48-week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||74.60|-59.07|0.813
95912435|NCT00855062|191783687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.764||95.0|0.26|6.34||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|"The model was not adjusted for any covariate (due to small number of being better in both groups."||"The null hypothesis is that the percentage of being better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group."||6.34|0.26|0.764
95912436|NCT00855062|191783688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Kruskal-Wallis|The chi-square score was 0.024 and the degree of freedom was 1.||The null hypothesis is that the median log10-transformed HIV RNA viral loads in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.766
95912437|NCT00855062|191783689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.78||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the baseline CES-D and MSK scores.||The null hypothesis is that the mean 24-week change of CES-D score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||3.78|-3.40|0.915
95912438|NCT01287611|191783690|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95912439|NCT01287611|191783691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Group sample sizes of 51 in study group and 65 in control group achieve 98% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of -0.3300. The proportion in study group is assumed to be 0.4800 under the null hypothesis and 0.1500 under the alternative hypothesis. The proportion in control group is 0.4800. The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance. The significance level of the test was targeted at 0.0500.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95912440|NCT01376323|191783709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.6||||||||0.60|-0.13|
95912441|NCT01376323|191783709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.35||||||||0.35|-0.37|
95912442|NCT01376323|191783709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||||||||0.23|-0.49|
95912443|NCT01376323|191783709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.66|
95912444|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.551|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.645|0.543|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.543|-1.645|
95912445|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.382|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.472|0.708|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.708|-1.472|
95912446|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.696|0.516|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.516|-1.696|
95912447|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.595|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.669|0.48|||||Comparison for glucose.|||0.480|-1.669|
95912448|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.113|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.113|-0.042|
95912449|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.081|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.081|-0.073|
95912450|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.099|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||0.099|-0.058|
95912451|NCT01376323|191783710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.083|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.007|||||Comparison for NEFA.|||-0.007|-0.160|
95912452|NCT01376323|191783712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.79|
95912453|NCT01376323|191783712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.90|
95912454|NCT01376323|191783712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.85||||||||0.85|-0.90|
95912455|NCT01376323|191783712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.42||||||||0.42|-1.27|
95912456|NCT01376323|191783713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.62|53.16||||||||53.16|-48.62|
95912457|NCT01376323|191783713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|42.7||||||||42.70|-58.04|
95912458|NCT01376323|191783713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|24.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.75|75.92||||||||75.92|-27.75|
95912459|NCT01376323|191783713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.72|48.53||||||||48.53|-52.72|
95912460|NCT01376323|191783715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.36|16.2||||||||16.20|-19.36|
95912461|NCT01376323|191783715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|2.81||||||||2.81|-33.00|
95912462|NCT01376323|191783715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.41|4.23||||||||4.23|-32.41|
95912463|NCT01376323|191783715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.55|-1.68||||||||-1.68|-36.55|
95912464|NCT04681729|191783721|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.56||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed on the association between the ice cube provocation test result and intervention group, stratified by region and background H1-antihistamine regular/daily use (Yes or No). Threshold of significance at 0.01.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the family-wise type-I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the endpoints were reported and continued when primary endpoint was statistically significant at two-sided 0.01.||2.56|0.41|0.9492
95912465|NCT02436811|191783738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A stepwise forward selection model was used. All independent variables with P\<0.20 in the univariate analysis were selected and those which were significant (P\<0.05) were kept in the final model. The level of significance was 5%.|Regression, Poisson|||Univariate and multivariate Poisson regressions with robust variance were obtained to estimate the rate ratios (RR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals. Two Poisson regression models were generated, using the knowledge score 15 minutes after the intervention (post-test) and 4 weeks after the interventions (follow-up test) as dependent variables.||||<0.001
95912466|NCT03595332|191783751|EQUIVALENCE|The analysis tests whether for both groups combined, the baseline to 10-week follow-up BMI percentile scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9846||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|3.067||This test compares baseline to 10-week post-test for both groups combined, to test the null hypothesis that the BMI Percentile score would not be different from zero. A p-value of 0.05 was used as a priori threshold for statistical significance.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of 222 children nested within 150 families and 4 schools.||||3.067|-0.793|0.248
95912467|NCT03595332|191783752|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested whether BMI Percentile score change among overweight participants (BMI equal or greater than 85th percentile at baseline) significantly changed from baseline to follow-up (was significantly different from zero). This was a subset analysis among the highest risk participants in the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.806|-0.541||The p-value threshold was 0.05 for all comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data structure of children within schools and families.|A negative parameter suggests a decreased BMI Percentile.|||-0.541|-5.806|0.018
95912468|NCT03595332|191783753|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested the difference in BMI percentile between baseline and 1-year follow-up among participants in the immediate intervention group to test the null hypothesis that no change occurred.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.676||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.922|3.648||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made.|Regression, Linear|Analysis included Generalized Estimating Equations with linear response variable, accounting for nested data structure.||||3.648|-2.922|0.829
95912469|NCT03595332|191783754|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis test whether for both groups combined, Baseline to 10-week change in reported intention of physical activity was significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.534||A priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression models with Generalized Estimating Equations to account for nested data were made.|A positive parameter would suggest an increase in intentions to be physically active.|||0.534|0.034|0.026
95912470|NCT02856113|191783755|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.102|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3677|=|0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.627|0.831||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|||0.831|-0.627|=0.782
95912471|NCT02856113|191783756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.046|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2635|=|0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.567|0.476||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 12||0.476|-0.567|=0.863
95912472|NCT02856113|191783756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3123|=|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.614|0.622||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 18||0.622|-0.614|=0.990
95912473|NCT02856113|191783756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3664|=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.316||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 39||0.316|-1.139|=0.264
95912474|NCT02856113|191783756|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.483|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4165|=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.314|0.348||P-values was assessed at 0.05 significance level using MMRM.|MMRM||MMRM:Treatment,scheduled visit,antidiabetic therapy,visit-by-treatment interaction-categorical effects;Baseline HbA1c,visit-by-baseline HbA1c interaction-continuous covariates;unstructured covariance matrix for correlation of repeated measurements.|Change From Baseline at Week 52||0.348|-1.314|=0.250
95912475|NCT01462162|191783776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.006
95912476|NCT01462162|191783776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.000
95912477|NCT01462162|191783776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
95912478|NCT01462162|191783777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in DAS-28 score||||0.023
95912479|NCT01462162|191783777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in sleepiness score||||0.007
95912480|NCT01462162|191783777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score versus change in depression score||||0.000
95912481|NCT01462162|191783778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912482|NCT01462162|191783778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912483|NCT01462162|191783779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912484|NCT01462162|191783779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912485|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 12||||0.003
95912486|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in DAS-28 at Week 24||||0.006
95912487|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 12||||0.791
95912488|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in serum hemoglobin Week 24||||0.847
95912489|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in swollen joint count Week 12||||0.182
95912490|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in swollen joint count Week 24||||0.022
95912491|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in morning stiffness Week 12||||0.163
95912492|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in morning stiffness Week 24||||0.115
95912493|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in degree of pain Week 12||||0.037
95912494|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in degree of pain Week 24||||0.044
95912495|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in sleepiness at Week 12||||0.003
95912496|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in sleepiness at Week 24||||0.001
95912497|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 12 versus change in depression Week 12||||<0.001
95912498|NCT01462162|191783780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in fatigue score at Week 24 versus change in depression at Week 24||||<0.001
95912499|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.678|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.678
95912500|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.348
95912501|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.679|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.679
95912502|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.556|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.556
95912503|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.692|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.692
95912504|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.771|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.771
95912505|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.878|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.878
95912506|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.139
95912507|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.249
95912508|NCT01462162|191783781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.610
95912509|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.257
95912510|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in haemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.487
95912511|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 12)||||0.644
95912512|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.498|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in morning stiffness (Week 24)||||0.498
95912513|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 12)||||0.650
95912514|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Cox|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in degree of pain (Week 24)||||0.750
95912515|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.936|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 12)||||0.936
95912516|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in sleepiness (Week 24)||||0.075
95912517|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 12)||||0.098
95912518|NCT01462162|191783782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in depression score (Week 24)||||0.090
95912519|NCT01462162|191783783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 12)||||0.077
95912520|NCT01462162|191783783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Multiple Regression|||change in hemoglobin levels versus change in swollen joint count (Week 24)||||0.961
95912521|NCT01462162|191783784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912522|NCT01462162|191783784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912523|NCT01462162|191783785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912524|NCT01462162|191783785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912525|NCT01462162|191783786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912526|NCT01462162|191783786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912527|NCT01462162|191783787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912528|NCT01462162|191783787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912529|NCT01462162|191783788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912530|NCT01462162|191783788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912531|NCT01462162|191783789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912532|NCT01462162|191783789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912533|NCT01462162|191783790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.172
95912534|NCT01462162|191783790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.05
95912535|NCT01462162|191783791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||0.162
95912536|NCT01462162|191783791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95728806|NCT04147715|191427281|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.6277|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4038|1.8874|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8874|1.4038|
95912537|NCT01462162|191783792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912538|NCT01462162|191783792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
95912539|NCT01462162|191783793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912540|NCT01462162|191783793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.005
95912541|NCT01462162|191783794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 12 versus Week 12||||<0.001
95912542|NCT01462162|191783794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline for Week 24 versus Week 24||||<0.001
95912543|NCT03485911|191783798|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|48.7|||negative binomial regression model|||||48.7|4.6|0.024
95912544|NCT03485911|191783798|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|44.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|59.5|||negative binomial regression model|||||59.5|23.0|<0.001
95912545|NCT03485911|191783800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.77||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|4.53|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||4.53|-10.08|0.453
95912546|NCT03485911|191783800|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|2.43|||mixed-model repeated measures analysis|||Numerical difference in change from baseline of AE-QoL total score between treatment groups.||2.43|-12.23|0.188
95912547|NCT03485911|191783801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.062||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|-0.008|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.008|-0.117|0.025
95912548|NCT03485911|191783801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.078||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|-0.023|||ANCOVA|||Numerical differences from the placebo treatment in the LSM proportion of the 169 days of treatment with angioedema symptoms. In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the second secondary endpoint of number and proportion of days with angioedema symptoms through 24 weeks for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values that are reported are nominal.||-0.023|-0.133|0.006
95912549|NCT03485911|191783802|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|30.4||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|49.3|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||49.3|4.3|0.026
95912550|NCT03485911|191783802|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression model|46.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.6|61.5|||negative binomial regression model|||In the event that the first secondary endpoint did not meet statistical significance in the hierarchical testing scheme, testing of the third secondary endpoint of rate of expert-confirmed HAE attacks during dosing in the effective treatment period for statistical significance would not be completed. P-values reported are nominal.||61.5|25.6|<0.001
95912551|NCT04037436|191783834|OTHER|GEE|GEE|1.65||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.73|||GEE|To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||To model the interaction between exposure to the MoveStrong program and site on secondary outcomes we applied a generalized estimating equation (GEE).||7.73|-4.44|0.05
95912552|NCT01859793|191783845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary and secondary outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected. A priori sample size calculation demonstrated our study design has 80% power to detect a 1.5% absolute increase in FMD% with 30 subjects completing the entire study protocol at α=0.05.||||<0.05
95728807|NCT04147715|191427281|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7454|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4785|2.0605|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 AUC0-τ after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed AUC0-τ, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed AUC0-τ, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0605|1.4785|
95912553|NCT01859793|191783846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
95912554|NCT01859793|191783847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome variables were compared across measurement periods by repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were applied if significant differences were detected||||<0.05
95912555|NCT00985010|191783879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.05|||||||Chi-squared||The difference is between the percentage of deaths (males versus females) after six months in the patients with hepatic encephalophathy.|Clinical evolution was reported as percentage (still alive or death after six months of follow up).||||0.05
95912556|NCT00985010|191783880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.72||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The difference is between manganese levels of women minus manganese levels of men.|Laboratory results were expressed in means and standard deviations. Between group comparisons (female versus male values) were made with the Mann-Whitney U test using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program version 10 (SPSS Inc., North Carolina, USA).||||0.05
95912557|NCT00511875|191783881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.70
95912558|NCT00511875|191783882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.33
95912559|NCT00511875|191783882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean field sensitivity||||.16
95912560|NCT00511875|191783883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Foveal Sensitivity||||.02
95912561|NCT00511875|191783883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mean FDP sensitivity||||.3
95912562|NCT00511875|191783884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.98
95912563|NCT00511875|191783885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.46
95912564|NCT00511875|191783886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.81
95912565|NCT00511875|191783887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
95912566|NCT00511875|191783888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.75
95912567|NCT00511875|191783889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.62
95912568|NCT01951638|191783890|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.137|||=|0.8991|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|0.31|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups BAY1021189 (2.5mg, 2.5 to 5mg, 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means. The difference between the comparison groups is difference of means on the log scale.||0.31|-0.04|= 0.8991
95912569|NCT01951638|191783890|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.076|||=|0.7194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.33|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.33|-0.18|= 0.7194
95912570|NCT01951638|191783890|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.156|||=|0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.12|= 0.8653
95912571|NCT01951638|191783890|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.171|||=|0.9041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.43|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.43|-0.09|= 0.9041
95912572|NCT01951638|191783890|OTHER||Log-Scale mean difference|0.052|||=|0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||0.3|-0.2|= 0.6572
95912573|NCT01951638|191783891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.629|||=|0.8156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.36|4.62|||t-test, 1 sided|||For the primary analysis, the three highest active treatment groups (BAY1021189 2.5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 5mg, BAY1021189 2.5 to 10mg) were pooled and compared to the assigned placebo treatment group with a one-sided two-sample t-test. The Hochberg procedure was used to test the two primary end points at study-wise significance level of 5%. Results are reported including 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the difference of means.||4.62|-1.36|= 0.8156
95912574|NCT01951638|191783891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.707|||=|0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|5.8|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.8|-2.39|= 0.7945
95912575|NCT01951638|191783891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.109|||=|0.7917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|7.23|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||7.23|-3.01|= 0.7917
95912576|NCT01951638|191783891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||=|0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|5.26|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||5.26|-2.82|= 0.7241
95912577|NCT01951638|191783891|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.198|||=|0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|4.63|||t-test, 1 sided|||Pairwise comparisons to placebo were performed in a hierarchical manner (from BAY1021189 from 2.5 to 10mg dose arm to BAY1021189 1.25mg dose arm). In accordance with the specification in the protocol these secondary analyses are considered exploratory only, since the primary analyses were not significant.||4.63|-2.23|= 0.7546
95912578|NCT03152084|191783905|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.21||||0.4462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.542|9.12||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.120|-19.542|0.4462
95912579|NCT03152084|191783906|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.69||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.817|32.195||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||32.195|-24.817|0.7842
95912580|NCT03152084|191783906|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-16.72||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.109|0.664||Follow-up vs End of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.664|-34.109|0.0581
95912581|NCT03152084|191783907|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|344.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|272.785|416.905||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||416.905|272.785|<0.0001
95912582|NCT03152084|191783908|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|311.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|224.528|398.064||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||398.064|224.528|<0.0001
95912583|NCT03152084|191783909|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-203.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-235.983|-170.162||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||-170.162|-235.983|<0.0001
95912584|NCT03152084|191783910|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-5.2658||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5459|-1.9856||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9856|-8.5459|0.0047
95912585|NCT03152084|191783911|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-7.0987||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0379|-4.1595||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.1595|-10.0379|0.0003
95912586|NCT03152084|191783912|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.7287||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9894|3.4468||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||3.4468|-1.9894|0.5592
95912587|NCT03152084|191783913|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.0315||||0.9288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7274|0.7904||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7904|-0.7274|0.9288
95912588|NCT03152084|191783914|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.4318||||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0761|0.2125||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2125|-1.0761|0.1659
95912589|NCT03152084|191783915|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.4755||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0963|0.8548||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.8548|0.0963|0.0190
95912590|NCT03152084|191783916|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.6713||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1914|-0.1511||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1511|-1.1914|0.0157
95912591|NCT03152084|191783917|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-0.0324||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4631|0.3984||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3984|-0.4631|0.8700
95912592|NCT03152084|191783918|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|0.1718||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1358|0.4795||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||0.4795|-0.1358|0.2446
95912593|NCT03152084|191783919|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-2.1||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.299|-0.902||Start of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.902|-3.299|0.0023
95912594|NCT03152084|191783919|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|-1.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.929|-1.256||End of treatment vs baseline|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.256|-1.929|<0.0001
95912595|NCT03152084|191783919|OTHER|Within-group change|Least square mean|3.88||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.215|5.553||Follow-up vs end of treatment|Regression, Linear|||||5.553|2.215|0.0002
95912596|NCT01338025|191783928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.03
95912597|NCT03750006|191783939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|paired T-test||||||0.0238
95912598|NCT03750006|191783940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3029|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3029
95912599|NCT03750006|191783941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1713|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1713
95912600|NCT03750006|191783942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1261|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1261
95912601|NCT03750006|191783943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1367
95912602|NCT03750006|191783944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0111
95912603|NCT03750006|191783945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0219
95912604|NCT03750006|191783946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 considered significant.||||||0.3660
95912605|NCT03750006|191783949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1563|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.1563
95912606|NCT03750006|191783950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.0110
95912607|NCT03750006|191783951|OTHER|||||||0.3282|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.3282
95912608|NCT03750006|191783952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5244|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5244
95912609|NCT03750006|191783953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5718|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired, P \< 0.05 is considered significant.||||||0.5718
95912610|NCT03183388|191784000|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare Least Square (LS) estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero. The best-fitting model was chosen based on information criteria.|Endpoint minus Baseline|-3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|-1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.93|-4.14|0.0001
95912611|NCT03183388|191784001|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|4.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.23|-6.97|0.60
95912612|NCT03183388|191784002|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and endpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of endpoint minus baseline to zero.|Endpoint minus Baseline|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.146|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.146|0.074|0.0001
95912613|NCT03183388|191784003|OTHER|Mixed model with time (baseline and midpoint) as within-subjects factor; compare LS estimate of midpoint minus baseline to zero.|Midpoint minus Baseline|0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.157|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.157|-0.095|0.58
95912614|NCT00071721|191784004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.958||||0.88||95.0|||||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||||0.88
95912615|NCT02466646|191784046|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.01
95912616|NCT02466646|191784047|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was P=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95912617|NCT02466646|191784048|OTHER|||||||0.229||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.229
95912618|NCT02466646|191784049|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.280
95912619|NCT02466646|191784050|OTHER|||||||0.712|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|Threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.||||||0.712
95912620|NCT02466646|191784051|OTHER|||||||0.674||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.674
95912621|NCT02466646|191784052|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95912622|NCT02466646|191784053|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.373
95912623|NCT02466646|191784054|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.528|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.528
95912624|NCT02466646|191784055|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.208|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.208
95912625|NCT02466646|191784056|OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.051
95912626|NCT02466646|191784057|OTHER|||||||0.647||||||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.647
95912627|NCT02173054|191784058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had erythema among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95912628|NCT02173054|191784058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had dryness among 3 groups|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.016
95912629|NCT02173054|191784058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had scaling among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.025
95912630|NCT02173054|191784058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had stinging among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.571
95912631|NCT02173054|191784058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||||||This statistical analysis was used to compare number of participants who had pruritus among 3 groups.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.449
95912632|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.059
95912633|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.697||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.697
95912634|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in total lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.028
95912635|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
95912636|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.755
95912637|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.003
95912638|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.205
95912639|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.576
95912640|NCT02173054|191784059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in non inflammatory lesion counts at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.160
95912641|NCT02173054|191784060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.078
95912642|NCT02173054|191784060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.167
95912643|NCT02173054|191784060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin sebum content at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group|Paired t-test|||||||0.134
95912644|NCT02173054|191784060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group|Paired t-test|||||||0.978
95912645|NCT02173054|191784060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group|Paired t-test|||||||0.273
95912646|NCT02173054|191784060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.735||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in skin hydration at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.735
95912647|NCT02173054|191784061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.0002
95912648|NCT02173054|191784061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with placebo moisturizer group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.007
95912649|NCT02173054|191784061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in TEWL at baseline and 8th week of the Adapalene gel with Eucerin group.|Paired t-test|||||||0.123
95912650|NCT02173054|191784062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.005
95912651|NCT02173054|191784062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.606
95912652|NCT02173054|191784062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||This statistical analysis was used to evaluate the change in ASI score at baseline and 8th week.|wilcoxan signed ranks test|||||||0.001
95912653|NCT02401464|191784080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|Least Squares (LS) mean difference (ln)|0.963|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.927|1.001||||||Based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.001|0.927|
95912654|NCT02401464|191784081|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1)90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.906|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|0.933||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||0.933|0.880|
95912655|NCT02401464|191784082|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.985|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.011||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of AUC(0-48) of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.011|0.958|
95912656|NCT02401464|191784083|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Formulations were considered bioequivalent if: 1) 90% Cls of the differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.80)- ln(1.25);2) Differences in the means of the natural log-transformed AUC(0-48) and Cmax between commercial and pediatric formulations was within ln(0.9)-ln(1.11),and results of the dissolution test met the conditions specified in the Guideline for Bioequivalence Studies of Generic Products.|LS mean difference (ln)|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.938|1.022||||||Based on the ANOVA in which the natural logarithms of Cmax of TAK-536 were used as dependent variables, and formulation, sequence (administration order) and administration period were used as fixed effects, bioequivalence was assessed providing two-sided 90% CIs for the differences between the formulations and between the periods.||1.022|0.938|
95912657|NCT03525548|191784102|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|10.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|12.6|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||12.6|7.4|<0.0001
95912658|NCT03525548|191784103|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-45.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.1|-40.1|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||-40.1|-50.1|<0.0001
95912659|NCT03525548|191784104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|17.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|23.0|||Mixed-effects model for repeated measure|||||23.0|11.8|<0.0001
95912660|NCT01226511|191784107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-2.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-4.03|<0.001
95912661|NCT01966003|191784122|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Clinical equivalence of the primary endpoint was demonstrated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio in objective response rate between ABP 215 and bevacizumab with an equivalence margin of (0.67, 1.5).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.09||||||The risk ratio (ABP 215/Bevacizumab) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the stratification factors (region, sex, and ECOG performance status).||1.09|0.80|
95912662|NCT01966003|191784122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.26|3.45||||||Risk difference (ABP 215 - Bevacizumab) and 90% CI were estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||3.45|-9.26|
95912663|NCT01966003|191784124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.29||||||The hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab was based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.29|0.83|
95912664|NCT01966003|191784127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.61||||||Hazard ratio for ABP 215 relative to bevacizumab, based on a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Stratification factors are geographic region, ECOG performance status, and sex.||1.61|0.75|
95912665|NCT02696564|191784128|SUPERIORITY|We will estimate a 95% confidence interval for the losartan vs placebo mean difference, using the regression estimate and the t-distribution; we will reject the null that losartan is equivalent to placebo if the 95% interval excludes 0.0.||||||0.133|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.||||||0.133
95912666|NCT02696564|191784129|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.762||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.762
95912667|NCT02696564|191784130|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.834||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.834
95912668|NCT02696564|191784131|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.783||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.783
95912669|NCT02696564|191784132|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.053||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.053
95912670|NCT02696564|191784133|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.016||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95912671|NCT02696564|191784134|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.065||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.065
95912672|NCT02696564|191784135|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.293||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.293
95912673|NCT02696564|191784136|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.356||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.356
95912674|NCT02696564|191784137|SUPERIORITY|Statistical differences were inferred if the 95% confidence intervals (CI) did not include zero.||||||0.009||||||P-value based on generalized linear mixed models with covariates for site, baseline value, and for treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.009
95912675|NCT02696564|191784138|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.8||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|18.77|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of mild exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||18.77|0.03|0.892
95912676|NCT02696564|191784138|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.91||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|14.97|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of moderate exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||14.97|0.05|0.946
95912677|NCT02696564|191784138|SUPERIORITY||Relative rate (losartan to placebo)|0.36||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|6.51|||Negative binomial model|||P-value for rate of severe exacerbations between treatment groups (measured in events per 100 person-years).||6.51|0.02|0.487
95912678|NCT04067401|191784164|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.01|-.29|.062
95912679|NCT04067401|191784165|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.23||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.09|-.39|.001
95912680|NCT04067401|191784166|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.16||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.34|.027
95912681|NCT04067401|191784167|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.24||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.08|-.41|.002
95912682|NCT04067401|191784168|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.01||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.11|-.12|.821
95912683|NCT04067401|191784169|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|-0.14||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||-.02|-.31|.024
95912684|NCT04067401|191784170|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.18||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component||||.29|.04|.012
95912685|NCT04067401|191784171|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.35||Model adjusts for class (random effect) and sex, age, race/ethnicity, and Air Force component|Mixed Models Analysis|||||.35|.05|.010
95912686|NCT00141739|191784180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank sum test||||||0.001
95912687|NCT02287584|191784189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-1.6||adjusted p value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||Using Mixed Model for Repeated Measures||-1.6|-9.6|0.007
95728808|NCT04147715|191427281|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.9102|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7788|2.0513|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0513|1.7788|
95912688|NCT02287584|191784189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-6.4||adjusted p-value, Hochberg procedure|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-14.4|<0.001
95912689|NCT02313909|191784194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.51884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.33|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Stroke + Systemic embolism: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.33|0.87|0.51884
95912690|NCT02313909|191784195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.72||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.39|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: ISTH major bleeding events: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.39|1.68|0.00002
95912691|NCT02313909|191784196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.56922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.87|0.56922
95912692|NCT02313909|191784197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26||||0.22078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.81|||Log Rank|||Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Confidence intervals were calculated, if at least 1 event in each treatment arm existed. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.81|0.87|0.22078
95912693|NCT02313909|191784198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.34|0.87|0.47970
95912694|NCT02313909|191784198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.78738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 2: Ischemic stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.29|0.83|0.78738
95912695|NCT02313909|191784198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.14822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.28|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 3: Disabling stroke: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.28|0.88|0.14822
95912696|NCT02313909|191784198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.14051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.52|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 4:CV death: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.52|0.87|0.14051
95912697|NCT02313909|191784198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.34284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.38|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 5: Myocardial infarction: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||1.38|0.39|0.34284
95912698|NCT02313909|191784199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.34||||0.00443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|4.29|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.29|1.28|0.00443
95912699|NCT02313909|191784200|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.00451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.0|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||2.00|1.13|0.00451
95912700|NCT02313909|191784201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.01||||0.04409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.02|||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis 1: Risk reduction was estimated with the stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were reported. Rivaroxaban treatment was compared with the Acetylsalicylic acid control group using a stratified log-rank test. P-values (two-sided) as compared to acetylsalicylic acid arm were based on the log-rank test.||4.02|1.00|0.04409
95912701|NCT00871403|191784207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.2647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.28|||Log Rank||The hazard ratios is estimated using a Pike estimator. The estimated value is the hazard ratio comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||1.28|0.43|0.2647
95912702|NCT00871403|191784210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference in response|-12.0||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|7.2|||Binomial asymptotic||The estimated value is the percent difference in the response rate comparing Pazopanib 800 mg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2 to Cisplatin 75 mg/m\^2 plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m\^2.|||7.2|-30.6|0.2113
95912703|NCT01856712|191784238|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|9.98||||||||9.98|0.35|
95912704|NCT02657317|191784242|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|-3.7|||GLMM|||To detect a medium effect (d = 0.50) at 2-sided α = 0.05, 50 participants were needed in each study arm (total N = 100). We anticipated 30% attrition in each arm. Data for the primary aim were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models adjusting for baseline levels of prognostic variable and using random intercepts at the level of participants. The primary analysis was based on intent-to-treat.||-3.7|-14.4|.001
95912705|NCT00499863|191784265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between MTS and placebo.||||< 0.001
95912706|NCT00499863|191784266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.001
95912707|NCT00499863|191784267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95912708|NCT00499863|191784268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.001
95912709|NCT00499863|191784269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.288
95912710|NCT00571701|191784277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.57
95912711|NCT00571701|191784278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
95912712|NCT00571701|191784279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.3||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||>0.3
95912713|NCT00571701|191784280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95912714|NCT00571701|191784281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||||||> 0.5
95912715|NCT00571701|191784282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.56
95912716|NCT00691132|191784299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||% difference between Placebo and PEITC periods in the ratio of \[pyridine-D4\]Hydroxy acid : \[pyridine-D4\] total NNAL||-1.2|-13.8|0.023
95912717|NCT00691132|191784300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.005
95912718|NCT00691132|191784302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Total ITC||||0.017
95912719|NCT00691132|191784303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.039
95912720|NCT00691132|191784303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.623
95727440|NCT01341639|191424679|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.44|14.68||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRP|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|14.68|8.44|< 0.001
95912721|NCT00691132|191784303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
95912722|NCT01591382|191784304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0241||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0241
95912723|NCT01591382|191784305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4102||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4102
95912724|NCT01591382|191784306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085||||||A P-value of \<0.05 was indicative of statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1085
95912725|NCT01591382|191784307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7480
95912726|NCT02583763|191784309|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired sample T test were used to analyse normally distributed data.||||>0.05
95912727|NCT02583763|191784310|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Significance value was stated as p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95912728|NCT02583763|191784311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Significance value was set to p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95912729|NCT01800968|191784380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3087|||||||Rank score|||||||0.3087
95912730|NCT01800968|191784381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1549|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1549
95912731|NCT01800968|191784382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1932|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1932
95912732|NCT01800968|191784383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9535|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9535
95912733|NCT01800968|191784384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8548|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8548
95912734|NCT01800968|191784385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4266|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4266
95912735|NCT01800968|191784386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1705|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1705
95912736|NCT01800968|191784387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1309|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1309
95912737|NCT01800968|191784388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7920
95912738|NCT01800968|191784389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7026|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7026
95912739|NCT01800968|191784390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2662|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2662
95912740|NCT01800968|191784391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6395|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6395
95912741|NCT01800968|191784392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8218|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8218
95912742|NCT01800968|191784393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1124|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
95912743|NCT01800968|191784394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8088|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8088
95912744|NCT01800968|191784395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7764|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7764
95912745|NCT01800968|191784396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1701
95912746|NCT01800968|191784397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6532|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6532
95912747|NCT01800968|191784398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2033|||||||Rank score|||||||0.2033
95912748|NCT00755040|191784407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95912749|NCT00316173|191784413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with CR+PR|30.9||||||95.0|18.7|43.1||||||||43.1|18.7|
95912750|NCT00558064|191784469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.98|6.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as telmisartan 40 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination minus amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy|||6.23|3.98|<0.0001
95912751|NCT03188055|191784504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95912752|NCT03188055|191784505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.709
95912753|NCT03188055|191784506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95912754|NCT03188055|191784507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.063
95912755|NCT03188055|191784508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.892|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.892
95912756|NCT03188055|191784509|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99||||||Using an a priori statistical significance of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of concordance status by intervention status (outcome by predictor).||||> . 99
95912757|NCT03188055|191784510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.188
95912758|NCT03188055|191784511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.042
95912759|NCT03188055|191784513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.698
95912760|NCT03188055|191784514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95912761|NCT05361655|191784515|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.87|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.87|0.65|<0.0001
95912762|NCT05361655|191784516|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.76|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.76|0.62|<0.0001
95912763|NCT05361655|191784518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||score test|||||||<0.0001
95912764|NCT05361655|191784521|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.72|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.72|0.60|<0.0001
95912765|NCT05361655|191784522|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.62|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.62|0.51|<0.0001
95912766|NCT05361655|191784523|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.86|0.69|<0.0001
95912767|NCT05361655|191784524|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.7|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||0.70|0.54|<0.0001
95912768|NCT05878197|191784525|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear Mixed Models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
95912769|NCT05878197|191784525|OTHER|||||||0.822||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.822
95912770|NCT05878197|191784525|OTHER|||||||0.29||||||Linar mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.290
95912771|NCT05878197|191784525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.035
95912772|NCT05878197|191784525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.4|0.1|0.038
95912773|NCT05878197|191784525|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-1.9|1.000
95912774|NCT05878197|191784526|OTHER|||||||0.107||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.107
95912775|NCT05878197|191784526|OTHER|||||||0.996||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.996
95912776|NCT05878197|191784526|OTHER|||||||0.639||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.639
95912777|NCT05878197|191784526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.731
95912778|NCT05878197|191784526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-1.1|0.217
95912779|NCT05878197|191784526|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.9|0.253
95912780|NCT05878197|191784527|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
95912781|NCT05878197|191784527|OTHER|||||||0.449||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.449
95912782|NCT05878197|191784527|OTHER|||||||0.786||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.786
95912783|NCT05878197|191784527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-7.2|0.099
95912784|NCT05878197|191784527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|0.4||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-8.3|0.074
95912785|NCT05878197|191784527|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.2||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-6.7|0.472
95912786|NCT05878197|191784528|OTHER|||||||0.115||||||Linear mixed models: time-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.115
95912787|NCT05878197|191784528|OTHER|||||||0.516||||||Linear mixed models: group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.516
95912788|NCT05878197|191784528|OTHER|||||||0.276||||||Linear mixed models: time\*group-effect|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.276
95912789|NCT05878197|191784528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-12.2|0.025
95912790|NCT05878197|191784528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.9||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.9|-6.4|0.794
95912791|NCT05878197|191784528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.7||Linear mixed models: evolution pre-post|Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.7|-7.7|0.760
95912792|NCT00215540|191784541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.476
95912793|NCT00215540|191784541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.208
95912794|NCT00215540|191784542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.500
95912795|NCT00215540|191784542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||Null hypothesis: No difference between treatment groups||||0.146
95912796|NCT00215540|191784543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
95912797|NCT00215540|191784543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
95912798|NCT00215540|191784543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.944
95912799|NCT00215540|191784544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.476
95912800|NCT00215540|191784544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.208
95912801|NCT00215540|191784544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.046
95912802|NCT00215540|191784545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.285
95912803|NCT00215540|191784545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.229
95912804|NCT00215540|191784545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.030
95912805|NCT00215540|191784546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.483||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.483
95912806|NCT00215540|191784546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.123
95912807|NCT00215540|191784546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.006
95912808|NCT00215540|191784547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.843
95912809|NCT00215540|191784547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.543||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.543
95912810|NCT00215540|191784547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.537||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.537
95912811|NCT00215540|191784548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.813
95912812|NCT00215540|191784548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.449
95912813|NCT00215540|191784548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.275||95.0|||||ANOVA|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.275
95912814|NCT00215540|191784549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.267
95912815|NCT00215540|191784549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.313
95912816|NCT00215540|191784550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.311
95912817|NCT00215540|191784550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.516
95912818|NCT00215540|191784550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094||95.0|||||ANOVA|On rank adjusting for pooled study center||||||0.094
95912819|NCT00246337|191784552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis. Overall power =85%||||0.015
95912820|NCT00246337|191784553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
95912821|NCT00246337|191784554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
95912822|NCT00246337|191784555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||0.05 is the pre-specified significance level.|generalized linear model|The p-value is based on the average response of the MK0974 200mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups vs. placebo.||Only the MK0974 300mg, 400mg, and 600mg groups are included in the comparison with placebo based on the protocol-specified test statistics selection and the fact that all lower doses were discontinued after the interim analysis.||||<0.001
95912823|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.10|-.15|=.66
95912824|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning Beginning (first trial)||.07|-.17|=.41
95912825|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.18|-.07|=.43
95912826|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Conditioning End (last trial)||.17|-.07|=.47
95912827|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.20|-.01|=.065
95912828|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fear Extinction Beginning (first trial)||.15|-.05|=.34
95912829|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.26|.06|=.003
95912830|NCT00674570|191784556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction End (last trial)||.22|.02|.02
95912831|NCT00674570|191784556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction Retention (first 2 trials) First trials were selected as a test of extinction retention, since repeated presentations of the CS without a UCS were expected to result in additional fear extinction.||.30|.05|=.006
95912832|NCT00674570|191784556|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Extinction retention||.28|.04|=.01
95912833|NCT01337986|191784557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Per protocol Analysis||||0.84
95912834|NCT01337986|191784557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in EDTRS between Visits 2 and 3.||||.29
95912835|NCT01337986|191784559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity with dalfampridine vs placebo.||||.64
95912836|NCT01337986|191784559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null hypothesis for period effect: there will be no difference in the change relevant to baseline (visit 1) in EDTRS 5% contrast sensitivity for those who started on dalfampridine and crossed over to placebo, compared to those who started on placebo and crossed over to dalfampridine.||||0.11
95912837|NCT01337986|191784560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.93
95912838|NCT01337986|191784561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.34
95912839|NCT01337986|191784563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.1||Probability of being in the lowest quartile for Visual Field Index deficits.|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratio for Visual Field Index|||2.10|1.02|0.04
95912840|NCT01337986|191784564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.94
95912841|NCT01337986|191784565|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.39
95912842|NCT01337986|191784566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.72
95912843|NCT04026165|191784597|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|2.81|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcr from treatment-specific Baselines at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for treatment-specific Baseline eGFRcr, pre-run-in urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||2.81|-0.41|0.1439
95912844|NCT04026165|191784598|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.8353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|11.4||p-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Randomization stratification factors. Randomization stratification factors= pre-run-in eGFRcr stratum, pre-run-in UACR category and concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% exact CI based on the Santner-Snell method was presented for the difference in proportions between SEL and placebo arms.|||11.4|-10.9|0.8353
95912845|NCT04026165|191784599|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.72|||Stratified Log-Rank|P-value was calculated using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Hazard ratio and 95% CI were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by randomization stratification factors and were reported only for outcomes with more than 10 events, and have at least 1 event in each treatment arm.|||2.72|0.81|0.2010
95912846|NCT04026165|191784601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Mean|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.5399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.86|||Random Slope Model|||Estimates were from a random slope model with change in eGFRcys from pre-run-in Baseline at Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 as outcome, including terms for pre-run-in Baseline eGFRcys, pre-run-in UACR category (\< 1500 mg/g vs. \>= 1500 mg/g), concomitant use of SGLT-2 inhibitors at Randomization, treatment group, week, and treatment-by-week interaction, where week has a random effect.||1.86|-0.97|0.5399
95912847|NCT01059630|191784603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.7|||Log Rank|||||0.70|0.40|<0.0001
95912848|NCT01059630|191784605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.45|<0.0001
95912849|NCT01059630|191784606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|0.98||||0.9298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.65|0.58|0.9298
95912850|NCT01059630|191784607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|-0.9||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.44|6.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.64|-8.44|0.7857
95912851|NCT01059630|191784612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|2.24||||0.8347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|11.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.69|-7.20|0.8347
95912852|NCT01059630|191784613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in response rate|8.55||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|17.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.32|-0.22|0.0466
95912853|NCT01059630|191784614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.61||||||||0.61|0.31|
95912854|NCT01059630|191784615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.67||||||||0.67|0.39|
95912855|NCT01059630|191784616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.45||||||||0.45|0.04|
95912856|NCT01059630|191784617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.81||||||||0.81|0.29|
95912857|NCT01059630|191784618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.74|||Log Rank|||||0.74|0.44|0.0001
95912858|NCT01059630|191784620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.03|||Log Rank|||||1.03|0.57|0.0810
95912859|NCT02007434|191784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.41|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 2|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.41|-0.93|0.6803
95912860|NCT02007434|191784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.5206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.6|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 3|Day 0, 1 Minute. Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.60|-0.82|0.5206
95912861|NCT02007434|191784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.606|TWO_SIDED|395.0|-0.86|1.46|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 1 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.46|-0.86|0.6060
95912862|NCT02007434|191784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.27|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 3|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.27|-0.98|0.7935
95912863|NCT02007434|191784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.15|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 2 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.15|-1.03|0.9140
95912864|NCT02007434|191784662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Placebo-adjusted Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.04|||ANCOVA||Paradigm 3 - Paradigm 4|Pairwise differences between paradigms for the placebo-adjusted differences were conducted using a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with factors for treatment, paradigm, treatment-by-paradigm interaction, and covariate of baseline CR-SMFRS score.||1.04|-1.21|0.8754
95912865|NCT03299686|191784678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.027|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.043||0.7374|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.029|0.082||Probability CJM112 better than placebo|Bayesian linear repeated measures model||||Lower limit and upper limit represents the Credibility Interval from the Bayesian analysis.|0.082|-0.029|0.7374
95912866|NCT03299686|191784679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.913|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434||0.263|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.939|2.766||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.766|-0.939|0.263
95912867|NCT03299686|191784680|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.061|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.41|-0.04||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.41|0.061
95912868|NCT03299686|191784681|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4|-0.06||1-sided p-value; p-value smaller than 0.1 is considered as statistically significant|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.40|0.040
95912869|NCT00560612|191784754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7054|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7054
95912870|NCT00560612|191784755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4583|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4583
95912871|NCT00560612|191784756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7443|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7443
95912872|NCT00560612|191784757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.065
95912873|NCT01060553|191784779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for mcs||||.15
95912874|NCT01060553|191784779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for pcs||||.28
95912875|NCT01060553|191784780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep duration||||.34
95912876|NCT01060553|191784780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep disturbance||||.001
95912877|NCT01060553|191784780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||for sleep latency||||.015
95912878|NCT01064297|191784803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.2||||||95.0|1.6|3.1|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.1|1.6|
95912879|NCT01064297|191784803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|4.2||||||95.0|1.4|11.0|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||11.0|1.4|
95912880|NCT01064297|191784803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.4||||||95.0|1.7|3.3|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||3.3|1.7|
95912881|NCT01064297|191784804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|10.7||||||95.0|6.4|17.0||||||||17.0|6.4|
95912882|NCT01064297|191784804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|9.3||||||95.0|5.5|15.2|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||15.2|5.5|
95912883|NCT01064297|191784805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.5|5.0||||||||5.0|1.5|
95912884|NCT01064297|191784805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wilson Score with Continuity Correction|2.8||||||95.0|1.6|4.9|||||The percentage of infants with MBDs was calculated as: the number of outcomes with MBDs divided by (the number of outcomes with MBDs + the number of live births without defects).|||4.9|1.6|
95912885|NCT01987817|191784811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|60.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|79.0|||Fisher Exact|||||79|35|<0.0001
95912886|NCT01987817|191784812|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5184|1.3065||The p-value is based on the F-test for treatment effect adjusted for MTD from baseline (log10 mg). The p-value and confidence intervals are based on the normality assumption.|ANCOVA|Least squares means and 95% CIs based on ANCOVA model of change from baseline in MTD at Exit DBPCFC (terms for treatment \& MTD at baseline (log10 mg).||MTD for the baseline and Exit DBPCFC are transformed back to log10 scale before calculations. A value of 0.3 mg is substituted for subjects who could not tolerate the lowest DBPCFC dose before log10 transformation.||1.3065|0.5184|<0.0001
95912887|NCT02332590|191784842|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.077|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|-0.793||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline DAS28-ESR score as a continuous covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control overall alpha error rate at 0.05 level and handle multiple endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order endpoints are reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-0.793|-1.361|<0.0001
95912888|NCT02332590|191784843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.536|9.389||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||9.389|2.536|<0.0001
95912889|NCT02332590|191784844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.976||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.289|3.028||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||3.028|1.289|0.0017
95912890|NCT02332590|191784845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.286||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.02||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||4.020|1.300|0.0036
95912891|NCT02332590|191784846|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|2.773||Threshold for significance 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by region.||2.773|1.168|0.0074
95912892|NCT02332590|191784847|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.182||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|-0.059||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline HAQ-DI score as a continuous covariate.||-0.059|-0.305|0.0037
95912893|NCT02332590|191784848|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|4.153||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline SF-36 PCS score as a continuous covariate.||4.153|1.147|0.0006
95912894|NCT02332590|191784849|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.768||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|3.674||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Sarilumab 200 mg vs. Adalimumab 40 mg|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using MMRM approach with treatment, region, visits, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline FACIT-F score as a continuous covariate.||3.674|-0.137|0.0689
95912895|NCT01349920|191784915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 6||||0.071
95912896|NCT01349920|191784915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|||||||Multiple Linear Regression|||Week 22||||0.381
95912897|NCT01678131|191784935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Posterior Percentage Probability|100.0||||||||||||||The posterior percentage probability of the true success rate of the FNA procedure for the 3 combined treatment groups (n=29) was determined by a Bayesian calculation, using a Jeffrey's prior distribution (i.e. Beta \[0.5,0.5\]) on the true success rate. Neither P-values, nor confidence intervals are estimated in this analysis. The primary hypothesis was met if the posterior percentage probability was \> 80% that the true success rate is at least 60%.||||
95912898|NCT03421808|191784996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||For categorical clinical remission data we performed a chi-square test on the IIT and completer sample using Graph-Pad Prism.||||0.6
95912899|NCT03881696|191785023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.853|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1274|111.2144||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.0001 at the interim analysis OR p \< 0.05 at the final analysis. Gatekeeping and multiple testing strategies were performed to ensure the overall family-wise error rate was ≤ 5%.|Fisher Exact||The odds ratio (OR) represents the odds of success among subjects randomized to omalizumab (numerator) compared to the odds of success among subjects randomized to placebo (denominator, reference group).|The null hypothesis is that the odds of 'success' (defined as consumption of a single dose of ≥600 mg of peanut protein without dose-limiting symptoms during the DBPCFC at the end of Stage 1) in omalizumab and placebo for omalizumab arms are equal. Participants missing the blinded OFC to peanut at the end of Stage 1 will be considered a 'failure' for the primary efficacy endpoint.||111.2144|9.1274|<0.00001
95912900|NCT05690776|191785120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.2|15.0|||paired t-test|||||15.0|9.2|<0.0001
95912901|NCT05690776|191785121|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.133|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.053|0.128|||paired t-test|||||0.128|0.053|<0.0001
95912902|NCT05690776|191785123|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.9|24.5|||paired t-test|||||24.5|16.9|<0.0001
95912903|NCT07069764|191785127|OTHER|"This study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence trial. It was powered (80% power, α = 0.05) to detect clinically significant differences in pain reduction between 635 nm and 980 nm diode lasers, based on prior LLLT studies in TMD. Sample size was calculated before recruitment."|Effect size (Kendall's W and r)|0.75||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.79||P-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test|Non-parametric tests were used due to non-normal data distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test). Effect size measures were also reported.||"The study was designed to compare the effects of 635 nm and 980 nm low-level laser therapy on pain and jaw function. Statistical analysis methods are described below."|"Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Non-parametric tests were applied. Friedman test for within-group comparisons, followed by Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. Mann-Whitney U test for between-group comparisons. Effect sizes were calculated using Kendall's W (within groups) and r (between groups)."|0.79|0.68|0.05
95912904|NCT00856167|191785132|SUPERIORITY||Regression coefficient|-0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Regression coefficient of TCM indicator variable, with change in CFP as the outcome, and controlling for start of treatment values: CFP, depression, gender, age, site|Regression, Linear|||Participants were allocated to one of the two treatments in order to balance baseline CFP, a depression score, age, gender, and site (Tucson or Portland).|"Since some participants could appear in both the 1st and 2nd period, the regression included random effects to account for correlation between measures on the same person.~In the 1st period, participants could either be allocated to TCM or SC, or if their pain scores were below 5, simply assigned to continuing self-care. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups. In the 2nd period, those allocated or assigned to SC in the 1st period could be allocated to TCM or SC, or again assigned to continuing SC if their pain scores were too low. Comparisons from this period were only between the allocated TCM and SC groups."|||0.020
95912905|NCT01061333|191785133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS mean|16.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.74|21.69||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.69|10.74|<0.0001
95912906|NCT01061333|191785133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|15.51||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.0|21.02||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||21.02|10.00|0.0001
95912907|NCT01061333|191785133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|8.49||||0.0432|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|15.2||p-value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||||15.20|1.78|0.0432
95912908|NCT01061333|191785134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.27||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.54||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.54|1.05|0.0430
95912909|NCT01061333|191785134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.72||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.72|1.15|0.0100
95912910|NCT01061333|191785134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|1.3||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.67||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.67|1.01|0.0860
95912911|NCT01061333|191785135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
95912912|NCT01061333|191785135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.7||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.70|0.49|<0.0001
95912913|NCT01061333|191785135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.87||||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.69|0.2679
95912914|NCT01061333|191785136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.9||||0.7622|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.59||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.59|0.51|0.7622
95912915|NCT01061333|191785136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.94||||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|1.65||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated on log scale||||1.65|0.53|0.8468
95912916|NCT01061333|191785136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.91||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|1.26||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.26|0.65|0.6140
95912917|NCT01061333|191785137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.67||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.8||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.80|0.57|0.0006
95912918|NCT01061333|191785137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.79||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.94||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||0.94|0.67|0.0291
95912919|NCT01061333|191785137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. Mean Ratio of fold over baseline|0.92||||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.08||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.08|0.77|0.3738
95912920|NCT01061333|191785138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.7501||90.0|0.88|1.2||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.20|0.88|0.7501
95912921|NCT01061333|191785138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.01||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.25||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.25|0.81|0.9410
95912922|NCT01061333|191785138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.89||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.01|0.79|0.1165
95912923|NCT01061333|191785139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.03||||0.8616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.41||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.41|0.76|0.8616
95912924|NCT01061333|191785139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.06||||0.7512|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.45||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.45|0.77|0.7512
95912925|NCT01061333|191785139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|0.99||||0.9723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.37||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.37|0.72|0.9723
95912926|NCT01061333|191785140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.3||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.82||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.82|0.92|0.1983
95912927|NCT01061333|191785140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.57||||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|2.42||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||2.42|1.02|0.0872
95912928|NCT01061333|191785140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geom. mean of fold change over Placebo|1.22||||0.2499|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.62||p-Value not adjusted for simultaneous multiple comparisons|ANOVA|concentrations evaluated at log scale||||1.62|0.91|0.2499
95912929|NCT04022889|191785146|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|6.2|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||6.2|-3.5|
95912930|NCT04022889|191785146|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|4.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||4.8|-6.4|
95912931|NCT04022889|191785146|OTHER|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.7|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||8.7|-5.0|
95912932|NCT04022889|191785146|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.66 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test recovery - (0.66 × Control recovery).|||2.6|-2.5|
95912933|NCT04022889|191785147|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|39.4|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||39.4|18.5|
95912934|NCT04022889|191785147|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|41.6|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||41.6|9.5|
95912935|NCT04022889|191785147|EQUIVALENCE|Variant 1-BEST = Test Variant 1 Endpoint - Test BEST Endpoint|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|15.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||15.8|-12.7|
95912936|NCT04022889|191785147|NON_INFERIORITY|The null hypothesis of inferiority was to be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis of non-inferiority at the two-sided 0.05 significance level if the lower bound of a two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (Test - 0.58 × Control) was greater than or equal to zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|37.8|||||The mean treatment difference is defined as Test survival - (0.58 × Control survival).|||37.8|21.8|
95912937|NCT02202434|191785193|NON_INFERIORITY|10.5% non-inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.0027|ONE_SIDED|97.5||8.32|||Farrington-Manning|||||8.32||0.0027
95912938|NCT02202434|191785194|NON_INFERIORITY|9.5% Non-Inferiority margin|Difference in Percentages|-10.1|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||-4.41|||Farrington-Manning|||||-4.41||<0.0001
95912939|NCT02202434|191785194|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-10.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|-4.0|||Chi-squared|||"Superiority analysis was only to be run if the non-inferiority analysis was met.~Superiority analysis was run on Intent to Treat Population."||-4.0|-16.3|0.0006
95912940|NCT02202434|191785195|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-2.6|||Chi-squared|||||-2.6|-9.6|<0.0001
95912941|NCT04858802|191785225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.08||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|8.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|The null hypothesis was that there would no difference in FSO cross-sectional area between treatment and control sides at Day 45.||8.6|-0.2|0.059
95912942|NCT04858802|191785226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.98||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|4.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||4.5|-1.5|0.328
95912943|NCT04858802|191785226|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.64||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.2|-5.7|0.063
95912944|NCT04858802|191785227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|430.8||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.5|149.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||149.4|-47.5|0.306
95912945|NCT04858802|191785227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|413.22||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-122.5|67.6|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||67.6|-122.5|0.567
95912946|NCT04858802|191785228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||0.9|0.0|0.031
95912947|NCT04858802|191785228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.27||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.5|0.943
95912948|NCT04858802|191785229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.24||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 45||0.2|-0.3|0.715
95912949|NCT04858802|191785229|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Zinreich's modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus|Day 180||0.4|0.0|0.129
95912950|NCT04858802|191785230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 21||3.60|0.28|1.00
95912951|NCT04858802|191785230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.73||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45||1.73|0.36|0.453
95912952|NCT04858802|191785230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 90||1.61|0.31|0.219
95912953|NCT04858802|191785230|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 180||1.61|0.31|0.289
95912954|NCT04858802|191785231|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.12||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|4.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|Day 180||4.8|-4.9|0.971
95912955|NCT04858802|191785232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Day 45|Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|0.1|-0.1|1.00
95912956|NCT04858802|191785232|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|0.0|0.288
95912957|NCT04858802|191785233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 45|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.225
95912958|NCT04858802|191785233|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone modified Lund-Mackay score for the frontal sinus at Day 180|Day 180||0.1|-0.2|0.388
95912959|NCT04858802|191785234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.537
95912960|NCT04858802|191785234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||0.0|-0.3|0.010
95912961|NCT04858802|191785234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.003
95912962|NCT04858802|191785234|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
95912963|NCT04858802|191785235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.55||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|7.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||7.9|-12.8|0.634
95912964|NCT04858802|191785235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.04||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-15.2|0.048
95912965|NCT04858802|191785235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.79||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|-0.9||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.9|-14.7|0.028
95912966|NCT04858802|191785235|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.99||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|-0.3||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean inflammation score in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||-0.3|-13.2|0.041
95912967|NCT04858802|191785236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 21||0.0|-0.5|0.063
95912968|NCT04858802|191785236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 45||-0.1|-0.4|0.015
95912969|NCT04858802|191785236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.78||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 90||-0.1|-0.4|0.007
95912970|NCT04858802|191785236|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.75||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polypoid edema grade in the frontal recess/FSO|Day 180||0.0|-0.4|0.034
95912971|NCT04858802|191785237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.2|-0.2|0.830
95912972|NCT04858802|191785237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.829
95912973|NCT04858802|191785237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.3|0.132
95912974|NCT04858802|191785237|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean adhesion/scarring grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.3|0.310
95912975|NCT04858802|191785238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48||0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 21||0.1|-0.2|0.666
95912976|NCT04858802|191785238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 45||0.1|-0.2|0.497
95912977|NCT04858802|191785238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 90||0.0|-0.2|0.235
95912978|NCT04858802|191785238|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean polyp grade in the ethmoid sinus|Day 180||0.1|-0.1|0.677
95912979|NCT04858802|191785239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.48||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 21||0.6|-0.7|0.868
95912980|NCT04858802|191785239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 45||0.7|-0.5|0.823
95912981|NCT04858802|191785239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.26||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 90||0.5|-0.5|1.00
95912982|NCT04858802|191785239|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean CRS side-specific symptom total score minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean CRS side-specific symptom total score|Day 180||0.2|-0.8|0.188
95912983|NCT04858802|191785243|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.12||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area|||11.7|0.8|0.025
95912984|NCT04858802|191785244|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.49||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 45|Day 45||7.8|0.2|0.04
95912985|NCT04858802|191785244|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.02||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|0.6||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180 minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO cross-sectional area change from baseline to Day 180|Day 180||0.6|-7.5|0.09
95912986|NCT04858802|191785245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.54|STANDARD_DEVIATION|460.18||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|199.8||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 45||199.8|-76.7|0.375
95912987|NCT04858802|191785245|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-51.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|434.64||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.1|80.2||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSOT volume minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSOT volume|Day 180||80.2|-184.1|0.432
95912988|NCT04858802|191785246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.13||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.4||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 45||1.4|0.1|0.023
95912989|NCT04858802|191785246|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||Paired; the threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||Difference = PROPEL Contour Sinus Implant mean FSO minimum diameter minus balloon sinus dilation alone mean FSO minimum diameter|Day 180||0.5|-0.8|0.646
95912990|NCT00431184|191785294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.22
95912991|NCT00431184|191785295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95912992|NCT00462670|191785296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.60|-1.58|<0.0001
95912993|NCT00462670|191785297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|-0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.92|-2.54|<0.0001
95912994|NCT01257880|191785338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the null hypothesis that basilar artery vasomotor reactivity was equivalent between the two groups.||||0.39
95912995|NCT01691521|191785362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.72||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 75mg IV arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.72|0.40|<0.001
95912996|NCT01691521|191785362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.64||Hochberg procedure with a gamma parameter of 1 used for multiplicity adjustment.|Negative binomial model||Number of exacerbations per year in the mepolizumab 100 mg SC arm divided by the number of exacerbations per year in the placebo arm.|||0.64|0.35|<0.001
95912997|NCT01991821|191785368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||The complete response of the primary efficacy analysis occurred in 95 patients (56.2%; 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 48.4 - 63.8%) in the APD421 group and 83 patients (46.6%; 95% CI 39.1- 54.2%) in the placebo group|Chi-squared, Corrected|Pearson square test with Yates's continuity correction and with the two- sided significance level of 5%||The primary efficacy analysis was a complete response which is defined as protection from PONV1, which was absence of any episode of emesis, significant nausea or use of rescue medication with the first 24 hours post-operatively.||||0.093
95912998|NCT01991821|191785369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.059
95912999|NCT01991821|191785370|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.053
95913000|NCT01991821|191785371|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.26
95913001|NCT01991821|191785372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.06
95913002|NCT01991821|191785373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.079||||||Two-sided, significance threshold = 0.05|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.079
95913003|NCT01991821|191785374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.096
95913004|NCT03131960|191785378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0014|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0014
95913005|NCT03131960|191785379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA||||0.0077
95913006|NCT03131960|191785380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0098|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0098
95913007|NCT03131960|191785381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95913008|NCT01625923|191785385|OTHER|T-test comparing GCSI-DD scores before/after intervention||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
95913009|NCT01725386|191785395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)|||||||0.895
95913010|NCT04750655|191785397|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Used the Kruskal-Wallis (nonparametric one-way ANOVA), comparing all 3 arms. Note that for each individual, a single number (normalized read) is obtained.||||1
95913011|NCT00879996|191785402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9134||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4156|2.007|||Log Rank|||Null hypothesis: Methadone and buprenorphine treatment do not differ in treatment retention.||2.007|0.4156|0.77
95913012|NCT00879996|191785403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||<|0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: Methadone treatment is as effective as buprenorphine treatment in reducing pain.||||<0.043
95913013|NCT00879996|191785404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||null-hypothesis: methadone and buprenorphine treatment are equally effective in reducing self-reported functioning at 6 months.||||<0.665
95913014|NCT00879996|191785405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0|<|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: methadone or buprenorphine treatment equally reduce illicit drug use.||||<0.039
95913015|NCT01216163|191785411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|17.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|22.27||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline Pain Severity Rating (PSR), gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference(Ibuprofen sodium - placebo) and 95 percent(%) confidence interval(CI):based on LS means from Analysis of Variance(ANOVA).Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:Ibuprofen sodium(IBU Na) versus(vs) Placebo(PBO), IBU Na vs Acetaminophen(APAP), APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||22.27|13.08|<0.001
95913016|NCT01216163|191785411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.96||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.72||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||8.72|1.21|0.010
95913017|NCT01216163|191785411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.12|17.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms.|ANOVA|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and 95% CI: based on LS means from ANOVA. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||17.30|8.12|<0.001
95913018|NCT01216163|191785412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|27.36||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||Hazard Ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the proportional hazards (PH) model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||27.36|5.13|<0.001
95913019|NCT01216163|191785412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||1.60|0.81|0.468
95913020|NCT01216163|191785412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|24.17||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms.|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model. Type I error controlled at 5% significance level(2-sided) by testing co-primary endpoints sequentially:IBU Na vs PBO, IBU Na vs APAP, APAP vs PBO for SPRID 0-6 then time to meaningful relief at each comparison.If comparison at preceding step was significant only then subsequent comparisons were significant.||24.17|4.50|<0.001
95913021|NCT01216163|191785413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|14.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.02|32.8||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||32.80|6.02|<0.001
95913022|NCT01216163|191785413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.68||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.68|0.84|0.323
95913023|NCT01216163|191785413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.06|27.59||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||27.59|5.06|<0.001
95913024|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.83|0.24|<0.001
95913025|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.44||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.44|-0.04|0.101
95913026|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.62||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.62|0.03|0.029
95913027|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.87||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.87|1.01|<0.001
95913028|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.11|0.178
95913029|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.63|0.77|<0.001
95913030|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.64|2.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.49|1.64|<0.001
95913031|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.78|0.09|0.014
95913032|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.06|1.21|<0.001
95913033|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.70|1.79|<0.001
95913034|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.74|-0.01|0.055
95913035|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|2.34||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.34|1.43|<0.001
95913036|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|2.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.83|1.80|<0.001
95913037|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.51||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.93|0.08|0.019
95913038|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.29|<0.001
95913039|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.66|1.53|<0.001
95913040|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.05||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.05|0.13|0.013
95913041|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.95|<0.001
95913042|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.56||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.56|1.39|<0.001
95913043|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.10|0.15|0.010
95913044|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.93||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.93|0.77|<0.001
95913045|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.14||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.14|0.95|<0.001
95913046|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.91||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.91|-0.06|0.088
95913047|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.71||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.71|0.52|<0.001
95913048|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.07||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.07|0.85|<0.001
95913049|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|-0.02|0.061
95913050|NCT01216163|191785414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|0.38|0.002
95727441|NCT01341639|191424679|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.96||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Diphtheria|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.96|-0.95|< 0.001
95913051|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.49|0.13|<0.001
95913052|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.21|-0.08|0.387
95913053|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.42|0.07|0.007
95913054|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.15|0.64|<0.001
95913055|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.25||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.46|0.04|0.019
95913056|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.9||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.90|0.38|<0.001
95913057|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.59|1.01|<0.001
95913058|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.57|0.09|0.006
95913059|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.26|0.68|<0.001
95913060|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.74|1.12|<0.001
95913061|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.58||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.58|0.07|0.014
95913062|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.42|0.80|<0.001
95913063|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.78||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.78|1.09|<0.001
95913064|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|0.03|0.030
95913065|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.46|0.78|<0.001
95913066|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.91|<0.001
95913067|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.73|0.12|0.007
95913068|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.24||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.24|0.49|<0.001
95913069|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.89|<0.001
95913070|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.76|0.15|0.004
95913071|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.19|0.44|<0.001
95913072|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.31|0.54|<0.001
95913073|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.59|-0.04|0.084
95913074|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|0.27|0.001
95913075|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.32|0.54|<0.001
95913076|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.69||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.69|0.06|0.020
95913077|NCT01216163|191785415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.94||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.94|0.17|0.005
95913078|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.28|0.40|<0.001
95913079|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.27||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.63||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.63|-0.10|0.148
95913080|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.57||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.02||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.02|0.13|0.011
95913081|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|2.99||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.99|1.68|<0.001
95913082|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.03||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.03|-0.04|0.071
95913083|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.5||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.50|1.19|<0.001
95913084|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|4.06||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.06|2.67|<0.001
95913085|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.33|0.20|0.008
95913086|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.91|<0.001
95913087|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|4.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.43|2.92|<0.001
95913088|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.69||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.30|0.07|0.028
95913089|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|3.74||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.74|2.24|<0.001
95913090|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|4.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.59|2.90|<0.001
95913091|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.51|0.13|0.020
95913092|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|3.77||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.77|2.09|<0.001
95729211|NCT00543439|191428617|EQUIVALENCE|90% 2-sided CI for the mean difference in ABRs for the 2 prophylaxis regimens for ITT participants was constructed using the t distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom (n equals the number of participants) to assess the equivalence of the 2 regimens. Equivalence was demonstrated and the null hypothesis rejected if the limits of the 90% CI fell wholly within the interval of (-4, 4) bleeds per year.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|2.22||||||||2.22|0.03|
95913093|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|4.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.30|2.46|<0.001
95913094|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.76||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.76|0.26|0.009
95729212|NCT01211769|191428639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
95729213|NCT01211769|191428639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.71||||0.69||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.69
95913095|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.3||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.30|1.46|<0.001
95913096|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.19||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.19|2.30|<0.001
95913097|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.85||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.85|0.31|0.006
95729214|NCT01211769|191428640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
95913098|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.10|1.22|<0.001
95913099|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.43|1.51|<0.001
95729215|NCT01211769|191428640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|0.73||||0.53||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.53
95913100|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.49|-0.09|0.080
95729216|NCT01211769|191428641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||TIME COMPARISON||||<0.001
95729217|NCT01211769|191428641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Variance (F)|1.08||||0.37||95.0|||||ANOVA|||GROUP COMPARISON||||0.37
95913101|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.73||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.73|0.81|<0.001
95913102|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.37|1.41|<0.001
95913103|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.85||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.65||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.65|0.05|0.037
95913104|NCT01216163|191785416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.52|0.57|0.002
95729218|NCT03212170|191428644|OTHER|Pearson correlation statistical test||||||0.1347|||||||two-sided hypothesis test|||||||0.1347
95913105|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|2.88||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.88|1.88|<0.001
95913106|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.97||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||0.97|0.15|0.007
95729219|NCT03212170|191428646|OTHER|Bland-Altman statistical test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1308|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.282|0.544||||||||0.544|-0.282|
95729220|NCT03212170|191428647|OTHER|||||||0.2521|||||||Pearson Correlation Statistical Test|||||||0.2521
95913107|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.32||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.32|1.32|<0.001
95729221|NCT01937364|191428650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7275|-0.0206||One-sided p-value|z-statistic with pooled estimate||RD = Baclofen - Placebo|||-0.0206|-0.7275|0.0334
95729222|NCT01937364|191428651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3744|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 24 hours||||0.3744
95727442|NCT01341639|191424679|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Tetanus|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.74|-0.71|< 0.001
95729223|NCT01937364|191428651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 48 hours||||0.7616
95913108|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.85|4.49||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.49|2.85|<0.001
95913109|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.66||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.66|0.31|0.004
95913110|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.51||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.51|1.87|<0.001
95913111|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|8.64||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||8.64|4.96|<0.001
95913112|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.09||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.59||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.59|0.59|0.007
95913113|NCT01216163|191785417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.87|6.54||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPID 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.54|2.87|<0.001
95913114|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.05|4.57||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.57|3.05|<0.001
95913115|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.38||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||1.38|0.14|0.016
95913116|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|3.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||3.80|2.29|<0.001
95913117|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.66|7.15||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.15|4.66|<0.001
95729224|NCT01937364|191428651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1393|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Baclofen - Placebo; 72 hours||||0.1393
95729225|NCT01937364|191428652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Baclofen - Placebo; Peak Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95913118|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.37||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.37|0.33|0.010
95913119|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|5.8||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.80|3.31|<0.001
95729226|NCT01937364|191428652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baclofen - Placebo; Total Ativan 1mg PO equivalent dose||||0.80
95729227|NCT00891878|191428668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.43
95729228|NCT00891878|191428669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.45
95729229|NCT01360450|191428680|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||yes the P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|2 sided ANOVA|Mean difference between the two treatment arms|||||>0.05
95729230|NCT00905489|191428696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio NVP XR: NVP IR (%)|91.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.47|99.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted geometric means are estimated from the mixed model for intra-individual comparison.||||99.64|83.47|0.0080
95913120|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|10.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|13.7||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||13.70|8.05|<0.001
95913121|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.87||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.18||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||5.18|0.57|0.015
95913122|NCT01216163|191785418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.83||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||TOTPAR 0-6: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||10.83|5.18|<0.001
95913123|NCT01216163|191785419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.96|7.43||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||7.43|4.96|<0.001
95913124|NCT01216163|191785419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.33||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||2.33|0.32|0.010
95913125|NCT01216163|191785419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|6.1||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-2: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||6.10|3.63|<0.001
95913126|NCT01216163|191785419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|9.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|11.61||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||11.61|7.54|<0.001
95913127|NCT01216163|191785419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|4.0||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||4.00|0.67|0.006
95913128|NCT01216163|191785419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|7.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|9.28||p-value was calculated using ANOVA model with treatment, baseline PSR, gender and treatment-by-baseline PSR terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|ANOVA|||SPRID 0-3: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on LS means from the ANOVA model.||9.28|5.21|<0.001
95913129|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|21.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.99|29.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||29.84|12.99|<0.001
95913130|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.58||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|13.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||13.70|-10.54|0.799
95913131|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|20.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.45|28.72||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||28.72|11.45|0.001
95913132|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|53.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.92|63.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||63.53|42.92|<0.001
95913133|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-2.98||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|11.7||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||11.70|-17.67|0.695
95913134|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|57.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.53|67.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||67.60|46.53|<0.001
95913135|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|70.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.28|80.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.88|60.28|<0.001
95913136|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|7.99||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|21.84||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||21.84|-5.85|0.261
95913137|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.78|73.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||73.99|51.78|<0.001
95913138|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.77|78.71||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.71|53.77|<0.001
95913139|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.38||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|17.64||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.64|-8.89|0.522
95913140|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.06|74.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.80|49.06|<0.001
95913141|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.61|79.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.09|53.61|<0.001
95913142|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.46||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|18.44||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.44|-7.53|0.415
95913143|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.65|74.19||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.19|47.65|<0.001
95913144|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|65.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.18|78.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||78.46|52.18|<0.001
95913145|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.21||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|16.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.81|-8.39|0.519
95913146|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913147|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913148|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913149|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913150|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913151|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913152|NCT01216163|191785420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913153|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.87|36.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.93|15.87|<0.001
95913154|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|3.53||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.85|16.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.91|-9.85|0.602
95913155|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|22.72||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|33.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||33.05|12.39|0.001
95913156|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|60.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.61|72.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||72.12|48.61|<0.001
95913157|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.25||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|16.59||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||16.59|-12.10|0.761
95913158|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|58.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.59|70.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||70.05|46.59|<0.001
95913159|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|67.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.91|80.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||80.12|54.91|<0.001
95729275|NCT00320593|191428939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.53|||ANCOVA|||An adjusted analysis for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent from baseline to 3 years was performed by including in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model the following covariates in addition to baseline myopia and prior single vision lens wear, which are known to be related to myopia progression: age, sex, ethnicity, accommodative lag, and magnitude of near esophoria.||0.53|0.02|
95913160|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.42||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|18.18||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||18.18|-7.34|0.410
95913161|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|62.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.96|75.29||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||75.29|48.96|<0.001
95913162|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|68.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.11|81.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||81.16|56.11|<0.001
95913163|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913164|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|63.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.32|76.35||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||76.35|50.32|<0.001
95913165|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913166|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913167|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913168|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913169|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913170|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913171|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913172|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913173|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913174|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913175|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913176|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913177|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|66.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.38|79.51||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||79.51|53.38|<0.001
95913178|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|5.31||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|17.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.83|-7.22|0.412
95913179|NCT01216163|191785421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|74.68||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||74.68|47.60|<0.001
95913180|NCT01216163|191785422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.22||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.22|0.08|<0.001
95913181|NCT01216163|191785422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||1.28|0.45|0.303
95913182|NCT01216163|191785422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.28||p-value was calculated using PH model with treatment, baseline PSR and gender terms. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Proportional hazards model|||HR and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model.||0.28|0.10|<0.001
95913183|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.39|-24.8||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.80|-55.39|<0.001
95913184|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-0.12||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|4.28||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||4.28|-4.52|0.958
95913185|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-40.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.51|-24.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-24.87|-55.51|<0.001
95913186|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-63.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.81|-48.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-48.99|-77.81|<0.001
95913187|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.17||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|1.57||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.57|-15.91|0.108
95913188|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-56.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.68|-41.09||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-41.09|-71.68|<0.001
95913189|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-71.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.09|-57.93||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-57.93|-84.09|<0.001
95913190|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-9.82||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|1.16||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.16|-20.18|0.083
95913191|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-61.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.4|-46.87||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-46.87|-75.40|<0.001
95913192|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-66.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.08|-52.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-52.66|-80.08|<0.001
95913193|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-11.03||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.21||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.21|-23.37|0.079
95913194|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.12|-40.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-40.85|-70.12|<0.001
95727443|NCT01341639|191424679|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.07||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV1|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.07|-0.51|< 0.001
95913195|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-57.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.9|-42.77||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-42.77|-71.90|<0.001
95913196|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-7.73||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|5.63||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||5.63|-21.08|0.263
95913197|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-49.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.74|-35.12||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-35.12|-64.74|<0.001
95913198|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-52.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.62|-37.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-37.88|-67.62|<0.001
95913199|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-5.51||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|8.25||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.25|-19.27|0.439
95913200|NCT01216163|191785423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-47.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.62|-32.83||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||-32.83|-62.62|<0.001
95913201|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|-1.21||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.59|1.17||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||1.17|-3.59|0.294
95913202|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.21||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|3.58||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.25 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||3.58|-1.16|0.458
95913203|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.81||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.06||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||12.06|1.57|0.073
95913204|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|1.96||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|8.85||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||8.85|-4.94|0.583
95913205|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.81||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.49||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||0.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||9.49|0.14|0.137
95913206|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|23.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.81|32.91||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||32.91|14.81|<0.001
95913207|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.45||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|20.33||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.33|-3.43|0.165
95913208|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|15.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.66|23.26||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1 hour: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.26|7.66|0.006
95913209|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|39.05||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.05|19.78|<0.001
95913210|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|4.61||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|17.99||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||17.99|-8.78|0.497
95913211|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.81|34.46||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||1.5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||34.46|15.81|<0.001
95913212|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|31.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|43.53||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||43.53|20.03|<0.001
95913213|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|6.7||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.38|20.79||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||20.79|-7.38|0.349
95913214|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|25.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.73|36.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||2 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||36.94|13.73|<0.001
95913215|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.47|49.81||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.81|25.47|<0.001
95727444|NCT01341639|191424679|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.21||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV2|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.21|-0.69|< 0.001
95913216|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|8.85||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|23.42||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||23.42|-5.72|0.233
95913217|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|28.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.17|40.75||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||3 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||40.75|17.17|<0.001
95913218|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|38.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.87|51.6||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.60|25.87|<0.001
95913219|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
95913220|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|29.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.71|41.66||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||4 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||41.66|16.71|<0.001
95913221|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|36.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.22|49.88||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||49.88|23.22|<0.001
95913222|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|9.83||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|24.45||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||24.45|-4.80|0.189
95913223|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||5 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
95913224|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|37.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.36|51.07||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||51.07|24.36|<0.001
95913225|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|10.97||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|25.61||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||25.61|-3.67|0.144
95913226|NCT01216163|191785424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion|26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|39.94||p-value was calculated using CMH test, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||6 hours: Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and its associated CI was calculated based on CMH adjusted proportions and the corresponding standard error.||39.94|14.00|<0.001
95913227|NCT01216163|191785425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.96||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.96|0.78|<0.001
95913228|NCT01216163|191785425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.45||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Ibuprofen sodium - Acetaminophen) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.45|0.05|0.020
95913229|NCT01216163|191785425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.91||P-value was calculated using CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for baseline PSR and gender. Statistical testing was done at 5% significance level (2-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Treatment difference (Acetaminophen - Placebo) and the associated CI were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.91|0.63|<0.001
95913230|NCT01148862|191785469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.2||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95913231|NCT01148862|191785470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95913232|NCT04270747|191785499|OTHER|A pre-specified similarity margin of (-3, 3) ETDRS letters was used to demonstrate clinical similarity for the mean change from Baseline in BCVA at Week 8.|Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|1.3|||||Estimated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||1.3|-1.1|
95913233|NCT04270747|191785500|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|2.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.2|-5.2|
95913234|NCT04270747|191785500|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|2.8|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who maintained vision at Week 52.||2.8|-6.2|
95913235|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||1.2|-1.3|
95913236|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|0.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.7|-2.3|
95913237|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|1.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.2|-1.9|
95913238|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|2.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.1|-1.3|
95913239|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.5|-3.1|
95913240|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|1.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||1.4|-2.3|
95913241|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||0.8|-3.2|
95913242|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-3.4|0.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.5|-3.4|
95913243|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||0.0|-3.0|
95913244|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|-0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||-0.2|-3.6|
95913245|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|1.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.5|-2.1|
95913246|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.9|2.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||2.0|-1.9|
95913247|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|0.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||0.2|-4.0|
95728809|NCT04147715|191427281|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.0478|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9203|2.1837|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of AUC0-τ in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed AUC0-τ, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1837|1.9203|
95727445|NCT01341639|191424679|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.73||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for IPV3|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.73|-0.7|< 0.001
95913248|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.2|2.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||2.2|-2.2|
95913249|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.7|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||1.7|-2.9|
95913250|NCT04270747|191785501|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|1.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model adjusted for the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.1|-3.5|
95913251|NCT04270747|191785502|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.8|3.1|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 10 letters of vision at Week 8.||3.1|-9.8|
95913252|NCT04270747|191785503|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.6|2.5|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||2.5|-13.6|
95913253|NCT04270747|191785503|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.4|4.2|||||Estimated using the stratified Newcombe confidence limits (with Mantel-Haenszel weights) adjusting for stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters).|Risk difference in percentage of participants who gained at least 15 letters of vision at Week 52.||4.2|-14.4|
95913254|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.734|0.638|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.638|-0.734|
95913255|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|0.431|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.367|1.229|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.229|-0.367|
95913256|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|0.197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.625|1.019|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||1.019|-0.625|
95913257|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|0.156|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-0.561|0.872|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||0.872|-0.561|
95913258|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|0.105|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.682|0.891|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||0.891|-0.682|
95913259|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.667|1.158|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||1.158|-0.667|
95913260|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.116|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.065|0.834|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||0.834|-1.065|
95913261|NCT04270747|191785504|OTHER||Difference between means|0.647|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.186|1.479|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CNV measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||1.479|-0.186|
95913262|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|17.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||17.9|-5.6|
95913263|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|13.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||13.5|-11.0|
95913264|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|16.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||16.6|-12.9|
95913265|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|14.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||14.4|-14.1|
95913266|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.3|12.9|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||12.9|-15.3|
95913267|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.7|14.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||14.1|-13.7|
95913268|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|21.4|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||21.4|-7.4|
95913269|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|2.0|-9.3|12.5|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||12.5|-9.3|
95913270|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.4|20.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 4.||20.0|-7.4|
95913271|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|9.1|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 8.||9.1|-19.3|
95913272|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-20.9|13.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 16.||13.3|-20.9|
95913273|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.6|10.6|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 24.||10.6|-22.6|
95913274|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.3|9.3|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 32.||9.3|-23.3|
95913275|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.8|9.8|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 40.||9.8|-22.8|
95913276|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.3|16.2|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 48.||16.2|-17.3|
95913277|NCT04270747|191785505|OTHER||Difference between means|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|15.0|||||Estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, Baseline CST measurement and the stratification factors geographic region (East Asia, Europe, North America) and Baseline BCVA (BCVA \< 64 letters, BCVA ≥ 64 letters) as covariates.|Difference in mean change from Baseline at Week 52.||15.0|-10.5|
95913278|NCT00532155|191785528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.174|||Stratified log-rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.||||1.174|0.868|0.8985
95913279|NCT00532155|191785529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Stratified Hazard ratio|0.819||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|0.937|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|Stratified on ECOG Performance Status (0 vs 1 vs 2) and Prior Bevacizumab (yes vs no) according to IVRS.|||0.937|0.716|0.0035
95913280|NCT03635489|191785533|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||Regression, Cox|||||0.53|0.17|<.0001
95913281|NCT03635489|191785533|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.58|||Regression, Cox|||||0.58|0.20|<.0001
95913282|NCT03635489|191785534|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.21||||||||1.21|0.30|
95913283|NCT00462280|191785553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95913284|NCT00975221|191785608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic|39.866|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95913285|NCT00975221|191785609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CMH statistic|40.953|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95728820|NCT04128696|191427410|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.43|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||2.43|0.98|
95913286|NCT00975221|191785610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.23|-10.88|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-10.88|-16.23|<0.001
95913287|NCT00975221|191785611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.01|-11.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline corrected serum calcium and baseline bisphosphonate included as covariates.|Treatment difference: cinacalcet-placebo|||-11.57|-34.01|<0.001
95913288|NCT05056870|191785628|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.00 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.113|-0.081|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.081|-0.113|
95913289|NCT05056870|191785629|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 0.|Mean Difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.6|33.3|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||33.3|22.6|
95913290|NCT05056870|191785630|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|-0.008|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger method was used for denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||-0.008|-0.032|
95913291|NCT05056870|191785631|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of was above 1.|Mean Ratio|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|5.11|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Mean Ratio was calculated as Test over Control|||5.11|1.73|
95913292|NCT02670538|191785634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.4|-4.6|0.0417
95913293|NCT02670538|191785634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.4||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.4|-3.9|0.1051
95913294|NCT02670538|191785635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||-0.1|-0.6|0.0417
95913295|NCT02670538|191785635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||Adjusted p-value: adjustment was performed using matched parallel gatekeeping procedure to control the overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons of 2 active doses versus placebo at Week 6.|Contrast t-test|||||0.1|-0.4|0.1370
95913296|NCT02243202|191785641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.8|-5.3|<0.001
95913297|NCT02243202|191785641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.4|-3.1|0.142
95913298|NCT02243202|191785641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-5.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-5.2|-8.6|<0.001
95913299|NCT02243202|191785642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|10.14|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||10.14|1.70|0.002
95913300|NCT02243202|191785642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.06|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||3.06|0.41|0.825
95913301|NCT02243202|191785642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.15|25.05|||Generalized linear Mixed Model|||||25.05|4.15|<0.001
95913302|NCT02243202|191785643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||4.8|-2.1|0.456
95913303|NCT02243202|191785643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||3.1|-3.9|0.827
95913304|NCT02243202|191785643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-0.8|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.8|-7.7|0.015
95913305|NCT02243202|191785644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.7|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-1.7|-5.3|<0.001
95913306|NCT02243202|191785644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.5|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.5|-3.1|0.153
95913307|NCT02243202|191785644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-8.5|-4.9|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-4.9|-8.5|<0.001
95913308|NCT01147822|191785648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0184|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7658|1.3542|||||The HR was estimated by the Cox regression model using treatment stratification factors as covariates. The HR was adjusted for Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, prior nephrectomy, and Baseline levels of lactate dehydrogenase.|||1.3542|0.7658|
95913309|NCT01147822|191785649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.441|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated using the Pike estimator. A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared with Sunitinib.|||1.441|0.808|0.604
95913310|NCT01010477|191785663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||||||threshold for statistical significance: p\< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Fisher Exact test (2-sided)||||0.632
95913311|NCT01559454|191785664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.4167||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7519|79.5852|||t-test, 2 sided|||||79.5852|-8.7519|0.097
95913312|NCT01559454|191785665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0713|1.8248|||Fisher Exact|||||1.8248|0.0713|1.00
95913313|NCT01559454|191785666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.55075||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37051|51.34968|||t-test, 2 sided|||||51.34968|-20.37051|0.348
95913314|NCT01559454|191785667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|39.5833||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9653|87.132|||t-test, 2 sided|||||87.1320|-7.9653|0.088
95913315|NCT01559454|191785668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.1499||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3965|27.0632|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.0632|-30.3965|0.895
95913316|NCT01559454|191785669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.6999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.127|2.8352|||Fisher Exact|||||2.8352|0.127|0.6999
95913317|NCT01114204|191785670|NON_INFERIORITY|The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the large sample assumption. The pre-defined non-inferiority margin for testing the difference between treatment groups was -15%.|Treatment Difference|2.58||||0.2833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|9.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is the result of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusted for Baseline hemoglobin level and underlying condition.|The treatment difference (ferumoxytol - iron sucrose) was expressed as a percentage.|"Participants who achieved a ≥2.0 g/dL increase in hemoglobin from Baseline up to Week 5 were analyzed. Statistical comparison was performed for data up to Week 5 only.~Baseline was defined as the Day 1 value (prior to injection of study drug). The screening or most recent value prior to Day 1 was used for any participant with missing Day 1 information."||9.06|-3.89|0.2833
95913318|NCT00991341|191785677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.26|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to the change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.17, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.26|-0.60|0.44
95913319|NCT00991341|191785678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.43|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to all-cause mortality, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is the reference category.|||1.43|0.48|0.50
95913320|NCT00991341|191785679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.17|||ANCOVA|The treatment groups were compared with respect to 28-day change in MODS, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline MODS, the difference in the means was -0.32; positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.17|-0.82|0.20
95913321|NCT00991341|191785680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.018||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.069|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.069|-0.033|0.50
95913322|NCT00991341|191785681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.027||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.035|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.035|-0.090|0.40
95913323|NCT00991341|191785682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.018||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.023|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.023|-0.059|0.41
95913324|NCT00991341|191785683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.37|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||0.37|-0.62|0.75
95728821|NCT04128696|191427411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.53|1.00|
95913325|NCT00991341|191785684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in creatinine, adjusting for the baseline creatinine value.|The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline creatinine, the difference in the means was -0.02, positive values are in favor of longer storage duration.|||0.05|-0.08|0.62
95913326|NCT00991341|191785685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.93||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|5.98||The treatment arms were compared with respect to the change in troponin-I, adjusting for the baseline troponin-I value.|ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline troponin-I, the change in troponin-I values was 1.9 ng/mL higher in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|Troponin-I values recorded as 'too low to detect' were recoded as 0 since the median value of the minimum quantitative troponin-I value obtained among all participating sites was 0.01.||5.98|-2.11|0.35
95913327|NCT00991341|191785686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.10
95913328|NCT00991341|191785687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.41|||ANCOVA||The longer storage red blood cell units arm is the reference category. After adjusting for baseline bilirubin, the change in bilirubin values was 0.65 mg/dL lower in the shorter storage red blood cell units arm.|||-0.41|-0.89|<0.01
95913329|NCT00991341|191785689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.25||The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative bowel movement, adjusting for baseline MODS.|Regression, Cox||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.25|0.98|0.11
95913330|NCT00991341|191785690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.22|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared with respect to days to first post-operative solid food, adjusting for baseline MODS.|The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.22|0.96|0.22
95913331|NCT00991341|191785691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.0|||Kruskal-Wallis||The longer storage duration arm is reference category.|||1.00|-0.59|0.71
95913332|NCT00991341|191785692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.027|||Fisher Exact||The difference in proportions between the two treatment arms was computed as the proportion of subjects with the event in the shorter storage duration arm minus the proportion of subjects with the event in the longer storage duration arm.|||0.027|-0.057|0.53
95913333|NCT03010462|191785699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.62
95913334|NCT03010462|191785700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95913335|NCT03010462|191785701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95913336|NCT03010462|191785702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95913337|NCT03010462|191785703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
95913338|NCT02207725|191785704|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-74.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.39|-66.28|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-66.28|-78.39|<0.0001
95913339|NCT02207725|191785704|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-59.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|-55.17|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-55.17|-64.10|<0.0001
95913340|NCT02207725|191785705|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-77.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.98|-74.04|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-74.04|-79.98|<0.0001
95913341|NCT02207725|191785707|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-7.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|-5.42|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-5.42|-8.86|<0.0001
95913342|NCT02207725|191785707|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|-3.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|-1.25|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||-1.25|-5.66|0.0002
95913343|NCT02207725|191785708|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|1227.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|984.01|1456.38|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1456.38|984.01|<0.0001
95913344|NCT02207725|191785708|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of shift|999.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|819.5|1200.53|||2-sided test exact Wilcoxon rank-sum tes|||||1200.53|819.50|<0.0001
95913345|NCT03170375|191785712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.28
95913346|NCT03170375|191785713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline left ventricular mass index||||||0.60
95913347|NCT03170375|191785714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline global left ventricular longitudinal strain||||||0.27
95913348|NCT03170375|191785715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|adjusted for baseline carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity||||||0.03
95913349|NCT03170375|191785719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.47
95913350|NCT03170375|191785720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||generalized estimating equation|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.28
95913351|NCT03170375|191785721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||generalized estimating equations|Model includes time (baseline, phase 2 month 1, phase 2 month 6), randomization assignment, and time x randomization assignment||||||0.43
95913352|NCT03170375|191785722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.94
95913353|NCT03170375|191785723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95913354|NCT03815019|191785786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|7.2218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the megestrol group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
95913355|NCT03815019|191785786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|9.1544|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13083.0|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Participants in the placebo group who successfully transitioned to oral feeding.|Analysis conducted using Generalized Linear Mixed Models with a logit link within SAS Proc GLIMMIX to model the binary outcome of transitioned to oral feeding (y/n) defined as at least 90 percent of calories consumed orally. Fixed effects (dummy variables) will be entered for each site as described by McNeish and Stapleton (2016) to account for the clustering of the participants within sites. This will result in essentially, a logistic regression model with appropriate standard errors.||||
95913356|NCT03815019|191785788|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7846, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913357|NCT03815019|191785789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7025, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913358|NCT03815019|191785790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.6764, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913359|NCT03815019|191785791|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7649, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913360|NCT03815019|191785792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.9487, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913361|NCT03815019|191785793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.7669, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913362|NCT03815019|191785794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.5883, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913363|NCT03815019|191785795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.4749, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913364|NCT03815019|191785796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Pr(\>F) = 0.8781, Nested model using site as a predictor|||||
95913365|NCT02134925|191785833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95913366|NCT02134925|191785838|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0001
95913367|NCT00947661|191785874|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Analysis of covariance included treatment, site, and intraocular pressure group as a covariate. Two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups in estimated mean change from baseline lease square means was computed for each time point. Non-inferiority of SPARC drug relative to Reference was established if: 95% confidence interval included 0, the upper limit of the 95% CI was \<1.5, and upper limit of 95% CI was \<1 at most (at least 7 of 12) time point.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95913368|NCT02404389|191785890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.515|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.12|||Posterior mean|||||0.12|-0.12|0.515
95913369|NCT02404389|191785890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|p value is provided|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.07||0.517|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.13|||posterior mean|||||0.13|-0.12|0.517
95913370|NCT01576718|191785900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0604||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.0604
95913371|NCT01576718|191785900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.072||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.149||Significance at the 0.05 level.|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 400 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.149|-0.004|0.0637
95913372|NCT01576718|191785900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.056||||0.1585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.133||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 200 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.133|-0.022|0.1585
95913373|NCT01576718|191785900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.048||||0.2221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.124||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 100 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.124|-0.029|0.2221
95913374|NCT01576718|191785900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.006|||=|0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.083||Significance at the 0.05 level|mixed model for repeated measures||Fp 50 - Placebo|No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||0.083|-0.070|=0.8694
95913375|NCT01576718|191785901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.1512
95913376|NCT01576718|191785901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.36||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.83|0.2361
95913377|NCT01576718|191785901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.78||||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|20.15|||Regression, Linear|Significance at the 0.05 level||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.15|-4.59|0.2169
95913378|NCT01576718|191785901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.09||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|19.26||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.26|-5.07|0.2523
95913379|NCT01576718|191785901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|8.23||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|20.45||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||20.45|-3.98|0.1858
95913380|NCT01576718|191785902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2879||||||If the Fp MDPI showed a significantly positive trend, then contrasts for pairwise comparisons of each Fp MDPI dose versus placebo were done in the sequence of highest to lowest Fp MDPI dose.|Regression, Linear|||A linear in log-dose trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the time-averaged dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined as log(dose+1) to accommodate the case of a zero dose (placebo). A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level. Specifically, the 2-sided linear in log-dose time-averaged trend test was first performed at the 0.05 level of significance.||||0.2879
95913381|NCT01576718|191785902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|7.56||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.45|19.56||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||19.56|-4.45|0.2166
95913382|NCT01576718|191785902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.03||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|16.23||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||16.23|-8.17|0.5167
95913383|NCT01576718|191785902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|2.99||||0.6258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|15.05||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||15.05|-9.06|0.6258
95913384|NCT01576718|191785902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.39||||0.9487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|12.39||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||No explicit structure was assumed for the covariance among the repeated measures. Analyses for comparison of Fp MDPI to placebo did not contain FLOVENT DISKUS data.||12.39|-11.60|0.9487
95913385|NCT01576718|191785903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0341||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0341
95913386|NCT01576718|191785903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0340
95913387|NCT01576718|191785903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0058||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0058
95913388|NCT01576718|191785903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.0018
95913389|NCT01576718|191785903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1006||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||P-value for comparison of survival curve to placebo||||0.1006
95913390|NCT01576718|191785904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.88116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.12|12.91||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||12.91|-11.12|0.88116
95913391|NCT01576718|191785904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.98||||0.05977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|0.68||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||0.68|-22.64|0.05977
95913392|NCT01576718|191785904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.90426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|11.54||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||11.54|-13.02|0.90426
95913393|NCT01576718|191785904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|7.82||Significance at the 0.05 level|Regression, Linear|||Estimates computed from a generalized linear logistic model with gender and age as covariates and allows correlation between estimates on the same subject. Interpretation of the estimates is that they are the average over the population at the average level of continuous covariate (age) averaged over discrete covariate (gender).||7.82|-16.57|0.47310
95913394|NCT01576718|191785911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.019|||=|0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.057|0.096||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.096|-0.057|=0.6161
95913395|NCT01576718|191785911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|0.004||||0.9245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.08||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.080|-0.973|0.9245
95913396|NCT01576718|191785911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.008||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|0.068||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.068|-0.083|0.8434
95728822|NCT04128696|191427416|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|4.0||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||4.0|-14.6|
95728823|NCT04128696|191427417|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|1.5||||||The comparison between the treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||1.5|-27.8|
95913397|NCT01576718|191785911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.047||||0.2241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.029||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.029|-0.122|0.2241
95913398|NCT01576718|191785911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.053||||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.025||0.05 level of significance.|mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.025|-0.130|0.1822
95913399|NCT01576718|191785912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.56||||0.3568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|6.29||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.29|-17.42|0.3568
95913400|NCT01576718|191785912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.68||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|6.32||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.32|-17.67|0.3531
95913401|NCT01576718|191785912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-6.58||||0.2724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.35|5.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||5.19|-18.35|0.2724
95913402|NCT01576718|191785912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.11|||=|0.3964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.95|6.72||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.72|-16.95|=0.3964
95913403|NCT01576718|191785912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-13.45||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.57|-1.33||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||-1.33|-25.57|0.0296
95727446|NCT01341639|191424680|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.85||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for HBsAg|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.85|-0.49|< 0.001
95913404|NCT01576718|191785913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-0.69||||0.9101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.59|11.22||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||11.22|-12.59|0.9101
95913405|NCT01576718|191785913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-4.51||||0.4634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|7.57||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||7.57|-16.6|0.4634
95913406|NCT01576718|191785913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-5.88||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|6.05||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||6.05|-17.8|0.3333
95913407|NCT01576718|191785913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|-8.19||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.06|3.69||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.69|-20.06|0.1763
95913408|NCT01576718|191785913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-9.05||||0.1469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|3.19||0.05 level of significance.|Regression, Linear|||||3.19|-21.3|0.1469
95727447|NCT01341639|191424680|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|1.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.86||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PT|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.86|0.32|< 0.001
95727448|NCT01341639|191424680|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-2.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.29||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for FHA|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|-1.29|-4.39|< 0.001
95913409|NCT02612064|191785940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.18||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.072|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as a factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|All statistical analyses were conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||0.072|-0.442|0.1575
95913410|NCT02036645|191785976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.04|0.82|
95913411|NCT02036645|191785976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.30|0.71|
95913412|NCT02036645|191785977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.98|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||0.98|0.81|
95913413|NCT02036645|191785977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.27|||Regression, Linear||Since an Estimation approach was taken for the statistical analysis, no p-values were calculated|||1.27|0.65|
95913414|NCT00279201|191785994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value from ANCOVA, baseline value as covariate. Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + thiazolidinedione (TZD) use + Sulfonylurea (sulfo) use.||||||0.005
95913415|NCT00279201|191785995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|Stratified by country, thiazolidinedione (TZD) use, sulfo use.||||||0.040
95913416|NCT00279201|191785996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
95913417|NCT00279201|191785996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
95913418|NCT00279201|191785997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.005
95913419|NCT00279201|191785998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.002
95913420|NCT00279201|191785998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913421|NCT00279201|191785998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.174
95913422|NCT00279201|191785999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.416||95.0||||P-value for baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.416
95913423|NCT00279201|191785999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913424|NCT00279201|191785999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.003
95913425|NCT00279201|191785999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value for endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
95913426|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.179
95913427|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913428|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.700
95913429|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value for AM 2-hour postprandial blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.016
95913430|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.971||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.971
95913431|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Midday premeal blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913432|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.759||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour postprandial BG|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use and sulfo use in model.||||||0.759
95913433|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value Midday 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.514
95913434|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.321||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening pre-meal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.321
95913435|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value for Evening pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.161
95913436|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.297||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline evening 2hour postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.297
95913437|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value Evening 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913438|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3 AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.199
95913439|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.693||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.693
95913440|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.021
95913441|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913442|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.567||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.567
95913443|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.005
95913444|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.994
95913445|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913446|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.436||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.436
95913447|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913448|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all 2hour PP BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.628
95913449|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913450|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.677
95913451|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913452|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal BG.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.364
95913453|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.055
95913454|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.165
95913455|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for AM/PM 2-hour blood glucose excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913456|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all BG values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.464
95913457|NCT00279201|191786000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||0.305
95913458|NCT00279201|191786001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.003
95913459|NCT00279201|191786002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913460|NCT00279201|191786002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913461|NCT00279201|191786002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 18|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913462|NCT00279201|191786002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913463|NCT00279201|191786002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for change from baseline at endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913464|NCT00279201|191786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.497
95913465|NCT00279201|191786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913466|NCT00279201|191786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Actual weight at Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95728824|NCT04128696|191427418|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-1.1||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.1|-22.4|
95913467|NCT00279201|191786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 18.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913468|NCT00279201|191786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913469|NCT00279201|191786003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value is for Actual weight at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.0001
95913470|NCT00279201|191786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.016
95913471|NCT00279201|191786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.037
95913472|NCT00279201|191786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.834
95913473|NCT00279201|191786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.585
95913474|NCT00279201|191786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.241
95913475|NCT00279201|191786004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0||||P-value is for Severe hypoglycemic episodes overall. Initiation phase and maintenance phase are included.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.080
95913476|NCT00279201|191786005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.009
95913477|NCT00279201|191786005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.420
95728825|NCT04128696|191427419|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|-1.4||||||The comparison between treatment groups was based on the stratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method with strata weighting by sample size and a single treatment covariate. Stratification factors included HPV status (positive vs. negative). Participants with oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharyngeal tumors were combined as the HPV negative group.||-1.4|-33.7|
95913478|NCT00279201|191786005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.165
95913479|NCT00279201|191786005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.167
95913480|NCT00279201|191786005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.006
95913481|NCT00279201|191786005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913482|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913483|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913484|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913485|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913486|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913487|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913488|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913489|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913490|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913491|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 18.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.001
95913492|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913493|NCT00279201|191786006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||<0.001
95913494|NCT00279201|191786007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913495|NCT00279201|191786008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913496|NCT00279201|191786009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913497|NCT00279201|191786010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913498|NCT00279201|191786011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913499|NCT00279201|191786012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913500|NCT00279201|191786013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Pre Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913501|NCT00279201|191786013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Post Meals Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913502|NCT00279201|191786013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Average of All Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913503|NCT00279201|191786013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Fasting Blood Glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with met goal/did not meet goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913504|NCT00279201|191786014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
95913505|NCT00279201|191786014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for TZD/Metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||<0.001
95913506|NCT00279201|191786014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.969
95913507|NCT00279201|191786014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225||95.0||||P-value is for Patients with 3 drugs (Sulfonylurea/TZD/Metformin).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.225
95913508|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Week 0.|ANOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
95913509|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.004
95913510|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.657
95913511|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.595||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.595
95913512|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142||95.0||||P-value for Week 48.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.142
95913513|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551||95.0||||P-value for Week 60.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.551
95913514|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.779||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.779
95913515|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.175
95913516|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||P-value for Week 96.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.018
95913517|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.047
95913518|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.027
95913519|NCT00279201|191786015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
95913520|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0||||P-value for Baseline mean fasting blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.218
95913521|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean fasting blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913522|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.897||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2-hour (hr) postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.897
95913523|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2-hour postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.138
95913524|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.867||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday premeal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.867
95913525|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday premeal blood.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.031
95913526|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.792||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.792
95913527|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.510
95913528|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.535||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.535
95913529|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM pre-meal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.517
95913530|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.869
95913531|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913532|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline 3AM blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.164
95913533|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.234||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint 3AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.234
95913534|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.175||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.175
95913535|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913536|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline midday 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.589
95913537|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint midday 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
95913538|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.674||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline PM 2hr excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.674
95913539|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint PM 2hr excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913540|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.201||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all meal time excursions.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.201
95913541|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all meal time excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913542|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.956||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.956
95913543|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean of all 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.019
95913544|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all premeal.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.445
95913545|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.371||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all premeal.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.371
95913546|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.848
95913547|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint combined AM/PM 2hr postprandial.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.002
95913548|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.281
95913549|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint AM/PM 2hr postprandial excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913550|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline mean all blood glucose values.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.588
95913551|NCT00279201|191786016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint mean all blood glucose values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD + Sulfo use.||||||0.217
95913552|NCT00279201|191786017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.300
95913553|NCT00279201|191786018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0||||P-value for \<=7.0%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.134
95913554|NCT00279201|191786018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.089
95913555|NCT00279201|191786018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.235||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.235
95913556|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 24.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913557|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 36.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913558|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 48.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913559|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 60.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913560|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 72.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913561|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 84.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913562|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 96.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913563|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 108|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913564|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Week 120.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||0.002
95913565|NCT00279201|191786019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Change from baseline at Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Model: Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913566|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.128
95913567|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913568|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913569|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913570|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913571|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913572|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913573|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913574|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913575|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||0.002
95913576|NCT00279201|191786020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use + Sulfo Use.||||||<0.001
95913577|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913578|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 36.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913579|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 48.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913580|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 60.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913581|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 72.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913582|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 84.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913583|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 96.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913584|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 108.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913585|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Week 120.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913586|NCT00279201|191786021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|Model: Treatment + Country + TZD use + sulfonylurea use.||||||<0.001
95913587|NCT00279201|191786022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemic episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.370
95913588|NCT00279201|191786022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-Value for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.006
95913589|NCT00279201|191786022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.397
95913590|NCT00279201|191786022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.253||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.253
95913591|NCT00279201|191786022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.893||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.893
95913592|NCT00279201|191786022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.391
95913593|NCT00279201|191786023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497||95.0||||P-value for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.497
95913594|NCT00279201|191786023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.071
95913595|NCT00279201|191786023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.065
95913596|NCT00279201|191786023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.021
95913597|NCT00279201|191786023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.200
95913598|NCT00279201|191786023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.208
95913599|NCT00279201|191786024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, TZD use and sulfo use.||||||0.004
95913600|NCT00279201|191786025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline at Week 0.|ANOVA|ANOVA used with treatment, country, TZD use and Sulfo use in the model.||||||0.204
95913601|NCT00279201|191786025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0||||P-Value is for Change from baseline to endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.017
95913602|NCT00279201|191786025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value is for Change Week 24 to Week 120 endpoint.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA used with treatment, Baseline HbA1c, country, TZD use and sulfo use in the model.||||||0.020
95913603|NCT00279201|191786026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.036
95913604|NCT00279201|191786027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.708
95913605|NCT00279201|191786028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and Sulfo use.||||||0.028
95913606|NCT00279201|191786029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.738
95913607|NCT00279201|191786030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||<0.001
95913608|NCT00279201|191786031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.043
95913609|NCT00279201|191786032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||<0.001
95913610|NCT00279201|191786033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country, TZD use, and sulfo use.||||||0.032
95913611|NCT00279201|191786034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.037
95913612|NCT00279201|191786034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.025
95913613|NCT00279201|191786034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.132
95729474|NCT04281485|191429247|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.082|=|0.3343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.083|-0.242|=0.3343
95913614|NCT00279201|191786034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.849||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.849
95913615|NCT00279201|191786035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/TZD|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.006
95913616|NCT00279201|191786035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.048
95913617|NCT00279201|191786035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||P-value is for Metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.258
95913618|NCT00279201|191786035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848||95.0||||P-value is for Sulfonylurea/metformin/TZD.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country only.||||||0.848
95913619|NCT00279201|191786036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.004
95913620|NCT00279201|191786037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.553||95.0|||||ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.553
95913621|NCT00279201|191786038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of all post meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.010
95913622|NCT00279201|191786038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.035
95913623|NCT00279201|191786039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean of post-meals blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.516
95913624|NCT00279201|191786039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425||95.0||||P-value is for Average of all blood glucose.|ANOVA|From ANOVA with maintained goal/did not maintain goal, country, TZD use, and sulfo use in model.||||||0.425
95913625|NCT00279201|191786040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
95913626|NCT00279201|191786040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
95913627|NCT00279201|191786040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
95913628|NCT00279201|191786040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
95913629|NCT00279201|191786041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.027
95913630|NCT00279201|191786041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.021
95913631|NCT00279201|191786041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
95913632|NCT00279201|191786041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.676||95.0||||P-value is for \<=7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
95913633|NCT00279201|191786041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95913634|NCT00279201|191786041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||P-value is for \<=6.5%.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95913635|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.241
95913636|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.305||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.305
95913637|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.842||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.842
95913638|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.917
95913639|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.648
95913640|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.613
95913641|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.813
95913642|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.953
95913643|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.933
95913644|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.348
95913645|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.625||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.625
95913646|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.573
95913647|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.711||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.711
95913648|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.372||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.372
95913649|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.516
95913650|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.639||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.639
95913651|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131||95.0||||P-value is for Mean fast blood glucose (BG).|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.131
95913652|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour postprandial (PP) BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.530
95913653|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0||||P-value is for Midday premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.578
95913654|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour (hr) PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.004
95913655|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.951||95.0||||P-value is for PM premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.951
95913656|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour postprandial BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.580
95913657|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value is for 3 AM blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.071
95913658|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||P-value is for AM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.081
95913659|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is for Midday 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||<0.001
95913660|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542||95.0||||P-value is for PM 2-hour BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.542
95913661|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all mealtime excursions.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.003
95913662|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all 2-hour PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.105
95913663|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.487||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all premeal blood glucose.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.487
95913664|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0||||P-value is for Mean combined AM/PM 2hr PP BG.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.491
95913665|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0||||P-value is for Mean AM/PM 2hr BG excursion.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.127
95913666|NCT00279201|191786042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861||95.0||||P-value is for Mean all BG values.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.861
95913667|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.745
95913668|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.467
95913669|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
95913670|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
95913671|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
95913672|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
95913673|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
95913674|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
95913675|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
95913676|NCT00279201|191786043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
95913677|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.467
95913678|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.575
95913679|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.726||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.726
95913680|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.978
95913681|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.345||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.345
95913682|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, and TZD use in model.||||||0.745
95913683|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.166
95913684|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.064
95913685|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.199
95913686|NCT00279201|191786044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.098
95913687|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.837
95913688|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.205
95913689|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.704
95913690|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.610
95913691|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.352
95913692|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.636||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.636
95913693|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.880
95913694|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.904
95913695|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.859
95913696|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.654
95913697|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.566
95913698|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926||95.0||||P-value is for Week 1.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.926
95913699|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902||95.0||||P-value is for Week 2.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.902
95913700|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0||||P-value is for Week 3.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.766
95913701|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449||95.0||||P-value is for Week 4.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.449
95913702|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797||95.0||||P-value is for Week 5.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.797
95913703|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0||||P-value is for Week 6.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.438
95913704|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.602||95.0||||P-value is for Week 8.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.602
95913705|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493||95.0||||P-value is for Week 10.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.493
95913706|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.335||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.335
95913707|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.398||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.398
95913708|NCT00279201|191786045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in the model.||||||0.903
95727449|NCT01341639|191424680|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.52||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for PRN|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.52|-1.4|< 0.001
95913709|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
95913710|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.953||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.953
95913711|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.188
95913712|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.226
95913713|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.855||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.855
95913714|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes at endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.250
95913715|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.123||95.0||||P-value is for Overall hypoglycemia episodes.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.123
95913716|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.166
95913717|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes endpoint.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.273
95913718|NCT00279201|191786046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes overall.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic controlling for country and TZD use.||||||0.039
95913719|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.623
95913720|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemic episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
95913721|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.730
95913722|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445||95.0||||P-value is for Hypoglycemia episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.445
95913723|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.949||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.949
95913724|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.590
95913725|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.657||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Endpoint.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.657
95913726|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108||95.0||||P-value is for Nocturnal episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.108
95913727|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.161
95913728|NCT00279201|191786047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0||||P-value is for Severe episodes Overall.|ANOVA|Response = Treatment + Country + TZD use + Sulfo use.||||||0.178
95913729|NCT00279201|191786048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.917||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.917
95913730|NCT00279201|191786048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.754||95.0||||P-value for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.754
95913731|NCT00279201|191786048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0||||P-value is for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.420
95913732|NCT00279201|191786048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.514||95.0||||P-value for Change.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline, country, and TZD use.||||||0.514
95913733|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.770
95913734|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.566
95913735|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.812
95729475|NCT04281485|191429248|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|=|0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The MMRM model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.045|-0.052|=0.8826
95729276|NCT00320593|191428942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.28|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 1 year, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 1 year, in which myopia at 1 year was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 1 year values were known) were included.||0.28|-0.005|
95913736|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.990
95913737|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.552||95.0||||P-value is for Baseline.|ANOVA|ANOVA with treatment, country, TZD use in model.||||||0.552
95913738|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0||||P-value is for Week 12.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.179
95913739|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.377||95.0||||P-value is for Week 24.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.377
95913740|NCT00279201|191786049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||95.0||||P-value is for Endpoint.|ANCOVA|Response = Treatment + Baseline + Country + TZD use.||||||0.271
95913741|NCT00916032|191786050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.103||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.103
95913742|NCT00916032|191786051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||95.0|||||paired t-test done on the Log(AUC 0-48h)|||||||0.162
95913743|NCT00696384|191786069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|-5.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-5.78|-9.78|<0.001
95913744|NCT00696384|191786070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|-9.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Includes participants with both a double-blind baseline and postbaseline value.|ANCOVA|||||-9.29|-15.47|<0.001
95913745|NCT05559866|191786076|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Scores from the proximal stomach, mid-stomach and distal stomach in the control and treatment groups were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean difference in durability scores for the control and treatment groups.||.74|.31|<0.01
95913746|NCT05559866|191786077|OTHER|Variance|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0000013||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.125|19.125|||ANCOVA|||||19.125|19.125|1.00
95913747|NCT05559866|191786078|OTHER|Variance||||||0.757||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.757
95913748|NCT05559866|191786079|OTHER|Variance||||||0.271||||||Alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.271
95913749|NCT05559866|191786080|OTHER|Variance||||||0.29||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.29
95913750|NCT05559866|191786081|OTHER|Variance||||||0.72||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.72
95913751|NCT05559866|191786082|OTHER|Variance||||||0.41||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.41
95913752|NCT05559866|191786083|OTHER|Variance||||||0.53||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.53
95913753|NCT05559866|191786084|OTHER|Variance||||||0.91||||||alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|1 degree of freedom||||||0.91
95913754|NCT05559866|191786085|OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-Square: 1.043478||||||0.307
95913755|NCT05559866|191786086|OTHER|Association|||||||||||||||||Unable to perform Chi-Square test as data in both categorical sets was identical - there is no variation to test.|||
95913756|NCT03549234|191786097|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB (paravertebral block) using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0011|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We hypothesized that 1) analgesia would be noninferior in the recovery room as measured on a Numeric Rating Scale with ESPB (erector spinae plane block), and 2) opioid consumption would be noninferior in the operating and recovery rooms with ESPB. We simulated pain scores from a discrete distribution with median (interquartile range) 2 (0-3). The sample size of 50 per group provided 81% power to detect noninferiority in pain.||||0.0011
95913757|NCT03549234|191786098|NON_INFERIORITY|"We tested the noninferiority of ESPB compared to PVB using the 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Exact test. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for median average recovery room pain scores was greater than -1.25 (based on PVB minus ESPB), we concluded noninferiority. The noninferiority of ESPBs with regard to opioid consumption was similarly tested with a predefined noninferiority margin of 2 mg intravenous morphine equivalents."||||||0.0043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0043
95913758|NCT00332332|191786103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|73.5||||||95.0|67.2|79.1||||||||79.1|67.2|
95913759|NCT02714868|191786109|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For goal attainment, we calculated independent t-tests to compare GAS t-scores across groups at outcome. Lowest score is 0, highest score is 100. 100 is highest goal attainment.||||.05
95913760|NCT00584701|191786116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dfiference in exon expression|1.5|||<|0.001||||||"Expression difference \>\|1.5\| with p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA|Between-group gene expression profiles compared between high versus low responders, controlling for age, gender and batch.||||||<.001
95913761|NCT01373931|191786136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.907|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.05|0.907|
95913762|NCT01373931|191786136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|0.914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|0.991|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||0.991|0.842|
95913763|NCT01373931|191786137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.73|0.51|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for ethinyl estradiol.||||0.51|-0.73|
95913764|NCT01373931|191786137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.5|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|Median difference is for norelgestromin.||||0.50|-0.50|
95913765|NCT01373931|191786138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07||||||90.0|1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for ethinyl estradiol.||||1.15|1.00|
95913766|NCT01373931|191786138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.0||||||90.0|0.944|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geometric LS mean is for norelgestromin.||||1.07|0.944|
95913767|NCT01175148|191786156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||The study used a minimax Simon two-stage design to test the null hypothesis Ho: P \> 0.35 versus the alternative H1: \< 0.15, where P is the probability of grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD at day + 100.||||<0.05
95913768|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|14.201|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.251|32.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 1||32.262|6.251|<0.001
95913769|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|32.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.828|66.156|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 2||66.156|15.828|<0.001
95913770|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|55.772|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.646|121.287|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 4||121.287|25.646|<0.001
95913771|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|48.336|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.341|120.798|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 6||120.798|19.341|<0.001
95913772|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|34.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.69|87.629|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 8||87.629|13.690|<0.001
95913773|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|23.249|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.579|63.005|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, Week 12||63.005|8.579|<0.001
95913774|NCT02799472|191786170|OTHER||Ratio|1.233||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|2.048|||Repeated measures analysis|||GM-CSF - Complex, 12-Week FU||2.048|0.742|0.401
95913775|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.861|1.032|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 1||1.032|0.861|0.193
95913776|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|1.028||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.362|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 2||1.362|0.776|0.842
95913777|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.743||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.505|1.093|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 4||1.093|0.505|0.127
95913778|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.762||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.531|1.095|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 6||1.095|0.531|0.137
95913779|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.886||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.259|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 8||1.259|0.623|0.488
95913780|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.793||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.488|1.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, Week 12||1.290|0.488|0.338
95913781|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.859||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.502|||Repeated measures analysis|||14-3-3 ETA Protein, 12-Week FU||1.502|0.491|0.582
95913782|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.999||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.699|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 1||1.427|0.699|0.996
95913783|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.944||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.346|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 2||1.346|0.662|0.745
95913784|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|1.017||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.649|1.593|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 4||1.593|0.649|0.939
95913785|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|1.617|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 6||1.617|0.595|0.937
95913786|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|1.067||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|1.727|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 8||1.727|0.659|0.787
95913787|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|1.267||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|2.086|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, Week 12||2.086|0.769|0.342
95913788|NCT02799472|191786171|OTHER||Ratio|1.748||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.076|2.838|||Repeated measures analysis|||S100 CBP A8 and A9, 12-Week FU||2.838|1.076|0.026
95913789|NCT02799472|191786172|OTHER||Ratio|0.774||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.29|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, Week 12||2.290|0.261|0.632
95913790|NCT02799472|191786172|OTHER||Ratio|1.176||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.519|2.663|||Repeated measures analysis|||Amyloid A, 12-Week FU||2.663|0.519|0.685
95913791|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.692||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.445|1.074|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 1||1.074|0.445|0.097
95913792|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.713||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.407|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 2||1.249|0.407|0.229
95913793|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.608||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.012|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 4||1.012|0.365|0.055
95913794|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.755||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|1.309|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 6||1.309|0.435|0.307
95913795|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.557||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.894|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, Week 8||0.894|0.348|0.017
95913796|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.52||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.922|||Repeated measures analysis|||||0.922|0.294|0.026
95913797|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|1.636|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL17, 12-Week FU||1.636|0.548|0.839
95913798|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.764||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 1||1.100|0.530|0.142
95913799|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.726|1.39|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 2||1.390|0.726|0.976
95913800|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.236||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.859|1.778|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 4||1.778|0.859|0.244
95913801|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.237||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.83|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 6||1.830|0.836|0.278
95913802|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.118||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.651|1.92|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 8||1.920|0.651|0.677
95913803|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.165||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.369|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, Week 12||2.369|0.573|0.661
95913804|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|3.007|||Repeated measures analysis|||CL13, 12-Week FU||3.007|0.832|0.154
95913805|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.903||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|1.729|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 1||1.729|0.471|0.751
95913806|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.413|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 2||1.413|0.367|0.330
95913807|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.447|1.512|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 4||1.512|0.447|0.519
95913808|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.659||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.372|1.167|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 6||1.167|0.372|0.147
95913809|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.684||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.396|1.18|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 8||1.180|0.396|0.166
95913810|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.221||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|2.031|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, Week 12||2.031|0.734|0.432
95913811|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.602||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.423|||Repeated measures analysis|||Interleukin 6, 12-Week FU||3.423|0.750|0.216
95727450|NCT01341639|191424682|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.25||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Measles|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.25|-2.82|< 0.001
95727451|NCT01341639|191424682|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|3.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|6.4||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Mumps|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.4|-0.12|< 0.001
95913812|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.926||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.823|1.042|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 1||1.042|0.823|0.195
95913813|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.984||||0.851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.168|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 2||1.168|0.829|0.851
95913814|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.956||||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.158|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 4||1.158|0.790|0.637
95913815|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.225|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 6||1.225|0.833|0.915
95913816|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.857||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.064|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 8||1.064|0.690|0.157
95913817|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|0.849||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.681|1.059|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, Week 12||1.059|0.681|0.142
95913818|NCT02799472|191786173|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.378|||Repeated measures analysis|||MDC, 12-Week FU||1.378|0.745|0.929
95913819|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.887||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.231|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 1||1.231|0.640|0.463
95913820|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.352|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 2||1.352|0.672|0.782
95913821|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.132||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.69|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 4||1.690|0.759|0.533
95913822|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.149||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.694|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 6||1.694|0.779|0.473
95913823|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.687|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 8||1.687|0.733|0.608
95913824|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.005||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.613|1.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, Week 12||1.645|0.613|0.985
95913825|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.386||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|2.057|||Repeated measures analysis|||Chitinase 3 Like 1, 12-Week FU||2.057|0.934|0.102
95913826|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.915||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.781|1.071|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 1||1.071|0.781|0.259
95913827|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.959||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.137|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 2||1.137|0.809|0.621
95913828|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.914||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 4||1.110|0.752|0.354
95913829|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|1.444|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 6||1.444|0.443|0.448
95913830|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.16||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|1.653|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 8||1.653|0.813|0.402
95913831|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|0.951||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.301|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, Week 12||1.301|0.695|0.745
95913832|NCT02799472|191786174|OTHER||Ratio|1.226||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.796|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-3, 12-Week FU||1.796|0.837|0.279
95913833|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.098||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.606|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 1||1.606|0.750|0.621
95913834|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.581||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|2.388|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 2||2.388|1.046|0.031
95913835|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.222||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.827|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 4||1.827|0.817|0.317
95913836|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.302||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.936|1.81|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 6||1.810|0.936|0.113
95913837|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|2.645|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 8||2.645|0.795|0.217
95913838|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.266||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.916|1.75|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, Week 12||1.750|0.916|0.147
95913839|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.996||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.499|||Repeated measures analysis|||ARGS Neo-Epitope, 12-Week FU||1.499|0.662|0.985
95913840|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.892||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.56|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 1||1.560|0.511|0.681
95913841|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|1.669|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 2||1.669|0.454|0.668
95913842|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.12||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.597|2.101|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 4||2.101|0.597|0.717
95913843|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.661||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|1.31|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 6||1.310|0.333|0.227
95913844|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.817||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.464|1.437|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 8||1.437|0.464|0.471
95913845|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.816||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.597|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, Week 12||1.597|0.417|0.541
95913846|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.822||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.602|||Repeated measures analysis|||CMDV, 12-Week FU||1.602|0.422|0.544
95913847|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.051||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 1||1.233|0.895|0.537
95913848|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.906|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 2||1.173|0.906|0.635
95913849|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.012||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.879|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 4||1.165|0.879|0.866
95913850|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 6||1.139|0.842|0.780
95913851|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.113||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.32|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 8||1.320|0.938|0.212
95913852|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.102||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.934|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, Week 12||1.300|0.934|0.242
95913853|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.05||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.267|||Repeated measures analysis|||MMP-Degraded CRP, 12-Week FU||1.267|0.870|0.597
95913854|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.795||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.634|0.997|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 1||0.997|0.634|0.047
95913855|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.883||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.165|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 2||1.165|0.668|0.367
95913856|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.784||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.102|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 4||1.102|0.558|0.155
95913857|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.638||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.477|0.855|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 6||0.855|0.477|0.004
95913858|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.799||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.591|1.08|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 8||1.080|0.591|0.140
95913859|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.891||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, Week 12||1.228|0.647|0.470
95913860|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.869||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|1.217|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD1C, 12-Week FU||1.217|0.621|0.401
95913861|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.981||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.742|1.296|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 1||1.296|0.742|0.887
95913862|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.97||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.263|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 2||1.263|0.744|0.814
95913863|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.969||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.233|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 4||1.233|0.762|0.794
95913864|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.919||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|1.213|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 6||1.213|0.696|0.539
95913865|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.221|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 8||1.221|0.719|0.623
95913866|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.913||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.173|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, Week 12||1.173|0.711|0.467
95913867|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.778||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.061|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD2C, 12-Week FU||1.061|0.570|0.108
95913868|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.01||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.175|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 1||1.175|0.868|0.897
95913869|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.218|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 2||1.218|0.884|0.644
95913870|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.943||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.139|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 4||1.139|0.780|0.530
95913871|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.882||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.733|1.063|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 6||1.063|0.733|0.182
95913872|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|10.0|0.779|1.182|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 8||1.182|0.779|0.691
95913873|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|0.979||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.214|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, Week 12||1.214|0.790|0.843
95913874|NCT02799472|191786175|OTHER||Ratio|1.075||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.351|||Repeated measures analysis|||MD3C, 12-Week FU||1.351|0.855|0.524
95913875|NCT02799472|191786176|OTHER||Ratio|0.953||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|1.123|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 1||1.123|0.809|0.558
95913876|NCT02799472|191786176|OTHER||Ratio|0.947||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.12|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 4||1.120|0.801|0.515
95913877|NCT02799472|191786176|OTHER||Ratio|1.046||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.895|1.222|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, Week 12||1.222|0.895|0.565
95913878|NCT02799472|191786176|OTHER||Ratio|1.013||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|1.249|||Repeated measures analysis|||Helper/Suppressor, 12-Week FU||1.249|0.822|0.897
95913879|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.037||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.794|1.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 1||1.354|0.794|0.786
95913880|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.818||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|1.109|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 4||1.109|0.603|0.188
95913881|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.763||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.087|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, Week 12||1.087|0.536|0.129
95913882|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.709||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.006|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD16+CD56+, 12-Week FU||1.006|0.499|0.054
95913883|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.119||||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.863|1.45|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 1||1.450|0.863|0.383
95913884|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.89||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.623|1.271|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 4||1.271|0.623|0.510
95913885|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.952||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.262|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, Week 12||1.262|0.718|0.724
95913886|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.958||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|1.443|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD19, 12-Week FU||1.443|0.635|0.831
95913887|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 1||1.328|0.882|0.437
95913888|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.937||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.234|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 4||1.234|0.711|0.632
95913889|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.088||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.336|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, Week 12||1.336|0.885|0.413
95913890|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.062||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.316|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3, 12-Week FU||1.316|0.858|0.567
95913891|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.069||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.855|1.338|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 1||1.338|0.855|0.547
95913892|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.223|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 4||1.223|0.673|0.512
95913893|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.064||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.328|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, Week 12||1.328|0.853|0.573
95913894|NCT02799472|191786177|OTHER||Ratio|1.031||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|1.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.300|0.818|0.789
95913895|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.128|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 1||0.128|-0.056|0.428
95913896|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.159|0.113|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 4||0.113|-0.159|0.733
95913897|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.115|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, Week 12||0.115|-0.076|0.677
95913898|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.033||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.151|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD8+, 12-Week FU||0.151|-0.084|0.569
95913899|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.469|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 1||0.469|-0.263|0.569
95913900|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.157||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.668|0.354|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 4||0.354|-0.668|0.534
95913901|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.087||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.323|0.498|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, Week 12||0.498|-0.323|0.668
95913902|NCT02799472|191786178|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|0.484|||Repeated measures analysis|||T Cell B Cell NKL, 12-Week FU||0.484|-0.526|0.934
95913903|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.112||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.412|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 1||1.412|0.876|0.369
95913904|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|0.941||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|1.228|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 4||1.228|0.721|0.641
95913905|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.024||||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.804|1.303|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, Week 12||1.303|0.804|0.844
95913906|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.082||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|1.427|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD4+, 12-Week FU||1.427|0.821|0.558
95913907|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.111||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.402|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 1||1.402|0.880|0.363
95913908|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|0.957||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.265|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 4||1.265|0.724|0.751
95913909|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.076||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.846|1.37|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, Week 12||1.370|0.846|0.537
95913910|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.032||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.335|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+ CD8+, 12-Week FU||1.335|0.797|0.806
95913911|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.101||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.391|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 1||1.391|0.872|0.405
95913912|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|0.907||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.668|1.232|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 4||1.232|0.668|0.519
95913913|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.036||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.291|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, Week 12||1.291|0.831|0.748
95913914|NCT02799472|191786179|OTHER||Ratio|1.049||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.811|1.356|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+, 12-Week FU||1.356|0.811|0.704
95913915|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|26.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||26.1|-13.1|0.501
95913916|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||18.0|-21.6|0.852
95913917|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.3||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|29.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||29.0|-16.4|0.572
95913918|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.5||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|34.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||34.1|-13.0|0.363
95913919|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|17.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 1||17.0|-13.0|0.788
95913920|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|14.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 4||14.4|-18.8|0.786
95913921|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|11.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, Week 12||11.2|-25.4|0.433
95913922|NCT02799472|191786180|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD3+CD4+foxP3+CD25+CD127-, 12-Week FU||18.0|-9.8|0.550
95913923|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.6||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|46.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||46.1|-16.9|0.350
95913924|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.4||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|52.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||52.0|-35.3|0.697
95913925|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.2|36.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||36.8|-135.2|0.249
95913926|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.1||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.6|8.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||8.3|-68.6|0.119
95913927|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|22.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||22.4|-9.3|0.403
95913928|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.4|35.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||35.2|-39.4|0.910
95913929|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|30.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||30.1|-43.1|0.718
95913930|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|23.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6+CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||23.0|-34.4|0.687
95913931|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-56.0||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.8|137.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 1||137.7|-249.8|0.559
95913932|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|51.6||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.9|197.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 4||197.0|-93.9|0.470
95913933|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-141.5||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-829.2|546.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, Week 12||546.3|-829.2|0.675
95913934|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-137.9||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.0|18.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3+38+DR+, 12-Week FU||18.2|-294.0|0.080
95913935|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.5|61.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 1||61.3|-60.5|0.989
95913936|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.4||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|59.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 4||59.6|-94.3|0.634
95913937|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|59.4||||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.2|513.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, Week 12||513.9|-395.2|0.789
95913938|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-47.2||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-135.5|41.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+3+8-4+CCR6-CXCR3-38+DR+, 12-Week FU||41.0|-135.5|0.249
95913939|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3682.3||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2511.9|9876.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 1||9876.5|-2511.9|0.234
95913940|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-547.6||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7612.6|6517.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 4||6517.3|-7612.6|0.875
95913941|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1106.0||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10706.0|8494.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, Week 12||8494.1|-10706.0|0.815
95913942|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3631.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9738.9|2476.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+, 12-Week FU||2476.8|-9738.9|0.230
95913943|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-515.6||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2021.4|990.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 1||990.1|-2021.4|0.489
95913944|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2001.7|1602.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 4||1602.0|-2001.7|0.822
95913945|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-253.5||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2136.7|1629.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, Week 12||1629.7|-2136.7|0.784
95913946|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|225.1||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1633.1|2083.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2083.2|-1633.1|0.804
95913947|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|162.7||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-754.5|1079.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 1||1079.9|-754.5|0.719
95913948|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-183.5||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1317.4|950.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 4||950.3|-1317.4|0.742
95913949|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.5||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1507.5|970.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, Week 12||970.5|-1507.5|0.658
95913950|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-197.6||||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1499.3|1104.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6+CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||1104.2|-1499.3|0.755
95913951|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1150.0||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1250.0|3550.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 1||3550.0|-1250.0|0.333
95913952|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-268.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4269.2|3733.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 4||3733.3|-4269.2|0.891
95913953|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1347.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7073.1|4378.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, Week 12||4378.3|-7073.1|0.633
95913954|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1688.9||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5864.1|2486.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3+, 12-Week FU||2486.2|-5864.1|0.410
95913955|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3276.8||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1786.0|8339.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 1||8339.6|-1786.0|0.196
95913956|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-447.3||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7285.5|6390.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 4||6390.8|-7285.5|0.894
95913957|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1435.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4101.4|6972.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, Week 12||6972.0|-4101.4|0.600
95913958|NCT02799472|191786181|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1210.2||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5213.1|2792.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD45+CD3+CD8-CD4+CCR6-CXCR3-, 12-Week FU||2792.7|-5213.1|0.534
95913959|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2756.3||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2953.7|8466.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 1||8466.3|-2953.7|0.328
95913960|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-487.5||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8003.7|7028.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 4||7028.6|-8003.7|0.895
95913961|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.4||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12001.0|11446.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, Week 12||11446.2|-12001.0|0.961
95913962|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-311.6||||0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11960.5|11337.4|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14-HLA-DR+CD11cbr+CD123-, 12-Week FU||11337.4|-11960.5|0.956
95913963|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6866.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4230.7|17964.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 1||17964.6|-4230.7|0.212
95913964|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8359.6||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5533.3|22252.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 4||22252.5|-5533.3|0.227
95913965|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22683.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44298.5|-1068.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, Week 12||-1068.8|-44298.5|0.040
95913966|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3757.2||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27146.0|19631.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16+, 12-Week FU||19631.6|-27146.0|0.741
95913967|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22417.0||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116677.8|71843.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 1||71843.8|-116677.8|0.628
95913968|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|27659.7||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28567.8|83887.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 4||83887.1|-28567.8|0.321
95913969|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16182.9||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70377.0|102742.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, Week 12||102742.9|-70377.0|0.704
95913970|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-63419.4||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170364.9|43526.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14br+CD16-, 12-Week FU||43526.1|-170364.9|0.232
95913971|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6913.6||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22588.4|8761.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 1||8761.1|-22588.4|0.366
95913972|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2231.6||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10976.8|6513.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 4||6513.6|-10976.8|0.603
95913973|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10179.1||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21827.4|1469.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, Week 12||1469.2|-21827.4|0.084
95913974|NCT02799472|191786182|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-20744.2||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38771.8|-2716.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||CD14lo+CD16br+, 12-Week FU||-2716.5|-38771.8|0.026
95913975|NCT02799472|191786183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|178.2||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-448.3|804.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 1||804.6|-448.3|0.564
95913976|NCT02799472|191786183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|540.4||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.7|1416.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1416.5|-335.7|0.216
95913977|NCT02799472|191786183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-252.6||||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1326.0|820.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||820.8|-1326.0|0.629
95913978|NCT02799472|191786183|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|41.6||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-962.2|1045.5|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1045.5|-962.2|0.932
95913979|NCT02799472|191786191|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||2.23|-2.32|0.547
95913980|NCT02799472|191786191|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.51|-4.77|0.948
95913981|NCT02799472|191786191|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \<0||0.45|-5.02|0.949
95913982|NCT02799472|191786191|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.23|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 4, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||2.23|-2.32|0.453
95913983|NCT02799472|191786191|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.18||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.51|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||Week 12, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.51|-4.77|0.052
95913984|NCT02799472|191786191|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.28||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|0.45|||Repeated Measures Bayesian Model|||12-Week FU, For Posterior Probability Difference \>0||0.45|-5.02|0.051
95913985|NCT02799472|191786192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.3|-0.2|0.940
95913986|NCT02799472|191786192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.6|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||1.6|-3.2|0.521
95913987|NCT02799472|191786192|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.8|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1.8|-4.4|0.396
95913988|NCT02799472|191786193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.2|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||1.2|-1.1|0.945
95913989|NCT02799472|191786193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.7|-1.5|0.475
95913990|NCT02799472|191786193|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.1|-2.0|0.086
95913991|NCT02799472|191786194|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|211.4||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2589.2|3012.0|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||3012.0|-2589.2|0.874
95913992|NCT02799472|191786194|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-504.8||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3730.4|2720.9|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||2720.9|-3730.4|0.749
95913993|NCT02799472|191786194|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1536.0||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4884.2|1812.1|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||1812.1|-4884.2|0.352
95913994|NCT02799472|191786195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0128||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0123|0.038|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0380|-0.0123|0.291
95913995|NCT02799472|191786195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0036||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0046|0.0118|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0118|-0.0046|0.375
95913996|NCT02799472|191786195|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001||||0.588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0049|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0049|-0.0028|0.588
95913997|NCT02799472|191786196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0002||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0033|0.0029|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 4||0.0029|-0.0033|0.915
95913998|NCT02799472|191786196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0004||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0028|0.0021|||Repeated measures analysis|||Week 12||0.0021|-0.0028|0.771
95913999|NCT02799472|191786196|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0005||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0058|||Repeated measures analysis|||12-Week FU||0.0058|-0.0048|0.850
95914000|NCT02801669|191786197|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.339||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.188|0.608|||Regression, Cox|The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.||This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of composite event of stroke and SEE between treatment groups.||0.608|0.188|0.0003
95914001|NCT02801669|191786198|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.157|0.57|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of stroke between treatment groups.||0.570|0.157|
95914002|NCT02801669|191786198|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|2.011|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of SEE between treatment groups.||2.011|0.126|
95914003|NCT02801669|191786198|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.306|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.585|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke between treatment groups.||0.585|0.160|
95914004|NCT02801669|191786198|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.347|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|0.624|||||The treatment groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model with the CHADS2 score (\<= 2 or \>= 3) as covariate.|This statistical analysis assesses the annual incidence of ischemic stroke/SEE between treatment groups.||0.624|0.193|
95914005|NCT01187914|191786215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Regression coefficient|0.13||||0.48||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
95914006|NCT02150837|191786230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Within group comparison (for each group) using a non-parametric paired Wilcoxon signed rank test comparing repeated measures in a single sample.||||||<0.0001
95914007|NCT00985985|191786338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center)|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||1.92|0.78|0.3851
95914008|NCT00985985|191786338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio based on logistic model (adjusted by center).|Null hypothesis considered no treatment difference in the smoking cessation success rate for the active treatment versus its matching placebo.||3.32|0.99|0.0565
95914009|NCT03541044|191786394|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC0-t fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric mean ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0|||||GMR= (Prototype mini Lozenge/ Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.91|
95914010|NCT03541044|191786395|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for AUC(0-inf) fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.0|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||1.00|0.89|
95914011|NCT03541044|191786396|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was determined if the 90% CIs of the GMRs for Cmax fell completely within the 0.80 - 1.25 range.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|0.98|||||GMR = (Prototype mini Lozenge/Nicorette mini Lozenge)|||0.98|0.82|
95914012|NCT00860067|191786409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H1N1 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H1N1 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H1N1 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H1N1) divided by Q/LAIV A/H1N1.|Ratio of geometric mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.18|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H1N1: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H1N1 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H1N1 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.18|1.01|
95914013|NCT00860067|191786409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose A/H3N2 GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the A/H3N2 post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata A/H3N2 + FluMist B/Victoria A/H3N2) divided by Q/LAIV A/H3N2.|Ratio of geometric means|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.14|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||A/H3N2: Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of A/H3N2 GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the A/H3N2 influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.14|0.96|
95914014|NCT00860067|191786409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Yamagata GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Yamagata post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Yamagata) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Yamagata).|Ratio of geometric mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.25|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Yamagata GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Yamagata influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.25|0.97|
95914015|NCT00860067|191786409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of Q/LAIV was to be declared noninferior to that of trivalent FluMist if the upper bound of the 95% CI for post dose B/Victoria GMT ratio was ≤ 1.5. This corresponded to the statistical hypothesis of: Ho: Rj \> 1.5 for any j and Ha: Rj ≤ 1.5 for all j, where Rj was the B/Victoria post-dose GMT ratio: (FluMist B/Victoria) divided by (Q/LAIV B/Victoria).|Ratio of geometric means|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.03|||Bootstrapping|Confidence intervals were calculated based on bootstrapping method.||Noninferior immune response was assessed by evaluating the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of B/Victoria GMTs for the specified comparison. Geometric mean titers for the B/Victoria influenza antibody measurements were calculated as: GMT = antilog\^e (mean \[log\^e x\]) where x was the assay result and e was the natural logarithm.||1.03|0.82|
95914016|NCT01498822|191786442|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary analysis of this study aimed to demonstrate that LEV was noninferior to OXC with respect to the treatment failure rate in the Per Protocol Set. The noninferiority margin was 15 %.|Absolut difference|-10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-1.2|||Wald methodology||"Absolute difference in treatment failure rates of LEV versus OXC is defined as Treatment Failure Rate LEV minus Treatment Failure Rate OXC."|||-1.2|-20.2|
95914017|NCT03592277|191786446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.344
95914018|NCT03592277|191786447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.526
95914019|NCT03592277|191786448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.123
95914020|NCT03592277|191786449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.660
95914021|NCT03592277|191786450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.745|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.745
95914022|NCT03592277|191786451|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
95914023|NCT02917265|191786485|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95914024|NCT00861601|191786491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0104
95914025|NCT00861601|191786491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0057||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0057
95914026|NCT00861601|191786491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0808
95914027|NCT00861601|191786492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0116||95.0||||Linearity. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0116
95914028|NCT00861601|191786492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066||95.0||||Saturation at the medium dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0066
95914029|NCT00861601|191786492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Onset of response at the higher dose. This analysis is based on each participants' change in platelet count.|ANCOVA|No adjustment for multiplicity was made because this analysis was exploratory.||||||0.0846
95914030|NCT01674621|191786514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0066||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0066
95914031|NCT01674621|191786514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0005
95914032|NCT01674621|191786514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||<0.0001
95914033|NCT01674621|191786514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.555|-2.305|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-2.305|-5.555|
95914034|NCT01674621|191786514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.104|-1.837|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.837|-5.104|
95914035|NCT01674621|191786514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.856|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.519|-1.193|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-1.193|-4.519|
95914036|NCT01674621|191786515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0547||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0547
95914037|NCT01674621|191786515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0056||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0056
95914038|NCT01674621|191786515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0018||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.0018
95914039|NCT01674621|191786515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.768|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.864|-0.672|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.672|-2.864|
95914040|NCT01674621|191786515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.522|-0.318|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.318|-2.522|
95914041|NCT01674621|191786515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.247|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.368|-0.126|||||Mean difference of percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-0.126|-2.368|
95914042|NCT01674621|191786516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9493||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9493
95914043|NCT01674621|191786516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9806||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9806
95914044|NCT01674621|191786516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5191||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BMD from baseline to end-of treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.5191
95914045|NCT01674621|191786516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.564|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|1.04|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.040|-2.168|
95914046|NCT01674621|191786516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.115|1.15|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||1.150|-2.115|
95914047|NCT01674621|191786516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.517|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.106|2.139|||||Mean difference of percent change off BMD from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.139|-1.106|
95914048|NCT01674621|191786517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2549||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2549
95914049|NCT01674621|191786517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9115||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9115
95914050|NCT01674621|191786517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.239||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of BSAP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2390
95914051|NCT01674621|191786517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.501|-3.79|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-3.790|-40.501|
95914052|NCT01674621|191786517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.086|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.543|6.372|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||6.372|-30.543|
95914053|NCT01674621|191786517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.614|-4.041|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end-of-treatment between active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-4.041|-41.614|
95914054|NCT01674621|191786518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1632||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1632
95914055|NCT01674621|191786518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9834||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9834
95914056|NCT01674621|191786518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2179||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PICP from baseline to end-of-treatment (EOT) to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.2179
95914057|NCT01674621|191786518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.541|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.557|-6.525|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-6.525|-48.557|
95914058|NCT01674621|191786518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.702|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.835|2.43|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||2.430|-39.835|
95914059|NCT01674621|191786518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.914|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.424|-5.405|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-5.405|-48.424|
95914060|NCT01674621|191786519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||1.0000
95914061|NCT01674621|191786519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1200
95914062|NCT01674621|191786519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9998||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of serum osteocalcin from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9998
95914063|NCT01674621|191786519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.906|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.926|-50.886|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-50.886|-96.926|
95914064|NCT01674621|191786519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.872|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.019|-39.725|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-39.725|-86.019|
95914065|NCT01674621|191786519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.927|-49.807|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.807|-96.927|
95914066|NCT01674621|191786520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8569||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.8569
95914067|NCT01674621|191786520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6091||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6091
95914068|NCT01674621|191786520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9999||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of PINP from baseline to EOT to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.9999
95914069|NCT01674621|191786520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.966|-63.831|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-63.831|-156.966|
95914070|NCT01674621|191786520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-96.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.94|-49.29|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-49.290|-142.940|
95914071|NCT01674621|191786520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-104.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.079|-56.758|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-56.758|-152.079|
95914072|NCT01674621|191786521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3483||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.3483
95914073|NCT01674621|191786521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6839||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.6839
95914074|NCT01674621|191786521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1067||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Dunnett's test|P-value from Dunnett's test comparing percent change of CTXI from baseline to end-of-treatment to each transdermal dose group versus placebo.||||||0.1067
95914075|NCT01674621|191786521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.721|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.748|-11.694|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-11.694|-75.748|
95914076|NCT01674621|191786521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.461|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.665|-7.257|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-7.257|-71.665|
95914077|NCT01674621|191786521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.334|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.113|-16.555|||||Mean difference of percent change from baseline to end of treatment between the active treatment groups (transdermal and SC injection).|||-16.555|-82.113|
95914078|NCT00361439|191786538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.02
95914079|NCT00361439|191786539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.023||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.023
95914080|NCT00361439|191786540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.002
95914081|NCT00361439|191786541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.010
95914082|NCT01313286|191786552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.16|1.00|
95914083|NCT01313286|191786553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square means|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of test formulation (HCl salt) to reference formulation (free base).||||1.31|1.07|
95914084|NCT02552238|191786554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0067
95914085|NCT02552238|191786554|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
95914086|NCT02821819|191786572|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1||0.8|ONE_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs and a standard deviation (SD) of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).|"Since the number of collected eggs constitutes the main outcome of the study, the sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs with an standard deviation of 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60).~Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant."|||0.8
95914087|NCT02821819|191786572|NON_INFERIORITY|The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|82.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori threshold for statistical significance: \<0.05|Chi-squared|||The sample size was calculated assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5 eggs SD 6.7. A unilateral alpha level of 0.05 was stablished. With the aim to show that the difference in the mean number of collected eggs will not exceed 5, a statistical power of 80% required 30 patients per group (1:1 allocation, total sample: 60). Statistical analysis used t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters.||||0.8
95914088|NCT02821819|191786573|NON_INFERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using t-student test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical parameters. A P value of \<.05 was considered significant.|Median Difference (Final Values)|71.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95914089|NCT02439749|191786606|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p\<0.05 required for significance|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95914090|NCT02439749|191786610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.026
95914091|NCT02439749|191786611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
95914092|NCT02439749|191786612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||p\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.070
95914093|NCT02439749|191786613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||p=\<0.05 required for significance.|ANCOVA|||||||0.009
95914094|NCT03857230|191786633|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline AUC0-192 were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|93.31||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|99.79|||ANOVA|||Statistical comparison of the obtained results comprised the calculation of parametric bilateral 90 % CIs for the ratios of the corresponding mean values of the pharmacokinetic parameters of the study and comparator drug. The equivalence of the pharmacokinetics of the drug products will be proven if the limits of the evaluated CIs for the ratios of the mean values are in the range of 80.00-125.00%.||99.79|87.25|0.05
95914095|NCT03857230|191786634|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% CIs of the ratios of geometric means of log-transformed baseline Cmax were used to assess bioequivalence between Primapur and Gonal-F (bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%)|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|87.93||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.85|93.33|||ANOVA|||||93.33|82.85|0.05
95914096|NCT00552786|191786665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two-sided|ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
95914097|NCT00552786|191786666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|Assessing the bioequivalence on temporary threshold shift at 3k,4k,6k Hz between NAC and Placebo was carried out using ANOVA for 2×2 crossover design.||||||<0.05
95914098|NCT01590771|191786672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Robust regression|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.44||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline A1C value.|||-0.44|-0.77|<0.001
95914099|NCT01590771|191786673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-32.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|-20.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-20.4|-45.4|<0.001
95914100|NCT01590771|191786674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-16.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-10.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment, metformin strata (on or not on metformin), and baseline FPG value.|Robust regression|||||-10.2|-23.3|<0.001
95914101|NCT01590771|191786675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.2||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.20|-0.63|<0.001
95914102|NCT01590771|191786676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.53||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline A1C value.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-1.07|<0.001
95914103|NCT01590771|191786677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate difference|-27.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-13.2||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|Robust regression|||||-13.2|-41.2|<0.001
95914104|NCT01590771|191786678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-37.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-18.4||The ANCOVA model controlled for treatment and baseline 2-hr PMG value.|ANCOVA|||||-18.4|-56.9|<0.001
95914105|NCT01590771|191786679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|-7.8||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.8|-25.3|<0.001
95914106|NCT01590771|191786680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate Difference|-17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-7.1||Based on robust regression using M-estimation with terms for treatment and baseline FPG value.|Robust Regression|||||-7.1|-26.9|<0.001
95914107|NCT02687412|191786763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.141
95914108|NCT02687412|191786764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4041.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1831.042||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7672.301|-411.065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-411.065|-7672.301|0.029
95914109|NCT02687412|191786765|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.3739|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4198||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6414|33.1065|||t-test, 2 sided|||||33.1065|7.6414|0.002
95914110|NCT02687412|191786766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.014
95914111|NCT02687412|191786767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.034
95914112|NCT02687412|191786768|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95914113|NCT02687412|191786769|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95914114|NCT02687412|191786770|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95914115|NCT02687412|191786771|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1
95914116|NCT02687412|191786772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.10046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1915||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4819|0.2817|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2817|-0.4819|0.601
95914117|NCT02687412|191786773|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|164.746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|317.79||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.0|794.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||794|-465|0.605
95914118|NCT03239873|191786783|NON_INFERIORITY|The conclusion of non-inferiority (similarity) is based on the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference excluding a decrease equal to or more than the prespecified criterion of 10.0 percentage points for Varicella zoster virus.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||2.8|-2.7|<0.001
95914119|NCT03239873|191786783|OTHER|Acceptability|Antibody Response Rate|98.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.9|99.6|||Exact CI method/binomial proportion|||The conclusion of acceptability is based on the lower bound of the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) being \>76%, and implies that the value of the parameter is statistically significantly greater than the prespecified acceptability criterion (76%).||99.6|95.9|<0.001
95914120|NCT03239873|191786784|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for noninferiority of the GMT corresponds to the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the GMT ratio \[VARIVAX® PE34 process/VARIVAX® 2016 commercial product\] being \>0.67.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||||1.1|0.9|<0.001
95914121|NCT03239873|191786785|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 1||7.1|-3.1|0.436
95914122|NCT03239873|191786785|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Up to 42 days after Vaccination 2||7.5|-1.6|0.204
95914123|NCT03239873|191786786|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||0.4|-3.5|0.102
95914124|NCT03239873|191786786|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Rubella-like rash||1.9|-0.9|0.317
95914125|NCT03239873|191786786|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.241||95.0|-1.0|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||4.0|-1.0|0.241
95914126|NCT03239873|191786786|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||0.9|-1.9|0.318
95914127|NCT03239873|191786787|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.1||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Measles-like rash||3.4|-0.7|0.170
95914128|NCT03239873|191786787|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Varicella-like rash||1.4|-2.2|0.576
95914129|NCT03239873|191786787|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Zoster-like rash||2.0|-1.0|0.312
95914130|NCT03239873|191786788|OTHER||Difference of Percentage|-1.0||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|4.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||4.0|-5.9|0.696
95914131|NCT03239873|191786788|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||6.2|-4.7|0.796
95914132|NCT03239873|191786788|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.7||||0.111||95.0|-6.2|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||0.7|-6.2|0.111
95914133|NCT03239873|191786789|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.3||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site erythema||6.4|-6.9|0.931
95914134|NCT03239873|191786789|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.6||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site pain||3.4|-6.6|0.523
95914135|NCT03239873|191786789|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Injection site swelling||6.9|-2.9|0.415
95914136|NCT03239873|191786790|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|6.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.7|-3.4|
95914137|NCT03239873|191786791|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.6|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||2.6|-2.5|
95914138|NCT03239873|191786792|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.8|-6.1|
95914139|NCT03239873|191786793|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|9.2|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||9.2|-4.7|
95914140|NCT03239873|191786798|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
95914141|NCT03239873|191786799|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||1.3|-1.3|
95914142|NCT03239873|191786802|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.3|||||Miettinen and Nurminen|||10.3|-4.6|
95914143|NCT04766086|191786882|OTHER||Risk difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.8|3.7||||||||3.7|-3.8|
95914144|NCT04766086|191786883|OTHER||GMR|0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.736||||||GMR for Anti-PT Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.736|0.405|
95914145|NCT04766086|191786883|OTHER||GMR|0.567|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|0.707||||||GMR for Anti-FHA Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.707|0.455|
95914146|NCT04766086|191786883|OTHER||GMR|0.588|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.766||||||GMR for Anti-PRN Antibody: GMR for GBS6 + Tdap/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||0.766|0.451|
95914147|NCT04766086|191786884|OTHER||GMR|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.089||||||GMR for serotype Ia: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.089|0.380|
95914148|NCT04766086|191786884|OTHER||GMR|1.149|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.455|2.901||||||GMR for serotype Ib: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.901|0.455|
95914149|NCT04766086|191786884|OTHER||GMR|1.032||||||95.0|0.551|1.931||||||GMR for serotype II: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.931|0.551|
95914150|NCT04766086|191786884|OTHER||GMR|0.635|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.303|1.329||||||GMR for serotype III: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.329|0.303|
95914151|NCT04766086|191786884|OTHER||GMR|1.474|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|2.58||||||GMR for serotype IV: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||2.580|0.842|
95914152|NCT04766086|191786884|OTHER||GMR|0.559|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|1.349||||||GMR for serotype V: GMR for GBS6 + GBS6/Placebo + Tdap was calculated by back transforming the mean difference between the 2 measures on the logarithmic scale.||1.349|0.232|
95914153|NCT03315936|191786894|OTHER||geometric mean (gMean) ratio (T/R) %|110.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.73|120.79|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually 12 subjects were analyzed||120.79|100.73|
95914154|NCT03315936|191786895|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|121.38|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 12.3.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||121.38|101.20|
95914155|NCT03315936|191786896|OTHER||gMean ratio (T/R) %|110.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.74|135.96|||||To get, gMean ratio (T/R) and confidence interval, least square estimates of log-transformed PK endpoint for T and R were back transformed to original scale. Intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (%) = 28.6.|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the logarithmic scale including 'sequence', 'period', and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subject within sequence' as random effect. No hypothesis was tested and no acceptance range was specified. This was an intra-individual assessment and actually only 12 subjects were analyzed.||135.96|89.74|
95914156|NCT00770432|191786922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0595||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel adjusted for study site (the smallest study sites were pooled according to a pre-specified rule).||||||0.0595
95914157|NCT01453348|191786923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HAV + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HAV)|Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.32||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The Analysis of variance (ANCOVA) model included vaccine group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) on the ratio of Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||1.32|0.6|
95914158|NCT01453348|191786923|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|(GMC anti-HBsAg + MenACWY-CRM / GMC anti-HBsAg)|Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||The testing was done by assessing the confidence interval of the ratio|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included vaccines group and center as factors, age as covariate and was adjusted for baseline.||The primary criterion for immunogenicity was that the the lower-limit of the two-sided 95% CI on the ratio of ELISA GMCs (Hep A/B + MenACWY-CRM to Hep A/B) is below or equal to 0.5.||2.37|0.59|
95914159|NCT05436912|191786944|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|168.9||||0.3601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.3|465.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||465.3|61.3|0.3601
95914160|NCT05436912|191786944|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.2||||0.9146|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.0|368.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||368.9|23.0|0.9146
95914161|NCT05436912|191786944|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|119.6||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.4|329.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||329.3|43.4|0.7478
95914162|NCT05436912|191786946|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.1||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.8|74.8|0.4279
95914163|NCT05436912|191786946|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.4||||0.8341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.4|183.9|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.9|46.4|0.8341
95914164|NCT05436912|191786946|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.1||||0.1159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.1|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.1|0.1159
95914165|NCT05436912|191786947|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|126.0||||0.4289|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.8|212.4|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||212.4|74.8|0.4289
95914166|NCT05436912|191786947|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|92.3||||0.8322|TWO_SIDED|90.0|46.5|183.3|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||183.3|46.5|0.8322
95914167|NCT05436912|191786947|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|169.6||||0.1131|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.6|294.6|||t-test, 2 sided||Geometric mean ratio for natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent) and 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio of natural log transformed parameter (expressed as a percent), natural log transformed back to the linear scale.|||294.6|97.6|0.1131
95914168|NCT02413463|191786985|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square test||||||0.18||||||This is the calculated p-value for the success rate in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|Chi-squared|||An estimation of sample size was performed considering a study power of 0.8 with an alpha error of 0.05 aiming to detect a difference of 5 Δ in the postoperative angle disparity between the 2 groups, assuming a postoperative standard deviation of 6 Δ. Based on this estimation, a total of 24 eyes were found to be adequate in each group, and considering a 25% dropout during the follow-up, recruitment of 30 study subjects in each group was targeted||||0.18
95914169|NCT02413463|191786986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation with spectacles for distance in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (First row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95914170|NCT02413463|191786987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle of deviation without spectacles for near in Augmented recession vs. Faden group (Second row)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95914171|NCT02413463|191786988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||This is the calculated p-value for the postoperative angle disparity in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95914172|NCT02413463|191786989|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||This is the calculated p-value for the intraoperative time in the Augmented Group Vs. Faden Group|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95914173|NCT04146896|191787034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.704|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
95914174|NCT04146896|191787035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.684|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.684
95914175|NCT04146896|191787036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.743
95914176|NCT04146896|191787037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.483
95914177|NCT04146896|191787038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.199
95914178|NCT04146896|191787039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.273
95914179|NCT04146896|191787040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.668
95914180|NCT01597505|191787041|NON_INFERIORITY|Surotomycin minus Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be non-inferior to vancomycin the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups had to be ≥ -10%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|1.9|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the treatment difference, constructed using the MRc stratum weights.|Difference in percentage of participants||1.9|-11.0|
95914181|NCT01597505|191787042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified log-rank test p-value||||0.832
95914182|NCT01597505|191787043|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|7.1|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||7.1|-8.8|
95914183|NCT01597505|191787047|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.3|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||8.3|-7.2|
95914184|NCT01597505|191787048|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||The 95% CI was stratified Wilson intervals for group percentages and a stratified Newcombe interval for the difference, using the MRc stratum weights. Stratified by age group and number of CDAD episodes.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-10.0|
95914185|NCT01597505|191787049|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.431||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.431
95914186|NCT01597505|191787050|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin was superior to vancomycin if the p-value was less than 0.05||||||0.011||||||Log-rank test of equality of survival times, stratified by age group (\< 75, \>= 75 years) and number of CDAD episodes (0, \>= 1). Significance cut-off = 0.05|Log Rank|||Stratified Log-Rank p-Value||||0.011
95914187|NCT01597505|191787051|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|14.8|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||14.8|-10.7|
95914188|NCT01597505|191787052|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.0|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||3.0|-7.8|
95914189|NCT01597505|191787053|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|30.7|||||Treatment group percentages were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥ 1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group percentages.|Difference in percentage of participants||30.7|-2.7|
95914190|NCT01597505|191787054|SUPERIORITY|Surotomycin - Vancomycin. For surotomycin to be considered superior to vancomycin the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI had to be \> 0%.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|12.7|||||Treatment group proportions were stratified by age group (\< 75, ≥ 75) and number of previous CDAD episodes (0, ≥1). The 95% CIs were stratified Wilson intervals for the treatment group proportions.|Difference in percentage of participants||12.7|-4.2|
95914191|NCT01121172|191787055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Non parametric test||||||0.001
95914192|NCT01121172|191787056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test of frequency distribution amng obese study group and HapMap-CEU polymorphism distribution||||||0.232
95914193|NCT01622010|191787094|EQUIVALENCE|P value 0.05 used||||||0.487|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.487
95914194|NCT01622010|191787096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|a non-inferiority margin calculation was not performed for this study prior to its start.||||||0.628|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Standard care is better than standard care with video enhancement.||||0.628
95914195|NCT01622010|191787097|EQUIVALENCE|P Value 0.05 used||||||0.647|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.647
95914196|NCT00811382|191787124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95914197|NCT03017235|191787136|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for the difference between treatments (NaP/MC Oral Solution minus PREPOPIK) was pre-specified at -8% (absolute). If NI was demonstrated for both the primary efficacy endpoint and the secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon, and if the lower bound of the CI was above 0%, then superiority was declared for the primary endpoint. Thus, the pre-specified superiority analysis was conducted at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Difference in percentage|6.3||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|10.9||The above p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)|Lower limit of 95% CI \> 0% for the primary efficacy endpoint combined with outcome of secondary efficacy endpoint for the right colon allowed for superiority analysis.|10.9|1.8|0.0067
95914198|NCT03017235|191787137|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|4.6||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.0||The p-value was calculated for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in the percentage of subjects on NaP/MC or PREPOPIK (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||8.0|1.1|0.0099
95914199|NCT03017235|191787138|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to right colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|1.9||||0.1781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|4.7||The above p-value was tested for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference test, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran Mantel Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC - PREPOPIK)||4.7|-0.9|0.1781
95914200|NCT03017235|191787139|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than the margin (-8%), the null hypothesis was rejected and NaP/MC Oral Solution was claimed as non-inferior to PREPOPIK with respect to colon cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy.|Difference in percentage|3.5||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.7||The above p-value was for superiority and was based on the stratified percentage difference, where the stratification weight is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weight.|Weighted Percentage Difference|CIs (treatment difference) were calculated using stratified (by site) percentage difference where, weights= Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weights for site||Difference in percentage of subjects on NaP/MC Oral Solution or PREPOPIK® (NaP/MC-PREPOPIK®)||6.7|0.2|0.0391
95914201|NCT02991482|191787196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
95914202|NCT01213043|191787235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin was: \[0.80, 1.25\]|Geometric Least Square Means Ratio|0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|0.88|||ANOVA|||Dose proportionality was analysed using an ANOVA model for the natural log-transformed AUC0-7days with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and subject within sequence as a random effect. The treatment dose of 60 mg/kg was the reference treatment and 120 mg/kg was the test treatment. PK parameters in individual subjects for each treatment dose were dose normalized to 60mg/kg based on the actual dose administered at Week 8 or Week 18 (i.e., (AUC0-7days/Actual Dose in mg/kg)\*60mg/kg).||0.88|0.83|<0.0001
95914203|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
95914204|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for histopathology; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1038
95914205|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0588
95914206|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4802|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for stage of disease; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.4802
95914207|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0147
95914208|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for age at consent; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.1181
95914209|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
95914210|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for gender; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0006
95914211|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0004
95914212|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for race; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.3371
95914213|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Univariate analysis.||||||0.0000
95914214|NCT01250119|191787247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|Test for difference in incidence of EGFR mutations for each subgroup controlled for smoking history; Multivariate analysis (6 main effects only).||||||0.0001
95914215|NCT02887989|191787265|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6570
95914216|NCT02887989|191787266|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.6339
95914217|NCT01703702|191787289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.38|||Chi-squared|||||2.38|1.22|0.002
95914218|NCT01703702|191787290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.84|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline ADAS-Cog score, study arm, Alzheimer's treatment, country, and interaction between study arm and Alzheimer's treatment.||||0.84|-1.54|0.568
95914219|NCT01703702|191787291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|96.12|||Chi-squared|||||96.12|20|<0.001
95914220|NCT01703702|191787292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|20.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.95|22.43|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), physician/practice type, country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-)||Comparison of change in diagnostic confidence at follow-up (3 months)||22.43|18.95|<0.001
95914221|NCT01703702|191787293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.78|||Chi-squared|||||1.78|0.92|0.144
95914222|NCT01703702|191787294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.16||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.53|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for: Baseline scale, Cognitive status (mild impairment/dementia), country and florbetapir F18 PET scan result (Aß+/Aß-).||||3.53|-3.20|0.925
95914223|NCT01703702|191787295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||Chi-squared|||Major Diagnostic Tests||1.54|0.70|0.857
95914224|NCT01703702|191787295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.81|||Chi-squared|||Alzheimer's/Cognitive Medication||2.81|1.36|<0.001
95914225|NCT01703702|191787295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.64|||Chi-squared|||Neuropsychological Tests||2.64|0.97|0.063
95914226|NCT01703702|191787295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.7|||Chi-squared|||Physician Follow-up for Re-evaluation||1.70|0.69|0.741
95914227|NCT01703702|191787295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.08|||Chi-squared|||Specialist Referral||2.08|1.01|0.046
95914228|NCT00615264|191787299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2851|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.2851
95914229|NCT00615264|191787300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Calculated with terms for treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline C-peptide and country with the unstructured option for the matrix||||||0.7690
95914230|NCT00548132|191787301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|This was calculated based on the assumption that only 85% of eligible patients will consent to the study.|The standard of care is the numerator and the intervention group is the denominator|The null hypothesis is that the Bloostream infection per 1000 catheter days will be similar in both groups. In 2004, 6122 catheter days occurred in by both ICUs. If 15% of these were excluded, then 5203 catheter days/year will be eligible for analysis. The difference in infection rates will reach statistical significance at 12 months with a P-value of 0.04. At 24 months, the P-value will be more significant at 0.006.||0.90|0.24|0.05
95914231|NCT02884414|191787309|OTHER|Paired Student's t-test.||||||0.44|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95914232|NCT01982435|191787310|OTHER|Measures were summarized using means, range and standard error of the means (SEM).|||||<|0.05||||||Two-sided paired t-tests and two-sided unpaired t-tests were respectively conducted to analyze efficacy endpoints between study initiation to end, and between monthly and TAE injection regimens.|t-test, 2 sided|||All analyses were performed with a significance level of 0.05 being assumed for all tests.||||<0.05
95914233|NCT00708435|191787365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in effective hemostasis (%)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|19.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with hemostasis.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI calculation for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with effective hemostasis.|The analysis of hemostatic efficacy was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with effective hemostasis.||19.9|-5.8|
95914234|NCT00708435|191787366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was -(minus)10%. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10%, then the null-hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that Beriplex was non-inferior to plasma.~The sample size estimation assumed that hemostatic efficacy would be rated 'effective' in 85% of participants in the plasma group and 90% of participants in the Beriplex group. The power to show non-inferiority with these assumptions was greater than 80% for two treatment groups of 83 participants."|Difference in the decrease of INR (%)|52.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.9||Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. No P-value is entered as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|95% confidence interval|Farrington and Manning's method was used to estimate the 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.|Both primary endpoints had to be non-inferior for Beriplex to be non-inferior. There is no P-value as non-inferiority was assessed via the 95% CI for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the % of subjects with a rapid decrease of the INR.|The analysis of the percentage of participants who had a rapid decrease of the INR was via calculation of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Beriplex minus plasma) in the percentage of participants with a rapid decrease of the INR.||65.9|39.4|
95914235|NCT00818363|191787380|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.47|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||0.47|-1.74|0.303
95914236|NCT00818363|191787381|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-10.25||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.04|9.55|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment group and trial site as factors and age as a covariate.||||9.55|-30.04|0.303
95914237|NCT00988221|191787409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Placebo|-22.3||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
95914238|NCT00988221|191787409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean - Tocilizumab|-32.4||||||||||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||||
95914239|NCT00988221|191787409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-2.7||The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids. The analysis was also adjusted for the pain visual analog scale score at Baseline.|ANOVA|||||-2.7|-17.6|0.0076
95914240|NCT00988221|191787410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference|18.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|32.0||1.000 is used here as the test was considered as not significant due to the break in the hierarchical testing chain.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The analysis was adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||The analysis used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the randomization stratification factors background use of methotrexate and background use of oral corticosteroids.||32|5|1.000
95914241|NCT00633919|191787429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.85
95914242|NCT00633919|191787430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Linear mixed effect (LME) model|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.52
95914243|NCT00633919|191787431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
95914244|NCT00633919|191787432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0486||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||0.0486
95914245|NCT00633919|191787433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Proportional odds regression|||The null hypothesis is the hypothesis of no difference and the alternative to the null hypothesis is the hypothesis of a difference.||||>0.05
95914246|NCT02481375|191787445|OTHER||Marginal means|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Marginal means (95% CI) of ferritin concentrations at 12-weeks using a generalized mixed-effects model with adjustments for baseline values and village clusters||||<0.05
95914247|NCT00152009|191787460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0006
95914248|NCT00152009|191787460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.0005
95914249|NCT00152009|191787460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95914250|NCT00152009|191787461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.025
95914251|NCT00152009|191787461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.035||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||0.035
95914252|NCT00152009|191787461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95914253|NCT00152009|191787462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95914254|NCT00152009|191787462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95914255|NCT00152009|191787462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||||||<0.0001
95914256|NCT00152009|191787463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95914257|NCT00152009|191787463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0016
95914258|NCT00152009|191787463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95914259|NCT00152009|191787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95914260|NCT00152009|191787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0013
95914261|NCT00152009|191787464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95914262|NCT00152009|191787465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1438||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1438
95914263|NCT00152009|191787465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1426||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.1426
95914264|NCT00152009|191787465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0191||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Employed Dunnett's adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons. Corresponding baseline efficacy scores obtained were used as covariates.||Psychosocial category||||0.0191
95914265|NCT00125593|191787475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.74|0.0021
95914266|NCT00125593|191787476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.77|0.0012
95914267|NCT00125593|191787477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.75|0.001
95914268|NCT00125593|191787478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.11|0.76|0.37
95914269|NCT00125593|191787479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.94|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.94|0.60|0.01
95914270|NCT00125593|191787480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.93|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||0.93|0.68|0.0036
95914271|NCT00125593|191787481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.05|||Log Rank|||All analyses by intention to treat||1.05|0.89|0.41
95914272|NCT03107377|191787482|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.81||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.02|-0.61|||Chi-squared|||||-0.61|-9.02|0.0256
95914273|NCT03107377|191787483|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.53||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-0.23|||Chi-squared|||||-0.23|-4.84|0.0316
95914274|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
95914275|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||1.0000
95914276|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6278|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||.6278
95914277|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6404|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=40% adherence||||.6404
95914278|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5008|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||.5008
95914279|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1818|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||.1818
95914280|NCT03107377|191787487|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||0.0012
95914281|NCT03107377|191787488|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =0% adherence||||1.0000
95914282|NCT03107377|191787488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>0% adherence||||0.4375
95914283|NCT03107377|191787488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4444|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=20% adherence||||0.4444
95914284|NCT03107377|191787488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1836|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=60% adherence||||0.1836
95914285|NCT03107377|191787488|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5006|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with \>=80% adherence||||0.5006
95914286|NCT03107377|191787488|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A comparison of infection rates between the treatment arms amongst subjects with =100% adherence||||1.000
95914287|NCT01320943|191787492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||Log-rank test statistic was used to compare the time to HBsAg loss between the two treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||||0.022
95914288|NCT01874145|191787510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|0.743||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.743|0.338|0.0006
95914289|NCT01874145|191787512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|0.742||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|Poisson regression model|Natural log of treatment duration was an offset variable; adjusted for baseline EDSS, treatment group, age, sex, # relapses 2 years prior to screening|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group / GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group|Adjusted mean estimates were adjusted estimates of event rates within treatment group. The treatment effect parameter estimate was a risk ratio of the GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group divided by the GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group. The p value tested whether the risk ratio was significantly different from 1.||0.742|0.337|0.0006
95914290|NCT01874145|191787513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.206||0.0897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.438|0.322||The overall significance level for this study was 5% using 2-tailed test.|ANCOVA|In addition to treatment group, month (categorical), treatment-by-month interaction and score at baseline were used as covariates.|GA 40 mg/mL TIW treatment group vs. GA 20 mg/mL QD treatment group.|"To control for type 1 errors, secondary variables were analyzed only if analysis of the primary variable was statistically significant. Gate-keeping procedures offered further control with this hierarchy:~1. the rate of ISRs~2. change from baseline to month 4 (change - M4) in MSIS-20 physical wellbeing~3. change - M4 in MSIS-20 psychological wellbeing~4. change - M4 in TSQM-9 convenience~5. change - M4 in TSQM-9 overall satisfaction"||0.322|-4.438|0.0897
95914291|NCT00402337|191787525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0337
95914292|NCT00402337|191787525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||0.0010
95914293|NCT00402337|191787525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
95914294|NCT00402337|191787525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that the active treatment group is equal to the placebo group.||||<0.0001
95914295|NCT01742364|191787531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.475
95914296|NCT01742364|191787531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison of all adverse events (both injection site and systemic AEs).||||0.187
95914297|NCT01742364|191787533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.205
95914298|NCT01742364|191787534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.325
95914299|NCT01742364|191787535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95914300|NCT01742364|191787535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.130
95914301|NCT01742364|191787536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95914302|NCT01742364|191787536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95914303|NCT00658138|191787537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Hypothesis was no difference between adhesives tested at one year. Restorations were scored using USPHS subjective clinical criteria.||||0.05
95914304|NCT00658138|191787537|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|No power calculation done - pilot study|percentage of Alpha values||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis is adhesives are not different in clinical performance at one year||||>0.05
95914305|NCT02707692|191787538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-988.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2996.3|1020.3|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||1020.3|-2996.3|0.32
95914306|NCT02707692|191787538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-405.0||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.7|389.7|||Paired t-test, 2 sided|||Primary hypothesis: Participants will have a higher absolute difference in levels of CD4+ T cell-associated HIV RNA transcription seven days after receiving either Pneumococcal or Influenza vaccinations, when compared to seven days after receiving placebo.||389.7|-1199.7|0.31
95914307|NCT01265030|191787540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.04|-2.54|0.63
95914308|NCT01265030|191787540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.95||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.19|-6.08|0.31
95914309|NCT01265030|191787541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.063||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.286|0.411|||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean difference in pain score at week 1 and before surgery||0.411|-.286|0.68
95914310|NCT00840996|191787557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.23|-0.4||Test for superiority adjusted for 2 primary comparisons (2 outcomes)|Mixed Models Analysis|Llinear mixed-effects accounts for correlation exhibited by the repeated pain measurements on a given patient (spatial power correlation structure).||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||-0.40|-1.23|<0.001
95914311|NCT00840996|191787558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: ratio of the geometric means not more than 1.3 greater (mean mg IV morphine equivalent not more than 30% greater ) than that of the other group|the ratio of the geometric means|0.8||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21||Noninferiority hypotheses were evaluated against a one-sided significance criterion of 0.025 \[adjusting for testing in both directions: lidocaine vs. control and vs. control vs. lidocaine \]|Regression, Linear|Log-linear regression model was used; 0.1 mg added before taking the logarithm to accommodate the 2 patients who received 0 mg opioids.||Postoperative analgesia was characterized using both pain scores and opioid consumption .We considered one of the groups to be better than the other on postoperative pain control with superiority on either outcome, in the presence of noninferiority on both outcomes. Thus, our primary hypothesis was assessed in a joint hypothesis testing framework .||1.21|0.65|0.011
95914312|NCT00840996|191787559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.00|0.84|0.049
95914313|NCT00840996|191787560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Nausea - POD 2||1.09|0.77|0.31
95914314|NCT00840996|191787560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Vomiting - POD 2||1.14|0.94|0.44
95914315|NCT00840996|191787561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.4|0.15
95914316|NCT00840996|191787562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|10.0|||Regression, Linear|||||10|2.3|0.002
95914317|NCT00840996|191787563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.9|0.3|0.04
95914318|NCT00856934|191787564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95914319|NCT00856934|191787565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95914320|NCT03518658|191787566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.4|37.0||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||37.0|32.4|<0.001
95914321|NCT03518658|191787566|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.8|41.9||The threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Generalized estimating equation model|||||41.9|34.8|<0.001
95914322|NCT00649389|191787568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914323|NCT00649389|191787568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914324|NCT00649389|191787568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914325|NCT00649389|191787569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
95914326|NCT00649389|191787569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
95914327|NCT00649389|191787569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each p-value was obtained from individual Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by age group, race group, and diabetic status comparing the triple combination therapy to each dual combination.||||<0.0001
95914328|NCT00649389|191787570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914329|NCT00649389|191787570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914330|NCT00649389|191787570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Diastolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||0.0001
95914331|NCT00649389|191787570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914332|NCT00649389|191787570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914333|NCT00649389|191787570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Systolic blood pressure: All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914334|NCT00649389|191787571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914335|NCT00649389|191787571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914336|NCT00649389|191787571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||All treatment comparisons were calculated as OM40/AML10/HCTZ25 minus the respective dual combination treatment group. Least-squares mean differences, SEs, and 2-sided p-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model with baseline blood pressure as a covariate, and fixed effects of treatment, age group, race group, and diabetic status.||||<0.0001
95914337|NCT04867785|191787601|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.38||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.94|0.188
95914338|NCT04867785|191787601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.85|-1.84|<0.001
95914339|NCT04867785|191787601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.65|-1.85|<0.001
95914340|NCT04867785|191787601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.43|-2.44|<0.001
95914341|NCT04867785|191787601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.42|<0.001
95914342|NCT04867785|191787601|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.50|-2.43|<0.001
95914343|NCT04867785|191787602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|0.52|<0.001
95914344|NCT04867785|191787602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.01||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-0.34|0.935
95914345|NCT04867785|191787602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.11||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|-0.39|0.668
95914346|NCT04867785|191787602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.95|0.002
95914347|NCT04867785|191787602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.47||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.01|-0.95|0.056
95914348|NCT04867785|191787602|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-0.93|<0.001
95914349|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.24||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.38|-0.85|0.448
95914350|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.99||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-1.60|0.001
95914351|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.59|-1.80|<0.001
95914352|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.24|-2.41|<0.001
95914353|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.99|-2.27|<0.001
95914354|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.31|-2.39|<0.001
95914355|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.29|0.35|<0.001
95914356|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.06||||0.796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.41|0.796
95914357|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.61|0.548
95854194|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.478||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|1.05|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.050|-0.093|0.1008
95914358|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.36|-1.19|<0.001
95854195|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.505||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|1.024|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.024|-0.013|0.0558
95854196|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 42|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.538||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|1.074|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 42|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.074|0.002|0.0491
95854197|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 8 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.808||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|1.329|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 8 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.329|0.286|0.0025
95854198|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 10 am on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.627||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|1.111|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 10 am on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||1.111|0.143|0.0113
95854199|NCT02059278|191668047|EQUIVALENCE|Analysis at 4 pm on Day 84|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.456||||0.0649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.063|0.975|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA on change from baseline at 4 pm on Day 84|The primary endpoint was measured at 9 separate assessment times (3 time points over a 12 hour period on 3 separate days. The primary analysis was based on a comparison of the IOP change from baseline between the two arms at each assessment.The equivalence margin was tested using an analysis of covariance on change from baseline with pooled site and baseline as a factor. Equivalence was considered to be met if the 95% confidence intervals were within 1.5 mmHg at each of the 9 assessment points.||0.975|-0.063|0.0649
95854200|NCT02628873|191668064|EQUIVALENCE|Degree of agreement between the 2 Assessors|Degree of agreement / Kappa|0.48|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Kappa|||||||< 0.01
95854201|NCT02628873|191668065|SUPERIORITY|T-test to determine whether one method had greater reported pain|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.71|<|0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.00|-2.69|< 0.30
95854202|NCT02628873|191668066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.431|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.76|<|0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.56|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test (pre-procedure versus post-procedure)||||1.56|-2.40|< 0.67
95854203|NCT00107653|191668079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||SVR for Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08||P-values are calculated based on the difference in proportion between Latino and Non-Latino White group|Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with SVR. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|SVR for Latino Versus (VS) Non-Latino White||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
95854204|NCT00107653|191668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.00|-0.12|0.0454
95854205|NCT00107653|191668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
95854206|NCT00107653|191668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.06|-0.22|0.0004
95914359|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.57||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.07|-1.08|0.025
95914360|NCT04867785|191787603|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.16|<0.001
95914361|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.32|-0.04|0.121
95914362|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.36||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.59|0.13|0.002
95914363|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.68|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.68|0.28|<0.001
95914364|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.87|0.53|<0.001
95914365|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.39|<0.001
95914366|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.51|<0.001
95914367|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.21||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.39|0.030
95914368|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.24|-0.22|0.938
95914369|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.33|-0.07|0.209
95914370|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.53|0.18|<0.001
95914371|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.26||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.48|0.03|0.024
95914372|NCT04867785|191787604|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.51|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.51|0.16|<0.001
95914373|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.14||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.35|-0.06|0.169
95914374|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.63|0.15|0.001
95914375|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.37||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.60|0.14|0.002
95914376|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.79|0.39|<0.001
95914377|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.78|0.34|<0.001
95914378|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.76|0.38|<0.001
95914379|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.23||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||-0.02|-0.44|0.029
95914380|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.25|-0.22|0.898
95914381|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.23|-0.24|0.968
95914382|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.22||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.42|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.42|0.02|0.033
95914383|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.19||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.41|-0.04|0.099
95914384|NCT04867785|191787605|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.39|0.01|0.044
95914385|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.12||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.73|16.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.48|-20.73|0.823
95914386|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.6||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.29|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.10|-47.29|0.165
95914387|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-33.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.56|-13.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.04|-53.56|0.001
95914388|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.77|-41.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.22|-69.77|<0.001
95914389|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-29.22||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.84|-5.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.59|-52.84|0.015
95914390|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-54.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.63|-39.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-39.59|-69.63|<0.001
95914391|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|33.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|48.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||48.82|18.26|<0.001
95914392|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|16.07||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.25|42.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||42.39|-10.25|0.231
95914393|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.37||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.28|21.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.01|-16.28|0.804
95914394|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-19.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.01|-8.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.65|-31.01|<0.001
95914395|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.45||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|29.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.65|-16.75|0.586
95914396|NCT04867785|191787606|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.94||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.93|-6.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.96|-30.93|0.002
95914397|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.25||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.57|24.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.07|-24.57|0.984
95914398|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.2||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.44|29.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.03|-37.44|0.804
95914399|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-21.47||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.91|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.98|-51.91|0.167
95914400|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.09|-27.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.59|-76.09|<0.001
95914401|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-23.94||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.94|10.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.06|-57.94|0.168
95914402|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-50.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.94|-26.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.22|-74.94|<0.001
95914403|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|10.02||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.55|31.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.60|-11.55|0.362
95914404|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|36.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.48|-24.34|0.696
95914405|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.19||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.38|16.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.99|-39.38|0.436
95914406|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-41.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.89|-20.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.25|-62.89|<0.001
95914407|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.67||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.75|19.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.42|-46.75|0.418
95914408|NCT04867785|191787607|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-40.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-19.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.85|-60.77|<0.001
95914409|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.49||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|1.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|-2.07|0.540
95914410|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|-2.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.13|-6.69|<0.001
95914411|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-6.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.09|-9.47|<0.001
95914412|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.24|-8.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.03|-12.24|<0.001
95914413|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.06|-9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.06|-15.06|<0.001
95914414|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.24|-8.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.73|-13.24|<0.001
95914415|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.19||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.37|-2.75|0.135
95914416|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|-2.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.86|-7.36|<0.001
95914417|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.19|-4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.77|-10.19|<0.001
95914418|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-10.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.77|-12.89|<0.001
95914419|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.74|-9.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.77|-15.74|<0.001
95914420|NCT04867785|191787608|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-11.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-9.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.47|-13.90|<0.001
95914421|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.03||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.12|-2.18|0.979
95914422|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-4.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.68|-7.32|0.018
95914423|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-7.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|-3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.71|-10.46|<0.001
95914424|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.74|-9.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.66|-16.74|<0.001
95914425|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|-9.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.18|-16.50|<0.001
95914426|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-13.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|-10.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.71|-17.10|<0.001
95914427|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.34||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.77|-3.45|0.213
95914428|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|-1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.97|-8.66|0.002
95914429|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.76|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.04|-11.76|<0.001
95914430|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|-11.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.01|-18.00|<0.001
95914431|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-14.15|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|-10.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.54|-17.77|<0.001
95914432|NCT04867785|191787609|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-15.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-12.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.07|-18.36|<0.001
95914433|NCT01486758|191787611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6
95914434|NCT01486758|191787615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.048
95914435|NCT02608489|191787619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.221
95914436|NCT02608489|191787619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.015
95914437|NCT02608489|191787620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.256
95914438|NCT02608489|191787620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at Postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.025
95914439|NCT02608489|191787621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.080
95914440|NCT02608489|191787621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12 follow-up.||||0.021
95914441|NCT02608489|191787622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||<0.001
95914442|NCT02608489|191787622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||<0.001
95914443|NCT02608489|191787622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||<0.001
95914444|NCT02608489|191787623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.045
95914445|NCT02608489|191787624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.001
95914446|NCT02608489|191787624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 4||||0.002
95914447|NCT02608489|191787624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was used to compare measurement data between the 2 groups by considering the correlation between both eyes of each patient at postoperative week 12||||0.034
95914448|NCT02608489|191787625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||To obtain an overall comparison between treatment responses throughout the study period considering the 2 levels of correlation in subjects and follow-up, a linear mixed model with asymmetric random effects was used.||||0.151
95914449|NCT03926065|191787642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1260
95914450|NCT03926065|191787642|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
95914451|NCT03926065|191787642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.0992
95914452|NCT03926065|191787643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5502|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.5502
95914453|NCT03926065|191787643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0072
95914454|NCT03926065|191787644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.1030
95914455|NCT03926065|191787644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0178|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||0.0178
95914456|NCT03926065|191787644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Interaction between Portion Size and Palatability||||0.2410
95914457|NCT03926065|191787645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size) compared to Enhanced Palatability (Standard Portion Size and Larger Portion Size)||||0.0012
95914458|NCT03926065|191787645|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Standard Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability) compared to Larger Portion Size (Standard Palatability and Enhanced Palatability)||||<0.0001
95914459|NCT00981474|191787668|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.121|||Chi-squared|||||1.121|.82|.752
95914460|NCT00981474|191787669|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.55||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.93|||Chi-squared|||||.93|.32|.053
95914461|NCT00981474|191787670|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.454||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|.18|.149
95914462|NCT00981474|191787671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.581||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|.30|.144
95914463|NCT00981474|191787672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.724||||0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.41|||Chi-squared|||||1.41|.37|.439
95914464|NCT00981474|191787673|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.872||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|.69|.311
95914465|NCT00981474|191787674|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.18|.005|.103
95914466|NCT00981474|191787675|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.102||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.5|||Chi-squared|||||1.5|.81|.608
95914467|NCT00981474|191787676|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.564||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.97|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to the small number of events.||||1.97|.16|.541
95854207|NCT00107653|191668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.09|-0.24|<0.0001
95914468|NCT00981474|191787677|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.247||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.18|||Fisher Exact|Fisher exact test used due to small number of events.||||1.18|.05|.103
95914469|NCT00981474|191787678|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.409||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.14|||Chi-squared|||||1.14|.15|.129
95914470|NCT02948959|191787710|SUPERIORITY|To control the type-I error rate for the analysis of outcome measure, a hierarchical testing procedure was applied at a 2-sided 5% significant level. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order endpoints were reported. Hierarchical testing sequence continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.222|0.562||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.562|0.222|<0.0001
95914471|NCT02948959|191787711|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|0.605||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Negative binomial model||Risk ratio, also called relative risk compares the risk (rate) of an event among one group with the risk (rate) among another group.|Risk ratio and p-value was derived using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 visit or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable, with treatment group, age, baseline weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level and number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates and log-transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable.||0.605|0.274|<0.0001
95914472|NCT02948959|191787712|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.32||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|8.88||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||8.88|1.76|0.0036
95914473|NCT02948959|191787713|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|5.21||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|8.27||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator % predicted FEV1 value up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, baseline weight group, region, ethnicity, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline % predicted FEV1 value and baseline-by visit interaction as covariates.||8.27|2.14|0.0009
95914474|NCT02948959|191787714|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.26||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.26|-0.66|<0.0001
95914475|NCT02948959|191787715|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-0.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in ACQ-7-IA up to Week 52 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline FeNO level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-7-IA and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.16|-0.50|0.0001
95914476|NCT02948959|191787716|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-20.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-16.59||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-16.59|-24.60|<0.0001
95914477|NCT02948959|191787717|SUPERIORITY|Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (continued only if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-17.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.05|-14.63||Threshold for statistical significance at 5% significant level.|Mixed-effect model with repeated measure|||P-value and LS mean difference were derived from MMRM model with change from baseline in FeNO up to Week 12 as the response variable, and treatment, age, weight group, region, baseline eosinophil level, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FeNO value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-14.63|-21.05|<0.0001
95914478|NCT01641926|191787764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|11.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (hepatitis B Virus \[HBV\] genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||11.6|-8.4|
95914479|NCT01641926|191787765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|14.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||14.3|-20.2|
95914480|NCT01641926|191787766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.3||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||12.3|-7.2|
95914481|NCT01641926|191787767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|13.6||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||13.6|-9.5|
95914482|NCT01641926|191787767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|27.1||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||27.1|-7.2|
95914483|NCT01641926|191787768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|9.2||||||The treatment difference in the rates (PEG-Intron arm minus PEGASYS™ arm) and its 95% confidence interval adjusted for the baseline stratification factor (HBV genotype) was computed using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen weighted by stratum sample size.||9.2|-7.4|
95914484|NCT02567825|191787770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Generalized linear model|The p-value is adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2-year follow-up period.||1.12|0.84|0.66
95914485|NCT02567825|191787771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.01|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment..||1.01|0.67|
95914486|NCT02567825|191787771|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.33|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of occurrence of AOM per child-year during the 2 year follow-up among children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment.||1.33|0.86|
95914487|NCT02567825|191787771|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Generalized linear models|||Null hypothesis: There is no interaction between comparison group (Surgical Management, Non-Surgical Management) and risk group (children considered at low risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment, children considered at high risk of AOM recurrences at enrollment).||||0.08
95914488|NCT02567825|191787772|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study with 0, 1 or 2, 3 or 4, greater than or equal to 5 episodes of AOM.~."||||0.48
95914489|NCT02567825|191787773|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.92|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children experiencing treatment failure.||0.92|0.58|
95914490|NCT02567825|191787774|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.9|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the time to the first episode of AOM.||0.90|0.52|
95914491|NCT02567825|191787775|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes categorized as probably severe.||1.09|0.76|
95914492|NCT02567825|191787776|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.44||||||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes presenting with tympanic membrane bulging rather than otorrhea|The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|0.44|0.26|
95914493|NCT02567825|191787777|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|7.82|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience tube otorrhea. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||7.82|2.60|
95914494|NCT02567825|191787778|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-6.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-5.1|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children experience AOM symptoms with an intact TM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-5.10|-7.55|
95914495|NCT02567825|191787779|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|-2.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean days per year children receive systemic antimicrobials for AOM. The analysis uses a weighted regression model with weights equal to the length of follow-up.||-2.18|-6.82|
95914496|NCT02567825|191787780|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the hazard ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||1.03|0.44|
95914497|NCT02567825|191787781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.22|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||1.22|0.51|
95914498|NCT02567825|191787782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|3.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of children for whom tube otorrhea was reported.||3.48|1.91|
95914499|NCT02567825|191787783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children with no pathogens at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.24|0.74|
95914500|NCT02567825|191787783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive only for at least 1 penicillin-susceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.72|0.83|
95914501|NCT02567825|191787783|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.29|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children positive for at least 1 penicillin nonsusceptible pathogen at enrollment having a penicillin-nonsusceptible nasopharyngeal or throat isolate at some follow-up visit.||1.29|0.94|
95914502|NCT02567825|191787784|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.55|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of episodes of AOM at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.55|0.84|
95914503|NCT02567825|191787785|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of routine non-illness visits at which a nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||1.41|0.84|
95914504|NCT02567825|191787786|SUPERIORITY|The analysis was ITT. The participants are randomized children with at least one episode of AOM late during the respiratory season at which a nasopharyngeal or throat culture is obtained.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.95|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator.|||1.95|0.69|
95914505|NCT02567825|191787787|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-squares means|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.56|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean parental satisfaction score||0.56|-0.06|
95914506|NCT02567825|191787788|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.18|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating at least one health care encounter since the previous study visit.||1.18|0.98|
95914507|NCT02567825|191787789|SUPERIORITY|Reports for which the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.41|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating a parent missed work due to child's illness.||1.41|0.88|
95914508|NCT02567825|191787790|SUPERIORITY|Reports indicating the parent did not answer the question were excluded from the analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||||The Surgical Management group represents the numerator for the risk ratio and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the denominator. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of parent reports indicating the need for special childcare arrangements due to child's illness.||1.48|0.89|
95914509|NCT02567825|191787791|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.02|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey score||0.02|-0.13|
95914510|NCT02567825|191787791|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean OM-6 survey--children's overall QOL score.||0.24|-0.13|
95914511|NCT02567825|191787792|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.47|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire score.||1.47|-1.55|
95914512|NCT02567825|191787792|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least-square means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.2|||||The Surgical Management group represents the first number in the subtraction and the Non-Surgical Management group represents the second. The estimates are adjusted for site, age at enrollment, and exposure or nonexposure to other children.|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean caregiver impact questionnaire--caregiver's overall QOL score.||0.20|-0.14|
95914513|NCT01737684|191787799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|0.96|
95914514|NCT01737684|191787802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|0.88|
95914515|NCT01480596|191787806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.40|-5.08|0.256
95914516|NCT01480596|191787807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.082||95.0|0.87|19.02|||exact methods|||||19.02|0.87|0.082
95914517|NCT01480596|191787808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.827||95.0|0.05|4.35|||exact methods|||||4.35|0.05|0.827
95914518|NCT01480596|191787809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.10|0.62|0.184
95914519|NCT01480596|191787811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.228||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.80|-4.20|0.175
95914520|NCT01480596|191787811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.267||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.28|-3.89|0.310
95914521|NCT01480596|191787811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.272||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.88|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||0.30|-4.88|0.081
95914522|NCT01480596|191787812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.486||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|3.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||3.07|-2.97|0.972
95914523|NCT01480596|191787813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.48|||exact methods|||||5.48|0.26|1.000
95914524|NCT01480596|191787814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.89|||exact methods|||||2.89|0.03|0.530
95914525|NCT01480596|191787815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|11.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.46|0.64|0.175
95914526|NCT01480596|191787817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.245||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.53|-3.56|0.423
95914527|NCT01480596|191787817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.361||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.80|-2.76|0.986
95914528|NCT01480596|191787817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||2.65|-3.21|0.848
95914529|NCT01480596|191787823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.707||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 12. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||0.93|-1.94|0.483
95914530|NCT01480596|191787823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.844||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical analysis is presented for Week 24. Standard error of mean is for adjusted mean difference.|||1.40|-2.03|0.711
95914531|NCT01480596|191787824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.757||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 28. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||-0.20|-3.30|0.028
95914532|NCT01480596|191787824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 32. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.55|-2.10|0.756
95914533|NCT01480596|191787824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.909||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis for Week 36. Standard error of mean is for adjusted difference.|||1.59|-2.12|0.775
95914534|NCT02424591|191787827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95914535|NCT02424591|191787828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95914536|NCT02424591|191787829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95914537|NCT00868699|191787860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
95914538|NCT00868699|191787860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
95914539|NCT00868699|191787861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
95914540|NCT00868699|191787861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
95914541|NCT00868699|191787862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.003|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||0.003
95914542|NCT00868699|191787862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between Lurasidone group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the Lurasidone group over the placebo group.|||||<0.001
95914543|NCT03885011|191787894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|2.949|||Regression, Logistic|||This analysis relates to Day 8 up to when pilocarpine HCl 0.2% either in CSF-1-FDC or as pilocarpine alone was administered for one week.||2.949|0.413|0.8445
95914544|NCT03885011|191787894|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.646||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|3.958|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.958|0.684|0.2660
95914545|NCT03885011|191787895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.664||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.646|8.154|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.154|1.646|0.0015
95914546|NCT03885011|191787895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.745||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.088|10.786|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.786|2.088|0.0002
95914547|NCT03885011|191787896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1145|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1145
95914548|NCT03885011|191787896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0616
95914549|NCT03885011|191787897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0074|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0074
95914550|NCT03885011|191787897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95914551|NCT01003639|191787951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|0|0.05
95914552|NCT04203537|191787959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95914553|NCT04203537|191787960|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95914554|NCT04203537|191787960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0026
95914555|NCT05652036|191787985|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in NPS score pre- and post-procedure||||0.21
95914556|NCT05652036|191787986|OTHER|||||||0.07||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder symptom bother before and after treatment||||.07
95914557|NCT05652036|191787986|OTHER|||||||0.16||||||Threshold for statistical significance used P-value \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in overactive bladder HRQL mean before and after treatment||||0.16
95914558|NCT05652036|191787987|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Chi-squared|||Participant rated procedural satisfaction assessed 30-days post-procedure.||||0.21
95914559|NCT05652036|191787988|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as very much improved after treatment||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.79
95914560|NCT05652036|191787988|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as much improved after treatment||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.27
95914561|NCT05652036|191787988|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as minimally improved after treatment||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95914562|NCT05652036|191787988|OTHER|Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale sores reported by participants as no difference after treatment||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95914563|NCT05652036|191787989|OTHER|Rates of urinary retention observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95914564|NCT05652036|191787989|OTHER|Rates of urinary tract infection observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.24
95914565|NCT05652036|191787989|OTHER|Rates of bleeding requiring evaluation observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95914566|NCT05652036|191787989|OTHER|Rates of hematuria observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.46|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.46
95914567|NCT05652036|191787989|OTHER|Rates of bladder pain observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0
95914568|NCT05652036|191787989|OTHER|Rates of ER department evaluations observed in participants after BTX-A treatment.||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95914569|NCT05375955|191787990|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.4||||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|29.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||29.4|-4.1|0.0711
95914570|NCT05375955|191787990|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|26.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||26.8|-6.1|0.1290
95914571|NCT05375955|191787991|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
95914572|NCT05375955|191787991|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.3||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|47.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||47.5|7.7|0.0028
95914573|NCT05375955|191787991|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|56.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||||56.4|14.7|0.0003
95914574|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|10.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.7|-10.2|0.5701
95914575|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
95914576|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.6||||0.0532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|23.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||23.7|-2.0|0.0532
95914577|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
95914578|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.5123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|15.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||15.7|-14.4|0.5123
95914579|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
95914580|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
95914581|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||19.8|-13.0|0.3967
95914582|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
95914583|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6||||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|15.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||15.3|-17.7|0.5461
95914584|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.8||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|24.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.8|-8.9|0.2736
95914585|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.4||||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||22.1|-11.0|0.2754
95914586|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.3|-4.8|0.0977
95914587|NCT05375955|191787992|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.9||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|33.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||33.2|-2.8|0.0542
95914588|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
95914589|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
95914590|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
95914591|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
95914592|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
95914593|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||32.0|3.2|0.0104
95914594|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
95914595|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|30.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||30.3|2.6|0.0129
95914596|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.9|8.0|0.0024
95914597|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.2||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||38.9|8.0|0.0024
95914598|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.9||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.5|40.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||40.1|9.5|0.0018
95914599|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|51.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||51.8|17.8|0.0001
95914600|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|32.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.5|-0.1|0.0259
95914601|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.8||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||40.4|6.3|0.0038
95914602|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|12.2|0.0007
95914603|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|21.5||||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|41.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||41.2|2.1|0.0146
95914604|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.7||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|38.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||38.9|1.0|0.0205
95914605|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|39.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|59.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||59.3|17.1|0.0002
95914606|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.6||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|32.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||32.6|-7.8|0.1245
95914607|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.5|-9.1|0.1431
95914608|NCT05375955|191787993|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|36.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.2|56.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.8|12.2|0.0007
95914609|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
95914610|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
95914611|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|4.9||||0.1705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||17.6|-6.1|0.1705
95914612|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.5|-3.9|0.1118
95914613|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
95914614|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|17.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||17.6|-11.4|0.3857
95914615|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
95914616|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|22.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.6|-6.4|0.1429
95914617|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|25.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||25.3|-4.4|0.1119
95914618|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.3755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|16.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||16.7|-10.7|0.3755
95914619|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
95914620|NCT05375955|191787994|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|18.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||18.6|-12.7|0.3928
95914621|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
95914622|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|10.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||10.1|-10.6|1.0000
95914623|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
95914624|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
95914625|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
95914626|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
95914627|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
95914628|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
95914629|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
95914630|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
95914631|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
95914632|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
95914633|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
95914634|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
95914635|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
95914636|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|26.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||26.4|-6.6|0.1256
95914637|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|7.0|0.0038
95914638|NCT05375955|191787995|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|52.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||52.6|12.8|0.0007
95914639|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
95914640|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|14.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.1|-8.4|0.3269
95914641|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|15.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||15.5|-9.2|0.3585
95914642|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||22.1|-5.3|0.1290
95914643|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
95914644|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||24.3|-8.4|0.2547
95914645|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|20.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||20.5|-9.5|0.2751
95914646|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.3||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|28.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||28.8|-3.8|0.0658
95914647|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
95914648|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.3||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|22.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.1|-10.7|0.2751
95914649|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
95914650|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.3997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|20.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||20.2|-13.6|0.3997
95914651|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.2736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||25.7|-9.5|0.2736
95914652|NCT05375955|191787996|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|12.7||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||31.0|-5.6|0.1119
95914653|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|11.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.0|-10.6|1.0000
95914654|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.9||||0.2697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|14.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||14.9|-7.8|0.2697
95914655|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-7.8|0.2578
95914656|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
95914657|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|19.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||19.2|-5.3|0.1140
95914658|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
95914659|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.1||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|20.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||20.7|-4.9|0.0993
95914660|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||33.9|4.9|0.0071
95914661|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||32.0|3.2|0.0104
95914662|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|32.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||32.0|3.2|0.0104
95914663|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.1||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|33.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||33.9|4.9|0.0071
95914664|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|42.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||42.3|10.4|0.0011
95914665|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||24.3|-2.1|0.0436
95914666|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|46.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||46.3|14.2|0.0003
95914667|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|45.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||45.8|12.9|0.0007
95914668|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.3||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|24.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||24.3|-10.8|0.2712
95914669|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|5.4|0.0056
95914670|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|50.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||50.5|9.7|0.0017
95914671|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.4||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|21.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||21.6|-14.9|0.3929
95914672|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|28.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|47.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||47.7|7.0|0.0040
95914673|NCT05375955|191787997|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|53.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||53.7|10.4|0.0012
95914674|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.8||||0.3255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|15.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||15.8|-8.5|0.3255
95914675|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.7181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|8.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||8.3|-13.3|0.7181
95914676|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||34.3|7.0|0.0022
95914677|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.7||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|31.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||31.1|3.7|0.0064
95914678|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.7||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|31.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||31.5|-3.4|0.0659
95914679|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.4||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|38.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||38.5|0.9|0.0189
95914680|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
95914681|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
95914682|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.6||||0.3962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|22.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||22.3|-14.9|0.3962
95914683|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9||||0.1353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|32.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.7|-7.9|0.1353
95914684|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.2791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|25.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||25.7|-12.8|0.2791
95914685|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0||||0.2333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|29.1|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||29.1|-10.4|0.2333
95914686|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.3||||0.1295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|30.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||30.6|-7.3|0.1295
95914687|NCT05375955|191788000|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|40.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.2|0.1|0.0247
95914688|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.3||||0.7278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.9|11.5|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||11.5|-21.9|0.7278
95914689|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.2||||0.2548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|28.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||28.2|-11.5|0.2548
95914690|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.9||||0.5162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|21.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 1||21.9|-17.5|0.5162
95914691|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|30.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||30.7|-11.4|0.1663
95914692|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.5||||0.0605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|38.3|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||38.3|-4.2|0.0605
95914693|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.7||||0.0592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|41.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 2||41.6|-5.4|0.0592
95914694|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.0||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|37.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||37.4|-8.6|0.1246
95914695|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|16.3||||0.0789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|39.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||39.7|-7.3|0.0789
95914696|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|17.6||||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|43.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 4||43.7|-6.4|0.0889
95914697|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|27.5||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|50.7|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||50.7|4.2|0.0097
95914698|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|43.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||43.6|-0.8|0.0294
95914699|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.8||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|62.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 6||62.2|10.9|0.0018
95914700|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
95914701|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.6||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|32.4|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||32.4|-17.3|0.2890
95914702|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|35.2||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|62.0|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 8||62.0|5.1|0.0103
95914703|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|44.8|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||44.8|-7.8|0.1088
95914704|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.8||||0.2719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|36.2|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||36.2|-14.0|0.2719
95914705|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 10||56.6|0.4|0.0227
95914706|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.5||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|48.9|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||48.9|-3.8|0.0495
95914707|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.9||||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|40.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||40.6|-10.6|0.1246
95914708|NCT05375955|191788001|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.0||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|56.6|||Chan and Zhang (1999) method|||Week 12||56.6|0.4|0.0227
95914709|NCT05454410|191788009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||-0.7|-9.6|
95914710|NCT05454410|191788009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|2.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||2.1|-7.0|
95914711|NCT05454410|191788009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|5.1|||ANCOVA||Placebo adjusted means (MIJ821-Placebo). 90% CIs are nominal and not adjusted for multiplicity.|||5.1|-4.0|
95914712|NCT05454410|191788015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242||||||P-value for the selected model best representing the underlying DR (the lowest p-value out of the 6 candidate models), adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Multiple contrast test|||MCP-Mod was used to check if there was a DR relationship between the change from baseline to 24 hours in MADRS total score and the doses received. The Least squares means under the primary estimand were used to test the null hypothesis of a flat DR relationship at a one-sided significance level of 5% against the alternative hypothesis of a non-flat DR curve. Six candidate DR curves were used to derive the optimal model contrasts for the multiple contrast tests. A monotone DR was assumed.||||0.0242
95914713|NCT00895622|191788028|OTHER||Kappa statistic|0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.87|||Z test|||"The Kappa (κ) coefficient was used to assess the measure of agreement between the reviewers. κ can be interpreted as follows (κ / Agreement):~\< 0 / Less than chance agreement; 0.01-0.20 / Slight agreement; 0.21-0.40 / Fair agreement; 0.41-0.60 / Moderate agreement; 0.61-0.80 / Substantial agreement; 0.81-0.99 / Almost perfect agreement.~The asymptotic test of the null hypothesis: κ=0 will be performed using the Z-statistic to determine the strength of agreement."||0.87|0.71|<0.0001
95914714|NCT02237508|191788050|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|138.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.09|149.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.39|129.09|<0.001
95914715|NCT02237508|191788050|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|136.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.13|147.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||147.04|126.13|<0.001
95914716|NCT02237508|191788051|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|119.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|109.4|131.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||131.03|109.40|0.001
95914717|NCT02237508|191788051|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|129.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|117.33|143.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.20|117.33|<0.001
95914718|NCT02237508|191788052|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|218.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|194.02|245.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||245.24|194.02|<0.001
95914719|NCT02237508|191788052|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|200.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|174.3|231.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||231.01|174.30|<0.001
95914720|NCT02237508|191788053|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|126.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.93|137.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||137.32|115.93|<0.001
95914721|NCT02237508|191788053|EQUIVALENCE|"Z7200 was considered bioequivalent to the reference if the following criteria were satisfied:~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean AUC0-t ratio was within the interval 80.00% to 125.00% for both budesonide and formoterol, with and without charcoal blockade and~* the 90%CI for the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was within the wider bioequivalence acceptance limits of (69.84%, 143.19%) for budesonide and (71.92%, 139.04%) for formoterol, respectively with and without charcoal blockade."|Adjusted geometric means ratio|117.08||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.05|128.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||128.05|107.05|0.004
95914722|NCT05458024|191788065|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-0.14||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.83
95914723|NCT05458024|191788066|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient|-1.41||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|||||Analyses were adjusted for sex, baseline pain, and baseline vitamin D levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95914724|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Morning Stiffness \> 1 Hour: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.010
95914725|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis or Deformity of 3 or More Joint Areas: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914726|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.363|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Arthritis/Deformity of Hand/Joint: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.363
95914727|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Symmetry: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914728|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nodules: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914729|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.605|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Rheumatoid Factor Positive: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.605
95914730|NCT01557322|191788107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Erosions on Hand or Feet X-Ray: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.038
95914731|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Sicca Syndrome: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914732|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Serosal Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.024
95914733|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Eye Involvement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.257
95914734|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Systemic Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.026
95914735|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.725|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Nailfold Vasculitis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.725
95914736|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pulmonary Fibrosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.220
95914737|NCT01557322|191788108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Other: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.620
95914738|NCT01557322|191788109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Knee Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914739|NCT01557322|191788109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Hip Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914740|NCT01557322|191788109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Shoulder Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914741|NCT01557322|191788109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total Elbow Replacement: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914742|NCT01557322|191788109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Wrist/Hand/Ankle/Foot Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.001
95914743|NCT01557322|191788109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Neck Surgery: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914744|NCT01557322|191788110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||P-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914745|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||High Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.381
95914746|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Angina: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.006
95914747|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.215|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Heart Attack: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.215
95914748|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Stroke: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.117
95914749|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Epilepsy: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
95854208|NCT00107653|191668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.09|-0.25|<0.0001
95854209|NCT00107653|191668080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
95854210|NCT00107653|191668081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the Difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. the 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.01|-0.15|0.0353
95854211|NCT00107653|191668082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.04|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with virologic response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Virologic Response for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.04|-0.17|0.0014
95914750|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Asthma: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.542
95914751|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chronic Bronchitis/Emphysema: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.027
95914752|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.566|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Peptic Ulcer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.566
95914753|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Liver Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.003
95914754|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.526|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Renal Disease: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.526
95914755|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Tuberculosis: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.802
95914756|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Demyelination: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
95914757|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Diabetes: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.385
95914758|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hyperthyroidism: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.048
95914759|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.308|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Depression: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.308
95914760|NCT01557322|191788111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Cancer: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.033
95914761|NCT01557322|191788112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.188
95914762|NCT01557322|191788113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Systolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.016
95914763|NCT01557322|191788113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.369
95914764|NCT01557322|191788114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914765|NCT01557322|191788114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Change at Month 60: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.3746
95914766|NCT01557322|191788115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914767|NCT01557322|191788116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914768|NCT01557322|191788117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.154
95914769|NCT01557322|191788118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.108
95914770|NCT01557322|191788119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.199
95914771|NCT01557322|191788120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914772|NCT01557322|191788121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914773|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914774|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.313|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.313
95914775|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||1.000
95914776|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.066
95914777|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.099
95914778|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Current DMARDs, Sulphasalazine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914779|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Methotrexate: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914780|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Azathioprine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914781|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclophosphamide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914782|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Cyclosporine: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914783|NCT01557322|191788123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Previous DMARDs, Leflunomide: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||<0.001
95914784|NCT01557322|191788124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914785|NCT01557322|191788125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline PCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||<0.001
95914786|NCT01557322|191788125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.886|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline MCS: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.886
95914787|NCT01557322|191788125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using 2-sided t-test.||||0.680
95914788|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0233
95914789|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5103
95914790|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9990
95914791|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6495|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6495
95914792|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
95914793|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1085|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1085
95914794|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0472
95914795|NCT01557322|191788135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4804|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4804
95914796|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
95914797|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0774|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0774
95914798|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
95914799|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5552
95914800|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
95914801|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Lymphoproliferative Tumors, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
95914802|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0895
95914803|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0024
95914804|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6301
95914805|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0793
95854212|NCT00107653|191668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 4||-0.06|-0.22|0.0006
95914806|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hodgkins Lymphoma, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0075
95914807|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7253|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7253
95914808|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7336|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Myeloma, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7336
95914809|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Leukaemia, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0044
95914810|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4175|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4175
95914811|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3886|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3886
95914812|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5102|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5102
95914813|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9855|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9855
95914814|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4955
95914815|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5404|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5404
95914816|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3581|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3581
95914817|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4932
95914818|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4818|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4818
95914819|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3224|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3224
95914820|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5003
95914821|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1134
95914822|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3488|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3488
95914823|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1870
95914824|NCT01557322|191788136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Solid Tumor, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4270
95914825|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5817
95914826|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2595|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.2595
95914827|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5642|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5642
95914828|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.0034
95914829|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7137|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7137
95914830|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.963|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Death Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.9630
95914831|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7353|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 6: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.7353
95914832|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3829|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 12: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.3829
95914833|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4532|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 18: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4532
95914834|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4238|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 24: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4238
95914835|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1218|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 30: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.1218
95914836|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 36: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.4124
95914837|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 48: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.6356
95914838|NCT01557322|191788137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5491|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Hospitalization Due to AE, Month 60: p-value was calculated using chi-square test.||||0.5491
95914839|NCT01557322|191788138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline DAS28 score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
95914840|NCT01557322|191788139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||P-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline HAQ-DI score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||<0.0001
95914841|NCT01557322|191788140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2558|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||PCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline PCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.2558
95914842|NCT01557322|191788140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4908|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||MCS: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline MCS and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.4908
95914843|NCT01557322|191788140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8379|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Vitality Score: p-value was calculated using multivariate linear regression with baseline vitality score and other baseline variables (socio-demographics, disease characteristics, and initial treatment profile) as covariates.||||0.8379
95914844|NCT02247336|191788142|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.2||A priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|Using alpha=0.05, 80% power, and a risk-appropriate screening referral rate for the delayed arm ranging from 60% to 70%, n = 250 participants with a completed a family health history assessment per arm with 40 providers was needed to detect differences between arms in appropriate referral ranging from 12% to 13.2%. Sample size calculations accounted for provider clustering using an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.02 to adjust variance for a Z-test of the difference of two proportions.||1.2|0.4|0.16
95914845|NCT02247336|191788143|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.2||The a priori threshold was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|generalized estimating equation|Generalized estimating equation models were used with a logit link function and an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of participants within provider. Fay and Graubard small sample bias correction was applied.|||1.2|.04|0.23
95914846|NCT04843930|191788145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 261.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.54
95914847|NCT04843930|191788146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.83||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 239.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis."||||0.04
95914848|NCT04843930|191788147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 229.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.79
95854213|NCT00107653|191668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.08|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 12||-0.08|-0.24|<0.0001
95854214|NCT00107653|191668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.07|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 24||-0.07|-0.23|0.0003
95914849|NCT04843930|191788148|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 269.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.45
95914850|NCT04843930|191788149|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 236.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.02
95914851|NCT04843930|191788150|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 257.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.96
95914852|NCT04843930|191788151|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.78||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 262.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
95914853|NCT04843930|191788152|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 3, 227.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.60
95914854|NCT04843930|191788153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.77||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 89.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.06
95914855|NCT04843930|191788154|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.37||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance: p \< 0.05. Exploratory efficacy analysis - p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom for the group x timepoint interaction: 1, 73.|Linear mixed effects interaction reported for group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures baseline to week 6).|"Linear Mixed Effects Model: main effects of arm group (intervention vs. waitlist control) and timepoint (all measures from baseline to week 6), arm group x timepoint interaction.~Modified intent-to-treat analysis with all participants who were randomized and completed at least the baseline study visit included in the analysis.~Participants in the intervention hypothesized to improve relative to waitlist control."||||0.04
95914856|NCT00335257|191788155|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test of two exponential survival curves.These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.025; 2) power (1-β) of 0.90; 3) VTE incidence rate of 9/10.000 WY and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2. Furthermore, a study of this size would exclude a threefold risk of ATE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP(24d) vs. Non-DRSP is higher or equal to 2||1.3|0.5|
95914857|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.71|1.3||||||||1.3|0.71|
95914858|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.6|1.09||||||||1.09|0.6|
95914859|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ia)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
95914860|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.49|1.29||||||||1.29|0.49|
95914861|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
95914862|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype Ib)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.85|2.06||||||||2.06|0.85|
95914863|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.66|2.07||||||||2.07|0.66|
95914864|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.63|1.78||||||||1.78|0.63|
95914865|NCT01412801|191788174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group ratios (Serotype III)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|98.4|0.52|1.58||||||||1.58|0.52|
95914866|NCT03682705|191788208|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|-0.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) analysis was conducted, testing the superiority of the combination of upadacitinib 15 mg and elsubrutinib 60 mg compared to placebo at Week 12. Data collected after a participant discontinued study drug was considered as missing. The mixed model included the categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, prior bDMARD use, and baseline DAS28 (CRP) measurement.||-0.85|-2.03|<0.001
95914867|NCT02019563|191788387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.49|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.49|.08|.15
95914868|NCT02019563|191788388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.89|||Chi-squared|||Radiographic outcomes were compared using univariate repeated measures logistic regression. A binary logistic generalized estimating equation model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups.||1.89|.19|.38
95914869|NCT02019563|191788389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.51
95914870|NCT02019563|191788390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||A binary logistic generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to analyze predictor variables such as age, gender, tooth and treatment provider between the treatment groups for radiographic and clinical outcomes.||||.64
95914871|NCT02019563|191788391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value represents the survival rate from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis from 6 to 36 months.|Log Rank|||||||.11
95914872|NCT03285295|191788392|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.92|99.99|||Binomial Distribution|Specificity sample size is a minimum of 15,000 donors.||||99.99|99.92|
95914873|NCT03285295|191788393|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.15|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.15|
95914874|NCT03285295|191788394|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.95|100.0|||Binomial Distribution|||||100.00|99.95|
95914875|NCT03285295|191788395|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.48|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.48|
95914876|NCT03285295|191788396|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.86|99.95|||Binomial Distribution|||||99.95|99.86|
95914877|NCT03285295|191788397|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
95914878|NCT03285295|191788398|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.87|99.96|||Binomial Exact|||||99.96|99.87|
95914879|NCT03285295|191788399|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.72|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.72|
95914880|NCT03285295|191788400|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.84|99.94|||Binomial Exact|||||99.94|99.84|
95914881|NCT03285295|191788401|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.09|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|99.09|
95914882|NCT03285295|191788402|SUPERIORITY||Clinical Specificity (%)|99.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.94|100.0|||Binomial Exact|||||100.00|99.94|
95914883|NCT03285295|191788403|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.85|100.0|||Sensitivity|||||100.00|98.85|
95914884|NCT03285295|191788408|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.98|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|95.98|
95914885|NCT03285295|191788410|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.75|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|92.75|
95914886|NCT03285295|191788411|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|100.0|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||100.00|94.87|
95914887|NCT03285295|191788412|OTHER|95% Confidence Interval provided.|Point Estimate|98.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.2|99.84|||Sensitivity|||Sensitivity||99.84|95.20|
95914888|NCT01015807|191788418|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||We estimated that 25 subjects per group would allow us to detect a reduction of this area from 7.5 cm2 in our placebo group to 3.5 cm2 in the CloTAP group, with SD = 5 cm2 in both groups, owing to improved overall analgesia and reduced pain sensitization in women allocated to receive a TAP block with clonidine (2-tailed \[alpha\] = 0.05, 80% power). To allow for failed TAP blocks and/or exclusions of cases, we included 30 patients per group (n = 90)||||0.48
95914889|NCT03091673|191788419|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was computed using a t-test to determine if change in plasma glucose from baseline to 30 minutes was zero.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95914890|NCT02294630|191788455|OTHER|||||||0.399|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.399
95914891|NCT01616771|191788519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
95914892|NCT01616771|191788520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||To verify the difference in C\&L grades using each blade, the ordinal scales of each blade were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. P values and confidence intervals have been corrected for the 3 comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Hodges-Lehmann method was used to calculate 98.3% CIs of paired differences of 3 comparisons.||An improvement of C\&L grade ordinal scale by 2 was considered a clinically significant change. The mean difference of C\&L grade ordinal scale between DL and GVLw was 1.3, and its standard deviation was 2.0 in our pilot study. The required sample size for the Wilcoxon signed rank test was 21 with an α error of 0.05 and 80% power.||||<0.05
95914893|NCT03338621|191788521|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|3.96|||Log Rank|||||3.96|2.17|<0.001
95914894|NCT02037438|191788527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.687|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.687
95914895|NCT02037438|191788528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.989|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Heteroscedasticity-Consistent Linear Regression with Fixed Effects for Providers and Baseline Covariate||||||0.989
95914896|NCT02037438|191788529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.417
95914897|NCT02037438|191788530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.468|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.468
95914898|NCT02037438|191788531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Provider-Effect Adjusted Difference|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||see Comments|Finite-Mixture Models with Fixed Effects for Providers||||||0.003
95914899|NCT02255032|191788532|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-164.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|173.148||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-256.7|-72.2||The primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint was the comparison between the Baseline and Month 2 values for the 4 mg treatment group. No adjustments for multiplicity were necessary.|Paired t-test, two-sided|||"A paired t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the change between Baseline and Month 2.~A sample size of 16 subjects would have 80% power to detect a difference of 75, assuming a standard deviation of 100, using a paired t-test with a 0.050 two-sided significance level."||-72.2|-256.7|0.0017
95914900|NCT00098254|191788543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.0027
95914901|NCT00098254|191788545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.33
95914902|NCT00098254|191788546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.042
95914903|NCT00098254|191788547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.028
95914904|NCT02118337|191788558|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-23.8||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|31.1|||Fisher Exact|||||31.1|-72.8|0.5494
95914905|NCT02118337|191788558|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|-7.1||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|20.0|||Fisher Exact|||||20.0|-33.6|0.5130
95914906|NCT05807919|191788665|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95914907|NCT05807919|191788666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
95914908|NCT05807919|191788667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.18
95914909|NCT05807919|191788668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95914910|NCT05807919|191788669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.39
95914911|NCT05807919|191788670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.48
95914912|NCT03489057|191788687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.19
95914913|NCT03489057|191788701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.48
95914914|NCT02277743|191788707|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.18|35.17||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||35.17|20.18|< 0.0001
95914915|NCT02277743|191788707|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.47|34.44||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||34.44|19.47|< 0.0001
95914916|NCT02277743|191788708|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.58|44.63||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||44.63|28.58|< 0.0001
95914917|NCT02277743|191788708|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|37.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.7|45.77||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level. Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region and baseline disease severity.||45.77|29.70|< 0.0001
95914918|NCT02277743|191788709|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|36.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.52|20.64|< 0.0001
95914919|NCT02277743|191788709|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.94|36.13||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||36.13|19.94|< 0.0001
95914920|NCT02277743|191788710|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.36|37.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||37.88|21.36|< 0.0001
95914921|NCT02277743|191788710|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.08|42.84||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||42.84|26.08|< 0.0001
95914922|NCT02277743|191788711|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-24.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.26|-17.52||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-17.52|-32.26|< 0.0001
95914923|NCT02277743|191788711|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-15.33||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-15.33|-30.33|< 0.0001
95914924|NCT02277743|191788712|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|9.8||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|15.71||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||15.71|3.95|0.0012
95914925|NCT02277743|191788712|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|23.93||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||23.93|10.57|< 0.0001
95914926|NCT02277743|191788713|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|10.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.68|1.49|0.0097
95914927|NCT02277743|191788713|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.2||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|10.86||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||10.86|1.45|0.0094
95914928|NCT02277743|191788714|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.236|-1.26||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.260|-2.236|< 0.0001
95914929|NCT02277743|191788714|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.189|-1.186||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.186|-2.189|< 0.0001
95914930|NCT02277743|191788715|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.35|-26.88||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.88|-42.35|< 0.0001
95914931|NCT02277743|191788715|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-34.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.17|-26.56||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-26.56|-42.17|< 0.0001
95914932|NCT02277743|191788716|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|44.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.91|52.48||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||52.48|35.91|< 0.0001
95914933|NCT02277743|191788716|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|36.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|44.96||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||44.96|27.90|< 0.0001
95914934|NCT02277743|191788717|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.96|35.29||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||35.29|20.96|< 0.0001
95914935|NCT02277743|191788717|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.51|32.68||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||32.68|18.51|< 0.0001
95914936|NCT02277743|191788718|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-17.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.487|-13.353||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-13.353|-22.487|< 0.0001
95914937|NCT02277743|191788718|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.125|-14.65||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-14.650|-23.125|< 0.0001
95914938|NCT02277743|191788719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.79|-21.54||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-21.54|-35.79|< 0.0001
95914939|NCT02277743|191788719|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-28.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.09|-20.87||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-20.87|-35.09|< 0.0001
95914940|NCT02277743|191788720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-2.8||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.80|-5.16|< 0.0001
95914941|NCT02277743|191788720|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|-2.49||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-2.49|-4.87|< 0.0001
95914942|NCT02277743|191788721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-5.01||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-5.01|-8.02|< 0.0001
95914943|NCT02277743|191788721|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-5.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|-4.32||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-4.32|-7.44|< 0.0001
95914944|NCT02277743|191788722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.95||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-0.95|-3.44|0.0006
95914945|NCT02277743|191788722|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|-1.03||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-1.03|-3.46|0.0003
95914946|NCT02277743|191788723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-27.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.04|-18.91||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.91|-35.04|< 0.0001
95914947|NCT02277743|191788723|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.06|-18.12||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-18.12|-33.06|< 0.0001
95914948|NCT02277743|191788724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.08|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-11.90|-21.08|< 0.0001
95914949|NCT02277743|191788724|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-15.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-10.5||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA||Dupilumab 300 mg qw vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous outcome measure was statistically significant).||-10.50|-19.62|< 0.0001
95914950|NCT03976466|191788734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.049|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.168|||Chi-squared, Corrected||For the Relative risk the control Study group was the numerator and control group denominator. In the 2X2 contingency table the rows correspond to groups and columns for the presence or abscence of periprosthetic infection.|"H0.- There is no significant difference in the incidence of periprosthetic infection in patients with non-modifiable risk factors and prophylactic application of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate compared with patients without prophylactic treatment with calcium sulfate.~The presence of periprosthetic infection in both groups was evaluated by chi2 and Lambda tests for dichotomous nominal and qualitative variables with longitudinal direction and relative risk factor test."||0.168|0.015|<0.05
95914951|NCT03976466|191788735|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The statistical test of t was performed for the variable length of hospital stay, finding a significant difference with a p value \< 0.01|t-test, 2 sided|||Lenght of stay was the variable that compares both groups and was a continous variable (t-test).||||<0.01
95914952|NCT00733499|191788737|OTHER|||||||0.9478|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9478
95914953|NCT00733499|191788738|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5490
95914954|NCT00733499|191788739|OTHER|||||||0.5312|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5312
95914955|NCT00733499|191788740|OTHER|||||||0.3549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3549
95914956|NCT00733499|191788741|OTHER|||||||0.0513|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0513
95914957|NCT00733499|191788742|OTHER|||||||0.0629|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0629
95914958|NCT00733499|191788743|OTHER|||||||0.0327|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0327
95914959|NCT00733499|191788744|OTHER|||||||0.0883|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0883
95914960|NCT00733499|191788745|OTHER|||||||0.6801|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6801
95914961|NCT00733499|191788746|OTHER|||||||0.4779|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4779
95914962|NCT00733499|191788747|OTHER|||||||0.8007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8007
95914963|NCT00733499|191788748|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3317
95914964|NCT00733499|191788749|OTHER|||||||0.8955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8955
95914965|NCT00733499|191788750|OTHER|||||||0.2116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2116
95914966|NCT00733499|191788751|OTHER|||||||0.4776|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4776
95914967|NCT00733499|191788753|OTHER|||||||0.2935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2935
95914968|NCT00733499|191788754|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
95914969|NCT00733499|191788755|OTHER|||||||0.6896|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6896
95914970|NCT00733499|191788756|OTHER|||||||0.1076|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1076
95914971|NCT00733499|191788757|OTHER|||||||0.9042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9042
95914972|NCT00733499|191788758|OTHER|||||||0.9637|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9637
95914973|NCT00733499|191788759|OTHER|||||||0.0485|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0485
95914974|NCT00733499|191788760|OTHER|||||||0.9813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9813
95914975|NCT00733980|191788818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2479||||0.703||80.0|-0.5887|1.0846|||Mixed-Model Repeated-Measure analysis|||||1.0846|-0.5887|0.703
95914976|NCT00733980|191788819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0169||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.5231|0.4893|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 1||0.4893|-0.5231|0.966
95914977|NCT00733980|191788819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4299||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2063|1.0661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.0661|-0.2063|0.386
95914978|NCT00733980|191788819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9413||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.2203|1.6624|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.6624|0.2203|0.095
95914979|NCT00733980|191788820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9495||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.0185|1.9175|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.9175|-0.0185|0.209
95914980|NCT00733980|191788820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7638||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.4243|1.9519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.9519|-0.4243|0.409
95914981|NCT00733980|191788820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5363||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1485|2.9241|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9241|0.1485|0.156
95914982|NCT00733980|191788820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6327||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.9135|2.1789|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.1789|-0.9135|0.599
95914983|NCT00733980|191788821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9866||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8876|-0.0856|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||-0.0856|-3.8876|0.181
95914984|NCT00733980|191788821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2538||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.5922|2.0846|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.0846|-2.5922|0.889
95914985|NCT00733980|191788821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3242||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.8165|2.1681|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 3||2.1681|-2.8165|0.867
95914986|NCT00733980|191788821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8107||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.1036|3.7251|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||3.7251|-2.1036|0.721
95914987|NCT00733980|191788821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6273||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.8337|2.5791|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.5791|-3.8337|0.801
95914988|NCT00733980|191788822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.644||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2498|1.5378|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 1||1.5378|-0.2498|0.355
95914989|NCT00733980|191788822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0524||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.1194|2.2243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||2.2243|-0.1194|0.249
95914990|NCT00733980|191788822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6473||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3078|2.9868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||2.9868|0.3078|0.116
95914991|NCT00733980|191788822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7283||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.8353|2.292|||Mixed Models Analysis|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6||2.2920|-0.8353|0.550
95914992|NCT00733980|191788826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6359||||0.3588|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.3378|1.1968|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 2||1.1968|0.3378|0.3588
95914993|NCT00733980|191788826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7347||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4554|1.1853|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 4||1.1853|0.4554|0.4088
95914994|NCT00733980|191788826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Logistic Model|0.9211||||0.8156|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5863|1.4471|||Logistic Model|||GSK561679 350 mg Vs Placebo, Week 6/ Early withdrawal||1.4471|0.5863|0.8156
95914995|NCT00733980|191788827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4466||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.3986|8.2917|||ANCOVA|||||8.2917|-1.3986|0.361
95914996|NCT00733980|191788828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1167||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.6387|1.8722|||ANCOVA|||||1.8722|-1.6387|0.932
95914997|NCT01552954|191788837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||for albuminuria changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences with two-tailed P\<0.05 were considered statistically significant.||||0.006
95914998|NCT01552954|191788837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.99
95914999|NCT01552954|191788837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for 24-hour urine albumin excretion between 8 weeks and 16 weeks in intensive education group|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95915000|NCT01552954|191788838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|||||for hemoglobin changes from week 0 at week 16 (week 0 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.187
95915001|NCT01552954|191788839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||for changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95915002|NCT01552954|191788840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||for sBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95915003|NCT01552954|191788840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|||||for dBP changes from week 8 at week 16 (week 8 - week 16)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.585
95915004|NCT01395823|191788845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.78
95915005|NCT01986101|191788846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.0||Hochberg-adjusted|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-1.0|-4.9|0.007
95915006|NCT01986101|191788846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1||Hochberg-adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.1|-4.0|0.057
95915007|NCT01986101|191788847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.15|-0.65|0.002
95915008|NCT01986101|191788847|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.05|-0.56|0.019
95915009|NCT01986101|191788848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.1|-3.6|0.037
95915010|NCT01986101|191788848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.9|0.223
95915011|NCT01986101|191788849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-0.98|0.076
95915012|NCT01986101|191788849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.269||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.05|-1.01|0.075
95915013|NCT01986101|191788850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||-0.3|-3.1|0.016
95915014|NCT01986101|191788850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||ANCOVA||A negative difference in least square mean change from baseline between SM-13496 group and placebo indicates a greater improvement in the SM-13496 group over the placebo group.|||0.7|-2.1|0.294
95915015|NCT03324880|191788861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Mean|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.189|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom subscale score.|-0.15|-0.90|=0.003
95915016|NCT03324880|191788862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|15.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACIT-Fatigue total score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACIT-Fatigue total score.|15.9|5.1|<0.001
95915017|NCT03324880|191788863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9219|=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|8.072||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 PCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 PCS score.|8.072|0.413|=0.015
95915018|NCT03324880|191788864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact subscale score.|-0.10|-0.55|=0.002
95915019|NCT03324880|191788865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact on Sleep|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.04|-0.53|=0.013
95915020|NCT03324880|191788865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.11||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Exercise|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.11|-0.61|=0.003
95915021|NCT03324880|191788865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Ability to Complete Work|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.12|-0.61|=0.002
95854215|NCT00107653|191668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 48||-0.06|-0.22|0.0008
95915022|NCT03324880|191788865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Impact Family Relationships|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD impact item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD impact item score.|-0.13|-0.61|=0.002
95915023|NCT03324880|191788866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.203|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.15||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD anxiety item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD anxiety item score.|-0.15|-0.96|=0.004
95915024|NCT03324880|191788867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD sadness or depression item score.|-0.14|-0.93|=0.004
95915025|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.218|=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Cramps|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.99|=0.006
95915026|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.12||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Tingling|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.12|-0.96|=0.007
95915027|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.02||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.02|-0.94|=0.020
95915028|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.18||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Muscle Spasms|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.18|-1.05|=0.003
95915029|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.229|=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.07||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Feelings of Heaviness|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|0.07|-0.83|=0.050
95915030|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227|=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.1||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Physical Fatigue|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.10|-1.01|=0.008
95915031|NCT03324880|191788868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.14||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Brain Fog|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD symptom item score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD symptom item score.|-0.14|-0.87|=0.004
95915032|NCT03324880|191788870|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.43||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect, with adjustment for baseline HypoPT-SD most bothersome symptom score.|-0.43|-1.37|<0.001
95915033|NCT03324880|191788871|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog Perceived Cognitive Impairments Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
95915034|NCT03324880|191788872|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline FACT-Cog QoL Subscale score.|4.3|0.0|=0.024
95915035|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1376|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.951|11.469||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Bodily Pain|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|11.469|2.951|=0.001
95854216|NCT00107653|191668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.1|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 60||-0.10|-0.26|<0.0001
95854217|NCT00107653|191668084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.11|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with biochemical response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Normal Serum ALT level for Latino VS Non-Latino White at Week 72||-0.11|-0.27|<0.0001
95854218|NCT00107653|191668085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in proportion of participants (Latino minus Non-Latino White) with ISHAK HAI response. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI Response For Latino VS Non-Latino White||-0.0|-0.2|0.0285
95854219|NCT00107653|191668086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||Normal approximation to the binomial.||The estimated value is the difference in change from baseline of ISHAK HAI activity (necroinflammatory) scores between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|ISHAK HAI activity For Latino VS Non-Latino White||1.3|0.5|<0.0001
95854220|NCT00107653|191668095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.33|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-0.33|-0.96|<0.0001
95854221|NCT00107653|191668095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.04|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.04|-0.57|0.0921
95854222|NCT00107653|191668095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-8.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.36|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||-3.36|-14.07|0.0015
95854223|NCT00107653|191668095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|9.49|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in FSS VAS scores at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|FSS VAS Score of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||9.49|0.18|0.0421
95915036|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|5.545|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0542|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.452|9.638||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-General Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.638|1.452|=0.004
95915037|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.292|12.423||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Mental Health|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.423|3.292|<0.001
95915038|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||MMRM|4.554|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1123|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.345|8.763||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Physical Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.763|0.345|=0.017
95854224|NCT00107653|191668096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.864|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.18|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||5.18|1.79|<0.0001
95854225|NCT00107653|191668096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.808||0.9047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|1.68|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized physical component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Physical Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||1.68|-1.49|0.9047
95854226|NCT00107653|191668096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.914||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|1.71|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 48 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 48||1.71|-1.88|0.9286
95854227|NCT00107653|191668096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Study Group Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.888||0.1653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|0.51|||ANCOVA||The estimated value is the difference of change from baseline in standardized mental component score at week 72 between Latino and Non-Latino White participants. The 95% Confidence Interval is based on normal approximation to the binomial.|Standardized Mental Component of Latino VS Non-Latino White at week 72||0.51|-2.98|0.1653
95854228|NCT04905134|191668148|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flexible scope compared with the SOC scope||||0.04
95854229|NCT02234843|191668216|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.1509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.41|||Expl. Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.41|0.11|0.1509
95854230|NCT00091949|191668271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93||P-value adjusted for interim looks.|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for interim looks.|||0.93|0.62|.0067
95915039|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3186|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|13.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Emotional|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|13.040|3.800|<0.001
95854231|NCT00091949|191668272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; conference interval (CI) adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.1|0.61|0.19
95854232|NCT00091949|191668273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.07||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.07|0.52|0.11
95854233|NCT00091949|191668275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17||p-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes)|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.17|0.73|0.52
95854234|NCT00091949|191668276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.326|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo.|Changes in modified mini-mental examination (3MS) score from baseline (to annual scores) were analyzed using a longitudinal repeated measures mixed effects model.||0.280|-0.326|0.88
95854235|NCT00091949|191668277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.05||P-value adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|Regression, Cox||Pioglitazone arm compared to placebo; CI adjusted for multiplicity (5 secondary outcomes).|||1.05|0.65|0.11
95854236|NCT00303069|191668279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|84.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|93.6||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||93.6|65.2|<0.001
95915040|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2489|=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|8.711||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Role-Physical|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|8.711|-0.251|=0.032
95915041|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6658|=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.502|9.121||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Social Functioning|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|9.121|-1.502|=0.079
95915042|NCT03324880|191788873|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|7.942|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.353|=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.253|12.63||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Standard-Vitality|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 domain score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 domain score.|12.630|3.253|=0.001
95915043|NCT03324880|191788874|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2642|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.788|12.811||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in SF-36 MCS score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline SF-36 MCS score.|12.811|3.788|<0.001
95915044|NCT03324880|191788875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.578|=|0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|22.6||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Work Time Missed Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|22.60|-16.33|=0.627
95915045|NCT03324880|191788875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.52|=|0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.9|0.7||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Impairment While Working Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|0.7|-29.9|=0.031
95915046|NCT03324880|191788875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.146|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.42|-2.39||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-2.39|-27.42|=0.011
95915047|NCT03324880|191788875|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-1.5||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Percent Activity Impairment Due to Problem|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in WPAI score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline WPAI score.|-1.5|-24.5|=0.014
95915048|NCT03324880|191788876|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||1-sided p-value|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in PGI-S score as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline PGI-S score.|-0.1|-1.0|=0.010
95915049|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Detection||0.05|-0.03|=0.516
95915050|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02|||=|0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Identification||0.06|-0.02|=0.275
95915051|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Card Learning||0.07|-0.05|=0.777
95915052|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||One Back (ONB)||0.05|-0.04|=0.831
95915053|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|9.93|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|20.85|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||Groton Maze Learning (GML)||20.85|-1.00|=0.075
95915054|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.57|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.27|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List (ISL)||1.27|-2.41|=0.545
95915055|NCT03324880|191788878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.55|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.56|||ANCOVA|From an ANCOVA with treatment group (rhPTH(l-84), placebo) as the predictor and Baseline score as a covariate.||International Shopping List Test Delayed Recall (ISRL)||1.56|-0.45|=0.283
95915056|NCT03324880|191788879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Detection (DET)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.582
95915057|NCT03324880|191788879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Identification (IDN)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.492
95915058|NCT03324880|191788879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.06||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Card Learning (OCL)|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.06|-0.03|=0.506
95915059|NCT03324880|191788879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.01|||=|0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.04||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||One Back Test|From MMRM with visit, treatment group, and visit treatment group as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate, and participant as a random effect. By-participant scores, which are summarized in this table, are derived as the average of the planned at-home assessment values that passed the Completion criteria over 14 days preceding the visit.|0.04|-0.02|=0.438
95915060|NCT03324880|191788880|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.871|=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.83||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in 24-hour urine calcium excretion as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline 24-Hour urine calcium excretion.|3.83|0.36|=0.991
95915061|NCT03324880|191788881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.254|-0.097||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in serum phosphate as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline serum phosphate.|-0.097|-0.254|<0.001
95915062|NCT03324880|191788882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.654|=|0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|13.22||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||From a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in active vitamin D supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline active vitamin D supplement dose.|13.22|-5.06|=0.810
95915063|NCT03324880|191788883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-331.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|132.56|=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.6|-67.9||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in elemental calcium supplement dose as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline elemental calcium supplement dose.|-67.9|-594.6|=0.007
95915064|NCT03324880|191788886|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|22.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.83|28.84||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|28.84|15.83|<0.001
95915065|NCT03324880|191788887|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|785.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|113.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|559.6|1011.3||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM||||MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|1011.3|559.6|<0.001
95915066|NCT03324880|191788888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|56.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.091|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.33|68.53||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Osteocalcin|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|68.53|44.33|<0.001
95915067|NCT03324880|191788888|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|226.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.425|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|160.17|292.98||1-sided p-value was reported.|MMRM|||Procollagen 1 N-Terminal Propeptide|MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in bone turnover biomarkers as the outcome, treatment group, visit, and their interaction as fixed effect factors and participants as a random effect with adjustment for baseline bone turnover biomarkers.|292.98|160.17|<0.001
95915068|NCT00116272|191788910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|7.35|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||7.35|1.04|
95915069|NCT00116272|191788911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|5.52|||||Adjusted oddds ratio for major structural defects in women exposed to etanercept in their 1st trimester versus not exposed computed using logistic regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of asthma and maternal height|||5.52|1.02|
95915070|NCT00116272|191788912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.01|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. No adjusted estimate was computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||2.01|0.70|
95915071|NCT00116272|191788914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.12|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for propensity score comprised of referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), and maternal height.|||1.12|0.20|
95915072|NCT00116272|191788915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.98|||||Adjusted HR computed using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for preeclampsia|||2.98|0.86|
95915073|NCT00116272|191788916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for referral source (not collapsed), vitamin use (not collapsed), preeclampsia, and asthma because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||0.26|-0.65|
95915074|NCT00116272|191788917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|21.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.32|126.91|||||Computed using linear regression, directly adjusted for asthma, RA2 severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||126.91|-83.32|
95915075|NCT00116272|191788918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.63|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of preeclampsia and asthma.|||0.63|-0.44|
95915076|NCT00116272|191788919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.26|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for maternal age (categorical).|||0.26|-0.43|
95915077|NCT00116272|191788920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.05|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.05|0.22|
95915078|NCT00116272|191788921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.68|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||1.68|0.31|
95915079|NCT00116272|191788922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.57|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, referral source (OTIS, Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other), PsO disease severity score at 32 weeks, \& disease severity imputation indicator|||1.57|0.40|
95915080|NCT00116272|191788923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|7.99|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, vitamin use, primary disease, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, PsO disease severity score at intake \& 32 weeks, disease severity imputation indicators|||7.99|-7.59|
95915081|NCT00116272|191788924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|8.81|||||Computed using linear regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, maternal age (categorical), and referral source (3 categories: OTIS, Pharmaceutical Company/Sponsor/HCP, Patient Support Group/Internet/Other).|||8.81|-5.76|
95915082|NCT00116272|191788925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted Difference|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|6.65|||||Computed using linear regression. Directly adjusted for infant sex and other autoimmune diseases because propensity score adjustment was not balanced.|||6.65|-6.12|
95915083|NCT00116272|191788926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.62|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of maternal height, RA disease severity score at 32 weeks, and disease severity score imputation indicator.|||1.62|0.37|
95915084|NCT00116272|191788927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.14|||||Computed using logistic regression, adjusted for propensity score comprised of country (U.S., Canada), primary disease, and maternal height.|||3.14|0.43|
95915085|NCT00116272|191788928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.65|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to the small number of events.|||2.65|0.29|
95915086|NCT00116272|191788929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|4.02|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||4.02|0.47|
95915087|NCT00116272|191788931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69|||||Unadjusted Odds Ratio computed using logistic regression. An adjusted estimate was not computed due to no confirmed confounder.|||1.69|0.65|
95915088|NCT02087501|191788951|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6|||||The CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||11.6|0|
95915089|NCT02087501|191788951|OTHER||Sample proportion|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.6||||||||11.6|0|
95915090|NCT02087501|191788952|OTHER||Sample proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0|||||CI is calculated based on Clopper-Pearson method|||100|88.4|
95915091|NCT02087501|191788953|OTHER||Sample proportion|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|92.0||||||||92|61|
95915092|NCT00094328|191788963|OTHER|One sample t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (cm/year) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.48|-4.72|0.278
95915093|NCT00094328|191788964|OTHER|One sample t-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||The primary efficacy parameter, change in growth rate (SD units) after 12 months relative to the baseline growth rate was analysed using a one sample t-test. A 95% 2-sided confidence interval was calculated for the mean change in growth rate.||1.00|-1.15|0.882
95855287|NCT01193244|191670184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.707|||<|1e-05||95.0|0.626|0.799|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio less than (\<) 1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at Baseline.||0.799|0.626|<0.00001
95915094|NCT02105636|191789035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.92||Log-rank Test stratified by prior treatment with cetuximab (yes, no) as entered into the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS). For OS the boundary for statistical significance requires the p-value to be less than 0.0227.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding Confidence Interval (CI) were estimated in a stratified Cox proportional hazards model for distribution of OS in each randomized arm.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (Cetuximab, Methotrexate, or Docetaxel)||0.92|0.53|0.0101
95915095|NCT02105636|191789036|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.1|||||Number of responders (CR +PR) over number of participants|||1.10|0.68|
95915096|NCT02105636|191789037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|13.6|||||Stratum adjusted difference in response rates (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method of weighting.|||13.6|1.5|
95915097|NCT02105636|191789037|SUPERIORITY||CMH Estimate of Common Odds Ratio|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|5.82|||||Stratified by Prior Cetuximab (yes, no) as recorded in the IVRS. Stratum adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab - Investigators Choice) using Mantel-Haenszel Method.|||5.82|1.07|
95915098|NCT02105636|191789038|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.85|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice therapy.|||0.85|0.54|
95915099|NCT02002884|191789043|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.04|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, Gross Motor Function Classification System-Extended and Revised (GMFCS-E\&R) level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||-0.04|-0.4|= 0.017
95915100|NCT02002884|191789043|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.07|||=|0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||MMRM|||LS-Means are from mixed model with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and AS at baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates. For MMRM visit\*treatment is interaction term repeated factor.||0.15|-0.29|= 0.546
95915101|NCT02002884|191789044|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|0.09|||=|0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.28|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, pooled site and pretreatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.28|-0.1|= 0.34
95915102|NCT02002884|191789044|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean difference|-0.12|||=|0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.11|||ANCOVA|||LS-Means are from ANCOVA with treatment group, pooled site and pre-treatment status included as fixed factors and maximum AS score of the two possible primary target patterns flexed elbow or flexed wrist baseline, GMFCS-E\&R level at screening included as covariates.||0.11|-0.36|= 0.297
95915103|NCT02110732|191789058|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95915104|NCT02110732|191789059|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||Categorical variables were analyzed with Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Comparisons between groups were by Levene's test for equality of variances. A P-level \<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed with SPSS v.19 and NCSS.|||< 0.05
95915105|NCT02110732|191789060|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.05
95915106|NCT01588990|191789095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.101|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.101
95915107|NCT01588990|191789107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.052
95915108|NCT01588990|191789108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.797|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.797
95915109|NCT01588990|191789109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.188
95915110|NCT01588990|191789110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||||||0.016
95915111|NCT02367716|191789120|OTHER|The mean change in QRS duration between Baseline and 6 months|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.6|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95915112|NCT01077362|191789150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915113|NCT01077362|191789150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915114|NCT01077362|191789150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915115|NCT01077362|191789151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
95915116|NCT01077362|191789151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915117|NCT01077362|191789151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915118|NCT01077362|191789152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915119|NCT01077362|191789152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915120|NCT01077362|191789152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915121|NCT01077362|191789153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.018
95915122|NCT01077362|191789153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915123|NCT01077362|191789153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.002
95915124|NCT01077362|191789154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.017
95915125|NCT01077362|191789154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915126|NCT01077362|191789154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||re-randomization test|||||||<0.001
95915127|NCT01077362|191789155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.171
95915128|NCT01077362|191789155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||re-randomization test|||||||0.060
95915129|NCT01077362|191789155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|||||||re-randomization|||||||0.094
95915130|NCT03802864|191789156|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95915131|NCT03802864|191789157|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95915132|NCT03802864|191789158|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95915133|NCT03802864|191789159|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.28
95915134|NCT03802864|191789160|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.78
95915135|NCT03802864|191789161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95915136|NCT03802864|191789162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.99
95915137|NCT03469349|191789170|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|29.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.083||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.35|49.02|||MMRM|||Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||49.02|9.35|0.0041
95915138|NCT03469349|191789171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|15.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.814||0.0431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|31.24|||MMRM|||Week 2: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||31.24|0.49|0.0431
95915139|NCT03469349|191789171|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|35.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.48||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|60.05|||MMRM|||Week 24: Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||60.05|10.96|0.0047
95915140|NCT03469349|191789172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0227|||||||MMRM|||Week 2: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0227
95854237|NCT00303069|191668279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|81.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.6|92.0||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||92.0|61.6|<0.01
95915141|NCT03469349|191789172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||MMRM|||Week 12: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0007
95915142|NCT03469349|191789172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0023|||||||MMRM|||Week 24: p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0023
95915143|NCT03469349|191789173|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9592||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||||0.9592
95915144|NCT03469349|191789173|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.5823||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||||0.5823
95915145|NCT03469349|191789174|NON_INFERIORITY|As the sample size was too small, clinically significant difference in actovegin and placebo could not be defined, the non-inferiority margin was defined as priori based on clinical reasoning.||||||0.9424||||||p-values were obtained using logistic regression adjusting for treatment.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9424
95915146|NCT03469349|191789175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3758|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.3758
95915147|NCT03469349|191789175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1412|||||||MMRM|||Physical Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1412
95915148|NCT03469349|191789175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1009|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 12; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.1009
95915149|NCT03469349|191789175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0015|||||||MMRM|||Mental Health Score: Week 24; Least squares means, p-values were obtained using a MMRM analysis of covariance with treatment, center, sex, age group, smoking status, diabetic status, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||||0.0015
95915150|NCT00909480|191789186|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin: 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.3003||||||95.0|0.1427|0.458|||ANCOVA|Full analysis set, Model adjusted for: HbA1c at baseline, previous oral anti-diabetic treatment and country.||||0.4580|0.1427|
95915151|NCT00393523|191789234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||95.2|92.1|97.1||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.1|92.1|<0.001
95915152|NCT00393523|191789234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|95.0|||<|0.001||97.6|91.6|97.3||Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024). Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012.|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||97.3|91.6|<0.001
95854267|NCT03175367|191668311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.8|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|129.9|||Regression, Logistic|||||129.9|4.7|= 0.0001
95854268|NCT03175367|191668311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|194.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||194.7|6.7|< 0.0001
95854269|NCT03175367|191668311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||=|0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.2|0.5|= 0.3185
95854270|NCT03175367|191668311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|54.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||54.2|3.9|< 0.0001
95854271|NCT03175367|191668312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||=|0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|26.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||26.5|0.9|= 0.0718
95854272|NCT03175367|191668312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||=|0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|62.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||62.1|2.1|= 0.0048
95854273|NCT03175367|191668312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.7|||=|0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|76.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||76.8|2.8|= 0.0015
95854274|NCT03175367|191668312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||=|0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|8.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.4|0.3|= 0.5270
95854275|NCT03175367|191668312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.7|||=|0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|31.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||31.7|1.9|= 0.0047
95854276|NCT03175367|191668313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|=|0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.5|-9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.6|-55.5|= 0.0059
95727452|NCT01341639|191424682|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.34||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -5% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Rubella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.34|-1.5|< 0.001
95854277|NCT03175367|191668313|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.0|-32.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.0|-77.0|< 0.0001
95854278|NCT03175367|191668314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-37.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-25.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-25.8|-48.4|< .0001
95854279|NCT03175367|191668314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.2|-57.5|< .0001
95854280|NCT03175367|191668314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-40.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.4|-62.5|< .0001
95727453|NCT01341639|191424682|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.06||1-sided|Miettinen & Nurminen||If the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (non-inferiority margin), it was concluded that PR5I group response rate was non-inferior to INFANRIX hexa group response rate.|Difference in percentages: Non-inferiority for Varicella|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.06|-2.11|< 0.001
95915153|NCT00393523|191789234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection rate (SPR)|91.6||||0.19||95.2|88.0|94.4||"Adequate SPR required the lower bound of the 95.2% CI for the SPR for subjects in both Group 1 and Group 2 to be \> 90% (P-Value \< .024).~Since only one group met the criteria, that group was retested at α=.012."|Hochberg's step up|The primary hypothesis was evaluated using Hochberg's step up approach to control multiplicity.|Seroprotection rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL|The primary purpose of this study was to show that subjects who received a primary series of RECOMBIVAX HB™ in the first year of life were adequately protected by RECOMBIVAX HB™ by measuring the immune response to a single booster dose of either a modified process vaccine or ENGERIX-B™.||94.4|88.0|0.19
95915154|NCT00393523|191789235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Seroprotection Rate (SPR)|97.3||||||95.0|95.0|98.8|||||"Exact binomial confidence interval~Seroprotection Rate (SPR)- defined as the percentage of subjects who demonstrate antibodies to hepatitis B surface antigen ≥10 mIU/mL"|The purpose of the secondary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate SPR in subjects who received a primary vaccination series of ENGERIX-B™ and a booster dose of modified process hepatitis B vaccine. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the SPR to exceed 90%.||98.8|95.0|
95915155|NCT03300570|191789285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95915156|NCT02296190|191789288|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher's exact test to compare the conversion rate between the MSP-2017 groups and the placebo group.||||<0.05
95915157|NCT05076149|191789289|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin represents a clinically acceptable loss of effectiveness that margin preserve at least 50% of the treatment effect of the active control (ELX/TEZ/IVA) compared to placebo, where the treatment effect is estimated by the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI)|LS Mean difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.9|-0.5|< 0.0001
95915158|NCT05076149|191789290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-2.8|||=|0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.9|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-0.9|-4.7|=0.0034
95915159|NCT05076149|191789291|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.16|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||3.16|1.55|< 0.0001
95915160|NCT05076149|191789292|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.12|||Generalized Estimated Equation Model|||||4.12|2.00|< 0.0001
95915161|NCT00717314|191789293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
95915162|NCT00717314|191789296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.374|||||||ANOVA|||Between group comparison at Baseline||||0.374
95915163|NCT00717314|191789296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.685||||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.685
95915164|NCT00717314|191789296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.722
95727454|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.4|-1.9|
95854281|NCT03175367|191668314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|-9.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.8|-34.6|= 0.0006
95915165|NCT00717314|191789296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.432||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.432
95915166|NCT00717314|191789297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.342|5.561||||||||5.561|-5.342|
95915167|NCT00717314|191789298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||0.616
95915168|NCT00717314|191789298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.334||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 28||||0.334
95915169|NCT00717314|191789298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||||||ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline at Week 40||||0.267
95915170|NCT00717314|191789298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with calculated creatinine clearance at baseline as covariate, and study center and treatment\*study center as factors.||Change from Baseline at Week 52||||0.764
95915171|NCT00717314|191789299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||ANCOVA|||||||1.000
95915172|NCT05096208|191789300|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.169|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in least-square (LS) means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.169|0.858|
95854282|NCT03175367|191668314|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-34.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-34.4|-58.4|< .0001
95854283|NCT03175367|191668315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.3|-42.6|= 0.0001
95854284|NCT03175367|191668315|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-63.2|< .0001
95854285|NCT03175367|191668316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.8|-34.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-34.3|-57.8|< .0001
95854286|NCT03175367|191668316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.3|-44.3|||Regression, Linear|||||-44.3|-67.3|< .0001
95854287|NCT03175367|191668316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.9|-50.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-50.0|-72.9|< .0001
95854288|NCT03175367|191668316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|-12.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-12.4|-38.0|= 0.0001
95854289|NCT03175367|191668316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.4|-33.5|||Regression, Linear|||||-33.5|-58.4|< .0001
95854290|NCT03175367|191668317|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|=|0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-2.4|||Regression, Linear|||||-2.4|-31.8|= 0.0228
95854291|NCT03175367|191668317|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.6|-31.0|||Regression, Linear|||||-31.0|-59.6|< .0001
95854292|NCT03175367|191668318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|=|0.0635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.6|-21.8|= 0.0635
95854293|NCT03175367|191668318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-1.1|||Regression, Linear|||||-1.1|-22.8|= 0.0314
95854294|NCT03175367|191668318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|1.5|||Regression, Linear|||||1.5|-19.9|= 0.0923
95854295|NCT03175367|191668318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.8|-6.2|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.2|-26.8|= 0.0017
95854296|NCT03175367|191668318|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.8|||Regression, Linear|||||-6.8|-26.2|= 0.0009
95854297|NCT03175367|191668319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|=|0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-4.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-4.7|-27.4|= 0.0054
95854298|NCT03175367|191668319|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|=|0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.7|||Regression, Linear|||||-3.7|-25.4|= 0.0085
95854582|NCT05386329|191668809|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1512|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9213|=|0.2225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7422|3.0446||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ expectancy scores compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ expectancy scores.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment expectancy total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||3.0446|-0.7422|=.2225
95854323|NCT03763877|191668451|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-18.72||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.95|-1.58|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-1.58|-31.95|0.0387
95854324|NCT03763877|191668452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5733||0.5733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|32.51|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||32.51|-18.00|0.5733
95854325|NCT03763877|191668452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.236||0.3861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|13.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||13.38|-34.60|0.3861
95854326|NCT03763877|191668452|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.916||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.46|4.19|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||4.19|-46.46|0.1019
95854327|NCT03763877|191668453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3873||0.8617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.961|2.478|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||2.478|-2.961|0.8617
95854328|NCT03763877|191668453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3712||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|0.117|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|0.117|-5.260|0.0609
95727455|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: ISRs or vaccine-related systemic AEs|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-1.8|
95727456|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.1|
95727457|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited ISR|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|4.3|-2.4|
95915173|NCT05096208|191789300|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.215|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.215|0.900|
95915174|NCT05096208|191789300|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.886|1.232|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV A||1.232|0.886|
95915175|NCT05096208|191789300|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.261|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.261|0.905|
95915176|NCT05096208|191789300|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.953|1.336|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.336|0.953|
95915177|NCT05096208|191789300|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was established if the 2-sided 95% CI for the ratio of neutralizing GMTs for each pair of individual vaccine lots (RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 2, RSVpreF Lot 1/RSVpreF Lot 3 and RSVpreF Lot 2/RSVpreF Lot 3) was within the interval (0.667, 1.5), for both antigens simultaneously.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.262|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the difference in LS means and corresponding CIs based on analysis of logarithmically transformed assay results using a linear regression model.|RSV B||1.262|0.884|
95915178|NCT01483937|191789308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.533||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||.533
95915179|NCT00682643|191789342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.395||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.395
95915180|NCT00682643|191789343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342||95.0||||Wald Chi-Square test based on a proportional hazards model adjusting for age and baseline value|Wald Chi-square|||||||0.342
95915181|NCT03238300|191789360|SUPERIORITY||partial eta squared|0.02|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.22||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used||"With 31 participants, the study has 99% power to detect such effects on glutamate levels (calculated based on d =1.13 \[reported in Schmaal et al., 2012\], α = 0.05, two-tailed).~We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline metabolite levels and brain tissue composition \[GM:BM = GM/(GM+WM)\], cannabis use (days), and alcohol use disorder status (Yes/No) were included as covariates."||0.22|0.00|>0.05
95915182|NCT03238300|191789361|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||P-value \>0.05 for main effect of medication (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo) for all ROIs.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random intercepts were used for all models.||Contrast of interest was alcohol beverages vs. non-alcohol beverages. We used linear mixed effects models with random intercepts with medication, visit, and sequence. Baseline reactivity levels for each ROI, cannabis use (days), and an alcohol use covariate (quantity, frequency, AUD status, or AUD severity - depending on which best fit the model) were included as covariates. ROIs included were (left and right hemisphere): amygdala, caudate, insula, putamen, and nucleus accumbens.||||>0.05
95915183|NCT01301274|191789366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|beta error 20%, alfa error 5%, diminished 2 mEq/L between groups||||||0.04||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95915184|NCT01301274|191789367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0||||without adjust|Chi-squared|||||||0.081
95915185|NCT01301274|191789368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.396
95915186|NCT01301274|191789369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.129
95915187|NCT04064242|191789370|OTHER|A Bayesian model for repeated measurements including data collected at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 was applied to compare FVC between CMK389 and placebo groups.|Posterior estimate treatment difference|-1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.62||0.1804|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.56|0.6|||Bayesian analysis|Posterior probability that treatment is better than placebo.|80% credible intervals are reported on the treatment difference|||0.60|-3.56|0.1804
95915188|NCT04064242|191789376|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.783|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.09|0.02|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.02|-0.09|0.783
95915189|NCT04064242|191789377|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.664||0.608|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.05|0.68|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||0.68|-1.05|0.608
95915190|NCT04064242|191789378|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.126||0.479|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-16.35|17.76|||Mixed effects Model for Repeated Measure||Treatment difference (CMK389-placebo)|||17.76|-16.35|0.479
95915191|NCT04512066|191789382|OTHER||treatment effect|0.6||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.58|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.78|-4.58|0.849
95915192|NCT04512066|191789382|OTHER||treatment effect|-2.83||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.96|2.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.29|-7.96|0.362
95915193|NCT04512066|191789382|OTHER||treatment effect|-10.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.46|-5.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.43|-15.46|0.001
95915194|NCT00971750|191789404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.763||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.763
95915195|NCT00971750|191789406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95915196|NCT01657266|191789407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Pearson´s Chi-square test|||||||1.00
95915197|NCT00445679|191789419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|6.37||||||||6.37|-12.62|
95727458|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.3|-2.4|
95727459|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-3.2|
95854329|NCT03763877|191668453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.414|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3633||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.087|0.258|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.258|-5.087|0.0766
95854330|NCT03763877|191668454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.744||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.267|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||11.267|0.270|0.5592
95854331|NCT03763877|191668454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.3747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.368|14.208|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||14.208|0.368|0.3747
95854332|NCT03763877|191668454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.669||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|32.149|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with multiple imputation||||32.149|1.000|0.0501
95854333|NCT03763877|191668455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.8013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||6.4|-8.3|0.8013
95854334|NCT03763877|191668455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.8694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|7.0|-8.2|0.8694
95854335|NCT03763877|191668455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|0.3|-14.9|0.0581
95854336|NCT03763877|191668456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44||0.6681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-3.8|0.6681
95854337|NCT03763877|191668456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.8224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.5|-4.4|0.8224
95854338|NCT03763877|191668456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.7|-9.2|0.0924
95854339|NCT03763877|191668457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.34|-0.68|0.5148
95854340|NCT03763877|191668457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.02|-1.05|0.0434
95854341|NCT03763877|191668457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.00|-1.04|0.0494
95854342|NCT03763877|191668458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.09|-0.35|0.2449
95854343|NCT03763877|191668458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.0|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.00|-0.46|0.0502
95854344|NCT03763877|191668458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.06|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.06|-0.51|0.0123
95854345|NCT03763877|191668459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2172||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.180|-0.682|0.2510
95854346|NCT03763877|191668459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2202||0.8246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.486|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.388|-0.486|0.8246
95854347|NCT03763877|191668459|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2216||0.9067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.466|0.414|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.414|-0.466|0.9067
95854348|NCT03763877|191668460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0468||0.6951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.111|0.075|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.075|-0.111|0.6951
95854349|NCT03763877|191668460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0472||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.016|-0.171|0.1030
95854350|NCT03763877|191668460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0471||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.102|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.102|-0.085|0.8583
95854351|NCT03763877|191668461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1777||0.5576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.457|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.248|-0.457|0.5576
95915198|NCT00445679|191789419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.25||||||||10.25|-8.50|
95915199|NCT00445679|191789419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority to paroxetine was declared if the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for the difference in responders is greater than or equal to -9 percentage points.|Difference|-2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.68|7.33||||||||7.33|-11.68|
95915200|NCT00445679|191789420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.714
95915201|NCT00445679|191789420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.653
95915202|NCT00445679|191789420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.881
95915203|NCT00445679|191789421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.450
95915204|NCT00445679|191789421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.452||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.452
95915205|NCT00445679|191789421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Final on-therapy population||||0.850
95915206|NCT01316770|191789426|SUPERIORITY|The standard deviation (SD) of the change in salivary flow was assumed to be 0.0168 for the placebo and 0.0906 for the dexamethasone parotid. The within-subject correlation between two glands was assumed to be 0.15. A total of 16 patients would be required to have 80% power to detect a one-sided 40% increase in dexamethasone-irrigated parotid glands compared with the saline irrigated parotid glands with respect to change in salivary flow from Day 0 to Day 56.||||||0.236||||||No corrections were made for multiple comparisons because there was only one primary hypothesis.|one-sided Paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis included all time points but it failed to converge. Therefore, an alternative analysis was performed using a paired t-test. Because the Satterthwaite correction \[that was specified in the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the mixed model\] is not available for the paired t-test, it was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates, as these measures were appropriate for the model used.||||0.236
95915207|NCT01316770|191789427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.662|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.662
95915208|NCT01316770|191789428|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.607|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.607
95915209|NCT01316770|191789429|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||one-sided paired t-test|||The mixed models analysis (including all time points: study days 14, 28, 42, 56) failed to converge; thus, an alternative analysis, as stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, was performed using the paired t-test. The Satterthwaite correction (Statistical Analysis Plan) is not available for the paired t-test and was not performed on the paired t-test. The final analysis was based upon the raw non-transformed saliva flow rates since this statistical model achieved the best fit to the data.||||0.586
95915210|NCT01316770|191789443|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.500
95915211|NCT01316770|191789443|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
95915212|NCT01316770|191789443|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.500
95915213|NCT01316770|191789443|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
95915214|NCT01316770|191789445|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
95854352|NCT03763877|191668461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1799||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|0.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.501|-0.213|0.4261
95854353|NCT03763877|191668461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1822||0.6571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.443|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.443|-0.281|0.6571
95854354|NCT03763877|191668462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2851||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.405|-0.727|0.5732
95854355|NCT03763877|191668462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2884||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.712|0.434|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.434|-0.712|0.6312
95854356|NCT03763877|191668462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2865||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.769|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.368|-0.769|0.4857
95854357|NCT03763877|191668463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.5737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.19|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.19|-0.11|0.5737
95854358|NCT03763877|191668463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.7563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.17|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.17|-0.12|0.7563
95854359|NCT03763877|191668463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.11|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||0.11|-0.19|0.5695
95854360|NCT03763877|191668464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.659||0.9552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.27|-1.34|0.9552
95854361|NCT03763877|191668464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.674||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.58|-2.10|0.2633
95854362|NCT03763877|191668464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673||0.1962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.46|-2.21|0.1962
95854363|NCT03763877|191668465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.353||||0.8245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|19.554|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.554|0.094|0.8245
95854364|NCT03763877|191668465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.791||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.238|32.752|||Regression, Logistic|||||32.752|0.238|0.4140
95854365|NCT03763877|191668465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.872||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.226|180.452|||Regression, Logistic|||||180.452|1.226|0.0341
95854366|NCT03763877|191668466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.4626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.5|-16.1|0.4626
95854367|NCT03763877|191668466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.9|-17.9|0.3160
95854368|NCT03763877|191668466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-2.4|-27.4|0.0204
95854369|NCT03763877|191668467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||5.0|-10.8|0.4601
95854370|NCT03763877|191668467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95||0.9782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||7.9|-8.1|0.9782
95854371|NCT03763877|191668467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.13||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-1.6|-18.3|0.0205
95854372|NCT03763877|191668468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||1.05|-1.12|0.9529
95854373|NCT03763877|191668468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||0.25|-1.90|0.1285
95854374|NCT03763877|191668468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.565||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the MMRM model.|||-0.05|-2.32|0.0417
95854375|NCT03763877|191668469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.23|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.23|-0.69|0.3141
95854376|NCT03763877|191668469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||0.03|-0.88|0.0656
95854377|NCT03763877|191668469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.16|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANOVA model.|||-0.16|-1.12|0.0101
95854378|NCT02930824|191668494|SUPERIORITY|We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||||0.78||||||Analysis was done of adult patients enrolled that have a CYP2C19 Rapid or Ultra-rapid metabolizer result.|t-test, 2 sided|||We will test the hypothesis that CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers (1 or 2 gain-of-function alleles) in the genotype-supported arm have better gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptom control than CYP2C19 rapid metabolizers or ultra rapid metabolizers in the conventional treatment group because they will have their dose increased based on their genotype.||||0.78
95854379|NCT02930824|191668495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Adjusted for baseline score, race, baseline proton pump inhibitor use, baseline histamine receptor antagonist use. A sensitivity analysis of participants only on omeprazole revealed similar findings.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Adjusted these end points for covariates, including the baseline score, race, and baseline medications using logistic regression||||||0.031
95854380|NCT02930824|191668496|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.42||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|6.3||unadjusted|Log Rank|||||6.3|0.9|0.07
95854381|NCT02930824|191668497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.97
95854382|NCT02930824|191668498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||If a participant did not complete a follow-up questionnaire during their third to fifth week of proton pump inhibitor therapy, their questionnaire results were excluded from the analyses.||||0.83
95854383|NCT04613362|191668536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.97||adjusted for gender which is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.97|0.34|0.61
95854384|NCT04613362|191668538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.8028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3895||0.1724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5314|3.9257|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 month||3.9257|-21.5314|0.1724
95854385|NCT04613362|191668538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9929||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5917|7.2851|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||7.2851|-16.5917|0.4399
95854386|NCT04613362|191668539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|18.7886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.0826||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2261|54.8032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||54.8032|-17.2261|0.3021
95854387|NCT04613362|191668539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1996|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.1338||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.3245|28.9254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||28.9254|-39.3245|0.7624
95854388|NCT04613362|191668540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3867||0.1783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7794|14.7019|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||14.7019|-2.7794|0.1783
95854389|NCT04613362|191668540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1565||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4965|8.0675|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||8.0675|-8.4965|0.959
95854390|NCT04613362|191668541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.6627|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3097||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.2243|1.8989|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.8989|-27.2243|0.0873
95854391|NCT04613362|191668541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.3578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8559||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0154|6.2999|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.2999|-21.0154|0.2866
95854392|NCT04613362|191668543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4313||0.2776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4168|1.2859|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||1.2859|-4.4168|0.2776
95854393|NCT04613362|191668543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6492||0.6636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5651|4.0055|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||4.0055|-2.5651|0.6636
95854394|NCT04613362|191668544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6911||0.1733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0443|5.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||5.695|-1.0443|0.1733
95854395|NCT04613362|191668544|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.622||0.7398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7726|2.6911|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||2.6911|-3.7726|0.7398
95854396|NCT04613362|191668545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1491|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5551||0.9239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2476|2.9494|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 3 months||2.9494|-3.2476|0.9239
95854397|NCT04613362|191668545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4735||0.8456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2238|2.6481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physical Component Scale - 6 months||2.6481|-3.2238|0.8456
95854398|NCT04613362|191668545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1757|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3798||0.9413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9175|4.5661|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 3 months||4.5661|-4.9175|0.9413
95915215|NCT01316770|191789445|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
95915216|NCT01316770|191789446|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
95915217|NCT01316770|191789446|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
95915218|NCT01316770|191789446|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
95915219|NCT01316770|191789446|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
95915220|NCT01316770|191789449|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||0.250
95915221|NCT01316770|191789449|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||1.000
95915222|NCT01316770|191789449|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||1.000
95915223|NCT01316770|191789449|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
95915224|NCT01316770|191789450|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 14 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 14 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 14."||||1.000
95915225|NCT01316770|191789450|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 28 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 28 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting their answer from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 28."||||0.625
95915226|NCT01316770|191789450|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 42 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 42 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 42."||||0.5000
95915227|NCT01316770|191789450|OTHER|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||"McNemar's test on the study Day 56 shift table. The null hypothesis assumes the probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 are equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56.~Alternative hypothesis is that probability of subjects shifting from yes at Screening to no at Study Day 56 is not equal to the probability of subjects shifting from no at Screening to yes at Study Day 56."||||1.000
95915228|NCT01353222|191789473|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.141||||0.6188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.918|||From a stratified log-rank test, stratif||Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata. Hazard ratio with control as reference.|||1.918|0.679|0.6188
95915229|NCT01806584|191789488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.138
95915230|NCT01806584|191789489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.312
95915231|NCT01806584|191789490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value based on log-rank test stratified by diabetic status at surgery comparing the 2 treatment groups.|Log Rank|||Analysis of time to loss of patency||||0.093
95915232|NCT01806584|191789491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean treatment difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|1.402||||||||1.402|-0.942|
95915233|NCT03021668|191789496|EQUIVALENCE|Chi2 test was performed to analyze difference in rates of Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) between the two groups||||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.003
95915234|NCT03021668|191789497|EQUIVALENCE|Students' T-test was used to evaluate any difference in length of stay between the two groups.||||||0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95915235|NCT01807650|191789500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.0232||||||2-sided, significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||"All participants received both treatments and treatments were intra-individually compared.~Hypotheses tested: H0: δ = 0 and H1: δ ≠ 0 with δ being the difference in time to wound closure between treatments."||||=0.0232
95854399|NCT04613362|191668545|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2549||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4526|1.5333|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mental Component Scale - 6 months||1.5333|-7.4526|0.1934
95854400|NCT04613362|191668546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0999|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1004||0.1442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0852|7.2849|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3 months||7.2849|-1.0852|0.1442
95854401|NCT04613362|191668546|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.036||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9892|6.1243|||Mixed Models Analysis|||6 months||6.1243|-1.9892|0.3132
95915236|NCT01807650|191789504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.8|=|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|9.4||Day 7|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|2.7|=0.0005
95727460|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.2|-3.3|
95915237|NCT01807650|191789504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.9|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|9.4||Day 10|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.4|3.0|=0.0002
95915238|NCT01807650|191789504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.3|=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.3||Day 14|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.0|=0.0028
95854402|NCT04225897|191668581|OTHER||Difference|-8.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.78|15.74||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||15.74|-31.78|
95854583|NCT05386329|191668811|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of post-treatment (week 8) to mid-treatment (week 4)|Wilcoxon Z|0.2712|||=|0.7873|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment utilization between midpoint (week 4) and end of treatment (week 8).||||=.7873
95915239|NCT01807650|191789504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|9.3||Day 18|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||9.3|2.5|=0.0009
95727461|NCT01341639|191424683|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: At least 1 vaccine-related solicited systemic AE|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.1|-3.7|
95727462|NCT01341639|191424684|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|10.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site erythema|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|10.1|-0.5|
95915240|NCT01807650|191789504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.8|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|8.6||Day 21|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||8.6|2.6|=0.0003
95915241|NCT01807650|191789504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.1|=|0.0145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|6.4||Day 28|t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference in degree of epithelialization \[%\] (Oleogel-S10 and non-adhesive wound dressing minus non-adhesive wound dressing only)|||6.4|0.7|=0.0145
95915242|NCT00909428|191789515|SUPERIORITY||Z-Score|2.803||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change from baseline maximal tolerated cystometric capacity following 30 days of treatment with daily 10mg solifenacin succinate.||||.005
95915243|NCT01933880|191789543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0387|||||||Signed Rank Sum Test|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0387
95915244|NCT01933880|191789544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 1 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
95915245|NCT01933880|191789545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 2 for the OROS-MPH group||||0.0001
95915246|NCT01933880|191789546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 3 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
95915247|NCT01933880|191789547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 7 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
95727463|NCT01341639|191424684|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site pain|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6.8|-3.2|
95915248|NCT01933880|191789548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value was calculated to compare the data at Baseline and change at Week 12 for the OROS-MPH group||||<0.0001
95915249|NCT02906683|191789573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|6.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.7|-20.1|0.329
95727464|NCT01341639|191424684|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.6|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site swelling|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|9.6|-1.6|
95915250|NCT02906683|191789573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.84||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||6.2|-20.9|0.285
95854403|NCT04225897|191668581|OTHER||Difference|-15.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.15|9.7|||Mixed effects analysis of covariance|||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||9.70|-40.15|
95915251|NCT02906683|191789575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.1|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||1.5|-24.1|0.082
95915252|NCT02906683|191789575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.34||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||0.4|-24.7|0.057
95915253|NCT02906683|191789577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|-3.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-3.0|-32.2|0.019
95915254|NCT02906683|191789577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|-2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 4||-2.3|-31.5|0.023
95915255|NCT02906683|191789579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.36||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 3 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||3.2|-25.9|0.125
95915256|NCT02906683|191789579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||TAS-303 6 mg group vs. Placebo group for the mean percentage changes in IEF per 24 hours from baseline to Week 8||5.9|-25.1|0.221
95915257|NCT04105972|191789592|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|15.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|20.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||20.1|11.7|< 0.0001
95915258|NCT04105972|191789593|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|10.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|12.1|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||12.1|8.2|<0.0001
95915259|NCT04105972|191789594|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-42.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-39.3||||||||-39.3|-46.2|
95915260|NCT02341287|191789596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|14.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|25.74||Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by actigraph.|t-test, 2 sided|||||25.74|2.29|.023
95915261|NCT02341287|191789597|SUPERIORITY|Paired t-test of control average sleep latency vs. heated glove average sleep latency as measured by sleep log.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.91|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||||23.73|3.29|<0.014
95915262|NCT02254408|191789600|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.33||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-0.64|0.040
95915263|NCT02254408|191789601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.18|0.22|0.11
95915264|NCT02254408|191789601|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95915265|NCT02254408|191789602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.63|0.28|0.98
95915266|NCT02254408|191789602|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95854404|NCT04225897|191668582|OTHER||Difference|14.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.68|121.33||||||60 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||121.33|-91.68|
95915267|NCT01993017|191789610|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A 2-step gatekeeping test procedure was used. An omnibus F test using ANOVA comparing the 3 groups was first performed. Pairwise comparisons using a 2-sided t test at 5% nominal significance were planned only if the omnibus F test had a P value \<.05.|ANOVA|||We determined that a sample size per group of 500, assuming 5% loss to follow-up, would yield 80% power for a 2-sided t test at the 5% level. These calculations were based on an assumed SD for QALYs of 0.17, expected prevalence of screening-detected depression of 20%, and assumed net improvement in QALYs of 0.155 over 18 months for individuals with depression who received treatment for depression in the Screen, Notify, and Treat group.||||0.98
95915268|NCT02966002|191789629|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95915269|NCT02966002|191789630|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95915270|NCT02966002|191789631|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95915271|NCT02966002|191789632|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95915272|NCT01200030|191789695|OTHER|The effect size of the intervention was adopted from a mate-analysis . The showed an average effect size of 0.59 in improving the motor control of limbs in people with stroke. A sample size for each group was set at 11 . Presuming that there would be a drop-out rate of 10% during the course of study, an extra 1 subject was recruited in each group. the sample size was 36. The statistical significance was set at 5% (alpha \< 0.05) with power equal to 80%|||||<|0.001||||||Post-hoc pairwise comparisons have been conducted. Please refer to subsequent data analyses.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in Trunk Impairment Scale (TIS) score among the three groups.||||<0.001
95915273|NCT01200030|191789695|OTHER|||||||1||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and placebo stimulation with exercises group. Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups.||||1.00
95915274|NCT01200030|191789695|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons. A p-value smaller than 0.05 indicated statistical significance.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of electrical stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.002
95915275|NCT01200030|191789695|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Post-Hoc pairwise comparison comparing the effects of placebo stimulation with exercises group and control group.~Null hypothesis: There was no significant difference existed on the changes of the Trunk Impairment Scale score between the two groups."||||0.003
95915276|NCT01200030|191789696|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Null hypothesis: No significant differences existed between the percentage of change in reaching distance between the three groups.||||0.055
95915277|NCT01350141|191789702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-21.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.385||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.85|-4.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-4.77|-38.85|0.0137
95915278|NCT01350141|191789702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.62|-29.22|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment, background statin as independent factors and treatment by background statin interaction, baseline LDL-C as covariate.||-29.22|-63.62|<0.0001
95915279|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.825||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|169.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||169.74|0.36|0.1900
95915280|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|72.518||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.48|1512.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1512.10|3.48|0.0057
95727465|NCT01341639|191424685|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site bruising|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-1.8|
95915281|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.75||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|175.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||175.63|3.49|0.0013
95915282|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|47.326||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|426.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||426.01|5.26|0.0006
95915283|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.635||||0.6611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|14.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||14.73|0.18|0.6611
95915284|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.486||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|98.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.61|1.84|0.0104
95915285|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|33.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||33.89|1.22|0.0282
95915286|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.257||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|98.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||98.42|2.36|0.0042
95915287|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.967||||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|79.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||79.24|0.11|0.5164
95915288|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.36||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|422.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 70 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||422.94|1.08|0.0445
95915289|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.157||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|49.37|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||49.37|1.35|0.0223
95915290|NCT01350141|191789703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.587||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|90.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85 less than 100 mg/dL: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||90.40|2.04|0.0070
95727466|NCT01341639|191424685|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.1|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haematoma|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.1|-0.6|
95915291|NCT01350141|191789704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.647||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|142.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||142.04|0.22|0.2928
95915292|NCT01350141|191789704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|591.174||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.68|29922.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 29: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||29922.99|11.68|0.0014
95915293|NCT01350141|191789704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.468||||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|26.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||26.88|0.45|0.2339
95915294|NCT01350141|191789704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.442||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|181.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||181.11|3.03|0.0025
95915295|NCT01350141|191789704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.502||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|192.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||192.32|0.38|0.1786
95915296|NCT01350141|191789704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.185||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|1107.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 85: Analysis was performed using logistic regression with covariates baseline LDL-C and statin tested along with the treatment.||1107.57|2.37|0.0121
95915297|NCT01473381|191789768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.84||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.84|-4.30|0.0073
95915298|NCT01473381|191789768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.82||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-1.06||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.06|-4.57|0.0034
95915299|NCT01473381|191789768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.0||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-1.00|-4.48|0.0020
95915300|NCT01473381|191789769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.13||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.13|-0.58|0.0073
95915301|NCT01473381|191789769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.1||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.10|-0.55|0.0097
95915302|NCT01473381|191789769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.12||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed-effect model|||||-0.12|-0.57|0.0025
95915303|NCT01473381|191789770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||10.9|-3.9|0.3563
95915304|NCT01473381|191789770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.6||P-value was adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||14.6|-0.4|0.1611
95915305|NCT01473381|191789770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.2672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|12.2||P-value was provided for assay sensitivity. It was not adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Mean Difference (Final Values), as well as 95% Confidence Interval, are in units of percentage.||||12.2|-2.7|0.2672
95915306|NCT01454830|191789771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement, hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.20
95915307|NCT01454830|191789772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||unit of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.90
95915308|NCT01454830|191789773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: hours/night; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Pilot RCT designed to establish effect size and feasibility outcomes; no a priori power calculation; statistical significance with hypotheses testing was not objective of the pilot trial||||0.89
95727467|NCT01341639|191424685|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site haemorrhage|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.8|-2.3|
95727468|NCT01341639|191424685|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.5|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site induration|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|0.5|-7.8|
95727469|NCT01341639|191424685|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site nodule|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.3|-1.7|
95915309|NCT01454830|191789774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||units of measurement: % TST; positive estimation parameter favors TI group; negative estimation parameter favors UC group|Exploratory outcome of PAP use defined within the sleep period, TST (total sleep time).||||0.78
95915310|NCT03810313|191789778|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered to be established if the lower limit of the corresponding 95% CI for the estimated between group difference (brolucizumab vs. aflibercept) on change from baseline in BCVA at Week 24 is \> -4 letters.|Least Square Mean Difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-0.5|||ANOVA|||||-0.5|-5.2|0.173
95915311|NCT00136812|191789794|OTHER|We used all available observations in a GEE analysis and did not impute missing data or drop observations.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.15||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|8.14||P-value of \<0.05 is considered statistically significant.|generalized estimating equation model|||To test the primary hypothesis, we ran a generalized estimating equation model with logit link function (PROC GENMOD in SAS version 9.2), to examine abstinence versus smoking status at the 3- through 18-month follow-ups by condition.||8.14|1.22|0.018
95915312|NCT00872430|191789799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95915313|NCT00872430|191789800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||All data were collected and entered before the opening of the codes of blinding of researchers. We used t test for paired samples and test for repeated measures linear regression for variables with more than two measures.With an improvement of 40% in the tea group and of 20% in the placebo group, with a power (1-ß) of 80% and a alpha error 0.05, it was necessary to include 32 points of comparison, which would be achieved with at least 16 patients, since it's a crossover study.||||<0.001
95915314|NCT03502616|191789850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|27.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.89|38.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) approach.||38.28|15.89|<0.0001
95915315|NCT03502616|191789851|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.26|38.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.09|18.26|<0.0001
95727470|NCT01341639|191424685|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||||95.0|-0.6|3.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Injection-site warmth|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3|-0.6|
95727471|NCT01341639|191424686|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Crying|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-6.3|
95915316|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.06|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||27.50|9.06|0.0001
95915317|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.64|42.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.06|20.64|<0.0001
95915318|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.32|43.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||43.17|21.32|<0.0001
95727472|NCT01341639|191424686|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|2.3|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Decreased appetite|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|2.3|-8.4|
95915319|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|34.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.63|45.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.58|23.63|<0.0001
95915320|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.92|15.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.22|-7.92|0.5360
95915321|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.63||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|14.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.87|-7.22|0.4971
95915322|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|12.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.66|-9.49|0.7792
95727473|NCT01341639|191424686|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Irritability|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-1.7|
95915323|NCT03502616|191789858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|16.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.58|-6.15|0.3685
95727474|NCT01341639|191424686|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|3.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Pyrexia|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|3.4|-6.7|
95915324|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19||0.0548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|12.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||12.37|-0.13|0.0548
95727475|NCT01341639|191424686|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|1.4|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Somnolence|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|1.4|-7.8|
95727476|NCT01341639|191424686|OTHER|Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.0|||||If the 95% CI for the risk differences included 0.0, the numerical differences were not considered significant.|Risk difference: Vomiting|PR5I minus INFANRIX™ hexa|6|-4.4|
95915325|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|31.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.56|15.30|<0.0001
95915326|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.66|37.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.47|19.66|<0.0001
95915327|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.34|41.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.02|21.34|<0.0001
95915328|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|18.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.01|-5.43|0.2926
95915329|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.32|18.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.06|-5.32|0.2856
95915330|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|19.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||19.54|-3.87|0.1894
95915331|NCT03502616|191789859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.04||0.3544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|17.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach||17.43|-6.24|0.3544
95915332|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.57|-0.85|<0.0001
95915333|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.07|<0.0001
95915334|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.87|-1.25|<0.0001
95915335|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.90|-1.28|<0.0001
95915336|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.79|-1.16|<0.0001
95915337|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.103||0.0623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.40|0.0623
95915338|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.39|0.0836
95915339|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-0.47|0.0205
95915340|NCT03502616|191789860|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.108||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.01|-0.42|0.0614
95915341|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.15|<0.0001
95915342|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.68|-1.16|<0.0001
95915343|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.63|-1.40|<0.0001
95915344|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.115|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.74|-1.19|<0.0001
95915345|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.72|-1.20|<0.0001
95915346|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.4731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.20|0.4731
95915347|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.4055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.11|-0.26|0.4055
95915348|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.111||0.2648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.34|0.2648
95915349|NCT03502616|191789861|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.5558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.25|0.5558
95915350|NCT03502616|191789862|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.513||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-1.01|-3.03|0.0001
95915351|NCT03502616|191789862|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.567||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-2.38|0.0270
95915352|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.841||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.88|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.88|0.56|0.0088
95915353|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.85|1.15|0.0016
95915354|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|6.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||6.23|2.69|<0.0001
95915355|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.781|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, General Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.78|1.70|<0.0001
95915356|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.098||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|3.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Vitality: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.94|-0.38|0.1065
95915357|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.059||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|5.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.05|0.88|0.0055
95915358|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|4.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||4.61|-0.46|0.1084
95915359|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.3379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Health: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.29|-1.13|0.3379
95915360|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.744|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||5.02|2.09|<0.0001
95915361|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|3.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||3.61|-0.95|0.2529
95915362|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.964||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.76|-1.04|0.3744
95915363|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.2091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Physical: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.50|-0.77|0.2091
95915364|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.0654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Bodily Pain: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.38|-0.14|0.0654
95915365|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, General Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.12|-0.69|0.2100
95915366|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.6568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Vitality: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.90|0.6568
95915367|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.152||0.2288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Social Functioning: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.66|-0.88|0.2288
95915368|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Role-Emotional: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.32|-1.61|0.4955
95727477|NCT01379781|191424715|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-6.54||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model was used to compare Hamilton Rating Scales of Depression (HRSD) for women who received the PREPP intervention between the pre-randomization assessment and the 6 weeks postpartum session.||||.01
95915369|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Health: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.01|-1.71|0.5888
95915370|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.896||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Physical Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.18|-0.35|0.1150
95915371|NCT03502616|191789863|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.158||0.5347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mental Component Summary: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.00|-1.56|0.5347
95727478|NCT02247479|191424716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.019||||0.8381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.167|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.167|-0.206|0.8381
95915372|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.898||0.1513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|3.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.06|-0.48|0.1513
95915373|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|3.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.56|-0.45|0.1279
95915374|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.056||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.90|1.75|0.0003
95915375|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.282||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|5.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.84|0.79|0.0102
95915376|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.26|2.20|0.0003
95915377|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|-2.64|0.8950
95915378|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365||0.4732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.71|-3.67|0.4732
95915379|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.523||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.28|-3.72|0.6359
95915380|NCT03502616|191789864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.6894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.35|-3.54|0.6894
95915381|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.24|-0.46|0.1410
95915382|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.102||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.95|0.61|0.0122
95915383|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.252||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.79|0.86|0.0085
95915384|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.416||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|6.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.15|0.57|0.0184
95915385|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.91|1.47|0.0026
95915386|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.495||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|6.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.35|0.46|0.0236
95915387|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.70|0.63|0.0182
95915388|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.545||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.90|0.81|0.0133
95915389|NCT03502616|191789865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.541||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.52|0.45|0.0245
95915390|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.32|0.30|0.0018
95915391|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.301||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.47|0.0005
95915392|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.79|0.59|0.0001
95915393|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.17|1.09|<0.0001
95915394|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.344|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.55|1.20|<0.0001
95915395|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.353||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.65|0.26|0.0075
95915396|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.403||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.21|0.1489
95915397|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.417||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.61|-0.04|0.0609
95915398|NCT03502616|191789866|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.429||0.4822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.15|-0.54|0.4822
95915399|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.63|0.12|0.0047
95915400|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.77|0.26|0.0001
95915401|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.78|0.19|0.0012
95915402|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|0.20|0.0008
95915403|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.81|0.24|0.0004
95915404|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.69|-0.05|0.0918
95915405|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.61|-0.10|0.1600
95915406|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.6776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.30|0.6776
95915407|NCT03502616|191789867|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.46|-0.25|0.5646
95915408|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.7291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.37|-0.26|0.7291
95915409|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.78|0.0257
95915410|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.31|0.0002
95915411|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.05|0.0041
95915412|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.17|-1.02|0.0062
95915413|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.13|-1.13|0.0140
95915414|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.22|-1.11|0.0035
95915415|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.253||0.0645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.97|0.0645
95915416|NCT03502616|191789868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.05|0.0341
95915417|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.33|0.0001
95915418|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-0.47|<0.0001
95915419|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.31|-0.61|<0.0001
95915420|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.32|-0.62|<0.0001
95915421|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.37|-0.67|<0.0001
95915422|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.12|||LS mean difference|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.12|-0.46|0.0008
95915423|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.05|-0.39|0.0116
95915424|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-0.37|0.0416
95915425|NCT03502616|191789869|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.0915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-0.34|0.0915
95915426|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.24|1.46|<0.0001
95915427|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.10|2.11|<0.0001
95915428|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.902|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.20|3.65|<0.0001
95915429|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|5.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|6.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||6.86|3.15|<0.0001
95915430|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||5.42|1.44|0.0008
95915431|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.68|-0.52|0.1390
95915432|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.024||0.5217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.67|-1.36|0.5217
95915433|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.027||0.1415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|3.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.54|-0.51|0.1415
95915434|NCT03502616|191789870|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.128||0.0533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.41|-0.03|0.0533
95915435|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.352||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.94|0.55|0.0005
95915436|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.381|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.95|<0.0001
95915437|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.02|1.35|<0.0001
95915438|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.11|<0.0001
95915439|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.454||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.45|0.67|0.0007
95915440|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.2018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.58|-0.33|0.2018
95915441|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.6432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.13|-0.70|0.6432
95915442|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.31|-0.54|0.4092
95915443|NCT03502616|191789871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.506||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.81|-0.18|0.1070
95915444|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.46|0.78|0.0002
95915445|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.466|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.84|1.00|<0.0001
95915446|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.549|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|4.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.34|2.18|<0.0001
95915447|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|4.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.15|1.93|<0.0001
95915448|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||3.09|0.65|0.0028
95915449|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.638||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.23|-0.28|0.1289
95915450|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.616||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.66|-0.77|0.4698
95915451|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.603||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.32|-0.06|0.0616
95915452|NCT03502616|191789872|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.71|0.03|0.0455
95915453|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.52|-1.25|<0.0001
95915454|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.65|<0.0001
95915455|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.26|-2.17|<0.0001
95727479|NCT02247479|191424716|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.051||||0.5901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.236|-0.134|0.5901
95915456|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.23|-2.20|<0.0001
95915457|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.05|-2.07|<0.0001
95915458|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.11|0.0483
95915459|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.286||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.04|-1.17|0.0357
95915460|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.00|-1.09|0.0508
95915461|NCT03502616|191789873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282||0.0614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.03|-1.08|0.0614
95915462|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.186|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.53|-1.26|<0.0001
95915463|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.92|-1.75|<0.0001
95915464|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.41|<0.0001
95915465|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.37|<0.0001
95915466|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.14|-2.10|<0.0001
95915467|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.261||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-1.03|0.0492
95915468|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.266||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.22|-0.82|0.2614
95915469|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.272||0.0722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.04|-1.03|0.0722
95915470|NCT03502616|191789874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.15|-1.24|0.0121
95915471|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.51|-1.33|<0.0001
95915472|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-2.02|<0.0001
95915473|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.244|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.54|-2.50|<0.0001
95915474|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.254|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.50|-2.50|<0.0001
95915475|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.32|-2.35|<0.0001
95915476|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274||0.0785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-1.02|0.0785
95915477|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.3047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.26|-0.82|0.3047
95915478|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-1.02|0.1009
95915479|NCT03502616|191789875|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.287||0.0764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.05|-1.08|0.0764
95915480|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.11|-0.73|0.0089
95915481|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.179|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.42|-1.12|<0.0001
95915482|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.70|-1.50|<0.0001
95915483|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.88|-1.71|<0.0001
95915484|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.80|-1.66|<0.0001
95915485|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242||0.1686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.14|-0.81|0.1686
95915486|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.21|-0.72|0.2800
95915487|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.1135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.09|-0.86|0.1135
95915488|NCT03502616|191789876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.247||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.20|-0.77|0.2496
95915489|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.47|-1.22|<0.0001
95915490|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.07|-1.89|<0.0001
95915491|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.228|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.16|-2.06|<0.0001
95915492|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.40|-2.34|<0.0001
95915493|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.25|-2.18|<0.0001
95915494|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.245||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-0.99|0.0385
95727480|NCT02247479|191424717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||4.8|-5.2|0.9350
95915495|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.01|-1.00|0.0463
95915496|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.14|-1.15|0.0126
95915497|NCT03502616|191789877|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.09|0.0372
95915498|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.68|20.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.52|6.68|0.0001
95915499|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.78|37.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||37.80|19.78|<0.0001
95915500|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|33.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.84|42.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.78|23.84|<0.0001
95915501|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.67|46.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||46.07|26.67|<0.0001
95915502|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|36.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.05|45.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||45.63|27.05|<0.0001
95915503|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|17.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.35|-6.14|0.3498
95915504|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.89||0.6835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|9.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.15|-13.96|0.6835
95915505|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.47|9.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.98|-13.47|0.7704
95915506|NCT03502616|191789878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.8492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|10.53|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.53|-12.80|0.8492
95915507|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.1692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|5.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||5.43|-0.95|0.1692
95915508|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|8.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.46|0.46|0.0289
95915509|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|11.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.09|0.95|0.0199
95915510|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.26|18.81|||Difference in percentage|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.81|5.26|0.0005
95915511|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.29|18.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.80|5.29|0.0005
95915512|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|18.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.83|1.24|0.0253
95915513|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|17.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.24|-1.38|0.0950
95915514|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86||0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|16.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.73|-2.31|0.1377
95915515|NCT03502616|191789879|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.30|-3.94|0.2472
95915516|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.163|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.41|-1.05|<0.0001
95915517|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.91|-1.65|<0.0001
95915518|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.09|-1.92|<0.0001
95915519|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.24|-2.11|<0.0001
95915520|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.00|-1.88|<0.0001
95727481|NCT02247479|191424717|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.1||||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.2|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline number of absolute scotomatous points, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||5.2|-5.0|0.9789
95727482|NCT02247479|191424718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.28||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.22|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||1.22|-0.66|0.5538
95915521|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.235||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.06|-0.86|0.0880
95915522|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.88|0.0921
95915523|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.243||0.0597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.94|0.0597
95915524|NCT03502616|191789880|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.00|-0.99|0.0492
95915525|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|14.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.77|1.86|0.0116
95915526|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.99|31.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.49|13.99|<0.0001
95915527|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|28.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.09|38.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||38.66|19.09|<0.0001
95915528|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|31.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.28|41.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||41.58|22.28|<0.0001
95915529|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|35.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||35.75|14.82|<0.0001
95915530|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.88||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|22.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.23|-0.80|0.0683
95915531|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|21.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||21.70|-1.59|0.0906
95915532|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|24.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||24.66|1.39|0.0282
95915533|NCT03502616|191789881|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.98||0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|22.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||22.49|-0.96|0.0719
95915534|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.48|42.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||42.11|23.48|<0.0001
95915535|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|40.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.37|50.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||50.70|30.37|<0.0001
95915536|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.03|55.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.41|35.03|<0.0001
95915537|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|45.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.97|55.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||55.49|34.97|<0.0001
95915538|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.73|52.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||52.88|31.73|<0.0001
95915539|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85||0.3967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|16.42|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.42|-6.51|0.3967
95915540|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|15.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.46|-6.78|0.4442
95915541|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.92||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|17.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.97|-5.22|0.2810
95915542|NCT03502616|191789882|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.95||0.3514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|17.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||17.20|-6.12|0.3514
95915543|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|3.46|0.0013
95915544|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|16.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|23.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||23.36|9.13|<0.0001
95915545|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|20.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.41|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||28.20|12.41|<0.0001
95915546|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|22.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.46|31.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||31.08|14.46|<0.0001
95915547|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|25.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.47|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||34.10|16.47|<0.0001
95915548|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|9.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.0941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|20.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||20.43|-1.61|0.0941
95915549|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.6727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.17|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||14.21|-9.17|0.6727
95915550|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.96||0.2213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|18.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||18.98|-4.39|0.2213
95915551|NCT03502616|191789883|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.76||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|15.98|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||15.98|-6.58|0.4137
95915552|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.5518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||3.24|-1.73|0.5518
95915553|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|7.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||7.47|-0.04|0.0524
95915554|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|9.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.73|0.77|0.0216
95915555|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|10.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|16.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||16.17|4.80|0.0003
95915556|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|11.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||11.33|2.05|0.0047
95915557|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.74|8.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||8.88|-6.74|0.7883
95915558|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|13.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 32: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||13.48|-3.78|0.2708
95915559|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.9226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|9.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 40: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||9.36|-8.48|0.9226
95915560|NCT03502616|191789884|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.44|10.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 48: Analysis performed using Normal approximation adjusting for the stratification factor derived from clinical database via CMH approach.||10.13|-6.44|0.6630
95915561|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.20|-1.47|0.0099
95915562|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.08|-1.40|0.0275
95915563|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-0.03|-1.41|0.0420
95915564|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.349||0.1309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.16|-1.22|0.1309
95915565|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.42|-0.78|0.5566
95915566|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.30|-0.68|0.4497
95915567|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.9272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.47|-0.43|0.9272
95915568|NCT03502616|191789885|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.23|-0.85|0.2539
95915569|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.33|-0.58|0.4379
95915570|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.532||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.39|-0.73|0.5340
95915571|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.582||0.9148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.22|-1.10|0.9148
95915572|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.548||0.5409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.76|-1.43|0.5409
95915573|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607||0.3555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.65|-1.78|0.3555
95915574|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.436||0.2485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.38|-0.36|0.2485
95915575|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.435||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.63|-0.11|0.0866
95915576|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.356||0.4101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||1.01|-0.42|0.4101
95915577|NCT03502616|191789886|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.94|0.07|0.0237
95915578|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|0.10|0.0043
95915579|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.56|0.09|0.0072
95915580|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 8: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.52|-0.05|0.1101
95727483|NCT02247479|191424718|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.63||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline mean macular sensitivity, GA lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.35|-1.60|0.2032
95915581|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.58|0.06|0.0147
95915582|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.162||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 16: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.53|-0.11|0.2032
95915583|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.168||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.32|-0.34|0.9345
95915584|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.5968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 32: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.27|-0.47|0.5968
95915585|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.7047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 40: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.39|-0.26|0.7047
95727484|NCT02247479|191424719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.0||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.8|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.8|-0.7|0.2547
95727485|NCT02247479|191424719|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.2||||0.8423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline BCVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.6|-1.9|0.8423
95915586|NCT03502616|191789887|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.35|-0.27|0.8070
95915587|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Mobility: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0030
95915588|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Self-Care: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.10|-0.11|0.8970
95915589|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.058||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.03|-0.20|0.1437
95915590|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-0.09|-0.27|<0.0001
95915591|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 16, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||0.11|-0.13|0.8445
95915592|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Mobility: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.07|-0.19|0.3473
95915593|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.9834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Self-Care: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.12|-0.12|0.9834
95915594|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.7364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Usual Activities: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.15|-0.11|0.7364
95915595|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Pain/Discomfort: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.10|-0.13|0.8075
95915596|NCT03502616|191789888|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.5461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48, Anxiety/Depression: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||0.17|-0.09|0.5461
95915597|NCT03502616|191789889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|10.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.52|14.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||14.70|5.52|<0.0001
95915598|NCT03502616|191789889|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.337||0.2608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|7.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||7.24|-1.97|0.2608
95915599|NCT03502616|191789890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.1784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.15|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||2.09|-11.15|0.1784
95915600|NCT03502616|191789890|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.3651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.72|-7.34|0.3651
95915601|NCT03502616|191789891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-12.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.884|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59|-7.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.19|-18.59|<0.0001
95915602|NCT03502616|191789891|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.318||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.92|4.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||4.21|-8.92|0.4788
95727486|NCT02247479|191424720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||2.2|0.8|0.3248
95915603|NCT03502616|191789892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.18|-7.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-7.52|-20.18|<0.0001
95915604|NCT03502616|191789892|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.613||0.2244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||2.74|-11.56|0.2244
95915605|NCT03502616|191789893|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|-8.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Analysis performed using ANCOVA model which included fixed effects of treatment group, stratification factor derived from clinical database, and baseline value.||-8.50|-18.30|<0.0001
95915606|NCT03502616|191789893|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.32|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48: Analysis performed using MMRM which included fixed effect of treatment group, visit, and treatment-group by visit interaction, stratification factor derived from clinical database, stratification-factor by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline-value by visit interaction.||-1.88|-13.32|0.0095
95915607|NCT02091739|191789920|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square (LS) means estimates of an mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units versus (v) Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.03|-0.15|= 0.004
95915608|NCT02091739|191789920|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|=|0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.04|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.04|-0.08|= 0.542
95915609|NCT02091739|191789921|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.183|=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.94|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.94|0.22|= 0.002
95915610|NCT02091739|191789921|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181|=|0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.71|||MMRM|||"A fixed sequence test procedure was used for the confirmatory analysis of the co-primary endpoints by comparing the least square means estimates of an MMRM model (2-sided, significance level alpha=0.05) between treatment groups in the following order:~1. IncobotulinumtoxinA 100 units v Placebo~2. IncobotulinumtoxinA 75 units v Placebo"||0.71|-0.01|= 0.055
95915611|NCT02247804|191789926|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
95915612|NCT02247804|191789926|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
95915613|NCT02247804|191789926|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
95915614|NCT02247804|191789926|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Week 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
95915615|NCT02247804|191789927|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
95915616|NCT02247804|191789927|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
95915617|NCT02247804|191789928|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057||95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
95915618|NCT02247804|191789928|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031||95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
95915619|NCT02247804|191789929|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547||95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
95915620|NCT02247804|191789929|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107||95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
95915621|NCT02247804|191789930|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086||95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
95915622|NCT02247804|191789930|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
95915623|NCT02247804|191789931|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.295||95.0|-1.17|0.36|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.36|-1.17|0.2950
95727487|NCT02247479|191424720|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline BCVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, and sex.||1.8|0.7|0.7209
95915624|NCT02247804|191789931|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.43|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.43|-1.09|0.3904
95915625|NCT02247804|191789932|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0464||95.0|-1.4|-0.01|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.01|-1.40|0.0464
95915626|NCT02247804|191789932|NON_INFERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.5383||95.0|-0.9|0.47|||MMRM|||Week 12, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared non-inferior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was ≤ 1.5 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.47|-0.90|0.5383
95915627|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.34|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.34|-1.68|0.0033
95915628|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.13|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.13|-1.47|0.0187
95915629|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.25|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.25|-1.45|0.0057
95915630|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.31|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 2, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.31|-1.50|0.0031
95915631|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.01|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.01|-1.26|0.0547
95915632|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.19|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 0: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.19|-1.46|0.0107
95915633|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.08|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 15 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||0.08|-1.16|0.0860
95915634|NCT02247804|191789933|SUPERIORITY|MMRM analyses was used with response variable:IOP time-matched change from baseline;Fixed factors: Treatment,timepoint,treatment-by-timepoint interaction and baseline IOP stratification;Covariate:Time-matched baseline IOP and timepoint by time-matched baseline IOP interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0362||95.0|-1.27|-0.04|||MMRM|||Change from Baseline Week 6, Hour 2: The null hypothesis was that bimatoprost SR 10 μg was to be declared superior to timolol 0.5% if the upper limit of the 95% CI was \< 0 mm Hg for all scheduled timepoints (Hours 0 and 2 at Weeks 2, 6, 12).||-0.04|-1.27|0.0362
95915635|NCT01187329|191789934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.87|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.48|-2.87|0.11
95915636|NCT01187329|191789935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|-0.01|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||-0.01|-0.3|0.007
95727488|NCT02247479|191424721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.6||||0.5695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.6|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.6|-1.4|0.5695
95915637|NCT01187329|191789936|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.5|-2.6|0.57
95915638|NCT01187329|191789937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.1|-0.2|0.45
95915639|NCT01107743|191789950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.812|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between male and female in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.812
95915640|NCT01107743|191789951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95915641|NCT01107743|191789952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypetension and without Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95915642|NCT01107743|191789953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.112|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.112
95915643|NCT01107743|191789954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Angina Pectoris and without Angina Pectoris in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.093
95915644|NCT01107743|191789955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hypercholesterolemia and without Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95915645|NCT01107743|191789956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.839|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.839
95915646|NCT01107743|191789957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Familial Hypercholesterolemia. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Familial Hypercholesterolemia and without Familial Hypercholesterolemia in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95915647|NCT01107743|191789958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Hepatic Dysfunction and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=1.000
95915648|NCT01107743|191789959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Renal Dysfunction and without Renal Dysfunction in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.644
95915649|NCT01107743|191789960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Complications and without Complications in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.155
95915650|NCT01107743|191789961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with Concomitant Drugs and without Concomitant Drugs in the Incidence Rate of Treatment Related Adverse Events(TRAEs)."||||=0.305
95915651|NCT01107743|191789962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.234
95915652|NCT01107743|191789963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.439
95915653|NCT01107743|191789964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypertension severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among ClassⅠHypertension, ClassⅡ Hypertension, and ClassⅢ Hypertension in the participants of responders."||||=0.761
95915654|NCT01107743|191789965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
95915655|NCT01107743|191789966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.310
95915656|NCT01107743|191789967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.251|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.251
95915657|NCT01107743|191789968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.756|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.756
95915658|NCT01107743|191789969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.706|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.706
95915659|NCT01107743|191789970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.192|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.192
95915660|NCT01107743|191789971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Angina Pectoris Severity. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among Class1, Class2, Class3, and Class4 in the participants of responders."||||=0.005
95915661|NCT01107743|191789972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
95915662|NCT01107743|191789973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.596
95915663|NCT01107743|191789974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
95915664|NCT01107743|191789975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=1.000
95915665|NCT01107743|191789976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between males and females in the participants of responders."||||=0.518
95915666|NCT01107743|191789977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Age. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between \<65 years and \>=65 years in the participants of responders."||||=0.645
95915667|NCT01107743|191789978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hypercholesterolemia expression type. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among expression type Ⅰ, expression type Ⅱa, expression type Ⅱb, expression type Ⅲ, expression type, expression type Ⅳ, and expression type Ⅴ in the participants of responders."||||=0.130
95915668|NCT01107743|191789979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Hepatic Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Hepatic Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.185
95915669|NCT01107743|191789980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Renal Dysfunction. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Renal Dysfunction in the participants of responders."||||=0.714
95915670|NCT01107743|191789981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.835|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Complications. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Complications in the participants of responders."||||=0.835
95915671|NCT01107743|191789982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Concomitant Drugs. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Concomitant Drugs in the participants of responders."||||=0.252
95915672|NCT02224482|191789983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9634|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.9634
95915673|NCT02224482|191789984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5214|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.5214
95915674|NCT02224482|191789985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4875|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.4875
95915675|NCT02224482|191789986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7938|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7938
95915676|NCT02224482|191789987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6765|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.6765
95915677|NCT02224482|191789988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7061
95915678|NCT02224482|191789989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7593|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.7593
95915679|NCT02081950|191790031|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|93.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.56|100.16||||||||100.16|87.56|
95915680|NCT02081950|191790032|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|100.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.74|105.42||||||||105.42|95.74|
95915681|NCT02081950|191790033|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|106.24||||||||106.24|96.32|
95915682|NCT02081950|191790034|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.49|101.73||||||||101.73|88.49|
95915683|NCT02081950|191790035|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|97.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.93|104.91||||||||104.91|89.93|
95915684|NCT02081950|191790036|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|108.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.61|123.91||||||||123.91|95.61|
95915685|NCT02081950|191790047|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|Geometric least square mean ratio|102.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.31|109.0||||||||109.0|96.31|
95915686|NCT02081950|191790048|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|95.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.11|116.11||||||||116.11|79.11|
95915687|NCT02081950|191790050|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|99.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.69|103.54||||||||103.54|95.69|
95915688|NCT02081950|191790054|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject.|geometric least square mean ratio|98.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.31|101.51||||||||101.51|95.31|
95915689|NCT02081950|191790055|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|111.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.73|124.2||||||||124.2|99.73|
95915690|NCT02081950|191790058|OTHER|Results were obtained using a mixed-effects ANOVA with fixed effect of study period and a random effect for subject|geometric least square mean ratio|98.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.16|104.57||||||||104.57|93.16|
95915691|NCT02081950|191790059|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|103.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|113.2||||||||113.2|94.5|
95915692|NCT02081950|191790060|OTHER||geometric least square mean ratio|92.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.58|107.16||||||||107.16|80.58|
95915693|NCT00110890|191790082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.72|13.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||13.36|5.72|<0.001
95915694|NCT00110890|191790083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.74|||<|0.001||95.0|5.38|14.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||14.19|5.38|<0.001
95915695|NCT00110890|191790084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.11|||<|0.001||95.0|2.0|4.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||4.84|2.00|<0.001
95915696|NCT00110890|191790085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.93|||<|0.001||95.0|4.65|10.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||10.34|4.65|<0.001
95915697|NCT00110890|191790086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.002||95.0|1.26|2.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|Adjusted for four baseline strata defined by vitamin D prescribed and calcium x phosphorus ≤ 55 mg\^2/dL\^2|||2.81|1.26|0.002
95915698|NCT01975220|191790087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.275|102.751|||ANOVA||Adjusted geometric mean (GM) ratio(%) was calculated as GM of 'High dose, fasted:1 FDC tablet' divided by GM of 'High dose, fasted:3 single tablets'.The 'standard deviation' is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV (%)).|||102.751|97.275|<0.0001
95915699|NCT01975220|191790087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.857|100.436|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.436|93.857|<0.0001
95915700|NCT01975220|191790087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.28|103.18|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.18|98.28|<0.0001
95915701|NCT01975220|191790088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|94.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.1||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.29|108.88|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||108.88|82.29|0.0256
95915702|NCT01975220|191790088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.25|103.26|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.26|96.25|<0.0001
95915703|NCT01975220|191790088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.65|112.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||112.27|88.65|0.0020
95915704|NCT01975220|191790089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|102.719|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||102.719|97.555|<0.0001
95915705|NCT01975220|191790089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.622|100.531|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||100.531|93.622|<0.0001
95915706|NCT01975220|191790089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.36|103.27|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.27|98.36|<0.0001
95915707|NCT01975220|191790090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|109.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.4||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.892|119.1|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||119.100|99.892|0.0072
95915708|NCT01975220|191790090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|92.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.781|98.428|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||98.428|86.781|0.0004
95915709|NCT01975220|191790090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|105.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.7||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.6|114.942|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||114.942|96.600|0.0014
95915710|NCT01975220|191790091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|96.65|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.8||0.0198|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.337|112.079|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||112.079|83.337|0.0198
95915711|NCT01975220|191790091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|110.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.809|116.926|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||116.926|103.809|0.0007
95915712|NCT01975220|191790091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|97.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.8||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.942|109.734|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||109.734|86.942|0.0037
95915713|NCT01975220|191790092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.4||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.42|110.44|||ANOVA||The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fasted: 3 single tablets'. The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%).|||110.44|82.42|0.0254
95915714|NCT01975220|191790092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|103.17|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 1 FDC tablet' divided by the geometric mean of 'High dose, fed: 3 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||103.17|96.21|<0.0001
95915715|NCT01975220|191790092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing.|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.7|113.86|||ANOVA||"The adjusted geometric mean ratio (%) was calculated as the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 2 FDC tablets' divided by the geometric mean of 'Low dose, fasted: 4 single tablets'.~The 'standard deviation' is actually the intra-individual gCV (%)."|||113.86|89.70|0.0029
95915716|NCT03287414|191790103|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379||0.3248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.115|0.241||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.241|-0.115|0.3248
95915717|NCT03287414|191790104|OTHER|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.868
95915718|NCT03287414|191790106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.6||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||PFS1||6.3|1.1|0.921
95915719|NCT03287414|191790106|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||PFS2||5.6|0.9|0.863
95915720|NCT03287414|191790107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.2||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.9|5.6|||Log Rank|||FVC||5.6|0.9|0.863
95915721|NCT03287414|191790107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|2.0|||Log Rank|||DLCO||2.0|0.4|0.457
95915722|NCT03287414|191790107|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.1|0.6|||Log Rank|||6MWD||0.6|0.1|0.019
95915723|NCT03287414|191790108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|2.0|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 1||2.0|0.6|0.611
95915724|NCT03287414|191790108|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.9|||Log Rank|||Composite Endpoint 2||1.9|0.6|0.549
95915725|NCT03287414|191790109|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3109||0.7576|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.615|0.774||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||0.774|-2.615|0.7576
95915726|NCT03287414|191790110|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|32.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|61.8632||0.3018|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-47.572|112.015||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||112.015|-47.572|0.3018
95915727|NCT03287414|191790111|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the Mean|29.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.0143||0.314|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-48.22|106.553||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||106.553|-48.220|0.3140
95915728|NCT03287414|191790112|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares of the mean|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5422||0.1269|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.219|3.759||1-sided p-values were obtained using MMRM Model.|MMRM|||||3.759|-0.219|0.1269
95915729|NCT01087996|191790115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95915730|NCT01087996|191790116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.75
95915731|NCT01087996|191790117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95915732|NCT01087996|191790118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95915733|NCT01087996|191790119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95915734|NCT01087996|191790120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95915735|NCT01087996|191790121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.87
95915736|NCT01087996|191790122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84||95.0|||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.84
95915737|NCT01087996|191790123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
95915738|NCT01008475|191790125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.64||||||||1.64|0.78|
95915739|NCT01008475|191790125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.61||||||||1.61|0.77|
95915740|NCT01008475|191790126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.28||||||||1.28|0.54|
95915741|NCT01008475|191790126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25||||||||1.25|0.52|
95915742|NCT01008475|191790127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
95915743|NCT01008475|191790127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.65||||||||1.65|0.75|
95915744|NCT01008475|191790129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||||||||1.34|0.67|
95915745|NCT01008475|191790129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||||||||1.48|0.74|
95915746|NCT00116844|191790163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
95915747|NCT00116844|191790164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||<0.001
95915748|NCT00116844|191790165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||<0.001
95915749|NCT00116844|191790166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.800
95915750|NCT00116844|191790167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Nonparametric tests-Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.229
95915751|NCT00116844|191790168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0331||95.0|||||Prescott's method|||||||0.0331
95915752|NCT00069784|191790181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.022||||0.6273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.937|1.114||For the analysis of the two coprimary efficacy outcomes, the overall Type 1 error was partitioned. The first coprimary outcome was tested at 4.4%, whereas the second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (weighted Hochberg procedure).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|The total required number of first coprimary outcomes (2200) assumed that a hazard reduction of 14-16% was clinically significant and controlled the overall experiment-wise Type 1 error at 5% with a power of 80% for each outcome. The total number of participants needed to achieve this number of events within the planned enrollment and treatment periods was ultimately estimated to be 12 500 based on the CURE and HOPE study databases.||1.114|0.937|0.6273
95915753|NCT00069784|191790182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.038||||0.2692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.972|1.109||The second coprimary outcome was tested at 1% (see above additional information for the first coprimary outcome).|Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event.|See above additional details provided for the analysis of the first coprimary outcome.||1.109|0.972|0.2692
95915754|NCT00069784|191790183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|1.076|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.076|0.899|
95915755|NCT00069784|191790184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.047|||||Hazard ratio (glargine/standard care) estimated by Cox regression model with treatment (glargine, standard care) as factor, with double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA, placebo), baseline diabetes diagnosis and previous CV event as covariates.|||1.047|0.900|
95915756|NCT00069784|191790185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.91|||||Odds ratio estimated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test method stratified by double-blind treatment (omega-3 PUFA or placebo) and previous cardiovascular event (yes or no).|||0.91|0.58|
95915757|NCT00663117|191790211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||The percentage of subjects achieving a 70-point drop in CDAI score in naltrexone treated subjects was the percentage acheiving the same drop in the placebo controls|Fisher Exact|||The proportion of those achieving a response with a 70-point decline in CDAI score was compared between naltrexone and placebo treated subjects using the Fisher's exact test. Analysis was performed with the intent-to-treat criteria. Clinical significance was accepted if the difference met 95% confidence (p\<0.05).||||0.009
95915758|NCT00663117|191790213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Percentage of patients having a 5-point decline in the endoscopic inflammation score||||0.008
95915759|NCT00663117|191790214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.048
95915760|NCT01158378|191790229|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%||||||0.0049|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||0.0049
95915761|NCT01158378|191790230|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
95915762|NCT01158378|191790230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0297|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0297
95915763|NCT01158378|191790231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of 10%|||||<|0.0001|||||||one-sided z-test|||||||<0.0001
95915764|NCT01158378|191790231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0561|||||||one-sided z-test|||Superiority Test||||0.0561
95915765|NCT00437125|191790275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|8.6|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||13.3||||||||13.3||
95915766|NCT00437125|191790276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5553||95.0||||p-value is for total UDPRS score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total UDPRS score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5553
95915767|NCT00437125|191790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for psychic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total psychic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
95915768|NCT00437125|191790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for neurological subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total neurological subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
95915769|NCT00437125|191790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014||95.0||||p-value is for autonomic subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total autonomic subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0014
95915770|NCT00437125|191790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5586||95.0||||p-value is for other subscale. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the total other subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.5586
95915771|NCT00437125|191790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0848||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by paticipant. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by paticipant subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0848
95915772|NCT00437125|191790277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263||95.0||||p-value is for global assessment by doctor. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the global assessment by doctor subscale score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||0.0263
95915773|NCT00437125|191790278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 4 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 4-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
95915774|NCT00437125|191790278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 8 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 8-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
95915775|NCT00437125|191790278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for 12 weeks change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
95915776|NCT00437125|191790279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for the HAMD-17 total score. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the HAMD-17 total score from baseline to 12-week endpoint.||||<0.0001
95915777|NCT00437125|191790280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale score from baseline to end of week 12 of treatment.||||<0.0001
95915778|NCT00437125|191790282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for BDI score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between baseline and post-baseline in BDI scores||||<0.0001
95915779|NCT00437125|191790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||p-value is for VAS overall pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS overall pain scores.||||0.0027
95915780|NCT00437125|191790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value is for VAS Headaches score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS headaches scores.||||0.0002
95915781|NCT00437125|191790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS back ache score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS back ache scores.||||<0.0001
95915782|NCT00437125|191790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS shoulder pain score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS shoulder pain score.||||<0.0001
95915783|NCT00437125|191790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS interference score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS interference score.||||<0.0001
95915784|NCT00437125|191790283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for VAS pain while awake score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in VAS pain while awake score.||||<0.0001
95915785|NCT00437125|191790284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value is for PDQ-39 total score - change. A priori threshold for p-values was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no change from baseline to 12 weeks in PDQ-39 total score.||||<0.0001
95915786|NCT02248961|191790291|OTHER|It was calculated that at least 140 patients (70 patients per group) must be enrolled into the study to achieve 80% power. With regard to 20% of patients withdrawn prematurely or data not suitable for analysis, it was necessary to include at least 176 patients (88 per group) into the study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|=|0.39|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is a decrease in SBP on the background treatment with Kanarb (fimasartan), that is at least 5.5 mmHg lower compared to Cozaar® (losartan).~Test of the hypotheses was performed using mixed linear models, where the site effect was considered a random effect, and the treatment group effect was considered a fixed effect. Baseline SBP on the study arm was included into the model as a covariate (a fixed effect) in all cases."||1.47||=0.390
95915787|NCT02248961|191790292|OTHER||||||=|0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.018
95915788|NCT02248961|191790293|OTHER||||||=|0.579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.579
95915789|NCT02248961|191790294|OTHER||||||=|0.466|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.466
95915790|NCT02248961|191790295|OTHER||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.118
95915791|NCT02248961|191790296|OTHER||||||=|0.662|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The investigational site was included as random effect. The baseline levels of SBP and the treatment group were included as fixed effects.||||||=0.662
95915792|NCT02248961|191790297|OTHER||||||=|0.143|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||=0.143
95915793|NCT04424290|191790326|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0558|0.0089|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0089|-0.0558|
95915794|NCT04424290|191790327|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.0215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0429|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.11|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1100|-0.0670|
95915795|NCT04424290|191790328|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0412|0.0195|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.0195|-0.0412|
95915796|NCT04424290|191790329|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.0228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0603|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1477|0.1021|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||0.1021|-0.1477|
95915797|NCT04424290|191790330|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|5.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.5|-8.1|
95915798|NCT04424290|191790331|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|16.2|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.2|-7.3|
95915799|NCT04424290|191790332|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.0|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.0|-9.6|
95915800|NCT04424290|191790333|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|6.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||6.1|-7.3|
95915801|NCT04424290|191790334|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|3.1|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||3.1|-8.7|
95915802|NCT04424290|191790335|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|5.4|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||5.4|-4.9|
95915803|NCT04424290|191790336|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.9|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||7.9|-2.7|
95915804|NCT04424290|191790337|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|16.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||16.5|-1.2|
95915805|NCT04424290|191790338|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|29.8|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||29.8|-2.3|
95915806|NCT04424290|191790339|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|14.5|||||Difference calculated as \[BI\]-\[Sham\].|The Mixed model with repeated measurements (MMRM) model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment at each visit and the fixed continuous effects of baseline at each visit. Visit were treated as the repeated measure with an unstructured covariance structure used to model the within-patient measurements. The Kenward-Roger approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom and adjust standard errors.||14.5|-0.9|
95915807|NCT02444988|191790348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.99|0.77|<0.05
95915808|NCT02444988|191790349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.97|0.73|<0.05
95915809|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for used (injected/snorted/smoked) heroin in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|0.80|0.05
95915810|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.76|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the past 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) powder cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.76|1.12|0.01
95915811|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected and/or snorted) crack cocaine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||2.44|1.00|0.05
95915812|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Used (injected/snorted/smoked) methamphetamine in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.98|0.35|0.03
95915813|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for poly-substance use in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.59|1.11|<0.01
95915814|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|12.28|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Heavy drinking (\>14 and \>21 drinks/week for women and men respectively) in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||12.28|3.84|<0.01
95915815|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Drank until blacked out in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||6.50|2.02|<0.01
95915816|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Injected daily, past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||0.93|0.33|0.04
95915817|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of injected partners \>= 5 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence intervals for travel as a risk factor for each behavior.||3.40|1.37|<0.01
95727489|NCT02247479|191424721|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.3||||0.7865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline LLVA, GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||2.3|-1.7|0.7865
95915818|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Lent a needle/syringe in the past 30 days||1.97|0.81|0.19
95915819|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratio with 95 % confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having injected with someone else's used needle/syringe in the past 30 days||2.55|1.01|<0.01
95915820|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.27|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in the prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Pooled money to buy drugs in the past 30 days||5.27|1.79|<0.01
95915821|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Shared cooker/spook to prepare drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as risk factor for risk behaviors||3.32|1.34|<0.01
95915822|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having used Backloaded Syringe in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds with 95 % confidence interval for travel as a risk factor for risk behaviors||2.95|1.19|<0.01
95915823|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|"Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having done Someone's rinse in the past 30 days"|Adjusted odds with 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behavior in past 30 days||2.10|0.83|0.13
95915824|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for Median number of sexual partners \>=2 in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||3.49|1.40|<0.01
95915825|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for having Traded sex for money or drugs in the past 30 days|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for risk behaviors in past 30 days||1.85|0.45|0.86
95915826|NCT00244374|191790368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratios adjusted for age, race, sex, years injecting.|Adjusted odds for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for condom use \>90% (if sexually active)|Adjusted odds and 95% confidence interval for travel in prior 3 months as a risk factor for engaging in risk behavior during the past 30 days||2.02|0.59|0.73
95915827|NCT04249336|191790371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
95915828|NCT04249336|191790371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|33.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold P\<0.05|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
95915829|NCT04249336|191790371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|23.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
95915830|NCT04249336|191790372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|32.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
95915831|NCT04249336|191790372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|39.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
95915832|NCT04249336|191790372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
95915833|NCT04249336|191790373|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|36.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANCOVA||Treatment difference in percent = BioMin F- Colgate Total|It was calculated that 140 participants randomized in a 1:1:1:1 fashion between the four arms would have at least 80 % power to detect a difference of 0.20 mean scores between four treatments from baseline to week 4. Sample size was determined using PAS V.11, two independent sample t-test with 95% confidence interval.||||<0.05
95915834|NCT04249336|191790373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|28.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Colgate Sensitive Pro relief - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
95915835|NCT04249336|191790373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|25.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance was p \<0.05.|ANOVA||Treatment difference in percent = Sensodyne Rapid Action - Colgate Total|||||<0.05
95915836|NCT01189890|191790410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The predefined non-inferiority margin was 0.4%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum, age stratum, and baseline HbA1C.||||0.34|0.03|
95915837|NCT01189890|191790411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percent Incidence|-3.9||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|-1.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) stratum and age stratum.||||-1.2|-7.5|0.009
95915838|NCT01189890|191790414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|12.7|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline FPG.||||12.7|0.7|
95915839|NCT01189890|191790415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.9|0.6|
95915840|NCT01189890|191790416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|Stratified by eGFR stratum and age stratum.||||0.7|0.3|
95915841|NCT01189890|191790417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Controlled for treatment, eGFR stratum, age stratum, and baseline body weight.||||-0.2|-1.3|0.011
95915842|NCT01411501|191790419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.352
95915843|NCT01411501|191790420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.968|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.968
95915844|NCT01411501|191790421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.841
95915845|NCT01411501|191790422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95915846|NCT01411501|191790423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.198
95915847|NCT01411501|191790424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.035
95915848|NCT00708721|191790425|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Based on cytopenias observed at day 10 (Phase 1 trial only), and the Phase II dose was determined to be 1 mg per day for 7 consecutive days given on a 28 day cycle.|||||
95915849|NCT01161472|191790433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.0285|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0647|0.0077|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0077|-0.0647|0.1198
95915850|NCT01161472|191790433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0173||0.2459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0551|0.0145|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0145|-0.0551|0.2459
95915851|NCT01161472|191790435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0115||0.7502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0268|0.0194|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0194|-0.0268|0.7502
95727490|NCT02247479|191424722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.7|0.6|0.9448
95915852|NCT01161472|191790435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0119||0.4785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0325|0.0154|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0154|-0.0325|0.4785
95915853|NCT01161472|191790437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0265||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0569|0.0498|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0498|-0.0569|0.8944
95915854|NCT01161472|191790437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0263||0.4308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.0738|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||0.0738|-0.0320|0.4308
95915855|NCT01161472|191790439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.6629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4945||0.7707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4729|28.7987|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||28.7987|-21.4729|0.7707
95915856|NCT01161472|191790439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.4482||0.1162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9634|5.1215|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||5.1215|-44.9634|0.1162
95915857|NCT01161472|191790441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8707||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8297|9.8433|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||9.8433|-9.8297|0.9989
95915858|NCT01161472|191790441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0346||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7926|8.5425|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||8.5425|-11.7926|0.7485
95727491|NCT02247479|191424722|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.8764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: The adjusted analysis was based on a logistic regression analysis. The model included terms for treatment group, baseline LLVA, baseline GA lesion location, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA ETDRS chart Snellen equivalent category, and sex.||1.8|0.6|0.8764
95915859|NCT01161472|191790443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2684|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8243||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3788|1.9157|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 4 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.9157|-1.3788|0.7458
95915860|NCT01161472|191790443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8277||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7202|1.588|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was used to determine p-value for comparison of fesoterodine 8 mg vs placebo, with model terms: period and treatment as the fixed effect, participants as the random effect, and between and within participant baselines as the covariates.||1.5880|-1.7202|0.9366
95915861|NCT00798174|191790445|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the azygos coil does not reduce the DFT. (A reduced DFT is superiority).||||||0.103||||||Threshold for significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||"The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the DFT using the azygos coil vs. the standard configuration.~Paired t-test (two-tailed), used due to construction of study with DFT determined in both configurations in each patient, yields p=0.103"||||0.103
95915862|NCT00708526|191790448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|A Bonferroni correction was used.||We compared times for discharge criteria after general anesthesia with and without the QED.||||>0.05
95915863|NCT00708526|191790449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The effect of the use of hypercapnia and increased ventilation on the time to recovery events was compared using multivariate analysis of variance with the Hotelling's two sample T2.-test and the two-tailed unpaired t-test; individual comparisons were by Bonferroni adjusted two tailed unpaired t-tests. The data was tested for normality before identifying statistical significance.||||0.039
95915864|NCT00423293|191790462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value comparing to a rate of 78% (the historical rate was updated after the study design).|Chi-squared|||The RT+ 5-FU + Mitomycin-C arm on previous Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) study 9811 \[NCT00003596\] had a 77% rate of \>= grade 2 GI and GU adverse events. The null hypothesis for this study design was a 15% reduction for that rate. Fifty-four evaluable patients provides 80% power to detect a 15% reduction, using a one-sided chi-squared test with a type I error rate of 0.05. (With 52 patients, the power is reduced to 78%.)||||0.50
95915865|NCT00423293|191790464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GI grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 73%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.5
95915866|NCT00423293|191790464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with GU grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 20%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.18
95915867|NCT00423293|191790464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with hematologic grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 85%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.032
95915868|NCT00423293|191790464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with skin grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 83%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.10
95915869|NCT00423293|191790464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 2+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 98%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.12
95915870|NCT00423293|191790464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level = 0.05||Percentage of patients with any grade 3+ adverse events were compared to the historical rate of 87%. Null hypothesis: same or greater than historical rate. Alternative hypothesis: less than historical rate.||||0.23
95915871|NCT03980184|191790476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95915872|NCT03980184|191790477|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.001
95915873|NCT03980184|191790478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.703
95727492|NCT02247479|191424723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|5.66||||0.0991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|12.38|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||12.38|-1.07|0.0991
95915874|NCT03980184|191790480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95915875|NCT03980184|191790481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.647
95915876|NCT03980184|191790482|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.887
95915877|NCT00791921|191790483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||For ACR20 responder rate at Week 12, comparison between the CDP870 200 mg group and the placebo group was performed.||||<0.05
95915878|NCT00791921|191790484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95915879|NCT03587142|191790485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.45||Nominal P value. Power was determined at a level of P=0.05.|ANCOVA|Multiple imputation using regression and 50 datasets to estimate the outcome for the 18/96 (19%) randomized patients without the f4 visit data.||Primary outcome analysis uses a difference of differences analysis between Buspirone compared to the Placebo arm in which the adjusted mean difference of differences, Wald 95% Confidence interval and 2-sided P values are determined from a Wald Chi-Square test. Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Negative change indicates symptom improvement.||0.45|-0.68|0.69
95915880|NCT03587142|191790485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.39||P value is nominal; no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005.|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analysis of change from a baseline in ES/PPF (Early Satiety/Postprandial Fullness subscore) using all completers: 39 participants in Buspirone arm, 39 participants in placebo arm.||0.39|-0.65|0.62
95915881|NCT03587142|191790485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.38||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Sensitivity analyses: change in ES/PPF in treatment adherent patients: 23 participants in Buspirone arm, 29 patients in placebo arm.||0.38|-0.89|0.62
95915882|NCT03587142|191790486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.5||Nominal P value reported. Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||The mean difference of differences (DoD) between Buspirone and Placebo, 95% confidence interval and P (2-sided) were derived from an ANCOVA, regressing an indicator for treatment group on fullness severity score, adjusting for the baseline value of fullness severity score.||0.50|-0.69|0.76
95727493|NCT02247479|191424723|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.99||||0.7713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.66|5.69|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||5.69|-7.66|0.7713
95915883|NCT03587142|191790487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.47|-0.76|0.64
95915884|NCT03587142|191790488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.5||P values are nominal; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.79|0.66
95915885|NCT03587142|191790489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.5||Nominal P values; Bonferroni p-value for the 10 sensitivity outcomes is \<0.005|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (s-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.50|-0.75|0.70
95915886|NCT03587142|191790490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.27||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.66|0.40
95915887|NCT03587142|191790490|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.21||Nominal P value without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni threshold for level of significance is \<0.002.|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio, 95% C.I. and P (two-sided) from a logistic regression of the binary outcome on treatment group for symptomatic improvement in GCSI.||GCSI symptomatic improvement of 1+ points in total GCSI symptom score defined as change in GCSI total score at week 4 from baseline being a decrease of 1 or more points. This is a binary variable where 1=1+ reduction in change in GCSI total score, 0=change in GCSI total score from baseline at 4-weeks is \< 1.0.||3.21|0.53|0.56
95915888|NCT03587142|191790491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.48||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Squares test.||0.48|-0.58|0.86
95727494|NCT02247479|191424724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.72||||0.6204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|8.53|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.53|-5.09|0.6204
95915889|NCT03587142|191790492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.53||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald-Chi Square test.||0.53|-0.64|0.85
95915890|NCT03587142|191790493|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.47||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||0.47|-0.76|0.65
95727495|NCT02247479|191424724|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.47||||0.6705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|8.25|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis uses change as response variable included terms for treatment group, baseline maximum reading speed, type of reading charts, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||8.25|-5.31|0.6705
95915891|NCT03587142|191790494|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.16||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.16|-0.99|0.16
95915892|NCT03587142|191790495|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.08||P values are nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||-0.08|-1.23|0.03
95915893|NCT03587142|191790496|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.77||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.77|-0.44|0.59
95915894|NCT03587142|191790497|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.88||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.88|-0.39|0.46
95727496|NCT02247479|191424725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.36||||0.7246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|1.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.64|-2.35|0.7246
95915895|NCT03587142|191790498|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.59||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.59|-0.42|0.73
95915896|NCT03587142|191790499|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.27||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.27|-0.55|0.50
95727497|NCT02247479|191424725|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.56||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|0.4|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.40|-3.53|0.1193
95727498|NCT02247479|191424726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.22||||0.8659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|2.39|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||2.39|-2.84|0.8659
95915897|NCT03587142|191790500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.79||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.79|-0.15|0.18
95915898|NCT03587142|191790501|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.51||P value is nominal: no adjustments made from multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference from differences (DoD) from the baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P value (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||2.51|-0.49|0.19
95915899|NCT03587142|191790502|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.38||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni P-value threshold for the level of significance is \<=0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS depression score.||3.38|0.33|0.02
95915900|NCT03587142|191790503|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.76||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|2.54||P values are nominal; no adjustments for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the HADS anxiety total score. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test||2.54|-1.02|0.40
95915901|NCT03587142|191790504|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.15||P value is nominal with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. The Bonferroni level of significance threshold is \<=0.002.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of PAGI-QOL total score.||0.15|-0.57|0.25
95727499|NCT02247479|191424726|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.94||||0.1399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|0.64|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.64|-4.51|0.1399
95727500|NCT02247479|191424727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.99||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|3.76|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||3.76|-1.79|0.4855
95727501|NCT02247479|191424727|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.6||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|1.13|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||1.13|-4.33|0.2515
95915902|NCT03587142|191790505|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.98||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) of change in outcome from baseline and 95% Confidence Intervals were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of outcome. P (2-sided) were determined from a Wald-Chi-Square test.||2.24|-6.20|0.36
95727502|NCT02247479|191424728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.07||||0.2075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.04|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.04|-0.18|0.2075
95915903|NCT03587142|191790506|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.07||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|0.76||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons Bonferroni p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.76|-4.91|0.15
95915904|NCT03587142|191790507|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|10.25||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferrini p-value is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported. P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||10.25|-7.51|0.76
95727503|NCT02247479|191424728|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.02|||MMRM|||Week 48: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, baseline Mean FRI Index score, baseline BCVA of better seeing eye, biomarker status, and sex.||0.02|-0.19|0.1222
95727504|NCT02247479|191424729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.022||||0.8612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.223|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.223|-0.266|0.8612
95727505|NCT02247479|191424729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.077||||0.5317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.319|||MMRM|||CFI Positive: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.319|-0.165|0.5317
95727506|NCT02247479|191424729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.033||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.322|0.257|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.257|-0.322|0.8240
95727507|NCT02247479|191424729|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.006||||0.9676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.294|||MMRM|||CFI Negative: MMRM analysis uses change as response variable and included treatment group, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline GA area, lesion location, contiguity, biomarker status, modified baseline BCVA and sex.||0.294|-0.283|0.9676
95727508|NCT03031899|191424744|NON_INFERIORITY|"1. Rose bengal should stain the areas positively stained by Toluidine blue~2. areas stained by rose bengal that shows dysplasia in biopsy"|SN, SP, PPV, NPV|||||0.005|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95727509|NCT04682444|191424758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5547|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.5547
95727510|NCT04682444|191424758|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
95727511|NCT04682444|191424759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used for testing without adjustment for baseline status.||||0.0001
95727512|NCT04682444|191424760|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||<0.0001
95727513|NCT04682444|191424760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0013
95727514|NCT04682444|191424761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0474|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0474
95727515|NCT04682444|191424761|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
95727516|NCT04682444|191424762|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.||||||0.0065|||||||MMRM|||Day 3||||0.0065
95727517|NCT04682444|191424762|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.|MMRM|||Day 7||||<0.0001
95727518|NCT04682444|191424762|SUPERIORITY|A mixed model repeated measurement was used, which considered baseline, treatment visit\*treatment as fixed and patient as random effect.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MMRM|||Day 14||||<0.0001
95727519|NCT04682444|191424764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5152|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.5152
95727520|NCT04682444|191424764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0009
95727521|NCT04682444|191424764|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
95727522|NCT04682444|191424765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.1253
95727523|NCT04682444|191424765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0611
95727524|NCT04682444|191424765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.4000
95727525|NCT04682444|191424766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4636|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.4636
95727526|NCT04682444|191424766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.1000
95727527|NCT04682444|191424766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0363|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0363
95727528|NCT04682444|191424767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.3107
95727529|NCT04682444|191424767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0083|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0083
95727530|NCT04682444|191424767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0611
95727531|NCT04682444|191424768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2988|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.2988
95727532|NCT04682444|191424769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0005
95727533|NCT04682444|191424769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0238|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0238
95727534|NCT04682444|191424769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0277|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0277
95727535|NCT04682444|191424770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.1253
95727536|NCT04682444|191424770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0611|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0611
95727537|NCT04682444|191424770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.4000
95727538|NCT04682444|191424772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||<0.0001
95727539|NCT04682444|191424773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3973|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.3973
95727540|NCT04682444|191424773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3122|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.3122
95727541|NCT04682444|191424773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14||||0.0064
95727542|NCT04682444|191424775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 3||||0.012
95727543|NCT04682444|191424775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7||||0.036
95915905|NCT03587142|191790508|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01||Nominal P values; no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change in IMD from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and the baseline value of IMD. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.01|-0.12|0.10
95915906|NCT03587142|191790509|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.51||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.4|56.4||Nominal P values; no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of teh outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||56.4|-99.4|0.29
95915907|NCT03587142|191790510|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.95||P value is nominal; no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to week 4 on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported: P (2-sided) determined from Wald Chi-Square test.||0.95|-0.78|0.84
95915908|NCT03587142|191790511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.43||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|5.03||P value is nominal|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Limits (CI) are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||5.03|-17.90|0.27
95915909|NCT03587142|191790512|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|4.89||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold for the level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. Wald 95% Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||4.89|-6.93|0.74
95915910|NCT03587142|191790513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||ANCOVA|P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance \<0.002||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||0.08|-0.01|0.18
95915911|NCT03587142|191790514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.42|19.64||P value is nominal: no adjustments made for multiple comparisons. Bonferroni p-value threshold level of significance is \<0.002|ANCOVA|||Adjusted mean difference of differences (DoD) from baseline were computed using ANCOVA, regressing change from baseline to 4-weeks on treatment group and baseline value of the outcome. 95% Wald Confidence Intervals are reported; P (2-sided) determined from a Wald Chi-Square test.||19.64|-20.42|0.97
95727544|NCT04682444|191424775|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||<0.0001
95727545|NCT04682444|191424777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0002
95727546|NCT04682444|191424777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4048|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.4048
95915912|NCT03587142|191790515|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.27||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.82||P values are nominal and not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates are computed by treatment arm by dividing the total adverse events over 4-weeks by the number of patient-months of follow-up to 4-weeks. Event rates are compared by treatment arm using an exact poisson regression for event rates.||2.82|0.57|0.64
95915913|NCT03587142|191790516|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|0.95||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.62||P values are nominal.|Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact test was used for comparisons of events by treatment by severity grade. One patient in the Buspirone arm had 2 AEs during the trial; for analysis by severity grade the maximum severity grade was used.|An exact poisson regression stratified by severity level was used to compute the incident rate ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals for adverse events by severity level.|2.62|0.35|0.54
95727547|NCT04682444|191424778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0002
95915914|NCT03587142|191790517|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||P value is nominal.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95915915|NCT03587142|191790518|SUPERIORITY||Incident rate ratio|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|40.36||P-values are nominal.|Exact poisson regression|||Event rates were computed by dividing the number of hospitalizations over 4-weeks by the number of person-years. An exact poisson regression was used to compare events by treatment group.||40.36|0|1.00
95727548|NCT04682444|191424778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1614|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.1614
95915916|NCT03587142|191790519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Nominal P value.|Binomial probability test|2-sided test with probability of success=0||||||0.52
95915917|NCT03097861|191790523|OTHER|Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect|||||=|0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.0020
95915918|NCT03097861|191790523|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Treatment p-value is from ANCOVA using SBM count as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and baseline count as random effect||||<0.0001
95727549|NCT04682444|191424779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5581|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.5581
95727550|NCT04682444|191424779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4167|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.4167
95727551|NCT04682444|191424780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0406|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.0406
95915919|NCT04503096|191790531|OTHER|To monitor safety, paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment differences in global cognition (i.e., MoCA z-scores).||||||0.725|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.725
95915920|NCT04503096|191790535|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using HAM-D raw scores.||||||0.605|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.605
95915921|NCT04503096|191790536|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in depression using GDS raw scores.||||||0.897|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.897
95915922|NCT04503096|191790537|OTHER|Paired t-tests were conducted to test for pre- to post-treatment changes in cognition using Fluid Cognition Composite Scores.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
95915923|NCT01872910|191790543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|20.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||20.0|-2.1|
95727552|NCT04682444|191424780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.2000
95727553|NCT04682444|191424781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2208|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3||||0.2208
95915924|NCT01872910|191790543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-23.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||-23.2|-45.7|
95915925|NCT01872910|191790543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.7|54.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI.|||54.9|32.7|
95727554|NCT04682444|191424781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0659|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7||||0.0659
95727555|NCT04682444|191424783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 0, IFN-alpha||||0.941
95727556|NCT04682444|191424783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.943|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 0, IFN-gamma||||0.943
95727557|NCT04682444|191424783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7, IFN-alpha||||<0.001
95915926|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||0.2|-2.9|
95915927|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||6.0|2.9|
95915928|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-4.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||-4.3|-7.4|
95727558|NCT04682444|191424783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7, IFN-gamma||||<0.001
95915929|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||0.2|-5.2|
95727559|NCT04682444|191424783|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.625|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14, IFN-alpha||||0.625
95727560|NCT04682444|191424783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 14, IFN-gamma||||<0.001
95727561|NCT00789802|191424806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.03
95727562|NCT00789802|191424806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.02
95854405|NCT04225897|191668582|OTHER||Difference|-31.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.96|81.57||||||156 hours. Analysis was performed using mixed effects analysis of covariance model on change from baseline in viral load, including a random effect for participant and fixed effects for treatment group, baseline human rhinovirus/enterovirus status (present or absent), visit, vist by treatment group interaction, and baseline viral load as a covariate.||81.57|-143.96|
95854406|NCT02121158|191668636|EQUIVALENCE|Unadjusted|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.915||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.534|1.568|||Cox Proportional Hazards|||||1.568|0.534|0.7457
95854407|NCT02435992|191668656|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.586||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.938|6.636|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.636|1.938|0.0001
95854408|NCT02435992|191668657|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.755||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.767|4.294|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.294|1.767|0.0001
95854409|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).||||0.95
95854410|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.78
95854411|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
95854412|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
95854413|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.82
95854414|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.98
95915930|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||9.8|4.4|
95915931|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-6.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||-6.9|-12.2|
95915932|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-0.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-0.1|-7.9|
95915933|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|13.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||13.0|5.3|
95915934|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-9.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||-9.3|-16.9|
95915935|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||0.5|-13.2|
95915936|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|19.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||19.2|6.6|
95915937|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-13.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||-13.5|-25.9|
95915938|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.8|-2.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-2.0|-30.8|
95915939|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|37.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||37.2|9.0|
95915940|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-25.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||-25.3|-53.2|
95915941|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 4 h.|||1.6|-1.5|
95915942|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 6 h.|||2.4|-2.9|
95915943|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|3.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 8 h.|||3.1|-4.7|
95915944|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|4.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 12 h.|||4.1|-8.3|
95915945|NCT01872910|191790544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|7.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for TOPAR 0 to 24 h.|||7.6|-21.4|
95915946|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||14.5|-4.2|
95854415|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
95915947|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.5|-22.4|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||-22.4|-41.5|
95915948|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.8|46.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||46.5|27.8|
95727563|NCT03532009|191424823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426|||||||F-test|||The p-value was obtained by pooling the p-values from Chi-square tests performed on individual data sets using the F-distribution and reflects a global test of no difference in distribution of patients in the respective categories between SZC and placebo groups. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between SZC and placebo in the distribution of percentage of patients in the 4 RAASi treatment categories. The hypothesis was tested at a significance level of 5%.||||0.426
95854416|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
95854417|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.02
95854418|NCT03879772|191668667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
95854419|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.56
95854420|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.74
95854421|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.68
95854422|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95727564|NCT00368966|191424830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-2.9|1.6||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.6|-2.9|
95727565|NCT00368966|191424830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|1.2||||||95.0|-2.3|4.9||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.9|-2.3|
95854423|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
95854424|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.33
95727566|NCT00368966|191424830|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95854425|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
95854426|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.46
95854427|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854428|NCT03879772|191668668|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854429|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.8
95854430|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.45
95854431|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.12
95915949|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||17.6|-2.9|
95915950|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.6|-24.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||-24.6|-45.6|
95915951|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.1|52.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||52.7|32.1|
95915952|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||23.0|-1.0|
95915953|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|-20.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||-20.3|-45.1|
95727567|NCT00368966|191424831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.6|0.86||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.86|0.60|
95915954|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|55.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||55.5|31.3|
95915955|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||26.2|-1.6|
95915956|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0|-16.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||-16.0|-44.0|
95915957|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|42.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|56.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||56.5|28.6|
95915958|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|12.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 4 h.|||12.9|-9.7|
95915959|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|16.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 6 h.|||16.8|-9.8|
95915960|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|19.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 8 h.|||19.0|-9.9|
95915961|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|21.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 12 h.|||21.1|-9.2|
95915962|NCT01872910|191790545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|24.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for weighted mean change from baseline pain intensity for 0 to 24 h.|||24.2|-8.4|
95915963|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.9|-0.6|
95915964|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||-1.7|-4.1|
95915965|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||4.8|2.3|
95915966|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||3.2|-0.9|
95915967|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||-2.7|-6.8|
95915968|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|8.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||8.0|3.8|
95915969|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.8|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||4.8|-1.0|
95915970|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|-3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||-3.3|-9.0|
95915971|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|10.9|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||10.9|5.1|
95915972|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||8.1|-1.3|
95915973|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-3.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||-3.5|-12.9|
95915974|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|16.5|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||16.5|7.0|
95915975|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|18.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||18.3|-2.6|
95915976|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|-3.6|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||-3.6|-24.7|
95915977|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|32.2|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||32.2|11.5|
95915978|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 4 h.|||1.0|-1.6|
95915979|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 6 h.|||2.1|-2.2|
95915980|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|3.3|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 8 h.|||3.3|-2.9|
95915981|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 12 h.|||5.7|-3.9|
95915982|NCT01872910|191790546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|15.0|||||95% CrI is reported here, not the CI. Estimation is for SPID 0 to 24 h.|||15.0|-6.8|
95915983|NCT01872910|191790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.46|||||Hazard ratio (HR) of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.46|0.99|
95915984|NCT01872910|191790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.72|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.72|0.16|
95915985|NCT01872910|191790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|11.16|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||11.16|2.69|
95915986|NCT01872910|191790547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.59|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||2.59|0.57|
95915987|NCT01872910|191790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||1.47|0.41|
95915988|NCT01872910|191790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||3.88|1.19|
95915989|NCT01872910|191790548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.67|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.67|0.19|
95915990|NCT01872910|191790549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.88|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.88|0.12|
95915991|NCT01872910|191790549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|8.47|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||8.47|2.04|
95915992|NCT01872910|191790549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||||HR of the treatment differences were estimated based on Cox proportional hazard model including treatment and baseline pain intensity (VAS) as fixed effects.|||0.21|0.03|
95915993|NCT02387216|191790558|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.382||||0.2302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|2.35|||Log Rank|||||2.350|0.813|0.2302
95915994|NCT02387216|191790559|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195||||0.5436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|2.122|||Log Rank|||||2.122|0.673|0.5436
95854432|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.36
95915995|NCT02387216|191790560|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0455
95915996|NCT02387216|191790561|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2726|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2726
95727568|NCT00368966|191424832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by Meningitec was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.7|0.94||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.94|0.70|
95915997|NCT00744263|191790599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.2|21.82|62.49|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1 - (proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||62.49|21.82|0.0006
95915998|NCT00744263|191790600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|45.0||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.2|14.21|65.31|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||65.31|14.21|0.0067
95915999|NCT00744263|191790601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|75.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.43|90.78|||Clopper-Pearson method|||Vaccine efficacy against first event expressed as percentage. Vaccine efficacy = 1-(proportion of participants who received 13vPnC with confirmed VT-CAP relative to those who received placebo). p-value and confidence intervals were derived using Clopper-Pearson method. The null hypothesis was vaccine efficacy = 0.||90.78|41.43|0.0005
95916000|NCT00744263|191790604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.979|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.979
95916001|NCT00744263|191790605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Fisher exact test, 2-sided, was used to calculate the p-value for the difference between vaccine groups in percentages of participants.||||0.455
95916002|NCT01225822|191790611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
95916003|NCT01225822|191790611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
95916004|NCT01225822|191790611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
95916005|NCT01225822|191790611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
95916006|NCT01225822|191790611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
95916007|NCT01225822|191790611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
95916008|NCT01225822|191790612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.375|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.577||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.577|0.244|<0.0001
95916009|NCT01225822|191790612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.518||||0.0015||95.0|0.344|0.778||Dose relationship tested using a hierarchical testing procedure to preserve type I error rate at 5%. 225 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid. If a difference significant at 5% level was found, then 150 mg bid was compared to 50 mg bid|Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid comparison. The primary objective of the trial was to establish a dose relationship among BIBR 1048 doses studied in the prevention of VTE. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre..||0.778|0.344|0.0015
95916010|NCT01225822|191790612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7856||95.0|0.599|1.473|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 300 mg qd vs. BIBR 1048 150 mg bid comparison. Secondary analysis to compare once daily dosing vs. twice daily dosing. . The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.473|0.599|0.7856
95916011|NCT01225822|191790612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.469||||0.0007||95.0|0.302|0.727|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.727|0.302|0.0007
95916012|NCT01225822|191790612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.647||||0.0401||95.0|0.427|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||0.98|0.427|0.0401
95916013|NCT01225822|191790612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.249||||0.2446||95.0|0.859|1.817|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd comparison. Secondary analysis, active control used as reference. The statistical model was a logistic regression which included treatment and centre.||1.817|0.859|0.2446
95916014|NCT01225822|191790613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.334||||0.0373||95.0|0.199|0.938|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.938|0.199|0.0373
95727569|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 4, the Geometric Mean fold Rise (GMFR) were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
95727570|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.28||||||95.0|8.18|10.53||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||10.53|8.18|
95916015|NCT01225822|191790613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.837||||0.6659||95.0|0.374|1.875|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.875|0.374|0.6659
95916016|NCT01225822|191790613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.505||||0.1882||95.0|0.183|1.397|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.397|0.183|0.1882
95916017|NCT01225822|191790613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.5566||95.0|0.39|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.66|0.39|0.5566
95916018|NCT01225822|191790613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.674||||0.3253||95.0|0.307|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.48|0.307|0.3253
95727571|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.15||||||95.0|1.05|1.25||||||For serotype 6B, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.25|1.05|
95727572|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.61||||||95.0|1.41|1.83||||||For serotype 14, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.83|1.41|
95854433|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.6
95854434|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.17
95916019|NCT01225822|191790613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0114||95.0|0.097|0.744|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.744|0.097|0.0114
95916020|NCT01225822|191790614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.332||||0.036||95.0|0.118|0.931|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.931|0.118|0.036
95916021|NCT01225822|191790614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.687||||0.3884||95.0|0.293|1.611|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.611|0.293|0.3884
95916022|NCT01225822|191790614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.616||||0.3674||95.0|0.215|1.766|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.766|0.215|0.3674
95916023|NCT01225822|191790614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.809||||0.5663||95.0|0.393|1.668|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.668|0.393|0.5663
95916024|NCT01225822|191790614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.1678||95.0|0.242|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||1.28|0.242|0.1678
95916025|NCT01225822|191790614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.269||||0.0113||95.0|0.097|0.743|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as primary endpoint.||0.743|0.097|0.0113
95916026|NCT01225822|191790615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.818||||0.0077||95.0|2.077|120.474|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||120.474|2.077|0.0077
95916027|NCT01225822|191790615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.907||||0.0062||95.0|2.229|128.238|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 50 mg bid, same methodology as for primary endpoint||128.238|2.229|0.0062
95916028|NCT01225822|191790615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.136||||0.7192||95.0|0.567|2.276|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. BIBR 1048 300 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||2.276|0.567|0.7192
95916029|NCT01225822|191790615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.121||||0.0472||95.0|0.015|0.974|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 50 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||0.974|0.015|0.0472
95916030|NCT01225822|191790615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.049||||0.1043||95.0|0.862|4.868|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 150 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.868|0.862|0.1043
95916031|NCT01225822|191790615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.917||||0.1448||95.0|0.799|4.597|||Regression, Logistic|||BIBR 1048 225 mg bid vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg qd, same methodology as for primary endpoint||4.597|0.799|0.1448
95916032|NCT01225822|191790617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.871||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.221|128.142|||Regression, Logistic|||||128.142|2.221|0.0063
95916033|NCT01225822|191790617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.338||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.983|167.268|||Regression, Logistic|||||167.268|2.983|0.0025
95916034|NCT01225822|191790617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.919||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.750|0.483|0.7973
95916035|NCT01225822|191790617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.068||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.522|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.522|0.009|0.0097
95916036|NCT01225822|191790617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522||||0.2375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|3.058|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.058|0.758|0.2375
95854435|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.23
95854436|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.42
95854437|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.09
95854438|NCT03879772|191668669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
95854439|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.03
95854440|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.04
95854441|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.08
95854442|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.49
95854443|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.93
95854444|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.75
95854445|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854446|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.71
95854447|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854448|NCT03879772|191668670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.01
95854449|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.16
95854450|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.22
95854451|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
95854452|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.14
95854453|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.85
95854454|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.96
95854455|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854456|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.81
95854457|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854458|NCT03879772|191668671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854459|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.05
95916037|NCT01225822|191790617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.403|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.403|0.550|0.7104
95916038|NCT04078035|191790633|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00088||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.86
95916039|NCT04078035|191790634|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00067||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.74
95916040|NCT04078035|191790635|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0019||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.52
95916041|NCT04078035|191790636|SUPERIORITY|Results present the condition (stress/control) by time\^2 interactions.|Slope|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||||||<.001
95916042|NCT04078035|191790637|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00027|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 66.4, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time2 and condition||||<.001
95727573|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.45||||||95.0|1.3|1.61||||||For serotype 18C, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.61|1.30|
95854460|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.07
95854461|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.11
95854462|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.31
95854463|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.94
95854464|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.73
95854465|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95854466|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||0.79
95916043|NCT04078035|191790638|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0002|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 77.2, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||<.001
95916044|NCT04078035|191790639|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0013||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.005
95916045|NCT04078035|191790640|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.92
95916046|NCT04078035|191790641|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
95727574|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.03||||||For serotype 19F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.03|0.83|
95916047|NCT04078035|191790642|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|Likelihood ratio test showed better fit if quadratic for time included χ2 (2) = 15.64, p \< .001.||Results-interaction between time\^2 and condition||||0.002
95916048|NCT04078035|191790643|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0053||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results \_condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.008
95916049|NCT04078035|191790644|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0014||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.83
95916050|NCT04078035|191790645|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0033||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.03
95916051|NCT04078035|191790646|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.00075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00012||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.51
95916052|NCT04078035|191790647|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.0053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0026||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.04
95916053|NCT04078035|191790648|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0027||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.49
95916054|NCT04078035|191790649|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0044||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject, day (nested within subject), and time as random effects and condition (stress/control) as fixed effects.||Results below present the condition (stress/control) by time interactions.||||0.002
95916055|NCT02100722|191790661|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||A sample of 712 patients per group (1424 for the entire trial) would be required in order to achieve 90% power to claim noninferiority||2.2|1.1|0.35
95916056|NCT02100722|191790664|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.3||||||||4.3|0.7|
95916057|NCT02100722|191790665|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.5|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing MI.|||2.5|0.9|
95916058|NCT02100722|191790666|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4||||||||2.4|0.3|
95916059|NCT02100722|191790667|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.3|||||Hazard ratio for overall number of participants experiencing repeat revascularization.|||2.3|0.9|
95916060|NCT02100722|191790668|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95916061|NCT02100722|191790669|OTHER||||||<|0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.04
95916062|NCT02100722|191790670|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95916063|NCT02100722|191790673|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95916064|NCT03500640|191790681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
95916065|NCT03500640|191790682|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.800
95854467|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95916066|NCT03500640|191790683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.677
95916067|NCT03500640|191790684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.349||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.349
95727575|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0||||||95.0|3.55|4.5||||||For serotype 23F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||4.50|3.55|
95916068|NCT03500640|191790685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
95916069|NCT03500640|191790686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.140
95916070|NCT03500640|191790687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.732
95916071|NCT03500640|191790688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.637||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.637
95916072|NCT03500640|191790689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.521
95916073|NCT03500640|191790690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.083||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.083
95916074|NCT03500640|191790691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
95916075|NCT03500640|191790692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.982
95916076|NCT03500640|191790693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.081
95916077|NCT03500640|191790694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.712||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.712
95916078|NCT03500640|191790695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
95916079|NCT03500640|191790696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.801
95916080|NCT03500640|191790697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.069
95916081|NCT03500640|191790698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
95916082|NCT03500640|191790699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.197
95916083|NCT03500640|191790700|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.594
95916084|NCT03500640|191790701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.328
95916085|NCT03500640|191790702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.398||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.398
95916086|NCT03500640|191790703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.288||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.288
95916087|NCT03500640|191790704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
95916088|NCT03500640|191790705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.805
95916089|NCT03500640|191790706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||0.421
95916090|NCT03500640|191790707|SUPERIORITY|The p value provided here is for the physical component summary score (PCS) only||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.160
95916091|NCT03500640|191790708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The a priori threshold for significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.196
95916092|NCT03500640|191790709|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.532||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.532
95916093|NCT01755143|191790713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|100.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|97.7|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|exact test of binomial proportions|||Null Hypothesis: MRI-related complication-free rate between the MRI scan and one-month post-MRI \<90%.|||97.7|<0.0001
95727576|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.6||||||95.0|1.46|1.76||||||For serotype 1, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.76|1.46|
95916094|NCT01755143|191790714|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025. Because there were no failures in either group, a p-value could not be calculated.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||||
95916095|NCT01755143|191790715|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.1||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group -10%.||4.1|-5.4|<0.0001
95854468|NCT03879772|191668672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Pairwise comparisons were performed using least square means from two-way ANOVA.||||<0.01
95916096|NCT01755143|191790716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.6|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|||A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Farrington-Manning test|||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-3.2|<0.0001
95916097|NCT01755143|191790717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage|0.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.9|||exact test of binomial proportions|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: the proportion of subjects with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and asystole during MRI scans \>= 10%.||1.9||<0.0001
95727577|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.23||||||95.0|1.13|1.35||||||For serotype 3, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.35|1.13|
95854469|NCT00929695|191668742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95854470|NCT00929695|191668742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4
95854471|NCT00929695|191668750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.33||||||||1.33|0.14|
95854472|NCT00929695|191668751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.74|||Regression, Cox|||||0.74|0.12|0.009
95916098|NCT01755143|191790718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.0004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-4.8||||Farrington-Manning test|A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.||Null hypothesis: % successes MRI group ≤ % successes Control group - 10%.|||-4.8|0.0004
95916099|NCT04466215|191790719|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||One-tail test of directional hypothesis.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effect model with directional hypothesis that drug reduces strength of craving (VAS). Principle predictor was drug plasma concentration. Arms were combined for this analysis.||||.065
95916100|NCT00926003|191790721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ART at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.02
95916101|NCT00926003|191790722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||Least Square Means from Longitudinal Model, Their Standard Errors by Trial Arm Adjusted for Age, Being on ARV at Intake, Socioeconomic Score, Home Score, Recruitment Location, KABC Learning and Delayed Recall Scores at Baseline, and Outcome Score at Baseline||||0.18
95916102|NCT01966796|191790739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The incidence of MDR pathogens (6.7%, 25.5%, 36.9% and 44.6% in PSI II, III, IV, and V, respectively, p=0.002) and mortality rate (0, 5.9%, 12.3%, and 23.8%, respectively, p\<0.001) increased with increasing PSI||||0.002
95916103|NCT00474929|191790787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Dose Level 1 was chosen as the MTD due to PI concerns about adverse events and frequent dose reductions seen on later cycles at dose level 2. For the best interest of the patients, dose level 1 was chosen as the MTD and the dose level for Phase II.|The Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients (at least 2 of a maximum of 6 new patients).||||
95854473|NCT00929695|191668753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||||1.74|0.6|0.95
95854474|NCT03773978|191668756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.241|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|0.453|||Log Rank|||||0.453|0.128|<0.001
95854475|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||7.46|0.99|0.052
95854476|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.64||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.28|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||8.28|1.60|0.002
95854477|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.41|2.00|<0.001
95854478|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|7.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||7.01|1.62|0.001
95854479|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|6.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.07|1.48|0.002
95854480|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|6.52|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||6.52|1.62|<0.001
95854481|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||7.41|1.85|<0.001
95854482|NCT03773978|191668757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|6.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||6.50|1.65|<0.001
95854483|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.65|0.59|0.568
95854484|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|6.09|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||6.09|1.40|0.004
95854485|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|9.15|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||9.15|2.10|<0.001
95854486|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||6.32|1.51|0.002
95854487|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|6.11|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||6.11|1.47|0.003
95854488|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|5.6|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.60|1.44|0.003
95916104|NCT03661996|191790793|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0216|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.019|1.108|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.108|1.019|
95916105|NCT03661996|191790793|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.919|1.001|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.001|0.919|
95727578|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.94||||||95.0|1.78|2.11||||||For serotype 5, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.11|1.78|
95854489|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||6.97|1.74|<0.001
95854490|NCT03773978|191668758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|5.66|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||5.66|1.46|0.002
95854491|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.87|0.52|0.972
95854492|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.81|1.27|0.008
95854493|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.97|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.97|1.33|0.005
95854494|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.94|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||5.94|1.57|<0.001
95854495|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.71|1.25|0.009
95916106|NCT03661996|191790793|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.057|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||1.057|0.970|
95916107|NCT03661996|191790793|NON_INFERIORITY|The treatment regimen is Clinically Acceptable if it is no more than 30% worse than the Breg Cooling Control Group and the lower bound of the 95% CI for Ratio of Geometric LS Means is greater than 0.7.|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0219|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|0.972|||||Parameter dispersion is the Standard Error of the Ratio of Geometric LS Means|Geometric LS means, ratio of geometric LS means, with Breg Cooling as control, and 95% CIs were obtained from an ANCOVA model on the natural log-transformed composite outcome with cooling and injection procedure as the main effect. Baseline K-L grade, baseline BMI category, sex, and reverse-scored and normalized index knee procedure pain were included as covariates. Estimates and CIs on the log scale were exponentiated to obtain ratios of geometric means on the original scale.||0.972|0.892|
95916108|NCT03661996|191790794|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|17.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||19.90|14.40|<0.0001
95916109|NCT03661996|191790794|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.692|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.79|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||28.03|12.79|<0.0001
95916110|NCT03661996|191790794|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.819|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.44|21.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||21.66|18.44|<0.0001
95916111|NCT03661996|191790794|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|18.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.41|20.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||20.38|16.41|<0.0001
95916112|NCT03661996|191790795|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.478|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.54|25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.37|19.54|<0.0001
95916113|NCT03661996|191790795|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.613|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.38|33.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||33.42|14.38|<0.0001
95854496|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|5.47|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||5.47|1.43|0.003
95854497|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.93||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|5.83|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||5.83|1.47|0.002
95854498|NCT03773978|191668759|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.74|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.74|0.99|0.052
95854499|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.75|0.66|0.409
95854500|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||4.23|1.07|0.030
95854501|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||4.92|1.13|0.022
95854502|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.08|1.03|0.040
95854503|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|4.24|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.24|1.07|0.032
95854504|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.42|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.42|0.85|0.132
95854505|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.10|1.00|0.050
95854506|NCT03773978|191668760|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.71|1.15|0.019
95854507|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.92|0.33|0.620
95854508|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||2.78|0.61|0.492
95854509|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.75|0.50|0.715
95854510|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.99|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||2.99|0.66|0.384
95854511|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.10|0.70|0.311
95854512|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.34|0.75|0.231
95854513|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||3.95|0.84|0.129
95854514|NCT03773978|191668761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.84|1.02|0.043
95854515|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.98|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||2.98|0.40|0.853
95854516|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||1.71|0.29|0.432
95854517|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.31|0.41|0.960
95854518|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||4.01|0.73|0.215
95854519|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||4.22|0.77|0.173
95916114|NCT03661996|191790795|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.92|27.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.32|23.92|<0.0001
95916115|NCT03661996|191790795|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.053|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.03|24.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||24.17|20.03|<0.0001
95727579|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.87||||||95.0|2.58|3.2||||||For serotype 6A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||3.20|2.58|
95727580|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.18||||||95.0|1.98|2.41||||||For serotype 7F, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||2.41|1.98|
95916116|NCT03661996|191790796|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|24.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||24.5|17.6|<0.0001
95854520|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.33|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||3.33|0.64|0.367
95854521|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||4.67|0.77|0.162
95854522|NCT03773978|191668762|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||4.50|0.85|0.113
95854523|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 16||1.55|0.42|0.511
95916117|NCT03661996|191790796|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.06||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|37.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||37.8|12.7|0.0003
95916118|NCT03661996|191790796|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.82|27.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||27.88|23.82|<0.0001
95916119|NCT03661996|191790796|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|23.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.238|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.91|25.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms for pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category (\<30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), sex, study visit, and baseline KOOS subscale score as covariates. Study visit was included in the model as a categorical variable.||25.78|20.91|<0.0001
95916120|NCT03661996|191790797|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|20.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.481|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.94|23.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.78|17.94|<0.0001
95916121|NCT03661996|191790797|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.568|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.24|35.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||35.09|16.24|<0.0001
95916122|NCT03661996|191790797|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.861|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.88|27.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.26|23.88|<0.0001
95727581|NCT00368966|191424835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|1.18|1.44||||||For serotype 19A, the GMFR were calculated using all participants with available data from both 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 and 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3 blood draws.||1.44|1.18|
95916123|NCT03661996|191790797|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.853|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.02|27.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.37|24.02|<0.0001
95727582|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95916124|NCT03661996|191790798|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|25.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.74|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.60|20.74|<0.0001
95727583|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.9||||||95.0|-6.0|2.0||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 20 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-6.0|
95916125|NCT03661996|191790798|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|33.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.795|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.15|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||45.07|21.15|<0.0001
95916126|NCT03661996|191790798|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.38|30.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||30.23|25.38|<0.0001
95916127|NCT03661996|191790798|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|24.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.598|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.66|27.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||27.94|21.66|<0.0001
95916128|NCT03661996|191790799|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.898|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|25.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||25.84|18.37|<0.0001
95916129|NCT03661996|191790799|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|16.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.255|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.84|29.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||29.66|3.84|<0.0001
95854524|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.2|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 20||3.20|0.84|0.145
95854525|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 24||2.72|0.70|0.349
95854526|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 28||3.25|0.82|0.167
95854527|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.07|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 32||3.07|0.78|0.212
95854528|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 36||2.39|0.62|0.577
95854529|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 40||2.95|0.78|0.225
95854530|NCT03773978|191668763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.9|||Regression, Logistic|||at week 44||3.90|0.98|0.055
95854531|NCT03773978|191668765|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-4.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.328||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.70|-6.95|0.001
95854532|NCT03773978|191668766|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-12.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.262||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.39|-4.55|||ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-21.39|0.003
95854533|NCT03773978|191668767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.526||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.91|||ANCOVA|||||1.91|-2.62|0.574
95854534|NCT03773978|191668768|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.348||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.15|-0.26|0.208
95854535|NCT03773978|191668769|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-1.98|0.019
95854536|NCT01668784|191668779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|98.52|0.57|0.93||The boundary for statistical significance required the p-value to be less than 0.0148 at the interim analyses.|Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio (HR) was Nivolumab over Everolimus.|||0.93|0.57|0.0018
95916130|NCT03661996|191790799|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|21.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.43|23.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||23.60|19.43|<0.0001
95916131|NCT03661996|191790799|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|19.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.72|22.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The KOOS subscale scores are derived and normalized. Higher scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline subscale score as covariates.||22.09|16.72|<0.0001
95916132|NCT03661996|191790800|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.191|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.86|-3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.10|-3.86|<0.0001
95916133|NCT03661996|191790800|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-2.67|-4.38|<0.0001
95916134|NCT03661996|191790800|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-3.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.79|-4.25|<0.0001
95916135|NCT03661996|191790800|SUPERIORITY|A within-group analysis of change at Week 8 from baseline.|Least Squares Mean Change From Baseline|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-3.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|LS means, 95% CIs, and P values were obtained from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)||Results are summarized by subject type and the injected knee. The NPRS was collected during the last study visit. Lower scores indicate improvement. Model terms included pooled site group, baseline K-L grade category, baseline BMI category, sex, study visit, and baseline pain score as covariates.||-3.48|-3.96|<0.0001
95916136|NCT03029247|191790814|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.47||p-value for the difference between treatment groups were presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) has been presented.|||8.47|-8.80|0.9694
95916137|NCT03029247|191790815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32||||0.7745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.46|7.83||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||7.83|-10.46|0.7745
95916138|NCT03029247|191790815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.62|1.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.71|-5.62|0.2910
95916139|NCT03029247|191790815|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.4||||0.4611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.07||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||4.07|-8.88|0.4611
95916140|NCT03029247|191790816|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.95||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|1.24||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||1.24|-7.14|0.1648
95916141|NCT03029247|191790817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.42||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.75|234.92||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||234.92|-261.75|0.9142
95916142|NCT03029247|191790817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-71.7||||0.2266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.21|45.8||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||45.80|-189.21|0.2266
95916143|NCT03029247|191790817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-54.24||||0.5246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-223.99|115.51||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||115.51|-223.99|0.5246
95916144|NCT03029247|191790818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-74.4||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.15|29.34||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||29.34|-178.15|0.1563
95688451|NCT01371838|191348268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (clinical cure rate) between the ceftaroline group and the ceftriaxone group was calculated in CE Population at the TOC visit. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was higher than -10% in CE Population. If non-inferioirity was achieved then a test of superioirty was conducted whereby if lower limit of 95% CI for the difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded.|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|The primary objective of this study was to determine the noninferiority in the clinical cure rate for ceftaroline compared to that for ceftriaxone at TOC in the CE in adult subjects with CABP.||17.1|2.8|
95688452|NCT01371838|191348269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|16.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||16.4|4.9|
95688453|NCT01371838|191348270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|15.4||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||15.4|1.8|
95688454|NCT01371838|191348271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments. If lower limit of 95% CI for the risk difference was \>0% superioirty was concluded in this population.|||19.2|6.8|
95688455|NCT01371838|191348272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
95688456|NCT01371838|191348273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
95688457|NCT01371838|191348276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|27.1||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||27.1|2.7|
95688458|NCT01371838|191348277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|25.8||||RD is (Ceftaroline-Ceftriaxone) microbiologically favourable outcome rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||25.8|-2.2|
95688459|NCT01371838|191348278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|19.2||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone overall success rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||19.2|6.8|
95688460|NCT01371838|191348279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|17.1||||RD is Ceftaroline clinical cure rate minus Ceftriaxone clinical cure rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||17.1|2.8|
95688461|NCT01371838|191348280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.0||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||3.0|-2.5|
95688462|NCT01371838|191348281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|4.5||||RD is Ceftaroline minus Ceftriaxone No-relapse rate. The CI was calculated by Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|CI for risk difference was estimated by 95% Miettinen and Nurminen CI without adjustments.|||4.5|-2.4|
95688463|NCT03088605|191348303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline scores as a covariate||0|-0.7|0.02
95688464|NCT03088605|191348304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Change form baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.5|-1.4|0.0001
95688465|NCT03088605|191348305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.42||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||-0.47|-2.36|0.03
95688466|NCT03088605|191348306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.199||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.177|0.575|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline; ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.575|-0.177|0.39
95688467|NCT03088605|191348307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|2.0|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||2.0|-1.7|0.97
95688468|NCT03088605|191348308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline. ANCOVA model includes baseline score as a covariate.||0.03|-0.48|0.06
95688469|NCT03864237|191348316|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.37|||Regression, Linear|Regression controls for baseline value of outcome and sex to determine pre-post change in the outcome as a function of condition.||||2.37|-1.31|0.568
95688470|NCT03864237|191348317|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|2.59|||Regression, Linear|||||2.59|-0.13|0.077
95688471|NCT03864237|191348318|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|1.11|||Regression, Linear|||||1.11|-3.52|0.30
95688472|NCT03864237|191348319|SUPERIORITY||beta coefficient for condition|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|3.0|||Regression, Linear|||||3.0|-1.31|0.44
95688473|NCT03864237|191348320|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|2.3|||Regression, Linear|||||2.30|-2.81|0.845
95688474|NCT03864237|191348321|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|2.31|||Regression, Linear|||||2.31|-1.72|0.77
95688475|NCT03864237|191348322|SUPERIORITY||Beta coefficient for condition|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.54|||Regression, Linear|||||4.54|-1.0|0.21
95688479|NCT03408873|191348394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95727584|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95916145|NCT03029247|191790819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.06||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|2.1||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||2.10|-6.23|0.3247
95916146|NCT03029247|191790819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.51||||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.74||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.74|-8.76|0.4235
95916147|NCT03029247|191790820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.9353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.14||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||3.14|-3.41|0.9353
95916148|NCT03029247|191790821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-144.97||||0.2573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.71|109.76||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of SBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||109.76|-399.71|0.2573
95916149|NCT03029247|191790821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-117.49||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-232.26|-2.72||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of DBP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||-2.72|-232.26|0.0450
95916150|NCT03029247|191790821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-131.94||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-306.24|42.36||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of MAP and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||42.36|-306.24|0.1341
95688480|NCT03408873|191348394|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.12
95688481|NCT03408873|191348395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.6||||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.0599
95688482|NCT03408873|191348395|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 28 participants with baseline data only 11 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 11 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.63
95688483|NCT03408873|191348397|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95688484|NCT03408873|191348398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 19 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 19 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95727585|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95916151|NCT03029247|191790822|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-97.67||||0.1119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-219.05|23.71||p-value for the difference between treatment groups was presented from ANCOVA model for the superiority assessment.|ANCOVA||LS Mean treatment difference (daprodustat minus recombinant human erythropoietin) for AUEC of HR and its corresponding 95% CI has been presented.|||23.71|-219.05|0.1119
95916152|NCT01976364|191790877|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|0.0255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0513|0.1022||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Analysis was based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1022|-0.0513|
95688485|NCT03408873|191348398|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
95727586|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 64 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.6|-5.2|
95916153|NCT01976364|191790878|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.091|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.313||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.313|-0.131|
95916154|NCT01976364|191790912|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0486|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.1163||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1163|-0.0192|
95916155|NCT01976364|191790912|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0372|0.1021||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1021|-0.0372|
95916156|NCT01976364|191790912|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0058|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0941|0.0825||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0825|-0.0941|
95916157|NCT01976364|191790912|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0096|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0734|0.0927||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0927|-0.0734|
95916158|NCT01976364|191790913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.032|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.227||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.227|-0.163|
95688486|NCT03408873|191348399|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95727587|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95727588|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.4|3.2||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 39 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.2|-4.4|
95916159|NCT01976364|191790913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.024|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.219||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.219|-0.266|
95916160|NCT01976364|191790913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.470|-0.045|
95916161|NCT01976364|191790913|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.309|0.188||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.188|-0.309|
95916162|NCT01976364|191790914|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.76|9.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||9.48|-9.76|
95916163|NCT01976364|191790914|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-4.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|3.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||3.77|-12.91|
95916164|NCT01976364|191790914|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.26|2.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||2.87|-14.26|
95916165|NCT01976364|191790914|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-2.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|6.87||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||6.87|-11.59|
95916166|NCT01976364|191790914|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|-10.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.16|-2.14||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||-2.14|-18.16|
95916167|NCT01976364|191790915|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.1|
95916168|NCT01976364|191790915|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.1|
95916169|NCT01976364|191790915|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|0.0|
95916170|NCT01976364|191790915|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|0.1|
95916171|NCT01976364|191790915|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.1|
95916172|NCT01976364|191790916|OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.06|19.21||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||19.21|-58.06|
95916173|NCT01976364|191790916|OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.58|23.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||23.37|-83.58|
95916174|NCT01976364|191790916|OTHER||LS mean difference|-24.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.35|34.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||34.69|-83.35|
95916175|NCT01976364|191790916|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.87|37.58||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||37.58|-60.87|
95688487|NCT03408873|191348399|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24) to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.003
95688488|NCT03408873|191348400|OTHER|We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95688489|NCT03408873|191348400|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
95688490|NCT03408873|191348401|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two sets of time-points: 1) difference between screen and week 24, and 2) between baseline and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||0.0566
95688491|NCT03408873|191348402|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared for the primary and secondary outcomes across two time-points: difference between screen and week 24. A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared these repeated measurements (matched on participant with complete data) between these time-points to determine whether the population medians differed.||||<0.001
95688492|NCT03408873|191348403|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95688493|NCT03408873|191348404|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between baseline \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with baseline data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. The mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95688494|NCT03408873|191348405|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 29 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95688495|NCT03408873|191348406|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||<0.001
95688496|NCT03408873|191348407|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.73
95688497|NCT03408873|191348408|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||We compared the repeated measure outcome across 2 time-points (difference between screen \& week 24 to determine whether the population medians differed matched on participant with complete data. Of the 30 participants with screen data, only 21 had Week 24 data. Statistical Analysis was conducted for 21 participants with data at the 2 timepoints. Thus, the mean difference reported is not consistent with the mean values reported because only those with complete data were included in the analysis.||||0.02
95688498|NCT00062738|191348410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||For the responder analysis, an LOCF approach was used in which a clinical response was operationally defined as at least a 50% reduction in the HAM-D score from baseline to 8 weeks. Clinical response was cross-tabulated with treatment and Fisher exact test was used to distinguish differences among these groups.||15.9|0.8|<.05
95688499|NCT01600131|191348414|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.693
95688500|NCT01600131|191348415|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.693|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.693
95688501|NCT01600131|191348416|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.055|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.055
95688502|NCT01600131|191348417|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.346|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.346
95688503|NCT01600131|191348419|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.688|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.688
95688504|NCT01600131|191348420|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.418|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.418
95688505|NCT01600131|191348421|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.18|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.180
95688506|NCT01600131|191348422|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.332|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.332
95688507|NCT01600131|191348423|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.318|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.318
95688508|NCT01600131|191348424|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.077|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.077
95688509|NCT01600131|191348425|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.305|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.305
95688510|NCT01600131|191348428|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.514|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.514
95688511|NCT01600131|191348429|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.090
95688512|NCT01600131|191348430|SUPERIORITY||Slope|6.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.009
95688513|NCT01600131|191348431|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.225
95688514|NCT01600131|191348432|SUPERIORITY||Slope|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.443|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.443
95688515|NCT01600131|191348433|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group x time interaction|||||0.158
95688516|NCT01600131|191348434|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<.05 threshold|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.046
95688517|NCT01600131|191348435|SUPERIORITY||Slope|5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83||0.149|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.149
95916176|NCT01976364|191790916|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.73|63.77||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: At Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||63.77|-49.73|
95916177|NCT01976364|191790918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
95916178|NCT01976364|191790918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
95916179|NCT01976364|191790918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
95916180|NCT01976364|191790918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
95916181|NCT01976364|191790918|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.58|72.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||72.08|-59.58|
95688518|NCT01600131|191348436|SUPERIORITY||Slope|4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.034|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.034
95688519|NCT01600131|191348437|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.846|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.846
95688520|NCT01600131|191348438|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||.0442
95688521|NCT01600131|191348439|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.293|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||group X time interaction|||||0.293
95688522|NCT02075255|191348481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|16.70|<0.001
95688523|NCT02075255|191348481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|50.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||50.00|20.80|<0.001
95688524|NCT02075255|191348482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.57|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.57|2.22|<0.001
95688525|NCT02075255|191348482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|7.63|||proportional odds model|Controlling for treatment group, region, and baseline OCS dose.||||7.63|2.22|<0.001
95916182|NCT01976364|191790919|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
95916183|NCT01976364|191790919|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.9|
95688526|NCT02075255|191348483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
95688527|NCT02075255|191348483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.0|66.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges Lehmann estimate is used.|||66.70|25.00|<0.001
95688528|NCT02075255|191348484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||7.22|1.79|<0.001
95688529|NCT02075255|191348484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.86|1.57|<0.001
95688530|NCT02075255|191348485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|14.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||14.21|1.92|<0.001
95688531|NCT02075255|191348485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|11.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||11.12|1.58|0.002
95688532|NCT02075255|191348486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.83|0.21|0.012
95688533|NCT02075255|191348486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||1.01|0.27|0.053
95688534|NCT02075255|191348487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|6.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||6.23|1.60|<0.001
95688535|NCT02075255|191348487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||5.31|1.41|0.002
95688536|NCT02075255|191348488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.65|0.16|0.001
95688537|NCT02075255|191348488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlling for region.||||0.56|0.14|<0.001
95688538|NCT02075255|191348489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.66|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.66|0.22|<0.001
95916184|NCT01976364|191790919|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.1|
95688539|NCT02075255|191348489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.57|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||0.57|0.17|<0.001
95688540|NCT02075255|191348490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.64|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||1.64|0.14|0.291
95688541|NCT02075255|191348490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||Regression, Cox|Including covariates treatment group, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization or ER visit.||||0.63|0.01|0.042
95688542|NCT02075255|191348491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.45||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.76|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.76|0.27|0.003
95688543|NCT02075255|191348491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53|||negative binomial model|Including covariates treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year. The log of follow-up time is used as offset variable.||||0.53|0.17|<0.001
95688544|NCT02075255|191348492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.44||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.49|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||1.49|0.13|0.187
95916185|NCT01976364|191790919|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.6|
95688545|NCT02075255|191348492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.07||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.63|||negative binomial model|Covariates include treatment, region, any exacerbations in the previous year requiring hospitalization/ER. Log of follow-up time is the offset.||||0.63|0.01|0.018
95688546|NCT02075255|191348494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.251|-0.040|0.153
95688547|NCT02075255|191348494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.112||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline pre-BD FEV1 value, visit, and visit by treatment interaction.||||0.258|-0.033|0.129
95688548|NCT02075255|191348495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.32|-0.35|0.947
95688549|NCT02075255|191348495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.16|-0.51|0.291
95688550|NCT02075255|191348496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.18|-0.18|0.998
95688551|NCT02075255|191348496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.05|-0.30|0.177
95916186|NCT01976364|191790919|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-0.6|
95688552|NCT02075255|191348497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.17|-0.17|0.973
95688553|NCT02075255|191348497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline asthma symptom score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.23|0.480
95688554|NCT02075255|191348498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.57|-1.44|0.397
95688555|NCT02075255|191348498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.41||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline total asthma rescue medication use, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.41|-2.42|0.006
95688556|NCT02075255|191348499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.25||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.58|45.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||45.07|-6.58|0.143
95688557|NCT02075255|191348499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.01||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.26|55.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline morning PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||55.76|4.26|0.023
95688558|NCT02075255|191348500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.19||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|40.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||40.46|-10.08|0.237
95688559|NCT02075255|191348500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.52||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.32|56.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline evening PEF, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||56.71|6.32|0.014
95688560|NCT02075255|191348501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.11|-0.08|0.742
95688561|NCT02075255|191348501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline proportion of nights with noctural awakenings, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.07|-0.11|0.693
95688562|NCT02075255|191348502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.08|-0.55|0.139
95688563|NCT02075255|191348502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.23|-0.86|0.001
95688564|NCT02075255|191348503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|2.295|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||2.295|0.592|0.658
95688565|NCT02075255|191348503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.661||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.826|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, baseline ACQ-6 score, region, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.340|0.826|0.155
95916187|NCT01976364|191790921|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|11.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|38.98||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||38.98|-15.65|
95688566|NCT02075255|191348504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.53|-0.08|0.151
95688567|NCT02075255|191348504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.76|0.14|0.004
95688568|NCT02075255|191348505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.538||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|3.06|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.060|0.773|0.220
95688569|NCT02075255|191348505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.783||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|3.605|||Regression, Logistic|Including covariates: treatment group, region, baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||3.605|0.882|0.108
95688570|NCT02075255|191348509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-162.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-220.1|-104.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit|Percent change|||-104.3|-220.1|<0.001
95688571|NCT02075255|191348509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-159.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-217.9|-100.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Include covariates: treatment group, baseline eosinophil count, region, visit, treatment by visit.|Percent change|||-100.9|-217.9|<0.001
95688572|NCT01469013|191348515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95688573|NCT01469013|191348517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Armitage trend test|||||||0.009
95916188|NCT01976364|191790921|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|30.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|60.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||60.20|0.64|
95916189|NCT01976364|191790921|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|29.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|62.62||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||62.62|-3.46|
95916190|NCT01976364|191790921|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|24.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|53.47||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||53.47|-5.14|
95916191|NCT01976364|191790921|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|17.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.96|50.12||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||50.12|-15.96|
95916192|NCT01976364|191790922|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|4.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|19.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 1: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||19.60|-9.61|
95916193|NCT01976364|191790922|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.74|18.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 3: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.50|-10.74|
95916194|NCT01976364|191790922|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|17.45||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 6: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.45|-11.80|
95916195|NCT01976364|191790922|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.58|18.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 9: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||18.52|-10.58|
95916196|NCT01976364|191790922|OTHER||Difference in percentage of participants|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.63|17.37||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Month 12: Two-sided 95% CI was based on the normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions.||17.37|-11.63|
95916197|NCT01976364|191790923|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-1.5|
95916198|NCT01976364|191790923|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-1.6|
95916199|NCT01976364|191790923|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-1.0|
95916200|NCT01976364|191790923|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.9|-0.9|
95916201|NCT01976364|191790923|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.1|-0.7|
95916202|NCT01976364|191790924|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.3|
95916203|NCT01976364|191790924|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.6|-0.6|
95727589|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.7||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.7|
95688621|NCT05136885|191348732|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.111|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|1.102||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. (Trehalose) slowed progression) was (0.8772). NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by Trehalose relative to placebo.Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, baseline use of Relyvrio, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, serum NfL concentration and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.102|0.665|
95688622|NCT05136885|191348734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.7607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.97|-4.06|0.7607
95688623|NCT05136885|191348735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.204||0.7737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope, and baseline log-transformed NfL.|Trehalose 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||7.21|-5.37|0.7737
95688624|NCT05136885|191348736|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2137
95688625|NCT02658656|191348751|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.85|||Chi-squared|||||1.85|.45|0.798
95688626|NCT02658656|191348752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.15|||Chi-squared|||||2.15|0.44|0.935
95688627|NCT02658656|191348753|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.49|0.829
95688628|NCT02658656|191348754|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.11|||Chi-squared|||||2.11|0.56|0.809
95688629|NCT02658656|191348755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.47|||Chi-squared|||||2.47|0.54|0.717
95688630|NCT02658656|191348756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.02|||Chi-squared|||||2.02|0.61|0.738
95688631|NCT04400318|191348782|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|30.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI) of the odds ratio and p-value between the dupilumab and placebo group based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by ICS dose level (medium/high) and region (Eastern Europe/ROW).||30.82|3.13|<0.001
95688632|NCT04400318|191348783|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|21.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.022||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|51.25|||MMRM|||The mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) included study intervention, baseline value, region, ICS dose level, visits, study intervention by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction terms all as fixed effects. Region, ICS, study intervention and visits were considered as categorical parameters.||51.25|-7.73|0.138
95727590|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.4||||||95.0|-5.1|2.2||||||For Pertussis, PT the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 11 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-5.1|
95688633|NCT04400318|191348784|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-4.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.798|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|-3.34|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of global lung UCSF mucus scoring, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-3.34|-6.50|<0.001
95916204|NCT01976364|191790924|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.5|-0.4|
95916205|NCT01976364|191790924|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-0.3|
95916206|NCT01976364|191790924|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.3|-0.5|
95916207|NCT01976364|191790925|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|3.02||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.02|-2.51|
95916208|NCT01976364|191790925|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|4.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.18|-2.64|
95916209|NCT01976364|191790925|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|3.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.20|-2.26|
95916210|NCT01976364|191790925|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.81|-1.46|
95916211|NCT01976364|191790925|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|3.01||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.01|-3.25|
95916212|NCT01976364|191790926|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|1.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.52|-5.58|
95916213|NCT01976364|191790926|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|3.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.84|-4.69|
95916214|NCT01976364|191790926|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|6.06||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.06|-3.48|
95916215|NCT01976364|191790926|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.32|-4.03|
95916216|NCT01976364|191790926|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|4.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||4.38|-4.64|
95916217|NCT01976364|191790927|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|2.74||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.74|-4.96|
95916218|NCT01976364|191790927|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.11|2.65||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.65|-5.11|
95916219|NCT01976364|191790927|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|5.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.69|-3.78|
95916220|NCT01976364|191790927|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|6.93||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||6.93|-2.92|
95688634|NCT04400318|191348785|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measure is reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05. Only 2 secondary outcome measures (#4 and #5) were included in this procedure.|Least square mean difference|-53.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|39.562||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-132.09|25.19|||MMRM|||MMRM model included study intervention (dupilumab, placebo), baseline value of trimmed distal \[s\]iRaw at TLC, region (Eastern Europe/ROW), ICS dose level (medium/high), visit (up to Week 24), study intervention-by-visit interaction, and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||25.19|-132.09|0.180
95688635|NCT01850563|191348808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
95688636|NCT01850563|191348810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||||||0.76
95688637|NCT03151148|191348818|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.06|0.29|0.075
95688638|NCT03151148|191348819|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.28||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.51|0.044
95688639|NCT03151148|191348820|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.13|||Negative Binomial Regression|Negative binomial generalized linear model, adjusting for site, offset by follow-up days within the outcome measure time frame|TMT represents the numerator, placebo represents the denominator|||1.13|0.36|0.121
95688640|NCT03151148|191348821|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.04|||Chi-squared||95% exact unconditional confidence interval is based on the Santner and Snell method|||-0.04|-0.46|0.053
95688641|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.76||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|16.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.226|0.469|0.261
95688642|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.41||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.069|2.393|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.393|0.069|0.319
95688643|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.02||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|6.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.027|0.174|0.978
95688644|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.44||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|20.749|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.749|0.570|0.177
95727591|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5.0 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95688645|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.7||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|9.973|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.973|0.288|0.558
95688646|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.04||||0.977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|13.151|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.151|0.082|0.977
95688647|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|33.86||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|429.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||429.219|2.672|0.007
95688648|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.97||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.945|151.752|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||151.752|0.945|0.055
95688649|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.93||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.062|13.875|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.875|0.062|0.957
95688650|NCT03151148|191348826|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.78||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|22.607|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||22.607|0.141|0.654
95688651|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.722||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2227|33.2594|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||33.2594|0.2227|0.432
95688652|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.147||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0121|1.8018|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.8018|0.0121|0.133
95688653|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.371||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0304|4.5392|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.5392|0.0304|0.437
95688654|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.247||||0.863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1002|15.5231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.5231|0.1002|0.863
95688655|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.615||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0503|7.5106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.5106|0.0503|0.702
95688656|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.465||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0128|16.8576|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||16.8576|0.0128|0.675
95688657|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|32.638||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8994|1184.4298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1184.4298|0.8994|0.057
95688658|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.539||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.318|418.7586|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||418.7586|0.3180|0.181
95688659|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.895||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0219|36.5559|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.5559|0.0219|0.953
95688660|NCT03151148|191348828|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.719||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0474|62.3828|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||62.3828|0.0474|0.767
95688661|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.395||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5429|3.5835|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.5835|0.5429|0.488
95688662|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.823||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1038|7.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.2210|1.1038|0.030
95688663|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.077||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8122|5.3135|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.3135|0.8122|0.127
95688664|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.789||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3065|2.0331|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.0331|0.3065|0.623
95688665|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.627||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|1.6028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6028|0.2450|0.328
95688666|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.231||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5799|8.5866|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.5866|0.5799|0.242
95688667|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.977||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5137|7.6055|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.6055|0.5137|0.321
95688668|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.86||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4833|7.1564|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.1564|0.4833|0.366
95688669|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.713||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.908|15.1856|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.1856|0.9080|0.068
95688670|NCT03151148|191348830|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.858||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7328|11.1434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||11.1434|0.7328|0.130
95688671|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.16||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|20.952|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||20.952|0.476|0.233
95688672|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.08||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.514|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.514|0.012|0.008
95688673|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.298|0.007|0.001
95688674|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.651|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.651|0.013|0.017
95688675|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.04||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.292|0.007|0.001
95688676|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|15.967|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.967|0.366|0.358
95688677|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.1||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.683|0.016|0.019
95727592|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 7.82 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95727593|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||For Pertussis, FHA the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 99 EU/mL threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.6|
95916221|NCT01976364|191790927|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|5.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||5.35|-4.03|
95916222|NCT01976364|191790928|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1444|1.8374||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.8374|-2.1444|
95916223|NCT01976364|191790928|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9054|0.7735||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7735|-1.9054|
95916224|NCT01976364|191790928|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0053|1.4071||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.4071|-3.0053|
95916225|NCT01976364|191790928|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0626|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5767|1.7018||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7018|-1.5767|
95916226|NCT01976364|191790928|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3672|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8107|2.545||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5450|-1.8107|
95916227|NCT01976364|191790929|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.51||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.51|-0.85|
95916228|NCT01976364|191790929|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-1.04|
95916229|NCT01976364|191790929|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.55||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.55|-2.09|
95916230|NCT01976364|191790929|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.91||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.91|-2.44|
95916231|NCT01976364|191790929|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|2.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.00|-0.96|
95688678|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.11||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|0.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.739|0.017|0.023
95688679|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.09||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.013|0.647|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.647|0.013|0.017
95916232|NCT01976364|191790930|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.29||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.29|-2.22|
95916233|NCT01976364|191790930|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|0.92||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.92|-2.65|
95916234|NCT01976364|191790930|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|1.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.36|-2.68|
95916235|NCT01976364|191790930|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|2.83||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.83|-1.31|
95916236|NCT01976364|191790930|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.84||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.84|-2.01|
95916237|NCT01976364|191790931|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.09|
95688680|NCT03151148|191348831|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.37||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|2.436|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.436|0.056|0.299
95688681|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.49||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|5.380|0.415|0.538
95688682|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.88||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.245|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.180|0.245|0.849
95688683|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.424|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.424|0.110|0.155
95688684|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.45||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|1.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.722|0.117|0.242
95688685|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.47||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.735|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.735|0.129|0.258
95688686|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.26||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.349|4.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.520|0.349|0.726
95688687|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.32||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.145|0.088|0.080
95688688|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.81||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.917|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.917|0.225|0.748
95916238|NCT01976364|191790931|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.73|-1.39|
95688689|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.23||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|4.617|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.617|0.327|0.760
95688690|NCT03151148|191348832|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.79||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.832|0.219|0.713
95688691|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.524|41.435|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||41.435|3.524|<0.001
95688692|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.58||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|8.853|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.853|0.753|0.131
95688693|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.2||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|7.527|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.527|0.640|0.210
95688694|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.138|13.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||13.290|1.138|0.031
95688695|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.64||||0.429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.479|5.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.630|0.479|0.429
95688696|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|9.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.712|50.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||50.043|1.712|0.010
95688697|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.45||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.637|18.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||18.627|0.637|0.150
95688698|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|5.47||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|29.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||29.578|1.012|0.048
95688699|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.98||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.665|23.821|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||23.821|0.665|0.130
95688700|NCT03151148|191348833|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|13.74||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.542|74.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||74.304|2.542|0.002
95688701|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.68||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.689|8.028|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.028|1.689|0.001
95688702|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.109|5.267|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.267|1.109|0.027
95688703|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|3.847|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.847|0.810|0.153
95688704|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|3.884|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.884|0.799|0.160
95688705|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.32||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.603|2.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.868|0.603|0.489
95688706|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.1||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|9.295|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.295|1.032|0.044
95688707|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.87||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.614|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.614|0.290|0.805
95688708|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.62||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|10.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||10.859|1.205|0.022
95688709|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|4.83||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.458|15.978|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||15.978|1.458|0.010
95688710|NCT03151148|191348834|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.19||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|6.692|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs Non-Lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.692|0.716|0.169
95688711|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.176||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0351|0.8807|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.8807|0.0351|0.035
95688712|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.214||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0427|1.0702|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0702|0.0427|0.060
95688713|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.182||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0363|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.9100|0.0363|0.038
95688714|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.329||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|1.6691|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.6691|0.0650|0.179
95688715|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.136||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0271|0.6805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.6805|0.0271|0.015
95688716|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.302||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0299|3.0493|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.0493|0.0299|0.309
95916239|NCT01976364|191790931|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.08||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.08|-2.15|
95916240|NCT01976364|191790931|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.13||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.13|-1.49|
95916241|NCT01976364|191790931|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.86||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.86|-1.89|
95916242|NCT01976364|191790932|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|2.05||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.05|-1.08|
95916243|NCT01976364|191790932|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.99||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.99|-0.49|
95916244|NCT01976364|191790932|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.31|-0.91|
95916245|NCT01976364|191790932|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|1.96||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.96|-1.57|
95916246|NCT01976364|191790932|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|3.52||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.52|-0.06|
95916247|NCT01976364|191790933|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.42||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.42|-1.01|
95916248|NCT01976364|191790933|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.18||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.18|-1.49|
95916249|NCT01976364|191790933|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.09|-3.70|
95727594|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 5 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95916250|NCT01976364|191790933|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.48||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.48|-3.99|
95916251|NCT01976364|191790933|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.69|-2.30|
95916252|NCT01976364|191790934|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.69||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.69|-2.05|
95688717|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.372||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0369|3.7569|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.7569|0.0369|0.401
95688718|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.591||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0586|5.9658|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.9658|0.0586|0.655
95688719|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.43||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0395|4.6836|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||4.6836|0.0395|0.488
95688720|NCT03151148|191348835|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.485||||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1471|14.9869|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||14.9869|0.1471|0.737
95688721|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.248||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0844|0.7281|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||0.7281|0.0844|0.011
95688722|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.656||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2245|1.9178|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.9178|0.2245|0.440
95688723|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.479||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|1.4007|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4007|0.1640|0.178
95688724|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.478||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1624|1.4091|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.4091|0.1624|0.180
95688725|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.357||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1222|1.0441|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within TMT at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.0441|0.1222|0.060
95688726|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.498||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1068|2.3188|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 0~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2.3188|0.1068|0.373
95688727|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.281||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0604|1.3106|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.3106|0.0604|0.106
95688728|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.168||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2507|5.4434|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.4434|0.2507|0.843
95688729|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.559||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3122|7.7818|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||7.7818|0.3122|0.587
95688730|NCT03151148|191348836|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.707||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1495|3.3426|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Change from baseline is based on the difference in log10 post-baseline and log10 baseline values. Lesional represents the numerator and Non-Lesional the denominator.|"Lesional vs. Non-lesional within Placebo at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.3426|0.1495|0.661
95916253|NCT01976364|191790934|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.31||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.31|-2.57|
95916254|NCT01976364|191790934|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.56||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.56|-2.17|
95916255|NCT01976364|191790934|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-1.54|
95916256|NCT01976364|191790934|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-1.46|
95916257|NCT01976364|191790935|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.35||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.35|-2.06|
95688731|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1197.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|525.563|2726.953|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||2726.953|525.563|<0.001
95916258|NCT01976364|191790935|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.79||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.79|-2.51|
95916259|NCT01976364|191790935|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|0.23||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.23|-3.66|
95916260|NCT01976364|191790935|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|1.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.32|-2.25|
95916261|NCT01976364|191790935|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|2.73||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.73|-0.82|
95727595|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-1.7||||||95.0|-5.8|2.3||||||For Pertussis, PRN the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 69 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.3|-5.8|
95688732|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|779.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|342.093|1774.996|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1774.996|342.093|<0.001
95688733|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|673.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|295.697|1534.265|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1534.265|295.697|<0.001
95688734|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|60.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.92|145.027|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|145.027|24.920|<0.001
95688735|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.79||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.636|8.767|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.767|1.636|0.002
95688736|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|757.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|331.143|1732.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1732.242|331.143|<0.001
95688737|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|199.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.636|455.127|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||455.127|87.636|<0.001
95727596|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.7|-2.5|
95727597|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95916262|NCT01976364|191790936|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|2.82||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.82|-1.27|
95916263|NCT01976364|191790936|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.46|1.71||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.71|-2.46|
95688738|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|508.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.113|1158.715|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."|All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|1158.715|223.113|<0.001
95688739|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|107.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.568|255.313|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||255.313|45.568|<0.001
95688740|NCT03151148|191348837|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|16.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.058|36.657|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||36.657|7.058|<0.001
95688741|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|142.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.484|349.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||349.119|58.484|<0.001
95688742|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|35.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.402|85.972|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||85.972|14.402|<0.001
95688743|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|41.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.043|101.739|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||101.739|17.043|<0.001
95688744|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.61||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.395|9.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||9.330|1.395|0.008
95688745|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|1.39||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.561|3.458|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||3.458|0.561|0.474
95727598|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||0.8|-2.8|
95854537|NCT01668784|191668783|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99|||Log Rank|Log-rank Test stratified by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, number of prior anti-angiogenic therapies, and the region.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio is nivolumab over everolimus.|||0.99|0.72|0.0340
95854538|NCT01668784|191668789|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Cox Proportional hazard Model|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.63|0.0001
95854539|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
95688746|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|266.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|108.86|654.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||654.231|108.860|<0.001
95688747|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.907|124.768|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||124.768|20.907|<0.001
95688748|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|74.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.686|183.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||183.125|30.686|<0.001
95688749|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|26.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.262|66.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||66.169|10.262|<0.001
95688750|NCT03151148|191348838|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|3.41||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|8.338|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||8.338|1.397|0.007
95688751|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.692|120.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||120.379|21.692|<0.001
95688752|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|12.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.463|30.317|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||30.317|5.463|<0.001
95916264|NCT01976364|191790936|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|1.57||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.57|-2.72|
95688753|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.863|26.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||26.986|4.863|<0.001
95688754|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.42||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|6.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||6.024|0.971|0.058
95688755|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|0.75||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.805|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||1.805|0.315|0.526
95688756|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|55.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.49|131.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 0 (post-treatment)~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||131.279|23.490|<0.001
95727599|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
95688757|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|27.755|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 4~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.755|5.000|<0.001
95688758|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|23.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.833|54.579|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 7~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||54.579|9.833|<0.001
95688759|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|11.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.516|27.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 8~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||27.052|4.516|<0.001
95688760|NCT03151148|191348839|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio (GMR)|2.43||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|5.724|||Mixed Models Analysis||All reported statistics are back-transformed into the original units of measurement. Baseline is defined as the pre-dose value at treatment initiation/Day 0. TMT represents the numerator and Placebo the denominator.|"TMT vs Placebo on Non-lesional Skin at Day 11~A random effects linear model with the log10 transformed numeric response variable was used, adjusting for treatment group, baseline value, site, lesional swab status, and study day, in addition to all pairwise interactions between day, group and lesional swab status and a 3-way interaction. Random effects of subject and time point nested within subject were also included in the model."||5.724|1.031|0.042
95688761|NCT04688346|191348844|NON_INFERIORITY|t-test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95688762|NCT02778867|191348868|OTHER|||||||0.58||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two-sided||||||0.58
95688763|NCT02778867|191348869|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||α \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|Two sided||||||0.06
95688764|NCT02778867|191348872|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95688765|NCT02778867|191348873|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||α \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Two sample t-test||||||0.22
95688766|NCT02778867|191348874|OTHER|||||||0.71||||||α \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95688767|NCT04011436|191348875|SUPERIORITY|In the bivariate analysis, a comparison was initially made of each of the domains of the Kujala test, for the assessment of pain at baseline, assessing the differences between the intervention groups using the chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between two continuous variables, such as Q angle and anterior knee pain, assessing the correlation marginally and conditionally on each of the treatment groups.|difference in frequency distribution|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.025|0.05|||Fisher Exact|we also used Chi-squared for the domains of pain and limp.||||0.05|0.025|<0.05
95688768|NCT04011436|191348876|SUPERIORITY|For the analysis of the differences in medians between the groups, taking into account that the outcomes did not present a normal distribution, and assuming the assumption of independence of the variables, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.058|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was done for the assessment of change in pain with Visual Analogue Scale.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
95688769|NCT04011436|191348877|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for Change in Patellofemoral Misalignment With Q Angle´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
95688770|NCT04011436|191348878|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated Value was calculated for the change in core strength with McGill´s Exam.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
95688771|NCT04011436|191348879|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Quadriceps and Gluteus Strength With Squat´s Test.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||||<0.05
95688772|NCT04011436|191348880|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in Static Balance with Single Leg Stance.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
95688773|NCT04011436|191348881|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.492|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||"Estimated value was calculated for the change in the total amount of Physical Activity reported in minutes.~The dispersion parameter that was calculated were interquartile ranges for the differences in medians between groups."|||<0.05
95688774|NCT04760314|191348882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|33.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||33.6|11.6|<0.001
95688775|NCT04760314|191348882|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|37.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.0|17.5|<0.001
95688776|NCT04760314|191348883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|45.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.8|20.6|<0.001
95688777|NCT04760314|191348883|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|49.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||49.0|26.2|<0.001
95688778|NCT04760314|191348884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-34.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-24.9|||ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-44.1|<0.001
95688779|NCT04760314|191348884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7|-30.3|||ANCOVA|||||-30.3|-47.7|<0.001
95688780|NCT04760314|191348885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.4||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|29.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.9|6.8|0.003
95688781|NCT04760314|191348885|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|34.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.5|13.9|<0.001
95688782|NCT04760314|191348886|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.6|-1.2|0.404
95688783|NCT04760314|191348887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.1|-1.6|0.294
95688784|NCT04760314|191348887|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.8|-0.5|0.138
95688785|NCT04760314|191348888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|1.8|0.013
95688786|NCT04760314|191348888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|16.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|24.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|8.1|0.001
95688787|NCT04760314|191348889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|32.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||32.4|8.7|0.001
95688788|NCT04760314|191348889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.4|17.9|<0.001
95688789|NCT00960440|191348890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|23.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.45|34.92||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||34.92|12.45|<0.0001
95688790|NCT00960440|191348890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|17.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.06|28.41||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||28.41|6.06|0.0024
95688791|NCT00960440|191348891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.17||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Least squares mean difference (LS Mean Difference) and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.38|<0.0001
95688792|NCT00960440|191348891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.15||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as the comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean Difference and corresponding 95% CI was calculated using a mixed effect repeated measure model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and geographic region as fixed effects and participants as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.36|<0.0001
95688793|NCT00960440|191348892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|15.51||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For the comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||15.51|3.54|0.0017
95688794|NCT00960440|191348892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|10.1||Step-down procedure: For the comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, the comparison of 10 mg to placebo as well as comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI was evaluated for the difference in percentages.||10.10|0.00|0.0496
95688795|NCT03504774|191348941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis of the change from baseline in CD28 expression||||0.30
95688796|NCT03504774|191348942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.82
95688797|NCT03504774|191348942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis on the change from baseline to week 58||||0.053
95688798|NCT03504774|191348942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.062
95688799|NCT03504774|191348942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 52||||0.30
95916265|NCT01976364|191790936|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|2.36||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.36|-1.81|
95688800|NCT03504774|191348942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from baseline to week 58||||0.54
95688801|NCT03504774|191348942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change from week 52 to week 58||||0.82
95688802|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.25
95688803|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.8||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.24
95688804|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.0||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.61
95688805|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 52||||0.034
95688806|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from baseline to week 58||||0.45
95688807|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.7||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in INFG from week 52 to week 58||||0.12
95688808|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.83
95688809|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.67
95688810|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.80
95688811|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 52||||0.46
95688812|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from baseline to week 58||||0.48
95688813|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL4 from week 52 to week 58||||0.25
95688814|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.14
95688815|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.73
95688816|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.16
95688817|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 52||||0.47
95688818|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from baseline to week 58||||0.84
95688819|NCT03504774|191348943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in IL10 from week 52 to week 58||||0.55
95688820|NCT03504774|191348944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2269.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.23
95688821|NCT03504774|191348944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1311.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.12
95688822|NCT03504774|191348944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|958.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.79
95688823|NCT03504774|191348944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|347.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 52||||0.29
95916266|NCT01976364|191790936|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|2.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.63|-1.58|
95916267|NCT01976364|191790937|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|0.32||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.32|-3.67|
95916268|NCT01976364|191790937|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.63||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.63|-2.86|
95916269|NCT01976364|191790937|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|2.09||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.09|-2.27|
95688824|NCT03504774|191348944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4364.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from baseline to week 58||||0.29
95688825|NCT03504774|191348944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4017.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||within-group analysis of change in GPR15 from week 52 to week 58||||0.42
95688826|NCT02988986|191348962|SUPERIORITY|Based on prior data for Ki67 changes in the tamoxifen arm alone, we will assume null hypothesis and alternative hypotheses of 60% and 80% reduction in Ki67, respectively. A sample of 25 patients will provide 86% power to detect the hypothesized reduction in Ki67 with 5% alpha based on a two-sided, one sample t-test of mean percent change in Ki67 level.|||||=|0.0023|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint was the change in Ki67 after 6 weeks of treatment.||||=0.0023
95688827|NCT00634543|191348974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority was demonstrated if lower confidence limit of 2-sided 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 1.39.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.01|||t-test, 2 sided|P-value was calculated for change from baseline in pain intensity score at Day 43.||||1.01|-0.23|0.2143
95688828|NCT00634543|191348975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7539|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 15.||||||0.7539
95688829|NCT00634543|191348975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5905|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 29.||||||0.5905
95688830|NCT00634543|191348975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7407|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for pain relief in tramadol hydrochloride/ acetaminophen versus gabapentin groups at Day 43.||||||0.7407
95688831|NCT00634543|191348976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.3504
95688832|NCT00634543|191348977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Chi-squared|P-value was evaluated for all categories (bad, no change, good and very good).||||||0.5690
95688833|NCT04315363|191348983|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the primary outcome changes (i.e., sedentary time) before and after the intervention.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95688834|NCT04315363|191348984|EQUIVALENCE|Two by two Mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) models (i.e., within-subject effect: pre- and post- intervention \* between-subject effect: intervention and control group) were estimated to investigate the secondary outcome changes (i.e., moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) before and after the intervention.||||||0.35|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.35
95688835|NCT03350750|191349035|SUPERIORITY||ANCOVA Model Effect (Open vs. Closed)|0.22||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.46|||ANCOVA||This is the coefficient for an indicator variable comparing the Open versus Closed shunt group, in a linear regression model with Month 4 gait velocity as the outcome and Baseline gait velocity included as a predictor along with treatment.|||0.46|-0.02|0.071
95688836|NCT03350750|191349036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
95688837|NCT03350750|191349037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95688838|NCT03350750|191349038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.201
95688839|NCT03350750|191349039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.172
95916270|NCT01976364|191790937|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|2.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.95|-1.49|
95688840|NCT03350750|191349040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
95688841|NCT03350750|191349041|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95688842|NCT03350750|191349042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.240
95688843|NCT03350750|191349043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95688844|NCT03350750|191349044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
95688845|NCT03350750|191349045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95688846|NCT03350750|191349046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.013
95688847|NCT03350750|191349047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test with a mid-p-value correction||||||0.235
95688848|NCT05232097|191349050|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: the median of differences of the rumination score before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.005
95688849|NCT05232097|191349051|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the same number of patients has intragastric pressure peaks indicating rumination before and after therapy.||||0.11
95688850|NCT05232097|191349052|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: The differences of means of 15D before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.060
95688851|NCT05232097|191349053|OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The median of differences of WHODAS 2.0 before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.865
95916271|NCT01976364|191790937|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.53||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.53|-3.10|
95916272|NCT01976364|191790938|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|2.81||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.81|-0.95|
95688852|NCT05232097|191349054|OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis : the differences of median BDI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||0.149
95688853|NCT05232097|191349055|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median of BAI before and after behavioral therapy equals 0.||||1.000
95688854|NCT05232097|191349056|OTHER|||||||0.102|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: The differences of median weight before and after therapy equals 0.||||0.102
95688855|NCT00700752|191349063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1887|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.1636|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A minus balafilcon A.|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A for comfort.||1.1636|0.7890|
95688856|NCT02760407|191349090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.183|0.352|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q4w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 50% resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rates of 25 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.352|0.183|<0.0001
95688857|NCT02760407|191349090|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.171|0.341|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The OKZ ACR20 response rate for the 64 mg q2w treatment group at Week 12 was expected to be at least 55%, resulting in an expected difference in ACR20 response rate of 30 percentage points between the respective OKZ treatment group and placebo. Sample size yield 100% disjunctive power for testing the primary hypothesis||0.341|0.171|<0.0001
95688858|NCT02760407|191349091|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.224|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|0.298|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The ACR20 response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 52.5% at Week 12.||0.298|0.148|<0.0001
95688859|NCT02760407|191349091|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.022|0.112||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.112|-0.022|
95688860|NCT02760407|191349091|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined non-inferiority margin of -12%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.035|0.102||||||A noninferiority margin of 12% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.102|-0.035|
95688861|NCT02760407|191349092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.332|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.257|0.397|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 22% in the 64 mg q4w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 12 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.397|0.257|<0.0001
95688862|NCT02760407|191349092|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.25|0.391|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity (based on DAS28 \[CRP\] \<3.2) response rate at Week 12 is estimated to be 10% in the placebo group and 30% in the 64 mg q2w OKZ group, resulting in an expected difference of 20 percentage points between respective OKZ group and placebo.||0.391|0.250|<0.0001
95688863|NCT02760407|191349093|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.256|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.313|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||The DAS28 low disease activity response rate for adalimumab was expected to be at least 27% at Week 12.||0.313|0.191|<0.0001
95688864|NCT02760407|191349093|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.004|0.147||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.147|0.004|
95688865|NCT02760407|191349093|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority for each OKZ dosing regimen versus Adalimumab is achieved if the lower limit of the 97.5% confidence interval is greater than the protocol defined noninferiority margin of -7.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.069|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.003|0.141||||||A noninferiority margin of 7.5% was used for the comparison between OKZ and adalimumab with respect to this endpoint.||0.141|-0.003|
95688866|NCT02760407|191349094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||||-0.09|-0.29|<0.0001
95688867|NCT02760407|191349094|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.33|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||||-0.12|-0.33|<0.0001
95688868|NCT02760407|191349094|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.1||||||||-0.10|-0.28|
95688869|NCT02760407|191349095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.275|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.192|0.349|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.349|0.192|<0.0001
95688870|NCT02760407|191349095|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.278|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.195|0.353|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.353|0.195|<0.0001
95688871|NCT02760407|191349095|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.237|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|0.303||||||||0.303|0.165|
95688872|NCT02760407|191349096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.031|0.123|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.123|0.031|0.0003
95688873|NCT02760407|191349096|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.069||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.02|0.111|||Chi-squared|2x2 chi-square test||||0.111|0.020|0.001
95688874|NCT02760407|191349096|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.089|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.127||||||||0.127|0.046|
95688875|NCT01765712|191349116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.03|-1.99|0.55
95688876|NCT02137772|191349146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-14.6||A 1-sided p-value ≤0.0249 for the risk difference was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.6|-32.5|<0.0001
95688877|NCT02137772|191349147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
95688878|NCT02137772|191349148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|-22.6||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.6|-39.9|<0.0001
95688879|NCT02137772|191349149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4||||0.4056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.2||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||3.2|-4.0|0.4056
95688880|NCT02137772|191349150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.2258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.5||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||1.5|-3.5|0.2258
95688881|NCT02137772|191349151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-31.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.6|-22.4||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-22.4|-39.6|<0.0001
95688882|NCT02137772|191349152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|-23.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-14.3||Nominal 1-sided p-value|Mantel Haenszel|The Mantel Haenszel analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||-14.3|-32.3|<0.0001
95688883|NCT02137772|191349153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Nominal 2-sided p-value|Log Rank|The log rank test analysis was adjusted for sample size for each stratum (high or low risk for CMV reactivation)||||||<0.0001
95688884|NCT01422304|191349196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method was stratified for renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min) and prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including low molecular weight heparin \[LMWH\], including unfractionated heparin \[UFH\], or not including either LMWH or UFH)||1.29|0.38|
95688885|NCT01422304|191349197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR) (%)|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|7.3|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||7.3|3.7|
95688886|NCT01422304|191349197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|2.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline aPTT value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of aPTT values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.8|-0.9|
95727600|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|2.9||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.9|-2.1|
95727601|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.3|
95727602|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||3.8|-2.1|
95688887|NCT01422304|191349198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.7|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 10 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||4.7|1.3|
95688888|NCT01422304|191349198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR (%)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model included those in APaT population with any baseline or post baseline PT(INR) value in 10 or 60 minute window (Sugammadex, Usual Care N=567, 548)|Estimate of difference in Sugammadex versus Usual Care change from baseline at 60 minutes post dose calculated with log of PT(INR) values as dependent variable. Results transformed back to GMR of respective changes (expressed as %, = \[GMR - 1\]\*100).|Model was restricted to have no difference between treatment groups for baseline assessment, and was adjusted for center, usual care group (active reversal or spontaneous recovery), renal function (estimated creatinine clearance \< or ≥ 60 mL/min), prophylactic antithrombotic therapy (including LMWH, including UFH, or not including either LMWH or UFH), type of hip/knee surgical procedure, and the interaction of time by treatment.||2.9|-1.0|
95688889|NCT01422304|191349199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.8|-3.0|
95688890|NCT01422304|191349200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||0.5|-3.4|
95688891|NCT01422304|191349201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.2|-3.1|
95688892|NCT01422304|191349202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||1.5|-0.7|
95688893|NCT01422304|191349204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.0|30.5|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A negative value indicates that the average adjusted drainage volume was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site.||30.5|-45.0|
95688894|NCT01422304|191349205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence, adjusted for strata and investigational site|Miettinen and Nurminen Method was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site||2.0|-7.4|
95688895|NCT01422304|191349206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.24|||Generalized Linear Model||GMR is Sugammadex versus Usual Care|Generalized Linear Model was applied to transfusion volume transformed to the log-scale, adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy) and investigational site. Result and 95% Confidence Interval was transformed back to the original scale.||1.24|0.98|
95688896|NCT01422304|191349207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.1|||Generalized Linear Model||Difference is Sugammadex versus Usual Care. A positive value indicates that the average adjusted reduction in Hgb at Visit 3 (bleeding index) was lower in the sugammadex treatment group.|Generalized Linear Model was adjusted for strata (renal function and use of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy), investigational site and baseline hemoglobin value.||3.1|-0.4|
95688897|NCT01422304|191349208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (%)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Risk difference (%) = Sugammadex incidence - Usual Care incidence|||3.1|-6.3|
95688898|NCT02989727|191349233|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.59
95688899|NCT02989727|191349234|SUPERIORITY||ANOVA estimate|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Weighted ANOVA models were used to compare change scores between lamotrigine and placebo groups while testing for interactions by melancholic status. The estimate and test reported is for the the interaction between treatment condition and melancholic status.||||.84
95916273|NCT01976364|191790938|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.95||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.95|-1.72|
95688900|NCT02989727|191349235|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.08
95688901|NCT02989727|191349235|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at anytime point and 0 indicating no response."||||.53
95688902|NCT02989727|191349243|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.02
95688903|NCT02989727|191349243|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||"Weighted Cox regression with treatment condition (lamotrigine vs. placebo) predicting treatment response. Response is defined as a score reduction of at least 50% from baseline. The outcome variable is binary coded with 1 being a response at any time point and 0 indicating no response."||||.73
95688904|NCT00515463|191349251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7|||||Risk difference \> 0 indicates that incidence of binding anti-denosumab antibodies in denosumab PFS is greater than denosumab vial. 95% CI based on a normal approximation with continuity correction.|||0.7|-0.7|
95688905|NCT00515463|191349252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-0.7|0.7||||||||0.7|-0.7|
95688906|NCT00916721|191349325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Multiple significance testing:we adjusted p-value by controlling the expected proportion of falsely rejected hypotheses:false discovery rate,Benjamini||||||0.05
95727603|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.8|
95688907|NCT00121810|191349343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.7||||0.012||95.0|4.2|33.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that mean percent change from baseline to 12 months for Group 1 (mycophenolate mofetil + sirolimus) was equal to that for Group 2 (mycophenolate mofetil + cyclosporine or tacrolimus) based on the intent-to-treat population.||33.2|4.2|0.012
95688908|NCT00121810|191349344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3||||0.543||95.0|-9.6|18.2||P value comparing the treatment groups calculated using ANCOVA model treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) type as factors and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||18.2|-9.6|0.543
95688909|NCT00121810|191349345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-10.8||||0.003||95.0|-17.9|-3.7||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||-3.7|-17.9|0.003
95688910|NCT00121810|191349345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0||||0.108||95.0|-35.4|3.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||3.5|-35.4|0.108
95688911|NCT00121810|191349345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.4||||0.039||95.0|-47.7|-1.2||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||-1.2|-47.7|0.039
95688912|NCT00121810|191349346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.7|||<|0.001||95.0|4.1|13.3||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||13.3|4.1|<0.001
95688913|NCT00121810|191349346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.9||||0.029||95.0|0.7|13.1||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||13.1|0.7|0.029
95688914|NCT00121810|191349346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.8||||0.015||95.0|1.7|15.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||15.9|1.7|0.015
95688915|NCT00121810|191349347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5|||<|0.001||95.0|4.2|12.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||6 months||12.9|4.2|<0.001
95688916|NCT00121810|191349347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.8||||0.059||95.0|-0.2|11.9||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||12 months||11.9|-0.2|0.059
95688917|NCT00121810|191349347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5||||0.036||95.0|0.5|14.5||P value comparing the two treatment groups is calculated using ANCOVA with treatment and baseline calcineurin inhibitor type (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) as factors, and baseline measurement and time from transplant to randomization as covariates.|ANCOVA|||24 months||14.5|0.5|0.036
95688918|NCT01354691|191349348|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.67|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.67
95688919|NCT01354691|191349349|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.21|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.21
95688920|NCT01354691|191349350|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.78|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.78
95688921|NCT01354691|191349351|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.83|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.83
95688922|NCT01354691|191349352|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.77|||||||ANCOVA|||||||=.77
95688923|NCT00633139|191349353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4013
95688924|NCT00633139|191349354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2750
95688925|NCT00633139|191349355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1363
95688926|NCT03059810|191349418|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|5.9|||Linear mixed model (LMM)|A 95% Confidence Interval for the least squares mean difference between the follow up and baseline was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (at 12-16 days follow up) - Habitual (at baseline)|It was a single arm study and the subjects' overall vision was compared against the baseline with the habitual lens. Sample size was determined using Power procedure in SAS 9.4 using the input from historical data (alpha=0.05).||5.9|-4.6|
95688927|NCT03478878|191349430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.83||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.43|13.11||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 2 for Cohort 1)."||13.11|-9.43|0.705
95688928|NCT03478878|191349430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|31.02||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the treatment completion visit (Month 1 for Cohort 2)."||31.02|-27.43|0.577
95688929|NCT03478878|191349431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|11.35||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 3 for Cohort 1)."||11.35|-7.60|0.646
95688930|NCT03478878|191349431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|23.9||Result of statistical analyses were considered significant if the p-value from the two-sided test was \<0.05. No adjustments for multiplicity were made.|Student's paired t-test||The estimate was the difference in mean change in RIT between baseline and the treatment completion visit.|"Analysis: Student's paired t-test on study eyes alone at a two-sided Type I error rate of 5%.~Null hypothesis: the mean RIT at Baseline = the mean RIT at the post-treatment follow-up visit (Month 2 for Cohort 2)."||23.90|-19.30|0.405
95688931|NCT04657016|191349463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-22.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.8|-26.1|<0.001
95688932|NCT04657016|191349464|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|130.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.98|242.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||242.84|69.98|<0.001
95688933|NCT04657016|191349465|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|101.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.17|263.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||263.55|39.17|<0.001
95688934|NCT04657016|191349466|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|153.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.9|300.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||300.37|78.90|<0.001
95688935|NCT04657016|191349467|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|144.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.65|333.21|||Regression, Logistic|||||333.21|62.65|<0.001
95688936|NCT04657016|191349468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|118.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.08|347.74|||Regression, Logistic|||||347.74|40.08|<0.001
95688937|NCT04657016|191349469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-16.3|-19.5|<0.001
95688938|NCT04657016|191349470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-26.9|<0.001
95916274|NCT01976364|191790938|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.90|-2.40|
95916275|NCT01976364|191790938|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.07||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||3.07|-0.93|
95916276|NCT01976364|191790938|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|2.38||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.38|-1.62|
95916277|NCT01976364|191790939|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.5|-0.9|
95916278|NCT01976364|191790939|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.2|-1.1|
95688939|NCT04657016|191349471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|-8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.3|-9.6|<0.001
95688940|NCT04657016|191349472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.1|-12.2|<0.001
95688941|NCT04657016|191349473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|-4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.3|-7.2|<0.001
95688942|NCT04657016|191349474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.348|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.10|-10.40|<0.001
95688943|NCT04657016|191349475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|14.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.7|8.2|<0.001
95688944|NCT04657016|191349476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.53|-15.30|<0.001
95688945|NCT04657016|191349477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-23.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.2|-32.1|<0.001
95688946|NCT04657016|191349478|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-23.4|-32.3|<0.001
95688947|NCT04657016|191349479|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|-13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.6|-28.4|<0.001
95688948|NCT04657016|191349480|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-13.5|<0.001
95688949|NCT04657016|191349481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-0.53|<0.001
95688950|NCT04657016|191349482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-48.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-41.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-41.7|-53.7|<0.001
95688951|NCT04657016|191349483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|2.8|<0.001
95688952|NCT04657016|191349484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|16.0|||ANCOVA|||||16.0|9.7|<0.001
95688953|NCT00738543|191349485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL, with a power of 80% and bilateral error of 5%.|||||<|0.05||||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the three medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used.||||<0.05
95688954|NCT00738543|191349487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated to find a difference of 200 CFU/mL.|||||<|0.05||95.0||||Post-hoc test of Kruskal-Wallis for multiple comparisons of Z values was used to determine which arm was different.|Kruskal-Wallis|2 degrees of freedom corrected for ties||The null hypothesis established that the 3 medians were equal. To test significant differences for non-normally distributed data, a range test (Kruskal-Wallis) was used. The alpha level for significance was established at 5%. A minimal sample of 20 volunteers was calculated for a power of 80%, and bilateral error of 5%.||||<0.05
95916279|NCT01976364|191790939|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.0|-2.4|
95688955|NCT01614769|191349490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.98|51.8||||||||51.80|-22.98|
95688956|NCT01614769|191349490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|72.74||||||||72.74|-2.08|
95688957|NCT01614769|191349491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.21|0.0||||||||0.00|-0.21|
95688958|NCT01614769|191349491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|-0.03||||||||-0.03|-0.24|
95688959|NCT01614769|191349492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.12|1.05||||||||1.05|-11.12|
95688960|NCT01614769|191349492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|-1.24||||||||-1.24|-13.30|
95916280|NCT01976364|191790939|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.9|-0.8|
95688961|NCT00059215|191349498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.933
95688962|NCT00059215|191349498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.590
95688963|NCT00059215|191349499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.945||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.945
95688964|NCT00059215|191349499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.260
95688965|NCT00059215|191349500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95688966|NCT00059215|191349500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.544||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.544
95688967|NCT00059215|191349501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.370
95688968|NCT01254604|191349503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was planned to enroll 248 subjects (124 per treatment group) to yield approximately 230 evaluable subjects (115 per treatment group). The study had power of 90% to test the primary hypothesis. The power and sample size were based on the following assumptions for treatment difference in change from baseline in IOP at Week 4: α = 0.025 (1-sided), Non-inferiority margin = 1.5 mmHg, True treatment difference = 0 mmHg, Standard deviation = 3.5 mmHg.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||ANCOVA|Analysis model includes terms for treatment, baseline IOP and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Difference is tafluprost - timolol|The study hypothesis was that tafluprost is non-inferior to timolol with respect to change from baseline in diurnal IOP at Week 4 in participants with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The study hypothesis would be met if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the between-treatment difference in mean diurnal IOP change from baseline at Week4 (tafluprost - timolol) was ≤1.5 mmHg.||-0.7|-2.6|
95688969|NCT01254604|191349504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|19.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|33.4|||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method|Participants were stratified by baseline IOP (\<26 mmHg or ≥26 mmHg at 0800 hours) and ocular diagnosis (open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension)|Between-group difference in percentage of participants with ≥25% reduction in IOP at Week 4 = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||33.4|5.7|
95688970|NCT01254604|191349505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|9.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants with an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||9.4|-17.3|
95688971|NCT01254604|191349506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Between-group difference in percentage of participants discontinued study drug due to an AE = percentage (tafluprost) - percentage (timolol)|||5.7|-3.5|
95688972|NCT02948777|191349518|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95688973|NCT02948777|191349519|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95688974|NCT02948777|191349520|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95688975|NCT02948777|191349521|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95688976|NCT02948777|191349522|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95688977|NCT02948777|191349523|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95688978|NCT02948777|191349524|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95688979|NCT02948777|191349525|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95688980|NCT02948777|191349526|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.31
95688981|NCT02948777|191349527|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95688982|NCT02948777|191349528|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95688983|NCT02948777|191349529|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95688984|NCT02948777|191349530|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.027
95688985|NCT02948777|191349531|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95688986|NCT02948777|191349532|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95688987|NCT02948777|191349533|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
95688988|NCT02948777|191349534|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95688989|NCT02948777|191349535|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1
95688990|NCT02948777|191349536|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95688991|NCT02948777|191349537|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95688992|NCT02948777|191349538|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95688993|NCT02948777|191349539|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95688994|NCT02948777|191349541|OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.84
95688995|NCT02948777|191349542|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95688996|NCT02311478|191349543|OTHER|Given that this is a observational cohort design we do not use either non-inferiority or equivalence analysis. Using ANOVA we test for differences in the number of days per month of bleeding between the 90 days pre-insertion, the 90 days following insertion, and 91-180 days following insertion.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.3||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|df=2||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the number of days of bleeding per month at baseline and the days of bleeding per month during 90 days after insertion, and months or 91-180 days following insertion.||2.3|1.2|<0.05
95688997|NCT02311478|191349543|EQUIVALENCE|α of 0.05 or lower.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||The estimation parameter compares the 90 days following to the 90 days prior.||1.5|0.36|<0.05
95688998|NCT01290484|191349546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean percentage volume change|-3.47||||||||||||||||||
95688999|NCT03242928|191349547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|-0.013|||ANCOVA|||||-0.013|-0.161|= 0.021
95689000|NCT03242928|191349548|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|-0.023|||ANOVA|||||-0.023|-0.331|= 0.025
95689001|NCT03242928|191349549|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.006|||ANCOVA|||||0.006|-0.146|= 0.072
95689002|NCT00943319|191349555|OTHER||Median Survival time|161.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|121.0|305.0|||Product limit survival estimate|||||305|121|
95689003|NCT00943319|191349556|OTHER||Median Disease Free Survival Time|172.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|436.0||||||Estimated median survival time||436|85|
95689004|NCT02043301|191349557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|120.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.99|143.45|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||143.45|101.99|
95689005|NCT02043301|191349557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|94.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.2|112.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||112.38|80.20|
95854540|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.012
95854541|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
95689006|NCT02043301|191349558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|127.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.19|152.02|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||152.02|107.19|
95689007|NCT02043301|191349558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|86.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.49|102.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||102.40|72.49|
95689008|NCT02043301|191349559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|129.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.76|158.27|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Thigh (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||158.27|106.76|
95689009|NCT02043301|191349559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|100.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.54|121.82|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed body weight as a covariate.||Upper Arm (Test) versus Abdomen (Reference)||121.82|82.54|
95689010|NCT02043301|191349564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.659|111.943|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||111.943|84.659|
95689011|NCT02043301|191349564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|103.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.405|119.557|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||119.557|90.405|
95689012|NCT02043301|191349565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
95689013|NCT02043301|191349565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
95689014|NCT02043301|191349566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|97.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.558|108.926|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||108.926|86.558|
95689015|NCT02043301|191349566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|93.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.359|104.912|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||104.912|83.359|
95689016|NCT02043301|191349568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.555|107.717|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.717|97.555|
95689017|NCT02043301|191349568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|102.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.131|107.151|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||107.151|97.131|
95689018|NCT02043301|191349569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
95689019|NCT02043301|191349569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
95689020|NCT02043301|191349570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|79.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.883|102.735|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||102.735|60.883|
95689021|NCT02043301|191349570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Ratios (and 90% confidence intervals) were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Means Ratio (%)|91.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.269|118.248|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and log-transformed baseline LDL-C as a covariate.||||118.248|70.269|
95689022|NCT03703375|191349575|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.09|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.09|0.41|0.0541
95689023|NCT03703375|191349576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.96|||Efron|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||0.96|0.32|0.0166
95689024|NCT03703375|191349577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.33|||Stratified Cox|Stratified Cox proportional hazards model||||1.33|0.51|0.2139
95689025|NCT04964063|191349585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-1.19|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.19|-1.47|<.0001
95689026|NCT04964063|191349585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-1.45|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-1.45|-1.77|<.0001
95689027|NCT04964063|191349585|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-1.0|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.00|-1.33|<.0001
95689028|NCT04964063|191349586|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.98|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-1.70|-1.98|<.0001
95689029|NCT04964063|191349586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.02|-2.33|<.0001
95689030|NCT04964063|191349586|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-1.29|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.29|-1.61|<.0001
95689031|NCT04964063|191349587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-2.15|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.15|-2.43|<.0001
95689032|NCT04964063|191349587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-2.47|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.47|-2.79|<.0001
95689033|NCT04964063|191349587|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.7|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.70|-2.02|<.0001
95689034|NCT04964063|191349588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|-2.4|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.40|-2.68|<.0001
95689035|NCT04964063|191349588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|-2.73|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.73|-3.05|<.0001
95689036|NCT04964063|191349588|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.87|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-1.87|-2.20|<.0001
95689037|NCT04964063|191349589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-2.55|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.55|-2.84|<.0001
95689038|NCT04964063|191349589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-2.83|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-2.83|-3.15|<.0001
95689039|NCT04964063|191349589|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-2.02|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.02|-2.35|<.0001
95689040|NCT04964063|191349590|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.08|-2.79|||ANOVA||Q1: How intense are the sensation|||-2.79|-3.08|<.0001
95689041|NCT04964063|191349590|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-3.08|||ANOVA||Q2: How bothered are you by any sensation|||-3.08|-3.40|<.0001
95689042|NCT04964063|191349590|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|-2.21|||ANOVA||Q3: How well can you tolerate sensations|||-2.21|-2.53|<.0001
95689043|NCT04964063|191349592|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-15.05|||ANOVA|||||-15.05|-20.81|<.0001
95689044|NCT04964063|191349593|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.04|-28.36|||ANOVA|||||-28.36|-34.04|<.0001
95689045|NCT04964063|191349594|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.3|-36.59|||ANOVA|||||-36.59|-42.30|<.0001
95689046|NCT04964063|191349595|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.24|-41.49|||ANOVA|||||-41.49|-47.24|<.0001
95689047|NCT04964063|191349596|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.96|-45.12|||ANOVA|||||-45.12|-50.96|<.0001
95689048|NCT04964063|191349597|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-52.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.33|-49.62|||ANOVA|||||-49.62|-55.33|<.0001
95689049|NCT04964063|191349599|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-2.02|||ANOVA|||||-2.02|-2.88|<.0001
95689050|NCT04964063|191349600|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-3.85|||ANOVA|||||-3.85|-4.69|<.0001
95689051|NCT04964063|191349601|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.13|-5.28|||ANOVA|||||-5.28|-6.13|<.0001
95689052|NCT04964063|191349602|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|-6.02|||ANOVA|||||-6.02|-6.88|<.0001
95689053|NCT04964063|191349603|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|-6.58|||ANOVA|||||-6.58|-7.45|<.0001
95689054|NCT04964063|191349604|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-7.01|||ANOVA|||||-7.01|-7.87|<.0001
95689055|NCT04964063|191349606|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.46|-5.2|||ANOVA|||||-5.20|-7.46|<.0001
95689056|NCT04964063|191349607|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|-10.41|||ANOVA|||||-10.41|-12.64|<.0001
95689057|NCT04964063|191349608|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-13.42|||ANOVA|||||-13.42|-15.66|<.0001
95689058|NCT04964063|191349609|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.67|-15.41|||ANOVA|||||-15.41|-17.67|<.0001
95689059|NCT04964063|191349610|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.87|-16.58|||ANOVA|||||-16.58|-18.87|<.0001
95689060|NCT04964063|191349611|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.96|-17.72|||ANOVA|||||-17.72|-19.96|<.0001
95689061|NCT04964063|191349613|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.56|||ANOVA|||||-1.56|-2.52|<.0001
95689062|NCT04964063|191349614|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|-3.22|||ANOVA|||||-3.22|-4.17|<.0001
95689063|NCT04964063|191349615|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.20|-5.15|<.0001
95689064|NCT04964063|191349616|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-4.76|||ANOVA|||||-4.76|-5.72|<.0001
95689065|NCT04964063|191349617|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-5.14|||ANOVA|||||-5.14|-6.12|<.0001
95689066|NCT04964063|191349618|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|-5.77|||ANOVA|||||-5.77|-6.72|<.0001
95689067|NCT04964063|191349620|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|-4.44|||ANOVA|||||-4.44|-6.06|<.0001
95689068|NCT04964063|191349621|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|-7.72|||ANOVA|||||-7.72|-9.32|<.0001
95916281|NCT01976364|191790939|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.6|-1.1|
95916282|NCT01976364|191790940|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-0.4|
95916283|NCT01976364|191790940|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.7|-1.0|
95916284|NCT01976364|191790940|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-1.6|
95916285|NCT01976364|191790940|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
95916286|NCT01976364|191790940|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.8|-0.9|
95689069|NCT04964063|191349622|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-9.75|||ANOVA|||||-9.75|-11.35|<.0001
95689070|NCT04964063|191349623|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|-10.79|||ANOVA|||||-10.79|-12.41|<.0001
95689071|NCT04964063|191349624|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.45|-11.81|||ANOVA|||||-11.81|-13.45|<.0001
95689072|NCT04964063|191349625|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.69|-13.08|||ANOVA|||||-13.08|-14.69|<.0001
95689073|NCT04964063|191349627|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.33|||ANOVA|||||-1.33|-2.43|<.0001
95689074|NCT04964063|191349628|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-2.65|||ANOVA|||||-2.65|-3.74|<.0001
95689075|NCT04964063|191349629|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|-3.44|||ANOVA|||||-3.44|-4.53|<.0001
95689076|NCT04964063|191349630|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-5.10|<.0001
95689077|NCT04964063|191349631|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-4.48|||ANOVA|||||-4.48|-5.60|<.0001
95689078|NCT04964063|191349632|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-5.53|||ANOVA|||||-5.53|-6.62|<.0001
95689079|NCT04964063|191349634|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.01|||ANOVA|||||0.01|-0.12|0.1091
95689080|NCT04964063|191349635|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.06|||ANOVA|||||-0.06|-0.19|<.0001
95916287|NCT01976364|191790941|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-0.6|
95916288|NCT01976364|191790941|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.7|-0.3|
95689081|NCT04964063|191349636|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.10|-0.23|<.0001
95689082|NCT04964063|191349637|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.11|-0.24|<.0001
95689083|NCT04964063|191349638|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.13|||ANOVA|||||-0.13|-0.26|<.0001
95689084|NCT04964063|191349639|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.18|||ANOVA|||||-0.18|-0.31|<.0001
95689085|NCT04964063|191349641|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-1.45|||ANOVA|||||-1.45|-1.95|<.0001
95689086|NCT04964063|191349642|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-2.44|||ANOVA|||||-2.44|-2.94|<.0001
95689087|NCT04964063|191349643|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-2.84|||ANOVA|||||-2.84|-3.35|<.0001
95689088|NCT04964063|191349644|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-3.19|||ANOVA|||||-3.19|-3.69|<.0001
95689089|NCT04964063|191349645|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-3.55|||ANOVA|||||-3.55|-4.06|<.0001
95689090|NCT04964063|191349646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-4.0|||ANOVA|||||-4.00|-4.51|<.0001
95689091|NCT01525849|191349680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, delta=0.8, true difference=0, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 72 participants (36 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Non-inferiority test to demonstrate that the long-term (1-year) change in sinus symptoms (overall SNOT-20 score) after balloon dilation is not worse than after FESS.||||<0.001
95689092|NCT01525849|191349681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Test for superiority of balloon dilation over FESS. Significance level=0.025 (1-sided alpha), power=90%, BD estimate=0.5, FESS estimate=1.5, SD for both arms=1.0. A total sample size of 46 participants (23 per arm) was required to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
95689093|NCT01525849|191349682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.628
95689094|NCT01525849|191349684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95689095|NCT00339183|191349685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-2.91||||0.0036|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.0036
95689096|NCT00339183|191349685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.46||||0.1448|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer progression-free survival time.|PFS in the Mutant Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at a 1% level conditional upon first demonstrating a significant difference in PFS in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.1448
95689097|NCT00339183|191349686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-1.57||||0.1154|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|An overall 5% significance level was used to compare treatments with respect to both overall survival (OS) and PFS. A 4% and 1% level (2-sided) was used to independently test OS and PFS, respectively.||||0.1154
95689098|NCT00339183|191349686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Normal score|-0.6||||0.5503|||||||Stratified log-rank test|P-value based on a 2-sided log-rank test stratified by ECOG (0 or 1 vs. 2), prior bevacizumab exposure, and prior oxaliplatin exposure (yes or no).|A normal score \<0 indicates fewer than expected events for the Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI arm and therefore a longer overall survival time.|The treatment effect on OS in the Mutant KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set was compared at the 4% level conditional on first demonstrating a significant OS treatment effect in the Wild-type KRAS Efficacy Analysis Set.||||0.5503
95689099|NCT00339183|191349687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|8.6|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||8.60|3.21|<0.0001
95689100|NCT00339183|191349687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.76|||Stratified exact test|Adjusted for ECOG score, prior bevacizumab exposure, prior oxaliplatin exposure.|The odds ratio is defined as the odds of having an objective response in the panitumumab plus arm relative to the odds on the FOLFIRI alone arm.|||1.76|0.56|1.0000
95689101|NCT01327339|191349697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|7.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||7.8|4.3|
95689102|NCT01426386|191349710|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|10.18||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 5% (two-sided)|ANCOVA|Number of oocytes retrieved as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||10.18|5.69|<0.001
95689103|NCT01426386|191349711|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|15.48||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Follicular volume as dependent variable, centre and AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factors and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||15.48|6.78|<0.001
95689104|NCT01426386|191349712|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.11||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Log(estradiol) as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor, log(dose) and log(baseline estradiol) as covariates||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||1.11|0.56|<0.001
95689105|NCT01426386|191349714|OTHER|Based on the ANCOVA model the slope of the dose-response curve was estimated. Null hypothesis: Slope of dose-response curve equal to 0 (zero)|Slope of the dose-response curve|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.78||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|ANCOVA|Fertilised oocytes as dependent variable, AMH strata (5.0-14.9 pmol/L and 15.0-44.9 pmol/L) as factor and log(dose) as covariate||The dose-response relationship was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model||4.78|1.71|<0.001
95689106|NCT01426386|191349716|OTHER|Treatment groups were compared using the chi-squared test.||||||0.248||||||No adjustment for multiplicity was applied for the secondary endpoints|Chi-squared|||||||0.248
95689107|NCT01748760|191349729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.87
95689108|NCT01158950|191349730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set to p \< 0.05.|Fisher transformation|||The comparison group represents the difference in ICR and the baseline impulsiveness scale.||||0.032
95689109|NCT01158950|191349731|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold is set to p \< 0.05, corrected for multiple comparisons.|Fisher transformation|Statistical tests are computed across multiple subregions (voxels) within each area. Thus, the correlation coefficient above is a summary score.||||||< 0.05
95689110|NCT02428140|191349737|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.29||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|7.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.42|1.45|0.003
95689111|NCT02428140|191349738|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|17.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||17.9|3.4|.005
95689112|NCT02428140|191349739|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||6.3|-1.0|0.28
95689113|NCT02428140|191349741|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8||||||||1.8|-1.8|
95689114|NCT02428140|191349742|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-3.2|
95689115|NCT02746679|191349758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
95689116|NCT02746679|191349759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95689117|NCT02746679|191349760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95689118|NCT02746679|191349761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.024
95689119|NCT02746679|191349762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
95689120|NCT02746679|191349763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
95689121|NCT02746679|191349764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.003
95689122|NCT02746679|191349765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.024
95689123|NCT02746679|191349766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.004
95689124|NCT02746679|191349767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
95689125|NCT02746679|191349768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||<0.001
95689126|NCT02746679|191349769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.277
95689127|NCT02746679|191349770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA|The comparison of the change from baseline to 8 weeks later between MBSR Group and wait-list control group.||||||0.001
95689128|NCT04036136|191349850|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Model covariates are Baseline SHAPS, age, and sex.||1.68|-2.41|0.724
95689129|NCT04036136|191349851|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.038|||Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.038|-0.124|0.292
95689130|NCT04036136|191349852|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is 0.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.148||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.02||The equivalence margin is 0.|Regression, Linear|||Model covariates are Baseline fMRI, age, and sex.||0.020|-0.316|0.084
95689131|NCT02222129|191349863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical analysis was performed using SAS, version 9.2 (Statistical Analysis Software, Cary, NC). All power calculations were at the 80% level with an alpha of 0.05. Based upon opioid consumption data previously reported for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, a sample size of 74 would be necessary to detect a 10 mg difference in morphine equivalents totaled over the entire hospital stay. (Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS, et al. The Journal of Urology 2005;174(3):912-914.||||0.39
95689132|NCT02273323|191349897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|0.23|-0.37|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Estimated effect of tea vs placebo||0.83|-0.37|0.43
95689133|NCT02273323|191349898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.71||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Subject=random factor; treatment, on/off medication, period = fixed effects||Estimated effect of tea vs. placebo||1.82|-0.40|0.20
95689134|NCT02273323|191349899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-5.26|
95689135|NCT02273323|191349900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|1.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.37|-2.16|
95689136|NCT02273323|191349901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.87|-4.65|
95689137|NCT02273323|191349902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.09|-0.73|
95689138|NCT03117049|191349903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|96.37|0.43|0.71|||Stratified log-rank test|||||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
95689139|NCT03117049|191349904|SUPERIORITY||Stratified hazard ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.14||||||||1.14|0.63|
95916289|NCT01976364|191790941|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.2|-1.0|
95916290|NCT01976364|191790941|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.3||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.3|0.0|
95916291|NCT01976364|191790941|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.9|-0.3|
95916292|NCT01976364|191790942|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916293|NCT01976364|191790942|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916294|NCT01976364|191790942|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916295|NCT01976364|191790942|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916296|NCT01976364|191790942|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
95689140|NCT03117049|191349905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.17||||||||2.17|1.11|
95689141|NCT03117049|191349906|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.31||||||||1.31|0.46|
95689142|NCT01000064|191349909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.053
95689143|NCT01000064|191349910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
95689144|NCT01000064|191349911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95689145|NCT01000064|191349912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95689146|NCT01000064|191349913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95689147|NCT01000064|191349914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.040
95689148|NCT01000064|191349915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95916297|NCT01976364|191790943|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|0.0|
95916298|NCT01976364|191790943|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
95689149|NCT00798967|191349918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for the randomization stratification variable (\<= 6 or \> 6 L/week of PN at baseline)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.002
95689150|NCT00798967|191349919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Last Dosing Visit||||< 0.001
95689151|NCT03596177|191349929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.15|-1.0|||ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-4.15|0.011
95689152|NCT03596177|191349930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.777|-23.186|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-23.186|-67.777|0.002
95916299|NCT01976364|191790943|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
95689153|NCT03596177|191349930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.323||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-66.74|-15.907|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-15.907|-66.740|0.011
95689154|NCT03596177|191349931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1551.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2190.515|-911.873|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 32||-911.873|-2190.515|<0.001
95689155|NCT03596177|191349931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1332.515||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2187.711|-477.318|||ANCOVA|||Statistical Analysis for Day 59||-477.318|-2187.711|0.015
95689156|NCT03596177|191349932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.173||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.368|3.022|||ANCOVA|||||3.022|-9.368|0.384
95689157|NCT03596177|191349933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.039||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.287|8.209|||ANCOVA|||||8.209|-28.287|0.351
95689158|NCT03596177|191349934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.186||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.858|8.229|||ANCOVA|||||8.229|-7.858|0.968
95689159|NCT03596177|191349935|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.867||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|3.545|||ANCOVA|||||3.545|-1.810|0.580
95916300|NCT01976364|191790943|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
95689160|NCT03596177|191349936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.645||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.894|2.603|||ANCOVA|||||2.603|-9.894|0.324
95689161|NCT03596177|191349937|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.672||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.415|6.072|||ANCOVA|||||6.072|-17.415|0.412
95689162|NCT03596177|191349938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.357||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.742|16.456|||ANCOVA|||||16.456|-1.742|0.177
95689163|NCT03596177|191349939|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.186||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.151|33.523|||ANCOVA|||||33.523|-3.151|0.168
95916301|NCT01976364|191790943|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
95916302|NCT01976364|191790944|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
95916303|NCT01976364|191790944|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916304|NCT01976364|191790944|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|0.0|
95916305|NCT01976364|191790944|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
95916306|NCT01976364|191790944|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916307|NCT01976364|191790945|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
95689164|NCT03596177|191349940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.05|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||||-1.03|-4.05|0.009
95689165|NCT03596177|191349941|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.122||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.364|0.119|||ANCOVA|||||0.119|-10.364|0.107
95689166|NCT03596177|191349942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.848||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.605|-0.091|||ANCOVA|||||-0.091|-3.605|0.085
95689167|NCT03596177|191349943|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.159||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.326|1.007|||ANCOVA|||||1.007|-7.326|0.204
95689168|NCT03596177|191349944|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.041|0.003|||ANCOVA|||||0.003|-0.041|0.145
95689169|NCT03596177|191349945|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.801|-14.201|||ANCOVA|||||-14.201|-37.801|0.001
95689170|NCT03596177|191349946|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.332||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.726|-4.938|||ANCOVA|||||-4.938|-19.726|0.010
95689171|NCT01507246|191349952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|2.62||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.03|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis: Mean ratio of geometric least-squares mean for each group is identical.||6.03|1.14|0.0251
95689172|NCT01507246|191349953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric means|1.24||||0.02767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.49|||least-squares mean ratio||Group 1 represents the numerator.|Null hypothesis = distribution of costs is identical between the two groups.||1.49|1.03|0.02767
95916308|NCT01976364|191790945|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916309|NCT01976364|191790945|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.1|
95916310|NCT01976364|191790945|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95689173|NCT02078713|191349969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.65|0.46
95854542|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.203||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.203
95689174|NCT02078713|191349969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.10|0.57|0.16
95689175|NCT02078713|191349970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.05|1.03|0.03
95689176|NCT02078713|191349971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.33||P-value calculated in imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||2.33|1.11|0.01
95689177|NCT02078713|191349972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.67||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.67|0.74|0.62
95689178|NCT02078713|191349973|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.1||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.04||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had been less involved to right amount (ref)||3.04|0.40|0.85
95689179|NCT02078713|191349973|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.6||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.5||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished their providers had been more involved, compared to right amount (ref)||3.50|0.73|0.24
95689180|NCT02078713|191349974|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who wished provider had expressed preference less strongly to right amount (ref).||2.25|0.45|0.997
95689181|NCT02078713|191349974|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.16||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patients who reported they wished provider had expressed preference more strongly, compared to right amount (ref).||1.16|0.41|0.16
95689182|NCT02078713|191349975|SUPERIORITY|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.82|0.93|0.13
95689183|NCT02078713|191349976|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of patient decision to both (ref)||1.61|0.79|0.50
95689184|NCT02078713|191349976|SUPERIORITY||Relative risk ratio|2.14||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.15||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation value represents the relative risk of the outcome in the intervention group, compared to relative risk in the control group.|Comparison of provider decision to both (ref)||5.15|0.89|0.09
95689185|NCT02078713|191349977|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.71|0.94|0.12
95854543|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.008
95689186|NCT02078713|191349978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.74||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of overall score||1.74|0.80|0.41
95689187|NCT02078713|191349978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of informed decision subscale||1.80|1.00|0.0496
95689188|NCT02078713|191349978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.05||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of uncertainty subscale of DCS||2.05|1.03|0.03
95689189|NCT02078713|191349978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of effective decision subscale||1.59|0.80|0.5
95689190|NCT02078713|191349978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.59||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of values clarity subscale||1.59|0.86|0.31
95689191|NCT02078713|191349978|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of support subscale||1.49|0.76|0.73
95689192|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.72||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pills are more effective than condoms||1.72|0.94|0.12
95689193|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|3.62||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are more effective than pills||3.62|1.94|<0.0001
95689194|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - depo is more effective than condoms||2.44|1.29|0.0004
95689195|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - IUDs are an option for nulliparous young women||2.71|1.36|0.0002
95689196|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.71||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Methods causing periods to stop are safe.||2.71|1.28|0.001
95689197|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.57||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - LARC can be removed early||1.57|0.85|0.36
95689198|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.41||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - Copper IUD can act as EC||4.41|1.72|<0.0001
95689199|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.63||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - After sex, there is something you can do to prevent pregnancy||1.63|0.36|0.49
95689200|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a regression model in a multiply imputed dataset. This outcome was not adjusted for site due to model being unable to run with imputed data.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of knowledge - EC can prevent pregnancy after sex||1.34|0.39|0.31
95689201|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.84||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - pill does not affect fertility||1.84|0.96|0.08
95689202|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.26||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.||Comparison of correct knowledge - patch does not affect fertility|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|2.26|1.2|0.002
95689203|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - ring does not affect fertility||2.35|1.23|0.002
95689204|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Depo does affect fertility||1.43|0.62|0.77
95689205|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.17||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.17|1.19|0.002
95689206|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.1||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Non-hormonal IUD does not affect fertility||2.1|1.15|0.004
95689207|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of correct knowledge - Implant does not affect fertility||2.07|1.14|0.005
95854544|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.496||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Motor Praxis Task (MP) reaction time.||||0.496
95689208|NCT02078713|191349979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.49||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic||OR calculated in multiply imputed dataset. Intervention patients had 2.47 times the odds of control patients to give correct answer.|Comparison of correct knowledge - composite IUD knowledge item (all correct responses on items related to IUD knowledge, versus any incorrect)||3.49|1.75|<0.0001
95689209|NCT02078713|191349980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.61||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at baseline||1.61|0.88|0.25
95689210|NCT02078713|191349980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention groups in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving top score at 4 months post-enrollment||1.22|0.66|0.5
95689211|NCT02078713|191349980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of percentage of patients giving a top score on the 5-point Likert scale at 7 months post-enrollment.||1.13|0.60|0.23
95689212|NCT02078713|191349981|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.25|0.66|0.55
95916311|NCT01976364|191790945|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-0.1|
95916312|NCT01976364|191790946|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
95689213|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.6||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating for hormonal IUD. Patients excluded from analysis if they had not heard of hormonal IUD.||1.6|0.92|0.13
95689214|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.3||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on non-hormonal IUD. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the non-hormonal IUD in the post-visit survey.||1.3|0.75|0.92
95916313|NCT01976364|191790946|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
95916314|NCT01976364|191790946|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.1|-0.2|
95916315|NCT01976364|191790946|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.3|
95916316|NCT01976364|191790946|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.0|-0.2|
95916317|NCT01976364|191790947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 1: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.4|-6.2|
95916318|NCT01976364|191790947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 3: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||2.7|-5.8|
95916319|NCT01976364|191790947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-2.4||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 6: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||-2.4|-10.2|
95916320|NCT01976364|191790947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 9: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||1.6|-7.3|
95689215|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.07||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating of implant||1.07|0.67|0.17
95689216|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on condoms. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of condoms in the post-visit survey.||0.92|0.54|0.009
95689217|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.12||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the shot (Depo Provera). Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the the shot (Depo Provera) in the post-visit survey.||1.12|0.65|0.26
95689218|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.11||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pill. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pill in the post-visit survey.||1.11|0.64|0.23
95689219|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.22||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the patch. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the patch in the post-visit survey.||1.22|0.69|0.55
95689220|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the pull-out method. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the pull-out method in the post-visit survey.||1.25|0.76|0.84
95689221|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on the ring. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of the ring in the post-visit survey.||1.02|0.64|0.07
95727604|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.3||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||1.3|-1.4|
95689222|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.82||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on female sterilization/tubal ligation. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of female sterilization/tubal ligation in the post-visit survey.||0.82|0.42|0.002
95689223|NCT02078713|191349982|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.85||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of rating on male sterilization/vasectomy. Patients were excluded from this analysis if they reported not having heard of male sterilization/vasectomy in the post-visit survey.||0.85|0.4|0.005
95689224|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.42||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of hormonal IUD||3.42|0.71|0.27
95689225|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.4||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of non-hormonal IUD||3.40|0.80|0.18
95689226|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.69||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of implant||2.69|0.62|0.5
95689227|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|4.89||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of the patch||4.89|0.59|0.32
95689228|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.81||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of ring||2.81|0.68|0.37
95689229|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of male sterilization (vasectomy)||3.73|0.60|0.39
95689230|NCT02078713|191349983|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.73||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison of patients who newly heard of female sterilization||3.73|0.6|0.39
95689231|NCT02078713|191349984|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.81||P-value calculated from multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|"The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group rating their appointment as much better, in the numerator, over the odds of the control group giving this rating in the denominator."|Patients excluded from test if they reported not having had a previous contraceptive counseling appointment.||1.81|0.90|0.18
95689232|NCT02078713|191349985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.54|18.66||P-value calculated in multiple imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||18.66|8.54|<0.001
95689233|NCT02078713|191349986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.05||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.29||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Linear|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The estimation parameter is a beta coefficient from a linear regression model, calculated in an imputed dataset. It represents additional minutes in an intervention visit versus a control visit.|||5.29|-3.19|0.63
95689234|NCT02078713|191349987|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|2.68|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Test of follow-up score of emotional exhaustion subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site||2.68|-10.62|0.24
95689235|NCT02078713|191349987|SUPERIORITY||Observed coefficient|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|1.72|||Regression, Linear||Tool group is compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error|Linear regression of follow-up score for depersonalization subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for baseline score and site.||1.72|-4.76|0.36
95689236|NCT02078713|191349987|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.34|||Regression, Linear||Tool group compared to control group (ref). Bootstrapping used for standard error.|Linear regression of follow-up score for personal accomplishment subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory, controlling for site and baseline score.||1.34|-4.61|0.28
95689237|NCT02078713|191349988|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.65||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|||1.65|0.69|0.78
95689238|NCT02078713|191349989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.35||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.35|0.66|0.75
95689239|NCT02078713|191349989|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.53||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset.|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.53|0.75|0.71
95689240|NCT02078713|191349990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.34||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||1.34|0.66|0.75
95916321|NCT01976364|191790947|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|0.2||||||Tofacitinib 5 mg BID + Placebo Vs Tofacitinib 5 mg BID +MTX: Change at Month 12: Results were based on a repeated measures model with the fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and baseline value; a common unstructured covariance matrix was used.||0.2|-9.9|
95916322|NCT00999661|191790986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|39.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.12|<|0.0001||95.0|36.6|43.1||One-sample t-test for change from baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||||43.1|36.6|<0.0001
95916323|NCT00999661|191790987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.79|<|0.0001||95.0|34.0|39.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||39.2|34.0|<0.0001
95916324|NCT00999661|191790988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.233|<|0.0001||95.0|-8.65|-7.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-7.29|-8.65|<0.0001
95916325|NCT00917267|191790989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly to exenatide twice daily concluded if upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for treatment difference is \<0; noninferiority concluded if upper limit is \<0.4%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects. Power: 306 patients per treatment group provides approximately 98% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.4% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2-sided t test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%.||-0.14|-0.49|<.001
95916326|NCT00917267|191790990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||0.003
95916327|NCT00917267|191790991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c target \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which country and background OAD served as the stratification factors.||||<.001
95916328|NCT00917267|191790992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|-10.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline FSG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||-10.83|-22.50|<.001
95916329|NCT00917267|191790993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline BW, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.25|0.39|<.001
95916330|NCT00917267|191790994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline TC, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||3.71|-6.33|0.609
95916331|NCT00917267|191790995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM ANCOVA model includes treatment, baseline HDL, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.38|-0.65|0.476
95916332|NCT00917267|191790996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometic Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||TG data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM ANCOVA model with treatment, baseline TG, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects; and patient and error as random effects.||1.06|0.93|0.807
95916333|NCT01863043|191791011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.27
95916334|NCT01863043|191791012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95916335|NCT01863043|191791013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.28
95916336|NCT01863043|191791014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.15
95916337|NCT01863043|191791015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95916338|NCT01863043|191791016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95916339|NCT01863043|191791017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.59
95916340|NCT01863043|191791018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.64
95916341|NCT01863043|191791019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.95
95916342|NCT01863043|191791020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95916343|NCT01863043|191791021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.23
95916344|NCT01863043|191791022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.98
95916345|NCT01863043|191791023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.01
95916346|NCT01863043|191791024|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95916347|NCT01863043|191791025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95916348|NCT01863043|191791027|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95916349|NCT01863043|191791028|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95916350|NCT01863043|191791029|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.17
95916351|NCT01863043|191791030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.43
95916352|NCT01863043|191791031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
95916353|NCT01863043|191791032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Accelerated failure time regression mode|||||||0.97
95916354|NCT01863043|191791033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.60
95916355|NCT01863043|191791034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.25
95916356|NCT01863043|191791035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95916357|NCT01863043|191791036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95916358|NCT01863043|191791037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95916359|NCT01863043|191791038|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
95689241|NCT02078713|191349990|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.64||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||1.64|0.83|0.37
95689242|NCT02078713|191349991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.37||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 4 months post-enrollment||3.37|0.48|0.63
95689243|NCT02078713|191349991|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|3.8||P-value calculated in multiply imputed dataset|Regression, Logistic|We ran a mixed effect regression model in a multiply imputed dataset, using fixed effects for study site and random effects for provider seen.|The odds ratio represents the odds of the intervention group in the numerator over the odds of the control group in the denominator.|Comparison at 7 months post-enrollment||3.80|0.88|0.11
95916360|NCT01863043|191791039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.59
95916361|NCT01863043|191791040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.888
95916362|NCT01863043|191791041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.694
95916363|NCT01863043|191791042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.248
95916364|NCT01863043|191791043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.694|||||||general linear mixed model|||||||0.694
95916365|NCT01863043|191791044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.195|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.195
95916366|NCT02265224|191791053|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|89.81||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|94.12|82.82|97.4||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.40|82.82|0.0136
95916367|NCT02265224|191791054|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|90.79||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|94.12|85.25|96.69|||ANOVA|p value for treatment effect||||96.69|85.25|0.0047
95689244|NCT04494633|191350014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482314|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t-test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.482314
95689245|NCT04494633|191350015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876964|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.876964
95689246|NCT04494633|191350016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66602|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The change for each group was analyzed using a 2-tailed, unpaired, independent means, with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.66602
95689247|NCT04494633|191350017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-tailed unpaired t test comparing change for control (Pre to 2 weeks later) to case (Pre- to 2 weeks post) with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.726421
95689248|NCT04494633|191350018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The statistical test used was a 2 tailed, unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||0.908468
95689249|NCT04494633|191350019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|The groups were compared using a two tailed unpaired t test with 61 degrees of freedom.||||||.468104
95689250|NCT03074162|191350020|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.11|51.7|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||51.70|40.11|
95689251|NCT03074162|191350020|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|85.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.11|98.77|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||98.77|74.11|
95916368|NCT02265224|191791055|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.|Geometric means ratio|91.86||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|94.12|86.45|97.61||p value for treatment effect|ANOVA|||||97.61|86.45|0.0095
95689252|NCT03074162|191350021|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with R.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|49.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.39|56.71|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/R) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation.|||56.71|43.39|
95689253|NCT03074162|191350021|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical model was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including fixed effects for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period and treatment for comparison of B with A.|Geometric Mean (gMean) Ratio (%)|83.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|72.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.33|105.31|||ANOVA|Only the data for the comparison under investigation were included in the statistical analysis.|gMean Ratio=(B/A) \*100. Standard Error of the mean is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation|||105.31|66.33|
95689254|NCT01958671|191350025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.76|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.76|-1.22|<0.001
95689255|NCT01958671|191350025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.93|-1.39|<0.001
95689256|NCT01958671|191350026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|8.1|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.1|-13.1|
95689257|NCT01958671|191350026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.6|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||6.6|-14.8|
95689258|NCT01958671|191350027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||3.3|-7.7|
95689259|NCT01958671|191350027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|2.7|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.7|-8.2|
95689260|NCT01958671|191350028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-34.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.76|-26.29|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-26.29|-42.76|<0.001
95689261|NCT01958671|191350028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-44.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.28|-35.74|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-35.74|-52.28|<0.001
95689262|NCT01958671|191350029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.95|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.95|-2.57|<0.001
95689263|NCT01958671|191350029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-2.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-1.34|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-1.34|-2.98|<0.001
95689264|NCT01958671|191350030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|6.95|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline eGFR.||||6.95|1.85|<0.001
95689265|NCT01958671|191350030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.24|||Regression, Logistic|Fixed effects for treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication, covariates for baseline A1C and baseline||||13.24|3.46|<0.001
95689266|NCT01958671|191350032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-69.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.24|-54.83|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-54.83|-83.24|<0.001
95689267|NCT01958671|191350032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-67.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.73|-52.93|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-52.93|-81.73|<0.001
95689268|NCT01958671|191350034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.31||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|-0.65||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.65|-5.98|0.015
95689269|NCT01958671|191350034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-1.71||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.98|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||0.98|-4.40|0.213
95689270|NCT01958671|191350036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.09||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.09|-3.51|0.039
95689271|NCT01958671|191350036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.37||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|1.35||Nominal p-value|Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, time, prior anti-hyperglycemic medication, baseline eGFR and the interaction of time by treatment.||||1.35|-2.09|0.669
95689272|NCT01703286|191350071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.633|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.633|0.5403
95689273|NCT01703286|191350071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|0.884||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.632|1.235|||ANOVA|||||1.235|0.632|0.5402
95689274|NCT01703286|191350071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.0||||0.9989|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.397|||ANOVA|||||1.397|0.715|0.9989
95689275|NCT01703286|191350072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.208||||0.3885|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.738|||ANOVA|||||1.738|0.840|0.3885
95689276|NCT01703286|191350072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.251||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.868|1.801|||ANOVA|||||1.801|0.868|0.3105
95689277|NCT01703286|191350072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio (net)|1.035||||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.721|1.485|||ANOVA|||||1.485|0.721|0.8749
95689278|NCT01703286|191350073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.03|||ANOVA|||||0.030|-0.130|0.2982
95689279|NCT01703286|191350073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.059|0.101|||ANOVA|||||0.101|-0.059|0.6601
95689280|NCT01703286|191350073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.009|0.152|||ANOVA|||||0.152|-0.009|0.1412
95689281|NCT00931892|191350080|OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.670
95689282|NCT00931892|191350081|OTHER|||||||0.409|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.409
95689283|NCT00931892|191350082|OTHER|||||||0.387|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.387
95689284|NCT00931892|191350082|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
95689285|NCT00931892|191350083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.010
95689286|NCT00931892|191350083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.036
95689287|NCT00931892|191350083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA anti-tTG||||0.013
95689288|NCT00931892|191350083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for IgA/IgG anti-DGP||||0.006
95689289|NCT00931892|191350085|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) score for Day 3 of Gluten Challenge||||0.05
95689290|NCT00931892|191350085|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI) Score from baseline to Day 14||||0.020
95689291|NCT00931892|191350085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Celiac Symptom Index (CSI)score between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.060
95689292|NCT00931892|191350087|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) on Day 3 of the Gluten Challenge||||0.01
95689293|NCT00931892|191350087|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) from baseline to Day 14 of Gluten Challenge||||0.012
95689294|NCT00931892|191350087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANOVA|||P Value for Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) between high gluten group and low gluten group across study||||0.090
95689295|NCT00372190|191350097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95689296|NCT00623467|191350105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.86|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689297|NCT00623467|191350105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95916369|NCT02265224|191791056|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis took into account treatment, period, sequence and subject (sequence) as sources of variation. Acceptance criterion for bioequivalence was that the 94.12% confidence interval for the ratio between test and reference of the geometric means of the parameters under consideration fell within the 80.00-125.00% range, according to the current guidelines for bioequivalence studies and to the Pocock α spending function.||||||0.505|||||||Friedman test|||||||0.5050
95689298|NCT00623467|191350105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689299|NCT00623467|191350106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689300|NCT00623467|191350106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689301|NCT00623467|191350106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689302|NCT00623467|191350107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95689303|NCT00623467|191350107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689304|NCT00623467|191350107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689305|NCT00623467|191350108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.77|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689306|NCT00623467|191350108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.71|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689307|NCT00623467|191350108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.53|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689308|NCT00623467|191350109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.31|||||||||||for BR1|||||
95689309|NCT00623467|191350109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.77|||||||||||for BR2|||||
95689310|NCT00623467|191350109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||||||||||for BR3|||||
95689311|NCT00623467|191350109|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.704|||95% confidence interval for paired means||confidence interval provided for average reader, lower limit is compared to noninferiority margin|||0.704|-0.070|
95689312|NCT00623467|191350110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.68|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689313|NCT00623467|191350110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.65|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689314|NCT00623467|191350111|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|noninferiority margin = -0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6||||95.0|0.03|0.381|||||lower limit of the confidence interval is compared to the noninferiority margin|||0.381|0.030|
95689315|NCT00623467|191350112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.47|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689316|NCT00623467|191350112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.34|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689317|NCT00623467|191350112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.03|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689318|NCT00623467|191350113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.38|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689319|NCT00623467|191350113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689320|NCT00623467|191350113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.25|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689321|NCT00623467|191350114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.39|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689322|NCT00623467|191350114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689323|NCT00623467|191350114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.02|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689324|NCT00623467|191350115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.32|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689325|NCT00623467|191350115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.27|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689326|NCT00623467|191350115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.99|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689327|NCT00623467|191350116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.48|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689328|NCT00623467|191350116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.46|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
95689329|NCT00623467|191350116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689330|NCT00623467|191350117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.4|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95916370|NCT02307513|191791082|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-92.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.59|-54.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with AUC W0-12 as the response variables; treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the number of oral ulcers at baseline as a covariate.|Treatment difference = Apremilast - Placebo|The AUC W0-12 for oral ulcer counts was compared between the placebo treatment group and the apremilast 30 BID treatment group using a 2-tailed parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test at the 0.05 significance level.||-54.60|-130.59|<0.0001
95689331|NCT00623467|191350117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.38|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689332|NCT00623467|191350117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689333|NCT00623467|191350118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689334|NCT00623467|191350118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689335|NCT00623467|191350118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||<0.0001
95689336|NCT00623467|191350119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.34|<|0.0001||||||for contrast enhancement|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689337|NCT00623467|191350119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689338|NCT00623467|191350119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.22|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689339|NCT00623467|191350121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689340|NCT00623467|191350121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689341|NCT00623467|191350122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63|<|0.0001||||||for border delineation|paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689342|NCT00623467|191350122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.64|<|0.0001||||||for internal morphology|paired t test|||||||< 0.0001
95689343|NCT00623467|191350123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.4||||0.0002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0002
95689344|NCT00623467|191350124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0001|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0001
95689345|NCT00623467|191350125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0285|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0285
95689346|NCT00623467|191350126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.5||||0.0004|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0004
95689347|NCT00623467|191350127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-12.5||||0.0588|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0588
95689348|NCT00623467|191350128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0||||0.0093|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0093
95689349|NCT00623467|191350129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0003|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0003
95689350|NCT00623467|191350130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.0000
95689351|NCT00623467|191350131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.8||||0.0016|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0016
95689352|NCT00623467|191350132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.9||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
95689353|NCT00623467|191350133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.5||||0.0253|||||||McNemar|||||||0.0253
95689354|NCT00623467|191350134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689355|NCT00623467|191350135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.0001|||||||paired t-test|||||||< 0.0001
95689356|NCT01505491|191350152|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|113.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.086||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.752|129.812|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||129.812|98.752|0.1163
95689357|NCT01505491|191350152|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|132.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.094||0.7345|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.984|153.412|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||153.412|113.984|0.7345
95854545|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.844||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.844
95689358|NCT01505491|191350152|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.1833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.974|99.83|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||99.830|74.974|0.1833
95689359|NCT01505491|191350153|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|109.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.073||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.384|122.935|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.935|97.384|0.0303
95689360|NCT01505491|191350153|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|128.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.6547|TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.492|146.365|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||146.365|113.492|0.6547
95689361|NCT01505491|191350153|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|86.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.077||0.1572|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.238|97.564|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||97.564|76.238|0.1572
95689362|NCT01505491|191350154|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|110.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.063||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.687|122.035|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||122.035|99.687|0.0212
95727605|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.6|-0.6|
95689363|NCT01505491|191350154|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|117.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.17|TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.638|130.757|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of BI 695501 vs. Humira EU was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||130.757|105.638|0.1700
95689364|NCT01505491|191350154|EQUIVALENCE|p-value for ratio outside interval 80% to 125%|Geometric mean ratio (%)|96.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.064|107.017|||ANOVA||Bio-equivalence of Humira EU vs. Humira US was estimated by the ratios of the adjusted geometric means (gMean). Standard error of the mean is actually geometric standard error.|ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithm scale was used with 'treatment' and 'age' as fixed effect.||107.017|87.064|0.0016
95689365|NCT02202031|191350157|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.6222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.21|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.21|-0.73|0.6222
95689366|NCT02202031|191350158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.7695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.47|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.47|-0.64|0.7695
95689367|NCT02202031|191350159|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.6456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.39|||ANCOVA|change from baseline value, adjusted for baseline value||||0.39|-0.24|0.6456
95689368|NCT02202031|191350160|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.6|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.60|-0.66|0.9190
95689369|NCT02202031|191350161|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.5358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|4.84|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value.||||4.84|-2.51|0.5358
95689370|NCT02202031|191350162|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.4663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.34|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.34|-2.90|0.4663
95689371|NCT02202031|191350163|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.17||||0.3134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|6.38|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||6.38|-2.05|0.3134
95689372|NCT02202031|191350164|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|3.53|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||3.53|-7.05|0.5146
95689373|NCT02202031|191350165|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.16|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.16|-0.44|0.3611
95689374|NCT02202031|191350166|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|1.57|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||1.57|-2.43|0.6722
95689375|NCT02202031|191350167|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.07|-1.4|0.0786
95689376|NCT02202031|191350168|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.2284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.79|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.79|-2.87|0.2284
95689377|NCT02202031|191350169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-0.13|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||-0.13|-3.28|0.0335
95689378|NCT02202031|191350170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.81|||ANCOVA|change from baseline, adjusted for baseline value||||0.81|-0.66|0.8408
95689379|NCT02202031|191350171|SUPERIORITY|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.5578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|-0.32|0.5578
95689380|NCT02202031|191350172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5578|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.5578
95689381|NCT02202031|191350173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.31|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||0.31|-0.79|0.7301
95689382|NCT02202031|191350174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.6646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.04|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic||||0.04|-0.89|0.6646
95689383|NCT02202031|191350175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4993|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||||0.4993
95689384|NCT02202031|191350176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.7506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|4.23|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||4.23|-3.05|0.7506
95689385|NCT02202031|191350177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55||||0.6268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|3.87|||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline value, diabetes and the following medications: beta-blockers, alpha-agonists, and sympathomimetic.||||3.87|-6.98|0.6268
95689386|NCT03078608|191350286|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||1.00
95689387|NCT03078608|191350287|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.58||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.11
95689388|NCT03078608|191350288|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.07||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.79
95689389|NCT03078608|191350289|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.29
95689390|NCT03078608|191350290|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.18||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.67
95689391|NCT03078608|191350291|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.41||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.24
95689392|NCT03078608|191350292|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.36||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.25
95689393|NCT03078608|191350293|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.53||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.47
95689394|NCT03078608|191350294|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.54||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.23
95689395|NCT03078608|191350295|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.8||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.39
95689396|NCT01455428|191350301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.34|-1.08|0.0002
95689397|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.2||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.20|-0.79|0.0010
95689398|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.35||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.35|-0.94|<0.0001
95689399|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.88|0.0001
95689400|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
95689401|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.21||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.21|-0.81|0.0009
95689402|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.29||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.29|-0.89|0.0001
95689403|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.41||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.41|-1.01|<0.0001
95689404|NCT01455428|191350302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||All analyses were 2-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.40|-1.00|<0.0001
95689405|NCT01455428|191350304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.14|-0.93|0.0079
95689406|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.19||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 1 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.19|-0.86|0.0024
95689407|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.31||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 2 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.31|-0.99|0.0002
95689408|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 3 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0012
95689409|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.11||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 4 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.11|-0.79|0.0101
95916371|NCT02307513|191791083|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.8|-16.8|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-16.8|-32.8|<0.0001
95689410|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 5 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.73|0.0258
95689411|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 6 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.05|-0.74|0.0260
95689412|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.175||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.14||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 7 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.14|-0.83|0.0062
95689413|NCT01455428|191350305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||Week 8 Modelled Results. The model used was a linear mixed model with treatment, week, center, and treatment by week interaction as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate. A compound symmetry covariance structure is specified.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0081
95689414|NCT01455428|191350306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||||||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test comparing pregabalin to placebo adjusted for center.||||0.0007
95689415|NCT01455428|191350309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.932|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.99|-4.37||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-4.37|-11.99|<0.0001
95689416|NCT01455428|191350310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.16||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.58|0.0007
95689417|NCT01455428|191350312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.464||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.08|-2.35||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.35|-12.08|0.0039
95689418|NCT01455428|191350313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.783||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|7.22||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||7.22|-3.76|0.5351
95689419|NCT01455428|191350314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.579||0.8892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|4.73||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||4.73|-5.45|0.8892
95689420|NCT01455428|191350315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.72||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.72|0.14|0.0035
95689421|NCT01455428|191350316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.6||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis performed using a logistic regression model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||3.60|0.90|0.0972
95689422|NCT01455428|191350317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.161||0.5702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|8.03||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||8.03|-4.44|0.5702
95689423|NCT01455428|191350318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.194||0.6929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|5.2||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||5.20|-3.46|0.6929
95689424|NCT01455428|191350319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.1403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.94||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and baseline value as a covariate.||0.94|-6.63|0.1403
95689425|NCT01455428|191350320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.39||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.39|-0.86|<0.0001
95689426|NCT01455428|191350321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.27||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors.||-0.27|-0.72|<0.0001
95689427|NCT01455428|191350323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.41||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|-0.83|0.5060
95689428|NCT01455428|191350324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.285||0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.46||Analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using a general linear model with treatment and center as factors, and the baseline value as a covariate.||0.46|-0.66|0.7247
95689429|NCT03694522|191350325|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.04|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors of geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||1.04|0.44|0.0727
95689430|NCT03694522|191350326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.95|||Stratified log-rank test|Adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.95|0.35|0.0268
95689431|NCT03694522|191350327|SUPERIORITY||Difference|13.1||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) proportions||||29.0|-2.8|0.1060
95689432|NCT03694522|191350329|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.94|||||Hazard ratio and 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for randomization stratification factors, including geographic region and administration of mFOLFOX6 single dose prior to randomization.|||0.94|0.38|
95689433|NCT00257192|191350330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|0.67||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|P-value for final analysis is to be adjusted due to planned interim analysis (0.0462).||Sample size for 85% power 2-tailed 0.05 significance level based on expected difference of -5 with average within-group standard deviation=13 was 276 subjects (2 to 1 ratio of enrollment: 184 ziprasidone, 92 placebo). Interim analysis at 60 percent (%) enrollment (ITT population): may stop trial early for efficacy (2-sided p-value less than (\<) 0.0124) or for futility (2-sided p-value greater than (\>) 0.4772; The final analysis is to employ a 2-sided p-value \<0.0462.||0.67|-4.28|0.1530
95689434|NCT00257192|191350331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.06||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Difference from placebo||0.06|-0.48|0.1289
95689435|NCT00257192|191350332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.1987||95.0|-6.5|1.36||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|Hochberg procedure was applied to p-value to preserve type I error in the analysis of key secondary endpoints (PANSS total score and CGI-S).||Total score: difference from placebo||1.36|-6.50|0.1987
95689436|NCT00257192|191350333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|-0.05||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Positive score: difference from placebo||-0.05|-2.61|0.0412
95689437|NCT00257192|191350333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.4661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.72||Mixed effects repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of covariance model with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit, and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Negative score: difference from placebo||0.72|-1.57|0.4661
95689438|NCT00257192|191350334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.09||Mixed effects MMRM with subject as random effect, treatment, region, visit and visit-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects.|ANOVA|||Difference from placebo||0.09|-0.47|0.1820
95689439|NCT00257192|191350342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares mean|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.2613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|3.69||SAS PROC MIXED to fit a mixed model analysis of covariance with treatment and region as fixed effects and baseline score as covariate.|ANCOVA|Observed cases at Week 6.||Neurocognitive Index score at Week 6: difference from placebo||3.69|-1.01|0.2613
95689440|NCT02522377|191350349|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.72
95689441|NCT02522377|191350350|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions in mixed effect model|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=7.836.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.77
95916372|NCT02307513|191791084|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|-7.67|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-7.67|-16.20|<0.0001
95689442|NCT02522377|191350351|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.40
95689443|NCT02522377|191350352|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.3634.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.009
95689444|NCT02522377|191350353|SUPERIORITY|Superiority test based upon group differences pooled across infusions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes main effect for treatment group and infusion number categorically. Satterthwaite DF=9.987.|Midazolam - Ketamine Infusions|||||0.34
95689445|NCT02522377|191350354|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|7.2|||Fisher Exact||Odds Ratio of Midazolam (numerator) to Ketamine Infusions (denominator)|||7.20|0.01|0.58
95689446|NCT03290300|191350367|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The pre-specified threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05.|ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA with multiple comparisons to baseline||||||<0.0001
95689447|NCT03320512|191350374|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.15||||0.04965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.29|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) Average Treatment Effect (ATE)||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.29|0.00|0.04965
95689448|NCT03320512|191350374|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.04||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.13|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.13|-0.21|0.62
95689449|NCT03320512|191350375|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.12||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.26|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.26|-0.03|0.11
95689450|NCT03320512|191350375|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.21|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population||0.21|-0.08|0.38
95689451|NCT03320512|191350376|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.04||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.09|0.68
95689452|NCT03320512|191350376|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.25||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.25|-0.03|0.53
95689453|NCT03320512|191350377|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.15||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.15|-0.02|0.53
95689454|NCT03320512|191350377|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.12|-0.12|0.96
95689455|NCT03320512|191350378|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.08||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.0||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.00|-0.84|0.93
95689456|NCT03320512|191350378|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-1.12||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.91||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.91|-4.16|0.60
95689457|NCT03320512|191350379|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.73||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|2.48||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||2.48|-1.03|0.60
95689458|NCT03320512|191350379|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.91||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||1.04|-2.86|0.60
95689459|NCT03320512|191350380|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.20|0.60
95689460|NCT03320512|191350380|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Gonorrhea The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.09|-0.21|0.60
95689461|NCT03320512|191350380|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.13||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.03|-0.30|0.53
95689462|NCT03320512|191350380|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.08||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.08||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Chlamydia The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.08|-0.24|0.60
95689463|NCT03320512|191350380|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.11||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.04||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.04|-0.25|0.53
95689464|NCT03320512|191350380|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.07||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.07||P-values adjusted using the Benjamini Hochberg procedure.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 Syphillis The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.07|-0.20|0.60
95689465|NCT03320512|191350381|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.29|-0.07|
95689466|NCT03320512|191350381|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.34|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.34|0.03|
95689467|NCT03320512|191350381|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.15|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.15|-0.27|
95689468|NCT03320512|191350381|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.16|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.16|-0.21|
95689469|NCT03320512|191350382|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.05|
95689470|NCT03320512|191350382|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.29|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.29|-0.04|
95689471|NCT03320512|191350382|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.26|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 vs. Control.||0.26|-0.08|
95689472|NCT03320512|191350382|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.19|||||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald Confidence Interval|Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.13|
95689473|NCT03320512|191350383|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|0.09||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.19|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.19|-0.02|0.11
95689474|NCT03320512|191350383|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-0.01||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.11|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||0.11|-0.14|0.82
95689475|NCT03320512|191350384|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|8.95||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|17.83||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.025.|TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 3 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||17.83|0.07|0.05
95689476|NCT03320512|191350384|SUPERIORITY||Average Treatment Effect|-3.69||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|5.95|||TMLE estimation of ATE and Wald test|||Month 6 The analysis includes the intent-to-treat population and compares P3 and P3+ vs. Control.||5.95|-13.33|0.45
95689477|NCT03320512|191350385|SUPERIORITY||Incremental cost effectiveness ratio|25.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.05|236.81|||||The confidence interval was created using percentile bootstrap.|Participants were included if they were at an active site with cost data and had a 3-month binary TFV measure.||236.81|-194.05|
95689478|NCT00638846|191350386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.739|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.136|1.739|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric / balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is senofilcon A toric is superior to balfilcon A toric by having less degrees of rotation||1.739|1.136|
95689479|NCT00638846|191350387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.138|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.624|1.138|||Generalized Linear Model||Odds ratio was senofilcon A toric/balafilcon A toric|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less degrees of instability.||1.138|0.624|
95689480|NCT00638846|191350388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1307|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2856|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.1307|-0.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon At toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having less time required to fit.||-0.5680|-1.1307|
95689481|NCT00638846|191350389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A is superior to balafilcon A.||0.3680|0.07001|
95689482|NCT00638846|191350390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is -0.4.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1648|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.0688|-0.0197|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric by having a lower grade fo corneal staining.||-0.0197|-0.0688|
95916373|NCT02307513|191791085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.5||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.0|-1.0|0.0335
95916374|NCT02307513|191791086|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-1.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.6|-1.4|<0.0001
95916375|NCT02307513|191791087|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.5|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-0.5|-1.3|<0.0001
95916376|NCT02307513|191791088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|34.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||34.6|15.5|<0.0001
95689483|NCT00638846|191350391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1331|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|0.07001|0.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus balafilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is superior to balafilcon A toric.||0.3680|0.07001|
95689484|NCT01276847|191350406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.016
95689485|NCT01276847|191350406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.007
95689486|NCT01276847|191350406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00015||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.00015
95689487|NCT01276847|191350406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000184||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000184
95689488|NCT01276847|191350407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.397||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.397
95916377|NCT02307513|191791089|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.692|3.405|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors.|||3.405|1.692|<0.0001
95916378|NCT02307513|191791090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|30.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|43.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||43.1|18.1|<0.0001
95916379|NCT02307513|191791091|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.4|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline with the treatment arm, sex, region as factors and the baseline value as a covariate.||||-1.4|-4.5|0.0003
95916380|NCT02307513|191791092|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|28.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2 sided p-value based on the CMH test adjusting for sex.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 2 strata of sex with the CMH weights.|||60.4|-3.6|0.1100
95689489|NCT01276847|191350407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.010
95689490|NCT01276847|191350407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.002
95689491|NCT01276847|191350407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.000215||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.000215
95689492|NCT01276847|191350408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.787||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 1||||0.787
95689493|NCT01276847|191350408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.577||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 2||||0.577
95689494|NCT01276847|191350408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 4||||0.053
95689495|NCT01276847|191350408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||95.0||||unadjusted 1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sample test||Week 16||||0.098
95689496|NCT00872833|191350464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95689497|NCT00872833|191350465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
95689498|NCT00839098|191350466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95689499|NCT00839098|191350467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95689500|NCT00839098|191350468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95689501|NCT00839098|191350469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95689502|NCT00839098|191350470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95689503|NCT00839098|191350471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant in this study.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95916381|NCT02307513|191791093|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in percentages|17.5||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|30.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value was based on the CMH test, adjusting for sex and region.|Adjusted difference was the weighted average of the treatment differences across the 4 strata of combined sex and region factors with the CMH weights.|||30.7|4.2|0.0204
95689504|NCT00839098|191350472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95689505|NCT01345786|191350485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|137.5||||||90.0|131.0|144.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||144.4|131|
95916382|NCT02307513|191791094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.611||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.408|0.915|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Treatment comparison is based on the stratified log-rank test, with sex and region as the stratification factors.|The HR is based on the stratified Cox model with baseline number of oral ulcers and sex and region as the stratification factors|||0.915|0.408|0.0112
95689506|NCT01345786|191350485|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|111.8||||||90.0|107.5|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|107.5|
95689507|NCT01345786|191350486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|107.3||||||90.0|99.0|116.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||116.4|99|
95727606|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.0||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 threshold was calculated||2.0|-1.0|
95854546|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
95854547|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.062||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.062
95689508|NCT01345786|191350486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.6||||||90.0|99.2|108.2|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||108.2|99.2|
95689509|NCT01345786|191350487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|110.0||||||90.0|106.4|113.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUClast||113.7|106.4|
95689510|NCT01345786|191350487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.3||||||90.0|100.9|105.7|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC last||105.7|100.9|
95689511|NCT01345786|191350487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|108.1||||||90.0|104.7|111.6|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|Analysis for AUC infinity||111.6|104.7|
95689512|NCT01345786|191350487|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|103.1||||||90.0|100.5|105.8|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference|Analysis for AUC infinity||105.8|100.5|
95689513|NCT01345786|191350488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.5||||||90.0|96.7|106.4|||||Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.|||106.4|96.7|
95689514|NCT01345786|191350488|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Acceptance criteria of 80 - 125% were used for bioequivalence evaluations (bioequivalence concluded when 90% confidence interval fully contained within acceptance criteria).|Ratio (Test/Ref %)|101.3||||||90.0|98.1|104.7|||||"Commercial Batch Test / Phase 3 Batch Reference.~In addition to the participants/profiles excluded, 1 participant from the Phase 3 Batch Reference group did not contribute to this comparison."|||104.7|98.1|
95689515|NCT02986958|191350497|OTHER|We used generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure to assess the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of between-group differences. Regression models included treatment assignment and patient-level covariates (patient age, gender, and MMSE score) that were postulated as affecting communication outcomes. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05. Analyses were performed in SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.046
95689516|NCT03141307|191350528|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95689517|NCT03141307|191350529|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95689518|NCT03141307|191350530|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.502||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.502
95916383|NCT02307513|191791095|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.4||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex and region as factors and the baseline ulcers number as a covariate.||||0.0|-0.9|0.0683
95916384|NCT02307513|191791096|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.5944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||0.3|-0.4|0.5944
95689519|NCT03141307|191350531|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.071||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.071
95689520|NCT03141307|191350532|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||=|0.124||||||a prior threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.124
95916385|NCT02307513|191791097|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-5.5||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|16.7|||ANCOVA|Based on an ANCOVA model for the change from baseline, with treatment arm, sex and region as factors and the baseline score as a covariate.||||16.7|-27.6|0.6182
95916386|NCT00308737|191791113|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison of TI + Usual Care to Usual Care only|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FEV1 as a covariate||0.060|0.014|
95689521|NCT03141307|191350533|EQUIVALENCE|95% margin|||||<|0.05||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set for p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95689522|NCT01301742|191350544|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.77|165.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|||165.53|151.77|
95689523|NCT01301742|191350545|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.15|124.59|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||124.59|106.15|
95689524|NCT01301742|191350546|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and gemfibrozil divided by empa alone|Geometric Mean Ratio|158.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|151.41|165.49|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|||165.49|151.41|
95689525|NCT04083222|191350549|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with treatment and screening angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95689526|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.399
95689527|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.338||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||0.338
95689528|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||0.207
95689529|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||0.927
95689530|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.146||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||0.146
95689531|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||0.055
95689532|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||0.095
95689533|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||0.046
95689534|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||0.246
95689535|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||0.170
95689536|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||0.527
95689537|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||0.167
95689538|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.266
95689539|NCT04083222|191350550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.078
95689540|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.661||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.661
95689541|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
95689542|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
95689543|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
95689544|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
95916387|NCT00308737|191791114|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the FEV1 change from Baseline for the TI group is no greater than 50 mL/year above the change in the usual care treatment group. Assuming SD of 100 mL/y, 80% power, and 5% (1-tailed) significance level, it was determined that 50 subjects were required for each of the diabetes treatment groups. Final sample size was selected for the incidence of a \>= 15% decrease in FEV1 end point.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.057|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment site, diabetes type, and baseline FEV1||0.057|0.016|
95689545|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
95689546|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
95689547|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
95916388|NCT00308737|191791115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.034|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site and treatment and baseline FVC as a covariate||0.061|0.008|
95916389|NCT00308737|191791116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.042|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.031|-0.042|
95689548|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 57||||<0.001
95689549|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
95689550|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
95689551|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
95689552|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.106
95689553|NCT04083222|191350551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.318
95689554|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 3||||0.609
95689555|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 8||||<0.001
95689556|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 15||||<0.001
95916390|NCT00308737|191791117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures||Mixed model repeated measures with fixed effects diabetes type, visit, pooled site, and treatment and baseline TLC as a covariate||0.574|-0.037|
95689557|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 22||||<0.001
95689558|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 29||||<0.001
95689559|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 36||||<0.001
95689560|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 43||||<0.001
95689561|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 50||||<0.001
95689562|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 64||||<0.001
95689563|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 78||||<0.001
95916391|NCT00308737|191791118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6475|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3432|1.2219|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.2219|0.3432|
95916392|NCT00308737|191791119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7504|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|2.2431|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||2.2431|0.2510|
95916393|NCT00308737|191791120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8953|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6703|1.1958|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.1958|0.6703|
95916394|NCT00308737|191791121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.8509|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6722|1.077|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||1.0770|0.6722|
95916395|NCT00308737|191791123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two sample t-test||||0.112
95689564|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 92||||<0.001
95689565|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 120||||0.112
95689566|NCT04083222|191350552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||P-value was analyzed using ANOVA with treatment and screening ACE/ARB dose status stratification factor.|ANOVA|||Day 141||||0.371
95689567|NCT03103750|191350554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary hypothesis of calcitriol-related differences in amphetamine-induced dopamine release was determined by significance of the main effect of medication (calcitriol vs. placebo) on %change in BPND (i.e., post-Amp relative to pre-Amp scans) at a threshold of p\<0.05.||||0.016
95689568|NCT03103750|191350556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95689569|NCT02522481|191350557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0896|||||||McNemar|||Sensitivity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||0.0896
95689570|NCT02522481|191350557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||McNemar|||Specificity: superiority test comparing CE-DSE and UE-DSE based on the difference||||<0.0001
95689571|NCT00410280|191350571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44||||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|1.15|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI) and p-value were derived from the model.||1.15|-14.04|0.0947
95689572|NCT00410280|191350572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24||||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|3.35|||ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.35|-11.84|0.2673
95689573|NCT00410280|191350573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.35|-1.24|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.24|-46.35|0.0391
95689574|NCT00410280|191350573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.17||||0.1326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.72|5.39|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.39|-39.72|0.1326
95689575|NCT00410280|191350574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.76||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.16|-0.35|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-0.35|-19.16|0.0423
95689576|NCT00410280|191350574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.06||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|5.35|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||5.35|-13.46|0.3902
95689577|NCT00410280|191350575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05||||0.0302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.21|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Day 14: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||-1.90|-36.21|0.0302
95689578|NCT00410280|191350575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.19||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.34|3.97|||ANOVA|||Day 35: Repeated measures ANOVA model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participant was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-value were derived from the model.||3.97|-30.34|0.1289
95689579|NCT00410280|191350576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Screening: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.96|-0.79|0.8469
95689580|NCT00410280|191350576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.86|-0.86|0.9995
95689581|NCT00410280|191350576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 35: Mixed model with fixed effects for treatment, time and interaction between treatment and time, and random effects for participants was used. Point estimate for difference between the treatment groups, corresponding 95% CI and p-values were derived from the model.||0.59|-1.14|0.5280
95689582|NCT06018350|191350626|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||McNemar|||||||0.002
95689583|NCT01096446|191350628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Chi Square satistical calculation was used for analysis.||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Four infants(44%)in the control group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) while 100% of the infants in the experimental group developed hypertriglyceridemia (\>200 mg/dl) during the first week of life.||||0.011
95689584|NCT01109004|191350642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.87
95689585|NCT01109004|191350642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.37
95689586|NCT01109004|191350642|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.27
95689587|NCT01109004|191350643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.92
95689588|NCT01109004|191350643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.21
95689589|NCT01109004|191350643|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with disease progression at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.22
95689590|NCT01109004|191350644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.26
95689591|NCT01109004|191350644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.53
95689592|NCT01109004|191350644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.57
95689593|NCT01109004|191350645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.63
95689594|NCT01109004|191350645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.15
95689595|NCT01109004|191350645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||Two sided testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|Death prior to disease progression was treated as a competing risk||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with TRM at 38 months post-randomization are equal for those receiving RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.33
95689596|NCT00137436|191350661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.942
95689597|NCT00137436|191350661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.323
95689598|NCT00137436|191350661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.865
95689599|NCT00137436|191350661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.873
95689600|NCT00137436|191350662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.736
95689601|NCT00137436|191350662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.962||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.962
95689602|NCT00137436|191350662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.185
95689603|NCT00137436|191350662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||1.000
95689604|NCT00137436|191350663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.386
95689605|NCT00137436|191350663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.904
95689606|NCT00137436|191350663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.812||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.812
95689607|NCT00137436|191350663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.490
95689608|NCT00137436|191350664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.839||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.839
95689609|NCT00137436|191350664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.219
95689610|NCT00137436|191350664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.788
95689611|NCT00137436|191350664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.164||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.164
95689612|NCT00137436|191350665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.656||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.656
95689613|NCT00137436|191350665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.628||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.628
95689614|NCT00137436|191350665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.420
95689615|NCT00137436|191350665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
95689616|NCT00137436|191350666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.903||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C1D14 : C1D1||||0.903
95689617|NCT00137436|191350666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.434||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D1 : C1D1||||0.434
95689618|NCT00137436|191350666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C2.D14 : C1D1||||0.687
95689619|NCT00137436|191350666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||C3.D14 : C1D1||||0.296
95854548|NCT02761330|191668790|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Abstract Matching task (AM) reaction time.||||0.039
95854549|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.016
95689620|NCT00051558|191350727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
95854550|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the recovery rate of Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) reaction time.||||0.039
95689621|NCT00051558|191350728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||All comparisons were conducted using a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
95689622|NCT00051558|191350729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0||||P-value for Month 3|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.058
95854551|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||0.031
95689623|NCT00051558|191350729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689624|NCT00051558|191350729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689625|NCT00051558|191350729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689626|NCT00051558|191350729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689627|NCT00051558|191350729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689628|NCT00051558|191350730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0||||P-value for 3 Months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.120
95689629|NCT00051558|191350730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 6 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689630|NCT00051558|191350730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689631|NCT00051558|191350730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689632|NCT00051558|191350731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
95689633|NCT00051558|191350731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689634|NCT00051558|191350731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689635|NCT00051558|191350732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36-month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
95689636|NCT00051558|191350732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689637|NCT00051558|191350732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
95689638|NCT00051558|191350732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.011
95689639|NCT00051558|191350732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
95689640|NCT00051558|191350733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||<0.001
95689641|NCT00051558|191350733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689642|NCT00051558|191350733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689643|NCT00051558|191350733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value for 18 month endpoint|ANOVA|ANOVA Model: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosponate use+gender. Least Squares Means from treatment.||This is a last observation carried forward analysis that included all patients with a baseline and at least one postbaseline total hip bone mineral density (BMD) measurement.||||0.006
95689644|NCT00051558|191350733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
95689645|NCT00051558|191350734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689646|NCT00051558|191350734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.015
95689647|NCT00051558|191350734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.002
95854552|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Digital Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) reaction time.||||1.0
95689648|NCT00051558|191350734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689649|NCT00051558|191350735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0||||P-value for 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.011
95689650|NCT00051558|191350735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value for 18 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||0.009
95689651|NCT00051558|191350735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 24 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689652|NCT00051558|191350735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for 36 months|Mixed Models Analysis|Least Squares Means obtained from the treatment\*visit interaction term from the above mixed model repeated measures model.||Mixed Model Repeated Measures: Change in BMD=treatment+region+prior bisphosphonate use+gender+baseline BMD+visit+treatment\*visit.||||<0.001
95689653|NCT00051558|191350736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689654|NCT00051558|191350736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689655|NCT00051558|191350736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689656|NCT00051558|191350736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689657|NCT00051558|191350737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689658|NCT00051558|191350737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689659|NCT00051558|191350737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.004
95689660|NCT00051558|191350737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||0.013
95689661|NCT00051558|191350738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689662|NCT00051558|191350738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689663|NCT00051558|191350738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689664|NCT00051558|191350738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689665|NCT00051558|191350739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689666|NCT00051558|191350739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689667|NCT00051558|191350739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689668|NCT00051558|191350739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689669|NCT00051558|191350740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Month 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689670|NCT00051558|191350740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 6|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689671|NCT00051558|191350740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 18|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689672|NCT00051558|191350740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value at Month 36|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test using the aligned ranks for scores.||||||<0.001
95689673|NCT00051558|191350741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0||||p-value for Any Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.212
95689674|NCT00051558|191350741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.843
95689675|NCT00051558|191350741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0||||p-value for Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.007
95689676|NCT00051558|191350741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037||95.0||||p-value for Clinical Vertebral Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
95689677|NCT00051558|191350741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.256||95.0||||p-value for Nonvertebral Fragility Fracture|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.256
95689678|NCT02163993|191350747|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.24|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.24|-1.40|
95689679|NCT02163993|191350747|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.56|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.56|-1.06|
95689680|NCT02163993|191350747|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.29|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||-0.29|-2.02|
95689681|NCT02163993|191350747|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.27|||Bayesian Dose Response Model|||||0.27|-1.50|
95689682|NCT01993329|191350773|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.108||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.734|1.673|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.673|0.734|0.616
95689683|NCT01993329|191350773|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|1.016||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.534|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.534|0.673|0.939
95689684|NCT01993329|191350773|SUPERIORITY||Geometric means ratio|0.917||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|1.384|||ANOVA||Analysis was based on an ANOVA model with log (base 2) PC20 methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||1.384|0.607|0.671
95689685|NCT01993329|191350774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.008|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect.|||0.008|-0.230|0.066
95689686|NCT01993329|191350774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.012||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.107|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.107|-0.131|0.843
95689687|NCT01993329|191350774|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.099||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.02|||ANOVA||Analysis is based on an ANOVA model with minimum highest FEV1 after methacholine challenge at each period as dependent variable, treatment and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect|||0.020|-0.218|0.098
95689688|NCT05070429|191350775|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.035||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.657||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|generalized linear model (GLM)|generalized linear model (GLM) with an identity link|Confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare average daily hours of hearing aid use at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the primary outcome.||0.657|-0.727|0.92
95689689|NCT05070429|191350776|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-0.011||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.125|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare treatment satisfaction at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.125|-0.147|0.87
95689690|NCT05070429|191350777|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|0.059||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|0.32|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare primary COSI goal achievement at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||0.320|-0.201|0.66
95689691|NCT05070429|191350778|SUPERIORITY||Maximum likelihood (MLE)|-1.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.349|2.435|||generalized linear model (GLM)||To account for the non-normal distribution of the outcome, confidence intervals and p-values were obtained using a bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap resampling procedure with 10,000 replicates.|Used a weighted regression model with an identity link to compare hearing-specific quality of life at one-year post-randomization between participants assigned to the telehealth HHC or conventional HHC. Inverse probability of treatment weights will be calculated and included in the model for the secondary outcome.||2.435|-6.349|0.38
95689692|NCT01984346|191350810|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.7||||0.0472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|33.2||A prior threshold for statistical significance was 0.05|Chi-square test|||||33.2|0.1|0.0472
95689693|NCT02042404|191350821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95689694|NCT02042404|191350822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95689695|NCT02042404|191350823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95689696|NCT02042404|191350824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.0281
95689697|NCT03100942|191350826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|15.6||||0.1597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|37.6||P-values were obtained from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||37.6|-6.3|0.1597
95689698|NCT03100942|191350826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|16.6||||0.1694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|38.3||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||38.3|-5.1|0.1694
95689699|NCT03100942|191350826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|8.1||||0.3309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|29.4||P-values were obtained from CMH test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||For the analysis of the difference in response rates, the data with missing response values were imputed by multiple imputation method with logistic regression.|||29.4|-13.2|0.3309
95689700|NCT03100942|191350827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.2066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.4|||MMRM|||Least Squares (LS) Means, 95% confidence interval (CI), and P-values were obtained from Mixed Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||3.4|-0.7|0.2066
95689701|NCT03100942|191350827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.2|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.2|-2.9|0.3998
95689702|NCT03100942|191350827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.5113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.7|-1.4|0.5113
95689703|NCT03100942|191350828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||1.0|-0.9|0.9446
95689704|NCT03100942|191350828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.3977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.3|0.3977
95689705|NCT03100942|191350828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.6|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.6|-1.2|0.4966
95689706|NCT03100942|191350829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.1|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.1|-2.2|0.9564
95689707|NCT03100942|191350829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.2788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-3.3|0.2788
95689708|NCT03100942|191350829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.3|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||2.3|-1.8|0.8047
95689709|NCT03100942|191350830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.7|-1.1|0.6782
95689710|NCT03100942|191350830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.9|-0.8|0.9171
95689711|NCT03100942|191350830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.4641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.5|||MMRM|||LS Means, 95% CI, and P-values were obtained from MMRM with the terms for baseline value, treatment, stratification factors, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction.||0.5|-1.2|0.4641
95689712|NCT02531373|191350832|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.1||||||||3.1|-13.5|
95689713|NCT02531373|191350832|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|1.2||||||||1.2|-16.3|
95689714|NCT02531373|191350832|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|3.2||||||||3.2|-13.3|
95689715|NCT02531373|191350832|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.1||||||||5.1|-10.2|
95689716|NCT02531373|191350833|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
95689717|NCT02531373|191350833|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.2||||||||7.2|-6.9|
95689718|NCT02531373|191350833|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|7.1||||||||7.1|-6.9|
95689719|NCT02531373|191350833|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.9||||||||6.9|-6.9|
95689720|NCT02531373|191350834|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|20.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|37.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||37.3|2.1|0.029
95689721|NCT02531373|191350834|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|22.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|39.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.1|4.3|0.016
95689722|NCT02531373|191350834|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|19.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||19.9|-17.7|0.908
95689723|NCT02531373|191350834|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|23.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|39.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||39.6|5.4|0.011
95689724|NCT02531373|191350835|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|12.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||12.9|-14.0|0.943
95689725|NCT02531373|191350835|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||11.2|-16.4|0.711
95689726|NCT02531373|191350835|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|16.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||16.4|-8.7|0.529
95689727|NCT02531373|191350835|EQUIVALENCE|Miettinen and Nurminen method|Risk Difference (RD)|5.8||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||18.2|-5.8|0.298
95689728|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.1||||||Serotype 1||1.10|0.61|
95689729|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.35||||||Serotype 3||2.35|1.33|
95689730|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.81||||||Serotype 4||1.81|0.91|
95689731|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51||||||Serotype 5||1.51|0.59|
95689732|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||||95.0|0.29|0.86||||||Serotype 6A||0.86|0.29|
95689733|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.1||||||Serotype 6B||2.10|0.58|
95689734|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.03||||||Serotype 7F||1.03|0.55|
95689735|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.75||||||Serotype 9V||1.75|0.74|
95689736|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.27||||||Serotype 14||1.27|0.58|
95689737|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||||95.0|0.43|0.92||||||Serotype 18C||0.92|0.43|
95689738|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26||||||Serotype 19A||1.26|0.64|
95689739|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||||||Serotype 19F||1.11|0.62|
95689740|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|81.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.51|109.68||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||109.68|60.51|
95689741|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.47||||||Serotype 23F||1.47|0.56|
95689742|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|22.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.77|41.97||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||41.97|11.77|
95689743|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.23||||||Serotype 1||1.23|0.68|
95689744|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.8||||||Serotype 3||2.80|1.60|
95689745|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.62||||||Serotype 4||1.62|0.82|
95689746|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.31||||||Serotype 5||1.31|0.53|
95689747|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.92||||||Serotype 6A||0.92|0.31|
95689748|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.5||||||Serotype 6B||1.50|0.42|
95689749|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.31||||||Serotype 7F||1.31|0.71|
95689750|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.49||||||Serotype 9V||1.49|0.64|
95689751|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.37||||||Serotype 14||1.37|0.63|
95689752|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16||||||Serotype 18C||1.16|0.55|
95689753|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.22||||||Serotype 19A||1.22|0.63|
95689754|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.44||||||Serotype 19F||1.44|0.81|
95689755|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|89.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.02|120.51||||||Serotype 22F (non-Prevnar serotype)||120.51|67.02|
95689756|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.57||||||Serotype 23F||1.57|0.61|
95689757|NCT02531373|191350836|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample t-test|Risk Ratio (RR)|18.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.82|34.41||||||Serotype 33F (non-Prevnar serotype)||34.41|9.82|
95689758|NCT02795988|191350856|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard regression model|0.603||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.38|0.957||1-sided p-value was calculated from Log-rank test stratified by factor tumor stage which used for randomization at screening.|Log Rank|||||0.957|0.380|0.078
95689759|NCT00719576|191350881|SUPERIORITY|The Wilks lambda test statistic and associated single P value from the MANOVA model were used to test the statistical significance of the difference in the co-primary endpoint between MACI and microfracture.||||||0.001|||||||MANOVA|||The changes from Baseline to Week 104 in KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores (co-primary efficacy parameter) were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) model, with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method for handling missing data. Terms included in the model are treatment and center as class variables and baseline KOOS pain and Function (SRA) as continuous covariates.||||0.001
95689760|NCT00719576|191350882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.717||||||Differences between groups were tested using analysis of variance|ANOVA|ANOVA with terms for treatment and center||||||.717
95689761|NCT00719576|191350883|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Row Mean Score Chi-Square||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row mean score chi-squared test for defect fill.||||.920
95689762|NCT00719576|191350884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||KOOS Response Rate: a participant is regarded as a responder for KOOS if a 10-point improvement in both KOOS Pain and Function (SRA) scores was achieved with respect to Baseline. Otherwise, the patient is regarded as a nonresponder.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was calculated for response categories 'Responded' and 'Not responded' using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel χ2 Test stratified by Center||Differences between groups were tested by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test stratified by center for responders.||||0.016
95689763|NCT00719576|191350886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS activities of daily living p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
95689764|NCT00719576|191350886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||KOOS knee-related quality of life p-value 0.029|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||0.029
95689765|NCT00719576|191350886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||KOOS other symptoms p-value \<0.001|ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance was conducted with treatment and center as fixed effects and Baseline subscale as covariate, conducted at α = 0.05 level of significance. Last observation carried forward was used for missing data imputation.||||<0.001
95689766|NCT02759146|191350905|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.09||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.52||Adjusted for baseline and balancing factors used in the randomization|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||.52|-.36|.72
95689767|NCT02759146|191350905|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.15||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||.41|-.72|.58
95689768|NCT02759146|191350905|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||.34|-.81|.42
95689769|NCT02759146|191350906|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.01||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.42|-0.44|0.96
95689770|NCT02759146|191350906|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.2||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.35|-0.75|0.48
95689771|NCT02759146|191350906|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between meditative practice and control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||0.38|-0.75|0.52
95689772|NCT02759146|191350907|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.67||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to meditative practices for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||3.86|-2.52|.68
95689773|NCT02759146|191350907|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-2.53||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.64|1.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||1.58|-6.64|.23
95689774|NCT02759146|191350907|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-3.2||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 1-4||1.01|-7.41|0.14
95689775|NCT02759146|191350908|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference between reflexology and meditative practice for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs meditative practice for weeks 1-4||0.39|-0.38|0.98
95689776|NCT02759146|191350908|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.24||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology to control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 1-4||0.25|-0.74|0.34
95689777|NCT02759146|191350908|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.25||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4|Aim 1: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 1-4||0.26|-0.76|0.34
95689778|NCT02759146|191350909|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|0.25||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology to added meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continuing reflexology vs adding meditative practice||1.14|-.63|0.57
95689779|NCT02759146|191350909|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.49||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||After the initial 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continuing meditative practice to adding reflexology|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing with meditative practice vs. adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.63|-0.64|0.39
95689780|NCT02759146|191350910|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|1.94||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.93|7.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||7.04|-10.93|0.67
95689781|NCT02759146|191350910|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-1.85||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|10.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practices, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||10.29|-6.59|0.66
95689782|NCT02759146|191350911|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.19||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.57|-0.95|0.62
95854553|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.195||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.195
95916396|NCT00308737|191791124|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis tested was that the difference in incidence of a decrease of ≥ 15% in FEV1 between the treatment groups not be greater than 5% for TI when compared with the usual care treatment group. Assuming an incidence rate of 15% for FEV1 and a noninferiority criterion of a 5% difference in incidence between the treatment groups, approximately 625 subjects per group were required for 80% power and an alpha of 5% (1 tailed).|Odds Ratio (OR)|-2.4767|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5578|-0.3956|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression excluding non-diabetics||-0.3956|-4.5578|
95916397|NCT02541383|191791135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.12|1.21|0.0010
95916398|NCT02541383|191791136|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.68|||Log Rank|||||0.68|0.42|<0.0001
95916399|NCT02541383|191791137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.72|||Log Rank|||||0.72|0.52|<0.0001
95916400|NCT01535274|191791139|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||P-values represent comparison of successive set points within anesthetic type (i.e.: Set Point 1 compared to Set Point 2, Set Point 2 compared to Set Point 3, etc.). This P-value was determined for each of set points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.||||<0.001
95689783|NCT02759146|191350911|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.04||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continuing meditative practice vs adding reflexology for weeks 5-12||1.22|-1.15|0.95
95689784|NCT02759146|191350912|SUPERIORITY||Difference between least squared means|-0.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs added meditative practice for weeks 5-12|Aim 2: After 4 weeks of reflexology, comparing continued reflexology vs adding meditative practice for weeks 5-12||0.77|-1.04|0.77
95689785|NCT02759146|191350912|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.22||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12|Aim 3: After 4 weeks of meditative practice, comparing continued meditative practice vs added reflexology for weeks 5-12||0.80|-1.23|0.67
95689786|NCT02759146|191350913|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.09||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.37|-0.88|0.42
95689787|NCT02759146|191350913|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practices vs control for weeks 5-12||0.29|-0.98|0.29
95916401|NCT01905046|191791203|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.62|||Chi-squared|||||2.62|0.36|0.951
95916402|NCT00576732|191791251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.19|-3.52||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|"A step-down testing procedure was employed with the risperidone high dose versus placebo comparison tested first. If this comparison was significant the risperidone low dose versus placebo comparison would be performed.~A clinically relevant difference in the change from baseline on the ABC Irritability subscale was assumed to be 6 with a standard deviation of 8. To achieve 80% power with Type I error rate of 5%, 93 subjects were required."||-3.52|-12.19|<0.001
95916403|NCT00576732|191791251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|1.27||Type I error is preserved by the step down procedure, no multiple comparison adjustment is needed. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline ABC-I value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||1.27|-7.36|0.164
95916404|NCT00576732|191791252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.004
95916405|NCT00576732|191791252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.817||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.817
95916406|NCT00576732|191791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.33||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value.|Mean difference is change in Risperidone high dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||-0.33|-1.02|<0.001
95916407|NCT00576732|191791253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.29||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors for treatment group, center (after pooling of small centers), baseline weight stratification, and baseline CGI-S value|Mean difference is change in Risperidone low dose arm minus change in placebo arm.|||0.29|-0.39|0.769
95916408|NCT00576732|191791254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||<0.001
95689788|NCT02759146|191350914|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.42||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.15|-1.00|0.15
95689789|NCT02759146|191350914|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.39|-0.80|0.50
95689790|NCT02759146|191350915|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.27||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for week 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||0.28|-0.83|0.33
95689791|NCT02759146|191350915|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.21|-0.93|0.22
95916409|NCT00576732|191791254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.985||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for center (after pooling small centers) and baseline weight stratification.||||||0.985
95689792|NCT02759146|191350916|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.92||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing reflexology vs control for weeks 5-12||1.52|-8.62|0.17
95689793|NCT02759146|191350916|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|-4.48||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.66|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12|Aim 4: Comparing meditative practice vs control for weeks 5-12||0.70|-9.66|0.09
95689794|NCT01397071|191350917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of change in PAT measurements was made to beef alone vs. beef with avocado 2 hours post-ingestion||||0.052
95689795|NCT01397071|191350918|OTHER||% of baseline|0.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance is defined as p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to beef patty alone vs. beef patty with avocado added 3 hours post-ingestion.||||0.03
95689796|NCT00385268|191350928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.14|||GEE model of repeated measures|GEE on repeated binary indicators of BE positive / negative test||||5.14|0.55|0.44
95689797|NCT00406315|191350933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.53|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16.||||
95689798|NCT00406315|191350933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||One-sided upper confidence limit|-0.33|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||||A one-sided 95% CI was constructed for the mean weight change from baseline to infer whether there was a significant decrease in weight.|Week 16 LOCF. Based on past information, the standard deviation of the mean weight difference was expected to be 2.2. The sample size of the study was estimated so that the one-sided CI of the mean weight decrease has a certain width. To obtain a one-sided CI with a width of 0.27 kg, a sample size of 180 subjects was needed. In other words, we were 95% certain that the true mean weight decrease was in an interval starting from the observed weight decrease and extending 0.27 kg unit above it.||||
95689799|NCT00406315|191350934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.48|2.41||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.41|-8.48|
95689800|NCT00406315|191350935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|1.44||||||HDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||1.44|-1.82|
95689801|NCT00406315|191350935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|2.09||||||LDL. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.09|-7.07|
95689802|NCT00406315|191350935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|13.15||||||Triglycerides. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||13.15|-16.44|
95689803|NCT00406315|191350936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.14||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.14|-0.02|
95689804|NCT00406315|191350937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|6.15||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.15|-0.09|
95689805|NCT00406315|191350938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|134.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.43|289.98||||||The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||289.98|-20.43|
95689806|NCT00406315|191350939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.11||||||Waist. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-5.93|
95689807|NCT00406315|191350939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|0.1||||||Hip. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.10|-6.20|
95689808|NCT00406315|191350940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.42||||||Total Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.42|-0.32|
95689809|NCT00406315|191350940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Global Severity Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.11|-0.05|
95689810|NCT00406315|191350940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07||||||Global Incapacitation Score. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||0.07|-0.06|
95689811|NCT00406315|191350941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-10.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-7.75||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-7.75|-12.70|
95689812|NCT00406315|191350941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-6.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|-4.63||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-4.63|-8.59|
95689813|NCT00406315|191350941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|-2.53||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.53|-4.07|
95916410|NCT00405639|191791261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95689814|NCT00406315|191350941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.83||||||Positive Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.03|
95689815|NCT00406315|191350941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-0.99||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.36|
95689816|NCT00406315|191350941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.35||||||Negative Subscale Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.35|-1.48|
95689817|NCT00406315|191350942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.61||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.61|-0.90|
95689818|NCT00406315|191350942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.36||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.36|-0.58|
95689819|NCT00406315|191350943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|2.88||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||2.88|2.52|
95689820|NCT00406315|191350943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|3.34||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||3.34|3.02|
95689821|NCT00406315|191350944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.83||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-1.83|-3.27|
95689822|NCT00406315|191350944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.99||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.99|-2.16|
95689823|NCT00406315|191350945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-3.26||||||Total Score, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-3.26|-5.95|
95689824|NCT00406315|191350945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.57|-2.85||||||Total Score, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-2.85|-5.57|
95689825|NCT00406315|191350945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.73||||||Global Rating, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.73|-1.31|
95689826|NCT00406315|191350945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.63||||||Global Rating, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||-0.63|-1.13|
95689827|NCT00406315|191350946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|7.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|9.69||||||Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.69|6.07|
95689828|NCT00406315|191350946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|5.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.89|6.65||||||Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||6.65|3.89|
95689829|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
95689830|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|15.02||||||Effectiveness, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||15.02|5.95|
95689831|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
95689832|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|18.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.94|25.04||||||Side Effect, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||25.04|11.94|
95689833|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
95689834|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|6.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|9.93||||||Convenience, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||9.93|2.98|
95916411|NCT00405639|191791262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95689835|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
95689836|NCT00406315|191350947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean|15.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.97|20.68||||||Global Satisfaction, Week 16 LOCF. The arithmetic mean and the corresponding 2-sided 95% CI are reported. All CIs are unadjusted for any multiplicity.||20.68|9.97|
95689837|NCT00321984|191350975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95689838|NCT00321984|191350975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95689839|NCT00321984|191350975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72941||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.72941
95916412|NCT00405639|191791263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95916413|NCT00405639|191791264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95916414|NCT00612534|191791266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.83||0.194||95.0|-5.32|25.83|||ANCOVA|||||25.83|-5.32|0.194
95689840|NCT00321984|191350977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95689841|NCT00321984|191350977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05||||||The overall 0.0025 level of significance for the multiple comparisons of each dexlansoprazole MR dose to placebo was controlled using Hochberg's method.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||<0.00001
95689842|NCT00321984|191350977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3146||||||Statistical significance was determined at 0.0025 level without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The comparison between the two treatment groups was made using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||0.31460
95689843|NCT02214186|191350988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
95689844|NCT02214186|191350989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
95689845|NCT02214186|191350990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures||||||<0.05
95689846|NCT02214186|191350991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
95689847|NCT02214186|191350992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||>0.05
95689848|NCT02214186|191350993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney followed by Friedman test||||||<0.05
95689849|NCT02214186|191350994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95916415|NCT00612534|191791266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.77||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|24.11|||ANCOVA|||||24.11|-6.78|0.268
95916416|NCT00612534|191791266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|36.56|||ANCOVA|||||36.56|3.54|0.018
95689850|NCT02214186|191350995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA for repeated measures.||||||<0.05
95689851|NCT02214186|191350996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95689852|NCT00431847|191351010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0323|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00619|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0448|-0.02013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02013|-0.0448|<0.0001
95689853|NCT00431847|191351010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi Squared|2.65||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4492
95689854|NCT00431847|191351010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2308||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5621|0.3461|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.|Estimated intercept group difference|A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3461|-0.5621|0.640
95689855|NCT00431847|191351010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3372||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3334|0.9932|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9932|-0.3334|0.3286
95689856|NCT00431847|191351010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4716||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06841|1.7866|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.7866|-0.06841|0.0694
95916417|NCT01508013|191791286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.633|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.633
95689857|NCT00431847|191351011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003777|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03076|-0.01589|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01589|-0.03076|<0.0001
95916418|NCT01508013|191791287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.001
95916419|NCT01508013|191791288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.018
95916420|NCT00085202|191791311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.8001
95689858|NCT00431847|191351011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.49||||0.4772|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4772
95689859|NCT00431847|191351011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1503||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|0.3729|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3729|-0.2184|0.6077
95689860|NCT00431847|191351011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2194||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2311|0.6319|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.6319|-0.2311|0.3616
95689861|NCT00431847|191351011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3066||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2948|0.9112|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.9112|-0.2948|0.3155
95689862|NCT00431847|191351012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02746|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03573|-0.01919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01919|-0.03573|<0.0001
95689863|NCT00431847|191351012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.4||||0.3345|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3345
95689864|NCT00431847|191351012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1718||0.8223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2993|0.3765|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3765|-0.2993|0.8223
95689865|NCT00431847|191351012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2506||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2009|0.7848|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.7848|-0.2009|0.2448
95689866|NCT00431847|191351012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3502||0.2014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2405|1.1369|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1369|-0.2405|0.2014
95689867|NCT00431847|191351013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.0403|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007196|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5446|-0.02613|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.02613|-0.5446|<0.0001
95689868|NCT00431847|191351013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.19||||0.3631|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3631
95689869|NCT00431847|191351013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2746||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6404|0.4396|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.4396|-0.6404|0.7148
95689870|NCT00431847|191351013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4009||0.3741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4318|1.1453|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.1453|-0.4318|0.3741
95854554|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Motor Praxis task (MP) reaction time.||||0.570
95916421|NCT00085202|191791311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5195||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.5195
95916422|NCT00085202|191791311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7696||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.7696
95916423|NCT00085202|191791312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0206||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.0206
95916424|NCT00085202|191791314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6231|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change over time||||0.6231
95916425|NCT00085202|191791314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.5720
95689871|NCT00431847|191351013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2969|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5609||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1938|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.4000|0.1938|0.0213
95689872|NCT00431847|191351014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.02776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03702|-0.0185|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.01850|-0.03702|<0.0001
95689873|NCT00431847|191351014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.88||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.2752
95689874|NCT00431847|191351014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1918||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6851|0.06941|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.06941|-0.6851|0.1094
95689875|NCT00431847|191351014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5079|0.5935|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5935|-0.5079|0.8786
95689876|NCT00431847|191351014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09297|1.4448|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.4448|-0.09297|0.0847
95689877|NCT00431847|191351015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.03645|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005913|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04808|-0.02481|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.02481|-0.04808|<0.0001
95689878|NCT00431847|191351015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.16||||0.3677|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3677
95689879|NCT00431847|191351015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.221||0.7926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4929|0.3766|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.3766|-0.4929|0.7926
95689880|NCT00431847|191351015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3212||0.5953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.8026|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.8026|-0.4610|0.5953
95689881|NCT00431847|191351015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6873|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4482||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1943|1.5689|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5689|-0.1943|0.1261
95689882|NCT00431847|191351016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.4831|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7286|-0.2377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.2377|-0.7286|0.0002
95854555|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.031||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.031
95854556|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.016||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Visual Object Learning Task (VOLT) reaction time.||||0.016
95689883|NCT00431847|191351016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|3.2||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.3617
95689884|NCT00431847|191351016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7573||0.2532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2715|8.5863|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||8.5863|-2.2715|0.2532
95689885|NCT00431847|191351016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9633||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5833|9.0286|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||9.0286|-6.5833|0.7580
95689886|NCT00431847|191351016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3759||0.1837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7484|3.4187|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.4187|-17.7484|0.1837
95689887|NCT00431847|191351017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.4741|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03909|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3971|0.5511|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.5511|0.3971|<0.0001
95689888|NCT00431847|191351017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.83||||0.6075|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6075
95689889|NCT00431847|191351017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2763||0.4558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4675|1.5607|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.5607|-3.4675|0.4558
95689890|NCT00431847|191351017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.977||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2442|0.5432|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||0.5432|-7.2442|0.0914
95689891|NCT00431847|191351017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0921||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4589|-2.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-2.2810|-14.4589|0.007
95689892|NCT00431847|191351018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2987|-0.1352|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1352|-0.2987|<0.0001
95689893|NCT00431847|191351018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.37||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0950
95689894|NCT00431847|191351018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3351||0.5878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9056|3.3547|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3547|-1.9056|0.5878
95727607|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
95916426|NCT01279343|191791401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.3|-5.9|0.03
95916427|NCT01279343|191791402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.23|||Chi-squared|||Comparison of vaginal delivery between groups.||1.23|.80|0.96
95916428|NCT01279343|191791402|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.9|||Chi-squared|||Cesarean deliveries were compared between the groups.||1.90|0.57|0.90
95916429|NCT03245255|191791422|OTHER|Correlation analysis|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95854557|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||1||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Etomidate + ECT and Ketamine + ECT groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||1.00
95854558|NCT02761330|191668791|OTHER|||||||0.109||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison between the Ketamine + ECT and Ketamine Alone groups for the initial decrement of Abstract Matching (AM) task reaction time.||||0.109
95854559|NCT02761330|191668799|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
95854560|NCT02761330|191668799|OTHER|||||||0.301|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.301
95854561|NCT02761330|191668799|OTHER|||||||0.557|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the delta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.557
95854562|NCT02761330|191668800|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
95854563|NCT02761330|191668800|OTHER|||||||0.734|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.734
95854564|NCT02761330|191668800|OTHER|||||||0.322|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the theta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.322
95854565|NCT02761330|191668801|OTHER|||||||0.164|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.164
95854566|NCT02761330|191668801|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.039
95854567|NCT02761330|191668801|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the alpha band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
95854568|NCT02761330|191668802|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
95854569|NCT02761330|191668802|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
95854570|NCT02761330|191668802|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of relative power in the beta band at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
95854571|NCT02761330|191668803|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.129
95854572|NCT02761330|191668803|OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.910
95854573|NCT02761330|191668803|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior functional connectivity (coherence) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.625
95854574|NCT02761330|191668804|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||1.000
95854575|NCT02761330|191668804|OTHER|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.496
95854576|NCT02761330|191668804|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank paired test|||Comparison of anterior-posterior phase-lag (PLI) at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.160
95854577|NCT02761330|191668805|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.008
95854578|NCT02761330|191668805|OTHER|||||||0.359|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.359
95854579|NCT02761330|191668805|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-Ranked Test|||Comparison of EEG Entropy using Permutation Entropy (PE) measures at baseline compared to T0 following return of responsiveness.||||0.375
95854580|NCT05386329|191668807|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment to end-of-treatment|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5485|=|0.0719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09883|2.1605||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CSQ-8 score compared to the end-point (week 8) CSQ-8 score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in CSQ-8 total scores between midpoint (week 4) and end-of-treatment (week 8).||2.1605|-0.09883|=.0719
95854581|NCT05386329|191668808|SUPERIORITY|Comparison of mid-treatment (week 4) to baseline|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8857|=|0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3884|2.2475||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with an unstructured covariance matrix.|The effect is presented as the therapist-guided smartphone-delivered CBT midpoint (week 4) CEQ credibility score compared to the baseline (week 0) CEQ credibility score.|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in treatment credibility total scores between baseline (week 0) and midpoint (week 4).||2.2475|-1.3884|=.6316
95689895|NCT00431847|191351018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0697||0.9053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3231|3.8299|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.8299|-4.3231|0.9053
95689896|NCT00431847|191351018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3457|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2285||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7034|4.012|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.0120|-8.7034|0.4682
95689897|NCT00431847|191351019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04639|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03562||0.1938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02369|0.1165|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1165|-0.02369|0.1938
95689898|NCT00431847|191351019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.43||||0.4884|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4884
95689899|NCT00431847|191351019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3991||0.6593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1348|3.3696|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.3696|-2.1348|0.6593
95689900|NCT00431847|191351019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4575|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0263||0.0889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.528|7.4431|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.4431|-0.5280|0.0889
95689901|NCT00431847|191351019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4499|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8061||0.8727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9692|5.0694|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||5.0694|-5.9692|0.8727
95689902|NCT00431847|191351020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.523|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08855|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6973|-0.3486|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.3486|-0.6973|<.0001
95689903|NCT00431847|191351020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|4.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.1800
95689904|NCT00431847|191351020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8198||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.253|7.857|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.8570|-3.2530|0.4151
95689905|NCT00431847|191351020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.3376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314||0.3157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1592|12.8344|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.8344|-4.1592|0.3157
95916430|NCT01960530|191791424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|60.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.69|66.1||||||Evaluation of Cmax||66.10|54.69|
95916431|NCT01960530|191791424|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To investigate the absolute and relative bioavailability of cortisol from oral Infacort®, a 20 mg dose of oral Infacort® was compared to a 20 mg dose of i.v. hydrocortisone and hydrocortisone tablets, respectively (Study Periods 3-5). These investigations were conducted in dexamethasone suppressed healthy subjects. Standard bioavailability limits of 80% to 125% were used.|Geometric LSmean ratio|106.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.92|117.76||||||||117.76|96.92|
95916432|NCT01960530|191791429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.23|95.52||||||||95.52|79.23|
95689906|NCT00431847|191351020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.825|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9715||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|25.5541|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||25.5541|-1.9040|0.0911
95689907|NCT00431847|191351021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09078||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4675|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1100|-0.4675|0.0016
95689908|NCT00431847|191351021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|6.33||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.0966
95689909|NCT00431847|191351021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4264||0.2195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7938|7.7697|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.7697|-1.7938|0.2195
95689910|NCT00431847|191351021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7381||0.5105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8289|4.9018|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.9018|-9.8289|0.5105
95689911|NCT00431847|191351021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3871|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1087||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4174|1.6433|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||1.6433|-22.4174|0.0903
95689912|NCT00431847|191351022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.04113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.04113||0.6602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2252|0.1429|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.1429|-0.2252|0.6602
95689913|NCT00431847|191351022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.53||||0.6764|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6764
95689914|NCT00431847|191351022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6357||0.3458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7036|7.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||7.6840|-2.7036|0.3458
95689915|NCT00431847|191351022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.2518|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0583||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2466|2.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.7430|-13.2466|0.1969
95689916|NCT00431847|191351022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.9796|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5287||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8429|-0.1162|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||-0.1162|-25.8429|0.0480
95727608|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.2||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-1.1|
95916433|NCT01960530|191791429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.72|99.04||||||||99.04|81.72|
95916434|NCT03573908|191791451|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.715|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|-0.433|||MMRM||Least squares (LS) mean difference (linaclotide - placebo)|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.433|-0.998|< 0.0001
95689917|NCT00431847|191351023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2349|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1003||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4323|-0.03745|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.03745|-0.4323|0.0199
95689918|NCT00431847|191351023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.6||||0.4577|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4577
95689919|NCT00431847|191351023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8797||0.7417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.624|4.7236|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.7236|-6.6240|0.7417
95689920|NCT00431847|191351023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.258|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4523||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5129|10.0289|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||10.0289|-7.5129|0.7778
95689921|NCT00431847|191351023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.5232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2532||0.2411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7608|22.8073|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||22.8073|-5.7608|0.2411
95689922|NCT00431847|191351024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.1629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08284||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00029|0.3261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||0.3261|-0.00029|0.0504
95689923|NCT00431847|191351024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|1.45||||0.6942|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.6942
95689924|NCT00431847|191351024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4216||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2469|6.2951|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||6.2951|-3.2469|0.5297
95689925|NCT00431847|191351024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7679|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7464||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1478|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||3.6120|-11.1478|0.3155
95689926|NCT00431847|191351024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.092||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7515|2.2399|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||2.2399|-21.7515|0.1105
95689927|NCT00431847|191351025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07538||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4465|-0.1493|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury.||-0.1493|-0.4465|0.001
95689928|NCT00431847|191351025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|2.72||||0.4361|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.4361
95727609|NCT00368966|191424836|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1:8 EU/mL threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
95689929|NCT00431847|191351025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6015||0.7297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0247|4.2246|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||4.2246|-6.0247|0.7297
95689930|NCT00431847|191351025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.2896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0186||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.625|12.2043|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||12.2043|-3.6250|0.2868
95916435|NCT03573908|191791452|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman Estimated Median Threshold|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value comparing change from baseline distributions by treatment using the Wilcoxon rank sum test 2-sided.|95% confidence interval (CI) for Hodges-Lehmann estimated median threshold was generated by Moses confidence limits method.|The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.35|-0.88|< 0.0001
95916436|NCT03573908|191791453|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Responder Rate|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|24.4|||||95% confidence intervals for difference in responder rate are obtained using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||24.4|9.9|
95727610|NCT00368966|191424837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.82|1.23||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.23|0.82|
95689931|NCT00431847|191351025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.0118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2663||0.1516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.327|21.3505|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||21.3505|-3.3270|0.1516
95689932|NCT00431847|191351026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.9776|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1426|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2584|-0.6967|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group. The overall slope of the model (below) is reported as a continuous variable for time since injury. T||-0.6967|-1.2584|<0.0001
95689933|NCT00431847|191351026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Squared|0.78||||0.8548|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Degrees of Freedom: 3||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The time interaction component of the model is reported below.||||0.8548
95689934|NCT00431847|191351026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.3635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8899||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3026|11.0296|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.0296|-4.3026|0.3882
95689935|NCT00431847|191351026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9044||0.9322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1376|11.1317|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||11.1317|-12.1376|0.9322
95689936|NCT00431847|191351026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.1166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2462||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8992|39.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|RA groups treated as classification variables with No RA group as reference.||A Linear Mixed Effects Model is utilized to examine the longitudinal progression of each outcome related to RA administration while adjusting for injury severity and length of stay of initial hospitalization for injury. The main treatment effect (RA group) is treated as a classification variable with the No RA group used as the reference group.||39.3341|2.8992|0.0233
95689937|NCT02142894|191351028|EQUIVALENCE|The results are analyzed in a 2x2 contingency table with 95%CI.|2 x 2 contingency table|87.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.7|95.2||||||||95.2|72.7|
95689938|NCT02553915|191351031|OTHER|Comparisons were made for each biomarker within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.|||||<|0.1|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||To evaluate whether a dose-response relationship exists between dose of EPA and decrease either in plasma IL-6 levels or in mitogen-stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression and secretion, when compared with placebo. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]. Comparisons were made within each arm pre and post 12 weeks of treatment.||||<0.10
95689939|NCT02553915|191351032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||"To evaluate:~1. whether EPA treatment produces a decrease in ratings of depression severity, when compared with placebo-treated subjects; and~2. whether the changes in IL-6 or mitogen- stimulated PBMC TNF-α expression mediate changes observed in ratings of depression.~\[Time Frame: 12 weeks\]"||||<0.1
95689940|NCT02553915|191351033|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Change in IDS-C30 scores were compared pre and post 12 weeks of treatment with each intervention, within each arm.||||<0.01
95916437|NCT03573908|191791453|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|3.12||Odds ratio, 95% CI for the Odds Ratio and p-value vs. placebo are obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests controlling for geographic region.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The overall family-wise Type I error rate for the primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||3.12|1.55|< 0.0001
95916438|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.867|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.219|-0.515||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 12. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.515|-1.219|< 0.0001
95689941|NCT02553915|191351034|OTHER|Exploratory.|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in mitogen-stimulated PBMC IL-6. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] Comparisons were made between pre and post treatment levels in each of the 4 treatment arms.||||<0.1
95689942|NCT02553915|191351035|OTHER|Exploratory|||||<|0.1|||||||Spearman Rank Order Correlation|||To evaluate whether EPA treatment produces decreases in the expression of inflammation pathway-related genes. \[Time Frame: 12 weeks\] (We evaluated gene expression of IL-6 and TNF-α.)||||<0.1
95689943|NCT01905397|191351040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.05||||0.27|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.27
95689944|NCT00492401|191351060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of miR-29b in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.02
95689945|NCT00492401|191351060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Expression levels of DNMT3a in pre treatment marrow samples from responding or non responding patients were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests||||.06
95689946|NCT04436510|191351108|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.118|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|1.237||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. verdiperstat slowed progression) was 0.57467. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by verdiperstat relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.237|0.769|
95689947|NCT04436510|191351110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.054||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||4.32|-3.74|0.8875
95689948|NCT04436510|191351111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.848||0.3538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Verdiperstat 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||11.13|-3.99|0.3538
95689949|NCT04436510|191351112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.318
95689950|NCT02260193|191351117|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.25|
95689951|NCT02260193|191351117|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
95689952|NCT02260193|191351117|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.48|
95689953|NCT02260193|191351118|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.61||||||||0.61|-0.54|
95689954|NCT02260193|191351118|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Differences|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.7||||||||0.70|-0.49|
95689955|NCT02260193|191351118|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.66||||||||0.66|-0.53|
95689956|NCT02260193|191351119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.04||||||||0.04|-0.71|
95689957|NCT02260193|191351119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29||||||||0.29|-0.50|
95689958|NCT02260193|191351119|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62||||||||0.62|-0.16|
95689959|NCT00747617|191351162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95689960|NCT00701727|191351164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.019
95689961|NCT00701727|191351165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95689962|NCT00701727|191351166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95689963|NCT00701727|191351167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95689964|NCT00701727|191351168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95689965|NCT00701727|191351169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95689966|NCT00701727|191351170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95689967|NCT00696657|191351219|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.8|||ANOVA|Confidence interval (CIs) for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.80|-1.58|<0.0001
95689968|NCT00696657|191351219|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.57|-1.33|<0.0001
95689969|NCT00696657|191351219|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.59|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.59|-1.35|<0.0001
95689970|NCT00696657|191351219|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.23|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.23|-0.98|0.0002
95689971|NCT00696657|191351219|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.41||||0.0324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.02|-0.79|0.0324
95689972|NCT00696657|191351219|SUPERIORITY||Estimated treatment differences|-0.09||||0.9772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.28|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus placebo are based on Dunnett's method.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.28|-0.46|0.9772
95727611|NCT00368966|191424837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.76|1.18||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.76|
95689973|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.06|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.06|-0.64|
95689974|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.18|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.18|-0.39|
95689975|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.16|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.16|-0.42|
95689976|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.52|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.52|-0.05|
95689977|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.73|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.73|0.15|
95689978|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.03|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.8 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||1.03|0.48|
95689979|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.56|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.8 mg - Placebo . The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.56|-1.12|
95689980|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.22|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 1.6 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.22|-0.80|
95689981|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg (with titration) - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.02|-0.56|
95689982|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.01|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.8 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.01|-0.58|
95689983|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.37|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.4 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.37|-0.22|
95689984|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.57|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.2 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.57|-0.02|
95689985|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.88|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Semaglutide 0.1 mg - Liraglutide 1.2 mg. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||0.88|0.31|
95689986|NCT00696657|191351219|OTHER||Estimated treatment differences|-0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.4|||ANOVA|CIs for treatment differences versus liraglutide are not corrected for multiple testing.||"The comparison sequence should be read as Liraglutide 1.2 mg - Placebo. The estimates are from an ANOVA model with treatment, country and previous treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate."||-0.40|-0.97|
95916439|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.062|-0.376||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 10. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.376|-1.062|< 0.0001
95727612|NCT00368966|191424837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.76|1.19||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.19|0.76|
95689987|NCT03650452|191351318|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimation|-30.48||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.99|-13.19||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-13.19|-46.99|0.0007
95689988|NCT03650452|191351319|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-25.93||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.96|-10.69||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency and indication.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-10.69|-43.96|0.0024
95689989|NCT03650452|191351320|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-50.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.03|-25.09||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||-25.09|-75.03|0.0001
95689990|NCT03650452|191351321|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann Estimate|-16.22||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.5|4.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference of percent change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo were computed using Rank Transformed ANCOVA adjusting for baseline seizure frequency.|Ranked ANCOVA||The location shift (TAK-935 - Placebo) and Asymptotic 95% confidence interval between TAK-935 and Placebo (TAK-935 - Placebo) were based on Hodges-Lehmann Estimation from un-adjusted rank statistics.|||4.49|-39.50|0.1470
95689991|NCT03650452|191351324|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||The p-value is 2-sided and it is for the difference (TAK-935 - Placebo) of change from baseline between TAK-935 and Placebo was computed using MMRM.|Mixed-Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)||The MMRM model included treatment and visit as factors along with treatment\*visit interaction and baseline score as a covariate; and visit as repeated measure.|||0.49|-0.32|0.6829
95689992|NCT03691623|191351362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-588.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-719.8|-456.35|||ANCOVA|||||-456.35|-719.8|< 0.001
95689993|NCT03691623|191351362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-564.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-689.23|-440.02|||ANCOVA|||||-440.02|-689.23|< 0.001
95689994|NCT03691623|191351362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-716.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-879.92|-552.24|||ANCOVA|||||-552.24|-879.92|< 0.001
95689995|NCT03691623|191351362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-736.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.36|-556.11|||ANCOVA|||||-556.11|-916.36|< 0.001
95689996|NCT03691623|191351363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-355.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.12|-205.69|||ANCOVA|||||-205.69|-506.12|< 0.001
95689997|NCT03691623|191351363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-326.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-469.68|-183.6|||ANCOVA|||||-183.6|-469.68|< 0.001
95689998|NCT03691623|191351363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-313.98|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-494.27|-133.69|||ANCOVA|||||-133.69|-494.27|= 0.001
95689999|NCT03691623|191351363|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-312.73|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-508.05|-117.4|||ANCOVA|||||-117.4|-508.05|= 0.003
95690000|NCT03691623|191351364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||||-2|-5.3|< 0.001
95690001|NCT03691623|191351364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.4|||ANCOVA|||||-2.4|-5.5|< 0.001
95690002|NCT03691623|191351364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.0|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-1.2|||ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.9|= 0.002
95690003|NCT03691623|191351364|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.9|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-4.9|= 0.006
95690004|NCT03691623|191351366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|||=|0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|0.44|||ANCOVA|||||0.44|-2.09|= 0.199
95690005|NCT03691623|191351366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.43|||ANCOVA|||||1.43|-0.98|= 0.714
95690006|NCT03691623|191351366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|||=|0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|1.77|||ANCOVA|||||1.77|-2.15|= 0.844
95690007|NCT03691623|191351366|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|||=|0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|0.79|||ANCOVA|||||0.79|-3.46|= 0.21
95690008|NCT03691623|191351367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.01|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|0.36|||ANCOVA|||||0.36|-2.37|= 0.145
95690009|NCT03691623|191351367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|||=|0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.73|||ANCOVA|||||0.73|-2.03|= 0.352
95690010|NCT03691623|191351367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.85|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|-1.15|||ANCOVA|||||-1.15|-4.55|= 0.002
95690011|NCT03691623|191351367|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.19|-1.61|||ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.19|< 0.001
95690012|NCT03691623|191351368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-24.081|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.554|-11.607|||ANCOVA|||||-11.607|-36.554|< 0.001
95690013|NCT03691623|191351368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.954|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.695|-14.213|||ANCOVA|||||-14.213|-37.695|< 0.001
95690014|NCT03691623|191351368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-18.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.176|-9.083|||ANCOVA|||||-9.083|-27.176|< 0.001
95690015|NCT03691623|191351368|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-19.329|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.106|-9.552|||ANCOVA|||||-9.552|-29.106|< 0.001
95690016|NCT03691623|191351369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1292|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8491|-1.4093|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4093|-2.8491|< 0.001
95690017|NCT03691623|191351369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1129|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7938|-1.4319|||ANCOVA|||||-1.4319|-2.7938|< 0.001
95690018|NCT03691623|191351369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.2191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1915|-2.2467|||ANCOVA|||||-2.2467|-4.1915|< 0.001
95690019|NCT03691623|191351369|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.7831|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8522|-1.714|||ANCOVA|||||-1.714|-3.8522|< 0.001
95690020|NCT03691623|191351370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|-1.35|||ANCOVA|||||-1.35|-2.67|< 0.001
95690021|NCT03691623|191351370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||||-1.16|-2.4|< 0.001
95690022|NCT03691623|191351370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.98|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||||-0.54|-3.43|= 0.009
95690023|NCT03691623|191351370|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.41|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.82|||ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-4|= 0.004
95690024|NCT03691623|191351371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-1.17|||ANCOVA|||||-1.17|-3.04|< 0.001
95690025|NCT03691623|191351371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.89|< 0.001
95690026|NCT03691623|191351371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|-0.89|||ANCOVA|||||-0.89|-3.06|< 0.001
95690027|NCT03691623|191351371|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|-1.29|||ANCOVA|||||-1.29|-3.64|< 0.001
95690028|NCT03691623|191351372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95690029|NCT03691623|191351372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95690030|NCT03691623|191351372|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.001
95690031|NCT03691623|191351372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||< 0.001
95690032|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.833|0.0126
95690033|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.966||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Body Mass Index (BMI) in kilogram per square meter (kg/m\^2). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.944|0.0042
95690034|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.656|0.816|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at Baseline (BL) in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.816|0.656|<0.0001
95690035|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.686|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.347|2.109|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.109|1.347|<0.0001
95690036|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.103||||0.4759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.843|1.442|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.442|0.843|0.4759
95690037|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.656||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.462|0.93|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine transaminase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.930|0.462|0.0180
95690038|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.742||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.965|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.965|0.570|0.0262
95690039|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.717||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.563|0.0069
95690040|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.062|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.056|1.067|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.067|1.056|<0.0001
95690041|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.107||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.191|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.191|1.029|0.0062
95690042|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.739||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.563|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.563|0.0295
95690043|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.166|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.329|0.083|<0.0001
95690044|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|1.084|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.084|1.015|0.0048
95690045|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.797||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.136|28.458|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||28.458|2.136|0.0019
95690046|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
95690047|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
95690048|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
95690049|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
95690050|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
95690051|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
95916440|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.665||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.007|-0.322||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 8. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.322|-1.007|0.0002
95916441|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.831|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.151|-0.511||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 6. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.511|-1.151|< 0.0001
95916442|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.982|-0.383||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 4. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.383|-0.982|< 0.0001
95690052|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.047|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.065|1.029|<0.0001
95690053|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.896||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|0.971|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.971|0.827|0.0074
95690054|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.971||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.950|0.0088
95690055|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.719|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|0.803|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.803|0.643|<0.0001
95690056|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.346|2.106|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.106|1.346|<0.0001
95690057|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.453|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.453|0.848|0.4479
95690058|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.451|0.908|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.908|0.451|0.0123
95690059|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|0.937|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.937|0.553|0.0147
95690060|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.718||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.914|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.914|0.564|0.0071
95690061|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.058|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.052|1.064|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.064|1.052|<0.0001
95690062|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.014||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.005|1.023|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.023|1.005|0.0019
95690063|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.701||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.539|0.913|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.913|0.539|0.0083
95690064|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.338|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.338|0.090|<0.0001
95690065|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.057||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.023|1.091|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.091|1.023|0.0008
95690066|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|0.946|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.946|0.431|0.0255
95690067|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.755||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|0.922|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.922|0.618|0.0059
95690068|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.521||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.501|4.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.236|1.501|0.0005
95690069|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.602||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.463|4.627|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||4.627|1.463|0.0011
95690070|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.727||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.198|2.491|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.491|1.198|0.0034
95690071|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.545||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.792|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.792|0.376|0.0014
95727613|NCT00368966|191424837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.98||||||For Poliovirus Type 1 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.69|
95690072|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|0.964|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.964|0.822|0.0042
95690073|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.824||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.687|0.0363
95690074|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.842||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.751|0.944|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.944|0.751|0.0033
95690075|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.477||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.183|1.844|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.844|1.183|0.0006
95690076|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.128||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.477|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.477|0.862|0.3810
95690077|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.812||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.674|0.978|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.978|0.674|0.0279
95690078|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|45.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.972|75.299|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||75.299|27.972|<0.0001
95690079|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|32.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.129|51.434|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||51.434|20.129|<0.0001
95690080|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.291|11.188|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.188|4.291|<0.0001
95690081|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.733||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.564|0.953|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.953|0.564|0.0204
95690082|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.087|0.331|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.331|0.087|<0.0001
95690083|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.806||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.514|5.201|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||5.201|1.514|0.0010
95690084|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.663||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.443|0.993|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.993|0.443|0.0459
95916443|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.888|-0.368||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 2. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.368|-0.888|< 0.0001
95916444|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.435|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.228||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 1. The overall family-wise Type I error rate for primary and secondary outcome measures were controlled at the α=0.05 level by employing a fixed-sequence testing procedure. Outcome measures were tested using 10 hypotheses, each comparing linaclotide versus placebo, in the sequence of presentation of statistical analyses in this record. If the hypothesis comparing the 2 groups was statistically significant (α=0.05), then the next hypothesis was to be tested; otherwise, testing would stop.||-0.228|-0.641|< 0.0001
95916445|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.683|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.398||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 3. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.398|-0.969|< 0.0001
95916446|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.768|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.076|-0.46||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 5. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.460|-1.076|< 0.0001
95916447|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.758|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.086|-0.431||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 7. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.431|-1.086|< 0.0001
95690085|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.758||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|0.932|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.932|0.616|0.0087
95690086|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.054||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.224|3.447|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.447|1.224|0.0064
95690087|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.931||||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.461|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.461|1.077|0.0271
95690088|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.738||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for mode of infection (other vs injection drug U). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|1.194|0.0039
95690089|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.565||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.386|0.829|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for AST ratio at BL (\> 1.5 vs \<=1.5). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.829|0.386|0.0035
95690090|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.533||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.593|19.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||19.219|1.593|0.0071
95690091|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.964||||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|7.114|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||7.114|0.542|0.3042
95690092|NCT01070550|191351403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.726||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|6.318|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.318|0.471|0.4100
95690093|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.236|1.538|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.538|1.236|<0.0001
95690094|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.033||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.004|1.063|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.063|1.004|0.0251
95690095|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.585|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|1.849|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.849|1.358|<0.0001
95690096|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.036|2.174|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.174|1.036|0.0317
95690097|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.493||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|2.048|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.048|1.089|0.0129
95690098|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.616||||0.0128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|2.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\< 140 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.357|1.107|0.0128
95727614|NCT00368966|191424837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.9||||||95.0|0.75|1.09||||||For Poliovirus Type 2 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.09|0.75|
95690099|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Platelets x 10\^9/L at BL (\>=140 - \< 180 vs \>=180). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.432|0.763|0.7809
95690100|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|0.976|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.976|0.962|<0.0001
95690101|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.298||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.273|14.512|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||14.512|1.273|0.0189
95690102|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
95690103|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
95690104|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
95690105|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
95690106|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.677||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|2.263|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.263|1.243|0.0007
95690107|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.384||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.641|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.641|1.166|0.0002
95916448|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.043|-0.363||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 9. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.363|-1.043|< 0.0001
95916449|NCT03573908|191791454|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|-0.498||LS mean difference and p-value were obtained based on an MMRM with treatment, analysis week, geographic region, and treatment-by-week interactions as fixed effects, and baseline score as a covariate.|MMRM|||Week 11. Not part of the fixed-sequence testing procedure.||-0.498|-1.189|< 0.0001
95916450|NCT04006925|191791455|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-23.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.0|-2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||-2.0|-41.0|0.03
95916451|NCT04006925|191791455|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.5|0.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-21.5|0.11
95916452|NCT04006925|191791455|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-14.5||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|11.3||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||11.3|-32.0|0.27
95916453|NCT04006925|191791456|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.0|0.02
95916454|NCT04006925|191791456|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.0|-1.0|0.83
95916455|NCT04006925|191791456|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||0.0|-3.5|0.09
95916456|NCT04006925|191791457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.08
95690108|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.421|3.074|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.074|1.421|0.0002
95690109|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.288||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.588|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.588|0.141|0.0006
95690110|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.579|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.579|0.106|0.0013
95690111|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.959||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.931|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.931|0.0062
95690112|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.708||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.568|0.881|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, first 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.881|0.568|0.0020
95690113|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|1.596|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.596|1.288|<0.0001
95690114|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.726|1.260|<0.0001
95690115|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.963|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.956|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.970|0.956|<0.0001
95690116|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.195|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.275|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.275|1.120|<0.0001
95690117|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.567||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.359|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.359|1.040|0.0316
95690118|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.495||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|11.879|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||11.879|1.701|0.0024
95727615|NCT00368966|191424837|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.88|1.29||||||For Poliovirus Type 3 the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.29|0.88|
95690119|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112||||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.014|1.219|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for BMI in kg/m\^2. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.219|1.014|0.0247
95690120|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.844||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.077|3.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.158|1.077|0.0258
95690121|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|2.235|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.235|1.232|0.0009
95690122|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.255||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.467|1.073|0.0045
95690123|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.086||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|3.034|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10 (IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.034|1.434|0.0001
95690124|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.318||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.63|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.630|0.160|0.0010
95690125|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.275||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.626|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missing vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.626|0.121|0.0021
95690126|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.962||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.935|0.989|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.989|0.935|0.0064
95916457|NCT04006925|191791458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||||0.18
95916458|NCT04006925|191791459|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-7.0|0.26
95690127|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.245|1.553|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.553|1.245|<0.0001
95916459|NCT04006925|191791459|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||2.0|-3.5|0.43
95916460|NCT04006925|191791459|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|3.0||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Mann Whitney U test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.0|-4.0|0.65
95916461|NCT04006925|191791460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.7||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||1.7|-15.2|0.23
95916462|NCT04006925|191791460|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.5||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Unpaired T-test|||Within group analysis of change from baseline.||4.5|-4.6|0.95
95916463|NCT04006925|191791460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|3.1||All statistical tests were conducted using a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.|Paired T-test|||Between group analysis of change from baseline.||3.1|-16.2|0.22
95916464|NCT03621202|191791470|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS sensitivity was 100%.|||
95916465|NCT03621202|191791471|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The EBBMS specificity was 75%.|||
95916466|NCT00312858|191791499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference of seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.4|3.8||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.||3.8|-1.4|<0.001
95916467|NCT00312858|191791500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity (non-inferiority) based on lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI on the risk difference seroresponse rates excluding a decrease of 10 percentage points or more (lower bound \>-10.0).|Risk Difference (RD)|-5.1||||0.013||95.0|-9.3|-1.4||Similarity (non-inferiority) indicated that the risk difference was statistically significantly greater than the pre-specified clinically relevant difference of -10 percentage points at the 1-sided multiplicity-adjusted α=0.025 level.|Miettinen and Nurminen|For testing the non-inferiority of 2 proportions. Stratified by investigator.|Difference in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2.|Comparison of the difference (percentage points) in estimated response rates of Arm 1 - Arm 2 for participants with initial serostatus \<1.25 gpELISA units/mL||-1.4|-9.3|0.013
95916468|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 4||1.3|0.9|<0.001
95916469|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 6B||1.2|0.8|<0.001
95916470|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.0|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 9V||1.0|0.8|<0.001
95690128|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.295||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.092|1.535|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.535|1.092|0.0029
95690129|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.109|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.236|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.236|0.050|<0.0001
95690130|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.645|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (cEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.645|0.159|0.0014
95690131|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.248||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.528|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response (pEVR vs no RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.528|0.616|0.5390
95690132|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.604||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.069|2.405|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.405|1.069|0.0223
95690133|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.444||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.547|12.766|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for sex (male vs female). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.766|1.547|0.0056
95690134|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.403||||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.892|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.892|1.040|0.0267
95727616|NCT00368966|191424838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.75|0.96||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.96|0.75|
95916471|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 14||1.2|0.9|<0.001
95916472|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 18C||1.3|0.9|<0.001
95916473|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 19F||1.2|0.9|<0.001
95690135|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.226||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.575|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs no RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.575|0.089|0.0018
95690136|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.529||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.116|2.097|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.097|1.116|0.0083
95690137|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.285||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.515|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for weight per 10 kg. The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.515|1.090|0.0028
95690138|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.061||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.401|3.032|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.032|1.401|0.0002
95690139|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.327||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.162|0.662|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (no cirrhosis vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 Weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.662|0.162|0.0019
95690140|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.137|0.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for liver fibrosis (not assessed/missed vs cirrhosis). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.749|0.137|0.0086
95690141|NCT01070550|191351419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.247|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.441|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for on-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse 24 weeks after EOT was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.441|0.138|<0.0001
95690142|NCT01996319|191351426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||null hypoth|0.2021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1583|0.246|||ANCOVA|||||0.2460|0.1583|<0.0001
95690143|NCT01996319|191351427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Null hypoth|36.7126||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7241|71.7011|||ANCOVA|||||71.7011|1.7241|0.0399
95690144|NCT04742907|191351434|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.12||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: hazard ratio (HR) = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and confidence intervals (CIs) are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.12|0.74|0.767
95690145|NCT04742907|191351434|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.44||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|||1.44|0.95|0.107
95690146|NCT04742907|191351435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.13|0.71|0.780
95690147|NCT04742907|191351435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.06||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.34||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to GI-2||1.34|0.84|0.330
95690148|NCT04742907|191351435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|1.11||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.11|0.73|0.788
95690149|NCT04742907|191351435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.51||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to first toleration of clear liquids||1.51|0.99|0.055
95690150|NCT04742907|191351435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.32||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.32|0.86|0.306
95690151|NCT04742907|191351435|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.09||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.35||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to absence of distension and presence of bowel sounds and flatus||1.35|0.88|0.243
95690152|NCT04742907|191351436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.24|0.81|0.489
95727617|NCT00368966|191424838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.88|1.2||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.88|
95916474|NCT00312858|191791501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion is met if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the response ratio is \>0.5, excluding a decrease of 2-fold or more|Response ratio (Arm 1 / Arm 2)|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||ANCOVA||Response ratio is based on statistical models adjusting the GMT for combined study center and prevaccination titer|Serotype 23F||1.3|1.0|<0.001
95916475|NCT02318719|191791523|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square mean|-0.41||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.07||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg/day at Week 14||-0.07|-0.74|0.0170
95916476|NCT02318719|191791523|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.47||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.14||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 20 mg/day at Week 14||-0.14|-0.81|0.0058
95690153|NCT04742907|191351436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.15||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.42||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to ready for discharge||1.42|0.93|0.138
95690154|NCT04742907|191351436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.24||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.24|0.82|0.473
95690155|NCT04742907|191351436|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.24||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.53||P-value is from the Wald Chi-Square statistic testing hypotheses of each dose of TU-100 compared with placebo: H0: HR = 1 vs. Ha: HR \> 1|Chi-squared||Hazard ratio and CIs are derived from a Cox proportional hazard model that includes main effects for treatment and surgical approach.|For Time to discharge order written||1.53|1.01|0.045
95690156|NCT04742907|191351437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 15 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.923
95690157|NCT04742907|191351437|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||P-value is from two-sample t-test comparing TU-100 7.5 g/day treatment group versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95916477|NCT02318719|191791523|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.44||DS-5565 20 mg and 30 mg vs placebo were tested at level of 0.025. If both were significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.05. If neither were significant, 15 mg was no longer tested. If either 20 mg or 30 mg was significant, 15 mg was tested at 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo vs DS-5565 30 mg/day at Week 14||-0.44|-1.10|<0.0001
95916478|NCT00252590|191791525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
95916479|NCT01355419|191791550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A power analysis conducted prior to the study predicted that a sample of 144 patients would provide an 80% power to detect a mean difference in sleep time of 40 minutes, assuming a standard deviation of 85 minutes and using a two-sided significance level of 5%.||||<0.05
95916480|NCT01355419|191791551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.|Regression, Linear|||Multiple regression modelling was used to determine whether actigraphic or polysomnographic data were predictors for physical activity, independently from age and BMI, stepwise forward selection of variables was performed.||||<0.05
95690158|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.42||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.42|0.44|0.434
95690159|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.59||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.59|0.51|0.710
95690160|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.02||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Chi-squared||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.02|0.75|0.410
95690161|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.81||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||2.81|1.03|0.037
95690162|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.55||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||1.55|0.46|0.579
95690163|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.21||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic|||For Day 3||1.21|0.33|0.167
95690164|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.86||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.86|0.21|0.400
95690165|NCT04742907|191351439|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.28||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.18|||Regression, Logistic||Responder status is analyzed using logistic regression with GIR response as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||1.18|0.07|0.083
95690166|NCT04742907|191351440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.14||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||4.14|0.43|0.621
95690167|NCT04742907|191351440|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.46||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||POI-related Morbidity status is analyzed using logistic regression with POI-related morbidity as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|||3.46|0.31|0.962
95690168|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||2.05|0.66|0.604
95690169|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.99||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.99|0.63|0.693
95690170|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.78||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||3.78|0.85|0.122
95690171|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.67||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.67|0.36|0.518
95690172|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.53||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.53|0.46|0.528
95690173|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.07||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||4.07|0.40|0.689
95690174|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|3.7||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.70|0.12|0.653
95690175|NCT04742907|191351442|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|9.25||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Nausea as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||9.25|0.37|0.452
95916481|NCT02006420|191791552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin thickness of the forearm.||||0.005
95916482|NCT02006420|191791552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variance assumption||This is the p value for the mean skin stiffness of the thigh||||0.71
95916483|NCT02006420|191791553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.002
95916484|NCT02006420|191791553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.007
95916485|NCT02006420|191791554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the forearm.||||0.002
95916486|NCT02006420|191791554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p value for the thigh||||0.007
95916487|NCT02006420|191791556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||<.0001
95916488|NCT02006420|191791556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||<0.0001
95916489|NCT02006420|191791558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the forearm||||0.01
95916490|NCT02006420|191791558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Pearson correlation|||This is the p-value for the thigh||||0.10
95690176|NCT04742907|191351443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, least square (LS) mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.6|-1.8|0.359
95690177|NCT04742907|191351443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.2|-1.3|0.907
95690178|NCT04742907|191351443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.6|-1.3|0.856
95690179|NCT04742907|191351443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.5|-2.7|0.180
95690180|NCT04742907|191351443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.4|-1.9|0.814
95690181|NCT04742907|191351443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Nausea as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||1.3|-3.2|0.409
95690182|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.40|0.46|0.430
95690183|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.96||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 1||1.96|0.62|0.739
95690184|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.2||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.20|0.25|0.130
95690185|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.13||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 2||1.13|0.24|0.099
95916491|NCT03349268|191791618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Poisson regression|||||||0.23
95916492|NCT00058019|191791619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
95916493|NCT00058019|191791620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95916494|NCT00058019|191791622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.695
95916495|NCT00058019|191791623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.55
95916496|NCT00985543|191791624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Results are considered statistically significant at p\<0.05 or when 90% confidence intervals do not cross the value 1. No adjustments are made for multiple comparisons.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|||||maximum likelihood regression|||Dosing regimens lopinavir/ritonavir 200/150mg BID (Phase 2) and lopinavir/ritonavir 200/50mg BID (Phase 3) will be considered equivalent to lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg BID (Phase 1) if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the mean AUC0-12h ratio and maximum concentration (Cmax) ratio lie between 0.80 and 1.25.||||<0.05
95690186|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.63||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.63|0.23|0.686
95690187|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.56||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 3||2.56|0.22|0.644
95690188|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|3.18||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||3.18|0.09|0.498
95690189|NCT04742907|191351444|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|4.05||p value is assessing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio is equal to 1.|Regression, Logistic||Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating status is analyzed using logistic regression with Subject-reported (eDiary) - Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable; treatment and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic) as covariates.|For Day 4||4.05|0.12|0.700
95690190|NCT04742907|191351445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-0.9|0.919
95690191|NCT04742907|191351445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 1, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||-0.2|-1.8|0.016
95690192|NCT04742907|191351445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.0|-0.1|0.064
95690193|NCT04742907|191351445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 2, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-1.3|0.683
95690194|NCT04742907|191351445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 15 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||2.1|-1.0|0.462
95690195|NCT04742907|191351445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Day 3, LS mean difference between placebo and TU-100 7.5 g/day. Mixed Model Repeated Measures approach was used to assess the bothersomeness of Abdominal Bloating as the dependent variable and treatment group, surgical approach and treatment group by visit as covariates. An unstructured covariance structure is used to model the within-subject errors, shared across treatments.||0.8|-2.3|0.343
95690196|NCT01671085|191351450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-71.27|-29.7||P-value is for Day 43.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis|||||-29.70|-71.27|<0.001
95690197|NCT01671085|191351450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-65.91|-24.31||P-value is for Day 57.|Mixed Effects Models Analysis|||||-24.31|-65.91|<0.001
95690198|NCT00506077|191351451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained longitudinal data analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.939
95690199|NCT00506077|191351452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||P-Value Comments (limit 250 characters): The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
95690200|NCT00506077|191351453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
95690201|NCT00506077|191351454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736||95.0||||The Benjamini \& Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) approach at critical value 0.05 was used among 1 primary and 3 secondary cognition efficacy endpoints to control the false positive rate.|constrained Logitudinal Data Analysis|The model factors were treatment, sequence, period, week (as categorical variable), site, treatment-by-week, sequence-by-week, and period-by-week.||||||0.736
95690202|NCT01773135|191351459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||U statistic|||||||<0.001
95690203|NCT01899144|191351486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|32.2|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||32.20|13.00|<0.0001
95690204|NCT01899144|191351486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|30.81|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||30.81|11.6|<0.0001
95690205|NCT01899144|191351486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.13|33.23|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||33.23|14.13|<0.0001
95690206|NCT01899144|191351486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|22.05|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||22.05|2.93|0.0107
95690207|NCT01899144|191351486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.7772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.23||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||8.23|-11.00|0.7772
95690208|NCT01899144|191351486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|-1.59||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||-1.59|-20.80|0.0226
95690209|NCT01899144|191351487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
95690210|NCT01899144|191351487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.59|0.21|<0.0001
95690211|NCT01899144|191351487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.64|0.26|<0.0001
95690212|NCT01899144|191351487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.45|||ANOVA|Mixed effect analysis of variance with fixed effects of sequence, treatment group, and period, and random effect for the patient within sequence|Active - Placebo|"The mean difference between each active group and placebo was tested in a sequential manner:~* Albuterol MDPI 180 mcg to placebo~* Albuterol MDPI 90 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 180 mcg to placebo~* ProAir HFA 90 mcg to placebo Each test was 2 sided and done at the 0.05 level of significance. However, if a test was not significant at this level, no further tests were done. This sequential process assured that the overall alpha level for the entire series was not greater than 0.05."||0.45|0.08|0.0062
95690213|NCT01899144|191351487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.14||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.14|-0.23|0.6342
95690214|NCT01899144|191351487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.0||0.05 level of significance|ANOVA||90 mcg - 180 mcg|Pre-specified, exploratory analysis||0.00|-0.38|0.0488
95690215|NCT00751881|191351489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|36.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to have 94% power to detect a 25% relative risk reduction in ARR with teriflunomide compared to placebo at a 2-sided 0.05 significance level."||||0.0001
95690216|NCT00751881|191351489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|22.3||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0183
95690217|NCT00751881|191351490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* S1: No difference between teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* S2: No difference between teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to have 75% power to detect a 37% hazard ratio reduction in time to disability progression with teriflunomide compared to placebo."||||0.0442
95690218|NCT00751881|191351490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|4.5||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||"Step down approach:~* S1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* S2 tested only if the comparison S1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative reduction in the hazard rate with teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.7620
95916497|NCT00007475|191791637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with reduced proteinuria|0.6363|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0698|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3079|0.8907||Exact binomial test of proportion of participants exhibiting reduction in proteinuria (see definition below), under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Exact binomial test|Tested under null hypothesis that the overall proportion is zero.|Proportion event definition: exhibiting reduction in proteinuria post-cyclophosphamide (complete- \[urine protein {UP} \<0.3\] or or partial-remission \[between 0.3 \& 2.0, inclusive\], limited response \[UP between 2.0 \& 3.5\] yet no relapse \[UP 3.5+\]).|No groups compared, yet null hypothesis: pooled proportion = 0, tested using counts pooled across baseline FPF assay-availability groups (7 across 3 arms) excluding 4 non-completers (yielding 7/11 with event below). Given the modest group-specific sample sizes and tendency for zero outcomes to be observed in a group, we employ exact binomial 95% confidence intervals using the method of Clopper and Pearson (1934; calculated along with corresponding tests using Michael Fay's exactci package in R).||0.8907|0.3079|<0.0001
95916498|NCT01022073|191791688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This analysis is based on the completers. We are working on the imputation methods to account for the missing data and will revise results later.||||||0.808
95916499|NCT01065350|191791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|26.15||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||26.15|2.07|<0.001
95916500|NCT01065350|191791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|8.75||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.75|1.21|<0.01
95916501|NCT01065350|191791689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.55||A p value of \< 0.005 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups||4.55|0.52|0.39
95916502|NCT01065350|191791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.64|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|14.92||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||14.92|1.54|<0.01
95916503|NCT01065350|191791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|6.29||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||6.29|0.91|0.05
95916504|NCT01065350|191791690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.19||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.19|0.68|0.11
95690219|NCT01651260|191351512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper probability of failure|0.05||||||||||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||Minimum sample size of 60 subjects was required based on the ability of the device to perform at an observed level of non-failure equivalent to an expected upper probability of failure not to exceed 5%.|||||
95690220|NCT01797029|191351523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95690221|NCT02101411|191351587|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and MACE rate at 24 months were compared using the Chi-squared test. was recorded.||||0.002
95690222|NCT02101411|191351587|OTHER|The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of all categorical variables. If 20% of the cells had an expected value \< 5, then Fisher's exact test was used.|Chi-squared|||The differences among the three PRU groups (\<85, 85-208,\>208) and ADEs were compared using the Chi-squared test.||||0.002
95690223|NCT03242759|191351589|OTHER|||||||0.505|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.505
95690224|NCT03242759|191351589|OTHER|||||||0.181|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.181
95690225|NCT03242759|191351590|OTHER|||||||0.571|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.571
95690226|NCT03242759|191351590|OTHER|||||||0.232|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.232
95690227|NCT03242759|191351591|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
95690228|NCT03242759|191351591|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.375
95690229|NCT03242759|191351592|OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.027
95690230|NCT03242759|191351592|OTHER|||||||0.938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.938
95690231|NCT03242759|191351593|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.001
95690232|NCT03242759|191351593|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.048
95690233|NCT03242759|191351594|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.018
95690234|NCT03242759|191351594|OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.125
95690235|NCT03242759|191351595|OTHER|||||||0.073|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.073
95690236|NCT03242759|191351595|OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.755
95690237|NCT03242759|191351596|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
95690238|NCT03242759|191351596|OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.281
95690239|NCT03242759|191351597|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
95690240|NCT03242759|191351597|OTHER|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.008
95690241|NCT03242759|191351598|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
95690242|NCT03242759|191351598|OTHER|||||||0.031|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.031
95690243|NCT03242759|191351600|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||< 0.001
95690244|NCT03242759|191351600|OTHER|||||||0.939|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.939
95690245|NCT03242759|191351601|OTHER|||||||0.169|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.169
95690246|NCT03242759|191351601|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.545
95690247|NCT03242759|191351602|OTHER|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.333
95690248|NCT03242759|191351602|OTHER|||||||0.786|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.786
95690249|NCT03242759|191351603|OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.245
95690250|NCT03242759|191351603|OTHER|||||||0.454|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.454
95690251|NCT03242759|191351604|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.543
95690252|NCT03242759|191351604|OTHER|||||||0.733|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.733
95690253|NCT03242759|191351605|OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.046
95690254|NCT03242759|191351605|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Paired t-test|||Intra-group difference comparing to baseline was analyzed.||||0.898
95690255|NCT03415464|191351608|OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.134
95690256|NCT03008590|191351613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.90
95690257|NCT03008590|191351614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.22
95690258|NCT03008590|191351615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.02
95690259|NCT03008590|191351616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.3
95690260|NCT03008590|191351617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Although significance was pre-specified at P\<0.05, it is suspected that this result is spurious due to multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.04
95690261|NCT03008590|191351618|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.78
95690262|NCT03008590|191351619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Significance pre-specified at P\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Data from the primary or secondary outcome measures were the dependent variables. The patient was the random effect. Dependent fixed effects variables included treatment at the time of data collection (naltrexone or placebo), group (naltrexone first or placebo first), and week (4, 8, 12, and 16).||||0.92
95690263|NCT01323673|191351709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||95.0||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center was used for analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.151
95690264|NCT01377467|191351719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.137|6.98|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|We calculated that a sample size of 43 patients per group would provide a statistical power of 86% to detect a 4% difference in the percentage change of areal BMD at the total lumbar spine at 12 months, using a two-sided t-test with an α-level of 0.05 and assuming a mean ± SD change of 4 ± 6% in the denosumab group and 0 ± 6% in the control group. To account for a dropout rate of 5%, it was planned to randomize a total of 90 patients.||6.980|3.137|<0.001
95690265|NCT01377467|191351720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.887||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.132|3.659|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.659|0.132|0.035
95690266|NCT01377467|191351721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.201||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.329|3.447|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.447|-1.329|0.380
95690267|NCT01377467|191351722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.806|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.975|6.178|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||6.178|2.975|<0.001
95690268|NCT01377467|191351723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.756|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.662||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.072|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||3.072|0.440|0.009
95690269|NCT01377467|191351724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.085||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|4.193|||ANCOVA||Percentage change in BMD was compared between the two treatment groups while controlling for the effects of baseline BMD.|||4.193|-0.122|0.064
95690270|NCT01377467|191351725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|10.466|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p=0.007. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.002. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
95690271|NCT01377467|191351726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|275622.016|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.012. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||<0.001
95690272|NCT01377467|191351727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.717||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p\<0.001. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.014
95690273|NCT01377467|191351728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|0.707||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.068
95690274|NCT01377467|191351729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|99952.126||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.047. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.114
95690275|NCT01377467|191351730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|84.83||||0.578|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.593. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.578
95690276|NCT01377467|191351731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||between-subjects effect|248.686||||0.607|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures GLM||Within-subjects effect: p\<0.001. Time\*treatment interaction: p=0.296. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|||||0.607
95690277|NCT01377467|191351732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.342||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.019
95690278|NCT01377467|191351733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.049||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95690279|NCT01377467|191351734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-0.937||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
95690280|NCT01377467|191351735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.752||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95690281|NCT01377467|191351736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-2.166||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95690282|NCT01377467|191351737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.288||||0.212|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.212
95690283|NCT01377467|191351738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.64||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.108
95690284|NCT01377467|191351739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||z value|-1.991||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.048
95690285|NCT01355068|191351746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|104.94||||||Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||104.94|97.85|
95690286|NCT01355068|191351747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|102.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.18|107.47||||||Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.47|97.18|
95690287|NCT01355068|191351748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.56|105.47||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||105.47|97.56|
95690288|NCT00336492|191351758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.146
95690289|NCT00227877|191351760|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.80|1.08|< 0.05
95690290|NCT00227877|191351761|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.42|0.34|.32
95690291|NCT00227877|191351762|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.27|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|3.27|.99|0.05
95690292|NCT00227877|191351763|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; perceived parent, sibling, and peer substance use; provider gender; and connectedness to provider.|||1.16|.53|0.23
95690293|NCT00227877|191351764|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.36|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.36|.97|.07
95690294|NCT00227877|191351765|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.21|.42|.93
95690295|NCT00227877|191351766|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.7|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Cessation)/(Control Cessation) controlling for age and gender.|||2.70|.27|.78
95690296|NCT00227877|191351767|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention Initiation)/(Control Initiation) controlling for age and gender.|||1.09|.51|.13
95690297|NCT00227877|191351768|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.91|||Regression, Logistic|Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.91|.48|.66
95690298|NCT00227877|191351769|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.17||Group Conditional Risk Ratio adjusting for the multi-site sample design using GEE logistic regression (SUDAAN 10.0)|Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; parent education; number of parents in home; visit type; provider gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||1.17|.64|.35
95690299|NCT00227877|191351770|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.87|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.87|.46|<.01
95690300|NCT00227877|191351771|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Relative Risk Ratio|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.98|||Regression, Logistic||Risk Ratio: (Intervention)/(Control) controlling for age; gender; connectedness to provider, and baseline DRWI risk.|||.98|.54|< 0.05
95690301|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-19.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.7||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.5|51.5||An equal-slopes analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||51.5|-57.5|0.493
95690302|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.2|98.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||98.2|-40.2|0.780
95690303|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.4||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.8|-20.1||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||-20.1|-76.8|0.008
95690304|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis|Percentage Difference|-42.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.5||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.7|5.2||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||5.2|-68.7|0.072
95690305|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.315||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.315
95690306|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.049||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.049
95690307|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.275||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.275
95916505|NCT01065350|191791691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|31.64||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||31.64|1.98|<0.001
95690308|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.002||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95690309|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.028||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95690310|NCT01522651|191351788|OTHER|Pairwise Comparative analysis||||||0.334||||||An equal-slopes ANCOVA model was fitted to log-transformed AFB over 12 weeks, with baseline AFB as the covariate. AFB values \< 1% (\> 99%) were set to 1% (99%) before transformation.|ANCOVA|||||||0.334
95690311|NCT02279524|191351797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.09||||0.0655|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0655
95690312|NCT02279524|191351797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-3.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|1.6|||||Mixed Models Analysis||||Post-Hoc Responder Analysis - was also carried out. See Post-Hoc analysis|||0.0450
95690313|NCT02279524|191351798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|22.66|||Regression, Logistic|The method used was a Baseline Adjusted Logistic Regression||||22.66|0.99|0.0514
95690314|NCT02279524|191351798|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.4955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|9.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.61|0.33|0.4955
95690315|NCT02279524|191351799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.04|0.70|0.2110
95916506|NCT01065350|191791691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.65||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||7.65|1.07|0.02
95916507|NCT01065350|191791691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.97||A p value of \< 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 30 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.97|0.51|0.33
95690316|NCT02279524|191351799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.05|0.40|0.8425
95690317|NCT02279524|191351800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-29.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95690318|NCT02279524|191351800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0002
95690319|NCT02279524|191351801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.447||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7063|-0.1877|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1877|-0.7063|0.0008
95690320|NCT02279524|191351801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-0.362||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6196|-0.1043|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1043|-0.6196|0.0061
95690321|NCT02279524|191351802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95690322|NCT02279524|191351802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.0011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0011
95690323|NCT02279524|191351803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|6.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.88|1.11|0.0279
95690324|NCT02279524|191351803|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.46|0.89|0.0878
95690325|NCT02279524|191351804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.14||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||1.46|0.01|0.1008
95690326|NCT02279524|191351804|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.5693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.05|||Regression, Logistic||This analysis is limited by low number of events, and the duration of the study.|||3.05|0.13|0.5693
95690327|NCT01808118|191351900|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||2-sided Pearson's chi-square test|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95690328|NCT01808118|191351919|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical test was performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05. Time to flare analysis showed statistically significant lower risk of flare in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group.||||<0.001
95690329|NCT02369835|191351923|OTHER|||||||0.8872|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.8872
95916508|NCT01065350|191791692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.1|0.19
95916509|NCT01065350|191791692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Output (CO) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.5|-0.3|0.6
95916510|NCT01065350|191791693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.1|0.26
95916511|NCT01065350|191791693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.3|-0.2|0.71
95690330|NCT01441440|191351926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.87||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.87|0.14|0.031
95690331|NCT01441440|191351926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.12||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|2.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||2.48|-0.24|0.106
95690332|NCT01441440|191351927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.88||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|5.0||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||5.00|0.77|0.008
95690333|NCT01441440|191351927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.64||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.74||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||4.74|0.54|0.014
95690334|NCT01441440|191351928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.49||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.49|0.03|0.025
95690335|NCT01441440|191351928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.032
95690336|NCT01441440|191351929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||1.97|0.39|0.004
95690337|NCT01441440|191351929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.85||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.85|0.28|0.008
95690338|NCT01441440|191351930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.53||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||2.53|0.48|0.004
95690339|NCT01441440|191351930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.77||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.79||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||1.79|-0.25|0.137
95690340|NCT01441440|191351931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.45||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75 mg/day Fixed group|||0.45|-0.02|0.073
95690341|NCT01441440|191351931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.48||Two-sided p-value from an analysis of covariance model including treatment as a factor and baseline score of CGI-S as a covariate.|ANCOVA||Adjusted mean difference = Placebo group - Venlafaxine 75-225 mg/day Flexible group|||0.48|0.02|0.034
95690342|NCT03041116|191351941|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|=|0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.51||p-value was derived from test of contrast between treatment effects using LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from Type III analysis. The test of contrast at Week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.51|-1.69|=0.9115
95690343|NCT03041116|191351943|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.1421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.78||p-value was derived from the test of contrast between treatment effects using the LSM estimate, adjusted for baseline score and age group from the Type III analysis. The test of contrast at week 24 was considered the primary comparison.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.78|-0.7|=0.1421
95690344|NCT01345123|191351944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0019994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0400918||0.9602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0765899|0.080588716|||ANCOVA|Covariates: age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior year total medical costs pmpm||||.080588716|-.07658990|0.9602
95690345|NCT01345123|191351944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04018791||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0924947|0.06506063|||ANCOVA|||||0.06506063|-0.0924947|0.7329
95690346|NCT01345123|191351945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.805||||0.0511||95.0|0.647|1.001|||Regression, Logistic|Covariates: Age, Gender, Charlson Comorbidity index, calculated risk of knee replacement, hip replacement, herniated disc surgery (score 1-99)||||1.001|0.647|0.0511
95690347|NCT01345123|191351948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31257||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06895|0.55618|||ANOVA|||||0.55618|0.06895|0.0106
95690348|NCT01345123|191351948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15982||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06477|0.38441|||ANOVA|||||0.38441|-0.06477|0.0106
95690349|NCT01345123|191351951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0467091||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1008434|0.08259938|||ANCOVA|||||0.08259938|-0.1008434|0.8454
95690350|NCT01345123|191351951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.0183548|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04690321||0.6956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1102961|0.07358642|||ANCOVA|||||0.07358642|-0.1102961|0.6956
95690351|NCT02436577|191351972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|93.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|101.15|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.15|85.80|
95690352|NCT02436577|191351972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|93.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.88|99.84|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.84|87.88|
95916512|NCT01065350|191791694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.7|-2.9|0.61
95916513|NCT01065350|191791694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average heart rate from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||1.1|-4.8|0.22
95916514|NCT01065350|191791695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.5|20.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||20.0|7.5|<0.001
95916515|NCT01065350|191791695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Systolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.017
95690353|NCT02436577|191351972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.27|106.14|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||106.14|88.27|
95690354|NCT02436577|191351972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.04|100.23|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for metabolite AR-C124910XX Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||100.23|85.04|
95690355|NCT02436577|191351973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.46|101.18|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.18|94.46|
95690356|NCT02436577|191351973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean ratio|96.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.24|99.63|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.63|93.24|
95690357|NCT02436577|191351973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.75|102.25|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.25|94.75|
95690358|NCT02436577|191351973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.59|98.85|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||98.85|91.59|
95690359|NCT02436577|191351974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.4|101.21|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||101.21|94.40|
95690360|NCT02436577|191351974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.31|99.8|||ANOVA|||Statistical Assessment of Bioequivalence for Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor OD Tablets Compared to Ticagrelor IR Tablets.||99.80|93.31|
95690361|NCT02436577|191351974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.85|102.2|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||102.20|94.85|
95690362|NCT02436577|191351974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.99|99.08|||ANOVA|||Statistical assessment of metabolite AR-C124910XX relative bioavailability following ticagrelor OD tablets administered compared to ticagrelor IR tablets.||99.08|91.99|
95690363|NCT02606045|191351995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.0||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|90.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90|2|0.039
95690364|NCT02606045|191351996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.7|0.998
95690365|NCT02606045|191351997|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.8|-1.0|0.168
95690366|NCT02606045|191351998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-4.9|0.055
95690367|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.2|-4.8|0.681
95690368|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of physical health||7.6|-12.4|0.633
95690369|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role limitations of emotional health||15.3|-5.7|0.362
95690370|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Energy/fatigue||2.8|-7.4|0.375
95690371|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional well-being||7.4|-0.3|0.068
95690372|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social functioning||11.3|-2.3|0.189
95690373|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain||4.5|-9.2|0.489
95690374|NCT02606045|191351999|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Health||4.3|-3.2|0.786
95690375|NCT02606045|191352000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Physically Unhealthy Days||0.2|-2.3|0.098
95690376|NCT02606045|191352000|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mentally Unhealthy Days||3.0|-1.6|0.557
95690377|NCT02606045|191352001|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cycle Severity Rating||2.7|0.8|0.266
95690378|NCT01234402|191352002|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.691||||0.1315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.429|1.114|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||1.114|0.429|0.1315
95690379|NCT01234402|191352002|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.0851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|2.335|||Log Rank|||Kaplan-Meier methodology estimated median PFS||2.335|0.938|0.0851
95690380|NCT01234402|191352003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.833||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.169|||Log Rank|||||3.169|1.060|0.0283
95690381|NCT01234402|191352003|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.468||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|2.501|||Log Rank|||||2.501|0.862|0.1550
95690382|NCT01234402|191352004|OTHER|||||||0.6691|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6691
95690383|NCT01234402|191352004|OTHER|||||||0.1743|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1743
95690384|NCT00365716|191352022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|89.5||||||95.0|70.7|97.3|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.3|70.7|
95690385|NCT00316303|191352039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95690386|NCT00316303|191352040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95690387|NCT00316303|191352041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95690388|NCT00316303|191352042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||Wald Chi-squared|||||||0.011
95690389|NCT00316303|191352043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95690390|NCT01005719|191352046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0242
95690391|NCT01005719|191352046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0270
95690392|NCT01005719|191352046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0067||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 7. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. P-values \<= 0.05 were reported as statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0067
95690393|NCT01005719|191352047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0465||95.0||||p-value for 10-15 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0465
95690394|NCT01005719|191352047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||95.0||||p-value for 15-20 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
95690395|NCT01005719|191352047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value for 20-25 mins Post-dose on Day 1|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95690396|NCT01005719|191352048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95690397|NCT01005719|191352048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 1 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95690398|NCT01005719|191352048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95690399|NCT01005719|191352048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||The statistical analysis is for Day 7 (0-5 mins).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95916516|NCT01065350|191791696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.5|2.7|<0.01
95916517|NCT01065350|191791696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Diastolic Blood Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.5|0.2|0.042
95916518|NCT01065350|191791697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|13.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||13.9|4.8|<0.001
95916519|NCT01065350|191791697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Mean Arterial Pressure from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||11.3|1.4|0.013
95916520|NCT01065350|191791698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.1|199.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||199.1|28.1|<0.01
95690400|NCT01753076|191352064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|7.9|||ANCOVA||A negative mean difference means that the direction of effect is in favor of placebo.|||7.9|-67.9|0.120
95690401|NCT01753076|191352065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-3.1|0.139
95690402|NCT01753076|191352066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05|||Random coefficients analysis|||||0.05|-0.30|0.173
95690403|NCT01753076|191352067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.127||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.097|-0.351|0.265
95690404|NCT01753076|191352068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-18.7|0.125
95690405|NCT01753076|191352069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.49|0.36|0.393
95690406|NCT01753076|191352070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|2.89|||Regression, Cox||Week 48|||2.89|0.34|0.986
95690407|NCT01753076|191352070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.01|||Chi-squared||Week 60|||2.01|0.53|0.923
95690408|NCT01753076|191352071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.81|0.642
95690409|NCT01753076|191352072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.053||||||||0.053|-0.062|
95690410|NCT01753076|191352073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|5.5||||||||5.5|-2.8|
95690411|NCT04174638|191352096|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05. The p value was the value of the total score of the Fluid Control in Hemodialysis Patients Scale.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95690412|NCT04174638|191352097|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95690413|NCT04174638|191352098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the knowledge sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
95690414|NCT04174638|191352098|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the motivation sub-dimension score of Modified Morisky Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
95690415|NCT04174638|191352102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the physical functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.297
95916521|NCT01065350|191791698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|195.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance (TPR) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||195.3|-21.7|0.12
95916522|NCT01065350|191791699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.8|331.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||331.3|33.8|0.017
95916523|NCT01065350|191791699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|315.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Total Peripheral Resistance Index (TPRI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||315.5|-58.1|0.17
95916524|NCT01065350|191791700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|8.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume (SV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||8.4|0.5|0.029
95690416|NCT04174638|191352102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the mental functions sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.742
95690417|NCT04174638|191352102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.719||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the burden of kidney disease sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.719
95690418|NCT04174638|191352102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.063||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the symptoms/problems sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||0.063
95690419|NCT04174638|191352102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was calculated for detect of difference in mean the effects of kidney disease on daily life sub-dimension score of Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument 36 Scale between intervention and control group from baseline to week 12.||||<0.001
95690420|NCT00436969|191352105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.472||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.888|5.943||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||5.943|-8.888|0.696
95690421|NCT00436969|191352106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|15.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||15.1|-15.6|
95690422|NCT00436969|191352107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|9.1||||||Asymptotic 95% confidence interval for the treatment group difference (Orthovisc - Control) in proportions of responders was calculated. The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||9.1|-19.7|
95690423|NCT00436969|191352108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.87||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.698|6.957||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.957|-8.698|0.827
95727618|NCT00368966|191424838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.71|1.02||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.71|
95916525|NCT01065350|191791700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Cardiac Index (CI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||9.7|-0.0|0.051
95690424|NCT00436969|191352109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.875||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.472|3.723||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.723|-9.472|0.392
95690425|NCT00436969|191352110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.932||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|5.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.396|-7.260|0.772
95690426|NCT00436969|191352111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.028||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.338|6.393||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.393|-4.338|0.707
95690427|NCT00436969|191352112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.82||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.866|5.227||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||5.227|-6.866|0.790
95690428|NCT00436969|191352113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.13||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.341|6.001||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||6.001|-4.341|0.685
95690429|NCT00436969|191352114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.317||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.249|13.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||13.386|1.249|0.018
95690430|NCT00436969|191352115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.361||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.801|7.522||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||7.522|-2.801|0.369
95690431|NCT00436969|191352116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.79||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.441|3.861||The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||Anticipated VAS difference of 10 mm and SD of 25 mm indicated a sample size of 225 subjects in a 2:1 randomization would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with a two-sided significance level of 5%. To account for a 15% dropout rate the sample size was increased to 270 subjects (180 Orthovisc, 90 control). The primary null hypothesis (Ho) no difference in VAS means at 6 months and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was that Orthovisc (mean VAS) is superior to the control.||3.861|-9.441|0.410
95727619|NCT00368966|191424838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.12||||||95.0|0.9|1.4||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.40|0.90|
95916526|NCT01065350|191791701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||4.7|0.3|0.027
95916527|NCT01065350|191791701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Index (SVI) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||5.2|-0.0|0.052
95916528|NCT01065350|191791702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 5 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.4|0.44
95916529|NCT01065350|191791702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Average change in Stroke Volume Variation (SVV) from baseline to 10 minutes post induction was compared between treatment groups.||0.6|-1.6|0.37
95916530|NCT00045435|191791766|OTHER||Percent|47.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||69.0|||||The criterion for stopping was not met.|The study was to be stopped after 20 patients if the upper bound of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval for relapse-free survival was \<35%.||69||
95916531|NCT00045435|191791767|OTHER||percent|6.0|||||ONE_SIDED|80.0|1.0||||||The stopping criterion was not met.|The study was to be stopped if the lower bound of a 1-sided 80% confidence interval for NRM was greater than 15%|||1|
95916532|NCT01871558|191791772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.139
95916533|NCT01709305|191791787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|0.02|0.36||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.36|0.02|
95690432|NCT00436969|191352117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.617||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.226|8.46||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||8.460|-3.226|0.379
95690433|NCT00436969|191352118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.208||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.455|3.039||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.039|-7.455|0.409
95690434|NCT00436969|191352119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.558||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.119|1.003||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||1.003|-4.119|0.232
95690435|NCT00436969|191352120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.228||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.343|1.887||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||1.887|-2.343|0.832
95690436|NCT00436969|191352121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.068||||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.396|2.532||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.532|-2.396|0.957
95690437|NCT00436969|191352122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.22||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.937|3.378||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||3.378|-0.937|0.267
95690438|NCT00436969|191352123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.19||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|3.604||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||3.604|-1.225|0.333
95690439|NCT00436969|191352124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.771||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.339|2.881||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 12 weeks is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.881|-1.339|0.473
95916534|NCT01709305|191791787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.15|0.21||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.21|-0.15|
95690440|NCT00436969|191352125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.018||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.314|2.278||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is unequal.||2.278|-2.314|0.988
95690441|NCT00436969|191352126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.467||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.692|2.627||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for significance was a two-sided p \<0.05.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures ANCOVA|The analysis included baseline score as a covariate. Site was dropped from the model due to statistical insignificance.||The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the effect of the two treatment groups at 6 months is equal and the corresponding alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the effect of the two treatment groups is unequal.||2.627|-1.692|0.671
95690442|NCT02985450|191352145|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|513.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.6||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Anti-HBs levels difference: high risk obesity group - low risk obesity group NAFLD patients|||||0.02
95690443|NCT00069576|191352147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.87||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.72|1.07|||Chi-squared|||For Total Composite End Point||1.07|0.72|0.14
95690444|NCT00069576|191352147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.73|1.53|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for Hypoglycemia||1.53|0.73|0.75
95690445|NCT00069576|191352147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.49|1.12|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for hyperbilirubinemia||1.12|0.49|0.12
95690446|NCT00069576|191352147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.78||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.57|1.05|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for elevated cord-blood C-peptide level||1.05|0.57|0.07
95690447|NCT00069576|191352147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.1|2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis for birth trauma||2.20|0.10|0.33
95916535|NCT01709305|191791787|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion are met when the upper limit of the two-sided 98.34% CI for the difference in LS means is less than or equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%.|Difference in LS Means|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|98.34|-0.23|0.14||||||Pairwise Comparison||0.14|-0.23|
95690448|NCT00069576|191352148|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||||||||1.28|0.68|
95690449|NCT00069576|191352149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.32|0.76|||Chi-squared|||||0.76|0.32|<0.001
95690450|NCT00069576|191352150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|0.66|||Chi-squared|||||0.66|0.26|<0.001
95690451|NCT00069576|191352151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.53|1.23|||Chi-squared|||||1.23|0.53|0.27
95690452|NCT00069576|191352152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95690453|NCT00069576|191352153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.7|1.99|||Chi-squared|||||1.99|0.70|0.49
95690454|NCT00069576|191352154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95690455|NCT00069576|191352155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.51|1.18|||Chi-squared|||||1.18|0.51|0.19
95690456|NCT00069576|191352156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.77||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.44|1.36|||Chi-squared|||||1.36|0.44|0.32
95690457|NCT00069576|191352157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.26|1.67|||Chi-squared|||||1.67|0.26|0.33
95690458|NCT00069576|191352158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.81|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.81|0.86
95690459|NCT00069576|191352159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.64|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.64|0.02
95690460|NCT00069576|191352160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.37||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.14|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.14|0.02
95690461|NCT00069576|191352161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.46||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.22|0.97|||Chi-squared|||||0.97|0.22|0.02
95690462|NCT00069576|191352162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.0|0.42|0.96|||Chi-squared|||||0.96|0.42|0.01
95916536|NCT01709305|191791789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-8.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|-6.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-6.1|-11.1|<0.001
95690463|NCT00069576|191352163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95690464|NCT00069576|191352164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95690465|NCT00069576|191352165|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.1||||||||1.10|0.71|
95690466|NCT00069576|191352166|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.69||||||||1.69|0.65|
95690467|NCT00069576|191352167|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.05||||||||2.05|0.74|
95690468|NCT00069576|191352168|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.62||||||||1.62|0.36|
95690469|NCT00069576|191352169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95690470|NCT00905307|191352170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.7||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.82||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.82|-10.2|0.2846
95690471|NCT00905307|191352170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.44||||0.6066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|4.07||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||4.07|-6.96|0.6066
95690472|NCT00905307|191352170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.86||||0.3293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.59||The Hochberg procedure using two-sided alpha of 0.05 was applied to control the type I error rate at 0.05 level (two-sided) due to multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.59|-9.32|0.3293
95690473|NCT00905307|191352170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|4.62||||0.2263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|12.12|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||12.12|-2.89|0.2263
95690474|NCT00905307|191352170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-3.64||||0.3074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|3.38|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||||3.38|-10.7|0.3074
95690475|NCT00905307|191352171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.61||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|3.97|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||3.97|-0.75|0.1807
95690476|NCT00905307|191352171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.41||||0.1313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-3.24|0.1313
95690477|NCT00905307|191352171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.13||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|1.69|||ANCOVA|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.69|-1.96|0.8879
95690478|NCT00905307|191352171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.24||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|0.56|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.56|-3.05|0.1764
95690479|NCT00905307|191352171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.79||||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.42|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS positive subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.42|-4.00|0.1111
95690480|NCT00905307|191352172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|2.86|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.86|-0.86|0.2896
95690481|NCT00905307|191352172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.61||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.72|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.72|-1.94|0.3701
95690482|NCT00905307|191352172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.35||||0.6074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.99|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.99|-1.69|0.6074
95690483|NCT00905307|191352172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.73||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|0.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.59|-2.05|0.2777
95690484|NCT00905307|191352172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.8611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.59|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS negative subscale score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.59|-1.90|0.8611
95690485|NCT00905307|191352173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.36||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|2.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||2.85|-7.57|0.3726
95690486|NCT00905307|191352173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.8||||0.0664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|7.85|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PSP score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||7.85|-0.26|0.0664
95690487|NCT00905307|191352173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|6.32|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||6.32|-1.92|0.2944
95690488|NCT00905307|191352173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.86||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|7.89|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||7.89|-0.16|0.0596
95690489|NCT00905307|191352173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.25||||0.1819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|8.03|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||8.03|-1.53|0.1819
95690490|NCT00905307|191352174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.0685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.79|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in CGI-S score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.79|-0.03|0.0685
95690491|NCT00905307|191352174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.05|-0.60|0.0989
95690492|NCT00905307|191352174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.8006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.28|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||0.28|-0.37|0.8006
95690493|NCT00905307|191352174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.28||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.04|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.04|-0.60|0.0898
95690494|NCT00905307|191352174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.21||||0.2851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.18|||ANCOVA|With treatment and trial center as main effects, and baseline value as covariate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||0.18|-0.59|0.2851
95690495|NCT00905307|191352175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4008|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.4008
95690496|NCT00905307|191352175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||||0.1117
95690497|NCT00905307|191352175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2739|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.2739
95690498|NCT00905307|191352175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1045
95690499|NCT00905307|191352175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1149|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH row mean scores differ test controlling for study center was applied to mean CGI-I score||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||||0.1149
95690500|NCT00905307|191352176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.89||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.40|0.57|0.6200
95690501|NCT00905307|191352176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.19||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.48|0.95|0.1501
95690502|NCT00905307|191352176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.5271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.25|0.66|0.5271
95727620|NCT00368966|191424839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.03||||||95.0|0.93|1.13||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.93|
95916537|NCT01709305|191791789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-2.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|0.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.3|-6.1|0.072
95916538|NCT01709305|191791789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-2.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||-2.5|-8.3|<0.001
95916539|NCT01709305|191791790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
95916540|NCT01709305|191791790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
95916541|NCT01709305|191791790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
95916542|NCT01709305|191791791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.998
95916543|NCT01709305|191791791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.5|-1.0|0.319
95916544|NCT01709305|191791791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.9|-0.9|0.999
95916545|NCT01709305|191791792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.651
95690503|NCT00905307|191352176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.34|0.78|0.8670
95690504|NCT00905307|191352176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|1.15||||0.3892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for study center will be applied to the analysis of response rate||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.56|0.85|0.3892
95690505|NCT00905307|191352177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|1.06||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.88||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.88|0.59|0.8540
95690506|NCT00905307|191352177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.82||||0.4492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test||1.38|0.49|0.4492
95690507|NCT00905307|191352177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.67||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.23||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.23|0.36|0.1854
95690508|NCT00905307|191352177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.61||||0.0946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.1||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.10|0.33|0.0946
95727621|NCT00368966|191424839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.96|1.2||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.20|0.96|
95916546|NCT01709305|191791792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|-0.2||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.8|-1.3|0.660
95690509|NCT00905307|191352177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.63||||0.2133||95.0|0.3|1.34||Derived using CMH test stratified by trial center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Sample size was determined to achieve at least 80% power at alpha level of 0.0167 (two-sided) to detect a difference of -11.5 points in the mean change from baseline in PANSS Total Score at week 6 (LOCF) between an individual OPC-34712 treatment group (except the 0.25 mg QD fixed dose group) and placebo using a two-sided z-test.||1.34|0.30|0.2133
95690510|NCT00076219|191352178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.86|0.47
95690511|NCT02086565|191352188|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||||||||0.15|-0.56|
95690512|NCT02086565|191352189|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.68|||||Estimation parameter: Other. Group differences in expected 12 month change from baseline|||0.68|-0.27|
95690513|NCT02086565|191352190|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.21|
95690514|NCT02086565|191352191|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24||||||||-0.24|-1.08|
95690515|NCT02086565|191352192|SUPERIORITY||Group differences in expected 12 month c|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.24|
95690516|NCT00739297|191352193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.01|0.08|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.08|-0.01|
95690517|NCT00739297|191352193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.1||||||95.0|0.04|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.04|
95690518|NCT00739297|191352193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|0.02|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|0.02|
95690519|NCT00739297|191352193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
95690520|NCT00739297|191352193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.04|0.13|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.13|0.04|
95690521|NCT00739297|191352194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.19||||||95.0|0.04|0.34|||||Repeated measures model with terms for treatment (Albuterol/Placebo), dose, treatment-by-dose interaction and baseline FEV1|||0.34|0.04|
95916547|NCT01709305|191791792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.6|-0.8|0.480
95916548|NCT01709305|191791793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.3|-0.3|0.158
95916549|NCT01709305|191791793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||0.7|-0.7|>0.999
95916550|NCT01709305|191791793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate|0.2||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||Difference in % vs. Glimepiride||1.0|-0.5|0.318
95916551|NCT02875834|191791794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.904|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|0.933|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results derived from a mixed effects model of log-transformed S-K levels. Fixed effects are: treatment group; visit; treatment-by-visit interaction; baseline S-K values (OLP and RTP); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses. Patient is a random effect. p-values given are for differences of LSMEANS. The back-transformation is to the original scale of the S-K measurement.||0.933|0.876|<0.001
95916552|NCT02875834|191791794|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.823|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.850|0.797|<0.001
95916553|NCT02875834|191791799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.3436|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6866|14.9782|||Regression, Logistic|||Treatment group comparisons were made using a logistic regression model containing the following covariates: treatment group; both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase); baseline eGFR (during 48-hour open-label initial phase); age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years); country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||14.9782|2.6866|<0.001
95916554|NCT02875834|191791799|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.1876|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1591|46.2054|||Regression, Logistic|||||46.2054|7.1591|<0.001
95690522|NCT00739297|191352195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.01|0.12|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.12|-0.01|
95690523|NCT00739297|191352195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|0.0|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.00|
95690524|NCT00739297|191352195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.11|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.11|-0.01|
95690525|NCT00739297|191352195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.06||||||95.0|-0.03|0.14|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.14|-0.03|
95690526|NCT00739297|191352195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
95690527|NCT00739297|191352196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.04||||||95.0|-0.03|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.03|
95690528|NCT00739297|191352196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.09||||||95.0|0.01|0.17|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.17|0.01|
95690529|NCT00739297|191352196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.05||||||95.0|-0.01|0.1|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.10|-0.01|
95690530|NCT00739297|191352196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.07||||||95.0|-0.02|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|-0.02|
95690531|NCT00739297|191352196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least-Squares Means|0.08||||||95.0|0.01|0.15|||||Mixed effects model with terms for treatment (including dose of montelukast), period and baseline covariate.|||0.15|0.01|
95690532|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.92||||||Public insurance||0.92|0.54|
95690533|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.46||||||Diabetes support service available||2.46|1.50|
95690534|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.49||||||Baseline HbA1c \> 7.80 (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.49|1.38|
95690535|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.07||||||Baseline HbA1c missing (reference:HbA1c≤7.80 median)||2.07|1.15|
95690536|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.88||||||Diabetes duration \> 11 years||1.88|1.13|
95916555|NCT02875834|191791801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.318|10.214|||Regression, Linear|||Results derived from a linear regression model with the following covariates: treatment group; baseline S-K values (Open-label phase and Randomized treatment phase); baseline eGFR; age category; country; baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||10.214|4.318|<0.001
95916556|NCT02875834|191791801|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.079|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.118|15.04|||Regression, Linear|||||15.040|9.118|<0.001
95916557|NCT02875834|191791804|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.443|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2954|0.6631|||Regression, Cox|||Results derived from a Cox Proportional Hazards model with the following covariates: treatment group, both baseline S-K values (48-hours open-label initial phase and double-blind randomized phase), baseline eGFR, age category (\<55, 55-64, \>=65 years), country, baseline RAAS inhibitor, chronic kidney, disease heart failure, and diabetes mellitus statuses.||0.6631|0.2954|<0.001
95916558|NCT02875834|191791804|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.158|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0992|0.2508|||Regression, Cox|||||0.2508|0.0992|<0.001
95916559|NCT02969525|191791817|OTHER||Correlation statistic|4.6|||=|0.031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Statistic and p-value were calculated using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (test for non-zero correlation statistic) based on modified ridit scores and including geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure as stratification factors.~The 160 loading dose arm was not considered in the dose-response because this is a mixed dose and the test is examining linear dose response."||||=0.031
95916560|NCT02969525|191791817|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|15.23||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||15.23|1.13|=0.032
95916561|NCT02969525|191791817|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.1|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.74||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||28.74|2.28|=0.001
95690537|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||Age (per year increase)||1.00|0.97|
95690538|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|33.41||||||Baseline insulin therapy: combination||33.41|3.30|
95690539|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|18.37||||||Baseline insulin therapy: prandial only||18.37|1.77|
95690540|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|5.73||||||Baseline insulin therapy: pre-mixed only||5.73|3.02|
95690541|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. IPC ranges from 1-5 with higher scores indicating more discrimination.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65||||||Discrimination domain of the IPC||0.65|0.39|
95690542|NCT01400971|191352197|OTHER|Multivariable logistic regression model examined baseline participant-, physician-, and healthcare system-related factors associated with the occurrence of any change in insulin therapy. Diabetes Distress Scale ranges from 1-6 with higher scores indicating more distress.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.95||||||Diabetes Distress Scale total score \> 2||0.95|0.57|
95690543|NCT01757704|191352203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|56.0|||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.01
95916562|NCT02969525|191791817|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|9.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|34.26||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||34.26|2.73|<0.001
95690544|NCT00844428|191352222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|80.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|94.0||||||"With a total of 20 patients enrolled between both protocols and, assuming that the true expected probability of TMA Event-Free for eculizumab-treated patients is 40%, then the study had 93.5% power to detect a statistically significant difference. Up to approximately 30 patients were to be enrolled.~All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS."||94|56|
95690545|NCT00844428|191352223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
95690546|NCT00844428|191352224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|49.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||49|9|
95690547|NCT00844428|191352225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95690548|NCT00844428|191352226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|6.75||||0.5423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|29.23|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||29.23|-15.73|0.5423
95690549|NCT00844428|191352227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
95916563|NCT02969525|191791817|OTHER|The pairwise testing of each bimekizumab dose versus placebo accounted for multiplicity by using a fixed sequence testing procedure with each bimekizumab dose being tested sequentially from the highest dose to the lowest dose. If the sequential testing failed to reach significance at a significance level of alpha=0.05, then the pairwise testing continued and the comparison was seen as non-significant.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.7|||=|0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.68||The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Factor Necrosis (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.68|1.00|=0.051
95916564|NCT02969525|191791818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|12.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||12.39|1.73|=0.002
95690550|NCT00844428|191352228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of TMA event-free responders|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|100.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||100|75|
95690551|NCT00844428|191352229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of hematologic normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||99|68|
95690552|NCT00844428|191352230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of complete TMA response|55.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|77.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||77|32|
95690553|NCT00844428|191352231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||||<0.0001
95690554|NCT00844428|191352232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|-3.68||||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|17.79|||ANOVA|Change from baseline were analyzed using a repeated measurement ANOVA model with time and baseline as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years with aHUS.||17.79|-25.15|0.7307
95690555|NCT00844428|191352233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of platelet count normalization|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.0|99.0||||||All analyses were based on the pooled data from the two protocols: C08-003A (adult) and C08-003B (adolescent), a similar protocol, for patients \<18 years||99|68|
95690556|NCT00455858|191352235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.356|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.368|-1.344|||t-test|||||-1.344|-1.368|<.0001
95690557|NCT00455858|191352236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-1.338|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.35|-1.327|||t-test|||||-1.327|-1.350|<.0001
95690558|NCT00455858|191352237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-69.553|||<|0.0001||95.0|-70.047|-69.06|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 12||-69.060|-70.047|<.0001
95690559|NCT00455858|191352237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square Mean|-72.159|||<|0.0001||95.0|-72.647|-71.671|||Paired t-test|||Estimated mean decrease in FPG at week 20||-71.671|-72.647|<.0001
95690560|NCT00772967|191352242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.611||||0.089||90.0|-1.36|0.14||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.14|-1.36|0.089
95690561|NCT00772967|191352242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.804||||0.043||90.0|-1.57|-0.04||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.04|-1.57|0.043
95690562|NCT00772967|191352243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.518||||0.048||90.0|-1.03|-0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.01|-1.03|0.048
95690563|NCT00772967|191352243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.001||90.0|-1.54|-0.53||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.53|-1.54|0.001
95690564|NCT00772967|191352244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.658||||0.052||90.0|-1.32|0.01||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||0.01|-1.32|0.052
95690565|NCT00772967|191352244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15||||0.003||90.0|-1.81|-0.49||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.49|-1.81|0.003
95690566|NCT00772967|191352245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.875||||0.019||90.0|-1.56|-0.19||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.19|-1.56|0.019
95690567|NCT00772967|191352245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.007||90.0|-1.77|-0.37||1-sided, alpha = 0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline measurement included as covariate: Time-weighted average pain intensity during pretreatment walk||||-0.37|-1.77|0.007
95690568|NCT00866294|191352246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-1.1||The hypothesis test was conducted with a two-sided significance level of 5% to show the superiority of paroxetine CR relative to placebo.|ANCOVA|The primary analysis was based on an ANCOVA with a model adjusting for baseline HAM-D total score and region (Japan and South Korea).|Mean difference = paroxetine CR minus placebo|||-1.1|-3.8|<0.001
95690569|NCT04598165|191352256|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.25||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.92||The primary intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||1.92|0.81|0.314
95690570|NCT04598165|191352257|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.21||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and taking into account a 10% attrition. Multiple imputation with chain equations (MICE) was used to impute missing values for any outcome with greater than 10% missingness. Any variables associated with the outcome or outcome missingness were included in the imputation model.||2.21|0.84|0.217
95690571|NCT04598165|191352258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in early initiation of breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.08|1.00|0.064
95690572|NCT04598165|191352259|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.05 in exclusive breast feeding assuming 80% uptake in controls.||1.01|0.98|0.363
95690573|NCT04598165|191352260|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.02||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.02|1.00|0.093
95690574|NCT04598165|191352261|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.09||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in application of substances to the cord or delaying first bath assuming 50% in controls.||1.09|0.97|0.353
95690575|NCT04598165|191352262|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.61||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.53 in provision of Kangaroo Mother Care assuming 25% in controls.||2.61|0.50|0.751
95690576|NCT04598165|191352263|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.04 in number of danger signs correctly named assuming median of 3 in controls.||1.01|1.00|0.431
95690577|NCT04598165|191352264|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.08||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson regression||SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 1.11 in appropriate care seeking assuming 1 clinic visit in the 6-weeks postpartum for controls.||1.08|0.98|0.321
95727622|NCT00368966|191424839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.05||||||95.0|0.92|1.18||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.92|
95727623|NCT00368966|191424839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.88|1.14||||||For Pertussis PT the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.88|
95690578|NCT04598165|191352265|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Poisson generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator.|We estimated a sample size of 5000 to detect a risk ratio of ≤0.53 assuming a neonatal mortality rate of 23 per 1000 in the control arm with 80% power and, 95% confidence and assuming 10% attrition. With this sample size, assuming alpha=0.0045 (Bonferroni adjusted for 11 tests), we also had 80% power to detect a risk ratio of 0.76 in elevated depression symptoms assuming 19% in controls.||1.04|0.98|0.650
95690579|NCT04598165|191352266|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.09||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.18||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.18|-0.007|0.071
95690580|NCT04598165|191352267|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.02||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.04||The intention to treat analysis was adjusted for differences in exposure to other SMS programs and phone ownership. We corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Linear generalized estimating equations||n (%) are values at 6-week visit, and RR compares change over time for enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits. SMS group is the numerator. Coefficient (95% CI) for linear GEE using enrollment, 2- and 6-week visits.|||0.04|-0.01|0.190
95690581|NCT00883558|191352292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of INSULIN-PH20 NP to insulin lispro was supported if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in blood glucose between the treatments did not exceed 21.6 mg/dL.|LS Mean Difference|3.06||||0.3217|ONE_SIDED|95.0||14.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjustments included treatment, phase, and treatment sequence as fixed effects and participant within treatment sequence as a random effect.||A total of at least 40 participants were to be enrolled in the study, and 30 participants were expected to complete both treatment cycles. Assuming a standard deviation for blood glucose of 45 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) and a true difference between the treatments of 0 mg/dL, the study had approximately 80% power to show that INSULIN-PH20 NP was non-inferior to insulin lispro with respect to the overall two-hour postprandial blood glucose excursion.||14.11||0.3217
95690582|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-5.4|3.7||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.7|-5.4|
95690583|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-5.5||||||95.0|-14.2|3.3||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.3|-14.2|
95690584|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-3.7|2.8||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.8|-3.7|
95690585|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.9||||||95.0|-6.9|0.7||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.7|-6.9|
95690586|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.0|3.0||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-3.0|
95690587|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-2.5||||||95.0|-6.1|0.6||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.6|-6.1|
95690588|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-6.3||||||95.0|-12.1|-0.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||-0.7|-12.1|
95690589|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|3.4||||||95.0|-0.9|7.9||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||7.9|-0.9|
95690590|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-4.1|1.1||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-4.1|
95690591|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|1.7||||||95.0|-3.0|6.4||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.4|-3.0|
95916565|NCT02969525|191791818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.91|30.95||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||30.95|3.91|<0.001
95690592|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-5.8|6.7||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||6.7|-5.8|
95690593|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.2|1.2||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-3.2|
95690594|NCT00366548|191352295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-1.3||||||95.0|-3.6|0.3||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||0.3|-3.6|
95690595|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||1.9|-2.1|
95690596|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.7|2.6||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated.||2.6|-1.7|
95690597|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
95690598|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|1.9||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.9|-2.1|
95690599|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.2|2.3||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.3|-1.2|
95690600|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-2.0|2.9||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||2.9|-2.0|
95690601|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-3.4|1.1||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-3.4|
95690602|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.8||||||95.0|-0.8|3.0||||||For serotype 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||3.0|-0.8|
95690603|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-3.7|4.9||||||For serotype 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||4.9|-3.7|
95690604|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.1||||||For serotype 5 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.1|-2.4|
95690605|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.4|1.2||||||For serotype 6A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.2|-2.4|
95690606|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 7F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
95690607|NCT00366548|191352296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lowest limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|1.6||||||For serotype 19A the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) was calculated||1.6|-1.7|
95690608|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 4 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
95690609|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|0.72|1.14||||||For serotype 6B the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.14|0.72|
95690610|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.85|1.1||||||For serotype 9V the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.85|
95690611|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.79|1.15||||||For serotype 14 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.79|
95690612|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.98||||||95.0|0.86|1.13||||||For serotype 18C the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.86|
95690613|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.72|0.97||||||For serotype 19F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.97|0.72|
95690614|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.84||||||95.0|0.71|0.98||||||For serotype 23F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||0.98|0.71|
95690615|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.94||||||95.0|0.81|1.1||||||For serotype 1 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.81|
95690616|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.93||||||95.0|0.83|1.04||||||For serotype 3 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.83|
95690617|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.97||||||95.0|0.83|1.13||||||For serotype 5 the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.83|
95916566|NCT02969525|191791818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|16.84||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||16.84|2.31|<0.001
95916567|NCT02969525|191791818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.2|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|11.35||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.35|1.59|=0.004
95916568|NCT02969525|191791819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4|||=|0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|11.31||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||11.31|0.50|=0.279
95916569|NCT02969525|191791819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|17.88||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||17.88|0.92|=0.065
95690618|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.96||||||95.0|0.81|1.13||||||For serotype 6A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.13|0.81|
95690619|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|1.05||||||95.0|0.93|1.18||||||For serotype 7F the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.18|0.93|
95690620|NCT00366548|191352299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for each common serotype was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) \> 0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Difference|0.91||||||95.0|0.8|1.04||||||For serotype 19A the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.04|0.80|
95690621|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||||||"P- value for social function"|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.047
95690622|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.688||||||"P- value of  symptom/problem list "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.688
95690623|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.772||||||"P- value of  effects of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.772
95690624|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||||||"P-value of  burden of kidney disease "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.301
95690625|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||||||"P-value of  work status "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.250
95690626|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.895||||||"P-value of  cognitive function "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.895
95690627|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||||||"P-value of  quality of social interaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.281
95690628|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  sleep "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
95690629|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  social support "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
95690630|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.943||||||"P-value of  dialysis staff encouragement "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.943
95690631|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||"P-value of  overall health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||1.00
95690632|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"P-value of  patient satisfaction "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.090
95690633|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391||||||"P-value of  physical functioning "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.391
95690634|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||||||"P-value of  role-physical "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.438
95690635|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.424||||||"P-value of  pain "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.424
95690636|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169||||||"P-value of  general health "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.169
95690637|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.858||||||"P-value of  emotional well-being "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.858
95690638|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156||||||"P-value of  role-emotional "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.156
95690639|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||||||"P-value of  energy/fatigue "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.084
95690640|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.583||||||"P-value of  SF-12 physical composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.583
95690641|NCT01876732|191352311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.358||||||"p-value of  SF-12 mental composite "|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||||||0.358
95690642|NCT01623531|191352330|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|386.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|47.5||0.908|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distributions of cumulative transfusion units did not differ significantly between patients receiving either RiaSTAP (median = 0, IQR = 0-1) or Placebo (median = 0, IQR = 0.1), U = 386, SE = 47.60, p = .908.|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the data were not normally distributed, and primary outcomes were zero inflated. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.908
95690643|NCT01623531|191352331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.498|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.239||0.047|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.047
95690644|NCT01623531|191352332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0116||0.729|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.729
95690645|NCT01623531|191352333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.699||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug. Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals. For normally distributed data unequal variance t tests were used.||||.93
95690646|NCT01623531|191352334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.471||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Unequal variances assumed.|Unequal variances T-test comparing placebo to RiaSTAP.|||||.169
95690647|NCT01623531|191352335|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|450.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|54.163||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.035
95690648|NCT01623531|191352336|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|337.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.591||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.794
95916570|NCT02969525|191791819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.5|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|31.28||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||31.28|1.77|=0.006
95916571|NCT02969525|191791819|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||=|0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|13.39||No sequential testing procedure was used for the secondary efficacy variables. The p-values were displayed as nominal p-values.|Regression, Logistic|||For differences in relation to Placebo: Odds Ratio, confidence interval, and p-value were derived from a logistic regression model including fixed effects for treatment, geographic region and prior Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitor exposure.||13.39|0.63|=0.172
95916572|NCT02172625|191791845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|26.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
95916573|NCT02172625|191791846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
95916574|NCT02172625|191791850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||week-to-week coefficient of variation %|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This was the week-to-week coefficient of variation (CV) obtained at baseline over two different weeks in a fasted state measured at rest.|||||
95916575|NCT03445065|191791851|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm, centre, and type of diabetes as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.4|0.341
95916576|NCT03445065|191791852|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.03892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.1|-3.1|0.03892
95916577|NCT03445065|191791856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|10.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||10.9|-0.1|0.056
95916578|NCT03445065|191791856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.01255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|8.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||8.4|1.0|0.01255
95916579|NCT03445065|191791857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-1.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>250mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-1.1|-9.9|0.015
95916580|NCT03445065|191791857|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.50266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||2.0|-4.0|0.50266
95690649|NCT01623531|191352337|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|335.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.957||0.828|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.828
95690650|NCT01623531|191352338|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|396.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.944||0.941|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.941
95690651|NCT01623531|191352339|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|494.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.783||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.09
95690652|NCT01623531|191352340|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|418.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.658|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.658
95690653|NCT01623531|191352341|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|472.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.727||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.182
95690654|NCT01623531|191352342|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|428.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.919||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.549
95690655|NCT01623531|191352343|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|530.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.816||0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||The distribution of FIBTEM MCF (maximum clot firmness) was significantly different between RiaSTAP (median = 27 mm, IQR = 24, 30), and placebo (median = 23 mm, IQR = 22, 27) groups, U-test = 530.5, SE = 60.816, p = .022).|Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that the FIBTEM MCF data was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.022
95690656|NCT01623531|191352344|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|437.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.93||0.455|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.455
95690657|NCT01623531|191352345|SUPERIORITY||Mann-Whitney U test|432.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|60.819||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Normality among study outcomes was investigated with Shapiro-Wilk tests, histograms, boxplots, and graphing of residuals, revealing that this variable was not normally distributed. Therefore, we used non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-tests with a 2-sided type I error rate of 5%. We tested the null hypothesis of no difference in secondary outcomes between groups 24 hours after infusion of the study drug.||||.5
95690658|NCT01623531|191352346|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Significance (2-sided) using Fisher's Exact Test.||||||1.0
95690659|NCT01883440|191352358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||||||<0.037
95690660|NCT01883440|191352359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||In the material when all were included, there were a lot of persons with few symptoms in both Groups, which means that a larger study would be needed in order to detect significant differences.||||0.381
95690661|NCT03480282|191352360|OTHER|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|This was an exploratory and descriptive study to learn if it was feasible to provide PCPs with their patients (aged 76-89) with information about their 10-year prognosis and engage in shared decision making around stopping screening. We measured among the 90 patients that the 45 PCPs saw whether their intentions to be screened declined after seeing their PCP.|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|||<0.001
95690662|NCT03480282|191352360|OTHER|This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a descriptive feasibility study.|Because the observations were matched by the patient, we used the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, a nonparametric paired test|||<0.001
95690663|NCT01405313|191352391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.022
95690664|NCT01405313|191352392|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
95690665|NCT03848221|191352393|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.3|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.30
95690666|NCT03848221|191352394|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95690667|NCT00109733|191352397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.177|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.177
95690668|NCT00109733|191352397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
95690669|NCT00109733|191352398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.004
95690670|NCT00109733|191352398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in lean body mass (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
95690671|NCT00109733|191352399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.653|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.653
95916581|NCT03445065|191791858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia \>180mg/dL Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.6|-10.9|0.080
95916582|NCT03445065|191791858|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.10637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-7.3|0.10637
95916583|NCT03445065|191791859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-1.2|0.671
95916584|NCT03445065|191791859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.12935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.5||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.5|-4.1|0.12935
95916585|NCT03445065|191791860|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.6|0.693
95916586|NCT03445065|191791861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|4.9||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.9|-6.7|0.753
95916587|NCT03445065|191791861|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.84307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effect, and % time in euglycemic range (Day0-30) as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.8|-4.6|0.84307
95690672|NCT00109733|191352399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in total body fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.002
95690673|NCT00109733|191352400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.755|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.755
95690674|NCT00109733|191352400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in limb fat (kg) from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||<0.001
95690675|NCT00109733|191352401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.041
95690676|NCT00109733|191352401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||ANOVA|||"The null hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group = 0) was tested against the alternative hypothesis (% change in trunk to limb fat ratio from baseline to Wk24 within the treatment group ≠0).~P-Values for testing this hypothesis for each treatment group are from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on ranked data with effects for treatment group, gender and their interaction."||||0.044
95690677|NCT00305006|191352416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||ANOVA|ANOVA|||ANOVA||||<0.01
95690678|NCT00570739|191352464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||-0.03|-0.27|0.0123
95690679|NCT00570739|191352464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-0.03|-0.33|0.0201
95690680|NCT00570739|191352464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.03|-0.36|0.0239
95690681|NCT00570739|191352464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||-0.08|-0.42|0.0046
95690682|NCT00570739|191352465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.1112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||1.2|-11.3|0.1112
95690683|NCT00570739|191352465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.2167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.0|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||2.0|-8.6|0.2167
95690684|NCT00570739|191352465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|4.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||4.9|-7.0|0.7269
95690685|NCT00570739|191352465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.4|-8.4|0.4063
95690686|NCT00570739|191352465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||3.9|-8.0|0.4909
95690687|NCT00570739|191352466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.303||||0.7606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.259|1.653||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 4 weeks||1.653|-2.259|0.7606
95690688|NCT00570739|191352466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.015||||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.477|0.447||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||0.447|-2.477|0.1782
95690689|NCT00570739|191352466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.504||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.887|-0.121||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 12 weeks||-0.121|-2.887|0.0332
95690690|NCT00570739|191352466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.176||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.805|2.158||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||2.158|-1.805|0.8610
95690691|NCT00570739|191352466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.599|2.019||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||2.019|-1.599|0.8196
95690692|NCT00570739|191352467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.034||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||0.034|-0.340|0.1078
95690693|NCT00570739|191352467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.141||||0.1146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317|0.035||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks (LOCF)||0.035|-0.317|0.1146
95690694|NCT00570739|191352468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks||9.4|-9.3|0.9933
95690695|NCT00570739|191352468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 weeks LOCF||8.3|-10.5|0.8203
95916588|NCT03445065|191791862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-4.8|0.653
95916589|NCT03445065|191791862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.3||||0.07261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|4.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>250mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||4.8|-0.2|0.07261
95916590|NCT03445065|191791863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|7.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.4|-4.9|0.685
95916591|NCT03445065|191791863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.1||||0.19785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hyperglycemia (\>180mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||7.8|-1.6|0.19785
95916592|NCT03445065|191791864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.8||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.8|-1.5|0.549
95916593|NCT03445065|191791864|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.3||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<70mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.3|-6.3|0.03180
95916594|NCT03445065|191791865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.7|-0.6|0.859
95916595|NCT03445065|191791865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.01124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||-0.6|-4.5|0.01124
95916596|NCT03445065|191791866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1585|-0.018||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Models Analysis|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Enabled (D90-120) group.|||-0.018|-1.1585|0.045
95916597|NCT03445065|191791867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.741|3.682||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|The model included time and centre as fixed classification effects and % time in hypoglycemia (\<54mg/dL) Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Switch to Enabled (D150-180) group minus the Control (D90-120) group.|||3.682|-2.741|0.763
95916598|NCT03445065|191791868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.0||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.0|-0.4|0.140
95690696|NCT00570739|191352469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|3.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 weeks||3.6|-17.5|0.1950
95916599|NCT03445065|191791868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.6411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.6||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.6|-2.6|0.64110
95690697|NCT00570739|191352469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.7||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.0|-18.3|0.1583
95690698|NCT00570739|191352470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.3663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|6.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.0|-16.1|0.3663
95690699|NCT00570739|191352470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.2524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|4.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.7|-17.9|0.2524
95690700|NCT00570739|191352471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.051||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.828|9.929||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.929|-7.828|0.8158
95690701|NCT00570739|191352471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.565||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|7.836||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.836|-10.966|0.7433
95690702|NCT00570739|191352472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215||||0.5161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.867||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.867|-0.437|0.5161
95690703|NCT00570739|191352472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.581|0.722||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups.|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.722|-0.581|0.8319
95690704|NCT00570739|191352473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|-13.76|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-13.76|-22.61|<0.0001
95690705|NCT00570739|191352473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.09|-12.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-12.08|-22.09|<0.0001
95690706|NCT00570739|191352473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.96|-11.69|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-11.69|-20.96|<0.0001
95690707|NCT00570739|191352474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-8.81|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.81|-15.99|<0.0001
95690708|NCT00570739|191352474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.23|-5.34|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.34|-13.23|<0.0001
95690709|NCT00570739|191352474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-4.67|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Week LOCF||-4.67|-11.98|<0.0001
95690710|NCT00570739|191352475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.63||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|6.7|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.70|-1.43|0.2026
95690711|NCT00570739|191352475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|4.75|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.75|-2.12|0.4506
95916600|NCT03445065|191791869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||3.1|-1.1|0.339
95690712|NCT00570739|191352475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81||||0.2609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|4.97|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.97|-1.35|0.2609
95690713|NCT00570739|191352476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.53|-6.08|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-6.08|-11.53|<0.0001
95690714|NCT00570739|191352476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.23|-3.66|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.66|-10.23|<0.0001
95690715|NCT00570739|191352476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.09||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.14|-3.05|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.05|-9.14|0.0001
95690716|NCT00570739|191352477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|13.99||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 8 weeks||13.99|-0.33|0.0171
95690717|NCT00570739|191352477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.66|25.54||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||25.54|9.66|<0.0001
95690718|NCT00570739|191352477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.18|25.74||The P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country.|ANCOVA|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimate and corresponding 95% CI was constructed using the method of Moses.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||25.74|11.18|<0.0001
95690719|NCT00570739|191352478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.62|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 weeks||5.62|0.0|0.0496
95690720|NCT00570739|191352478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.65||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|6.47|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.47|0.82|0.0117
95690721|NCT00570739|191352478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|7.03|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.03|1.83|0.0009
95690722|NCT00570739|191352479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|-8.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.38|-14.74|<0.0001
95690723|NCT00570739|191352479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.53||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.14|-5.92|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.92|-13.14|0.0001
95690724|NCT00570739|191352479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|-4.59|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.59|-11.35|<0.0001
95690725|NCT00570739|191352480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.57||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.76|19.38|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 8 Weeks||19.38|5.76|0.0003
95690726|NCT00570739|191352480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.52||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|22.4|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks||22.40|6.64|0.0003
95690727|NCT00570739|191352480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|22.2|||ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.20|7.95|<0.0001
95690728|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.84||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|13.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||13.24|0.44|0.0363
95690729|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.39||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|12.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Very Low Density Lipoprotein (VLDL) Particles||12.31|0.46|0.0347
95690730|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.81||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.81|0.80|0.0028
95690731|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.73|0.96|0.0010
95690732|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.21||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||11.21|3.10|0.0006
95690733|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|10.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Particles||10.91|3.35|0.0003
95690734|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.88||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|1.29||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||1.29|-7.04|0.1750
95690735|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.23||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||0.63|-7.10|0.1007
95690736|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-199.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-272.9|-125.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-125.8|-272.9|<0.0001
95690737|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-186.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-255.9|-116.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-116.3|-255.9|0.0001
95690738|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-0.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||-0.2|-23.3|0.0466
95690739|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.7||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|0.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.3|-21.8|0.0570
95690740|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-77.7||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-120.3|-35.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-35.0|-120.3|0.0004
95690741|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-69.3||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.2|-29.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||-29.3|-109.2|0.0007
95690742|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-109.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.8|-23.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-23.9|-195.8|0.0124
95690743|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-106.8||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|-26.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||-26.0|-187.6|0.0098
95690744|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|3.2||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.2|-35.6|0.1020
95690745|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.4||||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|3.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||3.0|-33.8|0.0997
95690746|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-93.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-161.6|-25.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-25.9|-161.6|0.0069
95690747|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.4||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-155.2|-27.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||-27.5|-155.2|0.0052
95690748|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.90|-0.01|0.0524
95690749|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.01||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.91||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.91|0.10|0.0301
95690750|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.89||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.89|0.02|0.0416
95690751|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.88||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||0.88|0.04|0.0333
95690752|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.44|-0.05|0.0693
95690753|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.56||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.56|0.14|0.0187
95690754|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.75||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.75|-1.34|0.5765
95916601|NCT03445065|191791869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.57677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.7||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and glucose variability Day0-30 as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||1.7|-3.0|0.57677
95690755|NCT00570739|191352481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment group|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.63|-1.35|0.4762
95690756|NCT00570739|191352482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.21||||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|4.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.57|-0.14|0.0652
95690757|NCT00570739|191352482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.74||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|4.92||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||4.92|0.57|0.0137
95690758|NCT00570739|191352482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotien Particles||0.09|-0.20|0.4726
95690759|NCT00570739|191352482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.10|-0.17|0.5715
95690760|NCT00570739|191352482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.02|0.0083
95690761|NCT00570739|191352482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.15|0.03|0.0022
95690762|NCT00570739|191352483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.0||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|43.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||43.5|8.6|0.0036
95690763|NCT00570739|191352483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|43.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||43.3|11.2|0.0010
95690764|NCT00570739|191352484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|47.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||47.0|12.5|0.0008
95690765|NCT00570739|191352484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|46.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||46.6|14.9|0.0002
95690766|NCT00570739|191352485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.3|0.9|0.0033
95690767|NCT00570739|191352485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.4|1.2|0.0008
95690768|NCT00570739|191352486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09||P-Value is for the LS mean difference between the treatment groups|ANCOVA|The Ancova model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0035
95690769|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5848||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.5848
95690770|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8147||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 weeks||||0.8147
95690771|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.4957
95690772|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0467||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0467
95690773|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
95690774|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.10|1.38|0.0049
95690775|NCT00570739|191352487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.76|1.25|0.0092
95690776|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Startified by country||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.0008
95690777|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0280
95690778|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0414||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0414
95690779|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.084||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0840
95690780|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0589||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0589
95690781|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.96|1.21|0.0095
95690782|NCT00570739|191352488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.6|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.60|1.20|0.0088
95690783|NCT00570739|191352489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
95690784|NCT00570739|191352489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||<0.0001
95690785|NCT00570739|191352489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||<0.0001
95690786|NCT00570739|191352489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|11.23|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||11.23|2.78|<0.0001
95690787|NCT00570739|191352489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|9.1|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.10|2.53|<0.0001
95690788|NCT00570739|191352490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0004
95690789|NCT00570739|191352490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0326||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0326
95690790|NCT00570739|191352490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0157||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0157
95690791|NCT00570739|191352490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.07|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||7.07|0.88|0.0870
95690792|NCT00570739|191352490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.86||||0.00439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|7.94|||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||7.94|1.03|0.00439
95690793|NCT00570739|191352491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.72||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.72|-1.32|0.7959
95690794|NCT00570739|191352491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.8371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.57|-1.28|0.8371
95690795|NCT00570739|191352492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0033||||0.4584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0122|0.0055||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0055|-0.0122|0.4584
95690796|NCT00570739|191352492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0035||||0.4039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0118|0.0048||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0048|-0.0118|0.4039
95690797|NCT00570739|191352493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-10.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate.||||-10.11|-21.07|<0.0001
95690798|NCT00570739|191352494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.46||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|6.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.62|-27.53|0.2289
95690799|NCT00570739|191352494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.54||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.22|6.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||6.14|-29.22|0.1997
95916602|NCT03445065|191791870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm, centre, and diabetes type as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.2|-0.3|0.558
95916603|NCT03445065|191791870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.1|-0.3|0.408
95690800|NCT00570739|191352495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.81||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|23.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.05|2.57|0.0144
95690801|NCT00570739|191352495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.63|23.61||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Triglycerides||23.61|4.63|0.0037
95690802|NCT00570739|191352495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.79||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.59|39.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.00|6.59|0.0060
95690803|NCT00570739|191352495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.72||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.71|39.73||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated Very Low Density Lipoprotein Triglycerides||39.73|9.71|0.0013
95690804|NCT00570739|191352495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|13.0|||ANCOVA|||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.00|3.71|0.0005
95690805|NCT00570739|191352495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.11||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||13.11|4.27|0.0001
95690806|NCT00570739|191352496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.8804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.34||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.34|0.63|0.8804
95690807|NCT00570739|191352496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.5525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.6||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.60|0.73|0.5525
95690808|NCT00570739|191352496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5648||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.5648
95690809|NCT00570739|191352496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.3170
95916604|NCT03445065|191791871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||The significance level was set to p\<0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|The model included arm and centre as fixed classification effects, and HbA1c (%) at inclusion as baseline covariate.|The mean difference in HbA1c (%) at Day 180 was calculated as the Enabled group minus the Control group.|||0.4|-0.2|0.616
95916605|NCT01811563|191791904|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.661|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.661
95690810|NCT00570739|191352497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.9008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.06||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.06|0.66|0.9008
95690811|NCT00570739|191352497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.37||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.37|0.60|0.9035
95690812|NCT00570739|191352497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2874||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2874
95916606|NCT01811563|191791904|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time independent of implant|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95916607|NCT01811563|191791904|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.270
95916608|NCT01811563|191791905|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant independent of time||||||0.856|||||||ANOVA|Main effect for implant, LQ-YBT Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.856
95690813|NCT00570739|191352497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4344||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4344
95690814|NCT00570739|191352498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.61|-14.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-14.63|-24.61|<0.0001
95690815|NCT00570739|191352498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.24|-11.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-11.69|-23.24|<0.0001
95690816|NCT00570739|191352499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.26|-8.69||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-8.69|-16.26|<0.0001
95690817|NCT00570739|191352499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|-5.41||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-5.41|-15.15|<0.0001
95916609|NCT01811563|191791905|EQUIVALENCE|Time independent of implant, Baseline to 52 Weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95916610|NCT01811563|191791905|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by Time interaction, Baseline to 52 Weeks between Zimmer and Stryker||||||0.822|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.822
95916611|NCT01811563|191791906|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.158|||||||ANOVA|||||||.158
95916612|NCT01811563|191791906|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95916613|NCT01811563|191791906|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction of time by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.365|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.365
95916614|NCT01811563|191791908|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for implant, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.416|||||||ANOVA|||||||.416
95916615|NCT01811563|191791908|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect for time, Baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95916616|NCT01811563|191791908|EQUIVALENCE|Implant by time interaction, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.917|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.917
95916617|NCT01811563|191791910|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by implant, Baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.830
95916618|NCT01811563|191791910|EQUIVALENCE|Main effect by time, baseline to 52 weeks|||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95916619|NCT01811563|191791910|EQUIVALENCE|Interaction between implant and time, baseline to 52 weeks||||||0.728|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.728
95916620|NCT01811563|191791911|EQUIVALENCE|Between implants at 6 weeks||||||0.319|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.319
95916621|NCT00077636|191791928|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.76|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.76|0.46|<.0001
95916622|NCT00077636|191791929|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In the analysis based on the standard population, end of treatment virological response was equivalent in the two treatment arms (94% in the 16-week arm and 92% in the 24-week arm).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.1941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country.||||2.03|0.86|0.1941
95916623|NCT00077636|191791930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|These results indicated that sustained virological response achieved with 16 weeks of treatment was not equivalent to that achieved with 24 week of treatment.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by country and HCV genotype.||||0.82|0.52|0.0003
95916624|NCT02914184|191791976|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.44|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_B groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.44|0.79|
95690818|NCT00570739|191352499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.69|-4.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-4.42|-13.69|0.0002
95690819|NCT00570739|191352500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.96||||0.0357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.66||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||7.66|0.27|0.0357
95690820|NCT00570739|191352500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.6878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|3.31||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.31|-5.01|0.6878
95690821|NCT00570739|191352500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.7972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.36||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.36|-4.37|0.7972
95690822|NCT00570739|191352501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|-5.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.80|-12.02|<0.0001
95690823|NCT00570739|191352501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|-4.26||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-4.26|-12.25|<0.0001
95690824|NCT00570739|191352501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-3.44||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.44|-11.03|0.0002
95690825|NCT00570739|191352502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|6.57||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||6.57|0.43|0.0257
95690826|NCT00570739|191352502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.2238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|5.58||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||5.58|-1.32|0.2238
95916625|NCT02914184|191791976|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.19|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_A and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.19|0.65|
95916626|NCT02914184|191791976|OTHER|The two-sided 95% CIs for the ratio of anti RV IgA antibody GMCs should be within the \[0.5; 2\] clinical limit interval.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.11|||ANOVA|||GMC Ratio of Anti-RV IgA antibody for Liq\_B and Liq\_C groups was calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects.||1.11|0.61|
95690827|NCT00570739|191352502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78||||0.2763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|4.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.99|-1.44|0.2763
95690828|NCT00570739|191352503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|-5.98||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||-5.98|-13.68|<0.0001
95690829|NCT00570739|191352503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-3.94||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||-3.94|-13.40|0.0004
95690830|NCT00570739|191352503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-3.68||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-3.68|-12.50|0.0004
95690831|NCT00570739|191352504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.8||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.87|21.74||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||21.74|5.87|0.0007
95690832|NCT00570739|191352504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.58||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|24.99||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||24.99|-1.83|0.0901
95690833|NCT00570739|191352504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.45||||0.0918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|22.62||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||22.62|-1.71|0.0918
95690834|NCT00570739|191352505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|15.78||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.27|25.83||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 8 Weeks||25.83|6.27|0.0005
95916627|NCT02914184|191791977|NON_INFERIORITY|Lower limit (LL) of the two-sided asymptotic standardized 95% CI for the difference in SCR for antibodies to rota virus at month 2-4 between the Liq\_Pool group and Lyo Control group should be ≥ -10%.|SCR difference at Month 2-4|-2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|2.63||||||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool group compared to Lyo Control group in terms of difference in % of subjects with anti-RV IgA titer ≥ specified cut off with its 2-sided 95% CI in initially seronegative subjects||2.63|-7.15|
95916628|NCT02914184|191791979|NON_INFERIORITY|LL of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of anti-RV IgA antibody GMCs between the Liq\_Pool Group and Control group should be ≥ 0.67.|GMC Ratio at At Month 2-4|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33|||ANOVA|||Non-inferiority of Liq\_Pool Group as compared to Lyo Control group in terms of the GMC ratio calculated using ANOVA model with vaccine groups and country as fixed effects||1.33|0.82|
95916629|NCT02960763|191791986|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.01||||||Equivalence of group|ANOVA|||||||0.010
95690835|NCT00570739|191352505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|16.07||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.33|26.02||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||26.02|6.33|0.0011
95916630|NCT02960763|191791986|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.004||||||augment with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.004
95916631|NCT02960763|191791986|SUPERIORITY|Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||||0.017||||||augment with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|ANOVA|||||||0.017
95690836|NCT00570739|191352505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.33||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|23.84||P-Value is from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||23.84|5.11|0.0009
95690837|NCT00570739|191352506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.29||||0.6523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|10.32||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.32|-17.50|0.6523
95690838|NCT00570739|191352506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.38||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.51|8.77||P-Value was from the non-parametric ANCOVA stratified by country|ANCOVA|Non-parametric|The median difference was calculated using Hodges-Lehmann point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval was constructed using the method of Moses.|Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.77|-17.51|0.3934
95690839|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.9838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.66|8.84||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||8.84|-8.66|0.9838
95690840|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.7157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|9.79||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total VLDL Particles||9.79|-6.73|0.7157
95690841|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.63|1.25|<0.0001
95690842|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.51||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large VLDL Chylomicron Particles||3.51|1.27|<0.0001
95690843|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.04||||0.0577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|10.24||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.24|-0.17|0.0577
95690844|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|10.22||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium VLDL Chylomicron Particles||10.22|0.27|0.0390
95916632|NCT02960763|191791986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.650
95916633|NCT02960763|191791986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||augmentation versus switch|ANOVA|||Repeated measure of 2\*2\*3 ANOVA with age (60 - 70, \> 70), time (baseline, end of Active phase of Step 1) by treatment group (3 levels). Tests were conducted with a Hochberg Step-down procedure. If the comparison with the lowest p-value \< 0.05/3 it is significant. If the second lowest p-value is also \< 0.05/2 then it also will be significant and if the third p-value is \< 0.05 then it also will be significant.||||0.003
95690845|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.49||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|-2.37||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-2.37|-12.61|0.0044
95690846|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.09|-1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small VLDL Particles||-1.40|-11.09|0.0118
95690847|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-110.6||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-209.9|-11.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-11.3|-209.9|0.0293
95916634|NCT02960763|191791986|SUPERIORITY|For those who proceed to Step 2, analogous repeated measures 2\*2\*2 ANOVA will be used with a significance level of .05 for the time\*treatment group comparison.||||||0.385|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.385
95916635|NCT02960763|191791987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Group effect|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.038
95916636|NCT02960763|191791987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||augmentation with aripiprazole vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.021
95916637|NCT02960763|191791987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||augmentation with bupropion vs switch to bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.027
95690848|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-112.7||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-207.6|-17.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||-17.8|-207.6|0.0202
95690849|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|14.5|||ANCOVA|||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||14.5|-15.2|0.9629
95690850|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Intermediate Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Particles||11.9|-16.5|0.7485
95690851|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.6||||0.1007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-139.7|12.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||12.5|-139.7|0.1007
95690852|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-63.8||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.6|6.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large LDL Particles||6.9|-134.6|0.0768
95690853|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-47.7||||0.4143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-162.7|67.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||67.3|-162.7|0.4143
95690854|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-157.1|63.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small LDL Particles||63.3|-157.1|0.4020
95690855|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6||||0.6378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|17.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||17.9|-29.1|0.6378
95690856|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7||||0.5528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.1|15.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium Small LDL Particles||15.6|-29.1|0.5528
95690857|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.0||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-134.8|50.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||50.8|-134.8|0.3730
95690858|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.0||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.0|49.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Small LDL Particles||49.0|-129.0|0.3764
95690859|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.17||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.17|-1.20|0.9807
95690860|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|1.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Total High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Particles||1.03|-1.23|0.8615
95690861|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.59||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.14|0.04|0.0364
95690862|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.08||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Large HDL Particles||1.08|0.04|0.0340
95690863|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.6587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.07||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.07|-0.68|0.6587
95690864|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.6554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Medium HDL Particles||1.00|-0.63|0.6554
95690865|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.1957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.42||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.42|-2.06|0.1957
95690866|NCT00570739|191352507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|0.34||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Small HDL Particles||0.34|-2.03|0.1622
95916638|NCT02960763|191791987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.934||||||Augmentation with aripiprazole v augmentation with bupropion|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.934
95690867|NCT00570739|191352508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|8.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||8.48|3.51|<0.0001
95916639|NCT02960763|191791987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||augmentation versus switch|generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.011
95916640|NCT02960763|191791987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||generalized linear model with logistic l|||||||0.500
95916641|NCT02960763|191791988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Cox models time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.164
95916642|NCT02960763|191791988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.103
95916643|NCT02960763|191791988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.127|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.127
95916644|NCT02960763|191791988|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.524||||||Cox models to examine time to event comparing treatment arms.|Regression, Cox|||||||0.524
95916645|NCT01987596|191792011|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||McNemar|||||||1.00
95916646|NCT01987596|191792012|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||two-period crossover design analysis||||<0.0001
95916647|NCT01987596|191792013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||2 treatment, 2 periiod cross-over analysis||||<0.0001
95916648|NCT02632786|191792016|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.21|0.55|0.3190
95916649|NCT02632786|191792017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.78||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.81|-3.37|0.5563
95916650|NCT02632786|191792018|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.0||||0.8992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|23.0|||ANCOVA|||||23.00|-11.50|0.8992
95916651|NCT02632786|191792019|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.54||||0.3529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|0.60|0.3529
95916652|NCT02632786|191792020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.0|-4.2|0.7570
95916653|NCT02632786|191792021|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-71.97||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.72|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.79|-150.72|0.0729
95916654|NCT02632786|191792022|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4142|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4142
95916655|NCT00474175|191792078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|16.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|25.7||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 20% was significantly (p less than or equal to \[=\<\] 0.05) more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and its associated confidence interval (C.I.) was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||25.7|7.2|<0.001
95916656|NCT00474175|191792078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|9.8||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|19.3||Alternative hypotheses tested in the study was that benzocaine 10% was significantly (p=\<0.05) more effective than placebo provided that benzocaine 20% was more effective than placebo.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||19.3|0.3|0.038
95916657|NCT00474175|191792078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|6.72||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Dose response was considered established if the percentage of responders between the 20% and 10% was greater than or equal to 5%.||P-value was calculated using CMH test which was adjusted for site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and its associated C.I. was calculated based on CMH weighted percentages and the corresponding standard error.||13.3|0.2|0.047
95916658|NCT00474175|191792079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Hazard Ratio (HR) of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.64|1.55|<0.001
95916659|NCT00474175|191792079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.12||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.12|1.26|<0.001
95916660|NCT00474175|191792079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.51|1.02|0.030
95916661|NCT00474175|191792080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.66|1.57|<0.001
95690868|NCT00570739|191352508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|7.63||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Very Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||7.63|3.00|<0.0001
95690869|NCT00570739|191352508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.05||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.05|-0.30|0.1742
95690870|NCT00570739|191352508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Low Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.06|-0.28|0.1870
95690871|NCT00570739|191352508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.03|0.0063
95690872|NCT00570739|191352508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.16||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||High Density Lipoprotein Particles||0.16|0.04|0.0020
95690873|NCT00570739|191352509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.4||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|39.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.9|8.9|0.0022
95690874|NCT00570739|191352509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|39.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated Total Triglycerides||39.1|9.6|0.0013
95690875|NCT00570739|191352509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.5|41.0||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||41.0|11.5|0.0006
95690876|NCT00570739|191352509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|40.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes: Calculated Very Low Density Triglycerides||40.6|12.5|0.0003
95690877|NCT00570739|191352509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.5|-0.4|0.1257
95690878|NCT00570739|191352509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|3.3||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Changes in Calculated High Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol||3.3|-0.3|0.1054
95690879|NCT00570739|191352510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2971
95690880|NCT00570739|191352510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.03|-0.11|0.2567
95690881|NCT00570739|191352510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.01|-0.13|0.1081
95916662|NCT00474175|191792080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 10% relative to the Placebo was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||2.25|1.34|<0.001
95916663|NCT00474175|191792080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cox|||P-value was calculated using Cox proportional hazard regression model which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. HR of Benzocaine 20% relative to the Benzocaine 10% was calculated. C.I. was based on the Wald statistic.||1.43|0.97|0.100
95690882|NCT00570739|191352510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.01|-0.17|0.0790
95690883|NCT00570739|191352510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.01||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||-0.01|-0.18|0.0206
95690884|NCT00570739|191352511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-1.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||-1.8|-6.8|0.0009
95916664|NCT00474175|191792082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|0.03|0.035
95690885|NCT00570739|191352511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||0.5|-4.5|0.1184
95690886|NCT00570739|191352511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 12 Weeks||0.1|-5.8|0.0615
95690887|NCT00570739|191352511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.3617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|2.6||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.6|-7.2|0.3617
95690888|NCT00570739|191352511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.2372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|1.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.7|-7.0|0.2372
95690889|NCT00570739|191352512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.921||||0.2982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|2.663||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 4 Weeks||2.663|-0.821|0.2982
95690890|NCT00570739|191352512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.695||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.458|1.848||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 8 Weeks||1.848|-0.458|0.2361
95690891|NCT00570739|191352512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.218||||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.388|-0.049|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||-0.049|-2.388|0.0413
95690892|NCT00570739|191352512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.434||||0.7858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.583|2.715|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.715|-3.583|0.7858
95690893|NCT00570739|191352512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.493||||0.7314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.321|2.335|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.335|-3.321|0.7314
95690894|NCT00570739|191352513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.089||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|0.207||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.207|-0.385|0.5530
95690895|NCT00570739|191352513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.105||||0.4554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.383|0.172||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.172|-0.383|0.4554
95690896|NCT00570739|191352514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.9||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||8.9|-10.7|0.8583
95690897|NCT00570739|191352514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.7975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|8.1||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||8.1|-10.5|0.7975
95690898|NCT00570739|191352515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.233||95.0|-18.5|4.5||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||4.5|-18.5|0.2330
95690899|NCT00570739|191352515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|2.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||2.8|-19.2|0.1412
95690900|NCT00570739|191352516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|10.8||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.8|-13.7|0.8192
95690901|NCT00570739|191352516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.7||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.7|-13.5|0.7513
95690902|NCT00570739|191352517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.91||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.156|10.336||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||10.336|-24.156|0.4301
95690903|NCT00570739|191352517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.17||||0.5369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.661|11.321||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||11.321|-21.661|0.5369
95690904|NCT00570739|191352518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.151||||0.7447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.068|0.765||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.765|-1.068|0.7447
95690905|NCT00570739|191352518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|0.911||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.911|-0.853|0.9476
95690906|NCT00570739|191352519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||<0.0001
95690907|NCT00570739|191352519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.23||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|13.58||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||13.58|2.06|0.0018
95690908|NCT00570739|191352519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|10.54||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.54|1.89|0.0019
95690909|NCT00570739|191352519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0005
95690910|NCT00570739|191352519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0007
95690911|NCT00570739|191352520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0104||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.0104
95690912|NCT00570739|191352520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.39||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||9.39|0.53|0.2224
95690913|NCT00570739|191352520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|9.33||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||9.33|0.53|0.1990
95690914|NCT00570739|191352520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2778||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2778
95690915|NCT00570739|191352520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2785||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.2785
95690916|NCT00570739|191352521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.5353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.48||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.48|-2.84|0.5353
95690917|NCT00570739|191352521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.5475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|1.4||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.40|-2.64|0.5475
95690918|NCT00570739|191352522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0116||||0.0678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0241|0.0009||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||0.0009|-0.0241|0.0678
95690919|NCT00570739|191352522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0112||||0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0228|0.0004||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||0.0004|-0.0228|0.0585
95690920|NCT00570739|191352523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.64|12.64||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||12.64|-18.64|0.7051
95690921|NCT00570739|191352523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.5267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.72|10.13||P-Value is for the LS Mean Difference between treatment groups|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||10.13|-19.72|0.5267
95690922|NCT00570739|191352524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.5882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.83||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.83|0.40|0.5882
95916665|NCT00474175|191792082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.14|0.173
95916666|NCT00474175|191792082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 60: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.20|0.358
95916667|NCT00474175|191792082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.75||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.72|-0.23|0.135
95916668|NCT00474175|191792082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.48||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|1.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.46|-0.49|0.332
95916669|NCT00474175|191792082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.06||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||SPRID 120: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.06|-0.53|0.517
95916670|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.35|0.50|<0.001
95690923|NCT00570739|191352524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.96||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.96|0.44|0.7098
95690924|NCT00570739|191352524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.6835
95690925|NCT00570739|191352524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8461||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.8461
95690926|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2079||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||0.2079
95690927|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4053||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4053
95690928|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5752||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.5752
95690929|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.29||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||2.29|0.25|0.7994
95690930|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.03||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||3.03|0.32|0.9960
95690931|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7783||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.7783
95690932|NCT00570739|191352525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9774||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.9774
95916671|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.97||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.97|0.13|0.011
95916672|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.38||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.72||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||5 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.72|0.03|0.031
95690933|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 4 Weeks||||<0.0001
95690934|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4058||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 8 Weeks||||0.4058
95690935|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0254||95.0||||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 12 Weeks||||0.0254
95690936|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||3.55|0.74|0.1499
95690937|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.45||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||4.45|0.97|0.0420
95690938|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2240
95690939|NCT00570739|191352526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0593||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.0593
95690940|NCT00570739|191352527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.4||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||1.40|0.31|0.4794
95690941|NCT00570739|191352527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.6667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.55||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||1.55|0.37|0.6667
95690942|NCT00570739|191352527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2768||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.2768
95690943|NCT00570739|191352527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4395||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.4395
95690944|NCT00570739|191352528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|6.64||P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Baseline to 16 Weeks||6.64|0.89|0.1375
95690945|NCT00570739|191352528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|5.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-Value for comparing percentages was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by country.||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||5.82|0.85|0.1996
95690946|NCT00570739|191352528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0829||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks||||0.0829
95690947|NCT00570739|191352528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1037||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|Contained treatment and country as factors and baseline lab value as a covariate||Baseline to 16 Weeks LOCF||||0.1037
95690948|NCT01729598|191352531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95690949|NCT01729598|191352532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95690950|NCT01729598|191352533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95690951|NCT01729598|191352534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95690952|NCT01041573|191352563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.641|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.641
95690953|NCT01041573|191352563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95690954|NCT02650284|191352652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.46||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.46
95690955|NCT02650284|191352652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.23||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 6-week timepoint.||||0.23
95690956|NCT02650284|191352652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.1||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 3-month timepoint.||||0.10
95690957|NCT02650284|191352652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 12-month timepoint.||||0.98
95690958|NCT02650284|191352652|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.5||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 24-month timepoint.||||0.50
95690959|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.59||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D Index preoperatively between both groups.||||0.59
95916673|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.23||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.23|0.33|<0.001
95690960|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 3-months between both groups.||||0.90
95690961|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 12-months between both groups.||||0.57
95690962|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.49||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D index at 24-months between both groups.||||0.49
95690963|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means||||||0.65||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS preoperatively between both groups.||||0.65
95690964|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.3||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.30
95690965|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.06
95690966|NCT02650284|191352653|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.44||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare EQ-5D VAS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.44
95690967|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.97||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest preoperatively between both groups.||||0.97
95690968|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.45||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 3-months between both groups.||||0.45
95690969|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.64||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 12-months between both groups.||||0.64
95690970|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.19||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Rest at 24-months between both groups.||||0.19
95690971|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation preoperatively between both groups.||||0.57
95690972|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.98||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 3-months between both groups.||||0.98
95690973|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.58||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 12-months between both groups.||||0.58
95690974|NCT02650284|191352654|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.16||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare VAS Pain at Mobilisation at 24-months between both groups.||||0.16
95690975|NCT02650284|191352655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.62||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score preoperatively between both groups.||||0.62
95690976|NCT02650284|191352655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.06||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 3-months between both groups.||||0.06
95690977|NCT02650284|191352655|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.93||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare New Knee Society Function Score at 24-months between both groups.||||0.93
95690978|NCT02650284|191352656|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.57||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at pre-operation timepoint.||||0.57
95690979|NCT02650284|191352656|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.17||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 3-months between both groups.||||0.17
95690980|NCT02650284|191352656|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.8||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 12-months between both groups.||||0.80
95690981|NCT02650284|191352656|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.9||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare FJS at 24-months between both groups.||||0.90
95690982|NCT02650284|191352658|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as less than or equal to 1 standard deviation between the two means.||||||0.81||||||The number of recruited patients did not reach the required sample size. Power score assessments no longer hold, thus there is low confidence in the findings.|t-test, 2 sided|||To compare length of hospital stay (number of nights) between both groups.||||0.81
95690983|NCT01555463|191352664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|center-adjusted||||||<.001
95690984|NCT01555463|191352665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|F-test for treatment effect of the ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as the factors and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<.001
95690985|NCT03283163|191352735|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare PTSD severity from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.040
95690986|NCT03283163|191352736|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare degree of pain-related interference from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.69
95690987|NCT03283163|191352737|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-test to compare severity of pain catastrophizing from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.098
95690988|NCT03283163|191352738|OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of resting ALLO+PA levels from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.194
95690989|NCT03283163|191352739|OTHER|paired samples t-test||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||paired samples t-tests were conducted for comparison of peak ALLO+PA levels (30 minutes post MAXEX) from baseline to endpoint (week 13).||||.343
95916674|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.94||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.94|0.04|0.031
95916675|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||10 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.07|0.119
95916676|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.77||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.25||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.25|0.28|0.002
95916677|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.95||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.95|-0.02|0.061
95916678|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||15 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.70|-0.09|0.131
95690990|NCT04238663|191352740|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.976|1.16|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.16|0.976|
95690991|NCT04238663|191352740|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|1.08||||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.||1.08|0.897|
95690992|NCT04238663|191352740|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (Cmax) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter Cmax was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.851|1.01|||||For Ratio of geometric least square mean (GLSM): EU is the numerator and US Avastin acts as the denominator|||1.01|0.851|
95690993|NCT04238663|191352741|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.14|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and EU Avastin represents the denominator|||1.14|1.00|
95690994|NCT04238663|191352741|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|1.05|||||For the comparison, MB02 represents the numerator and US Avastin represents the denominator.|||1.05|0.944|
95690995|NCT04238663|191352741|EQUIVALENCE|"Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 0.80-1.25.~The PK parameter AUC\[0-∞\] was log-transformed (base e) prior to analysis and was analysed using an ANCOVA model. The model included treatment as a fixed effect and body weight as a covariate."|Ratio of GLSM|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.884|0.988|||||EU Avastin corresponds to the numerator and US Avastin corresponds to the denominator|||0.988|0.884|
95690996|NCT00337467|191352755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|21.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|33.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||33.7|11.9|
95916679|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.52||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.03||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.03|0.01|0.044
95916680|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.43||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.08|0.099
95916681|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.51||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||20 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.51|-0.32|0.647
95916682|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.6||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.11||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.11|0.08|0.023
95916683|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.47||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.98||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.98|-0.04|0.072
95916684|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.13||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||25 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.29|0.551
95916685|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.54||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.08||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.08|0.01|0.047
95690997|NCT00337467|191352756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Participants|34.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|47.7|||exact binomial methods|Given the small sample size, the 95% confidence interval is made with exact binomial methods.||||47.7|22.7|
95690998|NCT00337467|191352761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|61.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.3|109.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||109.8|12.3|
95690999|NCT00337467|191352762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|53.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|113.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||113.7|-7.1|
95691000|NCT00337467|191352763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|129.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||||129.1|-4.0|
95691001|NCT00337467|191352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|14.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 48||14.6|2.5|
95691002|NCT00337467|191352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|8.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||8.8|-3.9|
95691003|NCT00337467|191352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|12.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|20.8|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 48||20.8|4.0|
95691004|NCT00337467|191352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|31.7|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 48||31.7|8.0|
95691005|NCT00337467|191352765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|34.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 48||34.4|-0.4|
95691006|NCT00337467|191352766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|14.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2||||95.0|6.9|20.1|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Total Cholesterol at Week 96||20.1|6.9|
95691007|NCT00337467|191352766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|10.2|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||10.2|-6.0|
95691008|NCT00337467|191352766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|28.4|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol at Week 96||28.4|10.3|
95691009|NCT00337467|191352766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.3|42.0|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting LDL Cholesterol at Week 96||42.0|15.3|
95916686|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.81|-0.26|0.316
95916687|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.27||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.71||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||30 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.71|-0.17|0.224
95916688|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.46||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.01||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||1.01|-0.09|0.099
95916689|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.37||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.92|-0.18|0.186
95691010|NCT00337467|191352766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.6|||normal approximation for 95% CI|||Percent Change from Baseline in Fasting Triglycerides at Week 96||41.6|-9.5|
95691011|NCT01187901|191352769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95691012|NCT01187901|191352770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95691013|NCT01187901|191352771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95691014|NCT01187901|191352772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95691015|NCT01187901|191352773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95691016|NCT01187901|191352774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95691017|NCT04184622|191352819|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference (Net)|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.5|-14.6|<0.001
95691018|NCT04184622|191352819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-18.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-17.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.8|-20.0|<0.001
95691019|NCT04184622|191352819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-19.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.0|-21.2|<0.001
95691020|NCT04184622|191352820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.43|33.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.02|17.43|<0.001
95691021|NCT04184622|191352820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|73.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.98|115.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||115.39|46.98|<0.001
95691022|NCT04184622|191352820|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|75.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.86|119.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.03|47.86|<0.001
95691023|NCT04184622|191352821|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.1|-11.2|<0.001
95691024|NCT04184622|191352822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.15|25.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||25.60|14.15|<0.001
95691025|NCT04184622|191352822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.75|61.45|||Regression, Logistic|||||61.45|31.75|<.001
95691026|NCT04184622|191352822|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.94|93.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||93.77|45.94|<.001
95691027|NCT04184622|191352823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.83|24.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||24.66|11.83|<0.001
95691028|NCT04184622|191352823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.42|75.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||75.88|35.42|<0.001
95691029|NCT04184622|191352823|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|66.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.23|98.16|||Regression, Logistic|||||98.16|45.23|<0.001
95691030|NCT04184622|191352824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.37|74.22|||Regression, Logistic|||||74.22|18.37|<0.001
95691031|NCT04184622|191352824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|109.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|219.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||219.81|54.50|<0.001
95691032|NCT04184622|191352824|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|150.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.85|302.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||302.97|74.85|<0.001
95691033|NCT04184622|191352825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|-10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.0|-12.3|<0.001
95691034|NCT04184622|191352825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.2|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.9|-17.2|<0.001
95691035|NCT04184622|191352825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-16.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|-15.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.4|-17.7|<0.001
95691036|NCT04184622|191352826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|1.6|<0.001
95916690|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.54||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||40 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.54|-0.35|0.684
95916691|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.34|0.452
95691037|NCT04184622|191352827|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-22.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-19.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.8|-25.6|<0.001
95691038|NCT04184622|191352828|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-3.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.41|-6.40|<0.001
95691039|NCT04184622|191352829|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.85|9.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.49|5.85|<0.001
95691040|NCT04184622|191352830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-6.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|-5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-7.9|<0.001
95691041|NCT04184622|191352831|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-37.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-37.3|-44.9|<0.001
95691042|NCT04184622|191352832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.1|-15.3|<.0001
95691043|NCT04184622|191352832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-17.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|-15.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.7|-19.8|<.0001
95691044|NCT04184622|191352832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|-18.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.6|-22.8|<.0001
95691045|NCT04184622|191352833|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.13|||Regression, Cox|||||0.13|0.03|<0.0001
95691046|NCT04184622|191352834|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.21|||Regression, Cox|||||0.21|0.07|<0.0001
95691047|NCT04184622|191352835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-5.5|<0.001
95691048|NCT04184622|191352835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.8|-7.7|<0.001
95691049|NCT04184622|191352835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|-7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.3|-8.2|<0.001
95691050|NCT04184622|191352836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.30|-0.36|<0.001
95691051|NCT04184622|191352836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.45|<0.001
95691052|NCT04184622|191352836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-0.48|<0.001
95691053|NCT04184622|191352837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.97|-7.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.20|-9.97|<0.001
95691054|NCT04184622|191352837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.98|-9.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.21|-11.98|<0.001
95691055|NCT04184622|191352837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-11.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.30|-12.80|<0.001
95691056|NCT04184622|191352838|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-6.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|-3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.75|-8.32|<0.001
95691057|NCT04184622|191352839|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-20.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.4|-26.1|<0.001
95691058|NCT04184622|191352840|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-11.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.2|-16.1|<0.001
95916692|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.75||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.75|-0.35|0.479
95691059|NCT04184622|191352841|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-5.0|<0.001
95691060|NCT04184622|191352842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.73|50.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||50.05|17.73|<.0001
95691061|NCT04184622|191352842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.63|59.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||59.53|20.63|<.0001
95691062|NCT04184622|191352842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|55.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.61|102.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||102.34|29.61|<.0001
95691063|NCT04184622|191352843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|7.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|9.8|||ANCOVA|||||9.8|5.6|<0.001
95691064|NCT04184622|191352843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|12.8|||ANCOVA|||||12.8|8.6|<0.001
95691065|NCT04184622|191352843|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|11.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|13.8|||ANCOVA|||||13.8|9.6|<0.001
95691066|NCT04705597|191352860|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.366||||0.3312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|2.562|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.562|0.728|0.3312
95691067|NCT04705597|191352862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.574||||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|2.475|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 14||2.475|0.133|0.4561
95691068|NCT04705597|191352862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.521||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|1.282|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 28||1.282|0.212|0.1559
95691069|NCT04705597|191352862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.498||||0.1293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.203|1.226|||Regression, Logistic|||Day 57||1.226|0.203|0.1293
95691070|NCT04705597|191352863|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2687|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis was only performed for Day 28. This is timeframe used for the primary endpoint||||0.2687
95691071|NCT04705597|191352864|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3977|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3977
95691072|NCT04705597|191352865|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2229|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2229
95691073|NCT04705597|191352866|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.388||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|2.561|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.561|0.752|0.2941
95691074|NCT04705597|191352867|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3325
95691075|NCT04705597|191352868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.2||Change at Day 14|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.08|0.0254
95691076|NCT04705597|191352868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 28||1.18|-0.12|0.1109
95691077|NCT04705597|191352868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Day 57||0.12|-0.10|0.8640
95691078|NCT04705597|191352869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.046||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|4.706|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.706|0.89|0.0919
95691079|NCT04705597|191352870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.83||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.08|||ANCOVA|||||8.08|-0.42|0.749
95691080|NCT04705597|191352871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|9.13|||ANCOVA|||||9.13|-1.75|0.1769
95691081|NCT04705597|191352872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.2621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.184|1.586|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.586|0.184|0.2621
95691082|NCT04705597|191352873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|7.37|||ANCOVA|||||7.37|-1.76|0.2265
95691083|NCT04705597|191352874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.223||||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|2.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.364|0.633|0.5497
95691084|NCT04705597|191352875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.89||||0.1172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|11.05|||ANCOVA|||||11.05|-1.27|0.1172
95691085|NCT04705597|191352876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.914||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.353|2.368|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.368|0.353|0.853
95691086|NCT04705597|191352877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.16||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|8.18|||ANCOVA|||||8.18|-1.86|0.1991
95691087|NCT04705597|191352878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.103||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.293|13.027|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.027|1.293|0.0166
95691088|NCT04705597|191352879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.56||||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|10.64|||ANCOVA|||||10.64|-1.51|0.1297
95691089|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.1916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Baseline||0.07|-0.35|0.1916
95691090|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 2||0.05|-0.44|0.1097
95691091|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 3||-0.04|-0.63|0.0276
95916693|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.01||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.46||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||50 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.46|-0.44|0.955
95916694|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.79||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.79|-0.36|0.465
95916695|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.58||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.58|-0.57|0.992
95916696|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.21||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.68||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||60 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.68|-0.26|0.376
95691092|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 4||-0.01|-0.71|0.0463
95691093|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.0969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 5||0.06|-0.71|0.0969
95691094|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.4367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 6||0.25|-0.57|0.4367
95691095|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 7||0.35|-0.54|0.6685
95691096|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.2287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 8||0.18|-0.73|0.2287
95691097|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 9||0.09|-0.96|0.1061
95691098|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 10||-0.02|-1.06|0.0415
95691099|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 11||0.12|-1.00|0.1236
95691100|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 12||-0.18|-1.23|0.0097
95691101|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 13||-0.11|-1.02|0.0157
95691102|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Treatment Day 14||-0.36|-1.32|0.0010
95691103|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Time of Discharge Visit||0.25|-0.40|0.6440
95691104|NCT04705597|191352880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.59|||ANCOVA|||Follow up Day 28||0.59|-0.60|0.9869
95916697|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.36||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.93||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.93|-0.22|0.229
95916698|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.41|0.581
95691105|NCT04705597|191352881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69||||0.2399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|4.52|||ANCOVA|||||4.52|-1.14|0.2399
95691106|NCT04705597|191352882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.869||||0.8081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.695|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.695|0.28|0.8081
95691107|NCT04705597|191352883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.436||||0.3193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.704|2.929|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.929|0.704|0.3193
95691108|NCT00390780|191352884|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025|one-sided test|||"Analyses for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
95691109|NCT00390780|191352885|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Expected cure rate: 70% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|comparison of proportion clinical cure|0.15|||>|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|one-sided noninferiority test|||"Analysis for ITT and PP populations:~H0: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical cure rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical cure rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|>0.025
95691110|NCT00390780|191352886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.0974|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.0974
95691111|NCT00390780|191352886|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|Compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.1115|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.1115
95691112|NCT00390780|191352887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.8787|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8787
95691113|NCT00390780|191352887|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of clinical success|0.15||||0.7969|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: clinical success rate for miconazole Lauriad minus clinical success rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.7969
95691114|NCT00390780|191352888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.882|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for ITT population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.8820
95916699|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.19||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.66||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||70 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.66|-0.28|0.422
95916700|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.33||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.26|0.271
95916701|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.73||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.73|-0.43|0.612
95691115|NCT00390780|191352888|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non inferiority assumptions:~Type of test: one-sided Inferiority margin: -15% Type I error: 2.5% Type II error: 5%"|compare proportion of partial response|0.15||||0.9033|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Analysis for PP population:~H0: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for clotrimazole troches is less than or equal to -0.15 H1: partial response rate for miconazole Lauriad minus partial response rate for Mycelex troches is greater than -0.15"|||-0.15|0.9033
95691116|NCT00390780|191352889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.5816|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.5816
95691117|NCT00390780|191352889|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population|difference in proportion mycologic cure|0.15||||0.4439|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level was \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.4439
95691118|NCT00390780|191352890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for ITT population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.833|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.8330
95691119|NCT00390780|191352890|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority statistical analysis for PP population.|difference in proportion relapsed|0.15||||0.9738|ONE_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|||Significance level is \<0.025.|Chi-squared||||||-0.15|0.9738
95691120|NCT00390780|191352895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Clotrimazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.1860
95691121|NCT00390780|191352895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9564||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Miconazole minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) between treatment groups||||0.9564
95691122|NCT01617681|191352916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|-2.01|||ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-13.86|0.0096
95691123|NCT01617681|191352916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.6531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.2|||ANCOVA|||||3.20|-5.07|0.6531
95691124|NCT01617681|191352917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.94|0.0030
95691125|NCT01617681|191352917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.98|-1.77|||ANCOVA|||||-1.77|-8.98|0.0042
95691126|NCT01617681|191352918|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|5.8|||ANCOVA|||||5.8|0.49|0.411
95691127|NCT01617681|191352918|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|4.79|||ANCOVA|||||4.79|0.44|0.5443
95691128|NCT01617681|191352919|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.517||||0.2624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.64|||ANCOVA|||||1.64|0.16|0.2624
95691129|NCT00962000|191352957|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02217|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.024||There is no p values because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.024|-0.064|
95691130|NCT00962000|191352958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01849|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.023||There is no p value for eKt/V because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|The three centers and the two flow rates were treated as fixed effects and the subjects within centers modeled as a random effect.||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.023|-0.051|
95916702|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.18||||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.65||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||80 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.65|-0.30|0.465
95916703|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.32||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.91||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.91|-0.27|0.290
95916704|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.83||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.83|-0.34|0.412
95691131|NCT00962000|191352959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size required for the study was estimated using a web-based power calculation tool. Analysis of data from some 50,000 hemodialysis patients showed a within-patient between-treatment standard deviation of 0.21 for Kt/Vurea. Using this estimate of standard deviation, 38 subjects would be needed to detect a difference in Kt/Vurea of 0.1 with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 90% with two determinations per subject at each level of dialysate flow rate.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03103||||95.0|-0.029|0.099||There is no p value for Kt/VID because the power calculation is based on the primary outcome variable (Kt/Vsp) alone.|ANOVA|||Increasing the dialysate flow rates from 600 mL/min to 800 mL/min will not significantly increase Kt/Vurea.||0.099|-0.029|
95691132|NCT03015610|191352975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8716|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8716
95691133|NCT03015610|191352976|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2471|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2471
95691134|NCT03015610|191352977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95691135|NCT03015610|191352978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2765|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2765
95691136|NCT03015610|191352979|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.32||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|8.2|||Negative binomial regression|||||8.20|0.66|0.191
95691137|NCT03015610|191352980|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.53||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.98|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.98|0.29|0.0435
95691138|NCT03015610|191352981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3808|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3808
95691139|NCT00358917|191352982|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (once daily \[QD\] minus twice daily \[BID\], based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution) was used to assess noninferiority. The QD regimen was considered noninferior to the BID regimen if the lower limit of the confidence interval remained above -12%.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.5||||0.413||95.0|-4.5|11.5|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the once daily (QD) regimen was more than 12% lower than the response rate for the twice daily (BID) regimen. The planned sample size of 600 participants (300 participants in each of the QD and BID treatment regimens) provided 83% power (with a type I error rate of 0.05) to reject the null hypothesis, i.e., to determine noninferiority based on the 12% margin.||11.5|-4.5|0.413
95691140|NCT00358917|191352983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|3.8||||0.389||95.0|-4.3|11.9|||normal approx. to binomial distribution|||||11.9|-4.3|0.389
95691141|NCT00358917|191352984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.281
95691142|NCT00358917|191352986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.222||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.222
95691143|NCT01417780|191353008|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.016
95691144|NCT01417780|191353009|OTHER|||||||0.019|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis was that the frequency of Day 14 SOFA score less than or equal to 1 was not different among treatment groups.||||0.019
95691145|NCT01417780|191353010|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.11
95691146|NCT01417780|191353011|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95691147|NCT01417780|191353012|OTHER|||||||0.19||||||Wilcoxon p value represents comparison of active dose groups versus placebo group.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95691148|NCT00904826|191353013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between before treatment and one year after treatment.||||<0.0001
95691149|NCT00904826|191353015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was made between baseline and after 12 months of treatment.||||0.0078
95691150|NCT00904826|191353019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 weeks and baseline.||||<0.0001
95691151|NCT00904826|191353019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 3 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
95691152|NCT00904826|191353019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 6 months and baseline||||0.0001
95691153|NCT00904826|191353019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 9 months and baseline.||||0.0001
95691154|NCT00904826|191353019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison is between 12 months and baseline.||||<0.0001
95691155|NCT00904826|191353021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison was between 3 months and baseline.||||0.0019
95691156|NCT01519245|191353022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0493||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of primary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0493
95691157|NCT01519245|191353024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.1876
95691158|NCT01519245|191353025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.093||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intention to Treat principles of data analysis were applied. The two-sided T-test (95% confidence interval) was used for statistical calculation of secondary outcomes. The null hypothesis was that no difference in chest tube losses would be found between the topical tranexamic acid and placebo groups in low-risk cardiac patients undergoing CABG.||||0.0930
95691159|NCT00803244|191353032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.49||||0.2344||95.0|-1.3|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.30|0.2344
95691160|NCT00803244|191353033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference vs. Placebo|-0.09||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||ANCOVA||Relative LS Means difference (%) = -19.7|||0.00|-0.18|0.0401
95691161|NCT02873715|191353044|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|-2.29|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.29|-10.14|<0.05
95691162|NCT02873715|191353045|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.97||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-2.26|||ANCOVA||Results are pooled across 10 multiple imputations and reported as mean (standard error)|||-2.26|-5.68|0.001
95691163|NCT02873715|191353047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5384||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|time x group analysis.||repeated measures analysis of variance for parent delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.65
95691164|NCT02873715|191353047|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3913||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||time x group analysis|ANOVA|||repeated measures analysis of variance for child delay discounting changes from 0 to 24-month. This includes only parents with complete data for both time points and does not exclude based on johnson-bickel rules. Reporting time x group analysis.||||0.87
95691165|NCT01254396|191353062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|41.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.4|52.76||||||Natural log transformed Cmax of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||52.76|32.40|
95691166|NCT01254396|191353064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|93.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|108.78||||||Natural log transformed AUC (0-∞) of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||108.78|80.23|
95691167|NCT01254396|191353065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Adjusted Means|87.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.62|98.99||||||Natural log transformed AUClast of sildenafil was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. The adjusted mean differences and 90% confidence intervals for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratios.||98.99|77.62|
95691168|NCT00053846|191353089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.483|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0576|||ANCOVA||Multiple Imputation (MI) used for estimates. MICE software in R was used to generate 100 imputed datasets. ANCOVA was run on each, and results were pooled.|H0: The true difference in means is equal to zero. Ha: The true difference in means is not equal to zero.||0.0576|-1.020|0.080
95691169|NCT00064662|191353100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0||||0.01||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of 24 month success rates. Null hypothesis is that the distributions in the two groups are equal.||||0.01
95691170|NCT00064662|191353101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|16.2|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Time to event analysis of cumulative success rates in the two groups. Null hypothesis is that the distributions are equal in the two groups.||||<0.001
95691171|NCT00064662|191353101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Other|0.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Kalpan Meier (Wald statistic)|||Kaplan Meier time-to-event analysis of cumulative success rates. Used Wald test of equality of survival distributions.||||<0.0001
95691172|NCT04590937|191353106|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.89|101.67|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.67|94.89|
95916705|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.07||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.55||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||90 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.55|-0.41|0.769
95916706|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.15||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.74||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.74|-0.43|0.610
95916707|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.78||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.78|-0.39|0.511
95916708|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.04||||0.859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.43||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||100 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.43|-0.52|0.859
95691173|NCT04590937|191353107|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|123.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.22|134.98|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||134.98|112.22|
95691174|NCT04590937|191353108|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|117.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.57|125.34|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||125.34|110.57|
95691175|NCT04590937|191353109|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|170.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.73|201.76|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.76|143.73|
95691176|NCT04590937|191353110|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|91.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.04|94.93|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||94.93|88.04|
95691177|NCT04590937|191353111|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|139.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|124.29|155.51|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||155.51|124.29|
95691178|NCT04590937|191353112|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|112.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.26|124.11|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||124.11|101.26|
95691179|NCT04590937|191353113|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|161.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|34.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.17|201.39|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||201.39|129.17|
95691180|NCT04590937|191353114|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|98.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.86|101.73|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Metformin + BI 730357 / Metformin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||101.73|94.86|
95691181|NCT04590937|191353115|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|118.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.83|129.4|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Rosuvastatin + BI 730357 / Rosuvastatin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||129.40|108.83|
95691182|NCT04590937|191353116|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|114.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.93|120.56|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Furosemide + BI 730357 / Furosemide. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||120.56|107.93|
95691183|NCT04590937|191353117|OTHER|"ANOVA model including subject as random and treatment as fixed effect was used."|Geometric means ratio|173.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|30.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.9|212.8|||||The geometric means ratio was calculated as Digoxin + BI 730357 / Digoxin. Standard error of the mean is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|||212.80|141.90|
95691184|NCT04525222|191353121|OTHER||Slope|0.42||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.74|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||"Treatment satisfaction items are reported on a Likert-type scale, with response choices ranging from not at all to very much. We used a linear regression adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), and Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5) to test for differences between arms."||0.74|0.10|0.0088
95691185|NCT04525222|191353122|OTHER||Slope|2.92||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|21.07|||Negative Binomial Regression|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||21.07|-15.22|0.75
95691186|NCT04525222|191353123|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.48|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.48|0.5|0.55
95691187|NCT04525222|191353124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking \<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs, Baseline Depression Severity PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5||||3.32|0.80|0.17
95691188|NCT04525222|191353125|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.81|0.70|0.25
95691189|NCT04525222|191353126|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|3.72||Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)|Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.72|0.94|0.07
95691190|NCT04525222|191353127|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|5.85|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||5.85|1.00|0.04
95691191|NCT04525222|191353128|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.89|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||2.89|0.75|0.25
95691192|NCT04525222|191353129|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.12|0.77|0.17
95691193|NCT04525222|191353130|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.73|0.77|0.15
95691194|NCT04525222|191353131|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.86|0.41|0.68
95691195|NCT04525222|191353132|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.46|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||3.46|0.75|0.21
95691196|NCT04525222|191353133|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.19|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.19|0.63|0.30
95691197|NCT04525222|191353134|OTHER||Slope|-1.68||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.46|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||-0.46|-2.90|.0072
95691198|NCT04525222|191353135|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.829||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.344|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression Severity (PHQ-8\<5 / PHQ-8\>=5)||||4.344|0.770|0.1770
95691199|NCT04525222|191353136|OTHER||Slope|3.62||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.95|||Regression, Linear|Adjusting for Treatment Arm, Sex Assigned at Birth, Baseline Level of Smoking (\<20 Cigs/ \>=20 Cigs), Baseline Depression, Baseline Activation Score||||5.95|1.28|0.0025
95691200|NCT01544595|191353137|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.42|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.42|0.22|<0.0001
95691201|NCT01544595|191353137|SUPERIORITY|"H1: Secukinumab 150 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68~• H2: Secukinumab 300 mg was not different from placebo with respect to the cumulative rate for patients who lost PASI 75 response up to Week 68"|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.29|||Log Rank|||"The following hypotheses were tested for 52 weeks≤ t ≤68 weeks~* H1: p1(t) - p0,1(t) = 0 versus HA1: p1(t)- p0,1(t) ≥ 0,~* H2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) = 0 versus HA2: p2(t) - p0,2(t) ≥ 0,"||0.29|0.14|<0.0001
95691202|NCT00554294|191353159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69|||<|0.05||95.0|0.48|0.98|||Regression, Logistic|The Odds Ratio (OR) describes the probability ob beeing overweight of the intervention group compared to the control group (reference, denominator).||adjusted for overweight at baseline, age at baseline,sex and clustering by school||0.98|0.48|<0.05
95691203|NCT01929044|191353164|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test relative to the non-inferiority margin of 1|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) -repeated measures approach||0.04|-0.88|<0.0001
95691204|NCT01929044|191353164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.04|-0.88|0.0743
95691205|NCT01929044|191353165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.08|-0.70|0.1210
95916709|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.26||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.84||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.84|-0.33|0.386
95691206|NCT01929044|191353166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||0.03|-0.82|0.0658
95691207|NCT01929044|191353167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.07|-0.85|0.0220
95691208|NCT01929044|191353168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger approximation is used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom. An unstructured covariance matrix is used.|REML-based repeated measures approach includes baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate, treatment, centre, time and treatment-time interaction as fixed effects. The difference was calculated as Buscopan minus 654-II.|||-0.09|-0.81|0.0149
95691209|NCT01929044|191353169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|||||||van Elteren test|The van Elteren test stratifying for centre (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using modified ridit scores) was performed.||||||0.0113
95691210|NCT01929044|191353170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the response with treatment as fixed effect and baseline pain intensity as continuous covariate.|Exact 95% confidence interval obtained by Clopper and Pearson approach.|||1.09|0.37|0.0992
95691211|NCT05022004|191353171|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.91|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.91|-0.28|
95691212|NCT05022004|191353171|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.76|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 2, 08:00am|||0.76|-0.39|
95691213|NCT05022004|191353171|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.5|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Left Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.50|-0.59|
95691214|NCT05022004|191353171|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.4|||||The reported mean difference represents value for Right Eye at Week 6, 08:00am|||0.40|-0.64|
95691215|NCT05022004|191353172|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0015||||||P value reported for Left Eye at Week 2; 08:00 am|two-sample t-test|||||||0.0015
95691216|NCT05022004|191353172|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed||||||0.0008|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right Eye at Week 2; 08:00am||||||0.0008
95691217|NCT05022004|191353172|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for left eye at week 6, 08:00 am||||||<.0001
95691218|NCT05022004|191353172|EQUIVALENCE|Type of Statistical Test - Therapeutic equivalence. Sample size was based on 90% power at an alpha=0.05 significance level when the true difference between the means is 0 and SD=3.5 and the 95% equivalence limits are -1.0 and 1.0; 20% dropout was assumed|||||<|0.0001|||||||two-sample t-test|P value reported for Right eye at Week 6; 08:00 am||||||<.0001
95691219|NCT00374907|191353207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|18.5||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|38.7||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||38.7|1.3|0.0350
95691220|NCT00374907|191353208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Percent Difference|27.9||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|57.1||Between-group comparisons significant at alpha = 0.05, significance testing based on hierarchical testing. Primary and secondary endpoints are presented in order of testing.|ANCOVA|Adjusted percent difference for saxagliptin 5 mg vs placebo in Week 12 (LOCF) to baseline ratio. Adjusted for baseline.|ANCOVA model: logarithm(post/pre) = logarithm(pre) treatment|||57.1|4.2|0.0204
95691221|NCT01605396|191353211|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.81|1.72|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio (HR) and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||1.72|0.81|0.565
95691222|NCT01605396|191353213|OTHER||Difference of Percentages|-10.0||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|8.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen's Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to compare ORR between the two treatment arms (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm), and to calculate a p-value and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in response rates.||8.0|-27.8|0.267
95916710|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.76||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.76|-0.41|0.563
95691223|NCT01605396|191353214|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.13|||Regression, Cox|||HR and p-value for treatment difference based on Cox regression model with Efron tie handling for treatment comparison (Ridaforolimus + Dalotuzumab + Exemestane arm versus Ridaforolimus + Exemestane arm).||4.13|0.46|0.562
95691224|NCT04160468|191353242|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.6||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|12.4|||Fisher Exact|||||12.4|-33.6|0.392
95691225|NCT01128972|191353244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.09|16.24||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||16.24|7.09|<0.0001
95691226|NCT01128972|191353244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|26.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|31.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||31.18|22.02|<0.0001
95691227|NCT01128972|191353244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.59|41.74||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||41.74|32.59|<0.0001
95916711|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.09||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.56||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||110 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.56|-0.39|0.721
95916712|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.1||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.69||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.69|-0.48|0.725
95916713|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.06||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.64||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% - Placebo) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.64|-0.52|0.839
95916714|NCT00474175|191792084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.52||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||120 minutes: P-value was calculated using ANOVA which was adjusted for treatment, site and baseline DPS. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% - Benzocaine 10%) and corresponding 95% C.I. were calculated based on least-squares means from the ANOVA model with treatment, site, and baseline DPS effects.||0.52|-0.43|0.855
95916715|NCT00474175|191792085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|0.01|0.035
95916716|NCT00474175|191792085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.16||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.33||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 10% versus Placebo) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.33|-0.00|0.039
95916717|NCT00474175|191792085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.13||The a priori threshold p-value was specified as 0.05, and no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was calculated from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, adjusted for site baseline pain intensity. Treatment difference (Benzocaine 20% versus Benzocaine 10%) and the associated confidence interval were calculated based on the weighted Gamma statistic.||0.13|-0.15|0.944
95916718|NCT03029780|191792090|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.3||||||||12.3|-12.3|
95916719|NCT03029780|191792090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|3.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.39|0.30|
95916720|NCT03029780|191792091|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||||0.00|0.00|
95727624|NCT00368966|191424839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.88|1.15||||||For Pertussis FHA the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.15|0.88|
95916721|NCT03029780|191792092|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|24.8||||||||24.8|-13.3|
95916722|NCT03029780|191792092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|0.58|
95916723|NCT03029780|191792093|SUPERIORITY||DIFFERENCE IN INCIDENCE RATES|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|25.5||||||||25.5|-10.1|
95916724|NCT03029780|191792093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.24|0.62|
95916725|NCT01763788|191792099|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.656||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.926|||Stratified Log Rank|||||0.926|0.465|0.0161
95916726|NCT03560258|191792113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.137
95916727|NCT03560258|191792113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.014
95916728|NCT03560258|191792113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 or CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
95916729|NCT03560258|191792115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
95916730|NCT03560258|191792115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||0.222
95916731|NCT03560258|191792115|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD4 T cell response at week 26 from baseline.||||1.00
95916732|NCT03560258|191792116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
95916733|NCT03560258|191792116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.037
95916734|NCT03560258|191792116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in additional number of CEs with a CD8 T cell response from week 0 to week 26.||||0.100
95916735|NCT03560258|191792117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.303|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.303
95916736|NCT03560258|191792117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.457
95916737|NCT03560258|191792117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA and Arm C: Placebo in change in the magnitude of CD4 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.678
95916738|NCT03560258|191792118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: p24CE/full-length Gag DNA and Arm B: Full-length Gag DNA in change in the magnitude of CD8 T cell responses from week 0 to week 26.||||0.755
95916739|NCT03560258|191792118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.867
95916740|NCT03560258|191792118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.521|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.521
95916741|NCT01421589|191792141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||Univariate regression analyses was performed to assess the relationship between change in skeletal muscle IGF-1 mRNA expression after 12 weeks treatment with rhGH and change in ViPCr.||||0.02
95916742|NCT01421589|191792142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95916743|NCT01421589|191792143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95916744|NCT01421589|191792144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95916745|NCT01421589|191792145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95916746|NCT01421589|191792146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95916747|NCT01421589|191792147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95916748|NCT01381874|191792159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.143||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|1.603|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.603|0.816|0.437
95916749|NCT01381874|191792159|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.695|1.32|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.320|0.695|0.794
95916750|NCT01381874|191792160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.074||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.896|||stratified log-rank test|||||1.896|0.608|0.807
95916751|NCT01381874|191792160|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.183||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.688|2.036|||stratified log-rank test|||||2.036|0.688|0.542
95916752|NCT01381874|191792161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.909||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.213|3.878|||Fisher Exact|||||3.878|0.213|1.000
95916753|NCT01381874|191792161|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.909||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.605|6.026|||Fisher Exact|||||6.026|0.605|0.366
95916754|NCT01381874|191792162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.757||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.264|2.175|||Chi-squared|||||2.175|0.264|0.603
95916755|NCT01381874|191792162|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.79||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.816|3.926|||Chi-squared|||||3.926|0.816|0.137
95916756|NCT01003184|191792189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.17|13.73|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight as main factors.||"Primary objective: to test hypothesis that the percentage of patients with HbA1c ≤7.0% with weight loss (≥1.0 kg) after exenatide QW is superior to insulin detemir.~Sample size estimation: based on the test for difference in percentage between Exenatide QW and insulin detemir. Assuming: common drop-out rate 20%, response rate at endpoint 50% in the exenatide QW group and 25% in the insulin detemir group; 5% significance. 214 patients will provide 90% power to detect a difference."||13.73|3.17|<.0001
95916757|NCT01003184|191792190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|13.7|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes the independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c and baseline weight.||||13.70|3.64|<.0001
95727625|NCT00368966|191424839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.89||||||95.0|0.78|1.02||||||For Pertussis PRN the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.02|0.78|
95691228|NCT01128972|191353245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.11||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|7.15||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||7.15|1.07|0.0083
95691229|NCT01128972|191353245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|11.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.22|14.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and reference dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.29|8.22|<0.0001
95691230|NCT01128972|191353245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|14.6||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect)|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the test dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||14.60|8.53|<0.0001
95691231|NCT01128972|191353246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.88||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|3.69||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR and Test dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||3.69|-5.46|0.7041
95691232|NCT01128972|191353246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.21|15.36||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.36|6.21|<0.0001
95691233|NCT01128972|191353246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|25.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.14|30.29||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Reference dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||30.29|21.14|<0.0001
95727626|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|0.1|4.4||||||For serotype 4, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||4.4|0.1|
95916758|NCT01003184|191792191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-0.20|-0.62|0.0001
95916759|NCT01003184|191792192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-2.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-2.71|-4.63|<.0001
95916760|NCT01003184|191792193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.18|1.00|0.0497
95916761|NCT01003184|191792194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||3.96|1.24|0.0074
95916762|NCT01003184|191792195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.89||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression model includes independent variables treatment group, use of SU (yes/no), and baseline HbA1c.||11.35|2.10|0.0002
95916763|NCT01003184|191792196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.257||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.61|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.61|-0.41|0.6993
95916764|NCT01003184|191792197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||-1.07|-8.37|0.0116
95916765|NCT01003184|191792198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.179||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) includes baseline value as covariate, study treatment, use of SU (yes/no), baseline HbA1c stratum, week of visit and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and patient and error as random effects.||1.88|-2.77|0.7034
95691234|NCT01128972|191353246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|36.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.71|40.86||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||40.86|31.71|<0.0001
95691235|NCT01128972|191353247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.39||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.43|-1.35||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ Test MR treatment regimen and Test dentifrice + Test MR to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||-1.35|-7.43|0.0049
95691236|NCT01128972|191353247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.8571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.76||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo dentifrice+ test MR treatment regimen and test dentifrice + sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||2.76|-3.31|0.8571
95691237|NCT01128972|191353247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|9.9||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||9.90|3.83|<0.0001
95727627|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|41.2||||||95.0|34.9|46.9||||||For serotype 6B, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||46.9|34.9|
95691238|NCT01128972|191353247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|10.21||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Placebo Dentifrice + Test MR treatment regimen and Placebo dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.21|4.14|<0.0001
95691239|NCT01128972|191353248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.36|19.51||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen andReference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen to be equal with respect to percent NER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||19.51|10.36|
95691240|NCT01128972|191353249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|10.18||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Test Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse treatment regimen and Reference Dentifrice + Sterile water rinse to be equal with respect to percent SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||10.18|4.11|<0.0001
95691241|NCT04430582|191353250|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95691242|NCT04430582|191353251|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.24
95691243|NCT04430582|191353252|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95691244|NCT04430582|191353253|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.51
95691245|NCT04430582|191353254|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.70
95691246|NCT04430582|191353255|OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.95
95691247|NCT04430582|191353256|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95691248|NCT04430582|191353257|OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.85
95691249|NCT04430582|191353258|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95691250|NCT04430582|191353259|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.01
95691251|NCT04430582|191353260|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95691252|NCT04430582|191353261|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95691253|NCT04430582|191353262|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95691254|NCT04430582|191353263|OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.045
95691255|NCT04430582|191353264|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95691256|NCT02410902|191353277|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||||-0.14|-4.98|0.038
95691257|NCT02410902|191353278|OTHER|ANCOVA using MMRM analysis|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|1.07|||ANCOVA|||||1.07|-3.21|0.325
95691258|NCT00074412|191353279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
95691259|NCT00074412|191353279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||6 month Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||3.6|1.3|
95691260|NCT00074412|191353279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.973||||0.049||95.0||||P-value has not been adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing. A priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Z-test|||Assuming the cumulative HIV infection rate in placebo group would be 4.2% (2.6 at 6 wk. \& 6.7 at 6 mon.), we estimated 1500 mother/infant pairs would provide 90% power to detect a reduction in HIV infection from 4.2% to 1.4% at 6 mon. with a Pearson χ² test statistic and a one-sided false positive error rate of 0.025. Rate of cumulative infection was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method and rates between extended NVP group and placebo were done with the Z statistic.||||0.049
95691261|NCT00074412|191353281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|97.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.6|98.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.8|96.6|
95691262|NCT00074412|191353281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 6mon (%)|96.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.5|98.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 6 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% CI was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||98.0|95.5|
95691263|NCT00074412|191353281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.095||||0.274||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 6 months were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.274
95691264|NCT00074412|191353281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|94.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|96.2|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Greenwood's formula.||96.2|92.9|
95727628|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.3||||||95.0|4.1|10.4||||||For serotype 9V, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||10.4|4.1|
95727629|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-3.4|1.2||||||For serotype 14, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||1.2|-3.4|
95916766|NCT01003184|191792199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.03|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.03|-0.32|0.1061
95691265|NCT00074412|191353281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cum. Rate of HIV-free Survival 18mon (%)|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.5|95.1|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV-free survival at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||95.1|91.5|
95691266|NCT00074412|191353281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|0.988||||0.323||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV-free survival at 18 months were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.323
95691267|NCT00074412|191353282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum HIV Infection (%)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.3|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the extended NVP arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||3.3|1.1|
95691268|NCT00074412|191353282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||18 mon. Rate of Cum. HIV Infection (%)|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||The cumulative rate of HIV infection at 18 months in the placebo arm was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method; while the 95% confidence interval was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||4.4|1.9|
95691269|NCT00074412|191353282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|1.081||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of HIV infection at 18 months were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared between arms using a Z statistic.||||0.280
95691270|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|7.4|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||7.4|2.0|
95691271|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 18mon (%)|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|5.6|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||5.6|2.7|
95691272|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.247||||0.805||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing|Z-test|||The cumulative rates of mortality at 6 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z-statistic.||||0.805
95691273|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.0|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||2.0|0.4|
95691274|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cumulative Mortality Rate at 6mon (%)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.8|||Kaplan-Meier Method|||||1.8|0.3|
95691275|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Z statistic|-0.36||||0.719||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for interim analysis or multiple testing.|Z-test|||The cumulative mortality rates at 18 months, as calculated by Kaplan-Meier, were compared between the two groups using a Z statistic.||||0.719
95691276|NCT00074412|191353283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.611||95.0|||||Log Rank|||We compared the cumulative mortality rates, as calculated using Kaplan-Meier, between the two study groups over all 18 months of the study follow-up using a log-rank test.||||0.611
95691277|NCT00637273|191353362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.89||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.89|0.37|<.0001
95691278|NCT00637273|191353362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.57||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors.||Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Alternative hypothesis: a difference exists between exenatide once weekly and at least one comparator group (sitagliptin or pioglitazone). Power: Assuming 10% dropout, delta=0.5%, and common SD=1.2%, 450 subjects would provide \>90% power to detect a treatment difference (alpha=0.05, two-sided) in the change in HbA1c between exenatide once weekly and sitagliptin or pioglitazone, with Hochberg's multiplicity adjustment method.||0.57|0.06|0.0165
95691279|NCT00637273|191353363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
95691280|NCT00637273|191353363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<7% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0015
95691281|NCT00637273|191353364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
95691282|NCT00637273|191353364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.5% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0120
95691283|NCT00637273|191353365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.1700
95691284|NCT00637273|191353365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target of \<=6.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and country served as stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0091
95691285|NCT00637273|191353366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.416||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.35||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.35|0.72|0.0002
95691286|NCT00637273|191353366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|5.91||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.91|4.28|<.0001
95691287|NCT00637273|191353367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|25.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||25.2|5.7|0.0038
95691288|NCT00637273|191353367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|14.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||14.2|-5.3|0.3729
95691289|NCT00637273|191353368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.3||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||6.3|1.3|0.0055
95691290|NCT00637273|191353368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|4.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||4.5|-0.5|0.1117
95691291|NCT00637273|191353369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|2.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.5|-0.4|0.1685
95691292|NCT00637273|191353369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.4||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.4|-2.6|0.1685
95691293|NCT00637273|191353370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.2686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|10.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||10.2|-2.8|0.2686
95691294|NCT00637273|191353370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.2||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||13.2|0.3|0.0814
95691295|NCT00637273|191353371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.5||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.5|-1.6|0.9546
95691296|NCT00637273|191353371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.7||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 26 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||5.7|2.6|<.0001
95916767|NCT01003184|191792200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.4638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.02|-0.05|0.4638
95691297|NCT00637273|191353372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.9718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.08|0.93|0.9718
95691298|NCT00637273|191353372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.96||Adjusted p-value was derived using Hochberg's procedure for multiple treatment comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline (Day 1), expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, country, and baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9.0% or \>=9.0%) as factors, and baseline value of fasting triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference across treatments. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.96|0.82|0.0062
95916768|NCT01003184|191792201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.28|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model includes treatment group, baseline value, use of SU (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c stratum as factors.||0.28|-0.14|0.4967
95691299|NCT02902172|191353375|NON_INFERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95691300|NCT01212172|191353387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.9||||0.2879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|21.1|||t-test, 1 sided|||||21.1|-6.7|0.2879
95691301|NCT02262039|191353394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95691302|NCT02262039|191353395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95691303|NCT02262039|191353396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95691304|NCT02262039|191353397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95691305|NCT02262039|191353398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95691306|NCT02262039|191353399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95916769|NCT01003184|191792202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.72|||Poisson regression|||The number of episodes by patient were compared between treatment groups using a poisson model with effects for treatment and baseline HbA1c and the logarithm of the days of exposure as the offset variable.||1.72|0.19|0.3247
95916770|NCT00152971|191792225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.8||||0.0234||95.0|0.8|10.8||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.8|0.8|0.0234
95691307|NCT02262039|191353400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.45
95691308|NCT02868216|191353410|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.84||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.98|||ANOVA|||||3.98|0.63|0.05
95691309|NCT00325442|191353412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|11.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|22.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||22|0|0.072
95691310|NCT00325442|191353413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Change in Borg dyspnea score from Baseline to Week 16||0.0|-1.0|0.062
95691311|NCT00325442|191353414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.491||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.491
95691312|NCT00325442|191353415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||Change in dyspnea-fatigue index from Baseline to Week 16||1.0|0.0|0.011
95691313|NCT00325442|191353417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|23.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 12||23.0|3.0|0.015
95691314|NCT00325442|191353418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|9.0||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 8||18.0|0.0|0.051
95691315|NCT00325442|191353419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann ( H-L)|4.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|12.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 4||12.0|-2.4|0.238
95691316|NCT00325442|191353420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|24.0||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|45.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||45|0|0.121
95691317|NCT00325442|191353421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|15.0||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||41|-7|0.069
95691318|NCT00325442|191353422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|4.0||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-15|0.889
95691319|NCT00325442|191353423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-23|0.966
95691320|NCT00325442|191353425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-16|0.853
95691321|NCT00325442|191353426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|7.0||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|21.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||21|-7|0.327
95691322|NCT00325442|191353427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|29.5||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|73.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||73|1|0.085
95691323|NCT00325442|191353428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|5.0||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||24|-12|0.615
95691324|NCT00325442|191353429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|40.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||40|-6|0.230
95691325|NCT00325442|191353430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|10.0||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|28.0|||ANCOVA|||Change in 6MWD from Baseline to Week 16||28|-6|0.209
95691326|NCT02749721|191353466|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95691327|NCT02749721|191353467|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.012
95691328|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.610
95691329|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.294||||0.288|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.288
95691330|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.405||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.134
95691331|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.397||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.083
95691332|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.476||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.034
95691333|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.509||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 baseline scores||||0.031
95691334|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (amplitude) baseline scores||||0.500
95691335|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.376||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b baseline scores||||0.185
95691336|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.108||||0.659|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 baseline scores||||0.659
95691337|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.125||||0.611|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a baseline scores||||0.611
95691338|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.111||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.671
95691339|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.026||||0.931|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.931
95691340|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.516||||0.155|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.155
95691341|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
95691342|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.184||||0.494|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MADRS (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.494
95916771|NCT00152971|191792225|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority Analysis with NI margin 9.2% on the absolute risk difference scale|Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.4||||0.0009||95.0|3.4|13.3||Hierarchical testing procedure: first non-inferiority, second superiority|Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.3|3.4|0.0009
95691343|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.065||||0.811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.811
95691344|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.048||||0.877|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.877
95691345|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.246||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.557
95691346|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.182||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.500
95691347|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.288||||0.297|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and DSST (baseline to endpoint percent change)||||0.297
95691348|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER|Differences in BNA scores between MDD and healthy subjects were analyzed for baseline visits using an ANCOVA model with group as a factor, and age as a covariate.|F statistic|0.318||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.575
95691349|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|0.378||||0.541|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.541
95691350|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F|0.012||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.912
95691351|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|1.586||||0.214|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.214
95916772|NCT00152971|191792226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.2||||0.2139||95.0|-0.7|3.0|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.0|-0.7|0.2139
95916773|NCT00152971|191792226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.8||||0.3628||95.0|-0.9|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.9|0.3628
95916774|NCT00152971|191792227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.9||||0.2309||95.0|-0.6|2.5|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||2.5|-0.6|0.2309
95691352|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|0.453||||0.504|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.504
95691353|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|0.37||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.546
95691354|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|0.017||||0.895|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.895
95691355|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|0.179||||0.673|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.673
95727630|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4||||||95.0|3.1|9.5||||||For serotype 18C, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||9.5|3.1|
95916775|NCT00152971|191792227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|1.5||||0.0602||95.0|-0.1|3.2|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||3.2|-0.1|0.0602
95916776|NCT00152971|191792228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|5.9||||0.0194||95.0|1.0|10.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||10.9|1.0|0.0194
95916777|NCT00152971|191792228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|8.9||||0.0004||95.0|4.0|13.9|||Normal approximation|Normal approximation of independent binomial distribution without stratification||Risk difference versus Enoxaparin||13.9|4.0|0.0004
95916778|NCT00152971|191792229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.5774
95916779|NCT00152971|191792229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95916780|NCT00152971|191792230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7724||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.7724
95916781|NCT00152971|191792230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0308||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0308
95916782|NCT00152971|191792231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4968||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.4968
95916783|NCT00152971|191792231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||1.0000
95916784|NCT00152971|191792233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1416||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.1416
95691356|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|1.241||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.27
95691357|NCT02749721|191353468|OTHER||F statistic|0.042||||0.837|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a amplitudes at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.837
95691358|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.359||||0.143|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.143
95691359|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.500
95691360|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.277||||0.337|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (latency) baseline scores||||0.337
95691361|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.052||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (latency) baseline scores||||0.832
95691362|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.103||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (latency) baseline scores||||0.68
95691363|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.777
95691364|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.061||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.834
95916785|NCT00152971|191792233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0942||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison versus Enoxaparin||||0.0942
95691365|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.006||||0.988|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.988
95691366|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.073||||0.788|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.788
95691367|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.375||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between DSST and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.168
95691368|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.392||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.108
95691369|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.415||||0.124|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.124
95691370|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.362||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline scores||||0.185
95691371|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.923|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline scores||||0.923
95691372|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.071||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline scores||||0.77
95691373|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.097||||0.712|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.712
95691374|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.058||||0.845|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.845
95691375|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.194||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and AOB P3b (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.616
95691376|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.255||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P200 (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.323
95691377|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.193||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between MADRS and VGNG P3a (Latency) baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.473
95691378|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|4.909||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.031
95691379|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|1.189||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.281
95916786|NCT00692406|191792248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0023|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95916787|NCT00692406|191792249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1167|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95691380|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|0.001||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.966
95691381|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|4.121||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.048
95691382|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|8.573||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.005
95691383|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|2.823||||0.101|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' AOB P3b latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.101
95691384|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|0.806||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.373
95691385|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|1.822||||0.183|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P200 latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.183
95691386|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|0.516||||0.475|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at baseline.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.475
95691387|NCT02749721|191353469|OTHER||F statistic|0.214||||0.645|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||"A comparison between vortioxetine arm patients' and healthy controls' VGNG P3a latencies at Endpoint.~The healthy control group subjects have been previously documented in NCT02418208 (Clinical trials of the Rockies, Inc. Denver, Colorado, US and Clinical Research Center of Nevada Las Vegas, Nevada, US ) and in NCT02875496 (The Villages Health, The Villages, Florida, US)."||||0.645
95691388|NCT02749721|191353470|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95691389|NCT02749721|191353471|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95691390|NCT02749721|191353472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95691391|NCT02749721|191353473|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95691392|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.859|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.859
95691393|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.211||||0.451|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3a (amplitude)||||0.451
95691394|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.015||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||AOB P3b (amplitude)||||0.957
95691395|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.322||||0.166|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P200 (amplitude)||||0.166
95691396|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.374||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||VGNG P3a (amplitude)||||0.105
95691397|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.137||||0.601|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.601
95691398|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.234||||0.421|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.421
95691399|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.378||||0.316|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.316
95691400|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.185||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.478
95691401|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.969
95691402|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.943|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.943
95691403|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.795|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.795
95691404|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.011||||0.969|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.969
95691405|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.406|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.406
95691406|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.309||||0.185|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.185
95691407|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.195||||0.454|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.454
95691408|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.579|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.579
95691409|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.232||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
95691410|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.169||||0.518|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.518
95691411|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.027||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.922
95691412|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.064||||0.796|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.796
95691413|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.506||||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.054
95691414|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.995|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.995
95691415|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.102||||0.668|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.668
95691416|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.037||||0.875|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.875
95691417|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.049||||0.852|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.852
95691418|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.34||||0.234|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.234
95691419|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.056|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.056
95691420|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.297||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.248
95691421|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.179||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.507
95691422|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.049||||0.841|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.841
95691423|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.185||||0.508|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.508
95691424|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.916|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.916
95691425|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.345||||0.147|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.147
95691426|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.284||||0.225|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.225
95691427|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.044||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.868
95691428|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.18||||0.537|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.537
95691429|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.476||||0.195|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.195
95691430|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.594||||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.015
95691431|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.009||||0.972|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.972
95691432|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.785|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.785
95691433|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.129||||0.646|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.646
95691434|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.364||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.182
95691435|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.414||||0.069|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.069
95691436|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.416||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.068
95691437|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.023||||0.929|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.929
95691438|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.074||||0.802|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.802
95691439|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.518||||0.153|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.153
95691440|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.268||||0.298|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.298
95691441|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.001||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
95691442|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.242||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.531
95691443|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.598||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.210
95691444|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.054||||0.899|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.899
95691445|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||||||0.087
95691446|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.568||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.087
95691447|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.550
95691448|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.158||||0.766|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.766
95691449|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.406||||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.498
95691450|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.221||||0.599|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.599
95691451|NCT02749721|191353474|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.679||||0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (amplitude) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.064
95691452|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.038||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.881
95691453|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.299||||0.279|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.279
95691454|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.538||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.039
95691455|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.018||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.940
95691456|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.107||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline scores||||0.65
95691457|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.247||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.340
95691458|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.067||||0.819|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.819
95691459|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.321||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.400
95691460|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.279||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.278
95691461|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.136||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-28 baseline to endpoint percentage change||||0.614
95691462|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.999
95691463|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.193||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.491
95916788|NCT00692406|191792250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0253|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95691464|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.567||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.028
95916789|NCT00692406|191792251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1432|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95916790|NCT00692406|191792252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0489|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95691465|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.900
95691466|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.141||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline scores||||0.55
95691467|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.231||||0.373|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.373
95691468|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.019||||0.949|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.949
95691469|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.122||||0.754|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.754
95691470|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.176||||0.499|TWO_SIDED||||||0.176|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.499
95691471|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.162||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and HDRS-17 baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.549
95691472|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.126||||0.617|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.617
95691473|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.1||||0.722|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.722
95691474|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.249||||0.371|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.371
95691475|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.072||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.764
95691476|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.225||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline scores||||0.34
95691477|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.148||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.570
95691478|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.228||||0.434|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.434
95691479|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.22||||0.569|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.569
95691480|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.645||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.005
95691481|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.105||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and QIDS-SR baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.698
95691482|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.774
95691483|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline score||||0.024
95691484|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.603
95691485|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.326
95691486|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline scores||||0.68
95691487|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.073||||0.774|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.774
95691488|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.577||||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.024
95691489|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.146||||0.603|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.603
95691490|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.232||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.326
95691491|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.098||||0.68|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and PDQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.68
95691492|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.1||||0.692|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.692
95691493|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.498||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.059
95691494|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.332||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.227
95691495|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.125||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.600
95691496|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.096||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline scores||||0.69
95691497|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.259||||0.315|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.315
95691498|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.002||||0.996|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.996
95691499|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.234||||0.544|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.544
95691500|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.455||||0.066|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.066
95691501|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.28||||0.293|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and MGH-CPFQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.293
95691502|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.783||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.013
95691503|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.135||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.799
95691504|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.506||||0.201|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.201
95691505|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.197||||0.586|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.586
95691506|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.024||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline scores||||0.95
95691507|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.039||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.920
95691508|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.113||||0.831|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.831
95691509|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|0.655||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between AOB P3b (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.230
95691510|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.602||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P200 (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.115
95691511|NCT02749721|191353475|OTHER||Pearson's R|-0.313||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson's correlation|||Correlation between VGNG P3a (latency) and WLQ baseline to endpoint percent change||||0.450
95691512|NCT02026271|191353487|OTHER||||||||||||||||||"MTD was not determined in this study. Dose escalation decision rules were based on a standard 3+3 design modified to independently evaluate the two stratified subject groups that may exhibit different safety and tolerability profiles.~The study was planned to explore 4 veledimex (V) dose cohorts of 20, 40, 80 and 120 mg once daily, and two doses of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 (2x10\^11vp and 1x10\^12vp). Dose cohorts were treated at 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg of V. Only one dose of Ad-RTS-hIL-12 was explored (2x10\^11vp).~If ≥ 33% of subjects in the expansion cohort experience DLTs, additional subjects may be enrolled at the next lower dose, or at an intermediate dose, as recommended by the SRC.~Grp 1: After 20mg cohort, SRC approved 40mg, which was deemed the MAD due to DLTs. SRC approved 30mg cohort to determine MTD, but due to poor compliance, SRC opened a 20mg exp cohort and then an intermediate 10mg cohort. Based on V compliance and efficacy, 20mg was determined to be the optimal dose."|||
95691513|NCT02389946|191353565|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the 12-month TLF rate for the Orsiro stent vs. the Xience stent was assessed as the primary endpoint. The null hypothesis H0 was that the Orsiro stent would have a primary endpoint (12-month TLF) rate equal to or exceeding that of the Xience group by the non-inferiority margin or more. The alternative hypothesis HA was that the Orsiro stent would have a 12-month TLF rate less than the Xience group rate plus the non-inferiority margin of 3.85%.|Posterior Probability of non-inferioriry|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Bayesian calculation using a hierarchical model to incorporate data from previous BIOFLOW-II and BIOFLOW-IV trials.||||
95691514|NCT02389946|191353566|OTHER|||||||0.415|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.415
95691515|NCT00783705|191353584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.0|||Generalized estimating equation model|||Generalized estimating equation model on lesions (progressive disease vs. complete response/stable disease) was used to account for intra-patient correlation in the lesion-specific analysis.||3.0|0.7|0.39
95691516|NCT00783705|191353588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.10
95691517|NCT00783705|191353589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.03
95691518|NCT00783705|191353590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.58
95691519|NCT00783705|191353591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.06
95691520|NCT00783705|191353592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.63
95691521|NCT00783705|191353593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.22
95691522|NCT00783705|191353594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Total Glutathione level between arms.||||0.06
95691523|NCT00783705|191353595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC-16 level between arms.||||0.35
95691524|NCT00783705|191353596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CRP level between arms.||||0.80
95691525|NCT00783705|191353597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker IL-6 level between arms.||||0.22
95691526|NCT00783705|191353598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CCL-2 level between arms.||||0.74
95691527|NCT00783705|191353599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker MPO level between arms.||||0.55
95691528|NCT00783705|191353600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker Nitrotyrosine level between arms.||||0.91
95691529|NCT00783705|191353601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker CC18 level between arms.||||0.46
95691530|NCT00783705|191353602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||Comparison of the median difference in biomarker SFTPD level between arms.||||0.52
95691531|NCT01193348|191353618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|63.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.7|82.8||||||||82.8|40.7|
95691532|NCT01193348|191353619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|81.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.7|94.8||||||||94.8|59.7|
95691533|NCT01193348|191353620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
95691534|NCT01193348|191353621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
95691535|NCT01193348|191353622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|204.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.44|245.49|||ANOVA|||||245.49|164.44|<0.0001
95691536|NCT01193348|191353623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete TMA Response|68.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.1|86.1||||||||86.1|45.1|
95691537|NCT01193348|191353624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Complete Hematologic Response|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.8|98.9||||||||98.9|70.8|
95691538|NCT01193348|191353625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of Platelet Count Normalization|95.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.2|99.9||||||||99.9|77.2|
95691539|NCT01193348|191353626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent of eGFR Improvement|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|97.1||||||||97.1|65.1|
95691540|NCT01193348|191353627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean change from baseline|165.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.43|232.43|||ANOVA|||||232.43|98.43|<0.0001
95691541|NCT01721408|191353633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that the 2 treatments were equally effective, with cure rates of 75 % at the TOC assessment, the study was powered to ensure with 90% probability that the lower limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the true difference (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) in cure rates was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|-1.4|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||-1.4|-12.0|0.0008
95691542|NCT01721408|191353634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in cure rate were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
95691543|NCT01721408|191353635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in eradication rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-7.3||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|0.5|||See method of CI||CIs and p-values for between-group treatment difference in eradication rates were calculated by the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation.|||0.5|-15.2|0.0277
95727631|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
95727632|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|26.5||||||95.0|20.7|31.9||||||For serotype 23F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||31.9|20.7|
95691544|NCT01721408|191353637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI for the difference in cure rates between treatment groups (tigecycline minus imipenem/cilastatin) was greater than -15%.|Difference in percentage|-6.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|0.8|||See method of CI||Used the asymptotic method corrected for continuity with normal distribution approximation. Non-inferiority test was conducted on the CE population. If non-inferiority was concluded, superiority test was conducted on both the CE and mITT populations.|||0.8|-12.8|0.0040
95691545|NCT01678807|191353651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|13.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|30.3|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||30.3|-3.4|
95691546|NCT01678807|191353651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|27.4|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||27.4|-6.4|
95691547|NCT01678807|191353652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
95691548|NCT01678807|191353652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|14.8|||||Estimate based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by asthma status.|||14.8|0.4|
95691549|NCT01064648|191353654|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.54|0.95||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test by performance status and histology type.||||0.95|0.54|0.06
95691550|NCT01064648|191353655|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.65|1.17||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by performance status and histology.||||1.17|0.65|0.28
95691551|NCT01064648|191353656|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|5.83||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-square by performance status and histology.||||5.83|0.59|0.15
95691552|NCT01064648|191353657|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.49||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.49|0.14|0.09
95691553|NCT01064648|191353658|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|13.3||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology.||||13.3|1.4|0.006
95691554|NCT01064648|191353659|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.94||1-sided p-value|Chi-squared|Stratified Chi-Square by performance status and histology||||1.94|0.18|0.19
95691555|NCT05281523|191353695|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.6||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.2|-1.0|0.004
95691556|NCT05281523|191353696|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.03|-0.46|0.025
95691557|NCT05281523|191353697|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.18||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.05|-0.40|0.125
95691558|NCT05281523|191353698|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, subgroup, visit by baseline, visit by treatment group, subgroup by treatment group and subgroup by visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.26||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 49 to Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.07|-0.45|0.007
95691559|NCT05281523|191353699|OTHER|Analysis performed using an analysis of covariance model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region and previous surgery for nasal polyps. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level|Difference in Least Square Means|-3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-2.0|||ANCOVA|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-4.4|<0.001
95727633|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.0||||||95.0|0.8|5.1||||||For serotype 1, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||5.1|0.8|
95727634|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.2||||||95.0|-1.8|6.3||||||For serotype 3, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||6.3|-1.8|
95691560|NCT05281523|191353700|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-9.9||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|-2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-2.0|-17.9|0.015
95691561|NCT05281523|191353701|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.24||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 21 to Week 24 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||-0.04|-0.43|0.016
95691562|NCT05281523|191353702|OTHER|Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, visit, visit by baseline, and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.3||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 26 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP||0.0|-0.7|0.066
95691563|NCT05281523|191353703|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.735||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.495|1.092|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.092|0.495|0.128
95691564|NCT05281523|191353704|OTHER|Cox Proportional Hazards Model with covariates of treatment, baseline total endoscopic nasal polyps score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, study and previous surgery for nasal polyps. The covariate for study is removed for the individual-study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.713||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|1.124|||Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||1.124|0.453|0.146
95691565|NCT05281523|191353705|OTHER|Logistic regression with covariates of treatment, number of courses of systemic CS in 12 months prior to screening for NP (0, 1,\>1), log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, baseline total endoscopic NP score, baseline nasal obstruction score (VRS), region, study and previous surgery for NPs. The study covariate is removed for individual study analyses. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis)||0.86|0.40|0.006
95691566|NCT05281523|191353706|OTHER|The pooled statistical analyses was performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model with covariates of treatment group, baseline score, log(e) baseline blood eosinophil count, region, previous surgery for nasal polyps, study, visit and interaction terms for visit by baseline score and visit by treatment group. If the hierarchy is broken, subsequent endpoints were evaluated for nominal significance in a descriptive manner, using a 5% reference level.|Difference in Least Square Means|-0.75||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||To assess the efficacy of depemokimab 100mg SC + SoC compared to placebo + SoC at Week 52 in participants with a diagnosis of CRSwNP (pooled analysis).||-0.25|-1.26|0.004
95691567|NCT02574312|191353707|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-Inferiority Analysis of absolute value of mechanical axis alignment with NI margin of 1.5 degrees, using a 1-sided T-test with alpha of 0.05. Anticipated power was 95%.||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
95691568|NCT05299983|191353756|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.001
95691569|NCT05299983|191353757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95691570|NCT05299983|191353758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.22
95691571|NCT05299983|191353759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.45
95691572|NCT03987919|191353760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.38|-0.64|<0.001
95691573|NCT03987919|191353760|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.73|<0.001
95691574|NCT03987919|191353761|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.36|<0.001
95916791|NCT00692406|191792253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0096|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95916792|NCT00692406|191792254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0372|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95916793|NCT00692406|191792255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.121|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Within group repeated measures design. Null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in percent signal change during active task relative to baseline.||||<0.001
95691575|NCT03987919|191353762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-2.6|<0.001
95691576|NCT03987919|191353762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-5.0|<0.001
95691577|NCT03987919|191353762|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.3|-7.1|<0.001
95691578|NCT03987919|191353763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.23|1.06|0.023
95691579|NCT03987919|191353763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.17|1.44|<0.001
95691580|NCT03987919|191353763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|4.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.66|1.97|<0.001
95691581|NCT03987919|191353764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.0|-11.7|0.001
95691582|NCT03987919|191353764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|-8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.6|-17.4|<0.001
95691583|NCT03987919|191353764|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-14.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|-10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.3|-19.1|<0.001
95691584|NCT03987919|191353766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|1.20|0.001
95691585|NCT03987919|191353766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.57|4.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.75|2.57|<0.001
95691586|NCT03987919|191353766|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.32|6.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.38|3.32|<0.001
95691587|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.03|-0.50|0.084
95691588|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||0.00|-0.54|0.050
95691589|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Hyperglycemia||-0.12|-0.66|0.005
95691590|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.22|-0.33|0.688
95691591|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.26|-0.29|0.909
95691592|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Hypoglycemia||0.15|-0.40|0.358
95691593|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.41|-0.62|0.701
95691594|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.27|-0.78|0.341
95691595|NCT03987919|191353767|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||0.79|-0.26|0.321
95691596|NCT03987919|191353769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.57|1.35|<0.001
95691597|NCT03987919|191353769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|5.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.39|2.88|<0.001
95691598|NCT03987919|191353769|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|6.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.97|3.73|<0.001
95691599|NCT05137041|191353773|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95691600|NCT05137041|191353775|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.817|-0.137|||ANCOVA|The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).||||-0.137|-0.817|0.015
95691601|NCT05137041|191353776|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.661|0.828||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.828|-32.661|0.103
95691602|NCT05137041|191353777|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.511|1.581||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||1.581|0.511|<0.001
95691603|NCT05137041|191353778|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.976|0.25||The p-value was adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|ANCOVA|||||0.250|-2.976|0.121
95691604|NCT05137041|191353779|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||The p-value is adjusted using a False Discovery Rate approach (Benjamini-Hochberg).|Log Rank|||||||0.564
95691605|NCT05137041|191353780|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.289
95691606|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 1 Evening||||0.001
95691607|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Morning||||0.035
95691608|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 2 Evening||||0.004
95691609|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Morning||||0.007
95691610|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 3 Evening||||0.005
95691611|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Morning||||0.001
95691612|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 4 Evening||||0.007
95691613|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5 Morning||||0.096
95691614|NCT05137041|191353781|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||Change from Baseline at Day 5||||0.015
95691615|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 1 Evening||||<0.001
95691616|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Morning||||0.001
95691617|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 2 Evening||||<0.001
95691618|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Morning||||<0.001
95691619|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 3 Evening||||<0.001
95916794|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.38||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression||The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.|The primary analysis is a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based approach using a random slope \& intercept model. The analysis included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& baseline FVC (mL), age and height as well as the treatment-by time \& baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time \& intercept.Within-patient errors are modelled by an unstructured variance-covariance matrix||79.01|2.88|0.0350
95691620|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Morning||||<0.001
95691621|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 4 Evening||||<0.001
95691622|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5 Morning||||0.024
95691623|NCT05137041|191353782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Satterthwaite t-test|||VRS: Day 5||||<0.001
95691624|NCT05137041|191353783|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|0.903|||ANCOVA|||||0.903|0.415|<0.001
95691625|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobilin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
95691626|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a p\<0.05 is considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
95691627|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.178||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 clearance beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO..||||=0.178
95691628|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.016
95691629|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.033||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.033
95691630|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.935|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.935
95691631|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclaer.||||=0.463
95691632|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.392
95691633|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.597|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.597
95691634|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.162
95691635|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.186
95691636|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference.||||||0.624|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||0.624
95691637|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea nitrogen clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.732
95691638|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Urea Nitrogen clearance Revaclear vs Optiflux.||||0.427
95691639|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.379|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear..||||0.379
95691640|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||0.318
95691641|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.914|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Creatinine clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.914
95691642|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.623|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.623
95691643|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and equal variance was used. If data failed either non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.403
95691644|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 1 Phosphate clearance Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.850
95691645|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.815|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.815
95691646|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.367|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of Phosphate Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.367
95691647|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.821|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs Elisio.||||=0.821
95691648|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.364|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.364
95691649|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
95691650|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
95691651|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.254|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Session 2 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.254
95691652|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.079|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.079
95691653|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.086|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.086
95691654|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.888|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 2 Clearance myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.888
95691655|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.663||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.663
95691656|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.391|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.391
95691657|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of urea nitrogen Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.214
95691658|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.918
95691659|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.394
95691660|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.211|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of creatinine Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.211
95691661|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.222|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of phosphate Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.222
95691662|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.162|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of phosphate Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.162
95691663|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||<0.001
95691664|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of beta 2 microglobulin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||=0.025
95691665|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.903|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of beta 2 microglobulin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.903
95691666|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearances of myoglobin Optiflux vs Revaclear.||||=0.003
95691667|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Optiflux vs ELISIO.||||<0.001
95691668|NCT02433210|191353784|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.472|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Session 3 Clearance of myoglobin Revaclear vs ELISIO.||||=0.472
95691669|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
95691670|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.216||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.216
95691671|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY|No significant difference|||||=|0.952||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.952
95691672|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY|No Significant difference|||||=|0.714||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
95691673|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.156||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.156
95691674|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.427||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.427
95691675|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.487||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.487
95691676|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.111||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The difference in the median values between the two groups is not \> enough to exclude that the difference is due to random sampling variability||No significant difference||||=0.111
95727635|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0||||||95.0|5.9|13.9||||||For serotype 5, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||13.9|5.9|
95916795|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|43.13||||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|83.83|||random coefficient regression|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"This is a sensitivity analysis (SA) on primary endpoint including only on-trt measurements of FVC \[mL\]. The random coefficient model was used. The analysis included fixed, categorical effects of trt, ATA status \& gender, fixed continuous effects of time \& bl. FVC (mL), age, height, trt -by time \& bl.-by-time interactions. Random effects included for patient response for both time \& intercept.~Within-patient errors were modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix."||83.83|2.44|0.0378
95691677|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY|Failed normality test|||||=|0.198||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.198
95691678|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.007||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||Showed a significant difference||||=0.007
95691679|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.202||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.202
95691680|NCT02433210|191353785|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.54||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||No significant difference||||=0.540
95691681|NCT02433210|191353786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.204
95691682|NCT02433210|191353786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.234|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.234
95691683|NCT02433210|191353786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.015||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the \<0.050 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either then the non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test was used.||||||=0.015
95691684|NCT02433210|191353786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.413||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.413
95691685|NCT02433210|191353786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.314||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.314
95691686|NCT02433210|191353786|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.769||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.769
95691687|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.376|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.376
95691688|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The p value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the difference was considered significant at the p\<0.05 level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||1.000
95691689|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||0.713
95691690|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.424
95691691|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.23|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.230
95691692|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.678
95691693|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.643
95691694|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.430
95691695|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.295
95691696|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.723|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.723
95691697|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.749|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.749
95691698|NCT02433210|191353787|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.967|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.967
95691699|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.670
95691700|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.993|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.993
95691701|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.650
95691702|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.299|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.299
95691703|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.659|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.659
95691704|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
95691705|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.853
95691706|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.494|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.494
95691707|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.631
95691708|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.370
95691709|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.950
95916796|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.22|66.22|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 1, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from corresponding trt group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines.The imputation model was similar to statistical model of PA.||66.22|-6.22|0.1046
95916797|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.93||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|69.06|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 2, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pts from pl. group who prematurely disc. trial drug but had a wk 52 FVC value. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming similar rate of FVC decline as in pl. pts with a wk 52 FVC value who prematurely disc. trial drug with most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA||69.06|-3.19|0.0740
95916798|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.86||||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|69.75|||random coefficient regression|||In multiple imputation SA 3, missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who were alive at wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all pts in the pl. group who were included in the PA. Missing FVC values at wk 52 in pts who died before wk 52 were imputed assuming a similar rate of FVC decline as in all placebo patients included in the primary analysis with the most severe declines. The imputation model was similar to the statistical model of the PA.||69.75|-2.03|0.0644
95916799|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.95||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|79.01|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, the fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC (mL), and the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions.Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept.||79.01|2.88|0.0351
95916800|NCT02597933|191792256|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.98||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.92|79.04|||random coefficient regression|||This is sensitivity analysis using the model similar to the primary analysis but including a different set of covariates: the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, ATA status (Positive / Negative), gender and mycophenolate mofetil /sodium background therapy use (Yes / No), fixed continuous effects of time, age , height and baseline FVC (mL), the treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effects was included for patient response for both time and intercept||79.04|2.92|0.0349
95916801|NCT02597933|191792257|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.53|||MMRM|||The mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used. The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||0.53|-0.94|0.5785
95916802|NCT02597933|191792258|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|4.12|||MMRM|The MMRM model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||4.12|-0.73|0.1711
95916803|NCT02597933|191792259|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|1.15|0.09|2.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||"Based on a random coefficient regression with fixed categorical effects of treatment, ATA status, fixed continuous effects of time, baseline FVC \[% pred\], \& including treatment-by-time and baseline-by-time interactions. Random effect was included for patient specific intercept \& time.~Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-Components variance-covariance matrix."||2.21|0.09|0.0331
95916804|NCT02597933|191792260|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.51||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.09|84.73|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||84.73|8.09|0.0177
95916805|NCT02597933|191792261|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.39||0.4547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.77|10.21|||MMRM|The model assumed that data were missing at random \& that patients who dropped out would have behaved similarly to those who remained in trial.||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||10.21|-22.77|0.4547
95916806|NCT02597933|191792262|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.7535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.84|||Regression, Cox|Based on Cox's regression model (Wald test), stratified by ATA status.||||2.84|0.47|0.7535
95916807|NCT02597933|191792263|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The comparison between both treatment groups was performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. CRISS score at Week 52 was transformed into 100 binary responder endpoints using multiple imputation. These were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by ATA status OR and the 95% confidence interval (CI) as obtained from all 100 imputations were combined using Rubin´s rule.|Missing values were imputed using worst case, i.e. considered having disease progression.|1.88|0.57|0.9115
95916808|NCT02597933|191792264|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.5668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.06|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.06|-1.94|0.5668
95916809|NCT02597933|191792265|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.09|-0.16|0.5914
95691710|NCT02433210|191353788|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.377|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.377
95691711|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
95691712|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.578
95691713|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.225|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.225
95691714|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.125
95691715|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.466|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.466
95691716|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.534
95691717|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.584
95691718|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.981|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.981
95691719|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.568|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.568
95691720|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.240
95691721|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.724|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.724
95691722|NCT02433210|191353789|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.445
95916810|NCT02597933|191792266|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.3447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.099|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||0.099|-0.035|0.3447
95916811|NCT02597933|191792267|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.79|||MMRM|||Based on mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) approach was used, with fixed categorical effects of ATA status, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and baseline-by-visit interaction. Visit was the repeated measure. Within-patient errors were modelled by unstructured variance-covariance structure.||1.79|-0.51|0.2727
95691723|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.114|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.114
95691724|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.292
95691725|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.714|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.714
95691726|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.176
95691727|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.19|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.190
95691728|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY|||||||-0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||-0.009
95691729|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.911|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.911
95691730|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.388|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.388
95691731|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.337|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.337
95691732|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.575|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.575
95691733|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.880
95691734|NCT02433210|191353790|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.731|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Shapiro-Wilk test for Normality and an equal variance was used. If data failed either, non-parametric Mann-Whitney Rank sum test was used.||||||=0.731
95691735|NCT01328249|191353796|OTHER|Fisher's Exact test||||||0.4422||||||Null hypothesis: The feasibility rates of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 are same.|Fisher Exact|Exploratory analysis comparing primary feasibilities between 2 cohorts, based on Fisher's Exact test.||||||0.4422
95691736|NCT02702518|191353810|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||<0.001
95691737|NCT02702518|191353810|OTHER|||||||0.2324||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables with missing data.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure corneal staining data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2324
95691738|NCT02702518|191353811|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI, data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine if a change was significant (threshold p \< 0.05).||||0.001
95916812|NCT01515189|191792284|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||0.99|0.70|0.0400
95916813|NCT01515189|191792285|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.04||Analysis stratified by ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1), prior treatment for metastatic melanoma (yes vs. no) and M-stage (M0/M1a/M1b vs. M1c without brain metastases vs. M1c with brain metastases).|Log Rank||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg, with 2-sided 95% confidence intervals are based on a Cox proportional hazards model|||1.04|0.76|0.1548
95916814|NCT01515189|191792291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.04|||||Hazard of 10 mg/kg ipilimumab over hazard of 3 mg/kg. Based on an unstratified Cox proportional hazards model for subset of participants with brain metastases.|||1.04|0.49|
95916815|NCT01407354|191792300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.05
95916816|NCT01407354|191792300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|threshold p value for statistical significance=0.05||||||0.024
95916817|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.0||||0.4788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-284.8|134.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||134.9|-284.8|0.4788
95916818|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|124.1||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.6|328.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||328.9|-80.6|0.2309
95916819|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-185.1||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.8|19.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||19.7|-389.8|0.0758
95916820|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|130.4||||0.2084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.4|335.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||335.1|-74.4|0.2084
95916821|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|132.6||||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|322.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 1||322.6|-57.4|0.1684
95916822|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-90.4||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-364.7|184.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||184.0|-364.7|0.5122
95916823|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-75.5||||0.5417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-321.7|170.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||170.7|-321.7|0.5417
95916824|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.4||||0.6511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.2|185.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||185.3|-294.2|0.6511
95916825|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|64.7||||0.6117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.1|318.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||318.5|-189.1|0.6117
95916826|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-99.7||||0.3882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-329.3|129.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH 2||129.9|-329.3|0.3882
95916827|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-125.5||||0.4781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-477.5|226.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||226.5|-477.5|0.4781
95916828|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-277.9||||0.0834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-593.7|37.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||37.9|-593.7|0.0834
95916829|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|121.7||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.8|429.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||429.3|-185.8|0.4313
95916830|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.5||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-399.1|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||252.0|-399.1|0.6528
95916831|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-248.5||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-542.9|46.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH effect||46.0|-542.9|0.0966
95916832|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.2||||0.7704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.6|252.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||252.0|-187.6|0.7704
95916833|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|165.3||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|362.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||362.5|-32.0|0.0988
95916834|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-153.4||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|38.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||38.7|-345.5|0.1153
95916835|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-198.7|208.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||208.0|-198.7|0.9636
95916836|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|119.8||||0.1972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1|303.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Placebo versus Asacol for ACTH morning||303.8|-64.1|0.1972
95916837|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-207.6||||0.0495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-414.6|-0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 1||-0.5|-414.6|0.0495
95916838|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.5||||0.9333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-210.4|193.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 1||193.4|-210.4|0.9333
95916839|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-317.7||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-519.6|-115.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 1||-115.8|-519.6|0.0025
95916840|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.9823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-204.1|199.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 1||199.6|-204.1|0.9823
95916841|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.3||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-265.0|283.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH 2||283.7|-265.0|0.9460
95691739|NCT02702518|191353811|OTHER|||||||0.2257||||||p-values were calculated via linear quantile mixed model for continuous variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For the outcome measure OSDI data at week 8 was compared with data at baseline to determine significant change.||||0.2257
95916842|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.2||||0.8445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-222.0|270.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH 2||270.4|-222.0|0.8445
95691740|NCT00903032|191353838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Unpaired t tests were used to compare continuous variables, and χ2 testswere used to compare categorical variables across the intervention and usual care. We used a log-rank test to compare the hazardof first hospitalization for MI, revascularization, or death.We used a Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare PDCs between study arms. For all other outcomes, χ2 tests and t testswere used for comparisons, as appropriate.||||0.003
95691741|NCT04149899|191353848|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|-4.14||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.14|-5.73|<0.001
95691742|NCT04149899|191353848|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|-4.02||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.02|-6.14|<0.001
95691743|NCT04149899|191353848|OTHER|The null hypothesis is that the mean change from Baseline, Hour 2 = 0 at Day 14, Hour 2.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|-4.07||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||A within-group comparison was performed between Baseline, Hour 2 and Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%.||-4.07|-7.93|<0.001
95691744|NCT04149899|191353848|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.15% and Timolol 0.5%.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
95691745|NCT04149899|191353848|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used the Baseline IOP values at Hour 2 as the covariate.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP change from Baseline, Hour 2 to Day 14, Hour 2 (the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5%) was compared between WB007 0.4% and Timolol 0.5%.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
95691746|NCT04149899|191353849|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.43||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||1.43|-1.16|0.828
95691747|NCT04149899|191353849|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANCOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|0.89||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANCOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.89|-1.73|0.520
95691748|NCT04149899|191353849|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.71||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.15% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.71|-2.39|0.283
95727636|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0||||||95.0|8.6|17.2||||||For serotype 6A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||17.2|8.6|
95727637|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.1|3.1||||||For serotype 7F, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.1|-0.1|
95916843|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.3||||0.7069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.5|285.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH 2||285.0|-194.5|0.7069
95691749|NCT04149899|191353849|NON_INFERIORITY|A pairwise treatment group comparison was performed versus timolol ophthalmic solution 0.5%. A 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (WB007 minus Timolol) was constructed based on an ANOVA model. If WB007 was determined to be non-inferior to Timolol, an attempt to show superiority of WB007 over Timolol was made.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.52||The p-value (2-sided) for superiority was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|The ANOVA model has the treatment group as the main effect.|The estimated treatment difference is based on the least-square means from the ANOVA model.|The mean IOP for WB007 0.4% was compared to Timolol 0.5% at Day 14, Hour 2, the timepoint for the peak effect of Timolol 0.5% and the primary efficacy timepoint for the study.||0.52|-2.56|0.189
95691750|NCT03456713|191353858|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.94||||||||1.94|1.12|
95691751|NCT03456713|191353859|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.81||||||||1.81|1.15|
95916844|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|164.4||||0.1998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|418.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH 2||418.2|-89.4|0.1998
95916845|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|123.0||||0.4871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|474.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH effect||474.9|-229.0|0.4871
95916846|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.4||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.2|286.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH effect||286.4|-345.2|0.8527
95916847|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|370.2||||0.0192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|677.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH effect||677.8|62.6|0.0192
95916848|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|174.9||||0.2865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.6|500.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH effect||500.5|-150.6|0.2865
95916849|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-87.6||||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.5|132.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for ACTH morning||132.2|-307.5|0.4279
95916850|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|45.4||||0.6464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.8|242.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for ACTH morning||242.7|-151.8|0.6464
95691752|NCT03456713|191353860|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.31|2.11||||||||2.11|1.31|
95691753|NCT03456713|191353861|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.23||||||||1.23|0.43|
95916851|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-273.3||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-465.4|-81.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for ACTH morning||-81.2|-465.4|0.0061
95916852|NCT01036022|191792307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-115.2||||0.2614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-318.5|88.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for ACTH morning||88.1|-318.5|0.2614
95916853|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.0|0.7559
95916854|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||3.2|-0.4|0.1238
95916855|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.3|0.6302
95916856|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.8|||Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.8|-0.8|0.2777
95916857|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.8|-1.4|0.8069
95916858|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.6|0.7699
95916859|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.8|-1.1|0.3869
95916860|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.6695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.5|-2.4|0.6695
95916861|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.5152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.4|0.5152
95916862|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.4507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 SCCAI score||1.1|-2.4|0.4507
95916863|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.3|-1.9|0.8707
95691754|NCT03456713|191353862|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.58|1.67||||||||1.67|0.58|
95691755|NCT03456713|191353863|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.2||||||||1.20|0.41|
95691756|NCT00630812|191353872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|54.14||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|110.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.26|-1.97|0.059
95691757|NCT00630812|191353872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.8||Response defined as change of \>=100mL at week 26|Regression, Logistic|45.7% response on Mannitol 400mg, 35.5% on Control||||2.80|1.02|0.041
95691758|NCT00630812|191353873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|43.49||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|106.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||106.78|-19.8|0.177
95691759|NCT00630812|191353874|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.41|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.41|0.51|0.520
95691760|NCT00630812|191353875|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.33|||Poisson regression|Offset of the natural logarithm of follow-up time||||1.33|0.42|0.328
95691761|NCT00630812|191353876|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Poisson regression|||||1.15|0.69|0.368
95916864|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.2915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.1|-0.9|0.2915
95916865|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.7251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.7|-2.4|0.7251
95916866|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.3|0.4556
95916867|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 SCCAI score||1.4|-2.3|0.6620
95916868|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.1|0.2844
95916869|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.0|0.2799
95916870|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.7655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.6|-1.9|0.7655
95691762|NCT00630812|191353877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.42||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.51|||ANCOVA|||||4.51|0.33|0.024
95691763|NCT00630812|191353878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|71.35||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.57|132.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.13|10.57|0.022
95691764|NCT00630812|191353879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|34.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.47|132.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||132.14|-63.47|0.49
95691765|NCT00630812|191353880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.042
95691766|NCT04891770|191353910|OTHER||percentage difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||||For Cohort 2A versus Cohort 2B, the percentage difference and the corresponding 95% confidence interval was calculated using the stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by HBsAg group (\> 3 and ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL).|||7.3|-2.3|
95691767|NCT04743635|191353937|OTHER|"Performance goal.~Hypothesis:~Ho: D \< 1 Ha: D ≥ 1, where D = reduction in the CSS score from baseline to 3 months, and 1 is the performance goal. If the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 1 then we will reject the null hypothesis and conclude the device performs effectively."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean reduction in CSS was calculated along with the corresponding p-value (Student's t-test).||The endpoint tested the mean of the changes for each treated participant, not a 1-point change between mean score of the group at baseline versus 3 months. Success is achieved when the mean change across all treated participants is at least one point.||1.71|1.28|.0001
95727638|NCT00368966|191424840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.5||||||95.0|-0.4|3.4||||||For serotype 19A, the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 2 - 13vPnC After Infant Series Dose 3) was calculated||3.4|-0.4|
95727639|NCT01602614|191424846|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.3117|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.3117
95916871|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.2|0.3332
95916872|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.6985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.4|-1.6|0.6985
95916873|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.3256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.7|-1.3|0.3256
95691768|NCT04743635|191353938|OTHER|Performance goal. The hierarchal endpoint is met if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval is greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|95.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.6|99.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||"The GAIS scale counted if at least two of the three evaluators selected it, otherwise the median between the three was counted (e.g., if improved, worse and much worse, worse was counted). A participant is considered improved if the GAIS assessment is improved (1), much improved (2) or very much improved (3)."||99.1|87.6|.0001
95691769|NCT04743635|191353941|OTHER|Performance goal. In order to meet the endpoint, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval had to be greater than or equal to 0.6.|Percentage improved|72.1||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.9|82.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||82.3|59.9|.0264
95916874|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.9|0.6500
95916875|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||2.7|-2.3|0.8758
95916876|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.7298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.1|0.7298
95916877|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.5963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 SCCAI score||1.6|-2.8|0.5963
95916878|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6498
95916879|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.0|-2.0|0.7061
95916880|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.8549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||2.3|-2.7|0.8549
95916881|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-2.0|0.6533
95691770|NCT00426751|191353943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups, a generalized model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for center, was applied.|Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||||90.0|-8.5|12.8||||||||12.8|-8.5|
95916882|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.4378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 SCCAI score||1.4|-3.1|0.4378
95916883|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||1.3|-2.2|0.5917
95916884|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.1764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.9|-0.5|0.1764
95916885|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.0|-1.5|0.7914
95916886|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 SCCAI score||2.5|-0.9|0.3578
95916887|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.3247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.9|-1.0|0.3247
95916888|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.4||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.4|-0.4|0.1153
95916889|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||2.2|-1.7|0.7995
95916890|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.6|0.1786
95691771|NCT00426751|191353944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the assessment of differences between both treatment groups a generalised model (under binomial probability distribution), adjusted for centre, was applied.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||||95.0|-3.0|16.6|||||Analysis based on the ITT population confirmed the results observed in the PP population.|||16.6|-3.0|
95691772|NCT03382899|191353971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.7626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on interactive web response system (IWRS). 95% Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.5|0.5|0.7626
95691773|NCT03382899|191353972|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|3.243|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.243|0.722|0.263
95691774|NCT03382899|191353973|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.975||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.663|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.|||1.663|0.571|0.20
95691775|NCT03382899|191353974|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the Clopper-Pearson method.|||2.3|0.5|0.9418
95691776|NCT03382899|191353975|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.8312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.384|3.289|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratio stratified by histology type, squamous versus non-squamous based on IWRS. 95% CIs were estimated using the methods of Brookmeyer and Crowley, and Greenwood, respectively.|||3.289|0.384|0.8312
95691777|NCT00576693|191353991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0252|||||||Log Rank|||The statistical analysis was based on a comparison of the of the two treatment groups with respect to the time to a primary outcome using the logrank test.||||0.0252
95691778|NCT03141086|191353992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.711||||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|4.762|||ANOVA|||||4.762|-1.340|0.1272
95691779|NCT03141086|191353993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.866||||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|6.553|||Mixed Models Analysis|||3.5 hours post dose||6.553|-0.821|0.0607
95691780|NCT03141086|191353993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.975||||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.024|4.973|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5.5 hours post dose||4.973|-1.024|0.0919
95691781|NCT03141086|191353993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.576||||0.0811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.697|3.848|||Mixed Models Analysis|||7.5 hours post dose||3.848|-0.697|0.0811
95691782|NCT03141086|191353993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.879||||0.2026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.268|3.026|||Mixed Models Analysis|||9.5 hours post dose||3.026|-1.268|0.2026
95691783|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/ Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M1)||1.20|0.83|0.9946
95691784|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first vascular AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo. \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (SAF-M2)||1.27|0.72|0.7474
95691785|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg vs. Placebo))||1.31|0.81|0.7943
95691786|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.36|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\].|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.36|0.69|0.8518
95691787|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.53|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first vascular AE on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first vascular AE (Trial NCT03057977)||1.53|0.56|0.7660
95916891|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.7||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.7|-1.5|0.5824
95691788|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.55|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M1)||1.55|0.85|0.3612
95691789|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.4|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (SAF-M2)||2.40|0.86|0.1610
95691790|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT01131676, all empagliflozin (10 and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.47|0.71|0.9128
95691791|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.54|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057951)||1.54|0.43|0.5276
95691792|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.72||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|13.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first diabetic foot related AE. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment / Placebo\]|Time to first diabetic foot related AE (Trial NCT03057977)||13.87|1.60|0.0048
95691793|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infections potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M1)||1.04|0.77|0.1526
95691794|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first infection potentially related to LLA's. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first infection potentially related to LLA's (SAF-M2)||1.21|0.76|0.7430
95691795|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA-on treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs. Placebo)||1.04|0.69|0.1049
95691796|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.17|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057951)||1.17|0.67|0.3950
95691797|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.4429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for infections potentially related to LLA on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first infections potentially related to LLA (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.76|0.4429
95691798|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.3396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.13|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M1)||1.13|0.70|0.3396
95691799|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.08|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first wound infections. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first wound/infection (SAF-M2)||1.08|0.46|0.1050
95691800|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.35|0.74|0.9919
95691801|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057951)||1.31|0.48|0.3634
95691802|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.1177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.18|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first wound/infection on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first wound/infection (Trial NCT03057977)||1.18|0.23|0.1177
95691803|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M1)||1.19|0.84|0.9992
95691804|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first nervous system disorder. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first nervous system disorder (SAF-M2)||1.52|0.78|0.6274
95691805|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.7597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||1.19|0.79|0.7597
95691806|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.57|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057951)||1.57|0.74|0.7067
95691807|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.7404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.25|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first nervous system disorder on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|time to first nervous system disorder (Trial NCT03057977)||2.25|0.56|0.7404
95691808|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.58|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M1)||1.58|0.92|0.1765
95691809|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.66|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression of time to first volume depletion AE. Cox regression with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|Time to first volume depletion AE (SAF-M2)||1.66|0.90|0.1978
95691810|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.6561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.05|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with a term for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT01131676, all Empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) vs Placebo)||2.05|0.64|0.6561
95691811|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057951)||1.87|0.90|0.1699
95691812|NCT04937816|191354004|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression for time to first volume depletion on-treatment. Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Time to first volume depletion (Trial NCT03057977)||1.87|0.62|0.7944
95691813|NCT04937816|191354005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\].|||1.42|0.73|0.9276
95691814|NCT04937816|191354005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.6|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for study, baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|||1.60|0.45|0.6205
95691815|NCT04937816|191354005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for treatment.|Comparison vs Placebo \[Treatment/Placebo\]|Empagliflozin (10 mg + 25 mg) versus Placebo.||1.63|0.73|0.6768
95691816|NCT04937816|191354005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.4294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.59|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||1.59|0.34|0.4294
95691817|NCT04937816|191354005|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.7826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.47|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with terms for baseline diabetes status and treatment.|Comparison versus Placebo \[Treatment /Placebo\]|||3.47|0.39|0.7826
95691818|NCT05513053|191354031|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|2.27||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||2.27|1.73|
95691819|NCT05513053|191354031|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.87||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.87|2.76|
95691820|NCT05513053|191354031|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|1.82||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||1.82|1.35|
95691821|NCT05513053|191354031|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between groups (9 to 17 years/18 to 49 years) was \> 0.667 for each strain.|GMT Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.37||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.37|1.09|
95691822|NCT05513053|191354032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|6.62||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||6.62|-2.78|
95691823|NCT05513053|191354032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|-0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.41|3.23||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.23|-4.41|
95691824|NCT05513053|191354032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|8.14||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||8.14|-1.57|
95691825|NCT05513053|191354032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for seroconversion rates was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \>-10% for the 4 strains.|Percent Difference|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|19.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||19.3|9.17|
95691826|NCT03050359|191354054|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.998|3.791||||||||3.791|-2.998|
95691827|NCT03050359|191354055|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-10%, the HP eradication rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.281|10.69||||||||10.690|-1.281|
95691828|NCT03050359|191354056|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI was ≥-6%, the DU healing rate for TAK-438 was considered to be noninferior to that seen with lansoprazole.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.901|6.319||||||||6.319|-4.901|
95691829|NCT03050359|191354057|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.579|7.344||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||7.344|-15.579|
95691830|NCT03050359|191354057|OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|8.422||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||8.422|-5.230|
95691831|NCT03050359|191354057|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.338|9.401||||||Abdominal Bloating||9.401|-17.338|
95691832|NCT03050359|191354057|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.334|7.815||||||Nausea/Vomiting||7.815|-26.334|
95691833|NCT03050359|191354057|OTHER||Difference in percentages|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.159|13.25||||||Heartburn||13.250|-4.159|
95691834|NCT03050359|191354057|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.104|2.922||||||Lack of Appetite||2.922|-21.104|
95691835|NCT03470922|191354064|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.92|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by LAG-3 (≥ 1% vs \< 1%), BRAF (mutation positive vs mutation wild-type), AJCC M-stage (M0/M1any\[0\] vs M1any\[1\])||||0.92|0.62|0.0055
95691836|NCT02713230|191354073|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-117.688|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-150.896|-84.48|||ANOVA|||||-84.480|-150.896|<0.0001
95691837|NCT02713230|191354074|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.131|0.371|||ANOVA|||||0.371|0.131|<0.0001
95691838|NCT02713230|191354075|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.116||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.032|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.200|0.032|0.008
95691839|NCT02713230|191354076|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95691840|NCT01826422|191354077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95691841|NCT01826422|191354078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95691842|NCT01826422|191354079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95691843|NCT01826422|191354080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95691844|NCT01826422|191354081|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95691845|NCT01826422|191354082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95691846|NCT01826422|191354083|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95691847|NCT01826422|191354084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95691848|NCT01826422|191354085|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95691849|NCT01826422|191354086|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95691850|NCT01826422|191354087|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95691851|NCT01826422|191354088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.05
95691852|NCT01826422|191354089|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95691853|NCT01826422|191354090|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95691854|NCT01826422|191354091|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95691855|NCT01826422|191354092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95691856|NCT01826422|191354093|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||>0.05
95691857|NCT01826422|191354094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.05
95691858|NCT01826422|191354095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95691859|NCT01826422|191354096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Between-groups analysis (omega 3 vs placebo) at 3 and 6 months.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95691860|NCT04009096|191354131|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||Two tailed p value reported for Mann-Whitney test comparing controls with each vaccinees|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of pooled data from Groups 1, 2 and 3 volunteers who completed CHMI with pooled data of infectivity controls (unvaccinated) from CHMI study running in parallel (VAC069 study)||||0.14
95691861|NCT04263142|191354136|OTHER||Ratio|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9263|1.0757|||||Analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0757|0.9263|
95691862|NCT04263142|191354137|OTHER||Ratio|1.002|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9321|1.0781|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.0781|0.9321|
95691863|NCT04263142|191354138|OTHER||Ratio|1.093|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9885|1.208|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablets/capsules.|||1.2080|0.9885|
95691864|NCT04263142|191354140|OTHER||Ratio|2.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.3703|3.6107|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.6107|2.3703|
95691865|NCT04263142|191354140|OTHER||Ratio|2.594|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1003|3.2038|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.2038|2.1003|
95691866|NCT04263142|191354141|OTHER||Ratio|3.146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.5925|3.8178|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||3.8178|2.5925|
95691867|NCT04263142|191354141|OTHER||Ratio|2.785|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2943|3.3807|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter AUC(0-t). Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.3807|2.2943|
95691868|NCT04263142|191354142|OTHER||Ratio|4.101|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2442|5.183|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (moderate fat)/(fasted)|||5.1830|3.2442|
95691869|NCT04263142|191354142|OTHER||Ratio|3.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4359|3.8935|||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant as a random effect on the natural log-transformed parameter Cmax. Ratio of GSK3640254 200 mg tablet (high fat)/(fasted)|||3.8935|2.4359|
95691870|NCT00520676|191354243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.6||The comparison was conducted at a 1-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Note that the 2-sided p-value for log rank is reported, which is \<0.001, hence 1-sided p-value is \<0.001.|Cox regression model is used for HR estimate.|||0.60|0.34|<0.001
95691871|NCT00520676|191354244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.42|0.72|0.934
95691872|NCT00520676|191354245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.29||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.||||1.29|0.72|0.800
95916892|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.1392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.5|-0.5|0.1392
95916893|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||2.1|-2.0|0.9665
95916894|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 SCCAI score||3.3|-0.9|0.2455
95916895|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.4|0.4644
95916896|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.4567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.4|0.4567
95916897|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||2.2|-2.3|0.9594
95916898|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 SCCAI score||3.0|-1.5|0.5122
95916899|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.1493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||4.3|-0.7|0.1493
95916900|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.3478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.6||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.6|-1.3|0.3478
95916901|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.5238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.2||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.2|-1.7|0.5238
95916902|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.4091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.5||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 SCCAI score||3.5|-1.4|0.4091
95916903|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.2604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.0||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||4.0|-1.1|0.2604
95916904|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.2809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.8||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.8|-1.1|0.2809
95916905|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.6038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|3.1||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.1|-1.8|0.6038
95916906|NCT01036022|191792309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.9||Analysis was adjusted for baseline (Day -1) SCCAI score, Baseline (Screening) Endoscopy Score and Baseline (Screening) UCDAI Score.|Repeated measures mixed model|||Asacol versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 SCCAI score||3.9|-1.1|0.2511
95916907|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.39|0.24|
95916908|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.92||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.92|0.21|
95916909|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.48|0.26|
95727640|NCT01602614|191424847|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.6175||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.6175
95916910|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||2.68|0.27|
95916911|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.81||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal calprotectin levels||1.81|0.23|
95916912|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.73|0.26|
95916913|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.68|0.18|
95916914|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.18||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.18|0.21|
95916915|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||2.03|0.19|
95916916|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.9||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal calprotectin levels||1.90|0.22|
95916917|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.09||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||4.09|0.28|
95916918|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.43||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.43|0.23|
95691873|NCT00520676|191354246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.15||The comparison of tumor response rates was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Fisher Exact|Tumor response rate= # participants with a confirmed best response of CR or PR / # of participants who qualify for the analysis population.|Logistic regression model is used for odds ratio (OR) estimate.|||3.15|0.93|0.081
95691874|NCT00520676|191354247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.55||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||1.55|0.49|0.641
95691875|NCT00520676|191354248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.71||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.71|0.40|<0.001
95691876|NCT00520676|191354249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.66||The comparison was conducted at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank||Cox regression model is used for unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) estimate.|||0.66|0.35|<0.001
95691877|NCT03696758|191354271|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
95691878|NCT03696758|191354272|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
95691879|NCT03696758|191354273|OTHER|descriptive statistics||||||0.004||||||p value is 0.004 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.004
95691880|NCT03696758|191354274|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.1
95691881|NCT03696758|191354275|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.09||||||p value is 0.09 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.09
95691882|NCT03696758|191354276|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.1||||||p value is 0.10 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.10
95691883|NCT03696758|191354277|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.82||||||p value is 0.82 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.82
95691884|NCT03696758|191354278|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.3||||||p value is 0.30 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.30
95691885|NCT03696758|191354279|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
95691886|NCT03696758|191354280|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||p value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
95691887|NCT03696758|191354281|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.65||||||P-Value is 0.65 for 'Pre-Metoprolol' vs 'post-Metoprolol' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.65
95691888|NCT03696758|191354282|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
95691889|NCT03696758|191354283|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.43||||||P-Value is 0.43 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.43
95691890|NCT03696758|191354284|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.66||||||P-Value is 0.66 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.66
95691891|NCT03696758|191354285|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.13||||||P-Value is 0.13 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.13
95691892|NCT03696758|191354286|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.57||||||P-Value is 0.57 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.57
95691893|NCT03696758|191354287|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.25||||||P-Value is 0.25 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.25
95691894|NCT03696758|191354288|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.07||||||P-Value is 0.07 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.07
95691895|NCT03696758|191354289|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.36||||||P-Value is 0.36 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.36
95691896|NCT03696758|191354290|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.91||||||P-Value is 0.91 for 'Pre-Sildenafil' vs 'Post-Sildenafil' subgroup|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.91
95691897|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with atorvastatin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.30
95691898|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with sulindac compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.60
95691899|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0||||Adjusting for multiple comparisons yields 84% power to detect a difference of at least 25% in % change of ACF at the 0.016 level of significance and using a two-sample, 2-sided t-test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The study was designed to test the hypotheses of observing a 25% difference in % change ACF over baseline, between patients treated with oligofructose-enriched inulin compared to placebo. N=25 subjects per group yielded 93% power to detect this difference using a 2 sided t-test at significance level of 0.05. Non-parametric tests (eg, Wilcoxon Rank Sum) could be used if the statistical assumptions of the t-test were violated.||||0.92
95691900|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.59
95691901|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.12
95691902|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.54
95691903|NCT00335504|191354295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Sign test|||Signed Rank p-value for comparison of % change in ACF within each randomization arm.||||0.41
95691904|NCT00335504|191354296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between atorvastatin and placebo.||||0.37
95691905|NCT00335504|191354296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between sulindac and placebo.||||1.00
95691906|NCT00335504|191354296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in Ki67 between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.58
95691907|NCT00335504|191354297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between atorvastatin calcium and placebo.||||0.26
95691908|NCT00335504|191354297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between sulindac and placebo.||||0.88
95691909|NCT00335504|191354297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum p-value for comparison of % change in apoptosis between oligofructose-enriched inulin and placebo.||||0.38
95691910|NCT01856595|191354333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.532||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.93|11.38||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||11.38|-16.93|0.7457
95691911|NCT01856595|191354333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-21.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.334||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.47|-7.81||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-7.81|-35.47|0.0108
95691912|NCT01856595|191354333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-26.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.309||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.38|-12.8||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-12.80|-40.38|0.0018
95691913|NCT01856595|191354333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-32.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.038||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.66|-18.99||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-18.99|-45.66|0.0001
95691914|NCT01856595|191354333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-42.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.23|-28.55||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-28.55|-56.23|<0.0001
95691915|NCT01856595|191354334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.621||0.279|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|26.43||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||26.43|-5.50|0.2790
95691916|NCT01856595|191354334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-19.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.777||0.0299||90.0|-33.89|-4.76||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-4.76|-33.89|0.0299
95691917|NCT01856595|191354335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-29.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.28|-16.57||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||-16.57|-42.28|0.0005
95691918|NCT01856595|191354335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference (Net)|-11.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.321||0.1133|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.26|0.48||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.48|-24.26|0.1133
95691919|NCT01856595|191354336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.066||0.853|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.89|0.8530
95691920|NCT01856595|191354336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.0172|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.95||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.95|0.77|0.0172
95691921|NCT01856595|191354336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.064||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.94||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.94|0.77|0.0106
95691922|NCT01856595|191354336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.062||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.9||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.90|0.74|0.0012
95691923|NCT01856595|191354336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|0.85||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.85|0.69|<0.0001
95727641|NCT01602614|191424848|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.7129||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.7129
95916919|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.18|
95916920|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.08||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||2.08|0.17|
95916921|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.32||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal calprotectin levels||1.32|0.15|
95691924|NCT01856595|191354337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.075||0.7804|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.1||Two-sided p-values are from analysis of ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.10|0.87|0.7804
95691925|NCT01856595|191354337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.068||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
95691926|NCT01856595|191354338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.083||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|0.88||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.88|0.68|0.0027
95691927|NCT01856595|191354338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.0908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.0||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.00|0.77|0.0908
95691928|NCT01856595|191354342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.123||0.8723|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.19||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.19|0.81|0.8723
95691929|NCT01856595|191354342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.124||0.5158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.76|0.5158
95691930|NCT01856595|191354342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.126||0.1258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.01||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.01|0.68|0.1258
95691931|NCT01856595|191354342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.115||0.2883|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.07||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.07|0.74|0.2883
95691932|NCT01856595|191354342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.8437|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.18||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.18|0.81|0.8437
95691933|NCT01856595|191354343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.154||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.42||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.42|0.88|0.4405
95691934|NCT01856595|191354343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.146||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.37||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.37|0.87|0.5178
95691935|NCT01856595|191354344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.181||0.034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||0.92|0.52|0.0340
95691936|NCT01856595|191354344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.173||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.58||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.58|0.92|0.2519
95691937|NCT01856595|191354345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.4579|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.2||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.20|0.93|0.4579
95691938|NCT01856595|191354345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.8144|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.11||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.11|0.87|0.8144
95691939|NCT01856595|191354345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.082||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.06||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.06|0.81|0.3425
95691940|NCT01856595|191354345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.076||0.967|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.13||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.13|0.88|0.9670
95691941|NCT01856595|191354345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.079||0.319|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.95|0.3190
95916922|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|5.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||5.04|0.33|
95916923|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.02|0.20|
95691942|NCT01856595|191354346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.095||0.1617|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.32||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.32|0.98|0.1617
95691943|NCT01856595|191354346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.084||0.3703|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.23||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.23|0.94|0.3703
95691944|NCT01856595|191354347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.119||0.6833|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.15||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.15|0.79|0.6833
95691945|NCT01856595|191354347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.112||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.41||Two-sided p-values are from ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate using the natural log-transformed AUC0-4. P-values are not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Placebo was the Reference and each of the active doses was the Test.||1.41|0.98|0.1318
95691946|NCT00458406|191354391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~Description of power calculation: The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 standard deviation (SD)."||||0.512
95916924|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|3.23||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||3.23|0.29|
95916925|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.72||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||4.72|0.39|
95916926|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.42||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal calprotectin levels||2.42|0.28|
95916927|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.66||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.66|0.14|
95916928|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||4.38|0.35|
95916929|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||2.47|0.20|
95916930|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.46|0.11|
95691947|NCT00458406|191354392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
95691948|NCT00458406|191354393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar effi cacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
95691949|NCT00458406|191354394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||"Chi-Square test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
95691950|NCT00458406|191354395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP. The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD.||||>0.05
95691951|NCT00458406|191354395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Two-sided t-test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||<0.05
95916931|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.48||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.15|
95916932|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.39||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||3.39|0.13|
95916933|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.84|0.11|
95916934|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||1.48|0.09|
95916935|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.99||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.99|0.19|
95916936|NCT01036022|191792312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.49||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal calprotectin levels||2.49|0.21|
95916937|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.38||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.38|0.42|
95916938|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.65||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.65|0.50|
95916939|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.47||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.47|0.45|
95916940|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.59|0.44|
95916941|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|3.28||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 1 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.28|0.50|
95916942|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.19||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.19|0.26|
95916943|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.63||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.63|0.22|
95916944|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.0||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.00|0.12|
95916945|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.77||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.77|0.31|
95916946|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.87||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 2 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.87|0.26|
95916947|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.84||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.84|0.15|
95916948|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.87||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.87|0.32|
95916949|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.56||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.56|0.17|
95916950|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|4.46||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.46|0.45|
95916951|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.01||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 3 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.01|0.14|
95916952|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.15|0.10|
95916953|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.03||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.03|0.23|
95916954|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.68||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.68|0.19|
95916955|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.7||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.70|0.38|
95916956|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.89||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 4 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.89|0.26|
95916957|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.07||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.07|0.27|
95916958|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||4.73|0.46|
95916959|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.02||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.02|0.11|
95916960|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.73||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||3.73|0.36|
95916961|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.33||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 5 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.33|0.29|
95916962|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|6.59||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 10 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||6.59|0.31|
95916963|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|9.04||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 30 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||9.04|0.54|
95916964|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.48||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 100 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||1.48|0.11|
95916965|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.91||||||Placebo versus GSK1399686 300 mg for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||5.91|0.46|
95916966|NCT01036022|191792313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.62||||||Placebo versus Asacol for Week 6 fecal lactoferrin levels||2.62|0.27|
95916967|NCT02395133|191792346|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-14.83|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.34|-7.33|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-7.33|-22.34|= 0.0001
95691952|NCT00458406|191354397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
95691953|NCT00458406|191354398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Mann-Whitney test. We hypothesized that Bi-Flex would result in improved adherence but similar efficacy to CPAP.~The study sample size of 45 in the Bi-Flex group and 15 in the CPAP group had 80% power to detect an effect size ≥ 0.85 with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. In addition, with this sample size, the 95% CI for the difference between the 2 means had a range of 1.282 SD."||||>0.05
95691954|NCT01763905|191354400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.73|-32.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.99|-43.73|<0.001
95691955|NCT01763905|191354400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.16|-32.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-32.94|-42.16|<0.001
95691956|NCT01763905|191354401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.9|-54.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.7|-77.9|<0.001
95691957|NCT01763905|191354401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.5|-60.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-60.7|-80.5|<0.001
95691958|NCT01763905|191354402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|-57.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.5|-82.0|<0.001
95691959|NCT01763905|191354402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.2|-58.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-58.4|-79.2|<0.001
95691960|NCT01763905|191354403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.9|53.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||53.4|30.9|<0.001
95691961|NCT01763905|191354403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|42.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.3|51.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||51.8|30.3|<0.001
95691962|NCT01763905|191354404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|48.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.0|57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||57.8|35.0|<0.001
95691963|NCT01763905|191354404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|47.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline LDL-C and statin use. For testing, non-achievement was imputed for participants with missing data.||||47.5|25.5|<0.001
95691964|NCT01763905|191354405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.34|-26.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.73|-36.34|<0.001
95691965|NCT01763905|191354405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-30.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.54|-38.63|<0.001
95691966|NCT01763905|191354406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|-26.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.90|-37.28|<0.001
95727642|NCT01602614|191424849|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9828|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9828
95691967|NCT01763905|191354406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.19|-28.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.79|-37.19|<0.001
95691968|NCT01763905|191354407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.92|-27.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.49|-36.92|<0.001
95691969|NCT01763905|191354407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.59|-30.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.39|-39.59|<0.001
95691970|NCT01763905|191354408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-27.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.68|-38.04|<0.001
95691971|NCT01763905|191354408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.04|-28.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.17|-38.04|<0.001
95691972|NCT01763905|191354409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-22.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.67|-32.11|<0.001
95691973|NCT01763905|191354409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.72|-25.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.17|-34.72|<0.001
95691974|NCT01763905|191354410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.42|-21.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.15|-31.42|<0.001
95691975|NCT01763905|191354410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.88|-23.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.43|-33.88|<0.001
95691976|NCT01763905|191354411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.84|-29.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.88|-39.84|<0.001
95691977|NCT01763905|191354411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.73|-31.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.01|-41.73|<0.001
95691978|NCT01763905|191354412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.05|-29.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.00|-40.05|<0.001
95691979|NCT01763905|191354412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.87|-28.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.39|-39.87|<0.001
95691980|NCT01763905|191354413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.27|-16.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.54|-31.27|<0.001
95916968|NCT02395133|191792346|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-17.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.33|-10.34|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-10.34|-25.33|< 0.0001
95691981|NCT01763905|191354413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.75|-16.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.77|-33.75|<0.001
95691982|NCT01763905|191354414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.26|-17.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-17.33|-33.26|<0.001
95691983|NCT01763905|191354414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.21|-16.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.56|-39.21|<0.001
95916969|NCT02395133|191792346|SUPERIORITY||Percent Change Difference|-21.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.36|-14.87|||ANCOVA|Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints in a pre-specified order. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA method.||-14.87|-28.36|<0.0001
95916970|NCT02395133|191792347|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|24.5|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|39.29||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||39.29|9.70|= 0.0040
95727643|NCT01602614|191424850|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.9656|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.9656
95691984|NCT01763905|191354415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.38|6.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.20|-11.38|0.97
95691985|NCT01763905|191354415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.13||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|3.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.71|-16.55|0.33
95691986|NCT01763905|191354416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|11.31||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.31|-8.14|0.97
95691987|NCT01763905|191354416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.04|7.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.67|-17.04|0.33
95691988|NCT01763905|191354417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.74|0.068
95691989|NCT01763905|191354417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|10.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.24|1.23|0.13
95691990|NCT01763905|191354418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|8.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.63|-1.49|0.068
95691991|NCT01763905|191354418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|9.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.81|-0.16|0.13
95691992|NCT01763905|191354419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|6.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.75|-10.43|0.97
95691993|NCT01763905|191354419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|6.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||6.06|-13.12|0.33
95691994|NCT01763905|191354420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-9.96|0.97
95691995|NCT01763905|191354420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|11.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.39|-11.24|0.33
95691996|NCT01763905|191354421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-31.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-31.55|-42.26|<0.001
95691997|NCT01763905|191354421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.06|-34.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, baseline LDL-C level and statin use, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there is no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis is that a mean difference does exist.||-34.22|-43.06|<0.001
95916971|NCT02395133|191792347|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|28.0|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.32|42.58||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||42.58|13.32|= 0.0004
95691998|NCT04346628|191354422|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.2||The final test was performed at the alpha = 0.04999 level of significance, adjusted for age group and sex.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|||1.20|0.48|0.24
95691999|NCT04346628|191354424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in hospitalizations||||0.06
95692000|NCT04346628|191354424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in ED visits||||0.56
95692001|NCT04346628|191354426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.29||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until initial resolution of symptoms||1.29|0.54|0.43
95692002|NCT04346628|191354426|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45||A p-value of 0.05 would have been considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio adjusted for age and sex|Difference in days until sustained resolution of symptoms||1.45|0.52|0.59
95692003|NCT00069095|191354496|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.94|1.18||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.18|0.94|
95692004|NCT00069095|191354497|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.05|1.42||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.42|1.05|
95692005|NCT00069095|191354498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.58|0.83|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.83|0.58|<0.0001
95692006|NCT00069095|191354499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in the 'on-treatment analysis', thus leading to reduced power. No formal statistical testing was therefore applied.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.07|1.44||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.44|1.07|
95692007|NCT00069095|191354500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.52|0.75|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
95692008|NCT00069095|191354501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin). A stratified Cox model was used. In order to retain an experiment-wise two-sided type I error of 5%, the non-inferiority analysis for PFS used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.92|1.15||||||Equivalence of treatment arm A ('XELOX') to treatment arm B ('FOLFOX-4') was tested via the following hypotheses - H0: HRA/B \>/= 1.23 versus H1: HRA/B \< 1.23. HRA/B denotes the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment A ('XELOX') divided by the hazard of disease progression or death under treatment B ('FOLFOX-4').||1.15|0.92|
95692009|NCT00069095|191354502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0015
95692010|NCT00069095|191354503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study was not powered for testing non-inferiority of XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 with respect to overall survival and no margin could be derived following the effect retention concept. The same margins used for the PFS analysis \[Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) was less than the predefined limit of 1.23 (the non-inferiority margin)\] were therefore applied to OS as well.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.84|1.14||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.14|0.84|
95692011|NCT00069095|191354504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1921|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented together with the 97.5% confidence interval.||1.09|0.72|0.1921
95727644|NCT01602614|191424851|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5113|||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5113
95916972|NCT02395133|191792347|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|41.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.93|53.52||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||53.52|28.93|<0.0001
95692012|NCT00069095|191354505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|0.95|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.95|0.72|0.0023
95692013|NCT00069095|191354506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.72|1.09||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66, where OR denotes Odds ratio.||1.09|0.72|
95692014|NCT00069095|191354507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.71|1.14|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.||1.14|0.71|0.3091
95692015|NCT00069095|191354508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The analysis was based on the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV). Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab shall be concluded if the lower limit of this confidence interval is above 0.66.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.76|1.16||||||Non-inferiority of XELOX with/without bevacizumab to FOLFOX-4 with/without bevacizumab was tested by the pair of hypotheses - H0: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \</= 0.66 versus H1: OR(XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV) \> 0.66||1.16|0.76|
95692016|NCT00069095|191354509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9887|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.78|1.28|||Chi-squared|||Superiority of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was tested as follows - H0: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX 4+P/XELOX+P) \</= 1.0 versus H1: OR(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)/(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P) \> 1.0. The test used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%||1.28|0.78|0.9887
95692017|NCT00069095|191354510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.97|1.2||||||General approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.20|0.97|
95692018|NCT00069095|191354510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Fewer events were expected in analyses using the on-treatment approach than in the analyses using the general approach, thus leading to reduced power.Therefore, no formal statistical testing was performed.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.98|1.23||||||On-treatment Approach: HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.23|0.98|
95692019|NCT00069095|191354511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.74|0.96|||Log Rank|||General approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.96|0.74|0.0030
95692020|NCT00069095|191354511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.7|0.92|||Log Rank|||On treatment approach: Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||0.92|0.70|0.0004
95692021|NCT00069095|191354514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was performed for duration of overall response.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.86|1.22||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV)||1.22|0.86|
95692022|NCT00069095|191354515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.66|1.01|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||1.01|0.66|0.0307
95916973|NCT02395133|191792348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|21.4|||=|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|38.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||38.00|4.86|= 0.0130
95916974|NCT02395133|191792348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|33.5|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.38|49.72||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||49.72|17.38|= 0.0003
95916975|NCT02395133|191792348|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|42.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.36|55.76||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||55.76|28.36|<0.0001
95916976|NCT02395133|191792349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|18.5|||=|0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.14|32.91||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||32.91|4.14|= 0.0209
95916977|NCT02395133|191792349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|29.7|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.89|44.42||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||44.42|14.89|= 0.0007
95692023|NCT00069095|191354516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal statistical testing was done.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.09|1.39||||||HRs and 97.5% confidence interval were reported for treatment arm A (XELOX/XELOX+P/XELOX+BV) versus treatment arm B (FOLFOX-4/FOLFOX-4+P/FOLFOX-4+BV).||1.39|0.09|
95692024|NCT00069095|191354517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8207|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.2|7.05|||Log Rank|||Testing for superiority was based on the stratified log-rank test and used a two-sided significance level of 2.5%.The hazard ratio (HR) of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone \[HR(FOLFOX-4+P/XELOX+P)/(FOLFOX-4+BV/XELOX+BV)\] was presented.||7.05|0.20|0.8207
95692025|NCT05761444|191354518|OTHER||Least Squares (LS) mean difference|-21.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.26|-13.19||The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-13.19|-29.26|<0.0001
95692026|NCT05761444|191354521|OTHER||LS mean difference|-15.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.56|-8.36||The ANCOVA model with treatment group (ezetimibe/atorvastatin, atorvastatin) and history of statin administration (yes, no) as fixed effects and baseline LDL-C as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-23.56|<0.0001
95692027|NCT00818324|191354539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692028|NCT00818324|191354539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692029|NCT00818324|191354539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692030|NCT00818324|191354539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692031|NCT00818324|191354540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692032|NCT00818324|191354540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692033|NCT00818324|191354540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 28.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692034|NCT00818324|191354540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The p value represents the comparison between baseline data and data at Week 52.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692035|NCT02389816|191354580|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.999||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-0.70|-4.63|0.0080
95692036|NCT02389816|191354580|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.003||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM)||||-1.10|-5.05|0.0023
95692037|NCT02389816|191354581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.621||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|2.533|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.533|1.037|0.0341
95692038|NCT02389816|191354581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788||||0.011||95.0|1.143|2.799|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.799|1.143|0.0110
95692039|NCT02389816|191354582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.839||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.107|3.054|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.054|1.107|0.0186
95692040|NCT02389816|191354582|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.834|1.020|0.0418
95692041|NCT02389816|191354583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753||0.0165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-0.332|||ANCOVA|||||-0.332|-3.290|0.0165
95692042|NCT02389816|191354583|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.759||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.278|-0.295|||ANCOVA|||||-0.295|-3.278|0.0190
95692043|NCT02389816|191354584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.121|||ANCOVA|||||-0.121|-0.590|0.0031
95692044|NCT02389816|191354584|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.629|-0.158|||ANCOVA|||||-0.158|-0.629|0.0011
95692045|NCT02389816|191354585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.474|0.011|||ANCOVA|||||0.011|-0.474|0.0609
95692046|NCT02389816|191354585|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.051|||ANCOVA|||||-0.051|-0.537|0.0179
95692047|NCT02389816|191354586|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.621||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.564|-0.122|||ANCOVA|||||-0.122|-2.564|0.0311
95692048|NCT02389816|191354586|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.628||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|-0.339|||ANCOVA|||||-0.339|-2.807|0.0126
95692049|NCT02389816|191354587|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.539|0.968|||ANCOVA|||||0.968|-2.539|0.3793
95692050|NCT02389816|191354587|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.891||0.9011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|1.641|||ANCOVA|||||1.641|-1.862|0.9011
95692051|NCT02389816|191354588|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-0.218|||ANCOVA|||||-0.218|-1.512|0.0089
95692052|NCT02389816|191354588|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.332||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-0.619|||ANCOVA|||||-0.619|-1.922|0.0001
95692053|NCT00300469|191354589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
95692054|NCT00300469|191354589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 20% decrease in triglycerides relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 30%||||<0.001
95692055|NCT00300469|191354590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.005
95692056|NCT00300469|191354590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide 99% power to detect a 13% increase in HDL-C relative to statin monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||0.010
95692057|NCT00300469|191354591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95692058|NCT00300469|191354591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||alpha = 0.05, all 3 primary endpoints had to show superiority of combo therapy in order to declare combo therapy successful at a given statin dose, Hochberg method for multiple comparison adjustment for 2 statin doses|ANCOVA|||An n = 92 per arm would provide \>99% power to detect a 31% decrease in LDL-C relative to ABT-335 monotherapy for each combo therapy dose, assuming an SD of 15%||||<0.001
95692059|NCT00578864|191354602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.367||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.367
95692060|NCT00578864|191354605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.592||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.592
95692061|NCT01253044|191354646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.912
95692062|NCT01253044|191354647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||MMRM|||||||.273
95692063|NCT03161678|191354654|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||<0.001
95692064|NCT03161678|191354654|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.24
95692065|NCT03161678|191354655|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 G143E mutation. The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.75
95692066|NCT03161678|191354655|OTHER|The effect of CES1 genotype on agonist-stimulated change in platelet aggregation was calculated using variance component method that simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants. Relatedness among participants were accounted for by including a polygenic component as a random effect. Please see the Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan document for additional information.||||||0.011|||||||Regression, Linear|All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and relatedness among study participants.||Change in platelet aggregation was assessed between the wild-type group and the carriers of the CES1 functional mutation (rs7498748). The null hypothesis is that, following drug intervention, there is no difference in the change in platelet aggregation between genotype groups.||||0.011
95692067|NCT00752609|191354656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||-0.19|-0.65|
95692068|NCT00752609|191354656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from baseline|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.71|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.71|0.26|
95692069|NCT05692154|191354663|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.015||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-0.23|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.23|-8.24|0.038
95692070|NCT05692154|191354664|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.088||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.60|-8.90|0.025
95692071|NCT05692154|191354665|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.247||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|-0.05|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance model, with treatment group as fixed effect and baseline TNSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-0.05|-12.95|0.048
95692072|NCT05692154|191354666|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.21|-1.73|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Visit 4) as covariate.|||-1.73|-13.21|0.011
95692073|NCT05692154|191354667|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.211||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.74|1.83|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TNSS (Day 1) as covariate.|||1.83|-38.74|0.074
95692074|NCT05692154|191354668|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.672||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|19.12|||ANCOVA||Least-squares means, standard errors and p-value are taken from an analysis of covariance, with treatment group as fixed categorical effect and baseline TOSS (H0 at Day 1) as covariate.|||19.12|-27.24|0.729
95692075|NCT02144220|191354712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.39
95692076|NCT00540449|191354716|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.9|5.2||Significance level was set at 2.5% (one-sided). No adjustment of p-value for multiple comparisons, since there was only single comparison for the primary endpoint.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|Assuming a response rate of 75% at 48 weeks for both treatment groups, 340 subjects were needed per treatment (TMC278 or EFV) to establish non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV with a maximum allowable difference of 12% and a 1-sided significance level of 2.5%, to yield 95% power.||5.2|-5.9|<0.0001
95692077|NCT00540449|191354717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|0.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|5.9|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||5.9|-5.4|<0.0001
95692078|NCT00540449|191354718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-3.2||||0.0055||95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.|Difference in proportion responders was estimated through the logistic regression model.|||3.1|-9.4|0.0055
95692079|NCT00540449|191354719|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower limit of the 95% 2-sided confidence interval of the difference in proportions (TMC278 - EFV) exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of TMC278 versus EFV can be concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.7||||0.0013||95.0|-8.0|4.5|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model included treatment arm as factor and baseline (log10) viral load as covariate.||||4.5|-8.0|0.0013
95692080|NCT00804193|191354725|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Therapeutic Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Therapeutic equivalence (bioequivalence) was established if this 90% CI was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20 (-20% to +20%).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.69|18.85|||Wald's method, Yates|CI calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction.|The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||18.85|-0.69|
95692081|NCT00804193|191354726|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|1.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|9.24|||Wald's method with Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||9.24|-7.08|0.001
95692082|NCT00804193|191354727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|90% CI was constructed for the difference in the Success rates between the Test Product and Reference Product at Visit 4/Week 6 (Follow-Up). The interval was calculated using Wald's method with Yates' continuity correction. Bioequivalence was established if this 90% confidence interval was contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20).|Difference in Percentage of Participants|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|14.24|||Wald's method Yates' continuity cor||The sample size for this study was calculated assuming that both active treatments would have equivalent success proportions of at least 55% and the Vehicle would have a success proportion no greater than 25%.|||14.24|-4.60|0.001
95692083|NCT00968253|191354728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum tolerated dose|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of Everolimus measured in mg/day in combination with HyperCVAD|||||
95692084|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
95692085|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
95727645|NCT01602614|191424852|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.217||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.2170
95727646|NCT01602614|191424853|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.4299||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.4299
95692086|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
95692087|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.08
95692088|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER|||||||0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,14)= 4.55||Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||0.05
95692089|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
95692090|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
95692091|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC) This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons.||||>0.05
95692092|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)||||>0.05
95727647|NCT01602614|191424854|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.8629||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.8629
95727648|NCT01602614|191424855|OTHER|Spearman Rank Correlation||||||0.5717||||||Spearman Rank Correlation|Spearman Rank Correlation|||No subjects were enrolled in Group 1 and Group 4. One subject in Group 3 did not collect full PK panel therefore no pk was analyzed for this subject.||||0.5717
95916978|NCT02395133|191792349|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|39.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.42|51.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||51.95|27.42|<0.0001
95916979|NCT02395133|191792350|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-14.4||||0.1048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.21|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||0.32|-29.21|0.1048
95916980|NCT02395133|191792350|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-20.6|||=|0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-5.89||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-5.89|-35.32|= 0.0107
95692093|NCT03342469|191354731|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692094|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692095|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692096|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1.14)= 4.88, p=0.04||"Difference in Alpha Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||0.04
95692097|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692098|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in ADHD group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692099|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Delta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95916981|NCT02395133|191792350|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-36.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.4|-23.74||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by region, baseline disease severity and Dupilumab regimen received in parent studies.||-23.74|-48.40|<0.0001
95916982|NCT00510458|191792371|OTHER|It is expected that the mean linear wear rate is not more than 0.08 mm per year or 0.05 mm per year superior to the reference control, which was 0.13 mm per year. The reference control was determined from the control group within the Post-approval Study of the ABC and Trident® Systems (NCT00960206).|mean linear wear rate at 5 yrs|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0107|0.0267||||||||.0267|-0.0107|
95916983|NCT00510458|191792372|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS compared to the post-operative HHS at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95916984|NCT00510458|191792373|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS pain score compared to the post-operative HHS pain score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95916985|NCT00510458|191792374|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative HHS ROM compared to the post-operative HHS ROM at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95916986|NCT00510458|191792375|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Physical component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Physical component score at all intervals is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95916987|NCT00510458|191792375|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 1 year is statistically significant.||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
95692100|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Theta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons"||||>0.05
95692101|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Alpha Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692102|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Beta Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692103|NCT03342469|191354732|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in Gamma Power in control group with and without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (EEG power during AFC, EEG power during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692104|NCT03342469|191354733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|F(1,15) = 3.65, p = 0.08||"Difference in inattentive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692105|NCT03342469|191354733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in hyperactive ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692106|NCT03342469|191354733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in ADHD group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692107|NCT03342469|191354733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"inattentive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (inattentive ASRS score during AFC, inattentive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95916988|NCT00510458|191792375|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 3 years is statistically significant.||||||0.4974|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4974
95916989|NCT00510458|191792375|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative SF-12 Mental component score compared to the post-operative SF-12 Mental component score at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.677|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6770
95916990|NCT00510458|191792376|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 1 year and 3 years is statistically significant.|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95916991|NCT00510458|191792376|OTHER|To test if the change from pre-operative LEAS compared to the post-operative LEAS at 5 years is statistically significant.||||||0.0006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0006
95692108|NCT03342469|191354733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Hyperactive ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (hyperactive ASRS score during AFC, hyperactive ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692109|NCT03342469|191354733|OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significance level \</= 0.05. This was chosen due to the small sample size. The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons as this was a pilot study and a power analysis for sample size was not conducted.|repeated measures General Linear Model|||"Difference in total ASRS in control group with/without exposure to AFC. General linear model assessed the impact of treatment (AFC v. placebo) on each EEG frequency band, taking into account order of materials. Dependent variable = Treatment (total ASRS score during AFC, total ASRS score during placebo); independent variable = order (AFC/placebo, placebo/AFC)~This is a pilot study, thus a power calculation was not done and it was not power to correct for multiple comparisons."||||>0.05
95692110|NCT03302416|191354736|SUPERIORITY|Baseline scan VT vs. Post-hydrocortisone scan VT||||||0.005|||||||Linear mixed model|||||||0.005
95692111|NCT02429427|191354737|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.17|||Log Rank|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis stratified by oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.17|0.80|0.751
95692112|NCT02429427|191354738|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.22|||Log Rank|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|Analysis is stratified for oestrogen receptor status and country.|||1.22|0.76|0.781
95692113|NCT00755846|191354777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
95692114|NCT00755846|191354777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.004||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
95692115|NCT00755846|191354777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176||0.017||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
95692116|NCT00755846|191354777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.001||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.001
95692117|NCT00755846|191354777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.003||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.003
95692118|NCT00755846|191354777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173||0.307||95.0||||A step-down sequential approach was used to test the hypothesis that the treatment coefficient in the model is 0 for each of the five individual active treatment groups vs. placebo.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.307
95692119|NCT00755846|191354778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has at least 98% power to detect a treatment difference (all active versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.004
95692120|NCT00755846|191354778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.017||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.017
95692121|NCT00755846|191354778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138||0.016||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.016
95692122|NCT00755846|191354778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.005||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.005
95692123|NCT00755846|191354778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.008
95692124|NCT00755846|191354778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.136||0.321||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HbA1c. With at least 234 patients, a two-group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level has 90% power to detect a treatment difference (each active dose versus placebo) in HbA1c change from baseline as small as 0.55%, assuming a common standard deviation of 0.7%.||||0.321
95728581|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95692125|NCT00755846|191354779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index (BMI), diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95692126|NCT00755846|191354779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95692127|NCT00755846|191354779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
95692128|NCT00755846|191354779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95692129|NCT00755846|191354779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.57||0.057||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.057
95692130|NCT00755846|191354779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.56||0.156||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.156
95692131|NCT00755846|191354780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.05|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between all doses of alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95692132|NCT00755846|191354780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.91||0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.001
95855271|NCT00554216|191670072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.71||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.71|2.38|<0.0001
95692133|NCT00755846|191354780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.2||0.008||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline FPG as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.008
95692134|NCT00755846|191354780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.88|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and body mass index, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95692135|NCT00755846|191354780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.09||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
95692136|NCT00755846|191354780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07||0.073||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HbA1c as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in FPG. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.073
95692137|NCT00755846|191354781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.85|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95692138|NCT00755846|191354781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.37||0.01||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.010
95692139|NCT00755846|191354781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.71||0.002||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.002
95692140|NCT00755846|191354781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
95692141|NCT00755846|191354781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.44||0.006||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.006
95916992|NCT01555164|191792402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.11||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.1||P-value from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.4% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||0.10|-0.31|0.306
95692142|NCT00755846|191354781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.45||0.117||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.117
95692143|NCT00755846|191354782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6||0.014||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.014
95692144|NCT00755846|191354782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.35||0.136||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.136
95692145|NCT00755846|191354782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73||0.022||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.022
95692146|NCT00755846|191354782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26||0.004||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.004
95692147|NCT00755846|191354782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.48||0.04||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.040
95692148|NCT00755846|191354782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47||0.378||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline fasting fructosamine as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in fasting fructosamine. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.378
95916993|NCT01302938|191792420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.6||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.6|-3.9|
95692149|NCT00755846|191354783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.718||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.718
95692150|NCT00755846|191354783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.346||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.346
95692151|NCT00755846|191354783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.901||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.901
95692152|NCT00755846|191354783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.79||0.851||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.851
95692153|NCT00755846|191354783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.86||0.825||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.825
95692154|NCT00755846|191354783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.94||0.843||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.843
95729277|NCT00320593|191428943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.45|||ANCOVA|||A secondary analysis was conducted to assess the treatment effect on myopia at the interim time point of 2 years, using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for the treatment group difference of change in spherical equivalent refractive error from baseline to 2 years, in which myopia at 2 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior single vision lenses wear. Only complete cases (cases in which both baseline and 2 year values were known) were included.||0.45|0.02|
95692155|NCT00755846|191354784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88||0.069||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.069
95692156|NCT00755846|191354784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14||0.018||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.018
95692157|NCT00755846|191354784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.47||0.258||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.258
95692158|NCT00755846|191354784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.299||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.299
95916994|NCT01302938|191792421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|29.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|35.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|106.6||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||106.6|-47.8|
95916995|NCT01302938|191792421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|28.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.4|111.4||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||111.4|-55.4|
95728582|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95916996|NCT01302938|191792421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|43.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|110.3||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||110.3|-24.2|
95729306|NCT02146430|191429054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.12|||Difference of means|||||0.12|-0.61|0.1870
95692159|NCT00755846|191354784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.27||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
95692160|NCT00755846|191354784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.32||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline total cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in total cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
95692161|NCT00755846|191354785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.689||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.689
95692162|NCT00755846|191354785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.742||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.742
95692163|NCT00755846|191354785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.22||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.220
95692164|NCT00755846|191354785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.348||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.348
95729307|NCT02146430|191429054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.05|||Difference of means|||||0.05|-0.67|0.0944
95729308|NCT02146430|191429054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||Difference of means|||||0.09|-0.64|0.1391
95916997|NCT01302938|191792422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|1.67||||||Change at Week 1: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95 percent (%) confidence intervals (CI).||1.67|-0.67|
95916998|NCT01302938|191792422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.83||||||Change at Week 4: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.83|-1.00|
95916999|NCT01302938|191792422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.0||||||Change at Week 12: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||1.00|-3.00|
95917000|NCT01302938|191792423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.8|-1.3|
95917001|NCT01302938|191792423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.9||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.9|-2.2|
95692165|NCT00755846|191354785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.627||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.627
95692166|NCT00755846|191354785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.418||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.418
95692167|NCT00755846|191354786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.617||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.617
95692168|NCT00755846|191354786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.052||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.052
95692169|NCT00755846|191354786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.906||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.906
95692170|NCT00755846|191354786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.628||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.628
95692171|NCT00755846|191354786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.749||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.749
95728583|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95917002|NCT01302938|191792426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||||||Change at Week 1: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||1.9|-0.8|
95917003|NCT01302938|191792426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.8||||||Change at Week 4: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.8|-3.7|
95692172|NCT00755846|191354786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.34||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline HDL cholesterol as covariates.|Positive mean treatment difference indicates larger increase from baseline (more positive change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in HDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.340
95692173|NCT00755846|191354787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.269||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.269
95729309|NCT02146430|191429054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.7338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.3|||Difference of means|||||0.30|-0.43|0.7338
95729310|NCT02146430|191429054|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.34|||Difference of means|||||0.34|-0.40|0.8705
95692174|NCT00755846|191354787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.46||0.076||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.076
95692175|NCT00755846|191354787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.867||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.867
95692176|NCT00755846|191354787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.169||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.169
95692177|NCT00755846|191354787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.45||0.645||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.645
95692178|NCT00755846|191354787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.351||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.351
95692179|NCT00755846|191354788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.003||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.003
95692180|NCT00755846|191354788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.06|<|0.001||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||<0.001
95729311|NCT02146430|191429056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.52|-0.28|||Difference of means|||||-0.28|-6.52|0.0326
95917004|NCT01302938|191792426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.4||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||0.4|-6.3|
95917005|NCT01302938|191792429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|13.2||||||Change at Week 12: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||13.2|-33.2|
95917006|NCT01302938|191792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|30.3||||||Change at Week 12; Coping Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||30.3|-6.9|
95917007|NCT01302938|191792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.7|32.7||||||Change at Week 12; Concern Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||32.7|-16.7|
95917008|NCT01302938|191792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|33.8||||||Change at Week 12; Sleep Subscale: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||33.8|-13.3|
95917009|NCT01302938|191792430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|29.0||||||Change at Week 12; Total HRQL Score: Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA with term for treatment with baseline value as a covariate.||29.0|-11.0|
95917010|NCT01302938|191792431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|20.0||||||Change at Week 12; Social Subscale: Non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann's method was used to obtain median difference and 95% CI.||20.00|-20.00|
95692181|NCT00755846|191354788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.103||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.103
95692182|NCT00755846|191354788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.009||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.009
95729312|NCT02146430|191429056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.592||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|1.84|||Difference of means|||||1.84|-4.40|0.4220
95729313|NCT02146430|191429056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.615||0.9659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.23|||Difference of means|||||3.23|-3.10|0.9659
95729314|NCT02146430|191429056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.608||0.1867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|5.28|||Difference of means|||||5.28|-1.03|0.1867
95692183|NCT00755846|191354788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14||0.034||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.034
95692184|NCT00755846|191354788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.16||0.033||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline LDL cholesterol as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in LDL cholesterol. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.033
95692185|NCT00755846|191354789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17||0.897||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.897
95692186|NCT00755846|191354789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.85||0.557||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.557
95692187|NCT00755846|191354789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.85||0.616||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.616
95692188|NCT00755846|191354789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.73||0.679||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.679
95692189|NCT00755846|191354789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.94||0.697||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.697
95692190|NCT00755846|191354789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.03||0.672||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.672
95692191|NCT00755846|191354790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.37||0.809||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect will be evaluated as a contrast of all doses of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.809
95692192|NCT00755846|191354790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.74||0.597||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.597
95692193|NCT00755846|191354790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.77||0.982||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.982
95917011|NCT00524030|191792459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||Null hypothesis (H0): Exit rate greater than or equal to (≥)74%||||<0.001
95917012|NCT00524030|191792459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald Test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exite rate ≥68%||||<0.001
95917013|NCT00524030|191792460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥74%||||<0.001
95917014|NCT00524030|191792460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wald test|2-sided 95% adjusted confidence interval constructed using KM product limit estimation and Greenwood's formula for variance with continuity correction||H0: Exit rate ≥68%||||0.001
95728584|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95917015|NCT03315130|191792467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0941|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.5|-0.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.1|-4.5|=0.0941
95917016|NCT03315130|191792467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|=|0.0538|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.1|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-5.1|=0.0538
95917017|NCT03315130|191792468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.047|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.9|-0.5||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.5|-3.9|=0.0470
95917018|NCT03315130|191792468|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.0|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-4.0|=0.0392
95692194|NCT00755846|191354790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.62||0.358||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.358
95692195|NCT00755846|191354790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.274||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.274
95917019|NCT03315130|191792469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.017|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-8.4|-2.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-2.1|-8.4|=0.0170
95917020|NCT03315130|191792469|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|=|0.0624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.9|-0.6||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-0.6|-6.9|=0.0624
95917021|NCT03315130|191792470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.1866|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.9|0.9||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||0.9|-4.9|=0.1866
95917022|NCT03315130|191792470|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|=|0.0391|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.0|-1.1||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-1.1|-7.0|=0.0391
95917023|NCT03315130|191792474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-82.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.563|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-87.249|-77.946||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-77.946|-87.249|<0.0001
95917024|NCT03315130|191792474|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-95.689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-100.794|-90.585||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||-90.585|-100.794|<0.0001
95917025|NCT03315130|191792475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|60.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|47.839|72.408||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||72.408|47.839|<0.0001
95917026|NCT03315130|191792475|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|57.076|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.269|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|44.955|69.197||1-sided p-value is presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|ANCOVA||LS mean difference and associated confidence interval are presented for each active treatment arm compared to the Placebo treatment arm.|||69.197|44.955|<0.0001
95917027|NCT05473000|191792509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.092
95917028|NCT01242176|191792510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.1|105.37|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.37|98.10|
95917029|NCT01242176|191792511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|99.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.18|109.68|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||109.68|90.18|
95917030|NCT01242176|191792512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability|Geometric Mean Ratio|101.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.26|105.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the gCV.|Ratio calculated as empa final formulation divided by empa trial formulation 2||105.48|98.26|
95917031|NCT01017120|191792513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for ILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917032|NCT01017120|191792513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for NILs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917033|NCT01017120|191792513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value indicates treatment differences between tazarotene foam and vehicle foam for TLs|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917034|NCT01017120|191792514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|32.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|36.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||36.9|27.4|<0.001
95917035|NCT01017120|191792514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|22.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with a minimum 2 G improvement in the ISGA score from Baseline at Week 12.|||22.1|14.2|
95692196|NCT00755846|191354790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.06||0.554||95.0||||No multiplicity adjustments.|ANCOVA|Treatment and prior antidiabetic treatment as class effects and BMI, diabetes duration, and baseline triglycerides as covariates.|Negative mean treatment difference indicates larger decrease from baseline (more negative change from baseline) in the alogliptin arm compared to the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis that there is no difference between alogliptin and placebo arms in change from baseline in triglycerides. The treatment effect was evaluated as a contrast of each dose of alogliptin versus placebo and was evaluated inferentially with a 2-sided t-test at the 0.05 significance level.||||0.554
95692197|NCT02614287|191354792|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95692198|NCT02614287|191354796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Fisher Exact|||TE ADA Positive (TE ADA+)||||.215
95692199|NCT02614287|191354797|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.04|-1.76|0.60
95692200|NCT02614287|191354798|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.89|-0.72|.835
95692201|NCT02614287|191354799|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.467||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|2.197|||CPLRM|CPLRM: Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model||||2.197|0.979|.063
95692202|NCT02614287|191354800|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.04|-0.96|.937
95692203|NCT02614287|191354801|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.40|0.073
95692204|NCT02614287|191354802|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|6.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.47|-4.65|.747
95692205|NCT02614287|191354803|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score||5.03|-1.07|0.203
95692206|NCT02614287|191354803|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|4.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Restrictive Domain Score||4.98|-1.29|.247
95692207|NCT02614287|191354803|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Role Function-Preventive Domain Score||4.19|-1.67|0.399
95692208|NCT02614287|191354803|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Emotional Function Domain Score||6.64|-0.46|0.88
95692209|NCT00418834|191354806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-16.0|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-11.7|-16.0|<0.001
95692210|NCT00418834|191354807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|<|0.001||95.0|-7.4|-1.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.8|-7.4|<0.001
95692211|NCT00418834|191354808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32|||<|0.001||95.0|4.52|8.84|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||8.84|4.52|<0.001
95692212|NCT00418834|191354809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.001||95.0|1.4|2.5|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.50|1.40|<0.001
95692213|NCT00418834|191354810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48|||<|0.001||95.0|3.98|7.55|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg|||7.55|3.98|<0.001
95692214|NCT00418834|191354811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C, and AVD status|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva 10 mg + EZ versus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg|||2.31|1.32|<0.001
95692215|NCT00418834|191354812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|0.3|3.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||3.5|0.3|<0.001
95692216|NCT00418834|191354813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.5|4.8|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.8|1.5|<0.001
95692217|NCT00418834|191354814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-14.2|-10.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.3|-14.2|<0.001
95692218|NCT00418834|191354815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-1.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-1.7|-6.8|<0.001
95692219|NCT00418834|191354816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001||95.0|-9.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-6.5|-9.4|<0.001
95692220|NCT00418834|191354817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-3.8|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total Cholesterol, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.2|-3.8|<0.001
95729315|NCT02146430|191429056|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.631||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.67|||Difference of means|||||6.67|0.27|0.0333
95692221|NCT00418834|191354818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-3.4|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||-3.4|-9.0|<0.001
95692222|NCT00418834|191354819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.2|1.0|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment, baseline TG value (normalized scores), and AVD status|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates~of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic"|||1.0|-5.2|<0.001
95692223|NCT00418834|191354820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-11.0|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-11.0|<0.001
95692224|NCT00418834|191354821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-5.5|-0.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-0.9|-5.5|<0.001
95692225|NCT00418834|191354822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.401||95.0|-0.9|2.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||2.1|-0.9|0.401
95692226|NCT00418834|191354823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.001||95.0|1.1|4.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||4.2|1.1|<0.001
95692227|NCT00418834|191354824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.001||95.0|-10.7|-7.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.3|-10.7|<0.001
95692228|NCT00418834|191354825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001||95.0|-6.8|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Total-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.4|-6.8|<0.001
95692229|NCT00418834|191354826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.0|-12.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-12.2|-17.0|<0.001
95692230|NCT00418834|191354827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7|<|0.001||95.0|-10.1|-3.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline LDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.7|-10.1|<0.001
95692231|NCT00418834|191354828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.001||95.0|-11.6|-7.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-7.5|-11.6|<0.001
95692232|NCT00418834|191354829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-7.7|-2.9|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline Apo B:Apo A-I, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
95692233|NCT00418834|191354830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.001||95.0|-15.3|-10.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)|||-10.5|-15.3|<0.001
95692234|NCT00418834|191354831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|<|0.001||95.0|-9.8|-3.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and AVD status|(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)|||-3.6|-9.8|<0.001
95692235|NCT00418834|191354832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.8||||0.534||95.0|-11.9|6.4|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||6.4|-11.9|0.534
95692236|NCT00418834|191354833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0||||0.09||95.0|-15.6|1.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, AVD status, and the interaction of time by treatment|"(Atorva 10 mg + EZ minus Atorva 20 mg / Atorva 40 mg)~Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means."|||1.6|-15.6|0.090
95692237|NCT01953328|191354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-73.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.54|-69.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.41|-78.54|<0.001
95692238|NCT01953328|191354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.22|-68.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.57|-77.22|<0.001
95692239|NCT01953328|191354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.21|-67.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-67.61|-81.21|<0.001
95692240|NCT01953328|191354834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.93|-69.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at the mean of Weeks 10 and 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.60|-78.93|<0.001
95692241|NCT01953328|191354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.22|-69.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-69.47|-80.22|<0.001
95692242|NCT01953328|191354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.6|-65.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.23|-74.60|<0.001
95692243|NCT01953328|191354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.55|-68.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-68.15|-83.55|<0.001
95692244|NCT01953328|191354835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.88|-60.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.87|-72.88|<0.001
95692245|NCT01953328|191354836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.4|-80.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.2|-98.4|<0.001
95692246|NCT01953328|191354836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.1|-77.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-77.5|-95.1|<0.001
95692247|NCT01953328|191354836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-62.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.1|-75.3|<0.001
95692248|NCT01953328|191354836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-72.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.5|-64.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.6|-79.5|<0.001
95692249|NCT01953328|191354837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-90.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.9|-80.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-80.7|-100.9|<0.001
95692250|NCT01953328|191354837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.5|-74.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-74.8|-92.5|<0.001
95692251|NCT01953328|191354837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.5|-62.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.6|-76.5|<0.001
95692252|NCT01953328|191354837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.8|-57.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-57.1|-73.8|<0.001
95692253|NCT01953328|191354838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.06|-64.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-64.27|-73.06|<0.001
95692254|NCT01953328|191354838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.74|-62.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.16|-69.74|<0.001
95692255|NCT01953328|191354838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.3|-62.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.99|-73.30|<0.001
95729316|NCT02146430|191429058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.9|0.2474
95729317|NCT02146430|191429058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|0.3347
95917036|NCT01017120|191792515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|27.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|32.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving tazarotene foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||32.2|23.1|<0.001
95917037|NCT01017120|191792515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|16.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants receiving vehicle foam with an ISGA score of 0 or 1 at Week 12.|||16.7|9.8|
95917038|NCT00806624|191792535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|9.4||||||||9.4|-16.2|
95917039|NCT00806624|191792535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|4.5||||||||4.5|-22.4|
95917040|NCT00806624|191792535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentage|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|8.2||||||||8.2|-19.3|
95917041|NCT01928225|191792590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.6||\<0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Chi-squared|||||1.6|.87|.29
95917042|NCT01928225|191792591|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.95|||Chi-squared|||||1.95|.85|.22
95917043|NCT04250337|191792607|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.5|5.1|0.011
95917044|NCT04250337|191792608|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|40.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||40.8|12.1|<.001
95917045|NCT04250337|191792609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.9||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|31.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||31.7|6.1|0.008
95917046|NCT04250337|191792610|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.373||0.017263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.7|-2.7|||ANCOVA|||||-2.7|-27.7|0.017263
95917047|NCT04250337|191792611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|34.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.1|4.3|0.017
95917048|NCT04250337|191792612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|36.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||36.1|7.1|0.007
95917049|NCT04250337|191792613|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.074||3e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-13.7|||ANCOVA|||||-13.7|-33.6|0.000003
95917050|NCT04250337|191792614|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.428|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.07|-7.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.49|-17.07|<0.001
95917051|NCT04250337|191792615|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.8|-4.9|0.454
95917052|NCT04250337|191792616|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-20.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.81||0.117607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.4|5.1|||ANCOVA|||||5.1|-45.4|0.117607
95917053|NCT04250337|191792617|SUPERIORITY||Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.134||0.025293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||-0.0|-0.6|0.025293
95917054|NCT04250337|191792618|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|14.2||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|24.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.7|3.8|0.022
95917055|NCT04250337|191792619|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.7|-7.3|0.764
95917056|NCT04250337|191792620|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.9||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.7|-2.9|0.498
95917057|NCT04250337|191792621|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|15.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|5.3|0.014
95917058|NCT04250337|191792622|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1||||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|10.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-8.0|0.818
95917059|NCT04250337|191792623|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.0||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.1|-3.1|0.499
95917060|NCT04250337|191792624|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.104||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|17.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.36|-2.78|0.155
95917061|NCT04250337|191792626|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.403|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.37|-9.01|||ANCOVA|||||-9.01|-26.37|<0.001
95917062|NCT04250337|191792627|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.014||0.001031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-5.3|0.001031
95917063|NCT04250337|191792628|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.2||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|34.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||34.3|0.1|0.036
95917064|NCT04250337|191792629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index UK||0.16|0.06|<0.001
95917065|NCT04250337|191792629|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Health State Index US||0.11|0.04|<0.001
95917066|NCT04250337|191792630|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.386||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|8.32|||ANCOVA|||||8.32|-1.08|0.131
95917067|NCT04250337|191792631|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|-1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.74|-6.26|<0.001
95692256|NCT01953328|191354838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.14|-63.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.42|-71.14|<0.001
95692257|NCT01953328|191354839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.96|-63.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.89|-73.96|<0.001
95692258|NCT01953328|191354839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.96|-59.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.21|-67.96|<0.001
95692259|NCT01953328|191354839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-62.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.86|-74.79|<0.001
95692260|NCT01953328|191354839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-55.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.99|-65.78|<0.001
95692261|NCT01953328|191354840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-60.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.39|-68.49|<0.001
95692262|NCT01953328|191354840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.3|-55.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.17|-63.30|<0.001
95692263|NCT01953328|191354840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.87|-55.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.25|-64.87|<0.001
95692264|NCT01953328|191354840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.15|-59.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.62|-67.15|<0.001
95692265|NCT01953328|191354841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.34|-60.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-60.79|-70.34|<0.001
95729318|NCT02146430|191429058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.3|0.3999
95692266|NCT01953328|191354841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.05|-52.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-52.40|-62.05|<0.001
95692267|NCT01953328|191354841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.91|-54.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-54.83|-65.91|<0.001
95692268|NCT01953328|191354841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.92|-51.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-51.39|-60.92|<0.001
95692269|NCT01953328|191354842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.35|-41.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.73|-49.35|<0.001
95692270|NCT01953328|191354842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.78|-40.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.08|-46.78|<0.001
95692271|NCT01953328|191354842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.88|-37.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.08|-44.88|<0.001
95692272|NCT01953328|191354842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.48|-39.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.80|-46.48|<0.001
95692273|NCT01953328|191354843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.83|-41.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.05|-49.83|<0.001
95692274|NCT01953328|191354843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.84|-37.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.85|-44.84|<0.001
95729319|NCT02146430|191429058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.8435
95692275|NCT01953328|191354843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.35|-36.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-36.57|-45.35|<0.001
95692276|NCT01953328|191354843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.26|-34.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.62|-42.26|<0.001
95729320|NCT02146430|191429058|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.1|0.0|0.0446
95692277|NCT01953328|191354844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.37|-50.17||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-50.17|-59.37|<0.001
95692278|NCT01953328|191354844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.95|-48.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-48.36|-56.95|<0.001
95692279|NCT01953328|191354844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.72|-46.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.93|-54.72|<0.001
95692280|NCT01953328|191354844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.74|-45.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-45.64|-53.74|<0.001
95692281|NCT01953328|191354845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.93|-49.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-49.98|-60.93|<0.001
95692282|NCT01953328|191354845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.91|-46.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.00|-55.91|<0.001
95692283|NCT01953328|191354845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.93|-46.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-46.80|-55.93|<0.001
95692284|NCT01953328|191354845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.08|-40.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-40.81|-50.08|<0.001
95692285|NCT01953328|191354846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.58|-62.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-62.36|-70.58|<0.001
95692286|NCT01953328|191354846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.01|-59.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.66|-69.01|<0.001
95692287|NCT01953328|191354846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-59.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-59.20|-68.90|<0.001
95692288|NCT01953328|191354846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-67.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.36|-63.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.15|-71.36|<0.001
95692289|NCT01953328|191354847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75|-63.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-63.84|-72.75|<0.001
95692290|NCT01953328|191354847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.11|-56.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-56.94|-68.11|<0.001
95692291|NCT01953328|191354847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-63.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.44|-58.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-58.50|-69.44|<0.001
95692292|NCT01953328|191354847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.51|-55.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-55.72|-65.51|<0.001
95692293|NCT01953328|191354848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.8|<0.001
95692294|NCT01953328|191354848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|96.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.1|98.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||98.9|84.1|<0.001
95692295|NCT01953328|191354848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.1|83.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||83.4|57.1|<0.001
95692296|NCT01953328|191354848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||90.0|67.5|<0.001
95692297|NCT01953328|191354849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|98.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.7|99.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||99.6|86.7|<0.001
95692298|NCT01953328|191354849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|91.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|96.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||96.0|78.2|<0.001
95692299|NCT01953328|191354849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|75.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|85.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||85.0|59.3|<0.001
95692300|NCT01953328|191354849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|78.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.6|86.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (HeFH diagnosis and lipid-lowering therapy).||||86.9|62.6|<0.001
95692301|NCT01953328|191354850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|-38.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-38.52|-63.88|<0.001
95692302|NCT01953328|191354850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.89|-39.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.27|-58.89|<0.001
95692303|NCT01953328|191354850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.74|-39.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-39.35|-59.74|<0.001
95692304|NCT01953328|191354850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.75|-34.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.12|-53.75|<0.001
95692305|NCT01953328|191354851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-34.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-34.90|-65.25|<0.001
95692306|NCT01953328|191354851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.49|-37.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-37.05|-60.49|<0.001
95692307|NCT01953328|191354851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.06|-41.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-41.30|-64.06|<0.001
95692308|NCT01953328|191354851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.46|-29.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-29.48|-50.46|<0.001
95692309|NCT01953328|191354852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.27|-14.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.59|-41.27|<0.001
95729321|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.9775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.5|-0.5|0.9775
95692310|NCT01953328|191354852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.54|-11.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.35|-32.54|<0.001
95692311|NCT01953328|191354852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.59|-10.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-10.43|-29.59|<0.001
95692312|NCT01953328|191354852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.18|-7.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-7.26|-34.18|0.010
95692313|NCT01953328|191354853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.33|-8.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.81|-46.33|<0.001
95692314|NCT01953328|191354853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.68|-8.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.25|-31.68|<0.001
95692315|NCT01953328|191354853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.15|-6.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-6.19|-28.15|<0.001
95692316|NCT01953328|191354853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.24||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.29|-2.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-2.56|-31.29|0.010
95692317|NCT01953328|191354854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|12.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|17.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||17.27|7.39|<0.001
95692318|NCT01953328|191354854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|14.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|19.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.30|9.93|<0.001
95692319|NCT01953328|191354854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.12|20.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.60|10.12|<0.001
95729322|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6500
95729323|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6546
95729324|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.6|0.6692
95729325|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.6|0.6737
95729326|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.3|-0.8|0.3888
95692320|NCT01953328|191354854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|13.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||13.62|4.67|0.001
95692321|NCT01953328|191354855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|13.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||19.53|7.40|<0.001
95692322|NCT01953328|191354855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.87|20.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||20.52|9.87|<0.001
95692323|NCT01953328|191354855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|16.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.74|22.95||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||22.95|10.74|<0.001
95692324|NCT01953328|191354855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.85|15.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||15.55|4.85|0.001
95692325|NCT01953328|191354856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.37|-16.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-16.34|-39.37|<0.001
95692326|NCT01953328|191354856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.91|-12.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-12.39|-32.91|<0.001
95692327|NCT01953328|191354856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-8.77|-27.40|0.001
95692328|NCT01953328|191354856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.31|-15.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-15.01|-39.31|<0.001
95692329|NCT01953328|191354857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.48|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-14.36|-42.48|<0.001
95692330|NCT01953328|191354857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.29|-9.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-9.33|-32.29|<0.001
95692331|NCT01953328|191354857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.37||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|-4.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-4.39|-25.72|0.001
95692332|NCT01953328|191354857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-24.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.7|-11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model includes treatment group, stratification factor, scheduled visit, and the interaction of treatment group with scheduled visit.|Placebo is the reference|||-11.99|-36.70|<0.001
95729327|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.5|0.9200
95917068|NCT04250337|191792632|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.407||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|1.98|||ANCOVA|||||1.98|-3.58|0.571
95917069|NCT04250337|191792633|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.127||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.06|||ANCOVA|||||2.06|-2.40|0.882
95917070|NCT04250337|191792634|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|8.48|||ANCOVA|||||8.48|-1.56|0.171
95917071|NCT04250337|191792635|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|9.89|||ANCOVA|||||9.89|-1.03|0.109
95917072|NCT04250337|191792636|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.22|0.922
95917073|NCT04250337|191792637|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.271||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.22|0.001
95917074|NCT00574990|191792645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||chi square|12.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between roles and communication event content were assessed by Chi squared|Chi-squared|||Descriptive counts and chi squared were done on the observation data.||||0.01
95917075|NCT00569803|191792649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.08|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.08|0.68|
95917076|NCT00569803|191792649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
95917077|NCT00569803|191792649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|0.99|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.99|0.62|
95917078|NCT00569803|191792649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.13|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.13|0.71|
95917079|NCT00569803|191792649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.11|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.11|0.69|
95917080|NCT00569803|191792649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
95917081|NCT00569803|191792650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.1|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 50mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.10|0.69|
95917082|NCT00569803|191792650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.48|0.77|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 100mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.77|0.48|
95917083|NCT00569803|191792650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.0|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 125mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.00|0.62|
95917084|NCT00569803|191792650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.14|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 150mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.14|0.71|
95917085|NCT00569803|191792650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.12|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 200mg SC over 125mg IV|||1.12|0.69|
95917086|NCT00569803|191792650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|0.92|||||Ratio of Geometric Means: 250mg SC over 125mg IV|||0.92|0.57|
95917087|NCT00569803|191792656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(0-T) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
95917088|NCT00569803|191792656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.07|||||AUC(INF) Ratio of Geometric Means: 1 injection site over 2 injection sites|||1.07|0.75|
95917089|NCT02951351|191792682|NON_INFERIORITY|By non-inferiority analysis, proparacaine was inferior to povidone iodine with a 5% margin for non-inferiority. To detect non-inferiority with one positive culture in the proparacaine group, 45 patients would be required in the proparacaine group with a 5% margin.||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.28
95917090|NCT02951351|191792683|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95917091|NCT02951351|191792684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.86
95917092|NCT02951351|191792685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95917093|NCT02951351|191792686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.76
95917094|NCT02951351|191792687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.31
95917095|NCT02951351|191792688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.18
95917096|NCT02951351|191792689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.67
95692333|NCT05138783|191354875|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in distance VA was declared if upper confidence limit was less than 0.05.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004|||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0||Since a noninferiority hypothesis is being tested, a p-value is not applicable. Confidence limit is being reported and compared to the noninferiority margin.|||LSM results based on mixed effects repeated measures model with both fixed (lens, period, and sequence) and random (subject) effects. Difference = PRECISION1 minus BIOTRUE. Sign (either negative or positive) is retained with the rounded value.|||0.00||
95692334|NCT05113953|191354876|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.42||||0.1893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.21||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.21|-1.06|0.1893
95692335|NCT05113953|191354876|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.8502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.57||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline in binge eating days per week at scheduled visit as dependent variable and included fixed effect terms for treatment, trial center, visit week, interaction term of treatment by visit week.|MMRM|||||0.57|-0.69|0.8502
95692336|NCT05113953|191354877|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.54||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.05||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||-0.05|-1.02|0.0313
95692337|NCT05113953|191354877|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.19||||0.4471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.67||P-value was analysed by MMRM method with change from baseline value as dependent variable and included treatment, trial center, visit week, treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and baseline-by-week interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||Change from baseline at Week 8||0.67|-0.30|0.4471
95692338|NCT01520324|191354903|OTHER|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.||||||||||||||||The number of detected neoplasiae for each patient was listed and summarised by descriptive statistics. Number and percentage of patients with intraepithelial neoplasiae was presented|The data documented in this trial and the parameters measured were described using classic statistics, i.e. mean, SD, CV(%), median, minimum and maximum values for quantitative variables and frequencies for qualitative variables.|||
95692339|NCT00502307|191354939|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|24.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|30.2||||||||30.2|19.6|
95692340|NCT00502307|191354939|OTHER||Exact binomial distribution|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|23.1||||||||23.1|13.6|
95692341|NCT00502307|191354940|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95692342|NCT00502307|191354940|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.001
95692343|NCT00502307|191354941|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.005
95692344|NCT00502307|191354941|OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.129
95692345|NCT00502307|191354942|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.003
95692346|NCT00502307|191354942|OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.089
95692347|NCT00495495|191354948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.1126|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||"Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the HealOzone and Placebo devices in the proportion of teeth with lesion progression after 1 year.~Power calculation: the study was sized to have 90% power to detect a 15% difference between treatments in the percentage of teeth with lesion progression at one year (i.e., assuming 45% for the lesions treated with the Placebo device and 30% for the lesions treated with the HealOzone device) with a sample size of 258 subjects completing the study."||||0.1126
95692348|NCT00495495|191354949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.9777|ONE_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||.9777
95692349|NCT00495495|191354950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0416|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.0416
95692350|NCT00495495|191354951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.6585|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||0.6585
95692351|NCT00495495|191354952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.02||||0.7666|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||McNemar|||||||.7666
95692352|NCT01156597|191354953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|The percent change of HDL and triglycerides from baseline between groups was evaluated by ANOVA using baseline, 12 week and 24 week values||||||0.05
95692353|NCT04467164|191354993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.03
95692354|NCT04467164|191354993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.022
95692355|NCT04467164|191354993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in change of brain activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (fMRI BOLD signal) between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. An ANCOVA model was used with average beta weights in response to stress task at baseline as a covariate. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.027
95692356|NCT04467164|191354994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the change in BDI scale score between exhalatory-gated tVNS and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A repeated measures ANOVA controlled by baseline values was used to test this difference. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive difference indicates an increase in depressive symptomatology, whereas a negative difference indicates a reduction in depressive symptoms.||||0.03
95692357|NCT04467164|191354995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||The null hypothesis is that there were no differences in percent HFn changes post-pre stimulation between exhalatory-gated and inhalatory-gated tVNS. A General Linear Model (GLM) analysis adjusted by baseline values was used for evaluating differences in this measure between treatment groups. A p\<0.05 was designated for statistical significance. A positive percent change value indicates an increase in cardiovagal activity, whereas a negative change indicates a reduction in cardiovagal activity.||||0.01
95692358|NCT02658994|191355002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.33|
95692359|NCT02658994|191355003|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.19||||||||1.19|-1.39|
95692360|NCT02658994|191355004|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.33|
95692361|NCT02658994|191355005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.96||||||Child Bayley scaled receptive score||0.96|-0.19|
95692362|NCT02658994|191355005|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.9||||||Child Bayley scaled fine motor score||0.90|-0.83|
95692363|NCT02658994|191355006|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.05||||||||1.05|0.43|
95692364|NCT02658994|191355007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.15||||||Length-for-age z-scores||0.15|-0.32|
95692365|NCT02658994|191355007|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.1||||||Weight-for-age z-scores||0.10|-0.33|
95692366|NCT03463941|191355008|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
95692367|NCT03463941|191355009|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
95692368|NCT03463941|191355011|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95692369|NCT03463941|191355012|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95692370|NCT03463941|191355013|OTHER||||||||||||||||||descriptive|||
95692371|NCT03463941|191355014|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95692372|NCT02273050|191355039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.885|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.689|||ANCOVA|||||-0.689|-1.080|<0.001
95692373|NCT02273050|191355039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.410|0.034
95692374|NCT02273050|191355040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.0|46.0|||Fisher Exact|||||46.0|29.0|<0.001
95692375|NCT02273050|191355040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|18.9|||Fisher Exact|||||18.9|2.6|0.011
95692376|NCT02273050|191355041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.158|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-1.70|<0.001
95692377|NCT02273050|191355041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.63|0.046
95692378|NCT02273050|191355042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-416.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|51.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-517.3|-314.6|||ANCOVA|||||-314.6|-517.3|<0.001
95692379|NCT02273050|191355042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-169.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|52.05||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.7|-66.9|||ANCOVA|||||-66.9|-271.7|0.001
95692380|NCT02273050|191355043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|43.9|||Fisher Exact|||||43.9|26.0|<0.001
95692381|NCT02273050|191355043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|20.9|||Fisher Exact|||||20.9|2.3|0.020
95692382|NCT02273050|191355044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-2.25|||ANCOVA|||||-2.25|-3.70|<0.001
95692383|NCT02273050|191355044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.374||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-1.88|0.002
95692384|NCT02273050|191355045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|-4.5|||Fisher Exact|||||-4.5|-13.3|<0.001
95692385|NCT02273050|191355045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.3|||Fisher Exact|||||2.3|-2.3|>0.999
95692386|NCT00262080|191355046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037||95.0||||no adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||The primary efficacy analysis compared the TOS at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.037
95692387|NCT00262080|191355047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.|||The analysis compared the change from baseline in MSCS score at 4 hours post-dosing for patients treated with ecallantide and placebo. Treatment effect was assessed by the non-parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum test because of an assumed non-normal distribution.||||0.044
95692388|NCT00262080|191355051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0||||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Treatment effect will be deemed statistically significant if the coefficient for the treatment group within the statistical model is significant at level 0.05.|Log Rank|||The Log-Rank test was used to compare the time distribution between the two treatment groups.||||0.055
95692389|NCT01111539|191355065|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-1.0|||=|0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|3.3|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses was performed by fitting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model included baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||3.3|-5.2|=0.644
95692390|NCT01111539|191355065|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.7|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||The statistical analyses will be performed by fitting an ANCOVA model to the change from baseline data (Week 8 Visit) for the MADRS Total Score at the Week 14 visit (LOCF). The model will include baseline MADRS Total Score as a covariate and treatment as the main effect.||0.4|-7.8|=0.080
95692391|NCT01111539|191355066|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.3|||=|0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.366
95692392|NCT01111539|191355066|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.4|||=|0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.138
95692393|NCT01111539|191355067|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||=|0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.2|=0.995
95692394|NCT01111539|191355067|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-0.9|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.1|=0.118
95692395|NCT02808312|191355068|OTHER|Two-sided 90% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were calculated for the ratios of geometric least-squares means (GLSMs) of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7869|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2885|2.4781||||||An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||2.4781|1.2885|
95692396|NCT02808312|191355068|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4868|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6735|3.6954||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||3.6954|1.6735|
95692397|NCT02808312|191355068|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.324|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3675|9.1569||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUClast) for each cohort.||9.1569|4.3675|
95692398|NCT02808312|191355069|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7628|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.275|2.4374||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||2.4374|1.2750|
95692399|NCT02808312|191355069|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.4559|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6531|3.6486||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||3.6486|1.6531|
95729328|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.4|0.7061
95917097|NCT01965158|191792697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|21.3||To control the overall type I error rate to be ≤ 0.05 for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints, a fixed-sequence (hierarchical) testing approach was applied.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted by the opioid dose strata.||||21.3|4.8|0.0020
95729329|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.3|0.3337
95917098|NCT01965158|191792698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.83|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.83|0.77|<0.0001
95692400|NCT02808312|191355069|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|6.2497|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.2965|9.091||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (AUCinf) for each cohort.||9.0910|4.2965|
95692401|NCT02808312|191355070|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.5703|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0723|2.2995||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.2995|1.0723|
95692402|NCT02808312|191355070|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.7343|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2193|2.4667||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||2.4667|1.2193|
95692403|NCT02808312|191355070|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PK parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|2.5369|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7562|3.6648||||||An ANOVA model with hepatic function group as a fixed effect was fitted to the natural logarithmic transformation of PK parameters (Cmax) for each cohort.||3.6648|1.7562|
95692404|NCT02808312|191355081|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8722|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6827|1.1144||||||||1.1144|0.6827|
95692405|NCT02808312|191355081|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0731|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8295|1.3883||||||||1.3883|0.8295|
95692406|NCT02808312|191355081|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1475|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8783|1.4992||||||||1.4992|0.8783|
95692407|NCT02808312|191355082|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5837|1.1486||||||||1.1486|0.5837|
95692408|NCT02808312|191355082|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.1323|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8772|1.4615||||||||1.4615|0.8772|
95692409|NCT02808312|191355082|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3563|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0468|1.7574||||||||1.7574|1.0468|
95692410|NCT02808312|191355083|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0658|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8275|1.3726||||||||1.3726|0.8275|
95692411|NCT02808312|191355083|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.2942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.7334||||||||1.7334|0.9663|
95917099|NCT01965158|191792699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.63|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||2.63|1.60|<0.0001
95917100|NCT01965158|191792700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.48|0.54|<0.0001
95692412|NCT02808312|191355083|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.8225|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5479|1.2347||||||||1.2347|0.5479|
95692413|NCT02808312|191355084|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between mild hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.0806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.791|1.4762||||||||1.4762|0.7910|
95692414|NCT02808312|191355084|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between moderate hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|1.3729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9663|1.9506||||||||1.9506|0.9663|
95692415|NCT02808312|191355084|OTHER|Two-sided 90% CIs were calculated for the ratios of GLSMs of PD parameters between severe hepatic impairment group and the control (normal hepatic function) group.|GLSM ratio|0.903|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6142|1.3275||||||||1.3275|0.6142|
95692416|NCT02420223|191355085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.017
95692417|NCT02420223|191355085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.337
95692418|NCT02420223|191355088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95692419|NCT02420223|191355089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95692420|NCT02420223|191355090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Likelihood ration Chi-Square test|||||||0.06
95692421|NCT00769704|191355092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|14.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|19.0|||Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the durable response rate between the talimogene laherparepvec and control arms. Study success was defined as the rejection of this hypothesis such that talimogene laherparepvec was found to be superior to GM-CSF using the 2-sided Fisher's exact test, with a p-value of ≤ 0.0488.||19.0|9.3|<0.0001
95729330|NCT02146430|191429059|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.2139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Depression: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.9|-0.2|0.2139
95917101|NCT01965158|191792701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model has the terms for treatment group as a fixed effect and the opioid dose strata as a covariate.||||1.12|0.34|0.0003
95917102|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.596|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|10.75|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||10.75|-12.68|
95917103|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.215|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|4.72|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.72|-12.92|
95692422|NCT00769704|191355093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.0|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower average death rate and a longer overall survival for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|The primary method for analysis of overall survival was an unadjusted log-rank test. Testing of overall survival was conditional on a statistically significance difference in the primary endpoint of durable response. Success was defined as a p-value ≤ 0.05.||1.00|0.62|0.0511
95692423|NCT00769704|191355094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|27.1||Descriptive|Fisher Exact|||||27.1|14.4|<0.0001
95692424|NCT00769704|191355095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.18||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average duration of response for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.18|0.14|0.0868
95692425|NCT00769704|191355096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \> 1.0 indicates a a higher average response onset rate for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||1.30|0.30|0.2020
95692426|NCT00769704|191355097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.54||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer average time to treatment failure for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.54|0.32|<0.0001
95692427|NCT00769704|191355098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.73||Descriptive|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was obtained from the unadjusted Cox Proportional Hazard Model. A hazard ratio \< 1.0 indicates a longer response interval for talimogene laherparepvec relative to GM-CSF.|||0.73|0.13|0.0050
95692428|NCT00850759|191355113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.04|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95692429|NCT02913222|191355114|OTHER|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was set at p = 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||A priori criteria for success was that we would achieve 90% adherence to attending treatment sessions. Fisher's exact test compared patient adherence to treatment session rates by site and by group.||||1.0
95692430|NCT02913222|191355115|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|2.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||2.11|-6.51|0.32
95692431|NCT02913222|191355116|OTHER|The purpose of this study was to determine preliminary estimates of the effect of movement pattern training and standard rehabilitation on patient-reported function.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.55||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|1.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANCOVA|||We hypothesized MPT would demonstrate greater improvement in HOOS compared to Standard. Data collected at pretest and posttest were analyzed with ANCOVA where posttest was the dependent variable, pretest was the covariate, and treatment group was the independent variable which tests the null hypothesis that after adjusting for pretest, posttest is not significantly different across treatment groups.||1.99|-13.10|0.14
95692432|NCT01125176|191355156|OTHER|Exact Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence interval for overall response rate.|Proportion (percent)|85.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|100.0||||||||100.0|73.5|
95692433|NCT00418262|191355169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.3|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.30|-0.21|
95692434|NCT00418262|191355169|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.6|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.60|-0.42|
95692435|NCT00418262|191355170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.11|
95729331|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4933||0.1416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.733|5.126|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||5.126|-0.733|0.1416
95729332|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.249|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.492||0.8677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.679|3.176|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.176|-2.679|0.8677
95692436|NCT00418262|191355170|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.77|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.77|-0.23|
95692437|NCT00418262|191355171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
95692438|NCT00418262|191355171|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.36|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.36|-0.17|
95692439|NCT00418262|191355172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
95692440|NCT00418262|191355172|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.4|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.40|-0.16|
95729333|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4959||0.5481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.834|2.036|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||2.036|-3.834|0.5481
95729334|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.948|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4875||0.1906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.866|0.971|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.971|-4.866|0.1906
95917104|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.727|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|18.19|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||18.19|-5.78|
95917105|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.314|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|4.27|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.27|-13.79|
95917106|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|5.06|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.06|-3.89|
95917107|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|-1.65|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-1.65|-11.62|
95917108|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.68|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||5.68|-3.73|
95917109|NCT00453479|191792718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.504|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.05|-5.57|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-5.57|-16.05|
95917110|NCT00453479|191792719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.745|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.58|10.1|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||10.10|-5.58|
95917111|NCT00453479|191792719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.785|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|10.54|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||10.54|-5.30|
95917112|NCT00453479|191792719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.979|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.17|8.48|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||8.48|-8.17|
95917113|NCT00453479|191792719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.021|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.86|2.97|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.97|-13.86|
95917114|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.611|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.43|6.87|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||6.87|-12.43|
95917115|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.913|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|6.31|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||6.31|-10.07|
95917116|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.718|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.87|12.88|||||Comparison of SBP Day 1.|||12.88|-6.87|
95917117|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.005|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.88|4.89|||||Comparison of SBP Day 7.|||4.89|-11.88|
95917118|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.822|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|3.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||3.54|-4.09|
95917119|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.116|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|0.54|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||0.54|-8.32|
95917120|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.916|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|2.26|||||Comparison of DBP Day 1.|||2.26|-5.76|
95917121|NCT00453479|191792720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.224|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-4.73|||||Comparison of DBP Day 7.|||-4.73|-14.04|
95692441|NCT00418262|191355173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
95692442|NCT00418262|191355173|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.18|-0.36|
95692443|NCT00418262|191355174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
95692444|NCT00418262|191355174|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.20|
95692445|NCT00418262|191355175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.24|
95692446|NCT00418262|191355175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.49|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.49|-0.49|
95692447|NCT00418262|191355176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.26|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.26|-0.28|
95692448|NCT00418262|191355176|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.52|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.52|-0.56|
95729335|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4883||0.0378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.015|-0.175|||ANCOVA|||Physical Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.175|-6.015|0.0378
95917122|NCT00453479|191792721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|5.79|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||5.79|-5.52|
95917123|NCT00453479|191792721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.813|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|8.28|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||8.28|-3.50|
95917124|NCT00453479|191792721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.67|3.34|||||Comparison at Day 1.|||3.34|-8.67|
95917125|NCT00453479|191792721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.989|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|2.41|||||Comparison at Day 7.|||2.41|-10.10|
95917126|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|21.49|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||21.49|-12.66|
95917127|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.13|23.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||23.17|-5.13|
95917128|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|28.38|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||28.38|-7.24|
95917129|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|31.26|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||31.26|1.74|
95917130|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|20.78|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||20.78|-16.51|
95917131|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.298|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|23.38|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||23.38|1.20|
95917132|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|17.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.171|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|36.85|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||36.85|-1.53|
95917133|NCT00453479|191792723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.454|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.9|33.73|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||33.73|10.90|
95692449|NCT00418262|191355177|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.20|-0.32|
95692450|NCT00418262|191355177|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.39|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.39|-0.64|
95692451|NCT00418262|191355178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.24|-0.28|
95692452|NCT00418262|191355178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.47|-0.57|
95692453|NCT00418262|191355179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
95692454|NCT00418262|191355179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.32|-0.21|
95692455|NCT00418262|191355180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.13|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.13|-0.36|
95692456|NCT00418262|191355180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.27|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.27|-0.72|
95692457|NCT00418262|191355181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
95692458|NCT00418262|191355181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.35|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||0.35|-0.19|
95692459|NCT00418262|191355182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-7.04|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-7.04|-7.76|
95692460|NCT00418262|191355182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-1.9|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||-1.90|-3.03|
95729336|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.664|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6865||0.3337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|2.011|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||2.011|-0.683|0.3337
95917134|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.262|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|20.57|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||20.57|-1.46|
95917135|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.902|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|20.74|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||20.74|-3.97|
95729337|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.686||0.7778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.152|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||1.152|-1.540|0.7778
95917136|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|22.96|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 1.|||22.96|-0.02|
95917137|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|15.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.157|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|28.17|||||Comparison of QTcB Day 7.|||28.17|2.39|
95917138|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|18.0|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||18.00|-1.35|
95917139|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|19.72|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||19.72|-2.21|
95917140|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.759|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.87|26.79|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 1.|||26.79|6.87|
95729338|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6879||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.437|1.262|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.262|-1.437|0.8991
95692461|NCT00418262|191355183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 8. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
95692462|NCT00418262|191355183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.38|||||This is the (growth) model-estimated mean difference between visit 1 and visit 10. This estimate utilizes imputed values for missing observations.|"Tested single-group change over time from baseline (visit 1) to the study endpoint (visit 10). The null hypothesis stated that there was no change in PSE ratings over time. Bayesian growth curve models were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. Several linear and nonlinear trajectory models were compared on fit to data. Mean differences and confidence intervals were generated from the posterior-predictive distribution of the best fitting growth model."||1.38|-0.69|
95692463|NCT00829166|191355215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|0.771|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or greater than \[\>\] 1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.771|0.549|<0.0001
95917141|NCT00453479|191792724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.394|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.17|31.75|||||Comparison of QTcF Day 7.|||31.75|9.17|
95917142|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0921|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.328|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.328|-0.035|
95917143|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0944|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.357|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.357|-0.015|
95917144|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.228|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.228|-0.107|
95917145|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1195|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.386|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.386|-0.085|
95917146|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.343|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.343|-0.094|
95917147|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.404|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.404|-0.077|
95917148|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.236|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1057|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.444|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.444|0.027|
95917149|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1292|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.483|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.483|-0.026|
95917150|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.353|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.353|-0.163|
95917151|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.173|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.072|0.418|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.418|-0.072|
95917152|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1499|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.501|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.501|-0.090|
95917153|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.143|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.502|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.502|-0.062|
95917154|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.506|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.506|-0.093|
95917155|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|0.397|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.397|0.015|
95917156|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0994|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.525|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.525|0.133|
95917157|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0895|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.443|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.443|0.090|
95917158|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1258|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|0.568|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.568|0.072|
95917159|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1165|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.402|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.402|-0.058|
95917160|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.099|0.407|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.407|-0.099|
95917161|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1113|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|0.475|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, Baseline|||0.475|0.036|
95917162|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1361|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|0.564|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.564|0.027|
95917163|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.474|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.474|-0.069|
95692464|NCT00829166|191355217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.548|0.849|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.849|0.548|0.0006
95692465|NCT00829166|191355219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.749||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.639|0.877|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.877|0.639|0.0003
95692466|NCT00829166|191355223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.774|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.774|0.560|<0.0001
95692467|NCT00829166|191355224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Objective Response Rates|12.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|19.4|||Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test||The 95% CI for the difference in objective response rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the approximate normal method.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||19.4|6.0|0.0002
95692468|NCT00829166|191355226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.9|||||The 95% CI for the difference in clinical benefit rate (Trastuzumab emtansine minus Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was computed by using the normal approximation method.|||20.9|7.0|
95692469|NCT00829166|191355228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.82|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.820|0.602|<0.0001
95917164|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.465|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.465|-0.051|
95917165|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1579|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.591|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.591|-0.032|
95917166|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1506|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.49|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.490|-0.104|
95917167|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1601|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.495|||||Comparison of FEV1, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.495|-0.136|
95917168|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.537|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.537|-0.263|
95692470|NCT00829166|191355230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|0.951|||Log Rank||HR (relative to Lapatinib + Capecitabine) was estimated by Cox regression.|Analysis stratified by region of enrollment, number of prior chemotherapeutic regimens (0-1 or \>1), and visceral/ non-visceral disease.||0.951|0.667|0.0121
95692471|NCT01954121|191355235|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin for the adjusted difference in seizure free proportion in the LEV minus the seizure free proportion in the CBZ-IR group was set to absolute -20% points.|adjusted difference in proportions|-22.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-12.6||||||The adjusted absolute difference in treatment group seizure-free proportions (referenced as 'Adjusted difference in proportions' in 'Method of Estimation' below) was derived from the adjusted treatment group proportions of seizure-free subjects. The adjusted proportions were derived from a logistic regression model of seizure freedom using treatment and the categories for the number of seizures in the 3-month period prior to Visit 1 (≤2 seizures and \>2 seizures) as covariates.||-12.6|-33.1|
95692472|NCT00872170|191355240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||This study had 80% power at level alpha=0.05 to detect a 60 m change in 6MWT among N=10 participants, assuming a 60 m standard deviation for 12-week change.||||0.97
95692473|NCT00872170|191355241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
95692474|NCT00872170|191355242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.005
95917169|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1965|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.518|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.518|-0.257|
95917170|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1908|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.414|0.338|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.338|-0.414|
95917171|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2013|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.457|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.457|-0.337|
95917172|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2322|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.572|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.572|-0.343|
95917173|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1988|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.277|0.507|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.507|-0.277|
95917174|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2801|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.914|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||0.914|-0.190|
95917175|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.269|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2696|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.8|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||0.800|-0.263|
95917176|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2648|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.543|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||0.543|-0.501|
95917177|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2606|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.691|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.691|-0.337|
95917178|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2684|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.795|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.795|-0.263|
95917179|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.367|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.943|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.943|-0.209|
95917180|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2665|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.283|0.768|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.768|-0.283|
95692475|NCT00872170|191355243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
95692476|NCT00872170|191355244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.05
95692477|NCT00872170|191355245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.02
95692478|NCT00872170|191355246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.04
95692479|NCT00872170|191355247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.33
95692480|NCT00872170|191355248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.18
95692481|NCT00872170|191355249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.97
95692482|NCT00872170|191355250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with participant-specific intercepts and slopes controlled for time effects were used.||||||0.96
95692483|NCT04415489|191355251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
95692484|NCT04415489|191355252|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95692485|NCT04415489|191355253|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95692486|NCT04415489|191355254|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95692487|NCT04415489|191355255|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
95692488|NCT04415489|191355259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95692489|NCT05515601|191355260|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.05||||||||1.05|0.929|
95692490|NCT05515601|191355261|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability.|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.08||||||||1.08|0.948|
95692491|NCT05515601|191355262|OTHER|A linear fixed-effects model is used to estimate the relative bioavailability|Ratio of Geometric least squares mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.09||||||||1.09|0.960|
95692492|NCT00540436|191355263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|33.49||||||95.0|15.231|51.744||||||||51.744|15.231|
95692493|NCT00540436|191355264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change|46.82||||||95.0|24.566|69.076||||||||69.076|24.566|
95692494|NCT01515306|191355286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is AUC(0-∞) of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.29|0.93|
95692495|NCT01515306|191355288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of Geo LS means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|Ratio of Geo LS mean is Cmax of Cycle 2/Cycle 1.||||1.13|0.83|
95692496|NCT05319535|191355299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||6.1|-1.8|0.26
95692497|NCT05319535|191355300|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.7||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.4|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||3.4|0.9|0.11
95692498|NCT05319535|191355301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.6||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|93.3|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||93.3|-18.1|0.17
95692499|NCT05319535|191355302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.4|||Regression, Linear|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||1.4|-0.1|0.10
95692500|NCT05319535|191355303|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|1.3||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||negative binomial regression|||Models included the arm indicator variable in addition to the stratification variables used in randomization (site complexity level (high complexity '1a', '1b' or '1c' vs. all others); prior implementation of Caregivers First (yes vs. no)).||2.3|0.7|0.36
95692501|NCT05319535|191355304|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|18.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Model included the arm indicator variable.||18.5|0.6|0.17
95692502|NCT05513391|191355327|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the GMT ratio was greater than (\>) 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.948|1.73||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||1.73|0.948|
95692503|NCT05513391|191355327|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|3.3||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||3.30|1.93|
95692504|NCT05513391|191355327|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|0.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.668||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.668|0.397|
95692505|NCT05513391|191355327|NON_INFERIORITY|Non inferiority for GMTs was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMT ratio was \> 0.667 for each virus strain.|GMT Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.799|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||1.30|0.799|
95692506|NCT05513391|191355328|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|15.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H1N1||15.7|-1.55|
95692507|NCT05513391|191355328|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|24.7||||||Statistical analysis for A/H3N2||24.7|5.80|
95692508|NCT05513391|191355328|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|-6.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.02|0.1||||||Statistical analysis for B/Victoria||0.10|-14.02|
95692509|NCT05513391|191355328|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority for SC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI was \> -10% for the 4 strains.|Difference in percentage of participants|5.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|13.6||||||Statistical analysis for B/Yamagata||13.6|-1.99|
95692510|NCT02429258|191355347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.08|<|0.001||95.0|-36.1|-12.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.0|-36.1|<0.001
95692511|NCT02429258|191355348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8||0.01||95.0|-26.8|-3.8|||ANCOVA|||||-3.8|-26.8|0.010
95692512|NCT02429258|191355349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.023||95.0|0.1|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|0.1|0.023
95692513|NCT02429258|191355350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001||95.0|7.7|22.2|||ANCOVA|||||22.2|7.7|<0.001
95692514|NCT02429258|191355351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|<|0.001||95.0|-23.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||||-8.7|-23.5|<0.001
95692515|NCT02429258|191355352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|<|0.001||95.0|-46.6|-12.9|||ANCOVA|||||-12.9|-46.6|<0.001
95692516|NCT02429258|191355353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.14|<|0.001||95.0|-59.0|-22.7|||ANCOVA|||||-22.7|-59.0|<0.001
95692517|NCT02429258|191355354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.024||95.0|-0.43|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-0.43|0.024
95692518|NCT02429258|191355355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.55||0.019||95.0|-19.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-19.9|0.019
95692519|NCT02429258|191355356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.25|<|0.001||95.0|-54.7|-17.9|||ANCOVA|||||-17.9|-54.7|<0.001
95692520|NCT02429258|191355357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.017||95.0|1.3|12.7|||ANCOVA|||||12.7|1.3|0.017
95692521|NCT04710862|191355360|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
95692522|NCT04710862|191355361|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0005
95692523|NCT04710862|191355362|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.012
95692524|NCT04710862|191355363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95692525|NCT04710862|191355364|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95692526|NCT04710862|191355365|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95692527|NCT04710862|191355366|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.328
95692528|NCT03725202|191355367|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|17.1|||=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||27.8|6.3|=0.0019
95692529|NCT03725202|191355367|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|12.1|||=|0.0579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||24.6|-0.4|=0.0579
95692530|NCT03725202|191355368|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||30.2|11.3|<0.0001
95692531|NCT03725202|191355368|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.9|||=|0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Response rate difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||20.6|-0.8|=0.0699
95692532|NCT03725202|191355369|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
95692533|NCT03725202|191355369|SUPERIORITY|P-value is based on the van Elteren test, adjusting for the strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)).|||||<|0.0001|||||||van Elteren test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||||<0.0001
95692534|NCT03725202|191355370|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57|||=|0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.399|0.826|||Log-rank test|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.826|0.399|=0.0025
95692535|NCT03725202|191355370|SUPERIORITY|Treatment comparisons in the distribution of time-to-event between each upadacitinib group and the placebo are conducted using stratified log-rank test stratified by stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease). Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using Cox proportional hazards model with stratification factors as covariates|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75|||=|0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|1.136|||Log-rank test|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.136|0.499|=0.1778
95729339|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.857|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6833||0.2098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.198|0.483|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.483|-2.198|0.2098
95692536|NCT03725202|191355371|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47|||=|0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.74|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.74|0.29|=0.0014
95692537|NCT03725202|191355371|SUPERIORITY|The point estimate of flare rate at Week 52 from the Kaplan-Meier estimate for each stratum is used to derive the stratified disease flare rate. P-value, and 95% CI for the odds ratio between each upadacitinib group and placebo is also provided. Stratification factors (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤ 30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease) were used.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6|||=|0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.03|||Stratified Test for Odds Ratio|This method is described in J Immunother Cancer. 2021 Nov;9(11):e003323. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003323.||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.03|0.35|=0.0633
95692538|NCT03725202|191355372|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|40.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||40.2|20.4|<0.0001
95692539|NCT03725202|191355372|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|23.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.7|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||35.3|11.7|<0.0001
95692540|NCT03725202|191355373|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|31.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||31.9|9.7|=0.0002
95692541|NCT03725202|191355373|SUPERIORITY|Across the strata, 95% CI for adjusted difference and p-value are calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \> 30 mg or ≤30 mg) and disease status (new onset or relapsing disease)) for the comparison of two treatment groups. Within each stratum, 95% CI for difference are calculated using normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|3.2|||=|0.6276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||16.0|-9.6|=0.6276
95692542|NCT03725202|191355374|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.7526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1981|=|0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3932|6.1119|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.1119|1.3932|=0.0019
95692543|NCT03725202|191355374|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.6094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4185|=|0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1841|5.4028|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib - Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||5.4028|-0.1841|=0.0670
95692544|NCT03725202|191355375|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||0.8|0.4|0.0010
95692545|NCT03725202|191355375|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.8|||=|0.2722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.2|0.6|=0.2722
95692546|NCT03725202|191355376|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|=|0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|6.76|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.76|1.33|=0.0036
95692547|NCT03725202|191355376|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|=|0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|6.7|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||6.70|0.27|=0.0338
95692548|NCT03725202|191355377|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|2.7325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9635|=|0.3573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.102|8.567|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 15 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||8.5670|-3.1020|=0.3573
95692549|NCT03725202|191355377|SUPERIORITY|The Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement with Baseline value, categorical fixed effects of treatment, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors at randomization (Baseline CS dose (prednisone or prednisolone \>30 mg, prednisone or prednisolone ≤30 mg) and Baseline disease status (new onset disease, relapsing disease)) included in the model. An unstructured variance covariance matrix is used. Data after initiation of corticosteroid escape therapy are excluded from the model.|LS Mean Difference|5.4216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4785|=|0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4269|12.2701|||Mixed-Effect Model Repeat Measurement||Difference = 7.5 mg Upadacitinib -Placebo|7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||12.2701|-1.4269|=0.1203
95692550|NCT03725202|191355378|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|1.1|||=|0.4371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.6|||Poisson regression model|||15 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.6|0.8|=0.4371
95692551|NCT03725202|191355378|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons between each upadacitinib treatment group and the placebo group are carried out using Poisson regression model with stratification factors as covariates and log(duration of study participation in years) as an offset. Robust standard error is used in inference.|Rate Ratio|0.9|||=|0.7749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.4|||Poisson regression model|||7.5 mg Upadacitinib + 26-week CS taper vs Placebo + 52-week CS taper||1.4|0.6|=0.7749
95692552|NCT02626819|191355379|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
95692553|NCT02626819|191355380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data.||||||<0.05
95692554|NCT02626819|191355381|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Weight change was analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test along with multiple imputation to adjust for missing data||||||<0.05
95692555|NCT02626819|191355382|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95692556|NCT02626819|191355383|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95692557|NCT02626819|191355384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95692558|NCT02626819|191355385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95692559|NCT02626819|191355386|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95692560|NCT02361762|191355387|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.36
95692561|NCT02361762|191355388|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.79
95692562|NCT02361762|191355389|OTHER|||||||0.009|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Congruent/Incongruent)||||||0.009
95692563|NCT02361762|191355390|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)|ANCOVA|Compared scores at post testing with baseline scores covaried.||||||.79
95692564|NCT02361762|191355391|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.61
95692565|NCT02361762|191355392|OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)0.||||||0.68
95692566|NCT02361762|191355393|OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.54
95692567|NCT02361762|191355394|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.08
95692568|NCT02361762|191355395|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.37
95692569|NCT02361762|191355397|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.62
95692570|NCT02361762|191355398|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA compared group (Training/Waitlist) by time (Pre/Post) by condition (Go/Nogo)||||||0.10
95692571|NCT02361762|191355399|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA-of-change was used to compare the Training and Waitlist groups at post-testing while controlling for baseline (baseline was co-varied)||||||0.02
95692572|NCT00948818|191355400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|4.47||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week APC 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||4.47|1.51|0.0004
95692573|NCT00948818|191355402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|5.88||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week CSBM 3 + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||5.88|2.26|<0.0001
95692574|NCT00948818|191355403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.91||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 9/12 Week Abdominal Pain Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 93% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||1.91|1.04|0.0262
95692575|NCT00948818|191355404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.66||The p-value is still less than 0.05 after adjusting multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping multiple comparison procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between the 290 μg dose and placebo groups in the proportion of 6/12 Week APC + 1 Responders.~The power, adjusted for multiplicity, was expected to be 86% based on NCT00460811 (MCP-103-202) study data."||2.66|1.40|<0.0001
95692576|NCT02330549|191355414|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.2286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.17||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model that included treatment and presence or absence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.17|-0.62|0.2483
95692577|NCT02330549|191355414|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-0.4113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.01||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of Matsuda index as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change form Baseline to Week 24||0.01|-0.83|0.053
95692578|NCT02330549|191355415|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|-1.505|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.369||0.5297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|3.32||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||3.32|-6.33|0.5297
95692579|NCT02330549|191355415|OTHER|This was a proof of concept study, and is not powered for statistical detection of differences between groups, no adjustments for multiplicity was made, or no-imputation for missing data.|LS Mean Difference|3.2146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.757||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|8.83||An ANCOVA model that included treatment and presence or absence of NASH as factors, and the baseline value of ADIPO-IR as a covariate was used for analysis.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||8.83|-2.4|0.2522
95692580|NCT02364947|191355469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.62||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.62|-6.05|0.0001
95729340|NCT02146430|191429060|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6842||0.2725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.093|0.591|||ANCOVA|||Mental Component: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.591|-2.093|0.2725
95692581|NCT02364947|191355469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.05|-2.32||Efficacy of the doses (change from baseline in the number of HDDs vs placebo) was assessed using a closed testing procedure. The 20 mg dose was tested at a 5% level of significance and only if significant, the testing would proceed to the 10 mg dose.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.32|-6.05|0.0001
95692582|NCT02364947|191355470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.16|-5.69|<0.0001
95692583|NCT02364947|191355470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-6.46|<0.0001
95692584|NCT02364947|191355471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.81|-7.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in total alcohol consumption (TAC) from baseline at Week 12||-7.13|-17.81|<0.0001
95692585|NCT02364947|191355471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|-7.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.15|-18.72|<0.0001
95692586|NCT02364947|191355472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.77|-5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.53|-16.77|0.0001
95692587|NCT02364947|191355472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-17.37|0.0003
95692588|NCT02364947|191355473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|22.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|30.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.4|13.6|<0.0001
95692589|NCT02364947|191355473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|15.7||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.0|6.5|0.0007
95692590|NCT02364947|191355474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|18.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.8|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.2|8.8|0.0002
95692591|NCT02364947|191355474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|20.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|30.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.8|10.4|0.0001
95692592|NCT02364947|191355475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|25.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.1|10.5|<0.0001
95692593|NCT02364947|191355475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|22.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.2|6.4|0.0002
95692594|NCT02364947|191355476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|2.9|0.0079
95692595|NCT02364947|191355476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline DRL|Risk Difference (RD)|14.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|23.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.9|5.8|0.0010
95692596|NCT02364947|191355477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|9.9||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.3|3.5|0.0022
95692597|NCT02364947|191355477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|11.1||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.3|3.8|0.0016
95692598|NCT02364947|191355478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|13.6||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|20.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.9|6.2|0.0003
95692599|NCT02364947|191355478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|12.8||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.0|4.6|0.0013
95692600|NCT02364947|191355479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|15.2||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|23.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.3|7.1|0.0002
95692601|NCT02364947|191355479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|17.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|26.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.9|8.9|0.0001
95692602|NCT02364947|191355480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|16.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.7|-0.7|0.0724
95692603|NCT02364947|191355480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by sex and baseline value|Risk Difference (RD)|19.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|29.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.2|9.9|0.0001
95692604|NCT02364947|191355481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.40|0.0002
95692605|NCT02364947|191355481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-0.45|0.0001
95692606|NCT02364947|191355482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.18|-0.48|<0.0001
95692607|NCT02364947|191355482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.51|<0.0001
95692608|NCT02364947|191355483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.69|<0.0001
95692609|NCT02364947|191355483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.27|-0.67|<0.0001
95692610|NCT02364947|191355484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.70|<0.0001
95692611|NCT02364947|191355484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used. Baseline CGI-S value was used as baseline value in MMRM.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.77|<0.0001
95692612|NCT02364947|191355485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|-0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.121|-0.262|<0.0001
95692613|NCT02364947|191355485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.080|-0.232|0.0001
95692614|NCT02364947|191355486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.088|-0.248|<0.0001
95692615|NCT02364947|191355486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.226|-0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.052|-0.226|0.0017
95692616|NCT02364947|191355487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.009|-0.130|0.0234
95692617|NCT02364947|191355487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.016|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.||0.016|-0.115|0.1374
95692618|NCT02364947|191355488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.127|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.005|-0.127|0.0348
95692619|NCT02364947|191355488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effect of treatment, sex, time point, treatment-by-time point interaction, logarithm scale baseline value, and logarithm scale baseline value-by-time point interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix structure was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.116|0.1444
95692620|NCT01848054|191355512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
95692621|NCT01848054|191355519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary efficacy analysis of retention in treatment at Day 3 was assessed in the per protocol population. In addition, a sensitivity analysis assessed retention in treatment in the full analysis population. For these assessments, the margin to determine non-inferiority (i.e., lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between BNX and generic buprenorphine of ≥-10%) was selected based on clinical experience to justify comparison between the 2 treatments.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparisons between treatment groups were reported with 2-sided p values using 95% CIs for the difference.||||||<0.05
95692622|NCT03628417|191355522|NON_INFERIORITY|Examined the objective response rate (ORR) that there was 20% difference between the 2 treatment arms at day 180. With a significance level of 0,05 and a power of 80% the study required 28 evaluable metastases.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4489629||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|53.3|||Fisher Exact|||After reviewing existing data from electrochemotherapy with intratumoral bleomycin on small cutaneous metastases ≤3cm , we estimated the expected response rate for electrochemotherapy to 85%. We have no clinical results for the treatment of calcium electroporation, but on the basis of preclinical studies, we decided to accept a difference in response of 20%. All statistical analysis were done using IBM SPSS v24.||53.30|-13.30|0.30
95692623|NCT03439748|191355533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.002
95692624|NCT03439748|191355534|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||>.05
95692625|NCT03439748|191355535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference between PAT and NAT as small as d=.35.||||.024
95692626|NCT03439748|191355539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.922||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.922
95692627|NCT03439748|191355540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.049
95692628|NCT03439748|191355541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.591||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.591
95692629|NCT03439748|191355542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.004
95692630|NCT03439748|191355543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.030
95692631|NCT03439748|191355544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.029
95692632|NCT03439748|191355546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.494
95692633|NCT03439748|191355547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.231||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.231
95692634|NCT03439748|191355548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.344
95692635|NCT03439748|191355549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.267
95692636|NCT03439748|191355550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05. Univariate tests were corrected for false discovery rate using the Benjamin-Hochberg approach.|Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline levels of outcomes were covaried in all analyses to reduce error variance and correct for group differences.||This analysis compares the PAT and NAT groups at post-treatment. For this analysis, we have greater than .80 power to detect an effect size difference as small as d=.39.||||.051
95692637|NCT03161938|191355571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.508||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|1.62|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: Patients receiving 48 mg of preoperative dexamethasone have less postoperative pain. Power calculation: Acute pain is reduced from 70% to 35% for patients receiving 48 mg of dexamathesone, 80% power, 0.05 statistical significance level.||1.620|0.159|0.248
95692638|NCT03161938|191355572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.519|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.519
95692639|NCT03161938|191355573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.468
95692640|NCT03161938|191355574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.913|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Maximal pain||||0.913
95692641|NCT03161938|191355574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Average pain||||0.722
95692642|NCT03161938|191355575|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|3.793|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||3.793|0.374|0.768
95692643|NCT03161938|191355576|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.133|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.133
95692644|NCT03161938|191355577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons, statistical level of significance 0.01 (bonferroni correction)|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0||||0.768
95692645|NCT03161938|191355577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.376|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1||||0.376
95692646|NCT03161938|191355577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2||||0.590
95692647|NCT03161938|191355577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3||||0.320
95692648|NCT03161938|191355577|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.666|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.666
95692649|NCT03161938|191355578|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0||||>0.999
95692650|NCT03161938|191355578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 1||||0.154
95692651|NCT03161938|191355578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2||||0.447
95692652|NCT03161938|191355578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 3||||0.678
95692653|NCT03161938|191355578|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 4||||0.604
95692654|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, sadness||||0.075
95692655|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 0, restlessness||||0.447
95692656|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 0, fatigue||||0.703
95692657|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, sadness||||0.731
95692658|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, restlessness||||0.052
95692659|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 1, fatigue||||0.807
95917181|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2106|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.263|0.567|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 1 hour|||0.567|-0.263|
95917182|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.723|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 2 hour|||0.723|-0.081|
95917183|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1981|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.079|0.701|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 4 hour|||0.701|-0.079|
95917184|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.348|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.76|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 9 hour|||0.760|-0.064|
95917185|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.72|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 12 hour|||0.720|-0.230|
95917186|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.162|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2063|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.569|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 1, 24 hour|||0.569|-0.245|
95917187|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.535|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|1.108|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, Baseline|||1.108|-0.038|
95917188|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2798|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.072|1.175|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 1 hour|||1.175|0.072|
95917189|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.459|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2748|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.083|1.0|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 2 hour|||1.000|-0.083|
95917190|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2705|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|0.997|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 4 hour|||0.997|-0.069|
95917191|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2786|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.994|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 9 hour|||0.994|-0.104|
95692660|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, sadness||||0.371
95692661|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 2, restlessness||||0.064
95692662|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||day 2, fatigue||||0.110
95692663|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, sadness||||0.531
95692664|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, restlessness||||0.954
95692665|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 3, fatigue||||0.526
95692666|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.491|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, sadness||||0.491
95917192|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.284|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3034|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.314|0.882|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 12 hour|||0.882|-0.314|
95917193|NCT00453479|191792725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2766|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.929|||||Comparison of FVC, Day 7, 24 hour|||0.929|-0.162|
95692667|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, restlessness||||0.042
95692668|NCT03161938|191355579|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Day 4, fatigue||||0.097
95917194|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3333|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.743|9.21|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||9.210|-4.743|
95917195|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0907|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.664|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||22.664|-11.200|
95917196|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.051|5.507|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 1.|||5.507|-8.051|
95917197|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8616|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.47|17.443|||||Comparison of maximum heart rate Day 7.|||17.443|-15.470|
95917198|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.734|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.468|9.936|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||9.936|-4.468|
95692669|NCT03161938|191355580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.613
95692670|NCT00115349|191355595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||0.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed models with treatment, time, and treatment x time interaction were used, allowing for random participant-specific intercepts and slopes.||The intended sample size of 86 patients (N=43 per arm) had 80% power to detect a 5% difference in LVEF between the two arms after 1 year of treatment, assuming a standard deviation of change in LVEF of 7.46%, and 20% loss to follow-up. The study was stopped early by NHLBI when analysis of the interim data confirmed a required sample size of 86 that was not achievable within the required time frame within the participating or planned centres.||||0.89
95692671|NCT01533935|191355655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.215|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.315|0.215|<0.0001
95692672|NCT01533935|191355655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.129|0.031|0.0015
95729341|NCT02146430|191429061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01329||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0243|0.0279|||ANCOVA|||||0.0279|-0.0243|0.8923
95692673|NCT01533935|191355655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.137|0.039|0.0005
95692674|NCT01533935|191355655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.324|0.224|<0.0001
95692675|NCT01533935|191355655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.138|0.039|0.0004
95692676|NCT01533935|191355655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.147|0.047|0.0001
95692677|NCT01533935|191355656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.065|1.206|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.206|1.065|<0.0001
95692678|NCT01533935|191355656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD as divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.182|1.045|0.0009
95692679|NCT01533935|191355656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.981|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.109|0.981|0.1807
95692680|NCT01533935|191355656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.121|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Placebo QD|||1.193|1.054|0.0003
95692681|NCT01533935|191355656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.099|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.033|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||1.170|1.033|0.0029
95692682|NCT01533935|191355656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.098|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD divided by Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||1.098|0.970|0.3240
95692683|NCT01533935|191355657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.004|<0.0001
95692684|NCT01533935|191355657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.003|0.0033
95692685|NCT01533935|191355657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.001|-0.002|0.2306
95692686|NCT01533935|191355657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||-0.002|-0.005|<0.0001
95692687|NCT01533935|191355657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|-0.001|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||-0.001|-0.004|0.0010
95692688|NCT01533935|191355657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.000|-0.002|0.1206
95692689|NCT01533935|191355658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.329|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.364|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.364|0.294|<0.0001
95692690|NCT01533935|191355658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.169|0.099|<0.0001
95692691|NCT01533935|191355658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.170|0.100|<0.0001
95917199|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.783|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9409|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.372|10.938|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||10.938|-1.372|
95917200|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3103|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.003|5.854|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 1.|||5.854|-8.003|
95692692|NCT01533935|191355658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Placebo QD|||0.340|0.269|<0.0001
95692693|NCT01533935|191355658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.075|0.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Olodaterol 5 mcg QD|||0.145|0.075|<0.0001
95917201|NCT00453479|191792730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8291|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.353|7.49|||||Comparison of mean heart rate Day 7.|||7.490|-4.353|
95917202|NCT00453479|191792734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.139|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.601|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.601|0.811|
95917203|NCT00453479|191792734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2057|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.739|1.52|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.520|0.739|
95917204|NCT00453479|191792735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.234|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.934|2.122|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.122|0.934|
95692694|NCT01533935|191355658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as Tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 QD minus Tiotropium 5 mcg QD|||0.146|0.076|<0.0001
95692695|NCT00681538|191355678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-1.29|0.0002
95917205|NCT00453479|191792735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2482|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.838|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.838|0.770|
95917206|NCT00453479|191792735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.979|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2269|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.658|1.457|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.457|0.658|
95692696|NCT00681538|191355679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.731||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|4.694|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|30% responders||4.694|1.589|0.0003
95729342|NCT02146430|191429061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01327||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0281|0.024|||ANCOVA|||||0.0240|-0.0281|0.8749
95917207|NCT00453479|191792735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2407|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.674|1.568|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Cmax PM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||1.568|0.674|
95917208|NCT00453479|191792737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|2.556|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|3.213|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 50 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||3.213|2.033|
95917209|NCT00453479|191792737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.095|||||SE logs is presented as standard error of mean. Comparison of Ae AM dose for GSK233705 100 µg twice daily Day 7 versus Day 1.|||2.095|1.290|
95692697|NCT00681538|191355679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.647||||0.0612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.977|2.777|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio\>1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex|50% Responders||2.777|0.977|0.0612
95692698|NCT00681538|191355680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-2.53||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.79|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasm frequency in favour of Sativex.|||-0.79|-4.27|0.0046
95692699|NCT00681538|191355681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.51|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in sleep disruption in favour of Sativex.|||-0.51|-1.25|<0.0001
95692700|NCT00681538|191355682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-1.75||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.3|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in spasticity in favour of Sativex.|||0.30|-3.80|0.0939
95917210|NCT01678820|191792742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.19||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.52|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment||||0.52|-0.14|0.267
95917211|NCT01678820|191792743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|9.3|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||9.3|-10.2|
95917212|NCT01678820|191792743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|5.8|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||5.8|-14.7|
95917213|NCT01678820|191792745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-0.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.28|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-0.28|-0.95|<0.001
95917214|NCT01678820|191792746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|1.7||||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|20.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||20.6|-17.1|0.856
95917215|NCT01678820|191792746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-29.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.6|-47.9|0.002
95917216|NCT01678820|191792747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-25.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|-15.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-15.6|-35.6|<0.001
95917217|NCT01678820|191792747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|5.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|15.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||15.2|-4.5|0.286
95917218|NCT01678820|191792748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|-12.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.0|-24.2|<0.001
95917219|NCT01678820|191792748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|6.0|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||6.0|-6.0|0.990
95917220|NCT01678820|191792749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-20.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|-12.2|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-12.2|-28.3|<0.001
95917221|NCT01678820|191792749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.9||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|10.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||10.7|-5.0|0.469
95692701|NCT00681538|191355683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||treatment difference|-2.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|7.04|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Arm||7.04|-12.75|0.56
95692702|NCT00681538|191355683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|0.04||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.64|||ANCOVA||A positive treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For leg||2.64|-2.56|0.98
95692703|NCT00681538|191355684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment difference|-3.34||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.95|0.26|||ANCOVA||A negative treatment difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||0.26|-6.95|0.0687
95692704|NCT00681538|191355685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.703||||0.0234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|2.698|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||2.698|1.075|0.0234
95692705|NCT00681538|191355686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.297|4.443|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||4.443|1.297|0.0053
95692706|NCT00681538|191355687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.792||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.973|3.301|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.301|0.973|0.0613
95692707|NCT00681538|191355688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.958||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.232|3.112|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \> 1 indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|||3.112|1.232|0.0045
95692708|NCT00681538|191355689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|0.02||||0.2836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.07|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|For Health State Index||0.07|-0.02|0.2836
95692709|NCT00681538|191355689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|1.24||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|5.5|||ANCOVA||A positive difference indicates an improvement in favour of Sativex.|Health Status VAS||5.50|-3.01|0.5644
95692710|NCT00681538|191355690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-0.06||||0.9369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|1.49|||ANCOVA||A negative difference indicates an improvement in depression in favour of Sativex.|||1.49|-1.62|0.9369
95692711|NCT01728584|191355691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|1.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.04|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and body mass index (BMI)|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|Primary hypothesis - deep NMB improves surgeon's overall satisfaction with the surgical conditions compared to standard NMB||2.04|0.13|0.026
95692712|NCT01728584|191355691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|-2.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is low versus standard pressure|||-2.05|-3.99|<0.001
95692713|NCT01728584|191355692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|5.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||5.02|2.30|
95692714|NCT01728584|191355692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.91|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||0.91|-1.80|
95692715|NCT01728584|191355692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.36|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.36|0.57|
95692716|NCT01728584|191355692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-2.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-2.78|-5.42|
95692717|NCT01728584|191355692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.38|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||-0.38|-3.01|
95692718|NCT01728584|191355692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.74|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI||3.74|1.08|
95692719|NCT01728584|191355693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.35||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.84|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.84|-0.13|0.148
95692720|NCT01728584|191355693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.33||To control for multiple testing, this difference was formally tested only if comparison of surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions for deep versus standard NMB was significant at the 5% level, with greater satisfaction for deep NMB.|ANOVA|ANOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, gender and surgeon|Difference is low versus standard pressure|Key secondary hypothesis - low insufflation pressure improves overall average pain score in first 24 hours compared to standard insufflation pressure||0.33|-0.67|0.494
95692721|NCT01728584|191355694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.52|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus standard NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.52|-0.92|
95692722|NCT01728584|191355694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.02|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||-0.02|-1.27|
95692723|NCT01728584|191355694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.53|||||Difference is standard NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.53|-0.84|
95692724|NCT01728584|191355694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.26|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/standard pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.26|-1.15|
95692725|NCT01728584|191355694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.78|||||Difference is standard NMB/low pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||0.78|-0.69|
95692726|NCT01728584|191355694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.16|||||Difference is deep NMB/standard pressure versus deep NMB/low pressure|ANOVA model included factors treatment group, gender and surgeon||1.16|-0.17|
95692727|NCT01728584|191355695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.91||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.87||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.87|-0.05|0.063
95692728|NCT01728584|191355696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.82||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.37||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.37|0.27|0.004
95692729|NCT01728584|191355697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.12||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.92||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.92|0.32|0.006
95692730|NCT01728584|191355698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.61||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.06||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||0.06|-1.27|0.073
95692731|NCT01728584|191355699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.74||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Not controlled for multiple testing|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model included factors depth of NMB, level of pressure, surgeon and BMI|Difference is deep versus standard NMB|||1.28|0.19|0.009
95692732|NCT03207022|191355768|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95692733|NCT03207022|191355769|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95692734|NCT03207022|191355770|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95692735|NCT04716933|191355771|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.97||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||0.97|0.48|
95692736|NCT04716933|191355772|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.12||||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate||1.12|0.54|
95692737|NCT04716933|191355773|OTHER||Percent Difference|11.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|24.2||||||Comparision based on unstratified Miettinen \& Nurminen method||24.2|-2.0|
95692738|NCT01052012|191355798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.597||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.33|||ANCOVA|With pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.33|-2.11|0.1473
95692739|NCT01052012|191355798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.05|-2.16|0.0601
95692740|NCT01052012|191355798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.1483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.12|||ANCOVA|with pooled site and treatment group as factors and incision length as a covariate.||||0.12|-0.80|0.1483
95692741|NCT01052012|191355799|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-1.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|52.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||52.0|-54.5|0.9901
95692742|NCT01052012|191355799|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-5.0||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|3.4|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||3.4|-14.0|0.2010
95692743|NCT01052012|191355799|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Hodge-Lehmann)|-3.0||||0.5897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon Rank-Sum|||||8.0|-15.0|0.5897
95692744|NCT00320385|191355807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.93|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||0.93|0.57|0.008
95692745|NCT00320385|191355808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.07|||Log Rank||The Pike estimator of the treatment hazard ratio based on the log-rank test was provided, together with a 95% confidence interval.|||1.07|0.53|0.106
95692746|NCT00320385|191355809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9|||Fisher Exact||Responses were compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||3.9|0.6|0.460
95692747|NCT00320385|191355810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.5|||Fisher Exact||Clinical Benefit was compared between treatment arms using stratified Fisher's exact tests.|||4.5|1.2|0.010
95692748|NCT01798706|191355841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.464||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||-0.464|-0.81|< 0.0001
95692749|NCT01798706|191355842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.464|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|-4.132||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level. Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour PPG value as a covariate. Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error at 0.05. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints were reported.||-4.132|-5.96|< 0.0001
95728585|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95692750|NCT01798706|191355843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.219|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.527||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline 7-point SMPG value as a covariate.||-0.527|-1.39|< 0.0001
95692751|NCT01798706|191355844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.278|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.862|-0.769||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight value as a covariate.||-0.769|-1.862|< 0.0001
95692752|NCT01798706|191355845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.262||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.828|0.204||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant). Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with treatment groups, randomization strata of Week -1 HbA1c (\<8.0, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of basal insulin use at screening, randomization strata of Week -1 eGFR (≥30 to \<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m\^2), and country as fixed effects and baseline FPG value as a covariate.||0.204|-0.828|0.2347
95692753|NCT01617434|191355876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.39|-0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment arms with regard to changes from baseline in HbA1c (%) after 26 weeks of randomised treatment was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.99|-1.39|<0.0001
95692754|NCT01617434|191355877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.7|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.86|-1.70|<0.0001
95692755|NCT01617434|191355878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.59|||<|0.0001||95.0|-2.01|-1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-1.18|-2.01|<0.0001
95692756|NCT01617434|191355879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.11|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.85|-2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The response was analysed using a mixed model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis with treatment, country, stratification groups as factors and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-2.37|-3.85|<0.0001
95692757|NCT01617434|191355880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.91|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.45|14.59|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||14.59|5.45|<0.0001
95692758|NCT01617434|191355881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.12|||<|0.0001||95.0|9.92|40.84|||Regression, Logistic|||This endpoint was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and stratification factors as fixed factors and the HbA1c value at baseline as a covariate. Subjects previously treated with insulin detemir without the use of metformin were not included in the analysis due to the small size of the stratum.||40.84|9.92|<0.0001
95692759|NCT03453151|191355910|OTHER|||||||0.053|||||||Paired t-test|||||||0.053
95692760|NCT03453151|191355911|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95692761|NCT03453151|191355912|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95692762|NCT03453151|191355913|OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the resting cardiac index.||||||0.077
95692763|NCT03453151|191355913|OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to the peak exercise cardiac index.||||||0.069
95692764|NCT03453151|191355915|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to creatinine level.||||||0.250
95692765|NCT03453151|191355915|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Paired t-test|This analysis refers to BUN level.||||||0.014
95692766|NCT04594239|191355918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|78.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.3|85.6||||||||85.6|66.3|
95692767|NCT04594239|191355918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|85.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.5|92.3||||||||92.3|70.5|
95692768|NCT04594239|191355918|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rates|71.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.2|82.5||||||||82.5|55.2|
95692769|NCT02020031|191355925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 3 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
95692770|NCT02020031|191355925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 30 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
95692771|NCT02020031|191355925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 50 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
95692772|NCT02020031|191355925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 115 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
95692773|NCT02020031|191355925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 150 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
95692774|NCT02020031|191355925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Comparison at approximately 180 minutes, adjusted by BMI, age, and length of surgical procedure.||||<0.0001
95692775|NCT04047121|191355928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2531|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2531
95692776|NCT04047121|191355928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0295|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0295
95692777|NCT04047121|191355928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1857|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1857
95728586|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||<0.001
95692778|NCT04047121|191355928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8401||||0.3297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5919|1.1925|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1925|0.5919|0.3297
95692779|NCT04047121|191355928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5066||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8046|2.8209|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.8209|0.8046|0.2003
95692780|NCT04047121|191355928|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4052||||0.2276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8086|2.442|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4420|0.8086|0.2276
95692781|NCT04047121|191355929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8786|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8786
95692782|NCT04047121|191355929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1178|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1178
95692783|NCT04047121|191355929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5337|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5337
95692784|NCT04047121|191355929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0283||||0.9212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5911|1.789|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7890|0.5911|0.9212
95692785|NCT04047121|191355929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7464||||0.4693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.338|1.6482|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6482|0.3380|0.4693
95692786|NCT04047121|191355929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8212||||0.5593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4239|1.591|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5910|0.4239|0.5593
95692787|NCT04047121|191355930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6205|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6205
95692788|NCT04047121|191355930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4924|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4924
95692789|NCT04047121|191355930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4982|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4982
95692790|NCT04047121|191355930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3182||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5335|3.257|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2570|0.5335|0.5494
95692791|NCT04047121|191355930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1664||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.4883|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4883|0.3900|0.7830
95692792|NCT04047121|191355931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3817|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3817
95692793|NCT04047121|191355931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7397|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7397
95692794|NCT04047121|191355931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7942|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7942
95692795|NCT04047121|191355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0682||||0.7924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6537|1.7455|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7455|0.6537|0.7924
95692796|NCT04047121|191355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0414||||0.9339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3997|2.7134|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7134|0.3997|0.9339
95692797|NCT04047121|191355931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8195||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.935|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9350|0.3470|0.6497
95692798|NCT04047121|191355932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7936|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7936
95692799|NCT04047121|191355932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5621|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5621
95692800|NCT04047121|191355932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6800
95692801|NCT04047121|191355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1438||||0.5051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7705|1.6978|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6978|0.7705|0.5051
95692802|NCT04047121|191355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8576||||0.7131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3781|1.9452|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9452|0.3781|0.7131
95692803|NCT04047121|191355932|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8415||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4003|1.769|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7690|0.4003|0.6490
95692804|NCT04047121|191355933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
95692805|NCT04047121|191355933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
95692806|NCT04047121|191355933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
95692807|NCT04047121|191355933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1637||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7193|1.8827|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8827|0.7193|0.5368
95692808|NCT04047121|191355933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7757||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3904|1.5413|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5413|0.3904|0.4685
95692809|NCT04047121|191355933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7354||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4057|1.333|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3330|0.4057|0.3112
95692810|NCT04047121|191355934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8122|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8122
95692811|NCT04047121|191355934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7766|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7766
95692812|NCT04047121|191355934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8305
95692813|NCT04047121|191355934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5814||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|1.2952|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2952|0.2610|0.1845
95692814|NCT04047121|191355934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5908||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6671|3.7936|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.7936|0.6671|0.2951
95692815|NCT04047121|191355934|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3546||||0.4907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6584|2.787|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7870|0.6584|0.4907
95692816|NCT04047121|191355935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6006|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6006
95692817|NCT04047121|191355935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2941|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2941
95692818|NCT04047121|191355935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9610
95692819|NCT04047121|191355935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5571||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.9884|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9884|0.3140|0.0455
95692820|NCT04047121|191355935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1781||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0904|4.3506|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3506|1.0904|0.0274
95692821|NCT04047121|191355935|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8896||||0.6787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5114|1.5475|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5475|0.5114|0.6787
95692822|NCT04047121|191355936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9084|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9084
95692823|NCT04047121|191355936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8325|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8325
95692824|NCT04047121|191355936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9630
95692825|NCT04047121|191355936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0508||||0.7909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7284|1.516|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5160|0.7284|0.7909
95692826|NCT04047121|191355936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8117||||0.6027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.7808|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.7808|0.3700|0.6027
95692827|NCT04047121|191355936|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1742||||0.6978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5222|2.6404|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6404|0.5222|0.6978
95692828|NCT04047121|191355937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1736
95692829|NCT04047121|191355937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0195|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0195
95692830|NCT04047121|191355937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2104|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2104
95692831|NCT04047121|191355937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1723||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9357|1.4687|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4687|0.9357|0.1670
95692832|NCT04047121|191355937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7228||||0.1087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4861|1.0747|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0747|0.4861|0.1087
95692833|NCT04047121|191355937|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8402||||0.3212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5957|1.1852|||Regression, Cox|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1852|0.5957|0.3212
95692834|NCT04047121|191355938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9361
95692835|NCT04047121|191355938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3851|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3851
95692836|NCT04047121|191355938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.599|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5990
95692837|NCT04047121|191355938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9954||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5962|1.662|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6620|0.5962|0.9860
95728587|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.03
95692838|NCT04047121|191355938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2959||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5158|3.2558|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement.) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.2558|0.5158|0.5813
95692839|NCT04047121|191355938|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8182||||0.1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7604|4.3473|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.3473|0.7604|0.1789
95692840|NCT04047121|191355939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4009
95692841|NCT04047121|191355939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9765|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9765
95692842|NCT04047121|191355939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2849|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2849
95692843|NCT04047121|191355939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8252||||0.5289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4538|1.5007|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5007|0.4538|0.5289
95692844|NCT04047121|191355939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9408||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2553|3.4678|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4678|0.2553|0.9270
95692845|NCT04047121|191355939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3968||||0.0707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1456|1.0812|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0812|0.1456|0.0707
95692846|NCT04047121|191355940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2061|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2061
95692847|NCT04047121|191355940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1908|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1908
95692848|NCT04047121|191355941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8033
95692849|NCT04047121|191355941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6669|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6669
95692850|NCT04047121|191355941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6477|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6477
95692851|NCT04047121|191355941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7948||||0.5509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3736|1.6907|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6907|0.3736|0.5509
95692852|NCT04047121|191355941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6814||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1486|3.125|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1250|0.1486|0.6216
95692853|NCT04047121|191355941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6974||||0.5506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2135|2.2781|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2781|0.2135|0.5506
95692854|NCT04047121|191355942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1030
95692855|NCT04047121|191355942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9317|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9317
95692856|NCT04047121|191355942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2420
95692857|NCT04047121|191355942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7474||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9222|3.3107|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.3107|0.9222|0.0869
95692858|NCT04047121|191355942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1346||||0.8228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3757|3.4266|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.4266|0.3757|0.8228
95692859|NCT04047121|191355942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.565||||0.4855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4446|5.5086|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.5086|0.4446|0.4855
95692860|NCT04047121|191355944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5092|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5092
95692861|NCT04047121|191355944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0201|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0201
95692862|NCT04047121|191355944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2799|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2799
95692863|NCT04047121|191355944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9021||||0.5772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6281|1.2958|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2958|0.6281|0.5772
95692864|NCT04047121|191355944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3953||||0.3272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7166|2.7169|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7169|0.7166|0.3272
95692865|NCT04047121|191355944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3527||||0.3011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|2.3983|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3983|0.7630|0.3011
95692866|NCT04047121|191355945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2931|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2931
95692867|NCT04047121|191355945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3135|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3135
95692868|NCT04047121|191355945|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95692869|NCT04047121|191355945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8369||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3618|1.9356|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.9356|0.3618|0.6772
95692870|NCT04047121|191355945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.253||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9061|14.477|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||14.4770|1.9061|0.0013
95692871|NCT04047121|191355946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5217|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5217
95692872|NCT04047121|191355946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0432
95692873|NCT04047121|191355946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2573|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2573
95692874|NCT04047121|191355946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8593||||0.5368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5311|1.3902|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3902|0.5311|0.5368
95692875|NCT04047121|191355946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2892||||0.4685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6488|2.5616|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.5616|0.6488|0.4685
95692876|NCT04047121|191355946|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3598||||0.3112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7502|2.4648|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4648|0.7502|0.3112
95692877|NCT04047121|191355947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.409|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4090
95692878|NCT04047121|191355947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0249
95692879|NCT04047121|191355947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0103
95692880|NCT04047121|191355947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1302||||0.5415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6741|0.7630|0.5415
95692881|NCT04047121|191355947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0118||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|4.1632|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.1632|0.9722|0.0596
95692882|NCT04047121|191355947|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4823||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.793|6.7633|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.7633|1.7930|0.0002
95692883|NCT04047121|191355948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2361|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2361
95692884|NCT04047121|191355948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7474
95692885|NCT04047121|191355948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2118|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2118
95692886|NCT04047121|191355948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3811||||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8449|2.2576|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2576|0.8449|0.1978
95692887|NCT04047121|191355948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0614||||0.8893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4587|2.4559|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.4559|0.4587|0.8893
95692888|NCT04047121|191355948|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5811||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2748|1.2286|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2286|0.2748|0.1553
95692889|NCT04047121|191355949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6767|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6767
95692890|NCT04047121|191355949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1141|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1141
95692891|NCT04047121|191355949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1497|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1497
95692892|NCT04047121|191355949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8556||||0.5228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5303|1.3804|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.3804|0.5303|0.5228
95692893|NCT04047121|191355949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5125||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1062|5.7063|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.7063|1.1062|0.0277
95692894|NCT04047121|191355949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6993||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3435|1.4236|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4236|0.3435|0.3240
95692895|NCT04047121|191355950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6318|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6318
95692896|NCT04047121|191355950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3802|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3802
95692897|NCT04047121|191355950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2424|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2424
95692898|NCT04047121|191355950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0347||||0.1753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0155|0.0848|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0848|-0.0155|0.1753
95692899|NCT04047121|191355950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0194||||0.6114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0553|0.0941|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0941|-0.0553|0.6114
95692900|NCT04047121|191355950|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0345||||0.2977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0304|0.0993|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0993|-0.0304|0.2977
95692901|NCT04047121|191355951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1473|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1473
95692902|NCT04047121|191355951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8747|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8747
95692903|NCT04047121|191355951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5265|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5265
95692904|NCT04047121|191355951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0457||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1239|0.0325|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0325|-0.1239|0.2522
95692905|NCT04047121|191355951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0278||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1003|0.1559|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1559|-0.1003|0.6701
95692906|NCT04047121|191355951|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1693||||0.1017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0334|0.372|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3720|-0.0334|0.1017
95692907|NCT04047121|191355952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2246
95692908|NCT04047121|191355952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2101|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2101
95692909|NCT04047121|191355952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0030
95692910|NCT04047121|191355952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.414||||0.3324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4231|1.2511|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.2511|-0.4231|0.3324
95692911|NCT04047121|191355952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1712||||0.1367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3713|2.7138|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.7138|-0.3713|0.1367
95692912|NCT04047121|191355952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8099||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6219|2.9978|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9978|0.6219|0.0028
95692913|NCT04047121|191355953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2667|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2667
95692914|NCT04047121|191355953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6570
95692915|NCT04047121|191355953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5403|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5403
95692916|NCT04047121|191355953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9159||||0.1167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2283|2.06|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.0600|-0.2283|0.1167
95692917|NCT04047121|191355953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0336||||0.9722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9238|1.8567|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.8567|-1.9238|0.9722
95692918|NCT04047121|191355953|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2064||||0.8455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8689|2.2817|||Regression, Logistic|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.2817|-1.8689|0.8455
95692919|NCT04047121|191355954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3142
95692920|NCT04047121|191355954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2465|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2465
95692921|NCT04047121|191355954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5933
95692922|NCT04047121|191355954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0089||||0.7815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0716|0.0538|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0538|-0.0716|0.7815
95692923|NCT04047121|191355954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0337||||0.4446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0528|0.1202|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1202|-0.0528|0.4446
95692924|NCT04047121|191355954|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0333||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1243|0.0577|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0577|-0.1243|0.4733
95692925|NCT04047121|191355955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0658|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0658
95692926|NCT04047121|191355955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3785
95692927|NCT04047121|191355955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
95692928|NCT04047121|191355955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0425||||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1154|0.0303|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0303|-0.1154|0.2523
95692929|NCT04047121|191355955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0388||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1305|0.0529|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0529|-0.1305|0.4068
95692930|NCT04047121|191355955|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0706||||0.5858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1833|0.3244|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3244|-0.1833|0.5858
95692931|NCT04047121|191355956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3832|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3832
95692932|NCT04047121|191355956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4631|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4631
95692933|NCT04047121|191355956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6202|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6202
95692934|NCT04047121|191355956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.5353||||0.3158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5812|0.5107|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5107|-1.5812|0.3158
95692935|NCT04047121|191355956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3543||||0.1016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2669|2.9755|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.9755|-0.2669|0.1016
95692936|NCT04047121|191355956|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8677||||0.2576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6347|2.37|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3700|-0.6347|0.2576
95692937|NCT04047121|191355957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3107
95692938|NCT04047121|191355957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3735|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3735
95692939|NCT04047121|191355957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3863|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3863
95692940|NCT04047121|191355957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.0337||||0.1918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5858|0.5184|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.5184|-2.5858|0.1918
95692941|NCT04047121|191355957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9749||||0.4281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3864|1.4366|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4366|-3.3864|0.4281
95692942|NCT04047121|191355957|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8599||||0.1014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0854|0.3657|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.3657|-4.0854|0.1014
95692943|NCT04047121|191355958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4555|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4555
95692944|NCT04047121|191355958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7164
95692945|NCT04047121|191355958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2456
95692946|NCT04047121|191355958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0568||||0.0962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0101|0.1238|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1238|-0.0101|0.0962
95692947|NCT04047121|191355958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0432||||0.3844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1405|0.0541|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0541|-0.1405|0.3844
95692948|NCT04047121|191355958|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0233||||0.5899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0615|0.1082|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1082|-0.0615|0.5899
95692949|NCT04047121|191355959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4133
95692950|NCT04047121|191355959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7171
95692951|NCT04047121|191355959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8609
95692952|NCT04047121|191355959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0445||||0.6224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2218|0.1327|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1327|-0.2218|0.6224
95692953|NCT04047121|191355959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0884||||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.2132|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2132|-0.3900|0.5655
95692954|NCT04047121|191355959|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1809||||0.4044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2444|0.6062|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.6062|-0.2444|0.4044
95692955|NCT04047121|191355960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0104
95692956|NCT04047121|191355960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5949|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5949
95692957|NCT04047121|191355960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0801
95692958|NCT04047121|191355960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.7075||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.411|-1.004|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-1.0040|-6.4110|0.0072
95692959|NCT04047121|191355960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.4296||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.008|3.1489|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.1489|-6.0080|0.5406
95692960|NCT04047121|191355960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.3527||||0.8603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.279|3.5737|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.5737|-4.2790|0.8603
95692961|NCT04047121|191355961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6344
95692962|NCT04047121|191355961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3037
95692963|NCT04047121|191355961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1344|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1344
95692964|NCT04047121|191355961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2586||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4787|4.9958|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||4.9958|-2.4787|0.5092
95692965|NCT04047121|191355961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.7696||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8683|5.3292|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.3292|-6.8683|0.8047
95692966|NCT04047121|191355961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.094||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9628|6.1507|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.1507|-5.9628|0.9757
95692967|NCT04047121|191355962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0839
95692968|NCT04047121|191355962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9577|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9577
95692969|NCT04047121|191355962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9497|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9497
95692970|NCT04047121|191355962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.031||||0.4873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1185|0.0565|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0565|-0.1185|0.4873
95692971|NCT04047121|191355962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.0312||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1783|0.1159|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.1159|-0.1783|0.6780
95692972|NCT04047121|191355962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0099||||0.9327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2207|0.2406|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.2406|-0.2207|0.9327
95692973|NCT04047121|191355963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0021
95692974|NCT04047121|191355963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5396
95692975|NCT04047121|191355963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6121|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6121
95692976|NCT04047121|191355963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1895||||0.0303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|-0.0181|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||-0.0181|-0.3610|0.0303
95692977|NCT04047121|191355963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1901||||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4685|0.0883|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.0883|-0.4685|0.1807
95692978|NCT04047121|191355963|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1594||||0.7445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7991|1.1178|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1178|-0.7991|0.7445
95692979|NCT04047121|191355964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0035
95692980|NCT04047121|191355964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.504|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5040
95692981|NCT04047121|191355964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1366|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1366
95692982|NCT04047121|191355964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-3.4084||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2497|0.433|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.4330|-7.2497|0.0820
95692983|NCT04047121|191355964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.5342||||0.5845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0336|3.9652|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||3.9652|-7.0336|0.5845
95692984|NCT04047121|191355964|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.987||||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.583|6.557|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||6.5570|-4.5830|0.7284
95692985|NCT04047121|191355965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1125
95692986|NCT04047121|191355965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7156|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7156
95692987|NCT04047121|191355965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2056
95692988|NCT04047121|191355965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.8061||||0.4288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2797|2.6675|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.6675|-6.2797|0.4288
95692989|NCT04047121|191355965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-1.6946||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5962|5.2069|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.2069|-8.5962|0.6303
95692990|NCT04047121|191355965|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.9873||||0.7477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0028|5.0281|||Regression, Linear|||To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||5.0281|-7.0028|0.7477
95692991|NCT04047121|191355966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3919
95692992|NCT04047121|191355966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95692993|NCT04047121|191355966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0193
95692994|NCT04047121|191355966|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.2232||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.994|1.5053|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a generalized linear model (GLM). Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.5053|0.9940|0.0570
95692995|NCT04047121|191355966|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.8479|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4378|2.3749|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||2.3749|1.4378|<0.0001
95692996|NCT04047121|191355966|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.1868||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9722|1.4487|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.4487|0.9722|0.0924
95692997|NCT04047121|191355967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
95692998|NCT04047121|191355967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1952|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1952
95692999|NCT04047121|191355967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1638
95693000|NCT04047121|191355967|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9773||||0.6732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8782|1.0875|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0875|0.8782|0.6732
95693001|NCT04047121|191355967|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9629||||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.1253|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1253|0.8240|0.6345
95693002|NCT04047121|191355967|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8327||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.738|0.9395|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9395|0.7380|0.0029
95693003|NCT04047121|191355968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3087|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3087
95693004|NCT04047121|191355968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95693005|NCT04047121|191355968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0647
95693006|NCT04047121|191355968|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9762||||0.7684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8316|1.146|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1460|0.8316|0.7684
95693007|NCT04047121|191355968|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.3862||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1379|1.6886|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.6886|1.1379|0.0012
95693008|NCT04047121|191355968|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|1.0065||||0.9422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8452|1.1985|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.1985|0.8452|0.9422
95693009|NCT04047121|191355969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0421|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0421
95693010|NCT04047121|191355969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8137
95693011|NCT04047121|191355969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9416|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9416
95693012|NCT04047121|191355969|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.9515||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.0493|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0493|0.8628|0.3190
95693013|NCT04047121|191355969|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8991||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7815|1.0343|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||1.0343|0.7815|0.1368
95693014|NCT04047121|191355969|SUPERIORITY||Cost Ratio|0.8514||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7411|0.9782|||Regression, Linear||Since health care costs were skewed, hence estimated cost was modeled using a GLM. Coefficients from a generalized linear model were estimated as cost ratios.|To control and remove the possible influence of the independent variables (like treatment cohort, demographic and clinical characteristics of interest, etc. and clinical judgement) on the outcome measure, multivariable analysis was performed.||0.9782|0.7411|0.0231
95693015|NCT02604810|191355975|NON_INFERIORITY|Method of estimation = least-squares means based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a mixed-effect model. The lower bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the geometric LSM ratio (SC/IV) of the primary PK endpoint of steady state AUC0-7 days for the PK population should be above 0.80.|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07||||||||1.07|1.00|
95693016|NCT02891798|191355983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Total Score Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.003
95693017|NCT02891798|191355984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Continuous Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.001
95693018|NCT02891798|191355985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SF-MPQ2 Intermittent Pain Subscore Difference From Baseline between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.038
95693019|NCT02891798|191355986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at post-operative day 1 between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.009
95693020|NCT02891798|191355987|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the QoR-15 Total Score.||||||0.861|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of QoR-15 Total Score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.861
95693021|NCT02891798|191355988|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly lower score for the Standing Balance test.||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Standing Balance Test score at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group||||0.512
95693022|NCT02891798|191355989|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower rate for the Self-Selected Gait Speed test.||||||0.339|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Self-Selected Gait Speed rate at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.339
95693023|NCT02891798|191355990|NON_INFERIORITY|Testing the null hypothesis that Bupivacaine + BCD (buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone) does not adversely affect recovery by producing a significantly slower time for the Repeated Chair Stand test.||||||0.711|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of Repeated Chair Stand time at 6 week post-procedure between the 4-drug nerve block group and the bupivacaine only group.||||0.711
95693024|NCT00165841|191356031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|The primary analysis was on the ITT population using all observed data collected from Day 1 of the maintenance phase until the endpoint.||Efficacy analyses were based on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, which was comprised of all patients in the safety-evaluable population who had a baseline and ≥1 post-randomization primary efficacy endpoint evaluation and who had received ≥1 dose of study medication during the maintenance phase.||||<0.0001
95693025|NCT01725152|191356074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4475|||||||Linear mixed-effect|||Null hypothesis of no treatment difference in CGI-I will be assessed using a linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures, accounting for treatment (ganaxolone versus placebo) and period at a significant level of 0.05. A sample size of 30 participants in each arm/group was planned in the study will have 90% power to detect a modest effect size of 0.6 at level 0.05 in CGI-I. With a possible dropout rate of 15%, the power for testing the effect size becomes 84%.||||0.4475
95693026|NCT03007485|191356080|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Reported p-value was calculated|t-test, 2 sided|||Sample size and power calculation was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge. First level of analysis was the ITT, which included all the patients randomly assigned to an arm at the beginning of the study (excluding those who were found to not meet inclusion criteria for referral). The second included all the patients medically cleared and third included all the patients who were medically cleared and who had participated in at least 1 PR session.|"The primary outcome was a composite of COPD-related hospital readmissions or death within 6 months of discharge (binary: yes/no). Logistic regression was used to compare the primary outcome in terms of the OR of event rates between the 2 arms, in 3 sets of models (per each of the 3 aforementioned level of analyses):~* Model 1: Treatment arm only with no other covariates added to the model~* Model 2: Treatment arm, adjusted for race and clinical site (stratification variables)~* Model 3: Treatment arm, adjusted for race, clinical site, and risk factors reported in the literature to be associated with the primary outcome, for explanatory purposes To examine the role of adherence on the primary outcome, we included adherence as a binary variable and as a continuous variable (percentage of sessions attended) in the 3 models."|||<.05
95693027|NCT06150573|191356085|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.498||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.93|||ANOVA|||||0.93|-1.04|0.9141
95693028|NCT06150573|191356086|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.494||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.34|||ANOVA|||||1.34|-0.61|0.4583
95693029|NCT06150573|191356087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.06|-0.30|0.0042
95693030|NCT06150573|191356087|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.074|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.17|-0.46|<0.0001
95693031|NCT06150573|191356088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.05|0.2478
95693032|NCT06150573|191356088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Gingival MLSI, Week 24||0.01|-0.07|0.0957
95693033|NCT06150573|191356088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 12||-0.10|-0.58|0.0063
95693034|NCT06150573|191356088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.31|||ANOVA|||Mean Interproximal MLSI, Week 24||-0.31|-0.89|<0.0001
95693035|NCT06150573|191356088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.1536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 12||0.01|-0.03|0.1536
95693036|NCT06150573|191356088|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006||0.1166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.0|||ANOVA|||Mean Body MLSI, Week 24||0.00|-0.02|0.1166
95693037|NCT06150573|191356089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.07|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.07|-0.21|<0.0001
95693038|NCT06150573|191356089|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.10|-0.25|<0.0001
95693039|NCT06150573|191356090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||ANOVA|||Week 12||-0.00|-0.13|0.0400
95693040|NCT06150573|191356090|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.05|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.05|-0.20|0.0010
95693041|NCT01071044|191356103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||ANOVA|These data were initially analyzed with a one-way ANOVA.||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||.005
95693042|NCT01071044|191356104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.008
95693043|NCT01071044|191356105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.183||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.183
95693044|NCT01071044|191356106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.046
95693045|NCT01071044|191356107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.219||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.219
95693046|NCT01071044|191356108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.038
95693047|NCT01071044|191356109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANOVA|||These scores were calculated by subtracting participants' endpoint scores from their initial baseline scores. These change scores show the total change in executive functioning over the course of the trial. Higher values indicate improved executive functioning at the end of the trial compared to the beginning.||||0.022
95693048|NCT01201798|191356136|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The noninferiority margin was 0.5 units, meaning that the upper limit of the two-tailed 95% confidence interval must have been less than 0.5 to establish noninferiority.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||A two-tailed 95% confidence interval was calculated for the difference in change from baseline in anterior chamber cell grade at Day 14 (difluprednate minus prednisolone). The confidence interval was derived from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with investigative site included as a fixed effect to match the stratification used in the randomization process. Treatment and baseline anterior chamber cell grade were also included as fixed effects.||0.09|-0.53|
95693049|NCT02512068|191356150|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.966|-0.473|||ANCOVA|||||-0.473|-0.966|<0.0001
95693050|NCT02512068|191356153|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.385|-0.18||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.180|-0.385|
95693051|NCT02512068|191356153|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.621|-0.338||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.338|-0.621|
95693052|NCT02512068|191356153|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.797|-0.367||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.367|-0.797|
95693053|NCT02512068|191356153|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|-0.441||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.441|-0.975|
95693054|NCT02512068|191356153|OTHER||Point estimate|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.948|-0.452||||||Change from baseline in HbA1c at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-0.452|-0.948|
95693055|NCT02512068|191356154|OTHER||Point estimate|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.598|9.919||||||The data of participants achieving \<6.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||9.919|-6.598|
95693056|NCT02512068|191356154|OTHER||Point estimate|32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.194|51.66||||||The data of participants achieving \<7.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||51.660|14.194|
95693057|NCT02512068|191356154|OTHER||Point estimate|45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.528|75.7||||||The data of participants achieving \<8.0% at the end of Treatment Period I were compared between the treatment groups.||75.700|15.528|
95693058|NCT02512068|191356155|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.59|-6.88||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-6.88|-23.59|
95693059|NCT02512068|191356155|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.98|3.58||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||3.58|-20.98|
95693060|NCT02512068|191356155|OTHER||Point estimate|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.76|2.11||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||2.11|-18.76|
95693061|NCT02512068|191356155|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.14|-4.03||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.03|-27.14|
95693062|NCT02512068|191356155|OTHER||Point estimate|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.67|-4.62||||||Change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-4.62|-26.67|
95693063|NCT02512068|191356156|OTHER||Point estimate|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.184|-1.34||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 2 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.340|-2.184|
95693064|NCT02512068|191356156|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.45||||||95.0|-3.03|-1.87||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 4 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.870|-3.030|
95693065|NCT02512068|191356156|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.289|-1.679||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 8 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.679|-3.289|
95693066|NCT02512068|191356156|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at Week 12 was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
95693067|NCT02512068|191356156|OTHER||Point estimate|-2.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.608|-1.715||||||Change from baseline in glycoalbumin at End of Treatment Period I was compared between the treatment groups.||-1.715|-3.608|
95693068|NCT02538666|191356193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12|||Stratified Log Rank|Stratified by response to ECOG PS (0vs1), gender (MvF), irradiation following chemotherapy (YorN) as entered in IVRS|based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model|nivolumab + ipilimumab over placebo||1.12|0.75|0.3693
95693069|NCT02538666|191356194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.97|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.97|0.68|
95693070|NCT02538666|191356194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.66|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab over China Placebo||1.66|0.53|
95693071|NCT02538666|191356195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global nivolumab||1.36|0.94|
95693072|NCT02538666|191356195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China nivolumab||1.79|0.56|
95693073|NCT02538666|191356196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.88|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over global placebo||0.88|0.62|
95693074|NCT02538666|191356196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab over global placebo||0.79|0.55|
95693075|NCT02538666|191356196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.35|||||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab+ ipilimumab over nivolumab||1.35|0.94|
95693076|NCT02538666|191356196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.12|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China placebo||1.12|0.33|
95693077|NCT02538666|191356196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.85|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab over China placebo||0.85|0.24|
95693078|NCT02538666|191356196|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.49|||||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over China Nivolumab||2.49|0.72|
95693079|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.15|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.15|0.61|
95693080|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.04|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.04|0.55|
95693081|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.92|0.42|
95693082|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.93|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.93|0.44|
95693083|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.21|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.21|0.68|
95693084|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.18|0.66|
95693085|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.35|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.35|0.81|
95693086|NCT02538666|191356197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||1.20|0.72|
95693087|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.09|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.09|0.58|
95693088|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.92|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.92|0.50|
95693089|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.07|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.07|0.50|
95693090|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.95|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff ≥13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.95|0.46|
95693091|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.96|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||0.96|0.54|
95693092|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<10 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.49|
95693093|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.01|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo+Ipi over placebo||1.01|0.60|
95693094|NCT02538666|191356198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.89|||||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard Ratios are experimental treatment group over placebo.|TMB cutoff \<13 mutations/mb: Nivo over placebo||0.89|0.53|
95693095|NCT02538666|191356199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on stratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|Global nivolumab + ipilimumab over Global placebo||1.09|0.76|
95693096|NCT02538666|191356199|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank||Hazard Ratios are based on unstratified 3-arms Cox proportional hazard model.|China nivolumab + ipilimumab over China placebo||1.67|0.52|
95693097|NCT04370028|191356200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.42|4.72|||t-test, 2 sided|Paired test was performed||||4.72|4.42|<0.00001
95693098|NCT04370028|191356201|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.2|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|8.67|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<26 was assessed||8.67|6.01|<0.00001
95693099|NCT04370028|191356202|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.31|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.28|6.64|||Fisher Exact||OR estimated (week 1 to week 12) the higher the better|Odds ratio of occuring MoCA score \<17 was assessed||6.64|4.28|<0.00001
95693100|NCT04370028|191356203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.375|||<|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|4.96|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.96|-0.21|<0.07
95693101|NCT04370028|191356203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.74|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|5.31|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.31|4.17|<0.01
95693102|NCT04370028|191356203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.55|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.94|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||4.94|4.16|<0.01
95693103|NCT04370028|191356203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.49|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|5.27|||ANOVA|||Change of mean MoCA score||5.27|3.7|<0.01
95693104|NCT04370028|191356205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.803|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.246||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|1.28|||ANOVA|||||1.28|0.321|0.0011
95693105|NCT02492750|191356207|OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) Level|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||MTD is defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induces DLT in at least one-third of patients. A total of 6 patients treated at the MTD will be sufficient to identify common toxicities at the MTD.|||||
95693106|NCT02094586|191356237|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08||||||Lot A vs. Lot B||1.08|0.78|
95693107|NCT02094586|191356242|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||||||Lot B vs Lot C||1.20|0.87|
95693108|NCT02094586|191356243|EQUIVALENCE|The GMT of each lot was required to be within ±50% of each other lot with 95% confidence. Specifically, the 95% CI around each pairwise ratio of GMTs was required to be within \[0.67, 1.5\].|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.1||||||Lot A vs. Lot C||1.10|0.80|
95693109|NCT00256867|191356250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio Expressed as percent difference|-37.186|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.219|-32.879|||ANCOVA||Estimation parameter was Ratio to RSG Group expressed as percent difference from RSG group. Based on ANCOVA : Log(value) - log(baseline)= log(baseline) + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-32.879|-41.219|<0.0001
95693110|NCT00256867|191356251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.55|||ANCOVA||Change = Baseline + sex + country + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use|||-0.55|-1.09|<0.0001
95693111|NCT00256867|191356255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|36.32|||<|0.0001||95.0|16.52|79.85|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior Sulfonylurea use) of having an LDL-c \< 100 mg/dL at Week 6 on All FDC RSG/SIMV groups compared to All RSG monotherapy groups|||79.85|16.52|<.0001
95693112|NCT00256867|191356256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.07|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression: log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an HbA1c \< 7% or reduction of HbA1c \>= 0.7% at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7.07|2.32|<0.0001
95728588|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population: Reported from Gardasil Package Insert 04/2015, Tables 1, 2, 5, and 6||||0.48
95693113|NCT00256867|191356257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|7.0|||ANCOVA||Odds (logistic regression:log odds=Baseline + sex + Treatment + Prior SU use) of having an FPG \< 7.0 mmol/L or reduction of FPG \>= 1.67 mmol/L at Week 16 on All FDC group compared to Simv group.|||7|2.21|<0.0001
95693114|NCT02915367|191356275|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.93|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.93
95693115|NCT02915367|191356277|OTHER|Pearson chi-square||||||0.96|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.96
95693116|NCT02932475|191356297|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.19|||||The odds ratio was calculated and adjusted for study site, timing of diabetes diagnosis, gestational age at randomization stratified at 18 weeks, and baseline maternal BMI.|The sample size gave adequate power over a range of expected primary outcome event rates, with type I error set at 0.044 (reduced from 0.05 for interim analysis), with reasonable power under a conservative scenario assuming that 20% of subjects immediately stopped taking study agent.||1.19|0.63|
95693117|NCT02932475|191356298|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.2||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4
95693118|NCT02932475|191356299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided||comparison of mean (sd) between groups|||||0.4
95693119|NCT02932475|191356300|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95693120|NCT02932475|191356301|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|0.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95693121|NCT02426658|191356320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7044|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7044
95693122|NCT00088634|191356325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline BPRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
95693123|NCT00088634|191356326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline PANSS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
95693124|NCT00088634|191356327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
95693125|NCT00088634|191356328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Comparisons between SM-13496 and placebo will be performed by means of a 2-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group and study center as factors, and baseline MADRS score as a covariate. Ninety-five percent (95%) confidence intervals will be constructed using the variability estimates from the ANCOVA model.||||<0.05
95693126|NCT03255291|191356329|SUPERIORITY|A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise at 90 day follow-up was higher in the exercise mental imagery condition than in the sleep mental imagery condition||||0.0288
95693127|NCT03255291|191356329|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.3329|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise differed among the three risk display formats: risk ladder, table, and alphanumeric text.||||0.3329
95693128|NCT03255291|191356329|SUPERIORITY|-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates: sex, race, age, education, health literacy, season, risk display problem, acceptability, self-reported health, and baseline exercise.||-The investigators tested whether weekly minutes of exercise was influenced by an interaction between risk display format and mental imagery behavior||||0.0215
95693129|NCT03255291|191356330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||-This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design and only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome. A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons.||||0.0333
95693130|NCT03255291|191356331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4946||||||-A Dunnett adjustment was used to adjust for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.4946
95693131|NCT03255291|191356332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1397|||||||ANCOVA|Covariates were sex, race, age, education, numeracy, and graph literacy.||This study was designed as a 3X2 factorial design \& only the risk display format intervention (risk ladder, table, or text) was looked at for this outcome, as participants had not yet received the mental imagery intervention, thus it could not affect this outcome.||||0.1397
95693132|NCT03255291|191356333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise maintenance self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0070
95728589|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Injection site - Pain, any; Injection site - Swelling, any; Injection site - Erythema, any; Systemic - Nausea; Systemic - Fatigue Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||<0.001
95693133|NCT03255291|191356334|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8793||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise recovery self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichtomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8793
95693134|NCT03255291|191356335|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4673||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise affective attitudes). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.4673
95693135|NCT03255291|191356336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1916||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise unpleasant feelings). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1916
95693136|NCT03255291|191356337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8661||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise imagery vividness). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.8661
95693137|NCT03255291|191356338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0711||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0711
95693138|NCT03255291|191356339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0365||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise coping planning). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.0365
95693139|NCT03255291|191356340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1511||||||Covariates: sex, race, age, education, risk display issue, health literacy, season, acceptability, self-reported health, adherence, baseline exercise|Mixed Models Analysis|||The secondary outcomes are hypothesized mediators of the effect of the exercise-related mental imagery activities on future exercise behavior (e.g., exercise mental imagery will increase future exercise behavior by increasing exercise action self-efficacy). Because these analyses are relevant only for the exercise condition, and the dichotomous mental imagery variable includes both exercise and sleep, it is not appropriate to include the dichotomous mental imagery variable in this analysis.||||0.1511
95693140|NCT01204658|191356352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
95693141|NCT01204658|191356352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
95728590|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Headache Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.07
95693142|NCT01204658|191356352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.62|0.003
95693143|NCT01204658|191356352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.57||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-LD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-LD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.57|-2.61|0.003
95693144|NCT01204658|191356353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 1 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 1 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
95693145|NCT01204658|191356353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 2 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 2 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
95693146|NCT01204658|191356353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|2.66||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine post dose 3 was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to dose 3 vaccination in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.66|-2.63|0.003
95693147|NCT01204658|191356353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was supported if one could rule out an increase in terms of percentage of subjects (10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group) above 5% + half the incidence in the Synflorix Group (= null hypothesis) as shown by a 1-sided P-value \< 5%.|Difference in percentage|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|2.64||1-sided P-value computed using Kem Philips' approach for ruling out an increase in % subjects with fever \> 40.0°C and causal relationship to vaccination \> the boundary expressed as 5% + 0.5\*rate in the Synflorix group.|Kem Phillip's statistical test|||Non-inferiority of 10PP-HD vaccine vs Synflorix™ vaccine across doses was assessed by computing the difference in percentages of subjects reporting Grade 3 fever causally related to vaccination, across doses, in the 10PP-HD Group minus Synflorix Group.||2.64|-2.61|0.003
95693148|NCT02198651|191356380|OTHER|||||||0.943|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.943
95693149|NCT02198651|191356381|OTHER|||||||0.592|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.592
95693150|NCT02198651|191356382|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||Wald Chi|||||||0.688
95693151|NCT00762372|191356447|NON_INFERIORITY|Time to extubation = treatment group + surgical site +surgery time|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-6.6|
95693152|NCT00762372|191356448|NON_INFERIORITY|"Adjusted means of time from the end of study drug inhalation to extubation in the BLM-240 N2O group and sevoflurane group, which were obtained by analysis of covariance with surgical site and surgery time as covariates, were used to verify the non-inferiority of BLM-240 to the comparator sevoflurane, with a delta = 1.0 (minute) and significance level alpha = 2.5% (one-sided)."||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1500
95693153|NCT00762372|191356449|NON_INFERIORITY|Two-sample t-test||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95693154|NCT00762372|191356453|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||0.3113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3113
95693155|NCT00762372|191356455|NON_INFERIORITY|Fisher's exact test||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95693156|NCT03364335|191356459|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5461|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5461
95693157|NCT03364335|191356459|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0364|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0364
95693158|NCT03364335|191356459|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0156
95693159|NCT03364335|191356459|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0349|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0349
95693160|NCT03364335|191356460|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5348|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5348
95693161|NCT03364335|191356460|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0379|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0379
95693162|NCT03364335|191356460|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0215|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0215
95693163|NCT03364335|191356460|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline body weight as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0464|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0464
95693164|NCT03364335|191356461|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95693165|NCT03364335|191356461|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2646
95693166|NCT03364335|191356461|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0749
95693167|NCT03364335|191356461|OTHER|Pearson's Chi Square Test is used. Fisher exact test is used when any expected cell count is less than 5. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6758|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6758
95693168|NCT03364335|191356462|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9656|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9656
95693169|NCT03364335|191356462|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4254|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4254
95693170|NCT03364335|191356462|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1276|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1276
95693171|NCT03364335|191356462|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline waist circumference as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5937
95693172|NCT03364335|191356463|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.601|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6010
95693173|NCT03364335|191356463|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6513|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6513
95693174|NCT03364335|191356463|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4354|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4354
95693175|NCT03364335|191356463|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.031|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0310
95693176|NCT03364335|191356464|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4644|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4644
95693177|NCT03364335|191356464|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8573|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8573
95693178|NCT03364335|191356464|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8167|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8167
95693179|NCT03364335|191356464|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9223
95693180|NCT03364335|191356465|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6574|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6574
95693181|NCT03364335|191356465|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.8971|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8971
95693182|NCT03364335|191356465|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6317
95693183|NCT03364335|191356465|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0341|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0341
95693184|NCT03364335|191356466|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.372|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3720
95693185|NCT03364335|191356466|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2302
95693186|NCT03364335|191356466|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1377|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1377
95693187|NCT03364335|191356466|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline fasting plasma lipid as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4295|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4295
95693188|NCT03364335|191356467|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6726|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6726
95693189|NCT03364335|191356467|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.7934|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7934
95693190|NCT03364335|191356467|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5485|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5485
95693191|NCT03364335|191356467|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3676|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3676
95693192|NCT03364335|191356468|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1653|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1653
95693193|NCT03364335|191356468|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.197|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1970
95693194|NCT03364335|191356468|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0608|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0608
95693195|NCT03364335|191356468|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline HbA1c as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1583
95693196|NCT03364335|191356469|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0524|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0524
95693197|NCT03364335|191356469|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5221|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5221
95693198|NCT03364335|191356469|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3702|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3702
95693199|NCT03364335|191356469|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline diastolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.5426|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5426
95693200|NCT03364335|191356470|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1843|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1843
95693201|NCT03364335|191356470|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.4411|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4411
95693202|NCT03364335|191356470|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.6991|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6991
95693203|NCT03364335|191356470|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline systolic blood pressure as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3721|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3721
95693204|NCT03364335|191356471|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.0318|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0318
95728591|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Systemic - Fever Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.28
95693205|NCT03364335|191356471|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.3827|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3827
95693206|NCT03364335|191356471|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0050
95693207|NCT03364335|191356471|OTHER|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model: with treatment group and time as the main effects and baseline hsCRP as the covariate. Treatment A is used as the reference group.||||||0.1045|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1045
95693208|NCT01194804|191356472|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Sign test|||||||<0.001
95693209|NCT02670915|191356477|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 1-Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The primary analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value (s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|<0.001
95693210|NCT02670915|191356477|NON_INFERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 2-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Treatment difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.26||p-values are from the 1-sided test for non-inferiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|Multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||0.26|-0.01|<0.001
95693211|NCT02670915|191356477|SUPERIORITY|Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied: Step 3-Confirmatory secondary analysis: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog® both in combination with insulin degludec. Superiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below 0.|Treatment difference|-0.17|||=|0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.03||p-values are from the 1-sided test for superiority evaluated at the 2.5% level.|multiple imputation|Analyses were adjusted for region, strata (age), as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||The analysis was implemented as a statistical model using multiple imputation where the participants without any available HbA1c measurements at scheduled visits had their change from baseline HbA1c value(s) imputed from the available information from the treatment the participant had been randomised to.||-0.03|-0.30|=0.007
95693212|NCT00818207|191356557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.18|1.23|0.0007
95693213|NCT00818207|191356558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.33|1.21|0.0018
95693214|NCT00818207|191356559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.9||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 39 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.90|0.82|0.2979
95693215|NCT00818207|191356559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.87||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.87|0.76|0.4388
95693216|NCT00818207|191356560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.2||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||2.20|1.35|<0.0001
95693217|NCT00818207|191356561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.62||p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 52 odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of intervention and pooled center.||1.62|0.81|0.4551
95917222|NCT01678820|191792750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-24.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-16.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-16.3|-32.6|<0.001
95693218|NCT00967226|191356626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||intention to treat analysis||||0.77
95693219|NCT01670656|191356639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-1.0|< 0.001
95693220|NCT01670656|191356639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
95693221|NCT01670656|191356639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-1.1|< 0.001
95693222|NCT01670656|191356639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||cLDA|||||-0.2|-0.9|< 0.001
95693223|NCT01670656|191356640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.7|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-0.4|||cLDA|||||-0.4|-3.0|= 0.002
95917223|NCT01678820|191792750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.3||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|8.3|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||8.3|-7.7|0.937
95693224|NCT01670656|191356640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.6|||cLDA|||||-0.6|-3.1|< 0.001
95693225|NCT01670656|191356640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||cLDA|||||-0.3|-2.9|= 0.003
95693226|NCT01670656|191356640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||cLDA|||||0.1|-2.5|= 0.024
95693227|NCT01670656|191356641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.6|||=|0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.4|= 0.026
95693228|NCT01670656|191356641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.5|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-3.3|= 0.036
95693229|NCT01670656|191356641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.3|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.5|||cLDA|||||-0.5|-4.1|= 0.002
95693230|NCT01670656|191356641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Diffference in Least Squares Means|-1.2|||=|0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.6|||cLDA|||||0.6|-3.0|= 0.1
95693231|NCT01670656|191356642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.1|||=|0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||cLDA|||||0.3|-0.6|= 0.447
95693232|NCT01670656|191356642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
95693233|NCT01670656|191356642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.6|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||cLDA|||||-0.1|-1.0|= 0.003
95693234|NCT01670656|191356642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.3|||=|0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||cLDA|||||0.2|-0.7|= 0.156
95693235|NCT00487084|191356643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Log Rank|||A sample of 56 was estimated to have an 80% power to detect a 30% difference in the proportion of subjects with continuing analgesia in the MCS versus the SCM groups when 50% of the subjects in the SCM had requested supplemental analgesia. 28 subjects was added to compare the influence of time of morphine and 2-chloroprocaine administration to lidocaine-morphine analgesia. The primary outcome was compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test.||||0.006
95693236|NCT00487084|191356643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.83
95693237|NCT00487084|191356643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.009
95693238|NCT00487084|191356644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95693239|NCT00487084|191356644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95693240|NCT00487084|191356645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
95693241|NCT00487084|191356645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.01
95693242|NCT00487084|191356646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.20
95693243|NCT01575197|191356663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95693244|NCT01575197|191356664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.16
95693245|NCT01575197|191356665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95693246|NCT01575197|191356666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95693247|NCT01000727|191356670|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.91|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.91|0.929
95693248|NCT01000727|191356671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.02|0.9|1.09||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.09|0.90|0.777
95693249|NCT01000727|191356672|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.08||Statistical significance of this p-value is based on the alpha-spending function of this study.|Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.76|0.274
95693250|NCT01000727|191356673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.09|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.09|0.86|0.631
95693251|NCT01000727|191356674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.42|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \< 1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.42|0.88|0.354
95693252|NCT01000727|191356675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.73|0.161
95693253|NCT01000727|191356676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.31|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.31|0.91|0.360
95693254|NCT01000727|191356677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.03|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.03|0.88|0.202
95693255|NCT01000727|191356678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.05|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.05|0.87|0.329
95693256|NCT01000727|191356679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.90|0.797
95693257|NCT01000727|191356680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with this treatment compared to Placebo|||1.07|0.87|0.546
95693258|NCT01000727|191356681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.08|||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression Model|||||1.08|0.81|0.362
95693259|NCT00833248|191356717|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|4.14|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||FAS. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.14|-4.74|0.8942
95728592|NCT01492582|191426406|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Systemic - Dizziness Historical Healthy Population - As reported by Moreira et. al, 2016, Pediatrics, Table 5||||0.45
95728593|NCT01633827|191426424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95693260|NCT00833248|191356718|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be established if the treatment difference in adjusted (for baseline volume, and baseline total IPSS) mean percentage reduction was significantly greater (two-sided at α=0.05 level) than Δ = 10 points (non-inferiority margin) in both the FAS and PP analyses sets.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.268||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|4.52|||ANCOVA|The baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume were used as covariates and treatment was used as a factor in the analysis.||PP analysis set. Estimates from analysis of variance with treatment as factors and baseline IPSS and baseline Prostate volume as covariates.||4.52|-5.05|0.9123
95693261|NCT01151046|191356727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.63|||Log Rank|||||0.63|0.11|0.003
95693262|NCT01151046|191356727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.88|||Log Rank|||||2.88|0.69|0.349
95693263|NCT00210158|191356729|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4|42.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test for a difference of means, assuming independant samples and unequal variances||42.8|-23.4|0.5
95693264|NCT04322994|191356731|OTHER|||||||0.18||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any desaturation event.||||0.18
95693265|NCT04322994|191356731|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 desaturation event versus 2 or more events.||||0.26
95693266|NCT04322994|191356732|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.26
95693267|NCT04322994|191356732|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying desaturation event versus 2 or more qualifying events.||||0.08
95693268|NCT04322994|191356733|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any qualifying event.||||0.28
95693269|NCT04322994|191356733|OTHER|||||||0.38||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 qualifying event versus 2 or more events.||||0.38
95693270|NCT04322994|191356734|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with at any qualifying desaturation event.||||0.88
95693271|NCT04322994|191356735|OTHER|||||||0.14||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared, Corrected|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with any surgical interruption.||||0.14
95693272|NCT04322994|191356735|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test of independence||Analysis of between-group difference for participants with 1 surgical interruption versus 2 or more interruptions.||||0.21
95693273|NCT01954251|191356752|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparison at one month after the last dose of HZ/su was performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non-inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity if the UL of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMs between the Control and the Co-Ad group (Control over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) was below 1.5.|Adjusted Geometric mean concentration ra|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.2||||||Adjusted ratios of Control group over GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group in anti-gE antibody ELISA concentrations GMCs at one month after last vaccine dose. An Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model was used to analyse post-vaccination log-transformed concentrations of anti-gE. The fixed-effect model included the minimisation variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate.||1.20|0.97|
95693274|NCT01954251|191356753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||||||For the Flu A/California/7/2009 H1N1 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.22|0.88|
95693275|NCT01954251|191356753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17||||||For the Flu A/Texas/50/2012 H3N2 strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.17|0.91|
95693276|NCT01954251|191356753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.2||||||For the Flu B/Brisbane/60/2008 Victoria strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.20|0.95|
95693277|NCT01954251|191356753|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Comparisons at Day 21 after the FLU-D-QIV dose were performed between the Control group and GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group. The GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A group was considered as statistically significant non inferior compared to the Control group in terms of immunogenicity (for each strain) if the UL of 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTs between the Control and the GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A (Control/ GSK1437173A + GSK2321138A) group is below 1.5.|Adjusted geometric mean Titer ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||||||For the Flu B/Massachusetts/2/2012 Yamagata strain ,an ANOVA model was used to analyze post-vaccination log-transformed titers. The fixed-effect model included the minimization variable (age cohorts) and the treatment as fixed effect. The pre-vaccination log-transformed concentrations were included as continuous covariate. GMs of post-vaccination titers (Day 21) were calculated conditionally to the means of the pre-vaccination log-transformed titers (Month 0) for this strain.||1.09|0.88|
95693278|NCT04096326|191356785|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|40.6||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|57.6||P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||57.6|23.6|0.0096
95693279|NCT04096326|191356785|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|46.4||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.0|64.9||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||64.9|28.0|0.0094
95693280|NCT04096326|191356785|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|52.2||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.6|80.8||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.8|23.6|0.0044
95693281|NCT04096326|191356785|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|63.3||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|91.5||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||91.5|35.2|0.0026
95693282|NCT04096326|191356785|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference|85.7||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|100.0||P-value was based on CMH tests stratified by baseline GL severity at maximum frown to compare each AGN-151586 study intervention group versus placebo for each cohort.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||100.0|64.2|0.0000
95693283|NCT04804033|191356791|OTHER||Difference in least square mean (LSM)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.72|-0.12|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.12|-2.72|
95693284|NCT04804033|191356791|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.07|0.69|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.69|-2.07|
95693285|NCT04804033|191356792|OTHER||Difference in percentage|16.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.4|28.8|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||28.8|4.4|
95693286|NCT04804033|191356792|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.6|18.9|||||Stratified by randomization stratum using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimation.|||18.9|-5.6|
95693287|NCT04804033|191356793|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.68|0.58|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.58|-2.68|
95693288|NCT04804033|191356793|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.1|1.31|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||1.31|-2.10|
95693289|NCT04804033|191356794|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.16|-0.42|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||-0.42|-3.16|
95693290|NCT04804033|191356794|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.53|0.22|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.22|-2.53|
95693291|NCT04804033|191356795|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.59|0.05|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.05|-1.59|
95693292|NCT04804033|191356795|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.06|0.74|||||Linear mixed effects model with repeated measures with number of total migraine days per month in the OP as covariate, treatment group, randomization stratum, month, month-by treatment group interaction as fixed effects using migraine analysis set.|||0.74|-1.06|
95693293|NCT04804033|191356796|OTHER||Difference in LSM|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.5|9.39|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||9.39|-1.50|
95693294|NCT04804033|191356796|OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-5.66|5.86|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||5.86|-5.66|
95693295|NCT04804033|191356797|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.1|0.19|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.19|-18.10|
95693296|NCT04804033|191356797|OTHER||Difference in LSM|-9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.95|0.41|||||Linear regression model had the following variables: Week 12 change from baseline in domain score as the dependent variable; baseline domain score as a covariate; treatment group and randomization stratum as fixed effects.|||0.41|-18.95|
95693297|NCT01106625|191356817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.904|-0.524|||ANCOVA|||||-0.524|-0.904|<0.001
95693298|NCT01106625|191356817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.114|-0.732|||ANCOVA|||||-0.732|-1.114|<0.001
95693299|NCT01106625|191356818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.48|7.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.87|2.48|<0.001
95693300|NCT01106625|191356818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|15.95|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.95|4.86|<0.001
95693301|NCT01106625|191356819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-22.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.627|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.53|-13.16|||ANCOVA|||||-13.16|-31.53|<0.001
95693302|NCT01106625|191356819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-34.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.692|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.86|-25.42|||ANCOVA|||||-25.42|-43.86|<0.001
95693303|NCT01106625|191356820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.1|<0.001
95693304|NCT01106625|191356820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.3|||ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-2.7|<0.001
95693305|NCT01106625|191356821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.262||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.719|0.241|||ANCOVA|||||0.241|-4.719|0.077
95693306|NCT01106625|191356821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.266||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.111|0.866|||ANCOVA|||||0.866|-4.111|0.201
95693307|NCT01106625|191356822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|4.5|||ANCOVA|||||4.5|-16.9|0.256
95693308|NCT01106625|191356822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|7.6|||ANCOVA|||||7.6|-13.8|0.571
95693309|NCT01106625|191356823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.9|0.153
95693310|NCT01106625|191356823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||ANCOVA|||||6.8|-0.1|0.056
95693311|NCT00830037|191356892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.3||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The analysis of the primary outcome was intention to treat, if the patient received at least one dose of the randomized drug (which was the case for each subject). A linear mixed model was used with GFR as the outcome variable. Fixed effects were indicator variables for time (treated as a continuous variable), treatment, and their interaction. Random effects were subject and time with unstructured covariance; statistical inference was made using the maximum likelihood estimator.||2.3|-2.9|0.79
95693312|NCT00830037|191356893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.035||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.294|0.365||a = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Wald test||The secondary analysis examined the mean change from baseline proteinuria (log protein to creatinine ratio) at 2 years. The between-groups difference in mean change from baseline is reported with a 95% confidence interval and the p-value from the Wald test.||0.365|-0.294|0.83
95693313|NCT02439281|191356898|OTHER|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4510
95693314|NCT02439281|191356899|OTHER|||||||0.8914|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8914
95693315|NCT02439281|191356902|OTHER|||||||0.9531|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9531
95693316|NCT02439281|191356903|OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7780
95693317|NCT02439281|191356904|OTHER|||||||0.5692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5692
95693318|NCT04360187|191356907|SUPERIORITY||LS mean of difference|-17.13||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|-8.27|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-8.27|-25.98|0.0002
95693319|NCT04360187|191356911|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.9||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|23.1|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||23.1|2.8|0.0124
95693320|NCT04360187|191356912|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|20.3|||normal approximation to response rates||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||20.3|3.1|0.0078
95693321|NCT04360187|191356913|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.79||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.33|||Mixed effect Model for Repeated Measures||Crisaborole = Test Vehicle = Reference|||-0.33|-1.26|0.0009
95693322|NCT03280550|191356933|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.69||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.69|-1.59|<0.0001
95728594|NCT01633827|191426425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.025||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
95728595|NCT01633827|191426426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95728596|NCT01633827|191426427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5
95728597|NCT01633827|191426428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95693323|NCT03280550|191356934|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.25||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.25|-0.84|0.0004
95693324|NCT03280550|191356935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.06|-0.60|0.0161
95693325|NCT03280550|191356936|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.28||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.28|-0.84|0.0001
95693326|NCT03280550|191356937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.60|-1.43|<0.0001
95693327|NCT03280550|191356938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.31||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.31|-0.83|<0.0001
95693328|NCT03280550|191356939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.86|-10.38||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-10.38|-21.86|<0.0001
95917224|NCT01678820|191792751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-15.5||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|1.2|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||1.2|-32.2|0.068
95917225|NCT01678820|191792751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in estimated means|-10.3||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|13.0|||Robust regression|Using M-estimation with treatment, region, and a covariate for baseline triglycerides (mg/dL). Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.||||13.0|-33.6|0.365
95917226|NCT01678820|191792752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.5||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.8|-4.8|0.857
95917227|NCT01678820|191792752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|0.4||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|5.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.6|-4.8|0.879
95917228|NCT01678820|191792753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-30.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-9.7|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-9.7|-51.0|0.004
95917229|NCT01678820|191792753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-15.3||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|5.1|||Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|Based on a longitudinal model including terms for region, treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment.||||5.1|-35.8|0.141
95917230|NCT01678820|191792754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|12.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple impuattions.|||12.9|-12.2|
95917231|NCT01678820|191792754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percents|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|24.0|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method. Missing data were imputed by multiple imputations.|||24.0|0.7|
95693329|NCT03280550|191356940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.70|0.0023
95693330|NCT03280550|191356941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
95693331|NCT03280550|191356942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.4815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|17.64||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||17.64|0.00|0.4815
95693332|NCT03280550|191356943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.71||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.71|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||13.71|1.00|0.0492
95693333|NCT03280550|191356944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.6716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.51||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||5.51|0.05|0.6716
95693334|NCT03280550|191356945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.25||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|29.6||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||29.60|1.32|0.0209
95693335|NCT03280550|191356946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-0.96||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-0.96|-2.85|0.0001
95693336|NCT03280550|191356947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|6.24||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.24|1.38|0.0024
95693337|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% confidential interval (CI) on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.99|19.28|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||19.28|8.99|
95693338|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.32|8.01|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||8.01|4.32|
95693339|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|26.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||26.78|12.07|
95693340|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|3.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||3.08|1.90|
95729343|NCT02146430|191429061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01332||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0353|0.017|||ANCOVA|||||0.0170|-0.0353|0.4932
95693341|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|8.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||8.61|4.68|
95693342|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.92|8.97|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||8.97|4.92|
95693343|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.91|12.83|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||12.83|6.91|
95693344|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.96|5.1|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||5.10|2.96|
95693345|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|62.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.16|96.12|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||96.12|40.16|
95693346|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|23.89|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||23.89|11.22|
95693347|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.22|
95693348|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|12.21|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||12.21|6.24|
95693349|NCT05372575|191356956|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.15|11.29|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||11.29|6.15|
95728598|NCT01711021|191426436|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-5.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|-4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measure (MMRM) analysis for SKAMP total score in Double-Blind period||||-4.97|-6.76|< 0.001
95728599|NCT01711021|191426438|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95693350|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMR (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|9.86|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||9.86|2.32|
95693351|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||17.39|4.72|
95693352|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.25|33.05|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||33.05|6.25|
95693353|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.84|36.8|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||36.80|8.84|
95693354|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|33.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.33|80.13|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||80.13|14.33|
95693355|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|14.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|32.52|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||32.52|6.07|
95693356|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.85|36.76|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||36.76|7.85|
95693357|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.13|40.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||40.84|9.13|
95693358|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|23.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||23.10|4.74|
95693359|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||24.51|6.00|
95693360|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.94|51.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||51.10|10.94|
95693361|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|35.93|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||35.93|8.65|
95693362|NCT05372575|191356957|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|44.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.11|103.43|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC Cohort)/(GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/Non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||103.43|19.11|
95693363|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.42|0.16|
95729344|NCT02146430|191429061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01323||0.7688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0298|0.0221|||ANCOVA|||||0.0221|-0.0298|0.7688
95729345|NCT02146430|191429061|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.0109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01326||0.4099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0151|||ANCOVA|||||0.0151|-0.0369|0.4099
95917232|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.4
95917233|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|two-tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.109|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.109
95917234|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.779
95917235|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.262
95917236|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.150
95917237|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.726
95917238|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop A: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.055
95693364|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.98|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.98|0.27|
95693365|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.19|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.19|0.21|
95693366|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.86|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.86|0.36|
95693367|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.89|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.89|0.25|
95693368|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.07|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.07|0.27|
95693369|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.09|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.09|0.16|
95693370|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.81|0.35|
95917239|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
95917240|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05||||||0.844|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.844
95917241|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.945||||||df=7|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.945
95917242|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383||||||Alpha = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
95693371|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||2.24|0.20|
95693372|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.65|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.65|0.22|
95917243|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.383|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Mean change in osmolarity from baseline. H0: No change (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant change (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.383
95917244|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.672|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.672
95917245|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.107|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=7||Drop B: Mean change in osmolarity from baseline H0: No osmolarity change from baseline (e.g. mean change = 0) H1: Significant osmolarity change from baseline (mean change ≠ 0)||||0.107
95917246|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.64
95917247|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=14||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.040
95729346|NCT02146430|191429062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.88|0.0009
95693373|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.93|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||3.93|0.61|
95693374|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.99|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||4.99|0.65|
95693375|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.31|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.31|0.17|
95693376|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.38|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||1.38|0.31|
95693377|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.24|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||1.24|0.40|
95693378|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.59|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||1.59|0.33|
95693379|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||1.25|0.52|
95693380|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.52|0.57|
95693381|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.47|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||2.47|0.95|
95693382|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.34|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||1.34|0.41|
95729347|NCT02146430|191429062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.166||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-0.96|0.0001
95917248|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.20
95917249|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df-=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.150
95729348|NCT02146430|191429062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.17|<0.0001
95917250|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.730
95917251|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
95729349|NCT02146430|191429062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.6408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|-0.40|0.6408
95917252|NCT01614847|191792790|EQUIVALENCE|Two tailed, alpha = 0.05||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|df=12||Comparison of Drop A versus Drop B change in osmolarity at this point in time. H0: No difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and B (Drop A = Drop B) H1: Significant difference in osmolarity change between Drop A and Drop B||||0.89
95917253|NCT00249496|191792791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.73||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|8.69|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||8.69|1.60|.004
95917254|NCT00249496|191792793|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.43|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||2.43|0.26|=0.57
95917255|NCT00249496|191792795|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)||The Odds Ratio and Confidence Intervals could not be calculated because one of the groups was at 0.|||0|0|0.046
95917256|NCT00936221|191792819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3873|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.67|1.28||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox model adjusting for treatment, WHO performance status, LDH, M status and tumour sub-type.||If the true hazard ratio (HR) is 0.57, 58 deaths provides at least 80% power to demonstrate a statistically significant difference for OS, assuming a 1-sided 10% significance level.||1.28|0.67|0.3873
95917257|NCT03820323|191792823|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.03|||Modified Poisson regression|||||1.03|0.94|0.55
95917258|NCT03820323|191792824|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Modified Poission regression|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
95917259|NCT00545363|191792849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.8989|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant satisfaction between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.8989
95917260|NCT00545363|191792850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.453|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the participant perception between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.453
95917261|NCT00545363|191792851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.4917|||||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was done to compare the effect of adherence (Yes/No) on percent change from baseline in CTX between the Biofeedback and No-feedback arms.||||=0.4917
95917262|NCT00366301|191792852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change in Log CRP|20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted models included terms for baseline HbA1c and weight and change in weight at each time point.||As hsCRP was measured at both 6 and 14 weeks, linear mixed models conditioning on baseline hsCRP and adjusting for treatment stratum were constructed with the dependent variable being change in lnCRP. The means at each time point were estimated from a repeated-measures model incorporating all 3 time points. The interventions were assessed by fitting terms corresponding to study drug and treatment arm assignment.||||<0.05
95917263|NCT02912468|191792873|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.71|-1.07|<0.0001
95917264|NCT02912468|191792874|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-1.69|||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-1.69|-2.43|<0.0001
95917265|NCT02912468|191792875|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error. For regions outside of Japan, this first secondary endpoint was not tested unless both co-primary endpoints were significant at the 0.05 level. Hierarchical testing continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant. For Japan submission, LMK was instead a co-primary endpoint which also had to be met before secondary endpoints were tested in the hierarchy. Last endpoint in hierarchy is Week 24 SNOT-22.|LS mean difference|-7.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.35|-6.53||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-6.53|-8.35|<.0001
95917266|NCT02912468|191792876|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-2.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-2.17||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-2.17|-3.04|<.0001
95917267|NCT02912468|191792877|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|10.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|12.34||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||12.34|8.79|<.0001
95693383|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.57|0.34|
95917268|NCT02912468|191792878|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.93||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-0.93|-1.31|<.0001
95917269|NCT02912468|191792879|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS mean difference|-21.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.17|-17.06||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.||-17.06|-25.17|<.0001
95693384|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.18|0.16|
95917270|NCT04534114|191792918|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.68|||Log Rank|||||4.68|0.19|0.944
95917271|NCT04534114|191792918|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.95||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|4.72|||Log Rank|||||4.72|0.19|0.953
95917272|NCT04534114|191792918|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.63||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.75|||Log Rank|||||3.75|0.10|0.605
95917273|NCT04534114|191792919|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.45||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.08|||Log Rank|||||6.08|0.34|0.612
95917274|NCT04534114|191792919|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|1.27||||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.66|||Log Rank|||||5.66|0.28|0.757
95917275|NCT04534114|191792919|OTHER|Fesomersen groups were compared to the placebo group using two-sided log-rank tests. Due to the exploratory nature of these analyses, no multiplicity adjustment was done. Cause-specific hazard ratio and corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence intervals, comparing the hazards for the event-of-interest in each of the Fesomersen groups with the placebo group were estimated based on three separate cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models as exploratory analysis.|Cause specific Hazard ratio|0.91||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|4.52|||Log Rank|||||4.52|0.18|0.909
95917276|NCT04765735|191792935|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"It is hypothesized that the proportion of subjects with a reduction in overstimulation sensation during CL compared to OL period exceeds a performance goal of 50%.~H0: p ≤ 50% HA: p \> 50%"|Binomial Exact Test|||||||<0.001
95917277|NCT01672853|191792944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||||||A mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in least squares mean (LSMean) change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||1.6|-2.3|
95917278|NCT01672853|191792944|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.0||||||A MMRM with an unstructured variancecovariance matrix for each participant was used to calculate a point estimate and a 95% CI for the treatment difference between each treatment arm and placebo in LSMean change from baseline in MQC at Week 96. With MMRM setting, all participants with available data from the 3 treatment groups with change in MQC at Week 48 and/or Week 96 contributed to the overall model.||3.0|-1.0|
95917279|NCT03535337|191792949|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.59|0.28|0.03
95917280|NCT03535337|191792950|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.66|-1.32|0.82
95729350|NCT02146430|191429062|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.0786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.62|0.0786
95917281|NCT02714205|191792951|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.58|-1.66|0.34
95917282|NCT02714205|191792952|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|0.51||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|7.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix.|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||7.18|-6.15|0.88
95917283|NCT02714205|191792953|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean|-0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.48|-0.88|0.57
95917284|NCT02714205|191792954|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.09||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.63|-0.8|0.81
95693385|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.4|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||1.40|0.25|
95693386|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.23|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||1.23|0.50|
95693387|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.18|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.18|0.60|
95693388|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.72|||||GMR=(GMC of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.72|0.68|
95693389|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.44|43.49|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||43.49|2.44|
95917285|NCT02714205|191792955|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.43||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||1.23|-0.38|0.3
95917286|NCT02714205|191792956|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|0.4||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||2.32|-1.52|0.68
95917287|NCT02714205|191792957|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-0.83||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.23|-1.89|0.12
95917288|NCT02714205|191792958|SUPERIORITY||Model generated Least Square Mean Differ|-1.41||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models adjusted for baseline value, age, race, and Hispanic ethnicity. Repeated measures mixed models, with unstructured co-variance matrix|Model generated LS Mean Differences|||0.99|-3.81|0.25
95917289|NCT05879198|191792961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.473|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.473
95917290|NCT05879198|191792962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.469
95917291|NCT05879198|191792963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.155
95917292|NCT05879198|191792964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in total scale scores.||||.346
95917293|NCT05879198|191792966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-positive scale scores.||||.075
95917294|NCT05879198|191792966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in AEQ-negative scale scores.||||.320
95917295|NCT05879198|191792966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-positive scale scores.||||.049
95917296|NCT05879198|191792966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Paired samples, one-sided t-test comparing changes in MEEQ-negative scale scores.||||.089
95917297|NCT01598298|191792967|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-0.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.4||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use)|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for the stratification factors.||-0.40|-1.24|0.0002
95917298|NCT01598298|191792968|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient for treatment term|-1.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of BPI at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline worst pain score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.57|<0.0001
95693390|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|18.42|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||18.42|2.07|
95693391|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|18.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.35|80.37|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||80.37|4.35|
95693392|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|5.52|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||5.52|1.14|
95693393|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|11.8|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||11.80|2.33|
95693394|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|9.65|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||9.65|1.47|
95693395|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|21.36|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||21.36|1.65|
95693396|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|16.87|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||16.87|1.17|
95693397|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|90.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.67|494.56|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||494.56|16.67|
95693398|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|83.78|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||83.78|3.79|
95693399|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|8.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|18.3|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||18.30|3.60|
95693400|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.64|50.35|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||50.35|4.64|
95693401|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|10.25|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||10.25|1.72|
95729351|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.7|0.0541
95729352|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.4|0.7771
95917299|NCT01598298|191792969|OTHER|Two-sided test at the alpha=0.05 level|Coefficient fro treatment term|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.55||Two-sided p-value; alpha=0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the protocol-specified stratification factors (baseline average pain and prior taxane use).|The estimation parameter is the model-based coefficient for the treatment term, with placebo as the reference level.|The primary analysis will rely on longitudinal measures of pain interference scores at Weeks 2, 6, and 12 for improved power. Assessment windows of +/- 7 days, +/- 14 days, and +/- 14 days will be allowed for the 2, 6, and 12 week timepoints. The analysis will be performed using mixed models, adjusted for baseline pain interference score and the stratification factors.||-0.55|-1.35|<0.0001
95917300|NCT00186498|191792975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||Test of within subjects contrast: CVLT Long Delay Free Recall Time 1 (baseline) vs Time 2 (30 days): Placebo (F 4.093) p= 0.071; Memantine (F 35.042) p=0.006|Regression, Linear|||||||0.006
95917301|NCT01693692|191792985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.1683|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2||0.1683
95917302|NCT01693692|191792985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.0277|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0277
95917303|NCT01693692|191792986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48||0.2637|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5||0.2637
95917304|NCT01693692|191792986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0097|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7||0.0097
95917305|NCT01693692|191792987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0639|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0||0.0639
95917306|NCT01693692|191792987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.007|ONE_SIDED|95.0||-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1||0.0070
95917307|NCT00802737|191793008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.5|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.50|0.07|
95917308|NCT00802737|191793008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||0.52|0.02|
95917309|NCT00802737|191793008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of responders|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0|||||Two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals were calculated based on the binomial distribution. The estimated value was calculated using the number of responders (CR+nPR+PR) as the numerator and the total number of par. in the group as the denominator.|||1.00|0.03|
95917310|NCT00445601|191793021|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.9|||Log Rank|||||0.90|0.48|0.01
95917311|NCT00445601|191793022|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.49|||Log Rank|||||1.49|0.18|0.23
95917312|NCT02674490|191793045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Threshold for significance is two-sided alpha of 0.05.|Regression, Linear|The primary analysis was adjusted for aphasia type (Anomia, Broca, or other type), baseline aphasia severity (AQ), and age.||Sample Size Determination If sample size in each group is 20, we will have 89% power to detect a difference in means of 23 (the difference between A-tDCS mean change in accuracy of 33 and a sham mean change in accuracy of 10) assuming that the SD of change for both groups is 22.2 using a two group t-test with a two-sided alpha of 0.05.||||0.54
95917313|NCT03154359|191793059|OTHER|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.197
95917314|NCT03154359|191793059|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.562
95917315|NCT03154359|191793060|OTHER|||||||0.558|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.558
95917316|NCT03154359|191793061|OTHER|||||||0.147|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.147
95917317|NCT03154359|191793062|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.495
95693402|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.14|21.23|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||21.23|9.14|
95693403|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||8.24|4.17|
95693404|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|31.15|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||31.15|12.80|
95693405|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.24|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||3.24|1.87|
95729353|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.5488
95917318|NCT03154359|191793062|OTHER|||||||0.955|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.955
95917319|NCT03154359|191793063|OTHER|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991
95917320|NCT03154359|191793064|OTHER|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.759
95917321|NCT03154359|191793065|OTHER|||||||0.456|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 6-week responders and 6-week non-responders||||0.456
95917322|NCT03154359|191793065|OTHER|||||||0.822|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing 18-week responders and 18-week non-responders||||0.822
95917323|NCT03154359|191793066|OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
95917324|NCT03154359|191793067|OTHER|||||||0.539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.539
95917325|NCT03154359|191793068|OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.130
95917326|NCT03154359|191793069|OTHER|||||||0.652|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.652
95917327|NCT01460160|191793070|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|16.86||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.9|29.8||Superiority test versus AIEOP-BFM 2000|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - AIEOP-BFM 2000)|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in AIEOP-BFM 2000 historical control||29.8|3.9|0.032
95917328|NCT01460160|191793070|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin = 5%. One-sided type I error rate of 0.05|Estimate of difference|6.91||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|17.2||Superiority test versus EsPhALL|Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - EsPhALL) Test if lower confidence limit is above -5%|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate for all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. continuous imatinib plus chemotherapy in the Amended EsPhALL Trial Historical Control||17.2|-3.3|0.271
95917329|NCT01460160|191793070|SUPERIORITY|Difference in 3-year binomial EFS rate in all treated participants (dasatinib plus chemotherapy) vs. chemotherapy alone in COG AALL0031 historical control|Estimate of difference|-10.75||||0.157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.7|1.2|||Chi-squared||Treatment difference (CA180372 - COG AALL0031)|||1.2|-22.7|0.157
95917330|NCT02006121|191793080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0047|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0047
95917331|NCT02006121|191793081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0022
95917332|NCT02006121|191793082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95917333|NCT02006121|191793083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95917334|NCT02006121|191793084|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95917335|NCT02354859|191793085|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|5.9||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|22.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate is adjusted for baseline FEV1 % predicted strata (\<50% of predicted, between 50% and 70% of predicted, and \>70% of predicted).|||22.4|-11.2|0.811
95917336|NCT02354859|191793086|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE inicidence|3.1||||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|16.6|||Fisher Exact||95% confidence interval calculated using the Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction.|||16.6|-10.6|0.807
95917337|NCT02354859|191793087|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.93|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks of all participants (not per participant) in the trial was as follows: in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||0.93|0.71|0.002
95917338|NCT02354859|191793087|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.03|||Poisson Regression|||Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the IV Gallium group was 486.86 and in the Placebo group was 473.57.||2.03|0.39|0.783
95917339|NCT02354859|191793088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|7.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline FEV1 (liters), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||7.77|-3.66|0.479
95917340|NCT02354859|191793089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 28 and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline Pa density (log10 (CFU)), treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||0.01|-1.49|0.054
95693406|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.05|10.03|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||10.03|5.05|
95693407|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.54|10.92|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||10.92|5.54|
95693408|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|14.61|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||14.61|7.40|
95693409|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|5.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||5.47|3.04|
95693410|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|60.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.25|97.67|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||97.67|37.25|
95693411|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|26.47|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||26.47|11.37|
95693412|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|5.62|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||5.62|3.00|
95693413|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|14.08|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||14.08|6.65|
95693414|NCT05372575|191356958|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMC of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMC of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (IgG) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|13.64|||||GMR=(GMC of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMC of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||13.64|6.90|
95693415|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.91|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.91|0.06|
95917341|NCT02354859|191793090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|8.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis includes all data for relative change from baseline at Day 6, Day 14, Day 28, and Day 56. Mixed-effects repeated measures model includes terms for the baseline CFRSD-CRISS score, treatment, visit and a visit-by-visit interaction.|||8.53|-0.06|0.053
95917342|NCT00114634|191793120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95917343|NCT02223065|191793126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.975||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.915|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.915|0.4950
95917344|NCT02223065|191793127|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|0.993||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.932|1.06|||ANOVA|||||1.060|0.932|0.8650
95917345|NCT02223065|191793128|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.022||||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.054|||ANOVA|||||1.054|0.991|0.2344
95917346|NCT02223065|191793129|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.016||||0.2458|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.038|||ANOVA|||||1.038|0.993|0.2458
95917347|NCT02223065|191793130|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.024||||0.1947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.993|0.1947
95917348|NCT02223065|191793131|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The specified bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25) for PK measures|Geometric mean ratio|1.013||||0.3191|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.992|1.034|||ANOVA|||||1.034|0.992|0.3191
95917349|NCT00737061|191793179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.9|100.0||||||1-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||100|97.9|
95693416|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.92|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.92|0.10|
95693417|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||2.07|0.10|
95693418|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|11.75|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||11.75|0.27|
95693419|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||1.65|0.03|
95693420|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||0.44|0.01|
95693421|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.65|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||2.65|0.56|
95693422|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.26|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||1.26|0.03|
95693423|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.55|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||1.55|0.08|
95693424|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|4.47|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||4.47|0.15|
95693425|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|9.44|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||9.44|0.19|
95693426|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|22.42|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||22.42|0.67|
95693427|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.52|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in 13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||1.52|0.05|
95917350|NCT00737061|191793179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.9||||||95.0|97.6|99.5||||||2-sided confidence interval. No statistical hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE Trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment).||99.5|97.6|
95917351|NCT00737061|191793189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|97.2|100.0||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"1-sided Confidence Interval.~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 1-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||100|97.2|
95917352|NCT00737061|191793189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Pregnancy Prevention Rate|98.4||||||95.0|96.9|99.1||||No statistical hypothesis testing was performed.||"2-sided Confidence Interval~No hypothesis testing was performed. Confidence interval represents a 2-sided confidence interval for the pregnancy prevention rate in the EASE trial. 95% confidence interval derived using Kaplan Meier methods (log-log with PETO adjustment)."||99.1|96.9|
95693428|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.07|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 1||3.07|0.19|
95693429|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.46|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 3||2.46|0.42|
95693430|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|3.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 4||3.73|0.05|
95693431|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|2.73|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 5||2.73|0.15|
95693432|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|6.99|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6A||6.99|0.11|
95693433|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|12.51|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 6B||12.51|0.29|
95693434|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|17.43|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 7F||17.43|0.34|
95693435|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|7.7|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 9V||7.70|0.27|
95693436|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|17.41|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 14||17.41|0.30|
95917353|NCT05266963|191793190|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a paired samples Wilcoxon test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon matched-pairs||||||0.43
95917354|NCT05266963|191793191|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis will be performed using a standard two-tailed t test to compare differences between the two groups.||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95917355|NCT06173570|191793200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-35.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-26.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-26.93|-43.61|< 0.001
95917356|NCT06173570|191793200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.31|-29.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-29.51|-46.31|< 0.001
95729354|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0987
95729355|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Worst pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.1|0.1840
95917357|NCT06173570|191793200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.47|-36.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-36.86|-53.47|< 0.001
95693437|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 18C||2.97|0.14|
95693438|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|8.21|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19A||8.21|0.28|
95693439|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.97|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 19F||2.97|0.13|
95693440|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.24|||||GMR=(GMT of VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of VT+ Subgroup/VT- or Sp- Subgroup in non-13vPnC Cohort for Serotype: 23F||10.24|0.15|
95693441|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|23.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 1||23.91|0.41|
95693442|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|5.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|17.39|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 3||17.39|1.45|
95693443|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|141.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 4||141.81|1.32|
95693444|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.16|380.54|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 5||380.54|6.16|
95693445|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|229.1|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||229.10|0.48|
95693446|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|19.83|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||19.83|0.02|
95693447|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|55.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||55.96|1.98|
95693448|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|56.82|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||56.82|0.19|
95693449|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|63.12|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 14||63.12|0.06|
95917358|NCT06173570|191793200|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.03|-42.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 LDL-C values handled by the MMRM under MAR. Hierarchical testing (in the order of decreasing dose of study treatment) controls two-sided alpha = 0.05.||-42.37|-59.03|< 0.001
95693450|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|16.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|123.48|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||123.48|2.15|
95693451|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|24.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|367.81|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||367.81|1.59|
95693452|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|95.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.08|691.01|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||691.01|13.08|
95693453|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|10.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|171.84|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT+ Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT+ Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||171.84|0.64|
95693454|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|4.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.96|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 1||10.96|2.15|
95693455|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|9.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|20.36|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 3||20.36|4.50|
95693456|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|34.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 4||34.51|5.20|
95693457|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|17.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.76|37.91|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 5||37.91|7.76|
95917359|NCT06173570|191793201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.34|-25.37|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-25.37|-42.34|< 0.001
95917360|NCT06173570|191793201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|-28.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-28.17|-45.30|< 0.001
95917361|NCT06173570|191793201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.31|-35.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.41|-52.31|< 0.001
95917362|NCT06173570|191793201|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-49.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.35|-41.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline LDL-C, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-41.25|-58.35|< 0.001
95917363|NCT06173570|191793202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.27|-16.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-16.18|-26.27|< 0.001
95917364|NCT06173570|191793202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|-17.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-17.30|-27.48|< 0.001
95917365|NCT06173570|191793202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.16|-22.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.11|-32.16|< 0.001
95693458|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|40.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.16|106.65|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6A||106.65|15.16|
95693459|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|20.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.39|49.51|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 6B||49.51|8.39|
95693460|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|21.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.65|52.07|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 7F||52.07|8.65|
95693461|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|23.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.39|54.19|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 9V||54.19|10.39|
95693462|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.46|30.22|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 14||30.22|5.46|
95693463|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|12.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|27.88|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 18C||27.88|5.95|
95693464|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|26.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.46|63.58|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19A||63.58|11.46|
95693465|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|15.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.02|34.38|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 19F||34.38|7.02|
95693466|NCT05372575|191356959|SUPERIORITY|The 2-sided 95% CI on the GMRs (the GMT of 13vPnC Cohort to the GMT of Non-13vPnC Cohort) for all 13 serotypes are provided and those 95% CIs were constructed by back transformation of the CIs for the mean difference of the measures on the logarithmically transformed scale (MOPA) using Student's t distribution.|GMR|48.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.67|127.16|||||GMR=(GMT of 13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)/(GMT of non-13vPnC VT- or Sp- Subgroup)|GMR of 13vPnC Cohort/non-13vPnC Cohort in VT- or Sp- Subgroups for Serotype: 23F||127.16|18.67|
95693467|NCT01943864|191356993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|10.0||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|31.7|||Exact Binomial Test|||||31.7|1.2|0.976
95693468|NCT01943864|191356994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||non PD rate at Week 12|15.0||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|37.9|||Exact Binomial Test|||||37.9|3.2|0.909
95693469|NCT01943864|191357009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.1|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.1|4.6|
95693470|NCT01943864|191357010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median PFS|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|12.7|||||Lower and upper limits and estimation value are in terms of weeks|||12.7|4.6|
95693471|NCT01943864|191357011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Survival|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|39.3||||||||39.3|6.2|
95693472|NCT01943864|191357012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.8||||||||16.8|0|
95693473|NCT01943864|191357013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ORR|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|24.9||||||||24.9|0.1|
95693474|NCT01318083|191357021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.936|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.097|-0.775||||||||-0.775|-1.097|
95693475|NCT01318083|191357021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.837||||||||-0.837|-1.160|
95693476|NCT01318083|191357022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.196|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.261|
95693477|NCT01318083|191357022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|-0.154||||||||-0.154|-0.273|
95693478|NCT01318083|191357023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.507|-0.312||||||||-0.312|-0.507|
95693479|NCT01318083|191357023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.453|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.547|-0.358||||||||-0.358|-0.547|
95693480|NCT01318083|191357024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|-0.556||||||||-0.556|-0.834|
95917366|NCT06173570|191793202|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|-24.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-24.31|-34.40|< 0.001
95693481|NCT01318083|191357024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.911|-0.629||||||||-0.629|-0.911|
95693482|NCT01318083|191357025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.6|-10.83||||||||-10.83|-24.60|
95693483|NCT01318083|191357025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.93|-10.25||||||||-10.25|-24.93|
95693484|NCT01318083|191357026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-16.02||||||||-16.02|-30.33|
95693485|NCT01318083|191357026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.33|-17.43||||||||-17.43|-32.33|
95917367|NCT06173570|191793203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.81|-7.87|0.111
95693486|NCT01318083|191357027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-19.91||||||||-19.91|-35.32|
95693487|NCT01318083|191357027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-14.69||||||||-14.69|-30.76|
95693488|NCT01318083|191357028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-19.59||||||||-19.59|-37.14|
95693489|NCT01318083|191357028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.33|-13.54||||||||-13.54|-30.33|
95693490|NCT01318083|191357029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.58|-10.23||||||||-10.23|-36.58|
95693491|NCT01318083|191357029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|-4.95||||||||-4.95|-33.40|
95693492|NCT00962039|191357061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.1||Analyses were conducted over 8 week follow-up.|Chi-squared|||||0.10|-0.12|0.92
95693493|NCT00962039|191357062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.01|||Chi-squared|||||-0.01|-0.15|0.034
95693494|NCT00962039|191357063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.02|-0.07|0.261
95693495|NCT00962039|191357064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.18|-0.36|0.519
95693496|NCT00962039|191357065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.77|0.704
95693497|NCT00962039|191357066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.17|0.01|0.046
95693498|NCT02227329|191357073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95693499|NCT03229759|191357083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.08||||||Test on abdomen Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||2.08|0.88|
95693500|NCT03229759|191357083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.96||||||Tested on the abdomen Analysis was performed based on deferral letters from the FDA. Average treatment effect was calculated using a linear regression model for each body site was used for primary analysis. In the model, the response was the post-treatment log10 bacterial counts and predictors were the treatment effect as a fixed effect and the pre-treatment log10 bacterial counts as a covariate.||1.96|0.72|
95693501|NCT03229759|191357083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.47||||||Groin||2.47|1.38|
95693502|NCT03229759|191357083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.79||||||Groin||1.79|0.73|
95693503|NCT01830543|191357084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.47|<0.001
95917368|NCT06173570|191793203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.74|-3.98|0.864
95917369|NCT06173570|191793203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.68||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.63|-5.99|0.445
95693504|NCT01830543|191357084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.5|<0.001
95693505|NCT01830543|191357085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.33|0.234
95693506|NCT01830543|191357085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.28|0.114
95693507|NCT01830543|191357086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.28|||Log Rank|||||1.28|0.2|0.144
95693508|NCT01830543|191357086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.2|0.134
95693509|NCT01830543|191357087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Log Rank|||||0.8|0.47|<0.001
95693510|NCT01830543|191357087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.52|0.002
95693511|NCT01830543|191357088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.68|||Log Rank|||||1.68|0.69|0.75
95693512|NCT01830543|191357088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.48|||Log Rank|||||1.48|0.59|0.765
95693513|NCT01830543|191357089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.8|||Log Rank|||||2.8|0.59|0.523
95693514|NCT01830543|191357089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.62|||Log Rank|||||2.62|0.54|0.664
95693515|NCT01830543|191357090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.46|0.625
95693516|NCT01830543|191357090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.42|||Log Rank|||||1.42|0.4|0.374
95693517|NCT01830543|191357091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.96|||Log Rank|||||2.96|0.39|0.891
95693518|NCT01830543|191357091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|3.58|||Log Rank|||||3.58|0.52|0.53
95693519|NCT01830543|191357092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.45|||Log Rank|||||4.45|0.32|0.79
95693520|NCT01830543|191357092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|5.09|||Log Rank|||||5.09|0.4|0.574
95728600|NCT03294538|191426454|EQUIVALENCE|If the adjusted 90% confidence interval on the difference between proportions of participants considered Responders in the generic estradiol vaginal cream group and the Estrace Vaginal Cream group was contained within the equivalence range \[-0.20, +0.20\], then treatment with generic estradiol vaginal cream and treatment with Estrace Vaginal Cream were considered therapeutically equivalent.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.8|7.2||||||Therapeutic equivalence of the generic estradiol vaginal cream group to the Estrace Vaginal Cream group based on the primary endpoint was evaluated in the PP population.||7.2|-5.8|
95693521|NCT00839423|191357141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-2.91||"A hierarchical hypothesis testing procedure was used. The comparison of 10 mg to placebo was primary.~Since p-value was \<0.05, hierarchically testing continued."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6.~With 96 patients in each treatment arm and a standard deviation of 9 points, the power to detect a true effect of 3.7 points on the MADRS total score at Week 6 will be 80%."||-2.91|-8.49|<0.0001
95693522|NCT00839423|191357141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.64|-3.17||"The hierarchical hypothesis testing meant that comparison of 5 mg to placebo was performed at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for the primary comparison of 10 mg to placebo.~Since p-value \<0.05, hierarchically testing contd."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 6."||-3.17|-8.64|<0.0001
95693523|NCT00839423|191357141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-3.72||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-3.72|-9.13|<0.0001
95693524|NCT00839423|191357142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.2377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|0.54||"The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was tested at a 5% significance level since significance was achieved for both 10 and 5 mg at Week 6.~Since p-value was \>0.05, hierarchically testing stopped here."|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 10 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||0.54|-2.17|0.2377
95693525|NCT00839423|191357142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.11||The hierarchical procedure meant that the above hypothesis was not tested since significance was not achieved for 10 mg at Week 1. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||"The statistical model was ANCOVA of the change from baseline in MADRS total score (FAS, LOCF) with treatment and centre as fixed factors and the baseline MADRS score as a covariate.~Null hypothesis: No difference between 5 mg Vortioxetine and placebo at Week 1."||1.11|-1.54|0.7489
95693526|NCT00839423|191357142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.4142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.85||This treatment arm was not in the testing sequence. A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||1.85|-0.77|0.4142
95693527|NCT00839423|191357143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.69|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.69|<0.0001
95693528|NCT00839423|191357143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.79|-2.88||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-2.88|-7.79|<0.0001
95917370|NCT06173570|191793203|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.01||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|5.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.34|-3.32|0.648
95917371|NCT06173570|191793204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.5||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.97|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.96|-17.97|0.266
95917372|NCT06173570|191793204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.67||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.17|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-18.17|0.256
95917373|NCT06173570|191793204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.63||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||3.69|-18.95|0.186
95693529|NCT00839423|191357144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.33||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.33|-5.27|0.0011
95693530|NCT00839423|191357144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-1.0||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-1.00|-5.01|0.0034
95693531|NCT00839423|191357145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.52||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.52|-1.28|<0.0001
95693532|NCT00839423|191357145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.56||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.34|<0.0001
95693533|NCT00839423|191357146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.90|0.0003
95693534|NCT00839423|191357146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.27||A nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|||||-0.27|-0.92|0.0003
95693535|NCT00839423|191357147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|21.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.89|34.92||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||34.92|8.89|0.002
95693536|NCT00839423|191357147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|23.34||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.05|36.43||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||36.43|10.05|0.001
95693537|NCT00839423|191357148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.41||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.74|35.07||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.07|9.74|0.001
95693538|NCT00839423|191357148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference %|22.33||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.39|35.28||A nominal p-value is provided.|Fisher Exact|||||35.28|9.39|0.001
95693539|NCT01332019|191357156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||rate ratio|0.755||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.595|0.957||q2w/q4w|negative binomial regression|||Based on negative binomial regression for each treatment group, with adjustment for EDSS (\<4 vs. \>=4), relapse rate (based on 1 year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and age (\<40 vs. \>=40) at 105MS302 baseline.||0.957|0.595|0.0203
95693540|NCT01332019|191357157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96||Based on Cox proportion hazards model, adjusted for EDSS (\<4 vs \>= 4), age (\<40 vs \>=40), relapse rate (based on one year before 105MS301 and 105MS301), and gadolinium (Gd) enhancing lesions (presence vs. absence) at 105MS302 baseline.|Cox proportion hazards model|||q2w/q4w||0.96|0.59|0.0201
95693541|NCT01332019|191357158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.63||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.63|0.41|<0.0001
95693542|NCT01332019|191357158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.62||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T2 lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.62|0.39|<0.0001
95917374|NCT06173570|191793204|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.44|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||1.43|-21.44|0.086
95693543|NCT01332019|191357159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 48||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
95693544|NCT01332019|191357159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lesion mean ratio|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.71||Lesion mean ratio (95% CI) and p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on negative binomial regression, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline number of Gd lesions.|negative binomial regression|||Week 96||0.71|0.43|<0.0001
95693545|NCT01332019|191357160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||<0.0001
95693546|NCT01332019|191357160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of T1 lesions.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||<0.0001
95693547|NCT01332019|191357161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 48||||0.0012
95693548|NCT01332019|191357161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||||||p-value for comparison between the every 2 weeks group and the every 4 weeks group, based on multiple logit regression, adjusted for 302 baseline number of Gd-enhancing lesion.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 96||||0.0026
95693549|NCT01332019|191357167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.85||Based on Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusted for 105MS302 baseline EDSS and age (\<40 vs \>=40).|Cox Proportional Hazards model||q2w/q4w|||0.85|0.38|0.0060
95693550|NCT00980785|191357190|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|78.7||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
95693551|NCT00980785|191357190|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|90.6||0.836|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.836
95693552|NCT00980785|191357191|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95693553|NCT00980785|191357191|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95693554|NCT00980785|191357192|OTHER|Mann-Whitney Test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
95917375|NCT06173570|191793205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-30.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.63|-22.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.12|-38.63|< 0.001
95693555|NCT00980785|191357192|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.23||0.755|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.755
95693556|NCT00980785|191357193|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.9||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
95693557|NCT00980785|191357193|OTHER|Mann-Whitney test|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.491
95693558|NCT03377244|191357203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of percent change in weight from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1013
95693559|NCT03377244|191357204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.495||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in mean HbA1c from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment.||||||0.4950
95693560|NCT03377244|191357205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7416||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in systolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.7416
95693561|NCT03377244|191357206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0702||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0702
95693562|NCT03377244|191357207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in eating habits self-efficacy scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0070
95693563|NCT03377244|191357208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in physical activity self-efficacy scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0009
95693564|NCT03377244|191357209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.374||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis for the probability of participants to engage in sufficient physical activity at 6 months post-intervention.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, employment status, and baseline physical activity.||||||0.3740
95693565|NCT03377244|191357210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9556||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' sugar-sweetened beverage consumption per day from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.9556
95693566|NCT03377244|191357211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1726||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' fruit and vegetable consumption scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.1726
95693567|NCT03377244|191357212|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0478||||||The p-value above reflects results of between-arms analysis of change in participants' family support scale scores from baseline to 6 months post-intervention.|general linear model|Model adjusted for age, sex, education, marital status, and employment status.||||||0.0478
95693568|NCT04348656|191357221|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.43|||wald test|||||1.43|0.94|0.18
95693569|NCT04348656|191357222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.47|||Regression, Cox|||||1.47|0.89|0.30
95917376|NCT06173570|191793205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.71|-25.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-25.08|-41.71|< 0.001
95693570|NCT04348656|191357223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||0.7|-2.1|0.41
95693571|NCT04348656|191357224|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.46|||wald test|||||1.46|0.86|0.40
95917377|NCT06173570|191793205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|-30.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-30.43|-46.90|< 0.001
95693572|NCT04348656|191357225|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-0.3|0.22
95693573|NCT04348656|191357226|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.83||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.27|||t-test, 2 sided|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|bootstrap estimates based on resampling process|||2.27|0.31|0.72
95693574|NCT04348656|191357229|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.45|||wald test|||||1.45|0.88|0.33
95693575|NCT04348656|191357230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|||1.35|0.76|0.91
95693576|NCT04348656|191357231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.80|0.18
95693577|NCT04348656|191357232|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.26|||wald test|||||2.26|1.04|0.03
95693578|NCT04348656|191357232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.7||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.69|||Regression, Cox|competing risk analysis|competing risk analysis|The cumulative incidence of Grade 3 and 4 serious AEs is described as a hazard ratio.||2.69|1.08|0.02
95693579|NCT04348656|191357234|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||wald test|||||1.57|1.02|0.03
95917378|NCT06173570|191793205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.43|-36.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-36.94|-53.43|< 0.001
95693580|NCT04348656|191357237|OTHER|Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life day gained (ICER)- this is a summary measure of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, compared to the control group. This is calculated using the cost (derived from cost of the intervention and cost of hospital stay based on the payer's perspective) per patient and the quality-adjusted life days calculated using the EQ-5D-5L results.|ICER (CAD)|-44623.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-525369.24|436123.22|||||ICER is reported in Canadian dollars. 95% CI is calculated by 1000 bootstrap sampling using bias-corrected accelerated method.|||436123.22|-525369.24|
95693581|NCT00922194|191357246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3|<|0.05||95.0|-9.03|-7.72|||Paired t test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-7.72|-9.03|<0.05
95693582|NCT00922194|191357247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-3.27|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.5|-3.0|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||-3.0|-3.5|<0.05
95693583|NCT00922194|191357248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||<|0.05||95.0|-8.37|-6.47|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-6.47|-8.37|<0.05
95693584|NCT00922194|191357249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.014|||<|0.05||95.0|-0.02|0.001|||Wilcoxon paired sign rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months or more and baseline values||0.001|-0.02|<0.05
95693585|NCT00922194|191357250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.61|||<|0.05||95.0|-5.2|-3.8|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-3.8|-5.2|<0.05
95693586|NCT00922194|191357251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.97|||<|0.05||95.0|-3.57|-2.38|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.38|-3.57|<0.05
95917379|NCT06173570|191793206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.06||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|4.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.84|-16.96|0.276
95917380|NCT06173570|191793206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.17||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.08|7.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||7.73|-14.08|0.568
95917381|NCT06173570|191793206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.98||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|5.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.75|-15.71|0.363
95693587|NCT00922194|191357252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.37|||<|0.05||95.0|-2.65|-2.08|||Wilcoxon paired signed rank-sum test|||Analysis of difference between 12 months and baseline values||-2.08|-2.65|<0.05
95693588|NCT04131517|191357296|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the least squares (LS) means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0404|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94156|1.1497||||||The analysis of variance model (ANOVA) included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1497|0.94156|
95693589|NCT04131517|191357297|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.89272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76892|1.0364||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0364|0.76892|
95693590|NCT04131517|191357300|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|1.0276|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95544|1.1052||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.1052|0.95544|
95693591|NCT04131517|191357301|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL+ OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC0-inf was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.88808|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52185|1.5113||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.5113|0.52185|
95693592|NCT04131517|191357308|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed Cmax was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96378|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85043|1.0922||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0922|0.85043|
95693593|NCT04131517|191357310|OTHER|A lack of PSL effect on EE and LN would have been concluded if the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio between treatment with PSL + OC and OC Alone of the LS means for the log-transformed AUC was within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%.|Geometric LS Mean ratio|0.96842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91888|1.0206||||||The ANOVA model included Treatment, Period, and Sequence as fixed effects and participant within Sequence as a random effect.||1.0206|0.91888|
95917382|NCT06173570|191793206|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.73||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.57|4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||4.11|-17.57|0.223
95917383|NCT06173570|191793207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.79||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||0.98|-6.56|0.146
95917384|NCT06173570|191793207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.21||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|2.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.56|-4.98|0.530
95917385|NCT06173570|191793207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||2.87|-4.56|0.654
95917386|NCT06173570|191793207|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.26||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|5.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||5.00|-2.48|0.509
95917387|NCT06173570|191793208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.08|-20.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-20.93|-33.08|< 0.001
95917388|NCT06173570|191793208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|-22.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-22.20|-34.42|< 0.001
95917389|NCT06173570|191793208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.27|-31.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-31.23|-43.27|< 0.001
95917390|NCT06173570|191793208|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.92|-33.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing Week 12 values handled by the MMRM under MAR.||-33.83|-45.92|< 0.001
95917391|NCT06173570|191793209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.09|-14.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-14.84|-25.09|< 0.001
95917392|NCT06173570|191793209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.73|-16.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-16.35|-26.73|< 0.001
95917393|NCT06173570|191793209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.37|-21.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-21.18|-31.37|< 0.001
95917394|NCT06173570|191793209|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.8|-23.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-23.48|-33.80|< 0.001
95917395|NCT06173570|191793210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.31||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.99|-6.62|0.292
95917396|NCT06173570|191793210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.76|4.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.86|-3.76|0.802
95917397|NCT06173570|191793210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.94||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.21|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.32|-5.21|0.664
95917398|NCT06173570|191793210|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.74|5.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.82|-2.74|0.481
95917399|NCT06173570|191793211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.03|-17.50|0.278
95917400|NCT06173570|191793211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.87||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.19|4.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.45|-18.19|0.234
95693594|NCT05142332|191357315|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|11.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|19.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.3|4.5|<0.001
95693595|NCT05142332|191357316|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted absolute difference|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|14.1|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.1|1.7|<0.001
95693596|NCT01718509|191357336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.28|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.28|-2.04|<0.001
95693597|NCT01718509|191357337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95693598|NCT01718509|191357338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95693599|NCT01718509|191357339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|-4.44|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-4.44|-6.39|<0.001
95693600|NCT01718509|191357340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-6.36|||Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-6.36|-9.51|<0.001
95693601|NCT01718509|191357341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.196||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||||-0.070|-0.321|0.002
95693602|NCT01718509|191357342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.077||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.05|||ANCOVA|||||0.050|-0.205|0.234
95693603|NCT01718509|191357343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.03||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-0.02|0.185
95693604|NCT01718509|191357344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95693605|NCT01718509|191357345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.69||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-1.69|-2.77|<0.001
95693606|NCT01718509|191357346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.27||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.24||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Cognitive Restraint of Eating||2.24|0.29|0.011
95693607|NCT01718509|191357346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-2.76||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Disinhibition of Eating||-2.76|-4.44|<0.001
95693608|NCT01718509|191357346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|-3.33||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||Perceived Hunger||-3.33|-5.09|<0.001
95693609|NCT01718509|191357347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-7.12||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures Analysis|||||-7.12|-11.44|<0.001
95693610|NCT01718509|191357348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.96||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|0.85||Multiplicity is not adjusted for this secondary efficacy endpoint in this study.|ANCOVA|||||0.85|-2.77|0.298
95693611|NCT05209932|191357356|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95693612|NCT05209932|191357357|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95693613|NCT05209932|191357358|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
95693614|NCT05209932|191357359|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95693615|NCT05209932|191357360|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95693616|NCT05209932|191357361|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95693617|NCT05209932|191357362|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.01
95693618|NCT05209932|191357363|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.04
95693619|NCT05209932|191357364|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.02
95693620|NCT05209932|191357365|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95693621|NCT05209932|191357366|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
95693622|NCT05209932|191357367|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.12
95693623|NCT05209932|191357368|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.03
95693624|NCT05209932|191357369|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
95693625|NCT05209932|191357370|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
95693626|NCT05209932|191357371|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.33
95693627|NCT05209932|191357372|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95693628|NCT05209932|191357373|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.42
95693629|NCT05209932|191357374|EQUIVALENCE|Testing the equivalence of the means using two-tailed test.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.97
95693630|NCT02190747|191357399|OTHER|||||||0.1664|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1664
95693631|NCT02190747|191357400|OTHER|||||||0.2335|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 6: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.2335
95693632|NCT02190747|191357400|OTHER|||||||0.0837|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Week 12: Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.0837
95693633|NCT02190747|191357401|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean|-86.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.6984|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.6984
95693634|NCT02190747|191357401|OTHER||LS mean|-38.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.8811|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 6: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.8811
95693635|NCT02190747|191357401|OTHER||LS mean|-764.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|220.57||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0017
95693636|NCT02190747|191357401|OTHER||LS mean|-703.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.192||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||Pairwise test|||Week 12: Analysis of area of new HO||||0.0094
95917401|NCT06173570|191793211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.32||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.41|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.78|-18.41|0.196
95917402|NCT06173570|191793211|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.87||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.14|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||1.41|-21.14|0.086
95917403|NCT06173570|191793212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.16|-20.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.81|-37.16|<0.001
95693637|NCT02190747|191357402|OTHER|||||||0.1503|||||||Cochran-Armitage test of trend|||Cochran-Armitage test of trend (one-sided). The Cochran-Armitage test of trend assessed the overall trend of response across the dose groups (from the lowest dose \[or placebo\], to the highest dose).||||0.1503
95693638|NCT02345252|191357425|NON_INFERIORITY|A sample size of 275 HIV-1 infected participants per treatment group would provide 85% power to detect a noninferiority margin of 8% in the Week 48 response rate difference between the FTC/RPV/TAF group and FTC/RPV/TDF group. For sample size and power computation, it is assumed that both treatment groups will have a response rate of 89% (based on Gilead Study GS-US-292-0109), that a noninferiority margin is 8%, and that the significance level of the test is at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Difference in Percentages|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.001|-4.2|3.7|||||The difference in percentages and its 95.001% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|The null hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48 in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was at least 8% lower than the rate in the FTC/RPV/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL in the FTC/RPV/TAF group was less than 8% lower than that in the FTC/RPV/TDF group.||3.7|-4.2|
95693639|NCT02345252|191357425|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95693640|NCT02336594|191357444|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the Pharmacokinetics (PK), Pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|107.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.2|120.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||120|95.2|
95693641|NCT02336594|191357446|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.6|111.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||111|85.6|
95693642|NCT02336594|191357447|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.3|115.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||115|87.3|
95693643|NCT02336594|191357449|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|182.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|144.0|230.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||230|144|
95693644|NCT02336594|191357450|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|140.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|121.0|163.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||163|121|
95917404|NCT06173570|191793212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.54|-24.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-24.02|-40.54|<0.001
95693645|NCT02336594|191357451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|134.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|114.0|156.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||156|114|
95693646|NCT02336594|191357452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.4|94.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.2|66.4|
95693647|NCT02336594|191357453|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|85.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.9|98.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||98.8|73.9|
95693648|NCT02336594|191357454|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size is not based on formal power calculations, as this study is designed only to provide an initial assessment of the PK, PD, and safety profile of RDEA3170.|Geometric Least Squares mean Ratio (%)|83.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.5|94.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|A mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed PK parameters Cmax, AUClast, and AUC∞ with fixed effect for treatment.||||94.7|73.5|
95693649|NCT02403830|191357463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.0|25.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25|-90|0.261
95693650|NCT01980706|191357466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.16||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.018
95693651|NCT01980706|191357467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.68||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.028
95693652|NCT01980706|191357468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.65||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.52
95693653|NCT01980706|191357469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.84||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||Overall, treatment effect F value testing under the null hypothesis the equality of the average outcome over the three groups.|||||0.43
95693654|NCT01980706|191357470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline|Estimated parameter is the overall treatment main effect F statistic from the fitted ANCOVA model assessing the null hypothesis of equal values across the three groups|||||0.60
95693655|NCT01980706|191357471|SUPERIORITY||Table probability for Fisher's Exact|0.002||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance is \<.05|Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
95693656|NCT02232087|191357498|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
95693657|NCT02232087|191357499|EQUIVALENCE|The potency of the test and reference product was considered equivalent if the 90% CI for the estimate of relative potency was completely contained within the limits of 0.67 to 1.50|Odds Ratio, log|1.0|||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.5||test for parallelism of dose response lines|ANOVA||Test is the numerator|The measurement of relative potency was conducted for the pair of doses which met the above criteria and lay on the steepest linear portion of the dose response curve. The log estimate of relative potency was obtained as the ratio of the estimated treatment effect as measured by the difference in the intercepts of the parallel lines divided by the estimate of the common slope for log dose.||1.50|0.67|>0.10
95693658|NCT02232087|191357500|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.4||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.4|-2.5|0.55
95693659|NCT02232087|191357500|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.53
95693660|NCT02232087|191357500|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.3||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||1.3|-2.5|0.011
95693661|NCT02232087|191357501|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.10|-0.03|0.26
95917405|NCT06173570|191793212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.82|-29.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-29.44|-45.82|<0.001
95693662|NCT02232087|191357501|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.06||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.06|-0.06|0.93
95693663|NCT02232087|191357501|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.08|-0.04|0.48
95693664|NCT02232087|191357502|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||||0.93
95693665|NCT02232087|191357502|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.224|0.093||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.093|-0.224|0.42
95693666|NCT02232087|191357502|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.302|0.016||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||0.016|-0.302|0.078
95693667|NCT02232087|191357503|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|5.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||5.7|-3.9|0.71
95693668|NCT02232087|191357503|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.7||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||4.7|-4.7|1.00
95693669|NCT02232087|191357503|EQUIVALENCE|Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|-1.1||Comparability demonstrated for p\>0.05|ANOVA||Comparability confirmed if confidence interval includes zero.|For each dose, the 95% CIs for the mean differences for the test product versus the reference product were calculated.||-1.1|-10.6|0.016
95693670|NCT00779324|191357504|OTHER||Difference in percents|-0.4||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|13.9|||Chi-squared|||||13.9|-14.7|0.9554
95693671|NCT00779324|191357505|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.96
95693672|NCT00779324|191357506|OTHER||Difference in percents|10.8||||0.1662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|25.8|||Chi-squared|||||25.8|-4.2|0.1662
95693673|NCT00779324|191357507|OTHER|||||||0.3488|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3488
95693674|NCT00779324|191357509|OTHER||Difference in percents|6.4||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0|||Chi-squared|||||20|-7.2|0.38
95693675|NCT00779324|191357510|OTHER||Difference in percents|11.7||||0.1373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|26.7|||Chi-squared|||||26.7|-3.3|0.1373
95693676|NCT00779324|191357511|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95693677|NCT00779324|191357512|OTHER|||||||0.0353|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0353
95693678|NCT00194025|191357514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
95693679|NCT00194025|191357515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.585||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.585
95693680|NCT00194025|191357516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||<0.001
95693681|NCT00194025|191357517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.017
95693682|NCT00194025|191357518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.027
95693683|NCT00194025|191357519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.569||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.569
95693684|NCT00194025|191357520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.038
95693685|NCT00194025|191357521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||The 1 sided t-test was applied to the scores at baseline vs. the scores at 12 weeks.||||0.199
95693686|NCT00194025|191357522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The t-test was applied to the values at baseline vs. the values at 12 weeks.||||0.21
95693687|NCT00511342|191357545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.078||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.041||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for lumbar spine (L2-L4)|||0.041|-0.198|0.19
95693688|NCT00511342|191357545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of adjusted means|-0.03||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.075||No corrections for multiple comparisons were made for these safety parameters. The a-priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA included the Z-score values at baseline as adjusted factor.|NOMAC-E2 minus LNG-EE for femoral neck|||0.075|-0.136|0.57
95693689|NCT04490265|191357597|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693690|NCT04490265|191357598|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693691|NCT04490265|191357603|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging Subscale change from baseline to 12-weeks||||
95693692|NCT04490265|191357603|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Belonging subscale Baseline to 6-months||||
95693693|NCT04490265|191357603|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 12-weeks||||
95693694|NCT04490265|191357603|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Change in Burdensome subscale Baseline to 6 months||||
95693695|NCT04490265|191357604|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 12-weeks||||
95693696|NCT04490265|191357604|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's D|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Baseline to 6-months||||
95693697|NCT04490265|191357605|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693698|NCT04490265|191357606|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693699|NCT04490265|191357607|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693700|NCT04490265|191357608|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693701|NCT04490265|191357609|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693702|NCT04490265|191357610|SUPERIORITY||cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95693703|NCT04490265|191357611|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity||||
95693704|NCT04490265|191357611|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||interference||||
95693705|NCT04490265|191357612|SUPERIORITY||Cohens d|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Severity Subscale||||
95693706|NCT04490265|191357612|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Interference subscale||||
95917406|NCT06173570|191793212|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.47|-35.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-35.94|-52.47|<0.001
95917407|NCT06173570|191793213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.93||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.57|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.71|-16.57|0.275
95693707|NCT02702193|191357613|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|GEE allowed the examination of trajectories from baseline through the 12 month follow-up.||To determine sample size for the grant proposal we conducted simulation studies in Mplus (Muthén \& Muthén, 2010) following the procedure described by Muthén and Muthén (2002). Each simulation created 10,000 datasets, assuming a medium-size (d = .5) intervention effect, and attrition of 10% at each assessment. For α= .05, the power estimate was at or above 80% with a sample of 172 mothers.||||<.05
95693708|NCT02458690|191357654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.60
95693709|NCT02458690|191357655|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||<0.01
95693710|NCT02458690|191357656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.81
95693711|NCT02458690|191357657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.20
95693712|NCT02458690|191357658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
95693713|NCT02458690|191357659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.23
95693714|NCT02458690|191357660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA models adjusted for the stratification variables of age group and sex||||||0.09
95693715|NCT04026412|191357661|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.77|1.19|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.19|0.77|0.6460
95693716|NCT04026412|191357662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41||||||||1.41|0.87|
95693717|NCT04026412|191357662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22||||||||1.22|0.75|
95693718|NCT04026412|191357662|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.48||||||||1.48|0.91|
95693719|NCT04026412|191357663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||||||||1.05|0.69|
95693720|NCT04026412|191357663|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42||||||||1.42|0.93|
95693721|NCT04026412|191357664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|10.6||||||||10.6|-4.1|
95693722|NCT04026412|191357664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|14.8||||||||14.8|0.7|
95693723|NCT04026412|191357664|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|2.5||||||||2.5|-11.8|
95693724|NCT04026412|191357667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||||||||1.23|0.82|
95693725|NCT04026412|191357667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05||||||||1.05|0.70|
95693726|NCT04026412|191357667|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.44||||||||1.44|0.95|
95693727|NCT04026412|191357668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.1||||||||11.1|-4.1|
95693728|NCT04026412|191357668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9||||||||12.9|-2.0|
95693729|NCT04026412|191357668|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-9.5|
95693730|NCT04026412|191357671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.23||||||||1.23|0.76|
95693731|NCT04026412|191357671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.06||||||||1.06|0.65|
95693732|NCT04026412|191357671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.49||||||||1.49|0.91|
95693733|NCT05896761|191357680|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.831|1.03||||||||1.03|0.831|
95693734|NCT05896761|191357680|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.816|1.06||||||||1.06|0.816|
95693735|NCT05896761|191357681|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.966|1.17||||||||1.17|0.966|
95693736|NCT05896761|191357681|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.29||||||||1.29|1.07|
95693737|NCT05896761|191357682|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.49||||||||1.49|1.22|
95693738|NCT05896761|191357682|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.975|1.24||||||||1.24|0.975|
95917408|NCT06173570|191793213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.06||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|6.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||6.51|-14.63|0.451
95693739|NCT05896761|191357683|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.4||||||||1.40|1.12|
95693740|NCT05896761|191357683|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.28||||||||1.28|1.09|
95693741|NCT05896761|191357684|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.3||||||||1.30|1.13|
95693742|NCT05896761|191357684|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.2||||||||1.20|1.00|
95693743|NCT05896761|191357685|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.23||||||||1.23|1.07|
95693744|NCT05896761|191357685|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|1.38||||||||1.38|1.20|
95693745|NCT05896761|191357686|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.25||||||||1.25|1.08|
95693746|NCT05896761|191357686|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|0.983|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.09||||||||1.09|0.890|
95693747|NCT05896761|191357687|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.991|1.13||||||||1.13|0.991|
95693748|NCT05896761|191357687|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.12||||||||1.12|0.974|
95693749|NCT05896761|191357688|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.25||||||||1.25|1.11|
95693750|NCT05896761|191357688|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.989|1.14||||||||1.14|0.989|
95693751|NCT05896761|191357689|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.12||||||||1.12|1.03|
95693752|NCT05896761|191357689|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.997|1.08||||||||1.08|0.997|
95693753|NCT05896761|191357690|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.19||||||||1.19|1.08|
95693754|NCT05896761|191357690|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11||||||||1.11|0.97|
95693755|NCT05896761|191357691|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.11||||||||1.11|1.02|
95917409|NCT06173570|191793213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.97||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|5.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.47|-15.41|0.351
95917410|NCT06173570|191793213|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|4.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||4.29|-16.92|0.243
95917411|NCT06173570|191793214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.48|-5.08|0.501
95693756|NCT05896761|191357691|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.11||||||||1.11|1.01|
95693757|NCT03552549|191357718|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.77|||||Hazard ratio presented as PEG-Intron/INTRON A; HR \<1 indicates treatment effect in favor of PEG-Intron.|||1.77|0.28|
95693758|NCT02761993|191357719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equation|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.341
95693759|NCT02761993|191357719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.774||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.774
95693760|NCT02761993|191357720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.501
95693761|NCT02761993|191357720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Since there were two (2) primary hypotheses, Bonferroni corrections were used to control for multiplicity, with p \< 0.025 considered significant.|Generalized Estimating Equations|Generalized estimating equations (GEE) method with a linear link and exchangeable covariance matrix (with subject correlation structure)||||||0.486
95693762|NCT02761993|191357721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.816|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.816
95693763|NCT02761993|191357721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.706|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.706
95693764|NCT02993224|191357722|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.89|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.89|0.75|<.0001
95693765|NCT02993224|191357723|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.88|||McNemar|||Preference of deferasirox FCT vs deferasirox DT||0.88|0.65|<0.0001
95693766|NCT02993224|191357723|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.91|||McNemar|||Preference for deferasirox FCT vs previous iron chelation therapy||0.91|0.71|<0.0001
95693767|NCT02993224|191357724|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.77|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 4||0.77|0.51|< 0.0001
95693768|NCT02993224|191357724|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.72|||McNemar|||Deferasirox DT vs previous iron chelation therapy at Week 24||0.72|0.44|< 0.0001
95917412|NCT06173570|191793214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||2.89|-4.74|0.634
95693769|NCT02993224|191357726|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Compliance of deferasirox DT vs deferasirox FCT||0.9|-8.1|0.1191
95693770|NCT03807739|191357734|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2471|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1149|1.3951||||||||1.3951|1.1149|
95693771|NCT03807739|191357734|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9864|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8531|1.1405||||||||1.1405|0.8531|
95693772|NCT03807739|191357736|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|1.2203|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1175|1.3327||||||||1.3327|1.1175|
95693773|NCT03807739|191357736|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin 80% - 125%|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8266|1.1968||||||||1.1968|0.8266|
95693774|NCT00875017|191357737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-65.75|||<|0.001||95.0|-96.01|-35.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-35.49|-96.01|<0.001
95693775|NCT00875017|191357737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-125.65|||<|0.001||95.0|-155.91|-95.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-95.39|-155.91|<0.001
95693776|NCT00875017|191357737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-59.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-89.87|-29.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net phosphorus absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-29.93|-89.87|<0.001
95917413|NCT06173570|191793214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||3.70|-3.74|0.990
95917414|NCT06173570|191793214|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.73||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; positive values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||5.50|-2.03|0.366
95917415|NCT06173570|191793215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-25.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.08|-19.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-19.51|-32.08|<0.001
95917416|NCT06173570|191793215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.33|-20.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-20.62|-33.33|<0.001
95917417|NCT06173570|191793215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-36.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.5|-30.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-30.08|-42.50|<0.001
95917418|NCT06173570|191793215|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-39.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-32.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference = AZD0780 - Placebo; negative values favor AZD0780.|MMRM with fixed effects for baseline of the respective parameter, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit; random intercept for participants. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation approach detailed in SAP Appendix 7.1.||-32.99|-45.61|<0.001
95693777|NCT00875017|191357738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|71.9|||<|0.001||95.0|40.03|103.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Phosphorus binding was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||103.77|40.03|<0.001
95693778|NCT00875017|191357739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-20.67||||0.049||95.0|-41.22|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||-0.13|-41.22|0.049
95693779|NCT00875017|191357739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-15.56||||0.133||95.0|-36.11|4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||4.99|-36.11|0.133
95729356|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.6|0.1903
95917419|NCT01844115|191793221|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-0.68|||MMRM|||||-0.68|-3.72|0.0048
95917420|NCT01844115|191793222|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.89||||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.26|||MMRM|||||-0.26|-3.52|0.0236
95917421|NCT04091360|191793229|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.221|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.163|1.281|||ANCOVA|||||1.281|1.163|<0.0001
95917422|NCT04091360|191793229|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.203|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|1.263|||ANCOVA|||||1.263|1.146|<0.0001
95917423|NCT04091360|191793229|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.085|1.195|||ANCOVA|||||1.195|1.085|<0.0001
95917424|NCT04091360|191793230|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.253|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.363|||ANCOVA|||||1.363|1.151|<0.0001
95917425|NCT04091360|191793230|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.146||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.054|1.246|||ANCOVA|||||1.246|1.054|0.0022
95917426|NCT04091360|191793230|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.102||||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.202|||ANCOVA|||||1.202|1.010|0.0295
95917427|NCT04091360|191793230|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.129||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.032|1.235|||ANCOVA|||||1.235|1.032|0.0098
95917428|NCT04091360|191793230|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.028||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.939|1.125|||ANCOVA|||||1.125|0.939|0.54
95917429|NCT04091360|191793231|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.228|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.142|1.319|||ANCOVA|||||1.319|1.142|<0.0001
95693780|NCT00875017|191357739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|5.11||||0.612||95.0|-15.24|25.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Net calcium absorption was analysed using a mixed linear effect model with fixed effects for sequence group, period and treatment group. Subject within sequence effect was included as a random effect.||25.47|-15.24|0.612
95693781|NCT02922634|191357752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.508
95693782|NCT02922634|191357753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||The chi-squared test for both males and females with and without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.720
95693783|NCT02922634|191357754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95693784|NCT02922634|191357755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
95693785|NCT02922634|191357756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
95917430|NCT04091360|191793231|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.155||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.075|1.24|||ANCOVA|||||1.240|1.075|0.0002
95917431|NCT04091360|191793231|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.1||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.184|||ANCOVA|||||1.184|1.022|0.0129
95917432|NCT04091360|191793231|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.201|||ANCOVA|||||1.201|1.030|0.0079
95917433|NCT04091360|191793231|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.033||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.957|1.116|||ANCOVA|||||1.116|0.957|0.39
95917434|NCT04091360|191793232|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.137|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.073|1.204|||ANCOVA|||||1.204|1.073|<0.0001
95693786|NCT02922634|191357757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95693787|NCT02922634|191357758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95693788|NCT02922634|191357759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95693789|NCT02922634|191357760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.101
95693790|NCT02922634|191357761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.192
95693791|NCT02922634|191357762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
95693792|NCT02922634|191357763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.333
95693793|NCT02922634|191357764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This is a chi-squared test between the FRAIL categories for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95693794|NCT02922634|191357765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||This is a chi-squared test of the categories for levels of invasiveness for participants with or without delirium.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95693795|NCT02625324|191357768|SUPERIORITY||Event Rate|0.023|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.081|||Exact binomial test|||"The primary study endpoint, major device effect at 30 days, is a dichotomous study outcome; hence, an exact method based on the binomial distribution was used for the hypothesis testing. The primary study endpoint was tested against a performance goal of 16%:~H0: p ≥ 16% vs. Ha: p \<16%, where p denotes the true event rate of primary study endpoint in the target population."||0.081||<0.0001
95693796|NCT02669862|191357776|OTHER|||||||0.555|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline values were the covariate||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.555
95693797|NCT02669862|191357776|OTHER|||||||0.009||||||PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate. No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||"In this table Study Day 01 / Visit 2 has been considered as Baseline visit for calculating mean and mean change.~PVal\*- ANCOVA used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group using baseline values as the covariate."||||0.009
95693798|NCT02669862|191357778|OTHER|||||||0.9313||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||PVal\*- Chi-Square test used for calculating P-value by comparing Vehicle against each Active treatment group||||0.9313
95693799|NCT02669862|191357778|OTHER|||||||0.0236||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||0.0236
95729357|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.4|0.5787
95917435|NCT04091360|191793232|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.091||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.155|||ANCOVA|||||1.155|1.030|0.0041
95917436|NCT04091360|191793232|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.019||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.081|||ANCOVA|||||1.081|0.960|0.53
95917437|NCT04091360|191793240|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.27|||ANCOVA|||||1.270|1.153|<0.0001
95917438|NCT04091360|191793240|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.252|||ANCOVA|||||1.252|1.136|<0.0001
95917439|NCT04091360|191793240|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.124|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.071|1.179|||ANCOVA|||||1.179|1.071|<0.0001
95917440|NCT04091360|191793241|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.087|1.194|||ANCOVA|||||1.194|1.087|<0.0001
95917441|NCT04091360|191793241|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.142|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.089|1.197|||ANCOVA|||||1.197|1.089|<0.0001
95917442|NCT04091360|191793241|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.031|1.132|||ANCOVA|||||1.132|1.031|0.0018
95917443|NCT04091360|191793242|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.08||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.022|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.140|1.022|0.0066
95917444|NCT04091360|191793242|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.074||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.017|1.134|||ANCOVA|||||1.134|1.017|0.0115
95917445|NCT04091360|191793242|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.037||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.982|1.096|||ANCOVA|||||1.096|0.982|0.18
95917446|NCT04091360|191793243|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.162|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.122|1.203|||ANCOVA|||||1.203|1.122|<0.0001
95917447|NCT04091360|191793243|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|1.19|||ANCOVA|||||1.190|1.111|<0.0001
95917448|NCT04091360|191793243|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.074|1.152|||ANCOVA|||||1.152|1.074|<0.0001
95917449|NCT04091360|191793244|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.157|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.119|1.196|||ANCOVA|||||1.196|1.119|<0.0001
95917450|NCT04091360|191793244|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.147|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.186|||ANCOVA|||||1.186|1.110|<0.0001
95917451|NCT04091360|191793244|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.105|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.142|||ANCOVA|||||1.142|1.068|<0.0001
95917452|NCT04091360|191793245|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.137|||ANCOVA|||||1.137|1.059|<0.0001
95917453|NCT04091360|191793245|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.111|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.072|1.15|||ANCOVA|||||1.150|1.072|<0.0001
95917454|NCT04091360|191793245|OTHER||GeoMean Ratio|1.07||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|5.0|1.033|1.109|||ANCOVA|||||1.109|1.033|0.0003
95693800|NCT01716533|191357782|SUPERIORITY||GMC ratio|1.53||||0.5746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|7.14||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1 (ANOVA model, T-test), groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|ELISA anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||7.14|0.33|0.5746
95693801|NCT01716533|191357783|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model -pooled variance.|GMC ratio|1.65||||0.7124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|26.41||P-value = two-sided p-value for HO: GMC ratio = 1, groups considered as statistically significant different if the two-sided p-value is below 0.05.|ANOVA||GMC ratio = GMC Sustained response Group /GMC Recurrence Group.|Serum F2 C-terminal anti-toxin B antibody concentrations at Day 14 were compared between the Sustained response Group and Recurrence Group by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on the log-transformed concentration.||26.41|0.10|0.7124
95693802|NCT02059213|191357808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid P-value||With 20 patients treated with ADT and 40 treated with ADT + palbociclib there is a 64.2% power to detect a 20% difference in proportions with a one-sided type I error of 0.10 using the mid p-value method of the Fisher's exact test.||||0.87
95693803|NCT02059213|191357810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95693804|NCT02059213|191357811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|Mid p-value||||||0.50
95693805|NCT02059213|191357812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.72
95693806|NCT02059213|191357813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.76
95693807|NCT03583372|191357817|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-2.0||||||||-2.0|-2.9|
95693808|NCT03583372|191357817|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.5||||||||-1.5|-2.5|
95693809|NCT03583372|191357818|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-2.5|
95693810|NCT03583372|191357818|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.3||||||||-1.3|-2.0|
95693811|NCT03583372|191357819|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.7||||||||-2.7|-4.0|
95693812|NCT03583372|191357819|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-2.5||||||||-2.5|-4.0|
95693813|NCT03583372|191357820|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-2.2||||||||-2.2|-2.8|
95693814|NCT03583372|191357820|OTHER|Estimation of within treatment group change from Baseline|Least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.6||||||||-1.6|-2.3|
95693815|NCT03446651|191357833|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95693816|NCT03446651|191357835|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95693817|NCT03446651|191357837|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95693818|NCT03446651|191357838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95917455|NCT04091360|191793246|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.47
95693819|NCT02338492|191357856|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.615||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons as the second co-primary endpoint will only be tested if the p-value for VAS improvement is \<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model employed, including the baseline VAS score. Missing values will be imputed.||Null hypothesis: Mean improvement in VAS over 90 days \<= 53.8 (i.e. 80% of reference based on historical control data). The study was powered to 80% with 68 evaluable subjects, a standard deviation of 13.3 at each visit, a true mean improvement from baseline VAS across post-baseline visits of 57 and a within-patient correlation of VAS of 0.4. The historical control data comes from 4 selected articles (Gregory et al. 2011, Kim et al. 2011, Deschamps et al. 2012, and Pretell et al. 2010).||||0.615
95693820|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|96|
95693821|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|96|
95693822|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||100|93|
95693823|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Safety Success||100|93|
95693824|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 7-14: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||100|93|
95693825|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
95729358|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.5535
95917456|NCT04091360|191793246|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Hodges-Lehmann|||||||0.0059
95917457|NCT03125941|191793256|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||Chi-squared|||||2.05|0.49|1
95917458|NCT03125941|191793257|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
95917459|NCT03125941|191793258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
95917460|NCT03125941|191793261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.350
95693826|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||99|90|
95917461|NCT03125941|191793262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
95693827|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 30: Safety Success||99|90|
95693828|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||99|90|
95693829|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|98.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|100.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||100|93|
95693830|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||98|86|
95693831|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.0|97.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 90: Safety Success||97|85|
95693832|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.0|98.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||98|86|
95693833|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|95.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|99.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||99|88|
95693834|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||93|77|
95693835|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|86.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.0|93.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 180: Safety Success||93|77|
95693836|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no serious device related complications||96|83|
95693837|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|91.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|96.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: No additional surgical interventions of revisions, supplements, fixations or removals||96|83|
95693838|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Subjects who had no device fracture, migration, mal-alignment or loss of reduction or fixation||90|73|
95693839|NCT02338492|191357858|OTHER||Percentage of Subjects|82.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|90.0||||||95% exact binomial confidence intervals provided for each of the parameters that make up the safety success endpoint and the safety success endpoint - Up to Day 360: Safety Success||90|73|
95693840|NCT01219959|191357906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|||Month 3||0.9|0.2|<0.001
95693841|NCT01219959|191357906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANOVA|||Month 6||0.8|0.1|0.006
95693842|NCT01219959|191357907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|14.7|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 3||14.7|-4.7|0.312
95917462|NCT03125941|191793264|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.193||||||a priori threshold, bonferroni corrected 0.0125|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.193
95917463|NCT03125941|191793265|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.2
95693843|NCT01219959|191357907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|14.4|||ANOVA|||Insulin-Month 6||14.4|-5.0|0.342
95693844|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 3||0.9|0.1|0.010
95693845|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cholesterol-Month 6||0.7|0|0.073
95693846|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 3||0.5|-0.1|0.181
95693847|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LDLC-Month 6||0.4|-0.2|0.593
95693848|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 3||0|-0.2|0.198
95917464|NCT03125941|191793266|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.136|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.136
95917465|NCT03125941|191793267|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significans was 0.00125 due to multiple comparisons|Chi-squared|||||||>0.003
95917466|NCT03125941|191793268|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|11.6|||Chi-squared|||||11.6|1.07|0.030
95917467|NCT01097915|191793282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.01
95917468|NCT01097915|191793283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.004
95917469|NCT01097915|191793284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.048|||||||ANCOVA|the three factors of the Stunkard and Messick Questionnaire were considered as covariates.||||||<0.048
95917470|NCT01097915|191793285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
95917471|NCT01097915|191793286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.00001
95917472|NCT01097915|191793287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|1e-05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.00001
95693849|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for HDLC-Month 6||0|-0.1|0.298
95693850|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 3||0.6|0.2|<0.001
95693851|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for VLDL-Month 6||0.5|0.1|0.003
95693852|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 3||1.3|0.4|<0.001
95693853|NCT01219959|191357909|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Triglycerides-Month 6||1.1|0.3|0.002
95693854|NCT01219959|191357910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|4.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 3||4.1|-8.6|0.485
95693855|NCT01219959|191357910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Lp(a)-Month 6||4.4|-8.2|0.556
95693856|NCT01219959|191357910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|12.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 3||12.2|-1.1|0.101
95693857|NCT01219959|191357910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|11.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo A1-Month 6||11.5|-1.5|0.134
95693858|NCT01219959|191357910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.4||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|19.2|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 3||19.2|3.6|0.004
95693859|NCT01219959|191357910|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|15.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Apo B-Month 6||15.9|0.8|0.030
95693860|NCT01219959|191357911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-56.5||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-304.6|191.7|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 3||191.7|-304.6|0.655
95693861|NCT01219959|191357911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.2||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-268.9|210.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Insulin-Month 6||210.5|-268.9|0.811
95693862|NCT01219959|191357911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|441.3||||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-630.4|1513.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 3||1513.1|-630.4|0.419
95693863|NCT01219959|191357911|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|121.8||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.9|1171.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for C-Peptide-Month 6||1171.5|-927.9|0.820
95693864|NCT01219959|191357912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|19.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 3||19|-27.5|0.721
95693865|NCT01219959|191357912|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.5||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|36.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pro-Insulin-Month 6||36.4|-9.4|0.247
95693866|NCT01219959|191357913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||ANOVA|||Estimates of Ratio-Month 6||1.43|0.55|0.624
95693867|NCT01219959|191357914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 3||1.8|-0.6|0.338
95693868|NCT01219959|191357914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Albumin-Month 6||2.5|0.1|0.029
95693869|NCT01219959|191357914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 3||1.5|-1.9|0.817
95693870|NCT01219959|191357914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Total Protein-Month 6||2.9|-0.2|0.091
95693871|NCT01219959|191357915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|2.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 3||2.9|-23.3|0.127
95693872|NCT01219959|191357915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for PNA-Month 6||-4.3|-16.4|<0.001
95693873|NCT01219959|191357915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 3||-0.1|-0.4|0.012
95693874|NCT01219959|191357915|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for nPNA-Month 6||-0.1|-0.3|<0.001
95693875|NCT01219959|191357916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 3||5.8|0.5|0.019
95693876|NCT01219959|191357916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.6|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Pre-Albumin-Month 6||5.6|0.5|0.019
95693877|NCT01219959|191357917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 3||3.4|-3.9|0.884
95693878|NCT01219959|191357917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|4.3|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Drained Fat-Month 6||4.3|-3|0.716
95693879|NCT01219959|191357918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 3||1.1|-1.2|0.961
95693880|NCT01219959|191357918|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for BMI-Month 6||1.5|-0.8|0.581
95693881|NCT01219959|191357919|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Waist Circumference-Month 6||3.1|-3.7|0.871
95693882|NCT01219959|191357920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|25.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 3||25|-14.7|0.608
95693883|NCT01219959|191357920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|8.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Protein-Month 6||8.1|-11.5|0.731
95693884|NCT01219959|191357920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|185.3||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-227.5|598.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 3||598.1|-227.5|0.377
95693885|NCT01219959|191357920|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.3||||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-214.4|177.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Calories-Month 6||177.8|-214.4|0.854
95693886|NCT01219959|191357921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.07|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 3||0.07|-0.03|0.412
95693887|NCT01219959|191357921|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Questionnaire Index-Month 6||0.03|-0.07|0.485
95693888|NCT01219959|191357922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.18||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|8.93|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 3||8.93|-4.56|0.525
95693889|NCT01219959|191357922|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|6.83|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for EQ 5D Quest Health Status-Month 6||6.83|-6.79|0.995
95693890|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|3.91|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 3||3.91|-7.64|0.526
95693891|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|6.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Fatigue-Month 6||6.68|-5.01|0.779
95693892|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.95||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|2.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 3||2.04|-7.95|0.246
95693893|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.78|4.34|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Psychology Cognitive-Month 6||4.34|-5.78|0.780
95693894|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|6.04|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 3||6.04|-5.22|0.885
95693895|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.41||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|10.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Pain-Month 6||10.10|-1.28|0.128
95917473|NCT05952297|191793319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||mixed model|linear mixed model, time x condition effect||||||.88
95917474|NCT00406419|191793320|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|18.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|25.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.9|11|< 0.0001
95917475|NCT00406419|191793320|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|21.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.8|14.1|< 0.0001
95693896|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.07||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|6.54|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 3||6.54|-4.40|0.701
95693897|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|12.73|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Neurology Sensory-Month 6||12.73|1.70|0.010
95693898|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|5.03|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 3||5.03|-4.63|0.934
95693899|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|8.01|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Cardiology-Month 6||8.01|-1.75|0.209
95693900|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.68|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 3||8.68|-4.90|0.585
95693901|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|8.47|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Ophthalmology-Month 6||8.47|-5.22|0.641
95693902|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.89|3.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 3||3.90|-6.89|0.586
95693903|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|5.14|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hypoglycemia-Month 6||5.14|-5.79|0.906
95693904|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|4.75|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 3||4.75|-4.93|0.970
95917476|NCT00406419|191793321|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|30.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|37.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||37.9|23.7|< 0.0001
95917477|NCT00406419|191793321|SUPERIORITY||Weighted difference|34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|41.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||41.5|27.4|< 0.0001
95917478|NCT03959592|191793346|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.14
95917479|NCT03959592|191793347|OTHER|||||||0.423|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.423
95917480|NCT03959592|191793350|OTHER|||||||0.985|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.985
95917481|NCT03959592|191793351|OTHER|||||||0.545|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations|||||||0.545
95917482|NCT04362137|191793353|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.73|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.73|0.48|0.769
95917483|NCT04362137|191793355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.46|0.55|0.647
95917484|NCT04362137|191793355|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.92|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.92|0.52|0.997
95693905|NCT01219959|191357923|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|7.28|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Hyperglycemia-Month 6||7.28|-2.52|0.340
95693906|NCT01219959|191357924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.6||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.9|96.0|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Subcutaneous Fat Volume-Month 6||96|-46.9|0.495
95693907|NCT01219959|191357924|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|117.8|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for Abdominal Visceral Fat Volume-Month 6||117.8|-7|0.081
95693908|NCT01219959|191357925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|31.9|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Diastolic Volume-Month 6||31.9|-19.3|0.626
95693909|NCT01219959|191357925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|30.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV End Systolic Volume-Month 6||30.1|-14.5|0.486
95693910|NCT01219959|191357926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|23.4|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass with Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.4|-18.9|0.832
95693911|NCT01219959|191357926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.1|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Mass without Pap Muscles-Month 6||23.1|-18.3|0.820
95693912|NCT01219959|191357927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|6.5|||ANOVA|||Estimate of Least Square Means Comparing Treatment Groups for LV Ejection Fraction-Month 6||6.5|-6.9|0.955
95693913|NCT05906732|191357928|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0030
95693914|NCT05906732|191357929|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-6.5||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
95693915|NCT05906732|191357930|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-7.8||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0067
95693916|NCT05906732|191357931|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.9||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1106
95693917|NCT05906732|191357932|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-4.2||||0.0908|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0908
95693918|NCT05906732|191357933|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-1.2||||0.4038|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4038
95693919|NCT05906732|191357934|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|1.5||||0.6255|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6255
95693920|NCT05906732|191357935|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.2||||0.514|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5140
95693921|NCT05906732|191357936|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.8||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5675
95693922|NCT05906732|191357937|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|3.4||||0.764|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7640
95917485|NCT04362137|191793356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.87|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.87|0.51|0.946
95917486|NCT04362137|191793356|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||1.79|0.35|0.573
95693923|NCT05906732|191357938|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-2.8||||0.2437|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2437
95693924|NCT05906732|191357939|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.8||||0.4229|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4229
95693925|NCT05906732|191357940|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-0.1||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4887
95693926|NCT05906732|191357941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|-3.1||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2042
95693927|NCT05906732|191357942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.2644|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2644
95693928|NCT05906732|191357960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3169
95693929|NCT05906732|191357961|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.78||||0.1066|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1066
95693930|NCT05906732|191357962|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.06||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0443
95693931|NCT05906732|191357963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.06||||0.0815|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0815
95693932|NCT05906732|191357964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.67||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0137
95693933|NCT05906732|191357965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.0||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3539
95693934|NCT05906732|191357966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.78||||0.1377|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1377
95693935|NCT05906732|191357967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69||||0.6184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6184
95693936|NCT05906732|191357968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.17||||0.6627|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6627
95693937|NCT05906732|191357969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.78||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5276
95693938|NCT05906732|191357970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.17||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0399
95693939|NCT05906732|191357971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.56||||0.0747|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0747
95693940|NCT05906732|191357972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9584|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9584
95693941|NCT05906732|191357973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.72||||0.6531|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6531
95693942|NCT05906732|191357974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|15.61||||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0482
95693943|NCT05906732|191357975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|17.22||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0667
95693944|NCT05906732|191357976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.0||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0131
95917487|NCT04362137|191793357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.83|0.31|0.532
95917488|NCT04362137|191793357|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.49|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||3.49|0.40|0.764
95917489|NCT04362137|191793358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.37|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.37|0.90|0.330
95917490|NCT04362137|191793359|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Day 15||0.25|-0.31|0.831
95693945|NCT05906732|191357977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-32.36||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0141
95693946|NCT05906732|191357978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.55||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0019
95693947|NCT05906732|191357979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.69||||0.1108|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1108
95693948|NCT05906732|191357980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.81||||0.184|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1840
95693949|NCT05906732|191357981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.33||||0.2019|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2019
95693950|NCT05906732|191357982|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2808
95693951|NCT05906732|191357983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|110.39||||0.1644|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1644
95693952|NCT05906732|191357984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.29||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0282
95693953|NCT05906732|191357985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.87||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0306
95693954|NCT05906732|191357986|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-53.42||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0016
95693955|NCT05906732|191357987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.25||||0.1378|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.1378
95917491|NCT04362137|191793359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155||0.624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Day 29||0.38|-0.23|0.624
95917492|NCT04362137|191793360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|5.57|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||5.57|0.20|0.944
95693956|NCT04124536|191358062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.9|-7.9|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-7.9|-35.9|
95693957|NCT04124536|191358062|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6|-20.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||-20.8|-40.6|
95693958|NCT04124536|191358063|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|2.8|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||2.8|-13.6|
95693959|NCT04124536|191358063|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||The calculation of risk differences between study arms was originally planned. However, the linear-binomial model did not converge because of zero events in the intervention arm.|||
95693960|NCT04124536|191358067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|58.4|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||58.4|23.0|
95693961|NCT04124536|191358067|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|36.0|||||The risk difference was calculated by subtracting the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the intervention arm minus the proportion of women meeting the outcome in the control arm|||36.0|10.7|
95693962|NCT00424294|191358077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.733
95693963|NCT00424294|191358078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.463|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 1: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.463
95693964|NCT00424294|191358078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.549|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 2: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.549
95693965|NCT00424294|191358078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.272|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.272
95693966|NCT00424294|191358078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Chi-square test.||||0.265
95693967|NCT00424294|191358079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.939|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 4: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.939
95693968|NCT00424294|191358079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 8: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.323
95693969|NCT00424294|191358079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.338
95693970|NCT00424294|191358080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 12: p-value was calculated by Fisher exact test.||||0.746
95693971|NCT00424294|191358081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.635
95693972|NCT00424294|191358081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.044
95693973|NCT00424294|191358081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.957
95693974|NCT00424294|191358081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.597
95693975|NCT00424294|191358081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.960
95693976|NCT00424294|191358082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.252
95693977|NCT00424294|191358082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.032
95693978|NCT00424294|191358082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.031
95917493|NCT04362137|191793360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|5.11|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.11|0.35|0.775
95917494|NCT04362137|191793361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.21|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \< 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||2.21|0.45|0.987
95917495|NCT04362137|191793362|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.28|0.84|0.738
95693979|NCT00424294|191358082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.018
95693980|NCT00424294|191358082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.170
95693981|NCT00424294|191358083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.507
95693982|NCT00424294|191358083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.743|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.743
95693983|NCT00424294|191358083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.914|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.914
95693984|NCT00424294|191358083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.715|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.715
95693985|NCT00424294|191358083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.558|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.558
95693986|NCT00424294|191358084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.172
95693987|NCT00424294|191358084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.738|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.738
95693988|NCT00424294|191358084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
95693989|NCT00424294|191358084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.428
95693990|NCT00424294|191358084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.861
95693991|NCT00424294|191358085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.325
95693992|NCT00424294|191358085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.386
95693993|NCT00424294|191358085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.532
95693994|NCT00424294|191358085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.909
95693995|NCT00424294|191358085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.994|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.994
95693996|NCT00424294|191358086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.369
95693997|NCT00424294|191358086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.666
95693998|NCT00424294|191358086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.530
95693999|NCT00424294|191358086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.632
95694000|NCT00424294|191358086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.801
95694001|NCT00424294|191358087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.052
95694002|NCT00424294|191358087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.108
95694003|NCT00424294|191358087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.573
95694004|NCT00424294|191358087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.342
95694005|NCT00424294|191358087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.501
95694006|NCT00424294|191358088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.701
95694007|NCT00424294|191358088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.167
95694008|NCT00424294|191358088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.948
95694009|NCT00424294|191358088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.834
95694010|NCT00424294|191358088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.977
95694011|NCT00424294|191358089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 1: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.291
95694012|NCT00424294|191358089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 2: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.080
95694013|NCT00424294|191358089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 4: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.466
95694014|NCT00424294|191358089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 8: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.267
95917496|NCT04362137|191793363|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.23|||Proportional hazards model||Between group comparison using competing risk framework. A hazard ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|||1.23|0.84|0.869
95917497|NCT04362137|191793366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.63|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 15||1.63|0.23|0.325
95917498|NCT04362137|191793366|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|5.4||P-value was not estimable because \>97% patients fall into one category (responders) in both groups, and very few patients fall into the other one (non-responders), which made the logistic regression model fail to converge even with Firth's correction|Regression, Logistic||Comparison is ruxolitinib 5 mg/placebo. An odds ratio \> 1 favors the ruxolitinib 5 mg arm|Day 29||5.40|0.25|
95694015|NCT00424294|191358089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Week 12: ANCOVA with treatment and site as independent variables and baseline as the covariate was used for the analysis.||||0.100
95694016|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< .001
95694017|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95694018|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95694019|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.03
95694020|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.68
95694021|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95694022|NCT02841787|191358107|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95694023|NCT02841787|191358110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||The threshold for significance was alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95694024|NCT02402218|191358164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||For the primary and secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with the outcome in each group was compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||Sample size was based on an estimated HCV treatment initiation rate of 50% in the UC group (based on a 33% rate observed during the interferon era) and 80% in the intervention groups, a significance level of 0.05, a desired ratio of participants in the intervention group compared to UC group of 3 to 2, and power of 80% to detect this difference between groups. The study was not powered to detect differences between the peer and cash groups.||||.11
95694025|NCT02402218|191358165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.22
95694026|NCT02402218|191358167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Chi-squared|||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.||||0.33
95917499|NCT05408468|191793491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.595|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.731||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.731 One week 1.894|||||0.387
95917500|NCT05408468|191793491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.048||0.387|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.048 One week 2.122|||||0.387
95917501|NCT05408468|191793492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.693||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 1.693 One week 1.840|||||0.062
95917502|NCT05408468|191793492|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.003||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Baseline 2.003 One week 2.069|||||0.062
95917503|NCT05408468|191793494|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.369|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.369
95917504|NCT05408468|191793495|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.498|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.498
95694027|NCT02402218|191358168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||changes in the frequency of drug and alcohol use before and during treatment were compared using chi-square tests to evaluate the safety of cash incentives.|Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95694028|NCT04436822|191358175|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|88.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.1|90.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||90.7|87.1|<0.05
95694029|NCT04436822|191358175|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.4|89.7|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.7|85.4|<0.05
95694030|NCT04436822|191358175|SUPERIORITY||Intercept from ANCOVA as agreement rate|87.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|89.9|||ANCOVA|A generalized estimating equation model was used, considering correlation structure of day of sensor wear (1-7).||||89.9|85.8|<0.05
95694031|NCT02435277|191358202|OTHER|||||||0.0475||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise Comparison using Control as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of HbA1c change from day 1-day 84 Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.0475
95694032|NCT02435277|191358202|OTHER|||||||0.0912|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0912
95694033|NCT02435277|191358202|OTHER|||||||0.0458|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0458
95694034|NCT02435277|191358203|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group|ANCOVA|||Mixed Model Inferential Statistical Analysis of Fssting Plasma Glucose change from day 1-day 84 in Evaluable Population (n=43)||||0.26
95694035|NCT02435277|191358203|OTHER|||||||0.0083|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0083
95694036|NCT02435277|191358203|OTHER|||||||0.0317|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0317
95694037|NCT00091390|191358260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||hazard rate|0.0014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.003|||Z-test|One-sided.||The study is designed to test whether the 18-month late GU/GI toxicity following the protocol treatment is above 10% (hazard rate of 0.012/month). The sample size is determined so that the probability of rejecting the treatment because of excessive late toxicity is 90% if the true late toxicity rate is 20% (hazard rate of 0.025/month). Ninety-eight patients are required to with an additional 18 months of follow-up to have a statistical power of 90% with one-sided significance level of 0.05.||0.003|0|<0.0001
95694038|NCT03534063|191358271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Comparisons for opioid consumption and composite pain intensity were performed by analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline differences in groups||||||.047
95694039|NCT03534063|191358272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.638
95694040|NCT02397694|191358305|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority of treatment with BIC + F/TAF relative to treatment with DTG + F/TAF. Noninferiority assessed using a conventional 95% confidence interval (CI) approach, with a noninferiority margin of 12%|Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum (≤ 100,000 copies/mL vs \> 100,000 copies/mL).||||14.2|-8.5|0.5
95694041|NCT00078559|191358321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.34|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.34|0.01|
95694042|NCT00078559|191358322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
95694043|NCT00078559|191358323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion with acute rejection|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.7|0.0|
95694044|NCT00078559|191358326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial||||0.3|0.0|
95694045|NCT00078559|191358327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for all participants (n=10)||||0.3|0.0|
95694046|NCT00078559|191358328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
95694047|NCT00078559|191358328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
95694048|NCT00078559|191358329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Not Withdrawn Group||||0.4|0.0|
95694049|NCT00078559|191358329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Exact Binomial|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||95% Confidence Interval|Exact Binomial for Withdrawn Group||||0.8|0.0|
95694050|NCT00424528|191358339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
95694051|NCT00424528|191358339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study Baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
95694052|NCT00424528|191358339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Primary analysis:Group 2 vs 3. Key secondary analysis: Group 1 vs 3. Multiple comparisons for the analysis of the primary endpoint were controlled at the 5% level.|ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as fixed effect.||||||<0.001
95694053|NCT00424528|191358340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
95694054|NCT00424528|191358340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
95694055|NCT00424528|191358341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.001
95694056|NCT00424528|191358341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||<0.001
95694057|NCT00424528|191358342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.073
95694058|NCT00424528|191358342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.050
95694059|NCT00424528|191358345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 0 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0 comparisons||||0.060
95694060|NCT00424528|191358345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 0||||<0.001
95694061|NCT00424528|191358345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.004
95694062|NCT00424528|191358345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Week 2 comparisons: Study baseline FEV1 as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||Week 2 comparisons||||0.002
95694063|NCT00424528|191358348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.206
95694064|NCT00424528|191358348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Study baseline Inspiratory Capacity as a covariate and treatment group as a fixed effect.||||||0.025
95694065|NCT03621943|191358362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|5.37|||hierarchical generalized linear mixed mo|hierarchical generalized linear mixed models||Total score on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd ed.||5.37|-6.36|0.87
95694066|NCT02622724|191358380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8219|||||||Van Elteren hypothesis test|||A non-parametric analysis has been used as the data distribution was skewed. This involved a generalised Wilcoxon rank sum-based stratification test which assigns ranks within strata and compares two treatments within strata (Van Elteren hypothesis test).||||0.8219
95694067|NCT02622724|191358387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4678|||||||Van Elteren p-values|||Van Elteren hypothesis test was used as the distribution was non-normal and negatively skewed by patients who are assigned scores of zero in the event of death.||||0.4678
95694068|NCT02622724|191358392|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model using Type III sums of squares with Treatment, Severity, and Country fixed effect factors, Baseline as covariate||||||<0.05
95694069|NCT02622724|191358395|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|31.1|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|99.9|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95% Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximum distance walked on Day 180.||99.9|-37.7|>0.05
95694070|NCT02622724|191358409|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL -1ra - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
95694071|NCT02622724|191358409|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IL- 6 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
95694072|NCT02622724|191358409|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95% CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||FGF basic - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||<0.05
95694073|NCT02622724|191358409|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||IP-10 - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14.||||<0.05
95694074|NCT02622724|191358409|OTHER||LS Means difference|0.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA estimates (LS means and a 95 % CI for the treatment difference) were presented for all numeric biomarker variables.||TNF-α - changes in levels from baseline to Day 14||||>0.05
95694075|NCT02622724|191358410|OTHER||||||<|0.007||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.007
95694076|NCT02622724|191358413|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|28.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|110.1|||ANOVA|||Treatment effect was analysed using ANOVA parameter estimates (Least Squares Means and 95 % Confidence Intervals) for the overall treatment difference for maximun distance walked on Day 360.||110.1|-54|>0.05
95694077|NCT02581865|191358420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1|-4.9|0.4326
95694078|NCT02581865|191358420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.1835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-6.2|0.1835
95694079|NCT02581865|191358421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.3812
95694080|NCT02581865|191358421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.1|||ANOVA|||||-0.1|-1.2|0.0146
95694081|NCT02581865|191358422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.6|0.3065
95694082|NCT02581865|191358422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-0.7|0.2052
95694083|NCT02581865|191358423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-2.7|0.2215
95694084|NCT02581865|191358423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.3|0.0566
95694085|NCT02581865|191358424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.5689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.4|-9.8|0.5689
95694086|NCT02581865|191358424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-12.8|0.2320
95694087|NCT02581865|191358425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.0|0.4515
95694088|NCT02581865|191358425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.6289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|-2.8|0.6289
95694089|NCT05439460|191358426|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in phenylephrine group||||0.9
95694090|NCT05439460|191358426|OTHER|||||||0.3||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in arginine vasopressin group||||0.3
95694091|NCT05439460|191358426|OTHER|||||||1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in epinephrine group||||1
95694092|NCT00960934|191358440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.56||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|2.16||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.16|-1.04|0.749
95694093|NCT00960934|191358440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.12||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.83||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.83|-0.60|0.333
95694094|NCT00960934|191358440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.35||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.84||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.84|-1.14|0.823
95694095|NCT00960934|191358440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.93||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|2.61||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.61|-0.75|0.457
95917505|NCT01396395|191793537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.581|||poisson regression: Non-calibration mode|||||0.581|0.435|<0.0001
95917506|NCT01396395|191793537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.503|||=|0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.84|||Poisson regression: Calibration model|||||0.840|0.301|=0.0086
95917507|NCT05067933|191793570|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.953|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.953
95694096|NCT00960934|191358440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.5||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons for the areal BMD at lumbar spine endpoint were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.50|-1.17|0.823
95694097|NCT00960934|191358441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.8|||<|0.001||95.0|56.5|80.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||80.0|56.5|<0.001
95694098|NCT00960934|191358441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.6|65.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||65.2|39.6|<0.001
95694099|NCT00960934|191358441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|42.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.4|17.6|<0.001
95917508|NCT05067933|191793571|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.500
95917509|NCT05067933|191793572|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.912|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.912
95917510|NCT05067933|191793573|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.678|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.678
95917511|NCT05067933|191793574|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.257|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.257
95917512|NCT05067933|191793575|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.748|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.748
95917513|NCT05067933|191793576|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.946
95917514|NCT05067933|191793579|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.356|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.356
95917515|NCT05067933|191793580|OTHER|Comparison between immunogenicity assay results between treatment groups on Day 57.||||||0.267|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum tests|||||||0.267
95917516|NCT01373450|191793581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.87||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.98|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.98|0.77|0.024
95729359|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.2|0.4476
95917517|NCT01373450|191793582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.004
95917518|NCT01373450|191793583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.014|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.008|0.019|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.019|0.008|<0.001
95917519|NCT01373450|191793584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Intraclass Correlation Coefficient|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.98||||||||0.98|0.72|
95917520|NCT01373450|191793585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.77||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.9|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.90|0.66|0.003
95917521|NCT01373450|191793585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.74|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.74|0.45|<0.001
95917522|NCT01373450|191793585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.16|0.85|0.473
95917523|NCT01373450|191793585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.75||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.0|||t-test, 1 sided|||||1.00|0.56|0.049
95917524|NCT01373450|191793586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.021|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.015|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.015|<0.001
95917525|NCT01373450|191793586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.03|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.021|0.038|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.038|0.021|<0.001
95917526|NCT01373450|191793586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.007||||0.0163|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.002|0.012|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.012|0.002|0.0163
95917527|NCT01373450|191793586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.016||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.006|0.026|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.026|0.006|0.0056
95917528|NCT00550550|191793592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.66|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.66|-2.60|=0.001
95917529|NCT00550550|191793593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.45|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.45|-1.95|=0.005
95917530|NCT00550550|191793594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||=|0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||0.03|-0.88|=0.066
95917531|NCT00550550|191793595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|||=|0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.03|||ANOVA|Asthma status, treatment group, and site were fixed effects.||||-0.03|-0.60|=0.042
95917532|NCT02459093|191793612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.61||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.99|||Chi-squared|||||0.99|0.37|0.04
95917533|NCT02459093|191793613|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.36|0.05
95917534|NCT00697190|191793627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senoflicon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.04|-0.29|
95917535|NCT00697190|191793628|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.06|-0.10|
95917536|NCT00697190|191793629|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival hyperemia.||0.10|-0.23|
95729360|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Least pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.4737
95917537|NCT00697190|191793630|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.04|-0.25|
95917538|NCT00697190|191793631|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.16|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.07|-0.16|
95917539|NCT00697190|191793632|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in limbal hyperemia.||0.14|-0.25|
95917540|NCT00697190|191793633|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.04|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.32|0.04|
95917541|NCT00697190|191793634|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.26|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.08|-0.26|
95917542|NCT00697190|191793635|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||||97.5|0.02|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in corneal staining.||0.33|0.02|
95917543|NCT00697190|191793636|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.27|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||0.26|-0.27|
95917544|NCT00697190|191793637|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.08|-0.34|
95917545|NCT00697190|191793638|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.54|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in conjunctival staining.||-0.15|-0.54|
95917546|NCT00697190|191793639|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.12|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.14|-0.12|
95729361|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.0|-0.6|0.0814
95917547|NCT00697190|191793640|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.23|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.05|-0.23|
95917548|NCT00697190|191793641|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior margin = 0.33|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.2|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||The mean difference is calculated as senofilcon A toric minus galyfilcon A toric.|Alternative hypothesis is that senofilcon A toric is non-inferior to galyfilcon A toric in papillary conjunctivitis.||0.02|-0.20|
95917549|NCT01103960|191793651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.803||0.007||95.0|0.6082|3.7681||This was the first step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was \<0.05 so this test was considered confirmatory. Proceeding to the next step was allowed, testing the same endpoint in the subgroup of Chinese patients.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.7681|0.6082|0.007
95917550|NCT01103960|191793652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9015||0.034||95.0|0.1443|3.6947||This was the second step in the closed testing procedure of multiple endpoints. The p-value was again \<0.05 so this test was also considered confirmatory.|ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||3.6947|0.1443|0.034
95917551|NCT01103960|191793653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1217|<|0.001||95.0|2.2807|6.695|||ANCOVA|||A5 minus T80/A5||6.6950|2.2807|<0.001
95917552|NCT00619476|191793682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.81||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.23||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.23|-1.40|0.013
95917553|NCT00619476|191793682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-0.7||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.07||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.07|-1.33|0.029
95694100|NCT00960934|191358441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|42.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||42.0|17.0|<0.001
95694101|NCT00960934|191358441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||14.4|-4.1|0.254
95694102|NCT00960934|191358442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|60.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||60.0|34.9|<0.001
95694103|NCT00960934|191358442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|48.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||48.5|24.1|<0.001
95917554|NCT00619476|191793682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference versus placebo|-1.07||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.45||This p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity using a step-down procedure that uses Dunnett's test within a closed testing scheme for multiple comparisons with a common control in order to maintain the overall experiment-wise alpha level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|An ANCOVA model with body mass index (BMI), baseline 24-hour average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.45|-1.68|0.002
95917555|NCT01946243|191793728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0029
95917556|NCT01946243|191793729|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.2|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|2.7||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||2.7|
95917557|NCT01946243|191793730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.112||||||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.112|0.018|
95694104|NCT00960934|191358442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|28.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||28.7|7.7|0.001
95694105|NCT00960934|191358442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|18.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||18.2|-0.0|0.050
95729362|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.2|-0.5|0.3069
95917558|NCT01946243|191793731|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority demonstrated if the lower bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval is greater than -3%.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.8||||||Units: Percent Accuracy||||0.8|
95917559|NCT01946243|191793732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||lower bound of two-sided 95% CI|0.07||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.125|||Monte Carlo test|||Superiority demonstrated if lower bound of two-sided 95% CI greater than 0, for the change in kappa statistic.||0.125|0.007|0.0280
95917560|NCT01946243|191793733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to test whether the change is equal to zero or not.||||0.0025
95917561|NCT00358215|191793734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none)|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.13|0.90|0.871
95694106|NCT00960934|191358442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|4.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||4.2|-8.5|0.313
95694107|NCT00960934|191358443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.8|-5.8|>0.999
95694108|NCT00960934|191358443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
95694109|NCT00960934|191358443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|5.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||5.7|-5.8|>0.999
95694110|NCT00960934|191358443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.6|-4.2|0.313
95694111|NCT00960934|191358443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|8.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen Method|||The Miettinen and Nurminen Method was used to estimate the treatment differences between the active dose group and the placebo group by comparing the percentage of participants in the active dose group with the event vs. the percentage of participants in the placebo group with the event. An associated p-value and 95% confidence interval were calculated for this difference.||8.4|-4.3|0.321
95694112|NCT00960934|191358445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.51||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.51|-1.03|0.959
95694113|NCT00960934|191358445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.02||||0.971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.08|0.971
95917562|NCT00358215|191793735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.19|0.92|0.512
95694114|NCT00960934|191358445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.24||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.42||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.42|-0.95|0.959
95694115|NCT00960934|191358445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.41||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.97||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.97|-1.78|0.915
95694116|NCT00960934|191358445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.04|-1.60|0.959
95694117|NCT00960934|191358446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.58||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.37|-1.22|0.849
95694118|NCT00960934|191358446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|1.47||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.47|-1.79|0.964
95694119|NCT00960934|191358446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.59||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.59|-1.27|0.964
95694120|NCT00960934|191358446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.48||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|1.27||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.27|-2.23|0.855
95729363|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.5|0.3916
95694121|NCT00960934|191358446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.27||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|3.12||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.12|-0.58|0.287
95729364|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.2|0.4667
95917563|NCT00358215|191793736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||Stratification factors are: region and type of device (cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with or without implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD without CRT, or none).|Stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals are from the Cox proportional hazards model adjusted by the stratification factors.|||1.14|0.89|0.922
95917564|NCT00358215|191793737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||3.75|0.65|0.005
95917565|NCT00358215|191793738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model estimating treatment effect adjusted for region, type of device, and Baseline KCCQ score.||||4.05|0.53|0.011
95917566|NCT00871351|191793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.8|||Hochberg's method|||||-5.8|-15.4|<0.0001
95917567|NCT00871351|191793739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.8|-21.2|||Hochberg's method|||||-21.2|-31.8|<0.0001
95917568|NCT00871351|191793740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||0.0003
95917569|NCT00871351|191793740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Hochberg's method|||||||<0.0001
95917570|NCT02791490|191793746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.23|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.23|-0.59|<0.001
95917571|NCT02791490|191793747|OTHER|95% CI|Difference in % vs Placebo|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|7.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||7.4|-10.8|
95917572|NCT02791490|191793749|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen method|||||2.5|1.2|0.002
95917573|NCT02791490|191793750|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-12.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|-4.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-4.6|-20.2|0.002
95917574|NCT01118455|191793779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.507
95917575|NCT01118455|191793779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.220
95917576|NCT01118455|191793779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.168
95917577|NCT01118455|191793779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.620
95917578|NCT01118455|191793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.727|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.727
95917579|NCT01118455|191793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.217
95917580|NCT01118455|191793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.270
95917581|NCT01118455|191793780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95694122|NCT00960934|191358447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.6||||0.933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|2.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.77|-1.56|0.933
95917582|NCT01118455|191793781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.448
95917583|NCT01118455|191793781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.025
95917584|NCT01118455|191793781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.799
95694123|NCT00960934|191358447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.01||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.68||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.68|-1.69|0.999
95694124|NCT00960934|191358447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.05||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|1.93||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.93|-1.84|0.999
95729365|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Average pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.2|0.3744
95917585|NCT01118455|191793781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.142
95917586|NCT01118455|191793782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.714||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.714
95917587|NCT01118455|191793782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
95917588|NCT01118455|191793782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.467|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.467
95917589|NCT01118455|191793782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.654
95917590|NCT01118455|191793783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.691
95917591|NCT01118455|191793783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.494|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.494
95917592|NCT01118455|191793783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.343
95917593|NCT01118455|191793783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.295|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.295
95917594|NCT00919893|191793808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Null hypothesis: Cernilton compared to placebo induces a better or the same outcome of symptomatic improvement in the pain domain of symptomatic Pelvic Pain Syndrome verified by the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).~Power calculation: A power of 1-beta=0.8 was calculated."||||<0.05
95917595|NCT01622543|191793815|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.59||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.53|||Log Rank|||||2.53|1.00|0.046
95917596|NCT01622543|191793816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95917597|NCT01622543|191793817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.09||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.55|0.96|0.06
95917598|NCT01622543|191793818|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.98|||Log Rank|||||1.98|0.78|0.36
95917599|NCT00345384|191793819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Precentage Difference|41.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||The percentage in opioid use by the dexmedetomidine group in comparison to the placebo for the period of time on study drug is calculated as follows: numerator = 29, denominator = 49.|||||0.03
95917600|NCT00345384|191793819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference|35.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||A measure of opioid use, weighted for total time on study drug. This is examined by a comparison of the dexmedetomidine group to the placebo group: numerator = 35, denominator = 54.|||||0.04
95917601|NCT00345384|191793820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The p-value reported in this table corresponds with the 6 to 16 hour time frame.||||0.02
95694125|NCT00960934|191358447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.45||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.57||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.57|-1.67|0.959
95694126|NCT00960934|191358447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.08||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.94||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.94|-2.10|0.999
95694127|NCT00960934|191358448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.17||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.77||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.77|-1.12|0.976
95694128|NCT00960934|191358448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.06||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.8||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.80|-0.93|0.982
95694129|NCT00960934|191358448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.53||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.49||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.49|-0.43|0.489
95729366|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.2959
95917602|NCT00708305|191793829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9762||95.0|-0.21|0.2||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments in comparison. Tests were 2-sided at 5% significance levels.||0.20|-0.21|0.9762
95917603|NCT00708305|191793830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean DIfference|0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
95917604|NCT00708305|191793830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
95917605|NCT00708305|191793830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.49|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.28|0.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||0.70|0.28|<0.0001
95917606|NCT00708305|191793830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.65||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because the comparison was predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.65|1.23|<0.0001
95917607|NCT00708305|191793830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.16||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons as the comparisons were predefined.|ANCOVA|The model included mean baseline fluoride level for treatment period (covariate), treatment and period as fixed and subject was random factor.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Tests were 2 sided at 5% significance levels.||1.16|0.74|<0.0001
95917608|NCT00708305|191793831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.72|0.12|0.0151
95917609|NCT00708305|191793831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.36||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.36|0.69|<0.0001
95917610|NCT00708305|191793831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|4.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||4.05|2.06|<0.0001
95917611|NCT00708305|191793831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.27|0.41|<0.0001
95917612|NCT00708305|191793831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|2.74||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||2.74|1.50|<0.0001
95917613|NCT00708305|191793831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.73|<0.0001
95917614|NCT00708305|191793832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.47|-0.22|0.5545
95917615|NCT00708305|191793832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.71||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.71|0.15|0.0003
95917616|NCT00708305|191793832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.56|0.58|<0.0001
95917617|NCT00708305|191793832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signal Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.68|0.15|<0.0001
95917618|NCT00708305|191793832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.35||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||1.35|0.58|<0.0001
95917619|NCT00708305|191793832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.56||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.56|0.26|<0.0001
95917620|NCT00708305|191793833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.08|-0.13|0.6865
95917621|NCT00708305|191793833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.12|-0.02|0.1756
95917622|NCT00708305|191793833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.38|0.16|<0.0001
95917623|NCT00708305|191793833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.22|0.04|0.0023
95917624|NCT00708305|191793833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
95917625|NCT00708305|191793833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.25||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.25|0.12|<0.0001
95917626|NCT00708305|191793834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.00|-0.08|0.0783
95917627|NCT00708305|191793834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.00|0.0531
95917628|NCT00708305|191793834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.14|0.07|<0.0001
95917629|NCT00708305|191793834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.15|0.03|0.0005
95917630|NCT00708305|191793834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
95917631|NCT00708305|191793834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.10|0.04|<0.0001
95917632|NCT00708305|191793835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.4309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.01||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.01|-0.03|0.4309
95917633|NCT00708305|191793835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.00|0.0726
95917634|NCT00708305|191793835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.03|<0.0001
95917635|NCT00708305|191793835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.06||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.06|0.01|0.0107
95917636|NCT00708305|191793835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.07|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.07|0.03|<0.0001
95917637|NCT00708305|191793835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments, being compared. Statistical tests were 2-sided at 5% significance level.||0.04|0.01|0.0012
95917638|NCT00192023|191793836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to Week 8 Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to Week 8=score at Week 8+treatment+site+treatment-by-site interaction. If treatment-by-site interaction isn't significant it will be removed from model.|ANCOVA|||Using an estimate of the common standard deviation of 13 points, the planned sample size will give about 80% power to detect a difference between the groups of 8 points on the SNAP-IV. The sample size was determined using a two-sided test with p=0.05, and assumes that up to 10% of patients will discontinue the study without providing post-baseline efficacy data in Study Period III.||||<0.001
95917639|NCT00192023|191793837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917640|NCT00192023|191793838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95917641|NCT00192023|191793839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.836
95917642|NCT00192023|191793840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.870
95917643|NCT00192023|191793841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95917644|NCT00192023|191793841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917645|NCT00192023|191793841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.022
95917646|NCT00192023|191793841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917647|NCT00192023|191793842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0||||P-value for Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.071
95917648|NCT00192023|191793843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0||||P-value for Oppositional Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95917649|NCT00192023|191793843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113||95.0||||P-value for Cognitive Problems Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.113
95917650|NCT00192023|191793843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051||95.0||||P-value for Hyperactivity Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.051
95917651|NCT00192023|191793843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061||95.0||||P-value for ADHD Index Change to 8 Week Endpoint. Change = Endpoint minus baseline. Model: Change to 8 Week Endpoint=Score at 8 weeks+treatment+site.|ANCOVA|||||||0.061
95917652|NCT02572817|191793880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.29|0.65|0.54
95917653|NCT02572817|191793881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.45|0.66
95917654|NCT02572817|191793882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.8|0.5|0.87
95917655|NCT02572817|191793883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.41|0.65|0.49
95917656|NCT02572817|191793884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.08|0.55|0.83
95917657|NCT02572817|191793885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.56|0.65|0.47
95917658|NCT02572817|191793886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95917659|NCT02572817|191793887|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.64|||Log Rank|||||2.64|0.21|0.64
95917660|NCT02572817|191793888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
95917661|NCT02572817|191793889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 7||2.71|0.65|0.43
95917662|NCT02572817|191793889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 14||2.48|0.5|0.79
95917663|NCT02572817|191793889|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Composite mortality and hospitalization, Day 28||4.12|0.66|0.29
95917664|NCT02572817|191793890|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||0|-2|0.2
95917665|NCT02572817|191793890|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in NEW from baseline to Day 3||1|-1|0.66
95917666|NCT02572817|191793891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 3||||0.18
95917667|NCT02572817|191793891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PEW from baseline to Day 7||||0.61
95917668|NCT02572817|191793892|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-2|0.68
95917669|NCT02572817|191793893|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|11.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.01|0.23|0.98
95917670|NCT02572817|191793894|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.5||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-6|0.37
95917671|NCT02572817|191793895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95917672|NCT02572817|191793896|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-3.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|-14|0.22
95917673|NCT02572817|191793897|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|9.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||9.29|0.08|1
95917674|NCT02572817|191793899|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.33||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.79|0.05|0.24
95694130|NCT00960934|191358448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.02||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||0.78|-0.75|0.982
95694131|NCT00960934|191358448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.16||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.08||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.08|-0.76|0.976
95917675|NCT02572817|191793901|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95694132|NCT00960934|191358449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.35||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.31|-2.00|0.961
95917676|NCT02572817|191793902|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|0.0||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 3||0|-1|0.06
95917677|NCT02572817|191793902|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehman estimate of location shift|-1.0||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in SOFA from baseline to Day 7||0|-1|0.13
95917678|NCT02572817|191793903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 3||||0.36
95917679|NCT02572817|191793903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Change in PELOD from baseline to Day 7||||0.15
95917680|NCT02572817|191793904|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.44|0.87|0.12
95917681|NCT02572817|191793905|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.43|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.43|0.13|0.23
95917682|NCT00759772|191793911|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||Calculated p-value.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.01
95917683|NCT03662997|191793915|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
95917684|NCT03662997|191793915|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.56||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.56
95917685|NCT03662997|191793915|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.010
95917686|NCT03662997|191793915|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.25||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer arm; Weeks 2 \& 4|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.25
95917687|NCT03662997|191793916|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.046||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular; End of Weeks 1 and 3.|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||0.046
95917688|NCT03662997|191793916|SUPERIORITY|In this superiority study the primary efficacy analysis included constructing a two sided 5% significance level, using Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for ordered categorical variables and dichotomous variables for the differences. Numbers, percentages improved, not changed, worsened were analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel Exact Chi square over the course of 4 weeks in a 2x2 weeks treatment period inferiority will be established.||||||0.01||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer; End of Weeks 1 \& 3|Chi-squared, Corrected||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups|||0.010
95917689|NCT03662997|191793924|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during first the week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydrocellular arm, first week of treatment|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
95917690|NCT03662997|191793924|SUPERIORITY|This secondary outcome measure was not planned for at the initiation of the study. Compliance rates were calculated by combining the number incidences that dressings were worn for the full 7 days and when the dressings do not have strike-through during the first week of treatment.|||||<|0.05||||||Five-layer vs Hydropolymer, first week of treatment.|Chi-squared||||All data presented on the performance of the dressings reflect the FAS populations for the study comparison groups.|||<0.05
95917691|NCT04548531|191793942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.94|0.41|<.001
95917692|NCT04548531|191793943|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|35.0|||Chi-squared|||||35|7|0.003
95917693|NCT04548531|191793944|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|16.0|||Chi-squared|||We tested for a clear preference for screening, if a patient chose a colonoscopy or a stool-based test vs. the other response options.||16|-10|.75
95729367|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9119
95694133|NCT00960934|191358449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.28||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.34||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.34|-1.90|0.961
95694134|NCT00960934|191358449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.66||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.33|-1.01|0.778
95917694|NCT04548531|191793945|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|26.0|||Chi-squared|||We categorized for likelihood to follow through with screening. We reported on results from patients who indicated 'Very Likely' on their response option vs. the other options (likely, unsure, unlikely, very unlikely)||26|-3|0.14
95729368|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9399
95694135|NCT00960934|191358449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.11||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|1.24||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.24|-1.45|0.961
95694136|NCT00960934|191358449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.25||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|1.26||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.26|-1.77|0.961
95917695|NCT04548531|191793946|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|18.0|||Chi-squared|||Assessed how many patients completed any colorectal cancer screening test within 6-months after randomization.||18|6|<.001
95917696|NCT02761629|191793954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.7||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|26.6|||Fisher Exact||Exact 95% confidence interval was from the binomial distribution for response rate.|||26.6|-0.01|0.0536
95917697|NCT02761629|191793957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0175|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0175
95917698|NCT00680056|191794039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|56.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|60.0||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference= Formoterol plus Tiotropium minus Formoterol plus Placebo(Tiotropium)|It was calculated a total sample size of a 2x2 cross-over design as 24 for a two-sided t-test achieves 85% power to infer that the mean difference is not zero, the actual mean difference is 20, the standard deviation of the differences is 15, and the significance level is 0.05||||0.038
95917699|NCT00680056|191794040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.39||0.054||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Mean difference=Arm 2 minus Arm 1|||||0.054
95917700|NCT01121484|191794045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||||0.004
95917701|NCT01121484|191794046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||CGI-I analyzed as a categorical variable by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores, controlling for the effect of region; p-value obtained from the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Score Differences.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95917702|NCT01121484|191794047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95917703|NCT01121484|191794048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95917704|NCT01121484|191794049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.158
95917705|NCT01121484|191794050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Analysis of Covariance used change from baseline at Week 8 as a response variable, site and treatment as factors, and baseline score as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917706|NCT01370005|191794097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.52||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.52|-0.72|<0.0001
95917707|NCT01370005|191794097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.55||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|Model includes baseline HbA1c as lin. covariate and treatment, baseline renal function, region and baseline N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.55|-0.75|<0.0001
95917708|NCT01370005|191794098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|-2.09||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.09|-4.78|<0.0001
95917709|NCT01370005|191794098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-2.83||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h SBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-2.83|-5.50|<0.0001
95694137|NCT00960934|191358450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.43||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.03|0.901
95694138|NCT00960934|191358450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.51||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.17|-2.18|0.901
95694139|NCT00960934|191358450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.52||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.13||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.13|-2.17|0.901
95694140|NCT00960934|191358450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.03||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.35|-1.29|0.997
95694141|NCT00960934|191358450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.04||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|1.43||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.43|-1.51|0.997
95729369|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.2455
95694142|NCT00960934|191358451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.37||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|1.99||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||1.99|-2.73|0.979
95694143|NCT00960934|191358451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|1.92||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|4.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||4.95|-1.10|0.363
95694144|NCT00960934|191358451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.4||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.98||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.98|-2.18|0.979
95694145|NCT00960934|191358451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.49||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||2.30|-3.27|0.979
95694146|NCT00960934|191358451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|0.51||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|3.37||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||3.37|-2.34|0.979
95694147|NCT00960934|191358452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.77||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|37.46||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.46|2.26|0.020
95694148|NCT00960934|191358452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.08||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|26.41||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||26.41|-6.16|0.357
95694149|NCT00960934|191358452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-2.83||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|9.14||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||9.14|-14.81|0.642
95729370|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain right now: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.2|0.3311
95694150|NCT00960934|191358452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.44||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.09|24.04||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.04|-7.09|0.434
95694151|NCT00960934|191358452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.72||||0.579||95.0|-8.62|20.1||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||20.10|-8.62|0.579
95729371|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1647||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.577|0.069|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.069|-0.577|0.1233
95694152|NCT00960934|191358453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|34.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.27|53.56||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||53.56|15.27|<0.001
95694153|NCT00960934|191358453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.57||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|38.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||38.02|3.28|0.014
95694154|NCT00960934|191358453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.97||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|25.7||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||25.70|-5.69|0.307
95694155|NCT00960934|191358453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|9.02||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.85|23.95||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||23.95|-5.85|0.307
95694156|NCT00960934|191358453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|-0.5||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.92|11.92||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||11.92|-12.92|0.937
95694157|NCT00960934|191358454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|19.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.42|31.02||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||31.02|7.42|<0.001
95694158|NCT00960934|191358454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|23.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|35.82||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||35.82|11.02|<0.001
95694159|NCT00960934|191358454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|10.45||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|21.3||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||21.30|-0.37|0.061
95694160|NCT00960934|191358454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|6.31||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|16.45||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||16.45|-3.81|0.283
95694161|NCT00960934|191358454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|5.46||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|14.31||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||14.31|-3.39|0.283
95694162|NCT00960934|191358455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|56.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.62|76.35||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||76.35|37.62|<.001
95694163|NCT00960934|191358455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|39.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.44|57.17||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||57.17|22.44|<.001
95694164|NCT00960934|191358455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|20.68||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.72|35.78||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||35.78|5.72|0.003
95694165|NCT00960934|191358455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.59||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|22.05||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||22.05|-4.81|0.265
95694166|NCT00960934|191358455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|8.39||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|20.21||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||20.21|-3.40|0.265
95694167|NCT00960934|191358456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|53.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.83|68.53||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||68.53|37.83|<0.001
95694168|NCT00960934|191358456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|41.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.36|55.65||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||55.65|27.36|<0.001
95694169|NCT00960934|191358456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|24.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.39|37.33||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||37.33|12.39|<0.001
95694170|NCT00960934|191358456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|12.87||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|24.06||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||24.06|1.73|0.020
95694171|NCT00960934|191358456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Change From BL|4.02||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|13.36||The Type-I error rate over the multiple treatment dose comparisons were controlled by step-down Dunnett's test at the primary time point of Month 6, at an alpha level of 0.05, two-sided.|Longitudinal Data Analysis Model|||||13.36|-5.31|0.397
95694172|NCT00120289|191358459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21|||Regression, Cox|Adjusting for gender and history of diabetes (randomization stratification factors).||||1.21|0.87|0.80
95694173|NCT00120289|191358460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.34|||Regression, Cox|||||1.34|0.87|.49
95694174|NCT00120289|191358461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.42|||Regression, Cox|||||1.42|0.90|.30
95694175|NCT00120289|191358462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.80|0.76|0.47
95694176|NCT00782418|191358481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.6|||<|0.001||90.0|1.29|1.92||1-sided, alpha=0.05|ANOVA|||||1.92|1.29|<0.001
95694177|NCT00782418|191358481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|0.95|||<|0.001||90.0|0.66|1.24|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||1.24|0.66|<0.001
95694178|NCT00782418|191358481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|2.32|||<|0.001||90.0|1.57|3.06|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha=0.05||||3.06|1.57|<0.001
95694179|NCT00782418|191358481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|1.38|||<|0.001||90.0|0.64|2.12|||ANOVA|1-sided, alpha = 0.05||||2.12|0.64|<0.001
95694180|NCT00782418|191358482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|23.1|||<|0.001||90.0|19.2|27.0|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||27.0|19.2|<0.001
95694181|NCT00782418|191358482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|16.4|||<|0.001||90.0|12.6|20.1|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||20.1|12.6|<0.001
95694182|NCT00782418|191358483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|545.0|||<|0.001||90.0|451.4|638.7|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||638.7|451.4|<0.001
95694183|NCT00782418|191358483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean|246.6|||<|0.001||90.0|160.9|323.3|||ANOVA|1-side, alpha = 0.05||||323.3|160.9|<0.001
95694184|NCT01757405|191358484|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Equivalence of treatment success proportions in all bleeding episodes for the two treatment groups was determined by comparing the 90% two-sided CI of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].|Ratio of success proportion|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.28|||Ratio of success proportion|||Equivalence test of successfully treated bleeding episodes (BEs) between or within treatment arms. Denoting the success rates in the two treatment groups by p1 and p2 , the null hypotheses of H01 : p1/p2 \< 0.83 and H02 : p1/p2 \> 1.20 was implicitly tested against the one-sided alternatives Ha1: 0.83 ≤ p1/p2 and Ha2 : p1/p2 ≤ 1.20, by comparing the 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) of the ratio of success proportions to the equivalence region defined as \[0.83, 1.20\].||1.28|1.15|
95694185|NCT03664193|191358496|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 37.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|49.3||||||||49.3|14.7|
95694186|NCT03664193|191358496|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 40.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|46.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|65.7||||||||65.7|28.3|
95694187|NCT03664193|191358496|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 42.5 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|22.1||||||||22.1|0.8|
95694188|NCT03664193|191358496|OTHER|Simple descriptive feasibility proportion and exact 95% confidence interval for radiation dose of 45.0 Gy.|Proportion (percent)|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|34.7||||||||34.7|5.6|
95694189|NCT03664193|191358497|OTHER|Simple proportion and exact 95% confidence interval.|Proportion (percent)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.4|100.0||||||||100.0|88.4|
95694190|NCT00543569|191358507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.2|23.9|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||23.9|3.2|
95694191|NCT00543569|191358507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8|||||A positive difference indicates a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||15.8|-3.6|
95694192|NCT00543569|191358507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The aim of this study was to assess the non-inferiority of each experimental arm (Arms 2-4) to a comparator regimen (Arm 1) over a non-inferiority margin of 10%. If the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval was less than the margin, i.e., 10%, then the test treatment was considered to be non-inferior to the comparator regimen.|Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3|||||A positive difference indicated a higher failure rate in the experimental arm as compared to the comparator arm (Arm 1).|||13.3|-5.3|
95694193|NCT00543569|191358508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|4.1||||||Patient survival at 6 months||4.1|-6.9|
95694194|NCT00543569|191358508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|5.8||||||Patient survival at 6 months||5.8|-3.5|
95694195|NCT00543569|191358508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|3.2||||||Patient survival at 6 months||3.2|-8.4|
95694196|NCT00543569|191358508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|12.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||12.8|-3.1|
95694197|NCT00543569|191358508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|9.2||||||Patient survival at 12 months||9.2|-8.3|
95694198|NCT00543569|191358508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|10.8||||||Patient survival at 12 months||10.8|-6.0|
95694199|NCT00543569|191358509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|3.1||||||Graft survival at 6 months||3.1|-8.5|
95694200|NCT00543569|191358509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|4.9||||||Graft survival at 6 months||4.9|-5.3|
95694201|NCT00543569|191358509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|2.2||||||Graft survival at 6 months||2.2|-10.0|
95694202|NCT00543569|191358509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|11.7||||||Graft survival at 12 months||11.7|-4.6|
95694203|NCT00543569|191358509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.9|8.1||||||Graft survival at 12 months||8.1|-9.9|
95694204|NCT00543569|191358509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.6|7.4||||||Graft survival at 12 months||7.4|-10.6|
95694205|NCT00543569|191358510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|24.6||||||||24.6|2.8|
95694206|NCT00543569|191358510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|15.0||||||||15.0|-5.4|
95694207|NCT00543569|191358510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|12.6||||||||12.6|-7.1|
95694208|NCT00543569|191358511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||BCAR at Month 6||19.5|1.8|
95694209|NCT00543569|191358511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
95694210|NCT00543569|191358511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
95694211|NCT00543569|191358511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|21.0||||||BCAR at Month 12||21.0|3.0|
95694212|NCT00543569|191358511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
95694213|NCT00543569|191358511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
95694214|NCT00543569|191358512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.0|22.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||22.5|2.0|
95694215|NCT00543569|191358512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|15.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||15.8|-3.6|
95694216|NCT00543569|191358512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.3|13.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||13.3|-5.3|
95694217|NCT00543569|191358512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|24.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||24.3|3.0|
95694218|NCT00543569|191358512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.1|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||14.6|-5.1|
95694219|NCT00543569|191358512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|13.8||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||13.8|-5.6|
95694220|NCT00543569|191358513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|18.0||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||18.0|0.7|
95694221|NCT00543569|191358513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||12.3|-3.6|
95694222|NCT00543569|191358513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|14.6||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 6||14.6|-1.7|
95694223|NCT00543569|191358513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8|19.5||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||19.5|1.8|
95694224|NCT00543569|191358513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.6|12.3||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||12.3|-3.6|
95694225|NCT00543569|191358513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|16.2||||||T-cell Mediated BCAR at Month 12||16.2|-0.6|
95694226|NCT00543569|191358517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.8|25.5||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||25.5|3.8|
95694227|NCT00543569|191358517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|17.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||17.8|-2.9|
95694228|NCT00543569|191358517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|18.2||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.2|-2.4|
95694229|NCT00543569|191358517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||20.4|-3.5|
95694230|NCT00543569|191358517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.8|15.8||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||15.8|-7.8|
95694231|NCT00543569|191358517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.5|15.9||||||Efficacy Failure at Month12||15.9|-7.5|
95694232|NCT00543569|191358518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|20.4||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||20.4|0.9|
95694233|NCT00543569|191358518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.5|13.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||13.7|-4.5|
95694234|NCT00543569|191358518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|18.7||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 6||18.7|-0.4|
95694235|NCT00543569|191358518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|18.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||18.0|-4.0|
95694236|NCT00543569|191358518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.3|13.0||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||13.0|-8.3|
95694237|NCT00543569|191358518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.2|17.6||||||Efficacy Failure at Month 12||17.6|-4.2|
95694238|NCT00543569|191358528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|23.3||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||23.3|-1.1|
95694239|NCT00543569|191358528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|24.2||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||24.2|-0.7|
95694240|NCT00543569|191358528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|14.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 6||14.7|-8.9|
95694241|NCT00543569|191358528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-2.9|
95694242|NCT00543569|191358528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.3|22.8||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||22.8|-3.3|
95694243|NCT00543569|191358528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.3|11.7||||||Treatment Failure at Month 12||11.7|-13.3|
95694244|NCT01100307|191358548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.85||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|12.28||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories)||The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||12.28|1.92|0.0003
95694245|NCT01100307|191358549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.94||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 6: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||3.94|1.10|0.0006
95694246|NCT01100307|191358549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|5.58||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 12: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||5.58|1.81|0.0001
95694247|NCT01100307|191358549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.65||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|4.65||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 18: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||4.65|0.65|0.0096
95694248|NCT01100307|191358549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.19|6.32||Significance level of test in the comparison between pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg and sham was set to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Based on an analysis of covariance with treatment as a factor and stratification factors (HbA1c and baseline visual acuity categories) as covariates.||Comparison at Week 24: The null hypothesis was to assume that there was no difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups. The alternative was to assume that there was difference between the pegaptanib sodium and sham injection groups.||6.32|2.19|<0.0001
95694249|NCT02196038|191358574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.0|||joint model|Joint model of ANCOVA plus survival||||2.0|0.9|<0.0001
95694250|NCT02196038|191358575|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.19|||Joint Model|Joint model of Poisson regression and survival||||1.19|0.66|0.59
95694251|NCT01580592|191358600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.6||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||for omalizumab 150mg|||||0.001
95694252|NCT01580592|191358600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95694253|NCT01580592|191358600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95694254|NCT01580592|191358601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.988
95694255|NCT03345836|191358618|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|25.8||P-value was calculated using Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||25.8|10.0|<0.0001
95694256|NCT03345836|191358619|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Risk Difference|31.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|37.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH risk difference estimate.|||37.0|25.5|<0.0001
95694257|NCT03345836|191358621|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|33.1||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||33.1|18.7|<0.0001
95694258|NCT03345836|191358622|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|21.6||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||21.6|12.0|<0.0001
95694259|NCT03345836|191358623|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.1|34.0||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||34.0|11.1|0.0001
95694260|NCT03345836|191358624|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|7.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|9.8||P-value was calculated using mixed effect model repeat measurement (MMRM) with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||9.8|5.2|< 0.0001
95694261|NCT03345836|191358625|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|31.5||P-value was calculated using MMRM with Baseline, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors in the model.|MMRM||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using MMRM.|||31.5|17.2|< 0.0001
95694262|NCT03345836|191358626|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|20.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|27.8||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||27.8|13.7|<0.0001
95694263|NCT03345836|191358627|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|22.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|31.2||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||31.2|14.4|<0.0001
95694264|NCT03345836|191358628|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|12.1||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|19.5||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||19.5|4.7|0.0013
95694265|NCT03345836|191358629|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-2.6||||0.2834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.4||P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.|Chi-squared||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using Chi-squared test.|||2.4|-7.6|0.2834
95694266|NCT03345836|191358630|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|11.5||||0.0833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.4||P-value was calculated using CMH test adjusted for randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Point estimate and 95% CI was calculated using CMH.|||24.4|-1.5|0.0833
95694267|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|4.1||||||1 hour postdose||4.1|-0.4|
95694268|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|4.9||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.9|0.4|
95694269|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|4.4||||||2 hours postdose||4.4|-0.1|
95694270|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.8|1.7||||||3 hours postdose||1.7|-2.8|
95694271|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.3|-1.8||||||4 hours postdose||-1.8|-6.3|
95694272|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.7|-1.2||||||6 hours postdose||-1.2|-5.7|
95694273|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|-2.6||||||12 hours postdose||-2.6|-7.1|
95694274|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.1|1.4||||||24 hours postdose||1.4|-3.1|
95694275|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||1 hour postdose||3.1|-1.4|
95694276|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|4.2||||||1.5 hours postdose||4.2|-0.2|
95694277|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|3.1||||||2 hours postdose||3.1|-1.4|
95694278|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|0.7||||||3 hours postdose||0.7|-3.8|
95694279|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-1.5||||||4 hours postdose||-1.5|-5.9|
95694280|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|-0.1||||||6 hours postdose||-0.1|-4.6|
95694281|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|-2.8||||||12 hours postdose||-2.8|-7.3|
95694282|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.4|2.1||||||24 hours postdose||2.1|-2.4|
95694283|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.6|14.0||||||1 hour postdose||14.0|7.6|
95694284|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.0|13.4||||||1.5 hours postdose||13.4|7.0|
95694285|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.0|14.4||||||2 hours postdose||14.4|8.0|
95694286|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|11.5|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|8.3|14.7||||||3 hours postdose||14.7|8.3|
95694287|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|6.5|12.8||||||4 hours postdose||12.8|6.5|
95694288|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|10.4|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|7.2|13.5||||||6 hours postdose||13.5|7.2|
95694289|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|4.1|10.4||||||12 hours postdose||10.4|4.1|
95694290|NCT03510663|191358631|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.0|3.8|10.2||||||24 hours postdose||10.2|3.8|
95694291|NCT01842620|191358633|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC (0-t) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-36)*100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.62|107.98|||||Ratio of AUC0-36= (AUC0-36 of Test)/ AUC 0-36 Reference)|Overall period||107.98|92.62|
95694292|NCT01842620|191358634|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for AUC(0-inf) of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of AUC0-inf)*100|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.26|106.27|||||Ratio of AUC0-inf= (AUC0-inf of Test) / (AUC 0-inf of Reference)|For overall period||106.27|92.26|
95694293|NCT01842620|191358635|EQUIVALENCE|Geometric means ratio for Cmax of test drug (Oxemet) to be entirely fallen within range of 0.80 to 1.25 of that of reference drug (Glafornil).|(Ratio of Cmax)*100|98.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.54|109.22|||||Ratio of Cmax= (Cmax of Test) / (Cmax of Reference)|Overall period||109.22|88.54|
95694294|NCT00952289|191358692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||The primary endpoint analyzed with a 2-sided alpha of 0.05.||||<0.0001
95694295|NCT03259334|191358703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.617|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.617
95694296|NCT03259334|191358703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.018
95694297|NCT03259334|191358704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.253
95694298|NCT03259334|191358704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.002
95694299|NCT03259334|191358705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.764|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.764
95694300|NCT03259334|191358705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.080
95694301|NCT03259334|191358706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.440
95694302|NCT03259334|191358706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.002
95694303|NCT03259334|191358707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline||||||0.286
95694304|NCT03259334|191358707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by actual status of prior anti-TNF treatment and glucocorticoid at baseline.||||||0.005
95694305|NCT02371759|191358727|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||In order to detect 20% difference in intraoral anesthesia duration between healthy and diabetic participants, with 80 % statistical power at a two-tailed significance level of 0.05 using Mann Whitney U test, it was calculated that at least 24 participants must be included in each group||||<0.05
95694306|NCT02371759|191358728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694307|NCT02371759|191358744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694308|NCT02371759|191358745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694309|NCT02371759|191358746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694310|NCT02371759|191358747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694311|NCT02371759|191358748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95694312|NCT02371759|191358749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95694313|NCT02371759|191358750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694314|NCT02371759|191358751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95694315|NCT02322320|191358752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.60
95694316|NCT02322320|191358752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.35
95694317|NCT02322320|191358752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||The primary analysis involved pairwise comparisons of PFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with PFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.68
95694318|NCT02322320|191358753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.57
95694319|NCT02322320|191358753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.38
95694320|NCT02322320|191358753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of OS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with OS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.77
95694321|NCT02322320|191358754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.67
95694322|NCT02322320|191358754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.20
95729372|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1643||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.394|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.250|-0.394|0.6610
95694323|NCT02322320|191358754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of EFS between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Log Rank|The log rank test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with EFS at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.40
95694324|NCT02322320|191358755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and RVD consolidation therapy.||||0.43
95694325|NCT02322320|191358755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to Tandem auto transplant and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
95694326|NCT02322320|191358755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||The analysis involved pairwise comparisons of SPM between the three treatment arms. To control the familywise type I error rate at 0.05, two-sided testing was performed at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.0167 = 0.05 / 3.|Gray's test|Gray's test was stratified on risk status at BMT CTN 0702 enrollment (high risk vs. standard risk)||The null hypothesis is that the percentages of participants with SPM at 5 years post-randomization in BMT CTN 0702 are equal for those assigned to RVD consolidation and Lenalidomide maintenance therapy.||||0.70
95694327|NCT00430625|191358757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.324|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.717|3.141|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint was based solely on the 60 U/kg treatment arm||3.141|1.717|<0.0001
95694328|NCT00125658|191358775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Primary Comparison (i.e., FTP vs. POWER) Data are reported as change scores, between the end of treatment block 1(10 weeks) and baseline; thus, this analysis directly compares FTP vs. Power. A negative value represents improvement (i.e., reduced trunk displacement) while a positive value represents an increase in compensatory trunk movement.||||<.001
95694329|NCT00125658|191358775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Order effect, testing OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). Change scores for trunk displacement at the end of both treatment blocks (20 weeks) relative to baseline (e.g., 20 weeks - baseline) were compared between OrderA and OrderB.||||.002
95694330|NCT00125658|191358776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests effect of FTP vs. Power. The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between baseline and the end of treatment Block 1 (i.e., 10 weeks).||||0.13
95694331|NCT00125658|191358776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP). The change in shoulder flexion range of motion was compared between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.048
95694332|NCT00125658|191358777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compares FTP vs POWER by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||.004
95694333|NCT00125658|191358777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP) by comparing the change in elbow extension range of motion between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.034
95694334|NCT00125658|191358778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences between FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.056
95694335|NCT00125658|191358778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP))by comparing the change in movement speed between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||.168
95694336|NCT00125658|191358779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests the effects of FTP vs. POWER on motor impairment (UE FMA) by comparing the change in FMA between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.564
95694337|NCT00125658|191358779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.948|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tests for an effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in UE FMA between the end of treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.948
95694338|NCT00125658|191358780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for differences in FTP vs. POWER by comparing the change in RPR between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.078
95694339|NCT00125658|191358780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests the effect of treatment order (Order A (FTP \> POWER) vs. Order B (POWER \> FTP)) by comparing the change in RPR between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.4
95694340|NCT00125658|191358781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment (FTP vs. POWER) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of treatment block 1 (10 weeks) and baseline.||||0.085
95694341|NCT00125658|191358781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.635|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Tests for the effect of treatment order (OrderA (FTP before POWER) vs. OrderB (POWER before FTP)) by comparing the change in movement smoothness between the end of overall treatment (20 weeks) and baseline.||||0.635
95727649|NCT03151499|191424872|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.74|10.601|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||10.601|5.740|
95694342|NCT00777491|191358782|OTHER|There was no formal comparison of the two treatment arms.||||||||||||||||The confidence interval of the rate was calculated by Clopper-Pearson's exact binomial confidence intervals methods with one-sided type I error of 0.1. The study required 32 analyzable patients in each arm, which would warrant a 10% chance of observing a percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years of less than 75% if the true rate was 86%. With the actual number of evaluable patients, the study instead warrants a 13-14% chance.|If the percentage of patients without distant metastasis by 3 years for either arm was greater than or equal to 75%, then it would be strongly considered as a potential arm in a subsequent phase III study, assuming treatment delivery and adverse events (AEs) were acceptable. If both arms met the criteria, then the treatment arm with less toxicity would be chosen.|||
95694343|NCT00777491|191358785|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.881||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariate analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID Irradiation|||1.881|0.129|0.30
95694344|NCT00777491|191358786|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.426|5.277||Two-sided significance level of 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Univariable analysis|Reference arm = 5-FU and Cisplatin + BID irradiation|||5.277|0.426|0.75
95694345|NCT00364845|191358798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.389||||||95.0|0.173|0.643||||||||0.643|0.173|
95694346|NCT00364845|191358798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion achieving target|0.95||||||95.0|0.751|0.999||||||||0.999|0.751|
95694347|NCT00369668|191358801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|37.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Greenhouse-Geisser degrees of freedom adjustment was not necessary.||Group by Test Session ANOVA with repeated measures on second factor.||37.4|22.5|<0.05
95694348|NCT04019093|191358830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46) = .001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.99
95694349|NCT04019093|191358830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=12.55||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
95694350|NCT04019093|191358830|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANOVA|F(1,46)=6.32||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) mixed general linear model on pressure threshold. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.015
95694351|NCT04019093|191358831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.20||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.76
95694352|NCT04019093|191358831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|F(2,82)=.66||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X beverage condition interaction.||||.52
95694353|NCT04019093|191358831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=4.53, p=.04||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||.04
95694354|NCT04019093|191358831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=6.24||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.017
95694355|NCT04019093|191358831|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=48.41||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain intensity. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||<.0001
95694356|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 82) = 0.69||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level X group interaction.||||.50
95694357|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=1.58||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X pressure level interaction.||||.21
95694358|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=3.06||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the pressure level X group interaction.||||.053
95694359|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.001||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the beverage condition X group interaction.||||.98
95694360|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(2,82)=.34||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of pressure level.||||.71
95694361|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=.14||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of group.||||.71
95694362|NCT04019093|191358832|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|F(1,41)=55.02||2 (beverage condition: alcohol vs. placebo) X 2 (group: chronic pain vs. healthy control) x 2 (pressure level: 4 lbf vs. 5 lbf vs 6 lbf) mixed general linear model on pain relief. Here we report the results of the analysis of the main effect of beverage condition.||||<.0001
95694363|NCT01067508|191358835|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to 12 weeks minus baseline change in Fiji water group||||0.003
95694364|NCT01067508|191358835|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||p\<0.05 was defined as significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison was made to the 12 week minus baseline change in Aquafina (control) group||||0.68
95694365|NCT02592629|191358853|EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95694366|NCT02115113|191358867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.01||0.3013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|15.34|||ANOVA|||||15.34|-4.86|0.3013
95694367|NCT01694420|191358873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Study data compared to data as cited in PubMed ID: 21487250|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95694368|NCT01313520|191358880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|||||-0.1|-0.4|<0.001
95694369|NCT01313520|191358881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
95694370|NCT01313520|191358882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95694371|NCT01313520|191358883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||||<0.0001
95694372|NCT01313520|191358884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.001
95694373|NCT01313520|191358885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||van Elteren test|||||||0.0005
95694374|NCT01313520|191358886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.87||||||||1.87|0.92|
95694375|NCT01313520|191358887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Effect Size|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.55||||||||1.55|0.64|
95694376|NCT00789191|191358888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.001||95.0|-0.77|-0.33||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline HbA1c was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors||Null hypothesis: Difference between mean HbA1c in the two treatment arms is equal to zero. Power calculation: Assuming a standard deviation of 1.0 for HbA1c, 100 subjects in each treatment arm would be required to obtain a power of 80% for detecting a HbA1c difference of 0.4%||-0.33|-0.77|0.0010
95694377|NCT00789191|191358889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2||||0.001||95.0|1.65|6.19||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||6.19|1.65|0.0010
95694378|NCT00789191|191358890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47||||0.008||95.0|1.26|4.81||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||4.81|1.26|0.0080
95694379|NCT00789191|191358891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23||||0.063||95.0|0.96|5.2||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate||Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.20|0.96|0.063
95694380|NCT00789191|191358892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.135||95.0|0.8|5.37||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Treatment group comparison using logistic regression model incl.treatment,stratification factor, country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate|Null hypothesis: Odds ratio is equal to one.||5.37|0.8|0.135
95694381|NCT00789191|191358893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.121||95.0|-0.07|0.63||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||0.63|-0.07|0.121
95694382|NCT00789191|191358894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.84||||0.109||95.0|-0.19|1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||1.88|-0.19|0.109
95694383|NCT00789191|191358895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.45||||0.001||95.0|-3.01|-1.88||No corrections to adjust for multiplicity were performed. Statistical significance threshold was p\<0.05.|ANCOVA|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used; baseline was included as covariate and treatment, stratification and country was included as factors.||||-1.88|-3.01|0.0010
95729373|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1649||0.5514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.422|0.225|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.225|-0.422|0.5514
95694384|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.01||||||95.0|-2.5|-1.51|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast|||-1.51|-2.50|
95694385|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.64||||||95.0|-2.4|-0.89|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of breakfast|||-0.89|-2.40|
95694386|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||||95.0|-1.69|-0.35|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before lunch|||-0.35|-1.69|
95694387|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||||95.0|-2.05|-0.56|||Linear mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of lunch|||-0.56|-2.05|
95694388|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||||95.0|-1.58|0.05|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before dinner|||0.05|-1.58|
95694389|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||||95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. 120 minutes after start of dinner|||-0.02|-1.75|
95694390|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||||95.0|-1.88|-0.2|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Bedtime|||-0.20|-1.88|
95694391|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||||95.0|-1.84|-0.49|||Linear Mixed Model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. At 03:00 a.m.|||-0.49|-1.84|
95694392|NCT00789191|191358899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||||95.0|-2.26|-1.34|||Linear Mixed-model|PG profile analysis:linear mixed effect model.Treatment,time,country,time-by-treatment interaction as explanatory variables.Subject as a random factor|COMB-SITA Difference. Before breakfast the following day|||-1.34|-2.26|
95694393|NCT03736629|191358916|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.14|4.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||4.81|-6.14|0.72
95694394|NCT03736629|191358917|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.67||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|24.65|||t-test, 2 sided||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.|||24.65|-35.98|0.59
95694395|NCT03736629|191358920|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Study did not reach its accrual goal. Sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.||||1.0
95694396|NCT00961662|191358939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The HbA1c percent change at each study visit was calculated and then categorized as a binary response (i.e., responders and non-responders) for each subject based on the breakpoint to be used in the endpoint. Inferential statistics were prepared to compare the differences across the three treatments a using logistic regression model with the dose group and the HbA1c stratum included in the mode||||<0.05
95694397|NCT02320695|191358945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.05|-0.33|0.187
95694398|NCT02320695|191358945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.04|-0.42|0.101
95694399|NCT02320695|191358945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.1|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.10|-0.49|0.002
95729374|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.182|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1638||0.2673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.503|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.503|-0.140|0.2673
95694400|NCT02320695|191358945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.12|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.12|-0.53|<0.001
95694401|NCT02320695|191358946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.05|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.05|-0.54|0.023
95694402|NCT02320695|191358946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.2|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||0.20|-0.32|0.522
95694403|NCT02320695|191358946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.16|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.16|-0.67|<0.001
95694404|NCT02320695|191358946|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"For the purpose of showing equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline, the hypothesis was set up as: Ho: μ1 - μ2 ≥ D vs HA: μ1 - μ2 \< D where D was the non-inferiority margin. Equivalent stinging of investigational product to saline was claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of (investigational product - saline) was less than 0.5."|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.07|||ANCOVA|Terms included treatment as factor, post tape-stripping score as covariate and subject as random effect to incorporate within-subject correlations.||||-0.07|-0.63|0.013
95694405|NCT03162055|191359031|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-87.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.3||0.9974|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-117.0|-57.4|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-57.4|-117.0|0.9974
95694406|NCT03162055|191359032|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-32.8|25.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||25.9|-32.8|0.0002
95694407|NCT03162055|191359033|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|2.95|||Regression, Logistic|ln (1/(1-p))=Treatment+baseline FEV1+BR a/s MDI+stratification factor (prior treatment)+region.p=percentage of participants with increase of \>=100 mL.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder in the GFF treatment group compared to the UV treatment group using a logistic regression.|||2.95|1.79|<0.0001
95694408|NCT03162055|191359034|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -50 mL.|Least Square Mean Difference|-15.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.4||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|22.9|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline IC + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||22.9|-53.4|0.0371
95694409|NCT03162055|191359035|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin -1.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.14|||Repeated measures analysis|TDI focal score = Treatment + Baseline Dyspnea Index + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean TDI focal score over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||-0.14|-0.59|<0.0001
95694410|NCT03162055|191359036|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.078|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline EMSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.078|-0.011|0.0017
95694411|NCT03162055|191359037|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 0.1 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.09|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline NiSCI score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||0.090|-0.005|0.0088
95694412|NCT03162055|191359038|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.04|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline =Treatment + baseline rescue a/s MDI use + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + TI + treatment by TI.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.04|0.26|0.9995
95694413|NCT03162055|191359039|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority p-value is calculated corresponding to the non-inferiority margin 2.0 unit.|Least Square Mean Difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.11|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline CAT score + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||1.11|0.07|<0.0001
95694414|NCT03162055|191359040|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.8||0.5516|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-30.3|27.0|||Repeated measures analysis|Change from baseline = Treatment + baseline FEV1 + BR a/s MDI + stratification factor (prior treatment) + region + visit + treatment by visit.|Estimate of the mean peak change from baseline over 24 weeks in the GFF treatment group is compared to the UV treatment group using a repeated measures analysis.|||27.0|-30.3|0.5516
95694415|NCT00401622|191359061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.51||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|22.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||||22.36|-7.24|0.31
95694416|NCT00401622|191359062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.04|||ANCOVA|Visit 1 A1c measurement used as the covariate||Change in A1C from baseline to week 52 between the OneTouch® Ultra®2 and control BGMS||0.04|-0.38|0.45
95694417|NCT01774344|191359075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.624|||=|1.7e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.498|0.782|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified IVRS by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.782|0.498|= 0.000017
95694418|NCT01774344|191359075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.000149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.527|0.828|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for stratified RAVE (Sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.828|0.527|= 0.000149
95694419|NCT01774344|191359075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.674|||=|0.000107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.831|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio for OS and 95% confidence interval was calculated for unstratified (sensitivity) by using Cox model, stratified by the geographic region: Asia or Rest of the World (ROW), ECOG-PS: 0 versus 1, AFP level, presence versus absence of extrahepatic disease and presence versus absence of macrovascular invasion. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimated for OS and KM survival curves were presented for each treatment arm.||0.831|0.546|= 0.000107
95694420|NCT01774344|191359076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.439|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|0.542|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.542|0.355|< 0.000001
95694421|NCT01774344|191359076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.471|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|0.572|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.572|0.388|< 0.000001
95694422|NCT01774344|191359076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.412|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.334|0.509|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.509|0.334|< 0.000001
95694423|NCT01774344|191359076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.444|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|0.539|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Kaplan-Meier estimates.||0.539|0.365|< 0.000001
95694424|NCT01774344|191359077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.453|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.369|0.555|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.555|0.369|< 0.000001
95729375|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1644||0.3439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.167|0.478|||ANCOVA|||Severity score: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.478|-0.167|0.3439
95694425|NCT01774344|191359077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.58|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.580|0.397|< 0.000001
95917710|NCT01370005|191794099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.56||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.56|-2.15|0.0008
95917711|NCT01370005|191794099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.93||Hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values.|ANCOVA|Model incl. baseline (bl) HbA1c, bl mean 24h DBP as lin. covariates; treatment, bl renal function, region, bl N of antihyperten. med. as fixed effects|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo|Hierarchical testing structure was: 1) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 25mg vs placebo 2) Change from baseline to week 12 in mean 24h SBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 3) Change from baseline to week 12 in HbA1c, empa 10mg vs placebo 4) Change from baseline in mean 24h SBP, empa 10mg vs placebo 5) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP, empa 25mg vs placebo 6) Change from baseline in mean 24h DBP empa 10mg vs placebo.||-0.93|-2.51|<0.0001
95917712|NCT01370005|191794100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.18|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.18|3.51|<0.0001
95917713|NCT01370005|191794100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|11.75|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||11.75|3.70|<0.0001
95917714|NCT01370005|191794101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.91|-18.6|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-18.60|-28.91|<0.0001
95694426|NCT01774344|191359077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.425|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.522|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on stratified (IVRS) Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.522|0.347|< 0.000001
95694427|NCT01774344|191359077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.454|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|0.548|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and its 95% CI was based on unstratified Cox Regression Model. One-sided p-value was calculated from log rank test and 95% CIs was computed by using Cox Regression Model.||0.548|0.376|< 0.000001
95694428|NCT01774344|191359078|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-6.88|||=|0.00365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.13|-2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-2.63|-11.13|= 0.003650
95694429|NCT01774344|191359078|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-4.15|||=|0.019991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|-0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-0.75|-7.55|= 0.019991
95694430|NCT01774344|191359079|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-29.31|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.52|-21.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-21.11|-37.52|< 0.000001
95694431|NCT01774344|191359079|SUPERIORITY||Difference|-31.39|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.57|-23.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of treatments were calculated.||-23.22|-39.57|< 0.000001
95694432|NCT00862849|191359081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|26.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.22|34.71||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed.||||34.71|18.22|<0.0001
95694433|NCT00862849|191359081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|16.7||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.45|24.94||Treatment comparison for %AUC(0-30). Statistical testing was considered exploratory, with no adjustment for inflation of Type 1 error due to multiplicity of testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis performed using mixed model with fixed effect for treatment. A compound symmetry covariance matrix among repeated measurements was assumed||||24.94|8.45|0.0015
95694434|NCT02344407|191359089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Bernards Exact Test Chi-square||Each active vaccine is compared to the placebo group||||0.68
95694435|NCT02344407|191359089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|Barnard Exact Test Chi-square||||||0.68
95694436|NCT02344407|191359090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Linear regression (analysis of covariance) adjusted for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
95694437|NCT02344407|191359090|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline antibody level||||||<0.001
95694438|NCT00305253|191359101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.38||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|Independent variables were selected on the basis of their significant association with EAO in bivariate analyses (t-tests and logistic regression).|Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|"Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for the primary outcome, Extreme Adverse Outcomes (EAO) - a combined measure of maternal mortality or severe mobidity.~To estimate the independent effect of the intervention net of the effects of other baseline characteristics, a multiple logistic regression model was used."||0.85|0.17|0.019
95694439|NCT00305253|191359102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Mean measured volume of blood loss in the drape was compared across phases with t-tests.||||<0.0001
95694440|NCT00305253|191359103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.41|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided||Pre-Intervention group was compared to the Post-Intervention group. Each group contained different study participants.|Relative risks and confidence intervals were computed for emergency hysterectomy.||0.80|0.21|<0.05
95694441|NCT02876055|191359128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.542|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.542
95694442|NCT02876055|191359128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95694443|NCT02876055|191359128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95694444|NCT00471445|191359160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|0.201|||ANCOVA|||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.||0.201|-0.548|0.363
95694445|NCT01552928|191359176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95694446|NCT01552928|191359176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694447|NCT01552928|191359176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694448|NCT01552928|191359177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694449|NCT01552928|191359177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694450|NCT01552928|191359177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95694451|NCT01552928|191359178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95694452|NCT01552928|191359178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.044
95694453|NCT01552928|191359178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95917715|NCT01370005|191794101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.32|-25.08|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline FPG|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-25.08|-35.32|<0.0001
95917716|NCT01370005|191794102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-1.13|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.13|-1.85|<0.0001
95917717|NCT01370005|191794102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.62|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline number of antihypertensive med., baseline HbA1c and baseline weight|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.62|-2.33|<0.0001
95694454|NCT01552928|191359179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694455|NCT01552928|191359179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694456|NCT01552928|191359179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694457|NCT01552928|191359180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95694458|NCT01552928|191359180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694459|NCT01552928|191359180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
95694460|NCT01552928|191359185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694461|NCT01552928|191359185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694462|NCT01552928|191359185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694463|NCT01552928|191359186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694464|NCT01552928|191359186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694465|NCT01552928|191359186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.004
95694466|NCT01552928|191359187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95694467|NCT01552928|191359187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694468|NCT01552928|191359187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694469|NCT01552928|191359188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.078
95694470|NCT01552928|191359188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694471|NCT01552928|191359188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.156|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.156
95694472|NCT01552928|191359189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.439|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.439
95694473|NCT01552928|191359189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.274
95694474|NCT01552928|191359189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95694475|NCT04030104|191359190|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0268||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Random Reader, Random Mass|Curve Fitting Method: Empirical||||||0.0268
95694476|NCT00406640|191359233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.243||95.0|-0.46|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared with ESC||1.81|-0.46|0.243
95694477|NCT00406640|191359234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.608||||0.077||95.0|0.4|0.92|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.92|0.40|0.077
95694478|NCT00406640|191359235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.571||||0.0054||95.0|0.39|0.85|||Chi-squared|Logistic regression model with treatment and site as factors and baseline score as a covariant.|Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odds ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||0.85|0.39|0.0054
95694479|NCT00406640|191359236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26||95.0|-0.09|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|DVS SR compared with ESC||0.33|-0.09|0.260
95694480|NCT00406640|191359237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.239||95.0|-0.09|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) with baseline score as a covariant and factors for center, week and treatment.|DVS SR minus ESC adjusted mean|||0.37|-0.09|0.239
95694481|NCT00406640|191359238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.516||95.0|-0.75|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis adjusted mean score for baseline score, time and center.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change.|DVS SR compared to ESC||1.49|-0.75|0.516
95694482|NCT00406640|191359239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.635||95.0|-0.03|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, time and site as factors and baseline as covariant.|DVS SR adjusted mean change minus ESC adjusted mean change|DVS SR compared to ESC||0.06|-0.03|0.635
95694483|NCT00406640|191359240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.702||95.0|0.63|2.0|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.00|0.63|0.702
95694484|NCT00406640|191359241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.234||95.0|0.83|2.16|||Chi-squared||Estimated odds ratio of DVS SR to ESC. Odd ratio adjusted for baseline, treatment and site.|DVS SR compared with ESC.||2.16|0.83|0.234
95694485|NCT00406640|191359245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.927||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: end of therapy||||0.927
95694486|NCT00406640|191359245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.055||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 1 week of taper||||0.055
95694487|NCT00406640|191359245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after 2 weeks of taper||||0.025
95694488|NCT00406640|191359245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.653||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||DVS SR vs. ESC: after \> 2 weeks of taper||||0.653
95694489|NCT00488618|191359246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-3.3|-8.9|<0.0001
95694490|NCT00488618|191359247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.32|||ANCOVA||cariprazine - placebo|||-0.32|-0.97|0.0001
95694491|NCT00797797|191359305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||The responder rates between 'No Treatment Added' and 'Milnacipran Added' groups were compared using a logistic regression model.||||<0.001
95694492|NCT00797797|191359306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-14.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.99|-9.71|||ANCOVA|||This parameter was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group and study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-9.71|-18.99|
95694493|NCT02207478|191359310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.019
95694494|NCT02207478|191359311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total procedure time||||0.843
95694495|NCT02207478|191359311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.233|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Total X-ray time||||0.233
95694496|NCT02207478|191359311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Duration time for finding lesions||||<0.001
95694497|NCT02207478|191359311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||X-ray time for finding lesions||||<0.001
95694498|NCT01290445|191359312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.47||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.47|0.46|
95694499|NCT01290445|191359312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.42||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.45|
95694500|NCT01290445|191359313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.34||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.34|0.09|
95694501|NCT01290445|191359313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|4.67||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||4.67|0.09|
95694502|NCT01290445|191359314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.96||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.96|0.50|
95694503|NCT01290445|191359314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.97||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||0.97|0.51|
95694504|NCT01290445|191359315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.42||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.42|0.63|
95694505|NCT01290445|191359315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.37||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.37|0.61|
95694506|NCT01290445|191359316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Crude prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
95694507|NCT01290445|191359316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.16||||||Adjusted prevalence odds ratios were estimated along with 95% confidence intervals using logistic regression models.||1.16|0.37|
95694508|NCT02568345|191359318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||isotonic regression functions through PA|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||The isotonic regression functions through PAVA algorithm were used (pooled adjacent violators algorithm), to determine the ED90, and bootstrapping to calculate the respective 95% confidence interval with the statistical program R||||||||
95694509|NCT00333619|191359324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95694510|NCT00333619|191359325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95694511|NCT03209440|191359332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95694512|NCT03209440|191359332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
95694513|NCT03209440|191359333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
95694514|NCT03209440|191359333|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.12
95694515|NCT03209440|191359334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
95694516|NCT03209440|191359334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.21
95694517|NCT03209440|191359335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.11
95694518|NCT03209440|191359335|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.14
95694519|NCT03209440|191359336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.05
95694520|NCT03209440|191359336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|"The outcome variable was scored as 1= prolong life; treat everything to 4 = provide comfort care only."||||||0.46
95694521|NCT00174785|191359413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.69|0.84||Cumulative incidence functions in each treatment group were calculated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The primary comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank test.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason or death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.84|0.69|<0.0001
95694522|NCT00174785|191359414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.18||95.0|0.66|1.08||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of death from any cause for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||1.08|0.66|0.18
95694523|NCT00174785|191359415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.67|0.82||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of first hospitalization for cardiovascular reason for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.82|0.67|<0.0001
95694524|NCT00174785|191359416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.025||95.0|0.51|0.96||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. Hierarchical procedure applied to secondary efficacy endpoints testing to protect the global type I error.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.96|0.51|0.025
95694525|NCT00174785|191359417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.03||95.0|0.51|0.98||Cumulative incidences calculated in each group using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier estimates. Median time-to-event was not reached in any group. The comparison was performed at the 5% level using a 2-sided Log rank|Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated by a Cox's proportional hazard model with treatment arm factor. It represents the relative hazard of adjudicated cardiovascular death for the dronedarone group compared with the placebo group.|||0.98|0.51|0.03
95694526|NCT00848250|191359418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95694527|NCT00848250|191359419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.13
95694528|NCT00848250|191359420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.02
95694529|NCT00848250|191359421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures||||||0.67
95694530|NCT00848250|191359423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||P-value is for comparison of chest tube output at 24 hours||||0.47
95694531|NCT00848250|191359424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.41
95694532|NCT02883049|191359446|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.022||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.413|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Arm B/hazard rate for Arm A|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on HR B-ALL Arm A vs Arm B. With a total of 1800 patients accrued over 5 years with minimum follow up of 2 years, randomized 1:1 to the 2 arms, we will be able to detect an improvement in 5-year DFS from 90% to 94 (HR=0.5873) between IT MTX and ITT based regimens (2-sided log rank test, alpha=5%), with 84.2% power.||1.413|0.74|0.893
95694533|NCT02883049|191359447|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.019||||0.556|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.335|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio = hazard rate for Experimental Arm 1 /hazard rate for Control Arm|To compare the DFS of the randomized patients on Control Arm vs. Experimental Arm 1. This study design will have 86.8% power (1-sided log rank test, adjusted alpha=0.025 for multiple comparisons) to detect an improvement in 4-year DFS from 70% to 79% (HR=0.661) between the control arm and the experimental arm.||1.335||0.556
95694534|NCT00677690|191359485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||"All data were expressed as the mean ± SD. The level of significance for all tests was set at p \< 0.05.~Inter- and intra-group comparisons were performed using both paired and unpaired t tests for continuous variables and Chi squared for categorical variables."||||< 0.05
95694535|NCT00677690|191359486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95694536|NCT00677690|191359487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95694537|NCT00677690|191359488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95694538|NCT00677690|191359489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95694539|NCT01962714|191359513|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary outcome of non-inferiority of LKM relative to CPT-C was assessed using a non-inferiority margin of 5 points on the CAPS-5, which represents 0.5 SD of baseline PTSD symptoms based on data indicating the SD of baseline CAPS-5 scores is approximately 10 in a large sample (N=198) of treatment-seeking veterans.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.78|||||Non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||6.78|-2.59|
95694540|NCT01962714|191359514|NON_INFERIORITY|For depression, the non-inferiority margin was 4 points on the PROMIS depression measure, which has been defined as the minimally important difference and corresponds to a Cohen's d effect size of approximately 0.50.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|5.2|||||Non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed as the change rate from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups (CPT-C minus LKM), with a positive value indicating a greater reduction in scores from baseline for LKM compared to CPT-C.|The non-inferiority of LKM with respect to CPT-C was analyzed using the 95% confidence interval for the group x time interaction term, with non-inferiority of LKM to CPT-C claimed if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than (i.e., did not extend beyond) negative delta.||5.20|-0.52|
95917718|NCT01370005|191794103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|-2.52|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, N of antihypertensive medications, baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-2.52|-5.37|<0.0001
95917719|NCT01370005|191794103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|-3.36|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-3.36|-6.20|<0.0001
95694541|NCT01151579|191359515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A total of at least 400 treatemnts or 65 patients was required to achieve 94% power to determine a 1% change by treatment or a 5% change between groups to be significant at p-value of 0.01 and o.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Null Hypothesis: No difference between groups in heart rate changes from baseline following treatment. Sample size calculation determined a need for at least 400 breathing treatments among 65 patients.||||0.01
95694542|NCT01151579|191359516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Analysis adjusted with Fischer exact chi-square for rare occurrences.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference in incidence of arrhythmias between groups within the total number of breathing treatments.||||0.05
95694543|NCT01151579|191359517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive|Descriptive statistics (frequency) used to report the number of participants experiencing an event.||To report on the number of events.||||0
95694544|NCT01098461|191359528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.57|-1.22|<0.0001
95694545|NCT01098461|191359528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.23|-1.88|<0.0001
95694546|NCT01098461|191359528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test for the difference in means. Dunnett's method is used to adjust for multiple comparisons.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.78|-1.43|<0.0001
95694547|NCT02662985|191359537|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)||GLOESS scores||-0.85|-5.52|0.0040
95694548|NCT02662985|191359538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|8.89|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression using non-responder imputation||Proportion of patients with ACR 20 response at Week 12 (FAS)||8.89|2.38|<0.0001
95694549|NCT02662985|191359539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|23.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportion of patients with ACR 50 response at Week 12 (FAS)||23.75|3.92|<0.0001
95694550|NCT02662985|191359540|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean of treatment difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.374|0.043|||Regression, Logistic|||SPARCC||0.043|-1.374|0.0327
95694551|NCT01153763|191359541|OTHER||percentage of participants|59.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.2|70.3|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a confirmed CR or a confirmed PR.|||70.3|48.2|
95694552|NCT01153763|191359542|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|28.7|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with a investigator assessed CR or PR.|||28.7|0.0|
95694553|NCT01153763|191359547|OTHER||percentage of participants|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.6|29.8|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||29.8|11.6|
95694554|NCT01153763|191359548|OTHER||percentage of participants|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|34.6|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with overall survival.|||34.6|2.2|
95694555|NCT05373706|191359555|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.20|0.76|0.68
95694556|NCT05373706|191359555|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.1||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.49|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.49|0.81|0.56
95694557|NCT05373706|191359556|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.93||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.33|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.33|0.64|0.68
95694558|NCT05373706|191359556|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.24||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.88|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.88|0.82|0.30
95694559|NCT05373706|191359557|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.89||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.15|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.15|0.69|0.36
95694560|NCT05373706|191359557|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|1.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.38|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.38|0.80|0.73
95694561|NCT05373706|191359558|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 2-Week Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 2-Week Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.83||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.04|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 2-Week Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.04|0.66|0.11
95694562|NCT05373706|191359558|SUPERIORITY|Generalized linear mixed model was estimated using a sample of N=99 with a Condition × 3-Month Follow-Up interaction. AOC was the reference category for Condition, and Baseline was the reference category for 3-Month Follow-Up.|Count/Rate Ratio|0.88||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.17|||Generalized linear mixed model|Models controlled for sex assigned at birth, age, and student status (4-year vs. not) and used a Poisson error distribution.||Changes from Baseline to 3-Month Follow-Up for PFI versus AOC reported in this section.||1.17|0.66|0.38
95694563|NCT02724774|191359715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||All analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat, analyzing all 252 cases as randomly assigned to the PFR and control group (CG). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the treatment effect of PFR (0 = CG, 1 = PFR). Covariates included preferred language (0 = English, 1 = Spanish) and the baseline measure.||||.026
95694564|NCT02724774|191359716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.154
95694565|NCT02724774|191359717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.516
95694566|NCT02724774|191359718|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95694567|NCT02724774|191359719|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.094
95694568|NCT02724774|191359720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.029
95917720|NCT01370005|191794104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.69|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.69|-2.42|0.0004
95917721|NCT01370005|191794104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-1.12|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline daytime DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.12|-2.84|<0.0001
95694569|NCT02724774|191359721|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.389
95694570|NCT02724774|191359722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.747||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< .05|Regression, Linear|||||||.747
95694571|NCT01606761|191359768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|15.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.5|23.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.2|8.5|< 0.001
95694572|NCT01606761|191359768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.5|13.6|< 0.001
95694573|NCT01606761|191359769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|-0.088|||ANCOVA|||||-0.088|-0.251|< 0.001
95694574|NCT01606761|191359769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.275|-0.112|||ANCOVA|||||-0.112|-0.275|< 0.001
95694575|NCT01606761|191359770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|17.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.7|6.4|< 0.001
95694576|NCT01606761|191359770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
95694577|NCT01606761|191359771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|5.5|< 0.001
95694578|NCT01606761|191359771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage Difference|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.1|7.8|< 0.001
95694579|NCT05086289|191359772|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.13|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.13|-0.89|
95694580|NCT05086289|191359773|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.3|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.30|-0.85|
95694581|NCT05086289|191359774|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.68|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.68|-1.91|
95694582|NCT05086289|191359775|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.18|-2.54|
95694583|NCT05086289|191359776|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.19|-0.44|
95694584|NCT05086289|191359777|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.14|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.14|-0.67|
95694585|NCT05086289|191359778|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.09|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.09|-1.05|
95694586|NCT05086289|191359779|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.16|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.16|-1.17|
95694587|NCT05086289|191359780|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|1.27|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||1.27|-11.07|
95694588|NCT05086289|191359781|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-4.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.73|2.15|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||2.15|-11.73|
95694589|NCT05086289|191359782|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.21|-0.46|
95694590|NCT05086289|191359783|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|9.2|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||9.20|-6.20|
95694591|NCT05086289|191359784|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.07|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.07|-0.06|
95694592|NCT05086289|191359785|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.1|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||0.10|-0.05|
95694593|NCT05086289|191359786|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|41.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.92|179.76|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||179.76|-95.92|
95694594|NCT05086289|191359787|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|9.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.11|170.52|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported.|||170.52|-151.11|
95694595|NCT03150108|191359791|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% confidence interval (CI).|Geometric mean ratio|1.119|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|1.43||||||||1.430|0.875|
95729376|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.2708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|7.4|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||7.4|-2.1|0.2708
95694596|NCT03150108|191359791|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in Cmax per Dose Doubling|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.03|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted Cmax using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.03|1.52|
95694597|NCT03150108|191359793|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUClast values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
95694598|NCT03150108|191359793|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUClast per Dose Doubling|2.35||||||90.0|2.06|2.7|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUClast using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.70|2.06|
95694599|NCT03150108|191359794|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-8 values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.35||||||||1.35|0.87|
95694600|NCT03150108|191359794|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-8 per Dose Doubling|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.98|2.51|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-8 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.51|1.98|
95694601|NCT03150108|191359795|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed AUC0-inf values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric mean ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|1.33||||||||1.33|0.77|
95694602|NCT03150108|191359795|OTHER|Dose proportionality|Increase in AUC0-inf per Dose Doubling|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.96|2.71|||||Linear model of log transformed PK parameters at all doses in Japanese descent, including log transformed dose, period, sequence as fixed effects, and intercept as a random effect accounting for each participant within sequence as their own control.|Dose proportionality was assessed for baseline-adjusted AUC0-inf using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the natural log transformed parameter and the natural log transformed dose. The fold increase in PK parameters with doubling the dose and the 90% CIs were calculated.||2.71|1.96|
95694603|NCT03150108|191359801|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|1.4||||||||1.40|0.90|
95917722|NCT01370005|191794105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|-0.91|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.91|-4.09|0.0021
95694604|NCT03150108|191359803|EQUIVALENCE|Welch's t-test with Satterthwaite's approximation to the degrees of freedom was used to compare the log transformed Cmax values of both ethnic groups at 100 mcg dose and the results were back-transformed to get the estimates for the geometric means and for the ratio of geometric means (Japanese/Caucasian), and 90% CI.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.25||||||||1.25|0.93|
95694605|NCT03238235|191359816|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of the least square means|0.04||||0.8282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||ANCOVA model was performed considering the difference between log of total fibrosis and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline value was included as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||total fibrosis at visit 11||0.38|-0.30|0.8282
95694606|NCT03238235|191359816|SUPERIORITY|Mixed model was performed considering the difference between log Visit 11 and log baseline values as dependent variable; log baseline as covariate, treatment was included as independent class variable and treatment by sequence interaction. The sequence of biopsy site (R-L, L-R) was included as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect. If the treatment by sequence interaction was p\>0.10, then the model without the interaction term is presented.|Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.11||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A Mixed Model was fitted to the data in order to evaluate the difference in total fibrosis between biopsy sites||0.37|-0.59|0.6465
95694607|NCT03238235|191359817|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.05||||0.1991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Vastus lateralis||0.03|-0.12|0.1991
95694608|NCT03238235|191359817|SUPERIORITY||difference of the least square means|-0.27||||0.7849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|1.69||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of vastus lateralis or fat fraction in the soleus value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Soleus||1.69|-2.22|0.7849
95694609|NCT03238235|191359818|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.35||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.28||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole thigh at visit 11||-0.28|-2.43|0.0149
95694610|NCT03238235|191359818|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.96||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.75||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at visit 11||-0.75|-3.18|0.0022
95694611|NCT03238235|191359818|SUPERIORITY||Difference of least square means|-0.58||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|1.08||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at visit 11||1.08|-2.24|0.4869
95694612|NCT03238235|191359818|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.59||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.29||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||0.29|-3.47|0.0939
95917723|NCT01370005|191794105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.48|-1.32|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-1.32|-4.48|0.0003
95917724|NCT01370005|191794106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.03|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||0.03|-1.93|0.0566
95917725|NCT01370005|191794106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.18|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline night-time DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.18|-2.12|0.0208
95917726|NCT01370005|191794107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.98|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-1.98|-5.86|<0.0001
95917727|NCT01370005|191794107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.73|-2.87|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated SBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-2.87|-6.73|<0.0001
95917728|NCT01370005|191794108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|-0.84|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 10mg minus placebo.|||-0.84|-3.01|0.0005
95917729|NCT01370005|191794108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.82|||ANCOVA|Model includes treatment, baseline renal function, geographical region, baseline N of antihyperten. med., baseline HbA1c and baseline seated DBP|Difference calculated as empa 25mg minus placebo.|||-0.82|-2.97|0.0006
95917730|NCT01370005|191794109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.45|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||4.45|1.39|0.0021
95917731|NCT01370005|191794109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.96|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment, baseline renal function, region, baseline number of antihypertensive medications and baseline HbA1c||||3.96|1.22|0.0088
95917732|NCT00856661|191794156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if alive, or 6, if otherwise = death||All patients who were treated and had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included.||2.64|0.79|0.2290
95917733|NCT00856661|191794157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.62|0.59|0.9401
95694613|NCT03238235|191359818|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.89||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.36||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Fat Fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis girdle at visit 11||0.36|-2.13|0.1579
95694614|NCT03238235|191359819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.4||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|3.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at visit 11||3.26|-2.45|0.7770
95917734|NCT00856661|191794158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||All patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS and with a baseline NIHSS score of 8 to 24. If no assessment was available for last observation carried forward after baseline, the mRS score was set to 5 if the patient was known to be alive, or 6, if otherwise = dead.||2.18|0.68|0.5076
95917735|NCT00856661|191794159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||all patients treated, who had at least one valid post-baseline assessment of the mRS. As death is a valid outcome on the mRS, patients who died within 90 days after IMP administration were included||1.75|0.72|0.6146
95917736|NCT03556358|191794187|EQUIVALENCE|"Two one-sided hypothesis tests were performed for pCR in order to show that TX05 is equivalent to Herceptin:~* TEST 1: H0a: θ1 / θ2 \> 1.325 vs. H1a: θ1 / θ2 \< 1.325~* TEST 2: H0b: θ1 / θ2 \< 0.755 vs. H1b: θ1 / θ2 \> 0.755~Where θ1 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to TX05 group, θ2 is the proportion of pCR for subjects randomized to Herceptin. Equivalence was concluded if the 95% CI of the risk ratio is completely contained within the pre-defined interval \[0.755, 1.325\]."|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0783|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9185|1.2659||||||||1.2659|0.9185|
95917737|NCT01744860|191794201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Kappa coefficient|0.8611|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8125|0.9097||||||"Kappa coefficient was used to compare the concordance between INCa Molecular Genetics Laboratory in-house methods and Cobas 4800 Mutation Test."||0.9097|0.8125|
95694615|NCT03238235|191359819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.09||||0.8926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.18|-1.35|0.8926
95694616|NCT03238235|191359819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.35||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.58||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||1.58|-0.88|0.5720
95694617|NCT03238235|191359819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.11||||0.8386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|1.18||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||1.18|-0.97|0.8386
95694618|NCT03238235|191359819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-0.22||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.25||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.25|-2.68|0.8591
95694619|NCT03238235|191359819|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.32||||0.7392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||2.24|-1.60|0.7392
95694620|NCT03238235|191359820|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.37||||0.0375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.65||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Whole Thigh at Visit 11||2.65|0.08|0.0375
95694621|NCT03238235|191359820|SUPERIORITY||difference of least square means|0.63||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.27||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Quadriceps at Visit 11||1.27|-0.01|0.0528
95694622|NCT03238235|191359820|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.36||||0.2012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.91||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at Visit 11||0.91|-0.20|0.2012
95694623|NCT03238235|191359820|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.75||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|2.83||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Triceps Surae at Visit 11||2.83|-1.33|0.4676
95694624|NCT03238235|191359820|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.54||||0.1549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Contractile Area value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Pelvis Girdle at Visit 11||1.30|-0.21|0.1549
95694625|NCT03238235|191359821|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-619.2||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1872.37|633.98||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type II at Visit 11||633.98|-1872.37|0.3240
95917738|NCT02294474|191794234|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated if upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence interval(CI) of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog was \<0.3%.Inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested using hierarchical step-down testing procedure: if non-inferiority of SAR342434 over Humalog was demonstrated,then inverse non-inferiority of Humalog over SAR342434 was tested and demonstrated if lower bound of 2-sided 95% CI of difference between SAR342434 \& Humalog\>-0.3%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.215|0.067|||||SAR342434 vs. Humalog|Analysis was performed using a MMRM approach with treatment groups, randomization strata, visit (Week 12, Week 26) and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed categorical effects and baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-visit interaction as continuous fixed covariates. An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model within-participant errors.||0.067|-0.215|
95917739|NCT04921969|191794290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.951|13.315||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||13.315|1.951|0.0001
95917740|NCT04921969|191794290|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.429|30.042||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||30.042|4.429|<0.0001
95917741|NCT04921969|191794291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.4198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.268||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||3.268|0.610|0.4198
95917742|NCT04921969|191794291|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|4.174||The unadjusted p-values between each treatment group and vehicle were calculated based on Exact Logistic Regression including treatment and stratification factors to test the treatment difference.|Exact Logistic Regression|||||4.174|0.779|0.1685
95917743|NCT00405353|191794310|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regressions were used to determine slopes of brain volume changes. Statistical software package SAS was used to perform the analysis.||Percent change in brain volume against time scatter plot with a Loess regression curve was produced and a first-degree spline model was developed. This model fitted line pieces for pre-treatment and early treatment periods (month -6 to month 3) and treatment response period (months 3-12), and these pieces were joined together to achieve continuity. Slopes of these lines were estimated and compared. A random intercept was set in the model to allow the difference among subjects.||||<0.05
95694626|NCT03238235|191359821|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-572.54||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1690.73|545.64||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total CSA at Visit 11||545.64|-1690.73|0.3070
95694627|NCT03238235|191359822|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.27||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Fibers with nuclear centralizations (%) at Visit 11||0.06|-0.59|0.1055
95694628|NCT03238235|191359822|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-2.23||||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.05|28.59||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers at Visit 11 (slide II)||28.59|-33.05|0.8846
95694629|NCT03238235|191359822|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.72||||0.4054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|16.06||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of fibers (Slide III)||16.06|-6.62|0.4054
95694630|NCT03238235|191359823|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|2.45||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|12.77||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline Biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||||12.77|-7.87|0.6340
95694631|NCT03238235|191359824|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.14||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26|||ANCOVA|||||0.26|-0.54|0.4893
95694632|NCT03238235|191359825|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.34||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.13||This model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (Slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroid use at baseline as independent class variables.|ANCOVA|||||0.13|-0.81|0.1498
95694633|NCT03238235|191359826|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.06||||0.0602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.13||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Standing and transfers (D1) at Visit 11||0.13|-0.00|0.0602
95694634|NCT03238235|191359826|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.5906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Axial and proximal motor function (D2) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.5906
95694635|NCT03238235|191359826|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.0||||0.7799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Distal motor function (D3) at Visit 11||0.01|-0.01|0.7799
95694636|NCT03238235|191359826|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Total Score at Visit 11||0.03|-0.00|0.1116
95917744|NCT00214903|191794311|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.3|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, duration of current use, family history of VTE, region, and HRT user status.|Tested null hypotheses: the VTE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||1.3|0.5|
95917745|NCT00214903|191794312|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size calculations were based on a non-inferiority test to exclude a two-fold risk of cardiovascular events in users of DRSP/E2 compared to other oral continuous combined HRT. These calculations are based on the following assumptions: 1) one-sided α 0.05; 2) power (1-β) of 0.80; 3) Estimated incidence of cardiovascular events, ATE and VTE would be at least 1.0, 0.3 and 0.2 event/100 woman-years and 4) non-inferiority limit hazard ratio of 2.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.8|||||Hazard ratio was adjusted for age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, family history of fatal ATE, region, and smoking.|Tested null hypotheses: the ATE hazard ratio for DRSP/E2 vs. ooccHRT is higher or equal to 2.||0.8|0.3|
95917746|NCT01288781|191794313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
95917747|NCT01288781|191794314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.63
95917748|NCT01288781|191794315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.20
95917749|NCT01288781|191794316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||<0.01
95917750|NCT01288781|191794316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Step down Holm Bonferroni correction was applied|t-test, 2 sided|||Post hoc follow up test. T test between acetazolamide and placebo on data at 24 hr time point.||||<0.01
95694637|NCT03238235|191359827|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.07||||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.1||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to Walk/Run 10 meters at Visit 11||0.10|-0.23|0.4346
95694638|NCT03238235|191359828|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.02||||0.8914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to climb 4 standard steps (sec) at visit 11||0.28|-0.32|0.8914
95694639|NCT03238235|191359829|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.62||||0.7629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|4.75||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Time to rise from floor at Visit 11||4.75|-3.51|0.7629
95694640|NCT03238235|191359830|SUPERIORITY||Log Difference of Least Square Means|-0.01||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.08||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Maximum distance walked after 6 minutes at Visit 11||0.08|-0.11|0.8106
95694641|NCT03238235|191359831|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1626||||||P-value is obtained from the two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test, stratified for concomitant steroid use at baseline|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||\<10% worsening at visit 11||||0.1626
95694642|NCT03238235|191359834|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.57||||0.5099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|14.41||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||14.41|-7.27|0.5099
95694643|NCT03238235|191359834|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|1.16||||0.7355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|8.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Knee Extension (N) at Visit 11||8.06|-5.73|0.7355
95694644|NCT03238235|191359834|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|3.92||||0.6037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|19.06||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Left Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||19.06|-11.22|0.6037
95694645|NCT03238235|191359834|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|4.1||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.35|20.55||Least squares mean is obtained from the mixed effects model for repeated measures with treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction and concomitant steroid use at baseline as fixed effect; baseline value is included as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||Right Elbow Flexion (N) at Visit 11||20.55|-12.35|0.6178
95694646|NCT03238235|191359837|SUPERIORITY||log difference of Least Square Means|-0.03||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline fat fraction of lower limb muscles value as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Medial Thigh at visit 11||0.01|-0.06|0.1165
95694647|NCT03238235|191359838|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.12||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline CSA as covariate and treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Hamstrings at Visit 11||0.12|-0.02|0.1939
95694648|NCT03238235|191359839|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.01||||0.9493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.3||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide III) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||CSA Type I||0.30|-0.29|0.9493
95694649|NCT03238235|191359840|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|0.05||||0.6265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.26||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide I) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Total number of Fibers at Visit 11 (slide I)||0.26|-0.16|0.6265
95694650|NCT03238235|191359840|SUPERIORITY||Log difference of Least Square Means|-0.44||||0.1562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.17||ANCOVA model was performed considering baseline biopsy histological parameters (slide II) value as covariate, treatment and concomitant steroids use at baseline as independent class variables|ANCOVA|||Regenerative Fibers (%) at Visit 11||0.17|-1.05|0.1562
95694651|NCT03855137|191359844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.48|-1.33||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.33|-3.48|0.0001
95694652|NCT03855137|191359844|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-0.75||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.75|-2.89|0.0009
95694653|NCT03855137|191359845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.547||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|-1.16||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.16|-3.31|0.0001
95694654|NCT03855137|191359845|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.544||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.72|-0.59|||MMRM|Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.59|-2.72|0.0024
95694655|NCT03855137|191359846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.541||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.38|-1.26||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.26|-3.38|0.0001
95694656|NCT03855137|191359846|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.81||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.81|-2.93|0.0009
95694657|NCT03855137|191359847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.09|-3.20|0.0002
95694658|NCT03855137|191359847|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.536||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.67||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.67|-2.78|0.0024
95694659|NCT03855137|191359848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-1.63||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.63|-3.63|0.0001
95694660|NCT03855137|191359848|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.508||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.13||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.13|-3.13|0.0009
95694661|NCT03855137|191359849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.507||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-1.53||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.53|-3.52|0.0002
95694662|NCT03855137|191359849|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.505||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|-1.1|||MMRM|||||-1.10|-3.09|0.0024
95694663|NCT03855137|191359850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.14||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.14|1.45|0.0003
95694664|NCT03855137|191359850|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.0||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||3.00|1.38|0.0009
95694665|NCT03855137|191359851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.98||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.98|1.38|0.0006
95694666|NCT03855137|191359851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.79||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|Logistic regression||Logistic regression for each atogepant group versus placebo with baseline monthly migraine days as covariate,stratification of region,acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication and number of failures,treatment group as fixed factors.|||2.79|1.29|0.0009
95694667|NCT03855137|191359852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.864||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|11.09||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||11.09|3.77|0.0006
95694668|NCT03855137|191359852|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|9.41||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||9.41|2.15|0.0024
95729377|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.6285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.9|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.9|-3.5|0.6285
95694669|NCT03855137|191359853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.968||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|-2.95||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.95|-6.75|0.0003
95694670|NCT03855137|191359853|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.963||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.27|-1.49||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.49|-5.27|0.0009
95694671|NCT03855137|191359854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-2.43||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-2.43|-5.95|0.0003
95694672|NCT03855137|191359854|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.893||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|-0.96||Adjusted p-value using graphical approach to control the overall type 1 error rate for multiple comparisons.|MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-0.96|-4.47|0.0025
95694673|NCT03855137|191359855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|-1.93|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.93|-4.67|0.0006
95694674|NCT03855137|191359855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-1.3|||MMRM||MMRM model=treatment group,visit,stratification by acute medication overuse,migraine prevention medication use and number of failures,region,and treatment group-by-visit as fixed factors and baseline and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.|||-1.30|-4.02|0.0024
95694675|NCT04570657|191359864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.036||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.038|0.111||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.111|-0.038|0.267
95694676|NCT04570657|191359864|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.004||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.071|0.079||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.079|-0.071|0.473
95694677|NCT04570657|191359865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.012||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.11|0.086||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.086|-0.110|0.437
95694678|NCT04570657|191359865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.059||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.039|0.157||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 8: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.157|-0.039|0.221
95694679|NCT04570657|191359865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.038||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.136|0.06||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.060|-0.136|0.308
95694680|NCT04570657|191359865|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.025||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.122|0.072||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Week 16: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.072|-0.122|0.372
95694681|NCT04570657|191359868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.416|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.215|0.154||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||0.154|-0.215|0.416
95694682|NCT04570657|191359868|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.047||||0.371|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.231|0.137||One-sided p-value|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.137|-0.231|0.371
95694683|NCT04570657|191359869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.76|0.612
95694684|NCT04570657|191359869|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.88|2.25|||Chi-squared|||||2.25|0.88|0.348
95694685|NCT04570657|191359870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.575|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.50|0.575
95694686|NCT04570657|191359870|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.53|1.38|||Chi-squared|||||1.38|0.53|0.679
95694687|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.002||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.825|3.828||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||3.828|-3.825|0.500
95694688|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.364||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.198|2.47||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Activity Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||2.470|-5.198|0.324
95694689|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.421||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.103|1.26||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||1.260|-4.103|0.248
95694690|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.694||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.383|0.996||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Impacts Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.996|-4.383|0.210
95694691|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.691||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.715|5.096||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||5.096|-3.715|0.420
95694692|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-3.15||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.579|1.28||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Symptoms Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||1.280|-7.579|0.181
95694693|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.663||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.454|2.129||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|||2.129|-3.454|0.380
95694694|NCT04570657|191359871|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.896||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.694|0.903||One-sided p-value|MMRM||SGRQ Total Score: Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|||0.903|-4.694|0.192
95694695|NCT04570657|191359872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.59|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.59|0.828
95694696|NCT04570657|191359872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.68|1.7|||Chi-squared|||||1.70|0.68|0.840
95694697|NCT04570657|191359873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|2.0||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||2.0|0.8|0.239
95694698|NCT04570657|191359873|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.7||One-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment group, background medication, geographic region, and ICS total daily dose as covariates.||||1.7|0.6|0.461
95694699|NCT04570657|191359874|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.87||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.36||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.36|0.56|0.346
95694700|NCT04570657|191359874|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.7||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.43|1.12||One-sided p-value|Negative binomial regression|||||1.12|0.43|0.166
95694701|NCT04570657|191359875|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.869||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.791|0.956||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.956|0.791|0.029
95694702|NCT04570657|191359875|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS mean ratio|0.879||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|0.966||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||||0.966|0.800|0.040
95694703|NCT04570657|191359876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.023||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.078|0.124||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.124|-0.078|0.385
95694704|NCT04570657|191359876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.123||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.224|-0.022||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|1 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||-0.022|-0.224|0.060
95694705|NCT04570657|191359876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean Difference|0.077||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.034|0.187||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose A - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.187|-0.034|0.186
95694706|NCT04570657|191359876|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.212||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.322||One-sided p-value; alpha = 0.1|MMRM||Tozorakimab Dose B - Placebo|≥ 2 Exacerbation in Last 12 Months||0.322|0.102|0.007
95694707|NCT04570657|191359877|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.559|0.71||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.710|0.559|< 0.001
95694708|NCT04570657|191359877|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.675|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.599|0.76||One-sided p-value|MMRM|||Analysis at Week 16 based on MMRM which included fixed effects for baseline, background medication, geographic region, baseline ICS total daily dose, visit, treatment and the baseline by visit and treatment by visit interactions.||0.760|0.599|< 0.001
95694709|NCT02065622|191359878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.5||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|7.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.0|-2.0|0.269
95694710|NCT02065622|191359878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.447|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.447
95694711|NCT02065622|191359878|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.3||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||6.6|-2.0|0.301
95694712|NCT02065622|191359878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.502|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.502
95694713|NCT02065622|191359879|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.6|-0.8|0.069
95694714|NCT02065622|191359879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.085
95694715|NCT02065622|191359879|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.3||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|20.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.4|0.2|0.045
95694716|NCT02065622|191359879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Breslow-Day test|Breslow-Day test of homogeneity across strata.||||||0.106
95694717|NCT02065622|191359880|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.5|-2.0|0.181
95694718|NCT02065622|191359880|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|9.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||9.7|-2.0|0.200
95694719|NCT02065622|191359881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.0||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.6|-2.6|0.300
95694720|NCT02065622|191359881|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|8.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.4|-2.2|0.254
95729378|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.5|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Placebo vs DS-5565 150 mg BID||4.5|-5.0|0.9177
95694721|NCT02065622|191359882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.1|-0.0|0.050
95694722|NCT02065622|191359882|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.8||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||11.0|-1.4|0.131
95694723|NCT02065622|191359883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|14.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.1|0.5|0.035
95694724|NCT02065622|191359883|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.7||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|15.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||15.1|2.3|0.008
95694725|NCT02065622|191359884|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.2||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.6|-1.3|0.160
95694726|NCT02065622|191359884|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.9||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||7.1|-1.2|0.166
95694727|NCT02065622|191359885|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||14.7|1.9|0.011
95694728|NCT02065622|191359885|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.0||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||13.0|0.9|0.025
95694729|NCT02065622|191359886|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||10.9|-2.5|0.218
95694730|NCT02065622|191359886|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|2.4||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = (adalimumab higher induction dose - adalimumab standard induction dose).|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for previous infliximab use and baseline corticosteroid use.||8.8|-4.0|0.456
95694731|NCT02065622|191359887|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.5||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.8|-1.7|0.098
95694732|NCT02065622|191359887|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.9||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|20.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||20.5|-0.7|0.066
95694733|NCT02065622|191359888|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|21.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|35.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.||Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||35.4|7.6|0.002
95694734|NCT02065622|191359888|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|19.7||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||32.7|6.6|0.003
95694735|NCT02065622|191359889|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.5||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|25.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.0|-1.9|0.093
95694736|NCT02065622|191359889|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|11.1||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-1.7|0.088
95694737|NCT02065622|191359890|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.9||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|38.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.2|-6.3|0.161
95694738|NCT02065622|191359890|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|10.4||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|30.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||30.6|-9.8|0.312
95694739|NCT02065622|191359891|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.3||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|34.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||34.4|-9.7|0.272
95729379|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|3.2|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||3.2|-6.2|0.5334
95694740|NCT02065622|191359891|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.3||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|25.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||25.2|-14.6|0.600
95694741|NCT02065622|191359892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|23.8||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||49.9|-2.3|0.074
95694742|NCT02065622|191359892|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|15.0||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|38.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||38.4|-8.5|0.210
95694743|NCT02065622|191359893|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|20.0||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|47.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||47.3|-7.3|0.151
95694744|NCT02065622|191359893|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|12.8||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||36.8|-11.3|0.299
95694745|NCT02065622|191359894|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.5||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|15.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||15.3|-6.4|0.422
95694746|NCT02065622|191359894|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.4||||0.513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|13.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||13.6|-6.8|0.513
95694747|NCT02065622|191359895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.7||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|11.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.4|-4.1|0.351
95694748|NCT02065622|191359895|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|3.9||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||11.1|-3.3|0.292
95694749|NCT02065622|191359896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|5.4||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.1|-1.4|0.121
95694750|NCT02065622|191359896|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|6.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||12.8|0.1|0.046
95694751|NCT02065622|191359897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.5||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-2.9|0.159
95694752|NCT02065622|191359897|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|17.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||17.9|-1.8|0.109
95917751|NCT01288781|191794317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
95917752|NCT01288781|191794318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
95694753|NCT02065622|191359898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.4||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||23.8|-21.0|0.903
95694754|NCT02065622|191359898|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|1.3||||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|21.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||21.3|-18.8|0.901
95694755|NCT02065622|191359899|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.7||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.4|-3.0|0.160
95694756|NCT02065622|191359899|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|9.1||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||19.1|-0.9|0.076
95694757|NCT02065622|191359900|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|7.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||18.6|-4.0|0.207
95694758|NCT02065622|191359900|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted risk difference|4.2||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk difference = Adalimumab 40mg EW - Adalimumab 40mg EOW.|Adjusted risk difference, 95% confidence interval for the difference in the proportions between the treatment groups and P-value were calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted for induction treatment regimen and week 8 remission status.||14.8|-6.4|0.440
95694759|NCT01274338|191359901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||This design provides at least 80% power at a one sided type I error rate of 0.003.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.065
95694760|NCT01274338|191359902|SUPERIORITY|This design will provide 80% power to detect the difference between the two arms at a one-sided type I error rate of 0.022.||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.044
95729380|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.2261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Relief (%) by treatment of pain: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.8|-7.6|0.2261
95729381|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|-0.42|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.42|-7.32|0.0281
95694761|NCT01274338|191359904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289||||||If low dose Ipi (LIP) vs. HDI is significant for OS at the 2.2% level, then we will compare high dose Ipi (HIP) vs. HDI at the 2.2% level.|Log Rank|Stratified logrank test||This study has a two-step hierarchical approach. In the first step, the low-dose Ipi (LIP) will be compared with HDI. If the low-dose Ipi is significantly better than HDI, then the high-dose Ipi will be compared with HDI as a second step. When comparing the two investigational treatment groups, the primary comparison will be an intent to treat analysis of recurrence free survival (RFS; First Co-primary Endpoint) and overall survival (OS; Second Co-primary Endpoint).||||0.289
95694762|NCT01042613|191359916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of the Binomial Proportions|0.02||||0.851||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.851
95694763|NCT01042613|191359917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.105||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.105
95694764|NCT01042613|191359918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.8||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.8
95694765|NCT03006471|191359930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.755
95694766|NCT03006471|191359930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.046
95694767|NCT03006471|191359931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.752||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.752
95694768|NCT03006471|191359931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.582||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.582
95694769|NCT03006471|191359932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
95694770|NCT03006471|191359932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.220
95694771|NCT03006471|191359933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.624
95694772|NCT03006471|191359933|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||1.000
95694773|NCT03006471|191359934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.906||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.906
95694774|NCT03006471|191359934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.017
95694775|NCT03006471|191359935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.454
95694776|NCT03006471|191359935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.115
95694777|NCT03006471|191359936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.422||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.422
95694778|NCT03006471|191359936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.917||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.917
95694779|NCT03006471|191359937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.650
95694780|NCT03006471|191359937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.108
95694781|NCT03006471|191359938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.875||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.875
95694782|NCT03006471|191359938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of waist circumference in dapagliflozin group||||0.196
95694783|NCT03006471|191359939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.552
95694784|NCT03006471|191359939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.087
95694785|NCT03006471|191359940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
95694786|NCT03006471|191359940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.463
95694787|NCT03006471|191359941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.530
95694788|NCT03006471|191359941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.507
95917753|NCT01288781|191794319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0||||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|ANOVA|Adjustments to the degrees of freedom were made when assumptions of sphericity were violated.||Omnibus analysis was performed. 2 (drug: Acetazolamide versus placebo) \* 2 (susceptibility: high altitude headache resistant versus high altitude headache susceptible) \* 6 (time: sea level, 3 \& 12; high altitude, 3, 12, 24 \& 36 hours) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the third factor. Data presented here are for the drug \* time interaction.||||0.98
95917754|NCT04711460|191794338|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||||0.003
95917755|NCT04711460|191794338|SUPERIORITY|The threshold for statistical significance was set at p=0.05. No power analysis was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.59||0.009|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.009
95917756|NCT04711460|191794338|SUPERIORITY|The Tukey Kramer Post Hoc Test q value = 0.05 threshold|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.609|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Tukey Kramer Post-Hoc|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||<0.05
95917757|NCT04711460|191794338|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.13||0.003|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.003
95917758|NCT04711460|191794338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.07||0.454|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.454
95917759|NCT04711460|191794339|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.194||0.002|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|||||0.002
95917760|NCT04711460|191794339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.09||0.054|ONE_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.054
95694789|NCT03006471|191359942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
95694790|NCT03006471|191359942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.972
95694791|NCT03006471|191359943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.152||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.152
95729382|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.756||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|2.03|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||2.03|-4.87|0.4190
95694792|NCT03006471|191359943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.158||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.158
95694793|NCT03006471|191359944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.944
95694794|NCT03006471|191359944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.650
95694795|NCT03006471|191359945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.087||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.087
95694796|NCT03006471|191359945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.345||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.345
95694797|NCT03006471|191359946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention group||||0.115
95694798|NCT03006471|191359947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.047
95694799|NCT03006471|191359948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.539||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Chi-squared|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between change of intervention groups||||0.539
95694800|NCT03006471|191359949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.844
95694801|NCT03006471|191359949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.010
95694802|NCT03006471|191359950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.814
95694803|NCT03006471|191359950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
95694804|NCT03006471|191359951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.221
95694805|NCT03006471|191359951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.001
95694806|NCT03006471|191359952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.461
95694807|NCT03006471|191359952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.011
95694808|NCT03006471|191359953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.285
95694809|NCT03006471|191359953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.002
95694810|NCT03006471|191359954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.701
95694811|NCT03006471|191359954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.081
95694812|NCT03006471|191359955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.581
95694813|NCT03006471|191359955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values of HDL-cholesterol on dapagliflozin group||||0.004
95694814|NCT03006471|191359956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.727
95694815|NCT03006471|191359956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.451
95694816|NCT03006471|191359957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.463||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.463
95694817|NCT03006471|191359957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.043
95694818|NCT03006471|191359958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.807||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.807
95694819|NCT03006471|191359958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.754||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.754
95694820|NCT03006471|191359959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.507||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in placebo group||||0.507
95694821|NCT03006471|191359959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between baseline and final values in dapagliflozin group||||0.015
95694822|NCT03006471|191359960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.039
95694823|NCT03006471|191359961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.011
95694824|NCT03006471|191359962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.096||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Fisher Exact|||Results showed in this section are the result of the differences between intervention groups||||0.096
95694825|NCT02064205|191359969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1000.0||0.2918|ONE_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to analyze the Energy Intakes (ad libitum lunch and daily) were done one-sided to evaluate the appetite suppressive effect after the pre-load snack (condition C versus D)||||0.2918
95694826|NCT02064205|191359970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||AUC of hunger scores before preload intake for condition C versus D.||||0.0109
95694827|NCT02064205|191359971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0216||||||GLP-1|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed model was applied to statistically analyze satiety hormones having Conditions and Time as a fixed factor and having Subject, Cohort, and Treatment Day as random factors.||||0.0216
95694828|NCT02387372|191359993|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|1.56|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.56|1.21|
95694829|NCT02387372|191359993|OTHER||GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.29|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.29|1.03|
95694830|NCT02387372|191359996|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|1.96|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.96|1.50|
95694831|NCT02387372|191359996|OTHER||GMR|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.55|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.55|1.14|
95694832|NCT02387372|191359998|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|1.81|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.81|1.44|
95694833|NCT02387372|191359998|OTHER||GMR|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.39|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.39|1.11|
95694834|NCT02387372|191359999|OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio (GMR)|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|1.95|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.95|1.51|
95694835|NCT02387372|191359999|OTHER||GMR|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.33|||||Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose|Accumulation Ratio of Last Dose/First Dose||1.33|1.09|
95694836|NCT01122030|191360014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0767||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0767
95694837|NCT01122030|191360014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8727||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8727
95694838|NCT01122030|191360014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6373||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6373
95694839|NCT01122030|191360014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694840|NCT01122030|191360014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694841|NCT01122030|191360014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694842|NCT01122030|191360015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8982||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8982
95694843|NCT01122030|191360015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4946||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.4946
95694844|NCT01122030|191360015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9301||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9301
95694845|NCT01122030|191360015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0047||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0047
95694846|NCT01122030|191360015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694847|NCT01122030|191360015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of SBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694848|NCT01122030|191360016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1334||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.1334
95694849|NCT01122030|191360016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.3320
95694850|NCT01122030|191360016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9371||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.9371
95694851|NCT01122030|191360016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
95694852|NCT01122030|191360016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694853|NCT01122030|191360016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-value is from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694854|NCT01122030|191360017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7978||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7978
95694855|NCT01122030|191360017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7143||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7143
95917761|NCT04711460|191794339|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.93||0.019|TWO_SIDED|0.05||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|t-test, 2 sided|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.019
95917762|NCT04711460|191794339|SUPERIORITY|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.04||0.101|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.|ANOVA|Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||Threshold of statistically significance was set at p=0.05. No power calculation was conducted.||||0.101
95917763|NCT02524054|191794353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||This is a paired t-test comparing the treatment effect of furosemide to the treatment effect of saline in each individual.||||0.35
95917764|NCT02524054|191794354|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons, and the a priori threshold for significance was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95917765|NCT01544491|191794407|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.25||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.6|6.8|||Log Rank|||at 12 months||6.8|-6.6|0.9712
95917766|NCT01544491|191794407|NON_INFERIORITY|Kaplan-Meier estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.84||0.9634|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-7.3|7.7|||Log Rank|||36 months||7.7|-7.3|0.9634
95917767|NCT01544491|191794408|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.26||0.3455|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.8|11.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||at 12 months||11.8|-1.8|0.3455
95917768|NCT01544491|191794408|NON_INFERIORITY|KM estimates and between treatment differences are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit formula and 80% confidence intervals derived using standard errors estimated from Greenwood's formula.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.8642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.5|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||36 months||7.2|-5.5|0.8642
95917769|NCT01461993|191794475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.72|0.94||||||HPV-6||0.94|0.72|
95694856|NCT01122030|191360017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7531||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.7531
95694857|NCT01122030|191360017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0283||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||0.0283
95694858|NCT01122030|191360017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694859|NCT01122030|191360017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of BMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694860|NCT01122030|191360018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6269
95694861|NCT01122030|191360018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7456||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7456
95694862|NCT01122030|191360018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1968||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.1968
95694863|NCT01122030|191360018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8708||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8708
95694864|NCT01122030|191360018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694865|NCT01122030|191360018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0002
95694866|NCT01122030|191360019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6131||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6131
95694867|NCT01122030|191360019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9293||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9293
95694868|NCT01122030|191360019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7990
95694869|NCT01122030|191360019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7674||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7674
95694870|NCT01122030|191360019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694871|NCT01122030|191360019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values are from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CSBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0018
95694872|NCT01122030|191360020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.7434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|3.92|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||3.92|0.42|0.7434
95694873|NCT01122030|191360020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.4449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|4.42|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||4.42|0.54|0.4449
95694874|NCT01122030|191360020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||2.72|0.27|0.8129
95694875|NCT01122030|191360020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.52||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|24.72|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||24.72|2.29|0.0005
95694876|NCT01122030|191360020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|31.89|||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.||||31.89|3.09|<0.0001
95694877|NCT01122030|191360020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|202272814.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values were obtained from the log-rank test stratified by Gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
95694878|NCT01122030|191360021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.4923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.28|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.28|0.53|0.4923
95694879|NCT01122030|191360021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.5479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|4.06|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||4.06|0.52|0.5479
95694880|NCT01122030|191360021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.67|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||3.67|0.56|0.5060
95917770|NCT01461993|191794475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.91||||||HPV-11||0.91|0.74|
95917771|NCT01461993|191794475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.88||||||HPV-16||0.88|0.68|
95694881|NCT01122030|191360021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.36||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|23.9|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||23.90|2.27|0.0005
95694882|NCT01122030|191360021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|9.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|30.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||30.35|3.00|<0.0001
95694883|NCT01122030|191360021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|192233779.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.|Hazard Ratio is infinite due to small range of observed times in 3 mg group that has no overlap with the Placebo group.|||||<0.0001
95694884|NCT01122030|191360022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.45||||0.1523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|19.35|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||19.35|0.62|0.1523
95694885|NCT01122030|191360022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.55||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|27.07|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||27.07|0.76|0.0856
95694886|NCT01122030|191360022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.81||||0.5284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|10.98|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||10.98|0.30|0.5284
95694887|NCT01122030|191360022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.8594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|8.66|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||8.66|0.09|0.8594
95694888|NCT01122030|191360022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|59.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.55|537.38|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||537.38|6.55|<0.0001
95694889|NCT01122030|191360022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|10.99||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|52.57|||Log Rank|P-values are from the log rank test stratified by gender.||||52.57|2.30|0.0007
95694890|NCT01122030|191360024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5054||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.5054
95694891|NCT01122030|191360024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9688||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9688
95694892|NCT01122030|191360024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6963||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.6963
95694893|NCT01122030|191360024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9599||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.9599
95694894|NCT01122030|191360024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0001
95694895|NCT01122030|191360024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
95694896|NCT01122030|191360025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3441||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.3441
95694897|NCT01122030|191360025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0||||P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.7159
95694898|NCT01122030|191360025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7342||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.7342
95694899|NCT01122030|191360025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8714||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.8714
95694900|NCT01122030|191360025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||<0.0001
95694901|NCT01122030|191360025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|P-values were obtained from a non-parametric rank ANCOVA model with effects for dose group and gender, and baseline number of CBMs as a covariate.||||||0.0006
95694902|NCT01205451|191360039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-1.04||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.04|-1.38|<0.0001
95694903|NCT01205451|191360039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-1.12||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 6 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-1.12|-1.54|<0.0001
95694904|NCT01205451|191360039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.72||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.72|-1.04|<0.0001
95694905|NCT01205451|191360039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t-distribution|-1.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.91||The P-value for change from Baseline indicates the comparision of the Week 12 value against the Baseline value.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Confidence intervals for means were based on the t-distribution.|||-0.91|-1.33|<0.0001
95694906|NCT03575884|191360075|SUPERIORITY||Study_arm timepoint interactions|-27.32|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.49|-2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.14|-52.49|<0.05
95694907|NCT03546413|191360140|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||<0.001
95694908|NCT03546413|191360141|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.055|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Test for equivalence between the groups||||0.055
95694909|NCT03546413|191360142|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95694910|NCT03546413|191360142|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.|||||<|0.001||||||This is the calculated p-value|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95694911|NCT03546413|191360142|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.939|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.939
95694912|NCT03546413|191360142|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of the peanut consumption with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
95694913|NCT03546413|191360143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.131|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.131
95694914|NCT03546413|191360143|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick test with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.208|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.208
95694915|NCT03546413|191360143|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.587|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.587
95694916|NCT03546413|191360143|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut skin prick with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.268|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.268
95694917|NCT03546413|191360144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.985
95694918|NCT03546413|191360144|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.371|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.371
95729383|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.763||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||1.85|-5.06|0.3622
95694919|NCT03546413|191360144|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.483|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.483
95694920|NCT03546413|191360144|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of peanut specific IgE with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.643|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.643
95694921|NCT03546413|191360145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.225|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.225
95694922|NCT03546413|191360145|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.857|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.857
95694923|NCT03546413|191360145|SUPERIORITY|A linear regression model was used on the log of SCORAD with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.870
95694924|NCT03546413|191360146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.658
95694925|NCT03546413|191360146|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.1|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.100
95694926|NCT03546413|191360146|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.502
95694927|NCT03546413|191360146|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.397|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.397
95694928|NCT03546413|191360147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.659|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.659
95694929|NCT03546413|191360147|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.26|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.260
95694930|NCT03546413|191360147|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.075
95729384|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.1623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|5.88|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||5.88|-0.99|0.1623
95917772|NCT01461993|191794475|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81||||||HPV-18||0.81|0.62|
95917773|NCT01461993|191794476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.0||||||PMB80 \[A22\]||1.00|0.85|
95917774|NCT01461993|191794476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority criteria margin was 1.5-fold.|GMT Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01||||||PMB2948 \[B24\]||1.01|0.84|
95917775|NCT01304082|191794487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7535||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||0.7535
95917776|NCT01304082|191794488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
95917777|NCT01304082|191794489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
95917778|NCT01304082|191794490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons|non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test|||"Analysis: Non-parametric Friedman ANOVA test on rank-transformed outcome with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons.~Null hypothesis: No difference between the groups"||||<0.0001
95917779|NCT03688711|191794491|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests stratified by injection site.||||<0.0001
95917780|NCT03688711|191794492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 30 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0012
95917781|NCT03688711|191794492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 20 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95917782|NCT03688711|191794492|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 15 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95917783|NCT03688711|191794492|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||Assessed at 10 minutes. The recovery rates of dasiglucagon and placebo were compared at each time point using a Fisher's exact test. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||0.0006
95917784|NCT03688711|191794493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 30 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95694931|NCT03546413|191360147|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.192|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.192
95694932|NCT03546413|191360148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.729
95694933|NCT03546413|191360148|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.75|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.750
95694934|NCT03546413|191360148|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.155|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.155
95694935|NCT03546413|191360148|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.||||||0.458|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.458
95694936|NCT03546413|191360149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.330
95694937|NCT03546413|191360149|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.351|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
95694938|NCT03546413|191360149|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.502|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.502
95694939|NCT03546413|191360149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.732
95694940|NCT03546413|191360150|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.202|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.202
95694941|NCT03546413|191360150|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in older siblings.|||
95694942|NCT03546413|191360150|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for parents who are in the same family unit. However, the logistic regression model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of allergic participants in parents.|||
95694943|NCT03546413|191360151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.029
95694944|NCT03546413|191360151|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit.||||||0.489|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.489
95694945|NCT03546413|191360151|OTHER||||||||||||||Regression, Logistic||||A logistic regression model was used with a fixed effect comparing the Avoidance and Consumption cohorts and a random effect to account for siblings who are in the same family unit. However, the model was unable to converge due to the low percentage of peanut-related adverse events in older siblings.|||
95694946|NCT04866303|191360152|OTHER|unadjusted logistic regression model|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate.||2.80|1.03|0.04
95694947|NCT04866303|191360153|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Minimum testing kit completion rate of 70% in the passive study arm, and calculated that 400 total subjects would provide us with 90% power to detect an effect size associated with a rate ratio of 1.20, or an absolute difference of 14% (70% in passive, 84% in active). A futility boundary of 60% was identified by Community Advisory Board members as justification to prematurely halt trial enrollment if, after completing 25% of expected enrollment, successful test completion fell below that rate||2.26|0.86|0.18
95694948|NCT04507867|191360155|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method for overall survival.||||||0.027|||||||Log Rank|||The total number of patients who did or did not survive to day 40 of follow-up.||||0.027
95694949|NCT04507867|191360157|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.495|||||||Log Rank|||the total number of patients who were intubated and survived at the end of day 40 follow-up.||||0.495
95694950|NCT04507867|191360159|OTHER|Kaplan-Meier method||||||0.186|||||||Log Rank|||total number of patients included in the study who progressed to mechanical ventilation during the first 10 days of hospital stay.||||0.186
95694951|NCT04507867|191360160|SUPERIORITY|Fisher exact test||||||0.35|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. It was categorized as follows: 1. normal bristol scale at day 3; 2. abnormal bristol scale at day 3.||||0.35
95694952|NCT04507867|191360161|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.043
95694953|NCT04507867|191360162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay . Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.241
95694954|NCT04507867|191360163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the control group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.187
95694955|NCT04507867|191360163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis at the intervention group, the measurement was performed at baseline and at hospital discharge.||||0.003
95694956|NCT04507867|191360164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.919
95694957|NCT04507867|191360164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the control group in oxygen delivery, the difference between the baseline period and day 3 of hospital stay.||||0.014
95694958|NCT04507867|191360165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intragroup analysis of the control group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.608
95694959|NCT04507867|191360165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Intragroup analysis of the intervention group, the difference in the qSOFA measurement at baseline and at day 3 will be analyzed.||||0.04
95694960|NCT04507867|191360166|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Intergroup analysis between both groups to evaluate the number of defecations measured at day 3.||||0.014
95694961|NCT04507867|191360167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Fisher Exact|the shapiro wilk test was used to analyze the distribution of the data.||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at day 3 of hospital stay. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.008
95694962|NCT04507867|191360169|SUPERIORITY|Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||||0.078|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.078
95694963|NCT04507867|191360170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded||||0.098
95694964|NCT04507867|191360171|OTHER|||||||0.195|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group to analyze the presentation of post covid syndrome at the end of follow-up at day 40.||||0.195
95694965|NCT04507867|191360172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.135
95694966|NCT04507867|191360173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.266|||||||Fisher Exact|||Intergroup analysis between the control group and the intervention group for different parameters, measured at a complete follow-up of 40 days. Deceased patients were excluded.||||0.266
95694967|NCT04507867|191360174|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95694968|NCT04507867|191360175|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.003|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95694969|NCT04507867|191360176|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95694970|NCT04507867|191360177|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.011|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.011
95694971|NCT04507867|191360178|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.031|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
95694972|NCT04507867|191360179|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.04|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.040
95694973|NCT04507867|191360180|SUPERIORITY|Association between the presentation of certain laboratory parameters taken in the baseline period, with te overall mortality of discharge patients in comparison with deceased patients||||||0.047|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.047
95694974|NCT02504268|191360181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2359|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.2359
95694975|NCT02504268|191360182|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0112|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0112
95694976|NCT02504268|191360183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0021|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0021
95694977|NCT02504268|191360184|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||rank-based ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
95694978|NCT02504268|191360185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0006
95694979|NCT01496430|191360199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.007
95917785|NCT03688711|191794493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 20 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95694980|NCT01496430|191360199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.067
95694981|NCT01496430|191360200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.860
95694982|NCT01496430|191360200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Sequential testing was used to control for multiple comparisons. Azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg was first compared to placebo and if p-value ≤0.05 then azilsartaon medoxomil 40 mg was compared to placebo.|ANCOVA|||||||0.210
95694983|NCT00608530|191360241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance compared differences between and within groups (CBT and Supportive Care) from baseline to end of treatment. Statistical testing was performed using 2-tailed tests and alpha level of .05 for declaring statistical significance. The trial was powered at the \>.80 level to detect differences between condition based on projected sample N = 130; given the N = 66 actually achieved our a priori power for detecting differences between groups was .63.||||.05
95729385|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.753||0.1978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.7|||ANCOVA|||Interference: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||5.70|-1.18|0.1978
95694984|NCT00608530|191360242|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Primary analyses consisted of modified intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized participants who attended at least 1 treatment session, with multiple imputation to address missing data. The study was powered at 80% to detect large effect sizes (\>.50SD) and alpha of .05 with a recruitment goal N = 140; with the N = 61 actually obtained, our a priori power was .55 to detect between group differences.||||.05
95694985|NCT00608530|191360243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Repeated measures analysis of variance comparing groups at baseline and end of treatment.||||>0.05
95694986|NCT00608530|191360245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
95694987|NCT00077610|191360252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0973|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.215|0.223|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.223|-0.215|<0.0001
95694988|NCT00077610|191360252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two RO0503821 dosing schedules were compared separately to epoetin reference using ANCOVA, with Hb at BL and region as the covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups. When the lower limit was greater than or equal to -0.3 g/dL, the RO0503821 groups were regarded as non-inferior to the epoetin reference group. The confidence level of 97.5% was chosen to adjust for multiplicity.|Mean Difference between groups|0.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0997|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.173|0.275|||ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups||Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model|The non-inferiority test for treatment differences in Hb change from baseline, based on ANCOVA analysis with a non-inferiority limit of -0.75 g/dL.||0.275|-0.173|<0.0001
95694989|NCT03615469|191360260|OTHER|t-test||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95694990|NCT01486784|191360265|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Based on the dose limiting toxicities occurring in each dosing cohort, a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) may be determined by assessing the highest dosing level presenting no dose limiting toxicities. An MTD of 17mg/m2 twice weekly was established.|||
95917786|NCT03688711|191794493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 15 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95917787|NCT03688711|191794493|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in plasma glucose at 10 minutes after investigational product injection was calculated using nominal sampling times and analyzed using an analysis of variance model with treatment, age group and injection site for each endpoint. Testing followed an a priori defined hierarchical inferential test order, proceeding until the first failure to reject the null hypothesis comparing dasiglucagon versus placebo.||||<0.0001
95917788|NCT03688711|191794494|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||Evaluated using a Kaplan Meier (KM) approach, with treatment group as a stratification factor, analogous to that used for the primary endpoint analysis. Differences between the KM curves (dasiglucagon versus placebo) were evaluated inferentially using pairwise two-sided log-rank tests. Subjects whose time to first plasma glucose concentration ≥70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was not met within 45 minutes post-dosing were censored, at the time of the last valid plasma glucose measurement up to 45 minutes.||||<0.0001
95917789|NCT03688711|191794495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|6.05|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as factor and the baseline of the dependent variable plasma glucose as a covariate.||6.05|2.71|<0.0001
95917790|NCT05064735|191794507|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-10.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.34|-8.63|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline body weight as covariate.||-8.63|-12.34|<0.0001
95917791|NCT05064735|191794508|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Treatment Difference|-14.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.98|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||The responses at week 68 were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as factor and baseline WOMAC pain score as covariate.||-8.30|-19.98|<0.0001
95917792|NCT00930943|191794532|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||The a priori sample-size estimation for a power of 80% with alpha = 0.05 was based on the primary-outcome measure, the rapid visual information processing (RVP) sensitivity (A') score. Using a repeated-measure ANOVA for the food effect (fed versus fasting) and assuming an effect size of f =0.26 generated a required sample size of 32 participants. However, only 30 subjects completed both testing visits, generating a power of 78.2%.|(F\[1,28\] = 22.71; η2 = 0.45)|||<0.001
95917793|NCT00930943|191794532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||repeated-measure ANOVA tested food x time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA||||F\[1,28\]=6.88; η2=0.20|||0.01
95917794|NCT00930943|191794532|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||repeated-measure ANOVA testing food effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): sensitivity (A')|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95917795|NCT00930943|191794533|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 14.05; η2 = 0.33)|||<0.001
95917796|NCT00930943|191794533|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time post dose effect for Rapid Visual Information Processing (RVP): response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95917797|NCT00930943|191794534|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM percentage of correct hits"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95694991|NCT01975935|191360269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||This is the calculated p value and not the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95694992|NCT01975935|191360270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95917798|NCT00930943|191794535|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Repeated-measure ANOVA testing time-post-dose effect for Spatial Recognition Memory (SRM) response latency|ANOVA||||(F\[1,28\] = 31.26; η2 = 0.53)|||<0.001
95917799|NCT00930943|191794535|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food and food x time-post-dose effect for SRM response latency"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95917800|NCT00930943|191794536|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM total errors"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95917801|NCT00930943|191794537|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||"repeated-measure ANOVA testing food, time-post-dose, and food x time-post-dose effect for SWM strategy score"|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95917802|NCT01263106|191794560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.20|1.05|
95917803|NCT01263106|191794561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.92|
95917804|NCT01263106|191794562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.00|-3.00|0.8008
95917805|NCT03691948|191794569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||ANOVA|||||||.531
95917806|NCT03691948|191794570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.076|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.076
95917807|NCT02120664|191794580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||R squared|0.907|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||
95917808|NCT02120664|191794581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95917809|NCT02120664|191794581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Coefficient of Variation|6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95917810|NCT04524598|191794590|SUPERIORITY||t|-1.911||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction. Group and Week were entered as fixed factors. Spark version, and assessment completion days since baseline were included as fixed factors to control for effects of app version and differences in time between completion of successive weekly assessments.||||0.06
95917811|NCT04524598|191794590|SUPERIORITY||t|-2.546||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We used a Per Protocol approach that included participants who completed the PHQ at baseline and each week. A linear mixed-effects model (LMM) analysis was implemented on an averaged imputed dataset to evaluate main effects of Group (Spark, Control) and Week (0-5), and the Group x Week interaction.||||0.01
95917812|NCT04524598|191794593|SUPERIORITY||F|1.46||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on GAD-7 scores to compare the change in anxiety symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.23
95917813|NCT04524598|191794593|SUPERIORITY||F|2.59||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS - General Health Score to compare the change in general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.11
95694993|NCT01975935|191360271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95694994|NCT00243230|191360272|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg vs. Placebo|-0.98||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.37|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.37|-1.58|0.0017
95694995|NCT00243230|191360272|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg vs. Placebo|-0.93||||0.0026||95.0|-1.54|-0.33|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.33|-1.54|0.0026
95917814|NCT04524598|191794594|SUPERIORITY||F|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Time x Group) on the MFQ to compare the change in parent report of depressive symptoms from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is presented.||||0.33
95917815|NCT04524598|191794594|SUPERIORITY||F|0.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||We conducted a repeated measures ANOVA (Group x Time) on the PROMIS Parent Proxy - General Health Score to compare the change in parent reported general health from Baseline to Post treatment for Phase II participants who had a baseline PHQ-8 score \>= 10. The interaction term is reported.||||0.90
95917816|NCT02301156|191794598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0463|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0463
95917817|NCT02301156|191794599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0159|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated by CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.||||||0.0159
95917818|NCT02301156|191794600|SUPERIORITY||Rate Difference|35.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.39|49.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was estimated using CMH test stratified by the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|95% Confidence Interval (CI) was estimated using Clopper-Pearson method based on the binomial distribution.|||49.88|21.39|<0.0001
95917819|NCT02301156|191794601|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.573||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.295|1.113|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.113|0.295|0.0961
95917820|NCT02301156|191794602|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.569||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|1.234|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||1.234|0.263|0.1486
95917821|NCT02301156|191794603|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.163||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.399|3.344|||Log Rank|P-value was estimated by stratified log rank test and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|Stratified Hazard Ratio and 95% CI were estimated using Cox proportion hazard model and the stratification was based on the randomization strata prior lines of therapy.|||3.344|1.399|0.0004
95917822|NCT04195880|191794607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|5.0|||||negative-binomial regression coefficient|||We assumed the average monthly pre-intervention hospitalization rates of intervention and control CLCs were equal, so only average monthly post-intervention hospitalization rates might diverge. Each CLC had its own start month and contributed 18 months pre-intervention and 18 months post-intervention. Hospitalizations rates were modeled using a multilevel negative-binomial regression because it allows for over-dispersion, which is commonly observed with medical events such as a count.||||<.05
95917823|NCT02306122|191794609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
95917824|NCT02306122|191794609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
95917825|NCT02306122|191794609|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is control arm|||||<0.01
95917826|NCT02306122|191794610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.523|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
95917827|NCT02306122|191794610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.582|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.997|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
95917828|NCT02306122|191794610|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.308|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Comparator is the control arm|||||<0.01
95917829|NCT02306122|191794611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
95917830|NCT02306122|191794611|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the information arm|||||<0.01
95917831|NCT02306122|191794612|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||Comparator is the choice arm|||||<0.01
95917832|NCT02066896|191794621|OTHER|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|ANOVA repeated measures||||||0.05
95917833|NCT05295732|191794624|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-1.0||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|16.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.5|-18.4|0.39
95917834|NCT03012061|191794667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1758|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0426|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.2595|||Mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM)||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus placebo|||0.2595|0.0920|<0.001
95917835|NCT03012061|191794667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0424|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1008|0.2675|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo|||0.2675|0.1008|<0.001
95917836|NCT03012061|191794668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0455|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.2789||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)|ANCOVA||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2789|0.1000|<0.001
95917837|NCT03012061|191794668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1976|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1086|0.2866|||ANCOVA||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo|||0.2866|0.1086|<0.001
95917838|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||3.7|-0.2|0.083
95917839|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.7|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||1.7|-2.7|0.636
95917840|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|3.9|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||3.9|-0.4|0.115
95917841|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.9|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 4|||2.9|-1.0|0.336
95917842|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|2.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 12|||2.5|-1.9|0.787
95917843|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|2.7|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg vs Placebo, SBP, Week 24|||2.7|-1.6|0.625
95917844|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 4|||2.3|-0.7|0.309
95917845|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.1|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 12|||1.1|-2.1|0.521
95917846|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.2|0.0|0.047
95917847|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.8|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 4|||1.8|-1.3|0.779
95917848|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.6|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 12|||2.6|-0.6|0.204
95917849|NCT03012061|191794671|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.1|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo, DBP, Week 24|||3.1|-0.1|0.066
95917850|NCT03012061|191794672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg vs Placebo, Week 4|||3.2|-0.7|0.195
95917851|NCT03012061|191794672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|2.3|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||2.3|-1.0|0.457
95917852|NCT03012061|191794672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.2|||MMRM||UMEC 31.25 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||3.2|-1.0|0.300
95917853|NCT03012061|191794672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 4|||3.3|-0.5|0.140
95917854|NCT03012061|191794672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.3|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 12|||3.3|0.0|0.045
95694996|NCT00243230|191360273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0052
95694997|NCT00243230|191360273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0190
95694998|NCT00243230|191360274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0007
95694999|NCT00243230|191360274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0028
95695000|NCT00243230|191360276|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30mg - Placebo|-1.0||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.48|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.48|-1.53|0.0002
95695001|NCT00243230|191360276|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-0.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.31|-1.36|0.0020
95695002|NCT00243230|191360277|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 30 mg - Placebo|-1.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|-0.51|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.51|-1.69|0.0003
95695003|NCT00243230|191360277|SUPERIORITY||Vicriviroc 20 mg - Placebo|-1.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-0.49|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA \<=100,000 copies/mL.||||-0.49|-1.66|0.0004
95695004|NCT00243230|191360278|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|57.76||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|108.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||108.61|6.90|0.0264
95695005|NCT00243230|191360278|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|42.36||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|93.28|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||93.28|-8.55|0.1020
95695006|NCT00243230|191360279|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|38.12||||0.1525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.32|90.56|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||90.56|-14.32|0.1525
95695007|NCT00243230|191360279|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|44.12||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.38|96.61|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||96.61|-8.38|0.0987
95695008|NCT00243230|191360280|SUPERIORITY||VCV 30 mg - Placebo|37.32||||0.2603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|102.68|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||102.68|-28.05|0.2603
95695009|NCT00243230|191360280|SUPERIORITY||VCV 20 mg - Placebo|69.08||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|134.52|||ANOVA|ANOVA model adjusted for treatment and stratification factors - the use of T20 in current OBT and the baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL.||||134.52|3.64|0.0387
95695010|NCT00243230|191360282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0031
95695011|NCT00243230|191360282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0480
95695012|NCT00243230|191360283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
95695013|NCT00243230|191360283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
95695014|NCT00243230|191360285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0225
95695015|NCT00243230|191360285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0582|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0582
95695016|NCT00243230|191360286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0009
95695017|NCT00243230|191360286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0038|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0038
95695018|NCT00243230|191360287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0002
95695019|NCT00243230|191360287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel Test adjusted for stratification factors of T20 use in current OBT and baseline HIV-1 RNA.||||||0.0004
95695020|NCT05836818|191360297|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|33.2|||Regression, Logistic|Mixed effects logistic regression with a random center effect for within-center characteristics, and terms for calendar time and intervention||Adjusted difference 25.1 percentage points||33.2|17|<0.0001
95695021|NCT01627067|191360334|NON_INFERIORITY|The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.25||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.76|||Regression, Cox|||Data for PFS were censored at the time of a patient's removal from study. With 40 patients accrued at a rate of 2 patients per month, a one-sided alpha of 5%, and a post- accrual follow up of 3 months, we would have 80% power to detect a median PFS of 12 months as being statistically significantly higher than a historical control median PFS of 7 months. The study terminated early due to lack of efficacy and funds only 22 patients were enrolled in the study.||0.76|0.08|0.015
95695022|NCT01627067|191360337|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.22|0.31
95917855|NCT03012061|191794672|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.5|||MMRM||UMEC 62.5 mcg versus Placebo, Week 24|||5.5|1.3|0.002
95917856|NCT05200936|191794689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7145||||||p-value is 1-sided|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7145
95917857|NCT05200936|191794690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9613|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9613
95917858|NCT03469284|191794710|OTHER|||||||0.0034|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0034
95917859|NCT03469284|191794711|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0008
95917860|NCT03469284|191794713|OTHER|||||||0.9182|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9182
95917861|NCT03469284|191794714|OTHER|||||||0.1046|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1046
95917862|NCT01625910|191794715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21||||||Baseline data by group assignment status (intervention or control) using means of the calculated BMI z-scores (U.S. CDC-2000 growth charts) implemented by applying the published LMS (shape, median, and scale) age- and sex/gender-specific parameters. Because of random assignment of a reasonably large number of children, an unadjusted analysis of change in outcomes between intervention and control groups is presented as well as the covariate-adjusted analysis of differences in changes.||0.21|-0.10|
95917863|NCT01625910|191794716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.4||||||unadjusted net difference between groups||0.40|-0.74|
95917864|NCT02959138|191794717|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio (geometric least squares mean (GLSM) ratio) and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|143.47||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% confidence interval of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||143.47|86.94|
95917865|NCT02959138|191794717|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.47|146.02||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||146.02|78.47|
95917866|NCT02959138|191794718|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|111.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.92|144.12||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||144.12|86.92|
95917867|NCT02959138|191794718|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|107.69|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|79.63|145.65||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||145.65|79.63|
95917868|NCT02959138|191794719|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|102.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.42|127.79||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||127.79|81.42|
95917869|NCT02959138|191794719|OTHER|The test-to-reference ratio GLSM ratio and associated 90% CI were calculated by taking the exponential of the point estimate and the corresponding lower and upper limits, which was consistent with the two 1-sided tests approach.|GLSM ratio|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.14|113.13||||||The Estimate statement was used to produce the point estimate and the corresponding 90% CI of the difference in PK parameters of interest on a logarithmic scale.||113.13|68.14|
95917870|NCT01984424|191794817|SUPERIORITY|Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.31|-33.28|||Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.28|-42.31|<0.0001
95917871|NCT01984424|191794818|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|-31.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from baseline at week 24 of part B or in the mean percent change from baseline at weeks 22 and 24 of part B in LDL-C between evolocumab 420 mg and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-31.08|-41.07|<0.0001
95917872|NCT01984424|191794819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.7|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-84.7|<0.0001
95917873|NCT01984424|191794820|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.3|-62.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-62.2|-81.3|<0.0001
95695023|NCT00926796|191360339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|100.0|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|98.53||||Exact binomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence limit is \>=95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||98.53|<0.05
95917874|NCT01984424|191794821|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|36.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.7|19.1|<0.0001
95917875|NCT01984424|191794822|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|36.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factor (screening LDL-C).||||36.1|17.7|<0.0001
95917876|NCT01984424|191794823|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.95|-23.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.27|-29.95|<0.0001
95917877|NCT01984424|191794824|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.67|-21.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.48|-28.67|<0.0001
95917878|NCT01984424|191794825|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-28.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.99|-37.12|<0.0001
95917879|NCT01984424|191794826|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.44|-16.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.76|-35.44|<0.0001
95917880|NCT01984424|191794827|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.15|-29.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.58|-38.15|<0.0001
95917881|NCT01984424|191794828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.35|-27.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.16|-36.35|<0.0001
95917882|NCT01984424|191794829|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.06|-25.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.77|-34.06|<0.0001
95917883|NCT01984424|191794830|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.58|-22.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.82|-31.58|<0.0001
95917884|NCT01984424|191794831|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.59|-29.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.67|-38.59|<0.0001
95917885|NCT01984424|191794832|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.64|-27.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.32|-36.64|<0.0001
95917886|NCT01984424|191794833|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.65|-14.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.51|-27.65|<0.0001
95917887|NCT01984424|191794834|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.42|-14.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.05|-28.42|<0.0001
95917888|NCT01984424|191794835|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|4.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||4.87|-13.74|0.37
95917889|NCT01984424|191794836|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.64|10.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.01|-13.64|0.37
95695024|NCT00926796|191360346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of cured participants|99.5|||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|97.64||||Exact bionomial confidence limit|If the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit is greater than 95%, the null hypothesis of the microbiological efficacy estimate is \<95% is rejected.|When the lower 95% confidence interval is above 95%, the alternative hypothesis is accepted (i.e., the microbiological cure estimate is significantly \>=95%).|The null hypothesis is that the microbiological efficacy estimate (proportion of participants who are cured) is \<95%.|||97.64|<0.05
95695025|NCT00958308|191360348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||The sample size calculation was based on the incidence of AAD. A total of 255 patients was enrolled in order to obtain at least the required 225 evaluable patients.With expected AAD rates of at most 15% - 25% in the treatment groups; and 25% - 35% in the placebo group, these numbers were sufficient to detect the difference in the incidence of AAD between either of the treatment groups vs. placebo with a minimum of 86% statistical power.||||=0.02
95695026|NCT00621855|191360386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
95695027|NCT00621855|191360389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend|||"The proportion of patients who reach this endpoint were analysed by a logistic model for linear trend (dose response).~The null hypothesis is that the relationship between dose level (0mg, 50mg, 75mg, 110mg and 150mg) and the proportions of patients with major and clinically relevant minor bleeding is not linear (slope parameter = 0)"||||<0.001
95695028|NCT03731364|191360393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.276|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.276
95695029|NCT03731364|191360393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.651
95695030|NCT03731364|191360393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.556|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.556
95695031|NCT03731364|191360394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.136
95695032|NCT03731364|191360394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.649|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.649
95695033|NCT03731364|191360394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.608
95695034|NCT03731364|191360395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
95695035|NCT03731364|191360395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic|Not estimable|Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
95695036|NCT03731364|191360395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Not estimable|Regression, Logistic||Not estimable|Not estimable||||0
95695037|NCT03731364|191360396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.306
95695038|NCT03731364|191360396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.595|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.595
95695039|NCT03731364|191360396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.242
95695040|NCT04973228|191360403|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|4.45|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 8||4.45|1.75|<0.0001
95917890|NCT01984424|191794837|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.22|2.15|0.0083
95917891|NCT01984424|191794838|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|8.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.98|0.02|0.0083
95917892|NCT01984424|191794839|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-4.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.85||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|2.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.94|-12.25|0.37
95917893|NCT01984424|191794840|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.45|7.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated Measures Model|Model includes treatment group, stratification factor (screening LDL-C), scheduled visit and interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.98|-10.45|0.37
95695041|NCT04973228|191360404|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.95||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 8||5.19|1.68|0.0001
95695042|NCT04973228|191360405|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 4||4.67|1.47|0.0007
95695043|NCT04973228|191360406|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|WI-NRS Success at Week 2||5.34|1.41|0.0016
95695044|NCT04973228|191360407|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|3.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 2||3.84|1.54|0.0002
95695045|NCT04973228|191360408|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Pooled by site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|IGA Success at Week 4||5.03|2.06|<0.0001
95917894|NCT01580098|191794842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95917895|NCT01580098|191794843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Blood pressure: diastolic||||0.182
95695046|NCT04973228|191360409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.73|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Scaling Score of 0 at Week 8||3.73|1.56|<0.0001
95917896|NCT00365378|191794849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|94.3||||||95.0|87.8|97.7|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||97.7|87.8|
95917897|NCT00365378|191794850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|100.0||||||95.0|84.0|100.0|||||"Vaccine Efficacy (% relative risk reduction)~Confidence Interval based on binomial tail probabilities and not from a dispersion parameter."|||100.0|84.0|
95917898|NCT02441946|191794885|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.28|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.28|0.13|<0.001
95917899|NCT02441946|191794885|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.17|0.38|||t-test, 1 sided|||||0.38|0.17|<0.001
95917900|NCT01108510|191794942|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; alternative hypothesis: ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group. ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF was noninferior if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95.2% confidence interval (CI) (COBI group - RTV group) was \> -12%.|Difference in percentages|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.2|-7.4|3.0|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95.2% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|700 planned subjects had 95% power to evaluate noninferiority assuming a response rate of 79.5% for both arms and a noninferiority margin of 12%.||3.0|-7.4|
95917901|NCT01108510|191794943|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|4.7|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.7|-7.6|
95917902|NCT01108510|191794944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|4.5|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||4.5|-8.7|
95917903|NCT01108510|191794945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was at least 12% worse than the response rate in ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group; the alternative hypothesis was that the response rate in the ATV+COBI+FTC/TDF group was less than 12% worse than that in the ATV+RTV+FTC/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|6.3|||||Difference in percentages of success and its 95% CI were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted MH proportion.|||6.3|-22.2|
95917904|NCT01108510|191794946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-5.0||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|18.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||18|-28|0.67
95917905|NCT01108510|191794947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-10.0||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.0|19.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||19|-38|0.51
95917906|NCT01108510|191794948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-22.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|10.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||10|-54|0.18
95917907|NCT01108510|191794949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|6.0||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.0|67.0||P-values were obtained from an ANOVA model including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|ANOVA||The difference in LSM and its 95% CI were computed using ANOVA model, including baseline HIV-1 RNA category in the model.|||67|-55|0.84
95917908|NCT00988351|191794952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin -0.55 (mean hours of APAP arm no lower than 0.55 hours below CPAP arm)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|=|0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.26||level of significance \<0.05, Power = 0.80|t-test, 2 sided|||||1.26|-.35|= 0.27
95917909|NCT00988351|191794953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||=|0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average of \>=1/2 hour per night) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-1.3|= 0.65
95917910|NCT00988351|191794954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.1||\< 0.05 criteria for statistical significance|t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour per nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.1|-0.73|=0.33
95917911|NCT00988351|191794955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||=|0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Patients using PAP (average \>= 1/2 hour of nightly use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||2.29|-1.12|=0.49
95917912|NCT00988351|191794956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51|=|0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.09||P \< 0.05 considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||participants using PAP (average \>=1/2 hour of use) at 6 weeks clinic visit||0.09|-1.92|=0.07
95917913|NCT02340520|191795033|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95917914|NCT02340520|191795034|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.1
95917915|NCT01586338|191795041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.0001
95917916|NCT01586338|191795041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Sign Rank Test|||||||<0.0001
95917917|NCT01234649|191795048|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures design||||<0.04
95695047|NCT04973228|191360410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|5.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Stratified by pooled site and IGA strata with multiple imputation to handle missing data|Erythema Score of 0 at Week 8||5.06|2.05|<0.0001
95695048|NCT04237207|191360411|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy objective is to demonstrate non-inferiority of AutoSense on the M90 processor compared to AutoSound on the Q90 processor for the AzBio sentence test in quiet mode based on a paired t-test. The primary efficacy analyses will test the null hypothesis (inferiority) that the mean of the paired differences in AzBio sentence scores in quiet mode (AutoSense on M90 - AutoSound on Q90) are less than or equal to -10 percentage points.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
95695049|NCT04237207|191360412|NON_INFERIORITY|The 1st secondary endpoint was to demonstrate that speech recognition in noise with AutoSense on a 301-M062 processor was no worse than speech recognition in noise with currently approved software on a Q90 processor.||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0010
95695050|NCT04237207|191360413|NON_INFERIORITY|"The 2nd secondary endpoint was to demonstrate increased speech recognition in noise with the 301-M062 sound processor when comparing Omnidirectional program to AutoSense."|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95695051|NCT03492463|191360416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Linear|||Due to time and budget constraints a blinded decision was made and approved by the funding agency to limit further enrollment to the two conditions that provided nicotine patches. The primary (one-tailed) test compared Nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches to Non-nicotine e-cigs + Nicotine patches.||||0.01
95695052|NCT03492463|191360417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95695053|NCT03492463|191360418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.5
95695054|NCT03607838|191360472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-14.1|0.0263
95695055|NCT03607838|191360473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|0.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-13.2|0.0558
95695056|NCT03607838|191360474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.24||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|4.2||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.2|-55.7|0.0920
95695057|NCT03607838|191360475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-0.3||To control family-wise error rate for multiple tests of the primary and key secondary endpoints, serial gatekeeping testing algorithm was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.3|-8.0|0.0336
95695058|NCT00798694|191360483|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in tear break-up time between the group New to Meds and the group Currently on Xalatan at two months."||||0.005
95695059|NCT03709810|191360489|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.3|||ANOVA|Log10 peanuts mass as response variable, study product and period as fixed explanatory effects, and participant as a random effect.|GMR=(Experimental denture adhesive/ No Adhesive)|||0.30|0.12|<0.0001
95695060|NCT02665364|191360494|SUPERIORITY||arithmetic mean|-30.2802|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2588|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.6653|-19.8951|||ANCOVA|||The percent of change from baseline to last available value between W24 and W36 of treatment in the expression of IFN-induced genes was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.||-19.8951|-40.6653|< 0.0001
95695061|NCT02665364|191360495|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|2.657|||Regression, Logistic|||Descriptive statistics for the response to treatment according to BICLA at week 36 were presented by treatment group. The response to treatment according to BICLA was analyzed using a logistic regression with the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.657|0.716|0.34
95695062|NCT02665364|191360496|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.6243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|2.329|||Regression, Logistic|||The SRI-4 response was analyzed using a logistic regression using the response rate as dependent variable and treatment as independent variable, while adjusting for the minimization factors used for randomization.||2.329|0.602|0.6243
95695063|NCT02665364|191360497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0022|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0022
95695064|NCT02665364|191360498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline to last available value between W24 and W36||||0.7946
95695065|NCT02665364|191360499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9224|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.9224
95695066|NCT02665364|191360500|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3258|||||||student - pooled|||||||0.3258
95695067|NCT02665364|191360501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6169|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.6169
95695068|NCT02665364|191360502|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|3.524|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.524|0.932|0.0796
95695069|NCT02665364|191360503|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|3.574|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.574|0.938|0.0762
95695070|NCT02665364|191360506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||Student - Satterthwaite|||||||0.0097
95695071|NCT02665364|191360507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0425|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0425
95695072|NCT02665364|191360508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0396|||||||Pearson's Chi-squared|||||||0.0396
95695073|NCT03888391|191360509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.72, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.20
95695074|NCT03888391|191360511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 44.47, df = 1/33||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||<.0001
95695075|NCT03888391|191360512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 15.74, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.0004
95695076|NCT03888391|191360513|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .28, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.60
95695077|NCT03888391|191360514|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.04, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.32
95695078|NCT03888391|191360515|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 1.27, df = 1/34||Outcomes fitted via a mixed model with time as a predictor.||||.27
95695079|NCT02175771|191360531|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.72|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||1.72|1.02|
95695080|NCT02175771|191360531|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.04|||||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||1.04|0.63|
95695081|NCT02175771|191360531|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.24|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||1.24|0.75|
95695082|NCT02175771|191360531|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.06|||||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||1.06|0.67|
95695083|NCT02175771|191360532|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0476||0.8451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.103|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|Mid-strength comparison||0.103|-0.084|0.8451
95695084|NCT02175771|191360532|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0479||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.081|||mixed model for repeated measures||Fp MDPI / FLOVENT HFA|High-strength comparison||0.081|-0.107|0.7877
95695085|NCT02175771|191360532|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.095|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|Mid-strength comparison||0.095|-0.095|0.9966
95695086|NCT02175771|191360532|NON_INFERIORITY|The study had reasonable power for demonstrating non-inferiority of the study drug to the comparator drug within each cohort. The statistical analysis plan specified that non-inferiority would be demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was greater than -125 mL.|LSM difference|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0464||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.15|||mixed model for repeated measures||FS MDPI / ADVAIR DISKUS|High-strength comparison||0.150|-0.032|0.2056
95695087|NCT01722487|191360533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.28|||Log Rank|||||0.28|0.09|<0.0001
95695088|NCT01722487|191360534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.16||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.05|0.0010
95695089|NCT01722487|191360535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95695090|NCT01722487|191360536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95695091|NCT01722487|191360537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95695092|NCT01722487|191360538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0009
95917918|NCT01234649|191795049|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<.005
95917919|NCT01234649|191795050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.011|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.011
95917920|NCT01234649|191795051|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Nested repeated measures design||||>0.05
95917921|NCT01234649|191795052|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.03
95695093|NCT01722487|191360539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0054|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0054
95695094|NCT03025217|191360540|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.095
95695095|NCT03025217|191360541|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.75||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95695096|NCT01735617|191360550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric means|563.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|162.51|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The pharmacokinetic profile was characterised by an overnight rise in cortisol levels reaching a maximal concentration approximately 8 hours post dosing.||||
95695097|NCT01088438|191360584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis: proportion of encounters with contextual red flag in which appropriate treatment is planned is the same in the two groups.||||<0.001
95695098|NCT01088438|191360585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 degree of freedom||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of contextual red flags probed in control and intervention groups.||||<.001
95695099|NCT01088438|191360586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Chi-squared|1 df||Null hypothesis is equal proportion of encounters probed in control and intervention groups.||||0.85
95695100|NCT03943953|191360598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.018
95695101|NCT03943953|191360600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.001
95695102|NCT03943953|191360602|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.88||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.006
95917922|NCT01234649|191795053|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917923|NCT01234649|191795054|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.048|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.048
95695103|NCT03943953|191360604|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.035
95695104|NCT03943953|191360606|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||This is a comparison between Time 1 and Time 2||||.39
95695105|NCT03471767|191360642|SUPERIORITY|Multilevel modeling (MLM) was used to model daily reports of cigarettes smoked as a function of week, treatment (AXS-05 vs. bupropion), and the interaction between week and treatment. The contrast between the two treatment groups in change in smoking intensity from baseline to week 3 was estimated within the context of the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.65||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons, because the primary hypothesis was established a-priori.|t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.65|-2.75|0.05
95695106|NCT03471767|191360648|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95695107|NCT01019486|191360661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis||||<0.05
95695108|NCT01019486|191360661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between arms with two tailed analysis.||||<0.05
95695109|NCT01019486|191360661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Independent Student t test between groups with two-tailed analysis||||<0.05
95729386|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.8|0.0867
95695110|NCT01019486|191360662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If sufficient subjects were enrolled then it would be expected that the MRI measurement of myocardial blood flow MBF would similar or equivalent to the invasively measured CFR in response to intravenous regadenoson administration.|None insufficient data|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||No analysis was performed due to limited data.||||0.05
95695111|NCT01019486|191360663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups using a two-tailed Student t test||||<.05
95695112|NCT03491553|191360670|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695113|NCT03491553|191360670|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695114|NCT03491553|191360670|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695115|NCT03491553|191360670|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
95695116|NCT03491553|191360671|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695117|NCT03491553|191360671|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95917924|NCT01234649|191795055|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.04
95917925|NCT01234649|191795056|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.047|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.047
95917926|NCT01234649|191795057|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.023
95917927|NCT01234649|191795058|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95695118|NCT03491553|191360671|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95917928|NCT01234649|191795059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||0.042
95917929|NCT01234649|191795060|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917930|NCT01234649|191795061|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917931|NCT01234649|191795062|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95695119|NCT03491553|191360671|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695120|NCT03491553|191360672|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695121|NCT03491553|191360672|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695122|NCT03491553|191360672|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695123|NCT03491553|191360672|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695124|NCT03491553|191360673|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695125|NCT03491553|191360673|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695126|NCT03491553|191360673|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95917932|NCT01234649|191795063|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.046|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.046
95917933|NCT01234649|191795064|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.049|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||<0.049
95917934|NCT01234649|191795065|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917935|NCT01234649|191795066|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917936|NCT01234649|191795067|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917937|NCT01234649|191795068|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917938|NCT01234649|191795069|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Factorial repeated measures ANOVA||||>0.05
95917939|NCT03912220|191795070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95917940|NCT03912220|191795071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.54
95917941|NCT03169881|191795118|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.09|2.64||The mean difference in Bayley-III cognitive scores between treatment groups was adjusted for center, gestational age group, and familial clustering.|Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference in cognitive score for the Darbepoetin minus Placebo treatment groups.|Null hypothesis: Weekly administration of Darbepoetin during the neonatal period will not impact neurocognitive outcomes at 22-26 months compared to Placebo in premature infants 23 to 28 weeks gestation.||2.64|-3.09|0.88
95695127|NCT03491553|191360673|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695128|NCT03491553|191360674|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695129|NCT03491553|191360674|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695130|NCT03491553|191360674|OTHER||Percentage Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||||||||||
95695131|NCT03491553|191360674|OTHER||Percentage Difference|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|47.1|||||The 2-sided 95% CI for the percentage difference by HBeAg status was constructed based on the standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests.|||47.1|-47.2|
95695132|NCT00441103|191360719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) with effects for treatment and the absence/presence of Gd-enhancing lesions at baseline as factors|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95695133|NCT00441103|191360720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.33|<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Mean difference was calculated by subtracting 'Day 1 up to Week 16' from 'Week 17 up to Week 40' and analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.001
95695134|NCT00516269|191360764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean difference in treat versus control|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.54||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||As a crossover study, the potential carryover effect was examined first. The pooled data (the 2-week treatment for each intervention i.e. period 1 \& period 2) was used to assess the treatment effect (A versus B).||||0.54
95917942|NCT01351025|191795151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 IL-6||||0.94
95917943|NCT01351025|191795152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sun test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD4+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD4)||||0.495
95695135|NCT01079962|191360808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.701||||0.5943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|3.29||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in APP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||3.29|-1.89|0.5943
95695136|NCT01079962|191360809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8589||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.8589
95695137|NCT01079962|191360809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2223||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2223
95695138|NCT01079962|191360809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2443||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2443
95695139|NCT01079962|191360809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1481||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1481
95695140|NCT01079962|191360809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4188||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4188
95695141|NCT01079962|191360809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1586||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1586
95695142|NCT01079962|191360810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2987||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2987
95695143|NCT01079962|191360810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6584||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in AIx at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.6584
95695144|NCT01079962|191360811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2511||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2511
95695145|NCT01079962|191360811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5007||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in cfPWV at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5007
95695146|NCT01079962|191360812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9943||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9943
95695147|NCT01079962|191360812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in heart rate at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5230
95695148|NCT01079962|191360813|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4447||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4447
95695149|NCT01079962|191360814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.396||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in Total cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.3960
95695150|NCT01079962|191360814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1919||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1919
95695151|NCT01079962|191360814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1896||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HDL-cholesterol at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1896
95695152|NCT01079962|191360815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9244||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9244
95695153|NCT01079962|191360816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9692||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.9692
95695154|NCT01079962|191360816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4731||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.4731
95695155|NCT01079962|191360816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2876||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.2876
95695156|NCT01079962|191360816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in DBP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.0420
95695157|NCT01079962|191360816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 4: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.5100
95695158|NCT01079962|191360816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1207||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in mean BP at Week 12: p-value was calculated by 2 sided t-test.||||0.1207
95695159|NCT01079962|191360818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.442||||0.7561||95.0|-2.36|3.24||No adjustment of p-value was done and priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||3.24|-2.36|0.7561
95695160|NCT01072539|191360821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Infection Sites: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||<0.0001
95695161|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Geriatrc: \<65 Years Versus (VS) Geriatrc: \>=65 Years||||0.0067
95695162|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0412||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among Age categories: \<30 Years, 30 to 39 Years, 40 to 49 Years, 50 to 64 Years, and \>=65 Years.||||0.0412
95695163|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4792||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Sex: Male VS Sex: Female||||0.4792
95695164|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9669||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparson among Duration of Disease categories: \<3 Months, \>=3 Months and \<6 Months, and \>=6 Months||||0.9669
95695165|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0064||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of infection site: cSSSI, cIAI, CAP, cIAI + cSSSI, and cIAI + CAP.||||0.0064
95695166|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Satistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among severity of infection subgroups: Mild, Moderate, and Severe.||||<0.0001
95695167|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History: Yes VS General Medical History: No||||<0.0001
95695168|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Present): Yes VS General Medical History (Present): No||||<0.0001
95917944|NCT01351025|191795153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in log10 D-dimer||||0.704
95917945|NCT01351025|191795154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-sided p-values of \< 0.05 without adjustments for multiple testing were considered statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between arm A and arm B in the differences of the changes (\[week 44 - week 24\] - \[week 20 - baseline\]) in CD8+ T-cell activation percent (% CD38+/DR+ of CD8+)||||0.508
95917946|NCT00180713|191795168|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.028
95695169|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||General Medical History (Past): Yes VS General Medical History (Past): No||||0.0006
95695170|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Kidney Disorder: Yes VS Kidney Disorder: No||||<0.0001
95695171|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Liver Disorder: Yes VS Liver Disorder: No||||<0.0001
95695172|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0153||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Comparison among subgroups of Total Treatment Period of Tygacil: \<7 Days, 7 to 14 Days, and \>14 Days||||0.0153
95695173|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Comparison among subgroups of Mean Daily Dose of Tygacil: \<50 mg, 50 to \<100 mg, 100 to \<200 mg, and \>=200 mg.||||<0.0001
95695174|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0376||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Past Medication and Therapy: Yes VS Past Medication and Therapy: No||||0.0376
95695175|NCT01072539|191360822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Statistical significant level: 0.05|Chi-squared|||Concomitant Medications: Yes VS Concomitant Medications: No||||<0.0001
95695176|NCT01029886|191360829|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Superiority of exenatide once weekly with respect to change in HbA1c was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus liraglutide) was less than zero. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the CI was \<0.25%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A sample of 408 subjects in each treatment arm would provide approximately 90% power to detect a true difference between treatments of 0.25% in change in HbA1c from baseline with a 2 sided t-test at a significance level of 0.05, assuming a common standard deviation of 1.1%. MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.33|0.08|0.002
95695177|NCT01029886|191360830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of patients achieving HbA1c \<7.0% at Week 26 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, in which HbA1c stratum, country, and background OAD served as stratification factors.||||0.011
95695178|NCT01029886|191360831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline fasting serum glucose, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.66|0.05|0.021
95695179|NCT01029886|191360832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline body weight, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.40|0.39|<.001
95695180|NCT01029886|191360833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline total cholesterol, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.19|-0.01|0.079
95695181|NCT01029886|191360834|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline HDL-C, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.02|-0.02|0.832
95729387|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.6993
95695182|NCT01029886|191360835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting triglycerides were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 26 to baseline, expressed as the ratio, was analyzed using a MMRM model with treatment, baseline fasting triglycerides, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||1.15|1.04|<.001
95695183|NCT01029886|191360836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline SBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||2.47|-0.53|0.205
95695184|NCT01029886|191360837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||MMRM model includes treatment, baseline DBP, HbA1c stratum, country, background OAD, week of visit, and treatment-by-week interaction as fixed effects and subject and error as random effects.||0.98|-0.96|0.981
95695185|NCT02720016|191360842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-3.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.016
95695186|NCT02720016|191360842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.308||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.002
95695187|NCT02720016|191360842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.894|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.296||0.492|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.492
95695188|NCT02720016|191360847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.172||0.872|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.872
95695189|NCT02720016|191360847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.931|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.296||0.686|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.686
95695190|NCT02720016|191360847|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.256||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts and included partners nested within couples||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.798
95695191|NCT02720016|191360852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.518||0.631|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.631
95695192|NCT02720016|191360852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.461|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.495||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.560
95695193|NCT02720016|191360852|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.536||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed-effects regression|Models included random intercepts||Analyses were pooled across 50 imputed data sets. We used piecewise/spline mixed-effects regression models: one slope estimated from baseline to post (treatment impacts), with a separate slope estimated from post to 6-months (maintenance).||||.922
95695194|NCT00115765|191360891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.011||95.0|1.06|1.52|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.52|1.06|0.011
95695195|NCT00115765|191360892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.005||95.0|1.11|1.83|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior chemotherapy, metastatic organs, disease site, oxaliplatin dose \< 85 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin dose \> 100 mg/m2||||1.83|1.11|0.005
95695196|NCT00115765|191360896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.738||95.0|0.6|2.05|||Regression, Logistic|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.05|0.60|0.738
95695197|NCT00115765|191360897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.257||95.0|0.77|2.62|||Regression, Cox|Model covariates were ECOG status, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, number of metastatic organs, and primary disease site||||2.62|0.77|0.257
95695198|NCT00115765|191360899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.36||||||95.0|1.04|1.77||||||||1.77|1.04|
95695199|NCT00115765|191360900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25||||||95.0|0.91|1.71||||||||1.71|0.91|
95695200|NCT00115765|191360901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89||||||95.0|1.3|2.75||||||||2.75|1.30|
95695201|NCT00115765|191360902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||||95.0|0.67|1.54||||||||1.54|0.67|
95695202|NCT00115765|191360903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||||95.0|0.61|2.66||||||||2.66|0.61|
95695203|NCT00115765|191360904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||||95.0|0.28|1.67||||||||1.67|0.28|
95695204|NCT01683071|191360908|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|2.9||||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|94.0|||ANCOVA|||||94|-88|0.9494
95695205|NCT01683071|191360908|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-103.3||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-192.0|-14.0|||ANCOVA|||||-14|-192|0.0237
95695206|NCT01683071|191360908|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-94.3||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.0|-5.0|||ANCOVA|||||-5|-184|0.0386
95695207|NCT01683071|191360908|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-96.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-144.0|-49.0|||ANCOVA|||||-49|-144|<0.0001
95695208|NCT01683071|191360909|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.9||||0.6182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.6182
95695209|NCT01683071|191360909|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.73||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.1|||ANOVA|||||1.1|0.5|0.1097
95695210|NCT01683071|191360909|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.85||||0.4046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.3|||ANOVA|||||1.3|0.6|0.4046
95695211|NCT01683071|191360909|SUPERIORITY||Geometric LSM ratio|0.74||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|0.6|0.0016
95695212|NCT06704178|191360927|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488445|||||||Multiple t-tests|||||||0.488445
95695213|NCT06704178|191360928|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison.||||||0.98317||||||Between-group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
95695214|NCT06704178|191360929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98317|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98317
95695215|NCT06704178|191360930|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
95695216|NCT06704178|191360931|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.919209
95695217|NCT06704178|191360932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
95695218|NCT06704178|191360932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246176||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.246176
95695219|NCT06704178|191360932|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954882||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.954882
95695220|NCT06704178|191360933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
95695221|NCT06704178|191360933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.483382||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.483382
95695222|NCT06704178|191360933|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726742||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.726742
95695223|NCT06704178|191360934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999216||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999216
95695224|NCT06704178|191360934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695225|NCT06704178|191360934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
95695226|NCT06704178|191360934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
95695227|NCT06704178|191360934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952545||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952545
95695228|NCT06704178|191360934|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
95695229|NCT06704178|191360935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
95695230|NCT06704178|191360935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695231|NCT06704178|191360935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
95695232|NCT06704178|191360935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
95695233|NCT06704178|191360935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993223||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.993223
95695234|NCT06704178|191360935|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
95695235|NCT06704178|191360936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
95695236|NCT06704178|191360936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999838||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999838
95695237|NCT06704178|191360936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991697||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.991697
95695238|NCT06704178|191360936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
95695239|NCT06704178|191360936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581904||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.581904
95695240|NCT06704178|191360936|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999866||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999866
95695241|NCT06704178|191360937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999835||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999835
95695242|NCT06704178|191360937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.962016||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.962016
95695243|NCT06704178|191360937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995044||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995044
95695244|NCT06704178|191360937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
95695245|NCT06704178|191360937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695246|NCT06704178|191360937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
95695247|NCT06704178|191360938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
95695248|NCT06704178|191360938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999524||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999524
95695249|NCT06704178|191360938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
95695250|NCT06704178|191360938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772865||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.772865
95695251|NCT06704178|191360938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91384||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91384
95695252|NCT06704178|191360938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992841||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.992841
95695253|NCT06704178|191360939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999732||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999732
95695254|NCT06704178|191360939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695255|NCT06704178|191360939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
95695256|NCT06704178|191360939|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
95695257|NCT06704178|191360939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695258|NCT06704178|191360939|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
95695259|NCT06704178|191360940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
95695260|NCT06704178|191360940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695261|NCT06704178|191360940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998326||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998326
95695262|NCT06704178|191360940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
95695263|NCT06704178|191360940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695264|NCT06704178|191360940|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
95695265|NCT06704178|191360941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999387||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999387
95695266|NCT06704178|191360941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695267|NCT06704178|191360941|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
95695268|NCT06704178|191360941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
95695269|NCT06704178|191360941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695270|NCT06704178|191360941|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
95695271|NCT06704178|191360942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
95695272|NCT06704178|191360942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695273|NCT06704178|191360942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
95695274|NCT06704178|191360942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
95695275|NCT06704178|191360942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.960874||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.960874
95695276|NCT06704178|191360942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
95695277|NCT06704178|191360943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981906||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.981906
95695278|NCT06704178|191360943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945027||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.945027
95695279|NCT06704178|191360943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767795||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.767795
95695280|NCT06704178|191360943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996139||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.996139
95695281|NCT06704178|191360943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
95695282|NCT06704178|191360943|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
95695283|NCT06704178|191360944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55783||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55783
95695284|NCT06704178|191360944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987949||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.987949
95695285|NCT06704178|191360944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576782||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.576782
95695286|NCT06704178|191360944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
95695287|NCT06704178|191360944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
95695288|NCT06704178|191360944|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
95695289|NCT06704178|191360945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.795476||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.795476
95695290|NCT06704178|191360945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
95695291|NCT06704178|191360945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559556||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.559556
95695292|NCT06704178|191360945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997753||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.997753
95695293|NCT06704178|191360945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952378||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.952378
95695294|NCT06704178|191360945|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988108||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988108
95695295|NCT06704178|191360946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995367||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.995367
95695296|NCT06704178|191360946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695297|NCT06704178|191360946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.974102||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.974102
95695298|NCT06704178|191360946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998665||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998665
95695299|NCT06704178|191360946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695300|NCT06704178|191360946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999567||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999567
95695301|NCT06704178|191360947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882016||||||Comparison at Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.882016
95695302|NCT06704178|191360947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.860406||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.860406
95695303|NCT06704178|191360947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958944||||||Comparison at Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.958944
95695304|NCT06704178|191360947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998816||||||Comparison at Month 4|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998816
95695305|NCT06704178|191360947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989226||||||Comparison at Month 5|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.989226
95695306|NCT06704178|191360947|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999296||||||Comparison at Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999296
95695307|NCT06704178|191360948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999975||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999975
95695308|NCT06704178|191360948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.977286||||||Comparison at Month 2|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.977286
95695309|NCT06704178|191360948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999
95695310|NCT06704178|191360948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999984||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999984
95695311|NCT06704178|191360948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986557||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.986557
95695312|NCT06704178|191360948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998367||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998367
95695313|NCT06704178|191360949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999851||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999851
95695314|NCT06704178|191360949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695315|NCT06704178|191360949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
95695316|NCT06704178|191360949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998467||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998467
95695317|NCT06704178|191360949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695318|NCT06704178|191360949|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998846||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.998846
95695319|NCT06704178|191360950|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999999||||||Comparison at Month 1.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.999999
95695320|NCT06704178|191360950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999779||||||Comparison at Month 2.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999779
95695321|NCT06704178|191360950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999801||||||Comparison at Month 3.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999801
95695322|NCT06704178|191360950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963236||||||Comparison at Month 4.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.963236
95695323|NCT06704178|191360950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999816||||||Comparison at Month 5.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.999816
95695324|NCT06704178|191360950|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.737995||||||Comparison at Month 6.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.737995
95695325|NCT06704178|191360951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0003
95695326|NCT06704178|191360952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
95695327|NCT06704178|191360953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2698||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2698
95695328|NCT06704178|191360954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2137||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2137
95695329|NCT06704178|191360955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8639||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8639
95695330|NCT06704178|191360956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.239
95695331|NCT06704178|191360957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
95695332|NCT06704178|191360958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5738||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5738
95695333|NCT06704178|191360959|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6088||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6088
95695334|NCT06704178|191360960|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4942||||||Within-group analysis only.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4942
95695335|NCT06704178|191360961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7419||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7419
95695336|NCT06704178|191360961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0033||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0033
95695337|NCT06704178|191360961|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
95695338|NCT06704178|191360962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7708||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7708
95695339|NCT06704178|191360962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.239||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.239
95695340|NCT06704178|191360962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.006
95695341|NCT06704178|191360963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
95695342|NCT06704178|191360963|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0001
95695343|NCT06704178|191360963|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||<0.0001
95695344|NCT06704178|191360964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0695||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0695
95695345|NCT06704178|191360964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0124||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0124
95695346|NCT06704178|191360964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0016
95695347|NCT06704178|191360965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695348|NCT06704178|191360965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695349|NCT06704178|191360965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695350|NCT06704178|191360965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695351|NCT06704178|191360965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695352|NCT06704178|191360965|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695353|NCT06704178|191360966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695354|NCT06704178|191360966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695355|NCT06704178|191360966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695356|NCT06704178|191360966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695357|NCT06704178|191360966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695358|NCT06704178|191360966|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695359|NCT06704178|191360967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4598||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4598
95695360|NCT06704178|191360967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.23
95695361|NCT06704178|191360967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0806
95695362|NCT06704178|191360967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0969||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0969
95695363|NCT06704178|191360967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
95695364|NCT06704178|191360967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0369||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0369
95695365|NCT06704178|191360968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0384||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0384
95695366|NCT06704178|191360968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6328||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6328
95695367|NCT06704178|191360968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0026
95695368|NCT06704178|191360968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0012
95695369|NCT06704178|191360968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0118||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0118
95695370|NCT06704178|191360968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0221||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0221
95695371|NCT06704178|191360969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695372|NCT06704178|191360969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695373|NCT06704178|191360969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695374|NCT06704178|191360969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695375|NCT06704178|191360969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695376|NCT06704178|191360969|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695377|NCT06704178|191360970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695378|NCT06704178|191360970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695379|NCT06704178|191360970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695380|NCT06704178|191360970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695381|NCT06704178|191360970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695382|NCT06704178|191360970|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695383|NCT06704178|191360971|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695384|NCT06704178|191360971|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695385|NCT06704178|191360971|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695386|NCT06704178|191360971|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695387|NCT06704178|191360971|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695388|NCT06704178|191360971|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695389|NCT06704178|191360972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695390|NCT06704178|191360972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695391|NCT06704178|191360972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695392|NCT06704178|191360972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695393|NCT06704178|191360972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695394|NCT06704178|191360972|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695395|NCT06704178|191360973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695396|NCT06704178|191360973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695397|NCT06704178|191360973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695398|NCT06704178|191360973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695399|NCT06704178|191360973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695400|NCT06704178|191360973|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695401|NCT06704178|191360974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695402|NCT06704178|191360974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695403|NCT06704178|191360974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695404|NCT06704178|191360974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695405|NCT06704178|191360974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695406|NCT06704178|191360974|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695407|NCT06704178|191360975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695408|NCT06704178|191360975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695409|NCT06704178|191360975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695410|NCT06704178|191360975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695411|NCT06704178|191360975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695412|NCT06704178|191360975|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695413|NCT06704178|191360976|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695414|NCT06704178|191360976|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695415|NCT06704178|191360976|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695416|NCT06704178|191360976|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695417|NCT06704178|191360976|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695418|NCT06704178|191360976|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695419|NCT06704178|191360977|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695420|NCT06704178|191360977|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695421|NCT06704178|191360977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3682||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3682
95695422|NCT06704178|191360977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6098||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6098
95695423|NCT06704178|191360977|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695424|NCT06704178|191360977|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695425|NCT06704178|191360978|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695426|NCT06704178|191360978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5691
95695427|NCT06704178|191360978|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695428|NCT06704178|191360978|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695429|NCT06704178|191360978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
95695430|NCT06704178|191360978|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695431|NCT06704178|191360979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
95695432|NCT06704178|191360979|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695433|NCT06704178|191360979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5749||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.5749
95695434|NCT06704178|191360979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4873||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4873
95695435|NCT06704178|191360979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9998||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9998
95695436|NCT06704178|191360979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.819||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.819
95695437|NCT06704178|191360980|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695438|NCT06704178|191360980|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695439|NCT06704178|191360980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8495||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8495
95695440|NCT06704178|191360980|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||>0.9999
95695441|NCT06704178|191360980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1951||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1951
95695442|NCT06704178|191360980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.0806
95695443|NCT06704178|191360981|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695444|NCT06704178|191360981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6983||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.6983
95695445|NCT06704178|191360981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1062||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1062
95695446|NCT06704178|191360981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0333
95695447|NCT06704178|191360981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0734||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0734
95695448|NCT06704178|191360981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0219||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0219
95695449|NCT06704178|191360982|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695450|NCT06704178|191360982|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695451|NCT06704178|191360982|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695452|NCT06704178|191360982|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695453|NCT06704178|191360982|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695454|NCT06704178|191360982|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695455|NCT06704178|191360983|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695456|NCT06704178|191360983|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695457|NCT06704178|191360983|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695458|NCT06704178|191360983|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695459|NCT06704178|191360983|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695460|NCT06704178|191360983|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695461|NCT06704178|191360984|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695462|NCT06704178|191360984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
95695463|NCT06704178|191360984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.091
95695464|NCT06704178|191360984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
95695465|NCT06704178|191360984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0204
95695466|NCT06704178|191360984|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0256
95695467|NCT06704178|191360985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9821||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9821
95695468|NCT06704178|191360985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0403
95695469|NCT06704178|191360985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0638||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.0638
95695470|NCT06704178|191360985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7195||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.7195
95695471|NCT06704178|191360985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1856||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1856
95695472|NCT06704178|191360985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1222||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.1222
95695473|NCT06704178|191360986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695474|NCT06704178|191360986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695475|NCT06704178|191360986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695476|NCT06704178|191360986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695477|NCT06704178|191360986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695478|NCT06704178|191360986|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695479|NCT06704178|191360987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695480|NCT06704178|191360987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695481|NCT06704178|191360987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695482|NCT06704178|191360987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695483|NCT06704178|191360987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695484|NCT06704178|191360987|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695485|NCT06704178|191360988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695486|NCT06704178|191360988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695487|NCT06704178|191360988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695488|NCT06704178|191360988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695489|NCT06704178|191360988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695490|NCT06704178|191360988|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695491|NCT06704178|191360989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695492|NCT06704178|191360989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695493|NCT06704178|191360989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695494|NCT06704178|191360989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695495|NCT06704178|191360989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695496|NCT06704178|191360989|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695497|NCT06704178|191360990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695498|NCT06704178|191360990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695499|NCT06704178|191360990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695500|NCT06704178|191360990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695501|NCT06704178|191360990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695502|NCT06704178|191360990|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695503|NCT06704178|191360991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695504|NCT06704178|191360991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695505|NCT06704178|191360991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695506|NCT06704178|191360991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695507|NCT06704178|191360991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695508|NCT06704178|191360991|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695509|NCT06704178|191360992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695510|NCT06704178|191360992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695511|NCT06704178|191360992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695512|NCT06704178|191360992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695513|NCT06704178|191360992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695514|NCT06704178|191360992|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695515|NCT06704178|191360993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695516|NCT06704178|191360993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695517|NCT06704178|191360993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695518|NCT06704178|191360993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695519|NCT06704178|191360993|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695520|NCT06704178|191360993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.982
95695521|NCT06704178|191360994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695522|NCT06704178|191360994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695523|NCT06704178|191360994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 3 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695524|NCT06704178|191360994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695525|NCT06704178|191360994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695526|NCT06704178|191360994|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 vs Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695527|NCT06704178|191360995|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695528|NCT06704178|191360995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9951||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9951
95695529|NCT06704178|191360995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Month 3 versus Baseline|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.999
95695530|NCT06704178|191360995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9913||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9913
95695531|NCT06704178|191360995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4517||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4517
95695532|NCT06704178|191360995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8187||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8187
95695533|NCT06704178|191360996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.998
95695534|NCT06704178|191360996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9591||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9591
95695535|NCT06704178|191360996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9994||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9994
95695536|NCT06704178|191360996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9936||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9936
95695537|NCT06704178|191360996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8526||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.8526
95695538|NCT06704178|191360996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4375||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4375
95695539|NCT06704178|191360997|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695540|NCT06704178|191360997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7477||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis.||||||0.7477
95695541|NCT06704178|191360997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
95695542|NCT06704178|191360997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
95695543|NCT06704178|191360997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.297||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.297
95695544|NCT06704178|191360997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4449||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.4449
95695545|NCT06704178|191360998|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 1 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695546|NCT06704178|191360998|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 2 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695547|NCT06704178|191360998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9188||||||Month 3 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.9188
95695548|NCT06704178|191360998|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 4 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695549|NCT06704178|191360998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3503||||||Month 5 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||0.3503
95695550|NCT06704178|191360998|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9999||||||Month 6 versus Baseline.|t-test, 2 sided|Within-group analysis only.||||||>0.9999
95695551|NCT01968187|191360999|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.7||||0.029|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-2.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effect and HPWSQ-R total score at baseline as covariate.||||-2.2||0.0290
95695552|NCT01968187|191361000|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.0233|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CGI-S score as a covariate.||||-0.3||0.0233
95695553|NCT01968187|191361001|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.0||||0.1172|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.2|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Behavior||0.2||0.1172
95695554|NCT01968187|191361001|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.6||||0.1436|ONE_SIDED|90.0||0.3|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Drive||0.3||0.1436
95695555|NCT01968187|191361001|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0248|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-0.5|||ANCOVA|Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and HPWSQ-R domain score -at baseline as a covariate.||HPWSQ-R Domain score: Severity||-0.5||0.0248
95695556|NCT01968187|191361002|OTHER||LS mean difference|-6.2||||0.0047|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-3.3|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and CY-BOCS total score at baseline as a covariate.||||-3.3||0.0047
95695557|NCT01968187|191361003|OTHER||LS mean difference|-4.4||||0.0132|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-1.9|||ANCOVA|Compared using ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and Food Domain Score of Reiss Profile at baseline as a covariate.||||-1.9||0.0132
95695558|NCT01146951|191361011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann|-26.65||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.3|-11.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-11.80|-40.30|0.003
95695559|NCT01146951|191361012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||Fisher's exact test|||||||0.074
95695560|NCT01146951|191361013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-47.1|-17.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||-17.00|-47.10|<0.001
95695561|NCT01146951|191361014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-57.15||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-104.5|-17.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Partial Seizure Frequency||-17.30|-104.50|0.025
95695562|NCT01146951|191361014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-28.65||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|0.9|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of atypical absence seizure frequency||0.90|-72.00|0.128
95695563|NCT01146951|191361014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-54.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-126.6|-15.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for myoclonic seizure frequency||-15.40|-126.60|0.021
95695564|NCT01146951|191361014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-23.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.7|-5.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of tonic seizure frequency||-5.60|-40.70|0.031
95695565|NCT01146951|191361014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-71.4||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-464.7|30.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis for Tonic-clonic seizure frequency||30.50|-464.70|0.107
95695566|NCT01146951|191361014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann method|-52.1||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-89.1|10.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Atonic seizure frequency||10.80|-89.10|0.221
95695567|NCT01146951|191361015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of Week 12 of the Treatment Period||||0.041
95695568|NCT01146951|191361015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Analysis of final assessment (LOCF)||||0.007
95695569|NCT03342937|191361017|SUPERIORITY|1-sided test of single exponential mean with historical null hypothesis of 5.5 months median PFS||||||0.02||||||Sample size of 35 patients was chosen based on detecting the difference between a historical median PFS of 5.5 months and experimental median of 7.3 months, a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 80% power (1-sided test of single exponential mean, α=0.2).|1-sided exponential test|||||||0.02
95695570|NCT01617655|191361022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.1|-27.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-27.1|-51.1|<0.0001
95695571|NCT01617655|191361023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-38.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.0|-26.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-26.9|-51|<0.0001
95695572|NCT01617655|191361024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.3|-51.4|<0.0001
95695573|NCT01617655|191361025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.4|-29.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-29.2|-51.4|<0.0001
95695574|NCT01617655|191361026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.9|-39.7|<0.0001
95695575|NCT01617655|191361027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-20.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-20.7|-39.7|<0.0001
95695576|NCT01617655|191361028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|-25.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-25.3|-46.3|<0.0001
95695577|NCT01617655|191361029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-35.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.2|-24.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.9|-46.2|<0.0001
95695578|NCT01617655|191361030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.3|-19.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.6|-37.3|<0.0001
95695579|NCT01617655|191361031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.2|-21.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.1|-39.2|<0.0001
95695580|NCT01617655|191361032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8|-24.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.1|-44.8|<0.0001
95695581|NCT01617655|191361033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-27.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.2|-19.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-19.4|-36.2|<0.0001
95695582|NCT01617655|191361034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-24.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-24.6|-53.6|<0.0001
95695583|NCT01617655|191361035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.7||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|53.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||53.5|2.5|0.0016
95695584|NCT01617655|191361036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.9||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|54.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||54.9|2.6|0.0014
95695585|NCT01617655|191361037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.8||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-2.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-2.7|-26.9|0.0164
95695586|NCT01617655|191361038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|10.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||10.2|-2.9|0.2745
95695587|NCT00831441|191361060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.11|||Cox proportional hazard models|||A test of superiority at the one-sided α = 0.025 significance level for the primary efficacy outcome was performed.||1.11|0.80|0.5094
95695588|NCT00831441|191361061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.26|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.26|0.70|0.6702
95695589|NCT00831441|191361062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.4|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.40|0.57|0.6311
95695590|NCT00831441|191361063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.14|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.14|0.76|0.5086
95695591|NCT00831441|191361064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.12|0.47|0.1502
95695592|NCT00831441|191361065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.09|0.82|0.4317
95695593|NCT00831441|191361066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.83|0.8015
95695594|NCT00831441|191361067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.15|||Cox proportional hazard models|||||1.15|0.85|0.8948
95695595|NCT00831441|191361068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|4.46|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||A point estimate and two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for relative risk, as measured by the hazard ratio and a p-value for the test of equality of rates (HR = 1) was calculated.||4.46|1.50|0.0006
95695596|NCT00831441|191361069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.58|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.58|1.72|<0.0001
95695597|NCT00831441|191361070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|3.72|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||3.72|1.87|<0.0001
95695598|NCT00831441|191361071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.06|2.7|||Cox Proportional Hazard model|||||2.70|2.06|<0.0001
95695599|NCT01640925|191361072|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The number of patients needed to achieve 80% power was estimated at 171 using Cox proportional hazards regression (hazard ratio reduction of 0.66; 0.15 probability of infection with control) using a two-sided 5% significance.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.555||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.309|0.998|||Regression, Cox||Hypothesis: Compared to soap and water daily bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing on ICU admission and every 48 hours during surgical ICU care will decrease the risk of acquiring four hospital-acquired infections in surgical ICU patients.|||0.998|0.309|0.049
95729388|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8702
95729389|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.1826
95728826|NCT04128696|191427428|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.77||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.77|0.78|0.783
95729390|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||General activity: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1206
95695600|NCT00442013|191361089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3|||Regression, Linear|Linear mixed effects model is robust to data that are missing at random that has characteristics similar to multiple imputation techniques.||All participants included in the analysis. The model includes the data (ACQ scores) from all time points including baseline. The treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 6 months is estimated from the model. Longitudinal models estimated the change from baseline to 6 months in a measurement using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured or exchangeable covariance matrix to adjust for repeated measures.||0.3|0.0|0.12
95695601|NCT00442013|191361090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2593||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||0.2|-0.3|0.65
95695602|NCT00442013|191361091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0906||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|-0.1|0.99
95695603|NCT00442013|191361092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||negative binomial|||||1.7|0.9|0.30
95695604|NCT00442013|191361093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.01|||Regression, Linear|Model includes the data from all time points. Treatment effect (delta-delta) comparing the difference from baseline at 24 weeks is from the model.||||0.01|-0.07|0.14
95695605|NCT00442013|191361094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4|||Regression, Linear|||||0.4|-2.1|0.20
95695606|NCT00485589|191361106|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.001|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.001
95695607|NCT00485589|191361106|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified analysis||||||0.0033|||||||Van Elteren's test|||||||0.0033
95695608|NCT02370498|191361143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.98358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.57||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.57|1.03|0.98358
95695609|NCT02370498|191361144|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.04205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.03|0.66|0.04205
95695610|NCT02370498|191361145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.49||||0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.77|1.25|0.99999
95695611|NCT02370498|191361146|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.24463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in OS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (Hazard Ratio \[HR\]) between the treatment arms.||1.12|0.79|0.24463
95695612|NCT02370498|191361147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.41331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.21|0.79|0.41331
95695613|NCT02370498|191361148|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.97481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.42||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.42|1.00|0.97481
95695614|NCT02370498|191361149|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.80696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.38||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.38|0.89|0.80696
95695615|NCT02370498|191361150|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.99932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.6||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in PFS was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.60|1.12|0.99932
95695616|NCT02370498|191361151|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.99661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.89||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.89|1.11|0.99661
95695617|NCT02370498|191361152|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.77||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.2||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||2.20|1.42|1.00000
95695618|NCT02370498|191361153|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.23|0.77|0.39280
95695619|NCT02370498|191361154|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.97033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.47||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\< 6 months vs. \>= 6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative).|Regression, Cox|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Treatment difference in TTP was assessed by the Stratified Log-rank test, and a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with Efron's method of tie handling was used to assess the magnitude of the treatment difference (HR) between the treatment arms.||1.47|1.00|0.97033
95695620|NCT02370498|191361155|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.0||||0.28967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's (MN) method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.0|0.28967
95695621|NCT02370498|191361156|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|4.0||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||4.0|-6.5|0.69010
95695622|NCT02370498|191361157|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.3322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|9.1||Stratification factors for MN method included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World) and TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified MN method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm was provided.||9.1|-5.8|0.33220
95729391|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-0.9|0.0211
95729392|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.6|0.4963
95695623|NCT02370498|191361158|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.0||||0.85922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.6||Stratification factors included geographic region (Europe/Israel/North America/Australia vs. Asia vs. Rest of World), TTP on first-line therapy (\<6 months vs. ≥6 months), and PD-L1 status (positive vs. negative) weighting by sample size.|Miettinen and Nurminen method|P-value rounded to 5 decimal places.||Stratified Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used for comparison of the ORR between the treatment arms. A 95% CI for the difference in response rates between the pembrolizumab arm and paclitaxel arm is provided.||2.6|-8.5|0.85922
95695624|NCT02370498|191361164|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|0.2||||||Between-treatment differences (Pembrolizumab vs. Paclitaxel) in the percentage of participants with events and accompanying 95% confidence intervals were based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method. Negative values correspond to a greater percentage of events for Paclitaxel.||0.2|-6.9|
95695625|NCT04570332|191361296|SUPERIORITY||rate %|25.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.69|41.2|||one-sided test for binomial endpoint|||The null hypothesis was H0: ORR=10% (p0) and was tested against H1: ORR\>10% at one-sided 5% significance level. Assuming an effect size of ORR=25% (pA), 40 participants provided a power of at least 80%. The minimal statistically significant ORR was 20%.||41.20|12.69|<0.01
95695626|NCT02951988|191361323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5305|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5305
95695627|NCT02951988|191361323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4628|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4628
95695628|NCT02951988|191361324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6153|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6153
95695629|NCT02951988|191361324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4123|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4123
95695630|NCT00403559|191361371|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority determined as the F-IGA, IGA, erythema, scaling, and pruritis scores when compared between groups. The Wilcoxon rank sum test stratified baseline seborrheic dermatitis (SD) severity.||||||0.009|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.009
95695631|NCT04633473|191361381|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.922
95695632|NCT04633473|191361382|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.521|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.521
95695633|NCT04633473|191361383|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.678
95695634|NCT04633473|191361384|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.326|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.326
95695635|NCT04633473|191361385|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.09
95695636|NCT04633473|191361386|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.154|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.154
95695637|NCT04633473|191361387|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.309|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.309
95695638|NCT04633473|191361389|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.181|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.181
95695639|NCT04633473|191361390|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Within subjects paired t-tests.||||||0.008
95695640|NCT05291949|191361393|OTHER|Bland-Altman|Bias|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Bland-Altman||||Lower 95% Limit of agreement (LoA) value = -0.34 Upper 95% LoA = 0.94|||
95695641|NCT04501679|191361424|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|48.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||48.5|26.3|<0.0001
95695642|NCT04501679|191361425|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|38.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.2|18.8|<0.0001
95695643|NCT04501679|191361426|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|33.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.3|42.4||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||42.4|24.3|<0.0001
95728827|NCT04128696|191427429|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.50|0.500
95695644|NCT04501679|191361427|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|30.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|38.6||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||38.6|21.3|<0.0001
95695645|NCT04501679|191361428|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|31.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|43.2||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\<90 kg,\>=90 kg\]).|Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||43.2|20.7|<0.0001
95729393|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.2|-0.6|0.3031
95729394|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.1|0.1019
95695646|NCT04501679|191361429|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.|Strata-adjusted percentage difference|27.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.4|37.5||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|||37.5|18.4|<0.0001
95695647|NCT04501679|191361430|SUPERIORITY||Strata-adjusted percentage difference|18.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|25.7||A 2-sided p-value was derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test using the randomized stratification variables (analysis center and body weight at randomization \[\< 90 kg, \>= 90 kg\]). Threshold of significance at 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Strata adjusted percentage difference was obtained using weighted average of stratum-specific percentage using CMH.|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures were reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at two-sided 0.05.||25.7|12.0|<0.0001
95695648|NCT03259490|191361436|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.36|105.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.83|100.36|
95695649|NCT03259490|191361437|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.11|104.77|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.77|96.11|
95695650|NCT03259490|191361438|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.65|104.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.10|96.65|
95695651|NCT03259490|191361439|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|99.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.52|105.7|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.70|94.52|
95695652|NCT03259490|191361440|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|107.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|102.52|113.31|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||113.31|102.52|
95695653|NCT03259490|191361441|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.63|101.93|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||101.93|92.63|
95695654|NCT03259490|191361442|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|103.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.38|105.92|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||105.92|100.38|
95729395|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Mood: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.2010
95695655|NCT03259490|191361443|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|100.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.68|104.86|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||104.86|95.68|
95695656|NCT03259490|191361444|OTHER||Adjusted gmean ratio T/R (%)|97.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.65|103.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period', and 'treatment'.|The standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric co-efficient of variation (gCV)|The assessment of bioequivalence was based upon two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric means (test/reference) for the endpoints using an acceptance range of 80.00 to 125.00%.||103.29|91.65|
95695657|NCT03095521|191361445|NON_INFERIORITY|two-sided 95% CIs estimation used to confirm non-inferior efficacy in primary endpoint. A non-inferiority conclusion was made relating to the primary parameter only.||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Arm Angal, Arm Antiangin||||0.028
95695658|NCT03095521|191361448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.482|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.482
95695659|NCT03095521|191361450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||change from baseline, 2 groups||||0.072
95695660|NCT01185249|191361451|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis-no difference in morning and evening weights on three consecutive days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51306|1.73806|||t-test, 1 sided|||Analysis of within subjects design morning and evening weights. Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between morning and evening weights.||1.73806|-0.51306|<.001
95695661|NCT01185249|191361451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
95695662|NCT02193815|191361452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Ratio|93.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.43|107.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.99|80.43|0.3465
95695663|NCT02193815|191361453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|165.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.12|192.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||192.25|143.12|<0.0001
95695664|NCT02193815|191361454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|65.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.46|75.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.81|56.46|<0.0001
95695665|NCT02193815|191361455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|93.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.3|107.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||107.81|80.30|0.3349
95695666|NCT02193815|191361455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|149.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|129.04|173.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||173.34|129.04|<0.0001
95695667|NCT02193815|191361455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|106.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075||0.3991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|91.92|123.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.41|91.92|0.3991
95695668|NCT02193815|191361455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|71.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.08|83.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.36|62.08|<0.0001
95695669|NCT02193815|191361456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|96.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.7529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|74.0|124.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||124.64|74.00|0.7529
95695670|NCT02193815|191361456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|125.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.96|169.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||169.75|92.96|0.1318
95695671|NCT02193815|191361456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|103.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.8009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.3|134.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||134.68|79.30|0.8009
95695672|NCT02193815|191361456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean|81.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.94|104.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||104.47|62.94|0.1012
95695673|NCT00064350|191361461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the proportion of patients maintaining stable disease or objective response at 2 months after randomization between the two arms.||||0.005
95695674|NCT00064350|191361462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare PFS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.014
95695675|NCT00064350|191361463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||95.0|||||Log Rank|||Compare OS between the Sorafenib arm and the placebo arm||||0.12
95695676|NCT03260205|191361526|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square Mean|-5.9||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|-0.78|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline visits, with the change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV preschool version total score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline ADHD-RS-IV and baseline ADHD-RS-IV score-by-visit interaction as covariates.||-0.78|-11.01|0.0242
95695677|NCT03260205|191361527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Mean Square|-0.6||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.16|||MMRM|||This outcome measure was analyzed using the linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). From a MMRM analysis over all post-baseline Visits, with the CGI-I score as the outcome, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effect, baseline CGI-S as covariate.||-0.16|-1.03|0.0074
95695678|NCT05195359|191361581|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||<0.0001
95695679|NCT05195359|191361582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0003
95695680|NCT05195359|191361583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0002
95695681|NCT05195359|191361584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0606|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0606
95695682|NCT05195359|191361585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2056|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.2056
95695683|NCT05195359|191361585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4186|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.4186
95695684|NCT05195359|191361586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0754|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app users vs control; baseline vs week 6)||||||0.0754
95695685|NCT05195359|191361587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0137
95695686|NCT05195359|191361588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0152
95695687|NCT05195359|191361589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8148|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Physical Wellbeing||||0.8148
95695688|NCT05195359|191361589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0523|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||SF-12 Mental Wellbeing||||0.0523
95695689|NCT05195359|191361590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0729|||||||ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA (Group × Time; frequent app vs control; baseline vs week 12)||||||0.0729
95695690|NCT01299610|191361598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.538||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.70|-1.46|0.480
95695691|NCT01299610|191361598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mixed model for repeated measures|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.557||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.23|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||0.23|-2.00|0.118
95695692|NCT01299610|191361598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.572||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||||-0.36|-2.65|0.011
95695693|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.42|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.42|-0.24|0.581
95695694|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.27|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.27|-0.42|0.655
95695695|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.336||95.0|-0.52|0.18|||Mixed model repeated measures|||FP, 0.05% cream Vs Placebo: Day 2||0.18|-0.52|0.336
95695696|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.302||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.63|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086 0.2% cream Vs Placebo: Day 3||0.63|-0.58|0.923
95695697|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.314||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.77|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 3||0.77|-0.49|0.657
95695698|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.323||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.36|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 3||0.36|-0.93|0.386
95695699|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.456||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.67|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.67|-1.15|0.601
95695700|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.472||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.35|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 7||0.35|-1.54|0.212
95695701|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.485||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|-0.32|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 7||-0.32|-2.26|0.010
95695702|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.462||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.68|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 0.2% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.68|-1.17|0.602
95695703|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.479||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.31|||Mixed model repeated measures|||GW870086, 2.0% cream, Placebo: Day 14||0.31|-1.61|0.180
95695704|NCT01299610|191361599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Adjusted Means|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.492||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.4|||Mixed model repeated measures|||Placebo, FP, 0.05% cream: Day 14||-0.40|-2.37|0.006
95695705|NCT01175213|191361621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Poisson|0.02|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|99.0||0.045||Testing the null hypothesis of 1 VASBI/year against a one-sided alternative at the 0.01 level of statistical significance.|Poisson|||||0.045||<0.0001
95729396|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.9|0.0331
95695706|NCT01921634|191361645|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.7|||McNemar||The odds ratio was generated from a logistic regression model using generalized estimating equations with a logit link and represents a comparison of modified (numerator) vs standard (denominator).|||1.7|1.1|0.01
95695707|NCT01746940|191361668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1088||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.1088
95695708|NCT01746940|191361668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided p-value|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that the proportions of treatment group successes are equal.||||0.0005
95695709|NCT02924688|191361678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0222|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|0.139||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.139|0.052|<0.001
95695710|NCT02924688|191361678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.066|0.153||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.153|0.066|<0.001
95695711|NCT02924688|191361678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.125||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.125|0.039|<0.001
95695712|NCT02924688|191361678|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.135||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.135|0.049|<0.001
95695713|NCT02924688|191361679|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.97||||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.17||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.17|0.81|0.778
95695714|NCT02924688|191361679|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.05||p-value was calculated using Generalized linear model with covariates for age, sex, region, treatment group, stratification by pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and severe asthma exacerbations in the previous year (0, 1, \>=2).|Negative Binomial Model||Treatment policy estimand was assessed, including all on- and post-treatment data.|||1.05|0.72|0.151
95695715|NCT02924688|191361680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
95695716|NCT02924688|191361680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.067|0.155||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.155|0.067|<0.001
95695717|NCT02924688|191361680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0225|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.132||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.132|0.044|<0.001
95695718|NCT02924688|191361680|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0224|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.162||p-value was calculated using ANCOVA with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, and pre-study ICS dosage at screening.|ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.074|<0.001
95695719|NCT02924688|191361681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.01||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.010|-0.124|0.094
95695720|NCT02924688|191361681|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0338||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|-0.023||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.023|-0.156|0.008
95695721|NCT02924688|191361682|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.697||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.47||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.47|-0.27|0.115
95695722|NCT02924688|191361682|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.692||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|1.05||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.05|-1.66|0.662
95729397|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.3|-0.5|0.7478
95695723|NCT02924688|191361683|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.185||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.23||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.23|-0.49|0.479
95695724|NCT02924688|191361683|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.06||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and 4-weekly period, interaction terms for Baseline value by 4-weekly period and treatment by 4-weekly period.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.06|-0.78|0.023
95695725|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.4|-2.5|0.172
95695726|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||0.9|-2.0|0.436
95695727|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.1|-0.9|0.426
95695728|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.2||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for SBP|||2.2|-0.8|0.349
95695729|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.7||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||0.7|-1.5|0.482
95695730|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.9||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.9|-0.3|0.142
95695731|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.0|-1.2|0.806
95695732|NCT02924688|191361686|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures||Comparison for DBP|||1.5|-0.7|0.447
95695733|NCT02924688|191361687|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.5||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||2.5|0.1|0.034
95695734|NCT02924688|191361687|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.3||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.3|-1.1|0.839
95695735|NCT02924688|191361687|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.6||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.6|-1.8|0.349
95695736|NCT02924688|191361687|OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.4||p-value was calculated using MMRM with covariates of treatment, age, sex, region, Baseline value, pre-study ICS dosage at screening, and visit, interaction terms for Baseline value by visit and treatment by visit.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.4|-1.0|0.768
95695737|NCT03072719|191361695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.19||||0.1774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.09||From ANCOVA model: Treatment as fixed factor, baseline Schiff Sensitivity score as covariate.|ANCOVA||Difference is 0.454% stannous fluoride minus 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate such that a negative difference favours first named treatment.|"H0 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is zero.~H1 : The difference in Schiff Sensitivity Score at Day 14 between the experimental dentifrice and reference dentifrice is not zero."||0.09|-0.46|0.1774
95695738|NCT01708941|191361705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Log Rank|||The primary comparison was ipilimumab + HDI versus ipilimumab alone, across ipilimumab dose (Arms A \& C versus Arms B \& D)||||0.490
95695739|NCT01708941|191361706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||Log Rank|||PFS comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.144
95695740|NCT01708941|191361707|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.691
95695741|NCT01708941|191361708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.868|||||||Log Rank|||Comparison of higher dose ipilimumab versus lower dose ipilimumab across HDI status (Arms A \& B versus Arms C \& D)||||0.868
95695742|NCT01102218|191361714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95729398|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.3|-0.5|0.6940
95695743|NCT01940510|191361722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.8|30.1|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals.||30.1|23.8|
95695744|NCT01940510|191361723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|48.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.5|54.3|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||54.3|43.5|
95695745|NCT01940510|191361724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|179.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.0|202.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||202|158|
95695746|NCT01940510|191361725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|220.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|190.0|255.0|||||ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameters, and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals. The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|||255|190|
95695747|NCT00678587|191361735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Absolute difference in proportions|52.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|62.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||62.4|43.2|<0.0001
95695748|NCT00678587|191361736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|3.3||||||||3.3|-15.1|
95695749|NCT00678587|191361737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95695750|NCT05600309|191361756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.3914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.50|0.59|0.3914
95695751|NCT05600309|191361757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.8091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.92||One-sided nominal p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank||HR and 95% CI were based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||1.92|0.78|0.8091
95695752|NCT05600309|191361758|OTHER||Difference in percentage|6.0||||0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|16.3||One-sided nominal p-value for testing.|Miettinen & Nurminen Method||Difference in percentage and 95% CI were based on the Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|-2.3|0.0502
95695753|NCT02130258|191361792|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
95695754|NCT02130258|191361793|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.04
95695755|NCT02130258|191361794|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.04
95695756|NCT03977727|191361795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.88|48.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||48.4|7.88|.008
95695757|NCT03977727|191361796|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.22||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|39.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||39.46|-5.42|.136
95695758|NCT03977727|191361797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.73|.05|.029
95695759|NCT03977727|191361798|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||-0.31|-2.84|.016
95695760|NCT03977727|191361799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||2.32|.04|.045
95695761|NCT03977727|191361802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||.16|-.59|.303
95695762|NCT03977727|191361803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||9.99|-10.32|.968
95695763|NCT03977727|191361804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed model was fit with therapy (Fiasp vs. NovoLog), period (Period 1 vs Period 2), and sequence (Fiasp/NovoLog vs NovoLog/Fiasp) as fixed effects. Subjects included as random effects.||0|-.13|.059
95695764|NCT01419665|191361815|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of + or - 12% was determined considering the variability of the point estimate of the add-on effect by taking a value lower than the lower boundary of the 95% CI for Rituximab+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy obtained from historical data.|difference in overall response rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|5.14|||Binomial approximation|||||5.14|-5.94|
95695765|NCT01419665|191361818|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.76|||Regression, Cox|||||1.76|0.97|
95695766|NCT01419665|191361819|OTHER|descriptive purposes, not powered for hypothesis testing|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.52|||Regression, Cox|||||1.52|0.55|
95695767|NCT00711269|191361834|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-3.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3|||ANOVA||\[Not specified\]|||1.3|-8.4|0.149
95695768|NCT00711269|191361834|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.8||||0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|3.0|||ANOVA|||||3.0|-6.6|0.462
95695769|NCT00711269|191361834|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-4.6||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|1.2|||ANOVA|||||1.2|-10.5|0.122
95695770|NCT00711269|191361834|SUPERIORITY|Maximum Contrast Method||||||0.235||||||Contrast Factors (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg): (-1, 0, 1) Adjusted P Value: 0.298|Maximum Contrast Method|Contrast (Placebo, SM-13496 40-mg, SM-13496 80-mg):(-2, 1, 1) Raw P Value: 0.108 Adjusted P Value: 0.145||||||0.235
95695771|NCT00711269|191361835|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-2.9|0.069
95695772|NCT00711269|191361835|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.8||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||ANOVA|||||0.7|-2.3|0.287
95695773|NCT00711269|191361835|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-2.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.4|||ANOVA|||||-0.4|-4.1|0.016
95695774|NCT00711269|191361836|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6|||ANOVA|||||0.6|-2.0|0.289
95695775|NCT00711269|191361836|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.256
95695776|NCT00711269|191361836|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.7||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.8|||ANOVA|||||0.8|-2.3|0.352
95695777|NCT00711269|191361837|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.0|||ANOVA|||||1.0|-3.9|0.251
95695778|NCT00711269|191361837|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|2.2|||ANOVA|||||2.2|-2.7|0.847
95695779|NCT00711269|191361837|SUPERIORITY|One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA)|LS Mean difference|-1.6||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.4|||ANOVA|||||1.4|-4.6|0.292
95695780|NCT01341652|191361888|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.97
95695781|NCT01341652|191361889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||.08
95695782|NCT01341652|191361891|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.8|||Regression, Cox|||||2.8|0.9|0.14
95695783|NCT01628016|191361893|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.98||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95695784|NCT04593940|191361920|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.122||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.987|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|0.987|0.0793
95695785|NCT04593940|191361920|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.12||||0.0864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.275|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.275|.984|0.0864
95695786|NCT04593940|191361920|SUPERIORITY||Recovery Rate Ratio|1.006||||0.9354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.176|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.176|0.862|0.9354
95695787|NCT04593940|191361921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.309||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.647|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.647|1.041|0.0213
95695788|NCT04593940|191361921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.174||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.932|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.480|0.932|0.1732
95695789|NCT04593940|191361921|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.944||||0.6823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.243|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.243|0.717|0.6823
95695790|NCT04593940|191361922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.403|0.935|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.935|0.403|0.0229
95695791|NCT04593940|191361922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.629||||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.951|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.951|0.416|0.0281
95695792|NCT04593940|191361922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.167||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.917|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.917|0.711|0.541
95695793|NCT04593940|191361923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.435||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.129|1.825|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.825|1.129|0.0032
95695794|NCT04593940|191361923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.338||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.041|1.718|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.718|1.041|0.0228
95695795|NCT04593940|191361923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.904||||0.4994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.211|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.211|0.675|0.4994
95695796|NCT04593940|191361924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.632||||0.0988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.367|1.09|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||1.090|0.367|0.0988
95695797|NCT04593940|191361924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.552||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|0.96|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||0.960|0.317|0.0354
95695798|NCT04593940|191361924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.287||||0.4132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|2.355|||Regression, Logistic|Ordinal logistic regression|Ordinal logistic regression|||2.355|0.703|0.4132
95695799|NCT04593940|191361925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.1601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.28|1.00|0.1601
95695800|NCT04593940|191361925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.24|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.24|0.97|0.3550
95695801|NCT04593940|191361925|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.07|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.07|0.80|0.2386
95695802|NCT04593940|191361926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.1519
95695803|NCT04593940|191361926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.2605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.26|0.98|0.2605
95695804|NCT04593940|191361926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.4359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.13|||Fine-Gray Proportional Hazards Model|||||1.13|0.83|0.4359
95695805|NCT04593940|191361927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.06|-0.18|0.3210
95695806|NCT04593940|191361927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.09|0.5275
95695807|NCT04593940|191361927|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.15|0.9993
95695808|NCT04593940|191361928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||0.4982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-0.13|0.4982
95695809|NCT04593940|191361928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.3491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.10|0.3491
95695810|NCT04593940|191361928|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.22|-0.25|0.9020
95695811|NCT04593940|191361929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24||||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.52|-0.03|0.0842
95695812|NCT04593940|191361929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.5328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.37|-0.19|0.5328
95695813|NCT04593940|191361929|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.21|-0.46|0.4727
95695814|NCT04593940|191361930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|0.01|0.0399
95695815|NCT04593940|191361930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11||||0.4515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.41|-0.18|0.4515
95695816|NCT04593940|191361930|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.43|0.6960
95695817|NCT04593940|191361931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.04|0.0903
95695818|NCT04593940|191361931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.45|-0.16|0.3480
95695819|NCT04593940|191361931|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29|-0.44|0.6984
95695820|NCT04593940|191361932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.62|0.01|0.0450
95695821|NCT04593940|191361932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19||||0.2462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.13|0.2462
95695822|NCT04593940|191361932|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.2304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.15|-0.61|0.2304
95695823|NCT04593940|191361933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.66|0.03|0.0313
95695824|NCT04593940|191361933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.63|-0.01|0.0555
95695825|NCT04593940|191361933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.17|-0.60|0.2710
95695826|NCT04593940|191361934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
95695827|NCT04593940|191361934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6||||||||1.6|-0.5|
95695828|NCT04593940|191361934|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.7|-1.8|
95695829|NCT04593940|191361935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|29.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|53.7||||||||53.7|-0.4|
95695830|NCT04593940|191361935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|40.0||||||||40.0|-14.8|
95695831|NCT04593940|191361935|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|26.6||||||||26.6|-38.7|
95695832|NCT04593940|191361936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.3||||||||2.3|0.2|
95695833|NCT04593940|191361936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.1|
95695834|NCT04593940|191361936|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||||||||0.6|-2.0|
95695835|NCT04593940|191361937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|0.0||||||||0.0|-14.0|
95695836|NCT04593940|191361937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4||||||||3.4|-11.1|
95695837|NCT04593940|191361937|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.1||||||||8.1|-10.1|
95695838|NCT04593940|191361938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.8||||||||1.8|-0.1|
95695839|NCT04593940|191361938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7||||||||1.7|-0.3|
95695840|NCT04593940|191361938|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-2.0|
95695841|NCT04593940|191361939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|3.5||||||||3.5|-5.7|
95695842|NCT04593940|191361939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.3||||||||3.3|-6.0|
95695843|NCT04593940|191361939|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|8.0||||||||8.0|-3.7|
95695844|NCT04593940|191361940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.0|
95695845|NCT04593940|191361940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||||||||1.4|-0.7|
95695846|NCT04593940|191361940|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||||||||1.1|-1.3|
95695847|NCT04593940|191361941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.878||||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.133|||Log Rank|||||1.133|0.680|0.3169
95695848|NCT04593940|191361941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.108|||Log Rank|||||1.108|0.672|0.2480
95695849|NCT04593940|191361941|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.191||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.604|||Log Rank|||||1.604|0.885|0.2490
95695850|NCT04593940|191361942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.083||||0.5175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.380|0.850|0.5175
95695851|NCT04593940|191361942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.5216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.179|||Log Rank|||||1.179|0.722|0.5216
95695852|NCT04593940|191361942|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075||||0.6135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.812|1.424|||Log Rank|||||1.424|0.812|0.6135
95695853|NCT04593940|191361943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.565||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.165|1.931|||Log Rank|||||1.931|0.165|0.3628
95695854|NCT04593940|191361943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.3701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|1.948|||Log Rank|||||1.948|0.167|0.3701
95695855|NCT04593940|191361943|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.988||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.211|11.251|||Log Rank|||||11.251|2.211|0.0001
95695856|NCT03483506|191361944|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|8.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|50.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.88|11.82|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||11.82|5.88|
95695857|NCT03483506|191361946|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|62.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.08|74.14|||ANOVA||"Standard deviation is actually intra individual geometric coefficient of variation. BI 1467335 tab arm is the numerator, while BI 1467335 (C-14) iv arm is the denominator."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the primary PK endpoints was an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. The model included effects accounting for 'subject' and 'formulation' as sources of variation; 'subject' was considered as a random effect, whereas 'formulation' was considered as a fixed effect.||74.14|52.08|
95695858|NCT00547378|191361962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified for center, was used to test the difference in responder rates between the 2 groups||||||0.016
95695859|NCT02768194|191361975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.25||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, participant as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.25|-0.46|0.5512
95695860|NCT02768194|191361975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.35||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.35|-0.36|0.9671
95695861|NCT02768194|191361975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.26||From the MMRM model with change from pre-dose as response, subject as a random effect; and treatment, period, day, location of sample in mouth (left or right) and treatment×day interaction as fixed effects; pre-dose mean SEM score as covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favours the first named treatment.|||0.26|-0.46|0.5830
95695862|NCT00242385|191361979|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-35d divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.002||||||||1.002|0.858|
95695863|NCT00242385|191361980|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To establish bioequivalence in AUC 0-infinity divided by the dose administered with a type I error of 5% the calculated two-sided 90% confidence interval were to be contained completely in the margins of equivalence defined as 80% to 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Means|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.855|1.021||||||||1.021|0.855|
95695864|NCT02121756|191361992|OTHER|The sCD14 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD14||||||0.822|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8220
95695865|NCT02121756|191361993|OTHER|The sCD163 is measured in ng/ml and the median change is shown in ng/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma sCD163.||||||0.0869|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0869
95695866|NCT02121756|191361994|OTHER|The IL-6 is measured in pg/ml and the median change is shown in pg/ml. the linear regression for the between arm comparison of baseline to week 12 change was performed using log10 transformed plasma IL-6.||||||0.5027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5027
95695867|NCT02121756|191361995|OTHER|||||||0.4548|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4548
95695868|NCT02121756|191361997|OTHER|||||||0.7556|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7556
95695869|NCT02121756|191361998|OTHER|||||||0.2075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2075
95695870|NCT02121756|191361999|OTHER|||||||0.0315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0315
95695871|NCT02121756|191362000|OTHER|||||||0.7376|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7376
95695872|NCT02121756|191362001|OTHER|||||||0.2343|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2343
95695873|NCT02121756|191362002|OTHER|||||||0.7598|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7598
95695874|NCT02121756|191362003|OTHER|||||||0.983|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9830
95695875|NCT02121756|191362004|OTHER|||||||0.3317|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3317
95695876|NCT02121756|191362005|OTHER|||||||0.6121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6121
95695877|NCT02121756|191362006|OTHER|||||||0.562|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5620
95695878|NCT05027516|191362007|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.05||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.83|||Permutation testing|||||1.83|0.55|0.1026
95695879|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.12||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.19|||Permutation testing|||For aminoglycosides||2.19|0.47|1
95695880|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.44|||Permutation testing|||For betalactams||1.44|0.69|1
95695881|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|3.79||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|20.15|||Permutation testing|||For bacitracin||20.15|0.05|1
95695882|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|0.83||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.91|||Permutation testing|||For glycopeptides||1.91|0|1
95695883|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.15|||Permutation testing|||For trimethoprim||3.15|0.32|1
95695884|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|2.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|14.64|||Permutation testing|||For cationic antimicrobial peptides||14.64|0.07|1
95695885|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.34|||Permutation testing|||For mupirocin||5.34|0|1
95695886|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.22|||Permutation testing|||For metronidazole||3.22|0|1
95695887|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|6.44||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|46.02|||Permutation testing|||For fluoroquinolones||46.02|0.02|1
95695888|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|10.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|148.86|||Permutation testing|||For sulfonamides||148.86|0.01|1
95695889|NCT05027516|191362008|SUPERIORITY||Ratio|1.01||||0.5621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Permutation testing|||For tetracyclines||1.27|0.79|0.5621
95695890|NCT05027516|191362009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.196
95695891|NCT05027516|191362009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For streptococci||||0.568
95695892|NCT05027516|191362009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.978|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.978
95695893|NCT05027516|191362009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||For Neisseria||||0.184
95695894|NCT01536119|191362010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.38|||Chi-squared|||"Power analysis was conducted to a 15 % increase in exclusive breastfeeding rates (from 52% to 67%) with 80% power and an alpha of 0.05. A 25% attrition rate waas added. 107 couples were needed per group. Intention to treat analysis conducted.~Exclusive breastfeeding at 12 weeks"||1.38|0.91|0.27
95695895|NCT01536119|191362011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.09||95.0|0.98|1.44|||Chi-squared|||||1.44|0.98|0.09
95695896|NCT01536119|191362012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.06||95.0|1.0|1.13|||Fisher Exact|||||1.13|1.00|0.06
95695897|NCT01536119|191362013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.02||95.0|1.01|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|1.01|0.02
95695898|NCT01536119|191362014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Brief scale used||||0.25
95695899|NCT01536119|191362015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95695900|NCT01536119|191362016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.12
95695901|NCT01536119|191362017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95695902|NCT01536119|191362018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95695903|NCT01536119|191362019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95695904|NCT03655717|191362036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.259|0.184||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.184|-0.259|0.94
95729399|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.8|-0.0|0.0690
95695905|NCT03655717|191362036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.206||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.421|0.386||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.386|-0.421|0.94
95695906|NCT03655717|191362036|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.281||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.535|0.568||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.568|-0.535|0.94
95695907|NCT03655717|191362037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.057||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for dronabinol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with dronabinol (i.e., a main effect for dronabinol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.057|-0.384|0.94
95695908|NCT03655717|191362037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.237||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for ethanol conditions (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with ethanol (i.e., a main effect for ethanol dose), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.237|-0.588|0.94
95695909|NCT03655717|191362037|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.276||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.354|0.728||The p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method across the two primary outcome measures and six contrasts. Effects were deemed significant for p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Estimates for p-values were obtained via a non-parametric resampling approach randomly shuffling condition and refitting the data 10,000 times.|Estimate is the mean difference in average HbO level between pre-dose scans and post-dose scans for the dronabinol + ethanol condition (positive values denote higher HbO levels for post-dronabinol+ethanol scans).|The mean difference in average HbO levels (converted to z-scores) between the pre and post-dose scans for conditions where a participant was dosed with both dronabinol and ethanol (i.e., the interaction between dronabinol and ethanol doses), estimated via a linear model with with a subject-varying intercept and covariates for (a) overall differences between pre and post-dose scans and (b) visit order.||0.728|-0.354|0.94
95695910|NCT02365584|191362038|SUPERIORITY|"The assumptions required for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were to be tested as follows:~* The equality of variances was to verified using the Levene's test. If it was significant AUC values were to be properly transformed.~* The linear relationship of AUC with the basal total score within treatment group was to be tested by a regression analysis.~* The parallelism of the regression lines between groups and the slope non zero value with the appropriate F tests."|Adjusted LS Mean Difference|-11.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.7|=|0.5396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0|25.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the AUC was the dependent and the independent was the baseline ESAS total score.||25|-47|=0.5396
95695911|NCT02757092|191362110|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695912|NCT02757092|191362111|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695913|NCT02757092|191362112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695914|NCT02757092|191362113|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695915|NCT02757092|191362114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695916|NCT02757092|191362115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695917|NCT02757092|191362116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695918|NCT02757092|191362117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695919|NCT02757092|191362118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695920|NCT02757092|191362119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695921|NCT02757092|191362120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695922|NCT02757092|191362121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range depending on the nature and distribution of the variables||||0.05
95695923|NCT02757092|191362122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695924|NCT02757092|191362123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695925|NCT02757092|191362124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695926|NCT02757092|191362125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695927|NCT02757092|191362127|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695928|NCT02757092|191362128|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695929|NCT02757092|191362129|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695930|NCT02757092|191362130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695931|NCT02757092|191362131|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695932|NCT02757092|191362132|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695933|NCT02757092|191362133|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695934|NCT02757092|191362134|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||null hypothesis||||<0.05
95695935|NCT02757092|191362136|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695936|NCT02757092|191362137|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695937|NCT02757092|191362138|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95695938|NCT00751179|191362148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
95695939|NCT00751179|191362149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
95695940|NCT00751179|191362151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
95695941|NCT00751179|191362153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Treatment comparison was between the change from baseline in potassium level post-rocuronium dose versus post-succinylcholine dose, using a one way ANOVA model, with treatment as the term in the model.||||<0.0001
95695942|NCT01517412|191362159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error: non-inferiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day versus lixisenatide prior to breakfast was tested first. If non-inferiority was established, then a test of superiority of lixisenatide prior to the main meal of the day over lixisenatide prior to breakfast was to be performed. The non-inferiority was assessed using upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI at a level of ≤0.4%.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.067|0.242|||||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.||0.242|-0.067|
95695943|NCT01517412|191362159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA||Lixisenatide Main Meal vs Lixisenatide Breakfast|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0%, ≥8.0%), randomization strata of main meal of the day and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate. A step-down procedure was used to control the type I error. The superiority was assessed by comparing the p-value at significance level = 0.05.||||0.2664
95695944|NCT01253187|191362169|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|106.03||||||90.0|98.86|113.72||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.72|98.86|
95695945|NCT01253187|191362170|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|103.47||||||90.0|99.16|107.98||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|38 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.98|99.16|
95695946|NCT01253187|191362171|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|105.24||||||90.0|97.3|113.83||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||113.83|97.30|
95695947|NCT01253187|191362172|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.48||||||90.0|97.28|103.79||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|33 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 35 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.79|97.28|
95729400|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Walking ability: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0816
95695948|NCT01253187|191362173|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|91.24|109.34||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||109.34|91.24|
95695949|NCT01253187|191362174|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|98.16||||||90.0|93.95|102.57||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|39 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 39 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) and 40 (Metafolin) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||102.57|93.95|
95695950|NCT01253187|191362175|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.28||||||90.0|93.15|107.95||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||107.95|93.15|
95695951|NCT01253187|191362176|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|99.88||||||90.0|95.38|104.58||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / Metafolin\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|40 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE and all 40 volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||104.58|95.38|
95695952|NCT01253187|191362178|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 6 volunteers per sequence was considered sufficient to establish bioequivalence, id est the 90%-confidence interval for the mean ratio is located completely within the equivalence interval limits of 80% and 125%.|mean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|97.65|103.02||The equivalence test was done using a 90% confidence interval, no p-value was to be calculated.|ANOVA||Point estimate for the ratio \[(EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) / YAZ\]. Bioequivalence is established if the 90% confidence interval fall within the equivalence interval limits of 80-125%|32 volunteers qualified for statistical analysis of BE whereas all 34 (YAZ) and 36 (EE20/DRSP/L-5-MTHF Ca) volunteers with valid concentration time profiles were included in the pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis||103.02|97.65|
95695953|NCT03004469|191362212|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.8|21.3|||Mixed linear model|||||21.3|5.8|<.001
95695954|NCT03004469|191362213|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|19.1|||Mixed linear model|||||19.1|6.5|<.001
95695955|NCT03004469|191362214|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4057||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.202|0.3971|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3971|-1.2020|0.322
95695956|NCT03004469|191362214|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47799||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2184|1.6657|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||1.6657|-0.2184|0.131
95695957|NCT03004469|191362215|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.2|-0.3|0.569
95695958|NCT03004469|191362215|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.1|-0.4|0.129
95695959|NCT03004469|191362216|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.3|-0.2|0.708
95695960|NCT03004469|191362216|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.7|0.2|<.001
95695961|NCT03004469|191362217|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 12||0.1|-0.3|0.179
95695962|NCT03004469|191362217|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Week 24||0.4|-0.1|0.262
95695963|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 4||0.3|-3.7|0.103
95695964|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 8||1.5|-2.8|0.545
95695965|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 12||1.8|-2.2|0.842
95695966|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Erectile Function Score, Week 24||1.2|-2.8|0.449
95695967|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 4||0.9|-0.2|0.272
95695968|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 8||0.8|-0.7|0.918
95695969|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 12||1.1|-0.1|0.078
95695970|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Orgasmic Function Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.9|0.593
95695971|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 4||0.2|-0.7|0.295
95695972|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 8||0.4|-0.5|0.926
95695973|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 12||0.1|-0.7|0.183
95695974|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Sexual Desire Score, Week 24||0.5|-0.4|0.981
95695975|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.1|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 4||-0.1|-2.7|0.041
95695976|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.9|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.9|-1.7|0.562
95695977|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 12||1.0|-1.6|0.642
95695978|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Intercourse Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-2.2|0.156
95695979|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 4||0.5|-0.6|0.824
95695980|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 8||0.7|-0.5|0.713
95695981|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 12||0.6|-0.6|0.993
95695982|NCT03004469|191362218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Mixed linear model|||Statistical Analysis details presented here is for Overall Satisfaction Score, Week 24||0.4|-0.8|0.550
95695983|NCT00423735|191362228|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|2-sided test||||||0.99
95695984|NCT01089582|191362230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors response on response rate: primary diagnosis severity. Participants were classified as responders if they were very much improved or much improved from baseline.||||0.0023
95695985|NCT01089582|191362231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: significant medical history. Participants were classified as responders if they were much improved or improved from baseline.||||0.0382
95695986|NCT01089582|191362232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1805|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.1805
95695987|NCT01089582|191362232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by participant.||||<0.0001
95695988|NCT01089582|191362232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
95695989|NCT01089582|191362233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: primary diagnosis severity.||||0.0137
95695990|NCT01089582|191362233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: baseline QoL-AD score as assessed by caregiver.||||<0.0001
95695991|NCT01089582|191362233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||The effect of possible prognostic factors on response: center number.||||<0.0001
95695992|NCT04069156|191362249|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary end point assessing non-inferiority of placebo was considered met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the difference in the composite success rate between treatment arms (placebo minus aspirin) was greater than the non-inferiority margin (-10%) by the Farrington-Manning test at 12-months in the principal analysis population.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-1.6||||Farrington-Manning risk difference||||||-1.6|<0.0001
95695993|NCT02108600|191362285|OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95695994|NCT01295580|191362290|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|"This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)~Alpha inflation was controlled using pre-planned stepwise hypotheses testing (1) WOMAC Pain over 18 weeks then (2) over 26 weeks, (3) WOMAC Physical Function over 18 weeks then (4) over 26 weeks, (5) Subject Global Assessment over 18 weeks then (6) over 26 weeks, (7) WOMAC Knee Stiffness over 18 weeks then (8) over 26 weeks."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.39||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the first step WOMAC pain over 18 week pain subscale primary analyses.||The second step is to test Durolane WOMAC pain non-inferior to Artz WOMAC pain over 26 weeks.||"Primary Hypothesis:~Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +1.6 units~Power Calculations:~Assume the over 18 weeks difference is 0mm, SD 20mm (5 on the Likert scale), 90% power, 2-sided test alpha 5%, and a 8mm non-inferiority margin (1.6 on the Likert scale), the sample size required is 132 subjects per group adjusted to 175 to hold power constant due to loss to follow-up and dropout."||0.39|-0.58|
95695995|NCT01295580|191362291|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +1.6 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the pain subscale (range 0-20)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.37||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first pain over 18 weeks then pain over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week pain subscale results.||The third ordered test is Durolane WOMAC physical function subscale non-inferior to Artz WOMAC physical function subscale over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +1.6 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +1.6 units||0.37|-0.56|
95695996|NCT01295580|191362292|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.51||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week physical function results.||The fourth step is to test Durolane WOMAC physical function non-inferior to Artz physical function over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +5.44 units||0.51|-1.81|
95695997|NCT01295580|191362293|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +5.44 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the physical function subscale (range 0-68).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|0.53||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week physical function subscale results.||The fifth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz global assessment over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +5.44 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +5.44 units||0.53|-1.69|
95695998|NCT01295580|191362294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.45||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week subject global assessment results.||The sixth step is to test Durolane subject global assessment non-inferior to Artz subject global assessment over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.45|-0.15|
95695999|NCT01295580|191362295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of -0.8 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the subject global assessment (range 0-10). Note that because the assessment interpretation is reversed as compared to the WOMAC assessments the lower bound of the 95%CI is compared to the -0.8 non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.43||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week subject global assessment results.||The seventh step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 18 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≤ -0.8 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \> -0.8 units||0.43|-0.16|
95696000|NCT01295580|191362296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of +0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.05||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 18 week knee stiffness subscale results.||The eight and last step is to test Durolane WOMAC knee stiffness non-inferior to Artz WOMAC knee stiffness over 26 weeks.||Ho: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[18\] - μArtz\[18\] \< +0.64 units||0.05|-0.33|
95729401|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.1|-0.7|0.1174
95729402|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9250
95696001|NCT01295580|191362297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This is a non-inferiority test. The non-inferiority margin of 0.64 units corresponds to an 8% margin on the knee stiffness subscale (range 0-8).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.03||Alpha inflation due to multiple testing was controlled using preplanned ordered stepwise hypothesis testing first over 18 weeks then over 26 weeks. This section reports the over 26 week knee stiffness subscale results.||This is the eighth and last pre-planned hypothesis test.||Ho: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] ≥ +0.64 units Ha: μDUR\[26\] - μArtz\[26\] \< +0.64 units||0.03|-0.33|
95696002|NCT05822830|191362305|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|-4.9||||||||-4.9|-8.1|
95696003|NCT05822830|191362310|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|-3.6||||||||-3.6|-7.1|
95696004|NCT05822830|191362312|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.9||||||||-1.9|-3.2|
95696005|NCT05822830|191362313|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.7||||||||-4.7|-8.0|
95696006|NCT05388656|191362314|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.09
95696007|NCT05388656|191362315|OTHER|||||||0.0018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0018
95696008|NCT05388656|191362316|OTHER|||||||0.0108|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0108
95696009|NCT00807846|191362327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|2.76|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was based on 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in mean change from baseline in SBP. Change from Baseline in BP was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with model terms for treatment with baseline height, baseline weight, baseline age, and baseline SBP as covariates. No formal hypothesis testing was applied to the primary analysis.||2.76|-0.56|0.274
95696010|NCT00807846|191362328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.088||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|2.57|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||2.57|-0.39|0.148
95696011|NCT00807846|191362329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.837||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|3.46|||ANCOVA|||"For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in blood pressure was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates.~Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05."||3.46|0.21|0.027
95696012|NCT00807846|191362330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.207||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|0.26|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||0.26|-2.67|0.106
95696013|NCT00807846|191362331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.74|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline BP as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.74|-1.30|0.776
95696014|NCT00807846|191362332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|1.33|||ANCOVA|||For secondary analyses, 95% CIs for the differences across treatment groups (celecoxib - naproxen) in the mean change from baseline were generated. The change from baseline in BP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline height, weight, age and baseline blood pressure as covariates. Secondary analyses were conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||1.33|-1.69|0.815
95696015|NCT00807846|191362333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.033||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|8.82|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||8.82|-2.76|0.303
95696016|NCT00807846|191362334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.202|0.079|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of subjects with at least a 30% improvement in Parent/Guardian's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.079|-0.202|0.392
95696017|NCT00807846|191362335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.402||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.69|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6 was analyzed using ANCOVA model as well with treatment and Baseline value as a covariate. The LS mean change from Baseline was compared between treatment groups and an appropriate p-value and 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups was generated. This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05.||5.69|-6.50|0.897
95696018|NCT00807846|191362336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.102||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.257|0.053|||Chi-squared||Mean Difference (Final Values) indicates difference in incidence (proportion) between treatments.|The number of participants with at least a 30% improvement in participant's Global Assessment of Overall Well-Being was compared between the two treatment groups using a chi-square test. A 95% CI for the difference in incidence between groups was also computed.||0.053|-0.257|0.200
95696019|NCT02491073|191362346|OTHER||geometric mean ratio|1.05||||1.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.09|||geometric mean ration||The parameter dispersion type:Geometric coefficient of variation Dispersion Value: FT4: 0.220|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.09|0.98|1.05
95696020|NCT02491073|191362346|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.22|||Geometric Mean Ratio||parameter dispersion type: Geometric Coefficient of Variation Dispersion Value : FT3: 0.178|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.22|1.09|
95696021|NCT02491073|191362347|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.03|||||Parameter dispersion type: geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value 0.024|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.01|
95696022|NCT02491073|191362347|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.04|||||parameter dispersion value - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.020|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.03|
95696023|NCT02491073|191362347|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.06|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient variation dispersion value - 0.021|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.06|1.05|
95696024|NCT02491073|191362347|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type -geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.040|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|0.99|
95696025|NCT02491073|191362347|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geotmetric mean ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.03|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.03|1.00|
95696026|NCT02491073|191362347|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.04|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.04|1.02|
95696027|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
95696028|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
95696029|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
95696030|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.041|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator.|1.02|0.99|
95729403|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.8555
95696031|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|Slope|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.02|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.033|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.02|1.00|
95696032|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.036|TT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.99|
95696033|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.047|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
95696034|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.043|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|0.98|
95696035|NCT02491073|191362348|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.0|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.048|TT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.00|0.97|
95696036|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.06|1.16|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.148|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.16|1.06|
95696037|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.2|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.202|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.20|1.07|
95729404|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.1|0.0956
95696038|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.18|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.18|1.04|
95696039|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.1|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.179|FT4|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator.|1.10|0.99|
95696040|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.178|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.15|
95696041|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.33|1.52|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.224|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.52|1.33|
95696042|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.203|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.12|
95696043|NCT02491073|191362349|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|1.27|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.215|FT3|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the automated kit assay represent the numerator; free thyroid hormone levels as measured by the optimized equilibrium dialysis method represent the denominator|1.27|1.11|
95696044|NCT02491073|191362350|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value -0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
95696045|NCT02491073|191362350|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH|In each geometric mean ratio estimate, thyroid hormone levels in the spiked serum samples (LS or MS or HS) represent the numerator; thyroid hormone levels in non-spiked serum samples (NS) represent the denominator|1.01|1.00|
95729405|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Normal work: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.7|-0.1|0.1659
95696046|NCT02491073|191362350|OTHER|There is no hypothesis testing in this study. The sample size was determined outside of statistical considerations; it was required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the New Drug Application 022416 Approval Letter issued on 08 November 2013 for PMR 2099-9.|geometric mean ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.01|||||parameter dispersion type - geometric coefficient of variation dispersion value - 0.018|TSH||1.01|1.00|
95696047|NCT01008995|191362366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The study was designed to maintain a Type I error of 0.05 or less for the primary analysis.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo for the primary endpoint at a significance level of 0.05. Power calculations were based on two sample size assumptions: 220 (1:1 ratio) and 320 participants (1:1 ratio). Simulation studies evaluated the power to detect a treatment difference between ustekinumab 45 mg group and placebo using a CMH test stratified by baseline weight \[\<=65 kg vs \> 65 kg). The power was \>99% for both sample size assumptions.||||<0.001
95696048|NCT01008995|191362367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight \[≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg)\].||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95696049|NCT01008995|191362368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||No multiplicity adjustment was made and nominal p-value was reported.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance on van der Waerden normal scores (Conover, 1980) with treatment and baseline weight (≤ 65kg vs \> 65 kg) as factors in the model.||Null Hypothesis: No difference between ustekinumab 45 mg and placebo at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95696050|NCT00127062|191362369|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95696051|NCT00127062|191362369|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95696052|NCT00751114|191362393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.42||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed, with the HbA1c change from baseline to last on-treatment measurement as dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect and the corresponding baseline HbA1c value as covariate|ANCOVA||Difference (Insulin glargine - Sitagliptin)|"H0: no difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~H1: difference between insulin glargine mean HbA1c change and sitagliptin mean HbA1c change~Assuming:~* Estimated standard deviation of the change in HbA1c of 1.3%~* Expected mean difference to be detected of 0.4%~* Alpha risk of 5% (two-sided)~* Power of 90%~* Equal sample size in each treatment group (1:1 randomization)~A total number of 446 evaluable patients (223 in each group) was required"||-0.42|-0.77|<0.0001
95696053|NCT00838916|191362403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-0.04|
95696054|NCT00838916|191362403|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 0.3%||||||0.0086||||||p-value is for non-inferiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0086
95696055|NCT00838916|191362403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1463||||||p-value is for superiority testing of albiglutide versus insulin glargine|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a two-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least square means (albiglutide - insulin glargine) is equal to zero.||||||0.1463
95696056|NCT01927419|191362414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.4|61.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|61.8|31.4|
95696057|NCT01927419|191362414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.79|52.55|||Fisher Exact|||||52.55|3.79|
95696058|NCT01927419|191362415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.59|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.59|0.21|
95696059|NCT01927419|191362416|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|64.8|||Fisher Exact||Difference of ORR||Exact 95% CI for difference in ORR uses Newcombe's method|64.8|8.2|
95696060|NCT01927419|191362416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|511.89|||Fisher Exact|||||511.89|1.07|
95696061|NCT01927419|191362417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97|||Unstratified Cox proportional hazard||Nivolumab + Ipilimumab over Ipilimumab|||0.97|0.14|
95696062|NCT01511107|191362478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.039|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|-0.091||||||The null hypothesis that amoxicillin-clavulanate 5 days, placebo 5 days (reduced duration) is inferior to amoxicillin-clavulanate 10 days (standard duration) is tested against the alternative that reduced duration treatment is noninferior. Assuming failure rates of 15% and 25% in the standard and reduced duration groups, respectively, a 2-sided significance level of .05 and 10% attrition, it was calculated that 300 participants per group, would provide power of 95% for finding inferiority.||-.091|-.253|
95696063|NCT01511107|191362479|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A noninferiority margin of 10% was used. Non-inferiority can be established by placing a confidence interval on the difference in the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 10 day regimen and the proportion of TFs in subjects randomized to the 5 day regimen, and determining whether the lower 95% confidence bound is greater than -10%.|Difference between proportions|-0.096|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.053|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.209|0.016||||||||.016|-.209|
95696064|NCT01511107|191362480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are negative for AOM pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.45
95729406|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.0|-0.8|0.0468
95917947|NCT00180713|191795169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.86
95696065|NCT01511107|191362481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is negative for AOM pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.95
95696066|NCT01511107|191362482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.59
95729407|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.1|-0.7|0.1083
95696067|NCT01511107|191362483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive only for one or more susceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||>0.99
95696068|NCT01511107|191362484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children whose NP isolates at enrollment are positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens for whom the NP culture at day 12-14 yields a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.47
95696069|NCT01511107|191362485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: For AOM recurrences with a NP culture at onset that is positive for one or more nonsusceptible pathogens, there is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible pathogen.||||0.05
95696070|NCT01511107|191362486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for the culture result at enrollment.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of subjects whose NP isolates at enrollment are pathogen-negative or positive only for at least one susceptible pathogen who become colonized with penicillin non-susceptible pathogens at any time over the course of follow-up||||0.58
95696071|NCT01511107|191362487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Generalized estimating equations|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in the proportion of 6 week follow-up, non-illness visits at which a penicillin-nonsusceptible pathogen is recovered.||||0.74
95696072|NCT01511107|191362488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible S pn isolate.||||0.72
95696073|NCT01511107|191362489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for S pn susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.05
95696074|NCT01511107|191362490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the index episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the proportion of NP cultures at Day 12-14 that yield a nonsusceptible H flu isolate.||||0.47
95696075|NCT01511107|191362491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for H flu susceptibility at onset of the AOM recurrence.||||||0.69
95696076|NCT01511107|191362492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children followed greater than 60 days having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.16
95696077|NCT01511107|191362493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children completing the study having at least one AOM relapse or recurrence within the entire respiratory season.||||0.32
95696078|NCT01511107|191362494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within 60 days of enrollment.||||0.23
95696079|NCT01511107|191362495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Regression, Poisson|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the rate of recurrences/relapses within the entire respiratory season.||||0.22
95696080|NCT01511107|191362496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables and for length of follow-up.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the mean number of days a systemic antibiotic was received during the respiratory season.||||<.001
95696081|NCT01511107|191362497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Generalized estimating equations|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, episode, day of the diary and AOM-SOS score at the episode.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups regarding the symptom burden as measured by the respective mean scores over time.||||0.07
95729408|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.0|-0.8|0.0505
95917948|NCT00180713|191795170|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was performed by intention to treat at 6 months and per protocol at 12 months. Missing variables were replaced with medians or means (for variables missing at baseline) or with expected variables calculated on the percentage change between baseline and 24 weeks observed for the group (placebo or statin) as a whole (a technique called imputation). Missing variables accounted for less than 5% of the data and there were no missing CMR data at baseline.||||0.4
95917949|NCT00180713|191795171|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.041
95917950|NCT00180713|191795172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.26
95917951|NCT02041923|191795208|EQUIVALENCE|A t-test was conducted to evaluate equivalency.|Mean Difference (Net)|46.3|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95917952|NCT00309608|191795210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.95|-0.39||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.39|-0.95|<0.0001
95729409|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.5|-0.3|0.6993
95917953|NCT00309608|191795210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.01|-0.44||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.44|-1.01|<0.0001
95917954|NCT00309608|191795210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0055||95.0|-0.68|-0.12||There was no adjustment for multiple testing, however a hierarchy approach to control for the Type-I error was used. If the 10mg was not successful, any analysis of the 5mg will be descriptive, and similarly for the next step for the 1mg.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)"||-0.12|-0.68|0.0055
95729410|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Relations with other people: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.4|-0.4|0.9781
95696082|NCT01511107|191362498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom PDD was reported.||||0.70
95696083|NCT01511107|191362499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Regression, Logistic|The p-value is adjusted for site \& the stratification variables, namely age group \& exposure or nonexposure to ≥3 children for ≥10 hours per week.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two groups in the proportion of children for whom diaper dermatitis was reported.||||0.86
95696084|NCT03675737|191362505|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.87||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.87|0.70|<0.0001
95696085|NCT03675737|191362506|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.84||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.84|0.65|<0.0001
95696086|NCT03675737|191362507|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.79||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.79|0.53|<0.0001
95696087|NCT03675737|191362508|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.85|0.67|<0.0001
95696088|NCT03675737|191362509|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.82||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.82|0.63|<0.0001
95696089|NCT03675737|191362510|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.76||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||0.76|0.51|<0.0001
95696090|NCT03675737|191362511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.3||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|14.1||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1) status (Combined Positive Score \[CPS\] \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, PD-L1 status (CPS \<1 versus CPS ≥1), and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||14.1|4.4|0.00009
95696091|NCT03675737|191362512|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|9.5||||0.00041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|15.0||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||15.0|3.9|0.00041
95696092|NCT03675737|191362513|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|17.5||||2e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.3|25.5||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region and chemotherapy regimen with small strata collapsed.|||25.5|9.3|0.00002
95696093|NCT00975195|191362519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Upper limit of 95% confidence interval (CI) \<1.2 indicates non-inferiority of Fluticasone withdrawal compared with Fluticasone maintenance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.3497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|1.189||Two-sided p-value to test superiority of fluticasone maintenance over fluticasone withdrawal if non-inferiority shown.|Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.189|0.941|0.3497
95696094|NCT00975195|191362520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4441
95696095|NCT00975195|191362521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2269|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2269
95729411|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0154
95696096|NCT00975195|191362522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.202||||0.0849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.975|1.481|||Chi-squared|Wald's chi-square test|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.481|0.975|0.0849
95696097|NCT00975195|191362523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.2291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.45|||Regression, Negative Binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.45|0.92|0.2291
95696098|NCT00975195|191362524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2083
95696099|NCT00975195|191362525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.035||||0.5562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|1.16|||Chi-squared|||||1.160|0.923|0.5562
95696100|NCT00975195|191362526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.18|||Regression, Negative binomial|Adjusted for log time at risk using log link function|Ratio calculated as fluticasone withdrawal divided by fluticasone maintenance|||1.18|0.93|0.4342
95696101|NCT00975195|191362527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3155
95696102|NCT00975195|191362529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0134||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.017|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.017|-0.069|0.0014
95696103|NCT00975195|191362530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.131|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.131|-0.004|0.0632
95696104|NCT00975195|191362531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.8137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.096|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.096|-0.122|0.8137
95696105|NCT00975195|191362532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|2.69|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.69|-9.74|0.2663
95696106|NCT00975195|191362533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.27|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.27|0.05|0.0033
95696107|NCT00975195|191362534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.499||0.4914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|1.91|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.91|-3.98|0.4914
95696108|NCT00975195|191362535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.669||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|1.71|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||1.71|-4.84|0.3490
95696109|NCT00975195|191362536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|3.04|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||3.04|-2.77|0.9262
95696110|NCT00975195|191362537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.716||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.01|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||6.01|-0.73|0.1241
95696111|NCT00975195|191362538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0123|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|-0.024|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.024|-0.073|<0.0001
95696112|NCT00975195|191362539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0255||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.006|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||0.006|-0.094|0.0855
95696113|NCT00975195|191362540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.249|-0.073|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.073|-0.249|0.0004
95696114|NCT00975195|191362541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.728||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.4|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.40|-0.46|0.1838
95917955|NCT00309608|191795210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.46|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Placebo vs. Linagliptin 10 mg~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)."||-0.46|-0.99|<0.0001
95917956|NCT00309608|191795210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.48|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.48|-1.02|<0.0001
95917957|NCT00309608|191795210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0049||95.0|-0.66|-0.12|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||"Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo~Analysis additionally adjusted for previous anti-diabetic medication.~Missing endpoints after 12 weeks of treatment were replaced using last observation carried forward (LOCF)."||-0.12|-0.66|0.0049
95917958|NCT00309608|191795211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.575||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.367|145.781|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 10 mg vs. Placebo||145.781|2.367|0.0054
95917959|NCT00309608|191795211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.715||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.439|95.351|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Placebo||95.351|1.439|0.0214
95917960|NCT00309608|191795211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.776||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.586|102.895|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||102.895|1.586|0.0167
95917961|NCT00309608|191795211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.36||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.063|242.028|||Regression, Logistic|||Glimepiride vs. Placebo||242.028|4.063|0.0010
95917962|NCT00309608|191795212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-41.4|-17.5|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 10mg vs. Placebo||-17.5|-41.4|<0.0001
95917963|NCT00309608|191795212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.16|<|0.0001||95.0|-47.0|-22.8|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Placebo||-22.8|-47.0|<0.0001
95917964|NCT00309608|191795212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.0022||95.0|-31.0|-6.87|||Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 1 mg vs. Placebo||-6.87|-31.0|0.0022
95917965|NCT01807221|191795248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.8771|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|2.3|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||2.3|-14.9|0.8771
95917966|NCT01807221|191795248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.7||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.4|4.0|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||4|-13.4|0.7945
95917967|NCT01807221|191795248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.5|8.8|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||8.8|-8.5|0.5
95917968|NCT01807221|191795248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4225|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1|10.2|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearsonconfidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||10.2|-7.1|0.4225
95696115|NCT00975195|191362542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.702||0.0551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|2.72|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.72|-0.03|0.0551
95917969|NCT01807221|191795248|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|5.7|||Chi-squared|||Estimates and two-sided 90% confidence intervals are provided for each treatment group and for the treatment differences πBi - πC. Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were calculated for each treatment group, while for treatment differences the exact unconditional confidence limits were calculated.||5.7|-11.7|0.6865
95917970|NCT00900627|191795260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximum Tolerated Dose|40.0|||||||||||||Dosing started at 160mg. Based on the data seen, 240mg with 33% patients with DLTs, 120mg with 50% patients with DLTs, 80mg with 33% of patients with DLTs and 40mg with 0% patients with DLTs, 40mg was deemed the maximum tolerated dose.|A tolerated dose was defined as one where ≤25% of the patients experienced a DLT. If a dose was tolerated, an increased dose was to be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. A non-tolerated dose was defined as one where \>25% of the patients experience a DLT. If a dose was non tolerated, a decreased/intermediate dose could be investigated in another group of 3-6 evaluable patients. The maximum tolerated dose was determined as the maximum dose level that was defined as tolerated.||||
95917971|NCT00900627|191795261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox Proportional Hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||1.52|0.76|0.679
95696116|NCT00975195|191362543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.845||0.4804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|2.25|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.25|-1.06|0.4804
95696117|NCT00975195|191362544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.614||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|2.43|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||2.43|0.02|0.0467
95696118|NCT00975195|191362545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.02|||Restricted maximum likelihood|Repeated measures restricted maximum likelihood|Difference calculated as fluticasone withdrawal minus fluticasone maintenance|Week 52 visit||-0.02|-0.21|0.0223
95696119|NCT01179347|191362557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.092||95.0|-0.27|3.55||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing procedure was applied for both co-primary endpoints to maintain the overall alpha level. If and only if statistical superiority of the Tio R5 qd compared to Placebo in FEV1 AUC0-4h was demonstrated at the 1 sided alpha level of 0.025, confirmatory comparison in the second co-primary endpoint, at the same alpha level of 0.025 could be done .||3.55|-0.27|0.092
95696120|NCT01179347|191362558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15||95.0|-0.5|3.3||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|Hierarchical testing for co-primary endpoints, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful,||3.30|-0.50|0.15
95696121|NCT01179347|191362559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.23||95.0|-0.68|2.86||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||2.86|-0.68|0.23
95696122|NCT01179347|191362560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.19||95.0|-0.62|3.02||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||3.02|-0.62|0.19
95696123|NCT01179347|191362561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.62||95.0|-2.59|4.32||Two-sided p-value.|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based MMRM. Adjusted for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, age group, baseline and baseline-by-visit.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo.|||4.32|-2.59|0.62
95696124|NCT01179347|191362562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.84||95.0|0.453|2.633||Two-sided p-value.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for treatment, age group, baseline weight and baseline FEV1 percent predicted.|Tio R5 qd versus Placebo.|||2.633|0.453|0.84
95696125|NCT01337167|191362572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|9.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|14.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=1.0 μg/mL||14.83|4.83|<0.001
95696126|NCT01337167|191362572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
95696127|NCT01337167|191362572|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419-Ctrl)|4.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|8.14|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||Secondary Analysis: Non-inferiority for titer \>=0.15 μg/mL||8.14|2.23|<0.001
95696128|NCT01337167|191362573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|2.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.74|-0.35|<0.001
95696129|NCT01337167|191362574|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-3.84||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|0.66|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.66|-8.02|0.002
95696130|NCT01337167|191362575|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.74|-0.28|<0.001
95729412|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.0|-0.9|0.0731
95696131|NCT01337167|191362576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.60|-1.80|<0.001
95696132|NCT01337167|191362577|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-4.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-0.97|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||-0.97|-8.14|0.001
95696133|NCT01337167|191362578|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-2.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|2.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||2.23|-7.27|<0.001
95696134|NCT01337167|191362579|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|4.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.28|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||8.28|0.23|<0.001
95696135|NCT01337167|191362580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.59|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.59|0.85|<0.001
95696136|NCT01337167|191362580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
95696137|NCT01337167|191362581|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|1.42|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|-0.22|<0.001
95696138|NCT01337167|191362581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.54|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.54|<0.001
95696139|NCT01337167|191362582|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -5%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.41|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.41|-0.24|<0.001
95696140|NCT01337167|191362582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response Rate|100.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.53|100.0|||Clopper and Pearson|Acceptability requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI of the response rate is \>=90||||100.00|99.53|<0.001
95696141|NCT01337167|191362583|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.38|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.38|1.20|<0.001
95696142|NCT01337167|191362584|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.64||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.7|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.70|0.59|0.786
95696143|NCT01337167|191362585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.95|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.95|0.73|<0.001
95696144|NCT01337167|191362586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.42|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.42|1.15|<0.001
95696145|NCT01337167|191362587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.18|0.39|<0.001
95696146|NCT01337167|191362588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||4.78|-1.67|<0.001
95696147|NCT01337167|191362589|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|-0.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|3.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||3.10|-3.46|<0.001
95696148|NCT01337167|191362590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 95% CI of the response rate difference is \>= -10%|Response Rate Difference (V419 - Ctrl)|6.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.26|9.78|||Miettinen and Nurminen|Response rate, response rate difference and p-value were stratified by brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||9.78|3.26|<0.001
95696149|NCT01337167|191362591|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|1.52|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.52|1.28|<0.001
95696150|NCT01337167|191362592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.1|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.10|0.91|<0.001
95696151|NCT01337167|191362593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|0.78||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.89|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||0.89|0.68|0.014
95696152|NCT01337167|191362594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.78|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.78|1.41|<0.001
95696153|NCT01337167|191362595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|1.98|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.98|1.32|<0.001
95696154|NCT01337167|191362596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority requires that the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the GMC ratio is \>=0.67|GMC Ratio (V419/Control)|1.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.24|||ANCOVA|GMC, GMC ratio, and p-value were adjusted for post- and prevaccination titer, vaccination group, and brand of birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine||||1.24|0.83|<0.001
95696155|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \<38°C||-7.7|-18.4|
95696156|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.5|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||9.5|0.5|
95696157|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|11.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||11.2|2.8|
95696158|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.2|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, all routes \>=39.5°C||2.2|-0.6|
95696159|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|-7.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \<38°C||-7.7|-18.6|
95696160|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|10.8|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38°C and \<38.5°C||10.8|1.9|
95696161|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|10.7|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=38.5°C and \<39.5°C||10.7|2.4|
95696162|NCT01337167|191362600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.4|||||Mean Difference is V419 - Control. The 95% confidence intervals were based on the unstratified Miettinen and Nurminen method.|Estimated difference, rectal \>=39.5°C||2.4|-0.3|
95696163|NCT04172701|191362615|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
95696164|NCT04172701|191362616|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95696165|NCT04172701|191362617|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95696166|NCT04172701|191362618|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.475|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.308|1.663|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model.The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.663|1.308|<0.0001
95696167|NCT04172701|191362619|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.0003
95696168|NCT04172701|191362620|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.001
95696169|NCT04172701|191362621|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.145||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.059|1.237|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.237|1.059|0.0006
95696170|NCT04172701|191362622|OTHER|||||||0.00074|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.00074
95696171|NCT04172701|191362623|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||<0.0001
95696172|NCT04172701|191362624|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.601|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.404|1.826|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.826|1.404|<0.0001
95696173|NCT04172701|191362625|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95696174|NCT04172701|191362626|OTHER|||||||0.2875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2875
95696175|NCT04172701|191362627|OTHER|||||||0.4602|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4602
95696176|NCT04172701|191362628|OTHER|||||||0.0062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0062
95696177|NCT04172701|191362629|OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0002
95696178|NCT04172701|191362630|OTHER|||||||0.4907|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.4907
95696179|NCT04172701|191362631|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95696180|NCT04172701|191362632|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95696181|NCT04172701|191362633|OTHER|||||||0.543|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.543
95696182|NCT04172701|191362634|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.080
95696183|NCT04172701|191362635|OTHER|||||||0.363|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.363
95696184|NCT04172701|191362636|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95696185|NCT04172701|191362637|OTHER|||||||0.0494|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0494
95696186|NCT04172701|191362638|OTHER|||||||0.0091|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0091
95696187|NCT04172701|191362639|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95696188|NCT04172701|191362640|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95696189|NCT04172701|191362641|OTHER|||||||0.7298|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.7298
95696190|NCT04172701|191362642|OTHER|||||||0.0093|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0093
95696191|NCT04172701|191362643|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.0001
95696192|NCT04172701|191362644|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.104|1.255|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.255|1.104|<0.0001
95696193|NCT04172701|191362645|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.194||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.043|1.367|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.367|1.043|0.0103
95696194|NCT04172701|191362646|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.104||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.034|1.178|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.178|1.034|0.0030
95696195|NCT04172701|191362647|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.175|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.221|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.221|1.130|<0.0001
95696196|NCT04172701|191362648|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.236|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.346|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.346|1.134|<0.0001
95696197|NCT04172701|191362649|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.214||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.431|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.431|1.029|0.0212
95696198|NCT04172701|191362650|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.026||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.952|1.105|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.105|0.952|0.5024
95696199|NCT04172701|191362651|OTHER||Cost ratio|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.369|||Individual t-test or Wilcoxon test||cost ratio = cost of ICS/LABA divided by cost of LAMA|||1.369|1.243|<0.0001
95696200|NCT04172701|191362652|OTHER|||||||0.7198|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.7198
95696201|NCT04172701|191362653|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.072||||0.7341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.598|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.598|0.719|0.7341
95696202|NCT04172701|191362654|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.74
95696203|NCT04172701|191362655|OTHER|||||||0.9985|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.9985
95696204|NCT04172701|191362656|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.5097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.289|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.289|0.600|0.5097
95696205|NCT04172701|191362657|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.51
95696206|NCT04172701|191362658|OTHER|||||||0.6069|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.6069
95696207|NCT04172701|191362659|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.025||||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|1.49|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.490|0.705|0.8960
95696208|NCT04172701|191362660|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
95696209|NCT04172701|191362661|OTHER|||||||0.1354|||||||Individual log-linked Poisson model|||||||0.1354
95696210|NCT04172701|191362662|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.1158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.305|1.139|||Regression, Cox|||The Cox proportional hazards regression took into account the fact that individual matching (1:1) was performed by considering the exposed patient and his/her matched control as one stratum and including this as a stratum in the Cox proportional hazards model. The presented Hazard Ratio (HR) was estimated using the LAMA as a reference group.||1.139|0.305|0.1158
95696211|NCT04172701|191362663|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95696212|NCT02126670|191362664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.799
95729413|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||-0.1|-1.0|0.0259
95729414|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.5243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.6|-0.3|0.5243
95696213|NCT01975246|191362666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|-2.4|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline DBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-2.4|-5.3|<0.0001
95696214|NCT01975246|191362667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-3.1|||ANCOVA|Model includes baseline SBP as a linear covariate, and treatment and center as fixed effects.||The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied for missing data, where the value from the measurements at the closest preceding visit replaced the missing value.||-3.1|-7.6|<0.0001
95696215|NCT01975246|191362668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1|||<|0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|3.4|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression model includes treatment and center as fixed effects.||"The Non-completers considered failure (NCF) method was applied for missing data, where missing data due to early discontinuation will be replaced as failure up to the planned final visit to be reached by all patients."||3.4|1.2|<0.0051
95696216|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|0.99|
95696217|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||0.89|0.59|
95696218|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.44|1.96|
95696219|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.86|2.22|
95696220|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.75|1.10|
95696221|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.74|1.12|
95696222|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.24|1.59|
95696223|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||1.23|0.77|
95696224|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.86|1.61|
95696225|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.92|1.81|
95696226|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||2.79|1.42|
95729415|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.8488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Sleep: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.5|-0.4|0.8488
95729416|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs Pregabalin 150 mg BID||0.2|-0.7|0.2746
95729417|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.9349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.4|-0.4|0.9349
95729418|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Placebo vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.6|-0.3|0.5164
95696227|NCT01646398|191362669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.5.|GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS).||3.49|1.84|
95696228|NCT01646398|191362670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|26.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.3|34.0||||||Difference in proportions (13vPnC - 23vPS) expressed as a percentage presented along with exact, 2-sided 95%CI. Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 0.||34.0|19.3|
95696229|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.75||||||Serotype 1: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|0.99|
95696230|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||||||Serotype 3: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||0.89|0.59|
95696231|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|3.44||||||Serotype 4: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.44|1.96|
95696232|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|3.86||||||Serotype 5: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.86|2.22|
95696233|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.75||||||Serotype 6B: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.75|1.10|
95696234|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.74||||||Serotype 7F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.74|1.12|
95696235|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|3.24||||||Serotype 9V: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.24|1.59|
95696236|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||||||Serotype 14: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||1.23|0.77|
95729419|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg QD||0.7|-0.2|0.2382
95729420|NCT02146430|191429064|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Enjoyment of life: Pregabalin 150 mg BID vs DS-5565 15 mg BID||0.8|-0.0|0.0807
95729421|NCT02146430|191429065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.002|||ANCOVA|||||0.002|-0.091|0.0601
95729422|NCT02146430|191429065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8299
95696237|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|2.86||||||Serotype 18C: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.86|1.61|
95696238|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.92||||||Serotype 19A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.92|1.81|
95696239|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|2.79||||||Serotype 19F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||2.79|1.42|
95696240|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|3.49||||||Serotype 23F: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 1.0.||3.49|1.84|
95729423|NCT02146430|191429065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.096|0.0347
95696241|NCT01646398|191362671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|4.14||||||Serotype 6A: CI for the GMT ratio was calculated by the back transformations of CI based on the Student t distribution for the mean difference of the logarithms of the measures (13vPnC - 23vPS). Statistical significance was to be concluded if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI was greater than 2.0.||4.14|2.38|
95696242|NCT03224585|191362775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||This analysis compared the change in pain scores between baseline and 6 hours||||0.0121
95696243|NCT03224585|191362776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0025|||||||Paired samples Wilcoxon test|||||||0.0025
95696244|NCT03057951|191362805|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|"Cox regression, with terms for treatment, region, baseline status of diabetes, age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr) at baseline.~alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis)."||0.90|0.69|0.0003
95696245|NCT03057951|191362806|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.61|0.88|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for dependence between recurrent HHF and cardiovascular death, with terms for age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPK)cr, baseline LVEF, region, baseline diabetes status, sex, and treatment. eGFR (CKP-EPI)cr: Glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction. alpha=0.0497 (resulting from interim analysis).||0.88|0.61|0.0009
95696246|NCT03057951|191362807|SUPERIORITY|H0: There is no difference between the effect of placebo and the effect of empagliflozin.|Treatment by time interaction|1.363|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.9|0.861|1.865|||Random intercept random coeff. model||Empa 10 mg vs. Placebo slope \[/year\]|"Random coefficient model allowing for random intercept and random slope per patient, with factors age, baseline eGFR (CKD-EPI), baseline LVEF as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline-by-time interaction, treatment-by-time interaction and treatment as fixed effects.~Only 'on-treatment' data from treated patients were used. alpha=0.001. covariance structure: Unstructured."||1.865|0.861|<0.0001
95696247|NCT03057951|191362808|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.24|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.24|0.73|0.7243
95696248|NCT03057951|191362809|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.83|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||0.83|0.60|<0.0001
95696249|NCT03057951|191362810|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.09|0.76|0.2951
95696250|NCT03057951|191362811|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.15|0.87|0.9893
95696251|NCT03057951|191362812|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.07|||Regression, Cox||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Cox regression model included terms age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula with serum creatinine measurement (eGFR (CKD-EPI)cr), region, baseline diabetes status, sex, baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and treatment.||1.07|0.65|0.1539
95696252|NCT03057951|191362813|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Comparison vs Placebo \[T-P\]|"Model includes age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) as linear covariate(s) and region, baseline diabetes status, sex, week reachable, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline KCCQ-Clinical-Summary-Score-by-visit interaction as fixed effect(s).~Unstructured covariance structure."||2.19|0.45|0.0028
95696253|NCT03057951|191362814|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.1012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.01|||Joint frailty model||Comparison vs. Placebo \[T/P\]|Joint frailty model that accounts for the dependence between recurrent all-cause hospitalisation and all-cause mortality was used. Joint frailty model with terms for age, baseline glomerular filtration rate estimated by the chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration formula (eGFR (CKD-EPI)), baseline Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), treatment, region, baseline diabetes status and sex.||1.01|0.85|0.1012
95696254|NCT00696436|191362815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-12.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-12.01|-16.54|<0.001
95729424|NCT02146430|191429065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.0951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.086|||ANCOVA|||||0.086|-0.007|0.0951
95729425|NCT02146430|191429065|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least squares means|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237||0.8199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.041|||ANCOVA|||||0.041|-0.052|0.8199
95696255|NCT00696436|191362815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-10.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-10.91|-15.41|<0.001
95696256|NCT00696436|191362815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.54||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|-0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.64|-4.44|0.009
95696257|NCT00696436|191362815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|-2.37||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.37|-6.25|<0.001
95696258|NCT00696436|191362815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||0.45|-3.31|0.136
95696259|NCT00696436|191362815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-5.12|0.001
95696260|NCT00696436|191362816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.07|-11.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.76|-18.07|<0.001
95696261|NCT00696436|191362816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.71|-11.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-11.40|-17.71|<0.001
95696262|NCT00696436|191362816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.54||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|-0.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.92|-6.17|0.008
95696263|NCT00696436|191362816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-8.09|<0.001
95696264|NCT00696436|191362816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.18||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|-0.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-5.81|0.018
95696265|NCT00696436|191362816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-2.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons was controlled using stepwise testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.42|-7.73|<0.001
95696266|NCT00696436|191362817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|-7.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.81|-10.91|<0.001
95696267|NCT00696436|191362817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.12|-7.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.04|-10.12|<0.001
95696268|NCT00696436|191362817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-2.99|0.011
95696269|NCT00696436|191362817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-3.67|<0.001
95696270|NCT00696436|191362817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|0.38||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.38|-2.19|0.166
95696271|NCT00696436|191362817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.88|-0.24||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-2.88|0.020
95696272|NCT00696436|191362818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-5.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.69|-9.33|<0.001
95696273|NCT00696436|191362818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.03|-4.39||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.39|-8.03|<0.001
95696274|NCT00696436|191362818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.18||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|-0.67||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.67|-3.69|0.005
95696275|NCT00696436|191362818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.64|-4.69|<0.001
95696276|NCT00696436|191362818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|0.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.64|-2.39|0.257
95696277|NCT00696436|191362818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.33||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-3.39|0.017
95696278|NCT00696436|191362819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-12.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.54|-17.30|<0.001
95696279|NCT00696436|191362819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.99|-11.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.27|-15.99|<0.001
95696280|NCT00696436|191362819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.86||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.87|-4.85|0.005
95696281|NCT00696436|191362819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.73|-6.80|<0.001
95696282|NCT00696436|191362819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.40|-3.55|0.119
95696283|NCT00696436|191362819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|-1.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.45|-5.49|<0.001
95696284|NCT00696436|191362820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.48|-8.13||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.13|-11.48|<0.001
95696285|NCT00696436|191362820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-7.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.30|-10.63|<0.001
95696286|NCT00696436|191362820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.58||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-3.39|0.006
95696287|NCT00696436|191362820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-1.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.14|-4.00|<0.001
95696288|NCT00696436|191362820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|0.25||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.25|-2.53|0.107
95696289|NCT00696436|191362820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.73||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-0.3||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.30|-3.15|0.017
95696290|NCT00696436|191362821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-10.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.45|-15.56|<0.001
95696291|NCT00696436|191362821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.51|-9.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.43|-14.51|<0.001
95696292|NCT00696436|191362821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.42||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|0.72||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.72|-3.56|0.194
95696293|NCT00696436|191362821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.65||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.84|0.001
95696294|NCT00696436|191362821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|1.73||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.73|-2.51|0.720
95696295|NCT00696436|191362821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.62||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-0.45||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-4.79|0.018
95696296|NCT00696436|191362822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|-6.87||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-6.87|-10.42|<0.001
95696297|NCT00696436|191362822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.99||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.99|-9.52|<0.001
95696298|NCT00696436|191362822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.77|-2.21|0.341
95696299|NCT00696436|191362822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.28||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.76||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.76|-3.80|0.003
95696300|NCT00696436|191362822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.64||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.64|-1.30|0.821
95696301|NCT00696436|191362822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|0.12||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.12|-2.89|0.071
95696302|NCT00696436|191362823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.96|-12.94||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-12.94|-17.96|<0.001
95696303|NCT00696436|191362823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-11.43||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-11.43|-16.42|<0.001
95696304|NCT00696436|191362823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.42|-1.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.22|-5.42|0.002
95696305|NCT00696436|191362823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|-2.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.97|-7.26|<0.001
95696306|NCT00696436|191362823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.29||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.29|-3.88|0.091
95696307|NCT00696436|191362823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-1.46||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.46|-5.72|<0.001
95696308|NCT00696436|191362824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.92|-8.36||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-8.36|-11.92|<0.001
95696309|NCT00696436|191362824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.94|-7.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-7.40|-10.94|<0.001
95696310|NCT00696436|191362824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.81|-0.82||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-3.81|0.002
95696311|NCT00696436|191362824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-1.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-4.24|<0.001
95696312|NCT00696436|191362824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|0.14||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.14|-2.82|0.076
95696313|NCT00696436|191362824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|-0.22||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-3.25|0.024
95696314|NCT00696436|191362825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.66|-10.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-10.02|-15.66|<0.001
95696315|NCT00696436|191362825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.72|-9.11||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-9.11|-14.72|<0.001
95696316|NCT00696436|191362825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.74||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.62||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||0.62|-4.10|0.149
95696317|NCT00696436|191362825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-1.83||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.83|-6.65|<0.001
95696318|NCT00696436|191362825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.53||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.53|-3.16|0.494
95696319|NCT00696436|191362825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.32||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|-0.93||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.93|-5.72|0.007
95696320|NCT00696436|191362826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|-5.79||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.79|-10.03|<0.001
95696321|NCT00696436|191362826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-5.88||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-5.88|-10.10|<0.001
95696322|NCT00696436|191362826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|1.42||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.42|-2.14|0.691
95696323|NCT00696436|191362826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.57||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.57|-4.20|0.010
95696324|NCT00696436|191362826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.32||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||1.32|-2.20|0.625
95696325|NCT00696436|191362826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.46||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|-0.66||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with treatment as a factor and baseline value as a covariate. Unadjusted p-value was presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.27|0.008
95696326|NCT00696436|191362827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.15|7.88||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.88|3.15|<0.001
95696327|NCT00696436|191362827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|7.37||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.37|2.94|<0.001
95696328|NCT00696436|191362827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.03||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.03|1.03|0.032
95696329|NCT00696436|191362827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.06||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.06|1.04|0.029
95696330|NCT00696436|191362827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.89||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.89|0.96|0.080
95696331|NCT00696436|191362827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.92||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.92|0.97|0.071
95696332|NCT00696436|191362828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|5.15||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.15|2.10|<0.001
95696333|NCT00696436|191362828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|4.54||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.54|1.86|<0.001
95696334|NCT00696436|191362828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.8||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.80|0.83|0.306
95696335|NCT00696436|191362828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.97||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.92|0.132
95696336|NCT00696436|191362828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.58||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.58|0.74|0.695
95696337|NCT00696436|191362828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.74||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.81|0.381
95696338|NCT00696436|191362829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.41||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.41|3.20|<0.001
95696339|NCT00696436|191362829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|7.19||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||7.19|2.73|<0.001
95696340|NCT00696436|191362829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.94|0.99|0.056
95696341|NCT00696436|191362829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.02||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.02|1.02|0.036
95696342|NCT00696436|191362829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.66||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.66|0.85|0.317
95696343|NCT00696436|191362829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.73||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value was presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.87|0.234
95696344|NCT00915538|191362834|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The expected results for non-inferiority would be +/- 5% of difference between the two groups in the primary efficacy parameter.|AUC|0.0||||0.76|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross-over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment. The AUC of FEV-1 was measured in each subject for each treatment arm and the mean of this data was compared.||||0.76
95696345|NCT00915538|191362834|OTHER|Two sample T test|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.0|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95696346|NCT00915538|191362835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Power calculation was not done for secondary parameter. The comparison was for the FEV-1/FVC expressed as fraction at each time point||||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The cross over means there were 16 determinants for each time for each treatment||||0.76
95696347|NCT01293006|191362836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|0.91|||Difference of Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.91|-0.12|
95696348|NCT01293006|191362839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|3.36|||Difference of the Least Means Squares|||Day 1, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.36|-1.30|
95696349|NCT01293006|191362839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|0.5|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.50|-0.08|
95696350|NCT01293006|191362839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|7.41|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<90%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||7.41|-5.77|
95696351|NCT01293006|191362839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.63|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, SaO2 \<85%, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.63|0.00|
95696352|NCT01293006|191362840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.04|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||2.04|-0.60|
95696353|NCT01293006|191362840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.33|3.77|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||3.77|0.33|
95696354|NCT01293006|191362841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.47|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.47|-0.41|
95696355|NCT01293006|191362841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.53|0.27|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.27|-0.53|
95696356|NCT01293006|191362841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.61|0.18|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 1, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.18|-0.61|
95696357|NCT01293006|191362841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|0.98|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.98|-0.32|
95696358|NCT01293006|191362841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.78|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Non-REM, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.78|-0.26|
95696359|NCT01293006|191362841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.8|||Difference of the Least Squares Means|||Day 4, Wake, Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.80|0.10|
95696360|NCT01293006|191362842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.31|||Difference in the Least Squares Means|||Difference (Suvorexant - Placebo) of Least Squares Means||0.31|-0.50|
95696361|NCT05168813|191362867|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.77|0.44|< .001
95696362|NCT05168813|191362868|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.78|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.78|0.29|0.003
95696363|NCT05168813|191362869|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.04|0.07|0.056
95696364|NCT05168813|191362870|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.15|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.15|0.73|0.449
95696365|NCT05168813|191362871|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.29||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|8.87|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||8.87|0.59|0.23
95696366|NCT05168813|191362881|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.73|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.73|0.43|< .001
95696367|NCT05168813|191362882|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.68|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.68|0.27|< .001
95696368|NCT05168813|191362883|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.82|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||0.82|0.09|0.02
95696369|NCT05168813|191362884|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.09|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||1.09|0.67|0.218
95696370|NCT05168813|191362885|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.77|||Regression, Cox|Adjusted for variables expected to affect risk of future COVID-19 and evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure.||||3.77|0.84|0.135
95696371|NCT01677507|191362965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Actually these are 2 sided paired t-tests.||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.4|0.0001
95696372|NCT01677507|191362965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye treated vs. untreated||3.2|2.5|0.0001
95696373|NCT01677507|191362965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated vs. untreated||3.4|2.5|0.0001
95696374|NCT01677507|191362965|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||3.3|2.5|0.0001
95696375|NCT01677507|191362966|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Right Eye treated to untreated||1.3|0.9|0.0001
95696376|NCT01677507|191362966|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||1.1|0.7|0.0001
95696377|NCT01677507|191362966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.2|0.94
95696378|NCT01677507|191362966|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.2|-0.1|0.54
95696379|NCT01677507|191362967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.7|0.01|0.04
95696380|NCT01677507|191362967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.1|0.15
95696381|NCT01677507|191362967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Right Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.6|-0.3|0.52
95696382|NCT01677507|191362967|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test, 2 sided||Left Eye, treated vs. untreated||0.4|-0.4|0.88
95696383|NCT00961441|191362971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|1.0271|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8817|1.1964|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for Cmax normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.1964|0.8817|
95696384|NCT00961441|191362972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Point estimate for ratio|0.9914|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.811|1.2118|||ANOVA|Point estimates for the geometric means ratios children/adults for AUCtau normalized by dose and body weight and 90% CIs have been calculated.||An ANOVA for log-transformed values has been used as the basis for calculation of point estimates and Confidence Intervals (CIs).||1.2118|0.8110|
95696385|NCT05025787|191363032|SUPERIORITY||model treatment coefficient|-1.774|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.639||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.033|-0.514||A 95% confidence interval for the treatment coefficient in the linear mixed-effect model was (-3.033, -0.514), where the reference level was the active treatment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in mean WOMAC-A pain between CNTX-6970 and Placebo. Linear mixed-effect models were used with block, period, sex, age, and KL-grade as covariates and treatment group as factor, with random effects for sites and subjects nested within sites. The test was performed with significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).~Power was computed for effect sizes ranging from 0.25 to 0.50 using Monte Carlo simulation, and exceeded 80%."||-0.514|-3.033|.006
95696386|NCT04397718|191363049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|3.06|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||3.06|0.46|0.667
95696387|NCT04397718|191363050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.49|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||1.49|0.58|0.876
95696388|NCT04397718|191363051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.92|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||2.92|0.31|0.991
95696389|NCT04397718|191363052|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.11|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||4.11|-2.03|0.841
95696390|NCT04397718|191363053|SUPERIORITY||Quantile Regression|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||0|0|0.746
95696391|NCT04397718|191363054|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|7.39|||Log Rank||Cox regression model adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD|||7.39|0.72|0.1
95696392|NCT04397718|191363055|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.0|||Fisher Exact||||Logistical regression adjusted for age, hypertension, COPD, and baseline severity score.|2|0.33|0.425
95696393|NCT04397718|191363056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.42|||Chi-squared||Logistic regression adjusted for age, hypertension, and COPD.|||3.42|0.44|0.688
95696394|NCT04124042|191363057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.655|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|1.237||||||||1.237|0.347|
95696395|NCT04124042|191363057|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.714|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|1.336||||||||1.336|0.381|
95696396|NCT04124042|191363058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.539||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.50|-0.62|0.413
95696397|NCT04124042|191363058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.535||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|1.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.31|-0.79|0.629
95696398|NCT04124042|191363063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.1374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.16|-0.16|0.1374
95696399|NCT04124042|191363063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.2807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-0.29|0.2807
95696400|NCT04124042|191363064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.142||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41|-0.14|0.346
95696401|NCT04124042|191363064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|-0.27|0.968
95696402|NCT04124042|191363066|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #10 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #12 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-0.75|-4.91|0.0081
95696403|NCT04124042|191363067|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.6||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome measure #11 is an analysis of 2 tx groups (two doses of 0.45 mg/ml vs. a single dose of 0.45 mg/ml), whereas outcome measure #13 is all 6 tx groups. A MMRM model was used. LS Means in an MMRM model are influenced by the overall mean structure and covariance estimation. When fewer treatment groups are included, the model adjusts based on a different subset of data, leading to potential shifts in estimated LS Means due to changes in the reference population/covariance structure.||-2.34|-16.85|0.0101
95696404|NCT05441592|191363070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.486
95696405|NCT05441592|191363072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.234|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.234
95696406|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.3|<0.001
95696407|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.1|6.8|<0.001
95696408|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||13.8|7.7|<0.001
95696409|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||16.5|10.3|<0.001
95696410|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||7.4|1.8|0.001
95696411|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||6.9|1.3|0.004
95696412|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||12.5|6.9|<0.001
95696413|NCT01021852|191363073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|11.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||11.5|5.9|<0.001
95728872|NCT01166568|191427644|SUPERIORITY||binomial distribution|0.75||||0.025|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.75|||the p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons|Fisher Exact|||"The PSI procedure is defined as successful if 75% of subjects achieve the first primary endpoint or second primary endpoint. The corresponding statistical hypotheses are as follows:~H0 (null hypothesis): p1 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p1 \> 0.75, Where, p1 is the probability of subjects achieving the first primary endpoint. H0 (null hypothesis): p2 ≤ 0.75 Ha (alternative hypothesis): p2 \> 0.75, Where, p2 is the probability of subjects achieving the second primary endpoint."|||0.75|0.025
95728873|NCT00321711|191427656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||||95.0|0.153|6.95||||||||6.950|0.153|
95696414|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.4|-43.2|<0.001
95728874|NCT00321711|191427656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.333||||||95.0|0.028|3.926||||||||3.926|0.028|
95728875|NCT00321711|191427656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.118||||||95.0|0.007|1.882|||||Adjusted by the stratification factor|||1.882|0.007|
95728876|NCT00321711|191427657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.063|15.988|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||15.988|0.063|
95696415|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-32.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-20.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-20.1|-44.9|<0.001
95728877|NCT00321711|191427658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||||95.0|0.347|9.618|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||9.618|0.347|
95728878|NCT00321711|191427658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.445||||||95.0|0.037|5.325|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||5.325|0.037|
95728879|NCT00321711|191427658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.444||||||95.0|0.032|6.08|||||Romiplostim/placebo|||6.080|0.032|
95696416|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.2|-18.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.7|-43.2|<0.001
95696417|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-33.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-33.5|-58.0|<0.001
95728880|NCT00321711|191427659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in incidence rate|-33.5||||||95.0|-69.0|2.0|||||Romiplostim - placebo|||2.0|-69.0|
95728881|NCT00321711|191427659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.315||||||95.0|0.029|3.412||||||||3.412|0.029|
95728882|NCT00321711|191427659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.211||||||95.0|0.021|2.082||||||||2.082|0.021|
95696418|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.65||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-4.4|-26.7|0.006
95728883|NCT02400710|191427660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.05
95696419|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-13.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.1|-24.4|0.020
95696420|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.8|-14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.5|-36.8|<0.001
95728884|NCT02400710|191427661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.05
95728885|NCT02668302|191427678|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|P-values from two-sample T-test with equal variance assumption||||||0.4709
95728886|NCT03611309|191427716|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.15|4.89||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear||FACIT-Pal Total score|||4.89|-8.15|.623
95728887|NCT03611309|191427717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of physical health score.||0.15|-0.29|.555
95728888|NCT03611309|191427717|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis of mental health score.||0.20|-0.20|.983
95728889|NCT03611309|191427719|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|2.1||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear||FACIT-Sp-12 Total Score|||2.10|-2.09|.997
95728890|NCT03611309|191427720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Help you live longer?"||||.484
95728891|NCT03611309|191427720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.343||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Cure your cancer?"||||.343
95696421|NCT01021852|191363074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-30.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.2|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-18.8|-41.2|<0.001
95696422|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.43||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-1.5|-18.9|0.022
95696423|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-15.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-7.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-7.0|-24.5|<0.001
95696424|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-23.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-14.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-14.9|-32.1|<0.001
95696425|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-20.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Night 1~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Night 1. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-11.7|-29.0|<0.001
95696426|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 2.5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.2|-18.0|0.055
95696427|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 5 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||0.4|-17.8|0.060
95696428|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-10.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 10 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-10.4|-28.6|<0.001
95696429|NCT01021852|191363075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.63||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"MK-6096 20 mg vs. Placebo at Week 4~A mixed effects model with terms for baseline value, geographic region (Japan vs. ex-Japan), gender, treatment, sequence, period, time, and treatment-by-time interaction and period-by-time interaction was used to estimate LS mean differences between MK-6096 and placebo at Week 4. 95% confidence interval estimate and p-value (based upon a normal approximation) were also computed from the LS mean differences and variability estimates from the model."||-2.2|-20.5|0.015
95728892|NCT03611309|191427720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.908|||||||Regression, Linear|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||"Analysis of question Help you with problems you were having because of your cancer?"||||.908
95728893|NCT03611309|191427723|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||.531
95696430|NCT01021852|191363076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||12.2|-9.5|
95696431|NCT01021852|191363076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||11.2|-10.3|
95696432|NCT01021852|191363076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||18.3|-4.2|
95696433|NCT01021852|191363076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|20.4||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||20.4|-2.3|
95696434|NCT01021852|191363077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|10.2||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||10.2|-1.0|
95696435|NCT01021852|191363077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|4.8||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||4.8|-3.6|
95696436|NCT01021852|191363077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|6.6||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||6.6|-2.7|
95696437|NCT01021852|191363077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|2.3||||||Miettinen and Nurminen's method was used to calculate confidence intervals for between-treatment differences in the percentage of participants with events versus placebo.||2.3|-4.5|
95696438|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Neoplasm||||0.881
95696439|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Tobacco use||||0.517
95696440|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.053|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||BMI(kg/mˆ2)\>30||||0.053
95696441|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.289|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Diabetes mellitus||||0.289
95696442|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Immunosuppression/Corticosteroids||||1.000
95696443|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.169|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Anemia (Hb\<9gr/dL)||||0.169
95696444|NCT00906074|191363136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.637|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||Malnutrition (hypoalbuminemia)||||0.637
95696445|NCT00906074|191363137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||1.000
95696446|NCT00906074|191363138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.873|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.873
95696447|NCT00906074|191363143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared Pearson||||||0.156
95696448|NCT00906074|191363144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
95696449|NCT02856269|191363177|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank sum tests, X2 tests, Fisher exact tests, Kolmogorov-Smirnov|Cohen's D value|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||The Cohen's d is calculated after Box-Cox transformation. Small effect \<= 0.2, Medium effect \[0.3, 0.8\]; Large effect \>0.8|||||
95696450|NCT04146467|191363179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95696451|NCT04146467|191363181|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0004
95696452|NCT04146467|191363189|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95696453|NCT02128763|191363193|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||P value refers to difference between group on change in overall OSDI score (Row 1).|Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
95696454|NCT02128763|191363194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
95696455|NCT02128763|191363195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Pos hoc application of the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment||||||0.77
95696456|NCT02128763|191363196|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
95696457|NCT02128763|191363197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.051
95696458|NCT02128763|191363198|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95696459|NCT02128763|191363199|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95696460|NCT02128763|191363200|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.40
95696461|NCT02128763|191363201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.77
95696462|NCT02128763|191363202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.95
95696463|NCT02128763|191363203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.25
95696464|NCT02128763|191363204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.61
95696465|NCT02128763|191363205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
95696466|NCT02128763|191363206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.60
95696467|NCT02128763|191363207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.17
95696468|NCT02128763|191363208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95696469|NCT02128763|191363209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.71
95696470|NCT02128763|191363210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.66
95696471|NCT02128763|191363211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95696472|NCT04105244|191363223|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
95696473|NCT04105244|191363224|SUPERIORITY||Wald tests|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
95696474|NCT04105244|191363225|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
95696475|NCT04105244|191363228|SUPERIORITY||Wald test|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Intent-to-treat principle using linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to examine longitudinal change scores for the outcome.||||||<0.05
95696476|NCT04105244|191363229|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95696477|NCT01778127|191363235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95696478|NCT01778127|191363235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.18
95696479|NCT01778127|191363235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95696480|NCT01778127|191363236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95696481|NCT01778127|191363236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95696482|NCT01778127|191363236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95696483|NCT01778127|191363237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95696484|NCT01778127|191363237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95696485|NCT01778127|191363237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95696486|NCT01778127|191363238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95696487|NCT01778127|191363238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.43
95696488|NCT01778127|191363238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95696489|NCT01778127|191363239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95696490|NCT01778127|191363239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95696491|NCT01778127|191363239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95696492|NCT01778127|191363240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.69
95696493|NCT01778127|191363240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95696494|NCT01778127|191363240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95696495|NCT01778127|191363241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95696496|NCT01778127|191363241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95696497|NCT01778127|191363241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95696498|NCT01778127|191363242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95696499|NCT01778127|191363242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95696500|NCT01778127|191363242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.99
95696501|NCT01778127|191363243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95696502|NCT01778127|191363243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.19
95696503|NCT01778127|191363243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.54
95696504|NCT01778127|191363244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95696505|NCT01778127|191363244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95696506|NCT01778127|191363244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95696507|NCT01778127|191363245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95696508|NCT01778127|191363245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95696509|NCT01778127|191363245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95696510|NCT01778127|191363246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95696511|NCT01778127|191363246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95696512|NCT01778127|191363246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95696513|NCT01348425|191363247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin is +/- 10%, type I error is assumed to be 0.05, with a power of 0.8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.5||Schuirman's TOST equivalence test on change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents.|t-test, 2 sided|To test the hypothesis whether the percent change in stent length is contained within \[-10%, 10%\].||The alternative hypothesis is equivalence in mean change in stent length upon deployment between longer and shorter stents, i.e., the difference in mean change between the longer and shorter stents is close to 0. Thus, a small p-value indicates a 95% confidence interval covers 0.||3.5|-2.0|<0.01
95696514|NCT03003403|191363258|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||bootstrap resampling|||||1.20|0.82|0.97
95696515|NCT03003403|191363259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.00|-1.24|0.83
95696516|NCT03003403|191363260|SUPERIORITY|Difference in systolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-3.6|0.34
95696517|NCT03003403|191363260|SUPERIORITY|Difference in diastolic blood pressure change post-baseline comparing intervention to usual care arm at 24 months.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-2.4|0.323
95696518|NCT03003403|191363261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.8|-0.8|0.991
95696519|NCT05458011|191363262|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||||-0.95|-2.66|<0.0001
95696520|NCT00880763|191363275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|65.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.0|82.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||82.8|37.0|<0.001
95696521|NCT00880763|191363275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|74.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|89.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||89.0|47.6|<0.001
95696522|NCT00880763|191363275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|55.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|76.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not).|||76.0|24.9|<0.001
95696523|NCT00880763|191363276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-11.3|
95696524|NCT00880763|191363276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.4|
95696525|NCT00880763|191363276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|24.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||24.2|-12.0|
95696526|NCT00880763|191363277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|36.2|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.2|-2.5|
95696527|NCT00880763|191363277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|36.3|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.3|-3.4|
95696528|NCT00880763|191363277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|36.1|||||Computed using Miettinen and Nurminen method adjusting the strata (participation of Intensive-pharmacokinetic cohort vs. not)|||36.1|-3.3|
95696529|NCT00880763|191363278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.2|-2.3|
95696530|NCT00880763|191363278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.3|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.3|-2.4|
95728894|NCT03611309|191427724|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||.871
95696531|NCT00880763|191363278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least squares mean|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.1|||||Computed using a longitudinal data analysis model including treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment, with a restriction of the same baseline mean across treatment groups.|||-1.1|-2.2|
95696532|NCT01494987|191363299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in least squares mean (LSM)|-0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.32||P-value is from a mixed-effect model including terms for baseline HbA1c value, prior antihyperglycemia therapy, treatment group, visit week, and treatment by visit week interaction. Unstructured covariance matrix was used.|Mixed Effects Model Analysis||The estimation (LSM) is of the placebo-corrected change from baseline.|Assuming a common standard deviation of 1.2%, an effective sample size of 400 would provide at least 90% power to detect a statistically significant treatment difference of -0.5% (ranolazine vs. placebo) for the reduction of HbA1c from baseline at Week 24 based on a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 and 1:1 randomization.||-0.32|-0.71|<0.001
95696533|NCT03864536|191363311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95728895|NCT03611309|191427725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Help your loved one live longer?"||||.770
95696534|NCT03864536|191363312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The statistical significance level was set using alpha of 0.05 without multiplicity correction. This pilot study was not powered for all the outcomes so the magnitude and estimates of intervention efficacy was of primary interest.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95696535|NCT02215616|191363326|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.78||||0.4853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|2.98||Threshold for significance at 0.045 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using Mixed Model Repeated Measures model (MMRM) with treatment group (3 levels: placebo, laquinimod 0.5 mg and laquinimod 1 mg), categorical week (4 levels: Weeks 4, 13, 26, and 52), treatment by week interaction, country, TMS baseline value and TMS baseline by week interaction as fixed effects. Unstructured variance-covariance structure was used in the initial model.||2.98|-1.42|0.4853
95696536|NCT04058158|191363328|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[-337.2 to 337.2\].|Least squares mean difference|34.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.66|116.62||||||||116.62|-47.66|
95696537|NCT04058158|191363329|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-defined equivalence margin was \[0.77 to 1.29\].|Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.23||||||||1.23|0.95|
95696538|NCT01634113|191363330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.117||0.4963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|0.152||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.152|-0.312|0.4963
95696539|NCT01634113|191363330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.6936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.292|0.195||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.195|-0.292|0.6936
95728896|NCT03611309|191427725|SUPERIORITY|The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.||||||0.755|||||||Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Awareness after: Cure your loved one's cancer?"||||.755
95696540|NCT01634113|191363332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.5995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.229|0.394||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.394|-0.229|0.5995
95696541|NCT01634113|191363332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|0.333||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.333|-0.303|0.9251
95696542|NCT01634113|191363333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.324||0.8279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.243|22.743||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||22.743|-18.243|0.8279
95696543|NCT01634113|191363333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.497|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.826||0.8181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.987|18.994||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||18.994|-23.987|0.8181
95696544|NCT01634113|191363335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.161|0.283||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R2.5 minus placebo|||0.283|-0.161|0.5869
95696545|NCT01634113|191363335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.156||All treatment comparisons were exploratory, no formal hypothesis testing was performed.|ANCOVA||Difference calculated as Tio R5 minus placebo|||0.156|-0.305|0.5230
95696546|NCT03353753|191363351|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.25||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.25|0.09|<0.0001
95696547|NCT03353753|191363352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504||||||Two-sided P-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
95696548|NCT03353753|191363354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.36||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.62||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR and OS.|Log Rank|Strata: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)|Ripretinib: Placebo; based on stratified Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model using randomization stratification factors \[prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)\]|||0.62|0.21|0.0004
95696549|NCT03353753|191363355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.001
95696550|NCT03353753|191363356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Not evaluated for statistical significance as a result of the sequential testing procedure for the secondary endpoints of ORR, OS, and QOL.|ANCOVA|Factors: prior lines of therapy (3 versus ≥4); ECOG (0 versus 1 or 2)||||||0.004
95696551|NCT03353753|191363357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95696552|NCT00205699|191363371|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The p value refers to the time by treatment condition interaction. The a priori threshold for statistical significance in this planned primary test was p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Primary analysis for change in DEXA % fat used a likelihood-based mixed-effects model using time (0, 6 and 12 weeks) and medication group as independent variables, with Toeplitz covariance structure specified, based on Bayesian information criteria (BIC). The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.0001
95696553|NCT00205699|191363372|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.07
95696554|NCT00205699|191363373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
95696555|NCT00205699|191363374|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95696556|NCT00205699|191363375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.29
95696557|NCT00205699|191363376|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.003|||||||ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANCOVA was used to test for the main effect of time on the outcome, and to test for a time by treatment condition interaction that would indicate differences between groups in change over time in the primary outcome. The null hypotheses were that there was no difference in the outcome over time (main effect of time) and that there were no differences between groups in the change over time (time by treatment condition).||||<0.003
95696558|NCT00205699|191363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|Contrast|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.003
95696559|NCT00205699|191363376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied (p\<0.05/4 = 0.0125).|ANCOVA|Contrasts based on the ANCOVA-derived time by treatment condition interaction.||||||0.002
95696560|NCT03201965|191363418|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|8.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.16|3.22|<0.0001
95696561|NCT01934192|191363439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
95696562|NCT01934192|191363440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.9||||||||10.9|-6.5|
95696563|NCT01934192|191363441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|22.9||||||||22.9|-5.1|
95696564|NCT01934192|191363442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|19.9||||||||19.9|-6.9|
95696565|NCT00099359|191363525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046||||||Overall comparison of 3 KM curves using an extension of the M-H test was performed. Results indicated a significant difference therefore a 2nd stage analysis was done to compare each pair of transmission rates, using 2-sample Mantel-Haenzel tests.|multiple comparison|Hochberg's modified Bonferroni method was used to adjust the significance level for comparisons between arms.||||||.046
95696566|NCT00099359|191363526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.0001
95696567|NCT00099359|191363527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2432|||||||multiple comparison|||||||.2432
95696568|NCT00099359|191363528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95696569|NCT00099359|191363531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted Odds ratio for treatment arm C (ZDV+3TC/NFV) association with Intrapartum Infection Status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference group||||1.01|0.24|0.05
95696570|NCT00099359|191363531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.82||Adjusted odds ratio for association of treatment arm B (ZDV+NVP) with intrapartum infection status with Treatment Arm A (ZDV only) as reference.|Regression, Logistic|||||0.82|0.19|0.01
95696571|NCT00099359|191363531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|5.86|||Regression, Logistic|"Adjusted odds ratio for association of illegal substance use during pregnancy and intrapartum HIV infection status with NO being reference group."||||5.86|1.08|0.03
95696572|NCT00099359|191363531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.35||Adjusted odds ratio for the association of continuous log10 viral load with intrapartum infection status|Regression, Logistic|||||3.35|1.56|<0.0001
95728897|NCT03611309|191427725|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Analysis of question Awareness after: Help your loved one with problems due to the cancer?"||||.929
95696573|NCT04465396|191363536|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.83|113.8|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in statistical software suite (SAS), with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.80|104.83|
95696574|NCT04465396|191363536|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|113.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.32|119.95|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||119.95|108.32|
95696575|NCT04465396|191363537|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.5|109.11|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||109.11|88.50|
95696576|NCT04465396|191363537|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.8|102.05|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||102.05|83.80|
95696577|NCT04465396|191363538|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|105.51|113.51|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||113.51|105.51|
95696578|NCT04465396|191363538|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between pen injector and syringe injection was to be considered established if the 90% CI of the corresponding geometric mean ratio was within the acceptance interval of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Geometric Mean Ratio|118.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.31|124.83|||||The analysis was performed using Proc Mixed in SAS, with treatment, sequence, period, and participant within sequence as fixed effects.|||124.83|112.31|
95696579|NCT00547638|191363552|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence is demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (when subtracting the percentage of DERMABOND PROTAPE successful subjects from the percentage of DERMABOND HVD successful subjects) does not exceed 8%.|Difference in Proportion of Successes|-7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|1.0|||Gart-Nam||The value for the Estimated Parameter is expressed as a percentage and is defined as the difference in the proportion of sucesses between study groups.|||1.0|-17.7|
95696580|NCT00547638|191363553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||||||The total mHCS scores are summarized as proportion of subjects with good outcome (total scores of zero) and a comparison of treatment groups by Fisher Exact Test was performed to confirm differences in groups.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.457
95696581|NCT00547638|191363554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 14 and Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95696582|NCT00547638|191363554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Differences between treatment groups in the incidence rate of infection at Day 30 were compared using the Fisher's Exact Test.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95696583|NCT00547638|191363555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.188||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.188
95696584|NCT00547638|191363555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.883||95.0||||Intent to treat population was analyzed.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.883
95696585|NCT00547638|191363556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95696586|NCT01963208|191363560|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-7.06||||0.1788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.44|3.52||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the distributions of the two treatment groups with respect to percent change in seizure frequency.|Rank ANCOVA|||||3.52|-17.44|0.1788
95696587|NCT00383721|191363655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95696588|NCT00383721|191363655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95696589|NCT00383721|191363656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.062
95696590|NCT00383721|191363656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.583|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.583
95696591|NCT00383721|191363657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.020
95696592|NCT00383721|191363657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95696593|NCT03011450|191363661|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696594|NCT03011450|191363662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696595|NCT03011450|191363663|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696596|NCT03011450|191363664|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0156
95696597|NCT03011450|191363665|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696598|NCT03011450|191363666|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696599|NCT03011450|191363667|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696600|NCT03011450|191363668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
95696601|NCT03011450|191363669|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696602|NCT03011450|191363670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5380
95696603|NCT03011450|191363671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696604|NCT03011450|191363672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1165|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1165
95696605|NCT03011450|191363673|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0142|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0142
95696606|NCT03011450|191363674|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696607|NCT03011450|191363675|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696608|NCT03011450|191363676|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696609|NCT03011450|191363677|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4589|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.4589
95696610|NCT03011450|191363678|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696611|NCT03011450|191363679|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696612|NCT03011450|191363680|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696613|NCT03011450|191363681|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2486|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2486
95696614|NCT03011450|191363682|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696615|NCT03011450|191363683|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696616|NCT03011450|191363684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696617|NCT03011450|191363685|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696618|NCT03011450|191363686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
95696619|NCT03011450|191363687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2763|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2763
95696620|NCT03011450|191363688|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696621|NCT03011450|191363689|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696622|NCT03011450|191363690|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696623|NCT03011450|191363691|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696624|NCT03011450|191363692|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1651|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.1651
95696625|NCT03011450|191363693|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696626|NCT03011450|191363694|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696627|NCT03011450|191363695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696628|NCT03011450|191363696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696629|NCT03011450|191363697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5107|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.5107
95696630|NCT03011450|191363698|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||0.0018|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0018
95696631|NCT03011450|191363699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0742|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0742
95696632|NCT03011450|191363700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696633|NCT03011450|191363701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2707|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2707
95696634|NCT03011450|191363702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0009|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0009
95696635|NCT03011450|191363703|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2879|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.2879
95696636|NCT03011450|191363704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.9786
95696637|NCT03011450|191363705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0075
95696638|NCT03011450|191363706|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0241|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0241
95696639|NCT03011450|191363707|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696640|NCT03011450|191363708|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0502|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0502
95696641|NCT03011450|191363709|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696642|NCT03011450|191363710|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<.0001
95696643|NCT03011450|191363711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0209|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0209
95696644|NCT03011450|191363712|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696645|NCT03011450|191363713|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696646|NCT03011450|191363714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696647|NCT03011450|191363715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||non-parametric Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696648|NCT03011450|191363716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||0.0001
95696649|NCT03011450|191363717|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Hodges-Lehmann method|||||||<0.0001
95696650|NCT00592553|191363790|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-30.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|42.68||0.4756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-114.8|53.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (less than \[\<\] 9 years versus \[vs.\] greater than or equal to \[\>=\] 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||53.75|-114.8|0.4756
95696651|NCT00592553|191363790|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|62.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.21||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.66|147.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using MMRM method including rank transformed 6MWD as the dependent variable; and rank transformed baseline 6MWD, treatment, visit, age (\< 9 years vs. \>= 9 years) and corticosteroid use (yes vs. no) stratification factors, and interaction between treatment and visit as independent variables.||147.96|-22.66|0.1490
95696652|NCT01244191|191363826|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.981||||0.8086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.841|1.149|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and the 95% confidence interval from stratified Cox-regression model (adjusting for number of prior therapies, gender, and smoking history).|||1.149|0.841|0.8086
95696653|NCT02164513|191363834|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.81||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.81|0.70|<0.001
95696654|NCT02164513|191363834|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.9||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons|Negative binomial model||Covariates of treatment group, sex, exacerbation history (\<=1, \>=2 moderate/severe), smoking status (Screening), geographical region and post-bronchodilator percent predicted Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Screening) were used.|||0.90|0.80|<0.001
95696655|NCT02164513|191363835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0061|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.109||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI versus (vs) FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||0.109|0.085|<0.001
95696656|NCT02164513|191363836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.1||The adjusted p-value at Week 52 should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI at Week 52.|Mixed Models Repeated Measures|||||-1.1|-2.4|<0.001
95696657|NCT02164513|191363837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.91||The adjusted p-values should be compared against a reference level of 0.05 in order to infer statistical significance for either of the comparisons.|Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.80|<0.001
95696658|NCT02164513|191363837|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.91|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.91|0.78|<0.001
95696659|NCT02164513|191363838|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.75|||Negative binomial Model|||||0.75|0.62|<0.001
95696660|NCT02164513|191363839|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.85|0.70|<0.001
95696661|NCT02164513|191363840|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.87||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01|||Negative binomial model|||||1.01|0.76|0.064
95696662|NCT02164513|191363840|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.78|||Negative binomial model|||||0.78|0.56|<0.001
95696663|NCT05301322|191363861|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.785|0.951|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV A||0.951|0.785|
95696664|NCT05301322|191363861|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for both RSV A and RSV B NTs.|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|0.943|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|RSV B||0.943|0.766|
95696665|NCT05301322|191363862|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.769|0.963|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H1N1 A/Victoria||0.963|0.769|
95728898|NCT03065283|191427726|EQUIVALENCE|p\< or = 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test was used for intragroup analysis, and an independent Student's t-test was used for intergroup analysis. Data are represented in mean between-group difference with a 95% CI, and analysis was by intention to treat.||0.57|-0.38|0.05
95696666|NCT05301322|191363862|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.866|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin||0.866|0.680|
95696667|NCT05301322|191363862|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.019|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Austria||1.019|0.789|
95728911|NCT03280537|191427753|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.22||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|60.23||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in reduction in the need for surgery for nasal polyps by Week 24.||60.23|1.23|0.0139
95729426|NCT03093324|191429079|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.542||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.754|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.754|0.390|0.0003
95729427|NCT03093324|191429080|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.52||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.76|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.760|0.356|0.0007
95696668|NCT05301322|191363862|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the GMR (Coadministration Group to Sequential-Administration Group) was greater than 0.667 for each of the 4 influenza strains.|GMR|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|0.964|||||GMRs and 2-sided CIs were calculated by exponentiating the mean differences of the logarithms of the titers (Coadministration minus Sequential-Administration) and the corresponding CIs (based on Student's t distribution).|HAI: B/Phuket||0.964|0.779|
95696669|NCT04095286|191363877|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.11|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.11|0.96|
95696670|NCT04095286|191363877|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|0.98|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||0.98|0.85|
95696671|NCT04095286|191363880|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.09|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.09|1.02|
95696672|NCT04095286|191363880|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.00|
95696673|NCT04095286|191363881|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||||Treatment comparison between AMB dispersed in water and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.08|1.02|
95696674|NCT04095286|191363881|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||||Treatment comparison between AMB oral tablet and reference AMB tablet using ratio of adjusted geometric mean and its corresponding 90% confidence interval has been presented|||1.07|1.01|
95696675|NCT03292952|191363941|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95696676|NCT02475850|191363983|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06||p\<0.05 threshold (primary outcome)|Regression, Cox|multistate model accounting for death as a semi-competing risk||||1.06|0.80|0.245
95696677|NCT02475850|191363984|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.83|0.99||p\< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Regression, Cox|||||0.99|0.83|0.004
95696678|NCT02475850|191363986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least-squared means across|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.309|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.1|2.54||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||2.54|-1.10|0.309
95696679|NCT02475850|191363987|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|0.59||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.8|0.93||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||0.93|-1.80|0.528
95696680|NCT02475850|191363988|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.037|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|0.2||p \< 0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months/24 months)|||0.20|-2.00|0.037
95696681|NCT02475850|191363989|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.009|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.36|-0.02||p\<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness||||-0.02|-2.36|0.009
95696682|NCT02475850|191363990|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.897|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-1.38|1.25||p \<0.01 threshold (secondary outcome)|Mixed Models Analysis|random: patients nested within practices; fixed: baseline score, randomization constraint vars, predictors of missingness|Difference in least-squared means across all follow-up (repeated measures: 12 months, 24 months)|||1.25|-1.38|0.897
95696683|NCT00781963|191363991|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-3.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep onset latency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-3.0|-28.7|<.001
95696684|NCT00781963|191363992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in wake after sleep onset from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||5.9|-26.3|0.21
95696685|NCT00781963|191363993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.9||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in total wake time from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-11.7|-62.2|0.004
95696686|NCT00781963|191363994|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||11.3|2.0|.005
95696687|NCT00781963|191363995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in sleep efficiency (from wrist actigraphy) from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||0.5|-3.3|0.15
95696688|NCT00781963|191363996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the improvement in PSQI score from baseline to 6-month follow-up for CBT-I group versus the same improvement in the control group.|||-1.3|-3.5|<.001
95696689|NCT00680953|191364011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.343||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.606|||Log Rank|||||0.606|0.194|0.0001
95696690|NCT00680953|191364012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9951|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9951
95696691|NCT00680953|191364013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1568|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1568
95696692|NCT02700919|191364017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.012
95696693|NCT02700919|191364017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||<0.001
95696694|NCT02700919|191364017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||Log Rank|||Change from Baseline on Day 7||||0.102
95696695|NCT02700919|191364017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.107|-0.053|0.507
95696696|NCT02700919|191364017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.136|-0.021|0.148
95696697|NCT02700919|191364017|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||0.048|-0.109|0.443
95696698|NCT02700919|191364021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.399|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.399
95696699|NCT02700919|191364021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.091
95696700|NCT02700919|191364021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.437
95696701|NCT02700919|191364025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.720
95696702|NCT02700919|191364025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.298|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.298
95696703|NCT02700919|191364025|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.470
95696704|NCT02062463|191364089|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|6.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||6.95|2.05|<0.001
95696705|NCT02062463|191364090|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.98||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using a conditional logistic regression model.||1.98|0.80|0.316
95696706|NCT00600028|191364118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||0.001
95696707|NCT00600028|191364119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis||The values represents three months on each intervention|||||.0001
95696708|NCT02093234|191364125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95696709|NCT02093234|191364126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95696710|NCT02093234|191364127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95696711|NCT02093234|191364128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.02
95696712|NCT01170702|191364145|NON_INFERIORITY|The non inferiority margin is clinically important reduction in 24 hour hydromorphone consumption of 25%, 37.5% and 50% absolute reduction, compared with control.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED|0.975|1.25|1.25|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||1.25|1.25|.05
95696713|NCT06533475|191364160|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9624|1.076|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.076|0.9624|
95696714|NCT06533475|191364160|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.024|1.13|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.130|1.024|
95696715|NCT06533475|191364161|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9649|1.078|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.078|0.9649|
95696716|NCT06533475|191364161|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.021|1.127|||||"The GLSM ratio was calculated as:~Minzasolmin Tablet (Fed)/Minzasolmin Tablet (Fasted)."|||1.127|1.021|
95696717|NCT06533475|191364162|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|0.9771||||||90.0|0.7966|1.199|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)/ Minzasolmin Capsule (Fasted)|||1.199|0.7966|
95696718|NCT06533475|191364162|OTHER||GLSM Ratio|1.016|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.794|1.299|||||The GLSM ratio was calculated as: Minzasolmin tablet (Fed)/ Minzasolmin tablet (Fasted)|||1.299|0.7940|
95696719|NCT06964165|191364166|OTHER||Difference in pre-IDS ORR|-39.0|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-56.8|-17.7||||||||-17.7|-56.8|
95696720|NCT02307838|191364177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.59||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||||-0.11|-1.07|0.0155
95696721|NCT03589326|191364194|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.18|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.29||P-value is based on CMH chi-square test, with stratification according to randomization strata (age): 18 through \<45 years, ≥45 through \<60 years, and ≥60 years.|Chi-squared||Risk difference and 95% CI: adjusted percent ponatinib - adjusted percent imatinib and its 95% CI.|||0.29|0.06|=0.0021
95696722|NCT01586156|191364320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95696723|NCT01586156|191364321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95696724|NCT01586156|191364322|OTHER|Pearson's correlation test of association of alprenolol binding changes to dose carvedilol.||||||0.02||||||Correlation of the change in alprenolol binding relative to dose carvedilol.|Pearson|||||||0.02
95696725|NCT01586156|191364323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95696726|NCT01586156|191364325|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95696727|NCT01586156|191364326|NON_INFERIORITY|Carvedilol did not lead to worse cardiac output as compared to placebo.||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95696728|NCT00363246|191364327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.049
95696729|NCT00363246|191364327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.013
95696730|NCT00363246|191364327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.0001
95696731|NCT00363246|191364327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries vs. Wheelchair-related Fall Injuries.||||0.009
95696732|NCT00363246|191364328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|We used chi-squared test for categorical variable (most variables) and t-test (2-sided) for continuous variables (few variables).||Health Status. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.033
95696733|NCT00363246|191364328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain in last 4 weeks (interference with daily activities). No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.013
95696734|NCT00363246|191364328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Pain when transfer. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||<0.001
95696735|NCT00363246|191364328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Energy level. No Wheelchair-related Falls vs. Wheelchair-related Falls.||||0.007
95696736|NCT04348591|191364369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.029||This p value corresponds to the main effect for experimental group; a-priori threshold was .012|Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined main effects of experimental group, instruction provided, headache, racial background, and type of neurostimulation administered. HF-HRV was transformed using an lg function for normality.||.029|-.12|.221
95696737|NCT04348591|191364369|SUPERIORITY|This is a within subject analysis that uses data across groups, controlling for the effect of neurostimulation alone, coil to cortex distance, and racial background|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.103|||Mixed Models Analysis|Comparison between sham neurostimulation and high frequency neurostimulation||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided||.103|.016|.008
95696738|NCT04348591|191364369|SUPERIORITY|The analysis controls for coil to cortex distance, racial background and effect of neurostimulation alone. It compares sham stimulation with low frequency neurostimulation|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined the main effect of type of neurostimulation provided.||.111|.029|.001
95696739|NCT04348591|191364370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.223|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.232||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.243|0.689|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the result for the main effect found of group (emotion dysregulation group versus misophonia)|A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.689|-.243|.34
95696740|NCT04348591|191364370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.198|0.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation condition. Specifically here we show the difference in estimated marginal means between sham and HF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.787|.198|.001
95696741|NCT04348591|191364370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.469|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.144||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect of neurostimulation administered, specifically comparing estimated marginal means for sham and LF-rTMS||A MMANOVA analysis using an unstructured covariance structure examined changes in SCL between groups, experimental types of neurostimulation, and their interaction, controlling for baseline, racial background, coil to cortex distance, and headache||.757|.182|.002
95696742|NCT04348591|191364370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||mean difference between sham and HF-rTMS for misophonia participants only when downregulating misophonic sounds|The investigators tested the interaction between experimental neurostimulation (sham, active high frequency rTMS, active low frequency rTMS), instruction provided (listen to neutral sound; listen to aversive sound, listen to misophonic sound, downregulate aversive sound, downregulate misophonic sound), and group (misophonic, clinical control) as part of the same MMANOVA analysis described above (i.e., controlling for coil-to-cortex distance, racial background, baseline, \& presence of headache).||||.0005
95696743|NCT04348591|191364372|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09853||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14149|0.25411|||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in BOLD bilateral dlPFC signal during the regulation of misophonic versus aversive sounds. One outlier was removed from the misophonia group to avoid violating the normality assumption.||.25411|-.14149|.57
95696744|NCT04348591|191364373|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.037293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131419||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22667|0.301257|||t-test, 2 sided|50 degrees of freedom||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences between groups in vmPFC activation that was greater when downregulating misophonic versus non-misophonic distress. One participant from each group was excluded for being an outlier||0.301257|-0.226670|.778
95696745|NCT04348591|191364374|SUPERIORITY||z score|4.69|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects whole-brain using cluster|||Mixed effects (FSL's FLAME 1; Oxford Univ., UK) whole brain analyses using cluster correction following a voxel-wise Z-score threshold of 2.3.||||<.05
95696746|NCT04348591|191364375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.283||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|This is the main effect from the MMANOVA analysis for group difference.||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.372|-.766|.49
95696747|NCT04348591|191364375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147|<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.97||This p-value corresponds to the difference between sham and HF-rTMS stimulation|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||1.97|.62|<.0000001
95696748|NCT04348591|191364375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.605||The test corresponds to the difference between sham and LF-rTMS|Mixed Models Analysis|||The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the main effect of neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||.605|.057|.018
95729428|NCT03093324|191429081|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.714||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|0.921|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.921|0.554|0.009
95696749|NCT04348591|191364375|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||For participants with misophonia difference in distress produced by a misophonic sound when downregulating misophonic sounds while receiving sham vs.HF-rTMS|The MMANOVA analysis of SUDS used a Toeplitz covariance structure. This analysis presents the interaction effect of group by neurostimulation experimental condition. The outcome variable was the difference between SUDS after each sound presentation and baseline, controlling for racial background, headache, and coil to cortex difference. Two participants were excluded from this analysis, one in each condition, because they provided outlier data.||||<.000001
95696750|NCT04348591|191364376|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is the result corresponding to the main effect of time in the repeated measures ANCOVA|ANCOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||<.001
95696751|NCT04348591|191364376|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.012|||||||ANCOVA|This analysis corresponds to the main effect of group.||Repeated measures ANOVA (controlling for racial background)||||>.012
95696752|NCT04348591|191364377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Anxiety subscale||||.78
95696753|NCT04348591|191364377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Depression subscale||||.29
95696754|NCT04348591|191364377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Fatigue subscale||||.64
95696755|NCT04348591|191364377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Sleep disturbance subscale||||.16
95696756|NCT04348591|191364377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine between group differences at the intake assessment on the PROMIS Ability to partake in social roles subscale||||.56
95696757|NCT02104804|191364382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.72|<0.001
95696758|NCT02104804|191364383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6133.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|781.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7668.5|-4597.9|||ANCOVA|||||-4597.9|-7668.5|<0.001
95696759|NCT02104804|191364384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-39.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.41|-28.82|||ANCOVA|||||-28.82|-49.41|<0.001
95696760|NCT02104804|191364385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|12.6|||Difference in proportions|||||12.6|3.1|0.002
95696761|NCT02104804|191364386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.53|-10.22|||ANCOVA|||||-10.22|-21.53|<0.001
95696762|NCT02104804|191364387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares mean|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.19|-0.44|0.430
95696763|NCT00438399|191364396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.0003
95696764|NCT00438399|191364396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||0.007
95696765|NCT00438399|191364396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the superiority of Clobetasol propionate shampoo over one of three other comparators, in terms of Subject's overall preference. It was to be analyzed using a non parametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank Signed test on ITT population.||||<0.0001
95696766|NCT00723073|191364397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.1|||Fisher Exact|||||1.10|0.89|0.96
95696767|NCT00723073|191364398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.7|||Fisher Exact|||||2.70|0.38|>0.99
95696768|NCT00723073|191364399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.97|||Fisher Exact|||||1.97|0.44|>0.99
95696769|NCT00723073|191364400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.07|||Fisher Exact|||||2.07|0.61|0.48
95696770|NCT00723073|191364401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||||3.37|0.10|0.57
95696771|NCT00723073|191364402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.66
95696772|NCT00723073|191364405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.22
95696773|NCT00723073|191364406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95696774|NCT03334396|191364410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|5.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.84|1.17|0.020
95696775|NCT03334396|191364410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.70|1.93|<0.001
95696776|NCT03334396|191364411|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.01|1.23|0.014
95696777|NCT03334396|191364412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|3.88|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.88|1.06|0.032
95696778|NCT03334396|191364412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.46||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.67|1.29|0.006
95696779|NCT03334396|191364412|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.89|2.01|<0.001
95696780|NCT03334396|191364413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.05|0.74|0.210
95696781|NCT03334396|191364413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.7|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.70|1.10|0.029
95696782|NCT03334396|191364413|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|8.91|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.91|1.91|<0.001
95696783|NCT03334396|191364414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.77|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-24.77|0.021
95696784|NCT03334396|191364414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.05|-6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.10|-28.05|0.002
95696785|NCT03334396|191364414|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.84|-14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.24|-34.84|<0.001
95696786|NCT03334396|191364415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.28||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|15.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.24|1.20|0.025
95696787|NCT03334396|191364415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.14||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|20.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.99|1.79|0.004
95696788|NCT03334396|191364415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|28.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||28.58|2.68|<0.001
95696789|NCT03334396|191364416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.56|0.72|0.246
95696790|NCT03334396|191364416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.77|0.79|0.169
95696791|NCT03334396|191364416|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|7.18|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.18|1.82|<0.001
95696792|NCT03334396|191364417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.82|0.103
95696793|NCT03334396|191364417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.65|0.352
95696794|NCT03334396|191364417|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.17|-1.00|0.006
95696795|NCT03334396|191364418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.32|-1.84|0.005
95696796|NCT03334396|191364418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-1.48|0.051
95696797|NCT03334396|191364418|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.39|-1.79|0.002
95696798|NCT03334396|191364419|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.25|1.11|0.019
95696799|NCT03334396|191364419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.14|1.44|<0.001
95696800|NCT03334396|191364419|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|6.96|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.96|2.51|<0.001
95696801|NCT03334396|191364420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|10.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.63|0.37|0.424
95696802|NCT03334396|191364420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|13.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.75|0.61|0.182
95696803|NCT03334396|191364420|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|10.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.41|0.36|0.441
95696804|NCT03334396|191364421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.90|-11.57|0.093
95696805|NCT03334396|191364421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|-1.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.92|-14.01|0.010
95696806|NCT03334396|191364421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|-9.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-20.46|<0.001
95696807|NCT03334396|191364422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|7.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.77|0.17|0.874
95696808|NCT03334396|191364422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|13.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.36|0.62|0.176
95696809|NCT03334396|191364422|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.72||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|12.65|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.65|0.59|0.201
95696810|NCT03334396|191364423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.67|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-11.67|0.039
95696811|NCT03334396|191364423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.86|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-10.86|0.058
95696812|NCT03334396|191364423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.63|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.33|-5.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.98|-16.33|<0.001
95696813|NCT03334396|191364424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.067
95696814|NCT03334396|191364424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.799
95696815|NCT03334396|191364424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.782|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.782
95696816|NCT03334396|191364425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.33||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.69|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.81|-33.69|0.009
95696817|NCT03334396|191364425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.13||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.43|-3.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.35|-31.43|0.015
95696818|NCT03334396|191364425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.71|-11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.30|-37.71|<0.001
95696819|NCT03334396|191364426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.29|-4.98|0.028
95696820|NCT03334396|191364426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|-1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.27|-5.89|0.003
95696821|NCT03334396|191364426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.33|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.99|-7.33|<0.001
95696822|NCT03334396|191364427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.069
95696823|NCT03334396|191364427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.56|0.066
95696824|NCT03334396|191364427|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.73|<0.001
95696825|NCT03334396|191364428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.41|-1.30|0.305
95696826|NCT03334396|191364428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.77|0.029
95696827|NCT03334396|191364428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.36|-1.93|0.004
95696828|NCT03334396|191364428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.16|-1.51|0.113
95696829|NCT03334396|191364428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.22|-1.85|0.014
95696830|NCT03334396|191364428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.37|-1.91|0.004
95696831|NCT03334396|191364429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.42|-3.92|0.015
95696832|NCT03334396|191364429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-3.56|0.036
95696833|NCT03334396|191364429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.91|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.69|-5.91|<0.001
95696834|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.39|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.29|-9.39|0.136
95696835|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.81|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||5.10|-5.81|0.898
95696836|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.32|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Absenteeism Change from Baseline||1.52|-8.32|0.174
95696837|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.13|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||1.41|-15.13|0.104
95696838|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.09|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-0.19|-17.09|0.045
95696839|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.97|-4.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Presenteeism (Reduced Productivity While at Work) Change from Baseline||-4.59|-19.97|0.002
95696840|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.89|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||0.57|-17.89|0.066
95696841|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.76||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||2.91|-15.89|0.175
95696842|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.84|-2.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work Productivity Loss (Percentage Overall Work Impairment/Absenteeism Plus Presenteeism) Change from Baseline||-2.72|-19.84|0.010
95696843|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-0.70|-13.93|0.030
95696844|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.65|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||1.39|-11.65|0.122
95696845|NCT03334396|191364430|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.64|-10.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Percentage of Activity Impairment Change from Baseline||-10.41|-22.64|<0.001
95696846|NCT03334396|191364431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.061
95696847|NCT03334396|191364431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.08|-0.00|0.060
95696848|NCT03334396|191364431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (US algorithm)||0.12|0.04|<0.001
95696849|NCT03334396|191364431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|0.00|0.046
95696850|NCT03334396|191364431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK Algorithm)||0.11|-0.00|0.059
95696851|NCT03334396|191364431|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index Score (UK algorithm)||0.16|0.06|<0.001
95696852|NCT03334396|191364432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.36|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||9.30|-3.36|0.356
95696853|NCT03334396|191364432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||7.50|-4.81|0.668
95696854|NCT03334396|191364432|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|12.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||EQ-5D-5L VAS Score||12.86|1.25|0.017
95696855|NCT03334396|191364433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|4.71|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.71|0.41|0.603
95696856|NCT03334396|191364433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.08||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|11.12|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.12|1.50|0.006
95696857|NCT03334396|191364433|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.72||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|12.55|||Regression, Logistic|||||12.55|1.78|0.002
95696858|NCT04971785|191364508|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|5.7||||0.2289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|14.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between each pair of treatment groups were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline enhanced liver fibrosis (ELF) category as stratification factors.|||14.9|-3.6|0.2289
95696859|NCT04971785|191364509|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.6959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|7.4|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||7.4|-11.1|0.6959
95696860|NCT04971785|191364510|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|35.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|52.6|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented are from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||52.6|18.8|<0.0001
95696861|NCT04971785|191364511|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|26.1||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|40.9|||Stratified Mantel-Haenszel test||Percentage difference and 95% CI between each pair of treatment groups presented were from stratified Mantel-Haenszel test with baseline diabetes status and baseline ELF category as stratification factors.|||40.9|11.3|0.0006
95696862|NCT01283997|191364528|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.24|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the fingertip||0.24|-0.13|0.54
95696863|NCT01283997|191364528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.23|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the palm||0.23|-0.13|0.60
95696864|NCT01283997|191364528|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in the measurements for touch by the forearm||0.15|-0.40|0.37
95696865|NCT01283997|191364529|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.59|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Difference in Numbness severity at baseline and week 10.||0.59|-2.06|0.56
95727650|NCT03151499|191424873|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.232|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.767|14.098|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|The main focus is on estimation, therefore no hypothesis was tested. The statistical analysis model for the primary endpoints is an ANOVA (analysis of variance). This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||14.098|6.767|
95729429|NCT03093324|191429082|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.555||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.862|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.862|0.357|0.009
95696866|NCT00884221|191364563|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, ITT|2.2||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|8.6||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin-recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||8.6|-4.2|0.499
95696867|NCT00884221|191364564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Estradiol||||<0.001
95696868|NCT00884221|191364565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||FSH||||<0.001
95696869|NCT00884221|191364566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Free Androgen Index||||<0.001
95696870|NCT00884221|191364567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Luteinizing hormone||||<0.001
95696871|NCT00884221|191364568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Progesterone||||0.630
95729430|NCT03093324|191429083|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.696||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.499|0.972|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||0.972|0.499|0.033
95727651|NCT03151499|191424874|OTHER||Geometric mean (gMean) ratio (%)|8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.187|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.081|11.126|||||gMean ratio = BI 409306 + Rifampicin pretreatment (T) / BI 409306 (R). Standard Error of the mean is actually the Geometric Standard Error.|Since the main focus is on estimation and not testing, therefore no hypothesis was tested.The statistical analysis model is an ANOVA (analysis of variance) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subjects' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects' will be considered as random, whereas the treatment effect will be considered as fixed. The PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model.||11.126|6.081|
95729431|NCT03093324|191429084|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.662||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|1.031|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.031|0.425|0.068
95696872|NCT00884221|191364569|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis (H0) was tested against the alternative by constructing a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates. If the lower-limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than the non-inferiority limit (-10.0%), the null hypothesis was rejected and it would be claimed that highly purified menotrophin was non-inferior to recombinant FSH with respect to ongoing pregnancy rate in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol.|Difference in pregnancy rates, PP|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|9.8||Since there was only one primary endpoint, no adjustment for multiplicity was needed for the primary analysis.|Sign test|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in ongoing pregnancy rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Difference tested: highly purified menotrophin - recombinant FSH, PP|"The non-inferiority hypothesis to be tested for the primary endpoint was:~H0: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH ≤ -10.0% against the alternative H1: π MENOPUR - π recombinant FSH \> -10.0%,~where π MENOPUR and π recombinant FSH denote the ongoing pregnancy rate after treatment with MENOPUR and recombinant FSH, respectively, in a single fresh treatment cycle following a GnRH antagonist protocol."||9.8|-3.8|0.387
95696873|NCT00884221|191364570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Prolactin||||0.047
95696874|NCT00884221|191364571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Sex hormone binding globulin||||0.009
95696875|NCT00884221|191364572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|Tests for treatment differences were based on log-transformed values and adjusted for baseline values||Testosterone||||<0.001
95696876|NCT00884221|191364573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>= 12 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.025
95696877|NCT00884221|191364573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 12-14 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.024
95696878|NCT00884221|191364573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.728||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles 15-16 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.728
95696879|NCT00884221|191364573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatment groups of the average number of follicles \>=17 mm on the last stimulation day||||0.285
95696880|NCT00884221|191364574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who underwent the oocyte retrieval procedure were included in the analysis||Treatments were compared using the Wilcoxon test for the average number of oocytes retrieved.||||<0.001
95696881|NCT00884221|191364575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.969||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Only participants who had oocytes retrieved were included in the analysis.||||||0.969
95696882|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.406||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 1 / 2pn||||0.406
95696883|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.232||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 2 / 2pn||||0.232
95696884|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.412||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 3 / 2pn||||0.412
95696885|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 4 / 2pn||||0.438
95696886|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status 5 / 2pn||||0.390
95696887|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.958||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 4AA / 2pn||||0.958
95696888|NCT00884221|191364576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.954||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between treatments groups of percentage of blastocysts with expansion and hatching status, inner cell mass grading and trophectoderm grading 5AA / 2pn||||0.954
95696889|NCT00884221|191364577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|0.398||||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|9.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.1|-3.6|0.398
95696890|NCT00884221|191364578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Comparison of distributions|1.8||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in cumulative live birth rates was made. The CI was based on a normal approximation.|Estimated value is difference between highly purified menotrophin and recombinant FSH, ITT analysis set|||9.2|-5.6|0.686
95696891|NCT01263093|191364590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.83|0.72|
95696892|NCT01263093|191364591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.53|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Statistical inference was made using the test treatment of LY2216684 + clopidogrel and the reference treatment of clopidogrel alone.|||0.67|0.53|
95696893|NCT01263093|191364593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median of Paired Differences|0.0||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|0.00|0.3303
95696894|NCT04857593|191364600|OTHER||Mean change in EPDS score|5.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95696895|NCT04656418|191364649|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical Testing H01) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95696896|NCT04656418|191364650|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
95696897|NCT04656418|191364651|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
95696898|NCT04656418|191364651|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
95696899|NCT04656418|191364651|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
95696900|NCT04656418|191364652|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||6 Months of treatment||||<0.001
95696901|NCT04656418|191364652|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
95696902|NCT04656418|191364652|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
95696903|NCT04656418|191364653|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||First 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
95696904|NCT04656418|191364653|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Tested the differences between the active and placebo arms using a two-sided Wilcoxon test at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||Second 3-months of treatment||||<0.001
95696905|NCT04656418|191364654|OTHER|Test for differences|||||<|0.001||||||Compared the time-normalized number of HAE attacks in the active and placebo arms by using a two-sided Wilcoxon test (Hierarchical testing H02) at alpha = 5%.|Two-sided Wilcoxon test|||||||<0.001
95696906|NCT02667457|191364676|OTHER|||||||0.0095||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0095
95696907|NCT02667457|191364676|OTHER|||||||0.0029||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0029
95696908|NCT02667457|191364677|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
95696909|NCT02667457|191364677|OTHER|||||||0.0334||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0334
95696910|NCT02667457|191364678|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
95696911|NCT02667457|191364678|OTHER|||||||0.0301||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0301
95696912|NCT02667457|191364679|OTHER|||||||0.0066||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0066
95696913|NCT02667457|191364679|OTHER|||||||0.0387||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0387
95696914|NCT02667457|191364680|OTHER|||||||0.0359||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 60 minutes||||0.0359
95696915|NCT02667457|191364680|OTHER|||||||0.0022||||||p-value is based on t-test with unequal variances (Satterthwaite) if p-value of F-test for Equality of variances is significant (p\<0.05) otherwise p-value is based on t-test with equal variances.|t-test, 1 sided|||Timepoint = 120 minutes||||0.0022
95696916|NCT03097614|191364688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0001
95696917|NCT03172481|191364714|OTHER|The primary efficacy analysis used a mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on the full day laboratory classroom SKAMP-C scores from each time point as the dependent variable. The repeated measures model adjusted means (LS-means) for PRC-063 and placebo were compared statistically using a t-test with an overall 5% significance level to evaluate efficacy. The LS-means estimate an overall treatment effect across the entire 13-hour classroom evaluation.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95696918|NCT04124692|191364715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95696919|NCT04124692|191364716|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0043|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||= 0.0043
95696920|NCT04124692|191364716|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95696921|NCT02528253|191364780|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.66|0.1117
95696922|NCT02528253|191364780|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.76|0.0281
95696923|NCT02528253|191364781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
95696924|NCT02528253|191364781|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
95696925|NCT02528253|191364782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.50|0.3118
95696926|NCT02528253|191364782|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.60|0.0958
95696927|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.60|0.0015
95696928|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.65|0.0004
95696929|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.39|0.0959
95696930|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.44|0.0370
95696931|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.76|0.0008
95696932|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-0.96|<.0001
95696933|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0711
95696934|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.50|0.0661
95696935|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.70|0.0009
95696936|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.84|0.0008
95696937|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.00|<.0001
95696938|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.61|0.0274
95696939|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.50|0.1495
95696940|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.65|0.0123
95696941|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.71|0.0307
95696942|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.91|0.0009
95696943|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.51|0.2103
95696944|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.48|0.2656
95696945|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 12: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.68|0.0152
95696946|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.5164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.50|0.5164
95696947|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.66|0.1488
95696948|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.60|0.2431
95696949|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2428
95696950|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.24|-0.54|0.4561
95696951|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.56|0.3523
95696952|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.53|0.4403
95696953|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.58|0.3205
95696954|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.51|0.5763
95696955|NCT02528253|191364783|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as a fixed effect, and baseline average LBPI as a covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.61|0.2887
95696956|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-1.50|0.0121
95696957|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.71|-2.05|<.0001
95696958|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.3697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.33|-0.89|0.3697
95696959|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-1.16|0.0658
95696960|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.50|-1.70|0.0004
95696961|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.48|-1.96|0.0013
95696962|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.21|-2.70|<.0001
95696963|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.39|-0.99|0.3906
95696964|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-1.60|0.0082
95696965|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.97|-2.34|<.0001
95696966|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.58|-2.15|0.0006
95696967|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-1.16|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-1.16|-2.73|<.0001
95696968|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-1.47|0.0385
95696969|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.61|-2.06|0.0003
95696970|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.43|-2.21|0.0035
95696971|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-0.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.83|-2.64|0.0002
95696972|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.5412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.57|-1.09|0.5412
95696973|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.87|0.0107
95696974|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.66|-2.29|0.0004
95696975|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-1.94|0.0464
95696976|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.37|-2.30|0.0068
95696977|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-1.70|0.1485
95696978|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-1.94|0.0507
95696979|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.41|-1.60|0.2480
95696980|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-1.71|0.1605
95696981|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.55|-1.50|0.3654
95696982|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.32|-1.71|0.1782
95696983|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.3981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.58|-1.47|0.3981
95696984|NCT02528253|191364785|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-1.84|0.1089
95696985|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.1472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1472
95696986|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.24|0.0135
95696987|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.18|0.0893
95696988|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.23|0.0044
95696989|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.28|0.0025
95696990|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.32|0.0002
95696991|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.8348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.11|0.8348
95696992|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.26|0.0020
95696993|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.30|0.0001
95696994|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0272
95696995|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.31|0.0009
95696996|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.18|0.1680
95696997|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.2968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.16|0.2968
95696998|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.23|0.0219
95696999|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.25|0.0717
95697000|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.29|0.0207
95697001|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.8399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.11|0.8399
95697002|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.25|0.0299
95697003|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0060
95697004|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.1974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.24|0.1974
95697005|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline RMDQ, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.22|0.2780
95697006|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.21|0.4330
95697007|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.20|0.4946
95697008|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.25|0.1884
95697009|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.20|0.5210
95697010|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.23|0.3329
95697011|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.5173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.21|0.5173
95697012|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.25|0.2346
95697013|NCT02528253|191364787|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline PGA, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.23|0.3634
95697014|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: Odds ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.26|0.0007
95697015|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|1.29|0.0004
95697016|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.87|0.3456
95697017|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.89|0.2771
95697018|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.41|0.98|0.0594
95697019|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.75|1.14|0.0105
95697020|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|0.85|0.2360
95697021|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.3746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|0.81|0.3746
95697022|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.94|0.0974
95697023|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.08|0.92|0.0806
95697024|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|4.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.47|1.03|0.0407
95697025|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.5966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.58|0.58|0.5966
95697026|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.1492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.96|0.85|0.1492
95697027|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.24|0.95|0.0720
95697028|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.00|0.25|0.9926
95697029|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.3726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.04|0.51|0.3726
95697030|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.22|0.7874
95697031|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.46|0.32|0.7950
95697032|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.2065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|6.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.68|0.66|0.2065
95697033|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.17|1.23|0.0006
95697034|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.72|1.55|<.0001
95697035|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.01|0.0387
95697036|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0903
95697037|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0006
95697038|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.09|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.09|1.08|0.0166
95697039|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.62|1.36|0.0001
95697040|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.73|0.93|0.1389
95697041|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2504
95697042|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.12|0.0057
95697043|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.93|1.14|0.0126
95697044|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.22|1.71|<.0001
95697045|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.79|0.3485
95697046|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.98|0.0642
95697047|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.48|<.0001
95697048|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|0.42|0.9819
95697049|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|0.62|0.4333
95697050|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.41|0.8140
95697051|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.8331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|0.49|0.8331
95697052|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.2682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.12|0.73|0.2682
95697053|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.29|1.31|0.0001
95697054|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.61|1.49|<.0001
95697055|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0071
95697056|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.95|0.1187
95697057|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.08|0.0110
95697058|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.30|0.0003
95697059|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|2.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.87|1.57|<.0001
95697060|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.11|0.0069
95697061|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.91|0.2076
95697062|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.10|0.0072
95697063|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.97|0.0694
95697064|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.36|1.53|<.0001
95697065|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.92|0.1210
95697066|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.6706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.76|0.6706
95697067|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.20|0.0022
95697068|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.7546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|0.56|0.7546
95697069|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|0.57|0.7347
95697070|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|0.50|0.9029
95697071|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.18|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.18|0.62|0.6402
95697072|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.6199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|0.62|0.6199
95697073|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.05|0.0229
95697074|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.30|1.30|0.0002
95697075|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.47|0.88|0.3150
95697076|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.94|0.1370
95697077|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.97|1.17|0.0018
95697078|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0342
95697079|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.24|1.27|0.0003
95697080|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2561
95697081|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.90|0.2358
95697082|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.87|1.13|0.0040
95697083|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.97|0.0723
95697084|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|1.45|<.0001
95697085|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.94|0.98|0.0653
95697086|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.74|0.9177
95697087|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.11|0.0088
95697088|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|0.89|0.1197
95697089|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.92|0.92|0.0913
95697090|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.19|0.72|0.4317
95697091|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|0.77|0.3498
95697092|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|0.80|0.2768
95697093|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|1.09|0.0101
95697094|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.13|0.0054
95697095|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5493
95697096|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0269
95697097|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0144
95697098|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.97|0.0846
95697099|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.09|0.0101
95697100|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.97|0.0848
95697101|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.8732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.32|0.79|0.8732
95697102|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2734
95697103|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|0.86|0.2839
95697104|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.07|1.05|0.0238
95697105|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.81|0.5212
95697106|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.80|0.5954
95697107|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|0.98|0.0638
95697108|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.44|0.78|0.2661
95697109|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.4717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.21|0.69|0.4717
95697110|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.00|0.68|0.5798
95697111|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|0.72|0.5027
95697112|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.64|0.8165
95697113|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.52|0.92|0.1996
95697114|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0074
95697115|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.45|0.87|0.3557
95697116|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.75|1.06|0.0170
95697117|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.38|0.76|0.8641
95697118|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1768
95697119|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.55|0.7696
95697120|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.78|0.66|0.7433
95697121|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0562
95697122|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.03|0.0274
95697123|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.95|0.1206
95697124|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.69|1.02|0.0365
95697125|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.96|0.0964
95697126|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.89|0.2515
95697127|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|0.66|0.8122
95697128|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.1848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.13|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.13|0.86|0.1848
95697129|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2622
95697130|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1579
95697131|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.89|0.2773
95697132|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.96|0.1032
95697133|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.50|0.84|0.4418
95697134|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.92|0.1608
95697135|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.2628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.02|0.83|0.2628
95697136|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.01|0.0447
95697137|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.90|0.2560
95697138|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.53|0.93|0.1741
95697139|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1647
95697140|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0619
95697141|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.61|0.90|0.2025
95697142|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.88|0.2601
95697143|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.77|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.77|0.73|0.5635
95697144|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.11|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.11|0.91|0.1338
95697145|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.91|0.2137
95697146|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.04|0.0256
95697147|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.87|0.3531
95697148|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0358
95697149|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.91|0.1840
95697150|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|0.94|0.1250
95697151|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.61|0.8266
95697152|NCT02528253|191364790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.5673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.74|0.5673
95697153|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.08|1.12|0.0076
95697154|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.69|1.46|<.0001
95697155|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|0.98|0.0700
95697156|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.89|0.2655
95697157|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.98|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.98|1.16|0.0022
95697158|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.11|0.0125
95697159|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.21|0.0032
95697160|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|0.91|0.1528
95697161|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|0.90|0.1863
95697162|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|0.98|0.0667
95697163|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|3.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.39|1.18|0.0101
95697164|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.13|0.0162
95697165|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.5599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|0.69|0.5599
95697166|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.68|1.09|0.0202
95697167|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.57|1.04|0.0335
95697168|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|6.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||6.17|1.04|0.0416
95697169|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.24||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|7.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||7.69|1.37|0.0075
95697170|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.5374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|3.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.34|0.53|0.5374
95697171|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.89|0.92|0.0820
95697172|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.81|1.23|0.0108
95697173|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.24|0.0006
95697174|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.59|1.47|<.0001
95697175|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.63|0.96|0.0963
95697176|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0332
95697177|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.01|1.21|0.0007
95697178|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.64|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.64|1.37|0.0001
95697179|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.05|1.60|<.0001
95697180|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.05|0.0235
95697181|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.76|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.76|1.01|0.0459
95697182|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.54||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.04|1.17|0.0020
95697183|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.91|1.27|0.0019
95697184|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.62|1.62|<.0001
95697185|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.72|0.6765
95697186|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.54|1.23|0.0022
95697187|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.15|1.56|<.0001
95697188|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.63|1.08|0.0270
95697189|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|4.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.38|1.35|0.0030
95697190|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.38|0.3770
95697191|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|4.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.79|1.49|0.0009
95697192|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.78|1.87|<.0001
95697193|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.10|1.20|0.0011
95697194|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.41|<.0001
95697195|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.72|1.03|0.0273
95697196|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.54|0.93|0.1736
95697197|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.09|0.0092
95697198|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.20|0.0015
95697199|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.63|1.45|<.0001
95697200|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.06|0.0164
95697201|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.51|0.89|0.2857
95697202|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.80|1.07|0.0149
95697203|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.02|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.02|1.43|0.0001
95697204|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|3.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.28|1.57|<.0001
95697205|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.92|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.92|0.93|0.1180
95697206|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.14|1.13|0.0062
95697207|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.24|0.0009
95697208|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||4.61|1.56|0.0003
95697209|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|5.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||5.28|1.82|<.0001
95697210|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|0.76|0.3120
95697211|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.14|1.30|0.0019
95697212|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|3.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.59|1.52|0.0001
95697213|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.95|1.12|0.0064
95697214|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.32|0.0001
95697215|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2757
95697216|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.65|0.99|0.0575
95697217|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.96|1.17|0.0015
95697218|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
95697219|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.31|1.31|0.0001
95697220|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.79|1.07|0.0124
95697221|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.15|0.0025
95697222|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.51|1.33|0.0002
95697223|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.79|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.79|1.48|<.0001
95697224|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.49|0.80|0.5701
95697225|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.22|1.26|0.0004
95697226|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|2.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.46|1.40|<.0001
95697227|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.17|1.35|0.0008
95697228|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.83|1.19|0.0059
95697229|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.7741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.60|0.7741
95697230|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.25|1.50|<.0001
95697231|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.90|1.32|0.0008
95697232|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.97|0.0890
95697233|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.83|1.10|0.0067
95697234|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.85|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.85|1.10|0.0072
95697235|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.06|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.06|1.23|0.0004
95697236|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.15|1.20|0.0013
95697237|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.39|1.34|<.0001
95697238|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|3.3|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.30|1.51|<.0001
95697239|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|3.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||3.71|1.72|<.0001
95697240|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.62|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.62|0.98|0.0732
95697241|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.68|1.01|0.0399
95697242|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.67|1.00|0.0536
95697243|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.12|0.0043
95697244|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.91|1.07|0.0143
95697245|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.16|1.23|0.0007
95697246|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.38|1.17|0.0050
95697247|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.18|0.0043
95697248|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.48|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.48|0.89|0.2777
95697249|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.70|1.02|0.0326
95697250|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.1823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.92|0.1823
95697251|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.71|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.71|1.02|0.0350
95697252|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.88|1.07|0.0164
95697253|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.84|1.04|0.0257
95697254|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.35|1.14|0.0070
95697255|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.32|1.13|0.0085
95697256|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.4925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.85|0.4925
95697257|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.55|0.93|0.1534
95697258|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1202
95697259|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.60|0.95|0.1222
95697260|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.9|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.90|1.06|0.0179
95697261|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.99|1.12|0.0065
95697262|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.20|1.06|0.0223
95697263|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.40|1.17|0.0045
95697264|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.28|0.77|0.9385
95697265|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.1093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=30%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.59|0.95|0.1093
95697266|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.57|0.93|0.1631
95697267|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=50%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.74|1.03|0.0285
95697268|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.81|1.02|0.0389
95697269|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=70%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.86|1.04|0.0240
95697270|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.34|1.15|0.0063
95697271|NCT02528253|191364791|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56, \>=90%: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline RMDQ, baseline average LBPI and treatment.||2.47|1.22|0.0021
95697272|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.75|0.0003
95697273|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.33|-0.85|<.0001
95697274|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.47|0.0615
95697275|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.50|0.0356
95697276|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.60|0.0032
95697277|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.27|-0.88|0.0003
95697278|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.08|<.0001
95697279|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.54|0.0844
95697280|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.60|0.0258
95697281|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.23|-0.80|0.0004
95697282|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.78|0.0079
95697283|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-1.08|<.0001
95697284|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.57|0.0977
95697285|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.50|0.2150
95697286|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.79|0.0016
95697287|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.88|0.0058
95697288|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.91|0.0038
95697289|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.58|0.1707
95697290|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.62|0.1083
95697291|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.64|0.0734
95697292|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.56|0.4603
95697293|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.74|0.0799
95697294|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.66|0.2339
95697295|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.08|-0.73|0.1199
95697296|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.60|0.3840
95697297|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.68|0.2000
95697298|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2997
95697299|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.71|0.1778
95697300|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.65|0.3438
95697301|NCT02528253|191364793|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.1876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.14|-0.71|0.1876
95697302|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.72|0.0002
95697303|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.79|<.0001
95697304|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.50|0.0193
95697305|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.42|0.0845
95697306|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.49|0.0212
95697307|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.81|0.0003
95697308|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.41|-0.99|<.0001
95697309|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf worst pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.50|0.0790
95697310|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.55|0.0336
95697311|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.73|0.0008
95697312|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.77|0.0034
95697313|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.01|<.0001
95697314|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.59|0.0361
95697315|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.44|0.2786
95697316|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.68|0.0058
95697317|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.71|0.0365
95697318|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.80|0.0092
95697319|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.49|0.2923
95697320|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.2231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.51|0.2231
95697321|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.60|0.0724
95697322|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.50|0.4776
95697323|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.64|0.1482
95697324|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.56|0.3249
95697325|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.62|0.1997
95697326|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.25|-0.53|0.4823
95697327|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2754
95697328|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.50|0.5861
95697329|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.4346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.54|0.4346
95697330|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.36|-0.42|0.8752
95697331|NCT02528253|191364795|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf average pain, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.60|0.2663
95697332|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.19|-0.77|0.0013
95697333|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.87|0.0001
95697334|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.43|0.2272
95697335|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.58|0.0209
95697336|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.67|0.0029
95697337|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-0.92|0.0002
95697338|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.46|-1.10|<.0001
95697339|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.53|0.1198
95697340|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.66|0.0160
95697341|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.85|0.0003
95697342|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.77|0.0091
95697343|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.90|0.0007
95697344|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.48|0.2264
95697345|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.56|0.0961
95697346|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0121
95697347|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.77|0.0270
95697348|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.94|0.0019
95697349|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.48|0.3906
95697350|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.59|0.1209
95697351|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.76|0.0107
95697352|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.2396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.61|0.2396
95697353|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.69|0.1088
95697354|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.65|0.1673
95697355|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.66|0.1751
95697356|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3164
95697357|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.62|0.2253
95697358|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3408
95697359|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.58|0.3391
95697360|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.50|0.5818
95697361|NCT02528253|191364797|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference index, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.62|0.2562
95697362|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.69|0.0137
95697363|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.14|-0.76|0.0044
95697364|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.6194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.35|0.6194
95697365|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.59|0.0271
95697366|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.66|0.0085
95697367|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.87|0.0027
95697368|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.44|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.44|-1.13|<.0001
95697369|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.54|0.1859
95697370|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.01|-0.63|0.0573
95697371|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-0.88|0.0005
95697372|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.66|0.0841
95697373|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.85|0.0074
95697374|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.16|-0.49|0.3160
95697375|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.3763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.47|0.3763
95697376|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.00|-0.65|0.0505
95697377|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.88|0.0118
95697378|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.25|-1.03|0.0012
95697379|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.54|0.2966
95697380|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.66|0.0956
95697381|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.0117
95697382|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.57|0.3732
95697383|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1922
95697384|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.63|0.2986
95697385|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.65|0.2584
95697386|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.29|-0.57|0.5195
95697387|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.60|0.3752
95697388|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5157
95697389|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5065
95697390|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.38|-0.47|0.8373
95697391|NCT02528253|191364799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with general activity, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.56|0.5146
95697392|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.76|0.0059
95697393|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-0.93|0.0002
95697394|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.56|0.0756
95697395|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.2197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.47|0.2197
95697396|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.63|0.0208
95697397|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
95697398|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.39|-1.08|<.0001
95697399|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.53|0.1873
95697400|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.66|0.0305
95697401|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.20|-0.84|0.0013
95697402|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.08|-0.78|0.0158
95697403|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.21|-0.91|0.0015
95697404|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.4173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.45|0.4173
95697405|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0659
95697406|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
95697407|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.03|-0.72|0.0737
95697408|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.97|0.0021
95697409|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.48|0.4535
95697410|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.56|0.2271
95697411|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.12|-0.81|0.0086
95697412|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.63|0.2243
95697413|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.81|0.0331
95697414|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.66|0.1838
95697415|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.75|0.0795
95697416|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.18|-0.63|0.2847
95697417|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0745
95697418|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.59|0.3110
95697419|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.70|0.1375
95697420|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.4036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.58|0.4036
95697421|NCT02528253|191364801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with walking ability, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.79|0.0641
95697422|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.85|0.0037
95697423|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.22|-0.91|0.0013
95697424|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.1712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.53|0.1712
95697425|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.60|0.0686
95697426|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.04|-0.66|0.0289
95697427|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.30|-1.02|0.0003
95697428|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.49|-1.22|<.0001
95697429|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.12|-0.55|0.2056
95697430|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.78|0.0084
95729432|NCT03093324|191429085|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.713||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.417|1.217|||Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Number of event days was analyzed by a negative binomial regression model, with the logarithmic transformation of the number of exposure days as the ''offset'' parameter and treatment group as a factor and adjusting for study part, region (US and non-US), age, and body mass index (BMI).||1.217|0.417|0.215
95697431|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.31|-0.98|0.0002
95697432|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.15|-0.90|0.0063
95697433|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.34|-1.09|0.0002
95697434|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.63|0.1155
95697435|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.59|0.1652
95697436|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.78|0.0129
95697437|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.06|-0.87|0.0236
95697438|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.93|0.0136
95697439|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.47|0.6624
95697440|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.01|-0.75|0.0468
95697441|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.81|0.0250
95697442|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.11|-0.72|0.1539
95697443|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.91|0.0169
95697444|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.77|0.1049
95697445|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.82|0.0599
95697446|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.3041
95697447|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.83|0.0737
95697448|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.2293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.17|-0.71|0.2293
95697449|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.05|-0.82|0.0806
95697450|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.23|-0.62|0.3680
95697451|NCT02528253|191364803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with sleep, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.06|-0.79|0.0893
95697452|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.24|-0.88|0.0007
95697453|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.38|-1.03|<.0001
95697454|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.07|-0.53|0.1291
95697455|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.03|-0.63|0.0290
95697456|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 2: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.18|-0.77|0.0015
95697457|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
95697458|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.54|-1.25|<.0001
95697459|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.10|-0.55|0.1799
95697460|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.02|-0.62|0.0696
95697461|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 4: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.35|-0.99|<.0001
95697462|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.02|-0.74|0.0387
95697463|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0005
95697464|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.51|0.2768
95697465|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.53|0.2408
95697466|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 8: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.13|-0.78|0.0064
95697467|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.11|-0.90|0.0115
95697468|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.29|-1.08|0.0006
95697469|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.13|-0.59|0.2028
95729433|NCT03093324|191429086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Nausea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.0|-0.6|0.043
95697470|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.09|-0.64|0.1351
95697471|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.0133
95697472|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.15|-0.65|0.2157
95697473|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 24: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.04|-0.76|0.0781
95697474|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.3527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.22|-0.62|0.3527
95729434|NCT03093324|191429086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Vomiting: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.7|<0.001
95729435|NCT03093324|191429086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Upper Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||-0.2|-0.9|0.001
95729436|NCT03093324|191429086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Lower Abdominal Pain: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.4|0.403
95697475|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 32: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.20|-0.65|0.2994
95697476|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.21|-0.63|0.3326
95697477|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 40: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.65|0.2822
95697478|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.28|-0.57|0.4932
95697479|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 48: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.26|-0.58|0.4571
95697480|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.30|-0.56|0.5586
95729437|NCT03093324|191429086|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Diarrhea: DMF is used as a referenced group in the model, adjusting for study parts, region (US and non-US), age and BMI.||0.2|-0.6|0.261
95729438|NCT01399736|191429094|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.55|||Chi-squared|||||0.55|0.22|<0.001
95729439|NCT01399736|191429095|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.56|||Chi-squared|||||2.56|0.25|0.70
95697481|NCT02528253|191364805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Multiple imputation method was applied for missing data, with imputation dependent on reason for missing data. ANCOVA model for imputed datasets included treatment as fixed effects, baseline BPI-sf pain interference with normal work, and baseline average LBPI as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.19|-0.67|0.2664
95729440|NCT01399736|191429096|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|4.01|||Chi-squared|||||4.01|0.25|1.00
95697482|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.36|1.36|0.0010
95697483|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||4.16|1.73|<.0001
95697484|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.51|1.05|0.0300
95697485|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.86|1.44|<.0001
95697486|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.32|1.69|<.0001
95697487|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.99|1.04|0.0290
95697488|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.47|1.31|0.0003
95697489|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|3.03|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||3.03|1.62|<.0001
95697490|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.10|1.16|0.0033
95697491|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.88|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.88|1.06|0.0179
95697492|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||2.08|1.18|0.0021
95697493|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.38|0.81|0.6629
95697494|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.75|1.04|0.0251
95697495|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.59|0.94|0.1278
95697496|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.65|0.98|0.0749
95697497|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.66|0.99|0.0633
95697498|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.67|0.99|0.0626
95697499|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.51|0.89|0.2727
95729441|NCT01399736|191429097|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.13|||Chi-squared|||||1.13|0.22|0.10
95697500|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.57|0.92|0.1749
95697501|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.42|0.84|0.5239
95697502|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.3336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.49|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.49|0.87|0.3336
95697503|NCT02528253|191364807|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.2163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included treatment as fixed effect and baseline average LBPI, baseline PGA, and baseline RMDQ as covariates.||1.54|0.91|0.2163
95697504|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.08|0.78|0.3260
95697505|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.56|1.01|0.0445
95697506|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.61|0.65|0.9263
95697507|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.3194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.81|0.3194
95697508|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.38|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.38|1.04|0.0308
95697509|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.79||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.69|1.20|0.0048
95697510|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.51|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.51|1.12|0.0114
95697511|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.71|0.7857
95697512|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.44|1.18|0.0041
95697513|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.28|1.11|0.0109
95697514|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.27|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.27|1.03|0.0363
95697515|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.59|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.59|1.20|0.0040
95697516|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.84|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.84|0.88|0.1992
95697517|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.7|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.70|0.85|0.3084
95697518|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.94|0.99|0.0586
95697519|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.97|0.98|0.0630
95697520|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.04|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.04|1.03|0.0347
95697521|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.33|0.69|0.7900
95697522|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.0|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.00|1.06|0.0207
95697523|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.07|1.11|0.0093
95697524|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.91|1.02|0.0400
95697525|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.2478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.65|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.65|0.88|0.2478
95697526|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.96|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.96|1.03|0.0304
95697527|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.4763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.56|0.81|0.4763
95697528|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||2.01|1.07|0.0178
95697529|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.53|0.80|0.5223
95697530|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.1708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.72|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.72|0.91|0.1708
95697531|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.50|0.79|0.6022
95697532|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.0846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.81|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.81|0.96|0.0846
95697533|NCT02528253|191364808|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline PGA of low back pain, baseline average LBPI, and treatment.||1.39|0.73|0.9626
95697534|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.6508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|3.98|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.98|-2.49|0.6508
95697535|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.9629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|3.18|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.18|-3.33|0.9629
95697536|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.7007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.69|-2.48|0.7007
95697537|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.88|-3.32|0.8902
95697538|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.5698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.15|-3.89|0.5698
95697539|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.8464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|2.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Work Time Missed: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.72|-3.32|0.8464
95697540|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.0919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.66|-8.72|0.0919
95697541|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.0477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.05|-9.47|0.0477
95697542|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.4735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.17|2.87|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.87|-6.17|0.4735
95697543|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.06|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.06|-6.82|0.2935
95697544|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.56|1.35|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.35|-7.56|0.1714
95697545|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.7521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||4.56|-6.30|0.7521
95697546|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75||0.3078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|2.61|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Impairment While Working: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.61|-8.24|0.3078
95697547|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|0.88|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.88|-8.78|0.1090
95697548|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.56|-10.27|0.0289
95697549|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.4613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.41|2.91|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.91|-6.41|0.4613
95697550|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|2.38|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.38|-6.78|0.3460
95697551|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.1179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.93|-8.26|0.1179
95697552|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.5151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|3.92|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.92|-7.78|0.5151
95697553|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.22|2.46|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Overall Work Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.46|-9.22|0.2550
95697554|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.79|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.79|-7.57|0.0157
95697555|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|-0.78|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||-0.78|-7.57|0.0159
95697556|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.0896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||0.43|-5.94|0.0896
95729442|NCT01399736|191429098|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.59|||Chi-squared|||||1.59|0.22|0.29
95729443|NCT01399736|191429099|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.57|||Chi-squared|||||0.57|0.24|<0.001
95697557|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.3749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.72|-4.57|0.3749
95697558|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.3733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 16: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||1.71|-4.55|0.3733
95697559|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.8056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||3.73|-4.80|0.8056
95697560|NCT02528253|191364812|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.5764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.25|2.93|||ANCOVA|||Change at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment: ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effects, baseline WPAI score and baseline diary average pain as covariates, and study site as a random effect.||2.93|-5.25|0.5764
95697561|NCT02528253|191364813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.7366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.41|0.62|0.7366
95697562|NCT02528253|191364813|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.58|||Regression, Logistic|||OR and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline average LBPI and treatment.||1.58|0.71|0.7710
95697563|NCT02528253|191364814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4724|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.4724
95697564|NCT02528253|191364814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7142|||||||Log Rank|||Missing data for the selected percentile(s) was due to the Kaplan-Meier estimate not reaching the level for discontinuation due to lack of efficacy.||||0.7142
95697565|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.87|0.3960
95697566|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.5932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 2: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.20|0.73|0.5932
95697567|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.46|0.88|0.3326
95697568|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.1765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 4: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.08|0.65|0.1765
95697569|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.39|0.84|0.5619
95697570|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.3909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.16|0.69|0.3909
95697571|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7562
95697572|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.31|0.78|0.9476
95697573|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.36|0.79|0.7746
95697574|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.6377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 16: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.23|0.71|0.6377
95729444|NCT01399736|191429100|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.02|||Chi-squared|||||5.02|0.29|0.80
95697575|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.79|0.8532
95697576|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.5644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.40|0.83|0.5644
95697577|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|0.769|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7690
95697578|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.4321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.44|0.85|0.4321
95697579|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.35|0.80|0.7714
95697580|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 40: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.34|0.79|0.8389
95697581|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.29|0.76|0.9383
95697582|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.33|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 48: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.33|0.78|0.8800
95697583|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.7946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.26|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.26|0.74|0.7946
95697584|NCT02528253|191364815|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56: Odds ratio and 95% CI estimated from logistic regression model. Logistic regression model included baseline LBPI and treatment.||1.25|0.74|0.7803
95697585|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.1272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.41|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.41|0.96|0.1272
95697586|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.86|0.6322
95697587|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.3559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.36|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.36|0.89|0.3559
95697588|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96||||0.6798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.18|0.77|0.6798
95697589|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.44|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.44|0.90|0.2670
95697590|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94||||0.5865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.19|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.19|0.74|0.5865
95697591|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.13||||0.3378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.47|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.47|0.88|0.3378
95697592|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.71|0.5510
95697593|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.90|0.2088
95697594|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.3|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.30|0.73|0.8692
95697595|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.35|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.35|0.78|0.8444
95697596|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 24: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.78|0.8936
95697597|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.28|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.28|0.75|0.8716
95697598|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.29|||Negative binomial model|||Week 32: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.29|0.75|0.8827
95697599|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.8996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.34|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.34|0.77|0.8996
95697600|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 40: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.4880
95697601|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.7938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.27|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.27|0.73|0.7938
95697602|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 48: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.20|0.69|0.5092
95697603|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.22|0.71|0.6148
95697604|NCT02528253|191364817|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Negative binomial model|||Week 56: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.13|0.66|0.2844
95697605|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.73|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.73|0.70|0.6764
95697606|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.9351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.65|0.9351
95697607|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.64|0.8731
95697608|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.72|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.72|0.75|0.5370
95697609|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.8031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.59|||Negative binomial model|||Week 2: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.59|0.70|0.8031
95697610|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.8192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.55|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.55|0.57|0.8192
95697611|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.6345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.54|0.6345
95697612|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.4|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.40|0.56|0.6103
95697613|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.7949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.67|0.7949
95697614|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57|||Negative binomial model|||Week 4: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.57|0.63|0.9920
95697615|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.8772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.67|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.67|0.55|0.8772
95697616|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.6|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.60|0.53|0.7614
95697617|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.5629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.43|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.43|0.52|0.5629
95697618|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.6821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.85|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.85|0.67|0.6821
95697619|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.8049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.77|||Negative binomial model|||Week 8: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.77|0.64|0.8049
95697620|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.62|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.62|0.47|0.6673
95697621|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.4475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.46|0.43|0.4475
95697622|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.5|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.50|0.49|0.5925
95697623|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.9486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.79|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.79|0.58|0.9486
95697624|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.61|||Negative binomial model|||Week 12: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.61|0.52|0.7673
95697625|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.2|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.20|0.56|0.7635
95697626|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.94|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.94|0.50|0.9564
95697627|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.8359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.75|0.50|0.8359
95697628|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.21|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||2.21|0.64|0.5914
95697629|NCT02528253|191364819|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Negative binomial model|||Week 16: Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with model terms of Baseline average LBPI and treatment group.||1.95|0.56|0.8826
95697630|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|7.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.07|10.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.97|3.07|0.0005
95697631|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|10.15|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||10.15|2.26|0.0021
95697632|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|8.42|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.42|1.02|0.0125
95697633|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.2176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|-1.36|0.2176
95697634|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.4235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|5.14|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.14|-2.16|0.4235
95697635|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|22.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.11|2.50|0.0143
95697636|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.96||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|22.35|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||22.35|2.76|0.0124
95697637|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.29||0.3675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|12.36|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||12.36|-4.60|0.3675
95697638|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.0319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|16.11|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.11|0.74|0.0319
95697639|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|8.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|16.38|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.38|0.97|0.0276
95697640|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|5.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.27|-0.14|0.0627
95697641|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.0187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|5.97|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.97|0.54|0.0187
95697642|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.2419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|4.06|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.06|-1.03|0.2419
95697643|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.56|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||3.56|-1.46|0.4124
95697644|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.24|-0.76|0.1730
95697645|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|9.08|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||9.08|1.77|0.0037
95697646|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.0449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|7.39|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||7.39|0.09|0.0449
95697647|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|5.65|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.65|-1.21|0.2038
95697648|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73||0.0644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|6.59|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.59|-0.19|0.0644
95697649|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.3775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.9|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 16: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.90|-1.86|0.3775
95697650|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|6.6|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.60|-3.70|0.5806
95697651|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|6.27|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Effectiveness; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||6.27|-3.68|0.6084
95697652|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.95||0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.56|16.99|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||16.99|-11.56|0.6991
95697653|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|24.68|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Side Effects; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||24.68|1.66|0.0265
95697654|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||4.21|-3.61|0.8795
95697655|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.2758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|5.87|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Convenience; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||5.87|-1.68|0.2758
95697656|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|8.0|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.00|-0.92|0.1197
95697657|NCT02528253|191364828|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|8.24|||ANCOVA|||TSQM Global Satisfaction; Week 56: p-value was computed using ANCOVA with covariates of baseline average LBPI score, treatment, and study site as a random effect.||8.24|-0.39|0.0743
95697658|NCT05136170|191364884|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis was defined on this endpoint: the proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anaesthesia) \>10mm/5min at week 4 in cenegermin (rhNGF) was lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis was rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value was lower than 0.025.|Odds Ratio (OR)|8.498||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.165|33.356||P-value of treatment variable from logistic regression model on proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test (without anesthesia) \>10mm/5min|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \> 10 mm/5 min at Week 4 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||33.356|2.165|0.002
95697659|NCT05136170|191364885|SUPERIORITY|The following null hypothesis is defined on this endpoint: the change from baseline (reduction) in the global SANDE score at week 12 in cenegermin is lower or equal than control. The null hypothesis is rejected if the associated primary analysis p-value is lower than 0.025.|Adjusted means difference|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.801|8.981||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in the global SANDE score.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the global SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline global SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||8.981|-7.801|0.890
95697660|NCT05136170|191364886|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was based on logistic regression model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10 mm/5 min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.648||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|33.808|||Regression, Logistic|||This key secondary endpoint was analyzed by means of a logistic regression model with proportion of patients reaching a value of Schirmer I test \>10mm/5min at Week 8 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline Schirmer I test value as fixed effects and site as random effect.||33.808|1.307|0.022
95697661|NCT05136170|191364887|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.221||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.934|9.377||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for severity at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the severity SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline severity SANDE score as qualitative independent variables.Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.377|-8.934|0.962
95697662|NCT05136170|191364888|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted means difference|0.164||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.221|9.549||P-value of adjusted means difference between treatments from the ANCOVA model on change from baseline in SANDE score for frequency at Week 12.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with multiple imputation (MI) under missing not at random (MNAR) using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in the frequency SANDE score at Week 12 as dependent variable, treatment, gender, age class and baseline frequency SANDE score as qualitative independent variables. Site was considered as random effects that vary randomly among patients.||9.549|-9.221|0.973
95697663|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|2.378||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.869|9.625||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 4|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 4||9.625|-4.869|0.52
95697664|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|7.11||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.653|14.873||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Daily Activities) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Daily Activities) - Week 12||14.873|-0.653|0.073
95697665|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-4.166||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.322|3.989||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 4||3.989|-12.322|0.317
95697666|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixedmodel for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall"|LS means difference|1.058||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.786|8.901||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Feelings) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Feelings) - Week 12||8.901|-6.786|0.792
95697667|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Analyses included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall. Missing data will be imputed according to the questionnaire manuals"|LS means difference|-3.907||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.948|7.135||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 4||7.135|-14.948|0.488
95697668|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.284||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.998|9.431||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL Quality of Life Module (Work) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||QoL (Work) - Week 12||9.431|-9.998|0.954
95729472|NCT04281485|191429245|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||=|0.2784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|4.62|||Binomial regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with logit link \& contains fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) \& screening age (continuous variable).|4.62|0.64|=0.2784
95697669|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEl module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.049||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.658|7.559||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 4||7.559|-7.658|0.99
95697670|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|1.976||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.065|9.017||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Treatment Satisfaction \& Bother module (Satisfaction with Treatment Effectiveness) at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||TS (Treatment - in general) - Week 12||9.017|-5.065|0.582
95697671|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|5.232||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.457|11.922||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 4||11.922|-1.457|0.125
95697672|NCT05136170|191364889|SUPERIORITY|"Changes from baseline in each IDEEL modules scale score was analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) adjusting by gender, age class, IDEEL module baseline value, treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction. Subject was considered as a random effect. The covariance matrix used was unstructured. Comparisons vs vehicle TID were provided using least square means at each visit and overall."|LS means difference|-0.156||||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.912|6.6||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline in IDEEL DE Symptom Bother Module at Week 12.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Symptom - Bother - Week 12||6.6|-6.912|0.964
95697673|NCT05136170|191364890|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.795||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|1.748||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 4.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 4 was reported."||1.748|-0.157|0.102
95697674|NCT05136170|191364890|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|-0.051||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.094|0.991||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 8.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 8 was reported."||0.991|-1.094|0.923
95697675|NCT05136170|191364890|SUPERIORITY||LS means difference|0.136||||0.787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.12||P-value of LS means difference between treatments from the MMRM on change from baseline at Week 12|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||"Analysis was based on MMRM with Multiple Imputation under missing not at random using retrieve dropouts with change from baseline in TFBUT at each timepoint adjusting by gender, age class, TFBUT scale baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Patient was considered as a random effect and the covariance matrix used was unstructured.~Herein analysis for Week 12 was reported."||1.12|-0.849|0.787
95697676|NCT05136170|191364891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||<0.001
95697677|NCT05136170|191364891|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||<0.001
95697678|NCT05136170|191364891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.014
95697679|NCT05136170|191364891|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095||||||Not statistically significant result. p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.095
95697680|NCT05136170|191364892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.02
95697681|NCT05136170|191364892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.328
95697682|NCT05136170|191364892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.287
95697683|NCT05136170|191364892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.777
95697684|NCT05136170|191364893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.126
95697685|NCT05136170|191364893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.968
95697686|NCT05136170|191364893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.613
95697687|NCT05136170|191364893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.805
95697688|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.543||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.543
95697689|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.677
95697690|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global score - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.914
95697691|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||p-value corresponds to two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.874
95697692|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.945
95697693|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.727||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.727
95697694|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.342||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.342
95697695|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.821||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.821
95697696|NCT05136170|191364894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.926||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.926
95697697|NCT05136170|191364895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0344||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0344
95697698|NCT05136170|191364895|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||1
95697699|NCT05136170|191364895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0235||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.0235
95697700|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 4 (Visit 3) was reported.||||0.888
95697701|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 8 (Visit 4) was reported.||||0.651
95697702|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.267||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 12 (Visit 5) was reported.||||0.267
95697703|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Daily Activities) - Week 16 (Visit 6) was reported.||||0.459
95697704|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.192||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.192
95697705|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.568
95697706|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.871||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.871
95697707|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for QoL (Emotional Impact due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.85
95697708|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.364||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.364
95697709|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.646||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.646
95697710|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.739
95697711|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.664||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for QoL (Impact on Work due to Dry Eye) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.664
95697712|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.846
95697713|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.248||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.248
95697714|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.341||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.341
95697715|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for TS (Satisfaction with Effectiveness) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.413
95697716|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.927||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 4 was reported.||||0.927
95697717|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.914||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 8 was reported.||||0.914
95697718|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 12 was reported.||||0.564
95697719|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.489||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for TS (Treatment Bother/Inconvenience) - Week 16 was reported.||||0.489
95697720|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 4||||0.082
95697721|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.848||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 8 was reported.||||0.848
95697722|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 12 was reported.||||0.805
95697723|NCT05136170|191364896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Symptom-Bother - Week 16 was reported.||||0.833
95697724|NCT05136170|191364899|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95697725|NCT05136170|191364900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
95697726|NCT05136170|191364901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95697727|NCT05136170|191364902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 2 was reported||||0.017
95697728|NCT05136170|191364902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.339||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Global Score - Week 4 was reported||||0.339
95697729|NCT05136170|191364902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||p-value corresponds to a two sample (independent group) t-test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|t-test, 2 sided|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 2 was reported.||||0.004
95697730|NCT05136170|191364902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.292||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Severity - Week 4 was reported.||||0.292
95697731|NCT05136170|191364902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 2 was reported.||||0.09
95697732|NCT05136170|191364902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Herein analysis for Frequency - Week 4 was reported.||||0.54
95697733|NCT05136170|191364903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores (SANDE global score) was reported.||||0.0064
95697734|NCT05136170|191364903|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value corresponds to a Fisher's exact test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Fisher Exact|||Herein analysis for NEI score \>= 50% was reported.||||1
95697735|NCT05136170|191364903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0034||||||p-value corresponds to Chi-square test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all patients.|Chi-squared|||Herein analysis for Worsening in symptom scores and/or NEI score \>= 50 was reported.||||0.0034
95697736|NCT05136170|191364904|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||p-value corresponds to a non-parametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Wilcoxon rank sum) test of the comparisons between Cenegermin and Vehicle in all participants.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95697737|NCT00698035|191364937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
95697738|NCT00698035|191364937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||singificant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of week 4 estradiol between LC/MS and RIA||||>0.05
95697739|NCT00698035|191364940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.021
95697740|NCT00698035|191364940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
95697741|NCT00698035|191364940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0228||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SI from BL to W12||||0.0228
95697742|NCT00698035|191364940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SD from BL to W12||||<0.001
95697743|NCT00698035|191364941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.004
95697744|NCT00698035|191364941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.139||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SS from Baseline to Week 12||||0.139
95697745|NCT00698035|191364942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, petechiae, mucosal thinning and dryness between baseline and week 12||||<0.001
95697746|NCT00698035|191364942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Differences in rugae, pallor, mucosal thinning, and dryness from baseline to 12 weeks||||<0.001
95697747|NCT00698035|191364942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0061||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Difference in petechiae between baseline and week 12||||0.0061
95697748|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares (LS) mean difference|22.0||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-4.4|48.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||48.4|-4.4|0.046
95697749|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|67.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|41.6|94.2|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||94.2|41.6|<0.001
95697750|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|94.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|67.8|121.0|||General linear model|Each dose of dutasteride independently analyzed for comparison against placebo using a general linear model.|Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||121.0|67.8|<0.001
95697751|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|61.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|34.4|88.4|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the placebo LS mean.|||88.4|34.4|<0.001
95697752|NCT01231607|191364986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001||99.165|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
95697753|NCT01231607|191364986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.28||99.165|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.28
95697754|NCT01231607|191364986|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Differences between dutasteride (DUT) and finasteride (FIN) were assessed using a general linear model (GLM) adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL hair count (HC). The one-sided 99.165% confidence interval (CI) for DUT minus FIN was derived, and noninferiority (NI) demonstrated if the lower end of the CI was greater than -35 hairs. If NI was achieved with a dose of DUT, the primary endpoint was to be analyzed for superiority against FIN using a GLM adjusted for treatment, cluster, and BL HC.|Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.002||99.165|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.002
95697755|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-39.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-66.1|-12.7|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.02 mg LS mean.|||-12.7|-66.1|<0.001
95697756|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|6.5||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|98.33|-20.1|33.1|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.1 mg LS mean.|||33.1|-20.1|0.56
95697757|NCT01231607|191364986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|33.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|98.33|6.1|60.0|||General linear model||Estimates are based on the adjusted (least-squares) means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The estimation value represents the finasteride 1 mg LS mean minus the Dutasteride 0.5 mg LS mean.|||60|6.1|0.003
95697758|NCT01709786|191365011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Bland-Altman Analysis|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Limits of agreement||Limits of agreement are -2.02 to 5.00. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
95697759|NCT01709786|191365012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Limits of agreement|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||p-value not reported since Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|Bland-Altman Analysis||Limits of agreement are -3.44 to 2.18. This is not a confidence interval because Bland-Altman is not a hypothesis testing framework.|||||
95697760|NCT01082367|191365026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|99.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||99.52|4.67|<0.001
95697761|NCT00664755|191365029|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|6.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.59|1.17|0.011
95697762|NCT01551758|191365041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.92|||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|0.99|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.99|0.85|=0.025
95697763|NCT01551758|191365042|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Calculated as % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the % of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group|||1.5|0.9|
95697764|NCT01551758|191365043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.08||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.47|||Generalized linear model|||||1.47|0.79|0.632
95697765|NCT01551758|191365044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.52|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.52|0.83|=0.439
95697766|NCT01551758|191365045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.06||||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.27|||Generalized linear model|||||1.27|0.89|0.488
95697767|NCT01551758|191365046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|0.98||||0.622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.05|||Generalized linear model|||||1.05|0.92|0.622
95697768|NCT01551758|191365047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.05||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.15|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.15|0.95|0.336
95697769|NCT01551758|191365048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment ratio|1.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.2|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.20|1.05|<0.001
95697770|NCT01551758|191365049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|2.23|||Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care.|||2.23|1.60|<0.001
95697771|NCT01551758|191365050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.66|||Cox proprotional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||0.66|0.37|<0.001
95697772|NCT01551758|191365051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.02|||Cox porportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicates a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.02|0.85|0.111
95697773|NCT01551758|191365052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.01|||Cox porportional hazards model|||||1.01|0.84|0.081
95697774|NCT01551758|191365053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.66|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.66|0.98|0.075
95697775|NCT01968954|191365064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-57.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.0|-53.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-53.1|-61.0|<0.001
95697776|NCT01968954|191365065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-36.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.8|-33.6|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-33.6|-38.8|<0.001
95697777|NCT01968954|191365065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-34.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.7|-31.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-31.7|-37.7|
95697778|NCT01968954|191365065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-29.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|-25.7||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-25.7|-32.3|
95697779|NCT01968954|191365066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.2|-48.1|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-48.1|-55.2|<0.001
95697780|NCT01968954|191365066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-46.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.4|-54.9|
95697781|NCT01968954|191365066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|-36.5||||||Week 52:LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.5|-45.8|
95697782|NCT01968954|191365067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.1|-47.9|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-47.9|-55.1|<0.001
95697783|NCT01968954|191365067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-46.6||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-46.6|-54.6|
95697784|NCT01968954|191365067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-36.3||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-36.3|-45.2|
95729473|NCT04281485|191429246|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|||=|0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.28|||Binomial Regression||||The generalized mixed linear model assumed a binomial distribution with a logit link and contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).|1.28|0.63|=0.5437
95697785|NCT01968954|191365068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.55||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|29.5|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||29.5|-35.4|0.860
95697786|NCT01968954|191365068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|25.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2|51.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||51.4|-47.2|
95697787|NCT01968954|191365068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|12.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|29.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|70.4||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||70.4|-44.5|
95697788|NCT01968954|191365069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||MMRM|||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||7.0|2.4|<0.001
95697789|NCT01968954|191365069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|9.1||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||9.1|4.5|
95697790|NCT01968954|191365069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.8|0.9|
95697791|NCT01968954|191365070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.4|-54.8|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-54.8|-63.4|<0.001
95697792|NCT01968954|191365071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-48.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.0|-39.3|||MMRM|||LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals and p values from an MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-39.3|-58.0|<0.001
95697793|NCT01968954|191365072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|-51.2||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-51.2|-60.8|
95697794|NCT01968954|191365072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-46.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-41.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-41.0|-51.8|
95697795|NCT01968954|191365073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-57.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-52.0||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-52.0|-63.1|
95697796|NCT01968954|191365073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.9|-41.5||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-41.5|-53.9|
95697797|NCT01968954|191365073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-49.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-39.8||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 24): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-39.8|-58.9|
95697798|NCT01968954|191365073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-41.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-30.1||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 52): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-30.1|-52.2|
95697799|NCT01968954|191365074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
95697800|NCT01968954|191365074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
95697801|NCT01968954|191365074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
95697802|NCT01968954|191365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||5.7|1.8|
95697803|NCT01968954|191365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|6.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||6.7|3.1|
95697804|NCT01968954|191365075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.6||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||4.6|0.7|
95697805|NCT01968954|191365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||1.7|-1.9|
95697806|NCT01968954|191365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.9||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.9|-0.1|
95697807|NCT01968954|191365076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.1||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.1|-1.0|
95697808|NCT01968954|191365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS-Mean Difference|-14.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|-8.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.5|-19.9|
95697809|NCT01968954|191365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-14.7||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-14.7|-25.1|
95697810|NCT01968954|191365077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|-2.8||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-2.8|-15.7|
95697811|NCT01968954|191365078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-64.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.1|-59.2||||||TG \<200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-59.2|-69.1|
95697812|NCT01968954|191365078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-59.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.4|-47.7||||||TG \>=200 mg/dL (Week 12): LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region.||-47.7|-71.4|
95697813|NCT01968954|191365079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-63.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-58.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-58.8|-68.0|
95697814|NCT01968954|191365080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-67.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.2|-62.1||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-62.1|-72.2|
95697815|NCT01968954|191365081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-69.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.7|-64.6||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-64.6|-74.7|
95697816|NCT01968954|191365082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-47.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-43.8||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-43.8|-50.7|
95697817|NCT01968954|191365083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-8.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-8.3|-12.9|
95697818|NCT01968954|191365084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.5||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||3.5|1.4|
95697819|NCT01968954|191365085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
95697820|NCT01968954|191365085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.4||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.4|-1.7|
95697821|NCT01968954|191365085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-1.0||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-1.0|-1.4|
95697822|NCT01968954|191365086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 12: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
95697823|NCT01968954|191365086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.3||||||Week 24: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.3|-0.4|
95697824|NCT01968954|191365086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.2||||||Week 52: LS-mean difference, associated 95% confidence intervals with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region, triglyceride subgroup.||-0.2|-0.3|
95697825|NCT01968954|191365087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.86|41.64||||||Week 12||41.64|13.86|
95697826|NCT01968954|191365087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.32|23.56||||||Week 24||23.56|9.32|
95697827|NCT01968954|191365087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.36|15.24||||||Week 52||15.24|6.36|
95697828|NCT01968954|191365088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|95.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.09|173.91||||||Week 12||173.91|52.09|
95697829|NCT01968954|191365088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|112.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.81|225.52||||||Week 24||225.52|55.81|
95697830|NCT01968954|191365088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.13|49.49||||||Week 52||49.49|17.13|
95697831|NCT03519516|191365103|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.749|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.749
95697832|NCT03519516|191365104|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.041|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.041
95697833|NCT03519516|191365105|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.694|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.694
95697834|NCT03519516|191365106|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.495|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.495
95697835|NCT03519516|191365107|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.492||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with green lissamine|Chi-squared|||||||0.492
95697836|NCT03519516|191365107|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.238||||||statistical analysis between groups for final visit with fluorescein|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.238
95697837|NCT03519516|191365108|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.213|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.213
95697838|NCT03519516|191365110|NON_INFERIORITY|it is considered as noninferiority if there is no difference greater than twenty percent between both medications||||||0.741|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.741
95697839|NCT03519516|191365112|NON_INFERIORITY|The study drug is considered non-inferior with respect to the comparator if there are no differences above twenty percent||||||0.11|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.110
95697840|NCT03829332|191365113|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.00624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.95|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||Hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||0.95|0.64|0.00624
95697841|NCT03829332|191365114|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.79744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.39|||Stratified Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region, and baseline PD-L1 status.||HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||1.39|0.87|0.79744
95697842|NCT03829332|191365115|OTHER||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.00037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|20.1|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Percent difference and 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).||20.1|5.4|0.00037
95697843|NCT03829332|191365118|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-3.9||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-0.47|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||-0.47|-7.34|0.0262
95697844|NCT03829332|191365119|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-4.5||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|-0.08||Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.|cLDA model|||||-0.08|-8.91|0.0461
95697845|NCT03829332|191365120|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-1.1||||0.5596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|2.59|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||2.59|-4.78|0.5596
95697846|NCT03829332|191365121|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-0.88||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.49|3.74|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||3.74|-5.49|0.7088
95697847|NCT03829332|191365122|OTHER|Difference in LS means and 95% CI were calculated using the cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction \& stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Difference in LS means|-3.01||||0.1116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|0.7|||cLDA model|Two-sided p-value based on cLDA model with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction; stratified by ECOG, region \& baseline PDL-1.||||0.70|-6.71|0.1116
95697848|NCT03829332|191365123|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.33|0.75|0.9601
95697849|NCT03829332|191365124|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.88|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||0.88|0.42|0.0079
95697850|NCT03829332|191365125|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.56|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.56|0.73|0.7457
95697851|NCT03829332|191365126|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.44|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.44|0.75|0.8122
95697852|NCT03829332|191365127|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.67|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||1.67|0.92|0.1480
95697853|NCT03829332|191365128|OTHER|HR and 95% CI were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (1% to 49% versus \>=50%).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.4068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.46|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, region and baseline PD-L1 status.||||2.46|0.70|0.4068
95697854|NCT05654623|191365137|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.016|||Log Rank|1-sided P-value based on log-rank test.|HR was calculated based on Cox's Proportional Hazard model.|||1.016|0.676|0.0358
95697855|NCT05654623|191365138|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.77|||Log Rank|1-sided P-value based on log-rank test.|HR was calculated based on Cox's Proportional Hazard model.|||0.770|0.418|0.0001
95697856|NCT01956240|191365163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A 1-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess for possible differences among evaluations in each group separately for pectoralis minor length.||||||<0.05
95697857|NCT01956240|191365164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|Separate 2-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test for interactions of angle x evaluation (1,2,3) and for main effects of evaluation.||||||>0.05
95917972|NCT00900627|191795262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.75||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Logistic Regression|Logistic reg. model with terms for treatment, prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer and AZD8931 diagnostic test|The odds Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a odds ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||3.75|1.09|0.026
95697858|NCT02928380|191365191|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.02||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|ANOVA Model with weight of the peanut particle (food occlusion) as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment is such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is no different from using no adhesive H01: The mean mass of food particles retrieved from using a marketed denture adhesive with a flat ribbon nozzle is different from using no adhesive.||0.00|-0.05|0.0987
95697859|NCT01061736|191365197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.99||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|4.64||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. The multiplicity issues were addressed by using the Hommel-procedure.||4.64|0.85|0.1155
95697860|NCT01061736|191365197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|9.63||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.63|1.53|0.0041
95697861|NCT01061736|191365197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.61||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.61|0.52|0.7119
95697862|NCT01061736|191365197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|5.35||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.35|1.06|0.0363
95697863|NCT01061736|191365197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.29||Threshold for significance = 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.29|1.03|0.0426
95697864|NCT01061736|191365198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.773|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.077|3.703||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo was derived. The multiplicity issues for part B were addressed by using a Bonferroni correction for each dose together with a hierarchical testing procedure across the 3 co-primary and the main secondary endpoints. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.025 level.||3.703|2.077|<0.0001
95697865|NCT01061736|191365198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.957|5.344||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.344|2.957|<0.0001
95697866|NCT01061736|191365199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.312|-0.157||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was performed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Differences in least square (LS) mean between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-0.157|-0.312|<0.0001
95697867|NCT01061736|191365199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|-0.181||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.181|-0.336|<0.0001
95697868|NCT01061736|191365200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using two-sided rank-based ANCOVA model. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||||<0.0001
95697869|NCT01061736|191365200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Rank ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95697870|NCT01061736|191365201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.661|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.451|8.863||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Pairwise comparisons of the response rates between each dose of sarilumab and placebo were derived. Testing was performed according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only when the previous endpoints were statistically significant).||8.863|2.451|<0.0001
95697871|NCT01061736|191365201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.565|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.946|10.515||Threshold for significance = 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.515|2.946|<0.0001
95697872|NCT00132314|191365202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2|||Log Rank|||Time-to-event analysis; The primary outcome hypothesis is tested using a two-sided log-rank test to compare the hazard rate for the IM treatment group to that for the oral treatment group.||1.20|0.63|0.39
95697873|NCT00132314|191365203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.2||95% Confidence Interval: 0.63 to 1.20|Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.63|
95697874|NCT01093755|191365227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.30
95697875|NCT01093755|191365227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.52
95697876|NCT01093755|191365228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 3 months||||0.70
95697877|NCT01093755|191365228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between the two treatment groups at 6 months||||0.64
95697878|NCT06509477|191365302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.03|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ITT population||0.03|-0.01|>0.99
95697879|NCT06509477|191365302|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.04|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||PP population||0.040|-0.013|>0.99
95697880|NCT06509477|191365303|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||Assessor1||||>0.99
95697881|NCT06509477|191365303|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||Assessor 2||||>0.99
95697882|NCT06509477|191365304|OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||McNemar|||||||>0.99
95697883|NCT06509477|191365305|OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95697884|NCT06509477|191365306|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||McNemar|||||||0.33
95697885|NCT02246621|191365317|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||2e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.698|||Log Rank|||||0.698|0.418|0.000002
95697886|NCT02246621|191365319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
95697887|NCT02246621|191365321|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.501
95697888|NCT02246621|191365322|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.101|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.101
95697889|NCT02246621|191365326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.688|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.688
95697890|NCT02246621|191365327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.466|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.466
95697891|NCT04113018|191365330|SUPERIORITY||Response rate|0.5385||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3718|0.6991|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|A minimax 2-stage design was used to test the hypothesis that the CR+ rate less than or equal to 50%. Twenty-three evaluable subjects were enrolled in the first stage, followed by an additional 16 subjects for a total of 39 subjects. This design provided 90% power to detect a difference of 20% under the alternative hypothesis, assuming a one-sided alpha=0.10 significance level. If at least 24 of 39 participants had achieved CR or better to induction, the null hypothesis would have been rejected.||0.6991|0.3718|0.375
95697892|NCT04113018|191365337|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.0513|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0063|0.1732|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1732|0.0063|
95697893|NCT04113018|191365338|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0256|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0006|0.1348|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.1348|0.0006|
95697894|NCT00406783|191365371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95697895|NCT00406783|191365372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95697896|NCT01752842|191365381|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.04||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of cardiac diastolic function adjusting for body fat percent, baseline values of BMI, diastolic/systolic blood pressure, HbA1c, fasting glucose, triglycerides, ethnicity, gender and race.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of cardiac diastolic function as measured by E' (cm/s) between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.04|-1.56|0.07
95697897|NCT01752842|191365382|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0058||||0.8128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0418|0.0543||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA||ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.|Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of fractional shortening percent between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|0.0543|-0.0418|0.8128
95697898|NCT01752842|191365383|SUPERIORITY|Power calculation is based on assumption that treatment with Fenofibrate will lead to 11% decrease in plasma TG and ceramide biomarkers. We also assume that there will be no significant change in ceramides without intervention. Based on these assumptions, 86 subjects are required to have 90% chance of detecting a decrease in the primary outcome measure from 1.29 in the placebo group to 1.15 in the Fenofibrate group.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.79||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|-0.65||This P-value is based on ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare mean change of outcome adjusting for body fat percent, demographic variables and baseline biomarkers.||Null hypothesis is no difference of mean change of C24:0/C16:0 ceramide ratio between placebo and Fenofibrate.|Two-sample t-test was used to compare baseline mean values of biomarkers. All statistical tests are two-sided at significance level 0.05.|-0.65|-2.93|0.0034
95697899|NCT03115112|191365395|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin of 0.35% was determined based on a reference clinical trial that demonstrated the effectiveness of sitagliptin, 100 mg, compared to placebo on HbA1c reduction in subjects with type 2 DM. A margin of 0.35% was selected to be approximately half of sitagliptin effect and remained clinically meaningful.|Difference of LS Means|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.22|||||Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline HbA1c value as fixed effect covariates.|||0.22|-0.07|
95697900|NCT03115112|191365396|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-0.37||||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.05|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Covariate includes region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline FPG value as a fixed effect covariate.||||-0.05|-0.70|0.0123
95697901|NCT03115112|191365397|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.92|||Mixed-effects repeated measures|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.||||-1.92|-3.15|<0.0001
95697902|NCT03115112|191365398|SUPERIORITY||mixed-effects repeated measures|-2.33||||0.0276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|0.05|||t-test, 1 sided|p value was presented based on one sided statistical tests using a 0.025 level of significance|Included region, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction and the baseline body weight value as fixed effect covariate.|||0.05|-4.70|0.0276
95697903|NCT05587296|191365399|SUPERIORITY||Diffrence in Least Squares (LS) means|-3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||||<0.0001
95697904|NCT05587296|191365400|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95697905|NCT05587296|191365405|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95697906|NCT05587296|191365406|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Last Squares Means|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|||||One-sided. A multiplicity adjustment strategy was defined using the hierarchical testing strategy, controlling the overall type I error rate at a one-sided alpha level of 0.025 for confirmatory statistical superiority testing.|MMRM|||||||<0.0001
95697907|NCT04157348|191365407|SUPERIORITY||Difference in remission rates|0.0121||||0.8773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1411|0.1653|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||0.1653|-0.1411|0.8773
95697908|NCT04157348|191365408|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0544|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0746|0.1834|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method||||0.1834|-0.0746|
95697909|NCT04157348|191365409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.4|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|main remission||2.40|0.72|
95697910|NCT04157348|191365409|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.29|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|supportive remission||2.29|0.55|
95697911|NCT04157348|191365410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.44|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|sustained main remission||2.44|0.74|
95697912|NCT04157348|191365410|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.34|||Proportional Odds Model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and its 95% CI are estimated with a proportional odds model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region. A \>1 odds ratio means Benralizumab is favored.|sustained supportive remission||2.34|0.64|
95697913|NCT04157348|191365411|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.82|||Regression, Cox||The HR (Benralizumab vs. Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using a Cox regression model with Efron method to control for ties. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.82|0.53|
95697914|NCT04157348|191365412|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.9|||negative binomial model|marginal standardization method|The rate ratio (Benralizumab/Mepolizumab) and the corresponding 95% CI are calculated using a negative binomial model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|relapse||1.90|0.56|
95697915|NCT04157348|191365414|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.54|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||2.54|0.75|
95697916|NCT04157348|191365415|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.22|||proportional odds model||The odds ratio (Benralizumab 30 mg vs. Mepolizumab 300 mg) for higher % reduction and 95% CI are estimated using a proportional odds model. The covariates in the model include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|||3.22|0.96|
95697917|NCT04157348|191365416|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0225|0.2383|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|\>=50% reduction||0.2383|-0.0225|
95697918|NCT04157348|191365416|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|0.1569|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0067|0.3017|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|100% reduction||0.3017|0.0067|
95697919|NCT04157348|191365416|SUPERIORITY||difference in proportions|-0.0068|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1555|0.1418|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of proportions (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|OCS dose \<=4 mg/day||0.1418|-0.1555|
95697920|NCT04157348|191365417|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.046|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0422|0.1341|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|any clinical response-definition 1||0.1341|-0.0422|
95697921|NCT04157348|191365417|SUPERIORITY||difference in response rates|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0732|0.2312|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of response rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|complete response-definition 1||0.2312|-0.0732|
95697922|NCT04157348|191365418|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0554|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.2037|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|main remission||0.2037|-0.0930|
95697923|NCT04157348|191365418|SUPERIORITY||difference in remission rates|0.0467|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1021|0.1956|||Regression, Logistic|marginal standardization method|The difference of remission rates (Benralizumab - Mepolizumab) and 95% CI are estimated using marginal standardization method in a logistic regression model. The covariates include treatment arm, baseline dose of prednisone, baseline BVAS and region.|supportive remission||0.1956|-0.1021|
95697924|NCT06006208|191365439|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.275|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.275
95697925|NCT06006208|191365440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.891|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.891
95697926|NCT00400712|191365471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05||||||0.44
95697927|NCT00400712|191365472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.83
95697928|NCT00400712|191365473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA - comparing absolute measures and including baseline as co-variate||||0.45
95697929|NCT00400712|191365474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline values||||||0.72
95697930|NCT00400712|191365475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|controlled for baseline values||||||0.60
95697931|NCT00400712|191365476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.66
95697932|NCT00400712|191365477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||Examined whether there were differences between groups at 1 year with baseline measures serving as the covariate with a two-sided alpha of 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.78
95697933|NCT04647253|191365502|SUPERIORITY||Rate difference between treatment groups|-10.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-3.3||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.025|z-test with unpooled variance|||||-3.3|-18.4|0.0025
95697934|NCT06795204|191365545|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|6.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 6.82ms, does not cross margin of the 10ms|1 min post-dose; worse case for the study drug||6.82|1.29|<0.05
95697935|NCT06795204|191365545|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.4|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.66|14.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 14.10ms, cross margin of the 10ms|3 h post-dose; worse case of the positive control||14.10|10.66|<0.05
95697936|NCT06795204|191365545|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper boundary of 90% CI should not exceed the margin of 10ms|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.07|13.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Upper boundary is 13.55ms, cross margin of the 10ms|4 h post-dose, second worse case of the positive control||13.55|10.07|<0.05
95697937|NCT01016678|191365629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.0||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (active) to percentage of participants pain free at 2 hours post-dose (placebo)||||0.0038
95697938|NCT01016678|191365630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in percentages|8.0||||0.1294|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1294
95697939|NCT01148563|191365810|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.05|||bootstrapping||The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk), with the tele-monitoring group value as the relative risk numerator and the control group value as the denominator. The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|||0.05|-0.65|0.094
95697940|NCT01148563|191365811|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio, log|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.08|||bootstrapping|The standard error was generated by bootstrapping the sample.|The hypothesis test was based on ln(relative risk) with the tele-monitoring group value as the numerator and the control group as the denominator.|||1.08|0.45|0.105
95697941|NCT00865189|191365812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) for each treatment arm.||||0.015
95697942|NCT00865189|191365812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|||||||Binomial test|||This proportion was described for each treatment arm with a 95% CI and compared with the standard proportion of 10% (CI) using for each treatment arm.||||0.906
95697943|NCT01658579|191365823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.179||0.7304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.614|5.124|||Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis was performed using a linear mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects, and participant as random effect.||5.124|-3.614|0.7304
95697944|NCT00418379|191365837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
95697945|NCT00418379|191365837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.0001
95697946|NCT00304915|191365840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|1.37|0.003
95697947|NCT05127044|191365841|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.81438645|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol-Correlation Coefficient-R Value||||
95697948|NCT05127044|191365841|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.85442277|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
95697949|NCT05127044|191365841|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.0758872|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
95697950|NCT05127044|191365841|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.7929338|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
95697951|NCT05127044|191365841|OTHER|An a priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of subjects needed to detect a similar strong correlation between the DRS and BiliChek data (α = 0.05, power = 0.8, r0 = 0.7, r1 = 0,85; G\*Power3.1). For this study n = 44 subjects (from Study Protocol).|Multiple R|0.86294585|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Power calculation located in Study Protocol||||
95697952|NCT05127044|191365842|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.2184||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.1544
95697953|NCT05127044|191365842|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between hemoglobin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.3909||||0.0087|||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0087
95697954|NCT05127044|191365842|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0252||||0.3038|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3038
95697955|NCT05127044|191365842|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0213||||0.6434|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.6434
95697956|NCT05127044|191365842|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0477||||0.1544|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1544
95697957|NCT05127044|191365842|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with hemoglobin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.1528||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0087
95697958|NCT05127044|191365843|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.1552||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.3143
95697959|NCT05127044|191365843|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between melanin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0832||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.5914
95697960|NCT05127044|191365843|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.000665||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.868
95697961|NCT05127044|191365843|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.574||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
95697962|NCT05127044|191365843|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0241||||0.3143|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3143
95697963|NCT05127044|191365843|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0069||||0.5914|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5914
95697964|NCT05127044|191365844|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and weight.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.0353||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.8203
95697965|NCT05127044|191365844|OTHER|Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between bilirubin concentration and gestational age.|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.595||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Linear correlation|||||||0.0001
95697966|NCT05127044|191365844|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and sex as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.0363||||0.2156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2156
95697967|NCT05127044|191365844|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and ethnicity as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.2172||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0066
95697968|NCT05127044|191365844|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and weight as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.00124||||0.8203|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.8203
95697969|NCT05127044|191365844|OTHER|A simple linear regression model was fitted with melanin concentration as the dependent variable and gestational age as the independent predictor. The strength of the relationship was evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R²).|Coefficient of determination|0.354||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0001
95697970|NCT04526665|191365847|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.641|302.247|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization factors (ALP \>3xULN or TB\>ULN:Yes/No, and Baseline PBC Worst Itch NRS ≥ 4: Yes/No)||||302.247|7.641|<0.0001
95697971|NCT04526665|191365849|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.784||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|0.418|||mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.418|-1.986|0.1970
95697972|NCT04526665|191365850|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.343||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.489|0.803|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, 4-week period and treatment by 4-week period interaction as fixed factors and adjusting for baseline and stratification factors.||||0.803|-1.489|0.5522
95697973|NCT00753935|191365900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum|||||||0.005
95697974|NCT03282357|191365918|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 10 percent (%). The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.5||||||||-0.5|-13.1|
95697975|NCT03282357|191365919|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin, delta = 15%. The two-sided 95% CI for the differences between percentages was constructed using the Newcombe's recommended method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|-0.3||||||||-0.3|-9.8|
95697976|NCT00077376|191365952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|58.0||||||||58|26|
95697977|NCT00077376|191365953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective response rate|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|58.0||||||||58|31|
95697978|NCT05757427|191365960|OTHER|"The sample size is calculated solely for the first primary endpoint, no minimal number of benign nor malignant lesions was set.~The sample size is calculated for this trial design, assuming a p1 = 75% and p0 = 60% for power (1-beta) of 80%, and an alpha level of 5%.~We will conclude that the Wavelia # 2 Microwave Breast Imaging system is effective in detecting breast lesions if more than 43 of the 62 subjects' lesions are detected."|Proportion of detected lesions|90.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.45|95.49||||||||95.49|80.45|
95697979|NCT05757427|191365962|OTHER|The percentage of malignant and benign breast lesions correctly detected by Wavelia MWBI on patients that did not have a biopsy clip marking the lesion position in the breast, will be presented with 95% confidence interval.|Proportion of detected lesions|88.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.66|96.71||||||||96.71|65.66|
95697980|NCT05757427|191365963|OTHER||Proportion of patients with AEs|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95697981|NCT01357980|191365979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.39||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.39|-3.47|0.11
95697982|NCT01357980|191365979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.61||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.05||No multiplicity adjustment applied: each test conducted at a 5% significance level.|ANCOVA|||Comparison of the average Daily IEF change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline average daily IEF value as covariate.||0.05|-1.27|0.07
95697983|NCT01357980|191365980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|219.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.6|369.5|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||369.5|69.6|<0.01
95697984|NCT01357980|191365980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|224.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|140.9|307.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||307.4|140.9|<0.01
95697985|NCT01357980|191365980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|117.0||||0.09||95.0|-20.0|254.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||254.0|-20.0|0.09
95697986|NCT01357980|191365980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|223.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.3|353.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||353.1|94.3|<0.01
95697987|NCT01357980|191365980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|138.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.7|242.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||242.2|34.7|0.01
95697988|NCT01357980|191365980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|186.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.2|319.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Cystometric Capacity change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline maximum Cystometric Capacity as covariate.||319.4|53.2|<0.01
95697989|NCT01357980|191365981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-23.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.6|18.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||18.9|-66.6|0.25
95697990|NCT01357980|191365981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-67.1|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.9|-21.2|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-21.2|-112.9|<0.01
95697991|NCT01357980|191365981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-35.1||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-4.6|-65.6|0.03
95697992|NCT01357980|191365981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-51.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.5|-12.4|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-12.4|-89.5|0.01
95697993|NCT01357980|191365981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-32.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.7|-11.0|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-11.0|-53.7|<0.01
95697994|NCT01357980|191365981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-45.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.6|-14.1|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the maximum Detrusor Pressure change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Maximum Detrusor Pressure as covariate.||-14.1|-76.6|<0.01
95697995|NCT01357980|191365982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.7||||0.05||95.0|||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
95697996|NCT01357980|191365982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 14 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
95697997|NCT01357980|191365983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.3||||0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.01
95697998|NCT01357980|191365983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.8|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 42 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
95697999|NCT01357980|191365984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|1.9||||0.05|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||0.05
95698000|NCT01357980|191365984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|2.1|||<|0.01|||||||Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test|||Comparison of the Physician's Global Assessment score at DAY 84 using a two sided Satterthwaite-Welch's t-test for independent samples.||||<0.01
95698001|NCT01357980|191365985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.13|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.35|-1.91|<0.01
95698002|NCT01357980|191365985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.18||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 14 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.90|-1.26|0.7
95698003|NCT01357980|191365985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.52||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.56|0.3
95698004|NCT01357980|191365985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.48||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 42 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.52|-1.47|0.3
95698005|NCT01357980|191365985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-1.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.73|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||-0.73|-2.02|<0.01
95698006|NCT01357980|191365985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Treatment Difference|-0.4||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.55|||ANCOVA|||Comparison of the Quality of Life Total Summary score change from baseline to DAY 84 using ANCOVA with the baseline Quality of Life Total Summary score as covariate.||0.55|-1.35|0.4
95727652|NCT03979677|191424892|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Multiple comparisons were adjusted.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
95698007|NCT01546285|191366007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-0.22|||Compare the mean difference with 5mmHg|||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4 mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5 mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is at least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10 mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-0.22|-2.58|
95698008|NCT01546285|191366007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-2.66||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.66|-3.95|
95698009|NCT01546285|191366007|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study is to show a mean difference of less than 5mmHg and a standard deviation less than 8mmHg for the difference in systolic, diastolic, and mean BP readings taken by B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|-2.67||||||A total of no less than 65 subjects are needed for this study. Assuming a mean of no more than 4mmHg and a standard deviation of no more than 5mmHg for the difference, this sample size ensures that the percent of subjects with equivalent NIBP is a least 80% with 90% confidence. The difference between the B40 and PRO1000 patient monitors in the systolic, diastolic, and mean BP determinations will be compared. A difference of within 10mmHg is considered equivalent in NIBP.||-2.67|-4.73|
95698010|NCT01114373|191366009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0269
95698011|NCT01114373|191366009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
95698012|NCT01114373|191366010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that there is no interaction between the order of randomization and the primary outcome measures.||||0.0492
95698013|NCT01114373|191366010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.95
95698014|NCT01114373|191366011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.91
95698015|NCT01114373|191366012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.88
95698016|NCT01114373|191366013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.16
95698017|NCT01114373|191366014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95698018|NCT01114373|191366015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95698019|NCT01114373|191366016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.21
95698020|NCT01114373|191366017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.06
95698021|NCT01114373|191366018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.21
95698022|NCT01114373|191366019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Friedman|||||||0.41
95698023|NCT01114373|191366020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95698024|NCT01114373|191366021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.58
95698025|NCT01114373|191366022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.39
95698026|NCT00421603|191366031|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|All analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat sample of all randomized patients. All statistical tests were 2-tailed and employed at a significance level of 5%, unless otherwise stated. The original sample size of 120 patients was chosen to ensure sufficient power (at least 80%) of a two-sided test with level of significance α=0.05 for detecting difference between the two experimental treatments with respect to the percentage of subjects who achieve continuous 3-weeks abstinence.|||||=|0.05|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||The dichotomous primary outcome was analyzed using logistic regression with independent predictors: treatment (MAS-ER and topiramate vs. placebo) and adjusted for baseline severity of cocaine use (total number of cocaine use days in the 28 days prior to randomization).||||=.05
95698027|NCT03444870|191366032|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition Subscale 13 (ADAS-Cog13) Score + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.05|-0.66|0.0954
95698028|NCT03444870|191366034|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.02|-2.52|0.0544
95698029|NCT03444870|191366035|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.1729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|2.7|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.70|-0.48|0.1729
95698030|NCT03444870|191366036|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.03|-1.68|0.0425
95698031|NCT03444870|191366037|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.2904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.93|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.93|-0.28|0.2904
95698032|NCT03444870|191366038|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.20|-2.14|0.1036
95698033|NCT03444870|191366039|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.8468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.65|-0.79|0.8468
95698034|NCT03444870|191366040|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.74|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.74|-1.35|0.8030
95698035|NCT03444870|191366041|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.1439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.34|-0.34|0.1439
95698036|NCT03444870|191366048|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-66.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.71|-58.16|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-58.16|-74.71|<.0001
95698037|NCT03444870|191366049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
95698038|NCT03444870|191366049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
95698039|NCT03444870|191366049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
95698040|NCT03444870|191366049|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
95698041|NCT03444870|191366050|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||||<.001
95698042|NCT03444870|191366051|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95698043|NCT03444870|191366052|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.396
95698044|NCT03444870|191366053|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95698045|NCT02034552|191366077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109||||||\[80% CI\]: \[10.1%- 39.6%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||0.0109
95698046|NCT02034552|191366077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[40.8% - 73.7%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
95698047|NCT02034552|191366077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||\[80% CI\]: \[31.8% - 68.2%\]|Clopper and Pearson|Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 will be estimated with exact binomial 80% CI using the method of Clopper and Pearson.||H0: Patient bone scan response rate at Week 24 ≤5%. The Type I error rate for the test in each treatment group, is one-sided 0.10. A one-sided p-value will be reported for this test.||||<0.0001
95698048|NCT00074802|191366085|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.43||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.05|4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.19|-15.05|.267
95698049|NCT00074802|191366086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of responder status.||||.018
95698050|NCT00074802|191366086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's Exact Test used for analyses of remitter status.||||.034
95698051|NCT00074802|191366087|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.21||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.39|-5.02|.0005
95698052|NCT00074802|191366088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.61||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.62|-11.84|.0775
95698053|NCT00074802|191366089|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.53||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Paroxetine+CBT \> Paroxetine alone in BFNE change.|||-2.35|-8.70|.0006
95698054|NCT00074802|191366090|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.55|-2.16|.871
95698055|NCT00074802|191366091|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.41||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|12.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.76|-11.95|.949
95698056|NCT05137730|191366103|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7109|0.8611|||||Least squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8611|0.7109|
95698057|NCT05137730|191366104|OTHER||Dose effect|1.5395|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2929|1.7862||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.7862|1.2929|
95698058|NCT05137730|191366105|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7576|0.9375|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.9375|0.7576|
95698059|NCT05137730|191366106|OTHER||Dose effect|1.2823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0431|1.5215||||||A linear regression model using was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.5215|1.0431|
95698060|NCT05137730|191366107|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7462|0.8893|||||LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from the linear mixed effects model.|||0.8893|0.7462|
95698061|NCT05137730|191366108|OTHER||Dose effect|1.0937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0763|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.938|1.2493||||||A linear regression model was used, including sequence and period as fixed effects, subject within sequence as a random effect, and ln(dose) as a covariate.||1.2493|0.9380|
95698062|NCT01840228|191366113|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.91|||Chi-squared|||||1.91|0.63|0.74
95698063|NCT01840228|191366114|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.36|||Fisher Exact|||||1.36|0.14|0.13
95698064|NCT01840228|191366115|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.5||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|4.43|||Fisher Exact|||||4.43|0.51|0.71
95698065|NCT01840228|191366116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95698066|NCT01413542|191366160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimate of Difference||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of ACE inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p\<0.001). Other comparisons: Effect of DPP4 inhibition on FBF response to bradykinin (p=0.89); Effect of ACE (p=0.16), DPP4 (p=0.82), or combined inhibition (p=0.35) on FBF response to sub P.|Mixed Models Analysis|"Effect of DPP4 inhibition on vasodilator response to GLP-1 (p=0.14) or BNP (p=0.85).~p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance."||"Group 1: The effect of treatment (placebo, ACE or DPP4 inhibitor, or the combination) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as forearm blood flow was determined.~Group 2: The effect of treatment (placebo, DPP4 inhibitor) on vasodilator response to peptide, measured as percent change in forearm blood flow was determined."||||<0.001
95698067|NCT01413542|191366161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p=0.02 vs. placebo).Effect of ACE inhibition on tPA release during sub P in women (p\<0.001); effect of DPP4 inhibition on tPA release during sub P and (p=0.001 vs. ACE inhibition alone).|Mixed Models Analysis|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance||||||0.02
95698068|NCT01413542|191366162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined ACE and DPP4 inhibition on change in heart rate in response to max dose substance P (p=0.011 vs placebo; ).|Wilcoxon signed rank|p\<0.05 threshold for statistical significance.||||||0.011
95698069|NCT01413542|191366163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with placebo.|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.05
95698070|NCT01413542|191366163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of combined DPP4 and ACE inhibition on the change in the norepinephrine AV gradient during substance P as compared to treatment with ACE inhibition alone (p=0.007).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.007
95698071|NCT01413542|191366164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during placebo (p=0.01).|wilxocon signed rank test|||||||0.01
95698072|NCT01413542|191366164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of intra-arterial GLP-1 on venous GLP-1 concentrations during sitagliptin (p=0.01).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.01
95698073|NCT01413542|191366164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of DPP4 inhibition on venous GLP-1 levels at high dose of intra-arterial GLP-1 (p=0.04 vs. placebo).|Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||0.04
95698074|NCT01879319|191366167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-11.2|
95698075|NCT01879319|191366168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|9.7||||||||9.7|-2.9|
95698076|NCT03372603|191366169|OTHER||Ratio|1.336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.965|1.847|||||Treatment comparison ratio of GSK2798745 and placebo using posterior median ratio and 90% credible interval is presented.|||1.847|0.965|
95698077|NCT03341923|191366188|NON_INFERIORITY|"Difference (DT1MF-AMMF) of percentage of subjects rated as Optimal was provided with two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI). If lower limit of CI was above -10% as non-inferiority criteria, non-inferiority was to be demonstrated."|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
95698078|NCT03341923|191366188|SUPERIORITY|After demonstrating noninferiority, if lower limit of CI was above 0% as superiority criteria, superiority was to be demonstrated.|Difference in proportion|6.1||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|11.9|||McNemar|||||11.9|0.2|0.0455
95698079|NCT02767856|191366191|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not enroll enough samples. The stats here are only for reference.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline and primary visit outcome||0.16|-0.08|0.48
95698080|NCT02767856|191366192|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. the stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.99|-0.75|0.26
95698081|NCT02767856|191366193|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.75|74.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||74.20|-21.75|0.26
95698082|NCT02767856|191366194|EQUIVALENCE|The study did not reach the target sample size. The stats are for reference.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.1||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|19.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.3|-41.3|0.44
95698083|NCT00065442|191366206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.775||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|0.979|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with treatment, PSA (ln), and LDH (ln) as the independent variables, stratified by randomization strata.|sipuleucel-T/placebo|||0.979|0.614|0.032
95698084|NCT00065442|191366206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|0.965|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata.|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata (sipuleucel-T/placebo)|||0.965|0.608|0.023
95698085|NCT00065442|191366207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.951||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.169|||Log Rank|Stratified by randomization strata|Cox regression model with treatment as the independent variable, stratified by randomization strata|||1.169|0.773|0.628
95698086|NCT01797965|191366224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5937|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.5937
95698087|NCT01797965|191366224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6233|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.6233
95698088|NCT01797965|191366224|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.1884
95698089|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0204|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.0204
95698090|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0805|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.0805
95698091|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2535|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2535
95698092|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4738|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.4738
95698093|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2302|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.2302
95698094|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8522|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8522
95698095|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0431|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.0431
95698096|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.0339
95698097|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3195|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.3195
95698098|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2119|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.2119
95698099|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3619|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.3619
95698100|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.0170
95698101|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.017|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.0170
95698102|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0849|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.0849
95698103|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0057|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.0057
95698104|NCT01797965|191366225|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline Z-score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.3960
95698105|NCT01797965|191366227|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.902||||0.8417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.329|2.473|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for the baseline relapse rate, history of prior IFN beta use (yes/no), baseline EDSS (\<=2.5 vs \>2.5) and baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35).||||2.473|0.329|0.8417
95698106|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3813|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 12||||0.3813
95698107|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1679|||||||ANOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 24||||0.1679
95698108|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5634|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 48||||0.5634
95698109|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7003|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 144||||0.7003
95698110|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7812|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 168||||0.7812
95698111|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3246|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 192||||0.3246
95698112|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6423|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 216||||0.6423
95698113|NCT01797965|191366249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0288|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change to Week 240||||0.0288
95698114|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2567|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 301||||0.2567
95698115|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6152|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 301||||0.6152
95698116|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2024|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 36 for 301||||0.2024
95698117|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9988|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 301||||0.9988
95698118|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7962|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 60 for 301||||0.7962
95698119|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8486|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 72 for 301||||0.8486
95698120|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 84 for 301||||0.4478
95698121|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.325|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 96 for 301||||0.3250
95698122|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 108 for 301||||0.1290
95698123|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7295|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 120 for 301||||0.7295
95698124|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8647|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 132 for 301||||0.8647
95698125|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2183|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 301||||0.2183
95698126|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3945|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Baseline 303||||0.3945
95698127|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5068|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 12 for 303||||0.5068
95698128|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1669|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 24 for 303||||0.1669
95698129|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5038|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 48 for 303||||0.5038
95698130|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 144 for 303||||0.6001
95698131|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8617|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 168 for 303||||0.8617
95698132|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 192 for 303||||0.2590
95698133|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5159|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 216 for 303||||0.5159
95698134|NCT01797965|191366250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6123|||||||ANCOVA|Based on ranks and adjusted for the baseline raw score, baseline age (\<=35 vs \>35) and history of prior IFN beta.||Change from Baseline 301 to Week 240 for 303||||0.6123
95698135|NCT01764256|191366251|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event (related or unrelated)||||0.44
95698136|NCT01764256|191366251|EQUIVALENCE|Definition of equivalence: p\<0.05||||||0.7446|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects with at least one unsolicited adverse event: potentially related||||0.7446
95698137|NCT01764256|191366252|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.5694|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.5694
95698138|NCT01764256|191366252|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1.0000
95698139|NCT01764256|191366252|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
95698140|NCT01764256|191366253|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||0.6004|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||0.6004
95698141|NCT01764256|191366253|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic reaction)||||1
95698142|NCT01764256|191366253|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.00
95698143|NCT01764256|191366254|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
95698144|NCT01764256|191366254|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
95698145|NCT01764256|191366254|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
95698146|NCT01764256|191366255|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic or local reaction)||||1.0000
95698147|NCT01764256|191366255|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (systemic)||||1.0000
95698148|NCT01764256|191366255|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was defined as p\<0.05.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Proportion of subjects per Group with any Moderate or Higher Reaction (local reaction)||||1.0000
95698149|NCT03373110|191366285|OTHER|||||||0.973||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models fit via maximum likelihood to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction. We used separate models to assess the intervention effects across the 8-week intervention period as well as the complete 16-week follow-up period.|The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.973
95698150|NCT03373110|191366285|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.005
95698151|NCT03373110|191366285|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 8 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||.004
95698152|NCT03373110|191366285|OTHER|||||||0.627||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.627
95698153|NCT03373110|191366285|OTHER|||||||0.359||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.359
95698154|NCT03373110|191366285|OTHER|||||||0.597||||||A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on average daily steps at 16 weeks into the study. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to adjust for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|We used linear mixed effects models to examine the effect of the interventions on daily steps. These models account for the covariance of repeated measurements within subjects, and we used maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing daily step counts. The models include a random intercept and fixed effects for intervention, time, and an intervention by time interaction.|||0.597
95698155|NCT01599754|191366312|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.3211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.147|||Log Rank|||||1.147|0.660|0.3211
95698156|NCT01599754|191366313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.026||||0.9246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.756|||Log Rank|||||1.756|0.600|0.9246
95698157|NCT00414960|191366321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.64|5.83||P-value is for comparison of change from baseline between enzastaurin and placebo group.|2-sample pooled t-test||Using placebo as a reference group, the mean difference = enzastaurin minus placebo.|||5.83|-10.64|0.556
95698158|NCT00186056|191366337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.26|||||||ANOVA|Interaction of HAMD \* medication group F(2,26)=1.38, eta sq = .05||||||<.26
95698159|NCT00738374|191366395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Analysis compared responders and non-responders.||||0.0008
95698160|NCT00738374|191366396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0795
95698161|NCT00738374|191366412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2712|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2712
95698162|NCT02300077|191366433|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95698163|NCT02300077|191366434|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95698164|NCT02300077|191366435|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95698165|NCT02300077|191366436|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
95698166|NCT03245723|191366437|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.38
95698167|NCT03245723|191366438|OTHER|Descriptive statistics||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon Rank Sum test|||||||0.12
95698168|NCT01512108|191366443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.27||||0.0026||95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||ANOVA|||||-0.09|-0.44|0.0026
95698169|NCT01512108|191366444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|-0.3||||0.0458||95.0|-0.6|-0.01|||ANOVA|||||-0.01|-0.60|0.0458
95698170|NCT02373371|191366445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.846|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Main analysis:~* nbDPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with DPDT compared to the inclusion layer,~* nbCPKAdispM3 the number of KA disappeared at M3 after treatment with conventional blue light,~The primary endpoint is:~differenceM3 = nbDPKAdispM3 - nbCPKAdispM3 The main analysis will consist of a signed Wilcoxon rank test for matched data testing whether difference M3 is significantly different from 0"||||0.8460
95698171|NCT02373371|191366447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95698172|NCT02373371|191366448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95698173|NCT00654953|191366449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|degrees of freedom for medication group = 2 (group)||The analysis tested the null hypothesis of no difference among groups in terms of the # of days to relapse (first two conseqcutively positive urines) using ANOVA.||||0.05
95698174|NCT02513771|191366451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Stratified Wilcoxon rank-sum test stratified by screening CD4 count (\<= or \> 350 cells/mm\^3) and statin use.||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in the change in sCD14 from baseline to week 15/16.||||1.000
95698175|NCT01797445|191366467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentages|3.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.002|-1.0|7.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 or \> 100,000 copies/mL) and region (US vs ex-US).|The difference in percentages and its 95.002% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions adjusted by baseline HIV-1 RNA and region stratum.|Null hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was ≥ 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 48; alternative hypothesis: the E/C/F/TAF group was \< 12% worse than the E/C/F/TDF group.||7.1|-1.0|0.13
95698176|NCT04295356|191366492|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of Cmax was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|102.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.08|111.9|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in Cmax between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||111.90|94.08|
95698177|NCT04295356|191366493|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-inf was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|103.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.98|114.29|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-inf between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||114.29|93.98|
95698178|NCT04295356|191366494|EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence interval of the ratio of geometric least squares means of AUC0-last was estimated to assess the PK similarity between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS (bioequivalence margin of 80% to 125%).|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.09|121.86|||ANCOVA|The stratification factors (gender \[male or female\], study center, and body weight as measured on Day -1) were included in ANCOVA model as covariates.||Equivalence test in AUC0-last between CT-P17 AI and CT-P17 PFS||121.86|91.09|
95698179|NCT04904614|191366520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95698180|NCT04904614|191366521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.13
95698181|NCT04904614|191366522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.6
95698182|NCT04904614|191366524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.97
95698183|NCT04268004|191366526|OTHER|Chi-squared test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.|||||=|0.64|||||||Chi-squared|df=(1, 19)||Chi-square test was used to determine if study arm is associated with FP uptake.||||=.64
95698184|NCT02505542|191366531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.822|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.605|38.864||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||38.864|9.605|<0.001
95698185|NCT02505542|191366531|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.069|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.395|27.955||A fixed sequence testing procedure was used whereby the second test (CZP 200 mg Q4W vs PBO) was interpreted as statistically significant only if the first test (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) was significant at the 0.05 level as well.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio (and corresponding p-value) resulted from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, geographic region, and modified New York (mNY) classification for study participants who did not experience a flare. An odds ratio \> 1 indicates a study participant on CZP was more likely not to experience a flare than a study participant on placebo. Penalized maximum likelihood approach was used for logistic regression.||27.955|7.395|<0.001
95698186|NCT02505542|191366535|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q2W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
95698187|NCT02505542|191366535|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||P-values were from stratified log-rank test comparing the Certolizumab pegol 200 mg Q4W Double-Blind (RS) group with the Placebo Double-Blind (RS) group (Geographic region and modified New York (mNY) classification were used as stratification factors).||||<0.001
95698188|NCT02505542|191366537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.95|35.961|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||35.961|8.950|<0.001
95698189|NCT02505542|191366537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.385|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.952|21.778|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||21.778|5.952|<0.001
95698190|NCT02505542|191366537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.653|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.333|37.399|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||37.399|8.333|<0.001
95698191|NCT02505542|191366537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.863|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|24.822|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and modified New York (mNY) classification.||24.822|5.670|<0.001
95698192|NCT02505542|191366538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.205|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.851|41.439|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||41.439|9.851|<0.001
95698193|NCT02505542|191366538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.275|23.218|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.218|6.275|<0.001
95698194|NCT02505542|191366539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.21|42.744|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||42.744|10.210|<0.001
95698195|NCT02505542|191366539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.377|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.456|19.738|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||19.738|5.456|<0.001
95698196|NCT02505542|191366540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.211|34.785|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.785|8.211|<0.001
95698197|NCT02505542|191366540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.072|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.954|24.476|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||24.476|5.954|<0.001
95698198|NCT02505542|191366541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.082|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.561|34.085|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||34.085|8.561|<0.001
95698199|NCT02505542|191366541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.503|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.939|22.278|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||22.278|5.939|<0.001
95698200|NCT02505542|191366542|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|-1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.17|-1.66|<0.001
95698201|NCT02505542|191366542|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.45|<0.001
95698202|NCT02505542|191366543|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|-1.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.94|-2.99|<0.001
95698203|NCT02505542|191366543|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.267|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.72|-2.77|<0.001
95698204|NCT02505542|191366544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-1.11|-2.04|<0.001
95698205|NCT02505542|191366544|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.96|-1.90|<0.001
95698206|NCT02505542|191366545|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||0.02|-0.42|=0.074
95698207|NCT02505542|191366545|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.113|=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||An mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis on all observed post-baseline data with the following fixed-effect covariates was used: treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, Part B Baseline value, and visit as fixed-effect factors, as well as treatment group by visit interaction and Part B Baseline value by visit interaction.||-0.02|-0.46|=0.036
95698208|NCT02505542|191366546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.308|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.084|36.898|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||36.898|9.084|<0.001
95698209|NCT02505542|191366546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.255|23.098|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratios (and corresponding p-values) were from a logistic regression model with factors for treatment group, geographical region, and mNY classification.||23.098|6.255|<0.001
95698210|NCT02505542|191366547|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.51|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.51|-2.50|=0.195
95698211|NCT02505542|191366547|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|=|0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.91|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.91|-2.11|=0.432
95698212|NCT02505542|191366548|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||-0.02|-0.78|=0.040
95698213|NCT02505542|191366548|OTHER||LS Mean Difference vs Placebo|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||ANCOVA|||"Only MRIs performed ± 2 weeks around the Week 96 or Early Withdrawal Visit were assigned to Week 96 or Early Withdrawal.~Only results of the double-read assessments of the central MRI review were included. The analysis used the average of the scores from the 2 independent reviewers. Whenever an adjudication was present, the average score across all 3 reviewers was used.~ANCOVA model with treatment, geographical region, mNY classification, and Part B Baseline as covariates."||0.03|-0.73|=0.074
95698214|NCT04724733|191366570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
95698215|NCT04724733|191366570|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
95698216|NCT04724733|191366570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0172
95698217|NCT04724733|191366571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.0320
95698218|NCT04724733|191366571|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
95698219|NCT04724733|191366571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0008
95698220|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.140|-0.052|0.567
95698221|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.209|0.018|0.015
95698222|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.188|-0.003|0.059
95698223|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.011|0.090
95698224|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.049||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.129|-0.031|0.231
95698225|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.021||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.059|-0.101|0.612
95698226|NCT03084718|191366572|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.180|0.023|0.011
95698227|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.097|-0.060|0.647
95698228|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.196|0.039|0.004
95698229|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.149|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.149|-0.008|0.076
95698230|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.099||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.179|0.020|0.014
95698231|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.131|-0.026|0.192
95698232|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.047||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.126|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.032|-0.126|0.244
95698233|NCT03084718|191366573|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.074||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.151|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.151|-0.003|0.060
95698234|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.098|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.098|-0.074|0.780
95698235|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.076||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.162|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.162|-0.011|0.086
95698236|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.043||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.129|-0.043|0.324
95698237|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.063||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.150|-0.024|0.153
95698238|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.031||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.055|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.117|-0.055|0.482
95698239|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.032||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.054|-0.119|0.463
95698240|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.052|0.117|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.117|-0.052|0.453
95698241|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.064|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.123|-0.064|0.533
95698242|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.105||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.011|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.199|0.011|0.029
95698243|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.146|-0.041|0.274
95698244|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.169|-0.019|0.119
95698245|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.116|-0.071|0.638
95698246|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.052||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.042|-0.147|0.274
95698247|NCT03084718|191366574|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.013|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.171|-0.013|0.092
95698248|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.00|-0.31|0.053
95698249|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.11|-0.42|0.001
95698250|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.06|-0.37|0.006
95698251|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.26|0.176
95698252|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.09|-0.22|0.423
95698253|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.20|-0.11|0.574
95698254|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 4~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.35|0.011
95698255|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||0.06|-0.27|0.215
95698256|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.32|0.070
95698257|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.07|-0.40|0.005
95698258|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.12|-0.21|0.566
95698259|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.04|-0.29|0.124
95698260|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.08|-0.25|0.336
95698261|NCT03084718|191366575|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Week 8~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.05|-0.37|0.010
95698262|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.38|0.067
95698263|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.53|< 0.001
95698264|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.40|0.038
95698265|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.05|-0.35|0.130
95698266|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.17|-0.22|0.811
95698267|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.33|-0.07|0.202
95698268|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.01|-0.39|0.044
95698269|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.11|-0.37|0.283
95698270|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.13|-0.60|0.003
95698271|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.50|0.027
95698272|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.00|-0.48|0.054
95698273|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.10|-0.38|0.258
95698274|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.34|-0.14|0.423
95698275|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.04|-0.42|0.111
95698276|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.05|-0.36|0.135
95698277|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.14|-0.56|< 0.001
95698278|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.03|-0.44|0.024
95698279|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.01|-0.40|0.067
95698280|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.13|-0.29|0.444
95698281|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.32|-0.09|0.285
95698282|NCT03084718|191366576|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||0.01|-0.40|0.060
95698283|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|10.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.0|-1.1|0.115
95698284|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|2.0|0.008
95698285|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-0.9|0.099
95698286|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.5|0.275
95698287|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.8|-5.4|0.943
95698288|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.7|-8.6|0.308
95698289|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.7|0.8|0.024
95698290|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.8||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.0|-1.4|0.129
95698291|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|15.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.2|2.8|0.004
95698292|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|-0.3|0.061
95698293|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.5|-2.0|0.180
95698294|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.4|-5.1|0.721
95698295|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-9.4|0.328
95698296|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|1.0|0.022
95698297|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-0.9|0.101
95698298|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|2.8|0.003
95698299|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.8|-0.2|0.061
95698300|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|9.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.3|-1.9|0.196
95698301|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.3|-4.9|0.814
95698302|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||2.6|-8.6|0.291
95698303|NCT03084718|191366577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|12.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.1|1.3|0.016
95698304|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698305|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698306|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698307|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.913
95698308|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.871
95698309|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.958
95698310|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698311|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.010
95698312|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.011
95698313|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
95698314|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.996
95698315|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.632
95698316|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.630
95698317|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698318|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.002
95698319|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.0|-0.2|0.001
95698320|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698321|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.960
95698322|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.725
95698323|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||0.1|-0.1|0.764
95698324|NCT03084718|191366578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||-0.1|-0.2|< 0.001
95698325|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.7|-2.8|0.316
95698326|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|10.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.7|-0.9|0.097
95698327|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.2|-1.3|0.128
95698328|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.8|-3.9|0.511
95698329|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.3|-4.3|0.610
95698330|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|5.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.4|-6.3|0.882
95698331|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|1.5|0.013
95698332|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.2|-2.8|0.219
95698333|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.8|-2.2|0.166
95698334|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.5||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.9|-2.0|0.151
95698335|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|8.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.2|-6.9|0.871
95698336|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.3|-6.8|0.837
95698337|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||7.7|-7.4|0.966
95698338|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.9|2.1|0.012
95698339|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.1|-2.5|0.233
95698340|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.4|-1.2|0.113
95698341|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-1.3|0.120
95698342|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.6|-5.1|0.691
95698343|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|7.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||7.5|-5.2|0.722
95698344|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|6.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.2|-6.5|0.966
95698345|NCT03084718|191366579|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|14.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.5|2.2|0.008
95698346|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|7.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||7.9|-3.4|0.426
95698347|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-0.1|0.055
95698348|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|11.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.1|-0.2|0.059
95698349|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.0|-2.5|0.263
95698350|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.8|-2.6|0.280
95698351|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||5.6|-5.9|0.965
95698352|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.3|2.2|0.007
95698353|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.2|-3.5|0.308
95698354|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.2|-1.6|0.124
95698355|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||14.3|-0.4|0.063
95698356|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-5.5|0.602
95698357|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|10.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||10.6|-4.3|0.402
95698358|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|8.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||8.6|-6.3|0.753
95698359|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.2||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||17.4|2.9|0.006
95698360|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.2|-3.1|0.331
95698361|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-0.5|0.073
95698362|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||12.4|0.1|0.048
95698363|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.9|-3.6|0.410
95698364|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||9.4|-3.1|0.320
95698365|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.8|-5.7|0.867
95698366|NCT03084718|191366580|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|15.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.0|2.9|0.004
95698367|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||11.9|-3.2|0.260
95698368|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||10.9|-4.2|0.387
95698369|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.4|0.574
95698370|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.7|-8.6|0.799
95698371|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||5.5|-9.8|0.577
95698372|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||6.5|-8.8|0.764
95698373|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|13.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 1~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.8|-1.1|0.097
95698374|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.8|-9.9|0.908
95698375|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|16.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||16.5|-2.2|0.135
95698376|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|8.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo"||8.1|-10.7|0.786
95698377|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|17.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||17.1|-1.7|0.109
95698378|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||8.7|-10.1|0.876
95698379|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.0||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||1.0|-17.9|0.080
95698380|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|15.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Inter-visit period 2~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||15.3|-3.2|0.202
95698381|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|9.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||9.7|-5.9|0.635
95698382|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.1|-2.6|0.191
95698383|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|8.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||8.3|-7.4|0.914
95698384|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||11.3|-4.6|0.407
95698385|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment A (CHF 718 pMDI 100 µg TDD)"||6.4|-9.4|0.718
95698386|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment C (CHF 718 pMDI 800 µg TDD) vs Treatment B (CHF 718 pMDI 400 µg TDD)"||3.1|-12.7|0.235
95698387|NCT03084718|191366581|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|13.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Entire treatment period~Comparison treatment groups were:~Treatment E (QVAR\^®, 320 µg TDD) vs Treatment D (Placebo)"||13.9|-1.6|0.118
95698388|NCT04511819|191366594|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.087||||0.8762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.347|0.174|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.174|-0.347|0.8762
95698389|NCT00844649|191366661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.835||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test stratified by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine/gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.835|0.617|<0.0001
95698390|NCT00844649|191366662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.581|0.821||P-value was based on a stratified log-rank test by randomization strata of geographic region (North America versus Others), Karnofsky performance score (70 to 80 versus 90 to 100), and presence of liver metastasis (yes vs no)|Stratified Log-rank Test||Hazard ratio of Albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine alone. The associated hazard ratio and two-sided 95% confidence interval were estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.821|0.581|<0.0001
95698391|NCT00844649|191366663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Response Rate Ratio|3.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.178|4.662|||Chi-squared||Response rate ratio: albumin-bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine /gemcitabine alone|PA+G/PG = response rate ratio of albumin bound paclitaxel + gemcitabine / gemcitabine.||4.662|2.178|<0.0001
95698392|NCT03641547|191366673|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 6|0.029|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.165||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE-CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.165|0|
95698393|NCT03641547|191366674|OTHER||Post prob of tox at dose level 4|0.185|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.042|0.397||||||The primary analysis is performed using the Time-To-Event Continual Reassessment Method (TiTE CRM). Giving posterior estimates for the probability of toxicity (DLT) at each dose level.||0.397|0.042|
95698394|NCT03428997|191366685|EQUIVALENCE|Mixed-effects model, where the test material/negative control is a fixed effect and the subject is a random effect|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.274|||||||2-sided t-test|||Testing hypothesis is that the mean score is equal between the compared treatments.||||0.274
95698395|NCT01397448|191366715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.31|||Log Rank|||||0.31|0.04|<0.001
95698396|NCT01397448|191366715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.23|||Log Rank|||||0.23|0.01|<0.001
95698397|NCT00973921|191366716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.0|||Wilson|||The 95% confidence Interval (CI) of the primary outcome has been calculated using the Wilson method of estimating the CI of a single proportion||1.0|0.86|<0.01
95698398|NCT00973921|191366717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Bland Altman|||||||<0.0001
95698399|NCT00973921|191366719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation coefficient|0.5||||0.0034|||||||Bland-Altman|||||||0.0034
95698400|NCT02855450|191366735|SUPERIORITY||Least square means difference|4.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.2|||ANCOVA|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.||These statistics refer to Day 7 and primary eye||9.2|0.2|0.040
95698401|NCT02855450|191366735|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|2.4||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|9.0||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and primary eye||9.0|-4.1|0.457
95698402|NCT02855450|191366735|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|4.0||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|11.5||Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and primary eye||11.5|-3.5|0.283
95698403|NCT02855450|191366735|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|Least square means difference|3.5||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|8.3|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 7 and secondary eye||8.3|-1.3|0.147
95698404|NCT02855450|191366735|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|3.0||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.4|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 28 and secondary eye||10.4|-4.4|0.421
95698405|NCT02855450|191366735|SUPERIORITY|Analysis results are obtained from an ANCOVA with treatment as factor and baseline value as covariate.|least square mean difference|4.3||||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|13.0|||ANCOVA|||These statistics refer to Day 56 and secondary eye||13.0|-4.4|0.327
95698406|NCT02553317|191366736|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0099||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Log Rank|||Time to platelet count response in the caplacizumab arm and placebo arm was compared by conducting a two-sided stratified log-rank test based on a KM analysis, with severity of neurological involvement (according to the Glasgow coma scale \[GCS\] category, stratification factor used in randomization: ≤12 / 13-15) as stratification factor.||||= 0.0099
95698407|NCT02553317|191366736|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|2.195|||||The HR was estimated from a Cox proportional Hazards regression model.|Time to platelet count response was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with time to platelet count response as dependent variable, and treatment group and GCS category as independent variables. The hazard (or platelet count normalization rate) ratio from the Cox model was reported along with 95% CI.||2.195|1.095|
95698408|NCT02553317|191366737|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||< 0.0001
95698409|NCT02553317|191366738|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0004||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0004
95698410|NCT02553317|191366739|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0572||||||The resulting p-value was compared with a significance level of 5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A CMH test was conducted with adjustment for GCS category (stratification factor used in randomization).||||= 0.0572
95698411|NCT00230100|191366842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
95698412|NCT00230100|191366843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
95698413|NCT00230100|191366844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Implemented a general mixed model analysis of variance (MMANOVA), which models the means per group over the respective time period and the covariance between the repeated measures over the assessments. The MMANOVA approach estimates a separate mean for each phase of treatment per group. The MMANOVA is called a mixed model because it includes both fixed (e.g., treatment, gender) and random (subject-specific) terms. MMANOVA allows for randomly missing observations (not included in analysis)."||||<0.05
95698414|NCT00230100|191366845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||It was hypothesized that the single-gender group composition and women-focused group content (WRG) would result in better substance abuse treatment outcomes (lower ASI alcohol composite scores) than standard mixed-gender group treatment (GDC).||||<0.05
95698415|NCT00230100|191366846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.009
95698416|NCT00302718|191366859|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95698417|NCT00302718|191366861|OTHER|||||||0.2114|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2114
95698418|NCT00302718|191366863|OTHER|||||||0.6954|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6954
95698419|NCT00302718|191366865|OTHER|||||||0.9895|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9895
95698420|NCT00594204|191366905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.78|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.97|7.68||p-values are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||7.68|2.97|<0.0001
95698421|NCT00594204|191366906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.3|7.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 12||7.5|3.3|<0.0001
95698422|NCT00594204|191366906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.3|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.8|6.5||p-values obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Regression, Logistic||Odds ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Week 24||6.5|2.8|<0.0001
95698423|NCT00594204|191366907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.74|8.88|||Regression, Logistic|p-value are obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|Odds Ratios obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and country|||8.88|3.74|<0.0001
95698424|NCT01369212|191366908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wald test|Proportion with HBsAg loss at week 240 in each group is estimated by Kaplan-Meier and then equality of proportion is tested using Wald test.||||||0.72
95698425|NCT01369212|191366909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||The cumulative percentages with HBsAg loss at week 192 were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and then the equality is tested using Wald test.|Wald Test|||||||0.09
95698426|NCT01369212|191366910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.46
95698427|NCT01369212|191366911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95698428|NCT01369212|191366912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95698429|NCT01369212|191366913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.039
95698430|NCT01369212|191366914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.20
95698431|NCT01369212|191366915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.44
95698432|NCT01369212|191366916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.06
95698433|NCT01369212|191366917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
95698434|NCT01369212|191366918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95698435|NCT01369212|191366919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.55
95698436|NCT01369212|191366920|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95698437|NCT01369212|191366921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.87
95698438|NCT01369212|191366922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95698439|NCT01369212|191366923|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.66
95698440|NCT01369212|191366925|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.66
95698441|NCT01369212|191366926|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95698442|NCT00475540|191366955|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.1 software. One patient did not receive the assigned mesh treatment because the surgeon felt there was inadequate vaginal caliber, so non mesh repair was performed. This subject was analyzed in the non mesh group for the 3-month and 1-year outcomes rather than intent-to-treat approach. This subject was lost to follow-up after 12 months and not included in the 3-year analysis.|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-tests, Wilcoxon signed rank, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests continuous variables; X2 for categorical variables. Combined cure outcomes Fisher's exact test||Sample size primary outcome 1 year: 45 participants per arm, 20% difference success (70% no mesh and 90% mesh), alpha of .05 and 80% power, 15% loss to follow-up.||||<0.05
95698443|NCT00804843|191366968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.27||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.78|||ANOVA|||||0.78|-0.24|0.811
95698444|NCT00804843|191366969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|3.64||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.09|8.36|||ANOVA|||||8.36|-1.09|0.898
95698445|NCT04507776|191366976|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.75
95698446|NCT04507776|191366976|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
95698447|NCT04507776|191366976|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||<0.05
95698448|NCT04507776|191366976|OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.43
95698449|NCT04507776|191366977|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
95698450|NCT04507776|191366977|OTHER|||||||0.247|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.247
95698451|NCT04507776|191366978|OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Baseline||||0.21
95698452|NCT04507776|191366978|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Year 1 (Month 12)||||<0.05
95698453|NCT04507776|191366978|OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Baseline||||0.62
95698454|NCT04507776|191366978|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Year 7||||0.18
95698455|NCT04507776|191366979|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 1 Adherence: Change at Year 1 (Month 12)||||0.0001
95698456|NCT04507776|191366979|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Year 7 Adherence: Change at Year 7||||0.003
95698457|NCT00225147|191366996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.001
95698458|NCT00225147|191366996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95698459|NCT00225147|191366997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.040
95698460|NCT00225147|191366997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95698461|NCT00868166|191367039|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.71
95698462|NCT00868166|191367040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.83
95698463|NCT00868166|191367040|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.73
95698464|NCT00868166|191367042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.21
95698465|NCT00868166|191367042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Non-stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.20
95698466|NCT00868166|191367044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Stratified Log-Rank Test|||||||0.56
95698467|NCT03807245|191367089|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 25mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
95698468|NCT03807245|191367089|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Adjusted geometric mean fold increase from Day 1 to Day 85: adjusted geometric mean ratio GBS-NN/NN2 50mcg/placebo||||<0.0001
95698469|NCT01668030|191367120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0853|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0853
95698470|NCT00091026|191367150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|14.0|||Chi-squared|||||14|-13|0.22
95698471|NCT00091026|191367151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.95
95698472|NCT00091026|191367152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.86
95698473|NCT00830960|191367166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference in PRU|-183.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.0|-137.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-137|-229|<0.0001
95698474|NCT00830960|191367166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-139.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.0|-102.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements excluded.||||-102|-177|<0.0001
95698475|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-57.0||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.0|-17.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-17|-97|0.0058
95698476|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-2.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel"|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-2|-68|0.0365
95698477|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-68.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.0|-32.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-32|-104|0.0004
95698478|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-160.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-211.0|-110.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-110|-211|<0.0001
95698479|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-115.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-156.0|-73.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-156|<0.0001
95698480|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-171.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-216.0|-125.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-125|-216|<0.0001
95698481|NCT00830960|191367167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-212.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-259.0|-167.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-167|-259|<0.0001
95698482|NCT00830960|191367168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-119.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.0|-73.0||"P-value for 30 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|LS Mean Difference in PRU|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-166|<0.0001
95698483|NCT00830960|191367168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-113.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.0|-73.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-73|-154|<0.0001
95698484|NCT00830960|191367168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-85.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.0|-48.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-48|-121|<0.0001
95698485|NCT00830960|191367168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-35.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.0|2.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||2|-72|0.0647
95698486|NCT00830960|191367168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in PRU|-100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-57.0||"P-value for 90 days. A linear mixed effects model including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU was prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-57|-143|<0.0001
95698487|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|15.0||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|27.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|4|0.0072
95698488|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|9.0||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||18|-1|0.0647
95698489|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|19.0||"P-value for 30 minutes post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||19|3|0.0054
95698490|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|51.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|66.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||66|36|<0.0001
95698491|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|36.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|48.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||48|23|<0.0001
95698492|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|61.0||"P-value for 2 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||61|36|<0.0001
95698493|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|62.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|76.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||76|47|<0.0001
95698494|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|48.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|59.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||59|36|<0.0001
95855272|NCT00554216|191670072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.596|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|6.99||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||6.99|4.65|<0.0001
95698495|NCT00830960|191367169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|68.0||"P-value for 4 hours post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (0.5 hours to 4 hours), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||68|44|<0.0001
95698496|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|38.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|27|<0.0001
95698497|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.0|42.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||42|21|<0.0001
95698498|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|17.0||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|28.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||28|6|0.0026
95698499|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.0|50.0||"P-value for 30 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||50|24|<0.0001
95698500|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|35.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|52.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||52|18|0.0001
95698501|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|28.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|44.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||44|13|0.0005
95698502|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|11.0||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|27.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||27|-5|0.1898
95698503|NCT00830960|191367170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference in Percent Inhibition|32.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|45.0||"P-value for 90 days post-LD~Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit (30, 90 days during MD), treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, participant as random effect~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||45|18|<0.0001
95698504|NCT00830960|191367172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-110.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.0|-76.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-76|-143|<0.0001
95698505|NCT00830960|191367172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-92.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-123.0|-60.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-60|-123|<0.0001
95698506|NCT00830960|191367172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference in PRU|-51.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-19.0||"Linear mixed effects model: treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, gender, country as fixed effects, baseline PRU as covariate, participant as random effect was used.~Difference in PRU = prasugrel - clopidogrel."|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate the denominator degrees of freedom for fixed effects. Invalid measurements were excluded.||||-19|-83|0.0020
95698507|NCT00830960|191367179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.255
95698508|NCT00830960|191367179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.427||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.427
95698509|NCT00830960|191367179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.683||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.683
95698510|NCT00830960|191367179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.034
95698511|NCT03483116|191367197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%.|Response rate|0.1553|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.272||||||||0.272|0.039|
95698512|NCT03483116|191367197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Response rate|0.001|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.117||||||||0.117|-0.115|
95698513|NCT03483116|191367197|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%|Difference Response rate|0.1543|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.27||||||Non-inferiority of the lower titre vaccine was demonstrated if the upper bound of the CI was below 20%||0.270|0.038|
95698514|NCT01181102|191367207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"(non-inferiority) When analyzed using the Z test at a one-sided 0.025 significance level, with the addition of a non-inferiority margin of 5% to the incidence in the enoxaparin group.~(superiority) The incidence of thromboembolic events for the FAS was compared using the χ2 test (two-sided significance level: 0.05)"|Cox Proportional Hazard|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-1.6||non-inferiority:P \< 0.001 superiority:P = 0.010|non-inferiority:Z test. superiority:χ2 t|||The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the DU-176b group (P˅DU) = The incidence proportion of thromboembolic events in the enoxaparin group (P˅E) + Δ (5%). Alternative hypothesis H˅11: P˅DU \< P˅E + Δ (level of significance, 0.025; one-sided). If the null hypothesis H˅01 was rejected, the following analysis had to be sequentially performed using the χ2 test statistic. Null hypothesis H˅02: P˅DU = P˅E Alternative hypothesis H˅12: P˅DU ≠ P˅E (level of significance, 0.05; two-sided).||-1.6|-11.5|<0.001
95698515|NCT01181102|191367208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||χ2 test|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9||||||||5.9|-0.8|
95698516|NCT01315002|191367209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Null hypothesis is that there was no difference in change of error percentage in the antisaccade task between nicotine and placebo. An ANOVA model was used with treatment (nicotine, placebo) as a within-subjects factor. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided). Results showed significantly better antisaccade performance (i.e. less antisaccade errors) in the nicotine condition.||||<0.05
95698517|NCT00239837|191367225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Wald χ2|7.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Data analyzed using repeated logistic regression model (generalized estimating equations). Domain X EV Level X Group interaction tested.|We began the analyses with a full-factorial model regressing choice on domain (gain=1, loss=0), the EV of the risky choice relative to the safe option (EV; range = -.38 to +.38), and dummy-coded treatment groups (Control= -1, Intervention =1).|||||.008
95698518|NCT01906866|191367252|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.1|=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|62.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||62.26|2.38|=0.035
95698519|NCT01906866|191367253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.787|=|0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.61|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.8|-44.61|=0.011
95698520|NCT01906866|191367256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053|||||||MMRM|||Mixed Models for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis||||0.053
95698521|NCT01906866|191367256|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||MI analysis|||||||0.039
95698522|NCT01906866|191367258|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077|||||||MMRM|||||||0.077
95698523|NCT01906866|191367259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95698524|NCT01401465|191367272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|88.235|||<|0.0001||||||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Two-sided Signed Rank Test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Total Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. For the primary endpoint of the Total Preference Score, assuming an SD of 40, a sample size of 155 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level.||||<0.0001
95698525|NCT01401465|191367273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.22|16.58||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline.||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||16.58|11.22|<0.0001
95698526|NCT01401465|191367273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.56||The significance level was set at 0.025 to adjust for the fact that two co-primary endpoints were being tested.|Linear Mixed Model|Linear Mixed Model with effects for Period, Treatment, Sex, Race, Study Center, and covariates of Age and Baseline||The null hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline (CfBL) for CIC is equal to the mean CfBL for MOM. In Study 060-301, a correlation between BL periods 1 and 2 of 0.7 and a change score SD of 15 was seen for the RACS. A sample size of 41 in each sequence group (82 total ) gives a 2 x 2 crossover design 80% power to detect the difference in the CfBL of 0.35 SD units (5.25 raw score units) using a two group t-test with a 0.025 two-sided significance level and a SD of 15 for the difference.||7.56|2.20|<0.0001
95698527|NCT01401465|191367274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|88.889|||<|0.0001||||||If both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided signed-rank test||Hodges-Lehman estimate of the CI not available due to ties.|The null hypothesis is that the median of the standardized Treatment Process Composite Preference Score = 50. Values \> 50 indicate preference for ciclesonide, while values \< 50 indicate preference for mometasone. Assuming an SD of 40, as observed in Study 060-301, a sample size of 128 will have 80% power to detect a difference of 0.25 SD units (10 raw score units) from the neutrality preference population value of 50, using a single group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significant level||||<0.0001
95698528|NCT01401465|191367275|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI of the LS mean difference of ciclesonide nasal aerosol minus mometasone aqueous nasal spray was calculated from the ANCOVA model, and the upper bound of the CI was compared to the non-inferiority margin of 0.5. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI of this difference was \< 0.5.|Difference in LS Means|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||f both primary endpoints are significant, the evaluation of this key secondary endpoint will be conducted at a significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Site, treatment, period, treatment sequence as fixed effects, subject nested within sequence as a random effect, and baseline rTNSS as a covariate.|Ciclesonide 74 mcg minus Mometasone 200 mcg|The null hypothesis is that the change from baseline in rTNSS for ciclesonide 74 mcg nasal aerosol minus the change from baseline in rTNSS for mometasone AQ 200 mcg is greater than 0.5.||0.1|-0.3|
95698529|NCT01115738|191367303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.24||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.98|55.47||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||55.47|-10.98|0.188
95698530|NCT01115738|191367303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.93||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|36.07||P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||36.07|-28.20|0.809
95698531|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.93||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|54.12||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||54.12|-20.26|0.370
95698532|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.89||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|72.06||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||72.06|-0.29|0.052
95698533|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.45||||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.55|58.45||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||58.45|-39.55|0.703
95698534|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.45||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.53|53.44||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||53.44|-42.53|0.823
95698535|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.69||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|57.84||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||57.84|-0.47|0.054
95698536|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.29|39.9||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||39.90|-17.29|0.436
95698537|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.87||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|32.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||32.71|-14.96|0.463
95698538|NCT01115738|191367304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.34||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.62|19.94||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||19.94|-26.62|0.777
95698539|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|6.48||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||6.48|-13.10|0.505
95698540|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.74|4.27||P-value is for Baseline. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.27|-14.74|0.278
95698541|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.44|14.02||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||14.02|-19.44|0.749
95698542|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.24|17.53||P-value is for 2 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||17.53|-15.24|0.890
95698543|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.89||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.02|4.24||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||4.24|-18.02|0.223
95698544|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.44|12.1||P-value is for 6 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||12.10|-9.44|0.808
95698545|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-0.04||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||-0.04|-20.11|0.049
95698546|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.99||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|8.86||P-value is for 24 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.86|-10.85|0.842
95698547|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.03||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.58|3.52||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||3.52|-13.58|0.247
95698548|NCT01115738|191367307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|8.71||P-value is for 72 hours after prasugrel LD. P-values were not adjusted for multiplicity. P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|Fixed effects were Treatment, Visit, Country, Treatment-by-Visit. Participants and Error were Random Effects. Covariance structure was Unstructured.||||8.71|-8.09|0.942
95698549|NCT01115738|191367310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.449||||0.8711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.81|45.71|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values at baseline for clopidogrel treated participants as response and CYP2C19 metabolizer status as covariate of main interest.||45.71|-38.81|0.8711
95698550|NCT01115738|191367311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.714||||0.7875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.78|55.36|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours post Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||55.36|-72.78|0.7875
95698551|NCT01115738|191367311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.435||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.23|46.37|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||46.37|-53.23|0.8913
95698552|NCT01115738|191367311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.6229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.43|58.83|||ANOVA|||A linear ANOVA model with PRU values of 6 hours Post-Prasugrel LD as response and treatment, CYP2C19 metabolizer status, interaction of treatment-by-CYP2C19 metabolizer status as fixed effects.||58.83|-35.43|0.6229
95698553|NCT04009213|191367312|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: δT - δC ≥ 0.9 Ha: δT - δC \< 0.9|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||< 0.025
95698554|NCT04009213|191367313|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: qT - qC ≥ 10% H1: qT - qC \< 10%|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
95698555|NCT04009213|191367314|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: pC - pT ≥ 10% H1: pC - pT \< 10%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.025
95698556|NCT04009213|191367315|NON_INFERIORITY|H0: πC - πT ≥ 15% H1: πC - πT \< 15%,|||||<|0.025|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Farrington-Manning|||||||< 0.025
95698557|NCT00643604|191367331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69||0.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.69
95698558|NCT00643604|191367332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95698559|NCT00643604|191367333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
95698560|NCT00643604|191367334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0||||p value for Symptom Score|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Changes in mean CAMPHOR scores between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
95698561|NCT00643604|191367334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0||||p value for Activity Score.|Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Activity Score N=5; Baseline component score could not be calculated for one subject. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95698562|NCT00643604|191367334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Quality of Life Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.31
95698563|NCT00643604|191367334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||"Total Score N=5; Baseline Activity component score could not be calculated for one subject. Total Score could not be calculated for this subject.~Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the values at Baseline to values at Week 8. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values."||||0.13
95698564|NCT00643604|191367335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Effectiveness Score Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
95698565|NCT00643604|191367335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Side-Effects Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.19
95698566|NCT00643604|191367335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Convenience Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.03
95698567|NCT00643604|191367335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Global Satisfaction Score. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
95698568|NCT00643604|191367336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Gather/Set-up. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
95698569|NCT00643604|191367336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Prepare Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.06
95698570|NCT00643604|191367336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Connect Drug. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.63
95698571|NCT00643604|191367336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Change Dressing. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.88
95698572|NCT00643604|191367336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Total Time. Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.13
95698573|NCT00643604|191367337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.5
95698574|NCT00643604|191367338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon sign-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.25
95698575|NCT00643604|191367339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95698576|NCT00643604|191367340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||0.50
95698577|NCT00643604|191367341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95698578|NCT00643604|191367342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95698579|NCT00643604|191367343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Changes between Baseline and Week 8 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A two-sided p value of \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No imputation was used for missing values.||||1.00
95698580|NCT02702011|191367345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|65.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.81|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.29|86.9|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 2.5 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||86.90|43.29|<0.0001
95698581|NCT02702011|191367345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|81.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|103.58|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 10 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||103.58|58.80|<0.0001
95698582|NCT02702011|191367345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|98.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.91|120.31|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference was calculated as: (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Empagliflozin 25 mg group) - (mean change from baseline in 24 hour UGE at Day 7 in Placebo group)|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as a fixed effect and baseline as a linear covariate was fitted to the change from baseline of 24 hour UGE (g/24h) on Day 7, where baseline refers to the last observation prior to the first intake of any randomised trial medication.||120.31|75.91|<0.0001
95698583|NCT02921763|191367366|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0533|||||||Sign test|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, frequency of increase and decrease was summarized and the sign test was performed separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers."||||=0.0533
95698584|NCT02921763|191367368|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.7328|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.7328
95698585|NCT02921763|191367368|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.1193
95698586|NCT02921763|191367369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.7221
95698587|NCT02921763|191367369|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0861|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"For the volume calculated from the major and minor axes of ovarian chocolate cyst (a total volume if there were two or more cysts), the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each measurement point and last observation in each analysis set, namely efficacy analysis set and study completers, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||0.0861
95698588|NCT02921763|191367373|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0020
95698589|NCT02921763|191367373|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||=0.0001
95698590|NCT02921763|191367373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
95698591|NCT02921763|191367373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
95698592|NCT02921763|191367373|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The score value and difference from the value before treatment were calculated at the same points using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed.||||<0.0001
95698593|NCT02921763|191367374|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0024
95698594|NCT02921763|191367374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698595|NCT02921763|191367374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698596|NCT02921763|191367374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698597|NCT02921763|191367374|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698598|NCT02921763|191367375|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0037
95698599|NCT02921763|191367375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698600|NCT02921763|191367375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698601|NCT02921763|191367375|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||<0.0001
95698602|NCT02921763|191367375|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics at each observation point and last observation, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate.||||=0.0003
95698603|NCT02921763|191367376|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8035|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8035
95698604|NCT02921763|191367377|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Separately in the efficacy analysis set and study completers, the values before treatment initiation and at last observation were compared, the value, difference from the value before treatment and change rate were calculated using the summary statistics, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the difference and change rate."||||=0.8185
95698605|NCT01709981|191367392|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|2-sided||||||0.31
95698606|NCT02659605|191367401|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.572|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.572
95698607|NCT02659605|191367402|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.849|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.849
95698608|NCT02659605|191367403|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.886|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.886
95698609|NCT02659605|191367404|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.612|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.612
95698610|NCT02659605|191367405|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.728|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.728
95698611|NCT02659605|191367406|EQUIVALENCE|The sample size was based on a previous study by Rabe et al. (Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):205-11), who were also evaluating neonatal hematocrit after delayed cord clamping with the intention of detecting a 10% difference with a p-value of 0.05 and a power of 80% for a two-sided t-test. That study determined that 26 patients in each group were needed for a total of 52 subjects.||||||0.584|||||||Student's t-test|||||||0.584
95698612|NCT04390568|191367415|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the area under the concentration-time curve of Spesolimap in plasma over the time interval from 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.979|1.268|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.268|0.979|
95698613|NCT04390568|191367416|OTHER|The basic model used for the investigation of dose proportionality was a power model (regression model applied to log-transformed data) that described the functional relationship between the dose and the maximum measured concentration of the Spesolimap in plasma (Cmax) of the intravenous dose groups.|Slope|1.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.183|||||Based on the estimate for slope parameter (β), a 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the slope was computed. Standard error of the mean is actually standard error of slope.|No statistical hypotheses tests were planned for this trial.||1.183|0.961|
95698614|NCT05263921|191367443|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|107.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.66|115.64||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||115.64|99.66|
95698615|NCT05263921|191367443|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.09|130.03||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.03|112.09|
95698616|NCT05263921|191367443|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|125.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|116.08|134.69||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||134.69|116.08|
95698617|NCT05263921|191367444|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.06|117.14||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||117.14|101.06|
95698618|NCT05263921|191367444|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|120.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.36|130.2||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||130.20|112.36|
95698619|NCT05263921|191367444|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|127.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.32|137.15||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||137.15|118.32|
95698620|NCT05263921|191367445|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|115.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|104.03|127.34||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||127.34|104.03|
95698621|NCT05263921|191367445|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|145.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.68|160.99||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||160.99|131.68|
95698622|NCT05263921|191367445|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|161.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|145.95|178.66||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||178.66|145.95|
95698623|NCT05263921|191367446|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.38|128.82||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.82|95.38|
95698624|NCT05263921|191367446|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|106.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.76|123.73||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||123.73|91.76|
95698625|NCT05263921|191367446|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.74|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.7|125.21||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.21|92.70|
95698626|NCT05263921|191367447|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|110.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.51|128.47||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||128.47|94.51|
95698627|NCT05263921|191367447|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.0|124.86||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||124.86|92.00|
95698628|NCT05263921|191367447|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|107.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.48|125.72||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||125.72|92.48|
95698629|NCT05263921|191367448|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric means|108.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.32|132.32||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets; Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with water||132.32|89.32|
95698630|NCT05263921|191367448|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|109.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.05|133.0||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with applesauce||133.00|90.05|
95698631|NCT05263921|191367448|OTHER|The ratio and 90% CI were expressed as percentages.|Ratio (%) of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.37|142.77||||||Reference: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg commercial tablets Test: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300/100 mg oral powder mixed with vanilla pudding||142.77|96.37|
95698632|NCT03127852|191367459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 physical component summary score.||||.48
95698633|NCT03127852|191367459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SF-36 mental component summary score.||||.73
95698634|NCT03127852|191367460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of hospital visits.||||.02
95698635|NCT03127852|191367460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported emergency department visits.||||.12
95698636|NCT03127852|191367460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of clinic visits.||||.39
95698637|NCT03127852|191367460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of self-reported number of family physician visits.||||.28
95698638|NCT03127852|191367461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI maintenance sub-scale.||||.74
95698639|NCT03127852|191367461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI management sub-scale.||||.67
95698640|NCT03127852|191367461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SCHFI confidence sub-scale.||||.92
95698641|NCT03127852|191367462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ total score.||||.67
95698642|NCT03127852|191367462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ physical domain score.||||.43
95698643|NCT03127852|191367462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of MLHFQ emotional domain score.||||.64
95698644|NCT03127852|191367463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS anxiety sub-scale.||||.06
95698645|NCT03127852|191367463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of HADS depression sub-scale.||||.77
95698646|NCT03127852|191367464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Poststudy between-group comparison of SEMCD6.||||.13
95698647|NCT02678312|191367508|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0655||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6589|1.7232||The adjusted hazard ratio and the p-values are based on a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by modified age group with treatment and NYHA/ROSS class group included as factor.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.7232|0.6589|0.7958
95698648|NCT04847141|191367525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-3.6||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 1 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.4|-14.6|0.5167
95698649|NCT04847141|191367525|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.8197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants meeting the primary efficacy endpoint between C19-IG 20% 2 g and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||12.0|-9.6|0.8197
95698650|NCT04847141|191367526|SUPERIORITY||Least squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.1||||0.5756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.44|-0.24|0.5756
95698651|NCT04847141|191367526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.17|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 7||0.17|-0.52|0.3289
95698652|NCT04847141|191367526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.34|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.34|-0.12|0.3418
95698653|NCT04847141|191367526|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.3688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.13|||ANCOVA||95% CI for the difference in LS Mean between 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group \& placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including CFB value as dependent variable; treatment group as fixed effect; \& baseline viral load value, age, \& gender as covariates.|Day 14||0.13|-0.34|0.3688
95698654|NCT04847141|191367527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-1.3||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||1.2|-4.7|0.1506
95698655|NCT04847141|191367527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.3||||0.1655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||4.6|-1.3|0.1655
95698656|NCT04847141|191367527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.2337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||1.7|-6.5|0.2337
95698657|NCT04847141|191367527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.7212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 1 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||4.2|-6.1|0.7212
95698658|NCT04847141|191367527|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.1||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|3.1||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who remained in an outpatient setting \& maintained SpO2≥94% between C19-IG 20% 2 g \& placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||3.1|-7.8|0.3897
95698659|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.1||||0.5489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|13.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||13.3|-7.1|0.5489
95698660|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.4||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|14.7||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 3||14.7|-5.8|0.3920
95698661|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.7||||0.7632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|12.9||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||12.9|-9.5|0.7632
95698662|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|7.9||||0.1702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|19.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 7||19.2|-3.6|0.1702
95698663|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|-2.0||||0.7316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|9.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||9.4|-13.3|0.7316
95698664|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|6.9||||0.2104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 14||18.0|-4.2|0.2104
95698665|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|13.2||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||13.2|-2.9|0.2059
95698666|NCT04847141|191367528|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|1.9||||0.6463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who had a negative test result between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|Day 29||10.3|-6.5|0.6463
95698667|NCT04847141|191367529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9033|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9033
95698668|NCT04847141|191367529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5456|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5456
95698669|NCT04847141|191367530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.79||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.6||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 1 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.6|-2.9|0.6311
95698670|NCT04847141|191367530|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.6||||0.1441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.3||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required oxygen supplementation between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between each of 2 g C19-IG 20% dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.3|-1.2|0.1441
95698671|NCT04847141|191367531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (LSM) Difference|0.02||||0.8555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.27|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 1 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.27|-0.23|0.8555
95698672|NCT04847141|191367531|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.8108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.28|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LSM between 2 g C19-IG 20% \& placebo was calculated using an ANCOVA model,with number of days on oxygen as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect,adjusting for baseline characteristics(including age \& gender).|||0.28|-0.22|0.8108
95698673|NCT04847141|191367533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.0692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.07||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.07|-0.00|0.0692
95698674|NCT04847141|191367533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.05|-0.02|0.4956
95698675|NCT04847141|191367533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.03||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.03|-0.13|0.2200
95698676|NCT04847141|191367533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.0906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.01||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.01|-0.14|0.0906
95698677|NCT04847141|191367533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.0||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||-0.00|-0.07|0.0439
95698678|NCT04847141|191367533|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.4128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.02||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.02|-0.05|0.4128
95698679|NCT04847141|191367535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.27||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.27|-0.28|0.9713
95698680|NCT04847141|191367535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.5985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.35||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 7||0.35|-0.20|0.5985
95698681|NCT04847141|191367535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.28||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.28|-0.25|0.9209
95698682|NCT04847141|191367535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01||||0.9181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.25||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 14||0.25|-0.28|0.9181
95698683|NCT04847141|191367535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15||||0.2443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.41||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.41|-0.11|0.2443
95698684|NCT04847141|191367535|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.39||p-value was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method.|Kenward-Roger||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using restricted maximum likelihood with the Kenward-Roger method for calculating the denominator degrees of freedom.|Day 29||0.39|-0.13|0.3233
95698685|NCT04847141|191367536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|3.0||||0.4676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|11.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||11.5|-5.3|0.4676
95698686|NCT04847141|191367536|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.9||||0.2507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|13.4||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required at least 1 COVID-19 related MAV between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||13.4|-3.6|0.2507
95698687|NCT04847141|191367537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.1||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|4.0||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||4.0|-3.8|0.9744
95698688|NCT04847141|191367537|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|2.7||||0.1878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.5||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required hospital admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||7.5|-1.6|0.1878
95698689|NCT04847141|191367538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.40|-0.38|0.9485
95698690|NCT04847141|191367538|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14||||0.4734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.54|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.54|-0.25|0.4734
95698691|NCT04847141|191367539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
95698692|NCT04847141|191367539|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants who required ICU admission between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
95698693|NCT04847141|191367540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.12|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.12|-0.07|0.5780
95698694|NCT04847141|191367540|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||ANCOVA||95% CI for difference in LS Mean between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using ANCOVA model, including length of hospital stay as dependent variable \& treatment group as fixed effect, adjusting for baseline.|||0.10|-0.09|0.9065
95698695|NCT04847141|191367544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.02||||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|3.12||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 1 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.12|-3.05|0.9853
95698696|NCT04847141|191367544|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|0.01||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|3.07||p-value was calculated using Chi-square test with 5% level of significance to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the percentage of participants with critical COVID-19 illness between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo.|Chi-squared||95% CI for percentage difference between C19-IG 20% 2 g dose group and placebo was calculated using the exact unconditional method.|||3.07|-2.99|0.9890
95698697|NCT03532776|191367570|EQUIVALENCE|BE limits: -20.0% to 20.0%|Equivalence ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|7.0||||||||7|-12|
95698698|NCT01878097|191367583|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.12||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95698699|NCT01878097|191367584|SUPERIORITY||F-stat|7.18||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95698700|NCT02119026|191367587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.967
95698701|NCT02119026|191367588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.474
95698702|NCT02119026|191367589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.464
95698703|NCT02119026|191367590|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.854
95698704|NCT02119026|191367591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.728|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.728
95698705|NCT02119026|191367592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.668
95698706|NCT02119026|191367593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.618
95698707|NCT02119026|191367594|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.792
95698708|NCT02119026|191367595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371||||||The rate of overall response was measured as the response rate from randomization until the day of documented complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (whichever status is recorded first). Analysis corresponds to numbers of CR and PR.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.371
95698709|NCT03783442|191367613|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Stratified Log-rank Test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.80|0.54|<0.0001
95698710|NCT03783442|191367614|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.75|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.75|0.52|<0.0001
95698711|NCT03783442|191367615|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|Odds ratio was calculated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy, and Investigator choice of chemotherapy.|||3.27|1.73|<0.0001
95698712|NCT03783442|191367616|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.62||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.87|||Stratified Log-rank test|One-sided p-value estimated from log rank test stratified by pooled geographic region, prior definitive therapy and Investigator chemotherapy choice.|Stratified Hazard ratio was based on Cox regression model including treatment arm as a covariate and stratified by pooled geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World), prior definitive therapy and Investigator choice of chemotherapy as strata.|||0.87|0.44|0.0029
95698713|NCT03783442|191367618|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.4||||0.1372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|10.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Dysphagia Score at Cycle 6||10.3|-1.4|0.1372
95698714|NCT03783442|191367618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Eating Score at Cycle 6||3.7|-2.5|0.7130
95698715|NCT03783442|191367618|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.3001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided p-value estimated from a mixed effect model|Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Reflux Score at Cycle 6||1.3|-4.1|0.3001
95698716|NCT03783442|191367618|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|0.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Pain Score at Cycle 6||0.2|-3.9|
95698717|NCT03783442|191367618|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.4|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-OES18 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in EORTC QLQ-OES18 Index Score at Cycle 6||1.4|-2.1|
95698718|NCT03783442|191367619|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Global Health Status/QoL at Cycle 6||6.2|0.4|
95698719|NCT03783442|191367619|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|5.1|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis, with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|Analysis of Change from Baseline in Physical Functioning at Cycle 6||5.1|0.0|
95698720|NCT03783442|191367620|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.9|||||Based on a mixed effect model analysis with QLQ-C30 scores until cycle 18 as the response variable, and treatment by study visit interaction, Baseline mean score, and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.9|-4.7|
95698721|NCT04190186|191367623|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49||||0.594|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.594
95698722|NCT02806947|191367642|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 28 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 90% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.082|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.223|0.059|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 28 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|The primary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 28 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 90% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.059|-0.223|
95698723|NCT02806947|191367642|OTHER|No formal hypothesis test was planned or performed for comparing Day 56 CR/PR proportions between arms. Rather, the risk difference is estimated by a point estimate and 95% confidence interval.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.315|0.011|||||The risk difference estimate is the observed proportion of Day 56 CR/PR in the sirolimus arm minus the proportion in the prednisone arm. A Wald confidence interval for this difference is given.|A secondary objective of this Phase II trial was to describe the proportion of patients with Day 56 CR/PR in each treatment arm and to estimate the risk difference of these rates using a point estimate and 95% confidence interval. These estimates are used to inform about the efficacy of sirolimus in contrast to prednisone for potential future research.||0.011|-0.315|
95698724|NCT02806947|191367643|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with CR/PR and steroid dose of 0.25mg/kg/day or less at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||< 0.001
95698725|NCT02806947|191367644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 28 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.320
95698726|NCT02806947|191367644|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Fisher Exact|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in classification of acute GVHD response at Day 56 post-randomization between participants on the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These classifications were compared between treatment arms using Fisher's exact test, due to the presence of small numbers of participants in some categories.||||0.014
95698727|NCT02806947|191367645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.078||||||Statistical significance was determine using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 28 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.078
95698728|NCT02806947|191367645|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with treatment failure at Day 56 post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.068
95698729|NCT02806947|191367646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with overall survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.785
95698730|NCT02806947|191367647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with disease-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.340
95698731|NCT02806947|191367648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.713||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with event-free survival between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a log rank test.||||0.713
95698732|NCT02806947|191367649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with non-relapse mortality between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with malignancy relapse treated as a competing risk for non-relapse mortality. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.726
95698733|NCT02806947|191367650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with malignancy relapse between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for malignancy relapse. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.402
95698734|NCT02806947|191367651|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with chronic GVHD between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death and malignancy relapse treated as competing risks for chronic GVHD. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.296
95698735|NCT02806947|191367652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.936
95698736|NCT02806947|191367652|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.598||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Z test comparing binomial proportions|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with GVHD-free survival at 6 months post-randomization between the sirolimus and prednisone arms. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using a Z test of the difference of binomial proportions.||||0.598
95698737|NCT02806947|191367653|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221||||||Statistical significance was determined using a pre-specified threshold of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with serious infections between the sirolimus and prednisone arms during the 12 month period post-randomization, with death treated as a competing risk for serious infection. These proportions were compared between treatment arms using Gray's test.||||0.221
95698738|NCT01978509|191367654|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.70
95698739|NCT00084929|191367658|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.933||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves were estimated with the use of data pooled from the radiologists because of the small number of positive cases reviewed by each radiologist.||0.933|0.853|
95855273|NCT00554216|191670073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.463|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.13|12.95||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||12.95|7.13|<0.0001
95698740|NCT00084929|191367658|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.838|0.96|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|"Sensitivity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients with lesions that were larger than or equal to the prespecified threshold and that were detected on both colonoscopy and CT colonography.~The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated."||0.96|0.838|
95698741|NCT00084929|191367658|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.9|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Specificity, for each radiologist, was calculated as the percentage of patients who did not have lesions larger than the prespecified threshold on colonoscopy as well as CT colonography The per-patient sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were first estimated for each radiologist, and then the average values among the radiologists were calculated.||0.9|0.813|
95698742|NCT00084929|191367658|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.273|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Positive Predictive Value (PPV) the positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with CT colonographic findings that were also seen on colonoscopy||0.273|0.194|
95698743|NCT00084929|191367658|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998|||||Exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each radiologist, and large-sample 95% confidence intervals were calculated for overall estimates, with the use of standard errors that allowed for estimation of variation among radiologists.|Negative Predictive Value (NPV) the negative predictive value was calculated as the percentage of patients with no CT colonographic findings larger than the prespecified threshold that were not detected on colonoscopy.||0.998|0.990|
95698744|NCT00084929|191367659|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|0.93||||||"Accuracy: ROC analysis CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.93|0.853|
95698745|NCT00084929|191367659|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|0.96|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|"Sensitivity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.96|0.832|
95698746|NCT00084929|191367659|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|0.902|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|"Specificity CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.902|0.817|
95698747|NCT00084929|191367659|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.209|0.292||||||"Positive Predictive Value (PPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.292|0.209|
95698748|NCT00084929|191367659|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|0.998||||||"Negative Predictive Value (NPV) CTC lesions needed to be within 2 segments and 50% size of the lesions removed via colonoscopy to be considered detected"||0.998|0.990|
95698749|NCT00084929|191367660|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|0.913||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.913|0.842|
95698750|NCT00084929|191367660|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|0.929|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.929|0.803|
95698751|NCT00084929|191367660|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.825|0.909|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.909|0.825|
95698752|NCT00084929|191367660|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.256|0.355||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.355|0.256|
95698753|NCT00084929|191367660|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|0.994||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.994|0.984|
95698754|NCT00084929|191367661|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|0.902||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.902|0.833|
95698755|NCT00084929|191367661|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|0.912|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.912|0.776|
95698756|NCT00084929|191367661|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|0.914|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.914|0.831|
95698757|NCT00084929|191367661|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.299|0.397||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.397|0.299|
95698758|NCT00084929|191367661|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|0.992||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.992|0.980|
95698759|NCT00084929|191367662|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.878||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.878|0.810|
95698760|NCT00084929|191367662|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|0.849|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.849|0.711|
95698761|NCT00084929|191367662|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.92|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.92|0.840|
95698762|NCT00084929|191367662|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.335|0.463||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.463|0.335|
95698763|NCT00084929|191367662|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.971|0.984||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.984|0.971|
95698764|NCT00084929|191367663|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.828||||||Accuracy: ROC analysis||0.828|0.763|
95698765|NCT00084929|191367663|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.579|0.727|||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity||0.727|0.579|
95698766|NCT00084929|191367663|OTHER||"P(T-|D-)"|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|0.923|||||Specificity indicates the percent of patients who had not lesions detected on optical colonoscopy, who had no lesions detected on CTC.|Specificity||0.923|0.851|
95698767|NCT00084929|191367663|OTHER||"P(D+|T+)"|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.389|0.513||||||Positive Predictive Value (PPV)||0.513|0.389|
95698768|NCT00084929|191367663|OTHER||"P(D-|T-)"|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.941|0.965||||||Negative Predictive Value (NPV)||0.965|0.941|
95698769|NCT00084929|191367664|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=10mm))||||
95698770|NCT00084929|191367665|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion (\>=9mm))||||
95698771|NCT00084929|191367666|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.041|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=8mm)||||
95698772|NCT00084929|191367667|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=7mm)||||
95698773|NCT00084929|191367668|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=6mm)||||
95698774|NCT00084929|191367669|OTHER||"Sensitivity: P(T+|D+)"|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.045|||||||||||Sensitivity indicates the percent of lesions in patients who had a lesions (of the specified size) detected by optical colonoscopy, which were detected by CTC|Sensitivity (per lesion \>=5mm)||||
95698775|NCT00168064|191367685|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The PG formulation was determined to be non-inferior to the AP formulation if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the ratio of the response rates (PG/AP) was \> = 0.75.|ratio of proportions|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.552|||ANCOVA||ratio is response rate of PG formulation divided by response rate of AP formulation|||1.552|0.974|
95698776|NCT01594333|191367692|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.25||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone)|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.25|0.82|0.91
95698777|NCT01594333|191367693|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status(metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.16|0.79|0.67
95698778|NCT01594333|191367694|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.16||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.56||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes at enrollment).|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.56|0.87|0.32
95698779|NCT01594333|191367695|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.95||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (metabolic syndrome alone or diabetes) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.81|0.57
95698780|NCT01594333|191367696|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.89||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.31||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, type of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.31|0.60|0.54
95698781|NCT01594333|191367697|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.98||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.14||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time since qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.14|0.84|0.80
95698782|NCT01594333|191367699|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.81||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment.|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.22|0.53|0.31
95698783|NCT01594333|191367700|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.12||2-sided unadjusted p-value|Log Rank|Stratified according to type of qualifying event, time of qualifying event and risk status (diabetes or metabolic syndrome alone) at enrollment|Confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, and therefore inferences drawn from these intervals may not be reproducible.|||1.12|0.75|0.38
95698784|NCT00589979|191367705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.78||||0.1006||95.0|0.89|3.55||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Cox frailty model|Model included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carryover as fixed effects and frailty; patient nested within sequence was frailty.|The Hazard Ratio (HR) provided is the ratio of Placebo to Lidoderm.|The two treatments were compared by time-varying relative hazards, associated P values, and 95% confidence intervals. Appropriate survival or hazard functions were calculated.||3.55|0.89|0.1006
95698785|NCT00589979|191367707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.1272||95.0|0.86|4.02||The logistic regression model for repeated measures used for this analysis included treatment, sequence, period, and first-order carry-over as fixed effects and repeated measures taken on patients nested within sequence.|Regression, Logistic|The results presented are reported in terms of odds ratios, corresponding 95% confidence intervals, and P-values for each fixed effect in the model.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|The proportion of patients who exited from the current treatment period prior to the 4-week planned duration was analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures.||4.02|0.86|0.1272
95698786|NCT00589979|191367708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.54||||0.0224||95.0|-1.01|-0.08||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.08|-1.01|0.0224
95698787|NCT00589979|191367709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.39||||0.2747||95.0|-0.31|1.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects regression||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||1.09|-0.31|0.2747
95698788|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4498||95.0|-0.8|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.80|0.4498
95698789|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.1065||95.0|-1.11|0.11||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sharp: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.11|-1.11|0.1065
95698790|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47||||0.0484||95.0|-0.94|0.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Hot: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||-0.00|-0.94|0.0484
95698791|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.4973||95.0|-0.93|0.46||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Dull: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.46|-0.93|0.4973
95698792|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.3966||95.0|-0.16|0.41||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effect models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cold: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.41|-0.16|0.3966
95698793|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6941||95.0|-0.53|0.35||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Sensitive: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.35|-0.53|0.6941
95727653|NCT03979677|191424893|OTHER|HDI and DHI analyzed using linear mixed-effects models with two within-participant factors, Intervention (pre-intervention, post-intervention) and Inventory (DHI, HDI). All models included participant as a random factor. Models constructed using lmer function of the lme package in R and analyzed using anova function in base R. Significant main effects and interactions were evaluated using emmeans . Pairwise comparisons were adjusted to account for false-discovery rates.|||||<|0.0001||||||Point change in DHI was tests.|linear mixed-effects models|||||||<.0001
95698794|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.5664||95.0|-0.45|0.82||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tender: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.82|-0.45|0.5664
95698795|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6871||95.0|-0.55|0.37||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Itchy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.37|-0.55|0.6871
95698796|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41||||0.2318||95.0|-1.08|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Shocking: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.08|0.2318
95698797|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.21||||0.3383||95.0|-0.64|0.22||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Numb: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.22|-0.64|0.3383
95698798|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.874||95.0|-0.63|0.73||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Electrical: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.73|-0.63|0.8740
95698799|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.999||95.0|-0.54|0.54||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Tingling: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.54|-0.54|0.9990
95698800|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.4183||95.0|-0.85|0.36||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Cramping: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.36|-0.85|0.4183
95698801|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07||||0.8227||95.0|-0.71|0.57||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Radiating: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.57|-0.71|0.8227
95727654|NCT01952574|191424894|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.12||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|-0.17|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||-0.17|-2.06|0.021
95698802|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.587||95.0|-0.48|0.85||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Throbbing: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.85|-0.48|0.5870
95698803|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2181||95.0|-1.15|0.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Aching: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.27|-1.15|0.2181
95698804|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.6276||95.0|-0.68|0.42||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Heavy: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.42|-0.68|0.6276
95698805|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.0917||95.0|-1.23|0.09||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Overall unpleasantness: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.09|-1.23|0.0917
95698806|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44||||0.2089||95.0|-1.13|0.25||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.25|-1.13|0.2089
95698807|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.22||||0.4188||95.0|-0.75|0.31||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Intense surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.31|-0.75|0.4188
95698808|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.6959||95.0|-0.32|0.21||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average surface pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.21|-0.32|0.6959
95698809|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.4806||95.0|-0.64|0.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average deep pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.30|-0.64|0.4806
95727655|NCT01952574|191424894|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||0.86|-1.07|0.83
95698810|NCT00589979|191367710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.2291||95.0|-0.74|0.18||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Average paroxysmal pain: the difference between Lidoderm and placebo was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.18|-0.74|0.2291
95698811|NCT00589979|191367711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.3185||95.0|0.77|2.27||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.27|0.77|0.3185
95698812|NCT00589979|191367712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.4748||95.0|0.72|2.06||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Global impression of change from baseline with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||2.06|0.72|0.4748
95698813|NCT00589979|191367713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.7839||95.0|-0.74|0.98||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.98|-0.74|0.7839
95698814|NCT00589979|191367715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.3773||95.0|-0.02|0.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||0.04|-0.02|0.3773
95698815|NCT00589979|191367716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.2605||95.0|0.38|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.38|0.2605
95698816|NCT00589979|191367717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.3193||95.0|0.44|1.3||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Linear||The odds ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|Treatment satisfaction with the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch were compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of the randomized study sequence. An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects, with repeated measures taken on patient within sequence.||1.30|0.44|0.3193
95698817|NCT00589979|191367718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.74||||0.1378||95.0|-0.57|4.04||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects model||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|The overall treatment difference for the lidocaine patch 5% and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates||4.04|-0.57|0.1378
95698818|NCT00589979|191367719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.6833||95.0|0.47|1.65||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Regression, Logistic|An ordinal multinomial regression model was performed with sequence, period, treatment, carry over effect as fixed effects.|The Odds Ratio (OR) provided is the ratio of Lidoderm to Placebo.|||1.65|0.47|0.6833
95698819|NCT00589979|191367720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|22.16||||0.1143||95.0|-5.48|49.8||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Disturbance: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||49.8|-5.48|0.1143
95698820|NCT00589979|191367720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.9108||95.0|-19.8|22.2||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Effectiveness: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||22.2|-19.8|0.9108
95698821|NCT00589979|191367720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.31||||0.3769||95.0|-10.3|27.0||All statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of alpha=0.05.|Linear mixed effects models||The results are reported as least squares means and their differences along with associated P-values, and 95% confidence intervals for each fixed effect in the model.|Supplementation: the overall treatment difference for Lidoderm and placebo patch was compared by combining data for patients receiving the respective treatment regardless of randomized study sequence. The endpoint was analyzed by linear mixed effects models incorporating treatment, period, sequence, and first-order carryover as fixed effects, and patient nested within sequence as a random effect. P-value for the random effect (s2) is from the Wald Z-test for the covariance parameter estimates.||27.0|-10.3|0.3769
95698822|NCT00318565|191367729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial distribution|93.3||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|90.1||||Exact binomial distribution|||An acute success rate of 88% is anticipated and the one-sided 95% lower confidence bound will be compared to 80%. The statistical hypothesis for the primary efficacy endpoint is evaluated as a one-tailed hypothesis at a = 0.05.|||90.1|.05
95698823|NCT00318565|191367730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Binomial Distribution|1.5||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.0|||Exact Binomial Distribution|||The anticipated rate of the CSAE is 2.7% and the one-sided 95% upper confidence bound will be compared to 7%||7||.05
95698824|NCT01804036|191367731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.84
95698825|NCT01804036|191367732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.11
95698826|NCT01804036|191367733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
95698827|NCT01804036|191367734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.08
95698828|NCT01804036|191367735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.20
95698829|NCT01804036|191367736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95698830|NCT01804036|191367737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.52
95698831|NCT01804036|191367738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.54
95698832|NCT01804036|191367739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.94
95698833|NCT01804036|191367740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.95
95698834|NCT01804036|191367741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.49
95698835|NCT01804036|191367742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95698836|NCT01804036|191367743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95698837|NCT01804036|191367744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.13
95698838|NCT02703987|191367745|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.67|-0.04|0.0801
95698839|NCT02703987|191367746|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.71|-0.03|0.0714
95698840|NCT02703987|191367747|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85||0.0609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.6|-0.48|0.0609
95698841|NCT04024072|191367748|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.01||||||||0.01|-0.93|
95698842|NCT04024072|191367748|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 14|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.70|
95698843|NCT04024072|191367748|EQUIVALENCE|8AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.27||||||||0.27|-0.74|
95698844|NCT04024072|191367748|EQUIVALENCE|10AM Day 42|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.51||||||||0.51|-0.51|
95698845|NCT01170221|191367770|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the observed difference in the primary outcome measure (early clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit) between the tedizolid group and the linezolid group was calculated using the ITT analysis set. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||||95.0|-6.1|6.2|||||Risk difference corresponds to tedizolid clinical response rate minus linezolid clinical response rate. The confidence interval was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.|The primary objective is to determine the noninferiority in the early clinical response rate of oral tedizolid phosphate compared with that of oral linezolid treatment at the 48-72 Hour Visit in the ITT Analysis Set in patients with ABSSSI.||6.2|-6.1|
95698846|NCT01170221|191367771|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI will be calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.2||Hierarchical testing procedure of Westfall and Krishen used to control for inflation of the overall type I error rate. If NI is declared for the primary, NI will be tested for the secondary outcomes in this order: Secondary Outcomes Measures 2 to 5.|||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||4.2|-9.6|
95698847|NCT01170221|191367772|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the sustained response at EOT using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|5.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|||5.4|-7.7|
95698848|NCT01170221|191367773|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.9|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||4.9|-5.8|
95698849|NCT01170221|191367774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical success rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the PTE visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline. Noninferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% and the conditions of the hierarchical testing procedure were met.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.0|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical success rate minus the linezolid clinical success rate.|||3.0|-4.6|
95698850|NCT01170221|191367775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.5|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the 48-72 Hour Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||8.5|-1.4|
95698851|NCT01170221|191367776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.4|||||Risk difference corresponds to the tedizolid clinical response rate minus the linezolid clinical response rate.|A two-sided 95% CI was calculated for the observed differences in the clinical response rate based on the Investigator's assessment of clinical response at the Day 7 Visit using the method of Miettinen and Nurminen with stratification for the presence or absence of fever at baseline.||6.4|-2.8|
95698852|NCT02802878|191367793|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Adjusted for two observations per subject.|Regression, Linear|Side treated as a repeated factor||||||.67
95698853|NCT03970395|191367803|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|23.84||The threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.5|Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.41 (IC 95; 0.25-0.53)|||23.84|2.46|0.01
95698854|NCT03970395|191367804|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.6||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.36|13.27|||Relative Risk (RR)||Risk Difference 0.47 (IC 95; 0.31-0.64)|||13.27|2.36|0.01
95698855|NCT03970395|191367805|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.49||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.42|23.18|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.44 (IC 95%; 0.27-0.60)|||23.18|2.42|0.01
95698856|NCT03970395|191367806|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|4.91||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|11.38|||Risk Ratio (RR)||Risk Difference 0.54 (IC 95; 0.36-0.72)|||11.38|2.12|0.01
95698857|NCT02940626|191367809|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Wald Test on equality of proportions|||Subjects were analyzed for efficacy in the group to which they randomized. Sponsor defined outcomes were based on review of microbiology results from samples tested at the central lab. If sample was not sent to the central lab., determination was based on results from the local microbiology lab. In cases where both local \& central lab results were available, concordance was confirmed for S. aureus. Therefore, the analysis used local microbiology data in order to utilize a more complete dataset.||||.5470
95698858|NCT00929734|191367841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.292|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.292
95698859|NCT00929734|191367842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.462|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.462
95698860|NCT00929734|191367843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of hs-CRP (ln hs-CRP)|ANCOVA|||||||0.017
95698861|NCT00929734|191367844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||ANCOVA with natural logarithm of interleukin 6 (ln IL6)|ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95698862|NCT00980980|191367845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Proportional-hazards models|Proportional-hazards models with shared frailties accounted for clustering within hospitals.||||||0.01
95698863|NCT01802554|191367880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.039
95698864|NCT01802554|191367881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.701
95698865|NCT01802554|191367882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95698866|NCT01802554|191367883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.268
95698867|NCT01802554|191367884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.021
95698868|NCT01056341|191367892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiplicity. An Independent Committee conducted this analysis to determine the most efficacious of all arms with a good safety profile.~P-value linked to the 3 mg/kg/day 6 months selected arm ."|One-sided Z-tests|One-sided Z-tests for proportions (contrasts tests on placebo) with pooled variance||The interim analysis was carried out after the first 188 patients have completed their W24 visit or been withdrawn prematurely from study therapy. For each propranolol arm, individual hypotheses H0,i: θi≤0||||< 0.0001
95698869|NCT01056341|191367893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The methodology used guaranteed that the familywise type I error rate was below the nominal one-sided significance level of 0.005.|combination tests|Superiority was tested using the closed testing procedure and combination tests for all intersection hypotheses using Simes' adjustment.||"The objective is to test the superiority of the selected arm using the approach of Posch et al.~The primary analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population: all treated patients in Stage 1 and all treated patients in stage 2 randomized to placebo or the selected arm."||||< 0.0001
95698870|NCT00862121|191367902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.212||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.683|||Regression, Logistic|||The odds ratio (OR) for Baseline CDAI measures the effect of an increase of one unit on the outcome. The OR \[95% CI\] and p-value (likelihood-based) are for Pentasa versus placebo estimated in a logistic regression analysis including TREATMENT and CDAI at baseline as covariates. Power to demonstrate superiority of PENTASA Sachet 6 g/day over placebo in the primary efficacy analysis was 90% for a planned sample size of 255 participants per treatment arm (assuming 10% nonassessable participants).||2.683|0.017|0.231
95698871|NCT00640146|191367951|OTHER|||||||0.0213|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 2 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0213
95698872|NCT00640146|191367952|OTHER|||||||0.0463|||||||Fisher Exact|||Analysis was performed using Fisher exact test comparing the percentage of participants with a laxation response within 4 hours of the first dose of study drug, testing MNTX against placebo.||||0.0463
95698873|NCT00873288|191367967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||> 0.05
95698874|NCT00873288|191367969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.207|||||||Chi-squared|The Pearson Chi-squared value = 1.590||||||0.207
95698875|NCT00873288|191367970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.66
95698876|NCT00093470|191367972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|1.072||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \<0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of DFS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.072|0.538|0.026
95698877|NCT00093470|191367973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.809||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|1.155||one-sided p-value; threshold for statistical significance \< 0.025|Log Rank|stratified log rank test|Hazard ratio of OS for Arm A to Arm B|||1.155|0.567|0.056
95698878|NCT00010803|191367974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.33|||Log Rank|Time to dementia in Ginkgo vs placebo groups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compute hazard ratios and log-rank tests.||The null hypothesis is that the instantaneous hazard rate for Ginkgo biloba and placebo are the same. Assumptions were based on 4%/yr dementia and 6%/yr mortality and dropout combined. A sample size of 3000 with an average follow up of 5 years resulted in 96% power to detecting a 30% reduction in the rate of dementia at a 2-sided significance level of 0.5.||1.33|0.94|0.21
95698879|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.27|||Log Rank|||Total Mortality||1.27|0.85|0.70
95698880|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.62|||Log Rank|||Atherosclerotic CHD mortality||1.62|0.70|0.78
95698881|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||Incident Myocardial Infarction||1.58|0.79|0.54
95698882|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident Angina||1.18|0.61|0.32
95698883|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.23|||Log Rank|||Incident CHD||1.23|0.72|0.66
95698884|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously Provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.18|||Log Rank|||Incident CHF||1.18|0.71|0.48
95698885|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident Stroke||1.45|0.52|0.25
95698886|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.45|||Log Rank|||Incident TIA||1.45|0.52|0.59
95698887|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.12||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.5|||Log Rank|||Incident CVD||1.50|0.84|0.42
95698888|NCT00010803|191367975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Previously provided|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.25|||Log Rank|||Total CHD and CVD combined||1.25|0.80|0.98
95698889|NCT00010803|191367976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment X Time interaction|-0.002||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear mixed models comparing rates of change in global cognition scores (z-scores) by treatment group||0.005|-0.009|.65
95698890|NCT03657810|191367977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95698891|NCT03657810|191367978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Type III P-Value are from the likelihood ration test from the logistic regression model with factors of treatment, gender, and investigator|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.052
95698892|NCT01595438|191367988|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
95698893|NCT01595438|191367989|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
95698894|NCT01595438|191367990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
95698895|NCT01595438|191367991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
95698896|NCT01595438|191367992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
95698897|NCT01595438|191367993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
95698898|NCT01595438|191367994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
95698899|NCT01595438|191367995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
95698900|NCT01595438|191367996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
95698901|NCT01595438|191367997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
95698902|NCT01595438|191367998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
95698903|NCT01595438|191367999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
95698904|NCT01595438|191368000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
95698905|NCT01595438|191368001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
95698906|NCT01595438|191368002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
95698907|NCT01595438|191368003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
95698908|NCT01595438|191368004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
95698909|NCT01595438|191368005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
95698910|NCT01595438|191368006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
95698911|NCT01595438|191368007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
95698912|NCT01595438|191368008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
95698913|NCT01595438|191368009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
95698914|NCT01595438|191368010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
95698915|NCT01595438|191368011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
95698916|NCT01595438|191368012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
95698917|NCT01595438|191368013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
95698918|NCT01595438|191368014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
95698919|NCT01595438|191368015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
95698920|NCT01595438|191368016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
95698921|NCT01595438|191368017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
95698922|NCT01595438|191368018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
95698923|NCT01595438|191368019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
95698924|NCT01595438|191368020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
95727656|NCT01952574|191424894|SUPERIORITY|To maintain the type I error at ≤ 0.05, the pairwise comparison was tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 70 mg vs placebo, 21 mg vs placebo, and 7 mg vs placebo. The lower dose group was only to be tested when the higher dose group was tested as significant.|LS Mean Difference|0.11||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|92.0|-0.83|1.05|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||1.05|-0.83|0.82
95698925|NCT01784588|191368073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Adjusted Difference in Percentages|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.2|7.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||7.4|-8.2|
95698926|NCT01784588|191368073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (NI) was demonstrated if the entire confidence interval was above -15% at 36 months. The sample size was estimated under the assumption that the proportion of subjects with treatment success is 85% for each of Solyx and Obtryx. For a (one-sided) type I error rate of 0.05, 194 subjects (97 per arm) are needed to have 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of Solyx with a NI margin of 15%.|Unadjusted Treatment Difference (%)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.4|8.4||Non-inferiority was evaluated using a two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (SIS minus TMUS). The CI was calculated based on the pooling of treatment differences across propensity score strata for a binary endpoint.||||Available Cases Only - Intent-to-Treat||8.4|-5.4|
95698927|NCT00291499|191368083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.016
95698928|NCT00291499|191368084|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.14||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95698929|NCT00291499|191368085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043||||||Threshold p \<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.043
95698930|NCT00291499|191368086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.132
95698931|NCT00291499|191368087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Threshold p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.031
95698932|NCT00291499|191368088|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.363|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95698933|NCT04426890|191368101|EQUIVALENCE|Therapeutic equivalence was declared if the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference was entirely within an equivalence margin of \[-2.5, 2.0\].|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.22|1.63||||||The statistical analysis of mean change from baseline in ISS7 at Week 12 between CT-P39 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 1) and Xolair 300 mg treatment arm (Arm 2), using ANCOVA with multiple imputation based on the MAR assumption was performed for the mITT Set.||1.63|-0.22|
95698934|NCT01899677|191368132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Mann whitney U|||Mann Whitney U test was used to compare cytokine levels between groups.||||0.32
95698935|NCT01899677|191368133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.73
95698936|NCT01899677|191368134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.66
95698937|NCT01899677|191368135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Mann whitney U|||||||0.76
95698938|NCT02151682|191368144|NON_INFERIORITY|A logistic regression model was fitted to the response using baseline pain, age group, treatment, and underlying pain condition as explanatory variables, followed by a Farrington-Manning test for non-inferiority, based on Full Analysis Set.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.19|0.06||The p-value is based on Farrington-Manning variance estimator using a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2. A 1-sided alpha of 0.1 was used. A p-value \<0.1 represents non-inferiority.|Farrington-Manning test|Non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release has been demonstrated.|A confidence interval for the risk difference (RD) completely above the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -0.2 represents non-inferiority of tapentadol prolonged-release versus morphine prolonged-release.|||0.06|-0.19|0.0790
95698939|NCT01306032|191368164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.034
95698940|NCT01306032|191368164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.68
95698941|NCT02666508|191368176|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in DPIA from pre to post.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.44|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||-0.44|-1.60|0.001
95698942|NCT02666508|191368177|OTHER|Test conducted was a test of the difference between plaque identifying toothpaste and non-plaque identifying toothpaste for change in hsCRP|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.32|||Repeated Measures ANOVA|||||0.32|-0.69|0.459
95698943|NCT00835003|191368214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations estimated a sample size of 1272 women with an estimated proportion of 8% in the 39 weeks Group and 14% in the 38 weeks group|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.65|0.31
95698944|NCT02466412|191368229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|63.9326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.6045|82.3991|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for Cmax. Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||82.3991|49.6045|
95698945|NCT02466412|191368230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric LS Mean Ratio|60.0052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9517|80.0997|||ANOVA|The model included terms for sequence, subject nested within sequence, period, and product as fixed effect factors.|"Geometric LS mean ratio (CHTP 1.1 M:mCC).~Expressed as %"|The objective of this study was to determine the point estimate and precision of the CHTP 1.1 M:mCC ratio for AUC(0-last). Therefore, there was no statistical hypothesis to be tested for this objective.||80.0997|44.9517|
95698946|NCT03859960|191368231|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.006
95698947|NCT03859960|191368231|OTHER|||||||0.23||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.23
95698948|NCT03859960|191368232|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.001
95698949|NCT03859960|191368232|OTHER|||||||0.731|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.731
95698950|NCT03859960|191368233|OTHER|||||||0.214|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.214
95698951|NCT03859960|191368233|OTHER|||||||0.993||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.993
95698952|NCT03859960|191368234|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.41
95698953|NCT03859960|191368234|OTHER|||||||0.676|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.676
95698954|NCT03859960|191368235|OTHER|||||||0.511||||||p\<0.05 was considered statisticaly significant.|Pearson correlation test|||||||0.511
95698955|NCT03859960|191368235|OTHER|||||||0.248|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.248
95698956|NCT03859960|191368236|OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.654
95698957|NCT03859960|191368236|OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Pearson correlation test|||||||0.025
95698958|NCT01376245|191368248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.191|0.089|<0.001
95698959|NCT01376245|191368248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.179|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.230|0.129|<0.001
95698960|NCT01376245|191368248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.194|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.143|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.245|0.143|<0.001
95698961|NCT01357889|191368266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3 (P3) to Process 2 (P2) geometric least squares means (LSMs) for AUC (0-inf) must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.842|1.042|||ANOVA|||||1.042|0.842|
95698962|NCT01357889|191368267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish BE, the 90% CI for the ratio of Process 3:Process 2 geometric least squares means for Cmax must have fallen within the BE limit of 0.8 and 1.25.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs (P3:P2)|0.927|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.813|1.056|||ANOVA|||||1.056|0.813|
95698963|NCT02475395|191368305|OTHER||Sensitivity|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.9|95.3|||||Sensitivity estimates the percent true positive results obtained by Trak. Positive results are less than 15 M/mL sperm concentration and are part of a sub fertile diagnostic assessment.|||95.3|79.9|
95698964|NCT02475395|191368305|OTHER||Specificity|93.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|96.1|||||Specificity is calculated by the percentage of true negative results obtained using Trak compared to reference method. Negative (for subfertility) results are greater than 15 M/mL.|||96.1|88.7|
95698965|NCT02475395|191368306|OTHER||Sensitivity|95.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.3|98.3||||||||98.3|86.3|
95698966|NCT02475395|191368306|OTHER||Specificity|94.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.6|97.3||||||||97.3|90.6|
95698967|NCT02475395|191368307|OTHER||Sensitivity|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.7|99.1||||||||99.1|88.7|
95698968|NCT02475395|191368307|OTHER||Specificity|93.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.2|96.5||||||||96.5|89.2|
95698969|NCT01167582|191368308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 1 Post Randomization||||<0.001
95698970|NCT01167582|191368308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 2 Post Randomization||||<0.001
95698971|NCT01167582|191368308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 3 Post Randomization||||<0.001
95698972|NCT01167582|191368309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95698973|NCT01167582|191368310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|5.73|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||5.73|0.99|
95698974|NCT01167582|191368311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.7||||||95.0|-5.3|24.7|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|||24.7|-5.3|
95698975|NCT01167582|191368312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|56.02|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Mortality||56.02|0.91|
95698976|NCT01167582|191368312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|4.22|||||Restrictive Arm (numerator) compared to Liberal Arm (denominator)|Myocardial Infarction||4.22|0.48|
95698977|NCT04093258|191368343|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|6.85|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test/Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||6.85|0.33|
95698978|NCT04093258|191368344|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 0.67. Superiority will be concluded if the lower limit is above 1.0.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.19|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model Analysis|Finite-sample corrected Akaike's Information Criterion|Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control|"The proportion of response (1) was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model with a binary distribution and logit link function for all questions."||1.19|0.10|
95698979|NCT04093258|191368345|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority of the Test lens relative to the Control will be concluded if the lower confidence limit of LSM difference is above the non-inferiority margin -5.|Least square mean difference|-5.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.202|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.48|0.52|||Mixed Model Analysis|Linear mixed model using the Kenward and Roger method for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|||0.52|-12.48|
95698980|NCT02180217|191368419|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|53.44|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.44|3.73|<.001
95698981|NCT03784027|191368442|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|9.9|||Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||9.9|7.4|<0.001
95698982|NCT03784027|191368443|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|-7.1||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-7.1|-9.9|<0.001
95698983|NCT03784027|191368444|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-0.3|-0.5|<0.001
95698984|NCT03784027|191368445|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.9|-4.9|<0.001
95698985|NCT03784027|191368446|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-9.8||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||-9.8|-14.8|<0.001
95698986|NCT03784027|191368447|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5||The primary and key secondary end points were tested in hierarchy (Time in range, time \>180mg/dL, HbA1c, mean glucose, time \<70mg/dL) to control the type 1 error with the use of the fixed-sequence method.|Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.4|0.74
95698987|NCT03784027|191368448|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|-4.8|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-4.8|-7.6|
95698988|NCT03784027|191368449|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values. Differences in percents are shown in percentage points.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.05|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.05|-1.5|
95698989|NCT03784027|191368450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.1|-0.1|
95698990|NCT03784027|191368451|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.6|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||-0.6|-1.6|
95698991|NCT03784027|191368452|NON_INFERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.009|||||Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.009|-0.006|
95698992|NCT03784027|191368453|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||Regression, Linear|Based on a longitudinal model adjusting for baseline value and period as fixed effects. The model accounts for correlated data from the same subject.||||0.03|-0.02|0.75
95698993|NCT03784027|191368454|SUPERIORITY|The mean adjusted differences are based on a linear mixed model with adjustment for repeated participant measures, with period as a fixed effect and trial site as a random effect; the model also accounted for the baseline values.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||||(For total daily insulin use) Confidence intervals for the secondary end points were adjusted for multiple comparisons with the use of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.|||0.8|-0.1|
95698994|NCT02455388|191368484|EQUIVALENCE|No equivalence margin set.|||||<|0.001|||||||Intraclass correlation coefficient|||||||<0.001
95698995|NCT02455388|191368485|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95698996|NCT02455388|191368486|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
95698997|NCT01019252|191368498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||7.21|3.28|<.0001
95698998|NCT01019252|191368499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||1.39|.94|<.0001
95698999|NCT01019252|191368500|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.93|12.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|A longitudinal general linear mixed effects model was used.||||12.93|8.93|<.0001
95699000|NCT02514772|191368501|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
95699001|NCT02514772|191368502|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|16.9||||||||16.9|-20.6|
95699002|NCT02514772|191368503|OTHER||Difference (%)|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|17.6||||||||17.6|-21.2|
95699003|NCT02514772|191368504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|13.3||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after first infusion (i.e. on study day 1 or on study day 2).||13.3|-24.2|
95699004|NCT02514772|191368504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|13.6||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions, occurred on day of or on day after second infusion (i.e. on study day 14 or on study day 15).||13.6|-24.5|
95699005|NCT02514772|191368504|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|11.4||||||Incidence difference of infusion-related reactions overall on day(s) of or day(s) after either infusion (i.e. on day 1 or 2 and on day 14 or day 15).||11.4|-26.0|
95699006|NCT03325556|191368606|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3676||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.172|0.727||1-sided p-value reported. The protocol-defined O'Brien Flemming stopping boundary for the planned IA was a 1-sided p-value equal to 0.0033|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.727|0.172|0.0023
95699007|NCT03325556|191368607|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.452|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2812||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|0.785||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Model included covariates for Treatment group, dementia subtype, and region, and robust sandwich-type variance estimator.|||0.785|0.261|0.0024
95699008|NCT00762268|191368608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||1.0
95699009|NCT00762268|191368609|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Change from intake scores.||||0.05
95699010|NCT00762268|191368610|OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95699011|NCT02016898|191368611|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.29|||Chi-squared|||||1.29|0.67|0.7
95699012|NCT02016898|191368612|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01||0.539|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.539
95699013|NCT02988219|191368622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861|||||||Chi-squared|||Bradycardia during surgery||||0.3861
95699014|NCT02988219|191368622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2591|||||||Chi-squared|||No bradycardia observed in the perioperative period||||0.2591
95699015|NCT02988219|191368623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||Chi-squared|||Arrhythmia before surgery||||0.597
95699016|NCT02988219|191368623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia during surgery||||0.4
95699017|NCT02988219|191368623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6544|||||||Chi-squared|||arrhythmia after surgery||||0.6544
95699018|NCT02988219|191368623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.077|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.45s after surgery||||0.077
95699019|NCT02988219|191368623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|||||||Chi-squared|||long QTc \> 0.24 s in the perioperative time||||0.0174
95699020|NCT05053126|191368644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.132|<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|31.65||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The sensitivity and integrity of the study was validated by comparing the mean responses of oxycodone HCl, the positive control (C), to the placebo (P):~H0: μC - μP ≤ δ1 versus Ha: μC - μP \> δ1 where δ1 =15"|||31.65|<0.0001
95699021|NCT05053126|191368644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.2469|ONE_SIDED|95.0||3.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||3.4||0.2469
95699022|NCT05053126|191368644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 0|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.1756|ONE_SIDED|95.0||2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The primary analysis evaluated whether pregabalin plus oxycodone HCl (T) produced mean responses that showed abuse potential that was no higher than oxycodone HCl (C). The margin for showing no significant difference was defined as 20% of the difference between oxycodone HCl (C) and Placebo (P):~H0: μT - μC ≥ 0.2(μC - μP) versus Ha: μT - μC \<0.2(μC - μP)."||2.5||0.1756
95699023|NCT05053126|191368644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||4.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||4.3||0.0001
95699024|NCT05053126|191368644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 10|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.0099|ONE_SIDED|95.0||8.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show less abuse potential than oxycodone HCl (C) were:~H0: μC - μL ≤ 0.2 (μC - 50) versus Ha: μC - μL \> 0.2 (μC - 50)"||8.0||0.0099
95699025|NCT05053126|191368644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9888|ONE_SIDED|95.0||23.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||23.4||0.9888
95699026|NCT05053126|191368644|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin = 11|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13||0.9997|ONE_SIDED|95.0||27.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The null and alternative hypotheses for evaluating whether pregabalin (L) produced mean responses that show abuse potential similar to placebo(P) were:~H0: μL - μp ≥ δ2 versus Ha: μL - μp \< δ2 where δ2 = 11"||27.1||0.9997
95699027|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|65.79|85.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.42|65.79|<0.0001
95699028|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|35.03|54.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||54.65|35.03|<0.0001
95699029|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.12|59.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||59.75|40.12|<0.0001
95699030|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|80.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.99|90.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||90.61|70.99|<0.0001
95699031|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|81.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.09|91.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||91.73|72.09|<0.0001
95699032|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.6|-20.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.9|-40.6|<0.0001
95699033|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.5|-15.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.9|-35.5|<0.0001
95699034|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.945||0.3829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.62|15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.01|-4.62|0.3829
95699035|NCT05053126|191368645|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.942||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.5|16.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.11|-3.50|0.2896
95699036|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.247|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.77|27.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||27.17|19.77|<0.0001
95699037|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.71|14.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.09|6.71|<0.0001
95699038|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.248|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.59|14.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.99|7.59|<0.0001
95699039|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|20.62|28.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.03|20.62|<0.0001
95699040|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.65|26.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||26.04|18.65|<0.0001
95699041|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.38|-16.8|<0.0001
95699042|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.252|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.47|-15.9|<0.0001
95699043|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.258||0.7051|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.86|4.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.57|-2.86|0.7051
95699044|NCT05053126|191368646|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.82|2.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.57|-4.82|0.6160
95699045|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.235|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|18.31|25.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||25.67|18.31|<0.0001
95699046|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.227||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.73|10.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|2.73|0.0042
95699047|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.236|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.12|13.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.48|6.12|<0.0001
95699048|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.239|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.44|24.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.81|17.44|<0.0001
95699049|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|17.59|24.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.95|17.59|<0.0001
95699050|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.3|-11.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.9|-19.3|<0.0001
95699051|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.9|-8.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.50|-15.9|<0.0001
95699052|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.246||0.7001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.56|2.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.83|-4.56|0.7001
95699053|NCT05053126|191368647|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.233||0.7479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.4|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.96|-4.40|0.7479
95699054|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.439|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|25.45|30.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.19|25.45|<0.0001
95699055|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.17|16.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.89|12.17|<0.0001
95699056|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.437|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.49|20.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.22|15.49|<0.0001
95699057|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.438|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|36.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||36.77|34.40|<0.0001
95699058|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|36.47|41.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||41.21|36.47|<0.0001
95699059|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.6|-10.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.9|-15.6|<0.0001
95699060|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.435|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.3|-7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.61|-12.3|<0.0001
95699061|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.22|8.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.94|4.22|<0.0001
95699062|NCT05053126|191368648|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.436|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.65|13.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.38|8.65|<0.0001
95699063|NCT01309841|191368649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.38||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.795|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.795|1.062|0.015
95699064|NCT01309841|191368649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.509||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.168|1.949|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis via Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by response to laxatives at baseline (LIR, LAR, LUR).||1.949|1.168|0.001
95699065|NCT01309841|191368650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.479||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.038|2.107||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.107|1.038|0.028
95699066|NCT01309841|191368650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.691||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.205|2.373||Response rate over Weeks 1 to 12 in the LIR subgroup is a key secondary endpoint included in the multiple testing procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.373|1.205|0.002
95699067|NCT01309841|191368652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.86|0.24|<0.001
95699068|NCT01309841|191368652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ls mean difference|0.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.13|0.51|<0.001
95699069|NCT01309841|191368653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.04|-0.23|0.176
95699070|NCT01309841|191368653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.32|0.008
95699071|NCT01309841|191368654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.23|-0.12|0.564
95699072|NCT01309841|191368654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.36|0.01|0.042
95699073|NCT01309841|191368655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|3.87||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|8.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||8.39|-0.66|0.094
95699074|NCT01309841|191368655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|8.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.04|13.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||13.14|4.04|<0.001
95699075|NCT01309841|191368656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.54||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.96|0.12|0.011
95699076|NCT01309841|191368656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.99|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response (LIR, non-LIR), treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||1.41|0.57|<0.001
95699077|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.08||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.21|0.273
95699078|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.02||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM total score from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.02|-0.26|0.089
95699079|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.02||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.17||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.17|-0.14|0.849
95699080|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.13||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.13|-0.18|0.749
95699081|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.26|0.062
95699082|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.07||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM rectal symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||-0.07|-0.35|0.003
95699083|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.11||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.06||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.06|-0.29|0.202
95699084|NCT01309841|191368658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.01||Analysis for change in PAC-SYM stool symptoms subscore from baseline (Week 1) to end of treatment (Week 12)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Study pooled center is included as a random effect.||0.01|-0.34|0.072
95699085|NCT01309841|191368659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.20|-0.25|0.831
95699086|NCT01309841|191368659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis via MMRM with fixed effects for baseline, baseline laxative response, treatment and treatment time interaction. Due to convergence issues, study pooled center is also included as a fixed, rather than random effect.||0.06|-0.41|0.141
95699087|NCT00138424|191368686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.24||||0.57|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.57
95699088|NCT00138424|191368686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.26||||0.53|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.53
95699089|NCT00138424|191368686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.3||||0.62|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.62
95699090|NCT00138424|191368686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.8||||0.1|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK Cmax parameter||||0.10
95699091|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.07||||0.87|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.87
95699092|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.31||||0.46|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.46
95699093|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|-0.41||||0.49|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.49
95699094|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.87||||0.05|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC4 parameter||||0.05
95699095|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.12||||0.78|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.78
95699096|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.52||||0.18|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.18
95699097|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in plasma vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
95699098|NCT00138424|191368687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.2||||0.75|||||||Spearman Correlation|||Spearman correlation co-efficient utilized to determine viral load changes in urine vs the PK AUC12 parameter||||0.75
95699099|NCT01632735|191368688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.99|||GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations regression examined primary relapse (measured by urinalysis) over time by condition, controlling for age and gender.||||0.99|0.57|<0.05
95699100|NCT01632735|191368689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (timexcondition)|0.239|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the primary outcome measures of recovery behaviors mean days over time (baseline, discharge, 3, 6, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.248|0.219|<0.001
95699101|NCT01632735|191368690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta (time x condition)|0.115|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|A repeated-measures model tested for effects of treatment vs. control on recovery self-confidence over time controlling for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of recovery confidence mean score over time.||0.123|0.106|<0.001
95699102|NCT01632735|191368691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Beta effect (timexcondition)|0.217|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses controlled for age and gender.||Mixed modeling using a repeated-measures random-effects model was conducted to test for the effects of treatment (dummy coded with 1 = mobile intervention, 0 = control) and time as well as the treatment x time interaction on the outcome measure of self-help utilization (mean days in past month) over the study period (baseline, discharge, and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups).||0.233|0.2|<0.001
95699103|NCT00094887|191368718|OTHER||||||=|0.8085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||= 0.8085
95699104|NCT03589885|191368726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1014.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.83|14940.62|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||14940.62|68.83|<0.0001
95699105|NCT03589885|191368726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|96.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.22|537.78|||Regression, Logistic|||PASI 75||537.78|17.22|<0.0001
95699106|NCT03589885|191368727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|51.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.95|221.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||221.64|11.95|<0.0001
95699107|NCT03589885|191368727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|7.38|119.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||119.57|7.38|<0.0001
95699108|NCT03589885|191368728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|88.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.15|484.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||484.52|16.15|<0.0001
95699109|NCT03589885|191368728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|189.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||189.01|7.60|<0.0001
95699110|NCT04111107|191368732|OTHER|||||||0.966|||||||Wilcoxon signed rank (2 sided)|||H0: Progression-free ratio = 1||||0.966
95699111|NCT04111107|191368735|OTHER|Single proportion was estimated.|proportion|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|21.1|||||exact binomial confidence interval|The proportion with a complete or partial response was estimated and an exact binomial confidence interval was calculated||21.1|0.1|
95699112|NCT01529385|191368737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699113|NCT01529385|191368738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95699114|NCT01529385|191368739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||<.05
95699115|NCT01529385|191368740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699116|NCT01529385|191368741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699117|NCT01529385|191368742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699118|NCT01529385|191368744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699119|NCT01529385|191368745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699120|NCT01529385|191368746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||0.05 set as a priori threshold for statistical significance; Sidak correction for multiple comparisons used|ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95699121|NCT03103906|191368768|OTHER||Difference in proportion|2.56||||0.3334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.99|25.07|||Chi-squared|||||25.07|-19.99|0.3334
95699122|NCT03571256|191368776|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.8||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.3|-3.9|0.600
95699123|NCT00764478|191368786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|-0.7||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.7|-6.3|0.0136
95699124|NCT00764478|191368786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-1.2||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.2|-6.9|0.0100
95699125|NCT00764478|191368787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.8|0.0100
95699126|NCT00764478|191368787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.2||Adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-0.2|-0.9|0.0052
95699127|NCT00764478|191368788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5352||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5352
95699128|NCT00764478|191368788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4274||||||Overall adjusted p-value from Hochberg's method for testing two secondary efficacy hypotheses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4274
95699129|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.1|-4.2|0.0007
95699130|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-1.3|-4.4|0.0003
95699131|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.8|-5.4|<0.0001
95699132|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-1.9|-5.5|<0.0001
95699133|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-1.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-1.3|-5.7|0.0021
95699134|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-2.0|-6.4|0.0002
95699135|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-4.4|0.1907
95699136|NCT00764478|191368789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.4|-5.8|0.0238
95699137|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2922|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.2922
95699138|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.1001
95699139|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
95699140|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0011
95699141|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0194
95699142|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0841|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0841
95699143|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4858|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.4858
95699144|NCT00764478|191368790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2496|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2496
95699145|NCT00764478|191368791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2912|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2912
95699146|NCT00764478|191368791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1151
95699147|NCT00764478|191368793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0019
95699148|NCT00764478|191368793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0045|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0045
95699149|NCT00764478|191368793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0112|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0112
95699150|NCT00764478|191368793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0021
95699151|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.4|<0.0001
95699152|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 2||-0.1|-0.3|0.0076
95699153|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.2|-0.6|0.0004
95699154|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||-0.1|-0.5|0.0040
95699155|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0061
95699156|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.1|-0.6|0.0031
95699157|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.5|0.1086
95699158|NCT00764478|191368794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.0|-0.6|0.0376
95699159|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0005
95699160|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0026|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.0026
95699161|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0007
95699162|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.0002
95699163|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0387|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0387
95699164|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0059|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0059
95699165|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.311|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.3110
95699166|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0613|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0613
95699167|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0640
95699168|NCT00764478|191368795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0139|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0139
95699169|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9708|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.9708
95699170|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7891|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 2||||0.7891
95699171|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5222|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.5222
95699172|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8686|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 4||||0.8686
95699173|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0696|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0696
95699174|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0049|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 7||||0.0049
95699175|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0196|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0196
95699176|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0032|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14||||0.0032
95699177|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0061|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0061
95699178|NCT00764478|191368796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 21||||0.0012
95699179|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0147
95699180|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.072|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0720
95699181|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1213|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1213
95699182|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0588|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0588
95699183|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0200
95699184|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0017
95699185|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2401|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2401
95699186|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0009|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0009
95699187|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0525|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0525
95699188|NCT00764478|191368797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0025|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0025
95699189|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0377|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0377
95699190|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0771|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0771
95699191|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1264
95699192|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0280
95699193|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0583|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0583
95699194|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0021|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0021
95699195|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0866|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0866
95699196|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0048
95699197|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0147
95699198|NCT00764478|191368798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0030
95699199|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0104|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0104
95699200|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 2||||0.0005
95699201|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0692
95699202|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0128|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.0128
95699203|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0809|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0809
95699204|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.0260
95699205|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2576|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.2576
95699206|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0077
95699207|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.396|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.3960
95699208|NCT00764478|191368799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0141|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0141
95699209|NCT00764478|191368800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.9|-5.1|0.0056
95699210|NCT00764478|191368800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.8|-5.0|0.0068
95699211|NCT00764478|191368800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-5.0|0.0743
95699212|NCT00764478|191368800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-5.9|0.0177
95699213|NCT00764478|191368800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-1.0|-6.6|0.0081
95699214|NCT00764478|191368800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.0247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-6.1|0.0247
95699215|NCT00764478|191368801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.9808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-0.6|0.9808
95699216|NCT00764478|191368801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-0.9|0.2830
95699217|NCT00764478|191368801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.6|-0.6|0.9751
95699218|NCT00764478|191368801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.7879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.7879
95699219|NCT00764478|191368801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.9654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-0.8|0.9654
95699220|NCT00764478|191368801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-0.4|0.3917
95699221|NCT00764478|191368802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.8|0.0120
95699222|NCT00764478|191368802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.5|-2.2|0.0011
95699223|NCT00764478|191368802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-1.2|0.6885
95699224|NCT00764478|191368802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-2.1|0.0398
95699225|NCT00764478|191368802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-2.1|0.0258
95699226|NCT00764478|191368802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.5|-2.5|0.0031
95699227|NCT00764478|191368803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.6|-3.2|0.0033
95699228|NCT00764478|191368803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.0622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-2.5|0.0622
95699229|NCT00764478|191368803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-3.6|0.0083
95699230|NCT00764478|191368803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.6|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.6|-3.8|0.0064
95699231|NCT00764478|191368803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.9|-4.3|0.0022
95699232|NCT00764478|191368803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-3.7|0.0196
95699233|NCT00764478|191368804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.1883
95699234|NCT00764478|191368804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.3|0.1684
95699235|NCT00764478|191368804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.9522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.9|0.9522
95699236|NCT00764478|191368804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.0|-1.8|0.0514
95699237|NCT00764478|191368804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.0|-1.8|0.0531
95699238|NCT00764478|191368804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.2|0.0078
95699239|NCT00764478|191368805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.7746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.5|-0.7|0.7746
95699240|NCT00764478|191368805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.0|0.2754
95699241|NCT00764478|191368805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-0.6|0.9109
95699242|NCT00764478|191368805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.6|0.7295
95699243|NCT00764478|191368805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.8|-0.7|0.9800
95699244|NCT00764478|191368805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.5|0.5122
95699245|NCT00764478|191368806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.9|0.2191
95699246|NCT00764478|191368806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.0|-1.1|0.0589
95699247|NCT00764478|191368806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.3683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.0|0.3683
95699248|NCT00764478|191368806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.3|0.0982
95699249|NCT00764478|191368806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.1969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.3|0.1969
95699250|NCT00764478|191368806|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.0|0.5615
95699251|NCT00764478|191368807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0101
95699252|NCT00764478|191368807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.2|-1.5|0.0146
95699253|NCT00764478|191368807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-1.4|0.0861
95699254|NCT00764478|191368807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.1|-1.6|0.0342
95699255|NCT00764478|191368807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.4|-2.0|0.0037
95699256|NCT00764478|191368807|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-1.9|0.0096
95699257|NCT00764478|191368808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Square (LS) means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||-0.4|-1.7|0.0019
95699258|NCT00764478|191368808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.1|-1.2|0.0791
95699259|NCT00764478|191368808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.5|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.5|-2.0|0.0006
95699260|NCT00764478|191368808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.0123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||-0.2|-1.6|0.0123
95699261|NCT00764478|191368808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.3|||MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.3|-2.0|0.0054
95699262|NCT00764478|191368808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.1|||MMRM||Asenapine 10 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||-0.1|-1.7|0.0350
95699263|NCT00868452|191368809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95699264|NCT00868452|191368810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95699265|NCT00868452|191368811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95699266|NCT02007954|191368836|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||P-values \< 0.05 considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Shapiro-Wilk test was run for normality. Baseline and follow-up AFP compared using two-tailed Student's t-test.||||.01
95699267|NCT01948141|191368854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.59
95699268|NCT01948141|191368857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.36
95699269|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.55|-65.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.29|-77.55|<0.001
95699270|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.94|-52.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-52.38|-65.94|<0.001
95699271|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.81|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-33.40|-45.81|<0.001
95699272|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.83|-34.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-34.37|-47.83|<0.001
95699273|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-76.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.87|-65.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.72|-86.87|<0.001
95699274|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.81|-61.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.20|-79.81|<0.001
95699275|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.54|-36.86||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-36.86|-57.54|<0.001
95699276|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.21|-29.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no mean difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-29.56|-48.21|<0.001
95699277|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.72|-61.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.70|-74.72|<0.001
95699278|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.84|-58.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.14|-70.84|<0.001
95699279|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.04|-59.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-59.57|-77.04|<0.001
95699280|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.31|-44.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-44.65|-65.31|<0.001
95699281|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-70.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.72|-64.41||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.41|-76.72|<0.001
95699282|NCT01763866|191368863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.11|-51.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline at Week 12 in LDL-C between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-51.72|-69.11|<0.001
95699283|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.38|-64.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.51|-75.38|<0.001
95699284|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.06|-56.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-56.57|-69.06|<0.001
95699285|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.03|-32.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-32.03|-43.03|<0.001
95699286|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.7|-37.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-37.28|-49.70|<0.001
95699287|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.49|-65.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-65.35|-84.49|<0.001
95699288|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-74.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.0|-66.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-66.62|-83.00|<0.001
95699289|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|-35.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.57|-54.32|<0.001
95699290|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.06|-35.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and ezetimibe, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-35.55|-52.06|<0.001
95699291|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.67|-61.08||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-61.08|-72.67|<0.001
95699292|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-60.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.56|-72.60|<0.001
95699293|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.19|-58.12||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-58.12|-73.19|<0.001
95699294|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.37|-54.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-54.46|-71.37|<0.001
95699295|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.86|-64.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-64.01|-74.86|<0.001
95699296|NCT01763866|191368864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-68.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.68|-60.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in the percent change from Baseline in the average value of LDL-C at Weeks 10 and 12 between evolocumab and placebo, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mean difference did exist.||-60.22|-76.68|<0.001
95699297|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-83.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.6|-74.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-74.6|-92.6|<0.001
95699298|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.2|-69.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-69.2|-90.2|<0.001
95699299|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.4|-35.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.3|-53.4|<0.001
95699300|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.4|-44.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.6|-65.4|<0.001
95699301|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.9|-57.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.8|-81.9|<0.001
95699302|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.5|-56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.7|-74.5|<0.001
95699303|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-33.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.9|-57.7|<0.001
95699304|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.9|-47.8|<0.001
95699305|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.9|-67.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.0|-83.9|<0.001
95699306|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-67.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.8|-88.0|<0.001
95699307|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-48.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.4|-63.1|<0.001
95699308|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-40.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.6|-60.6|<0.001
95699309|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-78.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-70.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.0|-86.2|<0.001
95699310|NCT01763866|191368865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-80.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.7|-68.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-68.6|-91.7|<0.001
95699311|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-85.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.2|-75.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-75.9|-95.2|<0.001
95699312|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.8|-64.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-64.9|-86.8|<0.001
95699313|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-37.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.1|-56.6|<0.001
95699314|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.6|-40.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.9|-62.6|<0.001
95699315|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.4|-59.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-59.0|-84.4|<0.001
95699316|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.6|-52.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.0|-71.6|<0.001
95699317|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.5|-36.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.6|-61.5|<0.001
95699318|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.2|-25.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.5|-45.2|<0.001
95699319|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.2|-67.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-67.9|-86.2|<0.001
95699320|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-75.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.3|-65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-65.3|-86.3|<0.001
95699321|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.1|-49.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.4|-65.1|<0.001
95699322|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.9|-33.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.4|-55.9|<0.001
95699323|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-79.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.5|-70.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-70.4|-87.5|<0.001
95699324|NCT01763866|191368866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-71.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.8|-60.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-60.0|-83.8|<0.001
95699325|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.29|-55.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.27|-65.29|<0.001
95699326|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.23|-51.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.51|-63.23|<0.001
95699327|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.84|-27.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.70|-37.84|<0.001
95699328|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.34|-33.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-33.71|-45.34|<0.001
95917973|NCT00900627|191795263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.01||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 5%|Cox proportional hazard model|Cox PH test with terms for treatment , prior taxane, hormone receptor status, prior chemotherapy for breast cancer|The Hazard Ratio is for AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel / Placebo + paclitaxel, ie a hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD8931 40mg + paclitaxel|Originally, 166 patients were to be randomised to observe at least 133 progression events, based on HR=0.67, 80% power, 2-sided 5% significant level and a median of 6 months for the placebo arm. After 190 patients were randomised, the analysis was agreed to be performed at an similar level of maturity (70%) as originally planned (72%), after approximately 133 events.||2.01|0.67|0.607
95699329|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-65.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.78|-56.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.56|-73.78|<0.001
95699330|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-64.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.32|-57.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.19|-72.32|<0.001
95699331|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.68|-29.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.81|-46.68|<0.001
95699332|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.15|-29.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.90|-45.15|<0.001
95699333|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.73|-54.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.48|-64.73|<0.001
95699334|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-53.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.60|-64.80|<0.001
95699335|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.6|-51.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.94|-64.60|<0.001
95699336|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.29|-50.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.32|-64.29|<0.001
95699337|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.18|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.18|<0.001
95699338|NCT01763866|191368867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-62.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.22|-55.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-55.42|-70.22|<0.001
95699339|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.25|-56.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-56.03|-67.25|<0.001
95699340|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-48.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.46|-61.40|<0.001
95699341|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.79|-29.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.44|-40.79|<0.001
95699342|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.15|-31.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.30|-44.15|<0.001
95699343|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-66.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.88|-57.39||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-57.39|-75.88|<0.001
95699344|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.49|-51.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.52|-68.49|<0.001
95699345|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.55|-31.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.47|-49.55|<0.001
95699346|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.3|-24.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.28|-41.30|<0.001
95699347|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.78|-54.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.13|-65.78|<0.001
95699348|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-51.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.57|-63.27|<0.001
95699349|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.95|-52.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.21|-66.95|<0.001
95699350|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.26|-41.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.27|-58.26|<0.001
95699351|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.57|-55.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.24|-66.57|<0.001
95699352|NCT01763866|191368868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.63|-48.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-48.62|-64.63|<0.001
95699353|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.1|-53.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.89|-63.10|<0.001
95699354|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.49|-47.01||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-47.01|-57.49|<0.001
95699355|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.33|-28.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.98|-38.33|<0.001
95699356|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.27|-34.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.74|-45.27|<0.001
95699357|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.61|-52.07||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.07|-66.61|<0.001
95699358|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.56|-51.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.93|-65.56|<0.001
95917974|NCT02291289|191795265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.82|||Log Rank|||||1.82|0.50|= 0.872
95917975|NCT02291289|191795265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95|||=|0.666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.77|= 0.666
95699359|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.09|-27.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-27.75|-42.09|<0.001
95699360|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.57|-32.71||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.71|-46.57|<0.001
95699361|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.66|-50.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.05|-59.66|<0.001
95699362|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.66|-51.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.61|-60.66|<0.001
95699363|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.72|-44.83||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.83|-56.72|<0.001
95699364|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.11|-48.76||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.76|-61.11|<0.001
95699365|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.94|-50.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.74|-59.94|<0.001
95699366|NCT01763866|191368869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.27|-50.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.46|-63.27|<0.001
95699367|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-58.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.03|-53.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.55|-64.03|<0.001
95699368|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.2|-41.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.52|-53.20|<0.001
95699369|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.23|-29.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.60|-40.23|<0.001
95699370|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.06|-30.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.35|-42.06|<0.001
95699371|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.27|-53.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-53.54|-69.27|<0.001
95699372|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.77|-45.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-45.25|-60.77|<0.001
95699373|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.17|-29.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.74|-45.17|<0.001
95699374|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.15|-26.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.47|-42.15|<0.001
95917976|NCT02291289|191795265|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44|||=|0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||Log Rank|||||2.29|0.90|= 0.128
95917977|NCT02291289|191795266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71|||=|0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||Log Rank|||||1.32|0.39|= 0.276
95699375|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.6|-51.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.40|-61.60|<0.001
95699376|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-53.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.29|-48.13||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.13|-58.29|<0.001
95699377|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.06|-43.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-43.99|-57.06|<0.001
95699378|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.43|-39.47||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.47|-54.43|<0.001
95699379|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.47|-51.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-51.14|-61.47|<0.001
95699380|NCT01763866|191368870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|-46.06||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-46.06|-59.40|<0.001
95699381|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.66|-42.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.15|-50.66|<0.001
95699382|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.75|-39.63||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.63|-49.75|<0.001
95699383|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.36|-21.75||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.75|-30.36|<0.001
95699384|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.61|-26.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.57|-36.61|<0.001
95699385|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.69|-38.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.27|-50.69|<0.001
95699386|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.48|-41.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.21|-52.48|<0.001
95699387|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.39|-22.21||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.21|-34.39|<0.001
95699388|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.86|-22.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-22.50|-33.86|<0.001
95699389|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.5|-39.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.97|-49.50|<0.001
95699390|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.46|-41.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.57|-52.46|<0.001
95917978|NCT02291289|191795266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||=|0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.64|= 0.076
95917979|NCT02291289|191795266|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.157|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.157
95699391|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.38|-35.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.79|-45.38|<0.001
95699392|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|-34.66||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.66|-46.00|<0.001
95699393|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.76|-42.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.35|-51.76|<0.001
95699394|NCT01763866|191368871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.27|-42.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-42.98|-54.27|<0.001
95699395|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-46.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.73|-41.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-41.94|-51.73|<0.001
95699396|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.43|-37.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.30|-48.43|<0.001
95699397|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|-23.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.65|-33.56|<0.001
95699398|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.74|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.70|-35.74|<0.001
95699399|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-38.54|-51.66|<0.001
95699400|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.01|-35.85||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.85|-49.01|<0.001
95699401|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-30.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.68|-23.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.84|-36.68|<0.001
95699402|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.79|-18.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.59|-31.79|<0.001
95699403|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.77|-37.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-37.74|-48.77|<0.001
95699404|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-45.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.04|-39.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-39.61|-51.04|<0.001
95699405|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.65|-35.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-35.61|-46.65|<0.001
95699406|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.72|-28.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.25|-41.72|<0.001
95917980|NCT02291289|191795266|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.73|= 0.415
95917981|NCT02291289|191795268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.064|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.064
95917982|NCT02291289|191795268|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.658
95699407|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-47.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.83|-42.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.25|-51.83|<0.001
95699408|NCT01763866|191368872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-44.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.67|-38.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-38.54|-50.67|<0.001
95699409|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-55.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.03|-64.91|<0.001
95699410|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.57|-48.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.64|-59.57|<0.001
95699411|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-32.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.77|-42.80|<0.001
95699412|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-41.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.34|-36.67||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.67|-47.34|<0.001
95699413|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.22|-49.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.59|-64.22|<0.001
95699414|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-61.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.68|-55.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-55.29|-68.68|<0.001
95699415|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.48|-30.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.04|-44.48|<0.001
95699416|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-43.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.07|-36.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-36.51|-50.07|<0.001
95699417|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-55.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.79|-49.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.79|-60.79|<0.001
95699418|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-59.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.16|-54.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.32|-64.16|<0.001
95699419|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-50.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.82|-44.45||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-44.45|-56.82|<0.001
95699420|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.91|-49.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.64|-63.91|<0.001
95699421|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.51|-52.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.99|-62.51|<0.001
95699422|NCT01763866|191368873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.85|-50.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-50.27|-61.85|<0.001
95917983|NCT02291289|191795268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.093
95917984|NCT02291289|191795269|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.125|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.125
95917985|NCT02291289|191795269|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||Chi-squared|||||||= 0.739
95699423|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-60.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.65|-54.94||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-54.94|-65.65|<0.001
95699424|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.23|-42.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.65|-54.23|<0.001
95699425|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.09|-34.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-34.23|-45.09|<0.001
95699426|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.12|-31.52||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-31.52|-43.12|<0.001
95699427|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.55|-49.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.99|-65.55|<0.001
95699428|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.91|-49.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-49.60|-64.91|<0.001
95699429|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-39.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.53|-32.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-32.26|-47.53|<0.001
95699430|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-38.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.26|-30.88||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-30.88|-46.26|<0.001
95699431|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-54.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.99|-48.82||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-48.82|-59.99|<0.001
95699432|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-56.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.58|-50.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-50.68|-61.58|<0.001
95699433|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-49.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.8|-42.53||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-42.53|-55.80|<0.001
95699434|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-48.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.21|-40.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-40.40|-57.21|<0.001
95699435|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-57.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.82|-52.65||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-52.65|-62.82|<0.001
95699436|NCT01763866|191368874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-52.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.1|-45.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-45.98|-58.10|<0.001
95699437|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.2|88.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.5|70.2|<0.001
95699438|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|86.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||86.8|67.9|<0.001
95699439|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|68.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.1|78.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||78.1|53.1|<0.001
95699440|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.8|78.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||78.5|54.8|<0.001
95699441|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.3|88.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.3|67.3|<0.001
95699442|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.7|89.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.6|70.7|<0.001
95699443|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|43.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5|56.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||56.7|29.5|<0.001
95699444|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|30.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|44.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||44.2|16.7|<0.001
95699445|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.5|88.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||88.0|69.5|<0.001
95699446|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.1|90.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.2|73.1|<0.001
95699447|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|54.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.8|66.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||66.9|39.8|<0.001
95699448|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|65.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||76.6|51.0|<0.001
95699449|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|91.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.6|95.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.3|81.6|<0.001
95699450|NCT01763866|191368875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|84.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.8|90.0||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||90.0|72.8|<0.001
95699451|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|83.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.9|89.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||89.2|71.9|<0.001
95699452|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.2|85.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.3|65.2|<0.001
95699453|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|63.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.3|73.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||73.9|47.3|<0.001
95699454|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.8|75.2||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||75.2|49.8|<0.001
95699455|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|80.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|87.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.9|65.8|<0.001
95699456|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|88.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage)||||88.1|67.9|<0.001
95699457|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.4|55.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||55.1|26.4|<0.001
95917986|NCT02291289|191795269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.362
95699458|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|35.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|49.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||49.3|20.7|<0.001
95699459|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|77.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.9|84.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||84.7|63.9|<0.001
95699460|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|81.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.8|87.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||87.5|68.8|<0.001
95699461|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|52.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.6|65.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||65.3|37.6|<0.001
95699462|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|64.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.1|75.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||75.5|49.1|<0.001
95699463|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|92.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.3|95.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||95.9|82.3|<0.001
95699464|NCT01763866|191368876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Difference|78.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.9|85.4||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Based on Cochran-Mantel Haenszel test stratified by the stratification factors (entry statin therapy and simvastatin contraindicated therapy usage).||||85.4|64.9|<0.001
95699465|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.06|-25.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.11|-39.06|<0.001
95699466|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-14.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.03|-29.70|<0.001
95699467|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|-20.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.38|-34.53|<0.001
95699468|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.36|-21.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.62|-37.36|<0.001
95699469|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.71|-13.33||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.33|-27.71|<0.001
95699470|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.01|-20.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-20.92|-37.01|<0.001
95699471|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|-24.93||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.93|-39.11|<0.001
95699472|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-37.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.61|-29.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.23|-45.61|<0.001
95699473|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-35.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.94|-28.38||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.38|-42.94|<0.001
95699474|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.36|-18.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-18.27|-35.36|<0.001
95917987|NCT02291289|191795271|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.421|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.421
95917988|NCT02291289|191795271|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.495|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.495
95699475|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.74|-26.37||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.37|-40.74|<0.001
95699476|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|-23.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-23.58|-40.80|<0.001
95699477|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.91|-21.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.23|-34.91|<0.001
95699478|NCT01763866|191368877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.59|-19.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.73|-34.59|<0.001
95699479|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-33.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.81|-25.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-25.60|-40.81|<0.001
95699480|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.92|-11.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.72|-27.92|<0.001
95699481|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.87|-21.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.44|-36.87|<0.001
95699482|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.56|-19.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.32|-35.56|<0.001
95699483|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.39|-14.36||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.36|-30.39|<0.001
95699484|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.62|-19.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-19.58|-36.62|<0.001
95699485|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.46|-24.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.78|-40.46|<0.001
95699486|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-34.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.52|-26.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-26.25|-43.52|<0.001
95699487|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.69|-28.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-28.30|-44.69|<0.001
95699488|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|-16.49||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.49|-34.19|<0.001
95699489|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.95|-29.02||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-29.02|-43.95|<0.001
95699490|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.61|-21.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-21.74|-42.61|<0.001
95917989|NCT02291289|191795271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.357
95917990|NCT01474512|191795287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95699491|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-24.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-24.10|-38.40|<0.001
95699492|NCT01763866|191368878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-28.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.79|-19.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-19.55|-36.79|<0.001
95699493|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.63|-2.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.58|-21.63|0.20
95699494|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.36||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.13|-11.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.97|-33.13|0.003
95699495|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|7.19||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.19|-12.09|1.00
95699496|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.46|-4.44||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.44|-25.46|0.053
95699497|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|-5.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.79|-25.06|0.073
95699498|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.32||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|-3.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.92|-24.90|0.027
95699499|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|8.3||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.30|-10.63|1.00
95699500|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|9.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.11|-12.12|0.63
95699501|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|-12.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.54|-32.90|<0.001
95699502|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.69||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.76|-8.28||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.28|-30.76|0.007
95699503|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-17.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.71|-8.46||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.46|-26.71|0.002
95699504|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.76|-16.59||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-16.59|-35.76|<0.001
95699505|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.38|-9.55||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.55|-32.38|<0.001
95699506|NCT01763866|191368879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-29.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.84|-18.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.57|-40.84|<0.001
95917991|NCT01474512|191795287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95699507|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-12.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.41||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|0.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||0.57|-24.69|0.20
95699508|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.86|-13.35||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.35|-41.86|0.003
95699509|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.49||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|9.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.43|-16.16|1.00
95699510|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.18||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-3.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-3.99|-32.28|0.053
95699511|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.34|-6.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.10|-27.34|0.073
95699512|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.39||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.92|3.29||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||3.29|-21.92|0.027
95699513|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.05|7.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.72|-13.05|1.00
95699514|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.43||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|14.69||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.69|-10.66|0.63
95699515|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-4.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.04|-32.03|<0.001
95699516|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|-6.96||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-6.96|-32.71|0.007
95699517|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.84|-5.26||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.26|-27.84|0.002
95699518|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-20.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.33|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.04|-9.98||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.98|-31.04|<0.001
95699519|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.88|-10.68||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.68|-32.88|<0.001
95699520|NCT01763866|191368880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-31.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-18.62||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-18.62|-44.10|<0.001
95699521|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.99|-4.74||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.74|-21.99|0.088
95699522|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.98|-10.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-10.64|-31.98|0.005
95917992|NCT01474512|191795288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95699523|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|7.27||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.27|-10.27|1.00
95699524|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.17|-2.91||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-2.91|-24.17|0.056
95699525|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.88|-5.54||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.54|-24.88|0.073
95699526|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.97|-4.42||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.42|-24.97|0.027
95699527|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|9.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.05|-9.94|1.00
95699528|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|10.16||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.16|-10.66|0.62
95699529|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-25.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.64|-15.5||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-15.50|-34.64|<0.001
95699530|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-19.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.58||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.81|-8.77||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.77|-30.81|0.007
95699531|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.27|-7.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-7.03|-25.27|0.005
95699532|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.11|-14.25||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-14.25|-32.11|<0.001
95699533|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.0|-13.43||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-13.43|-33.00|<0.001
95699534|NCT01763866|191368881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-32.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.43|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.6|-22.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-22.14|-43.60|<0.001
95699535|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-14.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.16|-4.78||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.78|-24.16|0.088
95699536|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-26.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.71|-12.24||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-12.24|-40.71|0.005
95917993|NCT01474512|191795288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95917994|NCT01474512|191795289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
95917995|NCT01474512|191795289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable, therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
95917996|NCT01474512|191795290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95699537|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|8.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.32|-11.41|1.00
95699538|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-15.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.4|-0.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-0.97|-29.40|0.056
95699539|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.05|-5.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.80|-27.05|0.073
95699540|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.68|2.48||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||2.48|-21.68|0.027
95699541|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.27||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.16|8.61||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.61|-12.16|1.00
95699542|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.18||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|17.14||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||17.14|-7.25|0.62
95699543|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-21.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.24|-9.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-9.73|-34.24|<0.001
95699544|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.6|-5.9||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-5.90|-31.60|0.007
95699545|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.46|-4.92||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-4.92|-27.46|0.005
95699546|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-18.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.04|-8.05||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-8.05|-29.04|<0.001
95699547|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-22.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.09|-11.81||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||-11.81|-33.09|<0.001
95699548|NCT01763866|191368882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.96|-24.7||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||-24.70|-48.96|<0.001
95699549|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|10.15||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.15|2.91|0.034
95699550|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.43|12.79||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.79|3.43|0.017
95699551|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|10.34||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.34|3.00|0.001
95699552|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.93|13.22||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.22|3.93|0.006
95917997|NCT01474512|191795290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI90.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95699553|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|8.09||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.09|-0.19|0.85
95699554|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.68|13.58||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.58|4.68|<0.001
95699555|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.51|11.64||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.64|3.51|0.003
95699556|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.86|12.84||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.84|3.86|0.003
95699557|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|9.04||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.04|1.68|<0.001
95699558|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.51|14.8||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||14.80|2.51|0.010
95699559|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|9.23||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.23|1.69|0.013
95699560|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|11.1||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.10|2.40|0.002
95699561|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.13|15.32||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.32|5.13|<0.001
95699562|NCT01763866|191368883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.73|12.97||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||12.97|4.73|<0.001
95699563|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|6.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.66|10.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||10.99|2.66|0.034
95699564|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.01|12.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.73|3.01|0.017
95699565|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|13.03||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.03|4.58|0.001
95699566|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|13.11||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.11|3.46|0.006
95699567|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|8.57||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||8.57|-0.42|0.85
95699568|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.22|11.89||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.89|2.22|<0.001
95917998|NCT01474512|191795290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
95699569|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|8.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.07|12.87||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||12.87|4.07|0.003
95699570|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|11.99||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||11.99|2.29|0.003
95699571|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|7.73||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||7.73|-1.33|<0.001
95699572|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|7.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||13.72|0.97|0.010
95699573|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|5.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|9.56||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.56|0.52|0.013
95699574|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|9.6||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||9.60|0.07|0.002
95699575|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.05|15.51||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit.||||15.51|4.05|<0.001
95699576|NCT01763866|191368884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|9.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|13.72||Multiplicity adjusted p-value is significant if less than the familywise error rate of 0.05.|Repeated measures linear effects model|The model included treatment group, stratification factors, scheduled visit and the interaction of treatment with scheduled visit||||13.72|4.40|<0.001
95699577|NCT01861054|191368890|OTHER|||||||0.3149||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on ALDH+ cells by ALDEFLUOR assay||||0.3149
95699578|NCT01861054|191368890|OTHER|||||||0.8148||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison on CD44+/CD24- by flow citometry||||0.8148
95699579|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho AKT Extent||||>0.9999
95699580|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-AKT Intensity||||>0.9999
95699581|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.2245|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Extent||||0.2245
95699582|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.5785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AKT Intensity||||0.5785
95699583|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Extent||||>0.9999
95699584|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.3139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Phospho-FAK Intensity||||0.3139
95699585|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.212|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Extent||||0.2120
95699586|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FAK Intensity||||>0.9999
95699587|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
95699588|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||C-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
95699589|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Extent||||>0.9999
95699590|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.8728|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||D-PTEN Intensity||||0.8728
95699591|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.2265|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Extent||||0.2265
95699592|NCT01861054|191368891|OTHER|||||||0.2403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CXCR1 Intensity||||0.2403
95699593|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 1 Beta||||>0.9999
95699594|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER|||||||0.6945||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 6||||0.6945
95699595|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER|||||||0.9448||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Interleukin 8||||0.9448
95699596|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER|||||||0.6292||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Tumor Necrosis Factor - alpha||||0.6292
95699597|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER|||||||0.2354||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Granulocyte Macrophage Colony Stm Factor||||0.2354
95699598|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor||||>0.9999
95699599|NCT01861054|191368892|OTHER|||||||0.4719||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor||||0.4719
95699600|NCT01861054|191368893|OTHER|||||||0.0951|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Extent||||0.0951
95699601|NCT01861054|191368893|OTHER|||||||0.1643|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||CD31 Intensity||||0.1643
95699602|NCT01861054|191368894|OTHER|||||||0.4183|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Extent||||0.4183
95699603|NCT01861054|191368894|OTHER|||||||0.3702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||P62 Intensity||||0.3702
95699604|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Lymphocyte in WBC||||0.6168
95699605|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.6168||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Total T cell in lymphocytes||||0.6168
95699606|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||B cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
95699607|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||T-helper cell in lymphocytes||||0.1453
95699608|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CTL in lymphocytes||||0.1453
95699609|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||NKT cell in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
95699610|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.7634||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||ADCC NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.7634
95699611|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.5487||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Regulatory NK subsets in lymphocytes||||0.5487
95699612|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Exhausted NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
95699613|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD56-CD16+ NK subsets in lymphocytes||||>0.9999
95699614|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1451||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - IL-8||||0.1451
95699615|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - IL-8||||0.2779
95699616|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1444||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - IL-8||||0.1444
95699617|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1453||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - IL-8||||0.1453
95699618|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.92||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - IL-8||||0.9200
95699619|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2779||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD11b in PMNs - US||||0.2779
95699620|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.6164||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||CD18 in PMNs - US||||0.6164
95699621|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD11b - US||||>0.9999
95699622|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2032||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD66b - US||||0.2032
95699623|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||MFI of CD18 - US||||>0.9999
95699624|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.5250
95699625|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.6706||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.6706
95699626|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.8312||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.8312
95699627|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.3992
95699628|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - IL-8||||0.2952
95699629|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - IL-8||||0.3992
95699630|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - IL-8||||0.2952
95699631|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.525||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - IL-8||||0.5250
95699632|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
95699633|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
95699634|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER||||||>|0.9999||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - US||||>0.9999
95699635|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - US||||0.3992
95699636|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - US||||0.3992
95699637|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - US||||0.2952
95699638|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3992||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - US||||0.3992
95699639|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2952||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - US||||0.2952
95699640|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.2238
95699641|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2238||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.2238
95699642|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.1543
95699643|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.1547
95699644|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS||||0.1547
95699645|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS||||0.1547
95699646|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.4314||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS||||0.4314
95699647|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS||||0.3153
95699648|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.4700
95699649|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
95699650|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
95699651|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Monocytes expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1605
95699652|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL6 - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
95699653|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1547||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL1b - LPS+IL-8||||0.1547
95699654|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3153||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing IL8 - LPS+IL-8||||0.3153
95699655|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1543||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent Neutrophils expressing TNFa - LPS+IL-8||||0.1543
95699656|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1601||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Control||||0.1601
95699657|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.2368||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent FITC eColi Test||||0.2368
95699658|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.1605||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs unstimulated||||0.1605
95699659|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.47||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent PMNs fMLP||||0.4700
95699660|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.3392||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin unstimulated||||0.3392
95699661|NCT01861054|191368899|OTHER|||||||0.808||||||P-Value is based on two-sample t-test or Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test, where appropriate, comparing the 2 study groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Percent L-selectin fMLP||||0.8080
95699662|NCT04962503|191368900|OTHER|||||||0.0313||||||Change from baseline to Day 3|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
95699663|NCT04962503|191368900|OTHER|||||||0.0625||||||Change from baseline to Day 9|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
95699664|NCT01617187|191368947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) means difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.6043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|3.6||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.6|-6.1|0.6043
95699665|NCT01617187|191368947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0.0356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|-1.0||Adjusted p-value from graphical approach to control Type 1 error rate among primary and secondary efficacy hypotheses|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||-1.0|-10.1|0.0356
95699666|NCT01617187|191368947|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-11.1|0.0587
95699667|NCT01617187|191368948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.3|-0.3|0.9083
95699668|NCT01617187|191368948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||0.0|-0.6|0.0601
95699669|NCT01617187|191368948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||0.2|-0.5|0.3898
95699670|NCT01617187|191368949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.3700
95699671|NCT01617187|191368949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1708||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Confirmative testing of asenapine versus placebo for this measure was to be performed only if both asenapine doses were statistically superior to placebo in reduction from baseline in PANSS Total Score (Primary outcome measure)||||0.1708
95699672|NCT01617187|191368949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.262||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2620
95699673|NCT01617187|191368950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.4|0.0491
95699674|NCT01617187|191368950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Hochberg's method|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Olanzapine 15 mg QD|||-0.0|-2.3|0.0491
95699675|NCT01617187|191368950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||2.0|-0.0|0.0567
95699676|NCT01617187|191368950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||1.9|0.0|0.0391
95699677|NCT01617187|191368950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|||3.3|1.0|0.0003
95699678|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.4849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||2.9|-1.4|0.4849
95699679|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.8902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-2.2|0.8902
95699680|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.5826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.9|-3.4|0.5826
95699681|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.9271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||3.0|-3.3|0.9271
95699682|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.1902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-5.1|0.1902
95699683|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.7|-6.2|0.2710
95699684|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.6773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||4.3|-2.8|0.6773
95699685|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72||0.2895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.6|-5.2|0.2895
95699686|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.4261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|2.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.6|-6.0|0.4261
95699687|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||5.5|-2.9|0.5505
95699688|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.4286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.4|-5.6|0.4286
95699689|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.4423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|3.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.1|-7.0|0.4423
95699690|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||7.7|-1.4|0.1691
95699691|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17||0.4682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.7|-5.8|0.4682
95699692|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.4961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||3.5|-7.2|0.4961
95699693|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.4697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|2.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||2.8|-6.1|0.4697
95699694|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-7.8|0.0947
95699695|NCT01617187|191368951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-10.2|0.0675
95699696|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
95699697|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1736||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.1736
95699698|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.285||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.2850
95699699|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.329||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.3290
95699700|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6938||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.6938
95699701|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1105||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1105
95699702|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6804||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6804
95699703|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9704||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.9704
95699704|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6604||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.6604
95699705|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2447||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.2447
95699706|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4834||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4834
95699707|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9189||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.9189
95699708|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.437||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.4370
95699709|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2894||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.2894
95699710|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6953||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.6953
95699711|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4892||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.4892
95699712|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1954||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.1954
95699713|NCT01617187|191368952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.799||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.7990
95699714|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.4255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.2|-0.1|0.4255
95699715|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.9564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.1|0.9564
95699716|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.6363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.1|-0.2|0.6363
95699717|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.8759
95699718|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.9598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9598
95699719|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.9789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-0.2|0.9789
95699720|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.4671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.1|-0.3|0.4671
95699721|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.3|0.6359
95699722|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.5454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.2|-0.4|0.5454
95699723|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.4|-0.2|0.4188
95699724|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.5318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.3|0.5318
95699725|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.5683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.2|-0.4|0.5683
95699726|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.4|-0.1|0.2972
95699727|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.2|-0.4|0.4820
95699728|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-0.3|0.9901
95699729|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.6682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-0.4|0.6682
95699730|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.1111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.1111
95699731|NCT01617187|191368953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.1|-0.5|0.2400
95699732|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6205||||||P-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.6205
95699733|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4829||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.4829
95699734|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3945||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 4||||0.3945
95699735|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4076||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.4076
95699736|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.969||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.9690
95699737|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.117||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.1170
95699738|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5088||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.5088
95699739|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3426||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.3426
95699740|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0762||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.0762
95699741|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5531||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.5531
95699742|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4875||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.4875
95699743|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0692||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.0692
95699744|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7482||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.7482
95699745|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8037||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.8037
95699746|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0859||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||||0.0859
95699747|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.585||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.5850
95699748|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9698||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.9698
95699749|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0132||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 35||||0.0132
95699750|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7129||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.7129
95699751|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5074||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.5074
95699752|NCT01617187|191368954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||||||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with an adjustment for pooled center|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 42||||0.0040
95699753|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.8829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.8829
95699754|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5488
95699755|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.1|0.7830
95699756|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.0|0.8070
95699757|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5280
95699758|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.6|0.4025
95699759|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.2|-0.8|0.6471
95699760|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.5|0.2504
95699761|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.9223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.9223
95699762|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-1.0|0.8839
95699763|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.2|0.8077
95699764|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-1.0|0.6216
95699765|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.4248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.7|0.4248
95699766|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.7667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.3|0.7667
95699767|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-1.1|0.6282
95699768|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.9|0.3150
95699769|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.1908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-2.0|0.1908
95699770|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.3|0.3128
95699771|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.8812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.3|-1.5|0.8812
95699772|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-2.4|0.1143
95699773|NCT01617187|191368955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.0|-2.3|0.4418
95699774|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.3|-0.3|0.2160
95699775|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.9494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.7|0.9494
95699776|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.3|-1.6|0.1834
95699777|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.3|-0.8|0.6347
95699778|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.6917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.2|0.6917
95699779|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.1431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-2.3|0.1431
95699780|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.6267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-0.9|0.6267
95699781|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.3|0.7260
95699782|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.3326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-2.2|0.3326
95699783|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.9|-0.9|0.4575
95699784|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.8|0.4930
95699785|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.6|-2.8|0.1886
95699786|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.2643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2643
95699787|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.3516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.8|-2.2|0.3516
95699788|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.2068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.7|-3.1|0.2068
95699789|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.9|-1.3|0.7284
95699790|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.2698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-2.4|0.2698
95699791|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-3.3|0.1510
95699792|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.8039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.5|-2.0|0.8039
95699793|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.2|-3.5|0.0306
95699794|NCT01617187|191368956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.1|-4.1|0.0406
95699795|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.7819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-1.1|0.7819
95699796|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-1.5|0.7030
95699797|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.6|-1.7|0.9520
95699798|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|1.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.6|-2.1|0.7907
95699799|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.1391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-3.1|0.1391
95699800|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.4901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.5|-3.1|0.4901
95699801|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.8079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||2.2|-1.7|0.8079
95699802|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-2.7|0.3889
95699803|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-3.4|0.3907
95699804|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.5363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|3.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||3.0|-1.5|0.5363
95699805|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.5075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-2.9|0.5075
95699806|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.4526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.7|-3.7|0.4526
95699807|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.1548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|4.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||4.3|-0.7|0.1548
95699808|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.6589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.8|-2.9|0.6589
95699809|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.5171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.0|-3.9|0.5171
95699810|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-3.6|0.3133
95699811|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.1723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.7|-3.8|0.1723
95699812|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.2|-5.4|0.0663
95699813|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.5128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.7|-3.5|0.5128
95699814|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-4.6|0.0842
95699815|NCT01617187|191368957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.1217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-5.4|0.1217
95699816|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.5|-0.0|0.0584
95699817|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.5|0.5197
95699818|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.9693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.9|0.9693
95699819|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.4|-0.8|0.6161
95699820|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.2|0.7880
95699821|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.0|-1.8|0.5526
95699822|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.7647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.5|-1.1|0.7647
95699823|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.2|0.8900
95699824|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.7097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.3|-1.9|0.7097
95699825|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.4601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||2.1|-0.9|0.4601
95699826|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.6288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.8|0.6288
95699827|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.6099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.3|-2.3|0.6099
95699828|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.5|-0.7|0.2790
95699829|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.4253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.1|0.4253
95699830|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.3014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.9|-2.9|0.3014
95699831|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.7|-1.7|0.9720
95699832|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.4758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-2.2|0.4758
95699833|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.4419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.2|-2.8|0.4419
95699834|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.4762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-2.4|0.4762
95699835|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.1046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-3.1|0.1046
95699836|NCT01617187|191368958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.1411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-3.7|0.1411
95699837|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2754
95699838|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.8|0.8500
95699839|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.9|-1.1|0.8439
95699840|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.4|0.4741
95699841|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.4|-1.6|0.2158
95699842|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.8|-1.7|0.5060
95699843|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.1|0.9956
95699844|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.3|-1.8|0.1624
95699845|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.7662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-1.5|0.7662
95699846|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.8363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.1|-1.3|0.8363
95699847|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.2388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.5|-1.8|0.2388
95699848|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.9435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-1.5|0.9435
95699849|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-0.8|0.4267
95699850|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.0|-1.6|0.6810
95699851|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.7673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.9|-1.4|0.7673
95699852|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.9|-1.9|0.4830
95699853|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.1|0.2128
95699854|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.1756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.5|-2.8|0.1756
95699855|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.4246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||2.0|-0.8|0.4246
95699856|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.6|-2.1|0.2873
95699857|NCT01617187|191368959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.7308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.4|-1.9|0.7308
95699858|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||1.0|-0.2|0.2116
95699859|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.9039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.6|0.9039
95699860|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.4|-1.2|0.2959
95699861|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.5909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.1|0.5909
95917999|NCT01474512|191795290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PASI100.|Fisher Exact|Due to the zero count in placebo group, p-values from Logistic Regression were not obtainable; therefore the p-value is from Fisher's exact test.||||||<0.001
95699862|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-1.4|0.1489
95699863|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.2|-2.0|0.1000
95699864|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.1|-0.8|0.7830
95699865|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.2679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.4|0.2679
95699866|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.5|-1.9|0.2321
95699867|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.7368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-1.3|0.7368
95699868|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-1.4|0.4606
95699869|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.3241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.7|-2.0|0.3241
95699870|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-1.1|0.9860
95699871|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.3|-1.8|0.1890
95699872|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-2.0|0.3030
95699873|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.0|-2.3|0.0550
95699874|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.0|-2.2|0.0415
95699875|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||-0.6|-3.3|0.0058
95699876|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.0691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.1|-2.3|0.0691
95699877|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.5|-2.7|0.0063
95699878|NCT01617187|191368960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||-0.6|-3.4|0.0056
95699879|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.7847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.6|0.7847
95918000|NCT01474512|191795291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95918001|NCT01474512|191795291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95699880|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.5859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-0.5|0.5859
95699881|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.6|-1.0|0.6413
95918002|NCT01474512|191795292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95918003|NCT01474512|191795292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95918004|NCT01474512|191795293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918005|NCT01474512|191795293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918006|NCT01474512|191795294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918007|NCT01474512|191795294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918008|NCT01474512|191795295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918009|NCT01474512|191795295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918010|NCT01474512|191795296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918011|NCT01474512|191795296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918012|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for Absenteeism.||||||<0.001
95918013|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for absenteeism.||||||0.003
95918014|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
95918015|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for activity impairment.||||||<0.001
95918016|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
95918017|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for presenteeism.||||||<0.001
95918018|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
95699882|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7307
95918019|NCT01474512|191795297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline WPAI value.|ANCOVA|P-value is for work productively loss.||||||<0.001
95918020|NCT01474512|191795298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95699883|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-0.6|0.7176
95699884|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.6|-1.3|0.4860
95699885|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.9321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.8|-0.8|0.9321
95699886|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-0.7|0.7691
95699887|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.7|-1.3|0.5694
95699888|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.5583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.2|-0.6|0.5583
95699889|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.7307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.0|-0.7|0.7307
95699890|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.3|-1.8|0.1715
95699891|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.4219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.5|-0.6|0.4219
95699892|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.7437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.2|-0.9|0.7437
95699893|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||0.6|-1.9|0.3110
95699894|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.9805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.0|0.9805
95699895|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.8741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.8|-1.0|0.8741
95699896|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.6||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.6|-1.7|0.3288
95699897|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.9336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.9336
95699898|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.3|-1.7|0.1722
95699899|NCT01617187|191368961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.1909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.4|-2.1|0.1909
95699900|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.7|-0.7|0.9851
95699901|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.5|-0.9|0.4912
95699902|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.8559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 4||0.8|-1.0|0.8559
95699903|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.5635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||1.1|-0.6|0.5635
95699904|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.2321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.3||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.3|-1.3|0.2321
95699905|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.8867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 7||0.9|-1.1|0.8867
95699906|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||1.4|-0.2|0.1499
95699907|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.4|-1.2|0.2860
95699908|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.8978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 14||0.9|-1.1|0.8978
95699909|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.8||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.8|0.1|0.0283
95699910|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.8667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.9||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||0.9|-0.7|0.8667
95699911|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 21||1.4|-0.7|0.5044
95699912|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||2.4|0.5|0.0040
95699913|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.1|-0.7|0.6330
95699914|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.2981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 28||1.7|-0.5|0.2981
95699915|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.6556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.1|-0.7|0.6556
95699916|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.2889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||0.4|-1.3|0.2889
95699917|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.0||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 35||1.0|-1.1|0.9399
95699918|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.8955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 2.5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.0|0.8955
95699919|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Asenapine 5 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||0.5|-1.5|0.3681
95699920|NCT01617187|191368962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS means difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.8215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.1||Unadjusted p-value|MMRM||Olanzapine 15 mg BID minus Placebo BID|Day 42||1.1|-1.4|0.8215
95699921|NCT02559206|191368965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
95699922|NCT02559206|191368965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.297||||0.3661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.942|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.942|0.3661
95699923|NCT02559206|191368965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.286||||0.3869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.936|0.363|||MMRM|||||0.363|-0.936|0.3869
95699924|NCT02559206|191368965|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.771||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.419|-0.123|||MMRM|||||-0.123|-1.419|0.0199
95699925|NCT02559206|191368965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0276||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0276
95699926|NCT02559206|191368966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.569||||0.0839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.214|0.076|||MMRM|||||0.076|-1.214|0.0839
95699927|NCT02559206|191368966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.455||||0.1669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.191|||MMRM|||||0.191|-1.102|0.1669
95699928|NCT02559206|191368966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.299||||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.947|0.348|||MMRM|||||0.348|-0.947|0.3637
95699929|NCT02559206|191368966|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.258||||0.4333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.905|0.389|||MMRM|||||0.389|-0.905|0.4333
95699930|NCT02559206|191368966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5528||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.5528
95699931|NCT02559206|191368967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
95699932|NCT02559206|191368967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.048||||0.9013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.716|0.812|||MMRM|||||0.812|-0.716|0.9013
95699933|NCT02559206|191368967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.299||||0.4447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|1.067|||MMRM|||||1.067|-0.469|0.4447
95699934|NCT02559206|191368967|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.662||||0.0904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|1.428|||MMRM|||||1.428|-0.104|0.0904
95699935|NCT02559206|191368967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.0700
95699936|NCT02559206|191368968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.992||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|1.756|||MMRM|||||1.756|0.228|0.0110
95699937|NCT02559206|191368968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|0.161||||0.6801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.925|||MMRM|||||0.925|-0.604|0.6801
95699938|NCT02559206|191368968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.095||||0.8069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.861|0.67|||MMRM|||||0.670|-0.861|0.8069
95699939|NCT02559206|191368968|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Lin-Placebo)|-0.246||||0.5275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|0.519|||MMRM|||||0.519|-1.011|0.5275
95699940|NCT02559206|191368968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4201||||||Trend test performed using linear contrast statement for each DR formulation with placebo.|Trend Test|||||||0.4201
95699941|NCT02559206|191368969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
95699942|NCT02559206|191368969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.4399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.61|0.4399
95699943|NCT02559206|191368969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.85|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.85|0.57|0.5540
95699944|NCT02559206|191368969|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.19|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.19|1.10|0.0262
95699945|NCT02559206|191368969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0249||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.0249
95699946|NCT02559206|191368970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.70|0.79|0.1663
95699947|NCT02559206|191368970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.49|0.7710
95699948|NCT02559206|191368970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.58|0.48|0.8021
95699949|NCT02559206|191368970|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.14|0.37|0.8011
95699950|NCT02559206|191368970|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8578||||||For each DR formulation, the Correlation Test p-values are obtained from the correlation statistic controlling for geographic region.|Correlation test|||||||0.8578
95699951|NCT00092677|191369006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.591||95.0|0.826|1.115|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.115|0.826|0.591
95699952|NCT00092677|191369007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973||||0.732||95.0|0.833|1.137|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.137|0.833|0.732
95699953|NCT00092677|191369008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.024||95.0|0.628|0.967|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.967|0.628|0.024
95699954|NCT00092677|191369009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.829||||0.344||95.0|0.563|1.222|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.222|0.563|0.344
95699955|NCT00092677|191369010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.997||||0.968||95.0|0.842|1.179|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.179|0.842|0.968
95699956|NCT00092677|191369011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.088||||0.771||95.0|0.617|1.917|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.917|0.617|0.771
95699957|NCT00092677|191369012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.636||||0.147||95.0|0.345|1.173|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.173|0.345|0.147
95699958|NCT00092677|191369013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.015||95.0|0.503|0.929|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||0.929|0.503|0.015
95699959|NCT00092677|191369014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.456||||||95.0|0.197|1.057||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.057|0.197|
95699960|NCT00092677|191369015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||||95.0|0.199|1.86||The p-value was not provided as there were less than 40 patients who reported the specific endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.860|0.199|
95699961|NCT00092677|191369016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.124||||0.647||95.0|0.682|1.85|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.850|0.682|0.647
95699962|NCT00092677|191369017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.036||||0.799||95.0|0.788|1.363|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||1.363|0.788|0.799
95699963|NCT00092677|191369018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.667||||0.052||95.0|0.996|2.791|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.791|0.996|0.052
95699964|NCT00092677|191369019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.008||95.0|1.111|2.035|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity (as continuous covariate)|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on EZ/Simva 10/40 mg compared to Placebo|||2.035|1.111|0.008
95699965|NCT00092677|191369020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029||0.829||95.0|-0.063|0.051|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline peak transaortic jet velocity|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||0.051|-0.063|0.829
95699966|NCT00092677|191369021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|<=|0.001||95.0|-33.3|-31.0|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-31.0|-33.3|<=0.001
95699967|NCT00092677|191369022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<=|0.001||95.0|-51.8|-48.2|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-48.2|-51.8|<=0.001
95699968|NCT00092677|191369023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<=|0.001||95.0|2.4|5.5|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||5.5|2.4|<=0.001
95699969|NCT00092677|191369024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<=|0.001||95.0|-22.6|-17.3|||ANOVA|Model terms: treatment|Direction of the Comparison: EZ/Simva 10/40 mg minus Placebo|||-17.3|-22.6|<=0.001
95699970|NCT01090102|191369025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||||||Significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.63
95699971|NCT01090102|191369026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||||||significant at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95699972|NCT03518034|191369032|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority margin in terms of HR is 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 95% CI were estimated from Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD.|The hazard ratio (HR) and 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of MACE. If a subject does not experience a MACE during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.17|0.78|
95699973|NCT03518034|191369034|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.21|||||HR of AndroGel to placebo and 2-sided 95% CI were estimated from a Cox proportional-hazards regression model with adjustment of pre-existing CVD status.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a participant is defined as the time from randomization to the first component event of CV safety endpoint. If a participant does not experience a CV safety endpoint during the study, the time is right-censored at the time of participant's last available follow-up observation.||1.21|0.86|
95918021|NCT01474512|191795298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model that included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline QIDS value in the model.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95699974|NCT03518034|191369035|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|6.77|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior cardiovascular disease (CVD).|The high grade prostate cancer endpoint was analyzed using a discrete time proportional hazard regression model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for pre-existing CVD status. The HR of AndroGel to Placebo and its 2-sided 95% CI were provided.||6.77|0.39|
95699975|NCT03518034|191369036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||P-value is derived from the omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using linear mixed regression model.|linear mixed regression model|Omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test from linear mixed regression model||A linear mixed regression model was used to analyze the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24, with the dependent variable being the change in PDQ-Q4 score. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CVD status. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.011
95699976|NCT03518034|191369036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.79|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 6 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 6 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.79|0.19|
95699977|NCT03518034|191369036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.83|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 12 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 12 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.83|0.11|
95699978|NCT03518034|191369036|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.96|||||LS mean difference (AndroGel - Placebo) at month 24 was derived from linear mixed regression model.|Month 24 (results were derived from a linear mixed regression model that had a dependent variable of the change in PDQ-Q4 from baseline to months 6, 12, and 24. The model included fixed effects for treatment, visit, and the interaction between treatment and visit, while adjusting for baseline PDQ-Q4 score and pre-existing CV disease status. Additionally, an unstructured covariance matrix was used to account for correlations among repeated measures within participants).||0.96|-0.01|
95699979|NCT03518034|191369037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|3.86||||||Month 6 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.86|0.96|
95699980|NCT03518034|191369037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.63||||||Month 12 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||3.63|0.64|
95699981|NCT03518034|191369037|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.94||||||Month 24 risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||1.94|0.42|
95699982|NCT03518034|191369037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||The omnibus test p value is a test of the null hypothesis of no difference between AndroGel and placebo groups across all time points.|GEE Poisson regression model|||Risk ratio of remission of LG-PDD in the TRT versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures generalized estimating equations (GEE) Poisson regression model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, pre- existing CVD, and an unstructured working correlation matrix to account for repeated measures at multiple visits.||||0.197
95699983|NCT03518034|191369039|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||||Cox proportional-hazards model.|The HR and 2-sided 95% CI were calculated using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model, with adjustment for pre-existing CVD status. In this analysis, the time to event for a subject is defined as the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a clinical fracture. If a subject does not experience a clinic fracture during the study, the follow-up time is right-censored at the time of subject's last available follow-up observation.||1.97|1.04|
95699984|NCT03518034|191369040|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||p-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test|||Repeated measures log-binomial regression with effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and adjusted for pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.002
95699985|NCT03518034|191369041|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.494||||||P-value is from an omnibus likelihood-ratio chi-square test of the current model versus the null (intercept) model using repeated measure log-binomial regression.|Repeated measures log-binomial regr.|||The risk ratio of progression to diabetes in the AndroGel versus placebo group was estimated by a repeated measures log-binomial regression with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-visit interaction, and pre-existing CVD, and an unstructured covariance matrix to account for correlations among repeated measures within-subject.||||0.494
95699986|NCT03518034|191369042|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.23|0.78|
95699987|NCT03518034|191369043|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.62|0.76|
95699988|NCT03518034|191369044|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.32|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.32|0.92|
95699989|NCT03518034|191369045|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.51|||||Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.51|0.56|
95699990|NCT03518034|191369046|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.31|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.31|0.55|
95699991|NCT03518034|191369047|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.42|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.42|0.47|
95699992|NCT03518034|191369048|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.41|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||2.41|0.65|
95699993|NCT03518034|191369049|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.54|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||1.54|0.87|
95699994|NCT03518034|191369050|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.84|||||Discrete-time proportional hazards model with event time intervals based on scheduled visits, and adjusting for prior CVD.|||3.84|0.95|
95699995|NCT00877006|191369063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005||||||P-value for the treatment comparison is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment group, region, preassigned standard treatment, and lymphoma type as factors and baseline value as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of interest is superiority of BR over standard treatment.||||0.0005
95699996|NCT00877006|191369064|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test by preassigned standard treatment and lymphoma type.|BR/RCHOP-RCVP|||1.68|0.58|0.9677
95699997|NCT01779648|191369085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.785
95699998|NCT01779648|191369086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.195
95699999|NCT01779648|191369087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.722
95700000|NCT01779648|191369088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.158
95700001|NCT01779648|191369089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mean of right and left leg values were compared between the two device groups.||||0.301
95700002|NCT01779648|191369090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline TVF (total volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
95700003|NCT01779648|191369091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PVF (peak volume flow) are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||<0.001
95700004|NCT01779648|191369092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline PV (peak velocity)are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.929
95700005|NCT01779648|191369094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline peak volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.008
95700006|NCT01779648|191369095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Age, sex, body mass index, and baseline total volume flow are controlled as fixed-effects parameters.||||||0.132
95700007|NCT05034614|191369118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
95700008|NCT01807949|191369137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.62||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|4.06|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (less than \[\<\] 18 versus greater than equal to \[\>=\]18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.06|1.18|0.0004
95700009|NCT01807949|191369137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|4.44|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.44|1.56|<0.0001
95700010|NCT01807949|191369138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|6.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||6.98|1.86|0.0007
95700011|NCT01807949|191369138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|7.81|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||7.81|2.69|<0.0001
95700012|NCT01807949|191369139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.59|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI.||0.59|0.23|<0.0001
95700013|NCT01807949|191369139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.36||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.54|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.54|0.17|0.0001
95700014|NCT01807949|191369140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.21||||0.1651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|5.33|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline CFQ-R respiratory domain score.||5.33|-0.91|0.1651
95700015|NCT01807949|191369140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.85||||0.0736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|5.98|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model, as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||5.98|-0.27|0.0736
95700016|NCT01807949|191369141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9568|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8829|4.6431||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||4.6431|1.8829|<0.0001
95700017|NCT01807949|191369141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3834||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5234|3.7286||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||3.7286|1.5234|0.0001
95700018|NCT01807949|191369142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.6912||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5187|0.9209||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed using regression analysis for a negative binomial distribution with sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70) as covariates with the logarithm of time on study as the offset.||0.9209|0.5187|0.0116
95700019|NCT01807949|191369142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Event Rate Ratio|0.5659||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4191|0.7641||This test is considered nominally significant because a hierarchical procedure was used and was broken prior to this test.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.7641|0.4191|0.0002
95700020|NCT01807949|191369143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.64|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline weight.||1.64|0.62|<0.0001
95700021|NCT01807949|191369143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.95||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.46|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||1.46|0.43|0.0003
95700022|NCT01807949|191369144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2313||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1037|0.3589|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline BMI z-score.||0.3589|0.1037|0.0005
95700023|NCT01807949|191369144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2217||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0961|0.3473|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.3473|0.0961|0.0006
95700024|NCT01807949|191369145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.716||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazard regression, time is the time-to-first event or censoring, with adjustment for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||||0.0384
95700025|NCT01807949|191369145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.533||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cox Proportional Hazard Regression|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||||0.0003
95700026|NCT01807949|191369146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6373||||0.0393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.416|0.9764|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||OR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are Mantel-Haenszel estimates. P values are from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), and percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70).||0.9764|0.4160|0.0393
95700027|NCT01807949|191369146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4429||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2863|0.6851|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.6851|0.2863|0.0002
95700028|NCT01807949|191369147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0028||||0.7679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0211|0.0156|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L index score.||0.0156|-0.0211|0.7679
95700029|NCT01807949|191369147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0009||||0.9214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0192|0.0174|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||0.0174|-0.0192|0.9214
95700030|NCT01807949|191369148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.4||||0.1034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|5.3|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline EQ-5D-3L VAS score.||5.3|-0.5|0.1034
95700031|NCT01807949|191369148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.2|||MMRM|||Analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||6.2|0.4|0.0262
95700032|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.77|13.51|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM effectiveness score.||13.51|3.77|0.0005
95700033|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.75|16.48|||MMRM|||Effectiveness: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||16.48|6.75|<0.0001
95700034|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|-0.14|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM side effects score.||-0.14|-6.21|0.0403
95700035|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.29||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-1.28|||MMRM|||Side Effects: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||-1.28|-7.31|0.0054
95700036|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|4.07|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM convenience score.||4.07|-4.07|1.0000
95700037|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.32||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|4.37|||MMRM|||Convenience: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||4.37|-3.74|0.8777
95700038|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.64||||0.0668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|9.61|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed using MMRM model including treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects with adjustments for sex (male versus female), age group at baseline (\<18 versus \>=18 years old), percent predicted FEV1 severity at Screening (\<70 versus \>=70), and baseline TSQM global satisfaction score.||9.61|-0.32|0.0668
95700039|NCT01807949|191369149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.16||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|12.08|||MMRM|||Global Satisfaction: analysis was performed as described in Statistical Analysis 1.||12.08|2.23|0.0045
95700040|NCT00881361|191369219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95700041|NCT01457924|191369230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||Note: There is a discrepancy in the number of par. in ITT populations at Wk 24 and Wk 48: 228 and 229 respectively. This resulted from a data issue: one par was incorrectly excluded from ITT pop. at Wk 24, but correctly included in Wk 48. This error affects all source tables, analyses relating to ITT and per protocol populations, primary endpoint and secondary MRI endpoints reported at Wk 24. This discrepancy affects all statistical analyses, but not summary statistics.||0.548|0.221|<0.001
95700042|NCT01457924|191369230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
95700043|NCT01457924|191369230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
95700044|NCT01457924|191369230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.548|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.548|0.221|<0.001
95700045|NCT01457924|191369231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
95700046|NCT01457924|191369231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.38||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.72|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.72|0.20|0.003
95700047|NCT01457924|191369231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.65|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.65|0.19|0.001
95700048|NCT01457924|191369231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.39|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.39|0.13|<0.001
95700049|NCT01457924|191369234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.6|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.60|0.16|<0.001
95700050|NCT01457924|191369234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.56||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.06|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.06|0.29|0.075
95700051|NCT01457924|191369234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.51||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.95|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.95|0.27|0.035
95700052|NCT01457924|191369234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.55|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.55|0.19|<0.001
95700053|NCT01457924|191369235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.22||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.84|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.84|0.06|0.026
95700054|NCT01457924|191369235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.49||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.86|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.86|0.13|0.296
95700055|NCT01457924|191369235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.78|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.78|0.14|0.285
95700056|NCT01457924|191369235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.25||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.71|||Non-Linear Emax Model|||||0.71|0.09|0.009
95700057|NCT01457924|191369236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.18||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.05|0.004
95700058|NCT01457924|191369236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.63|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.63|0.15|0.248
95700059|NCT01457924|191369236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.46||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.43|||Generalized Linear Model|||||1.43|0.15|0.181
95700060|NCT01457924|191369236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.24||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.62|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.62|0.10|0.003
95700061|NCT01457924|191369237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.58|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.58|0.15|<0.001
95700062|NCT01457924|191369237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.34||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.68|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.68|0.17|0.002
95700063|NCT01457924|191369237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.77|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.77|0.21|0.006
95700064|NCT01457924|191369237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||Generalized Linear Model|||||0.35|0.11|<0.001
95700065|NCT04015440|191369250|OTHER|Linear Regression|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95700066|NCT04015440|191369251|OTHER|Regression||||||0.027|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.027
95700067|NCT04015440|191369252|OTHER|Logistic Regression||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.004
95700068|NCT00618995|191369254|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio (GMR) is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.8|1.18||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.18|0.8|
95700069|NCT00618995|191369254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.77|1.14||||||||1.14|0.77|
95700070|NCT00618995|191369254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.05||||||||1.05|0.71|
95700071|NCT00618995|191369254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.84||||||90.0|0.69|1.02||||||||1.02|0.69|
95700072|NCT00618995|191369254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.92||||||90.0|0.76|1.13||||||||1.13|0.76|
95700073|NCT00618995|191369254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.74|1.09||||||||1.09|0.74|
95700074|NCT00618995|191369255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.06||||||||1.06|0.84|
95700075|NCT00618995|191369255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.94||||||90.0|0.84|1.05||||||||1.05|0.84|
95700076|NCT00618995|191369255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
95700077|NCT00618995|191369255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.54||||||90.0|0.48|0.6||||||||0.60|0.48|
95700078|NCT00618995|191369255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.6||||||90.0|0.54|0.67||||||||0.67|0.54|
95700079|NCT00618995|191369255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.57||||||90.0|0.51|0.64||||||||0.64|0.51|
95700080|NCT01522443|191369256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.773|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) was stratified by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||0.773
95700081|NCT01522443|191369257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test was stratified by baslined Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||||<0.001
95700082|NCT01522443|191369258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.1|||Log Rank|The Log-Rank Test was stratified by baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior cabazitaxel use.||||1.10|0.44|0.121
95700083|NCT05014542|191369259|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC total analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700084|NCT05014542|191369260|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC pain analysis between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<.001
95700085|NCT05014542|191369261|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A at Week 15) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C at Week 15)|WOMAC stiffness between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700086|NCT05014542|191369262|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 15) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 15)|WOMAC functional disability between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with a power of 95 % and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment (the mid-spread).||||<0.001
95700087|NCT05014542|191369263|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS of group A in Week 15) - mean (VAS of group C in Week 15)|Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was compared between groups at Week 15, when the acupuncture of group A ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) presented the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700088|NCT05014542|191369264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ of group A in Week 15) - mean (KDSQ of group C in Week 15)|The Kidney Deficiency Syndrome Questionnaire (KDSQ) was compared between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data distribution. The comparability of groups regarding the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were used to analyse the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||<0.001
95700089|NCT05014542|191369265|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-774.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG of A group in Week 15) - mean (DRUG of C group in Week 15)|In Week 15, DRUG was compared between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700090|NCT05014542|191369266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.009||||0.8493|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group L knee in Week 15) - mean (C group L knee in Week 15)|Active extension of left (L) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.8493
95700091|NCT05014542|191369266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.107||||0.69654|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (A group R knee in Week 15) - mean (C group R knee in Week 15)|Active extension of the right (R) knees in Week 15 in the between-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.69654
95700092|NCT05014542|191369267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion L knee of group C at Week 15)|L knee flexion between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.490
95700093|NCT05014542|191369267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.517|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (active flexion R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (active flexion R knee of group C at Week 15)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups in Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.517
95700094|NCT05014542|191369268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.083|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessment.||||0.083
95700095|NCT05014542|191369268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) upper leg between groups analysis at Week 15. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.084
95700096|NCT05014542|191369269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.341|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of L knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the left (L) knee in Week 15 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.341
95700097|NCT05014542|191369269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knee of group A at Week 15) - mean (circumference of R knee of group C at Week 15)|Circumference of the right (R) knee in between groups at Week 15. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the data distribution's normality. The comparability of groups to accept or reject the null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessments.||||0.317
95700098|NCT05014542|191369270|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 24) -mean (WOMAC total of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC total was analysed in Week 24 between groups, nine weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality of the distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700099|NCT05014542|191369271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain of group A at Week 24) - mean (WOMAC pain of group C at Week 24)|WOMAC pain was analysed between groups 9 weeks after acupuncture ended in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tested the normality distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data (the mid-spread).||||<.001
95700100|NCT05014542|191369272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC stiffness of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC stiffness between groups A and C in Week 24, 9 weeks after acupuncture ended. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of distribution. Group comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700101|NCT05014542|191369273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability of group A in Week 24) - mean (WOMAC functional disability of group C in Week 24)|WOMAC functional disability at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of data. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at specified assessments.||||<0.001
95700102|NCT05014542|191369274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-45.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 24 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 24 of group C)|VAS was compared between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
95700103|NCT05014542|191369275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 24 of group C)|KDSQ between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
95700104|NCT05014542|191369276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-581.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 24 of group C)|The DRUG between groups in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data.||||<0.001
95700105|NCT05014542|191369277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext L of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext L of C group in Week 24)|Left (L) knee analysis between groups A and C in Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% statistical power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessment.||||
95700106|NCT05014542|191369277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||mean (Act ext R knee of A group in Week 24) - mean (Act ext R knee of C group in Week 24)|Right (R) knee analysis between groups at Week 24. For group normality statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of comparability between groups was tested by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at specified assessment.||||
95700107|NCT05014542|191369278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.953|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (L knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (L knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Left (L) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of equality was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of specified sample data at a specified assessment (time-point).||||0.953
95700108|NCT05014542|191369278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.491|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (R knee act flexion of group A in Week 24) - mean (R knee act flexion of group C in Week 24)|Right (R) knee flexion between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests the normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.491
95700109|NCT05014542|191369279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.261|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of L upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the left (L) upper leg between groups in Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of a distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the hypothesis of groups comparability was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.261
95700110|NCT05014542|191369279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.273|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R upper leg of group A in Week 24) - mean (circumference of R upper leg of group C in Week 24)|Circumference of the R upper leg between groups at Week 24. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used to test the normality of distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables (null hypothesis) was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range (IQR) and SD were analysed to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.273
95700111|NCT05014542|191369280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.445|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of L knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of left (L) knees in Week 24, in between-groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at an assessment.||||0.445
95700112|NCT05014542|191369280|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.26|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group A) - mean (circumference of R knees in Week 24 of group C)|Circumference of right (R) knees at Week 24 was analysed between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The comparability of groups regarding specified variables to accept or reject the null hypothesis of similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95% power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||0.260
95700113|NCT05014542|191369281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-34.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 39) - mean (WOMAC total of group A in Week 0)|Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline assessment by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The null hypothesis at weeks 0 and 39 was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the sample.||||<0.001
95700114|NCT05014542|191369281|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC total in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC total in Week 0 of group C).|WOMAC total of group C in Week 39 was tested for the significance level and mean difference by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. WOMAC total at Week 0 (pre-experimental baseline assessment) and Week 39 were compared to test the null hypothesis of group comparability by the Mann-Whitney U test with 95 % power and a level of significance α=0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion of a sample.||||< 0.001
95700115|NCT05014542|191369282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group A)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupunctures ended) was compared with baseline by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of sample data at assessments.||||<0.001
95700116|NCT05014542|191369282|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC pain in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC pain in Week 0 of group C)|The pain subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
95700117|NCT05014542|191369283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group A) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group A)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
95700118|NCT05014542|191369283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC stiffness in Week 0 of group C)|The stiffness subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (end of acupuncture of group C) was compared with the pre-experimental baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α = 0,05. Interquartile range and standard deviation were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of data.||||<0.001
95700119|NCT05014542|191369284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group A) - mean(WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group A)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
95700120|NCT05014542|191369284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 39 of group C) - mean (WOMAC functional disability in Week 0 of group C)|The functional disability subscale of the WOMAC index of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
95700121|NCT05014542|191369285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group A) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group A)|VAS of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
95700122|NCT05014542|191369285|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (VAS in Week 39 of group C) - mean (VAS in Week 0 of group C)|VAS of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||< 0.001
95700123|NCT05014542|191369286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group A) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group A)|KDSQ of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
95700124|NCT05014542|191369286|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (KDSQ in Week 39 of group C) - mean (KDSQ in Week 0 of group C)|KDSQ of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||<0.001
95700125|NCT05014542|191369287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-361.4||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group A) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group A)|The DRUG of group A in Week 39 (24 weeks after acupuncture of group A ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.204
95700126|NCT05014542|191369287|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-305.4||||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (DRUG in Week 39 of group C) - mean (DRUG in Week 0 of group C)|The DRUG of group C in Week 39 (when acupuncture of group C ended) was compared with baseline values by within-group analysis. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) was used for testing the normality of the distribution. The null hypothesis of groups' similarity was tested with the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95% power and a significance level α=0,05. Interquartile range and SD were calculated to present the statistical dispersion of the data.||||0.134
95700127|NCT05014542|191369288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of A group) - mean (Lequesne index in Week 24 of C group)|The Lequesne index in Week 24 compared two confirmed comparable groups (at baseline), 9 weeks after acupuncture treatment in group A ended, while the C group was still a control. The Shapiro-Wilk test (S-W) tests normality distribution. The between-group comparability test at Week 24 was provided to accept or reject the null hypothesis by the Mann-Whitney U test, with 95 % power and a level of significance α = 0,05. Standard deviation (SD) was calculated to present the statistical dispersion.||||< 0.001
95700128|NCT01148693|191369299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: Adding gentamicin to contrast medium during ERCP has no relation with postERCP cholangitis Power calculation: 80%||||<0.05
95700129|NCT03956225|191369391|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority in change from baseline in MGS was declared if the lower confidence limit (LCL) was greater than -5.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07|||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-2.2||||Mixed effects repeated measures||Standard Error of the Least Squares Mean is presented. Least squares mean difference (iLux minus LipiFlow). Lower Confidence Limit is presented.||||-2.2|
95700130|NCT00039741|191369399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.11|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.11|-0.41|0.26
95700131|NCT00039741|191369399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32|||Interval regression|Adjusted for baseline HIV-1 RNA, age (\<3 years vs 3 years), origin (PACTG vs PENTA sites), and perinatal ART exposure versus no exposure.||||0.32|-0.20|0.56
95700132|NCT00321269|191369417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects regression analysis- Treatment Arm X Time F (2, 116)=0.09, P\>F=0.90.||||0.90
95700133|NCT00321269|191369418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F(2,110)=2.08; P=0.13||||||0.13
95700134|NCT01583452|191369419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.665|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||With a confidence interval of 95%, an alpha risk of 5% and a desired power of 80%; expecting a 24hrs difference between the intervention and the control group, we estimated 20 patients for each one of them.||||0.665
95700135|NCT01583452|191369420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.094
95700136|NCT01583452|191369421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.059
95700137|NCT01583452|191369422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier survival analysis|||||||0.830
95700138|NCT02157506|191369440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0059|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||=0.0059
95700139|NCT02157506|191369440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0001
95700140|NCT02157506|191369440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0062|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0062
95700141|NCT02157506|191369440|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0086
95700142|NCT02157506|191369441|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0076|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0076
95700143|NCT02157506|191369441|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0052|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0052
95700144|NCT02157506|191369441|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1064|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1064
95700145|NCT02157506|191369441|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1151|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1151
95700146|NCT02157506|191369442|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4241
95700147|NCT02157506|191369442|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4035
95700148|NCT02157506|191369442|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8308
95700149|NCT02157506|191369442|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1180
95700150|NCT02157506|191369443|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0048|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0048
95700151|NCT02157506|191369443|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0022
95700152|NCT02157506|191369443|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0045|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0045
95700153|NCT02157506|191369443|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0294|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0294
95700154|NCT02157506|191369444|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2022|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2022
95700155|NCT02157506|191369444|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0658|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0658
95700156|NCT02157506|191369444|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0741|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0741
95700157|NCT02157506|191369444|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0497|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.0497
95700158|NCT02157506|191369445|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1842|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1842
95700159|NCT02157506|191369445|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.3328
95700160|NCT02157506|191369445|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1465
95700161|NCT02157506|191369445|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2799
95700162|NCT02157506|191369446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2499|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2499
95700163|NCT02157506|191369446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8281|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8281
95700164|NCT02157506|191369446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4121|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4121
95700165|NCT02157506|191369446|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.8592|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.8592
95700166|NCT02157506|191369447|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1391|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1391
95700167|NCT02157506|191369447|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1724|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1724
95700168|NCT02157506|191369447|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.1245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1245
95700169|NCT02157506|191369447|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.169|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.1690
95700170|NCT02157506|191369448|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.4936|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.4936
95700171|NCT02157506|191369448|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.992|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9920
95700172|NCT02157506|191369448|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2789|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.2789
95700173|NCT02157506|191369448|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Statistical significance was defined by a P-value \< 0.05. No adjustments were made for multiplicity.||||||= 0.9100
95700174|NCT01714817|191369449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7077|1.6421|||Stratified logistic regression||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV 95%CI for Odds Ratio|||1.6421|0.7077|0.7264
95700175|NCT01714817|191369450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4148|1.5956|||||Abatacept IV:Placebo IV|||1.5956|0.4148|
95700176|NCT01714817|191369451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.17||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.42|-0.76|0.571
95700177|NCT01714817|191369452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted mean difference|-0.09||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Adjusted mean difference from placebo|||0.22|-0.41|0.561
95700178|NCT01714817|191369455|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|1.651|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.595828|10.897784||||||CR - Day 365||10.897784|-7.595828|
95700179|NCT01714817|191369455|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.8828|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.848056|7.082461||||||PR - Day 365||7.082461|-8.848056|
95700180|NCT01714817|191369455|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.7682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.446714|8.910353||||||NR - Day 365||8.910353|-10.446714|
95700181|NCT01714817|191369464|SUPERIORITY|Day 365|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3251|6.2849||||||||6.2849|0.3251|
95700182|NCT01714817|191369464|SUPERIORITY|Day 729|Estimate of Difference vs Drug|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|15.1||||||||15.1|-8.4|
95700183|NCT01714817|191369484|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.9682|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.760178|2.823876||||||Lupus treatment failure - Day 365||2.823876|-4.760178|
95700184|NCT01714817|191369484|SUPERIORITY||Estimate of Difference|-0.4707|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.588691|3.647365||||||Overall treatment failure - Day 365||3.647365|-4.588691|
95700185|NCT01714817|191369484|SUPERIORITY|Lupus treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.1||||||||6.1|-4.5|
95700186|NCT01714817|191369484|SUPERIORITY|Overall treatment failure - Day 729|Estimate of Difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|8.8||||||||8.8|-3.3|
95700187|NCT00599027|191369498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||Endpoint after 28 days of treatment|ANCOVA|Overall treatment effect tested using F-test(alpha=0.05;two-sided). Diff between least square means of the 2 groups calculated with two-sided 95% C.I||||||0.001
95700188|NCT02372097|191369499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed AUC(0-168) of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0344|0.0004||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-168) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0004|-0.0344|
95727657|NCT01952574|191424895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.42|||Generalised Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one percent change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 104 in the erenumab 70 mg group)||3.42|1.17|0.011
95700189|NCT02372097|191369500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two tablets of SYR-472 25 mg and 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg were considered bioequivalent if 90% CI of the mean differences of natural log-transformed Cmax of SYR-472Z was within the range of ln(0.80) to ln(1.25) or within the range of ln(0.9) to ln(1.11) and the results of dissolution test satisfied the requirement.|LS mean difference|-0.1292|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2177|-0.0406||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the Cmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0406|-0.2177|
95700190|NCT02372097|191369501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.021||||||90.0|-0.0362|-0.0058||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the AUC(0-inf) as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||-0.0058|-0.0362|
95700191|NCT02372097|191369502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.375|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1452|0.8952||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with Tmax as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.8952|-0.1452|
95700192|NCT02372097|191369503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.0168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0504|0.0169||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the MRT as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.0169|-0.0504|
95700193|NCT02372097|191369504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.1099|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0235|0.1963||||||The 2-sided 90% confidence interval for the difference between the products (2 tablets of SYR-472 25 mg, 1 tablet of SYR-472 50 mg) was determined from the ANOVA model with the natural logarithms of the λz as a dependent variable, and product, group and period as fixed effects.||0.1963|0.0235|
95700194|NCT00476996|191369518|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|27.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.9|12.8|< 0.0001
95700195|NCT00476996|191369518|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.7|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|17.7|< 0.0001
95700196|NCT00476996|191369518|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|29.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||36.6|21.6|< 0.0001
95700197|NCT00476996|191369518|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|30.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||37.7|22.8|< 0.0001
95700198|NCT00476996|191369519|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|2.1||||0.1885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.2|-1.0|0.1885
95700199|NCT00476996|191369519|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|3.6||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||6.8|0.3|0.0330
95700200|NCT00476996|191369520|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.2||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|7.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.6|0.7|0.0175
95700201|NCT00476996|191369520|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.3||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.8|0.9|0.0134
95700202|NCT00476996|191369520|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.8|6.2|< 0.0001
95700203|NCT00476996|191369520|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|10.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||14.7|6.2|< 0.0001
95700204|NCT00476996|191369521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.3|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.3|-0.8|< 0.0001
95700205|NCT00476996|191369521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.6|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 24 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.6|-1.1|< 0.0001
95700206|NCT00476996|191369521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.7|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.7|-1.2|< 0.0001
95700207|NCT00476996|191369521|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9|||Analysis of Variance|||Week 48 analysis using adjusted mean difference. Model contains region, baseline DMARD therapy, baseline DAS28 score and treatment||-0.9|-1.5|< 0.0001
95700208|NCT00476996|191369522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|3.66|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||3.66|1.85|< 0.0001
95700209|NCT00476996|191369522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|4.91|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||4.91|2.49|< 0.0001
95700210|NCT00476996|191369522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|5.96|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||5.96|2.93|< 0.0001
95700211|NCT00476996|191369522|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|7.18|||Proportional Odds Analysis|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||7.18|3.54|< 0.0001
95700212|NCT00476996|191369523|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|19.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||19.1|7.4|< 0.0001
95700213|NCT00476996|191369523|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|16.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.2|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||22.1|10.2|< 0.0001
95700214|NCT00476996|191369523|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.9|25.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||25.6|12.9|< 0.0001
95700215|NCT00476996|191369523|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.1|14.5|< 0.0001
95700216|NCT00476996|191369524|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|4.6||||0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||8.5|0.7|0.0203
95700217|NCT00476996|191369524|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.7||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|10.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||10.8|2.6|0.0014
95700218|NCT00476996|191369524|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|6.6||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||11.2|2.1|0.0042
95700219|NCT00476996|191369524|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||18.6|8.2|< 0.0001
95700220|NCT00476996|191369525|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|27.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||27.5|11.3|< 0.0001
95700221|NCT00476996|191369525|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|24.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|32.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 24, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||32.7|16.8|< 0.0001
95700222|NCT00476996|191369525|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|34.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||34.9|19.5|< 0.0001
95700223|NCT00476996|191369525|SUPERIORITY||Weighted Difference|27.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|35.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 48, analysis was stratified by region and baseline DMARD therapy||35.3|20.0|< 0.0001
95700224|NCT03337139|191369533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week weight loss, prior to randomization.||||.98
95700225|NCT03337139|191369533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 26 week weight loss||||.75
95700226|NCT03337139|191369533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I weight loss||Comparing groups on 52 week weight loss||||.02
95700227|NCT03337139|191369534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p \<.05.|ANCOVA|||Comparing groups on 13 week MVPA||||.12
95700228|NCT03337139|191369534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for changes in Phase I MVPA||Comparing groups on 52 week MVPA||||.16
95700229|NCT03337139|191369535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||A priori threshold for statistical significant was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 26 week retention rates||||.43
95700230|NCT03337139|191369535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Fisher Exact|||Comparing groups on 52 week retention rates.||||.48
95700231|NCT03337139|191369536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||A priori threshold of statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on phone calls completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.64
95700232|NCT03337139|191369536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on text messages completed in Phase II (52 weeks)||||.499
95700233|NCT03337139|191369537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|Permutation test|Permutation test (nonparametric test) was chosen due to the violation of t-test assumptions in the data set.||Comparing groups on TAQ scores at 52 weeks||||.86
95700234|NCT03337139|191369538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of weight during Phase II||||.002
95700235|NCT03337139|191369538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of eating during Phase II||||.001
95700236|NCT03337139|191369538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I engagement in self-monitoring||Comparing groups on percent days of self-monitoring of physical activity during Phase II||||.25
95700237|NCT03337139|191369539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<.05.|ANCOVA|Controlling for Phase I perceived supportive accountability||Comparing groups on changes in perceived accountability during Phase II||||.005
95700238|NCT02554253|191369540|SUPERIORITY|Pilot study||||||0.23|||||||Fisher Exact|||Raw scores converted to z-scores using published references. Percentage of patients experiencing a decline of \> 1 standard deviation was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. The outcome of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) was defined a-priori as a decline of decline of \>1 standard deviation (i.e. z-score decline of \> 1) on at least 2 neurocognitive tests and was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test.||||0.23
95700239|NCT02554253|191369541|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.08
95700240|NCT02554253|191369542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95700241|NCT01375647|191369589|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.9|||Chi-squared|2 sided, not adjusted||||3.9|-9.6|0.4
95700242|NCT01375647|191369590|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|13.4||||4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|19.8||2-sided, no adjustment|Chi-squared|||||19.8|7.0|0.00004
95700243|NCT01375647|191369591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 1 shedding||||0.5
95700244|NCT01375647|191369591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 2 shedding||||0.2
95700245|NCT01375647|191369591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sabin type 3 shedding||||0.1
95700246|NCT01375647|191369593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.5||||||Sabin type 1||4.5|-7.3|
95700247|NCT01375647|191369593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.9||||||Sabin type 2||0.9|-7.2|
95700248|NCT01375647|191369593|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.1||||||||6.1|-3.2|
95700249|NCT01375647|191369594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-33.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-26.5||||||||-26.5|-40.7|
95700250|NCT01375647|191369594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|-17.5||||||||-17.5|-31.1|
95700251|NCT01375647|191369594|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.6|-38.0||||||||-38.0|-52.6|
95700252|NCT01375647|191369595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.981|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.981
95700253|NCT01375647|191369596|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95700254|NCT03788967|191369597|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was a 1-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in overall response was greater than -12.5%, non-inferiority was declared.|Risk Difference|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|3.2||||||||3.2|-9.7|
95700255|NCT03788967|191369599|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|1.9||||||||1.9|-11.3|
95700256|NCT03788967|191369600|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|3.4||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||3.4|-0.1|
95700257|NCT03788967|191369600|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|2.8||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||2.8|-4|
95700258|NCT03788967|191369600|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.6||||||Statistical Analysis 3 (LFU)||2.6|-5.7|
95700259|NCT03788967|191369601|OTHER||Risk Difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||||||||2.0|-0.3|
95700260|NCT03788967|191369602|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.6||||||||0.6|-3.8|
95700261|NCT03788967|191369603|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.3||||||||2.3|-3.3|
95700262|NCT03788967|191369604|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|3.2||||||||3.2|-0.2|
95700263|NCT03788967|191369605|OTHER||Risk Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|0.8||||||||0.8|-5.3|
95700264|NCT03788967|191369606|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.1|
95700265|NCT03788967|191369607|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|4.1||||||Statistical Analysis 1 (EOT)||4.1|-0.8|
95700266|NCT03788967|191369607|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.9||||||Statistical Analysis 2 (TOC)||1.9|-10.8|
95700267|NCT03788967|191369607|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|5.0||||||||5|-7.9|
95700268|NCT03788967|191369611|OTHER||Risk Difference|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.2||||||||1.2|-1.6|
95700269|NCT03788967|191369612|OTHER||Risk Difference|-5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|0.7||||||||0.7|-12.4|
95700270|NCT03788967|191369613|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.3||||||||5.3|-8.5|
95700271|NCT03788967|191369617|OTHER||Risk Difference|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|4.1||||||Overall response for participants with AP||4.1|-13.5|
95700272|NCT03788967|191369617|OTHER||Risk Difference|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|7.7||||||Overall response in participants with cUTI||7.7|-11.0|
95700273|NCT03788967|191369618|OTHER||Risk Difference|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.9||||||||9.9|-7.2|
95700274|NCT03788967|191369618|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|3.8||||||≥65 to \<75 years||3.8|-20.6|
95700275|NCT03788967|191369618|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|8.7||||||≥75 years||8.7|-23.8|
95700276|NCT03788967|191369619|OTHER||Risk Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|3.5||||||Central and Eastern Europe||3.5|-9.6|
95700277|NCT03788967|191369620|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.044
95700278|NCT03788967|191369621|OTHER|||||||0.736|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.736
95700279|NCT00713284|191369629|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95700280|NCT01316939|191369648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|4.8||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.8|-12.9|
95700281|NCT01316939|191369648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|1.6||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg BID at Week 28 and 52||1.6|-14.8|
95700282|NCT01316939|191369649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|4.2||||||Placebo Vs GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily at Week 28 and 52||4.2|-12.2|
95700283|NCT01316939|191369649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference of participants|-5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.6||||||||2.6|-13.1|
95700284|NCT01432457|191369673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.57||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.69|0.44|0.006
95700285|NCT01432457|191369673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.08||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate was used to compare DVS SR dose to placebo. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||3.08|0.84|< 0.001
95700286|NCT01432457|191369674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.36||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.45|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.45|0.28|0.014
95700287|NCT01432457|191369674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.67||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.74|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.74|0.59|0.002
95700288|NCT01432457|191369675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||0.029
95700289|NCT01432457|191369675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||"p-value was obtained from the separate pair-wise Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test versus placebo for the alternative hypothesis of Row Mean Scores Differences controlling for site."|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CGI-I was analyzed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel row-mean-score-difference test using ridit scores. Each DVS SR arm was separately compared to placebo controlling for site. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||||< 0.001
95700290|NCT01432457|191369676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|0.05|0.009
95700291|NCT01432457|191369676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||CGI-S was analyzed using the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and site as fixed effects, and the baseline CGI-S score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.43|0.13|< 0.001
95700292|NCT01432457|191369677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.34|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.34|-0.01|0.062
95700293|NCT01432457|191369677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.22||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.39|||ANCOVA|||To assess the sensitivity of the results to the missing data assumptions, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) was used. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.39|0.04|0.014
95700294|NCT01432457|191369678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.242||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.893|1.726|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.726|0.893|0.198
95700295|NCT01432457|191369678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.378||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.995|1.91|||Regression, Logistic|||Response in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.910|0.995|0.054
95700296|NCT01432457|191369679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.105||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.749|1.631|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||1.631|0.749|0.615
95700297|NCT01432457|191369679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.412||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|2.057|||Regression, Logistic|||Remission in HAM-D17 was analyzed based on a logistic regression model with treatment and site as fixed factors and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||2.057|0.969|0.072
95700298|NCT01432457|191369680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.8||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.80|-0.98|0.837
95700299|NCT01432457|191369680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.55||p-value was obtained from the ANCOVA model as change from baseline = Treatment + Site + Gender + Baseline|ANCOVA|||The treatment by gender interaction was first tested using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, site, gender, and treatment by gender as factors and the baseline total score as a covariate. The test of the null hypothesis was used study-wise with alpha = 0.05 (2-sided).||0.55|-1.19|0.471
95700300|NCT04134728|191369681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2868|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.76|2.48|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||2.48|0.76|0.2868
95700301|NCT04134728|191369681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0596|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.98|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and placebo in the percentage of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from placebo in the percentage of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||3.15|0.98|0.0596
95700302|NCT04134728|191369681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|0.95|1.29|4.23|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week and placebo in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 200 mg dose of Sarilumab alternating with placebo every week differs from placebo in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||4.23|1.29|0.0049
95700303|NCT04134728|191369681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.36|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 90 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||0.95|0.36|0.0293
95700304|NCT04134728|191369681|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.2308|TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.47|1.2|||Regression, Logistic|OR and corresponding 95%CI are generated from logistic regression model adjusted for Baseline, Treatment Group, Previously Failed Medical Category.||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 and 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants achieving ACR20 response at Week 12 versus the alternative hypothesis that the 150 mg dose of GSK3196165 differs from 200 mg dose of sarilumab alternating with placebo every week in the proportion of participants with ACR20 response at Week 12||1.20|0.47|0.2308
95700305|NCT04547998|191369816|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) was tested for superiority of RECELL treatment (with a 10% superiority margin). For the null hypothesis to be rejected and super-superiority of RECELL to Control to be established, the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the difference in the proportion of responders (RECELL-Control) had to be greater than 10%.||||||0.012|||||||continuity-corrected method|Liu et al 2002||||||0.012
95700306|NCT04547998|191369817|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Wilcoxon signed rank test at 2-sided 0.05 significance level. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was based on the following repigmentation categories: 0% to 25%, 26% to 50%, 51% to 79%, and 80% to 100%.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95700307|NCT04547998|191369818|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||2-sided (0.05 significance level), based on 19 participants with assessable color matching outcomes for both treatments|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95700308|NCT02007252|191369824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.1037|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 3||||= 0.1037
95700309|NCT02007252|191369824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.4806|||||||ANCOVA|||Month 12||||= 0.4806
95700310|NCT02657434|191369825|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio, log|0.562|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.471|0.671|||Log Rank|||||0.671|0.471|<0.0001
95700311|NCT02657434|191369826|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.709|0.1559
95700312|NCT02657434|191369826|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.1546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.056|||Log Rank|||||1.056|0.707|0.1546
95700313|NCT02657434|191369827|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event free rate|4.68||||0.2606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|12.83|||z test|||||12.83|-3.47|0.2606
95700314|NCT02657434|191369828|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|5.12||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|13.11|||Z-test|||||13.11|-2.87|0.2090
95700315|NCT02657434|191369829|SUPERIORITY||Difference in response rate|14.3||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|22.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.7|5.9|0.0005
95700316|NCT02657434|191369830|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.45|0.0024
95700317|NCT00608881|191369840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||π hat|0.494|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.454|0.534|||||π hat is the estimate of the probability π that a randomly selected subject treated with CoQ has a better outcome than a randomly selected subject treated with placebo. Under the null hypothesis of no effect of CoQ, π = 0.50.|In this joint rank analysis, subjects are ranked from worst to best outcome with subjects who die being assigned the worst ranks (and ranked according to the time of death) and subjects who survive being ranked more favorably in the order of the change from baseline to Month 60 in TFC score.||0.534|0.454|
95700318|NCT00608881|191369841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.44|
95700319|NCT00608881|191369842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.58||||||||1.58|-1.40|
95700320|NCT00608881|191369843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|3.79||||||||3.79|-6.68|
95700321|NCT00608881|191369844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.16||||||||2.16|-4.40|
95700322|NCT00608881|191369845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|1.39||||||||1.39|-1.48|
95700323|NCT00608881|191369846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|3.23||||||||3.23|-4.78|
95700324|NCT00608881|191369847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.14||||||||2.14|-1.32|
95700325|NCT00608881|191369848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.51||||||||1.51|-2.71|
95700326|NCT00608881|191369849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|2.87||||||||2.87|-2.28|
95700327|NCT00608881|191369850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|7.44||||||||7.44|0.31|
95700328|NCT00608881|191369851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.18||||||||3.18|-1.10|
95700329|NCT00608881|191369852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.81|
95700330|NCT00608881|191369853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.15||||||||1.15|0.75|
95700331|NCT00510484|191369858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700332|NCT00510484|191369859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700333|NCT00510484|191369860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700334|NCT00510484|191369861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700335|NCT00510484|191369862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700336|NCT00510484|191369863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700337|NCT00510484|191369864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||0.013
95700338|NCT00510484|191369865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The parameter was analyzed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) including treatment, sequence and period as fixed effect and subject within sequence as a random effect.||||<0.001
95700339|NCT01106391|191369871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of technical success (%)|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5|96.2|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||96.2|79.5|
95700340|NCT01106391|191369872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate of achieved primary safety(%)|97.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.1|99.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was based on the exact confidence interval (Collett, 1991)|Since this was a feasibility study without comparisons, sample size was not determined based on statistical consideration. No formal hypothesis testing was performed either.||99.6|88.1|
95700341|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for RVR at Week 4.||||0.000
95700342|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 4.||||0.018
95700343|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 4.||||0.062
95700344|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for HCV genotype at Week 4.||||0.050
95700345|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 4.||||0.001
95700346|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 4.||||0.001
95700347|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for EVR at Week 12.||||0.037
95700348|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for gender at Week 12.||||0.018
95700349|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for liver fibrosis at Week 12.||||0.092
95700350|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for height at Week 12.||||0.001
95700351|NCT01392742|191369922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Binary logistic regression for treatment duration at Week 12.||||0.042
95700352|NCT03892707|191369932|SUPERIORITY|The between-group comparison on primary endpoint - change from baseline in pain intensity as measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 10 days after the start of treatment was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The difference between pain intensity at 10 days after the start of treatment and baseline (V3-V1) as response variable, treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was included into the model.|||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||"Since the superiority of one treatment over the other is investigated and taking into consideration that smaller negative values of the primary variable correspond to the greater reduction of pain, the statistical hypotheses are:~Null hypothesis (H0):~H0: μ2 - μ1 ≥ 0~Alternative hypothesis (HA):~HA: μ2 - μ1 \< 0, where μ1 и μ2 are the mean changes from baseline in pain intensity for (1) modern NSAIDs therapy and for (2) modern NSAIDs + Milgamma\\ Milgamma compositum therapy, correspondingly."||||<0.001
95700353|NCT03892707|191369933|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Changes from baseline in pain intensity measured on 0-10 points NRS scale at 5, 24 and 38 days after were compared between groups using ANCOVA models similar to those used for the analysis of the primary variable.||||<0.001
95700354|NCT03892707|191369934|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95700355|NCT03892707|191369935|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 2 (5 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 2)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
95700356|NCT03892707|191369935|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 3 (10 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 3)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||<0.001
95700357|NCT03892707|191369935|SUPERIORITY|Between-group comparison was carried out using logistic regression with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline pain intensity as a covariate. Treatment effect was tested using the corresponding p-value.||||||0.061|||||||Regression, Logistic|||For Visit 4 (24 days after the start of treatment) relief in pain intensity was defined as 100%\*(pain intensity at baseline - pain intensity at Visit 4)/ pain intensity at baseline. The denominator for the proportion of patients was the number of patients with available pain intensity measurements after imputation using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.||||0.061
95700358|NCT03892707|191369936|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in pain-related disability as measured by Roland Morris disability questionnaire at 10 days after the start of treatment was compared between groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as fixed factor and baseline value disability score as a covariate.||||<0.001
95700359|NCT03892707|191369937|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||Episode of pain flare-up was defined as presence of at least 1 day with pain following a period without pain lasting at least 4 weeks . The denominator for the proportion was the number of FAS patients who had at least one pain-free period with approximately 4 weeks duration registered during the study.||||<0.001
95700360|NCT03892707|191369938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|60.7||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in consultancy with physician||60.7|-3.6|
95700361|NCT03892707|191369938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|-17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|17.4||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in disruption of daily activity||17.4|-51.6|
95700362|NCT03892707|191369938|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportion|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|55.5||||||Difference in proportion of patients with at least one pain flare-up resulting in NSAIDs intake||55.5|-4.1|
95700363|NCT03892707|191369939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||NSAIDs intake during the study was analyzed. In order to calculate the total number of treatment days with NSAIDs, first, intersecting or adjacent records were collapsed, irrespective of the specific drug used; the duration of each of the resulting intake periods was determined as (End date - Start date + 1) and, finally, all individual duration values were summed up. In case medication intake was ongoing at the end of study, end date was imputed by the date of study completion.||||0.986
95700364|NCT03892707|191369942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 5 days since the start of study treatment.||||0.921
95700365|NCT03892707|191369942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 10 days since the start of study treatment||||0.051
95700366|NCT03892707|191369942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 38 days since the start of study treatment||||0.651
95700367|NCT03892707|191369942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment between treatment groups after 3 months since the start of study treatment||||0.106
95700368|NCT02141217|191369958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.0||||||||8.0|-4.9|
95700369|NCT02141217|191369959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|7.4||||||||7.4|-5.6|
95700370|NCT02141217|191369960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The assessment of non-inferiority was based on Farrington and Manning method. The upper limit of two-sided 95% confidence interval of less than 10 % provide enough evidence to show the non-inferiority between the treatment arms.|Treatment Difference (percentage)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|9.0||||||||9.0|-4.4|
95700371|NCT01181141|191369965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|-3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|6.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||6.0|-18.8|
95700372|NCT01628393|191369967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95700373|NCT01628393|191369967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||To account for multiple comparisons, each of the 2 treatment comparisons was tested at the alpha = 0.04944 level of significance to keep the overall level of significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95700374|NCT01628393|191369968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95700375|NCT01628393|191369968|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95700376|NCT01628393|191369969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95700377|NCT01628393|191369969|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test stratified by absence or presence of gadolinium-enhancing lesions at Baseline.||||||<0.0001
95700378|NCT01628393|191369970|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.01|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.01|0.22|0.0531
95700379|NCT01628393|191369970|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.2714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.34|||Poisson regression model|Adjusted for region, the number of relapses within 24 months prior to the study, and the absence or presence of GdE lesions at Baseline.|Rate ratio = Ozanimod / Placebo|||1.34|0.36|0.2714
95700380|NCT01226706|191369976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||"A sample of 16 subjects per group was required to detect a mean difference of 50 mL in maximum capacity at cystoscopy between botulinum toxin and placebo at 90% power with a two-sided type I error of 5%.~Difference scores were computed for the primary outcome, which were then compared using the Wilcoxon- Mann-Whitney U test. This type of analysis was used to identify both between group differences and within group differences (over time) while using non-parametric statistics."||||.016
95700381|NCT01226706|191369977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.152
95700382|NCT01226706|191369978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
95700383|NCT01226706|191369979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.067|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.067
95700384|NCT01226706|191369983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
95700385|NCT01226706|191369984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.095
95700386|NCT01226706|191369985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.038
95700387|NCT01226706|191369989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.904|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.904
95700388|NCT01226706|191369990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.080
95700389|NCT01226706|191369991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
95700390|NCT01226706|191369995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.2|-2.1|0.021
95700391|NCT01226706|191369996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.5|-2.1|0.007
95700392|NCT01226706|191369997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||-0.4|-2.0|0.013
95700393|NCT01226706|191369998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.173
95700394|NCT01226706|191369999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
95700395|NCT01226706|191370000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.051
95700396|NCT01226706|191370001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.557
95700397|NCT01226706|191370002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.029
95700398|NCT01226706|191370003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
95700399|NCT01226706|191370004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.085|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.085
95700400|NCT01226706|191370005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.099|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.099
95700401|NCT01226706|191370006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.132|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.132
95700402|NCT01226706|191370007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.072
95700403|NCT01226706|191370008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.230
95700404|NCT01226706|191370009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.314
95700405|NCT01226706|191370010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.013
95700406|NCT01226706|191370011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|A Bonferroni correction (0.05/n) was used for multiple comparisons||||||0.888
95700407|NCT00118911|191370021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.631|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.337|<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.963|||ANCOVA|We used multiple imputation.||Hypothesis was that CBT would be superior to RES||-0.963|-8.30|<.03
95700408|NCT00118911|191370022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Those who were assigned to CBT and made a partial or full response maintained their gains over follow-up|We examined whether those in the CBT condition maintained their gains over time. Analysis was restricted to those assigned to CBT who were responders or partial responders.||.18|-.41|>.05
95700409|NCT01700985|191370114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95700410|NCT01700985|191370115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95700411|NCT01700985|191370116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||At Day 15.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95700412|NCT00067470|191370120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|92.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|40.0||0.025||95.0|11.0|172.0|||Regression, Linear|||||172|11|0.025
95700413|NCT00067470|191370121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.053||95.0|-0.1|11.5|||Regression, Linear|The raw data were adjusted for the observed differences in baseline between the groups and fitted to a longitudinal repeated measures linear model.||||11.5|-0.1|0.053
95700414|NCT00763243|191370139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.31||Change during waiting period (no intervention); no change was hypothesized||1.89|-1.44|0.766
95700415|NCT00763243|191370139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=5.0||Change during the training period||2.44|0.90|<0.001
95700416|NCT00763243|191370139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.87||Change from pre-training through follow-up period||3.20|0.35|0.021
95700417|NCT00763243|191370139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.12||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.19|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||Change from pretraining to 6 month follow up||1.19|-0.53|0.40
95700418|NCT00763243|191370140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.24||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.79||Change during waiting period of no intervention||3.05|-0.39|0.11
95700419|NCT00763243|191370140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.81||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.84|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=4.05||Change during training period||3.84|1.05|0.004
95700420|NCT00763243|191370140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.06||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.07||1 Month Follow Up change from pre-training||4.46|-0.24|0.072
95700421|NCT00763243|191370140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=1.02||6 month follow up change from pre-training||2.53|-0.97|0.34
95700422|NCT00763243|191370141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.36||Waiting period - no treatment||1.65|-1.20|0.729
95700423|NCT00763243|191370141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.17||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.11|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=2.46||Training Period - Pretraining to Post-Training Visit||-0.11|-3.44|0.039
95700424|NCT00763243|191370141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.98||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.90||1 Month Follow Up Period from Pretraining||1.40|-3.17|0.40
95700425|NCT00763243|191370141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|t(8)=0.89||6 Month Follow Up period from pretraining||1.26|-2.59|0.40
95700426|NCT01488409|191370142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.97
95700427|NCT01488409|191370143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95700428|NCT01488409|191370144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95700429|NCT01488409|191370145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95700430|NCT01488409|191370146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.007
95700431|NCT01192204|191370157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change intrapatient pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|We used a 2-tailed Mann Whitney U test to evaluate these data.||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (intrapatient pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.048
95700432|NCT01192204|191370157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Statistical analyses reflect percent change pre versus post histologic grade scores|Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (pre versus post treatment scores)||||0.50
95700433|NCT01192204|191370158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|specifically, we used the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.||||||<0.002
95700434|NCT01192204|191370158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|||||||0.036
95700435|NCT01192204|191370159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||2-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.002
95700436|NCT01192204|191370159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||two-tailed unpaired t test|||||||0.16
95700437|NCT02146248|191370160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||||||The two-tailed P value equals 0.4795|McNemar|||McNemar paired. Hypothesis is no change in tubal patency status. All subjects know to have bilateral patency in one of the exams during natural cycle||||0.4795
95700438|NCT02219087|191370170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.137
95700439|NCT02219087|191370171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.343
95700440|NCT02219087|191370172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.208
95700441|NCT02219087|191370173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.385
95700442|NCT02219087|191370174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.843|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.843
95700443|NCT02219087|191370175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.438|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.438
95700444|NCT05127421|191370177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.81||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|9.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|stratified by the stratification factor (face and/or neck Investigator's Global Assessment \[IGA\] score of 2 or 3 at screening).||||9.47|0.83|0.091
95700445|NCT05127421|191370177|SUPERIORITY||response rate difference|19.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.6|||||The 95% confidence interval was computed based on a large-sample normal approximation with continuity correction.|||39.6|-0.5|
95700446|NCT02431468|191370205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0||||LSM and two-sided 80% CI were provided for treatment group differences and estimated endpoint values. A true mean difference in change from baseline in the SIB (one-sided at α=0.10) of at least 6.5 points in favor of bryostatin groups was assumed.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary statistical objective for efficacy was to estimate the effect of bryostatin on the mean change in the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) after 12 weeks of treatment. A linear model was used for both estimation and significance testing. Primary analysis populations were defined as the Full Analysis Set (FAS) and the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
95700447|NCT02431468|191370205|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5|||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change from baseline in SIB in the Completer Analysis Set (CAS)||||<0.1
95700448|NCT02555657|191370224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.57|0.0574
95700449|NCT02555657|191370225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.69|0.0728
95700450|NCT02555657|191370226|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.82|0.3802
95700451|NCT02555657|191370227|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|8.3||||0.0457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|18.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||18.4|-1.4|0.0457
95700452|NCT02555657|191370228|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.9||||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||9.2|-3.3|0.1752
95700453|NCT02555657|191370229|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.0||||0.6629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|3.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||3.8|-5.9|0.6629
95700454|NCT02555657|191370230|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.7936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.59|||Regression, Cox|||||1.59|0.82|0.7936
95700455|NCT02555657|191370231|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.9964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.68|||Regression, Cox|||||1.68|1.08|0.9964
95700456|NCT02555657|191370232|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.92|||Regression, Cox|||||1.92|1.33|1.0000
95700457|NCT02555657|191370236|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|2.3||||0.3388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|13.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||13.5|-8.7|0.3388
95700458|NCT02555657|191370237|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-1.6||||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|5.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||5.5|-8.6|0.6701
95700459|NCT02555657|191370238|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentages|-6.5||||0.9877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-0.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||-0.8|-12.2|0.9877
95700460|NCT01669811|191370290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|32.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||32.6|14.9|<0.0001
95700461|NCT01669811|191370291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|32.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.9|42.6||p-value is obtained using chi square method.|Chi-squared|95% CI is obtained using Newcombe-Wilson score method without continuity correction.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on healing of refractory RE in comparison with D20 qd||42.6|21.9|<0.0001
95700462|NCT01669811|191370292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.1452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.83|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||1.83|0.91|0.1452
95700463|NCT01669811|191370293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.18|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.18|0.97|0.0837
95700464|NCT01669811|191370294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.26|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.26|0.80|0.2678
95700465|NCT01669811|191370295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.12|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.12|0.62|0.6389
95700466|NCT01669811|191370296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.4485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.38|||Log Rank|95% CI of the hazard ratio is obtained using Cox proportional hazards model including a factor of treatment group.||To evaluate the efficacy of D20 bid on gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms in comparison with D20 qd||2.38|0.80|0.4485
95700467|NCT00676793|191370297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.078
95700468|NCT00676793|191370298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.094||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The null hypothesis is that there is no change, i.e. median change=0.0.||||=0.094
95700469|NCT00379236|191370345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Screening pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.008
95700470|NCT00379236|191370346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||P-value is purely nominal|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95700471|NCT00379236|191370347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
95700472|NCT00379236|191370348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.047
95700473|NCT00379236|191370349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.618
95700474|NCT00379236|191370350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.028
95700475|NCT00379236|191370351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline pain score was the covariate; study center was modeled as a random effect while all other variables were modeled as fixed effects.||||||0.002
95700476|NCT00379236|191370362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95700477|NCT00962754|191370391|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority since our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in outcome between the intervention and the control group.|Adjusted ratio of geometric means|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19||"log transformation of mean duration of hospitalization,difference between two groups expressed as ratio of geometric means for duration. 95% confidence intervals calculated using bootstrapping method.~correction by linear regression model"|t-test, 2 sided|||We calculated that 85 patients in each group would give a power in excess of 85% to detect a difference of two days or more in the geometric mean length of hospital stay with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||1.19|0.81|<0.05
95700478|NCT05355818|191370412|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian|Historical information from LP0133-1401 (NCT04871711)/LP0133-1402 (NCT04872101) as prior information is used.|There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 13.5% to 58.2%.|Based on the primary estimand 'composite'. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
95700479|NCT05355818|191370413|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 12.3% to 59.9%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
95700480|NCT05355818|191370414|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 5.6% to 51.1%.|||||
95700481|NCT05355818|191370415|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 8.7% to 49.4%|||||
95700482|NCT05355818|191370416|SUPERIORITY||Diff. in proportion of responders in %|25.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There are no p-values when performing a Bayesian analysis. Instead, the probability that the difference in the posterior distributions is \> 0 is used.|Bayesian||There is no confidence interval when performing Bayesian analyses - instead a 95% credibility interval is used: 3.9% to 42.3%.|Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed as non-response.||||
95700483|NCT05355818|191370417|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.47||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.16|29.78|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||29.78|5.16|0.0054
95918022|NCT01474512|191795299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
95700484|NCT05355818|191370418|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|21.21||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.69|39.72|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||39.72|2.69|0.0248
95700485|NCT05355818|191370419|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.08||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|33.46|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||33.46|-11.30|0.3320
95700486|NCT05355818|191370420|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.02||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.51|53.52|||Regression, Logistic||Risk difference estimated using logistic regression stratified by baseline IGA-CHE score.|The primary estimand using the composite strategy is used for the analysis. Data is considered non response after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data is imputed as non-response.||53.52|12.51|0.0016
95700487|NCT05355818|191370421|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.65||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|-0.88|||ANCOVA|||Primary estimand: Composite. Data considered non-response by using WOCF (including the baseline value) after initiation of rescue treatment or after permanent discontinuation of IMP. Missing data imputed using WOCF (including the baseline value).||-0.88|-4.42|0.0038
95700488|NCT02707601|191370423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
95700489|NCT02707601|191370423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.042
95700490|NCT02707601|191370424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
95700491|NCT02707601|191370424|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The p-value is obtained from the 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test for the superiority over the performance goal of 88%.|Binomial test|||||||0.002
95700492|NCT02707601|191370425|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|6.1|||Fisher exact test||The differences in percentages of participants between treatment groups and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on an unconditional exact method using 2 inverted 1-sided tests.|||6.1|-6.1|1.00
95700493|NCT03351478|191370429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Square (LS) Means|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||-0.25|-0.62|< 0.0001
95700494|NCT03351478|191370429|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.28|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.28|-0.04|0.145
95700495|NCT03351478|191370430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.1529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|0.76|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||0.76|-4.87|0.1529
95700496|NCT03351478|191370430|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|3.55|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 12 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||3.55|-1.21|0.3377
95700497|NCT03351478|191370431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||-0.5|-1.33|<0.0001
95700498|NCT03351478|191370431|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.8397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.3|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥ 130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline 2-hour postprandial glucose as a covariate.||0.3|-0.37|0.8397
95700499|NCT03351478|191370432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||-0.35|-1.25|0.0005
95700500|NCT03351478|191370432|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.7|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.||0.7|-0.09|0.1339
95700501|NCT03351478|191370433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|-1.54|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||-1.54|-2.95|<0.0001
95700502|NCT03351478|191370433|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.1407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.19|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at screening, and the country as fixed effects, and baseline weight as a covariate.||1.19|-0.17|0.1407
95700503|NCT03351478|191370434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.0325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||-0.17|-3.89|0.0325
95700504|NCT03351478|191370434|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Means|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.1565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.63|||ANCOVA|||The change from baseline to Week 26 is analyzed using an ANCOVA model using multiple imputations to fill in missing data and is parameterized with treatment groups, randomization strata of HbA1c (≤ 8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and the country as fixed effects, and baseline SBP as a covariate.||2.63|-0.42|0.1565
95700505|NCT03351478|191370435|SUPERIORITY||percentage difference|8.1||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|12.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||12.89|3.36|0.0048
95700506|NCT03351478|191370436|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|16.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.26|24.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The percentage difference between treatment groups using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by the randomization strata of HbA1c (≤8.5, \>8.5%) at screening, randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and the randomization strata of mean SBP (\<130, ≥130 mmHg) at the screening.||24.52|9.26|0.0001
95700507|NCT03004976|191370439|OTHER||Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney Odds|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.55||Wilcoxon Two Sample Test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Primary efficacy analysis (mRS shift from baseline to 90 days)||1.55|0.53|0.71
95700508|NCT03004976|191370439|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.223||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3|||Cumulative Logit Proportional Odds Model|||Additional analysis of the primary endpoint (mRS score at 90 days), adjusted for baseline mRS, baseline NIHSS, and institution.||2.3|0.4|0.87
95700509|NCT00150345|191370470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.493||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.129|1.755|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event IFI=yes is modeled.|Hypothesis: H0: rv - rp = 0 vs H1: rv - rp does not equal 0, where ri is rate of IFI (i=v for voriconazole group, i=p for deferred voriconazole group). Logit model (including important covariates) used. The adjusted odds ratio and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) for adjusted odds ratio calculated. If 95% CI around odds ratio does not contain a value of 1, then the null hypothesis of equal rates of IFI between immediate voriconazole and deferred voriconazole to be rejected.||1.755|0.129|0.258
95700510|NCT00150345|191370471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.822||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.398|1.696|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.696|0.398|0.596
95700511|NCT00150345|191370472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.441|1.988|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio computed from the logistic regression (logit model) including terms for treatment arm, concomitant fluconazole, and positive PCR before randomization. Event defervescence=yes is modeled.|||1.988|0.441|0.864
95700512|NCT00150345|191370473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.955|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.955
95700513|NCT00150345|191370475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % participants that died|5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|16.78|||||Approximate 2-sided confidence interval (CI).|Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole versus (vs) deferred voriconazole treatment||16.78|-5.08|
95700514|NCT00150345|191370476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.190
95700515|NCT00150345|191370477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.888||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.004|-0.059||SAS PROC REG with SELECTION=STEPWISE option of SLENTRY=0.05 and SLSTAY=0.10 utilized. Stepwise option combined forward stepping (with a 0.05 level to enter) with elimination of variables already in model that do not stay significant at 0.10 level.|Regression, Linear|Variables: association with age, c-reactive protein, and time to continuous defervescence not significant at 0.05 level; not included in final model||Continuous defervescence achieved=Yes||-0.059|-44.004|0.049
95700516|NCT00150345|191370497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.96|19.97||||||Difference in proportions expressed as a percent: immediate voriconazole vs deferred voriconazole treatment||19.97|-14.96|
95700517|NCT04446299|191370579|NON_INFERIORITY|The predetermined non-inferiority margin was 10%.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|8.52|||Mantel Haenszel|||||8.52|-1.68|<0.001
95700518|NCT03819478|191370580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.488|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4880
95700519|NCT03819478|191370580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1683|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1683
95700520|NCT03819478|191370581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7636|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.7636
95700521|NCT03819478|191370582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1584|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1584
95700522|NCT03819478|191370582|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1623|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1623
95700523|NCT03819478|191370583|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0350
95700524|NCT03819478|191370584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2422|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.2422
95700525|NCT03819478|191370584|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5082|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5082
95700526|NCT03819478|191370585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5119|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5119
95700527|NCT03819478|191370585|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4902|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.4902
95700528|NCT03819478|191370586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.8500
95700529|NCT03819478|191370587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3685|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.3685
95700530|NCT03819478|191370587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0894|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.0894
95700531|NCT03819478|191370588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5334|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.5334
95700532|NCT03819478|191370589|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1573|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age, sex, race, and baseline bone measure||||||0.1573
95700533|NCT05067452|191370596|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.721||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.40|-1.59|0.900
95700534|NCT05067452|191370597|SUPERIORITY||Slope|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.945||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.478|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.23|-0.478|0.146
95700535|NCT05067452|191370598|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.677|||ANCOVA|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.677|-0.207|0.281
95700536|NCT05067452|191370599|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.211||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.768|||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear regression used with the binary outcome (linear probability model)||||0.768|-0.060|0.094
95700537|NCT05067452|191370600|SUPERIORITY||Slope|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.11||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.83|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.2|-7.83|0.669
95700538|NCT05067452|191370601|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.367||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.695|0.743|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.743|-0.695|0.949
95700539|NCT05067452|191370602|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.679|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.679|-1.58|0.308
95700540|NCT05067452|191370603|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.77|0.499|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.499|-4.77|0.593
95700541|NCT05067452|191370604|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.611|-5.86|0.112
95700542|NCT05067452|191370607|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.92|-8.25|0.349
95700543|NCT01135017|191370608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean difference|-59.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.275||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.322|-29.457||No adjustment for multiplicity was made. The priori threshold for statistical significance was ≤0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data with treatment arm as a fixed effect term and baseline log-transformed AF burden as a covariate|"Percent change in AF burden with dronedarone relative to placebo~LS Mean difference from the ANCOVA model on log-transformed AF burden data was exponentiated to convert back to percent change."|"The planned sample size of 286 participants was estimated to have 70% power to detect a reduction in mean AF burden of 30% relative to the placebo group.~Due to the smaller-than-planned sample size, the power to detect this difference was estimated to be only 44%, based on the original assumption. However, the power to detect larger treatment effects (\>40% reduction) remained high and the posthoc power to detect a 60% reduction in AF burden was 99%."||-29.457|-76.322|0.0015
95700544|NCT00091962|191370709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||repeated measures mixed-effect model with treatment, time (4 time points), and sex; all 2- and 3-factor interaction terms with subject intercepts were treated as a random effect to account for individual differences at randomization.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95700545|NCT03970824|191370712|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|105.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.19|115.16||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||115.16|97.19|
95700546|NCT03970824|191370712|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|92.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.29|100.61||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||100.61|85.29|
95700547|NCT03970824|191370712|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.06|106.63||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.63|90.06|
95700548|NCT03970824|191370713|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|107.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|117.13||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||117.13|98.29|
95700549|NCT03970824|191370713|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|93.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.08|102.5||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||102.50|86.08|
95700550|NCT03970824|191370713|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.42|109.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||109.92|92.42|
95700551|NCT03970824|191370714|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|101.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.33|108.89||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||108.89|95.33|
95700552|NCT03970824|191370714|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|98.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.91|104.92||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||104.92|91.91|
95700553|NCT03970824|191370714|EQUIVALENCE|PK equivalence was concluded if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for percent ratios of geometric least squares means in AUC0-inf, AUC0-last, and Cmax were within the equivalence margin of 80-125%.|Ratio of geometric least squares means|100.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.69|106.85||||||Statistical analysis of primary PK parameters was performed using an analysis of covariance model (ANCOVA) including covariates for gender, study center, and body weight.||106.85|93.69|
95700554|NCT00425100|191370721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-3.2|-2.7||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of micturition episodes per 24 hours at Week 12 is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-2.7|-3.2|<0.0001
95700555|NCT00425100|191370722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.0|-1.4||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency urinary incontinence per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
95700556|NCT00425100|191370723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-5.4|-4.5||All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%. Efficacy was claimed only when all 3 primary diary endpoints demonstrated statistical significance in change from baseline to Week 12.|2-sided paired t-test|paired t-test comparing baseline with post-baseline values||Open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12. Null hypothesis: The mean change from baseline in number of urgency episodes per 24 hours is equal to 0. The sample size was based on a statistical power for each of the three individual diary endpoints of .95 which would yield an overall power of 85%.||-4.5|-5.4|<0.0001
95700557|NCT00425100|191370725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2 sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700558|NCT00425100|191370726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700559|NCT00425100|191370727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700560|NCT00425100|191370728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700561|NCT00425100|191370730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700562|NCT00425100|191370732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|28.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.4|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700563|NCT00425100|191370733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|30.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.6|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700564|NCT00425100|191370734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.3|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700565|NCT00425100|191370735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.1|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700566|NCT00425100|191370736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|26.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.8|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700567|NCT00425100|191370737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-28.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.7|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700568|NCT00425100|191370739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.2|<|0.0001||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All paired t-tests were performed with a two-sided test at significance level of 5%.|2-sided paired t-test|||This is an open-label study with statistical comparison between baseline and Week 12.||||<0.0001
95700569|NCT00507416|191370773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||||||The global difference among arms was based on the Wald test.|Wald test|||||||0.458
95700570|NCT03796182|191370798|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.09|118.2||||||||118.20|82.09|
95700571|NCT03796182|191370799|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|93.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.15|102.65||||||||102.65|85.15|
95700572|NCT03796182|191370800|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|88.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.99|95.76||||||||95.76|80.99|
95700573|NCT03796182|191370802|EQUIVALENCE|The corresponding 90% confidence intervals equivalence criteria was (80%, 125%) acceptance range.|Ratio|94.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.19|100.73||||||||100.73|88.19|
95700574|NCT04682353|191370812|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.748|1.274||||||||1.274|0.748|
95700575|NCT04682353|191370812|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.226|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.598||||||||1.598|0.940|
95700576|NCT04682353|191370812|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.817|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.392||||||||2.392|1.380|
95700577|NCT04682353|191370814|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.202|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.506||||||||1.506|0.960|
95700578|NCT04682353|191370814|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.393|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.815||||||||1.815|1.070|
95700579|NCT04682353|191370814|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.301|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.806|2.933||||||||2.933|1.806|
95700580|NCT04682353|191370815|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.699|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.921|3.135||||||||3.135|0.921|
95700581|NCT04682353|191370815|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.364|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.273|4.39||||||||4.390|1.273|
95700582|NCT04682353|191370815|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.748|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.033|6.908||||||||6.908|2.033|
95700583|NCT04682353|191370816|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.904|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.886|4.093||||||||4.093|0.886|
95700584|NCT04682353|191370816|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|3.317|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.585|6.942||||||||6.942|1.585|
95700585|NCT04682353|191370816|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|5.824|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.796|12.135||||||||12.135|2.796|
95700586|NCT04682353|191370817|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.302||||||||1.302|0.920|
95700587|NCT04682353|191370817|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.415|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.148|1.744||||||||1.744|1.148|
95700588|NCT04682353|191370817|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.017|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.692|2.405||||||||2.405|1.692|
95700589|NCT04682353|191370818|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.303||||||||1.303|0.948|
95700590|NCT04682353|191370818|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.439|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.174|1.762||||||||1.762|1.174|
95700591|NCT04682353|191370818|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.075|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.751|2.459||||||||2.459|1.751|
95700592|NCT04682353|191370819|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.115|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.993|1.252||||||||1.252|0.993|
95700593|NCT04682353|191370819|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.277|1.833||||||||1.833|1.277|
95700594|NCT04682353|191370819|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.888|2.425||||||||2.425|1.888|
95700595|NCT00405821|191370836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.99||P-value was adjusted to include multiple looks at data including an interim efficacy review at 50% and 75% accrual of person-years on study|Regression, Cox|adjusted for baseline log10 viral load, baseline CD4 count, gender, and age||Intent-to-treat analysis used Cox proportional hazards (CPH) models, adjusting for baseline log10 viral load (VL), CD4 cell count, gender and age to assess the risk of disease progression||0.99|0.58|<0.05
95700596|NCT00405821|191370837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.31|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.48||we included multiple GUD events per subject in the estimate of GUD incidence|rate ratio with 95% CI|||Null hypothesis is no difference by treatment arm in rate of GUD.||0.48|0.19|<0.05
95700597|NCT00405821|191370838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.463||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.194|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is no difference in annual rate of change in log10 viral load by arm.||-0.194|-0.731|0.05
95700598|NCT01769469|191370848|OTHER|||||||0.2085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of difference at Week 48 from baseline||||0.2085
95700599|NCT01769469|191370852|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2452|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2452
95700600|NCT01769469|191370860|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0806|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||.0806
95700601|NCT01769469|191370871|OTHER|||||||0.6545|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.6545
95700602|NCT01769469|191370875|OTHER|||||||0.8739|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8739
95700603|NCT01769469|191370883|OTHER|||||||0.5014|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5014
95700604|NCT01769469|191370884|OTHER|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.2431
95700605|NCT01769469|191370885|OTHER|||||||0.7209|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7209
95700606|NCT01769469|191370886|OTHER|||||||0.5379|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.5379
95700607|NCT01769469|191370887|OTHER|||||||0.7986|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.7986
95700608|NCT01769469|191370907|OTHER|||||||0.8507|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.8507
95700609|NCT01769469|191370908|OTHER|||||||0.3483|||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.3483
95700610|NCT01769469|191370915|OTHER|||||||0.4043|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4043
95700611|NCT01769469|191370916|OTHER|||||||0.2927|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2927
95700612|NCT01769469|191370917|OTHER|||||||0.1134|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1134
95700613|NCT01769469|191370918|OTHER|||||||0.5782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5782
95700614|NCT01769469|191370919|OTHER|||||||0.8658|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8658
95700615|NCT01769469|191370920|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
95700616|NCT01769469|191370921|OTHER|||||||0.0238|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0238
95700617|NCT01769469|191370922|OTHER|||||||0.1172|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1172
95700618|NCT01769469|191370923|OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1220
95700619|NCT01769469|191370924|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95700620|NCT01769469|191370926|OTHER|||||||0.7785|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7785
95700621|NCT01769469|191370927|OTHER|||||||0.4933|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4933
95700622|NCT01769469|191370928|OTHER|||||||0.5491|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5491
95700623|NCT01769469|191370929|OTHER|||||||0.5161|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5161
95700624|NCT01769469|191370930|OTHER|||||||0.599|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5990
95700625|NCT01769469|191370931|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8579
95700626|NCT01769469|191370932|OTHER|||||||0.0719|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0719
95700627|NCT01769469|191370933|OTHER|||||||0.3148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3148
95700628|NCT01769469|191370934|OTHER|||||||0.139|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1390
95700629|NCT01769469|191370935|OTHER|||||||0.2726|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2726
95700630|NCT01769469|191370936|OTHER|||||||0.537|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5370
95700631|NCT01769469|191370937|OTHER|||||||0.2926|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2926
95700632|NCT01769469|191370938|OTHER|||||||0.1906|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1906
95700633|NCT01769469|191370939|OTHER|||||||0.2255|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2255
95700634|NCT01769469|191370940|OTHER|||||||0.6285|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6285
95700635|NCT01769469|191370941|OTHER|||||||0.0148|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0148
95700636|NCT01769469|191370942|OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0166
95700637|NCT01769469|191370943|OTHER|||||||0.0277|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0277
95700638|NCT01769469|191370944|OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2610
95700639|NCT01769469|191370945|OTHER|||||||0.4154|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4154
95700640|NCT01769469|191370946|OTHER|||||||0.7125|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7125
95700641|NCT02713789|191370989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.827|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.827
95700642|NCT02713789|191370989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.594|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP2||||0.594
95700643|NCT02713789|191370989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.274
95700644|NCT02713789|191370989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.766|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP3||||0.766
95700645|NCT02713789|191370990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.384|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.384
95700646|NCT02713789|191370990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.144
95700647|NCT02713789|191370990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.022
95700648|NCT02713789|191370990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.137|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.137
95700649|NCT02713789|191370990|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.123|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.123
95700650|NCT02713789|191370991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.160
95700651|NCT02713789|191370991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.208
95700652|NCT02713789|191370991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.316
95700653|NCT02713789|191370991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.221|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.221
95700654|NCT02713789|191370991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.172
95700655|NCT02713789|191370992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.199
95700656|NCT02713789|191370992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.203
95700657|NCT02713789|191370992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.500
95700658|NCT02713789|191370992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.296
95700659|NCT02713789|191370992|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.286|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.286
95700660|NCT02713789|191370993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.449
95700661|NCT02713789|191370993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.381
95700662|NCT02713789|191370993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.011
95700663|NCT02713789|191370993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.05
95700664|NCT02713789|191370993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.09
95700665|NCT02713789|191370994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.074
95700666|NCT02713789|191370994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.468
95700667|NCT02713789|191370994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109|||||||t-test, 1 sided|one-sided paired t-test at 5% significance level||||||0.109
95700668|NCT02713789|191370994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.493|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.493
95700669|NCT02713789|191370994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 1 sided|p-value (one-sided) corresponds to the two sample t-test analysis||||||0.235
95700670|NCT02713789|191370995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.136
95700671|NCT02713789|191370995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP1||||0.498
95700672|NCT02713789|191370995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.369|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.369
95700673|NCT02713789|191370995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.337|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP4||||0.337
95700674|NCT02713789|191370995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||ANCOVA|||SEP5||||0.160
95700675|NCT00141037|191371008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Nonparametric Test|||The endpoint is assessed using a Wilcoxon nonparametric test and missing values are imputed using the last observation carried forward.||||0.79
95700676|NCT00141037|191371009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85|||||||Fisher Exact|||The difference was analyzed using a Fisher's exact test.||||0.85
95700677|NCT02940860|191371014|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority could be claimed if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was above -0.5 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.23|||||The Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) used for testing, included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, strata, and the continuous covariates of baseline Hb and baseline Hb-by-week interaction.|"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose treatment group and with N=500 subjects in the iron sucrose treatment group, assuming no difference between the treatment groups and assuming a common standard deviation (SD) of 1.5 g/dL, the power was 100% for demonstrating non-inferiority of the change in Hb from baseline to week 8, using a non-inferiority margin of -0.5 g/dL.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.23|-0.06|
95700678|NCT02940860|191371015|OTHER||95% two-sided CI (iron isomaltoside)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.86||||||"Power:~With N=1000 subjects in the iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose, the power was 88% to demonstrate that the upper bound of the 95% CI of the incidence of treatment-emergent serious and/or severe non-serious hypersensitivity AEs was less than 3%.~The significance level was set to 5%."||0.86|0.06|
95700679|NCT02940860|191371015|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the individual trial with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.77|-0.19|
95700680|NCT02940860|191371015|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority can be claimed if the upper bound of the 95% CI is below 1.5 % point.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.48||||||Risk difference between iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and iron sucrose was assessed for the pooled FERWON-IDA and FERWON-NEPHRO trials (2008 subjects treated with iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose and 1000 subjects treated with iron sucrose) with 95% Newcombe CI adjusted for stratum using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method.||0.48|-0.57|
95700681|NCT02940860|191371016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0248|||||||Fisher Exact|||Adjudicated and confirmed treatment-emergent composite cardiovascular AEs. Any treatment emergent composite cardiovascular AEs were included in the statistical evaluation. The overall incidence of adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was tabulated and compared between the treatment groups by a Fisher's exact test.||||0.0248
95700682|NCT02940860|191371017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Log Rank|||The time to first adjudicated and confirmed composite cardiovascular AEs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a log-rank test.||||0.0185
95700683|NCT02940860|191371019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.87|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 1~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 1.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.87|1.00|0.0478
95700684|NCT02940860|191371019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.36|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 2~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 2.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||2.36|1.39|<0.0001
95700685|NCT02940860|191371019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.79|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 4~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 4.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.79|1.11|0.0048
95700686|NCT02940860|191371019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Repeated measures logistic regressioin|||"Week 8~Hb increase of ≥1 g/dL from baseline to week 8.~Proportion of Hb responders to each week was analysed using a repeated measures logistic regression model with treatment, visit, strata, and treatment by visit interaction as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate."||1.27|0.80|0.9440
95700687|NCT02940860|191371020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0174|||||||Log Rank|||Time to Hb response was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the hypothesis of no treatment difference was assessed by a 2-sided log-rank test.||||0.0174
95700688|NCT02940860|191371021|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.45|||Regression, Logistic|||The proportion of subjects who achieved a Hb level of \>12 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects. The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value.||1.45|0.83|0.5074
95700689|NCT02940860|191371022|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.6|||Regression, Logistic|||"The proportion of subjects who achieved an increase in Hb concentration ≥2 g/dL at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose was presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||1.60|0.96|0.1035
95700690|NCT02940860|191371023|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||"Proportion of subject who achieved a s-ferritin level of ≥100 ng/mL AND a TSAT of 20-50% at any time from week 1 to week 8 was analysed using a logistic regression model with treatment and strata as fixed effects.~The estimated treatment ratio of iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose versus iron sucrose is presented with 95% CI and corresponding p-value."||2.40|1.38|<0.0001
95700691|NCT02940860|191371024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.31|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.31|0.12|<0.0001
95700692|NCT02940860|191371024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.36|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.36|0.14|<0.0001
95700693|NCT02940860|191371024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.28|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in Hb concentration from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.28|0.02|0.0208
95700694|NCT02940860|191371025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|309.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|280.7|337.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||337.8|280.7|<0.0001
95700695|NCT02940860|191371025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|95.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|123.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||123.7|67.9|<0.0001
95700696|NCT02940860|191371025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.7834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|28.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||28.1|-21.2|0.7834
95700697|NCT02940860|191371025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.7621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|24.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in concentrations of s-ferritin from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||24.7|-18.1|0.7621
95700698|NCT02940860|191371026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|10.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||10.7|6.9|<0.0001
95700699|NCT02940860|191371026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.4|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.4|0.3|0.0129
95700700|NCT02940860|191371026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.2403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.5|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 4 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.5|-0.4|0.2403
95700701|NCT02940860|191371026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in TSAT from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment by-week interaction effects are presented by week, include 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||1.2|-0.9|0.8094
95700702|NCT02940860|191371027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|32.7|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 1 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||32.7|20.4|<0.0001
95700703|NCT02940860|191371027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9||||0.2229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 2 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||5.1|-1.2|0.2229
95700704|NCT02940860|191371027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.9046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 4~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 4 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||2.6|-2.9|0.9046
95700705|NCT02940860|191371027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.8|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in s-iron from baseline to week 8 was analysed using a Mixed Model for Repeated Measurement (MMRM) including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-week interaction as covariates.~The estimated treatment differences based on the least square means of the treatment-by week interaction effects are presented by week, including 95% CIs and corresponding p-value."||0.8|-5.8|0.1307
95700706|NCT02940860|191371028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.92|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 1~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 1 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.92|-0.73|0.8196
95700707|NCT02940860|191371028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.7132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.73|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 2~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 2 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||0.73|-1.06|0.7132
95700708|NCT02940860|191371028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.25|||Mixed model for repeated measures|||"Week 8~Change in fatigue symptoms score from baseline to week 8 was analysed using MMRM including treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and strata as factors and baseline score and baseline score-by-week interaction as covariates."||1.25|-0.71|0.5860
95700709|NCT01281189|191371102|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.91||||0.8568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.751|34.576|||ANCOVA|Includes treatment as a fixed effect and adjusts for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from sx onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.||||34.576|-28.751|0.8568
95700710|NCT01281189|191371103|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.427|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||Hazard Ratio (HR) (Dex/PBO)|1.427|0.750|0.8375
95700711|NCT01281189|191371104|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.9019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|1.28|||mixed-effects repeated-measures model|Mixed-effects repeated-measures model with treatment, visit, treatment-by visit interaction, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline-by-visit interaction|The mixed-effects repeated-measures model also adjusted for the following covariates: duration from symptom onset, site of onset, and use of riluzole.|||1.280|-1.128|0.9019
95700712|NCT01281189|191371105|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.801|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|Adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.348|0.801|0.7715
95700713|NCT01281189|191371106|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.745|1.298|||Cox Proportional Hazards model|adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, duration from symptom onset to the first dose of study treatment, site of onset, and use of riluzole||||1.298|0.745|0.9033
95700714|NCT01281189|191371107|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.789|1.192|||Cox Proportional Hazards model||Hazard ratio (Dex/PBO)|||1.192|0.789|0.7720
95700715|NCT00223652|191371108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=.001
95700716|NCT00223652|191371108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.07
95700717|NCT00223652|191371108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.95
95700718|NCT00223652|191371109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
95700719|NCT00223652|191371110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.0001
95700720|NCT00223652|191371110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95700721|NCT00223652|191371110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.20
95700722|NCT00223652|191371111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||<0.0001
95700723|NCT00223652|191371111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.12
95700724|NCT00223652|191371111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||0.86
95700725|NCT00223652|191371112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.37
95700726|NCT00223652|191371113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized estimating equations models|||||||>0.37
95700727|NCT00247273|191371123|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|In order to establish noninferiority for the primary efficacy variable at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, a total of 1068 patients, 534 per treatment group, is required. This calculation is based on the following assumptions: the noninferiority margin (or delta) = 1.5%, the common SD (standard deviation) of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 = 4.5%, the 1 year dropout rate = 20%, and the true mean difference μD - μM = 0.5%.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.115|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|0.274|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.274|-0.505|
95700728|NCT00247273|191371124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.076|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.323|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.323|-0.475|
95700729|NCT00247273|191371125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.0005|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0035|0.0024|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0024|-0.0035|
95700730|NCT00247273|191371126|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The estimates of the common SD, dropout rate at month 24 and true difference are also based on previous risedronate Phase III studies (RVN008993, RVE009093, ROE009394, HMR4003E/3001).|LS Mean Difference|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.249|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled centers.||The sample size of 1068 patients will provide approximately 90% power to demonstrate the noninferiority of the monthly regimen at month 24, using a 2% noninferiority margin and assuming a common SD of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at month 24 of 5%, a 2-year dropout rate of 30%, and a true mean difference (uDaily-uMonthly) of 0.8%.||0.249|-0.727|
95700731|NCT00247273|191371127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.085|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.439|||ANOVA|Fixed Effects for treatment \& pooled center||||0.439|-0.609|
95700732|NCT00247273|191371128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0009|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0048|0.0029|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.0029|-0.0048|
95700733|NCT00247273|191371129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.83|3.28|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||3.28|-2.83|
95700734|NCT00247273|191371130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|1.33|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||1.33|-4.47|
95700735|NCT00247273|191371131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|4.53|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||4.53|-2.54|
95700736|NCT00247273|191371132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.45|0.8|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center.||||0.80|-6.45|
95700737|NCT00247273|191371133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.00|-0.05|
95700738|NCT00247273|191371134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|-0.36|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||-0.36|-7.98|
95700739|NCT00247273|191371135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.01|-0.06|
95700740|NCT00247273|191371136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|0.66|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.66|-12.04|
95700741|NCT00247273|191371137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.64|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.64|-0.29|
95700742|NCT00247273|191371138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|3.48|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||3.48|-0.85|
95700743|NCT00247273|191371139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.7|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||0.70|-0.45|
95700744|NCT00247273|191371140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|2.43|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment and pooled center||||2.43|-3.96|
95700745|NCT00247273|191371141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|2.54|||Fisher Exact|||||2.54|0.36|1.0000
95700746|NCT00247273|191371142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.03|||Fisher Exact|||||2.03|0.47|1.0000
95700747|NCT00527072|191371231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.654||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.586|0.718|||exact binomial distribution|||null hypothesis H0: proportion = 0.30||0.718|0.586|0.05
95700748|NCT00527072|191371232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.791||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.844|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.844|0.730|0.05
95700749|NCT00527072|191371233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion|0.646||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.577|0.711|||exact binomial distribution|||||0.711|0.577|0.05
95700750|NCT02864706|191371238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||ANCOVA|Incidence of CAV at 5-7 yrs was compared between groups using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with stratification according to baseline distribution||||||0.0043
95700751|NCT02864706|191371239|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.037
95700752|NCT01515488|191371253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|42.6|||t-test, 2 sided|DF=331.2||||42.6|22.1|<0.0005
95700753|NCT03418051|191371267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.824||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.824
95700754|NCT03418051|191371267|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.426||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.426
95700755|NCT03418051|191371268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.722||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.722
95700756|NCT03418051|191371268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.843
95700757|NCT03418051|191371269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.046
95700758|NCT03418051|191371269|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.845
95700759|NCT03418051|191371270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.138
95700760|NCT03418051|191371270|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.523
95700761|NCT03418051|191371271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.069||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.069
95700762|NCT03418051|191371271|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.413
95700763|NCT03418051|191371272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.604
95700764|NCT03418051|191371272|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.499||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.499
95700765|NCT03418051|191371273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.005
95700766|NCT03418051|191371273|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.853||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.853
95700767|NCT03418051|191371274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.142
95700768|NCT03418051|191371274|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.167
95700769|NCT03418051|191371275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.849||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.849
95700770|NCT03418051|191371275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.993
95700771|NCT03418051|191371276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.535||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.535
95700772|NCT03418051|191371276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.569||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.569
95700773|NCT03418051|191371277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||A priori threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.405
95700774|NCT03418051|191371277|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.229
95700775|NCT03418051|191371278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.609
95700776|NCT03418051|191371278|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027||||||A priori threshold was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.027
95700777|NCT03418051|191371279|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||A priori alpha set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.613
95700778|NCT03418051|191371280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Independent sample Mann-Whitney U|||||||0.925
95700779|NCT03418051|191371281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.641
95700780|NCT03418051|191371281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.897||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.897
95700781|NCT03418051|191371282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.561||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.561
95700782|NCT03418051|191371282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.925
95700783|NCT03418051|191371283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.233
95700784|NCT03418051|191371283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.634
95700785|NCT03418051|191371284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.233||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.233
95700786|NCT03418051|191371284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.634
95700787|NCT03418051|191371285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.030
95700788|NCT03418051|191371285|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.618
95700789|NCT03418051|191371286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.456||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.456
95700790|NCT03418051|191371286|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||A priori threshold set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.568
95700791|NCT03418051|191371287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.919||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.919
95700792|NCT03418051|191371287|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
95700793|NCT03418051|191371288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.796||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.796
95700794|NCT03418051|191371288|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.558||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.558
95700795|NCT03418051|191371289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.701||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.701
95700796|NCT03418051|191371289|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.68
95700797|NCT03418051|191371290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.883
95700798|NCT03418051|191371290|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.401||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.401
95700799|NCT03418051|191371291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.393
95700800|NCT03418051|191371291|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.779
95700801|NCT03418051|191371292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.246
95700802|NCT03418051|191371292|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.191
95700803|NCT03418051|191371293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.703||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.703
95700804|NCT03418051|191371293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.282||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.282
95700805|NCT03418051|191371294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.925
95700806|NCT03418051|191371294|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.551||||||A priori alpha level was set to 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.551
95700807|NCT03418051|191371295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.506||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.506
95700808|NCT03418051|191371295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||A priori threshold at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.753
95700809|NCT03418051|191371296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.777
95700810|NCT03418051|191371296|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.475||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.475
95700811|NCT03418051|191371297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
95700812|NCT03418051|191371297|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.042
95700813|NCT03418051|191371298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.738
95700814|NCT03418051|191371298|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.830
95700815|NCT03418051|191371299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.700
95700816|NCT03418051|191371299|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.492||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.492
95700817|NCT03418051|191371300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.820
95700818|NCT03418051|191371300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.526||||||A priori threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.526
95700819|NCT02781454|191371318|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-5.558||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||-0.315|-10.80|0.039
95700820|NCT02781454|191371319|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.792||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.296||linear contrast active vs placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.296|0.484|0.332
95700821|NCT02781454|191371320|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.411||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.208|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||0.810|0.208|0.013
95700822|NCT02781454|191371321|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.343||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.36|42.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||42.042|-41.36|0.986
95700823|NCT02781454|191371322|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.994||||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo ratio of week 4 to week 0||1.126|0.876|0.915
95700824|NCT02781454|191371323|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|1.089||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.609|6.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||6.786|-4.609|0.694
95700825|NCT02781454|191371324|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.242||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|13.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||13.126|-12.64|0.969
95700826|NCT02781454|191371325|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|2.597||||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.772|7.966|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||7.966|-2.772|0.323
95700827|NCT02781454|191371326|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.017||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.767|1.733|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.733|-5.767|0.273
95700828|NCT02781454|191371327|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|0.708||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.111|4.535|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo||4.535|0.111|0.713
95700829|NCT02781454|191371329|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-0.399||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.966|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||1.169|-1.966|0.601
95700830|NCT02781454|191371330|SUPERIORITY||linear contrast active vs placebo|-2.734||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.938|2.471|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of active (300 and 600 mg) vs placebo for change from baseline to week 4||2.471|-7.938|0.285
95700831|NCT00493974|191371336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3876||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3876
95700832|NCT00493974|191371337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6413||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6413
95700833|NCT00493974|191371338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6433||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6433
95700834|NCT00493974|191371339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.63
95700835|NCT00493974|191371340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4957||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4957
95700836|NCT00493974|191371341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95700837|NCT00493974|191371342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95700838|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
95700839|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
95700840|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||<.0001
95700841|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0713|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0713
95700842|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0002
95700843|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
95700844|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0001
95700845|NCT02193828|191371396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0446|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.0446
95700846|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2431|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.2431
95700847|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.0625
95700848|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3409|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.3409
95700849|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For surface area||||.7040
95700850|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3556|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||0.3556
95700851|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.1275
95700852|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7883|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.7883
95700853|NCT02193828|191371397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9123|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||For volume||||.9123
95700854|NCT02193828|191371398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0002
95700855|NCT02193828|191371398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.0001
95700856|NCT02193828|191371398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0002
95700857|NCT02193828|191371398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0139
95700858|NCT02193828|191371399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0004
95700859|NCT02193828|191371399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0075
95700860|NCT02193828|191371399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||<.0001
95700861|NCT02193828|191371399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.0031
95700862|NCT02193828|191371400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3135|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.3135
95700863|NCT02193828|191371400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7249|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.7249
95700864|NCT02193828|191371400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1573
95700865|NCT02193828|191371400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1234|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.1234
95700866|NCT02193828|191371401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0006
95700867|NCT02193828|191371401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0014
95700868|NCT02193828|191371401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0012
95700869|NCT02193828|191371401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1298|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.1298
95700870|NCT02193828|191371402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.0048
95700871|NCT02193828|191371402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0034
95700872|NCT02193828|191371402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.0079
95700873|NCT02193828|191371402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3216|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.3216
95700874|NCT02193828|191371403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0065
95700875|NCT02193828|191371403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0349
95700876|NCT02193828|191371403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0033
95700877|NCT02193828|191371403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3423|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.3423
95700878|NCT03258632|191371425|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.90|0.73|<.05
95700879|NCT00735670|191371427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.445
95700880|NCT00735670|191371428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||REML|-0.31||||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.15||Comparison of venlafaxine vs. placebo on change of PHQ-9 over time controlling for baseline PHQ-9 score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A linear mixed model (LMM) analysis was used and included a random intercept effect based on lowest Akaike's Information Criterion values when we compared three random coefficient models (intercept, slope and intercept and slope). To examine whether allocation group influenced the effect of time and baseline PHQ-9 sore on the trajectory of PHQ-9 scores, we included two interaction terms (time by allocation group and baseline PHQ-9 score by allocation group).||-0.15|-0.48|0.725
95700881|NCT03162458|191371442|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95700882|NCT03162458|191371443|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0004
95700883|NCT03162458|191371444|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.055
95700884|NCT03162458|191371445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.051
95700885|NCT03162458|191371446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the morning on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.19
95700886|NCT03162458|191371446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|||Mean body temperatures, measured in the evening on Days 2-5 (based on patient diary data)||||0.44
95700887|NCT03162458|191371447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.15
95700888|NCT03162458|191371448|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95700889|NCT03162458|191371449|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95700890|NCT03162458|191371450|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.63
95700891|NCT03162458|191371451|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95700892|NCT00004732|191371466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.51|||||HR (95% CI) adjusted for age, sex and symptomatic status|||1.51|0.81|
95700893|NCT00004732|191371467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.23|||||HR (95% CI) for WOMEN CAS vs CEA (adjusted for age and symptomatic status)|||2.23|0.82|
95700894|NCT01183312|191371468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77||95.0|||||wilcoxon signed rank (paired)|||||||0.77
95700895|NCT01183312|191371469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.51
95700896|NCT01183312|191371470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.32
95700897|NCT01183312|191371471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.56
95700898|NCT01183312|191371472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.14
95700899|NCT01183312|191371473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.89
95700900|NCT01183312|191371474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||95.0|||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank (paired)|||||||0.13
95700901|NCT00014911|191371485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|61.0|||Fisher Exact|||||61|30|
95700902|NCT00014911|191371486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|44.0|||Fisher Exact|||||44|16|
95700903|NCT00014911|191371487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|63.0|||Fisher Exact|||||63|42|
95700904|NCT01998269|191371531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||correlation coefficient|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Correlation||r= 0.60, p-value\<0.001. P values below 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this study.|We examined correlations between patient scores on the Measure of Medication Self-Management (MeDS) and the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence questionnaire.||||<.001
95700905|NCT04532918|191371551|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|255.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|208.7|312.3|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||312.3|208.7|
95700906|NCT04532918|191371551|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|189.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|154.0|233.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax||233.1|154.0|
95700907|NCT04532918|191371552|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|238.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|207.6|273.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||273.8|207.6|
95700908|NCT04532918|191371552|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|148.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.1|171.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf||171.7|129.1|
95700909|NCT04532918|191371553|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|229.8|298.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||298.1|229.8|
95700910|NCT04532918|191371553|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|163.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.8|186.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast||186.6|142.8|
95700911|NCT04532918|191371554|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|273.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|227.9|328.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||328.1|227.9|
95700912|NCT04532918|191371554|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|275.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|228.7|332.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||332.7|228.7|
95700913|NCT04532918|191371554|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|24.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|19.15|31.72|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||31.72|19.15|
95700914|NCT04532918|191371554|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|37.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.18|49.03|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M8||49.03|29.18|
95700915|NCT04532918|191371555|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|291.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|260.6|326.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M1||326.8|260.6|
95700916|NCT04532918|191371555|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|215.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|192.0|242.4|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for metabolite: M1||242.4|192.0|
95700917|NCT04532918|191371555|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|55.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.19|64.83|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||64.83|47.19|
95700918|NCT04532918|191371555|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|68.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.99|80.39|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for metabolite: M8||80.39|57.99|
95700919|NCT04532918|191371556|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|306.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|273.3|343.6|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||343.6|273.3|
95700920|NCT04532918|191371556|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|227.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|202.1|255.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M1||255.8|202.1|
95700921|NCT04532918|191371556|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|51.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|43.8|59.45|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||59.45|43.80|
95700922|NCT04532918|191371556|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|70.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.21|82.44|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for metabolite: M8||82.44|60.21|
95700923|NCT04532918|191371557|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|74.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.42|94.26|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||94.26|59.42|
95700924|NCT04532918|191371557|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|80.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.88|102.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for allopurinol||102.7|63.88|
95700925|NCT04532918|191371557|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.11|101.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||101.8|92.11|
95700926|NCT04532918|191371557|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.36|104.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of Cmax for oxypurinol||104.0|94.36|
95700927|NCT04532918|191371558|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.26|105.9|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||105.9|91.26|
95700928|NCT04532918|191371558|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.72|109.2|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for allopurinol||109.2|93.72|
95700929|NCT04532918|191371558|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|99.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.02|103.5|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||103.5|95.02|
95700930|NCT04532918|191371558|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|100.1|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUCinf for oxypurinol||100.1|92.15|
95700931|NCT04532918|191371559|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.1|106.0|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||106.0|91.10|
95700932|NCT04532918|191371559|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.99|109.8|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for allopurinol||109.8|93.99|
95700933|NCT04532918|191371559|OTHER|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects|Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|98.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5|101.7|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 1/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+cyclosporine/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Statistical comparison of AUClast for oxypurinol||101.7|94.50|
95700934|NCT04532918|191371559|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|95.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.61|99.48|||||Pairwise comparisons of Test 2/ reference (verinurad+allopurinol+rifampicin/ verinurad+allopurinol alone)|Analysis of variance of log transformed PK parameter with treatment and participant as fixed effects||99.48|92.61|
95700935|NCT01135394|191371578|OTHER|The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Pearson correlation p-value|0.0000001|||<|1e-07|TWO_SIDED|||||The genes with p-values below 10\^-6 were identified|Genes with p-values below 10^-6|||After the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in HOMA-IR index had been calculated for each subject, the change (end-of-treatment minus baseline) in expression of each of approximately 45,000 transcripts contained in a human gene array was calculated. A Pearson correlation p-value was calculated for the correlation between change in gene expression and change in HOMA-IR index, with the purpose of identifying the genes whose expression changed in concert with changes in HOMA-IR index.|The genes with P-values below 10\^-6 were identified|||<0.0000001
95700936|NCT01673490|191371588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95700937|NCT01673490|191371589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95700938|NCT01673490|191371589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||for Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95700939|NCT03961295|191371590|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.2984|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0786|1.5486||||||Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of variance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5486|1.0786|
95700940|NCT03961295|191371591|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.3274|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1147|1.5807||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.5807|1.1147|
95700941|NCT03961295|191371592|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.1978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0394|1.3804||||||Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.||1.3804|1.0394|
95700942|NCT02971007|191371593|OTHER|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.||||||||||||||||No formal sample size calculations were made. The sample size was determined empirically rather than with a specific statistical rationale and is considered sufficient to achieve the study objectives of this proof of concept study. Women with moderate to severe Vulvovaginal candidiasis were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 treatment groups, stratified by signs and symptoms composite score of up to 12 (moderate) and greater than 13 (severe).|Statistical analyses primarily descriptive with no formal statistical hypothesis testing. Summary statistics are presented by treatment group. For continuous variables, the number of observations, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum are provided as summary statistics.|||
95700943|NCT00438464|191371632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95700944|NCT00438464|191371633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95700945|NCT00438464|191371634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95700946|NCT00438464|191371635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.805|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.805
95700947|NCT00438464|191371636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.254
95700948|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within GG3||||0.70
95700949|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG3||||0.38
95700950|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG3||||0.41
95700951|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG3||||0.75
95700952|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG3||||0.57
95700953|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C (UBE2C), Within GG3||||0.12
95700954|NCT00438464|191371637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Cleaved Caspase 3 (Caspase), Within GG3||||0.03
95700955|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Vascular Epithelial Growth Factor (VEGF3), Within GG4||||0.45
95700956|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), Within GG4||||0.83
95700957|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Androgen receptor (AR), Within GG4||||0.04
95700958|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within GG4||||0.80
95700959|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||3-oxo-5α-steroid 4-dehydrogenase 2 (SRD5A2), Within GG4||||0.61
95700960|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within GG4||||0.86
95700961|NCT00438464|191371638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within GG4||||0.02
95700962|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.84
95700963|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.36
95700964|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Finasteride||||0.09
95700965|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.46
95700966|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.88
95700967|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Finasteride Arm||||0.18
95700968|NCT00438464|191371643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Finasteride Arm||||<0.001
95700969|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VEGF3, Within Placebo Arm||||0.32
95700970|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||ERβ, Within Placebo Arm||||0.83
95700971|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||AR, Within Placebo Arm||||0.77
95700972|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Ki-67 protein, Within Placebo Arm||||0.87
95700973|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||SRD5A2, Within Placebo Arm||||0.91
95700974|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||UBE2C, Within Placebo Arm||||0.90
95700975|NCT00438464|191371644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Caspase, Within Placebo Arm||||<0.001
95918023|NCT01474512|191795299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for PCS.||||||<0.001
95700976|NCT02853123|191371655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.661|-0.053|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.053|-0.661|0.0217
95700977|NCT02853123|191371656|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|0.265|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured prior to exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.265|0.106|<.0001
95700978|NCT02853123|191371657|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.141|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|IC measured end of exercise, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.141|-0.009|0.0852
95700979|NCT02853123|191371658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.117|0.194|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.194|0.117|<.0001
95700980|NCT02853123|191371659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.134|0.267|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.267|0.134|<.0001
95700981|NCT02853123|191371660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.083|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|1 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.083|-0.300|0.2645
95700982|NCT02853123|191371660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.452|-0.028|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.028|-0.452|0.0267
95700983|NCT02853123|191371660|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.039|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|2.5 min, the adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||-0.039|-0.596|0.0258
95700984|NCT02853123|191371661|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.268|0.208|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.208|-0.268|0.8025
95700985|NCT02853123|191371662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.286|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger approximation of denominator was used for degrees of freedom.|Mean difference means the treatment difference vs. Tiotropium (i.e. Tiotropium/Olodaterol - Tiotropium).|The adjusted means (SE) are obtained from fitting an Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model including treatment and period as fixed effects, patient as a random effect, and period baseline and patient baseline as covariates, compound symmetry covariance structure for within-patient variation.||0.286|-0.106|0.3634
95700986|NCT01601704|191371704|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|At the pre-planned 50% interim analysis, a non-inferiority analysis was conducted based on the estimated hazard ratio (NB32/Placebo) for the time to the first confirmed occurrence of MACE. The upper-bound of the 99.7% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was compared to 1.4, the non-inferiority margin.|Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.57|1.34|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.34|0.57|
95700987|NCT01601704|191371705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.66|1.33|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.33|0.66|
95700988|NCT01601704|191371706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.21|1.19|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.19|0.21|
95700989|NCT01601704|191371707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.55|1.67|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||1.67|0.55|
95700990|NCT01601704|191371708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|99.7|0.43|2.55|||||Hazard ratio is based on CPH model with treatment as a factor.|||2.55|0.43|
95700991|NCT01783470|191371709|EQUIVALENCE|All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon sign-ranks test|||Since the sample size of twelve subjects limited the ability to demonstrate that measurements were normally distributed, we used the non-parametric Wilcoxon sign-ranks test to assess the primary and secondary endpoints. All p values presented are two tailed. p values \< 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance for the primary outcome.||||0.001
95700992|NCT02911519|191371727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis. The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk.|||1.16|0.77|0.59
95700993|NCT02911519|191371728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||The Brief Group Psychoeducation is the numerator and the group of Treatment as Usual Only is the denominator for relative risk. This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||1.10|0.87|0.73
95700994|NCT02911519|191371729|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.39|-0.36|0.94
95700995|NCT02911519|191371729|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.19||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is intention-to-treat analysis.|||0.18|-0.57|0.30
95700996|NCT02911519|191371731|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.17|-0.10|0.61
95700997|NCT02911519|191371732|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|Slope|0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 1ST DOMAIN (physical health) in the first row.|||0.30|-0.38|0.81
95700998|NCT02911519|191371732|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|Slope|-0.04||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 2ND DOMAIN (psychological) in the second row.|||0.29|-0.38|0.81
95700999|NCT02911519|191371732|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|Slope|0.16||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 3RD DOMAIN (social relationships) in the third row.|||0.65|-0.33|0.52
95701000|NCT02911519|191371732|SUPERIORITY|This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|Slope|0.19||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This statistical Analysis applies to WHOQOL-BREF 4TH DOMAIN (environment) in the fourth row.|||0.53|-0.15|0.27
95701001|NCT02911519|191371733|SUPERIORITY|This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB objective domain in the first row.|||0.01|-0.01|0.33
95701002|NCT02911519|191371733|SUPERIORITY|This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|Slope|-0.01||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis. This analysis applies to SSFB subjective domain in the second row.|||0.01|-0.02|0.19
95701003|NCT02911519|191371734|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is an intention to treat analysis.|||0.19|-0.19|0.97
95701004|NCT00047853|191371787|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||||||< 0.001
95701005|NCT00047853|191371788|OTHER|||||||9.3e-05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.000093
95701006|NCT02443805|191371790|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Source Model: Type III effects Covariates: Treatment group, Gender, Age Class, Sensitization Status, Asthma Status, Pooled Center, Baseline Average RTSS.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95701007|NCT00587834|191371815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact Bionomial Test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined standard (50% success)||||<0.0001
95701008|NCT00587834|191371816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit equally red and Control not equally red to (2) Gintuit not equally red and Control equally red||||<0.0001
95701009|NCT00587834|191371817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||McNemar|||Compare participants with (1)Gintuit equally firm and Control not equally firm to (2) Gintuit not equally firm and Control equally firm||||<0.0001
95701010|NCT00587834|191371818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||Superiority relative to a pre-defined threshold (80%) success||||<0.0001
95701011|NCT00587834|191371819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Exact binomial test|||The proportion of Gintuit as the preferred procedure.||||<0.0001
95701012|NCT00587834|191371820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0|||||McNemar|McNemar's paired comparison test||Compare participants with (1) Gintuit not sensitive and Control sensitive to (2) Gintuit sensitive and Control not sensitive.||||0.3173
95701013|NCT03488914|191371842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|0.56|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 3-months||||.56|-2.78|.19
95701014|NCT03488914|191371842|SUPERIORITY||negative binomial regression|-1.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|0.48|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 6-months||||.48|-3.78|.12
95701015|NCT03488914|191371842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 9-months||||2.07|-2.05|.99
95701016|NCT03488914|191371842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.78||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 12-months||||1.11|-2.67|.42
95701017|NCT03488914|191371842|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.09||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|0.51|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted illicit drug use days at 15-months||||.51|-2.69|.18
95701018|NCT03488914|191371843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.03||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.99|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 3-months||||.99|-.86|.96
95701019|NCT03488914|191371843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.19||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.14|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 6-months||||-.14|-2.25|.03
95701020|NCT03488914|191371843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.13||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.1|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 9-months||||1.10|-.83|.79
95701021|NCT03488914|191371843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.06||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|1.11|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 12-months||||1.11|-.99|.91
95701022|NCT03488914|191371843|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.42||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.65|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted condomless anal sex acts at 15-months||||.65|-1.50|.44
95701023|NCT03488914|191371844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.58|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 3-months||||.58|-1.09|.54
95701024|NCT03488914|191371844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.38||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.46|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 6-months||||1.46|-.70|.49
95701025|NCT03488914|191371844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.26||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.66|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 9-months||||.66|-1.18|.59
95701026|NCT03488914|191371844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.26||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|1.37|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 12-months||||1.37|-.86|.65
95701027|NCT03488914|191371844|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.67|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted marijuana use days at 15-months||||.67|-1.40|.49
95701028|NCT03488914|191371845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.36||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|995.0|-1.07|0.34|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 3-months||||.34|-1.07|.31
95701029|NCT03488914|191371845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.71||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.15|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 6-months||||.15|-1.57|.10
95701030|NCT03488914|191371845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.53||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.28|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 9-months||||.28|-1.34|.20
95701031|NCT03488914|191371845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.25||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.64|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 12-months||||.64|-1.14|.58
95701032|NCT03488914|191371845|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|0.47|||negative binomial regression|Model testing whether condition predicted alcohol use days at 15-months||||.47|-1.37|.34
95701033|NCT01021813|191371859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any sleep paralysis AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group .||1.4|-1.1|
95701034|NCT01021813|191371860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.2||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method.|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any complex sleep-related behaviors AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.1|-1.3|0.482
95701035|NCT01021813|191371861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.8||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any falls AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||1.5|-3.9|0.508
95701036|NCT01021813|191371862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage of AEs|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any suicidal ideation/behavior AEs considered an ECI between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
95701037|NCT01021813|191371863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.8||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations AEs between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.0|-0.7|0.159
95701038|NCT01021813|191371864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-0.4||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|2.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and construct the confidence interval for the difference in the percentage of participants with any selected AEs associated with potential abuse between the Suvorexant group and Placebo group.||2.2|-3.8|0.767
95701039|NCT01021813|191371865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|-0.81||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|3.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.1|-5.1|0.567
95701040|NCT01021813|191371865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|-2.4||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||1.6|-7.3|0.185
95701041|NCT01021813|191371865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|-0.78||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|3.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||3.9|-5.6|0.680
95701042|NCT01021813|191371865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Across Nights|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|6.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with withdrawal symptoms across Nights 1, 2, and 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||6.4|-6.4|1.000
95701043|NCT01021813|191371866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|5.03||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|15.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.8|-5.8|0.365
95701044|NCT01021813|191371866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|8.72||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|19.2|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||19.2|-2.0|0.109
95701045|NCT01021813|191371866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|6.02||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||16.9|-5.1|0.287
95701046|NCT01021813|191371866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|10.82||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|21.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTST rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||21.7|-0.3|0.057
95701047|NCT01021813|191371867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 1|4.46||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|14.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 1 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||14.5|-5.7|0.386
95701048|NCT01021813|191371867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 2|5.31||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 2 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.5|-5.0|0.311
95701049|NCT01021813|191371867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage: Night 3|4.96||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Night 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-5.5|0.351
95701050|NCT01021813|191371867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage:Night 1, 2 or 3|4.58||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.3|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||The method of Miettinen and Nurminen was used to calculate the p-value and compute the confidence interval for the point difference in a pairwise comparison of the percentage of participants with sTSO rebound effects during Nights 1, 2, or 3 in the Suvorexant (DB Treatment)/Suvorexant (DB Discontinuation) group vs. the Placebo (DB Treatment)/Placebo (DB Discontinuation) group.||15.3|-6.3|0.409
95701051|NCT01021813|191371868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.4|29.0||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSTm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||29.0|16.4|<0.0001
95701052|NCT01021813|191371869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means: Month 1|-9.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-4.5||To account for multiplicity, Hochberg's procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 5% level.|Longitudinal Data Analysis|||A Longitudinal Data Analysis Model was used to test the difference in LS mean change from baseline in sTSOm for Month 1 (Average of Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4) in the Suvorexant group vs. the Placebo group.||-4.5|-14.6|0.0002
95701053|NCT00996593|191371896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|80.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||80|50|
95701054|NCT00996593|191371897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|35.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||35|10|
95701055|NCT00996593|191371898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|38.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|53.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||53|22|
95701056|NCT00996593|191371899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|41.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with complete response.|||41|14|
95701057|NCT00996593|191371904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|75.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|96.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||96|54|1.0
95701058|NCT00996593|191371904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|70.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|88.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||88|51|1.0
95701059|NCT00996593|191371905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8
95701060|NCT00996593|191371906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|31.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|54.0||With prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||54|9|1.0
95701061|NCT00996593|191371906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of responders|17.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|33.0||Without prior response|Fisher Exact||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||33|2|1.0
95701062|NCT00996593|191371907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2
95701063|NCT00996593|191371908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.9
95701064|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0507|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0339|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0059||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was reported.|||0.0059|
95701065|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0431||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0431|
95701066|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0277|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.056||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0560|
95701067|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0613|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0215||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0215|
95701068|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0309|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0371||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0371|
95701069|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0246|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|-0.0037||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||-0.0037|
95701070|NCT01033487|191371921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0315|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0294|||ONE_SIDED|80.0|0.0062||||Emax Model|||Emax model was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects. Lower (1-sided) 80% CI was reported.|||0.0062|
95701071|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0676||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0676|
95701072|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1748|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0245|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1431||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1431|
95701073|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0243|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1594||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1594|
95701074|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1528|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0237|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1222||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1222|
95701075|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0539|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0239|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0849||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0849|
95701076|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0238|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0088||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0088|
95701077|NCT01033487|191371930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0381|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0242|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0068||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0068|
95701078|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0852|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0214|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.0576||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.0576|
95701079|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1418|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0219|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1136||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1136|
95701080|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1692|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1413||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1413|
95701081|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1526|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0212|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.1252||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||0.1252|
95701082|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0674|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0211|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0946||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0946|
95701083|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0108|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.0383||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0383|
95701084|NCT01033487|191371931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|||ONE_SIDED|90.0|-0.011||||ANOVA|||Mixed effects ANOVA was used with sequence, period and baseline covariate as fixed effects, and participant within sequence as a random effect. Lower (1-sided) 90% CI was reported.|||-0.0110|
95701085|NCT00862654|191371934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||<0.01
95701086|NCT00862654|191371934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Each test was two-sided, at the 0.050 significance level.||The primary efficacy criterion was analyzed by using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistic, stratified by center (or analysis-center) after ridit transformation with the row mean difference statistics, testing the hypothesis of equality. The p-value had to be inferior to 0.05 at week 4, in the ITT/LOCF population. PP analysis was also performed to assess the robustness of the results obtained in the ITT/LOCF population.||||0.039
95701087|NCT03219567|191371935|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||OCT compared to MRI||||0.35
95701088|NCT01313208|191371970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.41|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value from Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by participant's baseline methotrexate use (yes or no).|Etanercept/Placebo|||3.41|0.99|0.055
95701089|NCT04491240|191372019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|73.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|82.91404||0.020875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.97687|132.6031|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||132.6031|13.97687|0.020875
95701090|NCT04491240|191372019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|69.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.67648||0.000953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.88502|102.235|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||102.2350|36.88502|0.000953
95701091|NCT04491240|191372019|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.85531||0.002233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.69923|81.72077|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||81.72077|24.69923|0.002233
95701092|NCT04491240|191372020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|331.52|STANDARD_DEVIATION|315.823||0.008948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.5938|557.4462|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||557.4462|105.5938|0.008948
95701093|NCT04491240|191372020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|366.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|414.9726||0.020921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.77651|663.4835|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||663.4835|69.77651|0.020921
95701094|NCT04491240|191372020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|239.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|204.0934||0.004873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.20037|385.1996|||t-test, 2 sided|||The study results were statistically processed using STATA version 9.0, Statistica for Windows version 6.0. Changes from the beginning of inhalation and after were compared using the T-test for depended group criterion, data between the main group and the control group were compared using the non-parametric method, box-plot. The data in the table presented as a Mean with full range (min-max). The difference calculated as Mean difference with 95% confidence interval and Standard Deviation (SD)||385.1996|93.20037|0.004873
95701095|NCT03549117|191372029|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|0.15||||0.8142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.45|-1.14|0.8142
95701096|NCT03549117|191372029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.84||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||0.84|-2.23|0.3690
95701097|NCT03549117|191372029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.25||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline; between treatment 95% CI.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||1.25|-1.61|0.7995
95701098|NCT03549117|191372029|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.15||||0.7285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.98||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.98|-0.69|0.7285
95918024|NCT01474512|191795299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
95701099|NCT03549117|191372030|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.18||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.17||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||1.17|-1.52|0.7961
95701100|NCT03549117|191372030|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.86||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|0.68||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.68|-2.41|0.2710
95701101|NCT03549117|191372030|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.07||||0.9236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||1.45|-1.60|0.9236
95701102|NCT03549117|191372030|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.75||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.75|-0.87|0.8756
95701103|NCT03549117|191372031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02||||0.9314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.42||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.42|-0.38|0.9314
95701104|NCT03549117|191372031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.05||||0.8005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.45|0.8005
95701105|NCT03549117|191372031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.01||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.38|0.9613
95701106|NCT03549117|191372031|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.14||||0.4966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.26||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.26|-0.54|0.4966
95701107|NCT03549117|191372032|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.03||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.45|-0.39|0.8775
95701108|NCT03549117|191372032|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.7747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.35|-0.47|0.7747
95701109|NCT03549117|191372032|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.04||||0.8535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.47||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.47|-0.39|0.8535
95701110|NCT03549117|191372032|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.06||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.35||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model, baseline used as a covariate and site as a factor in the model.|Difference between treatments of LS mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.35|-0.47|0.7720
95701111|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9258|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.9258
95701112|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2368|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.2368
95701113|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4432|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4432
95701114|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9856|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.9856
95701115|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7854|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test.||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.7854
95701116|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4141|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4141
95701117|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3028|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.3028
95701118|NCT03549117|191372033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3955|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3955
95701119|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3826|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.3826
95701120|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6251|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.6251
95701121|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2381|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2381
95701122|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4245|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4245
95701123|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8213|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.8213
95701124|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1823|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1823
95701125|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7744|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.7744
95701126|NCT03549117|191372034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5811|||||||Chi-squared|P-value are based on chi-square test||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.5811
95701127|NCT00605072|191372107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0||||p-value for between group comparison (group\*visit)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline AGE and Mini-Mental-State-Examination||||||0.008
95701128|NCT00605072|191372108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|adjusted for age||||||0.74
95701129|NCT00605072|191372109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for age at baseline||||||0.81
95701130|NCT00605072|191372110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.87
95701131|NCT00605072|191372111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.79
95701132|NCT05064332|191372112|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|101.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|110.61||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||110.61|93.01|
95701133|NCT05064332|191372113|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|108.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.85|119.11||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed AUClast was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||119.11|98.85|
95701134|NCT05064332|191372114|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|95.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.44|107.04||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||107.04|84.44|
95701135|NCT05064332|191372115|OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geometric Means|117.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.82|136.73||||||OC alone as the Reference and co-administration of PF-06650833 and OC as the Test. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with treatment as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% CIs were obtained from the model and were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.||136.73|101.82|
95701136|NCT00861380|191372120|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN3+1 vs Control). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|100.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|82.8|100.0||P-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 =(vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||100|82.8|<0.0001
95701137|NCT00861380|191372121|SUPERIORITY|VE (defined as 1 minus Relative Risk (RR)) was calculated by comparing numbers of culture-confirmed IPD. The number of subjects with IPD in each cluster was compared between groups (10PN2+1vsControl). This comparison was done using a negative binomial log-linear model with correction for dispersion group- and cluster- related effect.|VE (1-RR)|91.8|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.3|99.6||p-value was calculated using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata, without taking into account the multiplicity of the endpoints.|Regression, Linear|||Analysis aimed at providing an estimate of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at preventing culture-confirmed IPD by comparing PYARs between groups taking into account the following parameters: T, n, n+ (number of clusters with at least one event culture-confirmed ID), and n/T. VE of the 10Pn vaccine in preventing culture-confirmed IPD due to the 10 vaccine serotypes was demonstrated if the 2-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0 = (vaccine-type \[VT\] IPD VE = 0%) was lower than (\<) 5%.||99.6|58.3|= 0.0009
95727658|NCT01952574|191424895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.18|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 99 in the erenumab 21 mg group)||2.18|0.71|0.44
95701138|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|14.657|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.229|16.197|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.197|13.229|
95701139|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|13.582|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.691|15.693|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.693|11.691|
95701140|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|8.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.376|9.639|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.639|7.376|
95701141|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|7.603|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.206|9.221|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.221|6.206|
95701142|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|1.637|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.185|2.205|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.205|1.185|
95701143|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|1.845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|2.724|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.724|1.194|
95701144|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as . 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 2626735.|PYAR|3.997|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.269|4.839|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.839|3.269|
95918025|NCT01474512|191795299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The LS Mean and p-values were calculated using an ANCOVA model and included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, and baseline SF-36 value in the model.|ANCOVA|P-value is for MCS.||||||<0.001
95701145|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons = 1354702.|PYAR|3.322|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.423|4.445|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||4.445|2.423|
95701146|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|14.487|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.071|16.015|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||16.015|13.071|
95701147|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|13.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.841|15.857|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.857|11.841|
95701148|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|7.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.782|8.955|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||8.955|6.782|
95701149|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|7.789|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.377|9.42|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.420|6.377|
95701150|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|2.313|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.972|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.972|1.770|
95701151|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|1.984|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.307|2.886|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.886|1.307|
95918026|NCT01474512|191795300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95701152|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|4.172|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.429|5.028|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.028|3.429|
95701153|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model without strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|3.968|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.981|5.177|||Negative Binomial model without strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.177|2.981|
95701154|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|14.017|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.628|15.516|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||15.516|12.628|
95701155|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|15.066|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.079|17.269|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (any serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||17.269|13.079|
95701156|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.916|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.026|6.917|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||6.917|5.026|
95701157|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|8.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.077|10.255|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine serotype), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.255|7.077|
95701158|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|2.977|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.357|3.71|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||3.710|2.357|
95918027|NCT01474512|191795300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||LS mean and P-value were calculated using MMRM with baseline score as a covariate, treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy, baseline weight category, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95701159|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a classical log linear Poisson regression with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|2.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.361|2.96|||Regression, Linear|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||2.960|1.361|
95701160|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|5.011|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.196|5.939|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.939|4.196|
95701161|NCT00861380|191372125|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a culture confirmed IPD divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 100000), as well as the 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|4.315|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.285|5.566|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Culture-confirmed IPD (non-vaccine \& non-vaccine related), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||5.566|3.285|
95701162|NCT00861380|191372133|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2626735.|PYAR|9.218|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.103|9.335|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.335|9.103|
95701163|NCT00861380|191372133|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1354702.|PYAR|9.212|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.052|9.375|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||9.375|9.052|
95701164|NCT00861380|191372133|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2636783.|PYAR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.378|10.624|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.624|10.378|
95701165|NCT00861380|191372133|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1360966.|PYAR|10.429|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.259|10.601|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.601|10.259|
95918028|NCT01474512|191795301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95701166|NCT00861380|191372133|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =2654010.|PYAR|10.118|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.997|10.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.239|9.997|
95701167|NCT00861380|191372133|OTHER|In 5 to 99+ Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with a Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =1367343.|PYAR|9.921|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.755|10.088|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Hospital-diagnosed Pneumonia, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||10.088|9.755|
95701168|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|22.624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.02|23.24|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.240|22.020|
95701169|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|22.747|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.912|23.606|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||23.606|21.912|
95701170|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|24.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.852|25.166|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||25.166|23.852|
95701171|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|26.236|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.308|27.189|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.189|25.308|
95701172|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|27.502|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.81|28.207|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||28.207|26.810|
95855274|NCT00554216|191670073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.706|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||5.63|2.80|<0.0001
95701173|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|26.1||||||95.0|25.171|27.055|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||27.055|25.171|
95701174|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|28.661|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.958|29.377|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||29.377|27.958|
95701175|NCT00861380|191372141|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Tympanostomy Tube Placement divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|29.835|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.843|30.85|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Tympanostomy Tube Placements, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||30.850|28.843|
95701176|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|816.813|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|815.226|818.392|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||818.392|815.226|
95701177|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|841.176|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|839.098|843.239|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||843.239|839.098|
95701178|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =229978.|PYAR|702.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|700.372|704.114|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for Acute Otitis Media (AOM)/Respiratory Tract Infections (RTI), number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||704.114|700.372|
95701179|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2009, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =120190.|PYAR|720.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|718.355|723.435|||negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||723.435|718.355|
95918029|NCT01474512|191795301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI50.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95701180|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|929.844|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|928.755|930.923|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.923|928.755|
95701181|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|953.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|951.77|954.257|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||954.257|951.770|
95701182|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =214181.|PYAR|804.703|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|803.017|806.38|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.380|803.017|
95701183|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2010, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =112060.|PYAR|818.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|816.391|820.912|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||820.912|816.391|
95701184|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|916.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|914.891|917.256|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||917.256|914.891|
95701185|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|928.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|927.038|930.076|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||930.076|927.038|
95701186|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =211914.|PYAR|796.894||||||95.0|795.175|798.605|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||798.605|795.175|
95918030|NCT01474512|191795301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95701187|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2011, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111071.|PYAR|803.918|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|801.571|806.25|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||806.250|801.571|
95701188|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|865.679|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|864.227|867.121|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||867.121|864.227|
95701189|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|871.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|869.771|873.707|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||873.707|869.771|
95701190|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received 10Pn-PD-DiT vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =213913.|PYAR|753.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|751.591|755.249|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any 10PN-PD-DIT vaccine - age stratum schedules).||755.249|751.591|
95701191|NCT00861380|191372145|OTHER|In 0 to 7 Years Old Population, in Year 2012, for Non-vaccinated persons living in study cluster areas, in which study participants received control vaccine, PYAR was calculated (= number of subjects reported with recommended Antimicrobial Prescriptions divided by sum of follow-up period expressed in years (per 1000), as well as 95% CI (2-sided profile log-likelihood ratio 95% CI using a Negative Binomial regression model with strata). Total number of non-vaccinated persons =111414.|PYAR|755.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|753.008|758.064|||Negative Binomial model with strata|Analysis performed on non-vaccinated persons, not enrolled in the study, but living in cluster areas in which study participants received vaccine.||For indirect effectiveness analysis at preventing Antimicrobial Prescriptions recommended for AOM/RTI, number of events in the unvaccinated cohort, which occurred around 6 months or more after study start was compared with treated group numbers (applicable to any control (HAV or HBV) vaccine - age stratum schedules).||758.064|753.008|
95701192|NCT00637377|191372157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.46|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q4).||2.46|-4.86|
95701193|NCT00637377|191372157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|1.71|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4).||1.71|-5.40|
95727659|NCT01952574|191424895|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.63|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||The generalized linear mixed model includes data for all participants in the efficacy analysis set with at least one change from baseline value in monthly migraine days (152 participants in the placebo group and 107 in the erenumab 7 mg group)||1.63|0.53|0.80
95701194|NCT00637377|191372157|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set to 10. The power is 90 % according to the sample size estimation of the study protocol.|Risk Difference (RD)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|2.55|||||The difference is calculated as Ranibizumab minus Aflibercept. A negative value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group. As adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses is used with alpha = 0.05.|null hypothesis: pi ≤ pc-delta where pi is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Aflibercept 2mg Q8, pc is the probability that a participant maintained vision at week 52 under Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 and delta is the non-inferiority margin. The null hypothesis is tested calculating a two-sided 95 % confidence using normal approximation of the difference of percentages of participants maintaining vision at week 52 (Ranibizumab 0.5mg Q4 minus Aflibercept 2mg Q8).||2.55|-4.81|
95701195|NCT00637377|191372158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.9484||||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1009|0.204||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.2040|-4.1009|0.076
95701196|NCT00637377|191372158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.062||||0.9555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2398|2.1158||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||2.1158|-2.2398|0.9555
95701197|NCT00637377|191372158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.9014||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0615|1.2587||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline ETDRS letter score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2587|-3.0615|0.4131
95701198|NCT00637377|191372159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.57||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|2.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||2.88|-12.02|0.229
95701199|NCT00637377|191372159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.78||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.91|8.46||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||8.46|-6.91|0.843
95701200|NCT00637377|191372159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.65||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|4.88||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors the Aflibercept 2mg Q8 group|The null hypothesis is that the two proportions are equal.||4.88|-10.18|0.490
95701201|NCT00637377|191372160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-2.7885||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9012|-0.6757||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.6757|-4.9012|0.0097
95701202|NCT00637377|191372160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.932||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0658|1.2019||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||1.2019|-3.0658|0.3917
95701203|NCT00637377|191372160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.947||||0.0717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0659|0.1718||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A positive value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline NEI VFQ-25 total score as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.1718|-4.0659|0.0717
95701204|NCT00637377|191372161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-1.18||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.979|-0.382||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||-0.382|-1.979|0.0038
95727660|NCT01952574|191424896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.12|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.12|-0.92|0.13
95701205|NCT00637377|191372161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|0.17||||0.6784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.972||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 0.5mg Q4.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.972|-0.632|0.6784
95701206|NCT00637377|191372161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Differences in Least Squares means|-0.733||||0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.534|0.068||as adjustment of multiple comparisons a conditional sequence of statistical hypotheses (a-priori ordered hypotheses) is used with alpha = 0.05.|ANCOVA||The difference is calculated as Aflibercept minus Ranibizumab. A negative value favors Aflibercept 2mg Q8.|The pairwise comparison is performed as contrast statement in the analysis of covariance model with treatment group as fixed factor (all 4 treatment groups) and the baseline CNV area as covariate. The null hypothesis is that both mean changes are equal.||0.068|-1.534|0.0727
95701207|NCT01269047|191372166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-0.2|||ANOVA|||||-0.2|-4.2|0.04
95701208|NCT01269047|191372166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.7||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-1.3|||ANOVA|||||-1.3|-5.8|0.008
95701209|NCT01269047|191372166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.0|||ANOVA|||||-2.0|-6.4|0.003
95701210|NCT01269047|191372166|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.98|||ANOVA|||||0.98|-2.3|0.37
95701211|NCT01269047|191372167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.81|-0.21|0.2
95701212|NCT01269047|191372167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.50|-0.25|0.48
95701213|NCT01269047|191372167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.6||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.57|-0.12|0.18
95701214|NCT01269047|191372167|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.61|-0.62|1.0
95701215|NCT01293084|191372169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2||||0.62|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95701216|NCT01293084|191372170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95701217|NCT00595868|191372226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.9|||Chi-squared|||||2.9|1.0|0.06
95701218|NCT00595868|191372227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.2|||Chi-squared|||||5.2|0.9|0.10
95701219|NCT02688153|191372228|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.366|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3660
95701220|NCT02688153|191372229|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8377
95701221|NCT00107172|191372255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||Log Rank|Competing risk P-value = 0.91.||The competing risk analysis accounting for death/regional and distant recurrence as competing events was performed.||1.98|0.51|0.98
95701222|NCT00107172|191372256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.07||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.61|||Log Rank|||||1.61|0.71|0.75
95701223|NCT00107172|191372261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.37
95701224|NCT00107172|191372261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.25
95701225|NCT00107172|191372262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 30 between arms.||||0.35
95701226|NCT00107172|191372262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Compare the grade 3+ respiratory adverse events incidence reported from day 0 to 90 between arms.||||0.31
95701227|NCT00107172|191372265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.03
95701228|NCT00107172|191372265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.18
95701229|NCT00107172|191372266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR arm.||||0.38
95701230|NCT00107172|191372266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||Compare the percentage change from baseline to 3-month value for SR + BX arm.||||0.16
95701231|NCT04268303|191372267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95701232|NCT04268303|191372267|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95701233|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701234|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 90 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701235|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701236|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 60 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701237|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701238|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 45 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701239|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||<0.0001
95701240|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0075|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 30 minutes post-dose||||0.0075
95701241|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.0032
95701242|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4097|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 20 minutes post-dose||||0.4097
95701243|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0457|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||180 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.0457
95701244|NCT04268303|191372268|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.972|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||120 Micrograms versus placebo; 10 minutes post-dose||||0.9720
95701245|NCT02061748|191372291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0111|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0111
95701246|NCT02061748|191372292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0861|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0861
95701247|NCT02061748|191372293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0011|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0011
95701248|NCT02061748|191372294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0019
95701249|NCT02061748|191372295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0808|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0808
95701250|NCT02061748|191372296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3502|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3502
95701251|NCT02061748|191372297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0068
95701252|NCT02061748|191372298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0271|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0271
95701253|NCT02061748|191372299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0749|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0749
95701254|NCT02061748|191372300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0072|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0072
95701255|NCT02061748|191372301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0055
95701256|NCT02061748|191372302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0284|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0284
95701257|NCT02061748|191372303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.907
95701258|NCT02061748|191372304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8208|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8208
95701259|NCT02061748|191372305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1534|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.1534
95701260|NCT02061748|191372306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3055|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.3055
95701261|NCT02061748|191372307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9573|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.9573
95701262|NCT02061748|191372308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8465|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8465
95701263|NCT02061748|191372309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0006
95701264|NCT02061748|191372310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||<0.0001
95701265|NCT02061748|191372311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0185|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0185
95701266|NCT02061748|191372312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0138|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0138
95701267|NCT02061748|191372313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.261|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.261
95701268|NCT02061748|191372314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4407|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.4407
95701269|NCT02061748|191372315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2665|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.2665
95701270|NCT02061748|191372316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8017|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.8017
95701271|NCT02061748|191372317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||<0.0001
95701272|NCT02061748|191372318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2083|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2083
95701273|NCT02061748|191372319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0023|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0023
95701274|NCT02061748|191372320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5331|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.5331
95701275|NCT02061748|191372321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0003
95701276|NCT02061748|191372322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2646|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.2646
95701277|NCT02061748|191372323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||Study outcomes for the primary analysis were identified using either the admitting diagnoses or on any of the service lines associated with an inpatient hospitalization.||||0.0004
95701278|NCT02061748|191372324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Chi-squared|||The post-hoc analysis defined the principal diagnosis as the primary diagnosis on the first inpatient hospital claim with a room and board charge.||||0.0004
95701279|NCT05742841|191372325|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701280|NCT03706040|191372330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.0||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|27.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||27.7|-1.7|0.084
95701281|NCT03706040|191372330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.0||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.6|-4.6|0.179
95701282|NCT03706040|191372331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|8.7||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|20.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||20.0|-2.5|0.129
95701283|NCT03706040|191372331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|0.0||||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||9.4|-9.4|0.994
95701284|NCT03706040|191372332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|13.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|22.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||22.1|5.4|0.001
95701285|NCT03706040|191372332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|15.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|24.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.0|6.6|<0.001
95701286|NCT03706040|191372333|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-10.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.073||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.25|11.61|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.61|-32.25|0.353
95701287|NCT03706040|191372333|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.305||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|5.53|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.53|-39.24|0.139
95701288|NCT03706040|191372336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.9||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|31.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.4|-5.6|0.171
95701289|NCT03706040|191372336|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.7||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|24.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.5|-13.1|0.552
95701290|NCT03706040|191372338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|11.6||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|21.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.6|1.7|0.022
95701291|NCT03706040|191372338|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.8||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||14.4|-2.9|0.192
95701292|NCT03706040|191372341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.506||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.15|2.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.68|-15.15|0.169
95701293|NCT03706040|191372341|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.589||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|3.22|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.22|-14.94|0.204
95701294|NCT03706040|191372343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|6.7||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|23.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.1|-9.7|0.422
95701295|NCT03706040|191372343|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-5.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|10.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||10.0|-20.3|0.505
95701296|NCT03706040|191372345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|10.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||17.3|3.0|0.005
95701297|NCT03706040|191372345|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|2.9||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||6.8|-1.1|0.151
95701298|NCT03706040|191372347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.4|0.035
95701299|NCT03706040|191372347|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|1.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||4.4|-1.4|0.311
95701300|NCT03706040|191372349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-0.3||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|11.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.5|-12.0|0.965
95701301|NCT03706040|191372349|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|-3.1||||0.583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|8.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||8.1|-14.3|0.583
95701302|NCT03706040|191372353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|5.9||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|24.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.9|-13.0|0.539
95701303|NCT03706040|191372353|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference|12.2||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|31.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Baseline disease severity (moderate \[vIGA-AD 3\] versus severe \[vIGA-AD 4\]).|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.5|-7.0|0.213
95701304|NCT03706040|191372355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|3.6|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.6|-3.6|0.988
95701305|NCT03706040|191372355|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|2.7|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||2.7|-4.7|0.594
95701306|NCT03706040|191372359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.318|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6137||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.531|-0.105|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.105|-2.531|0.033
95701307|NCT03706040|191372359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.648|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.626||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.885|-0.411|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis with treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, vIGA-AD categories (moderate vs severe) and Baseline value in the model.|Between Group Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.411|-2.885|0.009
95701308|NCT00439725|191372363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3858|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.393||1st test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing).||0.393|0.087|< 0.0001
95701309|NCT00439725|191372364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.383||2nd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the 1st test in hierarchy was significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.383|0.085|< 0.0001
95701310|NCT00439725|191372365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3659|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.405||3rd test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.405|0.096|< 0.0001
95701311|NCT00439725|191372366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3274|<|0.0001||95.0|0.146|0.528||4th test in a hierarchy, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant. If the previous tests in hierarchy were significant|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing).||0.528|0.146|< 0.0001
95701312|NCT00439725|191372369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1121||||||No adjustment for multiple comparison.|Log Rank|||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||||0.1121
95701313|NCT00439725|191372370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4131|<|0.0001||95.0|2.307|11.652||No adjustment for multiple comparison, a p-value of less than 0.05 would be considered significant.|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intended treatment duration, adjusted for pre-treatment done for treatment-emergent (time window: 2 days)||The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (two-sided testing), comparison was done for the treatment emergent (within two days after end of treatment) bleeding events.||11.652|2.307|< 0.0001
95701314|NCT04914819|191372455|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|10.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Change in weight among participants who completed final assessment||10.8|0.04|0.048
95701315|NCT04914819|191372456|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3
95701316|NCT04914819|191372457|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.331
95701317|NCT04914819|191372458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.734|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.734
95701318|NCT03943446|191372470|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Difference in ER Rate|-0.1|||=|0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.23|||Fisher Exact|||||0.23|-0.44|=0.590
95701319|NCT03943446|191372470|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in ERR|-0.01|||=|1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.31|||Fisher Exact|||||0.31|-0.34|=1.000
95701320|NCT03170258|191372473|OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|One-sample 2-sided t-test against a mean of 0 used to evaluate the main effect of VTA activation during neurofeedback.||||||0.0015
95701321|NCT03170258|191372474|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|One-sample t-test against 0 for the ratio of Beta to Theta power.||||||>0.10
95701322|NCT01094808|191372521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|33.391|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.106||0.14||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.14
95701323|NCT01094808|191372522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||mean value for 200 mg Pregabalin|35.301|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.295||0.12||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; alpha level of 0.05 used|ANCOVA||A confidence interval was not calculated|ANCOVA for overall treatment effects||||0.12
95701324|NCT03051217|191372550|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|65.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.22|81.9|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||81.90|48.22|
95701325|NCT03051217|191372550|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|79.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.1|93.17|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||93.17|65.10|
95701326|NCT03051217|191372550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.695|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|5.129|195.877||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||195.877|5.129|<0.0001
95701327|NCT03051217|191372550|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|79.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.739|533.168||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||533.168|11.739|<0.0001
95701328|NCT03051217|191372551|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|52.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.95|75.39|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||75.39|29.95|
95701329|NCT03051217|191372551|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|66.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.34|90.15|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||90.15|43.34|
95701330|NCT03051217|191372551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.193|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.113|238.619||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||238.619|6.113|<0.0001
95701331|NCT03051217|191372551|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|69.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|11.138|434.659||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||434.659|11.138|<0.0001
95701332|NCT03051217|191372552|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|53.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.67|76.47|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||76.47|30.67|
95701333|NCT03051217|191372552|SUPERIORITY||Estimated difference in responder rate|75.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.95|99.04|||Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.|The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||99.04|51.95|
95701334|NCT03051217|191372552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|38.696|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.047|247.634||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||247.634|6.047|<0.0001
95701335|NCT03051217|191372552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|100.459|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.54|649.437||The p-value for the primary analysis was evaluated at a 2-sided significance level of 0.025 for each CZP dose vs PBO.|Regression, Logistic|If there is a group without a responder, in this case the biological exposure will be excluded from the model, an exact logistic regression applied.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||649.437|15.540|<0.0001
95701336|NCT03051217|191372553|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.1|-3.844||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.844|-9.100|<0.0001
95701337|NCT03051217|191372553|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-6.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.099|-3.91||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline DLQI score with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline DLQI score as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.910|-9.099|<0.0001
95701338|NCT03051217|191372554|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-3.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.265|-2.002||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-2.002|-4.265|<0.0001
95701339|NCT03051217|191372554|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Mean Treatment Difference|-4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.295|-3.069||p-value obtained for each treatment group comparison tested at a significance level of 0.025 in the fixed sequence testing procedure.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model of change from Baseline Itch NRS with treatment group and prior biologic exposure as factors and Baseline Itch NRS as a covariate.||The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using a fixed-sequence testing procedure to account for multiplicity.||-3.069|-5.295|<0.0001
95701340|NCT02665468|191372586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95701341|NCT03037307|191372600|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|3.63||Treatment Comparison for study validity.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.63|1.89|<.0001
95701342|NCT03037307|191372601|OTHER||Least Square (LS) mean difference|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA: factors for participant (random effect); period \& treatment, participant-level \& period-level pre-treatment baseline bite force as covariates|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favours the first named treatment.|||3.00|1.25|<.0001
95701343|NCT01484561|191372611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.98|||ANCOVA||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold Change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.86|
95701344|NCT01484561|191372612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.11|0.97|
95701345|NCT01484561|191372613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.16|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic mGFR from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.16|1.02|
95701346|NCT01484561|191372614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|0.97|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.97|0.91|
95701347|NCT01484561|191372615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.96|
95701348|NCT01484561|191372616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (MDRD) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.00|
95701349|NCT01484561|191372617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|0.98|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||0.98|0.92|
95701350|NCT01484561|191372618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.02|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.02|0.97|
95701351|NCT01484561|191372619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.07|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic eGFR (Cockcroft-Gault) from Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic Period 2 baseline/end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.07|1.01|
95727661|NCT01952574|191424896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.54|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.54|-0.51|0.95
95701352|NCT01484561|191372620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.08|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.08|1.02|
95701353|NCT01484561|191372621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.04|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from baseline as dependent variable, treatment and logarithmic baseline as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.04|0.98|
95701354|NCT01484561|191372622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Adjusted Geo Mean-Fold Change|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.0|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with change in logarithmic creatinine from Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as dependent variable, treatment and Period 2 baseline/the end of Period 1 as covariate.|Ratio of adjusted geometric mean-fold change (CP-690,550-placebo vs. placebo-placebo)||1.00|0.94|
95701355|NCT01484561|191372623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.6|48.73||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 1||48.73|23.60|<0.001
95701356|NCT01484561|191372623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.14||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.56|29.34||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR20 Response at End of Period 2||29.34|2.56|0.050
95701357|NCT01484561|191372624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.24|30.8||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 1||30.80|11.24|<0.001
95701358|NCT01484561|191372624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.13||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.92|27.08||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR50 Response at End of Period 2||27.08|6.92|0.006
95701359|NCT01484561|191372625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|12.06|25.05||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 1||25.05|12.06|<0.001
95701360|NCT01484561|191372625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|13.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Normal approximation for proportions|||Between-group difference in ACR70 Response at End of Period 2||13.12|1.51|0.038
95701361|NCT01484561|191372626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.53|-0.78||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.78|-1.53|<0.001
95701362|NCT01484561|191372627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.028|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.83|0.028
95701363|NCT01484561|191372628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|0.32|0.002
95701364|NCT01484561|191372629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|-0.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.84|-1.67|<0.001
95701365|NCT01484561|191372630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|-0.12||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.12|-0.88|0.031
95701366|NCT01484561|191372631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.15|0.36|0.002
95701367|NCT01484561|191372632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.44|-0.74||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.74|-7.44|0.045
95701368|NCT01484561|191372633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.936|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|3.06||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.06|-2.78|0.936
95701369|NCT01484561|191372634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|7.42||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||7.42|1.04|0.030
95701370|NCT01484561|191372635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.96|-0.55||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.55|-3.96|0.030
95701371|NCT01484561|191372636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.472|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.64|1.04||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||1.04|-2.64|0.472
95701372|NCT01484561|191372637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.158|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|3.15||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||3.15|-0.24|0.158
95701373|NCT01484561|191372638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.87|-7.59||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.59|-19.87|<0.001
95701374|NCT01484561|191372639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.04||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.58|-2.21||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-2.21|-15.58|0.029
95701375|NCT01484561|191372640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|9.77||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||9.77|-0.10|0.107
95701376|NCT01484561|191372641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.96|-7.84||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.84|-23.96|0.001
95701377|NCT01484561|191372642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.95||0.251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.9|2.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.50|-13.90|0.251
95701378|NCT01484561|191372643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.023|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.87|17.52||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.52|2.87|0.023
95701379|NCT01484561|191372644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.58|-8.67||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-8.67|-21.58|<0.001
95701380|NCT01484561|191372645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77||0.616|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|5.5||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||5.50|-10.30|0.616
95701381|NCT01484561|191372646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.17||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.82|19.62||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||19.62|5.82|0.003
95701382|NCT01484561|191372647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.78|-7.82||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-7.82|-22.78|<0.001
95701383|NCT01484561|191372648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.83||0.247|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.62|2.38||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||2.38|-13.62|0.247
95701384|NCT01484561|191372649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.67||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.95|17.41||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||17.41|1.95|0.040
95701385|NCT01484561|191372650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.56|-0.23||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.23|-0.56|<0.001
95701386|NCT01484561|191372651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|-0.03||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||-0.03|-0.31|0.053
95701387|NCT01484561|191372652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|0.35||Two-sided test at 5% significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data was used with actual value as dependent variable, treatment group, visit (baseline, end of Period 1, end of Period 2), treatment group by visit interaction as fixed effect, participant as random effect|||0.35|0.10|0.003
95701388|NCT00968708|191372653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.962||||0.315|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.16|||Cox proportional hazards|||Statistical analyses of the primary MACE composite endpoint was based on sequences of 1-sided repeated confidence intervals (CIs) to assess non-inferiority or statistical superiority with respect to the null hypotheses. Each sequence of repeated CIs was constructed using critical values from a 1-sided stopping boundary for a group sequential design (GSD), to preserve an overall false-rejection rate of 2.5%. Each sequence of 1-sided repeated CIs had a simultaneous coverage probability of 97.5%.||1.160||0.315
95701389|NCT00968708|191372653|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If after accrual of 550 participants with MACE events, the upper bound of a 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio (alogliptin to placebo) was \<1.0, superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the primary MACE composite would be concluded. If the upper bound of the 1-sided repeated CI for the hazard ratio of the primary MACE composite was \<1.3 but ≥1.0 then non-inferiority but not superiority of alogliptin to placebo was to be concluded.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.332|ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.169||Stratified by endpoint renal function (defined as the last observed postbaseline renal function (normal renal function/mild renal impairment vs moderate/severe renal impairment including end-stage renal disease)) and geographic region.|Cox proportional hazards|||Stratified by endpoint renal function and geographic region||1.169||0.332
95701390|NCT00968708|191372654|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper bound of the confidence interval for the primary MACE composite was \<1.0, then statistical superiority of alogliptin to placebo for the secondary MACE composite would be demonstrated.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.952|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||1.135||||||||1.135||
95701391|NCT00305604|191372669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81|<|0.001||95.0|-0.94|-0.47|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-0.47|-0.94|<0.001
95701392|NCT00305604|191372670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|45.0|<|0.001||95.0|-40.0|-13.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-13.5|-40.0|<0.001
95701393|NCT00305604|191372671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-61.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|63.0|<|0.001||95.0|-82.1|-40.0|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-40.0|-82.1|<0.001
95701394|NCT00305604|191372672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.2|<|0.001||95.0|-32.6|-14.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment; baseline; prior anti-hyperglycemic therapy (yes/no); age (\< 75/\>= 75 yr); baseline creatinine clearance (\< 50/\>= 50 mL/min)||||-14.4|-32.6|<0.001
95701395|NCT03954444|191372689|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval, should be within -20% to +20%|Mean Difference (Net)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|8.0||||||||8.0|-2.6|
95701396|NCT03954444|191372689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.04
95701397|NCT03954444|191372689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1126|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1126
95701398|NCT05109702|191372690|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.214|0.157|||MMRM|||The Least Square (LS) means, LS mean difference, Standard Errors (SEs), two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.157|-0.214|0.764
95701399|NCT05109702|191372691|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.483|10.155|||MMRM|||The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.155|-1.483|0.144
95701400|NCT05109702|191372692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.363|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.363|-0.005|0.056
95727662|NCT01952574|191424896|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.87|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|Generalized linear mixed model including treatment, visit, treatment by visit, the stratification factor region, and baseline value as covariates.||||0.87|-0.14|0.16
95727663|NCT01945138|191424903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95701401|NCT05109702|191372692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.359|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.359|-0.010|0.064
95701402|NCT05109702|191372692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.095||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.279|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.279|-0.093|0.328
95701403|NCT05109702|191372692|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.096||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.208|0.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.168|-0.208|0.837
95701404|NCT05109702|191372693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.123|0.686
95701405|NCT05109702|191372693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.123|0.188|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.188|-0.123|0.680
95701406|NCT05109702|191372693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.207|-0.107|0.529
95701407|NCT05109702|191372693|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.185|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.185|-0.132|0.745
95701408|NCT05109702|191372694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.192|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.192|-0.141|0.765
95701409|NCT05109702|191372694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.002|0.331|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.331|-0.002|0.053
95701410|NCT05109702|191372694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.086||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.219|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.219|-0.117|0.552
95701411|NCT05109702|191372694|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.216|0.124|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.124|-0.216|0.593
95701412|NCT05109702|191372695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.183|0.158|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.158|-0.183|0.884
95701413|NCT05109702|191372695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.233|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.233|-0.109|0.474
95727664|NCT01945138|191424904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.115
95727665|NCT01945138|191424905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.193|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.193
95701414|NCT05109702|191372695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.285|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.285|-0.060|0.202
95701415|NCT05109702|191372695|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.047|0.396|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.396|0.047|0.013
95701416|NCT05109702|191372696|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.131|0.224|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.224|-0.131|0.604
95701417|NCT05109702|191372696|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.119|0.236|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.236|-0.119|0.519
95701418|NCT05109702|191372696|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.275|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.275|-0.085|0.299
95701419|NCT05109702|191372696|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.324|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.324|-0.039|0.124
95701420|NCT05109702|191372697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.196|0.647|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.647|-0.196|0.293
95701421|NCT05109702|191372697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.215||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|0.783|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.783|-0.062|0.094
95701422|NCT05109702|191372697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.608|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.608|-0.245|0.404
95701423|NCT05109702|191372697|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|0.377|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.377|-0.485|0.806
95701424|NCT05109702|191372698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.273|0.343|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.343|-0.273|0.824
95701425|NCT05109702|191372698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.186|0.431|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.431|-0.186|0.437
95701426|NCT05109702|191372698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.159||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.519|-0.105|0.193
95727666|NCT01945138|191424906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.848
95727667|NCT01945138|191424907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.074
95701427|NCT05109702|191372698|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.048|0.679|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.679|0.048|0.024
95701428|NCT05109702|191372699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.907|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.907|-0.386|0.430
95701429|NCT05109702|191372699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|1.132|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.132|-0.164|0.143
95701430|NCT05109702|191372699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.333||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.267|1.042|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.042|-0.267|0.245
95701431|NCT05109702|191372699|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.337||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.352|0.97|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.970|-0.352|0.359
95701432|NCT05109702|191372700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.292|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.292|0.030|0.016
95701433|NCT05109702|191372700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.242|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.242|-0.021|0.099
95701434|NCT05109702|191372700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.179|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.179|-0.086|0.493
95701435|NCT05109702|191372700|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.135|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.135|-0.133|0.987
95701436|NCT05109702|191372701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.173|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.173|-0.109|0.655
95701437|NCT05109702|191372701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072||0.826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.157|0.125|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.125|-0.157|0.826
95701438|NCT05109702|191372701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|0.13|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.130|-0.155|0.861
95701439|NCT05109702|191372701|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.073||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.101|0.187|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.187|-0.101|0.556
95727668|NCT01945138|191424908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.38
95727669|NCT01945138|191424909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.461|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.461
95701440|NCT05109702|191372702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|0.226|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.226|-0.116|0.527
95701441|NCT05109702|191372702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.087||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.418|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.418|0.077|0.005
95701442|NCT05109702|191372702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.088||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.164|0.181|||MMRM|||Wek 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.181|-0.164|0.920
95701443|NCT05109702|191372702|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.269|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.269|-0.080|0.286
95701444|NCT05109702|191372703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.369|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.369|-0.015|0.071
95701445|NCT05109702|191372703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.107|0.278|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.278|-0.107|0.384
95701446|NCT05109702|191372703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.109|0.28|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.280|-0.109|0.391
95701447|NCT05109702|191372703|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.171|0.222|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.222|-0.171|0.802
95701448|NCT05109702|191372704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.206|0.178|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.178|-0.206|0.884
95701449|NCT05109702|191372704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.098||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.091|0.293|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.293|-0.091|0.303
95701450|NCT05109702|191372704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.253|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.253|-0.135|0.554
95701451|NCT05109702|191372704|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|0.391|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.391|-0.001|0.051
95701452|NCT05109702|191372705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.591|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.591|-0.077|0.131
95727670|NCT01945138|191424910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.205
95727671|NCT01945138|191424911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.157
95701453|NCT05109702|191372705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.685|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.685|0.016|0.040
95701454|NCT05109702|191372705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.389|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.389|-0.287|0.767
95701455|NCT05109702|191372705|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.198|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.198|0.410
95701456|NCT05109702|191372706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.501|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.501|-0.166|0.324
95701457|NCT05109702|191372706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.143|0.525|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.525|-0.143|0.262
95701458|NCT05109702|191372706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.485|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.485|-0.190|0.391
95701459|NCT05109702|191372706|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.174||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.568|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.568|-0.114|0.192
95701460|NCT05109702|191372707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.999|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.999|-0.141|0.140
95701461|NCT05109702|191372707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.291||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|1.117|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.117|-0.025|0.061
95701462|NCT05109702|191372707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.294||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.374|0.78|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.780|-0.374|0.490
95701463|NCT05109702|191372707|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.297||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|0.953|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.953|-0.212|0.212
95701464|NCT05109702|191372708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.101|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.101|-0.134|0.784
95701465|NCT05109702|191372708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.058|0.176|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.176|-0.058|0.324
95727672|NCT01945138|191424912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.443|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.443
95727673|NCT01945138|191424913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95701466|NCT05109702|191372708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.21|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.210|-0.027|0.130
95701467|NCT05109702|191372708|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.35|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.350|0.110|0.000
95701468|NCT05109702|191372709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.623||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.834|1.613|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.613|-0.834|0.532
95701469|NCT05109702|191372709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.515|1.959|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||1.959|-0.515|0.252
95701470|NCT05109702|191372709|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|3.231|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||3.231|0.732|0.002
95701471|NCT05109702|191372710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.386|0.268|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.268|-0.386|0.723
95701472|NCT05109702|191372710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.167||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.519|0.137|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.137|-0.519|0.254
95701473|NCT05109702|191372710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.169||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.028|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||-0.028|-0.690|0.034
95701474|NCT05109702|191372710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.414|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.414|-0.255|0.640
95701475|NCT05109702|191372711|SUPERIORITY|Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.|LS Mean Difference|1.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.893||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.223|7.133|||MMRM|||||7.133|-4.223|0.615
95701476|NCT05109702|191372711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.894||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.866|10.494|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.494|-0.866|0.097
95701477|NCT05109702|191372711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.93||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|6.81|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.810|-4.690|0.718
95727674|NCT01945138|191424914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.401|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.401
95727675|NCT01945138|191424915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95727676|NCT01945138|191424916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.325
95918031|NCT01474512|191795301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI75|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95701478|NCT05109702|191372711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.963||0.298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.728|8.903|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.903|-2.728|0.298
95701479|NCT05109702|191372712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.854|8.191|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.191|-2.854|0.343
95701480|NCT05109702|191372712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.814||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.813|9.232|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.232|-1.813|0.188
95701481|NCT05109702|191372712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.849||0.371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|8.143|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||8.143|-3.040|0.371
95701482|NCT05109702|191372712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.883||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|12.573|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||12.573|1.259|0.017
95701483|NCT05109702|191372713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.452|6.147|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.147|-4.452|0.754
95701484|NCT05109702|191372713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.865|7.731|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.731|-2.865|0.368
95701485|NCT05109702|191372713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.734||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.014|6.715|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||6.715|-4.014|0.621
95701486|NCT05109702|191372713|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.766||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.688|10.168|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.168|-0.688|0.087
95701487|NCT05109702|191372714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.958|9.425|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.425|-0.958|0.110
95701488|NCT05109702|191372714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.647||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.535|7.855|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.855|-2.535|0.315
95701489|NCT05109702|191372714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.678||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.582|7.928|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.928|-2.582|0.318
95701490|NCT05109702|191372714|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.71||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.525|8.111|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.111|-2.525|0.303
95727677|NCT01945138|191424917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.311|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.311
95701491|NCT05109702|191372715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.975||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.402|10.273|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||10.273|-1.402|0.136
95701492|NCT05109702|191372715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.972||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|9.966|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||9.966|-1.700|0.165
95701493|NCT05109702|191372715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.008||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|7.207|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||7.207|-4.600|0.665
95701494|NCT05109702|191372715|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.043||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|10.995|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||10.995|-0.950|0.099
95701495|NCT05109702|191372716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.926||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.232|6.254|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.254|-5.232|0.861
95701496|NCT05109702|191372716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.925||0.548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.983|7.497|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.497|-3.983|0.548
95701497|NCT05109702|191372716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.839|9.777|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.777|-1.839|0.180
95701498|NCT05109702|191372716|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.993||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.941|9.807|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.807|-1.941|0.189
95701499|NCT05109702|191372717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.608||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.799|6.438|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.438|-3.799|0.613
95701500|NCT05109702|191372717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.586|9.653|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.653|-0.586|0.083
95701501|NCT05109702|191372717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.639||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.508|8.851|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.851|-1.508|0.165
95701502|NCT05109702|191372717|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.672||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.964|9.522|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||9.522|-0.964|0.110
95701503|NCT05109702|191372718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.154|6.994|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.994|0.154|0.041
95701504|NCT05109702|191372718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.743||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.723|6.118|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||6.118|-0.723|0.122
95701505|NCT05109702|191372718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|8.056|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||8.056|1.146|0.009
95701506|NCT05109702|191372718|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.781||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|7.536|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||7.536|0.544|0.024
95701507|NCT05109702|191372719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.115|0.282
95701508|NCT05109702|191372719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.375|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.375|-0.134|0.353
95701509|NCT05109702|191372719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.218|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.218|-0.297|0.764
95701510|NCT05109702|191372719|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.476|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.476|-0.044|0.104
95701511|NCT05109702|191372720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.288|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.288|-0.300|0.969
95701512|NCT05109702|191372720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.194|0.394|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.394|-0.194|0.504
95701513|NCT05109702|191372720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.281|0.314|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.314|-0.281|0.915
95701514|NCT05109702|191372720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.499|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.499|-0.102|0.195
95701515|NCT05109702|191372721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.133|0.449|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.449|-0.133|0.287
95701516|NCT05109702|191372721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.458|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.458|-0.124|0.260
95727678|NCT01271933|191424924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was calculated using log-rank test for comparing pregabalin CR with placebo|Log Rank|||||||0.0186
95701517|NCT05109702|191372721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.296|0.291|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.291|-0.296|0.987
95701518|NCT05109702|191372721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.075|0.519|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.519|-0.075|0.143
95701519|NCT05109702|191372722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||-0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.49|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.490|-0.102|-0.198
95701520|NCT05109702|191372722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.151||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.028|0.564|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.564|-0.028|0.076
95701521|NCT05109702|191372722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.231|0.367|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.367|-0.231|0.656
95701522|NCT05109702|191372722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.154||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.454|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors.||0.454|-0.150|0.324
95701523|NCT05109702|191372723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.182|0.39|||MMRM|||Week 1 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.390|-0.182|0.477
95701524|NCT05109702|191372723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.598|||MMRM|||Week 2 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.598|0.026|0.033
95701525|NCT05109702|191372723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.42|||MMRM|||Week 4 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.420|-0.158|0.374
95701526|NCT05109702|191372723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.529|||MMRM|||Week 8 : The LS means, LS mean difference, SEs, two-sided 95% CIs, and pvalues of the LS mean difference will be reported from the MMRM model. MMRM p-value calculated using the final model defined for the primary analysis endpoints, including terms for baseline, grouped sites, visit (as categorical term), treatment group and the interaction of treatment group and visit as fixed effects with correlated errors||0.529|-0.056|0.114
95701527|NCT05109702|191372724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|0.475|||t-test, 2 sided|||Immediately Upon Instillation at Week 1||0.475|-0.822|0.598
95701528|NCT05109702|191372724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.268||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.783|0.273|||t-test, 2 sided|||1 Minute Post Instillation at Week 1||0.273|-0.783|0.343
95701529|NCT05109702|191372724|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.262|||t-test, 2 sided|||2 Minutes Post Instillation at Week 1||0.262|-0.721|0.359
95701530|NCT01412060|191372727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio (cariprazine 3-9 mg vs placebo) is based on Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment group as an explanatory variable.|||0.73|0.28|0.0010
95701531|NCT01468701|191372734|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.90|0.60|
95701532|NCT01468701|191372736|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.98|0.63|
95701533|NCT01468701|191372737|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.11|0.57|
95701534|NCT01468701|191372739|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||1.14|0.57|
95701535|NCT01468701|191372747|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.73|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function, concomitant antiplatelets use and concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding.||0.73|0.38|
95701536|NCT01468701|191372751|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.57|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous myocardial infarction, concomitant antiplatelets use, concomitant use of drugs related to bleeding, hypertension, and diabetes.||1.57|0.60|
95701537|NCT01468701|191372753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.8|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonist (vitamin K antagonist as reference).|A multivariable Cox regression model was performed including variables of treatment, age, gender, prior bleed, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, previous myocardial infarction, abnormal kidney function and concomitant antiplatelets use.||0.80|0.54|
95701538|NCT01569087|191372772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95701539|NCT02259127|191372780|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.14|= 0.004
95701540|NCT02259127|191372780|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18|||=|0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (Frequentist \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.02|-0.36|=0.057
95701541|NCT02259127|191372780|NON_INFERIORITY|Bayesian estimation was used for the primary analysis of the difference in treatment failure by 96 weeks by arm in \<14kg cohort. An informative prior distribution was used based on the treatment effect observed in \>=14kg cohort, with relative weight defined by clinical opinion, solicited prior to the main trial results.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Primary: diff in adj. KM estimates (Bayesian \<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.19|0.02
95701542|NCT02259127|191372780|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.21|0.003
95701543|NCT02259127|191372780|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (primary endpoint) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.03|-0.12|0.22
95701544|NCT02259127|191372781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.0|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|11.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 665~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||11|-1|= 0.1377
95701545|NCT02259127|191372781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0|||=|0.8895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-10|= 0.8895
95701546|NCT02259127|191372781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.0|||=|0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|17.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 381~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||17|0.4|=0.0435
95701547|NCT02259127|191372781|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|26.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|47.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||47|6|0.021
95701548|NCT02259127|191372782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0|||=|0.2256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|8.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 670~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||8|-2|= 0.2256
95701549|NCT02259127|191372782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|||=|0.9536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 286~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7|-8|= 0.9536
95701550|NCT02259127|191372782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0|||=|0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.0|||Regression, Logistic|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 384~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||12|-1|= 0.1104
95701551|NCT02259127|191372782|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|37.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||37|2|0.038
95701552|NCT02259127|191372783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.0|||=|0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|82.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusted for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||82|-12|= 0.144
95701553|NCT02259127|191372783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.0||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|109.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||109|-21|0.185
95701554|NCT02259127|191372783|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.0|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.0|93.0|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of CD4 at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline CD4 and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||93|-39|= 0.427
95701555|NCT02259127|191372783|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|30.0||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-308.0|368.0|||Regression, Linear|||||368|-308|0.86
95701556|NCT02259127|191372784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-19|< 0.001
95701557|NCT02259127|191372784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.4|||=|0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|-8.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.5|-40.3|= 0.0032
95701558|NCT02259127|191372784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.9|-11.1|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-11.1|-23.9|< 0.001
95701559|NCT02259127|191372784|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|-8.4|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of total cholesterol at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline total cholesterol and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-8.4|-18.5|< 0.001
95701560|NCT02259127|191372785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.36|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.36|0.55|= 0.53
95701561|NCT02259127|191372785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.49|0.47|= 0.86
95701562|NCT02259127|191372785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.46|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.46|0.48|= 0.52
95701563|NCT02259127|191372785|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.04|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.04|0.42|= 0.86
95701564|NCT02259127|191372786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.13|0.61|= 0.24
95701565|NCT02259127|191372786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||=|0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.74|0.5|= 0.83
95701566|NCT02259127|191372786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||=|0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.7|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.75|= 0.57
95701567|NCT02259127|191372786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.88|0.33|= 0.01
95701568|NCT02259127|191372787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.29|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.77|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.77|0.11|= 0.01
95701569|NCT02259127|191372787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||=|0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.33|0.09|= 0.13
95701570|NCT02259127|191372787|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|1.03|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.03|0.05|0.055
95701571|NCT02259127|191372788|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|-0.02|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.02|-0.1|= 0.003
95701572|NCT02259127|191372788|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.13|= 0.035
95701573|NCT02259127|191372788|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.05|||=|0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|-0.004|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 48 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 48 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.004|-0.11|= 0.039
95701574|NCT02259127|191372788|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.18||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.02|||Other [Bootstrap method]|||||0.02|-0.36|0.057
95701575|NCT02259127|191372789|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.09|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.04|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.04|-0.16|= 0.003
95701576|NCT02259127|191372789|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.12|||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.03|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.03|-0.21|= 0.009
95701577|NCT02259127|191372789|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.08|||=|0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 144 weeks was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 144 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.01|-0.16|= 0.079
95701578|NCT02259127|191372790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.68|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.68|0.38|= 0.993
95701579|NCT02259127|191372790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.0|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (\<14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2|0.13|= 0.33
95701580|NCT02259127|191372790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||=|0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.12|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||3.12|0.32|= 0.991
95701581|NCT02259127|191372790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||=|0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.13|||Regression, Cox|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted time to first event (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||7.13|0.14|= 0.997
95701582|NCT02259127|191372791|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.07|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.01|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Diff in adj. KM estimates (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 677~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.01|-0.12|= 0.015
95727679|NCT01271933|191424928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-1.2|0.3310
95701583|NCT02259127|191372791|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.172|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.029|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for trial cohort (ODYSSEY A or ODYSSEY B)|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted difference (frequentist \<14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 85~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.029|-0.362|= 0.075
95701584|NCT02259127|191372791|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.126|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|-0.036|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 295~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||-0.036|-0.21|= 0.004
95701585|NCT02259127|191372791|NON_INFERIORITY|"\>=14kg cohort: Non-inferiority margin 10% in total population and 12% in ODYSSEY A/ODYSSEY B.~\<14kg cohort: power for efficacy was not prespecified for this cohort."|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.023|||=|0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.056|||Bootstrap method||The probability of having virological or clinical treatment failure by 96 weeks (per protocol analysis) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves adjusted for stratification factors.|"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Difference in adjusted (for stratification factors) Kaplan-Meier survival function estimates at 96 weeks after randomisation.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 382~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.056|-0.096|= 0.547
95701586|NCT02259127|191372806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.7|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.7|0.3|= 0.004
95701587|NCT02259127|191372806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||=|0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.5|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||2.5|0.2|= 0.024
95701588|NCT02259127|191372806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusting Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of weight at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline weight and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||1.6|-0.1|= 0.075
95701589|NCT02259127|191372806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-0.8|0.67
95701590|NCT02259127|191372807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (\>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 707~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|0.01|= 0.036
95701591|NCT02259127|191372807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.36|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY A \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 311~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.36|-0.03|=0.092
95701592|NCT02259127|191372807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||=|0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||"Statistical Analysis Title: Adjusted Difference (ODYSSEY B \>=14kg)~Statistical analysis description: Linear regression of BMI-for-age at week 96, adjusting for randomised arm, baseline BMI-for-age and stratification factors. Presenting mean difference between arms.~Number of subjects included in analysis: 396~Analysis Specification: Pre-specified"||0.25|-0.05|=0.176
95701593|NCT02259127|191372807|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5|||Regression, Linear|||||0.5|-1.1|0.50
95701594|NCT00719862|191372808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3782||0.005||95.0|-1.8|-0.31|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.31|-1.80|0.005
95701595|NCT00719862|191372809|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.2987|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1881||0.112||95.0|-0.67|0.07|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||0.07|-0.67|0.112
95701596|NCT00719862|191372810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8617|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3803||0.023||95.0|-1.61|-0.12|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.12|-1.61|0.023
95701597|NCT00719862|191372811|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7395|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3305||0.025||95.0|-1.39|-0.09|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||-0.09|-1.39|0.025
95701598|NCT00719862|191372812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.051
95701599|NCT01626989|191372814|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Friedman Test comparing all 3 nights||||||0.001|||||||nonparametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test|||||||.001
95701600|NCT02293902|191372828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.583|26.594||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 150 mg|26.594|5.583|<0.0001
95701601|NCT02293902|191372828|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.446|15.158||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using CMH test stratified by prior biologic use (Yes, No) and weight at screening (\<55 kg, \>=55 kg).|Placebo vs. Sarilumab 200 mg|15.158|3.446|<0.0001
95701602|NCT03906136|191372837|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.43|0.119
95701603|NCT03906136|191372838|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.95|0.37|0.029
95701604|NCT03906136|191372839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.14|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.14|0.45|0.154
95701605|NCT03906136|191372839|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.39|0.54|0.562
95701606|NCT03906136|191372840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.94|0.32|0.029
95701607|NCT03906136|191372840|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.25|0.44|0.264
95701608|NCT03906136|191372841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.83|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.83|0.29|0.008
95701609|NCT03906136|191372841|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.80|0.28|0.005
95701610|NCT03906136|191372842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.28|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.28|0.40|0.263
95701611|NCT03906136|191372842|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.1|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.10|0.34|0.103
95701612|NCT03906136|191372843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.01|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.01|0.40|0.055
95701613|NCT03906136|191372843|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.31|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.31|0.52|0.409
95701614|NCT03906136|191372844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||1.34|0.53|0.477
95701615|NCT03906136|191372844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.61|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||1.61|0.63|0.968
95701616|NCT03906136|191372845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||0.75|-0.16|0.205
95701617|NCT03906136|191372845|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.37||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.82|-0.08|0.108
95701618|NCT03906136|191372846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.23|-0.12|0.525
95701619|NCT03906136|191372846|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.14|-0.25|0.577
95701620|NCT03906136|191372847|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.89||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.54|-2.32|0.220
95701621|NCT03906136|191372847|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 24||0.50|-0.70|0.745
95701622|NCT03906136|191372848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13||||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.74|-1.01|0.768
95701623|NCT03906136|191372848|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.37||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.60|-1.34|0.451
95701624|NCT03906136|191372849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.26||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.97|-0.46|0.477
95701625|NCT03906136|191372849|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.58|-0.92|0.660
95701626|NCT03906136|191372850|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12||0.79|-0.45|0.586
95701627|NCT03906136|191372850|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||0.82|-0.39|0.491
95701628|NCT03906136|191372851|SUPERIORITY|Week 12|Mean Difference (Net)|4.49||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|9.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.56|-0.58|0.082
95701629|NCT03906136|191372851|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|2.73||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24||7.81|-2.35|0.292
95701630|NCT00878644|191372852|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|16.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||16.1|-1.5|0.14
95701631|NCT00878644|191372853|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.1||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used adjusting for age category at time of randomization (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years)||||19.9|-1.8|0.13
95701632|NCT00878644|191372854|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Stratified Mann-Whitney Test|Test stratified by age category (\<2 years, 2 to \<12 years, or \>=12 years), for continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) 1-year change in VABS-II|||As the (nonparametric) comparison treated 1-year deaths as worst possible outcomes and worst possible 1-year VABS-II as next worst possible outcomes, using change in VABS-II for other participants alive at 1 year, no relevant estimation of effect size is possible for this secondary outcome.|||0.13
95701633|NCT00878644|191372855|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|"Test used the continuous (NOT categorized as reported above) neuropsychological scores, with Lowest Possible Score treated as lowest possible value."||||||0.81
95701634|NCT03366844|191372856|OTHER||Proportion|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.465|0.724|||||95% confidence interval for one proportion were estimated using the Exact (Clopper-Pearson) method.|||0.724|0.465|
95701635|NCT02088541|191372915|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.75|||Log Rank|||||1.75|0.79|0.4221
95701636|NCT02088541|191372916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9464|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9464
95701637|NCT02088541|191372917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0986|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0986
95701638|NCT02088541|191372919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0844|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0844
95701639|NCT00810043|191372952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.430
95701640|NCT00810043|191372952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.643|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.643
95701641|NCT00810043|191372952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.165|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior vertebral body height restoration as a percent (Post-procedure change from baseline)||||0.165
95701642|NCT00810043|191372953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH restored||||0.402
95701643|NCT00810043|191372953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH restored||||0.578
95701644|NCT00810043|191372953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH restored||||0.166
95701645|NCT00810043|191372955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.900
95701646|NCT00810043|191372955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Middle VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.620
95701647|NCT00810043|191372955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.349|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Posterior VBH gained by postural reduction||||0.349
95701648|NCT00810043|191372956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.889
95701649|NCT00810043|191372957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.486
95701650|NCT00810043|191372958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.144|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.144
95701651|NCT00810043|191372959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.360
95701652|NCT00443846|191372960|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference (Group 1 - Group 2) in seroprotection rate was greater than -10%.|Difference (Group 1 - Group 2)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.7||||||Analysis of non-inferiority was based on the Miettinen and Nurminen method||3.7|-3.7|
95701653|NCT02001688|191372964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95701654|NCT02001688|191372964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.020
95701655|NCT02001688|191372964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0192|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0192
95701656|NCT02001688|191372965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005||||||One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|p-value of Stratified Wilcoxon test||||||0.0005
95701657|NCT02001688|191372965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.0193
95701658|NCT02001688|191372965|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2485|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|One-sided test was used for antigenic and functional AAT levels to maintain overall 2.5% level of significance||||||0.2485
95701659|NCT02001688|191372966|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg,Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
95701660|NCT02001688|191372967|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test (3 groups: Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 80mg, Kamada-AAT for Inhalation, 160mg and placebo)||||||<0.0001
95701661|NCT00109772|191372972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.894||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|controlled for centers||||||.8940
95701662|NCT01989754|191372989|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Cox proportional hazard method|||||0.73|0.57|<.0001
95701663|NCT01989754|191372990|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|||=|0.0148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.94|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||0.94|0.55|=0.0148
95701664|NCT01989754|191372991|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86|||=|0.4067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.22|||Stratified Cox proportional hazard|||||1.22|0.61|=0.4067
95701665|NCT03437044|191372994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||0.001
95701666|NCT03437044|191372995|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|the corresponding baseline value of platelet reactivity was used as covariate||||||<0.001
95701667|NCT00813917|191373017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||For this randomized phase II we used a one sided test with a false positive(type I error)rate of 0.20 to assess whether additional studies of the experimental arm are warranted.|Chi-squared|1 sided||Data were compared between treatment groups using Chi Square test.||||0.126
95701668|NCT01359046|191373018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95701669|NCT01359046|191373019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95701670|NCT03364491|191373032|SUPERIORITY|Model included treatment and preoperative hemoglobin level \<8 g/dL (yes/no) as covariates. We estimated that a total sample size of 11,000 participants (5,500 per group) would achieve 85% power to detect a 33% lower incidence of the primary outcome (1.67%) in the TXA group, at a type I error rate (two-sided) of 5%.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.26|0.74|1.07||Following two interim analyses, a two-tailed P value of less than 0.047 was considered to indicate statistical significance.|Other (Log-binomial regression model)|||||1.07|0.74|0.19
95701671|NCT00270998|191373068|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||<0.0492
95701672|NCT00270998|191373068|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.02
95701673|NCT00270998|191373068|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.49||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance set at p = 0.0492 to account for interim analysis|Regression, Logistic|||A priori, the combination treatment was considered superior (75% success rate) to either single-modality therapy (60% success rate) at 80% power with 150 participants per group.||||0.49
95701674|NCT00270998|191373069|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
95701675|NCT00270998|191373069|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
95701676|NCT00270998|191373069|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.42
95701677|NCT00270998|191373070|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701678|NCT00270998|191373070|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701679|NCT00270998|191373070|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701680|NCT00270998|191373071|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701681|NCT00270998|191373071|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701682|NCT00270998|191373071|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701683|NCT00270998|191373072|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701684|NCT00270998|191373072|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701685|NCT00270998|191373072|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701686|NCT00270998|191373073|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701687|NCT00270998|191373073|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701688|NCT00270998|191373073|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701689|NCT00270998|191373074|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
95701690|NCT00270998|191373074|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.||||||0.048|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.048
95701691|NCT00270998|191373074|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701692|NCT00270998|191373075|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701693|NCT00270998|191373075|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701694|NCT00270998|191373075|NON_INFERIORITY|Logistic regression was used to adjust for randomization stratification variables of incontinence type and incontinence severity. No parameter estimates were reported. No adjustments for multiple comparisons made.|||||<|0.0492|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0492
95701695|NCT03000686|191373119|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1339|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.249|2.295|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||2.295|-2.249|
95701696|NCT03000686|191373119|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-4.021|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.5923|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.168|1.146|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||1.146|-9.168|
95701697|NCT03000686|191373119|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.668|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4927|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.576|7.231|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for immediately post-exercise|||7.231|-10.576|
95701698|NCT03000686|191373119|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6695|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.142|2.506|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||2.506|-4.142|
95701699|NCT03000686|191373120|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.662|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1933|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.037|3.815|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 15 minutes post-infusion|||3.815|-5.037|
95701700|NCT03000686|191373120|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.796|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.4297|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.729|4.027|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 60 minutes post-chamber entry.|||4.027|-9.729|
95701701|NCT03000686|191373120|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.145|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.475|8.086|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 2 minutes post-exercise start|||8.086|-8.475|
95701702|NCT03000686|191373120|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.291|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3277|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|4.386|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval is presented for 30 minutes post-chamber exit|||4.386|-4.960|
95701703|NCT03000686|191373127|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.148|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5622|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.264|0.973|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||0.973|-1.264|
95701704|NCT03000686|191373127|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.172|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.072|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.271|2.942|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||2.942|-5.271|
95701705|NCT03000686|191373127|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.169|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.624|4.258|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation immediately post-exercise is presented.|||4.258|-4.624|
95701706|NCT03000686|191373127|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.367|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5649|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.498|0.753|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.753|-1.498|
95701707|NCT03000686|191373128|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.203|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.8872|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.578|1.968|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 15 minutes post-infusion is presented.|||1.968|-1.578|
95701708|NCT03000686|191373128|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.76|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8799|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.001|7.495|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 60 minutes post-chamber entry is presented.|||7.495|-0.001|
95701709|NCT03000686|191373128|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.029|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8146|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.673|4.578|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 2 minutes post-exercise start is presented.|||4.578|-6.673|
95701710|NCT03000686|191373128|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.873|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.762|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.669|||||Posterior median difference (GSK2586881 0.8 mg/kg - Placebo) and 95% credible interval for oxygen saturation at 30 minutes post-chamber exit is presented.|||0.669|-2.380|
95701711|NCT01112982|191373166|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Presence of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||0.34
95701712|NCT01112982|191373168|OTHER|Spearman Correlation Coefficient||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The Severity of Synovial Pannus and the Serum Urate level.||||0.73
95701713|NCT01112982|191373169|OTHER|correlation between severity of synovial pannus and the serum urate level.||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.73
95701714|NCT01112982|191373170|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The presence of synovial pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
95701715|NCT01112982|191373171|OTHER|Kappa Coefficient||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The absence of erosive changes.||||0.09
95701716|NCT01112982|191373171|OTHER|the absence of Intraosseous Tophi.||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95701717|NCT01112982|191373171|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Tophi||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95701718|NCT01112982|191373171|OTHER|The absence of Joint Effusion.||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.31
95701719|NCT01112982|191373171|OTHER|The absence of Bone Marrow Edema.||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95701720|NCT01112982|191373171|OTHER|The absence of Soft Tissue Edema.||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95701721|NCT01112982|191373172|OTHER|||||||0.32||||||"The Presence of synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.32
95701722|NCT01112982|191373172|OTHER|||||||0.99||||||"The Severity of Synovial Pannus in the index joint."|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.99
95701723|NCT03371251|191373174|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: SRI-4 Response||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
95701724|NCT03371251|191373174|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|2.0||||0.8434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.5|18.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: \>= 4-Point Reduction from Baseline in SLEDAI-2K Global Score||18.5|-14.5|0.8434
95701725|NCT03371251|191373174|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No New BILAG A or More than One BILAG B Organ Score Compared with Baseline||30.9|4.5|0.0141
95701726|NCT03371251|191373174|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.5|30.9|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis: No Deterioration from Baseline in PGA by \>=30mm||30.9|4.5|0.0141
95701727|NCT03371251|191373190|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-2.6||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.8|14.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||14.5|-19.8|0.7985
95701728|NCT03371251|191373191|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-6.9||||0.3498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.9|9.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||9.8|-22.9|0.3498
95701729|NCT03371251|191373192|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-21.8||||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-36.2|-7.4|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical analysis for Overall||-7.4|-36.2|0.0072
95701730|NCT03371251|191373192|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-17.7||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.9|-4.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||-4.5|-30.9|0.0141
95701731|NCT03371251|191373193|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|4.9||||0.6107|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|20.5|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||20.5|-10.7|0.6107
95701732|NCT03371251|191373194|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|15.4||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.9|31.8|||Pearson's chi-square test|||||31.8|-0.9|0.1237
95701733|NCT03371251|191373195|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-13.7||||0.0581|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.7|-0.7|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Overall||-0.7|-26.7|0.0581
95701734|NCT03371251|191373195|SUPERIORITY||Observed Difference vs. Placebo|-14.3||||0.0471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.2|3.2|||Pearson's chi-square test|||Statistical Analysis for Day 210||3.2|-31.2|0.0471
95701735|NCT03371251|191373196|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.6596|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.94|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-A (Total Activity)||0.94|-1.63|0.6596
95701736|NCT03371251|191373196|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.4105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.81|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for CLASI-B (Total Damage)||0.81|-0.27|0.4105
95701737|NCT03371251|191373197|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.07|7.58|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 210||7.58|-6.07|0.8546
95701738|NCT03371251|191373198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4455|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|1.71|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Swelling for Day 210||1.71|-0.63|0.4455
95701739|NCT03371251|191373198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|2.47|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Tenderness for Day 210||2.47|-0.65|0.3367
95701740|NCT03371251|191373198|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.255|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.86|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Sum of Active Joints for Day 210||1.86|-0.34|0.2550
95701741|NCT03371251|191373199|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.2498|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|1.93|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|||1.93|-0.34|0.2498
95701742|NCT03371251|191373200|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.12|||ANCOVA||This is based on LS Means|Statistical Analysis for Day 180||0.12|-0.02|0.2558
95701743|NCT03371251|191373201|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39||||0.0479|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.88|||Log Rank||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120 mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.88|0.18|0.0479
95701744|NCT03371251|191373203|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference (BOS161721-Placebo)|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.4||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.92|31.7|||ANOVA||This is based on LS Means|||31.70|-22.92|0.7898
95701745|NCT03371251|191373204|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.68|||Log-Rank Test (2-Sided)||Hazard rate of BOS161721 120mg / Hazard rate of placebo|||0.68|0.16|0.0083
95701746|NCT00294684|191373206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.57|||Log binomial|||RR greater than one indicates benefit of steriods and a P value of treatment success from a log-binomial model with these covariates: Treatment group, age a HPE, BASM as fixed effects, and site as a random effect.||1.57|0.83|0.43
95701747|NCT00294684|191373207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.8|||Regression, Cox|||||1.8|0.6|0.99
95701748|NCT00294684|191373208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference reported as steroid minus placebo (negative values mean larger average values of total bilirubin in placebo).||0.3|-3.49|0.0973
95701749|NCT00294684|191373209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average values of bilirubin in placebo)||0.05|-4.65|0.0552
95701750|NCT00294684|191373210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39||||0.6607||95.0|-2.16|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||LS Mean difference of steroid minus placebo (negative values indicate larger average bilirubin in placebo)||1.38|-2.16|0.6607
95701751|NCT00294684|191373211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1603|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1603
95701752|NCT00294684|191373212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2801|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2801
95701753|NCT00294684|191373213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.14|||Log Binomial|||||3.14|0.62|0.41
95701754|NCT00294684|191373214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.92|||Log Binomial|||||2.92|0.03|0.29
95701755|NCT01248364|191373223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.55|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group, and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.55|-0.16|0.2790
95701756|NCT01248364|191373224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.62|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline FPG, diagnosis group and baseline FPG by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.62|-0.16|0.2438
95701757|NCT01248364|191373225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.79|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||1.79|-1.19|0.6931
95701758|NCT01248364|191373226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.1028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|4.07|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG fast, diagnosis group and baseline EPG fast by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||4.07|-0.38|0.1028
95701759|NCT01248364|191373227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|10.5|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||10.50|0.47|0.0326
95701760|NCT01248364|191373228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.04|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||0.04|-3.20|0.0552
95701761|NCT01248364|191373229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.7561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.27|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline PPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline PPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||2.27|-1.66|0.7561
95701762|NCT01248364|191373230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89||0.1024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|6.9|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG AUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG AUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||6.90|-0.64|0.1024
95701763|NCT01248364|191373231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||0.6576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|7.14|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||7.14|-4.53|0.6576
95701764|NCT01248364|191373232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.2795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|3.05|||ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for baseline EPG iAUC 5h, diagnosis group and baseline EPG iAUC 5h by diagnosis group interaction.|Difference calculated as T2DM metformin minus T2DM Naive|No formal testing, exploratory analysis only.||3.05|-10.41|0.2795
95701765|NCT03238352|191373235|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.657|-0.782|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Negative Control at Week 8 is a primary endpoint comparison.||-0.782|-1.657|<0.0001
95701766|NCT03238352|191373235|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.705|-0.858|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||-0.858|-1.705|<.0001
95701767|NCT03238352|191373235|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.176|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.901|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment as factor and baseline Schiff score as covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group was obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model.||-0.901|-1.600|<0.0001
95701768|NCT03238352|191373236|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|37.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.306|<|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.916|51.995||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||51.995|22.916|<0.0004
95701769|NCT03238352|191373236|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|49.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.079|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.791|63.966||P-value from Van Elteren test|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||63.966|35.791|<.0001
95701770|NCT03238352|191373236|OTHER||Diference of Least Square mean|43.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.862|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.001|55.334||P-value from Van Elteren test.|ANCOVA|From ANCOVA model with treatment and baseline Schiff stratification as factors and baseline tactile threshold as a covariate.|Difference is the first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Test Product versus Combined Control (Placebo and Negative Control) group is obtained by using estimates statement in the ANCOVA model||55.334|32.001|<.0001
95701771|NCT00871572|191373255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.23|-1.64|0.0296
95701772|NCT00871572|191373255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.37|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.15|-1.37|0.0418
95701773|NCT00871572|191373255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.41|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-1.41|0.0514
95701774|NCT00871572|191373256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.62||||0.2565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-4.46|0.2565
95701775|NCT00871572|191373256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-4.25|0.1245
95701776|NCT00871572|191373256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.92|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10|-4.92|0.0594
95701777|NCT00871572|191373257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-124.56||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-490.02|240.9|||ANCOVA|||||240.90|-490.02|0.4978
95701778|NCT00871572|191373257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-338.64||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-656.55|-20.72|||ANCOVA|||||-20.72|-656.55|0.0372
95701779|NCT00871572|191373257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-466.83||||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-799.48|-134.18|||ANCOVA|||||-134.18|-799.48|0.0068
95701780|NCT00871572|191373258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.814
95701781|NCT00871572|191373258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.4|0.681
95701782|NCT00871572|191373258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-0.7|0.715
95701783|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.56||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-3.09||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.09|-44.03|0.0248
95701784|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.28||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.08|-17.48||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.48|-53.08|0.0002
95701785|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.12|-20.53||P-value is for Pre-Morning Meal (fasting).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.53|-58.12|<0.0001
95701786|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.42||||0.6513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.66|21.82||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||21.82|-34.66|0.6513
95701787|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.5045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.61|16.21||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.21|-32.61|0.5045
95701788|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.2||||0.5774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|18.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Morning Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.49|-32.90|0.5774
95701789|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-35.81||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.1|-11.53||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.53|-60.10|0.0045
95701790|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.15||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.1|-12.21||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.21|-54.10|0.0024
95701791|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.87||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.98|-15.75||P-value is for Pre-Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.75|-59.98|0.0011
95701792|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.48||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.47|-1.49||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.49|-55.47|0.0389
95701793|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.65||||0.1896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.24|7.94||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.94|-39.24|0.1896
95701794|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.56||||0.0729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.28|2.16||P-value is for 2 Hours After Mid-Day Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.16|-47.28|0.0729
95701795|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.78||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.79|-14.77||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.77|-74.79|0.0041
95701796|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.42|-28.48||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-28.48|-80.42|<0.0001
95701797|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.19||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.57|-18.81||P-value is for Pre Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.81|-73.57|0.0013
95701798|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.82||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.51|-9.13||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.13|-70.51|0.0118
95701799|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-43.8||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.42|-17.18||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-17.18|-70.42|0.0016
95701800|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.56||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.63|-11.48||P-value is for 2 Hours After Evening Meal.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.48|-67.63|0.0065
95701801|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.88||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.43|-7.33||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.33|-66.43|0.0154
95701802|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-46.5||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.93|-21.07||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-21.07|-71.93|0.0006
95701803|NCT00871572|191373261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.07||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.13|-15.01||P-value is for Bedtime.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.01|-69.13|0.0029
95701804|NCT00871572|191373262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.62||||0.3815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|83.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||83.68|-32.44|0.3815
95701805|NCT00871572|191373262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.8315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.12|55.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||55.93|-45.12|0.8315
95701806|NCT00871572|191373262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.25||||0.3658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.93|77.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||77.44|-28.93|0.3658
95701807|NCT00871572|191373263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.06||||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.24|142.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||142.37|-32.24|0.2131
95701808|NCT00871572|191373263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|89.68||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.27|166.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||166.10|13.27|0.0220
95701809|NCT00871572|191373263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|107.26||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.29|188.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||188.22|26.29|0.0101
95701810|NCT00871572|191373264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.87||||0.1596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|4.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.49|-0.75|0.1596
95701811|NCT00871572|191373264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.03||||0.0791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|4.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.31|-0.24|0.0791
95701812|NCT00871572|191373264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.1564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.10|-0.67|0.1564
95701813|NCT00871572|191373265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8018.51||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13104.14|29141.16|||ANCOVA|||||29141.16|-13104.14|0.4500
95701814|NCT00871572|191373265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5174.85||||0.5739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13158.65|23508.35|||ANCOVA|||||23508.35|-13158.65|0.5739
95701815|NCT00871572|191373265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18153.92||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1188.23|37496.06|||ANCOVA|||||37496.06|-1188.23|0.0653
95701816|NCT00871572|191373266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18094.32||||0.6209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54734.08|90922.71|||ANCOVA|||||90922.71|-54734.08|0.6209
95701817|NCT00871572|191373266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5783.59||||0.8581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58650.71|70217.89|||ANCOVA|||||70217.89|-58650.71|0.8581
95701818|NCT00871572|191373266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36218.98||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30955.5|103393.46|||ANCOVA|||||103393.46|-30955.50|0.2850
95701819|NCT00871572|191373267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.584
95701820|NCT00871572|191373267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.426
95701821|NCT00871572|191373267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.6|0.657
95701822|NCT00871572|191373268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.365
95701823|NCT00871572|191373268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.191
95701824|NCT00871572|191373268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.1|0.297
95701825|NCT00871572|191373269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.8|0.523
95701826|NCT00871572|191373269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.7|0.476
95701827|NCT00871572|191373269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.4|-0.7|0.634
95701828|NCT00871572|191373270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.6|0.919
95701829|NCT00871572|191373270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.5|0.864
95701830|NCT00871572|191373270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-0.5|0.726
95701831|NCT01957787|191373271|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Estimates of the log odds and Wald standard error from a random effects logistic regression model were combined across imputed datasets for reference.|Random effects logistic regression model|||The null hypothesis was tested comparing the lower bound of the Wald 97.5% 1-sided confidence interval for the estimated rate of local tumor control to the performance goal of 84.0%. If the lower bound was greater than 84.0%, the null hypothesis was rejected and the endpoint was considered met.||||0.410
95701832|NCT00187889|191373283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|3.6||The P-value applies to this comparison, without adjustment, to the completers of the trial.|Satterthwaite corrected t-test||An expanded definition of the outcome measure is the difference between the percentage change (week 16) and the percentage change week 0). This is a calculation based on 4 measurements.|The null hypothesis is that the treatments are equivalent with respect to the primary outcome. The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups.||3.6|-22.8|0.15
95701833|NCT00187889|191373283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.72|||Satterthwaite corrected t-test||The Satterthwaite corrected t-tests adjusts for potentially unequal variance in the groups. This is a different outcome variable than the primary.|The null hypothesis is that treatments are equivalent on this outcome. The study was powered around the primary outcome. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was planned.||0.72|-0.79|0.92
95701834|NCT00435994|191373296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0020
95701835|NCT00435994|191373297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||||||.0020
95701836|NCT03846219|191373305|SUPERIORITY||rate ratio|0.38||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.64||A one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 45 mg IMU-838 / placebo|H0: cumulative number of CUA MRI lesions up to Week 24 with 45 mg IMU-838 equal to or higher than that with placebo. A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term. 51 patients per group were necessary to have 80% power to detect a difference of 3.5 in mean event rate with a significance level 0.1, 1-sided.||0.64|0.22|0.0002
95701837|NCT03846219|191373306|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.53||A hierarchical testing procedure with a one-sided alpha level of 0.1 was used.|Generalized linear model|Estimates were adjusted for baseline volume of T2 lesions, MRI field strength (1.5 or 3.0 Tesla), and baseline number of Gd+ lesions (0, ≥1).|Rate ratio of 30 mg IMU-838 / placebo|A generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and logarithmic link function was used. Log transformation of time from 1st IMP dose to date of last MRI assessment was used as offset term.||0.53|0.17|<.0001
95701838|NCT01181778|191373385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Daily Pill|-0.4||||0.705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|1.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Daily Pill before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||1.8|-2.6|0.705
95701839|NCT01181778|191373385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Weekly Patch|3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|5.0|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Weekly Patch before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||5.0|2.6|<0.0001
95701840|NCT01181778|191373385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Monthy Ring|16.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|17.8|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose the Monthly Ring before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||17.8|14.3|<0.0001
95701841|NCT01181778|191373385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Other Method|-3.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.2|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Other Method before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-2.2|-5.0|<0.0001
95701842|NCT01181778|191373385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Percentage: Undecided|-15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|-14.1|||Chi-squared|||Analysis of the difference in the percentage of participants who chose Undecided before physician counseling and after physician counseling.||-14.1|-17.6|<0.0001
95701843|NCT02481596|191373408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Beta=.083. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.045
95701844|NCT02481596|191373408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||Beta=.126. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.006
95701845|NCT02481596|191373409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.518||||||Beta=.031. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.518
95701846|NCT02481596|191373409|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092||||||Beta=.092. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.092
95701847|NCT02481596|191373410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||Beta=-.027. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations||||.53
95701848|NCT02481596|191373410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Beta=-.037. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.41
95701849|NCT02481596|191373411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Beta=.088. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.024
95701850|NCT02481596|191373411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||Beta=.128. Threshold p\<.05|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for harmful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.003
95701851|NCT02481596|191373412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Beta=-.133. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.001
95701852|NCT02481596|191373412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Beta=-.115. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots); also adjusted for helpful involvement subscale of FIAD due to suppression effect.||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.012
95701853|NCT02481596|191373413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Beta=.114. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||3 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.015
95701854|NCT02481596|191373413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Beta=.101. Threshold p\<.05.|Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline values with cubic splines (3 knots).||6 months. Multiply imputed data (m=20) using chained equations.||||.034
95701855|NCT02925312|191373420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||McNemar|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5 in the change in HbA1c with SD=2 with 80% power at alpha=0.05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). Differences in patient characteristics and the unadjusted differences in the outcome measures between the intervention and control groups were tested using linear mixed models, McNemar tests and conditional logistic models due to matching.||||0.05
95701856|NCT03205982|191373426|EQUIVALENCE|If the difference (between treatment and control arm) is greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), we consider the treatment arm is different from the control arm. MCID is calculated as 0.25-0.5\* standard deviation (SD). Conversely, the equivalence margin is the biggest difference (between 2 arms) to be considered no difference between 2 arms. Therefore, the equivalence margin should be smaller than MCID, i.e., it should be smaller than the smallest possible MCID.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9943|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0005|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.993|0.995|||Mixed Models Analysis|generalized linear mixed model with logit link (logistic model)||Compares difference in adherence changes between Intervention and Control arms||0.995|0.993|<0.0001
95701857|NCT03788616|191373457|EQUIVALENCE|assuming 95% power of the study|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.478
95701858|NCT05302804|191373458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value reflects main effect of treatment.|ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis was there was no difference between menthol gel and control gel~time x trial ANOVA statistical analysis"||||0.742
95701859|NCT05302804|191373459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.742||||||p-value is main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.742
95701860|NCT05302804|191373460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||p-value reflects main effect of menthol|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||0.048
95701861|NCT05302804|191373461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.104
95701862|NCT05302804|191373462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.051
95701863|NCT05302804|191373463|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of treatment|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||< 0.001
95701864|NCT05302804|191373464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.026
95701865|NCT05302804|191373465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||p-value at time 30 min of exercise|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between menthol and control trials||||.001
95701866|NCT05302804|191373466|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95701867|NCT02038790|191373469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||>0.5000
95701868|NCT02038790|191373470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0196
95701869|NCT02038790|191373471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0006
95701870|NCT02038790|191373472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4422|TWO_SIDED|||||Two-tailed level of significance of 0.05 and no adjustments made for the number of tests conducted.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4422
95701871|NCT02038790|191373473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2377|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2377
95701872|NCT02038790|191373474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0603|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0603
95701873|NCT02038790|191373475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0010
95701874|NCT02279160|191373492|SUPERIORITY||Multiple imputation|0.742||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|0.958|||ANCOVA|||||0.958|0.575|0.0220
95701875|NCT02279160|191373493|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann estimate|0.0||||0.9002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.0|30.0|||Stratified Wilcoxon|||||30.0|-28.0|0.9002
95701876|NCT01391468|191373518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95701877|NCT01391468|191373519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.744
95701878|NCT01391468|191373520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0042
95701879|NCT01391468|191373521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|||||Only the probiotics group arrived at the reported p-value after 6 months|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0099
95701880|NCT01510834|191373528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.824|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.148||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.578|-3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-3.070|-10.578|.001
95701881|NCT01510834|191373529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0872|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.731||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|11.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||11.26|2.91|.001
95701882|NCT01510834|191373530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.84|-1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.70|-5.84|<.001
95701883|NCT01510834|191373531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.269||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.751|-0.4244|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-.4244|-3.751|.015
95701884|NCT00607919|191373532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95701885|NCT00671970|191373557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95701886|NCT00671970|191373558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.613||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||.613
95701887|NCT00671970|191373559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95701888|NCT00671970|191373560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95701889|NCT00671970|191373561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95701890|NCT00671970|191373562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.179||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.179
95701891|NCT00671970|191373563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.008
95701892|NCT00633893|191373564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3283|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2225|0.4844||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4844|0.2225|<0.0001
95701893|NCT00633893|191373564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2475|0.5281||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat principle.||0.5281|0.2475|<0.0001
95701894|NCT00633893|191373565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1902|0.4395||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4395|0.1902|<0.0001
95701895|NCT00633893|191373565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3774|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2577|0.5525||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/ VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/ VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5525|0.2577|<0.0001
95701896|NCT00633893|191373566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2422|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1476|0.3975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3975|0.1476|<0.0001
95701897|NCT00633893|191373566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.1861|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1062|0.3261||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.3261|0.1062|<0.0001
95701898|NCT00633893|191373567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1844|0.4247||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.4247|0.1844|<0.0001
95701899|NCT00633893|191373567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3653|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.5338||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE/CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE/CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE/CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.5338|0.2500|<0.0001
95701900|NCT00633893|191373568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2615|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1593|0.4292||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, Intent to treat (ITT) principle.||0.4292|0.1593|<0.0001
95701901|NCT00633893|191373568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2595|0.6079||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal DVT to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal DVT equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal DVT. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||0.6079|0.2595|<0.0001
95701902|NCT00633893|191373569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6087||||0.1084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3653|1.0145||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0145|0.3653|0.1084
95701903|NCT00633893|191373569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6846||||0.1329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4164|1.1257||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with nonfatal PE to proportion of placebo participants with nonfatal PE equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced nonfatal PE. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1257|0.4164|0.1329
95701904|NCT00633893|191373570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.647||||0.3059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3543|1.1813||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1813|0.3543|0.3059
95701905|NCT00633893|191373570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.9416||||0.8288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5458|1.6245||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with VTE-related death to proportion of placebo participants with VTE-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced VTE-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.6245|0.5458|0.8288
95701906|NCT00633893|191373571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5794||||0.1316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3215|1.0443||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.0443|0.3215|0.1316
95701907|NCT00633893|191373571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.8433||||0.5288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4959|1.4341||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with CV-related death to proportion of placebo participants with CV-related death equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced CV-related death. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.4341|0.4959|0.5288
95701908|NCT00633893|191373572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6577||||0.2361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3874|1.1169||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.1169|0.3874|0.2361
95727680|NCT01271933|191424931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.9247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-0.8|0.9247
95727681|NCT01271933|191424940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.12||0.4314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Wake after Sleep Onset||8.5|-19.7|0.4314
95701909|NCT00633893|191373572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7708||||0.3155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4631|1.2832||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with all cause mortality to proportion of placebo participants with all cause mortality equal to 1.0. Participants with missing data were assumed to have experienced all cause mortality. Events occurring anytime during the intended treatment period (12 months) were included regardless of whether the participant was on treatment or not or whether the participant ever took drug, ie, ITT principle.||1.2832|0.4631|0.3155
95701910|NCT00633893|191373574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.485||||0.3925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0891|2.6391||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Treated participants with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.6391|0.0891|0.3925
95701911|NCT00633893|191373574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2457||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0269|2.2437||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major bleeding equal to 1.0. Participants treated with at least one dose of study drug were included.||2.2437|0.0269|0.3551
95701912|NCT00633893|191373575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2027||||0.5148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6897|2.0975||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.0975|0.6897|0.5148
95701913|NCT00633893|191373575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.616||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9554|2.7336||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.7336|0.9554|0.1412
95701914|NCT00633893|191373576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2928||||0.3932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7158|2.3348||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3348|0.7158|0.3932
95701915|NCT00633893|191373576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.8235||||0.0621||95.0|1.047|3.176||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with clinically relevant non-major bleeding equal to 1.0.||3.1760|1.0470|0.0621
95701916|NCT00633893|191373577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2579||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9064|1.7457||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||1.7457|0.9064|0.1691
95701917|NCT00633893|191373577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6971||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2468|2.3102||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with minor bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with minor bleeding equal to 1.0.||2.3102|1.2468|0.0013
95701918|NCT00633893|191373578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2374||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9276|1.6507||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding was defined as any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||1.6507|0.9276|0.1466
95701919|NCT00633893|191373578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.6468||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2552|2.1606||Hochberg adjusted p-value for superiority based on 2 hypotheses tests for apixaban 2.5mg group comparing with placebo group and for apixaban 5mg group comparing with placebo group.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis is relative risk proportion of apixaban participants with total bleeding to proportion of placebo participants with total bleeding equal to 1.0. Total bleeding is any major, clinically relevant non-major, or minor bleeding.||2.1606|1.2552|0.0005
95727682|NCT01271933|191424940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26||0.8915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|19.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset||19.6|-17.1|0.8915
95727683|NCT01271933|191424941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.4571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.5|0.4571
95918032|NCT01474512|191795301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for PPASI100|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95918033|NCT01474512|191795301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value if for PPASI100.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic Regression analysis included treatment, geographic region, previous non-biologic systemic therapy and baseline weight category as factors.||||||<0.001
95701920|NCT02741310|191373588|OTHER|The clinical hypothesis was that there would be no clinically meaningful difference between the blood pressure effects of sumatriptan alone and the effects of a single dose of erenumab IV and sumatriptan concomitant therapy. A clinically meaningful difference was defined as the upper bound of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference between erenumab IV and sumatriptan compared to sumatriptan alone being ≥ 5 mmHg on the time-weighted scale resting MAP.|LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.16|2.08||||||A linear mixed effects regression analysis was performed to assess if the time-weighted average in MAP for erenumab with sumatriptan is similar to sumatriptan alone. A two-sided 90% confidence interval (equivalent to a one-sided upper 95% CI) for the mean treatment difference was calculated using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for treatment and period and a random effect for subject.||2.08|-2.16|
95701921|NCT02741310|191373590|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.03|0.93|
95701922|NCT02741310|191373591|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.96|1.05||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.05|0.96|
95701923|NCT02741310|191373592|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.09||||||The mean for each treatment was compared using a linear mixed effects model with group A (sumatriptan alone) as the reference treatment group. The linear mixed effects model included treatment (erenumab with sumatriptan vs sumatriptan alone) and period as a fixed effect and subject as a random effect.||1.09|0.82|
95701924|NCT00511108|191373686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-29.7||||0.002||95.0|-48.7|-10.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-10.6|-48.7|0.002
95701925|NCT00511108|191373687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Difference|73.8|||<|0.001||95.0|44.2|104.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and log-scaled baseline value as a covariate|The outcome was analyzed by ANCOVA on the log scale. Results have been back-transformed to the original scale.|||104.4|44.2|<0.001
95701926|NCT00511108|191373688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-407.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-513.4|-302.1|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, prior diabetes pharmacotherapy (yes or no), and baseline value as a covariate||||-302.1|-513.4|<0.001
95701927|NCT05441540|191373703|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95701928|NCT05441540|191373704|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95701929|NCT05441540|191373705|OTHER|||||||0.7613|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.7613
95701930|NCT05441540|191373706|OTHER|||||||0.764|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7640
95701931|NCT04539262|191373710|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.16||Least square (LS) Mean, Standard Error (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.49|0.1117
95701932|NCT04539262|191373710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.46||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.46|-1.16|0.3793
95701933|NCT04539262|191373710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.52||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||0.52|-1.00|0.5248
95701934|NCT04539262|191373710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.44|||ANCOVA|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate||||0.44|-0.94|0.4610
95701935|NCT04539262|191373710|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.5006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.81||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.40|0.5006
95701936|NCT04539262|191373711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.3417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|1.02||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.02|-0.37|0.3417
95701937|NCT04539262|191373711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.21||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||1.21|-0.24|0.1803
95701938|NCT04539262|191373711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.16||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.16|-1.27|0.1233
95701939|NCT04539262|191373711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.8203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.8||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.80|-0.64|0.8203
95701940|NCT04539262|191373711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.6458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.41||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.41|-0.65|0.6458
95701941|NCT04539262|191373712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.61||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-1.05|0.5951
95701942|NCT04539262|191373712|SUPERIORITY|LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.11|-1.54|0.0872
95701943|NCT04539262|191373712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.6031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.94|0.6031
95701944|NCT04539262|191373712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.7578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.87||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.87|-0.64|0.7578
95701945|NCT04539262|191373712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference by Day 7|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.8846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.56||LS Mean (SE), 95% CI, and p-value were from ANCOVA with baseline viral load as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||0.56|-0.48|0.8846
95701946|NCT00792701|191373747|OTHER|Correlation|Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95701947|NCT00792701|191373750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Correlation Coefficient|0.39||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Comparing RRM1 levels and ERCC1 levels between all patients.||||.0003
95701948|NCT02980692|191373751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95701949|NCT02980692|191373751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0006
95701950|NCT02980692|191373751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0088|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0088
95701951|NCT02980692|191373751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0041
95701952|NCT02980692|191373752|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|92.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.24|98.83||||||||98.83|86.24|
95701953|NCT02980692|191373752|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|89.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.42|96.71||||||||96.71|81.42|
95701954|NCT02980692|191373752|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|86.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.07|95.27||||||||95.27|78.07|
95701955|NCT02980692|191373752|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
95701956|NCT02980692|191373752|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.52|90.15||||||||90.15|72.52|
95701957|NCT02980692|191373753|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|79.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.37|88.84||||||||88.84|69.37|
95701958|NCT02980692|191373753|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|75.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.39|85.61||||||||85.61|64.39|
95701959|NCT02980692|191373753|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|72.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.88|83.38||||||||83.38|60.88|
95701960|NCT02980692|191373753|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|68.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.44|78.56||||||||78.56|57.44|
95701961|NCT02980692|191373753|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|62.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.72|73.61||||||||73.61|51.72|
95701962|NCT02980692|191373754|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|58.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.4|70.02||||||||70.02|46.40|
95701963|NCT02980692|191373754|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|48.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.19|60.68||||||||60.68|36.19|
95701964|NCT02980692|191373754|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|39.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.09|51.6||||||||51.60|27.09|
95701965|NCT02980692|191373754|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|40.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.91|51.09||||||||51.09|28.91|
95701966|NCT02980692|191373754|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|37.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.39|48.28||||||||48.28|26.39|
95701967|NCT02980692|191373755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0850
95701968|NCT02980692|191373755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0234|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0234
95701969|NCT02980692|191373755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0140
95701970|NCT02980692|191373755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0731|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0731
95701971|NCT02980692|191373756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701972|NCT02980692|191373756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.92|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701973|NCT02980692|191373756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701974|NCT02980692|191373756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701975|NCT02980692|191373756|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-13.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701976|NCT02980692|191373757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0111|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0111
95701977|NCT02980692|191373757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0774|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0774
95701978|NCT02980692|191373757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0190
95701979|NCT02980692|191373757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1282|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1282
95701980|NCT02980692|191373758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.88|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701981|NCT02980692|191373758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.07|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701982|NCT02980692|191373758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701983|NCT02980692|191373758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701984|NCT02980692|191373758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.8|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701985|NCT02980692|191373759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95701986|NCT02980692|191373759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95701987|NCT02980692|191373759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95701988|NCT02980692|191373759|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<.0001
95701989|NCT02980692|191373760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.38|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701990|NCT02980692|191373760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.73|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701991|NCT02980692|191373760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-45.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.84|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701992|NCT02980692|191373760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.18|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701993|NCT02980692|191373760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.41|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701994|NCT02980692|191373761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
95701995|NCT02980692|191373761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0012|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0012
95701996|NCT02980692|191373761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0011
95701997|NCT02980692|191373761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0167|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0167
95701998|NCT02980692|191373762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.74|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95701999|NCT02980692|191373762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702000|NCT02980692|191373762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.9|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702001|NCT02980692|191373762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|24.65|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702002|NCT02980692|191373762|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.13|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702003|NCT02980692|191373763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
95702004|NCT02980692|191373763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0055
95702005|NCT02980692|191373763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0039
95702006|NCT02980692|191373763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0487|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0487
95702007|NCT02980692|191373764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-40.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|21.59|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702008|NCT02980692|191373764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.67|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702009|NCT02980692|191373764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-38.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702010|NCT02980692|191373764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-37.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.63|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702011|NCT02980692|191373764|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-41.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.83|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702012|NCT02980692|191373765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0987|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0987
95702013|NCT02980692|191373765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0360
95702014|NCT02980692|191373765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0346|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0346
95702015|NCT02980692|191373765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4442|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4442
95702016|NCT02980692|191373766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4869|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52093|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702017|NCT02980692|191373766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.543|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.59145|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702018|NCT02980692|191373766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4857|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.56968|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95918034|NCT01089556|191795316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.192||||0.37||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.370
95702019|NCT02980692|191373766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4583|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52285|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702020|NCT02980692|191373766|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54013|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702021|NCT02980692|191373767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0064|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0064
95702022|NCT02980692|191373767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0516|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0516
95702023|NCT02980692|191373767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0114|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0114
95702024|NCT02980692|191373767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0820
95702025|NCT02980692|191373768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.506|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702026|NCT02980692|191373768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.77|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702027|NCT02980692|191373768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.004|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702028|NCT02980692|191373768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.508|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702029|NCT02980692|191373768|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.649|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702030|NCT02980692|191373769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0351|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0351
95702031|NCT02980692|191373769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0876|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0876
95702032|NCT02980692|191373769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0269|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0269
95702033|NCT02980692|191373769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0185|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0185
95702034|NCT02980692|191373770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.58|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702035|NCT02980692|191373770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.26|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702036|NCT02980692|191373770|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-8.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.48|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702037|NCT02980692|191373770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702038|NCT02980692|191373770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|20.47|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702039|NCT02980692|191373771|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
95702040|NCT02980692|191373771|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.83||||||||3.83|0.00|
95702041|NCT02980692|191373771|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|6.07||||||||6.07|0.00|
95702042|NCT02980692|191373771|SUPERIORITY||Proportion with Adjustment of Background|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.73||||||||3.73|0.00|
95702043|NCT02980692|191373772|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|85.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.54|93.61||||||||93.61|76.54|
95702044|NCT02980692|191373772|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|81.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.69|90.81||||||||90.81|71.69|
95702045|NCT02980692|191373772|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|76.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.42|87.13||||||||87.13|65.42|
95702046|NCT02980692|191373772|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|71.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.86|81.25||||||||81.25|60.86|
95702047|NCT02980692|191373772|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|65.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.56|76.1||||||||76.10|54.56|
95702048|NCT02980692|191373773|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|56.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.88|68.96||||||||68.96|44.88|
95702049|NCT02980692|191373773|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|64.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.19|76.62||||||||76.62|52.19|
95702050|NCT02980692|191373773|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|45.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.41|57.59||||||||57.59|32.41|
95702051|NCT02980692|191373773|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|47.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.2|58.92||||||||58.92|35.20|
95702052|NCT02980692|191373773|SUPERIORITY||% response rate|42.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.38|53.68||||||||53.68|30.38|
95702053|NCT02980692|191373774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7081|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.7081
95702054|NCT02980692|191373774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9244|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9244
95702055|NCT02980692|191373774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5365|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5365
95702056|NCT02980692|191373774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2925|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2925
95702057|NCT02980692|191373775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.453|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.9358|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702058|NCT02980692|191373775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.883|STANDARD_DEVIATION|57.1147|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702059|NCT02980692|191373775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-27.084|STANDARD_DEVIATION|76.2272|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95918035|NCT01089556|191795317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.614|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918036|NCT01089556|191795318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.991||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
95702060|NCT02980692|191373775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.173|STANDARD_DEVIATION|87.5367|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702061|NCT02980692|191373775|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-50.399|STANDARD_DEVIATION|141.677|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702062|NCT02980692|191373776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0203|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0203
95702063|NCT02980692|191373776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5194|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5194
95702064|NCT02980692|191373776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0599|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0599
95702065|NCT02980692|191373776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.122|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1220
95702066|NCT02980692|191373777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702067|NCT02980692|191373777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702068|NCT02980692|191373777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.08|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702069|NCT02980692|191373777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702070|NCT02980692|191373777|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95702071|NCT02052141|191373796|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.58||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.1|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.10|-0.71|0.03
95702072|NCT02052141|191373797|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|-0.11|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.11|-1.20|0.05
95702073|NCT02052141|191373798|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.82||0.04|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|-0.38|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated.|||-0.38|-3.31|0.04
95702074|NCT02052141|191373799|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.37||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|-0.03|||Paired t-test||The difference between treatment B over treatment A was estimated|||-0.03|-0.41|0.07
95702075|NCT01525667|191373829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) Difference|25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.94||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.61|43.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference =LSM Low dose - LSM Placebo|||43.86|7.61|0.0067
95702076|NCT01525667|191373829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Means (LSM) difference|14.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.8||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|36.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM difference= LSM High Dose - LSM Placebo|||36.99|-7.12|0.18
95702077|NCT01525667|191373830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.03|30.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||30.02|6.03|0.004
95702078|NCT01525667|191373830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|9.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.91||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.72|23.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.17|-4.72|0.19
95702079|NCT01525667|191373831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|6.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|16.41|||ANCOVA|||||16.41|-3.50|0.19
95702080|NCT01525667|191373831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|15.26|||ANCOVA|||||15.26|-4.29|0.25
95702081|NCT01525667|191373832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.53|-0.21|0.4
95702082|NCT01525667|191373832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.96|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.96
95702083|NCT01525667|191373833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|16.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.37||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|33.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||33.47|0.16|0.05
95702084|NCT01525667|191373833|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.01||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.26|28.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||28.65|-7.26|0.24
95702085|NCT00291187|191373839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|-9.9|||ANCOVA|||||-9.9|-33.1|<0.001
95702086|NCT00291187|191373839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-14.7|||ANCOVA|||||-14.7|-37.8|<0.001
95702087|NCT00291187|191373839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.2|-11.3|||ANCOVA|||||-11.3|-34.2|<0.001
95702088|NCT00291187|191373840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.1|-4.3|||ANCOVA|||||-4.3|-44.1|0.017
95702089|NCT00291187|191373840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.6|-13.9|||ANCOVA|||||-13.9|-53.6|0.001
95702090|NCT00291187|191373840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|2.1|||ANCOVA|||||2.1|-37.0|0.081
95702091|NCT00291187|191373841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|54.5|||ANCOVA|||||54.5|13.0|0.002
95702092|NCT00291187|191373841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.2|68.6|||ANCOVA|||||68.6|27.2|<0.001
95702093|NCT00291187|191373841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.6||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.1|50.0|||ANCOVA|||||50.0|9.1|0.005
95702094|NCT00291187|191373842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|-3.3|||ANCOVA|||||-3.3|-18.9|0.006
95702095|NCT00291187|191373842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-6.5|||ANCOVA|||||-6.5|-22.1|<0.001
95702096|NCT00291187|191373842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|-4.6|||ANCOVA|||||-4.6|-20.0|0.002
95702097|NCT04362813|191373862|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.54|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5).||2.54|0.76|0.2874
95702098|NCT04362813|191373863|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.3303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio is based on a Logistic regression model adjusted by treatment, region (North America vs Europe), and baseline 9-point ordinal scale (\<=4, \>=5)||1.50|0.30|0.3303
95702099|NCT04445688|191373901|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|-4.4|||ANOVA|||||-4.4|-10.2|<0.0001
95702100|NCT04445688|191373902|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-14.1|||ANOVA|||||-14.1|-29.5|<0.0001
95702101|NCT04445688|191373903|SUPERIORITY||difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-4.2|||ANOVA|||||-4.2|-10.5|<0.0001
95702102|NCT01001234|191373919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26||The statistical significance level for the primary endpoint was α=0.0477, and had been adjusted to account for the interim sample size adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|Testing of primary endpoint and secondary endpoints was conducted sequentially in a pre-specified order, thus strongly controlling Type I error.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to the primary outcome was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (United States \[US\] or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.26|1.06|0.025
95702103|NCT01001234|191373920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.9||Secondary endpoints were to be formally tested only if the test of the primary endpoint was statistically significant at the α=0.0477 level. The secondary endpoints were then tested sequentially in a pre-specified order, each at the α=0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|This first secondary hypothesis was not statistically significant, therefore the other two were not formally tested for statistical significance.||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 12 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe) and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.90|0.96|0.080
95702104|NCT01001234|191373921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.1||This second secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain freedom at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||2.10|1.10|0.010
95702105|NCT01001234|191373922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.63||This third secondary hypothesis was not formally tested since the first secondary was not statistically significant.|Regression, Logistic|||The comparison of rizatriptan versus placebo with respect to pain relief at 2 hours post Stage 2 dose for participants between 6 and 17 years of age was conducted using a logistic regression model with factors for treatment, Stage 2 baseline pain severity (moderate or severe), age (6 to 11 years old or 12 to 17 years old), and region (US or ex-US). Model-derived odds ratio and a two-sided p-value were provided. An odds ratio \>1 is in favor of the rizatriptan group.||1.63|0.91|0.178
95702106|NCT00753623|191373928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702107|NCT01975675|191374009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
95702108|NCT01975675|191374009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Treatment-naive noncirrhotic participants in the LDV/SOF+RBV (treatment naive) group were compared to the adjusted historical SVR null rate of 63% using a two-sided exact one-sample binomial test.|Binomial test|||||||< 0.001
95702109|NCT01975675|191374010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|1.0|||||The 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||1.0|-10.2|
95702110|NCT01975675|191374010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.2|||||The 95% CI on the difference in proportions is based on the exact method (standardized statistic and inverting two 1-sided tests).|||4.2|-4.2|
95702111|NCT01686958|191374029|OTHER|This is a primarily descriptive study, no statistical analysis is planned; however, analyses were performed at the alpha=0.05 level of significance and exact analyses will be used wherever possible.|||||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||||Confidence intervals \[CI\] will be constructed for outcomes of interest at the alpha=0.05 level of significance, i.e. 95% CI.||||A total of 30 subjects will be accrued to this study and treated with the PAD-105. The sample size is based primarily on feasibility and logistical concerns, however, is sufficiently large to allow the safety objectives to be met. Specifically, with 30 total patients, if no treatment-related grade 4 or 5 adverse events are observed, then a one-sided, 95% confidence interval would have an upper bound of 0.095.|For continuous outcomes, standard summary statistics will include n, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum. For categorical data, tables will show n and % of patients.|||
95702112|NCT04046341|191374041|OTHER|||||||0.008||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|McNemar|||||||.008
95702113|NCT04046341|191374042|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.014
95702114|NCT04046341|191374043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.013
95702115|NCT04046341|191374044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95702116|NCT04046341|191374045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209||||||A priori statistical significance threshold = p\<.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.209
95702117|NCT03812588|191374046|SUPERIORITY||Slope|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.261||0.292|TWO_SIDED|||||Linear regression model of condition in predicting change in HRSD-24. P-value and coefficient are Medication:Track. Medication (Escitalopram or Placebo) with Track (RFM or CFM) as co-variates. The threshold for statistical significance was p\>0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.292
95702118|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.69|0.0856
95702119|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.8546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.84|0.8546
95918037|NCT01089556|191795319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.431|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.233|1.662|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.662|1.233|<0.001
95702120|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.62|0.0012
95702121|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.87|0.8414
95702122|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.64|0.2412
95702123|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.88|0.4548
95702124|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.69||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.88||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.88|0.53|0.0093
95702125|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.86|0.8414
95702126|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.75|0.1749
95702127|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.96|0.3121
95702128|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.78|0.1351
95702129|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.93|0.8414
95702130|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.83||||0.2158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.67|0.2158
95702131|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.3279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.71|0.3279
95702132|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.72|0.2472
95702133|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.8414
95702134|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.81|0.6193
95702135|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
95702136|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0191
95918038|NCT01089556|191795320|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.052||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.884|1.253|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.253|0.884|0.565
95702137|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.33||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.33|0.97|0.8414
95702138|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.76|0.2412
95702139|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.99|0.3121
95702140|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.8||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.68|0.0135
95702141|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.87|0.8414
95702142|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.66|0.1749
95702143|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.15||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|0.93|0.3121
95702144|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.7||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.57|0.0038
95702145|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.27||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.27|0.84|0.8414
95702146|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
95702147|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.2||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.41||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.41|1.02|0.2053
95702148|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.70|0.0241
95702149|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.8414
95702150|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.94||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.94|0.69|0.0732
95702151|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.82|0.6090
95702152|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.76|0.56|<0.0001
95702153|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.82|0.8414
95918039|NCT01089556|191795321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.467|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.214|1.771|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.771|1.214|<0.001
95702154|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.82|0.7828
95702155|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.21||||0.2053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|1.02|0.2053
95702156|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.92||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.92|0.65|0.0093
95702157|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.93|0.8414
95702158|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.73|0.2412
95702159|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.14||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.95|0.3121
95702160|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.77||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.64|0.0135
95702161|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.92|0.8414
95702162|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.79|0.2412
95702163|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.6652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.91|0.6652
95702164|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.0275
95702165|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.93|0.8414
95702166|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.76|0.2412
95702167|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.3121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.96|0.3121
95702168|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.0387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.72|0.0387
95702169|NCT01392378|191374058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.8414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.8414
95702170|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.82|0.9350
95918040|NCT01089556|191795322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.233||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.550|0.980|0.068
95702171|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.7918
95702172|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.80|0.6922
95702173|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.11||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.93|0.9765
95702174|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6915
95702175|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.94|0.7918
95702176|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.4389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.75|0.4389
95702177|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.85|0.9765
95702178|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.87|0.9350
95702179|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.90|0.7918
95702180|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.88|0.9430
95702181|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.85|0.9765
95702182|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.74|0.5167
95702183|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.7918
95702184|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.73|0.2514
95702185|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.84|0.9872
95702186|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.73|0.2582
95702187|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.91|0.7918
95918041|NCT01089556|191795323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.279|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.125|1.456|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.456|1.125|<0.001
95702188|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.2514
95702189|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
95702190|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.6915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.86|0.6915
95702191|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.13||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.38||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.38|0.93|0.7918
95702192|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.78|0.6922
95702193|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.83|0.9872
95702194|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.3609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.70|0.3609
95702195|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.89|0.7918
95702196|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.71|0.2514
95702197|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.26||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.26|0.86|0.9765
95702198|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.79|0.6304
95702199|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.91|0.7918
95702200|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.75|0.2514
95702201|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.88|0.9765
95702202|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.2582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.71|0.2582
95702203|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.9279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.18||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.18|0.84|0.9279
95702204|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.72|0.2514
95918042|NCT01089556|191795324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.985||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.842|1.151|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.151|0.842|0.843
95702205|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.76|0.9765
95702206|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.71|0.1424
95702207|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.7918
95702208|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.73|0.2514
95702209|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.79|0.9765
95702210|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.78|0.6304
95702211|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
95702212|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.6922
95702213|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.82|0.9765
95702214|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.84|0.6572
95702215|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.86|0.7918
95702216|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.79|0.2514
95918043|NCT01089556|191795325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.341|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95702217|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.9872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.88|0.9872
95702218|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.6304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.78|0.6304
95702219|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.7918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.88|0.7918
95702220|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.80|0.6922
95918044|NCT01089556|191795326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.073||||0.475||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.475
95918045|NCT01089556|191795327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.758|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918046|NCT01089556|191795328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.933||||0.289||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.289
95702221|NCT01392378|191374060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of IgG GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.81|0.9765
95702222|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.66||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.66|0.82|0.7148
95702223|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.45||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.45|0.75|0.7907
95702224|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.4765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.6||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.60|0.81|0.4765
95702225|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 4: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.89|0.5037
95702226|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.17|0.52|0.9414
95702227|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.45|0.7907
95702228|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.32|0.2900
95702229|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.77||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6B: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.77|0.44|0.8826
95702230|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.4||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.40|0.18|0.5823
95702231|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.80|0.27|0.7636
95702232|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.4||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.14|0.2407
95702233|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 9V: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||3.22|0.43|0.8826
95702234|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.5||||0.0961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.81||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.81|0.26|0.0961
95702235|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.38|0.7636
95702236|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.39|0.2900
95702237|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.82||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 14: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.82|0.60|0.8826
95918047|NCT01089556|191795329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.071||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.071
95918048|NCT01089556|191795330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.193||||0.78||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.780
95702238|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.0||||0.9925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.54||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.54|0.65|0.9925
95702239|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.52|0.7636
95702240|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.53|0.3929
95702241|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 18C: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.62|0.8826
95702242|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.20|0.70|0.7433
95702243|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.35|0.46|0.7636
95702244|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.34|0.2407
95702245|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.83||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.83|0.61|0.8826
95702246|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.71||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.71|0.51|0.9414
95702247|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.2||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.14|0.68|0.7636
95702248|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.63||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.63|0.50|0.7380
95702249|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.58||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 23F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.58|0.49|0.8826
95702250|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.9414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.67|0.9414
95702251|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.58|0.7907
95702252|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.43|0.2407
95702253|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.02||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.02|0.42|0.2670
95702254|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.62|0.5823
95918049|NCT01089556|191795331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.558||||0.008||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95702255|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.65|0.7636
95702256|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.6||||0.0422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.86||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.86|0.48|0.0422
95702257|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.53|0.2670
95702258|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.8454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.78||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.78|0.72|0.8454
95702259|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.00|0.81|0.7636
95702260|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.45|0.2824
95702261|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.3||||0.5155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 5: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||2.06|0.83|0.5155
95702262|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.50|0.5823
95702263|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.7||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.70|0.78|0.7636
95702264|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.56|0.4644
95702265|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 6A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.59|0.8826
95702266|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.61|0.5823
95702267|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.9||||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.65|0.7636
95702268|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.3299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.13|0.60|0.3299
95918050|NCT01089556|191795331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.423||||0.031||95.0||||p-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.031
95702269|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.03||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 7F: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.03|0.54|0.2670
95702270|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.5823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.48|0.5823
95727684|NCT01271933|191424942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3779
95918051|NCT01089556|191795332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.615||||0.049||95.0||||P-value is for anxiety subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.049
95702271|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.1||||0.7907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.69||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.69|0.68|0.7907
95702272|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.43|0.2742
95702273|NCT01392378|191374062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.7||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Serotype 19A: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.42|0.2670
95702274|NCT01392378|191374063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.71|0.813
95702275|NCT01392378|191374063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.34||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.34|0.79|0.845
95702276|NCT01392378|191374063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.65|0.461
95702277|NCT01392378|191374063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.68|0.545
95702278|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.79|0.712
95702279|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.84|0.837
95702280|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.78|0.357
95702281|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.76|0.190
95702282|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.813
95702283|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.96|0.73|0.136
95702284|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.85||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.74|0.104
95702285|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.85|0.64|<0.001
95702286|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.04||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.04|0.72|0.712
95702287|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.01|0.70|0.206
95727685|NCT01271933|191424943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.1||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||1.1|-0.2|0.2009
95702288|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.78||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.93||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.93|0.65|0.066
95702289|NCT01392378|191374064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.81||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.67|0.085
95702290|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.9||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.77|0.712
95702291|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.0||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.00|0.74|0.206
95702292|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.84||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.72|0.104
95702293|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.74||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.87||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.87|0.63|0.001
95702294|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.82|0.813
95702295|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.19|0.90|0.837
95702296|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.81|0.534
95702297|NCT01392378|191374065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.87|0.961
95702298|NCT01392378|191374066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.42||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.42|0.75|0.850
95702299|NCT01392378|191374066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.44|0.77|0.837
95702300|NCT01392378|191374066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.69|0.695
95702301|NCT01392378|191374066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.60|0.408
95702302|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.3||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.30|0.69|0.813
95702303|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.25||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.25|0.68|0.837
95702304|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.68|0.695
95727686|NCT01271933|191424945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.6|0.1845
95702305|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.36|0.71|0.961
95702306|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.18||||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.65||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.65|0.85|0.808
95702307|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.5||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.50|0.80|0.837
95702308|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.92||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.66|0.695
95702309|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.82||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.58|0.408
95702310|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.07||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.46||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.46|0.78|0.813
95702311|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.8||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.08||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.08|0.59|0.343
95702312|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.12||||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.82|0.695
95702313|NCT01392378|191374067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.31||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.31|0.69|0.925
95702314|NCT01392378|191374068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.08||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.43||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.43|0.81|0.910
95702315|NCT01392378|191374068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.79|0.850
95702316|NCT01392378|191374068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.70|0.868
95702317|NCT01392378|191374068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.87||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.15||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.15|0.67|0.914
95702318|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.05||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.89|0.910
95702319|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.04||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.22||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.22|0.89|0.850
95702320|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.961
95702321|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.16||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PT: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.16|0.85|0.916
95918052|NCT01089556|191795332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.378||||0.198||95.0||||P-value is for depression subscale score.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
95702322|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.87|0.910
95702323|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.01||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.89|0.909
95702324|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.06||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.2||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.20|0.93|0.868
95702325|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.05||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis FHA: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.05|0.81|0.914
95702326|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.11|0.76|0.910
95702327|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.91||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.09||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.09|0.76|0.850
95702328|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.93||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.78|0.868
95702329|NCT01392378|191374069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.92||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Pertussis PRN: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.76|0.914
95702330|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.96||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.83|0.910
95702331|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.07||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.07|0.82|0.850
95702332|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.12||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.12|0.86|0.939
95702333|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Tetanus: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.98|0.75|0.279
95702334|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.86||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.97|0.76|0.149
95702335|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.14|0.91|0.850
95702336|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.89||||0.394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.99||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||0.99|0.79|0.394
95702337|NCT01392378|191374070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.1||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Diphtheria: Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.10|0.87|0.916
95702338|NCT01392378|191374071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.26||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.76||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.76|0.90|0.869
95918053|NCT01089556|191795337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.343|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95918054|NCT01089556|191795338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.095||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
95702339|NCT01392378|191374071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.07||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.48||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.48|0.78|0.850
95702340|NCT01392378|191374071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.868
95702341|NCT01392378|191374071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMC Ratio|1.1||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.52||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Ratio of GMCs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.52|0.80|0.916
95702342|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.24||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.24|0.78|0.910
95702343|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.32||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.32|0.83|0.850
95702344|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.09||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.37||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.37|0.87|0.868
95702345|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|1.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 1: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.28|0.81|0.916
95702346|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.99||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.79|0.910
95702347|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.94||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.76|0.850
95702348|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.95||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.17|0.77|0.868
95702349|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 2: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.79|0.916
95702350|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.97||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.77|0.910
95702351|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.84||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.06||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen twice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.06|0.67|0.850
95702352|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.98||||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.23||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Paracetamol thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.23|0.78|0.939
95702353|NCT01392378|191374072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMT Ratio|0.96||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||P-values were adjusted using false discovery rate procedure.|General Linear Model|||Poliomyelitis Type 3: Ratio of GMTs along with 2-sided 95% CI were back transformed from the difference of the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa + Ibuprofen thrice daily group minus the LS mean of 13vPnC + INFANRIX hexa group.||1.21|0.76|0.916
95702354|NCT02228564|191374110|NON_INFERIORITY|"The sample size calculation assumes the following:~The LIFESTREAM™ Covered Stent composite event rate is estimated at 10.5% The Performance Goal is set at 19.5% The Type 1 error, α = 0.05 (one-sided). The Type 2 error, β = 0.10 (Power = 1 - β = 90%). The calculated sample size is 139 subjects to be followed through the 9-month follow-up visit (using nQuery 7.0). To accommodate 10% censoring, the sample size is increased to 154."|||||<|0.0325|||||||Exact binomial test|||"H0: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is greater than or equal to that of the PG of 19.5%.~H1: The proportion of subjects in the LifeStream™ Covered Stent group (PBBX) with events in the primary endpoint is less than that of the PG of 19.5%."||||<0.0325
95918055|NCT01089556|191795339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.064||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.064
95702355|NCT01696396|191374131|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg group. The primary and key secondary endpoints were tested under a sequential framework of statistical hypotheses, each with 2-sided significance level of 0.10 for the treatment effect of abrilumab 70 mg compared with placebo.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.44|0.54|0.76
95702356|NCT01696396|191374131|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.9|8.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.9|-7.9|
95702357|NCT01696396|191374131|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|4.57|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.57|0.80|0.22
95702358|NCT01696396|191374131|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|19.4||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||19.4|-4.6|
95702359|NCT01696396|191374131|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|5.73|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.73|0.74|0.25
95702360|NCT01696396|191374131|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.8|22.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-6.8|
95702361|NCT01696396|191374132|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|3.53|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.53|0.90|0.16
95702362|NCT01696396|191374132|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|21.0||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||21.0|-1.8|
95702363|NCT01696396|191374132|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|4.84|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.84|0.93|0.13
95702364|NCT01696396|191374132|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.1|27.5||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.5|-2.1|
95702365|NCT01696396|191374132|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|8.2|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.20|1.17|0.056
95702366|NCT01696396|191374132|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|23.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.8|39.2||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||39.2|2.8|
95702367|NCT01696396|191374133|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.27|4.01|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.01|1.27|0.021
95702368|NCT01696396|191374133|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|19.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.8|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|5.8|
95727687|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52||0.0305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep disturbance||1.0|-18.9|0.0305
95702369|NCT01696396|191374133|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|3.87|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.87|0.94|0.14
95702370|NCT01696396|191374133|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|29.7||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||29.7|-2.3|
95702371|NCT01696396|191374133|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|4.39|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.39|0.79|0.23
95702372|NCT01696396|191374133|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.4|31.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.3|-6.4|
95702373|NCT01696396|191374134|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|3.47|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.47|1.13|0.047
95702374|NCT01696396|191374134|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.4|27.1||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||27.1|2.4|
95702375|NCT01696396|191374134|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.29|0.52|0.84
95702376|NCT01696396|191374134|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.2|15.2||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||15.2|-15.2|
95702377|NCT01696396|191374134|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|2.72|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.72|0.49|0.78
95702378|NCT01696396|191374134|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.4|18.3||||||The difference in response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||18.3|-17.4|
95702379|NCT01696396|191374135|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.65||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|3.91|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.91|0.69|0.34
95702380|NCT01696396|191374135|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|11.7||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.7|-3.9|
95702381|NCT01696396|191374135|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.82||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|7.41|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.41|1.07|0.078
95702382|NCT01696396|191374135|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|12.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|22.6||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.6|-0.6|
95702383|NCT01696396|191374135|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.37||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|10.66|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.66|1.07|0.083
95702384|NCT01696396|191374135|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|28.3||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||28.3|-1.2|
95702385|NCT01696396|191374136|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|3.93|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.93|0.59|0.47
95702386|NCT01696396|191374136|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|8.1||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.1|-4.7|
95702387|NCT01696396|191374136|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|6.98|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||6.98|0.77|0.21
95702388|NCT01696396|191374136|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.3|14.5||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.5|-4.3|
95702389|NCT01696396|191374136|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.66||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|9.45|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total CDAI score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.45|0.75|0.21
95702390|NCT01696396|191374136|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.0|17.9||||||The difference in sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline CDAI score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||17.9|-6.0|
95702391|NCT01696396|191374137|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-42.09||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-67.3|-16.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-16.9|-67.3|0.006
95702392|NCT01696396|191374137|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-40.79||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-81.5|-0.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-0.5|-81.5|0.095
95702393|NCT01696396|191374137|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-36.84||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-74.3|0.7|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||0.7|-74.3|0.11
95702394|NCT01696396|191374138|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Treatment Difference|-27.47||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-50.0|-4.9|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||-4.9|-50.0|0.045
95702395|NCT01696396|191374138|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-23.59||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-58.7|11.5|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||11.5|-58.7|0.27
95702396|NCT01696396|191374138|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing|LS Mean Treatment Difference|-16.37||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-51.8|19.1|||IPW GEE Model|Adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||Comparisons between treatment arms was conducted using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) generalized estimating equations (GEE) model adjusted for prior anti-TNF use, pre-versus post-protocol amendment 3 and baseline CDAI score.||19.1|-51.8|0.45
95702397|NCT00394277|191374142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.075||||0.584||95.0|0.831|1.391||All secondary comparisons were tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||This reflects the primary protocol-specified comparison (standard Pegasys induction dosing arms versus pooled Pegasys induction dosing arms). The study was designed to have at least 86% power for testing the null hypothesis of no difference between these two pooled groups, with assumed response rates of 28%, 32%, 36%, and 43% in the four treatment arms.||1.391|0.831|0.584
95702398|NCT00394277|191374143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.039||||0.775||95.0|0.803|1.344||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.344|0.803|0.775
95702399|NCT00394277|191374144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.973||95.0|0.777|1.299||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.299|0.777|0.973
95702400|NCT00394277|191374145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.008||||0.951||95.0|0.78|1.304||All secondary comparisons are tested at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value obtained from CMH test, stratified by country and ribavirin dose strata.||(PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg) vs. (PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1200 mg and PEG-IFN 360/180 µg + Ribavirin 1400/1600 mg)||1.304|0.780|0.951
95702401|NCT02371980|191374146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.517||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.323|0.828||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.828|0.323|0.006
95702402|NCT02371980|191374146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.476||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.767||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.767|0.296|0.002
95702403|NCT02371980|191374146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.483||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.298|0.782||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.782|0.298|0.003
95702404|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.68|-1.63|0.421
95702405|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.589||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|-0.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||-0.08|-2.39|0.037
95702406|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.592||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.75|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.75|-1.57|0.488
95702407|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.765||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.93|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.93|-3.93|0.002
95702408|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.761|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-1.51|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-1.51|-4.49|<0.001
95702409|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|-0.98|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.98|-4.02|0.001
95702410|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.924||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.13|-4.76|0.001
95702411|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|-2.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-2.03|-5.64|<0.001
95702412|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.939||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.84|-1.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-1.16|-4.84|0.001
95702413|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.938||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.76|-1.08|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.08|-4.76|0.002
95702414|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.934|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|-2.68|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-2.68|-6.34|<0.001
95702415|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.78|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-1.78|-5.50|<0.001
95702416|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.92|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.16|-3.92|0.033
95702417|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.952|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|-1.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-1.82|-5.55|<0.001
95918056|NCT01089556|191795339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135||||0.843||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.843
95702418|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.967||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.52|-0.73|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.73|-4.52|0.007
95702419|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.912||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.82|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.82|-4.40|0.004
95702420|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.906|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-2.31|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-2.31|-5.86|<0.001
95702421|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.921||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|-0.96|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.96|-4.57|0.003
95702422|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.008||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.06|-3.89|0.057
95702423|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.46|-1.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-1.55|-5.46|<0.001
95702424|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.011||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|-0.55|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.55|-4.51|0.012
95702425|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.012||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.09|-3.88|0.061
95702426|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.997||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.4|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||-0.40|-4.31|0.018
95702427|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.015||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.12|-3.87|0.065
95702428|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||MMRM Model|-3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.136||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|-0.86|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.86|-5.31|0.007
95702429|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|-1.77|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.77|-6.16|<0.001
95702430|NCT02371980|191374147|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.143||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|-1.34|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-1.34|-5.82|0.002
95702431|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.14|-0.20|0.732
95702432|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.07|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.07|-0.26|0.273
95702433|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 2||0.09|-0.24|0.361
95702434|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.09|-0.48|0.004
95702435|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.12|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.12|-0.50|0.002
95702436|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 4||-0.16|-0.55|<0.001
95702437|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.06|-0.54|0.014
95702438|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.16|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.16|-0.63|0.001
95702439|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 8||-0.14|-0.62|0.002
95702440|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.03|||Least Squares Mean Difference|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.03|-0.51|0.025
95702441|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.26|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.26|-0.74|<0.001
95702442|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.15|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 12||-0.15|-0.63|0.002
95702443|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.123||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.12|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||0.12|-0.36|0.333
95702444|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.13|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.13|-0.61|0.002
95702445|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.124||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 16||-0.04|-0.53|0.023
95702446|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||0.03|-0.44|0.092
95702447|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.121|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.2|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.20|-0.67|<0.001
95702448|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.122||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 20||-0.09|-0.57|0.008
95702449|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.11|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.11|-0.42|0.248
95702450|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||-0.10|-0.63|0.006
95702451|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.03|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 24||0.03|-0.50|0.087
95702452|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.38|0.362
95702453|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.10|-0.40|0.251
95702454|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.131||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.14|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 28||0.14|-0.37|0.391
95702455|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.1|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||0.10|-0.45|0.209
95702456|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.139||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.06|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.06|-0.60|0.018
95702457|NCT02371980|191374148|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09|||MMRM|MMRM with treatment, visit, BL II score, treatment by visit interaction as fixed factors, center as random effect, and unstructured covariance matrix.||Change From Baseline II at Week 32||-0.09|-0.65|0.009
95702458|NCT02371980|191374150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.302|0.766||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 5mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.766|0.302|0.002
95727688|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.17||0.3133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|15.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Snoring||15.5|-5.0|0.3133
95702459|NCT02371980|191374150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.455|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.286|0.725||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 10 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.725|0.286|<0.001
95702460|NCT02371980|191374150|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|0.771||Gate-keeping fixed-sequence testing procedure was used for multiple comparisons.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|Cox proportional hazards model with a factor for treatment and baseline II MADRS total score as a covariate, using the exact method to handle ties.||Double-blind Vortioxetine 20 mg Vs Double-blind Placebo||0.771|0.304|0.002
95702461|NCT01594749|191374151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
95702462|NCT01594749|191374152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage vs. Control|0.6||||0.085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.7||P-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.7|-0.2|0.085
95702463|NCT01594749|191374154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
95702464|NCT01594749|191374155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.184||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||0.184
95702465|NCT01594749|191374156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value based on CMH method with stratification of gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage difference in Fosaprepitant Regimen vs. Control Regimen||||<0.001
95702466|NCT04839393|191374171|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|108.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.24|135.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||135.84|87.24|
95702467|NCT04839393|191374172|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|113.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.34|143.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||143.28|89.34|
95702468|NCT04839393|191374173|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|38.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|32.8|45.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The test treatment was PF-06865571 300 mg + PF-06882961 200 mg BID (Period 3 - Day 47), which was reported separately in comparison to the reference treatment of PF-06865571 300 mg (Period 1 - Day 1).||45.74|32.80|
95702469|NCT04839393|191374174|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|67.95|80.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.40|67.95|
95702470|NCT04839393|191374175|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.82|80.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||80.18|66.82|
95702471|NCT04839393|191374176|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|115.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.37|155.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||155.73|85.37|
95702472|NCT04839393|191374177|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|149.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||149.66|94.05|
95702473|NCT00762528|191374201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702474|NCT00762528|191374202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702475|NCT00762528|191374203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702476|NCT00762528|191374204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702477|NCT00762528|191374205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702478|NCT00762528|191374206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702479|NCT00762528|191374207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702480|NCT00762528|191374208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95702481|NCT03417505|191374209|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test comparison||||||<0.01
95702482|NCT03417505|191374210|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparisons, one-sided||||||<0.05
95702483|NCT03417505|191374211|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired 1-sided t-test||||||<0.01
95702484|NCT03417505|191374212|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed rank comparison, one sided p value||||||<0.01
95702485|NCT03417505|191374213|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|paired||||||>0.05
95702486|NCT03417505|191374214|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
95702487|NCT03417505|191374215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.01
95702488|NCT03417505|191374216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \<0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||<0.05
95702489|NCT03417505|191374217|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|paired, 1-sided||||||>0.05
95702490|NCT04211961|191374238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95702491|NCT04211961|191374239|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
95702492|NCT04211961|191374240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3
95702493|NCT04211961|191374241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5
95702494|NCT04211961|191374243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
95702495|NCT04211961|191374244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95702496|NCT04211961|191374245|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95702497|NCT04211961|191374247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.024
95702498|NCT04211961|191374248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.9
95702499|NCT04211961|191374249|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
95702500|NCT04211961|191374250|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
95702501|NCT04211961|191374251|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.9|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.9
95702502|NCT00918346|191374375|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type 1 error rate of 5%.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.96||95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4.|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.49|-0.46|0.96
95702503|NCT00918346|191374376|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence limit was set to 1.5 mmHg. Equivalence was shown if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference (unpreserved-preserved) lay entirely within the equivalence range (-1.5 mmHg, 1.5 mmHg). Target sample size was 34 evaluable patients (40 randomized), assuming a standard deviation of 3.0 mmHg change in IOP, a power of 80%, an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.60 and a twosided type I error rate of 5%.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.83||95.0|-0.52|0.42|||ANCOVA|Baseline IOP a covariate|Analysis model used IOP measurements at four timepoints (at 8, 12, 16 and 20 o'clock) on Baseline and Week 4|H1 (the alternative hypothesis aimed to be proven): the unpreserved formulation is equivalent with the preserved formulation||0.42|-0.52|0.83
95702504|NCT01654523|191374416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change in the single arm trial|6.695|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.505|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.041|9.348|||Paired t-test|||||9.348|4.041|<0.05
95702505|NCT00180271|191374430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.84||The trial involved prespecified event monitoring at up to 20 successive periods by an independent DSMB to permit trial termination if the CRT-D was superior to, inferior to, or not different from ICD according to prespecified stopping rules.|Log Rank||A Hazard ratio \< 1.0 would indicate that the result favors CRT-D.|The trial utilized a Wang-Tsiatis (delta=0.1) group-sequential design with 95% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.75 at a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Primary analysis based on statistical evaluation comparing the life-table event-free survival time graphs for CRT-D and ICD-only arms of the trial. Stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate a hazard ratio and statistical significance was evaluated with the log-rank test. Stratified by center and ischemic status.||0.84|0.52|< 0.001
95702506|NCT00180271|191374431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Andersen-Gill|Andersen-Gill model performed, adjusted for a previous HF event in the study, stratified by ischemic status and using robust variance estimation.|Model adjusted for previously experienced heart failure event in the study. Hazard Ratio (95% CI) comparing patients with a previous heart failure event to those patients without a prior heart failure event equaled 8.84 (6084, 11.43), p\<0.001.|||0.86|0.53|0.001
95702507|NCT00788697|191374432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|11.3||||0.0754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|23.6|||McNemar|||||23.6|-1.0|0.0754
95702508|NCT00788697|191374432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|19.4||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|30.5|||McNemar|||||30.5|8.3|0.0011
95702509|NCT00788697|191374432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|-19.4||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-7.8|||McNemar|||||-7.8|-30.9|0.0016
95702510|NCT00788697|191374433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|47.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.4|57.4|||McNemar|||||57.4|37.4|<.0001
95702511|NCT00788697|191374433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|60.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.5|70.2|||McNemar|||||70.2|50.5|<.0001
95702512|NCT00788697|191374433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|29.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|38.9|||McNemar|||||38.9|19.7|<.0001
95702513|NCT00788697|191374434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|28.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.5|37.0|||McNemar|||||37.0|20.5|<.0001
95702514|NCT00788697|191374434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|39.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.3|47.1|||McNemar|||||47.1|31.3|<.0001
95702515|NCT00788697|191374434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|4.2||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.3|||McNemar|||||12.3|-4.0|0.3173
95702516|NCT00788697|191374435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95702517|NCT00788697|191374435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95702518|NCT00788697|191374435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.0004
95702519|NCT00788697|191374436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95702520|NCT00788697|191374436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95702521|NCT00788697|191374436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.761|||||||Wald Test|||||||0.7610
95702522|NCT01998880|191374440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.59||Type I error controlled through closed test procedure.|Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.59|0.36|<0.0001
95702523|NCT01998880|191374442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.5|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.50|0.31|<0.0001
95702524|NCT01998880|191374443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.16|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||1.16|0.61|0.2841
95702525|NCT01998880|191374444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.5|45.1|||Chi-squared|||||45.1|23.5|<0.0001
95702526|NCT01998880|191374446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.61|||Log-ranked, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.61|0.35|<0.0001
95702527|NCT01998880|191374450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.53|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.53|0.30|<0.0001
95702528|NCT01998880|191374451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (stratified)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.65|||Log Rank, Stratified||Stratified by Binet stage at Baseline.|||0.65|0.31|<0.0001
95702529|NCT01998880|191374452|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|33.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.1|43.9|||Chi-squared|||Includes subjects with best overall response: CR, CRi, PR or nPR.||43.9|22.1|< 0.0001
95918057|NCT01089556|191795340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.329||||0.354||95.0||||P-value is for systolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.354
95702530|NCT01125293|191374541|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Two stage design, exact method|||In a two-stage Simon design, a VGPR or better rate of at least 18% is considered promising versus a 5% or less rate. In stage 1, if 1 or fewer of 23 evaluable participants achieve VGPR, the regimen is considered non-promising else continue with 24 more patients enrolled. If \</=4 of 47 evaluable patients have VGPR or better, the regimen is considered non-promising. If \>/=5, then the regimen is considered promising for further study. With this design, there is 90% power and 1-sided 10% alpha.|The study did not continue to stage 2 given 1 VGPR or better response was observed in 23 evaluable participants in stage 1.|||0.69
95702531|NCT01270958|191374550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702532|NCT01270958|191374551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702533|NCT01270958|191374552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702534|NCT01270958|191374553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702535|NCT01270958|191374554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702536|NCT01270958|191374555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702537|NCT01270958|191374556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702538|NCT01270958|191374557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702539|NCT01270958|191374558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95702540|NCT01270958|191374559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702541|NCT01270958|191374560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702542|NCT01270958|191374561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702543|NCT01270958|191374562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702544|NCT01270958|191374563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702545|NCT01270958|191374564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702546|NCT01270958|191374565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702547|NCT01270958|191374566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702548|NCT01270958|191374567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702549|NCT01270958|191374568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0||||Comparison between Screening value and Visit 3 value|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95702550|NCT01938001|191374571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.62|||Log Rank|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its confidence interval (CI) were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.62|0.34|< 0.0001
95702551|NCT01938001|191374572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||0.0006
95702552|NCT01938001|191374573|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.95||||||Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||0.95|0.37|
95702553|NCT01938001|191374574|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||< 0.0001
95702554|NCT01938001|191374575|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||||= 0.0010
95702555|NCT01938001|191374576|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.79|||Log Rank|||||0.79|0.36|0.0015
95702556|NCT01938001|191374577|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.43|||Log Rank|||||1.43|0.32|0.2993
95702557|NCT01938001|191374578|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.67|||Stratified Log-Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).|Hazard ratio and its CI were estimated from Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for the stratification factors noted above.|||0.67|0.38|< 0.0001
95702558|NCT01938001|191374579|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.71|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified by 3 factors: previous rituximab treatment, time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2, \> 2 years), and disease histology (FL, MZL).||||0.71|0.39|<0.0001
95702559|NCT00971633|191374623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.904|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.028|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||1.028|0.796|
95727689|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.2985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|3.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Awakening Short of Breath or with a Headache||3.5|-11.2|0.2985
95702560|NCT00971633|191374623|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.126|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.126|0.873|
95702561|NCT00971633|191374624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study Secondary Hypothesis: A single dose of U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg table over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean ratios (U.K.) ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.K. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.813|0.966|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.K. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally Treatment U.K. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United Kingdom (U.K.) taken orally||0.966|0.813|
95702562|NCT00971633|191374624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|§ Study Primary Hypothesis: A single dose of the U.K. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet over-encapsulated is bioequivalent to a single dose of the U.S. ZOFRAN (ondansetron) 8-mg tablet. That is, the true geometric mean rations (U.K. ZOFRAN tablet over-encapsulated/U.S. ZOFRAN tablet) of the area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) from zero to infinity and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for ondansetron each lie within the interval 0.80 to 1.25.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.037|||||Geometric Mean Ratio (Treatment OE U.K. tablet / Treatment U.S. tablet)|Treatment OE U.K. tablet: an over-encapsulated single 8-mg tablet of United Kingdom (U.K.) ZOFRAN (ondansetron) taken orally. Treatment U.S. tablet: a single 8-mg tablet of ZOFRAN (ondansetron) which is marketed in the United States (U.S.) taken orally||1.037|0.872|
95702563|NCT01459068|191374657|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.4||a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|longitudinal model|longitudinal to model within-person change in mean scores||||-0.40|-0.59|<0.001
95702564|NCT01459068|191374658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|power calculations were not done for secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.28|||longitudinal model|||||-0.28|-0.59|<0.001
95702565|NCT01459068|191374659|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We estimated 150 participants in each arm using the test for paired means, based on a moderate effect size (0.50), 80% power, two-tailed 5% significance level, design effect of 1.5, and up to a 50% expected drop-out rate (due to frequent cross-border movement).|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.35||a priori threshold for significance set at 0.05|longitudinal model|longitudinal analysis modeling within-person change in mean scores||||-0.35|-0.51|<0.001
95702566|NCT01459068|191374660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations on secondary outcomes|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.34|||longitudinal model|||||-0.34|-0.61|<0.001
95702567|NCT01459068|191374661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||longitudinal model|||||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
95702568|NCT01459068|191374662|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|no power calculations for secondary measures|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.5|||longitudinal model|||||0.50|-0.44|0.896
95702569|NCT00701441|191374679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||For comparing pre versus post, paired t tests were used. We considered tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive|t-test, 2 sided|For each comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values. We used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance.||Flow mediated dilation = \[(average maximum dilation post cuff deflation - average baseline diameter)/ average baseline diameter\]100||||0.02
95702570|NCT00701441|191374680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||We only consider tests in the hypothesized direction conclusive, so testing is conservative from that perspective. However, we used no correction for multiple testing when declaring significance|t-test, 2 sided|||For comparing pre- versus post-treatment, paired t tests were used. For each variable and comparison, we tested at the 0.05 level with double-sided P values.||||0.02
95702571|NCT02690168|191374684|OTHER|||||||0.0053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0053
95702572|NCT02690168|191374685|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.477
95702573|NCT02690168|191374686|OTHER|||||||0.917|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.917
95702574|NCT02690168|191374688|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.53
95702575|NCT00631540|191374698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Patency Rate|91.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.2|95.9|||Z-test, 1-sided||GEE model estimate.|Alternative hypothesis is 9-month primary patency rate greater than 60%.||95.9|84.2|<0.0001
95702576|NCT01041404|191374763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.59|0.0002
95702577|NCT01041404|191374765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||Log Rank|||||0.85|0.58|0.0003
95702578|NCT01041404|191374766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|12.8||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.9|||Chi-squared|||||20.9|4.7|0.0017
95702579|NCT01041404|191374768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.40|<0.0001
95702580|NCT01041404|191374769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Clinical Benefit Rate|9.6||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|16.9|||Chi-squared|||||16.9|2.4|0.0081
95702581|NCT01041404|191374769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.41||||||||2.41|1.14|
95702582|NCT01041404|191374770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.60|0.0046
95702583|NCT00523614|191374798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Size of the study adapted to the use of DNG/EE in female fertile age. Market share of DNG/EE of 13% in Germany. Assuming that 30% of women in the fertile age range were current users of OCs, a prevalence of current use of DNG/EE of about 4% was estimated.~Based on these data the number of cases needed to exclude a twofold increased VTE risk was estimated at about 500-700 cases (based on four controls per case)."|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89|||<|0.05||95.0|0.57|1.39|||Regression, Logistic|||Null hypothesis: OR ≥ 2 (VTE of DNG/EE vs. other low-dose COC)||1.39|0.57|<0.05
95702584|NCT02437487|191374800|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
95702585|NCT02437487|191374802|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2624|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7668|2.0785||||||||2.0785|0.7668|
95702586|NCT02437487|191374803|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.2217|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7919|1.8849||||||||1.8849|0.7919|
95702587|NCT02437487|191374804|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|1.0878|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7383|1.6029||||||||1.6029|0.7383|
95702588|NCT01731990|191374832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment effect for ratio to placebo|1.06||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.15|0.97|0.284
95702589|NCT01280812|191374836|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|1100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3000.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|Two-sided P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.||Intent to treat analysis||||
95702590|NCT01060098|191374842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.003
95702591|NCT01060098|191374842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.04
95702592|NCT01060098|191374842|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||week 0 compared to week 12||||0.48
95702593|NCT00789724|191374843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.033
95702594|NCT01183104|191374852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|LS mean difference|0.11||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.24|||ANCOVA|||||0.24|-0.02|0.087
95702595|NCT01183104|191374853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95702596|NCT01183104|191374854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95702597|NCT01183104|191374855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95702598|NCT01183104|191374856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95702599|NCT01183104|191374857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.043|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.043
95702600|NCT00323310|191374883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.1|<0.0001
95702601|NCT00323310|191374884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
95702602|NCT00323310|191374885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.9|0.4|<0.0001
95702603|NCT00323310|191374886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.6||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.6|1.1|<0.001
95702604|NCT00323310|191374887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.8|<0.001
95702605|NCT00323310|191374888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.8||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||0.8|0.4|<0.0001
95702606|NCT00323310|191374889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.57|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.5||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.5|1.0|<0.0001
95702607|NCT00323310|191374890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.4|0.9|<0.0001
95702608|NCT00323310|191374891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.1||H0: udiff = 0; Ha: udiff not = 0|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t-test to compare change from pre to pre+postdose||1.1|0.6|<0.0001
95702609|NCT02574481|191374895|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions.|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
95702610|NCT02574481|191374896|NON_INFERIORITY|A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions..|||||<|0.0001||||||A two-group Farrington-Manning test is used to test the one-sided hypothesis of non-inferiority in proportions. If the P-value from the one-sided Farrington-Manning test is \<0.05, Eluvia is concluded to be non-inferior to Zilver PTX.|Farrington-Manning|||||||<0.0001
95702611|NCT00446641|191374916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.654||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assumed that the prevalence of AR would be 12 % among ischemic stroke patients who were treated with aspirin 100 per day. The prevalence could be reduced to 4% with additional cilostazol therapy||||0.654
95702612|NCT03404219|191374937|OTHER|Single group pre-post, follow-up|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||General Linear Model (repeated measures)|||Single arm||||0.09
95702613|NCT04038385|191374956|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-42.87||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.25|-20.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.49|-65.25|0.001
95702614|NCT04038385|191374957|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|23.91||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.21|45.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||45.62|2.21|0.031
95702615|NCT04038385|191374958|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.33|0.662
95702616|NCT04038385|191374959|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.55|0.00|0.047
95702617|NCT04038385|191374960|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.39|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.64|35.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||35.02|8.64|<0.01
95702618|NCT04038385|191374961|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.9||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.1|1.0|0.056
95702619|NCT04038385|191374962|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|16.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||16.3|1.0|0.050
95702620|NCT04038385|191374963|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.0|-2.5|0.001
95702621|NCT04038385|191374964|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-1.4|0.082
95702622|NCT04038385|191374965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.8|-2.2|0.001
95702623|NCT04038385|191374966|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.0|-1.4|0.039
95702624|NCT04038385|191374967|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.3|0.962
95702625|NCT04038385|191374968|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|.277
95702626|NCT04038385|191374969|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2|-1.0|0.155
95702627|NCT04038385|191374970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.7|-0.5|0.740
95702628|NCT04038385|191374971|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.122
95702629|NCT04038385|191374972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.5|.177
95702630|NCT04038385|191374973|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.3|0.514
95702631|NCT04038385|191374974|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.2|0.335
95702632|NCT04038385|191374975|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.6|-0.4|0.750
95702633|NCT04038385|191374976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.3|-0.7|0.455
95702634|NCT04038385|191374977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.8|-0.0|0.053
95702635|NCT04038385|191374978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.9|-0.9|.986
95702636|NCT04038385|191374979|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2|0.6|0.810
95702637|NCT04038385|191374980|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.7|0.4|0.591
95702638|NCT03180294|191375030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.46
95918058|NCT01089556|191795340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003||||0.997||95.0||||P-value is for diastolic BP.|ANCOVA|||||||0.997
95702639|NCT03180294|191375030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Using a two sample t-test with a one-sided type I error of 0.05 (overall type I error of 0.1 after a Bonferroni correction) and an effect size of 0.45, 62 patients/arm were calculated to be needed to achieve 80% statistical power. Adjusting for 20% non-compliance resulted in a total sample size of 234 patients..||||0.54
95702640|NCT03180294|191375031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.95
95702641|NCT03180294|191375031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.73
95702642|NCT03180294|191375031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.46
95702643|NCT03180294|191375031|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.42
95702644|NCT03180294|191375032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||One-side significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.24
95702645|NCT03180294|191375032|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.74
95702646|NCT03180294|191375033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
95702647|NCT03180294|191375033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.60
95702648|NCT03180294|191375033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.90
95702649|NCT03180294|191375033|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
95702650|NCT03180294|191375034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.41
95702651|NCT03180294|191375034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.35
95702652|NCT03180294|191375034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.83
95702653|NCT03180294|191375034|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.79
95702654|NCT03180294|191375035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.78
95702655|NCT03180294|191375035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 5||||0.51
95702656|NCT03180294|191375035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.49
95702657|NCT03180294|191375035|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||Week 9||||0.50
95702658|NCT03180294|191375036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.71
95702659|NCT03180294|191375036|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided significance level 0.05||||||0.34
95702660|NCT03180294|191375037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.23
95702661|NCT03180294|191375037|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||One-sided significance level 0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.25
95702662|NCT01951326|191375071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0048
95918059|NCT01089556|191795341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.317|||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95918060|NCT01089556|191795342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.942||||0.332||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.332
95702663|NCT01951326|191375072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0116|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0116
95702664|NCT01951326|191375073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0616|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0616
95702665|NCT01951326|191375074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0851|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0851
95702666|NCT01951326|191375075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0147
95702667|NCT01951326|191375076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.151|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.1510
95702668|NCT01951326|191375077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2402|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2402
95702669|NCT01951326|191375078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0460
95702670|NCT01951326|191375079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0031|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0031
95702671|NCT01951326|191375080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0100
95702672|NCT01951326|191375081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0077|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0077
95702673|NCT01951326|191375082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified according to anti-TNF agent use (Y/N).||||||0.0422
95702674|NCT02009930|191375108|OTHER||Wilson Method used|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|22.9||||||||22.9|9.4|
95702675|NCT02009930|191375109|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Only descriptive statistics were calculated (frequency, percent). Inferential statistics were not necessary, nor appropriate|||
95702676|NCT02009930|191375110|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor expressed as a p-value|Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient|Correlation between FRS and CAC risk categories in participants with at least 1 additional risk factor. Spearman's rho = 0.04||Compare risk categories (FRS and CAC)||||0.79
95918061|NCT01089556|191795343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.618||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.618
95702677|NCT02009930|191375111|OTHER|||||||0.063||||||Relationship between FRS and metabolic syndrome. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.063
95702678|NCT02009930|191375111|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
95702679|NCT02009930|191375112|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Relationship between FRS and living in the dorms. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.56
95702680|NCT02009930|191375112|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
95702681|NCT02009930|191375113|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Relationship between FRS and PT failures. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate-high, high, and very high)||||0.44
95702682|NCT02009930|191375113|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
95702683|NCT02009930|191375114|OTHER|||||||0.11||||||Relationship between FRS and overall years of service. FRS risk category (low, mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (FRS - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||FRS risk categories (low, moderate, moderate -high, high, and very high)||||0.11
95702684|NCT02009930|191375114|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
95702685|NCT02009930|191375116|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||Relationship between CAC and metabolic syndrome. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and metabolic syndrome (presence/absence of metabolic syndrome)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, metabolic syndrome - presence/absence) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high)||||0.21
95702686|NCT02009930|191375117|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Relationship between CAC and living in the dorms. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and living in the dorms (\< 5 years, \> 5 years)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, living in the dorms - \<5 years/\> 5 years) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, moderate - high, high, and very high)||||0.13
95702687|NCT02009930|191375118|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||Relationship between CAC and PT failures. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and PT failures (with, without PT failure)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, PT failure - with/without PT failure) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk categories (low, low-moderate, mod -high, high, and very high)||||0.49
95727690|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.49||0.2159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep adequacy||17.7|-4.1|0.2159
95918062|NCT01089556|191795344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.571
95918063|NCT01089556|191795345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.744||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.744
95918064|NCT01089556|191795346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95702688|NCT02009930|191375119|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Relationship between CAC and overall years of service. CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk) and overall years of service (15-19, 20-24, 25+)|Fisher Exact|Relationship between 2 variables (CAC - each risk category, overall years of service) expressed as a p-value||CAC risk category (low, low-mod, mod-high, high, very high risk)||||0.003
95702689|NCT03300427|191375141|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-900.0||||0.7594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6781.7|4981.8|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||4981.8|-6781.7|0.7594
95702690|NCT03300427|191375143|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square means|-575.5||||0.8422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6365.5|5214.5|||ANCOVA|||The study hypothesis is that short-term therapy with sacubitril/valsartan added on standard HF therapy improves cardiac efficiency in subjects with systolic HF.||5214.5|-6365.5|0.8422
95702691|NCT03250624|191375166|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.28||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.89|||ANCOVA|||||0.89|-1.46|0.632
95702692|NCT01599806|191375208|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Difference of symp resolution rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|10.42|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of symptomatic resolution rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||10.42|-2.39|
95702693|NCT01599806|191375209|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable combined resp rates|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|13.12|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable combined response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||13.12|0.30|
95702694|NCT01599806|191375210|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|-12.5%|Diff of favorable response rates|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|12.36|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||H0: Difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates ≤ non-inferiority margin||12.36|0.33|
95702695|NCT01599806|191375211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|3.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||3.56|-2.70|
95702696|NCT01599806|191375212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|13.81|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.81|0.68|
95702697|NCT01599806|191375213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.72|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.72|-1.21|
95702698|NCT01599806|191375214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|15.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||15.24|2.27|
95702699|NCT01599806|191375215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.86|18.85|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||18.85|2.86|
95702700|NCT01599806|191375216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.68|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||1.68|-1.17|
95702701|NCT01599806|191375217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|13.74|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||13.74|0.88|
95702702|NCT01599806|191375218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|17.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||17.55|1.72|
95918065|NCT01087723|191795348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.82|||Chi-squared|||||0.82|0.43|0.0014
95702703|NCT01599806|191375219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.07|1.02|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.02|-4.07|
95702704|NCT01599806|191375220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|4.03|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.03|-4.23|
95702705|NCT01599806|191375221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|6.3|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.30|-3.71|
95702706|NCT01599806|191375222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|0.55|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.55|-3.64|
95702707|NCT01599806|191375223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|4.56|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.56|-2.03|
95702708|NCT01599806|191375224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.24|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.24|-2.90|
95702709|NCT01599806|191375225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|0.04|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||0.04|-4.30|
95702710|NCT01599806|191375226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|4.32|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||4.32|-2.07|
95918066|NCT01649596|191795370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|10.0||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.12
95918067|NCT01649596|191795371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent|48.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|A t-test for percents was used to compare the number of participants (%) from each group reporting satisfaction (somewhat and highly satisfied).||||||<0.05
95702711|NCT01599806|191375227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|6.91|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||6.91|-2.94|
95702712|NCT01599806|191375228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|1.61|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||1.61|-1.99|
95702713|NCT01599806|191375229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|7.16|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||7.16|0.41|
95702714|NCT01599806|191375230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clinical cure rates|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.05|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates||9.05|-1.00|
95702715|NCT01599806|191375231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|10.1|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.1|-10.4|
95702716|NCT01599806|191375232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|10.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||10.2|-7.8|
95702717|NCT01599806|191375233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of clin cure rates in All patients|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.2|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of clinical cure rates in All patients with a ceftazidime-resistant Gram-negative pathogen||9.2|-7.5|
95702718|NCT01599806|191375234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.18|16.89|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||16.89|-13.18|
95702719|NCT01599806|191375235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.03|25.21|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||25.21|-10.03|
95702720|NCT01599806|191375236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Diff of favorable response rates|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|24.01|||Unstratified Miettinen & Nurminen method|||Confidence interval of the difference (CAZ-AVI treatment group minus Doripenem treatment group) of favorable response rates||24.01|-9.91|
95702721|NCT01599806|191375237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.038
95702722|NCT01599806|191375238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.129
95702723|NCT01599806|191375239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.080
95702724|NCT01599806|191375240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|||||||Log Rank|||H0: No difference in time to first defervescence between treatment groups.||||0.155
95702725|NCT01057862|191375280|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.35|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 16 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 7.35. At end of study the active arm had a mean PG-YBOCS score of 10 (n=5) with a SD of 9.35. The placebo arm is not included here as there were only two scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
95702726|NCT01057862|191375281|OTHER|We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the start and end of study only as a comparison and not a meaningful analysis. Since higher scores represent a more severe form of the disorder, a drop in scores is seen as an indicator that the treatment had an effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.45|||TWO_SIDED||||||||The active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 26.8 (n=5) at study start with a SD of 11.73. At end the active treatment arm had a mean G-SAS score of 12.6 (n=5) with a SD of 9.45. The placebo arm is not included as there were only 2 scores.|Enrollment was lower than expected and due to the low numbers of subjects completing the study (7 subjects (5 active and 2 placebo) completed all interventions) the numbers were not powerful enough to conduct a full analysis or provide any meaningful statistical analyses. We are including the mean and SD of each arm at the beginning and end of the study only as a comparison and not as a meaningful analysis.||||
95702727|NCT00563368|191375293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|4.39||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.39|1.13|0.0009
95702728|NCT00563368|191375293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.825||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|4.77||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.77|1.53|0.0001
95702729|NCT00563368|191375293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.86|9.12||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||9.12|5.86|<0.0001
95702730|NCT00563368|191375293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|4.96||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.96|1.69|<0.0001
95702731|NCT00563368|191375293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.828||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|4.63||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.63|1.38|0.0003
95702732|NCT00563368|191375293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.831|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|8.38||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||8.38|5.11|<0.0001
95702733|NCT00563368|191375294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5832||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|3.563||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.563|1.154|0.0140
95702734|NCT00563368|191375294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6418||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.283|3.932||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.932|1.283|0.0046
95702735|NCT00563368|191375294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.644|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.424|20.81||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||20.81|5.424|<0.0001
95702736|NCT00563368|191375294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7391||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|4.514||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||4.514|1.460|0.0011
95702737|NCT00563368|191375294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6158||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.241|3.781||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.781|1.241|0.0066
95702738|NCT00563368|191375294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0857|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.65|17.66||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With 100 subjects in each of the seven arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and monotherapy or placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||17.66|4.650|<0.0001
95702739|NCT00444080|191375297|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95702740|NCT03363165|191375299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54||||0.7586|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-38.52||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-38.52|0.7586
95702741|NCT03363165|191375300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.0298|ONE_SIDED|90.0|0.78||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline maximal treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker|||||0.78|0.0298
95702742|NCT03363165|191375301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.4019|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-3.1||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline perfusion, age, race, former smoker.|||||-3.10|0.4019
95702743|NCT03363165|191375302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.28||||0.208|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-5.37||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline muscle measure, age, race, former smoker.|||||-5.37|0.2080
95702744|NCT03363165|191375303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.02||||0.398|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-8.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker|||||-8.11|0.3980
95702745|NCT03363165|191375304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.7852|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.5||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.50|0.7852
95702746|NCT03363165|191375305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.14||||0.8414|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-11.76||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SF-36 physical functioning score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-11.76|0.8414
95702747|NCT03363165|191375306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.5912|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-14.11||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline WIQ distance score, age, race, former smoker.|||||-14.11|0.5912
95702748|NCT03363165|191375307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.5442|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-25.47||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-25.47|0.5442
95702749|NCT03363165|191375308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6603|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|||Adjusted for baseline pain-free treadmill walking time, age, race, former smoker.|ANCOVA||||||-2.11|0.6603
95702750|NCT03363165|191375309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.78||||0.5647|ONE_SIDED|90.0|-24.99||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline six-minute walk distance, age, race, former smoker.|||||-24.99|0.5647
95702751|NCT01819506|191375333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.912|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.912
95702752|NCT02420990|191375336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.31|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702753|NCT02420990|191375336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702754|NCT02420990|191375336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.05||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
95702755|NCT02420990|191375336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.56||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
95702756|NCT02420990|191375336|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.72||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||0.05
95702757|NCT02420990|191375337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.78|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702758|NCT02420990|191375337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702759|NCT02420990|191375337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Linear Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702760|NCT02420990|191375337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702761|NCT02420990|191375337|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.44|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Latent Growth Curve Modeling|||||||
95702762|NCT02420990|191375338|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
95702763|NCT03326583|191375339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.05
95702764|NCT03326583|191375340|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95702765|NCT03326583|191375341|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95702766|NCT03326583|191375342|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.05
95702767|NCT00879437|191375345|NON_INFERIORITY|if 19 evaluable patients enrolled for DIPG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control if 21 evaluable patients enrolled for HGG, study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% improvement in 1-year EFS compared to historical control|||||<|0.05|||||||Log Rank|one sample log-rank||comparing 1-year EFS of DIPG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 17% from CCG-9941; PMID 12177103) comparing 1-year EFS of HGG on this trial versus historical control (1-year EFS of 36% from ACNS0126; PMID 21339192)||||< 0.05
95702768|NCT00879437|191375385|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the median EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
95702769|NCT00879437|191375386|OTHER|The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses were performed in SAS version 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc) and R (https://cran.r-project.org/).|||||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||||||The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the one-year EFS for each cohort with 95% confidence intervals.|||
95702770|NCT00879437|191375387|OTHER|||||||||||||||||partial response defined as 51% to 99% reduction in tumor size,determined using WHO bi-dimensional criteria (product of the greatest tumor diameter and its perpendicular diameter)|Not applicable (8 partial responses in 16 patients = 50%)|||
95702771|NCT01363258|191375398|OTHER|Generalized linear mixed models fitted with binomial (logit link) and gamma (log link) distributions, with additional dispersion parameters, were used to estimate and test intervention effects in terms of occurrence and intensity of CRBs, respectively. Inference was conducted in the link scale, but inverse-link estimates in the original scales (proportions and CRB scores, for the binomial and gamma models, respectively) were computed to facilitate interpretation.|Effect size|-0.16||||0.1433|TWO_SIDED||||||Time by group interaction test|||||||0.1433
95702772|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702773|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702774|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702775|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702776|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702777|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.46||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.46|-1.06|<0.0001
95702778|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-1.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.01|-1.60|<0.0001
95702779|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|-1.26||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.26|-1.87|<0.0001
95702780|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.1||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.10|-1.72|<0.0001
95702781|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-1.19||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.19|-1.78|<0.0001
95702782|NCT04153929|191375425|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-1.22||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 5, 8, 12, 16 and 17) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.22|-1.84|<0.0001
95702783|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod linear model fit|Model assumption: The maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702784|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod exponential model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95727691|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.2041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Somnolence||2.9|-13.4|0.2041
95702785|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 1 model fit|Model assumption: 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702786|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Emax 2 model fit|Model assumption: 70% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702787|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|"Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod.~MMRM with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements."|||||<|0.0001|||||||MCP-Mod Sigmoid Emax model fit|Model assumption: 50% of the maximum effect is achieved at 1.8 mg and 90% of the maximum effect is achieved at 3.6 mg dose.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 6 doses of BI 456906 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod) approach which evaluated simultaneously 5 different plausible dose-response patterns (linear, exponential, Emax 1, Emax 2 and Sigmoid Emax) while protecting the overall probability of type I error (one-sided alpha of 0.025). For the twice weekly dosing schemes the total dose per week was considered for the MCP-Mod analysis.||||<0.0001
95702788|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.11||||0.2228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.68||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.68|-2.90|0.2228
95702789|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-2.01||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.01|-5.56|<0.0001
95702790|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41|-3.81||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.81|-7.41|<0.0001
95702791|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|-4.38||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.38|-8.12|<0.0001
95702792|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-6.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|-4.47||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.47|-8.02|<0.0001
95702793|NCT04153929|191375426|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|-5.83||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.83|-9.52|<0.0001
95727692|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81||0.1319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|1.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index I||1.8|-13.4|0.1319
95702794|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.66||||0.4439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|1.03||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.03|-2.34|0.4439
95702795|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.28||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|-1.61||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-1.61|-4.95|0.0001
95702796|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|-3.23||P-value is considered nominal|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.23|-6.62|<0.0001
95702797|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-4.0||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-4.00|-7.53|<0.0001
95702798|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-5.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-3.77||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.77|-7.11|<0.0001
95702799|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-7.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|-5.31||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-5.31|-8.79|<0.0001
95702800|NCT04153929|191375427|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|-2.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-2.18|-5.52|<0.0001
95702801|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-0.62||||0.7708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.82|3.57||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.3 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||3.57|-4.82|0.7708
95702802|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.68||||0.7462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|4.79||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 0.9 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||4.79|-3.44|0.7462
95702803|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-3.32||||0.1302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|0.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||0.98|-7.62|0.1302
95702804|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-4.61||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.03|-0.18||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 2.7 mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-0.18|-9.03|0.0414
95702805|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.55||||0.2273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.71|1.6||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.2 twice weekly (2.4) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.60|-6.71|0.2273
95702806|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-8.4||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.81|-3.98||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as BI 456906 1.8 twice weekly (3.6) mg - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||-3.98|-12.81|0.0002
95702807|NCT04153929|191375428|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-2.72||||0.1967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.86|1.42||P-value is considered nominal.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Kenward-Roger was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|"Difference was calculated as Semaglutide - Placebo at Week 17."|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) with fixed, categorical factors of treatment at each visit, and continuous factors of baseline at each visit, using visit (Week 6 and 17 ) as repeated measures, subject as random effect, unstructured covariance matrix to model within subject measurements.||1.42|-6.86|0.1967
95702808|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|5.2|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||5.20|0.28|
95702809|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.43|25.74|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||25.74|2.43|
95702810|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.21|60.03|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||60.03|5.21|
95702811|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|91.55|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||91.55|7.31|
95702812|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.57|72.04|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||72.04|6.57|
95702813|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|124.47|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||124.47|9.84|
95702814|NCT04153929|191375429|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|26.79|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||26.79|2.52|
95702815|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|95.73|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||95.73|0.14|
95702816|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|163.56|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||163.56|0.39|
95702817|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|471.09|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||471.09|1.35|
95702818|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|33.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|613.51||||||Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||613.51|1.78|
95702819|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|761.44|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||761.44|2.37|
95702820|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|84.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.71|999.0|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as BI 456906 / Placebo. The upper limit is bigger than 999.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||999|4.71|
95702821|NCT04153929|191375430|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|413.33|||||Odds Ratio was calculated as Semaglutide / Placebo.|Method: Logistic regression model using Firth's bias-reducing penalized maximum likelihood estimation for body weight loss with treatment as fixed effect.||413.33|1.22|
95702822|NCT03332303|191375431|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Responders in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.0|2.8||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||2.8|-13.0|
95702823|NCT03332303|191375431|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|23.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
95702824|NCT03332303|191375431|SUPERIORITY||% Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the primary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||<0.0001
95702825|NCT03332303|191375432|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval (calculated using Yates' continuity correction) on the absolute difference between the proportion of patients identified as Treatment Successes in the Test and Reference groups (pT - pR) is contained within the range \[-20%, +20%\] then therapeutic equivalence of the Test product to the Reference product was considered to have been demonstrated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.7|6.7||||||Therapeutic equivalence was evaluated for both primary and secondary endpoints in the per-protocol (PP) population.||6.7|-10.7|
95702826|NCT03332303|191375432|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Test product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Test product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|-0.8||||0.8068|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8068
95702827|NCT03332303|191375432|SUPERIORITY|To conclude superiority of the Reference product over Placebo, the proportion of Treatment Successes in the Reference product group must be numerically and statistically superior to that of the Placebo (p \< 0.05; using a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel \[CMH\] test).|% Difference|1.8||||0.8003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Superiority of the Test and Reference products against the Placebo product for the secondary endpoint was evaluated in the modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population using last observation carried forward (LOCF).||||0.8003
95702828|NCT03549429|191375435|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|8.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|14.4|||McNemar|||We compared the proportion of patients who had postoperative eyelid erythema with Tegaderm™ to those who had postop eyelid erythema with EyeGard®.||14.4|1.5|0.03
95702829|NCT03549429|191375436|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired||||||0.23
95702830|NCT00753688|191375464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.48||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.48|0.26|<0.001
95702831|NCT00753688|191375465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.12||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||1.12|0.67|0.256
95702832|NCT00753688|191375469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for leiomyosarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.23|<0.001
95702833|NCT00753688|191375469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.98||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for synovial sarcoma|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.98|0.19|0.005
95702834|NCT00753688|191375469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.6||Stratified two-sided log rank p-value for other STS histologies|Log Rank||The HR was adjusted for World Health Organization (WHO) performance status scale (0 versus 1 at Baseline) and number of prior lines of systemic treatment for advanced disease (0/1 versus 2+).|||0.60|0.25|<0.001
95702835|NCT00108953|191375475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.6||||0.016||95.0|0.33|0.95|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups.||0.95|0.33|0.016
95702836|NCT00108953|191375476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.007||95.0|0.37|0.74|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.74|0.37|0.007
95702837|NCT00108953|191375477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.018||95.0|0.45|0.83|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||0.83|0.45|0.018
95702838|NCT00108953|191375479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.038||95.0|0.4|1.05|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio: nexavar+doxorubicin over placebo+doxorubicin|The comparison between the 2 groups is done using the log rank test stratified by tumor burden. The null hypothesis is: TTP is the same in both treatment groups||1.05|0.40|0.038
95702839|NCT00293241|191375485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.927||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|1.405|||Log Rank||"Hospitalization:hospital admission with overnight stay;ER/office visits with cardioversions;acute treatment of worsened cardiac condition~CV:new/worsening HF,angina,MI,arrhythmia,stroke, TIA,acute peripheral vascular emergencies,pulmonary embolism"|"Analysis:Time to first cardiovascular hospitalization (CV hosp)~H0:freedom from CV hosp MVP=freedom from CV hosp DDD (dual chamber conventional pacing)~Ha:freedom from CV hosp MVP≠freedom from CV hosp DDD~Power calculation:~The study is designed to detect a difference event-free survival after 2 years of 5.5 % absolute, going from 91.5% to 97%.~Test=two-sided alpha=0.05 power=80% 1:1 randomization n=600"||1.405|0.612|0.72
95702840|NCT00293241|191375486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.127||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.57|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to first all cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization~H0:freedom from death or CV hospitalization=freedom from death or CV hospitalization~Ha:freedom from death or CV hospitalization≠freedom from death or CV hospitalization"||1.570|0.808|0.48
95702841|NCT00293241|191375487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.521||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|2.424|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to first persistent AT/AF H0:freedom from persistent AT/AF=freedom from persistent AT/AF Ha:freedom from persistent AT/AF≠freedom from persistent AT/AF||2.424|0.954|0.08
95702842|NCT00293241|191375488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.425||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|3.543|||Log Rank|||Analysis:Time to permanent AF H0:freedom from permanent AF=freedom from permanent AF Ha:freedom from permanent AF≠freedom from permanent AF||3.543|0.573|0.44
95702843|NCT00293241|191375489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Analysis:Wilcoxon Test for Comparison of Percentage of Ventricular Pacing (%VP) During Followup by Randomization Arm~H0:distribution %VP MVP=distribution %VP DDD~Ha:distribution %VP MVP≠distribution %VP DDD~Ha:"||||<0.0001
95702844|NCT00293241|191375490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.048
95702845|NCT00293241|191375492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Repeated measures logistic regression|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression||||0.78
95702846|NCT00293241|191375493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Beta-blockers=Change in Beta-blockers Ha:Change in Beta-blockers≠Change in Beta-blockers||||0.34
95702847|NCT00293241|191375493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Digitalis/digoxin=Change in Digitalis/digoxin Ha:Change in Digitalis/digoxin≠Change in Digitalis/digoxin||||0.65
95702848|NCT00293241|191375493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Calcium antagonists=Change in Calcium antagonists Ha:Change in Calcium antagonists≠Change in Calcium antagonists||||0.55
95702849|NCT00293241|191375493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis:Repeated measures logistic regression H0:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug=Change in Antiarrhythmic drug Ha:Change in Antiarrhythmic drug≠Change in Antiarrhythmic drug||||0.53
95702850|NCT00293241|191375495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.243||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.803|1.923|||Log Rank|||"Analysis:Time to all-cause death~H0:survival MVP ON=survival MVP OFF Ha:survival MVP ON≠survival MVP OFF"||1.923|0.803|0.33
95702851|NCT00293241|191375496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.492||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.148|1.637|||Log Rank|||||1.637|0.148|0.24
95702852|NCT00293241|191375497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical test for Number of subjects with CV hospitalization||||0.83
95702853|NCT00293241|191375500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-R interval=Change in P-R interval Ha:Change in P-R interval≠Change in P-R interval||||0.34
95702854|NCT00293241|191375500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in QRS duration=Change in QRS duration Ha:Change in QRS duration≠Change in QRS duration||||0.19
95702855|NCT00293241|191375500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||H0:Change in P-wave duration=Change in P-wave duration Ha:Change in P-wave duration≠Change in P-wave duration||||0.29
95702856|NCT00293241|191375501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (Baseline)||||0.24
95702857|NCT00293241|191375501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (12 months)||||0.92
95702858|NCT00293241|191375501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||No Symptoms (24 Months)||||1.0
95702859|NCT00293241|191375502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95702860|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.85|0.70|
95702861|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.90|0.72|
95702862|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.87|0.74|
95702863|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.63|0.68|
95702864|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||4.82|0.86|
95702865|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.46|0.31|
95702866|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||4.55|0.27|
95702867|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.61|0.19|
95702868|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||6.85|0.49|
95702869|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|4.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||4.73|0.76|
95702870|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.40|0.62|
95702871|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.65|0.52|
95702872|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.82|0.25|
95702873|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.23|0.24|
95702874|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.41|0.31|
95702875|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|4.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B,Day 1||4.46|0.32|
95702876|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||4.05|0.42|
95702877|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.24|
95702878|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.17|0.26|
95702879|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.89|0.11|
95702880|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||0.93|0.10|
95702881|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||4.99|0.74|
95702882|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.61|0.15|
95702883|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.90|0.21|
95702884|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|15.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||15.09|1.17|
95702885|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|7.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||7.07|0.52|
95702886|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|4.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.25|0.23|
95702887|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.62|0.21|
95702888|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.77|0.37|
95702889|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.94|0.38|
95702890|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.45|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.45|0.51|
95702891|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.63|0.31|
95702892|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.53|0.36|
95702893|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.08|0.24|
95702894|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|3.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.50|0.44|
95702895|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.61|0.58|
95702896|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|10.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||10.69|0.46|
95702897|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||5.99|0.31|
95702898|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||3.01|0.15|
95702899|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.74|0.50|
95702900|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.32|0.39|
95702901|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.39|0.35|
95702902|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.80|0.66|
95702903|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.29|0.90|
95702904|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.17|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.17|0.76|
95702905|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.35|0.50|
95702906|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.02|0.24|
95702907|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.89|0.60|
95702908|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.15|0.41|
95702909|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.20|0.31|
95702910|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.32|0.48|
95702911|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.98|0.28|
95702912|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.68|0.15|
95702913|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.66|0.21|
95702914|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.18|0.42|
95702915|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.83|0.25|
95702916|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.76|0.24|
95702917|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.29|0.51|
95702918|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.99|0.47|
95702919|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.25|0.53|
95702920|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.08|0.35|
95702921|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.03|0.31|
95702922|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.28|0.46|
95702923|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.08|0.27|
95702924|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.77|0.10|
95702925|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.30|0.56|
95702926|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.50|0.53|
95702927|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.23|0.39|
95702928|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.28|0.50|
95702929|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.79|0.32|
95702930|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.09|0.45|
95702931|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.96|0.42|
95702932|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.92|0.34|
95702933|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.10|0.37|
95702934|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.55|0.56|
95702935|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.46|0.08|
95702936|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.47|0.08|
95702937|NCT03803202|191375517|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.57|0.09|
95702938|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.23|0.52|
95702939|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.98|0.51|
95702940|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.83|0.72|
95702941|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.68|0.59|
95702942|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|3.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||3.05|0.90|
95702943|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.25|0.68|
95702944|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.15|0.49|
95702945|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.74|0.39|
95702946|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||2.59|0.59|
95702947|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||3.91|0.75|
95702948|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.46|0.36|
95702949|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.84|0.47|
95702950|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.52|0.57|
95702951|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.56|0.64|
95702952|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.28|0.52|
95702953|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.09|0.49|
95702954|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.43|
95702955|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.73|0.37|
95702956|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||3.01|0.76|
95702957|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.94|0.69|
95702958|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.91|0.98|
95702959|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.22|0.54|
95702960|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.36|0.41|
95702961|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.55|0.47|
95702962|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|4.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||4.99|0.84|
95702963|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||5.98|1.13|
95702964|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.15|0.37|
95702965|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||3.06|0.61|
95702966|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.09|0.55|
95702967|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.65|0.59|
95702968|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||3.49|0.74|
95702969|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.65|0.42|
95702970|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.05|0.49|
95702971|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.39|0.63|
95702972|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||3.07|0.64|
95702973|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.34|0.53|
95702974|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.09|0.49|
95702975|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.75|0.50|
95702976|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.00|0.42|
95702977|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.38|
95702978|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.73|0.52|
95702979|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.66|0.84|
95702980|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.28|0.84|
95702981|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|4.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.19|1.71|
95702982|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.47|6.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||6.06|2.47|
95702983|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||2.30|0.70|
95702984|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.81|0.57|
95702985|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|4.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||4.15|1.21|
95702986|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.57|0.70|
95702987|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.05|0.35|
95702988|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|3.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.39|0.65|
95702989|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.93|0.41|
95702990|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.79|0.33|
95702991|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.48|0.32|
95702992|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.83|0.57|
95702993|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.81|0.31|
95702994|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.97|0.39|
95702995|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.30|1.05|
95702996|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||3.55|1.10|
95702997|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|5.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||5.12|1.62|
95702998|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.87|0.49|
95702999|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.62|0.74|
95703000|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.27|0.87|
95703001|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.53|0.41|
95703002|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.60|0.45|
95703003|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|5.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||5.04|0.86|
95703004|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.57|
95703005|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.89|0.53|
95703006|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.07|0.56|
95703007|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.14|0.40|
95703008|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.61|0.46|
95703009|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.60|0.47|
95703010|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.01|0.49|
95703011|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.53|0.75|
95703012|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.96|0.68|
95703013|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.07|0.20|
95703014|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.11|0.22|
95703015|NCT03803202|191375518|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.44|0.29|
95703016|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.14|0.56|
95703017|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||2.16|0.89|
95703018|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.06|0.51|
95703019|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.09|0.85|
95703020|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.30|0.91|
95703021|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.49|0.60|
95703022|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.40|0.46|
95703023|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.91|0.62|
95703024|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.23|0.40|
95703025|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.68|0.58|
95703026|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.29|0.76|
95703027|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.53|0.51|
95703028|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.72|0.54|
95703029|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.14|0.57|
95703030|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.10|0.86|
95703031|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||3.14|0.83|
95703032|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.24|0.59|
95703033|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.39|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.39|0.58|
95703034|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.80|0.40|
95703035|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.87|0.63|
95703036|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.37|0.45|
95703037|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.65||||||95.0|0.32|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.32|0.32|
95703038|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.64|0.37|
95703039|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.49|0.30|
95703040|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.18|||t-test, 1 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.18|0.31|
95703041|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.18|0.54|
95703042|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.65|0.66|
95703043|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||0.95|0.30|
95703044|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.57|0.73|
95703045|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.04|0.32|
95703046|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.32|0.44|
95703047|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.01|0.66|
95703048|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.50|0.48|
95703049|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.38|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.38|0.45|
95703050|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.52|0.47|
95703051|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.12|0.34|
95703052|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.94|0.64|
95703053|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.42|0.77|
95703054|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.66|
95703055|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.47|0.47|
95703056|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.53|0.50|
95703057|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||2.20|0.74|
95703058|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|25.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.33|38.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||38.34|16.33|
95703059|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|21.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.31|33.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||33.77|14.31|
95703060|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|35.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.09|54.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2, Day 30||54.22|23.09|
95703061|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||2.62|1.25|
95703062|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|3.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.56|1.83|
95703063|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.48|2.20|
95703064|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.62|0.59|
95703065|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
95703066|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.99|0.76|
95703067|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.21|0.71|
95703068|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.46|0.85|
95703069|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.72|1.25|
95703070|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.51|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.51|0.59|
95703071|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.29|0.56|
95703072|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.30|0.54|
95703073|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.18|0.61|
95703074|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.21|0.65|
95703075|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||1.50|0.73|
95703076|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.26|30.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||30.87|12.26|
95703077|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|19.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.07|32.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||32.00|12.07|
95703078|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|41.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|66.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8, Day 30||66.90|26.20|
95703079|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.06|7.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||7.36|3.06|
95703080|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|5.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.83|8.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||8.37|3.83|
95703081|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.19|11.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||11.82|5.19|
95703082|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.42|0.49|
95703083|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.14|0.44|
95703084|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.95|0.76|
95703085|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.21|0.39|
95703086|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.50|0.54|
95703087|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.64|0.53|
95703088|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.11|0.84|
95703089|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.43|0.55|
95703090|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.50|0.95|
95703091|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.44|0.55|
95703092|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.63|
95703093|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||2.12|0.82|
95703094|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.70|
95703095|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.37|0.71|
95703096|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.67|0.78|
95703097|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.52||||||95.0|0.99|2.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.32|0.99|
95703098|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.18|1.00|
95703099|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.22|1.35|
95703100|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.36|
95703101|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.26|0.40|
95703102|NCT03803202|191375522|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.73|0.47|
95703103|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.42|0.57|
95703104|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||3.08|1.12|
95703105|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 1||1.49|0.53|
95703106|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.87|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.87|0.84|
95703107|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||2.73|1.18|
95703108|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 1||1.69|0.69|
95703109|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.21|0.54|
95703110|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.81|0.74|
95703111|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 1||1.00|0.44|
95703112|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.78|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.78|0.65|
95703113|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||2.63|0.96|
95703114|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 1||1.72|0.58|
95703115|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||1.47|0.53|
95703116|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.30|0.83|
95703117|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 1||2.44|0.80|
95703118|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||1.99|0.69|
95703119|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||3.67|1.19|
95703120|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 1||2.88|0.88|
95703121|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.65|0.62|
95703122|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||2.67|0.94|
95703123|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 1||1.64|0.50|
95703124|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.21|0.52|
95703125|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||2.54|0.97|
95703126|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 1||1.60|0.60|
95703127|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.33|0.40|
95703128|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||2.44|0.73|
95703129|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.63|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 1||1.63|0.46|
95703130|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.12|0.42|
95703131|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||2.55|0.92|
95703132|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 1||1.37|0.44|
95703133|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.25|0.54|
95703134|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.12|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||2.12|0.84|
95703135|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.66|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 1||1.66|0.66|
95703136|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.37|0.51|
95703137|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||2.11|0.75|
95703138|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 1||1.72|0.57|
95703139|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||1.86|0.63|
95703140|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.08|0.69|
95703141|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 1||2.14|0.67|
95703142|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.29|0.52|
95703143|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.59|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.59|0.68|
95703144|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 1, Day 30||1.80|0.76|
95703145|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||3.01|1.42|
95703146|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.37|4.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||4.58|2.37|
95703147|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|4.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.83|5.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 3, Day 30||5.79|2.83|
95703148|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.27|0.49|
95703149|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.48|0.63|
95703150|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 4, Day 30||1.65|0.66|
95703151|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.29|0.75|
95703152|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||2.19|0.77|
95703153|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|3.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 5, Day 30||3.37|1.08|
95703154|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.49|0.50|
95703155|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||1.72|0.65|
95703156|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||2.10|0.71|
95703157|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.75|0.56|
95703158|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||2.47|0.84|
95703159|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||3.15|1.00|
95703160|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.30|1.02|
95703161|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.26|1.06|
95703162|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||2.53|1.09|
95703163|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.07|0.81|
95703164|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||2.57|1.04|
95703165|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||3.47|1.35|
95703166|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.68|0.58|
95703167|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.05|0.77|
95703168|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 14, Day 30||2.81|0.99|
95703169|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.95|0.39|
95703170|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.54|0.70|
95703171|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.57|0.67|
95703172|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.25|0.56|
95703173|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.52|0.75|
95703174|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||1.86|0.77|
95703175|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.90|0.76|
95703176|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||2.58|1.11|
95703177|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|3.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||3.52|1.41|
95703178|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.47|0.50|
95703179|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||1.35|0.51|
95703180|NCT03803202|191375523|OTHER||Ratio of GMC|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||2.02|0.69|
95703181|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.805
95703182|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.102
95703183|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.158
95703184|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.2|-0.4|0.596
95703185|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.025
95703186|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.005
95703187|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.037
95703188|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.9|0.2|0.002
95703189|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.230
95703190|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.984
95703191|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
95703192|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.264
95703193|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.638
95703194|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.036
95703195|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.094
95703196|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.266
95703197|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.250
95703198|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.5|-0.5|0.927
95703199|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.679
95703200|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.589
95703201|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.880
95703202|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.2|0.623
95703203|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.232
95703204|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.451
95703205|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.785
95703206|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
95703207|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.1|0.4|<.001
95703208|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.1|0.146
95703209|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.8|0.2|0.003
95703210|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.113
95703211|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.453
95703212|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
95703213|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.020
95703214|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.218
95703215|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.125
95703216|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.706
95703217|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.246
95703218|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||1.1|0.3|<.001
95703219|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.010
95703220|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.2|-0.7|0.260
95703221|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.366
95703222|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
95703223|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.1|-0.8|0.101
95703224|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.522||95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.522
95703225|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.026
95703226|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.2|-0.6|0.236
95703227|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.528
95703228|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.081
95703229|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.2|-0.5|0.388
95703230|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.151
95703231|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.7|0.1|0.024
95703232|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.476
95703233|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.077
95703234|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.262
95703235|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.767
95703236|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.364
95703237|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.522
95703238|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.962
95703239|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.091
95703240|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.093
95703241|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.3|-0.6|0.455
95703242|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.093
95703243|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||1.1|0.1|0.017
95703244|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.3|-0.5|0.561
95703245|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.343
95703246|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.132
95703247|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.898
95703248|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.9|-0.3|0.313
95703249|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.366
95703250|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.961
95703251|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.269
95703252|NCT03803202|191375526|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.245
95703253|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.213
95703254|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.097
95703255|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 1, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.631
95703256|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.699
95703257|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.042
95703258|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 2, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.092
95703259|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.007
95703260|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
95703261|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 3, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.237
95703262|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.248
95703263|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.193
95703264|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 4, Day 30||0.5|-0.4|0.838
95703265|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.898
95703266|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.143
95703267|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 5, Day 30||0.9|-0.1|0.108
95703268|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.7|-0.3|0.396
95703269|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.182
95703270|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6A, Day 30||0.6|-0.4|0.593
95703271|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.9|-0.2|0.186
95703272|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||1.1|0.0|0.038
95703273|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 6B, Day 30||0.8|-0.3|0.408
95703274|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.805
95703275|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.711
95703276|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 7F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.891
95703277|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.649
95703278|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||1.0|0.3|<.001
95703279|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 8, Day 30||0.9|0.3|<.001
95703280|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.5|-0.2|0.454
95703281|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.003
95703282|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9N, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.021
95703283|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.205
95703284|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.015
95703285|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 9V, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.209
95703286|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.6|-0.3|0.502
95703287|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.054
95703288|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 10A, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.190
95703289|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.616
95703290|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.018
95703291|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 11A, Day 30||0.7|0.0|0.056
95703292|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.7|-0.4|0.527
95703293|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.8|-0.4|0.444
95703294|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 12F, Day 30||0.6|-0.5|0.869
95703295|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.305
95703296|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||1.0|0.0|0.046
95703297|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 14, Day 30||0.8|-0.2|0.299
95703298|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.140
95703299|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.3|0.4|<.001
95703300|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 15B, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.012
95703301|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.1|0.200
95703302|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.8|0.0|0.037
95703303|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 17F, Day 30||0.6|-0.2|0.380
95703304|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.2|0.006
95703305|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||1.0|0.1|0.018
95703306|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 18C, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.810
95703307|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.7|-0.1|0.173
95703308|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.096
95703309|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19A, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.710
95703310|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.100
95703311|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.6||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||1.1|0.2|0.007
95703312|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 19F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.251
95703313|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.5|-0.3|0.618
95703314|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.9|0.0|0.041
95703315|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 20B, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.111
95703316|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.4|-0.3|0.758
95703317|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.5||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.9|0.1|0.012
95703318|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.4||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 22F, Day 30||0.8|0.1|0.025
95703319|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.4|-0.5|0.912
95703320|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.174
95703321|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.3||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 23F, Day 30||0.8|-0.1|0.138
95703322|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.267
95703323|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.7|-0.2|0.300
95703324|NCT03803202|191375527|OTHER||Mean Difference|0.0||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Serotype 33F, Day 30||0.4|-0.4|0.982
95703325|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.08|1.06|
95703326|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.37|0.68|
95703327|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.00|0.92|
95703328|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|3.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.79|1.25|
95703329|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||1.77|0.80|
95703330|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.00|0.73|
95703331|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.29|0.94|
95703332|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.04|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.04|1.68|
95703333|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|9.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.65|14.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||14.50|5.65|
95703334|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.95|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.95|1.09|
95703335|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER|Serotype 33F|Ratio of GMT|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.11|0.86|
95703336|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.83|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.83|0.93|
95703337|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||1.43|0.67|
95703338|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.26|1.62|
95703339|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||4.90|1.68|
95703340|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.06|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.06|0.98|
95703341|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||1.48|0.54|
95703342|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.64|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.64|0.73|
95703343|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.25|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||3.25|1.40|
95703344|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|7.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.61|11.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||11.50|4.61|
95703345|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||2.48|0.96|
95703346|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||1.84|0.83|
95703347|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.94|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.94|1.51|
95703348|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|2.97|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.97|1.46|
95703349|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||3.20|1.56|
95703350|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|5.89|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.89|1.79|
95703351|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.62|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||3.62|1.63|
95703352|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12 F||2.55|0.89|
95703353|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.57|1.11|
95703354|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.18|5.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||5.20|2.18|
95703355|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.26|22.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||22.72|8.26|
95703356|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.46|1.36|
95703357|NCT03803202|191375528|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.57|1.11|
95703358|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||1.93|0.95|
95703359|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.13|1.07|
95703360|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.33|1.09|
95703361|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|3.47|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||3.47|1.45|
95703362|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.65|1.27|
95703363|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.23|0.77|
95703364|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||1.91|0.80|
95703365|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|4.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.07|1.70|
95703366|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|3.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||3.67|1.61|
95703367|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|3.65|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.65|1.70|
95703368|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||2.54|1.10|
95703369|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.07|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.07|0.98|
95703370|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||2.26|1.11|
95703371|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||2.72|1.23|
95703372|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|4.05||||||Serotype 10A||4.05|1.66|
95703373|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||2.73|1.32|
95703374|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.71|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.71|0.93|
95703375|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.53|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||2.53|1.11|
95703376|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.93|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||4.93|2.17|
95703377|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.85|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 20B||4.22|1.85|
95703378|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|3.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||3.88|1.79|
95703379|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.01|1.40|
95703380|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 2||2.84|1.37|
95703381|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 8||4.18|2.12|
95703382|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 9N||4.44|2.02|
95703383|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 10A||5.86|2.25|
95703384|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.96|4.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 11A||4.18|1.96|
95703385|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 12F||2.96|0.91|
95703386|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.87|4.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 15B||4.61|1.87|
95703387|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 17F||6.26|2.55|
95703388|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|3.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.91|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.91|2.46|
95703389|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|4.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.74|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 22F||5.90|2.74|
95703390|NCT03803202|191375529|OTHER||Ratio of GMT|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||Serotype 33F||3.23|1.38|
95703391|NCT01367860|191375541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.26|-4.05|0.05
95703392|NCT01367860|191375542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95703393|NCT01367860|191375543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.43|-2.21|<0.05
95703394|NCT01367860|191375544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.33|-2.76|<0.05
95703395|NCT01367860|191375546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|2.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.01|-2.58|<0.05
95703396|NCT01367860|191375547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.3|-1.3|<0.05
95703397|NCT01367860|191375548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|8.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.8|-2.36|<0.05
95703398|NCT01367860|191375549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|8.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||8.9|-4.4|<0.05
95703399|NCT01367860|191375550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|7.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.55|-7.15|<0.05
95703400|NCT01367860|191375551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|7.67|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.67|-7.14|<0.05
95703401|NCT01367860|191375552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.18|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.16|4.76|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.76|-8.16|<0.05
95703402|NCT01367860|191375553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.46|-0.12|<0.05
95703403|NCT01367860|191375554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.4|-2|<0.05
95703404|NCT01367860|191375555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|1.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.85|-2.55|<0.05
95703405|NCT01367860|191375556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|2.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.23|-2.29|<0.05
95703406|NCT01367860|191375557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.08|-1.67|<0.05
95703407|NCT00418717|191375559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||||95.0|-0.25|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.25|
95703408|NCT02023112|191375595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|91.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.1|96.6|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~Lower bound of 95% confidence interval (LCB) must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-interferon (IFN) alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||96.6|80.1|
95703409|NCT02023112|191375595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||percentage of participants with SVR12|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.2|85.1|||||Tested using the following hierarchical order: among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants 1) superiority of 16-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold; 2) superiority of 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.|"Among non-cirrhotic treatment-naïve participants, superiority of the 12-week treatment arm to a clinically relevant threshold.~LCB must have exceeded 67% to achieve superiority. Threshold indicates value the LCB had to exceed to demonstrate superiority for the treatment arm and was based on the SVR rates with pegylated-IFN alfa-2a or 2b/RBV in treatment-naïve, noncirrhotic HCV genotype 2-infected participants."||85.1|61.2|
95703410|NCT04624243|191375609|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-2.8||||0.241|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.3|2.6|||ANCOVA|||||2.6|-8.3|0.241
95703411|NCT04624243|191375609|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.784|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.3|4.9|||ANCOVA|||||4.9|-6.3|0.784
95703412|NCT04624243|191375611|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.3||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.1|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.1|0.096
95703413|NCT04624243|191375611|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 PANSS PSS change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.2|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.094
95703414|NCT04624243|191375612|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 16 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|0.254
95703415|NCT04624243|191375612|SUPERIORITY|It was hypothesized that MK-8189 24 mg is superior to placebo in reducing Week 6 CGI-S change from baseline|LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.959|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.3|0.959
95703416|NCT04624243|191375616|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-8.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.4|-6.5|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-6.5|-10.4|<0.001
95703417|NCT04624243|191375616|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-9.3|-5.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-5.2|-9.3|<0.001
95703418|NCT04624243|191375617|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-6.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.4|-4.6|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.6|-7.4|<0.001
95703419|NCT04624243|191375617|SUPERIORITY|Estimated Treatment Difference vs Risperidone|LS Mean Difference|-5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.0|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Covariates were treatment, stratum (US Black, US-Non-Black, Other), gender (male, female), and with baseline value, the duration of illness and age||||-4.2|-7.0|<0.001
95703420|NCT04006145|191375640|SUPERIORITY||LS-Means Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.184||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline in serum LDL-C at Week 16 was analyzed using ANCOVA after the missing data imputation, with treatment group as a factor, baseline serum LDL-C, baseline LDL-C-by-treatment interaction values, and baseline lipid-lowering medications (Yes or No) as covariates. Missing data for serum LDL-C was imputed through multiple imputation method as described in the statistical analysis plan (SAP).||-0.04|-0.76|0.029
95703421|NCT00922974|191375663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||Based on the one-sided exact binomial test with α=0.025 and a 2:1 randomization, 228 patients would be required to detect a 40% improvement in the response rate from 51% (external beam radiation therapy) to 70% (Radiosurgery/SBRT) with a statistical power of 0.80.||||0.99
95703422|NCT00922974|191375664|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.27|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025.|Reference level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||1.27|0.72|0.38
95703423|NCT00922974|191375665|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.73||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|12.8|||Stratified log rank|One-sided significance level = 0.025|Significance level = Radiosurgery/SBRT|||12.8|0.24|0.29
95703424|NCT00922974|191375666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events.||||0.93
95703425|NCT00922974|191375666|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||Percentage of patients with any adverse events.||||0.09
95703426|NCT00922974|191375667|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.59
95703427|NCT00922974|191375668|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||||0.38
95703428|NCT00922974|191375669|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming that the data are normally distributed, the two sample t-test assuming equal variances will be used to test the hypothesis at the one-sided 0.025 significance level. A mean difference of 7 points represents a clinically meaningful change (CMC). A difference of less than 7 points between the treatment arms will not be considered meaningful, even if it has statistical significance.||||0.28
95703429|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4313|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.4313
95703430|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8707|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.8707
95703431|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1549|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.1549
95703432|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0193|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.0193
95703433|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0016
95703434|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0003
95703435|NCT00922974|191375670|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6371|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with BPI Worst Pain Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.6371
95703436|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0218|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.0218
95703437|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9437|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.9437
95703438|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0696
95703439|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.1140
95727693|NCT01271933|191424948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.89||0.1473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|2.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Sleep Problems Index II||2.0|-13.4|0.1473
95703440|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||0.0003
95703441|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||<0.0001
95703442|NCT00922974|191375671|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7732|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with EQ-5D Index Score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.7732
95703443|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5198|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Treatment Arm (External Beam Radiation Therapy vs. Radiosurgery/SBRT) is reported here.||||0.5198
95703444|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1197|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Age (\< 63 years vs. ≥ 63 years) is reported here.||||0.1197
95703445|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0306|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Gender (female vs. male) is reported here.||||0.0306
95703446|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Race (Other vs. while) is reported here.||||0.7903
95703447|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Zubrod performance status (0 vs. 1,2) is reported here.||||<0.0001
95703448|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Taking pain medication (No vs. Yes) is reported here.||||0.0026
95703449|NCT00922974|191375672|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3282|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable is reported separately. (Time and intercept estimates are not shown.)||A general linear mixed-effect model was run with FACT-G total score (baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months) as the outcome of interest. Age, gender, race, Zubrod performance status, pain medication, tumor type, time, and treatment arm were the covariates considered in each model. Tumor type (radioresistant vs. other) is reported here.||||0.3282
95703450|NCT00191386|191375674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 6 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703451|NCT00191386|191375674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 12 Months|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703452|NCT00191386|191375674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703453|NCT00191386|191375674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703454|NCT00191386|191375674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for Total Score 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703455|NCT00191386|191375675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 6 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703456|NCT00191386|191375675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 12 Months.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703457|NCT00191386|191375675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 2 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703458|NCT00191386|191375675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 3 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703459|NCT00191386|191375675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-Value for 4 Years.|Paired t-test|||||||<0.001
95703460|NCT00937326|191375720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
95703461|NCT00937326|191375720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1147||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.1147
95703462|NCT00937326|191375720|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||1.0000
95703463|NCT00937326|191375720|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4816||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Fisher Exact|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day in number of participants with any AE.||||0.4816
95703464|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|168.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|123.87|228.94|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding confidence interval (CI) were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||228.94|123.87|
95703465|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|110.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.18|139.43|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||139.43|88.18|
95703466|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|133.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.55|176.21|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||176.21|100.55|
95703467|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Other|94.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.31|126.48|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||126.48|70.31|
95703468|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|141.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.2|180.39|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||180.39|111.20|
95703469|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|153.11|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||153.11|85.56|
95703470|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|167.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.73|231.25|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-t of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||231.25|120.73|
95703471|NCT00937326|191375744|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|117.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.14|162.79|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI. The AUC values included in the analysis were AUC 0-infinity on Day 1 and AUC 0-τ on Day 28.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for AUC 0-infinity of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||162.79|85.14|
95703472|NCT00937326|191375745|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|122.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.94|171.8|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.25 g/day.||171.80|86.94|
95703473|NCT00937326|191375745|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|94.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|69.07|129.16|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 0.5 g/day.||129.16|69.07|
95703474|NCT00937326|191375745|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|114.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|143.95|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 1.0 g/day.||143.95|91.54|
95703475|NCT00937326|191375745|OTHER|The analysis used an Estimation approach. No hypothesis testing was performed.|Ratio|120.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.66|163.23|||ANOVA|Results obtained from a mixed model ANOVA on log10-transformed data with fixed effect of study day and a random effect of participant.|The difference in least squares means and corresponding CI were back-transformed to form ratio of geometric least squares means (Day 28/ Day 1) and CI.|Day 28 versus Day 1 for Cmax of SRT2104 2.0 g/day.||163.23|88.66|
95703476|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.997
95703477|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.581||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.581
95703478|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.987||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.987
95703479|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPG.||||0.999
95703480|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.850
95703481|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.843||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.843
95703482|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.961
95703483|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPG.||||0.939
95703484|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.966
95703485|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.075
95703486|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.700
95703487|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPG.||||0.732
95703488|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.552
95703489|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.196
95703490|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.393
95703491|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.775||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPG.||||0.775
95703492|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||1.000
95703493|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.989
95727694|NCT01271933|191424949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.3596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.2|0.3596
95703494|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.603||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.603
95703495|NCT00937326|191375750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPG.||||0.108
95703496|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.525||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.525
95703497|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.818
95703498|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.999
95703499|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 8.||||0.809
95703500|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.993
95703501|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.954||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.954
95703502|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||1.000
95703503|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.344||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 15.||||0.344
95703504|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.968||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.968
95703505|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.316||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.316
95703506|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.984||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.984
95703507|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 22.||||0.235
95703508|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||1.000
95703509|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.656||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.656
95703510|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.994
95703511|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.285||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 28.||||0.285
95703512|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.992
95703513|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.822
95703514|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.538
95703515|NCT00937326|191375751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPG on Day 35.||||0.907
95703516|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.999
95703517|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.982
95703518|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.677
95703519|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.688||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 8 for FPI.||||0.688
95703520|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.903||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.903
95703521|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.945
95703522|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.949
95703523|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.924||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 15 for FPI.||||0.924
95703524|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.394
95703525|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.687||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.687
95703526|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.568
95703527|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 22 for FPI.||||0.486
95703528|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.973
95703529|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.739
95703530|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.731||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.731
95703531|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 28 for FPI.||||0.991
95703532|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.994
95703533|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.963
95703534|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.929||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.929
95703535|NCT00937326|191375752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day on Day 35 for FPI.||||0.970
95703536|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
95703537|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.989
95703538|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.982
95703539|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 8.||||0.999
95703540|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.685
95703541|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.999
95703542|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.971||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||0.971
95703543|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 15.||||1.000
95703544|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.405
95703545|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.975||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.975
95703546|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.999
95703547|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.629||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 22.||||0.629
95703548|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
95703549|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.982
95703550|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.999
95703551|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.874||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 28.||||0.874
95703552|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.986||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.986
95703553|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.997
95703554|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||1.000
95703555|NCT00937326|191375753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.697||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in FPI on Day 35.||||0.697
95703556|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
95703557|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.812||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.812
95703558|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.996
95703559|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPG.||||0.198
95703560|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||1.000
95703561|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.358
95703562|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.852
95703563|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPG.||||0.678
95703564|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||1.000
95703565|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.191
95703566|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.805||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.805
95703567|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPG.||||0.960
95703568|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.985
95703569|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.733
95703570|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.365||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.365
95703571|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 30 minutes for PPI.||||0.413
95703572|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.765
95703573|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.434
95727695|NCT01271933|191424951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.4985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.36||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||"Odds ratio is the probability of the event occurring in Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day relative to the event occurring in Placebo for Pregabalin.~Odds ratio \> 1 is in favor of Pregabalin 330 - 495 mg/day."||2.36|0.66|0.4985
95703574|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.184
95703575|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 60 minutes for PPI.||||0.142
95703576|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.999
95703577|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.876
95703578|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.756||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.756
95703579|NCT00937326|191375754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at 2 hour for PPI.||||0.983
95703580|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.809||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.809
95703581|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||1.000
95703582|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.989
95703583|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 30 minutes.||||0.130
95703584|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.870
95703585|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.864||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.864
95703586|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.997||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.997
95703587|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 60 minutes.||||0.682
95703588|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.798||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.798
95703589|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||0.730
95703590|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
95703591|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPG at 2 hour.||||1.000
95703592|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.464||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.464
95703593|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.634||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.634
95703594|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.254
95703595|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 30 minutes.||||0.034
95703596|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.765
95703597|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.434||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.434
95703598|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.184
95703599|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 60 minutes.||||0.142
95703600|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.955||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.955
95703601|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.985||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.985
95703602|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.923
95703603|NCT00937326|191375755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.883||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day for change from Baseline in PPI at 2 hour.||||0.883
95703604|NCT00937326|191375756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.118
95703605|NCT00937326|191375756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.119||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.119
95703606|NCT00937326|191375756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.293||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.293
95703607|NCT00937326|191375756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.966
95703608|NCT00937326|191375757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.940
95703609|NCT00937326|191375757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.197
95703610|NCT00937326|191375757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.097||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.097
95703611|NCT00937326|191375757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.404
95703612|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.206||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2060
95703613|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1790
95703614|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2741||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2741
95703615|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6001||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.6001
95703616|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6711||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.6711
95703617|NCT00937326|191375758|OTHER|||||||0.1361||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1361
95703618|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3369||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.3369
95703619|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0975||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.0975
95703620|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2184||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.2184
95703621|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1013||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.1013
95703622|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3286||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.3286
95703623|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5193||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPG.||||0.5193
95703624|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9788||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.9788
95703625|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1214||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.1214
95703626|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5751||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.5751
95703627|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2409||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPG.||||0.2409
95703628|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4829||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.4829
95703629|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7563||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7563
95703630|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2907||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.2907
95703631|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7663||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.7663
95703632|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5825||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI||||0.5825
95703633|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.3220
95703634|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0564||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.0564
95703635|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-1 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1960
95703636|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5997||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.5997
95703637|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9637||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.9637
95703638|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.324||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.3240
95703639|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 1 for PPI.||||0.8440
95703640|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6483||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6483
95703641|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6452||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.6452
95703642|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.1253
95703643|NCT00937326|191375758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2583||||||No adjustments for covariates were made.|Wilcoxon test|||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day of AUC 0-2 at Day 28 for PPI.||||0.2583
95703644|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
95703645|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||1.000
95703646|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.901
95703647|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.155||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for fructosamine.||||0.155
95703648|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.845
95703649|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.164
95703650|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.699
95703651|NCT00937326|191375759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.313||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for fructosamine.||||0.313
95703652|NCT00937326|191375760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.896||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.896
95703653|NCT00937326|191375760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.080
95703654|NCT00937326|191375760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.792||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.792
95703655|NCT00937326|191375760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.645
95703656|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.992||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.992
95703657|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.999
95703658|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.548
95703659|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-IR.||||0.989
95703660|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.877
95703661|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.887
95703662|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.916||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.916
95703663|NCT00937326|191375761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-IR.||||0.860
95703664|NCT00937326|191375762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.996
95703665|NCT00937326|191375762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.989||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.989
95703666|NCT00937326|191375762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
95703667|NCT00937326|191375762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.763||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.763
95703668|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.810
95918068|NCT01757665|191795403|SUPERIORITY||percent of patients|0.1|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.7|||||Upper 95% CI was calculated by the method of Clopper and Pearson, using the Beta distribution with parameters x + 1 and n - x where x is the number of SVD events by POD 390 and n is the number of subjects followed at the 1 year assessment.|The null hypothesis is that the rate of structural valve deterioration at one year is greater than 1%. The alternative hypothesis is that this rate is less than 1%.||0.7||
95703669|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.753
95703670|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.404
95703671|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 1 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.671
95727696|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Physical Functioning||6.8|-9.5|0.7400
95918069|NCT03377790|191795550|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95918070|NCT03377790|191795551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0067
95918071|NCT03377790|191795552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0152|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0152
95703672|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.25 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||1.000
95703673|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.622||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 0.5 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.622
95703674|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 1.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.332
95703675|NCT00937326|191375763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.998||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||Placebo versus SRT2104 2.0 g/day at Day 28 for HOMA-percentage of beta cell function.||||0.998
95703676|NCT00937326|191375764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.994||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.994
95703677|NCT00937326|191375764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.979
95703678|NCT00937326|191375764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.993
95703679|NCT00937326|191375764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Analysis was performed using ANOVA with Dunnett's test using the placebo group as the control, a 2-sided alpha of 0.05 was set as the significance threshold. No adjustments for covariates were made.|ANOVA|Dunnett's test was used to control for inflation of alpha due to multiple comparisons, using the placebo group as the control.||||||0.999
95703680|NCT02918318|191375805|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.77|3.7||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.70|-5.77|0.475
95703681|NCT02918318|191375805|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.504|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.32|5.47||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||5.47|-4.32|0.504
95703682|NCT02918318|191375805|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Squares means|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26||0.482|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.66|3.83||1-sided|Dunnett adjustment|||||3.83|-5.66|0.482
95703683|NCT01150760|191375878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0007
95703684|NCT01150760|191375879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.9|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95703685|NCT01150760|191375880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95703686|NCT01150760|191375881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.1022|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1022
95703687|NCT01150760|191375882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95703688|NCT01150760|191375883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95703689|NCT01150760|191375884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0012
95703690|NCT01150760|191375885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.003|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0030
95703691|NCT01150760|191375886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.7637|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7637
95703692|NCT01150760|191375887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.0402|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0402
95703693|NCT01150760|191375888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0755|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0755
95703694|NCT01150760|191375889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0532|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0532
95703695|NCT01150760|191375890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||< 0.0001
95703696|NCT01150760|191375891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.0001
95703697|NCT01641081|191375904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0148|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2353|0.2934|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2934|0.2353|<0.0001
95703698|NCT01641081|191375904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2524|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0156|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2218|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2830|0.2218|<0.0001
95703699|NCT01641081|191375904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1941|0.2544|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2544|0.1941|<0.0001
95703700|NCT01641081|191375904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.2174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1887|0.2461|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, and baseline FEV1 values at each period as a covariate||||0.2461|0.1887|<0.0001
95703701|NCT01963780|191375906|SUPERIORITY|Performance goal is 65%.|Proportion|0.544||||0.9663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|0.657|||one-sided exact binomial test|||||0.657|0.428|0.9663
95703702|NCT01963780|191375907|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.167|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.092|0.268||||||||0.268|0.092|
95703703|NCT01963780|191375908|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Proportion|0.064|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.021|0.143||||||||0.143|0.021|
95703704|NCT01963780|191375909|OTHER|No statistical hypothesis testing|Mean|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||||||||0.4|0.1|
95703705|NCT01095666|191375911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0869|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.42||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.42|-0.76|<0.0001
95703706|NCT01095666|191375911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0865|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.45||Primary endpoints were tested at alpha=0.027 applying Dunnett's adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.79|<0.0001
95703707|NCT01095666|191375912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.299|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-15.6||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-15.6|-28.6|<0.0001
95703708|NCT01095666|191375912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.271|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|-20.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-20.7|-33.5|<0.0001
95703709|NCT01095666|191375913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8758|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.84|-30.73||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-30.73|-53.84|<0.0001
95703710|NCT01095666|191375913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-49.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7921|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.53|-37.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-37.74|-60.53|<0.0001
95703711|NCT01095666|191375914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2765|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.56||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-1.65|<0.0001
95703712|NCT01095666|191375914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2747|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|-1.28||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-1.28|-2.36|<0.0001
95703713|NCT01095666|191375915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.702||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.2|24.7||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.7|6.2|0.0010
95703714|NCT01095666|191375915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.594||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|24.5||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Modified logistic regression|Modified logistic regression model, adjusted for baseline HbA1c||||24.5|6.5|0.0007
95703715|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test.||||||0.09|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and IOLM||||0.09
95703716|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between G6 and LS||||<0.001
95703717|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing AL between IOLM and LS||||<0.0001
95703718|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing CCT between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
95703719|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
95703720|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between G6 and LS||||<0.01
95703721|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.02|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing ACD between IOLM and LS||||0.02
95703722|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.01|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing LT between G6 and LS||||<0.01
95703723|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and IOLM||||<0.0001
95703724|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between G6 and LS||||<0.0001
95703725|NCT01961089|191375959|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test|||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing WtW between IOLM and LS||||<0.001
95703726|NCT01961089|191375960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Repeatability was determined with random effect ANOVAs (estimates of random effects). They were calculated as the square root of the sum of the (Device x EyeID) interaction component plus (EyeID) and (Device) variance components plus the residual variance component. A (Device x Operator) interaction component was not assessed because each device was consistently operated by the same operator such that there was no Device x Operator interaction component. CV = Coefficient of Variation = SD/mean.||||0.05
95703727|NCT01961089|191375961|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.13|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and IOLM||||0.13
95703728|NCT01961089|191375961|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.25|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between G6 and LS||||0.25
95703729|NCT01961089|191375961|EQUIVALENCE|The significance of a difference in a measured parameter between two devices was assessed using a paired t-test||||||0.21|||||||Paired t-test|||P-value comparing SimK between IOLM and LS||||0.21
95727697|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.89||0.5938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|12.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Physical||12.3|-7.1|0.5938
95703730|NCT01068717|191375962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric least squares (LS) mean|109.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.67|116.85||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||116.85|102.67|
95703731|NCT01068717|191375962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.7|117.56||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||117.56|85.70|
95703732|NCT01068717|191375963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.29|107.41||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states||107.41|91.29|
95703733|NCT01068717|191375963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|100.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|103.67||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.67|96.86|
95703734|NCT01068717|191375965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
95703735|NCT01068717|191375965|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.61|103.05||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||103.05|96.61|
95703736|NCT01068717|191375970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.96|106.91||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||106.91|97.96|
95703737|NCT01068717|191375970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|101.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.1|107.88||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.88|96.10|
95703738|NCT01068717|191375971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|102.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.16||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||107.16|98.31|
95703739|NCT01068717|191375971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio (%) of geometric LS mean|99.22||||||90.0|96.48|102.04||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||102.04|96.48|
95703740|NCT01068717|191375972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|99.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.9|105.59||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||105.59|92.90|
95703741|NCT01068717|191375972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for Treatment B to Treatment A and Treatment D to Treatment C ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC(INF), and AUC(0-T) of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. Potency-corrected results were also provided. Bioequivalence will be concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means are entirely contained within 80% to 125% for both Cmax and AUC(INF). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.|Ratio geometric LS mean|102.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.82|109.09||||||To demonstrate the bioequivalence of FDC tablet versus coadministration of saxagliptin and metformin tablets in the fasted and fed states, linear mixed model analyses were performed on log(Cmax), log\[AUC(INF)\], and log\[AUC(0-T)\] of saxagliptin and metformin, respectively. The factors in the model were sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and measurements within each subject as repeated measurements allowing for different covariance structures for the fasted and fed states.||109.09|96.82|
95703742|NCT02758119|191375975|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95703743|NCT01062009|191375985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Chi square analysis comparing number of participants with new fever in each group||||0.24
95703744|NCT03136367|191376006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.045
95703745|NCT03136367|191376006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.20
95703746|NCT03136367|191376006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.82
95703747|NCT03136367|191376007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.048
95703748|NCT03136367|191376007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.015
95703749|NCT03136367|191376007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.43
95918072|NCT03377790|191795553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0302
95703750|NCT03136367|191376008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.46
95703751|NCT03136367|191376008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.34
95703752|NCT03136367|191376008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.165
95703753|NCT03136367|191376010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.25
95703754|NCT03136367|191376010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.89
95703755|NCT03136367|191376010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.54
95703756|NCT03136367|191376011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.72
95703757|NCT03136367|191376011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|McNemar|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.41
95703758|NCT03136367|191376011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
95703759|NCT03136367|191376012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.01
95703760|NCT03136367|191376012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.12
95703761|NCT03136367|191376012|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.78
95703762|NCT03136367|191376013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
95703763|NCT03136367|191376013|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||<0.01
95703764|NCT03136367|191376014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.06
95703765|NCT03136367|191376014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.65
95703766|NCT03136367|191376014|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.36
95703767|NCT03136367|191376015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.11
95703768|NCT03136367|191376015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.037
95703769|NCT03136367|191376015|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||Adjusted for repeated within-patient measurements.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear regression that accounted for clinician and site clustering and was adjusted for surgeon and patient characteristics.||||||0.28
95703770|NCT01176240|191376020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.978|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||Study 306A was initially designed as a blinded interim analysis by an independent DMC to ensure that the overall study was adequately powered. Study 306A was not powered to provide statistical significance as a stand alone study. Thus, no additional efficacy end points were prospectively defined beyond the primary end point.||||0.978
95703771|NCT01176240|191376021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors.|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.018
95703772|NCT01176240|191376023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||||||Statistical analysis plan involved a hierarchical assessment of secondary endpoints to prevent inflation of type I errors. As the first secondary endpoint was not positive, statistical analysis was not performed on additional secondary endpoints.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mantel-Haenszel statistic comparing treatment groups based on rank statistics adjusted for the covariate OHSA Item 1 value at baseline.||||||0.60
95703773|NCT01176240|191376029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model that includes treatment as a factor and baseline OHQ composite score as a co-variate.||||||0.238
95703774|NCT00771173|191376033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The independent samples t-test was used to test the null hypothesis that the mean VAS score for the active treatment cohort (i.e., those receiving pyridium) was no different than the mean VAS score for those receiving placebo.||||.745
95703775|NCT04988295|191376093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.56|||Log Rank|||||0.56|0.35|<0.0001
95703776|NCT04988295|191376093|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.36|0.64|||Log Rank|||||0.64|0.36|<0.0001
95703777|NCT03713593|191376112|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.834|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|0.978|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.978|0.712|
95703778|NCT03713593|191376113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.708|0.997|||Log Rank|Onesided p-value based on logrank test stratified by geographic region, portal vein invasion/extrahepatic spread/both AFP status,ECOG status.|Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.997|0.708|0.0227
95703779|NCT03713593|191376114|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|8.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||14.2|2.8|
95703780|NCT03713593|191376117|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.93|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.93|0.66|
95703781|NCT03713593|191376118|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.94|0.68|
95703782|NCT03713593|191376119|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Difference in percentage|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|13.4|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||13.4|0.0|
95703783|NCT03713593|191376122|OTHER|Descriptive assessment|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.88|||||Based on Cox model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by geographic region, MPVI or extrahepatic spread or both, AFP and ECOG PS.|||0.88|0.61|
95703784|NCT04776148|191376128|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.85||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis|Log Rank|||||0.85|0.56|0.0003
95703785|NCT04776148|191376129|OTHER|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.7421|TWO_SIDED|85.0|0.75|1.77||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.77|0.75|0.7421
95703786|NCT04776148|191376130|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|8.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|13.5|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by presence of liver metastasis|||13.5|4.7|<0.0001
95703787|NCT04776148|191376131|OTHER||Difference in Percentage vs. SOC|3.3||||0.2456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|14.3|||Chi-squared||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||14.3|-7.7|0.2456
95703788|NCT04776148|191376138|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|2.71||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|6.46||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||6.46|-1.03|0.1553
95703789|NCT04776148|191376139|OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.16||||0.4967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|4.51||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||4.51|-2.19|0.4967
95703790|NCT04776148|191376140|OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|8.82||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||8.82|-2.10|0.2271
95703791|NCT04776148|191376141|OTHER||Difference in LS means|-5.46||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-0.65||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction and stratification factor presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|cLDA model|||||-0.65|-10.27|0.0264
95703792|NCT04776148|191376142|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.14|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.14|0.73|0.4338
95703793|NCT04776148|191376143|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.4316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.38||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.87|0.4316
95703794|NCT04776148|191376144|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.32|||Regression, Cox|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||||1.32|0.85|0.5587
95703795|NCT04776148|191376145|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.6794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.23||Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|Regression, Cox|||||1.23|0.73|0.6794
95703796|NCT04776148|191376146|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by presence of liver metastasis (Yes/No).||1.02|0.68|0.0379
95703797|NCT04776148|191376147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.42|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test.|HR=Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs. SOC treatment|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.60|0.3574
95703798|NCT03898180|191376167|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.4107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.14||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) CPS, and ECOG performance status (PS).|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.14|0.72|0.4107
95703799|NCT03898180|191376168|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.3505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.48||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.48|0.87|0.3505
95703800|NCT03898180|191376169|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.2|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||12.2|-4.0|
95703801|NCT03898180|191376172|OTHER||Difference in least squares means|-3.07||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|1.44||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|cLDA model||Based on a constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratification factors by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||1.44|-7.57|0.182
95703802|NCT03898180|191376173|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.16||Two-sided p-value based on log rank test stratified on chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by chemotherapy ineligibility, PD-L1 CPS, and ECOG PS.|||2.16|1.24|0.0005
95703803|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is reported for Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 6||1.61|0.92|
95703804|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.75|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 11||1.75|1.01|
95703805|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.82|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 16||1.82|1.02|
95703806|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.7|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 18||1.70|0.92|
95703807|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.61|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 31||1.61|0.91|
95703808|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.77|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 33||1.77|0.98|
95703809|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.93|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 45||1.93|1.01|
95703810|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.87|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 52||1.87|1.13|
95703811|NCT05119855|191376176|OTHER|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-HPV titers and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) Ratio|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.58|||||GMT Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Anti-HPV 58||1.58|0.91|
95703812|NCT05119855|191376177|OTHER|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio with corresponding 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using an analysis of variance model (ANOVA) with a response of log individual anti-SARS-CoV-2 concentrations and a fixed effect for the vaccination groups, Concomitant Group versus Non-Concomitant Group. GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.4|||||GMC Ratio is between Concomitant Group/Non-concomitant Group.|Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) Ratio||1.40|0.99|
95703813|NCT04404192|191376184|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79||0.9338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-3.5|0.9338
95703814|NCT04404192|191376185|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5358||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1361|2.1086|||Wald Normal Approximation [Z]|||||2.1086|0.1361|0.3720
95703815|NCT04404192|191376186|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3637||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1006|1.3152|||Wald Normal Approximation [Z]|||||1.3152|0.1006|0.1230
95703816|NCT04404192|191376187|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.06||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||ANCOVA|||||8.4|-4.0|0.4764
95703817|NCT04404192|191376188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.08||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|6.7|||ANCOVA|||||6.7|-1.7|0.241
95918073|NCT03377790|191795554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5921|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between Tx arms are compared using an ANCOVA with treatment as the independent factor and baseline CDLQI composite score as the covariate.||||||0.5921
95918074|NCT03377790|191795555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
95918075|NCT03377790|191795556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Differences between treatment arms are compared using an ANCOVA, with treatment as the independent factor and baseline lesion count as the covariate.||||||<0.0001
95918076|NCT03377790|191795557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
95918077|NCT03377790|191795558|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||<0.0001
95918078|NCT03377790|191795559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.052|||||||Chi-squared|Differences between treatments arms are compared using a chi-square test.||||||0.0520
95703824|NCT01081951|191376252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.77||The use of a one-sided 10% significance level test will be used to assess the statistical significance of the analyses of PFS.|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio of \< 1 favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||0.77|0.34|0.0012
95703825|NCT01081951|191376253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.4379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.73||Two sided|Log Rank|Stratified by number of prior platinum treatment lines (1 or \>1) and time to progression following previous platinum therapy (\>6 to ≤12 vs \>12 months)|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours favours olaparib.|The null hypothesis for all efficacy analyses in this study is that there is no difference in treatment effects between olaparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel compared with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone.||1.73|0.79|0.4379
95703826|NCT05226598|191376255|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.50|0.87|0.8335
95703827|NCT05226598|191376256|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling; treatment as covariate stratified by ECOG, predominant tumor histology, PD-L1 expression, and geographic region|||1.23|0.82|0.5104
95703828|NCT02763566|191376318|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.719|||Log Rank|||||0.719|0.346|0.0001
95703829|NCT02763566|191376319|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.588|||Log Rank|||||0.588|0.240|<0.0001
95703830|NCT02763566|191376321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95703831|NCT02763566|191376321|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95703832|NCT02763566|191376323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0456|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0456
95703833|NCT02763566|191376323|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0004|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0004
95703834|NCT02763566|191376324|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0003
95703835|NCT02763566|191376324|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95703836|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.36|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.59|-5.36|0.287
95703837|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical functioning||2.10|-3.64|0.597
95703838|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role Functioning||3.93|-4.55|0.885
95703839|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||5.10|-1.77|0.340
95703840|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive Functioning||1.03|-5.37|0.182
95703841|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|3.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.29|-5.05|0.678
95703842|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||4.91|-1.77|0.355
95703843|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|3.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||3.03|-1.14|0.372
95703844|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.66|-3.75|0.740
95703845|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||5.78|-1.46|0.240
95703846|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom scales - Insomnia||2.97|-4.60|0.673
95703847|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|9.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||9.07|2.23|0.001
95703848|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||1.91|-5.04|0.375
95703849|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.81|18.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||18.84|12.81|0.000
95703850|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.59|4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial Difficulties||4.10|-7.59|0.557
95918079|NCT02564055|191795610|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|45.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||45.5|-2.4|
95703851|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Global Health Status||1.49|-8.43|0.169
95703852|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Physical Functioning||5.29|-2.12|0.400
95703853|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Role functioning||2.99|-6.42|0.472
95703854|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Emotional Functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
95703855|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|6.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Social Functioning||6.55|-5.26|0.830
95703856|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Fatigue||7.72|-2.26|0.281
95703857|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|6.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Nausea and Vomiting||6.52|-1.33|0.194
95703858|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Pain||2.14|-7.45|0.275
95703859|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.39||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|2.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Dyspnoea||2.06|-7.04|0.280
95703860|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Insomnia||7.72|-3.78|0.499
95703861|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|7.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.92||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|13.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Appetite||13.23|1.68|0.012
95703862|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|2.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Constipation||2.27|-6.83|0.321
95703863|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|17.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|22.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Diarrhoea||22.41|13.25|0.000
95703864|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14||0.342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Symptom Scales - Financial DIfficulties||9.19|-3.21|0.342
95703865|NCT02763566|191376325|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|2.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Functional Scales - Cognitive functioning||2.28|-7.12|0.310
95703866|NCT01574274|191376331|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95703867|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 4 NSAA Level||||0.07
95703868|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 11 NSAA Level||||0.29
95703869|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 18 NSAA Level||||0.0002
95703870|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Day 25 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
95703871|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 7 NSAA Level||||<0.0001
95703872|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 13 NSAA Level||||0.87
95703873|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19 NSAA Level||||0.83
95703874|NCT01574274|191376332|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 25 NSAA Level||||0.94
95703875|NCT01796197|191376377|SUPERIORITY||Pathelogic Complete Response Rate|40.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Two stage design, exact method||Decision Rule: If the percentage of participants experiencing pathologic complete response (pCR) is ≤ 15% then the preoperative regimen is considered minimally effective. If the proportion of pCR ≥ 40% then the regimen is worthy of further study.|Null Hypothesis: pCR rate is less than or equal to 15% Alternative Hypothesis: pCR rate is greater than or equal to 40% Hypothesized False Positive Rate (alpha) : 3.9% Hypothesized False Negative Rate (1-beta) : 9.9%||||
95703876|NCT03673501|191376387|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.16|||Log Rank|Strata: by intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.16|0.66|0.3598
95703877|NCT03673501|191376388|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.33||Two-sided P-value|Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.33|0.82|0.7153
95703878|NCT03673501|191376389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0333|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.0333
95703879|NCT03673501|191376390|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib treatment||||||0.2681
95703880|NCT03673501|191376391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.48|||Log Rank|Strata: intolerance to imatinib treatment||||1.48|0.75|0.7733
95703881|NCT03673501|191376392|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.3928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.18|||Log Rank|Strata: mutation status (KIT exon 9 vs. 11 vs. KIT/PDGFRA WT vs. other KIT {absence of exon 9 or 11}/PDGFRA) and intolerance to imatinib||||1.18|0.66|0.3928
95703882|NCT03141359|191376398|SUPERIORITY||Rate|0.627||||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.75|||Fisher Exact||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|We used a single-stage design to test null hypothesis (H0) that 1-yr PFS is \<= 0.60. Assuming one-sided α= 0.10, 60 patients provided 98% power to reject H0, assuming the true 1-yr PFS is 0.80. Since not all enrolled subjects received durva, study power was affected. For patients who did not receive durva, H0 was assumed to be 0.40 versus an alternative of 0.60. Including these subjects reduced power from 98%. The conditional power given that 13 evaluable subjects didn't receive durva was 88%.||0.750|0.492|.388
95703883|NCT03141359|191376401|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|0.712|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.712|0.422|
95703884|NCT03141359|191376402|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.621|0.853|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.853|0.621|
95703885|NCT03141359|191376410|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.164|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.082|0.281|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.281|0.082|
95703886|NCT03141359|191376411|OTHER|Estimation only|Rate|0.246|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.373|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.373|0.145|
95703887|NCT05528510|191376444|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|21.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|27.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||27.6|14.5|<0.001
95703888|NCT05528510|191376445|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||39.2|21.6|<0.001
95703889|NCT05528510|191376446|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|31.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||31.9|16.6|<0.001
95703890|NCT05528510|191376447|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|31.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|21.6|<0.001
95703891|NCT05528510|191376448|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|19.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.4|26.9|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||26.9|12.4|<0.001
95703892|NCT05528510|191376449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|25.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|35.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.1|16.7|<0.001
95703893|NCT05528510|191376449|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|27.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|36.2|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||36.2|17.9|<0.001
95703894|NCT05528510|191376450|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|29.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|40.5|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||40.5|18.5|<0.001
95703895|NCT05528510|191376450|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|35.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||35.3|14.3|<0.001
95703896|NCT05528510|191376451|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|37.6|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||37.6|18.5|<0.001
95703897|NCT05528510|191376451|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.1|42.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||42.3|23.1|<0.001
95703898|NCT05528510|191376452|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|32.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.3|43.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||43.4|21.3|<0.001
95703899|NCT05528510|191376452|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|41.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratification was by Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Intermediate-Risk status (Yes/No) and Mayo endoscopy subscore at baseline(moderate or severe).||||41.0|20.0|<0.001
95703900|NCT03829319|191376456|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.07976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.05|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.05|0.74|0.07976
95703901|NCT03829319|191376457|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.70818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.26|0.88|0.70818
95703902|NCT03829319|191376458|OTHER||Percent Difference|6.3||||0.08643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|15.4|||Stratified Miettinen & Nurminen|One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in percent = 0 versus H1: difference in percent \> 0.||Comparison based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50% ).||15.4|-2.8|0.08643
95703903|NCT03829319|191376462|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-1.01||||0.4805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|1.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||1.80|-3.83|0.4805
95703904|NCT03829319|191376463|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.29||||0.8747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|3.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||3.36|-3.95|0.8747
95703905|NCT03829319|191376464|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.91||||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.43|-4.24|0.5941
95918080|NCT02564055|191795610|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||32.0|-18.3|
95703906|NCT03829319|191376465|OTHER||covariate|-2.16||||0.3115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|2.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.03|-6.36|0.3115
95703907|NCT03829319|191376466|OTHER||covariate|-0.37||||0.8134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|2.72|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparision based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (baseline ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and baseline PD-L1 Status ( \<50% versus ≥50%)) as covariates.||2.72|-3.47|0.8134
95703908|NCT03829319|191376467|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.47|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.47|0.92|0.2133
95703909|NCT03829319|191376468|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.94|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.94|1.02|0.0377
95703910|NCT03829319|191376469|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.4084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.21|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.21|0.62|0.4084
95703911|NCT03829319|191376470|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.36|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.36|0.79|0.7955
95703912|NCT03829319|191376472|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||Stratified Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region of the enrolling site, and baseline PD-L1 status.||Comparison based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by ECOG performance status (0 versus 1), geographic region of the enrolling site (East Asia versus non-East Asia), and Baseline PD-L1 Status (\<50% versus \>=50%).||1.28|0.84|0.7191
95703913|NCT03260023|191376474|OTHER|Enough participants will be treated to obtain 22 evaluable as a first stage. If at least 3/22 participants are considered responders, the enrolment will be continued, otherwise it will be stopped. For the second stage of the trial, enough participants will be treated to obtain a total of 40 evaluable participants and consider the study positive if at least 8/40 of them are considered responders.||||||||||||||||A Simon's two-stage design will be used. The null hypothesis for response rate H0 is set at 10% corresponding to the response rate observed in second line participants, the alternate hypothesis of efficacy is set at HA=25%, the type I error α is set at 5% one sided, the type II error β is set at 20% (power=80%).|With a hierarchical strategy on the final analysis, a subgroup analysis performed in oropharyngeal SCCHN patients and with a null hypothesis for response rate (H0) set at 10% and the alternative hypothesis of efficacy set at HA = 35%, 18 oropharyngeal SCCHN patients would have been needed to reach a power of 81% and actual alpha at 2.8%. This analysis would have been considered positive with at least 5 responders among the 18 SCCHN patients. The second stage of the Simon's design has not been done following the decision to exclude oropharyngeal SCCHN and to change to a randomized controlled two-arms study (phase II part 2).|||
95703914|NCT03260023|191376475|SUPERIORITY|Statistical analysis is performed using a one-sided log-rank unstratified test to compare Progression-Free Survival of TG4001 in combination with avelumab vs avelumab alone in participants with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) HPV-16 positive advanced malignancies and without liver metastases at baseline. PFS will be evaluated based on RECIST1.1.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|1.29|||Log Rank|Unstratified with one-sided p-value||Efficacy will be evaluated by comparing the PFS between TG4001 arm versus TG4001 \& avelumab arm with an adaptive approach. With one-sided type I error α at 5%, 76 events are needed to reach a power of 95%, corresponding to around 80 participants enrolled. To stick with initial timelines for final analyses and limiting the loss of statistical power, PFS analysis will be performed based on at least 69 events.||1.29|0.59|0.2810
95703915|NCT03260023|191376477|OTHER|||||||0.832||||||At level 0.05 without adjustments for multiplicity testing, pvalue is calculated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Square test.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||In Phase II part 2 cohort A, statistical Test stratified by indication to compare the Overall Response Rate between TG4001+Avelumab versus Avelumab alone.||||0.832
95703916|NCT02486718|191376484|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.848||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.013|||Log Rank|||||1.013|0.710|0.0683
95703917|NCT02486718|191376485|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.691|0.998||||||||0.998|0.691|
95703918|NCT02486718|191376486|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.704|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.91||||||||0.910|0.545|
95703919|NCT02486718|191376488|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|12.23||||||||12.23|-0.28|
95703920|NCT02486718|191376489|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|6.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|13.36||||||||13.36|-0.06|
95703921|NCT02486718|191376490|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|19.79||||||||19.79|1.56|
95703922|NCT02486718|191376491|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|5.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|11.9||||||||11.90|-0.94|
95703923|NCT02486718|191376492|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|4.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|11.7||||||||11.70|-1.94|
95703924|NCT02486718|191376493|SUPERIORITY||Difference in event-free rates|10.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|19.76||||||||19.76|1.16|
95703925|NCT02486718|191376494|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.503|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.761||||||||0.761|0.332|
95703926|NCT03211416|191376500|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate|0.296|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.483||||||||0.483|0.151|
95703927|NCT03211416|191376503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Two-sided, one-sample t-test|||The null hypothesis is that the mean ratio of T effect cells (post / pre) is equal to 1 (no change).||||0.40
95703928|NCT05592275|191376505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.853|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|6.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.57|1.14|0.0058
95703929|NCT05592275|191376505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.3321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.90|-1.33|0.3321
95703930|NCT05592275|191376505|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.881|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.5211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.59|-1.83|0.5211
95703931|NCT05592275|191376506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|4.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.27|-1.86|0.4400
95703932|NCT05592275|191376506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.816|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.5913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|3.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.81|-2.18|0.5913
95703933|NCT05592275|191376506|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54||0.1446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|5.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.31|-0.79|0.1446
95703934|NCT05592275|191376507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.49|0.05|0.0153
95703935|NCT05592275|191376507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.8509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|-0.20|0.8509
95703936|NCT05592275|191376507|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.35|-0.09|0.2558
95703937|NCT05592275|191376508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.355|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.60|0.11|0.0050
95703938|NCT05592275|191376508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.19|0.6670
95703939|NCT05592275|191376508|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.52|0.02|0.0350
95703940|NCT05592275|191376509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.8952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|3.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.27|-3.74|0.8952
95703941|NCT05592275|191376509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.193|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74||0.4946|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.63|-2.25|0.4946
95703942|NCT05592275|191376509|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|3.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.21|-3.72|0.8840
95703943|NCT05592275|191376510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|4.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.93|-2.75|0.5763
95703944|NCT05592275|191376510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|4.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.13|0.60|0.0233
95703945|NCT05592275|191376510|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.821|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94||0.3504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|5.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.66|-2.02|0.3504
95703946|NCT05592275|191376511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.231|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01||0.2675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|6.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.19|-1.73|0.2675
95703947|NCT05592275|191376511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.6097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.90|-2.89|0.6097
95703948|NCT05592275|191376511|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.975|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.95|4.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.90|-2.95|0.6244
95703949|NCT05592275|191376512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33||0.4025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|6.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.56|-2.65|0.4025
95703950|NCT05592275|191376512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|9.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.91|0.90|0.0191
95703951|NCT05592275|191376512|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.488|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.5248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|6.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.10|-3.13|0.5248
95703952|NCT05592275|191376513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.0086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|8.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.84|1.30|0.0086
95703953|NCT05592275|191376513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.16|9.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.57|2.16|0.0020
95703954|NCT05592275|191376513|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|6.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.84|-0.76|0.1160
95703955|NCT05592275|191376514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.58||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|8.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.14|-2.02|0.2360
95703956|NCT05592275|191376514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.486|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.3216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.42|-2.45|0.3216
95703957|NCT05592275|191376514|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.6269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|6.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.37|-3.85|0.6269
95703958|NCT05592275|191376515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.11|-0.25|<0.0001
95703959|NCT05592275|191376515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.06|-0.20|0.0005
95703960|NCT05592275|191376515|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.16|0.0219
95703961|NCT05592275|191376516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.117|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.20|0.0038
95703962|NCT05592275|191376516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.15|0.0558
95703963|NCT05592275|191376516|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.02|-0.14|0.1496
95703964|NCT05592275|191376517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.12|0.0569
95703965|NCT05592275|191376517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.00|-0.11|0.0683
95703966|NCT05592275|191376517|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.2738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.03|-0.09|0.2738
95703967|NCT05592275|191376518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.05|0.5320
95703968|NCT05592275|191376518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.4974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.04|0.4974
95703969|NCT05592275|191376518|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.6016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.05|0.6016
95703970|NCT02057068|191376553|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||Partial Eta Squared = .282|||<.001
95703971|NCT02057068|191376554|SUPERIORITY|Intention to treat analysis with last observation carried forward|||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.05
95703972|NCT02057068|191376555|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95703973|NCT01784614|191376556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.96||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 0.1 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.908
95703974|NCT01784614|191376556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.67||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 1.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.98|0.45|0.083
95703975|NCT01784614|191376556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.53||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 3.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.78|0.36|0.010
95703976|NCT01784614|191376556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS mean|0.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio of Geometric LS mean is WASO of 6.0 mg LY2624803 / Placebo.|||0.51|0.18|<0.001
95918081|NCT02564055|191795610|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|38.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent BID and Vehicle BID has been presented.|||38.7|-11.2|
95703977|NCT01000025|191376568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.21||Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.1-sied p-value.|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||The trial was designed to detect a 25% deduction in risk of death with PF-804 with 90% power using a 1-sided 2.5% level significance test. The sample size was estimated as 720 patients.||1.21|0.83|0.506
95703978|NCT01000025|191376569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.03||1-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center.||||1.03|0.61|0.043
95703979|NCT01000025|191376570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.44||1-sided pvalue|Log Rank|||||1.44|0.67|0.46
95703980|NCT01000025|191376571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.79|||Log Rank|Stratified by stratification factors at randomization except study center, but included K-Ras mutation status.||||0.79|0.55|< 0.0001
95703981|NCT01000025|191376572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.11||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.84|20.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.3|1.84|0.001
95703982|NCT04423757|191376574|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2796|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|8.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.56|-1.81|0.2796
95703983|NCT04423757|191376575|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.276||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.091|0.781|||Regression, Logistic||For the calculation of the odds ratio Placebo is taken as reference.|Logistic regression includes treatment as covariate.||0.781|0.091|0.0468
95703984|NCT04423757|191376576|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.698|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.47|7.17|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|S-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||7.17|-4.47|0.6980
95703985|NCT04423757|191376576|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|3.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.2589|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|8.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|T-Anxiety scale - Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||8.76|-1.67|0.2589
95703986|NCT04423757|191376577|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.1863|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||1.15|-0.13|0.1863
95703987|NCT04423757|191376578|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1||0.8326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.46|5.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||5.76|-4.46|0.8326
95918082|NCT02564055|191795610|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|21.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 percent QD and Vehicle QD has been presented.|||21.6|-29.3|
95918083|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|43.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||43.1|-2.7|
95703988|NCT04423757|191376579|OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.5567|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.43|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference calculated as BI - Placebo.|Mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline, and baseline by visit interaction; patient as a random effect; unstructured covariance matrix for within-patient errors and Kenward-Roger approximation for denominator degrees of freedom.||0.89|-0.43|0.5567
95703989|NCT00444964|191376581|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95703990|NCT00444964|191376582|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95703991|NCT00444964|191376583|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95703992|NCT01711658|191376584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.3436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.46|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.1803|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|Hazard ratio (lapatinib/placebo) set at 0.65 (35% reduction), 1-sided alpha 0.20 (final test at 0.1803 accounting for 1 interim analysis), logrank test, 80% power, 69 events in 128 randomized (142 total enrolled) patients required. Final analysis at 67 (of 69) events drops power to 79%.||1.46|0.56|0.3436
95703993|NCT01711658|191376585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.86|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.86|0.61|0.5836
95703994|NCT01711658|191376586|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.65|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||1.65|0.25|0.1743
95703995|NCT01711658|191376587|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7989|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7989
95703996|NCT01711658|191376588|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3728||||||IMRT|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.3728
95703997|NCT01711658|191376588|OTHER|||||||0.7781||||||Cisplatin|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.7781
95703998|NCT01711658|191376588|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||Pre-IMRT lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.8000
95703999|NCT01711658|191376588|OTHER|||||||0.6459||||||Concurrent lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.6459
95704000|NCT01711658|191376588|OTHER|||||||0.4792||||||Maintenance lapatinib/placebo|Fisher Exact|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.4792
95704001|NCT01711658|191376589|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.17|||Log Rank|One-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = IMRT + cisplatin + placebo|||2.17|0.62|0.6735
95704002|NCT02460978|191376595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0579|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.26|-0.49|<0.0001
95704003|NCT02460978|191376595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0578|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model is adjusted for baseline HbA1c, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline HbA1c.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-0.30|-0.53|<0.0001
95704004|NCT02460978|191376596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5291|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-7.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-7.72|-13.73|<0.0001
95704005|NCT02460978|191376596|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5331|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.04|-8.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-8.02|-14.04|<0.0001
95704006|NCT02460978|191376597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3829|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|-2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.45|-3.96|<0.0001
95704007|NCT02460978|191376597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3812|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.49|-2.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for ln(baseline), treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*ln(baseline).||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean percentage change from baseline||-2.99|-4.49|<0.0001
95704008|NCT02460978|191376598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3468|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.26|-11.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-11.05|-20.26|<0.0001
95704009|NCT02460978|191376598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3419|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.34|-15.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-15.14|-24.34|<0.0001
95704010|NCT02460978|191376599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4519|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.66|-5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-5.03|-14.66|<0.0001
95704011|NCT02460978|191376599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4487||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.16|-4.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||-4.55|-14.16|0.0001
95704012|NCT02460978|191376600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0415|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.97|11.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||11.06|6.97|<0.0001
95704013|NCT02460978|191376600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0396|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.66|12.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline, treatment, week, randomization stratum, week\*treatment, and week\*baseline.||Difference vs. placebo in adjusted mean change from baseline||12.74|8.66|<0.0001
95704014|NCT02460978|191376601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2058|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|4.06|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.06|1.81|<0.0001
95704015|NCT02460978|191376601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.05|4.6|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization strata||Odds Ratio vs. Placebo||4.60|2.05|<0.0001
95704016|NCT01142193|191376602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<.001
95704017|NCT01142193|191376602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.53|28.1|||Hodges-Lehmann|||||28.1|8.53|
95704018|NCT01142193|191376603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.7||||0.013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.013
95704019|NCT01142193|191376604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|16.3||||0.007|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.007
95704020|NCT01142193|191376605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|25.36|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95704021|NCT01142193|191376606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|17.85|||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95704022|NCT01142193|191376610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|23.61||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95704023|NCT01142193|191376611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentages|13.4||||0.048|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Analysis was stratified by Geographic Region.||||||0.048
95704024|NCT01449955|191376620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA comparing the results of change over time (e.g., comparing baseline to 1 month posttreatment) as well as comparing differences between condition (e.g., placebo compared to rapamycin).||||>0.05
95704025|NCT01449955|191376621|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.5|||||||ANOVA|||||||> 0.5
95704026|NCT01449955|191376622|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
95704027|NCT01449955|191376623|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
95918084|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|47.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||47.5|3.3|
95704028|NCT01449955|191376624|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||< .05
95704029|NCT01449955|191376625|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||> .05
95704030|NCT00431496|191376633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|42.3||||||95.0|30.8|53.7||||||||53.7|30.8|
95704031|NCT00431496|191376634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|52.1||||||95.0|40.5|63.7||||||||63.7|40.5|
95704032|NCT00431496|191376635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|78.9||||||95.0|69.4|88.4||||||||88.4|69.4|
95704033|NCT00431496|191376636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|54.9||||||95.0|43.4|66.5||||||||66.5|43.4|
95704034|NCT00431496|191376637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|53.5||||||95.0|41.9|65.1||||||||65.1|41.9|
95704035|NCT00431496|191376638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|46.5||||||95.0|34.9|58.1||||||||58.1|34.9|
95704036|NCT00807014|191376671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with terms for baseline value, treatment, and center. Treatment-by-center interaction was not included.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95704037|NCT03296787|191376686|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.7265|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.7265
95704038|NCT03296787|191376686|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed Cmax (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9839|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9839
95704039|NCT03296787|191376686|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.9393|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9393
95704040|NCT03296787|191376686|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of Cmax (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.1321|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1321
95704041|NCT03296787|191376687|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.36|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.3600
95704042|NCT03296787|191376687|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC(0-72) (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0816|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0816
95704043|NCT03296787|191376687|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.2686|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.2686
95704044|NCT03296787|191376687|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC(0-72) (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0059|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0059
95704045|NCT03296787|191376688|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0998|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0998
95704046|NCT03296787|191376688|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUClast (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0155|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0155
95704047|NCT03296787|191376688|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0916|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0916
95704048|NCT03296787|191376688|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUClast (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0014|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0014
95704049|NCT03296787|191376689|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0038|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0038
95704050|NCT03296787|191376689|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Total): An ANOVA were performed on log transformed AUC∞ (total TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0004
95704051|NCT03296787|191376689|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare moderate renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0389|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0389
95918085|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|24.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||24.5|-19.5|
95704052|NCT03296787|191376689|SUPERIORITY|TAK-954 (Free): An ANOVA were performed on natural logarithm of AUC∞ (free TAK-954) to compare severe renal impairment group with the normal renal function group.||||||0.0011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0011
95704053|NCT06943963|191376812|OTHER|Repeated measures/Mixed-Design ANOVA|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002|||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A mixed-design ANOVA was used to compare repeated measurements of the dependent variables across groups. To examine changes in the dependent variables over time between groups, the interaction between the independent variable and time (group × time) was analyzed.|F value (from ANOVA): 6.30|||<0.05
95704054|NCT06943963|191376813|OTHER|Repeated Measures/ Mixed Design ANOVA|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0001|||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA||||F value (from ANOVA): 10.75|||<0.05
95704055|NCT06944951|191376815|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (baseline - final)|6.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|28.2|4.67|7.81|||Sign test|||||7.81|4.67|< 0.0001
95704056|NCT06944951|191376816|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (baseline-final)|2.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|23.8|1.53|2.51|||Sign test|||||2.51|1.53|< 0.0001
95704057|NCT06944951|191376817|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (baseline - final)|2.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|28.9|2.21|3.63|||Sign test|||||3.63|2.21|< 0.0001
95704058|NCT01230749|191376819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-27.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.792|-8.008|||ANCOVA|||||-8.008|-46.792|0.006
95704059|NCT01230749|191376819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-20.47||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.801|-1.142|||ANCOVA|||||-1.142|-39.801|0.038
95704060|NCT01230749|191376819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-13.24||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.635|6.151|||ANCOVA|||||6.151|-32.635|0.178
95704061|NCT01230749|191376820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-28.28||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.606|-8.957|||ANCOVA|||||-8.957|-47.606|0.005
95704062|NCT01230749|191376820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-21.97||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.154|-2.786|||ANCOVA|||||-2.786|-41.154|0.025
95918086|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.5|
95704063|NCT01230749|191376820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-17.71||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.86|1.431|||ANCOVA|||||1.431|-36.860|0.069
95704064|NCT01230749|191376821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|2.76||||0.628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.542|14.054|||ANCOVA|||||14.054|-8.542|0.628
95704065|NCT01230749|191376821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|13.7||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.392|25.008|||ANCOVA|||||25.008|2.392|0.018
95704066|NCT01230749|191376821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|5.87||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.417|17.148|||ANCOVA|||||17.148|-5.417|0.303
95704067|NCT01230749|191376822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-1.86||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.634|-0.082|||ANCOVA|||||-0.082|-3.634|0.041
95704068|NCT01230749|191376822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.26||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.033|1.509|||ANCOVA|||||1.509|-2.033|0.769
95704069|NCT01230749|191376822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|-0.69||||0.444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.463|1.091|||ANCOVA|||||1.091|-2.463|0.444
95704070|NCT01230749|191376823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|95.1||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.031|127.324|||ANCOVA|||||127.324|71.031|0.774
95704071|NCT01230749|191376823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|89.9||||0.555|TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.567|121.403|||ANCOVA|||||121.403|66.567|0.555
95704072|NCT01230749|191376824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|100.17||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.217|107.647|||ANCOVA|||||107.647|93.217|0.968
95704073|NCT01230749|191376824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|101.18||||0.785|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.179|108.7|||ANCOVA|||||108.700|94.179|0.785
95704074|NCT01230749|191376825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR multiplied by 100 percent|133.27||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.275|177.115|||ANCOVA|||||177.115|100.275|0.097
95704075|NCT01230749|191376825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR mulitplied by 100 percent|101.82||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.26|135.942|||ANCOVA|||||135.942|76.260|0.917
95704076|NCT01230749|191376826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.46||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.408|1.323|||ANCOVA|||||1.323|-0.408|0.295
95704077|NCT01230749|191376826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|0.03||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.838|0.904|||ANCOVA|||||0.904|-0.838|0.941
95704078|NCT01230749|191376826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LSM|1.02||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.892|||ANCOVA|||||1.892|0.150|0.022
95704079|NCT07245277|191376827|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95704080|NCT07245277|191376828|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95704081|NCT07245277|191376829|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.030
95704082|NCT00927576|191376903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of the results showed a 95% chance of finding a p\<0.05 difference in 166 subjects and a 99% chance of finding a p \<0.05 difference in 230 subjects in comparison of Group 1 controls and sTBI patients.|Difference in z-score, sTBI vs. controls|2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|for repeated measures with effect sizes (omega squared).||The null hypotheses was that the severe TBI group would not differ from the control group in SRT latencies.||||< 0.001
95704083|NCT00927576|191376903|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis of controls (i.e., with z-score = 0) showed a 95% chance of detecting a p \< 0.05 significance level for z-scores exceeding 0.54 in the mild TBI patient group..|z-score difference between groups|-0.3||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value reflects the likelihood of detection a difference of the magnitude observed.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis was that the mild TBI group would not differ in age-corrected z-score from that of a control subjects in the large control group.||||.50
95704084|NCT01224106|191376904|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.044||||0.6744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.161|-0.248|0.6744
95704085|NCT01224106|191376904|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.085||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.135|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.135|-0.304|0.4494
95704086|NCT01224106|191376906|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.035||||0.7458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.179|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.250|-0.179|0.7458
95704087|NCT01224106|191376906|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.042||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.275|-0.191|0.723
95704088|NCT01224106|191376910|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.191||||0.0825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.407|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.025|-0.407|0.0825
95918087|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|44.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||44.6|-0.3|
95704089|NCT01224106|191376910|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.043||||0.7171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.276|-0.19|0.7171
95704090|NCT01224106|191376913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9734|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.9734
95704091|NCT01224106|191376913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0629|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the Abeta 1-42 CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0629
95704092|NCT01224106|191376913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0084
95704093|NCT01224106|191376913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the p-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0003
95704094|NCT01224106|191376913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0903|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 105 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0903
95704095|NCT01224106|191376913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0434|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Statistical analysis of the t-tau CSF biomarker between Placebo (Parts 1 and 2) and Gantenerumab 225 mg (Parts 1 and 2) treatment arms at Week 104."||||0.0434
95704096|NCT01789255|191376949|OTHER|||||||0.02642|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02642
95704097|NCT01789255|191376950|OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95704098|NCT04882072|191377006|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|8.47||||||||8.47|0.41|
95704099|NCT04080752|191377027|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.897||0.2494|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.76|0.55|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.55|-1.76|0.2494
95704100|NCT01235507|191377057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704101|NCT01235507|191377057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704102|NCT01235507|191377057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704103|NCT01235507|191377059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704104|NCT01235507|191377059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704105|NCT01235507|191377059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704106|NCT01235507|191377060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704107|NCT01235507|191377060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704108|NCT01235507|191377060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704109|NCT01235507|191377061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704110|NCT01235507|191377061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704111|NCT01235507|191377061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704112|NCT01235507|191377062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704113|NCT01235507|191377062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704114|NCT01235507|191377062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704115|NCT01235507|191377063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704116|NCT01235507|191377063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704117|NCT01235507|191377063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704118|NCT01235507|191377064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||||<0.0005
95704119|NCT01235507|191377064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 16||||<0.0005
95704120|NCT01235507|191377064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Change from Baseline to Week 24||||<0.0005
95704121|NCT00588380|191377076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of rs6923761 genotype with Phi Total in the presence of either glucose alone, glucose and 0.75 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 or glucose and 1.5 pmol/kg/min GLP-1 If the p-value for the overall univariate test of association was \<0.1, then the associations for specific genotype pairs (e.g.: 1,1 vs. 1,2 or 2,2 vs. 1,1) were also examined using a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test.||||0.11
95704122|NCT00588380|191377077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||All data are presented as means ± SEM. Using the Kruskal-Wallis test (general allelic model), we assessed univariate associations of genotype with ΦTotal||||0.09
95727698|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.61||0.4842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Pain Index||12.4|-5.9|0.4842
95727699|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.45||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|0.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 General Health Perceptions||0.8|-12.9|0.0827
95727700|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.73||0.4561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.09|5.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Vitality||5.8|-12.09|0.4561
95704123|NCT02809846|191377091|OTHER|Bivariate associations between variables were assessed using statistical methods appropriate for the variable types. Baseline characteristics (demographics, other morbidities, baseline medication use, pain intensity and QOL) were compared between the two treatment groups to assess effectiveness of randomization and identify important covariates for multivariable analyses. Associations between demographic variables and primary and secondary endpoints were examined.|||||<|0.05||||||Sensitivity analyses comparing use of data from all participants with use of participants with complete data only was also performed. Agreement between different measures representing the same variable type was assessed using correlation analyses.|Mixed Models Analysis|Multivariable analysis with mixed effect regression models were used to assess the effect of treatment group on the primary and secondary outcomes.||Initially, a sample size of 20 participants per treatment group (active and sham) was selected to achieve 90% power to find a 20% difference in mean percent change in opioid consumption between the two groups with an estimated standard deviation of 22% and 80% power to detect the same difference with a standard deviation of 19% at a two-sided alpha = 0.05|Similar models were used to assess associations of treatment group with secondary endpoints. Model fit was assessed by Akaike's Information Criteria to determine optimal covariance structure.|||<0.05
95704124|NCT02157168|191377097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.624||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and is the main comparison in the study.|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.624
95704125|NCT02157168|191377097|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95704126|NCT02157168|191377098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.278
95704127|NCT02157168|191377098|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.056
95704128|NCT02157168|191377099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.889||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.889
95704129|NCT02157168|191377099|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.691||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.691
95704130|NCT02157168|191377100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.741||||||This comparison reflects intent to treat and compares the two randomized groups CG and IG (IG1+IG2).|Chi-squared|||CG and IG (IG1+IG2)||||0.741
95704131|NCT02157168|191377100|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||This comparison could be considered to be a per protocol analysis. Note, however, that the IG1 group was self-selected.|Chi-squared|||||||0.966
95704132|NCT02157168|191377101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.117||||||This comparison captures the change over the intervention period.|Chi-squared|||||||.117
95704133|NCT02157168|191377101|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||This comparison is an indication of whether the change seen between baseline and 6 months in the IG1 was due to the intervention or simply due to 6 months' enrollment.|Chi-squared|||||||.638
95704134|NCT02971293|191377102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704135|NCT02971293|191377102|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704136|NCT02971293|191377102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
95704137|NCT02971293|191377114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.002
95704138|NCT02971293|191377114|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704139|NCT02971293|191377114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.011
95704140|NCT02971293|191377115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704141|NCT02971293|191377115|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704142|NCT02971293|191377115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.201|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.201
95704143|NCT02971293|191377116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704144|NCT02971293|191377116|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704145|NCT02971293|191377116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.020
95704146|NCT02971293|191377117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704147|NCT02971293|191377117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704148|NCT02971293|191377117|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
95704149|NCT02971293|191377118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704150|NCT02971293|191377118|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704151|NCT02971293|191377118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.092
95704152|NCT02971293|191377119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704153|NCT02971293|191377119|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704154|NCT02971293|191377119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.279|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.279
95704155|NCT02971293|191377120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704156|NCT02971293|191377120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704157|NCT02971293|191377120|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effect: treatment, sequence, period, treatment\*day. Repeat factor: day. Random effect: patient nested in sequence. Continuous covar: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||<0.001
95704158|NCT02971293|191377121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.205
95704159|NCT02971293|191377121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.002
95704160|NCT02971293|191377121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.060
95704161|NCT02971293|191377122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.111|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.111
95704162|NCT02971293|191377122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704163|NCT02971293|191377122|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.015
95704164|NCT02971293|191377123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.621|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.621
95704165|NCT02971293|191377123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.138
95704166|NCT02971293|191377123|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.333|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.333
95704167|NCT02971293|191377124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.748
95704168|NCT02971293|191377124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.005
95704169|NCT02971293|191377124|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.013
95704170|NCT02971293|191377125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.064
95704171|NCT02971293|191377125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704172|NCT02971293|191377125|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.030
95704173|NCT02971293|191377126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.018
95704174|NCT02971293|191377126|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||<0.001
95704175|NCT02971293|191377126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.047
95704176|NCT02971293|191377127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.477
95704177|NCT02971293|191377127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.014
95918088|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|37.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||57.6|14.7|
95704178|NCT02971293|191377127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.084
95704179|NCT02971293|191377128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.213|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 100 µg vs placebo||||0.213
95704180|NCT02971293|191377128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs placebo||||0.001
95704181|NCT02971293|191377128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||ANCOVA|Fixed effects: treatment, sequence, period. Random effect for patient nested within sequence. Continuous covariate: baseline.||Comparison of AZD8871 600 µg vs AZD8871 100 µg||||0.046
95704182|NCT02754661|191377129|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (δ) is pre-defined to be 5% in this study. Posterior Probability was based on Bayesian analysis.|Posterior Probability Bayesian analysis|0.9999|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Support the claim of statistical non-inferiority of CCE vs CTC|||||
95704183|NCT02754661|191377130|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.3732|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.203|0.5434|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.5434|0.2030|<0.0001
95704184|NCT02754661|191377131|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.026||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0847|0.0327|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.0327|-0.0847|0.0190
95704185|NCT02754661|191377132|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0023||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1249|0.1249|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1249|-0.1249|0.0930
95704186|NCT02754661|191377133|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin was set as 10%|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0607||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0371|0.1585|||Farrington-Manning test||Based on Farrington-Manning Method|||0.1585|-0.0371|0.0034
95704187|NCT00729326|191377139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-values were not adjusted. The primary measure was change in 24-hour glucose without multiplicity adjustments for other analyses.|ANCOVA|Analyses for continuous variables adjusted for treatment, period, sequence, baseline of the continuous variable.Analysis method was Grizzle's model.||Null hypothesis: The 24-hour average glucose for exenatide was greater than or equal to that for sitagliptin after 4 weeks of treatment. The primary objective was to compare exenatide with sitagliptin on the time-averaged glucose during the 24-hour inpatient periods after 4 weeks of treatment.||||<.001
95704188|NCT00729326|191377140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704189|NCT00729326|191377141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.766
95704190|NCT00729326|191377142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704191|NCT00729326|191377143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704192|NCT00729326|191377144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.117
95704193|NCT00729326|191377145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704194|NCT00729326|191377146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704195|NCT00729326|191377147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704196|NCT00729326|191377148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704197|NCT00729326|191377149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704198|NCT00729326|191377150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704199|NCT00729326|191377151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<.001
95704200|NCT02738580|191377158|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.26|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||The proportion of patients with elevated Progesterone on last day of stimulation(\>1.5 ng/mL) was compared between both groups using the Chi-square test.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95704201|NCT02738580|191377159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.49|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.49
95704202|NCT01575899|191377171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1526||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|5.42|||Chi-squared|||||5.42|1.28|0.008
95704203|NCT01575899|191377173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2589||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|10.02|||Chi-squared|||||10.02|1.5|0.004
95704204|NCT01015820|191377174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.001
95704205|NCT01015820|191377175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Statistical significance p ≤ 0.05||||0.03
95704206|NCT01854593|191377221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.025
95704207|NCT01854593|191377222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95704208|NCT01854593|191377223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.033
95704209|NCT01854593|191377224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95704210|NCT01854593|191377225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.667
95704211|NCT01854593|191377226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.593
95704212|NCT01854593|191377227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.298|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.298
95704213|NCT01854593|191377228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.929|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.929
95704214|NCT01854593|191377229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.445
95704215|NCT01854593|191377230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.131|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.131
95704216|NCT01854593|191377231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.149
95704217|NCT01854593|191377232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.670
95704218|NCT01854593|191377233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.378
95727701|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.9645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Social Functioning||8.4|-8.8|0.9645
95727702|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.41||0.7636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|12.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Role-Emotional||12.4|-9.1|0.7636
95704219|NCT00583661|191377272|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size determination: A sample of 24 subjects followed for approximately 100 days provides greater than 80% power to conclude that, with a 1-sided alpha=0.025 test, the SAE rate of the EXCOR (assumed to be 0.21 per patient-day) is less than 0.25 per patient-day. This sample size was estimated using 10,000 simulations of this study. A total enrollment of 48 subjects (24 per cohort) were enrolled and implanted with the EXCOR® Pediatric.|Poisson confidence interval|0.25|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.25||A Poisson exact confidence interval was calculated and the critical-value method was used for the significance testing. Success was defined as the upper bound of the 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.|Poisson confidence interval|||Ho: EXCOR® SAE Rate \>=0.25 Ha: EXCOR® SAE Rate \< 0.25 Where serious adverse event (SAE) rate is calculated as the total number of serious adverse events divided by the sum of days all patients are on the EXCOR® Pediatric device, and 0.25 serious adverse events per patient-day is the success criterion. Study success in terms of safety will be demonstrated by the upper bound of a two-sided 95% Poisson exact confidence interval being less than 0.25.||0.25|0|<0.05
95704220|NCT05563714|191377274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|11.33|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Includes clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||11.33|2.41|<0.001
95704221|NCT05563714|191377274|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|13.05|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||13.05|2.54|<0.001
95704222|NCT05563714|191377275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|141.49|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (base model)|Adjusted OR (base model), 95% CI - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.||141.49|6.07|<0.001
95704223|NCT05563714|191377275|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.56|289.88|||generalized linear mixed effects model||Adjusted OR (expanded model)|Adjusted OR (expanded model), 95% CI - Adjusted for clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status, patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of comorbidities, antiplatelet therapy used at baseline, and baseline use of H2 receptor antagonists.||289.88|6.56|<0.001
95704224|NCT05563714|191377276|SUPERIORITY|Adjusted OR, 95% CI (base model) - Included clinician proceduralist vs non-proceduralist status as a co-variate.|Odds Ratio, log|19.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|29.09|||generalized linear mixed effects model|||We used generalized linear mixed effects modeling (logit link) to estimate the odds of medication optimization at week 7-10. This model included fixed effects for CNNF (vs. usual care), target provider specialty and size, and a random effect for clinician to account for the clustering of patients. We report the log odds ratios with corresponding confidence intervals for the main effect. The main effect was tested at a two-sided 5% significance level.||29.09|10.63|<0.001
95704225|NCT01216397|191377277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|99.4||||||90.0|94.2|105.0|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.0|94.2|
95704226|NCT01216397|191377278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|96.1|104.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||104.2|96.1|
95704227|NCT01216397|191377279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.1||||||90.0|94.7|105.8|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.8|94.7|
95704228|NCT01216397|191377287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|97.9||||||90.0|92.5|103.7|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||103.7|92.5|
95704229|NCT01216397|191377288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.4||||||90.0|95.7|105.4|||ANOVA|||||105.4|95.7|
95704230|NCT01216397|191377289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||adjusted gMean ratio|100.3||||||90.0|95.7|105.2|||ANOVA|||Standard batch vs. Side batch||105.2|95.7|
95704231|NCT01324687|191377301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.8387||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7261|0.9689|||GEE / Poisson regression models|||Rate ratio of ED use rate of the intervention group as compared to the control group.||0.9689|0.7261|0.017
95704232|NCT01998399|191377311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Total enrollment only 25 patients and the study was terminated early due to low enrollment. No further statistical analysis was done.||||0.41
95704233|NCT01455415|191377332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.3287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.73||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||1.73|0.83|0.3287
95704234|NCT01455415|191377333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.51||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was done using a logistic regression model which included baseline pain, sequence, period and treatment as covariate.||2.51|0.98|0.0625
95704235|NCT01455415|191377334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.9448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain severity, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.22|-0.21|0.9448
95704236|NCT01455415|191377335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.4548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.14||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline interference score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.14|-0.32|0.4548
95704237|NCT01455415|191377336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.03||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using linear mixed effects model including baseline score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.03|-0.44|0.0272
95704238|NCT01455415|191377337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.7344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-A score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.42|0.7344
95704239|NCT01455415|191377338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.6007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline HADS-D score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.42|0.6007
95704240|NCT01455415|191377339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|0.96||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline total score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.96|-3.13|0.2987
95704241|NCT01455415|191377340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.16||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline symptoms domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.16|-0.85|0.1769
95704242|NCT01455415|191377341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.5119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.24||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline activities of daily living domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.24|-0.48|0.5119
95704243|NCT01455415|191377342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.4335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.74||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline physical functioning / large fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.74|-1.72|0.4335
95704244|NCT01455415|191377343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.9653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.3||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline small fiber domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.30|-0.31|0.9653
95704245|NCT01455415|191377344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline autonomic domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.38|0.2690
95704246|NCT01455415|191377345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.9951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline mobility domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9951
95704247|NCT01455415|191377346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.9726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline self-care domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.05|-0.05|0.9726
95704248|NCT01455415|191377347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.5497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.08||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline usual activities domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.08|-0.04|0.5497
95918089|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|27.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||27.8|-18.0|
95704249|NCT01455415|191377348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.11||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline pain / discomfort domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.11|-0.02|0.1495
95704250|NCT01455415|191377349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline anxiety / depression domain score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.01|-0.11|0.1297
95704251|NCT01455415|191377350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.4279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 1997 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.4279
95704252|NCT01455415|191377351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.02||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model which included baseline Dolan 2001 index summary score, sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. The treatment difference (pregabalin - placebo) has been tested using within-participant variability as error term.||0.02|-0.04|0.5505
95704253|NCT01455415|191377352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0604|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.0604
95704254|NCT01455415|191377353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.106||0.7174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|0.171||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Repeated measure mixed effects model|The Kenward-Roger method was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||A longitudinal analysis was done using a repeated measure linear mixed effects model including visit, treatment, an indicator variable for Week 6, and treatment by visit and by the indicator variable interaction as fixed effect factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error (estimated by using an unstructured covariance structure) as random factors. The treatment differences were tested using within-participant variability as the error term.||0.171|-0.248|0.7174
95704255|NCT01455415|191377354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|||||Secondary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level, without multiple comparisons' adjustment.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was done using a CMH test with modified ridit transformation, under alternative hypothesis of raw mean scores differ.||||0.1511
95704256|NCT02228824|191377397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.17|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||2.17|0.86|<0.001
95704257|NCT02228824|191377399|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.5||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.21|-1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.78|-75.21|0.041
95704258|NCT02228824|191377400|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was performed on 25 sets of imputed data and then analyzed using SAS PROC MIANALYZE||||-0.13|-1.26|0.016
95704259|NCT02228824|191377401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.002|-0.04|0.03
95704260|NCT02712008|191377425|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.|Least square mean difference|-2.09||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0||0.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||||0.67|- 4.84|0.1368
95704261|NCT02712008|191377425|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.04||||0.9716|TWO_SIDED|95.0||2.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||2.18|- 2.10|0.9716
95704262|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.15||||0.1665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|5.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.20|-0.90|0.1665
95704263|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.9||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|4.95||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||4.95|-1.16|0.2223
95704264|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.39||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.54|3.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.32|-2.54|0.7943
95704265|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|0.66||||0.6655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.67||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||3.67|-2.35|0.6655
95704266|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|2.33||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|5.33||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||5.33|-0.67|0.1278
95704267|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-1.51||||0.3159|TWO_SIDED|-1.51|-4.47|1.45||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||1.45|-4.47|0.3159
95704268|NCT02712008|191377426|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-0.27||||0.8537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.63||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||2.63|-3.18|0.8537
95704269|NCT02712008|191377427|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-24.43||||0.1105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.46|5.61||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||5.61|-54.46|0.1105
95704270|NCT02712008|191377427|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-27.79||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with baseline measurement as a covariate and treatment group as fixed factors.||- 4.74|- 50.83|0.0183
95704271|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-55.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||- 18.01|- 93.81|0.0040
95704272|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-40.51||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.46|-2.57||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.57|-78.46|0.0365
95704273|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-37.15||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.53|-0.77||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-0.77|-73.53|0.0454
95704274|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|1.75||||0.9266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.54|39.03||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||39.03|-35.54|0.9266
95704275|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-15.49||||0.4116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.58|21.59||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||21.59|-52.58|0.4116
95704276|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|3.36||||0.8574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|40.14||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||40.14|-33.42|0.8574
95704277|NCT02712008|191377428|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|-38.9||||0.0351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.06|-2.73||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with baseline measurement as a covariate, and treatment group and BCVA stratification variable as fixed factors.||-2.73|-75.06|0.0351
95704278|NCT02712008|191377429|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.8||||0.7617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|9.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||9.8|-13.5|0.7617
95704279|NCT02712008|191377429|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.1||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0||16.3||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis was performed using analysis of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model.||16.3|- 4.1|0.2268
95704280|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.3||||0.8896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||17.7|-20.4|0.8896
95704281|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.4||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|25.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||25.5|-12.6|0.5021
95704282|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|6.0||||0.5273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|24.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||24.7|-12.8|0.5273
95704283|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|-1.5||||0.8683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|16.6||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||16.6|-19.7|0.8683
95704284|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.8|0.3546
95704285|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|0.2||||0.9801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|19.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||19.5|-19.0|0.9801
95704286|NCT02712008|191377430|SUPERIORITY||difference in percentages|8.8||||0.3528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|27.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Difference with Confidence Interval was calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by BCVA stratification variable.||27.4|-9.9|0.3528
95704287|NCT00106249|191377462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95704288|NCT00106249|191377463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95704289|NCT00948428|191377465|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, and each of these rates was greater than, and statistically different (p\<0.05) from, the Vehicle rate in the ITT population, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.84|9.15||||||||9.15|-10.84|
95704290|NCT00948428|191377465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||Based on Intent-to-Treat Population||||0.0001
95704291|NCT00948428|191377466|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Partial Clearance rates in the PP population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.11|5.95||||||||5.95|-12.11|
95704292|NCT00948428|191377467|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% confidence interval around the difference between the Generic Imiquimod and Aldara Complete Clearance rates in the ITT population were contained within the interval -0.20 to +0.20, then Generic Imiquimod and Aldara were considered to be therapeutically equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.92|8.88||||||||8.88|-9.92|
95704293|NCT02037204|191377481|NON_INFERIORITY|A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in clinical outcome between baseline and 3, and 18 months after surgery.||||<0.05
95704294|NCT05516134|191377502|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||baseline vs. treatment, paired sample t-test||||<0.01
95704295|NCT05516134|191377503|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
95704296|NCT05516134|191377504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
95704297|NCT05516134|191377505|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
95704298|NCT05516134|191377506|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
95704299|NCT05516134|191377507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.11
95704300|NCT05516134|191377508|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.01
95704301|NCT05516134|191377509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95704302|NCT02579863|191377641|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.33475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.45|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on Stratified log-rank test.|Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III).|||1.45|0.56|0.33475
95704303|NCT02579863|191377642|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.83416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.84|||Stratified log-rank test||"Based on Cox regression model with treatment as a covariate stratified by Age (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and ISS stage (I or II vs. III)."|||1.84|0.81|0.83416
95704304|NCT02579863|191377643|SUPERIORITY||Difference in % vs SOC|5.8||||0.13102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|15.8|||One-sided p-value for testing|H0: difference in % =0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by 'Age' (\<75 years vs \>= 75 years) and 'ISS stage' (I or II vs. III); If there were no participants in one of the treatment groups involved in a comparison for a particular stratum, then that stratum was excluded from the treatment comparison.|15.8|-4.3|0.13102
95704305|NCT03531762|191377656|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.2|117.13||||||||117.13|101.20|
95704306|NCT03531762|191377657|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|109.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.69|118.55||||||||118.55|101.69|
95704307|NCT03531762|191377658|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|104.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|116.61||||||||116.61|92.93|
95704308|NCT00446797|191377691|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|To conclude non inferiority, the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in change scores between the 2 treatment groups (nsNSAIDs - celecoxib) must be greater than -10 mm.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||||95.0|-0.76|7.55|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed), and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Least squares mean||7.55|-0.76|
95704309|NCT00446797|191377692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||||95.0|-0.89|7.08|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||7.08|-0.89|
95704310|NCT00446797|191377692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04||||95.0|-0.55|7.48|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||7.48|-0.55|
95704311|NCT00446797|191377692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86||||95.0|-0.91|6.42|||ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, country (fixed) and the baseline pain VAS score|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||6.42|-0.91|
95704312|NCT00446797|191377693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1591||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 2||||0.1591
95704313|NCT00446797|191377693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3995||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 3||||0.3995
95704314|NCT00446797|191377693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6805||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment and the baseline pain VAS score||Day 7||||0.6805
95704315|NCT00446797|191377694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2411||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.2411
95704316|NCT00446797|191377694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1163||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.1163
95704317|NCT00446797|191377694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.044||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.0440
95704318|NCT00446797|191377695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7223||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.7223
95704319|NCT00446797|191377695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0541||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.0541
95704320|NCT00446797|191377696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 2||||0.2900
95704321|NCT00446797|191377696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0157||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 3||||0.0157
95704322|NCT00446797|191377696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1206||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|"Controlled for country~Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)"||Day 7||||0.1206
95704323|NCT00446797|191377697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0846||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 2||||0.0846
95704324|NCT00446797|191377697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3041||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 3||||0.3041
95704325|NCT00446797|191377697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1216||95.0||||Threshold for statistical significance: p value is less than or equal to 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for country Test of row mean score differences based on modified ridits (standardizing the mid-rank)||Day 7||||0.1216
95704326|NCT00446797|191377698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.395||95.0|-0.33|0.62||Overall p-value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.33|0.395
95704327|NCT00446797|191377698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|0.18|1.04||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.04|0.18|0.004
95704328|NCT00446797|191377698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.122||95.0|-0.08|0.77||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.77|-0.08|0.122
95704329|NCT00446797|191377699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.604||95.0|-0.32|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.32|0.604
95704330|NCT00446797|191377699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.124||95.0|-0.07|0.63||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.63|-0.07|0.124
95704331|NCT00446797|191377699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.062||95.0|0.03|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|0.03|0.062
95704332|NCT00446797|191377700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.705||95.0|-0.36|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.36|0.705
95704333|NCT00446797|191377700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.064||95.0|-0.01|0.73||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.73|-0.01|0.064
95704334|NCT00446797|191377700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.074||95.0|-0.01|0.68||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.68|-0.01|0.074
95704335|NCT00446797|191377701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017||95.0|0.11|1.05||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||1.05|0.11|0.017
95704336|NCT00446797|191377701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.108||95.0|-0.05|0.74||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.74|-0.05|0.108
95704337|NCT00446797|191377701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.117||95.0|-0.01|0.66||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.66|-0.01|0.117
95704338|NCT00446797|191377702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.229||95.0|-0.17|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.17|0.229
95704339|NCT00446797|191377702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.027||95.0|0.05|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.75|0.05|0.027
95704340|NCT00446797|191377702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.07||95.0|0.01|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.65|0.01|0.070
95704341|NCT00446797|191377703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.954||95.0|-0.64|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.64|0.954
95704342|NCT00446797|191377703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.172||95.0|-0.19|1.02||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||1.02|-0.19|0.172
95704343|NCT00446797|191377703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.541||95.0|-0.3|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.30|0.541
95704344|NCT00446797|191377704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.924||95.0|-0.75|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.75|0.924
95704345|NCT00446797|191377704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.898||95.0|-0.62|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.62|0.898
95704346|NCT00446797|191377704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.655||95.0|-0.33|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.33|0.655
95704347|NCT00446797|191377705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.929||95.0|-0.59|0.62||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.62|-0.59|0.929
95704348|NCT00446797|191377705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.712||95.0|-0.5|0.71||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.71|-0.50|0.712
95704349|NCT00446797|191377705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.993||95.0|-0.44|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.44|0.993
95704350|NCT00446797|191377706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.32||0.779||95.0|-0.53|0.75||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.75|-0.53|0.779
95704351|NCT00446797|191377706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.972||95.0|-0.69|0.65||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.65|-0.69|0.972
95704352|NCT00446797|191377706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.844||95.0|-0.47|0.61||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.61|-0.47|0.844
95704353|NCT00446797|191377707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.944||95.0|-0.63|0.6||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.60|-0.63|0.944
95704354|NCT00446797|191377707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.654||95.0|-0.62|0.38||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.38|-0.62|0.654
95704355|NCT00446797|191377707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.952||95.0|-0.36|0.39||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.39|-0.36|0.952
95704356|NCT00446797|191377708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.842||95.0|-0.65|0.59||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.59|-0.65|0.842
95704357|NCT00446797|191377708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.828||95.0|-0.57|0.49||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.49|-0.57|0.828
95704358|NCT00446797|191377708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.542||95.0|-0.3|0.53||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.53|-0.30|0.542
95704359|NCT00446797|191377709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.404||95.0|-0.92|0.42||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.42|-0.92|0.404
95704360|NCT00446797|191377709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.816||95.0|-0.53|0.58||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.58|-0.53|0.816
95704361|NCT00446797|191377709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.837||95.0|-0.37|0.52||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.52|-0.37|0.837
95704362|NCT00446797|191377710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.887||95.0|-0.54|0.45||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 2 Least squares mean||0.45|-0.54|0.887
95704363|NCT00446797|191377710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.889||95.0|-0.43|0.51||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 3 Least squares mean||0.51|-0.43|0.889
95704364|NCT00446797|191377710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.738||95.0|-0.3|0.47||Overall p value|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment and country|Direction: nsNSAIDs minus celecoxib|Day 7 Least squares mean||0.47|-0.30|0.738
95704365|NCT00420342|191377712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1182||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1182
95704366|NCT00420342|191377712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2224||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.2224
95704367|NCT00420342|191377712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6929||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.6929
95704368|NCT00420342|191377713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0702||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5 mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.0702
95704369|NCT00420342|191377713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0||||2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 1.5mg MPA / 0.3 mg CEE.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.1980
95704370|NCT00420342|191377713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5777||95.0||||0.5 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2 vs 2.0 mg DRSP / 1.0 mg E2.|ANCOVA|No adjustments made for multiple comparisons||Pairwise comparisons among all three treatment groups were performed; both DRSP / E2 group vs MPA /CEE, and the two active doses against each other. Null hypotheses were that there were no differences between groups for each of the three pairwise comparison. Analysis of variance model was used, with terms for treatment, center, and baseline BP values.||||0.5777
95704371|NCT03053401|191377724|OTHER|Test of difference was conducted.||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95704372|NCT03053401|191377725|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
95704373|NCT03053401|191377725|OTHER|||||||0.41||||||Alpha = 0.025 for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test with Exact Option|||||||0.410
95704374|NCT03053401|191377726|OTHER|Test of Difference conducted.||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.454
95704375|NCT00407550|191377785|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.015
95704376|NCT00407550|191377786|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.56
95704377|NCT02580591|191377789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-0.46|-0.11|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.11|-0.46|<0.0001
95704378|NCT02580591|191377789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.6|-0.3|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.30|-0.60|<0.0001
95704379|NCT02580591|191377789|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.68|-0.37|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.37|-0.68|<0.0001
95704380|NCT02580591|191377790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.14|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.14|-0.40|
95704381|NCT02580591|191377790|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.59|-0.28|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.28|-0.59|<0.0001
95704382|NCT02580591|191377790|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline HbA1c, baseline eGFR as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline HbA1c by visit interaction as fixed effects. Patient is included as random effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.0001
95704383|NCT02580591|191377791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.673|1.314|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.314|0.673|
95704384|NCT02580591|191377791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.202||||0.2752|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.818|1.766|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.766|0.818|0.2752
95918090|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|39.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.0|-6.4|
95704385|NCT02580591|191377791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.02||||0.9077|TWO_SIDED|97.75|0.693|1.501|||Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 5 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.501|0.693|0.9077
95704386|NCT02580591|191377791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|0.932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.682|1.274|||Negative binomial model|||For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.274|0.682|
95704387|NCT02580591|191377791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.258||||0.1438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|1.713||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.713|0.925|0.1438
95704388|NCT02580591|191377791|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Rate Ratio (%)|1.051||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.771|1.433||This is a nominal p-value.|Negative binomial model||Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted rate/Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted rate.|For Week 1 to 26, negative binomial model includes baseline rate of hypoglycemia, baseline HbA1c, and baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as linear covariates and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy and treatment as fixed effects. Log (time at risk \[days\]) was used as offset.||1.433|0.771|0.7543
95704389|NCT02580591|191377792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|-1.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.20|-2.32|
95704390|NCT02580591|191377792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.91|-2.18|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.18|-3.91|<0.0001
95704391|NCT02580591|191377792|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-4.3|-2.57|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline weight, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline weight by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-2.57|-4.30|<0.0001
95704392|NCT02580591|191377793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.049|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.069|-0.03|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.030|-0.069|
95704393|NCT02580591|191377793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.101|-0.039|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.039|-0.101|<0.0001
95704394|NCT02580591|191377793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-0.122|-0.06|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|Model includes baseline total daily insulin dose, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, visit by treatment interaction, baseline total daily insulin dose by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.060|-0.122|<0.0001
95704395|NCT02580591|191377794|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Mixed effect Model Repeat MeasurementMix||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.2|-3.9|
95704396|NCT02580591|191377794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.8|-1.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 10 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, , treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-1.1|-6.8|<0.0001
95918091|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|39.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|60.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||60.0|16.0|
95704397|NCT02580591|191377794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-6.6|-0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 25 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For SBP, the model includes baseline SBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline SBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||-0.9|-6.6|<0.0001
95704398|NCT02580591|191377794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.9|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.9|-1.5|
95704399|NCT02580591|191377794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.7||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.6|0.1|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement||Mean Difference= Empagliflozin 2.5 milligram (mg) adjusted mean - Placebo matching Empagliflozin adjusted mean.|For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.1|-3.6|0.0047
95704400|NCT02580591|191377794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|99.75|-3.3|0.4|||Mixed effect Model Repeat Measurement|||For DBP, the model includes baseline DBP seated, baseline Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), baseline HbA1c as linear covariate and baseline pre-existing insulin therapy, treatment, visit, ß, treatment by visit interaction, baseline DBP seated by visit interaction as fixed effect. An unstructured covariance structure was used to model the within-patient measurements.||0.4|-3.3|0.0202
95704401|NCT00735072|191377810|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in the week 24 change in %activated CD8+ T cells between arms. Assuming a standard deviation as high as 3.5% and a Type I error of 5%, with 21 subjects in each treatment arm we would have 80% statistical power to detect a mean 3 percentage-point difference in the percent of activated CD8+ T cells between the active drug and placebo groups.||||0.014
95704402|NCT00735072|191377811|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.97
95704403|NCT00735072|191377812|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95704404|NCT01291511|191377829|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|5.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|8.4|||Log Rank|||||8.4|3.2|<0.0001
95704405|NCT01291511|191377830|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95704406|NCT01291511|191377832|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0062||||||P-value is based on an ANCOVA model with treatment and site as main effects and DBRP baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0062
95704407|NCT01366534|191377833|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy Maentel-Haenzel Method|-17.6||||0.7675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.4|33.3|||2-sided Fisher Exact test||Pre-defined futility criteria for efficacy: point estimate of increase of VE in Ad35.CS.01 Group over GSK257049 Group less than 0%|Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||33.3|-107.4|0.7675
95704408|NCT01366534|191377833|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|44.0||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.7|60.4|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||60.4|20.7|0.0066
95704409|NCT01366534|191377833|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy: Maentel-Haenzel Method|52.4||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|69.6|||2-sided Fisher Exact test|||Comparison of the efficacy (occurrence of P. falciparum parasitemia, assessed by blood slide) of an immunization regimen comprising of one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed one month later by 2 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at 1 month intervals, with that of 3 doses of GSK257049 vaccine administered at one month intervals, in healthy malaria-naïve volunteers aged 18-50 years in the sporozoite challenge model.||69.6|25.4|0.0021
95704410|NCT03185819|191377850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|-0.35||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||A pooled (54 mg and 84 mg) sequential multiple testing procedure was implemented to control type I error by comparing pooled data against midazolam + placebo matched to esketamine nasal spray.||-0.35|-11.19|= 0.037
95704411|NCT03185819|191377850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Mean|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|=|0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.91|1.55||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (84 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||1.55|-12.91|= 0.123
95704412|NCT03185819|191377850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.23|=|0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|0.53||Threshold for significance for p-value was 0.05.|ANCOVA|||Individual esketamine dose (56 mg versus medazolam + esketamine matched placebo) independent testing was planned to be performed after pooled (56 mg + 84 mg) analysis.||0.53|-12.25|= 0.072
95704413|NCT03185819|191377850|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.08|4.19||||||||4.19|-9.08|
95704414|NCT02910089|191377851|SUPERIORITY|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.32||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function (as a continuous variable) and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|||0.32|-0.2|
95704415|NCT02910089|191377852|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.4||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with an identity link function and normally distributed errors|Model-based Mean Differences are reported that have been adjusted for imbalanced baseline characteristics|Average of the percentage (proportion x 100) of days covered across all subjects.||4.40|-2.42|
95704416|NCT02910089|191377853|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|GEE|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.28|0.83|
95704417|NCT02910089|191377854|OTHER|As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.17||As per the SAP, no p-values were computed. Only point estimates with 95% confidence intervals were evaluated.|See comments|Generalized Estimating Equations with a logit link and binary distributed errors||||1.17|0.71|
95704418|NCT00329784|191377858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95704419|NCT00329784|191377858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95704420|NCT00329784|191377859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95704421|NCT00329784|191377860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.369|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.369
95704422|NCT00329784|191377861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.642|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.642
95704423|NCT00329784|191377862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.417|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Seasonal Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.417
95704424|NCT00329784|191377862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.926|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Perennial Rhinoconjunctivitis||||0.926
95704425|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut Wheal||||<0.001
95704426|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg Wheal||||0.361
95704427|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk Wheal||||0.760
95704428|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame Wheal||||0.834
95704429|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut Wheal||||0.882
95704430|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut Wheal||||0.226
95704431|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew Wheal||||0.024
95704432|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut Wheal||||0.204
95704433|NCT00329784|191377863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.194|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond Wheal||||0.194
95704434|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Peanut IgE||||0.859
95704435|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Egg IgE||||0.885
95704436|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.403|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Milk IgE||||0.403
95704437|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Sesame IgE||||0.106
95704438|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Brazil Nut IgE||||0.202
95704439|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Hazel Nut IgE||||0.108
95704440|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Cashew IgE||||0.157
95704441|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Walnut IgE||||0.040
95704442|NCT00329784|191377864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.262|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison for Almond IgE||||0.262
95704443|NCT03168555|191377865|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95704444|NCT03168555|191377867|EQUIVALENCE|compares visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.63|||||||paired t-test|lognormalized values||compares visit 1 with visit 2||||0.63
95704445|NCT03168555|191377868|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95704446|NCT03168555|191377869|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95704447|NCT03168555|191377870|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.41|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.41
95704448|NCT03168555|191377871|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.35|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.35
95704449|NCT03168555|191377871|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.03
95704450|NCT03168555|191377872|EQUIVALENCE|comparing visit 1 with visit 2||||||0.36|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.36
95704451|NCT03168555|191377873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||paired t-test|||||||0.29
95704452|NCT03168555|191377874|OTHER|Spearman correlation||||||0.73|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.73
95704453|NCT03168555|191377874|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||Spearman correlation|||||||0.77
95704454|NCT03168555|191377875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.80
95704455|NCT01042938|191377899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7991|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.7606||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3693|-0.2289|||Standard pooled variances t-test|||Hypothesis: The mean RDS for curcumin group is significantly different (i.e., lower) than mean RDS of placebo group at end of radiation treatment.||-0.2289|-1.3693|0.0077
95704456|NCT01042938|191377900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Hypothesis: The presence of moist desquamation significantly differed between the curcumin group and the placebo group.||||0.0022
95704457|NCT01042938|191377901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean redness (i.e., mean a\* number value) between the curcumin and placebo groups.||||0.145
95704458|NCT01042938|191377902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.685||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|4.428|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean MPQ pain scores between the curcumin and placebo groups.||4.428|-1.059|0.218
95704459|NCT01042938|191377902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|3.6|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean sensory subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||3.6|-0.6|0.152
95704460|NCT01042938|191377902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Hypohesis: There is a signifcant difference in affective subscale pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||1.1|-0.7|0.700
95704461|NCT01042938|191377902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in mean perceived pain scores between curcumin and placebo groups.||0.7|-0.4|0.559
95704462|NCT03136484|191377908|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority p-value was calculated as two times the one-sided p-value from a t-distributed test statistic comparing the treatment contrast with 0.3 rather than zero as in a superiority test.|Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
95704463|NCT03136484|191377908|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.33|||ANCOVA||Semaglutide + canagliflozin placebo vs Canagliflozin + semaglutide placebo|The responses were analysed using an ANCOVA with treatment, region and stratification factor as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. Before analysis, missing data were multiple imputed using observed data from participants within the same group defined by randomised treatment, using a regression model including region and stratification factor as categorical effects and data from baseline and all previous visits as covariates.||-0.33|-0.65|<.0001
95704464|NCT04209400|191377969|NON_INFERIORITY|P \< 0.05 is considered a statistically significant difference in seroconversion between the two groups.||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is that the vaccines equally affect the achievement of seroconversion level.||||1
95704465|NCT00360685|191377977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sample size was based on the difference in the proportion of patients in each arm who were predicted to develop severe mucositis defined as clinical grade 3 or 4 per the CTCAE. A sample-size of 42 evaluable subjects per study-arm allowed detection of an absolute difference of 30%, which corresponds to a reduction in the incidence of severe mucositis from 60% in the methotrexate arm to 30% in the MMF arm (alpha=0.05, power=0.80).||||0.06
95704466|NCT00360685|191377978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||K-sample tests for comparing the cumulat|||||||0.8
95704467|NCT00360685|191377979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.58
95704468|NCT01496274|191377980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||P value is based on a Wilcoxon signed-rank test of H0: AsBR ratio (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) ≥ 0.50. The ratio was based on the original scale.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||A test of null hypothesis that the ratio of AsBR (prophylaxis regimen/on-demand regimen) was ≥ 0.50 was conducted at the 1-sided 0.025 level. Matched pairs design with 19 subjects and 2 observations per subject.||||<0.0001
95704469|NCT02823080|191378040|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95704470|NCT02823080|191378041|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95704471|NCT02823080|191378042|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95704472|NCT02823080|191378046|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95704473|NCT00676208|191378047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95704474|NCT00676208|191378048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95704475|NCT01379924|191378049|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.25||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.92|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for group differences at baseline and variables associated with differential study retention.|Usual care arm is reference group|Multiple logistic regression modeling used to compute adjusted odds ratios for 12-month follow-up data.||.92|.07|.037
95704476|NCT01379924|191378050|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.86|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is reference group.|||.86|.07|.029
95704477|NCT01379924|191378051|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.|Usual care arm is the reference group|||.75|.06|.017
95704478|NCT01379924|191378052|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.217|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.217
95704479|NCT01379924|191378053|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.444|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.444
95704480|NCT01379924|191378054|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|9.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.011
95704481|NCT01379924|191378056|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.758
95704482|NCT01379924|191378057|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.024|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.024
95704483|NCT01379924|191378058|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up||||||.354
95704484|NCT01379924|191378059|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.85||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.121
95704485|NCT01379924|191378060|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.205
95704486|NCT01379924|191378061|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||0.803|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.803
95704487|NCT01379924|191378062|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.347|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.347
95704488|NCT01379924|191378063|SUPERIORITY||Group by time interaction term coefficie|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.59||0.591|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for any variables that differed between groups at baseline, and variables associated with likelihood of study retention at follow-up.||||||.591
95704489|NCT00617656|191378074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.67|||Log Rank|||This is a futility analysis. The initial hypothesis of the clinical trial was that the experimental group as a whole was superior to the control group.||1.67|0.76|0.56
95704490|NCT00617656|191378074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.51|||Log Rank|||||1.51|0.73|0.79
95704491|NCT00617656|191378074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|2.95|||Log Rank|||||2.95|1.38|0.0001
95704492|NCT00617656|191378075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.55||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.12|||Log Rank|||||2.12|1.13|0.006
95704493|NCT05724069|191378123|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.239|||=|0.1279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.553|0.074|||paired T-test|||Subjects in this analysis are 15 and not 30 (this happens because arms are not mutually exclusive, as explained in previous sections). Each subject can contribute with 0, 1, 2 pairs. Only data that constitute pairs evaluable for primary endpoint are considered in the analysis; the pairs evaluable for primary endpoint were 23.||0.074|-0.553|=0.1279
95704494|NCT02436915|191378160|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TUG (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TUG from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.24|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
95704495|NCT02436915|191378161|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the MoCA score (i.e., greater percent increase decrease of MoCA score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95704496|NCT02436915|191378162|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the dual task performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to walking speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95704497|NCT02436915|191378163|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing sway speed from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.004|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.004
95704498|NCT02436915|191378164|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would reduce the depression (i.e., greater percent decrease of GDS score from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.37|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.37
95704499|NCT02436915|191378165|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of TMT (i.e., greater percent decrease of time to complete TMT from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.54|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.54
95704500|NCT02436915|191378166|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of dual task standing (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to standing postural sway area from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.0007|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0007
95704501|NCT02436915|191378167|EQUIVALENCE|We hypothesized that the real tDCS would improve the performance of walking (i.e., greater percent decrease of dual task cost to stride time from baseline to follow ups) as compared to the sham tDCS.||||||0.04|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95704502|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||2.36e-05|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus parainfluenzae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0000236
95704503|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.0033243|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria elongata: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0033243
95704504|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.00500088|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_898: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00500088
95704505|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.0066975|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_110: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0066975
95704506|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.00710228|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter aphrophilus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00710228
95704507|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.00744022|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Kingella oralis: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.00744022
95704508|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.01434037|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sp.\_HMT\_036: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01434037
95704509|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.01955327|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus haemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01955327
95704510|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.01995277|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria mucosa: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.01995277
95704511|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02082528|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Parvimonas sp.\_HMT\_393\_nov\_97.053%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02082528
95704512|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02188156|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ottowia sp.\_HMT\_894: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02188156
95704513|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02321733|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Cryptobacterium curtum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02321733
95704514|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02397996|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Lautropia mirabilis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.02397996
95704515|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02509094|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus paraphrohaemolyticus: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02509094
95704516|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02648847|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sp.\_HMT\_332: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02648847
95704517|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.02828764|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria flavescens: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.02828764
95704518|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.03454372|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_96.429%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03454372
95704519|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.03747507|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga sputigena: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03747507
95704520|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.03776136|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Haemophilus sputorum: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03776136
95704521|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.03853215|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Capnocytophaga gingivalis\_nov\_90.546%: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.03853215
95704522|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.04751303|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.04751303
95704523|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.05190512|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_513: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05190512
95704524|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.0550647|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Veillonella sp.\_HMT\_780: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0550647
95704525|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.05861488|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Neisseria perflava: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.05861488
95704526|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.06727926|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.06727926
95704527|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.07051698|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Shuttleworthia satelles: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.07051698
95704528|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.0740793|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Aggregatibacter sp.\_HMT\_458: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.0740793
95704529|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.07426973|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Ruminococcaceae\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_075: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07426973
95704530|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.07829888|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Campylobacter showae: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.07829888
95704531|NCT06048809|191378171|OTHER|||||||0.08462924|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_056: Change From Baseline at Week 6||||0.08462924
95704532|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.062378|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Abiotrophia defectiva: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.062378
95704533|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.063437|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Saccharibacteria\_(TM7)\_\[G1\] bacterium\_HMT\_346: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.063437
95704534|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.069908|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Olsenella sp.\_HMT\_807: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.069908
95704535|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.079736|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Fusobacterium nucleatum\_nucleatum\_subsp.\_animalis: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.079736
95704536|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.094642|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bergeyella sp.\_HMT\_322: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.094642
95704537|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.095848|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Peptostreptococcaceae\_\[XI\]\[G-1\] \[Eubacterium\]\_infirmum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.095848
95704538|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.107931|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella sp.\_HMT\_317: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.107931
95704539|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.109114|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Bacteroidales\_\[G-2\] bacterium\_HMT\_274: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.109114
95704540|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.11083|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Actinomyces sp.\_HMT\_175\_nov 97.951%: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.11083
95704541|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.120377|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Slackia exigua: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.120377
95704542|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.123758|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Granulicatella adiacens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123758
95704543|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.123992|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella oris: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.123992
95704544|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.133385|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus sp.\_HMT\_064: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.133385
95704545|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.144598|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Schaalia odontolyticus: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.144598
95704546|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.147278|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Mogibacterium diversum: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.147278
95704547|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.148674|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella denticola: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.148674
95704548|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.149722|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Absconditabacteria\_(SR1)\_\[G-1\] bacterium\_HMT\_875: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.149722
95704549|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.154465|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Prevotella nigrescens: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.154465
95704550|NCT06048809|191378172|OTHER|||||||0.158139|||||||ANCOM-BC2|||Streptococcus chosunense: Change from Baseline at Week 6||||0.158139
95704551|NCT03805971|191378194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective of the test is to assess if the pCLE feature full chia seed sign is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0003
95704552|NCT03805971|191378194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the abnormal tissular architecture is significantly more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
95704553|NCT03805971|191378194|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0052|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if the pCLE feature cellular shape homogeneity is found statistically more frequently in the benign pleura group than in the malignant pleural infiltrations group."||||0.0052
95704554|NCT03805971|191378194|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The objective is to assess if dysplastic vessels are more frequently found in the malignant pleural infiltrations group than in the benign pleura group."||||<0.0001
95704555|NCT00364832|191378211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.73|0.9|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ week (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.90|0.73|
95704556|NCT00364832|191378211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.55|0.86|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 3 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||0.86|0.55|
95704557|NCT00364832|191378211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Conversion Factor 90% CI|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.09|||||To analyze dose conversion factors (CF), 2nd regression (R) analysis was performed on 3 different CF dose groups, using the R slope estimates of Hb change over 6 weeks. Equi-effective CF was interpolated using value that gives an Hb change of zero.|All cohorts with dosing frequency 1x/ 4 weeks (0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 dose group)||1.09|0.81|
95704558|NCT01536418|191378217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|19.3||||||||19.3|-3.0|
95704559|NCT01536418|191378218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|10.8||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 8||10.8|-5.8|
95704560|NCT01536418|191378218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|14.3||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at Week 12||14.3|-3.0|
95704561|NCT01536418|191378218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|9.5||||||CDAI score (Clinical remission), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID; at both Weeks 8 and 12||9.5|-4.6|
95704562|NCT01536418|191378219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|15.9||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at Week 8||15.9|-6.0|
95704563|NCT01536418|191378219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|18.7||||||CDAI score (Clinical response), GSK1605786A, 500 mg QD Vs GSK1605786A, 500 mg BID at both Week 8 and Week 12||18.7|-1.0|
95704564|NCT01444898|191378229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.07
95704565|NCT01444898|191378230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95704566|NCT01444898|191378231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
95704567|NCT01444898|191378232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95704568|NCT01444898|191378233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.8
95704569|NCT01444898|191378234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
95704570|NCT01444898|191378235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.2
95704571|NCT01444898|191378236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.04
95704572|NCT01444898|191378237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.004
95704573|NCT00068822|191378272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||2.8|-1.3|0.49
95704574|NCT00068822|191378273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.7|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Physical Component Summary treatment effect||3.7|-1.7|0.45
95704575|NCT00068822|191378273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|1.0||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|4.6|||ANCOVA|||SF-36 Mental Component Summary treatment effect||4.6|-3.7|0.83
95704576|NCT00068822|191378273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Frequency Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
95704577|NCT00068822|191378273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.33||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Pain Bothersome Index treatment effect||0.6|-0.2|0.33
95704578|NCT00068822|191378273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.05||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.11|||ANCOVA|||EQ-5D Index treatment effect||0.11|-0.01|0.13
95704579|NCT00068822|191378273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Effect|0.4||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6|||ANCOVA|||SOF-ADL treatment effect||1.6|-0.8|0.5
95704580|NCT00068822|191378274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted treatment effect|0.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Between group comparisons, confidence intervals, and P values were calculated with the use of analysis-of-covariance models with adjustment for study group assignment, baseline value of the outcome measure, and study center. Negative treatment effects favor the control procedure, and positive treatment effects favor vertebroplasty.||1.7|-0.3|0.19
95704581|NCT00324272|191378279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.704||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.704
95704582|NCT00324272|191378279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.217
95704583|NCT00324272|191378281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.988||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.988
95704584|NCT00324272|191378281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.426||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.426
95704585|NCT00324272|191378282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.351
95704586|NCT00324272|191378282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.480
95704587|NCT00324272|191378283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95704588|NCT00324272|191378283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.400
95704589|NCT00324272|191378284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||1.00
95704590|NCT00324272|191378284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.301||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.301
95704591|NCT00324272|191378284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the groin cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.474
95704592|NCT00324272|191378284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.606||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Local recurrence in the groin cohort.||||0.606
95704593|NCT00324272|191378284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||In transit or regional recurrence in the axillary cohort.||||1.000
95704594|NCT00324272|191378284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.486||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Distant metastasis in the axillary cohort (with the patient being alive at the end of the study follow-up period on 1.6.10).||||0.486
95704595|NCT00324272|191378285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.58|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the groin cohort.||2.58|0.40|0.963
95704596|NCT00324272|191378285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|3.2|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the groin cohort.||3.20|0.03|0.338
95704597|NCT00324272|191378285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.47|||Regression, Cox|||Death from metastatic disease in the axillary cohort.||2.47|0.35|0.880
95704598|NCT00324272|191378285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|13.95|||Regression, Cox|||Death from an unrelated cause in the axillary cohort.||13.95|0.05|0.923
95704599|NCT01548417|191378286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effects Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in alcohol-cued craving..||||.003
95704600|NCT01548417|191378287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linear Mixed Effect Modeling (MEM) with Restricted Maximum Likelihood estimation was used to measure differences in changes in drinking.||||.05
95704601|NCT01548417|191378287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Data represent the estimated marginal mean + or - SEM. \*P\<0.05, mifepristone vs. placebo (linear mixed effects modeling).||||<0.05
95727703|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54||0.7067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: SF-36 Mental Health Index||8.4|-5.7|0.7067
95704602|NCT04583969|191378288|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.02|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||2.02|0.63|0.691
95704603|NCT04583969|191378289|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.99|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Odds ratio, CI, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline OS, age (continuous), and baseline CRP. Missing data imputed using the 3-stage multiple imputation procedure described in the statistical analysis plan.||1.99|0.77|0.378
95704604|NCT04583969|191378290|SUPERIORITY|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline CRP.|Hazard Ratio, log|0.96||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|||1.20|0.76|0.689
95704605|NCT04583969|191378291|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.18|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Hazard ratio, confidence intervals, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal Score, age, and baseline CRP.||1.18|0.79|0.718
95704606|NCT04583969|191378292|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.39|0.75|0.907
95704607|NCT04583969|191378326|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.27|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.27|0.87|0.609
95704608|NCT04583969|191378327|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Lenzilumab|||1.26|0.85|0.708
95704609|NCT01262599|191378457|SUPERIORITY|Applies to primary and secondary outcomes: Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, t test, or Mann-Whitney rank sum test, as appropriate. (SigmaStat 3.5; Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, Calif.). Intention-to-treat using last value carried forward was used for missing data.|||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||Before the start of this study, a sample size analysis, assuming a clinically meaningful 50± 40 percent (mean ± SD) decrease in pain scores from pulsed electromagnetic field treatment, suggested that a minimum of 11 patients per group were needed.||||<0.01
95704610|NCT02120352|191378460|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|12.2|||||Comparison between CAB LA 600 mg+RPV LA 900 mg IM-Q8W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||12.2|-4.8|
95704611|NCT02120352|191378460|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.5|||||Comparison between CAB LA 400 mg+RPV LA 600 mg IM-Q4W and CAB 30 mg+ABC/3TC QD|||11.5|-5.8|
95704612|NCT00166517|191378527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was assessed versus a constant, 85%, based on historical data.||||||0.003||95.0||||p ≥.85, where p is the proportion of subjects who achieved ≥3-fold rise from baseline in the group that received RotaTeq®|Exact test of proportion|Exact test of proportion, based on binomial distribution||||||0.003
95704613|NCT03061812|191378570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.82|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.82|1.17|0.0051
95704614|NCT03061812|191378571|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|1.87|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value stratified by the randomization stratification factors.|Calculated using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with treatment and randomization stratification factors as covariates.|||1.87|1.22|< 0.0001
95704615|NCT03061812|191378572|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.66|4.65||||||||4.65|-5.66|
95704616|NCT03061812|191378573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.3352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.18|0.39|0.3352
95704617|NCT03061812|191378574|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.12|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the randomization stratification factors.||||1.12|0.47|0.0358
95704618|NCT01248585|191378600|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.177||1-sided p-value.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||One-sided 0.05 level test with 90% power, 298 participants required.||0.177|0|0.05
95704619|NCT01248585|191378601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.009||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.10|-0.08|0.432
95704620|NCT01248585|191378603|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.09||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.01|0.18||Fisher exact test.|Fisher Exact|||||0.18|0.01|0.15
95704621|NCT01248585|191378604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.06|3.97|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.97|-5.06|0.07
95704622|NCT01685203|191378608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline log(subscript)10(subscript) HCV RNA level and Interleukin-28B (IL28B) genotype (CC or non-CC) were used as predictors||||||0.381
95704623|NCT01685203|191378608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in rates after adjusting for Interleukin-28 (IL28) genotype (CC or Non-CC) using stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel proportions and continuity-corrected variances.|Stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.086
95704624|NCT04507360|191378644|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Mean difference in Overall row"||||
95704625|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
95704626|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
95704627|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
95704628|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
95704629|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
95704630|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
95704631|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
95704632|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
95704633|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
95704634|NCT04507360|191378646|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
95704635|NCT04507360|191378647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
95704636|NCT04507360|191378647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
95704637|NCT04507360|191378647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
95704638|NCT04507360|191378647|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
95704639|NCT04507360|191378648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
95704640|NCT04507360|191378648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
95704641|NCT04507360|191378648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
95704642|NCT04507360|191378648|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
95704643|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
95704644|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
95704645|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
95704646|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
95704647|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
95704648|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 1||||
95704649|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 2||||
95704650|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 3||||
95704651|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.22|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 4||||
95704652|NCT04507360|191378649|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference in total score at week 8||||
95704653|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
95704654|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
95704655|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
95704656|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
95704657|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
95704658|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
95704659|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
95704660|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
95704661|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
95704662|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
95704663|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
95704664|NCT04507360|191378652|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
95704665|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
95704666|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
95704667|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
95704668|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
95704669|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
95704670|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
95704671|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at baseline||||
95704672|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 1||||
95704673|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 2||||
95704674|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 3||||
95704675|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 4||||
95704676|NCT04507360|191378653|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Mean difference at week 8||||
95704677|NCT01998906|191378656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.6||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|30.2|||Chi-squared|||||30.2|5.0|0.0051
95704678|NCT01998906|191378657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|31.4|||Chi-squared|||||31.4|7.2|0.0014
95704679|NCT01998906|191378658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.4||||0.3077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|19.1|||Chi-squared|||||19.1|-6.4|0.3077
95704680|NCT01998906|191378660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.44|0.0275
95704681|NCT01998906|191378662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.35|0.0555
95704682|NCT01726504|191378687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||During the 8-week treatment period, the adjusted change from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs was 1.72 ± 0.12 (95% CI, 1.48 to 1.96) in the EA group and 0.82 ± 0.13 (95% CI, 0.58 to 1.07, P\<0.001) times more than that in the SA group.||||<0.001
95704683|NCT03012594|191378698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.07
95704684|NCT01929018|191378726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.87
95704685|NCT01929018|191378726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.38
95704686|NCT01929018|191378727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.75
95704687|NCT01929018|191378727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.11
95704688|NCT01929018|191378728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.11
95704689|NCT01929018|191378728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.23
95704690|NCT01929018|191378729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.27
95704691|NCT01929018|191378729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.58
95704692|NCT01929018|191378730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.83
95704693|NCT01929018|191378730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.13
95704694|NCT01929018|191378731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
95704695|NCT01929018|191378731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.02
95704696|NCT01929018|191378732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.03
95704697|NCT01929018|191378732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.06
95704698|NCT01929018|191378733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.62
95704699|NCT01929018|191378733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.40
95704700|NCT01929018|191378734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 12-week test.||||0.96
95704701|NCT01929018|191378734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Test null hypothesis that there is no difference between groups from baseline to 24-week test.||||0.35
95704702|NCT02635867|191378735|SUPERIORITY|Descriptive data and rates of success were calculated independently for indirect and direct therapies. Statistical analyses of proportions were done using Fisher's test and 95% confidence intervals (CI)|||||>|0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The clinical outcome measures assessed were pain using visual analog pain scale, pulp vitality assessment at 12 months.~The success rate was based on 3 measures of pulp vitality that resulted in a diagnosis of vital or nonvital:~Vital: palpation = negative/ percussion = negative/ response to cold stimuli= positive response Non vital: palpation = positive / percussion = positive. / response to cold stimuli= positive or delayed response time in seconds and lingering."||||>0.1
95704703|NCT01933399|191378737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|16.6|||ANCOVA||"Difference in mean change in scores from baseline to follow-up by treatment group with no adjusment for baseline.~a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons."|ANCOVA Adjusted for baseline score||16.6|2.2|.01
95704704|NCT01933399|191378737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.6||a priori threshold determined to be .05. no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Adjustment for baseline.||||12.6|-2.0|.16
95704705|NCT01933399|191378738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||-0.4|-2.3|0.01
95704706|NCT01933399|191378738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Adjusted for baseline.||0|-2.1|.05
95704707|NCT02845440|191378739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|4.79||A priori threshold for significance was p \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.79|1.20|0.013
95704708|NCT02845440|191378739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.74||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.74|0.62|0.481
95704709|NCT02845440|191378739|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.24||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||3.24|1.04|0.036
95704710|NCT02845440|191378740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.06|0.88|0.174
95704711|NCT02845440|191378740|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.06||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.06|0.45|0.092
95704712|NCT02845440|191378741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.75|1.61|<0.001
95704713|NCT02845440|191378741|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.64||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.64|0.50|0.742
95704714|NCT02845440|191378742|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.57||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.51||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 2.8%.|2.51|0.99|0.056
95704715|NCT02845440|191378743|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.33||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the AD+CHW intervention was 13.9%.|3.33|1.16|0.012
95704716|NCT02845440|191378744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.79||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.79|1.05|0.032
95704717|NCT02845440|191378744|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.75||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||2.75|0.68|0.376
95704718|NCT02845440|191378744|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|4.05|||Regression, Logistic|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||4.05|0.42|0.645
95704719|NCT02845440|191378745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.56||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|The CHW intervention increased odds of self-reported use of any TUD medication by 1.85.||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.56|1.34|<0.001
95704720|NCT02845440|191378745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.05|0.46|0.084
95704721|NCT02845440|191378745|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.55|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.55|0.59|0.589
95704722|NCT02845440|191378746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.99|4.68||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||4.68|1.99|<0.001
95704723|NCT02845440|191378746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.57||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||1.57|0.51|0.698
95704724|NCT02845440|191378746|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept.||2.78|0.43|0.845
95918092|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|31.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.8|52.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||52.1|7.8|
95704725|NCT02845440|191378747|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.2||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as TUD medication use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of TUD medication use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 55.6%.|2.20|0.92|0.158
95704726|NCT02845440|191378748|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.13||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||Missing abstinence rates at year 2 of intervention were imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and abstinence rates at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects logistic regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) as well as varenicline use and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients and mediation analysis estimates were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.|A mediation analysis found that the estimated proportion of the effect of varenicline use on abstinence rates attributable to the CHW intervention was 36.6%.|3.13|1.14|0.013
95704727|NCT02845440|191378749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.33|||Regression, Linear|||The model had a clinic varying random intercept. This statistical model included cohort 1: TAU , AD, and AD+CHW||0.33|-0.16|0.505
95704728|NCT02845440|191378749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.27||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.27|-0.22|0.848
95704729|NCT02845440|191378749|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25||The a priori threshold for significance was a p-value \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for TAU, AD, and AD+CHW (cohort 1) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.25|-0.13|0.529
95704730|NCT02845440|191378750|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.18|-0.16|0.937
95704731|NCT02845440|191378750|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with terms for the factorial design (TAU, AD, CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.29|-0.19|0.683
95704732|NCT02845440|191378750|OTHER|Test of the additive assumption required by a factorial design. If the AD x CHW interaction is significant at p \< 0.05, the additive assumption would have to be rejected.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.74|||Regression, Linear|||Missing data at year 2 of intervention was imputed using MICE based on baseline characteristics and outcome values at year 1 of intervention. The statistical model was a mixed effects linear regression with both additive terms and an interaction (TAU, AD, CHW, AD x CHW, and cohort) and a clinic-varying random intercept. Regression coefficients were pooled using Rubin's rule over 10 imputation runs.||0.74|-0.15|0.190
95704733|NCT01704976|191378759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95704734|NCT01704976|191378760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95704735|NCT01704976|191378761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95704736|NCT01704976|191378762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95704737|NCT01704976|191378763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.05
95704738|NCT02977507|191378764|OTHER|||||||0.041|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.041
95704739|NCT02977507|191378764|OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0005
95704740|NCT02977507|191378765|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.002
95704741|NCT02977507|191378765|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0001
95704742|NCT02977507|191378766|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.004
95704743|NCT02977507|191378766|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.001
95704744|NCT02977507|191378770|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.003
95704745|NCT02977507|191378770|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Paired t-test|||Testing hypothesis was that the mean change from baseline was zero.||||0.0007
95704746|NCT02977507|191378772|OTHER|||||||0.569|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.569
95704747|NCT02977507|191378772|OTHER|||||||9e-05|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.00009
95704748|NCT02977507|191378772|OTHER|||||||0.821|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.821
95704749|NCT02977507|191378772|OTHER|||||||0.502|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.502
95704750|NCT02977507|191378772|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||Paired t-test|||Melanin index: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.810
95704751|NCT02977507|191378772|OTHER|||||||0.435|||||||Paired t-test|||Erythema: Testing hypothesis is that the mean change from baseline is zero.||||0.435
95704752|NCT00654420|191378792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.57|||Finkelstein Proportional Hazards Model|||Finkelstein proportional hazards model for interval-censored data was used to assess treatment effect on PFS in Phase II. The hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval for the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported.||1.57|0.47|0.268
95704753|NCT00654420|191378793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.44||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.64|||Regression, Cox|||The treatment difference in survival between treatment groups was assessed by Cox regression. The estimated hazard ratio for treatment of the Dalotuzumab (10 mg/kg) + Erlotinib treatment arm compared to the Erlotinib treatment arm was reported from the Cox model.||2.64|0.78|0.879
95704754|NCT00654420|191378794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-2.8||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|9.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen Method|||Miettinen and Nurminen's method for stratified data was used for comparison of percentage of participants with objective response (ORR) between the two treatment groups. Response rate calculation was based on full follow-up.||9.4|-15.9|0.721
95704755|NCT03011775|191378816|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The threshold for statistical significance was P value of .05||||||<0.05
95704756|NCT03011775|191378817|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95704757|NCT03011775|191378819|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95704758|NCT03011775|191378820|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95704759|NCT03011775|191378822|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95704760|NCT03011775|191378823|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95704761|NCT03011775|191378824|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||=0.3
95704762|NCT03236506|191378838|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming a 95% SVR rate (based on published studies) in the DOT arm of the trial in this population and a non-inferiority limit of 14% (which would be likely to maintain cost-effectiveness) then at a 5% significance level and 90% power we would need a sample size of 42 in each group 126 in total. To allow for drop-outs we will aim to recruit 135 individuals, 45 per group.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|3.0|||Logistic|||||3.00|0.14|0.67
95704763|NCT03236506|191378838|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.45|||logistic|||||2.45|0.11|0.41
95704764|NCT03236506|191378838|NON_INFERIORITY|Described in Statistical Analysis 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|6.61|||logistic|||||6.61|0.23|0.82
95704765|NCT00638274|191378850|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95704766|NCT00638274|191378850|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95704767|NCT00838383|191378862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-70.0||||0.5307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-291.3|151.4|||ANCOVA|||||151.4|-291.3|0.5307
95704768|NCT00838383|191378862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-73.2||||0.5121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-294.5|148.2|||ANCOVA|||||148.2|-294.5|0.5121
95704769|NCT00838383|191378863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-123.1||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-345.5|99.3|||ANCOVA|||||99.3|-345.5|0.2735
95704770|NCT00838383|191378863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-174.5||||0.1223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-396.8|47.9|||ANCOVA|||||47.9|-396.8|0.1223
95704771|NCT00838383|191378864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-66.6||||0.5505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-288.0|154.8|||ANCOVA|||||154.8|-288.0|0.5505
95704772|NCT00838383|191378864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-110.3||||0.3237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-331.7|111.0|||ANCOVA|||||111.0|-331.7|0.3237
95704773|NCT00838383|191378865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-166.5||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-389.6|56.6|||ANCOVA|||||56.6|-389.6|0.1412
95704774|NCT00838383|191378865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-199.8||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-425.0|25.5|||ANCOVA|||||25.5|-425.0|0.0813
95704775|NCT01815580|191378890|OTHER||||||>|0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.75
95704776|NCT01815580|191378891|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95704777|NCT01815580|191378892|OTHER||||||>|0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.3
95704778|NCT01815580|191378893|OTHER||||||>|0.12|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.12
95704779|NCT01815580|191378894|OTHER||||||>|0.22|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.22
95704780|NCT02427100|191378895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
95704781|NCT02427100|191378896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00036||||||The Linear Mixed Model (LMM) regression analysis (repeated measures) was adjusted for daily minutes of accelerometer wear time, gender, age, BMI, education, and meeting physical activity guidelines at baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|A fourth root transformation of daily accelerometer-measured minutes of MVPA was used to normalize the distribution and was included in the analyses.||||||.00036
95704782|NCT01610206|191378897|EQUIVALENCE|To estimate the progression-free survival hazard ratio of the combination of weekly gemcitabine and pazopanib compared to weekly gemcitabine alone in patients with persistent or recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.07|||non-parametric weighted Tarone-Ware test|||||1.07|0.61|0.019
95704783|NCT00249795|191378905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.992||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.907|1.085||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 4.5% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.085|0.907|0.8570
95704784|NCT00249795|191378906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.016||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 1% level to account for multiplicity.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of any component of the composite event in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.016|0.869|0.1200
95727704|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Component Score||3.2|-3.9|0.8352
95704785|NCT00249795|191378907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.916||||0.2162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|1.053||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of a stroke in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.053|0.796|0.2162
95704786|NCT00249795|191378908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.014||||0.759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|1.11||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of death in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.110|0.927|0.7590
95704787|NCT00249795|191378909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.897||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.809|0.993||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of HF episodes in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.993|0.809|0.0369
95704788|NCT00249795|191378910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|0.975||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for Heart Failure in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||0.975|0.763|0.0175
95704789|NCT00249795|191378911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.8377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.093||The cumulative incidence function of this event was calculated for each treatment group using the non-parametric Kaplan-Meier method and the comparison was performed using a 2-sided Log Rank test at 5% level.|Log Rank|Logrank statistic was stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata.|HR was estimated using a Cox's proportional hazard model stratified on ACTIVE A/W strata with treatment group factor. It provides the relative hazard of hospitalization for other CV cause in Irbesartan group versus Placebo group.|||1.093|0.930|0.8377
95704790|NCT05103475|191378917|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||||||1.0
95704791|NCT05103475|191378918|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95704792|NCT05103475|191378919|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.15
95704793|NCT05103475|191378920|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.43|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group scores.||||0.43
95704794|NCT05103475|191378920|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group score.||||0.24
95704795|NCT05103475|191378920|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.53||||||F = 0.41|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.53
95704796|NCT05103475|191378921|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for control group.||||0.70
95704797|NCT05103475|191378921|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison for RAP group.||||0.17
95704798|NCT05103475|191378921|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.18||||||F = 1.95|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.18
95704799|NCT05103475|191378922|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.37
95704800|NCT05103475|191378922|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.50
95918093|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|48.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||48.4|2.3|
95704801|NCT05103475|191378922|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.9||||||F = 0.01|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.90
95704802|NCT05103475|191378923|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.56
95704803|NCT05103475|191378923|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.32
95704804|NCT05103475|191378923|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41||||||F = 0.71|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.41
95704805|NCT05103475|191378924|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.50
95704806|NCT05103475|191378924|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.60
95704807|NCT05103475|191378924|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.98||||||F = 0.0|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.98
95918094|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|40.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||40.5|-5.3|
95918095|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|44.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.7|-2.3|
95704808|NCT05103475|191378925|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.54|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.54
95704809|NCT05103475|191378925|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.15
95704810|NCT05103475|191378925|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.04||||||F = 4.9|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.04
95704811|NCT05103475|191378926|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.11|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.11
95704812|NCT05103475|191378926|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.09
95704813|NCT05103475|191378926|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.75||||||F = 0.10|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.75
95704814|NCT05103475|191378927|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.41|||||||Fisher Exact|The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.||Likelihood to participate in a program like it in the future||||0.41
95704815|NCT05103475|191378927|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.003||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Help to manage back pain.||||0.003
95704816|NCT05103475|191378927|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||1||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small sample sizes.|Fisher Exact|The reported value represents the calculated p-value for the Fisher's Exact test.||Would recommend to another Veteran.||||1.00
95704817|NCT05103475|191378927|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.07||||||The investigators used Fisher's Exact due to small cell sizes.|Fisher Exact|||Liked the program.||||0.07
95704818|NCT05103475|191378928|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - control group.||||0.91
95704819|NCT05103475|191378928|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.51|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pre/post comparison - RAP group.||||0.51
95704820|NCT05103475|191378928|OTHER|Please note that all data analyses were exploratory because this was feasibility pilot.||||||0.42||||||F = 0.68|ANOVA|||ANOVA results - group x time interaction.||||0.42
95704821|NCT02917629|191378964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0011|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.024||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000229822 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
95704822|NCT02917629|191378964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0217|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0257||0.031|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000230585 baseline and post exposure||||0.031
95704823|NCT02917629|191378964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
95704824|NCT02917629|191378964|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0007|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000261792 baseline and post exposure||||<0.001
95704825|NCT02917629|191378965|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.006|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.006||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000234806 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
95704826|NCT02917629|191378966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0072||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000232479 baseline and post exposure||||0.002
95704827|NCT02917629|191378966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0037|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0193||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000233163 baseline and post exposure||||0.020
95704828|NCT02917629|191378966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0098|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.005||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Benjamini and Hochberg|||ENSG00000249245 baseline and post-exposure||||0.001
95704829|NCT04018612|191379008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-21.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.091||0.0258|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-7.53|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline (BL) Pain Intensity-Numerical Pain Relief Scale (PI-NPRS) as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was -∞|||-7.53||0.0258
95704830|NCT04018612|191379008|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-25.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.154||0.0115|ONE_SIDED|90.0||-11.35|||ANCOVA||SPID24 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The lower limit of one-sided 90% CI was -∞|||-11.35||0.0115
95704831|NCT04018612|191379009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.267||0.0087|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.92||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.92|0.0087
95704832|NCT04018612|191379009|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|12.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.297||0.012|ONE_SIDED|90.0|5.31||||ANCOVA||TOTPAR24 was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline PI-NPRS as a covariate. The upper limit of one-sided 90% CI was +∞||||5.31|0.0120
95704833|NCT01602549|191379040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.831|1.12|||||Day 1: The adjusted means (AMs) and ratios were estimated using a mixed model (MM) fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 1||1.120|0.831|
95704834|NCT01602549|191379040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.886|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.029|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg : Placebo Day 8||1.029|0.763|
95704835|NCT01602549|191379040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.937|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.033|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8: Day 1||1.033|0.850|
95918096|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|36.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|57.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.6|12.1|
95704836|NCT01602549|191379040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.17|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8:Day 1 Placebo||1.170|0.890|
95704837|NCT01602549|191379042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.864|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.702|1.064|||||Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.064|0.702|
95704838|NCT01602549|191379042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.257|||||Day 8: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||1.257|0.824|
95704839|NCT01602549|191379042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.889|1.166|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 VS Day 1 GSK962040 50 mg||1.166|0.889|
95704840|NCT01602549|191379042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|0.865|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.709|1.055|||||Day 8:Day 1: The AMs and ratios were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, Baseline L-dopa PK parameter and Baseline gastric emptying half time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Day 8 Vs Day 1 Placebo||1.055|0.709|
95704841|NCT01602549|191379043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 1||||0.157
95704842|NCT01602549|191379043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||Day 8||||0.186
95704843|NCT01602549|191379045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.015|7.537|||||Day 1: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||7.537|-16.015|
95704844|NCT01602549|191379045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.567|6.914|||||Day 8: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, and Baseline gastric half emptying time as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||6.914|-17.567|
95704845|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.16||||||95.0|-3.9|-0.41|||||Day 1; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||-0.41|-3.90|
95704846|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|-1.85|||||Day 8; Part I: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part I-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-1.85|-5.41|
95704847|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|0.07|||||Day 1; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.07|-4.65|
95704848|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-0.07|||||Day 8; Part II: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part II- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.07|-4.85|
95704849|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.28|-0.49|||||Day 8; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III -GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.49|-10.28|
95704850|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.54|||||Day 1; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.54|-1.65|
95704851|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.22|||||Day 8; Part IV: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part IV-GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.22|-2.02|
95704852|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.77|0.39|||||Day 1; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||0.39|-13.77|
95704853|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.67|-5.29|||||Day 8; Total: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Total- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-5.29|-19.67|
95704854|NCT01602549|191379046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.53|3.13|||||Day 1; Part III: The AMs and differences (GSK 962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, and Baseline MDS-UPDR score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Part III- GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||3.13|-6.53|
95727705|NCT01271933|191424953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.9347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|4.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental Component Score||4.6|-4.2|0.9347
95704855|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.07|2.78|||||Day 1; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.78|-9.07|
95704856|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.11|2.75|||||Day 1; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||2.75|-9.11|
95704857|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|2.27|||||Day 1; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1:||2.27|-9.59|
95704858|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|1.76|||||Day 1; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||1.76|-10.07|
95704859|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.81|||||Day 8; Pre-dose: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|Pre dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-0.81|-12.79|
95704860|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.96|2.03|||||Day 8; 120 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||2.03|-9.96|
95704861|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-5.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|0.71|||||Day 8; 180 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||0.71|-11.29|
95704862|NCT01602549|191379047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.88|-2.91|||||Day 8; 240 min PD: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a mixed model fitting treatment, visit, treatment\*visit\*time point interaction, and Baseline UPDRS-3 score as fixed effects, and participant as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||-2.91|-14.88|
95704863|NCT01602549|191379048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|-0.9|||||OFF: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|OFF: Treatment Period||-0.90|-3.71|
95704864|NCT01602549|191379048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.48|||||ON: Treatment Period: The AMs and differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fitting treatment and Baseline amount of hours spent ON/OFF as main effects.|ON: Treatment Period||3.48|0.28|
95704865|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.79|16.13|||||Day 1, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: Day GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||16.13|-21.79|
95704866|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.39|19.56|||||Day 1, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.56|-18.39|
95704867|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.18|20.86|||||Day 1, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Day 1, 30 min PD||20.86|-17.18|
95704868|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|19.28|||||Day 1, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.28|-18.72|
95704869|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.35|15.58|||||Day 1, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||15.58|-22.35|
95704870|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-4.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|14.76|||||Day 1, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||14.76|-23.13|
95704871|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-6.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.36|12.58|||||Day 1, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||12.58|-25.36|
95727706|NCT01271933|191424955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-A Anxiety scale||2.3|-0.5|0.1901
95704872|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|19.75|||||Day 1, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 1||19.75|-18.20|
95704873|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|19.52|||||Day 8, pre-dose: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|Pre-dose: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||19.52|-18.51|
95704874|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|22.33|||||Day 8, 0 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|0 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.33|-15.70|
95704875|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.97|16.08|||||Day 8, 30 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|30 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||16.08|-21.97|
95704876|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-3.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.13|15.88|||||Day 8, 60 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|60 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||15.88|-22.13|
95704877|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|17.63|||||Day 8, 90 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|90 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||17.63|-20.40|
95704878|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|-0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|18.28|||||Day 8, 120 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|120 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||18.28|-19.70|
95704879|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|22.02|||||Day 8, 180 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|180 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||22.02|-15.98|
95704880|NCT01602549|191379049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in AMs of change from BL|4.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|23.07|||||Day 8, 240 min PD: The AMs/differences (GSK962040 minus Placebo) were estimated using a MM fitting treatment, visit, time point (TP), treatment\*visit\*TP interaction, and BL score as fixed effects, TP as a repeated effect, and par. as a random effect.|240 min PD: GSK962040 50 mg Vs Placebo Day 8||23.07|-14.91|
95704881|NCT01576406|191379072|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|91.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.47|144.72||||||Confidence interval (CI): Geometric mean ratio and 90 percent (%) CI were derived from analysis of variance (ANOVA) model.||144.72|57.47|
95704882|NCT01576406|191379072|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|143.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.11|232.12||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||232.12|89.11|
95704883|NCT01576406|191379072|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|108.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.13|168.99||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||168.99|70.13|
95704884|NCT01576406|191379072|SUPERIORITY||Geometric mean ratio|72.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.07|107.5||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||107.50|49.07|
95704885|NCT01576406|191379098|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|91.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.56|146.79||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||146.79|56.56|
95704886|NCT01576406|191379098|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|149.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.85|243.46||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||243.46|91.85|
95704887|NCT01576406|191379098|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|114.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.57|176.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||176.89|73.57|
95704888|NCT01576406|191379098|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|64.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|39.5|105.89||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||105.89|39.50|
95704889|NCT01576406|191379099|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|108.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.47|185.26||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||185.26|63.47|
95704890|NCT01576406|191379099|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|202.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.96|340.3||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||340.30|120.96|
95704891|NCT01576406|191379099|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|130.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.61|197.47||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||197.47|86.61|
95704892|NCT01576406|191379099|SUPERIORITY||Percentage of ratio of geometric mean|62.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.54|92.78||||||CI: Geometric mean ratio and 90% CI were derived from ANOVA model.||92.78|42.54|
95704893|NCT00892957|191379112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||<0.0001
95704894|NCT00892957|191379113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.001
95704895|NCT00892957|191379114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.012
95704896|NCT00892957|191379115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.158
95704897|NCT00892957|191379117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.380
95704898|NCT00892957|191379118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Likelihood ratio chi-square test|||||||0.545
95704899|NCT02483078|191379142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|The Fisher's Exact test if the count in any cell was less than 5; otherwise Chi-Square test was to be used||||||.0032
95704900|NCT02483078|191379143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0377
95704901|NCT02483078|191379144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1201|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.1201
95704902|NCT02483078|191379145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.0013
95704903|NCT02483078|191379149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7123|||||||ANCOVA|||The raw and change from baseline in CD4 cell count at the end of the 1-week double blind treatment period was to be summarized by treatment group for the first week during the double-blind treatment phase. For change from baseline summaries, subjects with an undefined change from baseline, because of missing data, were to be excluded.||||.7123
95704904|NCT02483078|191379151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0993|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0993
95704905|NCT01962688|191379163|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95704906|NCT01627782|191379172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-20.0|-12.01|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-12.01|-20.00|< 0.001
95704907|NCT01627782|191379172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference of Least Square Means|-16.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|70.0|-18.96|-13.84|||Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measure|||||-13.84|-18.96|< 0.001
95704908|NCT00669032|191379188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95704909|NCT00669032|191379189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.525|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.525
95704910|NCT00669032|191379190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.030
95704911|NCT00669032|191379191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
95704912|NCT00669032|191379192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.049
95704913|NCT00669032|191379193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95704914|NCT00669032|191379194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.021
95704915|NCT00669032|191379195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95704916|NCT00669032|191379196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.023
95704917|NCT00669032|191379197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95704918|NCT00669032|191379198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9129|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.9129
95704919|NCT03627494|191379254|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.03|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.03|0.84|
95704920|NCT03627494|191379255|OTHER||Ratio|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.04|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.04|0.84|
95704921|NCT03627494|191379256|OTHER||Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.01|||||"Analysis was performed using Mixed Effect Model with treatment and period as fixed effect and participant as random effect. Variance Components covariance structure was used."|||1.01|0.79|
95704922|NCT02564029|191379274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.86|-8.60|
95704923|NCT02564029|191379274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-3.06|-7.78|
95704924|NCT02564029|191379274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||-2.84|-7.60|
95704925|NCT02564029|191379274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||3.20|-1.58|
95704926|NCT02564029|191379274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repreated Measure Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||1.41|-3.43|
95704927|NCT02564029|191379274|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||A mixed effects model was applied with fixed effects for period, time, treatment, and the interaction between treatment and time. Baseline was included as 2 separate covariates. The interaction between each baseline covariate and time were included as fixed effects. Participant was fitted as a random effect and time was fitted as a repeated effect within each participant × period. An unstructured correlation matrix was used. The effect reported is an average across all post-dose measurements.||2.16|-2.56|
95918097|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|49.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||49.0|1.7|
95704928|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.6|-3.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.86|-8.60|
95704929|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.78|-3.06|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.06|-7.78|
95704930|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.6|-2.84|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-2.84|-7.60|
95704931|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.58|3.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||3.20|-1.58|
95704932|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.43|1.41|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.41|-3.43|
95704933|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|2.16|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eye closure condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||2.16|-2.56|
95704934|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.01|-5.01|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-5.01|-8.01|
95704935|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.93|-4.95|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.95|-7.93|
95704936|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|-4.28|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-4.28|-7.20|
95704937|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|1.46|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.46|-1.31|
95704938|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|0.65|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.65|-2.19|
95704939|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.09|0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes closed condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||0.70|-2.09|
95704940|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|-3.25|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.25|-5.60|
95704941|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.17|-5.57|
95704942|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.57|-3.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||-3.19|-5.57|
95704943|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|1.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.19|-1.08|
95704944|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|1.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.10|-1.18|
95704945|NCT02564029|191379275|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|1.13|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures Analysis|||In eyes open condition. The same mixed model repeated measures analysis as applied to the primary outcome measure was used.||1.13|-1.11|
95704946|NCT02859558|191379336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.48
95704947|NCT02859558|191379336|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704948|NCT02859558|191379336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.50
95704949|NCT02859558|191379336|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704950|NCT02859558|191379336|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.44
95704951|NCT02859558|191379336|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704952|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.39
95704953|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.46
95704954|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.056
95704955|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.025
95704956|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.072||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.072
95704957|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.47
95704958|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.086
95704959|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.18
95704960|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.88
95704961|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.061
95704962|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.042||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.042
95704963|NCT02859558|191379337|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD4+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.54
95704964|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.97
95704965|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.21
95704966|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Env protein stimulant.||||0.12
95704967|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.055
95704968|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.28
95704969|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Gag protein stimulant.||||0.38
95704970|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.35||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.35
95704971|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.007
95704972|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Nef protein stimulant.||||0.045
95704973|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.085
95704974|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.044
95704975|NCT02859558|191379338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in percentage of HIV-1-specific CD8+ T-cells expressing any cytokine (CD40L, CD107a, IFNg, MIP1B, TNFa) in response to Pol protein stimulant.||||0.60
95704976|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704977|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Joint Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704978|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.64
95704979|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.69
95704980|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Integrase Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||0.40
95704981|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 1 and Arm 2 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704982|NCT02859558|191379339|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. P-value based on two-sided test.|Fisher Exact|||Results from Gag Assay. Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between Arm 2 and Arm 3 in the proportion of participants with undetectable CA-DNA.||||1
95704984|NCT00142818|191379351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4
95704985|NCT03050307|191379383|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.966|3.339||||||||3.339|-10.966|
95704986|NCT03050307|191379384|NON_INFERIORITY|If the primary outcome measure was met, then the hypothesis for this outcome measure was that if the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference was ≥-10%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to H pylori eradication was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.469|18.825||||||||18.825|-4.469|
95704987|NCT03050307|191379385|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.644|4.741||||||||4.741|-16.644|
95704988|NCT03050307|191379386|OTHER|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.175|23.07||||||Epigastric Pain (Postprandial)||23.070|-25.175|
95704989|NCT03050307|191379386|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.907|20.931||||||Epigastric Pain (Fasting/Nocturnal)||20.931|-11.907|
95704990|NCT03050307|191379386|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|16.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.255|43.321||||||Abdominal Bloating||43.321|-11.255|
95704991|NCT03050307|191379386|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.109|25.348||||||Heartburn||25.348|-5.109|
95704992|NCT03050307|191379386|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower bound of the 95% CI is ≥-8%, noninferiority for TAK-438 relative to lansoprazole with regard to gastric ulcer healing was declared.|Exact (Clopper-Pearson)|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.138|20.694||||||Lack of Appetite||20.694|-45.138|
95704993|NCT02177786|191379387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|2.75||Data was calculated using a mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||2.75|-2.00|0.755
95704994|NCT02177786|191379387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|3.23||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||3.23|-1.55|0.492
95704995|NCT02177786|191379387|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|1.56||Data was calculated using a MMRM model including terms for treatment group, baseline eGFR, visit and treatment by visit interaction for comparison of change from baseline in eGFR between selonsertib and placebo.|MMRM|||||1.56|-3.29|0.481
95704996|NCT02177786|191379388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.2||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% confidence interval (CI) in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||11.7|-16.1|0.798
95704997|NCT02177786|191379388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-9.2||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||4.0|-22.3|0.175
95704998|NCT02177786|191379388|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentages|-2.9||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|10.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was based on a CMH test stratified by stage of disease to compare the response rate between selonsertib and placebo.|The 95% CI in the difference in percentages between selonsertib and placebo was based on Wald Asymptotic test.|||10.9|-16.6|0.686
95704999|NCT00439309|191379398|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sealing success rates for the investigational group and control groups were assumed to be 0.85 (85%) and 0.75 (75%), respectively, and the non-inferiority margin (10%) is 0.10. For safety reasons it was desired to have at least 100 Vascular Sealant treated subjects. It was determined that a sample size of at least 31 evaluable subjects is required for the control group. For blocking purposes, the number of evaluable control group subjects was set to 33, for a 3:1 randomization.||||||0.072|||||||Z-Test|one-sided Z-test based on the normal approximation to the binomial distribution testing||The effectiveness analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||0.072
95705000|NCT00439309|191379399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAM Treatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model.||||||0.006
95705001|NCT00439309|191379400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.654|||||||t-test, 2 sided|p-value for superiority of the Vascular Sealant System compared to the GELFOAMTreatment from two-sided test based on the GEE regression model||||||0.654
95705002|NCT00439309|191379401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.089
95705003|NCT00439309|191379402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.404|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier method was used to obtain estimated median times to wound closure and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for each treatment group||||||0.404
95705004|NCT02043509|191379403|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|9.35|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||9.35|0.93|
95705005|NCT02043509|191379404|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.75|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||1.75|0.61|
95705006|NCT02043509|191379405|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.31|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||2.31|0.79|
95705007|NCT02043509|191379406|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|1.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.03|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||4.03|0.72|
95705008|NCT02043509|191379407|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|2.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|5.46|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||5.46|0.89|
95705009|NCT02043509|191379408|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|10.69|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||10.69|1.14|
95705010|NCT02043509|191379409|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted odds ratio|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|17.36|||||Odds ratios are model-based (adjusted by site and gestation at randomization). 95% profile confidence intervals are reported.|||17.36|0.90|
95705011|NCT02043509|191379410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118|||||||Mann-Whitney U-test|||||||0.118
95705012|NCT01957215|191379423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.72||||0.0201||95.0|0.1134|1.3199||P- value was obtained from ANCOVA model with treatment and site as fixed effects and NRS Baseline value as a covariate|ANCOVA||ADJ DIFF is the Treatment difference defined as the Adjusted Mean of 0.35% Indomethacin Patches minus Adjusted Mean of Placebo Patches|||1.3199|0.1134|0.0201
95705013|NCT02443155|191379462|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.48|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.89|||Mixed model repeated measurements||NNC0114-0006 + liraglutide / Placebo|Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.89|1.16|=0.0017
95705014|NCT02443155|191379462|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.23|||=|0.0927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.57|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.57|0.97|=0.0927
95705015|NCT02443155|191379462|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Ratio|1.12|||=|0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.42|0.87|=0.3780
95705016|NCT02443155|191379462|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.2|||=|0.1377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.53|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.53|0.94|=0.1377
95705017|NCT02443155|191379462|SUPERIORITY||Treatment ratio|1.33|||=|0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.69|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.69|1.04|=0.0214
95705018|NCT02443155|191379462|SUPERIORITY||Treatmrnt ratio|1.1|||=|0.4187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.41|||Mixed model repeated measurements|||Ratio of week 54 to baseline are analysed using MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix. Treatment, stratum and sex as factors and log baseline value and age as covariates, including the interaction between visit and all variables.||1.41|0.87|=0.4187
95705019|NCT03552289|191379615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8283|||||||One-sided Z-test|||||||0.8283
95705020|NCT02408484|191379644|OTHER|||||||0.0028||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the firstBLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0028
95705021|NCT02408484|191379644|OTHER|||||||0.0002||||||p-value for the change in MCF from baseline to 1 hour post infusion for the BLEED population|ANOVA|||||||0.0002
95705022|NCT05241470|191379654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9575
95705023|NCT05241470|191379654|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.9741|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9741
95705024|NCT05241470|191379655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5696|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5696
95705025|NCT05241470|191379656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0266
95705026|NCT05241470|191379657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0055|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0055
95705027|NCT05241470|191379658|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0097|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0097
95705028|NCT05241470|191379659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0137|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0137
95705029|NCT05241470|191379660|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0332|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0332
95705030|NCT05241470|191379661|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0394
95705031|NCT05241470|191379662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0121
95705032|NCT05241470|191379663|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0224|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0224
95705033|NCT04960202|191379670|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-6.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.208|-4.066|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-4.066|-8.208|<0.0001
95705034|NCT04960202|191379673|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-5.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.308|-3.967|||Normal approximation|||The difference of the percentage in the 2 treatment groups and its 95% confidence interval, and p-value based on Normal approximation of the data are presented.||-3.967|-7.308|<0.0001
95705035|NCT04960202|191379674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.294||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.136|1.476|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox proportional hazard (PH) model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 logarithm to base 10 \[log10\] copies/milliliter \[mL\], \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.476|1.136|0.0003
95705036|NCT04960202|191379675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.266|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.412|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.412|1.134|<0.0001
95705037|NCT04960202|191379676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.258|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.131|1.4|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained alleviation is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.400|1.131|<0.0001
95705038|NCT04960202|191379677|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.871||||0.3473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|1.162|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.162|0.652|0.3473
95705039|NCT04960202|191379678|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.936||||0.5762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.182|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.182|0.740|0.5762
95705040|NCT04960202|191379679|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.213|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No),baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.213|0.773|0.7807
95705041|NCT04960202|191379680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.219||||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.061|1.401|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.401|1.061|0.0053
95705042|NCT04960202|191379681|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.348|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.348|1.068|0.0022
95705043|NCT04960202|191379682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.194||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.066|1.337|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||Analysis of treatment effect on time to sustained resolution is based on Cox PH model with treatment and geographic region effects as independent variables, and symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\<4 log10 copies/mL, \>=4 log10 copies/mL) as covariates.||1.337|1.066|0.0021
95705044|NCT04960202|191379689|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.088||||0.5293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.836|1.416|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.416|0.836|0.5293
95705045|NCT04960202|191379690|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.053||||0.6379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.303|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.303|0.850|0.6379
95705046|NCT04960202|191379691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.046||||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95% CI and p-value were computed from a logistic regression model including main effects of treatment, geographic region, symptom onset duration (\<=3, \>3), COVID-19 mAb treatment (Yes/No), baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology status and baseline viral load (\< 4 log10 copies/mL, \>= 4 log10 copies/mL).||1.290|0.848|0.6760
95705047|NCT04960202|191379692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.4||||0.1997||95.0|7.788|48.328|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||48.328|7.788|0.1997
95705048|NCT04960202|191379692|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.159|19.253|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||19.253|4.159|
95705049|NCT04960202|191379693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.875||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.097|43.156|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||43.156|10.097|0.2810
95705050|NCT04960202|191379693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.452|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.823|22.725|||Breslow Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||22.725|6.823|
95705051|NCT04960202|191379694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.119||||0.2226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.412|42.837|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: PF-07321332 300 mg + Ritonavir 100 mg|||42.837|10.412|0.2226
95705052|NCT04960202|191379694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.036||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.808|21.28|||Breslow-Day test||Odds ratio for Day 5 vs Day 1: Placebo|||21.280|6.808|0.2342
95705053|NCT00524043|191379709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2||0.504||95.0|-5.47|11.09||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||Sample size estimation was based on the assumption that the difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group in the mean change in PANSS total score from baseline to end point was 11 points with a within-group standard deviation of 20 points. It was calculated that 65 patients were needed per treatment group to detect a statistically significant treatment difference between the paliperidone ER 1.5 mg dose group and the placebo group with a power of 87.5%.||11.09|-5.47|0.504
95705054|NCT00524043|191379709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.15||0.431||95.0|-11.46|4.9||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|Paliperidone ER 6 mg was used for assay sensitivity||||4.90|-11.46|0.431
95705055|NCT00524043|191379710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.626||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model on ranks with treatment (Placebo, Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and Paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.626
95705056|NCT00524043|191379711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.87||95.0|-4.86|5.74||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors, and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||5.74|-4.86|0.870
95705057|NCT00524043|191379712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.126
95705058|NCT00524043|191379713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.691||95.0||||Based on ANCOVA model with treatment (placebo, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg, and paliperidone ER 6 mg) and country as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Comparison with placebo was without multiplicity adjustment.|ANCOVA|||||||0.691
95705059|NCT01250899|191379714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of 12-wk 25(OH)D ≥30ng/mL|70.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|80.0|||Exact binomial||The primary endpoint (mean change in 25(OH)D following 12 weeks of vitamin D repletion in vitamin D insufficient subjects) was dichotomized to success or failure to achieve a week twelve 25(OH)D level ≥30ng/mL.|We predicted that HIV-infected subjects would have a 70% twelve-week repletion success rate compared to 85% among historical controls.Eighty subjects provided 91% power to detect a 12-week repletion rate statistically different than 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60%, 80%).||80|60|<0.05
95705060|NCT02019758|191379715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean post-treatment maximum eosinophil count will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.31
95705061|NCT02019758|191379716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The mean DSQ scores will be compared between the OVB and MDI groups using a two-sample t-test.||||0.70
95705062|NCT02019758|191379721|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.08||||||||2.08|0.52|
95705063|NCT02019758|191379722|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95705064|NCT02019758|191379723|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95705065|NCT02019758|191379724|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95705066|NCT02473289|191379738|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.31|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-2.77|1.1||1-sided|MMRM|Here 'MMRM' refers to Mixed-effect Model Using Repeated Measures.||||1.10|-2.77|0.310
95705067|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9825|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.9825
95705068|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5737|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5737
95705069|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5703|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5703
95705070|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5684|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 1: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.5684
95705071|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8235|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8235
95705072|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2384|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2384
95705073|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1634
95705074|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7816|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 2: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7816
95705075|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3917|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3917
95705076|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1749|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1749
95705077|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||<0.001
95705078|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 3: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0905
95705079|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3766|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3766
95705080|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0253
95705081|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0209
95705082|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8206|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 4: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.8206
95705083|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0907|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0907
95705084|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0177
95705085|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0050
95705086|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3724|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 5: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3724
95705087|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2796|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.2796
95705088|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0066
95705089|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0081
95705090|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7853|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 6: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.7853
95705091|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0039
95705092|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3057|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3057
95705093|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3374|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.3374
95705094|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 7: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1410
95705095|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0017
95705096|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0677
95705097|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.1608
95705098|NCT01156363|191379749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0196|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Change from baseline to Month 8: analysis was performed using paired t-test.||||0.0196
95705099|NCT00047008|191379752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.719|1.128|||Log Rank|||A sample size of 684 analyzable patients provides 80% power to detect a relative reduction of 25% in the rate of death in the accelerated-fractionation radiotherapy group as compared with the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, assuming a 2-year rate of overall survival of 45% in the standard-fractionation radiotherapy group, with the use of a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.05 significance level.||1.128|0.719|0.180
95705100|NCT00047008|191379753|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.43||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.43|0.83|0.76
95705101|NCT00047008|191379754|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.44||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|||||1.44|0.85|0.80
95705102|NCT00047008|191379755|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.20|0.81|0.42
95705103|NCT00047008|191379756|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.23||One-sided significance level = 0.05|Log Rank|||||1.23|0.81|0.50
95705104|NCT00047008|191379757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21||||||Two-side significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Acute toxicity||||0.21
95705105|NCT00047008|191379757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Fisher Exact|||Late toxicity||||0.18
95705106|NCT00047008|191379758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.92
95705107|NCT00047008|191379759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.67
95705108|NCT00047008|191379760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.43
95705109|NCT00047008|191379761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Two hundred and fifty-two patients (126/arm) provide at least 86% power to detect a difference of 7 (standard deviation 18) between arms with a two-sided significance level of 0.05.||||0.39
95727707|NCT01271933|191424955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.6914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||HADS-D Depression scale||1.0|-1.6|0.6914
95918098|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|46.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||46.1|-1.5|
95705110|NCT02773368|191379764|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) was strictly below 0.3%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.2|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|Analysis was based on ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD, region as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation are included in the analysis. Missing data was imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation. The non-inferiority margin of 0.3 % was added to the end-of-treatment value for prematurely discontinued and withdrawn from trial IDegLira subjects.||-0.20|-0.48|
95705111|NCT02773368|191379764|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change and the number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in HbA1c was strictly below 0%.|Treatment Contrast|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.21|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-0.21|-0.50|
95705112|NCT02773368|191379765|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in change from baseline in body weight was strictly below 0 kg.|Treatment Contrast|-1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|-1.19|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline weight as covariate. Data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-1.19|-2.64|
95705113|NCT02773368|191379766|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in body weight) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the rate ratio (IDegLira over IGlar) of rate of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes was strictly below 1.|Treatment Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.75|||Negative binomial regression model||IDegLira over IGlar|This endpoint was analysed using a negative binomial regression model with a log link and the logarithm of the exposure time as offset. The model included treatment and pre-trial OAD as fixed factors. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations (conditioning on expected event rate before premature treatment discontinuation or withdrawal from trial as if treated with IGlar).||0.75|0.23|
95705114|NCT02773368|191379767|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of IDegLira was considered confirmed if the test procedure was not stopped (i.e. non-inferiority of IDegLira was confirmed for change from baseline in HbA1c; and superiority of IDegLira was confirmed for weight change, number of treatment-emergent severe or BG confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes and change in HbA1c) and if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the mean treatment difference (IDegLira minus IGlar) in insulin dose after 26 weeks was strictly below 0 U.|Treatment Contrast|-15.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|-11.13|||ANCOVA||IDegLira minus IGlar|The endpoint was analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, pre-trial OAD and region as factors and corresponding baseline HbA1c as covariate. Missing data were imputed using unconditional reference based multiple imputation including data obtained after premature treatment discontinuation.||-11.13|-19.60|
95705115|NCT01665872|191379797|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.172|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.172
95705116|NCT01665872|191379798|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.5337|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Are CES-D scores at 12 months different between groups?||||0.5337
95705117|NCT01665872|191379799|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.092||||||This test looks at a difference in Parental Distress at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0920
95705118|NCT01665872|191379799|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.3352||||||This test looks at a difference in Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3352
95705119|NCT01665872|191379799|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0404||||||This test looks at a difference in Difficult Child at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0404
95705120|NCT01665872|191379799|EQUIVALENCE|A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to test for equivalence. A p-value of 0.05 was used to determine if the difference falls out of the equivalence limits.||||||0.0915||||||This test looks at a difference in PSI total score (percentile) at the 12 month follow-up between groups.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0915
95705121|NCT01665872|191379800|EQUIVALENCE|Chi-square was used with a p-value of 0.05 to determine if the difference was statistically greater than 0.||||||0.2914|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2914
95705122|NCT01263314|191379806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.3551|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.01|4.5|||ANOVA|||||4.50|-7.01|0.3551
95705123|NCT01263314|191379806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.08|4.48|||ANOVA|||||4.48|-7.08|0.3474
95705124|NCT01263314|191379806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.67||||0.3105|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.42|4.09|||ANOVA|||||4.09|-7.42|0.3105
95705125|NCT01263314|191379806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.25||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.8|3.27|||ANOVA|||||3.27|-15.8|0.1346
95705126|NCT01263314|191379806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.6|-0.56|||ANOVA|||||-0.56|-19.6|0.0416
95705127|NCT01263314|191379806|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.2||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.7|1.32|||ANOVA|||||1.32|-17.7|0.0762
95705128|NCT01263314|191379807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.47|4.41|||ANOVA|||||4.41|-3.47|0.418
95705129|NCT01263314|191379807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12||||0.0434|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|8.05|||ANOVA|||||8.05|0.18|0.0434
95705130|NCT01263314|191379807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.85|11.72|||ANOVA|||||11.72|3.85|0.0019
95705131|NCT01263314|191379807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.15||||0.2223|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|3.71|||ANOVA|||||3.71|-1.42|0.2223
95705132|NCT01263314|191379807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|6.82|||ANOVA|||||6.82|1.69|0.0056
95705133|NCT01263314|191379807|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.83|7.96|||ANOVA|||||7.96|2.83|0.0012
95705134|NCT01263314|191379809|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.76|||||GMR = geometric mean ratio|||1.76|0.85|
95705135|NCT01263314|191379810|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.33||||||||1.33|0.88|
95705136|NCT01263314|191379810|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.55||||||||1.55|1.02|
95705137|NCT01263314|191379810|OTHER||GMR (Elderly female/Elderly male)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.48||||||||1.48|0.98|
95705138|NCT01263314|191379813|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|9.58||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|17.46|||ANOVA|||||17.46|1.69|0.0253
95705139|NCT01263314|191379813|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-2.59||||0.2856|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.5|5.29|||ANOVA|||||5.29|-10.5|0.2856
95705140|NCT01263314|191379813|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.06||||0.1895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|3.82|||ANOVA|||||3.82|-11.9|0.1895
95705141|NCT01263314|191379813|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-4.16||||0.1157|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|1.7|||ANOVA|||||1.70|-10.0|0.1157
95705142|NCT01263314|191379813|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.6 mg vs. placebo|-11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.5|-5.79|||ANOVA|||||-5.79|-17.5|0.0018
95705143|NCT01263314|191379813|SUPERIORITY||MK-8266 0.7 mg/ 0.3 mg vs. placebo|-10.6||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.5|-4.77|||ANOVA|||||-4.77|-16.5|0.0034
95705144|NCT01047436|191379819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between treatments|26.7||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|53.7|||Fisher Exact|||The sample size was not statistically determined in this initial trial with ArTimist. For the primary outcome analysis, the percentage of patients defined as having success were determined. The difference between ArTiMist and quinine, along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined. The difference between treatments were compared using Fisher's Exact test||53.7|-0.3|0.17
95705145|NCT01047436|191379821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.01|||Log Rank|||The time for the parasite count to fall by 90% (PCT90) was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 90% The PCT90 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||3.01|0.48|0.70
95705146|NCT01047436|191379823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.76||95.0|0.34|2.18||Difference between survival curves compared by Log Rank test|Log Rank|||The PCT50 was determined for each patient as the time in minutes/seconds, when the parasite count fell by 50% The PCT50 was appropriately summarised for each treatment for the FAS . The times were presented graphically for each endpoint using a life-table curve (Kaplan-Meier method). For each endpoint the survival curves were compared by the log-rank test. The hazard ratio was calculated along with its 95% CI.||2.18|0.34|0.76
95705147|NCT02128958|191379828|OTHER|||||||0.536|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Overall Survival will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||0.536
95705148|NCT02128958|191379829|OTHER|||||||0.371|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) of Time to Progression will be performed using the log rank test as the primary analysis.||||.371
95705149|NCT02128958|191379830|OTHER|||||||0.521|||||||Log Rank|||The between-treatment comparison (CF102 vs Placebo) will be performed on Time to Progression Free Survival using the logrank test.||||0.521
95705150|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.988|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of ALT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.988
95705151|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.989|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of AST will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.989
95705152|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.717|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Albumin will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.717
95705153|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.891|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (direct) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.891
95705154|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.275|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of Bilirubin (Total) will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.275
95705155|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.549|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of PT will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.549
95705156|NCT02128958|191379833|OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-treatment comparisons of INR will be performed at Cycle 11 Day 15 using ANCOVA with CFB as the dependent variable and the Baseline value of the variable as the covariate.||||0.479
95705157|NCT02565576|191379841|SUPERIORITY||estimate of contrast posterior median|-1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|1.14|||bayesian|||Primary analysis was performed on the PD analysis set. Changes from baseline in QMG scores at Week 25 were analyzed using a Bayesian model. The model investigated effects for treatment (CFZ533 or placebo) and baseline QMG score. A difference of 3 points on the mean change in QMG score between CFZ533 and placebo was deemed a clinical meaningful effect.||1.14|-3.41|
95727708|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.3721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 1: Physical activities||1.2|-0.5|0.3721
95705158|NCT00282568|191379852|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% Confidence Interval for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|94.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.72|99.41|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of AUC0-24. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform AUC0-24 prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||99.41|90.72|
95705159|NCT00282568|191379854|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|88.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.69|93.96|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmax. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmax prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||93.96|82.69|
95705160|NCT00282568|191379855|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the 90% CI for the ratio of the natural log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters fell within an 80% to 125% range, then the exposure between the two formulations was considered to be equivalent.|Ratio of means|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.72|91.93|||||Tacrolimus/tacrolimus MR ratio of natural log transformed means expressed as a percent.|The method of analysis of variance with repeated measures was used for the comparisons of Cmin. Exposure at steady state was used for tacrolimus (steady state was defined as days 1 and 7) and for tacrolimus MR (steady state was defined as days 14 and 21). The natural log (ln) was used to transform Cmin prior to analysis and the results were transformed back to the original scale for the presentation of results.||91.93|82.72|
95705161|NCT00435929|191379885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.268|1.603||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV||1.603|0.268|
95705162|NCT00435929|191379885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.505|1.156||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.156|0.505|
95705163|NCT00435929|191379886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.716|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.311|1.644||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for SQV.||1.644|0.311|
95705164|NCT00435929|191379886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.551|1.292||||||Comparison between normal liver function and moderate hepatic impairment for RTV.||1.292|0.551|
95705165|NCT02417064|191379897|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|0.45|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.45|-6.88|0.088
95705166|NCT02417064|191379897|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.67|-0.49||||||||-0.49|-7.67|
95705167|NCT02417064|191379898|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0|||=|0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.52|1.42|||ANCOVA|||||1.42|-5.52|= 0.250
95705168|NCT02417064|191379898|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|-0.6||||||||-0.6|-7.53|
95705169|NCT02437162|191379914|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|2.586||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.138|14.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.310|-9.138|0.669
95705170|NCT02437162|191379914|SUPERIORITY||Percentage difference|-0.646||||0.913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.18|10.887|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.887|-12.180|0.913
95705171|NCT03321526|191379972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5355
95705172|NCT03097133|191380010|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-1.11|||ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-6.60|0.006
95705173|NCT01585168|191380096|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4109||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided|A Paired t-test was performed to explore the difference between two groups.|FHN was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in amygdala.|||||0.032
95705174|NCT01585168|191380096|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|3.6615||||0.125|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.125
95705175|NCT01585168|191380099|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7264||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|||||P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using FWE (family wise error) correction.|t-test, 2 sided||FHP was found to have lower mean BOLD activation while given drug compared to placebo in anterior cingulate cortex.|||||0.356
95705176|NCT01585168|191380099|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.8348||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.009
95705177|NCT03748420|191380103|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09845||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.56|1.06|0.0103
95705178|NCT03748420|191380104|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1166||0.7967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.82|0.7967
95705179|NCT03748420|191380105|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08906||0.0589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.41|0.99|0.0589
95705180|NCT03748420|191380106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0871||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.5|-0.8|0.21
95705181|NCT03748420|191380107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1234||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.20
95705182|NCT03748420|191380108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.96||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-124.99|110.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||110.04|-124.99|0.901
95705183|NCT01203787|191380112|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0262|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0262
95705184|NCT02566109|191380127|OTHER|Estimation of Pearson correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.57472||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.6102
95705185|NCT02566109|191380127|OTHER|Correlation|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.25733||||0.8343|TWO_SIDED||||||Peason Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.8343
95705186|NCT02566109|191380128|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|-0.09487||||0.9395|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9395
95705187|NCT02566109|191380128|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.97287||||0.1486|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.1486
95705188|NCT02566109|191380129|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.10327||||0.9341|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 2 months.||||0.9341
95705189|NCT02566109|191380129|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.99696||||0.0497|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||Correlation between baseline and 6 months.||||0.0497
95705190|NCT02566109|191380130|OTHER|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|0.98432||||0.1129|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.1129
95705191|NCT01906476|191380135|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority trials of pharmaceuticals have used 30% to 50% of the difference between treatment and control conditions to define non-inferiority margins. (Jones, Jarvis, Lewis, \& Ebbutt, 1996; Nutt et al., 2008). A meta-analysis of CBT found an overall effect size of d=0.82.(Cuijpers, Smit, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, \& Andersson, 2010). Using the midpoint of 40% for the acceptable criterion, we set d=0.33 as the non-inferiority criterion.|||||||||||||||||"Cohen's d and upper limits of one-sided 95% Confidence intervals for each time are as follows:~Mid-treatment -0.19 (95% upper limit= 0.06) End of treatment 0.03 (0.24) 3 months post treatment -0.02 (0.19) 6 months post treatment -0.07 (0.14)"|||
95705192|NCT01906476|191380136|SUPERIORITY||ICER estimate|-152.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1143.09|1094.72||||||We calculated the ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) estimate, computed using the difference in average cost between the two arms, divided by the difference in average Depression Free Days (DFD) as defined using QIDS (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology), between the two arms, Stepped Care minus Telephone Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The confidence interval was created using bootstrapping.||1094.72|-1143.09|
95705193|NCT04852666|191380149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.751|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.751
95705194|NCT04852666|191380149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.372|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.372
95705195|NCT04852666|191380150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.778
95705196|NCT04852666|191380150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.357
95705197|NCT04852666|191380151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.012
95705198|NCT04852666|191380151|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
95705199|NCT04852666|191380152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.103
95705200|NCT04852666|191380152|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95705201|NCT04852666|191380153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.785|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.785
95705202|NCT04852666|191380154|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.200
95705203|NCT04852666|191380155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.887
95705204|NCT04852666|191380155|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.204
95705205|NCT03950440|191380173|OTHER|Propensity scores were obtained from three separate multivariable logistic regression models contrasting each group versus the two other groups. The result from this multivariable model quantifies the degree of separation between both groups.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.44||The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|Poisson regression||TAVI-group compared to the SAVR-group|Frailty scores (Tilburg and essential) and Euroscore were specified in the protocol. Age was added during the meeting before start of the data-analysis|The double robust approach refers to the weighted analysis with all variables involved in the construction of the propensity-based weights added as confounders in the model.|0.44|0.16|<0.0001
95705206|NCT02658149|191380185|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.036
95705207|NCT02658149|191380186|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.204
95705208|NCT02658149|191380187|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95705209|NCT02658149|191380188|OTHER|||||||0.741|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.741
95705210|NCT02658149|191380189|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95705211|NCT02234050|191380192|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.42||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.997|2.028|||Regression, Cox|||||2.028|0.997|0.204
95705212|NCT02234050|191380195|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.71|||Regression, Cox|||||1.71|0.53|0.94
95705213|NCT02498392|191380219|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|=|0.416|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-1.1|0.66|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.66|-1.10|= 0.416
95705214|NCT02498392|191380220|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|=|0.647|TWO_SIDED|60.0|-0.41|1.07||1-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.07|-0.41|= 0.647
95705215|NCT03733132|191380246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.854|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.854
95705216|NCT03733132|191380247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.389|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.389
95705217|NCT03733132|191380248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.609|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.609
95705218|NCT03733132|191380249|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.371|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.371
95705219|NCT03733132|191380250|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.686|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.686
95705220|NCT02219516|191380260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|153.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|115.0|203.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||203|115|
95705221|NCT02219516|191380260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|173.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.0|230.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||230|131|
95705222|NCT02219516|191380260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|228.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|155.0|336.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||336|155|
95705223|NCT02219516|191380262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|131.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.6|174.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||174|98.6|
95705224|NCT02219516|191380262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|222.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|171.0|287.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||287|171|
95705225|NCT02219516|191380262|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|211.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.0|319.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||319|139|
95705226|NCT02219516|191380263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|124.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.8|173.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||173|88.8|
95705227|NCT02219516|191380263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|248.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|168.0|366.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||366|168|
95705228|NCT02219516|191380263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|230.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.0|363.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||363|146|
95705229|NCT02219516|191380265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.1|101.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||101|57.1|
95705230|NCT02219516|191380265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.9|58.3|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||58.3|34.9|
95705231|NCT02219516|191380265|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.5|72.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||72.5|31.5|
95705232|NCT02219516|191380266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|80.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|57.9|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|57.9|
95705233|NCT02219516|191380266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|40.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.3|59.5|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||59.5|27.3|
95705234|NCT02219516|191380266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|43.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|27.5|68.7|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||68.7|27.5|
95918099|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||42.3|-6.0|
95705235|NCT02219516|191380267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|95.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.6|150.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||150|60.6|
95705236|NCT02219516|191380267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|30.2|113.0|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||113|30.2|
95705237|NCT02219516|191380267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Informal BE assessment using the conventional BE limits of 80% to 125%.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio (%)|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|13.6|32.8|||Fixed Effects Model|Treatment as a fixed effect was used to analyze the natural log-transformed PK parameters and GLSMRs are back-transformed to the original scale.||||32.8|13.6|
95705238|NCT01872897|191380268|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.79||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.85|-4.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.74|-14.85|0.0003
95705239|NCT01872897|191380269|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.71|-22.82|<0.0001
95705240|NCT01872897|191380270|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-9.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.2|-29.6|0.0004
95705241|NCT01872897|191380271|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-26.2|0.0019
95705242|NCT01872897|191380272|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0290
95705243|NCT01872897|191380273|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.57|-8.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.23|-20.57|<0.0001
95705244|NCT01872897|191380274|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.55|-15.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.19|-31.55|<0.0001
95705245|NCT01872897|191380275|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.6|-10.0|<0.0001
95705246|NCT01872897|191380276|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.4||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|-3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.3|-9.4|0.0001
95918100|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||25.0|-25.0|
95918101|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|32.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|55.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||55.0|6.9|
95705247|NCT01872897|191380277|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3||||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.8|-10.9|0.0075
95705248|NCT01872897|191380278|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.145||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.432|-10.858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-10.858|-37.432|0.0007
95705249|NCT04254796|191380279|OTHER|Calculation of the effect size (Cohen's d)|Cohen's d|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.68||||||The goal of the analysis was to measure the effect size of the change in the primary mechanistic outcome (Putamen structural node strength), with a Go/No-Go threshold of Cohen's d \> 0.20.||0.68|-0.13|
95705250|NCT03434041|191380309|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-2.0||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.64|0.55||2-sided|Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.55|-4.64|0.123
95705251|NCT03434041|191380310|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.33||||||||-1.33|-5.33|
95705252|NCT03434041|191380311|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LS Means|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.97||||||||0.97|-2.96|
95705253|NCT04159701|191380321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|9.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-3.73|0.380
95705254|NCT04159701|191380322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|4.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.50|-1.89|0.415
95705255|NCT04159701|191380323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|5.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.53|-2.09|0.369
95705256|NCT04159701|191380324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< 28 vs \>= 28) score.||||2.70|0.14|0.674
95705257|NCT04159701|191380325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59||||0.674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusted by baseline UAS7 (\< median vs \>= median) score.||||2.68|0.13|0.674
95705258|NCT03605836|191380328|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-4.01|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.46|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.46|-6.55|=0.0021
95705259|NCT03605836|191380328|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.42|||=|0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|-1.82|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-1.82|-7.02|=0.0009
95705260|NCT03605836|191380329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||=|0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.09|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.09|-0.57|=0.0073
95705261|NCT03605836|191380329|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||=|0.0245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||MMRM||The comparison between the centanafadine and the placebo group was tested at a significance level of 0.05.|||-0.04|-0.53|=0.0245
95705262|NCT00633360|191380341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.59
95705263|NCT00633360|191380342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.29
95705264|NCT03241589|191380345|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.931||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.429|||Regression, Logistic||Referent group is Urban|We followed power calculations described in uploaded protocol document, using an incomplete design matrix with a 3-month transition period, a level of precision α=0.05 and a minimum power level of 0.80. We also assumed a total number of clusters I=36 as per the study design and the number of baseline measurements B=2. Due to insufficient sample size, we modified groups studied.||1.429|0.606|0.7428
95705265|NCT03241589|191380346|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.258||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.181|4.315|||Regression, Logistic|2 degrees of freedom, Wald Chi-Square 11.5759|Veterans with expired requests = referent.|||4.315|1.181|0.0031
95705266|NCT04599972|191380347|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.979|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.753|5.064|||Regression, Logistic|||All treatment comparisons for primary and secondary endpoints related to BDCVA were conducted with a logistic regression model including fixed effects of baseline BDCVA at 40 cm as a covariate and treatment.||5.064|1.753|<0.01
95705267|NCT04599972|191380348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.807|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.655|4.762|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.762|1.655|<0.01
95705268|NCT04599972|191380349|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.002|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.431|10.499|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.499|3.431|<0.01
95705269|NCT04599972|191380350|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.161|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.404|7.204|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.204|2.404|<0.01
95705270|NCT00554853|191380352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.63
95705271|NCT02861118|191380353|OTHER|||||||0.024|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.024
95705272|NCT02861118|191380353|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.006
95705273|NCT02861118|191380353|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease||||0.006
95705274|NCT02861118|191380354|OTHER|||||||0.044|||||||Regression, Logistic|||IBD||||0.044
95705275|NCT02861118|191380354|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.003
95705276|NCT02861118|191380354|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Myocardial Infarction||||0.003
95705277|NCT02861118|191380355|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.007
95705278|NCT02861118|191380356|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Corticosteroids||||0.002
95705279|NCT02861118|191380356|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Skin Disease||||0.003
95705280|NCT01690988|191380392|OTHER|Test of independence|Difference in Percentages|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.301||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|7.38|||Chi-squared||Difference in delirium incidence between placebo control and combined ketamine groups.|The primary analysis was a comparison between the placebo control group and the combined ketamine groups||7.38|-6.07|0.912
95705281|NCT01690988|191380393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.964|||||||ANOVA|one-way||We compared the combined average pain level (pain level at rest, taking a deep breath, and/or when moving) over the entire day (AM and PM).||||0.964
95705282|NCT01690988|191380394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||ANOVA|||"All morphine equivalent drugs consumed by patients perioperatively~Opioid Drugs included:~\* Postoperatively while still in hospital, the list of pain medication used included Morphine, Hydromorphone, Meperidine, Nalbuphine, Oxycodone,Oxymorphone, Tramadol, bupivacaine, (Codeine, Fentanyl, Naloxone) Total Opiates (Morphine Equivalent) in milligrams The median(IQR) opioid consumption was compared across the three study groups Placebo vs. Lo-K (0.5 mg/kg) vs. Hi-K (1 mg/kg)"||||0.476
95918102|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.6|16.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||16.1|-34.6|
95705283|NCT01690988|191380395|SUPERIORITY||frequency-test|0.572||||0.572|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"Assessed from patient-reported postoperative nausea and vomiting section of Behavioral Pain Scale or Behavioral Pain Scale (Non-Intubated) Patients where asked whether they currently have nausea/vomiting AM \& PM the response choices: None, Mild, Moderate, Severe Incidence of nausea\\vomiting accounted for any positive reporting(Mild, moderate, or sever) Daily incidence accounted for any positive incidence AM/PM in each POD Any POD nausea/vomiting reports the incidence across day 1-3"||||0.572
95705284|NCT01690988|191380397|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||Frequency of patients reporting hallucinations using the DSAQ instrument.||||0.01
95705285|NCT01690988|191380398|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||"Patients where asked whether Following their surgery they had bad dreams or nightmares the response choices: Yes/No question The incidence of hallucination and nightmares were assessed separately and compared across the three study group."|Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95705286|NCT01634100|191380425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|135.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|129.58|141.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||141.06|129.58|
95705287|NCT01634100|191380425|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.41|160.88|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||160.88|146.41|
95705288|NCT01634100|191380426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|175.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|160.14|191.56|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||191.56|160.14|
95705289|NCT01634100|191380426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|125.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.67|138.78|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||138.78|113.67|
95705290|NCT01634100|191380427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa and rifampicin divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|136.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.61|142.48|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||142.48|130.61|
95705291|NCT01634100|191380427|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus probenecid divided by empa|Geometric Mean Ratio|153.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|146.5|161.06|||ANOVA|Based on an ANOVA including the random effect subjects within sequences and the fixed effects sequence, period and treatment.|Standard deviation is actually the intra-subject coefficient of variation.|||161.06|146.50|
95705292|NCT00356057|191380464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.437|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.437
95705293|NCT00356057|191380464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.405
95705294|NCT00356057|191380465|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0596|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0596
95705295|NCT00356057|191380466|EQUIVALENCE|Complication-free rate was evaluated in an equivalence (non-inferiority) format compared to a target of 85% minus delta (10%), where delta is the clinically significant difference for establishing equivalence.||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
95705296|NCT00356057|191380469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.030
95705297|NCT00356057|191380469|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95705298|NCT00356057|191380473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95705299|NCT00356057|191380473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95705300|NCT00356057|191380474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95705301|NCT00356057|191380474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95705302|NCT00356057|191380475|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95705303|NCT00356057|191380475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95705304|NCT00356057|191380476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95705305|NCT00356057|191380476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.047
95705306|NCT01620593|191380478|SUPERIORITY|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95705307|NCT02709109|191380489|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|0.2||||0.8173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-1.4|0.8173
95705308|NCT02709109|191380489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.3|0.5903
95705309|NCT02709109|191380489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7||||0.5917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.9|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.9|-3.4|0.5917
95705310|NCT02709109|191380489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.9||||0.5021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|1.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||1.8|-3.6|0.5021
95705311|NCT02709109|191380489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6||||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|0.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||0.5|-3.8|0.1382
95705312|NCT02709109|191380489|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.9||||0.4962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|3.5|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||3.5|-1.7|0.4962
95705313|NCT01000818|191380492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.04|1.84||||||||1.84|1.04|
95705314|NCT01000818|191380492|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The raltegravir AUC0-12 hr geometric mean ratio (raltegravir + omeprazole/raltegravir) is noniferior at less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.45||||||95.0|1.09|1.93||||||||1.93|1.09|
95705315|NCT03920865|191380493|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.802|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.627|1.03||||||||1.03|0.627|
95705316|NCT03920865|191380493|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.588|1.21||||||||1.21|0.588|
95705317|NCT03920865|191380495|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.695|1.3||||||||1.30|0.695|
95705318|NCT03920865|191380495|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.715|1.27||||||||1.27|0.715|
95705319|NCT03920865|191380496|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|1.39||||||||1.39|0.830|
95705320|NCT03920865|191380496|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.947|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.21||||||||1.21|0.740|
95705321|NCT03920865|191380498|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.49||||||||1.49|0.962|
95705322|NCT03920865|191380498|OTHER|Descriptive statistics.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.21||||||||1.21|0.810|
95705323|NCT04010370|191380517|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of McAuley index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||<0.001
95705324|NCT04010370|191380518|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.319|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Belfiore index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.319
95705325|NCT04010370|191380519|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Cederholm index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.27
95705326|NCT04010370|191380520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Avignon index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.246
95705327|NCT04010370|191380521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Matsuda index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.259
95705328|NCT04010370|191380522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Gutt index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
95705329|NCT04010370|191380523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Stumvoll index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.022
95705330|NCT04010370|191380524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of HOMA-IR index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
95705331|NCT04010370|191380525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of ISI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
95705332|NCT04010370|191380526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.541|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Raynaud index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.541
95705333|NCT04010370|191380527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of QUICKI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.69
95705334|NCT04010370|191380528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.531|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of FIRI index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.531
95705335|NCT04010370|191380529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of Bennett index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.726
95705336|NCT04010370|191380530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787|||||||Spearman correlation|||Correlation of TyG index with PREDIM index at baseline.||||0.787
95705337|NCT02573233|191380546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.8400
95705338|NCT02573233|191380547|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-235.02||||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-414.19|-55.84||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||-55.84|-414.19|0.0336
95705339|NCT02573233|191380548|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|13.89||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.0|46.78||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||46.78|-19.00|0.4795
95705340|NCT02573233|191380549|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.98||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-60.92|22.97||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Linear fixed-effect model|||Analysis was performed using a linear fixed-effect model with treatment, region and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and the baseline value as continuous covariate.||22.97|-60.92|0.4494
95705341|NCT02573233|191380550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6865||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.6865
95705342|NCT02573233|191380551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7588||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|Rank ANCOVA|Rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region||Analysis was performed using a rank ANCOVA model stratified by ICS dose level and region.||||0.7588
95705343|NCT02573233|191380552|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.4||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-32.9|-11.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect Model with Repeated Measures (MRMM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-11.9|-32.9|0.0012
95705344|NCT02573233|191380553|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-22.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.3|-12.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level|MMRM|||Analysis was performed using a Mixed-effect model with Repeated Measures (MMRM) with treatment, treatment-by-visit interaction, region, and ICS dose level as fixed effects, and baseline biomarker-by-visit interaction as fixed covariate, and assuming an unstructured covariance structure separately by treatment group.||-12.8|-31.3|0.0005
95705345|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|54.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.7|150.1||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||150.1|-41.7|
95705346|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-52.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-148.5|44.5||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||44.5|-148.5|
95705347|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.0|106.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||106.9|-96.0|
95705348|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|33.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|133.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||133.9|-66.8|
95705349|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|99.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|202.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 5||202.0|-2.4|
95705350|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|37.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1|182.6||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment A vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||182.6|-107.1|
95705351|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.7|71.8||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment C vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||71.8|-215.7|
95705352|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-72.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-241.5|96.9||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment D vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||96.9|-241.5|
95705353|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-154.9|119.2||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment F vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||119.2|-154.9|
95705354|NCT01332097|191380581|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|123.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|263.0||||||LS Mean difference: Treatment H vs. Treatment B, E, G \& I (placebo) Day 10||263.0|-15.8|
95705355|NCT00856986|191380583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.52||||||95.0|-0.68|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5% and with the power of 90%.||-0.36|-0.68|
95705356|NCT00856986|191380584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Treatment Difference, LSMean|-0.41||||||95.0|-0.6|-0.21|||ANCOVA||The analysis values for intensified Lira 1.8 mg subjects were kept in the treatment group and the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was applied.|The estimated treatment difference between Detemir+Lira 1.8 and Lira 1.8 as well as 95% confidence interval and p-value were calculated by an ANCOVA model with treatment, country and previous OAD as fixed factors and baseline value as covariate. The p-value reflects a two-sided test for the null hypothesis of no difference between the two treatment groups with a significance level of 5%.||-0.21|-0.6|
95705357|NCT00856986|191380585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, LS mean|-0.51||||||95.0|-0.7|-0.31|||ANCOVA||The mean change in HbA1c from randomisation to week 52 was analysed including the values before intensification as LOCF for intensified subjects|||-0.31|-0.7|
95705358|NCT02999191|191380619|OTHER||Ratio|89.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|36.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.304|110.25|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The Standard Deviation \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.25|73.304|
95705359|NCT02999191|191380619|OTHER||Ratio|170.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|139.85|208.54|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||208.54|139.85|
95705360|NCT02999191|191380620|OTHER||Ratio|84.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|48.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.26|110.24|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fasted (numerator) and Solution, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||110.24|64.260|
95705361|NCT02999191|191380620|OTHER||Ratio|136.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|54.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.885|185.61|||ANOVA||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 1467335: Tablets, fed (numerator) and Tablets, fasted (denominator). The parameter dispersion type \[SD\] is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint was an ANOVA \[Analysis of Variance\] model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects nested within sequences', 'period' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||185.61|99.885|
95705362|NCT04315298|191380670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.456|-1.035||P-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.035|-1.456|<0.0001
95705363|NCT04315298|191380670|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean (log scale)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.511|-1.09||p-value is based on the ANCOVA model for differences between treatment groups in terms of \[ln(CRP at day 4 ) - ln(baseline CRP)\].|ANCOVA|||||-1.090|-1.511|<0.0001
95705364|NCT04315298|191380671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.1||||0.3707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|21.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.7|-8.4|0.3707
95705365|NCT04315298|191380671|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.5||||0.3261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|21.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.3|-7.4|0.3261
95705366|NCT04315298|191380672|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.2||||0.7328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|36.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline||||36.8|-26.2|0.7328
95705367|NCT04315298|191380673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.66|0.76|0.5687
95705368|NCT04315298|191380673|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.7014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.62||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.62|0.74|0.7014
95705369|NCT04315298|191380674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.3622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.7||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.70|0.83|0.3622
95705370|NCT04315298|191380674|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.5802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.63||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.63|0.79|0.5802
95705371|NCT04315298|191380675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.83|0.2340
95705372|NCT04315298|191380675|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by disease severity (severe, critical and MSOD) and use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.79|0.74|0.6949
95705373|NCT04315298|191380676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.3151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||2.43|0.66|0.3151
95705374|NCT04315298|191380676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.41|0.39|0.1884
95705375|NCT04315298|191380676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.61||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.40|0.76|0.4356
95705376|NCT04315298|191380676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.1||||0.0371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.4||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||4.40|1.01|0.0371
95705377|NCT04315298|191380676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||3.05|0.32|0.8923
95705378|NCT04315298|191380676|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.71||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.71|0.25|0.6940
95705379|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.14||||0.0832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||5.65|0.81|0.0832
95705380|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.93||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|4.8||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 87.04 pg/mL (median)||4.80|0.77|0.1369
95705381|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.9636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.95||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||1.95|0.28|0.9636
95705382|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.24||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 87.04 pg/mL (median)||0.74|0.08|0.0038
95705383|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.13|0.47|0.7380
95705384|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.7342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \<166.68pg/mL (Median)||3.05|0.48|0.7342
95705385|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.58||||0.1934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|16.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||16.17|0.79|0.1934
95705386|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.33||||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|23.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 166.68pg/mL (Median)||23.94|1.19|0.0159
95705387|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|8.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||8.75|0.13|0.6281
95705388|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|6.13||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \<254.95 pg/mL (Median)||6.13|0.06|0.4971
95705389|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.86||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||2.86|0.03|0.2990
95705390|NCT04315298|191380677|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (Median)||4.41|0.22|0.9360
95705391|NCT04315298|191380678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.47|0.52|0.9032
95705392|NCT04315298|191380678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.88||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.88|0.29|0.0052
95705393|NCT04315298|191380678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.21||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.21|0.48|0.1168
95705394|NCT04315298|191380678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.3753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.72||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.72|0.69|0.3753
95705395|NCT04315298|191380678|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.4956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.66|0.40|0.4956
95705396|NCT04315298|191380678|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.01||||0.8439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.02|0.50|0.8439
95705397|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||2.79|0.52|0.3890
95705398|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.7838||95.0|0.3|1.41||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||1.41|0.30|0.7838
95705399|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.65||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \< 67.11 pg/mL (median)||1.65|0.28|0.2370
95705400|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0004||95.0|0.1|0.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe Baseline IL-6 \>= 67.11pg/mL (median)||0.59|0.10|0.0004
95705401|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.32|0.37|0.1740
95705402|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.66|0.38|0.3664
95705403|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.87||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \< 131.90 pg/mL (median)||1.87|0.53|0.7318
95705404|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.37||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical Baseline IL-6 \>= 131.90 pg/mL (median)||2.37|0.59|0.4155
95705405|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.45||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.45|0.23|0.6262
95705406|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.553||95.0|0.21|2.3||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.30|0.21|0.5530
95705407|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.8775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.85||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \< 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.85|0.25|0.8775
95705408|NCT04315298|191380679|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.7485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD Baseline IL-6 \>= 254.95 pg/mL (median)||2.99|0.41|0.7485
95705409|NCT04315298|191380680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.79||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.79|0.63|0.4556
95705410|NCT04315298|191380680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.04||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.04|0.35|0.0248
95705411|NCT04315298|191380680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.6842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.67||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.67|0.62|0.6842
95705412|NCT04315298|191380680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.43||||0.0671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.32||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.32|0.89|0.0671
95705413|NCT04315298|191380680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.6146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.74||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.74|0.41|0.6146
95705414|NCT04315298|191380680|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.99||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.99|0.48|0.9730
95705415|NCT04315298|191380682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.6987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.59||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.59|0.59|0.6987
95705416|NCT04315298|191380682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.09|0.39|0.0453
95705417|NCT04315298|191380682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.9734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.09||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.09|0.73|0.9734
95705418|NCT04315298|191380682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.91||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.2||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No)|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||3.20|1.14|0.0040
95705419|NCT04315298|191380682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.17||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.17|0.43|0.9551
95705420|NCT04315298|191380682|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.1||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||2.10|0.42|0.8722
95705421|NCT04315298|191380685|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||1.0000
95705422|NCT04315298|191380685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0353|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Severe||||0.0353
95705423|NCT04315298|191380685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3187|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.3187
95705424|NCT04315298|191380685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0261|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: Critical||||0.0261
95705425|NCT04315298|191380685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9117|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.9117
95705426|NCT04315298|191380685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7584|||||||Chi-squared|||Disease Severity: MSOD||||0.7584
95705427|NCT04315298|191380689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.94||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||0.94|0.11|0.0385
95705428|NCT04315298|191380689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.0782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.05||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Severe||1.05|0.14|0.0782
95705429|NCT04315298|191380689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.14||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||2.14|0.70|0.2436
95705430|NCT04315298|191380689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.51||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: Critical||1.51|0.46|0.3223
95705431|NCT04315298|191380689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.52|0.36|0.4670
95705432|NCT04315298|191380689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.3728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.47||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||Disease Severity: MSOD||1.47|0.35|0.3728
95705433|NCT04315298|191380695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.7||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|12.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.4|-7.0|0.5851
95705434|NCT04315298|191380695|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.6||||0.5767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.5|-11.7|0.5767
95705435|NCT04315298|191380696|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.4777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|18.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.6|-9.4|0.4777
95705436|NCT04315298|191380696|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.7||||0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|18.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.2|-8.4|0.4202
95705437|NCT04315298|191380697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||0.9696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.9|-9.5|0.9696
95705438|NCT04315298|191380697|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.4||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.4|-13.8|0.3152
95705439|NCT04315298|191380698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.7||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.8|7.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.2|-22.8|0.3217
95705440|NCT04315298|191380698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.5||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|8.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||8.7|-20.2|0.4630
95705441|NCT04315298|191380698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.0971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.0971
95705442|NCT04315298|191380698|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.1193
95705443|NCT04315298|191380699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.6||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|7.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||7.7|-9.3|0.8844
95705444|NCT04315298|191380699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|13.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 29||13.0|-3.3|0.2247
95705445|NCT04315298|191380699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.3||||0.2102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|2.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.3|-28.2|0.2102
95705446|NCT04315298|191380699|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.9||||0.8292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.4|2.9||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Through Day 60||2.9|-26.4|0.8292
95705447|NCT04315298|191380700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.2203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|24.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||24.3|-6.0|0.2203
95705448|NCT04315298|191380700|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|8.8||||0.2483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|22.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||22.6|-6.1|0.2483
95705449|NCT04315298|191380701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.1||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|18.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.5|-11.2|0.6020
95705450|NCT04315298|191380701|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.9||||0.4342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|19.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.5|-8.9|0.4342
95705451|NCT04315298|191380702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|5.2||||0.2896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|14.7||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||14.7|-4.3|0.2896
95705452|NCT04315298|191380702|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.9||||0.5355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|6.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.2|-11.8|0.5355
95705453|NCT04315298|191380703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5||||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.2||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.2|-9.2|0.9210
95705454|NCT04315298|191380703|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.7||||0.3174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|4.5||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.5|-13.8|0.3174
95705455|NCT04315298|191380704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.62||||0.0705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.66||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.66|0.98|0.0705
95705456|NCT04315298|191380704|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.43||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.92|0.1800
95705457|NCT04315298|191380705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.1831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.1831
95705458|NCT04315298|191380705|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.34||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||1.34|0.82|0.8770
95705459|NCT04315298|191380706|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.7103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.06||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.06|0.35|0.7103
95705460|NCT04315298|191380707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.47||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.43|0.89|0.1512
95705461|NCT04315298|191380707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.38||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.85|0.2952
95705462|NCT04315298|191380708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.5||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.50|0.89|0.2297
95705463|NCT04315298|191380708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.8651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.3||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.30|0.79|0.8651
95705464|NCT04315298|191380709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||0.8864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|12.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.1|-15.2|0.8864
95705465|NCT04315298|191380709|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.1||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-15.8|0.7500
95705466|NCT04315298|191380710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.5||||0.6858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|5.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.6|-9.1|0.6858
95918103|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|45.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||45.3|-3.1|
95705467|NCT04315298|191380710|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|7.0||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.0|-7.0|0.9173
95705468|NCT04315298|191380711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|4.5||||0.5239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|17.3||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.3|-9.7|0.5239
95705469|NCT04315298|191380711|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.7||||0.5809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|15.6||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.6|-10.0|0.5809
95705470|NCT04315298|191380712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.4||||0.9343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.1|-9.3|0.9343
95705471|NCT04315298|191380712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.0||||0.2822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|4.1||P-value based on stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test using the strata Use of Steroids at Baseline.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.1|-14.1|0.2822
95705472|NCT04315298|191380713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28||||0.4519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.18||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.18|0.75|0.4519
95705473|NCT04315298|191380713|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.2818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.24||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||2.24|0.81|0.2818
95705474|NCT04315298|191380714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.4674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.43||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.43|0.84|0.4674
95705475|NCT04315298|191380714|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.28||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.28|0.77|0.8503
95705476|NCT04315298|191380715|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.6156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.02||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.02|0.31|0.6156
95705477|NCT04315298|191380716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.03||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.03|0.41|0.0843
95705478|NCT04315298|191380716|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.1576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.07||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.07|0.44|0.1576
95705479|NCT04315298|191380717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.14||P-value from stratified log-rank test|Log Rank|||||1.14|0.57|0.1980
95705480|NCT04315298|191380717|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.7973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.36||P-value from stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank|||||1.36|0.73|0.7973
95705481|NCT04315298|191380718|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.75||P-value based on log-rank test stratified by use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 (Yes, No).|Log Rank|||||2.75|0.13|0.5023
95705482|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.2804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.8||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.8|-0.2|0.2804
95705483|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.5023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.3|-0.5|0.5023
95705484|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.9|-0.7|0.3821
95918104|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|31.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||31.5|-19.5|
95705485|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.9737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.1|-1.2|0.9737
95705486|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.3179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||3.4|-1.1|0.3179
95705487|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.6302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.5|-1.5|0.6302
95705488|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2862|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||5.0|-1.5|0.2862
95705489|NCT04315298|191380719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.4509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||4.1|-1.8|0.4509
95705490|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.5|-0.8|0.5640
95705491|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 8||0.2|-1.0|0.1602
95705492|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.9144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||1.2|-1.3|0.9144
95705493|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 15||0.3|-2.1|0.1450
95705494|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.1||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||2.1|-1.7|0.8378
95705495|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.1988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 22||0.6|-2.9|0.1988
95705496|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.8556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||2.7|-2.2|0.8556
95705497|NCT04315298|191380720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Ventilator-free days up to Day 29||1.0|-3.7|0.2630
95705498|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.3662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.5|-0.2|0.3662
95705499|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.6|0.0|0.0820
95705500|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.6984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.9|0.6984
95705501|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.6|0.9833
95705502|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.1436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||2.0|-0.3|0.1436
95705503|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.4||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.4|-0.6|0.4190
95705504|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||1.2|-0.7|0.6520
95705505|NCT04315298|191380721|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.9||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.9|-1.1|0.8010
95705506|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.3724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.2|-0.4|0.3724
95705507|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.7034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 8||0.3|-0.2|0.7034
95705508|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.5841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.7|-0.4|0.5841
95705509|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.6648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 15||0.6|-0.4|0.6648
95705510|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.4|0.4624
95705511|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.0||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 22||1.0|-0.3|0.2546
95705512|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.5312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.5|-1.0|0.5312
95705513|NCT04315298|191380722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.3039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3||p-value using two-sample t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||Hospitalized up to Day 29||0.3|-1.1|0.3039
95727709|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.8084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 2: Feel good||1.4|-1.1|0.8084
95918105|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|41.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.9|-8.4|
95705514|NCT03267511|191380747|OTHER||Difference of Least Mean Square|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|||"The reason for entering same analysis for primary and secondary is because statistical analysis was not done separately for primary outcome measure.~The decision was clinical decision at the time of protocol design.There was no comparisons for the primary objective as the main objective was to look at the rank order of the treatments in level of stain reduction after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved via the adjusted means and confidence intervals for the means along with plots of MLSI over time. The hypothesis was that the test products would reduce stain to a greater extent than the reference products. Two comparisons of interest were done under secondary and exploratory objectives."|0.31|-0.19|0.6499
95705515|NCT03267511|191380747|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|-0.33 to 0.18|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
95705516|NCT03267511|191380748|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.6499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.31|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.31|-0.19|0.6499
95705517|NCT03267511|191380749|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.128||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.18|||ANCOVA|From ANCOVA with treatment as fixed effect and baseline overall MLSI score as a covariate.|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|||0.18|-0.33|0.5680
95705518|NCT05426460|191380750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.438|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.438
95705519|NCT05426460|191380751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.847|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.847
95705520|NCT05426460|191380752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||ANOVA|||2 X 2 ANOVA||||.570
95705521|NCT05426460|191380753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.657|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.657
95705522|NCT05426460|191380754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.254|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.254
95705523|NCT05426460|191380755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.852|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA with Main effect p-values for tDCS and AAT reported in comments below||||.852
95705524|NCT05426460|191380756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.732|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.732
95705525|NCT05426460|191380757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.038
95705526|NCT05426460|191380758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.029
95705527|NCT05426460|191380759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.353|||||||ANOVA|||2 x 2 ANOVA||||.353
95705528|NCT03189563|191380760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3656||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3656
95705529|NCT03189563|191380760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3119||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline motor MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3119
95705530|NCT03189563|191380761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1470
95705531|NCT03189563|191380761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2520
95705532|NCT03189563|191380762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1528||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1528
95705533|NCT03189563|191380762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6146||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 1 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6146
95705534|NCT03189563|191380763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5691||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5691
95705535|NCT03189563|191380763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1309||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline S\&E scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1309
95705536|NCT03189563|191380764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7913||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.7913
95705537|NCT03189563|191380764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9399||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline PDQ-39 summary index. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.9399
95705538|NCT03189563|191380765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4978||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.4978
95705539|NCT03189563|191380765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.888||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline H\&Y scale total score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8880
95705540|NCT03189563|191380766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5755||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.5755
95705541|NCT03189563|191380766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1517||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 2 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.1517
95705542|NCT03189563|191380767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2095||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2095
95705543|NCT03189563|191380767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6094||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 3 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.6094
95705544|NCT03189563|191380768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||"p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score.~All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05."|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
95705545|NCT03189563|191380768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline MDS-UPDRS part 4 subscale score All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.2260
95705546|NCT03189563|191380769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8274||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.8274
95705547|NCT03189563|191380769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3416||||||p-value is from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline CGI-S score. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||Change from baseline is based on subjects with paired values.||||0.3416
95705548|NCT03189563|191380770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4052||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4052
95705549|NCT03189563|191380770|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2643||||||P-value is from ANCOVA model. All statistical tests for efficacy are two-sided tests, with α=0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.2643
95705550|NCT04984876|191380814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|25.83||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|506.78|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||506.78|4.34|0.002
95705551|NCT04984876|191380814|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|100.98|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||100.98|0.80|0.073
95705552|NCT04984876|191380815|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.86||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|188.85|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||188.85|1.69|0.018
95705553|NCT04984876|191380815|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|59.93|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||59.93|0.45|0.164
95705554|NCT04984876|191380816|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.47||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|70.08|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||70.08|0.51|0.138
95705555|NCT04984876|191380816|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|45.56|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||45.56|0.30|0.247
95705556|NCT04984876|191380817|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.63|31.56|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||31.56|3.63|<0.001
95705557|NCT04984876|191380817|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.05||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|14.36|||proportional odds model||proportional odds model adjusting for treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), log transformed baseline total IgE at screening and region.|||14.36|1.80|0.001
95705558|NCT04984876|191380818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.73||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|93.16|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||93.16|0.74|0.082
95705559|NCT04984876|191380818|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|16.43|||Regression, Logistic||logistic regression model, including treatment, age subgroup (12 - 17 yrs, 18 - 55 yrs), region as fixed class effects, as well as and log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and log-transformed MTD at screening DBPCFC as covariates.|||16.43|0.02|0.632
95705560|NCT04984876|191380823|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|-2.4|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.40|-5.15|<0.001
95705561|NCT04984876|191380823|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|-2.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-2.09|-7.77|<0.001
95705562|NCT04984876|191380823|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.2||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.32|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||-0.32|-6.08|0.015
95705563|NCT04984876|191380823|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.68||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|1.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA model with treatment group, age subgroup (12 - 17 years, 18 - 55 years), region, log-transformed baseline total IgE at screening and baseline SPT mean wheal diameter (average dilutions peanut protein) as covariates.|||1.25|-4.62|0.130
95705564|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.33||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.36|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.36|-1.03|0.173
95705565|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.29||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.96|0.202
95705566|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-1.09|0.151
95705567|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.49|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.49|-0.94|0.264
95705568|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.43||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.16|0.123
95705569|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.23||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.47|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.47|-0.94|0.258
95705570|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.58|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.58|-0.92|0.324
95705571|NCT04984876|191380824|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.73|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.73|-0.78|0.473
95705572|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.57|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.57|-0.44|0.597
95705573|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.39||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.11|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.11|-0.89|0.064
95705574|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.22||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.28|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.28|-0.72|0.191
95705575|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.48|-0.51|0.472
95705576|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.03||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.62|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.62|-0.57|0.537
95705577|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.27|-0.91|0.141
95705578|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Meand difference|-0.45||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.13|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.13|-1.04|0.063
95705579|NCT04984876|191380825|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.1||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.48|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAQLQ) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.48|-0.68|0.368
95705580|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.24||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.39|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.39|-0.87|0.225
95705581|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.30|-0.93|0.153
95705582|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.34|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.34|-0.95|0.179
95705583|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.11||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.77|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.77|-0.55|0.631
95705584|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.52||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-1.18|0.060
95705585|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.56|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.56|-0.72|0.404
95705586|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.38||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.3|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.30|-1.06|0.135
95705587|NCT04984876|191380826|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.01||||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.72|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.72|-0.70|0.514
95705588|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.51|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.51|-0.42|0.574
95705589|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.37||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.09|-0.83|0.056
95705590|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.36||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.12|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.12|-0.83|0.069
95705591|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.19||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.27|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 1 - Total Score||0.27|-0.65|0.205
95705592|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.37|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.37|-0.76|0.248
95705593|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.42||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.14|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.14|-0.98|0.071
95705594|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.49||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.09|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.09|-1.06|0.048
95705595|NCT04984876|191380827|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.3||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.25|||ANCOVA||ANCOVA with treatment group, baseline PRO scores (FAIM) and region as fixed effects and log-transformed total IgE at screening as a covariate.|Week 12 Part 2 - Total Score||0.25|-0.85|0.142
95705596|NCT01405027|191380838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4864|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.4864
95705597|NCT01193049|191380843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.25||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM Fold Reduction (FR) is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.46|0.14|0.001
95705598|NCT01193049|191380843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|0.3||1-sided p value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.30|0.13|<0.001
95705599|NCT01193049|191380843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|0.2||||0.553||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-5 after placebo treatment.||||0.553
95705600|NCT01193049|191380843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo :SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.964||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-5 after prednisone treatment.||||0.964
95705601|NCT01193049|191380844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.27||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.62||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||0.62|0.12|0.009
95705602|NCT01193049|191380844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo : NE|0.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.22|0.43||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR is the GM of individual FC Prednisone)/FC(Placebo) from NE.||0.43|0.22|<0.001
95705603|NCT01193049|191380844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FC from BL: SP vs NE|-0.02||||0.962||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FC from BL in IL-13 after placebo treatment.||||0.962
95705604|NCT01193049|191380844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Correlation FR from Placebo: SP vs NE|0.07||||0.83||||||Unadjusted for Baseline and Period Effects|Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between SP and NE of FR from placebo in IL-13 after prednisone treatment.||||0.83
95705605|NCT01193049|191380845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.8||||0.258|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.43|1.47||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.47|0.43|0.258
95705606|NCT01193049|191380845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|1.08||||0.681|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.46||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||1.46|0.80|0.681
95705607|NCT01193049|191380846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo:SP|0.61||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.3|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from SP.||1.24|0.30|0.117
95705608|NCT01193049|191380846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.64||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.86||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) from NE.||0.86|0.47|0.011
95705609|NCT01193049|191380848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-5|1.51||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|1.99||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-5.||1.99|1.15|0.010
95705610|NCT01193049|191380848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: IL-13|1.35||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.71||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) for IL-13.||1.71|1.07|0.020
95705611|NCT01193049|191380849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.82||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.09||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from SP.||1.09|0.62|0.119
95705612|NCT01193049|191380849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.68||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|1.14||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-17 from NE.||1.14|0.41|0.103
95705613|NCT01193049|191380850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|0.77||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from SP.||0.77|0.46|0.003
95705614|NCT01193049|191380850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.49||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.93||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in IL-1β from NE.||0.93|0.26|0.036
95705615|NCT01193049|191380851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: SP|0.7||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|1.24||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC(Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from SP.||1.24|0.40|0.143
95705616|NCT01193049|191380851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GM FR from Placebo: NE|0.61||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.02||1-sided p-value, α = 0.05|ANOVA|||GM FR from Placebo is the GM of individual FC (Prednisone)/FC (Placebo) in MIP-1β from NE.||1.02|0.37|0.056
95705617|NCT05085327|191380856|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Original: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95705618|NCT05085327|191380856|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Mint: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95705619|NCT05085327|191380856|OTHER|The t value from the '2-sided' Student-t distribution table corresponding to the upper 5% point with n-1 degrees of freedom was obtained and the labeled SPF value was determined as the largest whole number less than the following calculation: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF - (t\*SE).|CLM Black Cherry: Labeled SPF|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95705620|NCT00592176|191380863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95705621|NCT03687827|191380872|SUPERIORITY|Superiority is confirmed if non-inferiority is confirmed and the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval is entirely above zero.|Estimated treatment difference|1.43||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.74|0.12|0.0321
95705622|NCT03687827|191380872|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.83% has been applied, corresponding to 0.2 hours/24 hours|Estimated treatment difference|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.74||||||||2.74|0.12|
95705623|NCT00617162|191380883|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.3989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|2.2|||Fisher Exact|||||2.2|-5.5|0.3989
95705624|NCT00424099|191380911|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
95705625|NCT00424099|191380912|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.45
95705626|NCT03377452|191380913|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.02||0.2313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|19.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||||19.22|-4.71|0.2313
95705627|NCT03377452|191380914|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||The parameter estimate is the change in the outcome from baseline to 3-months after the last intervention/control session for the intervention group versus the same change in the control group.|||-1.72|-4.91|<0.001
95705628|NCT00796003|191380921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Overall Response Rate|26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|14.6|41.6|||Binomial test|one-tailed 5% level at a significance level||Null Hypothesis: Overall Remission Rate = 5%||41.6|14.6|<0.0001
95705629|NCT03689972|191380932|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Mean|4.24|||=|0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|20.85|||Negative Binomial Regression|The model included treatment as classification variable \& baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, \& region as covariates.||||20.85|0.86|=0.0755
95705630|NCT03689972|191380933|SUPERIORITY||Percentage|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.68|93.01|||Exact Binomial method|Percentage of participants preferring natalizumab SC at end of crossover period of Part 2, and 95% CI was calculated using the exact binomial method.||||93.01|80.68|
95705631|NCT03689972|191380935|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of annualized relapse rate|1.32481|||=|0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42016|4.17725|||Poisson Regression|Poisson regression model was adjusted for baseline body weight, duration of natalizumab exposure at baseline, and region.||||4.17725|0.42016|=0.6312
95705632|NCT03689972|191380941|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.47|||=|0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|3.54||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||3.54|-2.61|=0.764
95705633|NCT03689972|191380948|SUPERIORITY||Difference|0.08|||=|0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.25||Performed with factors:route of administration,period,sequence,body weight,duration of natalizumab exposure,stratification factor,baseline TSQM score.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||||0.25|-0.09|=0.357
95705634|NCT04338321|191380966|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.44|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|15.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||15.68|3.19|=0.003
95705635|NCT00371540|191380991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Fisher Exact|||Note: The differences between the number of individuals evaluable for this secondary outcome and the number of individuals evaluable for the primary outcome is related to specimen loss by the laboratory. As such of the Routine care group only 96 of 102 patients completing the study were evaluable for the viral load outcome and only 86 of 87 patients in the Home visit group.||||0.65
95705636|NCT00371540|191380992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95705637|NCT00371540|191380993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95705638|NCT01989572|191380994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.528|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions.||||||0.528
95705639|NCT01989572|191380995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.131|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on HLA-A2 status, site of metastases, and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.131
95705640|NCT01989572|191380996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||||||0.60
95705641|NCT01989572|191380997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71||||||stratifying on GM-CSF, site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions|Log Rank|||||||0.71
95705642|NCT01989572|191380998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.88|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.88
95705643|NCT01989572|191380998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.69
95705644|NCT01989572|191380999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparison in patients with positive HLA-A2 status||||0.91
95705645|NCT01989572|191380999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Log Rank|stratifying on site of metastases and number of metastatic lesions||Treatment arm comparisons in patients with negative HLA-A2 status||||0.13
95705646|NCT00262639|191381000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.03
95705647|NCT00262639|191381001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0006||||||This p value is for the interaction of AW status by medication group.|ANOVA|||The analysis was an ANOVA interaction analysis with alcohol withdrawal (AW) group (Low vs. High) by medication group (active versus placebo medication) across the 6 weeks of the medication trial.||||0.0006
95705648|NCT02280096|191381004|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.028||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.028
95705649|NCT02280096|191381005|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.001
95705650|NCT02280096|191381006|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.016||||0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.016
95705651|NCT02280096|191381007|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.64||||0.64|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Reading speed||||0.64
95705652|NCT02280096|191381007|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.43||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Count speed||||0.43
95705653|NCT02280096|191381007|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.9||||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Alternation||||0.9
95705654|NCT02280096|191381008|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.83||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.83
95705655|NCT02280096|191381009|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.92||||0.92|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.92
95705656|NCT02280096|191381010|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.017||||0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Total moves||||0.017
95705657|NCT02280096|191381010|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.01||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Correct moves||||0.010
95705658|NCT02280096|191381011|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Execution time||||0.001
95705659|NCT02280096|191381011|SUPERIORITY||t-boostrap|0.001||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Problem-solving time||||0.001
95705660|NCT01849562|191381025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|82.7||||||Differences in proportions between Group 1 (sovaprevir 200 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||82.7|1.8|
95705661|NCT01849562|191381025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.2|93.6||||||Differences in proportions between Group 2 (sovaprevir 400 mg plus ACH-3102 150/50 mg plus RBV) and overall placebo (placebo from Group 1 and Group 2 combined) along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals for risk difference calculated using exact unconditional methods were obtained.||93.6|24.2|
95705662|NCT02069704|191381027|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|99.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: BEVZ92 represents the numerator and reference bevacizumab the denominator|Based on previously published PK data for reference bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer, we assumed a conservative inter-participant coefficient of variation for AUC of around 35%. A sample size of 51 patients in each treatment arm could show bioequivalence with a nominal power of 90% and an α of 0·05, if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80%-125%.||109.0|90.5|
95705663|NCT02069704|191381028|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio BEVZ92 to Avastin|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.2|112.0||||||||112.0|90.2|
95705664|NCT00638690|191381040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.646|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.543|0.768||Nominal P-value is 0.0142 at interim analysis based on group sequential design.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.768|0.543|<0.0001
95705665|NCT00638690|191381041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.462|0.728||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.728|0.462|<0.0001
95705666|NCT00638690|191381042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.266|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.459|8.018||Nominal P-value = 0.05.|Chi-squared|||||8.018|3.459|<0.001
95705667|NCT00638690|191381043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.673|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.585|0.776||The nominal P-value = 0.05.|Log Rank|This was a stratified analysis.||||0.776|0.585|<0.0001
95705668|NCT02203916|191381044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.317|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4502|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.138|-8.497||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-8.497|-18.138|<0.001
95705669|NCT02203916|191381044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.955|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.447|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.77|-10.141||"Overall type 1 error rate of 0.05 was controlled using principle of 'closed' testing: each pairwise comparison to placebo was conducted at 0.05 level with no p-value adjustment if hypothesis all treatment groups equal was first rejected at 0.05."|ANCOVA|Post-baseline p-values were from an ANCOVA model with treatment as a fixed factor and baseline values as a continuous covariate.||||-10.141|-19.770|<0.001
95705670|NCT01487863|191381064|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2141|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon rank-sum test.||||||0.2141
95705671|NCT01594411|191381065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||one-sided binomial with alpha level of 0|||"The proportion of patients whose final treatment plan changes from the preliminary will be estimated, and a one-sided binomial test with alpha level of .05 will be used to test whether it is greater than 10%.~This is the level at which it is assumed that patient management has been modified by a practically important amount."||||<0.001
95705672|NCT01975376|191381066|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.930905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95 percent (%) Confidence Interval (CI) were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at pre-screening (less than \[\<\] 100 milligrams per deciliters \[mg/dL\], greater than and equal to \[\>=\] 100 mg/dL) with treatment as a co-variate.||1.22|0.80|0.930905
95705673|NCT01975376|191381067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.784265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.3|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.30|0.82|0.784265
95705674|NCT01975376|191381068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.892441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.2|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.20|0.81|0.892441
95705675|NCT01975376|191381069|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.845797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.26|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.26|0.83|0.845797
95705676|NCT01975376|191381070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.431903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.36|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.36|0.49|0.431903
95705677|NCT01975376|191381071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.883797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.21|0.80|0.883797
95705678|NCT01975376|191381072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.45569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.95|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.95|0.74|0.455690
95705679|NCT01975376|191381073|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.469496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.84|0.469496
95705680|NCT01975376|191381074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.633022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|9.23|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||9.23|0.26|0.633022
95705681|NCT01975376|191381075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.46765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.48|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.48|0.83|0.467650
95705682|NCT01975376|191381076|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.015462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.89|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.89|0.32|0.015462
95705683|NCT01975376|191381077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.011863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.88|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.88|0.33|0.011863
95705684|NCT01975376|191381078|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.316066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.0|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||2.00|0.12|0.316066
95705685|NCT01975376|191381079|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52||||0.020328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.91|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||0.91|0.30|0.020328
95705686|NCT01975376|191381080|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.367069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.27|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.27|0.53|0.367069
95705687|NCT01975376|191381081|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.443081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.29|0.56|0.443081
95705688|NCT01975376|191381082|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.343817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.12|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.12|0.71|0.343817
95705689|NCT01975376|191381083|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.889065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.85|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.85|0.59|0.889065
95705690|NCT01975376|191381084|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.308388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.13|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.13|0.69|0.308388
95705691|NCT01975376|191381085|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.874835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.42|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.42|0.74|0.874835
95705692|NCT01975376|191381086|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.526269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.6|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were from a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL) with treatment as a covariate.||1.60|0.79|0.526269
95705693|NCT01975376|191381087|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-60.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.43|-59.71|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lease Square (LS)- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-59.71|-61.43|<0.001
95705694|NCT01975376|191381088|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.48|-53.92|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-53.92|-55.48|<0.001
95705695|NCT01975376|191381089|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-46.72|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.68|-45.76|||ANCOVA|||LS- mean difference and associated 95% CI, and p-value were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with fixed effects for treatment group, baseline value, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-45.76|-47.68|<0.001
95705696|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-54.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.66|-54.09|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Non-HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-54.09|-55.66|<0.001
95705697|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-36.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.07|-35.95|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Total cholesterol: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-35.95|-37.07|<0.001
95918106|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|33.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.1|-17.8|
95705698|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|-20.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.42|-18.93|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||VLDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-18.93|-21.42|<0.001
95705699|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-30.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.44|-28.07|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||RLP-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-28.07|-32.44|<0.001
95705700|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|-58.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.42|-57.69|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo B: LS -mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||-57.69|-59.42|<0.001
95705701|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|6.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|6.59|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||HDL-C: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 70 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||6.59|5.69|<0.001
95705702|NCT01975376|191381090|SUPERIORITY||LS-Mean Difference|3.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.02|4.03|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Apo A-I: LS- mean differences, associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model including observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, baseline value, baseline value\*visit interaction, geographic region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||4.03|3.02|<0.001
95705703|NCT01975376|191381091|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.68|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Lp (a): LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.68|0.66|<0.001
95705704|NCT01975376|191381091|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|0.81|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||Triglycerides: LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model through Week 70 on the difference of log-transformed observations with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||0.81|0.80|<0.001
95705705|NCT01975376|191381092|SUPERIORITY||LS-mean difference|1.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.1|||Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|||LS- mean differences and associated 95% CI, and p-values were from an MMRM model on the difference of log-transformed observations through Week 52 with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, treatment group\*visit interaction, log-transformed baseline value, log-transformed baseline value\*visit interaction, geographical region and LDL-C at pre-screening (\<100 mg/dL, \>=100 mg/dL).||1.10|1.03|<0.001
95705706|NCT00924729|191381098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95705707|NCT03054740|191381101|SUPERIORITY||||||||||||||||||Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (Design: Intercept + Pain Previous IV + Intervention) F = .001, df1 = 1, df2=28, Sig. = .972|||
95705708|NCT03054740|191381102|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.390
95705709|NCT01378299|191381124|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705710|NCT01378299|191381125|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward||||<0.05
95705711|NCT01378299|191381126|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705712|NCT01378299|191381127|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705713|NCT01378299|191381128|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705714|NCT01378299|191381129|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705715|NCT01378299|191381130|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705716|NCT01378299|191381132|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis was by intention to treat with the last value carry forward. Those who had at least one follow-up from baseline and with acceptable assay coefficient of variability were included in the analysis. The data of 79 subjects were analyzed; 15 in the GG, 43 in the GA and 21 in the AA genotype.||||<0.05
95705717|NCT01378299|191381133|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705718|NCT01378299|191381134|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705719|NCT01378299|191381135|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Analysis by intention to treat with the last value carry forward.||||<0.05
95705720|NCT00565812|191381136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.50877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.023|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent confidence interval (CI), P-values: Random coefficients mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) with random intercept and slope for each participant,fixed effects for treatment group,time (years),treatment group\*time interaction,(collapsed)Kellgren and Lawrence Grades (KLG), KLG\*time interaction,geographic region,gender,age,body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha =0.0499.||0.046|-0.023|0.508770
95727710|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 3: Work missed||0.5|-0.9|0.6312
95705721|NCT00565812|191381136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Slopes|0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.754074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI, P-values: MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), treatment group\*time interaction, (collapsed) KLG, KLG\*time interaction, geographic region, gender, age, body mass index with unstructured covariance matrix for random effects. Statistical hypothesis used Hochberg procedure with 2-sided alpha=0.0499.||0.040|-0.029|0.754074
95705722|NCT00565812|191381137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.312
95705723|NCT00565812|191381137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.067|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.067|-0.022|0.327
95705724|NCT00565812|191381138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.046|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.054|-0.046|0.881
95705725|NCT00565812|191381138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in slopes|-0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.042|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Slopes, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a random coefficients MMRM with random intercept and slope for each participant, and fixed effects for treatment group, time (years), a treatment group\*time (years) interaction, geographic region, gender, age, and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix for the random effects.||0.042|-0.056|0.780
95705726|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.05|-1.26|0.639
95705727|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|1.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.70|-1.61|0.957
95705728|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-1.76|0.893
95705729|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.76|-1.01|0.365
95705730|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|2.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.51|-1.63|0.678
95705731|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-2.18|0.902
95705732|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-2.89|0.577
95705733|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-2.26|0.980
95705734|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-2.37|0.950
95918107|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||33.9|-15.5|
95705735|NCT00565812|191381139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.53|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.06|-3.53|0.292
95705736|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-0.30|0.683
95705737|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.42|0.853
95705738|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\* visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.41|0.938
95705739|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-0.32|0.648
95705740|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.44|-0.49|0.916
95705741|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.31|-0.60|0.528
95705742|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.73|0.365
95705743|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.25|-0.74|0.328
95705744|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.35|-0.66|0.540
95705745|NCT00565812|191381140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.30|-0.71|0.423
95705746|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.17|0.904
95705747|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.24|0.582
95705748|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-0.22|0.818
95727711|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.8824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 4: Do job||1.2|-1.0|0.8824
95705749|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG x visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.20|-0.20|0.988
95705750|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.20|0.857
95705751|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.27|-0.17|0.658
95705752|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.17|-0.28|0.612
95705753|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.13|-0.32|0.391
95705754|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.24|-0.24|1.000
95705755|NCT00565812|191381141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.03|-0.45|0.086
95705756|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.55|-0.88|0.586
95705757|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-1.05|0.789
95705758|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|1.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.52|-1.21|0.821
95705759|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|-0.63|0.294
95705760|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-1.02|0.532
95705761|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.55|0.938
95705762|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.29|-1.97|0.680
95727712|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.49||0.2742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 5: Pain||0.4|-1.5|0.2742
95705763|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.90|-1.33|0.730
95705764|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.55|0.901
95705765|NCT00565812|191381142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-2.45|0.333
95705766|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|5.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||5.01|-0.33|0.086
95705767|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|3.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.78|-1.56|0.415
95705768|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.57|-1.97|0.569
95705769|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41||0.374|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|4.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.02|-1.51|0.374
95705770|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|4.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.64|-1.38|0.288
95705771|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|4.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.17|-1.81|0.440
95705772|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.30|0.896
95705773|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|4.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.20|-1.92|0.464
95705774|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-3.27|0.901
95705775|NCT00565812|191381143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value,geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.66|-3.45|0.800
95705776|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.093|0.984
95918108|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|30.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||30.5|-19.7|
95705777|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.047|-0.140|0.330
95705778|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.146|0.046|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.046|-0.146|0.308
95705779|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.049||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.013|-0.180|0.089
95705780|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.068|-0.137|0.508
95705781|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.036|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.137|0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.066|-0.137|0.490
95705782|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.132|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.132|0.739
95705783|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.061|-0.162|0.376
95705784|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.104|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.104|-0.121|0.883
95705785|NCT00565812|191381144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.089|-0.135|0.690
95705786|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.008|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.095|-0.078|0.849
95705787|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.044||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.096|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.096|0.837
95705788|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.105|0.078|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.078|-0.105|0.776
95705789|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|-0.008|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.008|-0.191|0.033
95705790|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.163|0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.034|-0.163|0.201
95727713|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 6: Fatigue||1.0|-0.8|0.8520
95705791|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.201|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.006|-0.201|0.038
95705792|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.053||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.094|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.094|-0.114|0.848
95705793|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.052||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.122|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.084|-0.122|0.714
95705794|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.082|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.131|-0.082|0.652
95705795|NCT00565812|191381145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.085|0.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.127|-0.085|0.700
95705796|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.36|-1.00|0.220
95705797|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.68|-2.67|0.997
95705798|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|3.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.55|-2.09|0.613
95705799|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|2.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.88|-2.75|0.964
95705800|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|3.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.17|-2.69|0.872
95705801|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.01|-2.81|0.947
95705802|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|3.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.33|-3.03|0.927
95705803|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.61||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|4.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.12|-2.18|0.547
95705804|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|4.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||4.71|-1.47|0.304
95918109|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.0|
95705805|NCT00565812|191381146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|2.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.43|-3.73|0.679
95705806|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.55|-1.80|0.738
95705807|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-2.70|0.632
95705808|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-2.77|0.736
95705809|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.08|-2.66|0.811
95705810|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.26|-3.71|0.335
95705811|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|2.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.41|-2.52|0.966
95705812|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.28|-4.16|0.299
95705813|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.82|-2.56|0.925
95705814|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|-2.14|0.676
95705815|NCT00565812|191381147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|2.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.23|-3.18|0.732
95705816|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.49|-2.22|0.911
95705817|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-3.16|0.500
95705818|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.15|-1.81|0.596
95918110|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|25.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||25.0|-26.0|
95705819|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-2.51|0.979
95705820|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.03|-3.20|0.659
95705821|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-2.89|0.823
95705822|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-4.04|0.387
95705823|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-3.25|0.737
95705824|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.97|-1.73|0.443
95705825|NCT00565812|191381148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.04|-3.62|0.585
95705826|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-1.68|0.613
95705827|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-2.76|0.670
95705828|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-3.82|0.296
95705829|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|1.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.83|-3.15|0.604
95705830|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.46|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.75|-4.46|0.163
95705831|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-2.69|0.939
95705832|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.61|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.12|-4.61|0.233
95918111|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
95705833|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|3.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.36|-2.32|0.720
95705834|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.82|2.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.85|-2.82|0.993
95705835|NCT00565812|191381149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-3.19|0.794
95705836|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|-0.07|0.069
95705837|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.57|-0.53|0.335
95705838|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.11|-0.33|0.153
95705839|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.47|-0.95|0.672
95705840|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.43|-1.05|0.765
95705841|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.96|0.675
95705842|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.84|-1.00|0.560
95705843|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.97|-0.84|0.433
95705844|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|-0.70|0.318
95705845|NCT00565812|191381150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.18|-0.68|0.303
95705846|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLGU\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.26|0.08|0.039
95918112|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
95705847|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 3; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.91|0.395
95705848|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.25|-0.54|0.160
95705849|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 6; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.35|-1.44|0.638
95705850|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|2.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.54|-1.32|0.537
95705851|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*(visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.93|-1.90|0.988
95705852|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.22|-2.12|0.962
95705853|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 18; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-1.97|0.856
95705854|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.63|-0.90|0.237
95705855|NCT00565812|191381151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.09|-1.44|0.475
95705856|NCT00565812|191381152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.16|-1.07|0.938
95705857|NCT00565812|191381152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-1.04|0.906
95705858|NCT00565812|191381152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.04|-1.50|0.726
95705859|NCT00565812|191381152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.00|-1.52|0.681
95705860|NCT00565812|191381153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.21|-1.07|0.900
95918113|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|71.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||71.0|-19.2|
95705861|NCT00565812|191381153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.50|-0.77|0.528
95705862|NCT00565812|191381153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.94|-1.51|0.647
95705863|NCT00565812|191381153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.09|-1.34|0.841
95705864|NCT00565812|191381154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.48|-0.84|0.587
95705865|NCT00565812|191381154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.38|-0.91|0.687
95705866|NCT00565812|191381154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.677
95705867|NCT00565812|191381154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.74|-0.80|0.469
95705868|NCT00565812|191381155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.17|-0.71|0.632
95705869|NCT00565812|191381155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-0.45|0.308
95705870|NCT00565812|191381155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.79|-1.33|0.615
95705871|NCT00565812|191381155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.62|-1.48|0.425
95705872|NCT00565812|191381156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.72|-0.39|0.214
95705873|NCT00565812|191381156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.03|-1.06|0.980
95705874|NCT00565812|191381156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.49|-0.83|0.575
95918114|NCT02564055|191795618|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
95705875|NCT00565812|191381156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-1.16|0.986
95705876|NCT00565812|191381157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.52|0.13|0.030
95705877|NCT00565812|191381157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-0.76|0.480
95705878|NCT00565812|191381157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.32|-0.30|0.132
95705879|NCT00565812|191381157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.26|0.117
95705880|NCT00565812|191381158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.44|-0.32|0.133
95705881|NCT00565812|191381158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.82|-0.93|0.524
95705882|NCT00565812|191381158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-1.27|0.743
95705883|NCT00565812|191381158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.73|0.310
95705884|NCT00565812|191381159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.38|-0.04|0.058
95705885|NCT00565812|191381159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|1.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.96|-0.44|0.213
95705886|NCT00565812|191381159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|2.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.30|-0.33|0.143
95705887|NCT00565812|191381159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.67||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.81|-0.80|0.450
95705888|NCT00565812|191381160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.80|-1.19|0.701
95918115|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-18.3|
95705889|NCT00565812|191381160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.14|-0.84|0.764
95705890|NCT00565812|191381160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.43|-1.80|0.228
95705891|NCT00565812|191381160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit,a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.74|-1.47|0.514
95705892|NCT00565812|191381161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.65|0.19|0.023
95705893|NCT00565812|191381161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.75|-0.68|0.391
95705894|NCT00565812|191381161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|2.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.37|-0.34|0.142
95705895|NCT00565812|191381161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Month 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.21|-0.47|0.204
95705896|NCT00565812|191381168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.952||||0.875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|1.756|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio (OR), 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.756|0.516|0.875
95705897|NCT00565812|191381168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.273||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.721|2.247|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.247|0.721|0.406
95705898|NCT00565812|191381168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.787||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.448|1.384|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.384|0.448|0.406
95705899|NCT00565812|191381168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.154||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.685|1.942|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.942|0.685|0.591
95705900|NCT00565812|191381169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.704||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.428|1.16|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.160|0.428|0.168
95705901|NCT00565812|191381169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.893||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.423|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 12; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.423|0.560|0.634
95705902|NCT00565812|191381169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.583||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.356|0.955|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.955|0.356|0.032
95705903|NCT00565812|191381169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.774||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.489|1.227|||Regression, Logistic|||Month 24; Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.227|0.489|0.276
95705904|NCT00565812|191381170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.14|||ANCOVA|||LS Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.14|-0.21|0.709
95705905|NCT00565812|191381170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.2|||ANCOVA|||LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from an ANCOVA model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors and age and body mass index as covariates.||0.20|-0.15|0.798
95918116|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|28.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||28.4|-17.1|
95705906|NCT00565812|191381171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.032||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.337|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.337|0.797|0.810
95705907|NCT00565812|191381171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.068||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.824|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, baseline JSW, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.383|0.824|0.620
95705908|NCT00565812|191381172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.745||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.557|0.997|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||0.997|0.557|0.047
95705909|NCT00565812|191381172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.864||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.150|0.650|0.317
95705910|NCT00565812|191381173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.043||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|1.806|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||1.806|0.602|0.881
95705911|NCT00565812|191381173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.186||||0.525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|2.009|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a logistic regression model, with treatment group, (collapsed) KLG, geographic region, and gender as factors, age and body mass index as covariates.||2.009|0.701|0.525
95705912|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.96|-1.50|0.668
95705913|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|1.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.85|-0.61|0.326
95705914|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.01|-1.56|0.679
95705915|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.14|0.57|0.005
95705916|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.01|-0.80|0.399
95705917|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.71|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.92|1.12|<0.001
95705918|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.08|0.668
95705919|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.13|0.39|0.012
95705920|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group x visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.67|-0.27|0.109
95705921|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.48|-0.42|0.163
95705922|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.85|-2.02|0.424
95705923|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.76|-1.07|0.635
95705924|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.61|-1.34|0.855
95705925|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||3.30|0.38|0.013
95705926|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.292|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.44|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.73|-2.44|0.292
95705927|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.68|-1.47|0.897
95705928|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.36|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.92|-2.36|0.390
95705929|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|1.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.99|-1.26|0.659
95705930|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.42|-1.73|0.847
95705931|NCT00565812|191381177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.34|-0.79|0.333
95705932|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.31|0.238
95705933|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.91|-0.72|0.815
95705934|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.10|-0.54|0.508
95705935|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.02|0.38|0.004
95727714|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 7: Rested||0.7|-1.4|0.5264
95705936|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.70|-1.07|0.683
95705937|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.09|0.33|0.007
95705938|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.07|-0.71|0.687
95705939|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.78|-0.00|0.050
95705940|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.54|-0.35|0.215
95705941|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.89|0.03|0.042
95705942|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.41|0.401
95705943|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.99|-0.96|0.980
95705944|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.76|-1.25|0.632
95705945|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.07|0.09|0.032
95705946|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.83|-1.29|0.668
95705947|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|2.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||2.16|0.06|0.038
95705948|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.95|-1.13|0.868
95705949|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.62|-0.43|0.257
95727715|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.6601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 8: Stiffness||0.9|-1.3|0.6601
95705950|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.15|-1.00|0.895
95705951|NCT00565812|191381178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.67|-0.46|0.268
95705952|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.82|-0.92|0.908
95705953|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.31|-2.05|0.008
95705954|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.54|-1.25|0.440
95705955|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 4; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.22|-1.57|0.140
95705956|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.24|-0.58|0.474
95705957|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 12; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.50|-1.32|0.376
95705958|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||1.64|-0.32|0.186
95705959|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 24; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.32|-1.63|0.185
95705960|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.52|-1.53|0.334
95705961|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 36; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.02|-2.00|0.055
95705962|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.72|-1.38|0.539
95705963|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 48; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.22|-2.30|0.018
95727716|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.8937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 9: Anxiety||1.0|-1.2|0.8937
95705964|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.56|-1.52|0.365
95705965|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 60; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.59|-1.47|0.403
95705966|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.21|-2.43|0.020
95705967|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 72; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.77|-2.98|<0.001
95705968|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.46|-1.66|0.269
95705969|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 84; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||0.18|-1.92|0.104
95705970|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.06|-2.30|0.038
95705971|NCT00565812|191381179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-1.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 96; LS-Mean, 95 percent CI and P-values were obtained from a discrete time MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment group, visit, a treatment group\*visit interaction, (collapsed) KLG, a (collapsed) KLG\*visit interaction, baseline value, geographic region, gender, age and body mass index with an unstructured covariance matrix.||-0.05|-2.28|0.041
95705972|NCT04857892|191381193|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9335|1.126|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.126|0.9335|
95705973|NCT04857892|191381193|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.072|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9693|1.185|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.185|0.9693|
95705974|NCT04857892|191381194|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.126|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9918|1.278|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.278|0.9918|
95705975|NCT04857892|191381194|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.055|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9278|1.201|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.201|0.9278|
95705976|NCT04857892|191381195|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.036|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9209|1.166|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.166|0.9209|
95705977|NCT04857892|191381195|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9049|1.151|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax.|||1.151|0.9049|
95705978|NCT04857892|191381196|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.129|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.067|1.195|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.195|1.067|
95705979|NCT04857892|191381196|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.112|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.178|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf).|||1.178|1.050|
95705980|NCT04857892|191381197|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.267|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.267|1.070|
95705981|NCT04857892|191381197|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.087|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9975|1.184|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t).|||1.184|0.9975|
95705982|NCT04857892|191381198|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.036|1.122|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.122|1.036|
95705983|NCT04857892|191381198|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9914|1.075|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.075|0.9914|
95705984|NCT04857892|191381199|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.705|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.135|3.427|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||3.427|2.135|
95705985|NCT04857892|191381200|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.761|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.527|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||3.527|2.160|
95705986|NCT04857892|191381201|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|2.498|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.821|3.425|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||3.425|1.821|
95705987|NCT04857892|191381202|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.451|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-inf)|||1.451|1.193|
95705988|NCT04857892|191381203|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.193|1.452|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-t)|||1.452|1.193|
95705989|NCT04857892|191381204|OTHER||Ratio of geometric Least Square mean|1.232|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.138|1.333|||||An analysis of variance with treatment, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within a sequence as a random effect was performed on the natural ln-transformed parameter Cmax|||1.333|1.138|
95705990|NCT00655811|191381308|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||One-way anova was used to compare the mean COVAS values between groups.||||<0.05
95705991|NCT00655811|191381308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.550
95705992|NCT00655811|191381308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.005
95705993|NCT00655811|191381308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.027
95705994|NCT00655811|191381309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95705995|NCT00655811|191381309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95705996|NCT00655811|191381309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95705997|NCT00655811|191381310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95705998|NCT02512276|191381315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.4||||||||6.4|3.0|
95705999|NCT02512276|191381316|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.22||||||||1.22|0.91|
95706000|NCT02512276|191381317|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.28||||||||1.28|0.94|
95706001|NCT02512276|191381318|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.85||||||||0.85|0.45|
95706002|NCT02512276|191381319|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.36||||||||1.36|0.91|
95706003|NCT02512276|191381320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.34||||||||1.34|0.78|
95706004|NCT00887822|191381413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.75|0.8636
95706005|NCT00887822|191381415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.4709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.21|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.21|0.66|0.4709
95706006|NCT00887822|191381417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.22|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of progression-free survival between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.22|0.58|0.3685
95706007|NCT00887822|191381419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.41|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of disease progression between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.41|0.67|0.8589
95706008|NCT00887822|191381420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response Rates|7.02||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|22.4|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||22.4|-8.3|0.3480
95706009|NCT00887822|191381421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.0|||Log Rank|The difference in distribution of response between the two treatment arms was tested with a two-sided unstratified log-rank test.|The hazard ratio between the two treatment arms was estimated with a univariate Cox's proportional hazards model.|||1.00|0.29|0.0462
95706010|NCT00887822|191381422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Disease Control Rates|0.45||||0.9426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|13.3|||Chi-squared||Approximate 95% CI for difference of two rates using Hauck-Anderson method|||13.3|-12.4|0.9426
95918117|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|22.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||22.7|-24.0|
95918118|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|33.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||33.9|-12.0|
95918119|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|51.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||51.0|6.8|
95918120|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|26.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||26.6|-19.4|
95918121|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|17.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|39.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||39.5|-6.0|
95918122|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|39.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||39.4|-7.1|
95918123|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|41.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|61.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||61.2|19.2|
95918124|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|32.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||32.0|-14.9|
95918125|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|38.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||38.3|-7.3|
95918126|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|36.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||36.5|-11.3|
95918127|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.1|52.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||52.8|6.1|
95918128|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|21.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|44.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||44.9|-3.0|
95918129|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|34.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||34.7|-13.5|
95706022|NCT01462045|191381438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-1.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-1.6|-25.6|<0.01
95706023|NCT01462045|191381439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|10.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||10.8|0.83|<0.01
95706024|NCT03558828|191381442|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates (Cohen's d) for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator.||"The longitudinal trajectories using generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were estimated. Cases for responders are duplicated and weighted based on the inverse probability of being assigned to a particular adaptive intervention (i.e., responders have a ½ probability of assignment to a specific adaptive intervention, and non-responders have a ¼ probability).~Only the Phase 1 (baseline to 8 weeks) treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 (weeks 9-34) treatment conditions. Planned contrasts were used to test specific hypotheses. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests."|||
95706025|NCT03558828|191381443|OTHER|A power analysis based on the study's primary aim (impact of augmented treatments on non-responders) was conducted. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 for the difference between the two augmented treatments was used. With a 2-tailed alpha of 0.05, a pre-post correlation of r=0.60, and a sample size of 188 non-responders, an estimated 80% power was obtained. Assuming 67% non-response to the initial treatments and 10% attrition, the final target sample size was N=312.|Effect size estimates|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0||||All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|GEEs||Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. An estimated effect size of d=0.41 was used.||There were time slope terms for Phase 1 (baseline to 8-week assessment), Phase 2 (9-weeks to 34-week assessment), and Phase 3 (maintenance from 35-weeks to 50-week assessment). Also, there were interactions of condition and time slopes. For Phase 1, only the Phase 1 treatment condition x time interaction was included because it preceded the randomization to Phase 2 treatment conditions. Supplementary analyses were conducted to compare the trajectories of responders versus non-responders to the Phase 1 treatment. Effect size estimates for all analyses were created by using the relevant slope (i.e., change) effect as the numerator and the baseline standard deviation of the dependent variable as the denominator. The resulting effect size is equivalent to a Cohen's d, representing mean change (or difference in change) in standard deviation units. All analyses employed an intent-to-treat approach using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 with no adjustment for multiple tests.|||
95727717|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.9151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Item 10: Depression||0.9|-1.0|0.9151
95727718|NCT01271933|191424957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.9045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|7.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the total score||7.3|-8.2|0.9045
95918130|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|49.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||49.9|2.5|
95918131|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||40.7|-9.0|
95918132|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|29.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|52.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||52.3|3.7|
95918133|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|30.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||30.9|-20.1|
95918134|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|33.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||33.8|-16.2|
95706026|NCT03671148|191381461|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|24.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|33.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|The comparison between the risankizumab and placebo treatment groups for the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR20 at Week 24) was performed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD (0 vs ≥ 1), number of prior biologic therapies (0 vs ≥ 1), and extent of psoriasis (≥ 3% BSA or \< 3% BSA) at Baseline.||33.0|15.9|<0.001
95706027|NCT03671148|191381462|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.07||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||-0.07|-0.26|<0.001
95706028|NCT03671148|191381463|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|44.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.9|54.6||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.6|33.9|<0.001
95706029|NCT03671148|191381464|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.9|31.2||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||31.2|13.9|<0.001
95706030|NCT03671148|191381465|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|21.0||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||21.0|7.0|<0.001
95706031|NCT03671148|191381466|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.41|5.31||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||5.31|2.41|<0.001
95706032|NCT03671148|191381467|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.2||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|3.9||A fixed sequence testing procedure is used to control the overall type I error rate at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 for the primary endpoint and ranked secondary endpoints.|Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM analysis including treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and stratification factors as fixed factors and Baseline value as covariate.|Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||3.9|0.6|0.009
95706033|NCT03671148|191381468|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|16.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||23.6|9.7|<0.001
95706034|NCT03671148|191381469|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|6.0||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||11.3|0.8|0.024
95706035|NCT03671148|191381470|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||24.2|3.5|0.009
95706036|NCT03671148|191381471|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|38.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.9|54.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test adjusted for the stratification factors of current use of csDMARD, number of prior biologic therapies, and extent of psoriasis at Baseline.|Response Rate Difference = Risankizumab - Placebo|||54.8|22.9|<0.001
95706037|NCT00425945|191381473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|14.9||||||||14.9|-0.1|
95706038|NCT00425945|191381474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.8||||||||10.8|-2.1|
95706039|NCT00425945|191381475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.5||||||||2.5|-1.7|
95706040|NCT00425945|191381476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|38.7||||||||38.7|-2.3|
95706041|NCT00425945|191381477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||||||||0.3|-0.1|
95706042|NCT00425945|191381478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.0|
95706043|NCT00425945|191381479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|0.5||||||||0.5|-6.8|
95706044|NCT00425945|191381480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5||||||||0.5|-1.5|
95706045|NCT00425945|191381481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.4||||||||0.4|0.0|
95706046|NCT00425945|191381482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.4||||||||2.4|0.1|
95706047|NCT00425945|191381483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.3||||||||2.3|-4.4|
95706048|NCT00425945|191381484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|2.5||||||||2.5|-0.9|
95706049|NCT00425945|191381485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.1||||||||0.1|-0.1|
95706050|NCT00425945|191381486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|9.3||||||||9.3|-1.6|
95706051|NCT00425945|191381487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.8||||||||0.8|-3.4|
95706052|NCT03285490|191381556|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 complete clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
95706053|NCT03285490|191381557|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||P-value threshold for statistical significance was 0.5%.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical significance in the study for Day 57 partial clearance rate was analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel model controlling for treatment location (face or scalp) and treatment group (Placebo versus KX2-391 Ointment 1%).||||<0.0001
95706054|NCT00981292|191381592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||A Bonferroni adjustment was made for multiplicity.|ANOVA|||This data was analysed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA (task \[epoch\] x treatment). In the case of those analyses that showed a significant main effect of treatment or a task/epoch x treatment interaction, planned comparisons of data from each task or epoch were then made between placebo and each of the EGCG treatment groups using t tests calculated with the Mean Squares Error from the ANOVA.||||<0.05
95706055|NCT00981292|191381593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Task performance data were analysed by within subjects ANCOVA (treatment) with pre-treatment performance included as a co-variate for each individual task/measure.||||>0.05
95706056|NCT00981292|191381594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mood data was analysed via student t-test.||||>0.05
95706057|NCT02418585|191381617|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|=|0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.31|-0.64|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||-0.64|-7.31|=0.020
95706058|NCT02418585|191381618|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.5|||=|0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.67|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-6.67|=0.034
95706059|NCT02040857|191381633|OTHER|Exact binomial test||||||0.0011|||||||Exact binomial test|||Primary objective is treatment discontinuation rate at 2 yr for patients receiving Palbociclib therapy. If the true rate of discontinuation by two years is 48% or higher, treatment duration will be considered not feasible and not worthy of further study. If the rate of discontinuation is 33.3% or less, the 2 yr duration will be deemed feasible and worthy of further study. Using a one-sided alpha = 0.025, there is \> 90% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of feasibility.||||0.0011
95706060|NCT00608842|191381640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
95706061|NCT00608842|191381640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|20.4||||||Complete Clearance||20.4|-18.4|
95706062|NCT00608842|191381640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|31.5||||||Complete Clearance||31.5|-12.2|
95706063|NCT00608842|191381640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|27.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||27.5|-23.0|
95706064|NCT00608842|191381640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|-5.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.3|19.6||||||≥ 75% Cleared||19.6|-28.3|
95706065|NCT00608842|191381640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference to placebo|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|29.5||||||≥ 75% Cleared||29.5|-22.3|
95706066|NCT03146403|191381646|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7474|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7474
95706067|NCT03146403|191381647|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.645|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6450
95706068|NCT03146403|191381648|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3157|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3157
95706069|NCT03146403|191381649|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3869|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.3869
95706070|NCT03146403|191381650|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2200
95706071|NCT01791465|191381675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95706072|NCT01791465|191381676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34||||||Unadjusted - this was a Wilcoxon signed rank p-value (Baseline vs. week 16) comparison|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|no adjustments||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between baseline and 16 week IL-6||||0.34
95706073|NCT01791465|191381677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
95706074|NCT01791465|191381678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95706075|NCT01791465|191381679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95706076|NCT01791465|191381680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95706077|NCT01791465|191381681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.92
95706078|NCT01791465|191381682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95706079|NCT01791465|191381683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95706080|NCT01791465|191381684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95706081|NCT01791465|191381685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95706082|NCT01791465|191381686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95706083|NCT01791465|191381687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95706084|NCT01791465|191381688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.50
95706085|NCT01791465|191381689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.42
95706086|NCT01791465|191381690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.89
95706087|NCT01791465|191381691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95706088|NCT01791465|191381692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
95706089|NCT01791465|191381693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95706090|NCT01791465|191381694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95706091|NCT01791465|191381695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.046
95706092|NCT02972593|191381702|OTHER|Data collapsed to participant level, creating an ever/never response for each participant for each infection outcome type. Analyses performed at the participant level to determine if proportion of outcome types were similar between transfusion groups using Fisher's Exact tests, due to small expected cell counts, using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Power analyses performed based on these proportions using bootstrapping methods in SAS and confirmed with nQuery v8.7.1.0.||||||0.0122|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.0122
95706093|NCT02972593|191381703|OTHER|||||||0.7742|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||.7742
95706094|NCT02972593|191381704|OTHER|||||||0.1443|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.1443
95706095|NCT03949621|191381705|OTHER|Geometric least-squares means (LSMs) were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with weight as a covariate. Confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9632|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7938|1.1688||||||||1.1688|0.7938|
95706096|NCT03949621|191381706|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|0.9606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.798|1.1562||||||||1.1562|0.798|
95706097|NCT03949621|191381707|OTHER|Geometric LSMs were calculated by exponentiating the LSMs derived from ANCOVA with weight as a covariate. CIs were calculated using treatment standard errors from the ANCOVA model and t-statistic for error degrees of freedom.|Ratio of Geometric LSMs|1.0162|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9001|1.1473||||||||1.1473|0.9001|
95706098|NCT02148952|191381711|SUPERIORITY|We hypothesized a 15% reduction in the composite outcome between the intervention and control arm.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.18|||Chi-squared, Corrected|In secondary analyses, a Rao-Scott test with 3 degrees of freedom resulted in a p value of 0.88.|Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.18|0.83|0.90
95706099|NCT02148952|191381712|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.20|0.89|0.67
95706100|NCT02148952|191381713|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.20|0.89|0.68
95706101|NCT02148952|191381714|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.94||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.16|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.16|0.76|0.56
95706102|NCT02148952|191381715|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.27|0.95|0.19
95706103|NCT02148952|191381716|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.53|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.53|0.74|0.73
95706104|NCT02148952|191381717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate any severe maternal complication within 7 days||1.20|0.79|0.81
95706105|NCT02148952|191381717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.89||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.52|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of seizures||1.52|0.57|0.76
95706106|NCT02148952|191381717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.41|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of loss of consciousness for \> 1 hr||1.41|0.70|0.97
95706107|NCT02148952|191381717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.38|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of high fever with foul-smelling vaginal discharge||1.38|0.76|0.90
95706108|NCT02148952|191381717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.95||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.17|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of hemorrhage||1.17|0.77|0.61
95706109|NCT02148952|191381717|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|Rate of stroke||1.58|0.34|0.41
95706110|NCT02148952|191381718|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.58|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.58|0.72|0.74
95706111|NCT02148952|191381719|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.47|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.47|0.81|0.57
95706112|NCT02148952|191381720|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.80|0.78|0.41
95706113|NCT02148952|191381721|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.13|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||2.13|0.45|0.95
95706114|NCT02148952|191381722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.99||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.43|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.43|0.69|0.97
95706115|NCT02148952|191381723|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.91||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.10|0.76|0.32
95706116|NCT02148952|191381724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.08|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Relative risks are for the intervention group as compared with the control group and are adjusted for clustering and matching. The denominators shift owing to missing data on outcomes.|||1.08|0.78|0.30
95706117|NCT02148952|191381725|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95706118|NCT02148952|191381726|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Birth Companion Present||||0.18
95706119|NCT02148952|191381726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|28.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||28.3|3.4|<0.001
95706120|NCT02148952|191381726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|132.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.9|645.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||645|26.9|<0.001
95706121|NCT02148952|191381726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|35.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Partography started||35.6|1.5|0.01
95706122|NCT02148952|191381726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|413.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.8|2589.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||2589|65.8|<0.001
95706123|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|53.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.1|217.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||217|13.1|<0.001
95706124|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.2|1.3|0.007
95706125|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|5.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|12.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||12.1|2.7|<0.001
95706126|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.7|0.7|0.72
95706127|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.48
95706128|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|0.9|0.73
95706129|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.1|0.9|0.56
95706130|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||3.5|1.3|0.005
95706131|NCT02148952|191381727|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|185.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|1738.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist use||1738|19.7|<0.001
95706132|NCT02148952|191381728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.2|2.1|<0.001
95706133|NCT02148952|191381728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.4|0.3|0.25
95706134|NCT02148952|191381728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth attendant present||1.0|1.0|0.25
95706135|NCT02148952|191381729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.4|0.9|0.25
95706136|NCT02148952|191381729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|317.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|1989.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||1989|50.4|<0.001
95706137|NCT02148952|191381729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|22.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||22.0|2.4|<0.001
95706138|NCT02148952|191381729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|38.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|194.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||194|7.7|<0.001
95706139|NCT02148952|191381729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.4|33.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||33.2|11.4|<0.001
95706140|NCT02148952|191381729|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
95706141|NCT02148952|191381730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|182.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.5|993.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal temperature taken||993|33.5|<0.001
95706142|NCT02148952|191381730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|9.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|25.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||25.8|3.8|<0.001
95706143|NCT02148952|191381730|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||2.1|0.1|0.30
95706144|NCT02148952|191381731|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||<0.001
95706145|NCT02148952|191381732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|1.00
95706146|NCT02148952|191381732|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|46.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||46.5|7.9|<0.001
95706147|NCT02148952|191381732|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated due to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
95706148|NCT02148952|191381732|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Partography started||||<0.001
95706149|NCT02148952|191381732|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
95706150|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|19.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|60.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Hand hygiene||60.4|6.6|<0.001
95706151|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|4.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||No oxytocin given before delivery||4.1|1.0|0.04
95706152|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.4||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean towel available||4.3|1.3|0.006
95706153|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Clean scissors or blade available||1.1|1.0|0.34
95706154|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Cord tie available||1.0|1.0|0.25
95706155|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mucus extractor available||1.1|1.0|0.50
95706156|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag and mask available||1.0|1.0|0.32
95706157|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.1|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Pads available||2.1|0.9|0.11
95706158|NCT02148952|191381733|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|37.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|196.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Checklist available||196|7.3|<0.001
95706159|NCT02148952|191381734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Oxytocin administered||7.5|1.8|<0.001
95706160|NCT02148952|191381734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Neonatal bag used||1.3|0.3|0.19
95706161|NCT02148952|191381734|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Birth companion present||1.0|1.0|0.50
95706162|NCT02148952|191381735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn weight taken||1.3|1.0|0.08
95706163|NCT02148952|191381735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|91.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|758.0|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Newborn temperature taken||758|11.0|<0.001
95706164|NCT02148952|191381735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|8.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|27.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Skin-to-skin care initiated at birth||27.5|2.5|<0.001
95706165|NCT02148952|191381735|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Skin-to-skin care maintained for 1 hr||||0.01
95706166|NCT02148952|191381735|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|7.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Initiation of breast-feeding||16.7|3.7|<0.001
95706167|NCT02148952|191381735|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Checklist use||||<0.001
95706168|NCT02148952|191381736|SUPERIORITY||Other|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected||The relative risk could not be calculated owing to 100% or 0% values in one group.|Maternal temperature taken||||<0.001
95706169|NCT02148952|191381736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|34.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Maternal blood pressure taken||34.3|4.7|<0.001
95706170|NCT02148952|191381736|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Mother given magnesium sulfate||6.6|0.2|0.95
95706171|NCT01899768|191381739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|1.44|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.44|1.10|
95706172|NCT01899768|191381740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.19|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo.|||1.19|0.87|
95706173|NCT01899768|191381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|1.75|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.75|0.86|
95706174|NCT01899768|191381763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.72|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 4-8 hr.|||1.72|1.07|
95706175|NCT01899768|191381764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.4|||||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2339345/Placebo. Estimated value and CI are presented for the mean cough count over 0-4 hr.|||1.40|0.67|
95706176|NCT01899768|191381764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means = GSK2|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.36|||Ratio of adjusted geometric mean|||||1.36|0.79|
95706177|NCT03152110|191381787|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.203
95706178|NCT03152110|191381788|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.931|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.931
95706179|NCT03536923|191381816|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
95706180|NCT03536923|191381817|OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0009
95706181|NCT03536923|191381819|OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.0001
95706182|NCT00880607|191381864|OTHER|Wilcoxon rank-sum test because the outcome variable was found to have a skewed distribution.|Median Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmanne estimation method|||21.2|-5.8|.27
95706183|NCT00880607|191381865|OTHER|Log-rank test in Kaplan-Meier used.||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||.42
95706184|NCT00880607|191381867|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95706185|NCT00880607|191381868|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.30
95706186|NCT00880607|191381869|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.07
95706187|NCT00880607|191381870|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95706188|NCT02963766|191381878|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7|-1.8|<0.001
95706189|NCT02963766|191381879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.4|-1.7|0.002
95706190|NCT02963766|191381879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.9|-2.2|<0.001
95706191|NCT02963766|191381880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.22|-2.65|0.021
95706192|NCT02963766|191381880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.72|-1.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.29|-3.72|<0.001
95706193|NCT02963766|191381880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.03|-0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.91|-3.03|<0.001
95706194|NCT02963766|191381881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.038|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.491|34.902|||Regression, Logistic|||||34.902|3.491|<0.001
95706195|NCT02963766|191381881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.666|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.653|37.253|||Regression, Logistic|||||37.253|3.653|<0.001
95706196|NCT02963766|191381881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.163|30.932|||Regression, Logistic|||||30.932|4.163|<0.001
95706197|NCT02963766|191381882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.7|0.689
95706198|NCT02963766|191381882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.5|-0.6|0.924
95706199|NCT02963766|191381882|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.4|-0.6|0.776
95706200|NCT00901394|191381894|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||For baseline comparisons among the three groups, one-way ANOVA was used for normally distributed variables and χ2 goodness-of-fit for categorical variables. To model the effects of B-vitamin treatment on nitrous-oxide-induced total homocysteine increase at the three different timepoints within individual patients and between the three groups, a linear mixed model with was used and we included a group × time interaction in the model.||||<0.05
95706201|NCT01628042|191381937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|2.46|||ANCOVA|||||2.46|1.36|
95706202|NCT01628042|191381937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.55|2.74|||ANCOVA|||||2.74|1.55|
95706203|NCT01628042|191381937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.11|2.0|||ANCOVA|||||2.00|1.11|
95706204|NCT01628042|191381938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|2.27|||ANCOVA|||||2.27|0.89|
95706205|NCT01628042|191381938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ration|1.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.63|||ANCOVA|||||2.63|1.07|
95706206|NCT01628042|191381938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|3.13|||ANCOVA|||||3.13|1.23|
95706207|NCT01628042|191381939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.74|||ANCOVA|||||0.74|0.41|
95706208|NCT01628042|191381939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|0.65|||ANCOVA|||||0.65|0.36|
95706209|NCT01628042|191381939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean ratio|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.9|||ANCOVA|||||0.90|0.50|
95706210|NCT03039192|191381940|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|-1.09|||ANCOVA|||||-1.09|-6.56|0.006
95706211|NCT01431521|191381985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-44.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.67|-34.07|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-34.07|-54.67|<0.001
95706212|NCT01431521|191381985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-26.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-16.37|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-16.37|-36.97|<0.001
95706213|NCT01431521|191381985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||least squares mean difference|-17.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.97|-7.39|||Linear mixed effects model|Treatment as fixed factor and predose Day 1 value, as a fixed covariate||||-7.39|-36.97|0.007
95706214|NCT01431521|191381986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-6.35|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|6.0|||Linear mixed effect model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||6.00|-18.69|>0.200
95706215|NCT01431521|191381986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-16.74||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.08|-4.4|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||-4.40|-29.08|0.028
95706216|NCT01431521|191381987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.47|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.85|10.92|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||10.92|-17.85|>0.200
95706217|NCT01431521|191381987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-10.67|||>|0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.06|3.71|||Linear mixed effects model|Containing fixed effects for treatment, and predose Day 1 (baseline) as a fixed covariate||||3.71|-25.06|>0.200
95706218|NCT02045979|191381990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 percent (%).|ratio of the geometric means|108.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|119.79|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.79|98.50|
95706219|NCT02045979|191381990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|101.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.45|110.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.94|92.45|
95706220|NCT02045979|191381990|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.78|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.78|86.01|
95706221|NCT02045979|191381991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|107.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.49|116.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||116.94|98.49|
95706222|NCT02045979|191381991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|99.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.15|108.37|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.37|92.15|
95706223|NCT02045979|191381991|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|93.66|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.76|101.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.11|86.76|
95706224|NCT02045979|191381992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|100.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.15|106.88|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.88|95.15|
95727719|NCT01271933|191424959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: General Fatigue||0.9|-0.4|0.4606
95706225|NCT02045979|191381992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.06|102.03|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.03|91.06|
95706226|NCT02045979|191381992|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|PK similarity of the two treatments was to be concluded if the 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was within 80.00 - 125.00 %.|ratio of the geometric means|95.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.83|101.33|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.33|90.83|
95706227|NCT02045979|191381993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.54|105.55|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.55|91.54|
95706228|NCT02045979|191381993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|96.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.27|103.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.36|89.27|
95706229|NCT02045979|191381993|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.42|105.27|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.27|91.42|
95706230|NCT02045979|191381994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|99.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.66|105.94|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||105.94|93.66|
95706231|NCT02045979|191381994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.39|103.35|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.35|91.39|
95706232|NCT02045979|191381994|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.58|103.68|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.68|92.58|
95706233|NCT02045979|191381995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.45|107.36|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||107.36|95.45|
95706234|NCT02045979|191381995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.27|104.72|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||104.72|93.27|
95706235|NCT02045979|191381995|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.15|103.11|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||103.11|93.15|
95706236|NCT02045979|191381996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|103.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.47|110.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||110.29|97.47|
95706237|NCT02045979|191381996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.37|106.29|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||106.29|94.37|
95706238|NCT02045979|191381996|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|97.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.07|102.24|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.24|92.07|
95706239|NCT02045979|191381997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|106.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.07|114.63|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||114.63|99.07|
95727720|NCT01271933|191424959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.4703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.5||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Physical Fatigue||0.5|-1.0|0.4703
95706240|NCT02045979|191381997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|100.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|108.12|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||108.12|94.24|
95706241|NCT02045979|191381997|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.53|101.6|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||101.60|89.53|
95706242|NCT02045979|191381998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|108.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.54|119.9|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||119.90|98.54|
95706243|NCT02045979|191381998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|101.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.51|111.05|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||111.05|92.51|
95706244|NCT02045979|191381998|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing; two-sided 90% CI for the ratio of adjusted geometric means was calculated.|ratio of the geometric means|94.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.01|102.82|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model on the logarithmic scale with fixed effects for treatment and trial site as well as age (as recorded at the time of informed consent) and body weight (as recorded at baseline) as continuous covariates.|||102.82|86.01|
95706245|NCT05618808|191382018|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
95706246|NCT05618808|191382021|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|1.61|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.61|0.16|
95706247|NCT05618808|191382022|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|1.32|||||REGN9933 vs Enoxaparin||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|1.32|0.47|
95706248|NCT05618808|191382028|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Odds Ratio|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|0.95|||||Enoxaparin vs Apixaban||"Bayesian Logistic Regression; Confidence Interval refers to Credible Interval"|0.95|0.32|
95706249|NCT02527564|191382033|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.10
95706250|NCT02527564|191382033|OTHER|||||||0.57||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.57
95706251|NCT02527564|191382033|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Unpaired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.44
95706252|NCT02527564|191382034|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at week 1 - suvorexant (double-blind)||||0.035
95706253|NCT02527564|191382034|OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||Paired 2-sided t-test|A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.||Within group change at week 1- placebo (double-blind) group||||0.55
95706254|NCT02527564|191382034|OTHER|||||||0.89||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Between group change at week 1||||0.89
95706255|NCT02527564|191382035|OTHER|||||||0.97||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.97
95706256|NCT02527564|191382036|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered significantly significant.|Paired 2-sided t-test|||Within group change at month 3 - suvorexant (open-label)||||0.28
95706257|NCT01804842|191382037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.14|84.01|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of least squares (LS) means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.01|61.14|0.0018
95706258|NCT01804842|191382037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|71.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|60.85|84.09|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||84.09|60.85|0.0020
95706259|NCT01804842|191382037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|99.8||||0.9844|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.91|117.33|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||117.33|84.91|0.9844
95706260|NCT01804842|191382038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|83.8||||0.1595|TWO_SIDED|90.0|68.1|103.23|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||1000 mg Met DR qPM is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||103.23|68.10|0.1595
95706261|NCT01804842|191382038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|111.3||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.37|136.99|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||136.99|90.37|0.3867
95706262|NCT01804842|191382038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|132.7||||0.0294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.78|163.39|||ANOVA|Included treatment, sequence, and period and as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||500 mg Met DR BID is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||163.39|107.78|0.0294
95706263|NCT01804842|191382039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|91.0||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.7|96.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.67|85.70|0.0028
95706264|NCT01804842|191382039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.9||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.58|96.53|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||96.53|85.58|0.0024
95706265|NCT01804842|191382039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|95.1||||0.0992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.54|100.99|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||100.99|89.54|0.0992
95706266|NCT01804842|191382040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.4||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.55|95.56|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.56|85.55|0.0006
95706267|NCT01804842|191382040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|90.5||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|85.65|95.67|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||95.67|85.65|0.0007
95706268|NCT01804842|191382040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% Ratio of LS Means|94.3||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.24|99.69|||ANOVA|Treatment, sequence, period, status (on-/pre-treatment) and treatment\*status as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as a random effect.||Pretreatment value is the denominator for the % ratio of LS means and the comparator for the p-values.||99.69|89.24|0.0389
95706269|NCT00628134|191382041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.07
95706270|NCT00628134|191382042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was used for comparisons||||0.29
95706271|NCT02365506|191382043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-7.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.92||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|Least Square mean (LSM) and 95% confidence interval (CI) is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||10.5|-26.0|0.358
95706272|NCT02365506|191382043|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|16.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||16.7|-20.0|0.840
95706273|NCT02365506|191382044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||7.8|-19.8|0.338
95706274|NCT02365506|191382044|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|19.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||19.9|-9.4|0.425
95706275|NCT02365506|191382045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.42||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||3.5|-16.5|0.174
95706276|NCT02365506|191382045|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.28||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|13.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||13.1|-6.3|0.448
95706277|NCT02365506|191382046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|29.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||29.6|-12.0|0.339
95706278|NCT02365506|191382046|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|12.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|33.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||33.4|-7.7|0.178
95706279|NCT02365506|191382047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.03||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|23.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.9|-14.1|0.564
95706280|NCT02365506|191382047|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.38||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|20.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|p-value is from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|LSM and 95% CI are from a mixed model with fixed effect for treatment, day, and treatment by day with baseline daytime QTcF as a covariate.|||20.2|-14.7|0.721
95706281|NCT03774875|191382051|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|31.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|45.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The CMH (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel) test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (apremilast - placebo) in response rates calculated using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||45.2|18.6|<0.0001
95706282|NCT03774875|191382052|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.15|-3.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and baseline value as a covariate.|Difference in LS Means = Apremilast - Placebo|||-3.43|-7.15|<0.0001
95706283|NCT03774875|191382053|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-38.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.12||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.58|-10.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate variable.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-10.14|-66.58|0.0085
95706284|NCT03774875|191382054|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-0.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-0.86|-2.34|<0.0001
95706285|NCT03774875|191382055|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.31||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.63|-7.6|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||-7.60|-24.63|0.0003
95706286|NCT03774875|191382056|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|13.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|The adjusted difference in response rates (Apremilast - Placebo) using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||25.8|1.1|0.0328
95706287|NCT03774875|191382057|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Difference in Response Rates|37.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.1|49.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for the stratification of the 5 difficult to treat manifestation types at randomization.|Adjusted difference (Apremilast - Placebo) in response rates using the weighted average of the treatment differences across the strata with the CMH weights.|||49.9|24.1|<0.0001
95706288|NCT03774875|191382058|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.55||0.4216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.62|51.48|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||51.48|-21.62|0.4216
95706289|NCT03774875|191382059|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-148.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|103.9525||0.1559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-352.8793|56.8304|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||56.8304|-352.8793|0.1559
95706290|NCT03774875|191382060|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82||0.2667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|8.73|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.73|-2.43|0.2667
95706291|NCT03774875|191382061|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.23||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.83|5.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||5.91|-10.83|0.5620
95706292|NCT03774875|191382062|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.81||0.8927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.16|8.86|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||8.86|-10.16|0.8927
95706293|NCT03774875|191382063|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment arm and stratification factor as independent variables and the baseline value as a covariate.|LS Mean Difference = Apremilast - Placebo|||0.24|-15.90|0.0572
95706294|NCT02352090|191382089|OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.27
95706295|NCT05179057|191382143|SUPERIORITY|A logistic regression model included treatment, level of viremia at baseline (≥10,000 copies/mL or \<10,000 copies/mL adenovirus DNA), age (≥12 years or \<12 years), and absolute lymphocyte counts at baseline. The null hypothesis is that the true percentage for posoleucel plus SoC is less than or equal to the true percentage for placebo plus SoC, and the alternative hypothesis is that it is greater.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|3.69|||||Posoleucel versus Placebo|||3.69|0.26|
95706296|NCT03375203|191382170|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.88|||=|0.346|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|1.1|||ANCOVA|||||1.10|0.70|= 0.346
95706297|NCT03375203|191382170|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.64|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|0.51|= 0.001
95706298|NCT03375203|191382170|OTHER||Back-transformed Least Square Mean Ratio|0.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.64|||ANCOVA|||||0.64|0.41|< 0.001
95706299|NCT03375203|191382170|OTHER|||||||0|||||||MCP-mod|||||||0.000
95706300|NCT03107793|191382217|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.0871|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||= 0.0871
95706301|NCT02808507|191382241|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.04||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||See above comments|||The primary analysis was based on the facility-level rate ratio. We first calculated an unadjusted ratio of the treatment initiation rates between the two arms and the corresponding 95% CI. We first fit a Poisson regression to the facility-level counts and the district and historical volume covariates. The residuals ratios, calculated as the ratio of the observed over the expected counts, were then used in the second stage to estimate the between-arm rate ratio and the corresponding 95% CI.||1.3|0.80|0.73
95706302|NCT02808507|191382242|OTHER||Treatment initiation ratio|1.05||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.13|||Poisson regression||Adjusted for district, study phase and clinic random effect.|The primary outcome of the study was the comparative number of people with incident TB diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics during the two study periods, excluding the six-month washout period. The number of people starting treatment for incident TB was calculated by performing a review of paper and electronic medical records at each clinic on a quarterly basis during the study.||1.13|0.97|0.68
95706303|NCT02808507|191382243|OTHER||Prevalence ratio|1.0||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.95||"The pre-specified secondary study outcome was the number of Xpert-based TB diagnoses made among enrolled contacts (secondary cases) by arm."|Poisson regression||Adjusted for study phase and district|||1.95|0.51|0.80
95706304|NCT00976963|191382254|NON_INFERIORITY|The equivalence margin for non-inferiority of Fosfomycin to TMP/SMX is 10%.|||||<|0.001|||||||Wald test for noninferiority|||The null hypothesis is that Fosfomycin is inferior to TMP/SMX.||||<0.001
95727721|NCT01271933|191424959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.0||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced activity||1.0|-0.4|0.4009
95706305|NCT02182999|191382266|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.596|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 17 patients in each group was previously calculated on the basis of a significance level of .05, a power of 80%, an anticipated pooled standard Deviation (SD) of 1.0 of the mean verbal NRS pain level, and a minimal clinically important difference in the mean verbal NRS pain level of 1.0 points between the groups. Anticipating a loss to follow-up, we planned to recruit a total of 50 patients (25 patients each group).||||0.596
95706306|NCT02182999|191382267|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.353|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.353
95706307|NCT02736929|191382303|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|22.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up||22.3|-2.7|0.12
95706308|NCT02736929|191382304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.5|0.1|0.024
95706309|NCT02736929|191382305|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.6|0.0|0.027
95706310|NCT02736929|191382306|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||7.1|0.5|0.024
95706311|NCT02736929|191382307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.9||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||2.0|-9.8|0.19
95706312|NCT02736929|191382308|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||0.4|-1.3|0.31
95706313|NCT02736929|191382309|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.5|-1.8|0.86
95706314|NCT02736929|191382310|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the analysis of between-group difference in change from baseline to 6-week follow-up.||1.2|-1.7|0.77
95706315|NCT01236768|191382318|EQUIVALENCE|Comparative analysis of AG200-15 and Levora for breakthrough bleeding and/or spotting.||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparative evaluation of AG200-15 and Levora||||0.089
95706316|NCT01925014|191382390|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.013|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.033|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.033|-0.008|
95706317|NCT01925014|191382391|NON_INFERIORITY|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.035|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.091|||||The non-inferiority was established.|Detailed in Ahn S, LOCAT Group. Trials 2014:15:28.||0.091|-0.021|
95706318|NCT01451398|191382467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Change in HbA1c = Baseline HbA1c + Region + Pooled OAD Strata + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit), using AR(1) variance/covariance structure.||||-0.23|-0.57|<0.0001
95706319|NCT01451398|191382468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.726||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|4.8|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||4.80|1.55|0.0005
95706320|NCT01451398|191382469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.361||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|11.17|||Regression, Logistic|Model: Treatment + Pooled OAD Stratum + Region + Baseline HbA1c||||11.17|1.70|0.0021
95706321|NCT01451398|191382470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.1698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model: FPG = Baseline FPG + Region + Pooled OAD Stratum + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment \* Visit)~Variance/Covariance Matrix is Autoregression 1"||||3.18|-18.03|0.1698
95706322|NCT01451398|191382473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.018|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|FEV1 = Baseline FEV1 + Age + Gender + Race + Height + Visit + Treatment + (Treatment\*Visit)||||-0.05|-0.12|
95706323|NCT01451398|191382476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||<0.0001
95706324|NCT01451398|191382477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2024|||||||Negative Binomial Regression|Model: Treatment + Region + OAD Stratum + Exposure Time||||||0.2024
95706325|NCT01451398|191382480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.365|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.34|||ANCOVA||Model: Baseline Weight + Change in HbA1c at Week 24 + Region + OAD Stratum + Treatment|||2.34|0.90|<0.0001
95706326|NCT02896192|191382494|OTHER||CI||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95706327|NCT02896192|191382495|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|Exact binomial test|||||||<0.0001
95706328|NCT02896192|191382496|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-25.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.49|-22.98|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-22.98|-28.49|<0.0001
95706329|NCT02896192|191382497|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.77||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-40.58|-14.96|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.96|-40.58|0.0005
95706330|NCT02896192|191382498|OTHER|||||||0.0004||||||One-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥ 5% of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥ 25% improvement in daily hunger score.|Exact binomial test|||||||0.0004
95706331|NCT02896192|191382499|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-18.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.27|-14.88|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-14.88|-21.27|<0.0001
95706332|NCT02896192|191382502|OTHER||Least Squares Mean|-27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.6|-24.29|||Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance|||Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.||-24.29|-30.60|<0.0001
95706333|NCT02667392|191382505|OTHER|||||||0.77||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.77
95706334|NCT02667392|191382506|OTHER|||||||0.61||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.61
95706335|NCT02667392|191382507|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95706336|NCT02667392|191382508|OTHER|||||||0.002||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.002
95706337|NCT02667392|191382509|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95706338|NCT02667392|191382510|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95706339|NCT02667392|191382511|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.55
95706340|NCT02667392|191382512|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.0089|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0089
95706341|NCT02667392|191382513|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95706342|NCT02667392|191382514|OTHER|a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.81
95706343|NCT02667392|191382515|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95706344|NCT00383708|191382518|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact test|One-sided p value||The percentage of subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
95706345|NCT00383708|191382519|OTHER|||||||0.1654||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with pegvisomant (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.1654
95706346|NCT00383708|191382519|OTHER|||||||0.0115||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with lanreotide Autogel (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0115
95706347|NCT00383708|191382519|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup previously treated with octreotide LAR (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.0003
95706348|NCT00383708|191382520|OTHER|||||||0.084||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||0.084
95706349|NCT00383708|191382520|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup non diabetic subjects (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
95706350|NCT00383708|191382521|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'while taking final dose during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
95706351|NCT00383708|191382521|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||One-sided p-value|Exact test|||The percentage of subjects in the subgroup 'at any time during co-administration' (denoted as pnor) was compared to the minimum clinically relevant (theoretical) percentage of 30%, using an exact test based on the binomial distribution. The test was an upper-tailed test of H0: pnor ≤ 0.3 versus H1: pnor \> 0.3.||||<0.0001
95706352|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.145|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.145
95706353|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.618|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.618
95706354|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.262
95706355|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 6 months)||||.240
95706356|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
95706357|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on IADL (baseline vs 12 months)||||.457
95706358|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.612|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 6 months)||||.612
95706359|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (6 vs 12 months)||||.522
95706360|NCT02033850|191382548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on DAD (baseline vs 12 months)||||.800
95706361|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 6 months)||||.204
95706362|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (6 vs 12 months)||||.810
95706363|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.193|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on AQ (baseline vs 12 months)||||.193
95706364|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.698|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 6 months)||||.698
95706365|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (6 vs 12 months)||||.283
95706366|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.647|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ index (baseline vs 12 months)||||.647
95706367|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 6 months)||||.057
95706368|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (6 vs 12 months)||||.685
95706369|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on EQ visual (baseline vs 12 months)||||.056
95706370|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.393
95706371|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.958|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (6 vs 12 months)||||.958
95706372|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on GDS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.448
95706373|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.567
95706374|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.274|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.274
95706375|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.668
95706376|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 6 months)||||.709
95706377|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.567|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (6 vs 12 months)||||.567
95706378|NCT02033850|191382549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.867|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on PCS (baseline vs 12 months)||||.867
95706379|NCT02033850|191382550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.095
95706380|NCT02033850|191382550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.729|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.729
95706381|NCT02033850|191382550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||MCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.115
95706382|NCT02033850|191382550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.576|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 6 months)||||.576
95706383|NCT02033850|191382550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.191|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (6 vs 12 months)||||.191
95706384|NCT02033850|191382550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||PCS outcome (baseline vs 12 months)||||.790
95706385|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.936|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 6 months)||||.936
95706386|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.188|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (6 vs 12 months)||||.188
95706387|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.381|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MoCA (baseline vs 12 months)||||.381
95706388|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.458|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 6 months)||||.458
95706389|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (6 vs 12 months)||||.236
95706390|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.601|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on MMSE (baseline vs 12 months)||||.601
95706391|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.839|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 6 months)||||.839
95706392|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (6 vs 12 months)||||.021
95706393|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL immediate (baseline vs 12 months)||||.032
95706394|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.858
95706395|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.212
95706396|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.268|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on RAVL recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.268
95706397|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 6 months)||||.184
95706398|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.358|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (6 vs 12 months)||||.358
95706399|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.768|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF recall (baseline vs 12 months)||||.768
95706400|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.164|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 6 months)||||.164
95706401|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (6 vs 12 months)||||.420
95706402|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.527|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on short story (baseline vs 12 months)||||.527
95706403|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.762|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 6 months)||||.762
95706404|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.405|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (6 vs 12 months)||||.405
95706405|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on visual search (baseline vs 12 months)||||.674
95706406|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 6 months)||||.328
95706407|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (6 vs 12 months)||||.198
95706408|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on SDMT (baseline vs 12 months)||||.639
95706409|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 6 months)||||.098
95706410|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.235|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (6 vs 12 months)||||.235
95706411|NCT02033850|191382551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.789|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on ROCF copy (baseline vs 12 months)||||.789
95706412|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.743|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 6 months)||||.743
95706413|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.428|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (6 vs 12 months)||||.428
95706414|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on Stroop test (baseline vs 12 months)||||.294
95706415|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.157|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 6 months)||||.157
95706416|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.094|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (6 vs 12 months)||||.094
95706417|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-A (baseline vs 12 months)||||.476
95706418|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 6 months)||||.142
95706419|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.651|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (6 vs 12 months)||||.651
95706420|NCT02033850|191382552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.534|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on TMT-B (baseline vs 12 months)||||.534
95706421|NCT02033850|191382553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.882
95706422|NCT02033850|191382553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.835
95706423|NCT02033850|191382553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on phonemic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
95706424|NCT02033850|191382553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.392|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 6 months)||||.392
95706425|NCT02033850|191382553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
95706426|NCT02033850|191382553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.486|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Δs on semantic fluency (baseline vs 12 months)||||.486
95706427|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.920
95706428|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
95706429|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||Chi-squared|||MoCA variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.716
95706430|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.973
95706431|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.973|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.973
95706432|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Chi-squared|||MMSE variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.300
95706433|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.068
95706434|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.089
95706435|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL immed. variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.241
95706436|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.089|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.089
95706437|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.170
95706438|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||RAVL recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
95706439|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.777|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.777
95706440|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.134|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.134
95706441|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.498|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF recall variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.498
95706442|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.942
95706443|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.578
95706444|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Short story variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.413
95706445|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
95706446|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.038
95706447|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.658|||||||Chi-squared|||Visual search variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.658
95706448|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.522|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.522
95706449|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
95706450|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||SDMT variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.170
95706451|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.961
95706452|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.413
95706453|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.477|||||||Chi-squared|||Stroop test variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.477
95706454|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.420
95706455|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.241|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.241
95706456|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-A variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.295
95706457|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.453
95706458|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.952|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.952
95706459|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.881|||||||Chi-squared|||TMT-B variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.881
95706460|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.413|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.413
95706461|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.961|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.961
95706462|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Phonemic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
95706463|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||.951
95706464|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.674
95706465|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.951|||||||Chi-squared|||Semantic fluency variation (baseline vs 12 months)||||.951
95706466|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 6 months)||||1
95706467|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (6 vs 12 months)||||.027
95706468|NCT02033850|191382554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.169|||||||Chi-squared|||ROCF copy variations (baseline vs 12 months)||||.169
95706469|NCT02033850|191382555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.478
95706470|NCT02033850|191382556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in vermis VIIIb||||0.029
95706471|NCT02033850|191382556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in right VIIb lobule||||0.04
95706472|NCT02033850|191382556|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||"Corrected for multiple comparisons using the 3D parameter settings with threshold-free cluster enhancement.~A priori threshold for statistical significance 0.05"|General linear model voxel-wise|||Z-transformed ReHo difference in left VIIb lobule||||0.039
95727722|NCT01271933|191424959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.3||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Reduced motivation||1.3|-0.1|0.0695
95918135|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|37.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.3|-13.4|
95706473|NCT02820038|191382564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.24|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||2.24|0.52|0.8408
95706474|NCT02820038|191382564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or Other CMI+SMART, 1=DFB or DFB + SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.12|0.66|0.58
95706475|NCT02820038|191382564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.68|||Regression, Logistic|Regression model adjusted for whether participant met criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to meet the criteria for Informed Decision-Making at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||2.68|0.82|0.1937
95706476|NCT02820038|191382564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.379||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|4.92|||Regression, Logistic|Sample restricted to participants who did not meet the criteria for informed decision making at baseline.|Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who did not meet criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||4.92|1.15|0.0193
95706477|NCT02820038|191382564|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.48|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of meeting criteria for informed decision making at the 6-month follow-up. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only or DFB Only, 1=Other CMI + SMART or DFB+SMART.|In this analysis, participants were restricted to those who met the criteria for informed decision-making at baseline.||1.48|0.19|0.2216
95706478|NCT02820038|191382565|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-1.83|0.1630
95706479|NCT02820038|191382565|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|1.77|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.77|-2.33|0.7892
95706480|NCT02820038|191382565|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|-0.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in knowledge between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||-0.13|-4.25|0.0377
95706481|NCT02820038|191382566|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.9216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.08|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favorable to aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.|Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|1.08|-0.98|0.9216
95706482|NCT02820038|191382566|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.3843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|1.17|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.17|-0.45|0.3843
95727723|NCT01271933|191424959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.5869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Mental fatigue||0.4|-0.7|0.5869
95706483|NCT02820038|191382566|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|1.09|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in values favoring aggressive therapy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.09|-0.54|0.5090
95706484|NCT02820038|191382567|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.12|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.12|-0.77|0.1486
95706485|NCT02820038|191382567|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.22|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.22|-0.47|0.4888
95706486|NCT02820038|191382567|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.8637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.38|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.38|-0.32|0.8637
95706487|NCT02820038|191382568|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.66|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater gist reasoning ability at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.66|-0.33|0.5070
95706488|NCT02820038|191382568|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.25|0.4821
95706489|NCT02820038|191382568|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.7777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.44|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in gist reasoning ability between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.44|-0.33|0.7777
95706490|NCT02820038|191382569|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.6084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.58|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.58|-0.93|0.6084
95706491|NCT02820038|191382569|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|1.23|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||1.23|-0.71|0.5970
95727724|NCT01271933|191424961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.81||Nominal p-value for two-sided test.|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Benefit from treatment||4.81|1.09|0.0296
95727725|NCT01271933|191424961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.61||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Satisfaction from treatment||2.61|0.64|0.4691
95918136|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|50.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||50.5|0.7|
95706492|NCT02820038|191382569|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.31|-0.65|.5094
95706493|NCT02820038|191382570|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|3.89|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in satisfaction at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.89|-6.85|0.5866
95706494|NCT02820038|191382570|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.8689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|4.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.52|-3.82|0.8689
95706495|NCT02820038|191382570|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.53|5.86|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in satisfaction between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.86|-2.53|.4356
95706496|NCT02820038|191382571|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.95||0.2366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|9.26|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in self-efficacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||9.26|-2.30|0.2366
95706497|NCT02820038|191382571|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.8841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|4.83|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||4.83|-4.16|0.8841
95706498|NCT02820038|191382571|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|5.95|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in self-efficacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||5.95|-3.05|0.5264
95706499|NCT02820038|191382572|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.9604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in medication adherence at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||4.18|-4.40|0.9604
95706500|NCT02820038|191382572|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.0279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.84|-0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||-0.40|-6.84|0.0279
95706501|NCT02820038|191382572|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in medication adherence between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||7.18|0.67|0.0184
95706502|NCT02820038|191382573|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.3056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|8.14|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in illness intrusiveness at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||8.14|-2.56|0.3056
95706503|NCT02820038|191382573|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|8.32|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.32|0.06|0.0466
95706504|NCT02820038|191382573|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.024|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11||0.9106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|3.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in illness intrusiveness between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.90|-4.38|0.9106
95706505|NCT02820038|191382574|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.1762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.1|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group..|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in health distress at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.10|-0.57|0.1762
95706506|NCT02820038|191382574|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.4186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.15|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.15|-0.36|0.4186
95706507|NCT02820038|191382574|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.8848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.24|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in health distress between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.24|-0.28|0.8848
95706508|NCT02820038|191382575|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.25|||Regression, Linear|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health status at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.25|-0.15|0.6403
95706509|NCT02820038|191382575|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.8766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.16|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.16|-0.14|0.8766
95706510|NCT02820038|191382575|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.7603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.18|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater improvement in global health status between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.18|-0.13|0.7603
95706511|NCT02820038|191382576|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.7093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.63|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in disease activity at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.63|-0.43|0.7093
95706512|NCT02820038|191382576|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.5941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.52|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.52|-0.30|0.5941
95706513|NCT02820038|191382576|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.4|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in disease activity between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.40|-0.42|0.9476
95706514|NCT02820038|191382577|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.9128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|1.48|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in depression at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.48|-1.65|0.9128
95706515|NCT02820038|191382577|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.91|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.91|-1.50|0.6312
95706516|NCT02820038|191382577|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.5766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.87|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in depression between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.87|-1.57|0.5766
95706517|NCT02820038|191382578|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.2123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.34|0.75|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater decreases in fatigue at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.75|-3.34|0.2123
95706518|NCT02820038|191382578|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.2691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|0.7|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.70|-2.48|0.2691
95706519|NCT02820038|191382578|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81||0.5655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|1.13|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater decrease in fatigue between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.13|-2.06|0.5655
95706520|NCT02820038|191382579|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|10.55|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in health literacy at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||10.55|-5.51|0.5364
95706521|NCT02820038|191382579|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.68|8.01|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||8.01|-4.68|0.6050
95706522|NCT02820038|191382579|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|6.05|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, Other CMI+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in health literacy between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||6.05|-6.66|0.9240
95706523|NCT02820038|191382580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.7871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.89|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class session. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.89|0.43|0.7871
95706524|NCT02820038|191382580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.189||||0.5815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.643|2.198|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices,BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.198|0.643|0.5815
95706525|NCT02820038|191382580|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.2211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.366|1.262|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of attending at least one class. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to participate in at least one session of the BetterChoices, BetterHealth program if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.262|0.366|0.2211
95706526|NCT02820038|191382581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.804||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.72|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to use the RA Self-Management website if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||1.72|0.38|0.5740
95706527|NCT02820038|191382581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.425||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.766|2.649|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.649|0.766|0.1278
95706528|NCT02820038|191382581|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.614||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|1.15|||Regression, Logistic||Modeled probability of viewing at least one page on website. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to visit the RA Self-Management Website if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||1.15|0.328|0.1278
95706529|NCT02820038|191382582|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.7||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|28.9|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater increases in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||28.9|-5.2|0.17
95706530|NCT02820038|191382582|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable|Mean Difference (Net)|16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.5|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||29.5|2.5|0.02
95706531|NCT02820038|191382582|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline values of the dependent variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|19.2|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in visual selective learning between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||19.2|-8.1|0.42
95706532|NCT02820038|191382583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|0.8|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.8|-5.2|0.15
95727726|NCT01271933|191424961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.01||Nominal p-value for two-sided test|two-sided test|||This analysis is for the domain: Willingness to continue treatment||2.01|0.48|0.9577
95706533|NCT02820038|191382583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.3|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.3|-4.4|0.07
95706534|NCT02820038|191382583|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|0.6|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience greater medication self-management knowledge at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.6|-4.2|0.13
95706535|NCT02820038|191382584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.29|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART, DFB Only; 1=DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||0.29|-0.19|0.68
95706536|NCT02820038|191382584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.31|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.31|-0.06|0.20
95706537|NCT02820038|191382584|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.19|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, DFB Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit greater verbatim recall of information concerning medication benefits and risks at the 6-week follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||0.19|-0.19|0.99
95706538|NCT02820038|191382585|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.105||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|||The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to view at least one webpage if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.|Modeled probability of viewing at least one webpage. Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART.|3.432|1.291|0.0028
95706539|NCT02820038|191382586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.04|||Regression, Linear||Independent variable coded: 0=Other CMI Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART. Difference score calculated as: Comparison Group - Intervention Group. Thus, negative values indicate mean was greater in the intervention group.|The investigators hypothesized that participants would view more webpages if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||0.04|-1.71|0.0601
95706540|NCT02820038|191382587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.81|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would be more likely to be using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) at the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format combined with gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to individuals in the other three groups.||3.81|0.22|0.90
95706541|NCT02820038|191382587|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.35|||Regression, Logistic||. Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, Other CMI+SMART; 1=DFB Only, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would exhibit a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive written medication information via the DrugFactsBox® format compared to the Other CMI format.||2.35|0.24|0.63
95706542|NCT02820038|191382587|SUPERIORITY|Regression model adjusted for baseline value of the dependent variable.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.54|||Regression, Logistic||Independent variable coded: 0=Other Consumer Medication Information (CMI) Only, DrugFactsBox® (DFB) Only; 1=Other CMI+SMART, DFB+SMART|The investigators hypothesized that participants would experience a greater increase in the percentage of participants using at least one DMARD (Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug) between baseline and the 6-month follow-up if they were assigned to receive gist reasoning training, delivered via the SMART Program, compared to those who were not assigned to receive this training.||3.54|0.37|0.81
95706543|NCT02448914|191382590|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis was first to attempt to show non-inferiority. To show non-inferiority of TRIGEL over Duodopa, the lower limit of the two-sided CI for the treatment ratio had to be above the chosen non-inferiority margin of 0.9. If non-inferiority was shown, analysis continued with test of superiority. To show superiority of TRIGEL versus Duodopa, the lower confidence limit had to be above 1 (corresponding to a p-value less than 0.05).|back-transformed ratio|1.382|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.264|1.511|||ANCOVA|||Levodopa AUC 0-14h/dose, was derived using the trapezoidal method and divided by the total administered dose of levodopa during the corresponding time interval.The primary endpoint was log transformed and analysed using an ANCOVA, adjusting for treatment, period and patient. The back-transformed ratio of TRIGEL over Duodopa was calculated together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the associated (2 sided) p value.||1.511|1.264|<0.0001
95706544|NCT03934203|191382596|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 50 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.2|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||2.4|0.2|
95706545|NCT03934203|191382597|OTHER|The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between 250 mg BI 409306 and placebo is greater than or equal to 10 milliseconds at least for one timepoint after dosing.' The one-sided tests were performed at the 5% level; due to the symmetry of the normal distribution 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for the differences of adjusted means per timepoint were used.|Difference of adjusted means|5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.4|7.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||7.1|4.4|
95706546|NCT03934203|191382598|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|12.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.5|13.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo at 1 hour and 30 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.6|10.5|
95706547|NCT03934203|191382599|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 2 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.4|13.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0167.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||13.4|10.4|0.00000000
95706548|NCT03934203|191382600|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 3 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|11.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||3e-08|TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.3|12.8||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.0250.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|9.3|0.00000003
95706549|NCT03934203|191382601|OTHER|T-Test based on the results of the MMRM (fitted to the data for all timepoints). The null hypothesis was 'The mean difference in the QTcF changes from baseline between moxifloxacin and placebo is less than or equal to 5 milliseconds at 4 hours after drug administration.'|Difference of adjusted means|10.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||2e-07|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.9|12.4||The corresponding alpha-level according to Hochberg's adjustment for mulitplicity was 0.050.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Difference of adjusted means was calculated as moxifloxacin - placebo.|MMRM was fitted to the observations for moxifloxacin and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.4|8.9|0.00000020
95727727|NCT01271933|191424963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.85||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|39.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Work Time Missed||39.2|-0.5|0.0562
95706550|NCT03934203|191382602|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 20 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||3.3|1.4|
95706551|NCT03934203|191382603|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.6|12.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Maximum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 40 minutes after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||12.8|10.6|
95706552|NCT03934203|191382604|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 24 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 50 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||-0.1|-2.3|
95706553|NCT03934203|191382605|OTHER|No formal hypotheses were tested.|Difference of adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Kenward-Roger method to adjust standard errors and estimate denominator degrees of freedom.|Minimum difference of adjusted means was calculated as BI 409306 - placebo at 12 hours after drug intake.|MMRM was fitted to observations for 250 mg BI 409306 and the 2 placebo periods. MMRM with covariates 'period baseline', 'participant baseline' (=arithmetic mean of respective period baselines), fixed categorical effects 'treatment', 'period', and 'time', interaction terms 'period baseline-by-time', 'participant baseline-by-time', 'treatment-by-time', and 'period-by-time', 'participant' (random effect), and time within period as repeated measures per participant (covariance matrix=Unstructured).||1.3|-1.3|
95706554|NCT00560794|191382620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||The null hypothesis stated that the true MRD response probability (π) ≤ 5%.|1-sided exact binomial test|||||||0.0000
95706555|NCT03787095|191382657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.71
95706556|NCT03787095|191382658|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||1.00
95706557|NCT03787095|191382659|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no change from baseline to post-baseline among participants treated with Cemiplimab. Per the analysis plan, only participants in the Cemiplimab arm are evaluated.||||0.33
95706558|NCT03209362|191382728|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.5453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|6.6|||ANCOVA|||||6.6|-12.4|0.5453
95706559|NCT03209362|191382729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5||||0.5386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|7.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||7.8|-14.9|0.5386
95706560|NCT03209362|191382729|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.3||||0.5873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|8.6|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||8.6|-15.2|0.5873
95706561|NCT03209362|191382730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9||||0.6347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|9.2|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.2|-15.0|0.6347
95706562|NCT03209362|191382730|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8||||0.7806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|10.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||10.8|-14.3|0.7806
95706563|NCT03209362|191382731|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.8819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.4|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||11.4|-13.2|0.8819
95706564|NCT03209362|191382731|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.6||||0.3796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|7.1|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||7.1|-18.3|0.3796
95706565|NCT03209362|191382732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.0||||0.6217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|9.0|||Longitudinal model|||Week 12||9.0|-14.9|0.6217
95706566|NCT03209362|191382732|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.5||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|9.8|||Longitudinal model|||Week 26||9.8|-14.8|0.6901
95706567|NCT01077193|191382742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|See above.|Mean Percent Excess Weight Loss|37.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.18||0.3227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.2|45.5||No multiple comparison adjustments are necessary as this is a single hypothesis on 1 parameter for a within group change comparison to 36.1%.|t-test, 1 sided|||A sample size of 32 achieves power\>90% to demonstrate non-inferiority using a one-sided t-test (alpha=0.025) when the margin of equivalence is a 5% difference in EWL. The true difference between %EWL for patients undergoing a greater curvature procedure and the target %EWL is hypothesized to be 0. The target %EWL at 3 years is 41.1%, based upon prior studies. This power analysis assumes data are drawn from a single population with a standard deviation of 8.20.||45.5|30.2|0.3227
95727728|NCT01271933|191424963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96||0.7892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|9.2||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Impairment While Working||9.2|-7.0|0.7892
95706568|NCT04283773|191382743|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Kruskal-Wallis|||Assessment of statistical differences in P16 expression between 3 groups. The immunohistochemical evaluation is done using German- semiquantitative scoring system. The score ranges from ( 0, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9 and 12). The data will entered on SPSS,version 24 as numbers. The test of significance is Kruskal Wallis was used to examine the Difference in Median between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons . A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.001
95706569|NCT04283773|191382744|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio, log|0.009||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|8.0||Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.|Spearman's rank correlation coefficient(|||Correlation between Ki 67 expression using percentage of Ki67 positive nuclei and P16 cytoplasmic expression using German semi quantitative score among MOGCT group. Data were analysed using IBM-SPSS version 24. Correlation analysis was used (Spearman' Ranked correlation, 2-tailed). A p-value \< 0.05 was considered significant.||8|0|0.009
95706570|NCT04283773|191382745|SUPERIORITY|One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.699|TWO_SIDED|80.0|9.5|13.0||One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD). P value is significant if less than 0.05.|ANOVA|||Correlation between P16 cytoplasmic score using German semi-quantitative system and FIGO staging of MOGCTs was done via One-way ANOVA was used to examine the Difference in Mean between groups. Post-hoc test with Bonferroni Correction was used for Pairwise comparisons .Data was expressed as mean (SD).||13|9.5|0.699
95706571|NCT01994109|191382772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95706572|NCT01994109|191382772|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95706573|NCT01994109|191382773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95706574|NCT01994109|191382773|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95706575|NCT05505734|191382776|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.535|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.392|0.73||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values are estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.730|0.392|<0.001
95706576|NCT05505734|191382777|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.539|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.733||The pre-specified alpha (type I error) at the IA was set at 0.003 for the primary and first secondary endpoint|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.733|0.397|<0.001
95706577|NCT05505734|191382778|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|0.724||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.724|0.405|<0.001
95706578|NCT05505734|191382779|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.541|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.72||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratios, 95% confidence intervals for hazard ratios and p-values were estimated using a Cox regression model with treatment group, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A hazard ratio less than 1 favors the BDA MDI treatment group.||0.720|0.406|<0.001
95706579|NCT05505734|191382780|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.64||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.64|0.34|<0.001
95706580|NCT05505734|191382781|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.63||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Negative binomial|||Rates, rate ratios and two-sided p-values were estimated from a negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study asthma therapy, and number of severe exacerbations in the last 12 months prior to randomization as factors. A rate ratio less than 1 favors BDA MDI treatment group.||0.63|0.33|<0.001
95706581|NCT05505734|191382782|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
95706582|NCT05505734|191382783|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The pre-specified type I error for secondary endpoints tested at the final DCO was 0.05. A hierarchical testing strategy was employed to control the two-sided Type I error rate for the secondary endpoints, excluding the first secondary endpoint.|Wilcoxon rank sum|||||||<0.001
95706583|NCT00576147|191382790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Sensitivity|88.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.0|95.0||||||||95.0|75.0|
95706584|NCT00576147|191382790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Specificity|90.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|93.7||||||||93.7|86.4|
95706585|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0723|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0347|0.1099|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence. A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1099|0.0347|0.0003
95706586|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0184||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0307|0.1046|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response,with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1046|0.0307|0.0006
95706587|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0644|0.1398|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1398|0.0644|<0.0001
95706588|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0918|0.1681|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||00.1681|0.0918|<0.0001
95706589|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0186||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0073|0.082|||Mantel Haenszel||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0820|0.0073|0.0200
95706590|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 7 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0284||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0243|0.1382|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1382|0.0243|0.0060
95706591|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0183||0.0402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0018|0.0752|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0752|0.0018|0.0402
95706592|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0179||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0337|0.1055|||ANCOVA||Standard Error of the Mean Difference|An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.1055|0.0337|0.0003
95706593|NCT01426009|191382854|SUPERIORITY|Day 1 analysis|Least Squares Mean|0.0501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.0861|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA was used with change from baseline in trough FEV1 as the response, with factors for treatment, period, sequence, baseline as a covariate and a random effect for subject nested within sequence.A sample size of 30 subjects per comparison(133 total with dropouts)provides 90% power to detect a 0.12L difference in mean change trough FEV1 between active and placebo at an alpha of 0.05 using a 2-tailed t-test and assuming a within-subject standard deviation for change in trough FEV1 of 0.2.||0.0861|0.0140|0.0074
95706594|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0505|0.1028|||ANCOVA||standard error of the mean difference|ACU 0-24 on Day 1||0.1028|0.0505|<0.0001
95706595|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0127|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1475|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|ACU 0-24 Day 1||0.1475|0.0965|<0.0001
95706596|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0965|0.1479|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 Day 1||0.1479|0.0965|<0.0001
95706597|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1625|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1362|0.1888|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1888|0.1362|<0.0001
95706598|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1434|0.1946|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1946|0.1434|<0.0001
95706599|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0189|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0716|0.1473|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 day 1||0.1473|0.0716|<0.0001
95706600|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1095|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0812|0.1379|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on Day 7||0.1379|0.0812|<0.0001
95706601|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0993|0.1548|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC0-24 on Day 7||0.1548|0.0993|<0.0001
95706602|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.014|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1169|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1169|<0.0001
95706603|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0142|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1403|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.1403|<0.0001
95706604|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1396|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0139|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1117|0.173|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1730|0.1117|<0.0001
95706605|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0194|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0795|0.1972|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-24 on day 7||0.1972|0.0795|<0.0001
95706606|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0131|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0776|0.1301|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1301|0.0776|<0.0001
95706607|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1468|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1212|0.1724|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1724|0.1212|<0.0001
95706608|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1579|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1322|0.1837|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1837|0.1322|<0.0001
95706609|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1919|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1655|0.2184|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2184|0.1655|<0.0001
95706610|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0128|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1738|0.2251|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.2251|0.1738|<0.0001
95706611|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1248|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0188|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1625|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 1||0.1625|0.0872|<0.0001
95706612|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.1587|||ANCOVA|standard error of the Mean difference|standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1587|0.0970|<0.0001
95706613|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1454|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1151|0.1756|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1756|0.1151|<0.0001
95706614|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1699|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.2004|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2004|0.1393|<0.0001
95706615|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1814|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1503|0.2125|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.2125|0.1503|<0.0001
95706616|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1697|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0152|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1393|0.201|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.201|0.1393|<0.0001
95706617|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0216|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0951|0.1817|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 0-12 on day 7||0.1817|0.0951|<0.0001
95706618|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0471|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0157|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0155|0.0786|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.0786|0.0155|<0.0001
95706619|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0918|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0611|0.1226|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1226|0.0611|<0.0001
95706620|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0829|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0519|0.1139|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1139|0.0519|<0.0001
95706621|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1299|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0158|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0982|0.1617|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 o day 1||0.1617|0.0982|<0.0001
95706622|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0154|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1061|0.1678|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1678|0.1061|<0.0001
95706623|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0221|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.1377|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 1||0.1377|0.0490|<0.0001
95706624|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0573|0.1186|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1186|0.0573|<0.0001
95706625|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1088|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0788|0.1388|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1388|0.0788|<0.0001
95706626|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0151|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0872|0.1478|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1478|0.0872|<0.0001
95706627|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1532|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0153|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1226|0.1838|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1838|0.1226|<0.0001
95706628|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0747|0.135|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|||0.1350|0.0747|<0.0001
95706629|NCT01426009|191382855|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference (SE)|0.0993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0202|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0589|0.1398|||ANCOVA||standard error of the Mean difference|AUC 12-24 on day 7||0.1398|0.0589|<0.0001
95706630|NCT01024920|191382873|OTHER|||||||0.8531||||||P-value for comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates at 9 months using normal approximation test (two-sided).|Normal approximation test|||||||0.8531
95706631|NCT01024920|191382875|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.6395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.8|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|A stratified log-rank test (two-sided, 0.05 significance level) was used to test the effect of nintedanib on PFS compared with sunitinib. The test was stratified by Motzer risk score category (low/intermediate or high) and prior nephrectomy surgery for Renal Cell Cancer (yes or no).||1.800|0.697|0.6395
95706632|NCT01024920|191382876|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.484||||0.1213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|1.212|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio \> 1 favours nintedanib.|A logistic regression model stratified by Motzer risk score category and prior surgery for renal cell cancer (RCC) was used to compare the objective response rate between the two treatment arms. The corresponding odds ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals was also presented.||1.212|0.193|0.1213
95706633|NCT01024920|191382878|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.7593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.542|1.564||P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.564|0.542|0.7593
95706634|NCT01024920|191382879|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.143||||0.5958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.697|1.873|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery.|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.873|0.697|0.5958
95706635|NCT01024920|191382880|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.5712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.812|||Log Rank|P-value from log-rank stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery (two-sided).|Hazard ratio from Cox proportional hazards model stratified by Motzer risk score and previous surgery. Hazard ratio \< 1 favours nintedanib.|||1.812|0.720|0.5712
95706636|NCT00926185|191382927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.06||||0.9381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.39|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.39|-0.26|0.9381
95706637|NCT00926185|191382927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.2||||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.53|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.53|-0.13|0.3585
95706638|NCT00926185|191382927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Treatment Effect|0.27||||0.1375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.6|||Dunnett's test||Analysis of covariance model with treatment, baseline, and site.|||0.60|-0.06|0.1375
95706639|NCT01957085|191382931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||=|0.04||||||Statistical significance was set at .05 to determine statistical significance.|Chi-squared|||||||=.04
95706640|NCT01957085|191382932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95706641|NCT01957085|191382933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95706642|NCT01957085|191382935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>.05
95706643|NCT04476108|191382962|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.32|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.32|-1.17|
95706644|NCT04476108|191382963|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|0.35|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.35|-1.09|
95706645|NCT04476108|191382964|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.15|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.15|-0.69|
95706646|NCT04476108|191382965|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.31|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.31|-1.20|
95706647|NCT04476108|191382966|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|6.06|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||6.06|-11.71|
95706648|NCT04476108|191382967|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.78|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.78|-0.09|
95706649|NCT04476108|191382968|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-188.46|187.97|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||187.97|-188.46|
95706650|NCT04476108|191382969|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.1|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis||The Bayesian analyses include posterior probabilities instead of p-values, and 95% credible intervals instead of 95% confidence intervals.|||0.10|-0.01|
95706651|NCT00850135|191382970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||p-Value for the correlation between AUC-110 and birth weight|correlation|||||||0.035
95706652|NCT02213081|191382986|EQUIVALENCE|Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine if the mean difference in pain scores before compared to during ulipristal therapy were equivalent or non-equivalent.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon signed rank|||||||<0.05
95706653|NCT01448707|191383000|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5%.|Non-Linear mixed|-7.9||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.64|-1.19||P-Value for non-inferiority of DRV/rtv MONO vs DRV/rtv + 2NRTIs (delta = 12%).|Mixed Models Analysis|Predicted response rate:confidence limits are obtained by means of logistic regression model with treatment group and Hepatitis C status as covariates||||-1.19|-14.64|0.2331
95706654|NCT01448707|191383001|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-Linear mixed|-10.1||||0.6933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.73|-19.50|0.6933
95727729|NCT01271933|191424963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|6.8||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Activity Impairment||6.8|-0.4|0.0819
95706655|NCT01448707|191383002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 48: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|Non-linear mixed model|-3.5||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.77|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.72|-8.77|0.0016
95706656|NCT01448707|191383002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Week 96: Non-inferiority of DRV/rtv monotherapy versus triple therapy was assessed with a maximum allowable difference of 12 percent (%), with a one-sided significance level of 2.5% and 80% power.|non-linear mixed model|-0.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|6.58|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-7.89|0.0022
95706657|NCT01307046|191383020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-3.4|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-3.4|-6.8|<.001
95706658|NCT01307046|191383021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in least square means|-9.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|-6.5|||constrained longitudinal data analysis|||||-6.5|-11.9|<.001
95706659|NCT00323427|191383068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0974||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.23||No multiple testing adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.23|-0.15|0.69
95706660|NCT00323427|191383069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.38||No adjustment.|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mean(Arm 1) = Mean(Arm 2)||0.38|-0.16|0.42
95706661|NCT00323427|191383070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.29||No adjustment|t-test, 2 sided|||H0: mean(Arm 1) = Mean (Arm 2)||0.29|-0.30|0.97
95706662|NCT02493868|191383077|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.84|||Weighted Log-rank|||||0.84|0.29|= 0.003
95706663|NCT02407236|191383095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|14.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||14.9|5.7|< 0.001
95706664|NCT02407236|191383095|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||14.8|5.6|< 0.001
95706665|NCT02407236|191383096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|4.8|15.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||15.8|4.8|< 0.001
95706666|NCT02407236|191383096|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|12.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|7.0|18.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||18.4|7.0|< 0.001
95706667|NCT02407236|191383097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|14.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|23.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||23.6|5.5|0.002
95706668|NCT02407236|191383097|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.3|29.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||29.0|10.3|< 0.001
95706669|NCT02407236|191383098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|15.1||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|24.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 1||24.2|6.0|0.002
95706670|NCT02407236|191383098|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted treatment difference|17.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference between ustekinumab group and placebo group was adjusted with CMH weight.|Statistical Analysis 2||27.2|8.6|< 0.001
95706671|NCT05849441|191383172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||This is for the subscale: Support-Seeking.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.04
95706672|NCT05849441|191383172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This is for subscale: Problem Solving|Regression, Linear|||||||0.02
95706673|NCT05849441|191383172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55||||||This is for subscale: Distancing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95706674|NCT05849441|191383172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Internalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
95706675|NCT05849441|191383172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93||||||This is for subscale: Externalizing|Regression, Linear|||||||0.93
95706676|NCT05849441|191383172|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09||||||This is for subscale: Mindfulness|Regression, Linear|||||||0.09
95706677|NCT05849441|191383173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32||||||This is for subscale: Reappraisal|Regression, Linear|||||||0.32
95706678|NCT05849441|191383173|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||This is for subscale: Suppression|Regression, Linear|||||||0.24
95706679|NCT05849441|191383174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||This is for subscale: Manage own emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.53
95706680|NCT05849441|191383174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||This is for subscale: Identify and Understand Own Emotions|Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
95706681|NCT05849441|191383174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||This is for subscale: Deal with emotions of others|Regression, Linear|||||||0.27
95706682|NCT05849441|191383174|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||This is for subscale: Perceive emotions through faces and bodies|Regression, Linear|||||||0.59
95706683|NCT05849441|191383175|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.16
95706684|NCT05849441|191383176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||This is for subscale: Fear of Negative Evaluation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.65
95706685|NCT05849441|191383176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||This is for subscale: Social avoidance and distress (new)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.60
95706686|NCT05849441|191383176|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||This is for subscale: social avoidance and distress (general)|Regression, Linear|||||||0.23
95706687|NCT05849441|191383177|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.55
95706688|NCT05849441|191383178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||This is for subscale: Negativity|Regression, Linear|||||||0.11
95706689|NCT05849441|191383178|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79||||||This is for subscale: Emotion regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.79
95706690|NCT05849441|191383179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||This is for subscale: Working Memory|Regression, Linear|||||||0.14
95706691|NCT05849441|191383179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||This is for subscale: Planning|Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
95706692|NCT05849441|191383179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||This is for subscale: Inhibit|Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
95706693|NCT05849441|191383179|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37||||||This is for subscale: Regulation|Regression, Linear|||||||0.37
95706694|NCT05849441|191383180|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
95706695|NCT05849441|191383181|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.88
95706696|NCT03277794|191383182|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.354|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.354
95706697|NCT03277794|191383182|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.465|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.465
95706698|NCT03277794|191383183|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.159|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.159
95706699|NCT03277794|191383183|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.64||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.200
95706700|NCT03277794|191383184|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.121
95706701|NCT03277794|191383184|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.134|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||Full HOP-C Service (Treatment) vs. Transitional Case Management Only (Control)||||0.134
95706702|NCT03277794|191383185|OTHER|||||||0.899||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.899
95706703|NCT03277794|191383185|OTHER|||||||0.128||||||Unadjusted|Regression, Linear|||||||0.128
95706704|NCT03277794|191383186|OTHER|||||||0.198||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.198
95706705|NCT03277794|191383186|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.017
95706706|NCT03277794|191383187|OTHER|||||||0.091||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.091
95706707|NCT03277794|191383187|OTHER|||||||0.591||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.591
95706708|NCT03277794|191383188|OTHER|||||||0.03||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.030
95706709|NCT03277794|191383188|OTHER|||||||0.005||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.005
95706710|NCT03277794|191383189|OTHER|||||||0.163||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.163
95706711|NCT03277794|191383189|OTHER|||||||0.865||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.865
95706712|NCT03277794|191383190|OTHER|||||||0.98||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.980
95706713|NCT03277794|191383190|OTHER|||||||0.758||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.758
95706714|NCT03277794|191383191|OTHER|||||||0.124||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.124
95706715|NCT03277794|191383191|OTHER|||||||0.168||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.168
95706716|NCT03277794|191383192|OTHER|||||||0.436||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.436
95706717|NCT03277794|191383192|OTHER|||||||0.706||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.706
95706718|NCT03277794|191383193|OTHER|||||||0.604||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.604
95706719|NCT03277794|191383193|OTHER|||||||0.177||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Internalizing||||0.177
95706720|NCT03277794|191383193|OTHER|||||||0.325||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.325
95706721|NCT03277794|191383193|OTHER|||||||0.227||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Externalizing||||0.227
95706722|NCT03277794|191383193|OTHER|||||||0.106||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.106
95706723|NCT03277794|191383193|OTHER|||||||0.058||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Substance Use||||0.058
95706724|NCT03277794|191383194|OTHER|||||||0.862||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.862
95706725|NCT03277794|191383194|OTHER|||||||0.382||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Emotional Supports||||0.382
95706726|NCT03277794|191383194|OTHER|||||||0.68||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.680
95706727|NCT03277794|191383194|OTHER|||||||0.988||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Tangible Supports||||0.988
95706728|NCT03277794|191383194|OTHER|||||||0.701||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.701
95706729|NCT03277794|191383194|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Affectionate||||0.154
95706730|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.719||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.719
95706731|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.15||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Physical Health||||0.150
95706732|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.789||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.789
95706733|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.811||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Psychological||||0.811
95706734|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.726||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.726
95706735|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.795||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Social||||0.795
95706736|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.837||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.837
95706737|NCT03277794|191383195|OTHER|||||||0.048||||||Unadjusted.|Regression, Linear|||Environment||||0.048
95706738|NCT04423718|191383282|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.97||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|0.92||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8) / within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq12-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.92|-2.87|0.0009
95706739|NCT04423718|191383282|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-1.14||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|0.69||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure: Since p-value below significance level 0.025, fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint (no IRF no SRF at W16)/within EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy with secondary endpoint (BCVA at W60, HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.69|-2.97|0.0011
95706740|NCT04423718|191383283|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.86||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.84||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested for EMA/PMDA after primary endpoint (HDq12-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with next primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.84|-2.57|0.0002
95706741|NCT04423718|191383283|NON_INFERIORITY|One-sided test (alpha=0.025) for non-inferiority at a 4-letter margin|Difference in LS means|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|0.66||EMA/PMDA specific hierarchy: i.e. secondary endpoint was tested after primary endpoint (HDq16-2q8). Since p-value below significance level 0.025, EMA/PMDA specific fixed sequence testing continued with secondary endpoint test (no IRF no SRF at W16)|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.66|-2.51|<0.0001
95706742|NCT04423718|191383284|SUPERIORITY|One sided test (alpha = 0.025) for superiority|Difference|11.733||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.263|18.204||Strictly hierarchical testing procedure to adjust for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|All HD - 2q8||18.204|5.263|0.0002
95706743|NCT04423718|191383285|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-1.748||||0.5704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.784|4.287||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||4.287|-7.784|0.5704
95706744|NCT04423718|191383285|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.939||||0.7611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.997|5.119||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||5.119|-6.997|0.7611
95706745|NCT04423718|191383286|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-0.182||||0.9554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.565|6.2||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||6.200|-6.565|0.9554
95706746|NCT04423718|191383286|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|-2.221||||0.4834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.435|3.994||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||3.994|-8.435|0.4834
95706747|NCT04423718|191383287|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-1.22||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|-0.51||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.51|-1.94|0.0009
95706748|NCT04423718|191383287|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.48||||0.2076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|0.27||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CNV size and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.27|-1.22|0.2076
95706749|NCT04423718|191383288|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.55||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-0.06|-1.04|0.0287
95706750|NCT04423718|191383288|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.44||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline total lesion area and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.06|-0.94|0.0870
95706751|NCT04423718|191383289|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|11.725||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.527|18.923||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq12 - 2q8||18.923|4.527|0.0015
95706752|NCT04423718|191383289|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference|7.451||||0.0458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.142|14.76||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by baseline BCVA and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was imputed by LOCF approach|HDq16 - 2q8||14.760|0.142|0.0458
95706753|NCT04423718|191383290|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-11.12||||0.0283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.06|-1.18||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||-1.18|-21.06|0.0283
95706754|NCT04423718|191383290|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-10.51||||0.0321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|-0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline CST and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||-0.90|-20.12|0.0321
95706755|NCT04423718|191383291|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.72||||0.3817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|0.9||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq12 - 2q8||0.90|-2.35|0.3817
95706756|NCT04423718|191383291|EQUIVALENCE|Two sided test (alpha = 0.05)|Difference in LS means|-0.87||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|0.8||Nominal p-value, not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for baseline NEI-VFQ-25 total score and randomization strata|Estimation mainly based on hypothetical strategy, i.e. observed data beyond intercurrent events (premature discontinuation of treatment, missing injection, prohibited medication) were censored. Missing/censored data was handled implicitly by MMRM|HDq16 - 2q8||0.80|-2.55|0.3070
95706757|NCT02623699|191383311|SUPERIORITY||least square (LS) mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|=|0.9689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|5.53||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank||ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||5.53|-3.19|= 0.9689
95706758|NCT02623699|191383312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|< 0.0001
95706759|NCT02623699|191383312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.75|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.95|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.95|0.60|=0.0002
95706760|NCT02623699|191383312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.81|||=|0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||1.02|0.65|=0.0641
95706761|NCT02623699|191383312|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.84|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.84|0.53|<0.0001
95706762|NCT02623699|191383313|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. P-value for this secondary outcome measure (OM) is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA|||The ANCOVA model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals. Difference in LS geometric mean ratio to baseline (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.78|0.49|< 0.0001
95706763|NCT02623699|191383314|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.45||The analysis was based on ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, baseline disease duration since symptom onset, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||Difference in LS geometric mean ratio (BIIB067:Placebo) was calculated.||0.45|0.25|< 0.0001
95706764|NCT02623699|191383315|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.829|=|0.3233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.528|19.322||Joint rank p-value was calculated from ANCOVA model which included treatment as fixed effect, adjusts for covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.|ANCOVA model included treatment as a fixed effect, adjusts for the covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, baseline SVC, and use of riluzole or edaravone.|Joint rank test combining function and mortality were used for statistical inference and the estimates were from the ANCOVA for change from baseline. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data for withdrawals other than death in the joint rank analysis. Multiple imputation was used to handle all missing data in the ANCOVA for change from baseline.||19.322|-3.528|= 0.3233
95706765|NCT02623699|191383316|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118|=|0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.207|0.255||ANCOVA model included treatment as fixed effect and adjusts for following covariates: Baseline disease duration since symptom onset, baseline HHD overall megascore, and use of riluzole/edaravone. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.|ANCOVA|P-value for this secondary OM is nominal as statistical significance was not met on the primary OM.||||0.255|-0.207|= 0.8390
95706766|NCT03342404|191383320|SUPERIORITY||Difference in proportions|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.4|87.0|||||The difference in proportions (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the exact unconditional test|||87.0|63.4|
95706767|NCT03342404|191383320|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|77.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|85.5|||||The common risk difference (luspatercept - placebo) and 95% CI were estimated from the CMH test stratified by baseline Hb category and baseline NTDT-PRO T/W domain score category|||85.5|68.7|
95706768|NCT03342404|191383321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.48||||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.08|||ANCOVA|||||0.08|-1.03|0.0924
95706769|NCT03342404|191383322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.67|||ANCOVA|||||1.67|1.16|< 0.0001
95706770|NCT03342404|191383323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|68.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.3|80.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||80.4|54.3|< 0.0001
95706771|NCT03342404|191383324|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.2641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|3.83|||ANCOVA|||||3.83|-1.06|0.2641
95706772|NCT03342404|191383325|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.0721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.04|||ANCOVA|||||0.04|-1.02|0.0721
95706773|NCT03342404|191383326|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.79|||ANCOVA|||||1.79|1.20|< 0.0001
95706774|NCT03342404|191383327|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.0959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|4.78|||ANCOVA|||||4.78|-0.39|0.0959
95706775|NCT03342404|191383328|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.00|-1.58|0.0510
95706776|NCT03342404|191383329|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.07||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||||-0.33|-1.80|0.0047
95706777|NCT03342404|191383330|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.0|0.8|0.1359
95706778|NCT03342404|191383331|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.3||||0.0657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.4|0.9|0.0657
95706779|NCT03342404|191383332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.0847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|2.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 24||2.96|-0.19|0.0847
95706780|NCT03342404|191383332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|3.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 PCS to Week 48||3.65|-0.15|0.0712
95706781|NCT03342404|191383332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54||||0.1633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 24||3.72|-0.63|0.1633
95706782|NCT03342404|191383332|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.7||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|5.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in SF-36 MCS to Week 48||5.36|0.04|0.0469
95706783|NCT03342404|191383333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2||||0.4787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|13.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 24||13.0|-21.4|0.4787
95706784|NCT03342404|191383333|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.6||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|2.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants with improvement of iron overload (LIC/ICT responders) at Week 48||2.4|-31.5|0.0827
95706785|NCT03342404|191383334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|27.14||||0.5949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.77|101.06|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 24||101.06|-46.77|0.5949
95706786|NCT03342404|191383334|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|13.46||||0.3454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.01|87.93|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in serum ferritin at Week 48||87.93|-61.01|0.3454
95706787|NCT03342404|191383335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.6628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 24||0.30|-0.47|0.6628
95706788|NCT03342404|191383335|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.66||||0.0859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in LIC at Week 48||1.42|-0.09|0.0859
95706789|NCT03342404|191383336|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|22.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|38.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of participants who were transfusion free over 24 weeks||38.6|5.0|0.0013
95706790|NCT03342404|191383337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|37.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|53.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants Who are Transfusion-Free Over 48 Weeks||53.0|20.9|< 0.0001
95706791|NCT03342404|191383339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|16.15||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|38.04|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 24||38.04|-5.73|0.1466
95706792|NCT03342404|191383339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|12.44||||0.2011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|31.59|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline in 6MWT distance at Week 48||31.59|-6.72|0.2011
95706793|NCT03342404|191383340|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|66.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants with an Increase From Baseline ≥1.5 g/dL in Mean Hemoglobin Values in the Absence of Transfusion||66.2|36.2|< 0.0001
95706794|NCT03342404|191383341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7||||0.1989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 13 to Week 24||3.7|0.8|0.1989
95706795|NCT03342404|191383341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.1||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Percentage of Participants With a Decrease From Baseline ≥ RD (= 1) in the Non-Transfusion Dependent β-thalassemia-Patient Reported Outcome (NTDT-PRO) Tiredness and Weakness (T/W) Domain Score Week 37 to Week 48||5.0|0.9|0.0733
95706796|NCT00605358|191383350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.93|||Chi-squared|||Participants in the Open Door Intervention and the Services Referral condition were compared on rates of engagement in mental health services over the study follow-up period.||4.93|1.17|.018
95706797|NCT00471276|191383364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|16.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||16.6|3.5|
95706798|NCT00471276|191383365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percent)|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.6|||Exact 2-sided confidence interval|||||19.6|5.1|
95706799|NCT01836029|191383405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.266|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.266
95706800|NCT01836029|191383407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.399|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.22||The 1-sided p-value based on a log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factors.|Log Rank|||||1.22||0.399
95706801|NCT01836029|191383408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.536||||||p-values are from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests controlling for randomization stratification factors and comparing tumor response rates between the treatment groups.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.536
95727730|NCT01271933|191424963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.4135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|5.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Percent Overall Work Impairment||5.4|-2.2|0.4135
95706802|NCT02044367|191383416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.773|149.25|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.250|125.773|
95706803|NCT02044367|191383416|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|130.43|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|119.628|142.2|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||142.200|119.628|
95706804|NCT02044367|191383417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|146.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.217|161.576|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||161.576|132.217|
95706805|NCT02044367|191383417|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|141.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|31.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|127.644|155.876|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||155.876|127.644|
95706806|NCT02044367|191383418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|137.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.418|149.797|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||149.797|126.418|
95706807|NCT02044367|191383418|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|132.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|120.714|144.342|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||144.342|120.714|
95706808|NCT02044367|191383419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T1/R (%)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|133.384|163.779|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||163.779|133.384|
95706809|NCT02044367|191383419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size determination was not based on a power calculation, but to assure a precise estimation of the relative bioavailability. For this 3-way crossover trial, a precision (defined by ratio of upper CI limit to adjusted GMR) of at most 1.17 had been considered necessary and sufficient by the project team.|gMean Ratio T2/R (%)|144.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|130.853|160.242|||||The standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV).|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale was used including effects for 'sequence', 'period' and 'treatment' as fixed effects and 'subjects within sequences' as random effect. CIs were calculated based on the residual error from ANOVA.||160.242|130.853|
95706810|NCT04157751|191383461|OTHER||Stratified Win Ratio|1.36||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.68||p-value for WR\<=1.0 (one-sided), variance calculated using the asymptotic normal U statistics approach.|Asymptotic normal U statistics approach||WR estimate= \[((a)+(c)+(e)+(g)) / ((b)+(d)+(f)+(h))\]|"Stratified win ratio (WR) was used, calculated as total number of wins in the empa group across all strata divided by total number of losses. Weights were applied analogous to a Mantel-Haenszel approach.~1. death in pbo first;~2. death in empa first;~3. HFEs in pbo more frequently;~4. HFEs in empa more frequently;~5. HFEs in pbo first;~6. HFEs in empa first;~7. KCCQ-TSS change lower in pbo;~8. KCCQ-TSS change lower in empa"||1.68|1.09|0.0027
95706811|NCT04157751|191383462|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.522|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.386||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|2.501||p-value for OR=1.0 (two-sided).|Regression, Logistic|Wald Confidence interval.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|Logistic regression including terms for baseline KCCQ-TSS, treatment and heart failure status||2.501|0.927|0.0970
95706812|NCT04157751|191383463|OTHER||Difference of adjusted mean|4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|8.59||p-value for difference = 0 (two-sided)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Restricted maximum likelihood estimation based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis to obtain adjusted means for the treatment effects. This model included discrete fixed effects for treatment group, and heart failure status at each visit and continuous fixed effects for baseline value at each visit. Missing data caused by patient withdrawal or other reasons were handled implicitly by the MMRM approach. Unstructured covariance structure was used.||8.59|0.32|0.0347
95706813|NCT04157751|191383464|OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio|0.9||||0.0176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with a discrete fixed effect for heart failure status and a continuous fixed effect for baseline NT-proBNP level.|Comparison vs. Placebo|Area under the curve (AUC) of change from baseline in log-transformed NT-proBNP level over 30 days of treatment was analysed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). NT-proBNP level is regarded as log-normally distributed, therefore values were log-transformed prior to analysis. The linear trapezoidal rule was used to calculate the AUC after the log-transformation had been applied to each value.||0.98|0.82|0.0176
95706814|NCT04157751|191383467|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.1||p-value for HR=1.0 (two sided)|Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard model with terms for heart failure status and treatment.|Comparison vs. Placebo.|||1.10|0.46|0.1241
95706815|NCT01810380|191383498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|0.1||For all efficacy analyses the primary comparison is the difference between brexpiprazole 2 to 4 mg/day and placebo at Week 6.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pooled site, visit, treatment as fixed effects, baseline score as continuous covariate, treatment-by-visit and baseline score-by-visit as interactions||The overall significance level was 0.05. The primary and the key secondary endpoints were tested hierarchically. Only if the primary endpoint was statistically significant would confirmatory testing continue with the key secondary endpoint.||0.1|-8.2|0.0560
95706816|NCT01810380|191383498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.9|-12.2|0.0002
95706817|NCT00118404|191383553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|2.34|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.038, df = 1, p \<=.42|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|The sample size was based on a predicted 30% difference in relapse/recurrence rates between C-CT and fluoxetine (ie,30% vs 60%) across both the experimental phase and the first 12 months of follow-up. With these assumptions, 180 randomized patients (60 per cell) were required to detect a statistically significant difference using a log-rank test with 1-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power.||2.34|0.50|.42
95706818|NCT00118404|191383553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.01|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.92, df = 1|Hazard Ratio for relapse in fluoxetine group compared to that in the pill placebo group.|||1.01|.23|.02
95706819|NCT00118404|191383553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.06|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 3.391, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in C-CT group compared to that in the placebo group.|||1.06|0.26|.03
95706820|NCT00118404|191383553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.93|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 5.06, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse in active treatment group (fluoxetine or C-CT) compared to that in the placebo group.|||0.93|0.27|.01
95706821|NCT00118404|191383554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.988|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.76|||Log Rank|log-rank chi-square = 0.002, df = 1|Hazard ratio for relapse/recurrence in the C-CT group compared to that in the fluoxetine group.|||1.76|0.55|.48
95706822|NCT00118404|191383554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.31|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.19, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the Fluoxetine arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.31|.39|.14
95706823|NCT00118404|191383554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.262, df = 1|Hazard ratio of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm over the 20 months of follow-up since randomization compared to the pill placebo arm.|||1.29|.40|.13
95706824|NCT00118404|191383554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.2|||Log Rank|Chi-square = 1.595, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO (placebo)arm.|||1.20|.43|.10
95706825|NCT00118404|191383555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.84|||Log Rank|chi-square = .07, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence for C-CT arm compared to FLX arm was reported.|||1.84|.63|.40
95706826|NCT00118404|191383555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.13|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.407, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the FLX arm compared tp C-CT arm was reported.|||1.13|.37|.61
95706827|NCT00118404|191383555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.19|||Log Rank|chi-square = 1.731, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the C-CT arm compared to PBO arm is reported.|||1.19|.41|.09
95706828|NCT00118404|191383555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.676|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.08|||Log Rank|chi-square = 2.705, df = 1|Hazard of relapse/recurrence in the active treatment (FLX or C-CT) arm compared to PBO arm was reported.|||1.08|.42|.05
95706829|NCT00441012|191383559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|100.0||||||95.0|98.7|100.0|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||100.0|98.7|
95706830|NCT00441012|191383559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|99.1||||||95.0|69.9|99.9|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|The purpose of the primary analysis is to demonstrate that there is an adequate seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-HBs \>=10mIU/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose. An adequate response requires the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the seroprotection rate to exceed 90%.||99.9|69.9|
95706831|NCT00441012|191383560|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The Modified Process Vaccine is non-inferior to COMVAX with respect to anti-HBs GMT. The non-inferiority criterion requires that the lower bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the ratio of the Month 11 GMTs \[GMT modified process vaccine/GMT COMVAX™\] is \>0.67.|Geometric Mean Titer Ratio|2.5||||||95.0|1.9|3.3||||||||3.3|1.9|
95706832|NCT00441012|191383562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|93.9||||||95.0|90.0|96.6|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|||96.6|90.0|
95706833|NCT00441012|191383562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of Seroprotected Participants|92.1||||||95.0|87.8|95.3|||||Exact binomial confidence interval|No hypothesis is being tested. The purpose of the secondary analysis is to estimate the seroprotection rate (percentage of participants with anti-PRP \> 1µg/mL) in each group at 1 month after the third dose.||95.3|87.8|
95706834|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.19|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining analysis, day 28.||-0.19|-0.91|0.003
95706835|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.28|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.28|-1.28|0.19
95706836|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.02|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.02|-1.86|0.047
95706837|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|0.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.10|-1.49|0.08
95706838|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Corneal staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.67|0.09
95706839|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining analysis, day 28||-0.30|-1.05|< 0.001
95706840|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 18-59 year old subgroup.||0.61|-1.04|0.58
95706841|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|-0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, 60+ year old subgroup.||-0.21|-2.17|0.021
95706842|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, Sjogren's subgroup.||0.34|-1.88|0.16
95706843|NCT04498468|191383577|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||Conjunctival staining sub-group analysis, day 28, non-Sjogren's subgroup.||0.14|-1.55|0.097
95706844|NCT04498468|191383578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.5||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Eye dryness, day 28||0.4|-11.4|0.069
95706845|NCT04498468|191383578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|6.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS Eye discomfort, Day 28||6.3|-7.0|0.92
95706846|NCT04498468|191383578|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||VAS eye fatigue, day 28||3.1|-5.8|0.55
95706847|NCT04498468|191383579|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.26||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.0|||McNemar|||||2.0|0.8|0.42
95706848|NCT04498468|191383580|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.42|||McNemar|||||1.42|0.76|1.00
95706849|NCT02725268|191383582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.12||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.12|0.58|=0.178
95706850|NCT02725268|191383582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.85|||=|0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.86||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.86|1.19|=0.092
95706851|NCT02725268|191383582|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.57|||=|0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||4.49|1.47|=0.147
95706852|NCT02725268|191383584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||=|0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.5||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.50|0.72|=0.968
95706853|NCT02725268|191383584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5|||=|0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.37||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.37|0.95|=0.145
95706854|NCT02725268|191383584|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||=|0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.73||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.73|0.87|=0.243
95918137|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|25.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||25.6|-25.6|
95706855|NCT02725268|191383585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||1.11|0.57|=0.170
95706856|NCT02725268|191383585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.67|||=|0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.68||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||2.68|1.04|=0.224
95706857|NCT02725268|191383585|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.28|||=|0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.96||The p-value was obtained using stratified log-rank test with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|Stratified Log-rank Test||The hazard ratio was obtained using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy. A hazard ratio of \<1 was considered statistically significant.|||3.96|1.32|=0.244
95706858|NCT02725268|191383586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.9|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||2.90|0.66|
95706859|NCT02725268|191383586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.14|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.14|0.04|
95706860|NCT02725268|191383586|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.00|0.00|
95706861|NCT02725268|191383587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|5.96|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||5.96|1.53|
95706862|NCT02725268|191383587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.86|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.86|0.18|
95706863|NCT02725268|191383587|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.21|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||1.21|0.15|
95706864|NCT02725268|191383588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|7.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||7.67|0.89|
95706865|NCT02725268|191383588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.51|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.51|0.05|
95706866|NCT02725268|191383588|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.67|||||The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a stratified CMH model with histological subtype, lines of prior chemotherapy and prior taxane therapy (original stratification values).|||0.67|0.01|
95706867|NCT02092324|191383621|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference.||||||0.002||||||p-value for Protocol-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.002
95706868|NCT02092324|191383621|SUPERIORITY|1-proportion test for greater than 10% difference||||||0.9||||||p-value is for IWG-defined objective response|binomial|||Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate (based on Simon's 2-stage).||||0.90
95706869|NCT02092324|191383624|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.|||||<|0.0001||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response. p-value for IWG-defined objective response is 0.70|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
95706870|NCT02092324|191383624|SUPERIORITY|Proportion estimated using Clopper-Pearson method. P-value is one-sided proportion test for greater than 10% response rate.||||||0.7||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response|Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.70
95706871|NCT02092324|191383634|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic)||||||0.003||||||p-value for protocol-defined objective response.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for protocol-defined objective response||||0.003
95706872|NCT02092324|191383634|EQUIVALENCE|2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square)||||||0.1||||||p-value for IWG-defined objective response = 0.1|Fisher Exact|||2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction (Pearson's chi-square test statistic) comparing Wildtype and Mutant CSF3R status for IWG-defined objective response||||0.1
95706873|NCT00117572|191383643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.41|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|Comparison of overall survival curves||1.41|0.59|0.68
95706874|NCT00117572|191383644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.25|0.55|0.37
95706875|NCT00117572|191383645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.12|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio is (Induction+CRT)/CRT|||1.12|0.51|0.16
95706876|NCT00117572|191383646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.57
95706877|NCT00117572|191383647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.11
95706878|NCT00117572|191383648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Comparison of change scores between treatment groups||||||0.55
95706879|NCT00117572|191383649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.034
95706880|NCT00117572|191383650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95706881|NCT00117572|191383651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.96
95706882|NCT00117572|191383652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.88
95706883|NCT00117572|191383653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.83
95706884|NCT00117572|191383654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95706885|NCT00117572|191383655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.090
95706886|NCT00499460|191383666|SUPERIORITY|The primary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment increases metabolic clearance of oxycodone through enzyme induction and results in lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is oxycodone oral clearance. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
95706887|NCT00499460|191383667|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that powder garlic treatment lowers Cold Pressor Test tolerance (i.e., diminished analgesic response) after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is log Tolerance AUC. Explanatory variables include treatment, period and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
95706888|NCT00499460|191383668|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total SSE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
95706889|NCT00499460|191383669|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment lowers opioid side effects after oxycodone administration due to a more rapid metabolic clearance and lower exposure to oxycodone.|||||>|0.05||||||Significance probability for the treatment variable in the Generalized Linear Model|Generalized Estimating Equations|Response variable is total CASE rating score. Explanatory variables include treatment, period, time and gender, along with their interaction terms.||||||>0.05
95706890|NCT00499460|191383670|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder induces CYP3A-mediated metabolism resulting in a lower oral midazolam AUC.||||>0.05
95706891|NCT00499460|191383671|SUPERIORITY|The secondary hypothesis being tested is that garlic powder treatment induces intestinal P-glycoprotein, reduces the bioavailability and hence AUC of orally administered digoxin.|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Garlic powder versus placebo||||||>0.05
95706892|NCT00997555|191383683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6
95706893|NCT00997555|191383684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0||||(bronchoscopy 5.1 days, 95% CI +/- 3.6 days versus control 6.7 days, 95% CI +/- 6.3 days, p = 0.7).|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7
95706894|NCT00997555|191383685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 10 days, 95% CI +/- 10 days versus control 18 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.4).||||||0.4
95706895|NCT00997555|191383686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|(bronchoscopy 21 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days versus control 26 days, 95% CI +/- 12 days, p = 0.5).||||||0.5
95706896|NCT00654368|191383700|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI), defined below, exceeded the noninferiority margin of -0.6, then noninferiority was to be concluded.|Mean Difference|-0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.06|||||The 95% CI was calculated using the mean square error from an analysis of variance (ANOVA) fitted with effects for treatment and covariates of duration of disease, type of reimbursement, and 6 month DAS28.|||-0.06|-0.75|
95706897|NCT00804986|191383713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.47||||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.11||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.11|-0.83|0.0109
95706898|NCT00804986|191383713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.67||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.31||p-value represents change from baseline to week 12 HbA1c for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.31|-1.02|0.0003
95706899|NCT00804986|191383713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|-0.76||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.76|-1.46|<0.0001
95706900|NCT00804986|191383713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.93||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.93|-1.64|<0.0001
95706901|NCT00804986|191383713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|-0.88||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 HbA1c for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo with values \<0.05 considered to be statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline HbA1c, metformin use, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||-0.88|-1.59|<0.0001
95706902|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|1.93||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.655
95706903|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.36||||0.436||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.436
95706904|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.45||||0.914||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.914
95706905|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|3.3||||0.446||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.446
95706906|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.84||||0.508||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for hunger, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.508
95706907|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|2.89||||0.561||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.561
95706908|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7.4||||0.135||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.135
95706909|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.45||||0.357||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.357
95706910|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-8.05||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.105
95706911|NCT00804986|191383714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.02||||0.221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for how full, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.221
95706912|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-4.54||||0.4848||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4848
95706913|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-19.48||||0.0029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0029
95706914|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-32.52|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706915|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-30.45|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706916|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.25|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706917|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5.32||||0.6279||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6279
95706918|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.72||||0.0072||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0072
95706919|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-42.49|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706920|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.05||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
95706921|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-51.38|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post breakfast glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706922|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-20.21||||0.0335||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0335
95706923|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.91||||0.0221||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0221
95706924|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-39.41|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95918138|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.6|27.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||27.6|-22.6|
95706925|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-36.07||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
95706926|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.36|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706927|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6.41||||0.503||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.5030
95706928|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-12.49||||0.1938||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.1938
95706929|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-33.13||||0.0003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0003
95706930|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.66||||0.0101||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0101
95706931|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-43.47|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post lunch glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706932|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.69||||0.006||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0060
95706933|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-34.26||||0.0002||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0002
95706934|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.55|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706935|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.34|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706936|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-46.26|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706937|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-11.84||||0.2468||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.2468
95706938|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-21.13||||0.0413||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, visit, treatment and visit by treatment interaction as fixed effects||||||0.0413
95706939|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.19||||0.0004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0004
95706940|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-29.59||||0.004||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0040
95706941|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-49.9|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for 2 hours post dinner glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706942|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-24.02||||0.0199||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0199
95706943|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-35.77||||0.0008||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0008
95706944|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-38.17||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
95727731|NCT01271933|191424974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.9|-0.1|0.1224
95706945|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-40.74||||0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0001
95706946|NCT00804986|191383717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-53.16|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for prior to bed glucose, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706947|NCT00804986|191383718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1131.85||||0.4193||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4193
95706948|NCT00804986|191383718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1471.04||||0.3026||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.3026
95706949|NCT00804986|191383718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-5547.95|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706950|NCT00804986|191383718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-6116.19|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706951|NCT00804986|191383718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-7786.69|||<|0.0001||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 total glucose AUC for 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||<0.0001
95706952|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.08||||0.693||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.693
95706953|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.31||||0.104||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.104
95706954|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.13||||0.506||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.506
95706955|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.648||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.648
95706956|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.09||||0.647||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting triglycerides, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.647
95706957|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.781||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.781
95706958|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.401||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.401
95706959|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.03||||0.464||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.464
95706960|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.42||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.420
95706961|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|0.01||||0.762||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting HDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.762
95706962|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.738||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.738
95706963|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.14||||0.277||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.277
95706964|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.094||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.094
95706965|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.792||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.792
95706966|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.21||||0.105||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting LDL, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.105
95706967|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.403||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.403
95706968|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.04||||0.799||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.799
95706969|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.32||||0.029||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.029
95706970|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.12||||0.439||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.439
95706971|NCT00804986|191383721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.27||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting total cholesterol, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|ANCOVA|ANCOVA: baseline and treatment||||||0.062
95706972|NCT00804986|191383722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.16||||0.8003||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 0.5 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.8003
95706973|NCT00804986|191383722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.26||||0.6736||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 2.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.6736
95706974|NCT00804986|191383722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-1.53||||0.0123||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 6.2 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0123
95706975|NCT00804986|191383722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-0.44||||0.4771||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 12.0 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.4771
95706976|NCT00804986|191383722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in mean change from baseline|-2.01||||0.0013||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline to Week 12 for fasting weight, 17.6 mg treatment arm in comparison to placebo|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model: baseline, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction||||||0.0013
95706977|NCT04228445|191383728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.394|26.662|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||26.662|7.394|<0.0001
95706978|NCT04228445|191383728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.772|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.625|32.617|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||32.617|8.625|<0.0001
95706979|NCT04228445|191383729|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.6|96.9|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.9|78.6|
95706980|NCT04228445|191383729|OTHER||Percentage of Responders|87.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.7|96.8|||||Missing data imputed as non-responder|||96.8|77.7|
95706981|NCT04228445|191383730|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|89.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|95.6||||||||95.6|78.2|
95706982|NCT04228445|191383730|OTHER||percentage of satisfaction|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.5|89.6||||||||89.6|67.5|
95706983|NCT04228445|191383731|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.25|7.0||||||||7.00|5.25|
95706984|NCT04228445|191383731|OTHER||median time to visualization (minutes)|5.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.12|7.0||||||||7.00|5.12|
95706985|NCT04228445|191383732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.738|43.663|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||43.663|8.738|<0.0001
95706986|NCT04228445|191383732|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.199|34.369|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||34.369|7.199|<0.0001
95706987|NCT04228445|191383733|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|91.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
95706988|NCT04228445|191383733|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|88.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
95706989|NCT04228445|191383733|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|76.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Left Ureter||||
95706990|NCT04228445|191383733|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|95.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
95706991|NCT04228445|191383733|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
95706992|NCT04228445|191383733|OTHER||Percentage of Agreement|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Right Ureter||||
95706993|NCT04228445|191383734|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.771||||0.4595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.388|1.534|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||1.534|.388|0.4595
95706994|NCT04228445|191383735|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.509|2.11|||Score statistics for Type 3 GEE analysis|||||2.110|.509|0.9220
95706995|NCT00814307|191383736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.12|48.95||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||48.95|29.12|<0.0001
95706996|NCT00814307|191383736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.04|43.13||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. In order for the comparison to 5 mg to be statistically significant, the comparison to 10 mg had to be statistically significant.|Normal approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690,550 to placebo.||43.13|23.04|<0.0001
95706997|NCT00814307|191383737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.27||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.27|-0.50|<.0001
95706998|NCT00814307|191383737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.2||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in ACR20 had to be statistically significant.|Linear mixed effect model|||p-value was calculated using linear mixed effect model. The fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction were included, along with participant as random effect.||-0.20|-0.43|<0.0001
95706999|NCT00814307|191383738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.24||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|10.96||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 10 mg to placebo to be statistically significant in this measure, comparison of 10 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||10.96|-0.49|0.0728
95707000|NCT00814307|191383738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.31||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|6.46||A step-down procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. For comparison of 5 mg to placebo to be statistically significant, comparison of 10 mg to placebo and comparison of 5 mg to placebo in HAQ-DI had to be statistically significant.|Normal Approximation|||Normal approximation for the difference in binomial proportions was used to test the superiority of each dose of CP-690550 to placebo.||6.46|-3.85|0.6193
95707001|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.111|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7186|0.4965|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.4965|-2.7186|
95707002|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5177|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.904|0.8685|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8685|-1.9040|
95707003|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5332|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.914|0.8475|||||Week 1. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8475|-1.9140|
95707004|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8848|0.6075|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6075|-2.8848|
95707005|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8905|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3962|0.6153|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6153|-2.3962|
95707006|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3045|0.6951|||||Week 2. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6951|-2.3045|
95707007|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4575|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6013|0.6863|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6863|-3.6013|
95707008|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8894|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7381|0.9593|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.9593|-2.7381|
95707009|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1615|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0028|0.6799|||||Week 4. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.6799|-3.0028|
95707010|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3209|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3021|1.6603|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.6603|-2.3021|
95707011|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1876|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.896|1.5209|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5209|-1.8960|
95707012|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4593|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.161|1.2424|||||Week 6. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.2424|-2.1610|
95707013|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6521|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1342|1.83|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.8300|-3.1342|
95707014|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5499|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6903|1.5904|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.5904|-2.6903|
95707015|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9665|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0984|1.1654|||||Week 8. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1654|-3.0984|
95707016|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3576|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0892|2.374|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.3740|-3.0892|
95707017|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1851|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1704|2.5407|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.5407|-2.1704|
95707018|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1181|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4643|2.2281|||||Week 12. The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.2281|-2.4643|
95707019|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4276|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6569|0.8018|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||0.8018|-3.6569|
95707020|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5415|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.381|2.4639|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||2.4639|-1.3810|
95707021|NCT03028467|191383795|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7932|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.708|1.1217|||||Week 22 (Follow up). The analysis method was mixed-model for repeated measures with Visit,Treatment group,Visit by Treatment interaction,Baseline DAS28(CRP),and Visit by Baseline DAS28(CRP) interaction as fixed effects.|||1.1217|-2.7080|
95918139|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|31.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||31.7|-18.7|
95707022|NCT01256918|191383797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||incidence|0.0|||>|0.05|||||||incidence|||"Any occurence of posterior capsular rupture in attempted vertical chop would have been an indicator of overzealous penetration as the vertical chop even though effective would not have been safe.~We hypothesised that use of callibrated phacotip after careful preoperative assessment for performing vertical chop during phacoemulsification is not associated with any posterior capsular rupture we noted any incidence of posterior capsular rupture."||||>0.05
95707023|NCT01256918|191383798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.850958|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis : there is no correlation between nuclear colour and phacodepth required for a full thickness crack during a vertical chop||||<0.05
95707024|NCT01256918|191383799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.842617|||<|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||"Null hypothesis:~there is no correlation between nuclear opalescence and phacodepth required to achieve full thickness nuclear crack using a callibrated phacotip."||||<0.05
95707025|NCT01256918|191383800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||pearson correlation coefficient|0.111166|||>|0.05|||||||pearson correlation coefficient|||null hypothesis there is no correlation between lens thickness and penetration of phacotip (phacodepth)required to achieve full thickness crack in vertical chop during phacoemulsification||||>0.05
95707026|NCT01387594|191383802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric Mean Ratio (GMR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.13|1.56||A p-value was not computed; hypothesis was tested using confidence interval (CI) approach.|||The lower limit of 80% CI greater than 0.5 indicates the statistical significance at alpha=0.1 level.|The null hypothesis is the (median) percent decrease in total lymphocytes count is greater or equal to 50%, equivalently indicating that the geometric mean ratio (GMR: post-treatment/pretreatment) in total lymphocyte counts is less than or equal to 0.5.||1.56|1.13|
95707027|NCT00460525|191383812|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.17||||0.175||95.0|-0.09|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Regression, Cox|No adjustments were made.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Cox model fit.|Time to first clinical malaria episode with significant parasitemia (2500/mm\^3) and temperature of greater than or equal to 37.5 degrees C was analyzed by fitting a Cox Proportional Hazards model. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested by the stratified log-rank test (score test). The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.09|0.175
95707028|NCT00460525|191383814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy, VE=1-RR=1-exp(ß)|0.2||||0.068||95.0|-0.02|0.37||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|Vaccine efficacy (VE) was defined as one minus the relative risk (RR), which was estimated by exponentiating the treatment parameter (ß) from the Poisson model fit.|Incidence density, defined as number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR, was compared using Poisson regression. The null hypothesis of no vaccine efficacy was tested. The point and interval estimates for vaccine efficacy were obtained by transforming those for treatment effect in the model.||0.37|-0.02|0.068
95707029|NCT03073200|191383824|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|76.4|||Fisher Exact|||||76.4|51.0|<0.001
95707030|NCT03073200|191383825|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|70.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.3|81.0|||Fisher Exact|||||81|59.3|<0.001
95707031|NCT03073200|191383826|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|82.5|||Fisher Exact|||||82.5|63.3|<0.001
95707032|NCT03073200|191383827|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.6|60.2|||Fisher Exact|||||60.2|40.6|<0.001
95707033|NCT03073200|191383828|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|57.6|||Fisher Exact|||||57.6|38.0|<0.001
95707034|NCT03073200|191383829|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.2|56.8|||Fisher Exact|||||56.8|33.2|<0.001
95707035|NCT03073200|191383830|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.0|||Fisher Exact|||||52.0|29.3|<0.001
95918140|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|16.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|41.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||41.4|-9.5|
95707036|NCT03073200|191383831|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.3|66.9|||Fisher Exact|||||66.9|35.3|<0.001
95707037|NCT03073200|191383832|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|55.2|||Fisher Exact|||||55.2|27.0|<0.001
95707038|NCT03073200|191383833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.747||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.7|-5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.38|-28.70|0.005
95707039|NCT03073200|191383834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.69|-12.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.04|-18.69|<0.001
95707040|NCT03073200|191383835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.853||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.11|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.90|-20.11|0.006
95707041|NCT03073200|191383838|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.9||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|41.7|||Fisher Exact|||||41.7|0.1|0.089
95707042|NCT03073200|191383839|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.0||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|45.4|||Fisher Exact|||||45.4|0.6|0.070
95707043|NCT04757376|191383840|EQUIVALENCE|Statistical equivalence: the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the mean of the primary efficacy endpoint between treatment groups was entirely within an equivalence margin, \[- 1.45, + 1.45\].|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|0.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA included the treatment as a fixed effect and age, baseline LS-BMD T-score, and prior bisphosphonates therapy (Yes versus No) as covariates.||||0.38|-0.76|
95707044|NCT04964557|191383880|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-62.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-56.6|||ANCOVA|||||-56.6|-68|<0.001
95707045|NCT04964557|191383881|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-76.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.7|-71.7|||ANCOVA|||||-71.7|-81.7|<0.001
95918141|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|35.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||35.8|-14.9|
95918142|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|90.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||90.6|-31.9|
95707046|NCT03782376|191383901|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|11.5||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|24.5||Threshold for significance was 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel Haenszel-chi-square test|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||24.5|-1.5|0.089
95707047|NCT03782376|191383902|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|5.9||||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|17.8|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||17.8|-6.0|0.338
95707048|NCT03782376|191383903|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|7.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|20.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||20.2|-6.0|0.300
95707049|NCT03782376|191383904|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.4||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|18.6|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||18.6|-5.8|0.314
95707050|NCT03782376|191383905|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|18.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|30.2|||CMH chi-square test (2-sided)|||The fixed sequence testing method was used. CMH chi-square test (2-sided) stratified by baseline CDAI score (\<= 300 or \> 300), and prior biologic failure status at baseline (yes or no).||30.2|6.8|0.004
95707051|NCT03559192|191383945|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|=|0.0443|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09||= 0.0443
95707052|NCT03559192|191383946|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.0017|ONE_SIDED|80.0||-2.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.21||0.0017
95707053|NCT03559192|191383948|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|=|0.4188|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.41||= 0.4188
95707054|NCT03559192|191383949|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73||0.2503|ONE_SIDED|80.0||0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.10||0.2503
95707055|NCT01673373|191383976|OTHER|Due to the early termination of enrollment, all inferential analyses were interpreted as descriptive and carried out in an exploratory manner.|||||<|0.0001||||||The p-value was computed using a one-sided exact test of the difference between the observed rate and the Performance Goal (equal to 70%). The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|one-sided exact|||The original Performance Goal of 70% patency rate was derived from a thorough literature review of trials with renal bare metal stent placement. Other assumptions included a determination of samples size based upon a one-sided alpha of 0.025 and desired power of 87%, and assumption of 10% attrition. The null hypothesis was that the incidence of primary patency at 9 months is less than or equal to 70%.|"The cumulative incidence of primary patency was computed as the number of subject-lesions with primary patency at 9 months divided by the number of subject-lesions and was analyzed using the allowable window of 243 to 303 trial days.~An exact binomial one-sided 95% CI was constructed and the lower limit compared to the Performance Goal equal to 70%."|||<.0001
95707056|NCT01673373|191383977|OTHER|A one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the mean difference between baseline and 9-month systolic blood pressure was constructed and the lower limit compared to the 10 mmHg performance goal. A p-value of the difference between the estimated systolic blood pressure change from the baseline and the performance goal was computed using a paired t-test.||||||0.0192||||||The defined threshold for statistical significance is .025.|t-test, 1 sided|||The primary endpoint of systolic blood pressure was analyzed according to the Performance Goal of a decrease in systolic blood pressure of 10 mmHg between procedure and 9 months.||||.0192
95707057|NCT01320033|191384002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.1|||ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-6.1|0.006
95707058|NCT01320033|191384002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-5.4|0.024
95707059|NCT01320033|191384002|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|1.8|||ANCOVA|||||1.8|-3.2|0.595
95707060|NCT01654224|191384009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.005||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
95707061|NCT01654224|191384009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.001||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95707062|NCT01654224|191384009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.004||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.004
95707063|NCT01654224|191384009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.672||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.672
95707064|NCT01654224|191384009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.011||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.011
95707065|NCT01654224|191384009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.01||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.010
95707066|NCT01654224|191384010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.074||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.074
95918143|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.4|47.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||47.8|-62.4|
95707067|NCT01654224|191384010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.006||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.006
95707068|NCT01654224|191384010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.069||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.069
95707069|NCT01654224|191384010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.663||||||A/California/07/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.663
95707070|NCT01654224|191384010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.003||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.003
95707071|NCT01654224|191384010|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.063||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.063
95707072|NCT01654224|191384011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.917||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.917
95707073|NCT01654224|191384011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.36||||||A/Victoria/210/2009(H3N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.360
95707074|NCT01654224|191384011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.248||||||B/Brisbane/60/2008|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.248
95707075|NCT01654224|191384011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.178||||||A/California/07/2009(H1N1)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.178
95707076|NCT01654224|191384011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.152||||||A/Victoria/361/2011(H1N2)|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.152
95707077|NCT01654224|191384011|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|An upper bound \>0.67 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of postvaccination GMTHD to GMTSD indicated noninferiority. A lower bound of ≥1.0 of the 2-sided 95% CI of the ratio of GMTHD to GMTSD indicated superiority.||||||0.285||||||B/Texas/6/2011|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.285
95707078|NCT00166504|191384012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|<|0.001||95.0|-14.3|-5.7|||ANOVA||Direction of the Comparison: Vytorin minus Atorvastatin.|||-5.7|-14.3|<0.001
95707079|NCT02145429|191384013|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.32||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.10|0.04
95707080|NCT02145429|191384014|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.03|-0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.31|-2.03|<0.001
95707081|NCT02145429|191384015|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.62|-1.89|0.26
95707082|NCT02200510|191384016|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.575
95707083|NCT02200510|191384016|EQUIVALENCE|Because this was a pilot study, the goal was to detect effects sizes for a larger R01 or R21.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138||||0.721|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.721
95707084|NCT03057106|191384017|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.16||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at rtandomization.|Log Rank|||||1.16|0.67|0.46
95707085|NCT03057106|191384018|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.88||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Log Rank|Adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.||||0.88|0.52|0.0035
95707086|NCT03057106|191384019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.76||2-sided, adjusted for stratification factors at randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.76|1.04|0.033
95707087|NCT02943577|191384020|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.2398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.68|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.68|-2.70|0.2398
95707088|NCT02943577|191384021|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4||||0.5522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|1.77|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.77|-0.95|0.5522
95707089|NCT02943577|191384022|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0||||0.9901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.01|1.99|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||1.99|-2.01|0.9901
95707090|NCT02943577|191384023|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.5563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||2.17|-1.17|0.5563
95707091|NCT01874353|191384072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.22|<0.0001
95707092|NCT01874353|191384072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.19||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.19|0.17|
95727732|NCT01271933|191424975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06||0.768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.9||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||6.9|-9.3|0.7680
95707093|NCT01874353|191384073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.0||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.00|0.54|0.0537
95707094|NCT01874353|191384073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.49||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||2.49|0.38|
95707095|NCT01874353|191384074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
95707096|NCT01874353|191384074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.03||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \<1 favours olaparib|||1.03|0.18|
95707097|NCT01874353|191384075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.72||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.72|0.34|0.0002
95707098|NCT01874353|191384075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.97||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||3.97|0.22|
95707099|NCT01874353|191384076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.9765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.191|2.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects for treatment, visit and baseline TOI with the treatment by visit and baseline TOI by visit interaction. Random patient effect.||||2.126|-2.191|0.9765
95707100|NCT01874353|191384077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.48||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.48|0.28|<0.0001
95707101|NCT01874353|191384077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.08||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.08|0.21|
95707102|NCT01874353|191384078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.68||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.68|0.39|<0.0001
95707103|NCT01874353|191384078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.85||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model included treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||1.85|0.37|
95707104|NCT01874353|191384079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.49||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.49|0.28|<0.0001
95707105|NCT01874353|191384079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.04||Not applicable, due to small sample size. China cohort designed to provide descriptive analysis only.|Regression, Cox|Model includes a treatment factor only|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours the Olaparib arm|||1.04|0.20|
95707106|NCT01874353|191384080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.4||Determined using a log-rank test stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy prior to enrolment|Regression, Cox|Model includes factors for response to previous platinum chemotherapy and time to disease progression in the penultimate platinum based chemotherapy|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours olaparib|||0.40|0.22|<0.0001
95707107|NCT03728881|191384083|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.44|0.57|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.57|0.44|
95727733|NCT01271933|191424976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||0.6|-4.5|0.1360
95918144|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|14.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|57.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at EW has been presented.|||57.9|-32.2|
95707108|NCT03728881|191384085|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|Ratio of the GMCs|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.95|1.29|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.95|
95707109|NCT03728881|191384087|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.5|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.50|0.36|
95707110|NCT03728881|191384089|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.75|1.08|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.08|0.75|
95707111|NCT03728881|191384090|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
95707112|NCT03728881|191384091|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.006
95707113|NCT03728881|191384092|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
95707114|NCT03728881|191384093|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.48
95707115|NCT03728881|191384099|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.42|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.56|0.42|
95707116|NCT03728881|191384100|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95707117|NCT03728881|191384102|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.93|1.27||||||||1.27|0.93|
95707118|NCT03728881|191384103|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.0006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0006
95707119|NCT03728881|191384105|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.35|0.49|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.49|0.35|
95707120|NCT03728881|191384106|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
95707121|NCT03728881|191384108|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.71|1.04|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.04|0.71|
95707122|NCT03728881|191384109|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.478|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.478
95707123|NCT03728881|191384111|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.58|1.12|
95707124|NCT03728881|191384114|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.54|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.54|1.09|
95707125|NCT03728881|191384117|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.81|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.81|1.20|
95707126|NCT03728881|191384118|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=1.0
95707127|NCT03728881|191384120|NON_INFERIORITY|We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18.|GMC Ratio|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|1.75|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||1.75|1.15|
95707128|NCT03728881|191384121|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose 9-10 year old girls and one-dose 11-14 year old girls. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.368|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.368
95707129|NCT03728881|191384123|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.38|0.56|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.56|0.38|
95707130|NCT03728881|191384123|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.48|0.7|||||Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate R and construct confidence intervals.|||0.70|0.48|
95707131|NCT03728881|191384123|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.079||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.079
95707132|NCT03728881|191384124|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|1|||||||Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.0000
95707133|NCT03728881|191384126|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.82|1.25||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.25|0.82|
95707134|NCT03728881|191384126|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|1.01|1.54||||||The cohort for the analysis of HPV16 at 36 months by enrollment age group includes participants who received the appropriate number of vaccine doses within the specified windows, were initially seronegative for HPV16, underwent blood collection at the 36-month mark, and reported no additional HPV vaccinations outside the study before the 36-month blood collection, as confirmed by self-report or serologic testing for HPV6/HPV11.||1.54|1.01|
95707135|NCT03728881|191384126|EQUIVALENCE|A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|||||=|0.14||||||The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.14
95707136|NCT03728881|191384127|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the younger one-dose recipients and the younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.001||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and the younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.001
95918145|NCT02564055|191795619|OTHER||Difference in percentages|24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|80.9|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at EW has been presented.|||80.9|-40.3|
95707137|NCT03728881|191384127|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients. A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|||||=|0.737||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||Calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and the older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=0.737
95707138|NCT03728881|191384129|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.52||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.52|0.33|
95707139|NCT03728881|191384129|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.37|0.6||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.60|0.37|
95707140|NCT03728881|191384129|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.028||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.028
95707141|NCT03728881|191384130|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between the older one-dose recipients and the older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: Younger one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women) both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24months, so a p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose recipients (9-11 Year Old Girls) and three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
95707142|NCT03728881|191384132|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.65|1.1||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.10|0.65|
95707143|NCT03728881|191384132|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.77|1.29||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.29|0.77|
95707144|NCT03728881|191384132|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.24||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.24
95707145|NCT03728881|191384133|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between younger one-dose and younger three-dose recipients.|||||=|0.216||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between younger one-dose recipients (9-12 Year Old Girls) and younger three-dose recipients (18-21 Year Old Women).||||=0.216
95707146|NCT03728881|191384133|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between older one-dose and older three-dose recipients.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between older one-dose recipients (12-14 Year Old Girls) and older three-dose recipients (22-25 Year Old Women).||||=1.000
95707147|NCT03728881|191384135|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
95707148|NCT03728881|191384135|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.41|0.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.58|0.41|
95707149|NCT03728881|191384135|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.73||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.73
95707150|NCT03728881|191384136|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate one-dose and three-dose recipients who enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
95707151|NCT03728881|191384138|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.26||||||96.0|1.0|1.58||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.58|1.00|
95707152|NCT03728881|191384138|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.01||||||96.0|0.83|1.24||||||||1.24|0.83|
95707153|NCT03728881|191384138|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.15||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|The p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.15
95707154|NCT03728881|191384139|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.253||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.253
95707155|NCT03728881|191384139|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.015||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.015
95707156|NCT03728881|191384141|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.43||||||99.0|0.33|0.55||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.55|0.33|
95707157|NCT03728881|191384141|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.34|0.52||||||||0.52|0.34|
95707158|NCT03728881|191384141|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.95||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.95
95707159|NCT03728881|191384142|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=1.000
95727734|NCT01271933|191424977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6489.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12579.5||0.6077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18648.6|31627.6||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||This analysis is for the domain: Total daytime activity||31627.6|-18648.6|0.6077
95918146|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.8|32.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.5|-45.8|
95707160|NCT03728881|191384144|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.19||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.19|0.69|
95707161|NCT03728881|191384144|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.69|1.14||||||||1.14|0.69|
95707162|NCT03728881|191384144|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.88||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.88
95707163|NCT03728881|191384145|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.|||||=|0.629||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled April - May.||||=0.629
95707164|NCT03728881|191384145|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.|||||=|0.175||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate of HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled June - August.||||=0.175
95707165|NCT03728881|191384147|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.52||||||96.0|0.43|0.64||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||0.64|0.43|
95707166|NCT03728881|191384147|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.48||||||96.0|0.4|0.58||||||||0.58|0.40|
95707167|NCT03728881|191384147|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.46||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.46
95707168|NCT03728881|191384148|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts both had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 36 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
95707169|NCT03728881|191384150|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|1.27||||||96.0|1.03|1.57||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.57|1.03|
95707170|NCT03728881|191384150|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 36 months the lower limit of the two-sided 96% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.)|GMC Ratio|0.99||||||96.0|0.8|1.23||||||||1.23|0.80|
95707171|NCT03728881|191384150|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.095||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.095
95707172|NCT03728881|191384151|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|0.327||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=0.327
95918147|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|52.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||52.6|-25.7|
95707173|NCT03728881|191384151|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.012||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 36 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.012
95707174|NCT03728881|191384153|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.36|0.58||||||||0.58|0.36|
95707175|NCT03728881|191384153|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.32|0.5||||||||0.50|0.32|
95707176|NCT03728881|191384153|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.3||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.30
95707177|NCT03728881|191384154|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||NOTE: One-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts had a 100% seroconversion proportion for HPV16 at 24 months, so the p-value for the difference of the seroconversion rate between them could not be calculated. Therefore, we only include the calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV16 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
95707178|NCT03728881|191384156|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|1.02||||||99.0|0.79|1.32||||||This procedure controls the overall type one error at 0.05. We are conducting 4 one-sided tests and will spend alpha as follows: 0.005 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 24 months and 0.02 of the alpha each for HPV16 and for HPV18 at 36 months. The experiment-wise significance level accounting for multiple comparisons is ≤ 0.05 because the null chance of rejection for either HPV16 or HPV18 is ≤0.01 at 24 months by the Bonferroni inequality and ≤0.04 at 36 months.||1.32|0.79|
95707179|NCT03728881|191384156|NON_INFERIORITY|Let R=GMC1/GMC3 be the ratio of geometric mean concentrations of 1 dose to 3 doses. We reject the noninferiority hypothesis if at 24 months the lower limit of the two-sided 99% confidence interval on R ≥ 0.67 for HPV16 and HPV18. The overall Type 1 error rate for rejecting the null hypotheses for both HPV16 and HPV18 (i.e., declaring noninferiority of the 1D2V) at either time point was controlled at 0.025.|GMC Ratio|0.81||||||99.0|0.63|1.04||||||||1.04|0.63|
95707180|NCT03728881|191384156|EQUIVALENCE|The p-values test for heterogeneity in the GMC ratios estimated from the stratified analyses.|||||=|0.1||||||A p-value \<0.05 is interpreted as significantly different GMC ratios in different strata.|p-values test for heterogeneity|||||||=0.10
95707181|NCT03728881|191384157|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.|||||=|1||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from coastal districts.||||=1.000
95707182|NCT03728881|191384157|EQUIVALENCE|We will use a Fisher Exact test to test for the difference of the seroconversion rate between one-dose and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.|||||=|0.339||||||A p-value under 0.05 will be regarded as significant.|Fisher Exact|||The calculated p-value for the comparison of the seroconversion rate for HPV18 at 24 months between one-dose recipients and three-dose recipients enrolled from mountainous districts.||||=0.339
95707183|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.777|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|7.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||7.91|-3.39|
95707184|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.922|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.78|7.28|||||Day 7, Max HR|||7.28|-4.78|
95707185|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.772|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|8.91|||||Day 1, Max HR|||8.91|-2.37|
95707186|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.729|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|3.39|||||Day 7, Max HR|||3.39|-7.89|
95707187|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.899|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|13.39|||||Day 1, Max HR|||13.39|1.59|
95707188|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.079|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.34|15.05|||||Day 7, Max HR|||15.05|2.34|
95707189|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.243|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|4.34|||||Day 1, WM|||4.34|-4.80|
95707190|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.09|5.4|||||Day 7, WM|||5.40|-5.09|
95707191|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.182|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|6.77|||||Day 1, WM|||6.77|-2.12|
95707192|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.378|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.48|2.45|||||Day 7, WM|||2.45|-7.48|
95707193|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.282|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|10.81|||||Day 1, WM|||10.81|1.51|
95707194|NCT00732472|191384209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.642|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|12.54|||||Day 7, WM|||12.54|1.57|
95707195|NCT01266876|191384232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Each treatment group was compared to placebo using ANCOVA-derived contrasts.~A hierarchical testing procedure was applied to ensure strong control of overall Type-I error rate at 0.05 level. Order was following:~1. Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W versus placebo~2. Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W versus placebo~3. Alirocumab 200 mg Q4W versus placebo~4. Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W versus placebo~Testing continued only when high-order test was statistically significant at 5% level."||||0.0000
95707196|NCT01266876|191384232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0000
95707197|NCT01266876|191384232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0035
95707198|NCT01266876|191384232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0113|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for significance at ≤ 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0113
95707199|NCT01058395|191384251|SUPERIORITY|"Comparison between groups at 3 months (primary).~Comparison between the 2 tiers."||||||0.021||||||P-value|ANCOVA|Threshold for significance was P-value \< 0.05||DRS levels changes at from 4 weeks to 3 months comparing the different doses.||||0.021
95707200|NCT01058395|191384251|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 3 months.||||0.258
95707201|NCT01058395|191384251|SUPERIORITY|t-test||||||0.541|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between groups in the DRS scores at 4 weeks.||||0.541
95707202|NCT01058395|191384253|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|176.0|||>|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707203|NCT01996865|191384256|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.3296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.2|0.6|0.3296
95707204|NCT01996865|191384257|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.1222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.1|||Regression, Cox|||||1.1|0.4|0.1222
95707205|NCT06408818|191384376|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
95707206|NCT06408818|191384377|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.33
95707207|NCT06408818|191384378|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
95707208|NCT06408818|191384379|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.46
95707209|NCT06408818|191384380|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.20
95707210|NCT06408818|191384381|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.22
95707211|NCT06408818|191384382|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.48|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.48
95707212|NCT06408818|191384383|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.69
95707213|NCT06408818|191384384|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.63||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.22
95707214|NCT06408818|191384385|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used logistic regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.57
95707215|NCT06408818|191384386|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.42
95707216|NCT06408818|191384387|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.45
95707217|NCT06408818|191384388|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects on primary outcomes at posttest, we used linear regression in intent-to-treat analyses. Posttest scores were regressed onto pretest scores, covariates, and the treatment effect.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.39|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.39
95707218|NCT03676465|191384486|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707219|NCT03676465|191384487|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707220|NCT03676465|191384488|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707221|NCT03676465|191384489|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707222|NCT03676465|191384490|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95707223|NCT03676465|191384491|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707224|NCT03676465|191384492|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95707225|NCT03676465|191384493|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707226|NCT03676465|191384494|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707227|NCT03676465|191384495|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95707228|NCT03676465|191384496|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95707229|NCT03676465|191384497|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95707230|NCT03676465|191384498|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||Calculated p value was \>0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95707231|NCT03676465|191384499|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95707232|NCT00085644|191384503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|37.6|||<|0.001||95.0|27.4|47.8|||Chi-squared||Risk difference is measured as a percentage.|ASAS 20 response rates of the adalimumab group were compared with the placebo group using Pearson's Chi-square test. The counts and percentages were calculated for total sample and by therapy group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. For the statistical analysis, subjects with missing data before Week 12 were considered as nonresponders. The comparisons were performed at an alpha level = 0.05.||47.8|27.4|< 0.001
95707233|NCT00085644|191384504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.985||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.985
95707234|NCT00893763|191384599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED||||||mixed effects linear model|||We compared groups in a single analytical model using a mixed effects linear model with CPIS as the response variable. For this model, group (CHX, control), day, group by day interaction, APACHE III score and hospital (VCU, USF) were modeled as fixed effects and subject was modeled as a random effect.||||0.1763
95707235|NCT00893763|191384599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8656|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression analysis was performed using the binary response variable of colonization or no colonization and dependent variables for group, length of intubation, and group-by-length-of-intubation interaction. The probability of a type 1 error ( a ) was set to 0.05.||||0.8656
95707236|NCT01512693|191384624|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity will be concluded if the GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) is contained within the interval \[0.40, 2.50\].|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.19||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and body mass index (BMI). Data are back transformed to geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.19|0.61|
95707237|NCT01512693|191384625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|1.0||||||Natural log-transformed plasma values were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with a categorical factor for population (moderate hepatic insufficiency participants, healthy matched control participants) and continuous covariates for age and BMI. Data are back transformed to GMR (moderate hepatic insufficiency / healthy) and 90% confidence intervals.||1.00|0.51|
95707238|NCT02858713|191384636|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.99|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|6.28|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.28|1.42|=0.004
95707239|NCT02858713|191384637|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415|||=|0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|=0.545
95707240|NCT02858713|191384637|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.415||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.939|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 4||0.939|-1.770|0.545
95707241|NCT02858713|191384637|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.581||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.099|0.938|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 8||0.938|-2.099|0.450
95707242|NCT02858713|191384637|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|-0.77||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.389|0.848|||Regression, Linear|||DLQI: Change from baseline to week 26||0.848|-2.389|0.348
95707243|NCT02858713|191384638|SUPERIORITY||coefficient|0.4||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.795|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 4||0.795|0.005|0.047
95707244|NCT02858713|191384638|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.091||||0.662|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.321|0.504|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 8||0.504|-0.321|0.662
95707245|NCT02858713|191384638|SUPERIORITY||Coefficient|0.18||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.625|||Regression, Linear|||LS-PGA: Change from baseline to week 26||0.625|-0.264|0.424
95707246|NCT02550093|191384667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||.47
95707247|NCT02550093|191384667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.70
95707248|NCT02550093|191384668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.84|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.84
95707249|NCT02550093|191384668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.95
95707250|NCT02550093|191384669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HEAT||||0.92
95707251|NCT02550093|191384669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||COLD||||0.63
95707252|NCT02550093|191384670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.60
95707253|NCT02550093|191384671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95707254|NCT02550093|191384672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.62|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.62
95707255|NCT02550093|191384673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95707256|NCT02550093|191384674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.97
95707257|NCT02550093|191384675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.61
95707258|NCT02550093|191384676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.71
95707259|NCT02550093|191384677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.74
95707260|NCT02550093|191384678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95707261|NCT00796224|191384702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|157.98||||||90.0|98.87|252.44|||ANOVA|||Test (60 mg/kg Azithromycin ER)/ Reference (30 mg/kg Azithromycin IR)||252.44|98.87|
95707262|NCT00796224|191384704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Means|91.63||||||90.0|56.21|149.38|||ANOVA|||||149.38|56.21|
95707263|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|65.44||||||90.0|23.56|181.77|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 1 hour postdose||181.77|23.56|
95707264|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|50.57||||||90.0|25.24|101.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 2 hours postdose||101.30|25.24|
95707265|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|100.07||||||90.0|57.91|172.92|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 3 hours postdose||172.92|57.91|
95707266|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|164.93||||||90.0|103.78|262.12|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 4 hours postdose||262.12|103.78|
95707267|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|174.41||||||90.0|110.07|276.36|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 8 hours postdose||276.36|110.07|
95707268|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|173.01||||||90.0|111.45|268.55|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 24 hours postdose||268.55|111.45|
95707269|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|189.35||||||90.0|129.76|276.3|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 48 hours postdose||276.30|129.76|
95707270|NCT00796224|191384706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric means (percent)|183.14||||||90.0|124.61|269.14|||ANOVA||Ratio (percent) = Test/Reference multiplied by 100|Serum Concentration 72 hours postdose||269.14|124.61|
95707271|NCT03227224|191384717|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|0.9||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.12|4.82|||Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)|||||4.82|-3.12|0.724
95707272|NCT03227224|191384717|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-3.1||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.13|-0.16|||MMRM|||||-0.16|-6.13|0.083
95707273|NCT03227224|191384717|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square Means|-1.5||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|1.63|||MMRM|||||1.63|-4.70|0.424
95707274|NCT04195750|191384759|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.00031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.88|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.88|0.63|0.00031
95707275|NCT04195750|191384760|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.17644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.1|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.10|0.77|0.17644
95707276|NCT04195750|191384761|SUPERIORITY|P-value, difference in percentage and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Difference in Percentage|18.4|||<|1e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|23.2||One-sided p-value for testing. H0: difference in % = 0 versus H1: difference in % \> 0.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Belzutifan minus Everolimus|||23.2|14.0|<0.00001
95707277|NCT04195750|191384765|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.96|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.96|0.58|0.0185
95707278|NCT04195750|191384766|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.5533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.2|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||1.20|0.72|0.5533
95707279|NCT04195750|191384767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.69|||Log Rank|Two-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by IMDC Risk Category and Number of prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC.|||0.69|0.41|<0.0001
95707280|NCT04195750|191384768|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|6.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|9.55|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||9.55|3.21|<0.0001
95707281|NCT04195750|191384769|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.47||||0.1134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|5.54|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||5.54|-0.59|0.1134
95707282|NCT04195750|191384770|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.19|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||2.19|0.70|0.0002
95707283|NCT04195750|191384771|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|3.72||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|6.31|||t-test, 2 sided||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors (IMDC Risk Category, and Number of Prior VEGF/VEGF-Receptor Targeted Therapies for RCC) as covariates.|||6.31|1.12|0.0051
95707284|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of vertical bowl transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||<|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was \<.001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving the bowl vertically up and down||||<0.001
95727735|NCT01271933|191424978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|3.4||Estimates and p-values are from a ANCOVA main effects model with baseline value, center, treatment in the model.|ANCOVA|||||3.4|-2.2|0.6647
95707285|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of moving the bowl horizontally at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.001||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal bowl transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .001|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl transfer- moving the bowl horizontally||||=.001
95707286|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the vertical mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.003||||||Comparing the change in performing a vertical mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .003|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical mug transfer- moving the mug vertically up and down||||=.003
95707287|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the horizontal mug transfer at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.009||||||Comparing the change in performing a horizontal mug transfer, the calculated p-value for this activity was .009|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.009
95707288|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the simulated sip at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.933|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||mRehab task simulate sip- bring mug within one inch of mouth as if taking a drink||||=.933
95707289|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of entering a phone number at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.136|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task enter phone number||||=.136
95707290|NCT04363944|191384773|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance of the quick tap at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task quick tap- tapping a moving object on the phone screen||||=.005
95707291|NCT04363944|191384774|EQUIVALENCE|Paired t-tests comparing performance at the first session of in-home training to the last session of in-home training were conducted.|||||=|0.228|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task vertical bowl transfer- moving bowl vertically up and down||||=.228
95707292|NCT04363944|191384774|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.||||||0.196|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal bowl- bowl moved horizontally||||.196
95707293|NCT04363944|191384774|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.024|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task Vertical Mug- Mug moved vertically and then placed on counter||||=.024
95707294|NCT04363944|191384774|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task horizontal mug transfer- moving the mug horizontally||||=.038
95707295|NCT04363944|191384774|EQUIVALENCE|A paired-t test comparing performance at the beginning of the 6 week in-home program to the end of the 6 week in-home program.|||||=|0.306||||||calculated p-value greater than .05|t-test, 2 sided|||mRehab task simulate sip||||=.306
95707296|NCT04363944|191384775|EQUIVALENCE|The average of the WMFT from testing sessions pre intervention (week 1 and approximately week 2) was compared to the WMFT immediately following mRehab home intervention (week 8) using a two tailed paired t-test.|||||=|0.017||||||calculated p-value .017|t-test, 2 sided|||||||=.017
95707297|NCT04363944|191384776|EQUIVALENCE|Test, the scores from the first and second in-laboratory visits were averaged to account for variability in the performance of individuals with stroke. This averaged preintervention score was compared with the third in-laboratory visit to assess the immediate change in performance following use of mRehab.|||||=|0.019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compared pre and post intervention data for participants using mRehab for a 6 week home program.||||=.019
95707298|NCT03517722|191384780|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.0|0.4|0.042
95707299|NCT00089999|191384837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.9|||Fisher Exact|||||1.9|0.3|0.691
95707300|NCT00089999|191384838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.6|||Fisher Exact||Overall Response (i.e. sum of Complete and Partial Responses) comparison|||1.6|0.3|0.443
95707301|NCT01355224|191384896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, baseline intention.||||||.0150
95707302|NCT01355224|191384897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0365|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0365
95707303|NCT01355224|191384898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0622|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline intent.||||||0.0622
95707304|NCT03502941|191384901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||P value was calculated.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95707305|NCT03502941|191384902|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95707306|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
95707307|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0007
95707308|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
95707309|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
95707310|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
95707311|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0392|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0392
95707312|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0225|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0225
95707313|NCT00808028|191384909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0244|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0244
95707314|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
95707315|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0004
95707316|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
95707317|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain A05: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
95707318|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.9999|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||>0.9999
95707319|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0036|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||0.0036
95707320|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
95707321|NCT00808028|191384910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Binomial Distribution|||Strain B02: Response rate was compared with whether greater than (\>) 50% of participants had fold rise \>=4 using right one-sided exact test based on binomial distribution and the corresponding p-values were calculated. p-value \< 0.025 was considered significant.||||<0.0001
95707322|NCT00515099|191384972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.60
95707323|NCT00515099|191384973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Missing Month 12 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.40
95707324|NCT00515099|191384974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 12||||0.59
95707325|NCT00515099|191384974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from baseline (pre-treatment initiation) to Month 24||||0.14
95707326|NCT00515099|191384976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.099|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 12||||>0.099
95707327|NCT00515099|191384976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in insulin use from baseline as the outcome variable|Fisher Exact|||Comparison of groups up to Month 24||||0.75
95707328|NCT00515099|191384977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||2-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Primary imputation method used for missing Month 24 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.38
95707329|NCT00515099|191384977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||4-Hour AUC change from baseline (pre-initiation treatment) to Month 24. Missing Month 24 AUC values were not imputed. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.33
95707330|NCT00515099|191384978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 12||||0.07
95918148|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|32.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 1 has been presented.|||32.6|-46.0|
95707331|NCT00515099|191384978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change in HbA1c from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Comparison of groups for change from Baseline to Month 24||||0.16
95707332|NCT00414973|191384992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|<|0.0001||95.0|2.89|5.89||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|Null hypothesis=no difference between percentage changes from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density for female patients receiving teriparatide compared to female patients receiving calcitonin.||5.89|2.89|<0.0001
95707333|NCT00414973|191384993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.9062||95.0|-1.3|1.46|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||1.46|-1.30|0.9062
95707334|NCT00414973|191384994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
95707335|NCT00414973|191384994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||P-value for Week 24 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||<0.0001
95707336|NCT00414973|191384995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.2409||95.0|-1.87|7.13|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||7.13|-1.87|0.2409
95707337|NCT00414973|191384996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.6156||95.0|-4.85|2.92|||ANCOVA||Difference = Teriparatide minus Calcitonin|||2.92|-4.85|0.6156
95707338|NCT00414973|191384997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0026||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0026
95707339|NCT00414973|191384997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||P-value for 24 Week Percentage Change.|Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.0006
95707340|NCT01526928|191385028|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Since an MTD was never reached for any of the rociletinib FB or HBr formulations/doses, a 750 mg BID HBr starting dose was selected based on early efficacy data from Phase 1, and enrollment into Phase 2 was initiated at this dosage. As the Phase 1 efficacy data matured, the recommended dose was adjusted to 625 mg BID based on antitumor activity and safety evaluations.|||
95707341|NCT00376675|191385044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.317
95707342|NCT01332851|191385055|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5|||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|6.1||We used a threshold of p \< .05 as the criterion for statistical significance.|Regression, Cox||The hazard ratio of 2.5 indicates that children with parents in the control group were 2.5 times more likely to be removed from their home and placed into foster care compared to the intervention group.|Child welfare system removals were analyzed with a survival models that used condition assignment to predict hazard of being removed from the birth parent home.||6.10|1.03|=.043
95707343|NCT01332851|191385056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Parents in the PFR condition were 0.94 higher on sensitivity scores (on the unstandardized sensitivity measure) across the three post-intervention time points than parents in the R\&R condition. The standard error (SE) of this difference was .42.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline sensitivity score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||<.05
95707344|NCT01332851|191385057|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean compared to the R\&R group. (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.15).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline security score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
95707345|NCT01332851|191385058|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across the two post-intervention time points was -.20 (SE=.50) lower in the PFR group than R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=.04.|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
95707346|NCT01332851|191385059|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The adjusted mean across post-intervention time points was .41 (SE=.53) higher in the PFR group than the R\&R group. The standardized effect size was d=-.07|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline competence stress score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
95707347|NCT01332851|191385060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had a higher mean level of social and emotional development compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect is d=.10).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline social-emotional competence score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline.||||>.05
95707348|NCT01332851|191385061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower mean level of problem behavior compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of standardized effect is d= .12).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline problem behavior score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||>.05
95707349|NCT01332851|191385062|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.07 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|Tested mean differences by condition at 3-month follow-up controlling for baseline score, months between baseline and the end of the intervention, and age of child and using an ANVOVA/regression model. Null hypothesis was that post-intervention means were equal.||||>.05
95707350|NCT01332851|191385063|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear||Adjusted mean at 3-month post-intervention was -.06 (SE=.08) lower for PFR compared to R\&R group.|||||>.05
95707351|NCT01332851|191385064|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||The PFR group had lower atypical affective communication compared to the R\&R group (the absolute value of the standardized effect size was d=.19).|Mixed models were estimated in which post-intervention scores were nested. The intercept (representing the average score across post-intervention time points) was modeled as having a random effect. The intercept in the mixed model was regressed on intervention condition (R\&R = 0, PFR = 1), baseline score, months between baseline and end of intervention, and age of child at baseline||||<.05
95707352|NCT05559203|191385076|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.752|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired sample||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.752
95707353|NCT05559203|191385077|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Feasibility study so no power calculation. N = 18 with baseline and follow-up data.||||.197
95707354|NCT05559203|191385078|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.562|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.562
95707355|NCT05559203|191385079|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Anxiety subscale||||.020
95707356|NCT05559203|191385079|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Depression subscale||||.002
95707357|NCT05559203|191385080|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.036
95707358|NCT05559203|191385081|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.042|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.042
95707359|NCT05559203|191385082|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95707360|NCT05559203|191385083|EQUIVALENCE|0.05 test of null hypothesis that there will be no significant change from baseline to post-intervention||||||0.781|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.781
95707361|NCT03489850|191385084|SUPERIORITY||Parameter Estimate|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|1.69|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.69|-1.01|.62
95707362|NCT03489850|191385085|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.98|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||.98|.30|<0.05
95707363|NCT03489850|191385086|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.48|||Generalized Estimating Equation|||||1.48|0.47|<0.05
95707364|NCT03489850|191385087|SUPERIORITY||F|7.36|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95707365|NCT03446612|191385098|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.6953|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.12998|||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (7.5 ug/min) is presented.|||||
95707366|NCT03446612|191385098|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.1683|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (15 ug/min) is presented.|||||
95707367|NCT03446612|191385098|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.3238|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to acetylcholine (30 ug/min) is presented.|||||
95707368|NCT03446612|191385100|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|0.2968|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (3 ug/min) is presented.|||||
95707369|NCT03446612|191385100|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|1.4425|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to sodium nitroprusside (10 ug/min) is presented.|||||
95707370|NCT03446612|191385102|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.1598|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (2 umol/min) is presented.|||||
95707371|NCT03446612|191385102|OTHER||FBF ratio difference|-0.3715|||||||||||||The difference between daprodustat and darbepoetin alfa FBF ratio in response to L-NMMA (8 umol/min) is presented.|||||
95707372|NCT04445051|191385181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.9||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.3|57.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||57.5|8.3|0.010
95707373|NCT04445051|191385181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|34.3||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.8|58.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||58.8|9.8|0.007
95707374|NCT04445051|191385181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|25.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||25.9|-23.1|0.908
95707375|NCT04445051|191385181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.3||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|59.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||59.8|10.8|0.006
95727736|NCT00617461|191425009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference versus placebo|-0.29||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.48|-0.1|||ANCOVA|An ANCOVA (repeated measures mixed model) with body mass index, baseline 24-hr average pain intensity, and grouped center as covariates was used.||||-0.10|-0.48|0.013
95707376|NCT04445051|191385181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|61.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||61.8|11.9|0.005
95707377|NCT04445051|191385181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|26.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||26.5|-23.3|0.899
95707378|NCT04445051|191385182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.8||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.9|49.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.6|-31.9|0.665
95707379|NCT04445051|191385182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.1||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|22.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||22.4|-58.7|0.375
95707380|NCT04445051|191385182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.0||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|13.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||13.6|-67.6|0.188
95707381|NCT04445051|191385182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|21.9||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||21.9|-59.3|0.361
95707382|NCT04445051|191385182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.9||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.3|30.5||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||30.5|-52.3|0.600
95707383|NCT04445051|191385182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.5|49.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||49.0|-33.5|0.707
95707384|NCT04445051|191385183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.65||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.65|-1.08|0.615
95707385|NCT04445051|191385183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.56||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.56|-1.17|0.480
95707386|NCT04445051|191385183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.77||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.77|-0.95|0.839
95707387|NCT04445051|191385183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.8||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.80|-0.92|0.894
95707388|NCT04445051|191385183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|0.3||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.30|-1.46|0.195
95707389|NCT04445051|191385183|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.40|0.242
95707390|NCT04445051|191385184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.74||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.74|-1.20|0.639
95707391|NCT04445051|191385184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.63||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.63|-1.30|0.492
95918149|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.2|48.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 1 has been presented.|||48.8|-32.2|
95918150|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-24.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.8|14.8|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||14.8|-60.8|
95707392|NCT04445051|191385184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.86||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.86|-1.07|0.828
95707393|NCT04445051|191385184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|1.13||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.13|-0.81|0.744
95707394|NCT04445051|191385184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.36||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.36|-1.62|0.208
95707395|NCT04445051|191385184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.77|0.116
95707396|NCT04445051|191385185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.75|0.798
95707397|NCT04445051|191385185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.6||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.60|-1.10|0.556
95707398|NCT04445051|191385185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.49||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.49|-1.21|0.399
95707399|NCT04445051|191385185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.41||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.41|-0.30|0.198
95707400|NCT04445051|191385185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.48||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.48|-1.27|0.365
95707401|NCT04445051|191385185|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.08||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.08|-1.82|0.033
95707402|NCT04445051|191385186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.96||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.96|-0.83|0.882
95707403|NCT04445051|191385186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.57||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.57|-1.21|0.478
95707404|NCT04445051|191385186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38||||0.391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.51||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.51|-1.27|0.391
95707405|NCT04445051|191385186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.09||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.09|-0.69|0.657
95707406|NCT04445051|191385186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|0.2||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.20|-1.62|0.125
95707407|NCT04445051|191385186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.0||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.00|-1.81|0.051
95918151|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|28.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|63.0|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||63.0|-13.7|
95918152|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|6.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 2 has been presented.|||6.1|-67.4|
95707408|NCT04445051|191385187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.97||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.97|-0.83|0.877
95707409|NCT04445051|191385187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|0.47||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.47|-1.31|0.351
95707410|NCT04445051|191385187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.4||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||0.40|-1.38|0.278
95707411|NCT04445051|191385187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|1.06||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||1.06|-0.73|0.711
95707412|NCT04445051|191385187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.15||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.15|-1.97|0.024
95707413|NCT04445051|191385187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.31||The P-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: Subject. Fixed effects: Visit (Visit 1, 2 and 3), Treatment (comparator, Variant 1 and Variant 2)\*Gender (male and females)||Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, no formal pass/fail criteria were applied.||-0.31|-2.14|0.009
95707414|NCT05083949|191385225|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.57|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.23||0.7792|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.03|102.19|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.19|97.03|0.7792
95707415|NCT05083949|191385226|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.6493|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.39|106.59|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||106.59|96.39|0.6493
95707416|NCT05083949|191385227|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.65||0.471|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.85|105.55|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis of the was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.55|97.85|0.4710
95707417|NCT05083949|191385228|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|98.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.14||0.4251|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.24|102.15|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.15|94.24|0.4251
95727737|NCT00591253|191425049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-7.97|0.001
95727738|NCT00591253|191425049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|-4.86||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-4.86|-10.69|<0.001
95707418|NCT05083949|191385229|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|99.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.25||0.7379|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.93|102.11|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||102.11|96.93|0.7379
95707419|NCT05083949|191385230|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was concluded, if the confidence interval (CI) for the comparison of geometric least squares means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Ratio of GLSM (%)|101.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.82||0.5895|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.4|105.24|||ANOVA||"Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means (GLSM) was calculated as: Fixed dose combination (treatment B)/ free dose combination (treatment A).~Standard deviation is actually intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV \[%\])."|The statistical model used for the analysis was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale. That is, the PK endpoints were log-transformed (natural logarithm) prior to fitting the ANOVA model. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period and treatment. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.||105.24|97.40|0.5895
95707420|NCT04973085|191385245|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.02
95707421|NCT01316380|191385254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0005||95.0|0.057|0.199||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.199|0.057|0.0005
95707422|NCT01316380|191385254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.088|0.23||Step-wise testing for the two treatment groups for the primary endpoint, confirmatory only if previous hypotheses had been successful, significance level of alpha=0.025 (one-sided) for the primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.230|0.088|<0.0001
95707423|NCT01316380|191385255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.001||95.0|0.049|0.194||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.194|0.049|0.001
95707424|NCT01316380|191385255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0028||95.0|0.038|0.182||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.182|0.038|0.0028
95707425|NCT01316380|191385256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.057|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.1714||95.0|-0.025|0.14||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.140|-0.025|0.1714
95707426|NCT01316380|191385256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.042||0.0119||95.0|0.023|0.188||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.188|0.023|0.0119
95707427|NCT01316380|191385257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034||0.0003||95.0|0.058|0.192||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.192|0.058|0.0003
95707428|NCT01316380|191385257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.082|0.216||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.216|0.082|<0.0001
95707429|NCT01316380|191385258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.1182||95.0|-0.016|0.138||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.138|-0.016|0.1182
95707430|NCT01316380|191385258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.101|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.039||0.0102||95.0|0.024|0.178||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis|REML-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, pooled centre, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.|||0.178|0.024|0.0102
95707431|NCT01316380|191385260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.2155||95.0|0.03|2.24||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||2.24|0.03|0.2155
95707432|NCT01316380|191385260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.53||||0.5071||95.0|0.43|5.44||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since the percent patients with event is less than 50% the median is not calculable, but Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||5.44|0.43|0.5071
95707433|NCT01316380|191385261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.1217||95.0|0.29|1.16||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc).||1.16|0.29|0.1217
95707434|NCT01316380|191385261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.8974||95.0|0.53|1.75||Significance level of alpha=0.05 (two-sided). P-values serve an exploratory function only.|Regression, Cox|Parameter estimates of Cox proportional hazard model regarding. Only treatment was fitted as an effect in the model.|If HR is below 1 then favours tiotropium.|Since only 22 of the 155 patients in the placebo group, 21 of the 154 patients in the Tio R2.5 group and 13 of the 155 patients in the Tio R5 group had asthma exacerbations, the median times were not calculable (nc). The Hazard Ratio is still estimable from the Cox model.||1.75|0.53|0.8974
95707435|NCT01316380|191385262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.0872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.476||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.476|-0.032|0.0872
95707436|NCT01316380|191385262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.129||0.7995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287|0.221||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.221|-0.287|0.7995
95707437|NCT01316380|191385263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.247||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.||0.247|-0.053|0.2038
95707438|NCT01316380|191385263|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.076||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.158|0.141||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.141|-0.158|0.9104
95707439|NCT01316380|191385264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.131|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.0559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.003|0.265||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R2.5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.265|-0.003|0.0559
95707440|NCT01316380|191385264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068||0.8795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.144|0.123||p-values serve an exploratory function only|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R5 - Placebo. Means are adjusted for treatment, centre, week, baseline, treatment\*week and baseline\*week.|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)- based repeated measures model was used.||0.123|-0.144|0.8795
95707441|NCT03991468|191385305|NON_INFERIORITY|A Mixed Model Repeated Measures logistic regression was used to prove WSI major discordance (MD) rate non-inferior to Glass MD rate. A two-sided 95% CI for the difference in MD rate was constructed. If the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 4%, then WSI would be considered non-inferior to Glass, assuming power = 0.9 and alpha = 0.05 a sample size of 2000 was calculated to be sufficient to prove non-inferiority.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Dependent var = major discordance status (yes/no); independent var = modality (WSI/Glass) as a fixed effect \& site, reader, \& case as random effects.||||1.0|-0.1|
95707442|NCT00616772|191385306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.004|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline cIMT, baseline atorvastatin dose, central imaging site, treatment group, time; interaction between treatment group and time||||0.004|-0.016|0.220
95707443|NCT00616772|191385307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.002||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.011|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline cIMT as covariate.||||0.011|-0.014|0.813
95707444|NCT00616772|191385308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.005|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.005|-0.018|0.249
95707445|NCT00616772|191385309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.005||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.01|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.010|-0.020|0.487
95707446|NCT00616772|191385310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.035|||Repeated measures linear mixed model|Fixed effects for baseline atorvastatin dose, imaging site, treatment, time; interaction between treatment group and time; baseline IMT as covariate||||0.035|-0.004|0.112
95707447|NCT03649815|191385311|OTHER|||||||0.067|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.067
95707448|NCT03649815|191385311|OTHER|||||||0.071||||||Controlled for gender, age, and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.071
95707449|NCT03649815|191385312|OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.047
95707450|NCT03649815|191385312|OTHER|||||||0.036||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.036
95707451|NCT03649815|191385313|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.032
95707452|NCT03649815|191385313|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Controlled for gender, age and baseline symptomatology|Paired Sample T-Test|||||||0.006
95727739|NCT00591253|191425050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.78||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-10.18|<0.001
95707453|NCT03573804|191385315|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test for equivalence was used to evaluate equivalence between the average raw tumor.|Mean Difference (Net)|224.675|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|67.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.26044|359.08956||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine tumor intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for tumor were defined by the radiologist segmentation of tumor in supine and prone positions. ROIs for the surrounding tissue were selected such that tumor and normal regions had equal volumes. The alpha level was assumed to be of 0.05 (dof = 60), and the null hypothesis of equivalence (mu = 0).||359.08956|90.26044|<0.001
95707454|NCT03573804|191385316|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine mean benign tissue intensities.|Mean Difference (Net)|165.833|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|44.19|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.34708|253.31892||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A paired two-tailed t-test was used on the paired prone-to-supine normal tissue intensity values.||Regions of interest (ROIs) for surrounding tissues were selected as the surrounding benign tissue regions directly adjacent to the segmented tumor regions. Tumor and surrounding regions had equal volumes. The mean surrounding region intensities reported were all calculated from the prone and supine T1-weighted MR images segmented by the radiologist.||253.31892|78.34708|<0.001
95707455|NCT03573804|191385317|OTHER|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04209|0.28209||Using an alpha value of 0.05, dof = 60, the null hypothesis of sample mean equivalence was rejected.|t-test, 2 sided|A two-tailed paired T-test was used to compare sample means in between the prone and supine tumor-to-surrounding tissue ratios.||The ratios of tumor-to-surrounding tissue intensities, as calculated in Secondary Objective Part A, were compared between prone and supine T1-weighted MR image scans.||0.28209|-0.04209|0.0058
95707456|NCT03573804|191385319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.00049664|||||||Students two-tailed paired t-test|||||||0.00049664
95707457|NCT00740116|191385330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.03
95707458|NCT00740116|191385331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07||||||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||||0.07
95707459|NCT00740116|191385332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44||||0.46|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.97||Statistical significance threshold was p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U-test, one-sided test||||0.97||0.46
95707460|NCT00740116|191385333|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46||||||p\< 0.05 for statistical significance|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.46
95707461|NCT00740116|191385334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.36||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|2.72||Statistical significance threshold p-value \< 0.05|Fisher Exact|||||2.72|0.05|0.22
95707462|NCT03958149|191385335|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Independent t-test|||||||<0.001
95707463|NCT03958149|191385336|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Factorial Mixed ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95707464|NCT00121485|191385362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|200 patients (137 HMII and 67 XVE) provides 80% power (alpha= 0.05 (one-sided)) using a Blackwelder like analysis and a non-inferiority margin of 10%. The protocol specifies that once non-inferiority is proven, the data will be analyzed for superiority using closed testing methods.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.7||||2.5e-07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.5|46.9||Two (2) interim analysis were pre-specified in the protocol. The type I error rate was preserved at 5% by use of the O'Brien-Fleming spending function.|Fisher Exact|||Primary endpoint is 2-yr survival free of stroke or re-operation to repair/replace the device. Patients are a success if composite endpoint achieved. Patients urgently transplanted due to device failure are failures. Patients electively transplanted after reversal of co-morbidity will be considered success if they achieve 2 years of survival from day of VAD implant and no stroke. HMII is a success if the proportion of HMII pts achieving the composite endpoint is equal to or better than HM XVE||46.9|24.5|0.00000025
95707465|NCT01111331|191385377|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean ratio|100.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.86|105.1|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||105.10|96.86|
95707466|NCT01111331|191385378|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|100.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.9||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.79|112.8||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for subject and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by empa||112.80|89.79|0.0021
95707467|NCT01111331|191385379|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.49|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.29|101.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||101.80|95.29|
95707468|NCT01111331|191385380|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|97.89|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.4||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.12|105.15|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||105.15|91.12|0.0001
95707469|NCT01111331|191385381|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.4|98.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.43|93.40|
95707470|NCT01111331|191385382|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.7||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.84|106.47||p-value for geometric mean ratio being outside interval 80% to 125%|ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||106.47|91.84|0.0001
95918153|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|40.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 2 has been presented.|||40.7|-40.7|
95707471|NCT01111331|191385390|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.89|102.0|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||102.00|95.89|
95707472|NCT01111331|191385397|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.64|98.6|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the intra-individual gCV|Ratio calculated as empa plus warfarin divided by warfarin||98.60|93.64|
95707473|NCT01111331|191385404|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.04|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.04|0.73|
95707474|NCT01111331|191385405|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.79|
95707475|NCT01111331|191385406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline INR value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.48|0.67|
95707476|NCT01111331|191385407|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.02|0.79|
95707477|NCT01111331|191385408|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.95|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.95|0.64|
95707478|NCT01111331|191385409|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.98|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||0.98|0.84|
95707479|NCT01111331|191385410|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.4|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.40|0.68|
95918154|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
95707480|NCT01111331|191385411|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability.|Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.51|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period, treatment and the baseline PT value||Difference calculated as empa plus warfarin minus warfarin||1.51|0.47|
95707481|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.9||||0.3474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|9.1|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance for repeated measures||Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2 The model included fixed effect terms for time point, baseline covariate (i.e. the day 1 - pre-dose value) and treatment. Time point was specified as a repeated measurement.||9.1|-3.3|0.3474
95707482|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-8.2|0.1327
95707483|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.8||||0.1327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|1.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.6|-11.2|0.1327
95707484|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|-2.5|0.2237
95707485|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.1|-8.4|0.4905
95707486|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|0.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Study eye - Day 15±2||0.5|-12.3|0.0687
95707487|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.7609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-4.2|0.7609
95707488|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.6428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|3.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.8|-6.0|0.6428
95707489|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
95707490|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.4217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|10.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||10.5|-4.6|0.4217
95707491|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.503||||-2.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|5.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.0|-10.0|-2.5
95707492|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.4599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|3.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.2|-6.9|0.4599
95918155|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|43.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|74.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||74.6|2.7|
95707493|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.6157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|4.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.4|-2.6|0.6157
95707494|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-3.7|0.9120
95707495|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.5463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|2.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Study eye - Day 15±2||2.5|-4.6|0.5463
95707496|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.9065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|5.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.3|-5.9|0.9065
95707497|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8||||0.5065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-7.3|0.5065
95707498|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.5977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|4.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky Feeling - Study eye - Day 15±2||4.2|-7.1|0.5977
95707499|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.2785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred Vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||1.9|-6.3|0.2785
95707500|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||3.3|-4.6|0.7454
95707501|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.4588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|5.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.9|-2.7|0.4588
95707502|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.2812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|12.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||12.3|-3.7|0.2812
95707503|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.6811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||9.8|-6.5|0.6811
95707504|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Study eye - Day 15±2||5.6|-10.8|0.5169
95707505|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.7874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-5.9|0.7874
95707506|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.8299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.1|-7.6|0.8299
95707507|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.6386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Dryness - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.4|-8.7|0.6386
95707508|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.7||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|10.2|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.2|1.3|0.0132
95707509|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.7177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|3.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.7|-5.3|0.7177
95707510|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.5||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|-1.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Foreign body sensation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-1.9|-11.2|0.0077
95707511|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|10.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.0|0.6|0.0301
95707512|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.1|-4.3|0.8657
95707513|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-0.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Burning/Stinging - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||-0.1|-9.7|0.0440
95707514|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|9.6|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||9.6|-1.4|0.1351
95707515|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|5.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.2|-6.0|0.8821
95707516|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Itching - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||1.3|-10.3|0.1208
95707517|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.5|-3.3|0.9440
95707518|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.4903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.5|-2.2|0.4903
95707519|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.5364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|4.3|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Pain - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.3|-2.3|0.5364
95707520|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|5.7|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||5.7|-2.9|0.5100
95707521|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.1132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.8|-0.9|0.1132
95707522|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.3457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|6.5|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Sticky feeling - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||6.5|-2.4|0.3457
95707523|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|7.9|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.9|0.8|0.0185
95707524|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6||||0.0408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|7.1|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||7.1|0.2|0.0408
95707525|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.6992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|3.0|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Blurred vision - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||3.0|-4.4|0.6992
95707526|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.0905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||12.8|-1.0|0.0905
95707527|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.3054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||10.4|-3.4|0.3054
95707528|NCT03031327|191385420|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5024||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.8|||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance on changes from baseline in ocular tolerability - Photophobia - Non Study eye - Day 15±2||4.8|-9.6|0.5024
95707529|NCT03031327|191385422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.1|0.1226
95707530|NCT03031327|191385422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.2854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test with pool method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.2|0.2854
95707531|NCT03031327|191385422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Student t-test on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.6|0.6525
95707532|NCT03031327|191385422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining -||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.5|-0.4|0.8843
95707533|NCT03031327|191385422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.6|0.0806
95707534|NCT03031327|191385422|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.0|||Student t-test pooled|Student t-test pooled method for estimating common variance on changes from baseline in ocular surface vital staining||Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-0.7|0.0628
95707535|NCT03031327|191385423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.2004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.2004
95707536|NCT03031327|191385423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.5413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.3|0.5413
95707537|NCT03031327|191385423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.4607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-0.8|0.4607
95707538|NCT03031327|191385423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-0.2|0.1248
95707539|NCT03031327|191385423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|0.0|0.0624
95707540|NCT03031327|191385423|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.7927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in Schirmer-I test - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-1.0|0.7927
95707541|NCT03031327|191385424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.6|0.9717
95707542|NCT03031327|191385424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.6|0.7386
95707543|NCT03031327|191385424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.7498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-0.6|0.7498
95707544|NCT03031327|191385424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.3229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.1|0.3229
95707545|NCT03031327|191385424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.5|0.5700
95707546|NCT03031327|191385424|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.1197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in TFBUT - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.3|-0.2|0.1197
95918156|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-15.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.8|23.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 4 has been presented.|||23.5|-53.8|
95707547|NCT03031327|191385425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.8787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.6|0.8787
95707548|NCT03031327|191385425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.5|0.8159
95707549|NCT03031327|191385425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.6|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.6|-0.4|0.6525
95707550|NCT03031327|191385425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.4|-1.0|0.3340
95707551|NCT03031327|191385425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.7|-0.7|0.9749
95707552|NCT03031327|191385425|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.1984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||Student t-test pooled|||Student t-test on changes from baseline in BCDVA - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.9|-0.2|0.1984
95707553|NCT03031327|191385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.6497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|16.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||16.4|-10.5|0.6497
95707554|NCT03031327|191385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.9||||0.1443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-16.5|0.1443
95707555|NCT03031327|191385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.9||||0.0751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Frequency of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-20.9|0.0751
95707556|NCT03031327|191385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|15.5|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||15.5|-7.9|0.5015
95707557|NCT03031327|191385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|4.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||4.4|-12.5|0.3217
95707558|NCT03031327|191385426|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in SANDE scores - Severity of symptoms - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-17.5|0.1026
95707559|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707560|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707561|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707562|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
95707563|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
95707564|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Meibomian Glands - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707565|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
95707566|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
95707567|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707568|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
95707569|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4101|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.4101
95707570|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707571|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707572|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707573|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707574|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707575|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707576|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Eyelid - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707577|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707578|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707579|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707580|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707581|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707582|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lashes - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707583|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5267|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.5267
95707584|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2633|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2633
95707585|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.6552
95707586|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1262|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.1262
95707587|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2094|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||0.2094
95707588|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY||Hodges Lehmann estimation|-1.0||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Erythema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|-1.0|0.0377
95707589|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707590|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707591|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707592|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707593|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707594|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Conjunctiva - Oedema - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707595|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707596|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707597|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707598|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707599|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707600|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Lens - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707601|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707602|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707603|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707604|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707605|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707606|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Iris - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707607|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707608|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707609|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707610|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707611|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707612|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Anterior chamber inflammation - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707613|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707614|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707615|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707616|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707617|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707618|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea transparency - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707619|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707620|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707621|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707622|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707623|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707624|NCT03031327|191385427|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test on changes from baseline in SLE examination scores - Cornea neovascularization - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||||1.000
95707625|NCT03031327|191385428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.6|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||2.6|-1.5|0.5842
95707626|NCT03031327|191385428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.0|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.0|-2.2|0.4606
95707627|NCT03031327|191385428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.2319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.8|-3.0|0.2319
95707628|NCT03031327|191385428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.4|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.4|-2.3|0.6018
95707629|NCT03031327|191385428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.4857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.1|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.1|-2.2|0.4857
95707630|NCT03031327|191385428|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.9015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.8|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in IOP - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||1.8|-2.0|0.9015
95707631|NCT03031327|191385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
95707632|NCT03031327|191385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.3574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.3574
95707633|NCT03031327|191385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
95707634|NCT03031327|191385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||P-value is NA due to the measured values of corneal sensitivity equal to zero.|Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.0|0.0|00
95707635|NCT03031327|191385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
95707636|NCT03031327|191385429|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3|||Student t-test pooled|Pooled method for estimating common variance was used||Student t-test on changes from baseline in corneal sensitivity - Non Study eye - Day 15±2 pre-dose||0.3|-0.1|0.1
95918157|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 4 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
95707637|NCT01736176|191385534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||The primary null hypothesis was no change in least-square (LS) mean, calculated using a mixed-effect repeated measures model (MMRM), for NMSS total score from baseline to Week 12. The statistical test was two-sided and the null hypothesis was rejected at the significance level of α = 0.050.||||< 0.001
95707638|NCT01736176|191385538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|||||||Mixed-effect Repeated Measures (MMRM)|MMRM model included the fixed effects of study site and visit, with baseline score as a covariate, and the baseline-by-visit interaction.||||||0.004
95707639|NCT03650387|191385573|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
95707640|NCT03650387|191385574|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
95707641|NCT03650387|191385575|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Bonferroni-Holm was used for alpha correction.|Exact one-sample binomial test|The one-sample binomial test was used to test whether the probability of being a responder (p) is significantly above 60%.||||||< 0.0001
95707642|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.05|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.05|0.71|0.14
95707643|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank = 97||0.9|-2.6|
95707644|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.5|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 96||0.5|-3.5|
95707645|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.1|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 95||0.1|-4.4|
95707646|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|2.7|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 94||2.7|-4.3|
95707647|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.2|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 93||0.2|-7.8|
95707648|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.9|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 92||0.9|-7.8|
95707649|NCT03229538|191385584|OTHER||Percent Difference|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|1.3|||||Difference = Methylprednisolone - Placebo|Rank \> or = 91||1.3|-7.5|
95707650|NCT03229538|191385585|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.74||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.34|0.428
95707651|NCT03229538|191385586|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.83||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.61|0.228
95707652|NCT03229538|191385587|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Percent Difference|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.4||||||||0.4|-4.0|
95707653|NCT03229538|191385588|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.79||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.25|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.25|0.50|0.309
95707654|NCT03229538|191385589|SUPERIORITY|It was estimated that 1200 patients (600 per trial group) would provide the trial with more than 90% power to detect superiority of methylprednisolone over placebo.|Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.91||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.57|0.52|0.723
95707655|NCT03229538|191385591|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.86||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.67|0.256
95707656|NCT02425891|191385598|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.69|0.0025
95707657|NCT02425891|191385599|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.78|||Log Rank|||||0.78|0.49|<.0001
95707658|NCT02425891|191385600|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.75|0.0770
95707659|NCT02425891|191385601|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.53|0.0016
95707660|NCT02425891|191385602|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|10.12||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|16.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.84|3.40|0.0021
95707661|NCT02425891|191385603|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Overall Response Rates|16.3||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.67|26.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||26.92|5.67|0.0016
95707662|NCT02425891|191385604|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.98|||Log Rank|||||0.98|0.63|0.0285
95707663|NCT02425891|191385605|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.86|||Log Rank|||||0.86|0.43|0.0047
95707664|NCT02425891|191385606|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.81|0.8078
95707665|NCT02425891|191385607|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.73|0.8879
95707666|NCT00416572|191385616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||> 0.05
95707667|NCT00416572|191385616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
95918158|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|57.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||57.1|-25.1|
95707668|NCT00416572|191385616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.12|||=|0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.08
95707669|NCT00416572|191385616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||standardized beta|-0.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
95707670|NCT00416572|191385617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.5|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.50
95707671|NCT00416572|191385617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.14|||=|0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.04
95707672|NCT00416572|191385617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between the education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||<0.001
95707673|NCT00416572|191385617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Standardized beta|0.15|||=|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||=0.02
95707674|NCT00416572|191385618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome||||>.05
95707675|NCT00416572|191385618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at 4 months post-intervention. The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
95707676|NCT00416572|191385618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
95707677|NCT00416572|191385618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||Comparison between nutrition education intervention and the control condition at final follow-up (13 months post-intervention). The full regression model contained 2 dummy-coded variables (education intervention vs. control condition and nutrition education intervention vs. control condition), and the baseline measure of the outcome.||||>0.05
95707678|NCT05032755|191385632|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.902|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.398|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term|||||<.0001
95707679|NCT05032755|191385633|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.368|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||<.0001
95707680|NCT05032755|191385634|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.672|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.362||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.065
95707681|NCT05032755|191385635|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.364|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.133||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.007
95707682|NCT05032755|191385636|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||0.325|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.325
95707683|NCT05032755|191385638|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.035|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.035
95707684|NCT05032755|191385639|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.27
95918159|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|47.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|78.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||78.7|4.8|
95707685|NCT05032755|191385640|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|-1.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.037||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 5 levels. Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.24
95707686|NCT05032755|191385645|SUPERIORITY||beta estimate|4.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||Group is entered as a between-subjects factor and Visit is included as a repeated factor with 2 levels (pre- vs post-intervention). Baseline pain and FTCD scores, assessed at screening, are included along with sex as covariates.|Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes random intercepts|Estimation parameter is beta estimate for group by visit interaction term.|||||0.113
95707687|NCT03887052|191385649|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was performed as a one-sided test with a 0.025 significance level of the null hypothesis (H0) that the WCD false positive shock alarm rate per patient-day for the study device was equal to or greater than the comparator rate (0.29). A random-effects Poisson regression model was fit with the number of false-positive shock alarms for each patient as the outcome, the logarithm of days of wear as an offset, and random site effect.|||||<|0.001||||||"Hypotheses:~H0: p1 ≥ 0.29 H1: p1 \< 0.29~where p1 = A-WCD False Positive Alarm Rate"|One-sided non-inferiority|Poisson Regression Analysis||The analysis was based on the cohort of 130 patients with three false-positive shock alarms occurring over a total of 3501 patient-days (500 weeks), or 0.0060 false-positive shock alarms per patient-week. The Poisson distribution was used to model the results and calculate the false-positive shock alarm rate.||||<0.001
95707688|NCT05706623|191385670|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric least squares (LS) mean ratio|0.8354|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5216|1.338||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on natural log (ln) transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.338|0.5216|
95707689|NCT05706623|191385672|OTHER|Analysis of variance model|Geometric LS Mean Ratio|0.9356|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5889|1.4864||||||Moderate Hepatic Impairment Group (test) versus Normal Hepatic Function Group (reference). The analysis was performed on ln transformed parameters using an analysis of variance model with the hepatic function group as a fixed effect.||1.4864|0.5889|
95707690|NCT05564039|191385711|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.10|<0.0001
95707691|NCT05564039|191385712|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-7.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|-6.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.0|-8.7|<.0001
95707692|NCT05564039|191385713|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|13.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||13.32|3.82|<0.0001
95707693|NCT05564039|191385714|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|12.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.51|23.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.02|6.51|<0.0001
95707694|NCT05564039|191385715|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|51.36|||Regression, Logistic|||||51.36|4.58|<0.0001
95707695|NCT05564039|191385716|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.11|16.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||16.98|5.11|<0.0001
95707696|NCT05564039|191385717|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.07|41.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||41.30|9.07|<0.0001
95707697|NCT05564039|191385718|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|35.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.18|178.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||178.89|7.18|<0.0001
95707698|NCT05564039|191385719|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.4|49.77|||Regression, Logistic|||||49.77|8.40|<0.0001
95707699|NCT05564039|191385720|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-1.32|<0.001
95707700|NCT05564039|191385721|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-5.1||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|-2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.5|-7.8|0.0002
95707701|NCT05564039|191385722|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
95707702|NCT05564039|191385723|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA|||||9.2|-1.0|0.1181
95707703|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.755|-0.386||||||||-0.386|-0.755|
95707704|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.762|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.925|-0.598||||||||-0.598|-0.925|
95707705|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.987|-0.665||||||||-0.665|-0.987|
95707706|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.887|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035|-0.739||||||||-0.739|-1.035|
95707707|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.351|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.132||||||||-0.132|-0.570|
95707708|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|-0.342||||||||-0.342|-0.743|
95707709|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.406||||||||-0.406|-0.808|
95707710|NCT01263470|191385738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.859|-0.475||||||||-0.475|-0.859|
95707711|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.104||||||||-0.104|-0.213|
95707712|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.234|-0.114||||||||-0.114|-0.234|
95707713|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.219|-0.1||||||||-0.100|-0.219|
95707714|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.153|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.212|-0.095||||||||-0.095|-0.212|
95707715|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.059|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.116|-0.003||||||||-0.003|-0.116|
95707716|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.075|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|-0.014||||||||-0.014|-0.136|
95707717|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.121|0.0||||||||0.000|-0.121|
95707718|NCT01263470|191385739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.054|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.114|0.006||||||||0.006|-0.114|
95707719|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.326|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.419|-0.233||||||||-0.233|-0.419|
95707720|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.369|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.268||||||||-0.268|-0.470|
95707721|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.241||||||||-0.241|-0.438|
95707722|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.387|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.485|-0.288||||||||-0.288|-0.485|
95707723|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.178|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.076||||||||-0.076|-0.280|
95707724|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.221|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.329|-0.112||||||||-0.112|-0.329|
95707725|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.299|-0.085||||||||-0.085|-0.299|
95707726|NCT01263470|191385740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.239|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.346|-0.131||||||||-0.131|-0.346|
95707727|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.356||||||||-0.356|-0.644|
95707728|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.614|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.763|-0.464||||||||-0.464|-0.763|
95707729|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.804|-0.516||||||||-0.516|-0.804|
95707730|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.695|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.832|-0.559||||||||-0.559|-0.832|
95707731|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.494|-0.156||||||||-0.156|-0.494|
95707732|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.438|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.267||||||||-0.267|-0.610|
95707733|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.485|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.315||||||||-0.315|-0.654|
95707734|NCT01263470|191385741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.683|-0.357||||||||-0.357|-0.683|
95707735|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
95707736|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
95707737|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
95707738|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
95707739|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
95707740|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
95707741|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
95707742|NCT01263470|191385742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
95707743|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.27|-7.93||||||||-7.93|-23.27|
95707744|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.34|-10.05||||||||-10.05|-25.34|
95707745|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.14|-8.02||||||||-8.02|-24.14|
95707746|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.06|-14.89||||||||-14.89|-32.06|
95707747|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|1.02||||||||1.02|-12.66|
95707748|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|-1.08||||||||-1.08|-14.76|
95707749|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.53|0.93||||||||0.93|-13.53|
95707750|NCT01263470|191385743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.45|-5.94||||||||-5.94|-21.45|
95707751|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-26.52|
95707752|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.07|-16.37||||||||-16.37|-32.07|
95707753|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.03|-16.65||||||||-16.65|-32.03|
95707754|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.04|-19.52||||||||-19.52|-37.04|
95707755|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.28|0.18||||||||0.18|-17.28|
95707756|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.18||||||||-7.18|-22.90|
95707757|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-7.42||||||||-7.42|-22.90|
95707758|NCT01263470|191385744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|-10.4||||||||-10.40|-27.80|
95707759|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.19|-5.64||||||||-5.64|-24.19|
95707760|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.86|-12.48||||||||-12.48|-27.86|
95707761|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.41|-15.73||||||||-15.73|-30.41|
95707762|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.05|-20.29||||||||-20.29|-36.05|
95707763|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.6|3.06||||||||3.06|-15.60|
95707764|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.41|-3.64||||||||-3.64|-19.41|
95707765|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.04|-6.8||||||||-6.80|-22.04|
95707766|NCT01263470|191385745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.61|-11.43||||||||-11.43|-27.61|
95707767|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.384|0.094||||||||0.094|-0.384|
95707768|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.106|0.374||||||||0.374|-0.106|
95707769|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.103|0.39||||||||0.390|-0.103|
95707770|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.004|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.218|0.227||||||||0.227|-0.218|
95707771|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.002|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.241|0.245||||||||0.245|-0.241|
95707772|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.524||||||||0.524|0.038|
95707773|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|0.54||||||||0.540|0.041|
95707774|NCT01263470|191385746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.077|0.38||||||||0.380|-0.077|
95707775|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.045|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.245|0.156||||||||0.156|-0.245|
95707776|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.21||||||||0.210|-0.185|
95707777|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.369||||||||0.369|-0.053|
95707778|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.235||||||||0.235|-0.140|
95707779|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.122|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.097|0.341||||||||0.341|-0.097|
95707780|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.179|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.395||||||||0.395|-0.036|
95707781|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.325|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.097|0.553||||||||0.553|0.097|
95707782|NCT01263470|191385747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.215|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.423||||||||0.423|0.006|
95707783|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|0.209||||||||0.209|-0.444|
95707784|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.362|0.162||||||||0.162|-0.362|
95707785|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.166|0.324||||||||0.324|-0.166|
95707786|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.117|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.121||||||||0.121|-0.355|
95707787|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|0.408||||||||0.408|-0.203|
95707788|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.364||||||||0.364|-0.124|
95707789|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.299|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.071|0.526||||||||0.526|0.071|
95707790|NCT01263470|191385748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.118|0.322||||||||0.322|-0.118|
95707791|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.039|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.308||||||||0.308|-0.230|
95707792|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.379||||||||0.379|-0.029|
95707793|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.453||||||||0.453|0.044|
95707794|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|0.407||||||||0.407|-0.035|
95707795|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.052|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.34||||||||0.340|-0.236|
95707796|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.421||||||||0.421|-0.044|
95707797|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.496||||||||0.496|0.026|
95707798|NCT01263470|191385749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.199|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.448||||||||0.448|-0.049|
95707799|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-8.94||||||||-8.94|-38.75|
95707800|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.14|-9.61||||||||-9.61|-37.14|
95707801|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.18|-28.02||||||||-28.02|-53.18|
95707802|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-42.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.93|-30.58||||||||-30.58|-54.93|
95707803|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|8.98||||||||8.98|-19.70|
95707804|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.13|8.35||||||||8.35|-18.13|
95707805|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.22|-10.01||||||||-10.01|-34.22|
95707806|NCT01263470|191385750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.98|-12.55||||||||-12.55|-35.98|
95707807|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.79|-35.83||||||||-35.83|-80.79|
95707808|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-60.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.84|-40.47||||||||-40.47|-80.84|
95707809|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-78.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.03|-60.4||||||||-60.40|-97.03|
95707810|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-87.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.26|-68.6||||||||-68.60|-106.26|
95707811|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|19.23||||||||19.23|-24.69|
95707812|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.85|14.7||||||||14.70|-24.85|
95707813|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.16|-5.11||||||||-5.11|-41.16|
95707814|NCT01263470|191385751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.36|-13.33||||||||-13.33|-50.36|
95707815|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.736|8.455||||||||8.455|-2.736|
95707816|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.456|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|10.165||||||||10.165|0.748|
95707817|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.715|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.181|12.248||||||||12.248|3.181|
95707818|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.763|8.877||||||||8.877|-3.763|
95707819|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.924|21.396||||||||21.396|7.924|
95707820|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.353|23.16||||||||23.160|11.353|
95707821|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.515|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.629|25.401||||||||25.401|13.629|
95707822|NCT01263470|191385752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.357|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.013|21.701||||||||21.701|7.013|
95707823|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.019|1.089||||||||1.089|-0.019|
95707824|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.764|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|1.315||||||||1.315|0.214|
95707825|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|1.58||||||||1.580|0.418|
95707826|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.959|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.489||||||||1.489|0.430|
95707827|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.315|1.552||||||||1.552|0.315|
95707828|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.163|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.551|1.774||||||||1.774|0.551|
95707829|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.398|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|2.036||||||||2.036|0.759|
95707830|NCT01263470|191385753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.358|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.956||||||||1.956|0.760|
95707831|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|16.38||||||||16.38|-7.87|
95707832|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|23.42||||||||23.42|-0.90|
95707833|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.56|16.95||||||||16.95|-10.56|
95707834|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|8.94||||||||8.94|-16.27|
95707835|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|19.29||||||||19.29|-9.79|
95707836|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|26.19||||||||26.19|-2.67|
95707837|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.02|19.4||||||||19.40|-12.02|
95707838|NCT01263470|191385754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|11.71||||||||11.71|-18.04|
95707839|NCT01327573|191385756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||||||"This p-value was for the overall slope difference between groups (i.e. the interaction between group and time).~Significance level was set at 0.1 a priori."|Mixed effects model analysis|||Analysis used eGFR, group, time, and group-by-time variables.||||0.09
95707840|NCT04107935|191385808|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.983||||||Propensity score matching was used to form pairs of intervention and control participants. Specifically, a greedy matching procedure with a matching caliper of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score was used.|Mixed Models Analysis|Since baseline characteristics achieved a good balance, those variables were not entered into the propensity score matched model.||||||0.9830
95707841|NCT04107935|191385809|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8365||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8365
95707842|NCT04107935|191385810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5727||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5727
95707843|NCT04107935|191385811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9381||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9381
95707844|NCT04107935|191385813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.608||||||Adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.608
95707845|NCT00995215|191385815|OTHER|Statistical analysis was performed using a repeated measures analysis of variance and paired t-test.||||||0.05||||||A P value \<0.05 was taken as indicative of statistical significance.|ANOVA|||The effects of electrical (spinal cord stimulation) SCS with disc electrode and wire leads on airway pressure generation were compared. Since SCS with the disc leads, when applied in clinical trials, resulted in airway pressure generation that approximated pressures generated with a normal maximum cough, airway pressure generation achieved during SCS with these leads served as our gold standard to which all comparisons were made.||||0.05
95707846|NCT01838304|191385875|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.21|14.81|||Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test for odd's ratio of time below a saturation of 80% to total time||14.81|4.21|<0.0001
95707847|NCT03674541|191385877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.043
95707848|NCT03674541|191385878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||P-value was not adjusted for multiplicity for secondary outcomes|Welch's t-test|||||||0.008
95707849|NCT03674541|191385879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.263
95707850|NCT03674541|191385880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.039
95707851|NCT03674541|191385881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.068
95707852|NCT03674541|191385882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.045
95707853|NCT03674541|191385883|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||Not adjusted multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||1.000
95707854|NCT03674541|191385884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.093||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.093
95707855|NCT03674541|191385885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.427
95707856|NCT03674541|191385886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.262
95707857|NCT03674541|191385887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038||||||Not adjusted for multiplicity|Welch's t-test|||||||0.038
95707858|NCT03674541|191385888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147|||||||Welch's t-test|||||||0.147
95707859|NCT02574520|191385918|SUPERIORITY|Primary|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.1|||ANOVA|Mixed model with repeated measures (MMRM) for scheduled pain measurements was estimated with time as a repeating factor within subject.|Least squares mean from the MMRM described in the Statistical Test of Hypothesis.|Pain Intensity on Movement 0-48 hr||0.10|-0.84|0.124
95707860|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation between test and reference drugs are 98% and 17.24%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|95.204|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.618|103.446|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.446|87.618|
95707861|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 22.62%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|107.606|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.552|119.924|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.924|96.552|
95918160|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-11.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.3|30.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and vehicle BID at Week 8 has been presented.|||30.2|-51.3|
95707862|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 16.26%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|104.373|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.504|112.883|||||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B= FDC (test value)|||112.883|96.504|
95707863|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 81% and 14.42%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|88.188|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.368|94.419|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||94.419|82.368|
95707864|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 13.09%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.168|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.263|104.451|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.451|92.263|
95707865|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 8.02%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|95.023|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.47|98.714|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.714|91.470|
95707866|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 15.55%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.601|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.55|99.0|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99|15.55|
95707867|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 84% and 15.65%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|110.656|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.416|119.559|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||119.559|102.416|
95707868|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|OH-Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.61%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|106.264|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.826|113.117|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||113.117|99.826|
95707869|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.30%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.028|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.164|105.139|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||105.139|95.164|
95707870|NCT01365091|191385930|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 10.38%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.055|98.47|||ANCOVA|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.470|89.055|
95707871|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 98% and 17.24%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.508|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.596|101.38|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.380|82.596|
95707872|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.66%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.437|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.889|101.119|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.119|93.889|
95707873|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.43%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.35|100.316|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.316|93.350|
95707874|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.37%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.585|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.56|98.035|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||98.035|85.56|
95707875|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96.028% and 101.095%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.028|101.095|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.095|96.028|
95707876|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.55%, respectively|Geometric mean ratio|96.239|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.286|99.286|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.286|93.286|
95707877|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 12.19%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.994|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.956|109.407|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||109.407|96.956|
95707878|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.778|100.613|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.613|93.778|
95707879|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.18%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.512|103.648|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.648|96.512|
95707880|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 1:The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 93% and 17.35%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|92.953|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.502|101.053|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.053|85.502|
95707881|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.281|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|98.494|104.147|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.147|98.494|
95918161|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6|51.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and vehicle QD at Week 8 has been presented.|||51.2|-35.6|
95707882|NCT01365091|191385931|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.73%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.111|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.367|102.932|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.932|97.367|
95707883|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For AUC(0-inf) metformin, Arm 1, the corresponding power and coefficient of variation are 80% and 21.06%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.697|101.226|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||101.226|82.697|
95707884|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 1: The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.60%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.477|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.955|101.132|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.132|93.955|
95707885|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 1. The corresponding power and the coefficient of variation are 99% and 07.31%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.393|100.247|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value).|||100.247|93.393|
95707886|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 96% and 14.25%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|91.548|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.573|97.939|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||97.939|85.573|
95707887|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.38%,respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|98.535|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.044|101.09|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||101.090|96.044|
95707888|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 2: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 6.52%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|96.258|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.319|99.29|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||99.290|93.319|
95707889|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 11.75%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|102.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.589|108.525|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||108.525|96.589|
95707890|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 5: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.07%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|97.187|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.832|100.662|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||100.662|93.832|
95707891|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Sarexagliptin, Arm 3: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 7.08%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.015|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|96.56|103.594|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||103.594|96.560|
95707892|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Metformin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 94% and 17.13%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|93.219|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.835|101.238|||ANCOVA|||||101.238|85.835|
95707893|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.72%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|101.346|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.574|104.196|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||104.196|98.574|
95707894|NCT01365091|191385933|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|5-OH Saxagliptin, Arm 4: The corresponding power and the variation coefficient are 99% and 5.71%, respectively.|Geometric mean ratio|100.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.324|102.864|||ANCOVA||Geometric mean ratio is calculated as B/A, where A=individual tablets (reference value) and B=FDC (test value)|||102.864|97.324|
95707895|NCT03398824|191385934|OTHER|Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \< 20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|response rate|30.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.3|57.3|||||||Fanconi Anemia is a rare disease. Therefore, the primary end point of the study was to assess the proportion of subjects with a HR during 6 months of metformin treatment; sample size was calculated assuming that a HR rate \>20% suggests preliminary efficacy of treatment that warranted additional investigation and, conversely, that the study should be deemed futile if the rate of HR was \<5%.|57.3|11.3|
95707896|NCT05307523|191385938|OTHER|Paired t-test for normally distributed data Wilcoxon Rank test for the not normally distributed data|||||<|0.05||||||Paired T-test for the normally distributed data and a Wilcoxon Rank test for the non-parametric data were used|Both Paired T-test and Wilcoxon Rank|The data included both normally and not normally distributed data for the baseline, mid-study, and final study assessment points.||||||<0.05
95707897|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.309|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the motivational interviewing (MI) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.309
95918162|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|48.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||48.5|-35.4|
95707898|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the personalized recommendation (PR) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.190
95707899|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the psychoeducation (PE) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.690
95707900|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.038|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis explores the effect of the repeated administration (RA) component on rates of treatment receipt over the entire study period. Results will help determine the proportional increase in odds of treatment seeking corresponding to receiving each chatbot component. Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||0.038
95707901|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.735|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.735
95707902|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.001
95727740|NCT00591253|191425050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|-2.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented. Overall 0.05 level of significance for multiple comparisons controlled using closed testing procedure.|ANCOVA|||||-2.81|-10.27|<0.001
95707903|NCT04806165|191385964|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data. The model was estimated using a logit link and did not incorporate an intercept.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0. We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Discrete Time Survival Analysis|The model did not incorporate an intercept to allow for estimation of treatment receipt likelihood among participants yet to report treatment.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on treatment receipt, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Discrete time survival analysis was employed and models were fit with treatment seeking regressed on follow-up time (2-week, 6-week, or 14-week) and each chatbot component.||||.014
95707904|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|Gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables to improve imputation quality. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. For sensitivity analysis, models were run again using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.53||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on secondary outcomes. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the motivational interviewing component (MI) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns their disordered weight and shape behaviors and thoughts since engagement with the intervention. Linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||||0.25
95707905|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.36||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the psychoeducation component (PE) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
95707906|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.25||||0.44|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the personalized recommendation component (PR) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.44
95707907|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.29||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of each of the four chatbot components on willingness to seek psychotherapy. This analysis in particular explores the effects of the repeated administration component (RA) on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||0.53
95707908|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.53||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 2 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.07
95707909|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-1.06||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 6 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.01
95707910|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.85||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis provides results on the 14 week time point post Intervention and contributes to understanding of the effect of time since chatbot engagement on willingness to seek psychotherapy, regardless of the combination of the four chatbot components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on).||||0.042
95707911|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.08||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.89
95707912|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.34||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.69
95707913|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.69||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.40
95707914|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.35||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.55
95727741|NCT00591253|191425051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-1.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.40|-5.47|0.001
95918163|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.8|47.1|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||47.1|-35.8|
95707915|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.88||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.32
95707916|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.37||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.63
95707917|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.08||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.90
95707918|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.95||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.27
95707919|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.67||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.42
95707920|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.23||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 2-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.04
95727742|NCT00591253|191425051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.78|-3.77||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.77|-7.78|<0.001
95918164|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-13.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.0|31.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 12 has been presented.|||31.2|-54.0|
95707921|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|1.22||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Multilevel Models|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 6-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.16
95707922|NCT04806165|191385965|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||"We interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.~We defined sufficiently large main effects as those with p values ≤ .05 or with 95% confidence intervals that do not include 0."|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the interaction effects of 14-week time since engagement with the intervention and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant willingness to seek psychotherapy for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns. since engagement with the intervention.||||0.99
95707923|NCT04806165|191385966|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||This analysis explores the time effect of attitudinal changes over the 14 week course of the study, regardless of the combination of components participants were assigned (ie., component turned off or on). Results will help determine whether mean participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns varied based on the time elapsed since engagement with the intervention (ie., do attitudinal changes post-inntervention endure over time?).||||<.001
95707924|NCT04806165|191385966|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.026|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the motivational interviewing (MI) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.026
95707925|NCT04806165|191385966|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.465|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the personalized recommendation (PR) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.465
95707926|NCT04806165|191385966|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.536|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large.|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the psychoeducation (PE) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.536
95707927|NCT04806165|191385966|SUPERIORITY|To improve the quality of the imputations, gender, age, and race were included as auxiliary variables. We generated ten imputed datasets with the predictive mean matching method and pooled coefficients, degrees of freedom, and standard errors with Rubin's (1987) rules. As a sensitivity analysis, we also ran the same models using full information maximum likelihood to handle missing data.|Regression (Beta) Coefficient|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||We computed both unstandardized (B) and standardized (ß) coefficients to indicate effect sizes. As suggested by Fey et al. (2023), we interpreted absolute ß values below 0.2 as small, between 0.2 and 0.5 as medium, and greater than 0.5 as large|Linear Mixed Effects Model|The linear mixed effects models incorporated a random intercept to accommodate the correlation of repeated measures within participants.||Analyses were conducted to determine the interaction effects of time since intervention and each of the four chatbot components. This analysis explores the interaction effects of time and the repeated administration (RA) component on participant attitudes toward change for concerns related to their eating, weight, and/or shape concerns since engagement with the intervention.||||.049
95707928|NCT02059174|191385967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A frailty model was used with effects for treatment, period and sequence and a random effect for participant. A value of 1.00 for the hazard ratio corresponds to no difference between treatments.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.59|||||ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|Because numerous participants did not achieve End of Action within the 30-hour clamp timeframe, the pre-specified hypothesis of similarity with regard to mean DOA could not be tested and a survival analysis approach was undertaken. The hazard rate is a measure of the instantaneous risk of reaching End of Action at time t given End of Action has not been met up until time t, with the hazard ratio being an estimate of the relative difference in hazard rates between treatments.||1.59|0.72|
95707929|NCT02059174|191385968|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.01|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.01|0.88|
95707930|NCT02059174|191385969|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|0.99|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.99|0.81|
95707931|NCT02059174|191385970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.06|0.92|
95707932|NCT02059174|191385971|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria calculated via Fieller's Theorem was 95% confidence interval for arithmetic mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Ratio of Arithmetic Means|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
95707933|NCT02059174|191385972|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.02|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.02|0.91|
95707934|NCT02059174|191385973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.93|1.03|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.03|0.93|
95707935|NCT02059174|191385974|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.86|0.97|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||0.97|0.86|
95707936|NCT02059174|191385975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Similarity criteria was 90% confidence interval for geometric mean ratio (MK-1293/EU-Lantus™) falls between 0.80-1.25|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.04|||||Ratio (MK-1293 / EU-Approved Lantus)|||1.04|0.95|
95707937|NCT01569568|191386001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.001
95707938|NCT01569568|191386001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PCGM.||||0.011
95707939|NCT01569568|191386001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of glutamine is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.004
95707940|NCT01569568|191386001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori threshold was 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis predicts that the concentration of myoinositol is the same for controls and OTCD patients in PWM.||||0.046
95707941|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the DMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all DMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
95707942|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.024
95707943|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold is 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the PCC node does not differ between groups.||||0.040
95707944|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC/mPFC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.008
95707945|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left IPL node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.470
95707946|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the left IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.829
95707947|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the PCC node and the right IPL node does not differ between groups.||||0.801
95707948|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Our a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a 2 (Group) x 6 (ROI Pair) ANOVA to assess functional connectivity between the nodes of the SMN, using age as a covariate.||The null hypothesis states predicts no main effects of Group, ROI pair, or Age, suggesting that the connectivity between all SMN nodes is the same across groups.||||<0.001
95707949|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.550
95707950|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.113
95707951|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.039
95707952|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the ACC node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.005
95707953|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.426
95707954|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO node and the right aI/fO node does not differ between groups.||||0.256
95707955|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the left aI/fO and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.853
95707956|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the left SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.003
95707957|NCT01569568|191386002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||This is an uncorrected p-value. A priori significance threshold was 0.05.|ANOVA|We ran a series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs to localize the main effect found. Age was used as a covariate.||The null hypothesis predicts that functional connectivity between the right aI/fO node and the right SFG node does not differ between groups.||||0.023
95707958|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance is not assumed. Two tailed t-test WASI verbal IQ between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.929
95707959|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison WASI performance IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.002
95707960|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of WASI full IQ cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.094
95707961|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of CTMT global composite score between cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.853
95707962|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variance not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF BRI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.001
95707963|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF MI cases and controls|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95707964|NCT01569568|191386004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Equal variances not assumed. Comparison of BRIEF GEC between cases and controls.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95707965|NCT02903966|191386025|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.87|||||Analysis performed using a Mixed Models Repeated Measures (MMRM) model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||0.87|-1.23|
95707966|NCT02903966|191386026|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|1.22|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and baseline value by visit interactions|||1.22|-1.18|
95707967|NCT02903966|191386027|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.11|4.02|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.02|-4.11|
95707968|NCT02903966|191386027|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.99|-0.35|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||-0.35|-5.99|
95707969|NCT02903966|191386027|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|2.88|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||2.88|-6.26|
95707970|NCT02903966|191386028|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|4.59|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||4.59|-4.01|
95707971|NCT02903966|191386028|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.64|3.85|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||3.85|-3.64|
95707972|NCT02903966|191386028|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|5.1|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and Baseline value by visit interactions|||5.10|-2.87|
95707973|NCT02903966|191386029|OTHER||Ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.8|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.80|0.27|
95707974|NCT02903966|191386029|OTHER||Ratio|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.00|0.20|
95707975|NCT02903966|191386029|OTHER||Ratio|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.62|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.62|0.09|
95707976|NCT02903966|191386030|OTHER||Ratio|0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.97|||||Day 57. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||0.97|0.25|
95707977|NCT02903966|191386030|OTHER||Ratio|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.57|||||Day 71. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||1.57|0.20|
95707978|NCT02903966|191386030|OTHER||Ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.18|||||Day 85. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, log-transformed Baseline value, and the treatment by visit and log-transformed baseline value by visit interactions.|||2.18|0.31|
95707979|NCT02903966|191386031|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|2.07|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.07|-2.05|
95707980|NCT02903966|191386032|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.27|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||2.27|-2.11|
95707981|NCT02903966|191386033|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|3.77|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||3.77|-5.29|
95707982|NCT02903966|191386034|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|4.08|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||4.08|-5.68|
95707983|NCT02903966|191386039|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.86|||||Day 15. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||0.86|-1.58|
95707984|NCT02903966|191386039|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.29|1.08|||||Day 29. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.08|-1.29|
95707985|NCT02903966|191386039|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|1.04|||||Day 43. Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.04|-1.72|
95707986|NCT02903966|191386040|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.87|1.75|||||Analysis performed using a MMRM model, adjusting for the following covariates: treatment, visit, Baseline score, and the treatment by visit and Baseline score by visit interactions.|||1.75|-1.87|
95707987|NCT03345849|191386056|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and European Union/European Medicines Agency regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|28.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|Comparison of the upadacitinib group and placebo group was performed using the Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for stratification factors (baseline steroid use \[Yes, No\], endoscopic disease severity \[SES-CD \< 15, ≥ 15\] and number of prior biologics with prior inadequate response or intolerance \[0, 1, \> 1\]).||28.8|12.7|<0.0001
95918165|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-25.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.3|22.4|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 12 has been presented.|||22.4|-65.3|
95707988|NCT03345849|191386057|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.9|36.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||36.4|20.9|<0.0001
95707989|NCT03345849|191386058|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|33.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.2|39.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||39.9|26.2|<0.0001
95707990|NCT03345849|191386059|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|27.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||27.8|15.8|<0.0001
95707991|NCT03345849|191386060|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.7|39.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior failed biologic therapies.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors endoscopic disease severity and number of prior biologic failed.|||39.8|15.7|<0.0001
95707992|NCT03345849|191386061|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|6.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|8.3|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||8.3|4.2|<0.0001
95707993|NCT03345849|191386062|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|LS Mean Difference|21.842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1933|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|28.118|||Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors, and Baseline value as covariate.||||28.118|15.566|<0.0001
95707994|NCT03345849|191386063|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|11.7||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|19.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.2|4.2|0.0022
95707995|NCT03345849|191386064|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|28.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.4|11.3|<0.0001
95707996|NCT03345849|191386065|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for US/FDA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|10.8||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|18.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||18.6|2.9|0.0071
95707997|NCT03345849|191386066|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Response Rate Difference|-1.4||||0.4494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.4|||Chi-squared||Response rate difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||2.4|-5.2|0.4494
95707998|NCT03345849|191386067|OTHER|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints, defined separately for US/FDA and EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|9.0||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|19.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||19.9|-1.9|0.1044
95707999|NCT03345849|191386068|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|21.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|28.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||28.2|14.3|<0.0001
95708000|NCT03345849|191386069|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the co-primary and ranked secondary endpoints were strongly controlled using a fixed sequence multiple-testing procedure as well as a Holm procedure. The testing utilized the sequence of hypothesis testing for the co-primary endpoints using two-sided α of 0.05 followed by a set of ranked key secondary endpoints. This endpoint was a ranked key secondary endpoint for EU/EMA regulatory purposes.|Adjusted Response Rate Difference|32.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|43.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for stratification factors.|Adjusted response rate difference (Upadacitinib - Placebo) calculated based on CMH test adjusted for stratification factors.|||43.7|21.5|<0.0001
95708001|NCT02511106|191386070|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.3|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.30|0.18|<0.0001
95708002|NCT02511106|191386071|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.34|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.34|0.21|<0.0001
95708003|NCT02511106|191386074|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4913||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3307|0.7299|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7299|0.3307|0.0004
95708004|NCT02511106|191386075|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.4912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.3439|0.7017|||Log Rank|Determined using a log rank test stratified by stage, race and mutation type.|A hazard ratio \<1 favours AZD9291.|||0.7017|0.3439|<0.0001
95708005|NCT03991936|191386083|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.635|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical analysis was p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that the change from baseline to 24 weeks in the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) for the triamcinolone acetonide groups: 2.5 mg/mL, 5.0 mg/mL, 7.5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/mL would be no different than the change from baseline to 24 weeks for the placebo group.||||<0.001
95708006|NCT00723489|191386086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.3|0.86
95708007|NCT00723489|191386087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.2||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.2|-0.2|0.86
95708008|NCT00723489|191386088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.05||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.05|-0.5|0.10
95708009|NCT00723489|191386089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|||0.3|-0.2|0.66
95708010|NCT00723489|191386090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95708011|NCT00723489|191386091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.43
95708012|NCT00723489|191386092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.3|-0.1|0.48
95708013|NCT00723489|191386093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.3||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.02||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.02|-0.5|0.036
95708014|NCT00723489|191386094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|0.04||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|This analysis excludes 1 SC-(AD) participant who did not seroconvert. Only participants who had peripheral blood T-cell samples collected from Day 0 to Day 30 as specified in the Outcome Measure Time Frame were included in analysis (1 SC -(Non-AD) participant was excluded). T-cell data from 3 SC-(Non-AD) and 1 SC-(AD) participant was excluded due to problems with sample processing||0.4|-0.3|0.82
95708015|NCT00723489|191386095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values) Day 30|-0.4||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.01||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Mean (AD) - Mean (Non-AD)|Participants who did not seroconvert were excluded from this analysis (2 TC-(AD) and 5 TC-(Non-AD)). T-cell data from 4 TC-(AD) and 3 TC-(Non-AD) subjects was excluded due to problems with sample processing||-0.01|-0.7|0.045
95708016|NCT01599585|191386096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.68||||||||.68|.12|
95708017|NCT01599585|191386108|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One tailed test at .05a = .05 margin was set at standardized difference of .50|Regression, Beta|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.16|0.78||||||||.78|.16|
95708018|NCT05085275|191386116|NON_INFERIORITY|The study planned to enroll 400 patients (200 patients in each treatment arm) to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.60 for the primary composite endpoint, with differences between treatment groups assessed using a 2-sided alpha of \<0.05|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.14|||Regression, Cox|||||1.14|0.46|.1602
95708019|NCT05085275|191386118|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2392||0.3|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||.30
95708020|NCT05085275|191386119|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8295||0.17|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.17
95708021|NCT03070119|191386141|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.08||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation (MI) including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.08|0.69|
95708022|NCT03070119|191386141|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.91|||=|0.3711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.11|0.75|=0.3711
95708023|NCT03070119|191386141|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|1.06|||=|0.6344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.34|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.34|0.84|=0.6344
95708024|NCT03070119|191386142|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.03||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.03|0.63|
95708025|NCT03070119|191386142|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.83|||=|0.2306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.13|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.13|0.60|=0.2306
95708026|NCT03070119|191386142|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.92|||=|0.673|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.38|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model with natural log transformed data. The model included covariates for the corresponding baseline value i.e. log value, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||1.38|0.61|=0.6730
95708027|NCT03070119|191386143|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|6.7||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||6.7|0.5|
95708028|NCT03070119|191386143|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28|=|0.1054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|8.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.2|-0.8|=0.1054
95708029|NCT03070119|191386143|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|=|0.1432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline ALSFRS-R total score, and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||8.4|-1.2|=0.1432
95708030|NCT03070119|191386144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.9||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.9|0.3|
95708031|NCT03070119|191386144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|=|0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|20.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||20.4|-1.7|=0.0963
95708032|NCT03070119|191386144|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.56|=|0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|15.2|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline percent predicted SVC and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||15.2|-6.6|= 0.4388
95727743|NCT00591253|191425052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|-1.02||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.02|-5.22|0.004
95708033|NCT03070119|191386145|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.109|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.477||||||Week 52 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.477|0.051|
95708034|NCT03070119|191386145|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145|=|0.3207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.141|0.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 104 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.430|-0.141|=0.3207
95708035|NCT03070119|191386145|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.091|=|0.5452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.234|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using MI.||Week 148 - The analysis was based on an ANCOVA model that included treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for the following covariates: baseline plasma NfL, baseline HHD overall megascore and use of riluzole or edaravone. Multiple imputation including treatment group, use of riluzole or edaravone, baseline NfL, and the relevant baseline and postbaseline values for the endpoint was used for missing data.||0.234|-0.124|=0.5452
95708036|NCT03070119|191386147|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||=|0.4202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.282|1.461|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.461|0.282|=0.4202
95708037|NCT03070119|191386148|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||=|0.3108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|1.357|||Log Rank|The analysis was based on a log rank test stratified by median baseline plasma NfL.|The analysis was based on a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline plasma NfL, and riluzole or edaravone use.|||1.357|0.199|=0.3108
95708038|NCT00557362|191386154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.083|||Regression, Linear|Multiple linear regression model adjusted for enrollment BSCVA and corneal de-epithelialization||||0.083|-0.28|0.29
95708039|NCT00557362|191386155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.02|||Regression, Cox|||||2.02|0.76|0.40
95708040|NCT00557362|191386156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|-0.20|0.37
95708041|NCT00557362|191386157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.41|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was examined in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates among a subgroup of ulcers caused by Fusarium spp.||0.41|-0.25|0.62
95708042|NCT00557362|191386157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.17|||Regression, Linear|||Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) was evaluated in a linear regression model with enrollment BSCVA and treatment arm as covariates in a subgroup of ulcers caused by Aspergillus spp.||0.17|-0.57|0.26
95708043|NCT00557362|191386158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||||0.14|-0.26|0.53
95708044|NCT03737318|191386168|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time interaction (β)|106.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.06|149.76||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear||Sign convention: A more positive β indicates a more positive Session 1→3 slope in the traditional treatment group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level).|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||149.76|63.06|< .0001
95708045|NCT03737318|191386169|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time (linear) interaction (β|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.85|-1.4||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment × time (Pre, Post) interaction.|Sign convention: Negative β indicates a smaller linear time slope in the traditional treatment group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level)|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||-1.40|-4.85|< .001
95708046|NCT03737318|191386170|SUPERIORITY||Treatment × Time linear interaction (β)|0.0147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0594||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.13||Two-sided test of the treatment × time interaction. Alpha = 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Test of treatment (Traditional vs biofeedback) × linear time.|Sign convention: positive β indicates a larger linear time slope in the traditional group relative to the biofeedback group (reference level)|Following our preregistered statistical analysis plan, the visual-acoustic and ultrasound biofeedback groups were pooled for comparison of biofeedback versus traditional treatment.||0.13|-0.10|.80
95708047|NCT00397631|191386210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001||95.0|-1.13|-0.65|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline HbA1c||||-0.65|-1.13|<0.001
95708048|NCT00397631|191386211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.87|<|0.001||95.0|-30.4|-15.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline FPG||||-15.2|-30.4|<0.001
95708049|NCT00397631|191386212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-44.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37|<|0.001||95.0|-57.2|32.2|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment, baseline 2-hour PPG||||32.2|-57.2|<0.001
95708050|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.61|23.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||23.27|-25.61|
95708051|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|13.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.84|36.27|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||36.27|-9.84|
95727744|NCT00591253|191425052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.96||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|-0.84||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.84|-5.08|0.006
95708052|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.43|-2.1|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.10|-41.43|
95708053|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.63|-3.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.57|-42.63|
95708054|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.85|7.28|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.28|-30.85|
95708055|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.66|7.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.57|-27.66|
95708056|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.72|7.43|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.43|-37.72|
95708057|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.66|19.45|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||19.45|-23.66|
95708058|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-20.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.75|-2.57|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-2.57|-38.75|
95708059|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-3.71|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-3.71|-39.70|
95708060|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-10.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|7.38|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||7.38|-28.62|
95708061|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-26.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.94|-10.12|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 7|An estimation approach was used.||-10.12|-41.94|
95708062|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-12.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.56|9.36|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||9.36|-33.56|
95708063|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|24.57|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||24.57|-15.91|
95708064|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-25.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.56|-8.02|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-8.02|-42.56|
95708065|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.12|-2.82|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.82|-37.12|
95708066|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-21.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.56|-5.08|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-5.08|-38.56|
95708067|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.48|-2.55|||||Comparison for fasting, Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-2.55|-33.48|
95918166|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
95918167|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|47.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||47.3|-37.8|
95918168|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-5.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.9|37.6|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 14 has been presented.|||37.6|-47.9|
95708068|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.21|10.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||10.81|-33.21|
95708069|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.22|25.81|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||25.81|-16.22|
95708070|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-15.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|2.41|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||2.41|-32.86|
95708071|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-17.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.56|0.53|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||0.53|-34.56|
95708072|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-23.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.49|-6.39|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-6.39|-41.49|
95708073|NCT02202161|191386213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with a fixed effect term for treatment was fitted with the post-Baseline pharmacodynamic parameter value minus Baseline (Day -1 parameter value) as the dependent variable and Baseline as a covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|-19.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.96|-3.93|||||Comparison for WM AUC(0-24 hour), Day 14|An estimation approach was used.||-3.93|-34.96|
95708074|NCT02202161|191386228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.49|||||Mean and confidence interval (CI) for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|0.92|
95708075|NCT02202161|191386228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.38|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.38|0.89|
95708076|NCT02202161|191386228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.87|1.27|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.27|0.87|
95708077|NCT02202161|191386228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.52|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.52|1.03|
95708078|NCT02202161|191386228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.5|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.50|1.04|
95708079|NCT02202161|191386228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model of log-transformed values.|Ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.94|
95708080|NCT02202161|191386230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.13|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.13|0.68|
95708081|NCT02202161|191386230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.31|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.31|0.82|
95708082|NCT02202161|191386230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.26|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.26|0.85|
95708083|NCT02202161|191386230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.45|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.45|0.97|
95708084|NCT02202161|191386230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.01|1.49|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.49|1.01|
95708085|NCT02202161|191386230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Each GSK2330672 dose level was compared to placebo using an ANOVA model following log-transformation.|Ratio|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.04|1.48|||||Mean and CI for the difference in least squares means (Active-Placebo) are back-transformed to form the point estimate and associated CI for the ratio of geometric means.|||1.48|1.04|
95918169|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|41.5|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 14 has been presented.|||41.5|-48.3|
95708086|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.91|
95708087|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.98|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.98|0.78|
95708088|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.78|
95708089|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.68|
95708090|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.92|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.92|0.76|
95708091|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.1|||||Comparison for Day 7, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.10|0.92|
95708092|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.19|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.19|0.95|
95708093|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.94|
95708094|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.88|
95708095|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.89|
95708096|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.98|
95708097|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.05|||||Comparison for Day 7, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.05|0.90|
95708098|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.13|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.13|0.80|
95708099|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.65|
95708100|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.64|
95708101|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.69|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.69|0.51|
95708102|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.62|
95708103|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.89|
95708104|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.88|
95708105|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.71|
95708106|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.74|
95708107|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.76|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.76|0.59|
95708108|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.87|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.87|0.68|
95708109|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.14|||||Comparison for Day 7, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.14|0.92|
95708110|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.66|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.66|0.97|
95708111|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.50|0.90|
95708112|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.61|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.61|1.06|
95708113|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.48|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.48|0.96|
95708114|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.42|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.42|0.93|
95708115|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.16|||||Comparison for Day 7, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.16|0.79|
95708116|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.17|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.17|0.86|
95708117|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.96|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.96|0.73|
95708118|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.73|
95708119|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.82|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.82|0.66|
95708120|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.69|
95708121|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.03|||||Comparison for Day 14, cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.03|0.84|
95708122|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.21|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.21|0.99|
95708123|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.93|
95708124|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.90|
95708125|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.92|
95708126|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.08|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.08|0.94|
95708127|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.92|
95708128|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.69|
95708129|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.58|
95708130|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.86|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.86|0.62|
95708131|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.71|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.71|0.50|
95708132|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.8|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.80|0.59|
95708133|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.09|||||Comparison for Day 14, LDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.09|0.81|
95708134|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.22|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.22|0.80|
95708135|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.93|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.93|0.64|
95708136|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.67|
95708137|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.75|0.55|
95708138|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.81|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||0.81|0.60|
95708139|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.04|||||Comparison for Day 14, non-HDL cholesterol|An estimation approach was used.||1.04|0.80|
95708140|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||2.00|1.01|
95708141|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.75|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.75|0.94|
95708142|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.58|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.58|0.98|
95708143|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.56|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.56|0.95|
95708144|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.57|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.57|0.96|
95708145|NCT02202161|191386231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 14, triglycerides|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.72|
95708146|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.11|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.11|0.87|
95708147|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.89|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.89|0.71|
95708148|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.9|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.90|0.74|
95708149|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.63|
95708150|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.85|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.85|0.70|
95708151|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.06|||||Comparison for Day 7, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.06|0.89|
95708152|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.07|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.07|0.77|
95708153|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.95|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.95|0.68|
95708154|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.91|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.91|0.70|
95708155|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.77|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.77|0.58|
95708156|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.83|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||0.83|0.64|
95708157|NCT02202161|191386232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Results were based on an ANCOVA model: Log(post-Baseline) - Log(Baseline) = Log(Baseline) + treatment + concomitant use of lipid lowering drugs.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.02|||||Comparison for Day 14, apolipoprotein B|An estimation approach was used.||1.02|0.80|
95708158|NCT01603628|191386238|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.26||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|-0.063||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.063|-0.453|0.010
95708159|NCT01603628|191386238|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|-0.018||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||-0.018|-0.405|0.033
95708160|NCT01603628|191386239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.532||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.532|0.040|0.023
95708161|NCT01603628|191386239|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.13||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.115|0.374||MMRM including baseline MAS-B ankle score (knee extended) as a covariate and factors of age, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age is represented by stratification categories.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.374|-0.115|0.299
95708162|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|0.704||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.704|0.126|0.005
95708163|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.29||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.573||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Active Goal||0.573|0.004|0.047
95708164|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.45||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.145|0.756||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.756|0.145|0.004
95708165|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.44||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.141|0.74||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 8, Passive Goal||0.740|0.141|0.004
95708166|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.49||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.797||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.797|0.191|0.001
95708167|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.541||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Active Goal||0.541|-0.081|0.153
95708168|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.711||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.711|0.100|0.010
95708169|NCT01603628|191386240|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.27||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.571||ANCOVA model including baseline MAS-B ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Week 12, Passive Goal||0.571|-0.031|0.078
95708170|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.99||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.768|0.779||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||0.779|-4.768|0.158
95918170|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.5|42.7|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.7|-44.5|
95708171|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.25||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.974|-0.524||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 2||-0.524|-5.974|0.020
95708172|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.42||||0.363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.489|1.648||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||1.648|-4.489|0.363
95708173|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.11||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.127|0.914||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 4||0.914|-5.127|0.171
95708174|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.33||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.143|-0.525||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-0.525|-6.143|0.020
95708175|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.92||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.688|-1.148||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 6||-1.148|-6.688|0.006
95708176|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.07||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.621|1.491||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.491|-5.621|0.254
95708177|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.46||||0.165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.935|1.014||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 8||1.014|-5.935|0.165
95708178|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.61||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.517|0.296||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||0.296|-5.517|0.078
95708179|NCT01603628|191386241|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.09||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.944|1.758||ANCOVA model including baseline MTS ankle score with knee extended as a covariate and factors of age group, treatment group, study center, and previous botulinum toxin exposure where age group is represented by stratification categories.|ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline to Week 12||1.758|-3.944|0.451
95708180|NCT03797144|191386248|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.06
95708181|NCT03797144|191386248|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of ODI from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_ODI ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_ODI \> 0 where μ\_ODI is the mean improvement of ODI score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
95708182|NCT03797144|191386249|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
95708183|NCT03797144|191386249|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Back Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
95708184|NCT03797144|191386249|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
95708185|NCT03797144|191386249|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."|||||<|0.001||||||Leg Pain|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of VAS from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_VAS ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_VAS \> 0 where μ\_VAS is the mean improvement of VAS score at 3 months from baseline."||||<0.001
95708186|NCT03797144|191386250|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.174||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.174
95708187|NCT03797144|191386250|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.002||||||Health State Score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.002
95708188|NCT03797144|191386250|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.003||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.003
95708189|NCT03797144|191386250|OTHER|"A paired t-test for normally distributed data was performed to test whether the mean improvement from baseline was significantly greater than 0.~The normality of the data distribution was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test."||||||0.012||||||Index score|t-test, 1 sided|||"To verify that the improvement of EQ-5D 5L from Baseline to 3 Month was significantly greater than 0 for each indication subgroup the following statistical analyses were planned.~The null hypothesis was H0: μ\_EQ-5D 5L ≤ 0, and the alternative hypothesis was Ha: μ\_EQ-5D 5L \> 0 where μ\_EQ-5D 5L is the mean improvement of EQ-5D 5L score at 3 months from baseline."||||0.012
95708190|NCT02268942|191386275|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Exact Binomial|||"Success at six months is estimated to be 86% compared to a performance goal of 77.5%. Using an exact binomial test, with a one-sided alpha of 0.05, and 80% Power, a sample size of 145 implanted subjects was planned.~Success will be met if the lower bound of the upper one-sided exact 95% confidence interval is greater than 77.5%."||||0.0003
95708191|NCT02268942|191386276|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||"The secondary endpoint is an improvement in the mean length of initial hospital stay (initial recovery and step down unit), which is calculated by considering the number of days in acute care (ICU/CCU) plus the number of days in intermediate/step-down care, comprising the total number of days post-implant to discharge.~This secondary endpoint will be calculated using an upper tail one-sided t-test at 0.05 level of significance compared to 26.1 days for median sternotomy patients."||||<0.0001
95708192|NCT01302691|191386288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-1.1||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.6|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||0.6|-2.7|0.205
95708193|NCT01302691|191386294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-3.2||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|-0.8|||Constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis|Model includes treatment group, time point, and the interaction of time by treatment with restriction of same baseline mean across treatment groups||||-0.8|-5.7|0.011
95708194|NCT00423592|191386295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|9.7|||Exact binomial test|A 1-sample test for a binomial proportion was performed.||Sample size: 30 participants; 80% power to rule out 50% recurrence rate of serum ALT/AST abnormalities following ambrisentan treatment (assumes 25% recurrence rate); 99% power to rule out 75% recurrence rate (assumes 37.5% recurrence rate). H\_0 = proportion of subjects experiencing primary endpoint at 12% vs 1-sided alternative of \< 12%. P-value from exact binomial test. Summary statistics included the estimated proportion, 95% confidence interval (CI), and the p-value of the hypothesis test.||9.7|0.0|0.01
95708195|NCT00423592|191386298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|49.6||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|40.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) 6-minute walk distance change from baseline.||40.4|6.3|0.009
95708196|NCT00423592|191386299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.51||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Hypothesis testing and descriptive statistics were carried out on the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) Borg dyspnea index change from baseline.||0.0|-1.0|0.046
95708197|NCT00423592|191386301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.44||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|7.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.1|2.1|0.001
95708198|NCT00423592|191386302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.98||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.8|-0.1|0.059
95708199|NCT00423592|191386303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.86||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.0|1.7|0.002
95708200|NCT00423592|191386304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.56||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|11.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||11.3|3.1|0.001
95708201|NCT00423592|191386305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.4||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.6|0.6|0.017
95708202|NCT00423592|191386306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.45||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|5.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||5.8|0.1|0.046
95708203|NCT00423592|191386307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.23||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.3|1.7|0.003
95708204|NCT00423592|191386308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.41||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||7.2|-0.1|0.059
95708205|NCT00423592|191386309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.96||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|9.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||9.3|-1.5|0.152
95708206|NCT00423592|191386310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.78||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|6.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||Seven subjects were evaluated by the incorrect version of the SF-36 questionnaire at the baseline visit and were not included in the analysis; therefore n = 28 for mean baseline scores, and n = 28 for mean change from baseline at Week 12.||6.2|1.7|0.001
95708207|NCT00255008|191386318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|80.0||||||95.0|28.36|99.49||||||||99.49|28.36|
95708208|NCT00255008|191386318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|76.47||||||95.0|50.1|93.19||||||||93.19|50.10|
95708209|NCT00255008|191386318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of patients (%)|87.5||||||95.0|47.35|99.48||||||||99.48|47.35|
95708210|NCT00815776|191386335|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The unadjusted reductions are straight arithmetic averages and are supplied for informational purposes only. The pooled variance is calculated from the unadjusted standard deviations, and the t statistic is calculated as described in Laster (2003) using an average sample size of 54 and 106 degrees of freedom.|||||<|0.0096|||||||student's t-test with 2n-2 DoF|||The LS means were used to calculate the test statistic for non-inferiority of the CID to the traditional splint device. The null hypothesis was that the reduction of CMI score for the CID is less than 80% of the reduction in the splint group. A significant p-value(\< 0.05) would reject this null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the CID demonstrated a reduction of at least 80% of that seen in the splint group.||||<0.0096
95708211|NCT00815776|191386336|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population.||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Safety analyses were performed on the ITT population. The safety of the CID was characterized by the proportion of subjects with all serious and non-serious study-related adverse events and Unanticipated Adverse Device Events (UADEs). In addition, summaries of the onset, duration, severity, treatment relatedness, and outcome of all adverse events were reported.||||0.688
95708212|NCT00815776|191386337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2995||||||From the pilot study, 50 subjects (CID arm) and 25 (exercise arm) were required for at least 80% power to detect a difference in the mean reduction in CMI scores between arms if muPassive is less than approximately 70% of that in the CID arm.|t-test, 2 sided|||A significant p-value for the treatment group effect would indicate that the CID group and Exercise group were significantly different, based on results of a two-sided t test for difference in means, with alpha=0.5, and allowing for unequal sample sizes.||||.2995
95708213|NCT00959699|191386338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Strata-Adjusted Difference|33.7||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|53.3||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% Confidence Interval (CI) is based on a Modified Koch approach which adjusted for Randomization Strata of Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No). The adjustment of randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) was not possible due to sparse data.||53.3|14.1|0.0008
95708214|NCT00959699|191386339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Observed Difference|34.2||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.5|53.9||The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel p-value is adjusted for randomization strata of HCV-RNA (\< or \>= 800,000 IU/mL) and Cirrhosis/Fibrosis (Yes or No)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The methodology for 95% CI is based on the asymptotic normal approximation to the binomial distribution||53.9|14.5|0.0007
95708215|NCT02583360|191386344|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95708216|NCT02583360|191386345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.907
95708217|NCT02583360|191386346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.592|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.592
95708218|NCT00126425|191386353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.83||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader A readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.83|0.23|=0.004
95708219|NCT00126425|191386353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader B readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
95918171|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|49.2|||||Difference between GSK2894512 1 % QD and Vehicle QD at Week 16 has been presented.|||49.2|-35.0|
95708220|NCT00126425|191386353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.84||At 0.025 level of significance.|Cox Proportional Hazards Model|||"Analysis based on Reader C readings. Data analysis to assess the relative hazard of an adverse cardiac event was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Hazard (risk) of an event for a participant with low H/M at time t was expressed as Hl (t)/ Hh (t) = Ψ, where Hl (t) and Hh (t) denote the hazard of an event at time t for participants with low H/M and high H/M respectively."||0.84|0.23|=0.004
95708221|NCT01425307|191386369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|We hypothesized that the Alternative arm mean TCD velocity at 24 months will be less than the Standard arm mean TCD velocity plus 15cm/sec. We used Lan-DeMets boundaries to control overall Type I error rate at α = 0.05. For looks at exactly 1/3, 2/3, and 100 percent of the completed subjects, the cumulative α were estimated to be 0.0001, 0.001, and 0.05, respectively.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|8.98||P value for non inferiority was 8.82 X 10\^-16|Mixed Models Analysis|Linear mixed model||Participants were randomized at a central site, stratified by site with a block size of four, and an adaptive randomization scheme was used to balance the covariates of baseline age and TCD velocity. The treatment period lasted 24 months. The primary study endpoint was the 24 month TCD velocity calculated from a general linear mixed model, with the non-inferiority margin set at 15 cm/s. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population.||8.98|0.10|<0.05
95708222|NCT01425307|191386373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95708223|NCT01425307|191386383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0011|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0011
95708224|NCT03128307|191386384|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Assuming a priori threshold for statistical significant of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95708225|NCT03128307|191386385|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance of p = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.0001
95708226|NCT01855919|191386411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.16|-0.77|0.0026
95708227|NCT01855919|191386412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.48|0.0026
95708228|NCT01855919|191386413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||||-0.02|-1.25|0.0439
95708229|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.06||p-value is for worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.66|0.1010
95708230|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.21||p-value is for least pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.21|-0.79|0.0009
95708231|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.05||p-value is for Pain Right Now|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-0.74|0.0230
95708232|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.05||p-value is for General Activity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.66|0.0874
95708233|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.01||p-value is for Mood|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.63|0.0436
95708234|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.3902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.18||p-value is for Walking Ability|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.45|0.3902
95708235|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33||p-value is for Normal Work|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.33|-0.33|0.9910
95708236|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.23||p-value is for Relationship People|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.30|0.7848
95708237|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.3||p-value is for Sleep|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.30|-0.32|0.9424
95708238|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.7932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.27||p-value is for Enjoyment of Life|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.35|0.7932
95918172|NCT02564055|191795626|OTHER||Difference in percentages|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.0|42.3|||||Difference between GSK2894512 0.5 % BID and Vehicle BID at Week 16 has been presented.|||42.3|-46.0|
95708239|NCT01855919|191386414|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.3761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.15||p-value is for Average of 7 Items|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.40|0.3761
95708240|NCT01855919|191386415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|-0.13||p-value is for Average Pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.13|-0.71|0.0049
95708241|NCT01855919|191386415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.01||p-value is for Worst pain|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.01|-0.69|0.0442
95708242|NCT01855919|191386416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.53||p-value is for ≥30%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.53|1.13|0.0003
95708243|NCT01855919|191386416|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.75||p-value is for ≥50%|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.75|1.18|0.0003
95708244|NCT01855919|191386417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.33||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|1.58|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.58|1.12|0.0012
95708245|NCT01855919|191386418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.10|-0.46|0.0019
95708246|NCT01855919|191386419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.32|||ANCOVA|||||0.32|-1.03|0.3012
95708247|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|3.47||p-value for Physical Functioning|ANCOVA|||||3.47|-0.93|0.2581
95708248|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|3.79||p-value for Role (Physical)|ANCOVA|||||3.79|-2.62|0.7208
95708249|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55||||0.2487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|4.19||p-value for Bodily Pain|ANCOVA|||||4.19|-1.09|0.2487
95708250|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|5.31||p-value for General Health|ANCOVA|||||5.31|0.57|0.0151
95918173|NCT04542226|191795650|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance p\<0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Wilcoxon signed-rank test for repeated measures was used to compare with baseline.||||||<0.0000001
95708251|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|3.85||p-value for Vitality|ANCOVA|||||3.85|-1.54|0.4000
95708252|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.63||||0.2529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|4.43||p-value for Social Functioning|ANCOVA|||||4.43|-1.17|0.2529
95708253|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.8042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.55|2.75||p-value for Role(Emotional)|ANCOVA|||||2.75|-3.55|0.8042
95708254|NCT01855919|191386420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|5.48||p-value is for Mental Health|ANCOVA|||||5.48|0.94|0.0058
95708255|NCT01855919|191386421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.5237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA|||||0.03|-0.02|0.5237
95708256|NCT01855919|191386422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0||p-value for Work time missed|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.05|0.0460
95708257|NCT01855919|191386422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Impairment at work|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0753
95708258|NCT01855919|191386422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.0||p-value for Work productivity loss|ANCOVA|||||0.00|-0.08|0.0795
95708259|NCT01855919|191386422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.1466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.01||p-value for Work activity impairment|ANCOVA|||||0.01|-0.06|0.1466
95708260|NCT02043704|191386431|EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the pain scores between the groups.||||||0.328||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|There were no adjustments.||The comparison was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.||||0.328
95708261|NCT00211536|191386471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|For the average A1C, the goal was to show non-inferiority of MIP compared to SC. The minimal clinically relevant increase in A1C (%) was set at 0.50%. The between-subjects standard deviation of A1C was assumed to be 1.0% based on previous studies.|Least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusting for baseline A1C using SAS Proc Mixed to compare A1C trends over time between the treatment groups||Sample size calculations were performed on the primary endpoint: the average glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C). Sample size was estimated using a two-sample, one-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.05. The projected sample size of 50 subjects per treatment group provides 79% power to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the average A1C in both the MIP and SC groups are equivalent, assuming an effect size of 0.50% and a standard deviation of 1.0%.||0.5||<0.05
95708262|NCT03350724|191386520|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.039||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.039
95708263|NCT03350724|191386521|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.037
95708264|NCT03350724|191386522|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032|||||||Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|||||||0.032
95708265|NCT03350724|191386523|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.171||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.171
95708266|NCT03350724|191386524|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.484||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.484
95708267|NCT03350724|191386525|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.368||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.368
95708268|NCT03350724|191386526|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.308
95708269|NCT03350724|191386527|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.999||||||Unadjusted p-value|Z-Test for Two Population Proportions|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.999
95708270|NCT03350724|191386528|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.015
95708271|NCT03350724|191386529|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.021
95708272|NCT03350724|191386530|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.035
95708273|NCT03350724|191386531|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.444
95708274|NCT03350724|191386532|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.765||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.765
95708275|NCT03350724|191386533|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.941||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.941
95708276|NCT03350724|191386534|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.421||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.421
95708277|NCT03350724|191386535|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.357||||||Unadjusted p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.357
95708278|NCT03350724|191386536|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.22
95708279|NCT03350724|191386537|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.882||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.882
95708280|NCT03350724|191386538|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.64
95708281|NCT03350724|191386539|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.967||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.967
95708282|NCT03350724|191386540|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.375||||||Unadjusted p-value|Paired t-Test|Unadjusted p-value||||||0.375
95708283|NCT00087594|191386572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.8|41.3||||||95% CI for G1 participants||41.3|-27.8|
95708284|NCT00087594|191386572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|35.4||||||95% CI for G2/3 participants||35.4|-10.4|
95708285|NCT00087594|191386572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|44.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|76.9||||||95% CI for G1 participants with 2 log drop at W 12||76.9|12.0|
95708286|NCT00087594|191386572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||95% CI for G1 participants with non 2 log drop at W 12||||
95708287|NCT00087594|191386572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|50.5||||||95% CI for G1 participants with missing HCV-RNA at W 12||50.5|-77.2|
95708288|NCT01952041|191386586|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|Chi-square test statistic=0.06, degrees of freedom=2||||||0.80
95708289|NCT01952041|191386587|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.44|||Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio is intervention arm vs. TAU for time to first relapse from randomization. There is not a standard error (SE) that directly links to the hazard ratio. The confidence interval provided illustrates the dispersion for the hazard ratio.|||1.44|0.42|0.43
95708290|NCT01952041|191386588|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||1.02|-0.58|0.58
95708291|NCT01952041|191386589|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.26|-0.22|0.84
95708292|NCT01952041|191386590|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Treatment by time interaction terms are given to test difference of slopes between arms.|||0.04|-5.40|0.06
95708293|NCT01196936|191386591|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The calculated p-value is 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.05
95708294|NCT01196936|191386592|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0266|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0266
95708295|NCT01196936|191386593|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.12
95708296|NCT01196936|191386594|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95708297|NCT01196936|191386595|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95708298|NCT01196936|191386596|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||> 0.05
95708299|NCT01196936|191386597|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.071|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
95708300|NCT01196936|191386598|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.739
95708301|NCT01196936|191386599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8315|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8315
95708302|NCT00290355|191386608|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.24||Two-sided p value from Cox regression model adjusted for covariate(s) node/squam/stage to test the null hypothesis was: the distribution of time to recurrences was the same in each group (H0 = \[HR=1\]).|Regression, Cox|The p value by log rank test was 0.1995. Criterion for evaluation of the objective: one sided p-value \< 10%||Hazard ratio of GSK 249553 study product.||1.24|0.44|0.256
95708303|NCT04437511|191386656|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.508|4.331|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.331|1.508|<0.001
95708304|NCT04437511|191386657|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.883|4.618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.618|1.883|<0.001
95708305|NCT04437511|191386658|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.104|0.841|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.841|0.104|0.012
95708306|NCT04437511|191386659|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.089|0.868|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.868|0.089|0.016
95708307|NCT04437511|191386660|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.39||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.086|-0.565|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.565|-2.086|0.0006
95708308|NCT04437511|191386661|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-1.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.25|-0.794|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.794|-2.250|<0.001
95708309|NCT04437511|191386662|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.45|-0.95|<0.001
95708310|NCT04437511|191386663|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.141|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.95|<0.001
95708311|NCT04437511|191386664|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.566|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.566|0.840|0.0001
95708312|NCT04437511|191386665|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|1.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.913|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.748|0.913|<0.001
95708313|NCT04437511|191386666|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-86.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.275|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.87|-83.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-83.87|-88.87|<0.0001
95708314|NCT04437511|191386667|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-0.0041||||0.4522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0148|0.0066|||ANCOVA|||||0.0066|-0.0148|0.4522
95708315|NCT04437511|191386668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Hippocampus||0.04|0.01|0.002
95708316|NCT04437511|191386668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.561|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-5.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Whole Brain||-5.56|-7.76|<0.001
95708317|NCT04437511|191386668|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean change difference (Final Values)|3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.256|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|3.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Bilateral Ventricles||3.52|2.52|<0.001
95708318|NCT04916314|191386678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6||Omnibus likelihood ratio test for significant change in co-primary outcomes at 3 or 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.6|-5|0.8
95708319|NCT04916314|191386679|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.8||omnibus likelihood ratio test for significant change in co-primary outcomes at 3 or 12 months|Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.8|-5.7|0.8
95708320|NCT05492877|191386790|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.071||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.869|1.32|||Regression, Cox||||The p-value was based on a 2-sided log rank test stratified by region|1.320|0.869|0.599
95708321|NCT05492877|191386793|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.234|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.882|1.726|||Regression, Cox|||||1.726|0.882|
95708322|NCT02477800|191386799|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.11||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|0.403|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.403|-0.469|0.2250
95708323|NCT02477800|191386799|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.03||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.262|0.326|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in CDR-SB as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline CDR-SB, baseline CDR-SB by visit interaction, baseline MMSE, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.326|-0.262|0.8330
95708324|NCT02477800|191386800|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.2||||0.4795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.74|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.74|-0.35|0.4795
95708325|NCT02477800|191386800|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.1||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.49|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference from Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in MMSE as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group, categorical visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline MMSE, baseline MMSE by visit interaction, AD symptomatic medication use at baseline, region, and laboratory ApoE status.||0.49|-0.62|0.8106
95708326|NCT02477800|191386801|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.583||||0.2536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5835|0.4181|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4181|-1.5835|0.2536
95708327|NCT02477800|191386801|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|-0.588||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6067|0.4309|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each treatment group (Placebo,BIIB037 Low Dose,BIIB037 High Dose),difference with Placebo, 95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADAS-Cog 13 as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction,baseline ADAS-Cog 13,baseline ADAS-Cog 13 by visit interaction,baseline MMSE,AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region,and laboratory ApoE status.||0.4309|-1.6067|0.2578
95708328|NCT02477800|191386802|SUPERIORITY||Difference from Placebo|0.7||||0.1225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.64|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.64|-0.19|0.1225
95708329|NCT02477800|191386802|SUPERIORITY||Difference from late start group|0.7||||0.1506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.61|||MMRM Model|||Adjusted mean for each group (Placebo, BIIB037 Low Dose, BIIB037 High Dose), difference with Placebo,95% confidence interval and p-value at each time point were based on an MMRM model, with change from baseline in ADCS-ADL-MCI as dependent variable and with fixed effects of treatment group,categorical visit,treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI, baseline ADCS-ADL-MCI by visit interaction, baseline MMSE AD symptomatic medication use at baseline,region, and laboratory ApoE status.||1.61|-0.25|0.1506
95708330|NCT01828567|191386822|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement prevention program enrollment between the usual care and intervention arms by month 6.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|3.89|||Regression, Logistic|||The first primary outcome is the cumulative enrollment in prevention programs over the six months of follow up. This will be assessed via self-report at months 1 and 6. As defined by the eligibility criteria, all patients will have a value of 0 at baseline.||3.89|1.66|<.0001
95708331|NCT01828567|191386824|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|3.7||A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 1 month.|For the primary hypothesis we will be examining the effect during the 1-month long intervention delivery period.||3.7|-0.8|0.204
95708332|NCT01828567|191386825|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means, which is appropriate for a randomized controlled trial and is equivalent in efficiency to an ANCOVA model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.7||A general Linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time. For the primary hypothesis we will be assessing sustainability at 6 months.|Repeated Measures|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in PAM scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|||4.7|0.2|0.030
95708333|NCT01828567|191386827|EQUIVALENCE|This model assumes the groups have equal baseline means|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.2|||Repeated Measures|A general linear model with an unstructured covariance matrix to take into account the within-patient correlation between repeated measures over time.|We estimate the parameters in the model using the SAS procedure MIXED (SAS Version 9.4, Cary, NC). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in improvement in FRS scores between the usual care and intervention arms at 6 month.|Our secondary outcome of interest is the Framingham Risk Score, measured at baseline and month 6.||2.2|-0.7|0.330
95708334|NCT02614261|191386843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.92|<.001
95708335|NCT02614261|191386843|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.05|-2.71|<.001
95708336|NCT02614261|191386844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.623||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.167|2.256|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%,||2.256|1.167|.004
95708337|NCT02614261|191386844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.788|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.291|2.474|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥50%||2.474|1.291|<.001
95708338|NCT02614261|191386844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.498||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.923|2.43|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.430|0.923|.102
95708339|NCT02614261|191386844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.819||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.146|2.888|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥75%||2.888|1.146|.011
95708340|NCT02614261|191386844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.761||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|3.563|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||3.563|0.163|0.729
95708341|NCT02614261|191386844|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.897||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.998|||CPRMM|Categorical pseudo likelihood-based repeated measures model (CPRMM)||Reduction from Baseline ≥100%||5.998|0.600|.276
95708342|NCT02614261|191386845|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|5.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|7.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.99|2.12|<.001
95708343|NCT02614261|191386845|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|6.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|9.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.55|3.03|<.001
95708344|NCT02614261|191386846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.76|-3.27|<.001
95708345|NCT02614261|191386846|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.26|-2.77|<.001
95708346|NCT02614261|191386847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.06|-0.34|.181
95708347|NCT02614261|191386847|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.08|-0.48|.006
95708348|NCT02614261|191386848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-22.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.74|-13.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.69|-31.74|<.001
95708349|NCT02614261|191386848|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-18.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.09|-9.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.09|-27.09|<.001
95708350|NCT02614261|191386849|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.39|-1.08|||ANCOVA|||||-1.08|-16.39|.025
95708351|NCT02614261|191386849|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference|-5.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.88||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|2.12|||ANCOVA|||||2.12|-13.10|.157
95708352|NCT02614261|191386850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.263|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.263
95708353|NCT02614261|191386850|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||.290
95708354|NCT01700140|191386859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95708355|NCT01700140|191386859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2284
95708356|NCT01700140|191386859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2549|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.2549
95708357|NCT01700140|191386860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0000
95708358|NCT01700140|191386860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1527
95708359|NCT01700140|191386860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1864|||||||Cochran-Armitage test|||||||0.1864
95708360|NCT01700140|191386861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.8361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.266|3.172|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||3.172|0.266|0.8361
95708361|NCT01700140|191386861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.423||||0.0724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.144|1.237|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.237|0.144|0.0724
95708362|NCT01700140|191386862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.213||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.616|2.388|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||2.388|0.616|0.6466
95708363|NCT01700140|191386862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.828||||0.2701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.21|||Generalized Wilcoxon test|||||1.210|0.566|0.2701
95708364|NCT01700140|191386863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
95708365|NCT01700140|191386863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
95708366|NCT01700140|191386863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4856|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.4856
95708367|NCT01700140|191386863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1047|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the second irradiation||||0.1047
95708368|NCT01700140|191386863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1617|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.1617
95708369|NCT01700140|191386863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete control rate after the third irradiation||||0.3099
95708370|NCT01700140|191386864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||1.0000
95708371|NCT01700140|191386864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1051|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the first irradiation||||0.1051
95708372|NCT01700140|191386864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.6761
95708373|NCT01700140|191386864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3513|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the second irradiation||||0.3513
95708374|NCT01700140|191386864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.206|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.2060
95708375|NCT01700140|191386864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis for complete response rate after the third irradiation||||0.0511
95708376|NCT01388491|191386886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8||||0.5892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.75|31.17||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.17|-54.75|0.5892
95708377|NCT01388491|191386887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|31.94||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||31.94|-25.96|0.839
95708378|NCT01388491|191386888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.8||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|-1.77||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||-1.77|-7.87|0.0021
95708379|NCT01388491|191386889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.2||||0.2312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|8.58||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||8.58|-2.08|0.2312
95708380|NCT01388491|191386890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.6||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.85||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||4.85|-1.70|0.3440
95708381|NCT01388491|191386891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.2522|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.92||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.92|-0.24|0.2522
95708382|NCT01388491|191386892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.9||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|5.13||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.13|0.58|0.0143
95708383|NCT01388491|191386893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5||||0.8507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.87|5.91||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||5.91|-4.87|0.8507
95708384|NCT01388491|191386894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.14|0.00|0.0459
95708385|NCT01388491|191386895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.26||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.26|0.01|0.0318
95708386|NCT01388491|191386896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|361.6||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|811.61||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||811.61|-88.45|0.1148
95708387|NCT01388491|191386897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.2||||0.7136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.92|52.39||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||52.39|-35.92|0.7136
95708388|NCT01388491|191386898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.11||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||0.11|-0.29|0.3903
95708389|NCT01388491|191386899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|14.3||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.29|34.8||The p-value, least squares mean difference, and 95% CI for the treatment group comparison are based on a repeated measures ANCOVA with baseline, treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed factors, and subject as a random effect.|ANCOVA|Least Squares mean difference: Treatment I - Treatment II||||34.80|-6.29|0.1731
95708390|NCT00412113|191386907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.03|||<|0.001||95.0|9.14|39.63||There was only one primary endpoint and the p-value was not adjusted for comparison.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the BP(\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL goal (\< 100mg/dL) at Week 6.~With \~120 in each treatment arm, planned power was at least 90% to detect a difference between treatments, assuming 35% in the Caduet and 15% in the Norvasc arm achieving BP \<140/90 mmHg and LDL \<100 mg/dL and using a chi-square test with 0.05 two-sided significance level."||39.63|9.14|<0.001
95708391|NCT00412113|191386908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|31.39|||<|0.001||95.0|12.61|78.09||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analysis|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<100 mg/dL) at Week 4.||78.09|12.61|<0.001
95708392|NCT00412113|191386909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2|||<|0.001||95.0|2.93|9.24||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 4.||9.24|2.93|<0.001
95708393|NCT00412113|191386910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.14|||<|0.001||95.0|2.89|9.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving both the blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) and LDL-goal (\<130mg/dL) at Week 6.||9.11|2.89|<0.001
95708394|NCT00412113|191386911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|65.51|||<|0.001||95.0|27.1|158.34||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving (\<100mg/DL) at Week 4.||158.34|27.10|<0.001
95708395|NCT00412113|191386912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.04|||<|0.001||95.0|19.42|90.99||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving LDL-goal (\<100mg/DL) at Week 6.||90.99|19.42|<0.001
95708396|NCT00412113|191386913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.785||95.0|0.6|1.98||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg)at Week 4||1.98|0.60|0.785
95708397|NCT00412113|191386914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.171||95.0|0.83|2.88||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the percentage of patients achieving blood pressure (\< 140/90 mmHg) at Week 6.||2.88|0.83|0.171
95708398|NCT00412113|191386915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.76||||0.585||95.0|-1.97|3.48||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 4.||3.48|-1.97|0.585
95708399|NCT00412113|191386916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.0|||>|0.999||95.0|-2.01|2.01||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 4.||2.01|-2.01|> 0.999
95708400|NCT00412113|191386917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.9||||0.363||95.0|-2.83|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 4.||1.04|-2.83|0.363
95708401|NCT00412113|191386918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS means|-3.25||||0.02||95.0|-5.99|-0.51||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at Week 6.||-0.51|-5.99|0.020
95708402|NCT00412113|191386919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.87||||0.351||95.0|-2.71|0.97||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at Week 6.||0.97|-2.71|0.351
95708403|NCT00412113|191386920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.1||||0.922||95.0|-1.91|2.11||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline in pulse rate at Week 6.||2.11|-1.91|0.922
95708404|NCT00412113|191386921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-49.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-54.68|-43.91||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 4.||-43.91|-54.68|<0.001
95708405|NCT00412113|191386922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||difference in LS Means|-0.3||||0.739||95.0|-2.07|1.47||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 4.||1.47|-2.07|0.739
95708406|NCT00412113|191386923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-57.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-64.02|51.81||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 4.||51.81|-64.02|<0.001
95708407|NCT00412113|191386924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-47.27|||<|0.001||95.0|-63.37|-31.16||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TG at Week 4.||-31.16|-63.37|<0.001
95708408|NCT00412113|191386925|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-51.21|||<|0.001||95.0|-56.88|-45.55||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in LDL at Week 6.||-45.55|-56.88|<0.001
95708409|NCT00412113|191386926|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.02||||0.329||95.0|-3.07|1.03||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in HDL at Week 6.||1.03|-3.07|0.329
95708410|NCT00412113|191386927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-62.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-68.49|-55.65||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline in TC at Week 6.||-55.65|-68.49|<0.001
95708411|NCT00412113|191386928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-53.95|||<|0.001||95.0|-77.61|-30.29||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change in TG from baseline in at Week 6.||-30.29|-77.61|<0.001
95708412|NCT00412113|191386929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.4|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.1|-1.7||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in mean change from baseline to Week 4 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-1.7|-3.1|<0.001
95708413|NCT00412113|191386930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.5|-2.1||No adjustment for p-value for secondary analyses|ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two treatment management strategies in the mean change from baseline to Week 6 in Framingham predicted absolute 10-year risk.||-2.1|-3.5|<0.001
95708414|NCT01201967|191386931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.68||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.22|2.14|0.002
95708415|NCT01201967|191386932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.05|-4.06|0.045
95708416|NCT01201967|191386933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.93|0.55
95708417|NCT01201967|191386934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.9|||Chi-squared|||||24.9|5.20|<0.001
95708418|NCT01201967|191386935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.76|-0.51|0.28
95708419|NCT01201967|191386936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.46|||Chi-squared|||||1.46|0.63|0.83
95708420|NCT01201967|191386937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.012|0.029
95708421|NCT01201967|191386938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|9.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.46|1.71|0.005
95708422|NCT01201967|191386939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.14|-0.54|0.11
95708423|NCT01928186|191386940|OTHER|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test||Association between response assessed by Ki-67 protein staining (i.e. \< 10% positive cells in the surgical sample) and by the influx constant Ki decline (i.e. 30 % or larger decline between the baseline and post-therapy FLT PET) was analyzed using the mid-P adjustment to Fisher's exact test.||||0.51
95708424|NCT04540627|191386954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5802|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5802
95708425|NCT04540627|191386955|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
95708426|NCT04540627|191386956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2681|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2681
95708427|NCT04540627|191386957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2431|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2431
95708428|NCT04540627|191386962|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4868|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4868
95708429|NCT04540627|191386964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0403
95708430|NCT03455530|191386978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||1.19|0.45|
95708431|NCT03455530|191386978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Ratio based on the mean difference from the log scale.|||3.24|0.55|
95708432|NCT00908895|191387021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|70.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|25.0|<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||We assess that 15% is a significative strength difference. According to a 80% study power, a SD at 25% and a 20% lost to follow-up, we found 118 patients for the all study.||||<0.05
95708433|NCT00908895|191387022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|90.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.0|<|0.05||95.0|80.0|100.0|||Chi-squared|||||100|80|<0.05
95708434|NCT03793010|191387023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|1.81||||||||1.81|-1.20|
95708435|NCT03793010|191387024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|2.24||||||||2.24|-1.05|
95708436|NCT03793010|191387025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.9||||||||0.9|-1.0|
95708437|NCT00908050|191387026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0394|||||||Chi-squared|||The averaged data calculated from three nights in each recording period for each subject will be submitted to statistical analysis. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics will be used for the secondary end-points.||||0.0394
95708438|NCT00805194|191387032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.92|||Regression, Cox||Hazard Ratio (HR) below 1 favors nintedanib|HR, Confidence Interval (CI) and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)||0.92|0.68|0.0019
95708439|NCT00805194|191387033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.92||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first line therapy."||0.92|0.60|0.0073
95708440|NCT00805194|191387033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||"The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05.~HR below 1 favors nintedanib"|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for patients with adenocarcinoma."||0.99|0.70|0.0359
95708441|NCT00805194|191387033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat. had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||The overall alpha level followed a Lan-DeMets spending function with O'Brien-Fleming shape parameter to preserve an overall 2-sided alpha level of 0.05. HR below 1 favors nintedanib|"Hierarchical testing was tested in a fixed sequence of statistical hypotheses in (1) patients with adenocarcinoma and \<9 months since start of first-line therapy, (2) patients with adenocarcinoma, and (3) all patients. Each hypothesis could be only tested at the pre-specified alpha level if the previous null hypothesis in the testing sequence had been rejected.~Overall survival for all patients."||1.05|0.83|0.2720
95708442|NCT00805194|191387034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.96||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.96|0.75|0.0070
95708443|NCT00805194|191387035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|0.93||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the proportional hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||0.93|0.73|0.0012
95708444|NCT00805194|191387036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.39||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.39|0.76|0.3067
95708445|NCT00805194|191387036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|2.08||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||2.08|0.96|0.0761
95708446|NCT00805194|191387039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.09||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on the central independent review||2.09|1.35|<0.0001
95708447|NCT00805194|191387039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.05||Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1)|Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit to nintedanib|Analysis based on investigator's assessment||2.05|1.31|<0.0001
95708448|NCT00805194|191387041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the central independent review||||<0.0001
95708449|NCT00805194|191387041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value generated from ANOVA model adjusted for baseline ECOG PS (0 vs. 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|ANOVA|||Analysis based on the investigator's assessment||||<0.0001
95708450|NCT00805194|191387042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.7282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.21||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs 1 - one pat.had 2), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|||1.21|0.87|0.7282
95708451|NCT00805194|191387043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.1858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.05||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of cough||1.05|0.77|0.1858
95708452|NCT00805194|191387043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.2||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>=1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of dyspnoea||1.20|0.91|0.5203
95708453|NCT00805194|191387043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.4373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.09||HR, CI and p-value obtained from the prop. hazards model stratified by baseline ECOG PS (0 vs \>= 1), tumour histology (squamous vs non-squamous), brain metastases at baseline (yes vs no) and prior treatment with bevacizumab (yes vs no)|Regression, Cox||HR below 1 favors nintedanib|Analysis evaluating the time to deterioration of pain||1.09|0.82|0.4373
95708454|NCT02274311|191387137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Measures of central tendency (mean) and variability (range and/or SD) were used to describe numeric variables. Paired Student's t test was used to verify the mean differences between dependent normally distributed variables. Wilcoxon sign test was performed to non-normally distributed dependent variables.~Asignificance level of 5%was adopted for all statistical tests (P \<.05)."||||< 0.05
95708455|NCT03233308|191387183|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Change from Baseline||||0.0010
95708456|NCT03233308|191387184|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)||||0.0003
95708457|NCT03233308|191387185|OTHER|||||||0.0687|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -EVP||||0.0687
95708458|NCT03233308|191387185|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline -IOP||||<0.0001
95708459|NCT03233308|191387186|OTHER|||||||0.0087|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline) -EVP||||0.0087
95708460|NCT03233308|191387186|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Mean change from baseline (percent difference from baseline)- IOP||||<0.0001
95708461|NCT00853112|191387226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-115.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|98.36||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-371.5|-1.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and standard deviation (SD) from the Bayesian analysis.||-1.1|-371.5|0.120
95708462|NCT00853112|191387226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-170.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|107.84||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-409.2|-7.1|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne.s.m2/cm5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-7.1|-409.2|0.250
95708463|NCT00853112|191387226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-240.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|109.28||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-444.8|-33.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-33.8|-444.8|0.485
95708464|NCT00853112|191387226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-327.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|92.41||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-492.9|-148.0|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model.|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. 95% credible intervals of the effect size and the posterior distribution were calculated. Posterior distribution was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-148.0|-492.9|0.810
95708465|NCT00853112|191387226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Predicted Mean Difference|-379.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|73.61||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-520.6|-238.8|||Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model|||Change over 4 hours post-dose: The Bayesian 4-parameter Emax model was used for analysis. Posterior distribution was calculated and was used to calculate a probability (presented as p value) that the dose gives a difference of \>=240 dyne\*s\*m\^2/cm\^5 from placebo. The predicted means and SD were the posterior means and SD from the Bayesian analysis.||-238.8|-520.6|0.974
95708466|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-195.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|207.38||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-618.8|228.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline fitted as a covariate.||228.3|-618.8|0.354
95708467|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|190.99||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-424.1|356.0|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||356.0|-424.1|0.860
95708468|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-435.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|195.94||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-835.9|-35.6|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||-35.6|-835.9|0.034
95708469|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-334.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.74||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-746.7|77.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||77.3|-746.7|0.107
95708470|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-278.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|200.89||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-688.3|132.2|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, PVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||132.2|-688.3|0.177
95708471|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|51.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|315.91||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-594.1|696.3|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||696.3|-594.1|0.873
95708472|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|75.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|303.08||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-543.8|694.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||694.1|-543.8|0.806
95708473|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-262.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|301.1||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-877.8|352.1|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||352.1|-877.8|0.390
95708474|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-329.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|302.97||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-948.1|289.4|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||289.4|-948.1|0.286
95708475|NCT00853112|191387227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|314.15||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-704.3|578.9|||ANCOVA|||GR over 4 hours, SVRI: The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||578.9|-704.3|0.843
95708476|NCT00853112|191387228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|322.8||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-659.7|658.8|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||658.8|-659.7|0.999
95708477|NCT00853112|191387228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|72.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.69||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-560.2|704.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||704.7|-560.2|0.817
95708478|NCT00853112|191387228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-82.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|307.67||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-711.0|545.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||545.7|-711.0|0.790
95708479|NCT00853112|191387228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-325.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.58||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-957.8|306.7|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||306.7|-957.8|0.301
95708480|NCT00853112|191387228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|321.0||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.8|594.4|||ANCOVA|||The analysis was performed using ANCOVA with baseline fitted as a covariate.||594.4|-716.8|0.850
95708481|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-269.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|252.93||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-785.39|246.76|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||246.76|-785.39|0.295
95708482|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-97.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|234.55||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-577.02|381.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||381.72|-577.02|0.680
95708483|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-376.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.06||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-869.53|116.31|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||116.31|-869.53|0.129
95708484|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-342.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.07||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-846.9|162.32|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||162.32|-846.90|0.176
95708485|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-316.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|261.58||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-850.9|217.17|||Longitudinal analysis|||Hour 1: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||217.17|-850.90|0.235
95708486|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-198.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|247.62||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-705.04|308.91|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||308.91|-705.04|0.430
95708487|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|229.23||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-432.23|508.04|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||508.04|-432.23|0.870
95708488|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-114.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|244.95||0.645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-614.57|386.45|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||386.45|-614.57|0.645
95708489|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-299.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|241.63||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-794.81|195.61|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||195.61|-794.81|0.225
95708490|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-332.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|255.93||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-856.55|192.05|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||192.05|-856.55|0.205
95708491|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|263.63||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-625.87|452.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||452.42|-625.87|0.745
95708492|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|245.25||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-484.46|520.47|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||520.47|-484.46|0.942
95708493|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-265.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|259.53||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-796.15|264.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||264.28|-796.15|0.314
95708494|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-275.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|258.01||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-803.57|252.88|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||252.88|-803.57|0.295
95708495|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-326.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|272.96||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-885.12|232.02|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||232.02|-885.12|0.241
95708496|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-145.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|218.5||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-592.24|300.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||300.83|-592.24|0.510
95708497|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|77.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|199.85||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-330.7|486.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||486.63|-330.70|0.699
95708498|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-341.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|204.65||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-760.45|76.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||76.64|-760.45|0.106
95708499|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-289.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|211.69||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-722.17|143.35|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||143.35|-722.17|0.182
95708500|NCT00853112|191387229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-256.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|224.88||0.263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-716.26|203.06|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||203.06|-716.26|0.263
95708501|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-328.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|385.78||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1114.11|457.92|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||457.92|-1114.11|0.401
95708502|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-164.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|370.54||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-920.05|590.12|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.12|-920.05|0.659
95708503|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-287.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|372.6||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1047.59|473.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||473.42|-1047.59|0.447
95708504|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-457.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|374.26||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1220.86|306.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||306.53|-1220.86|0.231
95708505|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-75.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|384.2||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-858.19|707.71|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||707.71|-858.19|0.846
95708506|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-115.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|357.2||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-844.24|612.96|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||612.96|-844.24|0.748
95708507|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.91||0.993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-702.41|696.67|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.67|-702.41|0.993
95708508|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|174.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|342.93||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.41|874.81|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||874.81|-526.41|0.615
95708509|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-494.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|344.72||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1199.04|209.21|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||209.21|-1199.04|0.161
95708510|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-134.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.5||0.708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-859.74|590.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||590.77|-859.74|0.708
95708511|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|47.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|365.43||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-697.56|792.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||792.79|-697.56|0.897
95708512|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|98.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|350.87||0.781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-617.15|813.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||813.99|-617.15|0.781
95708513|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-28.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|355.47||0.937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-753.46|696.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||696.83|-753.46|0.937
95708514|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-369.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|353.25||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1090.86|351.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||351.72|-1090.86|0.304
95708515|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-185.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|363.77||0.613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-927.54|556.27|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||556.27|-927.54|0.613
95708516|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|265.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|324.88||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-397.45|928.48|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||928.48|-397.45|0.420
95708517|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|240.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.63||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-395.81|876.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||876.14|-395.81|0.447
95708518|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-176.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|309.11||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-808.1|454.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||454.63|-808.10|0.572
95708519|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|311.11||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-663.31|607.38|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||607.38|-663.31|0.929
95708520|NCT00853112|191387230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|29.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|323.01||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-629.62|688.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||688.79|-629.62|0.928
95708521|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.83|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.83|-0.35|0.412
95708522|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.58|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.58|-0.58|0.999
95708523|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.39|0.535
95708524|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.01|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.01|-0.13|0.128
95708525|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.53|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.53|-0.67|0.823
95708526|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.99|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.99|-0.40|0.396
95708527|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.72|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.72|-0.63|0.899
95708528|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.70|0.928
95708529|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.11|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.11|-0.25|0.203
95708530|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.60|0.772
95708531|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.69|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.69|-0.52|0.771
95708532|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.75|0.572
95708533|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.6|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.60|-0.58|0.966
95708534|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|1.0|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.00|-0.17|0.157
95708535|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.79|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.79|-0.43|0.546
95708536|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.64|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.64|-0.51|0.818
95708537|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.42|-0.71|0.603
95708538|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.74|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.74|-0.37|0.495
95708539|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.8|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.80|-0.31|0.375
95708540|NCT00853112|191387231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.84|||Longitudinal analysis|||Change at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.84|-0.34|0.392
95708541|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.75||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.47|2.86|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.86|-12.47|0.210
95708542|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|2.9|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-11.84|0.225
95708543|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|3.93|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.93|-11.28|0.332
95708544|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76||0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.06|6.28|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.28|-9.06|0.714
95708545|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.63|-0.39|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 1: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-0.39|-15.63|0.040
95708546|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|0.75|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||0.75|-13.02|0.079
95708547|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.46|4.77|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||4.77|-8.46|0.573
95708548|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|3.15|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.15|-10.50|0.280
95708549|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.28|5.51|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.51|-8.28|0.684
95708550|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.35||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|-1.34|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 2: Longitudinal analysis was used to analyze p-value and included baseline as a covariate.||-1.34|-15.01|0.021
95708551|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.86|6.25|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||6.25|-8.86|0.727
95708552|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.12|2.42|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-12.12|0.183
95708553|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|1.49|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.49|-13.51|0.112
95708554|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.91|7.23|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||7.23|-7.91|0.928
95708555|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-9.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.52|-1.5|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 3: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.50|-16.52|0.020
95708556|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.79||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.55|1.94|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||1.94|-13.55|0.136
95708557|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.27|3.63|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||3.63|-11.27|0.303
95708558|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.52|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||2.52|-12.87|0.180
95708559|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.31|5.2|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||5.20|-10.31|0.506
95708560|NCT00853112|191387232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-1.14|||Longitudinal analysis|||mPAP at Hour 4: The analysis was performed using longitudinal analysis model with baseline as a covariate.||-1.14|-16.54|0.026
95708561|NCT01553591|191387240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.014||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.014
95708562|NCT01553591|191387240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.004
95708563|NCT01553591|191387241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.112||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||0.112
95708564|NCT01553591|191387241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Significance level of 0.025|Chi-square test statistic|||The family-wise error rate was controlled by Bonferroni adjustment for each active dose versus placebo.||||<0.001
95708565|NCT00958191|191387276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
95708566|NCT00958191|191387276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
95708567|NCT00958191|191387276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in HHS from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
95708568|NCT00958191|191387277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
95708569|NCT00958191|191387277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
95708570|NCT00958191|191387277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip Pain Score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
95708571|NCT00958191|191387278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 1 year||||<0.0001
95708572|NCT00958191|191387278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 3 years||||<0.0001
95708573|NCT00958191|191387278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in Harris Hip ROM score from pre-op to 5 years||||<0.0001
95708574|NCT00958191|191387279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
95708575|NCT00958191|191387279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
95708576|NCT00958191|191387279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Phyiscal Component Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
95708577|NCT00958191|191387279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0242|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 1 year||||0.0242
95708578|NCT00958191|191387279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0247|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 3 year||||0.0247
95708579|NCT00958191|191387279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1372|||||||Sign test|||Change in SF-12 Mental Component Score from preop to 5 year||||0.1372
95708580|NCT00958191|191387280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
95708581|NCT00958191|191387280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
95708582|NCT00958191|191387280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change in LEAS Score from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
95708583|NCT03685643|191387282|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95708584|NCT03685643|191387283|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95708585|NCT03685643|191387284|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95708586|NCT00062647|191387294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No margin was justified owing to the exploratory nature of the investigation.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0||||||95.0|-35.5|31.9|||the difference in the 2 eradication rate|Statistical testing was limited to interval estimation (95% CI) of the difference in the 2 eradication rates using the method of Agresti and Caffo.||||31.9|-35.5|
95708587|NCT00679380|191387295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|3.8||||0.2876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.5|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|All p-values were based on the Chi-square test; comparisons of budesonide MMX and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.025 level of significance and the comparison of Entocort EC and placebo were conducted at the α = 0.05 level of significance. The study was not powered to show statistical significance for Entocort EC versus budesonide MMX.||10.5|-3.0|0.2876
95708588|NCT00679380|191387295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|12.9||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|21.3|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||21.3|4.6|0.0047
95708589|NCT00679380|191387295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.1||||0.0481|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|15.9|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||15.9|0.4|0.0481
95708590|NCT00679380|191387296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-8.0||||0.2174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8||||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|Clinical improvement and endoscopic improvement were analyzed hierarchically. If at least one primary endpoint comparison was statistically significant, clinical improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance. If at least one comparison of clinical improvement was statistically significant, endoscopic improvement was to be compared between each budesonide MMX dose group and placebo at the α = 0.025 level of significance.||4.|-20.8|0.2174
95708591|NCT00679380|191387296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|8.5||||0.2215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|22.0|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||22.0|-5.0|0.2215
95708592|NCT00679380|191387296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|-0.7||||0.9185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|12.7|||Chi-squared||See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).|See comments from the budesonide 6 mg versus placebo comparison (statistical analysis 1).||12.7|-14.1|0.9185
95708593|NCT00679380|191387297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in proportions|5.4||||0.4293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|18.8|||Chi-squared||The difference in proportions was determined by subtracting the proportion of patients who reached the endpoint in the placebo group from that proportion in the active group (active minus placebo).|As per the hierarchical testing procedure for secondary endpoints, because clinical improvement was not statistically significant in the ITT population, formal statistical comparisons for endoscopic improvement between the 2 budesonide MMX groups and placebo were not conducted. The statistical comparison between the Entocort EC and placebo groups is shown here.||18.8|-8.0|0.4293
95708594|NCT01678560|191387302|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA will result in improved adherence at 90 days Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population.||PAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department. The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
95708595|NCT01678560|191387303|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher exact test statistic value|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Active continuous monitoring of PAP treatment in OSA (Wireless group) will result in improved adherence at 90 days compared to Usual Group.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population."|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the information from the limited population||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
95708596|NCT01678560|191387304|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Estimation Parameter Other[Fisher exact|1.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - Number of patients effectively treated with the PAP will be higher in the Wireless Group compared to the Usual Group Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Fisher Exact|||CPAP devices delivery to the patients was outsourced by the institution eliminating the point of recruitment for the study at our department The recruitment was halted and the study proceeded with the follow-up of already recruited patients. As a result of the limited recruitment, planned statistical data analysis was not performed on the primary outcomes due to the smaller then expected number of subjects (expected 110 subjects in the Usual arm and 110 subjects in the Wireless arm.||||<0.01
95708597|NCT01678560|191387305|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Other[Fisher exact test statistic value]|0.0286|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Hypothesis - PAP treatment Adherence in the first 3 months of treatment predicts the PAP treatment Adherence in the next 9 months of treatment Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Fisher Exact||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population.|||<0.01
95708598|NCT01678560|191387306|OTHER|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test|0.0039|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||"Hypothesis: Patients with the higher AHI are more likely to become adherent to the PAP therapy.~Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population"|Fisher Exact|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population||Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|Exact Fisher test was used on the collected information from the limited population|||<0.01
95708599|NCT03296072|191387307|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|10.19|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||10.19|5.18|<.0001
95708600|NCT03296072|191387308|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|33.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.89|37.68|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||37.68|28.89|<.0001
95708601|NCT03296072|191387309|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|2.04|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||2.04|1.59|<.0001
95708602|NCT03296072|191387310|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|7.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.07|11.07|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||11.07|5.07|<.0001
95708603|NCT03296072|191387311|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|10.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.58|15.37|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||15.37|6.58|<.0001
95708604|NCT03296072|191387312|OTHER||Difference of Least Square mean|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.2|||ANOVA|From ANOVA with fixed factors for study period and treatment, and a random effect for participant.|Difference is first-named treatment minus second-named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|||1.20|0.75|<.0001
95708605|NCT02875366|191387358|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.3021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|2.9|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||2.9|-9.2|0.3021
95708606|NCT02875366|191387359|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.2||||0.1894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|1.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.6|-8.0|0.1894
95708607|NCT02875366|191387360|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.2328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.8|10.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.1|-40.8|0.2328
95708608|NCT02875366|191387361|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4||||0.1203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.4|-3.1|0.1203
95708609|NCT02875366|191387362|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-149.6||||0.0439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-295.0|-4.2|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-4.2|-295.0|0.0439
95708610|NCT02875366|191387363|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-7.5||||0.2237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.8|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-19.8|0.2237
95708611|NCT02875366|191387364|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.09|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||-0.09|-1.12|0.0226
95708612|NCT02875366|191387365|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.32||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.94|0.31|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.31|-12.94|0.0613
95708613|NCT02875366|191387366|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.6409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.5|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||1.5|-0.9|0.6409
95708614|NCT02875366|191387367|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.0||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||4.7|-2.7|0.5889
95708615|NCT02875366|191387368|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|8.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||8.1|-1.2|0.1460
95708616|NCT02875366|191387369|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.5||||0.3091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|10.4|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||10.4|-3.4|0.3091
95708617|NCT02875366|191387370|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.3961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||0.6|-0.3|0.3961
95708618|NCT02875366|191387371|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|3.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||3.1|-1.2|0.3905
95708619|NCT02875366|191387372|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|6.2||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|14.1|||Mixed effects model for repeated measure|||||14.1|-1.8|0.1257
95708620|NCT02735044|191387537|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to month 6 was \<0.3%.|LS Mean difference|0.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.172|0.179||||||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||0.179|-0.172|
95708621|NCT02735044|191387537|SUPERIORITY|Superiority of HOE901-U300 versus Lantus was demonstrated if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference between treatment groups was \<0 (zero).||||||0.965||||||Threshold for significance at 0.025 level.|ANCOVA|||A step-wise closed testing approach was used to control the type I error. Analysis was performed using ANCOVA models which included the treatment group, the randomization stratum of age group at screening visit (\<12 years and \>=12 years), and the continuous fixed covariates of the baseline HbA1c value.||||0.965
95708622|NCT01682759|191387548|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Omarigliptin was considered non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-treatment difference in least-squares (LS) means for change from baseline in A1C at Week 54 (omarigliptin vs. glimepiride) was lower than 0.35%.|Difference in the least squares means|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.3|||||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||0.30|0.06|
95708623|NCT01682759|191387549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|0.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||0.1|-13.9|
95708624|NCT01682759|191387550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|3.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||3.8|-1.6|
95708625|NCT01682759|191387551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|11.2|||||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment, with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups|||11.2|0.1|
95708626|NCT01682759|191387552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference (%)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|3.3|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \<6.5%||3.3|-10.6|
95708627|NCT01682759|191387553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentages|-21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|-16.4|||Difference in percentages||Miettinen \& Nurminen method; the 95% CI was computed only for those endpoints with at least 4 participants having events in one or more treatment groups.|||-16.4|-26.5|<0.001
95708628|NCT01682759|191387554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in the least squares means|-1.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.4|||Difference in the least squares means||cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment with the constraint that the mean baseline is the same for all treatment groups.|||-1.4|-2.5|<0.001
95708629|NCT01682759|191387555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Between-group Rate Difference|-10.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|-2.8|||||Between-group CIs are calculated via Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|A1C \< 7.0%||-2.8|-17.8|
95708630|NCT02141854|191387560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.179||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.285||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the first in the sequence.||0.285|0.074|0.0009
95708631|NCT02141854|191387560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.182||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.291||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the second in the sequence.||0.291|0.074|0.0010
95727745|NCT00591253|191425053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.09||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|-2.04||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.04|-8.14|0.001
95708632|NCT02141854|191387560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.326||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.221|0.431||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the third in the sequence.||0.431|0.221|0.0000
95708633|NCT02141854|191387560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.322||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.212|0.432||Fixed effects of treatment, sex, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and covariates of age and baseline FEV1.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fourth in the sequence.||0.432|0.212|0.0000
95708634|NCT02141854|191387561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.276||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.191|0.361||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the fifth in the sequence.||0.361|0.191|0.0000
95708635|NCT02141854|191387561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.274||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.189|0.36||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the sixth in the sequence.||0.360|0.189|0.0000
95708636|NCT02141854|191387561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.183||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.098|0.268||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the seventh in the sequence.||0.268|0.098|0.0000
95708637|NCT02141854|191387561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.123||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.208||Effects due to baseline trough AM FEV1, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment.|ANCOVA|||A fixed-sequence multiple testing procedure was used to control the overall Type I error rate at the 0.05 level (2-sided) for the primary endpoints analyses. Analyses appear in the defined sequence. This is the eighth in the sequence.||0.208|0.038|0.0047
95708638|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|18.45||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.751|25.15||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||25.150|11.751|0.0000
95708639|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|16.718||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.988|23.449||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||23.449|9.988|0.0000
95708640|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|31.221||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.513|37.93||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||37.930|24.513|0.0000
95708641|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|29.597||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.839|36.354||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||36.354|22.839|0.0000
95708642|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.771||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.179|19.363||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.363|6.179|0.0002
95708643|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|12.879||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.216|19.541||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||19.541|6.216|0.0002
95708644|NCT02141854|191387562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|11.146||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.511|17.782||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The analysis of change from baseline in weekly average of daily (AM predose and pre rescue bronchodilator) PEF over the 12-week treatment period was performed using an mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline weekly average of daily AM PEF, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||17.782|4.511|0.0010
95727746|NCT00591253|191425053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.96|-4.97||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.97|-10.96|<0.001
95708645|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.156||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.248|-0.063||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.063|-0.248|0.0010
95708646|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.195||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|-0.102||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.102|-0.288|0.0000
95708647|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.304||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.212||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.212|-0.397|0.0000
95708648|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.277||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.184||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.184|-0.370|0.0000
95708649|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.149||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|-0.058||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.058|-0.239|0.0014
95708650|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.082||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.174|0.01||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.010|-0.174|0.0818
95708651|NCT02141854|191387563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.121||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.213|-0.03||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of the total daily asthma symptom scores over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.030|-0.213|0.0094
95708652|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.702||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.001|-0.403||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.403|-1.001|0.0000
95708653|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.607||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.908|-0.307||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.307|-0.908|0.0001
95708654|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-1.066||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.365|-0.766||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.766|-1.365|0.0000
95708655|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.989||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.291|-0.686||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.686|-1.291|0.0000
95708656|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.364||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.659|-0.068||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.068|-0.659|0.0160
95708657|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.382||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|-0.083||Significance level of 0.05.|mixed model for repeated measures|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||-0.083|-0.681|0.0124
95727747|NCT00591253|191425054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|-1.61||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-5.86|<0.001
95708658|NCT02141854|191387564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|-0.287||||0.0588|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|0.011||Significance level of 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The change from baseline in the weekly average of total daily (24-hour) use of albuterol/ salbutamol inhalation aerosol (number of inhalations) over weeks 1 to 12 was analyzed using an MMRM with an unstructured covariance matrix and with effects due to baseline value, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), week, treatment, and week-by-treatment interaction.||0.011|-0.584|0.0588
95708659|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0001
95708660|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
95708661|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.0003
95708662|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||<.0001
95708663|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7203||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.7203
95708664|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.996||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.9960
95708665|NCT02141854|191387565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.325||||||Significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.3250
95708666|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.473||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.269|0.677||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.677|0.269|0.0000
95708667|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.428||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.632||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.632|0.224|0.0000
95708668|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.623||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.418|0.828||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.828|0.418|0.0000
95708669|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|0.681||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|0.885||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.885|0.478|0.0000
95708670|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.15||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.354||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.354|-0.054|0.1490
95708671|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.253||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.455||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.455|0.051|0.0143
95708672|NCT02141854|191387566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LSM difference|0.209||||0.0435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.411||Significance level of 0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from baseline in AQLQ(S) score (patients ≥18 years of age) at endpoint (ie, last postbaseline observation) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline AQLQ(S) score, sex, age, (pooled) center, previous therapy (ICS or ICS/LABA), and treatment, imputing missing data via last observation carried forward (LOCF).||0.411|0.006|0.0435
95708673|NCT01868594|191387569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.019
95708674|NCT01868594|191387570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0432||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0432
95708675|NCT01868594|191387571|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7344||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7344
95708676|NCT01868594|191387572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.278||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Total cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2780
95708677|NCT01868594|191387572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8114||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of HDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.8114
95708678|NCT01868594|191387572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1619||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of LDL cholesterol changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.1619
95708679|NCT01868594|191387572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0764||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis of Triglycerides changes from baseline to Week 12, 24 and 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.0764
95708680|NCT01868594|191387573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3107||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of basal insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3107
95708681|NCT01868594|191387573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5236||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of prandial insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.5236
95708682|NCT01868594|191387573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3847||||||The p-value associated with comparison of changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total daily dose insulin changes from baseline to Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.3847
95708683|NCT01868594|191387574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6716
95708684|NCT01868594|191387575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2484||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of total Treatment Satisfaction score at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.||||0.2484
95708685|NCT01868594|191387575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hyperglycaemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.7610
95708686|NCT01868594|191387575|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3714||||||The p-value associated with comparison of Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Analysis of Perceived Hypoglycemia question at Week 36 endpoint between Subetta and Placebo treatment groups."||||0.3714
95708687|NCT00864123|191387576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.3|<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CY-BOCS Total Score) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
95708688|NCT00864123|191387577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.1|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Data were analyzed with separate 2 (site: Florida, MGH) by 2 (condition: CBT+DCS, CBT+Placebo) by 3 (time: pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment; Dependent variables: CGI-Severity) fixed-effects linear regression with time as the repeated measure. Cohen's d was used to examine the magnitude of treatment effects.||||<0.05
95708689|NCT02530281|191387651|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95708690|NCT02530281|191387652|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
95708691|NCT02530281|191387653|OTHER||||||=|0.065|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.065
95708692|NCT02530281|191387654|OTHER||||||=|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|Ranked ANCOVA||||||=0.001
95708693|NCT02530281|191387655|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95708694|NCT02530281|191387656|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95708695|NCT00535236|191387660|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
95708696|NCT00535236|191387660|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.003
95708697|NCT00535236|191387660|OTHER|||||||0.017||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.017
95708698|NCT00535236|191387661|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the GMFR in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjustied for prevaccination values||||||<0.001
95708699|NCT00535236|191387661|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.004
95708700|NCT00535236|191387661|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||Statistical criterion corresponds to the lower bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) on the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in the vaccine recipients being \>1.0|Single longitudinal regression model|Adjusted for prevaccination values||||||0.026
95708701|NCT00535236|191387662|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|35.3|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||35.3|-21.7|
95708702|NCT00535236|191387662|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|42.9|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||42.9|-15.1|
95708703|NCT00535236|191387662|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|15.7|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||15.7|-20.4|
95708704|NCT00535236|191387662|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|14.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|27.6|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||27.6|-6.5|
95708705|NCT00535236|191387662|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|17.0|||||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||17.0|-18.1|
95708706|NCT00535236|191387663|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|16.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||16.5|-31.7|>0.999
95708707|NCT00535236|191387663|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.0||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|23.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||23.2|-18.8|0.302
95708708|NCT00535236|191387663|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|31.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||46.2|9.7|0.009
95708709|NCT00535236|191387663|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|22.6||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|36.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||36.6|1.3|0.041
95708710|NCT00535236|191387663|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-11.7||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|0.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||0.6|-33.2|0.064
95708711|NCT00535236|191387664|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-5.0||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.3|9.5|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||9.5|-36.3|0.556
95708712|NCT00535236|191387664|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|2.5||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|13.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.0|-25.8|0.617
95708713|NCT00535236|191387664|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.5||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|12.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||12.0|-13.7|0.411
95708714|NCT00535236|191387664|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|4.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|13.6|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||13.6|-12.3|0.328
95708715|NCT00535236|191387664|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|10.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||10.0|-19.2|>0.999
95708716|NCT00535236|191387665|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|10.5||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|41.8|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||41.8|-21.3|0.552
95708717|NCT00535236|191387665|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.7||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.5|39.4|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||39.4|-22.5|0.696
95708718|NCT00535236|191387665|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|7.5||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|18.0|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.0|-9.8|0.221
95708719|NCT00535236|191387665|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|6.8||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|19.1|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||19.1|-13.7|0.402
95708720|NCT00535236|191387665|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|3.8||||0.679|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.5|18.2|||Asymptotic method||V212 minus placebo = Difference|||18.2|-18.5|0.679
95708721|NCT04221945|191387689|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.87||One sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.87|0.59|0.0004
95708722|NCT04221945|191387690|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.94||One sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.94|0.57|0.0076
95708723|NCT04221945|191387691|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.89||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of EBRT, stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling|||0.89|0.58|0.0011
95708724|NCT04221945|191387692|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|16.7|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||16.7|5.1|
95708725|NCT04221945|191387693|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|13.5|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||13.5|2.3|
95708726|NCT04221945|191387694|OTHER||Difference in Survival Rate|7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|12.5|||||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo|||12.5|2.3|
95708727|NCT04221945|191387695|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.3||||0.1307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|9.1|||One-sided p-value for testing||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|9.1|-2.5|0.1307
95708728|NCT04221945|191387696|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.7||||0.4082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|6.7|||One-sided p-value for testing||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|6.7|-5.2|0.4082
95708729|NCT04221945|191387697|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.6||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.9|||One-sided p-value for testing.||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|7.9|-0.7|0.0496
95708730|NCT04221945|191387698|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|2.2||||0.1244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|5.9|||One-sided p-value for testing.||Pembrolizumab minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by planned type of EBRT, Stage at screening and planned total radiotherapy dose.|5.9|-1.5|0.1244
95708731|NCT04221945|191387699|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.89||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.89|0.59|0.0010
95708732|NCT04221945|191387700|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.9||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.90|0.58|0.0016
95708733|NCT04221945|191387701|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.0083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.95||One-sided p-value|Log Rank||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate.|||0.95|0.56|0.0083
95708734|NCT04221945|191387702|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.88||One-sided p-value|Log Rank|Stratified by planned type of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), stage at screening, and planned total radiotherapy dose.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate|||0.88|0.54|0.0015
95708735|NCT04221945|191387703|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.07||||0.9593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|2.8|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.80|-2.66|0.9593
95708736|NCT04221945|191387704|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.68||||0.5145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|2.71|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.71|-1.36|0.5145
95708737|NCT04221945|191387705|OTHER||Difference LS Means|0.75||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|2.15|||cLDA model||Pembrolizumab minus placebo||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by study visit interaction, and stratified by planned type of EBRT.|2.15|-0.65|0.2953
95708738|NCT01029691|191387756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||unadjusted systolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.45
95708739|NCT01029691|191387756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at baseline between groups||||0.66
95708740|NCT01029691|191387756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted systolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.61
95708741|NCT01029691|191387756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Unadjusted diastolic blood pressure at week 1||||0.75
95708742|NCT01029691|191387757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.085|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.085
95708743|NCT01029691|191387758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012||||||Unadjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95708744|NCT01029691|191387762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4
95708745|NCT00779116|191387855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Statistical tests were performed atthe significance level of 5%, without multiplicity adjustment.|Mainland-Gart Test|The p-value was derived from Mainland-Gart Test applied to a 2 (treatment sequence) by 2 (preferred period) contingency table.||The Mainland-Gart test was applied to the preference rates in the subjects who showed a preference, to assess the difference in preference rates between RediTab and Zyrtec.||||<0.0001
95708746|NCT04716010|191387870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.002
95708747|NCT04716010|191387870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708748|NCT04716010|191387870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708749|NCT04716010|191387870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.024
95708750|NCT04716010|191387870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708751|NCT04716010|191387870|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708752|NCT04716010|191387871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95708753|NCT04716010|191387871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708754|NCT04716010|191387871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708755|NCT04716010|191387871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||0.022
95708756|NCT04716010|191387871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708757|NCT04716010|191387871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95708758|NCT04716010|191387872|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \>0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708759|NCT04716010|191387872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708760|NCT04716010|191387872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708761|NCT04716010|191387872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708762|NCT04716010|191387872|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708763|NCT04716010|191387872|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708764|NCT04716010|191387873|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708765|NCT04716010|191387873|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708766|NCT04716010|191387873|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708767|NCT04716010|191387873|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708768|NCT04716010|191387873|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708769|NCT04716010|191387873|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708770|NCT04716010|191387874|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708771|NCT04716010|191387874|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708772|NCT04716010|191387874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708773|NCT04716010|191387874|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708774|NCT04716010|191387874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708775|NCT04716010|191387874|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708776|NCT04716010|191387875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708777|NCT04716010|191387875|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708778|NCT04716010|191387875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708779|NCT04716010|191387875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708780|NCT04716010|191387875|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708781|NCT04716010|191387875|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708782|NCT04716010|191387876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708783|NCT04716010|191387876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708784|NCT04716010|191387876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708785|NCT04716010|191387876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708786|NCT04716010|191387876|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708787|NCT04716010|191387876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708788|NCT04716010|191387877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708789|NCT04716010|191387877|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708790|NCT04716010|191387877|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708791|NCT04716010|191387877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708792|NCT04716010|191387877|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708793|NCT04716010|191387877|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708794|NCT04716010|191387878|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708795|NCT04716010|191387878|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708796|NCT04716010|191387878|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708797|NCT04716010|191387878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708798|NCT04716010|191387878|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708799|NCT04716010|191387878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708800|NCT04716010|191387879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708801|NCT04716010|191387879|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708802|NCT04716010|191387879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708803|NCT04716010|191387879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708804|NCT04716010|191387879|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708805|NCT04716010|191387879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708806|NCT04716010|191387880|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708807|NCT04716010|191387880|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708808|NCT04716010|191387880|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708809|NCT04716010|191387880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708810|NCT04716010|191387880|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708811|NCT04716010|191387880|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708812|NCT04716010|191387881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708813|NCT04716010|191387881|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708814|NCT04716010|191387881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708815|NCT04716010|191387881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708816|NCT04716010|191387881|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708817|NCT04716010|191387881|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708818|NCT04716010|191387882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708819|NCT04716010|191387882|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708820|NCT04716010|191387882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708821|NCT04716010|191387882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708822|NCT04716010|191387882|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708823|NCT04716010|191387882|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708824|NCT04716010|191387883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708825|NCT04716010|191387883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708826|NCT04716010|191387883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708827|NCT04716010|191387883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708828|NCT04716010|191387883|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708829|NCT04716010|191387883|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708830|NCT04716010|191387884|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708831|NCT04716010|191387884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708832|NCT04716010|191387884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708833|NCT04716010|191387884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708834|NCT04716010|191387884|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708835|NCT04716010|191387884|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708836|NCT04716010|191387885|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708837|NCT04716010|191387885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708838|NCT04716010|191387885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708839|NCT04716010|191387885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708840|NCT04716010|191387885|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708841|NCT04716010|191387885|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708842|NCT04716010|191387886|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708843|NCT04716010|191387886|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708844|NCT04716010|191387886|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708845|NCT04716010|191387886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708846|NCT04716010|191387886|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708847|NCT04716010|191387886|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708848|NCT04716010|191387887|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708849|NCT04716010|191387887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708850|NCT04716010|191387887|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708851|NCT04716010|191387887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708852|NCT04716010|191387887|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708853|NCT04716010|191387887|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708854|NCT04716010|191387888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708855|NCT04716010|191387888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708856|NCT04716010|191387888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708857|NCT04716010|191387888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708858|NCT04716010|191387888|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708859|NCT04716010|191387888|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708860|NCT04716010|191387889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708861|NCT04716010|191387889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708862|NCT04716010|191387889|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708863|NCT04716010|191387889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708864|NCT04716010|191387889|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95708865|NCT04716010|191387889|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is \<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||||||<0.05
95708866|NCT01833806|191387894|SUPERIORITY||Proportion Difference|0.78|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.98|||Binomial|||The alternative hypothesis test was that the proportion of Responders would be greater than the proportion of subjects experiencing pain progression. This PAS was powered to enroll 70 subjects based on the pivotal trial proportion of 18:8 (Responders:Pain progression). The study was closed at an enrollment of 32 subjects.||0.98|0.58|= 0.01
95708867|NCT00835276|191387904|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|87.96||||||90.0|80.15|96.53|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||96.53|80.15|
95708868|NCT00835276|191387905|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.15|98.26|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more that 20% from the repective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.26|85.15|
95708869|NCT00835276|191387906|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The ANOVA model was utilized in comparing the effects between the test and reference products. Differences were declared statistically significant at the 5% level (p\<0.05).|Ratio of the T/R geometric mean x 100|91.47||||||90.0|85.32|98.07|||||To establish bioequivalence, the mean values for the test product differ by no more than 20% from the respective mean values for the reference listed product.|||98.07|85.32|
95708870|NCT01099761|191387912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.023
95708871|NCT01099761|191387912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.012
95708872|NCT01099761|191387912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.435|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.435
95708873|NCT01099761|191387913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.039
95708874|NCT02332876|191387924|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95708875|NCT03325010|191387925|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.1768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.0||Nominal p-value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-5.2|0.1768
95708876|NCT03325010|191387926|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary outcome measure was statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.6|0.1095
95708877|NCT03325010|191387927|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.819|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg).||||||0.8190
95708878|NCT03325010|191387928|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.6||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||To control for multiplicity, comparisons were tested sequentially. Nominal p-value for this outcome measure would only be evaluated for statistical significance if the primary and preceding secondary outcome measures were statistically significant.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline weight group (\<50 kg, ≥50 kg)||||||0.0008
95708879|NCT02402881|191387929|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our primary outcome was the proportion of non-administered doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis non-administration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
95708880|NCT02402881|191387930|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with multiple outputation reiterated 1000 times to bootstrap the 95% CIs and the P values.||Our secondary outcome was the proportion of VTE events. We compared rates of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration pre-post-intervention. For estimating conditional odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs, the binomial family and a logit link were used; for estimating the conditional proportions, the Poisson family and a log link were used.||||<0.05
95708881|NCT04474366|191387946|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.72
95708882|NCT03049852|191387958|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95708883|NCT03049852|191387960|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.007
95708884|NCT02253173|191387962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708885|NCT02253173|191387962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708886|NCT02253173|191387962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708887|NCT02253173|191387963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708888|NCT02253173|191387963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708889|NCT02253173|191387963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708890|NCT02253173|191387964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708891|NCT02253173|191387964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708892|NCT02253173|191387964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708893|NCT02253173|191387965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0149|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0149
95708894|NCT02253173|191387965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708895|NCT02253173|191387965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708896|NCT02253173|191387966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708897|NCT02253173|191387966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708898|NCT02253173|191387966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708899|NCT02253173|191387967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708900|NCT02253173|191387967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708901|NCT02253173|191387967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708902|NCT02253173|191387968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708903|NCT02253173|191387968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708904|NCT02253173|191387968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708905|NCT02253173|191387969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708906|NCT02253173|191387969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708907|NCT02253173|191387969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708908|NCT02253173|191387970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708909|NCT02253173|191387970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708910|NCT02253173|191387970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708911|NCT02253173|191387971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708912|NCT02253173|191387971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708913|NCT02253173|191387971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708914|NCT02253173|191387972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708915|NCT02253173|191387972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708916|NCT02253173|191387972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708917|NCT02253173|191387973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708918|NCT02253173|191387973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708919|NCT02253173|191387973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708920|NCT02253173|191387974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708921|NCT02253173|191387974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708922|NCT02253173|191387974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708923|NCT02253173|191387975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0260
95708924|NCT02253173|191387975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
95708925|NCT02253173|191387975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0105
95708926|NCT02253173|191387976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0069
95708927|NCT02253173|191387976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0009|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0009
95708928|NCT02253173|191387976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708929|NCT02253173|191387977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95708930|NCT02253173|191387977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708931|NCT02253173|191387977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708932|NCT02253173|191387978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1269|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1269
95708933|NCT02253173|191387978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0019
95708934|NCT02253173|191387978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0082
95708935|NCT02253173|191387979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
95708936|NCT02253173|191387979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95708937|NCT02253173|191387979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0005
95708938|NCT02253173|191387980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0128
95708939|NCT02253173|191387980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708940|NCT02253173|191387980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0008
95708941|NCT02253173|191387981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
95708942|NCT02253173|191387981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708943|NCT02253173|191387981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708944|NCT02253173|191387982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9616|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9616
95708945|NCT02253173|191387982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2439|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2439
95708946|NCT02253173|191387982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6518|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6518
95708947|NCT02253173|191387983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7829|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7829
95708948|NCT02253173|191387983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2328|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2328
95708949|NCT02253173|191387983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4118
95708950|NCT02253173|191387984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0639|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0639
95708951|NCT02253173|191387984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0356|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0356
95708952|NCT02253173|191387984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0914|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0914
95708953|NCT02253173|191387985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0503|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0503
95708954|NCT02253173|191387985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0055|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0055
95708955|NCT02253173|191387985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0263|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0263
95708956|NCT02253173|191387986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708957|NCT02253173|191387986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708958|NCT02253173|191387986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708959|NCT02253173|191387987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708960|NCT02253173|191387987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708961|NCT02253173|191387987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708962|NCT02253173|191387988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708963|NCT02253173|191387988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708964|NCT02253173|191387988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708965|NCT02253173|191387989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708966|NCT02253173|191387989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708967|NCT02253173|191387989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708968|NCT02253173|191387990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708969|NCT02253173|191387990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708970|NCT02253173|191387990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708971|NCT02253173|191387991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708972|NCT02253173|191387991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708973|NCT02253173|191387991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708974|NCT02253173|191387992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708975|NCT02253173|191387992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708976|NCT02253173|191387992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708977|NCT02253173|191387993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708978|NCT02253173|191387993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708979|NCT02253173|191387993|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708980|NCT02253173|191387994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708981|NCT02253173|191387994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708982|NCT02253173|191387994|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708983|NCT02253173|191387995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708984|NCT02253173|191387995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708985|NCT02253173|191387995|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708986|NCT02253173|191387996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708987|NCT02253173|191387996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708988|NCT02253173|191387996|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708989|NCT02253173|191387997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708990|NCT02253173|191387997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708991|NCT02253173|191387997|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708992|NCT02253173|191387998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0004
95708993|NCT02253173|191387998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708994|NCT02253173|191387998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708995|NCT02253173|191387999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95708996|NCT02253173|191387999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708997|NCT02253173|191387999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95708998|NCT02253173|191388000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95918174|NCT01275196|191795678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This trial was powered to detect an odds ratio of at least 2.333 which corresponds, for example, to increases of 18% (from 22% to 40%) and increases of 20% (from 30% to 50%).||||||0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95708999|NCT02253173|191388000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95709000|NCT02253173|191388000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95709001|NCT02253173|191388001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95709002|NCT02253173|191388001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95709003|NCT02253173|191388001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.0001
95709004|NCT02253173|191388002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9075|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9075
95709005|NCT02253173|191388002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0492|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0492
95709006|NCT02253173|191388002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0019
95709007|NCT02253173|191388003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9719|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9719
95709008|NCT02253173|191388003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0614|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0614
95709009|NCT02253173|191388003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
95709010|NCT02253173|191388004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9999|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9999
95709011|NCT02253173|191388004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2855|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2855
95709012|NCT02253173|191388004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1189|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1189
95709013|NCT02253173|191388005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4162|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4162
95709014|NCT02253173|191388005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0013|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0013
95709015|NCT02253173|191388005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0003
95709016|NCT02253173|191388006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9929|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9929
95709017|NCT02253173|191388006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9634|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9634
95709018|NCT02253173|191388006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0898|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0898
95709019|NCT02253173|191388007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5146|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5146
95709020|NCT02253173|191388007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0099|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0099
95709021|NCT02253173|191388007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0150
95709022|NCT02253173|191388008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9039
95709023|NCT02253173|191388008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3751|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3751
95709024|NCT02253173|191388008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0073|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0073
95709025|NCT03399786|191388038|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-49.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.0|-33.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||Confidence interval (CI) with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of least squares (LS) means using mixed-effect model repeat measurement (MMRM), randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-33.1|-65.0|< 0.0001
95709026|NCT03399786|191388039|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-36.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.6|-25.2|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated Apo B value.||-25.2|-48.6|< 0.0001
95709027|NCT03399786|191388040|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-51.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.8|-38.5|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated non-HDL-C value.||-38.5|-64.8|< 0.0001
95709028|NCT03399786|191388041|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-48.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.7|-38.1|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated TC value.||-38.1|-58.7|< 0.0001
95727748|NCT00591253|191425054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|-3.81||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.81|-7.99|<0.001
95918175|NCT02693834|191795695|OTHER|Paired t test||||||0.293|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||In order to test the difference in gait endurance,between the two AFO conditions at baseline, a paired t-test was analyzed||||.293
95709029|NCT03399786|191388042|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|25.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|110.5|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||110.5|5.7|< 0.0001
95709030|NCT03399786|191388043|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|24.2|||=|0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|195.6|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for secondary endpoints in pre-specified order to control type I error.Testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05.Multiple imputation addressed missing data at week 24.Combined estimate for odds ratio obtained by Rubin's formulae.Logistic regression models stratified by randomized strata include fixed categorical effect of treatment group \& continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C.||195.6|3.0|= 0.0028
95709031|NCT03399786|191388044|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-132.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.3|-88.9|||Mixed-effect Model Repeat Measure (MMRM)|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. CI with p-value was based on-treatment group difference of LS means using MMRM, randomization strata, treatment/strata/baseline value-by-time point interaction and continuous fixed covariates of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||-88.9|-175.3|< 0.0001
95709032|NCT03399786|191388045|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.3|||Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||1.3|0|= 0.0845
95709033|NCT03399786|191388046|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|5.7|||=|0.0203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|24.9||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analyses|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||24.9|1.3|= 0.0203
95709034|NCT03399786|191388047|SUPERIORITY|A 2-step multiple imputation method addressed missing values (seeds = 1629 \& 9261 with number of imputations = 100 in first and number of imputation=1 in second step).|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.1|||=|0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||The p-value is nominal for descriptive purpose only due to statistical hypothesis testing terminated previously.|Logistic Regression Models Analysis|||A 2-sided hierarchical testing procedure was used for the secondary endpoints in a pre-specified order to control type I error. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when the previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level. Combined estimate for odds ratio was obtained by using Rubin's formulae. Logistic regression models stratified the fixed categorical effect of treatment group and the continuous fixed covariate of baseline calculated LDL-C value.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0004
95709035|NCT06210035|191388091|SUPERIORITY||F test|6.21||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.003
95709036|NCT06210035|191388092|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.78||||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.460
95709037|NCT06210035|191388093|SUPERIORITY||F test|2.13||||0.127|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.127
95709038|NCT06210035|191388094|SUPERIORITY||F test|0.004||||0.952|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.952
95709039|NCT02061540|191388111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.841|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0373||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.251|-2.432|||Wilcoxon's signed rank test|||Analysis was performed to compare baseline and endpoint data.||-2.432|-27.251|0.0043
95709040|NCT01642004|191388126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|96.85|0.43|0.81||Stratified by region (US/Canada, Rest Of World (ROW), Europe) and prior treatment regimen (Paclitaxel, Another agent) as entered in the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS).|Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. HR = Nivolumab over Docetaxel|||0.81|0.43|0.0002
95918176|NCT02693834|191795696|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.077||||||The above value was the interaction between the type of AFO and practice time.|repeated measures ANOVA|||A repeated measures ANOVA was calculated to find the differences in gait endurance between the type of AFO and practice time.||||0.077
95709041|NCT00598806|191388140|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.55|0.1094
95709042|NCT00598806|191388141|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.1038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||Log Rank|||||1.04|0.63|0.1038
95709043|NCT00696774|191388156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.2|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.20|-1.12|0.005
95709044|NCT00696774|191388158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.34|-4.36|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-4.36|-7.34|
95918177|NCT02693834|191795696|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA||||||0.046||||||main effect of the type of AFO: F(1, 19) = 4.58, ηp2= .194|repeated measures ANOVA|||The main effect of type of AFO||||.046
95709045|NCT00696774|191388159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-1.81|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.81|-3.13|
95709046|NCT00696774|191388160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-2.48|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.48|-4.10|
95709047|NCT00696774|191388161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.54|-2.89|
95709048|NCT00696774|191388162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|-1.3|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-1.30|-2.45|
95709049|NCT00696774|191388163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.63|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.63|-1.31|
95709050|NCT00696774|191388164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|-2.8|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-2.80|-6.04|
95709051|NCT00696774|191388165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.84|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.84|-1.42|
95709052|NCT00696774|191388166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.24|-1.08|
95709053|NCT00696774|191388167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.18|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|||-0.18|-0.81|
95709054|NCT00696774|191388168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|2.6|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||2.60|-0.99|
95709055|NCT00696774|191388168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.42|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||3.42|-0.69|
95709056|NCT00696774|191388169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.63|19.47|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||19.47|10.63|
95709057|NCT00696774|191388169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.72|16.24|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||16.24|4.72|
95709058|NCT00696774|191388170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|-4.02|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 4||-4.02|-7.75|
95709059|NCT00696774|191388170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.65|-2.54|||Adjusted Repeated Measures Analysis|Model terms: baseline score \& CGI, age, sex, country, prev treatment, prev treatment discontinuation reason, response group, visit \& response-by-visit|Least Squares Mean Difference = Responders - Non-Responders.|Week 8||-2.54|-6.65|
95709060|NCT00033293|191388171|OTHER||Chi-squared test statistic|8.125||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Chi-squared|A two-way test with a null hypothesis of no association, using SAS 9.4.||"The 5 categories of OMA ratings are: stance, gait, arm \& hand function, opsoclonus, \& mood/behavior. For each category, a patient's response will be based on a comparison of the baseline evaluation to the best of 3 time points: 2 months, 6 months \& 1 year. If a patient crosses over to the IVIG arm or switches to ACTH at any time, the patient will be considered a non-responder. The proportion of responders from the 2 treatment arms were compared using a chi-squared test."||||0.0044
95709061|NCT00033293|191388172|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|60.1979||||0.0919|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.||||0.0919
95709062|NCT00033293|191388173|OTHER|The two samples from the respective treatment arms were compared using a one-sided t-test with a significance level of .05.|Mean Difference (Net)|16.75||||0.2364|ONE_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2364
95709063|NCT01955005|191388178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||This was a 2x2 comparison using Fisher's exact due to low expected cell count. Fisher's exact p\<0.001||||<0.001
95709064|NCT01955005|191388179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Z score|568.5||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95709065|NCT01955005|191388180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Table Probability|0.0142||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's Exact|||||||0.02
95709066|NCT02711553|191388181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.123||||0.4821|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.904|1.395||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.395|0.904|0.4821
95709067|NCT02711553|191388181|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.6417|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.734|1.153||p-value is 2-sided.|Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.153|0.734|0.6417
95709068|NCT02711553|191388182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.336||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.959|1.862|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.862|0.959|0.0870
95709069|NCT02711553|191388182|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.669|1.342|||Log Rank|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|Stratified by geographical region, pathological diagnosis, metastatic disease.|||1.342|0.669|0.7599
95709070|NCT02711553|191388183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.878|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||1.9|0.6|0.878
95709071|NCT02711553|191388183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||0.9|0.2|0.023
95709072|NCT02711553|191388184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.4|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.4|0.6|0.680
95709073|NCT02711553|191388184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.6|||Exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|Stratified by randomization strata Geographical Region, Pathological Diagnosis, Metastatic Disease.|||2.6|0.6|0.499
95709074|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.09||p-values are from Type 3 sums of squares mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) Model.|MMRM Model|Least Squares (LS) Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||0.09|-2.28|0.069
95709075|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|-0.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||PWB||-0.04|-2.42|0.042
95709076|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|0.19||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.19|-1.83|0.112
95709077|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|0.67||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||SWB||0.67|-1.35|0.505
95709078|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|0.17||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.17|-1.56|0.116
95709079|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.59||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||EWB||0.59|-1.16|0.521
95709080|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|-0.44||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||-0.44|-2.87|0.008
95709081|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.62||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FWB||0.62|-1.82|0.335
95709082|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|-1.18||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||-1.18|-4.69|0.001
95709083|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.89||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.12||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||HCS||0.12|-3.40|0.068
95709084|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.0||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.00|-2.04|0.051
95709085|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.38||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||FACT-Hep||0.38|-1.68|0.212
95709086|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|-2.04||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||-2.04|-9.30|0.002
95709087|NCT02711553|191388188|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.07|0.22||p-values are from type 3 sums of squares MMRM model.|MMRM Model|LS Mean value was adjusted for treatment, visit, baseline, treatment\*visit and baseline\*visit.||TOI||0.22|-7.07|0.066
95709088|NCT02724111|191388215|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95709089|NCT02724111|191388216|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95709090|NCT02724111|191388217|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95709091|NCT02724111|191388218|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95709092|NCT02724111|191388219|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95709093|NCT02724111|191388220|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95709094|NCT02724111|191388221|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95709095|NCT02724111|191388222|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.202|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.202
95709096|NCT02996500|191388223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.83||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.73|-1.97|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-1.97|-13.73|0.0050
95709097|NCT02996500|191388223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.37|-3.66|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-3.66|-14.37|<0.001
95709098|NCT02996500|191388223|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-10.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|-5.63|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.63|-16.36|<0.001
95709099|NCT02996500|191388223|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.62|-5.92|||ANCOVA|Bayesian analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) modeling framework was used with baseline SDAI score as a covariate.||The confidence interval was credible interval in this analysis.||-5.92|-16.62|<0.001
95709100|NCT04623255|191388259|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in at least two inflammation markers' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.16
95709101|NCT04623255|191388260|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker CRP' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.606
95709102|NCT04623255|191388261|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.245|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker D-Dimer' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.245
95709103|NCT04623255|191388262|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.653|||||||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis will involve a comparison of the binary outcome '50% reduction in inflammation marker LDH' between the PEX and Standard of Care (control) trial arms using a chi-squared test. The risk difference (and ratio) will be estimated with a 95% confidence interval.||||0.653
95709104|NCT00113555|191388331|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.325|-1.003|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed ranks test was used to determine the significance of differences between scores at follow-up compared to pre-implant.||-1.003|-1.325|<0.001
95709105|NCT01855867|191388359|SUPERIORITY|Statistical significance was determined at the alpha 0.05 level. The study regimen completion rates of participants in the current study taking a fixed dose once daily combination of elvitegravir/cobicistat/TDF/FTC were compared to historical controls who used PEP regimens consisting of TDF/FTC daily and raltegravir twice daily, or earlier regimens of twice daily zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) and a protease inhibitor, using chi-square tests for independence.|chi square||||<|0.05||||||Reported p-value was calculated, and is not attempting to indicate the threshold for statistical significance|Chi-squared|||using historical controls||||<0.05
95709106|NCT00678249|191388361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95709107|NCT01708915|191388370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.362|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.171|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.699|-1.025||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-1.025|-1.699|<0.0001
95709108|NCT01708915|191388370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.324|-0.642||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.642|-1.324|<0.0001
95709109|NCT01708915|191388370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.195||0.4171||95.0|-0.541|0.225||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.225|-0.541|0.4171
95709110|NCT01708915|191388371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.305|-0.793||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.793|-1.305|<0.0001
95709111|NCT01708915|191388371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.731|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.003|-0.459||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||-0.459|-1.003|<0.0001
95709112|NCT01708915|191388371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.152||0.7037||95.0|-0.356|0.241||Model included the fixed, categorical effects of treatment, centre, time, treatment-by-time interaction and the continuous covariate of baseline PI.|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML)|REML based on Repeated Measures Model, using all Available Longitudinal Pain Intensity Observations at each Post-baseline time up to 8 hours.||||0.241|-0.356|0.7037
95709113|NCT01708915|191388372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.655|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.208|<|0.0001||95.0|-2.064|-1.247|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-1.247|-2.064|<0.0001
95709114|NCT01708915|191388372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.578|-0.759|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.759|-1.578|<0.0001
95709115|NCT01708915|191388372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.466|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.0259||95.0|-0.875|-0.056|||ANCOVA|The statistical model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.||||-0.056|-0.875|0.0259
95709116|NCT01708915|191388373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.385|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.943|11.032|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Placebo. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||11.032|4.943|<0.0001
95709117|NCT01708915|191388373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.469|5.308|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nicoboxil. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||5.308|2.469|<0.0001
95709118|NCT01708915|191388373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.594||||0.0129||95.0|1.104|2.303|||Regression, Logistic|The logistic regression model included baseline PI, centre, and treatment.|Odds Ratio was calculated by Nicoboxil/Nonivamide : Nonivamide. Odds ratios \> 1 favour Nicoboxil/Nonivamide.|||2.303|1.104|0.0129
95709119|NCT01369069|191388389|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.08||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted for baseline NIHSS strata (3-7, 8-14, 15-22) and thrombolysis use (Yes/No; includes both IV and IA therapies). Multiple imputation was used for missing data.|It was hypothesized that intensive blood glucose control would be efficacious and safe in acute ischemic stroke patients compared to standard glucose control.||1.08|0.87|0.55
95709120|NCT01369069|191388390|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|3.87|||Fisher Exact||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||3.87|1.29|<0.001
95709121|NCT01369069|191388391|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.07||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|6.2|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.20|-8.33|0.77
95709122|NCT01369069|191388392|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.48||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|6.75|||Chi-squared||The data of the estimation parameter and the confidence intervals were presented as percentages.|||6.75|-5.79|0.88
95709123|NCT01369069|191388393|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.25|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.25|-0.13|0.74
95709124|NCT01369069|191388394|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.82||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.58|0.24
95709125|NCT02573012|191388398|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|0.613||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.346|0.879|||ANCOVA|||||0.879|0.346|0.001
95709126|NCT02573012|191388399|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|0.889|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.889|0.285|0.018
95709127|NCT02573012|191388399|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.833||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.714|0.972|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.972|0.714|0.021
95709128|NCT02573012|191388400|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean|2.342||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|4.023|||ANCOVA|||||4.023|0.661|0.006
95709129|NCT02573012|191388420|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means|2.264||||0.009||95.0|0.574|3.953|||ANCOVA|||||3.953|0.574|0.009
95709130|NCT00281528|191388438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4476||95.0||||Group comparison was performed between group 260 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 every 3 weeks and group 130 mg/m\^2 ABI-007 weekly, as based on amended protocol, no type I error adjustment for multiplicity; a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by study site||||||0.4476
95709131|NCT02871570|191388456|OTHER||ratio|0.7789|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6514|0.9313|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9313|0.6514|
95709132|NCT02871570|191388457|OTHER||ratio|0.7776|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6493|0.9311|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||0.9311|0.6493|
95709133|NCT02871570|191388458|OTHER||ratio|1.2844|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0732|1.5372|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.5372|1.0732|
95709134|NCT02871570|191388459|OTHER||ratio|0.7945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5955|1.0599|||||Moderate hepatic impairment group represents the numerator, and normal hepatic function group represents the denominator.|||1.0599|0.5955|
95709135|NCT04337203|191388466|OTHER|Feasibility study and calculated confidence interval.||||||0.54|||||||Independent samples proportions test|||||||0.54
95709136|NCT03860181|191388518|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 1's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.896|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 215||||||0.896
95709137|NCT03860181|191388518|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical significance's p-value was set at 0.05. For Surgeon 2's differences, they were calculated as patient POSAS score - surgeon POSAS score, with a negative difference signifying that the patients thought more highly of the scars than the physicians since lower POSAS scores are more favorable.||||||0.612|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney U = 210||||||0.612
95709138|NCT04191096|191388595|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.2||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.49||A one-sided p-value was calculated using the log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.49|0.96|0.9467
95709139|NCT04191096|191388596|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.85122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.53||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.53|0.88|0.85122
95709140|NCT04191096|191388597|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.24||||0.97907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.54||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.54|1.01|0.97907
95709141|NCT04191096|191388598|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.27202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.3||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.30|0.61|0.27202
95709142|NCT04191096|191388599|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.2972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.23||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.23|0.69|0.2972
95709143|NCT04191096|191388600|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.6863|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.41||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.41|0.81|0.6863
95709144|NCT04191096|191388601|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.39||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||1.39|0.95|0.9235
95709145|NCT04191096|191388602|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.8801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.5||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes vs No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes vs No) with small strata.|Log Rank||HR and associated 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated using Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||1.50|0.90|0.8801
95709146|NCT04191096|191388603|OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.9576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|0.4||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No).|||0.4|-5.8|0.9576
95709147|NCT04191096|191388604|OTHER||Percent difference|-0.8||||0.6053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|4.8||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docetaxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||4.8|-6.3|0.6053
95709148|NCT04191096|191388605|OTHER||Percent difference|-5.6||||0.9105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|2.6||One-sided p-value based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No) with small strata.|Miettinen & Nurminen||Percent difference and associated 95% CI were calculated using Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by prior docataxel for mHSPC (Yes/No) and presence of high-volume disease (Yes/No)|||2.6|-13.7|0.9105
95709149|NCT03993314|191388611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients achieving a level of numbness of T6 or higher between the two groups.||||0.757
95709150|NCT03993314|191388612|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median level of numbness between the two groups.||||0.186
95709151|NCT03993314|191388613|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring epidural activation between the two groups.||||0.132
95709152|NCT03993314|191388614|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.833||||||Two-sided p-value|Farrington-Manning (Score) test|||Exact Farrington-Manning (Score) test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportion of patients requiring supplemental IV sedation or general anesthesia between the two groups.||||0.833
95709153|NCT03993314|191388615|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.004
95709154|NCT03993314|191388616|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.674||||||Two-sided p-value|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Test performed was an exact test; no continuity correction was used.||Exact Wilcoxon test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the median modified Bromage score between the two groups.||||0.674
95709155|NCT03993314|191388617|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.196|||||||Log Rank|||Log-rank test of the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the time to discharge from the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) between the two groups.||||0.196
95709156|NCT02442765|191388632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.0|||=|0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|-0.6||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-7.4|=0.021
95918178|NCT02693834|191795696|OTHER|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||main effect of practice: F(1, 19) = 43.94, ηp2 = .698|repeated measures ANOVA|||Main effect of practice||||<.001
95709157|NCT02442765|191388632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|2.7||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||2.7|-3.9|=0.731
95709158|NCT02442765|191388632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.5|||=|0.157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.4||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|||||1.4|-8.4|=0.157
95709159|NCT02442765|191388632|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|1.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.3|-8.4|=0.150
95709160|NCT02442765|191388632|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.65|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD) was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.008
95709161|NCT02442765|191388632|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.26|||=|0.208|TWO_SIDED|||||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||||=0.208
95709162|NCT02442765|191388633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|0.331
95709163|NCT02442765|191388633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|0.400
95709164|NCT02442765|191388633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-1.1|0.014
95709165|NCT02442765|191388633|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|0.145
95709166|NCT02442765|191388633|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-2.51||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA||OLS = ordinary least squares|||||0.012
95709167|NCT02442765|191388633|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.66||||0.097|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.097
95709168|NCT02442765|191388634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.2||MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use. Unstructured variance-covariance was used.|MMRM|SPCD was used with weight = 0.6 for Stage 1 and 0.4 for Stage 2.||||0.2|-1.3|=0.182
95709169|NCT02442765|191388634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.4||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.4|-1.1|=0.390
95709170|NCT02442765|191388634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.5|||=|0.462|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.7||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.7|-0.8|=0.462
95709171|NCT02442765|191388634|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.4|||=|0.528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-0.8|=0.528
95709172|NCT02442765|191388634|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.39|||=|0.695|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.695
95709173|NCT02442765|191388634|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.12|||=|0.904|TWO_SIDED|||||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, Baseline (BL), BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|ANCOVA|||||||=0.904
95709174|NCT02442765|191388635|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.8|-3.2|=0.247
95709175|NCT02442765|191388635|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|1.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.6|-2.3|=0.721
95709176|NCT02442765|191388635|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|||=|0.419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|1.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.8|-4.3|=0.419
95709177|NCT02442765|191388635|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|3.9||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||3.9|-2.0|=0.534
95709178|NCT02442765|191388635|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
95709179|NCT02442765|191388635|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.19|||=|0.851|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.851
95709180|NCT02442765|191388636|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|||=|0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.2|-1.4|=0.146
95709181|NCT02442765|191388636|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|||=|0.399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||1.1|-0.4|=0.399
95709182|NCT02442765|191388636|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.7|||=|0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.0|-0.6|=0.283
95709183|NCT02442765|191388636|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.2|||=|0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.5|-0.1|=0.065
95709184|NCT02442765|191388636|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
95709185|NCT02442765|191388636|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|1.94|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.052
95709186|NCT02442765|191388637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|||=|0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.4|||ANCOVA|||||1.4|-2.7|=0.530
95709187|NCT02442765|191388637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|1.0|||ANCOVA|||||1.0|-3.1|=0.326
95709188|NCT02442765|191388637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.5|||=|0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.9|||ANCOVA|||||5.9|-0.8|=0.135
95709189|NCT02442765|191388637|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2|||=|0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|3.5|||ANCOVA|||||3.5|-3.1|=0.895
95709190|NCT02442765|191388637|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|0.67|||=|0.502|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.502
95709191|NCT02442765|191388637|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted Z-statistic|-0.58|||=|0.564|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.564
95709192|NCT02442765|191388638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.0|-1.6|=0.061
95709193|NCT02442765|191388638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.5|-1.1|=0.400
95709194|NCT02442765|191388638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.3|-2.4|=0.115
95709195|NCT02442765|191388638|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|||=|0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.6||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||0.6|-2.1|=0.264
95709196|NCT02442765|191388638|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-2.44|||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.015
95709197|NCT02442765|191388638|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.4|||=|0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.163
95709198|NCT02442765|191388639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.9|||=|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|0.0||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||-0.0|-7.8|=0.050
95709199|NCT02442765|191388639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|2.2||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||2.2|-5.4|=0.412
95709200|NCT02442765|191388639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.0|||=|0.775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.8||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||5.8|-7.8|=0.775
95709201|NCT02442765|191388639|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.3|||=|0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|10.1||"MMRMs include fixed effects of treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, BL, BL-by-visit, and in the Stage 1 model, BL NPI AA, risk assessment for falls, BL concomitant antipsychotic medication use.~Unstructured variance-covariance was used."|MMRM|||||10.1|-3.5|=0.333
95709202|NCT02442765|191388639|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|-1.5|||=|0.133|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.133
95709203|NCT02442765|191388639|SUPERIORITY||MMRM weighted z-statistic|0.22|||=|0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.829
95709204|NCT02442765|191388640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-0.4|=0.118
95709205|NCT02442765|191388640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.191
95709206|NCT02442765|191388640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.225
95709207|NCT02442765|191388640|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.227
95709208|NCT02442765|191388640|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.97|||=|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.049
95709209|NCT02442765|191388640|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.78|||=|0.075|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.075
95709210|NCT02442765|191388641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.4|=0.364
95709211|NCT02442765|191388641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||ANCOVA|||||0.2|-0.4|=0.427
95709212|NCT02442765|191388641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.9|=0.098
95709213|NCT02442765|191388641|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.8|=0.168
95709214|NCT02442765|191388641|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.86|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
95709215|NCT02442765|191388641|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.57|||=|0.115|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.115
95709216|NCT02442765|191388642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||||-0.1|-0.6|=0.014
95709217|NCT02442765|191388642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|||=|0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||ANCOVA|||||0.1|-0.5|=0.111
95709218|NCT02442765|191388642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||=|0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0|||ANCOVA|||||0.0|-1.1|=0.062
95709219|NCT02442765|191388642|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|||=|0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.8|=0.305
95709220|NCT02442765|191388642|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-3.01|||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.003
95709221|NCT02442765|191388642|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.79|||=|0.073|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.073
95709222|NCT02442765|191388643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.5|-2.2|=0.909
95709223|NCT02442765|191388643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.4|||=|0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.8|||ANCOVA|||||3.8|-0.9|=0.226
95709224|NCT02442765|191388643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.1|||=|0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|7.1|||ANCOVA|||||7.1|-2.9|=0.405
95709225|NCT02442765|191388643|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|||=|0.714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-5.8|=0.714
95709226|NCT02442765|191388643|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.75|||=|0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.456
95709227|NCT02442765|191388643|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.42|||=|0.678|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.678
95709228|NCT02442765|191388644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-1.1|=0.278
95709229|NCT02442765|191388644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1|||=|0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.6|-0.8|=0.817
95709230|NCT02442765|191388644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|||=|0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.7|||ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.4|=0.500
95709231|NCT02442765|191388644|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|||=|0.795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|1.2|||ANCOVA|||||1.2|-0.9|=0.795
95709232|NCT02442765|191388644|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-1.25|||=|0.213|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.213
95709233|NCT02442765|191388644|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.02|||=|0.985|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.985
95709234|NCT02442765|191388646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|||=|0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.3|||ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.9|=0.018
95709235|NCT02442765|191388646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.0|||=|0.956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|1.3|||ANCOVA|||||1.3|-1.3|=0.956
95709236|NCT02442765|191388646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.1|||=|0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|4.0|||ANCOVA|||||4.0|-1.8|=0.451
95709237|NCT02442765|191388646|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.9|||=|0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|3.7|||ANCOVA|||||3.7|-1.9|=0.519
95709238|NCT02442765|191388646|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|-0.72|||=|0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.471
95709239|NCT02442765|191388646|SUPERIORITY||SPCD OLS weighted z-statistic|0.5|||=|0.618|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.618
95709240|NCT00003389|191388653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.32
95709241|NCT00003389|191388654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test was performed.||||||0.86
95709242|NCT01693562|191388686|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.016|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.016
95709243|NCT01693562|191388687|EQUIVALENCE|Other||||||0.0046|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.0046
95709244|NCT05466240|191388688|EQUIVALENCE|For each post-baseline collection time point, treatment difference and p-value comparing the mean change in viral load from baseline between treatment arms from an analysis of covariance model with covariate baseline viral load.|||||<|0.95|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.95
95709245|NCT02759939|191388691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.80
95709246|NCT02759939|191388691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.32
95709247|NCT02759939|191388691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.99
95709248|NCT02759939|191388691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Scheffe method|See below|Random effects logistic regression with a random intercept for clinic and adjustment for participant characteristics that differed across trial arms||||||0.72
95709249|NCT04735432|191388712|NON_INFERIORITY|This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-week study to evaluate the noninferiority of the pharmacodynamic effect of efgartigimod PH20 SC 1000 mg compared with efgartigimod IV 10 mg/kg in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.|LS mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.782|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with treatment as a factor and total IgG levels at baseline as a covariate. The NI evaluation was based on a percent reduction from baseline in total IgG levels at day 29 (week 4) using an NI margin of 10%. Only the results for mITT analysis set are entered.||-0.66|-7.73|< 0.0001
95709250|NCT01901809|191388727|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|20.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||20.8|2.0|0.018
95709251|NCT01901809|191388728|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|4.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.9|-14.4|0.33
95709252|NCT02776904|191388729|OTHER|||||||0.0003||||||Adjustment with Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|3 DF||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Memory||||0.0003
95709253|NCT02776904|191388729|OTHER|||||||0.0281||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Verbal memory||||0.0281
95709254|NCT02776904|191388729|OTHER|||||||0.0035||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|DF 3||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Visual Motor composite||||0.0035
95709255|NCT02776904|191388730|OTHER|||||||0.2637||||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey-Kramer|ANOVA|||Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-season scores to post-season, end of the school year and pre-season year 2 for Reaction Time||||0.2637
95709256|NCT02776904|191388731|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Used Tukey's Adjustment|ANOVA|||Descriptive analysis, including means and standard deviations was used to summarize all participant data. Velocity was normalized to leg length. Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters for healthy athletes. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait velocity for healthy athletes. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance)||||<0.001
95709257|NCT02776904|191388732|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on gait parameters of step length. Adjusted using Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons (0.05 threshold for significance).|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pair wise comparisons between walk status and sex for step length.||||||< 0.0001
95709258|NCT02776904|191388733|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in DLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for the pairwise comparisons with p\<.05.||||||< 0.0001
95709259|NCT02776904|191388734|OTHER|Normality was tested and assumed for all measured gait parameters. A two-way repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) was used to explore the impact of walk status and sex on percent of gait cycle in SLS.|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|Tukey's post hoc method for pairwise comparison between walk status and sex for %GC in SLS.||||||< 0.0001
95709260|NCT02776904|191388735|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95709261|NCT02776904|191388736|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95709262|NCT02776904|191388737|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95709263|NCT00935766|191388739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.21
95709264|NCT00935766|191388740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95709265|NCT00935766|191388741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.36
95709266|NCT04167514|191388761|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.954|3.866|||One-sided Wald|One-sided Wald test of superior odds of overall response under AAT treatment compared to placebo.Threshold of significance at \<0.025.|Wald CIs|||3.866|0.954|0.034
95709267|NCT04453722|191388794|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.4|0.120
95709268|NCT04453722|191388794|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-407.0||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1816.0|208.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||208|-1816|0.349
95709269|NCT04453722|191388794|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge TWA SpO2 \<90% (%)||0|-0.2|0.307
95709270|NCT04453722|191388794|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-35.0||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.0|67.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge AUC SpO2 \<90% (% \* min)||67|-195|0.431
95709271|NCT04453722|191388795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.27|||Fisher Exact|||variable: In hospital Any event, N (%)c||4.27|0.22|>0.99
95709272|NCT04453722|191388795|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0|||>|0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.9|||Chi-squared|||variable: Post-discharge Any event, N (%)||2.90|0.35|>0.99
95709273|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-6.0||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Number||4.0|-26.0|0.354
95709274|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-46.1||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-274.0|5.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Total duration (min)||5.1|-274|0.133
95709275|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-24.1||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.0|0.1|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Duration \>2 min (min)||0.1|-213|0.075
95709276|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-0.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: In hospital Mean duration-all patients (min)||-0.4|-4.5|0.009
95709277|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.2||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-0.7|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: in hospital mean duration for events in those with any events (min)||-0.7|-4.7|0.001
95709278|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: post-discharge number||1.0|-4.0|0.584
95709279|NCT04453722|191388796|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and p-values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|3.3|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Post-discharge duration (min)||3.3|-18.6|0.556
95709280|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.096
95727749|NCT00591253|191425055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.91||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|-1.27||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-8.54|0.008
95709281|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing sleep (at the day of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.205
95709282|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.839|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: comfortable to wear (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.839
95709283|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.621
95709284|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert||1.0|-1.0|0.898
95709285|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: easily cleaned/disinfected (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.654
95709286|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: adequate battery life (at the day of discharge)||1.0|-1.0|0.929
95709287|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.200
95709288|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (at the day of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.987
95709289|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line (at the day of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.581
95709290|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Degree of disturbing daily life except sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||3.0|0.0|0.180
95709291|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: degree of distributing sleep (after 24 hours of discharge)||2.0|0.0|0.171
95709292|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.074
95709293|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to tactile alert (after 24 hours of discharge)||1.0|-2.0|0.414
95709294|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Easily cleaned/disinfected (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|0.0|0.506
95709295|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.747
95709296|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: satisfy with the electrode patch (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-2.0|0.023
95709297|NCT04453722|191388799|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study (after 24 hours of discharge)||0.0|-1.0|0.023
95709298|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Degree of disturbing routine work||0.0|-1.0|0.73
95709299|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Easily cleaned/disinfected||1.0|0.0|0.097
95709300|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Adequate battery life||1.0|0.0|0.02
95709301|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Satisfy with the electrode patch||1.0|0.0|0.037
95709302|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Tolerable to audible alert||1.0|-2.0|0.482
95709303|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Willing to use after study||1.0|0.0|0.031
95709304|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||variable: Patients' complaint about the device|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Patients' complaint about the device||1.0|0.0|0.947
95709305|NCT04453722|191388800|SUPERIORITY|Median difference was estimated from the Hodges-Lehmann estimator of location shift between groups and P values from Wilcoxon rank sum test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||variable: Disturb IV line||0.0|0.0|0.324
95709306|NCT05740566|191388819|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.468|0.768||P-value is calculated using a stratified log-rank test.|Stratified log-rank test||Hazard ratios and 95% CIs are estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model; a hazard ratio \<1.0 indicates a better survival of tarlatamab arm.|||0.768|0.468|<0.001
95709307|NCT00137267|191388820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95709308|NCT00137267|191388821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.152
95709309|NCT02723019|191388910|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Analyzed using logistic regression analysis||||0.01
95709310|NCT02723019|191388911|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.19
95709311|NCT02723019|191388912|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.73
95709312|NCT02723019|191388913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.28
95709313|NCT02723019|191388914|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71||||||P-value is for the time by group interaction effect, testing the difference in rate of change between the Intervention and Control groups from baseline to 6 months post baseline|multilevel model analysis, random interc|||multilevel model analysis, random intercepts and slopes, appropriate link function for outcome, full maximum likelihood estimation||||0.71
95709314|NCT02723019|191388915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||negative binomial regression model analy|||negative binomial regression model analysis||||0.42
95709315|NCT03018340|191389020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in weighted MMRM LSMs|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is the primary statistical comparison for Stage 1 and Stage 2 combined.||-0.1|-3.4|0.0390
95709316|NCT03018340|191389020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|-4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.9|-6.1|0.0003
95709317|NCT03018340|191389020|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MMRM LSMs|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.1|-2.1|0.6940
95709318|NCT04652102|191389031|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.364|||||TWO_SIDED|95.826|0.299|0.433|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper confidence interval (CI) on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.433|0.299|
95709319|NCT04652102|191389031|OTHER||Vaccine Efficacy|48.2||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.826|31.0|61.4||1-sided p-value from the exact binomial test on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases (equivalent to a test on VE with H0: VE ≤30%). Statistically significant if lower than 0.02087.|Exact Binomial Test||2-sided 95.826% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95.826% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Vaccine efficacy (VE) calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||61.4|31.0|0.01600
95709320|NCT04652102|191389043|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.245|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.389|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.389|0.133|
95709321|NCT04652102|191389043|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|70.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.5|86.1|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||86.1|42.5|
95709322|NCT04652102|191389044|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.084|0.581|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.581|0.084|
95709323|NCT04652102|191389044|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|63.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|91.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||91.7|-25.5|
95709324|NCT04652102|191389045|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.341|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.242|0.452|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.452|0.242|
95709325|NCT04652102|191389045|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|53.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.4|71.2|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||71.2|25.4|
95709326|NCT04652102|191389046|SUPERIORITY||Proportion|0.571|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.782|||||Derived from an exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|Proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.||0.782|0.340|
95709327|NCT04652102|191389046|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-200.5|56.7|||||2-sided 95% CI on VE, derived from the exact 2-sided 95% Pearson-Clopper CI on proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases.|VE calculated as VE = 1 - p/(1-p) \*1/r where p represents the proportion of cases coming from the CVnCoV group among all cases and r represents the ratio of total follow-up time of subjects in the CVnCoV group over the total follow-up time of subjects in the placebo group.||56.7|-200.5|
95709328|NCT01714336|191389061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.75
95709329|NCT01766401|191389064|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.5||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|-0.04|||MMRM|||||-0.04|-2.96|0.0438
95709330|NCT01766401|191389065|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.41||||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.2|||MMRM|||||0.20|-3.02|0.0868
95709331|NCT01021553|191389066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.16||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.79|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.79|0.75|0.4959
95709332|NCT01021553|191389066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.11||||0.6161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.74|0.6161
95709333|NCT01021553|191389066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.13||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.61|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.61|0.79|0.4971
95709334|NCT01021553|191389067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.9037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.58|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.58|0.67|0.9037
95709335|NCT01021553|191389067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.0||||0.9939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.48|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Week 0 to 4||1.48|0.67|0.9939
95709336|NCT01021553|191389067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.01||||0.9541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.43|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 0-4||1.43|0.71|0.9541
95709337|NCT01021553|191389067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.33||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.24|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||2.24|0.79|0.2798
95709338|NCT01021553|191389067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.09||||0.7255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.75|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.75|0.68|0.7255
95709339|NCT01021553|191389067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.18||||0.4347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.8|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|For Weeks 4-8||1.80|0.77|0.4347
95709340|NCT01021553|191389068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.14||||0.6583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||2.05|0.63|0.6583
95709341|NCT01021553|191389068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|0.96||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.65|0.56|0.8790
95709342|NCT01021553|191389068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference|1.03||||0.8971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.67|||ANCOVA||Estimated value is Geometric LS Mean Fold Difference from Placebo.|||1.67|0.64|0.8971
95709343|NCT01021553|191389071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.43|3.48|||||For AUC (0-inf)|||3.48|2.43|
95709344|NCT01021553|191389071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|2.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.51|3.54||||||||3.54|2.51|
95709345|NCT01021553|191389072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of treatments|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.95|4.47||||||||4.47|2.95|
95709346|NCT00935701|191389136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Restless-Impulsive subscale||||0.01
95709347|NCT00935701|191389136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Emotional Lability subscale||||0.09
95709348|NCT00935701|191389136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Global Index Total||||0.02
95709349|NCT00935701|191389136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Inattentive subscale||||0.01
95709350|NCT00935701|191389136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Hyperactive-Impulsive subscale||||0.03
95709351|NCT00935701|191389136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on DSM-IV Total||||0.01
95709352|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Bedtime Resistance subscale||||0.08
95709353|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Onset Delay subscale||||0.03
95709354|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Duration subscale||||0.82
95709355|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Sleep Anxiety subscale||||0.58
95709356|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Night Wakings subscale||||0.66
95709357|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parasomnias subscale||||0.18
95709358|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Daytime Sleepiness subscale||||0.31
95709359|NCT00935701|191389137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Disturbance||||0.07
95709360|NCT00935701|191389138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Child Domain Total||||0.04
95709361|NCT00935701|191389138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Parent Domain Total||||0.31
95709362|NCT00935701|191389138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mean change in score from pre to post on Total Stress||||0.07
95709363|NCT01469637|191389142|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|1.18|||ANOVA|||||1.18|1.12|
95709364|NCT01469637|191389143|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.09|1.15|||ANOVA|||||1.15|1.09|
95709365|NCT01200758|191389144|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferior Ctrough in SC formulation was demonstrated, if the lower bound of 90% confidence interval (CI) was above 0.8.|Geometric mean ratio|1.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.94|||||Geometric mean ratio adjusted for tumor load at baseline.|||1.94|1.36|
95709366|NCT01200758|191389145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-4.82||||0.2835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|4.4|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.4|-14.0|0.2835
95709367|NCT01200758|191389145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.33||||||||1.33|0.38|
95709368|NCT01200758|191389146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|7.66||||0.2047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|20.3|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||20.3|-5.0|0.2047
95709369|NCT01200758|191389146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|5.71||||||||5.71|0.68|
95709370|NCT01200758|191389147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.49||||0.8911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson.|||6.8|-7.7|0.8911
95709371|NCT01200758|191389147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.65||||||||1.65|0.56|
95709372|NCT01200758|191389148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CRR|17.86||||0.0335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|35.0|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||35.0|0.8|0.0335
95709373|NCT01200758|191389148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.78||||||||4.78|1.06|
95709374|NCT01200758|191389149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-6.58||||0.2331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.8|4.6|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||4.6|-17.8|0.2331
95709375|NCT01200758|191389149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.22||||||||1.22|0.44|
95709376|NCT01200758|191389150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|0.49||||0.9157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||9.8|-8.8|0.9157
95709377|NCT01200758|191389150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.51||||||||1.51|0.66|
95709378|NCT01200758|191389151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-7.28||||0.1715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.0|3.5|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||3.5|-18.0|0.1715
95709379|NCT01200758|191389151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.22||||||||1.22|0.52|
95709380|NCT01200758|191389152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rates|-0.18||||0.9671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Chi-squared||The 95% CI for the difference in response rates was estimated using the Hauck-Anderson method.|||8.8|-9.2|0.9671
95709381|NCT01200758|191389152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.64||||||||1.64|0.60|
95709382|NCT01200758|191389154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.26|||Wald test|||||1.26|0.64|0.5526
95709383|NCT01200758|191389156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.36|||Wald test|||||1.36|0.71|0.9115
95709384|NCT01200758|191389159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.53||||||The ratio of observed rituximab serum was determined as AUC SC/AUC IV during Cycle 7 of induction treatment.||1.53|1.24|
95709385|NCT01200758|191389160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.941|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.872|1.015||||||||1.015|0.872|
95709386|NCT01930487|191389198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0016
95709387|NCT01930487|191389199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.025|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.0249|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0249
95709388|NCT01930487|191389200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.9147|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9147
95709389|NCT01930487|191389201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0070
95709390|NCT01930487|191389202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sidede||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
95709391|NCT01930487|191389203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0476
95709392|NCT01930487|191389204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0352|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0352
95709393|NCT01930487|191389205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0208|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0208
95709394|NCT01930487|191389206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
95709395|NCT01930487|191389207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0024
95709396|NCT01930487|191389208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0081|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0081
95709397|NCT01930487|191389209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.8191|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8191
95709398|NCT01930487|191389210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.0482|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0482
95709399|NCT01930487|191389211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0230
95709400|NCT01930487|191389212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.013|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.1202|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1202
95709401|NCT01930487|191389213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83||0.0063|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0063
95709402|NCT01930487|191389214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.3347|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3347
95709403|NCT01930487|191389215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.0094|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0094
95709404|NCT01930487|191389216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0009|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0009
95709405|NCT01930487|191389217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0067|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0067
95709406|NCT01930487|191389218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.6938|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6938
95709407|NCT01930487|191389219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.0805|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0805
95709408|NCT01930487|191389220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.2451|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2451
95709409|NCT01930487|191389221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34||0.0323|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0323
95709410|NCT01930487|191389222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.344|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3440
95709411|NCT01930487|191389223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0119|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0119
95709412|NCT01930487|191389224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||<0.0001
95709413|NCT01930487|191389225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0137|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0137
95709414|NCT01930487|191389226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0866|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0866
95709415|NCT01930487|191389227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.0656|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0656
95709416|NCT01930487|191389228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0626|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0626
95709417|NCT01930487|191389229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.8100
95709418|NCT01930487|191389230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.9556|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.9556
95709419|NCT01930487|191389231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.3414|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3414
95709420|NCT01930487|191389232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0330
95709421|NCT01930487|191389233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.3326|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3326
95709422|NCT01930487|191389234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0348|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0348
95709423|NCT01930487|191389235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.016|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.2089|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.2089
95709424|NCT01930487|191389236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.3738|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.3738
95709425|NCT01930487|191389237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.4470
95709426|NCT01930487|191389238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.6382|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6382
95709427|NCT01930487|191389239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.012||0.0026|TWO_SIDED||||||paird t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0026
95709428|NCT01930487|191389240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.1045|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.1045
95709429|NCT01930487|191389241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.005|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013||0.6941|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.6941
95709430|NCT01930487|191389242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.0138|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test, 2-sided||dietary supplement with antioxidants - placebo|||||0.0138
95709431|NCT01045551|191389283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.98
95709432|NCT01045551|191389284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9024|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95709433|NCT00542425|191389288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
95709434|NCT00542425|191389288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||Study size provided 95 percent power to detect a difference in means of 114 (ng/mL) for PINP endpoint between BA058 (SD=147.5) and placebo (SD=34.5). Study size was based on Bauer 2006 data and utilized a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test with a significance level of alpha=0.01 with a Bonferonni adjustment for multiple testing. It included a 10 percent adjustment for within study dropouts over 6 months and a 15 percent adjustment to maintain adequate power for a per protocol analysis of key endpoints.||||<0.001
95709435|NCT00542425|191389289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
95709436|NCT00542425|191389289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||0.0|||||ANOVA|||For the BMD endpoint, the planned study size has 80 percent power with alpha=0.02 to detect a difference in mean change from baseline of 3.0 (percent) in BMD for the BA058 group and the BA058 Placebo group using an assumed SD of 3.5-4.0. The estimates for SD are based upon results of lumbar spine BMD presented by Body 2002.||||<0.001
95709437|NCT00369928|191389298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.88||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.56|1.38|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.38|0.56|0.982
95709438|NCT00369928|191389298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.79||||0.666|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.5|1.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.25|0.50|0.666
95709439|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single group study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a tumor response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive analysis only||Single group change from baseline||||0.11
95709440|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.01
95709441|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Pain from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.18|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.18
95709442|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life (QOL) from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.30
95709443|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.87||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.61
95709444|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study Change in Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.12
95709445|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.35||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only.||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.05
95709446|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
95709447|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.46||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.72
95709448|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.74||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.36
95709449|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.37||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.98
95709450|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.99||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
95709451|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.16||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.19
95709452|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.58||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.57
95709453|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.51||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.45
95709454|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.28
95709455|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.52||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.93
95709456|NCT02096471|191389308|SUPERIORITY|Single Group Study. Change in Quality of Life from Baseline amongst those with a Tumor Response.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.53||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|Descriptive Analysis Only||Single Group Change from Baseline||||0.89
95709457|NCT01401101|191389311|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); used random effects to account for correlations wi/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.97
95709458|NCT01401101|191389312|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.54
95709459|NCT01401101|191389313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33||||||Jointly modeled outcomes at the 3 waves by time, condition, and timeXcondition, to allow for different effects at 6 and 12 mos; controlled for interview mode (phone vs. in-person); using random effects to control for correlations w/in site \& patient.|Regression, Linear|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis using the linear mixed-method model to estimate the difference between the PCM and TAU conditions||||0.33
95709460|NCT05281094|191389319|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.51|50.35|||||. Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||50.35|-52.51|
95709461|NCT05281094|191389320|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|17.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|44.7|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1||44.70|-24.52|
95709462|NCT05281094|191389321|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|13.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.7|44.98|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||44.98|-34.70|
95709463|NCT05281094|191389322|SUPERIORITY||Vaccine Efficacy|-6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.04|22.0|||||Vaccine efficacy is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95.0% CI is above 0%.|VE is defined 100% \[1- (λV/λC)\], where λV and λC denote the hazard rates for the HIL-214 and placebo arms respectively, obtained via a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, using Efron's method for handling ties. The model includes a term for vaccine group and was stratified by country, whereby the United States, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico were considered one country. The 95% confidence interval as calculated by subtracting the confidence limits of hazard ratio from 1.||22.00|-45.04|
95709464|NCT02598661|191389330|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|36.89||The p-value was calculated based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 versus\[vs.\]\>6 units RBC) \& international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||36.89|9.90|<0.001
95709465|NCT02598661|191389332|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|24.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.64|34.18||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The 95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score method.|||34.18|12.64|<0.001
95709466|NCT02598661|191389335|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.105|0.586||The p-value (2-sided) was calculated using the stratified log-rank test for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||0.586|0.105|<0.001
95709467|NCT02598661|191389336|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|11.9||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|27.56||The p-value was calculated based on CMH controlling for prior RBC transfusion burden (≤ 6 vs. \> 6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1) applied to randomization.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI was calculated based on the Wilson Score Method.|||27.56|-4.10|0.112
95709468|NCT02598661|191389339|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|1.823||P value (two-sided) for superiority of imetelstat sodium versus placebo in hazard ratio was calculated using stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% CI were calculated from the Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by prior RBC transfusion burden (≤6 vs. \>6 units RBC) and IPSS risk group (low vs. intermediate-1), with treatment as the only covariate.|||1.823|0.526|0.949
95709469|NCT05325333|191389357|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with DLD||||||0.567|||||||LSD test|||||||0.567
95709470|NCT05325333|191389357|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at 5 mins for children with TD||||||0.003|||||||LSD test|||||||0.003
95709471|NCT05325333|191389358|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with DLD||||||0.187|||||||LSD test|||||||0.187
95709472|NCT05325333|191389358|SUPERIORITY|Word form recall accuracy (number of words correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard retrieval schedules at one week for children with TD||||||0.256|||||||LSD test|||||||0.256
95709473|NCT05325333|191389359|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for DLD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
95709474|NCT05325333|191389359|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at 5 Mins for TD||||||0.031|||||||LSD test|||||||0.031
95709475|NCT05325333|191389360|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for DLD||||||0.061|||||||LSD test|||||||0.061
95709476|NCT05325333|191389360|SUPERIORITY|Word meaning recall accuracy (number of semantic associations correctly recalled) on Expanding and Standard Retrieval Schedules at one week for TD||||||0.747|||||||LSD test|||||||0.747
95709477|NCT05325333|191389361|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for DLD||||||0.026|||||||LSD test|||||||0.026
95709478|NCT05325333|191389361|SUPERIORITY|Word recognition (number of words accurately identified) on Expanding condition and Standard Retrieval Schedules for TD||||||0.72|||||||LSD test|||||||0.720
95709479|NCT05325333|191389362|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.0001
95709480|NCT05325333|191389363|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.673|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.673
95709481|NCT01265719|191389397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.1126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.74|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.74|-0.09|0.1126
95709482|NCT01265719|191389397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.06|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in BCVA was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline BCVA value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.06|-0.12|0.4840
95709483|NCT01265719|191389399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.56|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.56|-0.63|0.9020
95709484|NCT01265719|191389399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.8826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in HCD was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline HCD value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.37|0.8826
95709485|NCT01265719|191389400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.13|0.89|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|\<5 years||0.89|-4.13|0.2003
95709486|NCT01265719|191389400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|1.39|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP \<21mmHg at Baseline)||1.39|-1.59|0.8940
95709487|NCT01265719|191389400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.95|-1.36|||ANCOVA|The results were interpreted with caution because of the very small sample size of non-PG treatment group (n=4).|Change from baseline to last available observation in IOP was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline IOP value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years (IOP ≥21mmHg at Baseline)||-1.36|-11.95|0.0184
95709488|NCT01265719|191389401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|15.9|||Fisher Exact|||||15.90|-13.97|>0.999
95709489|NCT01265719|191389402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|-0.4|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.32|14.55|||Fisher Exact|||||14.55|-15.32|>0.999
95709490|NCT01265719|191389403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.2|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.09|||Fisher Exact|||||16.09|-13.78|>0.999
95709491|NCT01265719|191389405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|1.6||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|16.48|||Fisher Exact|||||16.48|-13.39|0.6414
95709492|NCT01265719|191389406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.2437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.65|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in longest lash length (LLL) was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|\<5 years||1.65|-0.43|0.2437
95709493|NCT01265719|191389406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.5199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.43|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in LLL was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline LLL value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||0.43|-0.85|0.5199
95709494|NCT01265719|191389407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-2.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.54||0.8643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|28.94|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|\<5 years||28.94|-34.30|0.8643
95709495|NCT01265719|191389407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.87||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|8.8|||ANCOVA||Change from baseline to last available observation in corneal thickness was analyzed using an ANCOVA model with fixed effect for treatment group with baseline corneal thickness value as covariate.|5 to \<18 years||8.80|-10.54|0.8591
95709496|NCT01265719|191389408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in percentage|4.5||||0.2413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|19.36|||Fisher Exact|||||19.36|-10.49|0.2413
95709497|NCT00303602|191389420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428||95.0||||P-value for Week 2 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.428
95709498|NCT00303602|191389420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.859||95.0||||P-value for Week 4 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.859
95709499|NCT00303602|191389420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.885||95.0||||P-value for Week 8 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.885
95709500|NCT00303602|191389420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0||||P-value for Week 12 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.784
95709501|NCT00303602|191389420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.465||95.0||||P-value for Week 16 Change from Baseline. There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.465
95709502|NCT00303602|191389421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.19||||0.442||95.0|-0.67|0.3|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.30|-0.67|0.442
95709503|NCT00303602|191389422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|-0.32||||0.328||95.0|-0.95|0.32|||ANCOVA||Change = Endpoint minus baseline|||0.32|-0.95|0.328
95709504|NCT00303602|191389423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.385||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.385
95709505|NCT00303602|191389424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Change Difference|0.1||||0.914||95.0|-1.65|1.84|||ANCOVA||Change = endpoint minus baseline|||1.84|-1.65|0.914
95709506|NCT00303602|191389425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325||95.0||||Up to Week 16 p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.325
95709507|NCT00303602|191389427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.344||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.344
95709508|NCT00303602|191389428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.708||95.0||||Systolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.708
95709509|NCT00303602|191389428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453||95.0||||Diastolic Blood Pressure Change to Endpoint p-value|Rank-Sum Test|||||||0.453
95709510|NCT00303602|191389429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.187||95.0||||Total Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.187
95709511|NCT00303602|191389429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163||95.0||||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.163
95709512|NCT00303602|191389429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.323||95.0||||Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.323
95709513|NCT00303602|191389429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0||||Triglycerides Change to Endpoint p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.581
95709514|NCT00303602|191389430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.227
95709515|NCT00303602|191389431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.020
95709516|NCT00303602|191389432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.834||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals of this regression in CMH test.||||||0.834
95709517|NCT00303602|191389433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Ranks of change from baseline were regressed on ranks of baseline value of assay. Treatments compared using residuals on this regression in CMH test.||||||0.022
95709518|NCT00303602|191389434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515||95.0||||Endpoint Metabolic Syndrome p-value|Fisher Exact|||||||0.515
95709519|NCT00303602|191389435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.118||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.118
95709520|NCT00303602|191389436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.161||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.161
95709521|NCT00303602|191389437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.229||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.229
95709522|NCT01491802|191389458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.090
95709523|NCT01491802|191389459|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.680
95709524|NCT01491802|191389460|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.197
95709525|NCT01491802|191389461|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.006
95709526|NCT01491802|191389462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.044|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.044
95709527|NCT01491802|191389463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.573
95709528|NCT01491802|191389464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.960
95709529|NCT01491802|191389465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.944
95709530|NCT01491802|191389466|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired t-test using a 2-sided test of significance was used to compare values after LAMA versus LABA/LAMA treatment.||||0.028
95727750|NCT00591253|191425055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-3.69||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.69|-10.85|<0.001
95709531|NCT01948518|191389503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Assuming 15% change in absolute value of DLCO representing a significant clinical difference and a standard deviation of 17.4% in normal nonsmoking individuals \[Miller A, Thornton JC, Warshaw R, et al. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983;127 (suppl 3):270-277.\], 13 subjects needed to be studied to reject the null hypothesis when there is no significant difference between DLCO measurements before and after sildenafil, with power 0.8 and type I error probability 0.05 (SAS 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC)||||=0.30
95709532|NCT01948518|191389504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.63|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The average 6 minute walk distance at baseline was 1195±407 feet. After oral administration of sildenafil, 6 minute walk distance was 1214±383 feet (p=0.63).||||=0.63
95709533|NCT00170846|191389537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.1241||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5077|5.7559|||ANCOVA|||||5.7559|-3.5077|0.6332
95709534|NCT00170846|191389537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|0.5933||||0.7943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8815|5.0682|||ANCOVA|||||5.0682|-3.8815|0.7943
95709535|NCT01756833|191389547|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.035||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.07||Two prespecified interim analyses for efficacy performed when 1/3 \& 2/3 of primary outcome available, significance level, 1-sided, alpha=.0005. Final analysis 1-sided, alpha=.024. Futility analysis performed when \~2/3 primary outcome was available.|ANCOVA on normal scores|||"Null hypothesis: normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in doxycycline assigned patients - normal score of MTD at follow-up adjusted for baseline and gender in placebo assigned patients = 0.~Sample size: The criterion (alpha) set for statistical significance was 1-sided .025; use of this level means that the inference from the test result will be the same as the inference from 2-sided testing at the .05 significance level."|For the primary analysis, diameters at baseline were ranked from smallest to largest (ranks 1-254). At the 2-year follow-up, ranks 1 through 225 were assigned to the diameters of surviving patients with no aneurysm repair (with missing values estimated by multiple imputation), ranks 226 through 247 were assigned to surviving patients who underwent aneurysm repair (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to repair), and ranks 248 through 254 were assigned to patients who died (in order of longest to shortest time from randomization to death). Each rank was converted to a normal score corresponding to the value on the standard normal curve (z score) of its percentile among all 254 ranks. The primary analysis was based on linear regression of the change in normal scores from baseline to 2 years. Independent variables were baseline normal score, sex, and a dichotomous variable for the randomly assigned treatment group (0 for placebo, 1 for doxycycline).|0.07|-0.07|0.71
95709536|NCT00886587|191389564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.17||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.17|-1.09|0.9416
95709537|NCT00886587|191389565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.35||||0.5431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.48||The significance level threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||1.48|-0.78|0.5431
95709538|NCT00886587|191389566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.788|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment as a factor, baseline score as covariate.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.36|-0.47|0.788
95709539|NCT00886587|191389567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean Difference|0.03||||0.9508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.96||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Repeated measures ANCOVA|Treatment, visit number, and treatment-visit number interaction term as factors, with baseline score and age as covariates.||The null hypothesis was no difference between groups. The alternative hypothesis was a difference between groups.||0.96|-0.90|0.9508
95709540|NCT01523613|191389568|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.262|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.262
95709541|NCT01523613|191389569|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.523
95709542|NCT01523613|191389570|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.100
95709543|NCT01108068|191389571|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype T-test was used to compare differences at baseline between affecteds and unaffecteds||||||0.0003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Cortical area Z-score||||0.0003
95709544|NCT01108068|191389571|EQUIVALENCE|Continuous variables were expressed as means ± SD or median (range). Group differences in pQCT Z-scores according to genotype||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Differences in the two groups were assessed using Student's t-test or the rank-sum test if skewed.||Periosteal circumference Z-score||||0.001
95709545|NCT02815982|191389586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-2.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-2.7|-14.6|<.05
95709546|NCT02815982|191389587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-559.0|630.2||p value was the actual signficance level|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||630.2|-559.0|<.001
95709547|NCT02815982|191389588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|3.3||controlling for caregiver BMI at baseline and PCS BMI percentile at baseline|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention BMI||3.3|-2.3|<.001
95709548|NCT02815982|191389589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|5.2||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.2|-5.4|<.03
95709549|NCT02815982|191389590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|11.3||p \< .05 was threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||||11.3|-4.3|<.09
95709550|NCT02815982|191389591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-328.6|||<|0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2868.4|2211.2||p \< .05 threshold,|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2211.2|-2868.4|<.08
95709551|NCT02815982|191389592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.11||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.11|.01|<.0001
95709552|NCT02815982|191389593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|5.65||threshold set at p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||5.65|-11.3|<.001
95709553|NCT02815982|191389594|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.06||threshold p \< .05|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||.06|-.04|<.001
95709554|NCT02815982|191389595|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-348.9|||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2762.5|2064.8||p \< .05 was the threshold|t-test, 2 sided|||We compared Post-intervention scores||2064.8|-2762.5|<.12
95709555|NCT00135694|191389597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.0|10.0||||||||10|-35|
95709556|NCT00135694|191389603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||0.0183
95709557|NCT00135694|191389604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for immunosuppression dose the subject was receiving at the time of randomization.||||||<0.0001
95709558|NCT02584660|191389605|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference|-1.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.674|||t-test|||||-0.674|-1.730|<.0001
95709559|NCT00461552|191389611|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.84
95709560|NCT00461552|191389612|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Treatment time month interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
95709561|NCT01225211|191389685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.679||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.484|2.125|||ANCOVA|||||2.125|-7.484|0.267
95709562|NCT01225211|191389685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.676|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.801|-4.551|||ANCOVA|||||-4.551|-14.801|<0.001
95709563|NCT01225211|191389686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.306||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.565|4.953|||ANCOVA|||||4.953|-7.565|0.680
95709564|NCT01225211|191389686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.67||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.053|3.712|||ANCOVA|||||3.712|-9.053|0.409
95709565|NCT01225211|191389686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-4.526||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.888|1.835|||ANCOVA|||||1.835|-10.888|0.161
95709566|NCT01225211|191389686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.867||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.543|3.81|||ANCOVA|||||3.810|-9.543|0.396
95709567|NCT01225211|191389686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.78||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.028|4.467|||ANCOVA|||||4.467|-12.028|0.365
95709568|NCT01225211|191389687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.6||||0.5978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|2.86|||Mixed Model Repeated Measure (MMRM)|||||2.86|-1.66|0.5978
95709569|NCT02545049|191389758|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.98||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.98|0.76|0.0264
95709570|NCT02545049|191389759|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.01|0.76|0.0689
95709571|NCT02545049|191389760|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.90|0.3558
95709572|NCT02545049|191389761|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.04||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||1.04|0.77|0.1337
95709573|NCT02545049|191389762|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Ratio of least squares means|0.676|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.704||P-value from F-test of equal means between the treatment groups. A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|ANCOVA|||||0.704|0.650|<0.0001
95709574|NCT02545049|191389763|SUPERIORITY|If the treatment effect of the 40% renal composite endpoint was not significant, all other endpoints (i.e. all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, change in UACR from baseline to Month 4, and 57% renal composite endpoint) would be tested in an exploratory manner.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.99||A hierarchical testing procedure was used for the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with each variable being tested at the adjusted two-sided significance level of 0.04967388.|Log Rank|Stratified log rank test|A stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to provide a point estimate of the hazard ratio and a corresponding two-sided 95% confidence interval.|||0.99|0.60|0.0406
95709575|NCT01436357|191389767|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.529||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.661|3.535|||Regression, Cox|||||3.535|0.661|0.317
95709576|NCT01436357|191389768|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.08||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.16|||Fisher Exact|||||0.16|-0.01|0.029
95709577|NCT01436357|191389769|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.1||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.2|||Fisher Exact|||||0.20|0.01|0.015
95709578|NCT01436357|191389770|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||0|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.00
95709579|NCT01436357|191389772|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.01||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.1|||Fisher Exact|||||0.10|-0.08|0.499
95709580|NCT02422186|191389802|SUPERIORITY||Difference of Least Square (LS) Means|-3.6|||=|0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|0.07|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||0.07|-7.20|=0.059
95709581|NCT02422186|191389803|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-3.6|||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.16|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||||-0.03|-7.16|=0.052
95709582|NCT01021293|191389816|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 1 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
95709583|NCT01021293|191389816|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 2 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|1.24||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||1.24|-1.28|
95709584|NCT01021293|191389816|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ vaccine as compared to OPV vaccine in terms of the immune response to poliovirus type 3 one month after the third vaccine dose. Non-inferiority in terms of immunogenicity to poliovirus antigens was demonstrated if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) on the group difference \[Control Group minus Poliorix Group\] in the percentage of seroprotected subjects|Difference in seroprotection rate|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.44||||||Non-inferiority of Poliorix™ as compared to OPV||-0.44|-3.9|
95709585|NCT01347931|191389868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|10.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||A sample size of 26 patient pairs was determined based on the assumption of a true treatment difference in mean ADL endurance time of 4 ± 7 minutes using a two-tailed, paired t test (α=0.05, power=0.80).||10|2|<0.05
95709586|NCT01347931|191389869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|7.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-tailed t test||7|1|<0.05
95709587|NCT01249404|191389871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.1|||=|0.2859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.1|-0.3|=0.2859
95709588|NCT01249404|191389871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.3|||=|0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for MAS in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||-0.1|-0.5|=0.0091
95709589|NCT01249404|191389872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0640
95709590|NCT01249404|191389872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.3|||=|0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.5|||ANCOVA||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on visit results with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The mean PGA at Week 4 in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.5|-0.0|=0.0665
95709591|NCT01249404|191389872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0466
95709592|NCT01249404|191389872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.2||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA on rank PGA scores||LS means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons and the p-values are obtained from an analysis of variance on visit results based on ranked values with treatment, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as explanatory variables.|The LS mean rank values were back transformed to the original scale to give ranked PGA scores in an attempt to better normalise the data and restore power.||||0.0406
95709593|NCT01249404|191389873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|||=|0.7247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.03|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1000 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.03|-0.02|=0.7247
95709594|NCT01249404|191389873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.01|||=|0.7266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.02|||ANCOVA||LS Means for each treatment group and treatment comparisons as well as the p-values are obtained from an ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline MAS score, BTX treatment status at baseline and centre as covariates.|The least squares mean change from baseline to Week 4 for barefoot comfortable walking speed in the Dysport® 1500 U and Placebo groups were compared using 2 contrast analyses within a single mixed effect ANCOVA model, controlling for the baseline values, the randomisation stratification factor (BTX treatment status at baseline) and the centre, all as fixed effects.||0.02|-0.03|=0.7266
95709595|NCT04607291|191389898|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening.|||||||||||||||||"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with screening. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, stool test recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, fear of colonoscopy index score, ABR - afraid score, and knowledge that colonoscopy can reduce worry.~AUC: 0.71"|||
95709596|NCT04607291|191389899|OTHER|A logistic regression model was used to identify characteristics associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.||||||||||||||||Evaluating factors associated with high intent of getting a Fit test.|"A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with high intent of getting a fit test. A stepwise selection procedure (alpha entry and alpha exit = 0.15) was used to determine what factors were included in the model. Overall performance is assessed using the AUC.~Factors included in the model: sex, race, stool test or colonoscopy recommended by physician, know where to get stool test, CBPR score, and barriers to screening score.~AUC: 0.80"|||
95709597|NCT03419741|191389900|OTHER|We plan to enroll 20 participants within one year. Eleven participants were enrolled. 11/20 = 55% completed the number of enrollment.|%|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||percentage|||||||
95709598|NCT01749930|191389907|NON_INFERIORITY|The 2 treatments were compared for each time point by visit. LS mean of each treatment group, the difference in the LS mean, and the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference were obtained. Noninferiority could be claimed if the upper limit of the CIs \<1.5 mmHg at all time points of each visit and \<1.00 mmHg for at least 5 out of the 9 time points. If noninferiority was determined, superiority at each time point could be claimed if the upper limit of the 95% CI\<0 mmHg at all time points of each visit.||||||0.216||||||The ANCOVA results for the comparison of LS means of mean IOP between treatment groups demonstrated noninferiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol. Superiority of BOL-303259-X to timolol was demonstrated at 8 of 9 time points (exception at 8 am Week 2).|ANCOVA|||||||0.216
95709599|NCT01749930|191389908|OTHER|||||||0.084|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.084
95709600|NCT01749930|191389909|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.007
95709601|NCT01749930|191389910|OTHER||||||||||||||||||No statistical analysis was performed on these proportions|||
95709602|NCT04657003|191389921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.5|<0.001
95709603|NCT04657003|191389921|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.7|<0.001
95709604|NCT04657003|191389922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|15.84|||Regression, Logistic|||||15.84|7.30|<0.001
95709605|NCT04657003|191389922|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.08|23.14|||Regression, Logistic|||||23.14|10.08|<0.001
95709606|NCT04657003|191389923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.06|33.58|||Regression, Logistic|||||33.58|13.06|<0.001
95709607|NCT04657003|191389923|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.04|44.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||44.39|17.04|<0.001
95709608|NCT04657003|191389924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.81|58.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||58.31|13.81|<0.001
95709609|NCT04657003|191389924|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|43.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|89.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.67|21.20|<0.001
95709610|NCT04657003|191389925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.73|83.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||83.73|9.73|<0.001
95709611|NCT04657003|191389925|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|49.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.03|144.94|||Regression, Logistic|||||144.94|17.03|<0.001
95709612|NCT04657003|191389926|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.8|-11.7|<0.001
95709613|NCT04657003|191389926|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-12.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|-11.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.0|-13.8|<0.001
95709614|NCT04657003|191389927|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.2|-4.2|<0.001
95709615|NCT04657003|191389927|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.0|-5.0|<0.001
95709616|NCT04657003|191389928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|-1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.80|-2.15|<0.001
95709617|NCT04657003|191389928|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.88|-2.24|<0.001
95709618|NCT04657003|191389929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.21|45.59|||Regression, Logistic|||||45.59|17.21|<0.001
95709619|NCT04657003|191389929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.27|57.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||57.67|20.27|<0.001
95709620|NCT04657003|191389930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.61|69.26|||Regression, Logistic|||||69.26|25.61|<0.001
95709621|NCT04657003|191389930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|58.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.29|100.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||100.37|34.29|<0.001
95709622|NCT04657003|191389931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|42.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.46|88.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||88.50|20.46|<0.001
95709623|NCT04657003|191389931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|113.38|||Regression, Logistic|||||113.38|26.00|<0.001
95709624|NCT04657003|191389932|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-46.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.67|-40.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-40.91|-52.67|<0.001
95709625|NCT04657003|191389932|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-49.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.18|-43.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.33|-55.18|<0.001
95709626|NCT04657003|191389933|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|-6.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.4|-9.2|<0.001
95709627|NCT04657003|191389933|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-10.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-11.8|<0.001
95709628|NCT04657003|191389934|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-4.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.11|-2.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.03|-7.11|<0.001
95709629|NCT04657003|191389935|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-3.36||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.81|-7.36|0.112
95709630|NCT04657003|191389936|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|7.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|9.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.71|4.40|<0.001
95709631|NCT04657003|191389937|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|-18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.9|-27.5|<0.001
95709632|NCT04657003|191389938|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-24.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.6|-28.6|<0.001
95709633|NCT04657003|191389939|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-8.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.04|-5.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.32|-12.04|<0.001
95709634|NCT04657003|191389940|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-23.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.62|-18.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-18.24|-28.62|<0.001
95709635|NCT04657003|191389941|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|-4.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.4|-8.0|<0.001
95709636|NCT04657003|191389942|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.3|-3.5|<0.001
95709637|NCT04657003|191389943|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-17.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-8.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.9|-25.5|<0.001
95709638|NCT04657003|191389943|SUPERIORITY||Estimate Difference|-30.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-22.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-22.7|-37.0|<0.001
95709639|NCT04657003|191389944|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|1.8||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.9|||ANCOVA|||||2.9|0.7|0.001
95709640|NCT04657003|191389944|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Mean Difference (Net)|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4|||ANCOVA|||||3.4|1.1|<0.001
95709641|NCT04657003|191389945|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|6.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|9.7|||ANCOVA|||||9.7|4.1|<0.001
95709642|NCT04657003|191389945|SUPERIORITY||LSMean Difference (Net)|7.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|10.7|||ANCOVA|||||10.7|5.0|<0.001
95709643|NCT04495166|191389968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.757||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||The sample size was calculated based on an effect size of 0.65 on depression, which is based on a previous meta-analysis (Sockol et al., 2011). Sample size calculation considered a difference in means between two independent groups, probability of type I error of 5%, statistical power of 80%, a two-tailed test, and a dropout rate of 15%.||||0.757
95709644|NCT04495166|191389969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.910
95709645|NCT04495166|191389971|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.442||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.442
95709646|NCT04495166|191389972|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.223||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.223
95709647|NCT04495166|191389973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.540
95709648|NCT04495166|191389974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.901||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.901
95709649|NCT04495166|191389975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.748||||||Statistical tests were 2-sided and p values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|To include participants that were not assessed in post-baseline assessments we used multiple imputation by chained equations with 100 imputations.||||||0.748
95709650|NCT03347279|191389985|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.53|||Negative Binomial|||||0.53|0.37|<0.001
95709651|NCT03347279|191389986|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.75|||Negative Binomial|||||0.75|0.46|<0.001
95709652|NCT03347279|191389987|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|0.08|<0.001
95709653|NCT03347279|191389988|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.47|0.2|<0.001
95709654|NCT03347279|191389989|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.2|-0.46|<0.001
95709655|NCT03347279|191389990|SUPERIORITY||LS Means Difference|-0.11||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.04|-0.19|0.004
95709656|NCT00125138|191390083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS Mean|0.1||||0.5177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|6.6||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||6.6|-6.3|0.5177
95709657|NCT00125138|191390083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|-2.9||||0.1519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.7||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||2.7|-8.5|0.1519
95709658|NCT00125138|191390083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of LS mean|0.3||||0.5406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.8||One-sided pairwise p-value comparing each active treatment to placebo.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||The null hypothesis for each endpoint is that each melperone dose has the same mean as placebo; the alternative hypothesis is that at least one dose is more efficacious than placebo. Only subjects with both a baseline and Day 43 (end of Maintenance Phase) value are included.||5.8|-5.2|0.5406
95709659|NCT00125138|191390084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9212||95.0||||Overall p-value using a one-way ANCOVA.|ANCOVA|One-way ANCOVA: Treatment, country, and baseline anti-psychotic medication status (recent or distant) as factors; baseline measurement as a covariate.||Only subjects with both a baseline and a post-baseline value are included.||||0.9212
95709660|NCT00041119|191390085|SUPERIORITY|If the 5-year DFS for 4 cycles is 84.7% then a decrease of 23% in hazard rate for 6 cycles corresponds to an increase in 5-year DFS to 88%. Assuming a 2-sided significance level of 0.05, there is 90.9% power to detect such an increase at the final analysis conducted 6.4 years after study activation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28||||||The null hypothesis is that the hazards of both 6 and 4 cycle regimens are equal. The alternative hypothesis is a hazard ratio of 0.77, corresponding to a decrease of 23% in hazard due to longer duration of chemotherapy.||1.28|0.84|
95709661|NCT00041119|191390086|EQUIVALENCE|For T to be considered equivalent to the standard CA, a confidence interval of the hazard ratio of T to CA should be wholly to the left of 1.3, corresponding to a 30% increase in hazard rate. If the 5-year DFS for CA is 88% then an increase of 30% in hazard rate for T corresponds to 5-year DFS of 84.7%. The null hypothesis is that the hazard ratio of T to CA exceeds 1.3. The alternative hypothesis is that the two hazard rates are equivalent.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.26|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.48||||||||1.48||
95709662|NCT00041119|191390087|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years. We assume the 5-year DFS of CA therapy is 88% and 84.7% for T. These assumptions are based upon results of SWOG 8897.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.56||||||||1.56||
95709663|NCT00041119|191390091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power calculations were designed to detect effects in the marginal distributions of the two study factors, agent and length, and assume no interaction between the two factors. Calculations also assume exponential DFS and a total of 4556 treated patients accrued over 29 months and followed for four years after accrual termination for a total study time of 6.4 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.49||||||||1.49|.84|
95709664|NCT01258738|191390114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.64||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.36|27.92||P-value \<0.05 was required to declare statistical significance.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"The null hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was not different from placebo as measured by the proportion of subjects achieving an ASAS 40 response after 12 weeks of treatment. The alternative hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was different from placebo.~The primary endpoint was tested at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||27.92|5.36|0.0062
95709665|NCT01258738|191390115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.46||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|19.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.24|3.69|0.0059
95709666|NCT01258738|191390115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.19||||0.3786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|15.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4"||15.35|-4.98|0.3786
95709667|NCT01258738|191390115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|23.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.87|1.79|0.0304
95709668|NCT01258738|191390115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.52||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|29.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.75|7.29|0.0023
95709669|NCT01258738|191390116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.44||||0.0189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|25.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||25.68|3.20|0.0189
95709670|NCT01258738|191390116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29||||0.0983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|22.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||22.75|-2.17|0.0983
95709671|NCT01258738|191390116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.61||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|23.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||23.84|-2.63|0.0867
95709672|NCT01258738|191390116|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.27||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|29.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||29.43|3.10|0.0195
95709673|NCT01258738|191390117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.85|33.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||33.41|11.85|<0.0001
95709674|NCT01258738|191390117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.83||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|20.57|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||20.57|5.09|0.0021
95709675|NCT01258738|191390117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.89||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.18|24.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||24.60|5.18|0.0020
95709676|NCT01258738|191390117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.92|32.67|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||32.67|10.92|<0.0001
95709677|NCT01258738|191390118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709678|NCT01258738|191390118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.34|-0.74|<0.001
95709679|NCT01258738|191390118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.41|-0.81|<0.001
95709680|NCT01258738|191390118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-0.85|<0.001
95709681|NCT01258738|191390119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84||||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.58|23.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||23.09|2.58|0.0209
95709682|NCT01258738|191390119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.65||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|15.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only.~Week 2"||15.48|1.82|0.0179
95709683|NCT01258738|191390119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.81||||0.0611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|13.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||13.65|-0.03|0.0611
95709684|NCT01258738|191390119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.73||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|22.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||22.32|3.14|0.0141
95709685|NCT01258738|191390119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709686|NCT01258738|191390120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||||0.0022
95709687|NCT01258738|191390121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709688|NCT01258738|191390121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.13|-1.26|0.0156
95709689|NCT01258738|191390121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.14|-1.06|0.0111
95709690|NCT01258738|191390121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.07|-0.91|0.0936
95709691|NCT01258738|191390121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.23|-0.81|0.2678
95709692|NCT01258738|191390122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results included unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709693|NCT01258738|191390122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.40|0.0102
95709694|NCT01258738|191390122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.39|-1.44|0.0007
95709695|NCT01258738|191390122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.23|-1.35|0.0057
95709696|NCT01258738|191390122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.44|0.0077
95709697|NCT01258738|191390123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709698|NCT01258738|191390123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.23|-1.62|0.0091
95709699|NCT01258738|191390123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.19|-1.38|0.0097
95709700|NCT01258738|191390123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.45|0.0101
95709701|NCT01258738|191390123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.33|-1.61|0.0031
95709702|NCT01258738|191390124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709703|NCT01258738|191390124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.25|-1.49|0.0064
95709704|NCT01258738|191390124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.02|-1.12|0.0407
95709705|NCT01258738|191390124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.24|0.0349
95709706|NCT01258738|191390124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.01||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.37|-1.65|0.0021
95709707|NCT01258738|191390125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709708|NCT01258738|191390125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.04|0.0164
95709709|NCT01258738|191390125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-0.95|0.0095
95709710|NCT01258738|191390125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.12|-0.99|0.0127
95709711|NCT01258738|191390125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-0.99|0.0166
95709712|NCT01258738|191390126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709713|NCT01258738|191390126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.27|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.27|-1.28|0.0029
95709714|NCT01258738|191390126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.0147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.13|-1.21|0.0147
95709715|NCT01258738|191390126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.22|-1.28|0.0056
95709716|NCT01258738|191390126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.39|-1.52|0.0010
95709717|NCT01258738|191390127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709718|NCT01258738|191390127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.12|-1.19|0.0173
95709719|NCT01258738|191390127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.16|-0.97|0.1618
95709720|NCT01258738|191390127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.0153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.13|-1.25|0.0153
95709721|NCT01258738|191390127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.07|-1.05|0.0866
95709722|NCT01258738|191390128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709723|NCT01258738|191390128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.1413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.95|0.1413
95709724|NCT01258738|191390128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.06|-1.14|0.0284
95709725|NCT01258738|191390128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.03|-1.07|0.0659
95709726|NCT01258738|191390128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.18|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.18|-1.26|0.0098
95709727|NCT01258738|191390129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709728|NCT01258738|191390129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.25|-1.26|0.0037
95709729|NCT01258738|191390129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.25|-1.35|0.0044
95709730|NCT01258738|191390129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.17|-1.26|0.0104
95709731|NCT01258738|191390129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.22|-1.33|0.0060
95709732|NCT01258738|191390130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709733|NCT01258738|191390130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.2268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.19|-0.80|0.2268
95709734|NCT01258738|191390130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.1145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.10|-0.93|0.1145
95709735|NCT01258738|191390130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.00|-1.00|0.0512
95709736|NCT01258738|191390130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.0|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.00|-1.02|0.0509
95709737|NCT01258738|191390131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709738|NCT01258738|191390131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.20|-0.79|0.2430
95709739|NCT01258738|191390131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.09|0.0384
95709740|NCT01258738|191390131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.06|-1.03|0.0797
95709741|NCT01258738|191390131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.2186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.21|-0.90|0.2186
95709742|NCT01258738|191390132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709743|NCT01258738|191390132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.14|-0.96|0.1410
95709744|NCT01258738|191390132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.88|0.2299
95709745|NCT01258738|191390132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.3221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.29|-0.87|0.3221
95709746|NCT01258738|191390132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.20|-0.99|0.1891
95709747|NCT01258738|191390133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709748|NCT01258738|191390133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.09|-0.90|0.1080
95709749|NCT01258738|191390133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.03|-1.06|0.0389
95709750|NCT01258738|191390133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.11|-0.98|0.1181
95709751|NCT01258738|191390133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.2271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.22|-0.94|0.2271
95709752|NCT01258738|191390134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709753|NCT01258738|191390134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.27|0.0044
95709754|NCT01258738|191390134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.01|-1.09|0.0455
95709755|NCT01258738|191390134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.17|-0.91|0.1750
95709756|NCT01258738|191390134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|-0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.03|-1.12|0.0379
95709757|NCT01258738|191390135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709758|NCT01258738|191390135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.06|-0.98|0.0826
95709759|NCT01258738|191390135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.1538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.15|-0.96|0.1538
95709760|NCT01258738|191390135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.05|-1.04|0.0728
95709761|NCT01258738|191390135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.08|-0.99|0.0975
95709762|NCT01258738|191390136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709763|NCT01258738|191390136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.11|-1.18|0.0186
95709764|NCT01258738|191390136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.13|-1.01|0.0106
95709765|NCT01258738|191390136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.20|-1.11|0.0048
95709766|NCT01258738|191390136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.31|-1.31|0.0016
95709767|NCT01258738|191390137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709768|NCT01258738|191390137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.24|-1.37|0.0058
95709769|NCT01258738|191390137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.24|-1.42|0.0064
95709770|NCT01258738|191390137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.23||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.60|-1.85|0.0002
95709771|NCT01258738|191390137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|-0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.17|-1.49|0.0134
95709772|NCT01258738|191390138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709773|NCT01258738|191390138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.05|-1.09|0.0316
95709774|NCT01258738|191390138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-0.99|0.0973
95709775|NCT01258738|191390138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.0216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.10|-1.27|0.0216
95709776|NCT01258738|191390138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.03|0.2425
95709777|NCT01258738|191390139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709778|NCT01258738|191390139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.2688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.26|-0.92|0.2688
95709779|NCT01258738|191390139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.08|-1.17|0.0866
95709780|NCT01258738|191390139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.08|-1.34|0.0277
95709781|NCT01258738|191390139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.26|-1.04|0.2390
95709782|NCT01258738|191390140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709783|NCT01258738|191390140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.00|0.0928
95709784|NCT01258738|191390140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.15|-1.27|0.0139
95709785|NCT01258738|191390140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.94||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.36|-1.53|0.0017
95709786|NCT01258738|191390140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.43|-1.61|0.0008
95709787|NCT01258738|191390141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709788|NCT01258738|191390141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.4559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.38|-0.84|0.4559
95709789|NCT01258738|191390141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.05|-1.28|0.0345
95709790|NCT01258738|191390141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.05|-1.30|0.0340
95709791|NCT01258738|191390141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.0634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.03|-1.24|0.0634
95709792|NCT01258738|191390142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709793|NCT01258738|191390142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.43|-1.56|0.0007
95709794|NCT01258738|191390142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-0.22|-1.39|0.0073
95709795|NCT01258738|191390142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.21|-1.48|0.0094
95709796|NCT01258738|191390142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.87||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.19|-1.54|0.0120
95709797|NCT01258738|191390143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.96||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.54|32.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||32.37|7.54|0.0029
95709798|NCT01258738|191390143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.59||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|19.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||19.99|3.18|0.0100
95709799|NCT01258738|191390143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.75||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.62|23.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||23.89|3.62|0.0120
95709800|NCT01258738|191390143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|27.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||27.20|3.04|0.0213
95709801|NCT01258738|191390144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.88||||0.2755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.15|20.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||20.92|-5.15|0.2755
95709802|NCT01258738|191390144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.57||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|21.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||21.54|-4.39|0.1950
95709803|NCT01258738|191390144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.99||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|27.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||27.26|0.72|0.0278
95709804|NCT01258738|191390144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.29||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|28.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||28.30|2.28|0.0174
95709805|NCT01258738|191390145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709806|NCT01258738|191390145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 4||-0.09|-0.99|0.0201
95709807|NCT01258738|191390145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 12||0.01|-1.02|0.0558
95709808|NCT01258738|191390146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709809|NCT01258738|191390146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.6741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.28|-0.18|0.6741
95709810|NCT01258738|191390146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.13|-0.33|0.3896
95709811|NCT01258738|191390146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.7468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.31|-0.22|0.7468
95709812|NCT01258738|191390146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.6871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.23|-0.35|0.6871
95709813|NCT01258738|191390147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709814|NCT01258738|191390147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|1.32|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||1.32|-0.57|0.4332
95709815|NCT01258738|191390147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.9947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.98|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.98|-0.98|0.9947
95709816|NCT01258738|191390147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.74||||0.1558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.75|-0.28|0.1558
95709817|NCT01258738|191390147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.0488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||2.39|0.03|0.0488
95709818|NCT01258738|191390148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709819|NCT01258738|191390148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.7645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|2.8|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||2.80|-2.06|0.7645
95709820|NCT01258738|191390148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.03||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|3.55|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||3.55|-1.48|0.4178
95709821|NCT01258738|191390148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|3.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||3.79|-1.67|0.4430
95709822|NCT01258738|191390148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.39||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|5.31|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||5.31|-0.54|0.1095
95709823|NCT01258738|191390149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709824|NCT01258738|191390149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.49|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.49|-0.46|0.9504
95709825|NCT01258738|191390149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.34|-0.70|0.4971
95709826|NCT01258738|191390149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.8999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.54|-0.47|0.8999
95709827|NCT01258738|191390149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.62|-0.60|0.9712
95709828|NCT01258738|191390150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709829|NCT01258738|191390150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||3.24|-1.46|0.4556
95709830|NCT01258738|191390150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.85||||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|5.75|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||5.75|-0.05|0.0543
95709831|NCT01258738|191390150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.26||||0.1754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|5.53|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||5.53|-1.02|0.1754
95709832|NCT01258738|191390150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.45||||0.3985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|4.82|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||4.82|-1.93|0.3985
95709833|NCT01258738|191390151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709834|NCT01258738|191390151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.62|-0.18|0.2823
95709835|NCT01258738|191390151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.4029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.58|-0.23|0.4029
95709836|NCT01258738|191390151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.51|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.51|-0.25|0.5110
95709837|NCT01258738|191390151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.5844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.56|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.56|-0.32|0.5844
95709838|NCT01258738|191390152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709839|NCT01258738|191390152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.11|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.11|-0.95|0.0129
95709840|NCT01258738|191390152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.6003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.35|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.35|-0.61|0.6003
95709841|NCT01258738|191390152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.07|-0.89|0.0911
95709842|NCT01258738|191390152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.3144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.24|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.24|-0.73|0.3144
95709843|NCT01258738|191390153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709844|NCT01258738|191390153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 2||0.29|-0.46|0.6476
95709845|NCT01258738|191390153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 4||0.39|-0.40|0.9777
95709846|NCT01258738|191390153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.4453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.65|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 8||0.65|-0.28|0.4453
95709847|NCT01258738|191390153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.5782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.6|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 12||0.60|-0.33|0.5782
95709848|NCT01258738|191390154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
95709849|NCT01258738|191390155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709850|NCT01258738|191390155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.93|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-1.70|-4.16|<0.001
95709851|NCT01258738|191390156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709852|NCT01258738|191390156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.88|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||-0.04|-1.88|0.0414
95709853|NCT01258738|191390157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||"Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only."||-0.08|-0.72|0.0132
95709854|NCT01258738|191390158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709855|NCT01258738|191390158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.13|-0.52|0.2438
95709856|NCT01258738|191390158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.09|-0.42|0.1958
95709857|NCT01258738|191390158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.1624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.08|-0.46|0.1624
95709858|NCT01258738|191390158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.08|-0.54|0.0091
95709859|NCT01258738|191390159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709860|NCT01258738|191390159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.08|-1.32|0.0836
95709861|NCT01258738|191390159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.5402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.54|-1.02|0.5402
95709862|NCT01258738|191390159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.87|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.87|-0.69|0.8167
95709863|NCT01258738|191390159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.73|-0.72|0.9891
95709864|NCT01258738|191390160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709865|NCT01258738|191390160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.6148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.05|-0.08|0.6148
95709866|NCT01258738|191390160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.03|-0.11|0.2547
95709867|NCT01258738|191390160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.1208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.01|-0.08|0.1208
95709868|NCT01258738|191390160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.17|-0.13|0.8291
95709869|NCT01258738|191390161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709870|NCT01258738|191390161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.3536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||0.23|-0.64|0.3536
95709871|NCT01258738|191390161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.05|-0.97|0.0769
95709872|NCT01258738|191390161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.4698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.33|-0.70|0.4698
95709873|NCT01258738|191390161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.12|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.12|-1.19|0.0167
95709874|NCT01258738|191390162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.||||<0.001
95709875|NCT01258738|191390162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|-1.66|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.66|-4.39|<0.0001
95709876|NCT01258738|191390162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.86||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|-1.62|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-1.62|-6.09|0.0008
95709877|NCT01258738|191390162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.04||||0.0143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.47|-0.61|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.61|-5.47|0.0143
95709878|NCT01258738|191390162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-1.02|-5.23|0.0038
95709879|NCT01258738|191390163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test||||<0.001
95709880|NCT01258738|191390163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|-4.58|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-4.58|-10.85|<0.0001
95709881|NCT01258738|191390163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.16|-3.09|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||-3.09|-9.16|<0.0001
95709882|NCT01258738|191390163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.78||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|-2.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-2.41|-9.15|0.0009
95709883|NCT01258738|191390163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.34|-3.73|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-3.73|-10.34|<0.0001
95709884|NCT01258738|191390164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||With the exception of change from Baseline in the placebo group at Week 12, within group comparisons to baseline for all other treatment groups and time points were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||0.0370
95709885|NCT01258738|191390164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.9965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.39|4.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||4.37|-4.39|0.9965
95918179|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|paired t test||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for self selected velocity||||.688
95709886|NCT01258738|191390164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.61||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|9.1|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||9.10|-1.89|0.1970
95709887|NCT01258738|191390164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.07||||0.0394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|11.84|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||11.84|0.30|0.0394
95709888|NCT01258738|191390165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.01 at Week 12 and \<0.001 thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.01
95709889|NCT01258738|191390165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.1341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||0.21|-0.02|0.1341
95709890|NCT01258738|191390165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||0.14|0.00|0.0447
95709891|NCT01258738|191390165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.1345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.13|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.13|-0.02|0.1345
95709892|NCT01258738|191390166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709893|NCT01258738|191390166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.31||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||2.90|-0.27|0.1035
95709894|NCT01258738|191390166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.38||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||4.26|0.50|0.0134
95709895|NCT01258738|191390167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
95709896|NCT01258738|191390167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||3.19|-0.84|0.2520
95709897|NCT01258738|191390167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85||||0.4981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|3.34|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||3.34|-1.63|0.4981
95709898|NCT01258738|191390168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709899|NCT01258738|191390168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.4621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.41|-0.90|0.4621
95709900|NCT01258738|191390168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.39||||0.3842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.50|-1.28|0.3842
95709901|NCT01258738|191390169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709902|NCT01258738|191390169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.6357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.86|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.86|-0.52|0.6357
95709903|NCT01258738|191390169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.2439|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.36|-1.39|0.2439
95709904|NCT01258738|191390170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709905|NCT01258738|191390170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.3286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.55|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.52|-1.55|0.3286
95709906|NCT01258738|191390171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709907|NCT01258738|191390171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.37|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||0.37|-1.93|0.1829
95709908|NCT01258738|191390172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.||||<0.05
95709909|NCT01258738|191390172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.37||||0.5226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.95|9.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||9.68|-4.95|0.5226
95727751|NCT00591253|191425056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-0.4||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-5.69|0.024
95709910|NCT01258738|191390172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.6232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|8.14|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||8.14|-4.90|0.6232
95709911|NCT01258738|191390172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52||||0.3877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||11.57|-4.53|0.3877
95709912|NCT01258738|191390172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.74||||0.2402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|12.69|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||12.69|-3.22|0.2402
95709913|NCT01258738|191390173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and thereafter, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709914|NCT01258738|191390173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.19||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.85|-1.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-1.52|-16.85|0.0193
95709915|NCT01258738|191390173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.08||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.41|2.26|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.26|-12.41|0.1730
95709916|NCT01258738|191390173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.26||||0.1224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.23|1.71|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||1.71|-14.23|0.1224
95709917|NCT01258738|191390173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.14||||0.0461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.11|-0.16|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.16|-18.11|0.0461
95709918|NCT01258738|191390174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709919|NCT01258738|191390174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58|-0.36|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.36|-11.58|0.0372
95709920|NCT01258738|191390174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|1.79|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||1.79|-7.98|0.2126
95709921|NCT01258738|191390174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.66||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.79|-0.54|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||-0.54|-12.79|0.0330
95709922|NCT01258738|191390174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.85||||0.0397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.38|-0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||-0.33|-13.38|0.0397
95709923|NCT01258738|191390175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and at Week 32 and thereafter, from paired t test.||||<0.001
95709924|NCT01258738|191390175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.29||||0.0382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2||-0.46|-16.12|0.0382
95709925|NCT01258738|191390175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.25||||0.1648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.69|2.19|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4||2.19|-12.69|0.1648
95709926|NCT01258738|191390175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.98||||0.1476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|2.15|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8||2.15|-14.11|0.1476
95709927|NCT01258738|191390175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.68||||0.0687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.03|0.68|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12||0.68|-18.03|0.0687
95709928|NCT01258738|191390176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709929|NCT01258738|191390176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.2578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.33|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||0.33|-1.21|0.2578
95709930|NCT01258738|191390176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||0.52|-1.21|0.4334
95709931|NCT01258738|191390177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.||||<0.001
95709932|NCT01258738|191390177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.3554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4||1.70|-4.70|0.3554
95709933|NCT01258738|191390177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.91||||0.335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|1.99|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12||1.99|-5.82|0.3350
95709934|NCT01258738|191390178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.41||||14.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|28.78|||ANCOVA|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||28.78|0.04|14.41
95709935|NCT01258738|191390179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.03||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|24.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.||24.56|-2.51|0.1285
95709936|NCT00848172|191390180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.345||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.345
95709937|NCT00848172|191390181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.031||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.031
95709938|NCT05306964|191390191|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
95709939|NCT05306964|191390192|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
95709940|NCT05306964|191390193|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
95709941|NCT05306964|191390194|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
95709942|NCT05306964|191390195|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||GLMM|||||||0.4
95709943|NCT05306964|191390196|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
95709944|NCT05306964|191390197|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
95709945|NCT05306964|191390198|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
95709946|NCT05306964|191390199|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
95709947|NCT05306964|191390200|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
95709948|NCT05306964|191390201|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||GLMM|||||||0.02
95709949|NCT05306964|191390202|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
95709950|NCT05306964|191390203|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||GLMM|||||||0.7
95709951|NCT05306964|191390204|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||GLMM|||||||0.1
95709952|NCT05306964|191390205|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
95709953|NCT05306964|191390206|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||GLMM|||||||<0.001
95709954|NCT05306964|191390207|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709955|NCT05306964|191390208|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
95709956|NCT05306964|191390209|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
95709957|NCT05306964|191390210|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||GLMM|||||||0.8
95709958|NCT05306964|191390211|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709959|NCT05306964|191390212|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709960|NCT05306964|191390213|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
95709961|NCT05306964|191390214|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709962|NCT05306964|191390215|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
95709963|NCT05306964|191390216|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709964|NCT05306964|191390217|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||GLMM|||||||0.9
95709965|NCT05306964|191390218|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709966|NCT05306964|191390219|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709967|NCT05306964|191390220|OTHER|||||||0|||||||GLMM|||||||0
95709968|NCT05306964|191390221|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||GLMM|||||||0.5
95709969|NCT05306964|191390222|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||GLMM|||||||0.2
95709970|NCT05306964|191390223|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||GLMM|||||||0.3
95709971|NCT00286156|191390232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Pairwise comparisons adjusted for multiple testing (Tukey)|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: no difference between groups in iGFR||||<0.01
95709972|NCT00750867|191390265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0128||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-I scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.0128
95709973|NCT00750867|191390265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||||||The P-Value was obtained by comparing the UMSARS-II scores at final visit and at baseline.|ANOVA|||||||0.025
95709974|NCT00394654|191390266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.168
95709975|NCT00394654|191390267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.254|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.254
95709976|NCT00394654|191390268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.677|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.677
95709977|NCT00394654|191390269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.318
95709978|NCT00394654|191390270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.798
95709979|NCT00394654|191390271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Univariate 2-sample t-test|||||||0.766
95709980|NCT00474539|191390295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) greater than (\>) -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.3|2.0||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=1:8 titer was calculated||2.0|-3.3|
95709981|NCT00474539|191390298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
95709982|NCT00474539|191390298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for or immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMT ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.23||||||95.0|0.97|1.55||||||For Meningococcal C the GMT ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.55|0.97|
95709983|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.6||||||95.0|-3.5|2.0||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-3.5|
95709984|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.9|1.7||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||1.7|-1.9|
95709985|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.2||||||95.0|-4.4|4.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||4.0|-4.4|
95709986|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-2.1|2.0||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.0|-2.1|
95709987|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
95709988|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.2|2.2||||||For diphtheria the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.2|
95709989|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.10 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
95709990|NCT00474539|191390299|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Ratio|0.0||||||95.0|-2.3|2.2||||||For tetanus the difference in percentage between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at \>=0.01 IU/mL threshold was calculated||2.2|-2.3|
95709991|NCT00474539|191390300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.72|1.03||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.03|0.72|
95709992|NCT00474539|191390300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.74|1.12||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.12|0.74|
95709993|NCT00474539|191390300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.78|1.1||||||For diphtheria toxoid the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.10|0.78|
95709994|NCT00474539|191390300|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.0||||||95.0|0.81|1.24||||||For tetanus the GMC ratio (13vPnC/7vPnC) was calculated||1.24|0.81|
95709995|NCT00474539|191390303|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for immune response induced by NeisVac-C was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.6||||||95.0|-1.7|3.2||||||For Meningococcal C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at ≥ 1:8 titer was calculated.||3.2|-1.7|
95709996|NCT01117428|191390305|EQUIVALENCE|Differences between Parts E and F in terms of Best Overall Response evaluated from screening until disease progression.||||||0.6645||||||No adjustment, 5% significance level|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6645
95709997|NCT00242710|191390335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|2.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.18|||ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.18|1.56|<0.001
95709998|NCT00242710|191390335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|3.17|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.17|1.56|<0.001
95709999|NCT00242710|191390335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.81|4.76|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.76|2.81|<0.001
95710000|NCT00242710|191390337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.24|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.24|0.97|<0.001
95710001|NCT00242710|191390337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.82|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.46|1.19|<0.001
95710002|NCT00242710|191390337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|3.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.23|1.69|<0.001
95710003|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.66||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|2.12|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.12|-0.80|0.373
95710004|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.35||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.40|-1.70|0.738
95710005|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.65||||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|2.71|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.71|-1.41|0.539
95710006|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.90|-0.71|0.233
95710007|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|2.39|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.39|-1.39|0.605
95710008|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.23||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.57|-1.12|0.305
95710009|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.22||||0.299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|3.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.52|-1.08|0.299
95710010|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.62||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|3.51|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.51|-0.27|0.092
95710011|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.55||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|3.29|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.29|-0.18|0.080
95710012|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.04||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.92|-0.85|0.279
95710013|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.13||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|3.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.11|-0.84|0.260
95710014|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.52|-1.50|0.618
95710015|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|2.96|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.96|-3.78|0.810
95710016|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.34||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|1.81|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.81|-1.14|0.654
95710017|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.22||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.28|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.28|-1.84|0.834
95710018|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|1.72|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.72|-2.41|0.744
95710019|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.91|-1.70|0.909
95710020|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|1.85|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.85|-1.94|0.963
95710021|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.59||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|2.94|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.94|-1.77|0.625
95710022|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|2.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.23|-2.39|0.947
95710023|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.64||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|2.53|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.53|-1.25|0.505
95710024|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.51||||0.564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.25|-1.23|0.564
95710025|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32||||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|1.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.57|-2.21|0.739
95710026|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.67|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||1.67|-2.27|0.766
95710027|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||2.10|-1.92|0.931
95710028|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.19||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|3.56|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.56|-3.17|0.911
95710029|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 1-4: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.30|0.92|0.003
95710030|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|6.58|||ANCOVA|||Week 5-8: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.58|1.79|<0.001
95710031|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.86|||ANCOVA|||Week 9-12: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.86|1.03|0.005
95710032|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|5.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 13-16: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.30|1.01|0.004
95710033|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|4.87|||ANCOVA|||Week 17-20: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||4.87|0.36|0.023
95710034|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|6.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 21-24: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.54|0.96|0.008
95710035|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.52||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|6.26|||ANCOVA|||Week 25-28: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.26|0.78|0.012
95710036|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Week 29-32: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||6.07|1.55|<0.001
95710037|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.68|5.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 33-36: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.83|1.68|<0.001
95710038|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.54|||ANCOVA|||Week 37-40: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||5.54|1.05|0.004
95710039|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.63||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|3.99|||ANCOVA|||Week 41-44: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.99|-0.73|0.175
95710040|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.35||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|3.75|||ANCOVA|||Week 45-48: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||3.75|-1.05|0.270
95710041|NCT00242710|191390338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.78||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|7.97|||ANCOVA|||Week 49-52: An ANCOVA model was used with treatment, center as factors, and baseline as the covariate.||7.97|-0.41|0.077
95710042|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.826|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.826
95710043|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.534|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.534
95710044|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710045|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.516|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.516
95710046|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.446
95710047|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.218
95710048|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710049|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710050|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.733|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.733
95710051|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.736|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.736
95710052|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.449|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.449
95710053|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.489|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.489
95710054|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.163|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.163
95710055|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.813
95710056|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.777|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.777
95710057|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.448|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.448
95710058|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.507|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.507
95710059|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.669
95710060|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.281
95710061|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
95710062|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.437|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.437
95710063|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710064|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710065|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.227|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.227
95710066|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.758|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.758
95710067|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.554
95710068|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710069|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710070|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710071|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710072|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710073|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710074|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
95710075|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||<0.001
95710076|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.005
95710077|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.008
95710078|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.062
95710079|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.007
95710080|NCT00242710|191390339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.029
95710081|NCT00242710|191390341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|4.58|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.58|1.92|<0.001
95710082|NCT00242710|191390341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|4.46|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||4.46|1.83|<0.001
95710083|NCT00242710|191390341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|6.23|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||6.23|3.13|<0.001
95710084|NCT00242710|191390342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.87|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.87|0.80|<0.001
95710085|NCT00242710|191390342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.97|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.97|0.92|<0.001
95710086|NCT00242710|191390342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.59|||ANCOVA|||An ANCOVA model was used with treatment and center as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||3.59|1.17|<0.001
95710087|NCT00808132|191390344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.822|2.201|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.201|0.822|<0.001
95710088|NCT00808132|191390344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.209|2.533|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.533|1.209|<0.001
95710089|NCT00808132|191390345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|1.47|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.470|0.139|0.017
95710090|NCT00808132|191390345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.556|1.83|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.830|0.556|<0.001
95710091|NCT00808132|191390346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.742|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.742|0.901|<0.001
95710092|NCT00808132|191390346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.756|1.671|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.671|0.756|<0.001
95710093|NCT00808132|191390346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|1.962|||ANCOVA|||Month 6: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||1.962|1.152|<0.001
95710094|NCT00808132|191390346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.164|2.044|||ANCOVA|||Month 12: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as main effects and baseline BMD and years since menopause as covariates.||2.044|1.164|<0.001
95710095|NCT00808132|191390347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.138
95710096|NCT00808132|191390347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95710097|NCT00808132|191390347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.765|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.765
95710098|NCT00808132|191390347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95710099|NCT00808132|191390347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95710100|NCT00808132|191390348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.632|0.509|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.509|-0.632|0.832
95710101|NCT00808132|191390348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.696|0.436|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.436|-0.696|0.651
95710102|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710103|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0074
95710104|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710105|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710106|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710107|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710108|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710109|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710110|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710111|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
95710112|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710113|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||Osteocalcin: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710114|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95918180|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.397||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at the self selected velocity F(1, 19)= 0.75, ηp2 = .038|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.397
95710115|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1058|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.1058
95710116|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710117|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0024
95710118|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710119|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710120|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710121|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710122|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710123|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0012
95710124|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710125|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||C-Telopeptide: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710126|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710127|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0029
95710128|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710129|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0046
95710130|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710131|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0043
95710132|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710133|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710134|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||0.0016
95710135|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710136|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 6, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710137|NCT00808132|191390349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||P1NP: Month 12, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors, and baseline as covariate.||||<0.001
95710138|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.546|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.546
95710139|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.821|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.821
95710140|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.698
95710141|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.446
95710142|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
95710143|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.810
95710144|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.473|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.473
95710145|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.030
95710146|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.453|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.453
95710147|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.391|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.391
95710148|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.407|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.407
95710149|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.644
95710150|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.666
95710151|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.641|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 1-4: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.641
95710152|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.361|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 5-8: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.361
95710153|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 9-12: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.100
95710154|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.142|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 13-16: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.142
95710155|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 17-20: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.906
95710156|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.798|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 21-24: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.798
95710157|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 25-28: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.258
95710158|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 29-32: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.058
95710159|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 33-36: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.230
95710160|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 37-40: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.360
95710161|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.892|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 41-44: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.892
95710162|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.912|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 45-48: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.912
95710163|NCT00808132|191390351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 49-52: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was stratified by baseline value.||||0.791
95710164|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93||||0.253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.96|2.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.10|-7.96|0.253
95710165|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.84||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Sleep disturbance: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.10|-8.78|0.127
95710166|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.15||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|1.46|||ANCOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.46|-7.76|0.180
95710167|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.67||||0.247|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|1.85|||ANOVA|||Snoring: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.85|-7.19|0.247
95710168|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|2.9|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.90|-4.15|0.726
95710169|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.17||||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|1.29|||ANCOVA|||ASoB: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.29|-5.63|0.218
95710170|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.01||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|3.87|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||3.87|-3.85|0.996
95710171|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|0.83||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Somnolence: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||4.60|-2.94|0.665
95710172|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.76||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|8.78|||ANOVA|||Sleep adequacy: Month 3, ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.78|-3.26|0.368
95710173|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.84||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|8.75|||ANCOVA|||Sleep adequacy: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||8.75|-3.07|0.345
95710174|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.35||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.12|2.42|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||2.42|-5.12|0.482
95710175|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean DIfference|-2.15||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.55|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index I: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.55|-5.86|0.254
95710176|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.97||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.76|1.82|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.82|-5.76|0.308
95710177|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.48||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Sleep problem index II: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||1.23|-6.20|0.190
95710178|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.07||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.17|-0.32|0.550
95710179|NCT00808132|191390352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09||||0.477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.32|||ANCOVA|||Sleep quantity: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||0.32|-0.15|0.477
95710180|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
95710181|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Vasomotor function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||<0.001
95710182|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.680
95710183|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.493|||||||ANCOVA|||Psychosocial function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.493
95710184|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.698|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.698
95710185|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||ANCOVA|||Physical function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.055
95710186|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.428|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.428
95710187|NCT00808132|191390354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071|||||||ANCOVA|||Sexual function: ANCOVA model was used with treatment and region as factors and baseline as a covariate.||||0.071
95710188|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.624|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.624
95710189|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.868|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.868
95710190|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.087
95710191|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.425
95710192|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.307
95710193|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.689
95710194|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.285|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.285
95710195|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710196|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.065
95710197|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.014
95710198|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710199|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.226
95710200|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710201|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710202|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710203|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710204|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710205|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710206|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710207|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710208|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710209|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710210|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710211|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710212|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710213|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710214|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.317
95710215|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.531
95710216|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.610
95710217|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.848|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.848
95710218|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.551|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.551
95710219|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.300
95710220|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.299
95710221|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710222|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.660
95710223|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.199
95710224|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.770
95710225|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||1.000
95710226|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.769|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||0.769
95710227|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 1-4: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710228|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 5-8: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710229|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 9-12: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710230|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 13-16: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710231|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 17-20: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710232|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 21-24: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710233|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 25-28: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710234|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 29-32: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710235|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 33-36: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710236|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 37-40: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710237|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 41-44: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710238|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 45-48: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710239|NCT00808132|191390355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||Week 49-52: The Fisher exact test was used for comparisons between groups.||||< 0.001
95710240|NCT00702949|191390361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
95710241|NCT00702949|191390364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median numerical change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.002
95710242|NCT00702949|191390365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 75 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.009
95710243|NCT00702949|191390367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparing the median percent change from baseline on hot flash score for Pregabalin 150 Mg with the Placebo.||||0.007
95710244|NCT00598585|191390369|SUPERIORITY|unpaired test, the threshold for statistical significance was p= 0.05|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||< 0.05
95710245|NCT01795716|191390372|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90%CIs of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The 90% confidence intervals of the test/reference ratios for AUC0-∞ and Cmax were determined. Log-transformed data were used in the analysis. Following international guidelines (including those of the SFDA), the test and reference for mutations were considered bioequivalent if the 90% CIs of the test/reference ratios of AUC was within range of 0.80 to 1.25 and Cmax was within 0.70 to 1.43.||||<0.05
95710246|NCT00374452|191390373|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||We compared the mean percentages of events per clinician between study arms, using mixed model regression adjusting for medical center, clinic type (community-based clinic vs not), clinician discipline (MD vs non-MD), presence of pharmacist in the clinic, and mean age of clinician's panels of patients as fixed effects, and clinic as a random effect to account for clustering of clinicians within clinics.||||>0.1
95727752|NCT00591253|191425056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.39|-3.19||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.19|-8.39|<0.001
95727753|NCT00591253|191425057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|-2.08||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-2.08|-8.52|0.001
95710247|NCT00572728|191390386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.046|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.83||The Delong method was used to test if the observed AUC was significantly different than 0.5 with the one-sided p value DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL, Biometrics (1988)|Delong method|one-sided p-value|"percent change in SUVmax was computed as: %ΔSUVmax = 100\*(FLT1-FLT2)/FLT1 a 90% 2-sided confidence interval was constructed from 2000 Bootstrapping estimates from which the 1-sided 95% CI was derived.~Hanley SE(AUC) reported."|"A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the significance of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) under the Null Hypothesis with a one sided alpha=0.05 (95% one-sided CL):~H0: AUC = 0.50 (no difference from guessing) given the alternative hypothesis: Ha:AUC \>= 0.75 AUC = ROC(%ΔSUVmax\| path response) where percent change (%ΔSUVmax ) was defined as (SUVmax at FLT1 -SUVmax at FLT2)/SUVmax at FLT1 x 100"||.83||0.046
95710248|NCT00572728|191390387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||spearman correlation|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.54|||spearman correlation method||This estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-1 and Ki-67 LI a Fisher's z Transformation was applied to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic||0.54|0.13|0.002
95710249|NCT00572728|191390388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman Correlation|0.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.81|||Spearman Correlation method|we use Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|this estimate uses the Fisher's z Transformation to adjust for bias in the Spearman Correlation Statistic|H0: ρ = 0; that is, there is no correlation between SUVmax @ FLT-3 and Ki-67 LI||0.81|0.47|<0.0001
95710250|NCT00572728|191390389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||"H0: Mean SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = Mean SUVmax (RCB II,III) After dichotomization, Wilcoxon two-sample test was used to compare uptake values between RCB groups.~In other words, we are comparing the means (of SUVmax) @ FLT1 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.."||||0.66
95710251|NCT00572728|191390390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|\*two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT2 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.86
95710252|NCT00572728|191390391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|two-sided exact p value from Wilcoxon two-sample test||H0: SUVmax (RCB 0,I) = SUVmax (RCB II,III) in other words, we are comparing the SUVmax @ FLT3 between the RCB 0,I and the RCB II,III groups.||||0.010
95710253|NCT00572728|191390391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|0.97|||Regression, Logistic|||H0: %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB 0,I) = %SUVmax FLT1-FLT3 (RCB II,III) A logistic regression model is used to determine if a larger percent change in SUVmax is associated with (RCB 0,I); the null hypothesis assumes that there is no association.||0.97|0.76|0.013
95710254|NCT00572728|191390392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||AUC|0.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.94||Delong 1-sided p-value (alpha=0.05)|Delong Method|The Delong-Delong Clark-Pearson method using modified U-statistics was used to evaluate the AUC||"ROC analysis was used to compute the AUC and evaluate if %ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3 is predictive of pCR with alpha=0.05.~The Null Hypothesis assumes that the P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|pCR)= 1 - P(%ΔSUVmax FLT1-FLT3\|non-pCR) that is: H0: AUC =0.5 (guessing)"||.94|.72|<0.001
95710255|NCT00572728|191390393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA||"Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA was used to test whether there was a difference in %SUVmax (FLT1-FLT2) among LN statuses.~H0: no difference between the 3 LN status."||||0.86
95710256|NCT00572728|191390394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|||||two-sided p value from Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.67
95710257|NCT02313506|191390401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-31.1||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-5.7||No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons because Type II error is a greater concern than Type I error in feasibility studies.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 1 compared T0-T1 between the 2 groups to determine if the intervention was superior to the control.||-5.7|-56.6|0.02
95710258|NCT02313506|191390401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|28.9|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 2 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T1-T2 in the delayed group.||28.9|-19.6|0.71
95710259|NCT02313506|191390401|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.0||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.1|9.1|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA was performed to evaluate the effect of the group type on the outcome measures after adjusting for blocking and baseline (T0). We assessed 3 planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over time. Contrast 3 compared T0-T1 in the immediate group against T0-T2 in the delayed group.||9.1|-31.1|0.29
95710260|NCT00537810|191390412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||Post-treatment||||0.60
95710261|NCT00537810|191390412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.13|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||6 month follow up||||0.13
95710262|NCT00537810|191390412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Chi-squared|df=3||12 month follow up||||0.29
95710263|NCT02449915|191390414|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.52
95710264|NCT01009333|191390429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.008
95710265|NCT01009333|191390430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.589||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.589
95710266|NCT01009333|191390431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95710267|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Difference|3.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.89|4.03|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.03|2.89|
95710268|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.11|5.25|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.25|4.11|
95710269|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.3|5.44|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.44|4.30|
95710270|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.78|4.92|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||4.92|3.78|
95710271|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.58|5.72|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.72|4.58|
95710272|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.19|5.33|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.33|4.19|
95710273|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|4.93|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.36|5.5|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.50|4.36|
95710274|NCT00998985|191390488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|5.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.93|5.74|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT1 viral load by at least 3 log10||5.74|4.93|
95710275|NCT00998985|191390489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|2.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||2.81|1.70|
95710276|NCT00998985|191390489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.38|3.49|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||3.49|2.38|
95710277|NCT00998985|191390489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|3.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.29|4.4|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.40|3.29|
95710278|NCT00998985|191390489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.42|5.53|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||5.53|4.42|
95710279|NCT00998985|191390489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM difference|4.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.6|4.81|||||LSM Difference (grazoprevir-placebo) and confidence intervals from ANOVA model with maximum log10 HCV reduction as response and a fixed effect for treatment.|It is hypothesized that one or more doses of Grazoprevir will reduce GT3 viral load by at least 2 log10||4.81|3.60|
95710280|NCT01040728|191390490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.197|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.163|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.163|<0.0001
95710281|NCT01040728|191390490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.186|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.186|<0.0001
95710282|NCT01040728|191390490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.187|0.255|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.255|0.187|<0.0001
95710283|NCT01040728|191390491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.153|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.117|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.188|0.117|<0.0001
95710284|NCT01040728|191390491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.134|0.205|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.205|0.134|<0.0001
95710285|NCT01040728|191390491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.199|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.199|0.128|<0.0001
95710286|NCT01040728|191390492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.141|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.208|0.141|<0.0001
95710287|NCT01040728|191390492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.157|0.225|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.225|0.157|<0.0001
95710288|NCT01040728|191390492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.192|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.226|0.159|<0.0001
95710289|NCT01040728|191390493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.181|0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.248|0.181|<0.0001
95710290|NCT01040728|191390493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.272|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.272|0.205|<0.0001
95710291|NCT01040728|191390493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.119|<0.0001
95710292|NCT01040728|191390494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.251|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.251|0.178|<0.0001
95710293|NCT01040728|191390494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.208|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.208|<0.0001
95710294|NCT01040728|191390494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.199|0.271|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.271|0.199|<0.0001
95710295|NCT01040728|191390495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.201|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.273|0.201|<0.0001
95710296|NCT01040728|191390495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.266|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.23|0.302|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.302|0.230|<0.0001
95710297|NCT01040728|191390495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.175|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.211|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.211|0.138|<0.0001
95710298|NCT01040728|191390496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.169|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.246|0.169|<0.0001
95710299|NCT01040728|191390496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.243|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
95710300|NCT01040728|191390496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.205|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.205|<0.0001
95710301|NCT01040728|191390497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.134|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.097|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.097|<0.0001
95710302|NCT01040728|191390497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.105|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.181|0.105|<0.0001
95710303|NCT01040728|191390497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.120|<0.0001
95710304|NCT01040728|191390498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.276|0.384|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.384|0.276|<0.0001
95710305|NCT01040728|191390498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.326|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.381|0.272|<0.0001
95710306|NCT01040728|191390498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.424|0.316|<0.0001
95710307|NCT01040728|191390499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.214|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.342|0.214|<0.0001
95710308|NCT01040728|191390499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.2|0.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.329|0.200|<0.0001
95710309|NCT01040728|191390499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.238|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.366|0.238|<0.0001
95710310|NCT01040728|191390500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.244|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.363|0.244|<0.0001
95710311|NCT01040728|191390500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.283|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.222|0.343|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.343|0.222|<0.0001
95710312|NCT01040728|191390500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.275|0.395|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.395|0.275|<0.0001
95710313|NCT01040728|191390501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.309|0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.430|0.309|<0.0001
95710314|NCT01040728|191390501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.366|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.306|0.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.426|0.306|<0.0001
95710315|NCT01040728|191390501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.202|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.202|<0.0001
95710316|NCT01040728|191390502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.287|0.401|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.401|0.287|<0.0001
95710317|NCT01040728|191390502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.296|0.411|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.411|0.296|<0.0001
95710318|NCT01040728|191390502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.029|<|0.0001||95.0|0.314|0.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.427|0.314|<0.0001
95710319|NCT01040728|191390503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.396|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.396|0.272|<0.0001
95710320|NCT01040728|191390503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032|<|0.0001||95.0|0.283|0.408|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.408|0.283|<0.0001
95710321|NCT01040728|191390503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.031|<|0.0001||95.0|0.316|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.440|0.316|<0.0001
95710322|NCT01040728|191390504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.309|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.309|0.179|<0.0001
95710323|NCT01040728|191390504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.216|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.282|0.150|<0.0001
95710324|NCT01040728|191390504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with treatment and period as fixed effects and patient as a random effect and study baseline as a continuous covariate.|Tio 18 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.321|0.191|<0.0001
95710325|NCT00415623|191390511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.0|-4.4|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-4.4|-9.0|<0.001
95710326|NCT00415623|191390512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.7|-2.5|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.5|-5.7|<0.001
95710327|NCT00415623|191390513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||<|0.001||95.0|-9.1|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough SBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-5.1|-9.1|<0.001
95710328|NCT00415623|191390514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.4|-2.6|||ANCOVA|||The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). ANCOVA models with the trough DBP at baseline, body weight, and age as covariates, and the treatment group and study site as factors was used. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||-2.6|-5.4|<0.001
95710329|NCT00415623|191390515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.002||95.0|1.36|3.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||3.99|1.36|0.002
95710330|NCT00415623|191390516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46|||<|0.001||95.0|2.28|8.74|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.74|2.28|<0.001
95710331|NCT00415623|191390517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.001||95.0|1.5|4.36|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||4.36|1.50|0.001
95710332|NCT00415623|191390518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16|||<|0.001||95.0|2.12|8.19|||Regression, Logistic|||Proportions of participants (responder rates) were used for the statistical analyses. The hypothesis of no group differences (null hypothesis) was tested against that of the amlodipine 10 mg arm being superior to the amlodipine 5 mg arm (alternative hypothesis). The test was conducted based on a logistic regression model with baseline SBP value and body weight as covariates, and treatment group and age (\<=64, \>=65) as a factor. The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).||8.19|2.12|<0.001
95710333|NCT01846208|191390521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|32.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|55.8|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||55.8|8.9|0.009
95710334|NCT01846208|191390521|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|25.5||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|49.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants passed Year 2 SU OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||49.1|2.0|0.031
95710335|NCT01846208|191390522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|64.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.9|85.6|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||85.6|43.9|<0.0001
95710336|NCT01846208|191390522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.7||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|37.7|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 2 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||37.7|-2.3|0.151
95710337|NCT01846208|191390522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|44.3||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.4|69.2|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||69.2|19.4|0.002
95710338|NCT01846208|191390522|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|17.5||||0.181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|41.3|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants desensitized to \>=4444 mg at Year 1 OFC: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||41.3|-6.3|0.181
95710339|NCT01846208|191390524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-50.2||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.4|-21.9|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Baked vs. Egg OIT-Randomized||-21.9|-78.4|0.003
95710340|NCT01846208|191390524|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|33.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|60.1|||Barnard's Exact Test|||% participants with unrestricted consumption of unbaked (concentrated) egg 3 years after randomization: Egg OIT-Randomized vs. Egg OIT-Assigned||60.1|7.2|0.023
95710341|NCT01424306|191390526|OTHER|||||||0.403||||||P value for the time x diet interaction reflects overall comparison of 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||RM-ANOVA||||0.403
95710342|NCT01424306|191390527|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.933||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.933
95710343|NCT01424306|191390528|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.196||||||P-diet: reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.196
95710344|NCT01424306|191390529|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.88||||||Reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.880
95710345|NCT01424306|191390530|OTHER|RM-ANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95710346|NCT01424306|191390531|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.366||||||P-value reflects an overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.366
95710347|NCT01424306|191390532|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.387||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.387
95710348|NCT01424306|191390533|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.476||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.476
95710349|NCT01424306|191390534|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.596||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.596
95710350|NCT01424306|191390535|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.492||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.492
95710351|NCT01424306|191390536|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.149||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.149
95710352|NCT01424306|191390537|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.056||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.056
95710353|NCT01424306|191390538|OTHER|RM-ANOVA||||||0.52||||||P-value reflects overall comparison of the 3 dietary phases by RM-ANOVA|RM-ANOVA|||||||0.520
95710354|NCT01601873|191390542|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.884|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.884
95710355|NCT01601873|191390543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.946
95710356|NCT01601873|191390544|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.294|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.294
95710357|NCT01601873|191390545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.538|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.538
95710358|NCT01601873|191390546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.786
95710359|NCT01601873|191390547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.185
95710360|NCT01610414|191390559|SUPERIORITY|Criterion: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall HZ vaccine efficacy was above 0%.|Vaccine efficacy|68.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.56|77.53|||Poisson method|||Vaccine efficacy (VE) was evaluated in the prevention of Herpes Zoster (HZ) in autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) recipients 18 years of agee and older.||77.53|55.56|<0.0001
95710361|NCT00472043|191390600|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95710362|NCT04957745|191390607|OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in Percentage of Total Viewing Time that Peripheral Target is Perceived across visual confusion conditions."|ANOVA|||"Effect of visual confusion conditions (binocular, unilateral monocular, and bilateral monocular visual confusions) on Percentage of Total Viewing Time Peripheral Target is Perceived is analyzed by repeated measure (within-subject) ANOVA. The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05."||||<0.01
95710363|NCT02483611|191390628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|149.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|46.07||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|88.0|235.0|||ANOVA|||||235|88|0.9651
95710364|NCT02483611|191390628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|145.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|42.48||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.0|244.0|||ANOVA|||||244|78|0.9651
95710365|NCT02483611|191390628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|147.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|29.75||0.9651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|200.0|||ANOVA|||The sample size was calculated with a power of 80% to detect differences of 20% in the timing of clinical onset and the duration of NMB. The pharmacodynamic (latency, clinical duration, recovery rate and total duration) and hemodynamic variables (mean arterial pressure (MAP) and HR) were compared between the groups via analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey post-hoc test. The significance level was set at 5%.||200|105|0.9651
95710366|NCT02483611|191390629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|82.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.62|99.27|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||99.27|72.62|<0.0001
95710367|NCT02483611|191390629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|86.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.78|140.6|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||140.60|71.78|<0.0001
95710368|NCT02483611|191390629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.5|92.9|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.90|40.50|<0.0001
95710369|NCT02483611|191390630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.49||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.0|32.25|||ANOVA|||||32.25|12.00|0.0015
95710370|NCT02483611|191390630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.69||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.5|39.83|||ANOVA|||||39.83|10.50|0.0015
95710371|NCT02483611|191390630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.53|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.52||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.0|16.5|||ANOVA|||||16.50|11.00|0.0015
95710372|NCT02483611|191390631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.77||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|41.5|||ANOVA|||||41.50|19.50|0.0003
95710373|NCT02483611|191390631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.81|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.97||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.5|49.5|||ANOVA|||||49.50|18.50|0.0003
95710374|NCT02483611|191390631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.28||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.5|30.05|||ANOVA|||||30.05|17.50|0.0003
95710375|NCT02483611|191390632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|113.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.87|136.8|||ANOVA|||||136.80|94.87|<0.0001
95710376|NCT02483611|191390632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.82|163.3|||ANOVA|||||163.30|95.82|<0.0001
95710377|NCT02483611|191390632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|125.2|||ANOVA|||||125.20|58|<0.0001
95710378|NCT02483611|191390633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|120.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.88|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.3|140.2|||ANOVA|||||140.20|106.30|<0.0001
95710379|NCT02483611|191390633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|126.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|106.5|149.4|||ANOVA|||||149.40|106.50|<0.0001
95710380|NCT02483611|191390633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|90.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.75|116.4|||ANOVA|||||116.40|71.75|<0.0001
95710381|NCT02483611|191390634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|94.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.18||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|70.00|0.0527
95710382|NCT02483611|191390634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|88.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|104.0|||ANOVA|||||104.00|65.00|0.0527
95710383|NCT02483611|191390634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.62||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|140.0|||ANOVA|||||140.00|70.00|0.0527
95710384|NCT02483611|191390635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|87.63|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.1||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|110.0|||ANOVA|||||110.00|60.00|0.1996
95710385|NCT02483611|191390635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|84.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.38||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|67.00|0.1996
95710386|NCT02483611|191390635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.47|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.3||0.1996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.0|112.0|||ANOVA|||||112.00|73.00|0.1996
95710387|NCT02483611|191390636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.95||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|107.0|||ANOVA|||||107.00|58.00|0.7145
95710388|NCT02483611|191390636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|97.0|||ANOVA|||||97.00|59.00|0.7145
95710389|NCT02483611|191390636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.48||0.7145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|58.00|0.7145
95710390|NCT02483611|191390637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|96.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||96.00|57.00|0.1130
95710391|NCT02483611|191390637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1130
95710392|NCT02483611|191390637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|74.0||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|83.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||83.00|59.00|0.1130
95710393|NCT02483611|191390638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|98.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||98.00|58.00|0.0731
95710394|NCT02483611|191390638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|55.00|0.0731
95710395|NCT02483611|191390638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|67.0||||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|56.00|0.0731
95710396|NCT02483611|191390639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|60.00|0.1002
95710397|NCT02483611|191390639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|74.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||74.00|56.00|0.1002
95710398|NCT02483611|191390639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|60.00|0.1002
95710399|NCT02483611|191390640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.79||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|109.0|||ANOVA|||||109.00|52.00|0.4338
95710400|NCT02483611|191390640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.13||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|95.0|||ANOVA|||||95.00|55.00|0.4338
95710401|NCT02483611|191390640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.82||0.4338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|55.00|0.4338
95710402|NCT02483611|191390641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.76||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|57.00|0.9167
95710403|NCT02483611|191390641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.18||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|96.0|||ANOVA|||||96.00|51.00|0.9167
95710404|NCT02483611|191390641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.9167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.9167
95710405|NCT02483611|191390642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.96||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|58.00|0.8067
95710406|NCT02483611|191390642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|74.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.65||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|86.0|||ANOVA|||||86.00|57.00|0.8067
95710407|NCT02483611|191390642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|75.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.54||0.8067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|90.0|||ANOVA|||||90.00|53.00|0.8067
95710408|NCT02483611|191390643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|71.94|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|57.00|0.1015
95710409|NCT02483611|191390643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|72.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.78||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|89.0|||ANOVA|||||89.00|52.00|0.1015
95710410|NCT02483611|191390643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.01||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|44.00|0.1015
95710411|NCT02483611|191390644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.56|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.05||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|56.00|0.3423
95710412|NCT02483611|191390644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.73||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.0|83.0|||ANOVA|||||83.00|57.00|0.3423
95710413|NCT02483611|191390644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.27|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.81||0.3423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|41.00|0.3423
95710414|NCT02483611|191390645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.11||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|53.00|0.6817
95710415|NCT02483611|191390645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.4||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|54.00|0.6817
95710416|NCT02483611|191390645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.13|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.5||0.6817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|47.00|0.6817
95710417|NCT02483611|191390646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|58.00|0.0937
95710418|NCT02483611|191390646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.5||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|90.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||90.00|56.00|0.0937
95710419|NCT02483611|191390646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.0937|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|87.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||87.00|58.00|0.0937
95710420|NCT02483611|191390647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|88.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||88.00|60.00|0.1406
95710421|NCT02483611|191390647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.5||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|55.00|0.1406
95710422|NCT02483611|191390647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|55.00|0.1406
95710423|NCT02483611|191390648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.25|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.74||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|81.0|||ANOVA|||||81.00|60.00|0.0504
95710424|NCT02483611|191390648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|63.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.62||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|49.00|0.0504
95710425|NCT02483611|191390648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.56||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|84.0|||ANOVA|||||84.00|58.00|0.0504
95710426|NCT02483611|191390649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|93.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||93.00|60.00|0.0205
95710427|NCT02483611|191390649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|62.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|72.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||72.00|54.00|0.0205
95710428|NCT02483611|191390649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|59.00|0.0205
95710429|NCT02483611|191390650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|68.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.0|86.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||86.00|58.00|0.3004
95710430|NCT02483611|191390650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|56.00|0.3004
95710431|NCT02483611|191390650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|69.0||||0.3004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|81.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||81.00|62.00|0.3004
95710432|NCT02483611|191390651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|84.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||84.00|60.00|0.0178
95710433|NCT02483611|191390651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|64.5||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|75.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||75.00|51.00|0.0178
95710434|NCT02483611|191390651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|72.0||||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|61.0|91.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||91.00|61.00|0.0178
95710435|NCT02483611|191390652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.51||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|99.0|||ANOVA|||||99.00|51.00|0.8746
95710436|NCT02483611|191390652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.96||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|56.00|0.8746
95710437|NCT02483611|191390652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.94||0.8746|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|54.00|0.8746
95710438|NCT02483611|191390653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|67.44|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.95||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|47.00|0.4195
95710439|NCT02483611|191390653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|68.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.28||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|53.00|0.4195
95710440|NCT02483611|191390653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|64.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.23||0.4195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|80.0|||ANOVA|||||80.00|52.00|0.4195
95710441|NCT02483611|191390654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|11.52||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|93.0|||ANOVA|||||93.00|47.00|0.5796
95710442|NCT02483611|191390654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.19||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|48.00|0.5796
95710443|NCT02483611|191390654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|62.33|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.26||0.5796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|50.00|0.5796
95710444|NCT02483611|191390655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.19|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.82||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|92.0|||ANOVA|||||92.00|45.00|0.5351
95710445|NCT02483611|191390655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|65.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|10.87||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.0|82.0|||ANOVA|||||82.00|47.00|0.5351
95710446|NCT02483611|191390655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.93|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.0||0.5351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|79.0|||ANOVA|||||79.00|51.00|0.5351
95710447|NCT02483611|191390656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.5||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|92.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||92.00|42.00|0.4988
95710448|NCT02483611|191390656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|63.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|85.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||85.00|50.00|0.4988
95710449|NCT02483611|191390656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|58.0||||0.4988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|80.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||80.00|51.00|0.4988
95710450|NCT02483611|191390657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|66.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|89.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||89.00|43.00|0.7723
95710451|NCT02483611|191390657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.0|82.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||82.00|51.00|0.7723
95710452|NCT02483611|191390657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|61.0||||0.7723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.0|78.0|||Kruskal-Wallis|||||78.00|50.00|0.7723
95710453|NCT02608892|191390658|SUPERIORITY|Use of pain management during newborn screening was described using frequency and proportion and expressed as an absolute difference in proportions with 95% confidence interval.|Absolute difference in proportions|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|11.5||||||||11.5|-26.2|
95710454|NCT02590406|191390662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||ANOVA|||We calculated our sample size using data from EPO2: PV study (Couture: simultaneous submitted manuscript), where we found a difference in the FRC of 21% between reverse Trendelenburg with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation and beach chair position without positive pressure ventilation. Assuming there would be a difference of 21% in the apnea time, with a type I error of 5% and power of 80%, a total of 17 patients by group was needed.||||0.005
95710455|NCT02590406|191390663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95710456|NCT02590406|191390664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0003
95710457|NCT02590406|191390665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9
95710458|NCT02590406|191390666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95710459|NCT00957723|191390678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1 year, 2 year and 5 year||||<0.0001
95710460|NCT00957723|191390679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||Change from pre-op to 1, 2, and 5 year||||<0.0001
95710461|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||<0.0001
95710462|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 1 year||||0.0002
95710463|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||<0.0001
95710464|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0177|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 2 years||||0.0177
95710465|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||<0.0001
95710466|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0393|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 3 year||||0.0393
95710467|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||<0.0001
95710468|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 4 year||||0.4905
95710469|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||SF36 Physical Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||<0.0001
95710470|NCT00957723|191390681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|||||||Sign test|||SF36 Mental Component Score change from preop to 5 year||||0.0037
95710471|NCT00957723|191390683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Sign test|||LEAS score change from preop to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years||||<0.0001
95727754|NCT00591253|191425057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|-4.55||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.55|-10.88|<0.001
95710472|NCT00877890|191390687|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The choice of a 0.4% noninferiority margin was resulted from the considerations of expected clinical benefit of BYETTA in this study based on clinical data evaluating exenatide once weekly and BYETTA, regulatory guidance, published literature, and statistical considerations.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.138|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.39|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model includes treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors.||Superiority of exenatide once weekly to BYETTA if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for treatment difference (exenatide once weekly minus BYETTA) is \<0; noninferiority if this upper limit is \<0.4%. Power: Assuming 15% dropout rate with 206 subjects will complete the study. This sample size would provide 90% power for non-inferiority test with assumption of greater reduction (0.1%) in exenatide once weekly and a common standard deviation of 1.1%.||-0.39|-0.94|<.0001
95710473|NCT00877890|191390688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target value of \<7% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
95710474|NCT00877890|191390689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving HbA1c target values of \<=6.5% at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||<.0001
95710475|NCT00877890|191390690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.57||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-9.5||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the fasting plasma glucose as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline fasting plasma glucose. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.5|-31.4|0.0006
95710476|NCT00877890|191390691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||Multiplicity adjustment using Hochberg procedure for the 3 key secondary endpoints (i.e., percent to achieving HbA1c goal of \<7%, change in fasting glucose, and percent of achieving fasting plasma glucose goal of \<=126 mg/dL) was performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis: Percentages of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target of \<=126 mg/dL at Week 24 were compared between treatments using a CMH test, in which baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%) and concomitant SU use at screening served as the stratification factors. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in percentage of subjects achieving fasting plasma glucose target. Power: based on the primary measurement.||||0.0008
95710477|NCT00877890|191390692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.487||0.0514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.01|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in body weight from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the body weight as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline body weight. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.01|-1.91|0.0514
95710478|NCT00877890|191390693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5||0.2367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|1.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the systolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline systolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.2|-4.7|0.2367
95710479|NCT00877890|191390694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98||0.7717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in diastolic blood pressure from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline diastolic blood pressure. Power: based on the primary measurement.||2.2|-1.7|0.7717
95710480|NCT00877890|191390695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in total cholesterol from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the total cholesterol as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline total cholesterol. Power: based on the primary measurement.||-9.1|-22.9|<.0001
95710481|NCT00877890|191390696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Change in HDL from baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the HDL as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline HDL. Power: based on the primary measurement.||0.3|-2.8|0.1251
95710482|NCT00877890|191390697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.043||0.2558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.04|||ANCOVA|||Analysis: Triglycerides data were logarithm-transformed and the change at Week 30 to baseline (Day 1) , expressed as the ratio, was analyzed by an ANCOVA model including treatment, baseline HbA1c stratum (\<9% or \>=9%), and concomitant SU use at screening as factors, and baseline value of the triglycerides as a covariate. Null hypothesis: no difference between treatments in change from baseline triglycerides. Power: based on the primary measurement.||1.04|0.87|0.2558
95710483|NCT04396106|191390703|OTHER|||||||0.721|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.721
95710484|NCT01385098|191390720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||< 0.001
95710485|NCT01385098|191390721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95710486|NCT01385098|191390721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Change from preoperative to 12 weeks|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.010
95710487|NCT02698176|191390722|OTHER||Estimation of DLT Rate|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.418|||||Point estimate and 2-sided 80% Bayesian credible interval for DLT rate estimated for the total number of participants from all 3 cohorts (CRPC+NMC+TNBC) that were evaluable for DLT analysis based on a non-informative prior distribution of Beta (1,1).|||0.418|0.121|
95710488|NCT00410514|191390742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.42|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.42|-0.63|
95710489|NCT00410514|191390742|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was -3 mL/sec for Qmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for Qmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was greater than -3 mL/sec.|LS Mean Difference|0.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.68|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||1.68|-0.43|
95710490|NCT00410514|191390744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-5.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|2.09|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||2.09|-13.98|
95710491|NCT00410514|191390744|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was 15 cmH2O for PdetQmax. Mirabegron was considered non-inferior to placebo for PdetQmax if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference from placebo was less than 15 cmH2O.|LS Mean Difference|-1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|6.96|||ANCOVA||Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA with pooled center and treatment as factors and the baseline value as a covariate. Centers with less than 12 patients were pooled before the analysis.|The study was designed to show non-inferiority of mirabegron compared to placebo for both primary outcome measures. The comparison between mirabegron 50 mg and placebo was conducted first. If non-inferiority was demonstrated in this comparison, mirabegron 100 mg was compared to placebo. However, if the first comparison did not demonstrate non-inferiority, no further comparison was made. This procedure maintained the overall type I error of one-sided 2.5%.||6.96|-9.73|
95710492|NCT03756285|191390770|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||0.52|0.12|<0.001
95710493|NCT03756285|191390771|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Means Ratio|0.97||||0.568|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.74||||ANCOVA|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment|||||0.74|0.568
95710494|NCT03756285|191390772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.8||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|74.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: atrial fibrillation status at randomization, baseline value, treatment, visit, and treatment\*visit.||||74.1|-30.5|0.407
95710495|NCT02985684|191390774|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.88 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month closure success proportion = 0.98. Acceptable performance margin = 0.10. PG = 0.98 - 0.10 = 0.88.|Binomial proportion|1.0|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.974|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test rejects H0, then test primary outcome 2 (clinical success) at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise testing stops with failure to reject both primary outcome null hypotheses.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month closure success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.88 vs H1: P \> 0.88, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month closure success and 0.88 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=103 subjects provide ≥95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.98 under H1."|||0.974|<0.0001
95710496|NCT02985684|191390775|OTHER|Acceptable performance: favorably exclude PG=0.76 with 95% confidence. Expected 6-month clinical success proportion = 0.88. Acceptable performance margin = 0.12. PG = 0.88 - 0.12 = 0.76.|Binomial proportion|0.9|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.843|||A priori 1-sided alpha = 0.05. If test of primary outcome 1 rejects H0, then test at 1-sided alpha = 0.05; otherwise no testing of this primary outcome and failure to reject null hypothesis.|Binomial test (exact)||Exact 1-sided confidence interval lower bound from Clopper-Pearson method.|"Test null hypothesis of equal or lesser proportion with 6-month clinical success compared to a performance goal (PG).~H0: P ≤ 0.76 vs H1: P \> 0.76, where P is the true proportion of subjects with 6-month clinical success and 0.76 is the PG derived from clinical study outcomes for devices indicated for ASD closure.~N=112 subjects provide 95% power to exclude PG with 95% confidence if P=0.88 under H1."|||0.843|<0.0001
95710497|NCT00631969|191390790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.109|||<|0.0001||95.0|-8.562|-5.6561|||ANCOVA|||Power adjustment for 3 primary efficacy variables (3 variables have to be significant in favor of Vardenafil to conclude efficacy). Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-5.6561|-8.562|< 0.0001
95710498|NCT00631969|191390791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.027|||<|0.0001||95.0|-35.519|-22.534|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.534|-35.519|< 0.0001
95710499|NCT00631969|191390792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.021|-31.366|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.366|-45.021|< 0.0001
95710500|NCT00631969|191390793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|34.778|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for age group and pooled center.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
95710501|NCT00631969|191390794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.503|||<|0.0001||95.0|-22.424|-10.764|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-10.764|-22.424|< 0.0001
95710502|NCT00631969|191390795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.167|||<|0.0001||95.0|-45.261|-31.073|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-31.073|-45.261|< 0.0001
95710503|NCT00631969|191390796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.555|||<|0.0001||95.0|-43.645|-29.465|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-29.465|-43.645|< 0.0001
95710504|NCT00631969|191390797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.193|||<|0.0001||95.0|-31.562|-18.824|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.824|-31.562|< 0.0001
95710505|NCT00631969|191390799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.703|||<|0.0001||95.0|-30.067|-19.34|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-19.340|-30.067|< 0.0001
95710506|NCT00631969|191390800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.496|||<|0.0001||95.0|-34.865|-24.128|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-24.128|-34.865|< 0.0001
95710507|NCT00631969|191390801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.775|||<|0.0001||95.0|-33.155|-22.394|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-22.394|-33.155|< 0.0001
95710508|NCT00631969|191390802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.326|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.062|-17.598|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-17.598|-29.062|< 0.0001
95710509|NCT00631969|191390803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.384|||<|0.0001||95.0|-28.594|-18.175|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-18.175|-28.594|< 0.0001
95710510|NCT00631969|191390804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.076|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.745|-27.407|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||-27.407|-38.745|< 0.0001
95710511|NCT00631969|191390805|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|74.449|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) adjusted for pooled centers and age group.||Statistical analysis applies to the total population.||||<0.0001
95710512|NCT00631969|191390806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|117.42||||||90.0|79.59|173.23||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||173.23|79.59|
95710513|NCT00631969|191390806|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7064||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.7064
95710514|NCT00631969|191390807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|133.07||||||90.0|87.46|202.46||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||202.46|87.46|
95710515|NCT00631969|191390807|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of Vardenafil exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.8749||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.8749
95710516|NCT00631969|191390808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|125.28||||||90.0|73.65|213.11||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years/ patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||213.11|73.65|
95710517|NCT00631969|191390808|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.7375||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of AUC. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α=0.05.||||0.7375
95710518|NCT00631969|191390809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.|Point estimate of ratio|123.84||||||90.0|80.12|191.42||||||Point estimate and 90% confidence interval of ratio (patients aged ≥ 65 years / patients aged \< 65 years) were calculated.||191.42|80.12|
95710519|NCT00631969|191390809|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is an exploratory analysis of metabolite M-1 exposure in ED patients of different age categories to assess the effect of age on the drug's pharmacokinetics.||||||0.394||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression line is fitted to the logarithm of Cmax. Test of the hypothesis of a zero slope using the two-sided t-test at α = 0.05.||||0.3940
95710520|NCT04223778|191390810|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated Difference|-1.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|-0.34|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.34|-3.44|<.001
95710521|NCT04223778|191390811|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|9.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|16.3|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||16.3|3.3|
95710522|NCT04223778|191390812|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|4.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.0|0.2|
95710523|NCT04223778|191390813|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|3.9|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<40 copies/mL||3.90|-3.28|
95710524|NCT04223778|191390813|OTHER|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL)- Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|4.43|||||The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.|HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL||4.43|-2.58|
95710525|NCT04223778|191390816|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-4.5|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||-4.5|-13.4|
95710526|NCT04223778|191390821|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-19.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.07|-6.44|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Cholesterol||-6.44|-33.07|
95710527|NCT04223778|191390821|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|3.84|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.84|-6.55|
95710528|NCT04223778|191390821|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-13.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.69|-3.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-3.20|-24.69|
95710529|NCT04223778|191390821|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-17.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.02|-5.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-5.46|-30.02|
95710530|NCT04223778|191390821|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-21.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.51|2.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Fasting Triglycerides||2.96|-45.51|
95710531|NCT04223778|191390822|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|2.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||2.09|-10.43|
95710532|NCT04223778|191390822|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|3.09|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||3.09|-1.46|
95710533|NCT04223778|191390822|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.47|1.74|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||1.74|-9.47|
95710534|NCT04223778|191390822|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-4.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.38|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||1.38|-11.21|
95710535|NCT04223778|191390822|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.14|19.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||19.43|-16.14|
95710536|NCT04223778|191390823|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|9.7|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||9.70|-7.60|
95710537|NCT04223778|191390823|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-3.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|0.05|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.05|-6.37|
95710538|NCT04223778|191390823|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|4.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|11.03|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||11.03|-2.27|
95710539|NCT04223778|191390823|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|11.19|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||11.19|-3.93|
95710540|NCT04223778|191390823|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.89|12.31|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||12.31|-15.89|
95710541|NCT04223778|191390824|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.05|-4.76|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||-4.76|-32.05|
95918181|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.95||||||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at SSV: F(1, 19) = 0.004, ηp2 =.00|Repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait symmetry was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.950
95710542|NCT04223778|191390824|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|5.08|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||5.08|-5.06|
95710543|NCT04223778|191390824|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-14.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.81|-2.43|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||-2.43|-25.81|
95710544|NCT04223778|191390824|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-18.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.45|-6.0|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||-6.00|-30.45|
95710545|NCT04223778|191390824|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-27.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.08|-4.49|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||-4.49|-51.08|
95710546|NCT04223778|191390824|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-14.12||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.56|-0.68||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-0.68|-27.56|0.0094
95710547|NCT04223778|191390824|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-18.23||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.28|-4.17||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|-4.17|-32.28|0.0021
95710548|NCT04223778|191390825|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|6.18|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||6.18|-6.26|
95710549|NCT04223778|191390825|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|2.54|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||2.54|-1.84|
95710550|NCT04223778|191390825|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.83|6.11|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||6.11|-4.83|
95710551|NCT04223778|191390825|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-0.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|5.83|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||5.83|-6.81|
95710552|NCT04223778|191390825|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-5.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|9.57|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||9.57|-20.46|
95710553|NCT04223778|191390825|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.64||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|6.9||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting LDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.90|-5.63|0.4093
95710554|NCT04223778|191390825|SUPERIORITY|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Superiority will be concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI is less than 0 percentage points.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49||||0.4397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.72|6.75||The significance level in ANCOVA model was 0.02497/2=0.012485. The p-value is statistically significant if it is \<0.02497/2=0.012485.|ANCOVA|||Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol - Multiplicity Adjusted|The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|6.75|-7.72|0.4397
95710555|NCT04223778|191390826|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.31|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|10.17|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Cholesterol||10.17|-5.54|
95710556|NCT04223778|191390826|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|-2.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|0.65|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting HDL Cholesterol||0.65|-5.69|
95710557|NCT04223778|191390826|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|8.42|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting LDL Cholesterol||8.42|-3.73|
95710558|NCT04223778|191390826|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|3.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|10.56|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Non-HDL Cholesterol||10.56|-2.63|
95710559|NCT04223778|191390826|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|24.96|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|Fasting Triglycerides||24.96|-3.97|
95710560|NCT04223778|191390827|OTHER|Treatment Difference vs Baseline ART. Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated Difference|0.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.46|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method|||1.46|-0.59|
95710561|NCT00711009|191390832|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The exact 95% confidence interval for the difference in response rates (LPV/r + RAL minus LPV/r + FTC/TDF) was used to assess non-inferiority. The LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior to the LPV/r+FTC/TDF arm because the lower limit of the confidence interval was \>/= -20%. Because the LPV/r+RAL arm was considered non-inferior based on the 20% margin, the results were assessed on a more rigorous 12% margin (-12%), as prespecified.|Diff. in Percentage of Subj. Responding|-1.6||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|8.8|||exact binomial method|||The null hypothesis was that the response rate for the LPV/r + RAL arm was more than 20% lower than the response rate for the LPV/r + FTC/TDF arm. The planned sample size of 100 participants per treatment group provided 90% power to conclude that the LPV/r + RAL arm was non-inferior to the control arm, based on a non-inferiority margin of -20% (with a type I error rate of 0.05).||8.8|-12.0|0.850
95710562|NCT01005966|191390914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.01||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|1.73||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on a mixed model with the factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for NaF toothpaste and AmF toothpaste to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||1.73|-7.75|0.2117
95710563|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.96||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.27|13.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||13.66|4.27|0.0002
95710564|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.57||||0.0557||95.0|-0.11|9.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.24|-0.11|0.0557
95710565|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|23.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.86|28.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||28.24|18.86|<0.0001
95710566|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.4||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|9.03||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||9.03|-0.23|0.0625
95710567|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|18.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.36|23.61||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||23.61|14.36|<0.0001
95710568|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.95|19.23||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||19.23|9.95|<0.0001
95710569|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.58||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|12.27||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||12.27|2.88|0.0017
95710570|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|16.64||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||16.64|7.31|<0.0001
95710571|NCT01005966|191390915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|26.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.88|31.24||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel remineralization potential.||31.24|21.88|<0.0001
95710572|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|37.24||||0.7912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.62|314.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||314.09|-239.62|0.7912
95727755|NCT00591253|191425058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.81||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-1.54||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.54|-6.08|0.001
95710573|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|532.61||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|259.06|806.16||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||806.16|259.06|0.0002
95710574|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|692.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|418.73|967.09||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||967.09|418.73|<0.0001
95710575|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1879.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1605.75|2153.04||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (1426ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2153.04|1605.75|<0.0001
95710576|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|495.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|221.09|769.66||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and Na MFP/ NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||769.66|221.09|0.0005
95710577|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|655.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|382.41|928.93||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||928.93|382.41|<0.0001
95710578|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1842.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1568.73|2115.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for AmF toothpaste (1400ppmF) and placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||2115.60|1568.73|<0.0001
95710579|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|160.3||||0.2448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.58|431.18||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||431.18|-110.58|0.2448
95710580|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1346.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1076.46|1617.11||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the Na MFP/NaF toothpaste (1450ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1617.11|1076.46|<0.0001
95710581|NCT01005966|191390916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1186.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|915.38|1457.6||No adjustment made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA based on a mixed model with factors subject, treatment and period was used.|Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the NaF toothpaste (675ppmF) and Placebo toothpaste (0ppmF) to be equal with respect to enamel fluoride uptake potential.||1457.60|915.38|<0.0001
95710582|NCT01451203|191390919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann point estimate of shift|0.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.|ANCOVA|||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 52.The primary Week 52 analysis assessed whether treatment up to Week 52 with the CZP group was superior to the placebo group in mTSS at Week 52. The 2-sided null and alternative hypotheses were: H0: πC = πM Ha: πC ≠ πM where πC represented subjects in the CZP group at Week 52 and πM represented subjects in the placebo group at Week 52.||0.00|0.00|<0.001
95710583|NCT01451203|191390920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehman point estimate of shift|0.0||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA on the ranks with treatment as factors and Baseline rank as covariate was used.||The mTSS was analyzed using LINEAR for the imputation of missing data at Week 24.||0.00|0.00|0.003
95710584|NCT01451203|191390921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95710585|NCT01451203|191390922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95710586|NCT01451203|191390923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95710587|NCT02528643|191390926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.146||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.774|1.696||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by geographic region and ECOG performance status. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.696|0.774|0.248
95727756|NCT00591253|191425058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-3.41||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-3.41|-7.88|<0.001
95710588|NCT02528643|191390926|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.142||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.688||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: OS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: OS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.688|0.773|0.252
95710589|NCT02528643|191390931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.039||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.474||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model, stratified by ECOG performance status and region. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Stratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a stratified one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level. Stratification factors were ECOG performance status and region from eCRF.||1.474|0.732|0.396
95710590|NCT02528643|191390931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.959||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.684|1.345||One-sided p-value.|Log Rank||Calculated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio \< 1 indicated a reduction in hazard rate in favor of enzalutamide group.|Unstratified Analysis. The null hypothesis was stated as: PFS distributions of the 2 arms are equivalent. The alternative hypothesis was stated as: PFS is prolonged in enzalutamide arm. The null hypothesis was tested using a one-sided log-rank test at the 0.10 level.||1.345|0.684|0.586
95710591|NCT02058940|191390946|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.2
95710592|NCT03479203|191390993|OTHER|T-Test followed by Bonferroni post-hoc analysis.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.96|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|6.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||"Blood assessed for C-reactive protein (CRP), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM), the high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1), the NLRP3 inflammasome, and nitrates (NOx for nitric oxide) pre- and post-vaping. CRP, sICAM HMGB1 and NLRP3 is in ng/ml blood and NOx is in nanomol/ml. These numbers were weighted to obtain an inflammation index in blood. This index represents the fold increase over pre-vaping values."||6|1|0.05
95710593|NCT00626327|191391033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for measles was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to measles following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV given alone.||0.5|-3.4|
95710594|NCT00626327|191391033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for mumps was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference % (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV - MMRV )|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.7||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to mumps following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||3.7|-1|
95710595|NCT00626327|191391033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroconversion for rubella was greater than -5%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to rubella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-4.5|
95710596|NCT00626327|191391033|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM+MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentage of subjects with seroprotection for varicella was greater than -10%, at 6 weeks after MMRV vaccination.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.2||||||Non-inferiority of immune response to varicella following one dose of MMRV administered concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM as compared to MMRV administered alone.||1.2|-3.9|
95710597|NCT00626327|191391034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|4.5||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup A when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||4.5|-4.7|
95710598|NCT00626327|191391034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup C when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||1.9|-1.8|
95710599|NCT00626327|191391034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|3.9||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup W-135 when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY vaccine given alone.||3.9|-1.3|
95710600|NCT00626327|191391034|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MenACWY-CRM + MMRV group was considered non-inferior to that of MenACWY-CRM group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI around the difference of the percentage of subjects with hSBA ≥1:8 at 6 weeks after the second dose of MenACWY-CRM given to 12 month old toddlers was greater than -10% for each serogroup.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV-MenACWY)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.3||||||Non-inferiority of immune response of MenACWY-CRM against serogroup Y when concomitantly administered with MMRV vaccine as compared to MenACWY-CRM vaccine given alone.||5.3|-1.9|
95710601|NCT00626327|191391039|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response of MMRV+MenACWY group was considered non-inferior to that of MMRV group if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the difference in the percentages of subjects with seroconversion for varicella was greater than -10%.|Difference% (MenACWY-CRM+MMRV- MMRV)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.8||||||Non-inferiority of anti-varicella response following one dose of MMRV when administered concomitantly with MenACWY vaccine as compared to MMRV administered alone.||0.8|-2.4|
95710602|NCT04450394|191391044|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 0.4%. Non-inferiority is achieved if the upper limit of the 90% Confidence Interval is below 0.4.|LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.24||||||||0.24|-0.11|
95710603|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.596||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.704|18.378|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week \[Wk\] 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||18.378|1.704|0.0045
95710604|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.989||||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.497|1.967|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.967|0.497|0.9755
95710605|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.743||||0.4786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|1.688|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.688|0.327|0.4786
95710606|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.405|20.597|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Week 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.597|1.405|0.0140
95710607|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.078|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|1.094|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.094|1.062|<0.0001
95710608|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.136||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.819|20.701|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||20.701|1.819|0.0035
95710609|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.903||||0.7821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|1.857|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.857|0.439|0.7821
95710610|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.4846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.317|1.723|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.723|0.317|0.4846
95710611|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.424||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.353|21.749|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||21.749|1.353|0.0170
95710612|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.695||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|0.925|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.925|0.523|0.0125
95710613|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.472||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.288|9.357|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||9.357|1.288|0.0139
95710614|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.179||||0.6327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.601|2.311|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for average number of drinks per week (\> 1 vs 0). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.311|0.601|0.6327
95727757|NCT00591253|191425059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.86||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.72|-1.01||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-1.01|-8.72|0.014
95710615|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.061|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.042|1.08|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.080|1.042|<0.0001
95710616|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.185||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|1.326|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative PEG-IFN alfa-2a dose per 1000 ug. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.326|1.058|0.0033
95710617|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.151|1.308|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.308|1.151|<0.0001
95710618|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.814||||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|0.979|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg, 1st 12 weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.979|0.676|0.0289
95710619|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.177|1.383|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.383|1.177|<0.0001
95710620|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.894||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.821|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Cumulative ribavirin dose per 10000 mg. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.973|0.821|0.0099
95710621|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
95710622|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
95710623|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.945||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.213|3.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||3.120|1.213|0.0058
95710624|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.154|1.38|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.380|1.154|<0.0001
95710625|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.615||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.219|10.721|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (ASIAN vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||10.721|1.219|0.0205
95710626|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.981||||0.9557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.506|1.903|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (BLACK vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.903|0.506|0.9557
95710627|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.599||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.273|1.312|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Ethnic origin (HISPANIC vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.312|0.273|0.2000
95710628|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.684||||0.0437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.037|13.083|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for (OTHER vs WHITE/CAUCASIAN). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||13.083|1.037|0.0437
95727758|NCT00591253|191425059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-4.92||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.92|-12.50|<0.001
95710629|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|134.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.956|1009.0|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1009.0|17.956|<0.0001
95710630|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|77.905|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.521|576.85|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||576.85|10.521|<0.0001
95710631|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.527||||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.872|112.73|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||112.73|1.872|0.0105
95710632|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.563||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.152|2.12|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.120|1.152|0.0041
95710633|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.405|12.838|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||12.838|2.405|<0.0001
95710634|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.822||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.216|2.732|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for age per 10 years. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.732|1.216|0.0037
95710635|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.977|32.347|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||32.347|3.977|<0.0001
95710636|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
95710637|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.112|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.068|1.158|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||1.158|1.068|<0.0001
95710638|NCT01066819|191391050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.921||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.686|14.362|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response, combined (RVR vs NO RVR). The logistic regression analysis for mSVR was performed for association between on-treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b.||14.362|1.686|0.0035
95710639|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
95710640|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
95710641|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
95710642|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
95710643|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
95710644|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.441||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.226|0.859|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.859|0.226|0.0162
95710645|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.745||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.111|2.741|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for HCV RNA at BL in log10(IU/mL). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.741|1.111|0.0156
95710646|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.1075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|6.789|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\<=1 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||6.789|0.829|0.1075
95710647|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.8518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.321|2.559|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for ALT ratio at BL (\> 1 - 3 vs \> 3). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||2.559|0.321|0.8518
95710648|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.969||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|0.988|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.988|0.951|0.0012
95710649|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin up to Wk 12), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
95710650|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.848||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.765|0.94|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for treatment duration after VR in weeks. The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment exposure and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants (including total cumulative dose of peginterferon and ribavirin), in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.940|0.765|0.0017
95710651|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.401||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.206|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for Sex (MALE vs FEMALE). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.780|0.206|0.0071
95710652|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.016||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.169|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (RVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.169|0.001|0.0006
95710653|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.076||||0.0255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.008|0.729|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||0.729|0.008|0.0255
95710654|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.184||||0.1501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.018|1.845|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (pEVR vs NO RVR/EVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||1.845|0.018|0.1501
95710655|NCT01066819|191391067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|27.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.729|110.35|||Regression, Logistic|||The statistical analysis is presented for On-treatment response (cEVR vs RVR). The logistic regression analysis for relapse was performed for association between treatment response and baseline factors available in at least 90% of participants, in naive HCV mono-infected mTRT participants receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2a.||110.35|6.729|<0.0001
95710656|NCT00836342|191391070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference in mean carotenoid levels between subjects with a history of squamous cell carcinom and control subjects.||||0.31
95710657|NCT00836342|191391071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95710658|NCT00836342|191391072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.09
95710659|NCT01192139|191391088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.068|1.011|
95710660|NCT01192139|191391088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Means|1.078|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.049|1.108|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.108|1.049|
95710661|NCT01192139|191391088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|104.65||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
95710662|NCT01192139|191391088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|108.74||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment B||||
95710663|NCT01192139|191391088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|100.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
95710664|NCT01192139|191391090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|1.039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.011|1.068|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.068|1.011|
95710665|NCT01192139|191391090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.051|1.11|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.110|1.051|
95710666|NCT01192139|191391090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|102.84||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
95710667|NCT01192139|191391090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|106.89||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
95710668|NCT01192139|191391090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|98.99||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
95710669|NCT01192139|191391091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.021|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.109|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of saxagliptin from the FDC tablet versus saxagliptin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude bioequivalence (BE) with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 94% and 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.109|0.940|
95710670|NCT01192139|191391091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the fed to fasted ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.949|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.873|1.031|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.031|0.873|
95710671|NCT01192139|191391091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|25.68||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
95710672|NCT01192139|191391091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|26.21||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
95710673|NCT01192139|191391091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|27.63||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
95710674|NCT01192139|191391100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Least Squares Geometric Means|0.915|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.836|1.002|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a saxagliptin tablet and a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.002|0.836|
95710675|NCT01192139|191391100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|lack of food effect concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(INF) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean and 90% CI|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.918|1.111|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.111|0.918|
95710676|NCT01192139|191391100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5542.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
95710677|NCT01192139|191391100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5072.9||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
95710678|NCT01192139|191391100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5023.3||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
95710679|NCT01192139|191391101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Mean|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.854|0.992|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.992|0.854|
95710680|NCT01192139|191391101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|1.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.951|1.105|||||Ratio=Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||1.105|0.951|
95710681|NCT01192139|191391101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|5287.1||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment A||||
95710682|NCT01192139|191391101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4866.2||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
95710683|NCT01192139|191391101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|4746.8||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares means for treatment C||||
95710684|NCT01192139|191391102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|BE was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within 0.800 to 1.250 for both Cmax and AUC0-inf of metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.865|1.007|||||Ratio = Treatment B/Treatment A. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|If there was no difference between the bioavailabilities of metformin from the FDC tablet versus metformin from coadministration of a metformin XR tablet under fed conditions, then 24 subjects would have provided 99% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf. If there was a 5% difference, then 24 subjects would have provided 96% and 97% power to conclude BE with respect to Cmax and AUC0-inf, respectively.||1.007|0.865|
95710685|NCT01192139|191391102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Lack of food effect was concluded if the 90% CIs for the test-to-reference ratios of geometric means were entirely contained within (80%, 125%) for both Cmax and AUC(inf) of saxagliptin and metformin.|Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.898|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.969|||||Ration = Treatment B/Treatment C. Geometric least squares means values are presented in other statistical analysis entries.|||0.969|0.832|
95710686|NCT01192139|191391102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|608.41||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment A||||
95710687|NCT01192139|191391102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|567.85||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment B||||
95710688|NCT01192139|191391102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric least squares mean (ng*hr/mL)|632.39||||||95.0||||||||Geometric least squares mean for treatment C||||
95710689|NCT03287960|191391108|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of participants in the population of interest will achieve 10% weight loss.||||||0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||0.0001
95710690|NCT03287960|191391109|OTHER|Two-sided confidence interval (CI) obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that at least 5% of patients in the population of interest would achieve 10% weight loss.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<0.0001
95710691|NCT03287960|191391110|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model with fixed effect for visit, baseline body weight and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-12.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.08|-9.66|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-9.66|-15.08|<.0001
95710692|NCT03287960|191391111|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline daily hunger score and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-42.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-56.35|-29.02|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||||-29.02|-56.35|<.0001
95710693|NCT03287960|191391112|OTHER|Two-sided CI obtained using Clopper-Pearson method and one-sided p-value obtained from exact binomial test, testing that ≥5 % of participants in the population of interest would achieve ≥25 % improvement in daily hunger score.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||||||<.0001
95710694|NCT03287960|191391113|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for visit, baseline waist circumference and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-8.9||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.1|-3.61|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA||||-3.61|-14.10|0.0031
95710695|NCT03287960|191391116|OTHER|Model based summary statistics from longitudinal mixed analysis of variance model with fixed effect for week, baseline BMI and random effect for participant, one sided p-value from model.|Least Squares Mean|-14.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.8|-11.2|||ANOVA|Longitudinal mixed ANOVA model||||-11.20|-16.80|<.0001
95710696|NCT03812224|191391118|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.62|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.52|-0.73|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status, and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.73|-2.52|<0.001
95710697|NCT03812224|191391119|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|4.23|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factors of migraine type and prior migraine preventive treatment status.||||4.23|1.29|0.005
95710698|NCT03812224|191391120|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.24|-0.71|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||Analysis utilizes a generalized linear mixed model which includes treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, stratification factors of migraine type (episodic migraine or chronic migraine) and prior migraine preventive treatment status (ever used or never used), and baseline value as covariates and assumes a first-order auto regression covariance structure.||-0.71|-2.24|<0.001
95710699|NCT00656136|191391136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.7428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.862|1.346||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Primary analysis was performed after 358 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the primary analysis was 08 July 2010.||1.346|0.862|0.7428
95710700|NCT00656136|191391136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.976||||0.3955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.17||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||Final analysis was performed after 526 deaths were observed among randomized patients. The data cut-off date for the final analysis was 04 October 2013.||1.170|0.814|0.3955
95710701|NCT00656136|191391137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|0.475||P-value is one-sided (afatinib vs placebo) log rank test stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)|Regression, Cox|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||0.475|0.306|<0.0001
95710702|NCT00656136|191391138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.61||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|115.0||P-value is derived from logistic regression model adjusted for stratification factors, gender and baseline ECOG score (0, 1 vs 2)|Regression, Logistic|Model stratified by gender and baseline ECOG score (0,1 vs 2)||||115|2.1|0.0071
95710703|NCT04853368|191391149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|4.04||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.04|1.22|0.002
95710704|NCT04853368|191391149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92||0.254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.07|4.67||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||4.67|-2.07|0.254
95710705|NCT04853368|191391149|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.9||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.07|6.77||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Primary analysis of ppFEV1 using MMRM excludes data inconsistent with baseline in terms of the timing of bronchodilator or airway clearance regimen.||||6.77|-5.07|0.402
95710706|NCT04853368|191391151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|9.92||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||9.92|1.07|0.022
95710707|NCT04853368|191391151|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-14.1||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.59|-0.62||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||-0.62|-27.59|0.043
95710708|NCT04853368|191391152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.219||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.219|0.059|0.003
95710709|NCT04853368|191391152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.089||0.475|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.162|0.15||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.150|-0.162|0.475
95710710|NCT04853368|191391152|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.06||||0.352|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.332|0.212||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||Cohort 2: Difference between Triple Therapy and Placebo||0.212|-0.332|0.352
95710711|NCT04853368|191391153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0403||0.017|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0209|0.1568||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.1568|0.0209|0.017
95710712|NCT04853368|191391153|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.103|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1033||0.169|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1814|0.288||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.2880|-0.1814|0.169
95710713|NCT04853368|191391153|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1809|0.4527||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|The LS mean is estimated using the mixed-Effect model repeat measurement method.||||0.4527|-0.1809|0.230
95710714|NCT04853368|191391154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.04|6.78||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.78|2.04|0.002
95710715|NCT04853368|191391154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.42|6.97||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.97|-4.42|0.350
95710716|NCT04853368|191391154|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|1.3||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.75|11.34||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.34|-8.75|0.412
95710717|NCT04853368|191391155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|4.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.19|6.524||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.524|2.190|<0.001
95710718|NCT04853368|191391155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.59||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.449|3.268||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.268|-4.449|0.396
95710719|NCT04853368|191391155|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-2.0||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.724|4.732||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.732|-8.724|0.305
95710720|NCT04853368|191391156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.475||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4443|11.5056||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.5056|1.4443|0.018
95710721|NCT04853368|191391156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|6.019||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.1464|19.1844||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.1844|-7.1464|0.214
95710722|NCT04853368|191391156|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|7.29||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.186|29.766||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||29.7660|-15.1860|0.286
95710723|NCT04853368|191391157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|5.6||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|11.37||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.37|-0.26|0.057
95710724|NCT04853368|191391157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|8.6||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.18|19.4||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||19.40|-2.18|0.088
95710725|NCT04853368|191391157|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|11.2||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.9|29.25||One-sided p-value; p-value \<=0.05 indicates significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Note: The LS mean is estimated using the linear regression on the change in CFQ-R from baseline to day 29.||||29.25|-6.90|0.142
95710726|NCT04880642|191391171|SUPERIORITY|"The null hypothesis was that the there was no difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups and was to be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis i.e. a difference in survival up to Day 60 between the two groups excisted.~The overall 2-sided significance level of 5% was applied to the primary endpoint."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.36|||Log Rank|||||2.36|0.40|0.949
95710727|NCT04880642|191391172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.91|0.301
95710728|NCT04880642|191391173|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1|-1|0.425
95710729|NCT04880642|191391174|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.0|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.0|-9.3|0.671
95710730|NCT04880642|191391175|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.62||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|10.6|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.6|-11.4|0.948
95710731|NCT02987205|191391176|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of this 95% CI was less than the prespecified non-inferiority limit of 0.50, the Test product would be claimed to be non-inferior to the Comparator product.||||||0.013||||||Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0130
95727759|NCT00591253|191425060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.04||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.17|-0.91||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-0.91|-7.17|0.012
95727760|NCT00591253|191425060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.63|-4.48||Postbaseline P-value was from ANCOVA with terms for treatment (as a factor) and baseline value (as a covariate). Unadjusted p-value is presented.|ANCOVA|||||-4.48|-10.63|<0.001
95710732|NCT01716585|191391181|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects administered telaprevir plus peginterferon (pegIFN)/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 70% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 80% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.7|98.1|||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|With a sample size of 450 subjects and assuming that 92% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve SVR12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 80% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion). 95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.||98.1|94.7|
95710733|NCT01716585|191391182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.001
95710734|NCT01716585|191391183|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 75% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|95.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.4|97.9||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and first 3 secondary efficacy endpoints in the order numbered below.|||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||97.9|93.4|
95710735|NCT01716585|191391184|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic HCV treatment-naive subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 84% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|98.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|95.8|100.0|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||100.0|95.8|
95710736|NCT01722552|191391202|EQUIVALENCE|The margin for non-equivalence was 25 percentage points.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.1|||Chi-squared|||The primary analysis was by intent to treat (ITT). This included data for all randomized subjects, with post-intervention adherence measured by the last 30 days of available data; adherence over the entire 6-month intervention period was measured using all available post-intervention data. Our sample size was designed to detect a 25 percentage point difference in proportion achieving optimal adherence post-intervention.||2.1|1.21|<0.05
95710737|NCT00568399|191391203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.987||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Coronary calcium score after treatment compared to baseline|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This was a pilot study without a control group. There were no power calculations (see manuscript).||||0.001
95710738|NCT00724594|191391210|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Term infant cohort : NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resistive index in Middle Cerebral Artery after N-acetylcysteine or saline in the term cohort.||||0.9
95710739|NCT00724594|191391210|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Preterm infant cohort: NAC vs control H0= there will be no difference in resisitive index in MCA after N-acetylcysteine or saline in preterm cohort||||0.9
95710740|NCT00724594|191391211|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||not significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Maternal cohort: NAC versus control l H0= PT will not be different in mothers after NAC or saline||||0.9
95710741|NCT00724594|191391211|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Infant cohort: NAC versus control H0= prothrombin time will not be different in the infants after NAC or saline||||0.9
95710742|NCT00724594|191391212|OTHER|||||||0.072|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||correcting for gestational age at birth||||0.072
95710743|NCT00724594|191391213|OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.014
95710744|NCT00405756|191391214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.278|0.56||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.560|0.278|<0.001
95710745|NCT00405756|191391214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.494|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.347|0.702||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.702|0.347|<0.001
95710746|NCT00405756|191391214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.796||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.589|1.075||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.075|0.589|0.134
95710747|NCT00405756|191391215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.214|0.541|||Log Rank|P-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.||||0.541|0.214|<0.001
95710748|NCT00405756|191391217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.337|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.231|0.493||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.493|0.231|<0.001
95710749|NCT00405756|191391217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.414|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|0.603||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.603|0.284|<0.001
95710750|NCT00405756|191391217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.826||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.125||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.125|0.606|0.223
95710751|NCT00405756|191391218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95710752|NCT00405756|191391218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95710753|NCT00405756|191391218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value calculation excludes the category - Response not evaluable (NE)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95710754|NCT00405756|191391218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.04|5.47|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||5.47|2.04|<0.001
95710755|NCT00405756|191391218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.62|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||2.62|0.95|0.096
95710756|NCT00405756|191391218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|3.37|||Fisher Exact|||Based on dichotomized response: 1) CR or PR 2) SD or PD or NE||3.37|1.33|0.002
95710757|NCT00405756|191391220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.348|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.228|0.531||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.531|0.228|<0.001
95710758|NCT00405756|191391220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.419|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|0.623||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.623|0.281|<0.001
95710759|NCT00405756|191391220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.825||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.571|1.191||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.191|0.571|0.302
95710760|NCT00405756|191391221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.404|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.296|0.553||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.553|0.296|<0.001
95710761|NCT00405756|191391221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.499|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.363|0.688||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||0.688|0.363|<0.001
95710762|NCT00405756|191391221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.827||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.085||The p-value is based on unstratified log rank test of Kaplan Meier curve differences between the treatment groups.|Log Rank|||||1.085|0.630|0.169
95710763|NCT01051856|191391290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.35
95710764|NCT03798366|191391300|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|2.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||2.0|-3.1|0.6757
95710765|NCT03798366|191391301|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.6079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||1.9|-3.3|0.6079
95710766|NCT03798366|191391302|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.1298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||0.6|-4.8|0.1298
95710767|NCT03798366|191391303|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||A negative difference indicates a greater improvement in the GLPG1690 treatment group.|Results were estimated using a mixed-effect model repeated measure using treatment and visit as fixed effects, baseline mRSS score and country as covariates, treatment-visit as interaction terms, and participant as a random effect. The variance-covariance matrix used in the model was compound symmetric.||-0.1|-5.6|0.0411
95710768|NCT01412333|191391331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Rate Ratio|0.532|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.714|||Negative Binomial Model||Rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab ARR/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC ARR.|Adjusted by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||0.714|0.397|< 0.0001
95710769|NCT01412333|191391332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.92|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 12||0.92|0.42|= 0.0169
95710770|NCT01412333|191391333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.051|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.029|0.089|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1 Gd lesion (present or not), baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.089|0.029|< 0.0001
95710771|NCT01412333|191391334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.171|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.225|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T2 lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.225|0.130|< 0.0001
95710772|NCT01412333|191391335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.14|||=|0.4019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.56|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. Rest of World) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||1.56|0.84|= 0.4019
95710773|NCT01412333|191391336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63|||=|0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.98|||Log Rank|||Time to onset of CDP at week 24||0.98|0.40|= 0.037
95710774|NCT01412333|191391337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Adjusted rate ratio|0.357|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.272|0.47|||Negative Binomial Model||Adjusted by baseline T1-hypointense lesion count, baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0) and geographical region (US vs. rest-of-world). Adjusted rate ratio was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted rate/Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted rate.|||0.47|0.272|< 0.0001
95710775|NCT01412333|191391338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|=|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.18|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.180|0.034|= 0.004
95710776|NCT01412333|191391339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|=|0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.241|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures (MMRM) using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in the rate of brain volume loss: 14.9%. Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||0.241|-0.018|= 0.09
95710777|NCT01412333|191391340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|=|0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|2.268|||mixed-effect model of repeated measures|Estimates are from analysis based on mixed-effect model of repeated measures using unstructured covariance matrix.|Difference in adjusted means was calculated as Ocrelizumab adjusted mean at Week 96/ Interferon beta-1a 44 mcg SC adjusted mean at Week 96.|||2.268|0.051|= 0.0404
95710778|NCT01412333|191391341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Relative risk (stratified)|1.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|2.32|||CMH Chi-Squared test (stratified)|Analyzed using CMH test, stratified by Geographical Region (US vs. rest-of-world) and baseline EDSS (\<4.0 vs. \>=4.0).||||2.32|1.41|< 0.0001
95710779|NCT01038635|191391354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Maximal tolerated dose|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Maximal tolerated dose not reached as no dose limiting toxicity documented. MTD considered to be last dose level.|||||
95710780|NCT04542525|191391364|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Test of Binomial Proportion||||P-value is provided from exact test of binomial proportion (one-sided alpha = 2.5%) comparing PanOptix Toric Trifocal IOL Model TFNT20 with historical threshold 29.2 % (rate calculated for a non-toric IOL in Japanese study patients that would qualify for a T2 lens using the same toric calculator).|||<0.0001
95710781|NCT03442595|191391367|OTHER|test of difference in change of A1C between the two groups|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The study was powered to detect a difference of 0.5% in the change in A1C with SD = 2 with 80\& at alopha = 0.;05 with a sample size of 128 in each group (paired t-test). The study reaches 100% power to detect this observed difference with an alpha level of 0.01.||||<0.001
95710782|NCT02364999|191391509|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk difference for confirmed response. EU equivalence margins (95% CI in -13% to 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|0.6531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.608|7.9082|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||7.9082|-6.6080|
95710783|NCT02364999|191391509|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. US equivalence margins (90% CI in 0.73 to 1.37).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8856|1.1625|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1625|0.8856|
95710784|NCT02364999|191391509|EQUIVALENCE|Calculated based on 2-sided Miettinen and Nurminen method without strata for risk ratio for confirmed response. Japan equivalence margins (95% CI in 0.729 to 1.371).|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8628|1.1933|||||PF-06439535 vs Bevacizumab-EU|||1.1933|0.8628|
95710785|NCT02364999|191391512|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.1077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.051|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.051|0.608|0.1077
95710786|NCT02364999|191391513|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.931||||0.4492||95.0|0.777|1.116|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.116|0.777|0.4492
95710787|NCT02364999|191391514|OTHER|Hazard ratio of PF-06439535 versus Bevacizumab-EU; a hazard ratio =1 indicated no difference in progressive disease(PD)/death between 2 reporting groups; \>1 indicated an increase in PD/death in PF-06439535; \<1 indicated an increase in PD/death in bevacizumab-EU.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|1.157|||Log Rank|Stratified by smoking, sex and region.||||1.157|0.729|0.4726
95710788|NCT01566981|191391518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6925|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.4708||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2221|1.1629|||t-test, 2 sided|without adjustments, df=39||"Null hypothesis was that Information and Communication Technology (ICT) supported diabetes care could have significant impact on reduction of baseline glycated hemoglobin (EHbA1c) after 1 year follow-up.~The sample in intervention group was normally distributed, so observed power (two-tailed hypothesis) was 0.45, for Cohen's d= 0.6 and alpha level =0.05"||1.1629|0.2221|0.005
95710789|NCT02177942|191391526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03||||0.6931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.13|||ANCOVA||Difference is test treatment minus control treatment such that a positive difference favours the test treatment.|||0.13|-0.20|0.6931
95710790|NCT03062605|191391537|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.35||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.35
95710791|NCT03062605|191391537|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.29||||||Significant at p\<0.05|McNemar|||Strep Mutans, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.29
95710792|NCT03062605|191391537|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.09||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.09
95710793|NCT03062605|191391537|OTHER|Inequality test||||||0.13||||||Significant at p \< 0.05|McNemar|||Lactobacillus, Baseline-12 Weeks||||0.13
95710794|NCT01084096|191391538|SUPERIORITY|Trial powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-d NM among \<5th %tile for birth weight infants. We used an intention-to-treat approach, with a model-based adaptation of the permutation test. We fitted an individual-level linear model with 28-d NM by site and randomization strata, nested within site, and computed the residual for each individual and mean cluster-level residuals. Next, we used an ANOVA model to test for trt differences between mean residuals for intervention and control clusters.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.06|||t-test, 2 sided|Cluster-level with 62 degrees of freedom \[101 clusters-37 strata-2 treatment groups\].|Calculated from generalized linear models accounting for the cluster-level variance and adjusted for randomization strata. Each stratum corresponds to 2-4 clusters within the site with equal distribution to treatment and control arms.|||1.06|0.87|0.65
95710795|NCT01084096|191391539|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.3546|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3299|0.3792|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Risk difference represents risk in the intervention clusters minus the risk in the control clusters.|The trial was powered to detect a 30% reduction in 28-day neonatal mortality among infants born at less than the 5th percentile of birth weight, based on previous research and an expected increase from 10% to 50% in the use of antenatal corticosteroids among women at risk of preterm birth in the intervention group.||0.3792|0.3299|<0.0001
95710796|NCT01084096|191391540|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|1.58||P-values were calculated from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.58|1.33|<0.0001
95710797|NCT01084096|191391542|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0127
95710798|NCT01084096|191391543|OTHER|Descriptive analysis.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.11||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.22||P-value calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated p value was adjusted for randomization strata.|Generalized linear model with GEE||Relative risk calculated from a generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations to estimate parameters while controlling for cluster correlations. Model-generated measure of risk was adjusted for randomization strata.|||1.22|1.02|0.0181
95710799|NCT02534324|191391562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95710800|NCT02534324|191391563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.15
95710801|NCT01138995|191391564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's combination test|Between group difference for entire sample||||||0.75
95710802|NCT01138995|191391565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.022
95710803|NCT01138995|191391566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95710804|NCT04259749|191391578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.4|||||Adjusted for age, education, lifetime use of tobacco products.|||3.40|0.58|
95710805|NCT04259749|191391578|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|5.63|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||5.63|0.92|
95710806|NCT04259749|191391579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|4.07|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.07|0.61|
95710807|NCT04259749|191391579|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|9.02|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||9.02|1.32|
95710808|NCT04259749|191391580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.68|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||3.68|.59|
95710809|NCT04259749|191391580|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.42|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||6.42|1.05|
95710810|NCT04259749|191391581|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|2.49|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||2.49|.47|
95710811|NCT04259749|191391581|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||3.31|.62|
95710812|NCT04259749|191391582|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products|||4.14|.72|
95710813|NCT04259749|191391582|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco products.|||4.95|.83|
95710814|NCT04259749|191391583|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.18|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.18|.40|
95710815|NCT04259749|191391583|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|5.71|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||5.71|.73|
95710816|NCT04259749|191391584|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|4.75|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.75|.66|
95710817|NCT04259749|191391584|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|8.29|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime use of tobacco|||8.29|1.13|
95710818|NCT04259749|191391585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.7|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.70|.51|
95710819|NCT04259749|191391585|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|6.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||6.31|.85|
95710820|NCT04259749|191391586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|4.26|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.26|.29|
95710821|NCT04259749|191391586|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|7.06|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.06|.57|
95710822|NCT04259749|191391587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.31|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||3.31|.33|
95710823|NCT04259749|191391587|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.43|||||TWO_SIDED|0.95|0.83|7.13|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||7.13|.83|
95710824|NCT04259749|191391588|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.14|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.14|.72|
95710825|NCT04259749|191391588|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|4.95|||||Adjusted for age, education, and lifetime tobacco use|||4.95|.83|
95710826|NCT00784225|191391592|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.79|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||1.79|0.32|0.52
95710827|NCT00784225|191391592|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.77|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with visually significant AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||1.77|0.31|0.51
95710828|NCT00784225|191391593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.91||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.75|0.37
95710829|NCT00784225|191391593|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25|||Regression, Cox|||||1.25|0.84|0.81
95710830|NCT00784225|191391594|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|2.5||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|7.98|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for selenium||7.98|0.79|0.12
95710831|NCT00784225|191391594|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.82|||Regression, Cox|||Statistical analysis for number of participants with advanced AMD in SEE sites during pill-taking for vitamin E||2.82|0.35|0.98
95710832|NCT00784225|191391595|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.64|0.19
95710833|NCT00784225|191391595|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.41|||Regression, Cox|||||1.41|0.83|0.58
95710834|NCT02551874|191391596|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<0.3%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.085||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||Superiority|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline HbA1c, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline HbA1c-by-visit.||||0.03|-0.30|0.118
95710835|NCT02551874|191391597|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.282|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|-3.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline body weight, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline body weight-by-visit.||||-3.09|-4.20|<0.001
95710836|NCT02551874|191391598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline HbA1c and randomization stratification factor (background medication of metformin with or without SU).||||0.62|0.30|<0.001
95710837|NCT02551874|191391599|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.67|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|1.16|0.008
95710838|NCT02551874|191391600|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by lower bound of 95% CI \>-10%.|Adjusted Percent Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|6.54||||||||6.54|-7.42|
95710839|NCT02551874|191391601|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was defined by upper bound of 95% CI \<12 mg/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.98|-13.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for treatment, baseline measurement, randomization stratification factor, visit, treatment-by-visit, and baseline-by-visit.||||-13.00|-26.98|<0.0001
95710840|NCT03521089|191391627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0039
95710841|NCT03521089|191391627|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.00
95710842|NCT03521089|191391627|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
95710843|NCT03521089|191391628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9674|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.9674
95710844|NCT03521089|191391628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
95710845|NCT03521089|191391628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2500
95710846|NCT03521089|191391629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0067|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0067
95710847|NCT03521089|191391629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
95710848|NCT03521089|191391629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
95710849|NCT03521089|191391630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3069|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3069
95710850|NCT03521089|191391630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1875
95710851|NCT03521089|191391630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
95710852|NCT03521089|191391631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2609|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2609
95710853|NCT03521089|191391631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
95710854|NCT03521089|191391631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0156
95710855|NCT03521089|191391632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6951|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.6951
95710856|NCT03521089|191391632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
95710857|NCT03521089|191391632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0938|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0938
95710858|NCT03521089|191391633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3592|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3592
95710859|NCT03521089|191391633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
95710860|NCT03521089|191391633|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95710861|NCT05064449|191391647|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|116.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.3|148.9|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||148.90|91.30|
95710862|NCT05064449|191391648|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.02|130.83|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of Cmax for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed Cmax.||130.83|88.02|
95710863|NCT05064449|191391649|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|123.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|106.21|144.68|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||144.68|106.21|
95710864|NCT05064449|191391650|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|100.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.17|117.38|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUC∞ for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUC∞.||117.38|86.17|
95727761|NCT00591253|191425061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.65||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.65|1.27|0.004
95918182|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.111||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at self selected velocity F(1, 19) = 2.79, ηp2 = .128|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of practice on gait symmetry at Self selected velocity||||.111
95918183|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry, between the two AFO conditions at baseline were analyzed using a paired t test for fast paced velocity||||.260
95710865|NCT05064449|191391651|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|121.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.47|143.79|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Itraconazole / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without itraconazole were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||143.79|103.47|
95710866|NCT05064449|191391652|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|107.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.68|125.77|||||GMR (%) was calculated as 100\*(Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid / Soticlestat Alone).|Linear mixed-effects model was used for analysis, using fixed-effect (treatment), random-effect (participants). The point estimates and the 90% CIs for the GMR of AUClast for soticlestat with versus without mefenamic acid were calculated by exponentiation of the point estimates of the differences between treatments and the corresponding 90% CIs from the analyses on the ln-transformed AUClast.||125.77|91.68|
95710867|NCT05064449|191391653|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.003|||=|0.2305|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.001|0.126|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Itraconazole) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% CI was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.126|-0.001|=0.2305
95710868|NCT05064449|191391654|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.096|||=|0.583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.128|0.018|||Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test||Difference was calculated as (Soticlestat + Mefenamic Acid) - Soticlestat Alone. The difference of medians (treatment effect) and the corresponding 90% was estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann method and Walsh Averages.|||0.018|-0.128|=0.5830
95710869|NCT00772031|191391673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.4|||ANCOVA|covariate adjustments: study site, baseline mod-to-sev 28-day headache-rate, topiramate use, medication overuse, and anti-depressive medications use.|Topiramate plus placebo mean reduction minus topiramate plus propranolol reduction|The study was designed to enroll 250 subjects to provide at least 90% power to detect a 3-day difference and 87% power to detect a 2.5-day difference in 28-day moderate-to-severe headache rate reductions at six months, assuming a type I error rate of 0.05, a two-sided test, a 10% loss to follow-up and a standard deviation of within-person change in days with headache of six.||2.4|-1.8|0.77
95710870|NCT00772031|191391674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.78||||||||2.78|0.75|
95710871|NCT00772031|191391675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||||95.0|0.5|2.02||||||||2.02|0.50|
95710872|NCT00772031|191391677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.75||0.91||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.91
95710873|NCT00945945|191391725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.75||P-value for Change from Baseline to Endpoint (BOCF).|ANCOVA|Main Effect Model: Change = Treatment + Pooled Investigator + Baseline (Type III sums of squares).|Least Squares Mean Difference = DLX30-PLA minus PLA-DLX60.|||0.75|-0.07|0.105
95710874|NCT02194699|191391736|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|0.84||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.34|0.53|0.4656
95918184|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.113||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between type of AFO and practice time for gait symmetry at fast paced velocity FPV F(1, 19) = 2.76,, ηp2 = .127|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait symmetry at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA||||.113
95710875|NCT02194699|191391736|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.13||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.5|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.50|0.85|0.4126
95710876|NCT02194699|191391736|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|15.83||||0.4656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.71|47.01|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||47.01|-33.71|0.4656
95710877|NCT02194699|191391736|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate ratio|1.03||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.31|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate ratio): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.31|0.81|0.8027
95710878|NCT02194699|191391736|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate during the 52-week double-blind treatment period on tralokinumab was equal to the corresponding exacerbation rate on placebo.|Rate reduction|-3.14||||0.8027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.46|19.08|||Negative binominal||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER (rate reduction): FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||19.08|-31.46|0.8027
95727762|NCT00591253|191425061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.31||P-value for response criteria for systolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.31|1.13|0.016
95710879|NCT02194699|191391737|SUPERIORITY||Least square (LS) Mean difference|1.86||||0.6033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|8.88|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||8.88|-5.16|0.6033
95710880|NCT02194699|191391737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.37||||0.1276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|7.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||7.70|-0.97|0.1276
95710881|NCT02194699|191391737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|2.95||||0.1164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|6.62|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of % change from baseline in pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis on patients with a baseline pre-dose/pre-BD FEV1 assessment||6.62|-0.73|0.1164
95710882|NCT02194699|191391738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.2||||0.1456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.07|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.07|-0.47|0.1456
95710883|NCT02194699|191391738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.04||||0.6548|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.2|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.20|-0.13|0.6548
95710884|NCT02194699|191391738|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.04||||0.5763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.1|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline asthma symptom score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom score at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.10|-0.18|0.5763
95710885|NCT02194699|191391739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.27||||0.0874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.57|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.57|-0.04|0.0874
95710886|NCT02194699|191391739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.01||||0.9083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.17|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.17|-0.20|0.9083
95710887|NCT02194699|191391739|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.4506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.22|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline AQLQ(S)+12 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for AQLQ(S)+12 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.22|-0.10|0.4506
95727763|NCT00591253|191425062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.08||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.08|1.11|0.018
95727764|NCT00591253|191425062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.89||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|3.16||P-value for response criteria for diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic diastolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.16|1.13|0.015
95918185|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.918||||||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.001|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of AFO on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.918
95710888|NCT02194699|191391740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.27||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.01|-0.53|0.0400
95710889|NCT02194699|191391740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.16|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.16|-0.16|0.9735
95710890|NCT02194699|191391740|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.08||||0.2432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.05|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline ACQ-6 score, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of change in mean score from baseline for ACQ-6 at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.05|-0.21|0.2432
95710891|NCT02194699|191391741|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.39||||0.0576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.03|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.03|0.15|0.0576
95710892|NCT02194699|191391741|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.5249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.48|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|"Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.48|0.46|0.5249
95710893|NCT02194699|191391741|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.1155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.1|||Negative binomial||Covariates in the model included treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group at baseline and number of exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation or ER treatment (yes/no) in the year before the study.|Comparison of AAER associated with an ER/UC visit or hospitalisation: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.10|0.41|0.1155
95710894|NCT02194699|191391743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.95||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.06|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||-0.06|-1.85|0.0360
95710895|NCT02194699|191391743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.15||||0.5864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||0.70|-0.40|0.5864
95710896|NCT02194699|191391743|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.17||||0.4689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.29|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline rescue medication use, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in rescue medication use at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||0.29|-0.63|0.4689
95710897|NCT02194699|191391744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|6.15||||0.5094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|24.43|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||24.43|-12.13|0.5094
95727765|NCT00591253|191425063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|4.24||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.24|1.31|0.004
95918186|NCT02693834|191795697|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.077||||||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 3.50, ηp2 = .155|repeated measures MANOVA|||The main effect of practice on gait symmetry at fast paced velocity walk was assessed with repeated measures MANOVA||||.077
95710898|NCT02194699|191391744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.02||||0.5984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|14.26|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.26|-8.22|0.5984
95710899|NCT02194699|191391744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|7.84||||0.3971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|26.0|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||26.00|-10.32|0.3971
95710900|NCT02194699|191391744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.59||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.65|14.83|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||14.83|-7.65|0.5310
95710901|NCT02194699|191391744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.46||||0.4764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|12.97|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (morning), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in morning PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||12.97|-6.06|0.4764
95710902|NCT02194699|191391744|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|3.88||||0.4221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|13.37|||Repeated measures analysis||Model included fixed categorical effects of baseline PEF (evening), treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in evening PEF at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||13.37|-5.60|0.4221
95710903|NCT02194699|191391745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-5.04||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.21|1.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||1.14|-11.21|0.1099
95710904|NCT02194699|191391745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.46||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|4.25|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|"Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.~REML based repeated measures analysis. A variable for the biomarker population (positive, negative) as well as a treatment-by-biomarker population interaction term and a 3-way biomarker population-by-treatment-by-visit interaction term was included in the analysis model."||4.25|-3.33|0.8112
95710905|NCT02194699|191391745|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.19||||0.4645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|2.01|||Repeated measures analysis||Fixed categorical effects of baseline number (%) of awakenings, treatment group, geographical region, age group, periostin group, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction and number of asthma exacerbations in year before study as a fixed covariate.|Comparison of mean change from baseline in number (%) of awakenings at Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo. REML based repeated measures analysis.||2.01|-4.40|0.4645
95710906|NCT02194699|191391746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.33|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker positive population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.33|0.44|0.3440
95918187|NCT02693834|191795698|OTHER|A repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.209||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.69, ηp2 = .082|Repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at self select velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.209
95710907|NCT02194699|191391746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: Biomarker negative population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.46|0.75|0.7768
95710908|NCT02194699|191391746|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.5276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimate of each odds ratio was obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for geographical region, age group and periostin group at baseline.|Comparison of number of patients with ≥ 1 asthma exacerbations up to Week 52: FAS population; Tralo 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.||1.21|0.69|0.5276
95710909|NCT01101321|191391774|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|104.96|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||104.96|96.14|
95710910|NCT01101321|191391775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.44|101.73|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.73|95.44|
95710911|NCT01101321|191391776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare (test vs reference) and the 90% confidence intervals were estimated for the ratios (test/reference)|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|98.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.42|101.7|||ANOVA||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80%-125%.|||101.70|95.42|
95710912|NCT03938857|191391782|OTHER||Slope|-0.1088295|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4728041||0.814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.035508|0.8178494|||Mixed Models Analysis||Estimated value represents interaction between treatment and days.|Placebo group compared to combined Dexmedetomidine groups.||0.8178494|-1.035508|0.814
95710913|NCT02516605|191391810|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.86||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.68|1.09|||ANCOVA|||||1.09|0.68|0.293
95710914|NCT02516605|191391810|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|0.6|||ANCOVA|||||0.60|0.37|<0.001
95710915|NCT02516605|191391810|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.26|0.4|||ANCOVA|||||0.40|0.26|<.001
95710916|NCT02516605|191391810|OTHER||adjusted fold change from baseline|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|0.47|||ANCOVA|||||0.47|0.27|<.001
95710917|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.0|6.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||6.0|-7.0|0.898
95710918|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.0|10.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||10.0|-4.0|0.593
95710919|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.0||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||4.0|-11.0|0.509
95710920|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|7.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||7.0|-5.0|0.591
95710921|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-2.0||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||4.0|-12.0|0.702
95710922|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.838|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||8.0|-10.0|0.838
95710923|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|4.0||||0.297|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|8.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||8.0|-3.0|0.297
95710924|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.0||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-14.0|0.236
95710925|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-6.5||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-15.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-15.0|0.192
95710926|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|9.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||9.0|-2.0|0.605
95710927|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.0||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.0|-1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||-1.0|-21.0|0.037
95710928|NCT02516605|191391820|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-3.5||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.0|3.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||3.0|-11.0|0.397
95710929|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.342|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|-1.0|0.342
95710930|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.699
95710931|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.0||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||0.0|-3.0|0.377
95710932|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||2.0|0.0|0.132
95710933|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|1.0||||0.292|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|0.0|0.292
95710934|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.979
95710935|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||4.0|0.0|0.102
95710936|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||2.0|-1.0|0.717
95710937|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|1.000
95710938|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|2.0||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|5.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 28||||5.0|0.0|0.142
95710939|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.975|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 56||||1.0|-1.0|0.975
95710940|NCT02516605|191391821|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.0||||0.602|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|Day 84||||1.0|-2.0|0.602
95710941|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Mean difference from baseline|-2.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.436||0.743|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.91|11.34|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||11.34|-16.91|0.743
95710942|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-14.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.229||0.093|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.85|-0.28|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||-0.28|-27.85|0.093
95710943|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.71||0.376|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.81|22.38|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.38|-6.81|0.376
95710944|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.187||0.448|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.36|22.43|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||22.43|-8.36|0.448
95710945|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-15.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.192||0.039|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.3|-3.19|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||-3.19|-27.30|0.039
95710946|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.592||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.31|-2.54|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-2.54|-31.31|0.054
95710947|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.434||0.185|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.78|25.46|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||25.46|-2.78|0.185
95710948|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.226||0.351|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.05|21.52|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||21.52|-6.05|0.351
95710949|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|16.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.707||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.2|31.38|||ANCOVA|day 21||||31.38|2.20|0.059
95710950|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.184||0.132|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|29.44|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||29.44|-1.35|0.132
95710951|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.19||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.8|10.31|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||10.31|-13.80|0.809
95710952|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-10.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.59||0.21|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.29|3.48|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||3.48|-25.29|0.210
95710953|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|13.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.963||0.086||90.0|0.58|27.25|||ANCOVA|day 7||||27.25|0.58|0.086
95710954|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.787||0.951|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.57|13.53|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||13.53|-12.57|0.951
95710955|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.244||0.545|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.79|18.83|||ANCOVA|day 21||||18.83|-8.79|0.545
95710956|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.697||0.982|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.38|14.77|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||14.77|-14.38|0.982
95710957|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-13.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.797||0.047|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.21|-2.43|||ANCOVA|day 56||||-2.43|-25.21|0.047
95710958|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-18.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.11||0.029|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.81|-4.64|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-4.64|-31.81|0.029
95710959|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|26.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.799||0.004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.97|41.44|||ANCOVA|Day 7||||41.44|11.97|0.004
95710960|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.032||0.37|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.96|23.29|||ANCOVA|Day 14||||23.29|-6.96|0.370
95710961|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.014||0.558|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.86|22.66|||ANCOVA|Day 21||||22.66|-10.86|0.558
95710962|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|8.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.911||0.418|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.34|27.15|||ANCOVA|Day 28||||27.15|-9.34|0.418
95710963|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-11.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.69||0.156|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-23.95|1.8|||ANCOVA|Day 56||||1.80|-23.95|0.156
95710964|NCT02516605|191391822|OTHER||Median difference from baseline|-16.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.961||0.064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-31.94|-1.92|||ANCOVA|Day 84||||-1.92|-31.94|0.064
95710965|NCT01072500|191391841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.98|||Regression, Cox|To compare interventions, we used a likelihood ratio test from a Cox regression model, stratified by field center and sex.||||0.98|0.69|0.03
95710966|NCT01072500|191391842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.91|||Regression, Cox|||||0.91|0.57|0.006
95710967|NCT00266799|191391844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.54|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of ITT Population||1.54|0.76|0.6686
95710968|NCT00266799|191391844|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Non-inferiority was tested using the upper limit of the 95% CI for the hazard ratio as quantitative estimate of the minimum effect of PLD relative to capecitabine. Margin for non-inferiority was set to 1.143, reflecting an acceptable difference in TTP of 0.75 months assuming an expected median TTP of up to 6 months with the comparator. If the estimate was below margin, PLD was to be considered non-inferior to capecitabine assuming sufficient sensitivity to detect the drug effects of~interest."|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.4472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.65|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of ITT Population||1.65|0.80|0.4472
95710969|NCT00266799|191391844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.5508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.77|||Log Rank|||By Investigator Assessment of TTP Population||1.77|0.74|0.5508
95710970|NCT00266799|191391844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.21||||0.4088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.89|||Log Rank|||By RECIST Criteria of TTP Population||1.89|0.77|0.4088
95710971|NCT00266799|191391845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1726||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By Investigator Assessment||||0.1726
95710972|NCT00266799|191391845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6541||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||By RECIST Criteria||||0.6541
95710973|NCT00266799|191391846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.5265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.58|||Log Rank|||||1.58|0.79|0.5265
95710974|NCT00266799|191391847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.29||||0.0841||95.0|||||Log Rank|p-value also given for Hazard Ratio||||||0.0841
95710975|NCT00203294|191391862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Separate models were fit to the change scores for headache pain, nausea and vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, and neck pain.|Fisher Exact|||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||||<0.01
95710976|NCT00203294|191391862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare interval and ordinal variables between groups.||Fisher's exact test was used to compare nominal variables between groups.||||<0.01
95710977|NCT01948791|191391871|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of MeanP-MeanB+1.40, the post-baseline noninferiority to baseline can be concluded. If the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference between the baseline score and post-baseline score falls on the left of 0, superiority can be concluded.|||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||The hypothesis to test the non-inferiority of post-baseline change in ADAS-Cog from baseline was: H0: μP - μB ≥ 1.40, Ha: μP - μB \< 1.40 where μP and μB are the ADAS-Cog score (actual) at 16 weeks of Rivastigmine treatment and the baseline ADAS-Cog score (actual), respectively.||||<0.001
95710978|NCT01234337|191391876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.973|||=|0.405618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.779|1.217||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in interactive voice response system \[IVRS\]).|Log Rank|||PFS was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.005, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95 percent (%) CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors. A Hazard ratio of less than (\<) 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib + Capecitabine over Placebo + Capecitabine.||1.217|0.779|=0.405618
95710979|NCT01234337|191391877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.195|||=|0.930088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.943|1.513||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS). OS was compared using a stratified log-rank test, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease.|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by randomization factors.|At the time of PFS final analysis, it was OS interim analysis (IA) with 285 total death events. According to protocol specified O'Brien-Fleming type alpha spending function and 285 death events at IA, the prespecified alpha for this analysis was 0.0075 (one-sided). A Hazard ratio \< 1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.513|0.943|=0.930088
95710980|NCT01234337|191391878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||=|0.2105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.723|1.146||One-sided p-value from log rank test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio (sorafenib + capecitabine / placebo + capecitabine) and its 95% CIs were calculated using the Cox model, stratified by the above factors.|TTP was compared using a stratified log-rank test with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. A Hazard ratio \<1 indicates superiority of Sorafenib+Capecitabine over Placebo+Capecitabine.||1.146|0.723|=0.2105
95710981|NCT01234337|191391879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|1.93|||=|0.257412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|7.77||One-sided p-value from Cochran Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR and 95% CI based on Cochran Mantel-Haenszel Test stratified by region, hormone receptor status, number of previous chemotherapies for metastatic disease. Difference = (Placebo + Capecitabine) - (Sorafenib + Capecitabine).||7.77|-3.9|=0.257412
95710982|NCT01234337|191391880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|-2.34|||=|0.284674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|5.72||One-sided p-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (stratified per randomization as in IVRS).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"DCR and 95% CI based on general association Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic with one-sided alpha of 0.025 stratified by number of prior chemotherapies for metastatic disease, hormone receptor status, and region. Difference = Placebo + Capecitabine - Sorafenib + Capecitabine."||5.72|-10.4|=0.284674
95710983|NCT01234337|191391882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.441|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.967|0.086||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.086|-0.967|
95710984|NCT01234337|191391883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-0.025|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.002||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.002|-0.053|
95710985|NCT01234337|191391884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LSM Difference|-1.696|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.619|0.227||||||Estimate of Difference (least squares mean \[LSM\] difference) = (Sorafenib + Capecitabine) - (Placebo + Capecitabine). The difference between the two treatment groups was evaluated with an analysis of covariance model using the baseline score and the same stratification factors as used for randomization (IVRS) as covariates.||0.227|-3.619|
95710986|NCT01234337|191391885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.92|1.4||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: 5-fluorouracil||1.40|0.92|
95710987|NCT01234337|191391885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.56||||||Statistical analysis for Cmax: Capecitabine||1.56|1.07|
95710988|NCT01234337|191391886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.3||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): 5-fluorouracil||1.30|0.95|
95710989|NCT01234337|191391886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.22|1.58||||||Statistical analysis for AUC(0-tlast): Capecitabine||1.58|1.22|
95710990|NCT00247962|191391912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|22.99|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95710991|NCT00247962|191391913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.719|||||||ANCOVA|||baseline||||0.719
95710992|NCT00247962|191391913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||week 16||||0.010
95710993|NCT02120469|191391917|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Dose level B1 (eribulin 1.1 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks with everolimus 5 mg daily) was defined as the highest dose with acceptable toxicity (RP2D).|||
95710994|NCT01981096|191391928|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.011
95710995|NCT01981096|191391929|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.055||||||The a priori threshold was alpha = .05.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for age and baseline pain levels||This analysis represents the between group comparisons (i.e., FIT Teens vs. CBT) from baseline assessment to the 3-month follow-up, the primary endpoint of the trial.||||.055
95727766|NCT00591253|191425063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|5.13||P-value for joint response criteria for systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure was from a logistic regression with treatment as a factor and baseline clinic systolic blood pressure as a covariate. The unadjusted p-value is presented.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.13|1.57|<0.001
95727767|NCT00362401|191425064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||The comparison of the three valve groups with respect to the objective sound measures was made by the one-way ANOVA method. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference on intensity of heart valve sounds among the three groups.||||<0.05
95710996|NCT02140762|191391948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|67.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|65.0|69.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||69|65|<0.0001
95710997|NCT02140762|191391948|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Model|||vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
95710998|NCT02140762|191391948|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED||||||generalized linear model.|||Vaccine effectiveness \<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
95710999|NCT02140762|191391948|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
95711000|NCT02140762|191391948|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|59.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness \<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity strains in ABCWY)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity strains in ACWY)\*100\].||||
95711001|NCT02140762|191391949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine effectiveness|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|41.0|47.0|||General Linear Model (GLM)||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the LL of the 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the second injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100.The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||47|41|< 0.0001
95711002|NCT02140762|191391949|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711003|NCT02140762|191391949|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|22.7|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711004|NCT02140762|191391949|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711005|NCT02140762|191391949|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:4 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95727768|NCT01841359|191425065|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.90
95727769|NCT01841359|191425066|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95711006|NCT02140762|191391950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|46.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.0|49.0|||Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR).The Poisson Distribution and Log Link options were used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects:treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤ 10%. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for VE is \>10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 1 month after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1-(% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group / % of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\]x100. The combined VE across all strains will be computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||49|43|<0.0001
95711007|NCT02140762|191391950|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711008|NCT02140762|191391950|OTHER|For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].|Vaccine Effectiveness|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30%||||
95711009|NCT02140762|191391950|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711010|NCT02140762|191391950|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|40.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711011|NCT02140762|191391951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Effectiveness|20.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.0|23.0||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|Generalized Linear Model||VE is based on the relative risk (RR). The POISSON DISTRIBUTION and LOG LINK options was used in the generalized linear model to compute the log10 RR and the corresponding confidence interval. Fixed effects: treatment group, strain (and center).|H0 (Null Hypothesis): Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) ≤10%. If the lower limit of 95% CI for VE is \> 10% the null hypothesis is to be rejected and effectiveness declared. The VE at 4 months after the 2nd injection for each strain is defined as \[1 - (% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group/% of subjects without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenACWY group)\] x 100. The combined VE across all strains was computed by mean of a generalized linear model.||23|16|< 0.0001
95711012|NCT02140762|191391951|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<10% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711013|NCT02140762|191391951|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<30% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711014|NCT02140762|191391951|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|20.9|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<60% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711015|NCT02140762|191391951|OTHER|Vaccine effectiveness at one month after the second vaccination against each of the endemic US N.meningitidis serogroup B strains. Each individual strain data was analysed separately with treatment group as only independent variable in the model.|Vaccine Effectiveness|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Vaccine effectiveness\<100% For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated. For each strain, vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the MenABCWY compared to MenACWY was evaluated as VE= \[1- (% not killed/without bactericidal activity at 1:8 dilution in MenABCWY group)/(% of not killed strains/without bactericidal activity in ACWY group)\*100\].||||
95711016|NCT04524663|191391983|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.59||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|9.32|||Regression, Linear|||||9.32|-8.14|0.89
95727770|NCT01841359|191425067|OTHER||||||=|0.20492|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||= 0.20492
95711017|NCT04524663|191391984|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|18.9||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.98|34.83|||Regression, Linear|||||34.83|2.98|0.02
95711018|NCT04524663|191391985|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.69||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|4.1|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||4.10|0.70|0.24
95711019|NCT04524663|191391986|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95711020|NCT04524663|191391987|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.33|||Cox proportional hazards model|||||1.33|0.32|0.24
95711021|NCT01519700|191392002|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority limit: -1 day Power: 90% Confidence level: 97.5% Randomization ratio: 1:1 (EP2006:Neupogen)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5|-0.26||||||The one-sided 97.5% Confidence Interval: \[-0.26, ∞).||||-0.26|
95711022|NCT00612573|191392038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.85||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|10.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||10.3|-14.8|0.779
95711023|NCT00612573|191392038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.9||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|11.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||11.7|-13.7|0.983
95711024|NCT00612573|191392038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Change from Baseline|-0.92|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.97||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|27.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||27.3|-1.5|0.087
95711025|NCT00612573|191392039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.807||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.807
95711026|NCT00612573|191392039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.075
95711027|NCT00612573|191392039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.039
95711028|NCT00612573|191392040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.212||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.212
95711029|NCT00612573|191392040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.505||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.505
95711030|NCT00612573|191392040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.399||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.399
95711031|NCT00612573|191392041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.276||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.276
95711032|NCT00612573|191392041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.231
95711033|NCT00612573|191392041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by Investigational Site||||||0.081
95711034|NCT00542321|191392068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference between proportions|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|Chi-Square = 0.750, df = 1||Pearson Chi-Square Test for difference between groups||||1.00
95711035|NCT00542321|191392069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|52.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Alpha = .05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||There will be no difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between groups.||||1.0
95711036|NCT00542321|191392070|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.451
95711037|NCT00542321|191392071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.43||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95711038|NCT00542321|191392072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rank sums|56.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95711039|NCT04138758|191392079|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.85|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of a first COPD exacerbation.||0.85|0.68|
95711040|NCT04138758|191392080|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.97|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of first hospitalization for community-acquired pneumonia.||0.97|0.57|
95711041|NCT04138758|191392081|OTHER|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.27|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|||0.27|0.19|
95711042|NCT04138758|191392082|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.26|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of escalation.||0.26|0.19|
95711043|NCT04138758|191392083|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.51|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.51|0.42|
95711044|NCT04138758|191392084|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.49|||||Hazard Ratio lower than 1 favors Tiotropium + Olodaterol.|Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to assess the effect of Tiotropium + Olodaterol combination versus the Long-acting beta agonist / inhaled corticosteroid therapy combination on the risk of any element of a composite outcome including exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, or escalation.||0.49|0.41|
95711045|NCT01111058|191392103|SUPERIORITY||Difference in survival proportions|0.0022||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.33|||Comparison of Kaplan-Meier estimates|Used Greenwood standard errors||||0.33|-0.33|0.90
95711046|NCT01111058|191392103|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.54
95711047|NCT01111058|191392104|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.086|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.086
95711048|NCT03287089|191392112|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|2.43|||Chi-squared|||||2.43|0.49|0.84
95711049|NCT03287089|191392113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.44
95711050|NCT03287089|191392114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.68
95727771|NCT01841359|191425068|OTHER|||||||0.2655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2655
95727772|NCT01841359|191425069|OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95727773|NCT01841359|191425070|OTHER|||||||0.597|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.597
95727774|NCT01841359|191425071|OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95727775|NCT01841359|191425072|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.14
95711051|NCT00721136|191392128|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test in cases of nonparametric distribution. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers or percentages and analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test or χ2-test as appropriate. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using STATA 10.1 (College Station, TX). A two-tailed alpha of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.|||
95711052|NCT00732199|191392131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T- test was conducted to compare the 2 groups.||||<0.05
95711053|NCT00732199|191392132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|Compares control vs hypoxia trials vs recovery post-hypoxia||||||<0.05
95711054|NCT00732199|191392133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95711055|NCT00732199|191392134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95711056|NCT02176226|191392150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95711057|NCT02176226|191392151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95711058|NCT01351415|191392166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.84||||0.1044|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.0|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test and Hazard Ratio (HR) are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to first PD and smoking status.||1.00|0.71|0.1044
95711059|NCT01351415|191392167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.83||||0.0573|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7|0.98|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.98|0.70|0.0573
95711060|NCT01351415|191392167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.63||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|0.83|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||PFS 3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.83|0.49|0.0045
95711061|NCT01351415|191392168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in response rate|0.0237||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0156|0.063|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0630|-0.0156|0.0810
95711062|NCT01351415|191392169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated difference in Disease Control|0.0326||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0288|0.094|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test|||The stratification factors for Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.0940|-0.0288|0.0218
95711063|NCT01351415|191392170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|0.9|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.90|0.09|0.0600
95711064|NCT01351415|191392172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.79||||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|0.95|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP2: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.95|0.65|0.0311
95711065|NCT01351415|191392172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.69||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.52|0.92|||Stratified Log-Rank test|||TTP3: The stratification factors for Log-Rank test are the type of planned 2nd-line SoC treatment, the number of cycles of Bevacizumab maintenance treatment prior to PD1 and the smoking status.||0.92|0.52|0.0326
95711066|NCT03525613|191392221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4114||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6397|-0.1831|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.1831|-0.6397|0.0004
95711067|NCT03525613|191392221|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.318||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5423|-0.0937|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area × analysis visit.||-0.0937|-0.5423|0.0055
95711068|NCT03525613|191392222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.9015|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3026|-0.5004|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.5004|-1.3026|<0.0001
95711069|NCT03525613|191392222|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.7426||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1282|-0.357|||MMRM model|||Model included treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) + analysis visit + baseline presence of CNV in the fellow eye (yes or no) + analysis visit × treatment + baseline GA lesion area (\<7.5 mm\^2 or ≥7.5 mm\^2) × analysis visit.||-0.3570|-1.1282|0.0002
95711070|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2234||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3522|-0.0946|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0946|-0.3522|0.0007
95727776|NCT01841359|191425073|OTHER|||||||0.412|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.412
95727777|NCT01841359|191425074|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.890
95727778|NCT01841359|191425075|OTHER|||||||0.69|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.69
95711071|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1618||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2874|-0.0361|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 6: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0361|-0.2874|0.0116
95711072|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1862||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3406|-0.0318|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0318|-0.3406|0.0181
95711073|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1526||||0.0467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.303|-0.0023|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 6 to Month 12: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0023|-0.3030|0.0467
95711074|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2265||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.0834|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0834|-0.3696|0.0019
95711075|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.1586||||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3009|-0.0164|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 12 to Month 18: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0164|-0.3009|0.0288
95711076|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2341||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4071|-0.0611|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.0611|-0.4071|0.0080
95711077|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.2459||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3886|-0.1031|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Month 18 to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.1031|-0.3886|0.0007
95711078|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.8702|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.274|-0.4664|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.4664|-1.2740|<0.0001
95711079|NCT03525613|191392223|SUPERIORITY|Baseline GA lesion area x Time (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Baseline GA lesion area x Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous). A heterogeneous autoregressive covariance matrix was used to model within-subject errors.|Mean Difference|-0.7189||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1039|-0.3339|||MMRM model|||Estimates for Baseline to Month 24: Model included Treatment + Baseline GA lesion area (\< 7.5 mm\^2 or \>= 7.5 mm\^2) + Time (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) + Presence of CNV in the fellow eye (Yes or No) + Time (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 6 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 12 (continuous) x Treatment + Time Spline at Month 18 (continuous) x Treatment +||-0.3339|-1.1039|0.0003
95711080|NCT01012037|191392296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.97|-0.52|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.52|-0.97|<0.0001
95711081|NCT01012037|191392296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.02|-0.58|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.58|-1.02|<0.0001
95711082|NCT01012037|191392296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.07|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.19|-0.07|
95711083|NCT01012037|191392297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.48|-0.83|<0.0001
95711084|NCT01012037|191392297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.84|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.49|-0.84|<0.0001
95711085|NCT01012037|191392297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||||95.0|-0.1|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.10|-0.10|
95711086|NCT01012037|191392298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.0|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-0.54|-1.00|<0.0001
95711087|NCT01012037|191392298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.05|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-0.59|-1.05|<0.0001
95711088|NCT01012037|191392298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-defined non-inferiority margin was +0.35|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||||95.0|-0.08|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||0.18|-0.08|
95711089|NCT01012037|191392299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0029||95.0|-22.7|-4.7|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-4.7|-22.7|0.0029
95711090|NCT01012037|191392299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg qd versus Placebo||-8.8|-26.7|0.0001
95711091|NCT01012037|191392299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6||||95.0|-1.0|9.2|||ANCOVA||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||9.2|-1.0|
95711092|NCT01012037|191392300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4||0.0002||95.0|-25.3|-7.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||-7.8|-25.3|0.0002
95711093|NCT01012037|191392300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-27.6|-10.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-10.2|-27.6|<0.0001
95711094|NCT01012037|191392300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||||95.0|-2.6|7.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||7.3|-2.6|
95711095|NCT01012037|191392301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0653||95.0|-20.6|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Placebo||0.6|-20.6|0.0653
95711096|NCT01012037|191392301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.0047||95.0|-25.8|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Linagliptin 5mg qd versus Placebo||-4.7|-25.8|0.0047
95711097|NCT01012037|191392301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||||95.0|-0.7|11.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||No non-inferiority margin was pre-defined for FPG|Linagliptin 2.5mg bid versus Linagliptin 5mg qd||11.3|-0.7|
95711098|NCT02237898|191392310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95711099|NCT01809327|191392324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.657|-0.269|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.269|-0.657|0.001
95711100|NCT01809327|191392324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.28|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.280|-0.670|0.001
95711101|NCT01809327|191392324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.594|-0.207|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.207|-0.594|0.001
95711102|NCT01809327|191392324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|-0.169|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.169|-0.557|0.001
95711103|NCT01809327|191392324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.133|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.133|-0.258|0.001
95711104|NCT01809327|191392324|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|P value corresponds to a comparison that canagliflozin is noninferior to Metformin XR by a margin of 0.35%.|Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.307|0.082|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.082|-0.307|0.001
95711105|NCT01809327|191392325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.2|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.2|-1.6|0.016
95711106|NCT01809327|191392325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.1|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.1|-2.6|0.002
95711107|NCT01809327|191392325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.001
95711108|NCT01809327|191392325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.4|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-1.4|-2.9|0.001
95711109|NCT01809327|191392326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.58||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.37|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||2.37|1.06|0.027
95711110|NCT01809327|191392326|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|3.33|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||||3.33|1.46|0.016
95711111|NCT01809327|191392327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.882||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.641|-0.182|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||-0.182|-3.641|0.060
95711112|NCT01809327|191392327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.889||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.058|0.431|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||||0.431|-3.058|0.147
95711113|NCT01809327|191392328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|9.5|||ANCOVA|||||9.5|1.2|0.147
95711114|NCT01809327|191392328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|8.5|||ANCOVA|||||8.5|0.2|0.147
95711115|NCT01809327|191392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|-3.7||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|3.4|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.4|-11.1|0.608
95711116|NCT01809327|191392329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehman Estimate|1.3||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|10.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||10.0|-7.3|0.806
95711117|NCT02176005|191392335|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0093|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.006|0.0144|||General linear model|||||0.0144|0.0060|<.000001
95711118|NCT02176005|191392336|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.0096|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0061|0.0151|||General linear model|||||0.0151|0.0061|<.000001
95711119|NCT02176005|191392337|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9811||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8608|1.1182|||General linear model|||||1.1182|0.8608|0.806
95711120|NCT02176005|191392338|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.8785||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.0155|||General linear model|||||1.0155|0.7600|0.139
95711121|NCT02176005|191392339|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|1.1763||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9982|1.3861|||General linear model|||||1.3861|0.9982|0.104
95711122|NCT02176005|191392340|OTHER||Contrast (B/A)|0.9391||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7969|1.1066|||General linear model|||||1.1066|0.7969|0.519
95711123|NCT00852761|191392374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
95711124|NCT00852761|191392374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||1.0000
95711125|NCT00852761|191392375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7298||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7298
95711126|NCT00852761|191392375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
95711127|NCT00852761|191392375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 15 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0060
95711128|NCT00852761|191392376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0332||||||Data apply to Day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.0332
95711129|NCT00852761|191392378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3101||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 3 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3101
95711130|NCT00852761|191392378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||95.0||||This is the result for the Day 8 analysis.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
95711131|NCT00852761|191392378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0135||||||This is the p value for day 15|Chi-squared|||||||0.0135
95711132|NCT00852761|191392380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1449||||||P value at day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1449
95711133|NCT00852761|191392380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1634||||||P value at day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.1634
95711134|NCT00852761|191392380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5454||||||P value at day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.5454
95711135|NCT00852761|191392381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
95711136|NCT00852761|191392381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7242||||||This is the p value for day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.7242
95711137|NCT00852761|191392381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6715||||||This is the p value for day 3.|Chi-squared|||||||0.6715
95711138|NCT00852761|191392382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4858||||||P value on day 8.|Chi-squared|||||||0.4858
95711139|NCT00852761|191392382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3001||||||P value on day 15.|Chi-squared|||||||0.3001
95711140|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.9||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.07||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.07|0.39|0.599
95711141|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.07||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.59||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.59|0.43|0.442
95711142|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.68||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.57||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.57|0.30|0.823
95711143|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.97||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.97|0.33|0.690
95711144|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.75||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.71||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.71|0.33|0.764
95711145|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.56||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.56|0.27|0.841
95918188|NCT02693834|191795698|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.32||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity at self selected velocity: F(1, 19) = 1.05, ηp2 = .05|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.32
95711146|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7.This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.35|0.702
95711147|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.91||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|2.47||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.47|0.33|0.578
95711148|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.71||||0.783|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.7||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.70|0.29|0.783
95711149|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.64||||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.87||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.87|0.22|0.797
95711150|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.58||||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.26|0.27|0.919
95711151|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.55||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.43||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.43|0.21|0.892
95711152|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.47||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.93||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.93|0.11|0.860
95711153|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.05||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 100ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.86|0.38|0.463
95711154|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.35||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.42||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.42|0.09|0.932
95711155|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.17||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 200ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.17|0.16|0.952
95711156|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.81||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.81|0.12|0.873
95711157|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.43||||0.953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.16||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 500ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.16|0.16|0.953
95711158|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.26||||0.281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.82||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.82|0.56|0.281
95711159|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.35||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.35|0.42|0.500
95711160|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.76||||0.744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.77|0.32|0.744
95711161|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.21||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|3.04||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.04|0.49|0.334
95711162|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.81||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.85||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.85|0.35|0.698
95711163|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.18||||0.353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.88||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL6 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.88|0.48|0.353
95711164|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|1.01||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.26||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.26|0.45|0.489
95711165|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.46||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.23||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.23|0.17|0.940
95711166|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.01||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.4||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.40|0.42|0.495
95711167|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.82||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.37|0.28|0.647
95711168|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.87||||0.646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.86||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||1.86|0.40|0.646
95711169|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.74||||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of IL8 concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.90|0.29|0.741
95711170|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio9|2.18||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|7.95||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 7.|||7.95|0.62|0.109
95711171|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.37||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.45||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 700ug/placebo for day 14.|||3.45|0.55|0.240
95711172|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.1||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|4.44||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 7.|||4.44|0.27|0.447
95711173|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|1.03||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|2.74||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 1000ug/placebo for day 14.|||2.74|0.39|0.472
95711174|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.78||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.9||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 7|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 7. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 7.|||2.90|0.21|0.698
95711175|NCT02130635|191392415|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Median Ratio|0.53||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.37||Posterior Probability the True Treatment Ratio \<1 for Day 14|Bayesian repeated measures||Comparison of TNFalpha concentrations at Day 14. This is the baseline corrected ratio of 2000ug/placebo for day 14.|||1.37|0.21|0.911
95711176|NCT01628718|191392464|NON_INFERIORITY|The NI margin for CAPS-IV scores was established a priori, based on a calculation of a reliable difference from baseline to posttreatment CAPS-IV scores from a previous trial (10 points). If the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the estimate does not contain the NI margin, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. .|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.33||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|9.44||one-tailed|Regression, Linear||Mean difference is the difference in mean CAPS-IV change scores (pre-post) between AD and CPT-C.|Null hypothesis: AD is inferior to CPT Alternative hypothesis: AD is non-inferior to CPT-C||9.44|-10.10|.05
95711177|NCT01899729|191392475|OTHER|Used mixed effects model||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95711178|NCT01711359|191392476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Noninferiority is concluded if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in response rate is \>-12%|Newcombe-Wilson method|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|24.1|||||Estimation Parameter: Newcombe-Wilson method without continuity correction for difference in the response rate (Baricitinib minus Methotrexate).|||24.1|5.5|
95711179|NCT03922945|191392504|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95711180|NCT03922945|191392505|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0017|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0017
95711181|NCT03922945|191392512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7465
95711182|NCT00911508|191392523|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.15||||||||1.15|0.65|
95711183|NCT00911508|191392524|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.21||||||||1.21|0.60|
95711184|NCT00911508|191392525|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.93||||||||0.93|0.74|
95711185|NCT00911508|191392526|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
95711186|NCT00911508|191392527|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.68||||||||1.68|0.53|
95711187|NCT00911508|191392528|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51||||||||1.51|0.51|
95711188|NCT00911508|191392529|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.72||||||||1.72|0.33|
95711189|NCT00911508|191392530|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.09||||||||3.09|0.41|
95711190|NCT00911508|191392531|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.6||||||||0.60|0.45|
95711191|NCT00911508|191392532|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|0.97||||||||0.97|0.77|
95711192|NCT00911508|191392533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.7|6.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||6.9|3.7|<0.001
95711193|NCT00911508|191392533|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Years||4.8|2.1|<0.001
95711194|NCT00911508|191392534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.2|-2.3|0.001
95711195|NCT00911508|191392534|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.9|-1.9|0.001
95711196|NCT00911508|191392535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||12 Month||-1.1|-2.0|<0.001
95711197|NCT00911508|191392535|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||5 Year||-0.4|-1.7|<0.001
95711198|NCT00313716|191392537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo2 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo2 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 2 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups. Using a one-sided alpha of 0.15, a sample size of 62 subjects in the Epo 2 regimen group and 100 subjects in the placebo group provided 91% power to test the futility hypothesis.||||.01
95918189|NCT02693834|191795698|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.001||||||Main effect of practice on gait velocity at self selected velocity:F(1, 19) = 14.38, ηp2 = .431|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity||||.001
95711199|NCT00313716|191392537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13||||||"H0: Proportion of participants expected to have a favorable GOS outcome in the Epo1 group - in Placebo group is \>= 0.2.~H1: Proportion in Epo1 group - in Placebo group \< 0.2"|Futility analysis|||The primary analysis plan was a futility trial of the Epo 1 regimen arm. We hypothesized that 30% of subjects in the placebo group would have a favorable outcome at six months and there would be no interaction between the Epo and the transfusion threshold groups.||||0.13
95711200|NCT00313716|191392537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||2-sample test of proportions|||We hypothesized that 40% of the patients in the TT7 group would have a favorable GOS score and that there would be no interaction between the Epo and TT groups. Assuming a 2-sided test with an alpha level of 0.05, we estimated that a sample size of 200 patients would provide 80% power to detect a 20% absolute increase in the GOS score for the TT10 group.||||.34
95711201|NCT00313716|191392538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||.06
95711202|NCT00313716|191392539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Log Rank|||||||.25
95711203|NCT00313716|191392539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Log Rank|||||||.75
95711204|NCT00313716|191392539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Log Rank|||||||.72
95711205|NCT00313716|191392540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.45|||Regression, Cox|||||3.45|.93|.08
95711206|NCT00313716|191392541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.05|||2-sample test - equality of proportions|||||.05|-.22|.26
95711207|NCT04308668|191392552|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|2.2|||Fisher Exact||Values represent percentages. Experimental treatment arm compared with the placebo control arm.|||2.2|-7.0|0.35
95711208|NCT04308668|191392553|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|-0.61|0.117
95711209|NCT01266967|191392561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.3|52.6|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||52.6|29.3|<0.0001
95711210|NCT01266967|191392561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|37.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.3|49.8|||Exact Test||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with OIR.|||49.8|25.3|<0.0001
95711211|NCT01432236|191392587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|-0.31||Primary analysis was two-sided and performed at the 0.05 significance level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Satterthwaite's approximation was used to estimate denominator degrees of freedom.||Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-0.91|0.0001
95711212|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.33|-3.87||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the FIQ total score. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-3.87|-9.33|<0.0001
95711213|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.0078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.11||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for parameter 'physical impairment'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.11|-0.74|0.0078
95711214|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.33||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'feel good'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.33|-1.36|0.0014
95711215|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.18||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above for parameter 'work missed'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.18|-1.01|0.0050
95711216|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.75||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.36||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'do work'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.36|-1.14|0.0002
95711217|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.28||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'pain'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.28|-1.00|0.0006
95711218|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.0315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.04||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'fatigue'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.04|-0.85|0.0315
95711219|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'rested'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.35|-1.17|0.0003
95711220|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.31||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'stiffness'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.31|-1.11|0.0007
95711221|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.17||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'anxiety'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.17|-0.93|0.0048
95711222|NCT01432236|191392589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.53||Analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis presented above is for the parameter 'depression'. Analysis was performed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.53|-1.32|<0.0001
95711223|NCT01432236|191392590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0637|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using Cochran Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.0637
95711224|NCT01432236|191392591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The PGIC variable was analyzed using CMH test with modified ridit transformation.||||0.1160
95711225|NCT01432236|191392592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 30% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0007
95711226|NCT01432236|191392592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|||||This secondary analyses was conducted using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||Statistical analysis presented above is for 50% responders. Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model using sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors. Logit link transformation was used for the model.||||0.0205
95711227|NCT01432236|191392593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.84||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||0.84|0.31|<0.0001
95711228|NCT01432236|191392594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.81||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.66|-2.96||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-2.96|-12.66|0.0018
95711229|NCT01432236|191392595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8||||0.0117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.29|-1.31||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors||-1.31|-10.29|0.0117
95711230|NCT01432236|191392596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.35||||0.0511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|16.74||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||16.74|-0.04|0.0511
95711231|NCT01432236|191392597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.03||This was done using a two-sided test with α=0.05. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors. Analyzed as a count variable using a generalized linear model assuming a Poisson distribution and utilizing a log link transformation.||0.03|-0.29|0.1139
95711232|NCT01432236|191392599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.5||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-A (anxiety). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||-0.50|-1.40|<0.0001
95711233|NCT01432236|191392599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|-0.39||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis presented in the above table is for HADS-D (depression). Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and subject within sequence and within-subject error as random factors.||-0.39|-1.37|0.0005
95711234|NCT01432236|191392601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.06||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.06|-0.02|0.3854
95711235|NCT01432236|191392603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.55||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.97||Two-sided test with α=0.05 was used. No corrections to alpha to control for potential inflation of Type I error resulting from multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyzed using a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within-participant error as random factors.||0.97|0.14|0.0085
95711236|NCT03474380|191392633|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a negative binomial distribution and a log link was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods) and site. The final model was adjusted for Veteran characteristics, including age, gender, race, marital status, service connection, rural status, and chronic disease burden concurrence score (Nosos).|rate ratio (RR)|0.58||||0.091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.09|||generalized linear mixed model (GLMM)||Rate ratio, rate of days not in the community in 6 month intervals in intervention versus usual care.|Days not at home in 6 month intervals.||1.09|0.31|0.091
95711237|NCT03474380|191392634|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.8|-0.7|0.98
95711238|NCT03474380|191392635|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||1.0|-0.2|0.167
95711239|NCT03474380|191392636|SUPERIORITY|A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was fit including a time-varying indicator for when iHI-FIVES program launched, fixed effects for time (indicator variables for each of the time periods), site, and indicator for the time point of the survey, and an indicator for the interaction of the time point of the survey with the time-varying indicator for treatment. The final model was adjusted for caregiver characteristics.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is the estimated mean difference from baseline to 3 months between usual care and intervention.|||0.1|-1.0|0.122
95711240|NCT02600715|191392642|EQUIVALENCE|Test for differences in continuous variables.||||||0.94||||||Two-sided alpha of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.94
95711241|NCT02643420|191392654|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|-0.031|||t-statistics|The p-values are based on the calculated t-statistics from the bootstrapped sample mean and standard deviation.||||-0.031|-0.266|<0.0001
95711242|NCT02643420|191392655|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.94|||Negative binomial regression|||||0.94|-1.43|0.685
95711243|NCT02643420|191392656|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.2||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.56|||Asymptotic normality assumption|P-value was obtained based upon asymptotic normality assumption on the log10 transformed data.||||1.56|0.93|0.155
95711244|NCT02643420|191392657|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||||10.8|-8.6|0.435
95711245|NCT02643420|191392658|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.116|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 2||0.116|-0.032|<0.0001
95711246|NCT02643420|191392658|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.026|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|0.085|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 3||0.085|-0.032|<0.0001
95711247|NCT02643420|191392658|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority to be used in the study is 0.62 day. The non-inferiority of SPI-2012 to Pegfilgrastim was declared if the upper bound of 95% CI of the difference in mean DSN between the treatment arms was \<0.62 days.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.036|0.089|||t-statistics|||DSN in Cycle 4||0.089|-0.036|<0.0001
95711248|NCT02643420|191392659|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|10.0|||Fisher Exact|||||10.0|-9.5|1.000
95711249|NCT02643420|191392660|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 2||9.8|-9.7|1.000
95711250|NCT02643420|191392660|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.6||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|11.3|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 3||11.3|-8.2|0.201
95711251|NCT02643420|191392660|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference|1.0||||0.232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|10.8|||Fisher Exact|||FN in Cycle 4||10.8|-8.7|0.232
95711252|NCT02127970|191392663|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority hypothesis test was to be a one-sided hypothesis test performed at the 2.5% level of significance. If the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in responder rates is greater than -10%, then the single-dose dalbavancin regimen was to be declared non-inferior to the two dose dalbavancin regimen.|Difference|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.8|||||For the difference in clinical responder rates (single-dose group minus two dose group), the 95% CI was calculated using the Miettinen and Nurminen method without adjustment.|||2.8|-8.5|
95711253|NCT01856920|191392672|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha= 0.05||||||0.376|||||||Rank-Sum|||||||0.3760
95711254|NCT02790476|191392674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|-17.63||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (288.36-347.65 = -59.29) and control (318.60-350.09 = -31.49) arms, resulting in a difference of -27.80.|1-3 months post intervention||-17.63|-38.20|<0.05
95711255|NCT02790476|191392674|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.42|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|-6.55||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (167.83-347.65 = -179.83) and control (182.67-350.09 = -167.41) arms, resulting in a difference of -12.42.|||-6.55|-18.40|<0.01
95711256|NCT02790476|191392675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.45-3.74 = -0.29) and control (3.45-4.59= -0.64) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.35.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.22|-0.92|0.224
95711257|NCT02790476|191392675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.33||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (3.00-3.74 = -0.74) and control (3.15-4.59= -1.44) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.70.|Change in mean number of =\> 50 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.33|-1.08|<0.001
95711258|NCT02790476|191392675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.17||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.00-2.14 = -0.14) and control (2.20-2.55= -0.35) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.21.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.17|-0.59|0.279
95711259|NCT02790476|191392675|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (1.71-2.14 = -0.43) and control (1.74-2.55= -0.81) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.38.|Change in mean number of \> 90 MME prescriptions pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||-0.12|-0.63|<0.01
95711260|NCT02790476|191392676|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Pre-intervention values were trimmed at 95% with bootstrapped means and confidence intervals.|This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean DME in the letter (72.3-76 = -3.7) and control (82-82.9 = -0.9) arms, resulting in a difference of -1.6.|||-0.1|-3.2|<0.05
95711261|NCT02790476|191392678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.29||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.44-3.72 = -1.28) and control (2.26-3.51= -1.25) arms, resulting in a difference of 0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 1-3 months post-intervention||0.29|-0.23|0.823
95711262|NCT02790476|191392678|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.14||The threshold for statistical significance is p=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This measure is a difference-in-difference, calculated by subtracting the pre- and post-intervention difference in mean MME in the letter (2.08-3.72 = -1.64) and control (1.84-3.51= -1.67) arms, resulting in a difference of -0.03.|Change in mean number of new patients pre- to 4-12 months post-intervention||0.14|-0.20|0.692
95711263|NCT01729559|191392712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on a previous trial showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of unfractionated heparin (UFH) every 12 hr. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.5||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|15.8||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|Analysis was performed in a subset of patients who received at least one follow-up venous duplex ultrasound of the lower extremities.||15.8|-2.9|0.025
95727779|NCT02151461|191425076|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.0435||||||Baseline plasma glucose AUC(0-3hr) is adjusted as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0435
95727780|NCT02151461|191425076|OTHER|||||||0.065|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.065
95727781|NCT02151461|191425076|OTHER|||||||0.1216|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1216
95711264|NCT01729559|191392712|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 10% noninferiority margin was selected based on these data showing a difference in the incidence of DVT of 13% with the use of 30 mg of enoxaparin every 12 hours compared to 5,000 U of UFH every 12 hours. To achieve 90% power using an a priori margin of 10% with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, a total of 182 patients (91 in each arm) was required. This analysis was performed in the entire sample.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.1||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|7.7||One-tailed test of the cumulative VTE incidence between treatment groups.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Unadjusted cumulative incidence values between the two treatment groups were subtracted to calculate the risk difference for VTE between groups. This difference was compared to the a priori 10% margin of difference using the 95% confidence interval.|"Analysis was performed in the total sample of eligible patients and who received their assigned treatment (referred to as the randomized treated sample) ."||7.7|-1.6|0.025
95711265|NCT01014442|191392748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.305||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.25|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2500|-0.8300|0.2649
95711266|NCT01014442|191392748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.405||||0.3113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|42.78|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||42.7800|-10.2000|0.3113
95711267|NCT01014442|191392748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.305||||0.2953|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.8100|0.2953
95711268|NCT01014442|191392749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.29||||0.1308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.99|0.41|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4100|-2.9900|0.1308
95711269|NCT01014442|191392749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-10.845||||0.4886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.5|20.79|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||20.7900|-31.5000|0.4886
95711270|NCT01014442|191392749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.2218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.6000|0.2218
95711271|NCT01014442|191392750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.87||||0.0886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-3.7900|0.0886
95711272|NCT01014442|191392750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-30.76||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.97|-6.36|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-6.3600|-54.9700|0.0220
95711273|NCT01014442|191392750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.56||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.27|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.2700|-1.0200|0.0008
95711274|NCT01014442|191392751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|3.945||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.2300|0.2500|0.0318
95711275|NCT01014442|191392751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-7.59||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.19|30.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.7000|-51.1900|0.7144
95711276|NCT01014442|191392751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.27||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.88|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of AcMPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.8800|-0.3100|0.3930
95711277|NCT01014442|191392752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|17.08||||0.3002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|74.32|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||74.3200|-16.5000|0.3002
95711278|NCT01014442|191392753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-25.24||||0.0334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.25|-2.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.2900|-53.2500|0.0334
95711279|NCT01014442|191392754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-23.805||||0.1151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.27|5.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.9700|-52.2700|0.1151
95711280|NCT01014442|191392755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-15.63||||0.5974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.88|30.56|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.5600|-63.8800|0.5974
95711281|NCT01014442|191392756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0005||||0.5466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00103|0.00259|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00259|-0.00103|0.5466
95711282|NCT01014442|191392756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00728||||0.3223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00707|0.03161|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.03161|-0.00707|0.3223
95711283|NCT01014442|191392756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00026||||0.2108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0007|0.00012|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00012|-0.00070|0.2108
95711284|NCT01014442|191392756|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000112||||0.4334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000014|0.0000462|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called a Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000462|-0.0000140|0.4334
95711285|NCT01014442|191392757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00081||||0.1511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00216|0.0003|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00030|-0.00216|0.1511
95711286|NCT01014442|191392757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00695||||0.4131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0205|0.01103|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01103|-0.02050|0.4131
95711287|NCT01014442|191392757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00017||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00046|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00046|0.2677
95711288|NCT01014442|191392757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000185||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000394|-0.000005|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000050|-0.0000394|0.0173
95711289|NCT01014442|191392758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00063||||0.3784|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0023|0.00084|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00084|-0.00230|0.3784
95711290|NCT01014442|191392758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.01602||||0.0942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03229|0.00297|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00297|-0.03229|0.0942
95711291|NCT01014442|191392758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00037||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00062|-0.00015|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00015|-0.00062|0.0032
95711292|NCT01014442|191392758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000126||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000328|-0.0000091|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0000091|-0.0000328|0.1760
95711293|NCT01014442|191392759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0043||||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00027|0.00833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00833|-0.00027|0.0509
95711294|NCT01014442|191392759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00567||||0.8262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03414|0.02671|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.02671|-0.03414|0.8262
95711295|NCT01014442|191392759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00023||||0.4345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0003|0.0007|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00070|-0.00030|0.4345
95711296|NCT01014442|191392759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.6472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000586|0.0000364|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized Cmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000364|-0.0000586|0.6472
95711297|NCT01014442|191392760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.5745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-1.9500|0.5745
95711298|NCT01014442|191392760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8||||0.2003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3333|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.3333|0.2003
95711299|NCT01014442|191392760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.5||||0.0929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0833|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.0833|0.0929
95711300|NCT01014442|191392760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.0823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0667|0.0000|0.0823
95711301|NCT01014442|191392761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0417||||0.8106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.7333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.7333|-0.5000|0.8106
95711302|NCT01014442|191392761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.1667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1667|-0.1667|1.0000
95711303|NCT01014442|191392761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0667||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3333|1.4667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.4667|-0.3333|0.6311
95711304|NCT01014442|191392761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1667|0.0167|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0167|-0.1667|0.4330
95711305|NCT01014442|191392762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.5833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5833|-1.1667|1.0000
95711306|NCT01014442|191392762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0833||||0.4947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.0833|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0833|-2.0000|0.4947
95711307|NCT01014442|191392762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1667||||0.4425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9667|0.2|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2000|-1.9667|0.4425
95711308|NCT01014442|191392762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.0333|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0333|-0.0500|0.9720
95711309|NCT01014442|191392763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0333||||0.8834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1667|0.7|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.7000|-1.1667|0.8834
95711310|NCT01014442|191392763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.8333||||0.0386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.2000|0.0386
95711311|NCT01014442|191392763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.525||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6167|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000|-2.6167|0.0558
95711312|NCT01014442|191392763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.15||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2333|-0.0667|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Tmax of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0667|-0.2333|0.0082
95711313|NCT01014442|191392764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.13||||0.5224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.5|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.5000|-0.2600|0.5224
95711314|NCT01014442|191392764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|11.16||||0.2088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.29|30.29|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||30.2900|-5.2900|0.2088
95711315|NCT01014442|191392764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.165||||0.1794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.08|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0800|-0.4500|0.1794
95711316|NCT01014442|191392765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.125||||0.4027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.19|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1900|-0.3800|0.4027
95711317|NCT01014442|191392765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-16.09||||0.0875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.35|6.39|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.3900|-29.3500|0.0875
95711318|NCT01014442|191392765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.2||||0.0112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0500|-0.3500|0.0112
95711319|NCT01014442|191392766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.215||||0.0818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.05|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0500|-0.5600|0.0818
95711320|NCT01014442|191392766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-14.03||||0.0945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|2.94|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.9400|-26.9000|0.0945
95711321|NCT01014442|191392766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.19||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0400|-0.4100|0.0081
95711322|NCT01014442|191392767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.36||||0.3289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.28|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2800|-1.1400|0.3289
95711323|NCT01014442|191392767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-20.3||||0.1243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|4.71|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.7100|-49.3900|0.1243
95711324|NCT01014442|191392767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.03||||0.8704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.23|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Cmin of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2300|-0.2800|0.8704
95711325|NCT01014442|191392768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|5.22||||0.4043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|24.49|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||24.4900|-5.0100|0.4043
95711326|NCT01014442|191392769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.44||||0.893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.07|8.01|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.0100|-6.0700|0.8930
95711327|NCT01014442|191392770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.935||||0.0819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.31|1.11|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1100|-14.3100|0.0819
95711328|NCT01014442|191392771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.205||||0.0414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.27|-0.07|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.0700|-19.2700|0.0414
95918190|NCT02693834|191795698|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.28||||||The above p value is for the interaction effects between the type of AFO and practice time at fast paced velocity: F( 1, 19) = 1.24, ηp2 = .61|repeated measures MANOVA|||The significance of differences in gait velocity at fast paced velocity, between the two AFO conditions and two practice conditions were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA.||||.280
95711329|NCT01014442|191392772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|69.7186||||0.1552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.4659|162.9545|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||162.9545|-23.4659|0.1552
95711330|NCT01014442|191392772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.7836||||0.6057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2675|2.5529|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.5529|-3.2675|0.6057
95711331|NCT01014442|191392772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|299.1021||||0.0188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.5869|695.1789|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||695.1789|79.5869|0.0188
95711332|NCT01014442|191392773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|88.959||||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7876|209.0183|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||209.0183|-5.7876|0.0659
95711333|NCT01014442|191392773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.4456||||0.7842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1366|2.292|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2.2920|-3.1366|0.7842
95711334|NCT01014442|191392773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|121.3737||||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-233.6483|560.0069|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||560.0069|-233.6483|0.4072
95711335|NCT01014442|191392774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|207.9933||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2442|355.1739|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||355.1739|71.2442|0.0040
95711336|NCT01014442|191392774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|2.6186||||0.0689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1999|6.7766|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||6.7766|-0.1999|0.0689
95711337|NCT01014442|191392774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|635.7812||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.4696|2793.7642|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||2793.7642|49.4696|0.0306
95711338|NCT01014442|191392775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|4.7477||||0.9029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.5212|59.8304|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||59.8304|-73.5212|0.9029
95711339|NCT01014442|191392775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0077||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6739|3.9521|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.9521|-3.6739|0.9692
95711340|NCT01014442|191392775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-149.7962||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-644.4526|311.9735|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Vz of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||311.9735|-644.4526|0.3744
95711341|NCT01014442|191392776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|7.8422||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.911|18.4444|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||18.4444|-3.9110|0.1362
95711342|NCT01014442|191392776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1609||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5693|0.271|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2710|-0.5693|0.4325
95711343|NCT01014442|191392776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|47.2686||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.197|112.7806|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||112.7806|4.1970|0.0316
95711344|NCT01014442|191392777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estmator|19.0536||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|35.3852|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||35.3852|-0.4250|0.0572
95711345|NCT01014442|191392777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.3541||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2524|1.1097|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||1.1097|-0.2524|0.3198
95711346|NCT01014442|191392777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|54.0322||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7706|160.3469|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||160.3469|-6.7706|0.0845
95711347|NCT01014442|191392778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|25.0037||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2373|43.5102|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||43.5102|8.2373|0.0048
95711348|NCT01014442|191392778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.4297||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.034|0.9925|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.9925|0.0340|0.0277
95711349|NCT01014442|191392778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|318.5455||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|154.1902|526.1716|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||526.1716|154.1902|0.0002
95711350|NCT01014442|191392779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.579||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5052|11.6346|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||11.6346|-14.5052|0.9417
95711351|NCT01014442|191392779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1817||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1954|0.6246|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.6246|-0.1954|0.2941
95711352|NCT01014442|191392779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.9076||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8234|109.9321|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||CL of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||109.9321|-84.8234|0.8170
95711353|NCT01014442|191392780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-2.4102||||0.2798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5642|3.0044|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.0044|-8.5642|0.2798
95711354|NCT01014442|191392780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|72.7203||||0.4063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-107.1596|393.5295|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||393.5295|-107.1596|0.4063
95711355|NCT01014442|191392780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-3.6042||||0.0441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1854|-0.1887|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.1887|-8.1854|0.0441
95711356|NCT01014442|191392781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-5.8077||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7302|0.0033|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0033|-11.7302|0.0510
95711357|NCT01014442|191392781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-171.159||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-361.4437|171.9652|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||171.9652|-361.4437|0.2733
95711358|NCT01014442|191392781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-1.9621||||0.0718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8456|0.2067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.2067|-4.8456|0.0718
95711359|NCT01014442|191392782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-8.6964||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7713|-4.6498|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-4.6498|-13.7713|0.0002
95711360|NCT01014442|191392782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-268.9537||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-506.7782|-77.397|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-77.3970|-506.7782|0.0058
95711361|NCT01014442|191392782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-4.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1455|-2.6133|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-2.6133|-7.1455|<0.0001
95711362|NCT01014442|191392783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|1.7477||||0.7144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.101|14.6563|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||14.6563|-12.1010|0.7144
95711363|NCT01014442|191392783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-156.3255||||0.3413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-526.0765|195.8348|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||195.8348|-526.0765|0.3413
95711364|NCT01014442|191392783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.888||||0.6251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0288|4.2273|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||4.2273|-3.0288|0.6251
95711365|NCT01014442|191392784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|24.315||||0.2342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0292|79.365|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||79.3650|-16.0292|0.2342
95711366|NCT01014442|191392785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-13.5592||||0.1964|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.395|5.4825|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||5.4825|-37.3950|0.1964
95711367|NCT01014442|191392786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-22.7878||||0.0672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.8217|3.7573|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||3.7573|-44.8217|0.0672
95711368|NCT01014442|191392787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-21.4737||||0.2453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.1567|8.5708|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||8.5708|-64.1567|0.2453
95711369|NCT01014442|191392788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00237||||0.1362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00734|0.00106|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00106|-0.00734|0.1362
95711370|NCT01014442|191392788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.04797||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08467|0.26322|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 MPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.26322|-0.08467|0.4325
95711371|NCT01014442|191392788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00311||||0.0316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00645|-0.00029|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00029|-0.00645|0.0316
95711372|NCT01014442|191392788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0000158||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000134|0.0000552|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000552|-0.0000134|0.3269
95711373|NCT01014442|191392789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00383||||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00761|0.0001|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00010|-0.00761|0.0572
95711374|NCT01014442|191392789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.09626||||0.3198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25269|0.11464|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.11464|-0.25269|0.3198
95711375|NCT01014442|191392789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00131||||0.0845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00352|0.00013|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00013|-0.00352|0.0845
95711376|NCT01014442|191392789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.00001||||0.1769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.000025|0.0000043|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000043|-0.0000250|0.1769
95711377|NCT01014442|191392790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0049||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00876|-0.00148|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.00148|-0.00876|0.0048
95918191|NCT02693834|191795698|OTHER|repeated measures MANOVA||||||0.072||||||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed at self selected velocity:FPV F(1, 19) = 3.63, ηp2 =.16|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of AFO on gait velocity was analyzed for self selected velocity||||.072
95918192|NCT02693834|191795698|OTHER|Repeated measures MANOVA|||||<|0.001||||||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity for fast paced velocity: F(1, 19) = 23.73, ηp2 = .555|repeated measures MANOVA|||Main effect of Practice on gait velocity was analyzed for fast paced velocity||||<.001
95711378|NCT01014442|191392790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.14764||||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31026|-0.01067|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||-0.01067|-0.31026|0.0277
95711379|NCT01014442|191392790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0035||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00476|0.00168|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00168|-0.00476|0.0002
95711380|NCT01014442|191392790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000138||||0.1661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000295|0.0000047|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000047|-0.0000295|0.1661
95711381|NCT01014442|191392791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00054||||0.9417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01037|0.01042|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.01042|-0.01037|0.9417
95711382|NCT01014442|191392791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.1461||||0.2941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39951|0.12988|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of MPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.12988|-0.39951|0.2941
95711383|NCT01014442|191392791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.00033||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.00361|0.00421|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of AcMPAG at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.00421|-0.00361|0.8170
95711384|NCT01014442|191392791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodge-Lehmann estimator|-0.0000239||||0.1927|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0000594|0.0000154|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Dose-Normalized AUC0-12 of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0000154|-0.0000594|0.1927
95711385|NCT01014442|191392792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.1616||||0.0821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0121|0.4188|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 4. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.4188|-0.0121|0.0821
95711386|NCT01014442|191392793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.0427||||0.3628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0455|0.1221|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 8. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1221|-0.0455|0.3628
95711387|NCT01014442|191392794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|0.001||||0.9873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1152|0.1173|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 20. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.1173|-0.1152|0.9873
95711388|NCT01014442|191392795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hodges-Lehmann estimator|-0.0857||||0.2178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.0265|||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Free Fraction of Free MPA at Day 90. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank sum test; corresponding p-value and point estimate (Hodges-Lehmann estimator) were calculated. The point estimator derived by sending the confidence level to zero is called as Hodges-Lehmann estimator.||0.0265|-0.1870|0.2178
95711389|NCT01014442|191392801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in rates|-1.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|22.1|||Fisher Exact|||||22.1|-24.9|1.0000
95711390|NCT01797302|191392819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88||||||interaction term from model group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.88
95711391|NCT01797302|191392820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||interaction term for group\*time|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.85
95711392|NCT01797302|191392821|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.61
95711393|NCT01797302|191392822|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.24
95711394|NCT01797302|191392823|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0117||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0117
95918193|NCT00600743|191795699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|128.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|41.4||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t test following ANOVA for difference between drug and placebo - There were 3 doses, and the value reported is for the highest and only effective dose|t-test, 2 sided|The overall error term was used to compare differences between placebo and drug||Repeated measures ANOVA||||0.007
95711395|NCT01797302|191392824|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.53
95711396|NCT01797302|191392825|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0256||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0256
95711397|NCT01797302|191392826|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0945||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0945
95711398|NCT01797302|191392827|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.12
95711399|NCT01797302|191392828|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0094||||||interaction term group\*time from linear mixed model|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0094
95711400|NCT03894501|191392884|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048|||||||ANOVA|||||||.048
95711401|NCT03894501|191392885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.037
95711402|NCT03894501|191392886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.024
95711403|NCT03894501|191392887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.005
95711404|NCT03894501|191392888|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||ANOVA|||||||.013
95711405|NCT03894501|191392889|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||ANOVA|||||||.035
95711406|NCT02607865|191392945|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
95711407|NCT02607865|191392945|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.4|-0.6|< 0.0001
95711408|NCT02607865|191392945|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
95711409|NCT02607865|191392945|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.4|< 0.0001
95711410|NCT02607865|191392945|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand). A value of 0.3% (the non-inferiority margin) was added to imputed values at week 26 for the oral semaglutide treatment arm only.|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.0856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.1|= 0.0856
95711411|NCT02607865|191392945|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.3||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.3|0.0|= 0.0080
95727782|NCT02151461|191425077|OTHER|A mixed-effects model for analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze changes from Baseline in incremental plasma glucose AUC at Week 4 in the Day 28 Evaluable population. The model will include factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867|||||||ANCOVA|The model includes factors for treatment group and fasting plasma glucose stratum.||||||0.8867
95727783|NCT02151461|191425077|OTHER|||||||0.7641|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.7641
95727784|NCT02151461|191425077|OTHER|||||||0.2518|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.2518
95711412|NCT02607865|191392945|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
95711413|NCT02607865|191392945|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.5|-0.7|<0.0001
95711414|NCT02607865|191392945|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
95711415|NCT02607865|191392945|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.2|-0.4|<0.0001
95711416|NCT02607865|191392945|NON_INFERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||=|0.3851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from the non-inferiority margin (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority margin was 0.3%.|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|=0.3851
95711417|NCT02607865|191392945|OTHER|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg. If the mean treatment difference is non-negative, the superiority hypothesis of oral semaglutide 3 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg will never be confirmed irrespective of the observed two-sided p-value.|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.4|0.1|<0.0001
95711418|NCT02607865|191392946|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-2.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-2.0|-3.0|< 0.0001
95727785|NCT02151461|191425078|OTHER|||||||0.0179|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose, Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.0179
95727786|NCT02151461|191425078|OTHER|||||||0.0736|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0736
95727787|NCT02151461|191425078|OTHER|||||||0.0475|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0475
95711419|NCT02607865|191392946|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-2.0|< 0.0001
95711420|NCT02607865|191392946|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity, since the non-inferiority test of change in HbA1c for oral semaglutide 3 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg could not be confirmed. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-0.6|||=|0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|Pattern mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline body weight value as covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-1.1|= 0.0185
95711421|NCT02607865|191392946|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-2.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-2.1|-3.1|<0.0001
95711422|NCT02607865|191392946|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Mean treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.1|-2.0|<0.0001
95711423|NCT02607865|191392946|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|type Mean treatment difference|-0.5|||=|0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0 (superiority).|MMRM||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Sitagliptin 100 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment, strata and region as categorical fixed effects and the baseline body weight value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.1|-1.0|=0.0257
95711424|NCT02607865|191392967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34|||=|0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.65||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.65|1.09|=0.0063
95711425|NCT02607865|191392967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||=|0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|0.96||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.96|0.61|=0.0221
95711426|NCT02607865|191392967|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.68|0.41|<0.0001
95711427|NCT02607865|191392968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.68||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||1.68|1.05|=0.0160
95711428|NCT02607865|191392968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||=|0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.51|=0.0022
95711429|NCT02607865|191392968|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.43||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Sitagliptin 100 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment, strata, and region as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.43|0.22|<0.0001
95711430|NCT02625610|191392994|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.1779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.11|||Log Rank|The treatment arms were compared using a stratified, 1-sided, log rank Test. The stratification factor was region (Asia versus non Asia).||||1.11|0.74|0.1779
95711431|NCT02625610|191392995|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.28||||||||1.28|0.85|
95711432|NCT02625610|191392997|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.51||||||||1.51|0.55|
95711433|NCT00256204|191393009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0133|||||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 1mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start) and 2mg (delayed-start)are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0133
95711434|NCT00256204|191393009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Repeated Measures Mixed Linear Model|||"Hypothesis #1: Slopes Superiority of 2mg Rasagiline over Placebo in the PC Phase Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week.~In this analysis, all available post-baseline observations in the PC Phase of the trial are analyzed (ITT efficacy data analysis set, weeks 12, 24 and 36). The placebo groups for rasagiline 1mg (delayed-start)and 2mg (delayed-start) are combined to one placebo group."||||0.0001
95711435|NCT00256204|191393009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center .|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2: Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set).||||0.0250
95711436|NCT00256204|191393009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6028||95.0||||The analysis was performed on separate datasets and not on the combined dataset as was pre-specified to account for unexpected interactions of dose level by baseline UPDRS and of dose level by center|Repeated Measures|||Hypothesis #2:Superiority of Early over Delayed Start at Week 72 In this analysis, observations of subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active-treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set.)||||0.6028
95711437|NCT00256204|191393009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 1mg early-start group and the 1mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.0||||||90.0|-0.036|0.036||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.036|-0.036|
95711438|NCT00256204|191393009|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-Inf Test for difference in slopes between treatment groups. One sided 95% CI calculated for difference between slopes of the 2mg early-start group and the 2mg delayed-start group. The inferiority null hypothesis of the early-start group slope over delayed-start group slope is rejected, if the upper limit of one sided 95% CI for difference in slopes does not cross non-inferiority margin of 0.15 UPDRS points per week.|Slope|0.029||||||90.0|-0.005|0.062||||||"Hypothesis #3: Slopes Non-Inferiority of Early Start over Delayed Start in the Active Phase.~Where slope is the model estimate of the change from baseline in total UPDRS per week. In this analysis, observations of all subjects entering the active phase with at least 24 weeks of treatment during the PC Phase and at least one available Total UPDRS measurement during the active treatment phase from weeks 48, 54, 60, 66 or 72, are analyzed (ACTE data analysis set)."||0.062|-0.005|
95711439|NCT00256204|191393010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.005|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.857|-2.153|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates. For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'||-2.153|-3.857|<0.0001
95711440|NCT00256204|191393010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.154|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.004|-2.305|||ANCOVA|||"The adjusted means of the changes in Total UPDRS from baseline to LOV in the placebo-controlled phase, observed in the 1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline early-start groups are compared (two contrasts) to the combined placebo group (1 mg and 2 mg rasagiline delayed-start groups), by applying an Analysis of Covariance model. The model includes treatment group, center and baseline Total UPDRS as covariates.~For this analysis, both delayed start arms are pooled as a 'placebo arm'"||-2.305|-4.004|<0.0001
95727788|NCT02151461|191425079|OTHER|||||||0.0089|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||||||0.0089
95727789|NCT02151461|191425079|OTHER|||||||0.376|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.376
95727790|NCT02151461|191425079|OTHER|||||||0.0578|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0578
95711441|NCT03459794|191393012|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same group at t=0, that is before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We analyzed the changes is level for each cytokine between the groups. P value was adjusted for multiple comparisons and significance determined using the Holm-Sidak method. The threshold value for statistical significance for the mean value between groups was set at p =\<0.05 for each cytokine measured. The number of cytokines that met this threshold is reported.|||
95711442|NCT03459794|191393013|OTHER|||||||||||||||||All measurements were compared to the same treated/control group at t=0, before the drug or placebo was administered. We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level.|We compared the expression levels for each transcript, using the mean levels in each group, not at the individual participant level. The p-value for each transcript is adjusted for multiple comparisons across all 770 transcripts, using the Benjamini-Yekutieli method. The number reported is the number of transcripts where p=\<0.05.|||
95711443|NCT03459794|191393014|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||<0.05
95711444|NCT03395704|191393017|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||General Linear Model|||||||< 0.0001
95711445|NCT01801189|191393021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Threshold for significance was P \<0.05.|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.10
95711446|NCT01801189|191393021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 1||||.23
95711447|NCT01801189|191393021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||Threshold for significance \<0.05|t-test, 1 sided|||POD 2||||.31
95711448|NCT00692198|191393030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.12|||Log Rank|||||1.12|0.79|0.52
95711449|NCT00692198|191393031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.25|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.25|0.64|0.53
95711450|NCT00692198|191393032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.01||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.13|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.13|0.91|0.81
95711451|NCT00692198|191393034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.19|||Fisher Exact||Rate ratio, LTOT vs No LTOT|||1.19|0.98|0.12
95711452|NCT00692198|191393035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95711453|NCT00692198|191393036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95711454|NCT00692198|191393037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.71
95711455|NCT00692198|191393038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95711456|NCT00692198|191393039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.28
95711457|NCT00692198|191393040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95711458|NCT00692198|191393041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|8.0|||||Relative risk, LTOT vs No LTOT|||8.00|0.54|
95711459|NCT00692198|191393042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95711460|NCT00692198|191393043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95711461|NCT05111548|191393044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.923|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.923
95711462|NCT05111548|191393045|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.110
95711463|NCT05111548|191393046|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.818|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.818
95711464|NCT05111548|191393047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||ANOVA|||Mixed ANOVA (within-subjects factor=time; between-subjects factor=group)||||0.130
95711465|NCT03330275|191393048|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -0.25 was used. Non-inferioirty was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% CI was above 0.25.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0574|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045|0.183|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator degrees of freedom|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|It was calculated that a total of 24 participants was required to show that the Test lens is non-inferior to the control 1 lens with 80% power. Sample size for this study was based on night driving only.||0.183|-0.045|
95711466|NCT03330275|191393049|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.1 logMAR was used. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit was below 0.1.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0076|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.043|-0.012|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||-0.012|-0.043|
95711467|NCT03330275|191393050|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.162|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.442|22.604|||Generalized Estimating Equation||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||22.604|0.442|
95711468|NCT03330275|191393051|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.16|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds ratio was calculated as Test over Control1|||1.16|0.82|
95711469|NCT03330275|191393052|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.1|28.5|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for the denominator degrees of freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||28.5|7.1|
95711470|NCT03330275|191393053|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74|||Generalized Linear Mixed Model||Odds Ratio was calculated as Test over Control 1|||1.74|0.33|
95711471|NCT03330275|191393054|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if 0 was contained in the 95% confidence interval.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|20.7|||Linear Mixed Model|Kenward and Roger Method was used for denominator Degrees of Freedom.|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control 1|||20.7|-11.4|
95711472|NCT02577107|191393055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1613|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.618|31.011||||||||31.011|9.618|
95711473|NCT02988115|191393077|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-21.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.897|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.132|-17.697|||ANCOVA||bempedoic acid (BA) therapy minus placebo|||-17.697|-25.132|<0.001
95711474|NCT02988115|191393078|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-18.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.063|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.951|-14.865|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|||-14.865|-22.951|<0.001
95711475|NCT02988115|191393079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-17.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.597|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.07|-14.811|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|non-HDL-C||-14.811|-21.070|<0.001
95711476|NCT02988115|191393079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.287|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.283|-12.239|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|TC||-12.239|-17.283|<0.001
95711477|NCT02988115|191393079|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means difference|-14.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.581|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.062|-11.866|||ANCOVA||BA therapy minus placebo|apoB||-11.866|-18.062|<0.001
95711478|NCT02988115|191393080|SUPERIORITY||Median treatment difference|-24.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-24.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.888|-12.712|||Wilcoxon rank sum test||BA therapy minus placebo|||-12.712|-35.888|<0.001
95711479|NCT00649220|191393132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22626||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-side, paired t-test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.22626
95711480|NCT00649220|191393132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34192||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed rank test|||Wilcoxon signed rank test on the null hypothesis that antipsychotics are reduced by 10% compared to baseline||||0.34192
95711481|NCT04646668|191393140|SUPERIORITY|Due to the pilot nature of the current study, formal power calculations were not conducted.||||||0.002|||||||ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in nicotine delivery between cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heat not burn after the standardized 10-puff bout. ANOVAs were conducted to detect differences between products for nicotine concentration at five minutes (immediately following 10-puff bout). The test was performed with a significance level of 0.05 (two-sided).||||0.002
95711482|NCT00608426|191393141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
95711483|NCT00608426|191393142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of telephone counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
95711484|NCT00608426|191393142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of in-person counseling between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||0.57
95711485|NCT00608426|191393142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of used medications between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.15
95711486|NCT00608426|191393142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of combination counseling and medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||<.001
95711487|NCT00608426|191393142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of attended VA smoking cessation clinic between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.77
95711488|NCT00608426|191393142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||for the comparison of received VA smoking cessation medication between the two groups|Mixed effects logistic regression|||||||.002
95711489|NCT00608426|191393143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.13
95711490|NCT02630459|191393144|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|-1.2||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.20|-2.58|<0.001
95711491|NCT02630459|191393144|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.62||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.62|-3.00|<0.001
95711492|NCT02630459|191393144|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.41||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.41|-2.10|0.004
95711493|NCT02630459|191393145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
95711494|NCT02630459|191393145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
95711495|NCT02630459|191393145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 4: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
95711496|NCT02630459|191393145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.3|13.8|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Full Administration||13.8|-13.3|
95711497|NCT02630459|191393145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Not Full Administration||13.3|-13.8|
95711498|NCT02630459|191393145|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|13.3|||||The 95% CI for the difference was calculated using the Newcombe hybrid score method.|Week 8: Discontinued Investigational Product||13.3|-13.8|
95711499|NCT02630459|191393146|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|4.73|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.99||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||9.99|2.24|<0.001
95711500|NCT02630459|191393146|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|5.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|12.06||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||12.06|2.60|<0.001
95711501|NCT02630459|191393146|SUPERIORITY||Common Odds Ratio|3.21||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.88||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and obtained from the CMH test using data including placebo and corresponding erenumab dose group only.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The common odds ratios and p-values were obtained from a CMH test, stratified by stratification factor prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status.||7.88|1.30|0.009
95711502|NCT02630459|191393147|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-1.45||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.45|-2.63|<0.001
95711503|NCT02630459|191393147|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-2.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.49||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-1.49|-2.66|<0.001
95711504|NCT02630459|191393147|SUPERIORITY|To maintain a family-wise type I error at 0.05, the pairwise comparisons were tested in a sequential testing procedure in the order of erenumab 140 mg QM vs placebo, erenumab 70 mg QM vs placebo and erenumab 28 mg QM vs placebo. The lower dose group was tested only when the higher dose group was considered statistically significant.|LS Mean Difference|-1.07||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.35||P-values for pairwise comparisons were nominal and without multiplicity adjustment.|Generalized Linear Mixed Model|||The primary analysis utilized a generalized linear mixed model which included treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, stratification factor (prior/current treatment with migraine prophylactic medication status), and baseline value as covariates and assumed a first-order autoregressive covariance structure||-0.35|-1.80|0.004
95711505|NCT00147082|191393162|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The threshold for significance was p\<0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||p values were calculated||||0.05
95711506|NCT00147082|191393163|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||p value was calculated||||0.05
95711507|NCT00147082|191393164|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||The p value (\<0.05) was the threshold for significance|Kruskal-Wallis|||The p value was calculated||||0.05
95711508|NCT03547960|191393165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.639|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.639
95711509|NCT03547960|191393165|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.283|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.283
95711510|NCT03547960|191393167|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.564|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.564
95711511|NCT02532998|191393168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|-1.258|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.721|0.7945|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment C and Treatment D.||0.7945|-1.721|
95711512|NCT02532998|191393183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment differences|3.409|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.946|3.872|||mixed linear model|Analyses done using mixed linear model involving fixed effect, random effect, and a covariate.||Statistical analysis of urinary sodium/potassium ratio between Treatment A and Treatment B.||3.872|2.946|
95711513|NCT02519777|191393195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.60
95711514|NCT02519777|191393195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
95711515|NCT02519777|191393195|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.61
95711516|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.61
95711517|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.72
95711518|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.79
95711519|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.55
95711520|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.47
95711521|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
95711522|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.85
95711523|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.67
95711524|NCT02519777|191393197|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in normalized composite neurocognitive test scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.70
95711525|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.99
95711526|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.97
95711527|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.79
95711528|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||0.99
95711529|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.74
95711530|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.69
95711531|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.44
95711532|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
95711533|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 24 from baseline||||0.83
95711534|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
95711535|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 72 from baseline||||0.86
95711536|NCT02519777|191393198|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in functional status scores at Week 96 from baseline||||1.00
95711537|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-2.78|
95711538|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|10.87||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.87|-0.53|
95711539|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-8.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.56|0.13||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||0.13|-16.56|
95711540|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.07|9.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||9.42|-3.07|
95711541|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|3.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.11|10.06||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||10.06|-3.11|
95711542|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.89|4.19||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||4.19|-7.89|
95711543|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.53|4.23||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 24||4.23|-4.53|
95711544|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|-1.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|1.6||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 48||1.60|-4.99|
95711545|NCT02519777|191393199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Percentage of Participants|6.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|15.42||||||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in number of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL at Week 96||15.42|-2.70|
95711546|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.67
95711547|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.78
95711548|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.94
95711549|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.42
95711550|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.07
95711551|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.37
95711552|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.08
95711553|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.33
95711554|NCT02519777|191393201|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD4+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.56
95711555|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.63
95711556|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.38
95711557|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.95
95711558|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.27
95711559|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.23
95711560|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
95711561|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 24 from baseline||||0.03
95711562|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 48 from baseline||||0.02
95711563|NCT02519777|191393203|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in CD8+ T-cell count at Week 96 from baseline||||0.09
95711564|NCT02519777|191393204|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||1.00
95711565|NCT02519777|191393204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.95
95711566|NCT02519777|191393204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sCD14 in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.96
95711567|NCT02519777|191393205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
95711568|NCT02519777|191393205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
95711569|NCT02519777|191393205|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||<0.01
95711570|NCT02519777|191393206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.91
95711571|NCT02519777|191393206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.86
95711572|NCT02519777|191393206|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 sTNFr-II in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.94
95711573|NCT02519777|191393207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.70
95711574|NCT02519777|191393207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.28
95711575|NCT02519777|191393207|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 VCAM in plasma at Week 48 from baseline||||0.85
95711576|NCT02519777|191393208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
95711577|NCT02519777|191393208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.26
95711578|NCT02519777|191393208|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 MIP-1 Beta in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.20
95711579|NCT02519777|191393209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.59
95711580|NCT02519777|191393209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.39
95711581|NCT02519777|191393209|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 IP-10 in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.80
95711582|NCT02519777|191393210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.90
95711583|NCT02519777|191393210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.14
95711584|NCT02519777|191393210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 Neopterin in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.49
95711585|NCT02519777|191393211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.52
95711586|NCT02519777|191393211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm A: Placebo MVC and placebo DTG and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.99
95711587|NCT02519777|191393211|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no difference between Arm B: DTG and placebo MVC and Arm C: MVC and DTG in change in Log10 NFL in CSF at Week 48 from baseline||||0.54
95711588|NCT03427528|191393220|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the BDI-II we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our BDI-II.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
95711589|NCT03427528|191393221|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the GAD-7, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our outcomes.|||||>|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
95711590|NCT03427528|191393222|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10, we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
95711591|NCT03427528|191393222|OTHER|To assess paternal and maternal outcomes on the PSS-10 we conducted a series of paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. T-tests compared baseline scores on each outcome to 3-month follow-up scores, with separate t-tests conducted to examine changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up. We used a Cohen's d statistic to indicate effect sizes for our PSS-10 outcomes.|||||<|0.05|||||||Paired T-test|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||<0.05
95711592|NCT03427528|191393223|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||We used a single group longitudinal pre-post design to evaluate study outcomes||||>0.05
95711593|NCT02074436|191393227|OTHER|||||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|0.001|||||Fisher Exact|||The results are from the first and only interim analysis focusing on the primary endpoint: proportion of patient with major bleeding (Grade 3 and 4) during the study. The interim analysis was performed after 11 patients in each arm were randomized and results were obtained. One-sided fisher's exact test was employed in the analysis. The null hypothesis is the probability of occurring major bleeding is the same for Arm A and Arm B||||0.5
95711594|NCT03490734|191393232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement, nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FMRIB Software Library (FSL), resulting in a family-wise error rate (FWE) corrected significance threshold of p-FWE\<0.05|ANCOVA|||Whole-brain analyses were used. No clusters of significant activation were detected.||||0.52
95711595|NCT03490734|191393233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||Corrected for multiple comparisons by using the threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE), nonparametric thresholding algorithm in FSL, resulting in a family-wise error rate corrected significance threshold of p-FWE \< 0.05|ANCOVA|||||||0.016
95711596|NCT00792922|191393250|SUPERIORITY|Predicted prevalence was estimated in each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm \& parameters estimated from square root transformed model.For each arm estimated prevalences were averaged.Difference in adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was calculated.For confidence intervals for adjusted difference,steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples were repeated.Median of adjusted mean differences, corresponding 2.5 % \& 97.5 % percentiles were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|3.8|||Regression, Linear|||"This is analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||3.8|-1|0.22
95711597|NCT00792922|191393250|SUPERIORITY|For each community using the baseline observed prevalence, treatment arm and parameters estimated from square root transformed model we estimated predicted prevalence.For each arm we average estimated prevalences.The difference in the adjusted mean prevalence for enhanced arm and standard arm was then calculated.In order to derive the confidence intervals for the adjusted difference, we repeated Steps 1 to 4 for 1000 bootstrap samples.The median of the adjusted mean differences were reported.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.3|||Ordinary least squares linear regression|||"This is the analysis done in Tanzania:~Only the main effect of coverage was analyzed.We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.~Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma"||5.3|-0.3|0.73
95711598|NCT00792922|191393250|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-4.6||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.1|1.9|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of infection."||1.9|-11.1|0.20
95711599|NCT00792922|191393250|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.5|||Regression, Linear|||"This is the statistical analysis for Niger:~We hypothesized that increasing the coverage of MDA to greater than 90 % as monitored in children would result in more rapid decline in infection and trachoma compared to usual coverage.Here we are looking at the prevalence of trachoma."||12.5|-7.7|0.60
95711600|NCT03099304|191393282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|13.79||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|640.85||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||640.85|1.73|0.0057
95711601|NCT03099304|191393282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.3||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|487.28||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||487.28|1.24|0.0243
95711602|NCT03099304|191393282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|28.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|1305.2||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1305.2|3.74|<0.0001
95711603|NCT03099304|191393282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.28|1121.4||The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression|||||1121.4|3.28|0.0001
95711604|NCT03099304|191393283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.05|0.4936
95711605|NCT03099304|191393283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.62|0.1140
95711606|NCT03099304|191393283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||1.00|0.0501
95711607|NCT03099304|191393283|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|exact logistic regression||||||0.58|0.1257
95711608|NCT03099304|191393284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.9794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.33|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||4.33|0.33|0.9794
95711609|NCT03099304|191393284|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.4893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|5.86|||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).||||5.86|0.51|0.4893
95711610|NCT03099304|191393291|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean (LSM) difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.13|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.13|-0.75|0.0056
95711611|NCT03099304|191393291|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.10|-0.70|0.0095
95711612|NCT03099304|191393291|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.37|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.37|-0.99|<0.0001
95711613|NCT03099304|191393291|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.21|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.21|-0.80|0.0011
95711614|NCT03099304|191393293|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-36.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.34||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.15|-16.27|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.27|-57.15|0.0005
95711615|NCT03099304|191393293|SUPERIORITY||LM difference|-35.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.01||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.91|-15.33|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-15.33|-54.91|0.0006
95711616|NCT03099304|191393293|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-46.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.35|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.47|-25.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-25.57|-66.47|<0.0001
95711617|NCT03099304|191393293|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52|-24.07|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-24.07|-63.52|<0.0001
95711618|NCT03099304|191393300|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.44|-0.24|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.24|-5.44|0.0326
95711619|NCT03099304|191393300|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-2.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.28||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.26|-0.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-0.22|-5.26|0.0333
95711620|NCT03099304|191393300|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|-2.48|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-2.48|-7.68|0.0002
95711621|NCT03099304|191393300|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.27||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|-1.57|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-1.57|-6.59|0.0016
95711622|NCT03099304|191393302|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-23.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.99||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.35|-9.71|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-9.71|-37.35|0.0010
95711623|NCT03099304|191393302|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-18.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.77||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.86|-5.08|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-5.08|-31.86|0.0072
95711624|NCT03099304|191393302|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-29.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.98|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.61|-16.0|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-16.00|-43.61|<0.0001
95711625|NCT03099304|191393302|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-25.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.89|-12.22|||Log Rank|Treatment comparisons were performed using the log-rank test stratified by randomization stratification factor.|LSM difference = treatment minus vehicle|||-12.22|-38.89|0.0002
95711626|NCT03099304|191393314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.4936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.05|0.4936
95711627|NCT03099304|191393314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.16||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.62|0.1140
95711628|NCT03099304|191393314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.1||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||1.00|0.0501
95711629|NCT03099304|191393314|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.89||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58||The upper limit of the confidence interval was not estimatable because there were too few participants with a response of clear or almost clear.||exact logistic regression|The exact logistic regression model includes treatment and stratification factor (age ≤30 versus \>30).|||||0.58|0.1257
95711630|NCT02274766|191393339|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|-8.3|||Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|Change from baseline is a dependent variable; the baseline value is a continuous covariate||32 subjects per treatment arm provided 90% power using a 2-sided test at 5% significance.||-8.3|-20.4|<0.0001
95711631|NCT02274766|191393340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.775||0.0168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.45||Change from Baseline in ON time without troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||3.45|0.35|0.0168
95711632|NCT02274766|191393340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.648||0.0853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|0.16||Change from Baseline in ON time with troublesome dyskinesia.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||0.16|-2.42|0.0853
95711633|NCT02274766|191393340|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.461||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-0.18||Change from Baseline in OFF time.|Linear Mixed Model w/ Repeated Measures|||||-0.18|-2.02|0.0199
95711634|NCT01454531|191393354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired values|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in IgE-blocking factor values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in IgE-blocking factor values||||<0.001
95711635|NCT01454531|191393355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||Paired samples|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is no changes in Phleum specific IgG4 values from visit 1 (baseline) to visit 6 (end of treatment) versus the alternative hypothesis of change in Phleum specific IgG4 values||||<0.001
95711636|NCT01454531|191393356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Parallel Line Assay|||Parallel Line Assay is based on the construction of two dose-response regression lines obtained plotting the allergen concentration used to prick test the subjects against the wheal size obtained. ANOVA allows to check for regression, linearity and parallelism. A common slope and y-intercepts are calculated. The CTI is the exponentiation of the difference between y-intercepts divided by the common slope. (Finney D.J., Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 1978).||||<0.01
95711637|NCT00989664|191393357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95711638|NCT02504424|191393421|OTHER||percent of breasts successfully exchange|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Treatment Success includes all breasts which were exchanged successfully in the Per Protocol Cohort, excluding non-device related failures. The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 100% (80/80). Note: Denominator = 80 (86 implanted breasts - 6 breasts). Failed exchange = 4 breasts (non-device related) \& Missing = 2 breasts (patient non-compliant w/study and withdrew consent after treatment).||||
95711639|NCT02504424|191393421|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|100.0|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Sensitivity Analysis (Best / Worst Case): Treatment Success by subject for the Per Protocol cohort includes all failures (excluding non-device related failures). The best case analysis considers success if the subject has at least one breast successfully reconstructed, and the worst case analysis considers it a failure if at least one breast has failed. The treatment success by subject is 100% for both best and worst case analysis.||||
95711640|NCT02504424|191393422|OTHER||% breasts successfully exchanged|95.2|||||ONE_SIDED|||||||||Secondary analysis is repeated including all breasts in the PP cohort (including non-device related failures). The Treatment Success Rate by breast, based on the Per Protocol cohort, including all cause failures, is 95.2% (80/84). One subject (2 breasts) are not included in analysis as subject withdrew from the study prior to exchange of her expanders.||||
95711641|NCT01277666|191393423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg once daily||11.0|-6.1|0.546
95711642|NCT01277666|191393423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||comparison of Placebo and GSK1605786A 500 mg twice daily||10.7|-6.5|0.648
95711643|NCT01277666|191393424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|4.8|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.8|-8.8|0.592
95711644|NCT01277666|191393424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|4.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.4|-9.2|0.475
95711645|NCT01277666|191393425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|10.3|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.3|-4.4|0.415
95711646|NCT01277666|191393425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|10.9|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.9|-3.9|0.354
95711647|NCT01277666|191393426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|5.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.2|-5.2|0.985
95711648|NCT01277666|191393426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|4.1|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.1|-6.1|0.709
95711649|NCT01277666|191393427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||10.4|-6.5|0.633
95711650|NCT01277666|191393427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|9.0|||Mantel Haenszel|||||9.0|-7.8|0.889
95711651|NCT01277666|191393428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|4.2|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.2|-8.1|0.541
95711652|NCT01277666|191393428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|3.7|||Mantel Haenszel|||||3.7|-8.5|0.430
95711653|NCT01277666|191393429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.426||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|3.64||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||3.64|-5.89|0.642
95711654|NCT01277666|191393429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.652||0.898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.55|4.87||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||4.87|-5.55|0.898
95711655|NCT01277666|191393429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.467||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|8.21||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||8.21|-1.48|0.173
95711656|NCT01277666|191393429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.697||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|7.15||P-values were obtained from an analysis of covariance model with baseline score as the covariate.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||7.15|-3.45|0.493
95711657|NCT00498706|191393473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||t value|-2.95||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95711658|NCT00498706|191393474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|5.83||||0.02||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95711659|NCT00498706|191393474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-square|7.75||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared||Attrition before week 5 was significantly lower in T-CBT than in face-to-face CBT.|||||.006
95711660|NCT00498706|191393476|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.26||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.35|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||1.17|-1.35|0.89
95711661|NCT00498706|191393477|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority is established by showing that the true difference between 2 treatment arms is likely to be smaller than a prespecified noninferiority margin that separates clinically important from clinically negligible (acceptable) differences.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.07|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.695||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|2.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Longitudinal depression scores were modeled with repeated-measures linear regression models.Time was treated as a categorical variable to account for nonlinear effects of time, and an unstructured covariance matrix was assumed.||2.76|-0.63|0.22
95711662|NCT05315297|191393494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.87
95711663|NCT05315297|191393495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.13
95711664|NCT05315297|191393496|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95711665|NCT05315297|191393497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95711666|NCT05315297|191393498|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.37
95711667|NCT05315297|191393499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95711668|NCT03691831|191393512|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|10.76||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A summary of the wart clearance at Visit 10.||10.76|2.14|0.0001
95711669|NCT03691831|191393513|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-Value test comparing the Patients Cleared of All Baseline Warts in the Active (A-101 45%) and vehicle groups.||4.56|1.61|0.0001
95711670|NCT03691831|191393514|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.0|21.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||21.8|9.0|<0.0001
95711671|NCT03691831|191393515|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.2||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|15.53|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||15.53|1.76|0.0006
95711672|NCT03691831|191393516|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95711673|NCT04120116|191393524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.3||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.08||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.08|0.11|0.068
95711674|NCT04120116|191393526|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.611||0.634|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.945|6.439||P value for statistical significance is \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.439|-3.945|0.634
95711675|NCT01098266|191393550|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.18||The log-rank test (unstratified) was used to compare the two treatment arms. In addition, a stratified version of the log-rank test was performed with the stratification factors used for randomization.|Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||Study with one control per experimental patient, an accrual interval of 24 months, and an additional FU after the accrual interval of 12 months.If the true HR of experimental relative to control patients was 0.726, then 195 experimental patients and 195 control patients were required to be able to reject the null hypothesis that the experimental and control survival curves were equal with probability (power)0.80 Type I error probability associated with this test of this null hypothesis was 0.05||1.18|0.75|0.58
95711676|NCT01098266|191393551|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.17|||Log Rank|Cox regression analyses (unstratified and stratified) was performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner.||The log-rank test (unstratified and stratified) was used at an alpha level of 5% to test for differences in PFS between the two treatment arms. Kaplan-Meier curves and estimates were provided.||1.17|0.78|0.65
95711677|NCT01098266|191393552|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.68|||Fisher Exact||Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the influence of baseline covariates in an exploratory manner|Difference in DCR between the two treatment arms were tested using a chi-squared test with 95% confidence intervals calculated in each treatment arm.||1.68|0.76|0.62
95711678|NCT01098266|191393555|OTHER|Two-sided log-rank test was used to compare time to symptomatic progression between treatment arms. Median and 95% confidence limits for the time to symptomatic progression were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival methodology. Estimates of the treatment effect were expressed as hazard ratio including 95% confidence intervals.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.5806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.26|||Log Rank|||QoL assessment was performed by using a questionnaire according to LCSS, which consists of nine 100-mm visual analog scales, with scores reported from 0 to 100(the best score). The LCSS subscore is the average symptom burden index computed as the mean score for all 6 major symptoms. Symptomatic progression was defined as a worsening in the average symptom burden index by 25%.||1.26|0.68|0.5806
95711679|NCT04594213|191393582|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711680|NCT04594213|191393583|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711681|NCT04594213|191393584|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711682|NCT04594213|191393585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711683|NCT04594213|191393586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711684|NCT04594213|191393587|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711685|NCT04594213|191393588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711686|NCT04594213|191393589|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711687|NCT04594213|191393590|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711688|NCT04594213|191393591|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95711689|NCT04594213|191393592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711690|NCT04594213|191393592|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711691|NCT04594213|191393593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711692|NCT04594213|191393593|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711693|NCT04594213|191393594|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mantel Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711694|NCT04594213|191393595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95711695|NCT04594213|191393595|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95711696|NCT00104299|191393605|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin of -20%|Difference between group success rates|10.6|||<|0.001||95.1|-3.2|24.3||P-value is adjusted for interim analysis using a Lan-DeMets alpha spending function with an O'Brien-Fleming boundary, allocating 0.003 alpha to the interim analysis and 0.049 alpha to the final analysis.|95.1% CI of difference|Calculate 95.1% CI around the difference in success rates between arms. Lower bound above non-inferiority margin of -20% indicates non-inferiority.||In calculating the sample size, we assumed that the percentage of patients in both treatment groups would achieve disease remission off prednisone by 6 months was 70%. We specified a non-inferiority margin of -20% on the difference in remission rates (rituximab rate minus cyclophosphamide rate) and a one-sided 0.025 level test. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, RAVE required 100 patients in each arm to have 83% power to conclude non-inferiority.||24.3|-3.2|<0.001
95711697|NCT00104299|191393606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.927||||||P-value is from the Poisson regression model adjusting for clinical study site and ANCA type. The natural logarithm of participant-months is used as an offset in this model|Poisson regression model|||Participant-months are defined as duration in months from the first study drug dosing date to the last date of the participant in the protocol. The rate of selected AEs is defined as the total number of selected AEs divided by total participant-months, and indicates the number of events per participant per month on average. Participants are grouped according to their originally received treatment.||||0.927
95711698|NCT00104299|191393607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||95.1% Confidence Interval of Difference|10.6||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.1|-3.2|24.4|||Chi-squared|At 6 months, the confidence interval is 95.1%.||The p-value is from a chi-square test.||24.4|-3.2|0.133
95711699|NCT00104299|191393608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.761|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.7||The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission|Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after complete remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.7|0.5|0.761
95711700|NCT00104299|191393609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.9||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.5|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the flaring pattern after remission||Participants are censored at the time of crossover, open label rituximab, or best medical judgement, if applicable. If a participant has no flare after complete remission prior to their Month 18 visit, the duration is censored at the date of the Month 18 Visit||1.5|0.6|0.861
95711701|NCT00104299|191393610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.0||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.3|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.3|0.7|0.497
95711702|NCT00104299|191393611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.3||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.8|||Log Rank|The log-rank test assesses the difference between the two treatment arms in the pattern of achieving complete remission|The hazard ratio and confidence interval are based on a Cox proportional hazard model comparing rituximab to the control group, adjusting for clinical study site, ANCA type, and glucocorticoid use prior to baseline.|||1.8|0.9|0.147
95711703|NCT00104299|191393612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.504||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Proportions of subjects experiencing a serious adverse event through 18 months and prior to censoring for open-label, crossover, or best medical judgment according to originally assigned treatment arm were compared using a two-sided Chi-squared test.||||0.504
95711704|NCT02275052|191393621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|3.31||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.12|27.74||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||27.74|-21.12|0.790
95711705|NCT02275052|191393622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.206|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.246|0.167|<0.001
95711706|NCT02275052|191393623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.346|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.487|-0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||-0.204|-0.487|<0.001
95711707|NCT02275052|191393624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.259|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.194|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)|Least squares mean change difference=UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg minus Placebo.|||0.324|0.194|<0.001
95711708|NCT01707667|191393625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|9.9|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||9.9|1.6|0.012
95711709|NCT01707667|191393626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|69051.4||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12004.5|150107.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||150107.3|-12004.5|0.079
95711710|NCT01707667|191393627|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.2||||0.717|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.3|63.7|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||63.7|-45.3|0.717
95711711|NCT01707667|191393628|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.295
95711712|NCT01707667|191393629|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.179||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.465|0.107|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||0.107|-0.465|0.180
95711713|NCT01707667|191393630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.8||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|44.3|||Linear Mixed-Effect Models Analysis|||||44.3|-12.6|0.225
95711714|NCT01143116|191393632|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
95711715|NCT01143116|191393632|OTHER|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7500
95711716|NCT01143116|191393633|OTHER|||||||0.875|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8750
95711717|NCT01143116|191393633|OTHER|||||||0.625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6250
95711718|NCT01143116|191393634|OTHER|||||||0.0254|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0254
95711719|NCT01143116|191393634|OTHER|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
95711720|NCT01143116|191393635|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95711721|NCT01143116|191393635|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95711722|NCT01143116|191393636|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0
95711723|NCT01143116|191393636|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95711724|NCT01143116|191393637|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95711725|NCT01143116|191393638|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95711726|NCT01143116|191393639|OTHER|||||||0.0313|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0313
95711727|NCT01143116|191393639|OTHER|||||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
95711728|NCT01143116|191393640|OTHER|||||||0.7188|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7188
95711729|NCT01143116|191393640|OTHER|||||||0.6406|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6406
95711730|NCT01143116|191393641|OTHER|||||||0.4375|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4375
95711731|NCT01143116|191393641|OTHER|||||||0.2969|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2969
95711732|NCT01143116|191393642|OTHER|||||||0.5391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5391
95711733|NCT01143116|191393642|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0010
95711734|NCT01143116|191393643|OTHER|||||||0.4766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4766
95711735|NCT01143116|191393643|OTHER|||||||0.0068|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0068
95711736|NCT01143116|191393644|OTHER|||||||0.0625|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0625
95711737|NCT01143116|191393644|OTHER|||||||0.418|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4180
95711738|NCT01453439|191393654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.4602|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1249|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=90.9|Mixed Models Analysis|Effect of interest: time by group interaction|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT.|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during treatment phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||<.01
95711739|NCT01453439|191393654|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.00984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1038||0.62|TWO_SIDED|||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|The effect of interest was the time by group interaction.|The estimated value describes the mean slope difference of CBT compared to SPT during follow-up (week 24 to week 50).|"We compared the difference in the rate of change in BDD symptom severity over time (during the follow-up phase) between the randomized treatment groups (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in BDD symptom severity during follow-up will not differ significantly between CBT and SPT treatments \[to be tested\]."||||.62
95711740|NCT01453439|191393655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1||||||Degrees of freedom=93.2|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.10
95711741|NCT01453439|191393655|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Patient Insight over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in insight in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.45
95711742|NCT01453439|191393656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Degrees of freedom=89.1|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.05
95711743|NCT01453439|191393656|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Degrees of freedom=63.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in depressive symptoms over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in depressive symptoms in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.26
95711744|NCT01453439|191393657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Degrees of freedom=91.4|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in Quality of life satisfaction over time (During treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in Quality of life satisfaction severity in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.04
95711745|NCT01453439|191393657|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||Degrees of freedom=74.7|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in the quality of life satisfaction over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of change in the quality of life satisfaction in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.82
95711746|NCT01453439|191393658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.7937|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3007||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|||||Effect of interest: Treatment main effect, two-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=112) = 5.17|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant different in the perceived credibility of CBT and SPT.||||0.0095
95711747|NCT01453439|191393662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||Degrees of freedom=88.0|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (During Treatment phase) by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts, and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning in the CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group \[to be tested\]."||||.30
95711748|NCT01453439|191393662|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||Degrees of freedom=74.5|Mixed Models Analysis|||"We compared the change in social functioning over time (during the follow-up phase), by randomized treatment group (CBT vs. SPT) using a latent growth curve model that included terms for treatment group, time, site, and all their interactions, modeling intercepts and slopes as random effects per person.~Null hypothesis: The rate of improvement in social functioning CBT group will not be significantly different from the SPT group during follow-up \[to be tested\]."||||.85
95711749|NCT01453439|191393663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5867|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6882||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha = 0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment type, site, time (repeated)) Effect of interest: main effect of treatment - F(num def=1,den df=79.9) = 15.55|Least Squares Means difference|Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in treatment satisfaction between patients with BDD assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0235
95711750|NCT01453439|191393664|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|9.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4259||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|||||a priori significance level: 2-sided alpha=0.05 effect adjusted for site effects, time effects, and interactions|ANOVA|repeated measures 3-way ANOVA (treatment group, site, time (repeated)) effect of interest: main effect of treatment: F(num df=1, den df=110) = 7.59|Least Squares Mean difference|Null hypotheses: There is no significant difference in patient expectancy of improvement between BDD patients assigned to CBT vs. SPT.||||0.0069
95711751|NCT00783263|191393683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-10.6|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time, stratum and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.60|-19.89|<0.001
95711752|NCT00783263|191393684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.95|-5.67|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-5.67|-18.95|<0.001
95711753|NCT00783263|191393684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.92|-10.99|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|Longitudinal Data Analysis was based on a constrained LDA model with terms for treatment, time and the interaction of time by treatment.||||-10.99|-23.92|<0.001
95711754|NCT00783263|191393685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|6.9|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment, stratum and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, ≥130 mg/dL).||||6.9|2.9|<0.001
95711755|NCT00783263|191393686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||5.8|1.7|<0.001
95711756|NCT00783263|191393686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|12.3|||Logistic Regression|Logistic Regression included terms for treatment and baseline LDL-C category (3 levels: \<100, 100-\<130, \>=130 mg/dL).||||12.3|3.4|<0.001
95711757|NCT00783263|191393687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|14.0|||Logistic Regression|||||14.0|4.6|<0.001
95711758|NCT00783263|191393688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|11.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum I||11.8|2.2|<0.001
95711759|NCT00783263|191393688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|24.8|||Logistic Regression|||Stratum II||24.8|5.2|<0.001
95711760|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.59|-5.71|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)||-5.71|-11.59|<0.001
95711761|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1||||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.04|2.84|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Triglycerides (mg/dL)||2.84|-9.04|0.306
95711762|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|0.49|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol||0.49|-4.79|0.111
95711763|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.86|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non High-Density Liproprotein Cholesterol||-7.86|-16.10|<0.001
95711764|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.36|-8.13|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||LDL Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-8.13|-18.36|<0.001
95711765|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.45||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-2.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Total Cholesterol/HDL Cholesterol||-2.36|-10.53|0.002
95711766|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-3.75|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Non-HDL Cholestrol/HDL Cholesterol||-3.75|-15.30|0.001
95711767|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-6.08|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B (Apo B)||-6.08|-12.74|<0.001
95711768|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.82||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|0.36|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein A-I (Apo A-I)||0.36|-3.99|0.102
95711769|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.25|-3.83|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||Apolipoprotein B/Apo A-I||-3.83|-11.25|<0.001
95711770|NCT00783263|191393689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.13|10.97|||Longitudinal Data Analysis|||hs-C-Reactive Protein||10.97|-13.13|0.861
95711771|NCT00529152|191393744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0005|||||||Regression, Linear|||Change in Serum Ferritin from baseline to week 24 was compared using regression analysis; null hypothesis was defined as no change in serum ferritin from baseline to week 24||||0.0005
95711772|NCT04491591|191393750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.801|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.801
95711773|NCT04491591|191393751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1336|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.1336
95711774|NCT04491591|191393751|SUPERIORITY|Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||||0.5505|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5505
95711775|NCT04491591|191393751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6178|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.6178
95711776|NCT04491591|191393752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2317|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2317
95711777|NCT04491591|191393753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1052|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1052
95711778|NCT04491591|191393754|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Within subjects pre/post comparison|||
95711779|NCT04491591|191393755|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95711780|NCT04491591|191393757|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Descriptive analysis using mean and standard deviation|||
95711781|NCT04491591|191393758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0302|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0302
95711782|NCT04491591|191393759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||Fisher Exact|||Reconstruction versus No reconstruction||||0.135
95711783|NCT04491591|191393759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Fisher Exact|||Immediate reconstruction versus delayed reconstruction||||0.510
95711784|NCT04491591|191393759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.469|||||||Fisher Exact|||Flap reconstruction versus Implant reconstruction||||0.469
95711785|NCT04491591|191393760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.308
95711786|NCT04491591|191393761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.036
95711787|NCT00742391|191393782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.0001
95711788|NCT00742391|191393783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0001
95711789|NCT02394028|191393785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.1||||0.8508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.85|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-10.85|0.8508
95711790|NCT02394028|191393785|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.8||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|15.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.27|-8.30|0.5235
95711791|NCT02394028|191393787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|4.9||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.26|16.11||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||16.11|-6.26|0.7908
95711792|NCT02394028|191393787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|5.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|17.05||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||17.05|-5.43|0.3170
95711793|NCT02394028|191393788|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.3||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|19.65||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.65|2.70|0.0088
95711794|NCT02394028|191393789|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|11.5||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|18.83||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||18.83|4.11|0.0026
95711795|NCT02394028|191393791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|3.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.02|13.45||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||13.45|-8.02|1
95711796|NCT02394028|191393791|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|2.3||||0.7908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.78|12.56||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||12.56|-8.78|0.7908
95711797|NCT02394028|191393793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|1.6||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.51|9.73||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||9.73|-6.51|1
95711798|NCT02394028|191393793|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|6.5||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|15.16||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates are adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||15.16|-2.24|0.5235
95711799|NCT02394028|191393794|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.5||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|0.3|||MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.3|-1.4|0.3110
95711800|NCT02394028|191393795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Scale||0.9|-0.5|1
95711801|NCT02394028|191393795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.7||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Domain Score||0.7|-0.7|1
95711802|NCT02394028|191393795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.9||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.9|-0.8|1
95711803|NCT02394028|191393795|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.5||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Domain Score||0.5|-1.1|1
95711804|NCT02394028|191393796|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rate|17.3||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.52|30.27||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||30.27|3.52|0.0677
95711805|NCT02394028|191393797|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|18.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.07|25.96||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||25.96|11.07|0.0480
95711806|NCT02394028|191393798|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|13.5||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|29.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||29.94|-2.90|0.1210
95711807|NCT02394028|191393799|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|6.2||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|11.93||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||11.93|0.54|0.0480
95711808|NCT02394028|191393800|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|11.2||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.04|19.24||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in response rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||19.24|3.04|0.0677
95711809|NCT02394028|191393801|SUPERIORITY||Difference in rates|16.2||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.96|23.31||Nominal p-value, no adjustment for multiplicity performed.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Difference in remission rates is adjusted using CMH weights and the 95% CIs use the Newcombes method.|||23.31|8.96|0.0035
95711810|NCT02394028|191393802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Functional Symptoms Domain||0.4|-0.9|0.4009
95711811|NCT02394028|191393802|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM|-0.3||||0.4009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.4||The multiplicity adjusted p-values are presented.|MMRM|||Bowel Symptoms Domain||0.4|-1.0|0.4009
95711812|NCT02355665|191393837|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.0||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.66||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.66|1.10|0.021
95711813|NCT02355665|191393838|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|3.04||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|6.68||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.68|1.39|0.004
95711814|NCT02355665|191393839|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.87||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|6.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.71|1.23|0.011
95711815|NCT02355665|191393840|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|1.66||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.71||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||2.71|1.02|0.040
95711816|NCT02355665|191393841|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.09||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|3.98||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||3.98|1.09|0.023
95711817|NCT02355665|191393842|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.91||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|6.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||6.42|1.32|0.006
95711818|NCT02355665|191393843|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Success Rate Ratio|2.66||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|5.92||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by study site and number of cigarettes smoked per day at baseline (\<20 per day vs ≥20 per day).|Estimated Success Rate Ratio = Nicotine/Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in continuous smoking abstinence rates between treatments.||5.92|1.20|0.013
95711819|NCT02355665|191393844|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.6||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.60|-0.64|0.847
95711820|NCT02355665|191393845|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.42||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.42|-0.62|0.861
95711821|NCT02355665|191393846|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.19||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.24|-0.61|0.266
95711822|NCT02355665|191393847|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.09||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of desire/urge to smoke between treatments.||0.55|-0.38|0.487
95711823|NCT02355665|191393848|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.43|-0.65|0.433
95711824|NCT02355665|191393849|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.58||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.01||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||-0.01|-1.15|0.022
95711825|NCT02355665|191393850|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.49|-0.50|0.665
95711826|NCT02355665|191393851|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of irritability/frustration/anger between treatments.||0.31|-0.51|0.300
95711827|NCT02355665|191393852|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.17||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.43||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.43|-0.78|0.754
95711828|NCT02355665|191393853|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.41||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.08||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.08|-0.89|0.116
95711829|NCT02355665|191393854|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.14||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.2||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.20|-0.47|0.392
95711830|NCT02355665|191393855|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.23||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.13||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of restlessness between treatments.||0.13|-0.59|0.179
95711831|NCT02355665|191393856|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.01||||0.925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.47||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.47|-0.44|0.925
95711832|NCT02355665|191393857|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.21||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.24|-0.66|0.325
95711833|NCT02355665|191393858|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.51|-0.24|0.891
95711834|NCT02355665|191393859|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.25||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of difficulty concentrating between treatments.||0.25|-0.48|0.721
95711835|NCT02355665|191393860|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.49||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.49|-0.54|0.608
95711836|NCT02355665|191393861|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.63||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.09||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||-0.09|-1.16|0.014
95711837|NCT02355665|191393862|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.38|-0.30|0.900
95711838|NCT02355665|191393863|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.31||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of anxiety between treatments.||0.31|-0.44|0.731
95711839|NCT02355665|191393864|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.04||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.36||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.36|-0.28|0.635
95711840|NCT02355665|191393865|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.05||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.42|0.273
95711841|NCT02355665|191393866|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.06||||0.879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.28|-0.40|0.879
95711842|NCT02355665|191393867|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.02||||0.823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.32||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of dysphoric or depressed mood between treatments.||0.32|-0.28|0.823
95711843|NCT02355665|191393868|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.0||||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.40|-0.40|0.804
95711844|NCT02355665|191393869|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|0.13||||0.438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.57||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.57|-0.30|0.438
95711845|NCT02355665|191393870|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.08||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.28||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||0.28|-0.44|0.517
95711846|NCT02355665|191393871|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.42||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|-0.06||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of insomnia between treatments.||-0.06|-0.77|0.027
95711847|NCT02355665|191393872|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.33||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.33|-0.93|0.105
95711848|NCT02355665|191393873|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.04||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.51||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.51|-0.60|0.604
95711849|NCT02355665|191393874|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.35||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.24||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.24|-0.93|0.194
95711850|NCT02355665|191393875|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.11||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.4||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of the ratings of increased appetite between treatments.||0.40|-0.62|0.502
95711851|NCT02355665|191393876|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.56||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|1.73||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.73|-2.84|0.483
95711852|NCT02355665|191393877|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.79||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|0.67||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.67|-4.24|0.102
95711853|NCT02355665|191393878|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-0.45||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|1.38||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||1.38|-2.27|0.532
95711854|NCT02355665|191393879|SUPERIORITY||Estimated Mean Difference|-1.01||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|0.91||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Estimated Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in distribution of aggregated withdrawal scores between treatments.||0.91|-2.93|0.354
95711855|NCT02355665|191394048|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.679||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|4.41||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||4.41|-2.42|0.558
95711856|NCT02355665|191394049|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|3.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|10.11||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||10.11|-4.03|0.383
95711857|NCT02355665|191394050|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.573||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|16.83||The significance threshold level was 0.05 (two-sided).|ANCOVA|Treatment, baseline smoking category, study site, and baseline weight were factors.|Least Squares Mean Difference = Nicotine - Placebo|The null hypothesis was no difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments. The alternative hypothesis was a difference in mean change from baseline in body weight between treatments.||16.83|-2.56|0.138
95711858|NCT02109939|191394051|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.836|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.758||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.285|0.613|||Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated Measures including week 4.||||0.613|-6.285|0.1070
95711859|NCT02109939|191394052|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.653||0.1822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|1.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with week 4 data.||||1.036|-5.450|0.1822
95711860|NCT02109939|191394053|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.86|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.86|1.07|0.0134
95711861|NCT02109939|191394056|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.27|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||2.27|1.14|0.0066
95711862|NCT02109939|191394059|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.2852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.43|||Generalized linear mixed model.|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.43|0.90|0.2852
95711863|NCT02109939|191394060|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.79|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.79|1.14|0.0023
95711864|NCT02109939|191394069|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.89|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.89|1.07|0.0140
95711865|NCT02109939|191394070|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.0663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.76|||Generalized linear mixed model|The reported outcome measure is the estimated percentage from a generalized linear mixed model, not a simple count of subjects.||||1.76|0.98|0.0663
95711866|NCT01058356|191394107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|4.15|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||4.15|0.17|<0.05
95711867|NCT01058356|191394108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.55|||Regression, Logistic|||"Null hypothesis: The efficay of the probiotic Lactobacilli (Lacidofil cap®) for the prevention of AAD in adults is not different form the placebo group in multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.~Power calculation:~The assumption of sample size calculation:~difference 18% (8% : 26%) α: 0.05, statistical power: 90%, two sided difference: 18% Compliance: 80%~\- Unadjusted sample size (N=200) 180 + 10(%) drop out = 180 + 180/ (1-0.1)2 = 222.2 Total 220 subjects"||1.55|0.18|<0.05
95711868|NCT02417935|191394125|NON_INFERIORITY|If the upper bound of the 95% CI does not exceed 0.51 (pre-defined non-inferiority margin), it will be concluded that duloxetine is not inferior to Pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.295|0.439|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.439|-0.295|0.700
95711869|NCT02417935|191394126|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.1|-0.4|0.149
95711870|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Worst Pain||0.6|-0.3|.535
95711871|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Least Pain||0.2|-0.5|.436
95711872|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Pain||0.5|-0.2|.534
95711873|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Pain Right Now||0.4|-0.4|.948
95711874|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||General Activity||0.1|-0.6|.225
95711875|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mood||0.2|-0.6|.276
95711876|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Walking Ability||0.2|-0.4|.507
95711877|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Normal Work||0.1|-0.5|.216
95711878|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Relations with other people||0.1|-0.4|.233
95711879|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Sleep||0.3|-0.3|.857
95711880|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Enjoyment of life||0.1|-0.5|.133
95711881|NCT02417935|191394127|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Average Interference Score||0.11|-0.44|.246
95711882|NCT02417935|191394128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|2.2|||ANCOVA|||Total Score||2.2|-3.6|.627
95711883|NCT02417935|191394128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Burning Pain||0.2|-0.6|.355
95711884|NCT02417935|191394128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Pressing Pain||0.4|-0.3|.731
95711885|NCT02417935|191394128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Paroxysmal Pain||0.4|-0.3|.721
95711886|NCT02417935|191394128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.2|||ANCOVA|||Evoked Pain||0.2|-0.5|.345
95711887|NCT02417935|191394128|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Paresthesia/Dysesthesia||0.3|-0.5|.557
95711888|NCT02417935|191394129|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.0|-0.4|.106
95711889|NCT02417935|191394130|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.014||||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0441|||ANCOVA|||||0.0441|-0.0161|.361
95711890|NCT02417935|191394131|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-0.8|.701
95711891|NCT02417935|191394132|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.005||||0.976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.355|0.366|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.366|-0.355|.976
95711892|NCT02417935|191394133|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.264|0.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.537|-0.264|.503
95711893|NCT02417935|191394134|OTHER|||||||0.632||||||30% reduction|Fisher Exact|||||||.632
95711894|NCT02417935|191394134|OTHER|||||||0.907|||||||Fisher Exact|||50% Reduction||||.907
95711895|NCT02055976|191394175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.838|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.775|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.335|-42.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.340|-57.335|<0.001
95711896|NCT02055976|191394175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.754|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.523|-58.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.986|-74.523|<0.001
95711897|NCT02055976|191394175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.534|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.903|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.284|-63.784|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-63.784|-79.284|<0.001
95711898|NCT02055976|191394175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.531|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.016|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.511|-39.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.551|-55.511|<0.001
95711899|NCT02055976|191394175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.993|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.557|-54.691|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.691|-70.557|<0.001
95711900|NCT02055976|191394175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.955|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.128|-56.409|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.409|-72.128|<0.001
95711901|NCT02055976|191394176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-42.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.417|-35.168|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.168|-49.417|<0.001
95711902|NCT02055976|191394176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.696|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.603|-48.921|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.921|-63.603|<0.001
95711903|NCT02055976|191394176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.384|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.733|-54.035|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.035|-68.733|<0.001
95711904|NCT02055976|191394176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.273|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.067|-39.088|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.088|-56.067|<0.001
95711905|NCT02055976|191394176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-63.346|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.776|-54.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.915|-71.776|<0.001
95711906|NCT02055976|191394176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.691|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.226|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.088|-58.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (adjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.295|-75.088|<0.001
95711907|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-67.254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.785|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.757|-57.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.752|-76.757|<0.001
95711908|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-87.122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.969|-77.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-77.275|-96.969|<0.001
95711909|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-93.327|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.949|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-103.153|-83.501|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.501|-103.153|<0.001
95711910|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.724|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.243|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.128|-59.321|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.321|-84.128|<0.001
95711911|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.541|-83.872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-83.872|-108.541|<0.001
95711912|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.533|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.145|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.743|-86.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.323|-110.743|<0.001
95711913|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.736|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.63|-46.819|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.819|-65.630|<0.001
95711914|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.881|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.507|-64.119|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.119|-83.507|<0.001
95711915|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.885|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.939|-71.538|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.538|-90.939|<0.001
95711916|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.461|-60.684|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.684|-84.461|<0.001
95711917|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-96.222|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.948|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.039|-84.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.405|-108.039|<0.001
95711918|NCT02055976|191394178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-102.184|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.919|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.945|-90.424|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.424|-113.945|<0.001
95711919|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-69.537|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.721|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.9|-58.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-value (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.175|-80.900|<0.001
95711920|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-86.446|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.855|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.074|-74.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-74.818|-98.074|<0.001
95711921|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.898|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.983|-86.563|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-86.563|-109.983|<0.001
95711922|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.757|-57.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.112|-85.757|<0.001
95711923|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-94.959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-109.333|-80.585|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-80.585|-109.333|<0.001
95711924|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-98.519|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.727|-84.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.311|-112.727|<0.001
95711925|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.592|-43.791|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-43.791|-66.592|<0.001
95711926|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-72.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.848|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.825|-60.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.597|-83.825|<0.001
95711927|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-83.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.913|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.807|-71.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-71.323|-94.807|<0.001
95711928|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-73.879|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.678|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.147|-60.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-60.612|-87.147|<0.001
95711929|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.697||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-108.732|-82.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-82.124|-108.732|0.001
95711930|NCT02055976|191394180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-104.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.654|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.079|-91.639|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-91.639|-118.079|<0.001
95711931|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.642|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.717|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.039|-26.246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.246|-37.039|<0.001
95711932|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.781|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.403|-34.358|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.358|-45.403|<0.001
95711933|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.889|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.45|-40.329|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.329|-51.450|<0.001
95711934|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.11|-24.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-24.164|-36.110|<0.001
95711935|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.525|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.018|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.52|-33.531|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.531|-45.520|<0.001
95711936|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.372|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.983|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.299|-35.445|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.445|-47.299|<0.001
95711937|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.717|-20.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-20.032|-30.717|<0.001
95711938|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.741|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.934|-28.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.047|-38.934|<0.001
95711939|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.262|-33.258|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.258|-44.262|<0.001
95711940|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-30.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.879|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.568|-25.127|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.127|-36.568|<0.001
95711941|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.887|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.754|-34.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.285|-45.754|<0.001
95711942|NCT02055976|191394181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.947|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.869|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.647|-38.247|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.247|-49.647|<0.001
95711943|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.344|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.76|-34.476|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-34.476|-47.760|<0.001
95711944|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.787|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.402|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.543|-48.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.032|-61.543|<0.001
95711945|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-60.549|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.453|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.403|-53.694|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.694|-67.403|<0.001
95711946|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.999|-29.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.178|-43.999|<0.001
95711947|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.734|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.102|-47.265|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.265|-62.102|<0.001
95711948|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.517|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.688|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.845|-49.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.189|-63.845|<0.001
95711949|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.262|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.196|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.608|-26.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.915|-39.608|<0.001
95711950|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-45.956|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.239|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.388|-39.523|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.523|-52.388|<0.001
95711951|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.305|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.063|-44.937|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.937|-58.063|<0.001
95711952|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.474|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.547|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.523|-33.426|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.426|-47.523|<0.001
95711953|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-54.634|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.549|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.685|-47.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-47.583|-61.685|<0.001
95711954|NCT02055976|191394183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.602|-52.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.614|-66.602|<0.001
95711955|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.265|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.566|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.347|-36.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.183|-50.347|<0.001
95711956|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.628|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.167|-50.758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.758|-65.167|<0.001
95711957|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.729|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.039|-57.419|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.419|-72.039|<0.001
95711958|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.428|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.535|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.451|-29.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-29.405|-43.451|<0.001
95711959|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.296|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.538|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.325|-46.267|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.267|-60.325|<0.001
95711960|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.489|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.496|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.436|-48.542|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.542|-62.436|<0.001
95711961|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.059|-28.516|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-28.516|-42.059|<0.001
95711962|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.845|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.456|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.709|-41.982|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.982|-55.709|<0.001
95711963|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.526|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.116|-48.112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.112|-62.116|<0.001
95711964|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.118|-32.971|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.971|-47.118|<0.001
95711965|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-53.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.883|-46.737|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-46.737|-60.883|<0.001
95711966|NCT02055976|191394184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-58.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.533|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.64|-51.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-51.600|-65.640|<0.001
95711967|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.643|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.646|14.145|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.145|3.646|<0.001
95711968|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|15.429|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.141|20.717|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||20.717|10.141|<0.001
95711969|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.321|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.959|17.683|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.683|6.959|<0.001
95711970|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.804|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.041||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.761|12.847|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.847|0.761|0.014
95711971|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.565|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.023|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.556|16.573|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.573|4.556|<0.001
95711972|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|12.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.969|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.993|18.796|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.796|6.993|<0.001
95711973|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.644|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.157|15.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.130|2.157|0.005
95711974|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|14.708|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.272|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.208|21.208|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.208|8.208|<0.001
95711975|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.317|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.58|17.757|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||17.757|4.580|<0.001
95711976|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.609||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.947|13.316|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.316|2.947|0.001
95711977|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.079|15.381|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.381|5.079|<0.001
95711978|NCT02055976|191394186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.767|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.565||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|10.864|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.864|0.670|0.014
95711979|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.296|9.863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.863|2.296|<0.001
95711980|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.786|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.918|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.976|14.597|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.597|6.976|<0.001
95711981|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.945|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.206|12.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.932|5.206|<0.001
95711982|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.859|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.173||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|9.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.178|0.541|0.014
95711983|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.161|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.037|11.624|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.624|3.037|<0.001
95711984|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.122|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.856|13.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.293|4.856|<0.001
95711985|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.936|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.266||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.435|10.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.437|1.435|0.005
95711986|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.213|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.271|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.702|14.724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.724|5.702|<0.001
95711987|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.302|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.484|12.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.629|3.484|<0.001
95711988|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.778|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.312|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|2.312|<0.001
95711989|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|10.421|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.421|3.400|<0.001
95711990|NCT02055976|191394187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.748||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|7.642|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.642|0.693|0.010
95711991|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.7208|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6289||0.127|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5283|1.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.9700|-0.5283|0.127
95711992|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.0574|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6461||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2259|2.3406|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3406|-0.2259|0.053
95711993|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2445|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6511||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0486|1.5375|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.5375|-1.0486|0.354
95711994|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8615||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9066|2.5177|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.5177|-0.9066|0.176
95711995|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8641||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2899|3.7242|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.7242|0.2899|0.011
95711996|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.7116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.852||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0184|3.4049|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4049|0.0184|0.024
95711997|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7844||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6992|2.4163|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4163|-0.6992|0.138
95711998|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7064|2.4678|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.4678|-0.7064|0.137
95711999|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.2624|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8053||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.337|1.8618|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8618|-1.3370|0.373
95712000|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7472||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1611|1.8089|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.8089|-1.1611|0.333
95712001|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|1.9322|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7488||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4441|3.4203|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.4203|0.4441|0.006
95712002|NCT02055976|191394189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7442||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6451|2.313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.3130|-0.6451|0.133
95712003|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.0813|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0411||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.973|6.1356|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.1356|-1.9730|0.155
95712004|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.2608|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0965||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9035|7.425|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.4250|-0.9035|0.062
95712005|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.8224|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1126||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3733|5.0182|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.0182|-3.3733|0.349
95712006|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.3254|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7702||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1801|7.831|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.8310|-3.1801|0.202
95712007|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|6.1048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7784||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5833|11.6263|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||11.6263|0.5833|0.015
95712008|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.2393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7396||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2058|10.6845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.6845|-0.2058|0.030
95712009|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1827|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4251||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6334|6.9988|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.9988|-2.6334|0.185
95712010|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.1376|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4716||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7718|7.0469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0469|-2.7718|0.195
95712011|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.3113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4909||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6358|5.2584|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2584|-4.6358|0.450
95712012|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.6078|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3322||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0274|5.2431|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.2431|-4.0274|0.397
95712013|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.7096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3367||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0659|10.3532|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.3532|1.0659|0.008
95712014|NCT02055976|191394190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.4558|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.323||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1608|7.0724|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.0724|-2.1608|0.147
95712015|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.9203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5504|-2.2901|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.2901|-7.5504|<0.001
95712016|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.1983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3462|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8718|-4.5249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.5249|-9.8718|<0.001
95712017|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.3118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9935|-4.6301|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.6301|-9.9935|<0.001
95712018|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.0629|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.032||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1132|-1.0125|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.0125|-5.1132|0.002
95712019|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.6209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6804|-1.5614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5614|-5.6804|<0.001
95712020|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.1778|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0269|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2184|-2.1372|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.1372|-6.2184|<0.001
95712021|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.2914|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2954||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8649|-0.7178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.7178|-5.8649|0.006
95712022|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3569|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3157|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9706|-3.7432|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7432|-8.9706|<0.001
95712023|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.3962|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3233|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0247|-3.7677|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.7677|-9.0247|<0.001
95712024|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.9228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9199|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7506|-2.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.0950|-5.7506|<0.001
95712025|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.7094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9244|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5459|-2.8729|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.8729|-6.5459|<0.001
95712026|NCT02055976|191394192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.4374|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9187|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.263|-2.6118|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.6118|-6.2630|<0.001
95712027|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.4492|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.2401||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.7872|-7.1112|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.1112|-47.7872|0.004
95712028|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.5908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.4568|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.3577|-19.824|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-19.8240|-61.3577|<0.001
95712029|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-27.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.5402||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.0927|-6.2332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.2332|-48.0927|0.006
95712030|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.1677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8755||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.8023|-6.5332|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.5332|-41.8023|0.004
95712031|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.2255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9203||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9471|-1.5038|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.5038|-36.9471|0.017
95712032|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-26.5155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.8387||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.0795|-8.9515|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.9515|-44.0795|0.002
95712033|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-18.3898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1768|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6698|-8.1097|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-8.1097|-28.6698|<0.001
95712034|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.7882|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.264|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.2423|-26.3341|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3341|-47.2423|<0.001
95712035|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-36.8453|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3084|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.3864|-26.3041|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-26.3041|-47.3864|<0.001
95712036|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.9411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8656|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5748|-17.3075|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.3075|-48.5748|<0.001
95712037|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.3176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.9032|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.0238|-15.6114|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.6114|-47.0238|<0.001
95712038|NCT02055976|191394193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.847|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.465|-17.2289|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.2289|-48.4650|<0.001
95712039|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.663|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.82|10.506|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.506|4.820|<0.001
95712040|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.389|12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||12.190|6.389|<0.001
95712041|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|7.255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.336|10.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||10.175|4.336|<0.001
95712042|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|2.228|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.806||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.361|5.818|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.818|-1.361|0.110
95712043|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.578|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.815||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.972|9.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.185|1.972|0.001
95712044|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.712|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.789||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.156|8.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.268|1.156|0.005
95712045|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.888|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.035||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|9.932|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.932|1.844|0.002
95712046|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.062|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.153|13.349|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.349|5.153|<0.001
95712047|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.264|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.072||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.147|9.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.380|1.147|0.006
95712048|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.843||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.402|8.728|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.728|1.402|0.004
95712049|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|5.096|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.413|8.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||8.780|1.413|0.004
95712050|NCT02055976|191394195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.301|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.832||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.658|7.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.943|0.658|0.011
95712051|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.373|18.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.405|8.373|<0.001
95712052|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.546|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.576|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.43|21.663|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||21.663|11.430|<0.001
95712053|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|13.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.137|18.438|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.438|8.137|<0.001
95712054|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|4.112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.909||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.671|9.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||9.895|-1.671|0.081
95712055|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.743|15.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.377|3.743|<0.001
95712056|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.826|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.878|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.103|15.548|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85 : Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.548|4.103|<0.001
95712057|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.326||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.395|16.612|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.612|3.395|0.002
95712058|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|16.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.367|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.56|22.943|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.943|9.560|<0.001
95712059|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.384||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.847|16.295|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.295|2.847|0.003
95712060|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.029|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.858||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|14.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.710|3.348|0.001
95712061|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.543|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.876||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.827|14.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.260|2.827|0.002
95712062|NCT02055976|191394196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.252|14.544|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||14.544|3.252|0.001
95712063|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-7.462|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.434|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.311|-4.614|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-4.614|-10.311|<0.001
95712064|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.693|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.469|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|-3.776|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-3.776|-9.610|<0.001
95712065|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.755|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.479|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.692|-5.817|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.817|-11.692|<0.001
95712066|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.773||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.596|3.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.451|-3.596|0.484
95712067|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.701|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.793||0.173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.264|1.862|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.862|-5.264|0.173
95712068|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.953|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.761||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.452|1.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.546|-5.452|0.135
95712069|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.447|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.406||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.23|0.335|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.335|-9.230|0.034
95712070|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.764|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.442||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.617|-1.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.910|-11.617|0.003
95712071|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.951|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.458||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.836|-1.066|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.066|-10.836|0.009
95712072|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.915||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.876|0.736|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.736|-6.876|0.056
95712073|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.937||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.408|1.293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||1.293|-6.408|0.095
95712074|NCT02055976|191394198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.271|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.913||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.074|-1.469|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.469|-9.074|0.004
95712075|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.925|-17.836|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.836|-45.925|<0.001
95712076|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.187|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.242|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.571|-14.803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.803|-43.571|<0.001
95712077|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-39.657|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.29|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.136|-25.178|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-25.178|-54.136|<0.001
95712078|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-4.681|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.601||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.713|22.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||22.350|-31.713|0.366
95712079|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|10.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.586||0.773|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.774|37.228|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||37.228|-16.774|0.773
95712080|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.646|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.362||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.206|23.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||23.915|-29.206|0.422
95712081|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-12.911|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.309||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.411|7.589|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.589|-33.411|0.107
95712082|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-23.119|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.461||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.923|-2.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-2.315|-43.923|0.015
95712083|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.535||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.108|3.789|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.789|-38.108|0.054
95712084|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.718||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.696|0.865|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||0.865|-49.696|0.029
95712085|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-6.287|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.705||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.541|18.968|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.968|-31.541|0.311
95712086|NCT02055976|191394199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-32.443|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|12.555||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.4|-7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.485|-57.400|0.006
95712087|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-35.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.463|-14.472|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-14.472|-57.463|<0.001
95712088|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-29.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.044||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.123|-7.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-7.249|-51.123|0.005
95712089|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.175|-17.845|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-17.845|-62.175|<0.001
95712090|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.906||0.614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.502|24.842|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||24.842|-18.502|0.614
95712091|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-8.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.067||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.554|13.427|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||13.427|-30.554|0.221
95712092|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.649|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.933||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.376|16.079|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.079|-27.376|0.303
95712093|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-22.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.53||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.882|6.875|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||6.875|-50.882|0.067
95712094|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.676||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.934|-12.588|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-12.588|-70.934|0.003
95712095|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-34.933|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.832||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.41|-5.456|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.456|-64.410|0.010
95712096|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.978|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.725||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.282|5.326|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||5.326|-41.282|0.064
95712097|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-5.654|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.903||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.311|18.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||18.004|-29.311|0.318
95712098|NCT02055976|191394201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-19.435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.807||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.902|4.032|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.032|-42.902|0.052
95712099|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.674|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.217|-10.731|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-10.731|-41.217|<0.001
95712100|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-21.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.831||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.665|-5.555|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-5.555|-36.665|0.004
95712101|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-31.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.917|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.758|-15.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-15.310|-46.758|<0.001
95712102|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|8.034|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.553||0.799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.948|27.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||27.015|-10.948|0.799
95712103|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.511|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.682||0.398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.748|16.727|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||16.727|-21.748|0.398
95712104|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|0.369|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.58||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.668|19.407|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||19.407|-18.668|0.515
95712105|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-10.056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.549|7.437|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||7.437|-27.549|0.128
95712106|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-24.352|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.882||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.008|-6.695|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-6.695|-42.008|0.004
95712107|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-14.994|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.987||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.858|2.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||2.870|-32.858|0.049
95712108|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-13.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.326||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.368|4.709|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||4.709|-32.368|0.071
95712109|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-3.378|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.464||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.191|15.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||15.435|-22.191|0.361
95712110|NCT02055976|191394202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-15.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.389||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.698|3.629|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||3.629|-33.698|0.056
95712111|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.189|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.431|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.975|-65.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-65.403|-86.975|<0.001
95712112|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-95.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.556|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.238|-84.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-84.172|-106.238|<0.001
95712113|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-106.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.239|-94.915|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-94.915|-117.239|<0.001
95712114|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.622|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.39|-58.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-58.077|-84.390|<0.001
95712115|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.638|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.768|-87.508|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-87.508|-113.768|<0.001
95712116|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-103.386|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.525|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-116.353|-90.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-90.420|-116.353|<0.001
95712117|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.124|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.382|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.813|-50.435|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.435|-71.813|<0.001
95712118|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-81.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.721|-70.954|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-70.954|-92.721|<0.001
95712119|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-89.683|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.567|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.74|-78.627|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-78.627|-100.740|<0.001
95712120|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-76.747|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.118|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.902|-64.593|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.593|-88.902|<0.001
95712121|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-100.666|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.098|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.781|-88.551|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-88.551|-112.781|<0.001
95712122|NCT02055976|191394204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-109.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.054|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-121.519|-97.462|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-97.462|-121.519|<0.001
95712123|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.772|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.473|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.671|-39.874|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-39.874|-53.671|<0.001
95712124|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-59.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.554|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.257|-52.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-52.143|-66.257|<0.001
95712125|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.868|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.007|-59.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.730|-74.007|<0.001
95712126|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.051|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.595|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.195|-32.908|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-32.908|-47.195|<0.001
95712127|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.009|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.587|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.135|-48.882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.882|-63.135|<0.001
95712128|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-57.576|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.544|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.618|-50.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-50.533|-64.618|<0.001
95712129|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-37.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.389|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.721|-31.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.260|-44.721|<0.001
95712130|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-50.856|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.451|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.709|-44.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-44.002|-57.709|<0.001
95712131|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.354|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.505|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.315|-49.393|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.393|-63.315|<0.001
95712132|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.647|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.417|-35.926|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.926|-50.417|<0.001
95712133|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.698|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.633|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.916|-49.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.480|-63.916|<0.001
95712134|NCT02055976|191394205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.477|-54.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.134|-68.477|<0.001
95712135|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.69928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13216|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.96175|-1.43682|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.43682|-1.96175|<0.001
95712136|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.07922|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13446|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34622|-1.81223|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.81223|-2.34622|<0.001
95712137|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.23886|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13553|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.50795|-1.96978|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.96978|-2.50795|<0.001
95712138|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.43281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16311|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75689|-1.10872|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.10872|-1.75689|<0.001
95712139|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.01501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16217|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33718|-1.69283|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.69283|-2.33718|<0.001
95712140|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.11359|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16038|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4323|-1.79489|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.79489|-2.43230|<0.001
95712141|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.35298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13609|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62324|-1.08271|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.08271|-1.62324|<0.001
95712142|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.79615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1379|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07001|-1.52229|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.52229|-2.07001|<0.001
95712143|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.86921|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13927|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14575|-1.59266|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.59266|-2.14575|<0.001
95712144|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.57311|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14333|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85788|-1.28834|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.28834|-1.85788|<0.001
95712145|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.00256|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14228|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28521|-1.7199|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.71990|-2.28521|<0.001
95712146|NCT02055976|191394207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.20298|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14142|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48399|-1.92197|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-1.92197|-2.48399|<0.001
95712147|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-41.92915|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83037|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.55052|-36.30778|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-36.30778|-47.55052|<0.001
95712148|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.08604|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.88356|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.81235|-45.35973|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.35973|-56.81235|<0.001
95712149|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-55.516|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91014|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.29424|-49.73777|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-49.73777|-61.29424|<0.001
95712150|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.30375|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07498|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.41376|-27.19373|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.19373|-39.41376|<0.001
95712151|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-47.8521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.05746|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.92668|-41.77751|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-41.77751|-53.92668|<0.001
95712152|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.65686|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02097|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6606|-42.65313|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.65313|-54.66060|<0.001
95712153|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-33.5292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96599|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.42015|-27.63826|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-27.63826|-39.42015|<0.001
95712154|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.8568|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.00531|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.82617|-37.88744|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-37.88744|-49.82617|<0.001
95712155|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.36865|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03981|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.40589|-40.33142|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-40.33142|-52.40589|<0.001
95712156|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-38.06019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1361|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.29176|-31.82863|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-31.82863|-44.29176|<0.001
95712157|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-48.57807|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1135|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.76397|-42.39217|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.39217|-54.76397|<0.001
95712158|NCT02055976|191394208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-51.87214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09363|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.01968|-45.7246|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113:Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-45.72460|-58.01968|<0.001
95712159|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.33157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02639|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38399|-0.27916|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.27916|-0.38399|<0.001
95712160|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02682|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49727|-0.39077|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39077|-0.49727|<0.001
95712161|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.48314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02698|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53671|-0.42956|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.42956|-0.53671|<0.001
95712162|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.30542|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0323|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3696|-0.24124|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.24124|-0.36960|<0.001
95712163|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.44143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03183|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.50466|-0.37821|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.37821|-0.50466|<0.001
95712164|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.46235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03148|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52491|-0.3998|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39980|-0.52491|<0.001
95712165|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.26949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02615|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32142|-0.21755|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.21755|-0.32142|<0.001
95712166|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.37493|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02649|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42754|-0.32231|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.32231|-0.42754|<0.001
95712167|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.41199|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02676|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46512|-0.35886|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.35886|-0.46512|<0.001
95712168|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.31806|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02979|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37723|-0.25888|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.25888|-0.37723|<0.001
95712169|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.42583|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02932|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48409|-0.36758|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.36758|-0.48409|<0.001
95712170|NCT02055976|191394210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-0.45501|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02912|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51287|-0.39715|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-0.39715|-0.51287|<0.001
95712171|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-49.42411|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72907|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.83019|-42.01803|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-42.01803|-56.83019|<0.001
95712172|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-66.63383|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7905|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.16086|-59.10681|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-59.10681|-74.16086|<0.001
95712173|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-71.72901|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81541|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.30431|-64.15371|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-64.15371|-79.30431|<0.001
95712174|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-43.56596|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92236|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.35899|-35.77293|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-35.77293|-51.35899|<0.001
95712175|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-62.34926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.86432|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.02607|-54.67245|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.67245|-70.02607|<0.001
95712176|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-65.06617|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82052|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.65818|-57.47415|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 85: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-57.47415|-72.65818|<0.001
95712177|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-40.52435|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66973|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.81299|-33.23571|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-33.23571|-47.81299|<0.001
95712178|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-56.14495|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.71641|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.52668|-48.76322|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-48.76322|-63.52668|<0.001
95712179|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.5637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7569|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.0251|-54.1023|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-54.10230|-69.02510|<0.001
95712180|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-46.34109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.16385|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.61427|-38.06792|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-38.06792|-54.61427|<0.001
95712181|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-61.3789|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09957|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.52338|-53.23443|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-53.23443|-69.52338|<0.001
95712182|NCT02055976|191394211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-64.67274|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.06866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.75728|-56.5882|||Mixed Models Analysis|One-sided p-values (unadjusted for multiplicity) was derived from the MMRM model.||Day 113: Adjusted mean difference and 2-sided 95% confidence interval were derived from the MMRM model with fixed effects for treatment, visit, baseline value, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline by visit interaction.||-56.58820|-72.75728|<0.001
95712183|NCT01657903|191394226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.42|47.89||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.89|34.42|<0.0001
95712184|NCT01657903|191394226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|41.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.51|48.06||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||48.06|34.51|<0.0001
95712185|NCT01657903|191394226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|40.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.06|47.61||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %RER. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||47.61|34.06|<0.0001
95712186|NCT01657903|191394227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.01|12.72||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.72|6.01|<0.0001
95712187|NCT01657903|191394227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|9.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.07|12.82||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||12.82|6.07|<0.0001
95712188|NCT01657903|191394227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|11.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.28|15.03||No adjustments made for multiple comparisons as the primary comparison was pre-specified.|ANOVA|ANOVA with factors for treatment, study period, and subject (random effect).|Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment such that a positive difference favors the first named treatment.|Null hypothesis considered population means for the treatments in comparison to be equal with respect to %SMH recovery. Statistical tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05.||15.03|8.28|<0.0001
95712189|NCT02828982|191394303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in metabolic costs between the two groups||||0.585
95712190|NCT02828982|191394304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.452||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis was that there were no differences in the number of steps taken outside of the home for the two prostheses.||||0.452
95712191|NCT02828982|191394305|OTHER|paired t-test of Physical component scores between the two conditions||||||0.48||||||a prior threshold for significance was 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.480
95712192|NCT02828982|191394305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||Mental Component Score||||0.408
95712193|NCT02828982|191394306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.058||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Ambulation Score||||0.058
95712194|NCT02828982|191394306|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.123||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Appearance Score||||.123
95712195|NCT02828982|191394306|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.052||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Frustration Score||||.052
95712196|NCT02828982|191394306|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.188||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Perceived Response Score||||.188
95712197|NCT02828982|191394306|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.336||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Limb Health Score||||.336
95712198|NCT02828982|191394306|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.043||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Social Burden Score||||.043
95712199|NCT02828982|191394306|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.391||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Sounds Score||||.391
95712200|NCT02828982|191394306|SUPERIORITY|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.799||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Utility Score||||.799
95712201|NCT02828982|191394306|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Well-Being||||.173
95712202|NCT02828982|191394307|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.655||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Biceps Femoris||||0.655
95712203|NCT02828982|191394307|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.281||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Rectus Femoris||||.281
95712204|NCT02828982|191394307|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.844||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Soleus||||.844
95712205|NCT02828982|191394307|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.11||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Intact Side Tibialis Anterior||||.110
95712206|NCT02828982|191394307|OTHER|paired t-test between conditions||||||0.394||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Biceps Femoris||||.394
95712207|NCT02828982|191394307|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.141||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Residual Side Rectus Femoris||||.141
95712208|NCT02828982|191394308|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Statistical significance was set a-priori at p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
95712209|NCT02312934|191394309|OTHER||||||=|0.41||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Primary Aim (Specific Aim 1), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline PCI FACT-Cog score (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||=0.41
95712210|NCT02312934|191394310|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||All pairwise comparisons were Sidak corrected for multiple comparisons at the p \< 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis|Degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.72).||For the Secondary Aim (Specific Aim 2), a mixed-models repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the interaction of treatment group (nicotine, placebo) with time (Visit), using change from baseline CPT Scores (Visit 3, Visit 4, and Visit 5) as the dependent measure.||||0.79
95712211|NCT00337935|191394317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.9||a priori theshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|ANCOVA|Baseline Hemoglobin was used as a covariate.||||0.9|0.2|.0062
95712212|NCT00337935|191394318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712213|NCT00337935|191394319|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance p=0.05|Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95712214|NCT02361307|191394338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95712215|NCT00329433|191394339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Published data show that the incidence of PF4/heparin EIA antibodies is approximately 40% (range, 20% to 60%) following cardiac surgery. We estimated that antibody formation would occur in approximately 20% of patients following thoracic surgery. Sixty patients in each group would provide 80% power to detect a decrease in the incidence of positive PF4/heparin EIA tests from 20% to 4% at an alpha level of \<0.05.||||<0.05
95712216|NCT00329433|191394340|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95712217|NCT00329433|191394341|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95712218|NCT01189201|191394352|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.07|107.8|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation (gCV)|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.80|102.07|
95712219|NCT01189201|191394353|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.91|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.97|110.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||110.09|99.97|
95712220|NCT01189201|191394354|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|107.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.7|114.02|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||114.02|101.70|
95712221|NCT01189201|191394355|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|109.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|120.83|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||120.83|99.55|
95712222|NCT01189201|191394358|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.78|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.02|107.61|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||107.61|102.02|
95712223|NCT01189201|191394359|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin individual tablets (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|104.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|19.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.23|112.62|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||112.62|97.23|
95712224|NCT01189201|191394360|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.86|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.33|90.64|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.64|81.33|
95712225|NCT01189201|191394361|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|61.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|54.1|69.71|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||69.71|54.10|
95712226|NCT01189201|191394362|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|85.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.77|90.14|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||90.14|80.77|
95712227|NCT01189201|191394363|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|93.18|STANDARD_DEVIATION|15.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.07|102.05|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||102.05|85.07|
95712228|NCT01189201|191394364|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|68.48|STANDARD_DEVIATION|27.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.59|80.03|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||80.03|58.59|
95712229|NCT01189201|191394365|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fed)|Geometric Mean Ratio|90.95|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.24|98.19|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||98.19|84.24|
95712230|NCT01189201|191394366|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.64|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|100.3|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.30|91.19|
95712231|NCT01189201|191394367|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|98.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|13.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.95|104.53|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||104.53|91.95|
95712232|NCT01189201|191394368|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|95.69|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.17|100.43|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.43|91.17|
95712233|NCT01189201|191394369|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|92.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.36|100.09|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||100.09|86.36|
95712234|NCT01189201|191394370|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|103.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.4|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.93|115.74|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||115.74|92.93|
95712235|NCT01189201|191394371|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Ratio calculated as empa plus linagliptin FDC A1 (fasted) divided by empa plus linagliptin FDC A3 (fasted)|Geometric Mean Ratio|96.36|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.3|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.78|103.42|||ANOVA|Based on ANOVA with terms for sequence, subjects within sequence, period and treatment|Standard deviation is actually the gCV|No formal testing, investigation of relative bioavailability||103.42|89.78|
95712236|NCT01409382|191394389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Take home babies||7.6|1.5|<0.05
95712237|NCT01425268|191394657|NON_INFERIORITY|Assuming that the success rate for both expanders was 95%, at least 92 breasts implanted with a AeroForm Tissue Expander and 46 breasts implanted with a saline expander were needed to be 80% confident (i.e., have a statistical power of 80%) that the lower bound of the one-sided 95% Confidence Interval for the difference in the Success rates (πTreatment - πControl) was greater than or equal to -10%.|margin of non-inferiority|-7.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-7.3241||||||The Treatment Success Rate per breast is 96.1% (149/155) for AeroForm and 98.8% (82/83) for saline.The difference (AeroForm - saline) is -2.7% with a lower confidence limit of -7.3%, meeting the non-inferiority margin of \> -10%.|The study was powered to show that the Treatment Success rate for the AeroForm System (πTreatment) was not worse than the rate for the saline expander (πControl) by more than 10% (-0.10 \< πTreatment - πControl).|||-7.3241|
95712238|NCT01425268|191394658|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kaplan-Meier Log Rank test|Subjects not completing tissue expansion are censored in the analysis||||||<0.0001
95712239|NCT01733758|191394701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-1.39|||ANCOVA|||||-1.39|-1.72|
95712240|NCT01733758|191394701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-1.18|||ANCOVA|||||-1.18|-1.51|
95712241|NCT01733758|191394701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The first test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of least squares (LS) means (albiglutide 50 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
95712242|NCT01733758|191394701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The second test in a sequential testing procedure starting with albiglutide 50 mg versus placebo, and if significant at 0.05 level, followed by albiglutide 30 mg versus placebo.|t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is from a 2-sided t-test to test whether the difference of LS means (albiglutide 30 mg - placebo) is equal to zero.||||||<0.0001
95712243|NCT00727246|191394716|OTHER|||||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo. A mean index score created as a composite cognitive performance across domains (higher t-score = higher cognition). Purpose was to serve as a measure of overall cognitive functioning for data analysis.||||.85
95712244|NCT00727246|191394717|OTHER|||||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|0.95|||||ANOVA|A repeated measures ANOVA was completed to evaluate differences in cognitive composite scores between groups and CDP-Choline or placebo||A repeated measure ANOVA was completed to evaluate potential differences in cognitive composite scores of individuals with a history of TBI as compared to healthy controls 6 weeks after treatment with CDP Choline (1000 mg CDP-Choline 2 x per day for 6 weeks) as compared to those treated with placebo.||||.329
95712245|NCT00661362|191394718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||||-0.29|-0.55|<0.0001
95712246|NCT00661362|191394719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.149|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||||-0.26|-0.85|<0.0002
95712247|NCT00661362|191394720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.684|<|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.37|-4.83|||ANCOVA|||||-4.83|-15.37|<0.0002
95712248|NCT00661362|191394721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-155.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|55.0||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-264.0|-47.0|||ANCOVA|||||-47|-264|0.0052
95712249|NCT00661362|191394722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2802.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|989.8||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4753.0|-852.0|||ANCOVA|||||-852|-4753|0.0052
95712250|NCT00661362|191394723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24.0|8.0|<0.0001
95712251|NCT03288987|191394730|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared by comparing the 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to the reference product (Roche Bevacizumab) to the point-estimate margin and was based on the synthesis method.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|1.35|||Regression, Cox|Upper limit of CI is lower than the noninferiority margin (1.44).|The 90 % CI based on synthesis method is (0.45,1.38). In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.35|0.46|0.47
95712252|NCT03288987|191394731|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.8|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.80|0.55|0.99
95712253|NCT03288987|191394732|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||0.17
95712254|NCT03288987|191394733|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.61|||Regression, Cox||In HR calculation, the AryoGen Pharmed Bevacizumab to Roche Bevacizumab was reported. (reference group was Roche Bevacizumab)|||1.61|0.76|0.59
95712255|NCT03288987|191394734|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher's Exact Test|||||||>0.05
95712256|NCT00368069|191394745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.155||||0.038||95.0|0.009|0.301|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on (log-) POS freq/week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline POS freq/week as covariate.||||0.301|0.009|0.038
95712257|NCT00368069|191394745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.4||||||95.0|0.9|26.0|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over PBO is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS freq/week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.0|0.9|
95712258|NCT00368069|191394747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.158||||0.034||95.0|0.012|0.305|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) seizure frequency per week over Treatment period with Treatment, (log-) Baseline seizure frequency per week as covariate.||||0.305|0.012|0.034
95712259|NCT00368069|191394747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|14.7||||||95.0|1.2|26.3|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||26.3|1.2|
95712260|NCT00368069|191394748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.07||95.0|0.95|3.55|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression analysis including Treatment as a factor.|Based on the number of evaluable patients. A patient is considered as evaluable for the response status if he has seizure information in at least one of the period (baseline or treatment period.|||3.55|0.95|0.070
95712261|NCT00368069|191394749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.033||95.0|||||Mantel Haenszel|Subjects with missing data during the Treatment period were considered in the category \<-25%.||||||0.033
95712262|NCT00368069|191394750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.205||||0.003||95.0|0.07|0.341|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA on (log-) Treatment POS frequency per week with Treatment and (log-) Baseline POS frequency per week as covariate||||0.341|0.070|0.003
95712263|NCT00368069|191394750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over Placebo|18.6||||||95.0|6.7|28.9|||Transf. of ANCOVA results on log data|Percent Reduction of Keppra over Placebo is calculated based on the ANCOVA on log data as 100\*(1-exp(LSmeans Keppra -LSMeans Placebo))||Treatment difference was assessed through the percent reduction in POS frequency per week of Keppra over Placebo by back transformation of the results of the ANCOVA on log data||28.9|6.7|
95712264|NCT03432819|191394751|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Net)|9.24||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|19.03|||Regression, Linear|||||19.03|-0.55|0.06
95712265|NCT03432819|191394752|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|8.3|||Regression, Linear|||||8.30|0.70|0.02
95712266|NCT03432819|191394753|SUPERIORITY|Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.26|||Regression, Linear|||||0.26|-0.10|0.39
95712267|NCT03432819|191394754|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.20|-0.37|0.54
95712268|NCT03432819|191394755|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.14|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.14|-0.18|0.81
95712269|NCT03432819|191394756|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.01|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.01|-0.37|0.06
95712270|NCT03432819|191394757|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.13|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.13|-0.78|0.16
95712271|NCT03432819|191394758|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.09|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||-0.09|-0.84|0.02
95712272|NCT03432819|191394759|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.47|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.47|-0.32|0.71
95712273|NCT03432819|191394760|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.06|||Regression, Linear|||Using an intent-to-treat approach, intervention efficacy was tested with a hierarchical linear repeated-measures regressions where responses came from either follow-up, and MEMS adherence from 5, 6, or 7 month measurements. Predictors were an indicator for study arm, baseline value, follow-up time-point, and covariates. Standard errors were adjusted for clustering at the individual-level (ultimate clustering methods). Covariates were socio-demographics associated with the outcome at p\>.05.||0.06|-0.73|0.10
95712274|NCT02467504|191394761|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.530
95712275|NCT02467504|191394762|OTHER|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
95712276|NCT02467504|191394763|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95712277|NCT02467504|191394764|OTHER|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.015
95712278|NCT02467504|191394765|OTHER|Chi||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
95712279|NCT02467504|191394766|OTHER|description of Treg cells in CD4+ T cells||||||0.665|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.665
95712280|NCT02467504|191394767|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
95712281|NCT02467504|191394768|OTHER|||||||0.616|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.616
95712282|NCT02467504|191394769|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.200
95712283|NCT02467504|191394770|OTHER|||||||0.373|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.373
95712284|NCT02467504|191394771|OTHER|||||||0.565|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.565
95712285|NCT02467504|191394772|OTHER|||||||0.221|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.221
95712286|NCT02467504|191394773|OTHER|||||||0.085|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.085
95712287|NCT02467504|191394774|OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.740
95712288|NCT02467504|191394775|OTHER|||||||0.881|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.881
95712289|NCT02467504|191394776|OTHER|||||||0.422|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.422
95712290|NCT02467504|191394777|OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.055
95712291|NCT02467504|191394778|OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.039
95712292|NCT02467504|191394779|OTHER|||||||0.156|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.156
95712293|NCT02242305|191394863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.27|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 3 days and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.27|-0.33|0.809
95712294|NCT02242305|191394863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.|Treatment differences were estimated by reference to the Least Squares (LS) mean differences within 1 day and the corresponding 90% CIs. The mean difference calculated as Hyoscine Butylbromide tablets 10 mg - Hyoscine Butylbromide capsules 10 mg.|||0.33|-0.39|0.809
95712295|NCT02242305|191394864|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline pain intensity as a covariate was used.||||||0.079
95712296|NCT02242305|191394869|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.531|||||||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model including treatment and center as fixed effects and baseline score as covariates was used.||||||0.531
95712297|NCT03451630|191394870|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (6, 3152).||Overall Test of Group by Time Interaction||||0.0211
95712298|NCT03451630|191394870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.09||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 4.83 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||5.09|0.29|0.0280
95712299|NCT03451630|191394870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|4.48||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.81 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using linear contrast.||4.48|-0.35|0.0935
95712300|NCT03451630|191394870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.44|2.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.35 with degrees of freedom (1, 3152).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to12-Months using linear contrast.||2.68|-1.44|0.5538
95712301|NCT03451630|191394871|SUPERIORITY|Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).||||||0.8505|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.44 with degrees of freedom (6, 3154).||Overall Test of the Group by Time Interaction||||0.8505
95712302|NCT03451630|191394871|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 16.97 with degrees of freedom (3, 3160).||Test for significant change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
95712303|NCT03451630|191394871|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8656||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1229).||Test for significant change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8656
95712304|NCT03451630|191394871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.46||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.51 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154)||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.46|-1.61|0.4740
95712305|NCT03451630|191394871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.6017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|3.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.27 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||3.13|-1.81|0.6017
95712306|NCT03451630|191394871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|2.2||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (1, 3154).||Test for group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||2.20|-1.67|0.7860
95712307|NCT03451630|191394872|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.59
95712308|NCT03451630|191394872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||2.11|0.76|0.6692
95712309|NCT03451630|191394872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.93||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.80 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.93|0.70|0.6692
95712310|NCT03451630|191394872|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-square statistics 0.8 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the Treatment Effect||1.59|0.75|0.6692
95712311|NCT03451630|191394873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.08 with degrees of freedom (2).||Overall Test of Marginal Group Differences||||0.58
95712312|NCT03451630|191394873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.02||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect||3.02|0.43|0.7436
95712313|NCT03451630|191394873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.25||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.25|0.31|0.7436
95712314|NCT03451630|191394873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.97|||Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.59 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect.||2.97|0.62|0.7436
95712315|NCT03451630|191394874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5558||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.82 with degrees of freedom (6, 3057)||Overall test of treatment-by-time interaction||||0.5558
95712316|NCT03451630|191394874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 6.74 with degrees of freedom (3, 3063).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0002
95712317|NCT03451630|191394874|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7846||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.24 with degrees of freedom (2,1197).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.7846
95712318|NCT03451630|191394874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.2444|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|0.49||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-Statistics 1.36 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.49|-1.92|0.2444
95712319|NCT03451630|191394874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.92||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.21 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.92|-1.48|0.6480
95712320|NCT03451630|191394874|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.3476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|0.47||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (1, 3057).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.47|-1.34|0.3476
95712321|NCT03451630|191394875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5199||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.86 with degrees of freedom (6, 3148)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.5199
95712322|NCT03451630|191394875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0008||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.56 with degrees of freedom (3, 3154).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0008
95712323|NCT03451630|191394875|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9897||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.01 with degrees of freedom (2,1229).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9897
95712324|NCT03451630|191394875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.8749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.03|-0.03|0.8749
95712325|NCT03451630|191394875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.2216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.01||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.49 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.01|-0.05|0.2216
95712326|NCT03451630|191394875|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.0607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.52 with degrees of freedom (1, 3148).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|0.00|0.0607
95712327|NCT03451630|191394876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1884||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.46 with degrees of freedom (6, 3138)||Overall test of treatment-by-time||||0.1884
95712328|NCT03451630|191394876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.87 with degrees of freedom (3, 3144).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0090
95712329|NCT03451630|191394876|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.217||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.53 with degrees of freedom (2, 1227).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.2170
95712330|NCT03451630|191394876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.71 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.28|-0.06|0.1910
95712331|NCT03451630|191394876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.35||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 5.18 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.35|0.03|0.0229
95712332|NCT03451630|191394876|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.2547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.30 with degrees of freedom (1, 3138).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12 months using the linear contrasts.||0.06|-0.21|0.2547
95712333|NCT03451630|191394877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0413||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.49 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.0413
95712334|NCT03451630|191394877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.14 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.04|-0.28|0.1433
95712335|NCT03451630|191394877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.23||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.63 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.23|-0.10|0.4272
95712336|NCT03451630|191394877|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.06||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 8.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||-0.06|-0.31|0.0037
95712337|NCT03451630|191394878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8231||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.8231
95712338|NCT03451630|191394878|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 330.05 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
95712339|NCT03451630|191394878|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6061||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.50 with degrees of freedom (2 , 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.6061
95712340|NCT03451630|191394878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.7459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.11||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.11|-0.15|0.7459
95712341|NCT03451630|191394878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.3169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.08||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.00 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.08|-0.18|0.3169
95712342|NCT03451630|191394878|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.14||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.68 with degrees of freedom (1, 3164).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.14|-0.07|0.4098
95712343|NCT03451630|191394879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4732||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.88 with degrees of freedom (4, 1945).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.4732
95712344|NCT03451630|191394879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 319.14 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
95712345|NCT03451630|191394879|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9628||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (2, 1948).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9628
95712346|NCT03451630|191394879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.19||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.04 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.19|-0.16|0.8438
95712347|NCT03451630|191394879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.7425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.15||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.15|-0.19|0.7425
95712348|NCT03451630|191394879|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.17||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.45 with degrees of freedom (1, 1945).||Test for Group difference in the change from baseline to 12-Months using the linear contrasts.||0.17|-0.10|0.5044
95712349|NCT03451630|191394880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9804||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9804
95712350|NCT03451630|191394880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 21.80 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||<0.0001
95712351|NCT03451630|191394880|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9764||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.02 with degrees of freedom (2, 1211).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.9764
95712352|NCT03451630|191394880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.6||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.03.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.60|0.63|0.9757
95712353|NCT03451630|191394880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.7958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.68||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-test statistics 0.26.||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.68|0.67|0.7958
95712354|NCT03451630|191394880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.7646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.34||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.30||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.34|0.67|0.7646
95712355|NCT03451630|191394881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9622||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.15 with degrees of freedom (4, 3164).||Overall test for the treatment-by-time interaction||||0.9622
95712356|NCT03451630|191394881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0377||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 3.28 with degrees of freedom (2, 3168).||Test for the change over time when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.0377
95712357|NCT03451630|191394881|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistic 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2, 1903).||Test for the change by treatment when the treatment-by-time interaction effect is not significant.||||0.8300
95712358|NCT03451630|191394881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|2.0||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.32||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.00|0.38|0.7507
95712359|NCT03451630|191394881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|2.13||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.15||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||2.13|0.42|0.8844
95712360|NCT03451630|191394881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.77||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|T-statistics -0.22||Odds ratio of Treatment at 12-Months||1.77|0.49|0.8227
95712361|NCT03451630|191394882|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1a||||1.00
95712362|NCT03451630|191394882|OTHER|||||||0.242|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Frequency and test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for MMA-1b||||0.242
95712363|NCT03451630|191394883|OTHER|||||||0.1112|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-1||||0.1112
95712364|NCT03451630|191394883|OTHER|||||||0.4754|||||||Fisher Exact|Fisher's exact test for the null hypothesis of no association between each event and treatment group.||Test of the marginal association between event rate and treatment for eligible participants' data at 12 months for PCE-2||||0.4754
95712365|NCT03451630|191394884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|4.28||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||4.28|0.13|0.9079
95712366|NCT03451630|191394884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.72||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.72|0.13|0.9079
95712367|NCT03451630|191394884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.45||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Regression, Logistic|Chi-squared statistics 0.19 with degrees of freedom (2).||Test for the treatment effect (without weight) using a Firth's penalized logistic regression model for rare events.||3.45|0.34|0.9079
95712368|NCT03451630|191394885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9912||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 335).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-1.||||0.9912
95712369|NCT03451630|191394885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.876||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 339).||Test for change over time for SPC-1||||0.8760
95712370|NCT03451630|191394885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.678||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.39 with degrees of freedom (2, 276).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-1||||0.6780
95712371|NCT03451630|191394885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1761||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.59 with degrees of freedom (4, 284).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPC-2||||0.1761
95712372|NCT03451630|191394885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3239||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 288).||Test for change over time for SPC-2||||0.3239
95712373|NCT03451630|191394885|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7415||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.30 with degrees of freedom (2, 139).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPC-2||||0.7415
95712374|NCT03451630|191394886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9786||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.11 with degrees of freedom (4, 608).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-1.||||0.9786
95712375|NCT03451630|191394886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4703||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.76 with degrees of freedom (2, 612).||Test for change over time for SPD-1||||0.4703
95712376|NCT03451630|191394886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.877||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.13 with degrees of freedom (2, 332).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-1||||0.8770
95712377|NCT03451630|191394886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6198||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.66 with degrees of freedom (4, 469).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for SPD-2||||0.6198
95712378|NCT03451630|191394886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6211||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.48 with degrees of freedom (2, 473).||Test for change over time for SPD-2||||0.6211
95712379|NCT03451630|191394886|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1471||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.93 with degrees of freedom (2, 219).||Test for change in treatment effect for SPD-2.||||0.1471
95712380|NCT03451630|191394887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8247||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.38 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-1||||0.8247
95712381|NCT03451630|191394887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6651||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.41 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-1||||0.6651
95712382|NCT03451630|191394887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3441||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 1.07 with degrees of freedom (2, 218).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-1||||0.3441
95712383|NCT03451630|191394887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0847||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 2.07 with degrees of freedom (4, 280).||Test for the treatment-by-time interaction (without weight) for AMM-2||||0.0847
95712384|NCT03451630|191394887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9695||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.03 with degrees of freedom (2, 284).||Test for change over time for AMM-2||||0.9695
95712385|NCT03451630|191394887|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9396||||||Controlling for: age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, engagement at baseline, comfortability with technology, tech literacy (HINTS), social support at baseline (ISEL), health literacy (AAHLS), illness burden (CCI), and area deprivation index (ADI).|Mixed Models Analysis|F-statistics 0.06 with degrees of freedom (2, 200).||Test for change in treatment effect for AMM-2||||0.9396
95712386|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM) that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.8|-1.4|<0.0001
95712387|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.2|-1.7|<0.0001
95712388|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-1.4|-2.0|<0.0001
95712389|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|0.3||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.6|-0.0|0.0799
95712390|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.1||||0.3942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.2||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurements||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||0.2|-0.4|0.3942
95712391|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the on-treatment without rescue medication observation period. The estimated treatment effect excludes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (hypothetical estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.3||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Mixed model for repeated measurement||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a MMRM that assumed data to be missing at random. As dependent variables, the MMRM model included all post-baseline values collected at scheduled visits up to and including week 26. The independent effects were treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and the baseline HbA1c value as a covariate, all nested within visit, and an unstructured residual covariance matrix.||-0.0|-0.6|0.0272
95712392|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.5|-1.1|<0.0001
95727791|NCT02151461|191425080|OTHER|||||||0.2177|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise Comparison using Treatment D as the Reference Group||The HOMA Calculator,is an algorithm that takes account of variations in hepatic and peripheral glucose resistance, increases in insulin secretion curve for plasma glucose concentrations above 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and contribution of circulating proinsulin (eg, C-peptide) to estimate steady state beta cell function (%HOMA-B) and insulin sensitivity (%HOMA-S), as percentages of a normal reference population. %HOMA-IR was analyzed on a logarithmic scale (natural logarithmic transformation).||||0.2177
95727792|NCT02151461|191425080|OTHER|||||||0.4144|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4144
95727793|NCT02151461|191425080|OTHER|||||||0.3117|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.3117
95712393|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.9||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.9|-1.5|<0.0001
95712394|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-1.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-1.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Placebo|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-1.1|-1.7|<0.0001
95712395|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|0.2||||0.1958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.5||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 3 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.5|-0.1|0.1958
95712396|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.2||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 7 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||0.1|-0.5|0.1868
95712397|NCT03018028|191394888|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity. Results are based on the data from the in-trial observation period. The estimated treatment effect includes the effect of any rescue medication and any effect after premature trial product discontinuation (treatment policy estimand).|Treatment difference|-0.4||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|-0.1||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 0.|Pattern Mixture model||Oral semaglutide 14 mg - Liraglutide 0.9 mg|The analysis was based on a pattern mixture model using multiple imputation to handle missing week 26 data, assuming that data were missing at random within the groups used for imputation. The imputed data sets were analysed using an ANCOVA model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as a covariate for each of the 1000 imputed complete data sets, and pooled by Rubin's rule to draw inference.||-0.1|-0.7|0.0077
95712398|NCT03018028|191394915|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.2579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.4||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||1.40|0.29|0.2579
95712399|NCT03018028|191394915|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.25||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.66||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.66|0.10|0.0052
95712400|NCT03018028|191394915|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.31||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.87||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||0.87|0.11|0.0259
95712401|NCT03018028|191394915|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7||||0.0674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.8||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||7.80|0.93|0.0674
95712402|NCT03018028|191394915|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.54||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||3.54|0.32|0.9087
95712403|NCT03018028|191394915|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.6498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|4.62||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Withdrawal for any reason or lost to follow-up contributed to the analysis as events (initiation of additional anti-diabetic medication). Censoring time was one day before planned end of treatment.||4.62|0.38|0.6498
95712404|NCT03018028|191394916|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34||||0.0219|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.86||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 3 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.86|0.14|0.0219
95712405|NCT03018028|191394916|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.15||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.44||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 7 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.44|0.05|0.0005
95712406|NCT03018028|191394916|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.23||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.7||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral semaglutide 14 mg / Placebo|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||0.70|0.07|0.0098
95712407|NCT03018028|191394916|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.95||||0.1193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|11.46||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 3 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||11.46|0.76|0.1193
95712408|NCT03018028|191394916|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.31||||0.7147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.56||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 7 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||5.56|0.31|0.7147
95712409|NCT03018028|191394916|SUPERIORITY|This hypothesis was not controlled for multiplicity.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.97||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|8.85||Unadjusted two-sided p-value for test of no difference from 1.|Regression, Cox||Oral Semaglutide 14 mg / Liraglutide 0.9 mg|Time to initiation of rescue medication was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and stratification factor as categorical fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate. Censoring time was one day before last day on trial product.||8.85|0.44|0.3765
95712410|NCT02041533|191394945|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.2511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.45|||Log Rank|Log-rank test stratified by histology (squamous vs. non-squamous) as entered into the IVRS.|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.45|0.91|0.2511
95712411|NCT02041533|191394946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.43|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.43|0.95|
95712412|NCT02041533|191394947|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.20|0.79|
95712413|NCT02041533|191394948|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.24|||||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Hazard ratio of nivolumab to investigator's choice chemotherapy.|||1.24|0.86|
95712414|NCT02041533|191394949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.06|||||Stratified by histology (squamous vs.non-squamous) at randomization. Strata adjusted odds ratio (Nivolumab over investigator choice of chemotherapy) using Mantel-Haenszel method.|||1.06|0.46|
95712415|NCT00545740|191394951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.063||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.063
95712416|NCT00545740|191394951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.736||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.736
95712417|NCT00545740|191394951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
95712418|NCT00545740|191394953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.047
95712419|NCT00545740|191394953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.741||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.741
95712420|NCT00545740|191394953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.780
95712421|NCT02117024|191394958|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0011|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0011
95712422|NCT02117024|191394958|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Other|||With only 50% of enrollment complete prior to study termination by sponsor, insufficient sample size exists to fully complete efficacy analysis.||||<0.05
95727794|NCT02151461|191425081|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.011|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.011
95727795|NCT02151461|191425081|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0152|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0152
95727796|NCT02151461|191425081|OTHER|Average Change in Pre-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0284|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0284
95712423|NCT02500706|191394978|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 1: Primary analysis: HbA1c non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of mealtime faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|-0.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|<0.001
95712424|NCT02500706|191394978|NON_INFERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 2: HbA1c non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Non-inferiority of postmeal faster aspart was considered confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%"|Treatment difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.19||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.19|0.004|<0.001
95712425|NCT02500706|191394978|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 4: HbA1c superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0%-points."|Treatment difference|-0.02||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.07||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||The endpoint was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline HbA1c as a covariate.||0.07|-0.11|0.633
95712426|NCT02500706|191394979|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 3: 1-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increments superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog.~Superiority was confirmed if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was below 0."|Treatment difference|-0.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|-0.45||p-value from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA|||Change from baseline in postprandial glucose increment (meal test) is analysed using an analysis of variance model. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline postprandial glucose increment as a covariate.||-0.45|-1.36|<0.001
95712427|NCT02500706|191394980|SUPERIORITY|"Stepwise hierarchical testing procedure was applied for confirmatory endpoints:~Step 5: 1,5-anhydroglucitol superiority of mealtime faster aspart versus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®.~Superiority was to be confirmed if the lower boundary of the two-sided 95% CI of the mean treatment difference (mealtime faster aspart minus mealtime NovoRapid®/NovoLog®) was above 0."|Treatment difference|0.02||||0.924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.34||p-values are from the 2-sided test for treatment difference evaluated at the 5% level.|ANOVA model after multiple imputation|||Change from baseline in 1,5-anhydroglucitol was analysed using an analysis of variance model after multiple imputation assuming treatment according to randomisation. The model includes treatment, region and bolus adjusting method at randomisation as factors, and baseline 1,5-anhydroglucitol as a covariate.||0.34|-0.31|0.924
95712428|NCT01497899|191395064|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The null hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was at least 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group with respect to the percentage of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA \< 50 copies/mL at Week 24. The alternative hypothesis was that the E/C/F/TAF group was less than 12% lower than the E/C/F/TDF group.|Difference in percentages|-2.9||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|7.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value comparing the percentages of virologic success was from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum.|Difference in percentages of virologic success and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated based on baseline HIV-1 RNA stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportion.|||7.7|-13.5|0.58
95712429|NCT00082628|191395068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Nonparametric ANCOVA Model|||||||<0.001
95712430|NCT03481634|191395073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.81|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.3||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||0.3|-2.9|<0.001
95712431|NCT03481634|191395073|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|LS mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94||0.227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|-1.4||1-sided p-value|ANOVA|||||-1.4|-5.1|0.227
95712432|NCT03481634|191395074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-0.0|-3.0|<0.001
95712433|NCT03481634|191395074|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority (4-letter margin)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-1.7||(1-sided)|ANOVA|||||-1.7|-5.2|
95712434|NCT03481634|191395078|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.7|||ANOVA|||||-1.7|-6.0|
95712435|NCT03481634|191395078|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|0.1|||ANOVA|||||0.1|-4.0|
95712436|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|16.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||16.4|-17.7|
95712437|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|14.4|||ANOVA|||Week 4||14.4|-18.7|
95712438|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|29.7|||ANOVA|||Week 6||29.7|-5.2|
95712439|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|18.9|||ANOVA|||Week 6||18.9|-14.0|
95712440|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|17.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||17.9|-16.0|
95712441|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.6|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 8||12.9|-19.6|
95712442|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|23.6|||ANOVA|||Week 12||23.6|-10.7|
95712443|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|20.2|||ANOVA|||Week 12||20.2|-14.6|
95712444|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.7|17.8|||ANOVA|||Week 16||17.8|-15.7|
95712445|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.9|||ANOVA|||Week 16||12.9|-19.7|
95712446|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|8.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.92|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.5|||ANOVA|||Week 18||26.5|-8.6|
95712447|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|19.2|||ANOVA|||Week 18||19.2|-14.1|
95712448|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|13.4|||ANOVA|||Week 20||13.4|-20.2|
95712449|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|10.2|||ANOVA|||Week 20||10.2|-21.7|
95712450|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.9|||ANOVA|||Week 24||3.9|-31.7|
95712451|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-0.2|||ANOVA|||Week 24||-0.2|-35.4|
95712452|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|7.5|||ANOVA|||Week 28||7.5|-25.0|
95712453|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|8.0|||ANOVA|||Week 28||8.0|-25.4|
95712454|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|15.5|||ANOVA|||Week 32||15.5|-21.8|
95712455|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|6.0|||ANOVA|||Week 32||6.0|-29.5|
95712456|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|36.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|57.9|||ANOVA|||Week 36||57.9|14.6|
95712457|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|20.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|40.0|||ANOVA|||Week 36||40.0|0.7|
95712458|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|11.9|||ANOVA|||Week 40||11.9|-24.2|
95712459|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.2|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 40||12.2|-25.2|
95712460|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|26.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||26.3|-10.4|
95712461|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.2|18.3|||ANOVA|||Week 44||18.3|-16.2|
95712462|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|32.9|||ANOVA|||Week 48||32.9|-5.8|
95712463|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 48||23.0|-13.5|
95712464|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|23.0|||ANOVA|||Week 52||23.0|-14.5|
95712465|NCT03481634|191395081|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.3|12.2|||ANOVA|||Week 52||12.2|-22.3|
95712466|NCT03481634|191395082|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|20.0|||ANOVA|||||20.0|-16.6|
95712467|NCT03481634|191395082|OTHER|Descriptive|LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.79|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.7|13.8|||ANOVA|||||13.8|-20.7|
95712468|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-5.3|
95712469|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|10.3|||Bootstrap method|||||10.3|-2.1|
95712470|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|12.4|||Bootstrap method|||||12.4|-1.2|
95712471|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|12.9|||Bootstrap method|||||12.9|0.6|
95712472|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.4|||Bootstrap method|||||9.4|-3.9|
95712473|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 76|Difference - %|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|7.0|||Bootstrap method|||||7.0|-5.7|
95712474|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|8.1|||Bootstrap method|||||8.1|-5.0|
95712475|NCT03481634|191395089|OTHER|Descriptive: Week 100|Difference - %|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|8.4|||Bootstrap method|||||8.4|-4.0|
95712476|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|5.8|||Bootstrap method|||||5.8|-6.4|
95712477|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 28|Difference - %|4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|11.0|||Bootstrap method|||||11.0|-1.3|
95712478|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|2.2|||Bootstrap method|||||2.2|-10.2|
95712479|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 52|Difference - %|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|10.5|||Bootstrap method|||||10.5|-2.2|
95712480|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-9.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-2.8|||Bootstrap method|||||-2.8|-15.5|
95712481|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 72|Difference - %|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.4|||Bootstrap method|||||4.4|-8.4|
95712482|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|-7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-1.6|||Bootstrap method|||||-1.6|-14.0|
95712483|NCT03481634|191395091|OTHER|Descriptive; Week 100|Difference - %|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|6.8|||Bootstrap method|||||6.8|-5.7|
95712484|NCT00352027|191395107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||The association of age with EFS was compared. P values from Score test were computed for the statistical significance.||||0.9970
95712485|NCT00352027|191395110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.997|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.9970
95712486|NCT00352027|191395142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.265||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.265
95712487|NCT00352027|191395142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.057||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.057
95712488|NCT00352027|191395142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.079||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.079
95712489|NCT00352027|191395142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
95712490|NCT00352027|191395142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.680
95712491|NCT00352027|191395143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
95712492|NCT00352027|191395143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
95712493|NCT00352027|191395143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
95712494|NCT00352027|191395143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.184
95712495|NCT00352027|191395143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.563||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.563
95712496|NCT00352027|191395144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.319||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.319
95712497|NCT00352027|191395144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.010
95712498|NCT00352027|191395144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.002
95712499|NCT00352027|191395144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.015||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.015
95712500|NCT00352027|191395144|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.588||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.588
95712501|NCT00352027|191395145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.071
95712502|NCT00352027|191395145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95712503|NCT00352027|191395145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95712504|NCT00352027|191395145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||<0.001
95712505|NCT00352027|191395145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.707||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.707
95712506|NCT00352027|191395146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.042||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.042
95712507|NCT00352027|191395146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.025||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.025
95712508|NCT00352027|191395146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.013
95712509|NCT00352027|191395146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.027||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.027
95712510|NCT00352027|191395146|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.243||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.243
95712511|NCT00352027|191395147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.546||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.546
95712512|NCT00352027|191395147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.242||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.242
95712513|NCT00352027|191395147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
95712514|NCT00352027|191395147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.503||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.503
95712515|NCT00352027|191395147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.372||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.372
95712516|NCT00352027|191395148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.558||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.558
95712517|NCT00352027|191395148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.039
95712518|NCT00352027|191395148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
95712519|NCT00352027|191395148|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.162||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.162
95712520|NCT00352027|191395149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.381||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.381
95712521|NCT00352027|191395149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.006
95712522|NCT00352027|191395149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.277||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.277
95712523|NCT00352027|191395149|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.134||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.134
95712524|NCT00352027|191395150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
95712525|NCT00352027|191395150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
95712526|NCT00352027|191395150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.629||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.629
95712527|NCT00352027|191395150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.858||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.858
95712528|NCT00352027|191395151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.744||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.744
95712529|NCT00352027|191395151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.075||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.075
95712530|NCT00352027|191395151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.512||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.512
95712531|NCT00352027|191395151|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.088||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.088
95712532|NCT00352027|191395152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
95712533|NCT00352027|191395152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.041||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.041
95712534|NCT00352027|191395152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
95712535|NCT00352027|191395152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.078||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.078
95712536|NCT00352027|191395153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
95712537|NCT00352027|191395153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
95712538|NCT00352027|191395153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
95712539|NCT00352027|191395153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.739||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.739
95712540|NCT00352027|191395154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
95712541|NCT00352027|191395154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.933||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.933
95712542|NCT00352027|191395154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.051||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.051
95712543|NCT00352027|191395154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0779||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.0779
95712544|NCT00352027|191395155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.415||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.415
95712545|NCT00352027|191395155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
95712546|NCT00352027|191395155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.245
95712547|NCT00352027|191395155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.005
95712548|NCT00352027|191395156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.814||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.814
95712549|NCT00352027|191395156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.553||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.553
95712550|NCT00352027|191395156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.173||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.173
95712551|NCT00352027|191395156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.122||||||P-values are shown after correction for multiple testing using the False Discovery Rate Method.|Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test|||||||0.122
95712552|NCT00352027|191395157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712553|NCT00352027|191395158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712554|NCT00352027|191395159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712555|NCT00352027|191395160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712556|NCT00352027|191395161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712557|NCT00352027|191395162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generallized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712558|NCT00352027|191395163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712559|NCT00352027|191395164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712560|NCT00352027|191395165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712561|NCT00352027|191395166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||0.005
95712562|NCT00352027|191395167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712563|NCT00352027|191395168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712564|NCT00352027|191395169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712565|NCT00352027|191395170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712566|NCT00352027|191395171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)|||||||<0.001
95712567|NCT00352027|191395172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.908|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.908
95712568|NCT00352027|191395173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.178|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.178
95712569|NCT00352027|191395174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.411|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.411
95712570|NCT00352027|191395176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4318|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.4318
95712571|NCT00352027|191395177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2199|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.2199
95712572|NCT00352027|191395178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8946|||||||Cox Model|||||||0.8946
95712573|NCT01624974|191395210|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|0.047||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.039|0.134|||LDA model|The LDA model assumes that repeated measurements follow a multivariate normal distribution.||||0.134|-0.039|0.282
95712574|NCT02607735|191395221|SUPERIORITY|The SVR12 rate for the SOF/VEL/VOX group was compared to the performance goal of 85% using a 2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test at the 0.05 significance level.|||||<|0.001|||||||2-sided exact 1-sample binomial test|||||||<0.001
95712575|NCT04111185|191395253|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95712576|NCT02430389|191395261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0575|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0575
95712577|NCT02430389|191395262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.348|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.348
95712578|NCT01241318|191395274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.44|||||The chlorhexidine arm is the numerator and dry cord care arm is the denominator in the relative risk calculation. Generalised estimating equation models were used to adjust for cluster randomized design.|||1.44|0.88|
95712579|NCT01241318|191395275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.47|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.47|0.86|
95712580|NCT01241318|191395276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.13|||||Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for cluster-randomized design were used.|||1.13|0.47|
95712581|NCT00606021|191395280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.37||The significant level for the primary outcome measure of progression free survival during maintenance phase is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.37|0.42|0.1815
95712582|NCT00606021|191395281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.26||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure of progression free survival during overall period is one-sided 0.2.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||1.26|0.40|0.1233
95712583|NCT00606021|191395282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.7239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.28||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during maintenance period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.28|0.56|0.7239
95712584|NCT00606021|191395283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.6376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.38||The significant level for the secondary outcome measure overall survival during overall period is two-sided 0.05.|Regression, Cox|Stratified Cox regression model is used for hazard ratio estimate. Stratification factor: response status prior to randomization.||||2.38|0.59|0.6376
95712585|NCT02380703|191395286|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.34||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.32||For participants who dropped out, their time until study attrition was used as the exposure period; and they were carried forward as part of the overall incidence count.|Regression, Cox|||Sample-size calculations were performed, based on the ability to detect a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen's h = 0.4) in rate of aggression onset over a 1-year period between APT and EU-PC, assuming 80% power and a type I error rate of 5%. Given an anticipated rate of aggression onset over 1 year of 37% for EU-PC, an ES of h = 0.4 allows detection of aggression onset in APT as high as 19%. Given this effect size and up to 10% attrition, our goal was to include 220 total participants.||2.32|0.78|0.29
95712586|NCT02380703|191395286|EQUIVALENCE|Examination of whether the presence of aggression is equivalent between APT and EU-PC|Difference in frequencies|1.21||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|||||Association between presence of aggression and condition (APT vs EU-PC).|Chi-squared|X2(1) = 1.21||||||0.27
95712587|NCT02380703|191395287|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.59||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.19
95712588|NCT02380703|191395288|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|2.43||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.06
95712589|NCT02380703|191395289|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.33||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.80
95712590|NCT02380703|191395290|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.21||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.89
95712591|NCT02380703|191395291|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|1.48||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.22
95712592|NCT02380703|191395292|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.38||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.77
95712593|NCT02380703|191395293|SUPERIORITY||F-statistic|0.56||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|||||P value for interaction between treatment arm and time|Mixed Models Analysis||"Interaction between time and treatment arm:~Numerator df = 3, denominator df = 510"|"Differences between APT and EU-PC in change over time (baseline, and 3, 6 and 12 months) for our secondary outcomes were evaluated using individual linear growth curve models (SAS Proc Mixed, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) with an autoregressive covariance structure type.~The main interest was the interaction between group (APT vs EU-PC) and time."||||0.64
95712594|NCT04269629|191395333|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACEI) and the group without such treatment. The primary outcome was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.25||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||It was assumed that 24% of the patients would be on β-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors (ACEI). A χ2 test with a two-sided 5% significance level has an 80% power to detect the difference between the group without antihypertensive medication with 6% SR during VIT and the group on β-blockers and/or ACEI with 12.3% SR during VIT (OR = 2.2) when the sample sizes are 631 and 200, respectively. A drop-out rate of 37% was assumed which resulted in a required number of 1,319 patients.||||0.25
95712595|NCT04269629|191395334|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.29||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.29
95712596|NCT04269629|191395335|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.04||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05. Correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions (p=0.04).|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more severe systemic sting reactions.||||0.04
95712597|NCT04269629|191395336|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.|||||<|0.001||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||<0.001
95712598|NCT04269629|191395337|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.99||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - bee venom.||||0.99
95712599|NCT04269629|191395337|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.15||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for sIgE levels - vespid venom.||||0.15
95727797|NCT02151461|191425081|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1273|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.1273
95712600|NCT04269629|191395338|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.16||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.16
95712601|NCT04269629|191395339|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitors) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes was analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.5||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||||||0.50
95712602|NCT04269629|191395340|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.72
95712603|NCT04269629|191395341|OTHER|All patients participating in this study belong to one of the following two groups for analysis: the group with antihypertensive treatment (β-blockers or ACE inhibitor) and the group without such treatment. The secondary outcomes were analyzed using logistic linear mixed models with a random intercept. This model type takes into account the clustered structure of the data, i.e., observations clustered in the different participating centers.||||||0.11||||||The level of significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Missing at random was assumed, and multiple imputations were conducted with 50 imputations taking into account the cluster design.||Analysis for correlation of the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and/or hypertension with the risk for more frequent SR under VIT.||||0.11
95712604|NCT01646255|191395342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean|-1.2|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.57||Primary efficacy analyses was made with confirmatory 2-sided test with significance level 0.05.|ANCOVA|||"Estimate of treatment effect has been obtained from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model to the change from Baseline value in absolute time spent off. The ANCOVA model contained treatment and (pooled) site as factors and Baseline off time as covariate. A last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation approach was used for missing values (during both Titration and Maintenance Periods) for the primary efficacy analysis."||-0.57|-1.83|=0.0002
95712605|NCT03198884|191395364|OTHER|The percent of patients with an RNA \<50 copies/mL at each time point was analyzed using McNemar's test following the guidelines of the Snapshot algorithm. Missing RNA data was considered a treatment failure. Change in mean serum creatinine from baseline was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||McNemar||||Change in mean CD4+ cell counts from baseline was analyzed using a paired t-test. All analyses used a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05 as significant. Statistical analyses were performed using R software, version 3.4.3.|||<0.05
95712606|NCT03198884|191395365|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95712607|NCT01202643|191395371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.67
95712608|NCT01202643|191395372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Study was closed due to insufficient recruitment||||0.74
95712609|NCT01408862|191395376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by Wilcoxon-paired test. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. . We used the CSS/ Statistica program package, StatSoft V 6.0.~This analysis applies to both GLP1R and GIPR categories"||||0.04
95712610|NCT01408862|191395377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.2|||||||ANOVA|||Results will be expressed as mean + SD from independent experiments. Statistical significance between means were determined by two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor, for variables measured in several consecutive times. Variable will be log-transformed if they were not normally distributed. Wilcoxon test for paired samples was used. The Statistica program package (StatSoft V 6.0) were used to perform these analyses, which applied to both GLP1R and GIPR agonist effect categories.||||0.20
95712611|NCT01813149|191395379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=20 t-statistic = 2.90||A t-test to see if expression of α1-AR differs between phenylephrine responders and non-responders||||0.009
95712612|NCT01997333|191395384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.761|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank test.||||||0.761
95712613|NCT01997333|191395385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.264|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for stratification factors.||||||0.264
95712614|NCT01997333|191395387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.726|||||||Log Rank|Stratified log rank.||||||0.726
95712615|NCT02269709|191395390|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline and Follow-up #1||||<0.0001
95712616|NCT02269709|191395390|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow up #2||||<0.0001
95712617|NCT02269709|191395390|OTHER|Changes in mean liver shear wave speed (SWS) between time points were assessed using a mixed-effect model with post hoc Tukey correction.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison of Baseline vs. Follow-up #3||||<0.0001
95712618|NCT02269709|191395391|OTHER|Mean IVC pressures from different time points were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.|||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95712619|NCT04411472|191395392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.8025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.805|1.732|||One-sided p-value|||||1.732|0.805|0.8025
95712620|NCT04411472|191395393|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.139|2.131|||One-sided p-value|||||2.131|0.139|0.1824
95712621|NCT04411472|191395394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.405|||One-sided p-value|||||0.405|0.001|0.0080
95712622|NCT04411472|191395395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.3894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.454|||One-sided p-value|||||1.454|0.606|0.3894
95712623|NCT04411472|191395396|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.1237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.128|1.697|||One-sided p-value|||||1.697|0.128|0.1237
95727798|NCT02151461|191425081|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.0085|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0085
95712624|NCT04411472|191395398|SUPERIORITY||z-score statistic difference proportions|-7.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-0.4||one-sided p-value based on the z-score statistic for the difference in proportions|one-sided p-value|||||-0.4|-15.4|0.019
95712625|NCT04411472|191395399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.546|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through to Day 28||||0.5460
95712626|NCT04411472|191395399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.677|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.6770
95712627|NCT04411472|191395399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.993|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.9930
95712628|NCT04411472|191395399|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.7790
95712629|NCT04411472|191395400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.051|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||0.0510
95712630|NCT04411472|191395400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.0130
95712631|NCT04411472|191395400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.0250
95712632|NCT04411472|191395400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.073|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0730
95712633|NCT04411472|191395401|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Days alive and free of organ support through Day 28||||1.0000
95712634|NCT04411472|191395401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of MV||||0.9790
95712635|NCT04411472|191395401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.675|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of RRT||||0.6750
95712636|NCT04411472|191395401|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||Number of days free of vasopressors and inotropes||||0.0310
95712637|NCT04411472|191395402|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.545|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.5450
95712638|NCT04411472|191395403|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.0810
95712639|NCT04411472|191395404|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||One-sided p-value from re-randomization|||||||0.9790
95712640|NCT04411472|191395405|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.6916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.437|||One-sided p-value|||||1.437|0.806|0.6916
95712641|NCT04411472|191395406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.47||||0.0628|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.234|||One-sided p-value|||||1.234|0.180|0.0628
95712642|NCT04411472|191395407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.054|||One-sided p-value|||||0.054|0.001|<0.0001
95712643|NCT00890396|191395408|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||0.67
95712644|NCT00890396|191395409|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.99|||||||Fisher Exact|||The primary analysis compared the frequency of worsening spleen function (from normal to decreased or absent, or from decreased to absent).||||>0.99
95712645|NCT00890396|191395410|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.61
95712646|NCT00890396|191395411|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.78
95712647|NCT00890396|191395412|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.80
95712648|NCT00890396|191395413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
95712649|NCT00890396|191395414|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.85
95712650|NCT00890396|191395415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.95
95712651|NCT00890396|191395416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.40
95712652|NCT00890396|191395417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test if there were a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups.||||0.11
95712653|NCT00440232|191395418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.969||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.235|||Chi-squared|||||5.235|0.74|0.172
95712654|NCT00440232|191395419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||log rank chi square|1.247||||0.264||95.0|||||Log Rank|df=1||||||0.264
95712655|NCT00362297|191395420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Incident Risk Ratio|0.79||||0.052||95.0|0.63|1.0|||Regression, Poisson|Adjusted for period effects.||Comparison of genital HSV shedding rate on high dose acyclovir to standard dose valacyclovir. Powered with 80% chance of detecting 50% reduction in genital shedding rate on high dose acyclovir compared to standard dose valacyclovir.||1.00|0.63|0.052
95712656|NCT00819052|191395422|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of nevirapine XR to nevirapine IR was established if the lower bound of the confidence interval was greater than -12%|Cochran's statistic|1.0||||||95.0|-4.3|6.2|||Cochran's statistic||Weighted treatment difference and corresponding variance were calculated based on Cochran's statistic.|||6.2|-4.3|
95712657|NCT00819052|191395435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.64||||0.7587||95.0|-34.34|25.05|||ANCOVA|Means adjusted for background ARV (Antiretroviral) stratum||||25.05|-34.34|0.7587
95712658|NCT00982111|191395492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.84|0.9561
95712659|NCT00982111|191395493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.6647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.16|||Log Rank|||||1.16|0.80|0.6647
95712660|NCT00982111|191395494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.34|0.68|0.7945
95712661|NCT00982111|191395495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|1.00|0.0459
95712662|NCT00684073|191395504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.13||95.0||||p-value adjusted for treatment only|ANCOVA||Difference between treatments (Suboxone minus Subutex)estimated by ANCOVA = 0.42.|||||0.130
95712663|NCT01259388|191395509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.346|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.346
95712664|NCT01259388|191395511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.013|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.013
95712665|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Group Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.02|1.25||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.25|1.02|
95712666|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.91|1.12||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.12|0.91|
95712667|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.8|0.99||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 1)Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||0.99|0.80|
95712668|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.74|1.93||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.93|0.74|
95712669|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.52|1.38||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.38|0.52|
95712670|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.44|1.15||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 22) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.15|0.44|
95712671|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|1.01|1.3||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.30|1.01|
95712672|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.93|1.19||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.19|0.93|
95712673|NCT00620815|191395512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To show statistical equivalence was, confidence intervals (CIs) of all 3 pair wise ratios of the GMAs were inspected.|Geometric Mean Ratios|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|96.67|0.81|1.04||P-values were not calculated for the equivalence tests due to lack of appropriate statistical software|ANOVA|||(On day 43) Null hypothesis representing non-equivalence was rejected if the two-sided (1-2α)\*100% CI on one GMA ratio is completely within the equivalence range \[0.5, 2.0\].||1.04|0.81|
95712674|NCT01032265|191395535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.27
95712675|NCT01032265|191395536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.52||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.52
95712676|NCT01032265|191395537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||analysis between groups||||0.30
95712677|NCT01032265|191395538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.02
95712678|NCT01032265|191395539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||<0.001
95712679|NCT01032265|191395540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23||95.0|||||negative binomial regression|||analysis between groups||||0.23
95712680|NCT01032265|191395541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||analysis between groups||||0.01
95712681|NCT02728804|191395543|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.29|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.29|0.66|0.65
95712682|NCT02728804|191395544|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.43|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.43|0.79|0.70
95712683|NCT02728804|191395545|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.31|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.31|0.73|0.87
95712684|NCT02728804|191395546|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.92|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||0.92|0.48|0.01
95727799|NCT02151461|191425081|OTHER|Average Change in Post-meal Glucose Level||||||0.1289|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1289
95712685|NCT02728804|191395547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.87|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||1.87|0.95|0.10
95712686|NCT02728804|191395547|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.89|||Regression, Cox|Covariate adjustment for insurance status, education, and sex.||||2.89|1.28|0.002
95712687|NCT00149227|191395614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|0.975|||Cox's proportional hazard analysis|||"We estimated the number of enrolled patients to validate the hypothesis under the assumption that the valsartan add-on group achieves a 20% risk reduction compared with the conventional treatment group and gives 80% statistical power for detecting a clinical signiﬁcance with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level.~with a two-tailed 5% statistical signiﬁcant level."||0.975|-0.975|<0.05
95712688|NCT02978339|191395628|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.03
95712689|NCT02978339|191395629|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95712690|NCT02978339|191395630|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.91
95712691|NCT02978339|191395631|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95712692|NCT02978339|191395632|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.15
95712693|NCT02978339|191395633|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.06
95712694|NCT02978339|191395634|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.93|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.93
95712695|NCT02475564|191395644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||A sample size of at least 21 patients per arm would be necessary to have a 90% chance of detecting, as significant at the 1% level, a difference of 3 points in a scale of 10 points, between both groups as the primary outcome, after 42 days of treatment.||||0.7
95712696|NCT02475564|191395645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.1
95712697|NCT02475564|191395646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||Mann-Whitney test|||||||0.8
95712698|NCT02705755|191395659|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4||||0.0399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|-0.23||P-values were reported without multiplicity adjustment.|Repeated-measures Mixed-effect Model|||Least squares mean differences were calculated based on a repeated-measures mixed-effect model with change from baseline at different time points as the dependent variable, the treatment group (TD-9855 or placebo), time point, baseline and the interaction between the treatment group and time point as fixed factors. A compound symmetry was used as the variance-covariance structure.||-0.23|-8.57|0.0399
95712699|NCT01906489|191395667|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.4739|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3505|39.2931|||Fisher Exact|||||39.2931|3.3505|=0.0001
95712700|NCT01906489|191395668|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95712701|NCT01906489|191395669|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95712702|NCT01906489|191395671|OTHER||||||=|0.0953|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.0953
95712703|NCT01906489|191395672|OTHER||||||=|0.1238|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.1238
95712704|NCT01906489|191395673|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95712705|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||=|0.0019|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0019
95712706|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95712707|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
95712708|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95712709|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95712710|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95712711|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
95712712|NCT01906489|191395674|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95712713|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95712714|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95712715|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
95712716|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95712717|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95712718|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95712719|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
95712720|NCT01906489|191395676|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95712721|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||=|0.0031|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||=0.0031
95712722|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||<0.0001
95712723|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||<0.0001
95712724|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95712725|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||<0.0001
95712726|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95712727|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||<0.0001
95712728|NCT01906489|191395678|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||<0.0001
95712729|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 2||||<0.0001
95712730|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.0133|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 4||||=0.0133
95712731|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.3053|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 6||||=0.3053
95712732|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.1918|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 8||||=0.1918
95712733|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.209|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 12||||=0.2090
95712734|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.6184|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 16||||=0.6184
95712735|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.3604|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 19||||=0.3604
95712736|NCT01906489|191395680|OTHER||||||=|0.4056|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Week 20||||=0.4056
95712737|NCT01906489|191395686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.1451|||=|0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5752|10.908|||Log Rank|||||10.9080|1.5752|=0.0017
95712738|NCT00195702|191395721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
95727800|NCT02151461|191425082|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.3143|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose. Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group.||||||0.3143
95712739|NCT00195702|191395721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the ACR20 response tested first. The ACR20 response rate at Week 24 was initially assessed using Pearson's chi-squared test at a significance level of 0.05. If significant, pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and the placebo group were performed.||||<0.001
95712740|NCT00195702|191395722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
95712741|NCT00195702|191395722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||An ANCOVA model with baseline erosion scores as the covariate was performed. An overall significance test at alpha =0.05 was done. Pairwise comparisons, each at alpha =0.05 (2-sided), were performed if the overall test was significant.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change in modified total Sharp x-ray score at Week 52 tested second. Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test procedure to the residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed following a non-parametric approach, ranking the results prior to fitting the model.||||<0.001
95712742|NCT00195702|191395723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712743|NCT00195702|191395723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712744|NCT00195702|191395724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95712745|NCT00195702|191395724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95712746|NCT00195702|191395725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95712747|NCT00195702|191395725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95712748|NCT00195702|191395726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
95712749|NCT00195702|191395726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Normality was evaluated by applying the Shapiro-Wilk test to residuals from the parametric model. The final analysis was performed using a parametric approach.|ANCOVA|||The 3 primary efficacy variables were considered in a hierarchical order, with the change from baseline in the HAQ at Week 52 tested last. The difference among all treatment groups was assessed using ANCOVA with the baseline value as the covariate. If this was significant (p\<=0.05), pairwise comparisons between each adalimumab dose group and placebo were evaluated using the same method.||||<0.001
95712750|NCT00195702|191395727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712751|NCT00195702|191395727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712752|NCT00195702|191395729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712753|NCT00195702|191395729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95712754|NCT00195702|191395733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95712755|NCT00195702|191395733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95712756|NCT04823494|191395752|NON_INFERIORITY|For sample size in each sequence group is 16 (total N=32), a 2 X 2 crossover design will have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis that the SELF-FIT APHAB mean is inferior to the PRO-FIT APHAB mean. The non-inferiority difference margin is 8.4, the standard deviation of differences is 16.3, and p\<.025. The non-inferiority margin of 8.4 preserves half the 95% critical difference for the global APHAB score (16.8). The common standard deviation reported for the APHAB global score is 16.0.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|4.73||There were two outcome measures, primary and secondary, considered. As a result, the a priori p value of .05 for statistical significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons to .025.|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences and 95% CIs in APHAB global score between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT were calculated using bias-corrected \& accelerated bootstrapping.|The mean difference and 95% CIs are for Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit aided scores. These values are the pooled data for all 37 participants, 19 receiving one sequence and 18 the other sequence.|"For the wear-time crossover field trial, the APHAB was measured following both the audiology best-practices hearing aid fitting (PRO-FIT) and the self-fitting method (SELF-FIT).~* Null hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT ) ≥ 8.4~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (APHAB SELF-FIT - APHAB PRO-FIT) \< 8.4~The mean difference between the aided scores for the two fitting methods, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, represent the primary outcome measure. The expected difference = 0."||4.73|-1.59|<0.025
95712757|NCT04823494|191395753|NON_INFERIORITY|For the QuickSIN, a clinically meaningful difference is 3 dB and half that difference resulted in a margin of 1.5 dB. This 1.5-dB margin was used for the QuickSIN for the non-inferiority analyses of the data from the field-trial component. The mean difference, QuickSIN Self-Fit minus QuickSIN Pro-Fit, should be less than 1.5 dB for the entire sample (N=37) to meet the non-inferiority criterion.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|||<|0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|1.2||The a priori threshold value of 0.05 was Bonferroni-adjusted to 0.025 based on the use of two outcome measures, APHAB global (primary) and QuickSIN (secondary).|t-test, 1 sided|The mean differences in dB, SELF-FIT minus PRO-FIT, were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (bias-corrected, accelerated bootstrap) generated.|Mean differences in aided QuickSIN SNR in dB, Self-Fit minus Pro-Fit, were calculated for the entire group of 37 participants with about 1/2 receiving one of the two fit sequences (Pro-Fit then Self-Fit or Self-Fit then Pro-Fit).|"For the QuickSIN, aided performance after each wear period was compared between SELF-FIT and PRO-FIT.~* Null hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIPRO-FIT) ≥ 1.5 dB~* Alternative hypothesis: Mean (QuickSIN SELF-FIT - QuickSIN PRO-FIT) \< 1.5 dB~Power calculations were based on the primary outcome measured, the aided APHAB global score, (see information for that outcome measure). With the minimum required N of 32 based on the APHAB global score, the power for QuickSIN exceeded 80%."||1.20|-0.03|<0.025
95712758|NCT03852901|191395754|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|40.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.866|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.166|50.268||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.758; F = 70.003; Sig. \< 0.001 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||50.268|31.166|<0.001
95712759|NCT03852901|191395755|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.637|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.051||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.699|1.426||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 884.229; F = .367; Sig = .545 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||1.426|-2.699|0.545
95712760|NCT03852901|191395756|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.044||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.629; F = 8.782; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||.044|.009|0.003
95712761|NCT03852901|191395757|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.329||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.255|-0.04||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 880.870; F = 3.970; Sig. = 0.047 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-0.040|-5.255|0.047
95712762|NCT03852901|191395758|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.573|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.853||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.21|-1.937||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 1; Den df = 902.181; F = 9.049; Sig. = 0.003 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit \& Timepoint; Fixed effects: repeated-measures. Visit, Timepoint, Sex, Visit\*Sex||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||-1.937|-9.210|0.003
95712763|NCT03852901|191395759|OTHER|||||||0.5849||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 33; F = 0.5451; Sig. = 0.5849 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.5849
95712764|NCT03852901|191395760|OTHER|||||||0.0142||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df = 2; Den df = 35; F = 4.8191; Sig. = 0.0142 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effect: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age, fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.0142
95712765|NCT03852901|191395761|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Type III of fixed effects. Num df: 2; Den df = 34; F = 4.1501; Sig. = 0.0244 (threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|Random effects: ID; Repeated measures: Visit; Fixed effects: Visit, Sex, Age and fCSF||No a-priori power calculation was performed due to the exploratory nature of the study.||||0.024
95712766|NCT01336647|191395764|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy endpoint was responder rate calculated based on the percentage of subjects who were lice free at all follow-up visits (Days 1, 7 and 14). Because the number of responders and non-responders in the family size\>= 5 household members was less than five in at least one of the treatment arms, (Table 14.2.1.5), Fisher's Exact test was used to compare treatment arms, instead of the CMH test.|||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|The assessment of statistical significance will be done using Hochberg's modified Bonferroni test.||Null hypothesis; 80% power and 0.025 two-sided level of significance for each pairwise active vs. vehicle comparison||||<0.001
95712767|NCT01020812|191395862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of participants|0.286|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.636|||||The data was analyzed in a competing risk model with death as a competing risk. The proportion of 0.286 is the cumulative incidence function at 12 months.|The data was analyzed in a competitive risk model with the cumulative incidence function as the estimator. Death and other progression were competitive risks.||0.636|0.031|
95712768|NCT01020812|191395863|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||probability|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||This is the overall survival probability at 18 months.|The data was analyzed using the Kaplan Meier estimator.||||
95712769|NCT01801475|191395866|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
95712770|NCT01801475|191395867|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software program NONMEM (version VII; Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD) was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) with η-ε interaction was used for the estimation process. Volume and clearance in this model is computed as a mean of the study population (pregnant and non-pregnant women) with a log-normal distribution in the population.||||<0.05
95712771|NCT00421928|191395870|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18|<|0.05||95.0|-1.04|-0.33|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was used with treatment and pooled analysis center as factors and baseline pain intensity score as a covariate.||The primary null hypothesis to be tested for the study was that the tapentadol ER group was not different from the placebo group for the primary endpoint. Assuming the mean treatment group difference of 0.7 with an SD of 2.7, 314 subjects per treatment group were estimated to provide 90% power to show that the tapentadol ER group was statistically different from placebo at an alpha level of 0.05. The total number of subjects to be randomly assigned to a treatment group for the study was 942.||-0.33|-1.04|<0.05
95712772|NCT00346775|191395879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.517|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.3|||ANCOVA|||||0.3|-0.6|0.517
95712773|NCT00965458|191395885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline ln(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in ln(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome variable.|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Month 12 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL.||||0.065
95712774|NCT00965458|191395886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.019
95712775|NCT00965458|191395886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.002
95712776|NCT00965458|191395887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 52 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.065
95712777|NCT00965458|191395887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline In(AUC+1) as a covariate and change in In(AUC+1) from baseline as the outcome|ANCOVA|||Primary imputation method used for missing Week 104 AUC. Measuring range for C-peptide is 0.05-30 ng/mL||||0.015
95712778|NCT00965458|191395888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean insulin use comparison||||0.020
95712779|NCT00965458|191395888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean insulin use comparison||||0.002
95712780|NCT00965458|191395889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Baseline to Week 52||||<0.001
95712781|NCT00965458|191395889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is from a poisson regression comparing the person-year adjusted event rates between the two treatment groups|Regression, Logistic|||Hypoglycemic Events Occurring from Week 52 to Week 104||||<0.001
95712782|NCT00965458|191395890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 52 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.746
95712783|NCT00965458|191395890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value is for testing treatment effect using an analysis of covariance with baseline level as a covariate and change from baseline as the outcome variable|ANCOVA|||Week 104 mean HbA1C comparison||||0.942
95712784|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-22.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.7|-32.1|<0.001
95712785|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.88|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-12.4|-31.7|<0.001
95712786|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.05|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.1|-14.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-14.2|-34.1|<0.001
95712787|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-27.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.7|-19.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-19.6|-35.7|<0.001
95712788|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-18.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-18.8|-34.5|<0.001
95712789|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-24.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|-16.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-16.9|-32.5|<0.001
95712790|NCT04516291|191395930|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-26.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-17.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-17.6|-35.4|<0.001
95712791|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-44.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.66|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-30.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.8|-57.1|<0.001
95712792|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-43.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.9|-30.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-30.7|-56.9|<0.001
95712793|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-41.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-27.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-27.8|-54.8|<0.001
95712794|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.4|-39.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-39.6|-61.4|<0.001
95712795|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-45.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-35.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-35.2|-56.5|<0.001
95712796|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-50.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.2|-40.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-40.1|-61.2|<0.001
95712797|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-56.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.9|-44.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||TG||-44.7|-68.9|<0.001
95712798|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-15.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-6.5|-23.7|<0.001
95712799|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.2|-2.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.1|-19.2|0.015
95712800|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-2.7|-20.3|0.011
95712801|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.3|-19.7|<0.001
95712802|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-12.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|-5.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-5.6|-19.5|<0.001
95712803|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-6.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.56||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||1.0|-13.0|0.095
95712804|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.01||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||ApoB||-0.6|-16.4|0.036
95712805|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.55||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-22.9|0.129
95712806|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.65||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||5.2|-21.0|0.238
95712807|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-11.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.73||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|1.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||1.8|-24.7|0.090
95712808|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-16.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.44||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-5.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-5.3|-26.7|0.004
95712809|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.38||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.1|-3.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||-3.9|-25.1|0.008
95712810|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.28||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.5|-18.3|0.136
95712811|NCT04516291|191395932|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.01||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.8|2.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||LDL-C||2.9|-20.8|0.138
95712812|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-69.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.97|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-81.6|-58.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-58.1|-81.6|<0.001
95712813|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-79.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.03|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.5|-67.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-67.7|-91.5|<0.001
95712814|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-77.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.4|-64.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-64.9|-89.4|<0.001
95712815|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-86.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.04|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.2|-76.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-76.3|-96.2|<0.001
95712816|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-80.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.9|-70.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-70.9|-89.9|<0.001
95712817|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-92.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.92|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-101.9|-82.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-82.6|-101.9|<0.001
95712818|NCT04516291|191395934|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-95.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.2|-84.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with baseline value, treatment, visit, interaction term of treatment by visit as fixed effects and unstructured covariance structure was used.||||-84.2|-106.2|<0.001
95727801|NCT02151461|191425082|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.5677|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.5677
95712819|NCT04250558|191395936|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Kinetic parameters were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test in MATLAB Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on logistic regression was utilized, with one surgical condition versus the other two states as the binary dependent variable, and each perfusion-related kinetic parameter of Imax, IS and BF as the independent variable. Power analysis was performed to evaluate the statistical validity, using G\*Power software||||0.05
95712820|NCT02843282|191395976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.040
95712821|NCT02843282|191395977|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.98||||0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.004
95712822|NCT02843282|191395978|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.001
95712823|NCT02843282|191395979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.039
95712824|NCT02843282|191395980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.42||||0.092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.092
95712825|NCT02843282|191395981|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.58||||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.052
95712826|NCT02843282|191395982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.121|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.121
95712827|NCT02843282|191395983|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.23||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.019
95712828|NCT02843282|191395984|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.278|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.278
95712829|NCT02843282|191395985|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.095|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.095
95712830|NCT02843282|191395986|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Whole brain voxel-wise correlation analy|||||||< 0.01
95712831|NCT02843282|191395987|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.22||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.001
95712832|NCT02843282|191395988|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.33||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.007
95712833|NCT01091116|191396007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5263||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Tests of Fixed Effects for the primary efficacy variable including baseline treatment and visit (from Visit 3 to Visit 5) as covariates||||0.5263
95712834|NCT02155660|191396023|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.85||||0.0638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.01|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.01|0.71|0.0638
95712835|NCT02155660|191396023|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.6575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.23|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.23|0.88|0.6575
95712836|NCT02155660|191396023|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.93||||0.3988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.1|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.10|0.78|0.3988
95712837|NCT02155660|191396024|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.04||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.32|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.32|0.82|0.7564
95712838|NCT02155660|191396024|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.08||||0.5573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.37|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.37|0.84|0.5573
95712839|NCT02155660|191396024|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|1.02||||0.8644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.3|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.30|0.80|0.8644
95712840|NCT02155660|191396025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.015||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.059|-0.029|0.5043
95712841|NCT02155660|191396025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.7691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.037|-0.051|0.7691
95712842|NCT02155660|191396025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.024|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline FEV1 value, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.064|-0.024|0.3767
95712843|NCT02155660|191396026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.011||||0.3636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.192|1.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.171|-3.192|0.3636
95712844|NCT02155660|191396026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.388||||0.2106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.562|0.786|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.786|-3.562|0.2106
95712845|NCT02155660|191396026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.602||||0.5851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.763|1.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline SGRQ score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||1.560|-2.763|0.5851
95712846|NCT02155660|191396027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.8525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.99|-0.82|0.8525
95712847|NCT02155660|191396027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.89|-0.91|0.9870
95712848|NCT02155660|191396027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline CAT total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.79|-1.00|0.8204
95712849|NCT02155660|191396028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.2636|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.102|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.301|-1.102|0.2636
95712850|NCT02155660|191396028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.296||||0.4087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.998|0.406|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.406|-0.998|0.4087
95712851|NCT02155660|191396028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.425||||0.2336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.125|0.275|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline total score, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.275|-1.125|0.2336
95712852|NCT02155660|191396029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.642||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.029|-0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.254|-1.029|0.0012
95712853|NCT02155660|191396029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.047|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.047|-0.727|0.0852
95712854|NCT02155660|191396029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.364||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline rescue med. use, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.023|-0.750|0.0650
95712855|NCT02155660|191396030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.0415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|-0.002|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.002|-0.081|0.0415
95712856|NCT02155660|191396030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.055||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|-0.015|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||-0.015|-0.094|0.0069
95712857|NCT02155660|191396030|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.026||||0.2008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model includes treatment group, baseline prop. of nights awakens., EOS cohort, region, background therapy, visit, and treatment by visit interaction.||||0.014|-0.065|0.2008
95712858|NCT02155660|191396034|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.81|0.8158
95712859|NCT02155660|191396034|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.98||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.18|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.18|0.82|0.8378
95712860|NCT02155660|191396034|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.92||||0.3759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.11|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, number of exacerbations in the previous year.||||1.11|0.76|0.3759
95712861|NCT02155660|191396035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.36|0.76|0.9141
95712862|NCT02155660|191396035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.87|1.03|0.0323
95712863|NCT02155660|191396035|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.5109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlling for EOS cohort, region, and background therapy.||Proportion of participants with \>=1 COPD exacerbation.||1.48|0.82|0.5109
95712864|NCT02155660|191396037|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.68||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.96|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.96|0.49|0.0287
95712865|NCT02155660|191396037|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.89||||0.4631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||1.22|0.65|0.4631
95712866|NCT02155660|191396037|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.67||||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.94|||Negative binomial|Model includes treatment group, EOS cohort, region, background therapy, previous year exacerbations associated with hospitalization (Y/N).||||0.94|0.48|0.0185
95712867|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.004
95712868|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (4-Methylthio-2-hydroxyiminostilbene) as a function of age||||0.032
95712869|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Fractional Recovery (MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.018
95712870|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery MTHIS)) as a function of age||||0.033
95712871|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.0004|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.0004
95712872|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (5-N-acetylcysteine-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.0003
95712873|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Total N-acetylcysteine conjugates) as a function of age||||<0.0001
95712874|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.522|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-3-ene VPA isomers)) as a function of age||||0.522
95712875|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.925|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery NAC-2-ene VPA) ) as a function of age||||0.925
95712876|NCT00224952|191396050|OTHER|||||||0.469|||||||Regression, Linear|||Least squares linear regression evaluating fractional analyte recovery (Log (Fractional Recovery Total NAC conjugates) as a function of age||||0.469
95712877|NCT02087085|191396051|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3589|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1804||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7132|-0.0047||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||-0.0047|-0.7132|0.047
95727802|NCT02151461|191425082|OTHER|Plasma Insulin Absolute AUC(0-2hr) (h\*uIU/mL)||||||0.8407|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8407
95712878|NCT02087085|191396052|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.5||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.5|-3.9|0.390
95712879|NCT02087085|191396053|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|1.3||MMRM model included treatment group, study region, analysis visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as factors and baseline value and baseline value-by-analysis visit interaction as covariates.|MMRM|||||1.3|-4.2|0.301
95712880|NCT02681094|191396075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.55|<0.0001
95712881|NCT02681094|191396075|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.19|-0.50|<0.0001
95712882|NCT02681094|191396076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|19.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.9|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||26.9|12.7|<0.0001
95712883|NCT02681094|191396076|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.7||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|19.1|||Method of Zhang, Tsiatis, and Davidian|||||19.1|4.4|0.0018
95712884|NCT02681094|191396077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-7.58||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.57|-13.59|0.0135
95712885|NCT02681094|191396077|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-14.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.85|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.91|-20.85|<0.0001
95712886|NCT02681094|191396078|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|-1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.09|-2.11|<0.0001
95712887|NCT01072175|191396079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.34|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.34|0.79|
95712888|NCT01072175|191396079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.78|
95712889|NCT01072175|191396079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.27|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.27|0.84|
95712890|NCT01072175|191396079|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Cmax of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|1.45|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 Cmax/Day 1 Cmax) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.45|0.66|
95712891|NCT01072175|191396080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.19|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.19|0.85|
95712892|NCT01072175|191396080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of dabrafenib was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for dabrafenib were calculated.|||1.08|0.82|
95712893|NCT01072175|191396080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.25|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.25|0.84|
95712894|NCT01072175|191396080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-inf) of GSK2285403 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.03|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-inf)/ Day 1 AUC(0-inf)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2285403 were calculated.|||1.03|0.81|
95712895|NCT01072175|191396080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2298683 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.29|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2298683 were calculated.|||1.29|0.81|
95712896|NCT01072175|191396080|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|AUC(0-t) of GSK2167542 was log e transformed and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with fixed effect for treatment (dabrafenib alone and combined with trametinib) and participant as a random effect. Geometric mean ratio (Day 15/Day 1) and 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.37|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 15 AUC(0-t)/ Day 1 AUC(0-t)) and 90% confidence interval for GSK2167542 were calculated.|||1.37|0.76|
95712897|NCT01072175|191396087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.1|15.9||||||Difference in response rate Arm2 - Arm1||15.9|-23.1|
95712898|NCT01072175|191396087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|22.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|40.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||40.7|2.5|
95712899|NCT01072175|191396088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.9|14.1||||||Difference in response rate Arm2- Arm1||14.1|-24.9|
95712900|NCT01072175|191396088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unconditional exact method|15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|33.7||||||Difference in response rate Arm3 - Arm1||33.7|-4.9|
95712901|NCT01072175|191396089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response rate|6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|26.8||||||||26.8|5.1|
95712902|NCT01072175|191396090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.87|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.87|0.38|0.0048
95712903|NCT01072175|191396090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.68|0.29|<0.0001
95712904|NCT01072175|191396092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.1667|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.18|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||1.18|0.45|0.1667
95712905|NCT01072175|191396092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.54||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.9|||Log Rank||HRs were estimated using the Pike estimator.|||0.90|0.32|0.0119
95712906|NCT01072175|191396100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, Cmax of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1|2.08|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||2.08|1.10|
95712907|NCT01072175|191396102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge transformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib was analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with dosing chort and day as fixed effects and subject as random effect. Based on the model, geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.89|1.69|||||Geometric mean ratio (Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID+Trametinib 2 mg QD/Day 21 Dabrafenib 150 mg BID alone) and the corresponding 90% confidence interval were provided.|||1.69|0.89|
95712908|NCT01072175|191396102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Following loge tranformation, AUC(0-tau) of dabrafenib after repeat doses from the pooled data in Part B and D were analyzed by a linear model with the following fixed effects as categorical variables: Capsule type (Gelatin or HPMC), BRAF dose (75 or 150 mg BID), Capsule type by BRAF dose interaction, Day (Day 15 or 21), MEK dose (0, 1, 1.5, 2 or 2 mg QD). Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were then provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.44|||||Geometric mean ratio (HPMC/Gelatin) and the corresponding 90% CI were provided for BRAF dose level 150 mg BID.|||1.44|0.84|
95712909|NCT02839330|191396136|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.13||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #2||1.13|0.90|
95712910|NCT02839330|191396136|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08||||||aH5N1c Lot #2 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.08|0.86|
95712911|NCT02839330|191396136|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence margin: The 2-sided 95% CIs of all the 3 pairwise comparisons of GMTs to fall between the predefined equivalence ranges of 0.667 and 1.5|GMT ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09||||||aH5N1c Lot #1 vs. aH5N1c Lot #3||1.09|0.87|
95712912|NCT06104423|191396156|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-19.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.62|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.0|-14.0|||paired t-test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting systolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 5 (Week 12, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-14.0|-26.0|< 0.001
95712913|NCT03947333|191396186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6||||0.221|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.221
95712914|NCT03947333|191396186|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.846||||0.559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.99|3.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||3.68|-1.99|0.559
95712915|NCT03947333|191396187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.532
95712916|NCT03947333|191396188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.086
95712917|NCT03947333|191396188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.562|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.562
95712918|NCT03947333|191396188|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.348||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.557|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||1.254|-0.557|0.451
95712919|NCT03947333|191396189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.270
95712920|NCT03947333|191396189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.299|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.299
95712921|NCT03947333|191396189|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.1||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.786|1.986|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model||1.986|-1.786|0.917
95712922|NCT03947333|191396190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.093|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.093
95712923|NCT03947333|191396190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.034
95712924|NCT03947333|191396190|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.242||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.533|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.533|-0.049|0.103
95712925|NCT03947333|191396191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.116|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.116
95712926|NCT03947333|191396191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.009
95712927|NCT03947333|191396191|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.183||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.451|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.451|-0.084|0.178
95712928|NCT03947333|191396192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.188|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.188
95712929|NCT03947333|191396192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.749
95712930|NCT03947333|191396192|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.031||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.288|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.351|-0.288|0.847
95712931|NCT03947333|191396193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.182|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.182
95712932|NCT03947333|191396193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.158|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.158
95712933|NCT03947333|191396193|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|0.107||||0.612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.305|0.519|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.519|-0.305|0.612
95712934|NCT03947333|191396194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.970
95712935|NCT03947333|191396194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.786|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.786
95712936|NCT03947333|191396194|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.088||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.493|0.317|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.317|-0.493|0.670
95712937|NCT03947333|191396195|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.478|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 3 months||||0.478
95712938|NCT03947333|191396195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.666|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Change at 6 months||||0.666
95712939|NCT03947333|191396195|OTHER||fixed-effects estimate of intervention|-0.15||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.413|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Effects Model||0.413|-0.713|0.601
95712940|NCT03947333|191396196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.654|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.654
95712941|NCT03947333|191396197|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.485|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.485
95712942|NCT03947333|191396198|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||McNemar|||||||0.480
95712943|NCT03947333|191396198|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||McNemar|||||||0.023
95712944|NCT03947333|191396199|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.542
95712945|NCT03802331|191396208|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|166.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|143.17|192.53|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 19.0.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||192.53|143.17|
95712946|NCT03802331|191396209|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Ajusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|235.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|179.82|308.42|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 35.4.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||308.42|179.82|
95712947|NCT03802331|191396210|OTHER|Relative bioavailability|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio T/R (%)|159.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|140.11|181.34|||||The Adjusted Geometric Mean is adjusted by treatment. Geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) = 16.5.|This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: sequence, subjects within sequences, period, and treatment.||181.34|140.11|
95712948|NCT00399542|191396211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023||||||No adjustment|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||70.6% improvement in response with lubiprostone at 90% statistical power||||0.023
95712949|NCT00399542|191396212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.391|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.391
95712950|NCT00399542|191396213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.151|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.151
95712951|NCT00399542|191396214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.163|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.163
95712952|NCT00399542|191396215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.185|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.185
95712953|NCT00399542|191396216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.300
95712954|NCT00399542|191396217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.303||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.303
95712955|NCT00399542|191396218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.047
95712956|NCT00399542|191396219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.008||||||Sequential closed testing procedures were employed|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by pooled center, used to test the null hypothesis of equal rates between the 2 groups vs. the alternate hypothesis of non-equality||||||0.008
95712957|NCT00399542|191396220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.663|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.663
95712958|NCT00399542|191396221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.224|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.224
95712959|NCT00399542|191396222|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.271|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.271
95712960|NCT00399542|191396223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.945|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.945
95712961|NCT00399542|191396224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.352|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.352
95712962|NCT00399542|191396225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.18|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.180
95712963|NCT00399542|191396226|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.275|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.275
95712964|NCT00399542|191396227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.722|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.722
95712965|NCT00399542|191396228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.177|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.177
95712966|NCT00399542|191396229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.082|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.082
95712967|NCT00399542|191396230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.11|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.110
95712968|NCT00399542|191396231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.146|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.146
95712969|NCT00399542|191396232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.373|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.373
95712970|NCT00399542|191396233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.339|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|Adjusted for center||||||0.339
95712971|NCT00399542|191396234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.023|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.023
95712972|NCT00399542|191396235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.073|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.073
95712973|NCT00399542|191396236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||ANCOVA|Adjusted for center||||||0.062
95712974|NCT00399542|191396237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.06|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.060
95712975|NCT00399542|191396238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.290
95712976|NCT00399542|191396239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.495|||||||van Elteren nonparametric test|||||||0.495
95712977|NCT01177943|191396260|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of geometric means.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean values|0.945|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.858|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.858|
95712978|NCT01177943|191396261|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|80-125% was used for bioequivalence (BE) criteria in terms of the ratio of geometric means.|Ratio of AUC(0-tlast) values|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0|1.07|||ANOVA|||||1.07|1.00|
95712979|NCT04652245|191396275|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.028
95712980|NCT04652245|191396276|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.008
95712981|NCT02735382|191396301|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.663|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.116|5.283|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||5.283|4.116|<.0001
95712982|NCT02735382|191396302|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.672|4.035|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||4.035|2.672|<.0001
95712983|NCT02735382|191396303|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.885||||0.8438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.698|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||1.698|0.420|.8438
95712984|NCT02735382|191396304|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.161||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.123|0.757|||t-test, 2 sided|df=292||A change score from baseline to 6-months was computed and served as the data to be analyzed in the t-test of group differences.||0.757|0.123|.007
95712985|NCT02996981|191396305|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.299|||||||Chi-squared|df=1||||||0.299
95712986|NCT01468844|191396320|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712987|NCT01468844|191396321|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712988|NCT01468844|191396322|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of participants improving ≥ 1 logOCT scale step in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712989|NCT01468844|191396323|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 12 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712990|NCT01468844|191396324|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in number of bevacizumab injections received from baseline to Month 24 is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-8.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.4|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712991|NCT01468844|191396325|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 3 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712992|NCT01468844|191396326|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.5|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712993|NCT01468844|191396327|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712994|NCT01468844|191396328|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712995|NCT01468844|191396329|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo groups in the change in macular sensitivity in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-5.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.8|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712996|NCT01468844|191396330|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo arms in change in BCVA in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|30.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712997|NCT01468844|191396331|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 6 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|39.3|STANDARD_DEVIATION|113.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712998|NCT01468844|191396332|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|313.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|267.3|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95712999|NCT01468844|191396333|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 18 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|428.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|146.2|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713000|NCT01468844|191396334|OTHER|The mean difference between the minocycline and placebo treatment arms in change in retinal thickness as measured by OCT in the study eye at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|119.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|66.6|||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713001|NCT01468844|191396335|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713002|NCT01468844|191396335|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713003|NCT01468844|191396335|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 12 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713004|NCT01468844|191396336|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing a decrease in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713005|NCT01468844|191396336|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing an increase in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713006|NCT01468844|191396336|OTHER|The difference between the minocycline and treatment arms in the number of participants experiencing no change in fluid leakage at Month 24 compared to baseline is reported.|Difference in Number of Participants|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Difference = Minocycline - Placebo|||||
95713007|NCT02514889|191396337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|1.91||a priori threshold is p = .017, so that experiment-wide critical alpha would be p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates: sex, age, ethnicity, marital status and educational attainment|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||1.91|-6.12|0.30
95713008|NCT02514889|191396338|EQUIVALENCE|p-value \>0.20 would be considered equivalent.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1342|5.3228|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status||||5.3228|-0.1342|0.06
95713009|NCT02514889|191396339|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.55||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.37|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|Difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting).|||3.63|-6.37|0.504
95713010|NCT02514889|191396340|SUPERIORITY|Difference in differences|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.35||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.47|2.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status|The difference in differences interaction term is the product of assessment period (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.74|-6.47|0.30
95713011|NCT02514889|191396341|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|2.39|||Mixed Models Analysis||The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||2.39|-1.47|0.640
95713012|NCT02514889|191396342|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be equivalent, as predicted, the critical alpha was set at P \> 0.20.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.135||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||0.22|-.31|0.747
95713013|NCT02514889|191396343|EQUIVALENCE|For the comparison conditions to be judged equivalent, as predicted, the critical p-value was set to P \>.20|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates included: age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment and marital status|The differences in difference interaction term consists of the product of assessment intervals (baseline, 6-months, 12-months) and experimental condition (MyPlate, Calorie Counting)|||1.14|-0.85|0.776
95713014|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.0|28.9|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs.one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenA||28.9|10|
95713015|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|16.9|37.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenC||37.7|16.9|
95713016|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.4|26.7|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenW||26.7|1.4|
95713017|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 2 to 5 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for Men Y|Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|15.6|37.6|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (2 to 5 years of age) for MenY||37.6|15.6|
95727803|NCT02151461|191425083|OTHER|||||||0.9789|||||||ANCOVA|Total daily dose is twice the respective dose Pairwise comparison using Treatment D as the reference group||||||0.9789
95727804|NCT02151461|191425083|OTHER|||||||0.841|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.841
95727805|NCT02151461|191425083|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.748
95713018|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenA|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.7|21.3|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenA||21.3|1.7|
95713019|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenC|Vaccines Group differences at Day 86|19.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.9|29.2|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenC||29.2|9.9|
95713020|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenW|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.6|17.4|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse of two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenW||17.4|-8.6|
95713021|NCT01682876|191396406|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority was demonstrated for 6 to 10 years of age group if the lower limit of the 2-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in seroresponse rate between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule (2-dose schedule minus the 1-dose schedule) was greater than -10% for MenY|Vaccines Group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|18.4|40.0|||MN method|||Non-inferiority of seroresponse for two vaccinations vs. one vaccination for age cohort (6 to 10 years of age) for MenY||40|18.4|
95713022|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|9.1|28.0|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||28|9.1|
95713023|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|28.0||||||98.75|17.1|38.7|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||38.7|17.1|
95713024|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||27.1|1|
95713025|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups Differences at Day 86|28.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|16.2|39.3|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (2 through 5 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.3|16.2|
95713026|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine groups differences at Day 86|11.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|1.0|21.2|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenA was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenA||21.2|1|
95713027|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group differences at Day 86|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|9.5|27.1|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenC was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenC||27.1|9.5|
95713028|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine Group Differences at Day 86|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|-8.4|18.8|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenW was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenW||18.8|-8.4|
95713029|NCT01682876|191396407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Vaccine group Differences at Day 86|29.0|||||TWO_SIDED|98.75|17.0|39.6|||MN method|||Superiority for age cohort (6 through 10 years of age) for MenY was demonstrated if the lower limit of the 2-sided (1-2α) % CI for seroresponse increase between the 2-dose vaccination schedule and the 1-dose vaccination schedule was above 10% for MenY||39.6|17|
95713030|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|4.53||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.53|1.17|
95713031|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|6.36||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||6.36|1.18|
95713032|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.34||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced tenderness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.34|0.85|
95713033|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced change in eating habits in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.42|0.54|
95713034|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.52||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced sleepiness in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.52|0.76|
95713035|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.43||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced irritability in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.43|0.74|
95713036|NCT01682876|191396412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.74|0.33|
95713037|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.65||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced erythema in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.65|0.77|
95713038|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced induration in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|0.81|
95713039|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.55||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced pain in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.55|1.04|
95713040|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|3.33||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced loss of appetite in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||3.33|0.98|
95713041|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.17||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced nausea in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.17|0.77|
95713042|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.57||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fatigue in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.57|1.06|
95713043|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.89||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced myalgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||1.89|0.99|
95713044|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.42||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced arthralgia in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||4.42|0.97|
95713045|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.74||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced headache in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.74|1.22|
95713046|NCT01682876|191396413|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.68||||||The safety of two vaccine groups was compared by calculating risk ratio of the proportions of subjects who experienced fever (≥38 °C) in the two doses versus in the one dose of MenACWY-CRM||2.68|0.48|
95713047|NCT01545375|191396430|SUPERIORITY|The objective was to demonstrate that VE induced by GSK2189242A vaccine (three doses in the first year of life and a booster dose in the second year of life)in preventing clinical AOM diagnosed and verified against AAP criteria was greater than 0%, as compared to the control group. One-sided p-value for the Wald-Test obtained from the general Cox proportional hazard model was calculated.|Vaccine Efficacy|3.81||||0.3016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|16.9||The primary objective was met if the one-sided p-value calculated for the null hypothesis H0=\[clinical AOM VE ≤ 0%\] was lower than defined 1-sided alpha level: (17.8%).|Regression, Cox|||VE-AOM against AAP criteria: Occurrence of AOM during efficacy follow-up period was compared between groups to estimate Vaccine Efficacy (VE) and its 95% confidence interval using the Anderson \& Gill model (generalization of Cox proportional hazard model) taking into account for recurrent events \[Kelly, 2000\]. VE= (1 - hazard ratio) x 100 Censoring occurred at the time of the last scheduled or medically attended visit.||16.90|-11.35|0.3016
95713048|NCT02181634|191396476|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.02||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.75|||Log Rank|||||4.75|0.86|0.099
95713049|NCT02181634|191396477|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|3.71|||Log Rank|||||3.71|0.64|0.34
95713050|NCT00218439|191396484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95713051|NCT00218439|191396485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.006
95713052|NCT00218439|191396486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.56
95713053|NCT00218439|191396487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.33
95713054|NCT00218439|191396488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.82
95713055|NCT02615158|191396489|EQUIVALENCE|If the 95% confidence interval of the difference in the change over time does not include 0, it means that there is a significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.31||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare change in maternal lifestyle group to child safety group.|H0: There are no differences between the maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change in BMI z-score over time. Mixed models included the interaction between time and intervention, accounting for clustering of the repeated measures within each individual.||0.31|-0.17|0.555
95713056|NCT02615158|191396489|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI|Slope|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.39||Two-side test|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the Responsive Parenting to the safety intervention group.|||0.39|-0.08|0.200
95713057|NCT02615158|191396490|EQUIVALENCE|95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated. If the 95% CI does not include 0, it means there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.52||The alpha for statistical significance is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle to child safety group.|H0: There is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of BMI over time.||0.52|-0.74|0.739
95713058|NCT02615158|191396490|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it means that there is a statistically significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.59||The alpha for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to the child safety group.|H0: There are no differences in the change over time between responsive parenting and child safety groups.||0.59|-0.66|0.904
95713059|NCT02615158|191396491|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in the change over time.|Slope|3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|8.02||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||H0 is that there is no difference between maternal lifestyle and child safety groups in the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.02|-1.4|0.168
95713060|NCT02615158|191396491|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference in the change between the two groups.|Slope|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.39||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive feeding group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference between the responsive parenting and child safety groups in the change of HEI score over time||5.52|-3.88|0.733
95713061|NCT02615158|191396492|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference in the change over time between the two groups.|Slope|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|8.2||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|Null hypothesis is that there are no differences between the two groups regarding the change of HEI 2015 score over time.||8.2|-1.6|0.186
95713062|NCT02615158|191396492|EQUIVALENCE|95% CI for the difference in change over time was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is significant difference between the two groups.|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.97|4.91||Alpha is set to 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is there is no difference in the change of maternal HEI score over time between the two groups.||4.91|-4.97|0.990
95713063|NCT02615158|191396493|EQUIVALENCE|A 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates significant difference in change over time between the two groups.|Slope|23.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.03||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|45.46||Alpha is set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is for maternal lifestyle group compared to safety control group.|Null hypothesis is there were no differences in the change over time for toddler MVPA across the two groups.||45.46|1.88|0.034
95713064|NCT02615158|191396493|EQUIVALENCE|H0 is that there is no difference between the change of MVPA over time between the two groups.|Slope|13.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|10.89||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.98|35.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the responsive parenting group to child safety group.|||35.03|-7.98|0.216
95713065|NCT02615158|191396494|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI for the difference in the change between the two groups was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the change.|Slope|10.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.82||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|20.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare the maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|H0 is that there is no difference in the change of maternal MVPA over time between the two groups.||20.48|1.46|0.024
95713066|NCT02615158|191396494|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|10.72|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|H0 is that there is no significant difference in the change of maternal MVPA between the two groups.||10.72|-8.76|0.804
95713067|NCT02615158|191396495|EQUIVALENCE|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.|Slope|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.06||Alpha is set at 0.05 for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare maternal lifestyle group to the child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.06|-0.78|0.056
95713068|NCT02615158|191396495|EQUIVALENCE|Alpha is set at 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.|Slope|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||This is to compare responsive parenting group to child safety group.|The 95% CI was estimated. If it does not include 0, it indicates that there is a significant difference by group in the difference.||0.45|-0.39|0.896
95713069|NCT02257970|191396497|EQUIVALENCE|The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||For the analysis, the 4-month post-minus-pre change in this score for ketoprofen was compared.||||<0.0001
95713070|NCT02257970|191396498|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-post comparison: the likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.6|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Paired t-test||||||=0.6
95713071|NCT02257970|191396498|EQUIVALENCE|Pre-to-Post comparison: The likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis (equivalence between the two groups) was defined as P\<0.05|||||=|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||=0.01
95713072|NCT02898662|191396523|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that during the 52-week double-blind treatment period, the time to LOAC in the AZD1419 arm was equal to the corresponding time to LOAC in the placebo arm.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.5722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.87||1-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to LOAC. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.87|0.59|0.5722
95713073|NCT02898662|191396524|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.2006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|4.79||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants experiencing LOAC. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment, visit and age and gender as covariates.||4.79|0.72|0.2006
95713074|NCT02898662|191396525|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.02||||0.8166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.17||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for ACQ-5 score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.17|-0.22|0.8166
95713075|NCT02898662|191396526|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.26||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for asthma daily diary score. Repeated measures analysis.||0.26|-0.32|0.8412
95713076|NCT02898662|191396527|OTHER|The null hypothesis was that the time to moderate or severe exacerbation was not different between AZD1419 and placebo.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.5477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.67||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox||Hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD1419 over placebo.|Comparison between groups for time to moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Cox regression model analysis with age and gender included as covariates.||1.67|0.38|0.5477
95713077|NCT02898662|191396527|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.7294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.86||2-sided p-value|Generalized estimating equation analysis|||Comparison between groups for participants with moderate or severe asthma exacerbation. Odds ratio was estimated using a generalized linear model based on a generalized estimating equation approach fitting treatment and visit as covariates.||1.86|0.41|0.7294
95713078|NCT02898662|191396529|OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.06||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.2||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for pre-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.20|-0.08|0.3764
95713079|NCT02898662|191396529|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.03||||0.7013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.11||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for post-BD FEV1. Repeated measures analysis.||0.11|-0.17|0.7013
95713080|NCT02898662|191396530|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-0.32||||0.9686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|15.9||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for PEF. Repeated measures analysis.||15.90|-16.54|0.9686
95713081|NCT02898662|191396531|OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.02||||0.5403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|4.52||2-sided p-value|Repeated measures analysis|||Comparison between groups for FeNO. Repeated measures analysis.||4.52|-8.55|0.5403
95713082|NCT04680273|191396556|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.573|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.11|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 10.4%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
95713083|NCT04680273|191396556|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.752|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.036|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-72) geometric mean ratio was 3.5%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-72) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-72) of TR in plasma samples.||||
95713084|NCT04680273|191396557|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.625|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.134|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 12.7%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of GDC-9545 in plasma samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity in plasma samples.||||
95713085|NCT04680273|191396557|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.79|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.171|||||||||||The geometric coefficient of variation (%) for the AUC(0-t) geometric mean ratio was 15.9%. The standard deviation (SD) reported is a geometric SD.|The geometric mean ratio was calculated for the AUC(0-t) of total radioactivity (TR) in whole blood samples compared with the AUC(0-t) of TR in plasma samples.||||
95713086|NCT01430559|191396607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
95713087|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.09||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 2)||-0.09|-0.65|0.0103
95713088|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.67|0.0295
95713089|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 8)||-0.17|-0.87|0.0041
95713090|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Pain subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.20|<0.0001
95713091|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.64|0.0369
95713092|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.15||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 4)||0.15|-0.54|0.2642
95713093|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 8)||-0.10|-0.84|0.0140
95713094|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Stiffness subscale (Week 12)||-0.28|-1.06|0.0009
95713095|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.17||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 2)||-0.17|-0.72|0.0017
95713096|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.03||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 4)||-0.03|-0.66|0.0328
95713097|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.86|0.0043
95713098|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.43||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical function subscale (Week 12)||-0.43|-1.19|<0.0001
95713099|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.12||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 2)||-0.12|-0.65|0.0051
95713100|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 4)||0.01|-0.61|0.0593
95713101|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.84|0.0046
95713102|NCT01430559|191396608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.39||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Average score (Week 12)||-0.39|-1.14|<0.0001
95713103|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.3||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 2)||-0.30|-0.94|0.0002
95713104|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|-0.22||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 4)||-0.22|-0.92|0.0015
95713105|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 8)||-0.32|-1.08|0.0003
95713106|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.51||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Walking on flat surface (Week 12)||-0.51|-1.34|<0.0001
95713107|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 2)||-0.02|-0.67|0.0363
95713108|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.0311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.04||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 4)||-0.04|-0.75|0.0311
95713109|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.16||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 8)||-0.16|-0.94|0.0057
95713110|NCT01430559|191396609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.64||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Going up or down stairs (Week 12)||-0.64|-1.52|<0.0001
95713111|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.2373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.55||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 2)||2.55|0.79|0.2373
95713112|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.2069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.26||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 4)||2.26|0.84|0.2069
95713113|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|2.53||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 8)||2.53|0.97|0.0680
95713114|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.41||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|3.94||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=30% reduction (Week 12)||3.94|1.47|0.0005
95713115|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.94||||0.1736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|5.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 2)||5.01|0.75|0.1736
95713116|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.59||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 4)||3.59|0.82|0.1496
95713117|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.12||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|3.93||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 8)||3.93|1.14|0.0171
95713118|NCT01430559|191396611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|4.89||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||\>=50% reduction (Week 12)||4.89|1.57|0.0004
95713119|NCT01430559|191396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.07|-0.31|0.0027
95713120|NCT01430559|191396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.01||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||-0.01|-0.30|0.0308
95713121|NCT01430559|191396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.05|||ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.05|-0.31|0.0060
95713122|NCT01430559|191396612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.05||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.05|-0.34|0.0076
95713123|NCT01430559|191396613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.13||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|8.5||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 2||8.50|0.53|0.2843
95713124|NCT01430559|191396613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|4.87||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 4||4.87|0.86|0.1050
95713125|NCT01430559|191396613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.7861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.32||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 8||3.32|0.40|0.7861
95713126|NCT01430559|191396613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.78||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Week 12||3.78|0.77|0.1873
95713127|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.3738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|4.42||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||General health||4.42|-1.67|0.3738
95713128|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.07|9.8||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical functioning||9.80|2.07|0.0028
95713129|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.95|12.38||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role physical||12.38|3.95|0.0002
95713130|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|7.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|10.63||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Bodily pain||10.63|4.10|<0.0001
95713131|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|5.27||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Vitality||5.27|-1.18|0.2124
95713132|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|10.1||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Social functioning||10.10|1.82|0.0050
95713133|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.28||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Role emotional||10.28|1.46|0.0093
95713134|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64||0.7274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|3.81||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental health||3.81|-2.66|0.7274
95713135|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.2819|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|2.67||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Mental component aggregate||2.67|-0.78|0.2819
95713136|NCT01430559|191396614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|2.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.86||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Physical component aggregate||3.86|1.27|0.0001
95713137|NCT01430559|191396615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.6||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.66||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Mobility||4.66|1.45|0.0014
95713138|NCT01430559|191396615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.48||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Self-care||2.48|0.91|0.1080
95713139|NCT01430559|191396615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06||||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|3.62||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Usual activities||3.62|1.17|0.0119
95713140|NCT01430559|191396615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.83||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Pain/discomfort||2.83|0.93|0.0887
95713141|NCT01430559|191396615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.2466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.33||P-value and 95% confidence interval for odds ratio were calculated from logistic regression model (including baseline value and treatment group as factors) for binary data for comparison of meloxicam group versus placebo.|Regression, Logistic|||Anxiety/depression||2.33|0.80|0.2466
95713142|NCT01430559|191396616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 2||-0.02|-0.58|0.0367
95713143|NCT01430559|191396616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.0652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.02||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 4||0.02|-0.65|0.0652
95713144|NCT01430559|191396616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.07||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 8||-0.07|-0.81|0.0200
95713145|NCT01430559|191396616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.24||P-value and 95% confidence interval for least squares mean difference were calculated from ANCOVA (repeated measures) model with baseline value and treatment group as fixed effects, and study site as a random effect.|ANCOVA|||Week 12||-0.24|-1.02|0.0016
95713146|NCT01258803|191396617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.124|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.094|0.154|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.154|0.094|<0.001
95713147|NCT01258803|191396618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.131|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.131|0.073|<0.001
95713148|NCT01258803|191396619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.008|0.052|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and MF/F MDI without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.052|-0.008|0.144
95713149|NCT01258803|191396621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.018||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.012|0.048|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI with spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.048|-0.012|0.229
95713150|NCT01258803|191396622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.025|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of MF/F MDI without spacer and F DPI.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.025|-0.033|0.790
95713151|NCT01258803|191396623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.077|0.135|||ANCOVA|||"Pairwise Treatment Comparison of F DPI and Placebo MDI combined with or without spacer.~Analysis was performed using an ANCOVA model extracting the effects due to treatment, sequence, subject (random effect nested within sequence), period, age groups (5 to 7 years and 8 to 11 years) and Baseline FEV1 as a covariate."||0.135|0.077|<0.001
95713152|NCT02452892|191396698|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.307||||||"P-value displayed for 60min.~Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model."|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 60 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.307
95713153|NCT02452892|191396698|SUPERIORITY|To control for multiple comparisons in the primary endpoint analysis, a hierarchical approach was taken. First LFMS 60min. was compared to LFMS sham. If p\<0.05 for this comparison, then LFMS 20min. was formally compared to LFMS sham for statistical significance.||||||0.859||||||P-value displayed for 20min. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 1 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment,visit treatment\*visit age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subjects.||Comparisons of 20 min LFMS vs. sham, LSMean diff with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) reported. Hypothesis 1: no difference between 60 min. LFMS and sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to end of Tx Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score. If hypothesis is rejected at significance level of 0.05, then second hypothesis will be tested. Hypothesis 2:no difference between 20 min. LFMS \& sham therapy in mean change from baseline (Day 1) to the end of Tx. Day 4 in HAM-D6 total score.||||0.859
95713154|NCT02452892|191396699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.966||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value was estimated from Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model.|Mixed Models Analysis|Week 2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, visit, treatment\*visit, age, \& gender included in model. Visit was the repeated measure within subject.||||||0.966
95713155|NCT02452892|191396700|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.294||||||For 60 min LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using LR model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.294
95713156|NCT02452892|191396700|SUPERIORITY|The persistence rate calculated based on Week 1 treatment group: 20 minutes LFMS, 60 minutes LFMS and sham therapy.||||||0.232||||||For 20min. LFMS, P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. P-value estimated using Logistic Regression model including Wk2 baseline HAM-D6 total score, treatment, age \& gender as covariates.|Regression, Logistic|Non-responder imputation (NRI) for missing data, where missing post-baseline results were considered non-response||||||0.232
95713157|NCT02452892|191396701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0932||||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.0932
95713158|NCT02452892|191396701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7509||||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value was estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||Estimates for LS Means, confidence intervals, difference in LS means and p-value are from an ANCOVA model with treatment, age, sex as factors and baseline negative MADRS score as a covariate.||||0.7509
95713159|NCT02452892|191396702|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.2672||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.2672
95713160|NCT02452892|191396702|SUPERIORITY|Positive score is the sum of 10 items: 1,3,5,9,10,12,14,16,17,19.||||||0.166||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment,age,\& gender as factors \& baseline positive PANAS score as a covariate.||||||0.1660
95727806|NCT01620489|191425084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.66|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.9|-0.43||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not used since there was only one primary endpoint.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested using a two-sided test based on a mixed model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis. The model included treatment, country, stratification groups (6 groups from cross-classifying renal function category (2 levels: eGFR\<45 and ≥45 mL/min) and the background insulin treatment category (3 levels: basal, premix or no insulin)) as fixed effects factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate, all nested within week.||-0.43|-0.90|<0.0001
95713161|NCT02452892|191396703|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~* All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~* The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~* The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
95713162|NCT02452892|191396703|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3537||||||"P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were considered as random missing data.~."|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3537
95713163|NCT02452892|191396704|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0848||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0848
95713164|NCT02452892|191396704|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.593||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where Incorrect Item #2 data was removed.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.5930
95713165|NCT02452892|191396705|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.0307||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.0307
95713166|NCT02452892|191396705|SUPERIORITY|Negative score is sum of 10 items: 2,4,6,7,8,11,13,15,18,20.||||||0.3907||||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons. All missing values including the 72 data points in Item#2 were treated where incorrect Item #2 data was imputed using worst possible value.|ANCOVA|P-value estimated using ANCOVA model with treatment, age, \& gender as factors \& baseline negative PANAS score as a covariate.||"Due to item #2 error, analyses were done in the following manner to check robustness:~All missing values including these 72 data points in item #2 were considered as random missing data (values posted in outcome measures).~The 72 data points were removed \& the negative score for affected subjects \& visits were not calculated.~The 72 data points were imputed using worst value imputation algorithm (using score =5 as extremely) while other random missing values imputed by average."||||0.3907
95713167|NCT00078715|191396707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.004|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.141||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|2.251||The significance level reflects the direct comparison of drugs after factoring out baseline depression levels.|Mixed Models Analysis|A linear mixed model was used with factors for drug, time of evaluation, the drug by time interaction, and a baseline depression covariate.||The hypothesis was that yohimbine would provide lower levels of depression than placebo. Initial estimates of sample size assumed a minimum of 25 patients were required to detect differences in depression.||2.251|-4.260|.527
95713168|NCT01680835|191396711|OTHER|Freedom from primary safety composite event at 36 months compared to a performance goal of 35%|Kaplan Meier|0.771|||<|0.001|ONE_SIDED|97.5|0.678||||Log Rank||||||0.678|<0.001
95713169|NCT01680835|191396712|OTHER|No hypothesis Testing for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 1 Year||||
95713170|NCT01680835|191396712|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.989|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 2 Years||||
95713171|NCT01680835|191396712|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.965|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Stent Fracture at 3 Years||||
95713172|NCT01680835|191396713|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done at this endpoint|Kaplan Meier|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 1 year||||
95713173|NCT01680835|191396713|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.782|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from acute death, freedom from amputation and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization at 2 years||||
95713174|NCT01680835|191396714|OTHER|No hypothesis testing was done for this endpoint.|Kaplan Meier|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Estimate from freedom from major amputation through 3 years.||||
95713175|NCT01680835|191396715|OTHER||Kaplan Meier|0.781|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Freedom from clinically-driven TLR through 3 Years||||
95713176|NCT05047601|191396722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.702||||0.1722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.422|1.167|||Generalized estimating equation (GEE)|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.167|0.422|0.1722
95713177|NCT05047601|191396722|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.645||||0.1163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.115|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.115|0.373|0.1163
95713178|NCT05047601|191396724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.6766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.484|1.602|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.602|0.484|0.6766
95713179|NCT05047601|191396724|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.809||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|1.512|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.512|0.433|0.5070
95713180|NCT05047601|191396726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.672||||0.1869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.373|1.213|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.213|0.373|0.1869
95713181|NCT05047601|191396726|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.633||||0.1221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.355|1.13|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.130|0.355|0.1221
95713182|NCT05047601|191396727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0368|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0368
95713183|NCT05047601|191396727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0186
95713184|NCT05047601|191396728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.4126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.378|1.491|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.491|0.378|0.4126
95713185|NCT05047601|191396728|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.244||||0.4273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.725|2.135|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||2.135|0.725|0.4273
95713186|NCT05047601|191396729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.726||||0.1333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.478|1.103|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.103|0.478|0.1333
95713187|NCT05047601|191396729|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.953||||0.8088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.408|||GEE|Model included the fixed effects of treatment, geographic regions and presence of risk factors. Compound symmetry variance-covariance structure.||||1.408|0.645|0.8088
95713188|NCT05047601|191396737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.969||||0.7991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.758|1.238|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.238|0.758|0.7991
95713189|NCT05047601|191396737|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Ratio|0.847||||0.1985|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.657|1.091|||Negative binomial regression model|||||1.091|0.657|0.1985
95713190|NCT03026556|191396752|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.566|1.037|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.037|0.566|0.0844
95713191|NCT03026556|191396752|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255||||0.4892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.659|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.390|0.659|0.4892
95713192|NCT03026556|191396753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.696|0.967|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.967|0.696|0.0182
95713193|NCT03026556|191396753|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.374||||0.0702|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.974|1.939|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.939|0.974|0.0702
95713194|NCT03026556|191396754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.6307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.278|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.278|0.667|0.6307
95713195|NCT03026556|191396754|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.054||||0.8777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.055|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.055|0.540|0.8777
95713196|NCT03026556|191396755|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.223||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.585|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.585|0.085|0.0023
95713197|NCT03026556|191396756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.654||||0.0406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.435|0.982|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||0.982|0.435|0.0406
95713198|NCT03026556|191396756|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.8124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.469|2.63|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.630|0.469|0.8124
95713199|NCT03026556|191396757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.856||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.025|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.025|0.716|0.0901
95713200|NCT03026556|191396757|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.431||||0.0616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.983|2.083|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.083|0.983|0.0616
95713201|NCT03026556|191396758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.736|1.069|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.069|0.736|0.2073
95713202|NCT03026556|191396758|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.504||||0.0417|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.015|2.228|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.228|1.015|0.0417
95713203|NCT03026556|191396760|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.2663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.387|1.299|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.299|0.387|0.2663
95713204|NCT03026556|191396760|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.864||||0.8112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.261|2.863|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.863|0.261|0.8112
95713205|NCT03026556|191396761|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.766||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|1.075|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.075|0.546|0.1227
95713206|NCT03026556|191396761|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.138||||0.7115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.573|2.26|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.260|0.573|0.7115
95713207|NCT03026556|191396762|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.923||||0.4727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.149|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.149|0.741|0.4727
95713208|NCT03026556|191396762|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.721||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.062|2.79|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.790|1.062|0.0275
95713209|NCT03026556|191396763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.346||||0.2309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.828|2.189|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||2.189|0.828|0.2309
95713210|NCT03026556|191396763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.557||||0.3333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.635|3.821|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||3.821|0.635|0.3333
95713211|NCT03026556|191396764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.008||||0.9359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.829|1.226|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.226|0.829|0.9359
95713212|NCT03026556|191396764|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.024||||0.8947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.716|1.465|||Regression, Cox|||Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).||1.465|0.716|0.8947
95713213|NCT01294319|191396765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4872|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4872
95713214|NCT01294319|191396766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2786|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2786
95713215|NCT01882439|191396861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|25.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.73|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.72|37.19|||Large sample approximation|Missing response (MR) = non-response (NR)||||37.19|14.72|<0.0001
95713216|NCT01882439|191396861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|23.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|34.51|||Large sample approximation|MR=NR||||34.51|12.10|<0.0001
95713217|NCT01882439|191396862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2529|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06422|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3792|-0.1266|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.1266|-0.3792|<0.0001
95713218|NCT01882439|191396862|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.215|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06453||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3419|-0.0881|||Mixed Models Analysis|No imputation||||-0.0881|-0.3419|0.0009
95713219|NCT03125902|191396900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.2032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.12|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.12|0.60|0.2032
95713220|NCT03125902|191396900|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.2601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.14|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.14|0.62|0.2601
95713221|NCT03125902|191396901|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||||1.05|0.70|0.1343
95713222|NCT03125902|191396901|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.05|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.05|0.70|0.1285
95713223|NCT03125902|191396902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.64|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis||1.64|0.76|0.5798
95713224|NCT03125902|191396902|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.4035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.72|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.72|0.80|0.4035
95713225|NCT03125902|191396903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12||||0.3425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.43|||Log Rank|||Stratified analysis||1.43|0.88|0.3425
95713226|NCT03125902|191396903|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.16||||0.2166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.48|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.48|0.92|0.2166
95713227|NCT03125902|191396905|OTHER|Stratified analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.71|0.6465
95713228|NCT03125902|191396907|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.1526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.37|0.87|0.1526
95713229|NCT03125902|191396908|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.31|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.31|0.85|0.1834
95713230|NCT03125902|191396909|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.02|1.00|0.0513
95713231|NCT03125902|191396910|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.81|0.93|0.1226
95713232|NCT03125902|191396911|OTHER|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.02|||Log Rank|||||1.02|0.54|0.0641
95713233|NCT03125902|191396921|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.01227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.9|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||0.90|0.42|0.01227
95713234|NCT03512028|191396948|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||Interaction effect of group x time from pre- to post- intervention|ANOVA||Estimated difference between slopes|Mixed model ANOVA with group (RLIC, Sham) and time (pre-, post-, and follow-up ). The main analysis of interest is the group x time interaction from pre- to post-.||||0.002
95713235|NCT03512028|191396948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||Main effect of time|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95713236|NCT03512028|191396948|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.844||||||Main effect of group|ANOVA|||||||0.844
95713237|NCT01522391|191396958|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
95713238|NCT01522391|191396959|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.491|0.004|0.012
95713239|NCT01522391|191396960|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.66|0.022|0.242
95713240|NCT01522391|191396960|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
95713241|NCT01522391|191396961|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.660|0.022|0.242
95713242|NCT01522391|191396961|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.696|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.696|0.039|0.482
95713243|NCT01522391|191396962|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.288||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|5.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.221|0.016|0.395
95713244|NCT01522391|191396962|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.067||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|1.218|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||1.218|0.004|0.067
95713245|NCT01522391|191396962|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.484||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.027|8.787|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||8.787|0.027|0.620
95713246|NCT01522391|191396963|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.287||||0.403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|5.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||5.550|0.015|0.403
95713247|NCT01522391|191396963|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.032||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.583|0.002|0.021
95713248|NCT01522391|191396963|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.271||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.015|4.779|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.779|0.015|0.368
95713249|NCT01522391|191396964|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|1.045||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.106|10.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||10.32|0.106|0.970
95713250|NCT01522391|191396964|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.447|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.447|0.005|0.009
95713251|NCT01522391|191396964|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.36||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.036|3.556|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||3.556|0.036|0.377
95713252|NCT01522391|191396965|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.961||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.081|11.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||11.43|0.081|0.974
95713253|NCT01522391|191396965|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.046||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.512|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.512|0.004|0.013
95713254|NCT01522391|191396965|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.447||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.041|4.883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.883|0.041|0.504
95713255|NCT01522391|191396966|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.242||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.022|2.659|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.659|0.022|0.242
95713256|NCT01522391|191396966|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.045||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.491|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.491|0.004|0.012
95713257|NCT01522391|191396966|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.428||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|4.697|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||4.697|0.039|0.483
95713258|NCT01522391|191396967|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.202||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||2.340|0.017|0.197
95713259|NCT01522391|191396967|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.021||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.227|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||0.227|0.002|0.002
95713260|NCT01522391|191396967|OTHER||Ratio between geometric means|0.257||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.024|2.752|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||2.752|0.024|0.257
95713261|NCT01522391|191396968|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.38||||0.346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.42|63.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||63.19|-22.42|0.346
95713262|NCT01522391|191396968|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|29.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|71.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||71.90|-13.71|0.18
95713263|NCT01522391|191396968|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-11.64||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.44|31.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.16|-54.44|0.590
95713264|NCT01522391|191396969|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.95||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|42.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||42.73|-30.84|0.748
95713265|NCT01522391|191396969|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|14.62||||0.437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.65|51.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||51.88|-22.65|0.437
95713266|NCT01522391|191396969|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-18.66||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.92|18.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||18.61|-55.92|0.322
95713267|NCT01522391|191396970|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|8.04||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.15|41.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||41.24|-25.15|0.631
95713268|NCT01522391|191396970|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|20.44||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.75|53.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||53.63|-12.75|0.224
95713269|NCT01522391|191396970|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|-1.23||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.42|31.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||31.96|-34.42|0.941
95713270|NCT01522391|191396971|OTHER||Least Square Means Difference|0.97||||0.954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.93|34.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7||34.87|-32.93|0.954
95713271|NCT01522391|191396971|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|15.72||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.18|49.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14||49.62|-18.18|0.358
95713272|NCT01522391|191396971|OTHER||least Square Mean Difference|-7.94||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.82|25.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 21||25.94|-41.82|0.642
95713273|NCT01522391|191396972|OTHER|||||||0.701|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.701
95713274|NCT01522391|191396972|OTHER|||||||0.898|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.898
95713275|NCT01522391|191396972|OTHER|||||||0.271|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.271
95713276|NCT01522391|191396973|OTHER|||||||0.511|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.511
95713277|NCT01522391|191396973|OTHER|||||||0.777|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.777
95713278|NCT01522391|191396973|OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.204
95713279|NCT01522391|191396974|OTHER|||||||0.489|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.489
95713280|NCT01522391|191396974|OTHER|||||||0.249|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.249
95713281|NCT01522391|191396974|OTHER|||||||0.098|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.098
95713282|NCT01522391|191396975|OTHER|||||||0.291|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.291
95713283|NCT01522391|191396975|OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.113
95713284|NCT01522391|191396975|OTHER|||||||0.033|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.033
95713285|NCT01522391|191396976|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
95713286|NCT01522391|191396976|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.825
95713287|NCT01522391|191396976|OTHER|||||||0.208|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.208
95713288|NCT01522391|191396977|OTHER|||||||0.825|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.825
95713289|NCT01522391|191396977|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.820
95713290|NCT01522391|191396977|OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.086
95713291|NCT01522391|191396978|OTHER|||||||0.378|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.378
95713292|NCT01522391|191396978|OTHER|||||||0.975|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.975
95713293|NCT01522391|191396978|OTHER|||||||0.962|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.962
95713294|NCT01522391|191396979|OTHER|||||||0.375|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 7||||0.375
95713295|NCT01522391|191396979|OTHER|||||||0.946|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||||0.946
95713296|NCT01522391|191396979|OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 21||||0.495
95713297|NCT01522391|191396982|OTHER|||||||0.477|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.477
95713298|NCT01522391|191396982|OTHER|||||||0.651|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14 morning||||0.651
95713299|NCT01522391|191396982|OTHER|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21 morning||||0.340
95713300|NCT01522391|191396983|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 7 morning||||0.300
95713301|NCT01522391|191396983|OTHER|||||||0.705|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 14||||0.705
95713302|NCT01522391|191396983|OTHER|||||||0.286|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Day 21||||0.286
95713303|NCT01140646|191396987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0903||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash score is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.0903
95713304|NCT01140646|191396987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1553||||||One sided t-test with 0.05 error rate was employed.|t-test, 1 sided|||To determine whether any reduction in hot flash frequency is beyond what is expected with a placebo (20-25%). Reference: Sloan JA, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. Dec 1 2001;19(23):4280-4290.||||0.1553
95713305|NCT03006276|191396992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|2.94|||Fisher Exact|||Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)||2.94|1.36|<0.001
95713306|NCT03006276|191396992|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.89|||Fisher Exact|||||2.89|1.34|<0.001
95713307|NCT03006276|191396993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.43|||Fisher Exact|||last observation carried forward (LOCF)||2.43|1.17|0.007
95713308|NCT03006276|191396993|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.44|||Fisher Exact|||observed cases (OC)||2.44|1.16|0.007
95713309|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|LS Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|12.4|||||LS mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.4|-14.2|
95713310|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|12.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 1 hour||12.9|-11.8|
95713311|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||2.8|-30.6|
95713312|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 4 hour||0|-31.0|
95713313|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||3.9|-23.8|
95713314|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose AM 8 hour||9.7|-16.0|
95713315|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.2|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||8.6|-26.2|
95713316|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.7|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 predose PM||12.6|-19.7|
95713317|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|12.2||||||Day 1 postdose PM 1 hour||12.2|-18.7|
95713318|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1 postdose PM||9.9|-18.7|
95713319|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||1.3|-18.2|
95713320|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose AM||3.3|-14.8|
95713321|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-28.1|
95713322|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 1 hour||2.3|-21.1|
95713323|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||7.9|-25.6|
95713324|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose AM 4 hour||4.4|-26.7|
95713325|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||0.6|-24.0|
95713326|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|4.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 predose PM||4.4|-18.4|
95713327|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||16.2|-13.0|
95713328|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|14.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 1 hour||14.2|-12.9|
95713329|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.1|-16.4|
95713330|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2 postdose PM 4 hour||7.9|-13.9|
95713331|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||6.4|-15.8|
95713332|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 predose AM||4.5|-16.0|
95713333|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|13.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||13.1|-13.6|
95713334|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3 postdose PM 4 hour||9.6|-15.2|
95713335|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||3.0|-15.5|
95713336|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4 predose AM||0.5|-16.6|
95713337|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||8.4|-11.8|
95713338|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5 predose AM||-0.7|-19.4|
95713339|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||4.7|-18.1|
95713340|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6 predose AM||6.3|-14.8|
95713341|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|14.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||14.1|-12.2|
95713342|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|8.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 predose AM||8.4|-16.0|
95713343|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||9.1|-15.1|
95713344|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 1 hour||4.8|-17.6|
95713345|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.7|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||3.7|-22.7|
95713346|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.5|-5.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7 postdose AM 4 hour||-5.0|-29.5|
95713347|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.4|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||1.1|-24.4|
95713348|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose AM||3.5|-20.2|
95713349|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-13.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||1.4|-28.1|
95713350|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 1 hour||3.3|-24.0|
95713351|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-10.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||6.9|-27.0|
95713352|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 postdose AM 4 hour||11.1|-20.4|
95713353|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|11.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||11.0|-19.5|
95713354|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|12.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8 predose PM||12.8|-15.4|
95713355|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|-2.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||-2.5|-23.0|
95713356|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|4.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9 predose AM||4.3|-14.7|
95713357|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose AM||2.9|-19.0|
95713358|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|6.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10 predose||6.3|-14.0|
95713359|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0|-1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||-1.2|-31.0|
95713360|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11 predose AM||5.6|-22.1|
95713361|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||7.9|-14.6|
95713362|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12 predose AM||4.9|-15.9|
95713363|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||-1.7|-22.1|
95713364|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|2.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose AM||2.9|-16.0|
95713365|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|-3.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-3.2|-25.4|
95713366|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 1 hour||-1.5|-22.1|
95713367|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||5.6|-29.0|
95713368|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose AM 4 hour||6.2|-25.9|
95713369|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.4|-0.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 postdose PM||-0.1|-22.4|
95713370|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13 predose PM||0.4|-20.2|
95713371|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.0|10.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||10.5|-22.0|
95713372|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14 predose AM||9.0|-21.1|
95713373|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||5.6|-21.7|
95713374|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|7.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15 / Discharge||7.6|-17.7|
95713375|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|16.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.7|-7.0|
95713376|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21 / Follow-up||16.2|-5.8|
95713377|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|22.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||22.6|-11.7|
95713378|NCT03091920|191397040|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|11.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42 / End of Trial||11.4|-20.4|
95713379|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|3.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||3.8|-8.9|
95713380|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|4.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||4.5|-8.4|
95713381|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.4|-9.2|
95713382|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||-0.6|-13.5|
95713383|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||0.6|-11.5|
95713384|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||1.5|-10.8|
95713385|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||2.2|-9.4|
95713386|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||3.7|-8.0|
95713387|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||3.9|-13.8|
95713388|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.2|-11.7|
95713389|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||0.9|-9.7|
95713390|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||2.2|-8.5|
95713391|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.1|-0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||-0.3|-13.1|
95713392|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.2|-11.8|
95713393|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||3.5|-14.2|
95713394|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||0.5|-17.5|
95713395|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|0.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||0.2|-11.6|
95713396|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||1.5|-10.6|
95713397|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||6.4|-7.4|
95713398|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||4.7|-9.3|
95713399|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|4.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||4.6|-9.4|
95713400|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|5.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.6|-8.7|
95713401|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.7|-6.2|
95713402|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||6.8|-6.2|
95713403|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.4|-6.4|
95713404|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||6.8|-9.3|
95713405|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.4|-10.0|
95713406|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.3|
95713407|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||3.3|-8.2|
95713408|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||-1.3|-13.0|
95713409|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||2.2|-7.7|
95713410|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||0.3|-9.7|
95713411|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|3.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.5|-11.6|
95713412|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||3.3|-12.0|
95713413|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||1.9|-10.6|
95713414|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|0.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||0.7|-12.0|
95713415|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||10.3|-8.3|
95713416|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.7|-9.2|
95713417|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||2.3|-11.5|
95713418|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|4.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||4.2|-9.9|
95713419|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.0|-15.5|
95713420|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||-1.9|-14.6|
95713421|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||2.0|-12.6|
95713422|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||6.1|-8.7|
95713423|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||6.7|-8.2|
95713424|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|7.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||7.9|-7.3|
95713425|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|0.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||0.6|-10.3|
95713426|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||3.4|-7.7|
95713427|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||2.3|-10.0|
95713428|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||1.2|-11.4|
95713429|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|-2.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||-2.2|-15.2|
95713430|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||1.3|-12.0|
95713431|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||2.8|-7.6|
95713432|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||0.8|-9.7|
95713433|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|0.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||0.8|-10.7|
95713434|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|1.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||1.3|-10.4|
95713435|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.6|-3.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-3.4|-14.6|
95713436|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-2.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||-2.8|-14.2|
95713437|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|1.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.5|-13.8|
95713438|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||1.2|-14.3|
95713439|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|-1.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||-1.0|-15.0|
95713440|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|0.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||0|-14.2|
95713441|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|6.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||6.4|-9.8|
95713442|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|8.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||8.5|-8.0|
95713443|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|3.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||3.7|-9.0|
95713444|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||5.8|-7.1|
95713445|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|3.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||3.9|-5.5|
95713446|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|4.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||4.9|-4.6|
95713447|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|10.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.7|-6.5|
95713448|NCT03091920|191397041|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-7.9|
95713449|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|16.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||16.8|-4.4|
95713450|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|19.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.8|-1.5|
95713451|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||9.0|-9.0|
95713452|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.4|-4.6|
95713453|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|7.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||7.1|-7.5|
95713454|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose AM 8 hour||8.9|-5.7|
95713455|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|12.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.1|-2.0|
95713456|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, pre-dose PM||12.3|-1.8|
95713457|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.6|-5.1|
95713458|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, post-dose PM 1 hour||8.7|-6.0|
95713459|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|6.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.9|-5.0|
95713460|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|6.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose AM||6.6|-5.3|
95713461|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|13.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||13.2|-8.1|
95713462|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|15.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.0|-6.3|
95713463|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||11.2|-4.6|
95713464|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|14.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose AM 4 hour||14.9|-1.0|
95713465|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
95713466|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|5.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, pre-dose PM||5.9|-8.5|
95713467|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|9.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.5|-9.2|
95713468|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 1 hour||9.2|-9.5|
95713469|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||7.4|-5.1|
95713470|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|9.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 2, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.2|-3.4|
95713471|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|4.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||4.8|-7.5|
95713472|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|5.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, pre-dose AM||5.8|-6.5|
95713473|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|5.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||5.3|-9.9|
95713474|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|9.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 3, post-dose PM 4 hour||9.8|-5.4|
95713475|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||13.7|0.2|
95713476|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 4, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.7|
95713477|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|9.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||9.0|-3.1|
95713478|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 5, pre-dose AM||8.7|-3.4|
95713479|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|10.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||10.0|-5.4|
95713480|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 6, pre-dose AM||7.0|-8.4|
95713481|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.8|-1.6|
95713482|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, pre-dose AM||11.7|-1.7|
95713483|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|20.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||20.2|-1.6|
95713484|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|13.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|23.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 1 hour||23.9|2.1|
95713485|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.2|
95713486|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|11.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.6|18.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, post-dose AM 4 hour||18.3|4.6|
95713487|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose AM||8.6|-4.8|
95713488|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|10.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose||10.8|-2.6|
95713489|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|19.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.6|-0.1|
95713490|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|19.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 1 hour||19.4|-0.3|
95713491|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|15.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||15.5|0|
95713492|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|16.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, post-dose AM 4 hour||16.1|0.6|
95713493|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|11.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.7|-5.1|
95713494|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|11.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 8, pre-dose PM||11.3|-5.4|
95713495|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|9.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.1|-6.1|
95713496|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 9, pre-dose AM||9.9|-5.3|
95713497|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose||12.6|-4.0|
95713498|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 10, pre-dose AM||13.4|-3.2|
95713499|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|8.0|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.0|-11.0|
95713500|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|8.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 11, pre-dose AM||8.6|-10.3|
95713501|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|13.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||13.4|-7.7|
95713502|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 12, pre-dose AM||11.8|-9.4|
95713503|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|10.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||10.3|-8.4|
95713504|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose AM||9.4|-9.3|
95713505|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|15.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||15.3|-1.3|
95713506|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|9.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|18.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 1 hour||18.2|1.6|
95713507|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|12.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||12.3|-1.0|
95713508|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|13.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, post-dose AM 4 hour||13.9|0.5|
95713509|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|7.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||7.4|-8.4|
95713510|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 13, pre-dose PM||9.9|-6.0|
95713511|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|11.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.8|-4.0|
95713512|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|11.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, pre-dose AM||11.2|-4.6|
95713513|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0|7.3|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||7.3|-8.0|
95713514|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|8.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 15, Discharge||8.1|-7.2|
95713515|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||10.2|-11.5|
95713516|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 21, Follow-up||17.5|-4.1|
95713517|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|9.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||9.6|-9.1|
95713518|NCT03091920|191397042|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|10.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 42, End of trial||10.2|-8.5|
95713519|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.68|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.04|-9.68|
95713520|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.76|3.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||3.66|-8.76|
95713521|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.62|2.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.75|-8.62|
95713522|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.37|3.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||3.92|-10.37|
95713523|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.46|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.49|-6.46|
95713524|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||5.03|-7.74|
95713525|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.46|6.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.04|-11.46|
95713526|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.95|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|6.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.35|-10.09|
95713527|NCT03091920|191397047|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|5.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||5.35|-9.93|
95713528|NCT03091920|191397048|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.52|0.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.40|-14.52|
95713529|NCT03091920|191397048|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.14|-11.52|
95713530|NCT03091920|191397048|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.47|3.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.83|-11.47|
95713531|NCT03091920|191397048|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|8.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.94|-6.10|
95713532|NCT03091920|191397048|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|3.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||3.47|-16.36|
95713533|NCT03091920|191397048|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.44|8.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||8.38|-10.44|
95713534|NCT03091920|191397049|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.54|-6.97|
95713535|NCT03091920|191397049|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|5.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||5.03|-8.24|
95713536|NCT03091920|191397049|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||4.65|-10.88|
95713537|NCT03091920|191397049|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.45|6.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||6.80|-8.45|
95713538|NCT03091920|191397049|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.19|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|9.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||9.58|-7.84|
95713539|NCT03091920|191397049|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|5.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.26|-11.23|
95713540|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.51|2.41|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-13.51|
95713541|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||5.47|-10.41|
95713542|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.36|1.25|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.25|-17.36|
95713543|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.42|0.87|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.87|-17.42|
95713544|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.43|0.74|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.74|-19.43|
95713545|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.95|6.84|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||6.84|-12.95|
95713546|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|11.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||11.47|-4.74|
95713547|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|10.75|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.75|-5.10|
95713548|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.23|6.37|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.37|-15.23|
95713549|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.65|5.94|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.94|-15.65|
95713550|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|7.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||7.47|-9.10|
95713551|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.42|5.16|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.16|-10.42|
95713552|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|2.72|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.72|-13.80|
95713553|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|8.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||8.23|-8.25|
95713554|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.01|6.23|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||6.23|-12.01|
95713555|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|11.13|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||11.13|-6.78|
95713556|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.93|5.47|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||5.47|-13.93|
95713557|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.14|10.88|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||10.88|-8.14|
95713558|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.32|9.18|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||9.18|-10.32|
95713559|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|12.02|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||12.02|-7.04|
95713560|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.33|2.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||2.55|-18.33|
95713561|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.03|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.92|3.95|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||3.95|-16.92|
95713562|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|6.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.35|-14.03|
95713563|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|10.35|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||10.35|-8.80|
95713564|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.79|3.53|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.53|-17.79|
95713565|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.93|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.59|11.91|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||11.91|-8.59|
95713566|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.17|3.55|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||3.55|-16.17|
95713567|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|8.27|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||8.27|-10.60|
95713568|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.13|5.11|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||5.11|-19.13|
95713569|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.55|7.34|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||7.34|-15.55|
95713570|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|13.17|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||13.17|-9.63|
95713571|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.25|7.31|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.31|-14.25|
95713572|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|7.77|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||7.77|-11.24|
95713573|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.83|3.73|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.73|-14.83|
95713574|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.85|12.81|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||12.81|-8.85|
95713575|NCT03091920|191397050|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.68|10.82|||||Least squares mean difference and associated 95% CI are from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||10.82|-8.68|
95713576|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.38|2.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.15|-6.38|
95713577|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.59|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.80|-6.59|
95713578|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.11|1.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||1.60|-6.11|
95713579|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.25|1.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.47|-8.25|
95713580|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|3.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.18|-6.40|
95713581|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.90|-6.90|
95713582|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|1.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.31|-11.22|
95713583|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.84|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|1.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.40|-10.41|
95713584|NCT03091920|191397051|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.67|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|0.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.81|-10.27|
95713585|NCT03091920|191397052|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|1.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.06|-10.80|
95713586|NCT03091920|191397052|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.82|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.87|0.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||0.83|-10.87|
95713587|NCT03091920|191397052|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.55|1.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.10|-9.55|
95713588|NCT03091920|191397052|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.4|3.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.11|-7.40|
95713589|NCT03091920|191397052|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-1.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.85|-15.64|
95713590|NCT03091920|191397052|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.84|1.15|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.15|-11.84|
95713591|NCT03091920|191397053|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.96|-4.86|
95713592|NCT03091920|191397053|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.07|3.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||3.65|-5.07|
95713593|NCT03091920|191397053|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.79|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.14|-8.79|
95713594|NCT03091920|191397053|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|3.67|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||3.67|-7.14|
95713595|NCT03091920|191397053|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.58|4.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||4.83|-8.58|
95713596|NCT03091920|191397053|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.69|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.10|-10.69|
95713597|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|2.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.41|-11.30|
95713598|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.34|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|1.75|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.75|-12.10|
95713599|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.87|2.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||2.42|-12.87|
95713600|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|-0.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||-0.79|-15.64|
95713601|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.29|0.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||0.86|-14.29|
95713602|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|4.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||4.38|-10.66|
95713603|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.71|5.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||5.45|-4.71|
95713604|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|4.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16||4.91|-4.94|
95713605|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.07|5.41|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.41|-10.07|
95713606|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.26|5.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.37|-10.26|
95713607|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.62|5.13|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.13|-6.62|
95713608|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|4.58|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.58|-6.83|
95713609|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.72|0.47|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||0.47|-10.72|
95713610|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|2.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||2.01|-9.29|
95713611|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.52|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.22|3.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.38|-11.22|
95713612|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.54|4.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||4.63|-9.54|
95713613|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|1.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||1.39|-10.90|
95713614|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||4.85|-7.35|
95713615|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.57|4.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.35|-8.57|
95713616|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.21|6.31|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||6.31|-6.21|
95713617|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.22|0.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.90|-14.22|
95713618|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.01|1.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||1.25|-14.01|
95713619|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|4.71|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.71|-9.30|
95713620|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.97|6.64|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.64|-6.97|
95713621|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.03|-0.44|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-0.44|-15.03|
95713622|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.88|3.16|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||3.16|-10.88|
95713623|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-9.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-2.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8||-2.95|-16.10|
95713624|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.82|0.5|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||0.50|-11.82|
95713625|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.77|0.54|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||0.54|-17.77|
95713626|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.79|2.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||2.69|-14.79|
95713627|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.51|7.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.79|-10.51|
95713628|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|3.6|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.60|-13.50|
95713629|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.81|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.96|-10.81|
95713630|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.64|1.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||1.89|-12.64|
95713631|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||7.39|-7.55|
95713632|NCT03091920|191397054|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.37|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.89|5.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||5.12|-8.89|
95713633|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.17|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.59|-4.17|
95713634|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.47|2.29|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||2.29|-4.47|
95713635|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|2.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||2.14|-4.02|
95713636|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|1.26|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||1.26|-6.60|
95713637|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.77|2.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.10|-5.77|
95713638|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.83|1.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||1.32|-5.83|
95713639|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|1.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.56|-9.50|
95713640|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.52|1.18|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||1.18|-9.52|
95713641|NCT03091920|191397055|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.01|0.87|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||0.87|-9.01|
95713642|NCT03091920|191397056|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.01|1.21|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.21|-8.01|
95713643|NCT03091920|191397056|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.21|1.02|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||1.02|-8.21|
95713644|NCT03091920|191397056|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.53|0.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||0.92|-7.53|
95713645|NCT03091920|191397056|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.24|2.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.23|-6.24|
95713646|NCT03091920|191397056|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.8|-1.79|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||-1.79|-12.80|
95713647|NCT03091920|191397056|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|0.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||0.23|-10.43|
95713648|NCT03091920|191397057|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|4.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.95|-2.97|
95713649|NCT03091920|191397057|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|4.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||4.52|-3.41|
95713650|NCT03091920|191397057|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.63|2.56|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.56|-7.63|
95713651|NCT03091920|191397057|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.36|2.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||2.85|-7.36|
95713652|NCT03091920|191397057|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.55|5.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||5.49|-7.55|
95713653|NCT03091920|191397057|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.04|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|2.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||2.65|-10.00|
95713654|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|2.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||2.59|-7.76|
95713655|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.32|1.19|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||1.19|-9.32|
95713656|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|1.8|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||1.80|-9.51|
95713657|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.4|0.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||0.93|-10.40|
95713658|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.86|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||1.86|-12.06|
95713659|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|3.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||3.96|-9.87|
95713660|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.45|-4.70|
95713661|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|6.01|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||6.01|-4.90|
95713662|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.10|-7.22|
95713663|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.27|6.34|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.34|-7.27|
95713664|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.26|6.69|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.69|-3.26|
95713665|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.69|5.2|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||5.20|-4.69|
95713666|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|-0.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.36|-8.50|
95713667|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|-0.03|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||-0.03|-8.30|
95713668|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-3.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.82|3.04|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||3.04|-9.82|
95713669|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.51|5.38|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||5.38|-7.51|
95713670|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.12|2.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||2.48|-8.12|
95713671|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|3.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||3.91|-6.63|
95713672|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.35|4.97|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.97|-7.35|
95713673|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|4.77|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||4.77|-7.30|
95713674|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.68|0.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.95|-12.68|
95713675|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.16|0.76|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||0.76|-13.16|
95713676|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.87|4.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||4.65|-7.87|
95713677|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.85|5.59|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||5.59|-6.85|
95713678|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-6.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|-1.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||-1.08|-12.74|
95713679|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|1.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||1.66|-9.73|
95713680|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.59|-2.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-2.91|-13.59|
95713681|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|-0.35|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||-0.35|-10.76|
95713682|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-7.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|1.05|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.05|-15.20|
95713683|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.68|1.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||1.98|-13.68|
95713684|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|7.33|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||7.33|-10.14|
95713685|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-5.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|3.14|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||3.14|-13.46|
95713686|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.14|5.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||5.40|-10.14|
95713687|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-4.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25|3.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||3.23|-12.25|
95713688|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.44|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|6.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||6.72|-7.60|
95713689|NCT03091920|191397058|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.88|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.92|-8.88|
95713690|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|6.48|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.48|-0.10|
95713691|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|6.82|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.82|0.25|
95713692|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.43|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|6.32|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 1||6.32|0.40|
95713693|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|8.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.23|0.95|
95713694|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.12|0.86|
95713695|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|7.81|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 7||7.81|1.27|
95713696|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|6.61|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.61|-1.45|
95713697|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|7.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.11|-0.78|
95713698|NCT03091920|191397059|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|6.45|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 14||6.45|-0.71|
95713699|NCT03091920|191397060|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.65|6.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.99|-2.65|
95713700|NCT03091920|191397060|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|8.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||8.91|-0.73|
95713701|NCT03091920|191397060|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|8.51|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||8.51|0.60|
95713702|NCT03091920|191397060|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|7.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||7.98|0.07|
95713703|NCT03091920|191397060|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|7.39|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.39|-1.15|
95713704|NCT03091920|191397060|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|7.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.92|-0.44|
95713705|NCT03091920|191397061|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.54|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|7.49|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||7.49|1.10|
95713706|NCT03091920|191397061|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|6.1|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1||6.10|-0.23|
95713707|NCT03091920|191397061|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|9.11|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.11|0.50|
95713708|NCT03091920|191397061|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.05|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|9.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7||9.36|0.84|
95713709|NCT03091920|191397061|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.32|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.93|6.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||6.70|-2.93|
95713710|NCT03091920|191397061|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.15|7.25|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14||7.25|-2.15|
95713711|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.61|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|12.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||12.22|1.40|
95713712|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.62|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|11.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 0-4 hours||11.99|1.12|
95713713|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.18|6.28|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||6.28|-8.18|
95713714|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|9.09|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 4-8 hours||9.09|-5.39|
95713715|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.98|5.23|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||5.23|-5.98|
95713716|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|8.7|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 8-12 hours||8.70|-2.50|
95713717|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.14|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|10.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||10.89|2.02|
95713718|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|9.95|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 12-16 hours||9.95|1.19|
95713719|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|6.91|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||6.91|0.34|
95713720|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|5.66|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 16-20 hours||5.66|-0.84|
95713721|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|6.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||6.36|-2.89|
95713722|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.33|4.99|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 1, 20-24 hours||4.99|-4.33|
95713723|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.66|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|9.88|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||9.88|-1.17|
95713724|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|10.96|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 0-4 hours||10.96|-0.14|
95713725|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|9.4|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||9.40|0.36|
95713726|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|8.83|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 4-8 hours||8.83|-0.22|
95713727|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|8.72|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||8.72|-0.65|
95713728|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.26|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|6.94|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 8-12 hours||6.94|-2.42|
95713729|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.91|11.89|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.89|1.91|
95713730|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|6.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|11.08|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 12-16 hours||11.08|1.22|
95713731|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|9.93|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||9.93|0.05|
95713732|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|10.22|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 16-20 hours||10.22|0.45|
95713733|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.33|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.17|6.52|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||6.52|-3.17|
95713734|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|8.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 7, 20-24 hours||8.92|-0.86|
95713735|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|4.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|9.27|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||9.27|-1.18|
95713736|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|3.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|8.9|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 0-4 hours||8.90|-1.38|
95713737|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.31|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|12.06|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.06|-1.70|
95713738|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|12.37|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 4-8 hours||12.37|-1.14|
95713739|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.47|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.92|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||4.92|-5.35|
95713740|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.42|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|6.65|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 8-12 hours||6.65|-3.42|
95713741|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|11.36|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.36|-1.19|
95713742|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|5.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|11.42|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 12-16 hours||11.42|-0.83|
95713743|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.02|6.63|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||6.63|-4.02|
95713744|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.26|8.12|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 16-20 hours||8.12|-2.26|
95713745|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.98|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.52|4.85|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.85|-7.52|
95713746|NCT03091920|191397062|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.94|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.25|4.98|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate.|Day 14, 20-24 hours||4.98|-7.25|
95713747|NCT03091920|191397063|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.288|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.274|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.857|0.282|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.282|-0.857|
95713748|NCT03091920|191397063|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.708|0.498|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.498|-0.708|
95713749|NCT03091920|191397063|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.727|0.335|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% CI is from an ANCOVA model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|||0.335|-0.727|
95713750|NCT03091920|191397068|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|27.97|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.13|37.753|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||37.753|-84.130|
95713751|NCT03091920|191397068|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-14.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|26.092|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.883|42.817|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||42.817|-70.883|
95713752|NCT03091920|191397068|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-18.611|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.204|33.982|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 8||33.982|-71.204|
95713753|NCT03091920|191397068|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-25.389|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.885|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.551|11.774|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||11.774|-62.551|
95713754|NCT03091920|191397068|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-21.176|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.221|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.879|14.527|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||14.527|-56.879|
95713755|NCT03091920|191397068|OTHER|No statistical testing was performed.|Least squares mean difference|-23.282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|14.691|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.618|9.053|||||Least Squares mean difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) is from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment as fixed effect and baseline as covariate. Standard Error of the Mean=Standard Error of the LS Mean Difference.|Day 15||9.053|-55.618|
95713756|NCT00453349|191397088|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The non-inferiority margin was set to 15% in the protocol. Sample size was estimated using the method as described in Farrington-Manning (STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, Vol. 9; Farrington CP, Manning G: Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference..., pg.1447-1454 \[1990\]). Estimation was performed to achieve 90% power, based on the equivalence delta of 15%, and a clinical success rate of 87% in the per protocol population"|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-10.7|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-10.7|
95713757|NCT00453349|191397089|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||||95.0|-9.9|6.0|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||6.0|-9.9|
95713758|NCT00453349|191397090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2||||||95.0|-7.4|0.8|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||0.8|-7.4|
95713759|NCT00453349|191397091|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical improvement rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
95713760|NCT00453349|191397092|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.4||||||95.0|-12.7|20.3|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||20.3|-12.7|
95713761|NCT00453349|191397093|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||||95.0|-19.4|17.6|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||17.6|-19.4|
95713762|NCT00453349|191397094|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.5||||||95.0|-8.6|4.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||4.9|-8.6|
95713763|NCT00453349|191397095|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||||95.0|-8.1|7.5|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of clinical cure rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||7.5|-8.1|
95713764|NCT00453349|191397096|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||||95.0|-24.9|15.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||15.9|-24.9|
95727807|NCT01620489|191425085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|4.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.46|8.18||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c and body weight at baseline as covariates. No weight gain was defined as change from baseline to Week 26 in body weight ≤0 kg.||8.18|2.46|<0.0001
95713765|NCT00453349|191397097|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size estimation was based on the primary efficacy variables.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||||95.0|-30.5|11.9|||||Mean difference denotes the difference of eradication rates in percent between the two treatment groups. A positive value indicates an advantage for the treatment group of moxifloxacin, a negative value an advantage for the comparator group.|Calculated were 95% confidence intervals for the difference in success rates between treatment groups (moxifloxacin minus comparator). Method as described in Koch et al. ('Categorical Data Analysis' in Statistical methodology in the pharmaceutical sciences / edited by D. A. Berry, p. 415 ff., Marcel Dekker, 1990)||11.9|-30.5|
95713766|NCT01078389|191397125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472|||||||Ranked Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.472
95713767|NCT01078389|191397126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.548|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.548
95713768|NCT01078389|191397127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Erosion Score from full hands and feet as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.389
95713769|NCT01078389|191397128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Synovitis Score as a covariate.||Synovitis: Change from Baseline at Month 24||||<0.001
95713770|NCT01078389|191397128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Erosion(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Erosion(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.634
95713771|NCT01078389|191397128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.307|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline RAMRIS Edema(Distal+Proximal) Score as a covariate.||Edema(Distal+Proximal): Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.307
95713772|NCT01078389|191397129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122|||||||Ranked ANCOVA|Baseline modified Sharp/van der Heijde Total Score as a covariate.||Change from Baseline at Month 24||||0.122
95713773|NCT02028182|191397137|OTHER||Kappa statistic-Concordance 0.4 mg/cm2|75.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|94.0||||||||94.0|60.4|
95713774|NCT02028182|191397137|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance 0.20 mg/cm2|65.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|55.6|90.4||||||||90.4|55.6|
95713775|NCT02028182|191397137|OTHER||Kappa statistic: Concordance0.10 mg/cm2|60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|88.4||||||||88.4|53.3|
95713776|NCT01519648|191397140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.872|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.237||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.178|2.977|||Chi-squared|||||2.977|1.178|0.007
95713777|NCT05040295|191397181|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|102.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.21|111.51|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||111.51|94.21|
95713778|NCT05040295|191397181|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|106.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.07|113.66|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|AUCinf was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||113.66|100.07|
95713779|NCT05040295|191397182|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|101.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.25|115.87|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment B Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||115.87|88.25|
95713780|NCT05040295|191397182|EQUIVALENCE|The adjusted mean differences and 90% CIs for the differences were exponentiated to provide estimates of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test/Reference) and 90% CIs for the ratios.|Ratio of adjust geometric means|90.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.49|103.44|||||Reference = Treatment A Test = Treatment C Ratio=Test/Reference|Cmax was analyzed using a mixed effects model with sequence and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect. Estimates of the adjusted mean differences (Test-Reference) and corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained from the model.||103.44|78.49|
95713781|NCT00953849|191397185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
95713782|NCT00953849|191397186|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
95713783|NCT00953849|191397187|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
95713784|NCT00953849|191397188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|A Student's t test was performed to determine significance of differences between each of two groups.||||||<0.05
95713785|NCT02713490|191397201|SUPERIORITY||LSMD|-26.884||||0.0381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.608|2.841|||ANOVA|||||2.841|-56.608|0.0381
95713786|NCT02713490|191397202|SUPERIORITY||LSM treatment ratio|0.203||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.065|0.631|||ANOVA|||||0.631|0.065|0.0029
95713787|NCT02713490|191397203|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.098||||0.0088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0284|0.1685|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.1685|0.0284|0.0088
95713788|NCT02713490|191397204|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis applies to the overall distribution of time to first opioid rescue, estimated from Kaplan-Meier analysis.||||0.0230
95713789|NCT02713490|191397205|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4285|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.4285
95713790|NCT02138227|191397207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95713791|NCT02138227|191397208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|F (2, 1574)||||||<0.01
95713792|NCT01714726|191397217|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|22.5|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.3|36.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||36.8|8.3|=0.01
95713793|NCT03628781|191397271|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.384||||0.535|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||.535
95713794|NCT03628781|191397272|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.081||0.829|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.829
95713795|NCT03628781|191397273|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.357|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.357
95713796|NCT03628781|191397274|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.035|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.126||0.782|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.782
95713797|NCT02687815|191397280|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.85|||Regression, Cox|||||1.85|0.69|0.63
95713798|NCT02687815|191397281|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.75|||Regression, Cox|||||2.75|0.63|0.46
95713799|NCT02687815|191397282|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.66|0.99
95713800|NCT02687815|191397283|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.4||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|8.8|||Regression, Linear|||||8.80|0.001|0.049
95713801|NCT00883896|191397292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-5.9||||0.558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.0|13.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.3|-25.0|0.558
95713802|NCT00883896|191397292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.4||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.1|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-30.1|0.251
95713803|NCT00883896|191397292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.7||||0.707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.7|14.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.4|-21.7|0.707
95713804|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|14.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.7|-14.8|0.991
95713805|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-4.8||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.4|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-18.4|0.518
95713806|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|0.781||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.8|-16.9|0.630
95713807|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|9.4||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|27.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||27.0|-8.3|0.295
95713808|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Perecent Difference|-3.4||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|12.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.5|-19.3|0.686
95713809|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|18.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.2|-13.2|0.772
95713810|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|12.8||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|32.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||32.0|-6.5|0.201
95713811|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-10.4||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|6.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.5|-27.3|0.256
95713812|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|23.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.5|-11.4|0.519
95713813|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|16.7||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|35.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||35.2|-1.9|0.094
95713814|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.8||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|20.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||20.1|-14.4|0.760
95713815|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|18.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.0|-16.8|0.950
95713816|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|13.6||||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|33.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||33.0|-5.9|0.185
95713817|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.2||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.8|19.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||19.3|-18.8|0.982
95713818|NCT00883896|191397293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-11.6||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-29.0|0.223
95713819|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|5.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.8|-6.8|0.885
95713820|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|6.1||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|15.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.6|-3.4|0.180
95713821|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-2.7||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||1.1|-6.5|0.277
95713822|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.7||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|11.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.3|-7.9|0.740
95713823|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.4||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|10.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||10.1|-9.3|0.934
95713824|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.6||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.4|-7.7|0.876
95713825|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.2|-11.4|0.842
95713826|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.1||||0.509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|16.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||16.3|-8.1|0.509
95713827|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|15.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||15.0|-7.0|0.504
95713828|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||17.0|-6.3|0.373
95713829|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-3.4||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.2|-12.0|0.499
95713830|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|7.0||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|18.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||18.3|-4.2|0.244
95713831|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.2||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|14.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.6|-15.0|0.979
95713832|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-9.8||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.8|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||2.2|-21.8|0.166
95713833|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.5||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|14.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||14.2|-13.2|0.947
95713834|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|8.3||||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|23.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||23.8|-7.1|0.286
95713835|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.6||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-15.0|0.822
95713836|NCT00883896|191397294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.1||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|12.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||12.1|-12.3|0.986
95713837|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
95713838|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.3|-2.3|0.188
95713839|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 2: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
95713840|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|1.1||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.6|-4.5|0.699
95713841|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.4||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|13.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||13.8|-3.0|0.155
95713842|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.0||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|0.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||0.9|-2.9|0.546
95713843|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
95713844|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.2||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|6.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||6.1|-1.8|0.269
95713845|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.723
95713846|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.5||||0.205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|7.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.4|-2.3|0.205
95713847|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Week 8: Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the cochran method.||0.0|0.0|
95713848|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|4.0||||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||9.4|-1.3|0.125
95713849|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|5.0||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|11.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||11.8|-1.7|0.071
95713850|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.1|-1.2|0.317
95713851|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|2.0||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||5.6|-1.6|0.280
95713852|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|0.6||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|8.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||8.8|-7.6|0.892
95713853|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-0.5||||0.903|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||7.2|-8.3|0.903
95713854|NCT00883896|191397295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent Difference|-1.7||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12:P-value was assessed from 2-sided CMH test stratified by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site. Treatment group differences and the corresponding confidence intervals adjusted for stratification were calculated using the Cochran method.||3.8|-7.2|0.625
95713855|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.900
95713856|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.522|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.522
95713857|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.147|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.147
95713858|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.534|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.534
95713859|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.206|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.206
95713860|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.070
95713861|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.936|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.936
95713862|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.625|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.625
95713863|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.586|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.586
95713864|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.685|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.685
95713865|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.34|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.340
95713866|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.212|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.212
95713867|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.455|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.455
95713868|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.145|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.145
95713869|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.66|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.660
95713870|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.050
95713871|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.428|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.428
95713872|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.16|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 6: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.160
95713873|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.757|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.757
95713874|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.408
95713875|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.983|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.983
95713876|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.374|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.374
95713877|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.992|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.992
95713878|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.422|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.422
95713879|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.743|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.743
95713880|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.188|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.188
95713881|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.385|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.385
95713882|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.148|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.148
95713883|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.304|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.304
95713884|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.552|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 10: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.552
95713885|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.494|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.494
95713886|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.421|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.421
95713887|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.418|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.418
95713888|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.235|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.235
95713889|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.268|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.268
95713890|NCT00883896|191397307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.957|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: P-value was assessed from 2-sided stratified CMH row mean test by anti-TNF prior use and geographic region of the site.||||0.957
95713891|NCT00148109|191397318|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||Estimate a 4 month progression-free survival rate for each group.||||<0.05
95713892|NCT00538434|191397321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-52.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.24|-30.32|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-30.32|-75.24|< 0.0001
95713893|NCT00538434|191397321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-73.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.29|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.28|-50.78|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-50.78|-95.28|< 0.0001
95713894|NCT00538434|191397321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-64.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.93|-42.45|||ANCOVA|adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at Baseline||||-42.45|-86.93|< 0.0001
95713895|NCT00538434|191397322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0313
95713896|NCT00538434|191397322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5793|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.5793
95713897|NCT00538434|191397322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4905|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.4905
95713898|NCT00538434|191397323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0062
95713899|NCT00538434|191397323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0943|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0943
95713900|NCT00538434|191397323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2955|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2955
95713901|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.48||0.4644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.53|8.03||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||8.03|-17.53|0.4644
95713902|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.44||0.8196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.17|11.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||11.23|-14.17|0.8196
95713903|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.36||0.8306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.19|13.91||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Physical Summary Score||13.91|-11.19|0.8306
95713904|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-6.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.37||0.1459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.01|2.24||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||2.24|-15.01|0.1459
95713905|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.38||0.4375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.05|5.23||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||5.23|-12.05|0.4375
95727808|NCT01620489|191425086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated odds ratio|3.94|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.12|7.3||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Logistic|||Analysed by a logistic regression model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and HbA1c at baseline as covariates.||7.30|2.12|<0.0001
95713906|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.35||0.9217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|8.15||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Psychosocial Summary Score||8.15|-9.00|0.9217
95713907|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.82||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|13.85||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||13.85|-16.98|0.8412
95713908|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-5.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.81||0.4794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.94|9.87||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||9.87|-20.94|0.4794
95713909|NCT00538434|191397324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.66||0.8906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|14.06||Analyzed using analysis of covariance with adjustment for stratification factor and for variable at baseline.|ANCOVA||Comparison of least square means provides the difference (of individual change scores) between each reslizumab dose group and placebo.|Global Health Score||14.06|-16.16|0.8906
95713910|NCT00351611|191397325|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the upper CI bound was less than 0.10 (10%).|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.7094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1751|5.9784||||||A 2-sided 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) on the difference in percentage of participants, between pregabalin and placebo was constructed using unconditional exact methods.||5.9784|-9.1751|
95713911|NCT00351611|191397326|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority with respect to mean deviation was demonstrated if the lower bound of the CI is greater than -2.0 decibels.|Difference in LS mean|-0.125||||0.4414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.443|0.194|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and center in the model and the baseline mean deviation as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% CI on the difference in least squares (LS) mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.194|-0.443|0.4414
95713912|NCT00351611|191397327|OTHER||Difference in LS mean|-0.9||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.083|0.283|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA with treatment and center in the model and the baseline visual acuity as the covariate was used to construct a 2-sided 95% confidence interval on the difference in LS mean between pregabalin and placebo.||0.283|-2.083|0.1346
95713913|NCT01589185|191397329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3962||||||\< 0.1 is considered borderline significant|Fisher Exact|||The number (%) of patients who died on or before end of study (EOS) was compared among all 5 groups. The mITT population was used.||||0.3962
95713914|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713915|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713916|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713917|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713918|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713919|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713920|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713921|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713922|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713923|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713924|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713925|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|Week 26 vs Baseline|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713926|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713927|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713928|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713929|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713930|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713931|NCT03781167|191397397|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713932|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||>0.999
95713933|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.5095|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.5095
95713934|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6962|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.6962
95713935|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
95713936|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0324|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0324
95713937|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713938|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0072|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0072
95713939|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0129|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0129
95713940|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713941|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0119|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0119
95713942|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.22||||||A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.2200
95713943|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0063|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0063
95713944|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713945|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4331|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4331
95713946|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0045|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0045
95713947|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0049|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0049
95713948|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.6312|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.6312
95713949|NCT03781167|191397398|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1892|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1892
95713950|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713951|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713952|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713953|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713954|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713955|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713956|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713957|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713958|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713959|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713960|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713961|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713962|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713963|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713964|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713965|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713966|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713967|NCT03781167|191397399|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713968|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713969|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713970|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713971|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713972|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713973|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713974|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713975|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713976|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713977|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713978|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713979|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713980|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0042|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0042
95713981|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713982|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713983|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1135|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.1135
95713984|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0029|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0029
95713985|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0026|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0026
95713986|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0034|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0034
95713987|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0103|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0103
95713988|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713989|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0493|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0493
95713990|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3003
95713991|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0354|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.0354
95713992|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2553|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2553
95713993|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.864|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.8640
95713994|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4774|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.4774
95713995|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3865|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.3865
95713996|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.1186|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.1186
95713997|NCT03781167|191397400|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.083|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0830
95713998|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95713999|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0041|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0041
95714000|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714001|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714002|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714003|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714004|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714005|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714006|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714007|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714008|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714009|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714010|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714011|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714012|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714013|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714014|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714015|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714016|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714017|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714018|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714019|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714020|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714021|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714022|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714023|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714024|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714025|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0091|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0091
95714026|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714027|NCT03781167|191397401|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714028|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4447|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.4447
95714029|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3567|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.3567
95714030|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2315|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2315
95714031|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0667|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||=0.0667
95714032|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714033|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714034|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714035|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2033|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||=0.2033
95714036|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714037|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0012|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0012
95714038|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0734|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||=0.0734
95714039|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714040|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0304|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0304
95714041|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||>|0.999|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||>0.999
95714042|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0891|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||=0.0891
95714043|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0832|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0832
95714044|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4941|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.4941
95714045|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2764|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.2764
95714046|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3248|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.3248
95714047|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2535|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.2535
95714048|NCT03781167|191397402|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9274|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.9274
95714049|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.3297|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.3297
95714050|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.9722|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.9722
95714051|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.4403|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||=0.4403
95714052|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1946|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.1946
95714053|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2077|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.2077
95714054|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0692|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||=0.0692
95714055|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.2276|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.2276
95714056|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.||||||0.3369|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||0.3369
95714057|NCT03781167|191397402|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.1218|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.1218
95714058|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714059|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.002|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||=0.0020
95714060|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714061|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714062|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 1 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714063|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Day 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714064|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714065|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714066|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 2 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714067|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714068|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714069|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 3 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714070|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714071|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714072|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 4 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714073|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714074|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714075|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714076|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714077|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714078|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714079|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714080|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714081|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714082|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714083|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714084|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714085|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714086|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714087|NCT03781167|191397403|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714088|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714089|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714090|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714091|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714092|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714093|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714094|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714095|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714096|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714097|NCT03781167|191397404|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714098|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714099|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714100|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714101|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714102|NCT03781167|191397404|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714103|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714104|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714105|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714106|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714107|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714108|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714109|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714110|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714111|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714112|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714113|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714114|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714115|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714116|NCT03781167|191397405|OTHER|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714117|NCT03781167|191397405|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714118|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0035|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||=0.0035
95714119|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714120|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 6 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714121|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.0098|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||=0.0098
95714122|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714123|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 13 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714124|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714125|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714126|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 26 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714127|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714128|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714129|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 39 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714130|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||=|0.003|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||=0.0030
95714131|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714132|NCT03781167|191397406|SUPERIORITY|A paired-sample t-test was performed to test the change from Baseline.|||||<|0.001|||||||paired-sample t-test|||Week 52 vs Baseline||||<0.001
95714133|NCT00679354|191397417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||1.000
95714134|NCT00679354|191397418|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|0.56||||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.057
95714135|NCT00679354|191397419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.22||||0.495|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.495
95714136|NCT00679354|191397420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Spearman's Correlation Coefficient|-0.48||||0.114|TWO_SIDED||||||Spearman's Correlation|||||||0.114
95714137|NCT00174460|191397422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.991|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1067|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.773|1.21|||ANCOVA|Results from analysis of covariance method (ANCOVA) adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; Last observation carried forward (LOCF).||Treatment difference||1.210|0.773|<0.001
95714138|NCT00174460|191397423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.415|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.605|5.225|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.225|3.605|<0.001
95714139|NCT00174460|191397423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.884|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5327||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|0.208|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.208|-1.977|0.108
95714140|NCT00174460|191397424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7089||0.141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.524|0.376|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||0.376|-2.524|0.141
95714141|NCT00174460|191397425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3661|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.789|5.291|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.291|3.789|<0.001
95714142|NCT00174460|191397425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9822|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.049|6.08|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||6.080|2.049|<0.001
95714143|NCT00174460|191397426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.719|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.047|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline height SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.047|0.390|<0.001
95714144|NCT00174460|191397427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|-1.68|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||-1.68|-3.73|<0.001
95714145|NCT00174460|191397427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.758||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|1.09|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, age, and sex; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.09|-2.04|0.537
95714146|NCT00174460|191397428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.405||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.21|0.46|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||0.46|-1.21|0.364
95714147|NCT00174460|191397428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.345||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.48|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.48|-0.94|0.506
95714148|NCT00174460|191397429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.188||0.959|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.42|2.54|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.54|-2.42|0.959
95714149|NCT00174460|191397429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.065||0.919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|2.32|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline skinfold thickness, target height SDS, sex, and age; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.32|-2.11|0.919
95714150|NCT00174460|191397430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.892|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8161||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.158|1.374|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.374|-3.158|0.336
95714151|NCT00174460|191397430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6027||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.956|2.391|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline volumetric cortical bone mineral density SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||2.391|-0.956|0.300
95714152|NCT00174460|191397431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.615|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.266|6.963|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline growth velocity SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference||6.963|4.266|<0.001
95714153|NCT00174460|191397432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.482|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9666||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.558|2.595|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||2.595|-3.558|0.653
95714154|NCT00174460|191397432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.205|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8991||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.701|1.292|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline cortical cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.292|-3.701|0.251
95714155|NCT00174460|191397433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1499||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.524|3.795|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.795|-3.524|0.914
95714156|NCT00174460|191397433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.292|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4432||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.939|1.522|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline total cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.522|-0.939|0.547
95714157|NCT00174460|191397434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4542||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|3.572|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||3.572|1.049|0.007
95714158|NCT00174460|191397434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6536||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|3.44|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline muscle cross-sectional area SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||3.440|-0.189|0.068
95714159|NCT00174460|191397437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5061||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.846|1.965|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.965|-0.846|0.331
95714160|NCT00174460|191397437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4703||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.192|1.42|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline strength-strain index SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||1.420|-1.192|0.820
95714161|NCT00174460|191397438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.05|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.05|-0.88|0.844
95714162|NCT00174460|191397438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.329||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.96|||ANCOVA|Results from ANCOVA adjusted for baseline hand grip strength SDS and target height SDS; LOCF.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.96|-0.52|0.519
95714163|NCT00174460|191397441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1095|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|1.219|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||1.219|0.778|<0.001
95714164|NCT00174460|191397441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.688|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1519|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.382|0.994|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measures mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height SDS, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||0.994|0.382|<0.001
95714165|NCT00174460|191397443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.585|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3859|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.806|5.363|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 12||5.363|3.806|<0.001
95714166|NCT00174460|191397443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.563|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.708|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.134|4.992|||Mixed models analysis|Results from repeated measure mixed models analysis adjusted for baseline height, sex, age, visit, visit\*treatment and target height SDS.||Treatment difference Month 24||4.992|2.134|<0.001
95714167|NCT03982069|191397454|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95714168|NCT03982069|191397455|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||All listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95714169|NCT03982069|191397456|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed antigens|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95714170|NCT03982069|191397456|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||Day 0, A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|Chi-squared|||||||0.40
95714171|NCT03982069|191397456|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas egg grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95714172|NCT03982069|191397456|OTHER|||||||0.08||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Kansas cell grown virus|Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95714173|NCT03982069|191397456|OTHER|||||||0.91||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
95714174|NCT03982069|191397456|OTHER|||||||0.31||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95714175|NCT03982069|191397457|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H1N1-A/Brisbane|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95714176|NCT03982069|191397457|OTHER|||||||0.79||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas egg grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95714177|NCT03982069|191397457|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Day 0 A/H3N2-A/Kansas cell grown virus|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95714178|NCT03982069|191397457|OTHER|||||||0.95||||||Day 0 B/Victoria-B/Colorado|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95714179|NCT03982069|191397457|OTHER|||||||0.44||||||Day 0 B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.44
95714180|NCT03982069|191397457|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Day 28 for all listed variables|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95714181|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen||||||0.83
95714182|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen||||||0.79
95714183|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware||||||0.65
95714184|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.06
95714185|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington||||||0.98
95714186|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Chi-squared|Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||0.24
95714187|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||Chi-squared|Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66-egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70-cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket||||||<0.01
95714188|NCT03982069|191397458|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||Chi-squared|A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong||||||0.66
95714189|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.22||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.22
95714190|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.25||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95714191|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.13||||||Day 0: A/H1N1-A/Delaware|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95714192|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.06||||||Day 0: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95714193|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.78||||||Day 0: B/Victoria-B/Washington|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.78
95714194|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||Day 0: B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95714195|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Day 28: A/H1N1-A/Hawaii66 egg based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Hawaii70 cell based antigen, A/H1N1-A/Delaware, B/Victoria-B/Washington, B/Yamagata-B/Phuket|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95714196|NCT03982069|191397459|OTHER|||||||0.01||||||Day 28: A/H3N2-A/Hong Kong|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95714197|NCT03970330|191397460|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1123.0||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-755.0|3000.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||3000|-755|0.20
95714198|NCT03970330|191397461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.9||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|59.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at BASELINE||59.6|-1.9|0.06
95714199|NCT03970330|191397461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.4||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|41.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||41.2|-20.3|0.48
95714200|NCT03970330|191397461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.9||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|49.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||49.6|-11.8|0.21
95714201|NCT03970330|191397461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.2|46.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||46.2|-15.2|0.30
95714202|NCT03970330|191397461|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.0|37.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|A single model was run with comparisons between naltrexone and placebo at each visit (not adjusted for multiple comparisons)|Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||37.5|-24.0|0.65
95714203|NCT03970330|191397462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.07
95714204|NCT03970330|191397462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.07
95714205|NCT03970330|191397462|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.06
95714206|NCT03970330|191397462|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||1.00
95714207|NCT03970330|191397463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treament groups at WEEK 4||||0.29
95714208|NCT03970330|191397463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.24|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.24
95714209|NCT03970330|191397463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.20
95714210|NCT03970330|191397463|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.53
95714211|NCT03970330|191397464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 4||||0.37
95714212|NCT03970330|191397464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 8||||0.39
95714213|NCT03970330|191397464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 12||||0.37
95714214|NCT03970330|191397464|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of treatment groups at WEEK 16||||0.39
95714215|NCT03970330|191397465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.3||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|9.2|||t-test, 2 sided||Difference calculated as Naltrexone minus Placebo|||9.2|-0.6|0.08
95714216|NCT01288911|191397486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.57|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide. The (unstratified) log-rank test with an overall significance level of 0.05 (two-sided) was used to compare the PFS of enzalutamide to bicalutamide. The (unstratified) Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio of enzalutamide to bicalutamide, calculate the corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals and test the hypothesis that the hazard ratio is equal to 1.||0.57|0.34|<0.0001
95714217|NCT01288911|191397487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.55|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|PFS on based investigator assessment Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.55|0.33|<0.0001
95714218|NCT01288911|191397488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
95714219|NCT01288911|191397489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Best PSA Response Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||||<0.0001
95714220|NCT01288911|191397490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.39|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA progression Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.39|0.20|<0.0001
95714221|NCT01288911|191397491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.18|8.09|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to PSA Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||8.09|3.18|<0.0001
95714222|NCT01288911|191397492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|5.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|7.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 30% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||7.79|3.96|<0.0001
95714223|NCT01288911|191397493|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|7.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.83|10.16|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 50% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||10.16|4.83|<0.0001
95714224|NCT01288911|191397494|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|13.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.23|26.79|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Time to ≥ 90% PSA decline from baseline Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||26.79|7.23|<0.0001
95714225|NCT01288911|191397495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.51||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.74|||Log Rank||Estimated by use of Cox proportional hazards model.|Radiographic PFS based on ICR Enzalutamide Vs. Bicalutamide.||0.74|0.36|0.0002
95714226|NCT01632345|191397498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|22.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||22.4|-9.0|
95714227|NCT01632345|191397498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|24.9|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||24.9|-4.6|
95714228|NCT01632345|191397498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.9|6.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.3|-27.9|
95714229|NCT01632345|191397498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|18.4|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||18.4|-14.5|
95714230|NCT01632345|191397499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|8.8|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.8|-13.7|
95714231|NCT01632345|191397499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|14.7|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||14.7|-9.9|
95714232|NCT01632345|191397499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.8|8.2|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||8.2|-13.8|
95714233|NCT01632345|191397499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.9|4.1|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||4.1|-15.9|
95714234|NCT01632345|191397500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.9|0.5|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.5|-20.9|
95714235|NCT01632345|191397501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|-7.8||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.8|-32.4|0.002
95714236|NCT01632345|191397502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (Doravirine - Efavirenz)|-20.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-7.5||Superiority analysis|Miettinen and Nurminen method||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||-7.5|-32.6|0.002
95714237|NCT01632345|191397503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-4.1|
95714238|NCT01632345|191397503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|29.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||29.1|-9.6|
95714239|NCT01632345|191397503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|6.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|26.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||26.0|-13.2|
95714240|NCT01632345|191397503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|15.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|34.4|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||34.4|-3.4|
95714241|NCT01632345|191397504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.2|11.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.2|-13.2|
95714242|NCT01632345|191397505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|9.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.2|-12.9|
95714243|NCT01632345|191397506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|10.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||10.7|-12.4|
95714244|NCT01632345|191397507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|21.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||21.5|-12.5|
95714245|NCT01632345|191397507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|19.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||19.8|-13.9|
95714246|NCT01632345|191397507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|28.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||28.0|-2.5|
95714247|NCT01632345|191397507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|25.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||25.7|-6.2|
95714248|NCT01632345|191397508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|2.7||||||95.0|-6.1|11.7|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||11.7|-6.1|
95714249|NCT01632345|191397509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|9.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||9.9|-9.7|
95714250|NCT01632345|191397510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in % response|3.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|15.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||15.0|-7.3|
95714251|NCT01632345|191397511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|33.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|94.0|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||94.0|-28.1|
95714252|NCT01632345|191397511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|51.9|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||51.9|-68.5|
95714253|NCT01632345|191397511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.6|69.5|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||69.5|-44.6|
95714254|NCT01632345|191397511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|19.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|84.2|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||84.2|-45.1|
95714255|NCT01632345|191397512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.2|50.8|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||50.8|-38.2|
95714256|NCT01632345|191397513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|41.3|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||41.3|-46.5|
95714257|NCT01632345|191397514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in CD4 change|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|55.1|||||A positive value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||55.1|-64.0|
95714258|NCT01632345|191397515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|6.0|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||6.0|-11.7|
95714259|NCT01632345|191397516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|0.3|||||A negative value would be considered as favoring doravirine over efavirenz.|||0.3|-14.1|
95714260|NCT00089505|191397522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.61||P-value was not adjusted for multiple interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used in interim monitoring.|Regression, Cox|The model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm\^3).|The HR is for NVP/NVP vs. NVP/LPV\_r.|||7.61|1.79|<0.001
95714261|NCT00089505|191397523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|NoNVP/NVP regimen will be considered equivalent to the NoNVP/LPV\_r regimen if the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for virologi falure is entirely below 2.0; equivalence will be established if the same confidence interval is entirely within the range 0.5 to 2.0.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.29||P-value is for a test of superiority and was not adjusted for interim analyses, but any adjustment would be negligible because Peto-Haybittle spending function was used as a basis for calculating the repeated confidence intervals used.|Regression, Cox|The cox proportional hazard model was stratified by screening CD4 strata (\<50 vs. \>=50 cells/mm3).|The HR is for NoNVP/NVP vs. NoNVP/LPV\_r.|||1.29|0.56|0.43
95714262|NCT02347124|191397533|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.78||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, cigarettes per day, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, current use of a stop-smoking medication, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.93|0.13
95714263|NCT02347124|191397534|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.53||Adjusted for baseline sex, age, depression history, motivation, self-efficacy, state quitline, and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.53|0.69|0.90
95714264|NCT02347124|191397535|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.69||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.69|0.89|0.21
95714265|NCT02347124|191397536|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.0||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.00|1.01|0.04
95714266|NCT02347124|191397537|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96||Model is adjusted for sex, age, cigarettes per day at baseline, depression, self-efficacy, motivation, self-reported use of a stop smoking medication at baseline, and stratification variables state quit line and dental insurance.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.96|0.95|0.09
95714267|NCT02347124|191397538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.05||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.47|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.47|-0.57|0.85
95714268|NCT02347124|191397539|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.96|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline knowledge score.||||0.96|-0.14|0.14
95714269|NCT02347124|191397540|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.||||0.56|0.13|.002
95714270|NCT02347124|191397541|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.23||Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline self-efficacy score.|Regression, Linear|||||0.23|-0.22|0.97
95714271|NCT02347124|191397542|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.1||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.04|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of stop-smoking medications, baseline motivation, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.04|-0.24|0.16
95714272|NCT02347124|191397543|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.13|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, use of a smoking cessation medication at baseline, baseline motivation score, and baseline cigarettes per day.||||0.13|-0.16|0.83
95714273|NCT02347124|191397544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.22||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||Regression, Linear|adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, and baseline motivation score.||||0.41|0.04|0.02
95714274|NCT02347124|191397545|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.02||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21|||Regression, Linear|||||0.21|-0.17|0.82
95714275|NCT02347124|191397546|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|-0.02||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.16|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medications.||||0.16|-0.20|0.80
95714276|NCT02347124|191397547|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.07||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.26|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for sex, age, state quit line, baseline self-efficacy score, baseline cigarettes per day, and baseline use of stop smoking medication.||||0.26|-0.11|0.45
95714277|NCT02924129|191397548|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||Significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
95714278|NCT02924129|191397549|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|20.4||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||20.4|-2.4|<0.001
95714279|NCT02924129|191397550|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|26.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||26.3|2.9|<0.001
95714280|NCT02924129|191397551|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%||||||0.002||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||0.002
95714281|NCT02924129|191397552|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
95714282|NCT02924129|191397553|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
95714283|NCT02924129|191397554|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|23.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||23.3|-1.8|<0.001
95714284|NCT02924129|191397555|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|28.3||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||28.3|2.5|<0.001
95714285|NCT02924129|191397556|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001|||||||normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
95714286|NCT02924129|191397557|NON_INFERIORITY|non-inferiority margin (δ) of 10%|||||<|0.001||||||significance threshold (α) of 0.05|normal approximation to the binomial|||||||<0.001
95714287|NCT01000311|191397582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|83.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.0|93.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 80% for the serogroup A.||93|83|
95714288|NCT01000311|191397582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|90.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|90.0|98.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup C.||98|90|
95714289|NCT01000311|191397582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lower limit of 95% confidence interval|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup W.||99|93|
95714290|NCT01000311|191397582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Lowe limit of 95% confidence interval|92.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|92.0|99.0||||||The null hypothesis associated with the primary objective was that the immune response was considered sufficient if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:8, at one month after 4th dose was greater than 85% for the serogroup Y.||99|92|
95714291|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|2.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to diphtheria toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||2.6|-2.9|
95714292|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|3.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to tetanus toxin, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||3.9|-3.3|
95714293|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|4.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP vaccine is given, compared with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||4.3|-12.1|
95714294|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis (FHA antigen), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|13.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||13.6|-5.1|
95714295|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|9.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone.||9.1|-8.8|
95714296|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP vaccine is given alone||6.8|-10.6|
95714297|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to hepatitis B, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of hepatitis B vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|4.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to hepatitis B antigen, when hepatitis B vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when hepatitis B vaccine is given alone.||4.5|-5.2|
95714298|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to Hib vaccine, when given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of Hib vaccine given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|11.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to Hib antigen, when Hib vaccine is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when Hib vaccine is given alone.||11.2|0|
95714299|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|5.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 1), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||5.4|-3.1|
95714300|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 2), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||3|-1.4|
95714301|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of IPV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -5%.|Group difference|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to polio antigen (Type 3), when IPV routine is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when IPV is given alone||1.7|-3.3|
95727809|NCT01620489|191425087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-1.08|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.58|-0.58||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||Mean change from baseline in the 7-point profile (SMPG) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.58|-1.58|<0.0001
95714302|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||4.6|-1.9|
95714303|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|3.2|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.2|-10.3|
95714304|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|2.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||2.3|-8.7|
95714305|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|3.0|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||3.0|-2.8|
95714306|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|1.6|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||1.6|-7.3|
95714307|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|7.1|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||7.1|1.3|
95714308|NCT01000311|191397586|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in the percentage of subjects with antibody response was greater than or equal to -10%.|Group difference|-5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4|0.5|||Miettinen and Nurminen|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of seroresponse to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM, compared with when PCV is given alone||0.5|-11.4|
95714309|NCT01000311|191397587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis toxin (PT), when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTap is given alone||1.28|0.81|
95714310|NCT01000311|191397587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FHA antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.19|0.9|
95714311|NCT01000311|191397587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis pertactin antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.28|0.84|
95714312|NCT01000311|191397587|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response measured as GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of DTaP given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Routine Vaccines group divided by GMC of Routine Vaccines group) was greater than 0.67.|GMCs ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.35|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pertussis FIM antigen, when DTaP is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when DTaP is given alone||1.35|0.88|
95714313|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.19|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 4 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.19|0.8|
95714314|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.93|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 6B antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||0.93|0.62|
95714315|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.06|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 9V antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.06|0.72|
95714316|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.28|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 14 antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.28|0.84|
95714317|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.2|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 18C antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.2|0.82|
95714318|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.07|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 19F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.07|0.73|
95714319|NCT01000311|191397588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The immune response as GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen, when PCV is given concomitantly with MenACWY-CRM, was considered non-inferior to that of PCV given alone, if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the ratio of GMCs (GMC of MenACWY-CRM + Prevnar group divided by GMC of Prevnar group) was greater than 0.50.|GMCs ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.04|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of GMC of antibodies to pneumococcal PnC 23F antigen when PCV is given with MenACWY-CRM compared with when PCV is given alone||1.04|0.68|
95714320|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.99|2.9||||||||2.90|-1.99|
95714321|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|2.24||||||||2.24|-2.73|
95714322|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.25|2.79||||||||2.79|-2.25|
95714323|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.94|3.09||||||||3.09|-1.94|
95714324|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.62|2.35||||||||2.35|-2.62|
95714325|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.88|4.11||||||||4.11|-0.88|
95714326|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|3.85||||||||3.85|-1.63|
95714327|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.79|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.13|2.79||||||||2.79|-3.13|
95714328|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|4.47||||||||4.47|-2.60|
95714329|NCT03808298|191397622|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.03|2.98||||||||2.98|-2.03|
95714330|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|2.64||||||||2.64|-0.19|
95714331|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.12|2.33||||||||2.33|-0.12|
95714332|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|3.67||||||||3.67|0.40|
95714333|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|4.49||||||||4.49|0.60|
95714334|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|4.94||||||||4.94|0.09|
95714335|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|4.47||||||||4.47|-1.62|
95714336|NCT03808298|191397623|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|3.39||||||||3.39|-0.10|
95714337|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|2.2||||||||2.20|-0.60|
95714338|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|2.55||||||||2.55|0.13|
95714339|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.04|3.27||||||||3.27|0.04|
95714340|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.64|3.2||||||||3.20|-0.64|
95714341|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|4.67||||||||4.67|-0.13|
95714342|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.82|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.31|3.7||||||||3.70|-2.31|
95714343|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.35|2.1||||||||2.10|-1.35|
95714344|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.94|1.89||||||||1.89|-2.94|
95714345|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.19|1.72||||||||1.72|-3.19|
95714346|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|2.74||||||||2.74|-2.26|
95714347|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.02|2.96||||||||2.96|-2.02|
95714348|NCT03808298|191397624|EQUIVALENCE|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|2.54||||||||2.54|-2.39|
95714349|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.67|4.28||||||||4.28|-0.67|
95714350|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.11|3.31||||||||3.31|-2.11|
95714351|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.38|3.47||||||||3.47|-2.38|
95714352|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.85|4.14||||||||4.14|-2.85|
95714353|NCT03808298|191397624|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.36|2.6||||||||2.60|-2.36|
95714354|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.2|0.73||||||||0.73|-1.20|
95714355|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.08|0.96||||||||0.96|-1.08|
95714356|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.73|0.78||||||||0.78|-1.73|
95714357|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.8|0.7||||||||0.70|-1.80|
95714358|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.05||||||||1.05|-2.42|
95714359|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.66|1.24||||||||1.24|-2.66|
95714360|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.91|0.85||||||||0.85|-1.91|
95714361|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.9|-0.48||||||||-0.48|-3.90|
95714362|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.41|0.0||||||||0.00|-3.41|
95714363|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.08|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.21|0.36||||||||0.36|-3.21|
95714364|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.98|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.25|0.01||||||||0.01|-3.25|
95714365|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.36|-0.01||||||||-0.01|-3.36|
95714366|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.75|-0.14||||||||-0.14|-3.75|
95714367|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.01|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.06|0.29||||||||0.29|-3.06|
95714368|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.24|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.08|1.01||||||||1.01|-3.08|
95714369|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.03|0.76||||||||0.76|-3.03|
95714370|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.87|0.87||||||||0.87|-2.87|
95714371|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.89|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.89|
95714372|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|0.86||||||||0.86|-1.21|
95714373|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|0.83||||||||0.83|-1.71|
95714374|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.07|1.46||||||||1.46|-1.07|
95714375|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.06|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.0||||||||1.00|-2.50|
95714376|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.22|1.74||||||||1.74|-2.22|
95714377|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.63|-0.85||||||||-0.85|-3.63|
95714378|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|1.03||||||||1.03|-2.42|
95714379|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline Day 14 HR (bpm) at 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.96|0.49||||||||0.49|-2.96|
95714380|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.58|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.58|
95714381|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.99|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.34|0.95||||||||0.95|-2.34|
95714382|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.65|0.73||||||||0.73|-2.65|
95714383|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.11|0.53||||||||0.53|-3.11|
95714384|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.73|0.66||||||||0.66|-2.73|
95714385|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.77|1.37||||||||1.37|-2.77|
95714386|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.50|
95714387|NCT03808298|191397625|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline HR (bpm) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.14|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.57|0.2||||||||0.20|-3.57|
95714388|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.83|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.56|0.17||||||||0.17|-2.56|
95714389|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.62|1.55||||||||1.55|-1.62|
95714390|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.22|2.09||||||||2.09|-1.22|
95714391|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.04|1.33||||||||1.33|-2.04|
95714392|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|3.33||||||||3.33|-1.00|
95714393|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|2.88||||||||2.88|-2.30|
95714394|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.81||||||||0.81|-3.00|
95714395|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.08|3.35||||||||3.35|-2.08|
95714396|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.48|3.12||||||||3.12|-2.48|
95714397|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.69|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.55|3.06||||||||3.06|-2.55|
95714398|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.17|3.12||||||||3.12|-3.17|
95714399|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.47|3.37||||||||3.37|-2.47|
95714400|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.42|2.34||||||||2.34|-3.42|
95714401|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.54|2.12||||||||2.12|-3.54|
95714402|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.57|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.31|1.88||||||||1.88|-3.31|
95714403|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.21|4.09||||||||4.09|-1.21|
95714404|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.63|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|2.49||||||||2.49|-2.90|
95714405|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.0|0.77||||||||0.77|-2.00|
95714406|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.97|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.71|1.5||||||||1.50|-1.71|
95714407|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02||||90.0|-1.64|1.73||||||||1.73|-1.64|
95714408|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.39|1.02||||||||1.02|-2.39|
95714409|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.26|3.13||||||||3.13|-1.26|
95714410|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||||90.0|-3.92|1.35||||||||1.35|-3.92|
95714411|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.96|1.89||||||||1.89|-1.96|
95714412|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.34|4.13||||||||4.13|-1.34|
95714413|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.61|4.05||||||||4.05|-1.61|
95714414|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.32|4.35||||||||4.35|-1.32|
95714415|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.92|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.38|2.97||||||||2.97|-3.38|
95714416|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.78||||90.0|-3.48|2.42||||||||2.42|-3.48|
95714417|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.81|4.02||||||||4.02|-1.81|
95714418|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.72|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.67|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.67|
95714419|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.95|3.29||||||||3.29|-1.95|
95714420|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|5.96||||||||5.96|0.60|
95714421|NCT03808298|191397626|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline PR (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.72|4.72||||||||4.72|-0.72|
95714422|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|0.07||||||||0.07|-0.29|
95714423|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.02|
95714424|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline (ms) at QRS Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|0.12||||||||0.12|-0.30|
95714425|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.26|
95714426|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.57|0.38||||||||0.38|-0.57|
95714427|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.56||||||||0.56|-0.65|
95714428|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||||90.0|-0.11|0.4||||||||0.40|-0.11|
95714429|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.74||||||||0.74|-0.34|
95714430|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.91||||||||0.91|-0.17|
95714431|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.04|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.04|
95714432|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.26|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.26|
95714433|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|32.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.18|
95714434|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER||LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.08|1.0||||||Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose||1.00|-0.08|
95714435|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.19|
95714436|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|1.1||||||||1.10|-0.33|
95714437|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.06||||||||1.06|-0.50|
95714438|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.11||||||||1.11|-0.06|
95714439|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|0.11||||||||0.11|-0.25|
95714440|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.36||||||||0.36|0.00|
95714441|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|0.09||||||||0.09|-0.34|
95714442|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|0.34||||||||0.34|-0.10|
95714443|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.57||||||||0.57|-0.40|
95714444|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.31|0.93||||||||0.93|-0.31|
95714445|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 1 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.58||||||||0.58|0.07|
95714446|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.75 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.9||||||||0.90|-0.19|
95714447|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.11|0.98||||||||0.98|-0.11|
95714448|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.25 Hours Pre-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|1.05||||||||1.05|-0.06|
95714449|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|0.82||||||||0.82|-0.27|
95714450|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|0.94||||||||0.94|-0.14|
95714451|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.24|0.86||||||||0.86|-0.24|
95714452|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|1.2||||||||1.20|0.07|
95714453|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|1.35||||||||1.35|-0.10|
95714454|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.07||||||||1.07|-0.50|
95714455|NCT03808298|191397627|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QRS (ms) at Day 14 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.14|1.04||||||||1.04|-0.14|
95714456|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 0.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.71|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.64|4.04||||||||4.04|-1.64|
95714457|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 1 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|5.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.22|8.63||||||||8.63|2.22|
95714458|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 2.5 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.64|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.81|11.28||||||||11.28|5.81|
95714459|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 4 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.86|11.34||||||||11.34|5.86|
95714460|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 8 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|8.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.86|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.43|11.61||||||||11.61|5.43|
95714461|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 12 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.76|10.0||||||||10.00|3.76|
95714462|NCT03808298|191397649|OTHER|Placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QTcF (ms) at 24 Hours Post-dose|LS Mean|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.58|8.62||||||||8.62|3.58|
95714463|NCT01018680|191397651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||Using a 1:1 ratio of allocation to treatment, a 2-tailed 0.05 level of significance and 80% power, 253 participants per arm had been estimated to be adequate to assess an effect size of 0.25, based on a 2-sample Student's t-test. This derived estimate was increased slightly to 261 participants per arm to account for extremely early discontinuation that would have led to exclusion from the efficacy analysis in a small number of participants (approximately 3%).||||<0.001
95714464|NCT01018680|191397652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59|||<|0.001||95.0||||First gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy (Westfall and Krishen 2001) controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential comparisons of treatments until outcome failed to be significant (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714465|NCT01018680|191397653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||WOMAC Physical Disability Score p-value. Second gated secondary outcome measure. Gatekeeper strategy controlled experiment-wise type I error for 2 secondary outcomes with sequential treatment comparisons until outcome failed significance (p\>0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714466|NCT01018680|191397653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the WOMAC Pain Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714467|NCT01018680|191397653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.004||95.0||||This is the p-value for WOMAC Stiffness Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.004
95714468|NCT01018680|191397654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Night Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714469|NCT01018680|191397654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for Worst Pain Intensity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714470|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Worst Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714471|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Least Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714472|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Average Pain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714473|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-S for Pain Right Now. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714474|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for General Activity. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714475|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mood. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714476|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Walking Ability. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714477|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.85|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Normal Work. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714478|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Relations with Others. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714479|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Sleep. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714480|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Enjoyment of Life. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714481|NCT01018680|191397655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for BPI-I for Mean Interference Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714482|NCT01018680|191397656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714483|NCT01018680|191397657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17|||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||<0.001
95714484|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.449||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Total Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.449
95714485|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.265||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Tension-Anxiety Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.265
95714486|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.18||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Depression-Dejection Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.180
95714487|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.041||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Anger-Hostility Score. 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.041
95714488|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.356||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Vigor-Activity Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.356
95714489|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||0.862||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Fatigue-Inertia Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.862
95714490|NCT01018680|191397658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.883||95.0||||This is the p-value for the BPOMS Confusion-Bewilderment Score. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.883
95714491|NCT01018680|191397659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.0||||0.083||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|In Mixed Models Analysis, degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Rogers approximation.||||||0.083
95714492|NCT01018680|191397660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95714493|NCT01018680|191397661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95714494|NCT01018680|191397661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on 24-Hour Average Pain Ratings. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95714495|NCT01018680|191397662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 30% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95714496|NCT01018680|191397662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||This is the p-value for the 50% Response (LOCF) based on BPI Average Pain Ratings.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95714497|NCT01018680|191397663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.012
95714498|NCT01018680|191397664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.724||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Gain. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.724
95714499|NCT01018680|191397664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106||95.0||||This is the p-value for PCS Weight Loss. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.106
95714500|NCT01018680|191397665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.031||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.031
95714501|NCT01018680|191397666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0||||This is the p-value for Diastolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.063
95714502|NCT01018680|191397666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0||||This is the p-value for Systolic Hypertension. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.018
95714503|NCT01018680|191397667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249||95.0||||A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.249
95714504|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient group visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.241
95714505|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.087||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient individual visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.087
95714506|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.414||95.0||||This is the p-value for emergency room visits for non-psychiatric illness. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.414
95714507|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.332||95.0||||This is the p-value for outpatient visits to other physicians. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.332
95714508|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.183||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours worked for pay per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.183
95714509|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.666||95.0||||This is the p-value for how long the participant has had this job. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.666
95714510|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89||95.0||||This is the p-value for the average number of hours of volunteer work per week. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.890
95714511|NCT01018680|191397668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||This is the p-value for psychiatric visits. A 0.05 level of significance was pre-specified for use in treatment group comparisons.|Likelihood Ratio Chi-squared|||||||0.413
95714512|NCT00444028|191397684|OTHER|"The units on such analyses are generally those of slope (rise over run), with 1.000 being perfect. Although any positive slope might be considered clinically useful, a 90% CI within the criteria of 0.800-1.250 may be considered a delivery system which is as good as it gets."|Slope|0.909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.832|0.987||||||Dose proportionality by power analysis examines the linear regression of the log-AUC versus log-Dose on a by-patient basis across all doses administered. The slope and 90% confidence interval (CI) provide a clear, quantitative (best practices) assessment of the relationship of drug delivered to dose administered.||0.987|0.832|
95714513|NCT05056311|191397689|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95714514|NCT05056311|191397690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95714515|NCT05056311|191397691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95714516|NCT05056311|191397693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0001
95714517|NCT05056311|191397694|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6374||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|McNemar|||||||0.6374
95714518|NCT02022566|191397699|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95714519|NCT02022566|191397700|OTHER|Described elsewhere|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95714520|NCT00665366|191397718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.04||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|0.07|||ANCOVA|||||0.07|-4.14|0.058
95714521|NCT00665366|191397719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.25|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.25|-0.16|0.669
95714522|NCT00665366|191397719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.16|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.16|-0.36|0.436
95714523|NCT00665366|191397719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.28||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.0|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 9|||0.00|-0.56|0.053
95714524|NCT00665366|191397719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.01|||ANOVA/ANCOVA||Week 12|||-0.01|-0.59|0.044
95714525|NCT00665366|191397720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.06|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 3|||0.06|-0.22|0.240
95714526|NCT00665366|191397720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.19|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||0.19|-0.15|0.843
95714527|NCT00665366|191397720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.35|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 9|||0.35|-0.04|0.117
95714528|NCT00665366|191397720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.38|-0.04|0.109
95714529|NCT00665366|191397721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.2|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model|Week 12||||0.20|-0.37|0.567
95714530|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.66|3.03|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 3|||3.03|-1.66|0.566
95714531|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.66||||0.221||95.0|-1.0|4.32|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 6|||4.32|-1.00|0.221
95714532|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|4.35|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 9|||4.35|-1.40|0.315
95714533|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.88||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|4.84|||ANCOVA||Total score: Week 12|||4.84|-1.08|0.212
95714534|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.48|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 3|||0.48|-0.49|0.991
95714535|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.85|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 6|||0.85|-0.18|0.201
95714536|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.93|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 9|||0.93|-0.19|0.198
95714537|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.96|||ANCOVA||Autonomy score: Week 12|||0.96|-0.18|0.178
95714538|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.32|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 3|||0.32|-1.01|0.311
95714539|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.61|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 6|||0.61|-0.94|0.671
95714540|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.79|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 9|||0.79|-0.83|0.968
95714541|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.07|||ANCOVA||Occupational functioning score: Week 12|||1.07|-0.56|0.546
95714542|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.96|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 3|||0.96|-0.28|0.284
95714543|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.35|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 6|||1.35|-0.04|0.063
95714544|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.34|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 9|||1.34|-0.10|0.090
95714545|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.68||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.42|||ANCOVA||Cognitive functioning score: Week 12|||1.42|-0.06|0.072
95714546|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.93|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 3|||0.93|-0.45|0.499
95714547|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|1.06|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 6|||1.06|-0.48|0.457
95714548|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.525||95.0|-0.56|1.1|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 9|||1.10|-0.56|0.525
95714549|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.09|||ANCOVA||Interpersonal relationships score: Week 12|||1.09|-0.58|0.544
95714550|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.52|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 3|||0.52|-0.08|0.149
95714551|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.54|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 6|||0.54|-0.15|0.264
95714552|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.35|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 9|||0.35|-0.35|0.988
95714553|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.44|||ANCOVA||Leisure time score: Week 12|||0.44|-0.27|0.641
95714554|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.61|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 3|||0.61|-0.02|0.068
95714555|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.74|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 6|||0.74|0.07|0.019
95714556|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.6|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 9|||0.60|-0.08|0.136
95714557|NCT00665366|191397722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.18||95.0|-0.11|0.57|||ANCOVA||Financial issues score: Week 12|||0.57|-0.11|0.18
95714558|NCT00665366|191397723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.13||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.59|||Ration of response||Week 3|||1.59|0.81|0.466
95714559|NCT00665366|191397723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.32|||Risk ratio||Week 6|||1.32|0.86|0.540
95714560|NCT00665366|191397723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||Risk ratio||Week 9|||1.38|0.99|0.060
95714561|NCT00665366|191397723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23|||Risk ratio|||||1.23|0.94|0.289
95714562|NCT00665366|191397724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.39|||Risk ratio (RR)||Week 3|||1.39|0.75|0.909
95714563|NCT00665366|191397724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3|||RR||Week 6|||1.30|0.86|0.573
95714564|NCT00665366|191397724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.16||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.36|||RR||Week 9|||1.36|0.98|0.080
95714565|NCT00665366|191397724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.27|||RR||Week 12|||1.27|0.95|0.211
95714566|NCT00665366|191397725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.29|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 6|||1.29|0.07|
95714567|NCT00665366|191397725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.58|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12|||1.58|0.08|0.031
95714568|NCT00665366|191397725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.34|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 (LOCF)|||1.34|-0.13|0.104
95714569|NCT00665366|191397726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.32|||ANCOVA||Week 3|||0.32|-0.21|
95714570|NCT00665366|191397726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.53|||ANCOVA||Week 6|||0.53|-0.05|
95714571|NCT00665366|191397726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.54|||ANCOVA||Week 12|||0.54|-0.11|0.197
95714572|NCT00665366|191397726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.63|||ANCOVA||Week 12 (LOCF)|||0.63|-0.07|0.111
95714573|NCT00665366|191397727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|0.64|||ANOVA/ANCOVA model||Week 12 LOCF|||0.64|-0.63|0.983
95714574|NCT00665366|191397728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.71|||Risk Ratio|Weight gain||||3.71|0.57|
95714575|NCT00665366|191397729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.582||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.582
95714576|NCT00994123|191397735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.16|0.008
95714577|NCT00994123|191397735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.15||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|4.76|||Log Rank|||||4.76|0.97|0.059
95714578|NCT02558634|191397739|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.25||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.75||The level of significance was set at p=0.025 to allow a Bonferroni correction for these two tests (i.e. p=0.050 divided by two).|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.75|0.75|0.025
95714579|NCT01008059|191397753|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<.05
95714580|NCT02322866|191397754|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-4.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|-2.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|||-2.9|-5.8|< 0.0001
95714581|NCT02322866|191397755|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Rate Difference|7.3||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.53|12.07||P-values were based on the test of general association between the response and treatment group using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test with pooled site as stratification factor.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||sarecycline - placebo|||12.07|2.53|0.0038
95714582|NCT02322866|191397756|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|-9.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 12||-9.5|-19.4|< 0.0001
95714583|NCT02322866|191397757|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-12.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.3|-7.9||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 9||-7.9|-17.3|< 0.0001
95714584|NCT02322866|191397758|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-11.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.1|-7.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 6||-7.5|-16.1|< 0.0001
95714585|NCT02322866|191397759|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-9.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|-5.3||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Percent Change from Baseline to Week 3||-5.3|-13.5|< 0.0001
95714586|NCT02322866|191397760|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|-2.5||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 9||-2.5|-5.2|< 0.0001
95714587|NCT02322866|191397761|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-3.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-2.4||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 6||-2.4|-5.0|< 0.0001
95714588|NCT02322866|191397762|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.7||Analyses were based on ANCOVA model for the endpoint with treatment group and pooled study center as factors and baseline value as a covariate.|ANCOVA||sarecycline - placebo|Change from Baseline to Week 3||-1.7|-4.1|< 0.0001
95714589|NCT02145949|191397777|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
95714590|NCT02145949|191397778|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
95714591|NCT02145949|191397779|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.04
95714592|NCT02145949|191397780|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.01
95714593|NCT02145949|191397781|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.12
95714594|NCT02145949|191397782|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.03
95714595|NCT02145949|191397783|OTHER|||||||0.71|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.71
95714596|NCT02145949|191397784|OTHER|||||||0.76|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.76
95714597|NCT02145949|191397785|OTHER|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.40
95714598|NCT02145949|191397786|OTHER|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.97
95714599|NCT02145949|191397787|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.89
95714600|NCT02145949|191397788|OTHER|||||||0.48|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.48
95714601|NCT02145949|191397789|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.02
95714602|NCT02145949|191397790|OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.29
95714603|NCT02145949|191397791|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.33
95714604|NCT02145949|191397792|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.30
95714605|NCT02145949|191397793|OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.98
95714606|NCT02145949|191397794|OTHER|||||||0.18|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.18
95714607|NCT02145949|191397795|OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.52
95714608|NCT02145949|191397796|OTHER|||||||0.81|||||||ANCOVA|||||||.81
95714609|NCT01928758|191397797|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-175.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.3|-133.1||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline cotinine after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2-weeks.|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||-133.1|-218.3|<0.0001
95714610|NCT01928758|191397798|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|1.65||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.65|-0.28|0.16
95714611|NCT01928758|191397799|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|2.16||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group.|||2.16|-1.40|0.67
95714612|NCT01928758|191397800|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.31||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|1.05||Complete case analysis|Regression, Linear|Model was adjusted for baseline score after smoking usual nicotine content cigarettes for 2 weeks|The direction of comparison is reduced nicotine content vs. usual nicotine content cigarette treatment group|||1.05|-1.68|0.65
95714613|NCT01474291|191397808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.56||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.3|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 generalized estimating equation (GEE) Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Patient's Age (\>=65) upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||2.30|1.06|0.0230
95714614|NCT01474291|191397808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.43|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor No methotrexate (MTX) sequences within the two last years upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||8.43|3.92|<0.0001
95714615|NCT01474291|191397808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|3.7|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Past history of severe infectious disease upon physician's decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy (multivariate analysis)."||3.70|1.11|0.0212
95714616|NCT01474291|191397808|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.41|||Wald Chi-square|Wald Chi-square Test for Type 3 GEE Analysis.||"Influence of baseline factor Higher Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joint Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR) (unit=1) on physician decision to initiate tocilizumab monotherapy; DAS28-ESR was calculated from the number of swollen joints and tender joints using 28-joint count, ESR (millimeters per hour \[mm/hour\]) and patient's global assessment of disease activity; scores range from 0 to 10; higher scores correspond to greater disease activity (multivariate analysis)."||1.41|1.05|0.0076
95714617|NCT03471507|191397830|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for age and sex.||||||0.46
95714618|NCT01333501|191397850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|7.23|||ANCOVA|||||7.23|-3.51|0.4940
95714619|NCT01333501|191397851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.03||0.5183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|7.99|||ANCOVA|||||7.99|-4.06|0.5183
95714620|NCT01333501|191397852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|0.5|||ANCOVA|||||0.50|-3.69|0.1334
95714621|NCT01333501|191397853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.29||0.4501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|2.81|||ANCOVA|||||2.81|-6.27|0.4501
95714622|NCT01333501|191397854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|5.49|||ANCOVA|||||5.49|-4.57|0.8561
95714623|NCT01333501|191397855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.8858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|5.4|||ANCOVA|||||5.40|-4.67|0.8858
95714624|NCT01333501|191397856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.7119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|1.11|||ANCOVA|||||1.11|-0.76|0.7119
95714625|NCT01333501|191397857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.9496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.81|||ANCOVA|||||0.81|-0.86|0.9496
95714626|NCT01333501|191397858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.8944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-2.18|0.8944
95714627|NCT01333501|191397859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.6757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|0.92|||ANCOVA|||||0.92|-1.42|0.6757
95714628|NCT01333501|191397860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.3585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.82|2.5|||ANCOVA|||||2.50|-6.82|0.3585
95714629|NCT01333501|191397861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.69||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.62|2.14|||ANCOVA|||||2.14|-12.62|0.1610
95714630|NCT02780869|191397942|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary endpoint was designed to establish comparable efficacy based upon a non-inferiority margin of 10% for the difference in the probability of TTH within 6 minutes comparing HEMOBLAST™ to G+T (HEMOBLAST™- G+T). Letting θ denote the true difference in the probability of hemostasis at 6 minutes between HEMOBLAST™ to G+T, the trial will test the null hypothesis H0: θ ≤ -0.10 vs. the alternative hypothesis HA : θ \> -0.10 using a one-sided level 0.025 test.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified adjustments for surgery type were made using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel weighting.||||||<0.0001
95714631|NCT02780869|191397942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A secondary endpoint of superiority of HEMOBLAST relative to G+T for success at achieving hemostasis within 6 minutes was evaluated.||||0.0001
95714632|NCT02780869|191397943|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for mulitple comparisons were made when assessing secondary endpoints using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05|Regression, Linear|||The difference in mean preparation time was tested using a linear regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||<0.0001
95714633|NCT02780869|191397944|NON_INFERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.|||||<|0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95714634|NCT02780869|191397944|SUPERIORITY|The difference in the probability of hemostasis within 3 minutes was tested using a logistic regression model with stratified adjustment for surgery type.||||||0.0001||||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons when assessing secondary endpoints was performed using a fixed sequence closed testing procedure to control the family-wise type I error rate at 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
95714635|NCT03742271|191397961|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was concluded in the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was above 0.50.|Proportion|0.974|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.925|0.995|||Binomial Exact Test|||This study was powered to test the hypothesis that at least 50% will have an acceptable lens fitting.||0.995|0.925|
95714636|NCT03137173|191397974|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||||||||7.8|-1.2|
95714637|NCT03137173|191397975|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin+aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the ITT population. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|5.6||||||||5.6|-3.5|
95714638|NCT03137173|191397976|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed by the two-sided 95% CI of the between-group difference (ceftobiprole minus vancomycin plus aztreonam) using a 10% non-inferiority margin in the CE populations. Difference was computed using the CMH weights method, adjusted for geographical region and actual type of ABSSSI.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|5.6||||||||5.6|-0.3|
95714639|NCT01535638|191397977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|123.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|108.0|141.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|Relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||141.1|108.0|
95714640|NCT01535638|191397977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|109.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|28.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.6|136.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (reference : test)||136.1|88.6|
95714641|NCT01535638|191397978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|122.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.9|139.1|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation (test) and Deleobuvir Trial Formulation II (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.1|107.9|
95714642|NCT01535638|191397978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio (%)|107.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.1|139.4|||||The estimate of the relative bioavailability (%) is adjusted for the period effects in the ANOVA. The standard deviation is actually the gCV. CIs are based on the residual error from ANOVA, considering only the data from the 2 compared treatments.|relative bioavailability comparison of Deleobuvir Final Formulation modified (test) and Deleobuvir Final Formulation (reference) in pairwise comparison. (test : reference)||139.4|83.1|
95714643|NCT03524664|191397993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.523||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71) = 0.411, p =.523||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.523
95714644|NCT03524664|191397994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.173||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.89, p=.173||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.173
95714645|NCT03524664|191397995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.23, p=.140||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.140
95714646|NCT03524664|191397996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.845||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.039, p=0.845||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||0.845
95714647|NCT03524664|191397997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.147||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=2.147, p=.147||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.147
95714648|NCT03524664|191397998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=.633, p=.429||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.429
95714649|NCT03524664|191397999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.208||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,70)=1.618, p=.208||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.208
95714650|NCT03524664|191398000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=1.09, p=.300||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.300
95714651|NCT03524664|191398001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.099||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.79, p=.099||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.099
95714652|NCT03524664|191398002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.105||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=2.70, p=.105||Outcome data analyzed for those with complete data at both timepoints.||||.105
95714653|NCT03524664|191398003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.699||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.15, p=.699||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.699
95714654|NCT03524664|191398004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.945||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.005, p=.945||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.945
95714655|NCT03524664|191398005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.767||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=0.088, p=.767||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.767
95714656|NCT03524664|191398006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,71)=.0.17, p=.682||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.682
95714657|NCT03524664|191398007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.003, p=.960||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.960
95714658|NCT03524664|191398008|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.643||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|F(1,42)=0.218, p=.643||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.643
95714659|NCT03524664|191398009|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.118||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time X Group F(2,90)=2.19, p.118||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.118
95714660|NCT03524664|191398010|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Time x Group F(2,90)=.223, p=.800||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.800
95714661|NCT03524664|191398011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.863||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|ANOVA|Group x Time F(2,92)=0.148, p=.863||Repeated measures ANOVA||||.863
95714662|NCT03702166|191398019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons||||||0.01
95714663|NCT03702166|191398021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons,||||||0.038
95714664|NCT03702166|191398023|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.031||||||Multiple t-tests, with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons|t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.031
95714665|NCT04047342|191398034|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.3||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.30|0.72|.828
95714666|NCT00660829|191398036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5633|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3345|<|0.001||95.0|-2.22|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.91|-2.22|<0.001
95714667|NCT00660829|191398037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7444|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1677|<|0.001||95.0|-1.07|-0.42|||ANOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.42|-1.07|<0.001
95714668|NCT00660829|191398038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4403|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3406|<|0.001||95.0|-2.11|-0.77|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||||-0.77|-2.11|<0.001
95714669|NCT00660829|191398039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2907|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.3204|<|0.001||95.0|-1.92|0.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA is being used due to a covariate being included in the model. The covariate is baseline TNSS score.||Change in baseline||0.66|-1.92|<0.001
95714670|NCT00660829|191398040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||Change from baseline||||0.001
95714671|NCT01798056|191398057|NON_INFERIORITY|Criteria used: The lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the Geometric Mean (GM) ratio (GSK1437173A PreChemo group over Placebo PreChemo group) in anti-gE ELISA antibody concentrations is greater than 3.|Adjusted GMC ratio|23.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.9|30.0||||Difference of means between vaccines and placebo were calculated together with 2-sided confidence intervals and back-transformed to the original units||The analysis evaluated the anti-gE humoral immune responses at Month 2, following a two-dose administration of the GSK1437173A vaccine, as compared to placebo in subjects with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy (PreChemo Groups only).||30|17.9|
95714672|NCT01966458|191398072|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 6% was pre-specified.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.6||||0.1444|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|10.7|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = HeartWare® VAS incidence rate - Control incidence rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confident interval is used.|The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority test comparing HeartWare® VAS to Control.||10.7|-5.5|0.1444
95714673|NCT01966458|191398073|SUPERIORITY||Percent of Participants|19.2||||0.7363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|15.6|23.3|||Exact Binomial Test||Two-sided exact binomial confidence interval used|The first secondary endpoint is the percent of participants with stroke/TIA at 12 months on the originally implanted device. It will be compared to 17.7%, which is the lower bound of a pre-defined margin of superiority based on the Endurance clinical trial.||23.3|15.6|0.7363
95714674|NCT01966458|191398074|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin on the difference in success proportions is 15%.|Difference in Percentages|-9.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.2|-1.1|||Farrington-Manning asymptotic test||Difference = Control success rate - HeartWare® VAS success rate Two-sided 90% exact binomial confidence interval is used|||-1.1|-17.2|<0.0001
95714675|NCT01966458|191398074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0354|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0354
95714676|NCT00151775|191398075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0008
95714677|NCT00151775|191398075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
95714678|NCT00151775|191398075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||0.0032
95714679|NCT00151775|191398075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||0.0265
95714680|NCT00151775|191398075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Non-weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
95714681|NCT00151775|191398075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||Weight adjusted dosage||||<0.0001
95714682|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.69||||0.0008||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0008
95714683|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.057||||0.0026||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0026
95714684|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.85||||0.0032||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0032
95714685|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.58||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0125
95714686|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.75|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
95714687|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.57|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (non-weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
95714688|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.97|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
95714689|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
95714690|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.17||||0.0265||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0265
95714691|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-6.85||||0.0084||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||0.0084
95714692|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-8.36|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated systolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
95714693|NCT00151775|191398076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-7.71|||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Regression, Linear|||A linear regression analysis of olmesartan dose (weight adjusted) on the change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure was carried out. The null hypothesis of zero-slope was tested.||||<0.0001
95714694|NCT00151775|191398077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.58||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.27|-0.89|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.89|-6.27|0.0093
95714695|NCT00151775|191398077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.49||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|-1.05|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-1.05|-5.92|0.0052
95714696|NCT00151775|191398077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.57||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.93|0.79|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis of systolic blood pressure. Null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||0.79|-5.93|0.1330
95714697|NCT00151775|191398077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-1.38||||0.3442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.27|1.5|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||Analysis for diastolic blood pressure. The null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.50|-4.27|0.3442
95714698|NCT00151775|191398077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-3.16||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested||-1.09|-5.24|0.0029
95714699|NCT00151775|191398077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.8||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.65|-0.95|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||-0.95|-4.65|0.0032
95714700|NCT00151775|191398078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.82||||0.2113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.29|1.65|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated systolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.65|-7.29|0.2113
95714701|NCT00151775|191398078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|-2.92||||0.1496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.92|1.09|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model used treatment and country as fixed effects and baseline as covariate.||For seated diastolic blood pressure the null hypothesis of no treatment difference was tested.||1.09|-6.92|0.1496
95714702|NCT02660489|191398089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95714703|NCT02660489|191398090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.49
95714704|NCT02660489|191398091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95714705|NCT02660489|191398092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95714706|NCT02660489|191398093|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95714707|NCT02660489|191398094|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.12
95714708|NCT02660489|191398095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.75
95714709|NCT02660489|191398096|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.66
95714710|NCT03039686|191398104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.87|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|1.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age Interactive response system (IXRS) Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||1.27|-2.17|
95714711|NCT03039686|191398104|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|2.26|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix -change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.26|-1.10|
95714712|NCT03039686|191398106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.2|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.20|-0.21|
95714713|NCT03039686|191398106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.12|
95714714|NCT03039686|191398108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
95714715|NCT03039686|191398108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.06|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.06|-0.00|
95714716|NCT03039686|191398110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.27|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.27|-0.08|
95714717|NCT03039686|191398110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.18|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||0.18|-0.17|
95714718|NCT03039686|191398112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76|2.77|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||2.77|-6.76|
95714719|NCT03039686|191398112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.71|5.63|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||5.63|-3.71|
95714720|NCT03039686|191398115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.5|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.1|24.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||24.6|-21.1|
95714721|NCT03039686|191398115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.0|33.6|||||Based on the MMRM using an unstructured covariance matrix - change = Baseline + Age IXRS Stratum + Corticosteroid Regimen IXRS Stratum + Analysis Visit\*Treatment.|||33.6|-11.0|
95714722|NCT00134563|191398179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk reduction (%)|31.5||||0.0005||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was sized to detect a 25% relative risk reduction with teriflunomide in the 2-year relapse rate at a significance level of 0.050 with a power ≥95% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0005
95714723|NCT00134563|191398179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk Reduction (%)|31.2||||0.0002||||||"Step down approach used to adjust for multiplicity:~* H1 tested first~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance for both comparisons ≤0.05"|Regression, Poisson||Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo|||||0.0002
95714724|NCT00134563|191398180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|29.8||||0.0279||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 14 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|"Null hypothesis:~* H1: No difference between Teriflunomide 14 mg and placebo~* H2: No difference between Teriflunomide 7 mg and placebo~The study was also sized to detect a 37% hazard rate reduction of an assumed disability progression hazard rate of 0.1783 in the placebo group and 0.1116 in the teriflunomide group by the end of 2 years with a power of 80% anticipating a potential 20% 2-year dropout rate."||||0.0279
95714725|NCT00134563|191398180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard ratio reduction (%)|23.7||||0.0835||||||"Step down approach:~* H1 tested only if both comparisons on the primary outcome measure were statistically significant~* H2 tested only if the comparison H1 was statistically significant~A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05"|Log Rank|Two-sided Log-rank test stratified by region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum|Relative risk reduction with Teriflunomide 7 mg compared to placebo (estimated from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment arm, region of enrollment and baseline EDSS stratum as covariates)|||||0.0835
95714726|NCT00134563|191398181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0003||95.0||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0003
95714727|NCT00134563|191398181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0317||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||Mixed-effect model with repeated measures \[MMRM\] on cubic root transformed total lesion volume data (treatment group, region of enrollment, baseline EDSS stratum, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value (cubic root transformed) and baseline-by-visit interaction).||||0.0317
95714728|NCT00134563|191398184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8271||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.8271
95714729|NCT00134563|191398184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3861||||||"A priori threshold for statistical significance ≤0.05~No adjustment for multiple comparisons"|t-test, 2 sided|2-sided t-test on baseline adjusted least-square means||||||0.3861
95714730|NCT03382639|191398185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.2|-1.4|0.426
95714731|NCT03382639|191398185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.1|-1.5|0.725
95714732|NCT03382639|191398185|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.68||0.808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-0.7|0.808
95714733|NCT03737812|191398200|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.485|10.259||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||10.259|0.485|
95714734|NCT03737812|191398200|OTHER|a statistical test was not performed|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.859|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.899|16.561||||||Analyzed using a logistic regression model with corresponding baseline value as a covariate and treatment as a main effect. Logistic regression model for EDSS+ includes baseline values for EDSS, Timed 25-Foot Walk, 9-Hole Peg Test-dominant, 9-Hole Peg Test-nondominant, and treatment as a main effect. Subjects with missing values were imputed as non-responders.||16.561|0.899|
95714735|NCT03417245|191398238|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.101|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.064|0.159||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression mode|||||0.159|0.064|<0.0001
95714736|NCT03417245|191398240|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.188||P-value derived from NB regression model during TP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.188|0.090|<0.0001
95714737|NCT03417245|191398242|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.049|0.141||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.141|0.049|<0.0001
95714738|NCT03417245|191398244|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.097|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.059|0.161||P-value derived from NB regression model during EP, with treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10, \>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.161|0.059|<0.0001
95714739|NCT03417245|191398246|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-19.75|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|-12.5||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-12.50|-27.00|<0.0001
95714740|NCT03417245|191398247|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-7.07|||=|0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.23|-2.9||ANCOVA model included treatment arm, number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) and hemophilia type (A vs B) as fixed effects, Baseline score as covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-2.90|-11.23|=0.0011
95714741|NCT02046993|191398250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||comparison of the percentage of patients doing HBPM between intervention and control group at baseline||||0.27
95714742|NCT02046993|191398250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||McNemar|||Comparison of percentage of subjects doing HBPM at 3rd month from baseline within intervention group||||.020
95714743|NCT02046993|191398250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||McNemar|||comparison in percentage of patients doing Home BP monitoring at 6th month from baseline within intervention group||||.060
95714744|NCT02046993|191398250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in the proportion of patients doing HBPM at 3 months from baseline within the control group||||.002
95714745|NCT02046993|191398250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||Change in proportion of patients doing HBPM at 6 months from baseline within control group||||.009
95714746|NCT02046993|191398251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.813|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic systolic BP mCSBP readings between control and intervention||||0.813
95714747|NCT02046993|191398251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.865|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baseline mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention||||0.865
95714748|NCT02046993|191398251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.476|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.476
95714749|NCT02046993|191398251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic diastolic BP mCDBP readings between control and intervention at 3 months from baseline||||0.14
95714750|NCT02046993|191398251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.495|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference of mean clinic systolic BP readings mCSBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.495
95714751|NCT02046993|191398251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of difference in mean clinic diastolic BP readings mCDBP between control and intervention at 6 months from baseline||||0.967
95714752|NCT02046993|191398252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.819|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of baselline SEMCD between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.819
95714753|NCT02046993|191398252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.512|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 3 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care||||0.512
95714754|NCT02046993|191398252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of SEMCD at 6 months between telemonitoring group and enhanced usual care group||||0.325
95714755|NCT02046993|191398253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.532|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.532
95714756|NCT02046993|191398253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of baseline mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.902
95714757|NCT02046993|191398254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.138|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP at 3 months between smartphone based telemonitoring group and control group on enhanced usual care||||0.138
95714758|NCT02046993|191398254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 3 months||||0.204
95714759|NCT02046993|191398255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHSBP in mmHg between Telemonitoring groups and Enhanced Usual Care groups at 6 months||||0.199
95714760|NCT02046993|191398255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||comparison of mHDBP in mmHg at 6 months between Telemonitoring and Enhanced Usual Care groups||||0.204
95714761|NCT00920582|191398300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.348||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.431|4.219|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.219|0.431|0.609
95714762|NCT00920582|191398300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.356||||0.601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.453|4.23|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.230|0.453|0.601
95714763|NCT00920582|191398300|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.624||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.521|5.066|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.066|0.521|0.400
95714764|NCT00920582|191398302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.028||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.031|||ANCOVA|||||0.031|-0.086|0.365
95714765|NCT00920582|191398302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.078|0.064|||ANCOVA|||||0.064|-0.078|0.842
95714766|NCT00920582|191398302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021||||0.565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.089|0.171|||ANCOVA|||||0.171|-0.089|0.565
95714767|NCT00920582|191398307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.197||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.764|6.312|||Mantel Haenszel|||||6.312|0.764|0.142
95714768|NCT00920582|191398307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.487||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.517|4.278|||Mantel Haenszel|||||4.278|0.517|0.460
95714769|NCT00920582|191398307|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.954||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.532|||Mantel Haenszel|||||5.532|0.690|0.199
95714770|NCT00851721|191398313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||H0: μ(on-demand) = μ(prophylaxis) Versus H1: μ(on-demand) ≠ μ(prophylaxis) (Where H0 implies no difference in mean bleeding episode rate between prophylaxis and on-demand treatment arms and H1 implies otherwise. This test was performed at a significance level of 5%, two-sided, two sample)||||0.0003
95714771|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0008|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Bleeds||||0.0008
95714772|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0199|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Bleeds||||0.0199
95714773|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0006|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Joint Bleeds||||0.0006
95714774|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0227|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0227
95714775|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0013|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Joint Bleeds||||0.0013
95714776|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Spontaneous Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.0030
95714777|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0254|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Joint Bleeds||||0.0254
95714778|NCT00851721|191398315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9322|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||Traumatic Non-Joint Bleeds||||0.9322
95714779|NCT00851721|191398317|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0271|||||||Two-sample, two-sided t-test|||||||0.0271
95714780|NCT00851721|191398324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0067||95.0|||||Mann-Whitney tests (Wilcoxon-Rank Sum)|||||||0.0067
95714781|NCT04047472|191398356|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.0|0.9|||ANOVA|||||0.9|-3.0|0.006
95714782|NCT04047472|191398357|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of brolucizumab to aflibercept with respect to change from baseline in BCVA, considering a margin of 4 letters.|LS mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.009|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|0.5|||ANOVA|||||0.5|-3.2|0.009
95714783|NCT02347345|191398408|OTHER|Descriptive pilot study. Not relevant.||||||0.07|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.07
95714784|NCT05489146|191398440|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.046|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.046
95714785|NCT05489146|191398441|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.003
95714786|NCT05489146|191398442|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95714787|NCT05489146|191398443|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95714788|NCT05489146|191398444|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95714789|NCT05489146|191398445|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||>0.05
95714790|NCT05489146|191398446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95714791|NCT05489146|191398447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.035
95714792|NCT02155725|191398475|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9889||||0.9563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6633|1.4744|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.4744|0.6633|0.9563
95714793|NCT02155725|191398476|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0064||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6321|1.6022|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as administration of 2 units of RBCs.||1.6022|0.6321|0.9786
95714794|NCT02155725|191398477|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0169||||0.9474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6177|1.6741|||Regression, Logistic|||Failure on individual component of the primary endpoint defined as a loss of at least 4 g/dL of Hb.||1.6741|0.6177|0.9474
95714795|NCT00842829|191398478|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was established if the upper limit of the 90% CI was \<8%.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.3|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0||1.4|||||The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval is equivalent to the upper bound of the 1-sided 95% confidence interval.|Treatment comparison difference (100 mcg - 200 mcg)||1.4||
95714796|NCT02127931|191398513|OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-I||||0.005
95714797|NCT02127931|191398513|OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Correlation|||ADHD-C||||0.023
95714798|NCT02127931|191398514|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Correlation|||||||0.013
95714799|NCT02612194|191398553|OTHER|Estimation only.|Overall Response Rate|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.369|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.369|0.000|
95714800|NCT02612194|191398554|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|6.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||6.1|0.2|
95714801|NCT02612194|191398555|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.8|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||1.8|0.2|
95714802|NCT02539160|191398556|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|6.4||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|14.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||14.3|-1.1|0.105
95714803|NCT02539160|191398556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|13.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.7|-1.5|0.112
95714804|NCT00387621|191398587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|With Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
95714805|NCT00387621|191398588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||rank-sum test|Rank-sum test was used due to non-normality of data with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons||||||<0.05
95714806|NCT00689299|191398597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||ANOVA with baseline score as covariate||||<0.05
95714807|NCT02545504|191398647|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.93||||0.5625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.18||The significance level at final analysis is 0.046 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|Hazard ratio (HR) was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site with treatment arm as the only covariate.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint.||1.18|0.74|0.5625
95714808|NCT02545504|191398648|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.04||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Log Rank|p-value was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region and primary tumor site.|HR was stratified by ECOG status,geographic region;primary tumor site with treatment arm as a covariate.Stratum with \<6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. PFS was tested only if OS was significant. The P-value is for display only.||1.04|0.67|0.1031
95714809|NCT02545504|191398649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.47||||0.0493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.15||The significance level at final analysis was 0.032 (two-sided). Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site.|OR was stratified by ECOG status, geographic region and primary tumor site. Stratum with \< 6 participants or no informative event by combined treatment arms was pooled with the smallest adjacent stratum for stratified analyses.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.The P-value is for display only.||2.15|1.00|0.0493
95714810|NCT02545504|191398649|SUPERIORITY||ORR Difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|18.8|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference for ORR between the treatment and placebo is calculated based on stratum-adjusted Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel proportion.|The primary and secondary endpoints were tested sequentially in the following gate-keeping order: the primary OS endpoint, then the secondary PFS endpoint, and finally the secondary ORR endpoint. ORR was tested only if OS and PFS were significant.||18.8|0.1|
95714811|NCT00434876|191398652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.49
95714812|NCT00434876|191398653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95714813|NCT00434876|191398654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.57
95714814|NCT00434876|191398655|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95714815|NCT03778021|191398683|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.093||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05."|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change (intervention minus control) from repeated measures linear mixed model|"The unit of measure is score on a scale. The results show the least squares estimate of change in that score, from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|"In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured)."|0.41|0.04|0.017
95714816|NCT03778021|191398684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.41||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|3.49||"Estimated differential change in score between intervention and comparison group from repeated measures linear mixed model.~All the reported analyses conservatively specified covariance structure as general covariance (unstructured). alpha = 0.05"|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures linear mixed model analysis. Student nested within school. Model fit time, intervention and time by intervention interaction.|Estimated differential change from baseline to follow-up from model (intervention minus control)|"Results present estimated change in score from baseline to 8-month follow-up in each group from model.~Values from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively contributed to the repeated measures linear mixed model, where the units of analysis were participant-time. The nesting within schools was accounted for in the model."|In the repeated measures linear mixed model, time was treated as a fixed effect. In the specification of the repeated measures linear mixed model, students were nested within schools|3.49|-0.66|0.18
95714817|NCT03778021|191398685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.81||"Repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution (variable was I know I can - yes versus no)."|Mixed Models Analysis|The odds of the odds ratio is reported as the intervention effect.|Odds ratio from estimated least squares from generalized mixed model with binomial distribution specified. Intervention odds of change compared to comparison group odds of change via odds ratio..|"Odds ratio of 8-month follow-up to baseline percent reporting  I know I can was estimated from repeated measures generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution.~Values included from the 100 and 194 baseline respondents and from the 72 and 141 8-month follow-up respondents of intervention and comparison groups respectively. The person-timepoint is the unit of analysis."||2.81|0.60|0.51
95714818|NCT01342445|191398699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Partial eta squared|0.34|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 10.9~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<0.001
95727810|NCT01620489|191425088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference|-0.51|||=|0.0022||95.0|-0.83|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Not adjusted for multiple comparisons||Change from baseline in BMI (kg/m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was analysed separately using an MMRM analysis model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit.||-0.18|-0.83|= 0.0022
95714819|NCT01342445|191398700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||partial eta squared|0.28|||<|0.001||||||we adjusted p values to control for the false discovery rate using procedures described by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). Thus, an alpha value of .021 was used as significance threshold.|ANOVA|"F(4, 84) = 8.14~This was a one-way ANOVA with repeated measures across dosage conditions (no drug baseline, placebo, 30-mg, 50-mg, 70-mg LDX)."||This was a within-subject crossover design with all participants going through a no-drug baseline followed by placebo and three dosages of LDX, with the latter four conditions in a randomly assigned, counterbalanced order. The comparison condition was the placebo condition.||||<.001
95714820|NCT01399619|191398763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value corresponds to a two sided test against the historical rate of 40%.|normal approximation|||the SVR12 rate in total Faldaprevir group compared with the historical rate of 40%.||||<0.0001
95714821|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for overall product preference||||0.003
95714822|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Scent/odor||||<0.001
95714823|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Immediate taste||||<0.001
95714824|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for After-taste||||0.002
95714825|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER|||||||0.037|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less drip down throat||||0.037
95714826|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less run out nose||||<0.001
95714827|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for More soothing||||0.408
95714828|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Less irritating||||0.070
95714829|NCT00398476|191398805|OTHER|||||||0.587|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Analysis for Urge to sneeze||||0.587
95714830|NCT00398476|191398806|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ items||||<0.001
95714831|NCT00398476|191398806|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ items||||<0.001
95714832|NCT00398476|191398807|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.255||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||0.255
95714833|NCT00398476|191398808|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.056||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for all DAQ items||||0.056
95714834|NCT00398476|191398809|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.845||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for IAQ Irtems||||0.845
95714835|NCT00398476|191398810|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.871||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg for DAQ Items||||0.871
95714836|NCT00398476|191398811|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95714837|NCT00398476|191398812|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.592||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.592
95714838|NCT00398476|191398813|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95714839|NCT00398476|191398814|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.434||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.434
95714840|NCT00398476|191398815|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.797
95714841|NCT00398476|191398815|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.296|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.296
95714842|NCT00398476|191398816|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in IAQ||||<0.001
95714843|NCT00398476|191398816|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Comparison of FF 110 µg and FP 200 µg in DAQ||||<0.001
95714844|NCT00398476|191398817|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.968|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for IAQ||||0.968
95714845|NCT00398476|191398817|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.797|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||This analysis is for DAQ||||0.797
95714846|NCT00398476|191398818|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.221|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.221
95714847|NCT00398476|191398819|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.205|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.205
95714848|NCT00398476|191398820|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP)|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.108|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.108
95714849|NCT00398476|191398821|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.694|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.694
95714850|NCT00398476|191398822|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming that 65% of participants indicate an overall preference for FF over FP, then a sample size of 125 participants will provide 93% power to show that difference in proportions (i.e., 65% favoring FF vs 35% favoring FP).|Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.02|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.020
95714851|NCT03764813|191398839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
95714852|NCT03764813|191398840|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.165|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95714853|NCT03764813|191398841|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.537|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95714854|NCT03764813|191398842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Group comparison is carried out among HbF values grouped according to the transfusion regimen (only cord blood transfusions, only adult transfusions, both cord and adult transfusions).||||<0.0001
95714855|NCT01374516|191398843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|60.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.0|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %). The CI was calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups (exact method by Breslow \& Day). The vaccine efficacy of the CYD dengue vaccine was considered significant if the lower bound of its 95% CI was greater than 25%.||68.0|52.0|
95714856|NCT01374516|191398844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.8||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.8|58.7|
95714857|NCT01374516|191398845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.7|69.9||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||69.9|58.7|
95714858|NCT01374516|191398846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Vaccine Efficacy|61.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.7|68.0||||||The statistical methodology was based on the use of the two-sided 95% CI of the vaccine efficacy (expressed in %) calculated using the exact method conditional on the total number of cases in both groups.||68.0|54.7|
95714859|NCT03602976|191398865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|190.7||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For GGT||||0.059
95714860|NCT03602976|191398865|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|55.5||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Alkaline Phosphatase||||0.23
95714861|NCT03602976|191398866|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.36
95714862|NCT03602976|191398867|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.73|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95714863|NCT03602976|191398868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.094|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.094
95714864|NCT03602976|191398869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.11
95714865|NCT04837807|191398870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.8|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||"Each participant in the study was asked to complete the IDEEL work at their baseline, week 1 and week 2 visits. The IDEEL work is graded on a scale to 100 with higher numbers being deemed as better scores thus representing more comfort than previous weeks."||||<0.05
95714866|NCT04837807|191398872|SUPERIORITY|OSDI scores were obtained across all three visits, baseline, week 1 and week 2. Lower OSDI scores indicate better eye health.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.3|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|This was a cross-over study, so there is really 30 subjects per group that was analyzed.||||||<0.05
95714867|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.332||0.6241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.05|42.71||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||42.71|-31.05|0.6241
95855275|NCT00554216|191670073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.394|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.76|3.33||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||3.33|1.76|<0.0001
95714868|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the LOCF dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.081||0.7315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.52|50.26||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||50.26|-26.52|0.7315
95714869|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.566||0.6212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.65|43.18||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||43.18|-31.65|0.6212
95714870|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means using the OC dataset.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.662||0.5987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.44|46.84||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||46.84|-36.44|0.5987
95714871|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.114||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.28|35.64||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||35.64|-37.28|0.4820
95714872|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.496||0.8562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|57.13||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||LOCF Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||57.13|-17.33|0.8562
95714873|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.3||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.46|36.35||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||36.35|-37.46|0.4880
95714874|NCT00612456|191398939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|20.008||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.38|54.32||If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were negative, then the one-sided p-values were the two-sided t-test of each treatment arm from this analysis divided by 2. If the estimates of change from baseline in CRLT were positive, then the one|ANCOVA|||OC Data excluding potential one outlier participant. Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||54.32|-26.38|0.7556
95714875|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|6.91|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.91|1.74|0.0015
95714876|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.403||0.5921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|3.57|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.57|-2.05|0.5921
95714877|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on efficacy population.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.988||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.89|4.07|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.07|-3.89|0.9646
95714878|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.75||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|7.19|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||7.19|2.32|0.0003
95714879|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.326||0.2208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|4.3|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.30|-1.02|0.2208
95714880|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for RCA NONE field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.927||0.9847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.83|-3.90|0.9847
95714881|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.376||0.0142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|6.31|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||6.31|0.75|0.0142
95714882|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.419||0.5547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.71|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||3.71|-2.02|0.5547
95714883|NCT00612456|191398946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means based on participants with a 'YES' for eligible field from DARC FA form in study eye at screening.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.287||0.9114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|4.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value.||4.88|-4.37|0.9114
95855276|NCT01347112|191670108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||||||1 tailed fisher's exact test|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.034
95714884|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.383||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.53|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.53|-0.01|0.0534
95714885|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.409||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.64|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.64|-0.00|0.0508
95714886|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.61||||0.3141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|1.83|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Leakage Area of measurement.||1.83|-0.60|0.3141
95714887|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.395||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.62|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||0.62|-1.04|0.6018
95714888|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476||0.0509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0||Statistics has been presented for least square means.|ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||2.00|-0.00|0.0509
95714889|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.566||0.3976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.68|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for FA Blood Area of measurement.||1.68|-0.70|0.3976
95714890|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.385||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|1.23|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.23|-0.32|0.2410
95714891|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.412||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||2.09|0.44|0.0032
95714892|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.581||0.3185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.75|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for Total Lesion size||1.75|-0.58|0.3185
95714893|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.377||0.1074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.37|-0.14|0.1074
95714894|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.402||0.0403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.65|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.65|0.04|0.0403
95714895|NCT00612456|191398949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|Statistics has been presented for least square means.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.594||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.88|||ANCOVA|||Comparison between Baseline value and Day 29 value for CNV Size||1.88|-0.50|0.2490
95714896|NCT04051320|191399005|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.164||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.160
95714897|NCT04051320|191399006|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.74||||0.1922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.1922
95714898|NCT04051320|191399007|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.837||||0.368|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.368
95714899|NCT04051320|191399008|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.23||||0.881|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.881
95714900|NCT04051320|191399009|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|16.541||||0.000723|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.000723
95714901|NCT04051320|191399010|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.072||||0.791|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.791
95714902|NCT04051320|191399011|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.952||||0.0372|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0372
95714903|NCT04051320|191399012|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|3.258||||0.0861|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0861
95714904|NCT04051320|191399013|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|2.37||||0.139|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.139
95714905|NCT04051320|191399014|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|1.484||||0.237|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.237
95714906|NCT04051320|191399015|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.013||||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.910
95714907|NCT04051320|191399016|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|4.609||||0.0449|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.0449
95714908|NCT04051320|191399017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.322
95714909|NCT04051320|191399017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.772|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.772
95714910|NCT04051320|191399018|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.568314||||0.068|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.068
95714911|NCT04051320|191399018|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.082904||||0.8759289|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.8759289
95714912|NCT04051320|191399019|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|-0.1275539||||0.70859639|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.70859639
95714913|NCT04051320|191399019|SUPERIORITY||Pearson's r|0.49225646||||0.2617744|TWO_SIDED||||||Pearson correlation|||||||0.2617744
95714914|NCT04051320|191399020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.568|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.568
95714915|NCT04051320|191399020|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.944|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.944
95714916|NCT04051320|191399021|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Pearson's Correlation Coefficient|||||||0.103
95714917|NCT03485976|191399026|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95714918|NCT03485976|191399027|OTHER|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95714919|NCT03485976|191399028|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Threshold for significance was p=0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95714920|NCT02543918|191399029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the tetanus vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.6|19.2||||||Tetanus vaccine responders||19.2|-16.6|
95714921|NCT02543918|191399029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority of the ixekizumab arm to the control arm for the pneumococcal vaccine was established if the lower limit of the 90% CI excludes an absolute difference of 40% or more.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-12.9|11.0||||||Pneumococcal vaccine responders||11.0|-12.9|
95714922|NCT03503617|191399030|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95714923|NCT00689728|191399090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.178||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.178
95714924|NCT00689728|191399090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.116||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.116
95714925|NCT00689728|191399092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.873||||0.062||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.062
95714926|NCT00689728|191399092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.427||||0.052||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Physical Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.052
95714927|NCT00689728|191399092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.72||||0.655||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 30 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.655
95714928|NCT00689728|191399092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.264||||0.173||95.0||||p-value represents change from baseline at 16 weeks for LY2127399 80 mg. vs. placebo in Mental Health Component scores.|ANCOVA|||||||0.173
95714929|NCT00689728|191399093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.281
95714930|NCT00689728|191399093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.218||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.218
95714931|NCT00689728|191399094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.500
95714932|NCT00689728|191399094|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.444
95714933|NCT00689728|191399095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.5||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
95714934|NCT00689728|191399095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
95714935|NCT00689728|191399096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.403||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.403
95714936|NCT00689728|191399096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.3||||0.006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95714937|NCT00689728|191399097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2||||0.168||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.168
95714938|NCT00689728|191399097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.075||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.075
95714939|NCT00689728|191399098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.3||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
95714940|NCT00689728|191399098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6||||0.025||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95714941|NCT00689728|191399099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.4||||0.11||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.110
95714942|NCT00689728|191399099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
95714943|NCT00689728|191399100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.172||||0.969||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.969
95714944|NCT00689728|191399100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.452||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.452
95714945|NCT00689728|191399101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.554||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
95714946|NCT00689728|191399101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.920
95714947|NCT00689728|191399102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.912||||0.1||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.100
95714948|NCT00689728|191399102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.322||||0.005||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95714949|NCT00689728|191399103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-30 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.022
95714950|NCT00689728|191399103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0||||p-value represents comparison of LY2127399-80 mg dose versus placebo for the 3 levels of EULAR response (good response, moderate response, no response).|Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
95714951|NCT00689728|191399104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.6||||0.818||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.818
95714952|NCT00689728|191399104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.7||||0.066||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.066
95714953|NCT00689728|191399105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
95714954|NCT00689728|191399105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.056
95714955|NCT00689728|191399106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95714956|NCT00689728|191399106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95714957|NCT00689728|191399107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.146
95714958|NCT00689728|191399107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin G change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.125
95714959|NCT00689728|191399107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95714960|NCT00689728|191399107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin M change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.005
95714961|NCT00689728|191399107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.115||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.115
95714962|NCT00689728|191399107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||95.0||||p-value is for Immunoglobulin A change at week 16 (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||0.019
95714963|NCT03245372|191399110|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.114
95714964|NCT03245372|191399111|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.692|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.692
95714965|NCT03245372|191399112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.082|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.082
95714966|NCT03245372|191399113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.443|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.443
95714967|NCT03245372|191399114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.668|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.668
95714968|NCT03245372|191399115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.516
95714969|NCT03245372|191399117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.229
95714970|NCT03245372|191399118|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1
95727811|NCT01620489|191425089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment ratio|0.98|||=|0.3575||95.0|0.94|1.02||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Mixed Models Analysis|||The ratio to baseline in eGFR (mL/min/1.73m˄2) after 26 weeks treatment was estimated based on log-transformed data for changes from baseline. The responses were analysed using an MMRM model with treatment, country and stratification groups as fixed effects and log-transformed baseline as a covariate, all nested within visit. The resulting estimates were back-transformed to the original scale.||1.02|0.94|= 0.3575
95855277|NCT01347112|191670109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||1 tailed fisher's exact|Fisher Exact|1 tailed||||||0.044
95714971|NCT00280059|191399119|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority margin for the proportion of seizure free participants set at 10%; non-inferiority declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in seizure-free proportion between pregabalin and lamotrigine was no more than 10% in favor of lamotrigine, but 0 was contained within the lower bound of the CI. Interpretation of superiority required lower bound of CI did not contain 0 in favor of pregabalin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|-0.09|||Gart and Nam: correction of skewness||95% confidence interval for the true difference in proportions, as well as a one-sided test at α=0.025; confidence interval adjusted for centers clustered within a geographical region, with upper and lower confidence limits.|Analysis of the binary response variable for 6 consecutive months seizure freedom analyzed by comparing the proportions of favorable responders between the two treatment groups after stratifying by clusters and correcting for skewness (Gart and Nam, 1990). Percentage can be obtained by multiplying proportion by 100.||-0.09|-0.24|
95714972|NCT00280059|191399120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.74||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.9||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for geographic regions.|Regression, Cox|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \> 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||0.90|0.60|0.0034
95714973|NCT00280059|191399121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.06||||0.8047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.74||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.74|0.65|0.8047
95714974|NCT00280059|191399122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.19||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.6||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.60|0.88|0.2537
95714975|NCT00280059|191399123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|6.52||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|22.04||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||22.04|1.93|0.0025
95714976|NCT00280059|191399124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.0744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.91||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.91|0.97|0.0744
95714977|NCT00280059|191399125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.47||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.8||Nominal value for 2-sided test calculated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for geographical cluster.|Cox proportional hazards model|||Risk ratio=hazard ratio estimated from the Cox proportional hazards model for assessing a treatment difference, risk ratio \< 1 is in favor of pregabalin. The 95% confidence interval is for the true risk ratio.||1.80|1.19|0.0003
95714978|NCT00280059|191399135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Anxiety; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.4|0.3|0.0025
95714979|NCT00280059|191399135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.1|||ANCOVA|||Depression; model includes treatment and geographical cluster as fixed effects and respective baseline scores as a continuous covariate.||1.1|0.1|0.0186
95714980|NCT00280059|191399136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.93|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 8: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.93|0.98|0.0683
95714981|NCT00280059|191399136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.66|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 32: dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.66|0.78|0.5096
95714982|NCT00280059|191399136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.63|||Regression, Logistic|||Week 56 (termination): dichotomized sleep assessment analyzed using a logistic regression model for repeated measures with fixed effects for treatment, geographical region, the average hours per night of sleep at baseline as a continuous covariate, time, and treatment-by-time interaction. The within subject covariance structure assumes an auto-regressive of order one covariance structure.||1.63|0.73|0.6804
95714983|NCT01728454|191399139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.036|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.0360
95714984|NCT01728454|191399139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1087|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1087
95714985|NCT01728454|191399139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2263|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2263
95714986|NCT01728454|191399139|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5375|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5375
95714987|NCT01728454|191399140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
95714988|NCT01728454|191399140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
95714989|NCT01728454|191399140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1017
95714990|NCT01728454|191399140|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1927|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.1927
95714991|NCT01728454|191399141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7508|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7508
95714992|NCT01728454|191399141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5507
95714993|NCT01728454|191399141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3993|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3993
95714994|NCT01728454|191399141|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5821|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.5821
95714995|NCT01728454|191399142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7507|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.7507
95714996|NCT01728454|191399142|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8919|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.8919
95714997|NCT01728454|191399143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.478|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.4780
95714998|NCT01728454|191399143|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2354|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2354
95714999|NCT01728454|191399144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
95715000|NCT01728454|191399144|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1636|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1636
95715001|NCT01728454|191399145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1140
95715002|NCT01728454|191399145|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0733|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0733
95715003|NCT01728454|191399146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1253|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.1253
95715004|NCT01728454|191399146|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3442|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.3442
95715005|NCT01728454|191399147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0303|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.0303
95715006|NCT01728454|191399147|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2864|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||On-Drug Cycle||||0.2864
95715007|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4365|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4365
95715008|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1302|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.1302
95715009|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3591|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.3591
95715010|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0872|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||PTS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.0872
95715011|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4814|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.4814
95715012|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: LOCF Cycle 1||||0.9162
95715013|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6607|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.6607
95715014|NCT01728454|191399148|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9527|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||IS: ODI Cycle 1||||0.9527
95715015|NCT01728454|191399149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2812|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.2812
95715016|NCT01728454|191399149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5858|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||LOCF Cycle 1||||0.5858
95715017|NCT01728454|191399149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4116|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4116
95715018|NCT01728454|191399149|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4252|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||ODI Cycle 1||||0.4252
95715019|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6131|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6131
95715020|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7881|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7881
95715021|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9376|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.9376
95715022|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6552|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||SAP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.6552
95715023|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7143|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7143
95715024|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2985|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: On-Drug Cycle 1||||0.2985
95715025|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3162|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.3162
95715026|NCT01728454|191399150|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7503|||||||Wilcoxon Rank- Sum Test|||EP: Off-Drug Cycle 1||||0.7503
95715027|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
95715028|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
95715029|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
95715030|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
95715031|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
95715032|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
95715033|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
95715034|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
95715035|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
95715036|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
95715037|NCT01362062|191399167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
95715038|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.003
95715039|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.005
95715040|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
95715041|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.014
95715042|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
95715043|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.008
95715044|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.014
95715045|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.009|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.009
95715046|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
95715047|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
95715048|NCT01362062|191399168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Paired t-test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
95715049|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.002
95715050|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
95715051|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.002
95715052|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
95715053|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
95715054|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
95715055|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
95715056|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
95715057|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
95715058|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
95715059|NCT01362062|191399169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
95715060|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
95715061|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
95715062|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
95715063|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
95715064|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
95715065|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
95715066|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
95715067|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
95715068|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
95715069|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
95715070|NCT01362062|191399170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
95715071|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.001
95715072|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.001
95715073|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.001
95715074|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.001
95715075|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 7.||||=0.001
95715076|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.001
95715077|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.001
95715078|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.001
95715079|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.001
95715080|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.001
95715081|NCT01362062|191399171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.001
95715082|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.064|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 3.||||=0.064
95715083|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 4.||||=0.104
95715084|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 5.||||=0.052
95715085|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.043|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 6.||||=0.043
95715086|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB of Visit 7.||||=0.015
95715087|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 8.||||=0.023
95715088|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 9.||||=0.028
95715089|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.048|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 10.||||=0.048
95715090|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 11.||||=0.025
95715091|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 12.||||=0.023
95715092|NCT01362062|191399172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.022|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon sign rank test|||Statistical analysis for CFB at Visit 13.||||=0.022
95715093|NCT00758394|191399173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0||||Two way Anova general linear model (subject and treatment as factors). Multiple comparison completed to determine differences between groups.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||<0.05
95715094|NCT03159455|191399175|OTHER||Slope|2.2305|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2592|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6955|2.7655|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.7655|1.6955|
95715095|NCT03159455|191399176|OTHER||Slope|1.9007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2382|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4102|2.3912|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing (Single dose). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3912|1.4102|
95715096|NCT03159455|191399177|OTHER||Slope|3.244|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1771|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8793|3.6087|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for AUC0-24,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|3.6087|2.8793|
95715097|NCT03159455|191399178|OTHER||Slope|2.0711|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.148|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7663|2.376|||||Dose proportionality was explored using the power model.The perfect dose proportionality would correspond to a slope β of 1. PK endpoints on the log-transformed scale.|This was non confirmatory testing on Day 28 (after multiple doses). Dose proportionality of tablets for Cmax,28 was analysed in Japanese subjects.|Standard error of mean is standard error of slope.|2.3760|1.7663|
95715098|NCT03799198|191399182|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.02|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of in-trial data with missing observations for body weight at month 12 imputed from the WMP arm based on a jump to reference multiple (x=100) imputation approach. Percent change in body weight from baseline to month 12 was calculated for each study participant within the FAS and analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with randomized treatment as a factor and baseline body weight (kg) as a covariate.||-1.50|-5.51|<0.001
95715099|NCT00960869|191399200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportions|2.7||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.|The proportion is from the PA32540 treatment group.|The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of subjects with gastric ulcers throughout 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was analyzed with the CMH test stratified by NSAID use (COX-2/Other NSAID/No) at randomization. A sample size of 250 subjects/treatment would provide 86% power to detect the difference of 8% between EC aspirin 325 mg (13%) and PA32540 (5%) with a 2-sided significance of 5%; and, provides adequate power to test the key secondary endpoints in sequential order.||5.5|1.1|0.005
95715100|NCT00960869|191399201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects developing gastric ulcers and/or duodenal ulcers at 6 months was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
95715101|NCT00960869|191399202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects with Treatment Success was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
95715102|NCT00960869|191399203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||The cumulative proportion of subjects discontinuing from the study due to NSAID-associated upper GI adverse events was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
95715103|NCT00960869|191399204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO and by baseline heartburn severity at randomization.||The proportion of subjects who had no heartburn at 6 months (regardless of the presence or absence of heartburn at baseline) was analyzed using the CMH test stratified by NSAID use=COX-2, other NSAID, or NSAID use=NO at randomization.||||<0.001
95715104|NCT01153971|191399237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95715105|NCT03410693|191399255|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R-C)|-2.1|||=|0.6991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-14.0|=0.6991
95715106|NCT03410693|191399255|SUPERIORITY||ORR difference (R - C)|-4.5|||=|0.7944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.9|9.9|||Fisher Exact|||||9.9|-18.9|=0.7944
95715107|NCT03410693|191399256|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-5.1|||=|0.7962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact|||||9.7|-19.9|=0.7962
95715108|NCT03410693|191399256|SUPERIORITY||DCR difference (R-C)|-10.3|||=|0.9109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.5|6.9|||Fisher Exact|||||6.9|-27.5|=0.9109
95715109|NCT03410693|191399257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.226|||=|0.8672|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.853|1.762|||Log Rank|||||1.762|0.853|= 0.8672
95715110|NCT03410693|191399257|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.341||||0.9171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.043|||Log Rank|||||2.043|0.880|0.9171
95715111|NCT01789476|191399260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95715112|NCT01789476|191399261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
95715113|NCT01789476|191399262|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03||||||One-sided ANOVA with Treatment Group as a Main Effect|ANOVA|||||||<0.03
95715114|NCT02777554|191399270|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|101.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.1|108.5|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 Cmax.||108.5|95.1|
95715115|NCT02777554|191399271|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalent exposure of the QD formulation to the BID tablet was established if the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for Day 7 AUC0-24 and Cmax were completely contained within the range of 80% to 125%.|Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|95.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.9|102.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL QD / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To assess the exposure between the extended release apremilast formulation, and Reference IR (30 mg reference IR BID) tablet following multiple oral doses, an ANOVA model, with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Day 7 AUC0-24.||102.2|88.9|
95715116|NCT02777554|191399272|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|103.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|115.4|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||115.4|93.6|
95715117|NCT02777554|191399272|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|90.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.6|101.3|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||101.3|81.6|
95715118|NCT02777554|191399272|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|115.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|103.3|128.1|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||128.1|103.3|
95715119|NCT02777554|191399272|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|126.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|113.7|140.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed Cmax of apremilast.||140.8|113.7|
95715120|NCT02777554|191399273|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.3|106.2|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||106.2|81.3|
95715121|NCT02777554|191399273|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.9|98.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||98.7|74.9|
95715122|NCT02777554|191399273|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.9|111.6|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||111.6|84.9|
95715123|NCT02777554|191399273|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-t of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
95715124|NCT02777554|191399274|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|92.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.1|105.9|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL / Apremilast 30 mg IR BID) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the exposure of apremilast following single dose administration of extended release (QD) relative to the Reference IR (BID) tablet under fasted conditions, an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||105.9|81.1|
95715125|NCT02777554|191399274|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|86.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.0|98.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||98.8|75.0|
95715126|NCT02777554|191399274|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|97.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.0|111.8|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Standard Meal)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||111.8|85.0|
95715127|NCT02777554|191399274|OTHER||Ratio (%) of Geometric Means|113.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.8|129.7|||||Geometric mean ratio (Apremilast 75 mg XL (High Fat) / Apremilast 75 mg XL (Fasted)) from an ANOVA model, expressed as a percentage.|To estimate the effect of food on the PK of a single oral dose of extended release apremilast (QD), an ANOVA model with treatment, sequence, and period as fixed effects, and subject nested within sequence as a random effect, was performed on the natural log-transformed AUC0-∞ of apremilast.||129.7|98.8|
95715128|NCT01238861|191399283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.74|1.59|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||1.59|0.74|0.781
95715129|NCT01238861|191399283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.64||||0.173|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|0.97|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.97|0.42|0.173
95715130|NCT01238861|191399283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate ratio|0.59||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.4|0.89|||Poisson Regression Method||The p-value was calculated by Poisson regression with over-dispersion adjustment factor. The correction for potential over dispersion was made by Pearson chi-square.|||0.89|0.40|0.096
95715131|NCT01238861|191399288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.125
95715132|NCT01238861|191399288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.074|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.074
95715133|NCT01238861|191399288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.057
95715134|NCT01238861|191399288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.010
95715135|NCT01238861|191399290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.336|0.131
95715136|NCT01238861|191399290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.173||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.317|-0.028|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.028|-0.317|0.126
95715137|NCT01238861|191399290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.247|-0.032|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||-0.032|-0.247|0.097
95715138|NCT01238861|191399291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.174||||0.642|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.654|0.306|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.306|-0.654|0.642
95715139|NCT01238861|191399291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.111||||0.824|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.533|0.756|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.756|-0.533|0.824
95715140|NCT01238861|191399291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.029||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.297|0.355|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use without prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.355|-0.297|0.910
95715141|NCT01238861|191399291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.004||||0.992|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.602|0.593|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.593|-0.602|0.992
95715142|NCT01238861|191399291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.337||||0.624|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.548|1.222|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||1.222|-0.548|0.624
95715143|NCT01238861|191399291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.267|0.567|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||Analysis reported for rescue medication use with prophylactic at Week 51-52.||0.567|-0.267|0.645
95715144|NCT01238861|191399292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.076|0.237|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.237|0.076|0.014
95715145|NCT01238861|191399292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.184||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.102|0.266|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.266|0.102|0.004
95715146|NCT01238861|191399292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.039|0.143|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.143|0.039|0.026
95715147|NCT01238861|191399293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.384|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.384
95715148|NCT01238861|191399293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.092|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.092
95715149|NCT01238861|191399293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.134
95715150|NCT01238861|191399293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.129
95715151|NCT01238861|191399295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.404||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.121|0.687|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.687|0.121|0.069
95715152|NCT01238861|191399295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.462||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.163|0.761|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.761|0.163|0.049
95715153|NCT01238861|191399295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.238||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.017|0.459|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.459|0.017|0.168
95715154|NCT01238861|191399296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.058|0.019|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.019|-0.058|0.510
95715155|NCT01238861|191399296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.041||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.008|0.074|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.074|0.008|0.113
95715156|NCT01238861|191399296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.011||||0.599|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.016|0.038|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||0.038|-0.016|0.599
95715157|NCT01238861|191399297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.373||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.333|2.586|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||2.586|-3.333|0.871
95715158|NCT01238861|191399297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.857||||0.227|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.175|5.889|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||5.889|-0.175|0.227
95715159|NCT01238861|191399297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.139||||0.503|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.041|3.319|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||3.319|-1.041|0.503
95715160|NCT01238861|191399298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.907||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.483|12.297|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||12.297|-4.483|0.550
95715161|NCT01238861|191399298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.659||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.262|15.579|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||15.579|-0.262|0.215
95715162|NCT01238861|191399298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.54||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.006|9.086|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||9.086|-2.006|0.413
95715163|NCT01238861|191399299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.896|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.896
95715164|NCT01238861|191399299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.944|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.944
95715165|NCT01238861|191399299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.667|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated by ANCOVA with treatment, baseline inhaled steroid status and baseline observed value as covariates.||||||0.667
95715166|NCT02646566|191399309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.003) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.003
95715167|NCT02646566|191399309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.109||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.109) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.109
95715168|NCT02646566|191399310|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95715169|NCT02646566|191399310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.059
95715170|NCT02646566|191399311|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95715171|NCT02646566|191399311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.053
95715172|NCT02646566|191399312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95715173|NCT02646566|191399312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.021
95715174|NCT02646566|191399313|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
95715175|NCT02646566|191399313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.084
95715176|NCT02646566|191399314|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95715177|NCT02646566|191399314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.004
95715178|NCT02646566|191399315|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.001
95715179|NCT02646566|191399315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.179|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.179
95715180|NCT02646566|191399316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95715181|NCT02646566|191399316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.315|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.315
95715182|NCT02646566|191399317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.065
95715183|NCT02646566|191399317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.520
95715184|NCT02646566|191399318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.008
95715185|NCT02646566|191399318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.420
95715186|NCT02646566|191399319|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95715187|NCT02646566|191399319|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.258
95715188|NCT04602078|191399330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.444|||||||Log Rank|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.444
95715189|NCT04602078|191399331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparisong between subgroups: patients with PD-L1 postive versus patients with PD-L1 negative||||0.414
95715190|NCT02652793|191399376|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in lumbar spine BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.001|0.019||Statistical test applied to lumbar spine BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Regression, Linear|Per-protocol analysis; missing data excluded|Represents mean change in lumbar spine BMD from baseline to Week 48.|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.019|0.001|0.0239
95715191|NCT02652793|191399376|SUPERIORITY|Single-arm pilot study to assess BMD improvement after switching therapy. Null hypothesis: no change in left hip BMD at Week 48. Sample size of 45 planned to detect a 2% increase with 90% power (α=0.025). Final analysis included 30 participants.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.013|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.03||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.023||Left hip|Regression, Linear|Statistical test applied to left hip BMD only. P-value reflects within-group change from baseline to Week 48.|Represents mean change in left hip BMD from baseline to Week 48|Single-arm study; no comparator group||0.023|0.004|0.0046
95715192|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|57.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|47.07|70.81||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||70.81|47.07|
95715193|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|145.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|118.66|178.52||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||178.52|118.66|
95715194|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|52.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.46|63.87||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||63.87|42.46|
95715195|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|101.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.48|124.08||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.08|82.48|
95715196|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|73.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.81|87.03||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||87.03|61.81|
95715197|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|66.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|55.9|78.72||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||78.72|55.90|
95715198|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|106.58|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.81|126.47||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.47|89.81|
95715199|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|86.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.15|90.74||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||90.74|83.15|
95715200|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|92.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.35|96.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||96.42|88.35|
95715201|NCT04550234|191399403|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.71|93.54||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.54|85.71|
95715202|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.12|117.86||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||117.86|89.12|
95715203|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|144.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|125.75|166.31||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||166.31|125.75|
95715204|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.71|88.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.23|66.71|
95715205|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.64|110.62||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.62|83.64|
95715206|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.86|95.34||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||95.34|83.86|
95715207|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|94.16|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|100.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.40|88.31|
95715208|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.37|97.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.36|86.37|
95715209|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.01|94.56||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||94.56|88.01|
95715210|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.43|103.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||103.61|96.43|
95715211|NCT04550234|191399404|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.95|93.42||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.42|86.95|
95715212|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|102.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.04|118.93||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||118.93|89.04|
95715213|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|146.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|126.82|169.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||169.40|126.82|
95715214|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|76.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.38|88.67||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.67|66.38|
95715215|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.52|110.23||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||110.23|82.52|
95715216|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|82.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.38|88.17||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||88.17|77.38|
95715217|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|87.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.63|93.01||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.01|81.63|
95715218|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|91.45|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|97.61||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||97.61|85.67|
95715219|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|90.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.98|93.94||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||93.94|87.98|
95715220|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|99.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.17|102.68||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.68|96.17|
95715221|NCT04550234|191399405|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|89.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.3|92.15||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||92.15|86.30|
95715222|NCT04550234|191399417|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|108.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.13|124.49||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||124.49|94.13|
95715223|NCT04550234|191399417|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.96|102.53||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.53|90.96|
95715224|NCT04550234|191399417|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|98.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.27|102.36||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.36|95.27|
95715225|NCT04550234|191399418|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|109.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.55|126.29||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||126.29|94.55|
95715226|NCT04550234|191399418|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.38|102.97||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||102.97|90.38|
95715227|NCT04550234|191399418|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|97.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.34|100.73||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||100.73|94.34|
95715228|NCT04550234|191399419|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|131.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|107.03|161.02||||||"Statistical Comparison of Verinurad~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||161.02|107.03|
95715229|NCT04550234|191399419|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|96.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.23|114.39||||||"Statistical Comparison of Allopurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||114.39|81.23|
95715230|NCT04550234|191399419|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|95.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.08|99.4||||||"Statistical Comparison of Oxypurinol~Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of log transformed PK parameter with treatment, sequence, period as fixed effects and subject nested within sequence as random effect"||99.40|91.08|
95715231|NCT01982942|191399420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis states that the BPF rates of change in the treatment and placebo groups are equal, which can be evaluated based on as assessment of parameter estimates from a linear mixed model (LMM).||||0.04
95715232|NCT01270139|191399426|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95727812|NCT00210626|191425090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3807||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Covariate used is Baseline SF-36 PF Score. Baseline SF-36 PF Score was collected prior to the start of Procrit or Placebo treatment||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between Procrit and Placebo in average SF-36 Physical Function Scores||||0.3807
95715233|NCT01270139|191399427|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
95715234|NCT01270139|191399428|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis - Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95715235|NCT01270139|191399429|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95715236|NCT01270139|191399430|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
95715237|NCT01270139|191399431|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|ONE_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
95715238|NCT01270139|191399432|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95715239|NCT01270139|191399433|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95715240|NCT01270139|191399434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||The null hypothesis is Nanogroup is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95715241|NCT01270139|191399435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control||||<0.05
95715242|NCT01270139|191399436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
95715243|NCT01270139|191399437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
95715244|NCT01270139|191399438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The sample size was not defined on the basis of an end-point hypothesis, therefore the present FIM study should be considered as hypothesis-generating.|||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Overall comparison was assessed by applying the Friedman test, and pairwise comparisons between post-procedure and follow-up (nano vs ferro, nano vs stenting, and ferro vs stenting) were performed by ANOVA.|ANOVA|||The null hypothesis is Nano groups is superior to Ferro group and Stenting control||||<0.05
95715245|NCT01270139|191399439|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
95727813|NCT00210626|191425091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7038||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7038
95727814|NCT05056727|191425101|OTHER||Treatment difference in mean slope|-0.7354||||0.4691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7311|1.2604||Test of no treatment difference in mean total eGFR-slope|Mixed Models Analysis||SZC minus Placebo|||1.2604|-2.7311|0.4691
95727815|NCT05056727|191425102|OTHER|Test of no treatment difference in mean chronic eGFR slope|Treatment difference in mean slope|-2.0421||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7156|0.6314|||Mixed Models Analysis||SZC minus Placebo|||0.6314|-4.7156|0.1338
95715246|NCT01270139|191399440|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
95715247|NCT01270139|191399441|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
95715248|NCT01270139|191399442|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|Kaplan-Meier|||Null hypothesis is Nano group is superior to Ferro group and stenting control.||||<0.05
95715249|NCT01270139|191399443|OTHER|The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to prove Gaussian distribution allowing for calculation of the mean and standard deviation. Non-Gaussian samples are described by median and range. Discriminant variables are evaluated with the two-sided Fisher's exact test. Differences between three groups were analyzed by means of a repeated-measures oneway ANOVA followed by a Fisher's post hoc test. We used the Cox proportional hazards ratios (HR) and 95% CI for the end points.|||||<|0.05||||||"A p value was calculated for each comparison separately, and indicated as for all comparisons. In case if p value was \>0.05, it was mentioned with a separated info. The threshold for statistical significance was a p value below 0.05."|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis is ex-vivo arm with exposure of nanoparticles is superior to saline control.||||<0.05
95715250|NCT00750061|191399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.343|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (wk6-d0)||||0.343
95715251|NCT00750061|191399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change light touch score (m6-d0)||||0.69
95715252|NCT00750061|191399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (wk6-d0)||||1
95715253|NCT00750061|191399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change pin-prick score (m6-d0)||||0.32
95715254|NCT00750061|191399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (wk6-d0)||||1
95715255|NCT00750061|191399465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.582|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||change motor score (m6-d0)||||0.582
95715256|NCT00750061|191399466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.257|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.257
95715257|NCT00750061|191399466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.168|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FIM change (M6 - D0)||||0.168
95715258|NCT00750061|191399466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (Wk6 - D0)||||0.013
95715259|NCT00750061|191399466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.137|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||VAS change (M6 - D0)||||0.137
95715260|NCT03814499|191399467|OTHER||Coefficient|-2.3|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
95715261|NCT03814499|191399468|OTHER||Coefficient|-3.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<0.01
95715262|NCT03814499|191399469|OTHER||Coefficient|369.9||||0.3269|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3269
95715263|NCT03814499|191399470|OTHER||Coefficient|365.4||||0.4265|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4265
95715264|NCT03814499|191399471|OTHER||Coefficient|264.3||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4782
95715265|NCT03814499|191399472|OTHER||Coefficient|730.2||||0.2716|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2716
95715266|NCT03814499|191399473|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.4178|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4178
95715267|NCT03814499|191399474|OTHER||Coefficient|-1.5||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2677
95715268|NCT03814499|191399475|OTHER||Coefficient|-467.0||||0.3364|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3364
95715269|NCT03814499|191399476|OTHER||Coefficient|-908.0||||0.1124|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1124
95715270|NCT03814499|191399477|OTHER||Coefficient|479.2||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.2649
95715271|NCT03814499|191399478|OTHER||Coefficient|1114.3||||0.216|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.216
95715272|NCT03814499|191399479|OTHER||Coefficient|0.1||||0.9032|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9032
95715273|NCT03814499|191399480|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.4||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7889
95715274|NCT03814499|191399481|OTHER||Coefficient|7.0||||0.0242|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0242
95715275|NCT03814499|191399482|OTHER||Coefficient|1.5||||0.5092|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.5092
95715276|NCT03814499|191399483|OTHER||Coefficient|-47.1||||0.3634|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3634
95715277|NCT03814499|191399484|OTHER||Coefficient|-204.7||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0677
95715278|NCT03814499|191399485|OTHER||Coefficient|-235.8||||0.156|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.156
95715279|NCT03814499|191399486|OTHER||Coefficient|-102.0||||0.3148|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.3148
95715280|NCT03814499|191399487|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.1||||0.9349|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.9349
95715281|NCT03814499|191399488|OTHER||Coefficient|-0.6||||0.7196|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.7196
95715282|NCT03814499|191399489|OTHER||Coefficient|4.7||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0542
95715283|NCT03814499|191399490|OTHER||Coefficient|2.6||||0.4224|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.4224
95715284|NCT03814499|191399491|OTHER||Coeffiient|-118.9||||0.1247|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1247
95715285|NCT03814499|191399492|OTHER||Coefficient|-135.2||||0.1461|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.1461
95715286|NCT03814499|191399493|OTHER||Coefficient|-154.2||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0699
95715287|NCT03814499|191399494|OTHER||Coefficient|-164.6||||0.0901|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||||||0.0901
95715288|NCT00598442|191399495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.09|0.36|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.36|-0.09|
95715289|NCT00598442|191399495|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 97.5% CI for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.102|||TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.08|0.54|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study was determined based on a two-group evaluation of non-inferiority in means with a non-inferiority margin (Δ) of -1.0 g/dL (one-sided significance level of 0.0125, or, comparably, a two-sided significance level of 0.025). A sample size of 450 (150 per treatment group) provided power greater than 99% for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a pooled standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.54|0.08|
95715290|NCT00598442|191399496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|5.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.01|1.04|
95715291|NCT00598442|191399496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|4.69|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.69|0.94|
95715292|NCT00598442|191399497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.01|0.90|
95715293|NCT00598442|191399497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.04|0.93|
95715294|NCT01830621|191399569|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.46|||Log Rank|||||1.46|0.88|0.337
95715295|NCT01830621|191399570|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.76|0.837
95715296|NCT01830621|191399571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98||||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.00|0.48|0.955
95715297|NCT01830621|191399573|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95715298|NCT04533204|191399586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.28|24.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||24.67|12.28|<.001
95715299|NCT04533204|191399587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.33||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.91||Performance on cued recall (error scores)|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.91|.75|.004
95715300|NCT03457701|191399616|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted mean difference.|0.02||||0.9971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|10.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||Analysis was based on a mixed effects model fitted with fixed effect terms for treatment, period, and iron isotope type and a random participant effect.|The null hypotheses is defined as the difference in fractional iron absorption between treatment arms (Daprodustat - rhEPO \[i.e., epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa\]) is equal to zero.||10.16|-10.13|0.9971
95715301|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.9|37.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.0|15.9|<.0001
95715302|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|25.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.1|37.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.3|17.1|<.0001
95715303|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.9|33.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.7|14.9|<.0001
95715304|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|10.8|<.0001
95715305|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|147.0||||0.1148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.7|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|93.7|0.1148
95715306|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|153.0||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|233.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||233|101|0.0440
95715307|NCT05664672|191399637|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|136.0||||0.2422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.8|210.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||210|87.8|0.2422
95715308|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.9||||0.0994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|110.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||110|22.7|0.0994
95715309|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|65.8||||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|32.0|0.4162
95715310|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.5|215.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||215|47.5|1.0000
95715311|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|4.94|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||4.94|1.01|<.0001
95715312|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2230.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|965.0|5160.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||5160|965|<.0001
95715313|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|2940.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1350.0|6400.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||6400|1350|<.0001
95715314|NCT05664672|191399638|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4530.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2020.0|10200.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10200|2020|<.0001
95715315|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|9.87|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||9.87|3.29|<.0001
95715316|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|8.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.88|13.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||13.4|4.88|<.0001
95715317|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|11.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||11.2|3.88|<.0001
95715318|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.46|10.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||10.5|3.46|<.0001
95715319|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.4||||0.9972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.7|169.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||169|52.7|0.9972
95715320|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|134.0||||0.4655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.9|230.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||230|77.9|0.4655
95715321|NCT05664672|191399639|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|109.0||||0.9851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.1|192.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||192|62.1|0.9851
95715322|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.72|19.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.2|9.72|<.0001
95715323|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|22.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.6|12.1|<.0001
95715324|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.68|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.68|<.0001
95715325|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.2|11.2|<.0001
95715326|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.8||||0.7167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|60.6|0.7167
95715327|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|105.0||||0.9864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|75.3|147.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||147|75.3|0.9864
95715328|NCT05664672|191399640|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|85.1||||0.5911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|60.1|0.5911
95715329|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|29.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.8|40.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.0|21.8|<.0001
95715330|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|37.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||37.4|21.5|<.0001
95715331|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|33.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.8|44.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||44.2|24.8|<.0001
95715332|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.7|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|27.7|<.0001
95715333|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|78.8||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.3|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|57.3|0.1950
95715334|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|75.5||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.1|102.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||102|56.1|0.0699
95715335|NCT05664672|191399641|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.3||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|64.7|0.7041
95715336|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.57|18.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.4|9.57|<.0001
95715337|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.84|17.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||17.9|9.84|<.0001
95715338|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.93|18.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||18.6|9.93|<.0001
95715339|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|9.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.67|12.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.9|6.67|<.0001
95715340|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.0|202.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||202|101|0.0404
95715341|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|143.0||||0.0243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.0|198.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||198|104|0.0243
95715342|NCT05664672|191399642|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|146.0||||0.0215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|105.0|205.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||205|105|0.0215
95715343|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.69|7.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.80|3.69|<.0001
95715344|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.01|7.96|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.96|4.01|<.0001
95715345|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|5.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.92|8.03|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.03|3.92|<.0001
95715346|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.17|8.89|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.89|4.17|<.0001
95715347|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.1||||0.8335|TWO_SIDED|95.0|59.4|131.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||131|59.4|0.8335
95715348|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.9||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.2|134.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||134|64.2|0.9622
95715349|NCT05664672|191399643|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|92.1||||0.9531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.8|135.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||135|62.8|0.9531
95715350|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.4|22.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.3|14.4|<.0001
95715351|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.8|22.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.1|14.8|<.0001
95715352|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|15.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|19.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||19.4|12.8|<.0001
95715353|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.6|22.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||22.7|14.6|<.0001
95715354|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.4||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.2|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|78.2|0.9993
95715355|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.9||||0.9998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.7|123.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||123|79.7|0.9998
95715356|NCT05664672|191399644|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.4||||0.3019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|69.1|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|69.1|0.3019
95715357|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.2|25.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.3|13.2|<.0001
95715358|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|31.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||31.9|17.6|<.0001
95715359|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|19.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.2|26.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||26.4|14.2|<.0001
95715360|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|33.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||33.3|17.3|<.0001
95715361|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|76.1||||0.153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.0|107.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||107|54.0|0.1530
95715362|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.6||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.7|136.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||136|71.7|0.9999
95715363|NCT05664672|191399645|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|80.5||||0.3025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|57.8|112.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||112|57.8|0.3025
95715364|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.0|30.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||30.4|17.0|<.0001
95715365|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|36.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.6|21.6|<.0001
95715366|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|36.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||36.2|20.8|<.0001
95715367|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.4|38.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||38.4|21.4|<.0001
95715368|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|79.4||||0.1843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.6|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|58.6|0.1843
95715369|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|98.1||||0.9994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.9|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|73.9|0.9994
95715370|NCT05664672|191399646|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|95.9||||0.9891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|129.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||129|71.4|0.9891
95715371|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|37.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|45.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.7|30.4|<.0001
95715372|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|44.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|53.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.1|36.5|<.0001
95715373|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|41.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|50.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||50.9|34.4|<.0001
95715374|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|42.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.9|52.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.7|34.9|<.0001
95715375|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.9||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.0|108.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||108|70.0|0.3027
95715376|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.9|125.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||125|83.9|0.9926
95715377|NCT05664672|191399647|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|97.5||||0.9938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.1|120.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||120|79.1|0.9938
95715378|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|46.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.5|54.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.4|39.5|<.0001
95715379|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|55.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|48.0|64.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.4|48.0|<.0001
95715380|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.2|61.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||61.5|45.2|<.0001
95715381|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|54.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.7|64.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||64.5|46.7|<.0001
95715382|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|84.4||||0.0504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.2|100.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||100|71.2|0.0504
95715383|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||0.9988|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.4|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|86.4|0.9988
95715384|NCT05664672|191399648|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|96.0||||0.9238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|81.4|113.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||113|81.4|0.9238
95715385|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|3.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|7.31|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.31|1.88|<.0001
95715386|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|7.93|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||7.93|2.28|<.0001
95715387|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|4.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|8.14|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||8.14|2.20|<.0001
95715388|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|6.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|12.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||12.7|3.22|<.0001
95715389|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|57.9||||0.184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|119.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||119|28.3|0.1840
95715390|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.4||||0.3552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.0|130.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||130|34.0|0.3552
95715391|NCT05664672|191399649|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|66.2||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.0|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|33.0|0.3810
95715392|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|16.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|21.8|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||21.8|13.0|<.0001
95715393|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|20.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.2|25.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||25.9|16.2|<.0001
95715394|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|18.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|23.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.4|14.3|<.0001
95715395|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|17.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.7|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||23.1|13.7|<.0001
95715396|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|94.5||||0.9589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.0|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|72.0|0.9589
95715397|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|115.0||||0.4442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.3|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|89.3|0.4442
95715398|NCT05664672|191399650|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|103.0||||0.9975|TWO_SIDED|95.0|78.8|133.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||133|78.8|0.9975
95715399|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|36.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.9|55.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||55.6|23.9|<.0001
95715400|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|39.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.1|59.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.0|27.1|<.0001
95715401|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|30.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.1|45.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||45.5|20.1|<.0001
95715402|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|48.9||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.9|75.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||75.0|31.9|0.0002
95715403|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|74.5||||0.2938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|47.6|117.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||117|47.6|0.2938
95715404|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|81.6||||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.7|124.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||124|53.7|0.5552
95715405|NCT05664672|191399651|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|61.7||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.9|95.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||95.5|39.9|0.0254
95715406|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|52.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.4|67.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||67.1|40.4|<.0001
95715407|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|49.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.0|62.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||62.2|39.0|<.0001
95715408|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|40.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.0|52.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||52.1|32.0|<.0001
95715409|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.7|59.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||59.2|35.7|<.0001
95715410|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.5817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|86.8|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|86.8|0.5817
95715411|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.8852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|83.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||138|83.7|0.8852
95715412|NCT05664672|191399652|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|88.9||||0.607|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.7|115.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||115|68.7|0.6070
95715413|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|13.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.44|32.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||32.0|5.44|<.0001
95715414|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|23.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.7|53.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.3|10.7|<.0001
95715415|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.7||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.6|57.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||57.4|10.6|0.0003
95715416|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|22.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|54.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||54.1|9.21|0.0002
95715417|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|59.1||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.3|150.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||150|23.3|0.4280
95715418|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|107.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.8|255.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||255|44.8|0.9990
95715419|NCT05664672|191399653|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|110.0||||0.9958|TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.9|272.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||272|44.9|0.9958
95715420|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-50.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-23.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-23.9|-77.7|<.0001
95715421|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-45.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-20.3|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-20.3|-69.6|<.0001
95715422|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-42.3||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-16.5|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-16.5|-68.2|0.0003
95715423|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-44.8||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-17.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||-17.0|-72.6|0.0004
95715424|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-6.05||||0.9551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|23.1|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||23.1|-35.2|0.9551
95715425|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|-0.198||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.3|26.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||26.9|-27.3|1.0000
95715426|NCT05664672|191399654|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|2.48||||0.9981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|30.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||30.6|-25.6|0.9981
95715427|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|31.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.7|53.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||53.9|18.7|<.0001
95715428|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|46.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||46.2|17.6|<.0001
95715429|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|24.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|40.2|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||40.2|14.7|<.0001
95715430|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|28.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|47.7|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||47.7|16.6|<.0001
95715431|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|113.0||||0.9511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.7|197.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||197|64.7|0.9511
95715432|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|101.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.4|170.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||170|60.4|1.0000
95715433|NCT05664672|191399655|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means (Test/Ref)|86.5||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.6|148.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric LSM calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Ratio of geometric LSM expressed as percentage. In statistical model, group \& gender included as fixed effects; baseline value included as covariate.|||148|50.6|0.9003
95715434|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.1|58.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||58.0|37.1|<.0001
95715435|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|43.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.1|52.9|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||52.9|35.1|<.0001
95715436|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|44.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.5|54.6|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||54.6|35.5|<.0001
95715437|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|39.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.0|49.4|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||49.4|31.0|<.0001
95715438|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|119.0||||0.2351|TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.2|151.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||151|93.2|0.2351
95715439|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|110.0||||0.657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|87.7|138.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||138|87.7|0.6570
95715440|NCT05664672|191399656|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS means|113.0||||0.5112|TWO_SIDED|95.0|89.1|142.0|||ANCOVA|Least square means (LSM) calculated from mixed model to control for variables were used for analysis instead of the observed means reported on table.|Geometric least squares means were calculated by transforming the natural-log LS means back to the linear scale. Est. para. is ratio of geometric LS means for natural-log (expressed as a percentage), natural-log transformed back to the linear scale.|||142|89.1|0.5112
95715441|NCT02260791|191399673|EQUIVALENCE|-12% to +15% equivalence margin using 90% CI around the difference in ACR20 response rate|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|3.6||||||The difference and its 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for primary endpoint between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 90% CI fell entirely between pre-specified equivalence margin (-12% to +15%), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||3.6|-7.3|
95715442|NCT02260791|191399674|EQUIVALENCE|If the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira fell entirely between -0.6 and +0.6 then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.|Difference in least square mean|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.18||||||The secondary hypothesis involved equivalence of the difference between FKB327 and Humira in DAS28-CRP at Week 24. Based on the repeated measures analysis model, the difference and its 95% CI in the least-squares means (LSMs) for DAS28-CRP at Week 24 between FKB327 and Humira were estimated. If the 95% CI fell entirely between the pre-specified margin (+/- 0.6), then FKB327 was considered equivalent to Humira.||0.18|-0.16|
95715443|NCT03289676|191399695|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.29
95715444|NCT03289676|191399697|OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|1.12||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.24|1.00|0.029
95715445|NCT01314261|191399701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV subgenotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.336
95715446|NCT01314261|191399701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.171
95715447|NCT01314261|191399701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||Ten participants in an ABT-267 arm and nine participants in the placebo arm would provide 84% power using Fisher's exact test with two-sided significance level of 0.05 to detect a difference of approximately 70% between the two arms.||||0.030
95715448|NCT01314261|191399702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.102|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.102
95715449|NCT01314261|191399702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.362
95715450|NCT01314261|191399702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.079
95715451|NCT01314261|191399706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.083
95715452|NCT01314261|191399706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.515
95715453|NCT01314261|191399706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC), HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and baseline HCV RNA levels (≤ median or \> median).||||||0.221
95715454|NCT01314261|191399707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.155
95715455|NCT01314261|191399707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.214
95715456|NCT01314261|191399707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.231
95715457|NCT01314261|191399708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.127
95715458|NCT01314261|191399708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.328
95715459|NCT01314261|191399708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.166
95715460|NCT01314261|191399709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.007
95715461|NCT01314261|191399709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.029
95715462|NCT01314261|191399709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.105
95715463|NCT01314261|191399712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.028
95715464|NCT01314261|191399712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.051
95715465|NCT01314261|191399712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|||||No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons and the pre-specified, two-sided significance level was 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Treatment group, baseline HCV RNA level, HCV sub-genotype (1a or 1b), and interleukin 28B genotype (CC or non-CC) were predictors.||||||0.021
95715466|NCT00877929|191399713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.2|-7.9|0.0001
95715467|NCT00877929|191399714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1||||0.0001||95.0|-8.9|-5.4|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-5.4|-8.9|0.0001
95715468|NCT00877929|191399715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.6||||0.0001||95.0|-8.3|-4.9|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.9|-8.3|0.0001
95715469|NCT00877929|191399716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1||||0.0001||95.0|-7.9|-4.3|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-4.3|-7.9|0.0001
95715470|NCT00877929|191399717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.9||||0.0001||95.0|-6.6|-3.2|||ANCOVA|Included effects of treatment, week and treatment-by-week interaction with covariate of baseline blood pressure and baseline-week interaction.||||-3.2|-6.6|0.0001
95715471|NCT01231620|191399754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.79|0.75|||Wilcoxon rank sum||IV Zanamivir 300 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.75|-1.79|0.25
95715472|NCT01231620|191399754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.11|0.97|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Oral oseltamivir 75 mg versus IV Zanamivir 600 mg|||0.97|-2.11|0.39
95715473|NCT01231620|191399755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.506|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.506
95715474|NCT01231620|191399755|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wei-Johnson method|||||||0.41
95715475|NCT02452320|191399805|OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.59
95918194|NCT00600743|191795700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|49.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.8||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||t-test after ANOVA with repeated measures on placebo minus drug (within groups) between binge and normal instructions (between groups)|t-test, 2 sided|This was part of an overall ANOVA (SAS proc mixed) with all four groups (3 doses eat normally. 4 ng dose, binge eat) and the error term had 76 df.||Each group was compared separately in an overall ANOVA with all dose groups included. The results are presented for the groups which received 4 mg dose and instructions to eat normally (normal group) or to binge eat (binge group). The test is the interaction between drug and group i.e. drug effect difference (placebo minus drug) in fullness between the group instructed to binge and the group instructed to eat normally.||||.033
95715476|NCT04140942|191399816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Employment||||.15
95715477|NCT04140942|191399816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||6-Month Employment||||.001
95715478|NCT04140942|191399816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Employment||||.87
95715479|NCT04140942|191399817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||ANCOVA|Repeated measures.||||||0.04
95715480|NCT04140942|191399818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Chi-squared|||12-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.056
95715481|NCT04140942|191399818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||6-Month Recidivism Analysis||||.18
95715482|NCT03948646|191399854|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|3.15|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.15|1.27|0.0029
95715483|NCT03948646|191399855|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-21.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.994||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.37|-2.16|||ANCOVA|||||-2.16|-41.37|0.0296
95715484|NCT01694849|191399939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.092||||0.8539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|2.795||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.795|0.427|0.8539
95715485|NCT01694849|191399939|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.897||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.361|2.232||To deal with multiplicity of comparisons, a step-down approach was adopted to control the type I error to 0.05. The contrast GFT120 mg versus placebo was examined first. If not significant the GFT 80mg versus placebo contrast was not examined.|Regression, Logistic|Baseline NAS, Log transformed baseline aspartate aminotransferase and baseline plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 values|Standard error of the estimate|H\_01: OR\_80 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_11 : OR\_80 greater than 1 H\_02: OR\_120 less than or equal to 1 versus H\_12 : OR\_120 greater than 1||2.232|0.361|0.8160
95715486|NCT01694849|191399940|SUPERIORITY||difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.225|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.75|0.225
95715487|NCT01694849|191399940|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.28||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the least squares mean|"H0: difference in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline equal to 0 H1: difference in LS mean change from baseline not equal to 0~Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4"||0.2|-0.76|0.254
95715488|NCT01694849|191399941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.073||||0.8586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.493|2.339|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score.|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.339|0.493|0.8586
95715489|NCT01694849|191399941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.601||||0.2265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|3.432|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.432|0.747|0.2265
95715490|NCT01694849|191399942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.723||||0.5231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.267|1.958|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.958|0.267|0.5231
95715491|NCT01694849|191399942|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.102||||0.8459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.924|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.924|0.415|0.8459
95715492|NCT01694849|191399943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.638||||0.5229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.161|2.529|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.529|0.161|0.5229
95715493|NCT01694849|191399943|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.433||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.421|4.875|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||4.875|.421|0.5646
95715494|NCT01694849|191399944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.382||||0.1983|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|1.656|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.656|0.088|0.1983
95715495|NCT01694849|191399944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.288|3.466|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||3.466|0.288|1.0000
95715496|NCT01694849|191399945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.653||||0.3543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.265|1.609|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||1.609|0.265|0.3543
95715497|NCT01694849|191399945|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.547|2.953|||Regression, Logistic|Baseline value of the analyzed parameter|Standard error of the estimate|Population with baseline Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Activity Score greater than or equal to 4||2.953|0.547|0.5780
95715498|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.24||||0.711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|7.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||7.81|-5.33|0.711
95715499|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.94||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|5.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in aspartate transaminase (U/L)||5.7|-7.58|0.78
95715500|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.13||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|3.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||3.71|-15.97|0.221
95715501|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.45||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in alanine aminotransferase (U/L)||0.49|-19.4|0.062
95715502|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.16|-18.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||-18.88|-27.16|<0.001
95715503|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-23.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.04|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Alkaline phosphatases (U/L)||2.12|-28.04|<0.001
95715504|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-31.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.78|-19.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-19.05|-43.78|<0.001
95715505|NCT01694849|191399946|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-29.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.84|-16.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Change in Gamma-glutamyl transferase (U/L)||-16.77|-41.84|<0.001
95715506|NCT01694849|191399947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.21|0.06|<0.001
95715507|NCT01694849|191399947|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.26|0.11|<0.001
95715508|NCT01694849|191399948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|141.78||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|308.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||308.55|-24.99|0.095
95715509|NCT01694849|191399948|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-70.57||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-239.85|98.71||Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Mixed Models Analysis||Standard error of the least square mean|||98.71|-239.85|0.412
95715510|NCT01694849|191399949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|32.39||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.63|151.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||151.42|-86.63|0.592
95715511|NCT01694849|191399949|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|31.35||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.42|152.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||152.12|-89.42|0.61
95715512|NCT01694849|191399950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.67||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|6.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.11|-2.77|0.459
95715513|NCT01694849|191399950|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.67||||0.764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.06|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|-5.06|0.764
95715514|NCT01694849|191399951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.92||||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.79|21.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||21.95|-47.79|0.466
95715515|NCT01694849|191399951|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-5.82||||0.745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.07|29.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||29.42|-41.07|0.745
95715516|NCT01694849|191399952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-26.57||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.59|-4.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-4.54|-48.59|0.018
95715517|NCT01694849|191399952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-40.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.61|-18.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG19||-18.17|-62.61|<0.001
95715518|NCT01694849|191399952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|190.07||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.38|417.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||417.52|-37.38|0.101
95715519|NCT01694849|191399952|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|228.33||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|458.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|FG21||458.82|-2.16|0.052
95715520|NCT01694849|191399953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.29|0.002
95715521|NCT01694849|191399953|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.15|-0.34|<0.001
95715522|NCT01694849|191399954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.54||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.07|8.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Hyaluronic acid||8.98|-42.07|0.203
95715523|NCT01694849|191399954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-6.79||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.49|18.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||18.9|-32.49|0.603
95715524|NCT01694849|191399954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.73||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.48|-1.95|0.235
95715525|NCT01694849|191399954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.81||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|PIIINP||0.41|-2.04|0.193
95715526|NCT01694849|191399954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.21||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.81|19.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||19.22|-6.81|0.348
95715527|NCT01694849|191399954|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-14.66||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.81|1.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|TIMP-1||1.51|-27.81|0.029
95715528|NCT01694849|191399955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.07|<0.001
95715529|NCT01694849|191399955|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.02|-0.08|<0.001
95715530|NCT01694849|191399956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
95715531|NCT01694849|191399956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.07|-0.15|<0.001
95715532|NCT01694849|191399957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.06||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.23|-0.11|0.471
95715533|NCT01694849|191399957|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.42|0.005
95715534|NCT01694849|191399958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.27|0.457
95715535|NCT01694849|191399958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean|-0.08||||0.428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.12|-0.28|0.428
95715536|NCT01694849|191399959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.19|-5.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.24|-13.19|<0.001
95715537|NCT01694849|191399959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.12|-5.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-5.04|-13.12|<0.001
95715538|NCT01694849|191399960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.02||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.09|-0.05|0.531
95715539|NCT01694849|191399960|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.02||||0.638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.08|0.638
95715540|NCT01694849|191399961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.12|-1.39|0.831
95715541|NCT01694849|191399961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.2||||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Total bilirubin||1.47|-1.07|0.754
95715542|NCT01694849|191399961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.3|-0.36|0.848
95715543|NCT01694849|191399961|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Conjugated Bilirubin||0.45|-0.22|0.511
95715544|NCT01694849|191399962|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.83||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.29|-5.95|0.075
95715545|NCT01694849|191399962|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.11||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.07|-4.29|0.491
95715546|NCT01694849|191399963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.03||||0.393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.1|0.393
95715547|NCT01694849|191399963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.11|0.289
95715548|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.21|-0.73|<0.001
95715549|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Triglycerides||-0.29|-0.81|<0.001
95715550|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.35||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.14|-0.56|0.001
95715551|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.43|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Cholesterol||-0.23|-0.64|<0.001
95715552|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.24|-0.67|<0.001
95715553|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Non-high Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.32|-0.75|<0.001
95715554|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.09||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.15|0.03|0.005
95715555|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|High Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||0.17|0.05|<0.001
95715556|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.11|-0.26|<0.001
95715557|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Very Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.09|-0.25|<0.001
95715558|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.02|-0.38|0.031
95715559|NCT01694849|191399964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.24||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Low Density Lipoproteins Cholesterol||-0.06|-0.42|0.009
95715560|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|5.73||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|11.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||11.14|0.31|0.038
95715561|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|7.07||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|12.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo A1||12.55|1.59|0.012
95715562|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-12.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.56|-7.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-7.25|-17.56|<0.001
95715563|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|-4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo B||-4.41|-14.81|<0.001
95715564|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||4.96|2.14|<0.001
95715565|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.67|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo AII||7.53|4.67|<0.001
95715566|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|-1.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-1.25|-3.29|<0.001
95715567|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.5||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII||-0.49|-2.52|0.004
95715568|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.63|-0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.92|-2.63|<0.001
95715569|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.15||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/B||-0.29|-2|0.009
95715570|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.17|-0.75|0.002
95715571|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.39||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo CIII/nonB||-0.1|-0.68|0.008
95715572|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.35||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||0.19|-4.89|0.069
95715573|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-3.39||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.95|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Small dense Low Density Lipoproteins||-0.84|-5.95|0.01
95715574|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.84||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.61|-1.93|0.549
95715575|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.49||||0.728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Lp(a)||3.26|-2.28|0.728
95715576|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.38|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.14|-0.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.61|-2.14|<0.001
95715577|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.12||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|-0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E||-0.36|-1.89|0.004
95715578|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.53|-1.82|<0.001
95715579|NCT01694849|191399965|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.08||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Apo E/B||-0.43|-1.72|0.001
95715580|NCT01694849|191399966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-2.8||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Least square mean changes from baseline|||0.18|-5.79|0.066
95715581|NCT01694849|191399966|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.77||||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|3.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.77|-2.24|0.615
95715582|NCT01694849|191399967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-17.4||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.88|16.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||16.08|-50.88|0.307
95715583|NCT01694849|191399967|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-21.41||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.17|12.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.34|-55.17|0.213
95715584|NCT01694849|191399968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.23||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.08|-0.37|0.003
95715585|NCT01694849|191399968|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.14||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.29|0.068
95715586|NCT01694849|191399969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.8||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.27|-2.86|0.448
95715587|NCT01694849|191399969|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-1.17||||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.25|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.9|-3.25|0.267
95715588|NCT01694849|191399970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.05||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.11|0.095
95715589|NCT01694849|191399970|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.07||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-0.01|-0.13|0.022
95715590|NCT01694849|191399971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.46||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.96|0.077
95715591|NCT01694849|191399971|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.16|-0.87|0.172
95715592|NCT01694849|191399972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.17|-0.24|0.732
95715593|NCT01694849|191399972|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.2||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.4|0.062
95715594|NCT01694849|191399973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|3.66||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|12.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||12.2|-4.89|0.4
95715595|NCT01694849|191399973|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-16.22|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.99|-7.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||-7.44|-24.99|<0.001
95715596|NCT01694849|191399974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Fibrinogen||-0.17|-0.54|<0.001
95715597|NCT01694849|191399974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors||Fibrinogen|Standard error of the least square mean|-0.08|-0.46|0.005
95715598|NCT01694849|191399974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.15|-0.35|<0.001
95715599|NCT01694849|191399974|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Haptoglobin||-0.17|-0.37|<0.001
95715600|NCT01694849|191399975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|4.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||4.06|-2.9|0.742
95715601|NCT01694849|191399975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.9||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|6.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha||6.43|-0.63|0.107
95715602|NCT01694849|191399975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.5||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.59|-0.58|0.362
95715603|NCT01694849|191399975|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.07||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|1.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|Interleukine 6||1.18|-1.03|0.894
95715604|NCT01694849|191399976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.76||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.48|-2|0.229
95715605|NCT01694849|191399976|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.45||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.76|-1.67|0.463
95715606|NCT01694849|191399977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.21||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.01|-0.42|0.065
95715607|NCT01694849|191399977|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.19||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|-0.41|0.098
95715608|NCT01694849|191399978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.7||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.01|-1.61|0.553
95715609|NCT01694849|191399978|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|4.31|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|6.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||6.64|1.97|<0.001
95715610|NCT01694849|191399979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.44|-0.37|0.861
95715611|NCT01694849|191399979|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|-0.81|0.052
95715612|NCT01694849|191399980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.02|-0.01|0.473
95715613|NCT01694849|191399980|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.03|0|0.124
95715614|NCT01694849|191399981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.15|0.47|<0.001
95715615|NCT01694849|191399981|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.19|0.5|<0.001
95715616|NCT01694849|191399982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.04|-0.04|0.842
95715617|NCT01694849|191399982|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.01||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0.05|-0.03|0.589
95715618|NCT01694849|191399983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|48.93||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|146.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||146.6|-8.73|0.325
95715619|NCT01694849|191399983|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|93.21||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.06|192.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||192.49|-6.06|0.066
95715620|NCT01694849|191399984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|2.41|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||3.72|1.1|<0.001
95715621|NCT01694849|191399984|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|1.59||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||2.91|0.26|0.019
95715622|NCT01694849|191399985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.447
95715623|NCT01694849|191399985|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.0||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||0|0|0.758
95715624|NCT01694849|191399986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|-0.04||||0.942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.04|-1.12|0.942
95715625|NCT01694849|191399986|SUPERIORITY||Difference in least square mean change|0.57||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|1.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Baseline parameter value and presence of diabetes as random factors|Standard error of the least square mean|||1.66|-0.52|0.304
95715626|NCT00635362|191400005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.35
95715627|NCT00635362|191400006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.04
95715628|NCT00635362|191400007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95715629|NCT00635362|191400008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.37
95715630|NCT00635362|191400009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||0.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95715631|NCT05146999|191400010|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|83.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.81|94.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||94.87|72.81|<0.001
95715632|NCT03319160|191400013|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|7.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.74|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.3|8.7|||||"Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of appropriate shock events: 19 (17 subjects had one appropriate shock event, one subject had two appropriate shock events).~Length of exposure: 253 patient-years."|||8.7|6.3|
95715633|NCT03319160|191400015|OTHER||Incidence per 100 patient-years|3.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.78|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|4.4|||||||Poisson distribution assumed due to the infrequent nature of the events. Number of inappropriately shocked events: 8. Length of exposure: 253 patient-years.|4.4|1.9|
95715634|NCT03223649|191400020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|-0.03||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.03|-.17|0.005
95715635|NCT03223649|191400021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.011||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.033|0.011||Unadjusted P-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.011|-.033|0.349
95715636|NCT03223649|191400022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.043|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|-0.002||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||-.002|-.084|.045
95715637|NCT03223649|191400023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.016||0.226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.051|0.013||Unadjusted p-value|ANCOVA|Log-transformed value adjusted for: arcsine sqrt transformed % fat mass, pubertal stage (pre, early, or late), and basal analyte log transformed.||||0.013|-0.051|0.226
95715638|NCT03223649|191400024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.545|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.884|-4.716|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-4.716|-6.884|<0.001
95715639|NCT03223649|191400025|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.130|-0.330|0.39
95715640|NCT03223649|191400026|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.021|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.046||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.071|0.114|||ANCOVA|Dependent variable in Kcal log transformed, comparison adjusted for: age(y), lean mass(kg), fat mass(kg)||||0.114|-0.071|0.648
95715641|NCT03223649|191400027|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.834|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.354||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.857|3.525|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||3.525|-1.857|0.539
95715642|NCT03223649|191400028|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.766||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.57|2.45|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||2.45|-4.57|0.550
95715643|NCT03223649|191400029|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.681||0.741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.127|1.579|||ANCOVA|Adjusted for age (years)||||1.579|-1.127|0.741
95715644|NCT00736840|191400051|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Provided above|Sensitivity|0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0363||0.0924|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6607|0.8809|||Exact binomial test|||The null hypothesis was sensitivity lower than 0.8. We assumed a sensitivity of 0.89 and required a power of 90% to test the hypothesis at a 5% level of significance, and calculated that 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed (for a one-sample binomial test of outcome versus constant).||0.8809|0.6607|0.0924
95715645|NCT00736840|191400052|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sample size was calculated to enable the testing of both study hypotheses (together) with at least 80% power. Our best estimate of sensitivity of the HIS diagnosis in the population, was 0.9 and its specificity 0.79. Requiring a power of 90% for each of the hypotheses and a 5% level of significance, to test the null hypotheses 173 cirrhotic and 241 non-cirrhotic subjects were needed.Therefore a total of at least 414 subjects were required.|AUC ROC|0.785|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0485|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.737|0.834|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.834|0.737|<0.0001
95715646|NCT01728194|191400069|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< 0.025
95715647|NCT01728194|191400070|OTHER||||||<|0.025|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.025
95715648|NCT00643851|191400100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1243|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.62||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET was superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.62|-1.11|<0.0001
95715649|NCT00643851|191400100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1245|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.45||Primary endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05; significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-0.94|<0.0001
95727816|NCT05056727|191425103|OTHER|Test of treatment HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.72||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|5.9|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||5.90|0.50|0.390
95715650|NCT00643851|191400101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.883|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|-11.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-11.4|-26.7|<0.0001
95715651|NCT00643851|191400101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.897|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|-19.8||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-19.8|-35.1|<0.0001
95715652|NCT00643851|191400102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.633|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.8|39.0||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|modified logistic regression|||||39.0|20.8|<0.0001
95715653|NCT00643851|191400102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.947||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.1|27.4||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||27.4|8.1|0.0003
95715654|NCT00643851|191400103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1938|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.96||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-1.72|<0.0001
95715655|NCT00643851|191400103|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1912|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.82||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.82|-1.57|<0.0001
95715656|NCT00643851|191400104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3388||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.61||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.61|-0.72|0.8769
95715657|NCT00643851|191400104|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3399|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.71||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.71|-2.04|<0.0001
95715658|NCT00643851|191400105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4191|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.66||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||0.66|-0.98|
95715659|NCT00643851|191400105|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4201|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.74||Secondary endpoints were tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05. Significance was claimed only if DAPA 5MG + MET is superior to both controls.|ANCOVA|||||-0.74|-2.40|
95715660|NCT00976521|191400199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.034
95715661|NCT00976521|191400200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary endpoint of infarct size at 30 days measured by cardiac MRI, was summarized using the median, IQR, minimum and maximum values, in each infusion group, comparing the pooled active infusion arm to the pooled control non-infusion arm with the Wilcoxon rank sum test in the ITT analysis set. Data was only analyzed in subjects completing the cardiac MRI study and for whom the imaging data was received and deemed analyzable by the core laboratory.||||0.51
95715662|NCT00951912|191400230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7981|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.422|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6569|5.0607|||ANOVA|||"Null hypothesis: There are no difference in the difference of changes in plasma glucose.~Power calculation: The sample size of 55 subjects per group provided about 90% power to detect a significant change in the FG concentration of 8 mg/dL (7%) by using a general assumption of a 2-tailed a level of 0.05 and allowing for a 20% withdrawal rate."||5.0607|-6.6569|<0.05
95715663|NCT00951912|191400230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0842|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.411|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7486|8.9171|||ANOVA|||||8.9171|-2.7486|<0.05
95715664|NCT00951912|191400230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.8823|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.399|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9234|9.6881|||ANOVA|||||9.6881|-1.9234|<0.05
95715665|NCT00951912|191400231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7696|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9308|8.3916|||ANOVA|||||8.3916|-11.9308|<0.05
95715666|NCT00951912|191400231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6929|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1818|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4232|10.8091|||ANOVA|||||10.8091|-9.4232|<0.05
95715667|NCT00951912|191400231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.4626|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1624|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6067|12.5318|||ANOVA|||||12.5318|-7.6067|<0.05
95715668|NCT00951912|191400232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45967|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5428|3.5194|||ANOVA|||||3.5194|-3.5428|<0.05
95715669|NCT00951912|191400232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.68659|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4532|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.202|0.8288|||ANOVA|||||0.8288|-6.2020|<0.05
95715670|NCT00951912|191400232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.67485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.44646|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.174|0.8243|||ANOVA|||||0.8243|-6.174|<0.05
95715671|NCT00951912|191400233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9661|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14977|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5857|4.6535|||ANOVA|||||4.6535|-10.5857|<0.05
95715672|NCT00951912|191400233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|-0.9972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.13581|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.583|6.5886|||ANOVA|||||6.5886|-8.5830|<0.05
95715673|NCT00951912|191400233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.9689|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12126|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5817|9.5195|||ANOVA|||||9.5195|-5.5817|<0.05
95715674|NCT00951912|191400234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Rank|1.442|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95715675|NCT00951912|191400235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|1.895|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95715676|NCT00951912|191400236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Ranks|2.169|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95715677|NCT00951912|191400237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9113|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.444|15.318|||ANOVA|||||15.318|-8.444|<0.05
95715678|NCT00951912|191400237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.4809|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8896|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3475|15.3092|||ANOVA|||||15.3092|-8.3475|<0.05
95715679|NCT00951912|191400237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8669|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7296|11.8174|||ANOVA|||||11.8174|-11.7296|<0.05
95715680|NCT00951912|191400238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean ranks|1.031|||<|0.05|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.05
95715681|NCT00951912|191400239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8185|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2343|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0057|9.6426|||ANOVA|||||9.6426|-6.0057|<0.05
95715682|NCT00951912|191400239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.0276|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.2199|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7619|8.817|||ANOVA|||||8.8170|-6.7619|<0.05
95715683|NCT00951912|191400239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.205|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5442|6.9624|||ANOVA|||||6.9624|-8.5442|<0.05
95715684|NCT00951912|191400240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.0122|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1686|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.0721|12.0964|||ANOVA|||||12.0964|-8.0721|<0.05
95715685|NCT00951912|191400240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7716|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1501|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8111|9.2679|||ANOVA|||||9.2679|-10.8111|<0.05
95715686|NCT00951912|191400240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.7837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1309|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7767|7.2092|||ANOVA|||||7.2092|-12.7767|<0.05
95715687|NCT00951912|191400241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4437|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1001|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6416|-0.2458|||ANOVA|||||-0.2458|-0.6416|<0.05
95715688|NCT00951912|191400241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09986|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3956|-0.0016|||ANOVA|||||-0.0016|-0.3956|<0.05
95715689|NCT00951912|191400241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2451|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09648|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0544|0.4358|||ANOVA|||||0.4358|0.0544|<0.05
95715690|NCT00951912|191400242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6353|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8617|-0.4089|||ANOVA|||||-0.4089|-0.8617|<0.05
95715691|NCT00951912|191400242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0282|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1156||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2003|0.2568|||ANOVA|||||0.2568|-0.2003|0.05
95715692|NCT00951912|191400242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.6635|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1121|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4419|0.8851|||ANOVA|||||0.8851|0.4419|<0.05
95715693|NCT00951912|191400243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1557|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119|<|0.05||95.0|-0.3911|0.0796|||ANOVA|||||0.0796|-0.3911|<0.05
95715694|NCT00951912|191400243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.606|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.119||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8414|-0.3707|||ANOVA|||||-0.3707|-0.8414|0.05
95715695|NCT00951912|191400243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4503|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1163|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6804|-0.2202|||ANOVA|||||-0.2202|-0.6804|<0.05
95715696|NCT00951912|191400244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|102.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|83.4|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.3|304.1|||ANOVA|||||304.1|-99.3|<0.05
95715697|NCT00951912|191400244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.6||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-203.7|196.1|||ANOVA|||||196.1|-203.7|0.05
95715698|NCT00951912|191400244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-106.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|82.2|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.1|92.8|||ANOVA|||||92.8|-305.1|<0.05
95715699|NCT00129220|191400251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.87|-2.37|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-2.37|-8.87|<0.001
95715700|NCT00129220|191400252|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.78||||0.774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.15|4.59|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olazapine minus Haloperidol.|||4.59|-6.15|0.774
95715701|NCT00129220|191400253|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|21.0||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|40.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||40.4|1.6|0.064
95715702|NCT00129220|191400254|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.21|||ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.21|-1.15|0.171
95715703|NCT00129220|191400255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.51||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.15||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.15|-0.87|0.006
95715704|NCT00129220|191400255|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.13||||0.722|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||0.57|-0.82|0.722
95715705|NCT00129220|191400256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.7||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|20.1||P-value for 3-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||20.1|-6.7|0.333
95715706|NCT00129220|191400256|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|18.4||P-value for 6-Week Response Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||18.4|-21.0|0.908
95715707|NCT00129220|191400257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|5.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|19.2||P-value for 3-Week Remission Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||19.2|-7.3|0.384
95715708|NCT00129220|191400257|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.3||||0.982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.3|21.8||P-value is for 6-Week Remission Rate|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||21.8|-21.3|0.982
95715709|NCT00129220|191400258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|4.9||P-value for 3-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.9|-3.2|0.698
95715710|NCT00129220|191400258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|3.4||P-value for 6-Week Symptomatic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.4|-31.7|0.014
95715711|NCT00129220|191400259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-1.48||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|-0.25||P-value for 3-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Placebo.|||-0.25|-2.71|0.019
95715712|NCT00129220|191400259|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.16||||0.855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.62||P-value for 6-Week Change.|ANCOVA||Least Squares Mean Difference = Olanzapine minus Haloperidol.|||1.62|-1.95|0.855
95715713|NCT00129220|191400260|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.6||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.9|5.7||P-value for 6-Week Syndromic Depression Rate.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.7|-14.9|0.136
95715714|NCT00129220|191400261|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value for Maximum Change from Baseline.|Wilcoxon Rank Sum|||||||0.003
95715715|NCT01377194|191400285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.303||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.457|-1.148|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-1.148|-5.457|0.0027
95715716|NCT01377194|191400285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-3.141||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.293|-0.988|||mixed-model for repeated measures|||||-0.988|-5.293|0.0043
95715717|NCT01377194|191400286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-1.827||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.033|-3.620|0.0459
95715718|NCT01377194|191400286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-2.72||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.494|-0.946|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects model for repeated measures.||||-0.946|-4.494|0.0028
95715719|NCT00422227|191400287|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95715720|NCT00422227|191400288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 20||||<0.001
95715721|NCT00422227|191400288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 50||||<0.001
95715722|NCT00422227|191400288|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||ACR 70||||0.009
95715723|NCT00422227|191400289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Low Disease (DAS28 \<3.2)||||<0.001
95715724|NCT00422227|191400289|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||Remission (DAS28 \<2.6)||||0.069
95715725|NCT00422227|191400290|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95715726|NCT00422227|191400291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95715727|NCT00422227|191400292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥0.6||||0.003
95715728|NCT00422227|191400292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||≥1.2||||0.001
95715729|NCT00422227|191400293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Painful Joints at Week 16||||0.014
95715730|NCT00422227|191400293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Swollen Joints at Week 16||||<0.001
95715731|NCT00422227|191400294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Physician Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
95715732|NCT00422227|191400294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Subject Global Assessment Week 16||||<0.001
95715733|NCT00422227|191400295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Week 16||||<0.001
95715734|NCT00422227|191400296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||General Health Week 16||||<0.001
95715735|NCT00422227|191400296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Pain Week 16||||<0.001
95715736|NCT00422227|191400296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Fatigue Week 16||||0.001
95715737|NCT01190839|191400298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.097||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.097
95715738|NCT01190839|191400299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||<0.001
95715739|NCT01190839|191400300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.098||||||p-value was based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test stratified by the number of risk factors for recurrence of active CD and baseline use of an immunomodulator.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test|||||||0.098
95715740|NCT03747497|191400301|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|2.8||||||||2.8|-14.0|
95715741|NCT00950755|191400353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|76.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.0|89.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with response.|||89|62|
95715742|NCT00950755|191400354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|54.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|38.0|69.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||69|38|
95715743|NCT00950755|191400355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|49.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR.|||49|20|
95715744|NCT00950755|191400356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|57.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed CR + CCR.|||57|26|
95715745|NCT00950755|191400357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|19.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed PR.|||19|1|
95715746|NCT02549040|191400374|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.09||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.09|0.85|
95715747|NCT02549040|191400374|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.26||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.26|1.02|
95715748|NCT02549040|191400374|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.11||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.11|0.88|
95715749|NCT02549040|191400374|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|0.99||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.99|0.80|
95715750|NCT02549040|191400375|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.98||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.98|0.79|
95715751|NCT02549040|191400375|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.98|1.21||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.21|0.98|
95715752|NCT02549040|191400375|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.0||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.00|0.81|
95715753|NCT02549040|191400375|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|0.97||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.97|0.79|
95715754|NCT02549040|191400376|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|0.82||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.82|0.61|
95715755|NCT02549040|191400376|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|1.01||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.01|0.75|
95715756|NCT02549040|191400376|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6|0.81||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.81|0.60|
95715757|NCT02549040|191400376|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.66|0.86||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.86|0.66|
95715758|NCT02549040|191400377|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.82|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|0.93||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.93|0.72|
95715759|NCT02549040|191400377|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.94|
95715760|NCT02549040|191400377|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.76|
95715761|NCT02549040|191400377|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.74|
95715762|NCT02549040|191400380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|0.94||||||Comparison of Treatment B: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (40% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.94|0.75|
95715763|NCT02549040|191400380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.95|1.18||||||Comparison of Treatment C: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||1.18|0.95|
95715764|NCT02549040|191400380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|0.95||||||Comparison of Treatment D: MK-1439 150 mg tablet (50% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.95|0.76|
95715765|NCT02549040|191400380|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|0.96||||||Comparison of Treatment E: MK-1439 100 mg tablet (30% drug loaded granule) vs. Treatment A: MK-1439 100 mg film coated tablet||0.96|0.77|
95715766|NCT03539900|191400381|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a moderator or predictor.||||||.44
95715767|NCT03539900|191400382|SUPERIORITY|Analyses used all available data. Analyses to compare treatments were all intent-to-treat.||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analyses were performed for all randomized participants. Models also considered weight status as a predictor or moderator.||||||.04
95715768|NCT03539900|191400383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.98
95715769|NCT03539900|191400384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.44
95715770|NCT03539900|191400385|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.99
95715771|NCT03539900|191400386|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANOVA|Analyses used all available data without imputation.||||||.40
95715772|NCT01441882|191400526|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (lymph node size).||||0.0106
95715773|NCT01441882|191400526|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.1986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC)).||||0.19860
95715774|NCT01441882|191400526|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-parametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test was run assuming non-Gaussian distributions. Two-tailed with 95% confidence intervals.||||||0.5167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.||Percent change from baseline in responders compared to non-responders (spleen size).||||0.5167
95715775|NCT01366846|191400740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
95715776|NCT01366846|191400740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.004
95715777|NCT01366846|191400741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of participants with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
95715778|NCT01366846|191400742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-negative stratum.||||<0.001
95715779|NCT01366846|191400742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.027|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group within the SPT-positive stratum.||||0.027
95715780|NCT01366846|191400743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Chi-squared|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Continued Peanut Avoidance Group to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||<0.001
95715781|NCT01366846|191400744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
95715782|NCT01366846|191400745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Exact McNemar|||Comparison of the percentage of subjects with peanut allergy in the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 60 to that of the Peanut Avoidance After Peanut Consumption Group at month 72 across both the SPT-negative and SPT-positive strata.||||0.250
95715783|NCT01683331|191400757|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.06|||Chi-squared|||||1.06|1.01|0.87
95715784|NCT01683331|191400758|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|2.8|||Chi-squared|||||2.8|1.2|0.92
95715785|NCT04311411|191400780|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-534.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-668.2|-400.02|||ANCOVA|||||-400.02|-668.20|<.0001
95715786|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0439||||0.5437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0994|0.1871|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.1871|-0.0994|0.5437
95715787|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.093||||0.1806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0441|0.2301|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.2301|-0.0441|0.1806
95715788|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0491||||0.472|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1846|0.0863|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Insula||0.0863|-0.1846|0.4720
95715789|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0011||||0.9842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1079|0.1058|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1058|-0.1079|0.9842
95715790|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0077||||0.8822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0949|0.1102|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.1102|-0.0949|0.8822
95715791|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0087||||0.8657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1111|0.0937|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Medial frontal gyrus||0.0937|-0.1111|0.8657
95715792|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0043||||0.9599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|0.1736|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1736|-0.1650|0.9599
95715793|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0489||||0.549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1129|0.2107|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.2107|-0.1129|0.5490
95715794|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0446||||0.5854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2068|0.1176|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superior temporal gyrus||0.1176|-0.2068|0.5854
95715795|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0192||||0.7203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1259|0.0874|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0874|-0.1259|0.7203
95715796|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0404||||0.433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0617|0.1425|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.1425|-0.0617|0.4330
95715797|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0596||||0.2488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1619|0.0426|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Precentral gyrus||0.0426|-0.1619|0.2488
95715798|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.007||||0.8886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1059|0.0919|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0919|-0.1059|0.8886
95715799|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0684||||0.1563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0267|0.1635|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.1635|-0.0267|0.1563
95715800|NCT04311411|191400781|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0754||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1704|0.0196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Cingulate gyrus||0.0196|-0.1704|0.1182
95715801|NCT04311411|191400782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.11|29.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||29.02|12.11|<.0001
95715802|NCT04311411|191400782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.63||||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|14.79||Fasting|Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||14.79|-1.53|0.1097
95715803|NCT04311411|191400782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.94||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.49|22.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Fasting (Pre-lunch)||22.38|5.49|0.0015
95715804|NCT04311411|191400782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.25||||0.4469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|8.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||8.09|-3.60|0.4469
95715805|NCT04311411|191400782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64||||0.8227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|6.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||6.31|-5.02|0.8227
95715806|NCT04311411|191400782|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.61||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|7.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Postprandial (Post-lunch)||7.45|-4.23|0.5861
95715807|NCT02706327|191400789|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction and adjusted p-value was 0.016.|Kruskal-Wallis|Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated for significant differences.||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not. A post-hoc test was used with Bonferroni correction.||||<0.001
95715808|NCT02706327|191400790|OTHER|||||||0.547|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.547
95715809|NCT02706327|191400791|OTHER|||||||0.895|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.895
95715810|NCT02706327|191400792|OTHER|||||||0.842|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.842
95715811|NCT02706327|191400793|OTHER|||||||0.848|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Normality of the distribution was investigated by skewness-kurtosis, histogram graphics, normality tests and plots before the statistical tests were performed. Group comparisons were tested with One-way analysis of variance when normality was achieved and Kruskal Wallis test when not.||||0.848
95715812|NCT04579666|191400826|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.0||||0.7205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.5|13.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to analyze the ranks of the CAFS score with treatment as a fixed effect, adjusted for baseline ALSFRS-R total score, time from symptom onset, baseline Log neurofilament light chain (NfL), and the randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and edaravone).||13.5|-19.5|0.7205
95715813|NCT04579666|191400831|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.7||||0.6447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|2.2|||MMRM|||The mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||2.2|-3.5|0.6447
95715814|NCT04579666|191400832|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-6.6||||0.0949|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|1.2|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||1.2|-14.3|0.0949
95715815|NCT04579666|191400833|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.19||||0.0935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.03|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||0.03|-0.42|0.0935
95715816|NCT04579666|191400835|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|6.5||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|11.1|||MMRM|||The MMRM included fixed categorical effects for treatment, week, and the week-by-treatment interaction, as well as the continuous, fixed covariate of the baseline value of the endpoint, and the week-by-baseline interaction, baseline log NfL, time from symptoms onset to the first dose of study drug, and randomization stratification factors (location of first muscle weakness and use of riluzole and/or edaravone).||11.1|1.8|0.0069
95715817|NCT06045026|191400842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715818|NCT06045026|191400842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715819|NCT06045026|191400842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715820|NCT06045026|191400842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715821|NCT06045026|191400842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715822|NCT06045026|191400842|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715823|NCT06045026|191400843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715824|NCT06045026|191400843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715825|NCT06045026|191400843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715826|NCT06045026|191400843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715827|NCT06045026|191400843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715828|NCT06045026|191400843|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715829|NCT06045026|191400844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715830|NCT06045026|191400844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715831|NCT06045026|191400844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715832|NCT06045026|191400844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715833|NCT06045026|191400844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715834|NCT06045026|191400844|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715835|NCT06045026|191400845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715836|NCT06045026|191400845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715837|NCT06045026|191400845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715838|NCT06045026|191400845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715839|NCT06045026|191400845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715840|NCT06045026|191400845|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715841|NCT06045026|191400846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715842|NCT06045026|191400846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715843|NCT06045026|191400846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715844|NCT06045026|191400846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715845|NCT06045026|191400846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95918195|NCT00600743|191795701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.4286|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.134|<|0.014|TWO_SIDED|||||p-value is based on ANOVA with all groups and conditions and is a planned comparison|ANOVA||df = 53. 26 Used proc GLMMIX in SAS 9.4.|Tests the difference between drug and placebo for group = binge instructions||||<.014
95715846|NCT06045026|191400846|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715847|NCT06045026|191400847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715848|NCT06045026|191400847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715849|NCT06045026|191400847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715850|NCT06045026|191400847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715851|NCT06045026|191400847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95918196|NCT02500979|191795702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.88||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-5.2|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-5.2|-37.8|0.0118
95715852|NCT06045026|191400847|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715853|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715854|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715855|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715856|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715857|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715858|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q1 (How intense are the sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715859|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715860|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715861|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715862|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715863|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715864|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q2 (How bothered are you by any sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715865|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715866|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715867|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715868|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715869|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715870|NCT06045026|191400848|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Q3 (How well can you tolerate sensations?): Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715871|NCT06045026|191400849|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||0.0100
95715872|NCT06045026|191400849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715873|NCT06045026|191400849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715874|NCT06045026|191400849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715875|NCT06045026|191400849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715876|NCT06045026|191400849|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715877|NCT06045026|191400850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715878|NCT06045026|191400850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715879|NCT06045026|191400850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715880|NCT06045026|191400850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715881|NCT06045026|191400850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715882|NCT06045026|191400850|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715883|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 1||||<0.0001
95715884|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 2||||<0.0001
95715885|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.0001
95715886|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 8||||<0.0001
95715887|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 12||||<0.0001
95715888|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 16||||<0.0001
95715889|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 20||||<0.0001
95715890|NCT06045026|191400852|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Model with Repeated Measures|||Change from Baseline at Week 24||||<0.0001
95715891|NCT01224171|191400868|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.0||||0.4332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Risk Difference = adjusted (for stratification factors) percent vedolizumab - adjusted percent placebo|Clinical remission was tested using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test at a 5% significance level with stratification according to concomitant use of oral corticosteroids and concomitant use of immunomodulators (6-mercaptopurine \[6-MP\], azathioprine, or methotrexate) for the TNFα antagonist failure subpopulation.||10.5|-4.5|0.4332
95715892|NCT01151085|191400894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Gender. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between Male and Female  in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.030
95715893|NCT01151085|191400895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||"The risk factor tested was Severity of infections. The null hypothesis is there is no difference among mild, moderate and severe in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||<0.001
95715894|NCT01151085|191400896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.017|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||"The risk factor tested was Past History. The null hypothesis is there is no difference between with and without Past History in the Frequency of Treatment Related Adverse Events."||||=0.017
95715895|NCT01151085|191400897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Statistical Analysis for Risk Factors for the Proportion of Responders to Voriconazole treatment -Severity of infections.||||<0.001
95715896|NCT02918968|191400914|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.61||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||0.61|0.29|<0.001
95715897|NCT02918968|191400916|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|37.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.2|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|\>=50% reduction||50.4|25.2|<0.001
95715898|NCT02918968|191400916|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|38.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.3|50.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥ 90% reduction||50.4|26.3|<0.001
95715899|NCT02918968|191400917|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|40.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.3|53.1||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate.|≥ 50% reduction||53.1|28.3|<0.001
95715900|NCT02918968|191400917|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Risk Difference (RD)|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.5|45.4||P-value is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel mean score test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Mantel Haenszel|Mantel Haenszel common risk difference|Difference of response rate|≥90% reduction||45.4|21.5|<0.001
95715901|NCT02918968|191400918|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95715902|NCT02918968|191400919|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|||||<|0.001||||||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1).|Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95715903|NCT02918968|191400921|SUPERIORITY|The significance level was 0.05 (two-sided).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.67||P-value is based on a log-rank test stratified disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1)|Log Rank||Hazard ratio and P-value calculated using unstratified Cox proportional hazards model with treatment and disease stages (M0/N0, M0/N1, or M1) as covariate.|||1.67|0.45|0.669
95715904|NCT00423137|191400926|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-1.385|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.181||0.5305|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.||||||0.5305
95715905|NCT00423137|191400927|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.049|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.033||0.1498|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1498
95715906|NCT00423137|191400930|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.335|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.434||0.4472|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4472
95715907|NCT00423137|191400931|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.342||0.6829|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.6829
95715908|NCT00423137|191400932|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.1565|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.1565
95715909|NCT00423137|191400933|OTHER||Difference of least square means|1.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.185||0.3709|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.3709
95715910|NCT00423137|191400934|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-52.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.48||0.0044|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0044
95715911|NCT00423137|191400935|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-67.012|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.29||0.0056|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0056
95715912|NCT00423137|191400936|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-62.571|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.42||0.0025|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0025
95715913|NCT00423137|191400937|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-40.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.8||0.0439|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0439
95715914|NCT00423137|191400938|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-57.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.3||0.0129|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0129
95715915|NCT00423137|191400939|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-55.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.11||0.0037|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the one way ANOVA model with Treatment.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0037
95715916|NCT00423137|191400940|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001||0.9076|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.9076
95715917|NCT00423137|191400941|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-13453.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16118.0||0.4121|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.4121
95715918|NCT00423137|191400942|OTHER||Difference of least square means|-78.619|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|298.91||0.7948|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.7948
95715919|NCT00423137|191400943|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.195|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.101||0.064|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0640
95715920|NCT00423137|191400944|OTHER||Difference of least square means|0.007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004||0.0587|||||||ANCOVA|The adjusted least squares mean is estimated based on the ANCOVA model with treatment, centre, and baseline.|Difference to Placebo \[Treatment-Placebo\]|||||0.0587
95715921|NCT04196023|191400951|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||p-value was calculated using GLM. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|adjusted for age, sex, education and baseline overall MoCA score||||||0.20
95715922|NCT04196023|191400952|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.90
95715923|NCT04196023|191400953|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.01
95715924|NCT04196023|191400954|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||p-value was calculated using GLM model and false discovery rate (FDR)-adjustment. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.|general linear model|GLM model additionally adjusting for age, sex, education and baseline level.||||||0.05
95715925|NCT00401726|191400967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.25||||0.218|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.218
95715926|NCT00401726|191400968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16||||0.76||95.0|-0.92|1.25|||ANCOVA|||||1.25|-0.92|0.76
95715927|NCT00401726|191400969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.148||95.0|-0.41|0.06|||ANCOVA|||||0.06|-0.41|0.148
95715928|NCT00401726|191400970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.829||95.0|-1.09|0.87|||ANCOVA|||||0.87|-1.09|0.829
95715929|NCT00401726|191400971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.57||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
95715930|NCT00401726|191400972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.25||||0.805||95.0|-2.24|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-2.24|0.805
95715931|NCT00401726|191400973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.123||95.0|-2.27|0.27|||ANCOVA|||||0.27|-2.27|0.123
95715932|NCT00401726|191400974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.961|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-value based on comparison of mean score differences||CGI-I raw scores (range 1-7) analyzed by generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test, stratified by study center using the ridit scoring option.||||0.961
95715933|NCT01050998|191401003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95 percent (%) unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-11.5|0.578
95715934|NCT01050998|191401003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|30.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.4|46.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.3|13.4|<0.001
95715935|NCT01050998|191401003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.3||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|32.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.2|-1.6|0.099
95715936|NCT01050998|191401003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.8|50.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||50.6|17.8|<0.001
95715937|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|-11.9|0.543
95715938|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|43.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||43.6|7.2|0.011
95715939|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.6||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|35.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.5|-2.5|0.108
95715940|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|32.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.5|49.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||49.0|12.5|0.001
95715941|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
95715942|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
95715943|NCT01050998|191401004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.8||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|46.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.9|-24.3|0.661
95715944|NCT01050998|191401005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.0||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|30.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||30.3|-4.2|0.152
95715945|NCT01050998|191401005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|24.3||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|40.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.3|7.0|0.008
95715946|NCT01050998|191401005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|21.4||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|3.9|0.020
95715947|NCT01050998|191401005|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|45.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||45.0|11.3|0.002
95715948|NCT01050998|191401006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.9||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|29.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.4|-9.3|0.328
95715949|NCT01050998|191401006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.2||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|35.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.6|-2.0|0.084
95715950|NCT01050998|191401006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|38.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||38.2|0.7|0.049
95715951|NCT01050998|191401006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.8||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.2|40.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||40.7|3.2|0.030
95715952|NCT01050998|191401006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|26.8||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|60.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||60.7|-9.3|0.188
95715953|NCT01050998|191401006|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|57.4||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|81.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact confidence interval calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||81.8|15.2|0.010
95715954|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.10|-0.71|0.137
95715955|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.202||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|-0.27|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.27|-1.07|0.001
95715956|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.201||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.04|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.04|-0.75|0.080
95715957|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.204|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.33|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.33|-1.14|<0.001
95715958|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.08|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.08|-0.76|0.107
95715959|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|-0.35|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.35|-1.17|<0.001
95715960|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.01|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.01|-0.83|0.046
95715961|NCT01050998|191401027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.212|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.38|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.38|-1.22|<0.001
95715962|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.85|0.086
95715963|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.10|-0.99|0.016
95715964|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.225||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.02|-0.87|0.059
95715965|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.227||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|-0.25|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.25|-1.14|0.002
95715966|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.241||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.09|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.09|-0.87|0.107
95715967|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.18|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.18|-1.11|0.007
95715968|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.06|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.06|-0.88|0.084
95715969|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.238||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|European region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.26|-1.20|0.002
95715970|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.447||0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.02|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||1.02|-0.78|0.785
95715971|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|-0.26|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||-0.26|-2.13|0.014
95715972|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.86|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.86|-0.94|0.931
95715973|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) at Day 85.||0.07|-1.80|0.070
95715974|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.449||0.854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.82|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.82|-0.99|0.854
95715975|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.468||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.19|-0.31|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.31|-2.19|0.011
95715976|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.448||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.4|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||0.40|-1.40|0.271
95715977|NCT01050998|191401028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.465||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|-0.1|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Japanese region: Analysis reported for change from baseline in DAS28 (ESR) at Day 85.||-0.10|-1.97|0.031
95715978|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|7.0||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|20.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.5|-3.3|0.238
95715979|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|14.8||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|29.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.7|2.8|0.017
95715980|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|25.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.4|0.0|0.090
95715981|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|15.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|31.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (CRP): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||31.0|2.9|0.015
95715982|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|14.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.0|-4.2|0.412
95715983|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.9||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|16.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.4|-2.9|0.237
95715984|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.1||||0.231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|16.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.8|-2.8|0.231
95715985|NCT01050998|191401029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.1||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|14.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|DAS28 (ESR): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.4|-4.1|0.406
95715986|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.7||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|24.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.4|-2.7|0.182
95715987|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.4||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|25.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||25.5|-1.2|0.110
95715988|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.3||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|26.9|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||26.9|-0.6|0.104
95715989|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.4||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|32.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||32.7|3.5|0.016
95715990|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|6.4||||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|19.3|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.3|-1.0|0.115
95715991|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.4||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|21.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||21.6|0.6|0.052
95715992|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
95715993|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
95715994|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|10.5||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|46.2|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.2|-18.2|0.591
95715995|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.2||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.6|51.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[CRP\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||51.4|-16.6|0.570
95715996|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
95715997|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
95715998|NCT01050998|191401030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region (DAS28 \[ESR\]): p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
95715999|NCT01050998|191401031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.604|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.604
95716000|NCT01050998|191401031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
95716001|NCT01050998|191401031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.145|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.145
95716002|NCT01050998|191401031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.282|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.282
95716003|NCT01050998|191401031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
95716004|NCT01050998|191401031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.047|||||||Log Rank|||Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.047
95716005|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|||||0.237|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.237
95716006|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.005
95716007|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.134
95716008|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||<0.001
95716009|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.265|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.265
95716010|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.013
95716011|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.952|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.952
95716012|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||||0.004
95716013|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.246|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.246
95716014|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
95716015|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.126|||||||Log Rank|||European region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.126
95716016|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.831|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.831
95716017|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.005
95716018|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||0.125
95716019|NCT01050998|191401032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Japanese region: Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||||<0.001
95716020|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.15||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.69|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio greater than (\>) 1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||1.69|0.78|0.486
95716021|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.54||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.18|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.18|1.09|0.015
95716022|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.36|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.36|1.15|0.006
95716023|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|2.93|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (ESR) response.||2.93|1.49|<0.001
95716024|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|0.97||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.55|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.55|0.61|0.906
95716025|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|2.71|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.71|1.31|<0.001
95716026|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.26||||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.91|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||1.91|0.83|0.272
95716027|NCT01050998|191401033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of expected duration of response|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|2.72|||Exponential,Weibull and Log normal model||Ratio \>1 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for DAS28 (CRP) response.||2.72|1.34|<0.001
95716028|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|22.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.0|-12.1|0.589
95716029|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.2||||0.032||95.0|2.8|36.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.7|2.8|0.032
95716030|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.0|18.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||18.0|-16.0|1.000
95716031|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|33.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.6|48.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR20: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||48.6|15.6|<0.001
95716032|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.9||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|23.6|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.6|-3.5|0.212
95716033|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.7||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.8|34.0|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.0|4.8|0.011
95716034|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.7||||0.446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|19.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.1|-7.0|0.446
95716035|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|22.1||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|37.8|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR50: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||37.8|7.6|0.003
95716036|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|9.7|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||9.7|-8.9|1.000
95716037|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|4.8||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|17.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||17.5|-4.1|0.317
95716038|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|12.1|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||12.1|-7.2|1.000
95716039|NCT01050998|191401034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|9.5||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|23.5|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|ACR70: p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||23.5|-0.5|0.106
95716040|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact||95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
95716041|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|16.1||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|34.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.4|-3.1|0.120
95716042|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.7|20.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||20.4|-17.7|1.000
95716043|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|29.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|46.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||46.1|9.7|0.005
95716044|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|20.9||||0.382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|55.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||55.9|-16.4|0.382
95716045|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|39.0||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|69.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||69.6|-2.7|0.087
95716046|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-1.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.7|35.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||35.7|-33.7|1.000
95716047|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|51.5||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.2|77.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR20 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||77.0|8.2|0.028
95716048|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|11.1||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|27.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||27.9|-2.9|0.175
95716049|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|17.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|34.1|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.1|2.4|0.026
95716050|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|8.5||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|24.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||24.9|-5.1|0.271
95716051|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|18.8||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|36.0|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||36.0|3.4|0.021
95716052|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|34.8|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||34.8|-27.0|1.000
95716053|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|25.7||||0.283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.8|63.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||63.2|-8.8|0.283
95716054|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
95716055|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|38.2||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|71.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR50 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||71.2|1.6|0.059
95716056|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|1.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|14.2|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||14.2|-7.0|1.000
95716057|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|5.8||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|19.4|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||19.4|-3.7|0.242
95716058|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|3.7||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.1|16.9|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||16.9|-5.1|0.410
95716059|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|13.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.7|29.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|European region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||29.5|2.7|0.030
95716060|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|22.7|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.7|-35.0|0.529
95716061|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|0.7||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.7|39.5|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||39.5|-26.7|1.000
95716062|NCT01050998|191401035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference|-11.8||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|22.6|||Fisher Exact|p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.|95% unconditional exact CI was calculated using the method of Agresti and Min, 2001.|Japanese region: ACR70 - p-value was calculated using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.||22.6|-37.5|1.000
95716063|NCT01050998|191401037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.162||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|28.15|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||28.15|-0.05|0.051
95716064|NCT01050998|191401037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|21.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.028||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|35.07|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||35.07|7.39|0.003
95716065|NCT01050998|191401037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|7.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.136||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.96|21.14|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||21.14|-6.96|0.322
95716066|NCT01050998|191401037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|32.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.085|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.08|45.98|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|||45.98|18.08|<0.001
95716067|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean difference|14.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.981||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|30.22|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||30.22|-1.24|0.071
95716068|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|19.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.798||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.06|34.8|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||34.80|4.06|0.013
95716069|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|7.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|23.36|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||23.36|-7.68|0.320
95716070|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.873|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.85|46.89|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for European region.||46.89|15.85|<0.001
95716071|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|12.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.41|46.64|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||46.64|-22.41|0.483
95716072|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|31.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|65.77|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||65.77|-3.28|0.075
95716073|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.872||0.815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.89|40.32|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||40.32|-31.89|0.815
95716074|NCT01050998|191401038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|36.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.089||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.58|70.63|||Repeated measures model||An estimate of the treatment difference and its 95% CI was computed by means of repeated measures model, adjusted for baseline and including a treatment by visit interaction term. Differences \<0 favored mavrilimumab.|Analysis reported for Japanese region.||70.63|1.58|0.041
95716075|NCT04278846|191401069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.87
95716076|NCT04278846|191401070|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.49
95716077|NCT04278846|191401071|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.57
95716078|NCT04278846|191401072|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.3
95716079|NCT04278846|191401073|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.99
95716080|NCT04278846|191401074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.33
95716081|NCT04278846|191401075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.26
95716082|NCT04278846|191401076|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.79
95716083|NCT04278846|191401077|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.62|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.62
95716084|NCT04278846|191401078|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.94
95716085|NCT04278846|191401079|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
95716086|NCT04278846|191401080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.54
95716087|NCT04278846|191401081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.95
95716088|NCT04278846|191401082|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.96
95716089|NCT04278846|191401084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.088
95716090|NCT04278846|191401085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.42
95716091|NCT04278846|191401086|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.88
95716092|NCT04278846|191401088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||.12
95716093|NCT04278846|191401089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.96
95716094|NCT04278846|191401090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.76
95716095|NCT04278846|191401091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.88
95716096|NCT04278846|191401092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.37
95716097|NCT00620191|191401099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.92||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
95716098|NCT00620191|191401099|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.36||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog value|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.05
95716099|NCT00620191|191401100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.06
95716100|NCT00620191|191401100|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.91||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|adjusted for baseline ADAS-Cog score.|The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
95716101|NCT00620191|191401101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.14||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.36
95716102|NCT00620191|191401102|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Net)|5.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.73||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||The difference is the value for the metformin arm minus the value for the placebo arm.|||||0.34
95716103|NCT00674440|191401107|OTHER||Sensitivity|93.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|80.9|98.5||||||||98.5|80.9|
95716104|NCT00674440|191401107|OTHER||Specifity|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.6|95.6||||||||95.6|76.6|
95716105|NCT00796367|191401121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.673|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.39|10.03||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||10.03|7.39|<0.0001
95716106|NCT00796367|191401121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.799|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.95|9.09||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||9.09|5.95|<0.0001
95716107|NCT00796367|191401121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.1189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|2.68||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.68|-0.31|0.1189
95716108|NCT00796367|191401122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.24|14.16||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||14.16|6.24|<0.0001
95716109|NCT00796367|191401122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|11.19||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||11.19|4.36|<0.0001
95716110|NCT00796367|191401122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.2169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|2.15|||Regression, Logistic|||No formal calculation of sample size was conducted due to being an extension study of OB-303 (NCT00553787)||2.15|0.84|0.2169
95716111|NCT01598831|191401147|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.55||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|8.77||The threshold for statistical significance was a two sided 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH test controlled for the stratification factor.|Rates by Arm are 26.8% for ART-123 and 29.4% for Placebo||In a post hoc sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome that accounted for pooled site as a random effect, the adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 24.8%in the rhsTM group vs 27.5%in the placebo group (P = .31).|8.77|-3.68|0.318
95716112|NCT01458535|191401181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.157
95716113|NCT01458535|191401181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.999
95716114|NCT01458535|191401181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.045
95716115|NCT00594568|191401265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.134||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.134
95716116|NCT00594568|191401265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.045
95716117|NCT00594568|191401265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.610
95716118|NCT00594568|191401266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.296
95716119|NCT00594568|191401266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.172||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.172
95716120|NCT00594568|191401266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.746||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.746
95716121|NCT00594568|191401267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.166||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.166
95716122|NCT00594568|191401267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95716123|NCT00594568|191401267|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.014
95716124|NCT00594568|191401268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.935||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.935
95716125|NCT00594568|191401268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.068
95716126|NCT00594568|191401268|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.070
95716127|NCT00594568|191401269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95716128|NCT00594568|191401269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95716129|NCT00594568|191401269|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95716130|NCT00594568|191401270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.038
95716131|NCT00594568|191401270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.147||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.147
95716132|NCT00594568|191401270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.604
95716133|NCT00594568|191401271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.143||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.143
95716134|NCT00594568|191401271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.464||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.464
95716135|NCT00594568|191401271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Left Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.025
95716136|NCT00594568|191401271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.347||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.347
95716137|NCT00594568|191401271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.820
95716138|NCT00594568|191401271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.243||95.0||||This is the p-value for the Right Hippocampal Volume|ANCOVA|||||||0.243
95716139|NCT00594568|191401272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.784||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.784
95716140|NCT00594568|191401272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.931||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.931
95716141|NCT00594568|191401272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.718||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.718
95716142|NCT00594568|191401273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.634
95716143|NCT00594568|191401273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.901
95716144|NCT00594568|191401273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.659||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.659
95716145|NCT00594568|191401276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.062
95716146|NCT00594568|191401276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.022
95716147|NCT00594568|191401276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.669||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.669
95716148|NCT00594568|191401277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.071||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.071
95716149|NCT00594568|191401277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95716150|NCT00594568|191401277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.571||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.571
95716151|NCT00594568|191401278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.518||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.518
95716152|NCT00594568|191401278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.013||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.013
95716153|NCT00594568|191401278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.072||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.072
95716154|NCT00594568|191401279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.069
95716155|NCT00594568|191401279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.002
95716156|NCT00594568|191401279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.198
95716157|NCT00594568|191401280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.127||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.127
95716158|NCT00594568|191401280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.016
95716159|NCT00594568|191401280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.381||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.381
95716160|NCT00594568|191401281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95716161|NCT00594568|191401281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.005
95716162|NCT00594568|191401281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.141||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.141
95716163|NCT00594568|191401282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.337||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.337
95716164|NCT00594568|191401282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.018
95716165|NCT00594568|191401282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.157||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.157
95716166|NCT00594568|191401283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.186
95716167|NCT00594568|191401283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.149
95716168|NCT00594568|191401283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.889||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.889
95716169|NCT00594568|191401284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.202||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.202
95716170|NCT00594568|191401284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.075||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.075
95716171|NCT00594568|191401284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616||95.0|||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.616
95716172|NCT01422876|191401292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.41|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.41|-0.75|<0.0001
95716173|NCT01422876|191401292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.32|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.32|-0.67|<0.0001
95716174|NCT01422876|191401292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.25|-0.59|<0.0001
95716175|NCT01422876|191401292|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0038), geographical region (p\<0.0001), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.56|<0.0001
95727817|NCT05056727|191425104|OTHER|Test of treatment HR = 1|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.47|||Regression, Cox||SZC relative to Placebo|||0.47|0.25|<0.001
95716176|NCT01422876|191401293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.54|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|-9.48|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-9.48|-23.37|<0.0001
95716177|NCT01422876|191401293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.62|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|-15.1|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-15.10|-29.30|<0.0001
95716178|NCT01422876|191401293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.55||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.31|-4.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-4.37|-18.31|0.0015
95716179|NCT01422876|191401293|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-19.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.21|-12.03|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.6082) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0104), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-12.03|-26.21|<0.0001
95716180|NCT01422876|191401294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.74|2.11|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||2.11|-12.74|0.1605
95716181|NCT01422876|191401294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78||0.1246|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.25|1.61|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.61|-13.25|0.1246
95716182|NCT01422876|191401294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.06|-16.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-16.21|-31.06|<0.0001
95716183|NCT01422876|191401294|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-22.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.71|-14.88|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline fasting plasma glucose (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.4591) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.7413), geographical region (p=0.1504), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-14.88|-29.71|<0.0001
95716184|NCT01422876|191401295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.6604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|1.03||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||1.03|-0.65|0.6604
95716185|NCT01422876|191401295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.15|-1.44|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.44|-3.15|<0.0001
95716186|NCT01422876|191401295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.8757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.77||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.77|-0.91|0.8757
95716187|NCT01422876|191401295|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.77|-1.05|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.1610) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.3685), geographical region (p=0.0162), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-1.05|-2.77|<0.0001
95716188|NCT01422876|191401296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.06|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||0.06|-0.33|0.1785
95716189|NCT01422876|191401296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-0.61|<0.0001
95716190|NCT01422876|191401296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.22|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.22|-0.61|<0.0001
95716191|NCT01422876|191401296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline HbA1c (p\<0.0001) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.8627), geographical region (p=0.0008), treatment (p\<0.0001) as fixed effect(s).||-0.37|-0.76|<0.0001
95716192|NCT01422876|191401297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|1.14||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||1.14|-0.88|0.8010
95716193|NCT01422876|191401297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.54||Not an alpha protected test.|ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||0.54|-1.48|0.3616
95727818|NCT05056727|191425105|OTHER|Test of zero treatment difference|Mean Difference|301.1||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.15|579.11|||Regression, Linear||SZC minus Placebo|||579.11|23.15|0.034
95716194|NCT01422876|191401297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.21|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.21|-2.23|0.0178
95716195|NCT01422876|191401297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.97|-0.95|||ANCOVA|||Model for Week 24 includes baseline weight (p\<0.0001), baseline HbA1c (p=0.0023) as linear covariate(s) and baseline eGFR (MDRD) (p=0.0316), geographical region (p=0.0134), treatment (p=0.0031) as fixed effect(s).||-0.95|-2.97|0.0001
95716196|NCT01422876|191401298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.191|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.319|7.573|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.573|2.319|<0.0001
95716197|NCT01422876|191401298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.474|8.184|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||8.184|2.474|<0.0001
95716198|NCT01422876|191401298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.495|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|6.363|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||6.363|1.920|<0.0001
95716199|NCT01422876|191401298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.795||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.562|5.001|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.001|1.562|0.0005
95716200|NCT01422876|191401299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.893||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.095|3.274|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||3.274|1.095|0.0224
95716201|NCT01422876|191401299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.961||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.697|5.169|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.169|1.697|0.0001
95716202|NCT01422876|191401299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.065|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.768|5.314|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||5.314|1.768|<0.0001
95716203|NCT01422876|191401299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.462|7.522|||Regression, Logistic|||Logistic regression includes treatment, baseline eGFR (MDRD), geographical region and baseline HbA1c.||7.522|2.462|<0.0001
95716204|NCT00933543|191401359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.43||||0.0703|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|63.18||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by center. No adjustment for multiple comparisons was done||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||63.18|0.65|0.0703
95716205|NCT00933543|191401361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.92||||0.2969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.35|3.5||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||3.50|-11.35|0.2969
95716206|NCT00933543|191401362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.67||||0.8913|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.09|10.43||Priori threshold for statistical significance was 5%|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model, including center and baseline lesion count as a covariates||H0: τ (Vehicle PDT) = τ (MAL PDT) versus HA: τ (Vehicle PDT) ≠ τ (MAL PDT)||10.43|-9.09|0.8913
95716207|NCT00694070|191401385|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 80%, with n=51, critical number is 38. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 87.43%."||||||0.0421|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0421
95716208|NCT00694070|191401386|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 95%, with n=51, critical number is 47. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 88.96%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
95716209|NCT00694070|191401387|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"The null and alternative hypotheses for these tests will have the form:~Ho: Pr{Success} \< Po vs. Ha: Pr{Success} ≥ Po. Critical values for numbers of successes were computed to give approximately a 90% chance of rejecting Ho in favor of the alternative (non-inferiority) if the true probability of success is at least Po. For Po = 90%, with n=51, critical number is 43. With this critical value and sample size, the power to reject Ho is approximately 93.57%."||||||0.0309|||||||Exact binomial test|||||||0.0309
95716210|NCT04988035|191401391|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.07|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. Odds ratio of a better clinical status score, confidence interval and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using multiple imputation (MI) for participants lost to follow-up before Day 8 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital while those participants lost to follow-up after discharge to home are assigned a score of 2.||1.07|0.38|0.090
95716211|NCT04988035|191401392|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.53|||Regression, Logistic|||Odds ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline dexamethasone use, baseline ordinal score, age, and baseline C-Reactive Protein (CRP).|Odds ratio greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan|1.53|0.31|0.358
95716212|NCT04988035|191401393|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.92|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Hazard ratio, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a Cox model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score.||0.92|0.46|0.014
95727819|NCT01191255|191425139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum phosphorus was calculated via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Week-52-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95716213|NCT04988035|191401394|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.17|||Proportional odds model||Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 15 after discharge are given a score of 2.||1.17|0.42|0.177
95716214|NCT04988035|191401395|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.427|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.36|||Proportional odds model|||Includes all ordinal score categories. OR of a better clinical status score, confidence interval, and p-value estimated from a proportional odds model adjusted for baseline steroid use and baseline ordinal score. Missing data imputed using last observation carried forward for participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 while hospitalized, in hospice, long term acute care, or transferred to other hospital. Participants lost to follow-up before Day 29 after discharge are given a score of 2.|Odds ratio above 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|1.36|0.48|0.427
95716215|NCT04988035|191401430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.06|||Regression, Cox||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|||1.06|0.56|0.109
95716216|NCT04988035|191401431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.98|||Regression, Cox||||HR greater than 1 favors Remdesivir plus Danicopan.|0.98|0.51|0.036
95716217|NCT00370994|191401499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Comparisons were made between groups and within the group between baseline and different time points.|Repeated measures ANOVA.|||||||<0.001
95716218|NCT00370994|191401500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001||95.0||||There were significant differences in Oswestry Disability Index between both groups|Repeated measures of ANOVA|||||||0.001
95716219|NCT04246593|191401501|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites. In order to further explore the intervention effect, we fit GLMMs that adjust for (1) baseline dietary intake and (2) race and baseline income.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.84|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between the user and non-user groups.|GLMM|||||||0.84
95716220|NCT04246593|191401502|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.61|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference between change in BMI for intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.61
95716221|NCT04246593|191401503|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-28.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|43.31||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value calculated for the mean difference in change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.53
95716222|NCT04246593|191401504|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value applies to the mean difference in mean self-efficacy change scores between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.75
95716223|NCT04246593|191401505|OTHER|We used generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with random intercept to control for clustering within sites.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value applies to the mean difference in mean total barriers score change between the intervention and control groups.|GLMM|||||||0.63
95716224|NCT00808665|191401512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95716225|NCT00634933|191401513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test (CMH), stratified by prior anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) use and geographic region, was used.||||0.061
95716226|NCT00634933|191401513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.120
95716227|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.570
95716228|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.200
95716229|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.616|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.616
95716230|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.671|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.671
95716231|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.108|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.108
95716232|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.174|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.174
95716233|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.010
95716234|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.029
95716235|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
95716236|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.021
95716237|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.062|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.062
95716238|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.049
95716239|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.030
95716240|NCT00634933|191401514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.005
95716241|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.014
95716242|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.025|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.025
95716243|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.794|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.794
95716244|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.966|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.966
95716245|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.770
95716246|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.456|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.456
95716247|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.880
95716248|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.814|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.814
95716249|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.042|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.042
95716250|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.035
95716251|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.086
95716252|NCT00634933|191401515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.082
95716253|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.325|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.325
95716254|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.338|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.338
95716255|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.983
95716256|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.296
95716257|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.575|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.575
95716258|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||1.000
95716259|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.573|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.573
95716260|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.563|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.563
95716261|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.768|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.768
95716262|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.977|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.977
95716263|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.249|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.249
95716264|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.268|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.268
95716265|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.089
95716266|NCT00634933|191401516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.079
95716267|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.106
95716268|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.322|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 2: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.322
95716269|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.059|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4 Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.059
95716270|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 4: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.250
95716271|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.255|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.255
95716272|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.105|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 8: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.105
95716273|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.001
95716274|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 12: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.019
95716275|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.011
95716276|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 16: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.113
95716277|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.002
95716278|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 20: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.006
95716279|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.034|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.034
95716280|NCT00634933|191401531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Week 24: Good response- A 2-sided CMH test, stratified by prior anti-TNF use and geographic region, was used.||||0.003
95716281|NCT02279888|191401560|OTHER|the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval on the freedom from DSRC rate at 24 months is greater than 80%|Kaplan Meier|0.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0001
95716282|NCT02279888|191401562|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.47|||Andersen-Gill||This analysis applies to Primary Outcome: HFH Rate|||0.47|0.39|<0.0001
95716283|NCT02279888|191401564|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.62|||Andersen-Gill|||||0.62|0.52|<0.0001
95716284|NCT03301272|191401676|OTHER||Difference in differences|0.0||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|||||The threshold for statistical significance is 0.05|Regression, Linear|||||||0.5
95716285|NCT04095039|191401726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.077||||||p-value is based on a sample that is less than 10% of the planned sample size (planned n=4,000)|Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method|||Primary outcome is for the individually randomized cohort since DSMB had concerns about selection bias for the cluster-randomized population due to differences in baseline characteristics that leaned towards the arm objectives.||||0.077
95716286|NCT05510297|191401731|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|7.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95716287|NCT05510297|191401732|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2653.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5110.86||0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-297.76522|5604.07522||a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made; data were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test where p\>0.05 was interpreted as likely normal distribution.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5604.07522|-297.76522|0.074
95716288|NCT05510297|191401733|SUPERIORITY|a priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05 for 2-sided t-test; no adjustments for multiple comparisons made;|Mean Difference (Net)|4.44067|STANDARD_DEVIATION|41.59009||0.685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.59116|27.47249|||t-test, 2 sided|||||27.47249|-18.59116|0.685
95716289|NCT05510297|191401734|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.51267|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.44656||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.31374|0.28841|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.28841|-1.31374|0.191
95716290|NCT05510297|191401735|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.35026||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19775|0.29775|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29775|-1.19775|0.218
95716291|NCT05510297|191401736|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.924|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.19396||0.125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13898|0.29098|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29098|-2.13898|0.125
95716292|NCT05510297|191401737|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.00133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.10148||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05486|0.5753|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.5753|-0.05486|0.960
95716293|NCT05510297|191401741|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.6553||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53867|0.29467|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.29467|-1.53867|0.168
95716294|NCT02309372|191401772|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.76||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|0.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.77|-2.28|0.32
95716295|NCT01731600|191401776|OTHER||Incidence rate|0.0|||||ONE_SIDED|97.5||0.067|||||The incidence of inhibitory antibodies was calculated as number of patients with inhibitors during the main phase of the trial divided by number of patients in the main phase of the trial.|A one-sided, upper 97.5% confidence limit was provided based on an exact calculation in the binomial distribution.||0.067||
95716296|NCT02451137|191401802|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.4|1.01|1.39||Threshold for significance at 0.046 level.|Regression, Logistic|||A logistic regression model was used with treatment arm as a fixed effect and adjusted for: randomization strata of HbA1c target (\<8%,\<7%), sulfonylurea (SU) use (yes/no), glucagon like peptide1-receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) use (yes/no) and baseline HbA1c (as continuous).||1.39|1.01|0.0308
95716297|NCT00463385|191401828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.092||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.092
95716298|NCT00463385|191401828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.048||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
95716299|NCT00463385|191401828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.758||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.758
95716300|NCT03413618|191401876|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95716301|NCT03413618|191401877|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.049
95716302|NCT03413618|191401879|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95716303|NCT03413618|191401880|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95716304|NCT03413618|191401882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95716305|NCT03413618|191401883|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95716306|NCT03246152|191401889|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Pearson's correlation coefficient|||Correlation between change in BCVA and the pre treatment, post treatment, and change in vascular density following 3-6 injections was performed.||||>0.05
95716307|NCT02067728|191401902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0029
95716308|NCT02067728|191401903|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3875
95716309|NCT02067728|191401904|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.42|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95716310|NCT02067728|191401905|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.05
95716311|NCT02067728|191401906|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||1.000
95716312|NCT02067728|191401907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|3.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|4.9|||Chi-squared|||||4.9|2.2|<0.0001
95716313|NCT02067728|191401908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|4.5|||Chi-squared|||||4.5|2.0|<0.0001
95716314|NCT02067728|191401911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4835|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4835
95716315|NCT02067728|191401912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.588|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5880
95716316|NCT04640168|191401916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.909|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.909
95716317|NCT04640168|191401933|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|13.4||||||||13.4|1.8|
95716318|NCT04640168|191401934|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|5.5||||||||5.5|-4.3|
95716319|NCT04640168|191401952|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27||||||||1.27|0.80|
95716320|NCT04640168|191401953|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.02||||||||0.02|-0.09|
95716321|NCT04640168|191401954|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
95716322|NCT04640168|191401955|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.23||||||||1.23|0.94|
95716323|NCT04640168|191401956|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.19||||||||1.19|0.91|
95716324|NCT00234533|191401973|OTHER|An one-way Analysis of Covariance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|0.92|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for the evening series (defined as 12:00 to 24:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.92|0.88|
95716325|NCT00234533|191401973|OTHER|An one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the between patient variation and within patient variation and then the ICC and its confidence limitations.|ICC|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|0.93|||||An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered satisfactory and indicative that a single sample would be representative of the overall IGF-I status.|An ICC for the morning series (defined as 06:00 to 12:00) was determined for the overall ITT population to confirm whether only one measurement would be sufficient to accurately represent the IGF-I measurement over Weeks 21, 22 and 23. The ICC expresses the relative magnitude of the 2 components of the total variability, i.e. the biological variability and random error, in a series of measurements on different patients.||0.93|0.90|
95716326|NCT00234533|191401974|OTHER||Fisher's F statistic (F) value|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the weekly timing effect (Week 21 versus Week 22 versus Week 23) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the weekly timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.79 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.1678.|||
95716327|NCT00234533|191401974|OTHER||F value|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the daily timing effect (morning versus evening) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the daily timing on the IGF-I levels; F value = 1.06 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.3035|||
95716328|NCT00234533|191401975|OTHER||F value|83.97|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's sex (male versus female) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's sex on the IGF-I levels; F value = 83.97 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
95716329|NCT00234533|191401975|OTHER||F value|68.35|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the patient's pubertal status (pubertal versus prepubertal) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the patient's pubertal status on the IGF-I levels; F value = 68.35 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = \<0.0001.|||
95716330|NCT00234533|191401976|OTHER||F value|10.73|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the disease condition (GHD versus TS) on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 10.73 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0012.|||
95716331|NCT00234533|191401976|OTHER||F value|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the country cluster on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the country cluster on the IGF-I levels; F value = 2.20 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0701.|||
95716332|NCT00234533|191401977|OTHER||F value|3.65|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the time of the year on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the time of the year on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.65 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0139.|||
95716333|NCT00234533|191401977|OTHER||F value|7.38|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the calculated age at enrolment on the IGF-I levels; F value = 7.38 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0073.|||
95716334|NCT00234533|191401977|OTHER||F value|3.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Analysis of the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I value as measured by capillary blood spot method.|For the effect of the disease condition on the IGF-I levels; F value = 3.86 and the significance probability value, PR\>F = 0.0511|||
95716335|NCT00234533|191401978|OTHER||Mean difference|-164.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|159.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-483.35|-153.77||||||The Bland and Altman method was used to compare the results of each of the three simultaneous random capillary and serum measurements were compared. The difference between the capillary blood spot method and the serum IGF-I measurements is presented||-153.77|-483.35|
95716336|NCT00570492|191401989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.06|||||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to estimate the mean treatment difference in growth velocity over the treatment period, adjusting for baseline growth velocity, age, gender, and country.|||-0.06|-0.48|
95716337|NCT00908375|191402006|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Sample size was determined based on the primary outcome variable, the VAS pain score at three weeks. Based on the results of the study of Siddall et al., group sample sizes of 19 and 19 achieve 82% power to detect a difference of 2.00 between the null hypothesis that both group means are 6.50 and the alternative hypothesis that the mean of pregabalin group is 4.50 with estimated group standard deviations of 2.10 and 2.10 and with a significance level of 0.05 using a two-sided two-sample t-test.|Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.0||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-6.0|3.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple application of the test to the same data set using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3|-6|0.279
95716338|NCT00908375|191402007|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.0||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-2.0|1.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.0|-2.0|0.282
95716339|NCT00908375|191402008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-16.0||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|99.0|-42.0|16.0||The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis (P \< 0.05) was adjusted for multiple applications of the test to the same data using the Bonferroni correction.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||16|-42|0.139
95716340|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.04||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.32
95716341|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.91||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.38
95716342|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.83
95716343|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.27||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.42
95716344|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.55||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.32
95716345|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.83
95716346|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.94||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.38
95716347|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.38
95716348|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.38||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.32
95716349|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.99
95716350|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.38
95716351|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.57||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.38
95716352|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.52||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.83
95716353|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.81||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.83
95716354|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.39||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.38
95716355|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.92||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.38
95716356|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.55||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.83
95716357|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12||||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.30
95716358|NCT01484691|191402009|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.38
95716359|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1||||0.26
95716360|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.52||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir107||||0.26
95716361|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.57||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir128||||0.26
95716362|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir141||||0.87
95716363|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.57||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir148b||||0.29
95716364|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.56||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir181b||||0.75
95716365|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir185||||0.36
95716366|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir194||||0.89
95716367|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.48||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir19a||||0.48
95716368|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.75||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir200a||||0.87
95716369|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.78||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir22||||0.53
95716370|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir223||||0.57
95716371|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.27||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir23a||||0.26
95716372|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.66||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir26a||||0.75
95716373|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.91||||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir320b||||0.89
95716374|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.32||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir598||||0.26
95716375|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir720||||0.87
95716376|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.75||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1915||||0.74
95716377|NCT01484691|191402010|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.77||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||This p value is adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) approach and a p value \<0.05 is taken for significance.|t-test, 2 sided|||mir1978||||0.36
95716378|NCT03522506|191402011|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The least squares mean (LSM) sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|Least square mean difference|20.06|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.35|26.77|||Linear mixed effect model|||||26.77|13.35|<0.001
95716379|NCT03522506|191402011|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|24.35|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.64|31.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||31.06|17.64|<0.001
95716380|NCT03522506|191402011|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM Difference|19.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|26.49|||Linear mixed effects model|||||26.49|13.30|<0.001
95716381|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.2||||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.13|0.664
95716382|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.24||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|1.17|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.17|-0.69|0.605
95716383|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|14 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.66|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.66|-1.17|0.574
95716384|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.29||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.11|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.11|-0.53|0.483
95716385|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.01||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.84|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.84|-0.81|0.972
95716386|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|10 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.18||||0.654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.63|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.63|-0.99|0.654
95716387|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.01||||0.984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.85|-0.86|0.984
95716388|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.29||||0.508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.14|0.508
95716389|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|6 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.22||||0.605|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.62|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.62|-1.06|0.605
95716390|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.11||||0.847|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|1.29|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.29|-1.06|0.847
95716391|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.44||||0.455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.73|-1.61|0.455
95716392|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|2 hours pre-infusion: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.58||||0.317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|0.57|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.57|-1.74|0.317
95716393|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.18|-0.83|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.83|-3.18|0.001
95716394|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.79|-2.44|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.44|-4.79|<0.001
95716395|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|2.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|-2.01|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.01|-4.32|<0.001
95716396|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.78|-0.6|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.60|-2.78|0.003
95716397|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-4.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-3.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-3.21|-5.39|<0.001
95716398|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|4.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.83|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.91|-2.76|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.76|-4.91|<0.001
95716399|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.71||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.21|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.21|-1.63|0.130
95918197|NCT02500979|191795703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-7.897||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.356|-3.438|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-3.438|-12.356|0.0013
95716400|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-3.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|-2.4|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-2.40|-4.24|<0.001
95716401|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|6.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.71|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-1.8|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.80|-3.62|<0.001
95716402|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.26||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.68|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.68|-1.20|0.577
95716403|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.26|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.32|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-1.32|-3.20|<0.001
95716404|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|8.75 hours post-infusion start: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-1.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|-0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.72|-2.57|<0.001
95716405|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|0.31||||0.475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.16|||Linear mixed effect model|||||1.16|-0.55|0.475
95716406|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.14||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.72|||Linear mixed effect model|||||0.72|-0.99|0.753
95716407|NCT03522506|191402021|SUPERIORITY|1.75 hours post-infusion end: A linear mixed effect models was performed for all observed KSS parameters at scheduled time points. The LSM sleepless scale for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time point, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-0.99||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.83|-0.15|||Linear mixed effect model|||||-0.15|-1.83|0.022
95716408|NCT03522506|191402022|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|22.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.58|29.3|||Linear mixed effect model|||||29.30|16.58|<0.001
95716409|NCT03522506|191402022|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|30.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.59|37.31|||Linear mixed effects model|||||37.31|24.59|<0.001
95716410|NCT03522506|191402022|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|26.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.24|32.75|||Linear mixed effect model|||||32.75|20.24|<0.001
95716411|NCT03522506|191402023|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|14.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.04|22.08|||Linear mixed effect model|||||22.08|7.04|<0.001
95716412|NCT03522506|191402023|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|32.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.68|39.73|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.73|24.68|<0.001
95716413|NCT03522506|191402023|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|25.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.33|33.14|||Linear mixed effect model|||||33.14|18.33|<0.001
95727820|NCT01191255|191425140|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||The P-value for the change in mean serum Ferritin were created via an ANCOVA model with treatment as the fixed effect and Study-baseline as the co-variate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95716414|NCT03522506|191402024|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|9.6||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.35|15.85|||Linear mixed effect model|||||15.85|3.35|0.003
95716415|NCT03522506|191402024|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|33.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.08|39.58|||Linear mixed effect model|||||39.58|27.08|<0.001
95716416|NCT03522506|191402024|SUPERIORITY|The effect of TAK-925 was evaluated with a linear mixed effects model appropriate for a 4-period crossover study. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI was estimated from the model at each time, along with differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.77|23.06|||Linear mixed effect model|||||23.06|10.77|<0.001
95716417|NCT03522506|191402025|SUPERIORITY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.16||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.68|3.36|||ANOVA|||||3.36|-7.68|0.436
95716418|NCT03522506|191402025|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|-2.29||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|3.23|||ANOVA|||||3.23|-7.81|0.409
95716419|NCT03522506|191402025|SUPERIORITY|ANOVA model was used to evaluate the 1 hour post the end of infusion MWT. The LSM sleep latency for each treatment and the associated standard error and 95% CI were estimated from the model, along with the differences between active treatments and placebo, and associated standard errors, 95% CIs, and p-values.|LSM difference|16.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.37|22.18|||ANOVA|||||22.18|11.37|<0.001
95716420|NCT03480243|191402026|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.27|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.27|1.59|
95716421|NCT03480243|191402026|OTHER||Cmax Estimate Ratio|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|2.16|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.16|1.51|
95716422|NCT03480243|191402027|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.17|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.17|1.50|
95716423|NCT03480243|191402027|OTHER||AUC Estimate Ratio|1.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.36|1.97|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||1.97|1.36|
95716424|NCT03480243|191402028|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.77|2.55|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.55|1.77|
95716425|NCT03480243|191402028|OTHER||Cmax,ss Estimate Ratio|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.78|2.56|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.56|1.78|
95716426|NCT03480243|191402029|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.02|3.03|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||3.03|2.02|
95716427|NCT03480243|191402029|OTHER||AUCtau Estimate Ratio|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.82|2.73|||ANOVA|||The analysis of variance model included the fixed effects period (1, 2 or 3b) and participant as a random effect.||2.73|1.82|
95716428|NCT04365387|191402054|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|14.5|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH).|||14.5|-10.3|
95716429|NCT04365387|191402055|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|5.7|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.7|-14.9|
95716430|NCT04365387|191402057|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|5.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||5.9|-3.2|
95716431|NCT04365387|191402058|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|13.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.1|26.4|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH for non-Imputed values|||26.4|0.1|
95716432|NCT04365387|191402059|OTHER||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.3|11.9|||||Risk Difference (90% CI) were estimated using weighted average of stratum-specific proportion using CMH.|||11.9|-9.3|
95716433|NCT05770401|191402060|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.227||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|5.76|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in LCQ total score change from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||5.76|.72|.014
95716434|NCT05770401|191402061|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.804||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|0.46|||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis was there would be no significant difference in Cough Severity VAS Scores from baseline to one-week post-treatment between groups.||0.46|-32.7|.056
95727821|NCT01191255|191425141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95727822|NCT01191255|191425142|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95727823|NCT01191255|191425143|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95727824|NCT02196506|191425144|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.3||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.97|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.62|-3.97|0.0074
95727825|NCT02196506|191425145|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.3331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||0.23|-0.66|0.3331
95727826|NCT02196506|191425146|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.25||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.23|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.27|-4.23|0.0263
95716435|NCT01683565|191402062|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.67||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05)|Mixed Models Analysis|||The sample size was determined based on the goal of confirming trial feasibility and estimating effect sizes for a full-scale trial, not for a definitive test of efficacy. The enrollment goal was 40, which would have provided an indication of an expected effect size for a larger full-scale trial (e.g., 53% power to detect a 2-point decrease (approximately 0.7-SD based on a prior study) in Pervasive Developmental Disorders Screening Test-II score). Funding limitations capped enrollment at 31.||||0.67
95716436|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.22||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Competence scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.22
95716437|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in the BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes||||||0.92||||||Threshold for statistical significance (\<0.05).|Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Problem scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.92
95716438|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.88|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Dysregulation scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.88
95716439|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.23|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Externalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.23
95716440|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Internalizing scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.91
95716441|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Austism Spectrum Disorder scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.03
95716442|NCT01683565|191402063|OTHER|Analyses compared the change in BITSEA outcome scores between groups, controlling for baseline scores, using mixed effects regression. This method leverages maximum likelihood to account for missing data. Treatment-by-time interaction terms were included as fixed effects and served as estimates of treatment effect; no participant characteristics were included as covariates in the models. Group mean differences divided by the standard deviation were also calculated as effect sizes.||||||0.07|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in Red Flag scores between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
95716443|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.31||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (10:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.31
95716444|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.47||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (12:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.47
95716445|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.38||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (14:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.38
95716446|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
95727827|NCT02196506|191425147|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.98||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical Analysis at Week 14||-0.72|-5.24|0.0099
95716447|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.16||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (16:1n-7 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.16
95716448|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:0 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
95716449|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.02||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:1n-9 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.02
95716450|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.21||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:2n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.21
95716451|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.34||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.34
95716452|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.24||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:3n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.24
95716453|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.5||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (18:4n-3 nmol/mL ) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.50
95716454|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.07||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:3n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.07
95716455|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:4n-6 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
95716456|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (20:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
95716457|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.71||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:5n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.71
95716458|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.001||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (22:6n-3 nmol/mL) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.001
95716459|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (Total Omega-6) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
95716460|NCT01683565|191402064|OTHER|Differences in mean changes in erythrocyte fatty acid composition were examined using t-tests.||||||0.1||||||P-values \<0.05 were considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||The reported p-value is for the comparison of the change in erythrocyte fatty acid composition (total omega-3) between groups (LCPUFA vs. Placebo).||||0.10
95716461|NCT01195662|191402071|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1485||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.54|-2.02||Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure used.|Longitudinal repeated measures|Data from all weeks during the double-blind treatment period were included.||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using 'direct likelihood', with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, as well as continuous fixed covariates of baseline SBP value and baseline SBP value-by-week interaction. Unstructured matrix for within-subject error variance-covariance used. 80% power to detect a difference of 4 mmHg in mean change from baseline, 75% power to meet both co-primary endpoints with overall Type I error.||-2.02|-6.54|0.0002
95716462|NCT01195662|191402072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0773|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.46|||Longitudinal repeated measures|Endpoint was tested at alpha=0.05. Hierarchical closed testing procedure was used.||A longitudinal repeated measures analysis used, with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by-week interaction, and randomization strata, continuous fixed covariates of baseline HbA1c value and baseline HbA1c value-by-week interaction. Only data up to Week 12 included. All data used in the model even if participants discontinued prior to Week 12. A heirarchical closed testing procedure (sequential) was used and testing performed since first primary endpoint was significant.||-0.46|-0.76|<0.0001
95716463|NCT01195662|191402073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.368||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.14|-1.76||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate was used. By applying sequential testing procedure, the testing was performed since the prior endpoint was significant.||-1.76|-7.14|0.0012
95716464|NCT01195662|191402074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.1619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|0.39||Endpoint tested following a sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05.|Longitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline seated diastolic BP value and baseline seated diastolic BP value by week interaction.||0.39|-2.32|0.1619
95716465|NCT01195662|191402075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8635|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with treatment group as an effect and baseline value and randomization strata as a covariate. A hierarchical closed testing procedure was implemented to control the family-wise type I error rate related to the co-primary and secondary endpoints at the 2-sided 0.05 level. Statistical testing of this endpoint was not performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not statistically significant.||-0.29|-3.68|
95716466|NCT01195662|191402076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0858|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23|||lLongitudinal repeated measures|||Longitudinal repeated measures analysis using direct likelihood with fixed categorical effects of treatment, week, treatment-by week interaction, and randomization strata and continuous fixed covariates of baseline serum uric acid value and baseline seated serum uric acid value by week interaction. By applying sequential testing procedure at alpha=0.05, no testing was performed since the prior secondary endpoint was not significant.||-0.23|-0.57|
95716467|NCT01298323|191402092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-Statistic|1.29||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.44|16.37||Statistical significance threshold at this analysis was 10%|t-test, 2 sided|||||16.37|-3.44|0.199
95716468|NCT04409262|191402108|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965||||0.7414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Log Rank|||||1.19|0.78|0.7414
95716469|NCT04409262|191402109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98||||0.8993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.34|||Log Rank|||||1.34|0.72|0.8993
95716470|NCT04409262|191402110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.44|0.77|0.7648
95716471|NCT04409262|191402111|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.948||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.39|||Log Rank|||||1.39|0.65|0.7867
95716472|NCT04409262|191402112|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.882||||0.4602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.23|||Log Rank|||||1.23|0.63|0.4602
95716473|NCT04409262|191402113|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.982||||0.8664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.21|||Log Rank|||||1.21|0.80|0.8664
95716474|NCT04409262|191402114|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9569|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.35|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.35|0.75|0.9569
95716475|NCT04409262|191402115|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.78|0.6331
95716476|NCT04409262|191402116|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.4|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.40|0.70|0.9622
95716477|NCT04409262|191402117|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.64|0.79|0.4850
95716478|NCT04409262|191402118|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.2||||0.5915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.2|5.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.9|-10.2|0.5915
95716479|NCT04409262|191402118|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-2.5||||0.5494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||5.6|-10.5|0.5494
95716480|NCT04409262|191402119|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.1||||0.259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||9.2|-37.4|0.2590
95716481|NCT04409262|191402119|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-14.6||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|7.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||7.8|-37.0|0.2290
95716482|NCT04409262|191402120|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1125||||0.2434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|8.38|||Regression, Linear|||||8.38|-2.16|0.2434
95716483|NCT04409262|191402121|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|0.6||||0.8222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|5.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 14||5.6|-4.4|0.8222
95716484|NCT04409262|191402121|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-1.3||||0.6944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|5.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 28||5.2|-7.8|0.6944
95716485|NCT04409262|191402121|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-3.0||||0.3919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|4.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Day 60||4.0|-10.1|0.3919
95716486|NCT04409262|191402122|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.957||||0.6778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.78|0.6778
95716487|NCT04409262|191402123|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.9||||0.7692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|6.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.8|-8.7|0.7692
95716488|NCT04409262|191402124|SUPERIORITY||Weighted % difference|-0.3||||0.9334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|7.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.2|-7.8|0.9334
95716489|NCT01738672|191402127|OTHER|||||||0.16|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.16
95716490|NCT01738672|191402128|OTHER|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.73
95716491|NCT01738672|191402129|OTHER|||||||0.56|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.56
95716492|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.0001
95716493|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
95716494|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.01
95716495|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared to No chemoprevention arm|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-unexposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of thrombocytopenia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
95716496|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of all grade 3-4 adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm.||||<0.05
95918198|NCT02500979|191795704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-5.277||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.175|-1.378|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.378|-9.175|0.0091
95716497|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
95716498|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Monthly DP arm compared with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of elevated temperature adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the monthly DP arm||||<0.05
95716499|NCT00948896|191402166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Daily TS arm compare with the no chemoprevention arm.|Negative Binomial Regression|||Null Hypothesis: Within HIV-exposed participants, there is no difference in the incidence of anemia adverse events per PYAR between the control arm and the daily TS arm||||<0.01
95716500|NCT00948896|191402168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|7.0||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.0|28.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference group.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||28|-19|0.57
95716501|NCT00948896|191402168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|28.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|44.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||44|7|0.01
95716502|NCT00948896|191402168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|58.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|67.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|The sample size was calculated to detect at least a 32% lower incidence of malaria in the DP arm compared to that in the TS arm. We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person-year with TS chemoprevention based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus we calculated that we would need to enroll 100 participants in each arm to detect our targeted protective efficacy with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||67|45|<0.001
95716503|NCT00948896|191402169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|9.0||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|38.0|||Negative Binomial Regression||The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||38|-35|0.065
95716504|NCT00948896|191402169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|49.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|66.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||66|23|0.001
95716505|NCT00948896|191402169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Protective Efficacy (%)|69.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.0|80.0||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization.|Negative Binomial Regression||Adjusted for age at randomization and incidence of malaria prior to randomization. The no chemoprevention arm is the reference arm.|We assumed that the incidence of malaria would be 1.85 episodes per person year with TS based on a prior cohort study in the same area, and thus, that we would need to enroll 50 participants in each arm to detect a reduction in the incidence of malaria in either the monthly SP or DP arms (two-sided significance level 0.05) compared with the daily TS arm of 48% or greater with 80% power at 95% significance (two-sided), allowing for 10% loss to follow-up.||80|53|<0.001
95716506|NCT01590810|191402195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.59|3.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.15|-1.59|0.503
95716507|NCT01590810|191402195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-1.55|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.55|-2.86|<0.0001
95716508|NCT01590810|191402195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.92|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.13|-6.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.34|-10.13|<0.0001
95716509|NCT01590810|191402195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|-4.58|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.58|-9.10|<0.0001
95716510|NCT01590810|191402195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.89|-7.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.92|-12.89|<0.0001
95716511|NCT01590810|191402196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.02|-5.79|0.052
95716512|NCT01590810|191402196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.49|-1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.43|-9.49|0.010
95716513|NCT01590810|191402196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.2|-4.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.79|-14.20|<0.001
95716514|NCT01590810|191402196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.51|-7.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.52|-16.51|<0.0001
95716515|NCT01590810|191402196|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.93|-6.53|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.53|-12.93|<0.0001
95716516|NCT01590810|191402197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.61||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.44|8.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.25|-16.44|0.480
95716517|NCT01590810|191402197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.37|1.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.79|-23.37|0.086
95716518|NCT01590810|191402197|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-17.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.85|-6.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.18|-28.85|0.006
95716519|NCT01590810|191402198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|-9.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.59|-16.84|<0.0001
95716520|NCT01590810|191402198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|-6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.45|-13.94|<0.0001
95716521|NCT01590810|191402198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.74|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.45|<0.0001
95716522|NCT01590810|191402198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.75|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.49|-9.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.19|-16.49|<0.0001
95716523|NCT01590810|191402199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.11|-4.73|0.061
95716524|NCT01590810|191402199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.45|-4.00|0.016
95716525|NCT01590810|191402199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.42|-8.82|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.82|-14.42|<0.0001
95716526|NCT01590810|191402199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.34|-4.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.96|-11.34|<0.0001
95716527|NCT01590810|191402199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.81|-12.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.75|-20.81|<0.0001
95716528|NCT01590810|191402200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.56|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.34|-5.56|0.029
95716529|NCT01590810|191402200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.29|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.22|-11.29|0.005
95716530|NCT01590810|191402200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.16|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.03|-6.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.93|-20.03|<0.001
95716531|NCT01590810|191402200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-18.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.76|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.98|-14.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-14.68|-21.98|<0.0001
95716532|NCT01590810|191402200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.29|-12.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-12.19|-20.29|<0.0001
95716533|NCT01590810|191402201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.51||0.539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.93|-7.12|0.539
95716534|NCT01590810|191402201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.12||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.23|1.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.50|-12.23|0.113
95716535|NCT01590810|191402201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-14.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.69|-8.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.91|-19.69|<0.001
95716536|NCT01590810|191402202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.56|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.62|-9.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-9.11|-15.62|<0.0001
95716537|NCT01590810|191402202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.51|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.42|-13.74|<0.0001
95716538|NCT01590810|191402202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.12|-11.13|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-11.13|-16.12|<0.0001
95716539|NCT01590810|191402202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.85|-10.08|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-10.08|-15.85|<0.0001
95716540|NCT01590810|191402203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.60|-0.50|0.175
95716541|NCT01590810|191402203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||4.61|-0.25|0.076
95716542|NCT01590810|191402203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.32|1.04|0.001
95716543|NCT01590810|191402203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.14|8.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.15|3.14|<0.0001
95716544|NCT01590810|191402203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|3.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.67|0.63|0.008
95716545|NCT01590810|191402204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|2.05|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.05|-3.70|0.557
95716546|NCT01590810|191402204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.70|-3.65|0.175
95716547|NCT01590810|191402204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|3.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.23|-3.04|0.951
95716548|NCT01590810|191402204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.61|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.34|3.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.88|1.34|<0.001
95716549|NCT01590810|191402204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|6.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||6.24|3.00|<0.0001
95716550|NCT01590810|191402205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.12|-4.01|0.241
95716551|NCT01590810|191402205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.664|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||5.48|-3.63|0.664
95716552|NCT01590810|191402205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.13||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||8.33|-1.03|0.114
95716553|NCT01590810|191402206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.98||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|14.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.81|-5.96|0.385
95716554|NCT01590810|191402206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.15||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|15.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||15.32|-6.16|0.385
95716555|NCT01590810|191402206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|14.74|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||14.74|-4.44|0.276
95716556|NCT01590810|191402206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.94||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|19.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||19.81|-0.81|0.069
95716557|NCT01590810|191402207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.09||0.383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-1.28|0.383
95716558|NCT01590810|191402207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.51||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.70|-2.79|0.002
95716559|NCT01590810|191402207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.96|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.08|-6.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.14|-10.08|<0.0001
95716560|NCT01590810|191402207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.74|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-9.74|<0.001
95716561|NCT01590810|191402207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.84|-7.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.78|-12.84|<0.0001
95716562|NCT01590810|191402208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.30|-5.43|0.216
95716563|NCT01590810|191402208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.51|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.10|-9.51|0.046
95716564|NCT01590810|191402208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-14.10|0.002
95716565|NCT01590810|191402208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.64|-5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.68|-16.64|<0.001
95716566|NCT01590810|191402208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|-5.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.80|-12.70|<0.0001
95716567|NCT01590810|191402209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.65||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|7.96|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.96|-12.50|0.635
95716568|NCT01590810|191402209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.18||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.58|3.22|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.22|-19.58|0.143
95716569|NCT01590810|191402209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.32||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.01|-6.01|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.01|-25.01|0.004
95716570|NCT01590810|191402210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.42|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.79|-7.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.89|-13.79|<0.0001
95716571|NCT01590810|191402210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.18|-5.91|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.91|-11.18|<0.0001
95716572|NCT01590810|191402210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.44|-7.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-7.84|-13.44|<0.0001
95716573|NCT01590810|191402210|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.97|-8.29|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-8.29|-13.97|<0.0001
95716574|NCT01590810|191402211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|1.73|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.73|-3.19|0.547
95716575|NCT01590810|191402211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.62|-2.79|0.004
95716576|NCT01590810|191402211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.23|-2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.94|-6.23|<0.0001
95716577|NCT01590810|191402211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|-1.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.76|-4.98|<0.001
95716578|NCT01590810|191402211|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.24|-3.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.59|-8.24|<0.0001
95716579|NCT01590810|191402212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.67|-6.19|0.017
95716580|NCT01590810|191402212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.43|-2.84|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.84|-8.43|<0.001
95716581|NCT01590810|191402212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.91||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.04|-9.94|0.005
95716582|NCT01590810|191402212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.73|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.9|-3.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.76|-10.90|<0.001
95716583|NCT01590810|191402212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.22|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.76|-2.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.69|-7.76|<0.001
95716584|NCT01590810|191402213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.52||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.27|7.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.42|-21.27|0.311
95716585|NCT01590810|191402213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.62||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.44|1.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||1.69|-27.44|0.078
95716586|NCT01590810|191402213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-16.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.29||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.87|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.19|-29.87|0.027
95716587|NCT01590810|191402214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.9|-6.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.65|-12.90|<0.0001
95716588|NCT01590810|191402214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.57|-2.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.81|-11.57|0.003
95716589|NCT01590810|191402214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.4|-3.98|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.98|-12.40|0.001
95716590|NCT01590810|191402214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.69|-3.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.25|-11.69|0.001
95716591|NCT01590810|191402215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.04||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|2.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||2.45|-1.82|0.765
95716592|NCT01590810|191402215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|-0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.20|-2.49|0.023
95716593|NCT01590810|191402215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.18|-4.36|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.36|-9.18|<0.0001
95716594|NCT01590810|191402215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.46|-1.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-1.44|-9.46|0.010
95716595|NCT01590810|191402215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.28|-5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.94|-11.28|<0.0001
95716596|NCT01590810|191402216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.89|0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||0.86|-4.89|0.160
95716597|NCT01590810|191402216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.97||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-0.24|-8.40|0.039
95716598|NCT01590810|191402216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.34||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.58|-2.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-2.92|-12.58|0.003
95716599|NCT01590810|191402216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.49|-5.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.09|-14.49|<0.001
95716600|NCT01590810|191402216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.31|-11.30|<0.0001
95716601|NCT01590810|191402217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.54|7.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||7.09|-10.54|0.675
95716602|NCT01590810|191402217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.64||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98|3.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||3.46|-16.98|0.174
95716603|NCT01590810|191402217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.03||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|-4.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-4.81|-22.55|0.006
95716604|NCT01590810|191402218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|-6.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.03|-12.22|<0.0001
95716605|NCT01590810|191402218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.38|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.73|-3.99|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-3.99|-9.73|<0.0001
95716606|NCT01590810|191402218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.51|-5.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-5.64|-11.51|<0.0001
95716607|NCT01590810|191402218|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.55|-6.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||Difference is MK-8150 dose - placebo|||-6.50|-12.55|<0.0001
95716608|NCT04604015|191402219|OTHER||absolute difference|41.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|32.9|50.2|||McNemar|||The study was powered based on the results of a meta-analysis reporting the pooled NeuralBot (TCD) sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection, and the pooled TTE sensitivity for Right to Left Shunt detection.||50.2|32.9|<0.001
95716609|NCT02129192|191402222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|95.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.89|103.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.17|88.89|
95716610|NCT02129192|191402222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.7|103.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.13|99.70|
95716611|NCT02129192|191402222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of Cmax of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.46|105.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||105.19|98.46|
95716612|NCT02129192|191402223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|30.15||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|24.99|36.38|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||36.38|24.99|1.0000
95716613|NCT02129192|191402223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|98.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.63|101.97|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||101.97|94.63|<0.0001
95716614|NCT02129192|191402223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|79.69||||0.5422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.97|84.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||84.71|74.97|0.5422
95716615|NCT02129192|191402224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.14|102.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||102.38|96.14|
95716616|NCT02129192|191402224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.43||||||90.0|99.84|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||103.04|99.84|
95716617|NCT02129192|191402224|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-tz of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%)|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.29|102.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.40|98.29|
95716618|NCT02129192|191402225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|63.66||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.98|68.71|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||68.71|58.98|1.0000
95716619|NCT02129192|191402225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.08|102.48|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.48|97.08|<0.0001
95716620|NCT02129192|191402225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.8|93.7|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.70|85.80|0.0001
95716621|NCT02129192|191402226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.32|103.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for telmisartan 80 mg||103.04|96.32|
95918199|NCT02500979|191795705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference (pramlintide-placebo)|-4.435||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.445|-1.424|||Linear mixed effects model|||||-1.424|-7.445|0.0057
95716622|NCT02129192|191402226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|101.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.59|102.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for amlodipine 5 mg||102.87|99.59|
95716623|NCT02129192|191402226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was established by using the average bioequivalence method and by ensuring that the ratio of AUC 0-inf of the two treatments was within the pre-specified acceptance range (80%-125%).|Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|100.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.23|102.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|"Model on logarithmic scale included subjects within sequence as random effect and sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC divided by T80/H12.5 FDC + A5 mono.|Adjusted by-treatment means on the log-transformed scale for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg||102.10|98.23|
95716624|NCT02129192|191402227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|64.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.59|69.59|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for telmisartan 80 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||69.59|59.59|1.0000
95716625|NCT02129192|191402227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|99.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.69|102.29|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for amlodipine 5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||102.29|96.69|<0.0001
95716626|NCT02129192|191402227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted geometric mean ratio (%)|89.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.02|93.79|||ANOVA|"Model included subject as random effect and feeding condition as fixed effect."|Ratio calculated as T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fed divided by T80/A5/H12.5 mg FDC Fasted.|Adjusted by-treatment geometric means for hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. No hypothesis was tested.||93.79|86.02|<0.0001
95716627|NCT00412360|191402233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant. The targeted sample size of 110 participants per treatment group was sufficient to maintain a type I error rate of 5% and provide more than 86% power to detect an increase in overall survival from 57% among participants receiving a single unit graft to 77% for those receiving a double-unit graft.||||0.17
95716628|NCT00412360|191402234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in disease-free survival at one year post-randomization between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.11
95716629|NCT00412360|191402235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.29
95716630|NCT00412360|191402235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.04
95716631|NCT00412360|191402237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade II-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.78
95716632|NCT00412360|191402237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of Grade III-IV acute GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.02
95716633|NCT00412360|191402238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.51
95716634|NCT00412360|191402238|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of extensive chronic GVHD between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.05
95716635|NCT00412360|191402240|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of relapse between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.12
95716636|NCT00412360|191402241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Testing was performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality between participants receiving single- and double-unit cord blood transplant.||||0.43
95716637|NCT03655951|191402248|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
95716638|NCT03655951|191402249|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
95716639|NCT03655951|191402250|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
95716640|NCT03655951|191402251|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
95855278|NCT01347112|191670110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|2.1|||||data were analyzed using analysis of covariance with treatment as the independent variable and the baseline value included as the co-variate|||2.1|-4.7|
95716641|NCT03655951|191402252|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.48|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.48
95716642|NCT03655951|191402253|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
95716643|NCT03655951|191402254|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.87|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.87
95716644|NCT03655951|191402255|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
95716645|NCT03655951|191402256|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.32|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.32
95716646|NCT03655951|191402257|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
95716647|NCT03655951|191402258|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
95716648|NCT03655951|191402259|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
95716649|NCT03655951|191402260|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.42|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.42
95716650|NCT03655951|191402261|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
95716651|NCT03655951|191402262|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0003
95716652|NCT03655951|191402263|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.97|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.97
95716653|NCT03655951|191402264|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.08|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.08
95716654|NCT03655951|191402265|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.7|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.70
95716655|NCT03655951|191402266|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
95716656|NCT03655951|191402267|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
95716657|NCT03655951|191402268|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.36|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.36
95716658|NCT03655951|191402269|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.61|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.61
95716659|NCT03655951|191402270|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.72|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.72
95716660|NCT03655951|191402271|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.05
95716661|NCT03655951|191402272|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
95716662|NCT03655951|191402273|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
95716663|NCT03655951|191402274|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
95716664|NCT03655951|191402275|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
95716665|NCT03655951|191402276|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
95716666|NCT03655951|191402277|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.0001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.0001
95716667|NCT03655951|191402278|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.20
95716668|NCT03655951|191402279|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
95716669|NCT03655951|191402280|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.62|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.62
95716670|NCT03655951|191402281|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.29|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.29
95716671|NCT03655951|191402282|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.14|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.14
95716672|NCT03655951|191402283|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.008|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.008
95716673|NCT03655951|191402284|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
95716674|NCT03655951|191402285|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.03|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.03
95716675|NCT03655951|191402286|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing post-intervention scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.69|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.69
95716676|NCT03655951|191402287|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.4|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.4
95716677|NCT03655951|191402288|EQUIVALENCE|Binary outcomes were assessed with logistic regression.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||.02
95716678|NCT03655951|191402289|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.27|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.27
95716679|NCT03655951|191402290|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.31|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.31
95716680|NCT03655951|191402291|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.11|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.11
95716681|NCT03655951|191402292|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.89|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.89
95716682|NCT03655951|191402293|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.41|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.41
95716683|NCT03655951|191402294|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.93|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.93
95716684|NCT03655951|191402295|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.83|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.83
95716685|NCT03655951|191402296|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.04|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.04
95716686|NCT03655951|191402297|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.13|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.13
95716687|NCT03655951|191402298|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.56|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.56
95716688|NCT03655951|191402299|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.96|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.96
95716689|NCT03655951|191402300|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.35|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.35
95716690|NCT03655951|191402301|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.24|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.24
95716691|NCT03655951|191402302|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.2|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.2
95716692|NCT03655951|191402303|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.18|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.18
95716693|NCT03655951|191402304|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.67|||||||Regression, Linear|||To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||.67
95716694|NCT03655951|191402305|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
95716695|NCT03655951|191402306|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
95716696|NCT03655951|191402307|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.84|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.84
95716697|NCT03655951|191402308|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
95716698|NCT03655951|191402309|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.65|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.65
95716699|NCT03655951|191402310|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.09|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.09
95716700|NCT03655951|191402311|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
95716701|NCT03655951|191402312|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.47|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.47
95716702|NCT03655951|191402313|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.003
95716703|NCT03655951|191402314|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.77|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.77
95716704|NCT03655951|191402315|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.|||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||<.001
95716705|NCT03655951|191402316|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.06|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.06
95716706|NCT03655951|191402317|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.91|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.91
95716707|NCT03655951|191402318|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.95|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.95
95716708|NCT03655951|191402319|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.12|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.12
95716709|NCT03655951|191402320|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
95716710|NCT03655951|191402321|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.57|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.57
95716711|NCT03655951|191402322|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.98|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.98
95716712|NCT03655951|191402323|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.07|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.07
95855279|NCT05764785|191670112|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.182||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.182
95716713|NCT03655951|191402324|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.02|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.02
95716714|NCT03655951|191402325|EQUIVALENCE|To examine intervention effects, a residual difference score approach was used to provide an estimate of change from baseline and is assessed by regressing follow-up scores onto baseline scores and the treatment variables.||||||0.15|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.15
95716715|NCT04557189|191402326|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.241|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.452|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.452|0.031|
95716716|NCT04557189|191402327|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.175|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.044|0.394|||||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|0.394|-0.044|
95716717|NCT04557189|191402328|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.094|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.059|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.059|-0.253|
95716718|NCT04557189|191402329|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.141|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.033|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.033|-0.316|
95716719|NCT04557189|191402330|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.41|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.410|-0.029|
95716720|NCT04557189|191402331|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
95716721|NCT04557189|191402332|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|-0.234|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.448|-0.019|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||-0.019|-0.448|
95716722|NCT04557189|191402333|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.393|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.122|1.259|||||The hazard ratio is derived from a Cox proportional hazard model with treatment group and the number of Apfel risk factors (3 or 4) as independent variables.|||1.259|0.122|
95716723|NCT04557189|191402334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.188|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.402|0.777||||||30 Minutes Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.777|-0.402|
95716724|NCT04557189|191402334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.401|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|1.059||||||1 Hour Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|1.059|-0.258|
95716725|NCT04557189|191402334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.786||||||2 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.786|0|
95716726|NCT04557189|191402334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|0.097|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.093|0.286||||||6 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.286|-0.093|
95716727|NCT04557189|191402334|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LSM Estimates|-0.203|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.575|0.17||||||24 Hours Post Surgery|From MMRM analysis over all post-randomization timepoints, with the Peak VRS score as the outcome, treatment group, timepoint, number of Apfel risk factors and treatment-by-timepoint interaction as fixed effects and participant as random effect with unstructured covariance structure for observed data up to 24 hours post surgery.|0.170|-0.575|
95716728|NCT04557189|191402335|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Treatment Difference|0.146|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.073|0.365|||||Adjusted treatment difference between TAK-951, ondansetron, associated confidence intervals: based on CMH method, adjusting for number of Apfel risk factors (3/4), or exact unconditional confidence limits for treatment difference if numerator is ≤5.|||0.365|-0.073|
95716729|NCT03039699|191402415|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95716730|NCT03039699|191402416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
95716731|NCT03039699|191402416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0675||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0675
95716732|NCT03039699|191402416|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5569||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.5569
95716733|NCT03039699|191402417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||48 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
95716734|NCT03039699|191402417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0696||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||72 hours timepoint comparison||||0.0696
95716735|NCT03039699|191402417|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1998||||||p-value adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm method|Fisher Exact|||96 hours timepoint comparison||||0.1998
95716736|NCT03039699|191402418|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0039|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0039
95716737|NCT03039699|191402419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction of total CDS score from 24 hours to 48 and 72 hours of treatment between Ergoferon and Placebo treatment groups. Model includes treatment, visit and treatment\*visit interaction."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.89
95716738|NCT03039699|191402420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0044|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0044
95716739|NCT03039699|191402421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5488||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 3 comparison||||0.5488
95716740|NCT03039699|191402421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.814||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 4 comparison||||0.8140
95716741|NCT03039699|191402421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1248||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 6 comparison||||0.1248
95716742|NCT03039699|191402421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3889||||||nonadjusted p-value|Fisher Exact|||Day 10 comparison||||0.3889
95716743|NCT03039699|191402422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3593
95716744|NCT02163759|191402454|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|12.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.59|20.6||The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value \<0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.||20.60|1.59|0.0173
95716745|NCT02163759|191402455|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.1||||0.5055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.61|6.37||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||6.37|-12.61|0.5055
95716746|NCT02163759|191402456|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-5.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|1.75||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||1.75|-11.66|1
95716747|NCT02163759|191402457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|6.9||||0.4434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.03|20.62||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||20.62|-7.03|0.4434
95716748|NCT02163759|191402457|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|4.8||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|16.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||16.07|-6.72|0.4122
95716749|NCT02163759|191402458|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|9.26||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.26|-6.98|1
95716750|NCT02163759|191402459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|17.9||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.49|29.5||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||29.50|4.49|0.0173
95716751|NCT02163759|191402459|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|7.4||||0.1886|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.77|18.32||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||18.32|-3.77|0.1886
95855280|NCT05764785|191670113|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.461
95855281|NCT05764785|191670114|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.228||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.228
95716752|NCT02163759|191402460|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.04|9.88||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||9.88|-6.04|1
95716753|NCT02163759|191402461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.8||||0.1347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.97|22.15||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||22.15|2.97|0.1347
95716754|NCT02163759|191402461|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|0.5||||0.9138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.95|9.92||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||9.92|-8.95|0.9138
95716755|NCT02163759|191402462|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.27|3.3||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||3.30|-10.27|1
95716756|NCT02163759|191402463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|26.3||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|37.86||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||37.86|12.10|0.0173
95716757|NCT02163759|191402463|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|13.2||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.94||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||24.94|0.93|0.0313
95716758|NCT02163759|191402464|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|8.45||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||8.45|-9.13|1
95716759|NCT02163759|191402465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
95716760|NCT02163759|191402465|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3374||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.3374
95716761|NCT02163759|191402466|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
95716762|NCT02163759|191402467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4434||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||0.4434
95716763|NCT02163759|191402467|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6367||||||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||||0.6367
95716764|NCT02163759|191402468|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Rank ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.||Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||||1
95716765|NCT02163759|191402469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3708|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.9||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.9|-2.4|0.3708
95716766|NCT02163759|191402469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.8|-1.8|0.4477
95716767|NCT02163759|191402470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.2||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.2|-2.1|1
95716768|NCT02163759|191402470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|0.7||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.7|-1.2|1
95716769|NCT02163759|191402471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.6356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.5||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.5|-0.9|0.6356
95716770|NCT02163759|191402471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.1253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.1||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||0.1|-1.0|0.1253
95716771|NCT02163759|191402472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.0|-1.0|1
95716772|NCT02163759|191402472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.1||p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.||0.1|-0.7|1
95855282|NCT05764785|191670115|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.295||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.295
95855283|NCT05764785|191670116|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.915
95716773|NCT02163759|191402473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|10.9||||0.0364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|19.48||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||19.48|-0.08|0.0364
95716774|NCT02163759|191402473|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-4.5||||0.3383|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.1|5.07||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||5.07|-14.10|0.3383
95716775|NCT02163759|191402474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|6.2||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|12.3||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||12.30|-3.33|0.0900
95716776|NCT02163759|191402474|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Remission Rates|-3.6||||0.3217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.07|3.78||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL.|Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||3.78|-11.07|0.3217
95716777|NCT02163759|191402475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|1.3||||0.7919|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|10.8||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||10.8|-8.3|0.7919
95716778|NCT02163759|191402475|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.8||||0.8327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|7.0||Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.|ANCOVA|Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL.|Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.|Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.||7.0|-8.7|0.8327
95716779|NCT02883400|191402481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95716780|NCT03315780|191402485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-254.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.76|-170.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-170.28|-337.76|< 0.0001
95716781|NCT03315780|191402488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.46||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.05|46.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||46.87|8.05|0.0100
95716782|NCT03315780|191402489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.72||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|6.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.81|0.63|0.0263
95716783|NCT03315780|191402490|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.16|1.43|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.43|-20.16|0.0800
95716784|NCT03315780|191402491|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.39||||0.7475|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.35|87.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.57|-118.35|0.7475
95716785|NCT02748096|191402493|OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the radiographic parameters .|t-test, 2 sided|This test applies to comparison between the two treatment arms and assesses all the radiographic parameters||The sample size was calculated from a previous study that used similar radiological assessments to compare OUKAs performed using conventional instrumentation and computer navigation. In this study, the standard deviation of the tibia varus/valgus angle for the control group was 3.6°. Assuming a minimum clinically important difference of 3°, the SMD would be 0.8. Hence with a power of 0.8 and significance level of 0.05, a total sample size of 44 patients (22 in each group) was required.||||<0.05
95716786|NCT02748096|191402494|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95716787|NCT02748096|191402495|OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95716788|NCT00451191|191402507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Simon's optimal two-stage design|||Simon's optimal two-stage design was applied to determine whether there was sufficient activity at either of the two dose levels to warrant further investigation. Each patient was considered either a successful or failed response. The response rate or proportion of patients treated successfully was examined in two stages. At both stages, the two dose levels were compared to pre-determined critical cut-off values. Sample size was based on significance level α=0.05 and power 90%.||||<0.05
95855284|NCT05764785|191670117|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226||||||Assumption of Sphericity was violated and Greenhouse-Geisser was above .75, thus Huynh-Feldt correction was used.|Mixed ANOVA|||||||.226
95716789|NCT00656669|191402512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of sunitinib monotherapy||From Taghian et al., we used a mean IFP of 6.5 at baseline and a standard deviation of 6.1. We would like to detect a 50% reduction of IFP (to 3.25 mmHg) with sunitinib monotherapy, so the effect size would be 3.25/6.1=0.53. A two-sided paired t-test has 80% power to detect an effect size of .53 and level of significance .05 when the sample size is 30 patients.||||0.0001
95716790|NCT00656669|191402513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7963||||||a priori threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|This is a paired t-test to compare baseline IFP to IFP after completion of paxlitaxel+sunitinib treatment||||||0.7963
95716791|NCT00066573|191402573|SUPERIORITY|To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.80 between exemestane and anastrozole (ie, an improvement in 5-year EFS from 87.5% to 89.9%, with a two-sided 5% level test and 80% power, 6,840 patients and 630 events were needed for final analysis.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.18|||Log Rank|||||1.18|0.87|0.85
95716792|NCT00066573|191402574|SUPERIORITY|No power calculation for secondary analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.13|||Log Rank|||||1.13|0.77|0.46
95716793|NCT01945034|191402577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|23.0||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.49|57.56||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||57.56|-11.49|0.190
95716794|NCT01945034|191402577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|7.8||||0.633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|39.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||39.70|-24.20|0.633
95716795|NCT01945034|191402577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.87|23.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||23.30|-53.87|0.436
95716796|NCT01945034|191402578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|4.8||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.98|16.49||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating (BLPSR), pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing (BLPIWB) terms. 95% CI not includes 0 for treatment effect. Upper limit of 95% CI\< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||16.49|-6.98|0.426
95716797|NCT01945034|191402578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.0||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.9|9.82||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo. Comparison: tested at the 0.05 level of significance (2-sided). A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||9.82|-11.90|0.850
95716798|NCT01945034|191402578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.8||||0.385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.91|7.32||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, BLPSR, pooled site blocks, and BLPIWB terms. A comparison was eligible for being declared significant only if preceding comparison was significant.||7.32|-18.91|0.385
95716799|NCT01945034|191402579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|10.0||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|20.91||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||20.91|-0.92|0.072
95716800|NCT01945034|191402579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|4.7||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.70|-15.40|0.296
95716801|NCT01945034|191402579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-15.3||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.53|-3.16||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site blocks, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-3.16|-27.53|0.014
95716802|NCT01945034|191402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.3||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo||0.30|-0.10|0.305
95716803|NCT01945034|191402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.29||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.29|-0.08|0.261
95716804|NCT01945034|191402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.22||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.22|-0.22|0.996
95716805|NCT01945034|191402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.36||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.08|0.210
95716806|NCT01945034|191402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.27||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.27|-0.14|0.556
95716807|NCT01945034|191402580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.17||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant global assessment terms.||0.17|-0.33|0.534
95716808|NCT01945034|191402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.1||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.10|-0.27|0.354
95716809|NCT01945034|191402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.07||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.07|-0.28|0.237
95716810|NCT01945034|191402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.19||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.19|-0.23|0.871
95716811|NCT01945034|191402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.0||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.00|-0.43|0.050
95716812|NCT01945034|191402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.25|0.640
95716813|NCT01945034|191402581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.41||p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects|ANOVA|||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline physician global assessment terms.||0.41|-0.08|0.180
95716814|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.51|||ANOVA|||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.51|-0.38|0.771
95716815|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-0.07|-0.88|0.022
95716816|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.05|-1.03|0.032
95716817|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.38|0.720
95716818|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.15|-0.71|0.194
95716819|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 1 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.15|-0.89|0.163
95716820|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.64|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.64|-0.40|0.644
95716821|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.11|-0.85|0.129
95716822|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.09|-1.07|0.096
95716823|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.57|-0.50|0.905
95716824|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.77|0.279
95716825|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.315|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 2 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.29|-0.90|0.315
95716826|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.91|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.91|-0.19|0.203
95716827|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.18|-0.83|0.207
95716828|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.07|-1.30|0.030
95716829|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.84|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.84|-0.32|0.372
95716830|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.532|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.36|-0.70|0.532
95716831|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 3 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.21|-1.08|0.189
95716832|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.24|0.264
95716833|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1:The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.81|0.260
95716834|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.23|0.054
95716835|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.37|0.456
95716836|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.42|0.639
95716837|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 4 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.75|0.780
95716838|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.07|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.07|-0.04|0.071
95716839|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.32|-0.70|0.468
95716840|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.08|-1.33|0.027
95716841|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.11|0.107
95855285|NCT03881852|191670130|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value calculated from LSMean|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95716842|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.947|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.57|0.947
95716843|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 5 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.16|-1.18|0.134
95716844|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.12|0.017
95716845|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.41|-0.60|0.715
95716846|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.15|-1.39|0.015
95716847|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.027
95716848|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.65|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.65|-0.42|0.660
95716849|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing 6 hour Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.11|-1.18|0.107
95716850|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|0.10|0.020
95716851|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.55|0.749
95716852|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|-0.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.12|-1.27|0.019
95716853|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.16|0.163
95716854|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.61|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.61|-0.43|0.727
95716855|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 1(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.32|-0.94|0.336
95716856|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.16|0.174
95716857|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.21|-0.73|0.277
95716858|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.04|-1.19|0.035
95855286|NCT01421719|191670150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0087||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired t test comparison of baseline number of urinary leaks per day versus number of leaks per day at 6 month evaluation after treatment.||||0.0087
95716859|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.50|0.858
95716860|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.60|0.724
95716861|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.48|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.48|-0.76|0.651
95716862|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.05|-0.02|0.059
95716863|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.42|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.42|-0.57|0.766
95716864|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.01|-1.19|0.053
95716865|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.21|0.212
95716866|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.55|-0.49|0.911
95716867|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.305|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.3|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.30|-0.96|0.305
95716868|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.05|0.075
95716869|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.60|-0.39|0.684
95716870|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.21|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.21|-0.98|0.208
95716871|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.85|-0.27|0.304
95716872|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.356|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.27|0.356
95716873|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.58|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 2(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.58|-0.67|0.876
95716874|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.15|0.10|0.020
95716875|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.47|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.47|-0.50|0.940
95918200|NCT02500979|191795706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-28733.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4163.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37326.0|-20139.0|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-20139|-37326|<0.0001
95716876|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.6||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.23|0.032
95716877|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.21|0.206
95716878|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.81|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.81|-0.26|0.310
95716879|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.771|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.55|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.55|-0.74|0.771
95716880|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.24|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.24|0.13|0.016
95716881|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|0.54|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.54|-0.48|0.905
95716882|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.28|0.039
95716883|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.27|0.276
95716884|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.343|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.82|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.82|-0.29|0.343
95716885|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.6|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(AM + 2 hours): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.60|-0.73|0.849
95716886|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.29|0.19|0.009
95716887|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.43|-0.58|0.763
95716888|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.8||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.20|-1.43|0.010
95716889|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.10|0.105
95716890|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.38|0.533
95716891|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.35|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.35|-0.99|0.348
95716892|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.13|0.016
95918201|NCT02500979|191795707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean difference|-28.418||||0.0258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.099|-3.737|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||-3.737|-53.099|0.0258
95716893|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.33|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.33|-0.69|0.483
95716894|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.9||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|-0.25|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.25|-1.47|0.006
95716895|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.0|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.00|-0.19|0.177
95716896|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.7|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.70|-0.40|0.586
95716897|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 3(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.41|-0.92|0.448
95716898|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|0.02|0.043
95716899|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.688|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.39|-0.59|0.688
95716900|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.06|-1.25|0.032
95716901|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.99|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.99|-0.19|0.179
95716902|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.40|0.609
95716903|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.40|-0.92|0.435
95716904|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|1.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.26|0.10|0.023
95716905|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.53|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.53|-0.54|0.987
95716906|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.7||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.03|-1.33|0.040
95716907|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.31|0.319
95716908|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.69|-0.47|0.712
95716909|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.49|-0.91|0.557
95918202|NCT02500979|191795709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio (Pramlintide/Placebo)|1.31||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.7|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.70|1.01|0.0456
95716910|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.28|0.14|0.015
95716911|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.26|0.326
95716912|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.19|-1.08|0.167
95716913|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.33|0.350
95716914|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-0.23|0.235
95716915|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 4(PM):The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.76|-0.65|0.881
95716916|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|1.16|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.16|0.04|0.036
95716917|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.63|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.63|-0.40|0.656
95716918|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.14|-1.11|0.130
95716919|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.95|-0.30|0.304
95716920|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.78|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.78|-0.37|0.491
95716921|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.57|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.57|-0.82|0.726
95716922|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.23|0.07|0.029
95716923|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.68|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.68|-0.39|0.585
95716924|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.15|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.15|-1.15|0.131
95716925|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.04|-0.24|0.215
95716926|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.24|0.244
95918203|NCT02500979|191795710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|0.951||||0.1015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.896|1.011|||Linear mixed-effects model|||||1.011|0.896|0.1015
95716927|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.66|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.66|-0.76|0.885
95716928|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.04|0.067
95716929|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.35|0.500
95716930|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.29|-1.02|0.276
95716931|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.38|0.413
95716932|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.83|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.83|-0.37|0.448
95716933|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 5(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.76|0.917
95716934|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|1.03|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.03|-0.13|0.132
95716935|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.72|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.72|-0.35|0.505
95716936|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.38|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.38|-0.92|0.422
95716937|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.747|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.76|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.76|-0.54|0.747
95716938|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.386|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.34|0.386
95716939|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.668|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.89|-0.57|0.668
95716940|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.08|-0.09|0.099
95716941|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.79|-0.29|0.365
95716942|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.41|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.41|-0.90|0.463
95716943|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.73|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.73|-0.60|0.845
95918204|NCT02500979|191795712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS mean ratio (pramlintide/placebo)|1.085||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.307|||Linear mixed effects model|||||1.307|0.901|0.3730
95918205|NCT01613027|191795731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 6||||<0.001
95716944|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.21|0.199
95716945|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.08|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.08|-0.41|0.375
95716946|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.7||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|1.27|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.27|0.07|0.028
95716947|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.92|-0.18|0.188
95716948|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.3||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|0.37|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.37|-0.97|0.375
95716949|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.89|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.89|-0.47|0.552
95716950|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.12|-0.14|0.126
95716951|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 6(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.05|-0.47|0.460
95716952|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.09|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.09|-0.09|0.095
95716953|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.94|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.94|-0.14|0.146
95716954|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.56|-0.75|0.769
95716955|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.96|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.96|-0.39|0.405
95716956|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.6||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|1.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.20|-0.05|0.073
95716957|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|1.04|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(AM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||1.04|-0.47|0.458
95716958|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.39|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.39|0.20|0.009
95716959|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.9|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.90|-0.20|0.209
95716960|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4||||0.193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.22|-1.11|0.193
95918206|NCT01613027|191795731|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Paired t-test|||Difference in change at Month 12||||<0.001
95918207|NCT02354963|191795747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.302
95716961|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|1.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.18|-0.18|0.149
95716962|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.4||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|1.06|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.06|-0.21|0.186
95716963|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.69|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7 Mid-day: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.69|-0.84|0.845
95716964|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|1.14|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.14|-0.04|0.067
95716965|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.87|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.87|-0.22|0.242
95716966|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2||||0.498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|0.43|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||0.43|-0.88|0.498
95716967|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.3||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.02|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.02|-0.34|0.330
95716968|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.13|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||1.13|-0.14|0.124
95716969|NCT01945034|191402582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.687|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|0.92|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Upon Weight Bearing Day 7(PM): The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||0.92|-0.61|0.687
95716970|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.0||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.95|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.95|-0.85|0.166
95716971|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.7||||0.199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.42|0.93|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.93|-4.42|0.199
95716972|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.8||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|-0.56|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-0.56|-7.04|0.022
95716973|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.7||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|4.79|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||4.79|-1.30|0.260
95716974|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.5||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|2.32|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||2.32|-3.31|0.729
95716975|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.2||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|1.16|||ANOVA|||Weight Bearing over 6 Hours on Day 1: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||1.16|-5.64|0.196
95716976|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.9||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.49|47.28|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||47.28|2.49|0.030
95716977|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-30.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.24|-5.23|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||-5.23|-55.24|0.018
95918208|NCT02354963|191795748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.449
95716978|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.3||||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.98|15.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||15.29|-25.98|0.611
95716979|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|13.8||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|37.36|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||37.36|-9.80|0.251
95716980|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.4||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.37|26.26|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||26.26|-17.37|0.689
95716981|NCT01945034|191402583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.3||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.69|17.01|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing over 2 Hours on Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||17.01|-35.69|0.486
95716982|NCT01945034|191402584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|38.5||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.9|71.18|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||71.18|5.90|0.021
95716983|NCT01945034|191402584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-7.9||||0.603|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.02|22.12|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||22.12|-38.02|0.603
95716984|NCT01945034|191402584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.5||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.93|-10.05|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 3 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||-10.05|-82.93|0.013
95918209|NCT02354963|191795749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.021
95716985|NCT01945034|191402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|87.7||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.48|161.85|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||161.85|13.48|0.021
95716986|NCT01945034|191402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.8||||0.735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.59|80.11|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||80.11|-56.59|0.735
95716987|NCT01945034|191402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-75.9||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-158.73|6.93|||ANOVA|||At Rest Over 7 days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity at rest terms.||6.93|-158.73|0.072
95716988|NCT01945034|191402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|46.0||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.43|126.52|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||126.52|-34.43|0.261
95716989|NCT01945034|191402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|37.3||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.13|111.8|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||111.80|-37.13|0.325
95716990|NCT01945034|191402585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-8.7||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-98.64|81.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Weight Bearing Over 7 Days: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline pain intensity on weight bearing terms.||81.22|-98.64|0.849
95716991|NCT01945034|191402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.49|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.49|0.0|0.042
95716992|NCT01945034|191402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.2||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.4|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.40|-0.04|0.114
95716993|NCT01945034|191402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.1||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.2|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 3: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.20|-0.34|0.598
95918210|NCT02354963|191795750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.427|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.427
95918211|NCT02354963|191795751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.496|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.496
95918212|NCT02354963|191795752|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
95918213|NCT02354963|191795753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.480
95918214|NCT02354963|191795754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.236|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.236
95716994|NCT01945034|191402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.19|-0.24|0.833
95716995|NCT01945034|191402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.22|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms. Upper limit of 95% CI \< 0 for Ibuprofen treatment significantly better than combined Placebo.||0.22|-0.18|0.853
95716996|NCT01945034|191402586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.0||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.29|||ANOVA|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Day 10: The ANOVA model was used which contains treatment, baseline categorical pain severity rating, pooled site block, and baseline participant assessment of Normal Function/Activity terms.||0.29|-0.20|0.733
95716997|NCT01945034|191402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.97|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the Proportional Hazards (PH) model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||1.97|1.07|0.016
95716998|NCT01945034|191402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.95|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.95|0.53|0.022
95716999|NCT01945034|191402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.49|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.69|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to First Perceptible Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.69|0.34|< 0.001
95717000|NCT01945034|191402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.51|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||2.51|1.27|< 0.001
95717001|NCT01945034|191402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.88|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.88|0.41|0.009
95717002|NCT01945034|191402588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.52|||Proportional Hazards Model|p-value \<=0.05 for treatment effects||Time to Meaningful Relief: Hazard Ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated based on the Wald statistic from the PH model with treatment, BLPSR, and pooled site blocks.||0.52|0.22|< 0.001
95717003|NCT01945034|191402590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.479|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.479
95717004|NCT01945034|191402590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.279|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.279
95717005|NCT01945034|191402590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.129|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|p-values from the CMH test with modified ridit scores, controlling for BLPSR and site block.||||||0.129
95717006|NCT00706901|191402598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
95717007|NCT00706901|191402598|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
95717008|NCT00706901|191402599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A Zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
95717009|NCT00706901|191402599|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||.0002
95717010|NCT00706901|191402600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To examine differences between GMI and TCC on SECs, a two-component Weibull mixture model for effectively dealing with zero-heavy continuous data was conducted.||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Weibull mixture model|||||||0.04
95717011|NCT00706901|191402600|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A generalized linear mixed model with correlated errors to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the response within subjects was conducted.||||||0.47|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.47
95717012|NCT00706901|191402601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<0.01
95717013|NCT00706901|191402601|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||<.0001
95717014|NCT00706901|191402602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.|||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||<.0001
95717015|NCT00706901|191402602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.02
95717016|NCT00706901|191402603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero inflated Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurement of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero inflated Poisson model|||||||0.17
95918215|NCT02354963|191795755|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|3.68|||Chi-squared|||||3.68|0.13|0.684
95717017|NCT00706901|191402603|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Zero-hurdle Poisson model with random intercept to account for correlation between repeated measurements of the responses within subjects was conducted.||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||Zero-hurdle Poisson model|||||||0.67
95717018|NCT00798161|191402609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.36||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.36|-0.79|<0.0001
95717019|NCT00798161|191402609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.3||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.30|-0.73|<0.0001
95717020|NCT00798161|191402609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.99|-0.55||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.55|-0.99|<0.0001
95717021|NCT00798161|191402609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.36|-0.92||hierarchical testing, no adjustment of p-values|ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.92|-1.36|<0.0001
95717022|NCT00798161|191402610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.56|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.26|-0.56|<0.0001
95717023|NCT00798161|191402610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.53|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.23|-0.53|<0.0001
95717024|NCT00798161|191402610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.65|-0.35|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs Linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 500mg||-0.35|-0.65|<0.0001
95717025|NCT00798161|191402610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.79|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.48|-0.79|<0.0001
95717026|NCT00798161|191402611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.31|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.31|-0.72|<0.0001
95717027|NCT00798161|191402611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.63|-0.22|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.22|-0.63|<0.0001
95717028|NCT00798161|191402611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.92|-0.51|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.51|-0.92|<0.0001
95717029|NCT00798161|191402611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.16|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.75|-1.16|<0.0001
95717030|NCT00798161|191402612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.73|-0.29|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.29|-0.73|<0.0001
95717031|NCT00798161|191402612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.69|-0.26|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.26|-0.69|<0.0001
95717032|NCT00798161|191402612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.94|-0.49|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-0.49|-0.94|<0.0001
95717033|NCT00798161|191402612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.3|-0.86|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-0.86|-1.30|<0.0001
95717034|NCT00798161|191402613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0005||95.0|-27.2|-7.6|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-7.6|-27.2|0.0005
95717035|NCT00798161|191402613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0||0.0006||95.0|-27.1|-7.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.3|-27.1|0.0006
95717036|NCT00798161|191402613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-34.4|-14.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-14.8|-34.4|<0.0001
95717037|NCT00798161|191402613|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-40.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.0|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.6|-31.0|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. linagliptin 2.5mg with metformin 1000mg||-31.0|-50.6|<0.0001
95717038|NCT00798161|191402614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1||0.0003||95.0|-22.9|-6.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-6.8|-22.9|0.0003
95717039|NCT00798161|191402614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.9|-8.8|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.8|-24.9|<0.0001
95717040|NCT00798161|191402614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.5|-13.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-13.4|-29.5|<0.0001
95717041|NCT00798161|191402614|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-33.6|-17.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-17.6|-33.6|<0.0001
95717042|NCT00798161|191402615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-26.7|-9.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-9.1|-26.7|<0.0001
95717043|NCT00798161|191402615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5||0.0002||95.0|-25.6|-7.9|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-7.9|-25.6|0.0002
95717044|NCT00798161|191402615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-36.7|-19.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-19.1|-36.7|<0.0001
95717045|NCT00798161|191402615|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-37.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.5|<|0.0001||95.0|-46.4|-28.8|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.8|-46.4|<0.0001
95717046|NCT00798161|191402616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7||0.0024||95.0|-23.7|-5.1|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-5.1|-23.7|0.0024
95717047|NCT00798161|191402616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8||0.0002||95.0|-27.4|-8.7|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.7|-27.4|0.0002
95717048|NCT00798161|191402616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-37.1|-18.5|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-18.5|-37.1|<0.0001
95717049|NCT00798161|191402616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.7|<|0.0001||95.0|-50.8|-32.2|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-32.2|-50.8|<0.0001
95717050|NCT00798161|191402617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.4|-11.4|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-11.4|-30.4|<0.0001
95717051|NCT00798161|191402617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.0003||95.0|-27.4|-8.3|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-8.3|-27.4|0.0003
95717052|NCT00798161|191402617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-35.0|-15.9|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-15.9|-35.0|<0.0001
95717053|NCT00798161|191402617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-39.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9|<|0.0001||95.0|-48.5|-29.4|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5 mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5 mg with Metformin 1000 mg||-29.4|-48.5|<0.0001
95717054|NCT00798161|191402618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.372||||0.0062||95.0|1.278|4.402|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||4.402|1.278|0.0062
95717055|NCT00798161|191402618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.163|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.343|7.397|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.397|2.343|<0.0001
95717056|NCT00798161|191402618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.854|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.363|9.973|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||9.973|2.363|<0.0001
95717057|NCT00798161|191402618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|17.094|||<|0.0001||95.0|8.238|35.471|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||35.471|8.238|<0.0001
95717058|NCT00798161|191402620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.465||||0.0102||95.0|1.342|8.943|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||8.943|1.342|0.0102
95717059|NCT00798161|191402620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.521||||0.0004||95.0|1.747|7.094|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||7.094|1.747|0.0004
95717060|NCT00798161|191402620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.521||||0.0053||95.0|1.564|13.069|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||13.069|1.564|0.0053
95717061|NCT00798161|191402620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.947|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.314|33.08|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||33.080|4.314|<0.0001
95717062|NCT00798161|191402622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.181|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.903|5.316|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||5.316|1.903|<0.0001
95717063|NCT00798161|191402622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.382||||0.0027||95.0|1.352|4.196|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||4.196|1.352|0.0027
95717064|NCT00798161|191402622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.622|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.153|6.093|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||6.093|2.153|<0.0001
95717065|NCT00798161|191402622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.529|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.724|11.445|||Regression, Logistic|The odds-ratio is based on a logistic regression model including baseline HbA1c and previous antidiabetic medication.||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||11.445|3.724|<0.0001
95717066|NCT00798161|191402623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.8893||95.0|-48.5|42.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 500mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||42.2|-48.5|0.8893
95717067|NCT00798161|191402623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.1||0.3234||95.0|-66.2|22.2|||ANCOVA|||Metformin 1000mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||22.2|-66.2|0.3234
95717068|NCT00798161|191402623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|23.8||0.0373||95.0|-98.5|-3.1|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 500mg||-3.1|-98.5|0.0373
95717069|NCT00798161|191402623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-73.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.7||0.0018||95.0|-119.3|-28.6|||ANCOVA|||Linagliptin 5mg vs. Linagliptin 2.5mg with Metformin 1000mg||-28.6|-119.3|0.0018
95717070|NCT00798161|191402626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.326||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.109|0.973|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.973|0.109|0.0445
95717071|NCT00798161|191402626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.274||||0.0151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.096|0.779|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.779|0.096|0.0151
95717072|NCT00798161|191402626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.177|0.996|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.996|0.177|0.0490
95717073|NCT00798161|191402626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.598||||0.2617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.244|1.467|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.467|0.244|0.2617
95918216|NCT02354963|191795756|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.36||||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|3.05|||Chi-squared|||||3.05|0.04|0.512
95717074|NCT01969201|191402644|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority was evaluated by calculating the 95% CI for the differences in pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups. If the lower bound of the 95% CI of the difference between the two proportions was greater than -0.10 (i.e. 10%), then Fostimon was to be considered not inferior to the control treatment.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.73||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.88|4.42|||Fisher Exact|||||4.42|-9.88|0.49
95717075|NCT01969201|191402645|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95717076|NCT01969201|191402646|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95717077|NCT01969201|191402647|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
95717078|NCT01969201|191402648|OTHER|||||||0.89|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95717079|NCT01969201|191402649|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5
95717080|NCT01969201|191402650|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.53
95717081|NCT01969201|191402651|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.07
95717082|NCT01491737|191402703|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the PFS time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the PFS time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to PFS was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.89|0.48|0.0070
95717083|NCT01491737|191402703|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.89|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis||0.89|0.50|0.0059
95717084|NCT01491737|191402704|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.91|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Primary Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.91|0.69|0.5850
95717085|NCT01491737|191402704|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.7833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.52|||Log Rank|Stratified log-rank test based upon Kaplan-Meier including induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Hazard ratio comparing Arm A vs. B from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors.|Final Analysis. This study was not powered for overall survival (OS), so adequately powered statistical testing for this outcome measure was not possible.||1.52|0.73|0.7833
95717086|NCT01491737|191402705|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|7.6||||0.2537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|21.3||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||ORR for Arm A vs Arm B||21.3|-6.0|0.2537
95717087|NCT01491737|191402706|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CBR|1.8||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.2|14.8||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Chi-squared|||CBR for Arm A vs. Arm B||14.8|-11.2|0.7743
95717088|NCT01491737|191402707|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.91||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Primary Analysis. Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the DOR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the DOR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to DOR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||0.91|0.36|0.0181
95717089|NCT01491737|191402707|OTHER|Exploratory|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.0205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.93|||Log Rank|Log-rank test from unstratified analysis based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including stratification factors of induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy.|Final Analysis.||0.93|0.41|0.0205
95717090|NCT01491737|191402708|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.5597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.57||Test was performed at 2-sided alpha of 5%.|Log Rank|The log-rank test from unstratified analysis was based upon Kaplan-Meier approach. There was no multiplicity adjustment.|Hazard ratio from stratified Cox proportional hazards model including the induction chemotherapy and prior adjuvant hormone therapy stratification factors.|Log Rank tested the following: Null Hypothesis (H0): the distribution of the TTR time was the same in Arms A \& B; The Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the distribution of the TTR time was different in Arms A \& B. A Cox proportional hazards model tested the HR. If the HR of investigational arm (Arm A) compared with control arm (Arm B) with respect to TTR was assumed to be constant over time (λ) then the null (H0) and alternative hypotheses (H1) were: H0: λ =1; H1: λ ≠1.||1.57|0.78|0.5597
95717091|NCT00489411|191402716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|0.73||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.2|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.20|0.26|0.003
95717092|NCT00489411|191402717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|7.88||||||||7.88|0.93|
95717093|NCT00489411|191402718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|1.58||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|3.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||3.00|0.15|0.03
95717094|NCT00489411|191402719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean difference|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.65||||||||1.65|0.36|
95717095|NCT01453296|191402746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
95717096|NCT01453296|191402746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
95717097|NCT01453296|191402746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 maximum HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
95717098|NCT01453296|191402747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|5.7|||||Day 1 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-0.8|
95717099|NCT01453296|191402747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|3.7|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.7|-2.4|
95717100|NCT01453296|191402747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.6|||||Day 14 weighted HR (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||3.6|-2.6|
95717101|NCT01453296|191402748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|6.6|||||Day 1 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.6|-4.5|
95717102|NCT01453296|191402748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.3|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.3|-3.2|
95717103|NCT01453296|191402748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.7|||||Day 14 maximum QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||5.7|-3.0|
95717104|NCT01453296|191402762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.59|6.61|||||Day 1 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||6.61|-2.59|
95717105|NCT01453296|191402762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|7.81|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-2 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.81|-1.93|
95717106|NCT01453296|191402762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|7.08|||||Day 14 weighted QTcF (0-8 hr). The estimated value represents the treatment difference: VI 25 µg minus placebo.|||7.08|-0.70|
95717107|NCT01828164|191402800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Change|29.0||||0.0164|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in tooth movement rate on the treatment side as compared to the control side.|||||0.0164
95717108|NCT01828164|191402801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent change|220.8||||0.0423|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided||Percent change in root resorption rate on the control side as compared to the treatment side.|||||0.0423
95717109|NCT01828164|191402802|NON_INFERIORITY|1 point on the 10-point pain scale was used as the non-inferiority margin.|||||<|0.001|||||||Bootstrapped mean difference|This test bootstrapped the mean difference (Treatment Arm - Control Arm) less 1, the non-inferiority margin, 1000 times.||||||<0.001
95717110|NCT00465894|191402814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.45
95717111|NCT01883362|191402841|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.2655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.86|||Log Rank|||||1.86|0.12|0.2655
95717112|NCT01883362|191402842|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
95717113|NCT01883362|191402843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.2424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.52|||Log Rank|||||1.52|0.20|0.2424
95717114|NCT01883362|191402844|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.4297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.14|||Log Rank|||||2.14|0.17|0.4297
95717115|NCT01883362|191402845|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58||||0.3418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.79|||Log Rank|||||1.79|0.19|0.3418
95717116|NCT01883362|191402846|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.4169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|2.74|||Log Rank|||||2.74|0.09|0.4169
95717117|NCT01790633|191402910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||We approached our analysis as a pilot study with the aim of addressing feasibility. 70% of patients seen at the MDM clinic obtain a test result with standard serology. Assuming a 20% increase in infection awareness and type 1 error of 0.05, and power of at least 0.9, a minimum of 82 participants per group would be needed.||||<0.001
95717118|NCT01790633|191402911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||||||P-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were not necessary. Significance was determined using P \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.7
95918217|NCT00579982|191795757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Paired t-test|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95717119|NCT01740297|191402933|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.5|1.5|0.002
95717120|NCT01740297|191402936|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.4||P-value is descriptive|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||3.4|1.1|0.033
95717121|NCT01740297|191402937|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.8||P-value is descriptive.|Chi-squared, Corrected||Obtained from the unstratified logistic regression model.|||5.8|1.4|0.007
95717122|NCT01740297|191402938|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.49||P-value is descriptive|Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model.|||2.49|0.80|0.228
95717123|NCT01740297|191402940|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.23|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.23|0.56|0.348
95717124|NCT01740297|191402941|OTHER|||||||0.696|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.696
95717125|NCT01740297|191402942|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.46|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.46|0.44|0.474
95717126|NCT01740297|191402944|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.09|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.09|0.55|0.14
95717127|NCT01740297|191402945|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank||Obtained from unstratified Cox Proportional Hazard Model|||1.24|0.56|0.37
95918218|NCT00981825|191795792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95918219|NCT03881059|191795797|SUPERIORITY||Slope Coefficient of Dose|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.17|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.17|0.05|<0.001
95918220|NCT02322814|191795920|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.247||95.0|0.43|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.43|0.2470
95918221|NCT02322814|191795922|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5912||95.0|0.65|2.13|||Log Rank|||||2.13|0.65|0.5912
95918222|NCT00610701|191795943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.05
95717128|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-12.3||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.37|-24.24|0.043
95717129|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-6.77||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.7|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||11.16|-24.70|0.457
95717130|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-11.61||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.03|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.81|-24.03|0.067
95717131|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.61||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.02|8.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.80|-16.02|0.567
95717132|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-10.9||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.71|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||0.92|-22.71|0.070
95717133|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.18||||0.647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.87|10.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||10.50|-16.87|0.647
95717134|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-9.73||||0.075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.46|1.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||1.00|-20.46|0.075
95717135|NCT00563706|191402953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.44||||0.765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|8.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed effects model was used to assess the treatment effects with change in PANSS total score from baseline as response variable, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||8.04|-10.92|0.765
95717136|NCT04074109|191402962|OTHER|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
95717137|NCT04074109|191402962|OTHER|||||||||||||||||This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used. We report percentages and frequencies to show feasibility|This is a feasibility study which is not powered for efficacy. Therefore no formal statistical tests are used.|||
95717138|NCT02383966|191402981|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.566|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.803||||||||0.803|0.400|
95717139|NCT02383966|191402982|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.568|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.406|0.795||||||||0.795|0.406|
95717140|NCT02383966|191402983|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.705|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.502|0.991||||||||0.991|0.502|
95717141|NCT02383966|191402984|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|5.45||||||||5.45|1.52|
95717142|NCT02383966|191402985|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|3.95||||||||3.95|1.15|
95717143|NCT00333437|191402988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change from Baseline|0.1786|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1613||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0294|0.3277||Not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre FVC (liters) = 0||0.3277|0.0294|0.026
95717144|NCT00333437|191402989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.1035||0.3652|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.49|4.4945||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre neutrophil count = 0||4.4945|-10.49|0.3652
95717145|NCT00333437|191402989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.286|STANDARD_DEVIATION|16.358||0.3485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.41|8.8426||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): post-pre eosinophil count = 0||8.8426|-21.41|0.3485
95717146|NCT00333437|191402991|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|264.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|194.66||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|84.256|444.32||Significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|Not adjusted||H(0): post-pre walk distance = 0||444.32|84.256|0.0115
95717147|NCT00333437|191402992|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.8643|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5013||0.0167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4758|3.2527||significant p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||H(0): Post-pre DLCO = 0||3.2527|0.4758|0.0167
95717148|NCT03022526|191402993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7463|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7463
95717149|NCT03022526|191402994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5764|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5764
95717150|NCT03022526|191402995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7169|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7169
95717151|NCT03022526|191402996|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4226
95717152|NCT03022526|191402997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6873|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6873
95717153|NCT03022526|191402998|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0452|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0452
95717154|NCT03022526|191402999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0899|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0899
95717155|NCT03022526|191403000|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1265|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1265
95717156|NCT03022526|191403001|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0328|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0328
95717157|NCT03022526|191403002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6824|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.6824
95717158|NCT03022526|191403003|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.449
95717159|NCT03022526|191403004|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5996|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5996
95717160|NCT03022526|191403005|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8009|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.8009
95717161|NCT03022526|191403006|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5422|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5422
95717162|NCT03022526|191403007|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7374|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7374
95717163|NCT01361308|191403009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||Week 4 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95717164|NCT01361308|191403009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||||||Week 12 frequency|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0090
95717165|NCT01361308|191403010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 4|Logit model|||||||0.001
95717166|NCT01361308|191403010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||||||Clinical meaningfulness at week 12|Logit model|||||||0.055
95717167|NCT01361308|191403026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0017||||||Week 4 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.0017
95717168|NCT01361308|191403026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1658||||||Week 12 severity|Rank transformed ANCOVA|||||||0.1658
95717169|NCT01241591|191403029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% lower confidence intervals (LCIs) of the difference for PGA and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA response and PASI75 at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|-11.76||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.76|-26.55|
95717170|NCT01241591|191403029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|32.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.41|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.51|40.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the lower bounds of the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.81|23.51|
95717171|NCT01241591|191403029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|1.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.64|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.22|9.05||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||9.05|-5.22|
95717172|NCT01241591|191403029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|53.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.3|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|44.81|61.65||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||61.65|44.81|
95717173|NCT01241591|191403030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%, and CP-690,550 10 mg was superior to placebo for PGA and PASI75 response at Week 12.|Mean Difference|-19.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.81|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.75|-11.83||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||-11.83|-26.75|
95717174|NCT01241591|191403030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|33.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.06|40.76||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 5 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 5 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||40.76|27.06|
95717175|NCT01241591|191403030|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The a priori threshold for non-inferiority was -15% and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to etanercept was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than -15%.|Mean Difference|4.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|12.23||||||Difference from Etanercept (Active-Etanercept)||12.23|-2.57|
95717176|NCT01241591|191403030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference|58.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.46|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.25|64.81||||||Difference from Placebo (Active-Placebo); the a priori threshold for superiority was 0 and a step-down approach was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Superiority of CP-690,550 10 mg to placebo was concluded if the 95% LCIs of the difference for PGA and PASI75 responses at Week 12 were greater than 0, and non-inferiority of CP-690,550 10 mg was concluded to be non-inferior to etanercept.||64.81|51.25|
95717177|NCT02389621|191403077|SUPERIORITY||Difference|36.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|24.9|48.5||Statistical tests were performed at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted using the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||48.5|24.9|<0.0001
95717178|NCT02389621|191403078|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|34.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.8|46.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||46.8|22.8|<0.0001
95717179|NCT02389621|191403079|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|Difference|52.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|62.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Adjusted for the stratification factors of platelet count at randomization and the planned primary invasive procedure.||||62.9|42.0|<0.0001
95717180|NCT02389621|191403080|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.||||||0.0002|||||||van Elteren test|van Elteren test stratified by platelet transfusion during the study.||||||0.0002
95717181|NCT02389621|191403081|SUPERIORITY|A gatekeeping procedure was employed for sequentially testing the prespecified important secondary endpoints, identified as the most clinically relevant endpoints. If the primary endpoint was statistically significant, the secondary endpoints were tested at the 0.05 level (2-sided) in sequence.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||<0.0001
95717182|NCT00437294|191403090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.237||||||The 1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Log Rank|||||||0.237
95918223|NCT01152294|191795944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.4||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|7.96|||t-test, 2 sided|||We tested for a difference in the mean total knowledge score between the decision aid and control groups using independent t-test (2 sided). With 100 patients in each arm, the study had more than 90% power to detect a 10% difference in knowledge assuming a common standard deviation of 18%.||7.96|1.02|0.01
95717183|NCT00437294|191403095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||||||1-sided significance level was 0.20.|Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95717184|NCT00437294|191403096|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.812|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.812
95717185|NCT00437294|191403097|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.181
95717186|NCT00461591|191403108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.1068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.06|0.54|0.1068
95717187|NCT00461591|191403109|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.99|||Log Rank|||||0.99|0.59|0.0412
95717188|NCT02544607|191403120|OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95717189|NCT02544607|191403121|OTHER|||||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.048
95717190|NCT02544607|191403122|OTHER|||||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95717191|NCT02544607|191403123|OTHER|||||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.0499
95717192|NCT02544607|191403124|OTHER|||||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.038
95717193|NCT00124709|191403145|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0046||||0.7901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.029|0.0381|||ANCOVA|Treatment, Center, gender, baseline age (months), baseline EASI score, and baseline TBSA as explanatory variables||"A disease-free day in Step 2 or less was defined as a diary day with variable No or almost no eczema?=yes and medication used variable=no except emollients, yellow label medication 2X day, or medication deviation of yellow label medication 1x day."||0.0381|-0.0290|0.7901
95717194|NCT01005810|191403184|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.35||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|5.24|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.24|1.05|0.029
95717195|NCT01797458|191403189|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02||||||Twenty-five teeth experienced at least one 'Minor' failure (reversible pulpitis, caries progression, and secondary caries): NRCT 9 (6.4%), CR 14 (10%), HT 2 (1.4%).|Kruskal-Wallis|||The null hypothesis was no difference at 2 yrs among any of the 3 arms for the primary outcome of success or minor failure.||||0.02
95717196|NCT04753606|191403291|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
95717197|NCT04753606|191403291|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
95717198|NCT04753606|191403292|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
95717199|NCT04753606|191403292|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
95717200|NCT04753606|191403293|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-32.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.943|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.03|-21.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.90|-44.03|<.0001
95717201|NCT04753606|191403293|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-39.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.927|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.21|-28.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-28.15|-50.21|<.0001
95717202|NCT04753606|191403294|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
95717203|NCT04753606|191403294|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
95717204|NCT04753606|191403295|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
95717205|NCT04753606|191403295|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
95717206|NCT04753606|191403296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-28.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.14|-19.74|||ANCOVA|||||-19.74|-38.14|<.0001
95717207|NCT04753606|191403296|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-40.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.591|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.16|-30.97|||ANCOVA|||||-30.97|-49.16|<.0001
95717208|NCT04753606|191403297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
95717209|NCT04753606|191403297|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
95717210|NCT04753606|191403298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
95717211|NCT04753606|191403298|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
95717212|NCT04753606|191403299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-18.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.657|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.51|-11.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-11.02|-25.51|<.0001
95717213|NCT04753606|191403299|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-23.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.65|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.22|-16.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-16.76|-31.22|<.0001
95717214|NCT04753606|191403300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
95717215|NCT04753606|191403300|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
95717216|NCT04753606|191403301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
95717217|NCT04753606|191403301|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
95717218|NCT04753606|191403302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-30.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.503|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.46|-21.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-21.62|-39.46|<.0001
95717219|NCT04753606|191403302|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|-36.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.488|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.92|-27.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||-27.14|-44.92|<.0001
95717220|NCT04753606|191403303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
95717221|NCT04753606|191403303|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
95717222|NCT04753606|191403304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
95717223|NCT04753606|191403304|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
95717224|NCT04753606|191403305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|129.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.337|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|110.78|147.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||147.77|110.78|<.0001
95717225|NCT04753606|191403305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Means|164.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.306|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|145.9|182.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with missing at random assumption||||182.76|145.90|<.0001
95717226|NCT01335620|191403317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Compare baseline to 24 weeks||||0.018
95717227|NCT03841331|191403318|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-1.4||||0.5861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|11.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used|At Week 10||11.1|-13.9|0.5861
95717228|NCT03841331|191403319|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-0.7||||0.5651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|8.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||8.7|-10.1|0.5651
95717229|NCT03841331|191403319|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-4.1||||0.7769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|6.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||At Week 4|95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|6.7|-14.8|0.7769
95717230|NCT03841331|191403319|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|2.8||||0.3285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.1|14.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||14.8|-9.1|0.3285
95717231|NCT03841331|191403319|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Effect|-2.3||||0.6525|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.4|9.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.8|-14.4|0.6525
95717232|NCT03841331|191403320|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|0.0||||0.4952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|5.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 2||5.7|-5.6|0.4952
95717233|NCT03841331|191403320|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.2||||0.0891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|12.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 4||12.7|-2.3|0.0891
95717234|NCT03841331|191403320|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|-4.2||||0.8447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|3.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 6||3.7|-12.1|0.8447
95717235|NCT03841331|191403320|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|1.0||||0.4174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|9.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 8||9.4|-7.5|0.4174
95717236|NCT03841331|191403320|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.7||||0.2756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|11.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Wald confidence intervals for the treatment difference was used.|At Week 10||11.2|-5.8|0.2756
95717237|NCT03841331|191403321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.4409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.57|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||0.57|-0.49|0.4409
95717238|NCT03841331|191403321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.5496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.57||At week 4|ANOVA|||At Week 4||0.57|-0.65|0.5496
95717239|NCT03841331|191403321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.6311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.55|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||0.55|-0.78|0.6311
95717240|NCT03841331|191403321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4738||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.69|||ANOVA|||At Week 8||0.69|-0.65|0.02
95717241|NCT03841331|191403321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.3948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.78|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||0.78|-0.60|0.3948
95717242|NCT03841331|191403323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.98|9.87|||ANOVA|||At Week 2||9.87|-4.98|0.2440
95717243|NCT03841331|191403323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.27||||0.6349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|6.65|||ANOVA|||At Week 4||6.65|-9.20|0.6349
95717244|NCT03841331|191403323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3407||||1.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|10.23|||ANOVA|||At Week 6||10.23|-6.40|1.91
95717245|NCT03841331|191403323|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.52|8.97|||ANOVA|||At Week 10||8.97|-8.52|0.4960
95717246|NCT02743117|191403334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.1|1.3||||||||1.3|-8.1|
95717247|NCT02743117|191403335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-8.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|4.6||||||Up to Day 8||4.6|-22.2|
95717248|NCT02743117|191403335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|-7.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|5.9||||||Up to Day 15||5.9|-21.6|
95717249|NCT04983589|191403339|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|27.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.3|37.4||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||37.4|17.3|<0.0001
95717250|NCT04983589|191403340|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|26.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.8|36.0||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation based on pooled variance without continuity correction.|||36.0|16.8|<0.0001
95717251|NCT04983589|191403341|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|34.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|46.7||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated based on the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||46.7|22.7|<0.0001
95717252|NCT04983589|191403342|SUPERIORITY||Percentage Difference|20.6||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|32.6||Analysis was done using chi-square test.|Chi-squared||The 95% confidence interval for the proportion differences was calculated using the normal approximation using pooled variance without continuity correction.|||32.6|8.6|0.001
95717253|NCT00761969|191403343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||Survival, major-event-free survival and event-free survival of patients with PAD and control subjects was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. The numbers of non-fatal events and revascularization procedures (which could be more than one per person) were compared using the Poisson regression - the outcome being the number of events per person-year.||||<0.001
95717254|NCT03557775|191403345|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.041||||||Result for time by group interaction (threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05).|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.041
95717255|NCT03557775|191403346|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction. Statistical threshold set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
95717256|NCT03557775|191403347|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.733
95717257|NCT03557775|191403348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.702
95717258|NCT03557775|191403349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.198||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.198
95717259|NCT03557775|191403350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.388
95717260|NCT03557775|191403351|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.296
95717261|NCT03557775|191403352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.040
95717262|NCT03557775|191403353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.887
95717263|NCT03557775|191403354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance was set 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.663
95717264|NCT03557775|191403355|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.026
95717265|NCT03557775|191403356|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.721
95717266|NCT03557775|191403357|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.408||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.408
95717267|NCT03557775|191403358|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.638||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.638
95717268|NCT03557775|191403359|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.715||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.715
95717269|NCT03557775|191403360|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.708||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.708
95717270|NCT03557775|191403361|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.988||||||Result for time by group interaction effect. Threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||Null hypothesis: there will be no significant time by group interaction effect for this variable.||||0.988
95717271|NCT00276458|191403371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.001||95.0|-25.2|-14.5|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-14.5|-25.2|<0.001
95717272|NCT00276458|191403372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1||0.273||95.0|-1.9|6.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||6.6|-1.9|0.273
95717273|NCT00276458|191403373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-21.2|-11.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.7|-21.2|<0.001
95717274|NCT00276458|191403374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8|<|0.001||95.0|-15.8|-8.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.6|-15.8|<0.001
95717275|NCT00276458|191403375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.159||95.0|-17.7|-0.4||ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value|Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline triglycerides value.|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||-0.4|-17.7|0.159
95717276|NCT00276458|191403376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.1|<|0.001||95.0|-17.8|-9.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-9.6|-17.8|<0.001
95717277|NCT00276458|191403377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.6||0.681||95.0|-3.9|2.6|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||2.6|-3.9|0.681
95717278|NCT00276458|191403378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2|<|0.001||95.0|-17.5|-8.7|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Total-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.7|-17.5|<0.001
95717279|NCT00276458|191403379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.001||95.0|-26.5|-15.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-15.3|-26.5|<0.001
95717280|NCT00276458|191403380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4|<|0.001||95.0|-17.9|-8.3|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline Apo B:Apo A-I value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-8.3|-17.9|<0.001
95717281|NCT00276458|191403381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.001||95.0|-23.2|-11.4|||ANCOVA|Model terms: treatment and baseline non-HDL-C:HDL-C value|(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)|||-11.4|-23.2|<0.001
95717282|NCT00276458|191403382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.841||95.0|-23.8|28.8|||Longitudinal Data Analysis (LDA)|LDA method of Liang and Zeger with model terms: treatment, time, and the interaction of time by treatment|"Data for analysis was transformed by the natural log and the difference in geometric mean % change from BL calculated based on the difference in the back-transformed least squares means.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||28.8|-23.8|0.841
95717283|NCT00276458|191403383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.3||||0.839||95.0|-26.1|8.3|||Nonparametric ANCOVA|ANCOVA using ranks based on normal scores (Tukey method) with model terms for treatment and baseline CRP value|"The median difference is based on the Hodges-Lehmann estimates of shift; The distribution-free 95% CI is based on Wilcoxon's rank sum test statistic.~(Atorva + EZ minus Atorva)"|||8.3|-26.1|0.839
95717284|NCT00276458|191403384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.6|||<|0.001||95.0|3.8|19.47|||Regression, Logistic|Model terms: treatment and baseline LDL-C value|Estimated ratio is the predictive odds of attaining LDL-C target on Atorva + EZ versus Atorva.|||19.47|3.80|<0.001
95717285|NCT00585468|191403385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0163|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0163
95717286|NCT00585468|191403386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.039|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95717287|NCT00585468|191403388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.146|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.146
95717288|NCT00585468|191403389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4937|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.4937
95717289|NCT00585468|191403390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9669|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9669
95717290|NCT00585468|191403392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9607|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9607
95717291|NCT04259905|191403393|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95717292|NCT04259905|191403394|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95717293|NCT04259905|191403395|SUPERIORITY||Cohen's d|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95717294|NCT00762073|191403437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.239||||0.5282|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.5282
95717295|NCT00762073|191403437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.86||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0092
95717296|NCT00762073|191403437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|15.009||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0174
95717297|NCT00762073|191403438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1786|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1786
95717298|NCT00762073|191403438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0090
95717299|NCT00762073|191403438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0001
95717300|NCT00762073|191403439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4959|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.4959
95717301|NCT00762073|191403439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0040
95717302|NCT00762073|191403439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age group as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.0001
95717303|NCT00762073|191403440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0108|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0108
95717304|NCT00762073|191403440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0208|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.0208
95717305|NCT00762073|191403440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95717306|NCT00762073|191403441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1095|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.1095
95717307|NCT00762073|191403441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0264|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0264
95717308|NCT00762073|191403441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate|ANCOVA|||||||0.0010
95717309|NCT00762073|191403442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3769|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3769
95717310|NCT00762073|191403442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9363
95717311|NCT00762073|191403442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.1235
95717312|NCT00762073|191403443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3444|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3444
95717313|NCT00762073|191403443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9258|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.9258
95717314|NCT00762073|191403443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3215|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by a logistic regression analysis with treatment (all four groups) and age as main effects.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.3215
95717315|NCT00762073|191403444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6729|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.6729
95717316|NCT00762073|191403444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8894
95717317|NCT00762073|191403444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1532|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing percent change from Baseline for each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.1532
95717318|NCT00762073|191403445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4197|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.4197
95717319|NCT00762073|191403445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9787|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.9787
95717320|NCT00762073|191403445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8987|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values comparing each active treatment group to placebo were determined by an ANCOVA model with treatment and age strata as main effects and baseline as a covariate.|ANCOVA|||||||0.8987
95717321|NCT01265875|191403458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 4.||||.25
95717322|NCT01265875|191403458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to day 7.||||.19
95717323|NCT01265875|191403458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.27
95717324|NCT01265875|191403460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 4.||||.52
95717325|NCT01265875|191403460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline to Day 30.||||.34
95717326|NCT00863265|191403486|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|289.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||The estimation parameter is the difference between the placebo group and the ezetimibe group.|Phytosterol Diet compared to Ezetimibe||||0.01
95717327|NCT00863265|191403486|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|457.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
95717328|NCT00863265|191403486|EQUIVALENCE|The hypothesis is that groups are equal|Mean Difference (Final Values)|168.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Ezetimibe vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
95717329|NCT00863265|191403487|EQUIVALENCE|Not applicable in this study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.8|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal||||<0.01
95717330|NCT00863265|191403487|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|36.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||Placebo vs. Ezetimibe Plus Phytosterols||||<0.01
95717331|NCT00863265|191403487|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.6|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
95717332|NCT00863265|191403488|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.01
95717333|NCT00863265|191403488|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.0|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that all groups are equal||||<0.01
95717334|NCT00863265|191403488|EQUIVALENCE||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANOVA|||The hypothesis is that groups are equal.||||<0.05
95717335|NCT00157157|191403520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.95||||||95.0|1.29|19.06||||||||19.06|1.29|
95717336|NCT00157157|191403521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.18||||||95.0|1.18|14.82||||||||14.82|1.18|
95717337|NCT00157157|191403522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.5||||||95.0|1.05|19.25||||||||19.25|1.05|
95717338|NCT02985541|191403523|OTHER||3-year probability of getting pregnant|0.68|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.71||||||Cumulative failure rate (Kaplan-Meier) during Years 6-8||2.71|0.17|
95717339|NCT02983305|191403529|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area at baseline.||||.0001
95717340|NCT02983305|191403529|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.0001||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of visual field area under intervention conditions.||||0.0001
95717341|NCT02983305|191403529|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.003||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the visual field area (average of both eyes) detected between baseline and intervention.||||.003
95717342|NCT02983305|191403530|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms at baseline.||||||0.38||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed at baseline.||||0.38
95717343|NCT02983305|191403530|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.27||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test of equivalence of gait speed under intervention conditions.||||0.27
95717344|NCT02983305|191403530|EQUIVALENCE|Mann-Whitney U test was used to test non-equivalence of this outcome measure for the two study arms under intervention conditions.||||||0.79||||||P \< .05 was considered a priori to be statistically significant.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison between study arms of the change in the gait speed detected between baseline and intervention.||||0.79
95717345|NCT02222246|191403537|NON_INFERIORITY|Change in pain scores from arrival to discharge||||||0.0311|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Analysis for pain change was conducted using Hierarchical Linear Mixed Effects Model (HLM), adjusting for nested patient and site effects (N=126)||||||0.0311
95717346|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Trajectory of pain across time (arrival to discharge)||||||0.0049||||||p-value for the protocol by time interaction|Mixed Models Analysis|||The trajectory of change in pain score was evaluated every 30 minutes over 120 hours (2 hours) rather than 6 hours because of expected missing data after 120 minutes due to discharge from the ED.||||0.0049
95717347|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Arrival||||||0.9393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.9393
95717348|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 30 minutes||||||0.7259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7259
95717349|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 60 minutes||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.5300
95717350|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 90 minutes||||||0.3678|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.3678
95717351|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Post-placement 120 minutes||||||0.2457|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.2457
95717352|NCT02222246|191403538|NON_INFERIORITY|Emergency Department Discharge||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
95717353|NCT02222246|191403539|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of nausea during Emergency Department Visit - YES||||||0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0001
95717354|NCT02222246|191403540|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of vomiting (YES) during Emergency Department visit||||||0.6625|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.6625
95717355|NCT02222246|191403541|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in systolic BP (\>= 20% of baseline)||||||0.4473|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.4473
95717356|NCT02222246|191403542|NON_INFERIORITY|Decrease in diastolic blood pressure (\>= 20% baseline)||||||0.5372|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.5372
95717357|NCT02222246|191403543|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of oxygen desaturation (\<95%) YES during Emergency Department visit||||||0.2891|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2891
95717358|NCT02222246|191403545|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of sedation during Emergency Department visit.||||||0.3915|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3915
95717359|NCT02222246|191403546|NON_INFERIORITY|Incidence of the need for supplemental oxygen during Emergency Department visit||||||0.0726|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0726
95717360|NCT01646268|191403549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Means|-4.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.18|-2.45|||ANCOVA||Value describes the difference value of the mean change from baseline between Rotigotine and Placebo groups. The Value for this outcome was -4.6.|The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no difference in the change in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+II) between the active treatment and the placebo groups (i.e., the change from Baseline in the sum of the score from the ADL and motor examination in the UPDRS (Parts II+III) is the same for both groups).||-2.45|-7.18|<0.0001
95717361|NCT02277665|191403553|SUPERIORITY|Chi-square|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56|||=|0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|.17|= 0.33
95717362|NCT02277665|191403554|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
95717363|NCT02277665|191403555|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||=|0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.35|||Chi-squared|||||1.35|0.15|= 0.16
95717364|NCT02277665|191403556|SUPERIORITY||Means Ratio|0.97||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.66|0.87
95717365|NCT02277665|191403557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.46
95717366|NCT02277665|191403558|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95717367|NCT04621227|191403566|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|202.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|167.14|246.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 4\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||246.41|167.14|
95717368|NCT04621227|191403566|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|283.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|233.68|344.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 7\] vs Rosuvastatin 10mg \[Period 1\])||344.51|233.68|
95717369|NCT04621227|191403567|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.27|60.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 120mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 5\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.50|42.27|
95717370|NCT04621227|191403567|OTHER|The ratio and 90% confidence interval were expressed as percentages.|Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio (%)|50.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|42.06|60.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Comparison for AUClast (PF-06882961 200mg BID + midazolam 2mg \[Period 8\] vs Midazolam 2mg \[Period 2\])||60.78|42.06|
95717371|NCT03504839|191403577|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95717372|NCT03491800|191403585|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|7.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95717373|NCT03491800|191403586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95717374|NCT03491800|191403586|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.3|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.30
95717375|NCT03491800|191403587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.28||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95717376|NCT03491800|191403587|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.85|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.85
95717377|NCT03491800|191403588|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.25||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95717378|NCT03491800|191403589|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95717379|NCT03491800|191403590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-0.2||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.52
95717380|NCT03491800|191403591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-38.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-38.25||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95717381|NCT03491800|191403591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|22.0||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95717382|NCT03491800|191403591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.62||0.054|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.054
95717383|NCT03491800|191403592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.4||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95717384|NCT03491800|191403592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.29||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.40
95717385|NCT00617175|191403601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Negative binomial regression|||||||<0.001
95717386|NCT04359758|191403685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||Chi-squared|||The study was powered assuming 10% genetic testing uptake UC compared to 35% in ST. assuming these uptake rates and a two-tailed alpha of 0.05, a sample size of n=50 per arm would yield greater than 80% power.||||0.14
95717387|NCT04359758|191403685|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|6.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Because education and marital status have been associated with genetic testing participation in prior research, we conducted a follow-up analysis in which we adjusted for education and marital status.||6.29|1.05|0.039
95717388|NCT04359758|191403686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|101 degrees of freedom.||||||0.13
95717389|NCT04359758|191403687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||t-test, 2 sided|df=102||||||0.78
95717390|NCT04359758|191403688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS anxiety||||0.97
95717391|NCT04359758|191403688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANCOVA|df = 1, 101||Analysis of PROMIS Depression||||0.34
95717392|NCT04436497|191403689|SUPERIORITY||Disease Rate Ratio|1.08|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.11|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.874|1.307||Posterior probability that the disease rate ratio (DRR) is less than 1 (i.e. zilucoplan slowed progression) was 0.2418. NOTE: p-value is not provided for Bayesian model.|Bayesian shared-parameter model|A Bayesian shared-parameter model of change in disease severity as measured by ALSFRS-R total score and mortality.|"DDR \<1 imply slowing of disease progression by zilucoplan relative to placebo. Note: reported Confidence Interval is actually a Bayesian credible interval."||The DRR parameter for active treatment represents the relative change to the rate of decline of ALSFRS-R and the rate of mortality of treated participant relative to a placebo participant. The estimated DRR can also be interpreted as the average rate of decline in function and mortality. The model includes covariates for baseline use of edaravone, baseline use of riluzole, months since onset of symptoms, and pre-baseline slope of ALSFRS-R, and random effects for regimen and participant-specific slopes.|1.307|0.874|
95717393|NCT04436497|191403691|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.819||0.5495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||2.48|-4.66|0.5495
95717394|NCT04436497|191403692|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.409||0.7602|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.73|5.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Covariates include baseline use of edaravone and riluzole, months since symptom onset, and pre-baseline ALSFRS-R slope.|Zilucoplan 24-week change from baseline relative to placebo 24-week change from baseline.|||5.65|-7.73|0.7602
95717395|NCT04436497|191403693|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6891|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.6891
95717396|NCT00505765|191403697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.21
95717397|NCT00505765|191403697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.44
95717398|NCT00620776|191403710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed model analysis (differential slopes over time) comparing the 26 patients who received combined treatment with at least one CBT session to the 35 patients randomized to venlafaxine XR alone (and received at least one dose) on HAM-A total scores. Only available scores were used (no imputation for missing data). Because the HAM-A demonstrated a relatively rapid improvement early in treatment and then a leveling off, a shifted log-transformation of time of assessment was implemented.||||.17
95717399|NCT00620776|191403711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.54
95717400|NCT00620776|191403712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.86
95717401|NCT00620776|191403713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.051|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.051
95717402|NCT00620776|191403714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANCOVA|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.06
95717403|NCT00620776|191403715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analyses were conducted using mixed effects models that tested for differential slopes over time between the CBT plus venlafaxine XR and venlafaxine XR alone groups using only available scores (no imputation for missing data).||||.95
95717404|NCT00620776|191403716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.17
95717405|NCT00620776|191403717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed using ANCOVA with the baseline score as the covariate.||||.53
95717406|NCT00620776|191403718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA with baseline data as covariate.||||.23
95717407|NCT00620776|191403719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANCOVA|||Data collected at week 24 were analyzed with ANCOVA including baseline data as covariate.||||.07
95717408|NCT00620776|191403720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.63
95717409|NCT00620776|191403721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.52
95717410|NCT00766727|191403722|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-31.88|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.25|||TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||
95717411|NCT01353586|191403724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of events|71.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.3|79.8|||||The above supplemental analysis is to estimate the rate of subjects without documented symptomatic AF at Day 240 using the Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis method to accommodate the censored information from the two withdrawn subjects.|||79.8|63.3|
95717412|NCT00978120|191403732|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.014
95717413|NCT00978120|191403733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.05
95717414|NCT00978120|191403736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.470
95717415|NCT00978120|191403737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.120
95717416|NCT00978120|191403738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.284|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.284
95717417|NCT00978120|191403739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.004
95717418|NCT00978120|191403740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.341|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.341
95717419|NCT00978120|191403741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.020
95717420|NCT00978120|191403742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.245|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.245
95717421|NCT00978120|191403743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.173|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.173
95717422|NCT00978120|191403744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.362|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.362
95717423|NCT00978120|191403745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95717424|NCT00978120|191403746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.016
95717425|NCT00978120|191403747|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.032
95717426|NCT03992456|191403749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5126|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.5126
95717427|NCT03992456|191403750|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1512|||||||Un-Stratified Log-rank|||||||0.1512
95717428|NCT03992456|191403751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2506|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.2506
95717429|NCT03992456|191403752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8865|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.8865
95717430|NCT03992456|191403753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5455|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.5455
95717431|NCT01068418|191403758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||Threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the mean arterial pressure (mean of five measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.05
95717432|NCT01068418|191403759|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||||||threshold for significance was P\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A repeated measures regression analysis model was used to examine the effect of vitamin D3 therapy on the renal plasma flow (mean of three measurements at each time point) before and during angiotensin II infusions, before and after vitamin D3 therapy.||||<0.01
95717433|NCT00830310|191403760|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
95717434|NCT00830310|191403761|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
95717435|NCT00830310|191403762|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
95717436|NCT00830310|191403763|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
95717437|NCT00830310|191403764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.001
95717438|NCT00830310|191403765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.011
95717439|NCT00830310|191403766|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.038||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.038
95717440|NCT00830310|191403767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Sign test|||The null hypothesis is that the median difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||0.002
95717441|NCT00830310|191403768|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the mean difference between 3 months and baseline equals zero.||||<0.001
95717442|NCT01049360|191403769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.156|0.245||Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.245|0.156|<0.0001
95717443|NCT01049360|191403769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.202|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.022|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|0.245|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.245|0.158|<0.0001
95717444|NCT01049360|191403770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.083|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.181|0.083|<0.0001
95717445|NCT01049360|191403770|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.025|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.088|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.185|0.088|<0.0001
95717446|NCT01049360|191403771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.281|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.333|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.333|0.230|<0.0001
95717447|NCT01049360|191403771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.275|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.224|0.325|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period were fixed effects, subjects was random effect, and baseline values at each period were a covariate||||0.325|0.224|<0.0001
95717448|NCT02276274|191403772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-72) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
95717449|NCT02276274|191403773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0592|0.0264|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0264|-0.0592|
95717450|NCT02276274|191403774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1182|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0405|0.2769|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.2769|-0.0405|
95717451|NCT02276274|191403776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0139|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0598|0.032|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0320|-0.0598|
95717452|NCT02276274|191403791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0918|0.0638|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-48) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0638|-0.0918|
95717453|NCT02276274|191403792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0164|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.0934|0.0605|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-tlqc) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0605|-0.0934|
95717454|NCT02276274|191403794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.1518|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2356|-0.068|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of Cmax with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||-0.0680|-0.2356|
95717455|NCT02276274|191403796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.0179|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.095|0.0591|||||ANOVA was performed on log-transformed values of AUC (0-inf) with regimen, treatment group (treatment sequence), and treatment period as fixed effects.|||0.0591|-0.0950|
95717456|NCT04419558|191403829|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077||0.6579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.12|0.6579
95717457|NCT01539512|191403838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.32|||Log Rank|P-value is from stratified log-rank test, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.||||0.32|0.10|< 0.0001
95717458|NCT01539512|191403841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|0.69||||||||0.69|0.11|
95717459|NCT03414658|191403843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.35|0.81|||Log Rank|||||0.81|0.35|0.025
95717460|NCT03414658|191403843|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.14||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.8|1.64|||Log Rank|||||1.64|0.8|0.32
95717461|NCT05261126|191403867|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-41.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.8|-34.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-34.7|-47.8|<0.001
95717462|NCT05261126|191403867|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.1|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-49.1|-62.3|<0.001
95717463|NCT05261126|191403867|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-59.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.7|-52.5|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-52.5|-65.7|<0.001
95717464|NCT05261126|191403867|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-60.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.6|-54.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-54.3|-67.6|<0.001
95717465|NCT05261126|191403868|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|15.8|||||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||15.8|-15.5|
95717466|NCT05261126|191403868|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-4.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|11.2|||||MK-0616 12 mg vs Placebo|||11.2|-20.0|
95717467|NCT05261126|191403868|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.3|15.1|||||MK-0616 18 mg vs Placebo|||15.1|-16.3|
95717468|NCT05261126|191403868|OTHER|Difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|Difference in Percentage|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.5|13.8|||||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||13.8|-17.5|
95918224|NCT02736968|191795958|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.12||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of resolution of diarrhea by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.12|-0.12|>0.999
95717469|NCT05261126|191403870|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-32.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|-26.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-26.9|-38.6|<0.001
95717470|NCT05261126|191403870|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-45.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-39.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-39.9|-51.7|<0.001
95717471|NCT05261126|191403870|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-48.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.6|-42.8|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-42.8|-54.6|<0.001
95717472|NCT05261126|191403870|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Square Means|-51.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-45.9|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-45.9|-57.7|<0.001
95717473|NCT05261126|191403871|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.4|-29.4|||cLDA||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||-29.4|-42.4|<0.001
95918225|NCT02736968|191795959|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.34||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Fisher Exact||Adjusted Wald Intervals|The null hypothesis is that the probability of parasitological response by Day 5 for participants receiving auranofin is equal to that for those receiving placebo.||0.34|-0.34|>0.999
95918226|NCT02736968|191795964|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.142||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons was made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in time to resolution of diarrhea between treatment arms, with a two-sided alternative.||||0.142
95918227|NCT02023879|191796032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-56.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.9|-49.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/up to 150 mg Q2W was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-49.9|-62.9|<0.0001
95918228|NCT02023879|191796033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-59.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.6|-53.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-53.8|-65.6|<0.0001
95918229|NCT02023879|191796034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-38.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-38.1|-51.8|<0.0001
95918230|NCT02023879|191796035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.8|-41.9||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-41.9|-54.8|<0.0001
95918231|NCT02023879|191796036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.1|-49.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-49.8|-61.1|<0.0001
95918232|NCT02023879|191796037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-58.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|-53.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.4|-63.8|<0.0001
95717474|NCT05261126|191403871|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-50.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|-44.0|||cLDA||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||-44.0|-57.0|<0.001
95918233|NCT02023879|191796038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-46.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.4|-40.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-40.4|-52.4|<0.0001
95918234|NCT02023879|191796039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-48.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.3|-42.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-42.8|-54.3|<0.0001
95918235|NCT02023879|191796040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-49.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.9|-43.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-43.2|-54.9|<0.0001
95918236|NCT02023879|191796041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-51.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.1|-46.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-46.4|-57.1|<0.0001
95918237|NCT02023879|191796042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-35.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.8|-30.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-30.8|-39.8|<0.0001
95717475|NCT05261126|191403871|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-53.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-46.7|||cLDA||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||-46.7|-59.7|<0.001
95717476|NCT05261126|191403871|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in least squares means based on a cLDA model including terms for treatment, time, baseline statin intensity, baseline renal function, and the interaction of treatment by time.|Difference in Least Squares Means|-55.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-49.3|||cLDA||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||-49.3|-62.3|<0.001
95717477|NCT05261126|191403872|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|69.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|56.2|79.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen||MK-0616 6 mg minus Placebo|||79.0|56.2|<0.001
95717478|NCT05261126|191403872|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|75.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.9|84.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 12 mg minus Placebo|||84.0|62.9|<0.001
95717479|NCT05261126|191403872|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.1|87.1|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 18 mg minus Placebo|||87.1|67.1|<0.001
95717480|NCT05261126|191403872|SUPERIORITY|One-sided p-value and difference in percentage based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method, with sample size weighting, stratified by background statin intensity.|Difference in Percentage|79.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|87.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen method||MK-0616 30 mg minus Placebo|||87.4|67.9|<0.001
95717481|NCT04957979|191403873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||0.1|-4.1|0.19
95717482|NCT04957979|191403873|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Negative value represents smaller change in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Null hypothesis: Average change in composite care quality outcome is not different between patients receiving care in Medical/Nursing Model clinics and those receiving care in Medical/Social Model clinics.||-1.0|-5.6|0.005
95717483|NCT04957979|191403874|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.58||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.58|1.04|0.02
95717484|NCT04957979|191403874|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.868|1.38||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.38|0.868|0.45
95717485|NCT04957979|191403875|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.35||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.69||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.69|1.08|0.01
95717486|NCT04957979|191403875|SUPERIORITY||Incidence Rate Ratio|1.33||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.969|1.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher rates post-care coordination in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Poisson link function. Pre-care coordination measures were included as an independent variable when modeling post-measures to capture change related to care coordination initiation.||1.81|0.969|0.08
95717487|NCT04957979|191403876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||0.81|0.51|0.0001
95717488|NCT04957979|191403876|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.72||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.72|0.84|0.32
95717489|NCT04957979|191403877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.05||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.05|0.69|0.14
95717490|NCT04957979|191403877|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, clinic characteristics, and includes random effect for clustering within clinic.|Values \> 1.0 represents higher likelihood of positive rating in Medical/Social clinics as compared to Medical/Nursing.|Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Binomial link function.||1.08|0.51|0.12
95717491|NCT04957979|191403878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|4.861||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.861|0.243|0.914
95717492|NCT04957979|191403878|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.009||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.327|3.114||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||3.114|0.327|0.987
95717493|NCT04957979|191403879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.79||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.79|0.883|0.204
95717494|NCT04957979|191403879|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.399||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.166|0.958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.958|0.166|0.04
95717495|NCT04957979|191403880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.257||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.814|1.939||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.939|0.814|0.302
95717496|NCT04957979|191403880|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.647|1.092||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.092|0.647|0.192
95717497|NCT04957979|191403881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.438||||0.318|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.086|2.22||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.22|0.086|0.318
95717498|NCT04957979|191403881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.793||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.433|7.426||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||7.426|0.433|0.421
95717499|NCT04957979|191403882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.906||||0.632|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|1.356||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.356|0.606|0.632
95717500|NCT04957979|191403882|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.845||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.523|1.366||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.366|0.523|0.492
95717501|NCT04957979|191403883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.856||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.594|1.234||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.234|0.594|0.405
95717502|NCT04957979|191403883|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.559||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.374|0.834|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.834|0.374|0.004
95918238|NCT02023879|191796043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-38.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.3|-32.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-32.1|-44.3|<0.0001
95717503|NCT04957979|191403884|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.151||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.173||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.173|0.02|0.071
95717504|NCT04957979|191403884|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.002|0.268||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||0.268|0.002|0.003
95717505|NCT04957979|191403885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.884||||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.587|1.333||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.333|0.587|0.557
95717506|NCT04957979|191403885|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.624||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.037||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.037|0.376|0.069
95717507|NCT04957979|191403886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.539||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|1.565||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.565|0.185|0.256
95717508|NCT04957979|191403886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.117||||0.866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|4.047||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||4.047|0.308|0.866
95717509|NCT04957979|191403887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.797||||0.641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|2.069||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||2.069|0.307|0.641
95717510|NCT04957979|191403887|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.569||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.187|1.729||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Mixed Models Analysis|Binomial link function. Estimation parameter is the interaction between Time (post vs pre) and Care Model (Medical/Social vs Medical Nursing).|Values \> 1.0 represents larger improvement pre to post-care coordination in likelihood of specific care quality outcome for patients in Medical/Social clinics as compared to those in Medical/Nursing.|||1.729|0.187|0.32
95717511|NCT04957979|191403888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.6|13.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||13|5.6|<.001
95717512|NCT04957979|191403888|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|18.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||18|4.2|0.002
95717513|NCT04957979|191403889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|11.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||11.0|0.86|0.023
95717514|NCT04957979|191403889|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.7||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|7.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher proportion of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||7.0|-14.0|0.5
95717515|NCT04957979|191403890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.19||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.19|0.06|<0.001
95717516|NCT04957979|191403890|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.32||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Positive values reflect higher/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||0.32|0.06|<0.001
95717517|NCT04957979|191403891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|-0.06|||t-test, 2 sided|No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.06|-0.16|<0.001
95717518|NCT04957979|191403891|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.11||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|-0.03|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.03|-0.2|0.006
95717519|NCT04957979|191403892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||0.00|-4.9|0.059
95717520|NCT04957979|191403892|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.7||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-1.3||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.3|-10.0|0.014
95717521|NCT04957979|191403893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.8|15.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared|||||15.0|6.8|<0.001
95717522|NCT04957979|191403893|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|12.0||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.7|20.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||20.0|4.7|0.001
95717523|NCT04957979|191403894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-5.0||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5|-10|<.001
95717524|NCT04957979|191403894|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-2.0|||t-test, 2 sided||Negative values reflect lower/better scores of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-2|-10|0.007
95717525|NCT04957979|191403895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.5||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-0.14||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.14|-4.8|0.046
95717526|NCT04957979|191403895|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-4.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-0.52||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-0.52|-8.4|0.033
95717527|NCT04957979|191403896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-10.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-6.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-6.8|-13.0|<0.001
95717528|NCT04957979|191403896|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-11.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.0|-5.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-5.6|-17.0|<0.001
95717529|NCT04957979|191403897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-4.1||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-4.1|-10.0|<0.001
95717530|NCT04957979|191403897|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-8.2||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|-3.2||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social|||-3.2|-13.0|0.002
95717531|NCT04957979|191403898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.4||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||-1.4|-5.5|0.002
95717532|NCT04957979|191403898|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.4||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|1.4||No adjustments for multiple comparisons. Two-sided alpha of 0.05 specified a-priori|Chi-squared||Positive values reflect higher percentage of responders in Medical/Nursing clinics as compared to Medical/Social.|||1.4|-6.1|0.3
95717533|NCT03671746|191403899|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.5|=|0.275|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using Length of Stay (LOS) as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||=0.275
95717534|NCT03671746|191403900|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed using LOS as this was the primary outcome. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed standard deviation of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients/group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients/group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
95717535|NCT03671746|191403901|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The VAS model was adjusted for baseline levels as a covariate, which differed significantly between groups.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).||||<0.05
95727828|NCT00185211|191425152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to CDMS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.0027
95918239|NCT02023879|191796044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.9|-31.8||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-31.8|-43.9|<0.0001
95717536|NCT03671746|191403902|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.564|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.564
95717537|NCT03671746|191403903|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.118|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.118
95717538|NCT03671746|191403904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.215|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||0.215
95717539|NCT03671746|191403905|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.043
95727829|NCT00185211|191425152|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.663||||0.0028||97.47|0.488|0.902|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to CDMS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for CDMS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.902|0.488|0.0028
95855288|NCT01193244|191670185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.963||||0.59755||95.0|0.838|1.107|||Log Rank|||Hazard ratio is based on a stratified Cox's proportional hazard regression model with stratification factors of region and radiographic disease progression at baseline with treatment as a factor in the model. A hazard ratio \<1 indicated better prevention of death in the orteronel group compared to the placebo group. From log-rank test stratified by region and radiographic disease progression at baseline.||1.107|0.838|0.59755
95717540|NCT03671746|191403906|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.617|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||=0.617
95717541|NCT03671746|191403908|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|A Kenward-Roger adjustment was used to correct for negative bias in the standard errors and degrees of freedom calculations.||Sample size calculations were performed regarding LOS as this was the primary outcome measure. Using a significance level of 0.05 and an assumed SD of 1.5 days, a sample size of 42 patients per group (84 total) would yield 80% power to detect a difference of 0.928 days in average LOS between groups. Allowing for a dropout rate of up to 25%, recruitment was originally planned for 56 patients per group. Power calculations were performed using nQuery 8.5 (Statistical Solutions Ltd; Cork, Ireland).|Group-level summary statistics were calculated for demographic and clinical variables, and differences between groups were evaluated using two-sample t-tests for quantitative measures and Fisher's exact tests for categorical measures, as appropriate. Time and group comparisons for each cytokine were made using linear mixed models, with and without adjusting for selected covariates. Patient demographic variables and clinical outcomes of interest were considered for inclusion as covariates in each model but were only retained if they significantly improved the model. Linear mixed models were log-transformed, double-log-transformed, or square-root-transformed to correct for right skewness, as appropriate. Likelihood ratio testing and Akaike information criterion were used to select appropriate covariance structures in each case. All analyses were completed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.; Cary, NC, USA).|||<0.05
95717542|NCT04410991|191403965|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|0.996||||0.9758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.754|1.315||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.315|0.754|0.9758
95717543|NCT04410991|191403966|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.582||||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.891||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.891|0.380|0.0114
95918240|NCT02023879|191796045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-26.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.9|-21.7||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-21.7|-30.9|<0.0001
95918241|NCT02023879|191796046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|279.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|2690.1||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||2690.1|29.1|<0.0001
95918242|NCT02023879|191796047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|354.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.2|3479.5||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||3479.5|36.2|<0.0001
95918243|NCT02023879|191796048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|126.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|20.0|<0.0001
95918244|NCT02023879|191796049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|141.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.2|9999.0||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Logistic|LOCF approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo (Confidence interval should be read as 20.0 to \>9999)|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||9999|22.2|<0.0001
95918245|NCT02023879|191796050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|-9.4||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-9.4|-29.8|0.0002
95918246|NCT02023879|191796051|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-7.9||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|1.2||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by robust regression model.|Alirocumab 150 mg Q4W/Up to 150 mg Q2W vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||1.2|-17.1|0.0892
95717544|NCT04410991|191403967|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.641||||0.0181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.925||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||0.925|0.444|0.0181
95717545|NCT04410991|191403968|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.165||||0.2362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.905|1.502|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.502|0.905|0.2362
95717546|NCT04410991|191403969|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|2.118|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.502|2.987|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.987|1.502|<0.0001
95717547|NCT04410991|191403970|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.053||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.156|0.05|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.050|-0.156|0.3100
95717548|NCT04410991|191403971|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|-0.612||||0.5235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.493|1.269|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||1.269|-2.493|0.5235
95717549|NCT04410991|191403972|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.652||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|2.383||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||2.383|1.145|0.0079
95717550|NCT04410991|191403973|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.044||||0.4266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.153|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.153|-0.065|0.4266
95717551|NCT05966129|191403992|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8||||0.7957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.3|23.8|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 42.1|23.8|-18.3|0.7957
95717552|NCT05966129|191403993|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.8255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 0.9|0.5|-0.4|0.8255
95717553|NCT05966129|191403994|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9054|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9054
95717554|NCT05966129|191403995|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.5|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 2.4|0.5|-1.9|0.248
95717555|NCT05966129|191403996|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.6012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|4.7|||t-test, 2 sided||||Confidence Interval Width = 7.4|4.7|-2.7|0.6012
95717556|NCT05966129|191403997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7528|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.7528
95717557|NCT05966129|191403998|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.0001
95717558|NCT05182840|191403999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.0499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.0|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.000|-0.337|0.0499
95717559|NCT05182840|191403999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.313|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.313|-0.660|<.0001
95717560|NCT05182840|191403999|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.596|-0.246|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.246|-0.596|<.0001
95717561|NCT05182840|191403999|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod Emax model fit|Emax model fit assumption: 80% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
95918247|NCT00874432|191796059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CBPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.685
95717562|NCT05182840|191403999|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0||||||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|MCPMod linear model fit|Linear model fit assumption: No assumption is needed.||"A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod).~MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient."||||0.0000
95717563|NCT05182840|191403999|OTHER|Null hypothesis: The dose-response curve is flat across the 3 BI 690517 doses and the placebo.||||||0.0003|||||||MCPMod exponential model fit|Exponential model fit assumption: 15% of the maximum effect is achieved at 10 mg.||A flat vs. non-flat dose-response relationship across the 3 doses of BI 690517 and placebo was tested using the Multiple Comparison Procedure - Modelling (MCP-Mod). MMRM estimates were used as input for the MCP-Mod. MMRM included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||||0.0003
95717564|NCT05182840|191404000|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-15.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.6|0.0|||||"Median of 3 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-0.0|-28.6|
95717565|NCT05182840|191404000|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-38.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|-26.8|||||"Median of 10 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-26.8|-48.3|
95717566|NCT05182840|191404000|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.9|-21.8|||||"Median of 20 mg BI 690517 - Median of Placebo to BI 690517."|||-21.8|-44.9|
95717567|NCT05182840|191404001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.033|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.033|-0.488|0.0867
95717568|NCT05182840|191404001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.469||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.737|-0.201|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.201|-0.737|0.0007
95717569|NCT05182840|191404001|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.429||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.707|-0.151|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.151|-0.707|0.0027
95717570|NCT05182840|191404002|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-20.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6|3.4|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||3.4|-38.6|
95717571|NCT05182840|191404002|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-37.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.2|-18.2|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517"|||-18.2|-52.2|
95717572|NCT05182840|191404002|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-34.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-14.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 6905177 - median of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-14.0|-50.7|
95717573|NCT05182840|191404003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.098||||0.3737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.316|0.119|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||0.119|-0.316|0.3737
95717574|NCT05182840|191404003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.502|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.275|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.275|-0.730|<.0001
95717575|NCT05182840|191404003|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.404||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.625|-0.184|||MMRM||"Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - Least Squares Mean of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|The difference of adjusted means and 95 % confidence interval were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures ((REML)-based MMRM) which included the fixed effects of treatment at each visit, baseline (continuous) at each visit, and baseline, visit, treatment, background medication (empagliflozin or placebo matching empagliflozin) and randomisation stratum as main effects, as well as random effects of patient.||-0.184|-0.625|0.0004
95918248|NCT00874432|191796059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CRPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.739
95717576|NCT05182840|191404004|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.1|12.7|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||12.7|-27.1|
95717577|NCT05182840|191404004|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-39.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.8|-24.0|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-24.0|-51.8|
95717578|NCT05182840|191404004|OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.5|-16.8|||||"Median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 - median of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|||-16.8|-46.5|
95717579|NCT05182840|191404005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.08||||0.0136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.72|1.16|0.0136
95717580|NCT05182840|191404005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.94|12.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||12.49|3.94|0.0000
95717581|NCT05182840|191404005|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.48||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.09|9.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.71|3.09|0.0000
95717582|NCT05182840|191404006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
95717583|NCT05182840|191404006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
95717584|NCT05182840|191404006|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
95717585|NCT05182840|191404007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|3.09||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.09|1.04|0.0348
95717586|NCT05182840|191404007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.08|2.40|0.0000
95717587|NCT05182840|191404007|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.91|8.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.67|2.91|0.0000
95717588|NCT05182840|191404008|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|3.88||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.88|1.19|0.0111
95717589|NCT05182840|191404008|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.33||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.49|11.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.49|3.49|0.0000
95918249|NCT00874432|191796059|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||p-value for CFPWV between CKD and Control groups||||0.471
95918250|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.685|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.685
95717590|NCT05182840|191404008|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.88|9.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.44|2.88|0.0000
95717591|NCT05182840|191404009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.0419|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|5.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.74|1.03|0.0419
95717592|NCT05182840|191404009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.09||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.08||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.08|2.64|0.0000
95717593|NCT05182840|191404009|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.13||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.64|14.25||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||14.25|2.64|0.0000
95717594|NCT05182840|191404010|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
95717595|NCT05182840|191404010|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
95717596|NCT05182840|191404010|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
95717597|NCT05182840|191404011|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.03||||0.0767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|4.42||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.42|0.93|0.0767
95717598|NCT05182840|191404011|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.11||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.89|0.0003
95717599|NCT05182840|191404011|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.69||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|10.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.24|2.15|0.0001
95717600|NCT05182840|191404012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.0195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|7.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.02|1.19|0.0195
95717601|NCT05182840|191404012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.38||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.65|15.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.35|2.65|0.0000
95717602|NCT05182840|191404012|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.39||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|15.67||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.67|2.60|0.0001
95717603|NCT05182840|191404013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.1398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|4.04||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.04|0.82|0.1398
95717604|NCT05182840|191404013|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.42||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.73|19.02||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||19.02|3.73|0.0000
95717605|NCT05182840|191404013|OTHER|P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Odds Ratio (OR)|4.98||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.28|10.9|||Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||10.90|2.28|0.0001
95717606|NCT05182840|191404014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
95717607|NCT05182840|191404014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
95717608|NCT05182840|191404014|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
95717609|NCT05182840|191404015|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.46||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.46|0.76|0.2140
95717610|NCT05182840|191404015|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.13||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|8.85||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.85|1.93|0.0003
95717611|NCT05182840|191404015|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.43||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|11.71||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.71|2.52|0.0000
95918251|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.869|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.869
95717612|NCT05182840|191404016|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.1884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.79||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.79|0.77|0.1884
95717613|NCT05182840|191404016|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.8||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|15.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||15.72|2.94|0.0000
95717614|NCT05182840|191404016|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.46||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|9.94||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.94|2.00|0.0003
95717615|NCT05182840|191404017|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|3.61||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.61|1.32|0.0024
95717616|NCT05182840|191404017|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.39|6.86||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.86|2.39|0.0000
95717617|NCT05182840|191404017|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.87||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.29|6.55||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.55|2.29|0.0000
95717618|NCT05182840|191404018|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
95717619|NCT05182840|191404018|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
95717620|NCT05182840|191404018|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
95717621|NCT05182840|191404019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.0418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.74||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.74|1.02|0.0418
95717622|NCT05182840|191404019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.91||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.3|6.65||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.65|2.30|0.0000
95717623|NCT05182840|191404019|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|6.05||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.05|2.11|0.0000
95918252|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.709|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CRPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.709
95918253|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CBPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.340
95717624|NCT05182840|191404020|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.26||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|3.77||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||3.77|1.35|0.0019
95717625|NCT05182840|191404020|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|6.59||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.59|2.20|0.0000
95717626|NCT05182840|191404020|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.67||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.12|6.35||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.35|2.12|0.0000
95717627|NCT05182840|191404021|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|4.45||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.45|1.09|0.0285
95717628|NCT05182840|191404021|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|5.96||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.96|1.41|0.0038
95717629|NCT05182840|191404021|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.97|8.72||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.72|1.97|0.0002
95717630|NCT05182840|191404022|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
95717631|NCT05182840|191404022|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
95717632|NCT05182840|191404022|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
95717633|NCT05182840|191404023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.4092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.69||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||2.69|0.67|0.4092
95717634|NCT05182840|191404023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.66||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|7.58||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.58|1.77|0.0005
95918254|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the baseline CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.730
95918255|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.204|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This p-value compares the 12 month CFPWV measures for the CKD vs Controls group||||0.204
95717635|NCT05182840|191404023|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.92|8.49||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.49|1.92|0.0002
95717636|NCT05182840|191404024|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.0348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.43||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.43|1.06|0.0348
95717637|NCT05182840|191404024|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.08||||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|13.57||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||13.57|2.73|0.0000
95717638|NCT05182840|191404024|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.71|7.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.52|1.71|0.0007
95717639|NCT05182840|191404025|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
95717640|NCT05182840|191404025|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
95717641|NCT05182840|191404025|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
95717642|NCT05182840|191404026|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.44||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.44|1.06|0.0342
95717643|NCT05182840|191404026|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.23||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.93|9.24||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||9.24|1.93|0.0003
95717644|NCT05182840|191404026|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.19||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|6.73||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.73|1.52|0.0023
95717645|NCT05182840|191404027|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.56||||0.0116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|5.31||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||5.31|1.23|0.0116
95918256|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.963|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.963
95717646|NCT05182840|191404027|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.08||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|6.52||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||6.52|1.46|0.0032
95717647|NCT05182840|191404027|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.07||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.86|8.91||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: Placebo to empagliflozin 10 mg + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||8.91|1.86|0.0004
95717648|NCT05182840|191404028|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|4.14||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 3 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||4.14|0.98|0.0578
95717649|NCT05182840|191404028|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.12||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|11.78||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 10 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||11.78|2.23|0.0001
95717650|NCT05182840|191404028|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|7.16||P-value was rounded to four decimal places.|Regression, Logistic||"Odds ratio of Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + 20 mg BI 690517 vs. Treatment period: 10 mg empagliflozin + Placebo to BI 690517."|"The odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and p-value were calculated based on logistic regression of binary outcome adjusting for treatment, and stratification factors as covariates.~Randomisation stratification was used, which is based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) levels at screening."||7.16|1.54|0.0022
95717651|NCT00931515|191404030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95717652|NCT01054443|191404031|OTHER||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test Statistic|0.173||||0.431|||||||Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The primary efficacy evaluation was to test if there was a linear relationship existing such that the higher the dose level, the larger the percentage of responders. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was employed by assigning the score 0, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 to placebo, lusutrombopag 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0 mg group, respectively, at the 0.025 level of significance (1-sided) to determine the test statistic for detecting a dose-response in the percentage of responders.||||0.431
95717653|NCT01054443|191404032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|25544.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6202.8|44885.3|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||44885.3|6202.8|
95717654|NCT01054443|191404032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11801.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8809.3|32411.9|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||32411.9|-8809.3|
95717655|NCT01054443|191404032|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|756.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18794.3|20307.5|||||The difference of least squares means (LSMeans) between each of the lusutrombopag treatment groups and placebo was estimated after adjusting for the Baseline platelet count using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).|||20307.5|-18794.3|
95717656|NCT02486263|191404044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||The threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.28
95717657|NCT02486263|191404045|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.6||Used Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Generalized Estimation Equation||Data presented as OR (95% CI) using Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model with Conventional as reference.|Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) model was used for the comparison of differences between intervention groups from week 0 to week 5 for peristaltic response frequency.||1.6|0.4|0.99
95717658|NCT02486263|191404046|SUPERIORITY|Weight velocity in grams/day||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.64
95717659|NCT02486263|191404047|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.11
95717660|NCT02486263|191404048|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49||||||Threshold for statistical significance \<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95717661|NCT05436067|191404060|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - left between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
95717662|NCT05436067|191404060|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Difference in head angle pitch - right between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
95717663|NCT05436067|191404060|OTHER|||||||0.042||||||Difference in head angle yaw - extension between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.042
95717664|NCT05436067|191404060|OTHER|||||||0.111||||||Difference in head angle yaw - flexion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.111
95717665|NCT05436067|191404061|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||Difference in pitch range of motion between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.023
95717666|NCT05436067|191404061|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||<0.001
95717667|NCT05436067|191404062|OTHER|||||||0.057||||||Difference in pitch velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.057
95717668|NCT05436067|191404062|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||Difference in yaw velocity between the arms|paired t-test|||This statistical analysis tests the difference between the different arms (with and without app) using a paired t-test||||0.003
95717669|NCT05436067|191404063|OTHER|||||||0.035||||||Weight shift exercise - mediolateral range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.035
95717670|NCT05436067|191404063|OTHER|||||||0.006||||||Weight shift balance exercise anteroposterior range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.006
95717671|NCT05436067|191404063|OTHER|||||||0.024||||||Single leg balance range of motion|paired t-test|||||||0.024
95717672|NCT05436067|191404063|OTHER|||||||0.257||||||Single leg balance fluency|Shapiro Wilcoxon test|Data was not normally distributed.||||||0.257
95717673|NCT05689554|191404072|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.944|1.306|||Log Rank|||||1.306|.944|0.11
95717674|NCT05689554|191404073|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.24||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.7|||Regression, modified Poisson|||||1.7|.9|0.183
95717675|NCT01678794|191404074|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.26
95717676|NCT01678794|191404075|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95717677|NCT02260804|191404079|EQUIVALENCE|The equivalence margin of ±17% was predefined.|Difference in proportion|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.43|10.2||||||||10.2|-6.43|
95717678|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|9.18||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||9.18|4.00|<.001
95717679|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.36|7.76||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||7.76|3.36|<.001
95717680|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|5.17||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||5.17|2.17|<.001
95717681|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.28||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|11.71||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||11.71|1.16|.038
95717682|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|7.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||7.54|0.63|.256
95717683|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.89||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the three email conditions as dummy variables with no email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||5.89|0.43|.531
95717684|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.54||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||1.54|0.91|.202
95717685|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.88||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled in the program).||0.88|0.49|.005
95717686|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||4.16|0.69|.276
95717687|NCT03965754|191404096|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.16||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled in the program).||2.16|0.25|.592
95717688|NCT03965754|191404097|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.65||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.65|1.04|.020
95717689|NCT03965754|191404097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.75||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who previously enrolled).||0.75|0.44|<.001
95717690|NCT03965754|191404097|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.359|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.38||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).||1.38|0.41|.359
95717691|NCT03965754|191404097|SUPERIORITY|We conducted a logistic regression with the two experimental conditions as dummy variables with the standard email as the reference group (among employees who never enrolled).|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|2.9|||Regression, Logistic|We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.||||2.90|1.05|.035
95729231|NCT00494806|191428712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7279|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.05||95.0|0.3174|1.1383|||t-test, 2 sided|df = 64|Relative risk not calculated.|"No differences in time to first flatus between the rocking and non rocking groups is the null hypothesis.~Sample size calculations by setting the criterion for significance at .05, two-tailed test (an effect in either directions was accepted), and power at .80. A total sample of 54 participants was determined necessary to yield statistically significant results (27 in Group A and 27 in Group B)."||1.1383|0.3174|<0.05
95717692|NCT03433482|191404099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hSBA GMT ratio for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5.|GMT ratio|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.57|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination||1.57|0.94|
95717693|NCT03433482|191404099|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is concluded if the lower limit of the two sided 95% CI for the hSBA GMT ratios for serogroup A between the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months and the licensed MenACWY vaccine is \> 0.5. Non-inferiority hypotheses testing will be conducted sequentially, starting from MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 24 months and subsequently with MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months.|GMT ratio|1.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.42|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and country as factors.||To demonstrate non-inferiority of the MenACWY liquid vaccine aged for approximately 30 months to that of currently licensed MenACWY vaccine, as measured by the adjusted hSBA GMTs directed against N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29 after a single dose vaccination.||1.42|0.87|
95717694|NCT03433482|191404100|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.19|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.19|0.58|
95717695|NCT03433482|191404100|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.24|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.24|0.72|
95717696|NCT03433482|191404100|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.44|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq24 and ACWY\_1, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.44|0.82|
95717697|NCT03433482|191404100|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup C||1.64|0.79|
95717698|NCT03433482|191404100|OTHER||GMT ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.45|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup W||1.45|0.84|
95717699|NCT03433482|191404100|OTHER||GMT ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.26|||ANCOVA|Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) including pre-vaccination titer (Day 1) as a covariate and with vaccine group and center (if applicable) as factors.||Between-groups ratio of adjusted hSBA GMTs and its 95% CI, between vaccine groups GSK3536820A ACWY\_Liq30 and ACWY\_2, at Day 29 against serogroup Y||1.26|0.72|
95717700|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|6.4|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||6.40|-1.94|
95717701|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.94|4.72|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||4.72|-8.94|
95717702|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.11|5.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||5.80|-8.11|
95717703|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|4.74|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||4.74|-7.88|
95717704|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|4.07|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29.||4.07|-4.29|
95717705|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|9.3|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29.||9.30|-3.63|
95717706|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|10.88|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29.||10.88|-2.89|
95717707|NCT03433482|191404102|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-2.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|3.26|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentage of subjects with a ≥ 4-fold rise in post-vaccination hSBA for N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29.||3.26|-8.91|
95717708|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|6.32|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.32|-2.69|
95717709|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|13.84|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||13.84|0.01|
95717710|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|9.58|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||9.58|-3.33|
95918257|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.991
95717711|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||6.80|-4.86|
95717712|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|5.22|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||5.22|-2.24|
95717713|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.32|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||5.46|-6.32|
95717714|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||4.18|-7.05|
95717715|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|6.9|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||6.90|-2.81|
95717716|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 1.||6.33|-3.32|
95717717|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|7.35|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 1.||7.35|-6.60|
95717718|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.75|5.23|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 1.||5.23|-7.75|
95717719|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|4.98|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 1.||4.98|-6.69|
95717720|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup A on Day 29.||2.96|-4.24|
95717721|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|6.64|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup C on Day 29.||6.64|-3.99|
95717722|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 the N. meningitidis serogroup W on Day 29.||9.33|-1.11|
95717723|NCT03433482|191404103|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.16|5.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥8 for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y on Day 29.||5.13|-4.16|
95717724|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|5.99|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||5.99|-3.37|
95717725|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|7.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|14.13|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||14.13|0.25|
95717726|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|10.39|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||10.39|-2.57|
95717727|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.44|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||7.44|-4.44|
95717728|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.94|5.46|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||5.46|-1.94|
95717729|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.66|4.7|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||4.70|-6.66|
95717730|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|4.18|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||4.18|-7.05|
95717731|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|2.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.67|6.8|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||6.80|-2.67|
95717732|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|6.83|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 1||6.83|-3.32|
95717733|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|3.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|10.71|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 1||10.71|-3.00|
95717734|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.24|5.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 1||5.77|-7.24|
95717735|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.99|4.75|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 1||4.75|-6.99|
95717736|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|-0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|2.96|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup A at Day 29||2.96|-4.24|
95918258|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of ACE-I CKD and Control groups||||0.176
95717737|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|5.16|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup C at Day 29||5.16|-5.16|
95717738|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|4.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|9.33|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup W at Day 29||9.33|-1.11|
95717739|NCT03433482|191404104|OTHER||Difference in percentage of subjects|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|5.37|||Miettinen and Nurminen score method|||Between-group difference in percentages of subjects with hSBA titer ≥LLOQ for the N. meningitidis serogroup Y at Day 29||5.37|-3.88|
95717740|NCT01728376|191404163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.3|25.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% Confidence Interval (CI) by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||25.3|-30.3|
95717741|NCT01728376|191404163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|16.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|45.7|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||45.7|-13.0|
95717742|NCT01728376|191404163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|25.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.0|72.4|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in satisfactory response between treatment groups. Satisfactory response = cured + improved||72.4|-21.0|
95717743|NCT01728376|191404164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|39.8|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||39.8|-29.8|
95717744|NCT01728376|191404164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|37.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|75.1|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||75.1|0.7|
95717745|NCT01728376|191404164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference (%)|-10.0||||||95.0|-60.3|40.3|||||Daptomycin minus Comparator 95% CI by Wilson score method|Difference in success response between treatment arms||40.3|-60.3|
95717746|NCT00296192|191404168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.91||||95.0|-2.9|8.7|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.7|-2.9|
95717747|NCT00296192|191404168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.93||||95.0|-5.7|6.0|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||6.0|-5.7|
95717748|NCT00296192|191404168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.86||||95.0|-2.8|8.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.6|-2.8|
95717749|NCT00296192|191404168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.02||||95.0|-7.4|4.6|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline at 24 minutes post-dose in UPDRS Part III, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||4.6|-7.4|
95717750|NCT00296192|191404169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.58||||95.0|-25.7|8.5|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||8.5|-25.7|
95717751|NCT00296192|191404169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-16.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.63||||95.0|-34.0|0.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||0.4|-34.0|
95717752|NCT00296192|191404169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.45||||95.0|-18.2|15.4|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||15.4|-18.2|
95717753|NCT00296192|191404169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.9||||95.0|-23.3|12.2|||ANCOVA|||Analysis of covariance modeling change from baseline to 34 minutes post-dose in tapping rate, controlling for treatment group and baseline value.||12.2|-23.3|
95717754|NCT00296192|191404170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-20.6||||||95.0|-53.3|12.1|||Confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||12.1|-53.3|
95717755|NCT00296192|191404170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
95717756|NCT00296192|191404170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|0.0||||||95.0|-30.6|30.6|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||30.6|-30.6|
95717757|NCT00296192|191404170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|4.4||||||95.0|-25.9|34.7|||95% confidence interval|||95% confidence interval in difference in success rate||34.7|-25.9|
95717758|NCT05604521|191404202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3944|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any local solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3944
95717759|NCT05604521|191404202|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3717|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any systemic solicited AEs after any vaccination.||||0.3717
95717760|NCT05604521|191404202|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Null hypothesis: There is no statistically significant difference between the vaccine and control groups in the proportion of participants experiencing any related unsolicited AEs after any vaccination.||||1.0
95717761|NCT03681769|191404236|EQUIVALENCE|Non-equivalence determined by p\<.05.||||||0.83||||||No site X time interaction (F12,270 = 0.614, p = 0.830).|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.83
95717762|NCT03681769|191404237|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.53
95717763|NCT00924313|191404241|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The reported p-value is representative of the difference in levels of the histopathologic confirmed tumor and normal prostate tissue.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||<0.0001
95717764|NCT00924313|191404241|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65||||||The reported p-value is representative of the BPH high uptake level.|Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.65
95717765|NCT00924313|191404244|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.55
95717766|NCT00924313|191404246|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.407|||||||Spearman rank correlation|||||||0.407
95717767|NCT01207219|191404291|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value for statistical significance in these analyses was 0.01 adjusted for multiple comparisons .|Mixed Models Analysis|mixed-model analysis with a repeated-measures approach including an unstructured variance matrix||Data analysis was based on the Intention-to-Treatment (ITT) method. Differences between the three intervention groups over time (baseline and 12 weeks) were assessed with a Group x Time interaction term. A priori comparisons of the active intervention groups with the waitlist group were carried out with the same strategy if analyses including all the three groups meet the criterion of statistical significance (P\<0.01).||||<0.01
95717768|NCT00750373|191404299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.1|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||We estimated that a sample size of 74 patients would provide 80% power to detect a significant difference with respect to the primary end point at the 2-sided significance level of 0.05, assuming that the in-hospital event rate would be 23% in the conventional treatment group and 3% in the early surgery group.||||<0.05
95717769|NCT05027958|191404304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05714|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05714
95717770|NCT03155269|191404306|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.0423||||0.1324|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.1057|0.0211||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.0211|-0.1057|0.1324
95717771|NCT03155269|191404307|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.03|0.489||The setting of the two-sided significance level of 0.025 was used for the 2 co-primary endpoints to ensure that the overall significance level for the primary endpoint was less than or equal to 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis was performed using ANCOVA model with product group and strata as fixed effects, and the corresponding baseline value as covariate.|Difference is test product minus reference product such that a negative difference favors the test product.|||0.489|-0.030|0.0469
95717772|NCT02369874|191404357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.7624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.26|||Log Rank|||||1.26|0.85|0.7624
95717773|NCT02369874|191404357|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.1993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.08|||Log Rank|||||1.08|0.72|0.1993
95717774|NCT02369874|191404358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.17|||Log Rank|||||1.17|0.73|0.4590
95717775|NCT02369874|191404358|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.36||||||||1.36|0.85|
95717776|NCT02369874|191404359|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.39||||||||1.39|0.63|
95717777|NCT02369874|191404360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.33||||||||1.33|0.90|
95717778|NCT02369874|191404360|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.25||||||||1.25|0.84|
95717779|NCT02369874|191404361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.7||||||||1.70|0.67|
95717780|NCT02369874|191404361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.68||||||||1.68|0.66|
95717781|NCT02369874|191404363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.52||||||6 Month analysis||1.52|0.67|
95717782|NCT02369874|191404363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.46||||||6 Month analysis||1.46|0.64|
95717783|NCT02369874|191404363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.75||||||12 Month analysis||1.75|0.72|
95717784|NCT02369874|191404363|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.57||||||12 Month analysis||1.57|0.63|
95717785|NCT02369874|191404366|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21||||||||1.21|0.76|
95717786|NCT02369874|191404367|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|2.39||||||||2.39|0.74|
95717787|NCT00145795|191404384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.81
95717788|NCT00145795|191404385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03||||||Significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to examine the significance of the difference in mean absolute increase in CD4+ count at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, CD4+ increase is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.03
95717789|NCT00145795|191404386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.08
95717790|NCT00145795|191404387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
95717791|NCT00145795|191404388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ memory cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ memory cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.29
95717792|NCT00145795|191404389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD4+ naïve cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD4+ naïve cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.04
95717793|NCT00145795|191404390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.21||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 3 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.21
95729232|NCT05440097|191428751|OTHER||Difference in percentage|12.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.079|13.431|||Mixed Models Analysis|The primary analysis used mixed effect logistic regression model, taking the timepoint as the fixed effect, hospital and patient as random effects.||||13.431|9.079|<.0001
95717794|NCT00145795|191404391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||||||The significance level is 5%.|t-test, 2 sided|This is a two-sample t-test assuming equal variances.||Two-sample Student's t-test was used to assess the difference in mean percent apoptosis for the CD8+ cell population at 6 months. Under the null hypothesis, percent CD8+ cell apoptosis is similar for both treatment groups.||||0.61
95717795|NCT01015118|191404394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level Area under curve 5 (AUC5) vs. Area under curve 6 (AUC6).||0.98|0.72|0.0239
95717796|NCT01015118|191404395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|Hazard ratio (HR), Confidence Interval (CI) and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.75|0.0286
95717797|NCT01015118|191404396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|0.97|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.97|0.72|0.0186
95717798|NCT01015118|191404397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|0.98|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||0.98|0.74|0.0256
95717799|NCT01015118|191404398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.17|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.17|0.83|0.8653
95717800|NCT01015118|191404399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.01|||Log Rank|Breslow method was used for handling ties.|If hazard ratio is below 1 then favours nintedanib.|HR, CI and P-value obtained from a proportional-hazards model stratified by Macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (Yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.01|0.77|0.0749
95717801|NCT01015118|191404400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.82|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \>1 favours nintedanib.|Odds ratio and p-value are obtained from logistic regression model adjusting for, macroscopic residual postoperative tumour (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs. IV) and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||1.82|0.81|0.3490
95717802|NCT01015118|191404401|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.88|6.69|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference presented is the Adjusted mean difference. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo. High values represent a worse level of symptoms.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||6.69|3.88|<0.0001
95717803|NCT01015118|191404402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.35|-0.41|||Mixed effect growth curve model|Mixed-effects growth curve models (longitudinal models) with the average profile over time for each endpoint described by a piecewise linear model.|Mean difference calculated is the Adjusted mean. High values represent a better level of functioning. Difference calculated as nintedanib minus placebo.|Adjusted for the stratification factors macroscopic residual postoperative tumour at baseline (yes vs. no), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage (IIB-III vs IV), and carboplatin level (AUC5 vs. AUC6).||-0.41|-3.35|0.0124
95717804|NCT01522755|191404405|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95717805|NCT01522755|191404406|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95717806|NCT01522755|191404407|OTHER|t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95717807|NCT02388906|191404408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.86|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.86|0.60|0.0003
95717808|NCT02388906|191404409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.69|1.11|||Log Rank||Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||1.11|0.69|
95717809|NCT02388906|191404416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.9|||Log Rank|Stratified log rank||||0.90|0.63|
95717810|NCT00480077|191404421|SUPERIORITY|The primary end point of the study, all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure, was analyzed on a time-to-first-event basis with the log-rank test. The hazard ratio (HR) associated with allocation to the access arm relative to control was estimated with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model containing the treatment group as a categorical factor.||||||0.063|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.063
95717811|NCT03901274|191404460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.42|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on three month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||0.42|-0.74|
95717812|NCT03901274|191404460|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|-0.09|||||Parameter estimated with full information maximum likelihood|Intent-to-treat on six month outcomes with intake (i.e. Pretest covariate)||-0.09|-1.20|
95717813|NCT01215968|191404519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.83|2.62|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 10 over Day 3.||||2.62|1.83|
95729233|NCT05440097|191428752|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|30.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.82|34.25|||Normal approximation|||||34.25|26.82|
95717814|NCT01215968|191404519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.61|2.33|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 17 over Day 3.||||2.33|1.61|
95717815|NCT01215968|191404519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.59|2.29|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 24 over Day 3.||||2.29|1.59|
95717816|NCT01215968|191404519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.52|2.22|||Mixed Linear effects model analyses|Ratio is the Geometric LS Means of Day 31 over Day 3.||||2.22|1.52|
95717817|NCT04242498|191404524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.422||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.221|4.804|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.804|1.221|0.004
95717818|NCT04242498|191404524|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.287||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.22|4.291|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.291|1.220|0.003
95717819|NCT04242498|191404525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.722||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.182|6.267|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.267|1.182|0.007
95717820|NCT04242498|191404525|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.007||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.374|6.581|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.581|1.374|0.002
95717821|NCT04242498|191404526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.798||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.378|1.683|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.683|0.378|0.497
95717822|NCT04242498|191404526|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.868|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.541|2.041|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.041|0.541|0.868
95717823|NCT04242498|191404527|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.393|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.92|-0.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.867|-3.920|<0.001
95717824|NCT04242498|191404527|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.309|||<|0.001||97.5|-3.705|-0.914||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.914|-3.705|<0.001
95717825|NCT04242498|191404528|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.898||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.684|-0.113||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.113|-1.684|0.010
95717826|NCT04242498|191404528|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.265|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.978|-0.552||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.552|-1.978|<0.001
95717827|NCT04242498|191404529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.273||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.974|10.997||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||10.997|0.974|0.028
95717828|NCT04242498|191404529|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.756||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.189|11.867||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the flare outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||11.867|1.189|0.010
95717829|NCT01375491|191404612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.05||95.0||||See published paper.|ANOVA|See published paper.||See published paper.||||<0.05
95717830|NCT00347776|191404618|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.67||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.98|||Log Rank|||"The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the tetracycline arm and the azithromycin arms combined.~The Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate risk factors and adjust for confounding in predicting recurrence."||0.98|0.45|.047
95717831|NCT00347776|191404619|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Log Rank|||"We tried to evaluate if treating the immediate family members of the subject with oral azithromycin along with the subject had added advantage in reducing the rate of recurrent trichiasis in comparison to treating the subject alone with oral azithromycin post surgery.~The log rank test was done to compare the survival rates between the two intervention arms.The comparison results were expressed in person-years."||||0.19
95717832|NCT00347776|191404620|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.1|||Regression, Logistic||Comparison group was the tetracycline group.|Surgery was considered a failure if there was trichiasis recurrence at 6 week follow-up.||1.10|0.36|
95717833|NCT00299546|191404634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 comparing Group 1 vs. Combined Groups 2 and 3. A sample size of 140 patients per group provides a \>90% power assuming 50% of patients used Methotrexate (MTX) at baseline and 30% ACR 20 response in placebo and 40\~55% ACR 20 response in golimumab groups.||||<0.001
95717834|NCT00299546|191404634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 2: 50 mg.||||0.001
95717835|NCT00299546|191404634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||Null Hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 14 between Group 1: Placebo and Group 3 :100 mg.||||<0.001
95717836|NCT00299546|191404635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||0.003
95717837|NCT00299546|191404635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.021
95717838|NCT00299546|191404635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
95717839|NCT00299546|191404636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methorexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
95717840|NCT00299546|191404636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
95717841|NCT00299546|191404636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
95717842|NCT00299546|191404637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
95717843|NCT00299546|191404637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||0.002
95717844|NCT00299546|191404637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
95717845|NCT00299546|191404638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline Methotrexate (MTX).||||||<0.001
95717846|NCT00299546|191404638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
95717847|NCT00299546|191404638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Test was performed because Group 1: Placebo was significantly different from Combined Groups 2 \& 3.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|Stratified by baseline MTX.||||||<0.001
95717848|NCT00518531|191404649|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|10.5||||0.0259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|19.7||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|1.3|0.0259
95717849|NCT00518531|191404650|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.6|41.3||All statistical hypothesis tests were conducted at the 0.05 significance level. No adjustment was employed for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||41.3|20.6|<0.0001
95717850|NCT00518531|191404651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|11.0||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|19.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||19.7|2.2|0.0138
95717851|NCT00518531|191404652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.6|37.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||37.7|17.6|<0.0001
95717852|NCT00518531|191404653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|9.8||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|18.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||18.5|1.1|0.0291
95717853|NCT00518531|191404654|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Difference (RD)|27.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.1|36.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by center and prior osteoporotic fracture.|Positive values for absolute risk reduction favor denosumab.|||36.7|18.1|<0.0001
95717854|NCT01656850|191404667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95717855|NCT01656850|191404668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2786|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2786
95717856|NCT01656850|191404669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.420
95717857|NCT01656850|191404670|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95717858|NCT01656850|191404671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2412|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2412
95717859|NCT01656850|191404672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3837|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3837
95717860|NCT01656850|191404673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9784|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9784
95717861|NCT01656850|191404674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5868|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5868
95717862|NCT01656850|191404675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1101
95717863|NCT01656850|191404676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7823|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7823
95717864|NCT01656850|191404677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.557|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5570
95717865|NCT01656850|191404678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6263
95717866|NCT01656850|191404679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8328|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8328
95717867|NCT01656850|191404680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7758
95717868|NCT01656850|191404681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0476|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0476
95717869|NCT01656850|191404682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1205|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1205
95717870|NCT01656850|191404683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1512|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1512
95717871|NCT01656850|191404684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7364|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7364
95717872|NCT01656850|191404685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1995|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1995
95717873|NCT01656850|191404686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8528|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8528
95717874|NCT02074982|191404721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|4.02|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.02|2.01|<0.0001
95717875|NCT03443973|191404766|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted mean|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.2998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.17|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline (BL) + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + Apolipoprotein E, Allele e4 (APOE e4) + Baseline ADAS COG13 + Baseline Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Group-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL).||0.17|-0.55|0.2998
95717876|NCT03443973|191404772|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.58||0.0273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||-0.14|-2.41|0.0273
95717877|NCT03443973|191404773|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78||0.2918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.34|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4||2.34|-0.70|0.2918
95717878|NCT03443973|191404774|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.02|-1.70|0.0438
95717879|NCT03443973|191404775|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.06|||ANCOVA|||Change from Baseline was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors =Treatment + Baseline + Geographic Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||1.06|-0.01|0.0566
95918259|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.402
95717880|NCT03443973|191404776|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.53||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|-0.14|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||-0.14|-2.24|0.0260
95717881|NCT03443973|191404777|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.9086|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.52|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||0.52|-0.59|0.9086
95717882|NCT03443973|191404778|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|1.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.0629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|2.9|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.90|-0.08|0.0629
95717883|NCT03443973|191404779|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.66||0.2348|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Change from BL was calculated based on ANCOVA analysis model which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Treatment + Baseline + Geographical Region + Disease Stage + AD Medication at BL + APOE e4.||2.09|-0.51|0.2348
95717884|NCT03443973|191404786|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|-56.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.976|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.36|-48.56|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Type of Tracer + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||-48.56|-64.36|<.0001
95717885|NCT03443973|191404787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted mean|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023||0.7816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.04|0.7816
95717886|NCT03443973|191404787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Medial Temporal Composite Region: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.03|0.6203
95717887|NCT03443973|191404787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.015||0.7754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.03|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Frontal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.03|-0.03|0.7754
95717888|NCT03443973|191404787|SUPERIORITY||Difference in adjusted means|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.9022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.05|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||Parietal Lobe: Change from BL was calculated based on mixed-effect model of repeated measure which included the following covariates and stratification factors = Baseline + APOE e4 status + Study + Analysis Visit + Treatment + Treatment\*Analysis Visit + Analysis Visit\*Baseline.||0.05|-0.05|0.9022
95717889|NCT03443973|191404788|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-13.2||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.51|-2.87|||ANCOVA|||||-2.87|-22.51|0.014
95717890|NCT03443973|191404789|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.88|-6.21|||ANCOVA|||||-6.21|-21.88|<0.001
95717891|NCT03443973|191404790|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-17.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.92|-10.11|||ANCOVA|||||-10.11|-24.92|<0.001
95717892|NCT03443973|191404791|SUPERIORITY||Percent Difference in Geometric Mean|-21.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.29|-12.97|||ANCOVA|||||-12.97|-28.29|<0.001
95717893|NCT02354352|191404793|NON_INFERIORITY|Using a Type I error rate of 5%, we conducted a power calculation using a non-inferiority test on 12-month change in Ecc. If there is truly no difference in the 12-month Ecc change between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups, 46 patients (23 in each group) would result in at least 80% power to ensure that the lower limit of a one-sided 95% confidence interval for the true difference between the spironolactone and eplerenone groups to be above the non-inferiority limit of -1.75.||||||0.5867|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5867
95717894|NCT02411110|191404797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.34||||0.505|||||||ANCOVA|Baseline value as a covariate; treatment group and stratification (age: \< 40 or ≥ 40 years and baseline bladder pain NRS: ≤ 6 or \> 6) as factors.|LiRIS® - Placebo|||||0.505
95717895|NCT04888377|191404798|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary hypothesis of non-inferiority was tested by calculating the mean difference between treatment arms and its associated 90% confidence interval for the primary outcome. If the lower bound of the 90% confidence interval was greater than -4, then LDA was assumed to be non-inferior to placebo. If non-inferiority were assumed, a one-sided t-test would test the benefit of LDA compared to placebo. All models controlled for site as the original randomization stratification factor.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.6||For each outcome, the adjusted mean difference between treatment groups and the associated 95% confidence interval based on an ANCOVA model is presented.|ANCOVA||Mean difference is Aspirin-Placebo.|Assuming a non-inferiority margin of 4 points in the BSID-III cognitive score as clinically significant, and a true effect of LDA of not more than a 1 point decrease, a total sample size of 620 was determined to provide 80% power for a one-sided test for non-inferiority with a type I error of 5%. To test this secondary hypothesis, the sample size also provided over 90% power, at a two-sided type I error of 5%, to detect a difference of 4 points between LDA and placebo based on a two-sided test.||0.6|-2.2|0.25
95717896|NCT00526162|191404817|OTHER||percentage|0.0|||<|0.03|ONE_SIDED|97.0||||Using a confidence interval of 97%, the exact binomial upper confidence bound was 9.5% which is lower than the 10% set for the primary safety objective. Therefore, the actual p-value has not been calculated further.|One proportion binomial exact||The confidence interval was calculated based on 35 patients who completed 1-month follow-up at interim analysis.|||||<0.03
95729234|NCT05440097|191428753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|3.58|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 12|||3.58|0.77|
95729235|NCT05440097|191428753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|3.56|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 24|||3.56|0.57|
95717897|NCT05279807|191404822|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference pre vs post treatment|-13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|-12.5|||Paired Samples T-Test|||Primary endpoint, verified on the single cohort of patients who completed the monotherapy run-in period, is calculated as the mean difference in sitting diastolic blood pressure between Visit 2 (Week 0, Baseline Visit of the combination therapy) and Visit 4 (Week 8, End of Study Visit). This is not a comparison of two different arms, but a comparison of two measurements taken from the same patient treated with combination therapy (single arm paired pre- vs. post-combination therapy comparison)||-12.5|-14.5|< 0.001
95717898|NCT01169259|191404849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.88|0.47
95717899|NCT01169259|191404849|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.13|||Regression, Cox|||||1.13|0.93|0.56
95717900|NCT01169259|191404850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.85|0.69
95717901|NCT01169259|191404850|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.80|0.24
95717902|NCT01169259|191404851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.02|||Regression, Cox|||||1.02|0.67|0.08
95717903|NCT01169259|191404851|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.79|0.79
95717904|NCT01169259|191404852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.79|0.90
95717905|NCT01169259|191404852|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.70|0.43
95717906|NCT01169259|191404853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.07|||Regression, Cox|||||1.07|0.72|0.19
95717907|NCT01169259|191404853|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.94|0.17
95717908|NCT01169259|191404854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.62|||Regression, Cox|||||1.62|0.73|0.67
95717909|NCT01169259|191404854|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.83|||Regression, Cox|||||1.83|0.83|0.31
95717910|NCT01169259|191404855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.08|||Regression, Cox|||||1.08|0.86|0.53
95717911|NCT01169259|191404855|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.04|||Regression, Cox|||||1.04|0.82|0.21
95717912|NCT01169259|191404856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.78|0.73
95717913|NCT01169259|191404856|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9|||Regression, Cox|||||0.90|0.59|0.003
95717914|NCT01169259|191404857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.76|0.68
95717915|NCT01169259|191404857|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.31|||Regression, Cox|||||1.31|0.83|0.72
95717916|NCT01169259|191404858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.11||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.4|||Regression, Cox|||||1.40|0.88|0.38
95717917|NCT01169259|191404858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.21|||Regression, Cox|||||1.21|0.76|0.73
95717918|NCT01169259|191404859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.87|0.87
95717919|NCT01169259|191404859|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.15|||Regression, Cox|||||1.15|0.90|0.79
95717920|NCT01169259|191404860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.06|||Regression, Cox|||||1.06|0.83|0.33
95717921|NCT01169259|191404860|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.28|||Regression, Cox|||||1.28|1.00|0.056
95717922|NCT01169259|191404861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.09|||Regression, Cox|||||1.09|0.79|0.38
95717923|NCT01169259|191404861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.05|||Regression, Cox|||||1.05|0.76|0.18
95717924|NCT01169259|191404862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Regression, Cox|||||0.96|0.59|0.024
95717925|NCT01169259|191404862|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.73|0.58
95717926|NCT01169259|191404863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.11|||Regression, Cox|||||1.11|0.84|0.62
95717927|NCT01169259|191404863|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.84|0.72
95717928|NCT01169259|191404864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.19|||Regression, Cox|||||1.19|0.79|0.78
95717929|NCT01169259|191404864|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.95|||Regression, Cox|||||0.95|0.63|0.016
95717930|NCT01169259|191404865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.01|||Regression, Cox|||||1.01|0.55|0.058
95717931|NCT01169259|191404865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.33|||Regression, Cox|||||1.33|0.73|0.94
95717932|NCT01169259|191404866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.12|||Regression, Cox|||||1.12|0.83|0.61
95717933|NCT01169259|191404866|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.71|0.016
95717934|NCT01169259|191404867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.39|||Regression, Cox|||||1.39|0.83|0.61
95717935|NCT01169259|191404867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.24|||Regression, Cox|||||1.24|0.74|0.74
95717936|NCT01169259|191404868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.38|||Regression, Cox|||||1.38|0.42|0.37
95717937|NCT01169259|191404868|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|2.39|||Regression, Cox|||||2.39|0.72|0.37
95717938|NCT01169259|191404869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.6||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06|||Regression, Cox|||||3.06|0.84|0.15
95717939|NCT01169259|191404869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.97|||Regression, Cox|||||0.97|0.26|0.04
95717940|NCT01169259|191404870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.27||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.95|||Regression, Cox|||||1.95|0.83|0.27
95717941|NCT01169259|191404870|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.16|||Regression, Cox|||||1.16|0.49|0.198
95717942|NCT01169259|191404871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.54|||Regression, Cox|||||1.54|0.46|0.58
95717943|NCT01169259|191404871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.01|||Regression, Cox|||||2.01|0.60|0.76
95717944|NCT01169259|191404872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.2|||Regression, Cox|||||1.20|0.71|0.56
95717945|NCT01169259|191404872|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.93|||Regression, Cox|||||0.93|0.55|0.014
95717946|NCT01169259|191404873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.27||||||||1.27|0.92|
95717947|NCT01169259|191404873|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.15||||||||1.15|0.83|
95717948|NCT01169259|191404874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26||||||||1.26|0.82|
95717949|NCT01169259|191404874|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.29||||||||1.29|0.84|
95717950|NCT05299359|191404875|NON_INFERIORITY|If the lower limit of the 95% CI is \>= 0.67, then the immune response to a single heterologous booster vaccination of TAK-019 is considered to be non-inferior of that to the primary series of TAK-019.|LS Mean Difference|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.47||||||GMT ratio was calculated GMT of TAK-019-3001 on Day 15 divided by GMT of TAK-019-1501 study on Day 36.||1.47|0.95|
95717951|NCT04242446|191404914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.979|4.089|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.089|0.979|0.030
95717952|NCT04242446|191404914|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.234||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.159|4.307|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.307|1.159|0.006
95717953|NCT04242446|191404915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.416||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.615|3.26||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.260|0.615|0.350
95717954|NCT04242446|191404915|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.175||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|97.5|1.021|4.635|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.635|1.021|0.021
95717955|NCT04242446|191404916|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.574||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.472|-0.675||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||-0.675|-4.472|0.002
95717956|NCT04242446|191404916|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-2.682|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.394|-0.97|||ANCOVA|||||-0.970|-4.394|<0.001
95717957|NCT04242446|191404917|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.551||||0.201|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.521|0.418||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|ANCOVA|||||0.418|-1.521|0.201
95717958|NCT04242446|191404917|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.186||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.05|-0.322|||ANCOVA|||||-0.322|-2.050|0.002
95717959|NCT04242446|191404918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.618||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.489|5.352||Nominal p-value only due to the testing hierarchy failing on the HISCR50 outcome.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.352|0.489|0.367
95717960|NCT04242446|191404918|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.757||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.909|8.364|||Regression, Logistic|||||8.364|0.909|0.041
95717961|NCT05644756|191404972|OTHER|The primary analysis examined changes in measurement-based care (MBC) collection over time using ANOVA. The study was not designed as a superiority, non-inferiority, or equivalence trial.|||||>|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||>.01
95717962|NCT03985982|191404996|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||This outcome measure is the first to be assessed in a hierarchical testing sequence using a one-sided alpha of 0.025.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95717963|NCT03985982|191404997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the second test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous test shows statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Emotional domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95717964|NCT03985982|191404997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the third test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous two tests show statistical significance at the alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Social Functioning domain - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95717965|NCT03985982|191404997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the forth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous three tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for Modified Skindex-16 (GL-QoL) Overall score - Change from Baseline at Week 4.||||<0.001
95717966|NCT03985982|191404997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the fifth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous four tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines Between Eyebrows - Change from Baseline at Week 4||||<0.001
95717967|NCT03985982|191404997|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The statistical significance is set to 0.025. This is the sixth test in a hierarchical testing sequence. Statistical significance will only be assessed if the previous five tests show statistical significance at the 1-sided alpha level of 0.025.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Test performed for FACE-Q Age Appraisal VAS score||||<0.001
95717968|NCT05981365|191405040|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1673|1.3663||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3663|1.1673|
95717969|NCT05981365|191405040|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1845|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0758|1.3042||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3042|1.0758|
95717970|NCT05981365|191405041|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0215|1.393||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3930|1.0215|
95717971|NCT05981365|191405042|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1311|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0496|1.2189||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2189|1.0496|
95717972|NCT05981365|191405043|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8228||||||90.0|0.6992|0.9683||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9683|0.6992|
95717973|NCT05981365|191405044|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.5738|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4523|1.7054||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.7054|1.4523|
95717974|NCT05981365|191405045|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1491|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0807|1.222||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2220|1.0807|
95717975|NCT05981365|191405045|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9494|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8759|1.0291||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0291|0.8759|
95717976|NCT05981365|191405046|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3316|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2558|1.4121||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4121|1.2558|
95717977|NCT05981365|191405047|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1282|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.1896||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1896|1.0700|
95717978|NCT05981365|191405048|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8047|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7173|0.9027||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9027|0.7173|
95717979|NCT05981365|191405049|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.0611|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8789|2.2609||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2609|1.8789|
95717980|NCT05981365|191405050|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1374|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0672|1.2122||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2122|1.0672|
95717981|NCT05981365|191405050|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.9371|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0162||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.0162|0.8643|
95717982|NCT05981365|191405051|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2713|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1939|1.3538||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3538|1.1939|
95717983|NCT05981365|191405052|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0688|1.1883||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1883|1.0688|
95717984|NCT05981365|191405053|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7039|0.9031||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.9031|0.7039|
95717985|NCT05981365|191405054|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|2.026|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.8496|2.2193||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||2.2193|1.8496|
95717986|NCT05981365|191405055|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7909|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.716|0.8737||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8737|0.7160|
95717987|NCT05981365|191405056|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0831|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9723|1.2065||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.2065|0.9723|
95717988|NCT05981365|191405057|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.3138|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1871|1.4541||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.4541|1.1871|
95717989|NCT05981365|191405058|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.7958|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.742|0.8534||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8534|0.7420|
95717990|NCT05981365|191405059|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0322|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9531|1.1179||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1179|0.9531|
95717991|NCT05981365|191405060|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.1975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0972|1.3069||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3069|1.0972|
95717992|NCT05981365|191405061|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|0.8018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7472|0.8604||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||0.8604|0.7472|
95717993|NCT05981365|191405062|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.063|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9888|1.1427||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.1427|0.9888|
95717994|NCT05981365|191405063|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.2197|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1114|1.3385||||||Analysis was performed using linear mixed model, with treatment as fixed effect and participant as random effect.||1.3385|1.1114|
95717995|NCT02203305|191405149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: Interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
95717996|NCT02203305|191405149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.001).||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated for the poorer hearing ear 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction. Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
95717997|NCT02203305|191405149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
95717998|NCT02203305|191405149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
95729236|NCT05440097|191428753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|12.2||||||95.0|9.25|15.13|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 36|||15.13|9.25|
95717999|NCT02203305|191405149|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.429||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and group (p=0.429). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.387).||Comparison of word recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.429
95718000|NCT02203305|191405150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.019||||||The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.19) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.019).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.019
95718001|NCT02203305|191405150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.012||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.012) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.004).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.012
95718002|NCT02203305|191405150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
95718003|NCT02203305|191405150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
95718004|NCT02203305|191405150|OTHER|correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.42|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and sound source localization (RMS) at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.033
95718005|NCT02203305|191405150|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.249||||||There were significant main effects of group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). There was a non-significant interaction between group and interval (p=0.249).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: group (p\<0.001) and interval (p\<0.001). Interaction: group and interval (p=0.249).||Comparison of sound source localization between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.249
95718006|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Speech, Spatial, \& Qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
95718007|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.056
95718008|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.448||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.488).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.448
95718009|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.299||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: subscale (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.072). Interaction: subscale and interval (p=0.299).||Responses on the SSQ over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Subscales include: speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.299
95718010|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.018||||||There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001), and their interaction (p\<0.018).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.018).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.018
95718011|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.767|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.767). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.542).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.767
95718012|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.242|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.003) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.242).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.242
95718013|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|Bivariate pearson correlation||||||0.37|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||0.370
95718014|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.865||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.865
95718015|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.6|||=|0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.005
95718016|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|0.67|||=|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Speech Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.006
95718017|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.33|||=|0.152|TWO_SIDED||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.152
95718018|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.761|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the preoperative interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.761
95718019|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.315|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.315
95718020|NCT02203305|191405151|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.666|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Spatial Subscale) at the 12-month interval and sound source localization (RMS error).||||=0.666
95718021|NCT02203305|191405151|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.175|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.912), interval (p=0.463), and subscale (p=0.483). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.175).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing subscales during the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.175
95718022|NCT02203305|191405152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.161||||||"Significant effect of interval (p=0.046) and of condition (p\<0.001) and a non-significant interaction (p=0.161).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.046) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.161).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.161
95718023|NCT02203305|191405152|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.107||||||"Significant effect of condition (p\<0.001) and the interaction (p\<0.001). Non-significant effect of interval (p=0.107).~Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval p=0.107). Interaction of condition and interval (p\<0.001).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.107
95718024|NCT02203305|191405152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
95718025|NCT02203305|191405152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||<0.001
95718026|NCT02203305|191405152|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||=|0.58||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and speech recognition in noise at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation.||||=0.580
95718027|NCT02203305|191405152|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.743||||||A logit transformation was applied to proportion correct data prior to analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Effects: SNR (p=0.026) \& masker condition (p\<0.001). Interactions: cohort \& condition (p\<0.001), interval \& condition (p=0.015). Others (p\>0.140).||Comparison of speech recognition between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) for the three masker configurations (noise towards the better hearing ear, noise towards the poorer hearing ear, and noise from the front) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR; 0, 5, or 10 dB SNR) over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.743
95718028|NCT02203305|191405152|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||=|0.036||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||=0.036
95729237|NCT05440097|191428753|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.1||||||95.0|10.32|15.79|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in proportion at week 48|||15.79|10.32|
95729238|NCT05440097|191428755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.21|16.85|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the Proportion at week 12|||16.85|9.21|
95729239|NCT05440097|191428755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|8.23|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the proportion at week 24|||8.23|0.61|
95718029|NCT02203305|191405153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.183||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.183) and condition (p=0.012). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.081).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.183
95718030|NCT02203305|191405153|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.196||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.010) and condition (p=0.100). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.196).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.196
95718031|NCT02203305|191405153|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||0.056
95718032|NCT02203305|191405153|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.21||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Variable error is the average of the standard deviation of the responses for each source and a lower score reflects a more consistently accurate response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||=0.210
95718033|NCT02203305|191405154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.071||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.071) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p\<0.051)||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.071
95718034|NCT02203305|191405154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.109||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.109) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.052).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.109
95718035|NCT02203305|191405154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
95718036|NCT02203305|191405154|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Constant error is a measure of side bias, and a lower score indicates less response bias to either side. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
95718037|NCT02203305|191405155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.024||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.018) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.024).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.024
95718038|NCT02203305|191405155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.187) and condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.219).||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval, condition (unaided or with the cochlear implant), and their interaction.||||<0.219
95718039|NCT02203305|191405155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effect of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
95729240|NCT05440097|191428755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|6.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.68|10.36|||Normal approximation||Change from baseline in the proportion at week 36|||10.36|2.68|
95918260|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.586|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.586
95718040|NCT02203305|191405155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Soundfield localization of 200-ms speech-shaped noise, presented from 11 speakers at 60, 70, or 80 decibel (dB) sound pressure level (SPL) in a sound treated room. Adjusted constant error is a measure of reliability in the response taking side bias into account, and a lower score indicates a more reliable response. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the effects of interval (pre-operatively, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post). Pre-op: unaided, Post: bilateral.||||<0.001
95718041|NCT02203305|191405156|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.011||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) as measured with the global score were compared over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||=0.011
95718042|NCT02203305|191405156|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.264||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses were compared to responses over the post-activation period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||=0.264
95718043|NCT02203305|191405156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.023||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.005) and subscales (p=0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.023).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.023
95718044|NCT02203305|191405156|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.643|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.643) and subscale (p=0.005). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.480).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction over time with the cochlear implant (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.643
95718045|NCT02203305|191405156|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation (one-tailed)|||||=|0.947||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.947
95718046|NCT02203305|191405156|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.5||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the preoperative interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.500
95718047|NCT02203305|191405156|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.51|||=|0.023|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.023
95718048|NCT02203305|191405156|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|bivariate pearson correlation|-0.55|||=|0.033|TWO_SIDED|||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of subjective benefit (Noise Subscale) at the 12-month interval and speech recognition with AzBio sentences when the target is from the front and the masker is towards the acoustic ear.||||=0.033
95718049|NCT02203305|191405156|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.208|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.541), interval (p=0.446), and subscale (p=0.208). Interactions: 2-way or 3-way (p\>0.287).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the ease of communication, background noise, and reverberation subscales over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.208
95718050|NCT02203305|191405157|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.221||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.221
95718051|NCT02203305|191405157|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.538||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months)."||||=0.538
95718052|NCT02203305|191405157|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.218||||||There were no significant main effects of cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). There was no significant interaction between cohort and interval (p=0.218).|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: cohort (p=0.265) or interval (p=0.430). Interaction: cohort and interval (p=0.218).||Comparison of subjective benefit between groups (UHL/SSD and AHL) on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory over the post-activation intervals (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||>0.218
95718053|NCT02203305|191405158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.322||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.084) and condition (p=0.322). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.125).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.322
95918261|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.455|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I CKD||||0.455
95718054|NCT02203305|191405158|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.317||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.014) and condition (p=0.317). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.118).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.317
95718055|NCT02203305|191405158|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.017||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.017
95718056|NCT02203305|191405158|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.292||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.292
95718057|NCT02203305|191405158|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
95718058|NCT02203305|191405159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.581||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p=0.039) and condition (p=0.007). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.581).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.581
95718059|NCT02203305|191405159|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.817||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p=0.005) and interval (p=0.528). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.817).||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.817
95718060|NCT02203305|191405159|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.008||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.008
95718061|NCT02203305|191405159|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.009|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). Percent correct converted to RAU.||||=0.009
95718062|NCT02203305|191405159|OTHER|bivariate correlation|||||=|0.049||||||"Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.~This correlation was no longer significant when controlling for the hearing threshold at 8000 Hz."|bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of age at implantation and performance at the 12-month interval with the cochlear implant, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation (one-tailed).||||=0.049
95718063|NCT02203305|191405159|OTHER|pearson correlation|||||>|0.185|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Association of word recognition and speech recognition in noise, analyzed with a Bivariate Pearson correlation. Scores were averaged between 3 and 12 months post-activation as an estimate of asymptotic performance.||||>0.185
95718064|NCT02203305|191405160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.44|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.070) and condition (p=0.440). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.047).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.440
95718065|NCT02203305|191405160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.379|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.250). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.379).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.379
95718066|NCT02203305|191405160|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.021|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.021
95718067|NCT02203305|191405160|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
95718068|NCT02203305|191405161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.639||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.639). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.280).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.639
95718069|NCT02203305|191405161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.637). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.450).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.637
95718070|NCT02203305|191405161|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||<0.001
95718071|NCT02203305|191405161|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.002
95718072|NCT02203305|191405162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.671|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.020) and condition (p=0.406). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.671).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||<0.671
95718073|NCT02203305|191405162|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.124|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p=0.124) and condition (p=0.845). Interaction: interval and condition (p=0.960).||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) unaided and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) over the post-activation study period. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effects of interval (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation), condition (unaided or with the CI), and their interaction.||||>0.124
95718074|NCT02203305|191405162|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.025|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.025
95718075|NCT02203305|191405162|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.442|||||||ANOVA|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in an unaided condition for the poorer hearing ear pre-operatively and with the cochlear implant (CI) over the study period. A repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated the main effect of interval (before surgery, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation).||||=0.442
95718076|NCT02203305|191405163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct values were converted to rationalized arcsine units prior to analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
95718077|NCT02203305|191405163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|t-test, 2 sided|||Paired samples t-test comparing word recognition (percent correct for CNC words) with a hearing aid at the pre-operative interval and the cochlear implant at the 12-month interval for the affected ear (masking presented to the contralateral ear).||||<0.001
95718078|NCT02203305|191405164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listened with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
95718079|NCT02203305|191405164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Participants listening with a bone conduction device preoperatively and with the cochlear implant at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Overall root-mean-square (RMS) error is the difference between the sound source azimuth and the response azimuth and a lower score indicates more accurate localization of the sound source. Repeated-measures ANOVA compared performance over time.||||<0.001
95718080|NCT02203305|191405164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
95718081|NCT02203305|191405164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Compare localization performance with the cochlear implant to a bone-conduction device at the 12-month interval using a paired samples t-test.||||<0.001
95718082|NCT02203305|191405165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
95718083|NCT02203305|191405165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is calculated from the responses on the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales. Responses at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for unilateral hearing loss) were compared to responses over time with the cochlear implant using a repeated-measures ANOVA.||||<0.001
95918262|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.418|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.418
95918263|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.091|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.091
95718084|NCT02203305|191405165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscales (p\<0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.001
95718085|NCT02203305|191405165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscales (p=0.010). Interaction: interval and subscales (p=0.001).||The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Subscales include: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and subscale and their interaction from the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over time with the cochlear implant.||||<0.010
95718086|NCT02203305|191405166|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||<0.001
95718087|NCT02203305|191405166|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||"The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory is a 25-item questionnaire. The subject answers yes (4 points), sometimes (2 points), or no (0 points) to each question. Responses are added to quantify tinnitus severity: none/slight (0-16), mild (18-36), moderate (38-56), severe (58-76), and catastrophic (78-100). Responses were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments) and over the post-activation time period (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) with the cochlear implant."||||=0.003
95718088|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
95718089|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the total score were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months).||||<0.001
95718090|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||"There were significant main effects of interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001) and interaction (p=0.001).~A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity."|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for SSD) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.001
95718091|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.034||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and subscale (p=0.034).||Responses on the SSQ as measured with the subscales (speech, spatial, \& qualities) were compared at the preoperative interval (alternative treatments for asymmetric hearing loss) and over the post-activation period (i.e., 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the main effects of interval and subscale, and their interaction.||||<0.034
95718092|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
95718093|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.192|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.192). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.192
95718094|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.001
95718095|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.479|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.479).||Responses on the SSQ Speech pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.479
95918264|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the ACE-I Control Group||||0.034
95918265|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.921
95918266|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.887|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.887
95918267|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.759|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure of the CKD and Control groups||||0.759
95918268|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.851|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CBPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.851
95718096|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.804|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p=0.804). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.090).||Responses on the SSQ Spatial pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.804
95718097|NCT02203305|191405167|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effects: interval (p\<0.001) and pragmatic subscale (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and pragmatic subscale (p=0.005).||Responses on the SSQ Qualities of Hearing pragmatic subscale over the study period (i.e., preoperative, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation). A repeated-measures ANOVA compared the main effects of interval and pragmatic subscale and their interaction over time.||||<0.005
95718098|NCT02203305|191405168|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
95718099|NCT02203305|191405168|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.034|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.034
95718100|NCT02203305|191405169|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
95718101|NCT02203305|191405169|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.037|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.037
95718102|NCT02203305|191405170|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||<0.001
95718103|NCT02203305|191405170|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.||||=0.001
95718104|NCT02203305|191405171|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) with a bone-conduction device (preoperative interval) and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation interval. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices.||||=0.004
95718105|NCT02203305|191405171|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.004|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.004
95718106|NCT02203305|191405172|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||<0.001
95718107|NCT02203305|191405172|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.727|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.727
95718108|NCT02203305|191405173|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.001
95718109|NCT02203305|191405173|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance.||||=0.090
95918269|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.733|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CRPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.733
95718110|NCT02203305|191405179|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.923|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: electrode (p\<0.001), target stimulus (p=0.923), and interval (p=0.226). Interaction: electrode and interval (p=0.496).||A linear mixed effects model compared the main effects of target stimulus (click, tone), electrode (1-5), and interval (1, 3, 6, and 12 months) on the normalized pitch match.||||<0.923
95718111|NCT02203305|191405179|OTHER||||||>|0.164|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and word recognition with the CI alone.||||>0.164
95918270|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.902|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the baseline and 12 month CFPWV measure of the Control groups||||0.902
95918271|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.414
95718112|NCT02203305|191405179|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.367|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and speech recognition in noise (masker from the front, masker towards the better hearing ear, and masker towards the poorer hearing ear).||||>0.367
95718113|NCT02203305|191405179|OTHER|bivariate pearson correlation|||||>|0.349|||||||bivariate pearson correlation|||Correlation between pitch perception (normalized mean pitch match) and sound source localization (RMS error).||||>0.349
95718114|NCT02203305|191405180|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz at the preoperative and initial activation intervals for the 25 participants with unaided threshold of 80 dB HL or better at the preoperative interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||<0.001
95718115|NCT02203305|191405180|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.47|||||||ANOVA|generalized linear mixed-effects model||"Comparison of the unaided threshold at 125 Hz from the initial activation to the 12-month post-activation interval for the 9 participants with an unaided threshold of 95 dB HL or better at the initial activation interval.~The data from the SSD and AHL group were combined to review hearing preservation with long arrays. The inclusion criteria for the implanted ear were the same for the SSD and AHL groups and all subjects received the same 31.5 mm electrode array."||||=0.47
95718116|NCT02203305|191405181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.739|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.739
95718117|NCT02203305|191405181|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.553|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the bone-conduction device at the preoperative and 12-month intervals.||||=0.553
95718118|NCT02203305|191405182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.345||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: interval (p=0.027) and masker condition (p\<0.001). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.345).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.345
95718119|NCT02203305|191405182|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.577||||||Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.|ANOVA|Main effect: masker condition (p\<0.001) and interval (p=0.577). Interaction: interval and masker condition (p=0.055).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of interval (preoperative and 12-months) and masker condition (front, acoustic ear, or affected ear) on performance with the bone conduction device.||||<0.577
95718120|NCT02203305|191405183|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.023|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Main effect: coding strategy (p=0.023). Interaction: coding strategy and electrode (p=0.044). All other main effects and interactions were p\>0.160.||A linear mixed effect model assessed the main effects of stimulus, electrode, and coding strategy, and their interactions.||||>0.023
95718121|NCT02203305|191405183|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.035|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Pitch perception for electrode 1 (p=0.035). All other comparisons were p\>0.318.||Paired samples t-tests evaluated whether pitch perception (mean normalized pitch) differed between coding strategy for each electrode.||||>0.035
95718122|NCT02203305|191405184|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.084|||||||ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.960) and interval (p=0.084). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.433).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.084
95718123|NCT02203305|191405184|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.434|||||||ANOVA|Main effect: condition (p=0.434) or interval (p=0.687). Interaction: condition and interval (p=0.678).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device) and interval (preoperative, 12-month) and their interaction on sound source localization.||||>0.434
95718124|NCT02203305|191405185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.935||||||Percent correct converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to analysis.|ANOVA|Main effects: condition (p=0.018), interval (p=0.012), and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval and masker (p\<0.001). Other interactions: p\>0.117.||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.935
95918272|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.942|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.942
95718125|NCT02203305|191405185|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.977||||||A Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied as indicated by the Mauchly test of sphericity.|ANOVA|Effects: interval (p=0.012) and masker (p\<0.001). Interactions: interval\&masker (p=0.020) \& condition, interval, \&masker (p=0.035). Others: (p\>0.131).||A repeated-measures ANOVA assessed the effects of condition (unaided, bone-conduction device), interval (preoperative, 12-month), and masker condition and their 2-way and 3-way interactions on speech recognition in noise.||||<0.977
95718126|NCT03586427|191405186|OTHER|Mixed model of repeated measures least square estimates of change compared to placebo|||||>|0.05||||||Comparison of each dose level change from baseline to placebo baseline yielded P values \>0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||Each dose group was compared to placebo||||>0.05
95718127|NCT03292731|191405207|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.08||adjusted for cerclage|Regression, Logistic|adjusted for cerclage||logistic regression comparing drug concentration to the rate of sPTB||1.08|0.93|0.96
95718128|NCT03292731|191405208|OTHER||Slope|1.11||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.23|||Regression, Linear|||||2.23|0.00|0.05
95718129|NCT03292731|191405209|OTHER||Slope|1.56||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.87|||Regression, Linear|||||2.87|0.25|0.022
95718130|NCT03292731|191405210|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82||||||no adjustments|Fisher Exact|||Only RCT subjects utilized in neonatal safety analysis||||0.82
95718131|NCT03478982|191405214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
95718132|NCT03478982|191405214|SUPERIORITY||Difference in percentage|23.3|||=|0.0392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|44.8|||Chi-squared|||||44.8|1.8|=0.0392
95718133|NCT00471237|191405219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.37|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||1.37|-0.78|0.590
95918273|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the CKD ACE-I and CKD Control groups.||||0.990
95718134|NCT00471237|191405219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.44|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12||||2.44|0.28|0.028
95718135|NCT00471237|191405219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.65|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.65|0.51|0.011
95718136|NCT00471237|191405219|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.69|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.044 at Month 12.||||2.69|0.51|0.012
95718137|NCT00471237|191405227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.48|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.48|-1.38|0.680
95718138|NCT00471237|191405227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.89|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.89|0.01|0.192
95718139|NCT00471237|191405227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.73|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||0.73|-1.12|0.680
95718140|NCT00471237|191405227|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.29|||ANOVA|Each dose of ronacaleret was deemed significantly different from placebo if the Hommel-adjusted p-value was \<0.006 at Month 6.||||1.29|-0.59|0.680
95718141|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.04|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.04|-1.32|0.037
95718142|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.14|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.14|-1.43|0.017
95718143|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.92|-0.64|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.64|-1.92|0.000
95718144|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.65|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 6||-0.65|-1.95|0.000
95718145|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|-0.17|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.17|-1.61|0.015
95718146|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.3|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.30|-1.74|0.006
95718147|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.36||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-0.63|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.63|-2.04|0.000
95718148|NCT00471237|191405228|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.84|||ANOVA|||Total Hip aBMD, Month 12||-0.84|-2.30|0.000
95718149|NCT00593385|191405241|OTHER||Meta-Analysis|9.67||||0.005|ONE_SIDED|95.0||16.57||An exact one sided upper 95% confidence interval of the primary endpoint rate was calculated based on primary analysis population.|Exact test of the binomial distribution||To estimate primary endpoint rate, a meta-analysis was performed on data from 3 previous studies. The meta-analytical rate derived was 9.67%|The composite event rate to determine the performance metric of 16.57% was based on a meta-analysis performed on data from 3 previous studies(9.67%). A 6.9% margin was deemed acceptable at the time of study design. Rejection of the null hypothesis requires that the iCAST Covered Stent primary endpoint rate was significantly below 16.57%. Other assumptions for the analysis included a power of 80% and one-sided alpha error of 5%.||16.57||0.005
95718150|NCT02871921|191405295|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.86||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among participants with normal cognition||||0.87
95718151|NCT02871921|191405295|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the MoCA score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline MoCA score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.76||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: MoCA at Month 6 Among MCI||||.03
95718152|NCT02871921|191405296|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category fluency animals Among participants with normal cognition||||0.03
95718153|NCT02871921|191405296|OTHER|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Category Fluency test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Category Fluency (Animals) at Month 6 Among MCI participants||||0.46
95918274|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.273|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CBPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.273
95918275|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.516|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CRPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.516
95718154|NCT02871921|191405297|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Stroy Immediate Recall score at Month 6, controlling for its baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.82||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Stroy Immediate Recall (paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.45
95718155|NCT02871921|191405297|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Immediate Recall (paraphrase) Among MCI||||0.41
95718156|NCT02871921|191405298|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall) (Paraphrase scoring) Among participants with normal cognition||||0.74
95718157|NCT02871921|191405298|EQUIVALENCE|A linear regression model was run with the outcome being the Craft Story test score at Month 6, controlling for tits baseline score. The coefficient of the treatment indicator (1: experimental group, 0: control group) is our main interest. The significant coefficient means that treatment and control groups differ in the outcome score at Month 6, controlling for the baseline score and a COVID-19 pandemic period indicator (0: pre-COVID-19 pandemic, 1: during COVID-19 pandemic period).|Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.79||0.9|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Outcome: Craft Story Delayed Recall (Paraphrase scoring) Among MCI||||0.90
95718158|NCT03056456|191405302|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.23||||||Day 1||1.23|0.810|
95718159|NCT03056456|191405302|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.817|1.25||||||Day 3||1.25|0.817|
95718160|NCT03056456|191405303|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.808|1.31||||||Day 1||1.31|0.808|
95718161|NCT03056456|191405303|SUPERIORITY|Day 3|Ratio of Geometric LS Means|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.32||||||||1.32|0.820|
95727830|NCT00185211|191425153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1768||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|Log Rank|||The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was: H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0. The two-sided alternative hypothesis was: H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to confirmed EDSS progression is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0.||||0.1768
95727831|NCT00185211|191425153|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.764||||0.1604||97.47|0.497|1.174|||Regression, Cox|The variable used as additional covariate adjustment was volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI.|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to confirmed EDSS progression was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group and volume of T2 lesions on screening MRI. The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for confirmed EDSS progression, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.174|0.497|0.1604
95727832|NCT00185211|191425154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.888||95.0||||A 2-sided error level of 0.0253 was used for analyses at month 36 and 60 in order to keep the study-wise error level at 0.05. A conditional sequential testing approach was used for the family of null hypotheses of the primary efficacy variables.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8880
95727833|NCT00185211|191425154|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3832||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: FAMS TOI measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean FAMS TOI at month 60, adjusted for baseline FAMS TOI, is not the same in the two treatment arms using a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.3832
95727834|NCT00185211|191425155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||6e-06||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Log Rank|||"The null hypothesis for comparison of initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo treatment was:~H0: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are identical for both treatment arms for all points in time t\>0.~The two-sided alternative hypothesis was:~H1: The survival functions (i.e., the probability that time to McDonald MS is ≥ t) are not identical for both treatment arms for some points in time t\>0."||||0.000006
95918276|NCT00874432|191796060|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||This compares the 12 month CFPWV measure between the ACE-I Control and CKD Control groups.||||0.102
95918277|NCT00381641|191796067|SUPERIORITY|"Null (historical) response rate for iodine refractory subgroup is 10%. Power=90% for 30% alternative.~Null (historical) response rate for metastatic medullary subgroup is 5%. Power=88% for 25% alternative."|||||<|0.1||||||"For iodine refractory subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 6 or more responses were observed.~For metastatic medullary subgroup, null hypothesis could be rejected if 3 or more responses were observed."|Simon, two-stage design|||Note. The objective was not to compare the two arms (subgroups), but to compare each with historical data.||||<0.10
95718162|NCT04637815|191405424|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables|||||||TWO_SIDED|0.0||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
95718163|NCT04637815|191405425|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
95718164|NCT04637815|191405426|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
95718165|NCT04637815|191405427|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
95718166|NCT04637815|191405428|EQUIVALENCE|t-tests for continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables||||||||||||Statistical threshold of significance is .05.|t-test, 2 sided||||We also conducted difference in differences (DID) analysis by first constructing measures of difference between follow-up and baseline for each participant for each measure and then comparing the means of these difference measures for each arm.|||
95718167|NCT00337727|191405429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
95718168|NCT00337727|191405430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Superiority based on 2-sided level of significance of 0.05, based on a logistic regression model that included terms for treatment group, region and gender.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.01
95718169|NCT02050373|191405431|OTHER|For the comparison between the LLLT and control groups the Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used.|||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||The Pearson chi-square (χ2) or Fisher's Exact tests were used, at three different times (AD, D7, HD), to analyze the oral mucositis severity in the comparison between the LLLT and control groups. Statistical analysis was not performed for each grade of oral mucositis separately.||||<0.05
95718170|NCT02050373|191405432|OTHER|Student's t test was used to numerical variables with normal distribution. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the cytokine values of the two groups (control and laser). The Friedman test was used to indicate differences by comparing cytokine levels at different times of assessment within each group. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used for paired analyzes of the saliva collection times in the groups. All tests were used to compare the groups at the three different times (AD, D7, HD).|||||<|0.05||||||p\<0,05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95718171|NCT00326625|191405433|SUPERIORITY||Slope difference|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083||0.4807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||ANCOVA||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis compares the ALSFRS-R slopes of change from baseline between treatment groups. Analysis includes the following covariates: time from randomization, treatment group, time by treatment interaction, center, Riluzole use, age, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset and baseline ALSFRS-R score.||0.10|-0.22|0.4807
95718172|NCT00326625|191405434|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.005|||Regression, Cox||Glatiramer acetate vs. Placebo|Analysis covariates are center, riluzole use, site of ALS onset, time from ALS onset, baseline ALSFRS-R score, baseline slow vital capacity (VC) and baseline body mass index (BMI).||2.005|0.560|0.8583
95718173|NCT06067191|191405450|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-312.28||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-489.17|-135.38|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-135.38|-489.17|0.0009
95718174|NCT06067191|191405451|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-1.45||||0.0047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-0.47|-2.43|0.0047
95718175|NCT06067191|191405452|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95718176|NCT06067191|191405453|OTHER|||||||0.0051|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0051
95718177|NCT06067191|191405454|OTHER|||||||0.0077|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0077
95718178|NCT06067191|191405455|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-87.4||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-164.3|-10.49|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||-10.49|-164.30|0.0268
95718179|NCT06067191|191405456|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.99||||0.0865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.13|0.15|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.15|-2.13|0.0865
95718180|NCT06067191|191405457|OTHER|||||||0.0008|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
95718181|NCT06067191|191405458|OTHER|||||||0.8579|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.8579
95718182|NCT06067191|191405459|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
95718183|NCT06067191|191405460|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-93.95||||0.0658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-194.26|6.36|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||6.36|-194.26|0.0658
95718184|NCT06067191|191405461|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Mean|-0.93||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|0.52|||ANCOVA||Analysis was performed using ANCOVA with treatment group as a fixed effect and baseline viral load as the covariate.|||0.52|-2.38|0.2030
95728912|NCT03280537|191427754|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|-1.18||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline TNSS, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) at Week 24.||-1.18|-3.00|<0.0001
95718185|NCT00807040|191405484|OTHER|We tested this hypothesis in an intention-to-treat analysis using a two-tailed Wilcoxon rank-sum test, at a 0.05 alpha level. This analysis accommodated nonignorable missing LVESVI outcomes owing to the death of patients by assigning deceased patients the worst ranks in order on the basis of the time of death. We used multiple imputation for data that were missing for reasons other than death to calculate the 12-month LVESVI on the assumption that the data were missing at random.||||||0.18|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The trial was designed with a power of 90% to detect a between-group difference of 15 ml per square meter in the LVESVI from baseline to 12 months. We assumed a baseline LVESVI of 100 ml per square meter, improvements of 20 ml per square meter in the repair group and 35 ml per square meter in the replacement group, and equal 1-year mortality of 10 to 20% in the two groups. The primary null hypothesis was that there would be no between-group difference in the LVESVI at 12 months.||||0.18
95718186|NCT00807040|191405485|OTHER|We used the log-rank test to compare rates of death from baseline to 2 years.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.35|||Log Rank|||||1.35|0.46|0.39
95718187|NCT01783860|191405503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.03
95718188|NCT01783860|191405504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.01
95718189|NCT01783860|191405505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.007
95718190|NCT01783860|191405506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||> 0.05
95718191|NCT01783860|191405507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.02
95718192|NCT01783860|191405508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.08
95718193|NCT00258310|191405509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.9||||||||.90|.59|
95718194|NCT01569074|191405522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.23||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.07|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.39|0.07|0.059
95718195|NCT01569074|191405522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.24||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.39||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.39|0.08|0.054
95718196|NCT01569074|191405522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.06||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.2|0.08||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.08|-0.20|0.570
95718197|NCT01569074|191405522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.262|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.02|0.29||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.29|-0.02|0.262
95718198|NCT01569074|191405523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.11||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.21||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.21|0.01|0.172
95718199|NCT01569074|191405523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.06||||0.489|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.18||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.18|-0.05|0.489
95718200|NCT01569074|191405523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.03||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.08|0.15||Week 1|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.15|-0.08|0.704
95718201|NCT01569074|191405524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.17||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.03|0.31||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.31|0.03|0.114
95718202|NCT01569074|191405524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.21||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.08|0.34||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.34|0.08|0.035
95718203|NCT01569074|191405524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.07||||0.334|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.17|0.02||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.02|-0.17|0.334
95718204|NCT01569074|191405524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|-0.04||||0.645|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.06|-0.13|0.645
95718205|NCT01569074|191405525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.12||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.05|0.19||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.19|0.05|0.028
95718206|NCT01569074|191405525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Weighted difference in proportions|0.14||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.06|0.22||Week 12|Mantel Haenszel|Treatment difference in proportion of responders, with a Mantel-Haenszel approach stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||0.22|0.06|0.021
95718207|NCT01569074|191405526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.073||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.073
95718208|NCT01569074|191405526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.065||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.065
95718209|NCT01569074|191405526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.317
95718210|NCT01569074|191405526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.263||||||As this is a non-parametric test, p-values alone are presented rather than an estimated treatment difference.|Van Elteren|P-value estimated using the Van Elteren method stratified by pooled country.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||||0.263
95718211|NCT01569074|191405527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.3||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.94|14.31|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied||14.31|1.94|0.033
95718212|NCT01569074|191405527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.1||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.92|13.61|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||13.61|1.92|0.033
95718213|NCT01569074|191405527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.5||||0.257|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.89|6.89|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||6.89|0.89|0.257
95718214|NCT01569074|191405527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.63|5.04|||Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.04|0.63|0.481
95718215|NCT01569074|191405528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.12|4.2|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.20|1.12|0.131
95718216|NCT01569074|191405528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.79|2.82|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.82|0.79|0.423
95718217|NCT01569074|191405528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.781|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.67|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.67|0.45|0.781
95718218|NCT01569074|191405528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.95|3.44|||Proportional odds model|No response, moderate response and good response are included in the proportional odds model with treatment and country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.44|0.95|0.239
95718219|NCT01569074|191405529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.169|TWO_SIDED|80.0|1.06|4.67||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ration \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.67|1.06|0.169
95718220|NCT01569074|191405529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.833|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.45|1.78||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.78|0.45|0.833
95718221|NCT01569074|191405529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.614|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.37|1.54||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.54|0.37|0.614
95718222|NCT01569074|191405529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.748|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|1.69||Week 12|Regression, Logistic|Odds ratio and 80% confidence intervals are calculated using Logistic Regression with treatment and pooled country as factors.|An odds ratio of \>1 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.69|0.42|0.748
95718223|NCT01569074|191405530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.01||||0.087|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.76|5.26|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.26|0.76|0.087
95718224|NCT01569074|191405530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.25||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.91|2.41|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||2.41|-1.91|0.881
95718225|NCT01569074|191405530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.64|1.8|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.80|-2.64|0.806
95718226|NCT01569074|191405530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.03||||0.548|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.17|3.23|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||3.23|-1.17|0.548
95718227|NCT01569074|191405531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|3.12||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.42|5.82|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.82|0.42|0.139
95718228|NCT01569074|191405531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|2.47||||0.223|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|5.07|||ANCOVA|Including terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||5.07|-0.13|0.223
95718229|NCT01569074|191405531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.63||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.3|1.04|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.04|-4.30|0.432
95718230|NCT01569074|191405531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.45||||0.481|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.19|4.09|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and pooled country as factors.||Non-responder imputation has been applied following premature withdrawal, or increased dose of methotrexate or any DMARD initiation, or following receipt of any parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Subjects who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||4.09|-1.19|0.481
95718231|NCT02234427|191405532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|5e-06||||||Above noted p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons. Analysis was performed using the TopHat/Cufflinks pipeline. The differential expression algorithm uses a beta distribution and the overdispersion with a negative binomial distribution.|negative binomial|||Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in gene expression before and after aspirin therapy||||<0.000005
95718232|NCT01244516|191405533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.83|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.91|6.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - AOA.|This comparison is between galyfilcon and lotrafilcon B. Ho: galyfilcon A -lotrafilcon B \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A - lotrafilcon B \> -5.||6.70|-5.91|
95718233|NCT01244516|191405533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at -5.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79|||TWO_SIDED|97.4|-5.96|6.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP - BIO.|This comparison is between galyfilcon A and comfilcon A. Ho: gayfilcon A- comfilcon A \<= -5. Ha: galyfilcon A- comfilcon A\> -5.||6.79|-5.96|
95718234|NCT01244516|191405534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.|The direction of comparison is AAHP/AOA.|The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and lotrafilcon B (AOA) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/AOA). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/AOA).||2.44|1.14|
95718235|NCT01244516|191405534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is set at \> 0.75. Superiority is concluded is the 97.4% CL \> 1.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|97.4|1.14|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|Alpha is adjusted to 1.3% based on a Sidak multiplicity correction.||The comparison is between galyfilcon A (AAHP) and comfilcon A (BIO) for comparing proportions of those with corneal staining and those without. Ho: OR = 1 for (AAHP/BIO). Ha: OR \> 1 for (AAHP/BIO).||2.44|1.14|
95718236|NCT04668066|191405594|OTHER||Least Square Mean Difference|5.6||||0.6343|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.4|32.6|||ANCOVA|||||32.6|-21.4|0.6343
95718237|NCT00761085|191405616|OTHER|No statistical comparisons||||||||||||||||"No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in patients receiving methadone vs not receiving methadone (children or adults).~No statistical comparisons of methadone concentration in children vs adults"|No statistical comparisons|||
95718238|NCT00761085|191405617|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95718239|NCT02242942|191405623|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.51|||Log Rank||Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.51|0.22|<0.0001
95718240|NCT02242942|191405624|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.53|||Log Rank||Hazard Ratios were estimated by Cox regression model. Stratification factors: Binet and Geographic region.|||0.53|0.23|<0.0001
95718241|NCT02242942|191405625|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|13.43||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.47|21.38||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||21.38|5.47|0.0007
95718242|NCT02242942|191405626|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|26.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.41|35.36||P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||35.36|17.41|<0.0001
95718243|NCT02242942|191405627|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|40.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.45|49.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||49.10|31.45|<0.0001
95718244|NCT02242942|191405628|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|39.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.27|48.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||48.36|31.27|<0.0001
95718245|NCT02242942|191405630|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|32.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.76|41.98|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||41.98|23.76|<0.0001
95718246|NCT02242942|191405631|SUPERIORITY||Difference in MRD Negative Rates|38.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.15|46.71|||Chi-squared||95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||46.71|30.15|<0.0001
95718247|NCT02242942|191405632|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|1.85||||0.5612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.63|8.33||P-value was assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% Confidence Interval (CI) for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||8.33|-4.63|0.5612
95718248|NCT02242942|191405634|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Response Rates|0.93||||0.7169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|6.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was assessed using CMH test stratified by the IvRS randomization stratification factors.|95% CI for difference in rates were constructed using Anderson-Hauck method.|||6.51|-4.66|0.7169
95718249|NCT00965562|191405672|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.15||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95718250|NCT00965562|191405673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.05
95718251|NCT00965562|191405674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95718252|NCT00965562|191405675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.09
95718253|NCT00965562|191405676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.005
95718254|NCT00965562|191405677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95718255|NCT00965562|191405678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-2.63||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.51|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group IDS score as compared to placebo|||0.24|-5.51|0.07
95718256|NCT00965562|191405678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|2.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group IDS scores as compared to placebo|||2.65|-2.85|0.94
95718257|NCT00965562|191405678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.15||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
95718258|NCT00965562|191405678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.1||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.94
95718259|NCT00965562|191405679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.63||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||0.34|-3.60|0.10
95718260|NCT00965562|191405679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.81||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.71|1.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group PMTS scores as compared to placebo|||1.09|-2.71|0.40
95718261|NCT00965562|191405679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|1.06||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.10
95718262|NCT00965562|191405679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.37||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.40
95718263|NCT00965562|191405680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.35||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.03|-0.73|0.07
95718264|NCT00965562|191405680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.17||||0.36|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI-S scores as compared to placebo|||0.20|-0.54|0.36
95718265|NCT00965562|191405680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.92||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.07
95718266|NCT00965562|191405680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.44||||0.36|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.36
95718267|NCT00965562|191405681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.28||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||-0.04|-0.53|0.02
95718268|NCT00965562|191405681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.06||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group DRSP scores as compared to placebo|||0.28|-0.16|0.58
95718269|NCT00965562|191405681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|2.08||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.02
95718270|NCT00965562|191405681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.18||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 1 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 1 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.58
95718271|NCT00965562|191405682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-1.03||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in fluoxetine group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||-0.35|-1.70|0.04
95718272|NCT00965562|191405682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.2||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||Slope represents average change in calcium group CGI Improvement scores as compared to placebo|||0.46|-0.86|0.54
95718273|NCT00965562|191405682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.8||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the fluoxetine group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.04
95718274|NCT00965562|191405682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Cohen's d effect size|0.32||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis||Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the difference between changes in the calcium group between visits 2 and 5 and changes in the placebo group between Visits 2 and 5, divided by the std dev in the placebo group at Visit 5|||||0.54
95718275|NCT00145119|191405688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||proportion (%)|8.0||||||||||||||||||
95718276|NCT05204563|191405740|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||||||||4.0|-3.5|
95718277|NCT05204563|191405741|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|8.7||||||||8.7|-0.4|
95718278|NCT05204563|191405742|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|9.4||||||Day 14||9.4|-3.0|
95718279|NCT05204563|191405742|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|11.3||||||Day 28||11.3|-3.4|
95718280|NCT05204563|191405743|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|6.3||||||Day 14||6.3|-5.4|
95718281|NCT05204563|191405743|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|9.8||||||Day 28||9.8|-3.9|
95718282|NCT05204563|191405744|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|3.3||||||Day 14||3.3|-4.9|
95718283|NCT05204563|191405744|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|7.2||||||Day 28||7.2|-2.7|
95718284|NCT05204563|191405745|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|8.9||||||Day 14||8.9|-4.7|
95718285|NCT05204563|191405745|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|9.1||||||Day 28||9.1|-6.5|
95718286|NCT05204563|191405746|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 14||9.7|-25.3|
95718287|NCT05204563|191405746|OTHER||Treatment difference|-7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|9.7||||||Day 28||9.7|-25.3|
95718288|NCT05204563|191405747|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|13.2||||||Day 4||13.2|-6.0|
95718289|NCT05204563|191405747|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.3|12.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||12.3|-5.3|
95718290|NCT05204563|191405747|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|9.3||||||TOC (Day 21)||9.3|-9.4|
95718291|NCT05204563|191405747|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|12.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.2|-6.9|
95718292|NCT05204563|191405748|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.1|13.6||||||Day 4||13.6|-18.1|
95718293|NCT05204563|191405748|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|26.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||26.3|-1.6|
95718294|NCT05204563|191405748|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-10.5|
95718295|NCT05204563|191405748|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-6.9|
95718296|NCT05204563|191405749|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|14.4||||||Day 4||14.4|-12.7|
95718297|NCT05204563|191405749|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|20.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.3|-3.7|
95718298|NCT05204563|191405749|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|21.9||||||TOC (Day 21)||21.9|-4.8|
95718299|NCT05204563|191405749|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|24.2||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.2|-3.0|
95718300|NCT05204563|191405750|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|12.8||||||Day 4||12.8|-8.3|
95718301|NCT05204563|191405750|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|10.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||10.1|-6.7|
95718302|NCT05204563|191405750|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|10.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||10.0|-9.2|
95718303|NCT05204563|191405750|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|12.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.6|-7.7|
95718304|NCT05204563|191405751|OTHER||Treatment difference|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.4|12.2||||||Day 4||12.2|-21.4|
95718305|NCT05204563|191405751|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|21.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||21.2|-5.8|
95718306|NCT05204563|191405751|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-9.4|
95718307|NCT05204563|191405751|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|27.1||||||LFU (Day 28)||27.1|-5.9|
95718308|NCT05204563|191405752|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.3|32.1||||||Day 4||32.1|-20.3|
95718309|NCT05204563|191405752|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|42.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||42.1|-5.4|
95718310|NCT05204563|191405752|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|47.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||47.5|-1.5|
95718311|NCT05204563|191405752|OTHER||Treatment difference|14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|39.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||39.7|-11.6|
95718312|NCT05204563|191405753|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-3.5|
95718313|NCT05204563|191405753|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|22.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.4|-9.7|
95718314|NCT05204563|191405753|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|24.7||||||LFU (Day 28)||24.7|-7.3|
95718315|NCT05204563|191405754|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|23.5||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||23.5|-2.3|
95718316|NCT05204563|191405754|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|20.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-7.2|
95718317|NCT05204563|191405754|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|18.9||||||LFU (Day 28)||18.9|-8.2|
95718318|NCT05204563|191405755|OTHER||Treatment difference|19.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|44.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||44.8|-6.4|
95718319|NCT05204563|191405755|OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.3|22.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||22.0|-24.3|
95718320|NCT05204563|191405755|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
95718321|NCT05204563|191405756|OTHER||Treatment difference|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|20.4||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.4|-7.9|
95718322|NCT05204563|191405756|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|24.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||24.5|-9.5|
95718323|NCT05204563|191405756|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|26.0||||||LFU (Day 28)||26.0|-8.6|
95718324|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|23.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|42.3||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||42.3|4.3|
95718325|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|29.2||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||29.2|-13.6|
95718326|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|33.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||33.5|-9.6|
95718327|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|22.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|63.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||63.7|-18.6|
95718328|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.2|47.6||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||47.6|-30.2|
95718329|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.5|38.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||38.9|-37.5|
95718330|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||46.3|-46.3|
95718331|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.3|46.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||46.3|-46.3|
95718332|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.7|56.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||56.9|-38.7|
95718333|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|37.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||37.9|-100.0|
95718334|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||17.9|-100.0|
95718335|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|17.9||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||17.9|-100.0|
95718336|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|53.3||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||53.3|-100.0|
95718337|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-100.0|
95718338|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
95718339|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
95718340|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
95718341|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
95718342|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
95718343|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
95718344|NCT05204563|191405757|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
95718345|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|35.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||35.5|0.4|
95718346|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|48.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||48.3|-11.3|
95718347|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.0|45.7||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||45.7|-27.0|
95718348|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
95718349|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.1|29.4||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||29.4|-96.1|
95718350|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-40.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|29.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||29.6|-100.0|
95718351|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|100.0||||||Serratia marcescens EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|0.0|
95718352|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.4|20.0||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||20.0|-19.4|
95718353|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|40.7||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||40.7|-22.1|
95718354|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.2|39.8||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||39.8|-28.2|
95718355|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex TOC (Day 21)||90.3|-90.3|
95718356|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-75.0|
95718357|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-60.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|9.6||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.6|-100.0|
95718358|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|54.9||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||54.9|-100.0|
95718359|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
95718360|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
95718361|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Serratia marcescens TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
95718362|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.1|22.7||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||22.7|-17.1|
95718363|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|34.3||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||34.3|-28.4|
95718364|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.9|33.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||33.0|-33.9|
95718365|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-90.3|90.3||||||Burkholderia cepacia complex LFU (Day 28)||90.3|-90.3|
95718366|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-75.0|
95718367|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-26.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|68.5||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||68.5|-100.0|
95718368|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|36.5||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||36.5|-100.0|
95718369|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
95718370|NCT05204563|191405758|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
95718371|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|21.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|39.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||39.6|2.4|
95718372|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|18.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.7|62.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||62.0|-25.7|
95718373|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||33.9|-51.6|
95718374|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|61.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes EOT (up to Day 14)||61.0|-100.0|
95718375|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex EOT (up to Day 14)||69.3|-100.0|
95718376|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|9.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.7|32.1||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||32.1|-12.7|
95718377|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|53.2||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||53.2|-31.4|
95718378|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.6|33.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||33.9|-51.6|
95718379|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes TOC (Day 21)||100|-100.0|
95718380|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex TOC (Day 21)||69.3|-100.0|
95718381|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli TOC (Day 21)||86.7|-100.0|
95718382|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.3|100.0||||||Citrobacter koseri TOC (Day 21)||100.0|-94.3|
95718383|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca TOC (Day 21)||0.0|-100.0|
95718384|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|35.6||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||35.6|-10.5|
95718385|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.9|43.5||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||43.5|-39.9|
95718386|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.1|49.6||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||49.6|-45.1|
95718387|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|100.0||||||Klebsiella aerogenes LFU (Day 28)||100.0|-100.0|
95718388|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|69.3||||||Enterobacter cloacae complex LFU (Day 28)||69.3|-100.0|
95718389|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-33.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|86.7||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||86.7|-100.0|
95718390|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|94.3||||||Citrobacter koseri LFU (Day 28)||94.3|-100.0|
95718391|NCT05204563|191405759|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Klebsiella oxytoca LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
95718392|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|30.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|64.8||||||A.calco/baumannii complex EOT (up to Day 14)||64.8|-4.2|
95718393|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|12.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.1|43.2||||||A.calco/baumannii complex TOC (Day 21)||43.2|-19.1|
95718394|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.0|29.9||||||A.calco/baumannii complex LFU (Day 28)||29.9|-29.0|
95718395|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|-8.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.9|41.1||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||41.1|-57.9|
95718396|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|-39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.1|9.4||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex TOC (Day 21)||9.4|-89.1|
95718397|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|-45.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-93.8|3.5||||||Klebsiella pneumoniae complex LFU (Day 28)||3.5|-93.8|
95718398|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|20.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.8|100.0||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa EOT (up to Day 14)||100.0|-59.8|
95718399|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|-2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.0|76.9||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa TOC (Day 21)||76.9|-82.0|
95718400|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|-17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-95.3|59.4||||||Pseudomonas aeruginosa LFU (Day 28)||59.4|-95.3|
95718401|NCT05204563|191405760|OTHER||Treatment difference|-100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|0.0||||||Escherichia coli LFU (Day 28)||0.0|-100.0|
95718402|NCT05204563|191405761|OTHER||Treatment difference|10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|25.3||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||25.3|-4.9|
95718403|NCT05204563|191405761|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|19.0||||||TOC (Day 21)||19.0|-13.0|
95718404|NCT05204563|191405761|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6|23.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||23.5|-7.6|
95718405|NCT05204563|191405762|OTHER||Treatment difference|7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|20.8||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.8|-5.8|
95718406|NCT05204563|191405762|OTHER||Treatment difference|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|15.5||||||TOC (Day 21)||15.5|-11.6|
95718407|NCT05204563|191405762|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|17.4||||||LFU (Day 28)||17.4|-9.2|
95718408|NCT05204563|191405763|OTHER||Treatment difference|4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.6|20.2||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||20.2|-10.6|
95718409|NCT05204563|191405763|OTHER||Treatment difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|20.4||||||TOC (Day 21)||20.4|-14.0|
95718410|NCT05204563|191405763|OTHER||Treatment difference|8.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|25.6||||||LFU (Day 28)||25.6|-8.4|
95718411|NCT05204563|191405764|OTHER||Treatment difference|11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.5|36.9||||||EOT (up to Day 14)||36.9|-14.5|
95718412|NCT05204563|191405764|OTHER||Treatment difference|-5.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.4|17.6||||||TOC (Day 21)||17.6|-28.4|
95718413|NCT05204563|191405764|OTHER||Treatment difference|-10.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.9|12.5||||||LFU (Day 28)||12.5|-32.9|
95718414|NCT00318357|191405789|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007|||||||Regression, Cox|||Mortality is compared between the arms of the CARE-HF study, using Cox proportional hazards regression. Data from the original CARE-HF trial and the CARE-HF Long Term Follow-up trial were combined for the analysis.||||0.007
95718415|NCT03378921|191405790|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.183||||||The threshold for statistical significance was P = 0.05|Log Rank|||The sample size (n = 26) was calculated according to the estimation that the remission rate in the FMT group would be 80% and 25% in the placebo group during the follow-up of 1 year. This difference of 55% was considered to be clinically meaningful. The significance level was selected to be 1%, and the power was set to 90%.||||0.183
95718416|NCT03677440|191405796|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||ANOVA|||This involves a repeated-measures ANOVA testing a condition (i.e., treadmill walking exercise training vs. stretching-and-toning exercise training)-by-time (i.e., baseline, follow-up) interaction on Symbol Digit Modalities Test scores.||||.34
95718417|NCT03677440|191405797|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.01
95718418|NCT03677440|191405798|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||.02
95718419|NCT03677440|191405799|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||ANOVA|||||||.63
95718420|NCT03677440|191405800|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.067||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.20
95718421|NCT03677440|191405801|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||ANOVA|||||||.96
95718422|NCT03677440|191405802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||ANOVA|||||||.55
95718423|NCT03677440|191405803|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.087||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.14
95718424|NCT03677440|191405804|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||ANOVA|||||||.69
95718425|NCT03677440|191405805|SUPERIORITY||Partial eta-squared|0.048||||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||.28
95718426|NCT00710840|191405967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||The primary outcome, difference in quadriceps torque between intervention (TKA Min) and Control TKA at 4 weeks, was tested using an analysis of covariance model. Confirmatory measures were evaluated at 4 and 12 weeks after surgery in the same way. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were compared using 2-sample t tests for continuous measures or a χ2 test for independent proportions for categorical measures. A 2-sided α level of .05 was designated for statistical significance.||||0.07
95718427|NCT00710840|191405968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95718428|NCT00710840|191405969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.48
95718429|NCT00710840|191405970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|||||Difference in the change from Preop to 4 weeks Postop|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.41
95718430|NCT00157820|191405971|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.31||||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||An additional primary analysis was pre-planned: the odds ratio of CSAE-score between DC and SC obtained from SAS GENMOD procedure with the length of follow-up as an 'offset'.|"The assumed effect of the DC treatment was a reduction from 30 to 15% in the proportion of patients who develop a CSAE, as well as a 15% reduction in the mean of CSAE (from 6 to 5.1). The estimated sample size was 200 (DC true) vs. 100 (SC true) patients followed for 8 months, with a two-sided alfa \< 0.05 and a power of 88.8%.~The sample size was set up to 360 patients (120 patients per arm), considering losses in follow-up."||0.67|0.14|0.0028
95718431|NCT00741026|191406012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0203|||||||Wilcoxon Signed-rank|||||||0.0203
95718432|NCT00741026|191406013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0105|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0105
95718433|NCT00741026|191406014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0166|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0166
95718434|NCT00741026|191406015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0184|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0184
95718435|NCT00741026|191406016|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.017|||||||Wilcoxon Sign-rank|||||||0.0170
95718436|NCT01392469|191406024|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.33||||||||1.33|1.03|
95718437|NCT01392469|191406024|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.23|1.59||||||||1.59|1.23|
95718438|NCT01392469|191406025|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.36|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.14|1.62||||||||1.62|1.14|
95718439|NCT01392469|191406025|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.43|2.03||||||||2.03|1.43|
95718440|NCT01392469|191406026|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
95718441|NCT01392469|191406026|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.31||||||||1.31|0.88|
95718442|NCT01392469|191406027|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.61||||||||1.61|1.03|
95718443|NCT01392469|191406027|SUPERIORITY||Ratio (Test/Reference)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.24|1.95||||||||1.95|1.24|
95718444|NCT01256086|191406036|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Relative potency of Novolizer compared to Aerolizer. Equivalence was to be concluded if the CI for the relative potency was completely covered by the interval (0.67, 1.50) according to OIP Guideline.|Relative potency|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.94|1.38|||||Fieller confidence interval for logarithm of relative potency|||1.38|0.94|
95718445|NCT04633434|191406078|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether the pretest and posttest scores are significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided||Estimation parameter based on paired t-test.|||||.690
95718446|NCT04633434|191406079|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest score change is greater than zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.308||0.052|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.052
95718447|NCT04633434|191406080|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.647|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.135|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.135
95718448|NCT04633434|191406081|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.14||0.026|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.026
95718449|NCT04633434|191406082|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95718450|NCT04633434|191406083|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95718451|NCT04633434|191406084|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.057|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.057
95718452|NCT04633434|191406085|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.89|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.001
95718453|NCT04633434|191406086|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.352|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.352
95718454|NCT04633434|191406087|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.104|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.104
95718455|NCT04633434|191406090|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.106|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.106
95718456|NCT04633434|191406091|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.005|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.005
95718457|NCT04633434|191406092|EQUIVALENCE|Test of whether pretest to posttest change is significantly different from zero.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.082|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.082
95718458|NCT00848965|191406111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.08|-0.68|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.68|-2.08|
95718459|NCT00848965|191406111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.309|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-0.93|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-0.93|-2.16|
95718460|NCT00848965|191406111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.305|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.33|-1.11|||||Treatment difference (FP minus placebo) is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.11|-2.33|
95718461|NCT00848965|191406111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.351|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-1.19|||||Treatment difference is presented as the difference in the adjusted means for treatment versus placebo.|||-1.19|-2.60|
95718462|NCT01353209|191406118|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.4
95718463|NCT01353209|191406119|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.7
95718464|NCT01353209|191406120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use||||||0.8
95718465|NCT01353209|191406120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||.8
95718466|NCT01353209|191406121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Linear Mixed-Effects Model Adjusted for Sirolimus Use. P value was obtained for testing zero slope for log(VEGF-D).||||||0.015
95718467|NCT03112720|191406124|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||||\< 0.01 study terminated because of covid and no meaningfull numbers participated|||<0.01
95718468|NCT02181673|191406150|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Difference|53.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.8|60.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||60.90|45.80|<0.001
95718469|NCT01354015|191406168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.79||0.2539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||All statistical analysis used intent-to-treat methodology and all comparisons used a two-tailed test at the .05 level of significance. Continuous variables are reported as means and standard deviations. W||||0.2539
95718470|NCT03733301|191406172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.85|0.92|0.082
95718471|NCT03733301|191406172|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.77||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|5.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.56|1.38|0.004
95718472|NCT03733301|191406173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.62||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|4.76|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.76|1.44|0.002
95718473|NCT03733301|191406173|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.97|1.80|< 0.001
95718474|NCT03733301|191406174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|2.62|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.62|0.59|0.574
95718475|NCT03733301|191406174|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|4.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.20|1.02|0.045
95718476|NCT03733301|191406175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.256||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.42|-2.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.73|-23.42|0.013
95718477|NCT03733301|191406175|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.259|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.48|-11.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.78|-32.48|<0.001
95718478|NCT03733301|191406176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.364|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.81|0.61|0.364
95718479|NCT03733301|191406176|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.7||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|6.34|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.34|1.15|0.022
95718480|NCT03733301|191406177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.88||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|5.61|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.61|1.48|0.002
95718481|NCT03733301|191406177|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.46|||Regression, Logistic|||||7.46|1.98|<0.001
95718482|NCT03733301|191406178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.41|-1.23|<0.001
95718483|NCT03733301|191406178|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.209|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.51|-1.33|<0.001
95718484|NCT03733301|191406179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.319|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|-0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.52|-1.78|<0.001
95718485|NCT03733301|191406179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.322|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.30|-2.30|<0.001
95718486|NCT03733301|191406180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|4.49|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.49|1.47|<0.001
95718487|NCT03733301|191406180|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.56|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.0|6.32|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.32|2.00|<0.001
95718488|NCT03733301|191406181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|5.31|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.31|0.32|0.715
95718489|NCT03733301|191406181|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|10.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.56|0.86|0.083
95718490|NCT03733301|191406182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.663||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.72|-3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.24|-13.72|0.002
95718491|NCT03733301|191406182|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.62|-9.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-9.14|-19.62|<0.001
95718492|NCT03733301|191406183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|19.37|||Regression, Logistic|||||19.37|0.53|0.204
95718493|NCT03733301|191406183|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|38.53|||Regression, Logistic|||||38.53|1.27|0.025
95718494|NCT03733301|191406184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.591|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.07|-3.87|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.87|-14.07|<0.001
95718495|NCT03733301|191406184|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.584|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|-6.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.61|-16.78|<0.001
95718496|NCT03733301|191406185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.721|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.721
95718497|NCT03733301|191406185|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95718498|NCT03733301|191406186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.149||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-112.87|-17.65|||ANOVA|||||-17.65|-112.87|0.0073
95718499|NCT03733301|191406186|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-91.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.038||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-138.43|-43.85|||ANOVA|||||-43.85|-138.43|0.0002
95718500|NCT03733301|191406187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.658|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|-7.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.27|-25.60|< 0.001
95718501|NCT03733301|191406187|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.672|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.42|-15.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-15.03|-33.42|< 0.001
95718502|NCT03733301|191406188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.046||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.96|-0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.84|-4.96|0.006
95718503|NCT03733301|191406188|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.043|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.18|-7.28|< 0.001
95718504|NCT03733301|191406189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.12|-0.63|0.005
95718505|NCT03733301|191406189|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.24|-0.75|< 0.001
95718506|NCT03733301|191406190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.425||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||0.10|-1.57|0.083
95718507|NCT03733301|191406190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.423||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Depression||-0.19|-1.85|0.016
95718508|NCT03733301|191406190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.415||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||0.00|-1.63|0.051
95718509|NCT03733301|191406190|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.413||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||HADS Anxiety||-0.10|-1.72|0.028
95718510|NCT03733301|191406191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.832||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.28|-3.56|0.022
95718511|NCT03733301|191406191|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.829|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.94|-1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-1.68|-4.94|< 0.001
95718512|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.06|7.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||7.08|-3.06|0.435
95718513|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.569||0.706|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|6.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Absenteeism||6.04|-4.10|0.706
95718514|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY|Presenteeism|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.384||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.78|0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.54|-16.78|0.066
95718515|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.336||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.3|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Presenteeism||-2.17|-19.30|0.014
95718516|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY|Work Productivity Loss|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.511||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.84|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.99|-16.84|0.081
95718517|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.473||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.55|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Work productivity Loss||1.88|-19.55|0.018
95718518|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.511||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.71|-2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-2.89|-16.71|0.006
95718519|NCT03733301|191406192|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.5||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.39|-3.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Activity Impairment||-3.61|-17.39|0.003
95718520|NCT03733301|191406193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.06|-0.01|0.176
95718521|NCT03733301|191406193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index US||0.09|0.02|0.004
95718522|NCT03733301|191406193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.08|-0.01|0.176
95718523|NCT03733301|191406193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Health State Index UK||0.12|0.02|0.003
95718524|NCT03733301|191406194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|9.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.23|-0.98|0.113
95718525|NCT03733301|191406194|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.592||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|11.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.16|0.96|0.020
95718526|NCT03733301|191406195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.36||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|18.36|||ANCOVA|||||18.36|1.46|0.022
95718527|NCT03733301|191406195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.79|25.88|||ANCOVA|||||25.88|8.79|< 0.001
95718528|NCT03733301|191406196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.46|10.03|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.03|1.46|0.006
95718529|NCT03733301|191406196|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.58||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|11.87|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.87|1.77|0.002
95718530|NCT04342130|191406198|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>0.05
95718531|NCT00491322|191406202|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95718532|NCT00517868|191406203|NON_INFERIORITY|A paired student t comparison was used to assess treatment differences as measured by 11 point numerical rating scale.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.14||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.43|2.16|||t-test, 1 sided|||||2.16|-44.43|0.0363
95718533|NCT03992261|191406212|OTHER|"Mean, median, SD, minimum/maximum determined for total amount of test article used by each subject in Safety, Evaluable, and PK populations HPA Axis Suppression: Proportion of subjects manifesting laboratory evidence of adrenal suppression at EOS were presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for Evaluable and Safety populations. Descriptive statistics for daily dose of test article were tabulated separately for suppressed and non-suppressed subjects.~PK: Screening, Day 8, Day 15"||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Outcome measure: extent of exposure, HPA axis suppression, and pharmacokinetic analysis.||||0.05
95718534|NCT01833897|191406240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||F1,6.4=161.8,|linear mixed model|||||||<0.001
95718535|NCT01833897|191406241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95718536|NCT01833897|191406242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.026
95718537|NCT01833897|191406243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.011
95718538|NCT01833897|191406244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.001
95718539|NCT01139801|191406264|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|212.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|411.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||411.0|13.3|0.037
95718540|NCT00806416|191406266|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and the 70 mg alendronate market tablet, the GMR of the combination tablet/alendronate only tablet are contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio|1.03||||||90.0|0.91|1.17||||||If the true geometric mean ratio (GMR) for total urinary excretion of alendronate of 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to alendronate alone is 1.00 then a sample size =208 provided 99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for the total urinary excretion GMR within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. These calculations were based on the observed-pooled within-subject standard deviation (log scale) of 0.521 obtained from earlier Phase 1 studies.||1.17|0.91|
95718541|NCT00806416|191406267|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|Least square mean ratio for AUC0-120 hr|0.88||||||90.0|0.81|0.95||||||If the true GMRs for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample size=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC(0-120 hr) and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC(0-120 hr) (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.81|
95718542|NCT00806416|191406268|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Administration of a 70 mg alendronate/2800 IU vitamin D3 final market combination tablet and a tablet containing 2800 IU vitamin D3, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for AUC0-120 hr and Cmax, corrected for predose concentration, of the combination tablet/2800 IU vitamin D3 only tablet were contained within \[0.80,1.25\].|least-squares mean for Cmax|0.89||||||90.0|0.84|0.95||||||If the true GMR ratios for AUC and Cmax for 70 mg alendronate/vitamin D3 combination tablet with respect to 2800 IU vitamin D3 alone were 1.00 then a sample of N=28 provided \>99% probability of yielding a 90% CI for both AUC0-120 hr and Cmax GMRs within the interval of \[0.80, 1.25\]. The within-subject standard deviation of 0.14 ln ng•hr/mL for AUC0-120 hr (ng•hr/mL) and 0.14 ng/mL for Cmax was obtained from another phase 1 study.||0.95|0.84|
95718543|NCT04035694|191406275|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
95718544|NCT04035694|191406276|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.11
95718545|NCT04035694|191406277|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
95718546|NCT04035694|191406278|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.38|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.38
95718547|NCT04035694|191406279|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
95718548|NCT04035694|191406280|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.09
95718549|NCT04035694|191406281|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.40
95718550|NCT04035694|191406282|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
95718551|NCT04035694|191406283|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.66|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.66
95718552|NCT04035694|191406284|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
95718553|NCT04035694|191406285|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.52|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.52
95718554|NCT04035694|191406286|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.74|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.74
95718555|NCT04035694|191406287|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.21|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.21
95718556|NCT04035694|191406288|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.27
95718557|NCT04035694|191406289|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
95728913|NCT03280537|191427755|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|3.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|6.15||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline UPSIT, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the UPSIT score at Week 24.||6.15|1.57|0.0011
95718558|NCT04035694|191406290|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.23
95718559|NCT04035694|191406291|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
95718560|NCT04035694|191406292|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
95718561|NCT04035694|191406293|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.19
95718562|NCT04035694|191406294|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.59||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.92
95718563|NCT04035694|191406295|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
95718564|NCT04035694|191406296|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.81
95718565|NCT04035694|191406297|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
95718566|NCT04035694|191406298|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.82|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.82
95728914|NCT06268730|191427774|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.104||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance \<0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.104
95718567|NCT04035694|191406299|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.97|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.97
95718568|NCT04035694|191406300|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
95718569|NCT04035694|191406301|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.69
95718570|NCT04035694|191406302|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.63|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.63
95718571|NCT04035694|191406303|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.79
95718572|NCT04035694|191406304|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.93
95718573|NCT04035694|191406305|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.18||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
95718574|NCT04035694|191406306|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|5.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.52||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.11
95718575|NCT04035694|191406307|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.38||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
95728828|NCT04128696|191427430|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.34||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.34|0.62|0.329
95718576|NCT04035694|191406308|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.64
95718577|NCT04035694|191406309|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.53||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
95718578|NCT04035694|191406310|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.65
95718579|NCT04035694|191406311|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||<.01
95718580|NCT04035694|191406312|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.20
95718581|NCT04035694|191406313|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|2.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.22||0.28|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.28
95718582|NCT04035694|191406314|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.77||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.58
95718583|NCT04035694|191406315|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.49
95718584|NCT04035694|191406316|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.55
95718585|NCT04035694|191406317|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.54
95728829|NCT04128696|191427431|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.0||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.00|0.60|0.608
95718586|NCT04035694|191406318|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.95
95718587|NCT04035694|191406319|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Median Difference (Net)|-4.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.15||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.05
95718588|NCT04035694|191406320|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.84||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.75
95718589|NCT04035694|191406321|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.14
95718590|NCT04035694|191406322|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
95718591|NCT04035694|191406323|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.01
95718592|NCT04035694|191406324|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.02
95718593|NCT04035694|191406325|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.03
95718594|NCT04035694|191406326|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.57
95718595|NCT04035694|191406327|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.91
95728830|NCT07174544|191427461|SUPERIORITY|Superiority was assessed by comparing outcomes between the intervention and wait-list control groups over time.|||||||||||||Generalized estimating equations (GEE)|Generalized estimating equations were used to examine changes in outcomes over time between groups, accounting for repeated measurements.|||Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle using available data at each assessment time point. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics.|||
95718596|NCT04035694|191406328|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.72
95718597|NCT04035694|191406329|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.07
95718598|NCT04035694|191406330|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.56
95718599|NCT04035694|191406331|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.17
95718600|NCT04035694|191406332|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.89
95718601|NCT04035694|191406333|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||.20
95718602|NCT04035694|191406334|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.78
95718603|NCT04035694|191406335|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.41|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.41
95718604|NCT04035694|191406336|EQUIVALENCE|A series of multilevel regression models were estimated to determine the association between condition and each outcome, while controlling for the conditional non-independence of observations. Fixed effects included condition (intervention vs. control), the adolescent's pretest outcome score, and covariates (age, SES, race, sexual experience). The models included a random intercept for teacher and df were adjusted using the Satterthwaite adjustment.|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|The df were adjusted to take into account random effects using Satterthwaite df adjustment for mixed models.||||||0.34
95718605|NCT02325739|191406337|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fasted) is 120mg.|||||
95718606|NCT02325739|191406337|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 (single agent - fed) is 120mg.|||||
95718607|NCT02325739|191406337|OTHER||RP2D|120.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for FGF401 120mg.|||||
95718608|NCT02325739|191406337|OTHER||RP2D|300.0|||||||||||||The estimation parameter and recommended Phase 2 dose level for FGF401 + PDR001 combination is for PDR001 300mg.|||||
95718609|NCT01360021|191406434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Geometic Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.14|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid vs Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid|The comparison of Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid for post dose FEV1||1.14|1.06|0.001
95728915|NCT06268730|191427775|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.061
95718610|NCT01360021|191406434|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.05|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid for post dose FEV1.||1.05|0.97|
95718611|NCT01360021|191406435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a standard deviation of 0.2 (for pre dose FEV1) on the log-scale and 60 patients/arm, the width of the confidence interval will extend 0.072 from the point estimate on the log-scale. The lower and upper limits of the CI for the ratio of effects will thus be obtained by multiplying the estimated ratio by 0.931 and 1.075, respectively.|Estimated Geometric Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.08|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model on the log transformed outcome variable with treatment and country as factor, and log transformed baseline FEV1 (pre-dose) as covariate.|The comparisons was used to assess therapeutic equivalence of Symbicort AC pMDI and Symbicort BA MDI. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated before proceeding to assess therapeutic equivalence of the 2 Symbicort products.|The comparisons of Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid with Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid, for pre-dose FEV1.||1.08|0.99|
95718612|NCT01360021|191406436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were be made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.75||0.825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.81|14.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid||14.80|-11.81|0.825
95718613|NCT01360021|191406436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|33.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.8||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.11|46.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid minus Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid||46.93|20.11|0.001
95718614|NCT01360021|191406436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.15||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.66|13.61|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||13.61|-10.66|0.810
95718615|NCT01360021|191406436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|32.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.21||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.01|44.49|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.|Secondary efficacy variables were analyzed as continuous data, comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between treatments. No adjustment were made for multiplicity and nominal p-values were reported.|Evening peak expiratory flow (ePEF): Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid and Budesonide AC pMDI 2x160 µg bid.||44.49|20.01|0.001
95718616|NCT01360021|191406437|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.35|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.35|-0.10|0.272
95718617|NCT01360021|191406438|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.69||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-0.79|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||-0.79|-11.41|0.025
95718618|NCT01360021|191406439|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|No adjustment were made for multiplicity for these supportive variables and nominal p-values were reported.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.71|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and country as a factor and baseline value as covariate.||Comparing mean changes from baseline to the average of the double-blind treatment period between BAI Symbicort BA MDI 2x160/4.5 μg bid and pMDI Symbicort AC pMDI 2x160/4.5 µg bid.||0.71|-0.19|0.258
95718619|NCT00650806|191406443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.1|-1.6|0.031
95718620|NCT00650806|191406443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.001
95718621|NCT00650806|191406443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6|||ANOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center.||||-0.6|-2.1|<0.001
95728916|NCT06268730|191427776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.053||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.053
95718622|NCT00650806|191406444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|-0.02|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.02|-1.58|0.045
95718623|NCT00650806|191406444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.80|-2.40|<0.001
95718624|NCT00650806|191406444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-0.51|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. Baseline body weight was a covariate.||||-0.51|-2.07|0.001
95718625|NCT00650806|191406445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.03|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.03|-0.59|0.031
95718626|NCT00650806|191406445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
95718627|NCT00650806|191406445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.2|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||-0.20|-0.76|<0.001
95718628|NCT00650806|191406446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.317||95.0|0.6|5.6||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||5.6|0.6|0.317
95718629|NCT00650806|191406446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|11.1||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||11.1|0.9|0.059
95718630|NCT00650806|191406446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.1||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|10.0||P-value controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio and Confidence Interval controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.|||10.0|1.0|0.027
95718631|NCT00650806|191406447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.117|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.117
95718632|NCT00650806|191406447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.225|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.225
95718633|NCT00650806|191406447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.317|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlled for run-in weight loss stratum and pooled center.||||||0.317
95718634|NCT00650806|191406448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.23||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|2.17|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||2.17|-2.68|0.835
95718635|NCT00650806|191406448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.59|-3.47|0.466
95718636|NCT00650806|191406448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Sqaures Mean Difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.25||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.87|1.09|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.09|-3.87|0.273
95718637|NCT00650806|191406449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.13||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|0.59|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.59|-3.85|0.149
95718638|NCT00650806|191406449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.05|1.6|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||1.6|-3.05|0.541
95718639|NCT00650806|191406449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.03|0.47|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.47|-4.03|0.121
95718640|NCT00650806|191406450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.011|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0091||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0071|0.0286|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0286|-0.0071|0.239
95718641|NCT00650806|191406450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0095||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0174|0.0198|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0198|-0.0174|0.900
95718642|NCT00650806|191406450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0092||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.016|0.0202|||ANCOVA|Cofactors were treatment, run-in weight loss stratum, and pooled center. The corresponding baseline measurement was a covariate.||||0.0202|-0.0160|0.822
95718643|NCT00530621|191406452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13||||0.544||95.0|0.77|1.65||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.65|0.77|0.544
95718644|NCT00530621|191406453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7||||0.171||95.0|0.42|1.17||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||1.17|0.42|0.171
95718645|NCT00530621|191406454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.11||||0.01||95.0|1.19|3.75|||Regression, Cox|||||3.75|1.19|0.010
95718646|NCT00530621|191406455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.5||||0.194||95.0|0.81|2.77||P-value was stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score and time since last chemotherapy.|Log Rank|||||2.77|0.81|0.194
95718647|NCT00530621|191406456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.681|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.681
95718648|NCT04456998|191406481|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-96.1||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-183.5|-8.8|||ANCOVA||GB002 vs. Placebo|||-8.8|-183.5|0.0310
95718649|NCT04456998|191406482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|6.5||||0.5972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.9|30.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||GB002 vs. Placebo|||30.9|-17.9|0.5972
95718650|NCT05455684|191406483|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2|=|0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|1.49|||Mixed Model for Repeated Measures|||||1.49|-3.24|=0.467
95718651|NCT05455684|191406488|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.21|0.52||||||||0.52|-2.21|
95718652|NCT04411641|191406496|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.693||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.546|0.88||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation.Covariates were treatment group,age at screening (\>40,\<=40 years),geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US),baseline EDSS score \& baseline gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).In this analysis, for participants who completed study with 3-month confirmation and continued to meet disability progression criteria throughout EOS, their 6-month CDP status was imputed via multiple imputation method.||0.880|0.546|0.0026
95718653|NCT04411641|191406497|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.944||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.944|0.607|0.0134
95718654|NCT04411641|191406498|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Relative Risk|0.622||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.897||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Derived using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score, and baseline number of T2 lesions as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||0.897|0.432|0.0110
95718655|NCT04411641|191406499|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.972||||0.8428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.735|1.286||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||1.286|0.735|0.8428
95718656|NCT04411641|191406500|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.919|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||0.919|0.640|0.0040
95718657|NCT04411641|191406501|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.882||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.102|3.214|||Regression, Cox|||Derived using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), baseline EDSS score and baseline Gd-enhancing T1 lesions (presence, absence).||3.214|1.102|0.0206
95718658|NCT04411641|191406502|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error. Testing was then performed sequentially in order the outcome measures are reported and continued when previous outcome measure was statistically significant at 2-sided 0.05. Primary and first 6 secondary endpoints are included in this procedure.|LS Mean Difference|0.082||||0.1646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.197|||Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM)|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures were treatment group, age at screening (\>40, \<=40 years), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.197|-0.034|0.1646
95718659|NCT03810417|191406513|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.05
95718660|NCT03810417|191406513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95718661|NCT05643573|191406515|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|3.785|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.457|5.833|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.833|2.457|<.0001
95718662|NCT05643573|191406515|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|3.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.46|5.839|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||5.839|2.460|<.0001
95718663|NCT05643573|191406516|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.319|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.185|0.552|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.552|0.185|<.0001
95718664|NCT05643573|191406516|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|0.316|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.182|0.547|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||0.547|0.182|<.0001
95718665|NCT05643573|191406517|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.61||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.207|2.149|||Log Rank|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.149|1.207|0.0011
95718666|NCT05643573|191406517|SUPERIORITY||Fine-Gray model|1.599||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.197|2.134|||Gray's test|||Comparison of Asundexian 50 mg verus Apixaban||2.134|1.197|0.0013
95718667|NCT02268214|191406538|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0697|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.28|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.28|-0.56|<0.0001
95718668|NCT02268214|191406538|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0696|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|-0.31|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-0.31|-0.58|<0.0001
95718669|NCT02268214|191406539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9555|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.56|-4.88|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-4.88|-12.56|<0.0001
95718670|NCT02268214|191406539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8643|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.75|-9.43|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-9.43|-16.75|<0.0001
95718671|NCT02268214|191406540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3251|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.68|-2.41|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-2.41|-3.68|<0.0001
95718672|NCT02268214|191406540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3213|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.34|-3.08|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-3.08|-4.34|<0.0001
95718673|NCT02268214|191406541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4859|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.22|-10.46|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-10.46|-20.22|<0.0001
95718674|NCT02268214|191406541|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.505|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.95|-13.11|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.11|-22.95|<0.0001
95718675|NCT02268214|191406542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6273|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.46|-12.14|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-12.14|-22.46|<0.0001
95718676|NCT02268214|191406542|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.6482|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.13|-13.73|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||-13.73|-24.13|<0.0001
95718677|NCT02268214|191406543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1611|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.83|11.39|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||11.39|6.83|<0.0001
95718678|NCT02268214|191406543|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1689|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.35|12.94|||RMM|Repeated Measures Model||||12.94|8.35|<0.0001
95718679|NCT02268214|191406544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.198|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.56|2.10|<0.0001
95718680|NCT02268214|191406544|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1979|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.23|4.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.85|2.23|<0.0001
95718681|NCT04342390|191406545|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.363|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.363
95718682|NCT04342390|191406546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.633|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.633
95718683|NCT04342390|191406547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.433|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.433
95718684|NCT04342390|191406548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.822|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.822
95718685|NCT04342390|191406549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.554
95718686|NCT04342390|191406550|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.186|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.186
95718687|NCT04342390|191406551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.921|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.921
95718688|NCT00056472|191406594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28|||<|0.001||95.0|1.12|1.47|||Regression, Logistic|||Predicting remission rates of 40% in combination therapy and 20% in monotherapy subjects, 260 subjects randomized into the two treatment groups would provide \>80% power at a two-tailed alpha level of .05. Treatment efficacy was compared between groups based on intent-to-treat analyses for the longitudinal binary outcome of remission using mixed effects logistic regression with a random intercept that included treatment and time as fixed effects and a treatment by time interaction effect.||1.47|1.12|<.001
95718689|NCT00056472|191406595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean CGI-S score compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|This was a longitudinal analysis of CGI-S scores compared to baseline.||Intent-to-treat changes in global improvement from week to week compared to baseline (CGI-S) over the course of the trial using longitudinal mixed effects linear regression models. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall change in CGI-S.||||.02
95718690|NCT00056472|191406596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The p-value is for the overall mean across all time points between each treatment group.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat between group comparison using longitudinal mixed effects regression.||||<.001
95718691|NCT03309072|191406628|OTHER|To compare the old and new faces' hit rate, we calculated the true positive rate (TPR: the proportion of positives that are correctly identified as such). A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the TPR for both old and new faces as within-subjects variable and group (active vs sham) as between-subjects variable.|Mean Difference (Net)|10.66|||<|0.049|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between active tDCS and sham tDCS|||||<.049
95718692|NCT01389024|191406640|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.216||||0.2914|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.009|1.66|||Poisson Regression||We calculated confidence intervals from exact Poisson regression.|||1.66|.009|0.2914
95718693|NCT00367679|191406644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|5.7||||||95.0|0.7|19.2|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||19.2|0.7|
95718694|NCT00367679|191406645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants with response|8.6||||||95.0|1.8|23.1|||||The estimated value given is the percentage of participants who had a response out of the total participants.|||23.1|1.8|
95718695|NCT00367679|191406651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0028||95.0||||VEGF D|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0028
95718696|NCT00367679|191406651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0324||95.0||||VEGF A|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0324
95718697|NCT00367679|191406651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||VEGFR-2|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
95718698|NCT00367679|191406651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0082||95.0||||c-KIT|t-test, 2 sided|Post- versus pretreatment expression levels for each of the indicated genes in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0082
95728917|NCT06268730|191427777|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.003
95718699|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
95718700|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0||||Placental growth factor (PIGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||<0.01
95718701|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.00024||95.0||||Interferon-inducible cytokine (IP-10)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.00024
95718702|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0029||95.0||||Cutaneous T-cell attracting chemokine (CTACK)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0029
95718703|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||Stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1alpha)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0062
95718704|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0069||95.0||||Monokine induced by interferon gamma (MIG)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0069
95718705|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0093||95.0||||Tumor necrosis factor ligand (TRAIL)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.0093
95718706|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.021||95.0||||Interferon alpha 2 (IFN-alpha2)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.021
95718707|NCT00367679|191406657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.326||95.0||||Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Post- versus pretreatment change in levels of cytokines and angiogenic factors in response to pazopanib treatment||||||0.326
95718708|NCT04253756|191406658|NON_INFERIORITY|The margin of non-inferiority (Delta) was 5g/dl|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
95718709|NCT04253756|191406659|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin (Delta) was 10 minutes of run time, no other key parameters|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.2||||0.32|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
95718710|NCT01005680|191406662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.39||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex, and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.39|0.77|0.822
95718711|NCT01005680|191406663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.37||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.37|0.82|0.640
95718712|NCT01005680|191406664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.32||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and biases for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.32|0.78|0.928
95718713|NCT01005680|191406665|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.79||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.79|0.51|0.887
95718714|NCT01005680|191406666|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.61||HR adjusted for treatment, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex and basis for initial pathological diagnosis.|Cox Proportional Hazard|||||1.61|0.67|0.861
95718715|NCT01005680|191406667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.451||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.451
95718716|NCT01005680|191406669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.627||95.0|||||two-sided Z test|||||||0.627
95718717|NCT00297882|191406677|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
95718718|NCT00297882|191406678|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of AQ-AS compared to AL was assessed by constructing a one-sided, lower limit asymptotic 97.5% CI on the difference of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected cure rates of AQ-AS when compared to AL. Non-inferiority was declared if the lower limit of the CI was greater than -10% for AQ-AS.|||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Sample Size will be determined by N = {\[(Zα/2)/E\]\*2}pq where Where: n=sample size; Zα/2= Z value of a two-tailed test with 95% confidence level=1.96; p represents cure rate, q=1-p, which represents treatment failure rate of; E=precision of 5%||||>0.05
95718719|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9257|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.844|
95718720|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.858|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.858|
95718721|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
95718722|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8699|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.790|
95718723|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9607|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.927|0.995||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.995|0.927|
95728918|NCT06268730|191427778|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.58||||||the a priori threshold for statistical significance was \<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.58
95718724|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.985|
95718725|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
95718726|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.0000|1.0000|
95718727|NCT02118896|191406681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from BCAR at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
95718728|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8391|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.729|0.949||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.949|0.729|
95718729|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8792|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.778|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula..||0.981|0.778|
95718730|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8816|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.782|
95718731|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.7769|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|0.878||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.878|0.675|
95718732|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.8373|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.693|0.981||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||0.981|0.693|
95718733|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9419|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.883|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.883|
95718734|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|1.000|
95718735|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9898|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.970|
95718736|NCT02118896|191406684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Kaplan-Meier Method|0.9773|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.933|1.0||||||The two-sided 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of freedom from efficacy failure at EOS was calculated using Greenwood's formula.||1.000|0.933|
95718737|NCT04242264|191406687|SUPERIORITY|A two-sided Chi-squared test with alpha=0.05 was used to test the null hypothesis that the vaccine efficacy is zero, which is equivalent to testing that the relative risk of shigellosis is one.|Vaccine efficacy|0.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|0.96|||Chi-squared||Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate.|The null hypothesis is that the absolute vaccine efficacy (VE) of preventing shigellosis is zero. The alternative hypothesis is that the absolute VE is greater than zero.||0.96|0.71|<0.001
95718738|NCT04242264|191406688|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|0.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.92||||||||0.92|0.44|
95718739|NCT04242264|191406688|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.0||||||||1.00|0.78|
95718740|NCT04242264|191406688|OTHER|Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk of shigellosis, where relative risk = probability of shigellosis in WRSs2 group / probability of shigellosis in placebo group. A Wilson (Score) CI was calculated for the vaccine efficacy estimate, but no formal hypothesis test was performed.|Vaccine efficacy|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.0||||||||1.00|0.71|
95718741|NCT02951182|191406714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.6||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.5|13.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||13.8|3.5|0.0016
95718742|NCT02951182|191406714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|10.6||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.5|15.8|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||15.8|5.5|0.0001
95718743|NCT02951182|191406714|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|12.0||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|17.4|||Mixed-effects Model for Repeated Measure|||||17.4|6.7|0.0001
95718744|NCT02951182|191406715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-22.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|-12.4||||||||-12.4|-32.1|
95718745|NCT02951182|191406715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-34.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.7|-24.8||||||||-24.8|-44.7|
95718746|NCT02951182|191406715|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-33.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.5|-18.3||||||||-18.3|-48.5|
95718747|NCT02951182|191406716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|14.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.3|24.2||||||||24.2|5.3|
95718748|NCT02951182|191406716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|19.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.7|28.6||||||||28.6|9.7|
95718749|NCT02951182|191406716|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.8|29.1||||||||29.1|10.8|
95718750|NCT02951182|191406717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|16.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.4|26.8||||||||26.8|5.4|
95718751|NCT02951182|191406717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|18.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|29.1||||||||29.1|7.9|
95718752|NCT02951182|191406717|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|20.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|28.4||||||||28.4|11.9|
95718753|NCT04221373|191406719|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 117.78||SCIM Total Score||||<0.01
95718754|NCT04221373|191406719|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.03||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.59||SCIM Total Score||||0.03
95718755|NCT04221373|191406719|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.01||||||treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.02||SCIM R \& S scores||||0.01
95718756|NCT04221373|191406719|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 72.49||SCIM R \& S scores||||< 0.01
95718757|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 5.82||LEMS||||0.02
95718758|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 33.29||LEMS||||<0.01
95718759|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.04||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 4.58||UEMS||||0.04
95718760|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 26) = 15.34||UEMS||||<0.01
95718761|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model|||||<|0.01||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 8.06||TMS||||<0.01
95718762|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|TMS|||||<|0.01||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,26) = 38.91||||||<0.01
95718763|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.02||||||Treatment group by time interaction effects|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21.7) = 6.23||TLTS||||0.02
95718764|NCT04221373|191406720|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.05||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1 26)=4.14||TLTS||||0.05
95718765|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.485||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.51||Average worst pain intensity||||0.485
95718766|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 26.71||Average worst pain intensity||||0.000
95718767|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.832||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 0.05||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.832
95718768|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.033||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 21) = 5.21||Worst pain interference with day-to-day activities||||0.033
95718769|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.692||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 0.16||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.692
95718770|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.005||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1, 42) = 8.65||Worst pain interference with overall mood||||0.005
95718771|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.946||||||Treatment group-by-time interaction effect|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 0.01||Worst pain interfered with sleep||||0.946
95718772|NCT04221373|191406721|OTHER|Mixed-effects model||||||0.0002||||||Main effect of time|Mixed Models Analysis|F(1,21) = 11.94||Worst pain interference with sleep||||0.0002
95718773|NCT04221373|191406722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.554|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.35||Baseline||||0.554
95718774|NCT04221373|191406722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|X\^2 (1, N = 23) = 0.004||discharge from acute inpatient rehabilitation (average 2-3 weeks)||||0.949
95718775|NCT00627094|191406748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0438|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.96||In order to obtain 90% power to show superiority of Biatain Ibu compared to Biatain, a sample size of 60 pts per group (assuming a 15% drop-out rate) was found by simulating data from multi-nomial distributions over time.|Chi-squared|Result based on ITT population (evening). PP-analysis show a strong tendency (not significant) in favour of Biatain Ibu supporting the ITT-analysis||The null hypothesis to be tested was that the distributions of categorical responses were the same.||2.96|1.02|0.0438
95718776|NCT00577031|191406783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0076|||||||Signed-rank test|||Change from baseline to last visit||||0.0076
95718777|NCT01102972|191406798|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority would be established between the two arms if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the percentage of participants with HIV-1 RNA \<50 copies/mL at Week 24 was -12% or greater.|Treatment difference of proportions|0.33||||0.937||95.0|-7.97|8.64||The p-value was obtained from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence intervals were calculated (using Mantel-Haenszel weight) stratified by initial antiretroviral regimen.|||8.64|-7.97|0.937
95718778|NCT00318409|191406841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.98
95718779|NCT02596009|191406949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.7|30.24|||paired t-test|||||30.24|23.70|<0.0001
95718780|NCT02596009|191406949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|58.72|||paired t-test|||||58.72|49.15|<0.0001
95718781|NCT04611152|191406951|NON_INFERIORITY|The maximum clinically acceptable true difference between KSI-301 and aflibercept participants to be considered non-inferior is 4.5 ETDRS letters, i.e. the non-inferiority margin|Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84||0.4162|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-5.47|-2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM model with treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, randomization stratification factors, and continuous baseline BCVA and OCT CST.||||-2.17|-5.47|0.4162
95718782|NCT04611152|191406952|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.04|-0.7|2.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haentzel test stratified by study identifier and randomization stratification variables.|Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||2|-0.7|<0.0001
95718783|NCT04611152|191406953|NON_INFERIORITY|"The maximum clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin between KSI-301 and aflibercept subjects is 10% to be considered non-inferior, i.e. the non-inferiority margin is 10%"|Difference of weighted percentages|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.04|0.0|0.0|||||Weighted percentages are based on weighted average of observed estimates across strata using CMH weights. The CI are based on the normal approximation to the binomial proportions.|||0|0|
95718784|NCT01281475|191406957|SUPERIORITY|We modeled each outcome variable as a function of treatment (ie, levodopa versus placebo), visit (ie, baseline vs. 12-month follow-up) and the treatment-by-visit interaction; the interaction term tests whether the effect of levodopa treatment over time is significantly greater than that of the placebo group.||||||0.75||||||This was the calculated p value without correction for multiple comparisons|Generalized estimating equations|||We performed generalized estimating equations with an unstructured covariance matrix to account for inter-correlations within measurements on the same participant over time.||||0.75
95718785|NCT02080273|191406959|OTHER|||||||0.919|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.919
95718786|NCT02080273|191406960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
95718787|NCT02080273|191406961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
95718788|NCT02080273|191406962|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
95718789|NCT02080273|191406963|OTHER|||||||0.922|||||||ANOVA|||Means and standard deviations. 1 factor ANOVA to balance treatment groups to show no difference between groups. The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.922
95718790|NCT02080273|191406964|OTHER|||||||0.848||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline||||0.848
95718791|NCT02080273|191406965|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
95718792|NCT02080273|191406966|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||1 factor ANCOVA to determine difference between groups with baseline as covariate. The F statistic is used to determine significance. If significance is found then a Tukey's multiple comparison is done.|ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups. ANCOVA adjusting for baseline.||||0.001
95718793|NCT03707145|191406968|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
95718794|NCT03707145|191406969|SUPERIORITY||Partial Eta Squared|0.008|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||Partial Eta Squared was calculated based on ANOVA with Time (pre-post) as within subject factor and Empowerment (Professional led versus Patient Empowered) as between subject factor.||||
95718795|NCT05014672|191406975|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.86||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.746|0.994|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.994|0.746|0.0206
95718796|NCT05014672|191406975|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.81||||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|0.939|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.939|0.703|0.0057
95718797|NCT05014672|191406976|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|-2.16||||0.2214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.785|3.458|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||3.458|-7.785|0.2214
95718798|NCT05014672|191406976|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.63||||0.591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.859|6.12|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||6.120|-4.859|0.5910
95718799|NCT05014672|191406979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.42||||0.5675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.454|5.285|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||5.285|-4.454|0.5675
95718800|NCT05014672|191406979|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.02||||0.5032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.886|4.926|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.926|-4.886|0.5032
95718801|NCT05014672|191406980|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.85||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.692|1.033|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.033|0.692|0.0491
95718802|NCT05014672|191406980|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.95||||0.3099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.783|1.158|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.158|0.783|0.3099
95718803|NCT05014672|191406986|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.84||||0.0039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.743|0.954|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||0.954|0.743|0.0039
95718804|NCT05014672|191406987|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.3905||||0.3905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.496|4.153|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.153|-5.496|0.3905
95718805|NCT05014672|191406988|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference vs placebo|0.21||||0.5393|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.968|4.381|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||4.381|-3.968|0.5393
95718806|NCT05014672|191406989|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric LS mean vs placebo|0.9||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.759|1.065|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|||||1.065|0.759|0.1079
95718807|NCT03222570|191406997|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-0.88||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.56|4.7|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||4.7|-6.56|0.76
95718808|NCT03222570|191406998|SUPERIORITY||Estimated mean difference|-2.52||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.42|2.3|||Regression, Linear||Mean difference estimated from fitting a linear regression model adjusting for baseline value of the measure.|||2.3|-7.42|0.32
95728919|NCT05918952|191427781|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.98|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.98|1.21|.05
95728920|NCT05918952|191427782|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher General Sentiment (GS) scores will be associated with greater likelihood of COVID-19 testing uptake.||2.41|1.35|<0.001
95718809|NCT04584294|191407018|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.06||The threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and a priori adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||3.06|0.70|0.31
95718810|NCT04584294|191407018|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."|P-value and estimated OR (95% CI) is not available because the model did not converge.|||
95718811|NCT04584294|191407019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.38||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||2.38|0.79|0.26
95718812|NCT04584294|191407019|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.46||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|9.76||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||9.76|1.23|0.019
95718813|NCT04584294|191407020|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|0.48||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach. Analyses accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE).||0.48|-1.71|0.27
95718814|NCT04584294|191407020|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.91|1.22||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome. Our model accounted for missing data in outcome and baseline adjustment variables through multiple imputation (MI) using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) in R."||1.22|-2.91|0.42
95718815|NCT04584294|191407021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|1.26||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||1.26|-0.56|0.45
95718816|NCT04584294|191407021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.02||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||2.02|-0.15|0.09
95718817|NCT04584294|191407022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.26||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.94|5.42||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||5.42|-9.94|0.56
95718818|NCT04584294|191407022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.72||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.37|-2.06||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||-2.06|-25.37|0.02
95718819|NCT04584294|191407023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|0.47||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||We used a multilevel regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.47|-0.38|0.84
95718820|NCT04584294|191407023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.45||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|1.25||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.25|-0.35|0.27
95718821|NCT04584294|191407035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.38||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.99||threshold for significance set at \<0.05|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||We used a multilevel logistic regression model to test whether the outcome was significantly different in the intervention versus control arm, using an Intent to Treat approach.||0.99|-0.22|0.21
95728921|NCT05918952|191427783|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|6.2|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher VFS scores will be associated with increased likelihood of test uptake.||6.20|2.01|<0.001
95718822|NCT04584294|191407035|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89||||0.04||95.0|0.04|1.75||Threshold for significance was set at p\<0.05.|Regression, Linear|Model adjusted for site, provider clinic type, provider, Veteran age, Veteran race, Veteran education, and Veteran health insurance status.||"Per the study protocol, to account for noncompliance, we estimated the complier average causal effect to estimate the causal effect of using the MyPath tool on the outcome."||1.75|0.04|0.04
95718823|NCT04410978|191407054|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.061||||0.6691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|1.393||Threshold for significance at 2-sided 0.05 level.|Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with number of adjudicated relapses onset between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), expanded disability status scale (EDSS) strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (United States \[US\], non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.393|0.808|0.6691
95718824|NCT04410978|191407055|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.4888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.565|1.278||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.278|0.565|0.4888
95718825|NCT04410978|191407056|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.819||||0.2991|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.582|1.151||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.151|0.582|0.2991
95718826|NCT04410978|191407057|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.084||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.876|1.342|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new and/or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, baseline T2-hyperintense lesion count, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed observation duration as the offset variable.||1.342|0.876|0.4575
95718827|NCT04410978|191407058|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Relative risk|1.86||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.358|2.548|||Chi-squared|||Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with the number of new Gd-enhancing T1-hyperintense lesions between randomization date and EOS date as the response variable, treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4) and geographic region (US, non-US) as covariates, and log transformed number of MRI scans as the offset variable.||2.548|1.358|0.0001
95718828|NCT04410978|191407059|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Least square (LS) mean difference|0.035||||0.432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.053|0.124|||MMRM|||Covariates in the mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||0.124|-0.053|0.4320
95718829|NCT04410978|191407060|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|1.873||||0.0675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.135|3.88|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, baseline value, and baseline value-by-visit interaction.||3.880|-0.135|0.0675
95718830|NCT04410978|191407061|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.831||||0.3594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.554|1.245||Derived from log-rank test with stratification of EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).|Log Rank|||Analysis was performed using Cox proportional-hazards model with robust variance estimation. Covariates were treatment group, Gd-enhancing T1 lesions at baseline (presence, absence), EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US).||1.245|0.554|0.3594
95718831|NCT04410978|191407062|SUPERIORITY|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control the overall type I error.|LS mean difference|0.196||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.093|0.298|||MMRM|||Covariates in the MMRM were treatment group, EDSS strata (\<4, \>=4), geographic region (US, non-US), visit, treatment by visit interaction, cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume, and cube root transformed Month 6 brain volume-by-visit interaction.||0.298|0.093|0.0002
95718832|NCT05153629|191407071|OTHER|||||||0.93||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of back pain.||||0.93
95718833|NCT05153629|191407071|OTHER|||||||0.76||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of abdominal/groin pain.||||0.76
95718834|NCT05153629|191407071|OTHER|||||||0.56||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain frequency.||||0.56
95718835|NCT05153629|191407071|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of nausea intensity.||||0.26
95718836|NCT05153629|191407072|OTHER|||||||0.55||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in back pain.||||0.55
95718837|NCT05153629|191407072|OTHER|||||||0.28||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in abdominal/groin pain.||||0.28
95718838|NCT05153629|191407072|OTHER|||||||0.39||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in pain frequency.||||0.39
95718839|NCT05153629|191407072|OTHER|||||||0.26||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of difference in nausea intensity.||||0.26
95718840|NCT05153629|191407073|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95718841|NCT05153629|191407074|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.50
95718842|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall USDT score.||||0.80
95718843|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.72||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of urinary symptoms.||||0.72
95718844|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.45||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of pain.||||0.45
95718845|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.42||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of daily life.||||0.42
95718846|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.36||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of sexual life.||||0.36
95718847|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.49||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of medical care/analgesic use.||||0.49
95718848|NCT05153629|191407075|OTHER|||||||0.88||||||A p-value less than the a priori threshold of 0.05 is considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Analysis of overall quality of life.||||0.88
95718849|NCT04089566|191407080|SUPERIORITY|The Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline Hammersmith Infant Neurological Examination (HINE) Section 2 (HINE 2), baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|Least square (LS) mean difference|26.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.141|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.941|34.172|||ANCOVA|||||34.172|17.941|< 0.0001
95718850|NCT04089566|191407103|SUPERIORITY||Difference of percentages|58.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.46|71.81|||Fisher Exact||Exact unconditional confidence interval|||71.81|39.46|<0.0001
95718851|NCT04089566|191407104|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|26.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.009|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.812|34.526||ANCOVA model was used treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||34.526|18.812|<0.0001
95718852|NCT04089566|191407105|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.08|||<|0.0001||||||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95718853|NCT04089566|191407106|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.251|=|0.8484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.29|11.299||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||11.299|-9.29|=0.8484
95718854|NCT04089566|191407107|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|6.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.497|=|0.1734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.693|14.939||ANCOVA model used rank score as response, treatment as fixed effect and disease duration at screening, baseline HINE 2, baseline CHOP INTEND total score as covariates.|ANCOVA|||||14.939|-2.693|=0.1734
95718855|NCT04089566|191407108|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.51|||=|0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.78||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjustment for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log plasma NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||0.78|0.33|=0.002
95718856|NCT04089566|191407151|SUPERIORITY||LS geometric mean ratio|0.86|||=|0.3785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.2||ANCOVA model was used with treatment as a fixed effect and adjusted for each participant disease duration at screening, baseline log CSF NF-L and baseline CHOP INTEND total score.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|0.62|=0.3785
95718857|NCT01233284|191407164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.09|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.090|<0.0001
95718858|NCT01233284|191407164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.08|0.176|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.176|0.080|<0.0001
95718859|NCT01233284|191407164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.14|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.236|0.140|<0.0001
95718860|NCT01233284|191407165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.125|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.078|0.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.173|0.078|<0.0001
95718861|NCT01233284|191407165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.179|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.179|0.084|<0.0001
95718862|NCT01233284|191407165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001||95.0|0.096|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.191|0.096|<0.0001
95718863|NCT01233284|191407166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.083|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.175|0.083|<0.0001
95718864|NCT01233284|191407166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.081|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.081|<0.0001
95718865|NCT01233284|191407166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.178|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.023|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.224|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.224|0.132|<0.0001
95718866|NCT01233284|191407167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.079|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0034||95.0|0.026|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.132|0.026|0.0034
95718867|NCT01233284|191407167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0087||95.0|0.018|0.124|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.124|0.018|0.0087
95718868|NCT01233284|191407167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.085|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.085|<0.0001
95718869|NCT01233284|191407168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.054|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0732||95.0|-0.005|0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.113|-0.005|0.0732
95718870|NCT01233284|191407168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0177||95.0|0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.131|0.012|0.0177
95718871|NCT01233284|191407168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.098|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03||0.0012||95.0|0.039|0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.157|0.039|0.0012
95718872|NCT01233284|191407169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0149||95.0|0.013|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.115|0.013|0.0149
95718873|NCT01233284|191407169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.075|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026||0.0043||95.0|0.024|0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.126|0.024|0.0043
95718874|NCT01233284|191407169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.026|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.189|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.189|0.086|<0.0001
95718875|NCT01233284|191407173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|11.204|25.895|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||25.895|11.204|<0.0001
95718876|NCT01233284|191407173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.895|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.737|<|0.0001||95.0|10.55|25.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||25.240|10.550|<0.0001
95718877|NCT01233284|191407173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739|<|0.0001||95.0|13.497|28.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.195|13.497|<0.0001
95718878|NCT01233284|191407174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77|<|0.0001||95.0|13.84|28.662|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||28.662|13.840|<0.0001
95718879|NCT01233284|191407174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.577|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.0001||95.0|7.166|21.988|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||21.988|7.166|0.0001
95718880|NCT01233284|191407174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.581|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.773|<|0.0001||95.0|14.166|28.997|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||28.997|14.166|<0.0001
95718881|NCT01233284|191407175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.114|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.8574||95.0|-1.363|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||1.134|-1.363|0.8574
95718882|NCT01233284|191407175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.635||0.3954||95.0|-1.789|0.708|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.708|-1.789|0.3954
95718883|NCT01233284|191407175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.077|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.636||0.9034||95.0|-1.327|1.173|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||1.173|-1.327|0.9034
95718884|NCT01233284|191407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.233|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0296||95.0|-0.443|-0.023|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.023|-0.443|0.0296
95718885|NCT01233284|191407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.0454||95.0|-0.424|-0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.004|-0.424|0.0454
95718886|NCT01233284|191407176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.201|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.061||95.0|-0.41|0.009|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.009|-0.410|0.0610
95718887|NCT01233284|191407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.149|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0183||95.0|-0.273|-0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||-0.025|-0.273|0.0183
95718888|NCT01233284|191407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.138|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0288||95.0|-0.262|-0.014|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||-0.014|-0.262|0.0288
95718889|NCT01233284|191407177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0781||95.0|-0.235|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.013|-0.235|0.0781
95718890|NCT01233284|191407178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.084|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.1303||95.0|-0.193|0.025|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.025|-0.193|0.1303
95718891|NCT01233284|191407178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055||0.2191||95.0|-0.177|0.041|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.041|-0.177|0.2191
95718892|NCT01233284|191407178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056||0.1163||95.0|-0.196|0.022|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.022|-0.196|0.1163
95718893|NCT01233284|191407179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.7501||95.0|-0.073|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|||0.052|-0.073|0.7501
95718894|NCT01233284|191407179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.006|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.8401||95.0|-0.069|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|||0.056|-0.069|0.8401
95718895|NCT01233284|191407179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.031|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.032||0.3237||95.0|-0.094|0.031|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|||0.031|-0.094|0.3237
95718896|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.1402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.276||MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis||Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.276|-0.040|0.1402
95718897|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.305|-0.010|0.0656
95718898|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.079||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.015|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.299|-0.015|0.0766
95718899|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.081|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.3371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.086|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.249|-0.086|0.3371
95718900|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.1097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.031|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.303|-0.031|0.1097
95718901|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.196|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.084||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.029|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.363|0.029|0.0220
95718902|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.2062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.056|0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.256|-0.056|0.2062
95718903|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.014|0.297|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.297|-0.014|0.0731
95718904|NCT01233284|191407180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.324|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.324|0.014|0.0333
95718905|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.116|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.2451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.312|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.312|-0.081|0.2451
95718906|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.012|0.405|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.405|0.012|0.0379
95718907|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.167|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-12h||0.363|-0.030|0.0957
95718908|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.067|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.139|0.273|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.273|-0.139|0.5207
95718909|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0606|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.404|-0.009|0.0606
95718910|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.181|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.104||0.0855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.026|0.387|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC12-24h||0.387|-0.026|0.0855
95718911|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.3564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.104|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R1.25 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.287|-0.104|0.3564
95718912|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R2.5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.399|0.007|0.0424
95718913|NCT01233284|191407181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099||0.0815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.022|0.37|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM, adjusted for treatment, period, patient and study baseline.|Tio R5 qd minus Placebo|Comparison vs. Placebo for AUC0-24h||0.370|-0.022|0.0815
95718914|NCT05405218|191407288|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.29|-0.13|0.46
95718915|NCT05405218|191407289|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.01||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|-0.2|0.92
95718916|NCT05405218|191407291|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.61||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.3|-0.08|0.09
95718917|NCT05405218|191407292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.05|-0.06|0.9
95718918|NCT02087865|191407295|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.59||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.12|6.63|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||6.63|-23.12|0.273
95718919|NCT02087865|191407296|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.92||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.09|-5.73|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-5.73|-21.09|0.001
95718920|NCT02087865|191407297|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.48||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.33|2.14|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||2.14|-19.33|0.115
95718921|NCT02087865|191407298|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.09||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.94|4.25|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||4.25|-3.94|0.941
95718922|NCT02087865|191407299|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|46.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.4||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.14|76.53|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||76.53|16.14|0.003
95718923|NCT02087865|191407300|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|61.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.25|87.46|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||87.46|35.25|<0.001
95718924|NCT02087865|191407301|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.18||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.65|-1.04|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.04|-5.65|0.005
95718925|NCT02087865|191407302|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.58|-1.02|||ANCOVA|||We are reporting the difference in mean between the Donepezil HCL and Placebo groups.||-1.02|-7.58|0.011
95718926|NCT01939834|191407341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95718927|NCT00795210|191407350|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Kruskal-Wallis Test for overall difference between groups||||0.01
95718928|NCT00795210|191407351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.42||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.42
95718929|NCT01017731|191407353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0161||||||The p-value for QTc interval prolongation compared to baseline.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0161
95718930|NCT02712359|191407373|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-23.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.78|-18.29|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 8 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 8 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 8 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-18.29|-28.78|<0.0001
95718931|NCT02712359|191407374|NON_INFERIORITY|The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group minus Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group) of percentage of subjects with anti-HAV antibody concentrations ≥ 15 mIU/mL was to be greater than or equal to the pre-defined clinical non-inferiority limit of -10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-24.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.11|-19.03|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody: To demonstrate that 1-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 1 dose\_Year 10 Group) was non-inferior to the 2-dose schedule of Havrix (Havrix 2 doses\_Year 10 Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, measured by ELISA, approximately 10 years after the administration of the last vaccine dose.||-19.03|-30.11|<0.0001
95718932|NCT00798707|191407375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.452|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|1.69||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||1.69|-0.75|0.452
95718933|NCT00798707|191407375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.72||A Hochberg step-up procedure was used to control for the multiplicity associated with multiple active dose arms.|ANCOVA|||An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and as a factor and the baseline HAM-D17 total score as a covariate was used to compare each DVS SR dose to placebo. The comparison was performed at the 0.05 level overall.||2.72|0.28|0.016
95718934|NCT00798707|191407376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure. p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.160
95718935|NCT00798707|191407376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|||||In this case, multiplicity arising from testing key secondary hypotheses in both doses was controlled by a Hochberg step-up procedure.p-Value obtained for the alternative hypothesis of 'Row mean scores differences'.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Each DVS SR dose was separately compared to placebo. To control the study-wise type I error rate across the primary and the key secondary endpoints, as well as across the 2 active dose arms, testing of the key secondary hypothesis occurred only when both active doses were superior to placebo on the primary endpoint.||||0.028
95718936|NCT00798707|191407377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.39|-0.01|0.066
95718937|NCT00798707|191407377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.41|0.01|0.038
95718938|NCT00798707|191407378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|2.68|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||2.68|-0.68|0.242
95718939|NCT00798707|191407378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.06||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|3.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||3.73|0.39|0.016
95718940|NCT00798707|191407379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.802|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.8|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.80|-0.62|0.802
95718941|NCT00798707|191407379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|1.43|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||1.43|0.01|0.048
95718942|NCT00798707|191407380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.363||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.99|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.99|0.93|0.1099
95718943|NCT00798707|191407380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.591||||0.0154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.32|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.32|1.09|0.0154
95718944|NCT00798707|191407381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.878||||0.5929|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.41|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||1.41|0.54|0.5929
95718945|NCT00798707|191407381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.474||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.29|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline HAM-D17 score as a covariate.||2.29|0.95|0.0852
95718946|NCT00798707|191407382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.277||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.89|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||1.89|0.86|0.2232
95718947|NCT00798707|191407382|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.827||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|2.69|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor and baseline MADRS score as a covariate.||2.69|1.24|0.0022
95718948|NCT00798707|191407383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.158||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.67|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.67|0.80|0.4313
95718949|NCT00798707|191407383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.372||||0.0888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted with a logistic regression model with treatment as a factor.||1.97|0.95|0.0888
95718950|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|2.29|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.29|-0.10|0.073
95718951|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.06||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|2.24|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for total score.||2.24|-0.12|0.078
95718952|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.73|-0.13|0.176
95718953|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.77|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for work/studies component score.||0.77|-0.08|0.109
95718954|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.84|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.84|-0.02|0.064
95718955|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.78|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for social life component score.||0.78|-0.07|0.104
95718956|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score.||5.57|-2.98|0.538
95718957|NCT00798707|191407385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.43||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|2.62|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate for family life/home responsibilities component score||2.62|-1.76|0.689
95718958|NCT00798707|191407386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.81||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.67|0.05|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.05|-1.67|0.066
95718959|NCT00798707|191407386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|0.23|||ANCOVA|||Analysis was conducted using ANCOVA on the change from baseline with treatment as a factor and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.||0.23|-1.48|0.150
95718960|NCT00798707|191407387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.951||||0.8758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||1.78|0.51|0.8758
95718961|NCT00798707|191407387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.165||||0.6397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.21|||Regression, Logistic|||Analysis was conducted using a logistic regression model with treatment and gender as factors and baseline sexual dysfunction status as a covariate.||2.21|0.61|0.6397
95718962|NCT00798707|191407389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
95718963|NCT00798707|191407389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.847|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 8 (or ET).||||0.847
95718964|NCT00798707|191407389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
95718965|NCT00798707|191407389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 9 (or ET + 1 week).||||0.720
95718966|NCT00798707|191407389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
95718967|NCT00798707|191407389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||To address the multiplicity effect inherent in these comparisons, adjusted p-values based on the false discovery rate were used at Week 10 (or ET + 2 weeks).||||0.720
95718968|NCT01107834|191407425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.27
95718969|NCT01107834|191407426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.46
95718970|NCT01107834|191407427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.13
95718971|NCT01107834|191407428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.59
95718972|NCT01107834|191407429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.09
95718973|NCT01107834|191407430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||T-test to detect differences between groups||||0.03
95718974|NCT03722849|191407431|OTHER||||||=|0.0028||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0028
95718975|NCT03722849|191407432|OTHER||||||=|0.007||||||No multiple comparisons as region of interest analysis defined a priori.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Mann-Whitney U tests for non-parametric data||||=0.0070
95718976|NCT03722849|191407433|OTHER|Group comparisons (Cough versus healthy) for each measurement using repeated measures ANOVA.|||||=|0.0019|||||||ANOVA|with repeated measures||||||=0.0019
95718977|NCT03722849|191407435|OTHER|Group-wise comparisons using unpaired t-tests or one way ANOVA|||||<|0.0001|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.0001
95718978|NCT03533608|191407445|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.51|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95718979|NCT03533608|191407446|OTHER|Descriptive|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.04|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||||||
95718980|NCT00915473|191407447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.98
95718981|NCT00915473|191407448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Severe Migraine Frequency||||0.52
95718982|NCT00915473|191407448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At least Moderate Migraine Frequency||||0.52
95718983|NCT00915473|191407448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Least Mild Migraine Frequency||||0.47
95718984|NCT00915473|191407449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.90
95718985|NCT00915473|191407450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.47
95718986|NCT00529802|191407490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.9||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|13.23|||t-test, 2 sided|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption for the t-test.|Mean difference is the difference between Low and High SUV uptake groups in tumor size percent (%) change from baseline, and is reported on the raw scale. Tumor size changes were log-transformed for the t-test.|Relative changes in tumor size were log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||13.23|-9.3|0.69
95718987|NCT00529802|191407491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.0028|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00109||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.00063|0.004997|||Regression, Linear|Tumor size change (outcome variable) was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.|Outcome was log(tumor size at 8 weeks/tumor size at baseline), and the predictor was the early change in aveSUVmax \[(aveSUVmax at 2 weeks - aveSUVmax at baseline)/aveSUVmax at baseline\] x 100%.|The relationship between early changes in SUV uptake (from baseline to 2 weeks) and tumor size changes (from baseline to 8 weeks) were examined using linear regression models. Tumor size change was log-transformed to satisfy the normality assumption.||0.004997|0.00063|0.013
95718988|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95718989|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.7||||||95.0|-4.8|3.3||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥26.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||3.3|-4.8|
95718990|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95718991|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-6.4|1.7||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥36.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.7|-6.4|
95718992|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (≥7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95718993|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - PT the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
95718994|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.1||||||95.0|-1.4|6.8||||||For Pertussis - PTf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (17.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||6.8|-1.4|
95718995|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (5 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
95718996|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Pertussis - FHA the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (7.82 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
95718997|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-3.0||||||95.0|-8.0|2.5||||||For Pertussis - FHAf the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (75.00 EU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.5|-8.0|
95718998|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-8.0||||||95.0|-14.9|-1.2||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||-1.2|-14.9|
95718999|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.4|1.4||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.4|-1.4|
95719000|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|2.7||||||95.0|-3.7|9.2||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||9.2|-3.7|
95719001|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.5|1.5||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.5|-1.5|
95719002|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.8||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-3.1|
95719003|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Diphtheria the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
95719004|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-5.8|1.8||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.1 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||1.8|-5.8|
95719005|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.7||||||For Tetanus the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.01 (IU/mL) threshold was calculated||2.7|-1.7|
95719006|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-2.3||||||95.0|-7.6|3.0||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-7.6|
95719007|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.3||||||95.0|-11.4|2.6||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||2.6|-11.4|
95719008|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.0|4.3||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||4.3|-5.0|
95719009|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.6|3.5||||||For Polio Type 1 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.5|-3.6|
95719010|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.5||||||95.0|-3.1|3.0||||||For Polio Type 2 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||3.0|-3.1|
95719011|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-0.8||||||95.0|-3.1|1.9||||||For Polio Type 3 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at (1:8) threshold was calculated||1.9|-3.1|
95719012|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-3.2|5.0||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||5.0|-3.2|
95719013|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|-4.5||||||95.0|-13.2|4.4||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.4|-13.2|
95719014|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.8||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 0.15 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||2.8|-1.7|
95719015|NCT00366678|191407501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lowest limit of 2-sided 95% CI for the difference between the 2 groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) \> -10%.|Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.5||||||For Hib (PRP) the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC - 7vPnC) at 1.0 (μg/mL) threshold was calculated||4.5|-3.1|
95719016|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
95719017|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.9||||||95.0|-0.9|4.9||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.9|-0.9|
95719018|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 4 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
95719019|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
95719020|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.4||||||95.0|-1.1|5.9||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.9|-1.1|
95719021|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.1||||||95.0|-5.8|2.7||||||For serotype 6B the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.7|-5.8|
95719022|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.7|2.9||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.9|-1.7|
95719023|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-1.8|3.3||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.3|-1.8|
95719024|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.0||||||95.0|-3.3|3.0||||||For serotype 9V the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.0|-3.3|
95719025|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||||95.0|-2.5|2.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.4|-2.5|
95719026|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.8|4.4||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.8|
95719027|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.9||||||95.0|-4.9|2.1||||||For serotype 14 the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.1|-4.9|
95719028|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.8|-1.8|
95719029|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.3||||||95.0|-1.1|5.7||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.7|-1.1|
95719030|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.0||||||95.0|-5.5|2.8||||||For serotype 18C the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||2.8|-5.5|
95719031|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.2||||||95.0|-3.1|4.7||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.7|-3.1|
95719032|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-2.9|5.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||5.4|-2.9|
95719033|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.3||||||95.0|-5.5|4.4||||||For serotype 19F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-5.5|
95719034|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.4||||||95.0|-1.8|3.9||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.9|-1.8|
95719035|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.5||||||95.0|-1.9|4.4||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (13vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||4.4|-1.9|
95719036|NCT00366678|191407502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.1||||||95.0|-4.1|3.7||||||For serotype 23F the difference in percentages between the two groups (7vPnC Infant Series / 13vPnC Toddler Dose - 7vPnC Infant Series / 7vPnC Toddler Dose) was calculated||3.7|-4.1|
95719037|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.73|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.73|
95719038|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.83||||||95.0|0.67|1.03||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.03|0.67|
95719039|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.86|1.26||||||For serotype 4 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.26|0.86|
95719040|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.93||||||95.0|0.77|1.13||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.13|0.77|
95719041|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.07||||||95.0|0.82|1.4||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.40|0.82|
95719042|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.69|1.1||||||For serotype 6B after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.10|0.69|
95719043|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.68|0.94||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.94|0.68|
95719044|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.71||||||95.0|0.59|0.85||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.85|0.59|
95719045|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.13||||||95.0|0.95|1.33||||||For serotype 9V after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.33|0.95|
95719046|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.73|1.06||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.06|0.73|
95719047|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.72||||||95.0|0.58|0.9||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.90|0.58|
95719048|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.22||||||95.0|1.0|1.49||||||For serotype 14 after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.49|1.00|
95719049|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.69|0.97||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||0.97|0.69|
95719050|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.08|0.69|
95719051|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.95||||||95.0|0.78|1.15||||||For serotype 18C after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.15|0.78|
95719052|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.26||||||95.0|1.0|1.59||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.59|1.00|
95719053|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.68|1.2||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.20|0.68|
95719054|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|1.39||||||95.0|1.08|1.79||||||For serotype 19F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.79|1.08|
95719055|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.81||||||95.0|0.67|1.0||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.00|0.67|
95719056|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.67|1.07||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/7vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.07|0.67|
95719057|NCT00366678|191407503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|0.96||||||95.0|0.78|1.19||||||For serotype 23F after the toddler dose the GMC ratio (13vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose / 7vPnC Infant Series/13vPnC Toddler Dose After Toddler Dose) was calculated||1.19|0.78|
95719058|NCT00366678|191407506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.77||||||95.0|0.66|0.9||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.90|0.66|
95719059|NCT00366678|191407506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.94||||||95.0|0.82|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.82|
95719060|NCT00366678|191407506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.8||||||95.0|0.67|0.97||||||For Diphtheria the GMC ratio was calculated||0.97|0.67|
95719061|NCT00366678|191407506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.86||||||95.0|0.69|1.08||||||For Tetanus the GMC ratio was calculated||1.08|0.69|
95719062|NCT00366678|191407507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.91||||||95.0|0.73|1.14||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.73|
95719063|NCT00366678|191407507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.04||||||95.0|0.82|1.32||||||For Hib (PRP) the GMC ratio was calculated||1.32|0.82|
95719064|NCT00366678|191407508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.88||||||95.0|0.71|1.09||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.09|0.71|
95719065|NCT00366678|191407508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.82||||||95.0|0.66|1.03||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.03|0.66|
95719066|NCT00366678|191407508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.78||||||95.0|0.59|1.02||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.59|
95719067|NCT00366678|191407508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|1.01||||||95.0|0.72|1.41||||||For Polio Type 1 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.41|0.72|
95719068|NCT00366678|191407508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.98||||||95.0|0.72|1.34||||||For Polio Type 2 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.34|0.72|
95719069|NCT00366678|191407508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.84||||||95.0|0.6|1.17||||||For Polio Type 3 the GMC ratio was calculated||1.17|0.60|
95719070|NCT00366678|191407509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.87||||||95.0|0.78|0.98||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||0.98|0.78|
95719071|NCT00366678|191407509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.92||||||95.0|0.84|1.02||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.02|0.84|
95719072|NCT00366678|191407509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.85||||||95.0|0.72|1.0||||||For Pertussis - FHA the GMC ratio was calculated||1.00|0.72|
95719073|NCT00366678|191407509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for concomitant antigens was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided, 95% CI for the GMC ratio (13vPnC group/7vPnC group) was \>0.5 (2-fold criterion).|Ratio|0.99||||||95.0|0.86|1.14||||||For Pertussis - PT the GMC ratio was calculated||1.14|0.86|
95719074|NCT01900392|191407516|OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||Regression, Linear|||||||>0.1
95719075|NCT00315328|191407519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.96||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination).||||0.96
95719076|NCT00315328|191407520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests used to assess treatment group differences in change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among those with anisometropia only.||||0.78
95719077|NCT00315328|191407521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the change in Randot Preschool stereoacuity levels ( from baseline to the outcome examination) among patients with strabismus or combined mechanism only.||||0.99
95719078|NCT00315328|191407522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||.04
95719079|NCT00315328|191407522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To evaluate WITHIN each treatment group whether stereoacuity changed from baseline to outcome a Wilcoxon sign-rank test was performed to evaluate whether the distribution of change from baseline was zero||||0.003
95719080|NCT00315328|191407523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Social Stigma subscale.||||<0.01
95719081|NCT00315328|191407524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Positive mean favors atropine group.||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Compliance subscale.||||<0.01
95719082|NCT00315328|191407525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess treatment group differences in the parent questionnaire subscale scores at 17 weeks - Adverse events subscale.||||0.70
95719083|NCT00315328|191407526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.07||||||95.0|-0.03|0.17||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference in proportion with amblyopic eye visual acuity 20/25 or better at 17 weeks.||0.17|-0.03|
95719084|NCT00315328|191407528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.08||||||95.0|-0.02|0.18||||||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of the proportion improving 15 or more letters from baseline to 17 weeks.||0.18|-0.02|
95728831|NCT00135707|191427514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.25|||Chi-squared|||The primary hypothesis states that antioxidant therapy initiated prior to 16 weeks gestation in women will reduce the frequency of serious maternal and infant complications associated with pregnancy related hypertension. We estimated that with a sample size of 10,000 women, the study would have 90% power to show a 30% reduction in the rate of the primary outcome, from 4% in the placebo to 2.8% in the vitamin group, with a two-sided type I error rate of 5%.||1.25|0.91|0.42
95719085|NCT00315328|191407529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Treatment equivalence was to be declared if the ends of the 2 1-sided 95% confidence intervals constructed on the difference between adjusted mean visual acuity scores were completely contained within the designated equivalence interval of +/- 5 letters.|Mean Difference (Net)|1.2||||||95.0|-0.7|3.1|||ANCOVA|||The trial was designed to evaluate whether patching and atropine are equivalent treatments for amblyopia in children 7 to 12 years old. The sample size was computed based on a standard deviation of 17-week visual acuity scores of 10 letters, correlation between outcome and baseline visual acuity scores of 0.30 and 10% loss to follow up.||3.1|-0.7|
95719086|NCT00315328|191407532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.2|||ANCOVA|||95% confidence interval constructed on the treatment group difference of mean change in fellow eye visual acuity from baseline to 17 weeks, adjusted for baseline fellow eye visual acuity.||2.2|0.4|
95719087|NCT00448630|191407536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
95719088|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.490
95719089|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719090|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.006
95719091|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719092|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.003||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.003
95719093|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719094|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.050
95719095|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0012||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0012
95719096|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0078||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
95719097|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95719098|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0133
95719099|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0142||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0142
95719100|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0265||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0265
95719101|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1613||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1613
95719102|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2644||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2644
95719103|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||5e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000005
95719104|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7385||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7385
95719105|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.0000
95719106|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6813||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6813
95719107|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
95719108|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2237||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2237
95719109|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5774
95719110|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
95719111|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2502||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2502
95719112|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5224||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5224
95719113|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0001
95719114|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95719115|NCT00448630|191407537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8166||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8166
95719116|NCT00448630|191407538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||We hypothesize that atypical antipsychotic therapy effects the metabolic syndrome parameters, particularly body mass index.||||<0.001
95719117|NCT00448630|191407539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
95719118|NCT00448630|191407540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.544||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.544
95719119|NCT00448630|191407541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.245||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.245
95719120|NCT00448630|191407542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.362||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.362
95719121|NCT00448630|191407543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||0.176
95719122|NCT00448630|191407544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time (Baseline, 1 month, 4 months).||||<0.001
95719123|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.524||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.524
95719124|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719125|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.005
95719126|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719127|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.009||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.009
95719128|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719129|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.047
95719130|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0007||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0007
95719131|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0057||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0057
95719132|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
95719133|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0201||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0201
95719134|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0095||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0095
95719135|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0386
95719136|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1976||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1976
95719137|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2383||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2383
95719138|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||2e-05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00002
95719139|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8297||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8297
95719140|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9081||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9081
95719141|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7386
95719142|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0024||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0024
95719143|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2587
95719144|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6263||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6263
95719145|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1e-06||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.000001
95719146|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2589||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2589
95719147|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5153||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5153
95719148|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0003
95719149|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0005
95719150|NCT00448630|191407545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8952||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8952
95719151|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.197||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.197
95719152|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.010
95719153|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.012||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.012
95719154|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719155|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.282||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.282
95719156|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.040
95719157|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.004||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.004
95719158|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0193
95719159|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0065||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0065
95719160|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0002||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95719161|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3172||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3172
95719162|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0116||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0116
95719163|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0016||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0016
95719164|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.26||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2600
95719165|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2309||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2309
95719166|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0063||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0063
95719167|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8158||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8158
95719168|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3968||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3968
95719169|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7193||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7193
95719170|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0127
95719171|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2351
95719172|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5672||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5672
95719173|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||9e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.00009
95719174|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1774||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.1774
95719175|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6082||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6082
95719176|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0079
95719177|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0014
95719178|NCT00448630|191407546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5587||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5587
95719179|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.077||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.077
95719180|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.039
95719181|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.978||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.978
95719182|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||<0.001
95719183|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.593||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.593
95719184|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.987||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.987
95719185|NCT00448630|191407547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.174||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; p-values \< 0.05 were considered statistically significant.|Friedman|||Friedman's test was used to assess trends over time.||||0.174
95719186|NCT04662086|191407548|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Linear mixed-effects regression model|||A generalized linear mixed effects model with parameterization was utilized to capture the difference in change in viral shedding at day 10 between treatment arms. SARS-CoV2 viral RNA CT values were transformed using a standard Reference curve.||||0.20
95719187|NCT04662086|191407549|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.04||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Cox proportional hazards model|Two-sided Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, and receipt of baseline receipt of monoclonal antibodies.||A two-sided log rank test at the 0.04999 level of significance for the final analysis required 78 events (i.e., sustained symptom resolution) to provide 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.91. Based on previous outpatient COVID-19 trials at Stanford, assumed placebo and treatment arm median time to symptom resolution of 10 and 5 days, respectively, for a total sample size of 120 patients. Participants with missing data lasting through Day 28 were censored on Day 28.||1.04|0.34|0.07
95719188|NCT04662086|191407551|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.01|||Linear mixed-effects regression model|||||1.01|0.38|0.05
95719189|NCT04662086|191407552|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|1.01||||||||1.01|0.34|
95719190|NCT04662086|191407553|OTHER|||||||0.21||||||A p-value of \<0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|Fisher Exact|||Difference in incidence of ED visits||||0.21
95719191|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #1 is for the genetic mutation TP53.||||0.035
95719192|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #2 is for ASXL1 genetic mutation||||0.72
95719193|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.28|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #3 is for SRSF2 genetic mutation||||0.28
95719194|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #4 is for IDH2 genetic mutation||||0.14
95719195|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #5 is for DNMT3A genetic mutation||||0.3
95719196|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.183|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #6 is for SF3B1 genetic mutation||||0.183
95719197|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #7 is for RUNX1 genetic mutation||||0.42
95719198|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #8 is for TET2 genetic mutation||||0.36
95719199|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #9 is for IDH1 genetic mutation||||0.1
95719200|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #10 is for NPM1 genetic mutation||||1
95719201|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #11 is for NRAS genetic mutation||||0.17
95719202|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||-Statistical analysis #12 is for U2AF1 genetic mutation||||1
95719203|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #13 is for MY05B genetic mutation||||0.6
95719204|NCT01687400|191407555|OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis #14 is for WT1 genetic mutation||||1
95719205|NCT01687400|191407556|SUPERIORITY||Overall Response Rate-for current study|0.744|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.836|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the overall response rate (ORR) to historical control (with ORR=0.25)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 25% (14 out of 55 participants) in overall response rate||0.836|0.652|<0.0001
95719206|NCT01687400|191407556|SUPERIORITY||Complete response rate-for current study|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.538|0.741|||Chi-squared|1-sample Chi-square test to compare the complete response rate to historical control (with CR=0.24)||-The historical control of a 5-day regimen (Cashen et al 2010 JCO = NCT00358644) showed 24% (13 out of 55 participants) in complete response rate.||0.741|0.538|<0.0001
95719207|NCT00659945|191407571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||The primary endpoint was the incidence of emesis at any time within the first 48 hours after surgery. Power analysis showed that a sample size of 69 patients per group was necessary to detect a significant decrease in the incidence of emesis from 33% in the placebo group to 15% in the aprepitant group using a Chi-square test with an alpha value of 0.05 and power of 80%.||||<0.05
95719208|NCT00561600|191407573|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non inferiority of proportion successful with 8% non inferiority margin at 24 months|percentage difference|0.139||||0.872|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.225|||Chi-squared||The upper confidence limit was a priori determined to be a secondary endpoint|A non-inferiority test of the proportion successful for each treatment group will be the primary test of efficacy in this investigation. The null hypothesis is Ho: Xc-Xt ≥ 0.08 and the alternative hypothesis is HA:Xc-Xt \< 0.08 Sample size of 126 per group was needed assuming 93% success rates, this was increased to 150 per group to account for attrition.||.225||0.872
95719209|NCT00561600|191407574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.167||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Satterthwaite||||||0.167
95719210|NCT00561600|191407577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.457
95719211|NCT00561600|191407578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.762
95719212|NCT00561600|191407579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.869
95719213|NCT00561600|191407580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.799|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.799
95719214|NCT00561600|191407581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
95719215|NCT00561600|191407582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.032
95719216|NCT00561600|191407583|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||<0.001
95719217|NCT00561600|191407584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.882|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.882
95719218|NCT00561600|191407585|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.005
95719219|NCT00561600|191407586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.237|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.237
95719220|NCT00561600|191407587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
95719221|NCT00561600|191407588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.121|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.121
95719222|NCT00561600|191407589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum Cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.012
95719223|NCT00561600|191407590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.103
95719224|NCT00561600|191407591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.001
95719225|NCT00561600|191407592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.300
95719226|NCT00561600|191407593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.079|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.079
95719227|NCT00561600|191407594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.766|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.766
95719228|NCT00561600|191407595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.018
95719229|NCT00561600|191407596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.689|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.689
95719230|NCT00561600|191407597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.048
95719231|NCT00561600|191407598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.782|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Serum chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.782
95719232|NCT00561600|191407599|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.061|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte cobalt ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.061
95719233|NCT00561600|191407600|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.957|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||HO: Pinnacle=ASR-XL. The alternative hypothesis is HA: Pinnacle≠ASR-XL. Erythrocyte chromium ions were expected to be lower in the ASR-XL group||||0.957
95719234|NCT01040624|191407611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared|One-sided binomial test of univariate probability distributions||||||<0.0001
95719235|NCT02255422|191407614|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0446||0.7321|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1051|0.0743||P-Value relates to difference in change in peak work from baseline relative to placebo for all doses pooled. Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|Null hypothesis: wk 12 mean change from baseline (\[μ RTA 408\] - \[μ Placebo\]) in peak work = 0 w/kg. Positive change from baseline suggests improvement||Primary Objective: To evaluate the change in peak work during maximal exercise testing||0.0743|-0.1051|0.7321
95719236|NCT02255422|191407615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-33.448|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.6473||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.855|-10.042||P-value comparison is for difference in change in six minute walk distance from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo. Statistical significance defined as p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 4||-10.042|-56.855|0.0060
95719237|NCT02255422|191407615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-3.963|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|11.53||0.7325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.133|19.207||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 8||19.207|-27.133|0.7325
95719238|NCT02255422|191407615|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference (net)|-18.594|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|15.0004||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.739|11.55||Statistical significance was defined as p\<0.05. The p-value comparison is for the difference in change in 6MWD from baseline within each dosage group relative to placebo.|Mixed Models Analysis|The change from baseline in 6MWT was analyzed using the same MMRM model used for the primary efficacy endpoint. Analysis visits 0, 4, 8 and 12 used.||Secondary Objective: To evaluate the change in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance at Week 12||11.550|-48.739|0.2210
95719239|NCT03179462|191407619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95719240|NCT02062385|191407634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||1 - (Incidence V260 / Incidence Placebo)|69.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|54.5|79.7|||Clopper-Pearson|To calculate the confidence interval and associated p-value, an exact conditional method based on a Poisson distribution was used.||V260 will be considered efficacious if the lower bound of the two-sided confidence interval for efficacy is \>0% at the final analysis||79.7|54.5|<0.001
95719241|NCT02207413|191407660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (D-QIV\_LP/ D-QIV\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.11|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.11|0.85|
95719242|NCT02207413|191407660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.18|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.18|0.94|
95719243|NCT02207413|191407660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.16|0.91|
95719244|NCT02207413|191407660|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/ Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.21|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.21|0.90|
95719245|NCT02207413|191407661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.28|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H1N1 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.28|0.90|
95728832|NCT00135707|191427515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.85|0.79
95719246|NCT02207413|191407661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.39|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for H3N2 strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.39|1.00|
95719247|NCT02207413|191407661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.27|||ANCOVA|||The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Yamagata strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate.||1.27|0.91|
95719248|NCT02207413|191407661|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority criterion (for each of the 4 strains): UL of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP) is ≤ 1.5.|Adjusted GMT Ratio|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.38|||ANCOVA||The GMTs were used to calculate the Adjusted GMTs, which in turn were used to calculate the Adjusted GMT ratio with 95% confidence interval (Ancova model: adjustment for baseline titer - pooled variance).|The adjusted GMT of HI antibodies for Victoria strain at post-vaccination of each vaccine, the GMT ratio of Influsplit Tetra\_LP/Influsplit Tetra\_IP and the 2-sided 95% CI on each GMT ratio were computed after fitting an ANCOVA model on the logarithm10 transformation of the titers, including the vaccine group as fixed effect and the pre-vaccination antibody titer as covariate||1.38|0.99|
95719249|NCT00684645|191407753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.395|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.609|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to PFS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.609|0.257|<0.0001
95719250|NCT00684645|191407754|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.361||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|0.864|||Cox proportional hazard|||Time to OS was analyzed using survival analysis methodology. Model was fitted with sunitinib-induced hypertension included as a time-dependent covariate (presence versus absence of hypertension).||0.864|0.151|0.0221
95719251|NCT02513095|191407763|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|76.8|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||76.8|0.6|0.396
95719252|NCT01441401|191407771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.045|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe) and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.045
95719253|NCT01441401|191407771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.017|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was baseline severity of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the baseline severity of epileptic seizure (mild, moderate, and severe)."||||0.017
95719254|NCT01441401|191407772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.018|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was baseline frequency of epileptic seizure. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the baseline frequency of epileptic seizure and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.018
95719255|NCT01441401|191407773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.034|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||0.034
95719256|NCT01441401|191407773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Armitage (EXACT)|||"The factor tested was number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there was no ordinal trend in the number of responders to the treatment with gabapentin across the increasing number of concomitant antiepileptic drugs at baseline."||||0.005
95719257|NCT01441401|191407774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"The factor tested was treatment period with gabapentin. The null hypothesis was that there was no association between the treatment period with gabapentin and the number of participants who responded to the treatment with gabapentin."||||<0.001
95719258|NCT01299272|191407780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.485|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.485
95719259|NCT03926728|191407809|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
95719260|NCT03926728|191407809|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
95719261|NCT03926728|191407809|OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.0007
95719262|NCT03926728|191407812|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
95719263|NCT03926728|191407812|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
95719264|NCT03926728|191407813|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs A2.||||1
95719265|NCT03926728|191407813|OTHER|||||||0.3956|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort B \[B1, B2\] vs F1.||||0.3956
95719266|NCT03926728|191407815|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs D \[D1, D2\].||||1
95719267|NCT03926728|191407815|OTHER|||||||1||||||Simple nonparametric statistical test.|Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs E \[E1, E2\].||||1
95719268|NCT03926728|191407815|OTHER|||||||0.3229|||||||Fisher Exact|||Comparison: Cohort A-C \[A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2\] vs F \[F1, F2\].||||0.3229
95719269|NCT01817764|191407823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.074|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.038|0.11|||ANCOVA|||||0.110|0.038|<0.001
95728833|NCT00135707|191427516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.31|||Chi-squared|||||1.31|0.47|0.35
95719270|NCT00388674|191407827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.3553|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.8|1.084|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.084|0.800|0.3553
95719271|NCT00388674|191407828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.0676|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.713|1.012|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.012|0.713|0.0676
95719272|NCT00388674|191407829|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.1182|TWO_SIDED|95.03|0.769|1.03|||Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.030|0.769|0.1182
95719273|NCT00388674|191407830|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.817|1.478|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.478|0.817|
95719274|NCT00388674|191407831|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.727|1.032|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.032|0.727|
95719275|NCT00388674|191407832|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.365|||||Hazard Ratio of ETV : Non-ETV Analyses are stratified by geographic region and prior HBV nucleoside/tide experience|||1.365|0.608|
95719276|NCT03731325|191407833|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||This mean difference represents the main effect of time from baseline to 15 weeks, regardless of group|Change in parent BMI from baseline at 8,11 to 15 weeks||||<0.01
95719277|NCT03731325|191407834|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-10.5||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|||||main effect of time|ANOVA||This is the main effect of weight change at week 15, e.g. average weight change from baseline to week 15 in the entire sample of parents|repeated measures analysis of variance for time (0,8,11,15 weeks) for weight change (lbs)||||0.003
95719278|NCT03731325|191407835|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.6||||0.06|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average difference in BMI percentile for entire sample|Repeated measures ANOVA for child BMI percentile at 0, 8, 11 and 15 weeks||||0.06
95719279|NCT03731325|191407836|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||average change in delay discounting measure area under the curve for all participants (parents and children) in both groups from baseline to week 15|repeated measures ANOVA, reporting repeated measures effect only||||0.07
95719280|NCT03731325|191407837|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.64|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA||Difference between weight at baseline and week 15 in lbs for all children, regardless of group|||||0.64
95719281|NCT01598740|191407846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0662||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.0662
95719282|NCT01598740|191407847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1899||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) common slopes model for a 2-period crossover design.||||0.1899
95719283|NCT02329834|191407850|EQUIVALENCE|90% Confidence Interval 80\<ratio of AUC\<125. The FDA guided Bioequivalence limit of 80 to 125% for the ratio of the product averages has been adopted for use of an average BE criterion.|% diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.77|104.75||||||||104.75|94.77|
95719284|NCT02329834|191407851|OTHER||% Diff Geometric Least Squared Mean|99.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.79|104.75||||||||104.75|94.79|
95719285|NCT01976104|191407876|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|33.7|||=|0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.8|51.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||51.6|15.8|=0.0006
95719286|NCT01976104|191407876|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.5|72.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of Responders for avatrombopag - proportion of Responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the 60 mg avatrombopag and matched placebo treatment groups.||72.7|36.5|<0.0001
95719287|NCT01976104|191407877|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|60.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.8|73.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups.||73.5|46.8|<0.0001
95719288|NCT01976104|191407877|SUPERIORITY||Difference of proportion versus placebo|53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|35.8|71.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by the risk of bleeding associated with the scheduled procedure within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference of proportion vs placebo = proportion of responders for avatrombopag - proportion of responders for placebo; 95% CI is calculated based on normal approximation.|The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants not requiring a platelet transfusion or any rescue procedure for bleeding after randomization and up to 7 days following a scheduled procedure was the same between the avatrombopag and placebo treatment groups||71.6|35.8|<0.0001
95719289|NCT01976104|191407878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|25.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.5|32.0|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from Baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% CI was the asymptotic (Moses) CI|||32.0|19.5|<0.0001
95728834|NCT00135707|191427517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.68||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|0.39|0.16
95728835|NCT00135707|191427518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.63||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.63|||Chi-squared|||||1.63|0.25|0.34
95719290|NCT01976104|191407878|SUPERIORITY||Difference in change of platelet count|36.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.5|45.5|||Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test|P-value was based on Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for each avatrombopag treatment group versus placebo within each Baseline platelet count cohort.|Difference in change from baseline of platelet count for avatrombopag vs. placebo within each baseline platelet count cohort is based on Hodges-Lehmann estimation; 95% confidence interval is the asymptotic (Moses) CI.|||45.5|25.5|<0.0001
95719291|NCT01283009|191407881|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.4|||Mantel Haenszel|||||1.40|0.58|0.635
95719292|NCT03237325|191407882|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1798|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1798
95719293|NCT02684370|191407883|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|70.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.0|76.7||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor \[TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||76.7|64.0|<0.001
95719294|NCT02684370|191407884|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|79.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|73.5|86.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.3|73.5|<0.001
95719295|NCT02684370|191407885|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|34.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|28.6|40.8||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||40.8|28.6|<0.001
95719296|NCT02684370|191407886|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.0|41.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||41.0|30.0|< 0.001
95719297|NCT02684370|191407887|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|57.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|50.4|65.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||65.3|50.4|< 0.001
95719298|NCT02684370|191407888|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|27.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.2|32.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.9|21.2|< 0.001
95719299|NCT02684370|191407889|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|33.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.7|44.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.3|22.7|< 0.001
95719300|NCT02684370|191407890|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|25.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|35.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||35.0|15.2|< 0.001
95719301|NCT02684370|191407891|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.5|32.1||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||32.1|15.5|< 0.001
95719302|NCT02684370|191407892|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|22.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.3|31.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||31.6|14.3|< 0.001
95719303|NCT02684370|191407893|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|38.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.9|48.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|P-value calculated according to the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||48.6|27.9|< 0.001
95728836|NCT00135707|191427519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.49||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|7.94|||Chi-squared|||||7.94|0.78|0.11
95728837|NCT00135707|191427520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.81||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.68|||Chi-squared|||||1.68|0.39|0.57
95719304|NCT02684370|191407894|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|35.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.7|44.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||44.6|25.7|< 0.001
95719305|NCT02684370|191407895|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|36.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.0|45.9||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||45.9|27.0|< 0.001
95719306|NCT02684370|191407896|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|26.6||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||26.6|7.4|< 0.001
95719307|NCT02684370|191407897|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|17.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.3|27.3||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||27.3|7.3|< 0.001
95719308|NCT02684370|191407898|OTHER||adjusted difference in percentage|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.9|34.0||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata (baseline weight \[≤100 kg vs \>100 kg\] and prior exposure to TNF\] antagonists \[0 vs ≥1\]). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||34.0|11.9|< 0.001
95719309|NCT02684370|191407899|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.765|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.496|-5.035|||van Elteren test|||P-value calculated by the van Elteren test stratified for baseline weight (≤100 kg vs \>100 kg) and prior exposure to TNF antagonists (0 vs ≥1).||-5.035|-6.496|<0.001
95719310|NCT04139642|191407906|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||A mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect was used to test the main effect of arm.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related diagnosis as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||<0.0001
95719311|NCT04139642|191407907|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.15||||||Mixed-effects model with provider as a random effect and month as a fixed effect. Statistical significance a priori threshold set at 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The null hypothesis was that the rate of balance-related referral as a percentage of total visits would be the same between the historical control period, the active control (weight-only), and the intervention (balance+weight), considering provider and month as co-variates.||||=0.15
95719312|NCT00539006|191407940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22|<|0.001||95.0|-1.5|-0.6|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FFNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FFNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.6|-1.5|<0.001
95719313|NCT00539006|191407940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.22||0.004||95.0|-1.1|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Mean Difference = Mean Change in FPNS - Mean Change in Placebo|FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2 compared with Placebo FPNS combined across treatment arms 1 \& 2.||-0.2|-1.1|0.004
95719314|NCT00539006|191407941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH): stratified approximation to Prescotts test; variation of chi-square test for treatment sequence/subjects no preference.||Statistical analysis applies to FFNS and FPNS categories.||||<0.001
95719315|NCT01965431|191407947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin is the maximum acceptable extent of statistical and clinical noninferiority of an experimental treatment. Non-inferiority margin for this trial is 10ms.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.37|10.43|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|||10.43|5.37|
95719316|NCT01965431|191407948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|12.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.02|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.32|16.08|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||16.08|9.32|
95719317|NCT01965431|191407949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|1.73|||||Maximum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||1.73|-1.38|
95719318|NCT01965431|191407950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.94|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.98|-2.87|||||Minimum mean difference to placebo is estimated. Adjusted means are based on a mixed model for repeated measures with 'global' \& 'period-global baseline' covariates. Toeplitz covariance model used for modelling the random and repeated effect.|No formal hypothesis testing was done.||-2.87|-5.98|
95719319|NCT01785472|191408015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The statistical test was made at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.|least Square Means net difference|-2.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.85|<|0.001||95.0|-4.0|-0.66|||ANCOVA|||||-0.66|-4.00|<0.001
95719320|NCT00703261|191408041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||cLDA|||Constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA)||||0.006
95719321|NCT00703261|191408041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.277||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.277
95719322|NCT00703261|191408041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent Reduction|4.5||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|9.6|||cLDA|||||9.6|-1.0|0.088
95719323|NCT00703261|191408042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.195||95.0|||||cLDA|||||||0.195
95719324|NCT01125358|191408043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.37|0.0|||Multiple Comparisons with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 10 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.00|-3.37|
95719325|NCT01125358|191408043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.42|0.32|||Multiple Comparison with The Best (MCB)|LS mean difference = LS mean of 160 mg LY2140023 - LS mean of 80 mg LY2140023.||||0.32|-2.42|
95719326|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.96||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|6.12||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||6.12|-25.80|0.222
95719327|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-11.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.22||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.42|2.6||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||2.60|-26.42|0.105
95719328|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-7.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.73||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.46|7.55||P-value is for PANSS Total Score.|MMRM|||||7.55|-23.46|0.308
95719329|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|2.54||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.54|-5.74|0.441
95719330|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-4.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.88||0.03||95.0|-8.01|-0.44||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||-0.44|-8.01|0.030
95719331|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-1.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.98||0.323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.96|2.01||P-value is for PANSS Positive Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.01|-5.96|0.323
95719332|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.28||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.05|2.12||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.12|-7.05|0.285
95719333|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.07||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.1|1.26||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||1.26|-7.10|0.166
95719334|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-2.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.79|2.05||P-value is for PANSS Negative Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.05|-6.79|0.286
95719335|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.14||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.96|2.63||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.63|-13.96|0.177
95719336|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.74||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.6|2.4||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||2.40|-12.60|0.178
95719337|NCT01125358|191408044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-3.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.05||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.72|4.51||P-value is for PANSS General Psychopathology Subscore.|MMRM|||||4.51|-11.72|0.377
95719338|NCT01125358|191408045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.48||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.83|||MMRM|||||1.83|-0.10|0.077
95719339|NCT01125358|191408045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.65|||MMRM|||||0.65|-1.12|0.592
95719340|NCT01125358|191408045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.46||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.32|||MMRM|||||1.32|-0.53|0.395
95719341|NCT01125358|191408046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|4.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|13.65|||MMRM|||||13.65|-4.37|0.306
95719342|NCT01125358|191408046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.26||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.74|9.38|||MMRM|||||9.38|-7.74|0.849
95719343|NCT01125358|191408046|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Differences|-5.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.46||0.259||95.0|-14.05|3.86|||MMRM|||||3.86|-14.05|0.259
95719344|NCT01125358|191408048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.354||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.354
95719345|NCT01125358|191408048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.181||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.181
95719346|NCT01125358|191408048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.999||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95719347|NCT02115373|191408051|OTHER||Median|2.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.446|7.195|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||7.195|1.446|
95719348|NCT02115373|191408051|OTHER||Median|3.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.858|4.238|||||TTP in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.238|2.858|
95719349|NCT02115373|191408052|OTHER||Median|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.68|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.680|1.413|
95719350|NCT02115373|191408052|OTHER||Median|3.22|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|16.53|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||16.53|0.03|
95719351|NCT02115373|191408053|OTHER||Median|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.413|3.844|||||PFS time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||3.844|1.413|
95719352|NCT02115373|191408053|OTHER||Median|3.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.76|4.172|||||PFS time in months was was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||4.172|2.760|
95719353|NCT02115373|191408055|OTHER||Median|7.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.68|10.119|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 1b: Tepotinib 300 mg and Phase 1b: Tepotinib 500 mg combined.|||10.119|3.680|
95719354|NCT02115373|191408055|OTHER||Median|5.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.092|8.181|||||Overall Survival time in months was calculated for Phase 2: Tepotinib 500 mg.|||8.181|5.092|
95719355|NCT00962013|191408090|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|non-inferiority margin is 7%||||||0.0136|||||||Exact Binomial|||This revision study will demonstrate a 5-year survivorship of the Restoration Modular system not seven percent worse than an expected 95% survival rate using a lower 95% one-sided confidence bound.||||0.0136
95719356|NCT00962013|191408092|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from HHS pre-op to HHS 5 year||||<0.0001
95719357|NCT00962013|191408093|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from SF-36 Role-Physical pre-op score to 2 and 5 year scores||||<0.0001
95719358|NCT00962013|191408095|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact Binomial|||Post-surgery femoral stem crack/fracture rate compared to 21% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates) Femoral subsidence rate compared to 18% (pre-specified in protocol based on literature rates)||||<0.0001
95719359|NCT04007406|191408121|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold value for statistical significance was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95719360|NCT04007406|191408122|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95719361|NCT04007406|191408123|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95719362|NCT04007406|191408124|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The threshold for significance was p \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95719363|NCT04007406|191408125|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical threshold was p\<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95719364|NCT02072174|191408126|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.0242
95719365|NCT02072174|191408127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0026|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||patient diary data||||0.0026
95719366|NCT02072174|191408127|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0127|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||doctor's examination data||||0.0127
95719367|NCT02072174|191408128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0394||||||"The p-value associated with treatment factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate. Treatment\*visit interaction p-value is 0.3220."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0394
95719368|NCT02072174|191408128|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.322||||||"The p-value associated with treatment\*visit interaction factor of variable on day 2, 3, 4 and 5 between Anaferon for Children and Placebo. Model includes treatment, visit, treatment\*visit interaction, Day 1 covariate."|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3220
95719369|NCT02072174|191408129|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0043|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0043
95719370|NCT02072174|191408130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0104||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 2 (patient diary data)||||0.0104
95719371|NCT02072174|191408130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0041||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (patient diary data)||||0.0041
95719372|NCT02072174|191408130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0484||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 4 (patient diary data)||||0.0484
95719373|NCT02072174|191408130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0603||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (patient diary data)||||0.0603
95719374|NCT02072174|191408130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0056||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 3 (doctor's examination)||||0.0056
95719375|NCT02072174|191408130|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0994||||||p-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Kruskal-Wallis|||Day 5 (doctor's examination)||||0.0994
95719376|NCT02072174|191408131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0084|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1-7 (patient diary data)||||0.0084
95719377|NCT02072174|191408131|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0233|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Days 1, 3, 5 and 7 (doctor's examination)||||0.0233
95719378|NCT02072174|191408132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0721
95719379|NCT02072174|191408133|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95719380|NCT02072174|191408134|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3383|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.3383
95719381|NCT05674721|191408135|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements if the 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|95.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|88.31|102.47||||||||102.47|88.31|
95719382|NCT05674721|191408136|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of Cmax were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.54|112.35||||||||112.35|93.54|
95719383|NCT05674721|191408137|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.76|101.61||||||||101.61|96.76|
95719384|NCT05674721|191408138|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-t were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.62|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.15|107.3||||||||107.30|98.15|
95719385|NCT05674721|191408139|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.82|101.63||||||||101.63|96.82|
95719386|NCT05674721|191408140|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between Treatment A (test) and Treatment B (reference) under fasted conditions would be declared as per FDA if the 90% CIs for the ratio of the geometric means of AUC0-inf were between 80% and 125%.|Ratio of Geometric Least Square Mean|102.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.31|107.34||||||||107.34|98.31|
95719387|NCT04466956|191408165|OTHER|Statistical analysis was by intention-to-treat including all randomised participants, using Stata-12 software. Continuous data were summarised as mean and standard deviation, and categorical data as counts and percentages. Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||Between group differences were reported with 95% confidence intervals, and p-values, using t-test to compare normally distributed data and chi-squared tests to compare categorical data.|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean worst pain scores were 5.98 and 6.88 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.9 (95% CI -2.1 - 0.28), p value 0.13. Mean anxiety scores at the end of the procedure were 3.94 and 4.4 in the standard care and VR groups respectively, with difference in means -0.46 (95% CI -2.1, 1.1), p value 0.57.||||<0.01
95719388|NCT00091507|191408166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.13|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.13|0.66|0.28
95719389|NCT00091507|191408167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.56||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.07|0.30|0.08
95719390|NCT00091507|191408168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.23|0.43|0.24
95719391|NCT00091507|191408169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.29|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.29|0.40|0.27
95719392|NCT00091507|191408170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.27|0.01
95719393|NCT01393626|191408173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.86||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.64|21.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||21.36|-7.64|0.3249
95719394|NCT01393626|191408173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.36||||0.3916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|20.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Tofacitinib-Placebo||20.80|-8.09|0.3916
95719395|NCT02426125|191408193|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.757||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.607|0.943||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||0.943|0.607|0.0118
95719396|NCT02426125|191408194|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.887||||0.2461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.724|1.086||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|||1.086|0.724|0.2461
95719397|NCT02426125|191408197|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|1.158|||Log Rank|||||1.158|0.473|0.189
95719398|NCT02426125|191408198|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.879||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.663|1.167||Stratified|Log Rank||Stratified|Global health status/QoL||1.167|0.663|0.357
95719399|NCT03506425|191408204|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.32
95719400|NCT03506425|191408205|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95719401|NCT03506425|191408206|OTHER|||||||0.83|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.83
95719402|NCT00077766|191408207|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority with 90% power assuming that the true difference between the RO0503821 group and darbepoetin was not larger than 0.3 g/dL.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1162|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|0.408||The p-value for the non-inferiority test was derived using ANCOVA.|ANCOVA, CI for difference between groups|Degrees of Freedom : 246|Difference between groups based on the adjusted means derived from the ANCOVA model.|RO0503821 group was compared to darbepoetin alfa group, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the independent variable as treatment group and Hb at baseline and geographical region as covariates. The test for non-inferiority was based on the lower limit of 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference in adjusted mean between 2 groups. If this lower limit was \> or = to -0.75 g/dL, the RO0503821 group was regarded as clinically non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa group, with 90% power.||0.408|-0.049|< 0.0001
95719403|NCT02222168|191408214|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|95.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.593|126.682|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||126.682|72.593|
95719404|NCT02222168|191408214|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|82.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|38.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|66.37|101.639|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||101.639|66.370|
95719405|NCT02222168|191408215|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.697|119.318|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.318|96.697|
95719406|NCT02222168|191408215|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.028|105.875|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.875|85.028|
95719407|NCT02222168|191408216|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 fed' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale.This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'sequence', 'subjects within sequences', 'period' and'treatment'. The effect 'subjects within sequences' was considered as random, whereas the other effects were considered as fixed.|Ratio (Fed/Fasted)|107.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|18.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.709|119.301|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: fed (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||119.301|96.709|
95728838|NCT00135707|191427521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.9|||Chi-squared|||||1.90|0.89|0.18
95728839|NCT00135707|191427522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.46|||Chi-squared|||||2.46|0.48|0.84
95728840|NCT00135707|191427523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.24|||Chi-squared|||||1.24|0.93|0.33
95728841|NCT00135707|191427524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.17|||Chi-squared|||||1.17|1.03|0.004
95719408|NCT02222168|191408216|OTHER|The statistical model used for the analysis of the endpoint comparing 'BI 409306 fasted' against 'BI 409306 at bed-time' was an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA ) model on the logarithmic scale. This model included effects accounting for the following sources of variation: 'subject' and 'treatment'. The effect 'subject' was considered as random, whereas the effect treatment was considered as fixed.|Ratio (Bed time/Fasted)|94.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.1|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.061|105.921|||||The estimated parameter was the adjusted geometric mean ratios \[%\] of BI 409306: at bed time (numerator), fasted (denominator). The standard deviation is the intra-individual geometric coefficient of variation \[%\].|No formal hypothesis was tested.||105.921|85.061|
95719409|NCT02060526|191408228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.286||||0.4615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.297|0.745|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.745|-0.297|0.4615
95719410|NCT02060526|191408228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference between proportions|0.143||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.423|0.647|||Fisher Exact|||95% exact unconditional confidence interval of the difference in proportion between each of the treatment groups and the untreated control group was considered for the parameter estimation.||0.647|-0.423|1.0000
95719411|NCT03126682|191408243|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.212||||||Threshold of \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.212
95719412|NCT00467038|191408264|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 1 sided|\<0.004 p value was common for all time points.||||||<0.004
95719413|NCT00467038|191408265|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher's LSD post-hoc, trend level|||||||0.08
95719414|NCT00943826|191408270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.74||Stratified by Region and Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) Class|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.74|0.55|<0.0001
95719415|NCT00943826|191408271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88||||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.02|||Log Rank|Stratified by Region and RPA Class|Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||1.02|0.76|0.0987
95719416|NCT00943826|191408272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.71||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|Log Rank||Stratified by Region and RPA Class.|||0.71|0.53|<0.0001
95719417|NCT01803464|191408277|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled Standard Deviation (SD) of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719418|NCT01803464|191408277|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719419|NCT01803464|191408277|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719420|NCT01803464|191408278|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.45|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
95719421|NCT01803464|191408278|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719422|NCT01803464|191408278|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator|||||
95719423|NCT01803464|191408279|OTHER||Cohen's d|1.2|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox plus low-magnitude vibration group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719424|NCT01803464|191408279|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the Botox group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719425|NCT01803464|191408279|OTHER||Cohen's d|0.33|||||TWO_SIDED||||||||Cohen's d was calculated. The % change of the typically developing control group minus the % change of the cerebral palsy control group was the numerator. The pooled SD of the % change for the 2 groups was the denominator.|||||
95719426|NCT02701049|191408282|OTHER|Among 109,994 patients who entered the ED during Mode 1, 19,742 had SOGI collected (18%). Among 88,143 patients who entered the ED during Mode 2, 3,630 had SOGI collected (4%).||||||||||||||||Historical controls included all patients entering participating EDs as identified by the Electronic Health Record.|Results were compared to historical control population from an electronic health record database, no other data were collected for these participants.|||
95719427|NCT01612780|191408292|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Values of p \<0.05 were deemed statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Study sample size was established to test the hypothesis that the mean SNOT-20 score is reduced by at least 0.8 points from baseline to 1 year post procedure. Using this delta, a 1-sided alpha of 0.25, and 90% power, a sample size of 19 participants was adequate to test the hypothesis.||||<0.0001
95719428|NCT01610284|191408315|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.89|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||0.89|0.67|<0.001
95719429|NCT01610284|191408315|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|0.94|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||0.94|0.68|0.003
95719430|NCT01610284|191408315|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.97|||Log Rank|||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||0.97|0.60|0.015
95719431|NCT01610284|191408315|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.03||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.03|0.67|
95719432|NCT01610284|191408315|OTHER|Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.94||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||0.94|0.52|
95719433|NCT01610284|191408316|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.87||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.02|||Log Rank|||FAS-Full population||1.02|0.74|0.045
95719434|NCT01610284|191408316|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.09|||Log Rank|||FAS-Main cohort||1.09|0.75|0.144
95719435|NCT01610284|191408316|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.08||||||FAS-PI3K pathway activated||1.08|0.61|
95719436|NCT01610284|191408316|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.24||||||FAS-PI3K pathway non-activated||1.24|0.77|
95719437|NCT01610284|191408316|OTHER|Comparison of overall survival (OS) (based on local investigator assessment) between the two treatment groups using a stratified log-rank test at one-sided 2.5% level of significance|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.06||||||FAS-PI3K pathway unknown||1.06|0.52|
95719438|NCT03159611|191408327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95719439|NCT03159611|191408328|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.005
95719440|NCT03159611|191408329|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.50
95719441|NCT03159611|191408330|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
95719442|NCT03159611|191408331|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.19
95719443|NCT03930615|191408352|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-16.1||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.8|-6.5||A one-sided p-value ≤0.0249 was used for declaring statistical significance|Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo|It was hypothesized that LET is superior to placebo in the prevention of clinically significant CMV infection.|95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-6.5|-25.8|0.0005
95719444|NCT03930615|191408353|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.8|4.7|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|4.7|-11.8|
95719445|NCT03930615|191408354|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|8.6|||||Letermovir minus Placebo||Miettinen \& Nurminen method|8.6|-2.7|
95719446|NCT03930615|191408355|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
95719447|NCT03930615|191408356|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.8|5.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.4|-16.8|0.1591
95719448|NCT03930615|191408359|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|-14.1||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.3|-5.0|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|-5.0|-23.3|0.0012
95719449|NCT03930615|191408360|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|-5.7||||0.1494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|5.1|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.1|-16.5|0.1494
95719450|NCT03930615|191408361|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.7||||0.6244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|5.3|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|5.3|-3.8|0.6244
95719451|NCT03930615|191408362|SUPERIORITY||Treatment Difference|0.3||||0.5264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.9|8.4|||Mantel Haenszel|Stratum adjusted|Letermovir minus placebo||95% CIs for the treatment differences in percent response were calculated using stratum adjusted Mantel Haenszel method with the difference weighted by the harmonic mean of sample size per arm for each stratum (haploidentical donor yes or no).|8.4|-7.9|0.5264
95719452|NCT00956813|191408369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.29
95719453|NCT00956813|191408371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.93
95719454|NCT00956813|191408372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for vasomotor-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.19
95719455|NCT00956813|191408372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.78|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Psychosocial-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.78
95719456|NCT00956813|191408372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.238|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Physical-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.238
95719457|NCT00956813|191408372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.497|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Testing the change in score from baseline to treatment completion for Sexually-related questions in the MENQOL form.||||0.497
95719458|NCT00956813|191408373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.089
95719459|NCT04755283|191408454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.314|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.513|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.513|0.192|<0.001
95719460|NCT04755283|191408454|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.382|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.243|0.602|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.602|0.243|<0.001
95719461|NCT04755283|191408455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.263|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.121|0.572|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.572|0.121|<0.001
95719462|NCT04755283|191408455|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.325||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.159|0.663|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.663|0.159|0.001
95719463|NCT04755283|191408456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.638|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.638|0.332|<0.001
95719464|NCT04755283|191408456|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.683||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.512|0.912|||Stratified Log Rank Test|Stratified for stratification factors|Cox Proportional Hazards Model Adjusted for Stratification Factors|||0.912|0.512|0.010
95719465|NCT04636437|191408462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.36||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.2|3.92||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||3.92|-1.20|0.23
95719466|NCT04636437|191408462|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.89||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.34|1.57||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 48.||1.57|-3.34|0.41
95719467|NCT04636437|191408463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.83||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.99|2.64||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||2.64|-0.99|0.31
95719468|NCT04636437|191408463|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.99||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.76|-0.21||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry weight, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in body weight from entry to week 24.||-0.21|-3.76|0.012
95719469|NCT04636437|191408464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.33|4.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||4.77|-1.33|0.20
95719470|NCT04636437|191408464|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.49||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.43|1.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 48.||1.44|-4.43|0.25
95719471|NCT04636437|191408465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.16||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.23|2.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||2.90|-3.23|0.90
95719472|NCT04636437|191408465|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.48||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.47|1.51||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry waist circumference, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in waist circumference from entry to week 24.||1.51|-4.47|0.26
95719473|NCT04636437|191408466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.19||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-22.2|24.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||24.59|-22.2|0.91
95719474|NCT04636437|191408466|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.1||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-29.7|15.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 48.||15.47|-29.7|0.48
95719475|NCT04636437|191408467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.2||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-48.6|18.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||18.20|-48.6|0.30
95728842|NCT00135707|191427525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.07||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.21|||Chi-squared|||||1.21|0.95|0.25
95728843|NCT00135707|191427526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.15||95.0|0.47|1.12|||Chi-squared|||||1.12|0.47|0.15
95728844|NCT00135707|191427527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.75||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.77|||Chi-squared|||||1.77|0.32|0.51
95719476|NCT04636437|191408467|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-18.5||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-51.8|14.76||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting triglycerides, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting triglycerides from entry to week 24.||14.76|-51.8|0.21
95719477|NCT04636437|191408468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.84||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-14.4|8.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||8.72|-14.4|0.58
95719478|NCT04636437|191408468|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.88||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-18.0|4.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 48.||4.20|-18.0|0.16
95719479|NCT04636437|191408469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.92||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|6.27||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||6.27|-12.1|0.47
95719480|NCT04636437|191408469|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-15.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-24.2|-5.91||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting LDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting LDL from entry to week 24.||-5.91|-24.2|<0.001
95719481|NCT04636437|191408470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.8||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.17|7.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||7.77|-6.17|0.79
95719482|NCT04636437|191408470|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.46||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-12.1|1.16||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 48.||1.16|-12.1|0.063
95719483|NCT04636437|191408471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.38||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.21|1.45||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||1.45|-4.21|0.27
95719484|NCT04636437|191408471|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.25|-2.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting HDL, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting HDL from entry to week 24.||-2.66|-8.25|<0.001
95719485|NCT04636437|191408472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.55||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.3|13.44||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||13.44|-10.3|0.77
95719486|NCT04636437|191408472|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.23||||0.3|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-16.7|6.2||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 48.||6.20|-16.7|0.30
95719487|NCT04636437|191408473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.18||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-8.78|9.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||9.15|-8.78|0.96
95719488|NCT04636437|191408473|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.32||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-15.2|2.55||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting glucose, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting glucose from entry to week 24.||2.55|-15.2|0.11
95719489|NCT04636437|191408474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.07||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.93|21.06||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.06|-4.93|0.16
95728845|NCT00135707|191427528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.79|||Chi-squared|||||1.79|0.82|0.33
95719490|NCT04636437|191408474|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|8.89||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.37|21.15||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 48.||21.15|-3.37|0.10
95719491|NCT04636437|191408475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.28||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-6.42|14.99||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||14.99|-6.42|0.37
95719492|NCT04636437|191408475|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.37||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-10.0|10.77||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry fasting insulin, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in fasting insulin from entry to week 24.||10.77|-10.0|0.94
95719493|NCT04636437|191408476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.77||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.08|7.63||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||7.63|-2.08|0.20
95719494|NCT04636437|191408476|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.21||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.44|6.87||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 48.||6.87|-2.44|0.28
95719495|NCT04636437|191408477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.79||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.68|5.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||5.25|-1.68|0.24
95719496|NCT04636437|191408477|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.57||||0.7|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.91|2.78||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry HOMA-IR, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in absolute change in HOMA-IR from entry to week 24.||2.78|-3.91|0.70
95719497|NCT04636437|191408479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.43
95719498|NCT04636437|191408479|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of Grade ≥3 AEs from entry to week 48.||||0.26
95719499|NCT04636437|191408480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.008
95719500|NCT04636437|191408480|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.068||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of \>10% reduction in CrCl from entry to week 48.||||0.068
95719501|NCT04636437|191408481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.20
95719502|NCT04636437|191408481|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56||||||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Fisher Exact|Fisher's Exact Mid P-Value||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in occurrence of premature discontinuation of study treatment from entry to week 48.||||0.56
95719503|NCT04636437|191408482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.43||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.62|8.47||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||8.47|-1.62|0.13
95719504|NCT04636437|191408482|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.89|4.72||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry total fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in total fat from entry to week 48.||4.72|-4.89|0.97
95728846|NCT00135707|191427529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96||||0.74|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.22|||Chi-squared|||||1.22|0.75|0.74
95719505|NCT04636437|191408483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.31||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.18|2.8||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||2.80|-2.18|0.78
95719506|NCT04636437|191408483|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.24||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.11|3.59||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lean mass from entry to week 48.||3.59|-1.11|0.23
95719507|NCT04636437|191408484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.71||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.48|9.9||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||9.90|-2.48|0.18
95719508|NCT04636437|191408484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.35||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-7.23|4.53||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry trunk fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in trunk fat from entry to week 48.||4.53|-7.23|0.60
95719509|NCT04636437|191408485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.19||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.45|9.83||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|9.83|-1.45|0.094
95719510|NCT04636437|191408485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.76||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-3.59|7.11||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear|||Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in limb fat from entry to week 48.|Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry limb fat, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|7.11|-3.59|0.46
95719511|NCT04636437|191408486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.19||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.19|6.56||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||6.56|-2.19|0.26
95719512|NCT04636437|191408486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|3.15||||0.084|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.96|7.25||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry appendicular lean mass, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in appendicular lean mass from entry to week 48.||7.25|-0.96|0.084
95719513|NCT04636437|191408487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.78||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.57|2.13||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.13|-0.57|0.19
95719514|NCT04636437|191408487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.64||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|0.66||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry hip bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in hip bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||0.66|-1.93|0.27
95719515|NCT04636437|191408488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.57|2.58||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.58|-1.57|0.58
95719516|NCT04636437|191408488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.05||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.93|2.03||Bonferroni adjustment for 2 pairwise comparisons of DOR-containing arms versus continuation of INSTI. Two sided 2.5% alpha.|Regression, Linear||Mean difference and CI come from a linear regression model adjusting for entry lumbar spine bone mineral density, sex, and race (Black and not Black).|Null hypothesis: There is no difference between the two arms in percent change in lumbar spine bone mineral density from entry to week 48.||2.03|-1.93|0.95
95719517|NCT04115488|191408525|EQUIVALENCE|Data was analyzed using a negative binomial model with a logarithmic link function and fixed effects for the treatment group and stratification factors. Equivalence was tested based 95% confidence interval.|Exponentiated Difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.397|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.944|||||Difference calculated as Tysabri minus PB006.|||0.944|-0.613|
95719518|NCT00972309|191408566|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.003
95719519|NCT05554471|191408585|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: the time to ambulation for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used.||||<0.001
95719520|NCT05554471|191408586|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Hypothesis: the time to hemostasis for the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD device is at least 5 minutes less than manual compression.||||<0.001
95719521|NCT05554471|191408588|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||Hypothesis: The time to discharge eligibility for the subjects using the MYNX CONTROL™ Venous VCD was significantly less than for those where manual compression was used||||<0.001
95719522|NCT01875731|191408591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.09||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.57|16.8|||Chi-squared|||||16.8|1.57|0.01
95719523|NCT01875731|191408592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|4.09|||Chi-squared|||||4.09|0.1|0.71
95719524|NCT03417102|191408593|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.092|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.044|0.192||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.192|0.044|<0.0001
95719525|NCT03417102|191408595|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.108|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.056|0.207||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during TP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.207|0.056|<0.0001
95719526|NCT03417102|191408597|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.056|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.121||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.121|0.026|<0.0001
95719527|NCT03417102|191408599|SUPERIORITY||ABR ratio|0.098|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.21||P-value derived from NB regression model, accounted for different follow-up times during EP, with treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds in 6 months prior to study (\<=10,\>10) as fixed effects. Significance threshold was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression model|||||0.210|0.046|<0.0001
95719528|NCT03417102|191408601|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean difference|-28.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.07|-18.37||Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-18.37|-39.07|<0.0001
95719529|NCT03417102|191408602|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-14.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.37|-8.33||ANCOVA model included treatment arm and randomization strata of number of bleeds (\<=10, \> 10) as fixed effects, Baseline score as a covariate. Significance threshold was at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||||-8.33|-21.37|<0.0001
95719530|NCT06212544|191408619|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95719531|NCT03256526|191408638|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|11.45||||0.1654|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.19|25.09|||ANCOVA|||||25.09|-2.19|0.1654
95719532|NCT03256526|191408638|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-18.73||||0.0395|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-33.55|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.90|-33.55|0.0395
95719533|NCT00929201|191408667|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and coadministration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the AUC0-∞ for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin AUC0-∞GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.97||||||90.0|0.95|1.0||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||1.00|0.95|
95719534|NCT00929201|191408668|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The FMI sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet and co-administration of corresponding doses of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets after consumption of a standard high-fat breakfast will be bioequivalent for metformin based on assessment of the Cmax for metformin \[i.e., the true metformin Cmax GMR (sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet/ co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin as individual tablets will be contained within (0.80, 1.25)\].|Least-Squares Mean Ratio|0.95||||||90.0|0.93|0.98||||||Least-Squares Mean Ratio calculated as Sitagliptin/Metformin 50/500 mg FDC tablet divided by Sitagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg individual tablets||0.98|0.93|
95719535|NCT00566969|191408669|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|A hierarchical linear model was used to account for unequal variance and covariance structures across time.||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||.10
95719536|NCT00464308|191408670|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.11|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|Non-inferiority||Assumed that the true resolution rates in the rab20 and eso40 groups would be 30% (0.3). Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
95719537|NCT00464308|191408673|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.051|||<|0.05||95.0||||All statistical tests were interpreted at the 5% significance level (2-tailed).|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
95719538|NCT00464308|191408674|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.053|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
95728847|NCT00135707|191427530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.40|0.12
95719539|NCT00464308|191408675|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The sample size calculation was based upon the number of patients acheiveing complete resolution of HEARTBURN. A sample size of 450 subjects per arm will give a 90% power (with a one-sided 95% confidence interval and a minimal clinically important difference of 9%) to demonstrate non-inferiority of rabeprazole 20mg to esomeprazole 40mg with respect to the number of patients with complete resolution of heartburn with or without regurgitation at week 4|Proportion difference|-0.061|||<|0.05||95.0||||Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not made. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p\<0.05. Tests were 2-sided except for the non-inferiority test which was 1-sided.|non-inferiority||Non inferiority was considered proven if the lower confidence interval of the one sided 95% CI of P(rab20)-P(e40) was above -9%|Primary endpoints were assessed using non-inferiority tests. See below.||||<0.05
95719540|NCT01186744|191408713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0008
95719541|NCT01186744|191408713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95719542|NCT01186744|191408714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.0027
95719543|NCT01186744|191408714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95719544|NCT03993288|191408838|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the mean value calculated by the least squares method did not exceed the predetermined boundary of non-inferiority of 5 g/L|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.24||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|4.38|||ANCOVA|||||4.38|-4.86|0.0032
95719545|NCT02545868|191408893|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-30.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.5|-10.8||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-10.8|-50.5|
95719546|NCT02545868|191408894|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-36.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.0|-16.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-16.7|-56.0|
95719547|NCT02545868|191408895|SUPERIORITY||normal distribution approximation|-47.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.2|-30.7||||||Difference in positive response, Group A minus Group B||-30.7|-63.2|
95719548|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-38.8||||||Serotype 1||-38.8|-62.7|
95719549|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-43.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-30.1||||||Serotype 2||-30.1|-56.5|
95719550|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-48.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.2|-30.9||||||Serotype 3||-30.9|-65.2|
95719551|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 4||-48.4|-77.2|
95719552|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-53.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-39.7||||||Serotype 5||-39.7|-68.0|
95719553|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-20.7||||||Serotype 6B||-20.7|-54.4|
95719554|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.1|-43.6||||||Serotype 7F||-43.6|-73.1|
95719555|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-32.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.7|-20.1||||||Serotype 8||-20.1|-45.7|
95719556|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 9N||-30.4|-62.5|
95719557|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-40.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-25.1||||||Serotype 9V||-25.1|-55.7|
95719558|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.2|-48.4||||||Serotype 10A||-48.4|-77.2|
95719559|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.4|-35.6||||||Serotype 11A||-35.6|-69.4|
95719560|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-38.3||||||Serotype 12F||-38.3|-72.8|
95719561|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-9.7||||||Serotype 14||-9.7|-41.4|
95719562|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.9|-32.0||||||Serotype 15B||-32.0|-63.9|
95719563|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.4|-41.4||||||Serotype 17F||-41.4|-72.4|
95719564|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|-37.3||||||Serotype 18C||-37.3|-67.4|
95719565|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.5|-30.4||||||Serotype 19A||-30.4|-62.5|
95719566|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-36.1||||||Serotype 19F||-36.1|-68.8|
95719567|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.5|-45.4||||||Serotype 20||-45.4|-77.5|
95719568|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.7|-42.0||||||Serotype 22F||-42.0|-71.7|
95719569|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-33.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.7|-14.6||||||Serotype 23F||-14.6|-51.7|
95719570|NCT02545868|191408899|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.2|-33.5||||||Serotype 33F||-33.5|-62.2|
95719571|NCT02545868|191408900|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-13.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.6|-5.3||||||||-5.3|-21.6|
95719572|NCT02545868|191408901|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.6|-46.8||||||||-46.8|-72.6|
95719573|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.7|-27.6||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-27.6|-62.7|
95719574|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
95719575|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.4|-29.2||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-70.4|
95719576|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.7|-36.3||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.3|-75.7|
95719577|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.4|-40.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.3|-76.4|
95719578|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-34.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-12.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-12.2|-55.7|
95719579|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
95719580|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.6|-23.8||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.8|-60.6|
95719581|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.9|-15.5||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-15.5|-58.9|
95719582|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|-16.0||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-16.0|-57.3|
95719583|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-62.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.8|-43.5||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-43.5|-80.8|
95719584|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.0|-29.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.2|-71.0|
95719585|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-56.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.9|-36.8||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-36.8|-76.9|
95719586|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-20.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.4|-0.2||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-0.2|-41.4|
95719587|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.8|-32.7||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.7|-72.8|
95719588|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
95719589|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-42.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-23.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-23.2|-61.8|
95719590|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.6|-9.7||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-9.7|-50.6|
95719591|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.8|-25.8||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-25.8|-66.8|
95719592|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.0|-40.0||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-40.0|-79.0|
95719593|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.1|-32.8||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-32.8|-72.1|
95719594|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-28.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|-5.4||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-5.4|-50.7|
95719595|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-49.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.2|-29.7||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A1 minus Group B||-29.7|-68.2|
95719596|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-45.4||||||Serotype 1- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-45.4|-78.1|
95719597|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 2- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
95719598|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-36.5||||||Serotype 3- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-36.5|-75.3|
95719599|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-64.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.6|-46.8||||||Serotype 4- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-46.8|-82.6|
95719600|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.6|-35.3||||||Serotype 5- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-35.3|-70.6|
95719601|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 6B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
95719602|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.7|-40.9||||||Serotype 7F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.9|-76.7|
95719603|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.1|-12.7||||||Serotype 8- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-12.7|-46.1|
95719604|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-35.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|-14.2||||||Serotype 9N- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-14.2|-56.4|
95719605|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.2|-18.2||||||Serotype 9V- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-18.2|-58.2|
95719606|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.8|-43.7||||||Serotype 10A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-43.7|-79.8|
95719607|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-38.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.3|-17.2||||||Serotype 11A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-17.2|-59.3|
95719608|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-39.6||||||Serotype 12F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-39.6|-78.0|
95719609|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-17.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|2.1||||||Serotype 14- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||2.1|-37.4|
95719610|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.6|-30.4||||||Serotype 15B- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-30.4|-69.6|
95719611|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-44.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-24.2||||||Serotype 17F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-24.2|-64.0|
95719612|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.4|-44.2||||||Serotype 18C- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-44.2|-79.4|
95719613|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-52.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.3|-33.6||||||Serotype 19A- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-33.6|-72.3|
95719614|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-58.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-40.1||||||Serotype 19F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-40.1|-77.6|
95719615|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-70.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.4|-53.8||||||Serotype 20- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-53.8|-87.4|
95719616|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-67.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.8|-50.5||||||Serotype 22F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-50.5|-84.8|
95719617|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-47.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.0|-26.1||||||Serotype 23F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-26.1|-68.0|
95719618|NCT02545868|191408903|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.5|-31.5||||||Serotype 33F- Difference in positive response, Group A2 minus Group B||-31.5|-68.5|
95719619|NCT02545868|191408905|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.6|-9.5||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-9.5|-41.6|
95719620|NCT02545868|191408905|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-14.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.2|7.3||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||7.3|-35.2|
95719621|NCT02545868|191408905|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.5|-6.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-6.4|-45.5|
95719622|NCT02545868|191408905|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-19.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-50.7|11.8||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||11.8|-50.7|
95719623|NCT02545868|191408905|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
95719624|NCT02545868|191408906|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-41.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.9|-21.7||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-21.7|-61.9|
95719625|NCT02545868|191408906|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-37.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.7|-15.5||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.5|-59.7|
95719626|NCT02545868|191408906|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-59.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.2|-40.7||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-40.7|-78.2|
95719627|NCT02545868|191408906|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-45.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.0|-15.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B)||-15.1|-76.0|
95719628|NCT02545868|191408906|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.4|42.7||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B)||42.7|-49.4|
95719629|NCT02545868|191408907|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-42.3|-80.2|
95719630|NCT02545868|191408907|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-54.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.3|-34.4||||||Strain = BPHU13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-34.4|-75.3|
95719631|NCT02545868|191408907|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-82.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.1|-67.5||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-67.5|-97.1|
95719632|NCT02545868|191408907|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||-6.1|-67.2|
95719633|NCT02545868|191408907|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 - Difference in at least 4-fold response, Group A2 minus Group B||50.5|-63.8|
95719634|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-61.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-80.2|-42.3||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-42.3|-80.2|
95719635|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-46.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-4.0||||||Strain = H1N1CA09 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-4.0|-88.0|
95719636|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.7|-38.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-38.1|-77.7|
95719637|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-55.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.0|-23.1||||||Strain = BPHU13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-23.1|-88.0|
95719638|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-78.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.8|-62.2||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-62.2|-94.8|
95719639|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-57.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.0|-13.4||||||Strain = H3N2SW13 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||-13.4|-100.0|
95719640|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-36.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-6.1||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||-6.1|-67.2|
95719641|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.4|17.4||||||Strain = BBRIS08 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[Protocol\]||17.4|-67.4|
95719642|NCT02545868|191408908|SUPERIORITY||Normal Distribution Approximation|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|50.5||||||Strain = AHK4801 (Group A2 minus Group B) \[FDA\]||50.5|-63.8|
95719643|NCT01777191|191408934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.248|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.248
95719644|NCT01932801|191408937|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.461||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model stats: χ2(18, N=308) = 17.93, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .07||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.461
95719645|NCT01932801|191408937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.18||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period|z score for parameters||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.18|-.79|.01
95719646|NCT01932801|191408937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.41||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.15|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.15|-.67|.01
95728848|NCT00135707|191427531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.35|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.97|0.35
95728849|NCT00135707|191427533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.3||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|1.08|||Chi-squared|||||1.08|0.08|0.05
95728850|NCT00135707|191427534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.67||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.01|||Chi-squared|||||1.01|0.45|0.05
95719647|NCT01932801|191408937|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.23||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.06|||z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control (one of three dummy-coded variables) during treatment period|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.06|-.52|.19
95719648|NCT01932801|191408938|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.347||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|complete omnibus model statistics: χ2(20, N=308) = 21.89, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .02, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.347
95719649|NCT01932801|191408938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-2.22||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-1.06||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-1.06|-3.39|.002
95719650|NCT01932801|191408938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.82||||0.208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.89|0.25||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||.25|-1.89|.208
95719651|NCT01932801|191408938|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-1.58||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|-0.42||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.42|-2.73|.025
95719652|NCT01932801|191408939|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.028||||||"p value reflects omnibus model close fit"|Chi-squared|χ2(13, N=308) = 24.34, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .03||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.028
95719653|NCT01932801|191408939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.42||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.09|-0.76||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.76|-8.09|.047
95719654|NCT01932801|191408939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-5.95||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.72|-2.19||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-2.19|-9.72|.009
95719655|NCT01932801|191408939|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-4.12||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.88|-0.36||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|z||Linear effects of HaRT-A only compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model. For more familiar formats, please see the related publications page, especially see https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30489-2"||-.36|-7.88|.072
95719656|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.6
95728851|NCT00135707|191427535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95728852|NCT00135707|191427536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.21
95728853|NCT00135707|191427537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.97||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.09|||Chi-squared|||\<37 weeks' gestation||1.09|0.87|0.63
95728854|NCT00135707|191427537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.86||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.06|||Chi-squared|||\<32 weeks' gestation||1.06|0.69|0.16
95719657|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.83|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.83
95719658|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol frequency.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.89
95719659|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
95719660|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.87|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.87
95719661|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.002|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02||0.91|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all four treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.91
95719662|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.38||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the XR-NTX vs control group effects on alcohol related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.54
95719663|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the placebo vs control effects on alcohol-related harm.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
95719664|NCT01932801|191408940|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.29||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails all 4 treatment arms; however, this specific contrast is for the HaRT-A vs control group effects on alcohol related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of readiness for change slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.84
95719665|NCT01932801|191408941|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9||0.65|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on alcohol frequency and alcohol craving (PACS).|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.65
95719666|NCT01932801|191408941|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.04||0.46|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails 2 treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol quantity.|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of the alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.46
95728855|NCT00135707|191427538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.92||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.19|||Chi-squared|||||1.19|0.72|0.53
95719667|NCT01932801|191408941|OTHER|Mediation tested using the product of coefficients (a\*b) approach (MacKinnon et al, 2002).|Slope|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.45|TWO_SIDED||||||z||We used growth modeling to test mediators of the treatment effect, truncated for during-treatment effects. This analysis entails two treatment arms: XR-NTX vs placebo effects on craving and alcohol-related harm|This was a mediation analysis (i.e., multiplication of regression coefficients for the regression of alcohol craving (PACS) slope on group (a-paths) and for the regression of alcohol outcome slopes on readiness (b-paths), where a\*b is considered the mediated effect) for during-treatment effects (baseline to week 12).||||.45
95719668|NCT01932801|191408942|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95||||||Denotes exact fit for the omnibus model|Chi-squared|Complete omnibus model : χ2(12, N=308) = .75, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA \< .001, SRMR = .008||"We used piecewise growth modeling to test various treatment arm effects on this outcome. Because there is currently no appropriate way to report on piecewise growth models in clinicaltrials.gov reporting tables, we are reporting the omnibus model statistics on this page called analysis 1 and select parameters representing certain treatment arm effects on subsequent analysis pages. However, we note these do not constitute separate analyses, but various parameters within a single SEM model."||||.95
95719669|NCT01932801|191408942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.16||Linear effects of HaRT-A+XR-NTX compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)|Chi-squared|||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.16|-.24|.75
95719670|NCT01932801|191408942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.15||||0.2|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.04|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A+placebo compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.04|-.34|.20
95719671|NCT01932801|191408942|SUPERIORITY||Slope|0.1||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.29|||Chi-squared|Linear effects of HaRT-A compared to services-as usual control during treatment period (one of three dummy-coded variables)||"These are select parameters for treatment arm effects that are subordinate to the omnibus model statistics in the table called analysis 1. These are not separate analyses, but select parameters within a single SEM model."||.29|-.09|.39
95719672|NCT01932801|191408943|SUPERIORITY||incident rate ratio|0.98|||>|0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.16|||z|||We conducted a generalized estimating equations analysis (negative binomial distribution, log link) to test whether number of adverse events reported increased from baseline to the follow-ups differentially across placebo and XR-NTX groups||1.16|.83|>.84
95719673|NCT00826176|191408944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|6.4||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
95719674|NCT00826176|191408944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||upper limit of tolerance interval (min.)|3.2||||||95.0|||||||The tolerance interval (TI) refers to a fixed proportion (in this trial set to 95%) of the population with a stated confidence (in this trial, 95%). Efficacy was to be claimed in case the upper limit of TI was below the prespecified margin of 10 min.|||||
95719675|NCT00826176|191408944|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence between the two subject populations was to be claimed in the event that the two-sided 95% confidence interval was entirely within the interval ranging from -60 to +60 seconds.|median difference (seconds)|49.0||||||95.0|30.0|72.0|||||The estimated median difference (Chinese minus Caucasian) in time to recovery of the T4/T1 ratio to 0.9.|||72|30|
95719676|NCT01461369|191408948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.806||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.17|-4.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.19|-19.17|0.0024
95719677|NCT01461369|191408948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.739||0.0795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.94|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.78|-13.94|0.0795
95719678|NCT01461369|191408949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-15.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.552|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.82|-8.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-8.83|-22.82|<0.0001
95719679|NCT01461369|191408949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.481||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.66|-2.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.95|-16.66|0.0052
95719680|NCT01461369|191408950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.776||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.87|-4.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.99|-19.87|0.0011
95719681|NCT01461369|191408950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.707||0.1349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.86|1.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.74|-12.86|0.1349
95719682|NCT01461369|191408951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-13.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.377||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-6.59|||ANCOVA|||||-6.59|-19.89|0.0001
95719683|NCT01461369|191408951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.313||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|-0.96|||ANCOVA|||||-0.96|-14.00|0.0248
95719684|NCT01461369|191408952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.396||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.32|-5.94|||ANCOVA|||||-5.94|-19.32|0.0002
95719685|NCT01461369|191408952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.339||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.6|-0.45|||ANCOVA|||||-0.45|-13.60|0.0363
95719686|NCT01461369|191408953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.441||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.16|-3.6|||ANCOVA|||||-3.60|-17.16|0.0028
95719687|NCT01461369|191408953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.385||0.1081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.13|1.21|||ANCOVA|||||1.21|-12.13|0.1081
95719688|NCT00568776|191409035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.14|0.71
95719689|NCT00568776|191409036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.33|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.22|-6.33|0.18
95719690|NCT00568776|191409037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.36|-0.06|0.17
95728856|NCT00135707|191427539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95719691|NCT00568776|191409038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.41|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.62|-5.41|0.49
95719692|NCT00568776|191409039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.2||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.73|5.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.03|-3.73|0.77
95719693|NCT00568776|191409040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.47||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.63|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.21|-0.63|0.54
95719694|NCT00568776|191409041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.24||0.65|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.43|5.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.46|-3.43|0.65
95719695|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.976|6.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||6.255|5.976|<.0001
95719696|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|6.073|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.963|6.183|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||6.183|5.963|<.0001
95719697|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.736|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.605|5.868|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.868|5.605|<.0001
95719698|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.792|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.687|5.897|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.897|5.687|<.0001
95719699|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.835|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.701|5.969|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.969|5.701|<.0001
95719700|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.799|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.694|5.904|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.904|5.694|<.0001
95719701|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.881|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.713|5.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.048|4.713|<.0001
95719702|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.844|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.711|4.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||4.977|4.711|<.0001
95728857|NCT00135707|191427540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.27|||Chi-squared|||||1.27|0.79|0.98
95728858|NCT00135707|191427541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.07|||Chi-squared|||||1.07|0.81|0.32
95719703|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.185|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.021|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.350|5.021|<.0001
95719704|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.933|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.801|5.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.066|4.801|<.0001
95719705|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|5.014|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.852|5.175|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||5.175|4.852|<.0001
95719706|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|4.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.763|5.02|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||5.020|4.763|<.0001
95719707|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.646|-0.112|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.112|-0.646|0.0013
95719708|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.496|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.065|-0.496|0.0034
95719709|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.281||||0.0354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.549|-0.012|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.012|-0.549|0.0354
95719710|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.274||||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.489|-0.059|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.059|-0.489|0.0044
95719711|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.930|-1.539|<.0001
95728859|NCT00135707|191427542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.58|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.15|||Chi-squared|||||1.15|0.92|0.58
95728860|NCT00135707|191427543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.3|||Chi-squared|||||1.30|0.83|0.75
95728861|NCT00135707|191427544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.54|||Chi-squared|||||2.54|0.29|0.78
95719712|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.229|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.475|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.983|-1.475|<.0001
95719713|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||-0.630|-1.230|<.0001
95719714|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.383|-0.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.896|-1.383|<.0001
95719715|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.723|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.436|1.009|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.009|0.436|<.0001
95719716|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.901|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.667|1.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.134|0.667|<.0001
95719717|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.821|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|1.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||1.109|0.533|<.0001
95719718|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.907|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.675|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||1.140|.675|<.0001
95719719|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133||||0.8291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.188|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.188|-0.453|.8291
95719720|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.048||||0.9997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.308|0.213|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.213|-0.308|0.9997
95728862|NCT00135707|191427545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.3||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.23|||Chi-squared|||||2.23|0.76|0.34
95728863|NCT00135707|191427546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.71||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.6|||Chi-squared|||||1.60|0.32|0.41
95719721|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.172||||0.5755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.145|0.488|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.488|-0.145|0.5755
95719722|NCT03692078|191409042|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|0.042||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNAL amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.301|-0.217|0.9999
95719723|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.629|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.317|2.94|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.940|2.317|<.0001
95719724|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.632|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.321|2.943|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.943|2.321|<.0001
95719725|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.714|2.298|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.298|1.714|<.0001
95719726|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.143|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.847|2.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.440|1.847|<.0001
95719727|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|1.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.284|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||2.284|1.690|<.0001
95719728|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|2.261|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.964|2.559|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||2.559|1.964|<.0001
95719729|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.263||||0.1658|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.635|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.109|-0.635|0.1658
95728864|NCT00135707|191427547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.18||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.3|||Chi-squared|||||2.30|0.61|0.62
95728865|NCT00135707|191427548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.85||||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.48|||Chi-squared|||||1.48|0.49|0.56
95728866|NCT00135707|191427549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95719730|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.659||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.036|-0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.282|-1.036|0.0007
95719731|NCT03692078|191409044|NON_INFERIORITY|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.302||||0.1055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.667|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.064|-0.667|0.1055
95719732|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.243||||0.204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.617|0.132|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.132|-0.617|0.2040
95719733|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.244||||0.1829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.603|0.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)"||0.116|-0.603|0.1829
95719734|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.248||||0.1801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||0.115|-0.612|0.1801
95719735|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.622||||0.0391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.225|-0.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.019|-1.225|0.0391
95719736|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.1864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.096|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.119|-1.096|0.1864
95719737|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
95719738|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.642||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.246|-0.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|"Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7.~Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)"||-0.037|-1.246|0.0310
95728867|NCT00135707|191427550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.26|||Chi-squared|||||1.26|0.82|0.86
95728868|NCT00135707|191427551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.12||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.89|0.32
95728869|NCT01681030|191427552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|0.998|||||CI for EVARREST Group|||0.998|0.640|
95719739|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|-2.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.202|-3.580|<.0001
95719740|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.291|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.985|-2.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.597|-3.985|<.0001
95719741|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.605|-2.255|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.255|-3.605|<.0001
95719742|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.875|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.559|-2.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.190|-3.559|<.0001
95719743|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.604|2.896|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.896|1.604|<.0001
95719744|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.737|3.046|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.046|1.737|<.0001
95719745|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.231|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.582|2.879|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.879|1.582|<.0001
95719746|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.509|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.857|3.162|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.162|1.857|<.0001
95719747|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.019||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.743|0.705|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.705|-0.743|1.0000
95728870|NCT01681030|191427552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.59|||||CI for Topical Hemostat group|||0.590|0.133|
95728871|NCT01681030|191427552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion|0.455|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.167|0.766|||||CI for Standard of Care group|||0.766|0.167|
95719748|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.411||||0.5639|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.142|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.320|-1.142|0.5639
95719749|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.771|0.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.656|-0.771|1.0000
95719750|NCT03692078|191409044|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.006||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.721|0.732|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NNN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.732|-0.721|1.0000
95719751|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.691|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.519|2.863|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.863|2.519|<.0001
95719752|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.718|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.89|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.890|2.546|<.0001
95719753|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.252|2.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.577|2.252|<.0001
95719754|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.276|2.603|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.603|2.276|<.0001
95719755|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.583|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.417|2.748|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.748|2.417|<.0001
95719756|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.591|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.426|2.757|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.757|2.426|<.0001
95728922|NCT05918952|191427783|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.01||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|95.17||Low sample size and power. Model considered unstable and potentially overfit. Results not reliable.|Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher VFS scores will be associated with increased likelihood of completion of a follow-up test.||95.17|1.27|0.029
95719757|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.901|1.314|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.314|0.901|<.0001
95719758|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.225|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.225|0.810|<.0001
95719759|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.828|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.624|2.031|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.031|1.624|<.0001
95719760|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.782|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.577|1.988|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.988|1.577|<.0001
95719761|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.350|-0.750|<.0001
95719762|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.051|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.650|-1.051|<.0001
95719763|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.276||||0.1608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.057|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.057|-0.609|0.1608
95719764|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.278||||0.1575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.613|0.1575
95719765|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.108||||0.9728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.226|-0.442|0.9728
95728923|NCT05918952|191427784|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.4|||Regression, Logistic|||Hypothesis: Higher Practical Support (PS) scores will be associated with greater likelihood of COVID-19 testing uptake.||2.40|1.19|0.003
95728924|NCT04680052|191427786|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.434|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|0.58|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.580|0.324|<0.0001
95719766|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.127||||0.9262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.461|0.208|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.208|-0.461|0.9262
95719767|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.584|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.963|-1.204|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.204|-1.963|<.0001
95719768|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.701|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.081|-1.32|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.320|-2.081|<.0001
95719769|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|-0.489|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.489|-1.237|<.0001
95719770|NCT03692078|191409046|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.312|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: NE amount excreted (mg/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.560|-1.312|<.0001
95719771|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|3.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.630|3.310|<.0001
95719772|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.508|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.348|3.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.668|3.348|<.0001
95719773|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.891|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.741|3.042|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.042|2.741|<.0001
95719774|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.873|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.719|3.027|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.027|2.719|<.0001
95728925|NCT04680052|191427788|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.383|0.653|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.653|0.383|<0.0001
95719775|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.775|3.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.082|2.775|<.0001
95719776|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.742|3.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.049|2.742|<.0001
95719777|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.864|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.055|0.672|<.0001
95719778|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.786|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.592|0.981|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.981|0.592|<.0001
95719779|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.641|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.452|0.829|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.829|0.452|<.0001
95719780|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.68|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.680|0.290|<.0001
95719781|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.747|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.932|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.932|0.562|<.0001
95719782|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.645|1.021|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.021|0.645|<.0001
95719783|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.579|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.889|-0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.268|-0.889|<.0001
95728926|NCT04680052|191427789|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.13|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.13|1.04|0.0286
95728927|NCT04680052|191427791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.587||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.306|1.128|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.128|0.306|0.1061
95719784|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.635|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.949|-0.321|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.321|-0.949|<.0001
95719785|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.542|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.853|-0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.231|-0.853|<.0001
95719786|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.924|-0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.301|-0.924|<.0001
95719787|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.959|-2.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.253|-2.959|<.0001
95719788|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.722|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.078|-2.366|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.366|-3.078|<.0001
95719789|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.177|-2.481|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.481|-3.177|<.0001
95719790|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.024|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.378|-2.669|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.669|-3.378|<.0001
95719791|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.144|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.811|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.811|<.0001
95719792|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.701|2.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.379|1.701|<.0001
95728928|NCT04680052|191427792|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.0221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.03|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.03|1.06|0.0221
95719793|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.181|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.846|2.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.516|1.846|<.0001
95719794|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.063|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.725|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.400|1.725|<.0001
95719795|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.117||||0.9705|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.256|0.49|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.490|-0.256|0.9705
95719796|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.425|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.425|1.0000
95719797|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.106||||0.9835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.475|0.263|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.263|-0.475|0.9835
95719798|NCT03692078|191409048|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.348||||0.0854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.725|0.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-AN amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.029|-0.725|0.0854
95719799|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.028|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.901|3.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.154|2.901|<.0001
95719800|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.034|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.927|3.141|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.141|2.927|<.0001
95719801|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.603|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.483|2.722|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.722|2.483|<.0001
95728929|NCT04680052|191427793|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.4093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.33|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.33|0.61|0.4093
95719802|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.567|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.465|2.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.670|2.465|<.0001
95719803|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.716|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.595|2.838|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.838|2.595|<.0001
95719804|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.643|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.541|2.746|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.746|2.541|<.0001
95719805|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.235|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.083|1.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.386|1.083|<.0001
95719806|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.045|1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.304|1.045|<.0001
95719807|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.219|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.368|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.368|1.070|<.0001
95719808|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.046|1.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.306|1.046|<.0001
95719809|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|1.322|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.322|1.029|<.0001
95719810|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.174|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.049|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.300|1.049|<.0001
95728930|NCT04680052|191427794|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.2874|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|3.47|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.47|0.69|0.2874
95719811|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.425|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.181|-0.669|<.0001
95719812|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.677|-0.256|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.256|-0.677|<.0001
95719813|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.311||||0.0052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.556|-0.066|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.066|-0.556|0.0052
95719814|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.391|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.182|-0.600|<.0001
95719815|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.793|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.516|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.516|-2.070|<.0001
95719816|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.859|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.098|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.098|<.0001
95719817|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.809|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.082|-1.535|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.535|-2.082|<.0001
95719818|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.858|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.096|-1.621|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.621|-2.096|<.0001
95719819|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.427|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.688|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.688|1.166|<.0001
95728931|NCT04680052|191427795|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|3.02|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.02|1.30|0.0014
95719820|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.393|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.166|1.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.620|1.166|<.0001
95719821|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.541|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.278|1.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.803|1.278|<.0001
95719822|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.469|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.243|1.695|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.695|1.243|<.0001
95719823|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.059||||0.9987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.351|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.351|-0.233|0.9987
95719824|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.253|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.253|1.0000
95719825|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.246|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.332|-0.246|0.9999
95719826|NCT03692078|191409050|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.002||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.251|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 4-ABP amount excreted (ng/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.251|1.0000
95719827|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.283|2.531|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.531|2.283|<.0001
95719828|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.398|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.253|2.543|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.543|2.253|<.0001
95728932|NCT04680052|191427796|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.74|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.74|1.29|0.0009
95719829|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.303|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.187|2.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.420|2.187|<.0001
95719830|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.112|2.389|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.389|2.112|<.0001
95719831|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.285|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.166|2.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.404|2.166|<.0001
95719832|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.272|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.133|2.412|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.412|2.133|<.0001
95719833|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.992|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.844|2.14|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.140|1.844|<.0001
95719834|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.894|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.069|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.069|1.719|<.0001
95719835|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.102|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.955|2.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.248|1.955|<.0001
95719836|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.075|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|2.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.250|1.900|<.0001
95719837|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.746|2.033|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.033|1.746|<.0001
95728933|NCT04680052|191427798|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.473|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.678|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.678|0.330|<0.0001
95719838|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.944|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.775|2.114|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.114|1.775|<.0001
95719839|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.8674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.345|0.137|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.137|-0.345|0.8674
95719840|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.148||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.429|0.133|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.133|-0.429|0.6519
95719841|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.122||||0.7301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.363|0.119|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.119|-0.363|0.7301
95719842|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.126||||0.8076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.154|-0.405|0.8076
95719843|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.415||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.689|-0.142|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.142|-0.689|0.0004
95719844|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.822|-0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.185|-0.822|0.0002
95719845|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.306||||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.578|-0.034|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.034|-0.578|0.0183
95719846|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.641|-0.005|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.005|-0.641|0.0443
95728934|NCT04680052|191427800|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.55||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.397|0.763|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.763|0.397|0.0003
95719847|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.414||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.155|0.672|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.672|0.155|0.0002
95719848|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.306||||0.0454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.004|0.608|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.608|0.004|0.0454
95719849|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.396||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.136|0.655|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.655|0.136|0.0004
95719850|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.328||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.026|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.630|0.026|0.0261
95719851|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.102||||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.187|0.392|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.392|-0.187|0.9455
95719852|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.387|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.387|0.9999
95719853|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.212||||0.2633|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.074|0.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.498|-0.074|0.2633
95719854|NCT03692078|191409052|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.13||||0.8769|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.205|0.465|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: HEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.465|-0.205|0.8769
95719855|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.315|5.52|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.520|5.315|<.0001
95728935|NCT04680052|191427802|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.5837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.476|1.519|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||1.519|0.476|0.5837
95719856|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.436|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.324|5.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.548|5.324|<.0001
95719857|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.957|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.86|5.053|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.053|4.860|<.0001
95719858|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.974|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.867|5.081|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.081|4.867|<.0001
95719859|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.984|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.886|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||5.082|4.886|<.0001
95719860|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.975|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.868|5.082|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||5.082|4.868|<.0001
95719861|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.367|3.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.612|3.367|<.0001
95719862|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.347|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.212|3.483|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.483|3.212|<.0001
95719863|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.418|3.66|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.660|3.418|<.0001
95719864|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.419|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.284|3.554|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.554|3.284|<.0001
95728936|NCT04680052|191427804|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.407|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.563|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.563|0.294|<0.0001
95719865|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.373|3.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (PP Population)||3.611|3.373|<.0001
95719866|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.437|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.306|3.568|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (PP Population)||3.568|3.306|<.0001
95719867|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.262|-0.660|<.0001
95719868|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.679|<.0001
95719869|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.433|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.633|-0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-0.233|-0.633|<.0001
95719870|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.678|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-0.244|-0.678|<.0001
95719871|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.928|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.154|-1.701|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.701|-2.154|<.0001
95719872|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.089|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.336|-1.842|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.842|-2.336|<.0001
95719873|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.102|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (PP Population)||-1.656|-2.102|<.0001
95728937|NCT04680052|191427806|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.481|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.357|0.647|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.647|0.357|<0.0001
95719874|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.262|-1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (PP Population)||-1.772|-2.262|<.0001
95719875|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.465|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.679|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.679|1.250|<.0001
95719876|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.537|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.303|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.303|<.0001
95719877|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.492|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.277|1.707|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||1.707|1.277|<.0001
95719878|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.538|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.304|1.772|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||1.772|1.304|<.0001
95719879|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.003||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.242|0.237|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.237|-0.242|1.0000
95719880|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.9399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.351|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.172|-0.351|0.9399
95719881|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.047||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.283|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (PP Population)||0.283|-0.190|0.9993
95719882|NCT03692078|191409054|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.018||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.278|0.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: CEMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (PP Population)||0.242|-0.278|1.0000
95728938|NCT04680052|191427807|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.43|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||3.43|1.43|0.0003
95719883|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.805|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.639|1.971|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.971|1.639|<.0001
95719884|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.788|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.622|1.954|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.954|1.622|<.0001
95719885|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.145|1.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.462|1.145|<.0001
95719886|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.304|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.134|1.447|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.447|1.134|<.0001
95719887|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.353|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.194|1.513|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.513|1.194|<.0001
95719888|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.313|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.153|1.472|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.472|1.153|<.0001
95719889|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.956|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.155|-0.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.756|-1.155|<.0001
95719890|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.315|-0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.913|-1.315|<.0001
95719891|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.999|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.195|-0.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.803|-1.195|<.0001
95728939|NCT04680052|191427808|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.86|||stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The strata information was based on the data obtained from the interactive response technology that was used for randomization.|||2.86|1.33|0.0005
95719892|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.164|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.364|-0.964|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.964|-1.364|<.0001
95719893|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.969|-0.582|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.582|-0.969|<.0001
95719894|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.795|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.600|-0.990|<.0001
95719895|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.514||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.836|-0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.193|-0.836|0.0002
95719896|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.808|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.160|-0.808|0.0005
95719897|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.452||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.775|-0.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.128|-0.775|0.0014
95719898|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.475||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.799|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.799|0.0007
95719899|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.76|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.127|-2.394|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.394|-3.127|<.0001
95719900|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.271|-2.533|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.533|-3.271|<.0001
95728940|NCT04680052|191427810|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.461|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.312|0.681|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||0.681|0.312|<0.0001
95719901|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.165|-2.443|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.443|-3.165|<.0001
95719902|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.952|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.317|-2.587|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.587|-3.317|<.0001
95719903|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.066|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.719|2.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.413|1.719|<.0001
95719904|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.748|2.449|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.449|1.748|<.0001
95719905|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.129|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.779|2.478|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.478|1.779|<.0001
95719906|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.107|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.756|2.459|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.459|1.756|<.0001
95719907|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.7678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.569|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.209|-0.569|0.7678
95719908|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.319||||0.1691|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|0.073|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.073|-0.711|0.1691
95719909|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.606|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.158|-0.606|0.5178
95728941|NCT04680052|191427812|SUPERIORITY|Only primary and key secondary endpoints were formally tested; this endpoint was not formally tested.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.192||||0.7469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.409|3.475|||stratified Log Rank||The hazard ratio was estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model.|||3.475|0.409|0.7469
95719910|NCT03692078|191409056|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.369||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.757|0.018|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: S-PMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.018|-0.757|0.0699
95719911|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.177|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.062|6.292|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.292|6.062|<.0001
95719912|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.197|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.082|6.312|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.312|6.082|<.0001
95719913|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.798|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.69|5.906|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.906|5.690|<.0001
95719914|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.71|5.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.930|5.710|<.0001
95719915|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.863|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.753|5.974|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.974|5.753|<.0001
95719916|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.706|5.927|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.927|5.706|<.0001
95719917|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.947|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.809|5.084|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.084|4.809|<.0001
95719918|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.774|5.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.052|4.774|<.0001
95728942|NCT00755326|191427834|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95719919|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.862|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.727|4.998|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.998|4.727|<.0001
95719920|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.938|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.799|5.076|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.076|4.799|<.0001
95719921|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.826|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.693|4.959|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.959|4.693|<.0001
95719922|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.902|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.767|5.037|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.037|4.767|<.0001
95719923|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.379|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.602|-0.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.156|-0.602|<.0001
95719924|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.376|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.601|-0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.152|-0.601|<.0001
95719925|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.314||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.537|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.090|-0.537|0.0014
95719926|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.381|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|-0.157|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.157|-0.604|<.0001
95719927|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.484|-0.977|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.977|-1.484|<.0001
95719928|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.284|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.539|-1.029|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.029|-1.539|<.0001
95719929|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.564|-1.065|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.065|-1.564|<.0001
95719930|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.259|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.512|-1.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.006|-1.512|<.0001
95719931|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.972|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|1.211|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.211|0.732|<.0001
95719932|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.918|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.676|1.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.161|0.676|<.0001
95719933|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.037|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.797|1.278|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.278|0.797|<.0001
95719934|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.914|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.672|1.156|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.156|0.672|<.0001
95719935|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.121||||0.7939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.147|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.388|-0.147|0.7939
95719936|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.281|-0.260|1.0000
95719937|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.228|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.228|1.0000
95719938|NCT03692078|191409058|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.036||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.233|0.305|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HMPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.305|-0.233|1.0000
95719939|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.367|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.25|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.250|<.0001
95719940|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|7.368|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.251|7.485|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.485|7.251|<.0001
95719941|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.883|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.773|6.994|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.994|6.773|<.0001
95719942|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.892|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.78|7.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.004|6.780|<.0001
95719943|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.829|7.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||7.054|6.829|<.0001
95719944|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.896|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.784|7.008|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||7.008|6.784|<.0001
95719945|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.879|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.739|6.019|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.019|5.739|<.0001
95719946|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.804|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.662|5.946|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.946|5.662|<.0001
95719947|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.916|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.778|6.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.054|5.778|<.0001
95719948|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.917|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.775|6.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.058|5.775|<.0001
95719949|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.017|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.881|6.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||6.153|5.881|<.0001
95719950|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|6.012|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.874|6.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||6.149|5.874|<.0001
95719951|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.484|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.711|-0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.257|-0.711|<.0001
95719952|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.476|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.705|-0.248|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.248|-0.705|<.0001
95719953|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.426|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.654|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.654|<.0001
95719954|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.472|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.701|-0.244|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.244|-0.701|<.0001
95719955|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.489|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.747|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.747|<.0001
95719956|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.564|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.825|-1.304|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.304|-1.825|<.0001
95719957|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.451|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.706|-1.197|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.197|-1.706|<.0001
95719958|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.71|-1.193|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.193|-1.710|<.0001
95719959|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.866|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.622|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.110|0.622|<.0001
95719960|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.88|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.633|1.128|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.128|0.633|<.0001
95719961|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.924|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.169|0.680|<.0001
95719962|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.884|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.638|1.131|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.131|0.638|<.0001
95719963|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.138||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.411|0.134|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.134|-0.411|0.6800
95719964|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.208||||0.2371|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.483|0.068|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.068|-0.483|0.2371
95719965|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.169|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.169|-0.371|0.9133
95719966|NCT03692078|191409060|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||0.9432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 3-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.180|-0.370|0.9432
95719967|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.513|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.383|4.643|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.643|4.383|<.0001
95719968|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.491|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.371|4.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.610|4.371|<.0001
95719969|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.027|4.272|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.272|4.027|<.0001
95719970|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.128|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.014|4.242|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.242|4.014|<.0001
95719971|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.176|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.051|4.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.301|4.051|<.0001
95719972|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.024|4.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.254|4.024|<.0001
95719973|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.997|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.842|3.153|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.153|2.842|<.0001
95719974|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.994|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.849|3.138|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.138|2.849|<.0001
95719975|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.317|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.164|3.47|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.470|3.164|<.0001
95719976|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.342|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.199|3.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.486|3.199|<.0001
95719977|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.036|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.886|3.187|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.187|2.886|<.0001
95719978|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.159|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.019|3.299|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.299|3.019|<.0001
95719979|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.363||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|-0.113|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.113|-0.613|0.0008
95719980|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.362||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.595|-0.129|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.129|-0.595|0.0003
95719981|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.337||||0.0026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|-0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.085|-0.588|0.0026
95719982|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.351||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.584|-0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.118|-0.584|0.0004
95719983|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.515|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-1.23|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.230|-1.800|<.0001
95719984|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.497|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.231|-1.762|<.0001
95719985|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.477|-0.915|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.915|-1.477|<.0001
95719986|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.148|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|-0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.886|-1.410|<.0001
95719987|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.113|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.844|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.844|<.0001
95719988|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.969|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.221|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.221|0.717|<.0001
95719989|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.139|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.869|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.410|0.869|<.0001
95719990|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.728|1.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.231|0.728|<.0001
95719991|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.039||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.340|1.0000
95719992|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.166||||0.5184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.447|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.115|-0.447|0.5184
95719993|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.017|0.578|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.578|-0.017|0.0743
95719994|NCT03692078|191409062|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.183||||0.3889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.095|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-HPMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|-0.095|0.3889
95719995|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.264|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.155|5.373|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.373|5.155|<.0001
95719996|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.204|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.106|5.302|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.302|5.106|<.0001
95719997|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.005|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.902|5.108|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.108|4.902|<.0001
95719998|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.958|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.864|5.051|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.051|4.864|<.0001
95719999|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.114|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.009|5.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||5.219|5.009|<.0001
95720000|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|5.052|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.958|5.146|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||5.146|4.958|<.0001
95720001|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.407|4.671|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.671|4.407|<.0001
95720002|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.415|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.295|4.534|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.534|4.295|<.0001
95720003|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.302|4.56|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.560|4.302|<.0001
95720004|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.361|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.243|4.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.480|4.243|<.0001
95720005|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.486|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.359|4.612|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||4.612|4.359|<.0001
95720006|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.473|4.703|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||4.703|4.473|<.0001
95720007|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.259||||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.469|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.049|-0.469|0.0073
95720008|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.246||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.438|-0.055|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.055|-0.438|0.0041
95728943|NCT02173704|191427845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|Single binomial proportion|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|97.2|100.0|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis 5/99 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain 5/99 was 99%.||100|97.2|
95720009|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.15||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.361|0.061|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.061|-0.361|0.3080
95720010|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.152||||0.1982|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.343|0.039|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.039|-0.343|0.1982
95720011|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.725|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.965|-0.486|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.486|-0.965|<.0001
95720012|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.008|-0.571|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.571|-1.008|<.0001
95720013|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.069|-0.597|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.597|-1.069|<.0001
95720014|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.843|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.059|-0.627|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.627|-1.059|<.0001
95720015|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.294|0.745|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.745|0.294|<.0001
95720016|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.163|0.577|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.577|0.163|<.0001
95720017|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.628|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.402|0.855|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.855|0.402|<.0001
95720018|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.257|0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.670|0.257|<.0001
95720019|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.053||||0.9984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.306|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.306|-0.200|0.9984
95720020|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.2491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.405|0.058|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.058|-0.405|0.2491
95720021|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.054||||0.9977|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.304|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.195|-0.304|0.9977
95720022|NCT03692078|191409064|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.227||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.456|0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: AAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.003|-0.456|0.0554
95720023|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.294|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.208|3.379|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.379|3.208|<.0001
95720024|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.262|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.176|3.348|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.348|3.176|<.0001
95720025|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.039|3.202|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.202|3.039|<.0001
95720026|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.099|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.017|3.181|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.181|3.017|<.0001
95720027|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.182|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|3.264|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.264|3.100|<.0001
95720028|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.149|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.066|3.231|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.231|3.066|<.0001
95720029|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.777|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.673|2.881|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.881|2.673|<.0001
95720030|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.651|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.546|2.756|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.756|2.546|<.0001
95720031|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.618|2.823|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.823|2.618|<.0001
95720032|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.649|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|2.753|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.753|2.544|<.0001
95720033|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.751|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.651|2.851|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.851|2.651|<.0001
95720034|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.819|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.718|2.919|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.919|2.718|<.0001
95720035|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.173||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.006|-0.340|0.0377
95728944|NCT02173704|191427845|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Sufficiency: The criterion for a sufficient immune response was that the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the percentage of subjects with hSBA titer ≥ 1:5 should be ≥ 70%.|single binomial proportion|79.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.4|85.8|||Exact test of binomial proportion|||Statistical analysis NZ98/254 strain: The power to reject the null hypothesis associated with the primary objective for strain NZ98/25 was 94%.||85.8|71.4|
95720036|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.006|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.006|-0.331|0.0643
95720037|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.3875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.279|0.056|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.056|-0.279|0.3875
95720038|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.113||||0.3725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.054|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.054|-0.280|0.3725
95720039|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.516|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.706|-0.327|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.327|-0.706|<.0001
95720040|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.611|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.802|-0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.420|-0.802|<.0001
95720041|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.386|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.386|-0.760|<.0001
95720042|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.613|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.803|-0.423|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.423|-0.803|<.0001
95720043|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.369|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.548|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.548|0.190|<.0001
95720044|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.099|0.462|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.462|0.099|0.0003
95728965|NCT00384033|191427899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.215|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||1.50|-0.30|0.215
95720045|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.431|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.251|0.611|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.611|0.251|<.0001
95720046|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.149|0.511|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.511|0.149|<.0001
95720047|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.026||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.176|0.228|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.228|-0.176|1.0000
95720048|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.168||||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.036|-0.371|0.1589
95720049|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.031||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.230|0.9999
95720050|NCT03692078|191409066|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17||||0.1453|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.372|0.032|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: GAMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.032|-0.372|0.1453
95720051|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.085|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.788|1.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.382|0.788|<.0001
95720052|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.104|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.807|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.400|0.807|<.0001
95720053|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.606|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.326|0.886|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.886|0.326|<.0001
95728966|NCT00384033|191427899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.3||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.30|0.40|0.005
95720054|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.476||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.192|0.76|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.760|0.192|0.0011
95720055|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.505||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.219|0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.790|0.219|0.0006
95720056|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.775|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.06|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.060|0.490|<.0001
95720057|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.116|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.472|-1.761|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.761|-2.472|<.0001
95720058|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.016|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.376|-1.656|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.656|-2.376|<.0001
95720059|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.605|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.958|-1.253|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.253|-1.958|<.0001
95720060|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.642|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.003|-1.282|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.282|-2.003|<.0001
95720061|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.578|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.922|-1.234|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.234|-1.922|<.0001
95720062|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.726|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.074|-1.378|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.378|-2.074|<.0001
95720063|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.479||||0.1579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.054|0.097|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.097|-1.054|0.1579
95720064|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.628||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.207|-0.048|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.048|-1.207|0.0260
95720065|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.58||||0.0483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.158|-0.003|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.003|-1.158|0.0483
95720066|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.329||||0.5842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.906|0.249|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.249|-0.906|0.5842
95720067|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.201|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.856|-2.546|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.546|-3.856|<.0001
95720068|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-3.119|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.779|-2.46|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.460|-3.779|<.0001
95720069|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.69|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.338|-2.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.043|-3.338|<.0001
95720070|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.746|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.402|-2.09|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.090|-3.402|<.0001
95728967|NCT00384033|191427899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|2.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D6 score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D6 score as the covariate.||2.10|0.20|0.024
95720071|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.565|2.803|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.803|1.565|<.0001
95720072|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.202|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.576|2.828|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.828|1.576|<.0001
95720073|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.083|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.461|2.704|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.704|1.461|<.0001
95720074|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.501|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.876|3.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.126|1.876|<.0001
95720075|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.538||||0.2085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.231|0.154|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.154|-1.231|0.2085
95720076|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.289||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.988|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.410|-0.988|0.8557
95720077|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.713|0.658|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.658|-0.713|1.0000
95720078|NCT03692078|191409068|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.084||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.612|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-MHBMA amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.780|-0.612|1.0000
95720079|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.081|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.679|1.484|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.484|0.679|<.0001
95720080|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.309|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|1.716|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.716|0.902|<.0001
95720081|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.996|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.615|1.377|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.377|0.615|<.0001
95720082|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.728||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|1.116|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.116|0.339|0.0003
95720083|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.987|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.593|1.381|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.381|0.593|<.0001
95720084|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.865|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.475|1.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.254|0.475|<.0001
95720085|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.436||||0.0768|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.047|0.92|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.920|-0.047|0.0768
95720086|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.091||||0.7155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.583|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.583|-0.400|0.7155
95720087|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.237||||0.3282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.239|0.713|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.713|-0.239|0.3282
95720088|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23||||0.3578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.262|-0.722|0.3578
95720089|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.1638|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.814|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.814|-0.138|0.1638
95720090|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05||||0.8384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.533|0.433|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.433|-0.533|0.8384
95720091|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.086||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.869|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.869|1.0000
95720092|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.581||||0.2808|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.377|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.214|-1.377|0.2808
95720093|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.095||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.887|0.698|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.698|-0.887|1.0000
95720094|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.444||||0.6018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.237|0.349|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.349|-1.237|0.6018
95720095|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.645||||0.2935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.536|0.246|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.246|-1.536|0.2935
95720096|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.218||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.315|-2.120|0.0023
95720097|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.844||||0.0669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.723|0.035|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.035|-1.723|0.0669
95720098|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.539|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.438|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.640|-2.438|<.0001
95720099|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.658||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.192|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.192|0.2120
95720100|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.778||||0.0993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.087|1.642|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.642|-0.087|0.0993
95720101|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.649||||0.2347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.211|1.509|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.509|-0.211|0.2347
95720102|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.915||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.052|1.778|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.778|0.052|0.0320
95720103|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.099||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.849|1.047|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.047|-0.849|1.0000
95720104|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.141||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.103|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.103|-0.820|0.9999
95720105|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.038|0.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.837|-1.038|1.0000
95720106|NCT03692078|191409070|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18||||0.9995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.139|0.779|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-OHFLe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.779|-1.139|0.9995
95720107|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.964|3.276|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||3.276|2.964|<.0001
95720108|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|3.141|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.953|3.328|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||3.328|2.953|<.0001
95720109|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.658|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.511|2.806|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.806|2.511|<.0001
95720110|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.638|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.458|2.817|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.817|2.458|<.0001
95720111|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.604|2.903|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||2.903|2.604|<.0001
95720112|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|2.652|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.471|2.832|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||2.832|2.471|<.0001
95720113|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.703|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.517|1.889|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.889|1.517|<.0001
95720114|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.637|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.41|1.865|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.865|1.410|<.0001
95720115|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.472|1.839|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.839|1.472|<.0001
95720116|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.485|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.259|1.711|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.711|1.259|<.0001
95720117|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.713|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.532|1.895|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.895|1.532|<.0001
95720118|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.617|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.397|1.837|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.837|1.397|<.0001
95720119|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.462||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.766|-0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.158|-0.766|0.0003
95720120|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.503||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.139|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.139|-0.867|0.0018
95720121|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.366||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.062|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.062|-0.670|0.0089
95720122|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.489||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.851|-0.126|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.126|-0.851|0.0025
95720123|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.417|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.762|-1.072|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.072|-1.762|<.0001
95720124|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.504|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.916|-1.091|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.091|-1.916|<.0001
95720125|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.464|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.804|-1.125|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.125|-1.804|<.0001
95720126|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.656|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.065|-1.247|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.247|-2.065|<.0001
95720127|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.945|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|1.273|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.273|0.617|<.0001
95720128|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.021|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.628|1.413|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.413|0.628|<.0001
95720129|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.041|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.712|1.369|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.369|0.712|<.0001
95720130|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.035|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.644|1.426|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.426|0.644|<.0001
95720131|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.01||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.376|0.355|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.355|-0.376|1.0000
95720132|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.417|0.457|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.457|-0.417|1.0000
95720133|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.058||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.418|0.303|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.303|-0.418|0.9999
95720134|NCT03692078|191409072|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.132||||0.9669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.566|0.301|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 2-Naphthol amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.301|-0.566|0.9669
95720135|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.442|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.604|-1.279|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.279|-1.604|<.0001
95720136|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|-1.251|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.251|-1.576|<.0001
95720137|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.754|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.907|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.600|-1.907|<.0001
95720138|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.816|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.972|-1.659|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.659|-1.972|<.0001
95720139|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.654|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|-1.498|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.498|-1.810|<.0001
95720140|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.829|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.986|-1.673|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.673|-1.986|<.0001
95720141|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.184|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.379|-1.989|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.989|-2.379|<.0001
95720142|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.468|-2.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.071|-2.468|<.0001
95720143|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.413|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.607|-2.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.219|-2.607|<.0001
95720144|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.349|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.549|-2.149|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-2.149|-2.549|<.0001
95720145|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.416|-2.038|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-2.038|-2.416|<.0001
95720146|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-2.154|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.345|-1.962|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.962|-2.345|<.0001
95720147|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.312||||0.0552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.004|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.004|-0.628|0.0552
95720148|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.402||||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.722|-0.083|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.083|-0.722|0.0055
95720149|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.212||||0.3834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.105|-0.530|0.3834
95720150|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.416||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.734|-0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.099|-0.734|0.0033
95720151|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.743|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.103|-0.382|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.382|-1.103|<.0001
95720152|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.857|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|-0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.493|-1.220|<.0001
95720153|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.971|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.327|-0.616|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.616|-1.327|<.0001
95720154|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.936|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.298|-0.574|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.574|-1.298|<.0001
95720155|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.473||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.133|0.813|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.813|0.133|0.0016
95720156|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.338||||0.0582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.007|0.683|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.683|-0.007|0.0582
95720157|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.573|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.232|0.914|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.914|0.232|<.0001
95720158|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.324||||0.0745|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.668|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.668|-0.020|0.0745
95720159|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.043||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.337|0.422|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.422|-0.337|1.0000
95720160|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.116||||0.9759|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.501|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.268|-0.501|0.9759
95720161|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.186||||0.7128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.565|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.565|0.7128
95720162|NCT03692078|191409074|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.195||||0.6816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHPhe amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.192|-0.582|0.6816
95720163|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.948|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.146|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.750|-1.146|<.0001
95720164|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.019|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.242|-0.796|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.796|-1.242|<.0001
95720165|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.172|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.358|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.358|<.0001
95720166|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.196|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.409|-0.983|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.983|-1.409|<.0001
95720167|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.049|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.239|-0.859|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.859|-1.239|<.0001
95720168|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.414|-0.986|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.986|-1.414|<.0001
95728968|NCT00384033|191427900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.17||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.17|-0.10|0.100
95720169|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.337|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.574|-1.099|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.099|-1.574|<.0001
95720170|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.345|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.616|-1.075|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.075|-1.616|<.0001
95720171|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.452|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.685|-1.219|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.219|-1.685|<.0001
95720172|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.608|-1.071|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.071|-1.608|<.0001
95720173|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.348|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.577|-1.118|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.118|-1.577|<.0001
95720174|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.227|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.488|-0.966|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.966|-1.488|<.0001
95720175|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.224||||0.5646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.607|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.160|-0.607|0.5646
95720176|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.177||||0.8765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.609|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.254|-0.609|0.8765
95720177|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.101||||0.9954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.488|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.287|-0.488|0.9954
95728969|NCT00384033|191427900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.42||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.42|0.16|0.014
95720178|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.181||||0.8665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.613|0.252|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.252|-0.613|0.8665
95720179|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.389||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.829|0.052|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.052|-0.829|0.1165
95720180|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.326||||0.3896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.821|0.168|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.168|-0.821|0.3896
95720181|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.504||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.934|-0.074|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.074|-0.934|0.0122
95720182|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.3938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.807|0.167|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.167|-0.807|0.3938
95720183|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.176||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.237|0.589|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.589|-0.237|0.8501
95720184|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.031||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.435|0.496|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.496|-0.435|1.0000
95720185|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.299||||0.2928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.117|0.715|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.715|-0.117|0.2928
95720186|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.027||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.493|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.493|-0.439|1.0000
95728970|NCT00384033|191427900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.72||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.38||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D energy subscale score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D energy score as the covariate.||1.38|0.06|0.032
95720187|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.011||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.453|0.475|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.475|-0.453|1.0000
95720188|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.118||||0.9966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.403|-0.640|0.9966
95720189|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.104||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.352|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.352|-0.560|0.9976
95720190|NCT03692078|191409076|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.112||||0.9976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.628|0.404|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: 1-OHP amount excreted (ug/24 hour) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.404|-0.628|0.9976
95720191|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|180.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|164.9|195.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||195.2|164.9|<.0001
95720192|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|181.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|165.9|196.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||196.2|165.9|<.0001
95720193|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|132.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|117.2|147.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||147.5|117.2|<.0001
95720194|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|137.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.1|152.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||152.5|122.1|<.0001
95720195|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|122.0|151.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||151.7|122.0|<.0001
95720196|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|150.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|136.0|165.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||165.7|136.0|<.0001
95720197|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|43.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|25.1|61.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||61.4|25.1|<.0001
95720198|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|61.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|43.2|80.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||80.1|43.2|<.0001
95720199|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|36.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.6|55.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||55.1|18.6|<.0001
95720200|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|35.5||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.7|54.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||54.3|16.7|0.0002
95720201|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|38.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.9|57.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||57.6|19.9|<.0001
95720202|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|44.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|26.0|63.8|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||63.8|26.0|<.0001
95720203|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-47.7||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.0|-17.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-17.4|-78.0|0.0002
95720204|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.8||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.1|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-13.4|-74.1|0.0009
95720205|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-43.2||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.2|-13.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-13.3|-73.2|0.0009
95720206|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-30.2||||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.2|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.3|-60.2|0.0466
95720207|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-136.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-170.4|-103.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-103.3|-170.4|<.0001
95720208|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-119.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-153.3|-85.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-85.5|-153.3|<.0001
95720209|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-143.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-176.6|-109.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-109.7|-176.6|<.0001
95720210|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-145.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-179.7|-111.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-111.4|-179.7|<.0001
95720211|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|93.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.0|127.2|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||127.2|60.0|<.0001
95720212|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|92.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|58.8|126.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||126.1|58.8|<.0001
95720213|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|98.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|64.6|131.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||131.5|64.6|<.0001
95720214|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|106.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.5|139.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||139.4|72.5|<.0001
95720215|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|4.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.0|40.9|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||40.9|-32.0|1.0000
95720216|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|16.8||||0.7714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.0|53.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||53.5|-20.0|0.7714
95720217|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.9||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.3|34.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||34.5|-38.3|1.0000
95720218|NCT03692078|191409078|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-9.4||||0.9926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.4|27.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Urine Mutagenicity (revertants/24 hours) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||27.6|-46.4|0.9926
95720219|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.872|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|1.935|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.935|1.810|<.0001
95720220|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.913|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.851|1.976|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 1 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.976|1.851|<.0001
95720221|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.467|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|1.525|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.525|1.408|<.0001
95720222|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.493|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.434|1.551|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.551|1.434|<.0001
95720223|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.49|1.609|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.609|1.490|<.0001
95720224|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.594|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.533|1.654|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.654|1.533|<.0001
95720225|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.557|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.482|0.631|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.631|0.482|<.0001
95720226|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.589|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.665|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.665|0.514|<.0001
95720227|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.533|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.461|0.605|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.605|0.461|<.0001
95720228|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.588|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.514|0.662|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.662|0.514|<.0001
95720229|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.508|0.652|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.652|0.508|<.0001
95720230|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.507|0.653|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is equal to zero on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 6 is NOT equal to zero on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.653|0.507|<.0001
95720231|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.406|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.526|-0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.285|-0.526|<.0001
95728971|NCT00384033|191427901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.50|-0.20|0.445
95720232|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.421|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.541|-0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.300|-0.541|<.0001
95720233|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.323|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.444|-0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-0.201|-0.444|<.0001
95720234|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.442|-0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-0.198|-0.442|<.0001
95720235|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.315|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.453|-1.178|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.178|-1.453|<.0001
95720236|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.324|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.463|-1.186|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.186|-1.463|<.0001
95720237|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.339|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.473|-1.205|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||-1.205|-1.473|<.0001
95720238|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-1.325|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.461|-1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 1 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 1 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||-1.190|-1.461|<.0001
95720239|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.887|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.757|1.016|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.016|0.757|<.0001
95720240|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.912|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.782|1.043|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 2 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.043|0.782|<.0001
95728972|NCT00384033|191427901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.70|-0.00|0.056
95720241|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||1.100|0.839|<.0001
95720242|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|1.013|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.882|1.145|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 3 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||1.145|0.882|<.0001
95720243|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.023||||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.168|0.122|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.122|-0.168|0.9999
95720244|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 4 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.155|-0.138|1.0000
95720245|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.047||||0.9577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.189|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 5. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 5. (mITT Population)||0.095|-0.189|0.9577
95720246|NCT03692078|191409080|EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)|Mean Difference (Net)|0.008||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.136|0.152|||Mixed Models Analysis||LSM calculated from the mixed model for repeated measures that includes study group, day, group by day interaction, and gender as fixed effects, log transformed baseline value as covariate, with a covariance matrix based on the AIC value.|Null hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is equal to Group 6 on Day 7. Alternate hypothesis: Whole Blood COHB (% Saturation) in Group 5 is NOT equal to Group 6 on Day 7. (mITT Population)||0.152|-0.136|1.0000
95720247|NCT01339858|191409108|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.32
95720248|NCT00996632|191409117|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that drainage volumes are not different||||<0.05
95720249|NCT00996632|191409118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||null hypothesis is that Stay in Hospital Days are not different||||0.05
95720250|NCT01563029|191409124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.6|22.4|||ANCOVA|Gate-keeper analysis||||22.4|9.6|<0.001
95720251|NCT01563029|191409124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|19.8|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 μg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparison.|||19.8|5.1|<0.001
95720252|NCT01563029|191409124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.1|26.9|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 100 µg versus (vs) placebo and FF 50 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for the average of the higher two doses of FF (FF 100 ug and 50 ug ) versus placebo comparsion.|||26.9|12.1|<0.001
95720253|NCT01563029|191409124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.3|26.0|||ANCOVA||Inference for FF 25 ug versus placebo was dependent upon statistical significance (SS) having first been achieved for both the FF 100 ug versus placebo comparison and the FF 50 ug versus placebocomparison.|||26.0|11.3|<0.001
95720254|NCT01563029|191409124|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|14.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.7|21.4|||ANCOVA|||||21.4|6.7|<0.001
95720255|NCT01563029|191409125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.126|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.051|0.201|||ANCOVA|||||0.201|0.051|<0.001
95720256|NCT01563029|191409125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.022||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.094|||ANCOVA|||||0.094|-0.050|0.551
95720257|NCT01563029|191409125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033||||0.379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.108|||ANCOVA|||||0.108|-0.041|0.379
95720258|NCT01563029|191409125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.064||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.137|||ANCOVA|||||0.137|-0.010|0.089
95720259|NCT01563029|191409126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|16.9|||ANCOVA|||||16.9|0.0|0.050
95720260|NCT01563029|191409126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.8||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|18.2|||ANCOVA|||||18.2|1.3|0.023
95720261|NCT01563029|191409126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.2||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|20.5|||ANCOVA|||||20.5|3.8|0.004
95720262|NCT01563029|191409126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|14.6|||ANCOVA|||||14.6|-2.1|0.143
95720263|NCT01563029|191409127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.4|19.0|||ANCOVA|||||19.0|3.4|0.005
95720264|NCT01563029|191409127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|21.1|||ANCOVA|||||21.1|5.7|<0.001
95720265|NCT01563029|191409127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.4|||<|0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|16.1|||ANCOVA|||||16.1|0.7|<0.033
95720266|NCT01563029|191409127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.0||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|15.7|||ANCOVA|||||15.7|0.3|0.042
95720267|NCT01563029|191409128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.2||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|21.7|||ANCOVA|||||21.7|0.7|0.037
95720268|NCT01563029|191409128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.1||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.6|23.6|||ANCOVA|||||23.6|2.6|0.014
95720269|NCT01563029|191409128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.9||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|16.3|||ANCOVA|||||16.3|-4.5|0.266
95720270|NCT01563029|191409128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.2||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.2|16.6|||ANCOVA|||||16.6|-4.2|0.242
95720271|NCT01563029|191409129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|31.3|||ANCOVA|||||31.3|10.0|<0.001
95720272|NCT01563029|191409129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.9||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.2|28.6|||ANCOVA|||||28.6|7.2|0.001
95720273|NCT01563029|191409129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.5||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|22.1|||ANCOVA|||||22.1|0.9|0.033
95720274|NCT01563029|191409129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.7||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|27.3|||ANCOVA|||||27.3|6.0|0.002
95720275|NCT01563029|191409130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1||||0.619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|10.2|||ANCOVA|||||10.2|-6.1|0.619
95720276|NCT01563029|191409130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.161||95.0|-2.3|13.9|||ANCOVA|||||13.9|-2.3|0.161
95720277|NCT01563029|191409130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.9||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|12.0|||ANCOVA|||||12.0|-4.1|0.340
95720278|NCT01563029|191409130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.0||||0.459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|11.1|||ANCOVA|||||11.1|-5.0|0.459
95720279|NCT01563029|191409131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95720280|NCT01563029|191409131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95720281|NCT01563029|191409131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.003
95720282|NCT01563029|191409131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95720283|NCT02780115|191409132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|1.96||||0.1663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|4.74|||ANCOVA|||||4.74|-0.83|0.1663
95720284|NCT02780115|191409132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.77||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|7.56|||ANCOVA|||||7.56|1.98|0.0009
95720285|NCT02780115|191409132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.54||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|7.29|||ANCOVA|||||7.29|1.79|0.0014
95720286|NCT02780115|191409132|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Diff|4.81||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.03|7.58|||ANCOVA|||||7.58|2.03|0.0008
95720287|NCT02424851|191409134|OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.006
95720288|NCT02424851|191409135|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.02
95720289|NCT02424851|191409136|OTHER||||||=|0.48|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of SAEs.||||=0.48
95720290|NCT02424851|191409136|OTHER||||||=|0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||Statistical analysis of AEs||||=0.25
95720291|NCT02424851|191409137|OTHER||||||=|0.31|||||||Log Rank|||||||= 0.31
95720292|NCT02424851|191409138|OTHER||||||=|0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.45
95720293|NCT02424851|191409139|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.33
95720294|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.23|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|bayesian multivariate hierarachical||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
95720295|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY||Posertior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|1.7||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-minute Follow-up Analysis||1.7|-6.8|
95720296|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|1.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian multivariate hierarchical model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follolw-up Analysis||1.5|-6.9|
95720297|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.01|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|1.4|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||1.4|-6.5|
95720298|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.28|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.1|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|1-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.1|-5.8|
95720299|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.2|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|3.6|||Bayesian Multivariate Heirarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|5-Minute Follow-up Analysis||3.6|-5.0|
95720300|NCT03466060|191409170|NON_INFERIORITY|95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.16|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|2.3|||Bayesian Multivariate Hierarchical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|45-Minute Follow-up Analysis||2.3|-6.4|
95720301|NCT03466060|191409170|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.1|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.5||95% credible intervals are used to determine whether Test and Control solutions are statistically significantly different at each time point.|Bayesian Mutlivariate Hiearachical Model||Posterior mean difference was calculated as Test-Control.|2-Hour Follow-up Analysis||2.5|-5.8|
95720302|NCT01856257|191409179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.512||||0.544|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.999|15.024|||Mixed Models Analysis||The p-value, estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 2 to Group 1.|||15.024|-7.999|0.544
95720303|NCT01856257|191409179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.82||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.481|20.121|||Mixed Models Analysis||P-value estimate of the treatment group difference, and estimated 95% confidence interval result from a repeated measures mixed model using available eGFR data from weeks 4, 12, 28, 36, and 52 to compare Group 3 to Group 1.|||20.121|-10.481|0.531
95720304|NCT00203931|191409213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.11
95720305|NCT00203931|191409214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.91
95720306|NCT00203931|191409215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.24
95720307|NCT00203931|191409216|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.046|||||||Wilcoxon-Gehan test|||||||0.046
95720308|NCT00203931|191409217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.029
95720309|NCT00118209|191409218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.6519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.27|||Log Rank|||||1.27|0.68|0.6519
95720310|NCT00118209|191409219|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95720311|NCT00118209|191409220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09||||0.6414|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.59|||Log Rank|||||1.59|0.75|0.6414
95720312|NCT01418365|191409222|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean ratio|0.979|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|0.998|||ANOVA|||||0.998|0.961|
95720313|NCT01418365|191409223|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|If the 90% Confidence Intervals of the geometric mean ratio are wholly contained within the interval (0.80, 1.25), then the hypothesis of a drug interaction will be rejected.|Geometric Mean Ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.951|1.04|||ANOVA|||||1.04|0.951|
95720314|NCT01275170|191409247|OTHER|Geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Renal Impairment/Healthy Control\]|GMR|1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.12|2.39||||||||2.39|1.12|
95720315|NCT01275170|191409247|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|3.18||||||||3.18|1.51|
95720316|NCT01275170|191409247|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|4.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.37|7.04||||||||7.04|3.37|
95720317|NCT01275170|191409247|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.45|13.46||||||||13.46|6.45|
95720318|NCT01275170|191409247|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.58||||||||2.58|1.20|
95720319|NCT01275170|191409248|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.64|1.88||||||||1.88|0.64|
95720320|NCT01275170|191409248|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.77||||||||1.77|0.62|
95720321|NCT01275170|191409248|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.77|2.2||||||||2.20|0.77|
95720322|NCT01275170|191409248|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|3.96||||||||3.96|1.39|
95720323|NCT01275170|191409248|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|1.44||||||||1.44|0.50|
95720324|NCT01275170|191409249|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.42|0.9||||||||0.90|0.42|
95720325|NCT01275170|191409249|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.66||||||||0.66|0.31|
95720326|NCT01275170|191409249|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.14|0.3||||||||0.30|0.14|
95720327|NCT01275170|191409249|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.07|0.16||||||||0.16|0.07|
95720328|NCT01275170|191409249|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.84||||||||0.84|0.39|
95720329|NCT01275170|191409250|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.82|1.21||||||||1.21|0.82|
95720330|NCT01275170|191409250|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.22||||||||1.22|0.84|
95720331|NCT01275170|191409250|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.74|1.08||||||||1.08|0.74|
95720332|NCT01275170|191409250|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.16||||||||1.16|0.79|
95720333|NCT01275170|191409250|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.7|4.0||||||||4.00|2.70|
95720334|NCT01275170|191409253|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.41|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.84||||||||1.84|1.07|
95720335|NCT01275170|191409253|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.17|1.99||||||||1.99|1.17|
95720336|NCT01275170|191409253|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.26||||||||3.26|1.93|
95720337|NCT01275170|191409253|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.39|4.03||||||||4.03|2.39|
95720338|NCT01275170|191409253|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.76|1.29||||||||1.29|0.76|
95720339|NCT01275170|191409254|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.06||||||||2.06|0.65|
95720340|NCT01275170|191409254|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.89||||||||1.89|0.61|
95720341|NCT01275170|191409254|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.32||||||||2.32|0.75|
95720342|NCT01275170|191409254|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|4.33||||||||4.33|1.40|
95720343|NCT01275170|191409254|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.49|1.51||||||||1.51|0.49|
95720344|NCT01275170|191409255|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.54|0.93||||||||0.93|0.54|
95720345|NCT01275170|191409255|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|0.85||||||||0.85|0.50|
95720346|NCT01275170|191409255|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.31|0.52||||||||0.52|0.31|
95720347|NCT01275170|191409255|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.25|0.42||||||||0.42|0.25|
95720348|NCT01275170|191409255|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.78|1.31||||||||1.31|0.78|
95720349|NCT01275170|191409256|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.08||||||||1.08|0.61|
95720350|NCT01275170|191409256|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.95|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.72|1.26||||||||1.26|0.72|
95720351|NCT01275170|191409256|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.61|1.06||||||||1.06|0.61|
95720352|NCT01275170|191409256|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.09||||||||1.09|0.63|
95720353|NCT01275170|191409256|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.93|3.36||||||||3.36|1.93|
95720354|NCT01275170|191409259|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|2.49||||||||2.49|1.03|
95720355|NCT01275170|191409259|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.21|2.87||||||||2.87|1.21|
95720356|NCT01275170|191409259|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.64|8.59||||||||8.59|3.64|
95720357|NCT01275170|191409259|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|13.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.96|21.12||||||||21.12|8.96|
95720358|NCT01275170|191409259|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|3.64|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.32|5.69||||||||5.69|2.32|
95720359|NCT01275170|191409260|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.75|2.08||||||||2.08|0.75|
95720360|NCT01275170|191409260|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.69|1.87||||||||1.87|0.69|
95720361|NCT01275170|191409260|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9|2.44||||||||2.44|0.90|
95720362|NCT01275170|191409260|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.51|4.09||||||||4.09|1.51|
95720363|NCT01275170|191409260|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.57|1.54||||||||1.54|0.57|
95720364|NCT01275170|191409261|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.4|0.97||||||||0.97|0.40|
95720365|NCT01275170|191409261|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|0.83||||||||0.83|0.35|
95720366|NCT01275170|191409261|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.18|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.12|0.27||||||||0.27|0.12|
95720367|NCT01275170|191409261|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.05|0.11||||||||0.11|0.05|
95720368|NCT01275170|191409261|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.18|0.43||||||||0.43|0.18|
95720369|NCT01275170|191409262|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.04||||||||1.04|0.62|
95720370|NCT01275170|191409262|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.71|1.17||||||||1.17|0.71|
95720371|NCT01275170|191409262|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.62|1.03||||||||1.03|0.62|
95720372|NCT01275170|191409262|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.59|0.97||||||||0.97|0.59|
95720373|NCT01275170|191409262|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|2.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.16|3.65||||||||3.65|2.16|
95720374|NCT01275170|191409268|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|2.15||||||||2.15|1.07|
95720375|NCT01275170|191409268|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.45|0.9||||||||0.90|0.45|
95720376|NCT01275170|191409268|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.47|0.94||||||||0.94|0.47|
95720377|NCT01275170|191409269|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|1.83||||||||1.83|0.63|
95720378|NCT01275170|191409269|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|1.01||||||||1.01|0.35|
95720379|NCT01275170|191409269|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.04||||||||1.04|0.36|
95720380|NCT01275170|191409270|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|1.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.63|3.4||||||||3.40|0.63|
95720381|NCT01275170|191409270|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|2.0||||||||2.00|0.41|
95720382|NCT01275170|191409270|OTHER|GMR (Renal Impairment/Healthy Control)|GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.37|1.78||||||||1.78|0.37|
95720383|NCT03743571|191409285|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
95720384|NCT03743571|191409286|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
95728973|NCT00384033|191427901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, Covi anxiety scale was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline Covi anxiety score as the covariate.||0.90|0.10|0.006
95720385|NCT03743571|191409287|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
95720386|NCT03743571|191409288|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.42||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.67, p = 0.42.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.42
95720387|NCT03743571|191409289|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.88||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 0.02, p = .88.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.88
95720388|NCT03743571|191409290|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham), and whether scores differed between audience type (matched vs unmatched) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.17||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,24) = 1.98, p = .17.||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on Behavioral Approach Tests (BATs), we completed 2 x 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham), time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up), and audience type (ethnicity primary matched vs unmatched to the participants' own identity) on outcome measures.||||.17
95720389|NCT03743571|191409291|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.67||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.19, p = .67||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.67
95720390|NCT03743571|191409292|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham).||||||0.96||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) \< .01, p = .96||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.96
95720391|NCT03743571|191409293|OTHER|We needed a total sample size of at least N = 24 to reach 80% power to detect a moderately large effect (Cohen's f = 0.3) for 2x2 interactions to determine whether scores differed across time (baseline vs follow up) for the two tDCS groups (anodal/active vs sham),||||||0.43||||||Unadjusted. A priori threshold was set at p \< .05, two-tailed|ANOVA|tDCS (anodal vs sham) x Time (baseline vs follow-up) interaction: F(1,26) = 0.65, p = .43||We used a null hypothesis significance testing approach in our analyses. For performance on the questionnaires, we completed 2 x 2 mixed factorial ANOVAs to evaluate the impact of tDCS groups (between-subjects variable; anodal/active vs sham) and time (within subjects variable; baseline vs follow-up) on outcome measures.||||.43
95720392|NCT01371006|191409294|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|105.61|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.0|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.81|122.82|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||122.82|90.81|
95720393|NCT01371006|191409295|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|116.12|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|101.87|132.35|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (50 mg Efavirenz+240 mg Faldaprevir : 50 mg Efavirenz) of Efavirenz||132.35|101.87|
95720394|NCT01371006|191409296|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|71.83|STANDARD_DEVIATION|23.6|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.46|83.95|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||83.95|61.46|
95720395|NCT01371006|191409297|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|64.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|30.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.32|79.16|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||79.16|53.32|
95720396|NCT01371006|191409298|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|investigation of relative bioavailability (no formal testing)|Geometric Mean Ratio|54.31|STANDARD_DEVIATION|44.2|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|40.47|72.88|||ANOVA||the standard deviation is actually the geometric coefficient of variation|relative bioavailability comparison (7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir+600 mg Efavirenz : 7.5 mg Midazolam+240 mg Faldaprevir) of Faldaprevir||72.88|40.47|
95720397|NCT02547779|191409311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95720398|NCT02547779|191409312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.98|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95720399|NCT03515837|191409313|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|0.97|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||0.97|0.65|0.0122
95720400|NCT03515837|191409314|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.0362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.02|||Log Rank|One-sided p-value based on log-rank test stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.02|0.69|0.0362
95720401|NCT03515837|191409315|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|9.9|||||Based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||9.9|-6.0|
95720402|NCT03515837|191409317|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|5.1|||||Based on a cLDA model with the PRO scores as the response variable with covariates for treatment by time interaction, stratification factors PD-L1 expression, treatment history, and geographic region of the enrolling site as covariates.|||5.10|-1.93|
95720403|NCT03515837|191409318|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||||95.0|0.68|1.27|||||Based on Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate stratified by PD-L1 expression; treatment history; geographic region of the enrolling site.|||1.27|0.68|
95720404|NCT00391092|191409321|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.02|||Log Rank (unstratified)|||||1.02|0.65|0.0775
95720405|NCT00391092|191409322|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.38|||Log Rank|||||1.38|0.74|0.9543
95720406|NCT00391092|191409323|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Response rates|4.43||||0.3492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|14.0|||Chi-squared||95% CI for the difference in response rates using Hauck-Anderson method.|||14.0|-5.2|0.3492
95720407|NCT00391092|191409324|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.98||||||||0.98|0.56|
95720408|NCT00391092|191409325|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.5392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.15|||Log Rank|||||1.15|0.76|0.5392
95720409|NCT01856686|191409336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56593|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.56593
95720410|NCT01856686|191409336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.44929|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.44929
95720411|NCT01856686|191409336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81844|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.81844
95720412|NCT01856686|191409337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.71152|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.71152
95720413|NCT01856686|191409337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
95720414|NCT01856686|191409337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.47616|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.47616
95720415|NCT01856686|191409338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.10036|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.10036
95720416|NCT01856686|191409338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0082|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group changes||||0.00820
95720417|NCT01856686|191409338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||1.00000
95720418|NCT01856686|191409339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.92193|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.92193
95720419|NCT01856686|191409339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50704|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.50704
95720420|NCT01856686|191409339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.42314|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.42314
95720421|NCT01856686|191409340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08946|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.08946
95720422|NCT01856686|191409340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27795|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27795
95720423|NCT01856686|191409340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0109|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.01090
95720424|NCT01856686|191409341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.73209|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.73209
95720425|NCT01856686|191409341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07965|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07965
95720426|NCT01856686|191409341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61613|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.61613
95720427|NCT01856686|191409342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.33027|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.33027
95720428|NCT01856686|191409342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00013|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00013
95720429|NCT01856686|191409342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.28019|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.28019
95720430|NCT01856686|191409343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94449|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.94449
95720431|NCT01856686|191409343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
95720432|NCT01856686|191409343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.85428|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.85428
95720433|NCT01856686|191409344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.83929|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.83929
95720434|NCT01856686|191409344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.97213|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.97213
95720435|NCT01856686|191409344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.58323|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.58323
95720436|NCT01856686|191409345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.05158|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.05158
95720437|NCT01856686|191409345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94574|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.94574
95720438|NCT01856686|191409345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.09331|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.09331
95720439|NCT01856686|191409346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17383|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.17383
95720440|NCT01856686|191409346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00092|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00092
95720441|NCT01856686|191409346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.15544|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.15544
95720442|NCT01856686|191409347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39707|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.39707
95720443|NCT01856686|191409347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.27945|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.27945
95720444|NCT01856686|191409347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.19739
95720445|NCT01856686|191409348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.50964|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.50964
95720446|NCT01856686|191409348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0071|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00710
95720447|NCT01856686|191409348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00595|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00595
95720448|NCT01856686|191409349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.48336|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.48336
95720449|NCT01856686|191409349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08739|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08739
95720450|NCT01856686|191409349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.37046|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.37046
95720451|NCT01856686|191409351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45013|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.45013
95720452|NCT01856686|191409351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.17374|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.17374
95720453|NCT01856686|191409351|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.07548|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.07548
95720454|NCT01856686|191409352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23226|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.23226
95720455|NCT01856686|191409352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.08812|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.08812
95720456|NCT01856686|191409352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00776|||||||Pairedt-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00776
95720457|NCT01856686|191409353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.90843|||||||ANCOVA|||Between-Group Comparison||||0.90843
95720458|NCT01856686|191409353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00413|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00413
95720459|NCT01856686|191409353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.00775|||||||Paired t-test|||Within-group comparisons between the baseline and 3 month data||||0.00775
95720460|NCT01890109|191409397|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.83|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline number of daily moderate to severe hot flashes was used as a covariate.||1.83|0.66|0.723
95720461|NCT01890109|191409398|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Geometric Mean Ratio|1.14||||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.74|||Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance|||Repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed on the log transformed ratio to baseline of the daily hot flash severity score. Independent variables included treatment, week, and the treatment-by-week interaction; subject served as a random effect; and the log transformed baseline daily hot flash severity score was used as a covariate.||1.74|0.74|0.551
95720462|NCT02861534|191409412|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.06|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.06|0.81|0.269
95720463|NCT02861534|191409413|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.0|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.00|0.81|0.048
95720464|NCT02861534|191409414|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.82|0.019
95720465|NCT02861534|191409415|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|0.99|||Andersen-Gill model|||||0.99|0.84|0.023
95720466|NCT02861534|191409416|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|0.98|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||0.98|0.83|0.021
95720467|NCT02861534|191409417|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.07|||Cox proportional hazard model|||||1.07|0.84|0.377
95720468|NCT02861534|191409420|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.2||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|2.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||2.8|-0.3|0.121
95720469|NCT02861534|191409421|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.6||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|1.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen method|||||1.6|-0.5|0.303
95720470|NCT04764669|191409436|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: DLB without amyloid copathology versus DLB with amyloid copathology|Least squares mean difference|-20.022|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.635|37.591||||||||37.591|-77.635|
95720471|NCT04764669|191409436|SUPERIORITY|Primary comparisons were: PDD without amyloid copathology versus PDD with amyloid copathology.|Least squares mean difference|-175.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-287.407|-63.893||||||||-63.893|-287.407|
95720472|NCT00256217|191409444|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|8.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.0|1.8|0.004
95720473|NCT00256217|191409445|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.49|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0.49|0.10|0.016
95720474|NCT00877799|191409458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.057
95720475|NCT00877799|191409459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95720476|NCT00877799|191409460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.01
95720477|NCT01984229|191409469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|118.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.0|137.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and confidence intervals (CIs).||137|102|
95720478|NCT01984229|191409470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|177.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|159.0|198.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||198|159|
95720479|NCT01984229|191409471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|175.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0|195.0|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||195|157|
95720480|NCT01984229|191409475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|28.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|23.1|35.5|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||35.5|23.1|
95720481|NCT01984229|191409476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|66.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.7|77.4|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||77.4|56.7|
95720482|NCT01984229|191409477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Geometric Least Square Mean Ratio|75.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.4|87.7|||||The reported values are percentages of geometric least square mean ratio.|ANOVA was applied to the log-transformed PK parameter and then back transformed to provide geometric least square mean ratios (Period 3/Period 1) and CIs.||87.7|64.4|
95720483|NCT04193033|191409493|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|||||||0.001
95720484|NCT04193033|191409494|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.012|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.012
95720485|NCT04193033|191409495|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.66|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.66
95720486|NCT04193033|191409497|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Linear Growth Curve Model|Time was included as a fixed effect and both time and intercept were included as random effects.||||||.49
95720487|NCT04193033|191409499|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||Paired t-test, alpha = .05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.06
95720488|NCT03226366|191409537|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.4|6.1|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department door-to-antibiotic time (minutes) based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-antibiotic time after versus before intervention implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||6.1|-20.4|0.29
95720489|NCT03226366|191409538|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.61|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio for hospital mortality after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in odds of hospital mortality after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for observed change in outcome over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||2.61|0.25|0.72
95720490|NCT03226366|191409539|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.5||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|7.0|||Regression, Linear||Change in emergency department length of stay (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department length of stay after versus before implementation at the intervention site with adjustment for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites as well as for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, an initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and arrival to the ED via ambulance.||7.0|-25.9|0.26
95720491|NCT03226366|191409540|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|1.8|||Regression, Linear||Estimated change in emergency department door-to-physician evaluation time (minutes) after versus before intervention implementation based on adjusted differences-in-differences analysis|Differences-in-differences analysis using multivariable regression to estimate the change in emergency department (ED) door-to-physician evaluation time after versus before implementation at the intervention site adjusted for the change observed over the same time period at the control sites and for subject's age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Score, initial systolic blood pressure, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score \<14. initial temperature, ED triage acuity score, and ED arrival via ambulance.||1.8|-3.3|0.55
95720492|NCT02181075|191409543|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold \< 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|95% confidence interval (CI)||A paired t-test was used for Part I (Arm 1) only. Analysis only applies to Part I (Arm 1) because only this study arm has matched Post-LTLD (i.e. post-drug alone) and Post-LTLD+FUS biopsy samples obtained from the same liver tumours before and after targeted drug delivery. In Part II of the study design in which drug delivery occurred completely non-invasively, no Post-LTLD tissue sample is obtained and only a single tumour biopsy is obtained following drug delivery (Post-LTLD+FUS).||||0.024
95728974|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|7.9||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||7.90|-0.90|0.124
95720493|NCT04150107|191409549|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|Least mean squares||||<|0.9223|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9223
95720494|NCT04150107|191409550|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.8871|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.8871
95720495|NCT04150107|191409551|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9641|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9641
95720496|NCT04150107|191409552|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.7922|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.7922
95720497|NCT04150107|191409553|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.9898|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.9898
95720498|NCT04150107|191409554|OTHER|Treatment least squares means and change from baseline estimates will be derived using this linear model.|||||<|0.5165|||||||ANCOVA|||Information collected in the daily diaries or via the Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) on the final 10 days of treatment will be analyzed using a Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance with subject as a random effect with each of the 10 days being a single measurement. When analyzing the exogenous insulin variables, the CGM parameters (mean 24 hour glucose value and 24 hour time within 70-180 mg/dL range) and the patient reported carbohydrate intake will be included as covariates.||||<0.5165
95720499|NCT00440193|191409558|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Assuming equal efficacy, a total of 88 events was calculated to give a power of 90% to prove that rivaroxaban is at least as effective as the comparator, considering a non-inferiority upper CI margin for the hazard ratio of 2.0 (two-sided α=0.05). A mean incidence for the primary efficacy outcome of 3% was expected and at least 1465 participants per group were determined to be necessary. This number was to be adjusted based on the observed overall incidence of symptomatic recurrent VTE.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2179|<|0.0001||95.0|0.44|1.04|||Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|The rivaroxaban to comparator hazard ratio was computed with a 95% CI (confidence interval) (two-sided testing). Based on this model, rivaroxaban would be considered at least as effective as the comparator if the upper limit of the CI was less than 2.0.||1.04|0.44|< 0.0001
95720500|NCT00440193|191409559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1616||0.044||95.0|0.53|0.99||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.99|0.53|0.044
95720501|NCT00440193|191409560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1828||0.027||95.0|0.47|0.95||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||0.95|0.47|0.027
95720502|NCT00440193|191409562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1204||0.77||95.0|0.76|1.22||Nominal p-value|Regression, Cox|Stratified by intend treatment duration, adjusted for presence of active malignancy at baseline.|The standard error of the log hazard ratio was estimated.|||1.22|0.76|0.77
95720503|NCT02587117|191409587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.004
95720504|NCT02587117|191409588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Mann Whitney test|||||||0.224
95720505|NCT00981019|191409589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||"Study was exploratory, thus no hypotheses had been formalized beforehand.~To analyze repeated measures outcomes (e.g., effect of the four different statistic scenarios on doctors' recommendation of screening, their judgment of screening's effectiveness, etc.), we used the McNemar chi-square test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.~To test for order effects (scenarios were randomly presented)Pearson's chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used."||||<0.05
95720506|NCT00865306|191409591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.05
95720507|NCT00865306|191409592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||<.01
95720508|NCT03611751|191409594|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.54|17.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||17.00|6.54|<0.0001
95720509|NCT03611751|191409595|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.65|16.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.55|6.65|<0.0001
95720510|NCT03611751|191409596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.45|23.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||23.93|5.45|<0.0001
95720511|NCT03611751|191409596|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.74||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.56|1.18|0.0046
95720512|NCT03611751|191409597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.89|29.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||29.40|2.89|<0.001
95720513|NCT03611751|191409597|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55||||0.0051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.00|1.30|0.0051
95720514|NCT03611751|191409598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.62|45.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||45.11|4.62|<0.0001
95720515|NCT03611751|191409598|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.61|5.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.03|1.61|0.0002
95720516|NCT03611751|191409599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-23.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.67|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.9|-20.3|||ANCOVA|||||-20.3|-26.9|<0.0001
95720517|NCT03611751|191409599|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.68|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.5|-3.9|||ANCOVA|||||-3.9|-10.5|<0.0001
95720518|NCT03611751|191409600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.4||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.94|21.15|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||21.15|1.94|0.0005
95720519|NCT03611751|191409600|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.82||||0.0928|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|3.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.71|0.89|0.0928
95720520|NCT03611751|191409601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.34|10.81|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||10.81|4.34|<0.0001
95720521|NCT03611751|191409601|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.63|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.91|1.77|<0.0001
95720522|NCT03611751|191409602|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.42|8.47|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||8.47|3.42|<0.0001
95720523|NCT03611751|191409603|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|11.79|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||11.79|0.88|0.0621
95720524|NCT03611751|191409604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.6692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|7.46|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.46|0.06|0.6692
95720525|NCT03611751|191409604|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.3793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.56|0.02|0.3793
95720526|NCT03611751|191409605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.41|1.29|0.0004
95720527|NCT03611751|191409606|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|2.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.78|1.45|<0.0001
95720528|NCT03611751|191409607|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95720529|NCT03611751|191409608|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.43|1.78|<0.0001
95720530|NCT03611751|191409609|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.36|1.78|<0.0001
95720531|NCT03611751|191409610|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.07||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.01|1.43|0.0001
95720532|NCT01821391|191409664|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.2665|||||||Paired Student's t test|||||||=0.2665
95720533|NCT02953262|191409713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.057||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.057
95720534|NCT02953262|191409713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.753||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.753
95720535|NCT02953262|191409713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.613||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.613
95720536|NCT02953262|191409714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.308||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.308
95720537|NCT02953262|191409714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.154||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.154
95720538|NCT02953262|191409714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95720539|NCT02953262|191409715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.102||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.102
95720540|NCT02953262|191409715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
95720541|NCT02953262|191409715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.439
95720542|NCT02953262|191409716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.982||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.982
95720543|NCT02953262|191409716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.559
95720544|NCT02953262|191409716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.032||||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05.|Chi-squared|||||||0.032
95720545|NCT02367729|191409742|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3947||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.37|2.93|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2.93|1.37|0.003
95720546|NCT00759174|191409748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.15||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|4.34|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.34|1.06|0.033
95720547|NCT00759174|191409749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.36||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|4.19|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||4.19|1.33|0.003
95720548|NCT00759174|191409750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|7.69|||Conditional logistic regression|||Conditional logistic regression was stratified by participant.||7.69|1.70|<0.001
95720549|NCT00769132|191409790|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Two treatments are comparable if the geometric mean ratio is contained within the interval \[0.50-2.00\].|Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.12||||||90.0|0.9|1.38||||||The endpoint is the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7 following a 7 day course of daily dosing in the overall 24 hour collection interval. The point estimate and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the geometric mean ratio (GMR) \[Treatment A/B\] of the urine levels of 11-dTxB2 on Day 7.||1.38|0.9|
95720550|NCT00769132|191409790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.87||||||90.0|0.71|1.07||||||||1.07|0.71|
95720551|NCT00769132|191409790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.8||||||90.0|0.65|0.98||||||||0.98|0.65|
95720552|NCT00769132|191409790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.89||||||90.0|0.72|1.09||||||||1.09|0.72|
95720553|NCT00769132|191409790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.91||||||90.0|0.74|1.12||||||||1.12|0.74|
95720554|NCT00769132|191409790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.02||||||90.0|0.83|1.25||||||||1.25|0.83|
95720555|NCT00769132|191409791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|1.04||||||90.0|0.92|1.17||||||||1.17|0.92|
95720556|NCT00769132|191409791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.9||||||90.0|0.8|1.01||||||||1.01|0.8|
95720557|NCT00769132|191409791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.56||||||90.0|0.49|0.63||||||||0.63|0.49|
95720558|NCT00769132|191409791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.58||||||90.0|0.51|0.65||||||||0.65|0.51|
95720559|NCT00769132|191409791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.62||||||90.0|0.55|0.7||||||||0.7|0.55|
95720560|NCT00769132|191409791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Geometric least-squares mean ratio|0.64||||||90.0|0.57|0.72||||||||0.72|0.57|
95720561|NCT01211873|191409838|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95720562|NCT01211873|191409839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95720563|NCT01211873|191409839|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95720564|NCT01211873|191409840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95720565|NCT01211873|191409840|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95720566|NCT02723786|191409848|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The proportion of participants with DGF was 0.57, highest Posterior Density (HPD) 95% Credible interval (CI) (0.25,0.90). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<30% was 0.07 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]). The posterior probability for the proportion of participants with DGF \<50% was 0.34 (HPD 95% CI \[0.00,1.00\]).|||
95720567|NCT00127192|191409875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.3|-3.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-3.0|-4.3|<0.001
95720568|NCT00127192|191409875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.6|-3.9|<0.001
95720569|NCT00127192|191409875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-3.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.9|-2.7||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.7|-3.9|<0.001
95720570|NCT00127192|191409875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-2.6|||<|0.001||95.0|-3.2|-2.0||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-2.0|-3.2|<0.001
95720571|NCT00127192|191409876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Tukeys linear trend test based on ANCOVA|Linear contrast including all groups was tested using ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline||||||<0.001
95720572|NCT00127192|191409876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-1.04|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.21|-0.86||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, but the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.86|-1.21|<0.001
95720573|NCT00127192|191409876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.96|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.14|-0.79||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.79|-1.14|<0.001
95720574|NCT00127192|191409876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.99|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.16|-0.82||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.82|-1.16|<0.001
95728975|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.7||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||9.10|0.30|0.035
95720575|NCT00127192|191409876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-0.69|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.85|-0.52||No multiplicity adjustment was done between trend test of primary analysis and pairwise comparisons, the multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-0.52|-0.85|<0.001
95720576|NCT00127192|191409877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-23.2|||<|0.001||95.0|-29.8|-16.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-16.6|-29.8|<0.001
95720577|NCT00127192|191409877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-20.8|||<|0.001||95.0|-27.4|-14.3||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-14.3|-27.4|<0.001
95720578|NCT00127192|191409877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-17.7|||<|0.001||95.0|-24.2|-11.2||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-11.2|-24.2|<0.001
95720579|NCT00127192|191409877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-squares Mean Difference|-15.9|||<|0.001||95.0|-22.3|-9.6||Multiplicity among pairwise comparisons of sitagliptin groups against placebo was adjusted by Bonferroni method in post-hoc manner.|Pairwise comparison based on ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used for pairwise comparison|ANCOVA model with terms of treatment, prior antihyperglycemic medication status and baseline was used to estimate difference of two groups and its 95% confidence interval|||-9.6|-22.3|<0.001
95720580|NCT03170271|191409878|SUPERIORITY|The null hypothesis was that the exacerbation rate of benralizumab was equal to the exacerbation rate of placebo.|Rate ratio|0.51|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|0.65|||Negative binomial|||Comparison of annual exacerbation rates for benralizumab vs placebo (rate ratio). Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the negative binomial model as covariates. The log of each patient's corresponding follow-up time was used as an offset variable in the model to adjust for patients having different follow-up times during which events occurred.||0.65|0.39|<0.0001
95720581|NCT03170271|191409879|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.11|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.41|-4.82|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SGRQ total score = Treatment + baseline SGRQ total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SGRQ total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.||-4.82|-11.41|<0.0001
95720582|NCT03170271|191409880|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|0.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.23|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 = Treatment + baseline pre-BD FEV1 + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + gender + age + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||0.23|0.09|<0.0001
95720583|NCT03170271|191409881|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-0.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score = Treatment + baseline ACQ-6 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in ACQ-6 score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.27|-0.65|<0.0001
95720584|NCT03170271|191409882|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.67|||Regression, Cox||A hazard ratio \< 1 favours benralizumab to be associated with a longer time from randomization to the first exacerbation than placebo.|Comparison of time to first asthma exacerbation for benralizumab vs placebo. Treatment group, region, number of exacerbations in previous year and maintenance OCS use at baseline were included in the Cox proportional hazard model as covariates.||0.67|0.40|<0.0001
95720585|NCT03170271|191409883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|20.11||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.79|33.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in morning PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||33.44|6.79|0.0031
95720586|NCT03170271|191409883|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|23.09||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.62|36.55|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PEF = Treatment + baseline PEF + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from run-in baseline in evening PEF at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||36.55|9.62|0.0008
95720587|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|5.35||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.42|9.28|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for physical functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.28|1.42|0.0077
95720588|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|6.8||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.45|11.14|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to physical health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||11.14|2.45|0.0022
95720589|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.1741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.36|7.5|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.50|-1.36|0.1741
95720590|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.62||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.32|8.92|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for general health perceptions at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||8.92|2.32|0.0009
95720591|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|5.51||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|9.08|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for vitality at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||9.08|1.95|0.0025
95720592|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|3.12||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|7.46|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for social functioning at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||7.46|-1.22|0.1583
95720593|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.44||||0.2103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|6.27|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for role limitations due to emotional problems at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||6.27|-1.38|0.2103
95720594|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|1.68||||0.2581|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|4.59|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 subscale score for mental health at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||4.59|-1.23|0.2581
95720595|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|2.32||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.81|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 physical health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||3.81|0.84|0.0022
95720596|NCT03170271|191409884|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|0.87||||0.2751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.44|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SF-36v2 score = Treatment + baseline SF-36v2 score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SF-36v2 mental health component summary score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||2.44|-0.70|0.2751
95720597|NCT03170271|191409885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.55||||0.0233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.25|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.25|1.06|0.0233
95720598|NCT03170271|191409885|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|2.16|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + baseline score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a responder classified as type 'Important Improvement' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.16|1.02|0.0401
95720599|NCT03170271|191409886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|2.86|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.86|1.47|<0.0001
95720600|NCT03170271|191409886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.45||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|6.7|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a CGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||6.70|1.77|0.0003
95720601|NCT03170271|191409886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.87|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||2.87|1.48|<0.0001
95720602|NCT03170271|191409886|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.02|4.51|||Regression, Logistic||Model: ln (1/(1-p)) = Treatment + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline, where p is the proportion of patients being a responder.|Estimate of the log odds of being a PGI-C responder classified as type 'Very much improved' at Week 24 in the benralizumab group compared to the placebo group using a logistic regression.||4.51|2.02|<0.0001
95720603|NCT03170271|191409887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-0.68|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) =Treatment + baseline average PSIA score (top 3 ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score for the average of top 3 ranked symptoms/impairments at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.68|-1.62|<0.0001
95720604|NCT03170271|191409887|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-1.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.64|-0.66|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in PSIA score (top ranked) =Treatment + baseline PSIA score (top ranked) + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in PSIA severity score of top ranked symptom/impairment at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-0.66|-1.64|<0.0001
95720605|NCT03170271|191409888|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean difference|-8.91||||0.0204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.42|-1.4|||Repeated measures analysis||Model: Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score = Treatment + baseline SNOT-22 total score + region + number of exacerbations in previous year + maintenance OCS use at baseline + visit + treatment by visit.|Change from baseline in SNOT-22 total score at Week 24 was compared between the benralizumab group and placebo group using a restricted maximum likelihood based on a MMRM analysis.||-1.40|-16.42|0.0204
95720606|NCT00203892|191409889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.028
95720607|NCT00203892|191409890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.99
95720608|NCT03359473|191409914|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|10.36|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||10.36|-1.30|
95720609|NCT03359473|191409914|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.83|14.76|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.76|0.83|
95720610|NCT03359473|191409915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|16.71|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.86|23.56|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||23.56|9.86|
95720611|NCT03359473|191409915|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.09|14.78|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||14.78|-4.09|
95720612|NCT03359473|191409916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.67|15.01|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||15.01|-4.67|
95720613|NCT03359473|191409916|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.46|13.58|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.58|0.46|
95720614|NCT03359473|191409917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|13.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||13.2|-1.4|
95720615|NCT03359473|191409917|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|13.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|25.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.5|1.6|
95720616|NCT03359473|191409918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|20.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.1|31.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||31.2|10.1|
95720617|NCT03359473|191409918|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.1|25.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||25.8|-11.1|
95720618|NCT03359473|191409919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.5|18.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||18.4|-2.5|
95720619|NCT03359473|191409919|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|24.0|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline leg press strength, with Day as the repeated factor.|||24.0|-0.5|
95720620|NCT03359473|191409920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.882|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.643|1.121|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.121|0.643|
95720621|NCT03359473|191409920|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.291|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.156|0.738|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.738|-0.156|
95720622|NCT03359473|191409921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.982|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.629|1.334|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.334|0.629|
95720623|NCT03359473|191409921|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.127|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.682|1.571|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.571|0.682|
95720624|NCT03359473|191409922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.964|1.795|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.795|0.964|
95720625|NCT03359473|191409922|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.124|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.594|1.654|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline appendicular lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.654|0.594|
95720626|NCT03359473|191409923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.677|1.658|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.658|0.677|
95720627|NCT03359473|191409923|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.923|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.222|1.623|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.623|0.222|
95720628|NCT03359473|191409924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.085|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.493|2.678|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.678|1.493|
95720629|NCT03359473|191409924|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.801|2.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.600|0.801|
95720630|NCT03359473|191409925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.108|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.271|2.945|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.945|1.271|
95720631|NCT03359473|191409925|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.113|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.949|3.277|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline total lean mass, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.277|0.949|
95720632|NCT03359473|191409926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
95720633|NCT03359473|191409926|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.5|-0.4|
95720634|NCT03359473|191409927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.6|
95720635|NCT03359473|191409927|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.2|
95720636|NCT03359473|191409928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.9|-0.4|
95720637|NCT03359473|191409928|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline SPPB total score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.6|-0.5|
95720638|NCT03359473|191409929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.553|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.082|0.977|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.977|-2.082|
95720639|NCT03359473|191409929|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.073|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.977|0.832|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.832|-0.977|
95720640|NCT03359473|191409930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.816|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.252|0.619|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.619|-2.252|
95720641|NCT03359473|191409930|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.163|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.096|1.422|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.422|-1.096|
95720642|NCT03359473|191409931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.668|0.748|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.748|-2.668|
95720643|NCT03359473|191409931|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.937|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.208|1.333|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline time for chair rise, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.333|-5.208|
95720644|NCT03359473|191409932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.314|0.233|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.233|-0.314|
95720645|NCT03359473|191409932|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.058|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.209|0.324|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.324|-0.209|
95720646|NCT03359473|191409933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.287|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.077|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.077|-0.650|
95720647|NCT03359473|191409933|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.191|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.534|0.152|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.152|-0.534|
95720648|NCT03359473|191409934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.012|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.555|0.532|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.532|-0.555|
95720649|NCT03359473|191409934|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.231|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.541|0.08|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline Time for fastest walk for 4 meter, with Day as the repeated factor.|||0.080|-0.541|
95720650|NCT03359473|191409935|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-57.1|79.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||79.2|-57.1|
95720651|NCT03359473|191409935|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-149.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-280.6|-18.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline CWR duration as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||-18.1|-280.6|
95720652|NCT03359473|191409936|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-42.7|29.2|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||29.2|-42.7|
95720653|NCT03359473|191409936|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-34.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-72.0|2.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline peak performance as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||2.4|-72.0|
95720654|NCT03359473|191409937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.6|1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.9|-2.6|
95720655|NCT03359473|191409937|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.4|2.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.1|-3.4|
95720656|NCT03359473|191409938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-2.9|
95720657|NCT03359473|191409938|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|4.5|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and Baseline CAT score, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.5|0.0|
95720658|NCT03359473|191409939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.9|-0.6|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.6|-8.9|
95720659|NCT03359473|191409939|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.2|3.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.1|-7.2|
95720660|NCT03359473|191409940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.5|-0.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.4|-9.5|
95720661|NCT03359473|191409940|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-10.3|2.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline difficulty scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||2.2|-10.3|
95720662|NCT03359473|191409941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.9|-0.3|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-0.3|-5.9|
95720663|NCT03359473|191409941|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|4.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||4.2|-4.6|
95720664|NCT03359473|191409942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|8.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||8.8|-0.8|
95720665|NCT03359473|191409942|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|9.4|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates: treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline amount scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||9.4|-2.3|
95720666|NCT03359473|191409943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.5|-1.9|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||-1.9|-6.5|
95720667|NCT03359473|191409943|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.1|1.1|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.1|-4.1|
95720668|NCT03359473|191409944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.8|1.8|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||1.8|-3.8|
95720669|NCT03359473|191409944|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.6|3.2|||||Analysis was performed by mixed model repeated measures including the covariates; treatment, Day, treatment\*Day and corresponding Baseline total scores, with Day as the repeated factor.|||3.2|-4.6|
95720670|NCT03359473|191409949|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.4|7.4|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.4|-1.4|
95720671|NCT03359473|191409949|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.3|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline total score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-2.3|
95720672|NCT03359473|191409950|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.0|10.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||10.1|-5.0|
95720673|NCT03359473|191409950|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|-0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-8.4|7.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline symptoms score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.5|-8.4|
95720674|NCT03359473|191409951|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.2|7.1|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.1|-3.2|
95720675|NCT03359473|191409951|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.6|6.5|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline activity score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||6.5|-5.6|
95720676|NCT03359473|191409952|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.7|8.6|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||8.6|-1.7|
95720677|NCT03359473|191409952|OTHER||Difference in Least Square Means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|7.7|||||Analysis was performed by ANCOVA model with Baseline impact score as the covariate adjusting for the treatment.|||7.7|-0.7|
95720678|NCT00442338|191409957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.01||||0.871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.08|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the least square (LS) means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) model.||0.08|-0.07|0.871
95720679|NCT00442338|191409957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.01||||0.794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.06|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.06|-0.08|0.794
95720680|NCT00442338|191409957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.02||||0.675|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.09|||ANCOVA|The model included a factor for treatment and used the baseline FEV1 as a covariate.||Treatment difference in change from Baseline in FEV1 within the first 60 minutes after study drug administration was assessed as the difference in the LS means of time weighted average change FEV1 (0-60 min) using an ANCOVA model.||0.09|-0.06|0.675
95720681|NCT00956709|191409967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56||||||Two patients in each group had incomplete block before sugery.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95720682|NCT00956709|191409969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3354|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3354
95720683|NCT00956709|191409970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0445|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0445
95720684|NCT03000075|191410007|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|73.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.2|85.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||85.0|62.2|< 0.001
95720685|NCT03000075|191410007|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|72.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|60.6|84.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||84.1|60.6|< 0.001
95720686|NCT03000075|191410009|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|75.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.8|86.2||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||86.2|63.8|< 0.001
95720687|NCT03000075|191410009|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|82.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|72.2|92.6||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||92.6|72.2|< 0.001
95720688|NCT03000075|191410011|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|80.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|70.1|90.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.4|70.1|< 0.001
95720689|NCT03000075|191410011|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|86.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|76.8|95.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||95.1|76.8|< 0.001
95720690|NCT03000075|191410013|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|22.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.8|33.4||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||33.4|11.8|< 0.001
95720691|NCT03000075|191410013|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|32.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.0|45.0||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||45.0|20.0|< 0.001
95720692|NCT03000075|191410015|OTHER||Adjusted percentage difference|39.2||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.6|90.1||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.||90.1|-11.6|0.131
95720693|NCT03000075|191410015|OTHER|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata: weight (≤ 90 kg vs \> 90 kg) and concomitant PsA at Baseline (YES: DIAGNOSED or SUSPECTED vs NO). If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Adjusted percentage difference|31.3||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.2|86.7||P-value was calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||95% CI for adjusted difference of 2 treatment groups, calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for strata. If there was a stratum containing zero count, 0.1 was added to each cell.|||86.7|-24.2|0.269
95720694|NCT02180659|191410017|NON_INFERIORITY|"For the primary efficacy variable, a test of non-inferiority of Probuphine (active) versus SL BPN (control) responders was conducted. A non-inferiority margin of 20% was employed to define noninferiority.~A Confidence Interval (CI) for the difference in proportions was calculated, and non-inferiority was established if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference of proportions (Probuphine - SL BPN) was greater than -0.20."|Difference in Response Rate|0.088|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.009|0.167|||Chi-squared|||||0.167|0.009|<.001
95720695|NCT02180659|191410018|SUPERIORITY|At month 6 comparing those subject with no illicit drug use.||||||0.306|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.306
95720696|NCT02180659|191410019|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.037|||||||Log Rank|||||||.037
95720697|NCT02180659|191410021|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.832|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.832
95720698|NCT02180659|191410022|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.922|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.922
95720699|NCT02180659|191410023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.425|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.425
95720700|NCT02180659|191410024|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.505|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Comparing change in baseline to week 24 between the two groups.||||0.505
95720701|NCT00111007|191410025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.906||||0.492|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.627|1.31|||log rank test|||||1.310|0.627|0.492
95720702|NCT00111007|191410026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.996||||0.979|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.744|1.333|||log rank test|||||1.333|0.744|0.979
95720703|NCT00111007|191410027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.863||||0.331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.641|1.162|||log rank test|||||1.162|0.641|0.331
95720704|NCT00111007|191410028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.398||||0.146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.437|||log rank test|||||1.437|0.110|0.146
95720705|NCT00111007|191410029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.389||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.389
95720706|NCT01154673|191410033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.006|0.4||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|Regression, Linear||"The estimated difference in mean change from baseline to 48 weeks was calculated as the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Intensive HAART minus the log DNA copies/106 CD4+ T cells in Placebo Arm"|||0.4|-.006|0.056
95720707|NCT00345969|191410077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95720708|NCT00345969|191410078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.55
95720709|NCT00345969|191410079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.23
95720710|NCT00345969|191410080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.43
95720711|NCT00345969|191410081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.33
95720712|NCT00345969|191410082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.93
95720713|NCT00345969|191410083|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.24
95720714|NCT00345969|191410084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.49
95720715|NCT00345969|191410085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.19
95720716|NCT00345969|191410086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.71|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.71
95720717|NCT00345969|191410087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.44
95720718|NCT00345969|191410088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.89
95720719|NCT00345969|191410089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.13|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||||||0.13
95720720|NCT00609115|191410090|SUPERIORITY||Effect size|0.65||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|97.5|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.010
95720721|NCT00609115|191410090|SUPERIORITY||Effect|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95720722|NCT00609115|191410091|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The reported p-value was calculated.|ANCOVA|||||||1.00
95720723|NCT00609115|191410091|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.29||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.06
95720724|NCT00609115|191410092|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.33||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95720725|NCT00609115|191410092|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.4||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.17
95720726|NCT00609115|191410093|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.05||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
95720727|NCT00609115|191410093|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.27||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.83
95720728|NCT00609115|191410094|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.25||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.28
95720729|NCT00609115|191410094|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.38||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.09
95720730|NCT00609115|191410095|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.23||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.18
95720731|NCT00609115|191410095|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.37||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.10
95720732|NCT00609115|191410096|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.18||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.45
95720733|NCT00609115|191410096|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.71||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.003
95720734|NCT00609115|191410097|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.17||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.47
95720735|NCT00609115|191410097|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.77||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.015
95720736|NCT00609115|191410098|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.48||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.05
95720737|NCT00609115|191410098|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.56||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95720738|NCT00609115|191410099|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.26||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.27
95720739|NCT00609115|191410099|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|0.45||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.045
95720740|NCT03083639|191410100|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUC∞ using analysis of variance (ANOVA) models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90 percent (%) confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|1.018|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.07||||||||1.070|0.969|
95720741|NCT03083639|191410101|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of AUCt using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of AUC central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.939|1.05||||||||1.050|0.939|
95720742|NCT03083639|191410102|EQUIVALENCE|The bioequivalence between esomeprazole capsules (Regimen A) and esomeprazole tablets (Regimen B) was assessed for the natural logarithms of Cmax using ANOVA models. The models included regimen, period, and sequence as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. Within ANOVA framework, point estimates and their 90% CIs for the ratio of Cmax central values between esomeprazole capsules and tablets are presented.|Point estimate|0.942|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.88|1.009||||||||1.009|0.880|
95720743|NCT02864953|191410108|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17|||=|0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.71||P-value was analyzed by ordinal logistic regression adjusting for covariates: region, and IRT stratification factors including rtPA usage (yes/no), thrombectomy usage (yes/no), use of ASPECTS for screening (yes/no), baseline NIHSS (\<=20 vs. \>20).|Regression, Logistic|||||1.71|0.80|=0.4150
95720744|NCT02864953|191410110|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07|||=|0.7413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.6||A logistic regression model was used to estimate an odds ratio (and 95% CI) of improvement on the mRS dichotomized as 0-4 vs. 5-6 at Day 90.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.60|0.72|=0.7413
95720745|NCT02864953|191410111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82|||=|0.1242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|1.87||Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the two study arms to assess the treatment effects on midline shift.|ANOVA|||||1.87|-0.23|=0.1242
95720746|NCT02262507|191410147|OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95720747|NCT01052038|191410190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95720748|NCT01052038|191410190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
95720749|NCT01052038|191410190|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||2|0|<0.001
95720750|NCT01052038|191410191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Dunn's post hoc-test corrected for 12 comparisons.||||||<0.001
95720751|NCT01052038|191410191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|22.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|29.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||29|14|0.005
95720752|NCT01052038|191410191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|14.0||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|22.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||22|7|0.004
95720753|NCT01052038|191410192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.004
95720754|NCT01052038|191410193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|Post hoc test using Dunn's test corrected for 12 comparisons||||||0.01
95720755|NCT01052038|191410193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|10.0||||0.003||95.0|0.0|20.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||20|0|0.003
95720756|NCT01052038|191410194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.04
95720757|NCT00110084|191410258|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Proportion of confirmed responses (%)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|36.0|64.0|||||95% Confidence intervals were calculated for the true confirmed response rate using properties of the binomial distribution.|Proportion of confirmed responses was estimated by the number of patients who achieved a confirmed response divided by the total number of assessable patients.||64|36|
95720758|NCT04854707|191410271|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95720759|NCT04854707|191410271|OTHER|||||||0.032|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.032
95720760|NCT04854707|191410272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.017||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0161|0.0501|||Chi-squared|z-value = 1||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0501|-0.0161|0.314
95720761|NCT04854707|191410272|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0207||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0369|0.0782|||Chi-squared|||95% Confidence intervals (CIs) of point estimates were calculated using the exact binominal distribution (Clopper-Pearson method) for proportions||0.0782|-0.0369|0.482
95720762|NCT04854707|191410273|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95720763|NCT04854707|191410273|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95720764|NCT04854707|191410274|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95720765|NCT04854707|191410275|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95720766|NCT04854707|191410275|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95720767|NCT03706209|191410308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.12||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|35.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||35.97|0.47|0.161
95720768|NCT03706209|191410308|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.52||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|55.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||55.43|0.55|0.111
95720769|NCT03706209|191410309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.25|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.25|0.71|0.222
95720770|NCT03706209|191410309|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.91|0.75|0.182
95720771|NCT03706209|191410310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.91||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|25.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||25.39|0.33|0.294
95720772|NCT03706209|191410310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06||||0.291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|53.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||53.14|0.31|0.291
95720773|NCT03706209|191410311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.77|0.45|0.617
95720774|NCT03706209|191410311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|5.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5|0.6|0.319
95720775|NCT03706209|191410312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|4.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.52|0.5|0.47
95720776|NCT03706209|191410312|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.44||||0.136|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|7.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.82|0.76|0.136
95720777|NCT03706209|191410313|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|3.0|||ANCOVA|||||3|-2.6|0.894
95720778|NCT03706209|191410313|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.456|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|1.7|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.7|-3.8|0.456
95720779|NCT03706209|191410315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.572|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.572
95720780|NCT03706209|191410315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4494|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 75 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.4494
95720781|NCT03706209|191410316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7922|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.7922
95720782|NCT03706209|191410316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1425|||||||Log Rank|Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time (day) to reach the PASI 50 criterion was not computed since data were too sparse.||||||0.1425
95720783|NCT03706209|191410317|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.992
95720784|NCT03706209|191410317|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.143|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.143
95720785|NCT03706209|191410320|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.178
95720786|NCT03706209|191410320|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.718|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|7.48|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.48|0.05|0.718
95720787|NCT03706209|191410321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.4||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|28.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||28.05|0.21|0.474
95720788|NCT03706209|191410321|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|19.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||19.05|0.08|0.867
95720789|NCT03706209|191410322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|12.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||12.84|0.38|0.375
95720790|NCT03706209|191410322|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.24||||0.116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|27.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||27.08|0.66|0.116
95720791|NCT03706209|191410323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.27|0.08|0.287
95720792|NCT03706209|191410323|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.85||||0.332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|6.4|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||6.4|0.53|0.332
95720793|NCT03706209|191410324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.63|0.25|0.719
95720794|NCT03706209|191410324|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|5.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.32|0.55|0.357
95720795|NCT03706209|191410325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|5.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.72|0.53|0.355
95720796|NCT03706209|191410325|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|7.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||7.37|0.67|0.198
95720797|NCT03706209|191410326|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||2.3|-1.7|0.757
95720798|NCT03706209|191410326|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.267|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||0.9|-3.1|0.267
95720799|NCT03706209|191410327|SUPERIORITY||least square means|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|3.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.4|-1.4|0.412
95720800|NCT03706209|191410327|SUPERIORITY||least square means|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|1.4|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||1.4|-3.5|0.401
95720801|NCT03706209|191410328|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|3.9|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.9|-3|0.801
95720802|NCT03706209|191410328|SUPERIORITY||least square means|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.7||0.957|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|3.3|||ANCOVA|||Estimates and treatment comparison of least square means using an ANCOVA model, with treatment arm and (pooled) analysis center as factors and baseline outcome as covariate.||3.3|-3.4|0.957
95720803|NCT03706209|191410332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.8|0.55|0.45
95720804|NCT03706209|191410332|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|5.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.26|0.74|0.186
95720805|NCT03706209|191410333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.884|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||2.18|0.41|0.884
95720806|NCT03706209|191410333|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.64|0.61|0.384
95720807|NCT03706209|191410334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|4.26|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.26|0.63|0.311
95720808|NCT03706209|191410334|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|0.47|0.699
95720809|NCT03706209|191410335|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.671
95720810|NCT03706209|191410335|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.183
95720811|NCT03706209|191410336|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.542
95720812|NCT03706209|191410336|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.328
95720813|NCT03706209|191410337|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.921
95720814|NCT03706209|191410337|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann using location shift|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0||0.488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||0|0|0.488
95720815|NCT03706209|191410348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1193|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.1193
95720816|NCT03706209|191410348|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0054|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0054
95720817|NCT03706209|191410349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2439|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2439
95720818|NCT03706209|191410349|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2461|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2461
95720819|NCT03706209|191410350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4395|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4395
95720820|NCT03706209|191410350|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0593|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0593
95720821|NCT03706209|191410352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0507|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0507
95720822|NCT03706209|191410352|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0005
95720823|NCT03706209|191410353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0504|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0504
95720824|NCT03706209|191410353|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0013|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0013
95720825|NCT03706209|191410354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.098|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.098
95720826|NCT03706209|191410354|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0032|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.0032
95720827|NCT02643394|191410379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|80.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.252
95720828|NCT02643394|191410380|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.402|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.402
95720829|NCT03829462|191410381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.18||||0.5334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||To show an increase of median overall survival from 7 to 15 months (30% to 57% rates, respectively), with a HR=0.47 and a power of 80% and alpha=5%, 55 events are required for the 78 patients to be randomized considering 15% additional patients for lost to follow-up.||1.98|0.7|0.5334
95720830|NCT03829462|191410381|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Chi-squared|||||1.82|0.59|0.8894
95720831|NCT03829462|191410382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Log Rank|The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05||||1.11|0.4|0.1104
95720832|NCT03829462|191410382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.11|||Chi-squared|||||1.11|0.4|0.1165
95720833|NCT03829462|191410383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42||The threshold for statistical significance was p=0.05|Log Rank|||||1.42|0.26|0.2425
95720834|NCT03829462|191410383|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.2519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.42|||Chi-squared|||||1.42|0.26|0.2519
95720835|NCT03829462|191410384|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|46.5||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95720836|NCT03829462|191410385|SUPERIORITY||Percent difference|7.4||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95720837|NCT00518011|191410405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.842||||0.3644|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.483|7.027|||Log Rank|||||7.027|0.483|0.3644
95720838|NCT00518011|191410409|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.278||||0.7165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.339|4.824|||Log Rank|||||4.824|0.339|0.7165
95720839|NCT03409328|191410415|OTHER||F|38.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||<.001
95720840|NCT03409328|191410416|OTHER||F|6.69||||0.013|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.013
95720841|NCT03409328|191410417|OTHER||F|5.07||||0.029|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.029
95720842|NCT03409328|191410418|OTHER||F|0.38||||0.542|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||||||.542
95720843|NCT03409328|191410419|OTHER||F|3.12||||0.084|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is internalized stigma.||||.084
95720844|NCT03409328|191410419|OTHER||F|0.67||||0.417|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA controlled for baseline levels of the outcome.||The outcome for this analysis is identity affirmation.||||.417
95720845|NCT00090259|191410422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.899||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.818|0.988|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.988|0.818|0.027
95720846|NCT00090259|191410423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.924||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.848|1.006|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.006|0.848|0.068
95720847|NCT00090259|191410424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.936||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.044|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||1.044|0.840|0.235
95720848|NCT00090259|191410425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|0.982|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.982|0.762|0.025
95720849|NCT00090259|191410426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.892||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.808|0.984|||Regression, Cox|Model terms: treatment, region and β-blocker use at randomization|Direction of the Comparison: Hazard Ratio of experiencing the endpoint on Losartan 150 mg compared to Losartan 50 mg|||0.984|0.808|0.023
95720850|NCT03701516|191410427|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.781|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-4.53|3.85|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||3.85|-4.53|
95720851|NCT03701516|191410428|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -5.|Posterior Mean Difference|-2.34|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.263|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|-5.36|0.61|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.61|-5.36|
95720852|NCT03701516|191410429|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the lower bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is greater than -1.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.083|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.1|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.10|-0.22|
95720853|NCT03701516|191410430|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0028|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.005|0.006|||Bayesian repeated measurement random-eff|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.006|-0.005|
95720854|NCT03701516|191410431|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority will be established if the upper bound of the credible interval of the mean difference between Test and Control is less than 0.05.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.003|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0029|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.009|0.002|||Bayesian repeated measurement model|Results were reported as regression coefficient mean estimates with credible intervals (CrI)|Mean difference was calculated as Test - Control|||0.002|-0.009|
95720855|NCT00903409|191410489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The difference between Non-switchers and Switchers in the percent change in non-HDL-C level from the end of the OM6 double-blind study (average of Weeks 6 and 8 for the statistical analysis) to 4 months of OM6X open-label treatment (Month 4).|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||<0.001
95720856|NCT03539952|191410514|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary efficacy analysis utilized the serum NCC values from all study visits that were analyzed using a restricted maximum likelihood based general linear model for correlated data. The correlation due to repeated measures was modeled by specifying the variance covariance matrix. Considering a comparison of means in both treatment arms (D-penicillamine minus TETA 4HCl) at the 1-sided 2.5% level of Type 1 error, a non-inferiority margin of 50 μg/L was used.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.49|||TWO_SIDED|||||||||The primary endpoint was the assessment of the non-inferiority of TETA 4HCl in relation to D-penicillamine. The non-inferiority assessment was made on the basis of the mean serum NCC level at Week 36.||||
95720857|NCT00975000|191410560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square test statistic|66.437|||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test stratified by baseline corrected total serum calcium level (≤ 11.2 mg/dL and \> 11.2 mg/dL)||The primary endpoint was tested at a significance level of 0.05.||||<0.001
95720858|NCT00975000|191410560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|91.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.76|445.41|||||Odds ratio of Cinacalcet/Placebo|||445.41|18.76|
95720859|NCT00975000|191410560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|75.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.83|87.05|||||Difference = Cinacalcet-Placebo|||87.05|63.83|
95720860|NCT00975000|191410561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|1.41||||0.266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|3.93|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the percent change in BMD between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.93|-1.10|0.266
95720861|NCT00975000|191410562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|0.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.64|||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean serum phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||0.64|0.26|<0.001
95720862|NCT00975000|191410563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-0.4||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|3.57|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in mean eGFR between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||3.57|-4.37|0.842
95720863|NCT00975000|191410564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|-1.16|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in corrected total calcium between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-1.16|-1.62|<0.001
95720864|NCT00975000|191410565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-117.21||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-189.88|-44.55|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in iPTH between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||-44.55|-189.88|0.002
95720865|NCT00975000|191410566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference|-1.42||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|13.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with Baseline corrected total serum calcium group as a covariate.|Least square estimate for the difference in the absolute change in urine phosphorus between the 2 treatment groups (cinacalcet - placebo)|||13.06|-15.91|0.846
95720866|NCT00902486|191410574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.17||||0.0619|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|6.15|||Cochran-Armitage trend test||LOGISTIC regression model for odds ratio estimates : LOGIT(Response 0/1) = Treatment + Biologics|The prespecified primary analysis for ACR 20 was the Cochran-Armitage trend test looking for a dose-response relationship. The treatment effect was also assessed using a logistic regression model including background therapy (more than 8 weeks of biologics or not) and treatment.||6.15|0.77|0.0619
95720867|NCT00902486|191410574|OTHER|||||||0.1978|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 4 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1978
95720868|NCT00902486|191410574|OTHER|||||||0.0437|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 7 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.0437
95720869|NCT00902486|191410574|OTHER|||||||0.1236|||||||Fisher Exact|||Sensitivity analysis for pairwise comparisons of 10 mg QD versus placebo.||||0.1236
95720870|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||E0 (g/dL)|-0.664|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.387|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.387|-0.960|
95720871|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||ED50 (milligrams[mg])|33.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.566|48.948|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||48.948|15.566|
95720872|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Emax (g/dL)|5.234||||||95.0|2.691|7.94|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||7.940|2.691|
95720873|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Gamma|1.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.738|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.738|0.748|
95720874|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Var|1.012|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.234|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||1.234|0.840|
95720875|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Alpha|-0.206|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.397|-0.014|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||-0.014|-0.397|
95720876|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Minimally Effective Dose (MED) (mg)|0.418|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|2.342|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||2.342|0.000|
95720877|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of -0.25g/dL|2.423|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.15|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||4.150|0.000|
95720878|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Target Dose (TD) (mg)|4.406|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.544|5.995|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||5.995|2.544|
95720879|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.25 g/dL|6.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.698|8.01|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||8.010|4.698|
95720880|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.5 g/dL|8.542|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.931|10.523|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||10.523|6.931|
95720881|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 0.75 g/dL|10.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.024|14.004|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||14.004|9.024|
95720882|NCT01977482|191410621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dose that achieves a change of 1 g/dL|13.248|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.891|18.916|||||Posterior median and 95% credibility intervals were estimated using Bayesian methods.|||18.916|10.891|
95720883|NCT00584831|191410677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720884|NCT00584831|191410677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hyposthesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720885|NCT00584831|191410677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720886|NCT00584831|191410677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720887|NCT00584831|191410677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720888|NCT00584831|191410677|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720889|NCT00584831|191410678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.16||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720890|NCT00584831|191410678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720891|NCT00584831|191410678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720892|NCT00584831|191410678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720893|NCT00584831|191410678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720894|NCT00584831|191410678|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720895|NCT00584831|191410679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720896|NCT00584831|191410679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720897|NCT00584831|191410679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720898|NCT00584831|191410679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720899|NCT00584831|191410679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720900|NCT00584831|191410679|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720901|NCT00584831|191410680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.17||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720902|NCT00584831|191410680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.19||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720903|NCT00584831|191410680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.2||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720904|NCT00584831|191410680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.15||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720905|NCT00584831|191410680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720906|NCT00584831|191410680|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin is 0.05|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.18||0.02||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Hypothesis is that visual acuity is the same for all lens types.||||0.02
95720907|NCT01211613|191410681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|14.0||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Oswestry change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (primary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Oswestry score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.009
95720908|NCT01211613|191410682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value above relates to the comparison of differences in baseline/4-week Numeric pain change scores between manual and mechanical manipulation methods (secondary hypothesis). A priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p \< 0.05.|Regression, Linear|Linear regression model was adjusted for these covariates: baseline Numeric pain score, age, and treatment expectancy.||||||0.002
95720909|NCT03853213|191410683|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|2.54||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|16.71|||t-test, 2 sided|The p-value is adjusted using the Satterthwaite correction due to unequal variances between the two groups.|A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater reduction in the measure for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||16.71|-11.62|0.698
95720910|NCT03853213|191410684|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.88||||0.123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.0|1.24|||t-test, 2 sided||A lower value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates lower extent of medication nonadherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|Note that the measure of extent of medication nonadherence used the older 5-item version of the scale rather than the newer 3-item version of the scale because the IRB modification to change the measure took effect after the majority of participants who provided data for Visit 2 had completed the measure.||1.24|-9.00|0.123
95720911|NCT03853213|191410685|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|66.29||||0.965|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3081.7|3214.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3214.3|-3081.7|0.965
95720912|NCT03853213|191410686|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-6.17||||0.29|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.15|5.81|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in context sensitivity for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||5.81|-18.15|0.290
95720913|NCT03853213|191410687|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference (in change score)|-5.07||||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.51|8.38|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference in change score indicates a greater increase in future time perspective for the intervention group relative to the attention control group.|||8.38|-18.51|0.434
95720914|NCT03853213|191410688|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.05||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.07|53.17|||t-test, 2 sided||A higher value of the estimation parameter of mean difference indicates a lower extent of objectively measured medication adherence for the intervention relative to the control group.|||53.17|-19.07|0.293
95720915|NCT01227954|191410701|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||To detect a minimum relative 50% improvement leading to an absolute 15% mean relative decline (MRD) in HVLT-R DR, 51 analyzable patients were required to ensure 80% statistical power with 0.05 alpha. Assuming a death rate of 40% before 4 months (based on trial NCT00003563) and a 10% nonevaluable rate, the target sample size was 102. The target MRD was determined from NCT00003563 which demonstrated 30% MRD in HVLT-R DR score from baseline to 4 months, with a standard deviation of 41%.||||<0.001
95720916|NCT01227954|191410704|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and recursive partitioning analysis class (RPA) (I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
95720917|NCT01227954|191410704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1961|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1961
95728976|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|4.1||||0.093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, overall VAS-PI score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline VAS-PI score as the covariate.||8.80|-0.70|0.093
95720918|NCT01227954|191410704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0715|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Primary site (lung) is reported here.||||0.0715
95720919|NCT01227954|191410704|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0554|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model with FACT-Br total score (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic status (no symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0554
95720920|NCT01227954|191410705|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Intercept is reported here.||||<0.0001
95720921|NCT01227954|191410705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1579|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Time is reported here.||||0.1579
95720922|NCT01227954|191410705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0559|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Neurologic function status (some symptoms) is reported here.||||0.0559
95720923|NCT01227954|191410705|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0749|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Each explanatory variable in the final model is reported separately.||A general linear fixed effects model was run with ADL (baseline, 2, 4, 6 mo. from end of treatment) as outcome of interest. Explanatory variables in the model: Age (\>= 60 vs. \<60), primary site (lung,breast,colon each vs. other), neurologic function status (no vs. some symptoms), and RPA class(I vs. II). Explanatory variables are reported separately and only if they are in the final model (p\< 0.10, except time forced in the model.). Age (\>= 60) is reported here.||||0.0749
95720924|NCT04256759|191410737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 12||||0.018
95720925|NCT04256759|191410737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Week 18||||0.021
95720926|NCT04256759|191410738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.13
95720927|NCT04256759|191410739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95720928|NCT00602641|191410740|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Presuming the control over the experimental arm (MPT-T/mPR-R), the inferiority of mPR-R was defined as a PFS treatment hazard ratio (HR) of less than or equal to 0.82 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 20.5 months (mos) vs. 25 mos on the MPT-T arm. With 304 patients and 221 PFS events, there was 86% power to detect non-inferiority of mPR-R at a 1-sided 0.05 significance level assuming a superiority alternative of HR=1.2 corresponding to median PFS on the mPR-R arm of 30 mos.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|1.045|||||Analysis based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y). The fact that the lower-bound was less than 0.82 and the upper bound was above 1.0 indicates that results were inconclusive for the primary objective.|Since mPR-R was expected to be considerably less toxic and to confer slightly longer PFS, a non-inferiority design with superiority alternative was used.||1.045|0.67|
95720929|NCT00602641|191410741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.476|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Analysis was based on stratified cox regression by ISS stage (I-II vs. III) and age (\< 65y vs. ≥ 65y).||||||0.476
95720930|NCT00602641|191410742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.204|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.204
95720931|NCT00602641|191410743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.007|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.007
95720932|NCT03901352|191410744|SUPERIORITY||Difference of LSM vs placebo|-0.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|-0.34|||ANCOVA||"The multiple imputation (MI) was based on a nonfuture dependence model using the pattern mixture model (PMM) approach with shifting parameters under the missing not at random (MNAR0 mechanism for the missing weekly ADPS."|||-0.34|-1.08|0.0001
95720933|NCT03901339|191410762|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.653||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.526|0.812||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.526|0.0001
95720934|NCT03901339|191410763|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.652|0.952||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.952|0.652|0.0133
95720935|NCT03901339|191410764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.662||||0.0268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.058|2.609|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by BICR Assessment||2.609|1.058|0.0268
95720936|NCT03901339|191410764|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.989||||0.0098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.174|3.369|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||ORR by LIR Assessment||3.369|1.174|0.0098
95720937|NCT03901339|191410766|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.796||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.628|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by BICR Assessment||2.628|1.227|0.0025
95720938|NCT03901339|191410766|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.834||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.237|2.717|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||CBR by LIR Assessment||2.717|1.237|0.0024
95720939|NCT03901339|191410767|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.728||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.602|0.881||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.881|0.602|0.0010
95720940|NCT03901339|191410768|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.751||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.612|0.922||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.922|0.612|0.0059
95720941|NCT03901339|191410769|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.918||||0.4151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.748|1.126||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||1.126|0.748|0.4151
95720942|NCT03901339|191410770|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.732||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.598|0.894||Stratified log-rank test and stratified Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors: prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, presence of visceral metastasis, and endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting for at least 6 months.|Log Rank|||||0.894|0.598|0.0021
95720943|NCT02964910|191410799|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95% CI of the seroconversion rate difference was not less than -10%.|the seroconversion rate difference(%)|-2.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.23|0.22||||||||0.22|-5.23|
95720944|NCT02964910|191410800|NON_INFERIORITY|The criteria of the immunogenicity non-inferiority between CHB group and healthy adults group were: the lower limit of 95%CI of the GMC ratio was not lower than 0.5.|GMC ratio|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||||||||0.85|0.55|
95720945|NCT02964910|191410804|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.778|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.778
95720946|NCT02964910|191410805|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.728|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.728
95720947|NCT02964910|191410806|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.949|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.949
95720948|NCT02964910|191410807|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.614|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.614
95720949|NCT02964910|191410808|OTHER|The differences in incidence rate of ADR\\AE between the two groups were compared.||||||0.956|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.956
95720950|NCT04101721|191410809|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority margin is 5%|Adjusted difference|1.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-15.71|19.33||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||19.33|-15.71|
95720951|NCT04101721|191410810|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|-3.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-19.86|12.54||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status.||12.54|-19.86|
95720952|NCT04101721|191410811|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference|10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.1|-9.83|30.02||||||Difference with confidence interval (CI) is calculated using Mantel-Haenszel weighting scheme adjusted by baseline ROP status||30.02|-9.83|
95720953|NCT01215955|191410814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.22|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.22|-0.15|
95720954|NCT01215955|191410814|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.24|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||0.24|-0.12|
95720955|NCT01215955|191410815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.128|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.09||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.09|0.520|0.128
95720956|NCT01215955|191410815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.39||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.39|0.580|0.625
95720957|NCT01215955|191410815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.11||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.53|0.162
95720958|NCT01215955|191410815|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.4||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Linear|||||1.40|0.61|0.723
95720959|NCT01215955|191410816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|2.67||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7.0% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.67|0.520|0.701
95720960|NCT01215955|191410816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.7||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.70|0.710|0.249
95720961|NCT01215955|191410816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.32||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.8||P-value is for HbA1c ≤7% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|Included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: Baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use.||||0.80|0.13|0.015
95720962|NCT01215955|191410816|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.1||P-value is for HbA1c ≤6.5% at endpoint (LOCF). Logistic regression included treatment and effects for baseline stratification variables: baseline HbA1c (≤8% or \>8%), country and sulfonylurea/meglitinide use. Comparison calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.10|0.17|0.078
95720963|NCT01215955|191410817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.46||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.46|0.17|0.014
95720964|NCT01215955|191410817|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.5||||0.108|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.11||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.11|-1.12|0.108
95720965|NCT01215955|191410818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.11|0.57|0.182
95720966|NCT01215955|191410818|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|1.22||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Cox|Cox Regression model with effects for treatment and baseline stratification variables (HbA1c, country, sulfonylurea/meglitinide use) was used.||||1.22|0.65|0.460
95720967|NCT01215955|191410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.77|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||0.77|-0.19|
95720968|NCT01215955|191410819|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.31|||||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|||1.31|0.30|
95720969|NCT01215955|191410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|0.59||||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.58||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model.|||1.58|-0.40|0.242
95720970|NCT01215955|191410820|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|1.13||||0.082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|2.41||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without 24-week values were handled by the statistical model.|||2.41|-0.15|0.082
95720971|NCT01215955|191410821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.15||||0.723|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|0.66||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.66|-0.95|0.723
95720972|NCT01215955|191410821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Differences|-0.28||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.52||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis||No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model|||0.52|-1.08|0.495
95720973|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.32||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.28|8.93||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.93|-2.28|0.245
95720974|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.71||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.71|6.29||P-value is for Morning 2-HR PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.29|-7.71|0.842
95720975|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.42||||0.626||95.0|-4.32|7.16||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.16|-4.32|0.626
95720976|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.48||||0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.91|3.95||P-value is for Midday 2-Hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||3.95|-10.91|0.358
95720977|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.38||||0.322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.32|10.07||P-value is for Evening Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.07|-3.32|0.322
95720978|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.25||||0.617|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.08|6.58||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.58|-11.08|0.617
95720979|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.37||||0.519|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|9.6||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||9.60|-4.86|0.519
95720980|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.1||||0.415|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|7.15||P-value is for Morning Pre-meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.15|-2.96|0.415
95720981|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.38||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|11.06||P-value is for Morning 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.06|-2.30|0.198
95720982|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.22||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|12.29||P-value is for Midday Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.29|0.14|0.045
95720983|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.07||||0.426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|10.64||P-value is for Midday 2-hr PP. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||10.64|-4.50|0.426
95720984|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|13.17||P-value is for Evening Pre-Meal. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.17|-1.86|0.140
95720985|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|11.18||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.74|20.63||P-value is for Bed Time. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||20.63|1.74|0.020
95720986|NCT01215955|191410822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|9.01||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|17.49||P-value is for 0300 hours. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.49|0.53|0.037
95720987|NCT01215955|191410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.15||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|4.84||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.84|-2.55|0.543
95720988|NCT01215955|191410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.72||||0.095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|14.6||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.60|-1.17|0.095
95720989|NCT01215955|191410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|8.86||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|18.06||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||18.06|-0.35|0.059
95720990|NCT01215955|191410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.09||||0.497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|4.23||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.23|-2.05|0.497
95720991|NCT01215955|191410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.37||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|12.79||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.79|-2.06|0.156
95720992|NCT01215955|191410823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.05||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|15.76||P-value of for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|-3.67|0.222
95720993|NCT01215955|191410824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.02|0.442
95720994|NCT01215955|191410824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07||||0.037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.14||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|0.00|0.037
95720995|NCT01215955|191410824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.16||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|0.05|<0.001
95720996|NCT01215955|191410824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.02||||0.275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|0.05||P-value is for basal insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|LS Mean Difference|||||0.05|-0.01|0.275
95720997|NCT01215955|191410824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03||||0.194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.08||P-value is for bolus insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.08|-0.02|0.194
95720998|NCT01215955|191410824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.06||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.15||P-value is for total insulin dose. No imputation was performed. Participants without a 24-week value were handled by the statistical model. Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.04|0.245
95720999|NCT01215955|191410825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.435
95721000|NCT01215955|191410825|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.351
95721001|NCT01215955|191410826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.802||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.802
95721002|NCT01215955|191410826|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.205||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.205
95721003|NCT01215955|191410827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio of Negative Binomial|1.06||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.30|0.86|0.586
95721004|NCT01215955|191410827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Q3D vs Q1D Ratio Negative Binomial|1.05||||0.689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.3||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Negative Binomial|||||1.30|0.84|0.689
95721005|NCT01215955|191410828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.258||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.258
95721006|NCT01215955|191410828|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.856||95.0||||Comparison is calculated as Q3D versus Q1D.|Regression, Logistic|||||||0.856
95721007|NCT00038467|191410837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||3e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|0.82|||Log Rank|||||0.82|0.58|0.00003
95721008|NCT00038467|191410838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.913||||0.15737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.806|1.036|||Log Rank|||||1.036|0.806|0.15737
95721009|NCT00038467|191410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.63|3.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.23|1.63|<0.0001
95721010|NCT00038467|191410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.18||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.79|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.79|0.57|0.0002
95721011|NCT00038467|191410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.81|1.77|<0.0001
95721012|NCT00038467|191410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.46|1.12|<0.0001
95721013|NCT00038467|191410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.1|4.35|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (lumbar spine): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||4.35|2.10|<0.0001
95721014|NCT00038467|191410840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.69|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months on-treatment (total hip): p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.69|1.10|<0.0001
95721015|NCT00038467|191410849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|0.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.86|-1.76|0.500
95721016|NCT00038467|191410849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.67|-0.52|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.52|-3.67|0.009
95721017|NCT00038467|191410849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.35||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.16|-2.86|0.079
95721018|NCT00038467|191410849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.729|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|1.77|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.77|-1.24|0.729
95721019|NCT00038467|191410849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.75|-2.43|0.302
95721020|NCT00038467|191410849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.11||||0.187|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|0.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.54|-2.76|0.187
95721021|NCT00038467|191410850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.49|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.49|-1.80|0.260
95721022|NCT00038467|191410850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.44|-2.02|0.209
95721023|NCT00038467|191410850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.38|0.92|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.92|-1.38|0.698
95721024|NCT00038467|191410850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.83||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|2.09|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.09|-0.42|0.192
95721025|NCT00038467|191410850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.15|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.15|-1.46|0.813
95721026|NCT00038467|191410850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42||||0.537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|1.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.75|-0.91|0.537
95721027|NCT00038467|191410851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.46|2.42|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.42|-3.46|0.727
95721028|NCT00038467|191410851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.12|-0.05|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.05|-6.12|0.047
95721029|NCT00038467|191410851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.9||||0.553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|2.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.08|-3.88|0.553
95721030|NCT00038467|191410851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91||||0.563|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.17|3.99|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||3.99|-2.17|0.563
95721031|NCT00038467|191410851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.73||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.83|2.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||2.36|-3.83|0.643
95721032|NCT00038467|191410851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.91||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.63|0.82|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.82|-6.63|0.126
95721033|NCT00038467|191410852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||0.265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.23|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.23|-0.83|0.265
95721034|NCT00038467|191410852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.21||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.84|-0.57|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||-0.57|-1.84|0.0002
95721035|NCT00038467|191410852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.13|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.13|-1.00|0.132
95721036|NCT00038467|191410852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.635|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.43|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.43|-0.70|0.635
95721037|NCT00038467|191410852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.449|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.75|0.449
95721038|NCT00038467|191410852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.81|0.454
95721039|NCT00038467|191410853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.335|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.335|-0.53|0.712
95721040|NCT00038467|191410853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.356|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.356|-0.65|0.899
95721041|NCT00038467|191410853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.882|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.359|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.359|-0.76|0.882
95721042|NCT00038467|191410853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.37|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.37|-0.54|0.604
95721043|NCT00038467|191410853|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.454|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.454|-1.16|0.562
95721044|NCT00038467|191410854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.18|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.18|-0.20|0.892
95721045|NCT00038467|191410854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.24|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.24|-0.21|0.881
95721046|NCT00038467|191410854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-0.18|0.883
95721047|NCT00038467|191410854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.27|-0.16|0.604
95721048|NCT00038467|191410854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.41|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.41|-0.05|0.118
95721049|NCT00038467|191410854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.34|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.34|-0.11|0.307
95721050|NCT00038467|191410855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.56|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.56|-0.42|0.792
95721051|NCT00038467|191410855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.31|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.31|-0.76|0.405
95721052|NCT00038467|191410855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.36|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.36|-0.75|0.484
95721053|NCT00038467|191410855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.80|-0.19|0.229
95721054|NCT00038467|191410855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-0.84|0.381
95721055|NCT00038467|191410855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.33|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.33|-0.82|0.405
95721056|NCT00038467|191410856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.648|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.48|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.48|-0.77|0.648
95721057|NCT00038467|191410856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.08|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.40|-1.08|0.366
95721058|NCT00038467|191410856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.65||||0.062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.33|0.03|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.03|-1.33|0.062
95721059|NCT00038467|191410856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|1.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||1.00|-0.53|0.545
95721060|NCT00038467|191410856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03||||0.932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.70|-0.77|0.932
95721061|NCT00038467|191410856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.32|-1.24|0.244
95721062|NCT00038467|191410857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.876|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|0.73|||t-test, 2 sided|||3 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.73|-0.62|0.876
95721063|NCT00038467|191410857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|0.26|||t-test, 2 sided|||6 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.26|-1.25|0.195
95721064|NCT00038467|191410857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.55|||t-test, 2 sided|||9 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.55|-0.92|0.630
95721065|NCT00038467|191410857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.98|||t-test, 2 sided|||12 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.98|-0.50|0.530
95721066|NCT00038467|191410857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.61||||0.147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||18 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.21|-1.43|0.147
95721067|NCT00038467|191410857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.389|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.46|||t-test, 2 sided|||24 months: p-value was estimated using 2-sided t-test.||0.46|-1.18|0.389
95721068|NCT00038467|191410859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||6 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0174
95721069|NCT00038467|191410859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0059|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0059
95721070|NCT00038467|191410859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.0037
95721071|NCT00038467|191410859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8084|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||12 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.8084
95721072|NCT00038467|191410859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6449|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||24 months post-treatment: p-value for percentage of participants with an endometrial thickness of \>=5 mm was analyzed using Chi-squared test.||||0.6449
95728977|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|7.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||7.70|-1.40|0.177
95721073|NCT01523301|191410865|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Mean|-1.12|||=|0.1286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|0.33||The null hypothesis was assessed with a 2-sided test and not rejected at p≤0.05.|ANCOVA|||The change from Baseline to the end of the Maintenance period in the score of the HAM-D of rotigotine-treated subjects has been compared with those subjects on placebo in the EES. The null hypothesis (H0) was that there was no difference in the change of the HAM-D score between the active treatment and the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (H1) was that there was a difference in the change of HAM-D score between the rotigotine and the placebo arm.||0.33|-2.56|=0.1286
95721074|NCT03332212|191410951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.247|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.1418|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.582|0.087|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.087|-0.582|0.1418
95721075|NCT03332212|191410951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.159|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.465|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.604|0.286|||ANOVA|||ANOVA on the PCr/ATP ratio absolute change using treatment (empagliflozin vs. placebo), history of diabetes (yes vs, no) and history of atrial fibrillation (yes vs no) as between subjects factor.||0.286|-0.604|0.4650
95721076|NCT00929864|191410952|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Analysis tested for non-inferiority. Abatacept will be considered non-inferior to adalimumab if the upper limit of the 95% two-sided CI of difference in ACR20 response rates between the adalimumab arm and the abatacept arm is smaller than or equal to 12%. Estimate and 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference based on minimum risk weights method with randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).|Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|9.2|||minimum risk weights method|adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||The null and alternative hypotheses are H0: T - C\<= δ vs. Ha:T - C \> δ, where T is the treatment effect of abatacept, C is the effect of active control (adalimumab),and δ is non-inferiority margin. Abatacept is defined as δ non-inferior to adalimumab when H0 is rejected. More specifically, if the lower bound of the 95% two-sided confidence interval for C-T is greater than δ,, then that Abatacept is δ non-inferior to adalimumab can be claimed.||9.2|-5.6|
95721077|NCT00929864|191410953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportions|-5.37||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.13|-1.62|||Chi-squared|||Analysis is p-value of difference in proportions. n=number of participants with event, N=number of participants at risk. Proportion = n/N. In order to maintain the overall type I error rate of 0.05 for testing both the primary non-inferiority hypothesis and the key secondary local injection site reaction (LISR) hypothesis, the LISR hypothesis was tested at the 5% significance level only after the primary non-inferiority hypothesis is established at the 5% level.||-1.62|-9.13|0.006
95721078|NCT00929864|191410954|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-4.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.55|-1.72||||||Analysis of incidence rate at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||-1.72|-6.55|
95721079|NCT00929864|191410955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 365|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.9|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 365.||3.9|-6.5|
95721080|NCT00929864|191410955|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab at Day 729|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|7.3|||minimum risk weights method|Adjusted for randomization stratification of screening Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) c-reactive protein (CRP).||This analysis is for Day 729.||7.3|-5.5|
95721081|NCT00929864|191410956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.51|6.11||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||6.11|-4.51|
95721082|NCT00929864|191410956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|1.94||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious Infections and Infestations at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.94|-3.27|
95721083|NCT00929864|191410956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.91||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Opportunistic Infections at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.91|-0.92|
95721084|NCT00929864|191410956|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-5.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|1.41||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuation for any cause at 12 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.41|-12.06|
95721085|NCT00929864|191410957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.43|1.61||||||Analysis for incidence rate of SAE at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||1.61|-5.43|
95721086|NCT00929864|191410957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-1.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.12|0.63||||||Analysis for incidence rate of Serious infections and infestations Adverse Events at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.63|-3.12|
95721087|NCT00929864|191410957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.36|||minimum risk weights method|||Analysis for incidence rate of opportunistic infections at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.36|-1.39|
95721088|NCT00929864|191410957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-3.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.13|0.92||||||Analysis for incidence rate of discontinuations (all cause) at 24 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference. Poisson distribution was used to construct the 95% CIs.||0.92|-7.13|
95721089|NCT00929864|191410958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.9|-2.2||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-2.2|-13.9|
95721090|NCT00929864|191410958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-8.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|-1.5||||||Analysis for ANA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference||-1.5|-15.3|
95721091|NCT00929864|191410958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.4|-5.7||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 365. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-5.7|-13.4|
95721092|NCT00929864|191410958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference from adalimumab|-12.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|-7.6||||||Analysis for dsDNA at Day 729. Point estimate and 95% CI for treatment difference.||-7.6|-16.9|
95721093|NCT03728257|191410959|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.8793||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8793
95721094|NCT03728257|191410960|SUPERIORITY|Change in average steps per day between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.9597||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9597
95721095|NCT03728257|191410961|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.3||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.30
95721096|NCT03728257|191410962|SUPERIORITY|Change in Berg balance between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.81||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.81
95721097|NCT03728257|191410963|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.2262||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance is p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2262
95721098|NCT03728257|191410964|SUPERIORITY|Change in 30 Second Sit-to-Stand Test between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.59||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.59
95721099|NCT03728257|191410965|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.26||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95721100|NCT03728257|191410966|SUPERIORITY|Change in SGRQ between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.78||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95721101|NCT03728257|191410967|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 3 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.7073||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.7073
95721102|NCT03728257|191410968|SUPERIORITY|Change in MVPA between baseline and 6 months was compared between the two groups.||||||0.313||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.313
95721103|NCT03728257|191410969|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.91||||||a priori threshold for statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.91
95721104|NCT03728257|191410970|SUPERIORITY|Change in count of participants with the same or improved stage of hypertension between baseline and 6 months.||||||0.72||||||a priori threshold of statistical significance p \< 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.72
95721105|NCT03940742|191410971|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.879|1.32||||||||1.32|0.879|
95721106|NCT03940742|191410971|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|1.17||||||||1.17|0.790|
95721107|NCT03940742|191410971|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.699|1.04||||||||1.04|0.699|
95721108|NCT03940742|191410972|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.916|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.726|1.16||||||||1.16|0.726|
95721109|NCT03940742|191410972|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.802|1.25||||||||1.25|0.802|
95721110|NCT03940742|191410972|OTHER||Ratio of geometric least squares mean|0.972|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.784|1.21||||||||1.21|0.784|
95721111|NCT03428217|191410980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.6528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-1/PDL1) inhibitor therapy (yes vs no) and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database (IMDC) prognostic risk group (favorable vs intermediate vs poor).||1.21|0.74|0.6528
95721112|NCT03428217|191410980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.24|0.76|0.8193
95721113|NCT03428217|191410980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.97||||0.8345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.25|0.76|0.8345
95721114|NCT03428217|191410980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.9479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.27|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.27|0.78|0.9479
95721115|NCT03428217|191410981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.6|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.6|0.83|0.3867
95721116|NCT03428217|191410981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17||||0.3367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.62|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.62|0.85|0.3367
95721117|NCT03428217|191410981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.22||||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.69|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.69|0.88|0.2416
95721118|NCT03428217|191410981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.19||||0.3043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.64|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.64|0.86|0.3043
95721119|NCT03428217|191410982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.25|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 1: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate vs. poor\].||1.25|0.79|0.9692
95721120|NCT03428217|191410982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.27|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 2: Stratified by prior PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor therapy \[yes vs. no\] and IMDC prognostic risk group \[favorable vs. intermediate/poor\].||1.27|0.8|0.9235
95721121|NCT03428217|191410982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9549|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis 3: Stratified by the number of prior anti-angio cancer therapy \[0 vs. \>=1\].||1.26|0.8|0.9549
95721122|NCT03428217|191410982|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.8193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.29|||Log Rank|||Unstratified Analysis||1.29|0.82|0.8193
95721123|NCT03252015|191411015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.182|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.412|0.049||||||Day 7||0.049|-0.412|
95721124|NCT03252015|191411015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||Day 7||0.224|-0.081|
95721125|NCT03252015|191411015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
95721126|NCT03252015|191411015|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
95721127|NCT03252015|191411016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.145|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|0.05||||||Day 7||0.050|-0.340|
95721128|NCT03252015|191411016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.081|0.224||||||||0.224|-0.081|
95721129|NCT03252015|191411016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.151|0.294||||||Day 21||0.294|-0.151|
95721130|NCT03252015|191411016|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||||||Day 21||0.000|0.000|
95721131|NCT00526227|191411135|OTHER|An exact one-sided 97% upper confidence bound or a p-value will be calculated based on the observed percentage of subjects with an USADE within the first month post-implant. This rate will be considered acceptable if the one-sided 97% upper confidence bound is less than 10% or, equivalently, if the p-value is less than 0.0304.|Percentage|7.7|||||ONE_SIDED|97.0|||||||The CI was calculated based on 44 patients at interim analysis: 0 USADE were reported within 1-month post implant, ie 0% of subjects experienced a USADE. The one-sided 97% exact binomial upper confidence bound was 7.7% which is lower than 10%.|"H 0 (null hypothesis): P ≥ 10%; H A (alternative hypothesis): P \< 10%, where P is the percentage of subjects experiencing a USADE through the 1-month post implant.~An upper limit of the confidence interval of the percentage subjects with USADE not greater than or equal to 10% at the 1-month follow-up visit provides a reasonably-sized clinical study with sufficient power to detect USADEs."||||
95721132|NCT05257109|191411141|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and irritation as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Median Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|||||Significant p-value set at \<0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0014
95721133|NCT05257109|191411142|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and LHS as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.55|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95721134|NCT05257109|191411143|OTHER|Mixed effects models with water concentration as the within subject factor and DEQ as outcome. Outcome analyses will be intent-to-treat and using mixed-effects models. If model assumptions will appear to be violated, we will transform the data or fit more flexible generalized linear or nonparametric mixed models. A significant main effect of condition will be considered supportive of our hypothesis. Formal power analyses were not conducted for this pilot study.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.28|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.05
95721135|NCT00819091|191411163|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.7|-0.24|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.24|-0.70|< 0.0001
95721136|NCT00819091|191411164|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-6.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.5||0.2406||95.0|-17.2|4.3|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||4.3|-17.2|0.2406
95721137|NCT00819091|191411165|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.466||||0.0065||95.0|1.684|24.825|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||24.825|1.684|0.0065
95721138|NCT00819091|191411166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.653||||0.2431||95.0|0.515|13.652|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||13.652|0.515|0.2431
95721139|NCT00819091|191411167|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.125||||0.0001||95.0|2.747|9.562|||Regression, Logistic|||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||9.562|2.747|0.0001
95721140|NCT00819091|191411168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.41|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.585|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.230|-0.585|<0.0001
95721141|NCT00819091|191411169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.72|-0.276|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.276|-0.720|<0.0001
95721142|NCT00819091|191411170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47||||0.0002||95.0|-0.716|-0.226|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, number oral anti-diabetic drugs, week within patients, week-treatment interaction and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate.||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-0.226|-0.716|0.0002
95721143|NCT00819091|191411171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-5.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.6||0.197||95.0|-14.9|3.1|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||3.1|-14.9|0.197
95721144|NCT00819091|191411172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-14.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6||0.0105||95.0|-25.5|-3.4|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model includes treatment and number of prior oral anti-diabetic drug as fixed classification effects and baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate||Linagliptin 5.0 mg versus placebo||-3.4|-25.5|0.0105
95721145|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|81.1237||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
95721146|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.973||||0.0001||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
95721147|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|7.1526||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0075
95721148|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.409||||0.0075||||||Gender: Male vs. Female|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0075
95721149|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|51.8456||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
95721150|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.515||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
95721151|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|98.1065||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
95721152|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.929||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
95721153|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|2.8589||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for entry criteria||||||0.0909
95721154|NCT01788163|191411188|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.086||||0.0909||||||Number of organs with metastasis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0909
95721155|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|11.106||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0009
95721156|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.561||||0.0009||||||Age: \<=65 vs. \>65|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0009
95721157|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|34.1075||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
95721158|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.386||||0.0001||||||Number of Organs with Metastisis|Regression Stepwise|10% significance level for model entry||||||0.0001
95721159|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|14.0806||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0002
95721160|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.955||||0.0002||||||Histology: Adenocarcinoma vs. Non-adenocarcinoma|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0002
95721161|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|33.8574||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
95721162|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.077||||0.0001||||||Smoking Status: Never-smoker vs. Ever-smoker|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
95721163|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Wald Chi Square Statistic|21.2537||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for entry criteria||||||0.0001
95721164|NCT01788163|191411191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.084||||0.0001||||||Region: Asia Pacific vs. Russia|Regression Stepwise|10% Significance Level for model entry||||||0.0001
95721165|NCT04071366|191411199|SUPERIORITY||Difference in CRS rate|-0.39||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6463|-0.1363|||One-sided Z-test|||||-0.1363|-0.6463|0.0030
95721166|NCT04071366|191411199|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|-0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6073|-0.1231||||||||-0.1231|-0.6073|
95721167|NCT04071366|191411199|OTHER||Difference in CRS rate|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1778|0.2299||||||||0.2299|-0.1778|
95721168|NCT02239692|191411213|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-3.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.99|-2.87||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-2.87|-4.99|<0.0001
95721169|NCT02239692|191411214|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority is assessed by examining whether the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval is less than the specified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 points.|Adjusted estimated mean difference|-4.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|-3.41||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment, country and time of colonoscopy (AM/PM) as factors.|Treatment difference in mean total Ottawa Scale score was calculated as PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule minus PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||-3.41|-5.34|<0.0001
95721170|NCT02239692|191411215|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted estimated odds ratio|9.18|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|19.32||p-value corresponds to a two-sided test of superiority.|Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression with the failure/success status as dependent variable, and treatment, country and timing of colonoscopy as factors.|The estimated odds ratio compares the odds of being a responder in the PICOPREP tailored dosing schedule vs. the PICOPREP day-before dosing schedule.|Null hypothesis was no treatment difference between the two dosing schedules.||19.32|4.36|<0.0001
95721171|NCT04318535|191411219|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of Cmax falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.157|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.103|1.213|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.213|1.103|
95721172|NCT04318535|191411220|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-t) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.032|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.974|1.094|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.094|0.974|
95721173|NCT04318535|191411221|EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence was to be determined if the 90% confidence interval of the geometric least square mean ratio of AUC(0-inf) falls within the 0.80-1.25 range.|Ratio of geometric least square mean|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.971|1.093|||||T1 versus R was the primary interest of comparison for this outcome measure.|||1.093|0.971|
95721174|NCT00858234|191411233|OTHER|Accumulation Ratio (Day 11 AUC0-24hr/Day 1 AUC0-24hr)|Accumulation ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|1.45|||||Back-transformed least squares mean difference and 90% confidence interval from mixed effects model performed on natural log-transformed values.|||1.45|0.80|
95721175|NCT01901146|191411304|EQUIVALENCE|The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk difference of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%).|Risk Difference (RD)|7.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|13.4|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The clinical equivalence between ABP 980 and trastuzumab was first evaluated by comparing the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the Risk Difference (RD; ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab with a fixed margin of (-13%, 13%), estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.4|1.2|0.0508
95721176|NCT01901146|191411304|EQUIVALENCE|If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the risk ratio of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors, with the margin of (0.7586, 1/0.7586). If the test of equivalence on the RD was not successful, the RR of pCR and 90% CI were considered to be descriptive.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1877||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0327|1.366|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||If the test of equivalence on the RD of pCR was successful, then equivalence was tested on the Risk Ratio (RR; ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) of pCR at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05 by comparing the 2-sided 90% CI of the RR of pCR between ABP 980 and trastuzumab, estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for stratification factors: tumor (T)-stage, nodal status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3660|1.0327|0.0430
95721177|NCT01901146|191411305|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|6.0||||0.1086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|12.2|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||12.2|-0.2|0.1086
95721178|NCT01901146|191411305|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1463||||0.0807|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.008|1.3035|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.3035|1.0080|0.0807
95721179|NCT01901146|191411306|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Difference (RD)|8.0||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.1|13.9|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk difference (ABP 980 - Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||13.9|2.1|0.0253
95721180|NCT01901146|191411306|OTHER|Analyses of secondary endpoints were prespecified to be considered descriptive only.|Risk Ratio (RR)|1.2746||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0673|1.5222|||Generalized linear model|Generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors.||The analysis of risk ratio (ABP 980 / Trastuzumab) estimated using a generalized linear model adjusted for the randomization stratification factors T-stage, node status, hormone receptor status, planned paclitaxel dosing schedule, and geographic region.||1.5222|1.0673|0.0245
95721181|NCT02007369|191411307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.21||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.89|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.89|0.05|0.033
95721182|NCT02007369|191411307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|3.01|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.01|0.36|0.934
95721183|NCT02007369|191411308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.002
95721184|NCT02007369|191411308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.199|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.199
95721185|NCT02007369|191411309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.50|0.25|0.285
95721186|NCT02007369|191411309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.97|0.31|0.597
95721187|NCT02007369|191411310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.023
95721188|NCT02007369|191411310|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.527|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.527
95721189|NCT02675426|191411311|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|28.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.1|37.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||37.0|19.1|<0.001
95721190|NCT02675426|191411311|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.6|39.4||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.4|21.6|<0.001
95728978|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.6||||0.048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|9.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||9.10|0.10|0.048
95721191|NCT02675426|191411312|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|31.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|23.0|39.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.5|23.0|<0.001
95721192|NCT02675426|191411312|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|30.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.5|39.0||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||39.0|22.5|<0.001
95721193|NCT02675426|191411313|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.94||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.94|-1.42|<0.001
95721194|NCT02675426|191411313|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-1.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.56|-1.08||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-1.08|-1.56|<0.001
95721195|NCT02675426|191411314|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.33|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.24||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.24|-0.43|<0.001
95721196|NCT02675426|191411314|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.18||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with treatment, prior bDMARD use and Baseline value as covariates.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-0.18|-0.38|<0.001
95721197|NCT02675426|191411315|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.13|5.98||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||5.98|3.13|<0.001
95721198|NCT02675426|191411315|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.54|6.42||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.42|3.54|<0.001
95721199|NCT02675426|191411316|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|20.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.6|28.1||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||28.1|13.6|<0.001
95721200|NCT02675426|191411316|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|18.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.2|25.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||25.5|11.2|<0.001
95721201|NCT02675426|191411317|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|21.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.0|29.5||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||29.5|13.0|<0.001
95721202|NCT02675426|191411317|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|Response Rate Difference|23.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.7|31.3||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.3|14.7|<0.001
95721203|NCT02675426|191411318|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-51.01|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.14|-23.87||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.87|-78.14|<0.001
95721204|NCT02675426|191411318|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|-50.86|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.19|-23.53||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||-23.53|-78.19|<0.001
95721205|NCT02675426|191411319|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.31|6.6||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.60|3.31|<0.001
95721206|NCT02675426|191411319|SUPERIORITY|The overall type I error rate of the primary and ranked key secondary endpoints for the two doses was controlled using a graphical multiple testing procedure.|LS Mean Difference|4.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.12|6.44||The adjusted p-value under multiplicity control is reported, with significance achieved if the adjusted p-value is less than 0.05.|Mixed Effect Model Repeat Measurement|MMRM model with fixed effects of treatment, visit, and treatment-by-visit interaction, previous bDMARD use, and Baseline value as covariate.|Treatment Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||6.44|3.12|<0.001
95721207|NCT02675426|191411320|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|23.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.1|31.0||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||31.0|15.1|<0.001
95721208|NCT02675426|191411320|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|28.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|20.4|36.5||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||36.5|20.4|<0.001
95721209|NCT02675426|191411321|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|14.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.7|21.1||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||21.1|8.7|<0.001
95721210|NCT02675426|191411321|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|20.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.0|27.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||27.2|14.0|<0.001
95721211|NCT02675426|191411322|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|13.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|20.2||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use.|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||20.2|7.0|<0.001
95721212|NCT02675426|191411322|SUPERIORITY||Response Rate Difference|19.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.7|26.7||Unadjusted p-value|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for the stratification factor of prior biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drug use|Response Rate Difference = Upadacitinib - Placebo|||26.7|12.7|<0.001
95721213|NCT01336608|191411377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.01||||0.969|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.74|-0.71|0.969
95721214|NCT01336608|191411377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.22||||0.568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.96|-0.53|0.568
95721215|NCT01336608|191411377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|0.2||||0.566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM)||||0.89|-0.49|0.566
95721216|NCT01336608|191411378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.082||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.023|0.141||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.141|0.023|0.007
95721217|NCT01336608|191411378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.155|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.095|0.215||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.215|0.095|<0.001
95721218|NCT01336608|191411378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.074||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.016|0.131||Nominal p-value|Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based repeated measures approach (MMRM).||||0.131|0.016|0.012
95721219|NCT01336608|191411379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.47|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.22||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.22|-0.72|<0.001
95721220|NCT01336608|191411379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.24||Nominal p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.76|<0.001
95721221|NCT01336608|191411379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.03||||0.803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.22|||ANCOVA|||||0.22|-0.29|0.803
95721222|NCT02957682|191411385|NON_INFERIORITY|Upper confidence interval (CI) limit was compared to the noninferiority margin, which was 0.2%, and noninferiority was declared if the upper CI limit was below the noninferiority margin.|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.02||||0.6055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.094|0.055||P-value was taken from mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measures||Model: fixed categorical effects of treatment group, randomization strata as per IVRS, time point, treatment-by-time point, strata-by-time point, continuous fixed covariates of baseline SWMS raw score value, baseline value by time-point interaction.|Change at Week 96||0.055|-0.094|0.6055
95721223|NCT03349437|191411400|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02||||||This p-value is in reference to the total Modified 6MWT Distance|Wilcoxon Signed Rank|||||||0.02
95721224|NCT02742818|191411430|OTHER|||||||0.19|||||||Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE)|Model assuming Gaussian distribution and AR-1 correlation structure, considering repeated measures in time.|||Through inference, changes in body temperature and proportional occurrence of hypothermia during surgery were evaluated using general models of estimating equations (GEE, Liang e Zeger, 1986). Binominal and normal distributions were taken into account, respectively, and assumptions for errors normalities were verified using residual plot graphs and fitted values. The significance of other associated factors and probable outcomes were verified, including gender, age, surgery type and total surgery duration, in minutes. Since analyses were longitudinal, AR-1 working correlation matrix was created.|||0.190
95721225|NCT02742818|191411431|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.820
95721226|NCT02742818|191411432|OTHER|||||||0.529|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.529
95721227|NCT02742818|191411433|OTHER|||||||0.999|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.999
95721228|NCT02742818|191411434|OTHER|||||||0.462|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.462
95721229|NCT02446496|191411435|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|95.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.67|107.37||||||||107.37|85.67|
95721230|NCT02446496|191411436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|102.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.46|115.7|||||Comparison of AUC (0-t) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||115.70|90.46|
95721231|NCT02446496|191411436|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80-125%.|Point estimate percent|103.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.19|116.62|||||Comparison of AUC(0-infinity) between Treatment A and Treatment B|||116.62|91.19|
95721232|NCT02446496|191411437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.267||95.0|||||Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test|Comparison of T-max between Treatment A and Treatment B.||||||0.2670
95721233|NCT05302414|191411445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|12.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
95721234|NCT05302414|191411445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
95721235|NCT05302414|191411445|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
95721236|NCT05302414|191411446|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|1.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For pretest at the 0 week||||<0.05
95721237|NCT05302414|191411446|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
95721238|NCT05302414|191411446|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
95721239|NCT05302414|191411447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|40.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
95721240|NCT05302414|191411447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|45.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
95721241|NCT05302414|191411447|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|43.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
95721242|NCT05302414|191411448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
95721243|NCT05302414|191411448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
95721244|NCT05302414|191411448|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
95721245|NCT05302414|191411449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|6.75|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For the pretest at week 0.||||<0.05
95721246|NCT05302414|191411449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||0.05
95721247|NCT05302414|191411449|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For follow-up test at the 16 weeks.||||0.05
95721248|NCT05302414|191411450|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||For posttest right after intervention at the 4 weeks.||||<0.05
95721249|NCT00742859|191411451|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.14||||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.017|1.14|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||1.14|0.017|0.035
95721250|NCT00742859|191411451|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.711||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.225|2.24|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||2.24|0.225|0.546
95721251|NCT00742859|191411451|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.755||||0.712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.239|2.39|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||2.39|0.239|0.712
95721252|NCT00742859|191411452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.508||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.301|0.856|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 40mg compared to Warfarin||0.856|0.301|0.011
95721253|NCT00742859|191411452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.767||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.481|1.22|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 60mg compared to Warfarin||1.22|0.481|0.308
95721254|NCT00742859|191411452|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.332|0.914|||Log Rank|||Betrixaban 80mg compared to Warfarin||0.914|0.332|0.022
95721255|NCT00728988|191411462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.3|9.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||95% confidence interval for the true difference in the incidence of MACE between the two treatment groups. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Total MACE: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.3|-7.3|0.9237
95721256|NCT00728988|191411462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.7|||Fisher Exact||Confidence limits were calculated by the exact unconditional inference. Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Death: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of events was less than 5.||10.7|-10.7|1.0000
95721257|NCT00728988|191411462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0||||0.9158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2|9.2|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = usual care minus atorvastatin.|Myocardial Infarction: treatment difference. Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||9.2|-7.2|0.9158
95721258|NCT00728988|191411462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5104|1.6846|||Regression, Logistic|||Unadjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval calculated by including treatment group as the only covariate in the logistic regression model. Reference group = usual care.||1.6846|0.5104|0.80
95721259|NCT00728988|191411462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4887|1.8836|||Regression, Logistic|||Adjusted odds ratio: model includes treatment group and potential confounding covariates age, gender, country, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, LVEF \<=40, and use of beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors, angiotension receptor blockers, calcium channel antagonists, and diuretics. Reference group = usual care.||1.8836|0.4887|0.90
95721260|NCT00728988|191411462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8494|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier log rank test.||MACE-free survival up to Day 30. A censoring variable with a value of 1 denoted that the subject had the event and 0 indicated that the subject was censored. A log-rank test was applied to investigate any differences on the survival distribution function between two treatment groups.||||0.8494
95721261|NCT00728988|191411463|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|6.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care.|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.3|-5.6|1.0000
95721262|NCT00728988|191411464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.7896|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|6.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected||Difference of incidence = atorvastatin minus usual care .|Treatment difference (%). Null hypothesis = no difference between the incidence rates in the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||6.5|-9.7|0.7896
95721263|NCT00728988|191411465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.4||||0.631|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|5.4|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.4|-10.1|0.631
95721264|NCT00728988|191411465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.3||||0.518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.1|5.5|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||5.5|-12.1|0.518
95721265|NCT00728988|191411465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|12.0|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||12.0|-9.6|0.236
95721266|NCT00728988|191411466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.2|15.9|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||15.9|-6.2|0.425
95721267|NCT00728988|191411466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.3||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|16.7|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||16.7|-6.1|0.392
95721268|NCT00728988|191411466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|10.9|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||10.9|-10.7|1.000
95721269|NCT00728988|191411467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7||||0.529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|4.3|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||4.3|-9.6|0.529
95721270|NCT00728988|191411467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|3.6|||Chi-squared, Corrected|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. A 5% two-sided continuity adjusted Chi-square test was applied.||3.6|-5.8|0.827
95721271|NCT00728988|191411467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.3|11.5|||Fisher Exact|||30 days post-PCI: difference (%) in proportions. Null hypothesis = no difference in proportions of the two groups. Fisher's exact test was applied because the expected frequency of biomarker elevation was less than 5.||11.5|-10.3|0.616
95721272|NCT00728988|191411468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.53||||0.7554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.87|156.81|||ANOVA|||8 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||156.81|-215.87|0.7554
95721273|NCT00728988|191411468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.58||||0.7436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-253.42|354.58|||ANOVA|||24 hours post-PCI: difference (% change).||354.58|-253.42|0.7436
95721274|NCT00728988|191411468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-58.22||||0.4741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-218.12|101.68|||ANOVA|||30 days post-PCI: difference (% change).||101.68|-218.12|0.4741
95721275|NCT02617446|191411484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|-0.32||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.32|-5.68|0.029
95721276|NCT02617446|191411484|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.61|-0.55||Alpha set at 0.05.|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E/Ea ratio between istaroxime and placebo||-0.55|-3.61|0.009
95721277|NCT02617446|191411485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7632||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2751|3.8014||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.8014|-0.2751|0.089
95721278|NCT02617446|191411485|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9848||||0.423|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4668|3.4365||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEF % between istaroxime and placebo participants.||3.4365|-1.4668|0.423
95721279|NCT02617446|191411486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.684||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.285|7.083||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in SVI between istaroxime and placebo participants.||7.083|0.285|0.034
95721280|NCT02617446|191411486|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.31||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.373|4.992||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.992|-0.373|0.090
95721281|NCT02617446|191411487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.777||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.522|-0.032||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is included in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.032|-1.522|0.042
95721282|NCT02617446|191411487|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.829||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.568|-0.091||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||-0.091|-1.568|0.029
95721283|NCT02617446|191411488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.368||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.999|1.262||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVESV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||1.262|-11.999|0.110
95721284|NCT02617446|191411488|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.439||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.735|10.614||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in LVEDV between istaroxime and placebo participants.||10.614|-9.735|0.931
95721285|NCT02617446|191411489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.657||||0.589|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.777|4.461||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term in the model||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||4.461|-7.777|0.589
95721286|NCT02617446|191411489|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.944||||0.424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.886|13.774||Alpha set at 0.05. No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANOVA|Treatment term is in the model.||Null hypothesis: No difference in E to A ratio between istaroxime and placebo participants.||13.774|-5.886|0.424
95721287|NCT02617446|191411490|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.041||||0.987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.216|5.133||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups||5.133|-5.216|0.987
95721288|NCT02617446|191411490|SUPERIORITY|Linear mixed model with treatment, center, timepoint, gender, baseline cTnT value, atrial fibrillation, and treatment\*timepoint interaction included in the model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.015||||0.251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.168|8.198||Unadjusted alpha of 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance.|Mixed Models Analysis|Kenward-Roger adjustment used for the degrees of freedom.||Null hypothesis: no difference between treatment groups.||8.198|-2.168|0.251
95721289|NCT01516684|191411596|OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||T-test and chi-square|||Raw mean total dose administered and raw percentage of times additional propofol was administered will be presented by sedation group treating each event (sedation with lumbar puncture) as the unit. T-test and chi-square tests will be performed as appropriate for the outcome. GEE methods will be used when analyzing the percentage of times additional propofol was administered. Mixed model regression methods will be used when analyzing the total dose administered.||||0.036
95721290|NCT01516684|191411598|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.094|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.094
95721291|NCT01516684|191411599|OTHER|||||||0.382|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.382
95721292|NCT01516684|191411600|OTHER|Marginal mixed model (GEE type)||||||0.426|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.426
95721293|NCT05004181|191411615|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the GMR was greater than 0.67.|Geometric mean ratio|13.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.14|15.45|||||GMRs and 2-sided 95% CIs were based on the analysis of logarithmically transformed neutralizing titers using a linear regression model with terms of age, sex, and group.|||15.45|11.14|
95721294|NCT05004181|191411616|NON_INFERIORITY|Noninferiority was declared if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CIs for the difference of percentages was greater than -10%.|Difference in Percentages|-4.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.04|0.83|||||Adjusted difference in percentages were estimated using minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||0.83|-10.04|
95721295|NCT05004181|191411618|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|36.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.21|51.17|||||Adjusted difference was estimated using the minimum risk weights and stratified by sex and age group.|||51.17|19.21|
95721296|NCT01607398|191411648|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-8.05||||0.5146|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|7.6|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The analysis was done using the Van Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon rank sum test.|From Van-Elteren extension to the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test, adjusted for smoking status strata and Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the 95% CI, not stratified and unadjusted for multiplicity.|||7.600|-20.500|0.5146
95721297|NCT01020773|191411668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||>0.05
95721298|NCT02253654|191411669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.53||0.46|ONE_SIDED|97.5|-6.58||||t-test, 1 sided|||The difference between treatment groups for the percent of hemoglobin measurements within 10.0 to 11.0 g/dL during the evaluation period was tested using a 1-sided t-test with a significance level of 0.025.|||-6.58|0.46
95721299|NCT02576054|191411692|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.25|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.57|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 6||1.57|1.00|<0.001
95721300|NCT02576054|191411692|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|2.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.89|2.78|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio = GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 11||2.78|1.89|<0.001
95721301|NCT02576054|191411692|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|1.69|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.11|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 16||2.11|1.35|<0.001
95721302|NCT02576054|191411692|NON_INFERIORITY|The statistical criterion for success requires that the lower bound of two-sided 95% CI of GMT ratio between boys enrolled in V501-200 and men enrolled in the Phase III study V501-122 be greater than 0.5% for each HPV type|GMT Ratio|3.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.33|3.99|||ANOVA|Log-transformed data using an analysis of variance model with a term for age-group|GMT Ratio= GMT PN200 divided by GMT PN122|Anti-HPV 18||3.99|2.33|<0.001
95721303|NCT00149669|191411726|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.67|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.24|17.73|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||17.73|4.24|<0.01
95721304|NCT00149669|191411727|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.95|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.95|.43|0.82
95721305|NCT00149669|191411728|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||=|0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.26|||General Estimating Equation (GEE)|||||1.26|0.29|=0.19
95721306|NCT02458365|191411733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.75|.51|<.0001
95721307|NCT02458365|191411733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.68|||Regression, Linear|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.68|.45|<.0001
95721308|NCT02458365|191411734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.84|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.84|.57|<.001
95721309|NCT02458365|191411734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.75|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.75|.50|<.0001
95721310|NCT02458365|191411735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.67|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.67|.43|<.0001
95721311|NCT02458365|191411735|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|0.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.56|.36|<.0001
95721312|NCT02458365|191411736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|0.62|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.62|.41|<.0001
95721313|NCT02458365|191411736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.54|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.54|.35|<.0001
95721314|NCT02458365|191411737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.38|.001
95721315|NCT02458365|191411737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.6||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.9|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.90|.40|.013
95721316|NCT02458365|191411738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|0.76|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.76|.37|<.001
95721317|NCT02458365|191411738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.82|.35|.004
95721318|NCT02458365|191411739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|0.78|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.78|.35|.002
95721319|NCT02458365|191411739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.81|.31|.005
95721320|NCT02458365|191411740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.64|||Regression, Logistic|Hierarchical logistic regression using random intercepts for school to account for the clustered study design||||.64|.29|<.0001
95721321|NCT02458365|191411740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|0.77|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted model that controls for potential confounds and covariates, including variables that predicted non-response and the primary outcomes.||||.77|.29|.003
95721322|NCT00883740|191411771|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.69|-11.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.61|-26.69|<0.0001
95721323|NCT00883740|191411772|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.29|-11.8||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-11.80|-23.29|<0.0001
95721324|NCT00883740|191411773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.81||||0.3841|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|2.3||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||2.30|-5.92|0.3841
95721325|NCT00883740|191411774|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.48|33.61||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||33.61|17.48|<0.0001
95721326|NCT00883740|191411775|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.74|7.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||7.11|3.74|<0.0001
95721327|NCT00883740|191411776|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.41||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.31|-0.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.51|-4.31|0.0135
95721328|NCT00883740|191411777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.41|-0.66||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.66|-2.41|0.0008
95721329|NCT00883740|191411778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.18||||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|-0.17||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||-0.17|-14.18|0.0447
95721330|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.3613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.39||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 1||0.39|-1.07|0.3613
95721331|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.1||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|0.09||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 2||0.09|-2.29|0.0686
95721332|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.85|-1.03||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 3||-1.03|-3.85|0.0009
95721333|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.52||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.33|-1.71||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 4||-1.71|-5.33|0.0002
95721334|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.01||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 5||-0.86|-5.16|0.0065
95721335|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.89||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.36|-1.41||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 6||-1.41|-6.36|0.0024
95721336|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.59||||0.0366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|-0.16||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 7||-0.16|-5.01|0.0366
95721337|NCT00883740|191411779|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.85||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.82|0.11||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Hour 8||0.11|-5.82|0.0593
95721338|NCT00883740|191411780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25||||0.1106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|0.29||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 1||0.29|-2.79|0.1106
95721339|NCT00883740|191411780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.49|-3.51||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 2||-3.51|-8.49|<0.0001
95721340|NCT00883740|191411780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.83||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.53|-3.13||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 3||-3.13|-10.53|0.0004
95721341|NCT00883740|191411780|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.44||||0.0199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|-0.88||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Quarter 4||-0.88|-10.00|0.0199
95721342|NCT00883740|191411781|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|3.5||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||||3.50|0.78|0.0024
95721343|NCT00883740|191411782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.13||||0.0591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.59|0.32||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||0.32|-16.59|0.0591
95721344|NCT00883740|191411782|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.43|-10.2||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-10.20|-27.43|<0.0001
95721345|NCT00883740|191411783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.47||||0.1101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.2|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 5||1.26|-12.20|0.1101
95721346|NCT00883740|191411783|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.39||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.36|-6.42||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 11||-6.42|-20.36|0.0002
95721347|NCT00883740|191411784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||1.24|0.58|<0.0001
95721348|NCT00883740|191411784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||1.53|0.76|<0.0001
95721349|NCT00883740|191411784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.28||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||1.28|0.46|<0.0001
95721350|NCT00883740|191411784|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.26||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||1.26|0.51|<0.0001
95721351|NCT00883740|191411785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.66||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.44|-3.89||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-3.89|-11.44|0.0001
95721352|NCT00883740|191411785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.67||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.27|-2.07||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-2.07|-13.27|0.0077
95721353|NCT00883740|191411785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.68||||0.2196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.81|3.44||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||3.44|-14.81|0.2196
95721354|NCT00883740|191411785|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.18||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.73|-1.64||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-1.64|-10.73|0.0081
95721355|NCT00883740|191411786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.37||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-0.37|-1.02|<0.0001
95721356|NCT00883740|191411786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.36||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-0.36|-1.06|0.0001
95721357|NCT00883740|191411786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.95|-0.24||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-0.24|-0.95|0.0014
95721358|NCT00883740|191411786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.14||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-0.14|-0.90|0.0084
95721359|NCT00883740|191411787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.02|-9.52||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||-9.52|-27.02|<0.0001
95721360|NCT00883740|191411787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.06||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.24|-7.87||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||-7.87|-24.24|0.0002
95721361|NCT00883740|191411787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.23||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.01|-3.46||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||-3.46|-23.01|0.0085
95721362|NCT00883740|191411787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.25||||0.0102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.01|-2.48||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||-2.48|-18.01|0.0102
95721363|NCT00883740|191411788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.82|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.25|36.4||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 1||36.40|13.25|<0.0001
95721364|NCT00883740|191411788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.59|40.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 2||40.21|18.59|<0.0001
95721365|NCT00883740|191411788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.37|38.21||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 3||38.21|15.37|<0.0001
95721366|NCT00883740|191411788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.03|35.86||P-value is based on a linear mixed effects model including sequence, period, and treatment as fixed factors and participant within sequence and within participant error as random factors.|linear mixed effects model|||Week 4||35.86|15.03|<0.0001
95721367|NCT00450177|191411793|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.03
95721368|NCT01875991|191411857|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.501|||||||Van Elteren test|P-value for 'All subjects' from Van Elteren test adjusting for strata (RA or PsO)||||||0.501
95721369|NCT01294709|191411922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-6.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.66|3.86|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||3.86|-17.66|
95721370|NCT01294709|191411923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least squares meand|-0.056|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.076|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||0.076|-0.19|
95721371|NCT01294709|191411924|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-22.03|7.74|||mixed effects model|mixed effects model with MK-0974 pooled over doses||Telcagepant minus Placebo Treatment Difference||7.74|-22.03|
95721372|NCT03972709|191411956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.188||0.1206||95.0|-0.08|0.66|||MMRM|||||0.66|-0.08|0.1206
95721373|NCT03972709|191411956|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.231||0.6127||95.0|-0.34|0.57|||MMRM|||||0.57|-0.34|0.6127
95721374|NCT03972709|191411963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.901||0.8388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.14|3.36|||MMRM|||||3.36|-4.14|0.8388
95721375|NCT03972709|191411963|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.384||0.8412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.18|4.23|||MMRM|||||4.23|-5.18|0.8412
95721376|NCT03972709|191411964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.052||0.6865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|4.88|||MMRM|||||4.88|-3.22|0.6865
95721377|NCT03972709|191411964|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Means|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.9355||95.0|-4.73|5.13|||MMRM|||||5.13|-4.73|0.9355
95721378|NCT00535301|191411967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.24|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.0||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6|||Chi-squared|||Sample size was calculated based on previously-published anatomic success rates of standard anterior colporrhaphy (50%) and polypropylene mesh-reinforced anterior vaginal repair (85%) (1-10). Assuming a 2-sided hypothesis test with 5% type I error and 80% power, 33 patients in each group would be required to detect an absolute difference of 35% or more in recurrent stage II prolapse. Assuming a 15% drop-out rate, we sought to enroll 76 patients into the clinical trial.||0.6|0.1|0.005
95721379|NCT00535301|191411968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95721380|NCT00535301|191411969|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95721381|NCT00396981|191411970|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This study used a non-inferiority design to demonstrate that the Matrix Coil is non-inferior to the GDC Coil, with a clinically acceptable non-inferiority margin set at 10%. Non-inferiority was used to establish the baseline estimate, which future superiority studies could be conducted. Non-inferiority was shown with a one-sided 95% CI of the difference less than the pre-specified 10% margin||||||0.76|||||||Log Rank|||Intent-to-Treat, All Subjects (N=626) GDC (N=315) Matrix (N=311) All Subjects (N=626) Subjects Who Met Primary Endpoint 35 (11.1%) 34 (10.9%) 69 (11.0%)||||0.76
95721382|NCT02494583|191411977|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.03918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the first primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.02|0.70|0.03918
95721383|NCT02494583|191411978|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.04611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.03||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the second primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.03|0.70|0.04611
95721384|NCT02494583|191411979|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85||||0.15804|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.17||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the third primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.17|0.62|0.15804
95721385|NCT02494583|191411980|NON_INFERIORITY|Pre-specified non-inferiority margin: if the upper bound of the confidence interval (based on the alpha level allocated to the analysis) for the hazard ratio (\[HR\], pembro mono arm vs SOC) is \< 1.2, the pembro mono arm could be considered as non-inferior to the SOC arm in terms of OS.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|99.2|0.69|1.18|||||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fourth primary hypothesis (non-inferiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.18|0.69|
95721386|NCT02494583|191411980|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.16205|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.1||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm to address the fifth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.10|0.74|0.16205
95721387|NCT02494583|191411981|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.01491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|0.97||One-sided p-value based on log-rank test with stratification.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to OS in CPS ≥10 participants of the SOC arm to address the sixth primary hypothesis (superiority to SOC). The comparison was based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||0.97|0.49|0.01491
95721388|NCT02494583|191411982|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|11.5||||0.00447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|20.0||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro combo arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||20.0|2.9|0.00447
95721389|NCT02494583|191411984|OTHER||Difference in ORR Percentage|-22.3|||>|0.99999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.6|-14.9||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Miettinen & Nurminen method||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to ORR in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method stratified by geographic region, disease status, and Fluoropyrimidine treatment.||-14.9|-29.6|>0.99999
95721390|NCT02494583|191411986|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.64||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|1.98||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|Regression, Cox||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the pembro mono arm was compared to PFS in CPS ≥1 participants of the SOC arm based on a Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling with treatment as a covariate with stratification according to geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment.||1.98|1.36|1.00000
95721391|NCT02494583|191411987|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|4.69||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events; strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on constrained longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||4.69|-5.01|0.948
95721392|NCT02494583|191411988|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|1.98||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|6.31||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL combined score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.31|-2.34|0.368
95721393|NCT02494583|191411989|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|2.35||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|6.89||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro mono arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||6.89|-2.18|0.308
95728651|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.21|2.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.22|0.21|0.60
95721394|NCT02494583|191411990|OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-6.56||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.55|-2.58||No formal hypothesis testing performed; nominal p-value provided for treatment comparison.|cLDA||Since stratified analyses could be based on collapsing strata with insufficient number of participants or events, strata were pooled in some cases based on clinical judgement and actual counts.|Change from baseline to Week 18 in EORTC-QLQ-STO22 Pain symptom subscale score was compared between all participants of the pembro combo arm and the SOC arm. Comparison based on cLDA model with GHS/QoL score as response variable and treatment by visit interaction and stratification factors (geographic region, disease status, and fluoropyrimidine treatment) as covariates.||-2.58|-10.55|0.001
95721395|NCT04971226|191412071|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|18.88|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.59|28.17|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|28.17|9.59|<0.001
95721396|NCT04971226|191412103|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|29.55|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.91|42.18|||Mantel Haenszel||The Estimate Value is a percentage.||The Confidence Interval are percentages.|42.18|16.91|<0.001
95721397|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|18.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.6|61.71||||||||61.71|-25.60|
95721398|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.85|39.85||||||||39.85|-18.85|
95721399|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-10.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.7|22.03||||||||22.03|-43.70|
95721400|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-5.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.58|18.99||||||||18.99|-30.58|
95721401|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.19|19.19||||||||19.19|-34.19|
95721402|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
95721403|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Overall Response Rates|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.96|8.57||||||||8.57|-25.96|
95721404|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-2.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.44|13.17||||||||13.17|-18.44|
95721405|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-8.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.72|8.33||||||||8.33|-25.72|
95721406|NCT03193190|191412167|SUPERIORITY||Difference in ORR|-1.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|21.93||||||||21.93|-25.04|
95721407|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.64||||||||2.64|0.48|
95721408|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|2.08||||||||2.08|0.66|
95721409|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.23||||||||1.23|0.29|
95721410|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.89||||||||1.89|0.67|
95721411|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.87||||||||1.87|0.61|
95721412|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|4.75||||||||4.75|0.96|
95721413|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|8.57||||||||8.57|1.54|
95721414|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.92||||||||1.92|0.68|
95721415|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|3.05||||||||3.05|0.72|
95721416|NCT03193190|191412169|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.06||||||||3.06|0.84|
95721417|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|3.0||||||||3.00|0.59|
95721418|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.29||||||||2.29|0.71|
95721419|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.74||||||||1.74|0.45|
95721420|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.68||||||||1.68|0.58|
95721421|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.84||||||||1.84|0.59|
95721422|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|4.77||||||||4.77|0.87|
95721423|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.94||||||||2.94|0.60|
95721424|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.6||||||||1.60|0.48|
95721425|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|3.36||||||||3.36|0.68|
95721426|NCT03193190|191412170|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.02||||||||2.02|0.44|
95721427|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-31.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.07|3.04||||||||3.04|-66.07|
95721428|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-3.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.55|15.37||||||||15.37|-22.55|
95721429|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-7.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.52|16.38||||||||16.38|-30.52|
95721430|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-14.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.72|3.68||||||||3.68|-32.72|
95721431|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.38|16.57||||||||16.57|-17.38|
95721432|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-50.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.51|-18.46||||||||-18.46|-83.51|
95721433|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-36.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.43|-3.18||||||||-3.18|-70.43|
95721434|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-26.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.39|-4.2||||||||-4.20|-49.39|
95721435|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-35.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.44|-3.42||||||||-3.42|-67.44|
95721436|NCT03193190|191412171|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|-28.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.94|3.42||||||||3.42|-60.94|
95721437|NCT03193190|191412172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|3.51||||||||3.51|0.24|
95721438|NCT03193190|191412172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.6||||||||1.60|0.23|
95721439|NCT03193190|191412172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|5.47||||||||5.47|0.44|
95721440|NCT03193190|191412172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.44||||||||2.44|0.35|
95721441|NCT03193190|191412172|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.93||||||||1.93|0.24|
95721442|NCT03131817|191412195|OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.007
95721443|NCT03131817|191412196|OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95721444|NCT03131817|191412197|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the first outcome row, Reward magnitude effect (higher reward, higher acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of reward magnitude on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
95721445|NCT03131817|191412197|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"This statistical analysis corresponds to the second outcome row, Effort cost effect (higher effort, lower acceptance). The generalized linear mixed model examined the effect of effort cost on the probability of accepting offers."||||<0.0001
95721446|NCT03302299|191412211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.59|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.71||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR for participants with moderate alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||2.71|0.94|<0.01
95721447|NCT03302299|191412211|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.62|4.76||global p-value for 3-category alcohol use variable in a multivariable generalized estimating equation logistic regression model of sub-optimal INH adherence.|Regression, Logistic||OR is for participants with unhealthy alcohol use in the prior 3 months, compared to those with no alcohol use in the prior 3 months.|||4.76|1.62|<0.01
95721448|NCT00297492|191412219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0||||Statistical significance was determined by a two-sided p value less than 0.05.|Chi-squared|Degrees of freedom = 2||"Null hypothesis: prolonged abstinence from smoking is the same for the three groups at 6 month follow-up~Sample size was based on an assumption of 6 month abstinence of 25% in the gradual group, 15% in the abrupt group, and 10% in the minimal group. Sample sizes of 300, 300, and 150 for gradual, abrupt, and minimal provides 97% to detect a difference between the groups, with 2-sided alpha = 0.05."||||0.30
95721449|NCT00297492|191412219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.22|||||The reported odds ratio represents the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the gradual reduction group divided by the odds of 6 month prolonged abstinence in the abrupt cessation group.|||1.22|0.28|
95721450|NCT00080288|191412220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.7|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.67|3.69|||ANCOVA|||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||3.69|1.67|<0.0001
95721451|NCT00080288|191412221|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p value for each treatment group is for the comparison of that treatment group to the placebo treatment group. Adjusted for country.||Assumption: both primary treatment comparisons would be with a 2 sided test at an alpha level of 0.05.||||0.0010
95721452|NCT00069160|191412224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||>.05
95721453|NCT02437890|191412267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.526||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: linear model"||||= 0.526
95721454|NCT02437890|191412267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.504||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: Emax model"||||= 0.504
95721455|NCT02437890|191412267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.548||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: logistic model"||||= 0.548
95721456|NCT02437890|191412267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.985||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 1st Beta model"||||= 0.985
95721457|NCT02437890|191412267|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.524||||||Threshold for statistical significance: p = 0.05|Multiple Contrast Test|||"A multiple contrast test was used to establish evidence of a drug effect by testing for a statistically significant dose-response signal for clinical endpoint and patient population investigated in the study. Candidate dose-response models were selected amongst the following types of parametric models: linear model, Emax model, logistic model, a 1st Beta model, and a 2nd Beta model.~Model tested: 2nd Beta model"||||= 0.524
95721458|NCT01190098|191412342|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Null hypothesis: there is a non-inferiority region of 4 points.||||||0.027|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.027
95721459|NCT01190098|191412343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.7||||0.23|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.23
95721460|NCT01190098|191412344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.3||||0.84|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.84
95721461|NCT01190098|191412345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.37|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.37
95721462|NCT01190098|191412346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.8||||0.33|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.33
95721463|NCT01190098|191412347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1||||0.92|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.92
95721464|NCT01190098|191412348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.69|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.69
95721465|NCT01190098|191412349|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.95|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95721466|NCT00606801|191412353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.006|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.006
95721467|NCT00606801|191412354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.04
95721468|NCT00606801|191412355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.02
95721469|NCT00606801|191412356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.03
95721470|NCT00606801|191412357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
95721471|NCT00606801|191412358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.7
95721472|NCT00606801|191412359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
95721473|NCT00606801|191412360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
95721474|NCT00606801|191412361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.3
95721475|NCT00606801|191412362|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.9|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.9
95721476|NCT00606801|191412363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.8
95721477|NCT00606801|191412364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.5
95721478|NCT00606801|191412365|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.01
95721479|NCT00606801|191412366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.60
95721480|NCT00606801|191412367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||A mixed-effect, repeated-measures model using main effect terms of treatment (placebo or galantine) and time (day of measurement). Interaction of main effects were also analyzed, with a random effect for participant. Given the hypothesis generating nature of the study, values of p\<0.05 were considered statistically significant based on two-tailed tests. Significant interactions were followed by Bonferroni post hoc pairwise comparisons.||||0.50
95721481|NCT01818414|191412399|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.17|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.17
95721482|NCT01818414|191412400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.052|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.052
95721483|NCT02320838|191412431|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||<0.001
95721484|NCT02320838|191412432|OTHER|||||||0.04||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.04
95721485|NCT02320838|191412433|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
95721486|NCT02320838|191412434|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.001
95721487|NCT02320838|191412435|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95721488|NCT02320838|191412436|OTHER|||||||0.023||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.023
95721489|NCT02320838|191412437|OTHER|||||||0.003||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0,05|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95721490|NCT02320838|191412438|OTHER|||||||0.8||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.8
95721491|NCT02320838|191412439|OTHER|||||||0.02||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.02
95721492|NCT02320838|191412440|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
95721493|NCT02320838|191412441|OTHER|||||||0.8|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8
95721494|NCT02320838|191412442|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
95721495|NCT02320838|191412443|OTHER|||||||0.4||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.4
95721496|NCT02320838|191412444|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
95721497|NCT02320838|191412445|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
95721498|NCT02320838|191412446|OTHER|||||||0.9||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.9
95721499|NCT02320838|191412447|OTHER|||||||0.5||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.5
95721500|NCT02320838|191412448|OTHER|||||||0.6||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.6
95721501|NCT02320838|191412449|OTHER|||||||0.1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.1
95721502|NCT02320838|191412450|OTHER|||||||0.2||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.2
95721503|NCT02320838|191412451|OTHER|||||||1||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance. p\<0.05|ANOVA|||||||1.0
95721504|NCT01398982|191412452|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Based on our published prospective, nonrandomized study using TAP block in abdominally-based autologous tissue breast reconstruction, 40 patients per group would achieve 85% power to detect a 65% reduction in mean total opioid consumption between the control and study groups (significance level alpha = 0.05; using a two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test).||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95721505|NCT03231709|191412471|OTHER|||||||0.0141|||||||Mainland-Gart Test|||||||0.0141
95721506|NCT01988493|191412493|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.46||||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.28|0.76|||Log Rank|||||0.76|0.28|0.0087
95721507|NCT01988493|191412494|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.53||||0.0229||90.0|0.33|0.84|||Log Rank|||||0.84|0.33|0.0229
95721508|NCT01988493|191412495|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.2333||90.0|0.45|1.14|||Log Rank|||||1.14|0.45|0.2333
95721509|NCT01988493|191412496|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.0059||90.0|0.28|0.73|||Log Rank|||||0.73|0.28|0.0059
95721510|NCT01988493|191412509|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.04||||0.8915||90.0|0.62|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.62|0.8915
95721511|NCT01988493|191412510|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0438|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0438
95721512|NCT01988493|191412512|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|0.92|||Log Rank|||||0.92|0.38|0.0496
95721513|NCT01988493|191412513|EQUIVALENCE|Sample size required 100 TTP events to ensure 80% power with a two-sided significance level of 10% for rejecting the null hypothesis of equal treatment effect between treatment arms.||||||0.0527|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0527
95721514|NCT00639158|191412524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
95721515|NCT00639158|191412525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||0.004
95721516|NCT00639158|191412526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The treatment group comparisons for both primary efficacy variables must have demonstrated superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe to declare this arm successful. Thus, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||A sample size of 212 per arm provided 90% power and \> 99% power with a 2-sided alpha = 0.05 level to detect differences between treatment arms of 6% and 17% in the percent change in HDL-C and TG, respectively, assuming an SD of 19% and 30%, respectively. This sample size provided an overall power of approximately 90% for the 2 primary comparisons. If a loss to follow-up rate of 8% was assumed, the sample size needed to be increased to 230 per arm to maintain the above power.||||< 0.001
95721517|NCT00639158|191412527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
95721518|NCT00639158|191412528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
95721519|NCT00639158|191412529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
95721520|NCT00639158|191412530|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Corresponding baseline lipid value as the covariate and with effect for treatment group.||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
95721521|NCT00639158|191412531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Rank-sum test||Secondary endpoints were tested in fixed sequence. If superiority of ABT-335 + atorvastatin + ezetimibe treatment was demonstrated for primary endpoints, secondary endpoints were tested in ranked order of apoA1, VLDL-C, apoC3, non-HDL-C, apoB, and hsCRP at alpha = 0.05 level until 1 secondary endpoint failed to reach statistical significance.||||< 0.001
95721522|NCT00116207|191412532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.32
95721523|NCT00116207|191412532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24-MONTH||||0.045
95721524|NCT00116207|191412533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.52|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||BASELINE||||0.52
95721525|NCT00116207|191412533|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.82
95721526|NCT00116207|191412534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.24
95721527|NCT00116207|191412535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|||||p values were computed using a general linear model (ANOVA) adjusted at baseline for age, sex, HbA1c.|ANOVA|||24 MONTH||||0.83
95721528|NCT01787188|191412542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.097||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.93|-4.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.75|-16.93|0.0005
95721529|NCT01787188|191412542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.154||0.0059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.94|-2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.53|-14.94|0.0059
95721530|NCT01787188|191412543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.641||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.8|-4.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.42|-14.80|0.0003
95721531|NCT01787188|191412543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.696||0.1486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.40|-9.20|0.1486
95721532|NCT01787188|191412544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.865||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.97|-4.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.70|-15.97|0.0004
95721533|NCT01787188|191412544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.917||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.58|-4.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.10|-15.58|0.0008
95721534|NCT01787188|191412545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.521|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|-5.48|||ANCOVA|||||-5.48|-15.40|<0.0001
95721535|NCT01787188|191412545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.561||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.85|-2.78|||ANCOVA|||||-2.78|-12.85|0.0024
95721536|NCT01787188|191412546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.623|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.49|-5.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.18|-15.49|<0.0001
95721537|NCT01787188|191412546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.662||0.0997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.63|0.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.84|-9.63|0.0997
95721538|NCT01787188|191412547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.905||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.54|-4.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.11|-15.54|0.0008
95721539|NCT01787188|191412547|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.951||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.22|-3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.62|-15.22|0.0015
95721540|NCT01787188|191412548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.147||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.32|-3.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.94|-16.32|0.0014
95721541|NCT01787188|191412548|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.198||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.27|-3.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.69|-16.27|0.0019
95721542|NCT01787188|191412549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.593|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.57|-5.37|||ANCOVA|||||-5.37|-15.57|<0.0001
95721543|NCT01787188|191412549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.627||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.33|-2.99|||ANCOVA|||||-2.99|-13.33|0.0020
95721544|NCT01787188|191412550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.686||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.73|-5.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.17|-15.73|0.0001
95721545|NCT01787188|191412550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.725||0.1065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.77|0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.95|-9.77|0.1065
95721546|NCT01787188|191412551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.961||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.5|-3.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.85|-15.50|0.0012
95721547|NCT01787188|191412551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.006||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.56|-3.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.74|-15.56|0.0014
95721548|NCT01787188|191412552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.194||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.54|-3.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.97|-16.54|0.0014
95721549|NCT01787188|191412552|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.24||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.82|-4.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.08|-16.82|0.0014
95721550|NCT01787188|191412553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.646|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.72|-5.31|||ANCOVA|||||-5.31|-15.72|<0.0001
95721551|NCT01787188|191412553|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.71|-3.17|||ANCOVA|||||-3.17|-13.71|0.0018
95721552|NCT01787188|191412554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.831||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|-5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.41|-16.55|0.0001
95721553|NCT01787188|191412554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-6.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.89||0.0379|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.71|-0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.34|-11.71|0.0379
95721554|NCT01787188|191412555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.152||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.42|-6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-6.02|-18.42|0.0001
95721555|NCT01787188|191412555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.41|-2.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.78|-15.41|0.0049
95721556|NCT01787188|191412556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-10.94|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.359||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.55|-4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-4.33|-17.55|0.0012
95721557|NCT01787188|191412556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.422||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.09|-2.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-2.63|-16.09|0.0066
95721558|NCT01787188|191412557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-11.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.751|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.08|-6.26|||ANCOVA|||||-6.26|-17.08|<0.0001
95721559|NCT01787188|191412557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.795||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.74|-2.74|||ANCOVA|||||-2.74|-13.74|0.0034
95721560|NCT05631093|191412604|NON_INFERIORITY|Doravirine/Islatravir (DOR/ISL) - Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 2-sided multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI was less than 4 percentage points.|Estimated difference|-3.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.81|-0.77|||Miettinen and Nurminen|The Miettinen and Nurminen method was stratified by corrected baseline ART regimen with Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights.||||-0.77|-7.81|<0.001
95721561|NCT05631093|191412605|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|2.8|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||2.8|-10.7|
95721562|NCT05631093|191412606|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-1.6||||||95.0|-4.9|0.2|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||0.2|-4.9|
95721563|NCT05631093|191412607|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|-0.08||||||95.0|-3.49|4.21|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||4.21|-3.49|
95721564|NCT05631093|191412608|OTHER|Difference in percentage versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART). Type of statistical test 'other' denotes no hypothesis testing was conducted.|Estimated difference|3.75||||||95.0|-0.31|8.89|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on Miettinen \& Nurminen method.|||8.89|-0.31|
95721565|NCT05631093|191412615|OTHER|Difference in mean change from baseline versus Baseline Antiretroviral Therapy (ART)|Estimated difference|-15.43||||||95.0|-46.32|15.47|||||Difference in percentage versus (vs) Baseline ART was based on a cDLA model.|||15.47|-46.32|
95721566|NCT05631093|191412621|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-2.21||||0.834|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.91|20.49|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||20.49|-24.91|0.8340
95721567|NCT05631093|191412621|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.44||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|11.97|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||11.97|-5.08|0.4250
95721568|NCT05631093|191412621|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.72||||0.1618||95.0|-1.5|8.95|||ANCOVA||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.95|-1.50|0.1618
95721569|NCT05631093|191412622|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|-7.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.8|15.77|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|PI-containing regimens (including PI- + InSTI-containing regimens)||15.77|-29.80|
95721570|NCT05631093|191412622|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|3.99||||||95.0|-5.22|13.21|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|non-PI- and non-InSTI-containing regimens||13.21|-5.22|
95721571|NCT05631093|191412622|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference versus baseline ART|Estimated Difference|1.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.83|8.87|||||The multiplicity adjusted 95% CIs for treatment difference were calculated from ANCOVA models with terms for baseline measurement and treatment.|InSTI-containing regimens (non-PI-containing regimens)||8.87|-6.83|
95721572|NCT00417859|191412743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||FB group was designated the control group. We determined a sample size based in clinical criteria. Using an α of 0.05 and β of 0.8, the required sample size was calculated to be 24 patients in each group to achieve a power of 80%. Descriptive analysis was completed on demographic information and clinical and radiological outcomes. Nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon's signed ranks or rank sum tests) were used for comparison of scores. The chi-squared test was used for dichotomous variables.||||0.05
95721573|NCT04223193|191412798|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
95721574|NCT04223193|191412799|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
95721575|NCT04223193|191412800|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.942|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.209|7.037|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.037|2.209|<0.0001
95721576|NCT04223193|191412801|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-9.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.7|-6.5||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-6.5|-11.7|<0.0001
95721577|NCT04223193|191412802|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-8.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|-5.3||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-5.3|-11.3|<0.0001
95721578|NCT04223193|191412803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42||0.0766|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part I: Week 26||1.6|-0.1|0.0766
95721579|NCT04223193|191412803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.44||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part II: Week 26||-0.6|-2.4|0.0007
95721580|NCT04223193|191412803|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-7.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.7|-5.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Part III: Week 26||-5.6|-9.7|<0.0001
95721581|NCT04223193|191412804|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.2||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Wek 26||-0.2|-0.5|<0.0001
95721582|NCT04223193|191412805|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
95721583|NCT04223193|191412806|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|-0.7||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||-0.7|-1.3|<0.0001
95721584|NCT04223193|191412807|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32||0.9795|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.6||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.6|-0.6|0.9795
95721585|NCT04223193|191412808|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean of Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.8916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|0.8||LS Means, SE, difference from placebo, and CI's are estimated using a mixed effects repeated measures model with fixed effects for treatment group, visits, treatment by visit interaction and MAO-B inhibitor use with the baseline value as a covariate.|Mixed-effect Model Repeated Measurement|||Week 26||0.8|-0.9|0.8916
95721586|NCT03594175|191412811|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|29.51||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.76|48.26|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||CUSA-081 vs Placebo Dwell Time Up To 90 Min -- FAS||48.26|10.76|0.003
95721587|NCT03594175|191412812|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was assessed based on the constructed 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the rate of treatment success between CUSA-081 vs alteplase, with non-inferiority considered as demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in rate of success is greater than -10%.|Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.31||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.38|-1.24|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-1.24|-19.38|0.030
95721588|NCT03594175|191412813|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|24.13||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.84|42.41|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||42.41|5.84|0.017
95721589|NCT03594175|191412814|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|41.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|21.94|60.21|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||60.21|21.94|<0.001
95721590|NCT03594175|191412815|SUPERIORITY||Mean difference of proportions, Wald|-10.96||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.89|-2.04|||2-sample Z test for proportions|||||-2.04|-19.89|0.019
95721591|NCT03594175|191412816|SUPERIORITY||Probability Re-Occlusion Free at Day 30|0.948|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.126|7.121||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||7.121|0.126|
95721592|NCT03594175|191412816|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.654|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.337|1.27||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||1.270|0.337|
95721593|NCT03594175|191412816|OTHER||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.448|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.193|10.848||||||Time to first re-occlusion.||10.848|0.193|
95721594|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.85|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.032|7.344|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 1~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||7.344|-0.032|
95721595|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.927|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.848|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.243|10.612|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|Week 1 Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05.||10.612|3.243|
95721596|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.283|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.977|3.149|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||3.149|-1.977|
95721597|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|2.899|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.285|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.333|5.465|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 2~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||5.465|0.333|
95721598|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|0.863|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.959|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.053|4.778|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||4.778|-3.053|
95721599|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|4.926|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.956|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.016|8.837|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 3~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.837|1.016|
95721600|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|3.316|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|8.025|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||8.025|-1.425|
95721601|NCT02044094|191412866|NON_INFERIORITY|Blockade was achieved if the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was \<= the non-inferiority margin of 11.|LSM difference|6.677|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.367|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.936|11.418|||||Hydromorphone - Placebo|"Week 4~Complete hydromorphone blockade was claimed for RBP-6000 if blockade was achieved for both hydromorphone doses (6 mg and 18 mg) during each week of testing for the 4 weeks after the first dose of RBP-6000. Each test was performed at a 2-sided α = 0.05."||11.418|1.936|
95721602|NCT03205163|191412900|OTHER||GMR|1.35||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.77|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and geometric mean ratio (GMR) were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.77|1.04|0.032
95721603|NCT03205163|191412901|OTHER||GMR|1.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.25|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.25|1.09|<0.001
95721604|NCT03205163|191412902|OTHER||GMR|4.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|5.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.79|2.94|<0.001
95721605|NCT03205163|191412903|OTHER||GMR|3.24|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.76|3.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||3.79|2.76|<0.001
95721606|NCT03205163|191412904|OTHER||GMR|0.143|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.118|0.172|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.172|0.118|<0.001
95721607|NCT03205163|191412905|OTHER||GMR|0.153|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.138|0.17|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.170|0.138|<0.001
95721608|NCT03205163|191412906|OTHER||GMR|0.622||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|0.786|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.786|0.492|0.003
95721609|NCT03205163|191412907|OTHER||GMR|0.599|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.525|0.684|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||0.684|0.525|<0.001
95721610|NCT03205163|191412908|OTHER||GMR|7.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.78|8.48|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||8.48|5.78|<0.001
95721611|NCT03205163|191412909|OTHER||GMR|6.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.89|7.27|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||7.27|5.89|<0.001
95721612|NCT03205163|191412910|OTHER||GMR|4.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.64|5.66|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.66|3.64|<0.001
95721613|NCT03205163|191412911|OTHER||GMR|4.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|4.72|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.72|3.96|<0.001
95721614|NCT03205163|191412912|OTHER||GMR|1.36||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.978|1.89|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.89|0.978|0.063
95721615|NCT03205163|191412913|OTHER||GMR|1.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.26|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||1.26|1.10|<0.001
95721616|NCT03205163|191412914|OTHER||GMR|4.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|5.23|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||5.23|4.00|<0.001
95721617|NCT03205163|191412915|OTHER||GMR|4.46|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.16|4.79|||ANOVA|||Comparison of Advate and BIVV001 was obtained through analyzing log transformed PK parameters using an ANOVA model containing participant and treatment as factors. Geometric mean, 95% confidence interval of geometric mean, and GMR were the exponentiated mean, 95% confidence interval, and difference of means, respectively.||4.79|4.16|<0.001
95721618|NCT01238172|191412918|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.24|||Log Rank|||||1.24|0.75|0.76
95721619|NCT01238172|191412919|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.41||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|8.41|||Log Rank|||||8.41|0.23|0.71
95721620|NCT01238172|191412920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.995|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.995
95721621|NCT01238172|191412921|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|Two-sided||||||<0.001
95721622|NCT01209234|191412950|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.96|||Regression, Cox||This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.96|0.52|0.026
95721623|NCT01209234|191412951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.01||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||CDC-defined all-cause infection secondary outcome This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||1.01|0.70|0.061
95721624|NCT01209234|191412951|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008||0.035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|0.99||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|Regression, Cox||Clinical criteria for all-cause infection This is the estimated standard error of the log hazard ratio|||0.99|0.70|0.035
95721625|NCT02038959|191412957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.05
95721626|NCT02038959|191412962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95721627|NCT03610646|191413013|EQUIVALENCE|An equivalence margin of \[-3, 3\] letters was used to demonstrate equivalence for the difference of mean change in BCVA, from baseline to Week 8.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.73|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|1.24||||||||1.24|-1.16|
95721628|NCT01143272|191413035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.9|||Regression, Cox|||||1.90|0.55|0.94
95721629|NCT01143272|191413035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.25
95721630|NCT01143272|191413035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.87|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.87
95721631|NCT01143272|191413037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.92||||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.73|||Regression, Cox|||||1.73|0.49|0.80
95721632|NCT01143272|191413037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.03||||0.93|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|2.03||adjusting for age, sex, CRP, leukocyte count, duration of antibiotic treatment, and administration of antibiotics|Regression, Cox|||||2.03|0.53|0.93
95721633|NCT01143272|191413038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.08||Association between initial leukocyte count and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.08|0.96|0.6
95721634|NCT01143272|191413038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.01||Association between the initial C-reactive protein and incidence of AAD|Regression, Logistic|||||1.01|1.00|0.653
95721635|NCT00468312|191413078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
95721636|NCT00468312|191413079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.026
95721637|NCT00468312|191413080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
95721638|NCT00468312|191413081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||<0.001
95721639|NCT00468312|191413082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.269||95.0|||||ANCOVA|Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) extracted sources of variation due to treatment, variable specific baseline, and site.||||||0.269
95721640|NCT02016755|191413087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.331|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall (LOCF)||||0.331
95721641|NCT02016755|191413087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.362|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Activity (LOCF)||||0.362
95721642|NCT02016755|191413087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.159|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Emotional (LOCF)||||0.159
95721643|NCT02016755|191413087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.468|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Pain (LOCF)||||0.468
95721644|NCT02016755|191413087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.197|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Social (LOCF)||||0.197
95721645|NCT02016755|191413087|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Symptom (LOCF)||||0.448
95721646|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.939|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.939
95721647|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.508|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.508
95721648|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.474
95721649|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.361|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.361
95721650|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.258|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.258
95721651|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.059|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18||||0.059
95721652|NCT02016755|191413088|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.023
95721653|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.655
95721654|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.310
95721655|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.348|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.348
95721656|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.501
95721657|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.536|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.536
95721658|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18 (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.140
95721659|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.018|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF (Dorsalis pedis)||||0.018
95721660|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.716|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 3 (Posterior tibial)||||0.716
95721661|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.641|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 6 (Posterior tibial)||||0.641
95721662|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 9 (Posterior tibial)||||0.514
95721663|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.808|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 12 (Posterior tibial)||||0.808
95721664|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.396|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 15 (Posterior tibial)||||0.396
95721665|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at Month 18 (Posterior tibial)||||0.162
95721666|NCT02016755|191413089|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.259|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Posterior tibial)||||0.259
95721667|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.671|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.671
95721668|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.925|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.925
95721669|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.514
95721670|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.302|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.302
95721671|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.373|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.373
95721672|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.505
95721673|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.135|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.135
95721674|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.175|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 3 (Left)||||0.175
95721675|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.393|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 6 (Left)||||0.393
95721676|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.928|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 9 (Left)||||0.928
95721677|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.429|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 12 (Left)||||0.429
95721678|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.907|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 15 (Left)||||0.907
95721679|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at month 18 (Left)||||0.300
95721680|NCT02016755|191413090|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.214|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from baseline at LOCF (Left)||||0.214
95721681|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.655|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.655
95721682|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.226|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.226
95721683|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.380
95721684|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.187|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.187
95721685|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.203|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.203
95721686|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.074|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.074
95721687|NCT02016755|191413091|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.038|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.038
95721688|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.246|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 3||||0.246
95721689|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 6||||0.474
95721690|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.395|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 9||||0.395
95721691|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 12||||0.220
95721692|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.454|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 15||||0.454
95721693|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.167|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at Month 18||||0.167
95721694|NCT02016755|191413092|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Change from Baseline at LOCF||||0.015
95721695|NCT04604496|191413096|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|133.17|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.97|216.37||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||216.37|81.97|
95721696|NCT04604496|191413096|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|219.98|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|135.39|357.41||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||357.41|135.39|
95721697|NCT04604496|191413096|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|334.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|205.7|543.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||543.00|205.70|
95721698|NCT04604496|191413097|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.33|245.49||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.49|61.33|
95721699|NCT04604496|191413097|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|282.73|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|141.32|565.66||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||565.66|141.32|
95721700|NCT04604496|191413097|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|640.78|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|320.27|1282.0||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1282.00|320.27|
95721701|NCT04604496|191413098|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|122.89|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.51|245.51||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||245.51|61.51|
95721702|NCT04604496|191413098|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|283.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|142.1|567.13||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||567.13|142.10|
95721703|NCT04604496|191413098|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|636.32|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|318.51|1271.24||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||1271.24|318.51|
95721704|NCT04604496|191413099|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|85.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|63.6|114.1||||||Test: the mild hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||114.10|63.60|
95721705|NCT04604496|191413099|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.37|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|71.95|129.07||||||Test: the moderate hepatic impairment Group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||129.07|71.95|
95721706|NCT04604496|191413099|OTHER|The adjusted ratio and 90% confidence interval from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model were expressed as percentages.|Ratio of adjusted geometric means|135.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|100.94|181.1||||||Test: the severe hepatic impairment group; Reference: the without hepatic impairment group||181.10|100.94|
95721707|NCT02533505|191413105|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.114||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.943|17.286||All p-values ≤ 0.05 after rounding will be considered statistically significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.286|2.943|0.007
95721708|NCT02533505|191413106|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.021|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.196|-0.021|0.111
95721709|NCT02533505|191413107|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.018|1.719|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔHR||1.719|-1.018|0.609
95721710|NCT02533505|191413108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.191|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.233|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1||0.233|0.150|<0.001
95721711|NCT02533505|191413108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.312|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.236|0.388|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFVC||0.388|0.236|<0.001
95721712|NCT02533505|191413108|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.342|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔIC||0.342|0.218|<0.001
95721713|NCT02533505|191413109|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.315||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.723|42.907|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVT/Ti||42.907|3.723|0.021
95721714|NCT02533505|191413110|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.204||||0.106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.454|0.045|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.045|-0.454|0.106
95721715|NCT02533505|191413111|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.245||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.469|18.021|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVCO2||18.021|2.469|0.011
95721716|NCT02533505|191413112|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242||||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|0.738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔSaO2||0.738|-0.255|0.333
95721717|NCT02533505|191413113|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.237||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.439|0.913|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔRR||0.913|-0.439|0.484
95721718|NCT02533505|191413114|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.016||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.036|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔTi/Ttot||0.036|-0.004|0.113
95721719|NCT02533505|191413115|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|57.624|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.701|85.546|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVt||85.546|29.701|<0.001
95721720|NCT02533505|191413116|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|862.157|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|439.817|1284.496|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔVe||1284.496|439.817|<0.001
95721721|NCT02533505|191413117|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.019||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.005|0.033|||Mixed Models Analysis|||ΔFEV1/FVC||0.033|0.005|0.007
95721722|NCT01682512|191413135|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence for the change in DAS28 (ESR) was evaluated based on the two-sided 90% Confidence Interval (CI) for the treatment difference with respect to the mean change in the DAS28(ESR) score compared to baseline. Null hypothesis of non-equivalence was to be rejected if the 90% CI is fully contained within the interval of \[-0.5, 0.5\].|Adjusted mean difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|-0.03||Model analyzed was: DAS28(ESR) change from Baseline at Week 24 = overall mean + treatment + DAS28(ESR) Baseline score + visit + visit by treatment interaction + baseline-by-visit interaction + random error.|Mixed Models Analysis|A restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) approach was used.|Adjusted mean difference was calculated as: BI 695500 - Rituxan®|||-0.03|-0.83|
95721723|NCT01682512|191413136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.5|115.76|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||115.76|90.50|
95721724|NCT01682512|191413136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|88.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.5|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|78.24|99.46|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.46|78.24|
95721725|NCT01682512|191413136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.449|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|97.09|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-tz)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o- tz) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||97.09|76.50|
95721726|NCT01682512|191413137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|102.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.939|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.26|116.3|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||116.30|90.26|
95721727|NCT01682512|191413137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|86.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.404|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.38|96.82|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||96.82|76.38|
95721728|NCT01682512|191413137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|83.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.386|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.57|94.47|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf pred)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(o-inf pred) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||94.47|74.57|
95721729|NCT01682512|191413138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.608|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.21|106.62|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||106.62|86.21|
95721730|NCT01682512|191413138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|106.775|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.23|99.74|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||99.74|80.23|
95721731|NCT01682512|191413138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.7|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.11|102.29|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-336)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-336) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||102.29|85.11|
95721732|NCT01682512|191413139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|93.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.995|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.32|103.5|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||103.50|85.32|
95721733|NCT01682512|191413139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|89.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.657|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.51|97.83|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||97.83|81.51|
95721734|NCT01682512|191413139|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|95.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|105.744|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.62|104.25|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(Cmax)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of observed Cmax was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||104.25|86.62|
95721735|NCT01682512|191413141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|104.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.044|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.92|118.78|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus Rituxan®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and Rituxan.||118.78|91.92|
95721736|NCT01682512|191413141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|91.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.253|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.38|102.64|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: BI 695500 versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups BI 695500 and MabThera.||102.64|81.38|
95721737|NCT01682512|191413141|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted ratio of gMeans (%)|87.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|107.896|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.12|99.21|||ANOVA|Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model on logarithmic scale: Ln(AUC0-inf, ppk)=overall mean+treatment effect+random error|Adjusted ratio of gMeans: Rituxan® versus MabThera®; standard error is geometric standard error|The similarity of AUC(0-inf, ppk) was compared between treatment groups Rituxan and MabThera.||99.21|77.12|
95721738|NCT03496207|191413150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-151.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.53||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-249.59|-52.63|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-52.63|-249.59|0.0030
95721739|NCT03496207|191413150|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-269.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|48.48|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-365.81|-173.03|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||-173.03|-365.81|<.0001
95721740|NCT03496207|191413151|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-13.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|50.95||0.7851|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-113.85|86.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA was used to compare change from baseline values with randomization stratification factor (WHO functional class) and baseline PVR as covariate.||Analysis based on calculated LS means.||86.06|-113.85|0.7851
95721741|NCT03496207|191413152|SUPERIORITY||Multiple Imputation Mean Difference|-223.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|57.45|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-335.83|-110.49||Comparison of baseline and final value|ANCOVA||Standard multiple imputations are done with imputed values that are within the range of the minimum and maximum observed values using linear regression including baseline measurements.|||-110.49|-335.83|<.0001
95721742|NCT01783483|191413173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean CT scan scores.||||<0.0001
95721743|NCT01783483|191413174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0007|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.0007
95721744|NCT01783483|191413175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0539|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0539
95721745|NCT01783483|191413175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0015|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0015
95721746|NCT01783483|191413176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2125|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.2125
95721747|NCT01783483|191413176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0014|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0014
95721748|NCT01783483|191413177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0049|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.0049
95721749|NCT01783483|191413177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0183|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.0183
95721750|NCT01783483|191413178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6653|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Rest||||0.6653
95721751|NCT01783483|191413178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2295|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||After Forced Coughing||||0.2295
95721752|NCT01783483|191413180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Index (Day 0 to Hospital Discharge)||||0.370
95721753|NCT01783483|191413181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.778|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From Hospital Discharge to 3-week||||0.778
95721754|NCT01783483|191413182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3-week to 6-week post-op||||0.055
95721755|NCT01783483|191413184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.113|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||From 3 month to 6-month post op||||0.113
95721756|NCT01766310|191413185|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.68|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.3||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.44|-0.09|0.05
95721757|NCT02125734|191413220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.081||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.031|0.13|||ANCOVA|||||0.130|0.031|0.0017
95721758|NCT02328404|191413227|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Chi-squared|Fisher Exact test was used||The participants in the treatment and placebo groups will be classified into two categories of prognosis (improved and not improved) and will be analyzed using Chi-square test, if Chi-square is higher than 3.84 (df=1) it will be statistically significant (p-value\</= 0.05)||||0.001
95721759|NCT02328404|191413228|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0||||||A P-value \< 0.05 would be considered statistically significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||Both arms where evaluated at which paired t-test for the mean difference in the two arm was calculated . where the serum 25-OH Vit D3 was measured at 0 day time and after the end of the study. after that a paired t-test where applied for the difference for the 25-OH VitD3 levels between the two time points||||<0.000
95721760|NCT02328404|191413229|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.67|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.67
95721761|NCT02328404|191413230|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.51
95721762|NCT02328404|191413231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.08
95721763|NCT02328404|191413232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95721764|NCT02328404|191413233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95721765|NCT02328404|191413234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.89|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.89
95721766|NCT02328404|191413235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.60
95721767|NCT02328404|191413236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.01
95721768|NCT02328404|191413237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.35
95721769|NCT02328404|191413238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.65
95721770|NCT02328404|191413239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.25
95721771|NCT02328404|191413240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95721772|NCT02328404|191413241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95721773|NCT02618772|191413242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.026
95721774|NCT02618772|191413243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.036
95721775|NCT02618772|191413244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.151||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.151
95721776|NCT02618772|191413244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.020
95721777|NCT02618772|191413244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.198||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.198
95721778|NCT02618772|191413244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95721779|NCT02618772|191413245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||||||This is in reference to the baseline measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.185
95721780|NCT02618772|191413245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.011||||||This is in reference to the intervention measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.011
95721781|NCT02618772|191413245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.191||||||This is in reference to the lidocaine measure.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.191
95721782|NCT02618772|191413245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||This is in reference to the difference between the suturing and baseline measures.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.008
95721783|NCT02618772|191413246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||||||This p value is a t-test of the Post STAI minus Pre STAI variable.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.004
95721784|NCT02618772|191413247|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.015||||||This p value is in reference to the t-test performed for STAI Post Minus STAI Pre.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.015
95721785|NCT02618772|191413248|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.080
95721786|NCT02618772|191413249|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.086|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.086
95721787|NCT02618772|191413250|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95721788|NCT02618772|191413251|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.05
95721789|NCT02441179|191413272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95721790|NCT02441179|191413273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.012
95721791|NCT02441179|191413274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.16|TWO_SIDED||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.16
95721792|NCT02441179|191413275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.57|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.57
95721793|NCT02441179|191413276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95721794|NCT02441179|191413277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95721795|NCT02441179|191413278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55|TWO_SIDED||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.55
95721796|NCT03732677|191413348|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.227|2.084|||Regression, Logistic|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method adjusting for stratification factors: renal function , tumor stage and PDL1 status .||||2.084|1.227|0.0005
95721797|NCT03732677|191413349|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.877|0.554|824.0||Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Log Rank||The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)||95% CI for hazard ratio: 0.558 - 0.817|0824|0.554|<0.0001
95721798|NCT03732677|191413350|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.9|||Chi-squared|P-value is based on a chi-squared test with one degree of freedom.|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.90|0.62|0.0021
95721799|NCT03732677|191413351|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.0265|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.047|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|Strata adjusted odds ratio by the logistic regression method. Stratified by adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative).|||2.095|1.047|0.0265
95721800|NCT03732677|191413352|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|98.457|0.563|0.985|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function (adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|||95% CI: 0.594 to 0.934|0.985|0.563|0.0106
95721801|NCT03732677|191413353|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.541|0.826|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.826|0.541|0.0002
95721802|NCT03732677|191413354|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69||||0.0081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.516|0.907|||Log Rank|Stratified by renal function(adequate vs borderline),tumor stage(T2N0 vs \>T2N0), PDL1 status(high vs low/negative)|The HR and CI were estimated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for renal function (adequate vs borderline), tumor stage (T2N0 vs \>T2N0) and PDL1 status (high vs low/negative)|||0.907|0.516|0.0081
95721803|NCT01500434|191413356|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Study had 85% statistical power to demonstrate that the 12-month rate for TLF (accounting for an expected 1-year attrition rate of 5%) is less than the performance goal, assuming a 1-year TLF rate of 9.0%.|Target Lesion Failure Rate|3.2|||<|0.0001|ONE_SIDED|95.0||7.96|||One-group exact binomial test|||A one-group exact binomial test was used to test the hypothesis that the primary endpoint rate in the PROMUS Element cohort is less than the predefined performance goal of 19.4%.||7.96||<0.0001
95721804|NCT00379821|191413395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0413|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1746||0.8097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7497|1.4463||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4463|0.7497|0.8097
95721805|NCT00379821|191413395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1623|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1973||0.3767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8333|1.6211||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.6211|0.8333|0.3767
95721806|NCT00379821|191413395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0707|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1795||0.6277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7708|1.4872||The a priori threshold for statistical significance is 0.05/3.|Poisson regression|No adjustments.|The denominator for the risk ratio is the CQ Monotherapy arm.|Number of clinical malaria episodes per PYAR was compared using Poisson regression assuming null hypothesis that the number of malaria episodes are the same in both groups.||1.4872|0.7708|0.6277
95721807|NCT00379821|191413429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.34||Not adjusted, 0.05|Regression, Cox|There are no adjustments.|The reference category is those who did not travel.|||1.34|0.68|0.79
95721808|NCT05838755|191413433|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.18|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.18|-1.47|
95721809|NCT05838755|191413433|OTHER|Analysis performed using a Bayesian mixed model repeated measures adjusting for treatment, week, baseline, region and the treatment by week and baseline by week interactions using vague priors.|Posterior Mean Difference|-0.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|0.61|||||Posterior mean difference with 95% credible interval is reported using Bayesian mixed model repeated measures analysis.|||0.61|-1.04|
95721810|NCT04502862|191413536|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.107||0.512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.14||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, body mass index (BMI), region (Eastern Europe, rest of world \[ROW\]), inhaled corticosteroids \[ICS\] dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5), baseline sleep disturbance score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.14|-0.28|0.512
95721811|NCT04502862|191413537|OTHER||Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.22||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05.|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline number of nocturnal awakenings and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||0.22|-0.21|0.967
95721812|NCT04502862|191413538|OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.865||0.422|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|1.01||A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle primary and first 2 secondary endpoints (reported sequentially) analyses at a 2-sided significance level of 0.05|MMRM|||The MMRM model included study intervention, age, BMI, region (Eastern Europe, ROW), ICS dose level at baseline (ICS dose level medium, ICS dose level high), visit (up to Week 12), study intervention-by-visit interaction, baseline ACQ-5, baseline PROMIS total score and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates.||1.01|-2.40|0.422
95721813|NCT03229941|191413569|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.27|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. restrictive arm comparison.|||1.27|0.62|0.515
95721814|NCT03229941|191413570|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.73|1.61|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.61|0.73|0.587
95721815|NCT03229941|191413571|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.57||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.33|0.98|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||0.98|0.33|0.007
95721816|NCT03229941|191413572|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.634|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.63|1.38|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.38|0.63|0.634
95721817|NCT03229941|191413573|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.212|TWO_SIDED|99.0|0.41|1.37|||Chi-squared||Liberal vs. Restrictive arm comparison|||1.37|0.41|0.212
95721818|NCT03229941|191413574|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.786|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.786
95721819|NCT00545181|191413576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75||95.0|||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.75
95721820|NCT02625207|191413587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.73||||0.1318|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.55|138.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.26|98.55|0.1318
95721821|NCT02625207|191413587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.85||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.48|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.48|0.1369
95721822|NCT02625207|191413587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.51|75.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.07|53.51|< 0.0001
95721823|NCT02625207|191413587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.83||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.57|87.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.13|62.57|0.0036
95721824|NCT02625207|191413587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.99||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.7|87.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.31|62.70|0.0038
95721825|NCT02625207|191413588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.59||||0.0531|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.33|96.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.98|70.33|0.0531
95721826|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|137.07||||0.0106|TWO_SIDED|90.0|112.4|167.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||167.15|112.40|0.0106
95721827|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|164.06||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|134.54|200.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||200.06|134.54|0.0001
95721828|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|198.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|162.77|242.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||242.05|162.77|< 0.0001
95721829|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|120.99||||0.1061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.65|146.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||146.90|99.65|0.1061
95721830|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|272.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|224.08|330.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857639 was estimated and reported.||330.33|224.08|<0.0001
95721831|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|110.22||||0.3081|TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.05|129.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||129.18|94.05|0.3081
95721832|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.71||||0.8583|TWO_SIDED|90.0|86.79|119.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||119.20|86.79|0.8583
95721833|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|108.52||||0.3913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.6|127.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||127.17|92.60|0.3913
95721834|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|106.69||||0.4866|TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.36|124.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||124.60|91.36|0.4866
95721835|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|119.61||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|90.0|102.42|139.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -6857640 was estimated and reported.||139.69|102.42|0.0590
95721836|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.7||||0.9816|TWO_SIDED|90.0|80.47|123.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||123.53|80.47|0.9816
95721837|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.12||||0.6974|TWO_SIDED|90.0|84.84|130.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||130.24|84.84|0.6974
95721838|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|101.03||||0.9363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.54|125.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||125.18|81.54|0.9363
95721839|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|96.11||||0.752|TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.94|118.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||118.52|77.94|0.7520
95721840|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|100.73||||0.9536|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.69|124.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927572 was estimated and reported.||124.22|81.69|0.9536
95721841|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.6||||0.8241|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.28|117.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||117.18|81.28|0.8241
95721842|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.5||||0.1261|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.69|142.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||142.28|98.69|0.1261
95721843|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.6||||0.9708|TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.95|119.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||119.59|82.95|0.9708
95721844|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|84.05||||0.1099|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.29|100.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||100.52|70.29|0.1099
95721845|NCT02625207|191413589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|97.21||||0.7913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|81.29|116.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis of PF -06927573 was estimated and reported.||116.25|81.29|0.7913
95721846|NCT02625207|191413590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|116.65||||0.1338|TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.47|138.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||138.18|98.47|0.1338
95721847|NCT02625207|191413590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|85.84||||0.137|TWO_SIDED|90.0|72.46|101.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||101.68|72.46|0.1370
95721848|NCT02625207|191413590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|63.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|53.47|75.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.04|53.47|< 0.0001
95721849|NCT02625207|191413590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean ratio|73.79||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.53|87.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.09|62.53|0.0036
95721850|NCT02625207|191413590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|73.89||||0.0037|TWO_SIDED|90.0|62.61|87.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||87.20|62.61|0.0037
95721851|NCT02625207|191413591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|82.42||||0.0507|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.2|96.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||96.77|70.20|0.0507
95721852|NCT02625207|191413592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|118.19||||0.1997|TWO_SIDED|90.0|95.26|146.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||146.63|95.26|0.1997
95721853|NCT02625207|191413592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|87.28||||0.2947|TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.34|108.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||108.28|70.34|0.2947
95721854|NCT02625207|191413592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|61.23||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.35|75.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||75.97|49.35|0.0004
95721855|NCT02625207|191413592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|70.16||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.81|86.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||86.63|56.81|0.0071
95721856|NCT02625207|191413592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|72.37||||0.0135|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.6|89.36|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||89.36|58.60|0.0135
95721857|NCT02625207|191413593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|68.32||||0.0505|TWO_SIDED|90.0|49.81|93.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.71|49.81|0.0505
95721858|NCT02625207|191413594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|94.83||||0.6761|TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.7|117.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||117.24|76.70|0.6761
95721859|NCT02625207|191413594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|105.43||||0.6771||90.0|85.28|130.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||130.35|85.28|0.6771
95721860|NCT02625207|191413594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|75.74||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.26|93.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||93.64|61.26|0.0331
95721861|NCT02625207|191413594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.84||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.38|88.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.40|58.38|0.0104
95721862|NCT02625207|191413594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|71.82||||0.0104|TWO_SIDED|90.0|58.37|88.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||88.39|58.37|0.0104
95721863|NCT02625207|191413595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio|99.62||||0.9713|TWO_SIDED|90.0|83.07|119.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||119.45|83.07|0.9713
95721864|NCT01467570|191413627|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The differences between study groups were considered significant when the p value was \<0.05 or when the 95% CI for RD or MD did not include 0 (equivalent to p \< 0.05).||||||0.28|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.28
95721865|NCT00589693|191413658|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority will be established if the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of the difference in clinical cure rate (doripenem minus imipenem-cilastatin) is greater than 15%|Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-11.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.3|3.8|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||Null Hypothesis: The clinical cure rate of doripenem assessed at the EOT visit is more than 15% inferior to that of imipenem-cilastatin||3.8|-26.3|
95721866|NCT00589693|191413659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-18.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.2|19.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||19.5|-57.2|
95721867|NCT00589693|191413660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|-5.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.7|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||11.7|-23.0|
95721868|NCT00589693|191413661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.14
95721869|NCT00589693|191413662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference of 2 binomial proportions|6.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|18.5|||Normal approximation of 2 proportions|||||18.5|-5.0|
95721870|NCT04840901|191413663|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.16|||ANCOVA|||||1.16|1.03|
95721871|NCT04840901|191413664|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.02|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.02|
95721872|NCT04840901|191413665|EQUIVALENCE|PK parameters were powered to test equivalence with a power of 90% that the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio fall within 0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin.|Ratio of Geometric LS Mean|1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.14|||ANCOVA|||||1.14|1.03|
95721873|NCT04075292|191413671|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.08|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.18|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the unstratified log-rank test.|HR was calculated using an unstratified Cox model with treatment as the only covariate. The CI for HR was calculated using the profile likelihood method.|||0.18|0.03|<0.0001
95721874|NCT04936334|191413683|SUPERIORITY||McNemar|0.03|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||McNemar|||||||<0.05
95721875|NCT02209272|191413686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.82
95721876|NCT02209272|191413687|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.21
95721877|NCT02209272|191413688|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.57
95721878|NCT03583931|191413690|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.61|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.61
95721879|NCT03583931|191413691|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.84
95721880|NCT03583931|191413696|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.48
95721881|NCT03583931|191413697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.25
95721882|NCT03583931|191413698|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.45
95721883|NCT03583931|191413699|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.87
95721884|NCT05016765|191413714|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|paired t-test||||||<0.001
95721885|NCT05016765|191413714|OTHER|Pearson correlation test|Pearson's R|0.21||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.56|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic frequency with stimulation during this study) with the change in tic frequency (measured as the number of 10-second tic-free intervals) during active, rhythmic stimulation in the randomized, controlled trial of MNS that all participants had previously completed.||0.56|-0.22|0.33
95721886|NCT05016765|191413715|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Paired Samples Wilcoxon Test||||||<0.001
95721887|NCT05016765|191413715|OTHER|Pearson's R|Pearson's R|0.36||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.66|||Regression, Linear|Pearson's R||Correlation of this Outcome measure (change in tic intensity during this study) with change in tic intensity during active, rhythmic stimulation during the randomized, controlled trial that all participants had previously completed.||0.66|-0.05|0.08
95721888|NCT05016765|191413720|OTHER|Traditional comparative||||||0.84|||||||Paired Sample t-Test, 2-Sided|||||||0.84
95721889|NCT00068770|191413722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.82|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|5.5||not adjusted|t-test, 2 sided|||two independent group comparisons||5.5|1.5|0.82
95721890|NCT00068770|191413723|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|equivalence analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.8||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.3|||Log Rank|||||6.3|1.1|0.11
95721891|NCT03747939|191413724|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.5||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|28.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per Interactive Web Response System (IWRS) data, using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||28.1|8.9|0.0008
95721892|NCT03747939|191413725|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|18.6||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|30.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||30.2|7.0|0.0017
95721893|NCT03747939|191413726|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|5.1||||0.3539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|16.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||16.0|-5.8|0.3539
95721894|NCT03747939|191413727|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|22.1||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|33.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||33.7|10.4|0.0003
95721895|NCT03747939|191413728|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|11.8||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|22.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||22.0|1.7|0.0286
95721896|NCT03747939|191413729|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|16.3||||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.9|25.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||25.8|6.9|0.0022
95721897|NCT03747939|191413730|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS means|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.59|||MMRM||Apremilast - Placebo|Difference in LS means is based MMRM of the change from baseline.||-0.59|-1.48|<0.0001
95721898|NCT03747939|191413731|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted difference in proportions|17.7||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.7|29.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided p-value adjusted for prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use, normalized via Wilson-Hilferty transformation.|Apremilast - Placebo|Adjusted difference in proportions is the weighted average of the treatment differences across strata formed by two stratification factors, prior/concomitant use of csDMARD and baseline glucocorticosteroid use per IWRS data, using CMH weights. Two-sided 95% CI is based on a normal approximation to the weighted average.||29.7|5.7|0.0043
95721899|NCT01447628|191413738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6039
95721900|NCT01447628|191413739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0747|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0747
95721901|NCT01447628|191413739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.799|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7990
95721902|NCT01447628|191413739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2111|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||This is a combination of the p-values from the separate analyses of each data set.||||0.2111
95721903|NCT01447628|191413740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6583|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6583
95721904|NCT01447628|191413740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9166|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9166
95721905|NCT01447628|191413740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6631|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6631
95721906|NCT01447628|191413741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4039
95721907|NCT01447628|191413741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9144|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9144
95721908|NCT01447628|191413741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9959|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9959
95721909|NCT01447628|191413742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1788|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1788
95721910|NCT01447628|191413742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7795|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7795
95721911|NCT01447628|191413742|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.414|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.414
95721912|NCT01447628|191413743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8688|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8688
95721913|NCT01447628|191413743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9999|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9999
95721914|NCT01447628|191413743|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.991|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.991
95721915|NCT01447628|191413744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5465|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5465
95721916|NCT01447628|191413744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4298|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4298
95721917|NCT01447628|191413744|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5451|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5451
95721918|NCT01447628|191413745|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6241|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Note that Endurance CPET was not done in China, hence only European data provided.||||0.6241
95721919|NCT01447628|191413746|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4758|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4758
95721920|NCT01447628|191413747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.205|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2050
95721921|NCT01447628|191413747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
95721922|NCT01447628|191413747|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1993|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1993
95721923|NCT01447628|191413748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.061|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0610
95721924|NCT01447628|191413748|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0641|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0641
95721925|NCT01447628|191413749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0003
95721926|NCT01447628|191413749|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0001
95721927|NCT01447628|191413749|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95721928|NCT01447628|191413750|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0001
95721929|NCT01447628|191413751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8093|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8093
95721930|NCT01447628|191413751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6300
95721931|NCT01447628|191413751|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8533|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8533
95721932|NCT01447628|191413752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0725|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0725
95721933|NCT01447628|191413752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8572|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8572
95721934|NCT01447628|191413752|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2348|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2348
95721935|NCT01447628|191413753|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1115|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1115
95721936|NCT01447628|191413754|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9790
95721937|NCT01447628|191413755|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7702|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7702
95721938|NCT01447628|191413756|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2219|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2219
95721939|NCT01447628|191413757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1777|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1777
95721940|NCT01447628|191413757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7889|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7889
95721941|NCT01447628|191413757|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4156|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4156
95721942|NCT01447628|191413758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7625|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7625
95721943|NCT01447628|191413758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2262|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2262
95721944|NCT01447628|191413758|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4756|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4756
95721945|NCT01447628|191413759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7711|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7711
95721946|NCT01447628|191413759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7806|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7806
95721947|NCT01447628|191413759|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9074|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9074
95721948|NCT01447628|191413760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9504|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.9504
95721949|NCT01447628|191413760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8666|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8666
95721950|NCT01447628|191413760|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8104|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8104
95721951|NCT01447628|191413761|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4478|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4478
95721952|NCT01447628|191413762|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.459|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4590
95721953|NCT01447628|191413763|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8086|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8086
95721954|NCT01447628|191413764|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6944|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6944
95721955|NCT01447628|191413765|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.585|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.585
95721956|NCT01447628|191413766|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4619|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4619
95721957|NCT01447628|191413767|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7721|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7721
95721958|NCT01447628|191413768|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8332|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.8332
95721959|NCT01447628|191413769|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2651|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2651
95721960|NCT01029769|191413776|OTHER|"a logistic regression model with remission as the dependent variable and switch of treatment (yes/no) and PANSS-total score at visit 3 as independent variables was used. Multiple imputation (based upon 20 imputations, primary analysis), last observation carried forward and completers only analyses were performed."|||||=|0.01||||||Multiple imputation was performed separately for the switch and non-switch arms and the imputation model included the PANSS total score from all visits from phase II baseline (visit 2) onwards, remission at visit 7 and phase I arm allocation|Regression, Logistic|||Irrespective of the initially assigned antipsychotic treatment in period 1 of the trial (2-week-phase), the patients showing little improvement over the two weeks of treatment in period 1 now switched from the initial treatment in period 2 of the trial (6-week-phase) were grouped together as well as the patients non-switched from their initial treatment.||||=0.01
95721961|NCT02268045|191413791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|Percentage difference|0.7|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the ITT population||||-13|
95721962|NCT02268045|191413791|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The RR, with the corresponding 95% CI, was calculated for each treatment arm and compared using Fisher's exact test at a one-sided 0.025 type I error rate. A non-inferiority margin of 13% was assumed with ≥ 80% power to detect treatment differences. Non-inferiority was concluded if the one-sided 95% CI was above the -13% margin set for the study.|percentage difference|3.0|||||ONE_SIDED|95.0|-13.0||||||For the PP population||||-13|
95721963|NCT02268045|191413792|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.6|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.6|
95721964|NCT02268045|191413793|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|103.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.5|107.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||107|98.5|
95721965|NCT02268045|191413794|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|99.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.9|105.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||105|93.9|
95721966|NCT02268045|191413795|EQUIVALENCE|Two treatments are judged not to be different from one another if the 90% CI of the ratio of a log-transformed exposure measure (AUC) falls completely within the range 80%-125%.|ratio RTXM83 to Mabthera|104.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.5|109.0|||||For the ratio: RTXM83 represents the numerator and Mabthera the denominator|||109|99.5|
95721967|NCT02268045|191413799|OTHER|||||||0.457|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.4570
95721968|NCT01556490|191413801|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.08||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.31|||Log Rank|||||1.31|0.89|0.4552
95721969|NCT01556490|191413802|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78||||0.0626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.01|||Log Rank|||||1.01|0.61|0.0626
95721970|NCT01556490|191413803|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.0227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.96|||Log Rank|||||.96|.59|0.0227
95721971|NCT01556490|191413804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.0043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|0.89|||Log Rank|||||.89|.52|0.0043
95721972|NCT01556490|191413805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.6|22.3|||2 sided calculated using continuity|2 sided calculated using continuity adjusted Wald Approach||||22.3|8.6|0.0001
95721973|NCT01652872|191413823|OTHER||Treatment Difference|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.39|5.85|||||Difference is fixed dose - titration.|||5.85|-6.39|
95721974|NCT01652872|191413823|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.998|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.776|1.285|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|A risk ratio \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the fixed dose group relative to Hb-based titration group.|||1.285|0.776|
95721975|NCT01652872|191413824|OTHER|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology) and accounting for participant exposure time.|Least Squares Mean (LSM) Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.05|||Negative binomial regression model||Least Squares Mean (LSM) ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||2.05|0.81|
95721976|NCT01652872|191413825|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.35|||Cox Proportional Hazard Model|Stratified by RBC transfusion received within 12 months prior to randomization (yes/no) and site practice setting (nephrology/non-nephrology).|Hazard ratio is fixed dose relative to titration.|||1.35|0.76|
95721977|NCT01652872|191413826|OTHER||Median of the difference|-0.34|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.22|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-0.22|-0.46|
95721978|NCT01652872|191413827|OTHER||Median of the difference|-22.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.1|-18.1|||Hodges-Lehmann estimate||Difference is fixed dose - titration.||The 2-sided 95% confidence intervals were obtained using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum statistic.|-18.1|-26.1|
95721979|NCT03985293|191413850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.47||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.76|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.76|0.0071
95721980|NCT03985293|191413850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.18|-0.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.62|-1.18|<.0001
95721981|NCT03985293|191413850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.73|-1.30|<.0001
95721982|NCT03985293|191413850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.65|-1.24|<.0001
95721983|NCT03985293|191413850|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.47|-0.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.86|-1.47|<.0001
95721984|NCT03985293|191413851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.84|14.18|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||14.18|1.84|
95721985|NCT03985293|191413851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|16.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.18|45.93|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||45.93|6.18|
95721986|NCT03985293|191413851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|18.79|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|7.03|50.21|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||50.21|7.03|
95721987|NCT03985293|191413851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.66|66.39|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||66.39|8.66|
95721988|NCT03985293|191413851|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|24.46|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.72|68.57|||Regression, Logistic||The Odds ratio model included multiple imputation. PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||68.57|8.72|
95721989|NCT03985293|191413852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.09||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.19|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.01|-0.19|0.1578
95721990|NCT03985293|191413852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.22||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.32|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.12|-0.32|0.0003
95721991|NCT03985293|191413852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.2||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.3|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.10|-0.30|0.0013
95721992|NCT03985293|191413852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.24||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.14|-0.34|0.0001
95721993|NCT03985293|191413852|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.36|-0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.16|-0.36|<.0001
95721994|NCT03985293|191413853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.3||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.46|0.0013
95721995|NCT03985293|191413853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.28|-0.58|<.0001
95721996|NCT03985293|191413853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.40|-0.70|<.0001
95721997|NCT03985293|191413853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.66|-0.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.35|-0.66|<.0001
95721998|NCT03985293|191413853|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.41|-0.71|<.0001
95721999|NCT03985293|191413854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.22|-0.59|0.0004
95722000|NCT03985293|191413854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.81|-0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.46|-0.81|<.0001
95722001|NCT03985293|191413854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
95722002|NCT03985293|191413854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.91|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.53|-0.91|<.0001
95722003|NCT03985293|191413854|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-0.95|<.0001
95722004|NCT03985293|191413855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.37||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|-0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.15|-0.59|0.0054
95722005|NCT03985293|191413855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis||PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.44|-0.86|<.0001
95722006|NCT03985293|191413855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.06|-0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.63|-1.06|<.0001
95722007|NCT03985293|191413855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.57|-1.02|<.0001
95722008|NCT03985293|191413855|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.11|-0.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.67|-1.11|<.0001
95722009|NCT03985293|191413856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.44||||0.0061|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.71|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.18|-0.71|0.0061
95722010|NCT03985293|191413856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.79|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.05|-0.54|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.54|-1.05|<.0001
95722011|NCT03985293|191413856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.24|-0.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.72|-1.24|<.0001
95722012|NCT03985293|191413856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.83|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.1|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.56|-1.10|<.0001
95722013|NCT03985293|191413856|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.03|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.3|-0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.75|-1.30|<.0001
95722014|NCT03985293|191413857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.13||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.94|-8.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-8.33|-25.94|0.0014
95722015|NCT03985293|191413857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-16.38||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.08|-7.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Difference in LS Mean|||-7.67|-25.08|0.0021
95722016|NCT03985293|191413857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-22.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.88|-13.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-13.53|-30.88|<.0001
95722017|NCT03985293|191413857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.59||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-27.43|-9.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.76|-27.43|0.0006
95722018|NCT03985293|191413857|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.0|-16.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-16.67|-34.00|<.0001
95722019|NCT03985293|191413858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-11.79||||0.0468|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-21.55|-2.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.04|-21.55|0.0468
95722020|NCT03985293|191413858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-18.68||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.12|-9.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-9.25|-28.12|0.0012
95722021|NCT03985293|191413858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.44|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.03|-17.85|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.85|-37.03|<.0001
95722022|NCT03985293|191413858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.22|-17.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.51|-37.22|<.0001
95722023|NCT03985293|191413858|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-28.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.72|-18.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-18.45|-37.72|<.0001
95722024|NCT03985293|191413859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-15.9||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.9|-5.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-5.90|-25.90|0.0091
95722025|NCT03985293|191413859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.53|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.18|-15.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.89|-35.18|<.0001
95722026|NCT03985293|191413859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-30.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.8|-20.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.21|-39.80|<.0001
95722027|NCT03985293|191413859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.63|-17.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-17.33|-37.63|<.0001
95722028|NCT03985293|191413859|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-41.77|-21.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.78|-41.77|<.0001
95722029|NCT03985293|191413860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.63||||0.5449|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-13.51|6.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||6.25|-13.51|0.5449
95722030|NCT03985293|191413860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-17.12||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-26.62|-7.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-7.63|-26.62|0.0031
95722031|NCT03985293|191413860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-20.64||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.31|-10.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-10.96|-30.31|0.0005
95722032|NCT03985293|191413860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-24.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-34.2|-14.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.04|-34.20|<.0001
95722033|NCT03985293|191413860|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.44|-14.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.97|-35.44|<.0001
95722034|NCT03985293|191413861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-7.7||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-19.78|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||4.38|-19.78|0.2940
95722035|NCT03985293|191413861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-23.77||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-35.37|-12.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-12.17|-35.37|0.0008
95722036|NCT03985293|191413861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.05|-21.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-21.40|-45.05|<.0001
95722037|NCT03985293|191413861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-44.14|-19.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-19.19|-44.14|<.0001
95722038|NCT03985293|191413861|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.67|-20.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.51|-46.67|<.0001
95722039|NCT03985293|191413862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-14.12||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-25.77|-2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.47|-25.77|0.0464
95722040|NCT03985293|191413862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-25.84||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-37.05|-14.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-14.62|-37.05|0.0002
95722041|NCT03985293|191413862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-31.78|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-43.2|-20.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.35|-43.20|<.0001
95722042|NCT03985293|191413862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-27.02||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-39.03|-15.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-15.01|-39.03|0.0002
95722043|NCT03985293|191413862|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-33.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-45.63|-20.84|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-20.84|-45.63|<.0001
95722044|NCT03985293|191413863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.06||||0.8011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.44|-0.33|0.8011
95722045|NCT03985293|191413863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.02||||0.9149|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.35|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.35|0.9149
95722046|NCT03985293|191413863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7216|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.46|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.30|-0.46|0.7216
95722047|NCT03985293|191413863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.42||||0.0758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.8|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-0.80|0.0758
95722048|NCT03985293|191413863|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.4||||0.086|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.77|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-0.77|0.0860
95722049|NCT03985293|191413864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.08||||0.7898|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.59|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.42|-0.59|0.7898
95722050|NCT03985293|191413864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.16||||0.5829|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.66|-0.33|0.5829
95722051|NCT03985293|191413864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.52||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.02|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.03|-1.02|0.0827
95722052|NCT03985293|191413864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.31|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.29|-1.31|0.0101
95722053|NCT03985293|191413864|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.09||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.59|-0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.59|-1.59|0.0004
95722054|NCT03985293|191413865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.1||||0.7985|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.55|-0.75|0.7985
95722055|NCT03985293|191413865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.23||||0.5484|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.86|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.40|-0.86|0.5484
95722056|NCT03985293|191413865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.38|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.11|-1.38|0.0541
95722057|NCT03985293|191413865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.26|-0.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.95|-2.26|<.0001
95722058|NCT03985293|191413865|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.9|-1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.60|-2.90|<.0001
95722059|NCT03985293|191413866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.31||||0.4692|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|1.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.03|-0.40|0.4692
95722060|NCT03985293|191413866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.09||||0.8274|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|0.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.78|-0.60|0.8274
95722061|NCT03985293|191413866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.72||||0.0887|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.42|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.02|-1.42|0.0887
95722062|NCT03985293|191413866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-1.61||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.33|-0.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-0.88|-2.33|0.0003
95722063|NCT03985293|191413866|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.95|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.67|-2.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.22|-3.67|<.0001
95722064|NCT03985293|191413867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.15||||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.7|0.99|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.99|-0.70|0.7758
95722065|NCT03985293|191413867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.23||||0.6367|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.58|1.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.05|-0.58|0.6367
95722066|NCT03985293|191413867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.81||||0.1082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.63|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.02|-1.63|0.1082
95722067|NCT03985293|191413867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.14|-1.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.42|-3.14|<.0001
95722068|NCT03985293|191413867|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-3.57|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.44|-2.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-2.70|-4.44|<.0001
95722069|NCT03985293|191413868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.45||||0.4325|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.41|-0.50|0.4325
95722070|NCT03985293|191413868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|0.38||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.54|1.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||1.30|-0.54|0.4978
95722071|NCT03985293|191413868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-0.73||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.66|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||0.20|-1.66|0.1970
95722072|NCT03985293|191413868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-2.04||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.01|-1.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-1.07|-3.01|0.0006
95722073|NCT03985293|191413868|SUPERIORITY||Difference in LS Mean|-4.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.15|-3.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|PF-06882961 = Test Placebo = Reference|||-3.18|-5.15|<.0001
95722074|NCT01488071|191413873|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Mixed model for repeated measurements (MMRM), using all available data, with a freely varying mean and covariance structures and with treatment, week, and site group as fixed factors and the baseline score as a covariate. The model also included interaction between week and baseline score, as well as interaction between week and treatment.~Non-inferiority, upper limit of Confidence Interval should not exceed 2."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.69||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|-0.81||Under established non-inferiority the p-value is not adjusted.|Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM||||-0.81|-3.51|0.0018
95722075|NCT01488071|191413874|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.6||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.60|-3.45|0.0054
95722076|NCT01488071|191413875|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.56||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.8||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.80|-2.98|0.0008
95722077|NCT01488071|191413876|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.04|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.04|0.0007
95722078|NCT01488071|191413877|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.11||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.11|-0.48|0.0023
95722079|NCT01488071|191413878|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.47|0.0075
95722080|NCT01488071|191413879|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.08|-0.42|0.0048
95722081|NCT01488071|191413880|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.0055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.07||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.07|-0.42|0.0055
95722082|NCT01488071|191413881|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.6||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.60|1.26|0.0012
95722083|NCT01488071|191413882|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.83||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|2.65||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.65|1.26|0.0014
95722084|NCT01488071|191413883|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.52||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.52|1.17|0.0054
95722085|NCT01488071|191413884|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|2.9||Wald's Test. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.90|1.39|0.0002
95722086|NCT01488071|191413885|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.72||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|-0.81||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.81|-3.63|0.0021
95722087|NCT01488071|191413886|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.0209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|-0.27||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|Mixed Models Analysis|The same MMRM methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||||-0.27|-3.23|0.0209
95722088|NCT03889197|191413896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.162|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.162
95722089|NCT03889197|191413897|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.242|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.242
95722090|NCT03889197|191413898|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.956|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.956
95722091|NCT03889197|191413899|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.132|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.132
95722092|NCT03889197|191413900|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.445
95722093|NCT03889197|191413901|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.746|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.746
95722094|NCT03889197|191413902|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.979|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.979
95722095|NCT03889197|191413903|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.289|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.289
95722096|NCT03889197|191413904|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.940
95722097|NCT03889197|191413905|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.126|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.126
95722098|NCT03889197|191413906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.738|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.738
95722099|NCT03889197|191413907|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.676|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.676
95722100|NCT03889197|191413908|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.996|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.996
95722101|NCT03889197|191413909|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.095|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.095
95722102|NCT02278952|191413910|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.33|||||||GEE-adjusted models|||||||0.33
95722103|NCT02278952|191413911|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear model|||||<|0.0001|||||||GEE-adjusted linear model|||||||< 0.0001
95722104|NCT02278952|191413912|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.049|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.049
95722105|NCT02278952|191413913|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.114|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||||||0.114
95722106|NCT02278952|191413914|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.47|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of tacrolimus dose||||0.470
95722107|NCT02278952|191413914|OTHER|Generalized estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.037|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of Prednisone dose||||0.037
95722108|NCT02278952|191413914|OTHER|Generalized-estimating equation-adjusted linear models||||||0.456|||||||GEE-adjusted linear models|||P-value of mycophenolate mofetil dose||||0.456
95722109|NCT00644228|191413931|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.712||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|96.0|0.56|0.906||The p-value is from a one-sided, stratified log-rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|With four years of patient accrual and two and a half years of follow-up, 220 patients per arm yields 87% power to detect an increase of PFS of 50%, from a median of 3 years to 4.5 years, which corresponds to a hazard ratio of 1.5. These calculations are based on a one-sided stratified log-rank test at level 0.025 with two interim analyses. The final analysis will be carried out at the 0.02 significance level to allow for two interim analyses at the 0.0025 significance level.||0.906|0.560|0.0018
95722110|NCT00644228|191413932|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.709||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.524|0.959||The p-value is based on a two-sided, stratified log rank test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Log Rank||The hazard ratio compares Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone against Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone.|Overall survival will be compared between the two treatment arms using a stratified log-rank test.||0.959|0.524|0.0250
95722111|NCT00644228|191413933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||The p-value is based on a stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Stratification factors include those factors by which patients were randomized: intent to transplant (yes vs no) and ISS Stage (I vs II vs III).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.20
95722112|NCT02913261|191413971|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.65|4.22|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||4.22|1.65|<.0001
95722113|NCT02913261|191413972|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|3.94|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.94|1.43|0.0005
95722114|NCT02913261|191413973|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.98||||0.0029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|3.17|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||3.17|1.24|0.0029
95722115|NCT02913261|191413985|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.07|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|5.25|||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||5.25|1.80|<.0001
95722116|NCT00285012|191413998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.99|14.14||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Primary endpoint was based on a CO confirmed 4-week CQR (weeks 4 through 12 inclusive). Intent was to evaluate the alternative hypothesis that varenicline is superior to placebo for smoking cessation after 12 weeks of treatment in subjects with mild to moderate COPD.||14.14|4.99|<0.0001
95722117|NCT00285012|191413999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.88|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.75|8.65||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline versus (vs) placebo at Week 24||8.65|2.75|<0.0001
95722118|NCT00285012|191413999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.13|7.67||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.67|2.13|<0.0001
95722119|NCT00285012|191414000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.96|9.02||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||9.02|2.96|<0.0001
95722120|NCT00285012|191414000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.92|||<|0.0001||95.0|2.18|7.07||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||7.07|2.18|<0.0001
95722121|NCT00285012|191414001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.99|||<|0.0001||95.0|4.39|11.11||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12||11.11|4.39|<0.0001
95722122|NCT00285012|191414001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.85|||<|0.0001||95.0|1.79|4.54|||Regression, Logistic|p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 24||4.54|1.79|<0.0001
95722123|NCT00285012|191414001|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.19||||0.0008||95.0|1.37|3.48||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.48|1.37|0.0008
95722124|NCT00285012|191414002|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.45||||0.0002||95.0|1.52|3.95||p-value obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Regression, Logistic||odds ratio obtained from a logistic regression model including the main effects of treatment and pooled center|Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52||3.95|1.52|0.0002
95722125|NCT00285012|191414003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.140
95722126|NCT00285012|191414003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 12 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.007
95722127|NCT00285012|191414003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.684||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] pre-bronchodilator||||0.684
95722128|NCT00285012|191414003|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.901||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value based on ANCOVA model with treatment and center as factors and baseline value as covariate.||Varenicline vs placebo at Week 52 \[LOCF\] post-bronchodilator||||0.901
95722129|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Mental State||||0.078
95722130|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Mental State||||0.109
95722131|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Mental State||||0.281
95722132|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.581||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Functional State||||0.581
95722133|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Functional State||||0.290
95722134|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.063||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Functional State||||0.063
95722135|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.002
95722136|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.081||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.081
95722137|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Respiratory Symptoms||||0.016
95722138|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 12 Total Score||||0.033
95722139|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.078||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 24 Total Score||||0.078
95722140|NCT00285012|191414004|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.023||95.0|||||ANCOVA|p-value obtained from ANCOVA model with fixed effect terms for center and treatment, and baseline score as a covariate.||Week 52 Total Score||||0.023
95722141|NCT01236053|191414008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)"|||1.24|1.07|0.0002
95722142|NCT01236053|191414008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.0976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.99|0.0976
95722143|NCT01236053|191414008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)"|||1.36|1.23|<0.0001
95722144|NCT01236053|191414008|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|1.13|<0.0001
95722145|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.1468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.97|0.1468
95722146|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.8545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.90|0.8545
95722147|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|1.27|<0.0001
95722148|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.37|1.18|<0.0001
95722149|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.07|0.0033
95722150|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.33|1.00|0.0474
95722151|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.16|<0.0001
95722152|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.32|1.08|0.0008
95722153|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0190
95722154|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.3366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.21|0.94|0.3366
95722155|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.31|1.09|0.0001
95722156|NCT01236053|191414009|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.20|1.00|0.0464
95722157|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.97|0.1194
95722158|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.7004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.90|0.7004
95722159|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.26|1.49|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.49|1.26|<0.0001
95722160|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.38|1.16|<0.0001
95722161|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.34|1.03|0.0134
95722162|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.1592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.25|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.25|0.96|0.1592
95722163|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.47|1.24|<0.0001
95722164|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.36|1.14|<0.0001
95722165|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.0131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.33|1.03|0.0131
95722166|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.2731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.22|0.95|0.2731
95722167|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.28|1.06|0.0012
95722168|NCT01236053|191414010|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.1477|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.17|0.98|0.1477
95722169|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.41|1.01|0.0369
95722170|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.3132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.29|0.92|0.3132
95722171|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.26|0.99|0.0762
95722172|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.7243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.15|0.91|0.7243
95722173|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.65|0.97|0.0775
95722174|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.2649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.52|0.89|0.2649
95722175|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.0257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.43|1.02|0.0257
95722176|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.30|0.93|0.2540
95722177|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.75|0.76|0.5141
95722178|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.60|0.69|0.8208
95722179|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0562|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.99|0.0562
95722180|NCT01236053|191414011|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.2596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.47|0.90|0.2596
95722181|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.28|0.99|0.0709
95722182|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.4996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.4996
95722183|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.23|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.45|1.23|<0.0001
95722184|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.35|1.14|<0.0001
95722185|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.0062|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.36|1.05|0.0062
95722186|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.1144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.26|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.26|0.98|0.1144
95722187|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.55|1.30|<0.0001
95722188|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.43|1.20|<0.0001
95722189|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.0469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.29|1.00|0.0469
95722190|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.5169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.19|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.19|0.92|0.5169
95722191|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.24|1.03|0.0103
95722192|NCT01236053|191414012|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.4182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.14|0.95|0.4182
95722193|NCT01236053|191414013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|0.65||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.62|0.26|0.3597
95722194|NCT01236053|191414013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.54||||0.1845|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.34|0.21|0.1845
95722195|NCT01236053|191414013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9142|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.84|0.58|0.9142
95722196|NCT01236053|191414013|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.6524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.57|0.49|0.6524
95722197|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.53||||0.2875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.17|0.2875
95722198|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.47||||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|1.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.51|0.15|0.2042
95722199|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.4733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|8.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||8.06|0.38|0.4733
95722200|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.7867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|5.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||5.85|0.26|0.7867
95722201|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.53||||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.47|8.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||8.50|1.47|0.0049
95722202|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.87||||0.0218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|7.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||7.08|1.17|0.0218
95722203|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.27|0.8490
95722204|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.46|0.22|0.6263
95722205|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.4122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.19|0.4122
95722206|NCT01236053|191414014|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.51||||0.2642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.66|0.16|0.2642
95722207|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.7891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.43|0.31|0.7891
95722208|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6216|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.17|0.27|0.6216
95722209|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.6893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|5.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.96|0.31|0.6893
95722210|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.9273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.84|0.24|0.9273
95722211|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|3.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.78|0.47|0.5980
95722212|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.18|0.38|0.8572
95722213|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.77|0.26|0.7807
95722214|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.5579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.32|0.21|0.5579
95722215|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.53|0.40|0.9932
95722216|NCT01236053|191414015|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.6901|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.11|0.32|0.6901
95722217|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.431|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|0.19|0.4310
95722218|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.55||||0.3226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.79|0.17|0.3226
95722219|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.6206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.59|0.40|0.6206
95722220|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.8557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|3.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||3.84|0.33|0.8557
95722221|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.1498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.62|||Unadjusted Odds Ratio||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.62|0.79|0.1498
95722222|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|4.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||4.07|0.68|0.2645
95722223|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.5728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|2.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.79|0.16|0.5728
95722224|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.3727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||2.21|0.12|0.3727
95722225|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.7743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.40|0.31|0.7743
95722226|NCT01236053|191414017|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.4775|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, upper GI disorder, acid-suppressing drugs."|||1.94|0.24|0.4775
95722227|NCT01236053|191414018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.33||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.95|27.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||27.56|1.95|0.0032
95722228|NCT01236053|191414018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.39||||0.1251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|16.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||16.17|0.71|0.1251
95722229|NCT01236053|191414018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.22||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|9.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.01|1.15|0.0261
95722230|NCT01236053|191414018|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.209|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|7.17|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.17|0.65|0.2090
95722231|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
95722232|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
95722233|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
95722234|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.21||||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|22.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||22.51|1.21|0.0269
95722235|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
95722236|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
95722237|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
95722238|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
95722239|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
95722240|NCT01236053|191414019|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.82|0.10|0.9253
95722241|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
95722242|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.47||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|258.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||258.8|1.78|0.0158
95722243|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.0||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|25.11|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||25.11|1.43|0.0141
95722244|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.56||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.83|40.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.02|1.83|0.0063
95722245|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|55.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||55.14|0.45|0.1888
95722246|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|32.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||32.21|0.03|0.9990
95722247|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.75||||0.2885|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|43.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||43.08|0.33|0.2885
95722248|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.9608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|13.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||13.87|0.06|0.9608
95722249|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
95722250|NCT01236053|191414020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.9381||95.0|0.11|7.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.97|0.11|0.9381
95722251|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
95722252|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|21.55||||0.0157|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|260.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||260.2|1.78|0.0157
95722253|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.86||||0.0524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|15.14|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||15.14|0.99|0.0524
95722254|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|20.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||20.31|1.13|0.0333
95722255|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.34||||0.2966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|32.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||32.06|0.35|0.2966
95722256|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.62||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|12.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||12.31|0.03|0.7510
95722257|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.71||||0.1868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|113.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||113.4|0.40|0.1868
95722258|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.7558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|40.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||40.61|0.07|0.7558
95722259|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.33||||0.0944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|24.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||24.07|0.78|0.0944
95722260|NCT01236053|191414022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.9244|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|7.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital)."|||7.81|0.10|0.9244
95722261|NCT01236053|191414023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.96|0.0963
95722262|NCT01236053|191414023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.27|0.69|0.6710
95722263|NCT01236053|191414023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.20|1.54|<0.0001
95722264|NCT01236053|191414023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.81|1.24|<0.0001
95722265|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.18|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.18|0.92|0.1184
95722266|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.50|0.59|0.8016
95722267|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.27|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.77|2.91|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.91|1.77|<0.0001
95722268|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.51|2.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.58|1.51|<0.0001
95722269|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.6105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|2.08|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.08|0.65|0.6105
95722270|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.6797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.09|0.62|0.6797
95722271|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.39|1.12|0.0103
95722272|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.00|0.89|0.1629
95722273|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.4713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.97|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.97|0.73|0.4713
95722274|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.82||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.49|0.4505
95722275|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.0284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|2.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.01|1.04|0.0284
95722276|NCT01236053|191414024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.6262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.54|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.54|0.77|0.6262
95722277|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.0798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.41|0.95|0.0798
95722278|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.8357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.73|0.64|0.8357
95722279|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.29|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.01|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.01|1.75|<0.0001
95722280|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.76|1.53|<0.0001
95722281|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7794|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.85|0.63|0.7794
95722282|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.8075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.66|0.52|0.8075
95722283|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.35|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.52|1.35|0.0001
95722284|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.12|1.08|0.0161
95722285|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.00|0.76|0.3972
95722286|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.39|0.50|0.4950
95722287|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0601|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.99|0.0601
95722288|NCT01236053|191414025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.02||||0.9286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.45|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.45|0.71|0.9286
95722289|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.5394|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.39|0.63|0.5394
95722290|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.507|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.58|0.39|0.5070
95722291|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.5426|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.83|0.73|0.5426
95722292|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.38|0.52|0.5150
95722293|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|4.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.42|0.53|0.4350
95722294|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.13||||0.8276|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||3.43|0.37|0.8276
95722295|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.4022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.50|0.69|0.4022
95722296|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8681|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.86|0.48|0.8681
95722297|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.67||||0.6326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|13.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||13.86|0.20|0.6326
95722298|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.87||||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|16.86|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||16.86|0.21|0.5770
95722299|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.8087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.40|0.8087
95722300|NCT01236053|191414026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8497|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.64|0.31|0.8497
95722301|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.1528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|2.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.24|0.88|0.1528
95722302|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.65|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.65|0.62|0.9625
95722303|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.59|1.48|<0.0001
95722304|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.7||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|2.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.29|1.25|0.0006
95722305|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.76|0.3515
95722306|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.82|0.59|0.9069
95722307|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.39|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.78|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.21|1.78|<0.0001
95722308|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.48|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||2.81|1.48|<0.0001
95722309|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.88|0.70|0.5948
95722310|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.3984|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.35|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.35|0.47|0.3984
95722311|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.26||||0.1872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.79|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.79|0.89|0.1872
95722312|NCT01236053|191414027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.93||||0.6772|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, COPD."|||1.34|0.64|0.6772
95722313|NCT01236053|191414028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|3.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.72|0.07|0.4933
95722314|NCT01236053|191414028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.4147|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|3.27|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||3.27|0.06|0.4147
95722315|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.8257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|10.38|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||10.38|0.15|0.8257
95722316|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.9467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|9.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||9.02|0.13|0.9467
95722317|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9859
95722318|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9857|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9857
95722319|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.986|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9860
95722320|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9858|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9858
95722321|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9798|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||0.00|0.00|0.9798
95722322|NCT01236053|191414029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.9796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||0.00|0.00|0.9796
95722323|NCT01236053|191414030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.6252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|14.84|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||14.84|0.20|0.6252
95722324|NCT01236053|191414030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.49||||0.7208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|13.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||13.28|0.17|0.7208
95722325|NCT01236053|191414032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12||||0.9141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|9.03|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||9.03|0.14|0.9141
95722326|NCT01236053|191414032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.95||||0.9613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|7.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||7.78|0.12|0.9613
95722327|NCT01236053|191414033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.0323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.02|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.57|1.02|0.0323
95722328|NCT01236053|191414033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.0682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.99|0.0682
95722329|NCT01236053|191414033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|1.01|0.0326
95722330|NCT01236053|191414033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.0699|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.36|0.99|0.0699
95722331|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.2||||0.2893|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.86|0.2893
95722332|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.4301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.61|0.82|0.4301
95722333|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.0806|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.58|0.97|0.0806
95722334|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.55|0.95|0.1226
95722335|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.3502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.89|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.89|0.80|0.3502
95722336|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4654|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.81|0.76|0.4654
95722337|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.3987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.23|0.59|0.3987
95722338|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.3349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.20|0.58|0.3349
95722339|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.38||||0.0827|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.96|0.0827
95722340|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.96|0.95|0.0932
95722341|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.80|1.07|0.0130
95722342|NCT01236053|191414034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.0241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.75|1.04|0.0241
95722343|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.5043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.77|0.5043
95722344|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.7129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.59|0.73|0.7129
95722345|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.2055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.57|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.57|0.91|0.2055
95722346|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.3005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.52|0.88|0.3005
95722347|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.2849|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.77|0.84|0.2849
95722348|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19||||0.365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.72|0.82|0.3650
95722349|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.7559|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.40|0.78|0.7559
95722350|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.37|0.77|0.8520
95722351|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.0459|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.01|0.0459
95722352|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.0542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.04|0.99|0.0542
95722353|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.0312|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|1.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.74|1.03|0.0312
95722354|NCT01236053|191414035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.3||||0.0508|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.70|1.00|0.0508
95722355|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0892|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|2.42|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.42|0.94|0.0892
95722356|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.48||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.39|0.92|0.1043
95722357|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.06|1.10|0.0101
95722358|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.46||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 1 year (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.00|1.07|0.0186
95722359|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.69||||0.1458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|3.43|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.43|0.83|0.1458
95722360|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.62||||0.1859|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|3.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.29|0.79|0.1859
95722361|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|2.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.72|1.13|0.0122
95722362|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|2.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 2 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||2.67|1.10|0.0162
95722363|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.7573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|3.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.36|0.19|0.7573
95722364|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.76||||0.7088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.21|0.18|0.7088
95722365|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.0787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.64|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.64|0.93|0.0787
95722366|NCT01236053|191414036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.0873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|3.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: \> 3 years (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||3.58|0.92|0.0873
95722367|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.70|0.80|0.4233
95722368|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.76|0.5908
95722369|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.67|1.00|0.0540
95722370|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.62|0.96|0.0939
95722371|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.27||||0.214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.87|0.87|0.2140
95722372|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.80|0.84|0.2940
95722373|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.97||||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.32|0.71|0.8352
95722374|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.7809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.31|0.70|0.7809
95722375|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.0921|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|1.94|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.94|0.95|0.0921
95722376|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.1091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.92|0.94|0.1091
95722377|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.0564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.68|0.99|0.0564
95722378|NCT01236053|191414037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.0939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|1.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, alcohol consumption, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hysterectomy, current estrogen, prior estrogen, benign breast disease."|||1.63|0.96|0.0939
95722379|NCT01236053|191414038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.58||||0.3082|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|41.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||41.71|0.31|0.3082
95722380|NCT01236053|191414038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.3999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|34.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||34.69|0.24|0.3999
95722381|NCT01236053|191414038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.7509|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|12.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||12.52|0.16|0.7509
95722382|NCT01236053|191414038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.6303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|17.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||17.07|0.18|0.6303
95722383|NCT01236053|191414039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
95722384|NCT01236053|191414039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
95722385|NCT01236053|191414039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
95722386|NCT01236053|191414039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
95722387|NCT01236053|191414040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
95722388|NCT01236053|191414040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
95722389|NCT01236053|191414040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
95722390|NCT01236053|191414040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.50|0.1118
95722391|NCT01236053|191414042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
95722392|NCT01236053|191414042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.63||||0.2866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|77.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||77.51|0.28|0.2866
95722393|NCT01236053|191414042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.32||||0.2038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|108.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||108.8|0.37|0.2038
95722394|NCT01236053|191414042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.4||||0.1118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|839.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, HIV, HPV (genital), phimosis/balanitis."|||839.0|0.5|0.1118
95722395|NCT01236053|191414043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.9614|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.69|0.58|0.9614
95722396|NCT01236053|191414043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.5179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.44|0.49|0.5179
95722397|NCT01236053|191414043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.8856|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.48|0.71|0.8856
95722398|NCT01236053|191414043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88||||0.5078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.28|0.61|0.5078
95722399|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.6888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.36|0.6888
95722400|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.5024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.75|0.32|0.5024
95722401|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.53|0.49|0.6164
95722402|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.39|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.39|0.44|0.4002
95722403|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.81||||0.7329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|2.66|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.66|0.25|0.7329
95722404|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.71||||0.5731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.33|0.22|0.5731
95722405|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.35||||0.3762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.63|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.63|0.69|0.3762
95722406|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.582|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|2.36|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.36|0.62|0.5820
95722407|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4782
95722408|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8998
95722409|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.99|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.99|0.53|0.9308
95722410|NCT01236053|191414044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.5125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.41|0.5125
95722411|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.8655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.33|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.33|0.37|0.8655
95722412|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.6482|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|2.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.05|0.32|0.6482
95722413|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.76|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.76|0.53|0.9003
95722414|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.85||||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.56|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.56|0.46|0.6000
95722415|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.567|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.06|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.06|0.27|0.5670
95722416|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67||||0.4353|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.24|0.4353
95722417|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.8922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.95|0.56|0.8922
95722418|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.94||||0.8591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.77|0.50|0.8591
95722419|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|3.23|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.23|0.58|0.4779
95722420|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|2.52|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.52|0.44|0.8994
95722421|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|2.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.12|0.57|0.7800
95722422|NCT01236053|191414045|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.86||||0.6577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.67|0.44|0.6577
95722423|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.59|0.48|0.8111
95722424|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.46|0.45|0.9104
95722425|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.5592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|2.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.07|0.68|0.5592
95722426|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.8521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.85|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.85|0.60|0.8521
95722427|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.73||||0.5529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|2.04|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.04|0.26|0.5529
95722428|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.6||||0.3275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.68|0.21|0.3275
95722429|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.89||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.72|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.72|0.46|0.7300
95722430|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.4831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|1.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.53|0.41|0.4831
95722431|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.15||||0.7693|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.92|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.92|0.45|0.7693
95722432|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9||||0.8189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|2.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||2.30|0.35|0.8189
95722433|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.98|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||1.98|0.50|0.9800
95722434|NCT01236053|191414047|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78||||0.4944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||1.58|0.39|0.4944
95722435|NCT01236053|191414048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|20.0||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|220.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||220.5|1.81|0.0144
95722436|NCT01236053|191414048|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.79||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|147.0|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||147.0|0.79|0.0743
95722437|NCT01236053|191414049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
95722438|NCT01236053|191414049|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
95722439|NCT01236053|191414050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
95722440|NCT01236053|191414050|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
95722441|NCT01236053|191414052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|10.0||||0.1035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|159.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||159.9|0.63|0.1035
95722442|NCT01236053|191414052|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1||||0.3799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|95.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy."|||95.82|0.18|0.3799
95722443|NCT01236053|191414053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.01||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|3.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.32|1.21|0.0066
95722444|NCT01236053|191414053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.68||||0.0494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.82|1.00|0.0494
95722445|NCT01236053|191414053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.33|2.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.82|1.33|0.0006
95722446|NCT01236053|191414053|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.63||||0.0138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|2.41|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.41|1.11|0.0138
95722447|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|6.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.53|1.66|0.0006
95722448|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.01||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|6.05|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.05|1.50|0.0020
95722449|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.49||||0.0013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.43|4.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.34|1.43|0.0013
95722450|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|3.8|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.80|1.22|0.0080
95722451|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.8165|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.61|0.20|0.8165
95722452|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.6624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|3.12|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.12|0.17|0.6624
95722453|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.68|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.68|0.45|0.6316
95722454|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.906|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|3.22|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.22|0.35|0.9060
95722455|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.3731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.74|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.74|0.61|0.3731
95722456|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.11||||0.8266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.87|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.87|0.43|0.8266
95722457|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.0712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|3.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.13|0.95|0.0712
95722458|NCT01236053|191414054|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.41||||0.2674|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.60|0.77|0.2674
95722459|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.61||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|7.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.46|1.75|0.0005
95722460|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.25||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|6.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||6.83|1.55|0.0019
95722461|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.51||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|4.55|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.55|1.39|0.0024
95722462|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.18||||0.0115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|4.0|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.00|1.19|0.0115
95722463|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7||||0.6281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|2.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||2.96|0.17|0.6281
95722464|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.61||||0.5103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|2.62|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.62|0.14|0.5103
95722465|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Unadjusted Odds Ratio|1.15||||0.7733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.9|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.90|0.45|0.7733
95722466|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.81|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.81|0.43|0.8370
95722467|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.75||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|4.1|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.10|0.75|0.1980
95722468|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.21|0.54|0.5391
95722469|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.97||||0.0224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|3.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.53|1.10|0.0224
95722470|NCT01236053|191414055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.51||||0.1815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|2.77|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.77|0.82|0.1815
95722471|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|5.09|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.09|1.12|0.0248
95722472|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.16||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|4.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||4.70|0.99|0.0520
95722473|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.33||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.20|1.30|0.0046
95722474|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.0193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.12|3.72|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.72|1.12|0.0193
95722475|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.75||||0.0309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|6.88|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.88|1.10|0.0309
95722476|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.11||||0.1285|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|5.51|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||5.51|0.81|0.1285
95722477|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.1257|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|3.83|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.83|0.85|0.1257
95722478|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.52||||0.2944|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.31|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||3.31|0.70|0.2944
95722479|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.21||||0.7032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.21|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.21|0.45|0.7032
95722480|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.0||||0.9922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.69|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.69|0.37|0.9922
95722481|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.66||||0.1227|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|3.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.16|0.87|0.1227
95722482|NCT01236053|191414057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.3809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.61|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, chronic pancreatitis."|||2.61|0.69|0.3809
95722483|NCT01236053|191414058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.1757|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.34|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||3.34|0.80|0.1757
95722484|NCT01236053|191414058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.33||||0.4405|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|2.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.75|0.64|0.4405
95722485|NCT01236053|191414058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.24||||0.442|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|2.16|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.16|0.71|0.4420
95722486|NCT01236053|191414058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.9034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.82|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Ever (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.82|0.59|0.9034
95722487|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.91||||0.2395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.65|5.6|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.60|0.65|0.2395
95722488|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.64||||0.3764|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|4.93|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.93|0.55|0.3764
95722489|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.7599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.71|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.71|0.48|0.7599
95722490|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.03||||0.9502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.43|0.9502
95722491|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.31||||0.7164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|5.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.75|0.30|0.7164
95722492|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.73|0.24|0.9345
95722493|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.91||||0.8833|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|3.02|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.02|0.28|0.8833
95722494|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.6178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|2.46|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.46|0.22|0.6178
95722495|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.6||||0.4556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|5.53|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||5.53|0.46|0.4556
95722496|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.7478|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|4.29|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.29|0.35|0.7478
95722497|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.71||||0.235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|4.13|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.13|0.71|0.2350
95722498|NCT01236053|191414059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.5428|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|3.24|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.24|0.54|0.5428
95722499|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.3123|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|6.59|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.59|0.55|0.3123
95722500|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73||||0.3951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|6.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||6.15|0.49|0.3951
95722501|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.75|0.56|0.4388
95722502|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.5535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.47|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.47|0.51|0.5535
95722503|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.34||||0.6332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|4.48|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.48|0.40|0.6332
95722504|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1||||0.8743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.75|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.75|0.32|0.8743
95722505|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.6132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.15|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.15|0.27|0.6132
95722506|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.63||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.78|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||1.78|0.22|0.3821
95722507|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8||||0.3591|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|6.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||6.28|0.51|0.3591
95722508|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.29||||0.6899|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|4.58|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||4.58|0.37|0.6899
95722509|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.78||||0.2031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|4.3|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||4.30|0.73|0.2031
95722510|NCT01236053|191414060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.4932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|3.37|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.37|0.56|0.4932
95722511|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.64||||0.0843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|7.96|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||7.96|0.88|0.0843
95722512|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.71||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|8.28|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||8.28|0.88|0.0810
95722513|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.7|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.70|0.55|0.4583
95722514|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.43||||0.4622|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|3.73|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 1 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.73|0.55|0.4622
95722515|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45||||0.5512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|4.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.95|0.43|0.5512
95722516|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.9277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|3.67|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.67|0.31|0.9277
95722517|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.23||||0.6402|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|2.95|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||2.95|0.51|0.6402
95722518|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.9256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.32|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 2 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.32|0.40|0.9256
95722519|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.05||||0.9514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|4.5|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag)."|||4.50|0.24|0.9514
95722520|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.7543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|3.44|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (with 2 year lag) and Never (with 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||3.44|0.18|0.7543
95722521|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.08||||0.8781|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|3.07|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag)."|||3.07|0.38|0.8781
95722522|NCT01236053|191414062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.7429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|2.4|||Conditional Logistic Regression||"Comparison: Tertile 3 (without 2 year lag) and Never (without 2 year lag). Adjusted for smoking, BMI, diabetes, neuropathic pain, back pain, epilepsy, hypertension, diuretic use."|||2.40|0.29|0.7429
95722523|NCT02873195|191414067|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.725||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.491|1.07|||Log Rank|||||1.07|0.491|0.051
95722524|NCT02873195|191414068|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.56|||Log Rank|||||1.56|0.56|0.40
95722525|NCT02873195|191414069|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4876|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.4876
95722526|NCT05734014|191414115|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Qualitative Analysis of arts-based reflections. Thematic analysis and count of whether the participant drew or mentioned Crow stories related to relationality.|||
95722527|NCT00633217|191414116|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference in 2-hour post-dose FEV1 change from baseline fell above -75 mL, then HFA MDI could be deemed non-inferior to DISKUS treatment response.||||||0.021||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||0.021
95722528|NCT03353415|191414136|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95722529|NCT03353415|191414137|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95722530|NCT03353415|191414138|OTHER|||||||0.14|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.14
95722531|NCT03353415|191414139|OTHER|||||||0.45|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.45
95722532|NCT03353415|191414140|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.35
95722533|NCT03353415|191414141|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95722534|NCT03353415|191414142|OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.47
95722535|NCT03353415|191414143|OTHER|||||||0.65|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.65
95722536|NCT03353415|191414144|OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.004
95722537|NCT03353415|191414145|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95722538|NCT03353415|191414146|OTHER|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95722539|NCT03353415|191414147|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.09
95722540|NCT03353415|191414148|OTHER|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95722541|NCT03353415|191414149|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95722542|NCT03353415|191414150|OTHER|||||||0.15|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.15
95722543|NCT03353415|191414151|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95722544|NCT03353415|191414152|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95722545|NCT03353415|191414153|OTHER|||||||0.32|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.32
95722546|NCT03353415|191414154|OTHER|||||||0.41|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.41
95722547|NCT03353415|191414155|OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.04
95722548|NCT03353415|191414156|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.08
95727835|NCT00185211|191425155|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.583|||<|1e-06||95.0|0.474|0.718|||Regression, Cox|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo, i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Time to McDonald MS was modelled by a Cox proportional hazards regression model with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (categories: 2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for McDonald MS, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||0.718|0.474|< 0.000001
95722549|NCT02395536|191414163|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 5% was chosen since the inability to rule out a 5% increase in untoward event rate associated with moving the Reveal LINQ procedure in-office may suggest that in-office procedures would too high of a complication rate compared procedures performed in the traditional office setting.|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.001|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.03|0.029||P-value for non-inferiority versus a 5% non-inferiority margin.|Farrington-Manning test||The estimated value and its associated confidence interval are for the in-office minus traditional hospital setting difference in the untoward event rates. The point estimate is negative since the in-office rate was lower than the hospital rate.|The null hypothesis was that Reveal LINQ insertions performed in-office would have a higher untoward event rate than insertions performed in the traditional hospital setting. A sample size of 476 subjects was estimated to provide at least 90% power at a 1-sided alpha level of 2.5% and 5% non-inferiority margin. For the sample size calculation, an event rate of 2.0% was assumed in both arms. The Farrington-Manning test of two indepent proportions was used to compare study arms.||0.029|-0.030|<0.001
95722550|NCT00545441|191414168|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Alpha = 0.05 and power = 0.8, a non-inferiority margin of 10%.||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.59
95722551|NCT03958071|191414169|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1027||||0.281|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.2810
95722552|NCT03958071|191414169|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.078||||0.1421|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1421
95722553|NCT03958071|191414169|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0159||||0.0048|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0048
95722554|NCT03958071|191414171|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0214||||0.7681|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7681
95722555|NCT03958071|191414171|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.371|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
95722556|NCT03958071|191414171|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.349|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
95722557|NCT03958071|191414172|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.1257||||0.1659|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.1659
95722558|NCT03958071|191414172|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1566||||0.0112|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.0112
95722559|NCT03958071|191414172|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.3019|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
95722560|NCT03958071|191414173|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.0209||||0.326|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||0.3260
95722561|NCT03958071|191414173|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2694|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
95722562|NCT03958071|191414173|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|-0.2352|||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided||ASD=(X1-X2)/sqrt((s1\^2+s2\^2)/2). Where X denotes sample means in each cohort, and s denotes sample variances.|||||<.0001
95722563|NCT03958071|191414174|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.09||||0.2042|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.2042
95722564|NCT03958071|191414174|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.21|||<|0.0001|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||<.0001
95722565|NCT03958071|191414174|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.11||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.02
95722566|NCT03958071|191414175|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.0241||||0.7395|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.7395
95722567|NCT03958071|191414175|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1644||||0.0017|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0017
95722568|NCT03958071|191414175|OTHER||Absolute standardized differences (ASD)|0.1403||||0.0034|||||||Chi-squared||ASD=(p1-p2)/(sqrt(p1\^(1-p1)+p2(1-p2))/2). Where p denotes proportion of a binary variable in each cohort.|||||0.0034
95722569|NCT01142466|191414176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1384|||||||Log Rank|||Two-sided log rank test with alpha equal to 0.05 was used as the appropriate nonparametric method to compare the two groups.||||0.1384
95722570|NCT01142466|191414177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2635||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.2635
95722571|NCT04084028|191414183|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95722572|NCT04084028|191414184|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95722573|NCT04084028|191414185|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.91
95722574|NCT04084028|191414186|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.19
95722575|NCT04084028|191414187|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.77
95722576|NCT04084028|191414188|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||.06
95727847|NCT00185211|191425162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0719||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0719
95728652|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-4.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-14.9|11.3||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||11.3|-14.9|
95722577|NCT02414854|191414192|SUPERIORITY|Hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error rate at 0.05 level. The procedure included the 2 primary outcome measures and the first 13 secondary outcome measures reported and considered 2 pair-wise comparisons: Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w and Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w. Testing order is specified in analysis description.|Relative risk|0.54|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|0.68||Hierarchical testing sequence performed continued only when previous outcome measures was statistically significant at 0.05. Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 1 of testing order.||0.68|0.43|<0.0001
95722578|NCT02414854|191414192|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.523|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.413|0.662||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 3 of testing order.||0.662|0.413|<0.0001
95722579|NCT02414854|191414193|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.18||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using mixed-effect model with repeated measures (MMRM) model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 2 of testing order.||0.18|0.08|<0.0001
95722580|NCT02414854|191414193|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.14|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.19||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 200 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 200 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 4 of testing order.||0.19|0.08|<0.0001
95722581|NCT02414854|191414194|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|9.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.74|13.07||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis performed using MMRM model(n=954 for 300 vs placebo)with percent change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; \& treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value \& baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Hierarchical testing procedure used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Here, it is test no. 5 of testing order.||13.07|5.74|<0.0001
95722582|NCT02414854|191414195|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.402|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.307|0.526||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 6 of testing order.||0.526|0.307|<0.0001
95722583|NCT02414854|191414196|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.15|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.21||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 7 of testing order.||0.21|0.09|<0.0001
95722584|NCT02414854|191414197|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.326|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.234|0.454||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 8 of testing order.||0.454|0.234|<0.0001
95722585|NCT02414854|191414198|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|LS Mean Difference|0.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|0.32||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Mixed Models Analysis||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using MMRM model with change from baseline in FEV1 values up to Week 12 as response variable; and treatment, age, sex, baseline height, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, visit, treatment by-visit interaction, baseline FEV1 value and baseline-by-visit interaction as covariates. Here, it is test no. 9 of testing order.||0.32|0.16|<0.0001
95722586|NCT02414854|191414199|SUPERIORITY|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (performed only if previous outcome measures were statistically significant).|Relative risk|0.834||||0.2599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|1.144||Threshold for significance at 0.05 level.|Negative binomial regression model||Dupilumab 300 mg q2w vs Placebo (for Dupilumab 300 mg) q2w|Analysis was performed using negative binomial model with total number of events onset from randomization up to Week 52 or last contact date (whichever comes earlier) as response variable; with 4 treatment groups, age, region, baseline eosinophil strata, baseline ICS dose level, number of severe exacerbation events within 1 year prior to study as covariates; and log transformed standardized observation duration as an offset variable. Here, it is test no. 10 of testing order.||1.144|0.608|0.2599
95722587|NCT01355523|191414231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.008
95722588|NCT01355523|191414231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Number need to treat|2.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.703|11.024||||||||11.024|1.703|
95722589|NCT01355523|191414231|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative Risk|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.076|0.797||||||||0.797|0.076|
95722590|NCT01355523|191414232|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.125||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.125
95722591|NCT01355523|191414233|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.460
95722592|NCT01355523|191414234|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95722593|NCT01355523|191414235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.264||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.264
95722594|NCT01355523|191414236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.351
95722595|NCT01355523|191414237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.446||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.446
95722596|NCT01355523|191414238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.122||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.122
95722597|NCT01355523|191414239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.907||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.907
95722598|NCT01355523|191414240|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.555||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.555
95722599|NCT01355523|191414241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.93||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.930
95722600|NCT01355523|191414242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.386||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.386
95722601|NCT01355523|191414243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.241||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.241
95722602|NCT01355523|191414244|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.339||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.339
95722603|NCT01355523|191414245|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.578||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.578
95722604|NCT01355523|191414246|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||1.000
95722605|NCT03712137|191414281|SUPERIORITY||Responder Rate Difference|30.9||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.33|46.54|||Multiple Imputation|The procedure used to perform Multiple Imputation is PROC MIANALYZE in SAS with normal approximation||||46.54|15.33|0.0001
95722606|NCT03712137|191414284|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|45.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.45|51.28|||Paired T-test|||||51.28|40.45|<0.0001
95722607|NCT04440163|191414285|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was greater than (\>) minus (-)10 percent (%), the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|2.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|6.0|||Based on Miettinen and Nurminen method.|||MenA||6.0|-0.2|
95722608|NCT04440163|191414285|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|41.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|34.4|47.5||||||MenC||47.5|34.4|
95722609|NCT04440163|191414285|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|24.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.8|30.4||||||MenW||30.4|18.8|
95722610|NCT04440163|191414285|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|23.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.0|30.1||||||MenY||30.1|18.0|
95722611|NCT04440163|191414286|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|0.5||||||MenA||0.5|-6.5|
95722612|NCT04440163|191414286|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.3||||||MenC||3.3|-4.6|
95722613|NCT04440163|191414286|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.3||||||MenW||4.3|-2.2|
95722614|NCT04440163|191414286|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|3.8||||||MenY||3.8|-4.6|
95722615|NCT04440163|191414287|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|9.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.2||||||||15.2|4.2|
95722616|NCT04440163|191414288|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|8.9||||||A22||8.9|-0.7|
95722617|NCT04440163|191414288|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|4.3||||||A56||4.3|-1.0|
95722618|NCT04440163|191414288|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.2|16.6||||||B24||16.6|5.2|
95722619|NCT04440163|191414288|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage|7.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.9|11.9||||||B44||11.9|2.9|
95722620|NCT04440163|191414320|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|5.3||||||MenA||5.3|-1.0|
95722621|NCT04440163|191414320|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|10.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|17.9||||||MenC||17.9|3.0|
95722622|NCT04440163|191414320|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|6.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|13.1||||||MenW||13.1|-0.1|
95722623|NCT04440163|191414320|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|11.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.0|18.2||||||MenY||18.2|5.0|
95722624|NCT04440163|191414321|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|1.4||||||MenA||1.4|-5.2|
95722625|NCT04440163|191414321|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|-1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|2.9||||||MenC||2.9|-4.9|
95722626|NCT04440163|191414321|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|4.6||||||MenW||4.6|-1.6|
95722627|NCT04440163|191414321|NON_INFERIORITY|95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was calculated based on Miettinen and Nurminen. If the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in percentage of participants was \> -10%, the non-inferiority was concluded.|Difference in percentage of participants|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|5.0||||||MenY||5.0|-3.0|
95722628|NCT02229487|191414322|OTHER|||||||0.209|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.209
95722629|NCT02609178|191414331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.003||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|ANOVA|||||||0.003
95722630|NCT02609178|191414331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|stated above in statistical analysis 1||||||0.366||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.366
95722631|NCT02609178|191414331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.002
95722632|NCT02609178|191414331|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.054||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.054
95722633|NCT02609178|191414332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.006||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.006
95722634|NCT02609178|191414332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistic analysis 1.||||||0.739||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.739
95722635|NCT02609178|191414332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.03||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.03
95722636|NCT02609178|191414332|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.009||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.009
95722637|NCT02609178|191414333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.001||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.001
95722638|NCT02609178|191414333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.579||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.579
95722639|NCT02609178|191414333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.001||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.001
95722640|NCT02609178|191414333|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.002||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.002
95722641|NCT02609178|191414334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using G\*power 3.1.7, setting α at 0.05, (1- β) at 0.8, the number of the subjects enrolled could reach the actual power as 0.8.||||||0.007||||||alpha value was set at 0.05|ANOVA|||||||0.007
95722642|NCT02609178|191414334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.308||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.308
95722643|NCT02609178|191414334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.005||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.005
95722644|NCT02609178|191414334|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Stated above in statistical analysis 1.||||||0.141||||||Alpha value was set at 0.05.|Tukey's multiple comparison test|||||||0.141
95722645|NCT01128153|191414335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.099|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|-0.47|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.47|-0.86|<0.0001
95722646|NCT01128153|191414336|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.667||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.85|-1.62|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-1.62|-31.85|0.0301
95722647|NCT01128153|191414337|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.426||0.0301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|-0.09|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||-0.09|-1.77|0.0301
95722648|NCT01128153|191414338|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.595||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.96|1.15|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||1.15|-16.96|0.0868
95722649|NCT01128153|191414339|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.255||0.0868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.06|||ANCOVA||Adjusted mean treatment difference from the ANCOVA model (Saxagliptin - Placebo)|||0.06|-0.94|0.0868
95722650|NCT01128153|191414340|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.006|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.852|21.05|||ANCOVA||Estimated Odds Ratio from the logistic regression model (Saxa/Placebo)|||21.05|3.852|<0.0001
95722651|NCT01954082|191414341|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.41||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|1.83||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality and/or severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the development of severe ROP and mortality.||1.83|1.08|0.0095
95722652|NCT01954082|191414342|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.6599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.16||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of BPD is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD.||1.16|0.91|0.6599
95722653|NCT01954082|191414343|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.05||||0.3883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.94|1.17||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of BPD or on mortality due to BDP.||1.17|0.94|0.3883
95722654|NCT01954082|191414344|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.0306|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.25||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of mortality prior to ROP endpoint is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on survival to ROP endpoint.||2.25|1.03|0.0306
95722655|NCT01954082|191414345|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.02||||0.7464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.||The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of ROP||1.14|0.91|0.7464
95722656|NCT01954082|191414346|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.98||||0.7598|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.14||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence of Type 2 ROP or more severe ROP.||1.14|0.83|0.7598
95722657|NCT01954082|191414347|SUPERIORITY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.04||||0.8133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.48||A-priori threshold for statistical significance at 0.05 was specified.|Robust Poisson regression|Model adjusted for strata defined by center and gestational age.|In the risk ratio, the numerator represents the Inositol arm and the denominator represents the placebo arm. (RR\>1 implies that the risk of severe IVH is greater in the Inositol group compared to the Placebo group).|The null hypothesis is there is no treatment effect on the incidence severe IVH.||1.48|0.74|0.8133
95722658|NCT03137082|191414372|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.03
95722659|NCT03137082|191414373|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
95722660|NCT03137082|191414375|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.01
95722661|NCT03137082|191414376|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.001
95722662|NCT03137082|191414377|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
95722663|NCT03137082|191414378|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<.03
95722664|NCT03137082|191414379|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1
95722665|NCT03137082|191414380|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.3|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.3
95722666|NCT03137082|191414381|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.04
95722667|NCT03137082|191414382|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4
95722668|NCT03137082|191414383|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.08
95722669|NCT03137082|191414384|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2
95722670|NCT00417027|191414385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||>0.05
95722671|NCT00417027|191414385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.005
95722672|NCT00417027|191414385|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95722673|NCT00417027|191414386|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.54
95722674|NCT00417027|191414387|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.32||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.32
95722675|NCT00417027|191414388|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.69||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.69
95722676|NCT00417027|191414389|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72||95.0||||Analysis applies to all rows.|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Analysis apply to all rows. Only 1 comparison was made between the groups in distribution of number of bolus doses.||||0.72
95722677|NCT00417027|191414390|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.41
95722678|NCT00417027|191414391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.85
95722679|NCT00467818|191414393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||1.0
95722680|NCT00467818|191414394|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.10
95722681|NCT00467818|191414396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5|||<|0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.5
95722682|NCT00467818|191414397|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.5|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.5
95722683|NCT01017029|191414398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.482||||0.1043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.922|2.383|||Regression, Cox|||||2.383|0.922|0.1043
95722684|NCT01017029|191414400|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.847||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.029|3.315|||Regression, Cox|||||3.315|1.029|0.0398
95722685|NCT01017029|191414402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0234|||||||Fisher Exact|||CMV infections||||0.0234
95722686|NCT01017029|191414403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.403||||0.1966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.839|2.347|||Regression, Cox|||||2.347|0.839|0.1966
95722687|NCT01347879|191414431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-7.35||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.5|-2.2|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-2.2|-12.5|0.006
95722688|NCT01347879|191414432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-0.6||||0.8527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|5.5|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||5.5|-6.6|0.8527
95722689|NCT01347879|191414433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-20.0||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.2|-6.8|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariates||||-6.8|-33.2|0.0032
95722690|NCT01347879|191414434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.0125
95722691|NCT01347879|191414439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in least square means|-2.56||||0.7161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.5|11.3|||ANCOVA|Lesion count at baseline and center as covariate||||11.3|-16.5|0.7161
95722692|NCT00323271|191414446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.108||||0.911|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.106|1.888|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.888|-2.106|.911
95722693|NCT00323271|191414447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.644||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.058|2.345||Multiple imputation used to account for missing variables; pre-treatment rating and years of MS pain were covariates|ANCOVA|||||2.345|-1.058|0.320
95722694|NCT05144477|191414449|OTHER|Proportion of referrals who provided consent and enrolled into the study was calculated.|Proportion|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.82||||||||0.820|0.425|
95722695|NCT05144477|191414450|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who remained in the study at 30 days after the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
95722696|NCT05144477|191414451|OTHER|Proportion of participants randomized to the FAID Fear Diary Intervention who wrote in the diary at least twice per week up until the end of hospital care was calculated.|Proportion|0.636|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.308|0.891||||||||0.891|0.308|
95722697|NCT05144477|191414452|OTHER|Proportion of enrolled participants who provided complete data for at least 90% of all study assessments was calculated.|Proportion|0.875|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.617|0.985||||||||0.985|0.617|
95722698|NCT05144477|191414453|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was acceptable for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.975||||||||0.975|0.444|
95722699|NCT05144477|191414454|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was feasible for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.555|0.998||||||||0.998|0.555|
95722700|NCT05144477|191414455|OTHER|Proportion of intervention participants who agreed that the ICU diary was appropriate for reducing fear about their loved one's heart was calculated.|Proportion|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.933||||||||0.933|0.348|
95722701|NCT05144477|191414456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.24||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|1.32|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis at the end of hospital care.||1.32|-0.83|.63
95722702|NCT05144477|191414456|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|1.08|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.08|-0.92|.86
95722703|NCT05144477|191414457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for the end of hospital care.||1.21|-1.43|.86
95722704|NCT05144477|191414457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.58|||t-test, 2 sided|||Outcome analysis for 30 days after the end of hospital care.||1.58|-1.10|.75
95722705|NCT05144477|191414458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.7||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.26|5.86|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.86|-23.26|.22
95722706|NCT05144477|191414458|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||||χ2(1) = 1.29|||.26
95722707|NCT05144477|191414458|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||A Fisher's Exact Test was conducted to compare the number of participants with a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \>=33) to those who did not have a positive screen for PTSD symptoms (score \< 33).||||1.00
95722708|NCT03111407|191414459|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.2342|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Hip Knee Angle value 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 179.9 +/-2.9 (44) (171, 185.3)~Conventional group: 178.9 +/-3.9 (26) (167, 185)"||||0.2342
95727848|NCT00972153|191425177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
95722709|NCT03111407|191414460|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4427|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||"Knee Society Score Assessment 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper)~iAssist group: 74.7 +/- 12.5 \[44\] (30.2, 78.0, 89.5), 95% C.I. (70.9, 78.5)~Conventional group: 72.4 +/- 11.6 \[26\] (45.0, 75.2, 90.1), 95% C.I. (67.7, 77.1)"||||0.4427
95722710|NCT03111407|191414461|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.6154|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Knee Soceity Score Function 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 80.5 +/- 13.8 \[44\] (55.0, 80.0, 100.0), 95% C.I. (76.2, 84.7) Conventional group: 78.5 +/- 19.1 \[26\] (40.0, 80.0, 100.0),95% C.I. (70.8, 86.2)||||0.6154
95722711|NCT03111407|191414462|EQUIVALENCE|Data analyzed with SAS Enterprise Guided (version 7.15 HF3, SAS lnstitute lnc., Cary, NC). Significance level set with q = 0.05. Continuous data (e.g. age, weight, EQ-5D) were summarized using mean, standard deviation, minimum, median, maximum and number of observations. Comparison between continuous baseline and patient visits were performed using standard statistical tests (e.g., a t-test, Wilcoxon test, or one-way ANOVA (as appropriate) were performed as required to evaluate the difference).||||||0.4549|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||EQ-5D score 1 year post surgery: Mean+/- SD (N)(Min, Max) 95%C.I (lower, upper) iAssist group: 0.8 +/- 0.2 \[29\] (0.0, 1.0, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9) Conventional group: 0.8 +/- 0.3 \[20\] (0.1, 0.8, 1.0), 95% C.I. (0.7, 0.9)||||0.4549
95722712|NCT00854607|191414473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.2|0.77||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.77|-0.20|0.166
95722713|NCT00854607|191414474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.65|0.3||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.30|-0.65|0.269
95722714|NCT00854607|191414475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.101|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.44||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.44|-0.06|0.101
95722715|NCT00854607|191414476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.457|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.42|0.47||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference Between Non-Responders and Responders||0.47|-0.42|0.457
95722716|NCT00854607|191414477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.87|0.23||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.23|-0.87|0.168
95722717|NCT00854607|191414478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.19||||0.127|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.09|0.46||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.46|-0.09|0.127
95722718|NCT00854607|191414479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.01|0.96||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.96|-0.01|0.054
95722719|NCT00854607|191414480|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.285|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.41|0.83||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.83|-0.41|0.285
95722720|NCT00854607|191414481|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.41||||0.159|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.27|1.08||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.08|-0.27|0.159
95722721|NCT00854607|191414482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.071|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.02|0.32||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.02|0.071
95722722|NCT00854607|191414483|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.03|0.38||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.38|-0.03|0.078
95722723|NCT00854607|191414484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.13|0.91||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.91|-0.13|0.109
95722724|NCT00854607|191414485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.65||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.09|1.22||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||1.22|0.09|0.030
95722725|NCT00854607|191414486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.63|0.32||One-Sided P-value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.32|-0.63|0.293
95722726|NCT00854607|191414487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.213|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.83|0.29||One-Sided P-Value|t-test, 1 sided|||Mean Difference between Non-Responders and Responders||0.29|-0.83|0.213
95722727|NCT02981602|191414514|OTHER|||||||0.116||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.116
95722728|NCT02981602|191414514|OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95722729|NCT02981602|191414514|OTHER|||||||0.573||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.573
95722730|NCT02981602|191414515|OTHER|||||||0.609||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.609
95722731|NCT02981602|191414515|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
95722732|NCT02981602|191414516|OTHER|Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group||||||0.245|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.245
95722733|NCT02981602|191414516|OTHER|||||||0.001||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.001
95722734|NCT02981602|191414516|OTHER|||||||0.762||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.762
95722735|NCT02981602|191414517|OTHER|||||||0.141||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.141
95722736|NCT02981602|191414517|OTHER|||||||0.081||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.081
95722737|NCT02981602|191414517|OTHER|||||||0.616||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.616
95722738|NCT02981602|191414520|OTHER|||||||0.763||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.763
95722739|NCT02981602|191414520|OTHER|||||||0.804||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.804
95722740|NCT02981602|191414521|OTHER|||||||0.372||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.372
95722741|NCT02981602|191414521|OTHER|||||||0.954||||||Baseline was the covariate and treatment group as a factor for the comparison between GSK3228836 and placebo group|ANCOVA|||||||0.954
95722742|NCT00666718|191414523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|"Assuming a drop-out rate after randomization of approximately 15%, the remaining 160 patients in each treatment group should allow confirmation of noninferiority with no true treatment difference and a noninferiority limit of 0.4% using the upper limit of a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (insulin lispro protamine suspension + insulin lispro minus insulin glargine+insulin lispro) at a significance level of 0.025 with 90% power."|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.31|||ANCOVA|||||0.31|-0.11|
95722743|NCT00666718|191414524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.458||95.0||||p-value is for Week 12 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.4580
95722744|NCT00666718|191414524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.107||95.0||||p-value is for Week 24 Change.|Mixed Models Analysis|Change from baseline=Treatment+country+baseline HbA1c+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week+baseline HbA1c\*treatment (unstructured covariance used).||||||0.1070
95722745|NCT00666718|191414525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1333||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<7.0%.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1333
95722746|NCT00666718|191414525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1213||95.0||||p-value is for HbA1c \<=6.5%|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1213
95722747|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.17|-0.43|
95722748|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|1.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Morning Postprandial measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used)||||1.19|-0.66|
95722749|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country + week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.57|-1.15|
95722750|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|1.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Midday Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.40|-0.46|
95722751|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Pre-Meal measurement = Treatment +country+week+treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.83|-0.93|
95722752|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|1.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Evening Postprandial measurement = Treatment+country+week +treatment\*country + treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||1.34|-0.41|
95722753|NCT00666718|191414526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|0.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|0300 Hours measurement = Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||0.96|-0.67|
95722754|NCT00666718|191414527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5568||95.0||||p-value is for Fasting.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.5568
95722755|NCT00666718|191414527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7523||95.0||||p-value is for Post-breakfast.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.7523
95722756|NCT00666718|191414527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6448||95.0||||p-value is for Post-lunch.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.6448
95722757|NCT00666718|191414527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9122||95.0||||p-value is for Post-dinner.|ANCOVA|Glycemic variability = Treatment+country grouping (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)+ treatment\*country (Mediterranean, rest of Europe)||||||0.9122
95722758|NCT00666718|191414528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-1.19|
95722759|NCT00666718|191414528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.11|-0.20|
95722760|NCT00666718|191414528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.16|-1.06|
95722761|NCT00666718|191414528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days = Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.06|-0.86|
95722762|NCT00666718|191414528|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Hypoglycemia rate per 30 days=Treatment+Country+Week+Treatment\*Country+Treatment\*Week (unstructured covariance structure was used)||||0.12|-0.14|
95722763|NCT00666718|191414529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1701||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1701
95722764|NCT00666718|191414529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1727||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.1727
95722765|NCT00666718|191414529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2094||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 non-nocturnal hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.2094
95722766|NCT00666718|191414529|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.623||95.0||||p-value is for \>=1 severe hypoglycemic episode.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.6230
95722767|NCT00666718|191414531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.55|||ANCOVA|weight change from baseline = Treatment + country + baseline Hb1Ac + baseline weight + treatment\*HbA1c baseline value||||0.55|-0.86|
95722768|NCT00666718|191414532|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.33|12.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|Total daily insulin dose=Treatment+country+week+treatment\*country+ treatment\*week (unstructured covariance was used).||||12.68|-8.33|
95722769|NCT02756078|191414535|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|5.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.796|||TWO_SIDED|98.0|1.3|8.73|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 98% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||8.73|1.30|
95722770|NCT02756078|191414536|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE score.|Posterior Mean Difference|13.7|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.701|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.34|17.05|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as Test (senofilcon A) minus Control (samfilcon A)|||17.05|10.34|
95722771|NCT02756078|191414537|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.313|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.25|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|||Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|0.25|-1.00|
95722772|NCT02756078|191414538|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.06|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.107|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.16|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.16|-0.27|
95722773|NCT02756078|191414539|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.261|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|0.57|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A|||0.57|-0.47|
95722774|NCT02756078|191414540|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -2 hour was used.|Posterior mean difference|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.159|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.26|||Bayesian hierarchical model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior mean difference was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Mean difference was calculated as senofilcon A minus samfilcon A.|||0.26|-0.36|
95722775|NCT02756078|191414541|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used.|Posterior odds ratio|1.35|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.203|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|1.79|||Bayesian multinomial model|A 95% credible interval for the posterior odds ratio was used to demonstrate non-inferiority between the senofilcon A and samfilcon A lenses.|Odds ratio was calculated as senofilcon A over samfilcon A.|||1.79|0.99|
95722776|NCT00810615|191414543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANCOVA|A repeated measures model was designed so as to incorporate the adjust for the repeated (dependent) measures within individuals over time.||ANCOVA, baseline measurement was considered as a covariate and group (sham or 2.4 ATA), treatment (15 treatments, 30 treatments, and 6 weeks) as well as the interaction between group and treatment were considered as the independent variables.||||0.05
95722777|NCT00810615|191414555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.5455||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with one significant event (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
95722778|NCT00810615|191414556|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with two significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
95722779|NCT00810615|191414557|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.1111||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with three significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
95722780|NCT00810615|191414558|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.0||||||||||||||Relative Risk of Improvement in 2.4 ATA group vs. Sham in subjects with four or more significant events (blast or impact resulting in concussion symptoms) per Concussion History. PCL-M with significant improvement defined as a score decrease 10 or more.||||
95722781|NCT01255722|191414588|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The clinical non-inferiority margin was set to -10% maximum difference with the best comparator (i.e. iopromide).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.033||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.088|0.021|||Chi-squared|||Iobitridol was compared to the best of the two comparators. The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between both proportions (Iobitridol - Comparator) was computed and the lower limit of the CI compared to the clinical non-inferiority limit in the study. The non-inferiority of iobitridol over the best comparator was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was equal to or higher than the clinical non-inferiority limit.||0.021|-0.088|0.05
95722782|NCT01255722|191414589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.75|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.750
95722783|NCT01255722|191414591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.001
95722784|NCT01255722|191414592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.109|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.109
95722785|NCT01255722|191414593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.09|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.09
95722786|NCT02139306|191414598|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.597|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.957||0.5336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2881|2.4813|||Mixed-model, repeated-measures|||||2.4813|-1.2881|0.5336
95722787|NCT02139306|191414599|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.8567|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1577||0.4008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5973|1.2288|||Negative binomial regression|||||1.2288|0.5973|0.4008
95722788|NCT02139306|191414600|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.272|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.93||0.8881|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5292|4.0731|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||4.0731|-3.5292|0.8881
95722789|NCT02139306|191414601|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1312||0.6208|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3233|0.1934|||Mixed-model, repeated measures|||||0.1934|-0.3233|0.6208
95722790|NCT03078192|191414633|OTHER|Detecting pre-capillary PH was tested with a cohort of 32 patients. True PH status was based on RHC. A diagnosis of PH was established from mPAP \>20mmHg, while pre-capillary PH required PCWP ≤ 15mmHg and PVR ≥ 3 Woods Units, and post capillary PH required PCWP \> 15mmH and PVR \< 3 Woods Units \[21\]. Patients with both high PVR and PCWP \> 15mmHg were classified as combined pre- and post-capillary PH (CpcPH). Subjects with CpcPH were treated as positive for both pre- and post-capillary PH.|positive predictive value|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Positive predictive value for Precapillary Pulmonary Hypertension: 86%|calculation of PPV|||||||
95722791|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.988||||0.9744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.466|2.095|||Regression, Logistic|||Age (\>75y vs ≤75y）||2.095|0.466|0.9744
95722792|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42||||0.3288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|40.354|||Regression, Logistic|||APOE ɛ4 (carrier vs non-carrier)||40.354|0.290|0.3288
95722793|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.107||||0.5732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.158|28.171|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Gastrointestinal drugs||28.171|0.158|0.5732
95722794|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.976||||0.9694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.281|3.387|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hypoglycemic drugs||3.387|0.281|0.9694
95722795|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.221||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.039|4.748|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular drugs||4.748|1.039|0.0396
95722796|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.056||||0.5889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.151|28.074|||Regression, Logistic|||Concomitant medication：Hepatology drugs||28.074|0.151|0.5889
95722797|NCT02787746|191414638|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.004||||0.1181|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.999|1.008|||Regression, Logistic|||Duration of previous donepezil 5mg/d therapy (day)||1.008|0.999|0.1181
95722798|NCT01160198|191414644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily||||<0.0001
95722799|NCT01160198|191414644|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Paired t-test|||Baseline Hb vs. Hb at Week 8 for Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||<0.0001
95722800|NCT01160198|191414646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.788|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily||||0.788
95722801|NCT01160198|191414646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.911|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.911
95722802|NCT01160198|191414646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily||||0.700
95722803|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 2||0.17|-0.29|1
95722804|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1||95.0|-0.57|0.31|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 4||0.31|-0.57|1
95722805|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.46|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 6||0.46|-0.75|1
95722806|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.53|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily at Week 8||0.53|-1.05|1
95722807|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.09|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.09|-0.35|0.490
95722808|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.29|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.29|-0.58|1
95722809|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.51|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.51|-0.68|1
95722810|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.84|0.72|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 once-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.72|-0.84|1
95722811|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.15|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100mg 1 once-daily at Week 2||0.15|-0.29|1
95722812|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|0.42|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 4||0.42|-0.45|1
95722813|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.65|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 6||0.65|-0.53|1
95722814|NCT01160198|191414647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.98|||Repeated Measure ANOVA model|||Ferrous bisglycinate chelate 60 mg 1 twice-daily vs. Ferrous ascorbate 100 mg 1 once-daily at Week 8||0.98|-0.58|1
95722815|NCT00802529|191414657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.271||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 2 degrees of freedom (Baseline vs 18-24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.271
95722816|NCT00802529|191414658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.964||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 6 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.964
95722817|NCT00802529|191414659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.128||||||P-value for Drug x Time interaction.|ANOVA|Time: 5 degrees of freedom (Baseline, 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 months) Drug: 2 degrees of freedom (Gentamicin vs steroid)||||||0.128
95722818|NCT02413879|191414660|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95722819|NCT02413879|191414662|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||McNemar|||||||<0.001
95722820|NCT00337129|191414676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Response probability|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.17|||two-stage binomial|||Null hypothesis: response probability \< 5%; alternative hypothesis: response probability \> 20%. A two-stage design was used. If no responses among the first 20 patients, the study would be terminated with the conclusion that E7389 is inactive. However, if at least one response was seen then an additional 20 patients would be accrued. Five or more responses out of 40 would be considered evidence that E7389 warranted further study. This design had a significance level of 5% and a power of 92%.||0.17|0.01|
95722821|NCT00563524|191414714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.5237|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.5237
95722822|NCT00563524|191414714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.8463|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.8463
95722823|NCT00563524|191414714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4596|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4596
95722824|NCT00563524|191414714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6345|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6345
95722825|NCT00563524|191414714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6235|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.6235
95722826|NCT00563524|191414715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3833|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.3833
95722827|NCT00563524|191414715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4909|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4909
95722828|NCT00563524|191414715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.22|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.2200
95722829|NCT00563524|191414715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4183|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4183
95722830|NCT00563524|191414715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.465|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.4650
95722831|NCT00563524|191414716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7051|||||||ANCOVA|||Baseline: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.7051
95722832|NCT00563524|191414716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1072|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 14: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.1072
95722833|NCT00563524|191414716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 28: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0020
95722834|NCT00563524|191414716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0079|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 42: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0079
95722835|NCT00563524|191414716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0308|||||||ANCOVA|||Day 56: ANCOVA with pre-dose as the baseline covariate and treatment as a factor was used for the analysis.||||0.0308
95722836|NCT03870737|191414890|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 24.81, df = 1/40.||Outcomes fitted via a mixed effects model with time as predictor.||||<.0001
95722837|NCT03870737|191414892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 5.78, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.02
95722838|NCT03870737|191414893|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0005|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = 14.28, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.0005
95722839|NCT03870737|191414894|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .19, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.67
95722840|NCT03870737|191414895|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .08, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.76
95722841|NCT03870737|191414896|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Time: F = .06, df = 1/39.||Outcome was fitted using a mixed model with time as predictor.||||.80
95722842|NCT02613416|191414907|OTHER|||||||0.026||||||The p value was calculated.|Blyth-Still Casella Confidence Interval|||The primary hypothesis for this early phase study was that at least 30% of women would experience a \>5% relative decrease in their breast density after 6 months of treatment with denosumab 120 mg subcutaneous dose once a month.||||0.026
95722843|NCT00390949|191414913|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjustments for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
95722844|NCT00390949|191414914|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value of variable at baseline||||||<0.05
95722845|NCT00390949|191414915|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.05
95722846|NCT00390949|191414916|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
95722847|NCT00390949|191414917|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair and age-group||||||<0.05
95722848|NCT00390949|191414918|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05||||||The p-value reported above is not simply a statement of the threshold for significance used in the study. The p-value for this comparison was calculated at the time of the study and was found to be less than 0.5.|Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for community pair, age-group and value at baseline||||||<0.05
95722849|NCT00763269|191414927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95722850|NCT00763269|191414928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95722851|NCT00763269|191414929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95722852|NCT00763269|191414930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||The null hypothesis states that there is no difference between groups.||||0.05
95722853|NCT02660385|191414972|SUPERIORITY||Effect Size|-0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED||||||Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM)|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0002
95722854|NCT02660385|191414973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0723||||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0723
95722855|NCT02660385|191414974|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.42||||0.011|TWO_SIDED||||||GLMM|GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.||||||0.0110
95722856|NCT02660385|191414975|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||<0.0001
95722857|NCT02660385|191414976|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.12||||0.4356|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4356
95722858|NCT02660385|191414977|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0148||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0148
95722859|NCT02660385|191414978|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
95722860|NCT02660385|191414979|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
95722861|NCT02660385|191414980|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
95722862|NCT02660385|191414981|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6358||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.6358
95722863|NCT02660385|191414982|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.35||||0.0318|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0318
95722864|NCT02660385|191414983|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2722||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2722
95722865|NCT02660385|191414984|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.27||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0954
95722866|NCT02660385|191414985|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4222||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.4222
95722867|NCT02660385|191414986|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.09||||0.5781|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.5781
95722868|NCT02660385|191414987|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1238||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1238
95722869|NCT02660385|191414988|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.3||||0.0558|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0558
95722870|NCT02660385|191414989|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.023||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0230
95722871|NCT02660385|191414990|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.4597|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.4597
95722872|NCT02660385|191414991|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1943||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1943
95722873|NCT02660385|191414992|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.23||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0027
95722874|NCT02660385|191414993|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0792||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0792
95722875|NCT02660385|191414994|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.13||||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.0656
95722876|NCT02660385|191414995|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2174||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.2174
95722877|NCT02660385|191414996|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.07||||0.7028|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7028
95722878|NCT02660385|191414997|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0509||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0509
95722879|NCT02660385|191414998|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|275.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1525.0||0.955|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3288.0|2739.0|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2739|-3288|0.955
95722880|NCT02660385|191414999|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.013||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0130
95722881|NCT02660385|191415000|SUPERIORITY||effect size|-0.05||||0.7496|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.7496
95722882|NCT02660385|191415001|SUPERIORITY||effect size|0.06||||0.3821|TWO_SIDED|||||GLMM with random intercepts and unstructured covariances with changes within groups and time-group interactions to compare the intervention effects.|GLMM|||||||0.3821
95722883|NCT02660385|191415002|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7204||||||The p value is from the group X time interaction adjusted at 12 months based on the false discovery rate|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.7204
95722884|NCT02216214|191415071|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean (LSM) Mean Difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.33||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.33|-1.05|<0.001
95722885|NCT02216214|191415072|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.55|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.27||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.27|-0.82|<0.001
95722886|NCT02216214|191415073|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|13.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.45||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.95|22.42||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|stratified rank ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the stratified rank ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||22.42|4.95|0.002
95722887|NCT02216214|191415074|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-5.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.84|-2.46||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-2.46|-7.84|<0.001
95722888|NCT02216214|191415075|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|2.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.07||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|4.83||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||4.83|0.62|0.011
95722889|NCT02216214|191415076|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.16||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Difference vs. Mirabegron: Differences of adjusted change from baseline values as well as the 95% CIs were generated from the ANCOVA model with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||-0.16|-0.46|<0.001
95722890|NCT02216214|191415077|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95722891|NCT02216214|191415078|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.68|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of urgency incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group was calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||<0.001
95722892|NCT02216214|191415079|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.84||||0.432||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||The rate ratio for the number of nocturia episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron total group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as fixed factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||||0.432
95722893|NCT02216214|191415080|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.317||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.317
95722894|NCT02216214|191415081|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.165||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.165
95722895|NCT02216214|191415082|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95722896|NCT02216214|191415083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Coping Subscale Score||||0.019
95722897|NCT02216214|191415083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Concern Subscale Score||||0.010
95722898|NCT02216214|191415083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Sleep Subscale Score||||0.006
95722899|NCT02216214|191415083|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.614||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||Social Subscale Score||||0.614
95722900|NCT02216214|191415084|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.002
95722901|NCT02216214|191415085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.755||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.755
95722902|NCT02216214|191415086|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.96||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 4: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.96|0.67|0.014
95722903|NCT02216214|191415086|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.81||||0.043|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.99||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||Week 8: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.99|0.66|0.043
95722904|NCT02216214|191415086|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.69||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.87||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Negative Binomial Regression Model|||EOT: Rate ratio for the number of incontinence episodes reported during 3-day diary prior to each visit between mirabegron group vs placebo group is calculated from a negative binomial regression model including treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years) and country as factors and number of valid diary days as the offset variable.||0.87|0.54|0.002
95722905|NCT02216214|191415088|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.5||||0.005||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.005
95722906|NCT02216214|191415089|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.775|||<|0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||<0.001
95722907|NCT02216214|191415090|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.501||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
95722908|NCT02216214|191415091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.034||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Coping. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.034
95722909|NCT02216214|191415091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.327||||0.07||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Concern. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.070
95722910|NCT02216214|191415091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.452||||0.012||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Sleep. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.012
95722911|NCT02216214|191415091|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.116||||0.602||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||HRQL Subscale - Social. Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.602
95722912|NCT02216214|191415092|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.634||||0.001||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.001
95722913|NCT02216214|191415093|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.597||||0.003||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|Regression, Logistic|||Odds Ratio: Logistic regression was performed with treatment group, sex, age group (\<75, \>=75 years), and country as fixed factors and baseline value as a covariate.||||0.003
95722914|NCT02216214|191415095|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.471||||||P-value compares the Mirabegron group to the placebo group.|ANCOVA|||||||0.471
95722915|NCT05354206|191415098|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.405|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.285|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||p-values have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||Difference of RST from 1 for hip range of motion task without stimulation.|"Reticulospinal tract (RST) contribution computed as RST = (visual - startle)/(visual - auditory) reaction times, where a RST value greater than 1 would indicate a significant contribution of the reticulospinal tract for a given task.~A one sample t-test (or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for non-normally distributed data) was used to test the hypothesis that the RST contribution for a given movement was significantly greater than 1."||||<0.05
95722916|NCT00713830|191415101|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares (LS) mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.867|-0.621||Statistical testing: 2-sided at significance level=0.05. Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) included treatment arms, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (\<8.0, \>=8.0%), metformin use (yes, no), country as fixed effects, baseline HbA1c as covariate.|ANCOVA|||To detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in change from baseline to Week 24 in HbA1c between lixisenatide and placebo, 570 patients in lixisenatide arm and 285 in placebo arm would provide a power of 99% (or 98%) assuming common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at 5% significance level.||-0.621|-0.867|<0.0001
95722917|NCT02787785|191415124|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.49||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|2.2|||Regression, Cox|||||2.20|0.11|0.354
95722918|NCT02787785|191415126|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.37||||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|5.88|||Regression, Cox|||||5.88|0.02|0.479
95722919|NCT01676311|191415132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group, CVLT-II-total learning score at baseline and week 12, and covariates (Beck Depression Index \[BDI\], time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory \[BC-PSI\]). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome. The BDI and BC-PSI are covariates in the regression model and not pre-specified Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures.||||0.38
95722920|NCT01676311|191415132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-short delay free recall (SDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-SDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.38
95722921|NCT01676311|191415132|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||For each permutation of the data, relevant result was saved and the corresponding p-value represents the proportion of results at least as extreme as observed in the original data.|Regression, Linear|||Regression analysis was run incorporating group (Huperzine A, placebo), baseline CVLT-II-long delay free recall (LDFR) score, outcome (CVLT-II-LDFR at week 12) and covariates (Beck Depression Index, time post-injury, British Columbia Postconcussion Symptom Inventory). Regression analyses were repeated, permuting data observations for each outcome i.e. we permuted the labels (Huperzine A or placebo) among the data observations and re-ran the regression.||||0.42
95722922|NCT01676311|191415135|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48||||||A chi-square test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of seizure (yes, no) was performed. A permutation test was the used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the prevalence of seizures.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||||||0.48
95722923|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of behavioral side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of behavioral side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Behavioral side effects statistical analysis||||0.44
95722924|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of cardiac-respiratory side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Cardiac-respiratory side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
95722925|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of dermatological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of dermatological side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Dermatological side effects statistical analysis||||0.81
95722926|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of gastrointestinal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Gastrointestinal side effects statistical analysis||||0.73
95722927|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of genitourinary/neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Genitourinary/neurological side effects statistical analysis||||0.54
95722928|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of hematological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Hematological side effects statistical analysis||||0.27
95722929|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.41||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of musculoskeletal side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Musculoskeletal side effects statistical analysis||||0.41
95722930|NCT01676311|191415136|SUPERIORITY|||||||1||||||A chi-squared test with factors of group (Huperzine A, placebo) and occurrence of neurological side effects (yes, no) were performed. A permutation test was used to assess the effect of Huperzine A on the incidence of these side effects.|Chi-squared test and permutation test|||Neurological side effects statistical analysis||||1.00
95722931|NCT02524665|191415179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.67|STANDARD_DEVIATION|61.97||0.0769||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.0769
95722932|NCT02524665|191415179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|33.73||0.6698||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6698
95722933|NCT02524665|191415179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.66|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.59||0.6854||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.6854
95722934|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|74.55||0.5031||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5031
95722935|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|99.76||0.2464||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.2464
95722936|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|65.22||0.8894||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.8894
95722937|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|46.04||0.6722||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.6722
95722938|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.99|STANDARD_DEVIATION|39.59||0.3352||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.3352
95722939|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|STANDARD_DEVIATION|35.46||0.9323||95.0||||The assumption of normality was verified using a Shapiro-Wilk Test. If the assumption of normality was rejected (at the 0.01 level), a non-parametric method (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was used.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of percent change non-inflammatory lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9323
95722940|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.72|STANDARD_DEVIATION|26.05||0.3513||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.3513
95722941|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|22.97||0.8199||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.8199
95722942|NCT02524665|191415180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_DEVIATION|17.83||0.9616||95.0||||Percent change from baseline were analyzed using the individual differences between both sides of the face at an alpha level of 0.05 using paired t-tests.|t-test, 2 sided||Comparison of percent change total lesion counts between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.9616
95722943|NCT02524665|191415181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1|||||1.0000
95722944|NCT02524665|191415181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.66||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
95722945|NCT02524665|191415181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.7539||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7539
95722946|NCT02524665|191415181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.87||0.3071||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of ISGA score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8|||||0.3071
95722947|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
95722948|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.52||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||1.0000
95722949|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
95722950|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Erythema score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0
95722951|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
95722952|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
95722953|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
95722954|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
95722955|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
95722956|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
95722957|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0
95722958|NCT02524665|191415182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.23||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Peeling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
95722959|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.63||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
95722960|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5000
95722961|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.92||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||1.0000
95722962|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.69||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Redness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
95722963|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.88||0.8125||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.8125
95722964|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94||0.5742||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.5742
95722965|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
95722966|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Dryness score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
95722967|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.62||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||1.0000
95722968|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
95722969|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.7500
95722970|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.73||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Burning score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
95722971|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.54||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.2500
95722972|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.74||0.75||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0.7500
95722973|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.01||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.2500
95722974|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.82||0.25||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Itching score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||0.2500
95722975|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.5||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|||||0.5000
95722976|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|||||0
95722977|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.93||0.5||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|||||0.5000
95722978|NCT02524665|191415183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.81||1||95.0|||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test||Comparison of Scaling score between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|||||1.0000
95722979|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
95722980|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0||95.0||||The value is mentioned as '0', as no P-value generated. Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 1.|McNemar|||||||0
95722981|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5637||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||0.5637
95722982|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 2.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
95722983|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4795||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||0.4795
95722984|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 4.|McNemar|||||||1.0000
95722985|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3173||95.0||||Comparison of one or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.3173
95722986|NCT02524665|191415184|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1573||95.0||||Comparison of two or more grade improvement between MAXCLARITY II and Murad at Week 8.|McNemar|||||||0.1573
95722987|NCT01083901|191415191|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|Changes from baseline to 16 weeks were regressed on the baseline measurement.||The null hypothesis was that the changes in total body fat-free mass in response to resistance exercise training would not be different among the groups. The expected difference in fat-free mass between the Acetaminophen and Placebo groups was 1.8 +/- 1.0% with a 3.6 +/1 1.0% increase in fat-free mass in the Placebo group. The study was designed to achieve 96% power at the 0.05 level with 10 men in the acetaminophen and placebo groups.||||0.38
95722988|NCT01083901|191415192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||ANCOVA|The change in fat mass was regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.23
95722989|NCT01083901|191415193|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||ANCOVA|Change in strength was regressed on baseline measures.||||||0.30
95722990|NCT01083901|191415194|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|Changes in strength were regressed on the baseline measure.||||||0.37
95722991|NCT01966107|191415214|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.65||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|0.89|||Negative Binomial Regression model||||A rate ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|0.89|0.48|0.006
95722992|NCT01966107|191415216|NON_INFERIORITY|Estimate of the hazard ratio and its 95% CI for comparing aclidinium bromide 400 μg versus placebo were derived using the Cox proportional hazard model. A hazard ratio \<1 represents a favorable outcome for aclidinium bromide 400 μg.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.23||||||Composite MACE||1.23|0.64|
95722993|NCT02200614|191415217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.341|0.5|||Log Rank||Hazard ratio and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.500|0.341|<0.000001
95722994|NCT02200614|191415218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.706||||0.04521|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.501|0.994|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.994|0.501|0.045210
95722995|NCT02200614|191415219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
95722996|NCT02200614|191415220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.433|||<|1e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.314|0.595|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.595|0.314|<0.000001
95722997|NCT02200614|191415221|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428||||0.011262|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.218|0.842|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.842|0.218|0.011262
95722998|NCT02200614|191415222|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.685||||0.003048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.881|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.881|0.533|0.003048
95722999|NCT02200614|191415223|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647||||8e-06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.533|0.785|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.785|0.533|0.000008
95723000|NCT02200614|191415224|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.579||||4.4e-05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.444|0.755|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.755|0.444|0.000044
95723001|NCT02200614|191415225|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.484||||0.005294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.287|0.815|||Log Rank||The hazard ratio and its 95% CI were based on Cox Regression Model, stratified by Prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) (≤ 6 months vs. \> 6 months) and use of osteoclast-targeted therapy (No, Yes).|||0.815|0.287|0.005294
95723002|NCT00828516|191415285|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.96|<|0.001||95.0||||This was not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 6 acupuncture treatments.||||<0.001
95723003|NCT00828516|191415286|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.94|<|0.001||95.0||||There will be no improvement in MYMOP profile score after 12 treatments|t-test, 2 sided||"MYMOP uses a 7-point scale, from 0 to 6, with 0 as good as it can be, and 6 as bad as it can be. Higher values represent a worse outcome."|||||<0.001
95723004|NCT00689273|191415287|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.57||0.39|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.23|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect. One-sided alpha of 0.1 was used for the analysis.||0.24|-1.23|0.39
95723005|NCT00689273|191415288|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.63|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.92|0.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.42|-0.92|0.63
95723006|NCT00689273|191415289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.54|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.18|-0.51|0.54
95723007|NCT00689273|191415289|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.6|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.51|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.21|-0.51|0.60
95723008|NCT00689273|191415290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.44|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-3.69|0.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.94|-3.69|0.44
95723009|NCT00689273|191415290|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.0||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.0|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-5.00|0.23
95723010|NCT00689273|191415291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-4.94|1.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||1.41|-4.94|0.48
95723011|NCT00689273|191415291|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.79||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-6.61|0.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.57|-6.61|0.28
95723012|NCT00689273|191415292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.48|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.81|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.52|-1.81|0.48
95723013|NCT00689273|191415292|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.03||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-2.45|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.20|-2.45|0.28
95723014|NCT00689273|191415293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.28|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.46|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.04|-0.46|0.28
95723015|NCT00689273|191415293|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.14|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.78|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.06|-0.78|0.14
95723016|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.55|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.52|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.19|-0.52|0.55
95723017|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.81|0.11
95723018|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.2|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.71|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 3: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.00|-0.71|0.20
95723019|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.23|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 4: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.02|-0.69|0.23
95723020|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.41|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.58|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 5: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.13|-0.58|0.41
95723021|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.62|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.49|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 6: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.22|-0.49|0.62
95723022|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.49|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.55|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 7: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.16|-0.55|0.49
95723023|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.46|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.28||0.1|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.81|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 8: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.10|-0.81|0.10
95723024|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.69|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 9: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.69|0.24
95723025|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.02|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-1.01|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 10: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.28|-1.01|0.02
95723026|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.93|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 11: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.21|-0.93|0.04
95723027|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.04|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.95|-0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 12: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.23|-0.95|0.04
95723028|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.24|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.7|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 13: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.03|-0.70|0.24
95723029|NCT00689273|191415294|SUPERIORITY||Slope|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.11|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.82|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Day 14: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using compound symmetry covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||-0.09|-0.82|0.11
95723030|NCT00689273|191415295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||30% Reduction||||0.22
95723031|NCT00689273|191415295|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||50% Reduction||||0.38
95723032|NCT00689273|191415296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.45|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.27|0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.07|-0.27|0.45
95723033|NCT00689273|191415296|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.13||0.37|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2: Results were obtained from a mixed effect repeated measure model using unstructured covariance matrix. The model included random-effect terms for participant, and fixed-effect terms for baseline response, treatment group, time, treatment-by-time interaction, and country effect.||0.05|-0.29|0.37
95723034|NCT03703297|191415308|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.01608|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.606|0.95|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model,adjusting for tumor,node and metastasis(TNM) stage, receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation(PCI),with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.950|0.606|0.01608
95723035|NCT03703297|191415309|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.01042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.569|0.928|||Log Rank|The analysis was performed using the stratified log-rank test.|Hazard ratio and CI were calculated using stratified Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for receipt of PCI, with treatment as only covariate and ties handled by Efron approach.|||0.928|0.569|0.01042
95723036|NCT04876482|191415333|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.76|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||"We hypothesized that the improvements in the AHI would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).~."||||<0.05
95723037|NCT04876482|191415334|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the upper airway volume would be higher in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723038|NCT04876482|191415335|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.275|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the minimal area on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls)||||<0.05
95723039|NCT04876482|191415336|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the anteror to posterior distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723040|NCT04876482|191415337|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the lateral distance on the tip of epiglottis would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723041|NCT04876482|191415338|OTHER|Baseline characteristics among the study groups were compared using Fisher exact test for categorical variables. McNemar chi-square test used for within-group analysis.|Number and percentage|0.05|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||We hypothesized that TORS followed by OPR would improve upper airway obstruction more compared with TORS alone and conservative treatment (control).||||<0.05
95723042|NCT04876482|191415339|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.23|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the jaw opening muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723043|NCT04876482|191415340|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue protrusion muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723044|NCT04876482|191415341|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.81|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue elevation muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723045|NCT04876482|191415342|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.01|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue depression muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723046|NCT04876482|191415343|OTHER|The Overall Number of Participants Analyzed do not appear to be equal, so we used linear regrssion to compare the mean difference among three groups.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.67|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||We hypothesized that the improvements in the tongue lateralization muscle strength would be more in patients who underwent TORS combined with OPR than in those who underwent only TORS and those who received conservative treatment (controls).||||<0.05
95723047|NCT03555890|191415381|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.975|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.003||||||||1.003|0.948|
95723048|NCT03555890|191415382|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.978|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|0.998||||||||0.998|0.958|
95723049|NCT03555890|191415383|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.934|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.875|0.998||||||||0.998|0.875|
95723050|NCT03555890|191415384|EQUIVALENCE|If the 90 percent (%) confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (Levocetirizine ODT/ Levocetirizine IRT) was within the acceptable range of 0.80 to 1.25 then Levocetirizine ODT was to be considered bioequivalent to the Levocetirizine IRT.|Ratio of geometric mean|0.857|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.815|0.902||||||||0.902|0.815|
95723051|NCT00663039|191415470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.758|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Affect Scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.758
95723052|NCT00663039|191415470|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.779|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Overall Social Skill scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.779
95723053|NCT00663039|191415471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.578|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 1 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.578
95723054|NCT00663039|191415471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 2 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.28
95723055|NCT00663039|191415471|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.707|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of HVLT Trial 3 scores between Oxytocin and Placebo Arms||||0.707
95723056|NCT00663039|191415472|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.391|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of the total amount of money offered during the trust game between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.391
95723057|NCT00663039|191415473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.559|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.559
95723058|NCT00663039|191415473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.858|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.858
95723059|NCT00663039|191415473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.514|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.514
95723060|NCT00663039|191415473|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.088|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean False Alarms Reaction Time between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.088
95723061|NCT00663039|191415474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.296|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.296
95723062|NCT00663039|191415474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.136|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.136
95723063|NCT00663039|191415474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP Practice Mean False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.47
95723064|NCT00663039|191415474|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.702|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of RVIP First Half Mean Target Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.702
95723065|NCT00663039|191415475|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.451|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Brief Assessments of Cognition for Schizophrenia scores between the Oxytocin and Placebo arms.||||0.451
95723066|NCT00663039|191415476|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.9
95723067|NCT00663039|191415477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.946|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison of Reading the Mind in the Eyes total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.946
95723068|NCT00663039|191415478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Total scores between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.016
95723069|NCT00663039|191415478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.185|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition Hits between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.185
95723070|NCT00663039|191415478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.404|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Comparison the Facial Affect Recognition False Alarms between Oxytocin and Placebo arms||||0.404
95723071|NCT01032330|191415479|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.054||||0.004|ONE_SIDED|95.0|0.02||||One-sided Barnard's Test||||||0.020|0.004
95723072|NCT01032330|191415480|OTHER||cumulative probability|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.22|||||Kaplan-Meier estimate of cumulative probability of deterioration by 3 years|||.22|.10|
95723073|NCT01032330|191415481|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|0.024||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.038|0.094|||One-sided Barnard's Test|||||0.094|-0.038|0.27
95723074|NCT01032330|191415483|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
95723075|NCT01032330|191415484|OTHER|||||||0.38|||||||ANCOVA|||Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome; P values for comparisons of binary outcomes are from logistic regression models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.38
95723076|NCT01032330|191415485|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 years. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
95723077|NCT01032330|191415486|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
95723078|NCT01032330|191415486|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
95723079|NCT01032330|191415487|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||<.001
95723080|NCT01032330|191415487|OTHER|||||||0.33|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.33
95723081|NCT01032330|191415488|OTHER|||||||0.013|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.013
95723082|NCT01032330|191415488|OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.26
95723083|NCT01032330|191415489|OTHER|||||||0.42|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.42
95723084|NCT01032330|191415489|OTHER|||||||0.61|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.61
95723085|NCT01032330|191415490|OTHER|||||||0.012|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.012
95723086|NCT01032330|191415490|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.02
95723087|NCT01032330|191415491|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||.002
95723088|NCT01032330|191415491|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.01
95723089|NCT01032330|191415492|OTHER|||||||0.11|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.11
95723090|NCT01032330|191415492|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 6 months in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.10
95723091|NCT01032330|191415493|OTHER|||||||0.6|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Older cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.60
95723092|NCT01032330|191415493|OTHER|||||||0.09|||||||ANCOVA|||P-value for the change between baseline and 3 Years in the Younger cohort. Two-sided p values for comparisons of continuous outcomes are from analysis of covariance models adjusting for the baseline level of the outcome.||||0.09
95723093|NCT02354976|191415504|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.92||||0.407|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.12|0.76|0.407
95723094|NCT02354976|191415505|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio for difference|0.84||||0.077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.02|0.70|0.077
95723095|NCT02164539|191415508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
95723096|NCT02164539|191415508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
95723097|NCT02164539|191415508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
95723098|NCT02164539|191415508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.103||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.014|0.193|||Final step dose response model|||||0.193|0.014|0.024
95723099|NCT02164539|191415508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.073||||0.152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.027|0.172|||Final dose response model|||||0.172|-0.027|0.152
95723100|NCT02164539|191415509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2|||ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.7|0.010
95723101|NCT02164539|191415509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.4|-1.9|0.004
95723102|NCT02164539|191415509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||0.1|-1.4|0.083
95723103|NCT02164539|191415509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|-0.2|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.2|-1.5|0.014
95723104|NCT02164539|191415509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|-0.1|||ANCOVA||Statistical analysis presented for daily rescue medication use.|||-0.1|-1.4|0.031
95723105|NCT02164539|191415510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-1.7|||ANCOVA|||||-1.7|-4.6|<0.001
95723106|NCT02164539|191415510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-4.5|<0.001
95723107|NCT02164539|191415510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.6|||ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-3.4|0.007
95723108|NCT02164539|191415510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.7|||ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.2|0.002
95723109|NCT02164539|191415510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.4|||ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.9|0.009
95723110|NCT02164539|191415511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.1||||0.004||95.0|5.9|30.3|||ANCOVA|||||30.3|5.9|0.004
95723111|NCT02164539|191415511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|21.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|34.1|||ANCOVA|||||34.1|9.4|<0.001
95723112|NCT02164539|191415511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|19.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.7|31.7|||ANCOVA|||||31.7|7.7|0.001
95723113|NCT02164539|191415511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|24.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|35.4|||ANCOVA|||||35.4|14.1|<0.001
95723114|NCT02164539|191415511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|18.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.0|29.1|||ANCOVA|||||29.1|8.0|<0.001
95723115|NCT02164539|191415512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.045||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.034|0.125|||ANCOVA|||||0.125|-0.034|0.264
95723116|NCT02164539|191415512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.04||||0.328|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.041|0.121|||ANCOVA|||||0.121|-0.041|0.328
95723117|NCT02164539|191415512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.025||||0.534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.054|0.103|||ANCOVA|||||0.103|-0.054|0.534
95723118|NCT02164539|191415512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.005||||0.895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.065|0.075|||ANCOVA|||||0.075|-0.065|0.895
95723119|NCT02164539|191415512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.076||||0.031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.007|0.146|||ANCOVA|||||0.146|0.007|0.031
95723120|NCT02164539|191415513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.088||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.014|||ANCOVA|||||-0.014|-0.162|0.019
95723121|NCT02164539|191415513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.091||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.165|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.165|0.017
95723122|NCT02164539|191415513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.089||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.162|-0.016|||ANCOVA|||||-0.016|-0.162|0.017
95723123|NCT02164539|191415513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.06||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.124|0.004|||ANCOVA|||||0.004|-0.124|0.066
95723124|NCT02164539|191415513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.163|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.227|-0.099|||ANCOVA|||||-0.099|-0.227|<0.001
95723125|NCT03398928|191415544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95723126|NCT03398928|191415545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95723127|NCT03398928|191415548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||The statistical analysis applies to all the rows|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95723128|NCT03398928|191415549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.253|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.253
95723129|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.79||||0.069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|1.65||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 3.|||1.65|-0.06|0.069
95723130|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|1.29||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 6.|||1.29|-0.55|0.43
95723131|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|0.77||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means.|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 9.|||0.77|-1.05|0.76
95723132|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.53||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg + Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo + Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 12.|||0.53|-1.27|0.41
95723133|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.05||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 15.|||-0.05|-1.85|0.039
95723134|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|0.26||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 18.|||0.26|-1.65|0.15
95728979|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.8||||0.088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|8.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, stomach pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline stomach pain score as the covariate.||8.10|-0.50|0.088
95723135|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.72||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|0.25||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 21.|||0.25|-1.68|0.15
95723136|NCT02058368|191415555|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.46||Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut 0.5 mg+Tam 0.2 mg versus Placebo+ Tam 0.2 mg are based on t-tests from the general linear model. Reported means are model based adjusted means|General linear model||Estimates are based on adjusted means from the general linear model. The adjusted mean difference was based on combination minus tamsulosin monotherapy for Month 24.|||-0.46|-2.40|0.004
95723137|NCT02058368|191415556|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.48|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.9|-20.1||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 12.|||-20.1|-25.9|<.001
95723138|NCT02058368|191415556|SUPERIORITY|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Log(Post-Baseline Prostate Volume / Baseline Prostate Volume) = Log(Baseline Prostate Volume) + Treatment + Country. P-values are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-28.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.65|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|-25.2|||General linear model||The adjusted mean estimates, adjusted mean differences, and confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage change from Baseline for Month 24|||-25.2|-31.7|<.001
95723139|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.91
95723140|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.31
95723141|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 3|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
95723142|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.92
95723143|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.89
95723144|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.81||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.81
95723145|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.080
95723146|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
95723147|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 9|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.060
95723148|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.14
95723149|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.26
95723150|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.048||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.048
95723151|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.17
95723152|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.11
95723153|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.022||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 15|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.022
95723154|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.18
95723155|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.19
95723156|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.28
95723157|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.39
95723158|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.42||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.42
95723159|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.084||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 21|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.084
95723160|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 3 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.016
95723161|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.047||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 2 units has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.047
95723162|NCT02058368|191415557|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.007||||||P-value for IPSS improvement \>= 25 percent has been presented for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.007
95723163|NCT02058368|191415558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.33||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.56||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.56|0.26|0.006
95723164|NCT02058368|191415558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|1.69||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||1.69|0.30|0.005
95723165|NCT02058368|191415558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.42|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|2.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.29|0.63|<.001
95723166|NCT02058368|191415558|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.41||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.15||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||2.15|0.54|0.001
95723167|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.13
95723168|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 6|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.15
95723169|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
95723170|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 12|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.003
95723171|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.002
95723172|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 18|Mantel Haenszel|||||||0.009
95723173|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 3 mL/sec for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
95723174|NCT02058368|191415559|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for country for \>= 30 % for Month 24|Mantel Haenszel|||||||<.001
95723175|NCT02058368|191415560|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.27||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.81||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.81|0.09|0.012
95723176|NCT02058368|191415561|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.68||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||0.68|0.03|0.005
95723177|NCT02058368|191415562|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.69||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|4.11||Relative Risk (hazard ratio) for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on the Cox Proportional Hazards Model with stratification by country.|Log Rank|||||4.11|0.11|0.68
95723178|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.21||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 3|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.21|-0.17|0.83
95723179|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.36||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.36|-0.04|0.11
95723180|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.34||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 9|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.34|-0.07|0.21
95723181|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.8|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.18|-0.23|0.80
95723182|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.11||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 15|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.11|-0.30|0.37
95723183|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.44|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.13||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 18|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.13|-0.30|0.44
95723184|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.6|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 21|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.28|-0.16|0.60
95723185|NCT02058368|191415563|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.06||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam|||0.06|-0.37|0.16
95723186|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.18||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.62||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 3|||0.62|-0.11|0.17
95723187|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.59||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 6|||0.59|-0.20|0.33
95723188|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.68||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 9|||0.68|-0.10|0.15
95723189|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.55||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 12|||0.55|-0.25|0.46
95723190|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.29||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 15|||0.29|-0.51|0.59
95723191|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.56|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 18|||0.28|-0.52|0.56
95723192|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.28||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 21|||0.28|-0.56|0.51
95723193|NCT02058368|191415564|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model.|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam for Month 24|||-0.03|-0.88|0.034
95723194|NCT02058368|191415565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.5||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Country + Baseline Value.P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.50|-1.54|<.001
95723195|NCT02058368|191415565|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.18||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Country + Baseline Value. P-values for Dut+Tam versus Tam are based on t-tests from the general linear model for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-0.18|-1.23|0.009
95723196|NCT02058368|191415570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.6||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 6|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.6|-2.1|<.001
95723197|NCT02058368|191415570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.9||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 12|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-1.9|-2.3|<.001
95723198|NCT02058368|191415570|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.2||Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline =Treatment + Baseline Value for Month 24|General linear model||The adjusted mean difference was based on Dut+Tam minus Tam.|||-2.2|-3.1|<.001
95723199|NCT02058368|191415572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 6|Van Elteren test|||||||0.77
95723200|NCT02058368|191415572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.84||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 12|Van Elteren test|||||||0.84
95723201|NCT02058368|191415572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 18|Van Elteren test|||||||0.98
95723202|NCT02058368|191415572|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.28||||||P-value for Dut+Tam vs. Tam is based on a van Elteren test with stratification by country for Month 24|Van Elteren test|||||||0.28
95723203|NCT04529096|191415578|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.14|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.14|-0.10|
95723204|NCT04529096|191415579|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|2.56|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||2.56|-0.46|
95723205|NCT04529096|191415580|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.58|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.58|-0.25|
95723206|NCT04529096|191415581|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|1.17|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||1.17|-0.19|
95723207|NCT04529096|191415582|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|4.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|12.59|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||12.59|-3.51|
95723208|NCT04529096|191415583|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.51|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.51|-0.40|
95723209|NCT04529096|191415584|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-15.18|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-206.43|175.8|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||175.80|-206.43|
95723210|NCT04529096|191415585|SUPERIORITY||Posterior Mean Difference|-0.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.11|0.01|||Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis|||||0.01|-0.11|
95723211|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.64||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.64|-0.94|<0.0001
95723212|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.06|-0.76||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.76|-1.06|<0.0001
95723213|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.52||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.52|-0.82|<0.0001
95723214|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.1245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.03||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||0.03|-0.27|0.1245
95723215|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||statistical analysis at week 52||-0.09|-0.39|0.0022
95723216|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.41||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.41|-0.79|<0.0001
95723217|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.49||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.49|-0.87|<0.0001
95723218|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.48||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.75|<0.0001
95723219|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.83|<0.0001
95723220|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.59||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.59|-0.89|<0.0001
95723221|NCT01289990|191415586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.55||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.55|-0.85|<0.0001
95723222|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.61||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.61|-1.04|<0.0001
95723223|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|-0.69||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.69|-1.11|<0.0001
95723224|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0322|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.02||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.02|-0.41|0.0322
95723225|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.09||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.09|-0.48|0.0038
95723226|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.11|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.40|-0.83|<0.0001
95723227|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.33||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.33|-0.90|<0.0001
95723228|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.44||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.44|-1.00|<0.0001
95723229|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.47||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.47|-0.87|<0.0001
95723230|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.63|-1.04|<0.0001
95723231|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.57||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.57|-1.04|<0.0001
95723232|NCT01289990|191415587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.56||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, visit, treatment as fixed effects, and visit by treatment interaction.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.56|-1.04|<0.0001
95723233|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.8|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.8|<0.0001
95723234|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-2.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.1|-6.4|0.0001
95723235|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.2107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|0.8||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.8|-3.5|0.2107
95723236|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|-1.1||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.1|-5.4|0.0033
95723237|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.7||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-5.0|0.0105
95723238|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|0.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-4.9|0.0543
95723239|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-6.4|0.0019
95723240|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.9||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-5.0|0.0045
95723241|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.5|-6.6|<0.0001
95723242|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.8|-1.0||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-4.8|0.0031
95723243|NCT01289990|191415588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-4.4|0.0096
95723244|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.63||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.63|-0.94|<0.0001
95723245|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.73||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.73|-1.04|<0.0001
95723246|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.51||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.51|-0.82|<0.0001
95723247|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.04|-0.28|0.1310
95723248|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.07||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.07|-0.38|0.0050
95723249|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.79|-0.4||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.40|-0.79|<0.0001
95723250|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.5||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.50|-0.88|<0.0001
95723251|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|-0.46||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-0.75|<0.0001
95723252|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.58||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.58|-0.88|<0.0001
95723253|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.56|||ANCOVA|||||-0.56|-0.87|<0.0001
95723254|NCT01289990|191415589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|-0.53||Model includes baseline HbA1c as a linear covariate, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.53|-0.85|<0.0001
95723255|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.5|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.5|0.0025
95723256|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-1.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-5.6|0.0021
95723257|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.7241|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|2.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||2.6|-1.8|0.7241
95723258|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-5.9|0.0008
95723259|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.0|-1.6||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-6.0|0.0007
95723260|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0987|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.4||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-4.5|0.0987
95723261|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.2||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|-1.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.3|-6.1|0.0028
95723262|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-4.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.6|-2.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.3|-6.6|<0.0001
95723263|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-3.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.1||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-1.5||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-5.9|0.0008
95723264|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.3||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-4.1|0.0213
95723265|NCT01289990|191415590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.0||0.0288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline sys blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-4.1|0.0288
95723266|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1058|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-2.4|0.1058
95723267|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-3.1|0.0109
95723268|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.8259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.2|-1.5|0.8259
95723269|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1660
95723270|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0212|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0212
95723271|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0076
95723272|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.2|-4.1|0.0003
95723273|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-3.2|0.0170
95723274|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-3.1|0.0236
95723275|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.2523|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.5|-2.0|0.2523
95723276|NCT01289990|191415591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.3494|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.7|-1.9|0.3494
95723277|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1568|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.3|0.1568
95723278|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.3||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.3|-2.4|0.1323
95723279|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.4327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.9||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.9|-0.8|0.4327
95723280|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.8|0.0289
95723281|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-2.9|0.0231
95723282|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.0|-3.0|0.0513
95723283|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|-0.7||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-3.7|0.0038
95723284|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0084|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|-0.5||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-3.4|0.0084
95723285|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.8|0.0677
95723286|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0814|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.1||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.4|0.0814
95723287|NCT01289990|191415592|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.1785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Model includes baseline diastolic blood pressure, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.4|-2.2|0.1785
95723288|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-1.69||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.69|-2.75|<0.0001
95723289|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.61||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.61|-2.66|<0.0001
95723290|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.0223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.14||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.14|0.09|0.0223
95723291|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.37|-2.31||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.31|-3.37|<0.0001
95723292|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.28|-2.22|||ANCOVA|||||-2.22|-3.28|<0.0001
95723293|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|-1.41||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.41|-2.76|<0.0001
95723294|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.66|-1.32||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.32|-2.66|<0.0001
95723295|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.27|-1.19||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.19|-2.27|<0.0001
95723296|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|-1.76||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.76|-2.85|<0.0001
95723297|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-1.47||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.47|-2.48|<0.0001
95723298|NCT01289990|191415593|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.5||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.50|-2.52|<0.0001
95723299|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|-1.26||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.26|-2.35|<0.0001
95723300|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.56|-1.48||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.48|-2.56|<0.0001
95723301|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.0546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.08||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.08|-0.01|0.0546
95723302|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.89|-1.8||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.80|-2.89|<0.0001
95723303|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-2.01||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-2.01|-3.10|<0.0001
95723304|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-1.24||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.24|-2.69|<0.0001
95723305|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.37|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.43|-0.99||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.99|-2.43|<0.0001
95723306|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.52|-1.34||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.34|-2.52|<0.0001
95723307|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.79|-1.6||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.60|-2.79|<0.0001
95723308|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.34|-1.27||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.27|-2.34|<0.0001
95723309|NCT01289990|191415594|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.18|-1.11||Model includes baseline weight, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.11|-2.18|<0.0001
95723310|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
95723311|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.7||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.7|-2.8|0.0015
95723312|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.5052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.4|-0.7|0.5052
95723313|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-1.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.4|-3.5|<0.0001
95723314|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.1|0.0001
95723315|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.6|0.0064
95723316|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0642|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.1||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-2.1|0.0642
95723317|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.8|0.0053
95723318|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.9|||ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-2.3|<0.0001
95723319|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.1|0.0010
95723320|NCT01289990|191415595|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.5|-2.1|0.0015
95723321|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0028
95723322|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.6||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.6|-2.8|0.0019
95723323|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.5044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.5||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||1.5|-0.7|0.5044
95723324|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.9||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.9|-3.1|0.0003
95723325|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-1.0||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-1.0|-3.2|0.0002
95723326|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-2.5|0.0109
95723327|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.6||0.1238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||0.2|-1.9|0.1238
95723328|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-0.8||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-2.4|<0.0001
95723329|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0076|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.3||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.3|-1.9|0.0076
95723330|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.4||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.4|-2.1|0.0049
95723331|NCT01289990|191415596|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4||0.0178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.2||Model includes baseline waist circumference, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-0.2|-1.9|0.0178
95723332|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-32.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|-26.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-26.7|-37.8|<0.0001
95723333|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-37.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.8|-31.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-31.7|-42.8|<0.0001
95723334|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-17.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.9|-11.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-11.7|-22.9|<0.0001
95723335|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.6|-9.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.4|-20.6|<0.0001
95723336|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-19.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.5|-14.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-14.4|-25.5|<0.0001
95723337|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.0|-19.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.2|-35.0|<0.0001
95723338|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.9|-23.2||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-23.2|-38.9|<0.0001
95723339|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-24.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-18.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-18.9|-29.7|<0.0001
95723340|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|-21.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-21.9|-32.7|<0.0001
95723341|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.6|-22.0||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.0|-33.6|<0.0001
95723342|NCT01289990|191415597|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-28.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|-22.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-22.8|-34.5|<0.0001
95723343|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.4|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-37.4|<0.0001
95723344|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-34.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.7|-29.1||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-29.1|-40.7|<0.0001
95723345|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-16.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.1|-10.5||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-10.5|-22.1|<0.0001
95723346|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-15.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|-9.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-9.6|-21.2|<0.0001
95723347|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-18.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.5|-12.8||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-12.8|-24.5|<0.0001
95723348|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-23.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.4|-15.3||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-15.3|-31.4|<0.0001
95723349|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-27.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.4|-19.4||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.4|-35.4|<0.0001
95723350|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-25.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.5|-19.6||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-19.6|-30.5|<0.0001
95723351|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|-25.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.9|-36.9|<0.0001
95723352|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.0|-24.9||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-24.9|-37.0|<0.0001
95723353|NCT01289990|191415598|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-31.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.9|-25.7||Model includes baseline fasting plasma glucose, baseline HbA1c as covariates, baseline eGFR, geographic region, and treatment as fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||-25.7|-37.9|<0.0001
95723354|NCT04529499|191415599|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.67|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.67
95723355|NCT04529499|191415599|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.991|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.767|1.28|||||Favipiravir + supportive care in numerator and Placebo+ Supportive care in denominator for CPH ratio analysis|||1.280|0.767|
95723356|NCT04529499|191415600|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.34
95723357|NCT01494649|191415601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.1||||0.2294|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|The model included treatment as a fixed factor and basline Schiff score as a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favoured stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis is no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.26|0.2294
95723358|NCT01494649|191415602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.12||||0.1792||95.0|-0.3|0.06||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||0.06|-0.30|0.1792
95723359|NCT01494649|191415603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Schiff Sensitivity Score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||-0.30|-0.74|<0.0001
95723360|NCT01494649|191415604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|-0.08||||0.9445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.49|2.32||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline Tactile Threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||2.32|-2.49|0.9445
95723361|NCT01494649|191415605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted mean|-2.07||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|1.25||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||1.25|-5.38|0.220
95723362|NCT01494649|191415606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean adjusted difference|8.69||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.96|13.43||No adjustment for multiple comparisons were made as the primary comparison was pre-defined.|ANCOVA|Treatment was a fixed factor and baseline tactile threshold score was a covariate.|Difference was calculated as adjusted mean change from baseline in 0.454% stannous fluoride toothpaste minus 0.76% sodium fluoride toothpaste. Negative difference favored stannous fluoride toothpaste.|Null hypothesis was no difference between treatments. Tests were 2-sided.||13.43|3.96|0.0004
95723363|NCT02304302|191415658|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|1.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.67|-0.98|0.61
95723364|NCT02304302|191415659|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|0.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.80|-1.43|0.57
95723365|NCT02304302|191415660|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.04||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|0.66|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.66|-0.74|0.91
95723366|NCT02304302|191415661|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.5||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|0.91|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.91|-1.91|0.48
95723367|NCT02304302|191415662|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.31||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.14|2.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.53|-5.14|0.50
95723368|NCT02304302|191415663|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1||||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.32|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.32|-0.52|0.62
95723369|NCT02304302|191415664|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.94||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.32|31.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||31.20|-25.32|0.84
95723370|NCT02304302|191415665|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.04||||0.24|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||QTc interval duration was the independent variable, treatment and time were the categorical factors.||||0.24
95723371|NCT02304302|191415666|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.91||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|5.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.39|-1.57|0.28
95723372|NCT02304302|191415667|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.4||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-0.80|0.51
95723373|NCT02304302|191415668|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.17||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|5.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.94|-3.6|0.63
95723374|NCT02304302|191415669|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.65||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.61|-8.91|0.17
95723375|NCT03162354|191415730|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.11||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|We powered this hypothesis to detect a 17% increase (from 73% to 90%) in higher risk patients evaluated thoroughly for abuse at intervention sites, compared to baseline in prior PediBIRN studies. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were adopted to analyze 1,000 Monte Carlo datasets from simulation. For the target sample size of 304 higher risk patients (152 in each arm), the proportion of simulated datasets that yielded a statistically significant result for the primary hypothesis was 95.7%.||1.11|0.37|0.11
95723376|NCT03162354|191415731|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.69||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|1.98||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.98|0.24|0.49
95723377|NCT03162354|191415732|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.88||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|5.13||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||5.13|0.69|0.22
95723378|NCT03162354|191415733|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.48||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.85||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.85|0.27|0.01
95723379|NCT03162354|191415734|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|2.6||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.60|0.46|0.84
95723380|NCT03162354|191415735|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.84||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.38||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.38|1.00|0.05
95723381|NCT03162354|191415736|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.22||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|3.49||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||3.49|0.43|0.71
95723382|NCT03162354|191415737|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.04||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|1.53||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||1.53|0.70|0.86
95723383|NCT03162354|191415738|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.02||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.52||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline prior studies to the cluster randomized trial|||3.52|1.16|0.01
95723384|NCT03162354|191415739|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|0.67||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior studies to the cluster randomized trial.|||0.67|0.26|<.001
95723385|NCT03162354|191415740|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.46||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from baseline in prior PediBIRN studies to the clinical trial.|||1.31|0.16|0.14
95723386|NCT03162354|191415742|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.74||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|2.05||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||2.05|0.27|0.57
95723387|NCT03162354|191415743|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.63||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.99||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05.|Chi-squared||The direction of the comparison is from intervention sites to control sites.|||0.99|0.40|0.04
95723388|NCT02508649|191415744|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.3015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|2.43|||van Elteren test|||The primary endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis included a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.43|-1.34|0.3015
95723389|NCT02508649|191415745|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.049||||0.7694|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.762|1.445|||Regression, Logistic||An odds ratio \< 1 in proportion of subjects dying indicates lower mortality in the selepressin group.|Mortality was analyzed using a logistic regression model with the individual sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and age as covariates and treatment arm as factor.||1.445|0.762|0.7694
95723390|NCT02508649|191415746|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.29||||0.8458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|2.65|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.65|-2.07|0.8458
95723391|NCT02508649|191415747|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|0.49||||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.22|2.19|||van Elteren test|||This endpoint was analyzed using a van Elteren test. The analysis was a test of superiority using a two-sided 5% significance level.||2.19|-1.22|0.4124
95723392|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.51||||0.2009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.27|-1.30|0.2009
95723393|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.11||||0.7894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.9|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.90|-0.68|0.7894
95723394|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.55||||0.1888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.37|||ANCOVA|||Overall score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||1.37|-0.27|0.1888
95723395|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.08||||0.2997|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.07|-0.24|0.2997
95723396|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.03||||0.6796|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.12|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.12|-0.19|0.6796
95723397|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.03||||0.7467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (respiratory) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.19|-0.14|0.7467
95723398|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.42||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||-0.19|-0.65|0.0003
95723399|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.25||||0.0349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||-0.02|-0.49|0.0349
95723400|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.14||||0.2787|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.11|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (cardiovascular) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.11|-0.39|0.2787
95723401|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6476|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.16|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.16|-0.26|0.6476
95723402|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.08||||0.4313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.29|-0.13|0.4313
95723403|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.39|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (renal) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.39|-0.05|0.1334
95723404|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.12||||0.2126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.3|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.30|-0.07|0.2126
95723405|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment Difference|0.23||||0.0174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.41|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.41|0.04|0.0174
95723406|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.23||||0.0194|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (coagulation) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.43|0.04|0.0194
95723407|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.15||||0.1284|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|0.04|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 1||0.04|-0.35|0.1284
95723408|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|-0.05||||0.6542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.15|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 3||0.15|-0.25|0.6542
95723409|NCT02508649|191415754|OTHER||Treatment difference|0.17||||0.1079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.38|||ANCOVA|||Individual organ (liver) score using a modified version of the SOFA on Day 7||0.38|-0.04|0.1079
95723410|NCT02508649|191415755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.4||||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|2.0|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 7||2.00|0.98|0.0630
95723411|NCT02508649|191415755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.28||||0.1875|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ dysfunction up to Day 30||1.86|0.89|0.1875
95723412|NCT02508649|191415755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.4382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.58|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 7||1.58|0.82|0.4382
95723413|NCT02508649|191415755|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.01||||0.9529|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.39|||Regression, Logistic||Odds ratio is equal to Selepressin pooled/Placebo.|Percentage of subjects with new organ failure up to Day 30||1.39|0.73|0.9529
95723414|NCT01311505|191415764|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.98|105.2||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 98% power that 90% confidence interval (CI) for ratio of test to reference for AUC(0-t) of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant coefficient of variation (CV) estimate of approximately 13.48% for AUC(0-t) was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed AUC(0-t) was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||105.20|92.98|
95723415|NCT01311505|191415765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.24|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.77|109.97||||||20 participants (10 per sequence) provided at least 94% power that 90% CI for ratio of test to reference for Cmax of rifampicin lie within acceptance region of 80%-125%. Intra-participant CV estimate of approximately 16.43% for Cmax was used for this power calculation. Natural log transformed Cmax was analyzed using mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as random effect.||109.97|87.77|
95723416|NCT01311505|191415767|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|100.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.44|106.41||||||Natural log transformed AUC(0-∞) of rifampicin was analyzed using a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.||106.41|94.44|
95723417|NCT00446134|191415776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Other|12.75|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.167|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|29.15|||Fisher Exact|||||29.15|-3.65|0.167
95723418|NCT00446134|191415776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|5.71|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.611|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.76|22.19|||Fisher Exact|||||22.19|-10.76|0.611
95723419|NCT00446134|191415776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus ribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.98|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.736|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.67|19.63|||Fisher Exact|||||19.63|-13.67|0.736
95723420|NCT00446134|191415776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|7.04|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.485|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.28|23.35|||Fisher Exact|||||23.35|-9.28|0.485
95723421|NCT00446134|191415776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|9.77|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.72|26.26|||Fisher Exact|||||26.26|-6.72|0.295
95723422|NCT00446134|191415776|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study will have 70% to detect non-inferiority of taribavirin versus taribavirin using a non-inferiority margin of 12%.|Difference of Proportion|2.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.84|19.3|||Fisher Exact|||||19.3|-13.84|0.864
95723423|NCT00446134|191415777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|30.57|||Chi-squared|||||30.57|2.31|0.0304
95723424|NCT00446134|191415777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.0293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.22|31.06|||Chi-squared|||||31.06|3.22|0.0293
95723425|NCT00446134|191415777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.41|20.24|||Chi-squared|||||20.24|-10.41|0.5816
95723426|NCT00446134|191415778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
95723427|NCT00446134|191415778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.73|14.73|||Fisher Exact|||||14.73|-14.73|0.9999
95723428|NCT00446134|191415778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.11|15.71|||Fisher Exact|||||15.71|-14.11|0.9999
95723429|NCT00446134|191415778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.22|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.78|16.22|||Fisher Exact|||||16.22|-13.78|0.9999
95723430|NCT00446134|191415778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.42|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.76|15.59|||Fisher Exact|||||15.59|-14.76|0.9999
95723431|NCT00446134|191415778|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.0||0.9999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.71|14.11|||Fisher Exact|||||14.11|-15.71|0.9999
95723432|NCT02149199|191415790|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.3|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression, with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.|An odds ratio greater than 1 favours Symbicort 'as needed'|||1.30|1.00|0.046
95723433|NCT02149199|191415790|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority analysis based on CI instead of p-value, hence no p-value calculated for this analysis. Lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI \>=0.8 indicates Symbicort 'as needed' is non-inferior to Pulmicort bid.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.73|||Regression, Logistic|Repeated measures logistic regression with treatment, pre-study treatment, region and study week as fixed effects.||||0.73|0.57|
95723434|NCT02149199|191415791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.435|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.328|0.577|||Regression, Cox|Cox-regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0, \>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||0.577|0.328|<0.001
95723435|NCT02149199|191415791|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.901||||0.524|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.653|1.242|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first severe exacerbation.|||1.242|0.653|0.524
95723436|NCT02149199|191415792|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.429|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.528|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||0.528|0.348|<0.001
95723437|NCT02149199|191415792|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.91||||0.436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.718|1.153|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first moderate or severe exacerbation.|||1.153|0.718|0.436
95723438|NCT02149199|191415793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|53.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.1|78.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||78.5|29.1|<0.001
95723439|NCT02149199|191415793|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-54.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.8|-29.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline FEV1 as continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'. This is the estimate across all treatment visits.|||-29.8|-78.8|<0.001
95723440|NCT02149199|191415794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|11.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.89|16.0|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||16.00|7.89|<0.001
95723441|NCT02149199|191415794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.98|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.03|-5.93|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-5.93|-14.03|<0.001
95723442|NCT02149199|191415795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|10.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.99|14.9|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||14.90|6.99|<0.001
95723443|NCT02149199|191415795|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.23||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.18|-2.29|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline PEF as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-2.29|-10.18|0.002
95723444|NCT02149199|191415797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|-0.06|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.06|-0.18|<0.001
95723445|NCT02149199|191415797|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.15|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as factors and baseline asthma symptom score as a continuous covariate.|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.15|0.03|0.004
95723446|NCT02149199|191415804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.413|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.343|0.497|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||0.497|0.343|<0.001
95723447|NCT02149199|191415804|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.865||||0.175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.701|1.067|||Regression, Cox|Cox regression model with randomised treatment, pre-study treatment and region as covariates.|A hazard ratio less than 1 indicates that Symbicort 'as needed' prolongs the time to first additional steroids.|||1.067|0.701|0.175
95723448|NCT02149199|191415805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.154|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.203|-0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.105|-0.203|<0.001
95723449|NCT02149199|191415805|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.149|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.101|0.198|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and (treatment x visit) as fixed, patient as random and baseline ACQ-5 as continuous covariate|Mean difference less than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.198|0.101|<0.001
95723450|NCT02149199|191415806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.074|0.181|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||0.181|0.074|<0.001
95723451|NCT02149199|191415806|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.102|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.155|-0.049|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM with treatment, pre-study treatment, region, visit and treatment x visit as fixed, patient as random and baseline AQLQ(S) as continuous covariate|Mean difference greater than 0 favours Symbicort 'as needed'.|||-0.049|-0.155|<0.001
95723452|NCT02149199|191415808|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.27|<0.001
95723453|NCT02149199|191415808|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.83||||0.279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|1.16|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.16|0.59|0.279
95723454|NCT02149199|191415809|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.49|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||0.49|0.32|<0.001
95723455|NCT02149199|191415809|SUPERIORITY||Rate ratio|0.95||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.21|||Negative binomial model|Negative binomial model with treatment, pre-study treatment, severe exacerbations in the last 12 months (0,\>=1) and region as covariates|A rate ratio less than 1 indicates a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the Symbicort 'as needed' treatment group.|||1.21|0.74|0.663
95723456|NCT02989610|191415903|SUPERIORITY|Superiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 60%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
95723457|NCT02989610|191415904|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority hypothesis was that 95% lower confidence bound on proportion exceeded a threshold of 40%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Clopper-Pearson method|||Proportion with wider therapeutic window using directional stimulation was compared to a performance goal of 60%.||||<0.0001
95723458|NCT02989610|191415905|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-test.||"Comparison of UPDRS part III on medication from 3 months using omnidirectional stimulation to 6 months using directional stimulation.~The p-value presented is calculated and does not represent the threshold. The statistical test used for this endpoint is single sided, and the observed difference was in the opposite direction of the tested difference, leading to a p-value that is equivalent to 1 within the significance of the statistical software used."||||1.0000
95723459|NCT04179474|191415906|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.21|115.79|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.79|96.21|
95723460|NCT04179474|191415907|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.55|123.19|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||123.19|89.55|
95723461|NCT04179474|191415908|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|105.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.19|115.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||115.45|96.19|
95727849|NCT00972153|191425178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Descriptive statistics (means, medians, frequencies) were used to evaluate the distributions of variables. One-way analysis of variance and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare patient and environmental characteristics between groups. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the effects of group and other factors on airborne CFUs/cubic meter at the surgical site in each 10 minute interval.||||<0.001
95723462|NCT04179474|191415909|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|104.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.68|122.38|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||122.38|89.68|
95723463|NCT04179474|191415910|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with erenumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with erenumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|103.86|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.01|115.98|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Erenumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means||115.98|93.01|
95723464|NCT04179474|191415911|EQUIVALENCE|"No effect of co-administration with galcanezumab on the PK of ubrogepant was concluded if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of ubrogepant PK parameters for test study intervention (ubrogepant in combination with galcanezumab) versus reference study intervention (ubrogepant alone) were within the limits of 80% to 125%."|Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage|99.55|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|82.27|120.45|||||Ratio of Geometric Mean Percentage=Ubrogepant in Combination with Galcanezumab/Ubrogepant Alone \* 100|A linear mixed-effects model with study intervention as fixed effect and participant as a random effect was used to determine the Geometric Means.||120.45|82.27|
95723465|NCT00532779|191415927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.67|||<|0.001||95.0|-4.5|-2.85|||ANCOVA|||||-2.85|-4.50|<0.001
95723466|NCT00532779|191415927|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.63|-3.99|||ANCOVA|||||-3.99|-5.63|<0.001
95723467|NCT00532779|191415928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.42|||<|0.001||95.0|2.52|4.63|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.63|2.52|<0.001
95723468|NCT00532779|191415928|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.86|||<|0.001||95.0|3.6|6.57|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.57|3.60|<0.001
95723469|NCT00532779|191415929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|4.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.81|2.14|<0.001
95723470|NCT00532779|191415929|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.82|6.23|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.23|2.82|<0.001
95723471|NCT00532779|191415930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.74|-1.43|||ANCOVA|||||-1.43|-3.74|<0.001
95723472|NCT00532779|191415930|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.93|-2.64|||ANCOVA|||||-2.64|-4.93|<0.001
95723473|NCT00532779|191415931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.42|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.17|4.66|||ANCOVA|||||4.66|2.17|<0.001
95723474|NCT00532779|191415931|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.48|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.26|4.7|||ANCOVA|||||4.70|2.26|<0.001
95723475|NCT00532779|191415932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.88|||=|0.046|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.046
95723476|NCT00532779|191415932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-9.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95723477|NCT00532779|191415933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.13|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.72|4.54|||ANCOVA|||||4.54|1.72|<0.001
95723478|NCT00532779|191415933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.73|5.56|||ANCOVA|||||5.56|2.73|<0.001
95723479|NCT00532779|191415934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.36|||=|0.016|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.016
95723480|NCT00532779|191415934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.32|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.008
95723481|NCT00532779|191415935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-7.27|||=|0.063|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||=0.063
95723482|NCT00532779|191415935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-12.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95723483|NCT00532779|191415936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.6|0.42||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.42|-2.60|
95723484|NCT00532779|191415936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.94|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.46|||ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-3.42|=0.010
95723485|NCT00532779|191415937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.43|||||TWO_SIDED|||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||
95723486|NCT00532779|191415937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.29|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.001
95723487|NCT00532779|191415938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|-0.94||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||-0.94|-6.68|
95723488|NCT00532779|191415938|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.84|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.71|-2.98|||ANCOVA|||||-2.98|-8.71|<0.001
95723489|NCT00532779|191415939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|2.84||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.84|-3.62|
95723490|NCT00532779|191415939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.13||||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|2.04|||ANCOVA|||||2.04|-4.29|0.484
95723491|NCT00532779|191415940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.23|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|3.3||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||3.30|1.16|
95723492|NCT00532779|191415940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.9||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||2.90|0.76|
95723493|NCT00532779|191415941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.73||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.73|0.19|
95723494|NCT00532779|191415941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|1.67||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.67|0.13|
95723495|NCT00532779|191415942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.28||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.28|0.19|
95723496|NCT00532779|191415942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|1.0||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.00|-0.09|
95723497|NCT00532779|191415943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|1.23||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||1.23|0.14|
95723498|NCT00532779|191415943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.69||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.69|-0.40|
95723499|NCT00532779|191415944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.53||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.53|-0.53|
95723500|NCT00532779|191415944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.27||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||||Due to pre-specified hypothesis testing design, no formal statistical inference testing was performed.||0.27|-0.80|
95723501|NCT00759759|191415945|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|90.46||||||90.0|82.9|98.7|||ANOVA|||ANOVA of ln-transformed plasma morphine Cmax||98.7|82.9|
95723502|NCT00759759|191415947|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|ANOVA performed on the ratio of geometric means|mean ratio|101.1||||||90.0|96.9|105.4|||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis of ln-transformed plasma morphine AUClast||105.4|96.9|
95723503|NCT00759759|191415948|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios (test/reference) of the least squares means of the non-transformed parameters Cmax, AUClast, AUCinf, Tmax, λz, and T1/2, were calculated.|mean ratio|101.3||||||90.0|96.2|106.7|||ANOVA|||||106.7|96.2|
95723504|NCT02450760|191415968|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.29
95723505|NCT02450760|191415969|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.95
95723506|NCT02450760|191415973|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.15
95723507|NCT02450760|191415974|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.83
95723508|NCT02450760|191415975|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.26
95723509|NCT00581386|191415981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.125||||0.013||95.0|1.27|7.67|||Regression, Logistic|Logistic regression Number of obs = 217, LR chi2(2)=10.89, Prob\>chi2=0.0043,Log likelihood = -112.87788, Pseudo R2=0.0460|this is a simple odds ratio|||7.67|1.27|0.013
95723510|NCT00581386|191415981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.81||||0.003||95.0|1.57|9.29|||Odds ratio|||||9.29|1.57|0.003
95723511|NCT00581386|191415982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.006||||0.006||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.006
95723512|NCT00581386|191415983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.088||||0.003||95.0|1.728|14.99|||Regression, Logistic|||||14.99|1.728|0.003
95723513|NCT00581386|191415983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.22||||0.0004||95.0|2.419|21.527|||Regression, Logistic|||||21.527|2.419|0.0004
95723514|NCT00681824|191415985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7159||95.0|||||likelihood ratio of chi squared test|||||||0.7159
95723515|NCT02464059|191416023|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-65.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|207.8||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-172.4|41.3||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||41.3|-172.4|0.21
95723516|NCT02464059|191416024|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55|STANDARD_DEVIATION|12.6||0.86|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.02|5.91||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for significance is p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||||5.91|-7.02|0.86
95723517|NCT00948025|191416089|OTHER|Mann-Whitney U test was used to derive p-values.||||||0.0433||||||"1. a priori threshold for statistical significance set at p\<0.05.~2. the p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons."|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||"1. P-value comparing static 2-point discrimination per visit derived from mixed linear modeling of longitudinal data.~2. P-Value is based on Mann-Whitney U test."||||0.0433
95723518|NCT02292433|191416135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-19.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.841||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-28.93|-10.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-10.98|-28.93|0.0032
95723519|NCT02292433|191416135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-41.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.172|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-46.77|-35.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-35.35|-46.77|<0.0001
95723520|NCT02292433|191416136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-12.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.851||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-17.16|-7.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-7.21|-17.16|0.0006
95723521|NCT02292433|191416136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-25.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.821|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-30.73|-20.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-20.88|-30.73|<0.0001
95723522|NCT02292433|191416137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.521|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7237||0.0447|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.752|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.290|-2.752|0.0447
95723523|NCT02292433|191416137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.949|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7249||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-3.183|-0.716|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.716|-3.183|0.0119
95723524|NCT02292433|191416137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.967|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.3324||0.6873|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.195|3.261|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||3.261|-5.195|0.6873
95723525|NCT02292433|191416137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9533||0.0659|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.502|-0.377|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.377|-4.502|0.0659
95723526|NCT02292433|191416137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.358|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5994||0.4031|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.079|1.363|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||1.363|-4.079|0.4031
95723527|NCT02292433|191416137|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.766|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.5951||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.479|-1.052|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-1.052|-6.479|0.0254
95723528|NCT02292433|191416138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.069||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.09|-0.33|0.0067
95723529|NCT02292433|191416138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.29|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-breakfast. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||-0.05|-0.29|0.0282
95723530|NCT02292433|191416138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.118||0.7877|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.18|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.18|0.7877
95723531|NCT02292433|191416138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.156||0.5064|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.17|0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-lunch. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.39|-0.17|0.5064
95723532|NCT02292433|191416138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.293||0.4072|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.75|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.25|-0.75|0.4072
95723533|NCT02292433|191416138|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.295||0.1422|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.95|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis for pre-dinner. Analysis was done using a mixed effect model with sequence, period, dose, and baseline as fixed effects and participants within sequence as a random effect.||0.06|-0.95|0.1422
95723534|NCT03101293|191416139|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% confidence intervals (CIs).|LS Mean Ratio|1.343||||0.0058|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.146|1.574|||ANOVA|||||1.574|1.146|0.0058
95723535|NCT03101293|191416140|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.121||||0.1763|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.969|1.298|||ANOVA|||||1.298|0.969|0.1763
95723536|NCT03101293|191416141|EQUIVALENCE|A linear mixed effect model on the natural log-transformed parameters was performed with regimen, sequence and period as fixed effects and participant nested within sequence as a random effect. The least squares means and difference of least squares means for the log-transformed parameters were exponentiated to obtain the point estimates of the food effect and 90% CIs.|LS Mean Ratio|1.154||||0.2745|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.433|||ANOVA|||||1.433|0.929|0.2745
95723537|NCT03182920|191416143|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.962|1.52||||||||1.52|0.962|
95723538|NCT03182920|191416144|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|1.26|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.55||||||||1.55|1.03|
95723539|NCT03372369|191416145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
95723540|NCT03372369|191416145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the contraceptive knowledge score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.0001
95723541|NCT03372369|191416145|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the contraceptive knowledge score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||<0.0001
95723542|NCT03372369|191416146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.001
95723543|NCT03372369|191416146|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the effective contraception preference score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||<0.01
95723544|NCT03372369|191416146|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the effective contraception preference score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
95723545|NCT03372369|191416147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
95723546|NCT03372369|191416147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
95723547|NCT03372369|191416147|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
95723548|NCT03372369|191416148|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the CDC poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
95723549|NCT03372369|191416148|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the change in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score for the patient-centered poster between baseline and followup is 0.||||>0.01
95723550|NCT03372369|191416148|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.01||||||The Bonferroni correction is used to account for multiple comparisons. In this analysis, p\<0.01 is the threshold for statistical significance.|t-test, 1 sided|||The null hypothesis is that the patient-centered poster does not produce a larger increase in the accuracy of perceived pregnancy risk score between baseline and followup than the CDC poster.||||>0.01
95723551|NCT02239601|191416149|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.01|0.17|0.053
95723552|NCT04682639|191416156|OTHER||LS mean difference|-18.54||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.6|-4.49|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||-4.49|-32.60|0.0103
95723553|NCT04682639|191416156|OTHER||LS mean difference|-7.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.48|6.42|||ANCOVA||Estimates were from ANCOVA model for rank score of percent change from baseline in esophageal PEC.|||6.42|-21.48|0.2861
95723554|NCT04682639|191416157|OTHER||LS mean difference|2.38||||0.4894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.43|9.19|||Linear mixed effects model|||||9.19|-4.43|0.4894
95723555|NCT04682639|191416157|OTHER||LS mean difference|4.7||||0.1671|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|11.41|||Linear mixed effects model|||||11.41|-2.00|0.1671
95723556|NCT04682639|191416158|OTHER||LS mean difference|-54.53||||0.0565|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-110.59|1.54|||ANCOVA|||||1.54|-110.59|0.0565
95723557|NCT04682639|191416158|OTHER||LS mean difference|-13.95||||0.6193|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.61|41.71|||ANCOVA|||||41.71|-69.61|0.6193
95723558|NCT04682639|191416159|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|21.9||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.23|34.57|||Mantel Haenszel|||||34.57|9.23|0.0007
95723559|NCT04682639|191416159|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|13.85||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.03|24.66|||Mantel Haenszel|||||24.66|3.03|0.0121
95723560|NCT04682639|191416160|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|12.15||||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.15|22.16|||Mantel Haenszel|||||22.16|2.15|0.0173
95723561|NCT04682639|191416160|OTHER||Adjusted difference from placebo|8.37||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|17.07|||Mantel Haenszel|||||17.07|-0.32|0.0590
95723562|NCT01791127|191416163|SUPERIORITY|The primary endpoint 1 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||||||<0.0001
95723563|NCT01791127|191416164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 2 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 12 months) to 94.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
95723564|NCT01791127|191416165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||The primary endpoint 3 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (successful sensing and pacing rate at 12 months) to 97.0%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.||||<0.0001
95723565|NCT01791127|191416166|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||The primary endpoint 4 hypothesis was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing a binomial proportion (AEFR at 5 years) to 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) or 0.025 and power of 80%.|On April 15, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing SIELLO Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
95723566|NCT02065791|191416213|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.82|||Cox Proportional Hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.82|0.59|< 0.0001
95723567|NCT02065791|191416214|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.69|||=|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.83|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.83|0.57|=0.0001
95723568|NCT02065791|191416215|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8|||=|0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.95|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.95|0.67|=0.0121
95723569|NCT02065791|191416216|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61|||=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.8|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.80|0.47|=0.0003
95723570|NCT02065791|191416217|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.81|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.81|0.53|<0.0001
95723571|NCT02065791|191416218|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.78|||=|0.0502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.0|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.00|0.61|=0.0502
95723572|NCT02065791|191416219|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.83|||=|0.0727|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.02|||Cox proportional hazard|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||1.02|0.68|= 0.0727
95723573|NCT02065791|191416220|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|0.86|||Cox proportional hazards|||Comparison for canagliflozin versus placebo is reported here.||0.86|0.63|0.0001
95723574|NCT03467971|191416238|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|175.6652|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|153.779|200.6664||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||200.6664|153.7790|
95723575|NCT03467971|191416238|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|104.457|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|97.766|111.606||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||111.6060|97.7660|
95723576|NCT03467971|191416239|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|180.7734|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|157.0135|208.1287||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||208.1287|157.0135|
95723577|NCT03467971|191416239|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.0818|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.0047|112.6699||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||112.6699|98.0047|
95723578|NCT03467971|191416240|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|127.7779|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|110.2732|148.0612||||||Statistical Analysis for Metformin||148.0612|110.2732|
95723579|NCT03467971|191416240|EQUIVALENCE|Bio-equivalence Analysis was performed with Equivalence Acceptance Range for 90% Confidence Interval (CI) as 80.0% - 125.0%.|Ratio of mean values|105.4183|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.5723|117.5081||||||Statistical Analysis for Gliclazide||117.5081|94.5723|
95723580|NCT00363129|191416296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.43
95723581|NCT00363129|191416297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.49
95723582|NCT00363129|191416298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.00
95723583|NCT01892020|191416316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001||95.0|-1.66|-0.58||The 2-h PPG increment was analyzed using a normal linear mixed model with period and treatment as fixed effects and subject as a random effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Let D be the treatment difference (BIAsp 50 BID + metformin minus BHI 50 BID + metformin) of 2-h PPG increment after a 4-week treatment. The null hypothesis was D = 0 mmol/L. The alternative hypothesis was D ≠ 0 mmol/L. Sample size was determined using a two-sided one sample t-test at a = 0.05 under the assumption of 0.8 mmol/L mean treatment different and 80% power.||-0.58|-1.66|< 0.001
95723584|NCT04508621|191416356|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.1|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.1|-0.6|0.115
95723585|NCT04508621|191416357|SUPERIORITY|Patients with missing data considered non-responders.|Difference in Proportions|8.0||||0.038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|15.5|||Pearson Chi-Squared|||||15.5|0.5|0.038
95723586|NCT04508621|191416358|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-3.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.55||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4|-0.3|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.3|-6.4|0.030
95723587|NCT04508621|191416359|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.797|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|2.5|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||2.5|-3.2|0.797
95723588|NCT04508621|191416360|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.8||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.8|-0.7|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||-0.7|-3.8|0.004
95723589|NCT04508621|191416361|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.74||0.101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|0.2|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.2|-2.7|0.101
95723590|NCT04508621|191416362|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures|Multiple imputation used for missing data.|Treatment Difference = TNX-102 SL - Placebo|||0.0|-0.6|0.094
95723591|NCT00752895|191416363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.295
95723592|NCT00752895|191416364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was 0.05.|Negative binomial regression|||||||0.820
95723593|NCT00883129|191416404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.24||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the FVC %-predicted. Covariates were %-predicted FVC, HRCT-defined extent of lung fibrosis in the lobe of maximum involvement, and terms for time-trend, treatment and treatment-time trend interactions.||||0.24
95723594|NCT00883129|191416404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the FVC %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
95723595|NCT00883129|191416404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.55||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of FVC %-predicted at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the FVC %-predicted.||||0.55
95723596|NCT00883129|191416405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the TLC %-predicted.||||>0.05
95723597|NCT00883129|191416406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the DLCO %-predicted.||||<0.001
95723598|NCT00883129|191416406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the DLCO %-predicted for each treatment arm independently.||||>0.05
95723599|NCT00883129|191416407|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in the Quantitative Lung Fibrosis Score for the whole lung (QLF-WL).||||>0.05
95723600|NCT00883129|191416408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in dyspnea as measured by the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score.||||>0.05
95723601|NCT00883129|191416408|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for dyspnea using the Transitional Dyspnea Index Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
95723602|NCT00883129|191416410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||A modified intention-to-treat inferential joint model combined a mixed-effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data due to study dropout, treatment failure, or death, to assess the course over time, from baseline to 24 months, for the change in modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS).||||>0.05
95723603|NCT00883129|191416410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||The inferential joint model, as described for the primary analysis, was used to estimate the change from baseline to 24 months for the modified Rodnan Skin Score for each treatment arm independently.||||<0.05
95723604|NCT00883129|191416410|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|||Based on the absolute difference between the value of the mRSS at baseline and at 24 months for each subject who returned for a 24-month assessment, a frequency distributions was prepared, stratified by treatment arm, to assess the relative distribution of subjects who either had improvements or worsening in the mRSS.||||>0.05
95723605|NCT00883129|191416411|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Fisher Exact|The threshold for statistical significance was met only for the frequency of leukopenia and thrombocytopenia, but not for total SAE or death.||Fisher's Exact Test was utilized to compare the number of participants with a protocol-defined adverse event of interest, SAE or death between the MMF and CYC treatment arms.||||<0.05
95723606|NCT00883129|191416412|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.019||||||The threshold for statistical significance was a P-Value of \</=0.05.|Log Rank|||A log-rank test was utilized to assess differences between the MMF and CYC treatment arms with respect to the time to withdrawal from study drug or meeting protocol-defined criteria for treatment failure.||||0.019
95723607|NCT03273257|191416413|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.139|||||||2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the treatment groups in percent change from baseline in PVR immediately before PEA.||||0.139
95723608|NCT01246973|191416500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6555|TWO_SIDED||||||F-test|||||||0.6555
95723609|NCT01246973|191416501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3504|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.3504
95723610|NCT02499406|191416510|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||>0.016
95723611|NCT02499406|191416511|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||p value was calculated and found to be below the a priori threshold for significance, which was adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
95723612|NCT02499406|191416512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
95723613|NCT02499406|191416513|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in paired samples between baseline and 3-month assessment||||<0.016
95723614|NCT02499406|191416514|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=10||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 6-month assessment.||||<0.016
95723615|NCT02499406|191416515|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired samples t test|df=11||Null hypothesis is no difference between baseline and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
95723616|NCT02499406|191416516|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t test|df=14||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 3-month assessment.||||> 0.016
95723617|NCT02499406|191416517|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=10||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 6-month assessment.||||=.016
95723618|NCT02499406|191416518|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.016||||||a priori threshold for significance adjusted to p = .016 for multiple comparisons|paired sample t-test|df=11||Null hypothesis is that there is no difference between baseline assessment and this 9-month assessment.||||<0.016
95723619|NCT02580318|191416556|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (poor effort)|t-test, 2 sided|||this p value is calculated for poor effort||||<0.0001
95723620|NCT02580318|191416556|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (hyperventilation - immediate)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (immediate)||||<0.0001
95723621|NCT02580318|191416556|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 5 minutes)||||<0.0001
95723622|NCT02580318|191416556|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (10 minutes after hyperventilation)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for hyperventilation (after 10 minutes)||||<0.0001
95723623|NCT02580318|191416556|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (immediately after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (immediate)||||<0.0001
95723624|NCT02580318|191416556|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||the separate paired sample t-tests were conducted to compare the baseline BrAC to the BrAC after the manipulation (5 minutes after drinking water)|t-test, 2 sided|||p value calculated for drinking water (5 minutes)||||<0.0001
95723625|NCT01222715|191416570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank|||The event free survival distributions of patients in Regimen A and Regimen B were compared using the log-rank test.||||0.0124
95723626|NCT00409188|191416623|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.1566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.763|1.044|||Regression, Cox|||||1.044|0.763|0.1566
95723627|NCT00409188|191416624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.845||||0.0226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.732|0.977|||Regression, Cox|||||0.977|0.732|0.0226
95723628|NCT00409188|191416625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.868||||0.0528|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.752|1.002|||Regression, Cox|||||1.002|0.752|0.0528
95723629|NCT03154333|191416628|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.01||||0.9666|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||1.62|0.63|0.9666
95723630|NCT03154333|191416629|OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.53||||0.2861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|3.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Log transformation normalized the Risk Ratio (RR) estimates; the Standard Error (SE) of the estimate was obtained from confidence limits for the RR.||||3.28|0.41|0.2861
95723631|NCT00361257|191416630|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.064|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.164||0.651|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.258|0.386||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline NPZ-8 score.|The total number used for the statistical analysis was 107 (52 in the minocycline arm and 55 in the placebo arm).|The null hypothesis was that the 24-week change of NPZ-8 in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.386|-0.258|0.651
95723632|NCT00361257|191416631|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.091|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.116||0.434|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.323||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline GDS score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24-week changes in Global Deficit Score (GDS) between the minocycline and placebo groups are the same.||0.323|-0.140|0.434
95723633|NCT00361257|191416632|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.569|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.469||0.337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|3.936||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Cumulative Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week changes of participants' clinical status in the minocycline group were the same as the ones in the placebo group based on ICGIS.||3.936|0.625|0.337
95723634|NCT00361257|191416633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.502|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.428||0.243|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.349|1.354||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline cognitive gross motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis is that the 24 week change in the cognitive gross motor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as the one in the placebo group.||1.354|-0.349|0.243
95723635|NCT00361257|191416634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.293|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.153||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.011|0.596||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in fine motor function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.596|-0.011|0.059
95723636|NCT00361257|191416635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.147||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.375|0.209||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratified variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline psychomotor function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of psychomotor function domain score in the minocycline group is the same as in the placebo group.||0.209|-0.375|0.572
95723637|NCT00361257|191416636|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.086|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.182||0.637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.449|0.276||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline fine motor/nonverbal function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of fine motor/nonverbal function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group.||0.276|-0.449|0.637
95723638|NCT00361257|191416637|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.236||0.754|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.544|0.396||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the CNS penetration score, and the baseline information processing function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of information processing function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.396|-0.544|0.754
95723639|NCT00361257|191416638|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.145|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline verbal memory domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of verbal memory domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
95723640|NCT00361257|191416639|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.126|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.172||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.467|0.216||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline frontal systems function domain score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change of frontal systems function domain score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.216|-0.467|0.467
95723641|NCT00361257|191416640|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.476|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.048||0.234|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.575|10.668||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the CNS penetration score. The stratification variables could not be included in the model since the model fit was poor.||"The null hypothesis was that the proportion of being better at 24 weeks in minocycline group was the same as in the placebo group."||10.668|0.575|0.234
95723642|NCT00361257|191416641|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|19.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|33.75||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.26|86.44||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, the baseline CNS score, and the baseline CD4 cell count.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD4 cell counts in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||86.44|-48.26|0.574
95723643|NCT00361257|191416642|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|40.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|59.91||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.12|159.97||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline CD8 cell counts.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in CD8 cell count in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||159.97|-79.12|0.502
95723644|NCT00361257|191416643|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.967||95.0|||||Log Rank|||The null hypothesis was that the time to Grade 2 or higher toxicity and/or signs and symptoms in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||||0.967
95723645|NCT00361257|191416645|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.497||0.89|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.405|2.837||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Logistic|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables and the baseline CNS penetration score.||The null hypothesis was that the proportion of participants who got better at week 24 compared to baseline in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||2.837|0.405|0.890
95723646|NCT00361257|191416646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.405|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.391||0.304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.182|0.373||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline medication management score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 change of medication management test score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.373|-1.182|0.304
95723647|NCT00361257|191416651|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.097|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.388|0.193||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for the stratification variables, the baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate psychomotor function score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in alternate psychomotor function score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.193|-0.388|0.506
95723648|NCT00361257|191416652|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.146|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.207||0.484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.266|0.558||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate verbal memory score.||The null hypothesis was that the 24 week change in the alternate verbal memory score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.558|-0.266|0.484
95723649|NCT00361257|191416653|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.055|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.137||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.217|0.327||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|The model was adjusted for stratification variables, baseline CNS penetration score, and the baseline alternate frontal systems score.||The null hypothesis was the 24 week change of alternate frontal systems score in the minocycline group was the same as the one in the placebo group.||0.327|-0.217|0.690
95723650|NCT03964220|191416693|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.427|0.99|||Regression, Cox|||The time to first exacerbation was analysis using Cox Proportional Hazards model with group status as the only independent variable assessing the risk of exacerbation across Tio and NonTio groups.||0.990|0.427|0.044
95723651|NCT03964220|191416694|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 6 months of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
95723652|NCT03964220|191416694|OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Negative binomial regression|||Analysis for the rate of exacerbation between Tio and NonTio groups within 1 year of follow-up.||||< 0.0001
95723653|NCT01430182|191416730|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.37|||||||t-test, 1 sided|unpaired||||||0.37
95723654|NCT02314520|191416731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.271||||||0.05 is the threshold for significance for this primary outcome.|Fisher Exact|||||||0.271
95723655|NCT00775983|191416775|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power: We assumed a standard deviation of five minutes based on historical clinic data for surgical abortions during this gestational duration range, a non-inferiority margin of five minutes, and a 10% potential attrition rate to power the study for a non-inferiority hypothesis. Thirty participants in each arm gave us 95% power to conclude non-inferiority of same day Dilapan-S compared to overnight laminaria with respect to procedure time of surgical abortions between 14-18 weeks gestation.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|97.5|-0.3|4.5|||t-test, 2 sided|||Null Hypothesis: A surgical abortion performed between 14-18 weeks gestation performed after the cervix has been prepared with same-day Dilapan-S is inferior with respect to procedure time, which is specifically outside a five minute margin of non-inferiority, when compared to procedures during the same gestational duration range performed after the cervix has been prepared overnight with laminaria.||4.5|-0.3|
95723656|NCT05180630|191416794|OTHER|||||||0.012||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3). Comparisons were total mean scores for Open dome condition, Vented dome condition, and Custom earmolds with dynamic venting|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for streamed music, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.012
95723657|NCT05180630|191416795|OTHER|||||||0.154||||||When p-value is adjusted for multiple comparisons, the level of statistical significance must be \</= to 0.01666667 (.05/3).|ANOVA|||Treatment order was not analyzed. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the effect of the coupling conditions on sound quality ratings for own voice, but there was no analysis between groups.||||0.154
95723658|NCT02567266|191416802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.2||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post-Treatment||.20|-.58|.338
95723659|NCT02567266|191416802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.57||Threshold: p \<.05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post Treatment||0.57|-0.24|0.425
95723660|NCT02567266|191416802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.06||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Post||0.06|-0.77|0.09
95723661|NCT02567266|191416802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|0.09||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.09|-0.72|0.126
95723662|NCT02567266|191416802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.65|0.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.19|-0.65|0.28
95723663|NCT02567266|191416802|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.34||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-I at Follow-Up||0.34|-0.51|0.697
95723664|NCT02567266|191416803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.45|-0.6|0.779
95723665|NCT02567266|191416803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.67||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.67|-0.42|0.66
95723666|NCT02567266|191416803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.629|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|0.31||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.31|-0.51|0.629
95723667|NCT02567266|191416803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.38||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.38|-0.41|0.938
95723668|NCT02567266|191416803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.49||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Post||0.49|-0.32|0.68
95723669|NCT02567266|191416803|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.479|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.75|0.35||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGI-S at Follow-Up||0.35|-0.75|0.479
95723670|NCT02567266|191416804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.58||0.852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.85|3.45||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.45|-2.85|0.852
95723671|NCT02567266|191416804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.62||0.917|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|3.07||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.07|-3.41|0.917
95723672|NCT02567266|191416804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.66||0.778|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.81|3.74||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Post||3.74|-2.81|0.778
95723673|NCT02567266|191416804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.12||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|5.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.19|-3.3|0.66
95723674|NCT02567266|191416804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.19||0.935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|4.19||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||4.19|-4.55|0.935
95723675|NCT02567266|191416804|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.615|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.29|5.55||Threshold: p \< .05|Mixed Models Analysis||A negative value for the mean difference indicates that the lower numbered Group has a lower mean than the higher numbered group.|DV = CGAS at Follow-Up||5.55|-3.29|0.615
95723676|NCT02020785|191416807|SUPERIORITY|Main analyses were intention-to-treat using mixed effects models allowing intercepts to vary for each individual. Carryover effects were examined by using treatment by assignment-order interaction terms. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses were conducted excluding patients who were non-compliant, prior to data analysis: 1st, noncompliance based on missing product pickups and follow-up visits; 2nd, suspected poor compliance (\< 250 mg difference between the higher and lower period).\]|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.025|0.34||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (14.3%, 95% CI: -2.5%, 34.0%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed 24-hour urine albumin excretion|Sample size for this study was calculated using the xsampsi module in STATA, based on a previous study with repeat 24-hour urine collections (standard deviation, 1.04). At an α level of 0.05, we anticipated that a sample size of 30 participants with mean albuminuria of 100 mg/d would result in \>80% power to detect a 13% difference in log- transformed albuminuria between the higher and lower phosphorus additive periods.||0.34|-0.025|0.05
95723677|NCT02020785|191416808|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.034||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.136||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis||Estimate (3.4%, 95% CI: -5.9%, 13.6%) is the estimated difference between end of higher phosphorus period and end of lower phosphorus period from mixed effects analyses for log-transformed fibroblast growth factor 23|||0.136|-0.059|0.05
95723678|NCT02020785|191416809|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-1.1||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|1.9||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.9|-4.1|0.05
95723679|NCT02020785|191416810|SUPERIORITY||mean difference (during each period)|-0.8||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|1.0||For each outcome, a p value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant without adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.0|-2.7|0.05
95723680|NCT00068445|191416811|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.56
95723681|NCT00068445|191416812|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.36
95723682|NCT00068445|191416813|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.25|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.25
95723683|NCT00068445|191416814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.34
95723684|NCT00068445|191416815|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.53|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.53
95723685|NCT00068445|191416816|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.22|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.22
95723686|NCT00068445|191416817|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.33
95723687|NCT00068445|191416818|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.07
95723688|NCT00068445|191416819|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.91
95723689|NCT00068445|191416820|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.68
95723690|NCT01155284|191416821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|||||The p value between treatment groups of C-peptide log (AUC+1) with covariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, baseline C-peptide concentration and duration of diabetes.|ANCOVA|||||||0.81
95723691|NCT01155284|191416822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.869
95723692|NCT00123487|191416831|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule was claimed if the lower bound of the 95% CI for difference (QD - BD) was ≥ -12%.|Percent Difference|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.8|8.1||||||Primary endpoint was to be assessed at 6-Months: Assuming a 45% MaHR rate in the 70 mg BID participants, the primary efficacy analysis required a total of 540 participants, approximately 270 in each dosing schedule, giving at least 80% power to deduce non-inferiority of the QD schedule relative to the BID schedule if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in MaHR rates (MaHRRQD - MaHRRBID) is greater than -12%.||8.1|-7.8|
95723693|NCT00701935|191416849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.432||0.8252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.92|7.95||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline abdominal visceral fat.||"The power calculation is based on a two-sided t-test and significance level of 0.05.~Hypotheses for sample size:~Power: 80% Drop-out rate: 20% Difference in the percentage change in abdominal visceral fat from baseline to 6 months between exenatide and placebo: 10% Common standard deviation: 15%~94 patients are needed to attain the 37 patients randomized and analyzed in each group."||7.95|-9.92|0.8252
95723694|NCT00701935|191416850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.193||0.5207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.53|4.39||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total abdominal fat.||||4.39|-8.53|0.5207
95723695|NCT00701935|191416851|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.1755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.15|1.73||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline subcutaneous abdominal fat.||||1.73|-9.15|0.1755
95723696|NCT00701935|191416852|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.57||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis included the following factors: treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HbA1c||||-0.57|-1.19|<0.0001
95723697|NCT00701935|191416854|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.491||0.0073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.38|-0.4||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline fasting plasma glucose.||||-0.40|-2.38|0.0073
95723698|NCT00701935|191416855|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.725||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.66|-0.76||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline body weight.||||-0.76|-3.66|0.0035
95723699|NCT00701935|191416858|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.248||0.4145|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.71|0.3||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline total cholesterol||||0.30|-0.71|0.4145
95723700|NCT00701935|191416859|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.279||0.4007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.33||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline triglycerides||||0.33|-0.80|0.4007
95723701|NCT00701935|191416860|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.7915|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.11||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model includes terms of treatment, gender, investigator and baseline HDL cholesterol||||0.11|-0.08|0.7915
95723702|NCT00701935|191416861|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.63||0.1388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|15.77||p-values were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Regression, Linear|Generalized linear model was used with the assumption of an underlying Poisson distribution and the logarithm of exposure (years) as offset variable.||Event rate per subject year was calculated for each subject : (number of events observed from a subject/exposure from a subject)\*365.25 where exposure = last post-baseline visit date - baseline visit date.||15.77|0.68|0.1388
95723703|NCT00947518|191416871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.99
95723704|NCT00947518|191416872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.46||95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
95723705|NCT00947518|191416873|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95723706|NCT00947518|191416874|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared||||For comparison of categorical variables among the three groups, Chi2 test followed by Bonferroni's correction was used.|||<0.05
95723707|NCT01345058|191416885|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.65|||Chi-squared||Hazard ratio for seizure occurrence for polytherapy relative to monotherapy.|||1.65|0.35|0.49
95723708|NCT01556165|191416948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.32||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|75.0|-4.53|-1.47||No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made.|ANCOVA|||This study was designed to show a trend, that is, to show a clinical difference in the primary efficacy analysis, at a two-sided significance level of 0.25. Assuming a difference between rasagiline and placebo of a 3-point change in the UPDRS total score and a standard deviation on the change from baseline of 7 points, a sample size of 60 patients per treatment group gave an 88% probability of showing a trend. LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-1.47|-4.53|0.0254
95723709|NCT01556165|191416949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.0032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.21|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||-0.21|-1.03|0.0032
95723710|NCT01556165|191416950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.52||0.1963|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.35|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.35|-1.70|0.1963
95723711|NCT01556165|191416951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.91||0.0641|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|0.1|||ANCOVA|The same ANCOVA methodology as for the primary endpoint was used.||LOCF (last observation carried forward) was used.||0.10|-3.52|0.0641
95723712|NCT03471182|191417011|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035||||||Primary hypothesis of a group difference (i.e., CUD vs HHC-PET participants) in mGluR5 availability was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 9 regions of interest (i.e., all 9 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of region. Group (i.e., CUD, HHC-PET) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the region-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.035
95723713|NCT03471182|191417012|SUPERIORITY|Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 4 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 4 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||||0.024||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in functional brain network engagement was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.024
95723714|NCT03471182|191417013|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87||||||Primary hypothesis of group differences (i.e., CUD vs HC-MRI participants) in fALFF was assessed as the significance level of the fixed-effect of group at a threshold of p\<0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Outcome Measure Data were tested using a single linear mixed effects model. The 5 brain networks of interest (i.e., all 5 Rows of the Outcome Measure Data) were included in the model as a within-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of network. Group (i.e., CUD, HC-MRI) was included in the model as a between-subjects factor for the fixed-effect of group. The model also included the network-by-group interaction term and a factor to model the random-effect of participant.||||0.870
95728653|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.94||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|8.36|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.36|1.03|0.090
95723715|NCT00289731|191417028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.34|1.48||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.48|-5.34|
95723716|NCT00289731|191417028|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seropositivity rates for anti-HAV antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seropositivity rate|-1.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|1.6||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis A virus (HAV) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HAV seropositivity rates, at Month 7.||1.60|-5.31|
95723717|NCT00289731|191417029|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 10%.|Difference in seroprotection rate|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.97|19.35||||||Difference in seroprotection rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines Engerix-B at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Havrix at Months 0 and 6 (Engerix-B+Havrix Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||19.35|4.97|
95723718|NCT00289731|191417029|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between the two treatment groups (Twinrix Group minus HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of seroprotection rates for anti-HBs antibody, being - 15%.|Difference in seroprotection rates|20.69|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.92|28.62||||||Difference in seropositivity rates against hepatitis B surface (HBs) antigen: To demonstrate that the immunogenicity of Twinrix vaccine (Twinrix Group) administered at Months 0, 1 and 6 was non-inferior to that of separately administered monovalent vaccines HB VAX PRO at Months 0, 1 and 6 and Vaqta at Months 0 and 6 (HB VAX PRO+Vaqta Group), in terms of anti-HBs seroprotection rates, at Month 7.||28.62|12.92|
95723719|NCT00661674|191417109|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001||||||p-value represents comparison between OOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in OOWS scores when comparing treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.0001
95723720|NCT00661674|191417110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2244||||||p-value represents comparison between SOWS scores at T=180 and the baseline measurements at T=-30.|Friedman Test|||"Null Hypothesis: There will be no difference in SOWS scores when comparing the 2 treatment groups (Palonosetron \& Palonosetron + Hydroxyzine) with placebo.~Analysis of the data obtained in our prior study indicated that analysis of 10 individuals would provide 90% power to detect a treatment effect. Therefore, we examined the effect of three different pretreatments on naloxone-induced opiate withdrawal signs in 10 healthy individuals."||||0.2244
95723721|NCT00660790|191417111|OTHER|||||||0.021|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The paired student's t-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the measurements before and after multifactorial treatment, as appropriate, depending on the distribution of the data.||||0.021
95723722|NCT01170364|191417155|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.004|||||||paired sample t-test, two tailed|||||||<0.004
95723723|NCT00368537|191417158|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.0||||||95.0|-8.7|8.6|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||8.6|-8.7|
95723724|NCT00368537|191417159|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.2||||||95.0|-9.6|14.0|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|||14.0|-9.6|
95723725|NCT00368537|191417160|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A 2-sided 95% CI (corrected for continuity) was calculated for the true difference between the cure rates. Non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower limit of the 2-sided CI is greater than -15%.|Risk Difference (RD)|2.4||||||95.0|-9.6|14.4|||||Confidence interval calculated using asymptotic method corrected for continuity. Difference= Tigecycline minus Ampicillin-Sulbactam or Amoxicillin-Clavulanate.|Group comparison of eradication + presumed eradication||14.4|-9.6|
95723726|NCT00368537|191417162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.2||||0.444||95.0|-4.4|2.0|||Fisher Exact|2-sided||Intensive care unit||2.0|-4.4|0.444
95723727|NCT01368276|191417177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-42.9||||0.2645|TWO_SIDED|||||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||||0.2645
95723728|NCT01368276|191417178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Difference|-1.2||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.3|54.9||Descriptive|Fisher Exact||Talimogene laherparepvec - GM-CSF|||54.9|-57.3|1.0000
95723729|NCT01427920|191417179|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.25||||||95.0|0.04|0.46|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||FAS||0.46|0.04|
95723730|NCT01427920|191417180|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority for subject-driven vs. investigator driven titration would be concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4%.|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.26||||||95.0|0.05|0.48|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline HbA1c as covariate.||PP||0.48|0.05|
95723731|NCT01427920|191417181|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.13||||0.659||95.0|-0.44|0.69|||Regression, Linear|Model includes treatment, strata and region as factors and relevant baseline FPG as covariate.||H0: D = 0.0% against HA: D ≠ 0.0%, where D is the mean treatment difference (subject-driven titration minus investigator-driven titration).||0.69|-0.44|0.659
95723732|NCT03341273|191417186|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-6.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|2.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D5V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D5V is 5.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||2|-15|
95723733|NCT03341273|191417187|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-4.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.0|3.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D11V is 11.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||3|-12|
95723734|NCT03341273|191417188|NON_INFERIORITY|The non-inferiority margin is 12.5%. Non-inferiority of placebo is concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement is greater than -12.5%.|Risk Difference (RD)|-7.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.0|0.0||The null hypothesis was evaluated using a non-inferiority test and non-inferiority of placebo was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions of clinical improvement was greater than -12.5%.|||Multiple imputation with a linear model to impute missing clinical values of improvement. The study day that D11V occurred on was included as a covariate in the final model and the estimates for risk difference assume that study day of D28V is 28.|Null Hypothesis: Proportion in placebo - Proportion in azithromycin = -12.5%||0|-13|
95723735|NCT03341273|191417189|SUPERIORITY|DOOR is a composite endpoint created using clinical outcomes from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit. It is based on adequate clinical improvement at Day 5 Visit and solicited events from Day 1 through Day 5 Visit.|Pr(Higher DOOR in Placebo at Day 5 Visit|0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|0.68||Missing DOOR values at Day 5 Visit were first imputed using linear regression using baseline covariates and available DOOR components as covariates.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|The Mann-Whitney test was run on the multiple imputed datasets to generate estimates of DOOR probability and p-value||Null: The sum of the probability that a participant assigned to placebo will have a higher DOOR at Day 5 visit than if assigned to the Azithromycin plus one-half the probability of equal DOORs at Day 5 Visit is 50% (i.e., no difference in DOOR at Day 5 Visit).||0.68|0.57|<0.001
95723736|NCT01717456|191417217|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.72||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.05
95723737|NCT04991311|191417279|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|398.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|581.6|=|0.0585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6|814.4|||Paired t-test (2-sided, alpha=0.05)|||The participants in both comparison groups are the same.||814.4|-17.6|= 0.0585
95723738|NCT00054275|191417307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||proportion of pts with partial response|0.39||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.58|||confidence interval for partial response|Confidence interval for partial response rate using Wilson's Method||||0.58|0.23|0.95
95723739|NCT03944707|191417337|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.03|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0698||0.6643|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.06|0.119||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.119|-0.060|0.6643
95723740|NCT03944707|191417341|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.6609|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.35|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.18|-0.35|0.6609
95723741|NCT03944707|191417342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.1|STANDARD_DEVIATION|7.13||0.5107|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-9.0|9.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean morning PEF||9.1|-9.0|0.5107
95723742|NCT03944707|191417342|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|9.15||0.3611|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-15.2|8.1||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in mean evening PEF||8.1|-15.2|0.3611
95723743|NCT03944707|191417343|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.133|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1588||0.8022|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.336|0.071||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|||0.071|-0.336|0.8022
95723744|NCT03944707|191417344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.1573||0.6312|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.251|0.149||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in daytime asthma symptom score||0.149|-0.251|0.6312
95723745|NCT03944707|191417344|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.075|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0819||0.1752|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.028|0.18||Probability LOU064 better than placebo|Bayesian model for repeated measures||Posterior mean difference (LOU064 - placebo) and 80% credible interval are presented.|Change from baseline in nighttime asthma symptom score||0.180|-0.028|0.1752
95723746|NCT02444182|191417352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.21||0.015|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in Gingival index between probiotics and control groups||||0.015
95723747|NCT02444182|191417353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.09||0.909|TWO_SIDED||||||paired t-test|||Null hypothesis was no difference in plaque index between probiotics and control groups||||0.909
95723748|NCT01453374|191417359|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95723749|NCT01453374|191417360|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95723750|NCT01453374|191417361|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95723751|NCT01453374|191417367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.10
95723752|NCT01223196|191417377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in M/I. Statistical Analysis applies to (M/I) between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences 20), Chicago, IL, USA).||||0.04
95723753|NCT01223196|191417377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in whole body insulin sensitivity (M/I) between groups.||||||0.05
95723754|NCT01223196|191417378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in TACE activity in skeletal muscle between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
95723755|NCT01223196|191417378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|Statistical Analysis applies toTNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor) alpha converting enzyme (TACE) activity between Pioglitazone and Placebo after 6 months.||Statistical analysis 2 also used 2-sided t-test similar to Statistical analysis -1||||<0.05
95723756|NCT01223196|191417379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences in Heamoglobin A1c between groups.||Mann-Whitney test was used to test differences Haemoglobin A1C between groups. Treatment-induced changes were examined by Wilcoxon's rank test. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA).||||<0.05
95723757|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.29|1.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a restricted maximum likelihood (REML)-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.68|-4.29|0.390
95723758|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.264|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.37|4.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.97|-1.37|0.264
95723759|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51||||0.357|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|1.72|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.72|-4.74|0.357
95723760|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.981|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|3.42|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.42|-3.50|0.981
95723761|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.95||||0.584|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.37|2.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.47|-4.37|0.584
95723762|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.58||||0.392|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.05|5.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.20|-2.05|0.392
95723763|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.05||||0.345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|2.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.24|-6.34|0.345
95723764|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22||||0.922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.73|4.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.28|-4.73|0.922
95723765|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.44||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.97|3.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.10|-7.97|0.384
95723766|NCT00996918|191417439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|5.78|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.78|-6.08|0.961
95723767|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.22||||0.837|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.91|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-1.91|0.837
95723768|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.14||||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|4.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.41|-0.13|0.064
95723769|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.32|2.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.35|-2.32|0.990
95723770|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.22|2.82|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.82|-2.22|0.817
95723771|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-2.04|0.697
95723772|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.93||||0.158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|4.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.63|-0.76|0.158
95723773|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.829|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.06|3.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.26|-4.06|0.829
95723774|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.69|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|-3.69|0.950
95723775|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.56||||0.816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|4.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.23|-5.35|0.816
95723776|NCT00996918|191417440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.82||||0.751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.32|5.96|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in ADAS-Cog score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.96|-4.32|0.751
95723777|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.22|7.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.53|-7.22|0.967
95723778|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.13||||0.593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.72|9.98|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.98|-5.72|0.593
95723779|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.968|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|7.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.62|-7.32|0.968
95723780|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.92||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.92|5.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.08|-10.92|0.473
95723781|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.91|6.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.02|-9.91|0.630
95723782|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.53||||0.293|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.02|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-13.02|0.293
95723783|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.53||||0.733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.28|10.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.33|-7.28|0.733
95723784|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.81||||0.55|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.06|6.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.45|-12.06|0.550
95723785|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.902|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.04|12.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||12.50|-11.04|0.902
95723786|NCT00996918|191417441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.07||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.75|7.61|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||7.61|-17.75|0.430
95723787|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.01|3.95|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.95|-6.01|0.683
95723788|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.69||||0.177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.68|9.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 13.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.06|-1.68|0.177
95723789|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.734|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.03|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.25|-6.03|0.734
95723790|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.5||||0.595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|4.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.05|-7.06|0.595
95723791|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.35||||0.409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-7.95|0.409
95728654|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|5.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.6|10.4||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||10.4|-0.6|
95723792|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.74||||0.368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.73|3.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 39.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.24|-8.73|0.368
95723793|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.44||||0.458|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.01|8.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||8.89|-4.01|0.458
95723794|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.04||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.77|5.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.68|-7.77|0.760
95723795|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.67|9.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.86|-5.67|0.597
95723796|NCT00996918|191417442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.87||||0.501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.24|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in DAD score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.50|-11.24|0.501
95723797|NCT00996918|191417443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.6||||0.183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.91|1.71|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.71|-8.91|0.183
95723798|NCT00996918|191417443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|5.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||5.35|-5.92|0.920
95723799|NCT00996918|191417443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.99||||0.133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.52|1.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.53|-11.52|0.133
95723800|NCT00996918|191417443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.34||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.55|9.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||9.22|-4.55|0.505
95723801|NCT00996918|191417443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.86||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.46|-4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||-4.25|-21.46|0.003
95723802|NCT00996918|191417443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.47||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.95|10.88|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||10.88|-7.95|0.760
95723803|NCT00996918|191417444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08||||0.373|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.68|2.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.52|-6.68|0.373
95723804|NCT00996918|191417444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.03||||0.677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|3.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 26.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.86|-5.92|0.677
95728980|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.7||||0.122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|8.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||8.40|-1.00|0.122
95723805|NCT00996918|191417444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.4||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.61|2.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.80|-9.61|0.280
95723806|NCT00996918|191417444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.34|6.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 52.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||6.76|-6.34|0.950
95723807|NCT00996918|191417444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.06||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.16|3.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.05|-23.16|0.130
95723808|NCT00996918|191417444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.48||||0.732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.97|16.94|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in NPI score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||16.94|-11.97|0.732
95723809|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.938|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|1.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.21|-1.12|0.938
95723810|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|1.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.04|-1.43|0.753
95723811|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|1.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.33|-1.04|0.809
95723812|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.52||||0.421|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.75|-1.80|0.421
95723813|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.39||||0.535|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|1.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.63|-0.85|0.535
95723814|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.52||||0.445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|1.86|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.86|-0.82|0.445
95723815|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.73||||0.309|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|2.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.12|-0.67|0.309
95723816|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-1.34|0.872
95723817|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.52||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|4.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.26|0.79|0.004
95728981|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.8||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|10.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||10.50|1.10|0.015
95723818|NCT00996918|191417445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.09||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|3.93|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from base study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML-based MMRM with change from base study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.93|0.25|0.026
95723819|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.57|-0.77|0.504
95723820|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||0.592|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.58|0.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 6.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.90|-1.58|0.592
95723821|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.47||||0.441|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|1.65|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.65|-0.72|0.441
95723822|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.69||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|0.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 19.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||0.59|-1.97|0.288
95723823|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.66||||0.303|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|1.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.90|-0.59|0.303
95723824|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.25||||0.713|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|1.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 32.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.60|-1.09|0.713
95723825|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.93||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|2.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||2.34|-0.49|0.198
95723826|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.756|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 45.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||1.24|-1.70|0.756
95723827|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.45||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|4.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||4.22|0.69|0.006
95723828|NCT00996918|191417446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.75||||0.066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|3.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Change from extension study baseline in MMSE score at Week 78.~Results are from a REML based MMRM with change from extension study baseline as the response and the following fixed effect model terms: treatment, visit (scheduled week), treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline value of the response variable, baseline MMSE total score stratum and cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use stratum."||3.62|-0.12|0.066
95723829|NCT04333199|191417449|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9903891|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2805876|3.9211066||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||3.9211066|2.2805876|<0.001
95723830|NCT04333199|191417450|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.1781659||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9404654|1.4759445||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.4759445|0.9404654|0.154
95723831|NCT04333199|191417451|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.9575636||||0.571|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8242111|1.1124918||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.1124918|0.8242111|0.571
95723832|NCT04333199|191417452|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8562672|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5692523|2.1957769||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.1957769|1.5692523|<0.001
95723833|NCT04333199|191417454|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.8542767|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5220654|2.2589975||We used an a priori threshold of p \< .05.|Regression, Logistic|||||2.2589975|1.5220654|<0.001
95723834|NCT00709735|191417457|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|4.0|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||4.0|-30.0|
95723835|NCT00709735|191417458|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|1.9|||||Non-Reactivation Propranolol (NRP) - Reactivation Propranolol (RP)|||1.9|-27.4|
95723836|NCT00190684|191417616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for systolic BP|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723837|NCT00190684|191417616|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for diastolic BP|Wilcoxon sign-rank test|Change = endpoint-baseline||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723838|NCT00190684|191417617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for pulse|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723839|NCT00190684|191417618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723840|NCT00190684|191417619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723841|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723842|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723843|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.644||95.0||||p-value is for weight 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.644
95723844|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for weight 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723845|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723846|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.001
95723847|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||95.0||||p-value is for height 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.044
95723848|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for height 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723849|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 0 to 25th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723850|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.032||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 25th to 50th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.032
95723851|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.351||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 50th to 75th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.351
95723852|NCT00190684|191417620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for BMI 75th to 100th percentile|paired t-test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723853|NCT00190684|191417621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for RR interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723854|NCT00190684|191417621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QRS Interval|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723855|NCT00190684|191417621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for QT Bazett Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723856|NCT00190684|191417621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.31||95.0||||p-value is for QT Data Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.310
95723857|NCT00190684|191417621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.632||95.0||||p-value is for QT Fridericia Correction|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.632
95723858|NCT00190684|191417622|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for HR.|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723859|NCT00190684|191417624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Total Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
95723860|NCT00190684|191417624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for Inattentive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723861|NCT00190684|191417624|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for Hyperactive Subscale Score|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
95723862|NCT00190684|191417625|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CGI ADHD Severity within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||||||<0.001
95723863|NCT00190684|191417626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS ADHD Index Subscale within group|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723864|NCT00190684|191417626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||p<|0||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Cognitive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||p<0.001
95723865|NCT00190684|191417626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Hyperactive Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||0.026
95723866|NCT00190684|191417626|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||p-value is for CPRS Oppositional Subscale|Wilcoxon signed-rank test|This test is for a significance of a location shift from zero of the change from baseline within a treatment group.||Tested was the null hypothesis that there would be no statistically significant difference between baseline and endpoint.||||<0.001
95723867|NCT00078819|191417632|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
95723868|NCT00078819|191417633|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
95723869|NCT00078819|191417634|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
95723870|NCT00078819|191417635|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Van Elteren test|Two-sided van Elteren's test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
95723871|NCT00078819|191417636|SUPERIORITY|The significance levels for primary and secondary efficacy end points were controlled at 0.05 with the use of a sequential testing scheme in this order: PASI 75, PASI 50, a physician's global assessment of clear or almost clear, percentage improvement from baseline in CDLQI, and PASI 90.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by age group||||||<0.0001
95723872|NCT00370396|191417646|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Standardized asymptotic 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference \[Synflorix-Synflorix minus Prevenar-Prevenar\] in terms of percentages of subjects reporting rectal fever \>39.0°C was computed.|Difference in percentage|-4.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.85|-0.21||||||Analysis aimed at demonstrating the non-inferiority of Synflorix™ vs Prevenar™ vaccine, both co-administered with Infanrix hexa™ vaccine, in terms of post-immunization febrile reactions with rectal fever \> 39.0°C.||-0.21|-11.85|
95723873|NCT02340078|191417693|SUPERIORITY||Subjects % with difference in VAS ≥ 10mm|0.9516|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|0.99||||||||0.99|0.87|
95723874|NCT02731833|191417694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square (LS) Mean Difference|-0.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.505|-0.3|||ANCOVA|Change from baseline in Schiff Sensitivity Score as response, treatment as factor and baseline Schiff sensitivity score as a covariate.|Difference is first named dentifrice minus second named dentifrice such that a negative difference favours first named dentifrice.|Statistical analyses was conducted under the null hypothesis (H0) of no difference between treatments versus the alternate hypothesis (H1) of a difference between treatments.||-0.300|-0.505|<0.0001
95723875|NCT02176642|191417710|NON_INFERIORITY|We estimated that women in the placebo group would have mean reduction of 3 UUI episodes per day. Assuming 50% improvement in UUI episodes per day is a clinically significant improvement, we estimated the experimental group would have a mean reduction of 4.5 UUI episodes per day with a SD of 1.5 UUI episodes per day. To detect such a difference with 80% power and alpha 0.05, we would need 88 participants for our analysis. To allow for a 12% dropout rate, our goal was to enroll 100 women.||||||0.2|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2
95723876|NCT02176642|191417711|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4
95723877|NCT02176642|191417712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.48|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.48
95723878|NCT02176642|191417713|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.26
95723879|NCT02176642|191417714|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95723880|NCT02176642|191417715|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95723881|NCT02176642|191417716|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.44
95723882|NCT02176642|191417717|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.73|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.73
95723883|NCT02176642|191417718|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.94
95723884|NCT00295620|191417722|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.425|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.11|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a DFS event||1.11|0.79|0.425
95723885|NCT00295620|191417723|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.02||||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.25|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a death event||1.25|0.83|0.867
95723886|NCT00295620|191417724|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.35||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.84|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of a fracture||1.84|1.00|0.052
95723887|NCT00295620|191417725|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.06||||0.678|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.38|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 yerars Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of secondary carcinoma||1.38|0.81|0.678
95723888|NCT00295620|191417726|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.531|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.77|||Log Rank|||Arm A: Anastrozole for 2 years Arm B: Anastrozole for 5 years Null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two treatment arms in the probability of the occurrence of contralateral mammacarcinoma||1.77|0.75|0.531
95723889|NCT01625286|191417769|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.308|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.6|1.06||2-sided p-value|Regression, Cox|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.06|0.60|0.308
95723890|NCT01625286|191417770|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.9||||0.081|TWO_SIDED|80.0|-17.1|-0.8||1-sided p-value|ANCOVA|||||-0.8|-17.1|0.081
95723891|NCT01625286|191417776|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.53||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.93|2.54||1-sided p-value|Regression, Logistic|including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||2.54|0.93|0.139
95723892|NCT01625286|191417777|SUPERIORITY|A hazard ratio \< 1 favours AZD5363|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77||||0.482|TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.48|1.24||2-sided p-value|Log Rank|Cox PH model including treatment and PIK3CA status as factors/covariates||||1.24|0.48|0.482
95723893|NCT00301873|191417795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.107|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0855||0.2212||95.0||||The p-value is a test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline baseline steroid use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression.||||.2212
95723894|NCT00301873|191417795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2357|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1091||0.0413||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 6 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 27 patients with follow-up at 6 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anticonvulsant use and bone mass density at 6 months using linear regression||||.0413
95723895|NCT00301873|191417795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|-0.232|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1029||0.0418||95.0||||this p-value is at test of whether the slope of the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between baseline steroid use and BMD change at 12 months (outcome).||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline steroid use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.0418
95723896|NCT00301873|191417795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Slope|0.2123|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1209||0.1026||95.0||||the p-value is a test of whether the slope ofl the regression line is non-zero.|Regression, Linear|The linear regression assesses the relationship between anticonvulsant use and BMD change at 12 months.||59 patients were accrued to the study. The 19 patients with follow-up at 12 months are included in an analysis to assess the association between baseline anti-convulsant use and bone mass density at 12 months using linear regression||||.1026
95723897|NCT00331773|191417835|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|This trial was designed to establish with 90% power and a two-sided significance level of 0.05 that Arm 2 (Hypofractionated 3D-CRT) results in a 5-year DFS that is not lower than Arm 1 by more than 7.65% (hazard ratio \[HR\] , 1.52). Patients analyzed according to assignment, with time-to event duration originating at random assignment. DFS distributions calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment efficacy for DFS was tested by comparing cause-specific hazards with the log-rank statistic.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.85|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.14|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.14|0.64|<0.001
95723898|NCT00331773|191417838|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Patients who died without biochemical failure were considered as competing risk at the time of death. Patients alive without biochemical failure at last follow-up were censored at that date. Estimates were calculated using cumulative risk and non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.67. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.77|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.17|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.17|0.51|< 0.001
95723899|NCT00331773|191417839|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Non-inferiority was assessed against a HR of 1.54, translated from a 5% difference in overall survival with 90% overall survival in the Conventional 3D-CRT arm. The log-rank test was used with a two-sided p-value of 0.05.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.95||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.64|1.41|||Log Rank||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|||1.41|0.64|0.008
95723900|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.46||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed.||1.46|0.73|0.85
95723901|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|5.81||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||5.81|0.29|0.72
95723902|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.99||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.21||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference Arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.21|0.82|0.95
95723903|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.36||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|2.74||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Acute GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.74|0.67|0.39
95723904|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.59||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.06||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.06|1.22|0.005
95723905|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.55||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.99||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GI toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||2.99|0.80|0.19
95723906|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.31||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|1.61||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 2 vs ≥ grade 2. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||1.61|1.07|0.009
95723907|NCT00331773|191417840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.56||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|3.18||2-sided|Regression, Logistic||Reference arm = Conventional 3D-CRT|Late GU toxicity rates were tabulated and dichotomized as \< grade 3 vs ≥ grade 3. To evaluate the differences by treatment arm, 2 X 2 subtables were formed and relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% CIs were computed.||3.18|0.76|0.22
95723908|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 6 months||||0.72
95723909|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.056|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 6 months||||0.056
95723910|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.99|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 6 months||||0.99
95723911|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.49|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 6 months||||0.49
95723912|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 12 months||||0.0037
95723913|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.062|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 12 months||||0.062
95723914|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.94|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 12 months||||0.94
95723915|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.93|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 12 months||||0.93
95723916|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 24 months||||0.12
95723917|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.81|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 24 months||||0.81
95723918|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.69|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 24 months||||0.69
95723919|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.68|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 24 months||||0.68
95723920|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.071|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Bowel Domain at 60 months||||0.071
95723921|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.047|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Urinary Domain at 60 months||||0.047
95723922|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Sexual Domain at 60 months||||0.4
95723923|NCT00331773|191417841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||EPIC Hormonal Domain at 60 months||||0.91
95723924|NCT00331773|191417843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.55|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 6 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.55
95723925|NCT00331773|191417843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 12 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.29
95723926|NCT00331773|191417843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 24 months was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.23
95723927|NCT00331773|191417843|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.028|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The distribution of HSCL-25 at 60 months (5 years) was calculated, and Wilcoxon test statistics were used to test the null hypothesis that responses are the same across the two treatment arms versus the alternative hypothesis that they are different. Significance level = 0.0125, two-sided test.||||0.028
95723928|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.037|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||Baseline VAS score||||0.037
95723929|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.12||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Baseline index score||||0.12
95723930|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.7||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month VAS score||||0.70
95723931|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||6-month index score||||0.20
95723932|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.31||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month VAS score||||0.31
95723933|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.19||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||12-month index score||||0.19
95723934|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month VAS score||||0.86
95723935|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.45||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||24-month index score||||0.45
95723936|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.39||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month VAS score||||0.39
95723937|NCT00331773|191417844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.56||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||60-month index score||||0.56
95723938|NCT01872689|191417855|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.98111|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.31064||0.4555|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|3.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||3.57|-1.61|0.4555
95723939|NCT01872689|191417855|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.49998|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.84946||0.5566|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|2.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.17|-1.17|0.5566
95723940|NCT01872689|191417856|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|21.93023|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|21.62248||0.3129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|64.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||64.83|-20.97|0.3129
95723941|NCT01872689|191417856|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.4127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|16.8016||0.2036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.5|11.67|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||11.67|-54.50|0.2036
95723942|NCT01872689|191417858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79||||0.4299|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.41|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.41|0.44|0.4299
95723943|NCT01872689|191417858|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.3751|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|1.24|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.24|0.56|0.3751
95723944|NCT01872689|191417859|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.54171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.05201||0.6075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|2.62|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.62|-1.54|0.6075
95723945|NCT01872689|191417859|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.65206||0.7803|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|1.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||1.47|-1.10|0.7803
95723946|NCT01872689|191417861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.0972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.39|1.09|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.09|0.39|0.0972
95723947|NCT01872689|191417861|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.01||||0.9344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.72|1.42|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.42|0.72|0.9344
95723948|NCT01872689|191417862|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|28.12302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|49.47253||0.5707|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.8|126.04|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||126.04|-69.80|0.5707
95723949|NCT01872689|191417862|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.72972|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|31.68767||0.4934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.65|84.11|||Mixed Models Analysis||Mean Difference = Lebrikizumab - Placebo|Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||84.11|-40.65|0.4934
95723950|NCT01872689|191417863|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-2.10204|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41325||0.3854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.88|2.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.68|-6.88|0.3854
95723951|NCT01872689|191417863|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16313|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.37698||0.9057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.87|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Mixed Linear model comparing Lebrikizumab to Placebo, with assessment as the outcome variable; assessment time by treatment as fixed effects; and participant baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%) and participant by assessment time as random effects with unstructured covariance.||2.55|-2.87|0.9057
95723952|NCT01872689|191417865|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.84||||0.4433|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.54|0.4433
95723953|NCT01872689|191417867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.9366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|5.3|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||5.30|0.21|0.9366
95723954|NCT01872689|191417867|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.45||||0.1346|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.16|1.31|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.31|0.16|0.1346
95723955|NCT01872689|191417869|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89||||0.6815|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.54|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.54|0.52|0.6815
95723956|NCT01872689|191417871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.72||||0.5685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|2.26|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||2.26|0.23|0.5685
95723957|NCT01872689|191417871|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.1976|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|1.23|||Log Rank|||Stratified Analysis: stratified by baseline FVC (\<50%, 50 to 75%, \>75%)||1.23|0.37|0.1976
95723958|NCT03547531|191417894|OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|independent t-test||Null hypothesis: the mean of plaque index between groups are not different|the statistical analysis used in this study is independent t-test|||>0.05
95723959|NCT03547531|191417895|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||>|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||>0.05
95723960|NCT03547531|191417896|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of plaque index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
95723961|NCT03547531|191417897|OTHER|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypotesis: there is no difference of mean of gingival index between groups|this data is analyzed using independent t-test|||<0.05
95723962|NCT02328807|191417930|OTHER||Negative biopsy rate at 6 months after R|0.667|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.223|0.957|||||Two-sided exact confidence interval was calculated using Clopper-Pearson method.|This trail is a single cohort study and no statistical hypothesis test for the primary outcome was planned.||0.957|0.223|
95723963|NCT00423488|191417937|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||least-squares means|-11.5||||0.005||95.0|-19.4|-3.5|||ANOVA|The analysis of variance (ANOVA) model included term of treatment effect. If more than one basal value was available, the latest was used.||||-3.5|-19.4|0.005
95723964|NCT03118765|191417955|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|29.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|21.14|41.0|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||41.00|21.14|
95723965|NCT03118765|191417955|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|57.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|41.37|78.46|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||78.46|41.37|
95723966|NCT03118765|191417955|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|155.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|111.88|216.99|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on CmaxSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on CmaxSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||216.99|111.88|
95723967|NCT03118765|191417956|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|39.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|29.79|52.87|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||52.87|29.79|
95723968|NCT03118765|191417956|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|85.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.43|112.64|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||112.64|64.43|
95723969|NCT03118765|191417956|OTHER|ANOVA|LS mean ratio (%)|211.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|158.8|281.8|||||Relative Bioavailability (%) based on AUC0-tauSS for of GSP304 in comparison to SPIRIVA RESPIMAT|GSP 304 vs SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg comparison for relative bioavailability data based on AUC0-tauSS was tested and the estimated treatment ratios for the treatment comparisons was presented.||281.80|158.80|
95723970|NCT03118765|191417957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.17|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.17|-0.04|0.228
95723971|NCT03118765|191417957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.655|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.08|0.13|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.13|-0.08|0.655
95723972|NCT03118765|191417957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.01||||0.894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.11|||MMRM|||GSP 304 vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.11|-0.10|0.894
95723973|NCT03118765|191417957|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.16|||MMRM|||SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg vs Placebo comparison for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was tested at 0.05 significance level.||0.16|-0.04|0.260
95723974|NCT03118765|191417958|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 108200 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
95723975|NCT03118765|191417958|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 263100 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
95723976|NCT03118765|191417958|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 1 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 438300 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 120300 pg).|||
95723977|NCT03118765|191417959|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 10 μg was (Geo mean: 293700 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
95723978|NCT03118765|191417959|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 20 μg was (Geo mean: 436500 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
95723979|NCT03118765|191417959|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The mean amount of tiotropium excreted in urine over the dosing interval on Day 21 for GSP304 40 μg was (Geo mean: 1249000 pg) and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg was (Geo mean: 620200 pg).|||
95723980|NCT03118765|191417960|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.082% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
95723981|NCT03118765|191417960|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.316% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
95723982|NCT03118765|191417960|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 1.096% on Day 1 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.407% on Day 1|||
95723983|NCT03118765|191417961|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.937% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
95723984|NCT03118765|191417961|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 2.183% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
95723985|NCT03118765|191417961|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 3.123% on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the geometric mean Fe (%) eliminated in urine was 12.4% on Day 21|||
95723986|NCT03118765|191417962|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 2.191 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
95723987|NCT03118765|191417962|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 4.796 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
95723988|NCT03118765|191417962|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 10.2 pg/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean Cmax of tiotropium was 7.327 pg/mL on Day 1.|||
95723989|NCT03118765|191417963|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 8.597 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
95723990|NCT03118765|191417963|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 18.00 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
95723991|NCT03118765|191417963|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 42.69 pg\*h/mL and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, geometric mean AUC0-tau of tiotropium was 19.59 pg\*h/mL on Day 1.|||
95723992|NCT03118765|191417966|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 10 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 0.9536 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
95723993|NCT03118765|191417966|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 20 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 1.998 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
95723994|NCT03118765|191417966|OTHER||||||||||||||||||For GSP304 40 μg, the geometric mean CavSS was 5.083 pg/mL on Day 21 and for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg, the CavSS was 2.403 pg/mL on Day 21|||
95723995|NCT03118765|191417967|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.617 for GSP304 10 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
95723996|NCT03118765|191417967|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.522 for GSP304 20 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
95723997|NCT03118765|191417967|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on AUC of 2.926 for GSP304 40 μg and 2.815 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
95723998|NCT03118765|191417968|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.944 for GSP304 10 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
95723999|NCT03118765|191417968|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 1.808 for GSP304 20 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
95724000|NCT03118765|191417968|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Upon repeat dosing, tiotropium had accumulated by Day 21 with a geometric mean accumulation ratio (Rac) based on Cmax of 2.125 for GSP304 40 μg and 1.929 for SPIRIVA RESPIMAT 5 μg.|||
95724001|NCT03118765|191417969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.04|0.004
95724002|NCT03118765|191417969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
95724003|NCT03118765|191417969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.03|0.007
95724004|NCT03118765|191417969|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.26|0.08|<0.001
95724005|NCT03118765|191417970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.28|0.08|0.001
95724006|NCT03118765|191417970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.25|0.05|0.005
95724007|NCT03118765|191417970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.01|0.032
95724008|NCT03118765|191417970|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.07|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.27|0.07|0.001
95724009|NCT03118765|191417971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.166|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.166
95724010|NCT03118765|191417971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.04|0.182
95724011|NCT03118765|191417971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.17|-0.07|0.401
95724012|NCT03118765|191417971|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.03||||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.09|0.574
95724013|NCT03118765|191417972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.493|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|-0.10|0.493
95724014|NCT03118765|191417972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.14|-0.17|0.864
95724015|NCT03118765|191417972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.15|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.15|-0.16|0.978
95724016|NCT03118765|191417972|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05||||0.5|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|-0.10|0.500
95724017|NCT03118765|191417973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.04|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.20|0.04|0.003
95724018|NCT03118765|191417973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.22|0.06|0.001
95724019|NCT03118765|191417973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.21|0.06|0.001
95724020|NCT03118765|191417973|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.16|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.23|0.08|<0.001
95724021|NCT03118765|191417974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
95724022|NCT03118765|191417974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.09||||0.061|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.18|-0.00|0.061
95724023|NCT03118765|191417974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.16|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.16|-0.02|0.140
95724024|NCT03118765|191417974|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.15||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.24|0.06|0.002
95727850|NCT04136626|191425179|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.0475||||0.0871|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3977|0.3027||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons because this was the pre-specified primary endpoint comparison. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.3027|-4.3977|0.0871
95724025|NCT02643966|191417978|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|1.3||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||2.1|0.3|0.005
95724026|NCT02643966|191417978|OTHER|We compared DBT cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS cancer yield per 1,000 for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|1.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|1.5||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||1.5|0.4|<0.001
95724027|NCT02643966|191417979|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|simple proportions|17.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|31.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added cancer detection rate (CDR) from US of 1.1/1,000. Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||31.1|4.4|0.005
95724028|NCT02643966|191417979|OTHER|We compared DBT true positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS true positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 and 3.|simple proportions|13.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.9|22.3||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||The primary unit of analysis was the screening examination. A sample size of 16,700 screens (6,200 women, estimating 8%-10% loss to follow-up each year) was expected to provide 82% power to identify an added CDR from US of 1.1/1,000.Screens were included for analysis if the patient was diagnosed with breast cancer or at least 10.5-month imaging or clinical follow-up (ie, at end of study participation) showed no evidence of breast cancer.||22.3|4.9|< 0.001
95724029|NCT02643966|191417981|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Year/Screen 1.|Slope|4.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.8|5.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||5.1|3.8|< 0.001
95724030|NCT02643966|191417981|OTHER|We compared DBT false positive findings for first observer (usual care) vs DBT and WBUS false positive findings for first observer for Years/Screens 2 \& 3.|simple proportions|3.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|4.1||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|nonparametric bootstrap approach|The 95% CIs for differences were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap approach on the basis of 10,000 replicates with women as resampling units||||4.1|3.3|< 0.001
95724031|NCT01493531|191417982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.41|0.23|<0.0001
95724032|NCT01493531|191417982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|0.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.52|0.34|<0.0001
95724033|NCT01493531|191417983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.88||||0.5716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.37|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.37|0.57|0.5716
95724034|NCT01493531|191417983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.93||||0.7454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.45|||Negative Binomial Regression|||||1.45|0.60|0.7454
95724035|NCT01493531|191417984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.02||||0.8466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.2|-0.24|0.8466
95724036|NCT01493531|191417984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.06||||0.6301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.17|-0.29|0.6301
95724037|NCT01946282|191417985|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95724038|NCT01946282|191417985|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.75|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.75
95724039|NCT01946282|191417985|EQUIVALENCE|Assuming a FIT return rate of 29% for the outreach only group at an a=0.05, we estimated more than 90% power to detect an absolute difference greater than 5% when using a chi-square test of proportions to compare patients who received any incentive ($5 or $10) compared with patients who received outreach only.||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||.080
95724040|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.070
95724041|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.8|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.80
95724042|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.60
95724043|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.31
95724044|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.82
95724045|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|Based on design, at a significance level of 0.05 group size was set to detect an minimum absolute difference in return rate of 10%, while maintaining more than 90% power. Baseline return rates were projected per group using prior study data: 29% for the outreach only group, 45% in the $5 incentive group, and 53% in the $10 incentive group.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
95724046|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|We estimated needing 545 observations per incentive group to achieve power necessary to detect at least a 10% absolute difference in FIT return rate between patients who received the $5 incentive versus patients who received the $10 incentive, with assumed rates of 45% in the $5 incentive group and 53% in the $10 incentive group, a=0.05, and power=90%.||||||0.033|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.033
95724047|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95724048|NCT01946282|191417986|EQUIVALENCE|||||||0.184|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.184
95724049|NCT03070431|191418020|SUPERIORITY|It was assumed that radiotherapy with 5x4 Gy results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and an increase by 20% is clinically relevant when using 5x5 Gy. For comparison of 5x5 Gy and a historical control (5x4 Gy), it was assumed that it can be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test (2-sided significance level of 5%, power of 79%) if 40 patients treated with 5x5 Gy and 400 patients of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison, assuming 6-month LPFS rates of 87% and 67%.|Risk Difference (RD)|20.0|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||historical control group treated with 5 x 4 Gy|"In a prospective study, 6-month LPFS rates were 86% after longer-course (mainly 3Gyx10) and 67% after short-course radiotherapy (mainly 4Gyx5) \[Rades D, et al., Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;73:228-34.\]. For sample size calculations, it was assumed that conventional radiotherapy with 4Gyx5 results in 6-month LPFS of 67% and that an increase by 20% is clinically relevant and realistic with 5Gyx5. A sample size of 40 eligible patients was required for the phase 2 trial assuming that that 6-month LPFS would be 87% and estimated with a precision of +/-20% expressed as the half length of the associated two-sided confidence interval (95%), and power of \>=80%.~For comparison of phase 2 cohort and historical control group, it was assumed that this could be performed with a simple Pearson-Chi-Square test using a two-sided significance level of 5% (10%) and a power of 79% (86%) if 40 patients received 5Gyx5 and N=400 of the control group qualified for Propensity-Score adjusted comparison."|||<0.05
95724050|NCT01749033|191418064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.76|||||||Chi-squared|||We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.76
95724051|NCT01749033|191418066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.02||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared||The reported p value was calculated.|We planned a sample size of 429 to achieve a 80% power to detect an effect size difference of w=0.15 using 2 degrees of freedom chi-square test with a significance level (alpha) of .05.||||.05
95724052|NCT01039584|191418100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with therapeutic cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure. Therapeutic cure was defined as having both a mycological cure and a clinical cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-9.1|12.3|||Wald's method|||||12.3|-9.1|
95724053|NCT01039584|191418101|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with clinicl cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure.|Yates continuity correction|1.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-7.3|12.8|||Wald's method|||||12.8|-7.3|
95724054|NCT01039584|191418102|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The efficacy measure was the proportion of subjects with mycological cure at Visit 3/Test-of-Cure|Yates continuity correction|1.5||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.7|9.4|||Wald's method|||||9.4|-11.7|0.05
95724055|NCT01890785|191418120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.708|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.655|0.766||||||||0.766|0.655|
95724056|NCT01890785|191418120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.918|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.849|0.992||||||||0.992|0.849|
95724057|NCT01890785|191418121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.641|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.582|0.707||||||||0.707|0.582|
95724058|NCT01890785|191418121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.828|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.752|0.912||||||||0.912|0.752|
95724059|NCT01890785|191418122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.937|1.004||||||||1.004|0.937|
95724060|NCT01890785|191418122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.944|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.912|0.977||||||||0.977|0.912|
95724061|NCT01890785|191418123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.971|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.945|0.998||||||||0.998|0.945|
95724062|NCT01890785|191418123|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Ratio of geometric least squares means|0.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.944|0.997||||||||0.997|0.944|
95728982|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.2||||0.103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|9.2||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, back pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline back pain score as the covariate.||9.20|-0.80|0.103
95724063|NCT03001011|191418124|SUPERIORITY||Median difference (Renvela - Placebo)|-0.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||Threshold for statistical significance at 0.05.|Wilcoxon rank sum test||Renvela Vs. Placebo|A hierarchical testing procedure was used to control type I error \& handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in order outcome measures (OM) are reported. The hierarchical testing sequence continued only when previous OM was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||||<0.0001
95724064|NCT03567239|191418138|OTHER|"The PIADS is broken into 3 subgroups - Competence, Adaptability, and Self-Esteem. The minimum possible score is -3 and the maximum possible score is 3 for each subgroup - with positive 3 being the best. The 7-Point Likert scale was used in response to the question The device provided increased my ability to … in relation to the custom need they had. A response of 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree."|||||||||||||||||Median values: Overall = 2.42, Competence = 2.58, Adaptability = 2.33, Self-Esteem = 2.00, Likert = 7|||
95724065|NCT03567239|191418139|OTHER|||||||||||||||||The NASA Task Load Index ranges from 1 to 21 with the lower the score the better.|Median vales: Overall = 4.83, Mental demand = 11, Physical demand = 4, Temporal demand = 6, Performance = 3, Effort = 3, Frustration = 5.|||
95724066|NCT03567239|191418140|OTHER|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.||||||||||||||||The QUEST (Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology) evaluates a patient's satisfaction with various assistive technologies. It has two subgroups, Device and Service on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best score.|Median QUEST scores: Overall = 4.33, Device = 4.38, Services = 4.25.|||
95724067|NCT04355767|191418144|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event. The trial required a sample size of 900 patients to detect an absolute between-group difference of 10 percentage points (the minimum difference that we considered to be clinically important) with a power of 85%.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 1.9 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -6.0 to 9.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.68. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
95724068|NCT04355767|191418144|SUPERIORITY||Risk Difference (RD)|2.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|10.4|||||Risk difference after adjustment for age, sex, symptom duration.|Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.||10.4|-5.9|
95724069|NCT04355767|191418145|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Analysis is of patients with a disease-progression event.|A Bayesian framework was used to calculate a risk difference of 3.0 percentage points (placebo group minus convalescent-plasma group) with a 95% credible interval of -4.9 to 10.8. The posterior probability of superiority was calculated to be 0.76. Efficacy was defined as a posterior probability of 0.975 or more that the proportion of patients with outcome events was higher in the placebo group.|||
95724070|NCT04355767|191418147|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.17||||||||1.17|0.69|
95724071|NCT04355767|191418148|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|1.1||||||||1.1|-0.4|
95724072|NCT04583592|191418169|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.787||||||\<0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.787
95724073|NCT05788237|191418201|OTHER||GMR|0.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.662|1.062||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.062|0.662|
95724074|NCT05788237|191418201|OTHER||GMR|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.614|1.013||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.013|0.614|
95724075|NCT05788237|191418202|OTHER||GMR|0.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.632|1.044||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Wisconsin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.044|0.632|
95724076|NCT05788237|191418202|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|0.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.567|0.957||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||0.957|0.567|
95724077|NCT05788237|191418202|OTHER||GMR|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.741|1.181||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.181|0.741|
95724078|NCT05788237|191418202|OTHER||GMR|0.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.707|1.174||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV combination to RSVpreF alone.||1.174|0.707|
95724079|NCT05788237|191418203|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.339||||||GMR for RSV A: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) combination to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.339|0.820|
95724080|NCT05788237|191418203|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.833|1.352||||||GMR for RSV B: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.352|0.833|
95724081|NCT05788237|191418204|OTHER||GMR|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.875|1.614||||||GMR for HAI: H1N1 A/Sydney: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.614|0.875|
95724082|NCT05788237|191418204|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.473||||||GMR for HAI: H3N2 A/Darwin: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.473|0.867|
95724083|NCT05788237|191418204|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.849|1.383||||||GMR for HAI: B/Austria: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.383|0.849|
95724084|NCT05788237|191418204|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.866|1.392||||||GMR for HAI: B/Phuket: RSVpreF + qIRV 1.0 mL (Group 1) to RSVpreF + qIRV 0.5 mL (Group 2)||1.392|0.866|
95724085|NCT01963676|191418219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from Day 5 to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the changes in the AHRS score from baseline to 5 days between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 5 days-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.48
95724086|NCT01963676|191418220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86|TWO_SIDED|||||There was no adjustment because we just performed one comparison|t-test, 2 sided|Difference from 1 Month to Baseline was compared between the sham and the tDCS group using an unpaired t-test. Degrees of freedom: df = 24||"The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between the AHRS score changes from baseline to 1month between the groups:~H0: μ1 = μ2 μ1: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for tDCS group (n=13) μ2: mean(difference 1 month-baseline) for sham group (n=13)"||||0.86
95724087|NCT03053622|191418221|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.996|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.807|1.23||||||||1.23|0.807|
95724088|NCT03053622|191418221|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.729|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.591|0.898||||||||0.898|0.591|
95724089|NCT03053622|191418221|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.422|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.343|0.518||||||||0.518|0.343|
95724090|NCT03053622|191418221|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.307|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.249|0.379||||||||0.379|0.249|
95724091|NCT03053622|191418222|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.986|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.81|1.2||||||||1.20|0.810|
95724092|NCT03053622|191418222|OTHER||Ratio of Geometric Least Squares Means|0.753|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.619|0.916||||||||0.916|0.619|
95724093|NCT03053622|191418223|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.1|48.4||||||||48.40|-0.10|
95724094|NCT03053622|191418223|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.25|23.97|||||"In this outcome, the median difference is not calculated by subtracting two observations, it is derived by Hodges-Lehmann approach to estimating location shift. This method will give the value of 0.25."|||23.97|-0.25|
95724095|NCT00782275|191418237|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.081|||||||exact binomial test|||The regimen was evaluated against an historical control with null and alternative 4-month PFS rates of 50% and 70%, respectively. With the final sample size of 40 eligible patients and using the same operating characteristics (alpha and beta 10%), the decision rule changes such that if 25 or more patients of 40 are alive and progression-free at 4 months then this regimen is considered promising.||||0.081
95724096|NCT04378010|191418246|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.788||0.454|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.479|7.239|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||7.239|-3.479|0.454
95724097|NCT04378010|191418246|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.439|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.553||0.848|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.458|4.579|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||4.579|-5.458|0.848
95724098|NCT04378010|191418257|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.718|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.052||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.342|2.906|||ANCOVA|||||2.906|-26.342|0.114
95724099|NCT04378010|191418257|OTHER||LS mean difference|-11.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.879||0.099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.723|2.2|||ANCOVA|||||2.200|-24.723|0.099
95724100|NCT04378010|191418258|OTHER||LS mean difference|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.331||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.365|1.736|||ANCOVA|||||1.736|0.365|0.003
95724101|NCT04378010|191418258|OTHER||LS mean difference|0.591|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.315||0.064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.035|1.216|||ANCOVA|||||1.216|-0.035|0.064
95724102|NCT04378010|191418262|OTHER||LS mean difference|12.986|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.472||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.608|25.363|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||25.363|0.608|0.040
95724103|NCT04378010|191418262|OTHER||LS mean difference|7.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.724||0.242|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.997|19.418|||Mixed model repeated measures|||||19.418|-4.997|0.242
95724104|NCT01042977|191418296|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0489|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.3||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate for each endpoint|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-0.30|-0.50|<0.0001
95724105|NCT01042977|191418297|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|7.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|9.8||Significant at alpha=0.025 (2-sided). A hierarchical closed testing procedure was used to control Type I error across the primary \& key secondary objectives|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|with age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event as stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||9.8|4.3|<0.0001
95724106|NCT01042977|191418298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1957|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-1.54||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.54|-2.31|<0.0001
95724107|NCT01042977|191418299|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.149|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.4|17.8||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|Regression, Logistic|Based on methodology of Zhang, Tsiatis \& Davidian and Davidian, Tsiatis, Zhang \& Lu, with adjustment for baseline total body weight and age stratum||H0: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: proportion(treat) minus proportion(placebo) =/= 0||17.8|9.4|<0.0001
95724108|NCT01042977|191418300|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7977||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.28|-1.15||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.15|-4.28|0.0007
95724109|NCT01042977|191418301|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7983||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.59|-1.46||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.46|-4.59|0.0002
95724110|NCT01042977|191418302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.9746||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.35|-1.53||Significant at alpha=0.05 (2-sided). Primary and key secondary endpoints are tested following a hierarchical closed testing procedure|ANCOVA|with treatment group and stratum as effects and baseline value as covariate|with stratum = age-by-insulin use-by-time from most recent qualifying CV event|H0: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) = 0 versus the alternative HA: mean(treat) minus mean(placebo) =/= 0||-1.53|-5.35|0.0004
95724111|NCT02499354|191418303|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2742|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||0.2742
95724112|NCT02499354|191418304|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.55
95724113|NCT01677910|191418307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.283|-0.337|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.337|-1.283|< 0.001
95724114|NCT01677910|191418307|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.833|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.292|-0.374|||Wilcoxon rank sum||Mean difference is calculated as LX1606-Placebo|Primary analysis used a blocked 2-sample Wilcoxon rank sum statistic stratified by the urinary 5-HIAA stratification at randomization.||-0.374|-1.292|< 0.001
95724115|NCT02143947|191418313|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
95724116|NCT02143947|191418314|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.036|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||= .036
95724117|NCT02143947|191418315|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||> .10
95724118|NCT02143947|191418316|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||< .05
95724119|NCT04132232|191418338|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.06
95724120|NCT00755937|191418353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|66.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
95724121|NCT00755937|191418354|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage (no inferential test)|72.5||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
95724122|NCT00755937|191418355|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
95724123|NCT00755937|191418356|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|60.3||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
95724124|NCT00755937|191418357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|64.8||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
95724125|NCT00755937|191418358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage (no inferential test)|72.1||||||||||There were no comparisons between groups as this was a single-arm observational study.||||||||
95724126|NCT02117479|191418361|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.256||||||||1.256|0.747|
95724127|NCT02117479|191418362|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.827|1.348||||||||1.348|0.827|
95724128|NCT02629133|191418367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.560
95724129|NCT02629133|191418367|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.76|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Differences between conditions in the change in % heavy drinking/using days from baseline to 6 months||||0.760
95724130|NCT02629133|191418368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.026|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.026
95724131|NCT02629133|191418368|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Distributions were badly skewed, and the sample was too small for ZINB or other analyses. Therefore, we analyzed differences between conditions in changes in services/day over time (i.e., from baseline to 6 month post-shelter follow-up) using the Mann-Whitney U.||||0.029
95724132|NCT02629133|191418369|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.5||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|13.5||We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to predict 3-mo and 6-mo post-shelter scores from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.5|-4.5|0.325
95724133|NCT02629133|191418370|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.19||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|2.98||We used HLM to predict Cyber-Stalking Scores across 3 and 6 month post shelter follow-up points from treatment condition, using baseline score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher scores represent more cyber-stalking over follow-up.|||2.98|-0.61|0.192
95724134|NCT02629133|191418371|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.43||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.24|0.38||We conducted HLM predicting SBC Total scores at 3 and 6 months post-shelter release from treatment condition, using baseline SBC score as a covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||Higher is better (reflecting more safety behaviors used).|||0.38|-3.24|0.119
95724135|NCT01965535|191418403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||difference in proportions|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|8.6|||||The 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) on the difference in SVR12 rates between the 2 treatment groups was constructed based on stratum-adjusted Mantel-Haenszel (MH) proportions.|A sample size of 75 subjects in each treatment group would provide 80% power to detect a difference of 15% in SVR12 rates (80% vs 95%) between the 2 treatment groups.||8.6|-5.9|
95724136|NCT00386100|191418419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.49|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.669|-0.305||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline value with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.305|-0.669|<0.0001
95724137|NCT00386100|191418420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.30|-0.69|<0.0001
95724138|NCT00386100|191418421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.18||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.18|2.46||Hb1AC \<= 6.5%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an HbA1c \<= 6.5% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin.|||2.46|1.18|0.0046
95724139|NCT00386100|191418421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.75|3.81||Hb1AC \< 7%|Regression, Logistic|Logistic reggression with terms for treatment, region, gender, and baseline Hb1AC with LOCF from Week 32|Odds of having an HbA1c \<7% at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||3.81|1.75|<0.0001
95724140|NCT00386100|191418422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.15|||<|0.0001||95.0|-1.54|-0.77|||Repeated measures analysis|Terms for baseline, region, treatment, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, gender, time, and treatment by time interaction|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on repeated measures analysis model|||-0.77|-1.54|<0.0001
95724141|NCT00386100|191418423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.07|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.425|-0.71||No adjustment for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32 for withdrawn participants or missing values|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.710|-1.425|<0.001
95724142|NCT00386100|191418424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.47|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.94|6.81||FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac strata, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=6.1 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||6.81|2.94|<0.0001
95724143|NCT00386100|191418424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.25|4.92||FPG \<=7 mmol/l|Regression, Logistic|Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening Hb1Ac, and baseline with LOCF from Week 32.|Odds of having an FPG \<=7 mmol/l at Week 80 on Avandamet compared to Metformin|||4.92|2.25|<0.0001
95724144|NCT00386100|191418425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|0.74|||Regression, Cox|Cox proportional hazard regression with terms for treatment, region, baseline Hb1Ac strata, and gender||||0.74|0.45|<0.0001
95724145|NCT00386100|191418426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.97||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.522|9.526||Total cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||9.526|2.522|0.0006
95724146|NCT00386100|191418426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.71||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.486|15.304||LDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||15.304|2.486|0.056
95724147|NCT00386100|191418426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.58||||0.072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.232|5.47||HDL cholesterol. No adjustment for multiple comparison. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||5.470|-0.232|0.072
95724148|NCT00386100|191418426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.743||||0.835|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.056|8.035||Triglycerides. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||8.035|-6.056|0.835
95724149|NCT00386100|191418427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|102.24|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|79.23|128.19||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||128.19|79.23|<0.0001
95724150|NCT00386100|191418428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-8.2||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.04|2.82||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||2.82|-18.04|0.1380
95724151|NCT00386100|191418429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-11.308||||0.0342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.617|-0.899||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||-0.899|-20.617|0.0342
95724152|NCT00386100|191418430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-33.7||||0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.666|-0.99||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline.|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.99|-56.666|0.0042
95724153|NCT00386100|191418431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.229||||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.359|-0.099||No adjustment for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and baseline|AVM mean change from baseline minus MET mean change from baseline based on ANCOVA model|||-0.099|-0.359|0.0006
95724154|NCT00386100|191418432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.4||||0.7148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.87|16.34||HOMA-B. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||16.34|-9.87|0.7148
95724155|NCT00386100|191418432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percent difference from metformin|31.14|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.82|49.78||HOMA-S. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with log (value) minus log (baseline \[BL\]) as dependent variable. Terms for treatment, region, gender, pre-screening HbA1c strata, and log (BL)||||49.78|14.82|<0.001
95724156|NCT00386100|191418433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|80.85||||0.319|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.035|240.744|||Repeated measures analysis|Repeated measures analysis with terms for baseline, region, treatment, gender, pre-screening Hb1AC, time, and treatment by time interaction||||240.744|-79.035|0.319
95724157|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|-0.9||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.9|-3.5|0.0012
95724158|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.6||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.6||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-2.7|0.0031
95724159|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.1||||0.0308|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-2.0|0.0308
95724160|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0954|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.3|-3.7|0.0954
95724161|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.9||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7|-1.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.2|-4.7|0.0015
95724162|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.3||||0.0045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|-0.7||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-3.9|0.0045
95724163|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3|-1.0||Female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-3.3|0.0005
95724164|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|1.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.2|-4.6|0.2363
95724165|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.3||||0.0161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|-0.6||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-5.9|0.0161
95724166|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.0338|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.9|-0.2||Postmenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.9|0.0338
95724167|NCT00386100|191418435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.6||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|-1.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-1.0|-4.1|0.0020
95724168|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.7||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.7|-2.3|0.0005
95724169|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.2||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-1.7|0.0110
95724170|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.6||||0.0618|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.0||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-1.1|0.0618
95724171|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-0.3||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.3|0.0110
95724172|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.0272|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.1||Male population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.9|0.0272
95724173|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8||||0.0337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.1||Male population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.1|-1.6|0.0337
95724174|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.7||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|-0.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-3.1|0.0152
95724175|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-2.4|0.0570
95724176|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-2.2||||0.0296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|-0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.3|0.0296
95724177|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.0155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|-0.5||Premenopausal female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.5|-4.4|0.0155
95724178|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|1.0||Premenopausal female population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.7|0.5870
95724179|NCT00386100|191418436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.1854|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.6|0.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-3.6|0.1854
95724180|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.9||||0.0038|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.6||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.6|-3.2|0.0038
95724181|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0134|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-0.3||Overall population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.3|-2.7|0.0134
95724182|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.0967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.1||Overall population, Week 20. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.1|-1.5|0.0967
95724183|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.5||||0.0512|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.0|0.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.0|0.0512
95724184|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.4||||0.033|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6|-0.2||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||-0.2|-4.6|0.0330
95724185|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.8||||0.0547|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|0.0||Female population, Week 56. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.0|-3.7|0.0547
95724186|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-3.1||||0.0613|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.3|0.2||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-6.3|0.0613
95724187|NCT00386100|191418437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-2.5||||0.1369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|1.7||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.7|-3.9|0.1369
95724188|NCT00386100|191418438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.126|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|0.2||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.2|-1.7|0.1260
95724189|NCT00386100|191418438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.7||||0.3117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.7||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.7|-2.2|0.3117
95724190|NCT00386100|191418438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.1776|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.4||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.4|-2.2|0.1776
95724191|NCT00386100|191418438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-1.2||||0.2259|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.8||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-3.2|0.2259
95724192|NCT00386100|191418438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|1.1||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-2.8|0.3840
95724193|NCT00386100|191418439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.6102|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|1.1||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.1|-1.9|0.6102
95724194|NCT00386100|191418439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.9||||0.3445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-2.9|0.3445
95724195|NCT00386100|191418439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0||||0.9735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|2.3||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.3|-2.4|0.9735
95724196|NCT00386100|191418439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.4||||0.4861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8|2.9||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||2.9|-5.8|0.4861
95724197|NCT00386100|191418439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.3||||0.877|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5|4.0||Postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||4.0|-3.5|0.8770
95724198|NCT00386100|191418440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.7015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|1.0||Overall population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-1.5|0.7015
95724199|NCT00386100|191418440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2||||0.6767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|1.0||Male population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.0|-0.7|0.6767
95724200|NCT00386100|191418440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.0||||0.4199|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|1.5||Female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||1.5|-3.4|0.4199
95724201|NCT00386100|191418440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-5.5||||0.2526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.4|5.4||Premenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||5.4|-16.4|0.2526
95724202|NCT00386100|191418440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.5||||0.4153|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|0.8||postmenopausal female population, Week 80. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||0.8|-1.8|0.4153
95724203|NCT00386100|191418441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.168||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.066|1.417||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.417|-1.066|0.7895
95724204|NCT00386100|191418441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.745||||0.4155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.064|2.587||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.587|-1.064|0.4155
95724205|NCT00386100|191418441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.452||||0.6223|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.253|1.382||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.382|-2.253|0.6223
95724206|NCT00386100|191418441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.638||||0.5908|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.043|1.826||Premenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||1.826|-3.043|0.5908
95724207|NCT00386100|191418441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.155||||0.9154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.037|2.814||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||2.814|-3.037|0.9154
95724208|NCT00386100|191418442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.467||||0.8682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.785|20.818||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.818|-14.785|0.8682
95724209|NCT00386100|191418442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.328||||0.974|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.308|23.214||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||23.214|-18.308|0.9740
95724210|NCT00386100|191418442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|2.986||||0.8378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.997|37.735||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||37.735|-22.997|0.8378
95724211|NCT00386100|191418442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.19||||0.7889|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.839|108.422||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||108.422|-43.839|0.7889
95724212|NCT00386100|191418442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.344||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.853|63.935||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||63.935|-34.853|0.8800
95724213|NCT00386100|191418443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.2168||||0.9069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.6057|24.3392||Overall population, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||24.3392|-17.6057|0.9069
95724214|NCT00386100|191418443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-10.1648||||0.5118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.6298|25.3742||Males, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.3742|-35.6298|0.5118
95724215|NCT00386100|191418443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|8.8777||||0.5816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.2636|48.6692||Females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||48.6692|-20.2636|0.5816
95724216|NCT00386100|191418443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-1.0031||||0.9587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.928|52.959||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||52.9590|-35.9280|0.9587
95724217|NCT00386100|191418443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.7614||||0.8337|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4741|67.4901||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||67.4901|-34.4741|0.8337
95724218|NCT00386100|191418444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|7.527||||0.7041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.773|57.892||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||57.892|-26.773|0.7041
95724219|NCT00386100|191418444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|30.211||||0.6403|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.586|341.371||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||341.371|-61.586|0.6403
95724220|NCT00386100|191418444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.929||||0.8474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.015|25.198||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline.||||25.198|-17.015|0.8474
95724221|NCT00386100|191418445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|5.7||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.6|23.6||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.6|-9.6|0.4860
95724222|NCT00386100|191418445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|12.3||||0.3791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.7|46.1||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||46.1|-13.7|0.3791
95724223|NCT00386100|191418445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.0||||0.7065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|27.6||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||27.6|-15.3|0.7065
95724224|NCT00386100|191418445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|32.1||||0.1381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.5|92.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||92.7|-9.5|0.1381
95724225|NCT00386100|191418445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-4.3||||0.7195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.4|22.7||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||22.7|-25.4|0.7195
95724226|NCT00386100|191418446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-3.0||||0.5595|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.3|7.4||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.4|-12.3|0.5595
95724227|NCT00386100|191418446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|1.0||||0.9125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|20.4||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||20.4|-15.3|0.9125
95724228|NCT00386100|191418446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-0.8||||0.9122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|14.5||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.5|-14.0|0.9122
95724229|NCT00386100|191418446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|4.6||||0.7435|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.2|38.7||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||38.7|-21.2|0.7435
95724230|NCT00386100|191418446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-7.5||||0.3897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.0|11.0||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||11.0|-23.0|0.3897
95724231|NCT00386100|191418447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-2.83||||0.5176|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.97|6.06||Overall, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||6.06|-10.97|0.5176
95724232|NCT00386100|191418447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-6.26||||0.362|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.62|7.97||Males, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||7.97|-18.62|0.3620
95724233|NCT00386100|191418447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|0.72||||0.9115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.39|14.48||Females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||14.48|-11.39|0.9115
95724234|NCT00386100|191418447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|-13.51||||0.1956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.35|8.31||Pre-menopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||8.31|-30.35|0.1956
95724235|NCT00386100|191418447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percent difference from metformin|3.75||||0.6749|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.09|23.85||Postmenopausal females, Week 80. Log transformed. If the p value was significant at Week 80 a comparison was done at Week 56; if it was significant at Weeks 80 and 56, a comparison was done at Week 20.|ANCOVA|.Based on ANCOVA with terms for treatment, region, pre-screening HbA1c strata, sex, baseline||||23.85|-13.09|0.6749
95724236|NCT00837577|191418448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-0.75|-1.09|<.001
95724237|NCT00837577|191418449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-51.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.3|-40.2||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-40.2|-62.3|<.001
95724238|NCT00837577|191418450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|-22.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.8|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.0|-15.0||Adjusted for other prior antihyperglycemic medications (absence, presence).|Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA model included both baseline and post-baseline measurements as response variables. P-value calculated using least squares mean.||||-15.0|-30.0|<.001
95724239|NCT00919802|191418456|OTHER|||||||0.688|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Global Response Assessment (GRA) scores were obtained 6 and 24 hours post oxytocin or saline administration.||||0.688
95724240|NCT00919802|191418457|OTHER|paired t-test comparison of change in VAR from baseline 6 hours after drug; a change in VAR score was calculated for each subject for each arm and compared using a paired t-test||||||0.7252|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.7252
95724241|NCT00033631|191418471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.2||Two-sided test, significance level = 0.05|Log Rank||Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|The original target sample size was 1520 patients with a requirement of 715 deaths to test the hypothesis of overall survival (OS) efficacy of the 79.2 Gy arm. The trial was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.30 (standard/high-dose) with 90% statistical power at a one-sided significance level of 0.025.||1.2|0.83|0.98
95724242|NCT00033631|191418472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.59|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.7||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test|Reference arm is 70.2 Gy arm||||0.70|0.50|<0.0001
95724243|NCT00033631|191418473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.66||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|1.15|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level is 70.2 Gy arm|||1.15|0.38|0.14
95724244|NCT00033631|191418474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.41||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.66|||Gray's test|Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Reference level = 70.2 Gy arm|||0.66|0.25|0.0001
95724245|NCT00033631|191418475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.01||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Gray's test||Reference level is the 70.2 Gy level|||1.01|0.42|0.051
95724246|NCT00033631|191418476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.29||||||Two-sided significance level = 0.05|Chi-squared|||||||0.29
95724247|NCT00033631|191418477|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0513|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||With an expected percentage of erectile disfunction (ED) at 12 months of 29%, a two-sided significance level of 0.05, and 688 patients per arm provides 90% statistical power to detect a reduction in ED to 19%. This calculation assumes 26% ED at baseline and 80% compliance at 12 months. Only participants with baseline ED are analyzed.||||0.0513
95724248|NCT00033631|191418478|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|Two-sided significance level = 0.05||||||0.59
95724249|NCT00845026|191418484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.184||95.0||||No adjustments were made for multiplicity. All treatment comparisons were evaluated based on a two-sided significance level of 0.05.|Log Rank|||||||0.184
95724250|NCT00065065|191418513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.0||||0.005||95.0|1.5|10.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||10.5|1.5|.005
95724251|NCT02392559|191418540|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-38.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.66|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.54|-31.06|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-31.06|-45.54|< 0.0001
95724252|NCT02392559|191418540|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724253|NCT02392559|191418541|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-42.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.17|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.34|-35.83|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-35.83|-48.34|< 0.0001
95724254|NCT02392559|191418541|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724255|NCT02392559|191418542|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-68.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.3|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.1|-54.0||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|repeated measures model|||||-54.0|-83.1|< 0.0001
95724256|NCT02392559|191418542|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724257|NCT02392559|191418543|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-35.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.41|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.79|-28.3|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-28.30|-41.79|< 0.0001
95724258|NCT02392559|191418543|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724259|NCT02392559|191418544|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-32.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.21|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.82|-26.13|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-26.13|-38.82|< 0.0001
95724260|NCT02392559|191418544|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724261|NCT02392559|191418545|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-30.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.09|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.4|-24.21|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-24.21|-36.40|< 0.0001
95724262|NCT02392559|191418545|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724263|NCT02392559|191418546|SUPERIORITY||treatment difference|-36.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.33|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.97|-29.8|||repeated measures model||Treatment difference uses placebo as the reference.|||-29.80|-42.97|< 0.0001
95724264|NCT02392559|191418546|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001||||||Adjusted p-value based on a combination of sequential testing and the Hochberg procedure to control the overall significance level for all primary and secondary endpoints.|sequential testing/Hochberg procedure|Adjusted p-value is compared to 0.05 to determine statistical significance.||||||< 0.0001
95724265|NCT00204932|191418580|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power analysis was based on test-retest variance of body fat mass measure by DEXA|||||<|0.05||95.0|||||ANOVA|||Analysis of variance to test CLA not equal to placebo||||<0.05
95724266|NCT00204932|191418580|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANOVA|||Pre- post treatment comparison o fat oxidation found that fat oxidation increased in CLA (4 +/- 8 g) and decreased in placebo (-7 +/- 11 g) groups during sleep. after 6 mo of supplementation.||||<0.05
95724267|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.62||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.78|-0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with a intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-leve latent growth curve||For 1-Month Follow-Up, substance use module (SUM) among those who did not view CT Video|||-0.46|-6.78|.03
95724268|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.67||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.1|0.76||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did view the CT video.|||0.76|-4.10|.18
95724269|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.35||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|1.8||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.80|-2.50|0.75
95724270|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.3||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.37|0.77||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-Month follow up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.77|-5.37|0.14
95724271|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.79||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|-0.58||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.58|-5.00|0.013
95724272|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-2.09||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.56|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-Month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video|||0.38|-4.56|0.10
95724273|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.4||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.35|3.16||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT Video among those who completed the SUM|A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.||3.16|-2.35|0.78
95724274|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.3||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|1.53||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||1.53|-2.12|0.75
95728983|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|4.5||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.50|-1.70|0.384
95724275|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-3.93||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.06|-0.81||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed the CT video.|||-0.81|-7.06|0.014
95724276|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.57||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.16|2.03||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT video.|||2.03|-3.16|0.67
95724277|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.24||||0.83|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.39|1.91||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow up, effect of CT video among those who completed the SUM.|||1.91|-2.39|0.83
95724278|NCT03125915|191418583|SUPERIORITY||Beta|3.13||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|6.25||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||6.25|-0.004|0.05
95724279|NCT03125915|191418584|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.05||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|2.41||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view CT videos|||2.41|-2.30|0.90
95724280|NCT03125915|191418584|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.26||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|2.75||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT video on the latent intercept factor among those who did not view SUM.|||2.75|-2.23|0.78
95724281|NCT03125915|191418584|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.18||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.86|2.51||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT video on the latent intercept.|||2.51|-4.86|0.53
95724282|NCT03125915|191418584|SUPERIORITY||Beta|1.83||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|4.29||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effect of SUM on the latent slope factor among those who did not view CT Videos.|||4.29|-0.62|0.14
95724283|NCT03125915|191418584|SUPERIORITY||Beta|0.35||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|2.72||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of CT Video on latent slope factor among those who did not complete the SUM.|||2.72|-2.02|0.76
95724284|NCT03125915|191418584|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-1.28||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.62|2.06||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||Effects of the interaction between SUM and CT videos in the prediction of the latent slope factor.|||2.06|-4.62|0.45
95724285|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.75||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.11|-1.39|0.02
95724286|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.07|0.09||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view CT videos.|||0.09|-1.07|0.10
95724287|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.15||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.77|0.47||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.47|-0.77|0.63
95724288|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.41||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|0.2||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||1-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.20|-1.01|0.19
95724289|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.64||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.13|-0.15||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who completed the CT video.|||-0.15|-1.13|0.01
95724290|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.49||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.11|0.12||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who did not complete CT video.|||0.12|-1.11|0.12
95724291|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.34||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|0.21||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effects of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.21|-0.89|0.23
95724292|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.19||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|0.38||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||3-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.38|-0.76|0.51
95724293|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.79||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.27||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effects of SUM among those who viewed CT videos.|||-0.27|-1.32|0.003
95724294|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.25||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|0.46||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of SUM among those who did not view the CT video.|||0.46|-0.96|0.49
95724295|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.53||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|0.11||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who completed SUM.|||0.11|-1.16|0.10
95724296|NCT03125915|191418585|SUPERIORITY||Beta|-0.02||||0.96|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.64||A multi-level latent growth curve (LGC) with an intercept and linear slope was specified. The main effects of SUM and CT video were modeled at level 2 in addition to their interaction. Drug use was specified as a binomial distribution.|multi-level latent growth curve||6-month follow-up, effect of CT video among those who did not complete SUM.|||0.64|-0.60|0.96
95724297|NCT02556632|191418620|OTHER|||||||0.9306|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.9306
95724298|NCT02556632|191418621|OTHER|||||||0.8048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.8048
95724299|NCT02556632|191418622|OTHER|||||||0.8591|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.8591
95724300|NCT02795780|191418623|OTHER|||||||0.0166||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0166
95724301|NCT02795780|191418623|OTHER|||||||0.0108||||||No adjustments for multiplicity. No a priori threshold defined.|ANCOVA|Adjusted for baseline SUVr, age, and diagnosis group (AD/MCI)||Test of whether difference in least squares mean change is 0||||0.0108
95724302|NCT04523831|191418635|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.53|||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|0.96|||Regression, Linear|||||0.96|0.30|<0.03
95724303|NCT04523831|191418636|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.51|||<|0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|0.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.80|0.32|<0.004
95724304|NCT04523831|191418637|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.45|||<|0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|0.85|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.85|0.23|<0.013
95724305|NCT04523831|191418638|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|0.81|||Regression, Logistic|||||0.81|0.44|<0.001
95724306|NCT02517099|191418652|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|2.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.384||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.591|8.8|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.80|1.591|0.05
95724307|NCT00766506|191418656|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-2.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.55|-1.91|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-1.91|-2.55|<0.001
95724308|NCT00766506|191418657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.219|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 24||||0.219
95724309|NCT00766506|191418657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.299|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At Hour 48||||0.299
95724310|NCT00766506|191418657|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.136|||||||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.||At study discontinuation or withdrawal||||0.136
95724311|NCT00766506|191418658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least square mean difference|-0.52|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.3|||ANCOVA|P-value was calculated from ANCOVA, with centre, surgery type and treatment included as covariates in the analysis.|Least square mean difference = Least square mean value for Fentanyl IONSYS group minus Least square mean value for Morphine IV PCA group|||-0.30|-0.74|<0.001
95724312|NCT00766506|191418659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.81||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|3.92|||Mantel Haenszel|P-value was calculated from a Mantel-Haenszel Chi-Squared test.||||3.92|0.84|0.131
95724313|NCT00766506|191418660|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.342|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.342
95724314|NCT00766506|191418661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.836|||||||Log Rank|P-value was calculated from a log-rank test stratified for surgery type.||||||0.836
95724315|NCT00766506|191418662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.0||||0.029|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|24.03|||Chi-squared|||||24.03|1.04|0.029
95724316|NCT00766506|191418664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.61||||0.23|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|3.53|||Chi-squared|||Paracetamol: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.53|0.74|0.230
95724317|NCT00766506|191418664|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.72||||0.163|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|3.7|||Chi-squared|||NSAID's: P-value was calculated using Chi-squared test.||3.70|0.80|0.163
95724318|NCT01406873|191418708|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.01|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.01
95724319|NCT03990389|191418712|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0618||||||Three degrees of freedom for the interaction test|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0618
95724320|NCT03990389|191418712|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 1|-2.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.63
95724321|NCT03990389|191418712|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 2|-5.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.018|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.018
95724322|NCT03990389|191418712|SUPERIORITY||estimated treatment effect at month 3|-3.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.234|TWO_SIDED|||||Bonferroni correction for 3 times points|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.234
95724323|NCT03990389|191418713|OTHER|||||||0.116|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.116
95724324|NCT00207714|191418718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||||||A positive test is concluded if there is a significant difference between combined golimumab and placebo groups and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons at 0.05 level.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Week 16 between combined golimumab groups and Placebo +MTX group. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25 % response in Placebo +MTX.||||0.010
95724325|NCT00207714|191418718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.056|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.056
95724326|NCT00207714|191418718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.281
95724327|NCT00207714|191418718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.119|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 4 weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||0.119
95724328|NCT00207714|191418718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Null hypothesis: No difference in ACR 20 response at Wk 16 between Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks and Placebo + MTX. Sample of 35 participants per treatment groups (140 in combined golimumab group and 35 in Placebo +MTX group) provides greater than 90% power assuming 60% golimumab response and 25% response in placebo.||||<0.001
95724329|NCT00207714|191418719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and combined golimumab groups.||||0.001
95724330|NCT00207714|191418719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks||||0.006
95724331|NCT00207714|191418719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.095|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX and Golimumab 50 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||0.095
95724332|NCT00207714|191418719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golibumab 100 mg every 4 weeks||||0.010
95724333|NCT00207714|191418719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores.|||No difference in ACRn scores measured as percentage of improvement from baseline at Week 16 between Placebo + MTX Golimumab 100 mg every 2 or 4 Weeks||||<0.001
95724334|NCT03877237|191418736|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.23||||0.02164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.96|8.22||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-TSS, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-TSS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.22|0.96|0.02164
95724335|NCT03877237|191418737|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|4.17||||0.05842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|8.33||KCCQ-PLS was tested at the alpha level of 0.04990 because KCCQ-TSS had a statistically significant p-value, in accordance with the pre-specified testing strategy.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint KCCQ-PLS, the following hypothesis was tested at significant level of 0.04990~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, KCCQ-PLS, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||8.33|0.03|0.05842
95724336|NCT03877237|191418738|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|3.2||||0.68626|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|13.0||To account for multiplicity, a pre-specified testing strategy was followed to control the overall type I error rate.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the primary efficacy endpoint 6MWD, the following hypothesis was tested using the significance level 0.00010:~H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in the primary efficacy endpoint, 6MWD, from baseline to week 16, among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||13.0|-6.5|0.68626
95727853|NCT04136626|191425180|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-1.3076||||0.1973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.3014|0.6862||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups.||0.6862|-3.3014|0.1973
95724337|NCT03877237|191418739|SUPERIORITY||Hodges-Lehmann median diff. vs placebo|-0.16||||0.19748|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.55|0.22||Total time spent in LVPA was not tested for statistical significance and the p-value is considered nominal because the test for 6MWD was not statistically significant.|Rank ANCOVA|Model includes baseline rank of outcome variable as a covariate, treatment group as a factor, and is stratified by T2DM status at randomization.||"For the secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, the testing hypothesis is~* H0: m(r(A)) = m(r(C)) versus~* H1: m(r(A)) ≠ m(r(C)) Where H0 and H1 are the null and alternative hypotheses, respectively, and m(r(A)) and m(r(C)) represent the median of the ranked changes in secondary efficacy endpoint, total time spent in LVPA, from baseline to End of study among patients receiving dapagliflozin (Active) and placebo (Control) treatment, respectively."||0.22|-0.55|0.19748
95724338|NCT02595528|191418740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-2.5543||||0.0029|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Quadratic||||0.0029
95724339|NCT02595528|191418740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|6.6961|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-190584 Linear||||<0.0001
95724340|NCT02595528|191418740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|-69.89||||0.4126|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Quadratic||||0.4126
95724341|NCT02595528|191418740|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS)|10.5017||||0.3752|||||||Mixed model for repeated measures|||AGN-199201 Linear||||0.3752
95724342|NCT03202511|191418741|EQUIVALENCE|0.8 to 1.25 equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.61|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|1.77||||||||1.77|1.47|
95724343|NCT03202511|191418742|EQUIVALENCE|80 to 125% equivalence margin was used.|Geometric Mean Ratio|77.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|61.4|97.6||||||||97.6|61.4|
95724344|NCT00382291|191418757|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2106||95.0|||||Kruskal-Wallis|||Data were analyzed using two-sided Kruskal-Wallis test with level of significance = .05. Null hypothesis was that there were no group differences. The maximum CGI-SA obtained over course of study was the outcome measure.||||.2106
95724345|NCT00382291|191418758|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8831|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Data were analyzed using ANCOVA modeling with two-sided testing and level of significance = .05. The dependent variable was last measured CY-BOCS score, the independent variable was randomized group assignment and the covariate was the CY-BOCS score at baseline. The null hypothesis was that there were no group differences.||||.8831
95724346|NCT02082912|191418765|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.216||||0.651|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.651
95724347|NCT02082912|191418766|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.633||||0.447|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.447
95724348|NCT02082912|191418767|SUPERIORITY||F statistic|0.557||||0.471|TWO_SIDED||||||ANOVA|||Values represent the time x treatment group interaction.||||0.471
95724349|NCT01681771|191418814|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||ANCOVA|ANCOVA analysis comparing PHQ-9 mean values at 9 weeks follow-up between the I-CBT and discussion group and adjusting for PHQ-9 values baseline||||||0.21
95724350|NCT02270983|191418815|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.325|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.45||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.439|2.211|||ANCOVA|||||2.211|0.439|0.0035
95724351|NCT02270983|191418815|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|1.908|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.451|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.021|2.796|||ANCOVA|||||2.796|1.021|<0.0001
95724352|NCT02270983|191418816|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.28||||0.1429|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.77|||Log Rank|||||1.77|0.92|0.1429
95724353|NCT02270983|191418816|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.43||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.97|||Log Rank|||||1.97|1.04|0.0287
95724354|NCT02270983|191418817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.37||||0.3332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.58|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||2.58|0.73|0.3332
95724355|NCT02270983|191418817|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.92||||0.0506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.||||3.68|1.00|0.0506
95724356|NCT02270983|191418818|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.751|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.324|1.178|||ANCOVA|||||1.178|0.324|0.0007
95724357|NCT02270983|191418818|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.987|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.217|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.558|1.416|||ANCOVA|||||1.416|0.558|<0.0001
95724358|NCT02270983|191418819|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.145||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.746|-0.174|||ANCOVA|||||-0.174|-0.746|0.0017
95724359|NCT02270983|191418819|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.669|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.146|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.957|-0.382|||ANCOVA|||||-0.382|-0.957|<0.0001
95724360|NCT02270983|191418820|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.872|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.371|0.437|||ANCOVA|||||0.437|-0.371|0.8720
95724361|NCT02270983|191418820|SUPERIORITY||Least squares mean difference|-0.607|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.205||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.011|-0.203|||ANCOVA|||||-0.203|-1.011|0.0034
95724362|NCT00265083|191418821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs II and Groups I vs III. The sample size of 75 patients (pts) in placebo and 135 pts per active group will provide \>=99% power to detect a difference in ASAS 20 response between treatment groups at alpha=0.05, assuming 50% of pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL, and the difference in ASAS 20 response of 10-27.5% in pts with screening CRP\<1.5mg/dL and 32.5-45% in pts with screening CRP\>=1.5mg/dL, between Groups I vs II or III.||||<0.001
95724363|NCT00265083|191418821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
95724364|NCT00265083|191418821|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||||||<0.001
95724365|NCT00265083|191418822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: No difference in ASAS 20 response comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
95724366|NCT00265083|191418822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
95724367|NCT00265083|191418822|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel with stratification: screening CRP level (\<=1.5mg/dL, \>1.5mg/dL)||Null hypothesis: no difference in ASAS 20 response between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
95724368|NCT00265083|191418823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant (p-value \<0.05), and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant (p-value \<0.05).|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASFI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||<0.001
95724369|NCT00265083|191418823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group II and Group I.||||<0.001
95724370|NCT00265083|191418823|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASFI between Group III and Group I.||||<0.001
95724371|NCT00265083|191418824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.288||95.0||||The positive test is defined if the comparison between combined golimumab and placebo is significant at the 0.05, and at least one of the pair-wise comparisons is also significant at the 0.05.|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: No difference in change from baseline in BASMI comparing Groups I vs. II and Groups I vs. III.||||0.288
95724372|NCT00265083|191418824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.444||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group II and Group I.||||0.444
95724373|NCT00265083|191418824|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.247||95.0|||||ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores|ANOVA on van der Waerden normal scores with 2 factors: treatment group and screening C-reactive protein (CRP) level.||Null hypothesis: no difference in BASMI between Group III and Group I.||||0.247
95724374|NCT02572427|191418887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.039|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.039
95724375|NCT02572427|191418888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.001
95724376|NCT02059187|191418892|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|MK-1293 was to be considered non-inferior to Lantus in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between-treatment difference (MK-1293 minus Lantus) in least-squares (LS) means was below 0.4% based on a cLDA model.|Difference in least squares means|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|0.18||||||||0.18|-0.12|
95724377|NCT02059187|191418893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|13.7||||||||13.7|-2.3|
95724378|NCT02059187|191418895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.5|8.5||||||||8.5|-8.5|
95724379|NCT02059187|191418896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in percent|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|14.2||||||||14.2|-0.6|
95724380|NCT02059187|191418897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|4.9||||||||4.9|-2.2|
95724381|NCT02059187|191418898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Dofference in LS means|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.02|0.05||||||||0.05|-0.02|
95724382|NCT02059187|191418899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS means|3.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.7|10.7||||||||10.7|-3.7|
95724383|NCT02059187|191418900|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|-3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.3|4.4||||||||4.4|-11.3|
95724384|NCT02059187|191418901|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|2.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.1|11.6|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||11.6|-6.1|
95724385|NCT02059187|191418902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted difference in percent|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.3|6.5|||||Calculated via Miettinen and Nurminen method, stratified by prior insulin status.|||6.5|-8.3|
95724386|NCT03751020|191418903|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.34|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.03|-1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-1.64|-11.03|<0.01
95724387|NCT03751020|191418904|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||-0.03|-0.62|0.03
95724388|NCT03751020|191418905|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.03||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.55|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.47|-8.55|0.07
95724389|NCT03751020|191418906|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.12||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.48|8.77|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||8.77|-6.48|0.73
95724390|NCT03751020|191418907|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.28||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|0.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||0.24|-2.80|0.10
95724391|NCT03751020|191418908|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09||||0.76|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|1.57|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The primary comparison was between EW and control to test the interaction between treatment and time.||1.57|-1.19|0.76
95724392|NCT01889862|191418933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-973.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1204.19|-741.85||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 20mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-741.85|-1204.19|<0.0001
95724393|NCT01889862|191418933|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-588.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-830.07|-346.94||Based on Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM) model with change from baseline as the response variable, and treatment, visit and treatment by visit interaction and baseline blood phe concentration as factors.|ANCOVA|||Change in blood Phe concentration during Part 2 in subjects previously exposed to BMN165 who self administer BMN165 40mg/day compared with those who self administer matching placebo.||-346.94|-830.07|<0.0001
95724394|NCT00528879|191418939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1014||0.0002||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||0.0002
95724395|NCT00528879|191418939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1016|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724396|NCT00528879|191418939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1021|<|0.0001||||||Tested at alpha=0.019, applying the Dunnett adjustment|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724397|NCT00528879|191418940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.774|<|0.0019||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0019
95724398|NCT00528879|191418940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.781|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724399|NCT00528879|191418940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.819|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724400|NCT00528879|191418941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724401|NCT00528879|191418941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3344|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724402|NCT00528879|191418941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3365|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724403|NCT00528879|191418942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|7.1||||0.1775||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.1775
95724404|NCT00528879|191418942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7||||0.0275||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0275
95724405|NCT00528879|191418942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.7||||0.0062||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0062
95724406|NCT00528879|191418943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3515||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
95724407|NCT00528879|191418943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.84|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3022||0.0068||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0068
95724408|NCT00528879|191418943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3535||0.029||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0290
95724409|NCT00528879|191418944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3681||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
95724410|NCT00528879|191418944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3745|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724411|NCT00528879|191418944|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3791|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724412|NCT00528879|191418951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1109||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
95724413|NCT00528879|191418951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1129||0.0004||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||0.0004
95724414|NCT00528879|191418951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1146|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724415|NCT00528879|191418952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.769||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|ANCOVA|||||||
95724416|NCT00528879|191418952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.762|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724417|NCT00528879|191418952|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.808|<|0.0001||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724418|NCT00528879|191418953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.9||||||||||Sequential testing procedures were used, and no test was performed for this comparison due to the fact that the previous comparison was not significant.|Modified logistic regression|||||||
95724419|NCT00528879|191418953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.8627|||||||Modified logistic regression|||||||0.8627
95724420|NCT00528879|191418953|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0149||||||Statistically significant according to hierarchical testing procedure (p\<0.05).|Modified logistic regression|||||||0.0149
95724421|NCT02555618|191418954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.983|11.415|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||11.415|-7.983|
95724422|NCT02555618|191418954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-4.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.974|4.403|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||4.403|-13.974|
95724423|NCT02555618|191418954|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|2.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.082|11.32|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||11.320|-6.082|
95724424|NCT02555618|191418955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7984|1.2253|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2253|0.7984|
95724425|NCT02555618|191418955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5544|1.05|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0500|0.5544|
95724426|NCT02555618|191418955|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8134|1.3931|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3931|0.8134|
95724427|NCT02555618|191418958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|16.348||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||16.348|-3.020|
95724428|NCT02555618|191418958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-8.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.282|0.901||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||0.901|-18.282|
95724429|NCT02555618|191418958|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.461|6.835||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||6.835|-11.461|
95724430|NCT02555618|191418959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9559|1.1473|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.1473|0.9559|
95724431|NCT02555618|191418959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7862|1.0241|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.0241|0.7862|
95724432|NCT02555618|191418959|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9273|1.0364|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.0364|0.9273|
95724433|NCT02555618|191418962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|14.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.489|23.577||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||23.577|5.489|
95724434|NCT02555618|191418962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-1.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.614|6.928||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||6.928|-10.614|
95724435|NCT02555618|191418962|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-2.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.346|5.579||||||The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B-Strain.||5.579|-10.346|
95724436|NCT02555618|191418963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1221|1.9623|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.9623|1.1221|
95724437|NCT02555618|191418963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7806|1.4564|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||1.4564|0.7806|
95724438|NCT02555618|191418963|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8166|1.3934|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.3934|0.8166|
95724439|NCT02555618|191418966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.195|9.423|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||9.423|-7.195|
95724440|NCT02555618|191418966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|-0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.369|8.803|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for A/H3N2 Strain-Day 22.||8.803|-10.369|
95724441|NCT02555618|191418966|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to -20%.|Rate difference|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.406|12.757|||||TAK-850 - Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is difference of seroconversion rate between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||12.757|-6.406|
95724442|NCT02555618|191418967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9106|1.2484|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H1N1 Strain-Day 22.||1.2484|0.9106|
95724443|NCT02555618|191418967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|0.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8686|1.0969|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for A/H3N2-Day 22.||1.0969|0.8686|
95724444|NCT02555618|191418967|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin is set to 0.5.|Ratio of GMTs|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9622|1.1427|||||TAK-850/Influenza HA Vaccine|The analysis is Geometric Mean Ratio between treatment groups for B Strain-Day 22.||1.1427|0.9622|
95724445|NCT01827371|191418973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.72|1.93||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.93|0.72|
95728655|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.72|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.38|4.56|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher sustained remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using sustained remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.56|0.38|0.72
95724446|NCT01827371|191418973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.86|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.26|1.47||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.47|0.26|
95724447|NCT01827371|191418973|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.17|1.0007||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~Sample Size: The SD for log2 PRNT based on a prior study was\~1.9. The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used. Power=80%"||1.0007|-0.17|
95724448|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4782|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D) H1: Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm A) not = Pr('Pain at Injection Site ' Arm D)"||||0.4782
95724449|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1704|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Itchiness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.1704
95724450|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm pain' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm pain' Arm D)"||||1.000
95724451|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6171|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha= 5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D) H1: Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm A) not = Pr('Underarm swelling' Arm D)"||||0.6171
95724452|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Redness at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||<0.0001
95724453|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D) H1: Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm A) not = Pr('Swelling at Injection Site' Arm D)"||||0.0050
95724454|NCT01827371|191418974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|||||alpha=5%|Fisher Exact|||"Hypothesis:~H0: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D) H1: Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm A) not = Pr('Any Solicited Local Reaction' Arm D)"||||0.0012
95724455|NCT01827371|191418975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.76|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|0.37|1.15||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm B)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm B) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm B)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm B) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||1.15|0.37|
95724456|NCT01827371|191418975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.06|0.67||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm C)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm C) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm C)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm C) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.67|-0.06|
95724457|NCT01827371|191418975|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Hypotheses Evaluation: The difference between the mean log2 peak titer for the control arm (Study Arm A) and each investigational arm (Study Arm B, C, or D) and the associated two sided 98.33% confidence intervals (CI) for the estimated population mean difference were calculated. If the upper limit of the 98.33% CI was less than 1, Study Arm B, C or D was considered to be non-inferior to Study Arm A.|Mean Difference (Log2 Scale)|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|98.33|-0.5|0.3||||||"Hypotheses: H0: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2 (GMT(Arm D)) ≥ 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT (Arm D) ≥2 H1: log2(GMT(Arm A))-log2(GMT(Arm D)) \< 1 or GMT(Arm A)/GMT(Arm D) \< 2.~The margin of non-inferiority was specified as a 2-fold difference on the original scale (1 on the log2 scale). The objective included three non-inferiority evaluations (A vs. B, A vs. C, A vs. D). Thus, a Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 2.5% / 3 = 0.833% was used."||0.30|-0.50|
95724458|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|8.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.19||0.185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.21|20.96|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an Analysis of Co-variance (ANCOVA) model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||20.96|-4.21|0.185
95724459|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.59||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.16|11.59|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.59|-11.16|0.970
95724460|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.71||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.66|11.57|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.57|-11.66|0.994
95724461|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.72||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.62|12.64|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||12.64|-10.62|0.861
95724462|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.9||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.79|15.99|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||15.99|-3.79|0.221
95724463|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.49||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.37|9.73|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.73|-8.37|0.880
95724464|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.78|8.63|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||8.63|-9.78|0.900
95724465|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-5.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.91|3.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||3.50|-14.91|0.218
95724466|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.68||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|11.08|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.08|0.17|0.044
95724467|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.41||0.557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|6.33|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.33|-3.47|0.557
95724468|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|6.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|11.45|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||11.45|1.28|0.016
95724469|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.5||0.695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.09|6.07|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.07|-4.09|0.695
95724470|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.56||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|9.95|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||9.95|-0.36|0.067
95724471|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.36||0.737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.96|5.55|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||5.55|-3.96|0.737
95724472|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|10.47|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||10.47|0.80|0.023
95724473|NCT00272961|191418980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.65|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.4||0.495|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|6.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the maximum increase observed with baseline value as a covariate.||6.50|-3.20|0.495
95724474|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|232.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|201.83||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-178.5|643.7|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||643.7|-178.5|0.2577
95724475|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|103.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|173.86||0.5552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-250.5|457.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||457.8|-250.5|0.5552
95724476|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|41.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.26||0.8174|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-319.8|402.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||402.3|-319.8|0.8174
95724477|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|166.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|177.55||0.3557|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-195.3|528.1|||ANCOVA|||Sitting SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||528.1|-195.3|0.3557
95724478|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|163.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|130.15||0.2172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.6|425.7|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||425.7|-99.6|0.2172
95724479|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|115.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|116.03||0.3258|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-118.8|349.5|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||349.5|-118.8|0.3258
95724480|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|24.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.88||0.8352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.2|262.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||262.6|-213.2|0.8352
95724481|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|50.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|117.93||0.6701|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-187.4|288.6|||ANCOVA|||Standing SBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||288.6|-187.4|0.6701
95724482|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|225.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|108.95||0.0466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|447.5|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||447.5|3.6|0.0466
95724483|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|114.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|93.2637||0.2274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-75.2|304.8|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||304.8|-75.2|0.2274
95724484|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|224.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.9259||0.0269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.5|422.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||422.3|27.5|0.0269
95724485|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|133.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|96.7383||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.8|330.3|||ANCOVA|||Sitting DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||330.3|-63.8|0.1780
95724486|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|240.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|114.32||0.0413|TWO_SIDED|95.0|9.9|471.4|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||471.4|9.9|0.0413
95724487|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|102.21||0.1297|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.3|364.3|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||364.3|-48.3|0.1297
95724488|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|254.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.0||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|45.0|464.8|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||464.8|45.0|0.0185
95724489|NCT00272961|191418981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|157.66|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|104.33||0.1382|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.9|368.2|||ANCOVA|||Standing DBP: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on AUEC calculated over treatment and follow-up phases with baseline value as a covariate.||368.2|-52.9|0.1382
95724490|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.0||0.7758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.31|7.03|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.03|-5.31|0.7758
95724491|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.45||0.888|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.4|4.71|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.71|-5.40|0.8880
95724492|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.46||0.4573|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.21|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-3.21|0.4573
95724493|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.4424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.56|7.91|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.91|-3.56|0.4424
95724494|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.32||0.347|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.65|10.01|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.01|-3.65|0.3470
95724495|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.72||0.6249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.25|6.94|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.94|-4.25|0.6249
95724496|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.73||0.1625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.69|9.54|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.54|-1.69|0.1625
95724497|NCT00272961|191418986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.97|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.08||0.7556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|7.31|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.31|-5.38|0.7556
95724498|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.59||0.0714|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.25|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||0.28|-6.25|0.0714
95724499|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.34||0.7269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.29|3.24|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.24|-2.29|0.7269
95724500|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.8656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|3.04|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||3.04|-2.58|0.8656
95724501|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.52|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.4||0.7113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.41|2.36|||ANCOVA|||Pre-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Pre-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.36|-3.41|0.7113
95724502|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.21||0.2204|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.32|1.77|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.77|-7.32|0.2204
95724503|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.87||0.5298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.04|2.66|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.66|-5.04|0.5298
95724504|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.9||0.3135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|1.96|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.96|-5.86|0.3135
95724505|NCT00272961|191418987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.95||0.2962|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.09|1.93|||ANCOVA|||Post-Dose on Week 10: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the sitting-standing difference at Week 10 (Post-Dose) with the sitting-standing difference at Baseline as a covariate.||1.93|-6.09|0.2962
95724506|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.39||0.4933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.84|7.35|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.35|-14.84|0.4933
95724507|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-3.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.57||0.408|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.26|5.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.57|-13.26|0.4080
95724508|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.56||0.5936|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.86|6.93|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.93|-11.86|0.5936
95724509|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.79||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.17|8.57|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.57|-11.17|0.7883
95724510|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.12||0.5719|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.46|7.6|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||7.60|-13.46|0.5719
95724511|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.33||0.3401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.11|4.7|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||4.70|-13.11|0.3401
95724512|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.34||0.6329|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.01|6.82|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.82|-11.01|0.6329
95724513|NCT00272961|191418988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.51||0.4037|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.45|13.11|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||13.11|-5.45|0.4037
95724514|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.08||0.7685|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.19|9.62|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||9.62|-7.19|0.7685
95724515|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.49||0.1739|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.07|2.3|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||2.30|-12.07|0.1739
95724516|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.61||0.4612|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|10.15|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||10.15|-4.74|0.4612
95724517|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.7172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.9|6.21|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Sitting: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||6.21|-8.90|0.7172
95724518|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|3.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.12||0.4098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.01|11.91|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||11.91|-5.01|0.4098
95724519|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.48||0.6943|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.54|5.78|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||5.78|-8.54|0.6943
95724520|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.67||0.2042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.76|12.31|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||12.31|-2.76|0.2042
95724521|NCT00272961|191418989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.77||0.7791|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.69|8.83|||ANCOVA|||Week 10 Standing: p-value was obtained using an ANCOVA model on the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Week 10 with the post-dose minus pre-dose difference at Baseline as a covariate.||8.83|-6.69|0.7791
95724522|NCT03056001|191419027|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.0333|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0008|0.1722|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|The reported severe or life-threatening adverse event rate with weekly doxorubicin and dacarbazine was 0.55. If it became evident that the rate of severe or life-threatening toxicity convincingly exceeded 0.55, the study would have been halted. Convincing evidence of exceeding 0.55 was based on Bayesian methods and continuous monitoring, where the stopping rule would have held enrollment if the posterior probability at any point exceeded 0.75 or higher.||0.1722|0.0008|
95724523|NCT03056001|191419028|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|1.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.1|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median OS (in years) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median overall survival.|||2.1|0.8|
95724524|NCT03056001|191419029|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|5.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|8.3|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median PFS (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median progression free survival.|||8.3|4.1|
95724525|NCT03056001|191419030|OTHER|Estimation only.|Rate|0.367|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.199|0.561|||||Confidence interval estimated using the Clopper Pearson method.|||0.561|0.199|
95724526|NCT03056001|191419031|OTHER|Estimation only|Median|8.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|34.6|||||The Kaplan Meier method was used to estimate the median DoR (in months) for the population. The Greenwood method was used to estimate the confidence limits of the median duration of response.|||34.6|2.8|
95724527|NCT03550794|191419034|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.18|0.04||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in creatinine between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing creatinine imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.04|-1.18|0.07
95724528|NCT03550794|191419035|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.58||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.74||P-value from odds ratio from logistic regression model controlling for site, with outcome of receiving renal replacement therapy.|Regression, Logistic|||||1.74|0.18|0.34
95724529|NCT03550794|191419036|OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|22.0||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.4|36.6||P-value from quantile regression model controlling for site.|Quantile regression|||||36.6|7.4|0.002
95724530|NCT03550794|191419037|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.62||||0.14|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|1.18||P-value from Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for site.|Regression, Cox|||||1.18|0.32|0.14
95724531|NCT03550794|191419038|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.06||P-value from logistic regression model controlling for site|Regression, Logistic|||||1.06|0.17|0.07
95724532|NCT03550794|191419039|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.96||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|1.3||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in lactate between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing lactate imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||1.30|0.71|0.79
95724533|NCT03550794|191419041|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.16|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.63|0.58||"Mixed model controlling for repeated measures within patients used to get a mean difference in SOFA scores between the thiamine and placebo groups at 72 hours.~Missing SOFA imputed using a penalty (20pc increase) as described in SAP."|Mixed Models Analysis|P-value is for the comparison at 72 hours from the mixed model (i.e, not a global p-value)||||0.58|-3.63|0.16
95724534|NCT01864525|191419043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0216||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0216
95724535|NCT01864525|191419043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0499||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic amplitude tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0499
95724536|NCT01864525|191419043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0339||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test did not use the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0339
95724537|NCT01864525|191419043|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.045||||||Statistical results for Magnitude of acoustic frequency tremor. A priori significance threshold was set at P\<0.05 for each of the two hypothesis-driven acoustic variables.|Mixed Models Analysis|This statistical test used the baseline scores as a covariate when comparing post-test scores between placebo and octanoic acid conditions.||Separate measures for magnitude of amplitude tremor and magnitude of frequency tremor were analyzed as these variables can respond differently to treatment and may be differentially affected in essential voice tremor. Statistical modeling tested for post-treatment drug differences, with testing session as a repeated factor. Models were run with and without inclusion of baseline averages as a covariate per recommendations for cross-over treatment studies (Fleiss, Wallenstein \& Rosenfeld, 1985).||||0.0450
95724538|NCT01864525|191419044|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7172||||||A priori significance was set at P\<0.05 for this hypothesis-driven auditory-perceptual variable. Main effect for drug is given above. For the main task effect, P=0.9602. For the interaction effect of drug\*task, P=0.1699.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical modeling tested for main effects of auditory-perceptual ratings for drug and task (sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings), and interaction effects of these variables. The summed scores, averaged across all participants, are provided separately for the sustained vowel and sentence-level ratings. Values range from 0 (no difference between baseline and post-test) to 3 (all three raters indicated that post-test sample was better (less tremor severity).||||0.7172
95724539|NCT02522949|191419085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7146|||||||ANCOVA|||Oropharyngeal||||0.7146
95724540|NCT02522949|191419085|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3543|||||||ANCOVA|||Nasal||||0.3543
95724541|NCT02522949|191419093|OTHER|||||||0.0232|||||||Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test|||||||0.0232
95724542|NCT00725725|191419113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.5299||||0.3934|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0781|5.138|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.1380|-2.0781|0.3934
95724543|NCT00725725|191419113|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.2667||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4665|4.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.0000|-1.4665|0.3515
95724544|NCT00725725|191419114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8246||||0.3597|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.8307|2.1815|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.1815|-5.8307|0.3597
95724545|NCT00725725|191419114|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4414||||0.777|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5952|2.7124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.7124|-3.5952|0.7770
95724546|NCT00725725|191419115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3356||||0.2683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8933|6.5644|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.5644|-1.8933|0.2683
95724547|NCT00725725|191419115|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.1317||||0.0844|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4518|6.7152|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.7152|-0.4518|0.0844
95724548|NCT00725725|191419119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3456||||0.8894|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.6211|5.3124|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.3124|-4.6211|0.8894
95724549|NCT00725725|191419119|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0417||||0.3765|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5526|6.636|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6360|-2.5526|0.3765
95724550|NCT00725725|191419120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2502||||0.8073|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.4963|8.9958|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.9958|-11.4963|0.8073
95724551|NCT00725725|191419120|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0291||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.2132|11.2714|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||11.2714|-7.2132|0.6610
95724552|NCT00725725|191419121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7296||||0.7895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.7291|6.1883|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.1883|-4.7291|0.7895
95724553|NCT00725725|191419121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.526||||0.5488|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.5495|6.6015|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||6.6015|-3.5495|0.5488
95724554|NCT00725725|191419122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.2766||||0.6516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9269|4.3738|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||4.3738|-6.9269|0.6516
95724555|NCT00725725|191419122|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.1867||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.5864|-0.7869|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.7869|-11.5864|0.0256
95724556|NCT04288115|191419136|NON_INFERIORITY|An one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|-5.3||||0.0913|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-16.1|5.4||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Hypothyroid Symptoms score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||5.4|-16.1|0.0913
95724557|NCT04288115|191419136|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical difference.|Difference in Group Means|0.8||||0.8793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.4|10.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates the real discontinuation mean and the sham discontinuation mean are different. Adjusted for gender and baseline HSSs.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||10.9|-9.4|0.8793
95724558|NCT04288115|191419136|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-2.3||||0.686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.0|9.3||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline HSS.|Differences are reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline hypothyroid symptom scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||9.3|-14.0|0.6860
95724559|NCT04288115|191419137|NON_INFERIORITY|A one-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance of the non-inferiority test.|Difference in Group Means|5.2||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-6.2|16.6||Group differences.|Welch's two-sample t-test|A one-sided p-value \< 0.05 indicates the discontinuation mean falls within the non-inferiority limit.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean.|A one-sided t-test will be used to determine whether the mean Tiredness score for the real discontinuation group is no more than 14 points worse than the score of the sham discontinuation group at 6 months.||16.6|-6.2|0.0036
95724560|NCT04288115|191419137|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|2.3||||0.7104|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|14.7||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These mean differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness score.|Analysis of 6-week outcome||14.7|-10.1|0.7104
95724561|NCT04288115|191419137|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|5.4||||0.3381|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.9|16.7||Group differences.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as sham discontinuation mean minus real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline tiredness scores.|Analysis of 6-month outcome||16.7|-5.9|0.3381
95724562|NCT04288115|191419138|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-0.02||||0.4684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.076|0.036||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.036|-0.076|0.4684
95728656|NCT01694485|191426605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.7|4.6||||||The difference in adjusted sustained remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.6|-4.7|
95724563|NCT04288115|191419138|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|0.003||||0.9585|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.102|0.107||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D Descriptive scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D Descriptive score outcome.||0.107|-0.102|0.9585
95724564|NCT04288115|191419138|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|7.0||||0.0643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|14.4||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline score.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-week EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||14.4|-0.4|0.0643
95724565|NCT04288115|191419138|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.2||||0.1742|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|2.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline scores.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline EQ-5D VAS scores.|Analysis of 6-month EQ-5D VAS score outcome.||2.9|-15.3|0.1742
95724566|NCT04288115|191419139|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-12.0||||0.1695|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.3|5.3||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline total cholesterol value.|Analysis of 6-month total cholesterol outcome.||5.3|-29.3|0.1695
95724567|NCT04288115|191419139|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-6.8||||0.3805|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.2|8.6||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline LDL values.|Analysis of 6-month LDL outcome.||8.6|-22.2|0.3805
95724568|NCT04288115|191419139|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|1.7||||0.5724|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|7.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline HDL values.|Analysis of 6-month HDL outcome.||7.9|-4.44|0.5724
95724569|NCT04288115|191419139|OTHER|A two-sided α-level of 0.05 will be used to determine the statistical significance.|Difference in Group Means|-17.8||||0.3939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.4|23.9||Testing whether group means are different.|ANCOVA|A p-value \< 0.05 indicates real discontinuation mean and sham discontinuation mean are different. Analyses adjusted for gender and baseline value.|Differences reported as the sham discontinuation mean minus the real discontinuation mean. These differences have been adjusted for gender and baseline triglyceride values.|Analysis of 6-month triglyceride outcome.||23.9|-59.4|0.3939
95724570|NCT02766400|191419147|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Cohen's d effect size at 12 months|0.53|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.12|1.19||a priori threshold was set at p\<0.05|Linear mixed models|F(4,150)=5.11|Effect size was calculated using mean change scores (baseline to month 12) and standard error of change (baseline to month 12) for each group.|All analyses were performed using the intent-to-treat principle so that comparisons were made according to the assigned intervention group regardless of study completion.||1.19|-0.12|<0.001
95724571|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.04819|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02482||0.0535|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total POQ Score as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0535
95724572|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001826||0.3729|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Rating as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3729
95724573|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00593|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007228||0.4124|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mobility as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4124
95728777|NCT01261325|191427241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|0.82||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.82|0.56|<0.001
95724574|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00432|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009334||0.6442|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities of Daily Living as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test if the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6442
95724575|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00898|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006436||0.1641|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Vitality as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1641
95724576|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01952|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.009846||0.0487|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Neg. Affect as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0487
95724577|NCT03593772|191419150|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0066|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004644||0.1554|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Fear as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.05. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1554
95724578|NCT03593772|191419151|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000863||0.1924|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1924
95724579|NCT03593772|191419151|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001152||0.1002|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stress as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1002
95724580|NCT03593772|191419151|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000343|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000996||0.7311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Tension as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7311
95724581|NCT03593772|191419152|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001716||0.1622|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain as the outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the treatment group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a treatment group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by treatment group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1622
95724582|NCT03593772|191419152|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00235|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002052||0.254|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Activity as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2540
95724583|NCT03593772|191419152|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002297||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Sleep as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0082
95724584|NCT03593772|191419152|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00636|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002378||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Mood as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0079
95724585|NCT03593772|191419152|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00334|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002367||0.1588|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Pain Interference with Stress as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1588
95724586|NCT03593772|191419153|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00974|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01379||0.4808|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PCL-5 Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4808
95724587|NCT03593772|191419154|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00856||0.9692|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Physical Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9692
95724588|NCT03593772|191419154|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01738|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.007848||0.0277|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Mental Health Domain Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0277
95724589|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003253||0.5642|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total PSQI Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5642
95724590|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00092|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00079||0.2438|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Subjective Sleep Quality Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2438
95724591|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000304|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000885||0.7317|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep latency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7317
95724592|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001327||0.6393|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep duration Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6393
95724593|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00112|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000873||0.1995|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep efficiency Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1995
95724594|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000675||0.2886|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Sleep disturbance Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2886
95724595|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001356||0.1323|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Use of sleep medication Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1323
95724596|NCT03593772|191419155|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000793||0.7923|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on PSQI Daytime dysfunction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7923
95724597|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001074||0.6679|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6679
95724598|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001083|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000769||0.1607|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on COS Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1607
95724599|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000984|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00064||0.126|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1260
95724600|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000909|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.3311|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3311
95724601|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001041|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000887||0.2416|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2416
95724602|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001016||0.3903|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3903
95724603|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00095||0.2131|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2131
95724604|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001485|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000933||0.113|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1130
95724605|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001983|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000939||0.0358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0358
95724606|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00019|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000495||0.7027|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS- Total Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7027
95724607|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000761|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00073||0.2979|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Kindness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.2979
95724608|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00063|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000798||0.4278|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Self-Judgment Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4278
95724609|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.0000074|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000877||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Common Humanity Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9933
95724610|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00115|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000816||0.1589|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Isolation Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1589
95724611|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.000767||0.8875|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Mindfulness Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8875
95724612|NCT03593772|191419156|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00078||0.6859|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on CSS Over-identification Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6859
95724613|NCT03593772|191419157|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.01408|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01085||0.1959|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on BDI total score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1959
95724614|NCT03593772|191419158|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00788|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.005845||0.1792|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Perceived Stress Scale Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1792
95724615|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00132|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01039||0.8991|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.8991
95724616|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002105|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002349||0.3711|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.3711
95724617|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001864|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002348||0.428|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4280
95724618|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003205||0.9831|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Affection Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9831
95724619|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003052|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.006364||0.632|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.6320
95724620|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00007|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002259||0.9755|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9755
95724621|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00056|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001818||0.7584|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7584
95724622|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.000297|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003444||0.9313|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9313
95724623|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00129|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002097||0.5401|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.5401
95724624|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.00018|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002471||0.9421|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.9421
95724625|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003983||0.7042|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7042
95724626|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.02128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.008331||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total RDAS Score as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0114
95724627|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002587|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001727||0.1358|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Decision Making Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1358
95724628|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.001402|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001796||0.4354|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Values Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.4354
95724629|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.005759|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002113||0.007|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on AffectionSubdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0070
95724630|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.01037|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.004485||0.0217|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Consensus Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0217
95724631|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|-0.00039|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001461||0.7881|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Stability Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.7881
95724632|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004717|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.00141||0.001|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Conflict Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0010
95724633|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.004393|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002415||0.0693|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Satisfaction Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.0693
95724634|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.002959|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.001887||0.1184|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Activities Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1184
95724635|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.003436|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.002262||0.1301|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Discussion Subdomain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1301
95724636|NCT03593772|191419159|OTHER|Treatment is compared against a Waitlist Control Group.|Slope|0.006022|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.003697||0.1049|TWO_SIDED|||||p value provided is for interaction term between Time (continuous) \* Treatment group (MR vs. WC)|Mixed Models Analysis|||Analysis performed on Total Cohesion Domain as outcome variable. Linear mixed models were constructed with fixed effects terms for the Tx group (MR vs. WC), time (continuous), and a Tx group x time interaction term to test whether the rate of change in the instrument score differed by Tx group. Random effects for the intercept and time were also included. The α p-value for statistical significance was set at 0.01. Borderline statistical significance was considered to be \<0.1.||||0.1049
95724637|NCT04542330|191419162|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||Acute infection was analysed as recurrent events using an Andersen-Gill Cox proportional hazards regression model with time since inclusion as underlying time scale. The analysis was done for the composite outcome and for all subcomponents separately, presenting Hazard Ratios (HR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for each. For all recurrent outcomes, a wash-out period of 14 days was used to define new events.||||< 0.05
95724638|NCT04542330|191419163|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for primary outcome.||||< 0.05
95724639|NCT04542330|191419164|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Andersen-Gill Cox|||The secondary outcome, self-reported respiratory symptoms, was analysed the same way as the primary outcome (recurrent events).||||< 0.05
95724640|NCT04542330|191419165|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Regression, Cox|||Verified SARS-CoV-2 infection (first event) and all-cause hospitalisation (first event) was analysed using standard Cox proportional hazards models, but otherwise as described for the primary outcome.||||< 0.05
95724641|NCT01164137|191419175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.98|0.84|||t-test, 2 sided|||||.84|-.98|.87
95724642|NCT01164137|191419176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|1.88|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.88|-.62|.32
95724643|NCT01164137|191419177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.21||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|3.01|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.01|-.57|.18
95724644|NCT01164137|191419178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.71||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|3.81|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.81|-.39|.11
95724645|NCT01164137|191419179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.85||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|4.27|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.27|-.56|.13
95724646|NCT02290028|191419193|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 1 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 6 months) to the performance goal of 90.0%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 90.0%.||||<0.0001
95724647|NCT02290028|191419194|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.002|||||||Exact, binomial|||Primary endpoint 2 was evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing an observed proportion (rate of acceptable LV pacing thresholds at the permanently programmed pacing vector at 3 months) to 88%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the percentage of subjects with an acceptable LV pacing threshold in the permanently programmed pacing vector must be greater than 88.0%.||||=0.002
95724648|NCT02290028|191419195|SUPERIORITY|||||||||||||||||Primary endpoint 3 will be evaluated by performing an exact, binomial test comparing the observed proportion (overall complication-free rate at 5 years) to the performance goal of 92.5%, with Type I error (alpha) of 0.025 and power of 80%. The lower, two-sided 95% confidence bound for the overall complication-free rate must be greater than 92.5%|On September 24, 2019, BIOTRONIK received FDA approval to transition the ongoing Sentus Post Approval Registry to a new EP PASSION real-world data methodology. As of study closure, the number of subjects with complete data required to perform the hypothesis test was not met. Therefore, this outcome measure was not analyzed.|||
95724649|NCT01735877|191419235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.52||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.77
95724650|NCT01735877|191419235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.02|17.25|||ANCOVA|||Mean Change from baseline to 1 month||17.25|11.02|<0.0001
95724651|NCT01735877|191419235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.65|26.48|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 3 month||26.48|18.65|<0.0001
95724652|NCT01735877|191419235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|18.94|27.62|||ANCOVA|||Baseline to 6 month||27.62|18.94|<0.0001
95724653|NCT01735877|191419236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
95724654|NCT01735877|191419236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At 1 month||||0.99
95724655|NCT01735877|191419236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Chi-squared|||At 3 months||||0.03
95724656|NCT01735877|191419236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004|||||||Chi-squared|||At 6 months||||0.004
95724657|NCT01735877|191419237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.25||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||At Baseline||||0.64
95724658|NCT01735877|191419237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.92||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.24|9.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||9.60|2.24|0.002
95724659|NCT01735877|191419237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.71||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|14.63|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||14.63|2.80|0.005
95724660|NCT01735877|191419237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.63||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.67|14.6|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||14.60|2.67|0.006
95724661|NCT01735877|191419238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.99|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Baseline||||0.99
95724662|NCT01735877|191419238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.68|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|4.42|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 1 month||4.42|2.93|<0.0001
95724663|NCT01735877|191419238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.61|4.21|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 3 month||4.21|2.61|<0.0001
95724664|NCT01735877|191419238|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|4.02|||ANCOVA|||Mean change from baseline to 6 month||4.02|2.40|<0.0001
95724665|NCT01735877|191419239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At Baseline||||0.99
95724666|NCT01735877|191419239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 1||||0.99
95724667|NCT01735877|191419239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 3||||0.04
95724668|NCT01735877|191419239|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||At month 6||||0.01
95724669|NCT02544633|191419253|SUPERIORITY|An exact test for single proportion (two-sided a=5%) will be performed to test H0: ORR \<=20% against H1: ORR \>20%.|Objective response rate|10.7||||0.94|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|28.23|||exact test|||||28.23|2.27|0.94
95724670|NCT02544633|191419253|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|15.0||||0.79|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|37.89|||exact test|||||37.89|3.21|0.79
95724671|NCT02544633|191419253|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|25.0||||0.47|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.19|65.09|||Exact Test|||||65.09|3.19|0.47
95724672|NCT02544633|191419253|SUPERIORITY||Objective response rate|0.0|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|26.46|||Exact test|||||26.46|0.00|>0.999
95724673|NCT02092961|191419270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|-1.75||||0.022|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.75|-0.42||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||-0.42|-2.75|0.022
95724674|NCT02092961|191419270|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.5||||0.402|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|2.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.00|-1.00|0.402
95724675|NCT02092961|191419271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.746|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.0|0.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS osteitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.50|-1.00|0.746
95724676|NCT02092961|191419271|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.0||||0.413|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.5|3.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS synovitis score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||3.50|-1.50|0.413
95724677|NCT02092961|191419272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.491
95724678|NCT02092961|191419272|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.341|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.0|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in JSN score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||0.00|0.00|0.341
95724679|NCT02092961|191419273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|0.0||||0.366|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.5|0.0||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|6 weeks||0.00|-0.50|0.366
95724680|NCT02092961|191419273|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment difference|1.25||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|2.5||A negative value for change from baseline in OMERACT RAMRIS erosions score indicates a better clinical condition.|Van Elteren|Estimated using the Van Elteren test stratified by DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant).|The point estimate for the median difference in change from baseline and associated 90% CI was calculated using the method of unstratified Hodges-Lehmann. A treatment difference \<0 indicates a benefit towards fostamatinib.|24 weeks||2.50|0.50|0.053
95724681|NCT02092961|191419274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|0.89||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.36|1.41|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 6. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||1.41|0.36|0.006
95724682|NCT02092961|191419274|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Square Mean Treatment Difference|-0.34||||0.496|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-1.16|0.49|||ANCOVA|Includes terms for baseline as a continuous covariate and treatment and DMARD naivety (DMARD naive vs DMARD-IR/intolerant) as factors.||Change from baseline at Week 24. Nonresponder imputation applied following premature withdrawal, or any DMARD initiation, or for 8 weeks following receipt of parenteral steroids, or for patients with no post baseline data. Patients who prematurely withdrew due to project closure have no imputation applied.||0.49|-1.16|0.496
95724683|NCT00747747|191419298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: no difference among groups.||||<0.05
95724684|NCT00747747|191419303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Frequency|0.0|||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||Null hypotheis: no difference among the groups.||||<0.05
95724685|NCT02919475|191419312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
95724686|NCT02919475|191419312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.841|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.841
95724687|NCT02919475|191419312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.842|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.842
95724688|NCT02919475|191419312|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95724689|NCT02919475|191419313|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95724690|NCT02919475|191419313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.832|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.832
95724691|NCT02919475|191419313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.682|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.682
95724692|NCT02919475|191419313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.665|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.665
95724693|NCT02919475|191419314|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.999|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.999
95724694|NCT02919475|191419314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.627|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.627
95724695|NCT02919475|191419314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.794|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.794
95724696|NCT02919475|191419314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.453|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.453
95724697|NCT02919475|191419315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.113|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.113
95724698|NCT02919475|191419315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.024
95724699|NCT02919475|191419315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.056|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.056
95724700|NCT02919475|191419315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.035|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.035
95724701|NCT01928446|191419322|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.1||||0.61|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.55|||Log Rank|||Model1 - Treatment only: unadjusted for other covariates||1.55|0.77|0.61
95724702|NCT01928446|191419322|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.08||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.53|||Log Rank|||Model2 - Treatment only: unadjusted with Site as random Effect||1.53|0.76|0.67
95724703|NCT01928446|191419323|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.49||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|3.64|||Log Rank|||||3.64|0.61|0.37
95724704|NCT01928446|191419324|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.14||||0.77|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|2.69|||Log Rank|||Model 5: Non-fatal self-directed violence subgroup||2.69|0.48|0.77
95724705|NCT01928446|191419324|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|1.61||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|3.43|||Log Rank|||Model 6: Interrupted self-directed violence subgroup||3.43|0.75|0.22
95724706|NCT01928446|191419324|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.92||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.45|||Log Rank|||Model 7: Hospitalization to prevent suicide||1.45|0.58|0.71
95724707|NCT00830063|191419327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-1.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.76|-0.72||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Least square (LS) mean was estimated from the corresponding analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.72|-1.76|<0.001
95724708|NCT00830063|191419327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.52|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.52|<0.001
95724709|NCT00830063|191419327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.72|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|-0.2||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.20|-1.23|0.007
95724710|NCT00830063|191419327|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.99|0.068
95724711|NCT00830063|191419328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.73|-0.77||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.77|-1.73|<0.001
95724712|NCT00830063|191419328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.51|-0.55||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.55|-1.51|<0.001
95724713|NCT00830063|191419328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.28||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.28|-1.24|0.002
95724714|NCT00830063|191419328|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-1.01|0.030
95724715|NCT00830063|191419329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.16||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.16|-0.50|<0.001
95724716|NCT00830063|191419329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.04|-0.39|0.014
95724717|NCT00830063|191419329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.36|0.026
95724718|NCT00830063|191419329|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.09||0.349|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.09|-0.25|0.349
95724719|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
95724720|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
95724721|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
95724722|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
95724723|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
95724724|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
95724725|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
95724726|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
95724727|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
95724728|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
95724729|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
95724730|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Slope|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
95724731|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
95724732|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
95724733|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
95724734|NCT00830063|191419330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
95724735|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
95724736|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
95724737|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
95724738|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
95724739|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.45|-0.52||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.52|-1.45|<0.001
95724740|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|-1.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.10|-2.02|<0.001
95724741|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.361|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.68|0.361
95724742|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.25|-0.33||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.33|-1.25|<0.001
95724743|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|-0.59||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.59|-1.54|<0.001
95724744|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|-1.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.09|-2.04|<0.001
95724745|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.93|0.063
95724746|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.43|-0.48||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.48|-1.43|<0.001
95724747|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.7|-0.71||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.71|-1.70|<0.001
95724748|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|-0.86||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.86|-1.85|<0.001
95724749|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-1.19|0.006
95724750|NCT00830063|191419331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.34|<0.001
95724751|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.355|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.25|-0.69|0.355
95724752|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.1||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.10|-1.04|0.017
95724753|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|1.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||1.03|0.09|0.020
95724754|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.26|0.388
95724755|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.65|-0.7||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.70|-1.65|<0.001
95724756|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.07|-1.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-1.13|-2.07|<0.001
95724757|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.21|-0.73|0.274
95724758|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.16|-0.22||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.22|-1.16|0.004
95724759|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.75||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.75|-1.74|<0.001
95724760|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|-1.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.01|-2.00|<0.001
95724761|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.00|-0.99|0.051
95724762|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.25||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|-0.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.25|-1.24|0.003
95724763|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||-1.59|-1.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.12|-1.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.07|-2.12|<0.001
95724764|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|-0.85||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.85|-1.90|<0.001
95724765|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.37||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.37|-1.42|<0.001
95724766|NCT00830063|191419332|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.27||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.19|-0.15||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.15|-1.19|0.012
95724767|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.96|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.96|0.026
95724768|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.32|-0.43||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.43|-1.32|<0.001
95724769|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.23|0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.67|-0.23|0.333
95724770|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.3||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.30|-0.59|0.527
95724771|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.48|-0.57||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.57|-1.48|<0.001
95724772|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|-1.25||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.25|-2.16|<0.001
95724773|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.574|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|-0.58|0.574
95724774|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.26|-0.36||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.36|-1.26|<0.001
95724775|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|-0.67||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.67|-1.60|<0.001
95724776|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-1.17||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-1.17|-2.10|<0.001
95724777|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.055|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.92|0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.01|-0.92|0.055
95724778|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.42|-0.49||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.49|-1.42|<0.001
95724779|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.79||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.79|-1.75|<0.001
95724780|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.47|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|-0.99||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.99|-1.95|<0.001
95724781|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.15|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-1.15|0.006
95724782|NCT00830063|191419333|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.87|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.39||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.39|-1.34|<0.001
95724783|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
95724784|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
95724785|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
95724786|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
95724787|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.66|<0.001
95724788|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.72|-0.41||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.41|-0.72|<0.001
95724789|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.01||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.01|-0.32|0.041
95724790|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.06||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.06|-0.38|0.006
95724791|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.27||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.27|-0.60|<0.001
95724792|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.29||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.29|-0.62|<0.001
95724793|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.011
95724794|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.07||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.07|-0.40|0.006
95724795|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.26||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.26|-0.60|<0.001
95724796|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.14||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference||-0.14|-0.48|<0.001
95724797|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.09||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.09|-0.42|0.003
95724798|NCT00830063|191419334|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.105|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.03|-0.30|0.105
95724799|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.045|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.0||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.00|-0.32|0.045
95724800|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.33|0.030
95724801|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.34||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.34|0.02|0.027
95724802|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 2: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.32|0.01|0.040
95724803|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.32|-0.64|<0.001
95724804|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.74|-0.42||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.42|-0.74|<0.001
95724805|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||0.02|-0.30|0.094
95724806|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.08||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 4: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.08|-0.40|0.003
95724807|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|-0.23||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.23|-0.57|<0.001
95724808|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|-0.35||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.35|-0.68|<0.001
95724809|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.02||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.02|-0.35|0.032
95724810|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.13||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 8: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.13|-0.46|<0.001
95724811|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.21||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.21|-0.54|<0.001
95724812|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.19||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.19|-0.52|<0.001
95724813|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.05||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.05|-0.38|0.012
95724814|NCT00830063|191419335|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08||0.021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03||P-value was based on ANCOVA from pairwise comparisons.|ANCOVA|||Week 12: LS mean was estimated from the corresponding ANCOVA model. ANCOVA model included treatment as main effects, baseline value, and study site as a random effect. 95% CI was calculated on LS mean difference.||-0.03|-0.36|0.021
95724815|NCT00936884|191419436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|83.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|6.5|1074.7||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after the first injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||1074.7|6.50|<0.0001
95724816|NCT00936884|191419437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|56.64|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|40.62|72.66||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group was based on ANOVA model with the proportion of injections resulting in RFBM within 4 hours during the double-blind period as the dependent variable and the treatment group as the fixed effect. .|ANOVA||Estimated value is the difference in least squared means for MNTX vs. placebo (MNTX minus placebo). Based on the ANOVA model, there is 97.5% confidence that the difference between MNTX and placebo falls between the lower and upper limits presented.|||72.66|40.62|<0.0001
95724817|NCT00936884|191419438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|23.38|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|97.5|10.91|50.14||Comparison of the MNTX group and the placebo group in the proportion of subjects having a RFBM within 4 hours after each injection was performed by using a 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square test at the alpha level of 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||50.14|10.91|< 0.0001
95724818|NCT01663714|191419439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with unconfirmed response.|||100|100|
95724819|NCT01663714|191419440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage of participants|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|100.0|100.0|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with confirmed response.|||100|100|
95724820|NCT01625845|191419484|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.474
95724821|NCT01625845|191419485|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.068
95724822|NCT01625845|191419486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.296|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.296
95724823|NCT01625845|191419487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.203
95724824|NCT01625845|191419488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.906|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||.906
95724825|NCT01625845|191419489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.869
95724826|NCT01625845|191419490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANCOVA|||||||.026
95724827|NCT01577537|191419519|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||<0.001
95724828|NCT03211156|191419526|OTHER|||||||0.757|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.757
95724829|NCT03211156|191419527|OTHER|||||||0.048|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.048
95724830|NCT01202994|191419533|OTHER||correlation coefficient|-0.45|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This is a calculated p-value.|correlation|||The primary analysis is to examine the correlation between the practice effect z-score (presented in the Secondary Outcome section) and the standardized uptake value of flutemetamol (presented in the Outcome module).||||<0.05
95724831|NCT00986154|191419540|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The study was designed to accumulate approximately 220 Overall primary efficacy events in the mITT (modified Intent to Treat) Analysis Set. Assuming equal efficacy (Hazard Ratio = 1.00), a total of 220 events gave a power of 85% to demonstrate that (LMW) heparin/edoxaban was non-inferior to the comparator, considering a relative non-inferiority margin of 1.5 (two sided α=0.05).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.703|1.128|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|(LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be non-inferior to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of acute, symptomatic VTE following initial index event. (LMW) Heparin/edoxaban was considered non-inferior to the standard therapy (\[LMW\] heparin/warfarin) if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Hazard Ratio (\[LMW\] heparin/edoxaban to standard therapy) was less than 1.5. Events included in Overall study period if occurred on or after randomization date up to Day 365.||1.128|.703|<0.0001
95724832|NCT00986154|191419541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9933|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.832|1.2|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose.|||1.200|.832|.9933
95724833|NCT00986154|191419542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.705|0.936|||Regression, Cox||Time to 1st event analyzed by Cox proportional hazards with terms treatment group, randomization stratification factors: Presenting Diagnosis (PE with/without DVT, DVT only); Baseline risk factors (temp factors; all others); Need for reduced dose|"Safety Analysis set includes all randomized subjects who received at least one dose of study drug.~Null hypothesis (LMW) heparin/edoxaban will be comparable to (LMW) heparin/warfarin in preventing recurrence of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding."||.936|.705|.0040
95724834|NCT00950599|191419549|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||A significance level of alpha = 0.05 was used for the trend test.|Kruskal-Wallis|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pre treatment.||A test for log-linear trend across saxagliptin doses was performed using a linear contrast among the saxagliptin doses from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. The ANCOVA model was the same model used for the first secondary endpoint.||||0.9888
95724835|NCT00950599|191419550|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9888||95.0||||Positive efficacy trend among doses of saxagliptin by assessing the adjusted mean change from baseline in A1C in the 0-40 mg cohort.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA Model: post-pre=pretreatment. Contrast Coefficients: -2, -1, 0, 1 2.||||||0.9888
95724836|NCT02741271|191419648|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|5.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.21|7.2|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method, using the constrained Longitudinal Data Analysis (cLDA) model for missing data|Between-Treatment Difference|||7.20|3.21|<0.001
95724837|NCT02741271|191419651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.05|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.53|8.56|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.56|3.53|<0.001
95724838|NCT02741271|191419651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|7.04|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.74|9.35|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 2 hr Post-Dose|||9.35|4.74|<0.001
95724839|NCT02741271|191419651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.09|8.28|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 60 min Post-Dose|||8.28|4.09|<0.001
95724840|NCT02741271|191419651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.89|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|8.67|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 30 min Post-Dose|||8.67|5.10|<0.001
95724841|NCT02741271|191419651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.64|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.89|8.39|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 15 min Post-Dose|||8.39|4.89|<0.001
95724842|NCT02741271|191419651|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|4.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|5.91|||cLDA with multiple imputation|Primary Analysis Method|Between-Treatment Difference at 5 min Post-Dose|||5.91|2.50|<0.001
95724843|NCT02741271|191419652|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|6.32|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.36|8.27|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure on Day 1|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||8.27|4.36|<0.001
95724844|NCT02741271|191419652|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|3.33||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|6.26|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure at Week 12|Between-Treatment Difference at 4 hr Post-Dose|||6.26|0.41|0.026
95724845|NCT02741271|191419653|SUPERIORITY||LSM Difference|1.63||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.85|4.11|||cLDA|Secondary Outcome Measure|Between-Treatment Difference|||4.11|-0.85|0.197
95724846|NCT00373685|191419667|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|||||Life Table Extension of Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) Test|Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0003
95724847|NCT00373685|191419668|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.0035
95724848|NCT00373685|191419669|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.614|TWO_SIDED||||||Life Table Extension of CMH Test|||||||0.6140
95724849|NCT00373685|191419671|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724850|NCT00373685|191419673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95724851|NCT00373685|191419674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0023|TWO_SIDED|||||P-value associated with Overall (LOCF)|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.0023
95724852|NCT00373685|191419675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1008|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.1008
95724853|NCT00373685|191419675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95724854|NCT00373685|191419675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95724855|NCT00373685|191419675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0005
95724856|NCT00373685|191419675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||<0.0001
95724857|NCT00373685|191419676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.6562|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.6562
95724858|NCT00373685|191419676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95724859|NCT00373685|191419676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95724860|NCT00373685|191419676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0245|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0245
95724861|NCT00373685|191419676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0074
95724862|NCT00373685|191419677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.4074|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.4074
95724863|NCT00373685|191419677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95724864|NCT00373685|191419677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95724865|NCT00373685|191419677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0127|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0127
95724866|NCT00373685|191419677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0019
95724867|NCT00373685|191419678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.2699|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Baseline||||0.2699
95724868|NCT00373685|191419678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 8||||<0.0001
95724869|NCT00373685|191419678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 16||||<0.0001
95724870|NCT00373685|191419678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0027|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24 or ET||||0.0027
95724871|NCT00373685|191419678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Week 24/LOCF||||0.0001
95724872|NCT02570165|191419682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|191.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|101.07|284.26|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for the mean difference between batefenterol 37.5 µg dose and placebo (batefenterol 37.5 µg minus placebo) was estimated.|||284.26|101.07|
95724873|NCT02570165|191419682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|231.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|149.31|310.02|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 75 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||310.02|149.31|
95724874|NCT02570165|191419682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|261.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|189.85|332.25|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 150 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||332.25|189.85|
95724875|NCT02570165|191419682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|281.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|212.35|351.3|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 300 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||351.30|212.35|
95724876|NCT02570165|191419682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|292.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|223.02|364.42|||||The 95% Bayesian credible interval for differences between each individual batefenterol 600 µg dose and placebo was estimated.|||364.42|223.02|
95724877|NCT02570165|191419683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|182.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.8|264.6|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 37.5 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.60|99.80|
95724878|NCT02570165|191419683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|196.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|128.4|264.8|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 75 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||264.80|128.40|
95724879|NCT02570165|191419683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|204.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|137.2|272.1|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 150 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||272.10|137.20|
95724880|NCT02570165|191419683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|208.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.7|279.2|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 300 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||279.20|138.70|
95724881|NCT02570165|191419683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|211.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|138.6|283.7|||||The 95% confidence interval for the difference between 600 µg Batefenterol and Placebo was estimated.|||283.70|138.60|
95724882|NCT01455545|191419691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.999||||0.967|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.962|1.037|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences in ASK-20 results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two means. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Statistic power: 90%. Precision: 10. S square: 256. Sample size: 44. Sample size adjusted to losses: 46 patients.||1.037|0.962|0.967
95724883|NCT01455545|191419692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.001||||0.861|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.985|1.018|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.018|0.985|0.861
95724884|NCT01455545|191419693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.625||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.706|3.739|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences in gender results between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tab Chi square||3.739|0.706|0.252
95724885|NCT01455545|191419694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.217||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Chi - square||||0.217
95724886|NCT01455545|191419695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.83||||0.643|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.376|1.829|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi square||1.829|0.376|0.643
95724887|NCT01455545|191419696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.556||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.247|1.253|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.253|0.247|0.155
95724888|NCT01455545|191419697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.19||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.763|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||1.763|0.020|0.107
95724889|NCT01455545|191419698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.849||||0.196|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.541|2.219|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||2.219|1.541|0.196
95724890|NCT01455545|191419699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.135||||0.15|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.618|15.91|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Cross tabs Chi squared test.||15.91|0.618|0.150
95724891|NCT01455545|191419700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.096||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.492|2.441|||Chi-squared|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups. Comparison of two proportions. Unilateral test. (1-alpha)=95%. Proportion: 90%. Precision: 10%. Sample size: 35. Sample size adjusted to losses: 41 patients.||2.441|0.492|0.822
95724892|NCT01455545|191419701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.003
95724893|NCT01455545|191419701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.038||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.012|1.065|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.065|1.012|0.005
95724894|NCT01455545|191419702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.35||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.153|0.799|||Regression, Logistic|||Ho = no differences between both groups H1= there are differences between both groups.||0.799|0.153|0.013
95724895|NCT02295280|191419776|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.14||||||Reduction in pain scores by at least 2 units six hours post administration|Mann Whitney U test|Mann Whitney U test used for analysis of this continuous variable as data were not normally distributed. Outcome was comparable at the 6-hour mark.||A sample size calculation of 35 patients in each group was based on an estimated reduction in headache pain score by at least two points, with an a of 0.05 and power of 90%, which is similar to estimates reported in prior studies in non-pregnant patients and felt to be a clinically significant decrease. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, the independent Student's t-test and Kolmogorov-Smirnov for continuous variables.||||0.14
95724896|NCT01241565|191419787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate of incidence of PAL|10.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|21.3|||||Incidence of Prolonged Air Leak (PAL) is estimated at between 5-10% in literature. PAL of 10%of evaluable cases was used to determine study success.|||21.3|3.9|
95724897|NCT02713243|191419794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|4.04||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|7.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||7.11|0.98|0.01
95724898|NCT02713243|191419794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1.31||||0.401|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.77|4.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.38|-1.77|0.401
95724899|NCT02713243|191419794|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.67||||0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|4.89|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||4.89|0.46|0.019
95724900|NCT02713243|191419799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.12||||0.533|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.52|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.52|-0.27|0.533
95724901|NCT02713243|191419799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.09||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.49|0.640
95724902|NCT02713243|191419799|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02||||0.916|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Week 1\&2 (Period 1 \& 2)||0.30|-0.27|0.916
95724903|NCT03404206|191419814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95724904|NCT03404206|191419814|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.001
95724905|NCT03404206|191419815|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-34.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.67|-23.8|||ANCOVA|||||-23.8|-45.67|
95724906|NCT03404206|191419815|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-73.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.01|-57.85|||ANCOVA|||||-57.85|-89.01|
95724907|NCT03404206|191419815|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-38.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.29|-23.11|||ANCOVA|||||-23.11|-54.29|
95724908|NCT03404206|191419816|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-18.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.52|-12.89|||ANCOVA|||||-12.89|-23.52|
95724909|NCT03404206|191419816|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-33.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.29|-26.14|||ANCOVA|||||-26.14|-41.29|
95724910|NCT03404206|191419816|SUPERIORITY||Least squares means|-15.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.09|-7.93|||ANCOVA|||||-7.93|-23.09|
95724911|NCT02623426|191419828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of baseline|1.36|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|1.56||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Methotrexate/Ozurdex). Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Methotrexate treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for Methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.56|1.19|<0.001
95724912|NCT02623426|191419828|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the proportion of BL|1.22||||0.012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.43||A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust for the co-primary hypotheses;a two-sided type I error rate of 0.05/2 = 0.025 was used to determine statistical significance for the two pairwise comparisons (Ozurdex vs Methotrexate and Ozurdex vs Lucentis)|mixed effects model||The treatment effect is the ratio of the proportions of baseline retinal thickness (Lucentis/Ozurdex) at 12 weeks. Values greater than 1 indicate less reduction in retinal thickness in the Lucentis treated group compared to Ozurdex|A sample size of 240 was calculated to provide 91% power to detect a 25% reduction for Ozurdex, a 38% reduction for methotrexate and Lucentis assuming a standard deviation of 0.33, 25% with bilateral disease, between-eye correlation of 0.4, 10% loss to follow-up, and a two-sided type 1 error rate of 0.025 for each pairwise comparison.||1.43|1.04|0.012
95724913|NCT00325403|191419835|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|23.0||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.0|41.0||P-Value|ANCOVA|||Using an allocation ratio of 2:1 between oral treprostinil and placebo, a fixed sample size of approximately 195 subjects with access to 0.25 mg tablets at randomization would provide at least 90% power at a significance level of 0.01 (two-sided hypothesis) to detect a between-treatment difference in the change from Baseline to Week 12 in distance traversed during the 6-minute walk, assuming a true underlying treatment difference of 45 meters with a SD of 75 meters in both treatment groups.||41|4|0.0125
95724914|NCT00325403|191419836|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|13.0||||0.0653|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|-2|0.0653
95724915|NCT00325403|191419837|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0307|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|1|0.0307
95724916|NCT00325403|191419838|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|12.0||||0.0518|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|24.0|||ANCOVA|||||24|0|0.0518
95724917|NCT00325403|191419839|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.000
95724918|NCT00325403|191419840|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.738|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.0||"In cases where the value corresponding to overall poorest relative change was imputed for walk distance, a value of IV was used for the WHO functional classification for PAH."|Wilcoxon rank sum test||The values for the estimated parameter and 95% confidence interval were calculated.|||0|0|0.7380
95724919|NCT00325403|191419841|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.4887|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.0|||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||0|-1|0.4887
95724920|NCT00325403|191419842|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|0.0||||0.6116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0|||Wilcoxon sum-rank test|||||1|0|0.6116
95724921|NCT00325403|191419844|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|26.0||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|49.0|||ANCOVA|||||49|1|0.0326
95724922|NCT00325403|191419845|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|16.0||||0.2275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.0|47.0|||ANCOVA|||||47|-15|0.2275
95724923|NCT00325403|191419846|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|32.0||||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|55.0|||ANCOVA|||||55|10|0.0024
95724924|NCT00325403|191419847|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|25.5||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.0|41.0|||ANCOVA|||||41|10|0.0001
95724925|NCT00325403|191419848|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|17.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.0|33.0|||ANCOVA|||||33|3|0.0025
95724926|NCT00325403|191419849|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|20.0||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.0|34.0|||ANCOVA|||||34|7|0.0008
95724927|NCT00325403|191419850|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hodges-Lehmann (H-L)|14.0||||0.0025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|25.0|||ANCOVA|||||25|3.9|0.0025
95724928|NCT00597584|191419870|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL was used in the primary efficacy assessments. Non-inferiority was established if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means of the primary endpoint (peginesatide minus control ESA) was ≥ -1.0 g/dL.|Least Squares Mean Difference|0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.078|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.05|0.26|||ANOVA|The ANOVA cell means model was used to estimate primary efficacy endpoint within the specified cells formed by the combination of treatment and strata||The sample size for this study has been determined based on a two group evaluation of non-inferiority using the t-distribution (one-sided significance level 0.025) with a non inferiority margin of -1.0 g/dL. A sample size of approximately 750 (peginesatide group of 500 and epoetin group of 250) provided at least 99% power for the evaluation of non-inferiority, assuming an expected treatment difference of 0.0 g/dL and a standard deviation of 1.5 g/dL.||0.26|-0.05|
95724929|NCT00597584|191419871|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|1.24|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.24|0.50|
95724930|NCT00597584|191419872|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||1.07|0.87|
95724931|NCT02186808|191419892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95724932|NCT04356573|191419906|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.05
95724933|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in Least Squares (LS) Means|-3.2||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.6|-0.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM)|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.8|-5.6|0.008
95724934|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-5.3|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.7|-2.9||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-2.9|-7.7|<0.001
95724935|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-6.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.6|-3.8||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-3.8|-8.6|<0.001
95724936|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.92|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 1 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 1. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
95724937|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.87|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 2 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 2. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
95724938|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-3.4||||0.0021||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 3 (Placebo=2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 3. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||0.0021
95724939|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.28|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 4 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 4. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
95724940|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-4.64|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 5 (Placebo=2.5 mg\<5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 5. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
95724941|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.07|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 6 (Placebo\<2.5 mg=5.0 mg\<10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 6. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
95724942|NCT01244815|191419907|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||t-statistic|-5.49|||<|0.0001||||||p-value (adjusted to control Type I error in multiple testing) for dose-response pattern 7 (Placebo\<2.5 mg\<5.0 mg=10.0 mg)|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|t-statistic associated with the contrast of the MMRM model for dose-response pattern 7. Lower value indicates pattern provides better fit to data.|Investigation of dose-response relationship of change from baseline to Day 21 in Y-MRS total score was a Secondary study endpoint. Multiple contrast testing using MMRM model (FAS population) was used to evaluate 7 pre-defined dose-response patterns.||||<0.0001
95724943|NCT01244815|191419908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.3||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.3|-0.9|<0.001
95724944|NCT01244815|191419908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-0.9|<0.001
95724945|NCT01244815|191419908|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.7|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.4||p-value is adjusted by Hochberg's method for testing three asenapine groups versus the placebo group|MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.4|-1.0|<0.001
95724946|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.0||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||7.6|1.2|0.018
95724947|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.4||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|8.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||8.6|1.4|0.008
95724948|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.129|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 4 (LOCF)||5.6|0.8|0.129
95724949|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.9||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.9|1.4|0.003
95724950|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.8||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.4|5.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||5.6|1.4|0.005
95724951|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.6|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.8|7.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 7 (LOCF)||7.3|1.8|<0.001
95724952|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.2||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|4.1||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||4.1|1.1|0.018
95724953|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
95724954|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.2|7.6|||Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 14 (LOCF)||7.6|2.2|<0.001
95724955|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|3.4||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||3.4|1.0|0.042
95724956|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|5.8||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.8|1.7|<0.001
95724957|NCT01244815|191419909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.9|||<|0.001||95.0|1.6|5.3||95% Confidence Interval and p-value are based on Wald statistic|Regression, Logistic|Model included terms of treatment and baseline Y-MRS total score|OR was adjusted for baseline. An OR of \>1 is considered to mean that asenapine has a higher probability of achieving Total Y-MRS 50% response.|Analysis is for asenapine versus placebo on Day 21 (LOCF)||5.3|1.6|<0.001
95724958|NCT01244815|191419910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.25||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.05|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.05|-0.45|0.014
95724959|NCT01244815|191419910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.17||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.04|-0.37|0.107
95724960|NCT01244815|191419910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.039|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.01|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.01|-0.42|0.039
95724961|NCT01244815|191419911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.33||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|-0.1|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.10|-0.56|0.006
95724962|NCT01244815|191419911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|-0.12|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.12|-0.59|0.003
95724963|NCT01244815|191419911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.44|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.67|-0.21|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.21|-0.67|<0.001
95724964|NCT01244815|191419912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.61|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.61|0.011
95724965|NCT01244815|191419912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.63|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.36|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.36|-0.89|<0.001
95724966|NCT01244815|191419912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.35|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.35|-0.88|<0.001
95724967|NCT01244815|191419913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.61|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.32|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.32|-0.90|<0.001
95724968|NCT01244815|191419913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.75|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.04|-0.46|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.46|-1.04|<0.001
95724969|NCT01244815|191419913|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.74|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.45|-1.03|<0.001
95724970|NCT01244815|191419914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.07||||0.536|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.15|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.15|-0.28|0.536
95724971|NCT01244815|191419914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.03||||0.811|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.19|-0.24|0.811
95724972|NCT01244815|191419914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.07||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.28|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.28|-0.15|0.556
95724973|NCT01244815|191419915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.21||||0.053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|0.0|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.00|-0.42|0.053
95724974|NCT01244815|191419915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.18||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.40|0.094
95724975|NCT01244815|191419915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.15||||0.178|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|0.07|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.07|-0.36|0.178
95724976|NCT01244815|191419916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.08||||0.506|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.16|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.16|-0.33|0.506
95724977|NCT01244815|191419916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.19||||0.131|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.43|0.131
95724978|NCT01244815|191419916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.16||||0.211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.09|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.09|-0.40|0.211
95724979|NCT01244815|191419917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.23||||0.079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.03|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.03|-0.49|0.079
95724980|NCT01244815|191419917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.34||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|-0.08|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.08|-0.60|0.010
95724981|NCT01244815|191419917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.2||||0.139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|0.06|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.06|-0.46|0.139
95724982|NCT01244815|191419918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.61||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.38|-0.83|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.83|-4.38|0.004
95724983|NCT01244815|191419918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.17||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.95|-0.39|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.39|-3.95|0.017
95724984|NCT01244815|191419918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.16||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.93|-0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.38|-3.93|0.017
95724985|NCT01244815|191419919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-0.79||||0.395|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.62|1.04|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||1.04|-2.62|0.395
95724986|NCT01244815|191419919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.44||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.26|-0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.63|-4.26|0.009
95724987|NCT01244815|191419919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.27|0.38|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.38|-3.27|0.121
95724988|NCT01244815|191419920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.44||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.45|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.45|-3.33|0.135
95724989|NCT01244815|191419920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-2.19||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.08|-0.3|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||-0.30|-4.08|0.023
95724990|NCT01244815|191419920|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|-1.28||||0.189|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|0.63|||MMRM|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment, visit, baseline, and the interaction of visit by treatment and baseline by visit|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|Model uses efficacy FAS population (number of participants: placebo - 98, asenapine 2.5 mg - 101, asenapine 5.0 mg - 98, asenapine 10.0 mg - 98)||0.63|-3.20|0.189
95724991|NCT01244815|191419921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|4.29||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|7.02|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.02|1.56|0.002
95724992|NCT01244815|191419921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|6.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.22|9.68|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||9.68|4.22|<0.001
95724993|NCT01244815|191419921|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|5.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.31|7.91|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||7.91|2.31|<0.001
95724994|NCT01244815|191419922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.24||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|4.48|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||4.48|-0.00|0.050
95724995|NCT01244815|191419922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|1.35||||0.239|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|3.59|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||3.59|-0.90|0.239
95724996|NCT01244815|191419922|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|2.78||||0.018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|5.08|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||5.08|0.48|0.018
95724997|NCT01244815|191419923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.39||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.62|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.62|0.15|0.001
95724998|NCT01244815|191419923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.18||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.41|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.41|-0.06|0.135
95724999|NCT01244815|191419923|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Difference in LS Means|0.25||||0.044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.49|||ANCOVA|Model included terms of (pooled) site, treatment and baseline|Estimate is asenapine versus placebo|||0.49|0.01|0.044
95725000|NCT01967888|191419945|SUPERIORITY||t-test|-1.2||||0.542|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.3|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||000|-14.3|0.542
95725001|NCT01967888|191419946|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1601778||||0.092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.317803|-0.0025525|||t-test, 2 sided|||||-0.0025525|-0.3178030|0.092
95725002|NCT01967888|191419947|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.1178242||||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.287431|0.0517825|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0517825|-0.2874310|0.161
95725003|NCT01967888|191419948|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.0136||||0.846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0508|0.0781|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0781|-0.0508|0.846
95725004|NCT01967888|191419949|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.025||||0.817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.0939|0.0689|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.0689|-0.0939|0.817
95725005|NCT01967888|191419950|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-9.4641||||0.57|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.49|23.5618|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||23.5618|-42.4900|0.570
95725006|NCT01967888|191419951|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-22.9454|||=|0.074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.1826|2.2918|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.2918|-48.1826|=0.074
95725007|NCT01967888|191419952|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.2074|||=|0.358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6538|0.2389|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2389|-0.6538|=0.358
95725008|NCT01967888|191419953|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|-0.277|||=|0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7936|0.2396|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.2396|-0.7936|=0.288
95725009|NCT01967888|191419954|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|0.09716|||=|0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.41834|7.61266|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||7.61266|-7.41834|=0.980
95725010|NCT01967888|191419955|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|1.07617|||=|0.785|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.76562|8.91796|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||8.91796|-6.76562|=0.785
95725011|NCT01967888|191419956|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.176|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.176
95725012|NCT01967888|191419957|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.403
95725013|NCT01967888|191419958|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|2.1||||0.842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.2|22.33|||Chi-squared|||||22.33|-18.20|0.842
95725014|NCT01967888|191419959|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.21||||0.339|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|34.97|||Anderson-Gill model|||||34.97|0.29|0.339
95725015|NCT01967888|191419960|SUPERIORITY||Treatment effect|5.0||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.91|25.93|||Chi-squared|||||25.93|-15.91|0.640
95725016|NCT01967888|191419966|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.448|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.448
95725017|NCT01967888|191419967|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||0.910
95725018|NCT01967888|191419968|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Wilcoxon rank-sum test|||||||1.000
95725019|NCT01967888|191419973|SUPERIORITY||least square mean difference|31.3491|||=|0.5018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.998|123.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||123.70|-60.9980|=0.5018
95725020|NCT01967888|191419974|SUPERIORITY||Least square mean difference|23.5454|||=|0.4537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.6619|85.7528|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||85.7528|-38.6619|=0.4537
95725021|NCT04126733|191419994|EQUIVALENCE|H0: ORR ≤ 5% versus H1: ORR \>5% The hypothesis was tested by a one-sided exact binomial test, assuming a background response rate for the combination to be at most 5%.|Rate|7.1||||0.2721||95.0|2.4|15.9||The target response rate for the combination treatment was 17%. Using a one-sided exact binomial test at a type-I error of at most 2.5% at least 8 responders out of the 70 patients were needed to achieve significance.|Exact Binomial Test|||||15.9|2.4|0.2721
95725022|NCT03726437|191420006|SUPERIORITY|Analyses were performed to determine whether RealConsent was superior to Stress and Mood Management in reducing incidence of sexual violence victimization.|Risk Ratio (RR)|0.48||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||.69|.33|.0002
95725023|NCT03726437|191420006|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.77||||0.31|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Models adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.28|.47|.31
95725024|NCT03726437|191420007|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.17||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|1.22|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.22|0.12|.03
95725025|NCT03726437|191420008|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|-0.5|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||0.27|-1.27|<.05
95725026|NCT03726437|191420009|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|0.81||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||.97|.67|.02
95725027|NCT03726437|191420010|SUPERIORITY||Incidence rate ratio|1.05||||0.43|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||1.20|.92|.43
95725028|NCT03726437|191420011|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted OR|1.72||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.55|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model adjusted for fixed effects.||||2.55|1.17|.006
95725029|NCT00711867|191420015|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin was defined as -0.5 C.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.34||||||95.0|-0.55|-0.14|||t-test, 2 sided|||H0: Mu\_VH - Mu\_BH \<= -0.5 C.||-0.14|-0.55|
95725030|NCT03803085|191420016|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.02
95725031|NCT03803085|191420017|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.03|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.03
95725032|NCT03803085|191420018|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06||||||p\<0.05 was considered significant.|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.06
95725033|NCT01507831|191420020|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.3|-59.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Alirocumab group was compared to placebo group using an appropriate contrast statement.||-59.4|-64.3|<0.0001
95725034|NCT01507831|191420021|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-63.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-65.9|-61.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|A hierarchial testing procedure was used to control type I error and handle multiple secondary endpoint analyses. Testing was then performed sequentially in the order the endpoints are reported. The hierarchial testing sequence continued only when previous endpoint was statistically significant at 0.05 level.||-61.2|-65.9|<0.0001
95725035|NCT01507831|191420022|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-64.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.2|-62.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-62.4|-67.2|<0.0001
95725036|NCT01507831|191420023|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-65.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.9|-63.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-63.2|-67.9|<0.0001
95725037|NCT01507831|191420024|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-61.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.0|-58.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-58.5|-64.0|<0.0001
95725038|NCT01507831|191420025|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.3|-51.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.7|-56.3|<0.0001
95725039|NCT01507831|191420026|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-55.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.7|-53.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.2|-57.7|<0.0001
95725040|NCT01507831|191420027|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-52.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-50.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-50.2|-54.4|<0.0001
95725041|NCT01507831|191420028|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-53.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.7|-51.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-51.6|-55.7|<0.0001
95725042|NCT01507831|191420029|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-37.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|-35.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-35.9|-39.1|<0.0001
95725043|NCT01507831|191420030|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-56.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.3|-53.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-53.7|-58.3|<0.0001
95725044|NCT01507831|191420031|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-54.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.6|-52.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-52.6|-56.6|<0.0001
95725045|NCT01507831|191420032|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-39.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.4|-37.5||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-37.5|-40.4|<0.0001
95725046|NCT01507831|191420033|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|71.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|51.6|99.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||99.1|51.6|<0.0001
95725047|NCT01507831|191420034|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|93.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|66.1|132.0||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||132.0|66.1|<0.0001
95725048|NCT01507831|191420035|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|74.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|53.3|104.4||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||104.4|53.3|<0.0001
95725049|NCT01507831|191420036|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|97.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.2|138.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Logistic|Multiple imputation approach followed by logistic regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||138.9|68.2|<0.0001
95725050|NCT01507831|191420037|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.1|-23.1||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-23.1|-28.1|<0.0001
95725051|NCT01507831|191420038|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.3|5.9||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.9|3.3|<0.0001
95725052|NCT01507831|191420039|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.1|-14.6||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-14.6|-20.1|<0.0001
95725053|NCT01507831|191420040|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|2.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|4.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||4.2|1.6|<0.0001
95725054|NCT01507831|191420041|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-25.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-22.7||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-22.7|-27.4|<0.0001
95725055|NCT01507831|191420042|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|5.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.3|6.8||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||6.8|4.3|<0.0001
95725056|NCT01507831|191420043|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-17.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5|-15.3||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Regression, Robust|Multiple imputation approach followed by a robust regression model.|Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||-15.3|-20.5|<0.0001
95725057|NCT01507831|191420044|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|4.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.8|5.2||Threshold for significance ≤ 0.05.|Mixed Models Analysis||Alirocumab vs. Placebo|Testing according to the hierarchical testing procedure (only performed if the previous endpoint was statistically significant).||5.2|2.8|<0.0001
95725058|NCT03276962|191420094|SUPERIORITY||Incremental vaccine efficacy|-21.0||||0.154|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.0|7.0|||Regression, Cox|The 95% Confidence Interval of the incremental vaccine efficacy estimates was calculated from Cox regression model.||To demonstrate the superiority of a 3-dose schedule of GSK Biologicals' malaria vaccine RTS,S/AS01E with a fractional third dose at Month 2 (Fx012-14-mFxD Group) compared to a standard schedule of RTS,S/AS01E with 3 full doses (R012-20 + R012-14 Group) in terms of vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria (primary case definition) over 12 months post-Dose 3.||7|-57|0.154
95725059|NCT03672396|191420118|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.378|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.4|-0.2|0.378
95725060|NCT03672396|191420119|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.35||||0.586|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.7|-1.0|0.586
95725061|NCT03672396|191420120|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.252|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|0.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.2|-0.7|0.252
95725062|NCT03672396|191420121|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.3||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.9|4.3|||t-test, 2 sided|Mean difference calculated as Post - Pre.||||4.3|-36.9|0.111
95725063|NCT03672396|191420122|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.579|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.3|7.2|||t-test, 2 sided|||||7.2|-4.3|0.579
95725064|NCT03672396|191420123|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.948|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.9|3.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.7|-3.9|0.948
95725065|NCT03672396|191420124|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-1.1|0.594
95725066|NCT03672396|191420125|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8||||0.274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.7|-2.3|0.274
95725067|NCT03672396|191420126|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.89||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|3.29|||t-test, 2 sided|||||3.29|0.48|0.013
95725068|NCT03672396|191420127|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.16||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.54|13.85|||t-test, 2 sided|||||13.85|-5.54|0.369
95725069|NCT03672396|191420128|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4||||0.945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.5|12.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||||12.7|-13.5|0.945
95725070|NCT03672396|191420129|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.42|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.0|4.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||4.6|-2.0|0.420
95725071|NCT03672396|191420130|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.941|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|15.8|||t-test, 2 sided|||||15.8|-16.9|0.941
95725072|NCT03672396|191420131|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.3||||0.203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|5.9|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.9|-1.4|0.203
95725073|NCT03672396|191420132|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.3||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|2.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||||2.6|-0.04|0.057
95725074|NCT03672396|191420133|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1||||0.809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-1.0|0.809
95725075|NCT03672396|191420134|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.4||||0.191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.1|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.1|-0.3|0.191
95725076|NCT03672396|191420135|OTHER|Paired t-test analysis between baseline and post-testing values from a single group of individuals who completed both testing sessions.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|1.3|||t-test, 2 sided|||||1.3|-0.3|0.237
95725077|NCT04428502|191420138|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.6|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 1: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.6
95725078|NCT04428502|191420138|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.007|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 6: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.007
95725079|NCT04428502|191420138|EQUIVALENCE|Hypothesis tested was to evaluate that there is no difference in response between ACCP positive and ACCP negative PsA participants who were treated with etanercept.||||||0.004|||||||Student's t-test|||At Month 12: P-value \<0.05 was considered statistically significant, without multiplicity adjustment.||||0.004
95725080|NCT01364259|191420266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||0.175|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact||Our odds ratio is equal to 0\*5/9\*2 because we have a zero cell in the two by two table. Hence the OR = 0.|||||0.175
95725081|NCT00430638|191420275|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||No multiplicity adjustments|ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff blood pressure stage as factors and study baseline systolic BP value as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725082|NCT00430638|191420276|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA Model included randomized treatment and baseline cuff BP stage as factors and study baseline diastolic BP as a covariate.||Null hypothesis: For the entire efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725083|NCT00430638|191420277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (male systolic blood pressure (SBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725084|NCT00430638|191420277|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Males - diastolic blood pressure (DBP)): For the male efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725085|NCT00430638|191420278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725086|NCT00430638|191420278|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - females): For the female efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725087|NCT00430638|191420279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725088|NCT00430638|191420279|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - less than 65 years of age): For the efficacy population \< 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||<0.0001
95725089|NCT00430638|191420280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0125||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - \> or equal to 65 years old): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0125
95725090|NCT00430638|191420280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) \> or equal to 65): For the efficacy population \> or = to 65 years of age, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons.||||0.0006
95725091|NCT00430638|191420281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725092|NCT00430638|191420281|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Black participants): For the Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725093|NCT00430638|191420282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725094|NCT00430638|191420282|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - non-Black participants): For the Non-Black efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725095|NCT00430638|191420283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis(Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725096|NCT00430638|191420283|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 1 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 1 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725097|NCT00430638|191420284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Systolic blood pressure (SBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in SBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725098|NCT00430638|191420284|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||Null hypothesis (Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) - Stage 2 hypertensive participants): For the Stage 2 efficacy population, Olmesartan had the same effect on change from baseline in DBP at week 12 as Placebo. A statistical test was evaluated at the 2 sided significance level of 5% without adjustment for multiple comparisons||||<0.0001
95725099|NCT01529749|191420285|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725100|NCT01529749|191420286|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725101|NCT01529749|191420287|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725102|NCT01529749|191420288|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725103|NCT01529749|191420289|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725104|NCT01529749|191420290|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725105|NCT01529749|191420291|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725106|NCT01529749|191420292|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725107|NCT01529749|191420293|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.01
95725108|NCT01529749|191420294|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725109|NCT01529749|191420295|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725110|NCT01529749|191420296|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725111|NCT01529749|191420297|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725112|NCT01529749|191420298|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725113|NCT01529749|191420299|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||1
95725114|NCT01529749|191420300|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.49|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.49
95725115|NCT01529749|191420301|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Kruskal-Wallis|||||||0.02
95725116|NCT02094937|191420302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|2.49||||||||2.49|0.31|
95725117|NCT02094937|191420302|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|2.19||||||||2.19|0.28|
95725118|NCT02094937|191420303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|4.12||||||||4.12|0.90|
95725119|NCT02094937|191420303|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|3.2||||||||3.20|0.66|
95725120|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.938|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8458|1.0403||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.0403|0.8458|
95725121|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9968|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.898|1.1066||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1066|0.8980|
95725122|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0627|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9579|1.179||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD7442||1.1790|0.9579|
95725123|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8992|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8107|0.9974||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||0.9974|0.8107|
95725124|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9826|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8854|1.0905||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.0905|0.8854|
95725125|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0928|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9853|1.212||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD8895||1.2120|0.9853|
95725126|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0039|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9029|1.1161||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1161|0.9029|
95725127|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0336|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9288|1.1503||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1503|0.9288|
95725128|NCT05166421|191420333|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0296|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9258|1.1451||||||Statistical Comparison of AUCinf of AZD1061||1.1451|0.9258|
95725129|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9418|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8512|1.0421||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.0421|0.8512|
95725130|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9973|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9004|1.1046||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1046|0.9004|
95725131|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0589|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9559|1.173||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD7442||1.1730|0.9559|
95725132|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.8812|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7933|0.9788||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||0.9788|0.7933|
95725133|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8633|1.0674||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.0674|0.8633|
95725134|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0894|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9796|1.2116||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD8895||1.2116|0.9796|
95725135|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0065|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9061|1.118||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1180|0.9061|
95725136|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0293|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9257|1.1446||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1446|0.9257|
95725137|NCT05166421|191420334|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0227|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9196|1.1373||||||Statistical Comparison of AUClast of AZD1061||1.1373|0.9196|
95725138|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0308|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9451|1.1243||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.1243|0.9451|
95725139|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.993|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9112|1.0822||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0822|0.9112|
95725140|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9634|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8833|1.0507||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD7442||1.0507|0.8833|
95725141|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9701|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8894|1.0582||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0582|0.8894|
95725142|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9629|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8835|1.0494||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0494|0.8835|
95725143|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9926|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.91|1.0826||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD8895||1.0826|0.9100|
95725144|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0976|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9992|1.2057||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.2057|0.9992|
95725145|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.0195|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.929|1.119||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.1190|0.9290|
95725146|NCT05166421|191420335|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.9289|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8457|1.0203||||||Statistical Comparison of Cmax of AZD1061||1.0203|0.8457|
95725147|NCT02462382|191420351|EQUIVALENCE|The univariate analyses were conducted using Independent t-Tests for continuous variables and Fisher Exact Tests or Chi-Square Tests of Independence for categorical comparisons.|Fisher Exact Tests|0.041||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||POD 1 1cm incision.|Chi-squared|||Comparisons of pain scores using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) based on Post-Operative Day (POD).||||.006
95725148|NCT02496221|191420363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.0021||||0.1229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.5781|2.5739|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.5739|-20.5781|0.1229
95725149|NCT02496221|191420364|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-545.9585||||0.1291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1260.0|168.0858|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||168.0858|-1260.00|0.1291
95725150|NCT02496221|191420366|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.2992||||0.0317|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.0762|-1.5223|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||-1.5223|-31.0762|0.0317
95725151|NCT02496221|191420367|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|252.6099||||0.0291|TWO_SIDED|95.0|29.5081|475.7117|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||475.7117|29.5081|0.0291
95725152|NCT02496221|191420368|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3748||||0.7961|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4109|2.6614|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||2.6614|-3.4109|0.7961
95725153|NCT02496221|191420370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001526||||0.9424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.045665|0.048717|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.048717|-0.045665|0.9424
95725154|NCT02496221|191420371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.01456||||0.0733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.030666|0.001554|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment (albiglutide or placebo), and period as fixed effects and participant as random effect||||0.001554|-0.030666|0.0733
95725155|NCT01335399|191420378|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4358|||||||Stratified Log Rank|||||||0.4358
95725156|NCT01335399|191420378|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.71|0.77|1.12|||||E-Ld/Ld. Calculated using Cox proportional hazards modeling|||1.12|0.77|
95725157|NCT01335399|191420379|SUPERIORITY||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|1.26||||0.2232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|1.82|||CMH ESTIMATE OF COMMON ODDS RATIO|||||1.82|0.87|0.2232
95725158|NCT01335399|191420380|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.99||||0.8932|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|1.19|||Stratified log rank test||Stratified by stage of disease (International Staging System 1 - 2 vs 3), age (\<75 years old vs \>= 75 years old) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1 - 2) at randomization.|||1.19|0.82|0.8932
95725159|NCT01335399|191420382|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.93||||0.4358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.12|||Hazard Ratio|||||1.12|0.78|0.4358
95725160|NCT01893983|191420387|EQUIVALENCE|Compare whether 2 groups had any difference in risk/hazard of mental health engagement at any time during follow-up.|Cox Proportional Hazard|1.13||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.58||P value 0.05 is the threshold for statistical significance|Regression, Cox|Adjusted for site, mental health treatment history and mental health symptom severity at baseline, baseline amphetamine and opioid scores.|The referral alone arm is the reference group (denominator), and the motivational coaching arm is the numerator.|Compare 2 groups in regard to time to first mental health treatment using Cox proportional hazards regression.||1.58|0.81|0.660
95725161|NCT01120600|191420391|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|5.59|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.48|6.7|||cLDA|||A constrained full likelihood longitudinal data analysis (cLDA) method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||6.7|4.48|< 0.001
95725162|NCT01120600|191420392|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.02|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.27|2.77|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.77|1.27|< 0.001
95728778|NCT01261325|191427241|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.79||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.79|0.54|<0.001
95725163|NCT01120600|191420393|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|1.69|||=|0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|2.93|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||2.93|0.45|= 0.008
95725164|NCT01120600|191420394|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|2.12|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|3.3|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||3.3|0.93|< 0.001
95725165|NCT01120600|191420395|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-76.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-92.56|-60.61|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-60.61|-92.56|< 0.001
95725166|NCT01120600|191420396|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-68.08|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-78.1|-58.06|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-58.06|-78.1|< 0.001
95725167|NCT01120600|191420397|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-7.94|||=|0.019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.58|-1.31|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-1.31|-14.58|= 0.019
95725168|NCT01120600|191420398|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Means|-16.0|||=|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.74|-6.27|||cLDA|||A cLDA method was used for this statistical analysis. The cLDA model included the baseline measurement and all post-baseline percent changes from baseline in the response vector, with fixed effects for treatment, time, geographic region, machine type and treatment-by-time interaction, geographic region-by-time interaction, and machine type-by-time interaction.||-6.27|-25.74|= 0.001
95725169|NCT02060461|191420416|OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Paired Students t-test of FS200 and IntraLase intraoperative flap thickness measurements obtained by ultrasound pachymetry||||.003
95725170|NCT00803959|191420419|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The investigators selected the 11% noninferiority margin on the basis of clinical judgement that it was a reasonable threshold for a trade-off between a decrease in the rate of successful treatment and the potential benefits of eliminating UDS studies from preoperative assessment. To minimize bias toward noninferiority, only women treated per protocol (e.g. who underwent the randomly assigned evaluation) were considered in the primary outcome analysis (ITT analysis considered secondary).|Difference in success % (UDS - no UDS)|-0.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.5|6.9|||Chi-squared|Noninferiority declared if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in % success (UDS - no UDS) was \< 11%.|Point estimates of success percentage are calculated as 200/259= 77.2% for Office Evaluation Only and 203/264 = 76.9% for Urodynamic Testing arm.|The null hypothesis was that the no UDS group was non-inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a significance level of 5% and a true success rate in each group of 70% with a noninferiority margin of 11 percentage points, we needed to enroll 270 women/group to have 80% power for determining whether the results in the no UDS group were non inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, a sample of 300 women per group was required.||6.9|-7.5|
95725171|NCT00803959|191420420|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0||||The p-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha level is considered to be 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments were made; test had 1 degree of freedom.||Null hypothesis is that the two groups will not differ in the percent meeting 70% reduction in Urogenital Distress Inventory score.||||0.63
95725172|NCT00803959|191420421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|No adjustments made; 1 degree of freedom test.||"Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportion responding very much better or much better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at the 12 month visit."||||0.68
95725173|NCT00803959|191420422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0||||P-value is not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|One df t test assumed equal variance; no evidence was found to the contrary.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in UDI score.||||0.68
95725174|NCT00803959|191420423|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|Test was 1 df t-test assuming equal variances; no evidence to the contrary was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to change in ISI score.||||0.40
95725175|NCT00803959|191420424|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons; a priori threshold was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in change in MESA stress score.||||0.50
95725176|NCT00803959|191420425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in MESA urgency score.||||0.19
95725177|NCT00803959|191420426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.49||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in IIQ score.||||0.49
95725178|NCT00803959|191420427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02||95.0||||P-value not adjusted for multiple comparisons and a priori threshold for statistical significance set at alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df assuming equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in SF-12 scores.||||0.02
95725179|NCT00803959|191420428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|The t test had 1 df and assumed equal variance; no evidence of different variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in PGI-S score.||||0.51
95725180|NCT00803959|191420429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.51||95.0|||||Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in the proportion of women who score moderate or severe on the PGI-S at 12 months||||0.51
95725181|NCT00803959|191420430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.28||95.0||||P-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha = 0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|T test had 1 df and assumed equal variances; no evidence of unequal variances was found.||Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean overall patient satisfaction score at 12 months.||||0.28
95725182|NCT00803959|191420431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.19||95.0||||P-values was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and the a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at alpha = 0.05.|Chi-squared|Chi-squared test had 1 df and no adjustments.||Null hypothesis is that the proportion having a positive provocative stress test at 12 months was the same in both treatment arms.||||0.19
95725183|NCT00434161|191420432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.679||||0.188|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.351|1.313||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||1.313|0.351|0.188
95725184|NCT00434161|191420432|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.242||||0.468|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.635|2.431||A 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison gives an overall type I error rate of 5%.|Proportional odds model|The proportional odds model including the randomization factors as covariates was used for the primary endpoint, maximum severity of OM.|The odds ratio was defined to be the odds of a subject receiving placebo experiencing OM divided by the odds of a subject receiving palifermin developing OM.|The null hypothesis was that the severity distribution for OM was identical for the placebo and each of the two palifermin groups, and the alternative hypothesis was that palifermin resulted in a shift in the distribution to less severe mucositis than placebo. A total of 275 subjects would give at least 95% power, with a 2.5% type I error rate for each comparison to detect an odds ratio of at least 3.5 between the placebo group and each of the two palifermin groups.||2.431|0.635|0.468
95725185|NCT00434161|191420433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|13.262||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-4.303|30.828||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||30.828|-4.303|0.245
95725186|NCT00434161|191420433|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-2.014||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-20.519|16.491||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||16.491|-20.519|0.806
95725187|NCT00434161|191420434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.409|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.82||0.095|TWO_SIDED|97.5|0.07|4.748||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||A type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||4.748|0.070|0.095
95725188|NCT00434161|191420434|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.213|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.13||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-2.575|2.15||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||2.150|-2.575|0.806
95725189|NCT00434161|191420435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.436||||0.142|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-1.542|32.415||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||For the secondary endpoints, the type I error rate was protected by using the Hochberg procedure to adjust for multiple testing16. Palifermin was not to be declared to be statistically superior to placebo with respect to secondary efficacy endpoints unless the primary endpoint was statistically significant in favor of palifermin.||32.415|-1.542|0.142
95725190|NCT00434161|191420435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.331||||0.806|TWO_SIDED|97.5|-11.82|22.482||For secondary endpoints the type I error was protected by using the Hochberg procedure. The reported p-values are adjusted by the Hochberg procedure.|van Elteren test|||||22.482|-11.820|0.806
95725191|NCT00434161|191420436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.669|33.43||According to statistical analysis plan it was not planned to calculate any P-Value.||||||33.43|-21.669|
95725192|NCT00434161|191420438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.023|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.134|0.181||||||||0.181|-0.134|
95725193|NCT00434161|191420439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.061|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.26||||||||0.260|-0.138|
95725194|NCT00434161|191420440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-3.689|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.641|14.264||||||||14.264|-21.641|
95725195|NCT00434161|191420441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.951|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.679|12.58||||||||12.580|-0.679|
95728779|NCT01261325|191427242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.65|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|0.8||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.80|0.53|<0.001
95725196|NCT00434161|191420443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.64||||0.192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.26|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.26|0.33|0.192
95725197|NCT00434161|191420444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.417|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.086|45.919||||||||45.919|-11.086|
95725198|NCT00434161|191420445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.16|0.55|0.236
95725199|NCT00434161|191420446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio, log|0.84||||0.372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.23|||Log Rank|||All comparisons for the long-term safety endpoints were based on the combined palifermin group (pre- and post- high dose chemotherapy and pre-high dose chemotherapy only) versus placebo (placebo over palifermin). Overall survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Kaplan-Meier estimates were provided together with the 95% confidence interval.||1.23|0.58|0.372
95725200|NCT00461500|191420461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|7.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.6||0.683||95.0|-27.96|42.43|||ANCOVA||mean difference = drug SFC 100 minus FP 100|||42.43|-27.96|0.683
95725201|NCT01151813|191420474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.02|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||.02
95725202|NCT01151813|191420475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95725203|NCT01151813|191420476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.03|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95725204|NCT01151813|191420477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.04|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.04
95725205|NCT03081767|191420478|OTHER||||||<|1e-07||||||Actual P-Value = 3.89597E-42. A P-value of \<0.05 was considered significant.|t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.0000001
95725206|NCT01267266|191420479|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|TWO_SIDED||||||Log Rank|||||||0.20
95725207|NCT01335477|191420486|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|93.73|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.907||0.0002||95.0|44.78|142.68||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||142.68|44.78|0.0002
95725208|NCT01335477|191420487|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.69|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.151||0.0197||95.0|-4.95|-0.43|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.43|-4.95|0.0197
95725209|NCT01335477|191420488|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.38||||0.005||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo.|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox's regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||0.77|0.19|0.0050
95725210|NCT01335477|191420489|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.77|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.808|<|0.0001||95.0|70.92|148.62|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.62|70.92|<0.0001
95725211|NCT01335477|191420490|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.742|<|0.0001||95.0|2.78|5.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.69|2.78|<0.0001
95725212|NCT01335477|191420491|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.06|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.607|<|0.0001||95.0|1.87|4.25|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.25|1.87|<0.0001
95725213|NCT01335477|191420492|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.743|<|0.0001||95.0|2.76|5.67|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.67|2.76|<0.0001
95725214|NCT01335477|191420495|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.286||||0.1833||95.0|0.89|1.86|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||1.86|0.89|0.1833
95725215|NCT01335477|191420496|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.794||||0.0011||95.0|1.26|2.55|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted.||2.55|1.26|0.0011
95725216|NCT01335477|191420497|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.664||||0.0218||95.0|1.08|2.57|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||2.57|1.08|0.0218
95725217|NCT01335477|191420498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.675||0.4019||95.0|-4.69|1.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.88|-4.69|0.4019
95725218|NCT01335477|191420499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.342||0.022||95.0|-5.71|-0.45|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.45|-5.71|0.0220
95725219|NCT01335477|191420500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.36||0.0152||95.0|-5.97|-0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||-0.64|-5.97|0.0152
95725220|NCT01335477|191420501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.192||0.0089||95.0|-5.46|-0.79|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||-0.79|-5.46|0.0089
95725221|NCT01335477|191420502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.685||0.1587||95.0|-5.68|0.93|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.93|-5.68|0.1587
95725222|NCT01335477|191420503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.713||0.2326||95.0|-1.31|5.41|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.41|-1.31|0.2326
95725223|NCT01335477|191420504|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.564||0.2475||95.0|-1.26|4.88|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.88|-1.26|0.2475
95725224|NCT01335477|191420505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.379||||0.069||95.0|0.98|1.95|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.95|0.98|0.0690
95725225|NCT01335477|191420507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.38||||0.007||95.0|0.19|0.77|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||0.77|0.19|0.0070
95725226|NCT01335477|191420508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.74||||0.2995||95.0|0.4|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.40|0.2995
95725227|NCT01335477|191420509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.86||||0.6654||95.0|0.39|1.9|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.90|0.39|0.6654
95725228|NCT01335477|191420510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.2209||95.0|0.34|1.35|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.35|0.34|0.2209
95725229|NCT01335477|191420511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.67||||0.1664||95.0|0.37|1.21|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.21|0.37|0.1664
95725230|NCT01335477|191420512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.8||||0.2123||95.0|0.55|1.16|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height.||1.16|0.55|0.2123
95725231|NCT01335477|191420513|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.213||0.2032||95.0|-0.15|0.69|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.69|-0.15|0.2032
95725232|NCT01335477|191420514|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1005||0.26||95.0|-0.084|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo."|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.310|-0.084|0.2600
95725233|NCT03840811|191420524|OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Sign test|||To assess whether the fitness of a given mutant is different than that of wild-type, the ratio of colony-forming units of the mutant strain was compared to those of the WT strain at the time of treatment and in the inoculum using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test with a significance level of 0.025. CIs of participants in Mixed FA1090 + FA7537 group were compared to mean = 1.||||0.230
95725234|NCT03840811|191420525|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.14||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.58|0.34||One-sided Fisher's Exact Test with alpha=0.025|Fisher Exact|||||0.34|-0.58|0.54
95725235|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-1.7||Month 1|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.7|-2.8|<0.001
95725236|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-2.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.5||Month 3|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.5|-2.7|<0.001
95725237|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|-0.9||Month 6|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-0.9|-2.1|<0.001
95725238|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.31|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 9|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
95725239|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.32|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-1.0||Month 12|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.2|<0.001
95725240|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|-1.0||Month 15|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.3|<0.001
95725241|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.35|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|-1.0||Month 18|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.0|-2.4|<0.001
95725242|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 21|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
95725243|NCT01294592|191420531|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Adjusted Mean Difference|-1.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.34|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-1.2||Month 24|t-test, 2 sided|Values are based on t-tests from the general linear model|Estimates are based on the adjusted means from the general linear model: Change from Baseline = Treatment + Cluster + Baseline Value. The adjusted mean difference is based on dutasteride plus tamsulosin minus Watchful Waiting All.|||-1.2|-2.5|<0.001
95725244|NCT03549130|191420542|SUPERIORITY||Least Square (LS) mean difference|-0.77||||0.2446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.53||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.53|-2.06|0.2446
95725245|NCT03549130|191420542|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.8||||0.0333|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.45|-0.14||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep Time Problems.||-0.14|-3.45|0.0333
95725246|NCT03549130|191420542|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-1.63||||0.0345|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.12||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Symptoms on Waking in the Morning.||-0.12|-3.13|0.0345
95725247|NCT03549130|191420542|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.1711|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.72|0.31||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Practical Problems.||0.31|-1.72|0.1711
95725248|NCT03549130|191420543|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.5063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|0.92||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep problems.||0.92|-1.85|0.5063
95725249|NCT03549130|191420543|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.97||||0.2496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.64|0.69||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for Sleep time problems.||0.69|-2.64|0.2496
95728984|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.221|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|5.1||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||5.10|-1.20|0.221
95725250|NCT03549130|191420543|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.71||||0.3325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.16|0.74||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for symptoms on waking in the morning.||0.74|-2.16|0.3325
95725251|NCT03549130|191420543|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.81||||0.1088|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.81|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for practical problems.||0.18|-1.81|0.1088
95725252|NCT03549130|191420544|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.25||||0.2513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.68|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.68|0.2513
95725253|NCT03549130|191420544|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.37||||0.0743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|0.04||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.04|-0.78|0.0743
95725254|NCT03549130|191420544|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.55||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||-0.10|-0.99|0.0158
95725255|NCT03549130|191420544|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.47||||0.0489|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|0.0||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.00|-0.94|0.0489
95725256|NCT03549130|191420545|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.19||||0.3034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.18||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for feel tired and unrefreshed.||0.18|-0.57|0.3034
95725257|NCT03549130|191420545|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.15||||0.4891|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.57|0.27||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for nasal congestion or stuffy nose.||0.27|-0.57|0.4891
95725258|NCT03549130|191420545|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.01||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|0.4||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for congestion in sinuses.||0.40|-0.43|0.9498
95725259|NCT03549130|191420545|SUPERIORITY||LS mean difference|-0.36||||0.1235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.83|0.1||Between treatment p-values.|ANCOVA|Treatment,site used as factors;following variables as covariate:baseline, age,level of congestion symptoms at baseline,Berlin score,Epworth sleepiness|Difference between treatments of adjusted mean change from baseline.|Treatment comparison of Symptoms on Waking in the Morning in NRQLQ between active and placebo strip group for time to clear nighttime drainage after waking up.||0.10|-0.83|0.1235
95725260|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8498||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.8498
95725261|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4652||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.4652
95725262|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.439||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4390
95725263|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2997||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.2997
95725264|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1116||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.1116
95725265|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5101||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5101
95725266|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.4740
95725267|NCT03549130|191420546|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2787||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.2787
95725268|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5958||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep problems.||||0.5958
95725269|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7296||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep problems.||||0.7296
95725270|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7171||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.7171
95725271|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.403||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in sleep time problems.||||0.4030
95725272|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4741||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.4741
95725273|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5591||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in symptoms on waking in AM.||||0.5591
95725274|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8285||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on all of the items in practical problems.||||0.8285
95725275|NCT03549130|191420547|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3487||||||P-value are based on chi-square test|Chi-squared|||Treatment comparison of participants showing improvement based on NRQLQ on any of the items in practical problems.||||0.3487
95725276|NCT00623623|191420548|OTHER||Relative risk|0.86||||0.195|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.68|0.195
95725277|NCT00623623|191420549|OTHER||Relative risk|1.03||||0.904|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.68|1.55|||modified Poisson regression|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.55|0.68|0.904
95725278|NCT00623623|191420550|OTHER||Relative risk|0.97||||0.905|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|1.58|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.58|0.60|0.905
95725279|NCT00623623|191420551|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative risk|0.73||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.08|0.49|0.120
95725280|NCT00623623|191420552|OTHER||Relative risk|0.79||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.57|1.11|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.11|0.57|0.170
95725281|NCT00623623|191420553|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.758|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.61|0.758
95725282|NCT00623623|191420554|OTHER||Relative risk|1.1||||0.663|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.66|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.66|0.73|0.663
95725283|NCT00623623|191420555|OTHER||Relative risk|1.72||||0.148|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.82|3.6|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||3.60|0.82|0.148
95725284|NCT00623623|191420556|OTHER||Relative risk|0.5||||0.572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|5.52|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.52|0.05|0.572
95725285|NCT00623623|191420557|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.207|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|1.13|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.13|0.58|0.207
95725286|NCT00623623|191420558|OTHER||Relative risk|0.81||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.04|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.04|0.63|0.100
95725287|NCT00623623|191420559|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.91||||0.511|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.67|1.22|||modified Poission Regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.22|0.67|0.511
95725288|NCT00623623|191420560|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.75||||0.369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|5.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||5.97|0.52|0.369
95725289|NCT00623623|191420561|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.99||||0.168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|49.08|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||49.08|0.51|0.168
95725290|NCT00623623|191420562|OTHER||Relative Risk|8.02||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|63.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||63.97|1.00|0.049
95725291|NCT00623623|191420563|OTHER||Relative Risk|4.51||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|20.82|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||20.82|0.98|0.054
95725292|NCT00623623|191420564|OTHER||Relative Risk|2.0||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|7.99|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||7.99|0.50|0.324
95725293|NCT00623623|191420565|OTHER||Relative Risk|3.01||||0.032|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|8.24|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||8.24|1.10|0.032
95725294|NCT00623623|191420566|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.36||||0.111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|1.97|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.97|0.93|0.111
95725295|NCT00623623|191420567|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.08||||0.397|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.28|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.28|0.91|0.397
95725296|NCT00623623|191420568|OTHER||Relative Risk|1.13||||0.107|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.31|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.31|0.97|0.107
95725297|NCT00623623|191420569|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.84||||0.471|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.34|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||1.34|0.53|0.471
95725298|NCT00623623|191420570|SUPERIORITY||Relative Risk|0.35||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|0.71|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||No confirmatory statistical hypothesis was pre-specified. All statistical tests were of exploratory nature based on descriptive p-values for formal statistical hypotheses generation.||0.71|0.17|0.003
95725299|NCT00623623|191420571|OTHER||Relative risk|1.17||||0.451|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.73|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.73|0.78|0.451
95725300|NCT00623623|191420572|OTHER||Relative Risk|0.87||||0.22|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|1.09|||modified Poisson regression model|modified Poisson regression model with robust error variance||||1.09|0.69|0.220
95725301|NCT01084005|191420601|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.81|-0.48|||ANCOVA|||||-0.48|-0.81|<0.0001
95725302|NCT01084005|191420602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.45|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.45|<0.0001
95725303|NCT01084005|191420603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.57|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.71|-0.43|||ANCOVA|||||-0.43|-0.71|<0.0001
95725304|NCT01084005|191420604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.47|||ANCOVA|||||-0.47|-0.77|<0.0001
95725305|NCT01084005|191420605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.8|<|0.0001||95.0|-30.2|-11.2|||ANCOVA|||||-11.2|-30.2|<0.0001
95725306|NCT01084005|191420606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.1|<|0.0001||95.0|-24.7|-12.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.6|-24.7|<0.0001
95725307|NCT01084005|191420607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.4|<|0.0001||95.0|-28.1|-14.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-14.8|-28.1|<0.0001
95725308|NCT01084005|191420608|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.2|<|0.0001||95.0|-29.8|-13.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-13.4|-29.8|<0.0001
95725309|NCT01084005|191420609|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.319|||<|0.0001||95.0|3.321|20.837|||Regression, Logistic|||||20.837|3.321|<0.0001
95725310|NCT01084005|191420612|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.214||||0.0048|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.073|0.625|||Regression, Logistic|||Lina 5 mg qd vs Placebo||0.625|0.073|0.0048
95725311|NCT02144259|191420633|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||GEE|||Because the expected amount of postpartum weight loss in non-breastfeeding women is not documented in the literature, we chose a sample size that would enable us to detect a one standard deviation difference in weight loss between the 3 groups at the primary 6 month endpoint. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to test differences among all 3 groups over all the study periods.||||<0.05
95725312|NCT02144259|191420635|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95725313|NCT00472446|191420658|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.028|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||.028
95725314|NCT00472446|191420659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing of treatment)||||0.016
95725315|NCT00472446|191420659|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.723|||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative versus post-operative application||||0.723
95725316|NCT00472446|191420661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.94|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of the two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Paracetamol:"||||0.94
95725317|NCT00472446|191420661|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.58|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|mid p value of two-sided Fisher test||"null hypothesis: outcome measure (Proportion of patients taking analgetics) is equal between superficial cervical block and placebo treatment (irrespective of timing)~Proportion taking Metamizole:"||||0.58
95725318|NCT00472446|191420662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.328|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: paracetamol"||||0.328
95725319|NCT00472446|191420662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in pooled dose of analgetics, superficial block versus Placebo~outcome: metamizole"||||0.81
95725320|NCT00472446|191420662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.331|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled paracetamol dose"||||0.331
95725321|NCT00472446|191420662|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.44|TWO_SIDED||||||Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|Non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects with Box approximation, full model||"null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure pre-operative and post-operative application~outcome measure: pooled metamizole dose"||||0.440
95725322|NCT00472446|191420663|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.925|TWO_SIDED||||||non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic|non-parametric ANOVA-type statistic for pooled main effects, full model||null hypothesis: no difference in outcome measure for superficial cervical block versus placebo treatment||||0.925
95725323|NCT03051256|191420695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0122|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0122
95725324|NCT03051256|191420695|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0308|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0308
95725325|NCT03051256|191420696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0103|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0103
95725326|NCT03051256|191420696|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0039|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0039
95725327|NCT03051256|191420697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1237|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1237
95725328|NCT03051256|191420697|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1017|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.1017
95725329|NCT03051256|191420698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0066
95725330|NCT03051256|191420698|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0014|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0014
95725331|NCT03051256|191420699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0245|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0245
95725332|NCT03051256|191420699|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0253|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0253
95725333|NCT03051256|191420700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0454|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0454
95725334|NCT03051256|191420700|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0043|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.0043
95725335|NCT03051256|191420701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0177|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0177
95725336|NCT03051256|191420701|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0072|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0072
95725337|NCT03051256|191420702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0895|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0895
95725338|NCT03051256|191420702|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0109|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0109
95725339|NCT01361607|191420711|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.84||||0.2735|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.19|1.5|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.50|-6.19|0.2735
95725340|NCT02273206|191420722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2562|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.2562
95725341|NCT02273206|191420722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9795|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.9795
95725342|NCT02273206|191420722|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3917|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference||||0.3917
95725343|NCT02273206|191420723|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.346||||0.0677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.979|1.851||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline colorectal cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.851|0.979|0.0677
95725344|NCT02273206|191420724|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.031||||0.8501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.753|1.41||Treatment Group (CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline breast cancer up to date status, age, and income|||1.410|0.753|0.8501
95725345|NCT02273206|191420725|SUPERIORITY|Test the coefficient for intervention|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.876||||0.4432|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.625|1.228||Treatment Group(CCI vs PCM)|Regression, Logistic|p\<0.05|In the logistic regression model, adjustments were made for PHQ9 at baseline, improvement of depression by one level, baseline cervical cancer up to date status, age, and income.|||1.228|0.625|0.4432
95725346|NCT02273206|191420726|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Two-sample t-test|p\<0.05||PHQ9 Intervention Arm Difference between baseline and 12-month follow up||||0.39
95725347|NCT02273206|191420727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at baseline.||||0.60
95725348|NCT02273206|191420727|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 6 Months||||0.86
95725349|NCT02273206|191420728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at Baseline.||||0.60
95725350|NCT02273206|191420728|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL-20) at 12 months.||||0.23
95725351|NCT02273206|191420729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4483|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.4483
95725352|NCT02273206|191420729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1706|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.1706
95725353|NCT02273206|191420729|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3568|||||||Chi-squared|p\<0.05||Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Arm Difference at 12 Months||||0.3568
95725354|NCT02273206|191420730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at baseline.||||0.85
95725355|NCT02273206|191420730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 6 months.||||0.23
95725356|NCT02273206|191420730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Visits at 12 months.||||0.98
95725357|NCT02273206|191420730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.57|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at baseline.||||0.57
95725358|NCT02273206|191420730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 6 months.||||0.92
95725359|NCT02273206|191420730|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Mental Health Care Utilization - Mental Health Prescriptions at 12 months.||||0.99
95725360|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at baseline.||||0.20
95725361|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.17
95725362|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.69
95725363|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at baseline.||||0.72
95725364|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.72|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.72
95725365|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in breast cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.87
95725366|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at baseline.||||0.65
95725367|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 6 months.||||0.82
95725368|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in cervical cancer screening at 12 months.||||0.92
95725369|NCT02273206|191420731|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.56
95725370|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.17
95725371|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.38
95725372|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.07|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.07
95725373|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.99
95725374|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 6 months.||||0.15
95725375|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Breast Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.55
95725376|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at baseline.||||0.34
95725377|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.31|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 6 months. .||||0.31
95725378|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Cervical Cancer Screening at 12 months.||||0.39
95725379|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.87|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at baseline.||||0.87
95725380|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.83|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 6 months.||||0.83
95725381|NCT02273206|191420732|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||Physician Recommendation of Mental Health Care at 12 months.||||0.36
95725382|NCT02273206|191420733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.95
95725383|NCT02273206|191420733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.08
95725384|NCT02273206|191420733|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.27|||||||Chi-squared|||Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale score at 12 months. Coding of the measure was based on Spitzer, R.L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J.B., \& Lowe, B. (2006).||||0.27
95725385|NCT02273206|191420734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.54|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.54
95725386|NCT02273206|191420734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
95725387|NCT02273206|191420734|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.68|||||||Chi-squared|||Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.68
95725388|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.74|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.74
95725389|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.86|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.86
95725390|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.79|||||||Chi-squared|||Colorectal Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.79
95725391|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
95725392|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.71|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.71
95725393|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Breast Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.77
95725394|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.64|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.64
95725395|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.11|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.11
95725396|NCT02273206|191420735|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Chi-squared|||Cervical Cancer Screening attitudes at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||1.00
95725397|NCT02273206|191420737|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.56|||||||Chi-squared|||Satisfaction with decision to participate in Mental Health Care at 12 months. Recoding of the continuous measure was based on quartiles.||||0.56
95725398|NCT02273206|191420738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.18|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale Score at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.18
95725399|NCT02273206|191420738|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.32|||||||Chi-squared|||Devaluation-Discrimination Scale score at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.32
95725400|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.50
95725401|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.51
95725402|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Shared Decision Making at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.02
95725403|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.91|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.91
95725404|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.69|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.69
95725405|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.63|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Access at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.63
95725406|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.55|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.55
95725407|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.34
95725408|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.19|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Care Coordination at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.19
95725409|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at baseline. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.47
95725410|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at six months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.38
95725411|NCT02273206|191420739|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||Chi-squared|||Ambulatory Care Experiences - Quality at twelve months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.98
95725412|NCT02273206|191420740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at baseline. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.78
95725413|NCT02273206|191420740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.2|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 6 months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.20
95725414|NCT02273206|191420740|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared|||Medication Adherence at 12 Months. Coding of the measure was based on Morisky et al. (2008).||||0.77
95725415|NCT02273206|191420741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at baseline.Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.70
95725416|NCT02273206|191420741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.89|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 6 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.89
95725417|NCT02273206|191420741|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.95|||||||Chi-squared|||Self-efficacy at 12 months. Continuous summary score was converted into 4 categories using quartiles as cut-points.||||0.95
95725418|NCT00410410|191420742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.73||||0.124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.48|1.09||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata (whether a participant had an inadequate response and/or intolerance to anti-TNF therapy).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA comparison being statistically significant at 5% level, ABA \~10 vs PLA to be tested at 5% significance level.||Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between ABA arm and placebo (PLA) arm. ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg vs PLA: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm,expected PLA response rate=40%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=65%. ABA \~10 mg/kg vs. PLA: power=90%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 40%, ABA \~10=60%.||1.09|0.48|0.124
95725419|NCT00410410|191420744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.67||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Conditional on ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA comparison for clinical response being significant at 5% level, this comparison for remission will be tested at 5%.|Conditional on both the remission comparison for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA, and the clinical response comparison for ABA\~10 vs PLA being significant at 5%, the secondary remission comparison for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference between each of the ABA and placebo (PLA). At 5% significance level, Aba 30/\~10 vs. PLA: power=96%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA rate=15%. ABA 30/\~10 =35%; Aba \~10 vs. PLA: power=82%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate= 15%, ABA/\~10 mg/kg=30%||0.67|.06|
95725420|NCT00410410|191420745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|1.05||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi square p-value and RR along with 95% confidence interval provided, adjusting for randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|If ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA remission comparison is significant at 5% level, the mucosal healing comparison for the same treatment group will be tested at 5%|Conditional on both the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA 30/\~10 vs PLA and the comparison for remission for ABA \~10 vs. PLA being significant, the comparison for mucosal healing for ABA \~10 vs PLA will be tested at 5%.|Null hypothesis=no treatment difference (relative risk \[RR\] of ABA over placebo=1) for mucosal healing. ABA 30/\~10 vs. placebo: power=99%, sample size=140 per arm, expected PLA response rate=30%, ABA 30/\~10 mg/kg=60%. ABA \~10 vs. placebo: power=98%, sample size=140 per arm, 5% significance; expected PLA response rate= 30%, ABA \~10 mg/kg=55%||1.05|0.42|
95725421|NCT00410410|191420746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.044||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%.|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms.||||0.044
95725422|NCT00410410|191420752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.149||||||All statistical testing was performed at a pre-specified alpha-level of 5%|Cochran-Armitage Trend Test|||The Cochran-Armitage trend test was performed to evaluate whether a relationship existed between the response and dose regimen by comparing the proportion of participants in response across all four treatment arms. Normal approximation was used if the number of responses in a treatment group is at least 5. Otherwise an exact method was used.||||0.149
95725423|NCT01504867|191420887|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Wald|This was a large sample (Wald) test estimated using a conditional logistic regression model with site as a stratification variable.||The primary outcome significance level was adjusted for multiple testing associated with the interim analysis. Its significance level is 92.6%||||0.53
95725424|NCT01504867|191420888|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.99|||||||Chi-squared|||||||>0.99
95725425|NCT01504867|191420889|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.36
95725426|NCT01504867|191420890|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.23
95725427|NCT01504867|191420891|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.72
95725428|NCT01504867|191420892|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.08
95725429|NCT01504867|191420893|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.79
95725430|NCT01154153|191420909|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Treatment Ratio of Geometric mean|0.966|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.892|1.045|||ANCOVA||The treatment ratio was calculated as an exponential of the mean difference between treatments in log scale.|Missing cortisol values were imputed with multiple imputation. AUC(0-24 hr) was calculated for each imputation and analyzed with log-transformation using an ANCOVA model and analyzed with treatment, sex, and age group as fixed effects, and log-transformed baseline value as a covariate. The mean difference in log scale between treatments and its standard error were calculated by Least Squares mean. Results from multiply imputed data were combined using SAS procedure MIANALYZE.||1.045|0.892|
95725431|NCT01154153|191420910|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.85|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.34|-0.37|||ANCOVA|For ANCOVA, treatment arm, randomization strata were fixed effects and baseline value was a covariate.||||-0.37|-1.34|0.0007
95725432|NCT01154153|191420911|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1332||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.1332
95725433|NCT01154153|191420912|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3314||95.0||||Based on the ordinal evaluation score and adjusted for the randomization strata.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.3314
95725434|NCT03033069|191420941|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares (LS ) Mean Difference|-5.99|||=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.79|-2.19|||Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)|||MMRM analysis with an unstructured (UN) variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-2.19|-9.79|=0.0021
95725435|NCT03033069|191420941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-1.74|||=|0.3868|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|2.22|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.22|-5.70|=0.3868
95725436|NCT03033069|191420941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-0.91|||=|0.6399|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.74|2.92|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||2.92|-4.74|=0.6399
95725437|NCT03033069|191420941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-5.08|||=|0.0106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.96|-1.2|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-1.20|-8.96|=0.0106
95725438|NCT03033069|191420941|SUPERIORITY||LS Mean Difference|-4.24|||=|0.0384|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.26|-0.23|||MMRM|||MMRM analysis with an UN variance covariance structure was performed. The model included fixed class-effect terms for treatment, trial site, type of trauma (combat related Yes/No), visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week and included the interaction term of baseline values of CAPS-5 total score by visit week as a covariate.||-0.23|-8.26|=0.0384
95725439|NCT00530439|191420948|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.014||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.014
95725440|NCT02257632|191420979|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.64|-10.32||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all other patients|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-10.32|-19.64|<0.0001
95725441|NCT02257632|191420980|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.98|-6.94||missing Baseline VEGF-A level covariate values were imputed by the mean value of non-missing Baseline VEGF-A level from all the patients with values|ANCOVA|including treatment group and center as fixed effect factors and Baseline VEGF-A as a covariate||||-6.94|-15.98|< 0.0001
95725442|NCT01133821|191421032|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||time effect for HRSD-17||||<0.0001
95725443|NCT01133821|191421033|SUPERIORITY||||||>|0.05|||||||Regression, Linear|Adjusted for baseline scores||||||>0.05
95725444|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|0.62|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.424|0.821|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.821|0.424|<0.0001
95725445|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|1.21||||0.0363|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.362|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.362|1.050|0.0363
95725446|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|13.48|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|10.096|17.994|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||17.994|10.096|<0.0001
95725447|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|1.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.728|1.963|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||1.963|1.728|<0.0001
95725448|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|0.87||||0.0201|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.789|0.96|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t||0.960|0.789|0.0201
95725449|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|6.16|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|5.253|7.217|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t, 40mg vs 5mg||7.217|5.253|<0.0001
95725450|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|0.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.661|0.958|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.958|0.661|<0.0001
95725451|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|1.12||||0.1278|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.99|1.245|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf||1.245|0.990|0.1278
95725452|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|9.43|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|6.834|13.012|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||13.012|6.834|<0.0001
95725453|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|1.98|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.86|2.106|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||2.106|1.860|<0.0001
95725454|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Slope|0.79||||0.0082|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.67|0.912|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf||0.912|0.670|0.0082
95725455|NCT04229303|191421066|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|5.86|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.627|7.421|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf, 40mg vs 5mg||7.421|4.627|<0.0001
95725456|NCT04229303|191421067|OTHER||Slope|0.12||||0.2575|TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.06|0.308|||General power constant model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||0.308|-0.060|0.2575
95725457|NCT04229303|191421067|OTHER||Slope|1.17||||0.0491|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.03|1.316|||General power linear model|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax||1.316|1.030|0.0491
95725458|NCT04229303|191421067|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|11.17|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|8.435|14.803|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||14.803|8.435|<0.0001
95725459|NCT04229303|191421067|OTHER||Slope|1.25|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.135|1.363|||General power constant model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||1.363|1.135|<0.0001
95725460|NCT04229303|191421067|OTHER||Slope|0.74||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.634|0.843|||General power linear model|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax||0.843|0.634|0.0003
95725461|NCT04229303|191421067|OTHER||Geometric mean difference|4.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.946|6.254|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax, 40mg vs 5mg||6.254|3.946|<0.0001
95725462|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|2.0||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.528|2.617|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.617|1.528|0.0004
95725463|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.612|6.187|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.187|3.612|<0.0001
95725464|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|2.81|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.017|3.925|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t day 10||3.925|2.017|<0.0001
95725465|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|5.28|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.783|7.361|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||7.361|3.783|<0.0001
95725466|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|1.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.615|2.396|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||2.396|1.615|<0.0001
95725467|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|5.09|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.178|6.196|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 1||6.196|4.178|<0.0001
95725468|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|2.45||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.791|3.349|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||3.349|1.791|0.0002
95725469|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|4.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.365|6.294|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-t Day 10||6.294|3.365|<0.0001
95725470|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|1.99||||0.0005|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.524|2.602|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.602|1.524|0.0005
95725471|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|4.58|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.505|5.984|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.984|3.505|<0.0001
95725472|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|2.65||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.851|3.781|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.781|1.851|0.0003
95725473|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|5.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.587|7.088|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||7.088|3.587|<0.0001
95725474|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|1.93|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.569|2.384|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||2.384|1.569|<0.0001
95725475|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|4.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.608|5.759|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 1||5.759|3.608|<0.0001
95725476|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|2.4||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.694|3.402|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||3.402|1.694|0.0007
95725477|NCT04229303|191421074|OTHER||Slope|4.22|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.975|5.974|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole AUC0-inf Day 10||5.974|2.975|<0.0001
95725478|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|2.03||||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.562|2.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.650|1.562|0.0003
95725479|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|4.87|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.74|6.345|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||6.345|3.740|<0.0001
95725480|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|2.67|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.081|3.429|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||3.429|2.081|<0.0001
95725481|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|5.97|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.647|7.658|||ANOVA|||Statistics for Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||7.658|4.647|<0.0001
95725482|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|2.02|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.688|2.406|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||2.406|1.688|<0.0001
95725483|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|4.73|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.964|5.65|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 1||5.650|3.964|<0.0001
95725484|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|2.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.655|2.711|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax Day 10||2.711|1.655|<0.0001
95725485|NCT04229303|191421075|OTHER||Slope|4.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.135|5.135|||ANOVA|||Statistics for N-oxide Voriconazole Cmax day 10||5.135|3.135|<0.0001
95725486|NCT04229303|191421096|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.13|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.107|0.146||||||Part 3 - ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND)||0.146|0.107|
95725487|NCT04229303|191421096|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.545|2.853||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||2.853|1.545|
95725488|NCT04229303|191421096|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
95725489|NCT04229303|191421096|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
95725490|NCT04229303|191421097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.059|0.075||||||Part 3 ZP-059 20mg: Oral Voriconazole (200mg VFEND®)||0.075|0.059|
95725491|NCT04229303|191421097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.27|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.85|1.891||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 1||1.891|0.850|
95725492|NCT04229303|191421097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.953|3.544||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 1||3.544|1.953|
95725493|NCT04229303|191421097|OTHER||Geometric mean ratio|1.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.386|2.52||||||ZP-059 20mg: Part 3 / Part 2 Day 10||2.520|1.386|
95725494|NCT00606684|191421098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.092|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.039|0.144|||ANCOVA|||||0.144|0.039|<0.001
95725495|NCT00606684|191421098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.098|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.046|0.15|||ANCOVA|||||0.150|0.046|<0.001
95725496|NCT00606684|191421098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.11|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|||||0.162|0.057|<0.001
95725497|NCT00606684|191421098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.137|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.085|0.19|||ANCOVA|||||0.190|0.085|<0.001
95725498|NCT00606684|191421098|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.165|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.112|0.217|||ANCOVA|||||0.217|0.112|<0.001
95725499|NCT01034137|191421106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.996|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.589|2.506|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.506|1.589|< 0.001
95725500|NCT01034137|191421106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.855|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.481|2.323|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||2.323|1.481|< 0.001
95725501|NCT01034137|191421106|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.03||||0.616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.915|1.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The SRR was compared between the treatment groups by means of the CMH test taking into account the stratification factors used for randomization.||1.160|0.915|0.616
95725502|NCT00621686|191421166|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.069|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.069
95725503|NCT00322309|191421168|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|2.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between the two treatment groups for benzoylecgonine data collected for Week 11.||||>0.05
95725504|NCT00322309|191421169|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|6.6|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that means scores for the CGI-O would not differ significantly for these values obtained in the final treatment week, Week 11.||||>0.05
95725505|NCT00322309|191421170|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_DEVIATION|5.4|>|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||This analysis involves a between group comparison.|t-test, 2 sided|||It hypothesized that the two treatment groups would not differ significantly with respect to the total HAM-D scores obtained in the final week of the study (Week 11).||||>0.05
95725506|NCT00322309|191421171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|18.0|>|0.05||95.0||||Percent of capsules administered does not differ significantly between the two groups.|t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the mean percentage of capsules of those dispensed between the two groups.||||>0.05
95725507|NCT00322309|191421172|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|8.5|>|0.05||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||It was hypothesized that there would not be a significant difference between the two groups in the mean percent of urines positive for riboflavin.||||>0.05
95725508|NCT02008721|191421230|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.51
95725509|NCT02008721|191421231|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.82|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size, i.e. an expected mean yearly UMSARS-ME increase of 3,9 under verum treatment compared to 7.8 ± 6.8 (mean ± standard deviation) under Placebo treatment.~We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in motor examination scores on UMSARS between baseline and week 52 between the study groups."||||0.82
95725510|NCT02008721|191421232|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.99|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.99
95725511|NCT02008721|191421233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Power calculation: 80% power, 5% P-level, 50% effect size. We used a linear mixed-effects model to test the primary hypothesis-ie, to compare differences in the change in UMSARS total score between baseline and week 52 between the study groups.~We did a post-hoc power calculation based on the mean change in motor examination scores on UMSARS and SDs in the placebo group of the per-protocol study completer set to test the assumptions of our initial power calculation."||||0.43
95725512|NCT01797120|191421246|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|0.92|||Log Rank|Log rank test was stratified on ECOG performance status, measurable disease, and prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease||||0.92|0.40|0.02
95725513|NCT01797120|191421247|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.01
95725514|NCT01797120|191421248|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.47
95725515|NCT02491788|191421292|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75|<|0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||<0.05
95725516|NCT00672620|191421298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.036||0.577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.61|1.46||Pre-specified sequential statistical testing procedure indicates that when p-value \>0.05, hierarchical testing stops and for subsequent endpoints in the sequence a nominal p-value is provided.|ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||All statistical tests were 2-sided with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and with P-values evaluated at the 5% significance level (ie, statistical significance if P\<0.05). To control for multiplicity, a pre-specified sequential testing procedure was applied to compare 5 mg and 2.5 mg vortioxetine to placebo; as soon as an endpoint was non-significant at 0.05, the testing procedure stopped for all subsequent endpoints.||1.46|-2.61|0.577
95725517|NCT00672620|191421298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-1.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.038||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.58|0.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||0.50|-3.58|0.138
95725518|NCT00672620|191421298|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-2.96|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.047||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.02|-0.91|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with treatment and center as fixed factors, baseline HAM-D24 as covariate.||||-0.91|-5.02|0.005
95725519|NCT02965820|191421310|SUPERIORITY||||||=|0.003|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||=0.0030
95725520|NCT01205529|191421360|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Logistic||0 participants with rare SCN5A non-synonymous variants met the primary outcome for ST-segment elevation.||Given the very small number of outcomes (N=4) and the small number of participants with the primary determinant (N=2), a Fisher's Exact Test is the appropriate test and it yields a P-value=1.000.|||1.0
95725521|NCT04133519|191421361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.16||||0.5352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.84||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||P value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing of H0: OR=1; H1: OR≠1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender||1.84|0.73|0.5352
95725522|NCT04133519|191421361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of the number of GDH responders being greater than the number of MR responders for abdominal pain intensity.|The final 4 weeks of the on-treatment period (weeks 9-12) was a pre-specified period for analysis of the primary endpoint measure of abdominal pain due to IBS. An abdominal pain intensity responder was defined as a participant whose daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the last 4 weeks of phase s (weeks 9 through 12) was at least 30% reduced compared with the daily abdominal pain intensity averaged over the 4 weeks of phase 1.||2.87|1.08|0.0232
95725523|NCT04133519|191421361|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|2.89||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Odds ratio reflects the odds of GDH being superior to MR.|"Abdominal pain scores were averaged each week on treatment (1-12) and compared with the average baseline abdominal pain score. Participants that recorded a \> 30% decrease in abdominal pain in at least half the weeks on treatment were considered responders.~This analysis was specified in FDA Guidance for Industry, Irritable Bowel Syndrome - Clinical Evaluation of Drugs for Treatment, May 2012. Both the analysis period and the responder threshold (30%) are specified by the FDA Guidance."|Among all subjects, 64.0% reported Adequate Relief and 67.7% reported overall satisfaction with Regulora.|2.89|1.07|0.0254
95725524|NCT04133519|191421362|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6||||0.8115|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.434|0.554|||ANOVA|||The least square (LS) mean difference between the GDH and MR groups using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model||0.554|-0.434|0.8115
95725525|NCT04133519|191421363|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044||||0.7564|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.236|0.325|||ANOVA|||Average abdominal pain frequency at Week 13-16 will be statistically compared between GDH and comparator using an ANOVA model adjusted for gender and IBS subtype. The daily pain frequency measurement was derived from the daily pain intensity measurement. Days where severity was \>0 were considered a day with pain and were recorded as positive. Days with a score of 0 were days without pain. Mean represents the mean number of days in each time period with abdominal pain.||0.325|-0.236|0.7564
95725526|NCT04133519|191421364|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.4753|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|1.81||P-value from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Test testing H0: OR=1; H1: OR\<\>1 adjusting for IBS subtype and gender|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||GDH:MR Relative Risk|A Stool Consistency Responder is defined as a \>=30% improvement in the proportion of Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) scores that fall within Group 2 (normal stools)||1.81|0.76|0.4753
95725527|NCT04133519|191421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.301|0.46|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-C participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||0.460|-0.301|0.6793
95725528|NCT04133519|191421365|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.173||||0.9468|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.904|5.249|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model for IBS-D participants:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random Means are the mean daily number of bowel movements for a 24-hour period."||5.249|-4.904|0.9468
95725529|NCT04133519|191421366|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-1.602||||0.5015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.282|3.077|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model:~parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random The unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-participant correlation. The model-based least square (LS) means and LS mean differences (GDH minus comparator) and associated 95% CIs for each week and overall were estimated."||3.077|-6.282|0.5015
95725530|NCT04133519|191421367|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.586||||0.2117|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.619|11.79|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Percent Overall Work Impairment Due to IBS defined as the percent time missed by not showing up for work, plus the percent time missed while working, and calculated as: Q2/(Q2+Q4)+\[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)\]."||11.790|-2.619|0.2117
95725531|NCT04133519|191421368|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.372||||0.3676|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.793|7.537|||Mixed Models Analysis|||The analysis is based on the mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of variance model: parameter = treatment + timepoint + treatment\*timepoint + gender + subject error + random||7.537|-2.793|0.3676
95725532|NCT00323609|191421369|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.214||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.214
95725533|NCT00323609|191421370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 7 days.||||0.430
95725534|NCT00323609|191421370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.655||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.655
95725535|NCT00323609|191421370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.756||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.756
95725536|NCT00323609|191421370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.503||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.503
95725537|NCT00323609|191421370|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.837||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.837
95725538|NCT00323609|191421371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.785||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days||||0.785
95725539|NCT00323609|191421371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.393
95725540|NCT00323609|191421371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.875||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months||||0.875
95725541|NCT00323609|191421371|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.833||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.833
95725542|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 30 days.||||0.180
95725543|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.822||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 3 months||||0.822
95725544|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.291||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 12 months||||0.291
95725545|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.996||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 PCS result at 24 months||||0.996
95725546|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.983||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 30 days||||0.983
95725547|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.576||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 3 months||||0.576
95725548|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.393||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 12 months||||0.393
95725549|NCT00323609|191421372|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.722||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis of SF-36 MCS result at 24 months||||0.722
95725550|NCT00323609|191421373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 30 days.||||0.318
95725551|NCT00323609|191421373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.523||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.523
95725552|NCT00323609|191421373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.634||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.634
95725553|NCT00323609|191421373|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.457||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.457
95725554|NCT00323609|191421374|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.818||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.818
95725555|NCT00323609|191421375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.226||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||0.226
95725556|NCT00323609|191421376|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||||||1.0
95725557|NCT00323609|191421377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.112
95725558|NCT00323609|191421377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.364||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.364
95725559|NCT00323609|191421377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.185||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.185
95725560|NCT00323609|191421377|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.100
95725561|NCT00323609|191421378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.005||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.005
95725562|NCT00323609|191421378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.382||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.382
95725563|NCT00323609|191421378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.196||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.196
95725564|NCT00323609|191421378|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.281||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.281
95725565|NCT00323609|191421379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.033||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.033
95725566|NCT00323609|191421379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.981||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.981
95725567|NCT00323609|191421379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.631||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.631
95725568|NCT00323609|191421379|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with Absolute Height Loss (AHL) as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.790
95725569|NCT00323609|191421380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.663||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.663
95725570|NCT00323609|191421380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.933||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.933
95725571|NCT00323609|191421380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.089||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.089
95725572|NCT00323609|191421380|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.036
95725573|NCT00323609|191421381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.472||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at pre-discharge.||||0.472
95725574|NCT00323609|191421381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.745||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 3 months.||||0.745
95725575|NCT00323609|191421381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.565||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 12 months.||||0.565
95725576|NCT00323609|191421381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.687||95.0||||P-value was obtained from ANCOVA with baseline value as covariate.|ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis at 24 months.||||0.687
95725577|NCT00267293|191421384|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power for 80%|||||<|0.001||||||comparision of mean temperatures from repeated exposure. At hour 6 temperature|Mixed Models Analysis|||Power for 80%||||<0.001
95725578|NCT00267293|191421384|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||Binary outcome \<38C and \>=38C|Chi-squared|||||||<.0001
95725579|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 2: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
95725580|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 3: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.45
95725581|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.38|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 4: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.38
95725582|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.12|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 5: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.12
95725583|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 6: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.70
95725584|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 7: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||1.0
95725585|NCT02063698|191421387|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Fisher Exact|||Day 8: BPI Worst Pain Past 24 Hours||||0.44
95725586|NCT02063698|191421388|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.44
95725587|NCT02063698|191421389|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.13|||||||Equal variance t-test|||||||0.13
95725588|NCT02063698|191421391|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.025
95725589|NCT02063698|191421392|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95725590|NCT02063698|191421393|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.02|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.02
95725591|NCT02063698|191421394|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.01|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.01
95725592|NCT02063698|191421395|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.04|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.04
95725593|NCT01684722|191421396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.5|-0.7|0.25
95725594|NCT01684722|191421396|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9||||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.7|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||2.6|-0.7|0.27
95725595|NCT01684722|191421397|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.99||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.17|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.17|0.84|0.90
95725596|NCT01684722|191421397|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of change from baseline, active to|0.96||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||1.14|0.81|0.64
95725597|NCT00125931|191421404|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||comparison of mean scores at hour 2 vs 3||||0.01
95725598|NCT00125931|191421405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.01||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean score on treatment vs post-treatment days||||0.01
95725599|NCT00125931|191421405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4||95.0|||||t-test, 1 sided|||comparison of mean scores at pre-treatment vs treatment days||||0.4
95725600|NCT00219557|191421406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.758||||0.1026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.17||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in OS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (less than or equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.170|0.490|0.1026
95725601|NCT00219557|191421417|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in response rate|4.3||||0.661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.0|12.7|||Fisher Exact|||Difference in percent of participants with overall response expressed as response rate, was used for calculation of 95% confidence interval (CI).||12.7|-4.0|0.661
95725602|NCT00219557|191421419|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.9648||||0.4466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|1.73||One-sided log-rank test at alpha = 0.1 significance level was used.|Log Rank|||Differences in PFS between treatment arms was analyzed by the stratified log-rank test where the stratification factors are ECOG performance status (less than equal to 1 or 2) and extent of disease (locally advanced or metastatic).||1.7300|0.5400|0.4466
95725603|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.06|2.19||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.19|-19.06|
95725604|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.4|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-15.4|
95725605|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.77|5.12||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.12|-23.77|
95725606|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.25|5.79||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.79|-15.25|
95725607|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|5.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||5.61|-15.83|
95725608|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.72|12.06||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.06|-18.72|
95725609|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.62|22.44||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.44|-1.62|
95725610|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.55|7.96||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.96|-16.55|
95725611|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.57|22.32||||||For change in pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.32|-7.57|
95725612|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.28|26.3||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.30|-1.28|
95725613|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7|25.49||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.49|-5.70|
95725614|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.81|32.07||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.07|-4.81|
95725615|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.62|20.96||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-11.62|
95725616|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.1|12.54||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.54|-15.1|
95725617|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.67|15.53||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.53|-4.67|
95725618|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.34|0.67||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.67|-32.34|
95725619|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.12|0.96||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||0.96|-24.12|
95725620|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.47|-1.83||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-1.83|-35.47|
95725621|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.16|1.32||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.32|-29.16|
95725622|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|6.77||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||6.77|-20.97|
95725623|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.28|9.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.04|-28.28|
95725624|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|33.54||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.54|-1.27|
95725625|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.78|15.18||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.18|-18.78|
95725626|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|36.39||||||For change in pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.39|-3.22|
95725627|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.68|26.47||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.47|-5.68|
95725628|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.19|23.36||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.36|-20.19|
95725629|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.62|40.1||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.1|-7.62|
95725630|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.49|23.02||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.02|-17.49|
95725631|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.29|22.03||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.03|-16.29|
95725632|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.81|20.92||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.92|-9.81|
95725633|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.52|7.57||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.57|-19.52|
95725634|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.75|8.46||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.46|-19.75|
95725635|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.11|4.05||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||4.05|-39.11|
95725636|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.5|2.0||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||2.00|-26.5|
95725637|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.13|9.15||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.15|-23.13|
95725638|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.09|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.48|16.31||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.31|-30.48|
95725639|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.86|27.63||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.63|-5.86|
95725640|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.11|1.91||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1.91|-24.11|
95725641|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.26|14.0||||||For change in pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.00|-24.26|
95725642|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.13|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.18|24.44||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.44|-14.18|
95725643|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.25|13.59||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.59|-26.25|
95725644|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.03|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.26|33.32||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.32|-15.26|
95725645|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.71|26.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.82|-25.71|
95725646|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.07|28.01||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.01|-24.07|
95725647|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.48|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|24.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.86|-5.89|
95725648|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.19|3.17||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.17|-43.19|
95725649|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.24|10.1||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.10|-27.24|
95725650|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.1|8.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.96|-41.10|
95725651|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-24.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.72|-5.5||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-5.50|-42.72|
95725652|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.66|10.61||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||10.61|-29.66|
95725653|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.93|7.46||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.46|-47.93|
95725654|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.23|46.77||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.77|3.23|
95725655|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.49|25.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.99|-13.49|
95725656|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|46.41||||||For change in pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.41|-7.12|
95725657|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.02|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.38|43.66||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.66|0.38|
95725658|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.49|38.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-18.49|
95725659|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.98|55.65||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.65|-13.98|
95725660|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-19.02|42.83||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.83|-19.02|
95725661|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.13|39.94||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.94|-16.13|
95725662|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.38|23.38||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.38|-23.38|
95725663|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.66|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.53|17.21||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups||17.21|-34.53|
95725664|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.01|26.04||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||26.04|-52.01|
95725665|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-26.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.87|19.24||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.24|-71.87|
95725666|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.59|14.31||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.31|-26.59|
95725667|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.46|11.48||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.48|-35.46|
95725668|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.97|49.04||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.04|-20.97|
95725669|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.83|62.61||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.61|-15.83|
95725670|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.84|38.73||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.73|-30.84|
95725671|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.08|62.2||||||For change in pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||62.20|-13.08|
95725672|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.65|34.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.94|-38.65|
95725673|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.65|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.43|56.73||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.73|-37.43|
95725674|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.22|97.54||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.54|-71.22|
95725675|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.61|68.22||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.22|-22.61|
95725676|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.1|35.59||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.59|-39.10|
95725677|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|46.86||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.86|1.09|
95725678|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.03|63.11||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.11|-39.03|
95725679|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.74|58.52||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||58.52|-20.74|
95725680|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-48.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-111.94|15.28||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.28|-111.94|
95725681|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.59|20.74||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.74|-22.59|
95725682|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.98|39.43||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||39.43|-24.98|
95725683|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.71|77.71||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.71|-57.71|
95725684|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.87|24.79||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.79|-58.87|
95725685|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-43.1|13.1||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.10|-43.10|
95725686|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.75|57.3||||||For change in pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.30|-41.75|
95725687|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.79|20.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.46|-53.79|
95725688|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.14|30.92||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.92|-73.14|
95725689|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-32.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.58|51.13||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.13|-115.58|
95725690|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|53.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.6|125.26||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||125.26|-18.60|
95725691|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.92|41.58||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.58|-34.92|
95725692|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.3|20.96||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.96|-34.3|
95725693|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.94|100.6||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||100.60|-58.94|
95725694|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.54|63.2||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.20|-44.54|
95725695|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.3|75.3||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||75.30|-35.30|
95725696|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-51.66|36.66||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.66|-51.66|
95725697|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.06|69.39||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||69.39|-36.06|
95725698|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.36|86.36||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.36|-76.36|
95725699|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.63|42.08||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.08|-77.63|
95725700|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.33|28.99||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-62.33|
95725701|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-79.59|96.26||||||For change in pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-79.59|
95725702|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-89.98|52.94||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.94|-89.98|
95725703|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-133.08|93.08||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||93.08|-133.08|
95725704|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-36.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-151.27|77.94||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.94|-151.27|
95725705|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-72.58|65.91||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||65.91|-72.58|
95725706|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|163.12||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||163.12|-16.45|
95725707|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-48.23|41.56||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||41.56|-48.23|
95725708|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.75|106.0||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.00|-74.75|
95725709|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.22|83.89||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||83.89|-17.22|
95725710|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.04|66.37||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-58.04|
95725711|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.19|38.61||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.61|-28.19|
95725712|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.94|103.44||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.44|-40.94|
95725713|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.02|145.18||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||145.18|-91.02|
95725714|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-15.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-99.46|68.9||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||68.90|-99.46|
95725715|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.69|19.69||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||19.69|-69.69|
95725716|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.4|77.4||||||For change in pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.40|-77.40|
95725717|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.89|54.32||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||54.32|-82.89|
95725718|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.02|78.69||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.69|-87.02|
95725719|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-184.57|134.57||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||134.57|-184.57|
95725720|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-105.73|89.06||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.06|-105.73|
95725721|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|79.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.72|188.06||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||188.06|-29.72|
95725722|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-57.74|49.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.41|-57.74|
95725723|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.62|72.95||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||72.95|-39.62|
95725724|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.62|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.42|61.66||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.66|-6.42|
95725725|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|26.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.28|81.66||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||81.66|-29.28|
95725726|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-63.74|56.6||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||56.6|-63.74|
95725727|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.66|79.28||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.28|-31.66|
95725728|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.82|110.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.96|-53.82|
95725729|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-30.16|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-94.53|34.21||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.21|-94.53|
95725730|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-83.26|49.93||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.93|-83.26|
95725731|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-97.98|88.45||||||For change in pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||88.45|-97.98|
95725732|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-86.68|64.46||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.46|-86.68|
95725733|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-55.41|64.93||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||64.93|-55.41|
95725734|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-129.86|110.82||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.82|-129.86|
95725735|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.92|79.82||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||79.82|-117.92|
95725736|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|159.13||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||159.13|-6.75|
95725737|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.93|55.41||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.41|-64.93|
95725738|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-271.74|260.62||||||For change in global QoL at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||260.62|-271.74|
95725739|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-166.87|197.98||||||For change in physical functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||197.98|-166.87|
95725740|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in role functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.4|
95725741|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.22|241.89||||||For change in emotional functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||241.89|-275.22|
95725742|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-307.94|319.05||||||For change in cognitive functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.05|-307.94|
95725743|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-238.4|293.96||||||For change in social functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||293.96|-238.40|
95725744|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-215.01|244.64||||||For change in fatigue at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||244.64|-215.01|
95725745|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-302.38|324.6||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||324.60|-302.38|
95725746|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-305.85|383.63||||||For change in pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||383.63|-305.85|
95725747|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-355.85|333.63||||||For change in dyspnea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.63|-355.85|
95725748|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-322.52|366.97||||||For change in insomnia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||366.97|-322.52|
95725749|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in appetite loss at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
95725750|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-165.61|165.61||||||For change in constipation at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.61|-165.61|
95725751|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.84|173.39||||||For change in diarrhea at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||173.39|-17.84|
95725752|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-106.73|84.5||||||For change in financial difficulties at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.5|-106.73|
95725753|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-512.66|404.33||||||For change in global QoL at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||404.33|-512.66|
95725754|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-70.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-143.36|3.36||||||For change in physical functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||3.36|-143.36|
95725755|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-400.13|333.46||||||For change in role functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||333.46|-400.13|
95725756|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-591.86|508.53||||||For change in emotional functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||508.53|-591.86|
95725757|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.67|-66.67||||||For change in cognitive functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-66.67|-66.67|
95725758|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-450.13|283.46||||||For change in social functioning at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||283.46|-450.13|
95725759|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-177.86|311.2||||||For change in fatigue at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||311.2|-177.86|
95725760|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-333.46|400.13||||||For change in nausea and vomiting at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||400.13|-333.46|
95725761|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
95725762|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in dyspnea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
95725763|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in insomnia at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
95725764|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1050.39|1150.39||||||For change in appetite loss at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1150.39|-1050.39|
95725765|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1850.65|1817.32||||||For change in constipation at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1817.32|-1850.65|
95725766|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-700.26|766.93||||||For change in diarrhea at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||766.93|-700.26|
95725767|NCT00219557|191421421|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-383.46|350.13||||||For change in financial difficulties at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||350.13|-383.46|
95725768|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.29||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||15.29|-10.11|
95725769|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-13.39|20.2||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.20|-13.39|
95725770|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|33.43||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.43|5.96|
95725771|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|24.47||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.47|0.93|
95725772|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|28.91||||||For change in body image at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.91|1.28|
95725773|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.36|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.59|23.3||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||23.30|-14.59|
95725774|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-21.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.53|-4.85||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||-4.85|-37.53|
95725775|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.82|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.04|9.4||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||9.40|-25.04|
95725776|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.95|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.59|21.5||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-9.59|
95725777|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|30.4||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.40|-1.61|
95725778|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.78|22.22||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.22|2.78|
95725779|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.36|20.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.39|1.36|
95725780|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.36|11.71||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.71|-16.36|
95725781|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.21|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.78|24.2||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 2 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.20|-11.78|
95725782|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|28.94||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.94|0.79|
95725783|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.49|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.45|34.42||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.42|-7.45|
95725784|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|37.55||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.55|0.17|
95725785|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|22.48||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.48|0.66|
95725786|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|36.95||||||For change in body image at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.95|0.49|
95725787|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|11.17||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||11.17|-32.40|
95725788|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.63|17.27||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.27|-14.63|
95725789|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.7|17.78||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||17.78|-14.70|
95725790|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.65|32.75||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.75|-10.65|
95725791|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.33|24.13||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.13|-17.33|
95725792|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.27|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|22.93||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.93|-4.40|
95725793|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|19.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.99|35.39||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||35.39|2.99|
95725794|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.7|22.43||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||22.43|-23.70|
95725795|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.51|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.1|46.12||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 3 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||46.12|-3.10|
95725796|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.57|13.19||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||13.19|-21.57|
95725797|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.86|7.66||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||7.66|-32.86|
95725798|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.33|34.82||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.82|-10.33|
95725799|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.84|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|25.85||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.85|-0.18|
95725800|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.45|24.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||24.14|-16.45|
95725801|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-23.23|37.34||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||37.34|-23.23|
95725802|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.53|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.55|21.5||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||21.50|-26.55|
95725803|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-9.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.48|8.56||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||8.56|-27.48|
95725804|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-30.62|16.7||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||16.70|-30.62|
95725805|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.37|27.8||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-20.37|
95725806|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.73|31.81||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||31.81|-5.73|
95725807|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.23|33.46||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.46|-3.23|
95725808|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.91|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.18|20.37||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||20.37|-36.18|
95725809|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.38|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.24|51.01||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 4 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.01|-20.24|
95725810|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.09|32.59||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||32.59|-10.09|
95725811|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.22|40.03||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.03|-25.22|
95725812|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.23|52.32||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.32|4.23|
95725813|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|24.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.09|43.34||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||43.34|5.09|
95725814|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|50.38||||||For change in body image at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.38|-0.16|
95725815|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.07|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-47.95|27.8||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.80|-47.95|
95725816|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.61|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.78|14.57||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||14.57|-21.78|
95725817|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.98|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.02|28.99||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||28.99|-17.02|
95725818|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.08|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|49.55||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||49.55|-5.39|
95725819|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.33|34.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||34.89|-15.33|
95725820|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.43|42.06||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.06|-10.43|
95725821|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|21.77|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|42.43||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.43|1.11|
95725822|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.91|12.28||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||12.28|-41.91|
95725823|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|60.62||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 5 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.62|1.60|
95725824|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.62|38.1||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||38.10|-20.62|
95725825|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.24|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.52|42.05||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.05|-68.52|
95725826|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.06|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.93|52.05||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||52.05|-7.93|
95725827|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|18.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.64|42.89||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||42.89|-5.64|
95725828|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.93|57.84||||||For change in body image at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||57.84|-9.93|
95725829|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.7|59.78||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.78|-32.70|
95725830|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|55.74||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||55.74|-29.46|
95725831|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.37|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.04|36.79||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||36.79|-24.04|
95725832|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.94|59.12||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.12|-17.94|
95725833|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-20.12|40.71||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||40.71|-20.12|
95725834|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.74|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.22|59.69||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.69|-8.22|
95725835|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.32|71.81||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||71.81|5.32|
95725836|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.14|44.25||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||44.25|-53.14|
95725837|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-69.9|61.57||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 6 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||61.57|-69.90|
95725838|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-24.52|50.45||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||50.45|-24.52|
95725839|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-23.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-76.41|30.11||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||30.11|-76.41|
95725840|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-19.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-71.89|33.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||33.00|-71.89|
95725841|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.31|87.13||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||87.13|7.31|
95725842|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|41.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.0|119.34||||||For change in body image at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.34|-36.00|
95725843|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.05|82.83||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.83|-5.05|
95725844|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|32.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.09|66.37||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-2.09|
95725845|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.46|29.64||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||29.64|-44.46|
95725846|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.45|66.37||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||66.37|-40.45|
95725847|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.71|60.49||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||60.49|-32.71|
95725848|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.16|77.89||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.89|-16.16|
95725849|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-44.95|86.62||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.62|-44.95|
95725850|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-18.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-115.22|78.19||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 7 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||78.19|-115.22|
95725851|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.71|86.63||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||86.63|-39.71|
95725852|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-12.96|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-130.69|104.76||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||104.76|-130.69|
95725853|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|48.15|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.12|103.42||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.42|-7.12|
95725854|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|92.59|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.16|122.02||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||122.02|63.16|
95725855|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-85.03|96.14||||||For change in body image at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.14|-85.03|
95725856|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|37.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.46|103.54||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.54|-29.46|
95725857|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.14|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.45|27.16||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||27.16|-41.45|
95725858|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-67.04|59.64||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||59.64|-67.04|
95725859|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-7.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.79|89.97||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||89.97|-104.79|
95725860|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-58.8|103.25||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||103.25|-58.80|
95725861|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.28|91.83||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||91.83|-36.28|
95725862|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-74.3|96.52||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.52|-74.30|
95725863|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-29.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-142.55|84.21||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||84.21|-142.55|
95725864|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-55.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-212.46|101.35||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 8 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||101.35|-212.46|
95725865|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-62.93|96.26||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.26|-62.93|
95725866|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.74|116.31||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.31|-87.74|
95725867|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|73.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.9|139.72||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||139.72|7.90|
95725868|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|76.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.64|118.74||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||118.74|33.64|
95725869|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|28.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-64.64|121.79||||||For change in body image at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||121.79|-64.64|
95725870|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|35.71|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.11|99.53||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||99.53|-28.11|
95725871|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-104.01|77.34||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||77.34|-104.01|
95725872|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-140.03|51.14||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||51.14|-140.03|
95725873|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.76|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-88.45|97.98||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.98|-88.45|
95725874|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.32|82.89||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||82.89|-54.32|
95725875|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.45|114.07||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||114.07|-66.45|
95725876|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|31.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.14|119.63||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||119.63|-56.14|
95725877|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-50.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-163.35|63.35||||||For change in fear of future health at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||63.35|-163.35|
95725878|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-125.23|96.66||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 9 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||96.66|-125.23|
95725879|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
95725880|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-45.18|95.18||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||95.18|-45.18|
95725881|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|77.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.55|141.0||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||141.00|14.55|
95725882|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|86.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|40.61|131.61||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||131.61|40.61|
95725883|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.48|106.48||||||For change in body image at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.48|-56.48|
95725884|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|47.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.69|132.13||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||132.13|-37.69|
95725885|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.68|110.68||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||110.68|-70.68|
95725886|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-91.87|25.2||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||25.20|-91.87|
95725887|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|27.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-41.89|97.45||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||97.45|-41.89|
95725888|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|16.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.03|67.36||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||67.36|-34.03|
95725889|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-100.19|116.86||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||116.86|-100.19|
95725890|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-53.73|105.58||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||105.58|-53.73|
95725891|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-117.07|117.07||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 10 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||117.07|-117.07|
95725892|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-221.53|249.31||||||For change in pancreatic pain at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||249.31|-221.53|
95725893|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-260.62|271.74||||||For change in eating related items at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||271.74|-260.62|
95725894|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|66.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-152.41|285.75||||||For change in altered bowel habits at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||285.75|-152.41|
95725895|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-119.08|319.08||||||For change in jaundice at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||319.08|-119.08|
95725896|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|33.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-185.75|252.41||||||For change in body image at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||252.41|-185.75|
95725897|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-82.04|170.93||||||For change in health care satisfaction at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||170.93|-82.04|
95725898|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in sexual functioning at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
95725899|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-202.34|180.12||||||For change in ascites at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||180.12|-202.34|
95725900|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in indigestion at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
95725901|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.11|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-84.5|106.73||||||For change in flatulence at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||106.73|-84.50|
95725902|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|38.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-87.6|165.37||||||For change in cachexia at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||165.37|-87.60|
95725903|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|44.44|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-208.53|297.42||||||For change in side effects at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||297.42|-208.53|
95725904|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-22.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-275.19|230.75||||||For change in ability to plan future at Cycle 11 Day 1, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||230.75|-275.19|
95725905|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|58.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-491.86|608.53||||||For change in pancreatic pain at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||608.53|-491.86|
95725906|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1258.79|1308.79||||||For change in eating related items at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1308.79|-1258.79|
95725907|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in altered bowel habits at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
95725908|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-175.06|191.73||||||For change in jaundice at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||191.73|-175.06|
95725909|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in ascites at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
95725910|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-733.59|733.59||||||For change in indigestion at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||733.59|-733.59|
95725911|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|83.33|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-283.46|450.13||||||For change in flatulence at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||450.13|-283.46|
95725912|NCT00219557|191421422|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|30.56|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1375.5|1436.61||||||For change in side effects at EoS, mean change difference was used to compare the two treatment groups.||1436.61|-1375.5|
95725913|NCT03063632|191421427|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Per Global Response Score used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome, Response is assessed by the standard response criteria: Complete Response (CR), complete disappearance of all clinical evidence of disease where all categories (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood) have complete response/noninvolved; Partial Response (PR), regression of measurable disease; Stable Disease (SD), failure to attain CR, PR, or PD.|Simple statistics. Non-responders excluded from analysis.|||
95725914|NCT03063632|191421428|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
95725915|NCT03063632|191421429|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Progression is assessed by the standard response criteria used in Mycosis Fungoides and Sezary Syndrome (skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood, global). Per Global Response Score, progression is defined as Progressive Disease (PD) in any category (i.e., skin, lymph nodes, viscera, blood).|Kaplan-Meier method|||
95725916|NCT03063632|191421430|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Kaplan-Meier method|||
95725917|NCT03063632|191421431|OTHER||||||||||||||||||Binomial distribution|||
95728780|NCT01261325|191427242|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.58|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|0.71||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.|Hazard ratio is Brivaracetam versus Placebo.|||0.71|0.47|<0.001
95725918|NCT00106028|191421435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|4.438||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.235|9.111|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.111|-0.235|0.0625
95725919|NCT00106028|191421436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.537||||0.6103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.424|7.497|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.497|-4.424|0.6103
95725920|NCT00106028|191421437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.554||||0.0808||95.0|-0.193|3.301|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.301|-0.193|0.0808
95725921|NCT00106028|191421438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.498||||0.6466|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.648|2.644|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.644|-1.648|0.6466
95725922|NCT00106028|191421439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.465||||0.7391|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.224|2.294|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||2.294|-3.224|0.7391
95725923|NCT00106028|191421440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|10.333|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.258|15.408|||ANCOVA|LS Means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||15.408|5.258|<0.0001
95725924|NCT00106028|191421441|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.04||||1789|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.807|14.887|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||14.887|-2.807|01789
95725925|NCT00106028|191421442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28||||0.9646|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.196|12.755|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||12.755|-12.196|0.9646
95725926|NCT00106028|191421443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|5.494||||0.003||95.0|1.912|9.077|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||9.077|1.912|0.0030
95725927|NCT00106028|191421444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.473||||0.6106|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.245|7.192|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||7.192|-4.245|0.6106
95728781|NCT01261325|191427243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.75||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|0.93||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.93|0.60|0.009
95725928|NCT00106028|191421445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.315||||0.9372|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.598|8.229|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||8.229|-7.598|0.9372
95725929|NCT00106028|191421446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|31.675|||<|0.0001||95.0|21.051|42.3|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted for baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||42.300|21.051|<0.0001
95725930|NCT00106028|191421447|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|14.029||||0.0793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.667|29.726|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||29.726|-1.667|0.0793
95725931|NCT00106028|191421448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|8.567|||<|0.0001||95.0|5.59|11.545|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.545|5.590|<0.0001
95725932|NCT00106028|191421449|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|6.315||||0.4575|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.477|23.107|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.107|-10.477|0.4575
95725933|NCT00106028|191421450|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|37.594||||0.0172||95.0|6.801|68.386|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||68.386|6.801|0.0172
95725934|NCT00106028|191421451|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.492||||0.9786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-36.807|35.824|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||35.824|-36.807|0.9786
95725935|NCT00106028|191421452|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-8.64||||0.5971|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.952|23.672|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||23.672|-40.952|0.5971
95725936|NCT00106028|191421453|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.014||||0.4154||95.0|-1.442|3.47|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.470|-1.442|0.4154
95725937|NCT00106028|191421454|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.884||||0.6404|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.855|4.623|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.623|-2.855|0.6404
95728782|NCT01261325|191427243|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|0.85||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Semi-parametric hazards regression model|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||0.85|0.55|<0.001
95725938|NCT00106028|191421455|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-1.66||||0.4978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.499|3.179|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||3.179|-6.499|0.4978
95725939|NCT00106028|191421456|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.534||||0.027||95.0|0.41|6.658|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.658|0.410|0.0270
95725940|NCT00106028|191421457|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.065||||0.5925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.868|4.998|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||4.998|-2.868|0.5925
95725941|NCT00106028|191421458|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.193||||0.684|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.604|6.991|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.991|-4.604|0.6840
95725942|NCT00106028|191421459|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.068||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.0680
95725943|NCT00106028|191421460|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4121||95.0|||||Fisher Exact|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.4121
95725944|NCT00106028|191421461|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3658||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3658
95725945|NCT00106028|191421462|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3408||95.0|||||Savage Exact Test|||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||||0.3408
95725946|NCT00106028|191421465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253||95.0|0.31|0.922||All Fractures|Cox proportional hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
95725947|NCT00106028|191421465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.534||||0.0253|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.922||All Non-Vertebral Fractures|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.922|0.310|0.0253
95725948|NCT00106028|191421465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.487||||0.0501|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|0.95||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazards|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.950|0.250|0.0501
95725949|NCT00106028|191421465|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.608||||0.2141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.262|1.41||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Cox Proportional Hazard|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Cox proportional hazards model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.410|0.262|0.2141
95725950|NCT00106028|191421466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416||95.0|0.348|0.98||All Fractures|Wald test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
95725951|NCT00106028|191421466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.584||||0.0416|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.348|0.98||Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.980|0.348|0.0416
95725952|NCT00106028|191421466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.543||||0.0799|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.274|1.076||Long Bone Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.076|0.274|0.0799
95725953|NCT00106028|191421466|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.682||||0.682|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.304|1.532||Other Non-Vertebral Fracture|Wald Test|Hazard Ratio and 95% CI based on Anderson-Gill mean intensity model stratified by age group with treatment and pooled-country as covariates.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||1.532|0.304|0.682
95725954|NCT00106028|191421467|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-11.678||||0.0318||95.0|-22.325|-1.031|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-1.031|-22.325|0.0318
95725955|NCT00106028|191421468|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.067||||0.9907|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.401|11.536|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||11.536|-11.401|0.9907
95725956|NCT00106028|191421469|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-4.686||||0.3826|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.276|5.903|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||5.903|-15.276|0.3826
95725957|NCT00106028|191421470|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-26.629|||<|0.0001||95.0|-38.089|-15.169|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||-15.169|-38.089|<0.0001
95725958|NCT00106028|191421471|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|9.04||||0.3075|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.433|26.512|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||26.512|-8.433|0.3075
95725959|NCT00106028|191421472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-5.039||||0.3998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.849|6.772|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||6.772|-16.849|0.3998
95725960|NCT00106028|191421473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.352||||0.1592||95.0|-0.845|0.14|||ANCOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.140|-0.845|0.1592
95725961|NCT00106028|191421474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.127||||0.2917||95.0|-0.111|0.365|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.365|-0.111|0.2917
95725962|NCT00106028|191421475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.007||||0.9622||95.0|-0.304|0.319|||ANOVA|LS mean and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.319|-0.304|0.9622
95725963|NCT00106028|191421476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.009||||0.9596|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.336|0.354|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.354|-0.336|0.9596
95725964|NCT00106028|191421477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.107||||0.34||95.0|-0.114|0.328|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANOVA model with fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.328|-0.114|0.3400
95725965|NCT00106028|191421478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.029||||0.6218|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.084|0.142|||ANOVA|LS means and p-value are from ANCOVA model adjusted by baseline and fixed effects for age group, treatment and pooled center for post-baseline.||A total of 123 patients were to be randomized in 2:1 ratio. The sample size allowed detection of a difference of at least 5% in lumbar spine BMD percent change from baseline to 12 months with 90% power. Calculation based on assumption that common within-group SD would be approximately 7% and dropout rate within Year 1 would be 20%. A difference of 5% in lumbar spin BMD percent change from baseline was considered clinically meaningful.||0.142|-0.084|0.6218
95725966|NCT00575328|191421501|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8|STANDARD_DEVIATION|3.3||0.62|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.7|12.3||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in ASEX score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|The analysis is not truly informative, since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be viewed with caution.|12.3|-8.7|0.62
95725967|NCT00575328|191421502|SUPERIORITY|Analysis is a test of statistical significance to evaluate whether the results are consistent with the assumption of there being no difference in the clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) of the two treatments (null hypothesis).|Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|4.5||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.7|13.97||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. P value for significance set a priori at P\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: There will be no difference in clinical improvement (i.e. change in MGH-SD score) between treatment arms. No formal power analysis was carried out, given the small study sample.|Analysis was not truly informative since the analyzable sample (n=6) was too small. Results should be interpreted with caution.|13.97|-6.7|0.38
95725968|NCT05478603|191421516|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|94.88|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|70.86|127.04|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||127.04|70.86|
95728985|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.4||||0.411|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|4.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, chest pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline chest pain score as the covariate.||4.70|-1.90|0.411
95725969|NCT05478603|191421516|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|99.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.5|133.56|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||133.56|74.50|
95725970|NCT05478603|191421516|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|68.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|51.31|91.98|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||91.98|51.31|
95725971|NCT05478603|191421517|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|101.87|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.74|173.71|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||173.71|59.74|
95725972|NCT05478603|191421517|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|156.07|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.53|266.14|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||266.14|91.53|
95725973|NCT05478603|191421517|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.48|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.58|164.51|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||164.51|56.58|
95725974|NCT05478603|191421518|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|102.21|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|59.91|174.39|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||174.39|59.91|
95725975|NCT05478603|191421518|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|152.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.62|260.9|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||260.90|89.62|
95725976|NCT05478603|191421518|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|97.08|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|56.9|165.65|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||165.65|56.90|
95725977|NCT05478603|191421519|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.29|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.61|134.69|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||134.69|64.61|
95725978|NCT05478603|191421519|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.68|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|73.89|154.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||154.03|73.89|
95725979|NCT05478603|191421519|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|246.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|170.57|355.58|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||355.58|170.57|
95725980|NCT05478603|191421520|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|88.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|64.13|122.12|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||122.12|64.13|
95725981|NCT05478603|191421520|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|106.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|77.11|146.83|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||146.83|77.11|
95725982|NCT05478603|191421520|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|169.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|122.61|233.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||233.47|122.61|
95725983|NCT05478603|191421521|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.12|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.6|172.03|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.03|52.60|
95725984|NCT05478603|191421521|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|166.77|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.21|301.62|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||301.62|92.21|
95725985|NCT05478603|191421521|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|237.76|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|131.46|430.0|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||430.00|131.46|
95725986|NCT05478603|191421522|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|95.34|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|52.67|172.59|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||172.59|52.67|
95725987|NCT05478603|191421522|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|163.09|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.1|295.22|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||295.22|90.10|
95725988|NCT05478603|191421522|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|239.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|132.29|433.47|||ANOVA||The ratio and 90% CI are expressed as percentages.|"One-way ANOVA was used on the natural log transformed PK parameters with hepatic function group as a fixed factor.~The adjusted mean differences and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals derived from ANOVA were exponentiated to provide estimate of the ratio of adjusted geometric means (Test \[hepatic impairment group\]/Reference \[without hepatic impairment group\]) and 90% confidence intervals for the ratio."||433.47|132.29|
95725989|NCT05003167|191421572|SUPERIORITY||F|8.48||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.001
95725990|NCT05003167|191421574|SUPERIORITY||F|2.29||||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|df = 2,44||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.113
95725991|NCT05003167|191421575|SUPERIORITY||F|3.17||||0.052|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.||||.052
95725992|NCT05003167|191421576|SUPERIORITY||F|0.07||||0.931|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||"A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05.~Results here are for percent of breaths at major boundaries."||||.931
95725993|NCT05003167|191421576|SUPERIORITY||F|0.23||||0.164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||A mixed model ANOVA with session (pre-post-training) as a main effect and participant as a random factor was run via SAS 9.4. Alpha was set at .05. Results reflect percent of breaths at boundaries unrelated to syntax.||||0.164
95725994|NCT01010230|191421584|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.24||||0.69|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.59|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-5.59|0.69
95725995|NCT01010230|191421585|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.18||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.35||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.35|0.00|0.18
95725996|NCT01010230|191421586|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.16||||0.85|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.93|9.25||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05|ANOVA|BMC was normalized for height and adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8% we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||9.25|-6.93|0.85
95728986|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.0||||0.412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|6.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||6.70|-2.80|0.412
95725997|NCT01010230|191421587|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.19||||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|5.95||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||5.95|0.43|0.12
95725998|NCT01010230|191421588|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.97|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.24|4.05||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage (from general linear model).||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.05|-4.24|0.97
95725999|NCT01010230|191421589|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.34||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.05|4.68||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||4.68|-4.05|0.91
95726000|NCT01010230|191421590|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.29||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|3.11||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.11|-0.69|0.40
95726001|NCT01010230|191421591|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.67||||0.73|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.02|3.33||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|ANOVA|Adjusted for sex and tanner stage.||The power estimates were based on two-sided two-sample t-tests. With 30 subjects in each of the two arms and assuming no change in the control arm (0% change) and assuming the common standard deviation (SD) of 6.8%3 we estimated 87% power to detect an improvement of 5.5% change in the intervention arm, with type I error control α=0.05.||3.33|-2.02|0.73
95726002|NCT01010230|191421592|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.08|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.34||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.34|0.06|0.08
95726003|NCT01010230|191421593|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.17|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.26||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.26|0.00|0.17
95726004|NCT01010230|191421594|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.08||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.2||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.20|-0.04|0.38
95726005|NCT01010230|191421595|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.02||||0.88|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.18||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.18|-0.22|0.88
95726006|NCT01010230|191421596|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The power calculation was based on the primary aim and is provided above.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28||||0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.46||The threshold for significance was established a priori at alpha=0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||Active and placebo group means were compared with a 2-sample t-test after log-transforming the variable.||0.46|0.09|0.06
95726007|NCT02367781|191421599|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.639|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|0.763|||Log Rank|||||0.763|0.536|<.0001
95726008|NCT02367781|191421600|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.788||||0.0298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.636|0.977|||Log Rank|||||0.977|0.636|0.0298
95726009|NCT02367781|191421601|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.647|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|0.768|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.768|0.545|<0.0001
95726010|NCT02367781|191421601|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.561|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.432|0.728|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3-WT ITT Population||0.728|0.432|<0.0001
95726011|NCT02367781|191421601|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.549|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.425|0.708|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.708|0.425|<0.0001
95726012|NCT02367781|191421602|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.837||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.689|1.017|||Log Rank|||||1.017|0.689|0.0732
95726013|NCT02367781|191421603|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.752||||0.083|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.545|1.039|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||1.039|0.545|0.0830
95726014|NCT02367781|191421603|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.746||||0.0813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.536|1.038|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 WT ITT Population||1.038|0.536|0.0813
95726015|NCT02367781|191421604|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|19.21|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.05|27.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|||27.37|11.05|<.0001
95726016|NCT02367781|191421605|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Difference in Response Rate|16.89|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|24.88|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Wald with Continuity Correction|ITT Population||24.88|8.90|<.0001
95726017|NCT02367781|191421605|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.22|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.38|3.56||||||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||3.56|1.38|
95726018|NCT02367781|191421605|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.21||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.39|3.51|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||3.51|1.39|0.0007
95726019|NCT02367781|191421606|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.614||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.473|0.797|||Log Rank|||ITT Population||0.797|0.473|0.0002
95726020|NCT02367781|191421606|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.458|0.785|||Log Rank|||ITT-WT Population||0.785|0.458|0.0002
95726021|NCT02367781|191421606|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.548||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.379|0.791|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT Population||0.791|0.379|0.0011
95726022|NCT02367781|191421606|SUPERIORITY|Unstratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.551||||0.0014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.381|0.798|||Log Rank|||TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT Population||0.798|0.381|0.0014
95726023|NCT02367781|191421607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.46||||0.0647|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|15.37|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT WT Population||15.37|-0.45|0.0647
95726024|NCT02367781|191421607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.07||||0.0516|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|16.19|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT WT Population||16.19|-0.06|0.0516
95726025|NCT02367781|191421607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.19||||0.0683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|14.91|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 ITT Population||14.91|-0.54|0.0683
95726026|NCT02367781|191421607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.53||||0.0625|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|15.44|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 ITT Population||15.44|-0.39|0.0625
95726027|NCT02367781|191421608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.69||||0.2385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.44|17.83|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||17.83|-4.44|0.2385
95726028|NCT02367781|191421608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.64||||0.271|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.75|24.03|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) at Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT||24.03|-6.75|0.2710
95726029|NCT02367781|191421608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|6.34||||0.2733|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|17.67|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 1 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||17.67|-5.00|0.2733
95726030|NCT02367781|191421608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.69||||0.2909|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.44|24.81|||Z-test|||Event Free Rate (%) Year 2 TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 ITT WT||24.81|-7.44|0.2909
95726031|NCT02367781|191421609|SUPERIORITY|Stratified Analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.893||||0.3342|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.711|1.123|||Log Rank|||||1.123|0.711|0.3342
95726032|NCT01133392|191421617|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.99|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.948|1.034||||||||1.034|0.948|
95726033|NCT01133392|191421618|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|0.933|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.897|0.972||||||||0.972|0.897|
95726034|NCT01133392|191421619|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.005|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.958|1.054||||||||1.054|0.958|
95726035|NCT01133392|191421620|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-0.4|0.5||||||||0.500|-0.400|
95726036|NCT01133392|191421621|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of geometric least square means|1.014|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.961|1.07||||||||1.070|0.961|
95726037|NCT00740727|191421646|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% of subjects with infusion pain|11.1||||||95.0|1.4|34.7|||95% binomial exact confidence interval|||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, during EASI placement or infusion, at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||34.7|1.4|
95726038|NCT00740727|191421647|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||% subjects with next-day EASI site pain|0.0||||||97.5|0.0|18.5|||binomial exact confidence interval|Because the point estimate was zero, the statistical software (STATA version 10MP) reports a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval.||This analysis reports the number of subjects (of 18 possible) who experienced pain, as assessed on next-day follow-up (24 hours after EASI infusion), at the a priori-defined level of at least 3 on a 10-point pain scale.||18.5|0|
95726039|NCT04364165|191421648|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.0||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.44|2.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.78|1.44|.01
95726040|NCT04364165|191421649|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.44||||0.41|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|5.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.78|0.36|.41
95726041|NCT05321810|191421655|OTHER|||||||0.016|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.016
95726042|NCT05321810|191421660|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.812||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|0.957|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.957|0.690|0.013
95726043|NCT05321810|191421666|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.002
95726044|NCT05321810|191421669|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
95726045|NCT05321810|191421670|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.42|0.773|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.773|0.420|<0.001
95726046|NCT05321810|191421672|OTHER|||||||0.35|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.350
95726047|NCT05321810|191421673|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.155||||0.324|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.867|1.54|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.540|0.867|0.324
95726048|NCT05321810|191421675|OTHER|||||||0.111|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.111
95726049|NCT05321810|191421676|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.866||||0.1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.028|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.028|0.730|0.100
95726050|NCT05321810|191421678|OTHER|||||||0.979|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||0.979
95726051|NCT05321810|191421679|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.002||||0.978|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.854|1.177|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|1.177|0.854|0.978
95726052|NCT05321810|191421681|OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Log Rank|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|||<0.001
95726053|NCT05321810|191421682|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.428|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.263|0.697|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.697|0.263|<0.001
95726054|NCT05321810|191421686|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.727||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.599|0.881|||t-test, 2 sided|||Statistical analysis has been presented for all time points from 0 to 24 months.|\[Not specified\]|0.881|0.599|0.001
95726055|NCT00433381|191421716|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 20% of patients progression-free at six months. Alternative hypothesis: 35%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Required sample size = 57.|The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
95726056|NCT00433381|191421717|OTHER|||||||||||||||||Null hypothesis: 35% discontinuation rate of bevacizumab and temozolomide. Alternative hypothesis: 5%. Type I and II error rates = 0.10. Sample size = 29.|The determination of treatment tolerability was to be made based on the following rules: If 6 or fewer of the cases (6/29=20.6%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the null hypothesis that the discontinuation rate is at least 35% and conclude tolerability. If 7 or more of the cases (7/29=24.1%) stop treatment due to medical conditions, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the discontinuation rate no more than 15%.|||
95726057|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.09|0.91||||||Accuracy estimate, as measured by the Area under the Curve (AUC), for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.91|0.09|
95726058|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.95|0.14|
95726059|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.99||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.99|0|
95726060|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.85|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.53|
95726061|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
95726062|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.11|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.11|
95726063|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER||Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.21|
95726064|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
95726065|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0|
95726066|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
95726067|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.91||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.91|0.13|
95726068|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.06|
95726069|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.92|0.02|
95726070|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.41|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.8||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.80|0.01|
95726071|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.22|
95726072|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
95726073|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
95726074|NCT00433381|191421718|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.93|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of PFS-6 by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.73|
95726075|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.92||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||0.92|0|
95726076|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.42|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.88||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||0.88|0|
95726077|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Accuracy: Area Under the ROC|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.25|
95726078|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
95726079|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.44|
95726080|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.17|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.17|
95726081|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|0.45|
95726082|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.73|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.19|
95726083|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.57|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.03|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of tumor NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.03|
95726084|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 2 weeks||1|0.20|
95726085|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.72|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 2 weeks||1|0.36|
95726086|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.94||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 2 weeks||0.94|0.06|
95726087|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.58|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|0.95||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 8 weeks||0.95|0.22|
95726088|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.87||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 8 weeks||0.87|0.13|
95726089|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.47|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 8 weeks||1|0.47|
95726090|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cho at 16 weeks||1|1|
95726091|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|0.89|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.63|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery Cho/Cr at 16 weeks||1|0.63|
95726092|NCT00433381|191421719|OTHER|ROC analysis|Area Under the Curve (AUC)|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.0||||||AUC (Accuracy) estimate for the prediction of 12 month overall survival by change in metabolic ratio of periphery NAA/Cr at 16 weeks||1|1|
95726093|NCT00433381|191421720|OTHER||||||||||||||||||The determination of treatment efficacy was to be made made based on the following rules: If 16 or more of the cases (16/57=28.1%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the null hypothesis that the rate is no better than 20%. If 15 or fewer of the cases (15/57=26.3%) are progression free and alive at 6 months, then reject the alternative hypothesis that the rate is at least 35%.|||
95726094|NCT00433381|191421722|OTHER|Agreement was assessed using a Kappa statistic|Kappa Statistic|0.39|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|0.57||||||Agreement between Local and Central determinations 6-month PFS, based on imaging, was evaluated using Kappa statistics||0.57|0.21|
95726095|NCT00433381|191421723|OTHER|Sensitivity|Sensitivity|0.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.73||||||Sensitivity||0.73|0.46|
95726096|NCT00433381|191421723|OTHER|Specificity|Specificity|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.87||||||Specificity||0.87|0.66|
95726097|NCT03342898|191421730|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the seroprotection rate difference (Group 1 - Group 3) was less than 5%.|Seroprotection Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.85|2.69|||||The Newcombe score method was used to compute the 95% CI of the seroprotection rate difference.|||2.69|-1.85|
95726098|NCT03342898|191421731|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.19|2.22|||||Analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-1||2.22|1.19|
95726099|NCT03342898|191421731|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|1.03|1.75|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-2||1.75|1.03|
95726100|NCT03342898|191421731|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.3||||||95.0|0.99|1.61|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-3||1.61|0.99|
95726101|NCT03342898|191421731|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between TDV + YF (Group 3) and TDV + Placebo (Group 2) at Day 120. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 2 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 2/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.46|||||ANOVA model was used for analysis, including log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|Day 120, DENV-4||1.46|0.89|
95726102|NCT03342898|191421735|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority of the immune response was performed only between YF + TDV (Group 3) and YF + Placebo (Group 1) at Day 30. Non-inferiority between Group 3 and Group 1 was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the GMT ratio (Group 1/Group 3) was less than 2.0.|Geometric Mean Ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|1.26|||||ANOVA model was used for analyses, including the log-transformed value of titer as the dependent variable and trial group as a factor.|||1.26|0.77|
95726103|NCT01387282|191421742|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
95726104|NCT01387282|191421743|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.648|||||||Wilcoxon rank sum test|||Superiority analysis||||0.6480
95726105|NCT01387282|191421744|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0016|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.0016
95726106|NCT01387282|191421745|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8637|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||0.8637
95726107|NCT01387282|191421746|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||Superiority analysis||||< 0.0001
95726108|NCT00458302|191421747|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The primary comparison was performed at Week 48. If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.1|6.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment arm, so 250 patients in total.||6.8|-10.1|
95726109|NCT00458302|191421748|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|If at Week 48, the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval of the difference between DRV/r and DRV/r+2NRTIs exceeds -12%, non-inferiority of the DRV/r 800/100 once a day (O.D) monotherapy versus the DRV/r 800/100 mg O.D. plus two NRTIs triple combination therapy was concluded.|Difference in proportion of response|-1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.9|7.8|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|Assuming a virologic response rate of 90% at 48 weeks for both treatment arms, 111 patients were required per treatment arm to establish non-inferiority of DRV/r versus triple regimen with a maximum allowable difference of 12%, with a one-sided significance level of p=0.025 and 80% power. To account for a maximum of 10% major protocol violations that would be excluded from the on-protocol analysis, 125 patients were recruited in each treatment are, so 250 patients in total.||7.8|-9.9|
95726110|NCT00458302|191421750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in proportion of response|1.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.99|10.58|||||Difference in proportion of response DRV/r minus DRV/r+2NRTIs.|||10.58|-7.99|
95726111|NCT02661126|191421760|OTHER|Geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.4|2.92||||||||2.92|1.40|
95726112|NCT02661126|191421761|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.89||||||||2.89|1.39|
95726113|NCT02661126|191421762|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.92||||||||2.92|1.39|
95726114|NCT02661126|191421763|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.92|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|2.74||||||||2.74|1.35|
95726115|NCT02661126|191421769|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.39|2.72||||||||2.72|1.39|
95726116|NCT02661126|191421770|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5|2.74||||||||2.74|1.50|
95726117|NCT02661126|191421771|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.72|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.56||||||||2.56|1.15|
95726118|NCT02661126|191421772|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.85|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.87||||||||2.87|1.20|
95726119|NCT02661126|191421773|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|2.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.38|2.97||||||||2.97|1.38|
95726120|NCT02661126|191421777|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.91|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.44|2.53||||||||2.53|1.44|
95726121|NCT02661126|191421778|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.97|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.48|2.63||||||||2.63|1.48|
95726122|NCT02661126|191421779|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.96|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.54|2.48||||||||2.48|1.54|
95726123|NCT02661126|191421780|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|2.24||||||||2.24|1.29|
95726124|NCT02661126|191421781|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.94|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.47|2.57||||||||2.57|1.47|
95726125|NCT02661126|191421784|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.33|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.65|2.75||||||||2.75|0.65|
95726126|NCT02661126|191421785|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.59|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.79|3.19||||||||3.19|0.79|
95726127|NCT02661126|191421786|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.15|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.51|2.57||||||||2.57|0.51|
95726128|NCT02661126|191421787|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.5|3.05||||||||3.05|0.50|
95726129|NCT02661126|191421788|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.56|2.91||||||||2.91|0.56|
95726130|NCT02661126|191421793|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants.|GMR of AUC0-last in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.19|2.05||||||||2.05|1.19|
95726131|NCT02661126|191421794|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-∞ in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.57|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2|2.05||||||||2.05|1.20|
95726132|NCT02661126|191421795|OTHER|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of AUC0-24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.49|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.13|1.98||||||||1.98|1.13|
95726133|NCT02661126|191421796|OTHER|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of Cmax in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.44|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.05|1.98||||||||1.98|1.05|
95726134|NCT02661126|191421797|OTHER|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy Participants|GMR of C24 in Moderate RI/Healthy|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|2.07||||||||2.07|1.15|
95726135|NCT01513551|191421830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|15.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||15.0|-1.4|
95726136|NCT01513551|191421830|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|9.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|17.7|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||17.7|1.1|
95726137|NCT01078623|191421856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.221|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.174|0.268|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.268|0.174|<0.0001
95726138|NCT01078623|191421856|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least squares mean difference|0.234|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.024|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.186|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment and period as fixed effects, subject as random effect, and baseline values at each period as a covariate||||0.281|0.186|<0.0001
95726139|NCT01706198|191421859|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.34||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy (AMT) at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.34|1.70|<0.001
95726140|NCT01706198|191421860|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.92|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.67|2.2||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 12 has been presented.|||2.20|1.67|<0.001
95726141|NCT01706198|191421860|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.66|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|1.91||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 40 has been presented.|||1.91|1.45|<0.001
95726142|NCT01706198|191421860|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.54|2.02||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care for Week 52 has been presented.|||2.02|1.54|<0.001
95726143|NCT01706198|191421861|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.82|2.4||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.40|1.82|<0.001
95726144|NCT01706198|191421861|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|2.25||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.25|1.70|<0.001
95726145|NCT01706198|191421861|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.56|2.06||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.06|1.56|<0.001
95726146|NCT01706198|191421861|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.95|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.69|2.24||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.24|1.69|<0.001
95726147|NCT01706198|191421862|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.28|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.98|2.62||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||2.62|1.98|<0.001
95726148|NCT01706198|191421862|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|2.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.81|2.41||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||2.41|1.81|<0.001
95726149|NCT01706198|191421862|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.76|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.53|2.02||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||2.02|1.53|<0.001
95726150|NCT01706198|191421862|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.91|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.66|2.21||The analysis method was logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, gender and age.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||2.21|1.66|<0.001
95726151|NCT01706198|191421863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.54|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|1.77||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM)||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 12 has been presented.|||1.77|1.30|<0.001
95726152|NCT01706198|191421863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 24 has been presented.|||1.76|1.25|<0.001
95726153|NCT01706198|191421863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.11|1.63||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 40 has been presented.|||1.63|1.11|<0.001
95726154|NCT01706198|191421863|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.24|1.76||MMRM adjusted for randomized treatment, AMT at Baseline per randomization stratification, Baseline ACT total score, randomized treatment-by-Baseline ACT total score interaction, gender, age, visit and randomized treatment by visit interaction.|MMRM||Treatment difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care at Week 52 has been presented.|||1.76|1.24|<0.001
95726155|NCT01706198|191421865|OTHER||Ratio|1.03||||0.786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.28||GLM assuming negative binomial distribution (NBD) adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.28|0.83|0.786
95726156|NCT01706198|191421866|OTHER||Ratio|1.02||||0.461|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.97|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.97|0.461
95726157|NCT01706198|191421868|OTHER||Ratio|0.99||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|1.08||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.08|0.91|0.822
95726158|NCT01706198|191421869|OTHER||Ratio|1.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.15||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.15|1.05|<0.001
95726159|NCT01706198|191421871|OTHER||Ratio|0.98||||0.697|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.09||GLM assuming NBD adjusted for randomized treatment; asthma maintenance therapy and ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification; number of severe asthma exacerbations in previous year prior to randomization categorized; gender \& age|Generalized Linear Model (GLM)||Ratio comparing FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||1.09|0.88|0.697
95726160|NCT01706198|191421872|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.96||||0.504|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|1.07||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||A hazard ratio \<1 indicated a lower risk with FF/VI compared with Usual Care|||1.07|0.86|0.504
95726161|NCT01706198|191421873|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.1|-0.5||ANCOVA adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender,age \& number of salbutamol inhalers in year prior to randomization|ANCOVA||Difference of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||-0.5|-1.1|<0.001
95726162|NCT01706198|191421874|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.23|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|1.38||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented|||1.38|1.09|<0.001
95726163|NCT01706198|191421875|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.79|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.55|2.06||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI with Usual Care has been presented.|||2.06|1.55|<0.001
95726164|NCT01706198|191421876|OTHER||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.51|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.31|1.73||Logistic regression adjusted for randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender, age and Baseline score.|Regression, Logistic||Adjusted odds ratio of FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||1.73|1.31|<0.001
95726165|NCT01706198|191421877|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the incidence ratio is less than 2.|Incidence ratio|1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|2.7|||||Incidence ratio was calculated as percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the FF/VI group divided by the percentage of participants who had at least one SAE of pneumonia in the Usual Care group.|||2.7|0.8|
95726166|NCT01706198|191421878|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.45||||0.255|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.77|2.74||Cox proportional hazards model with randomized treatment, asthma maintenance therapy at Baseline per randomization stratification, ACT total score at Baseline per randomization stratification, gender and age as covariates.|Cox proportional hazards model||Hazard ratio for FF/VI versus Usual Care has been presented.|||2.74|0.77|0.255
95726167|NCT02967133|191421892|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5186|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5186
95726168|NCT04169282|191421920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.108|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.108
95726169|NCT04169282|191421921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.003
95726170|NCT04169282|191421922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.025|||||||t-test, 1 sided|paired t-test for normally distributed and transformed data or Wilcoxon's Signed Rank test for non-parametric paired data||||||0.025
95726171|NCT01381900|191421932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.644|-0.367|||ANCOVA|||||-0.367|-0.644|<0.001
95726172|NCT01381900|191421932|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|-0.453|||ANCOVA|||||-0.453|-0.731|<0.001
95726173|NCT01381900|191421933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.375|-0.694|||ANCOVA|||||-0.694|-1.375|<0.001
95726174|NCT01381900|191421933|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-1.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.173|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.769|-1.089|||ANCOVA|||||-1.089|-1.769|<0.001
95726175|NCT01381900|191421934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7|-1.6|||ANCOVA|||||-1.6|-2.7|<0.001
95726176|NCT01381900|191421934|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least-Squares Mean Difference|-2.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.3|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.9|-1.8|||ANCOVA|||||-1.8|-2.9|<0.001
95726177|NCT01381900|191421935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.26|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.09|5.09|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.09|2.09|
95726178|NCT01381900|191421935|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.99|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.55|6.27|||Regression, Logistic|||||6.27|2.55|
95726179|NCT01381900|191421936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.55|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.45|4.48|||Regression, Logistic|||||4.48|1.45|
95726180|NCT01381900|191421936|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.88|5.75|||Regression, Logistic|||||5.75|1.88|
95726181|NCT01275313|191421937|EQUIVALENCE|Power calculation: To determine a difference of 20% in the control group and 10% in the treatment group with 80% power, 440 participants would be needed.||||||0.77|||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||Null hypothesis: At-risk nursing home residents provided with an individually-configured manual lightweight wheelchair and skin protection cushion have the same incidence of pressure injury development compared to individuals using a facility-provided manual wheelchair modified with a skin protection cushion and related adjustments.||||0.77
95726182|NCT01165684|191421938|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalently if the p-value for the one-sided test of was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (step-wise regimen minus basal-bolus regimen).|Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.14||||0.088||95.0|-0.02|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-0.02|0.088
95726183|NCT01165684|191421939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.55|||<|0.001||95.0|0.42|0.69|||Regression, Linear|||||0.69|0.42|<0.001
95726184|NCT01165684|191421940|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated treatment difference, Mean|0.37|||<|0.001||95.0|0.21|0.53|||Regression, Linear|||||0.53|0.21|<0.001
95726185|NCT01165684|191421941|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|6.85|||<|0.001||95.0|4.12|11.39|||Regression, Logistic|||||11.39|4.12|<0.001
95726186|NCT01165684|191421942|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.38|||<|0.001||95.0|1.56|3.64|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.64|1.56|<0.001
95726187|NCT01165684|191421943|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.36||||0.146||95.0|0.9|2.07|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.07|0.90|0.146
95726188|NCT01165684|191421946|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated Mean|0.12||||0.635||95.0|-0.37|0.6|||Regression, Linear|||||0.60|-0.37|0.635
95726189|NCT01165684|191421949|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|0.36||||0.046||95.0|0.01|0.71|||Regression, Linear|||||0.71|0.01|0.046
95726190|NCT01165684|191421950|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.48||||0.228||95.0|-1.25|0.3|||Regression, Linear|||||0.30|-1.25|0.228
95726191|NCT01165684|191421951|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Estimated mean|-0.17||||0.224||95.0|-0.45|0.11|||Regression, Linear|||||0.11|-0.45|0.224
95726192|NCT01578707|191421961|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Log Rank|||||||<0.0001
95726193|NCT01578707|191421962|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.0001
95726194|NCT01578707|191421963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.1653|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.1653
95726195|NCT03840135|191421976|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.22|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||The value of δ = -0.52 days was considered as the boundary of superiority. The end of the fever period is considered to have an axillary body temperature of ≤36.9 ° C in two consecutive measurements (morning-evening / evening-morning).||0.16|-0.6|<0.05
95726196|NCT03840135|191421977|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
95726197|NCT03840135|191421978|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
95726198|NCT03840135|191421979|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
95726199|NCT03840135|191421980|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.05
95726200|NCT03840135|191421981|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
95726201|NCT03840135|191421982|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||χ2 Pearson criterion|||||||<0.05
95726202|NCT03840135|191421985|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.05
95726203|NCT03840135|191421986|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95726204|NCT03654898|191422000|SUPERIORITY||cross-tabulation|0.48||||0.49|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.49
95726205|NCT03654898|191422000|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.67|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.42|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted logistic regression||||1.42|0.80|0.67
95726206|NCT03654898|191422001|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.71||||0.4|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.40
95726207|NCT03654898|191422002|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|0.5||||0.78|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 1 was for TFVdp while test 2 was for 3TCtp.||||0.78
95726208|NCT03654898|191422002|SUPERIORITY||Cross-tabulation|2.13||||0.34|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||Test 2 was for 3TCtp while test 1 was for TFVdp.||||0.34
95726209|NCT00479401|191422029|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A non-inferiority hypothesis comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was to be tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points. The primary efficacy endpoint in UPDRS part II+III was the change from baseline (week 0) to week 33 on the UPDRS Parts II+III score combined. The statistical model was analysis of covariance, controlling for baseline UPDRS Part II+III. Fixed terms in the model were treatment, country, and UPDRS Part II+III score at baseline.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|1.7|||ANCOVA|Null hypothesis was tested using an analysis of covariance model with α = 0.05 in full analysis set with last observation carried forward.|PPX ER non-inferior to PPX IR, if the lower limit of the confidence interval for the difference is higher than the non-inferiority margin of -3|A non-inferiority hypothesis (H0: μER - μIR \< -3 vs. H1: μER - μIR ≥ -3) comparing pramipexole ER to pramipexole IR was tested using a non-inferiority margin of -3 points.||1.7|-2.2|
95726210|NCT01335464|191422063|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|125.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|24.209|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|77.68|172.84||The objective of this trial was to assess the superiority of nintedanib 150 mg bid compared to placebo on the annual rate of decline in FVC.|Random coefficient regression|The Roger-Kenward approximation was used to estimate denominators degrees of freedom.|"Within-patient errors are modelled by an Unstructured variance-covariance matrix.~Inter-individual variability is modelled by a Variance-components variance-covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|"Random coefficient regression with fixed effects for treatment, gender, age, height and random effect of patient specific intercept and time.~A hierarchical procedure was used in order to demonstrate the superiority of nintedanib over placebo for one primary and two key secondary endpoints.~The consecutive steps of the hierarchy were only considered if the previous step was significant at the one-sided 2.5% level and the results were in favour of nintedanib."||172.84|77.68|<0.0001
95726211|NCT01335464|191422064|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.248||0.9657|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|2.4|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Total score, baseline SGRQ Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.40|-2.50|0.9657
95726212|NCT01335464|191422065|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.15||||0.6728|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.42|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Hazard Ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||2.42|0.54|0.6728
95728987|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.9||||0.042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|9.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||9.60|0.20|0.042
95726213|NCT01335464|191422066|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|109.93|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|19.708|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|71.27|148.59|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||148.59|71.27|<0.0001
95726214|NCT01335464|191422067|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.54|5.5|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC, baseline FVC-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.50|2.54|<0.0001
95726215|NCT01335464|191422068|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.564|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.11|4.33|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.33|2.11|<0.0001
95726216|NCT01335464|191422069|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.753|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.52|5.48|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline FVC \[%predicted\], baseline FVC \[%predicted\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||5.48|2.52|<0.0001
95726217|NCT01335464|191422072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.914||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.32|2.79|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.79|1.32|0.0007
95726218|NCT01335464|191422073|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.847||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.28|2.66|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, age, gender, height and baseline FVC % predicted||2.66|1.28|0.0010
95726219|NCT01335464|191422074|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.4298|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.29|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo|Logistic regression with terms treatment, baseline SGRQ total score||1.29|0.55|0.4298
95726220|NCT01335464|191422075|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.744||0.1832|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.74|1.1|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component, baseline SGRQ Symptoms component-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.10|-5.74|0.1832
95726221|NCT01335464|191422076|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.446||0.551|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.97|3.7|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient error are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ impact component, baseline SGRQ Impact component-by-visit and random effect for patient||3.70|-1.97|0.5510
95726222|NCT01335464|191422077|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.427||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.99|1.61|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg bid versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ Activities component, baseline SGRQ Activities component-by-visit and random effect for patient||1.61|-3.99|0.4049
95726223|NCT01335464|191422078|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.289||0.5446|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.31|1.75|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SGRQ-I Total score, baseline SGRQ-I Total score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||1.75|-3.31|0.5446
95726224|NCT01335464|191422079|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.77||0.6203|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.35|2.6|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline SOBQ score, baseline SOBQ score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||2.60|-4.35|0.6203
95726225|NCT01335464|191422080|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.803||0.8942|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.78|3.3|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within- patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score, baseline CASA-Q Cough symptoms score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||3.30|-3.78|0.8942
95726226|NCT01335464|191422081|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.596||0.3042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.49|4.77|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix~Nintedanib 150 mg versus Placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score, baseline CASA-Q Cough impact score-by-visit and random effect for patient.||4.77|-1.49|0.3042
95726227|NCT01335464|191422082|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.276||||0.1818|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.83|||Regression, Logistic||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Logistic regression with term treatment||1.83|0.89|0.1818
95726228|NCT01335464|191422084|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|1.17||||0.6793|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.56|2.46|||Normal distribution|Risk ratio was calculated as the ratio of risk of exacerbation in both treatment groups.|Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|The log of the risk ratio was assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance equal to the sum of the reciprocals of the number of patients with at least one exacerbation in each treatment arm.||2.46|0.56|0.6793
95726229|NCT01335464|191422085|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.63||||0.288|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.36|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.36|0.29|0.2880
95726230|NCT01335464|191422086|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.61||||0.3515|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|1.47|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.47|0.25|0.3515
95726231|NCT01335464|191422087|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.68||||0.4869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.26|1.82|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on a Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.82|0.26|0.4869
95726232|NCT01335464|191422088|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.73||||0.443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.36|1.51|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.51|0.36|0.4430
95726233|NCT01335464|191422089|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.81||||0.3558|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.25|||Log Rank||Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo|Hazard ratio is based on Cox´s regression model with terms for treatment, gender, age and height||1.25|0.52|0.3558
95726234|NCT01335464|191422090|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.181||0.1138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline SpO2, baseline SpO2-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.64|-0.07|0.1138
95726235|NCT01335464|191422091|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.015|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.0896||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.191|0.161|||Mixed Models Analysis||"Within-patient errors are modelled by compound symmetry covariance matrix.~Nintedanib 150mg bid versus placebo"|Mixed Model for Repeated Measures with fixed effects for treatment, visit, gender, age, height, treatment-by-visit, baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\], baseline DLCO (HGB Corrected) \[mmol/min/kPa\]-by-visit and random effect for patient.||0.161|-0.191|0.8650
95726236|NCT02473510|191422107|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.2|2.6||||||||2.6|-5.2|
95726237|NCT02473510|191422108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|16.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.6|27.6||||||Up to Day 8||27.6|3.6|
95726238|NCT02473510|191422108|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Rate Difference|17.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.4|29.3||||||Up to Day 15||29.3|4.4|
95726239|NCT03182686|191422112|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||"H0:π ≤ π0 versus HA:π \> π0~Where π0 is the hypothesized clinically significant value for the proportion of responders. The value will be 30% in this study. This test will be tested using an exact binomial test. That is, given the sample size of n, the number of responders X, and the value of π0 =0.30, then probability that X or more events would be observed will be calculated as the p-value. Since this is a one-sided test, the alpha level will be 0.025."||||<0.0001
95726240|NCT01989195|191422118|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<.05
95726241|NCT01512979|191422129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.79|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.13|-0.46||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|ANCOVA|||||-0.46|-1.13|<0.0001
95726242|NCT01512979|191422130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-16.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.7||0.0032||95.0|-28.0|-5.7||The model includes treatment, continuous baseline HbA1c and continuous baseline FPG.|ANCOVA|||||-5.7|-28.0|0.0032
95726243|NCT01512979|191422132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.83||||0.0031||95.0|1.573|9.328||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.328|1.573|0.0031
95726244|NCT01512979|191422133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.92||||0.0025||95.0|1.458|5.849||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||5.849|1.458|0.0025
95726245|NCT01512979|191422134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|2.448||||0.0008||95.0|1.453|4.123||The model includes treatment and continuous baseline HbA1c.|Regression, Logistic|||||4.123|1.453|0.0008
95726246|NCT00529568|191422136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage difference in SVR|6.0||||0.0202|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|10.9||Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test adjusted for the randomization strata|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||The estimated value reflects the percentage of participants with SVR in the eltrombopag group minus the percentage of participants with SVR in the placebo group. Adjusted for the actual strata: HCV genotype, baseline platelet count, and HCV RNA.|||10.9|1.2|0.0202
95726247|NCT00951899|191422171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0006||95.0||||A P value \< 0.05 was considered statistically significant|t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Colesevelam subjects||||0.0006
95726248|NCT00951899|191422171|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of mean total GLP-1 concentration from baseline to 12 weeks in Placebo subjects||||0.30
95726249|NCT03751124|191422209|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|63.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|52.85|73.86||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% confidence interval (CI) of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|The primary efficacy analysis was the comparison of the relugolix plus E2/NETA group with the placebo group with respect to responder rate.||73.86|52.85|<0.0001
95726250|NCT03751124|191422210|OTHER|Stratified log-rank test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.13|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|0.2||P-value for comparison of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on the stratified log-rank test.|Log Rank||Hazard ratio (95% CI) of relugolix plus E2/NETA to placebo was based on a proportional hazard model stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|||0.20|0.08|<0.0001
95726251|NCT03751124|191422211|OTHER|Chi-square test was used for the comparison between relugolix plus E2/NETA group and placebo group.|Treatment difference|58.04|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|46.97|69.11||P-value was based on the stratified test statistics via log-log transformation of the difference in survival curve at a fixed time point stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume and duration of prior exposure to relugolix.|Log-Log transformation|Log-Log transformation of survival curve based on stratified Kaplan-Meier analysis|The 95% CI of treatment difference was calculated via linear transformation of the difference in survival function with pooled variance.|||69.11|46.97|<0.0001
95726252|NCT03751124|191422212|SUPERIORITY||Treatment difference|44.12|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|33.13|55.11||P-value for difference between relugolix plus E2/NETA and placebo is based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by pivotal study baseline MBL volume (\<225 mL or ≥225 mL) and duration of prior exposure to relugolix (28 weeks or 52 weeks).|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Treatment difference is relugolix plus E2/NETA minus placebo. 95% CI for difference is based on the normal approximation.|||55.11|33.13|<0.0001
95726253|NCT01859390|191422257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.46|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|0.22|||t-test, 2 sided|||Two-sample T-test||0.22|-0.49|0.460
95726254|NCT01859390|191422257|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.325|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.513|0.173|||Regression, Linear||"Regression Model predictors include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1%Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The estimated value is the mean difference between groups for 16 week change in log10 MPO."|||0.173|-0.513|0.325
95726255|NCT01859390|191422258|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportions-SAE incidence|-12.9||||0.302|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.1|7.8|||Fisher Exact|||||7.8|-32.1|0.302
95726256|NCT01859390|191422259|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.94||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|1.13|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.||1.13|0.78|0.486
95726257|NCT01859390|191422259|SUPERIORITY|Rate Ratio for Serious Adverse Events calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in weeks. The total number of follow-up weeks in the AquADEKs-2 group was 642 and in the Control group was 639.|Rate Ratio|0.74||||0.269|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.26|||Poisson Regression|||||1.26|0.43|0.269
95726258|NCT01859390|191422260|SUPERIORITY|Two sample T-test|Median Difference (Final Values)|1.43||||0.4463|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.3|5.16|||t-test, 2 sided|||||5.16|-2.30|0.4463
95726259|NCT01859390|191422261|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.04||||0.8623|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|0.44|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.44|-0.37|0.8623
95726260|NCT01859390|191422262|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.536||||0.0534|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.284|1.009||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Regression, Cox||"Cox model parameters include: AquADEKs-2 arm, Age \>=18 years, Sex, Screening FEV1 % Predicted \>70%, Chronic use of Inhaled Antibiotics and Azithromycin.~The parameter of interest is the Hazard Ratio comparing the AquADEKs-2 arm to the control arm."|||1.009|0.284|0.0534
95726261|NCT01859390|191422263|SUPERIORITY||Rate Ratio|0.72||||0.1731|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.16|||Poisson Model|||Rate Ratio for PEx calculated using Poisson Regression with an offset for the log of follow-up time in months. The total number of follow-up months in the AquADEKs-2 group was 148 and in the Control group was 147.||1.16|0.44|0.1731
95726262|NCT01859390|191422264|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-14.8||||0.2363|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.1|7.4||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Alpha at 0.05.|Fisher Exact|||||7.4|-35.1|0.2363
95726263|NCT01859390|191422265|SUPERIORITY|Difference in Proportions|Median Difference (Final Values)|-15.7||||0.19|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.5|4.8|||Fisher Exact|||||4.8|-34.5|0.1900
95726264|NCT01806597|191422266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|19.3||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|154.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||154.6|2.4|0.0002
95726265|NCT01806597|191422266|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|29.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.1|211.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Data at Week 16 was analyzed using the stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-test. The test was stratified by body-weight category (\<90 kg or ≥90 kg).||211.9|4.1|<0.0001
95726266|NCT01144663|191422277|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|1.2||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI (confidence interval) for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||1.2|-1.17|
95726267|NCT01144663|191422277|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percenttage|-0.43|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|0.4||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 3 Group compared to the NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 3 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.4|-1.57|
95726268|NCT01144663|191422277|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.45|0.43||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to Menjugate Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus Menjugate Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||0.43|-2.45|
95726269|NCT01144663|191422277|NON_INFERIORITY|Indication of non-inferiority of Nimenrix 3 Group compared to Menjugate Group is a lower limit of the 95% CI of the group difference greater than or equal to the predefined clinical limits of -5%.|Difference in percentage|-1.32|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.48||||||To demonstrate the non-inferiority of the Nimenrix 2 Group compared to NeisVac-C Group, two-sided standardized asymptotic 95% CI for the groups difference \[Nimenrix 2 Group minus NeisVac-C Group\] in the percentages of subjects with bactericidal vaccine response to MenC was computed.||-0.48|-2.84|
95726270|NCT01473758|191422330|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.404|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.07||0.6491|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.731|7.538||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||7.538|-4.731|0.6491
95726271|NCT01473758|191422331|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.412|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.687||0.8786|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.766|4.943||The model contains neutrophil count at Baseline and treatment as independent variables, fixed effects.|ANCOVA|||||4.943|-5.766|0.8786
95726272|NCT02763579|191422388|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.77||||0.017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|0.96|||Log Rank|||||0.96|0.62|0.0170
95726273|NCT02763579|191422389|SUPERIORITY||Stratified Hazard Ratio|0.7||||0.0069|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.54|0.0069
95726274|NCT02763579|191422390|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.37||||||||1.37|0.55|
95726275|NCT02763579|191422391|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.715||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.562|0.911|||Log Rank|||||0.911|0.562|0.0063
95726276|NCT02763579|191422392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|8.47||||0.0593|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|17.27|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 6 months||17.27|-0.33|0.0593
95726277|NCT02763579|191422392|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|7.27||||0.0133|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.52|13.02|||Z-test|||PFS Rate at 1 year||13.02|1.52|0.0133
95726278|NCT02763579|191422393|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Event Free Rate|13.46||||0.0095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.29|23.64|||Z-test|||OS Rate at 1 year||23.64|3.29|0.0095
95726279|NCT02763579|191422394|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.221||||0.3604|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.795|1.874|||Log Rank|||Cough||1.874|0.795|0.3604
95726280|NCT02763579|191422394|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.058||||0.7712|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.722|1.553|||Log Rank|||Pain in Chest||1.553|0.722|0.7712
95726281|NCT02763579|191422394|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.077||||0.6922|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.747|1.552|||Log Rank|||Pain in Arm or Shoulder||1.552|0.747|0.6922
95726282|NCT02763579|191422394|SUPERIORITY|Stratified analysis. Stratification factors: Sex (male vs female) and ECOG (0 vs 1).|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.748||||0.065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.549|1.019|||Log Rank|||Dyspnea||1.019|0.549|0.0650
95726283|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 1.|GMC ratio for anti-1|6.17|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.03|7.58|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory induced for anti-pneumococcal serotype 1 following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||7.58|5.03|
95726284|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled SynflorixI+II Group over Synflorix Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 4.|GMC ratio for anti-4|2.86|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.38|3.45|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 4 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||3.45|2.38|
95726285|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 5.|GMC ratio for anti-5|13.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.96|16.55|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 5 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||16.55|10.96|
95726286|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 6B.|GMC ratio for anti-6B|28.81|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.54|36.81|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 6B induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||36.81|22.54|
95726287|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 7F.|GMC ratio for anti-7F|4.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.9|5.78|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 7F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||5.78|3.9|
95726288|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 9V.|GMC ratio for anti-9V|14.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.21|17.75|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 9V induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||17.75|11.21|
95726289|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 14.|GMC ratio for anti-14|22.92|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.51|30.0|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 14 induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||30|17.51|
95728804|NCT04147715|191427279|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.7489|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.525|2.0057|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 30 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.0057|1.5250|
95726290|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 18C.|GMC ratio for anti-18C|10.01|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.95|12.61|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 18C induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||12.61|7.95|
95726291|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 19F.|GMC ratio for anti-19F|9.25|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.29|11.74|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 19F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||11.74|7.29|
95726292|NCT00950833|191422401|NON_INFERIORITY|The immune memory would be demonstrated if the lower limit (LL) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios (Pooled Synflorix I+II Group over Synflorix III Group) was higher than 1 for pneumococcal serotype 23F.|GMC ratio for anti-23F|36.52|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.59|48.34|||ANOVA|||To demonstrate the immunological memory for anti-pneumococcal serotype 23F induced following primary vaccination in study 107017 (NCT00370318) and booster vaccination in study 107137 (NCT00496015) with the Synflorix™ vaccine, through evaluation of early antibody responses after an additional dose of Synflorix™ vaccine at 40-48 months of age, compared to the Synflorix III Group.||48.34|27.59|
95726293|NCT01828255|191422443|OTHER||||||<|0.005|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.005
95726294|NCT03273387|191422445|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.008||||||95% Confidence interval 1.97 - 11.3 statistical significant if p\<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=2.988 df=18||||||0.008
95726295|NCT03273387|191422446|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.33||||||statistical significant if p \<0.05|two-way ANOVA|DF=3||||||0.33
95726296|NCT03273387|191422447|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.0002||||||95% Confidence interval 15.92 to 42.53 statistical significant if p \<0.05|t-test, 2 sided|t=4.598 df=19||||||0.0002
95726297|NCT04549259|191422468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.23||||0.33|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.33
95726298|NCT04549259|191422468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.76||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.63
95726299|NCT04549259|191422468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
95726300|NCT04549259|191422468|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.87||||0.9|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.90
95726301|NCT04549259|191422468|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.89||||0.38|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.38
95726302|NCT04549259|191422468|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.25||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.78
95726303|NCT04549259|191422468|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.32||||0.45|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.45
95726304|NCT04549259|191422468|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.92||||0.91|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.91
95726305|NCT04549259|191422469|SUPERIORITY||B|2.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.36|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.36
95726306|NCT04549259|191422469|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.88|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.88
95726307|NCT04549259|191422469|SUPERIORITY||B|0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
95726308|NCT04549259|191422469|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.78||0.73|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.73
95726309|NCT04549259|191422469|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|4.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.83||0.01|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.01
95726310|NCT04549259|191422469|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.03||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
95727854|NCT04136626|191425181|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.7992||||0.1289|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.4246|0.8262||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in functional impairment (WSAS total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||0.8262|-6.4246|0.1289
95726311|NCT04549259|191422469|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.82|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.06||0.08|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.08
95726312|NCT04549259|191422469|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.99||0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.12
95726313|NCT04549259|191422470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|22.3||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.049
95726314|NCT04549259|191422470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.86||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
95726315|NCT04549259|191422470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.68||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.78
95726316|NCT04549259|191422470|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.43||||0.54|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a generalized linear mixed model using the glmer function and a logit link in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.54
95726317|NCT04549259|191422470|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|6.26||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.09
95726318|NCT04549259|191422470|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.05||||0.4|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.40
95726319|NCT04549259|191422470|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.42||||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.66
95726320|NCT04549259|191422470|OTHER|Single group change over time.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.87|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.87
95726321|NCT04549259|191422471|SUPERIORITY||B|-1.74|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.24|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.24
95726322|NCT04549259|191422471|SUPERIORITY||B|-2.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.17|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.17
95726323|NCT04549259|191422471|SUPERIORITY||B|0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.47||0.66|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.66
95726324|NCT04549259|191422471|SUPERIORITY||B|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.46||0.89|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||We fit a linear mixed model using the lmer function in the R package lme4. The model included a random effect for participant and utilized all available data. Predictors (fixed effects) included time (baseline vs. follow-up), random assignments, and interactions between assignments and time. We adjusted for mode of survey completion. Significant interactions indicated differential changes in outcomes over time for those randomly assigned vs. not randomly assigned to different interventions.||||.89
95726325|NCT04549259|191422471|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.75||0.045|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.045
95726326|NCT04549259|191422471|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-1.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.95||0.07|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.07
95726327|NCT04549259|191422471|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.88||0.57|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.57
95726328|NCT04549259|191422471|OTHER|Single group change over time.|B|-0.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.12||0.42|TWO_SIDED|||||All tests performed were 2-sided. Given that the study was a pilot, we used α = .25 as a significance level cutoff and focus primarily on patterns in the data and effect sizes.|Mixed Models Analysis|||"Given that our factorial design resulted in many control participants who were assigned to alternative interventions, for this pilot we also report on changes over time in outcomes for participants randomly assigned to each intervention. These changes tested with mixed models that contained only participants assigned to each intervention. Here, time was the predictor of interest, and we again controlled for mode of survey administration."||||.42
95726329|NCT00992264|191422472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.88|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.51|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months in intent to treat sample. Participants receiving content written in a Prescriptive tone were compared against persons receiving content in a Motivational tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.51|0.51|
95726330|NCT00992264|191422472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|1.91|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons who randomly received a Testimonial were compared against persons receiving No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.91|0.66|
95726331|NCT00992264|191422472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.02|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated navigation were compared to those not assigned to Dictated navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||2.02|0.70|
95726332|NCT00992264|191422472|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.3|||||OR for smoking abstinence at 12 months when persons assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders were compared against persons who received No Emails (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.30|0.43|
95726333|NCT00992264|191422473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio, log|0.94|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.62|1.43|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Prescriptive Tone were compared to persons assigned to receive content in a Motivational Tone (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Prescriptive message tone (n = 932) against persons assigned to Motivational message tone (n = 933).||1.43|0.62|
95726334|NCT00992264|191422473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.07|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to receive a Testimonial were compared to persons assigned to receive No Testimonial (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Testimonials (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive no testimonials (n = 932).||1.07|0.46|
95726335|NCT00992264|191422473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.78|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|1.18|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Dictated Navigation were compared to persons not assigned to Dictated Navigation (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to the Dictated Navigation arm (n = 934) against persons assigned to assigned free navigation of the website (n = 931).||1.18|0.51|
95726336|NCT00992264|191422473|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.67|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.44|1.03|||||OR for use of adjunct treatment at 12 months when persons assigned to Proactive Email reminders were compared to persons not assigned to receive Proactive Email reminders (ref group).|Comparison of persons assigned to Proactive Email Outreach (n = 933) against persons assigned to receive No Proactive Email Outreach (n = 932).||1.03|0.44|
95726337|NCT00909727|191422474|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.9|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.6|18.3||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. No imputation of missing data was done.||The primary analysis for the primary efficacy variable was based on a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). The model included absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) as the dependent variable, treatment (ivacaftor versus placebo) and visit (Day 15, Week 8, Week 16, and Week 24) as fixed effects, and subject as a random effect, with adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1.||18.3|6.6|<0.0001
95726338|NCT00909727|191422475|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.7||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.5|15.5||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. no imputation of missing data was done.||Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM). Estimates were obtained from MMRM with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit \& treatment group, \& adjustment for the continuous baseline value of percent predicted FEV1, using unstructured covariance matrix.||15.5|4.5|0.0006
95726339|NCT00909727|191422476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7||0.1092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.4|13.5||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||13.5|-1.4|0.1092
95726340|NCT00909727|191422476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.3||0.1354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.6|11.8||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint, a Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), with the addition of the baseline domain score as a covariate.||11.8|-1.6|0.1354
95726341|NCT00909727|191422477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-54.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-61.8|-46.8||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 24: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.8|-61.8|<0.0001
95726342|NCT00909727|191422477|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-53.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.7|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-60.9|-46.0||There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Through Week 48: Analysis for this variable was similar to that of the primary analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint. Estimates were from Mixed-Effects Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) with dependent variable absolute change from baseline, fixed effects for categorical visit and treatment group, and adjustment for continuous baseline value for sweat chloride and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), using unstructured covariance matrix.||-46.0|-60.9|<0.0001
95726343|NCT00909727|191422478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.9||The primary endpoint and key secondary endpoints were tested in sequence. test 1: primary (α=0.05); test 2: using Hochberg's step-up procedure on weight (Wk 24) and sweat chloride (Wk 24)(α=0.05); test 3: CFQ-R respiratory domain score (Wk 24).|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 24: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with dependent variable weight; treatment as a fixed effect; and intercept, visit, and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||2.9|0.9|0.0004
95726344|NCT00909727|191422478|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.7||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.3|4.2||P-value is for the treatment effect at Week 48 (obtained as a linear contrast of treatment at Day 336). There was no adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||At Week 48: Analysis for this variable was based on a Linear Mixed Effect (LME) model with random intercept and random slope, treatment as a fixed effect, and visit (days on study) and treatment by visit interaction as random effects, with adjustment for categorical baseline percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) severity.||4.2|1.3|0.0002
95726345|NCT01399723|191422482|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Noninferiority between amoxicillin and benzyl penicillin was defined a priori as a risk difference of treatment failure and associated upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of \<7%. A sample size of 576 would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|4.2|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||4.2|-5.0|
95726346|NCT01399723|191422483|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|0.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.0|5.8|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||5.8|-5.0|
95726347|NCT01399723|191422486|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The initial sample size estimate of 576 children (288 per group) would provide 80% power to detect noninferiority of amoxicillin against benzyl penicillin within a margin of 7% at a 1-sided level of significance of 0.025, assuming a prevalence of treatment failure of 10% at 48 hours derived from a preintervention pilot phase of the study|Risk Difference (RD)|-3.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.0|3.0|||||Risk difference comparison is for amoxicillin versus benzyl penicillin|||3.0|-10.0|
95726348|NCT00829413|191422499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|37.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.4|48.2|||McNemar|||||48.2|27.4|<.0001
95726349|NCT00829413|191422499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|40.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|30.4|50.3|||McNemar|||||50.3|30.4|<.0001
95726350|NCT00829413|191422499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Sensitivity (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
95726351|NCT00829413|191422500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|7.9||||0.138|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|18.2|||McNemar|||||18.2|-2.4|0.1380
95726352|NCT00829413|191422500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|28.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.7|37.5|||McNemar|||||37.5|19.7|<.0001
95726353|NCT00829413|191422500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Specificity (%)|50.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|42.0|59.5|||McNemar|||||59.5|42.0|<.0001
95726354|NCT00829413|191422501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|21.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|14.1|29.2|||McNemar|||||29.2|14.1|<.0001
95726355|NCT00829413|191422501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|34.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|27.3|40.7|||McNemar|||||40.7|27.3|<.0001
95726356|NCT00829413|191422501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Accuracy (%)|75.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|67.9|83.3|||McNemar|||||83.3|67.9|<.0001
95726357|NCT00829413|191422502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95726358|NCT00829413|191422502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95726359|NCT00829413|191422502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95726360|NCT00829413|191422503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95726361|NCT00829413|191422503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95726362|NCT00829413|191422503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wald Test|||||||<.0001
95726363|NCT00810732|191422507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Least Squares (LS) Mean Difference|-0.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.19|||ANCOVA|||||-0.19|-0.94|0.0040
95726364|NCT00810732|191422507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.24|||ANCOVA|||||-0.24|-0.99|0.0018
95726365|NCT00810732|191422507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.7945|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.43|||ANCOVA|||||0.43|-0.33|0.7945
95726366|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.0087|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.08|-0.91|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||-0.91|-6.08|0.0087
95726367|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.92|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.3||0.1424|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.5|0.66|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||0.66|-4.50|0.1424
95726368|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.29||0.2277|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.15|1.0|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 3||1.00|-4.15|0.2277
95726369|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.56|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.81||0.1599|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.16|1.03|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.03|-6.16|0.1599
95726370|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.5545|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.66|2.52|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.52|-4.66|0.5545
95726371|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.49|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.8||0.4095|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.08|2.09|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||2.09|-5.08|0.4095
95726372|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-4.08|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.49|-1.67|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-1.67|-6.49|0.0012
95726373|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.0159|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.38|-0.57|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||-0.57|-5.38|0.0159
95726374|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.21||0.3627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.51|1.3|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure: Week 3||1.30|-3.51|0.3627
95726375|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.69|-1.03|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-1.03|-5.69|0.0057
95726376|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.53|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.6503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|1.8|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||1.80|-2.86|0.6503
95726377|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.16||0.0183|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.16|-0.5|||ANCOVA|||Mean Systemic Arterial BP: Week 6||-0.50|-5.16|0.0183
95726378|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.81|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0726|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.89|0.27|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.27|-5.89|0.0726
95726379|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.9661|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.01|3.14|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||3.14|-3.01|0.9661
95726380|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.88|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.53||0.0656|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|0.19|||ANCOVA|||Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP): Week 6||0.19|-5.94|0.0656
95726381|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-3.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0068|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.39|-0.92|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||-0.92|-5.39|0.0068
95726382|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.99|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.376|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.22|1.24|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||1.24|-3.22|0.3760
95726383|NCT00810732|191422508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-2.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.11||0.0572|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|0.07|||ANCOVA|||Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP): Week 6||0.07|-4.40|0.0572
95726384|NCT00810732|191422509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.8823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.45|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.45|-0.39|0.8823
95726385|NCT00810732|191422509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9457|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.43|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.43|-0.41|0.9457
95726386|NCT00810732|191422509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|0.02|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.21||0.9358|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.44|||ANCOVA|||Week 3||0.44|-0.40|0.9358
95726387|NCT00810732|191422509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.64|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.0022|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.25|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.25|-1.03|0.0022
95726388|NCT00810732|191422509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.03|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.8956|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.36|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||0.36|-0.41|0.8956
95726389|NCT00810732|191422509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS mean difference|-0.61|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.19||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.23|||ANCOVA|||Week 6||-0.23|-1.00|0.0030
95726390|NCT00124020|191422510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority margin of 20% was specified based on historical regulatory precedent.|Risk Difference (RD)|0.2||||||95.0|-6.8|7.2||p-values were not calculated in deference to confidence intervals.||||||7.2|-6.8|
95726391|NCT00981253|191422511|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-10.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-18.7|-1.5|||ANCOVA|||||-1.5|-18.7|
95726392|NCT00981253|191422512|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.05
95726393|NCT00981253|191422513|SUPERIORITY||Cox Proportional Hazard|0.47|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|0.91|||Log Rank|||||0.91|0.24|
95726394|NCT00981253|191422514|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.5||||0.95|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|1.17|||ANCOVA|||||1.17|-0.14|.95
95726395|NCT00981253|191422515|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
95726396|NCT00981253|191422516|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.46||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.78|1.74|||ANCOVA|||||1.74|-0.78|0.99
95726397|NCT00981253|191422517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46|||ANCOVA|||||0.46|-0.22|0.99
95726398|NCT00981253|191422517|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13||||0.99|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.14|0.39|||ANCOVA|||||0.39|-0.14|0.99
95726399|NCT01127581|191422518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-677.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||Sample size 675 per group provides 90% power to see an improvement of ≥320 minutes (20% improvement from DVI) in time to vaginal delivery between MVI 200 \& DVI assuming a median time of 1600 minutes for DVI \& 34% dropout rate based on 5% 2-sided test|Subjects who underwent a cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to cesarean delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
95726400|NCT01127581|191422519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A sample size of 675 subjects per group will provide a sufficient number of subjects to assess non-inferiority of MVI 200 with respect to rate of cesarean delivery, based on an alpha level of 5% and 80% power for a two-sided approach using a 10% non-inferiority limit (relative to the DVI rate), assuming a 30% rate of cesarean delivery in the DVI group compared to a 26% rate in the MVI 200 group.|Difference in Populations|-1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.79|3.59|||Chi-squared||MVI 200 - DVI|The analysis of the cesarean delivery rates during the first hospitalization was based on a between-treatment-group difference. If the upper limit of the asymptotic two-sided 95% confidence interval of the difference in event rates (MVI minus DVI) was less than the calculated non-inferiority margin (10% relative to the DVI rate, i.e., 0.1 times DVI rate), then MVI 200 would be considered non-inferior to DVI.||3.59|-5.79|
95726401|NCT01127581|191422520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-543.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who did not deliver during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge without delivery, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
95726402|NCT01127581|191422521|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Net)|-390.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Log Rank||MVI 200 - DVI|Subjects who never went into active labor during the first hospitalization were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to delivery during the first hospitalization, independent of treatment group. Subjects who, in their first hospitalization, were discharged prior to delivery or withdrew consent prior to delivery were censored using the longest time interval from study drug administration to labor and delivery discharge, independent of treatment group.||||<0.001
95726403|NCT01127581|191422522|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|-26.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
95726404|NCT01127581|191422523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|9.67|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
95726405|NCT01127581|191422524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|26.96|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
95726406|NCT01127581|191422525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|13.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
95726407|NCT01127581|191422526|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|29.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
95726408|NCT01127581|191422527|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in Proportions|1.68|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Fisher Exact||MVI 200 - DVI|||||<0.001
95726409|NCT01614509|191422576|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit intended for all participants.||||||0.6||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Central retinal thickness was measured using an optical coherence tomography by every visit. And we compare the difference of central retinal thickness between two groups||||0.60
95726410|NCT01859325|191422578|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.41|0.67|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||Samples size based on published data on populations of early treated patients undergoing ART interruption. The power based on a 2-sample t-test with a 2-tailed alpha of .05 and a total sample size of 30 is approximately 91% to detect a 1.25 log10 reduction in the rebound plasma viremia between vaccine and placebo groups.||0.67|-1.41|0.406
95726411|NCT03255031|191422580|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.067||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.067
95726412|NCT03255031|191422581|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.004||||||The threshold for statistical significance was p = 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.004
95726413|NCT03563027|191422590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|433.0||||0.81|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-337.0|1203.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1203|-337|.81
95726414|NCT03563027|191422590|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|1224.0||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|451.0|1996.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1996|451|.005
95726415|NCT03563027|191422591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-160.0||||0.92|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-983.0|663.0|||Regression, Linear|||||663|-983|.92
95726416|NCT03563027|191422591|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|564.0||||0.37|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-261.0|1389.0|||Regression, Linear|||||1389|-261|.37
95726417|NCT03563027|191422592|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.21|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|0.24|||Regression, Linear|||||.24|.18|<.001
95726418|NCT03563027|191422592|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.34|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.31|0.37|||Regression, Linear|||||.37|.31|<.001
95726419|NCT03563027|191422593|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.09|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|0.1|||Regression, Linear|||||0.1|.06|<.001
95726420|NCT03563027|191422593|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|0.18|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|0.2|||Regression, Linear|||||.20|.15|<.001
95726421|NCT00449930|191422602|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 0.4%; i.e., non-inferiority required that the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) to be less than 0.4%.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.14|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.57||||95.0|0.06|0.21|||||Based on an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment group and baseline value.|||0.21|0.06|
95726422|NCT00449930|191422603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-7.3|||<|0.001||95.0|-10.6|-4.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with diarrhea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% Confidence Interval (CI)."|||-4.2|-10.6|<0.001
95726423|NCT00449930|191422604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.9||||0.032||95.0|-3.9|-0.2|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with nausea.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||-0.2|-3.9|0.032
95726424|NCT00449930|191422605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.7||||0.103||95.0|-4.0|0.3|||Fisher Exact||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with abdominal pain.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.3|-4.0|0.103
95726425|NCT00449930|191422606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-1.0||||||95.0|-2.4|0.2|||||"Difference (sitagliptin minus metformin) in the percentage of patients with vomiting.~Wilson Score method was used for the 95% CI."|||0.2|-2.4|
95726426|NCT02868281|191422624|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|7.87||||0.027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.29|48.11|||Mixed effect logistic regression||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, Baseline ACT total score squared, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||48.11|1.29|0.027
95726427|NCT02868281|191422625|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.222|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.222
95726428|NCT02868281|191422625|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.156
95726429|NCT02868281|191422625|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.245|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.245
95726430|NCT02868281|191422625|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.057
95726431|NCT02868281|191422625|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.151|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.151
95726432|NCT02868281|191422625|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.1||||0.114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.0|-0.2|0.114
95726433|NCT02868281|191422626|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.05||||0.487|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.18|0.487
95726434|NCT02868281|191422626|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.04||||0.546|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.09|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.09|-0.16|0.546
95726435|NCT02868281|191422626|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.314|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.314
95726436|NCT02868281|191422626|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.07||||0.197|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.04|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.04|-0.19|0.197
95726437|NCT02868281|191422626|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.06||||0.282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.06|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.06|-0.17|0.282
95726438|NCT02868281|191422626|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-0.03||||0.543|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.08|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||0.08|-0.15|0.543
95726439|NCT02868281|191422627|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.06||||0.273|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.059|0.18|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline FEV1, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.180|-0.059|0.273
95726440|NCT02868281|191422628|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.0||||0.367|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.3|16.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.3|-40.3|0.367
95726441|NCT02868281|191422628|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-7.2||||0.587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|21.2|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.2|-35.5|0.587
95726442|NCT02868281|191422628|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.7||||0.721|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.1|23.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.7|-33.1|0.721
95726443|NCT02868281|191422628|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.3||||0.801|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.7|25.1|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.1|-31.7|0.801
95726444|NCT02868281|191422628|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.3|23.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||23.4|-33.3|0.704
95726445|NCT02868281|191422628|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.762|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-32.4|0.762
95726446|NCT02868281|191422629|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-12.8||||0.354|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.1|16.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 1-4. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||16.5|-42.1|0.354
95726447|NCT02868281|191422629|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-8.4||||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-37.8|21.0|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 5-8. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||21.0|-37.8|0.538
95726448|NCT02868281|191422629|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-5.0||||0.716|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-34.4|24.5|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 9-12. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||24.5|-34.4|0.716
95726449|NCT02868281|191422629|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.1||||0.822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.5|26.3|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 13-16. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||26.3|-32.5|0.822
95726450|NCT02868281|191422629|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-4.0||||0.767|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.4|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 17-20. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.4|-33.4|0.767
95726451|NCT02868281|191422629|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|-3.8||||0.779|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-33.4|25.7|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||Weeks 21-24. The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender, age and treatment-by-visit interaction, with the center as a random factor.|||25.7|-33.4|0.779
95726452|NCT02868281|191422630|OTHER||Difference in Least Squares Mean|0.3||||0.059|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6|||Mixed Model Repeat Measures||The model included covariates of treatment, center, Baseline AQLQ(S) score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age, with the center as a random factor.|||0.6|-0.0|0.059
95726453|NCT02868281|191422631|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.843||||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|2.926|||Cox proportional hazards model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, center, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||2.926|1.160|0.010
95726454|NCT02868281|191422632|OTHER||Rate Ratio|1.09||||0.897|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.32|3.73|||Generalised linear model||The model included treatment, Baseline ACT total score, type of Baseline controller, gender and age as covariates.|||3.73|0.32|0.897
95726455|NCT03124381|191422634|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (based on ANCOVA) is less than 15 percentage points. Terms for treatment, gender, center as factors and baseline as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42||||||Non-inferiority test performed after significance vs. baseline confirmed for each cell. The null hypothesis for the non-inferiority test was H0: A-B≥15%, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell and Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|
95726456|NCT03124381|191422634|SUPERIORITY|Superiority concluded if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference is less than 0. Terms for treatment, gender, and center as factors and baseline score as covariate.|Mean Difference (Net)|3.19|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.164||0.538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.04|13.42|||ANCOVA|||Superiority test performed after non-inferiority confirmed as described above. The null hypothesis for the superiority test was H0: A-B = 0, where A and B are the mean percent change at Week 12 of global face total acne lesion count of the Acne Mask and the Gel-Cream + Acne Mask cell, respectively.||13.42|-7.04|0.538
95726457|NCT02173301|191422684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.066
95726458|NCT02173301|191422684|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||0.001
95726459|NCT02173301|191422684|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) - an REML-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) with and with baseline PASI score as covariate||||||<0.001
95726460|NCT02173301|191422685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.501|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.501
95726461|NCT02173301|191422685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.340
95726462|NCT02173301|191422685|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.075|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.075
95726463|NCT02173301|191422686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.229|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.229
95726464|NCT02173301|191422686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.604|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.604
95726465|NCT02173301|191422686|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.573|||||||Regression, Logistic|||Week 12 comparison||||0.573
95726466|NCT04444752|191422687|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gate-keeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared to placebo group in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical signficance at p=0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.794||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg dose Q2W 3. 300 mg dose Q4W vs placebo|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model adjusted for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The primary efficacy analysis includes comparison of percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q2W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0007
95726467|NCT04444752|191422687|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with the placebo group in order from the highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|17.89|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.537||0.0067|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for multiplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI.||"The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 150 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0067
95726468|NCT04444752|191422687|SUPERIORITY|Pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs placebo were performed and a serial gatekeeping procedure was used for multiplicity adjustment. Each CBP-201 group was compared with placebo in order from highest dose (300 mg Q2W) to the lowest dose frequency (300 mg Q4W), until statistical significance at the 0.05 level was not achieved.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|23.83|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.575||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|||||Adjusted for mulitplicity using a serial gatekeeping procedure at the 5% in descending order: 1. 300 mg dose Q2W 2. 150 mg Q2W 3. 300 mg Q4W vs placebo.|ANCOVA|The data were anlayzed using an ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, baseline vIGA (moderate, severe), and baseline EASI||"The efficacy analysis includes comparing percentage reduction in EASI from baseline to Week 16 for CBP-201 300 mg Q4W regimen vs placebo.~The sample size of the study was determined based on power calculations for the primary endpoint in patients receiving CBP-201 300 mg Q2W.~Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q4W is not superior to placebo in terms of percent reduction in EASI Score from Baseline to Week 16."||||0.0004
95726469|NCT04444752|191422688|SUPERIORITY|The secondary efficacy analysis includes comparison of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16 for each CBP-201 300 mg Q2W vs placebo.|Difference in vIGA Response Rate|28.1||||0.0089|TWO_SIDED|||||There were no adjustments for multiple comparisons. For IGA response, counts, percentage, and 95% CIs obtained using the Clopper-Pearson method and were presented for pairwise comparisons for each CBP-201 group vs. placebo.|Chi-squared|||Null hypothesis: CBP-201 300 Q2W is not superior to placebo in terms of the number of patients achieving a vIGA score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear) at Week 16.||||0.0089
95726470|NCT02557672|191422690|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of the Geometric Means|0.98||||0.84|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.19|||Regression, Linear|||||1.19|0.81|0.84
95726471|NCT02557672|191422691|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.49||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.11|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.11|0.22|0.09
95726472|NCT02557672|191422692|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|0.76||||0.51|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|1.73|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.73|0.33|0.51
95726473|NCT02557672|191422693|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.53|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.79|||Regression, Logistic|||||3.79|0.51|0.53
95726474|NCT02557672|191422694|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.52||||0.39|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.12|2.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.30|0.12|0.39
95726475|NCT03705169|191422696|EQUIVALENCE|Confidence Interval (CI) on Geometric Mean Ratio.|Geometric Mean Ratio|3.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.9|5.3|||||The ratios of the geometric means (Arm A/Arm C) and the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by exponentiating the least squares mean difference and its 95% CI of the natural log-transformed data.|As dose-normalized AUC 0-12WK values were considered, participants were pooled within Arm (i.e., Arm A participants receiving 1, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg were pooled and Arm C participants 0.3 or 1.0 mg/kg were pooled).|No comparisons were done with Arm B participants, as only two participants in that arm had available measurements such that AUC 0-12WK could be estimated.|5.3|1.9|
95726476|NCT03705169|191422697|OTHER||Mean|-0.18||||0.26|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.53|0.18||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 7 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.18|-0.53|0.26
95726477|NCT03705169|191422699|OTHER||Mean|-0.02||||0.78|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.19||Under the null hypothesis, it was assumed there was no change in HIV-1 RNA (log10 copies/mL) from baseline to Day 14 of SAR441236 monotherapy for viremic participants with HIV (Arm B cohorts).|t-test, 2 sided|||Arm B participants were pooled across doses for analysis.||0.19|-0.24|0.78
95726478|NCT00500656|191422733|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.475|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.901|6.355|||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to onset was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology. The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test of SAS was used||||6.355|1.901|< 0.001
95726479|NCT00500656|191422734|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||95.0|||||The Wilcoxon version of the log rank|The median time to almost complete symptom relief was calculated using Kaplan Meier methodology.The Wilcoxon version of the log rank test SAS was used||||||< 0.001
95726480|NCT00549198|191422736|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.435||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.435
95726481|NCT00549198|191422737|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.057||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.057
95726482|NCT00549198|191422738|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.06||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by MDRD, baseline BMI, race group, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by MDRD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.060
95726483|NCT00549198|191422739|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.186||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.186
95726484|NCT00549198|191422740|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.413||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.413
95726485|NCT00549198|191422741|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.315||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline GFR by CG, baseline BMI, race group, baseline CD4, treatment\*visit, baseline GFR by CG\*visit, baseline BMI\*visit and baseline CD4\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.315
95726486|NCT00549198|191422748|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, hypertension, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
95726487|NCT00549198|191422749|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, country group, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
95726488|NCT00549198|191422750|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.036||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.036
95726489|NCT00549198|191422751|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|Correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
95726490|NCT00549198|191422752|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.112||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline spine BMD, baseline BMI, race group, age group, treatment\*visit, baseline spine BMD\*visit and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||0.112
95726491|NCT00549198|191422753|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, visit, baseline hip BMD, baseline BMI, race group, risk factor, prohibited medication, previous fracture, treatment\*visit, baseline hip BMD\*visit, and baseline BMI\*visit.|Mixed Models Analysis|The correlation matrix for within-subject errors is unstructured.||||||<0.001
95726492|NCT00549198|191422786|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3025||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3025
95726493|NCT00549198|191422787|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
95726494|NCT00549198|191422788|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3323||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||0.3323
95726495|NCT00549198|191422789|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, baseline CD4, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
95726496|NCT00549198|191422790|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, and baseline biomarker value.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from ana ANOVA model. Parameters are analyzed based on log transformed data.||||||<0.0001
95726497|NCT00549198|191422791|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and gender.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
95726498|NCT00549198|191422792|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0019||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, age, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0019
95726499|NCT00549198|191422793|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0266||95.0||||The model includes the following covariates: treatment, baseline biomarker value, and baseline CD4.|ANOVA|Estimates are calculated from an ANOVA model.||||||0.0266
95726500|NCT00936377|191422794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95726501|NCT00936377|191422794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95726502|NCT00936377|191422795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95726503|NCT00936377|191422795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.05
95726504|NCT00936377|191422796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.066|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.066
95726505|NCT00936377|191422796|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.27
95726506|NCT00936377|191422797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.18||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe||||0.18
95726507|NCT00936377|191422797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.35||||||Percentage of CIWA scores rates as severe|Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.35
95726508|NCT00936377|191422798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||1
95726509|NCT00936377|191422798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.47|||||||Fisher Exact|||For hypotension||||0.47
95726510|NCT00936377|191422798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||1
95726511|NCT00936377|191422798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||Fisher Exact|||For bradycardia||||0.2
95726512|NCT00936377|191422799|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|||||||Repeated measures ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95726513|NCT00936377|191422800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95726514|NCT00936377|191422800|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.95
95726515|NCT00936377|191422801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.43|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.43
95726516|NCT00936377|191422801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.64
95726517|NCT01764854|191422802|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.46|||||||ANCOVA|||AZD1722 in-patient and Placebo in-patient are not included in this analysis since it was only a one week evaluation period and an effect was not expected. Also the size (n=8) of the group was too small to .perform this analysis.||||0.46
95726518|NCT01764854|191422803|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.0001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||AZD1722 out-patient and Placebo out-patient were not included in this analysis since stool was only collected in the clinical pharmacology unit of the in-patient groups.||||<0.0001
95726519|NCT02322879|191422810|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.59|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.59
95726520|NCT00752791|191422827|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean change from Baseline|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.44|||||A two-sided 95% CI of the estimated mean change from Baseline in hemoglobin was derived from the t-distribution.|||0.44|-0.24|
95726521|NCT03175120|191422852|SUPERIORITY||Treatment contrast|-0.92|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.09|-0.75|||ANCOVA|||The response and change from baseline in response after 26 weeks are analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed factors and corresponding baseline value as covariate.||-0.75|-1.09|<.0001
95726522|NCT05117099|191422913|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.548|||||||ANOVA|||||||.548
95726523|NCT05117099|191422915|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.915|||||||ANOVA|||||||.915
95726524|NCT05117099|191422916|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.663|||||||ANOVA|||||||.663
95726525|NCT05117099|191422917|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.138|||||||ANOVA|||||||.138
95726526|NCT05117099|191422918|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.114|||||||ANOVA|||||||.114
95726527|NCT05117099|191422919|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065|||||||ANOVA|||||||.065
95726528|NCT05117099|191422920|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.394|||||||ANOVA|||||||.394
95726529|NCT05117099|191422921|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.388|||||||ANOVA|||||||.388
95726530|NCT05117099|191422922|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.332|||||||ANOVA|||||||.332
95726531|NCT00475852|191422957|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.7||||0.313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.1|0.7|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by geographical region.||||0.7|-2.1|0.313
95726532|NCT00475852|191422958|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.030
95726533|NCT00475852|191422959|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.007|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.007
95726534|NCT00475852|191422960|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.318|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.318
95726535|NCT00475852|191422961|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.018|||||||Van Elteren test|Controlled for region.||||||0.018
95726536|NCT00475852|191422962|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.5||||0.295|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.5|0.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||0.5|-1.5|0.295
95726537|NCT00475852|191422963|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.17||0.16|||||||ANOVA|Controlled for region.|This analysis excluded subjects who were lost to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent before Day 30, or whose Day 30 visit occurred prior to Day 30.|||||0.160
95726538|NCT00475852|191422964|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-0.9||||0.238|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.6|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.|For subjects with a Day 30 visit prior to Day 30, information from their Day 180 visit, if available, was used to impute the mortality and rehospitalization status at Day 30.|||0.6|-2.4|0.238
95726539|NCT00475852|191422968|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.09||||0.109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Controlled for region.||||1.21|0.98|0.109
95726540|NCT02345486|191422982|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.7||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.74|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||"reported mean difference is a difference in proportions."|||0.74|0.66|0.001
95726541|NCT02444533|191423120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.043|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain on day of surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.043
95726542|NCT02444533|191423120|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.445|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for pain at 14 days after surgery. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.445
95726543|NCT02444533|191423121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for ibuprofen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.650
95726544|NCT02444533|191423121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.97|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for acetaminophen usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.970
95726545|NCT02444533|191423121|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.835|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups for oxycodone usage. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||0.835
95726546|NCT02444533|191423122|SUPERIORITY|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison between groups at 7 days. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value less than 0.05.||||1.0
95726547|NCT03210259|191423142|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the least squares (LS) means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|105.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|96.58|114.64|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||114.64|96.58|
95726548|NCT03210259|191423143|EQUIVALENCE|Equivalence was concluded if the confidence interval (CI) for the LS means ratio was included in the pre-defined equivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00%.|Least squares means ratio|101.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|93.26|109.7|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm in the numerator and the continuous arm in the denominator.|The null hypothesis was that the ratio of expected means for Switching vs. Continuous Humira is less than 80.00% or more than 125.00%.||109.70|93.26|
95726549|NCT03210259|191423144|OTHER||Least squares means ratio|107.31|||||TWO_SIDED|90.2|97.33|118.43|||||The least squares means were from ANCOVA. Ratio was calculated with the switching arm as numerator and the continuous arm as the denominator.|No hypothesis was defined and no statistical test was performed.||118.43|97.33|
95726550|NCT03210259|191423146|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.75|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-2.45|13.96|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||13.96|-2.45|
95726551|NCT03210259|191423147|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.63|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-4.35|15.62|||||Risk difference was calculated as Switching arm minus Continuous Humira.|No hypothesis was tested.||15.62|-4.35|
95726552|NCT00990561|191423173|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|3.0|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis = there is no difference between using ultravate once daily vs. twice daily||||<0.001
95726553|NCT03740100|191423191|OTHER||Percent with objective response|17.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|58.0||||||The primary endpoint was to determine the objective response rate of patients with R/M HNSCC harboring NOTCH1 LOF mutations to oral bimiralisib using RECIST v1.1. We used a Simon's optimal two-stage design. In order to have 80% power to detect a response rate of 30%, (one-sided α=0.05 and β=0.20), we planned to enroll up to 10 patients in the first stage. If ≥ 2 patients had an objective response, then the study would enroll an additional 19 patients in the second stage.||58|1|
95726554|NCT02046369|191423192|SUPERIORITY|The primary efficacy endpoint (the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score at Week 6)will be analyzed using a likelihood-based mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM).The response (dependent) variable is the change from baseline in CDRS-R total score assessed weekly (Weeks 1 to 6).The MMRM model includes fixed effects terms for treatment, visit (as a categorical variable), pooled country, age stratum (stratification factor, CDRS-R total score at baseline, and treatment-by-visit interaction.|LS mean differnce (SE)|-5.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.39|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.4|-3.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||A mean difference in change from Baseline in CDRS-R total score of 5.0 units was assumed for the lurasidone 20-80 mg/day arm over the placebo arm, and a common standard deviation of 14.2 units (effect size=0.35), a sample size of 145 subjects per treatment arm was calculated to yield a power of 85%. With an expected attrition rate of 15%, approximately 170 subjects per treatment arm (340 in total) were to be randomized in a 1:1 ratio .||-3.0|-8.4|<0.0001
95726555|NCT02046369|191423193|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-1.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.54||0.0385|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|-0.1|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||-0.1|-2.2|0.0385
95726556|NCT02046369|191423194|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|3.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.0044|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|6.5|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||6.5|1.2|0.0044
95726557|NCT02046369|191423195|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|4.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.19|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.4|7.0|||LS mean differnece (SE)|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||7.0|2.4|<0.0001
95726558|NCT02046369|191423196|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.77||0.3715|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.2|0.8|||ANCOVA|||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).||0.8|-2.2|0.3715
95726559|NCT02046369|191423197|SUPERIORITY||LS mean differnce (SE)|-0.44|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.112|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.22||LS mean difference, and the associated 95% CI and p-value for change from baseline are based on Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM).|LS mean differnece (SE)|||||-0.22|-0.66|<0.0001
95726560|NCT01123980|191423198|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non-inferiority was considered to be confirmed if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was below or equal to 0.4% or equivalent if the p-value for the one-sided test of H0: D \> 0.4% against HA: D =\< 0.4%, was less than or equal to 2.5%, where D is the mean treatment difference (investigational product minus comparator). Furthermore, superiority of BIAsp 30 OD over insulin glargine OD was shown if the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference is lower than 0%|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.001||95.0|-0.25|0.02||The p-values correspond to one-sided hypotheses of either non-inferiority or superiority, statistical significance level is 2.5%.|ANCOVA|The estimates are from a normal linear regression model with treatment, country and previous OADs as factors and baseline HbA1c as a covariate||H0: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) \> 0.4%. HA: The mean treatment difference (BIAsp 30 minus insulin glargine) =\< 0.4%. Sample size was calculated to achieve a power of at least 90%, assuming an equal change in HbA1c and a common standard deviation of 1.25%||0.02|-0.25|< 0.001
95726561|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.03|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.24|0.19||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.19|-0.24|<0.001
95726562|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.45|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after breakfast|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.45|<0.001
95726563|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.14|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.31|0.58||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.58|-0.31|<0.001
95726564|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.28|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.26|0.82||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after lunch|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.82|-0.26|<0.001
95726565|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.64|||<|0.001||95.0|0.22|1.06||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||1.06|0.22|<0.001
95726566|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.51|||<|0.001||95.0|-2.03|-1.0||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Two hours after dinner|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-1.00|-2.03|<0.001
95726567|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.25|||<|0.001||95.0|-1.73|-0.78||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Bedtime|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.78|-1.73|<0.001
95726568|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.81|-0.13||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||02 - 04 a.m.|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||-0.13|-0.81|<0.001
95726569|NCT01123980|191423199|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.17|||<|0.001||95.0|-0.06|0.4||P-value for parallelism is overall test for parallel time profiles between treatment groups.|Mixed Models Analysis||Before breakfast the following day|Repeated measures mixed model with an unstructured residual covarience matrix, including treatment, time, the treatment-by-time interaction, country and previous OADs as factors.||0.40|-0.06|<0.001
95726570|NCT01123980|191423200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.96||||0.8583||95.0|0.64|1.46|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c less than 7% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.46|0.64|0.8583
95726571|NCT01123980|191423201|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.07||||0.8013||95.0|0.64|1.79|||Regression, Logistic||The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval is for the HbA1c below or equal to 6.5% treatment target were included.|The responder analysis was based on logistic regression model using treatment, country and previous OAD therapy (with or without a third OAD) as factors and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||1.79|0.64|0.8013
95726572|NCT01710306|191423216|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.1996|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.1996
95728988|NCT00384033|191427902|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.155|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.2|7.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, arms, legs, joint pain score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline arms, legs, pain score as the covariate.||7.80|-1.20|0.155
95726573|NCT01715415|191423218|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic peg-interferon/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) treatment-experienced subjects administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 60% to achieve noninferiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV, and the LCB of the 95% CI must have exceeded 70% to achieve superiority.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.3|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|94.1|98.4|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution. In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure was used to proceed through the primary and numbered secondary efficacy endpoints.|With a sample size of 300 subjects and assuming that 85% of the subjects in Arm A will achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) 12, this study has greater than 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 60% and greater than 90% power to demonstrate superiority with a 2-sided 95% lower confidence bound greater than 70% (based on the normal approximation of a single binomial proportion).||98.4|94.1|
95726574|NCT01715415|191423219|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||<|0.001||||||In order to control the Type I error rate at 0.05, a fixed-sequence testing procedure will be used to proceed through the primary and the first 3 secondary endpoints in the order numbered below.|Fisher Exact|||||||<0.001
95726575|NCT01715415|191423220|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 65% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.0|98.9|||||95% CI calculated using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution.|||98.9|93.0|
95726576|NCT01715415|191423221|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Based on historical SVR rates for noncirrhotic pegIFN/RBV treatment-experienced subjects of the appropriate HCV genotype 1 subtype administered telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV, the lower confidence bound (LCB) of the 95% confidence interval (CI) must have exceeded 77% to achieve superiority of the ABT-450/r/ABT-267 and ABT-333, plus RBV treatment group as compared with the historical rate for telaprevir plus pegIFN and RBV.|Percentage of Participants with SVR12|96.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|93.6|99.9||||||||99.9|93.6|
95726577|NCT01016652|191423231|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|This is a non-inferiority analysis, with \>=5 CLUE points being the non-inferiority margin.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.12|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.86|1.59|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There are not significant differences between the two lenses (etafilcon A multifocal (test) vs. etafilcon A sphere (control)for Vision quality.~Ha: The test lens is greater than or equal by 5 CLUE points than the control lense."||1.59|-9.86|
95726578|NCT01016652|191423232|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The non-inferiority margin will be exceeded if the test lens is greater than or equal to 0.25D over the control lens.|Mean Difference (Net)|0.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.09|0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||"Ho: There is not a difference between the test lens and the control lens for amplitude of accommodation.~Ha: Monocular amplitude of accommodation of the test lens is significantly better than the control lens"||0.10|-0.09|
95726579|NCT02917447|191423280|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.15||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in PCL by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.15
95726580|NCT02917447|191423281|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.049||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||.049
95726581|NCT02917447|191423282|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.92||||||Omnibus test for difference in change from baseline in outcome by treatment group across the three post-treatment assessments, adjusted for rural/urban status and MST.|Mixed Models Analysis|Fixed effects were study assessment, group, the assessment by group interaction, and covariates. Participant was modeled as a random effect.||||||0.92
95726582|NCT01772368|191423303|OTHER|linearity statistical test|||||<|0.0001||||||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.||A linear in log-dose-trend contrast was constructed to evaluate the dose-response trend, where the logarithm of dose was defined precisely as log (dose+1) to accommodate the case of Fp MDPI 100 mcg, since the dose used in this trend analysis was the salmeterol dose. The study was considered positive if the trend test was positive and the test involving the highest FS MDPI dose (100/50 mcg) compared with Fp MDPI 100 mcg was positive, regardless of the results of the tests for the other doses.||||<0.0001
95726583|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|251.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|215.6|287.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||287.1|215.6|<0.0001
95728805|NCT04147715|191427279|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|2.1453|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.9741|2.3313|||||Ratio = Day 14 / Day 1|"The accumulation ratio of Cmax in the 50 mg dose group was calculated as the ratio of Day 14 to Day 1 using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed model with ln-transformed Cmax, Day as a fixed effect and participant as a random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax on Day 1 and Day 14 were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.3313|1.9741|
95726584|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|227.56|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|191.6|263.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||263.5|191.6|<0.0001
95726585|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|196.85|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|161.2|232.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/512.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||232.5|161.2|<0.0001
95726586|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|151.71|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|115.9|187.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||187.5|115.9|<0.0001
95726587|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|157.4|229.5||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||229.5|157.4|<0.0001
95726588|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|57.88||||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|22.0|93.7||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||93.7|22.0|0.0017
95726589|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|34.14||||0.0624|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|70.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||70.1|-1.8|0.0624
95726590|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.42||||0.8503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-32.3|39.1||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||39.1|-32.3|0.8503
95726591|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-41.72||||0.0229|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-77.6|-5.8||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-5.8|-77.6|0.0229
95726592|NCT01772368|191423303|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-193.42|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-229.5|-157.4||A fixed-sequence testing procedure was employed to control the overall Type I error rate at the 2 sided 0.05 level.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-157.4|-229.5|<0.0001
95726593|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|226.77|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|172.4|281.1||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||281.1|172.4|<0.0001
95726594|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|198.32|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|143.7|252.9||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||252.9|143.7|<0.0001
95726595|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|158.99|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.7|213.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.3|104.7|<0.0001
95726596|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|116.96|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|62.4|171.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||171.6|62.4|<0.0001
95726597|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|104.3|213.7||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg - Fp MDPI 100 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg dose group and Fp MDPI 100 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||213.7|104.3|<0.0001
95726598|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|67.76||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|122.2||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/50 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/50 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||122.2|13.3|0.0150
95726599|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|39.31||||0.1578|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.3|94.0||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||94.0|-15.3|0.1578
95726600|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.02||||0.9993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|54.4||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||54.4|-54.4|0.9993
95726601|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-42.05||||0.1311|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-96.7|12.6||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each FS MDPI 100/6.25 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||12.6|-96.7|0.1311
95726602|NCT01772368|191423304|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-159.01|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-213.7|-104.3||significance of 0.05 or alpha of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment; a random effect of subject within sequence; and a covariate of period-specific baseline FEV1.|Fp MDPI 100 mcg - Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg|The estimated treatment difference from the ANCOVA model between each Fp MDPI 100 mcg dose group and Advair Diskus 100/50 mcg group is presented together with the two-sided 95% CI for the difference and the p-value.||-104.3|-213.7|<0.0001
95726603|NCT01772368|191423305|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.929|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.69|2.202||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||2.202|1.690|
95726604|NCT01772368|191423305|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.702|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.911|0.702|
95726605|NCT01772368|191423305|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.427|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.376|0.485||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.485|0.376|
95726606|NCT01772368|191423305|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.172|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.151|0.196||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.196|0.151|
95726607|NCT01772368|191423306|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|3.622|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.149|4.168||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=58||4.168|3.149|
95726608|NCT01772368|191423306|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|1.534|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.335|1.763||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||1.763|1.335|
95726609|NCT01772368|191423306|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.795|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.694|0.911||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=61||0.911|0.694|
95726610|NCT01772368|191423306|SUPERIORITY||geometric mean ratio|0.339|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.295|0.39||||||The analysis is based on ANOVA model of the log transformed data, with fixed effects of sequence, period and treatment, and a random effect for subject within sequence. n=59||0.390|0.295|
95726611|NCT02449291|191423309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016|ONE_SIDED|95.0||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.016) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
95726612|NCT02449291|191423309|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.016||||||One-sided p-value. After adjustment for multiplicity using Hommel's method. (Note: unadjusted p value = 0.015) A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the incidence of the primary efficacy variable between the two groups that received APD421 and the group that received placebo, using Pearson's χ2 test. The threshold for determining statistical significance in the comparison of incidence of success between the active and placebo groups (the primary efficacy analysis) was a p-value of 2.5% one-sided.||||0.016
95726613|NCT02449291|191423310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95726614|NCT02449291|191423310|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.002
95726615|NCT02449291|191423311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.17||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.170
95726616|NCT02449291|191423311|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.552||||||One-sided p-value. No adjustment for multiple comparisons. A priori threshold for statistical significance = 0.025.|Chi-squared|||||||0.552
95726617|NCT02449291|191423312|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.003|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.003
95726618|NCT02449291|191423312|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001|||||||Regression, Cox|||||||<0.001
95726619|NCT02449291|191423313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.209|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.209
95726620|NCT02449291|191423313|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.44|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.440
95726621|NCT02449291|191423314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95726622|NCT02449291|191423314|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.009|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.009
95726623|NCT02449291|191423315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.115|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.115
95726624|NCT02449291|191423315|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.222|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.222
95726625|NCT02449291|191423316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.474|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.474
95726626|NCT02449291|191423316|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.505|||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.505
95726627|NCT02449291|191423317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.103|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.103
95726628|NCT02449291|191423317|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.166|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.166
95726629|NCT02449291|191423318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.06|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.06
95726630|NCT02449291|191423318|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.029|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.029
95726631|NCT03551730|191423319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95726632|NCT03551730|191423319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95726633|NCT03551730|191423319|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|-0.23|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95726634|NCT03551730|191423320|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|53922.58||||0.1529|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.1529
95726635|NCT03551730|191423320|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|124993.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||<0.0001
95726636|NCT03551730|191423320|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Means (Difference)|96385.09||||0.0032|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.0032
95726637|NCT02462421|191423370|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||No adjustment for multiple comparisons. Viewed as unnecessary inasmuch as none of the comparisons achieved p\<0.05.|t-test, 2 sided|||"Each of the variant genotypes was compared to the control group (homozygous for major alleles at all three genetic loci) in an unpaired t-test. The study was terminated early because it was clear that we would not meet our recruitment targets and that the study was likely underpowered.~Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant."||||0.92
95726638|NCT02462421|191423370|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.63||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.63
95726639|NCT02462421|191423370|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.86||||||Not adjusted for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.86
95726640|NCT02462421|191423371|OTHER|"We compared the two groups (wild type versus SLC2A9 variant homozygotes. Null hypothesis: there are no differences between the two groups with respect to the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on fractional excretion of uric acid in the urine."||||||0.04||||||Because the study was terminated early, we did not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. We are reporting a nominal p-value without adjusting for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||The study was terminated early because of slow recruitment. As a result the study did not achieve the statistical power that had been planned.||||0.04
95726641|NCT02462421|191423372|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.07||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.07
95726642|NCT02462421|191423372|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.53||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.53
95726643|NCT02462421|191423372|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
95726644|NCT02462421|191423373|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.|||||<|0.01||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||<0.01
95726645|NCT02462421|191423373|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.77||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.77
95726646|NCT02462421|191423373|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.65||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.65
95726647|NCT02462421|191423374|OTHER|Null hypothesis: None of the three genotypes is associated with an alteration in the pharmacodynamic effect of canagliflozin on urinary Na excretion||||||0.2||||||Because the study was terminated early, the study does not have sufficient statistical power to adjust for multiple comparisons. Accordingly, nominal p-values are reported.|t-test, 2 sided|||"The wild type genotype group was compared to homozygotes for each of the three other genotypes."||||0.20
95726648|NCT02462421|191423374|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.01|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.01
95726649|NCT02462421|191423374|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.16||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.16
95726650|NCT02462421|191423375|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.21||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.21
95726651|NCT02462421|191423375|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.92||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Null hypothesis: pharmacodynamic response is the same in the control group and homozygotes for the genetic variant.||||0.92
95726652|NCT02462421|191423375|OTHER|Probability that the observed difference was the result of random variation rather than a difference between the two populations.||||||0.39||||||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.|t-test, 2 sided|||Not corrected for multiple comparisons.||||0.39
95726653|NCT02891200|191423376|SUPERIORITY||Predicted Mean Difference|1.46||||0.467|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|5.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects linear model with study site and setting as fixed effects, and adjusted for baseline SGRQ domain scores.||||5.38|-2.47|0.467
95726654|NCT01339910|191423416|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month OS (MAC-RIC)|9.8||||0.07|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|20.3||This final test was performed at a 0.049 significance level, since 0.001 was spent at interim analyses and the overall significance level was 0.050.|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in overall survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month overall survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||20.3|-0.8|0.07
95726655|NCT01339910|191423417|SUPERIORITY||Difference in 18 month RFS (MAC-RIC)|20.4|||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.9|32.0||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in relapse-free survival at 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. 18 month relapse-free survival was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis.||32.0|8.9|< 0.01
95726656|NCT01339910|191423418|SUPERIORITY||||||<|0.001||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of disease relapse during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of disease relapse was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||< 0.001
95726657|NCT01339910|191423419|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating disease relapse as a competing risk.||||0.002
95726658|NCT01339910|191423420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.002||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of neutrophil engraftment at Day 28 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.002
95726659|NCT01339910|191423420|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.065||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of platelet engraftment at Day 60 was compared between treatment arms using the difference in Aalen-Johansen estimators, which should be close to 0 under the null hypothesis. Death was treated as a competing risk.||||0.065
95726660|NCT01339910|191423421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.005||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 28 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.005
95726661|NCT01339910|191423421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.011||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at Day 100 post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.011
95726662|NCT01339910|191423421|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.39||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Chi-squared|3 degrees of freedom||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportions of participants with full chimerism, mixed chimerism, graft rejection, and death prior to assessment at 18 months post-transplant between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens.||||0.39
95726663|NCT01339910|191423422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.024||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.024
95726664|NCT01339910|191423422|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.066||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD during the first 100 days post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.066
95726665|NCT01339910|191423423|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.019||||||Test performed at a significance level of 0.05|Gray's test|||The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD during the first 18 months post-randomization between AML/MDS participants receiving MAC and RIC conditioning regimens. Cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD was compared between treatment arms using Gray's test, treating death as a competing risk.||||0.019
95726666|NCT01075763|191423435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.64|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.64
95726667|NCT01075763|191423435|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.92|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.92
95726668|NCT01075763|191423436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.63||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.63
95726669|NCT01075763|191423436|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
95726670|NCT01075763|191423437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.45||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.45
95726671|NCT01075763|191423437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.88
95726672|NCT01075763|191423437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
95726673|NCT01075763|191423437|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.81||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.81
95726674|NCT01075763|191423438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.29||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.29
95726675|NCT01075763|191423438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.36||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 12: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.36
95726676|NCT01075763|191423438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.68||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.68
95726677|NCT01075763|191423438|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.41||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.41
95726678|NCT01075763|191423439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.86||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.86
95726679|NCT01075763|191423439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.62||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.62
95726680|NCT01075763|191423439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.21||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.21
95726681|NCT01075763|191423440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.95||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.95
95726682|NCT01075763|191423440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.73||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.73
95726683|NCT01075763|191423440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.30
95726684|NCT01075763|191423442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.80
95726685|NCT01075763|191423442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.74||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.74
95726686|NCT01075763|191423442|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.12||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.12
95726687|NCT01075763|191423443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For baseline: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.53
95726688|NCT01075763|191423443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 28: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
95726689|NCT01075763|191423443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.85||95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|||For Week 52: the difference between the two groups was analyzed using t-test.||||0.85
95726690|NCT00268346|191423448|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage response|6.9|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||binomial test for a single proportion|||In patients with prior chemotherapy, \>25% response indicates efficacy and \<10% indicates lack of efficacy. In patients with no prior chemotherapy, \>45% response indicates efficacy and \<25% indicates lack of efficacy. Using a 5% significance level, the study was designed to have 80% power to test each hypothesis.||||<0.05
95726691|NCT01769378|191423498|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Squares Mean Difference|-1.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.57|-0.97|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.97|-1.57|<0.001
95726692|NCT01769378|191423499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.37|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.82|33.84|||Regression, Logistic|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||\<7.0% HbA1c||33.84|3.82|<0.001
95726693|NCT01769378|191423499|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|11.45|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.71|35.34|||Regression, Logistic|||≤6.5% HbA1c||35.34|3.71|<0.001
95726694|NCT01769378|191423500|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-33.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-46.55|-20.53|||ANCOVA|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||-20.53|-46.55|<0.001
95726695|NCT01769378|191423501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.68|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.43||0.12|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Sequential gatekeeping strategy was used to adjust for multiplicity.||||0.18|-1.53|0.120
95726696|NCT01769378|191423502|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.16||0.161|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.09||No adjustment for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.09|-0.54|0.161
95726697|NCT01769378|191423503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Least Squares Mean Difference|-28.95|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.85|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.49|-19.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-19.40|-38.49|<0.001
95726698|NCT05431153|191423514|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.83|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|94.0|103.91|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||103.91|94.00|
95726699|NCT05431153|191423514|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.88|102.35|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.35|93.88|
95726700|NCT05431153|191423514|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|91.79|105.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||105.73|91.79|
95726701|NCT05431153|191423515|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|96.35|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.48|106.12|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.12|87.48|
95726702|NCT05431153|191423515|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|93.47|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|85.65|102.0|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||102.00|85.65|
95726703|NCT05431153|191423515|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.01|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|89.86|106.9|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.90|89.86|
95726704|NCT05431153|191423516|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|99.55|124.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||124.93|99.55|
95726705|NCT05431153|191423516|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|98.38|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|90.68|106.73|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||106.73|90.68|
95726706|NCT05431153|191423517|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|111.52|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|96.46|128.93|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||128.93|96.46|
95726707|NCT05431153|191423517|OTHER||Ratio of adjusted geometric means|81.39|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|75.06|88.26|||||Values were back-transformed from the log scale. The model was a mixed effect model with sequence, period and treatment as fixed effects and participant within sequence as a random effect.|||88.26|75.06|
95726708|NCT00678392|191423523|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.665|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.544|0.812||P-value was obtained from 1-sided log rank test, stratified by eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) and prior treatment. One-sided log-rank test at 0.025 level of significance was used to compare PFS between the 2 treatment arms.|Log Rank|||||0.812|0.544|<0.0001
95726709|NCT00678392|191423524|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.969||||0.3744|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8|1.174|||Log Rank|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided log-rank test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||1.174|0.800|0.3744
95726710|NCT00678392|191423525|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|2.056||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.408|3.003|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value was obtained from a 1-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of treatment stratified by ECOG performance status and prior treatment.||||3.003|1.408|0.0001
95726711|NCT02784106|191423601|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.07|0.25||||||||0.25|-0.07|
95726712|NCT02784106|191423602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.93|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.54|1.69||||||||1.69|-5.54|
95726713|NCT02784106|191423603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||Day 28||0.06|-0.13|
95726714|NCT02784106|191423603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.18|0.09||||||Day 56||0.09|-0.18|
95726715|NCT02784106|191423603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.01|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.12||||||Day 84||0.12|-0.15|
95726716|NCT02784106|191423604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.06|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|0.01|0.14||||||Day 28||0.14|0.01|
95726717|NCT02784106|191423604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|0.03|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.05|0.11||||||Day 56||0.11|-0.05|
95726718|NCT02784106|191423604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Responders|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.15|0.07||||||Day 84||0.07|-0.15|
95726719|NCT02784106|191423605|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-5.37|2.58||||||||2.58|-5.37|
95726720|NCT02784106|191423606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|-0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.33|0.16||||||Day 28||0.16|-0.33|
95726721|NCT02784106|191423606|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Mean Changes|0.07|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.29|0.43||||||Day 84||0.43|-0.29|
95726722|NCT02784106|191423607|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|0.08|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.04|0.21||||||||0.21|-0.04|
95726723|NCT02784106|191423608|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Proportion of Participants|-0.04|||||TWO_SIDED|80.0|-0.13|0.06||||||||0.06|-0.13|
95726724|NCT01787825|191423632|NON_INFERIORITY|This is McNemar design.|percentage concordance|77.19||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|68.68|83.93||The blinded readers assessed concordance of normal versus abnormal and overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|McNemar||Overall concordance of clinically significant abnormal images.|There was a comparison between normal and abnormal images. And detailed analysis of abnormal images that were considered clinical significant.||83.93|68.68|1.0000
95726725|NCT01787825|191423634|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||percentage concordance|71.93||||0.972|TWO_SIDED|95.0|63.07|79.36|||Bowkers|||||79.36|63.07|0.972
95726726|NCT00782509|191423673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.151|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.116|0.185|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.185|0.116|<0.0001
95726727|NCT00782509|191423673|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.143|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.11|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.177|0.110|<0.0001
95726728|NCT00782509|191423674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.047|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0116||95.0|0.011|0.084|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.084|0.011|0.0116
95726729|NCT00782509|191423674|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0095||95.0|0.012|0.085|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.085|0.012|0.0095
95726730|NCT00782509|191423675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.11|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027|<|0.0001||95.0|0.057|0.162|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.162|0.057|<0.0001
95726731|NCT00782509|191423675|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.089|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.027||0.0011||95.0|0.036|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|0.036|0.0011
95726732|NCT00782509|191423676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.131|<0.0001
95726733|NCT00782509|191423676|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.204|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.204|0.138|<0.0001
95726734|NCT00782509|191423677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.163|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.197|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.197|0.130|<0.0001
95726735|NCT00782509|191423677|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.152|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.186|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.186|0.119|<0.0001
95726736|NCT00782509|191423678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.169|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.135|<0.0001
95726737|NCT00782509|191423678|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.195|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.195|0.127|<0.0001
95726738|NCT00782509|191423679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.165|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.131|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.200|0.131|<0.0001
95726739|NCT00782509|191423679|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.136|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.102|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.102|<0.0001
95726740|NCT00782509|191423680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.161|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.196|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.196|0.127|<0.0001
95726741|NCT00782509|191423680|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.158|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.013|<|0.0001||95.0|0.123|0.193|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.193|0.123|<0.0001
95726742|NCT00782509|191423681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.053|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0043||95.0|0.017|0.089|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.089|0.017|0.0043
95726743|NCT00782509|191423681|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.065|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018||0.0005||95.0|0.028|0.101|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.101|0.028|0.0005
95726744|NCT00782509|191423682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.073|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.037|0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.110|0.037|<0.0001
95726745|NCT00782509|191423682|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.085|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.049|0.121|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.121|0.049|<0.0001
95726746|NCT00782509|191423683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0002
95726747|NCT00782509|191423683|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.044|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0186||95.0|0.007|0.081|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.081|0.007|0.0186
95726748|NCT00782509|191423684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0003||95.0|0.032|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.032|0.0003
95726749|NCT00782509|191423684|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.002||95.0|0.021|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.021|0.0020
95726750|NCT00782509|191423685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.058|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0024||95.0|0.02|0.095|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.095|0.020|0.0024
95726751|NCT00782509|191423685|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.027|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.1614||95.0|-0.011|0.064|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.064|-0.011|0.1614
95726752|NCT00782509|191423686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0012||95.0|0.025|0.099|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.099|0.025|0.0012
95726753|NCT00782509|191423686|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.072|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.034|0.109|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.109|0.034|0.0002
95726754|NCT00782509|191423687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.068|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0004||95.0|0.031|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|0.031|0.0004
95726755|NCT00782509|191423687|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.071|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019||0.0002||95.0|0.033|0.108|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.108|0.033|0.0002
95726756|NCT00782509|191423688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.168|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.203|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.203|0.132|<0.0001
95726757|NCT00782509|191423688|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.177|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.142|0.212|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.212|0.142|<0.0001
95726758|NCT00782509|191423689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.119|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.119|<0.0001
95726759|NCT00782509|191423689|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.111|0.182|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.182|0.111|<0.0001
95726760|NCT00782509|191423690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.136|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.209|0.136|<0.0001
95726761|NCT00782509|191423690|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.13|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.130|<0.0001
95726762|NCT00782509|191423691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.144|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.108|0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.180|0.108|<0.0001
95726763|NCT00782509|191423691|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.13|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.094|<0.0001
95726764|NCT00782509|191423692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.128|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.128|<0.0001
95726765|NCT00782509|191423692|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.135|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.098|0.171|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.171|0.098|<0.0001
95726766|NCT00782509|191423693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.155|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.118|0.192|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.192|0.118|<0.0001
95726767|NCT00782509|191423693|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.157|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.12|0.194|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.194|0.120|<0.0001
95726768|NCT00782509|191423694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.331|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.399|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.399|0.263|<0.0001
95726769|NCT00782509|191423694|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.265|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.400|0.265|<0.0001
95726770|NCT00782509|191423695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.242|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.174|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.310|0.174|<0.0001
95726771|NCT00782509|191423695|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.159|0.294|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.294|0.159|<0.0001
95726772|NCT00782509|191423696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.263|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.195|0.332|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.332|0.195|<0.0001
95726773|NCT00782509|191423696|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.246|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.315|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.315|0.178|<0.0001
95726774|NCT00782509|191423697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.239|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.308|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.308|0.170|<0.0001
95726775|NCT00782509|191423697|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.245|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.176|0.314|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.314|0.176|<0.0001
95726776|NCT00782509|191423698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.171|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.311|0.171|<0.0001
95726777|NCT00782509|191423698|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.219|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.15|0.289|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.289|0.150|<0.0001
95726778|NCT00782509|191423699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.217|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.147|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.147|<0.0001
95726779|NCT00782509|191423699|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.148|0.288|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.288|0.148|<0.0001
95726780|NCT00782509|191423700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.059|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.104||95.0|-0.012|0.131|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.131|-0.012|0.1040
95726781|NCT00782509|191423700|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.087|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036||0.0172||95.0|0.015|0.158|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.158|0.015|0.0172
95726782|NCT00782509|191423701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.094|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0106||95.0|0.022|0.166|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.166|0.022|0.0106
95726783|NCT00782509|191423701|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.118|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0013||95.0|0.046|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.190|0.046|0.0013
95726784|NCT00782509|191423702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.3821||95.0|-0.04|0.105|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.105|-0.040|0.3821
95726785|NCT00782509|191423702|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.048|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1917||95.0|-0.024|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.024|0.1917
95726786|NCT00782509|191423703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.1808||95.0|-0.023|0.123|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.123|-0.023|0.1808
95726787|NCT00782509|191423703|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.033|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.37||95.0|-0.039|0.106|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.106|-0.039|0.3700
95726788|NCT00782509|191423704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.045|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.2312||95.0|-0.029|0.118|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.118|-0.029|0.2312
95726789|NCT00782509|191423704|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.0596||95.0|-0.003|0.144|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.144|-0.003|0.0596
95726790|NCT00782509|191423705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.038|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037||0.311||95.0|-0.036|0.111|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.111|-0.036|0.3110
95726791|NCT00782509|191423705|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.9426||95.0|-0.076|0.071|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.071|-0.076|0.9426
95726792|NCT00782509|191423706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.042|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.268||95.0|-0.032|0.115|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.115|-0.032|0.2680
95726793|NCT00782509|191423706|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.069|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0662||95.0|-0.005|0.143|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.143|-0.005|0.0662
95726794|NCT00782509|191423707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.046|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.2249||95.0|-0.028|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.120|-0.028|0.2249
95726795|NCT00782509|191423707|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.062|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.038||0.0994||95.0|-0.012|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.136|-0.012|0.0994
95726796|NCT00782509|191423708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.332|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.261|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.261|<0.0001
95726797|NCT00782509|191423708|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.333|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.263|0.403|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.403|0.263|<0.0001
95726798|NCT00782509|191423709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.225|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.296|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.296|0.153|<0.0001
95726799|NCT00782509|191423709|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.139|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.139|<0.0001
95726800|NCT00782509|191423710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.268|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.196|0.34|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.340|0.196|<0.0001
95726801|NCT00782509|191423710|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.179|0.323|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.323|0.179|<0.0001
95726802|NCT00782509|191423711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.154|0.298|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.298|0.154|<0.0001
95726803|NCT00782509|191423711|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.209|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.137|0.281|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.281|0.137|<0.0001
95726804|NCT00782509|191423712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.153|0.299|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.299|0.153|<0.0001
95726805|NCT00782509|191423712|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.206|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.279|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.279|0.133|<0.0001
95726806|NCT00782509|191423713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.207|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.133|0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.280|0.133|<0.0001
95726807|NCT00782509|191423713|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.211|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.037|<|0.0001||95.0|0.138|0.285|||Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed effects model with trt,tio stratum,visit,trt-by-visit as fixed effects,baseline, baseline-by-visit as fixed covariates, patient as random effect|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.285|0.138|<0.0001
95726808|NCT00782509|191423714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.142|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047||0.0028||95.0|0.049|0.235|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.235|0.049|0.0028
95726809|NCT00782509|191423714|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.048||0.0013||95.0|0.061|0.25|||ANCOVA|Treatment, tiotropium stratum and baseline as fixed effects|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.250|0.061|0.0013
95726810|NCT00782509|191423715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|13.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.959||0.0072|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.622|23.099|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||23.099|3.622|0.0072
95726811|NCT00782509|191423715|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.934|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.894|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|11.323|30.545|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.545|11.323|<0.0001
95726812|NCT00782509|191423716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|12.456|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.201||0.0169|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.242|22.67|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||22.670|2.242|0.0169
95726813|NCT00782509|191423716|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|20.653|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|5.132|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.574|30.731|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||30.731|10.574|<0.0001
95726814|NCT00782509|191423717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.416|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.127||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.665|-0.167|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.167|-0.665|0.0011
95726815|NCT00782509|191423717|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.513|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.125|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.267|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.267|-0.760|<0.0001
95726816|NCT00782509|191423718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.157||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.729|-0.111|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.111|-0.729|0.0077
95726817|NCT00782509|191423718|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.155|<|0.0001||95.0|-1.065|-0.456|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.456|-1.065|<0.0001
95726818|NCT00782509|191423719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.837|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.252||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.333|-0.342|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.342|-1.333|0.0010
95726819|NCT00782509|191423719|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.278|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.767|-0.789|||ANCOVA|non-MMRM ANCOVA models with treatment, tiotropium strata and baseline as fixed effects.||||-0.789|-1.767|<0.0001
95726820|NCT00782509|191423720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0122||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0122
95726821|NCT00782509|191423720|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0008||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0008
95726822|NCT00782509|191423721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0028||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0028
95726823|NCT00782509|191423721|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0169||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0169
95726824|NCT00782509|191423722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.018||95.0|-0.5|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.0|-0.5|0.0180
95726825|NCT00782509|191423722|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0015||95.0|-0.6|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum, visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.6|0.0015
95726826|NCT00782509|191423723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.1313||95.0|-0.4|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum,visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.0|-0.4|0.1313
95726827|NCT00782509|191423723|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.0089||95.0|-0.5|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|Model included treatment, tiotropium stratum visit and treatment-by-visit interaction as fixed effects, patient as random.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||-0.1|-0.5|0.0089
95726828|NCT00782509|191423724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.993|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.187||0.9853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.687|1.436|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.436|0.687|0.9853
95726829|NCT00782509|191423724|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.241|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.222||0.2344|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.873|1.763|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.763|0.873|0.2344
95726830|NCT00782509|191423725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.438||0.9035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.463|2.38|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.380|0.463|0.9035
95726831|NCT00782509|191423725|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.958|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.408||0.9304|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.415|2.209|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.209|0.415|0.9304
95726832|NCT00782509|191423726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.233||0.669|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.717|1.657|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 5 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||1.657|0.717|0.6690
95726833|NCT00782509|191423726|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.344|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.273||0.1437|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.902|2.002|||Log Rank|Model included a stratification factor for tiotropium use stratum and a covariate for treatment group|Comparison of Olo 10 mcg qd to placebo across stratum|||2.002|0.902|0.1437
95726834|NCT00782509|191423727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.188|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2251||0.3637|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8188|1.7234|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.7234|0.8188|0.3637
95726835|NCT00782509|191423727|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2822|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2403||0.1853|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8874|1.8527|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.8527|0.8874|0.1853
95726836|NCT00782509|191423728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.0314|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.4664||0.9455|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4244|2.5063|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.5063|0.4244|0.9455
95726837|NCT00782509|191423728|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.1273|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.5028||0.7883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4696|2.7064|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.7064|0.4696|0.7883
95726838|NCT00782509|191423729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.2846|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2803||0.2514|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.837|1.9717|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||1.9717|0.8370|0.2514
95726839|NCT00782509|191423729|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Incidence rate ratio|1.3373|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.2901||0.1807|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8735|2.0474|||Negative binomial regression|Regression of treatment effect using tiotropium strata as a covariate, a log link function and log(exposure) as offset.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||2.0474|0.8735|0.1807
95726840|NCT03882047|191423732|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726841|NCT03882047|191423732|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726842|NCT03882047|191423732|OTHER|||||||0.03|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.03
95726843|NCT03882047|191423733|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726844|NCT03882047|191423733|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726845|NCT03882047|191423733|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.31
95726846|NCT03882047|191423734|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726847|NCT03882047|191423734|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726848|NCT03882047|191423734|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95726849|NCT03882047|191423735|OTHER|||||||0.08|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.08
95726850|NCT03882047|191423735|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726851|NCT03882047|191423735|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.10
95726852|NCT03882047|191423736|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726853|NCT03882047|191423736|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726854|NCT03882047|191423736|OTHER|||||||0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.01
95726855|NCT03882047|191423737|OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95726856|NCT03882047|191423737|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726857|NCT03882047|191423737|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.05
95726858|NCT03882047|191423738|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726859|NCT03882047|191423738|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726860|NCT03882047|191423738|OTHER|||||||0.06|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.06
95726861|NCT03882047|191423739|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726862|NCT03882047|191423739|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726863|NCT03882047|191423739|OTHER|||||||0.46|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.46
95726864|NCT03882047|191423740|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726865|NCT03882047|191423740|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726866|NCT03882047|191423740|OTHER|||||||0.07|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.07
95726867|NCT03882047|191423741|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726868|NCT03882047|191423741|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726869|NCT03882047|191423741|OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.53
95726870|NCT03882047|191423742|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726871|NCT03882047|191423742|OTHER||||||<|0.01|||||||ANOVA|||||||<0.01
95726872|NCT03882047|191423742|OTHER|||||||0.12|||||||ANOVA|||||||0.12
95726873|NCT00723554|191423765|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|-5.4|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average inhalation times from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||-5.4|-6.9|<0.001
95726874|NCT00723554|191423769|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.2||||0.59|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|0.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of days of dosing from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.6|-1.0|0.59
95726875|NCT00723554|191423773|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|0.7|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in average number of daily doses from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||0.7|0.2|<0.001
95726876|NCT00723554|191423777|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|11.0|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.5|15.6|||t-test, 2 sided|||Comparison of the change in percentage of complete doses delivered from Period I (PD-6) to Period II (PD-15)||15.6|6.5|<0.0001
95726877|NCT01809314|191423794|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||The difference between Baseline and Month 4 was analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||<0.0001
95726878|NCT01809314|191423795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||Wilcoxon signed-rank test|||Overall (all categories combined) change from Baseline in ECOG performance status at Month 4 was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.||||0.001
95726879|NCT00415532|191423797|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.172|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.084|0.352||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.352|0.084|<0.0001
95726880|NCT00415532|191423798|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.307||||0.0005||95.0|0.154|0.611||Significant level is set at 0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||0.611|0.154|0.0005
95726881|NCT00415532|191423801|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0133||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0133
95726882|NCT00415532|191423802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.3434||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.3434
95726883|NCT00415532|191423803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0076||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0076
95726884|NCT00415532|191423804|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0246||||||Significant level is set at 0.05|Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0246
95726885|NCT05085613|191423818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.6279928|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.150369||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.463627|10.71961||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF=6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||10.71961|-9.463627|0.998
95726886|NCT05085613|191423818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.044194|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|4.302202||0.725|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.416608|14.505||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.505|-6.416608|0.725
95726887|NCT05085613|191423818|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53656|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|-1.53656||0.98|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.25295|9.179834||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||9.179834|-12.25295|0.980
95726888|NCT05085613|191423819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.002255|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.801527||0.813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-14.39448|28.39899||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|Df = 6|Economic recovery condition - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||28.39899|-14.39448|0.813
95726889|NCT05085613|191423819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|15.12214|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.07444||0.268|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.938055|37.18234||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.18234|-6.938055|0.268
95726890|NCT05085613|191423819|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|14.4032|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.305576||0.33|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.218891|37.0253||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||37.0253|-8.218891|0.330
95726891|NCT05085613|191423820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.457003|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.380984||0.994|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.98852|14.07451||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||14.07451|-16.98852|0.994
95726892|NCT05085613|191423820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.097586|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.675066||0.998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.34491|15.14973||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||15.14973|-17.34491|0.998
95726893|NCT05085613|191423820|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.926191|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.588643||0.447|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.110771|24.96315||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 5|Humor - Control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||24.96315|-7.110771|0.447
95726894|NCT05085613|191423821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.154612|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.986723||0.113|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.985328|0.6761041||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Economic recovery - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||.6761041|-8.985328|0.113
95726895|NCT05085613|191423821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.685896|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.046067||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.6609|2.289114||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Freedom - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||2.289114|-7.66090|0.473
95726896|NCT05085613|191423821|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-6.469932|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.102231||0.008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-11.58151|-1.358358||Sidak's adjusted p-value for multiple comparisons|ANCOVA|DF = 6|Humor - control|Note that analyses are underpowered due to administrative issues with funding that halted recruitment early.||-1.358358|-11.58151|0.008
95726897|NCT02040766|191423868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.81||||0.0063|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.796|4.821||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or non-corticosteroid (NCS) therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||4.821|0.796|0.0063
95726898|NCT02040766|191423868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.63||||0.5332|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.354|2.614||significance at 0.05.|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.614|-1.354|0.5332
95726899|NCT02040766|191423868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.92||||0.3649|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.077|2.924||significance at 0.05|ANCOVA|||ANCOVA model with effects due to baseline trough morning percent predicted FEV1, sex, age, current protocol-allowed asthma therapy (ICS or NCS therapy) at the time of screening visit, during the run-in period, and during treatment.||2.924|-1.077|0.3649
95726900|NCT02040766|191423868|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.09||||0.2823|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.902|3.088|||ANCOVA|||||3.088|-0.902|0.2823
95726901|NCT02040766|191423869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.3||||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.58|17.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.06|5.58|0.0001
95726902|NCT02040766|191423869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.5||||0.0041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.71|14.24|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.24|2.71|0.0041
95726903|NCT02040766|191423869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.6||||0.0103|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|13.35|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||13.35|1.79|0.0103
95726904|NCT02040766|191423869|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.5||||0.0278|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|12.23|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||12.23|0.71|0.0278
95726905|NCT02040766|191423870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|11.7|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.96|17.45|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||17.45|5.96|<0.0001
95726906|NCT02040766|191423870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|10.0||||0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.2|15.76|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.76|4.20|0.0007
95726907|NCT02040766|191423870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.9||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.11|15.68|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||15.68|4.11|0.0008
95726908|NCT02040766|191423870|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.7||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.95|14.49|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||14.49|2.95|0.0031
95726909|NCT02040766|191423871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.36||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.548|-0.174|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.174|-0.548|0.0002
95726910|NCT02040766|191423871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.331|0.044|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.044|-0.331|0.1320
95726911|NCT02040766|191423871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.05||||0.5866|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.24|0.136|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.136|-0.240|0.5866
95726912|NCT02040766|191423871|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0587|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.369|0.007|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.007|-0.369|0.0587
95726913|NCT02040766|191423872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.261|-0.065|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-0.065|-0.261|0.0011
95726914|NCT02040766|191423872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0869|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.185|0.013|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.013|-0.185|0.0869
95726915|NCT02040766|191423872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.4388|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.138|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.060|-0.138|0.4388
95726916|NCT02040766|191423872|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.1041|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.017|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.017|-0.180|0.1041
95726917|NCT02040766|191423873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.287|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.2870
95726918|NCT02040766|191423873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5257|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5257
95726919|NCT02040766|191423873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.9982|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.9982
95726920|NCT02040766|191423873|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7633|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.7633
95726921|NCT00602030|191423875|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.72||||0.505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel estimation of odds ratio adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||1.89|0.27|0.505
95726922|NCT00602030|191423876|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|0.31||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.06|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group .|||1.54|0.06|0.13
95726923|NCT00602030|191423877|SUPERIORITY||Adjusted Odds Ratio|1.06||||0.918|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.34|3.27|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Estimation of odds ratio was adjusted for the smoking history stratification factor, using placebo as reference group.|||3.27|0.34|0.918
95726924|NCT00397839|191423914|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.58|||<|0.001||95.0|1.41|3.76|||ANCOVA|||||3.76|1.41|<0.001
95726925|NCT00397839|191423915|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.86||||0.118||95.0|-0.22|1.94|||ANCOVA|||||1.94|-0.22|0.118
95726926|NCT00397839|191423916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|2.13|||<|0.001||95.0|1.34|2.92|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.92|1.34|<0.001
95726927|NCT00397839|191423916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.43||||0.012||95.0|0.32|2.55|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neckm subgroup||2.55|0.32|0.012
95726928|NCT00397839|191423916|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.72||||0.004||95.0|0.56|2.88|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.88|0.56|0.004
95726929|NCT00397839|191423917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.75|||<|0.001||95.0|1.11|2.4|||ANCOVA|||Total Hip subgroup||2.40|1.11|<0.001
95726930|NCT00397839|191423917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Femoral Neck subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
95726931|NCT00397839|191423917|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|1.18||||0.031||95.0|0.11|2.25|||ANCOVA|||Trochanter subgroup||2.25|0.11|0.031
95726932|NCT00397839|191423918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.91||||0.362||95.0|0.73|1.13|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 6||1.13|0.73|0.362
95726933|NCT00397839|191423918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.85||||0.044||95.0|0.72|1.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Spine BMD at Month 12||1.01|0.72|0.044
95726934|NCT00397839|191423918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.46|||<|0.001||95.0|0.3|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.30|<0.001
95726935|NCT00397839|191423918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.57|||<|0.001||95.0|0.41|0.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Total Hip BMD at Month 12||0.80|0.41|<0.001
95726936|NCT00397839|191423918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.41|||<|0.001||95.0|0.23|0.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD at Month 6||0.72|0.23|<0.001
95726937|NCT00397839|191423918|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.5|||<|0.001||95.0|0.33|0.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Relative risk|Both Total Hip and Total Spine BMD||0.75|0.33|<0.001
95726938|NCT01365845|191423919|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Non-parametric paired t-test (Wilcoxon)|29.1||||0.0078|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0078
95726939|NCT02191579|191423941|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.94|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.681|9.085||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||9.085|2.681|<0.001
95726940|NCT02191579|191423942|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|-6.199|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.936|-4.462||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-4.462|-7.936|<0.001
95726941|NCT02191579|191423943|SUPERIORITY||Median Difference (Net)|-4.248|||<|0.001||95.0|-5.766|-2.731||Estimated mean difference, 95% CI, and p-value for Week 30 were assessed using analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline headache days.|ANCOVA|||||-2.731|-5.766|<0.001
95726942|NCT02191579|191423944|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.05|||<|0.001||95.0|2.014|8.157||Odds ratio, 95% CI, and p-value for the Week 29-32 interval were estimated using a logistic regression model adjusted by baseline headache days.|Regression, Logistic|||||8.157|2.014|<0.001
95726943|NCT01965652|191423970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.226|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.83|1.72||The significance level was set at 0.05 (2-sided). The analysis of efficacy endpoints was not adjusted for multiplicity; hence, the p-values are purely nominal. A mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method was used for the comparisons.|Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||1.72|0.83|<0.0001
95726944|NCT01965652|191423970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.53|1.47|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||1.47|0.53|<0.0001
95726945|NCT01965652|191423970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.01|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.249|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.52|1.5|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||1.50|0.52|<0.0001
95726946|NCT01965652|191423970|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.259||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.49|1.51|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The MMRM method included the opioid dose strata as a covariate and treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||1.51|0.49|0.0001
95726947|NCT01965652|191423972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.05|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.25|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.25|-0.44|<0.0001
95726948|NCT01965652|191423972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
95726949|NCT01965652|191423972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.29|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.18|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.18|-0.40|<0.0001
95726950|NCT01965652|191423972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.35|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.24|-0.47|<0.0001
95726951|NCT01965652|191423972|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.12|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.12|-0.35|<0.0001
95726952|NCT01965652|191423973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.1|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.10|-0.31|0.0002
95726953|NCT01965652|191423973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06||0.0173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.03|||Mixed-effects model repeated meaures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.03|-0.26|0.0173
95726954|NCT01965652|191423973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.18|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|-0.06|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.06|-0.30|0.0035
95726955|NCT01965652|191423973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.16|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.16|-0.40|<0.0001
95726956|NCT01965652|191423973|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064||0.0336|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.01|-0.26|0.0336
95726957|NCT01965652|191423974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.37|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.37|<0.0001
95726958|NCT01965652|191423974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.16|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063||0.0114|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.04|-0.28|0.0114
95726959|NCT01965652|191423974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.23|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065||0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.11|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.11|-0.36|0.0003
95726960|NCT01965652|191423974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.13|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.13|-0.38|<0.0001
95726961|NCT01965652|191423974|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.17|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066||0.0119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.04|-0.29|0.0119
95726962|NCT01965652|191423975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.39|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.39|-0.64|<0.0001
95726963|NCT01965652|191423975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.38|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.066|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.51|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.51|<0.0001
95726964|NCT01965652|191423975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.27|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.27|-0.54|<0.0001
95726965|NCT01965652|191423975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.071|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.62|-0.34|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.34|-0.62|<0.0001
95726966|NCT01965652|191423975|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.37|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.072|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|-0.23|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.23|-0.52|<0.0001
95726967|NCT01965652|191423976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.047|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.49|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.30|-0.49|<0.0001
95726968|NCT01965652|191423976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.46|-0.26|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.26|-0.46|<0.0001
95726969|NCT01965652|191423976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.22|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.22|-0.43|<0.0001
95726970|NCT01965652|191423976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
95726971|NCT01965652|191423976|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.20|-0.42|<0.0001
95726972|NCT01965652|191423977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.056|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.28|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.28|-0.50|<0.0001
95726973|NCT01965652|191423977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.063|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.2|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Anaysis||-0.20|-0.44|<0.0001
95726974|NCT01965652|191423977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.27|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.065|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.15|-0.40|<0.0001
95726975|NCT01965652|191423977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.34|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.068|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.21|-0.48|<0.0001
95726976|NCT01965652|191423977|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.28|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.067|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.15|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.15|-0.41|<0.0001
95726977|NCT01965652|191423978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.051|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.14|-0.34|<0.0001
95726978|NCT01965652|191423978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.055|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.35|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.14|-0.35|<0.0001
95726979|NCT01965652|191423978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.057|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.14|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.14|-0.36|<0.0001
95726980|NCT01965652|191423978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.059|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.19|-0.43|<0.0001
95726981|NCT01965652|191423978|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.21|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061||0.0006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.09|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.09|-0.33|0.0006
95726982|NCT01965652|191423979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.39|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.054|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|-0.29|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.29|-0.50|<0.0001
95726983|NCT01965652|191423979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.06|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.48|-0.24|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.24|-0.48|<0.0001
95726984|NCT01965652|191423979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.33|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.061|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.21|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.21|-0.45|<0.0001
95726985|NCT01965652|191423979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|-0.3|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.30|-0.54|<0.0001
95726986|NCT01965652|191423979|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.32|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.064|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.19|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.19|-0.44|<0.0001
95726987|NCT01965652|191423980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.67|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.07|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.53|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 2 Analysis||-0.53|-0.81|<0.0001
95726988|NCT01965652|191423980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.075|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.43|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 12 Analysis||-0.43|-0.73|<0.0001
95726989|NCT01965652|191423980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.51|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.077|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|-0.36|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 24 Analysis||-0.36|-0.66|<0.0001
95726990|NCT01965652|191423980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.08|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.69|-0.38|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 36 Analysis||-0.38|-0.69|<0.0001
95726991|NCT01965652|191423980|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Difference|-0.48|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.083|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|-0.32|||Mixed-effects model repeated measures|The mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) method included treatment group, time, and time-by-treatment group interaction as fixed effects.||Week 52 Analysis||-0.32|-0.64|<0.0001
95726992|NCT01965652|191423981|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001||95.0|||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95726993|NCT01033864|191423982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8055|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.8055
95726994|NCT01033864|191423983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2548|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2548
95726995|NCT01033864|191423984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.4417|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.4417
95726996|NCT01033864|191423985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0455|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0455
95726997|NCT01033864|191423986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.23|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.2300
95726998|NCT01033864|191423987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0106|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0106
95726999|NCT01033864|191423988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.3401|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3401
95727000|NCT01033864|191423989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0074|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0074
95727001|NCT01033864|191423990|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0002|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.0002
95727002|NCT01488019|191423998|NON_INFERIORITY|The hazard ratio and 90% two-sided confidence interval for the hazard ratio comparing Perforomist to placebo were estimated. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval was wholly less than 1.5.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.965|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.711|1.308||Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5. Subjects with no primary event at withdrawal or study completion were treated as censored observations at time of withdrawal|Regression, Cox|Treatment, site group, and bronchodilator reversibility included as covariates in the model.|Hazard Ratio was calculated as Perforomist Inhalation Solution vs Placebo. The non-inferiority margin for the hazard ratio is 1.5.|||1.308|0.711|
95727003|NCT02410252|191424075|OTHER||%|100.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||There was no statistical analysis conducted on demographic characteristics or baseline surveys|descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses.||||
95727004|NCT02410252|191424075|OTHER|Only percents were calculated, no formal statistical analysis was completed.||||||||||||Statistical analysis was not completed. This was a feasibility study with small n and was not powered to determine statistical significance.||||Only percent will be calculated. No statistical analysis will be conducted.|No statistical analysis was conducted as part of this study.|||
95727005|NCT02410252|191424076|OTHER||%|0.29||||0.13|TWO_SIDED|||||Significance was set at p\<0.05|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||"GAD-7 scores were coded as a categorical variable as follows: mild anxiety (total score 0 to 5) and moderate/ severe anxiety (total score 6-15).~Proportion of participants with mild and moderate/ severe anxiety at enrollment and closeout was compared using Cochran's Q test."||||0.13
95727006|NCT02410252|191424077|OTHER||%|84.0||||0.05|TWO_SIDED||||||descriptive analysis|||Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and survey responses. All analysis was conducted using STATA version 14.2 with an alpha of 0.05 set a priori. Since this was an exploratory study with descriptive statistics, a complete case analysis approach was adopted for this study||||0.05
95729105|NCT02761980|191428325|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|-0.12||||0.864|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.54|1.29|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||1.29|-1.54|0.864
95727007|NCT00387712|191424095|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.001||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the primary outcome category (peak fitness) using repeated measures analysis of variance. No adjustment for multiple comparisons is needed.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||"Power Calculation: It was calculated that 29 subjects should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for peak fitness for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.~Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in peak fitness levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points."||||0.001
95727008|NCT00387712|191424096|OTHER|Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in myosin heavy chain levels levels between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||||0.11|||||||ANOVA|||Power Calculation: It was calculated that 22 participants should be randomized to 2 groups to achieve a significant time by group interaction for myosin heavy chain isoforms for high-velocity or low velocity duration training groups, assuming a power of 90 percent power and alpha = 0.01, two-tailed analyses.||||0.11
95727009|NCT00387712|191424097|OTHER|Analysis of variance between groups across time is the primary analyses.||||||0.81||||||Group (high velocity training vs. low velocity duration training) by time (baseline to post-6 months) for the secondary outcome category (30 ft walk time - fastest comfortable gait) using repeated measures analysis of variance.|ANOVA|No other adjustments such as degrees of freedom was necessary.||Primary analyses is a group by time analysis of variance in 30 foot walk time (sec) between the higher-intensity and lower intensity training groups across baseline to 6 months post-exercise time points.||||0.81
95727010|NCT00006170|191424098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.001
95727011|NCT00006170|191424098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.25||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.25
95727012|NCT00006170|191424098|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.07||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.07
95727013|NCT00006170|191424099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.|||||<|0.001||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||<0.001
95727014|NCT00006170|191424099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.053||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.053
95727015|NCT00006170|191424099|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.08||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.08
95727016|NCT00006170|191424100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.006||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.006
95727017|NCT00006170|191424100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.45||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.45
95727018|NCT00006170|191424100|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Power was determined using a log-rank statistic for comparing 2 survival curves, with a 2-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 40% as the reference from which differences were computed.||||||0.046||95.0|||||Regression, Logistic|||||||0.046
95727019|NCT02040428|191424110|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0001|ONE_SIDED||||||Adaptive group sequential design|Whitehead method for triangular test||Superiority||||0.0001
95727020|NCT02040428|191424111|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared|||||||0.0046
95727021|NCT01506323|191424126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to post-treatment (week 8). Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<.006
95727022|NCT01506323|191424126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||repeated measures||||<|0.031|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate.|Mixed Models Analysis|This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.||This analysis is from baseline (week 0) to 2 months follow-up.||||<.031
95727023|NCT01506323|191424127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|TWO_SIDED|||||The p-value is based on false discovery rate adjustment for multiple comparisons.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .86 at baseline.||||0.82
95727024|NCT01506323|191424127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.82|ONE_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||0.82
95727025|NCT01506323|191424128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .85 at baseline.||||<0.008
95727026|NCT01506323|191424128|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.09|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment||||<0.09
95727027|NCT01506323|191424129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .78 at baseline.||||<.006
95727028|NCT01506323|191424129|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.03|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<.03
95727029|NCT01506323|191424130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0008|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|repeated measures|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.0008
95727030|NCT01506323|191424130|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.006|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||This analysis is from baseline to 2 months post-treatment.||||<0.006
95727031|NCT01506323|191424131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing. Raw p-value was \<0.02.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score in this study was .86 at baseline.||||<0.10
95727032|NCT01506323|191424131|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment.||||<0.49
95727033|NCT01506323|191424132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.78|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .96 at baseline.||||<0.78
95727034|NCT01506323|191424132|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.99
95727035|NCT01506323|191424133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.04|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis was from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .92 at baseline.||||<0.04
95727036|NCT01506323|191424133|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.25|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.25
95727037|NCT01506323|191424134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.99|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .89 at baseline.||||<0.99
95727038|NCT01506323|191424134|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.94|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.94
95727039|NCT01506323|191424135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.12|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for this study was .88 at baseline.||||<0.12
95727040|NCT01506323|191424135|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.49|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.49
95727041|NCT01506323|191424136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.59|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|||This analysis is from baseline to post-treatment. Cronbach's alpha for total score was .89 at baseline.||||<0.59
95727042|NCT01506323|191424136|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.1|TWO_SIDED|||||This p-value is based on a false discovery rate adjustment for multiple hypothesis testing.|Mixed Models Analysis|Mixed-effects, repeated measures models adjusting for demographic factors were implemented.||This analysis is from baseline to 2-months post-treatment.||||<0.10
95727043|NCT03907280|191424143|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T1/R) [%]|0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.39|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||0.63|0.39|
95727044|NCT03907280|191424143|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T2/R) [%]|40.26|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.68|51.15|||Mixed Models Analysis||The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.|Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||51.15|31.68|
95727045|NCT03907280|191424143|OTHER|Absolute bioavailability comparison|Ratio of the geometric means (T3/R) [%]|40.24|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.15|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|31.86|50.83|||Mixed Models Analysis|The standard error of the mean is actually the geometric standard error.||Exploratory trial, no formal hypotheses were tested. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the logarithmic scale including effects for treatment sequence ('fixed effect'), subjects nested within treatment sequences ('random effect'), and treatment ('fixed effect').||50.83|31.86|
95727046|NCT02637076|191424163|OTHER|||||||0.31|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|F(2,36)=1.26||||||0.31
95727047|NCT02637076|191424168|OTHER|||||||0.748|||||||repeated measures ANOVA|||||||0.748
95727048|NCT00586521|191424175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||The primary outcome measure was analyzed by paired t-test and Wilcoxon test (number of joint bleeds prophylaxis treatment compared to number of joint bleeds on-demand treatment) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
95727049|NCT00586521|191424175|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The maximum individual reduction in the actual number of joint bleeds after the switch to prophylactic treatment was analyzed by a paired t-test of the individual difference between prophylaxis treatment bleed compared to on-demand treatment bleeds.||||<0.001
95727050|NCT00586521|191424176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||paired t-test (prophylaxis compared to on-demand) at 6 months of treatment.||||<0.001
95727051|NCT00586521|191424177|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||paired t-test|||The Gilbert Score was the sum of 3 scores: pain (0=no pain to 3=severe pain); bleeding score (0=none to 3=3 or more major bleeds or 7 or more minor bleeds); and physical score (based on swelling, muscle atrophy; and axial deformity (at knee or ankle), range of motion, crepitus on motion, flexion contracture, instability.||||<0.001
95727052|NCT00586521|191424178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.314||||||The alpha level for a significant P-value was pre-defined at 5%.|paired t-test|||"The Haemo-QoL A questionnaire measures the subject's self-assessment of disease impact on physical functioning, role functioning, worry, consequences, positive affect, and treatment concern."||||0.314
95727053|NCT04604184|191424184|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-5.39||||0.3232|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.08|5.3|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||5.30|-16.08|0.3232
95727054|NCT04604184|191424185|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|-9.86||||0.1274|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-22.54|2.82|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||2.82|-22.54|0.1274
95727055|NCT04604184|191424186|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|2.66||||0.6828|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.11|15.43|||Regression, Logistic|includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||||15.43|-10.11|0.6828
95727056|NCT04604184|191424187|OTHER||Rate Ratio|0.67||||0.0445|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|0.99|||Regression, Cox|Covariates are treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalization||||0.99|0.46|0.0445
95727057|NCT04604184|191424188|OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.35||0.5526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|1.87|||ANCOVA|Fixed effects of treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates|Difference = covariate adjusted BI 764198 - covariate adjusted Placebo|||1.87|-3.47|0.5526
95727058|NCT04604184|191424189|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|5.32||||0.0995|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|11.65|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 15||11.65|-1.01|0.0995
95727059|NCT04604184|191424189|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|6.06||||0.1992|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.19|15.31|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 29||15.31|-3.19|0.1992
95727060|NCT04604184|191424189|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|8.93||||0.0709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|18.62|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 60||18.62|-0.76|0.0709
95727061|NCT04604184|191424189|OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|10.35||||0.0412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.41|20.28|||Regression, Logistic|Includes treatment, age, severity grade and creatinine at baseline, and duration of symptoms before hospitalisation as covariates||Day 90||20.28|0.41|0.0412
95727062|NCT03734237|191424197|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1|Risk Ratio (RR)|-26.7||||0.1412|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|7.6|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||7.6|-73.7|0.1412
95727063|NCT03734237|191424197|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: RR=1, Alternative hypothesis: RR not equal to 1.|Risk Ratio (RR)|-13.1||||0.4552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.4|18.2|||Chi-squared|||Relative vaccine effectiveness with the outcome laboratory confirmed influenza identified via surveillance and/or abstracted from clinical records.||18.2|-56.4|0.4552
95727064|NCT01844583|191424207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.14|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.97|1.35|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.35|0.97|
95727065|NCT01844583|191424208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.25|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.08|1.45|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.45|1.08|
95727066|NCT01844583|191424209|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.28|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.07|1.53|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.53|1.07|
95727067|NCT01844583|191424212|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|1.03|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.84|1.26|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||1.26|0.84|
95727068|NCT01844583|191424213|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.51|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.62|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.62|0.41|
95727069|NCT01844583|191424214|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||LS Mean Ratio|0.53|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.41|0.7|||||Estimates for each PK parameter were obtained using a mixed effects model of log (PK parameter) with fixed terms for the esomeprazole effect and random terms for participants within sequence.|||0.70|0.41|
95727070|NCT01625377|191424220|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-14.34|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.34|-7.34|||ANCOVA|||||-7.34|-21.34|<0.0001
95727071|NCT03513497|191424233|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.3|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.3
95727072|NCT03513497|191424234|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95727073|NCT03513497|191424235|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.6
95727074|NCT03513497|191424236|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.5
95727075|NCT00294723|191424239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.62|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.42||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.42|-0.83|<0.0001
95727851|NCT04136626|191425179|SUPERIORITY||Difference in the amount of change|-3.4385||||0.0036|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.7394|-1.1376||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons. The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the difference in the amount of symptom reduction (week 12 - week 0) between Perspectives OCD and the Health and Well-Being Program group (i.e., a group difference in the amount of change over time).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in the change from baseline to end-of-treatment Y-BOCS total scores between the treatment groups.||-1.1376|-5.7394|0.0036
95727076|NCT00294723|191424239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.0014||95.0|-0.53|-0.13||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.13|-0.53|0.0014
95727077|NCT00294723|191424239|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0046||95.0|-0.5|-0.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.09|-0.50|0.0046
95727078|NCT00294723|191424240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.58|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.87||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.87|-4.28|<.0001
95727079|NCT00294723|191424240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.17|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.87|-2.47||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.47|-3.87|<.0001
95727080|NCT00294723|191424240|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.41||||0.2584||95.0|-1.11|0.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||0.30|-1.11|0.2584
95727081|NCT00294723|191424241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.65|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.44|-2.86||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.86|-4.44|<.0001
95727082|NCT00294723|191424241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.84|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.63|-2.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.06|-3.63|<.0001
95727083|NCT00294723|191424241|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.8||||0.0462||95.0|-1.59|-0.01||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-0.01|-1.59|0.0462
95727084|NCT00294723|191424242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% confidence interval for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.6|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.83|-0.38||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.38|-0.83|<.0001
95727852|NCT04136626|191425180|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.8743||||0.3616|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.7666|1.0181||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was alpha=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|Repeated measures were modeled with a first-order heterogeneous auto-regressive (ARH(1)) covariance structure.|The effect is presented as the Perspectives OCD group outcome compared to the Health and Well-Being Program group outcome at the trial end-point (week 12).|Null hypothesis: there is no significant difference in depression severity (QIDS-SR total scores) between the treatment groups at endpoint (week 12).||1.0181|-2.7666|0.3616
95727085|NCT00294723|191424242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two sided 95% CI for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete confidence interval was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.31||||0.0076||95.0|-0.54|-0.08||"The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity.~2-sided significance level 5%"|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.08|-0.54|0.0076
95727086|NCT00294723|191424242|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.29||||0.0129||95.0|-0.52|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.52|0.0129
95727087|NCT00294723|191424243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48|||<|0.0001||95.0|-4.28|-2.68||2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-2.68|-4.28|<0.0001
95727088|NCT00294723|191424243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.72|||<|0.0001||95.0|-3.52|-1.93||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariate.||-1.93|-3.52|<0.0001
95727089|NCT00294723|191424243|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 kg, it was concluded that the liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.75||||0.0642||95.0|-1.55|0.05||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in body weight from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline body weight as covariance.||0.05|-1.55|0.0642
95727090|NCT00294723|191424244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-20.28|||<|0.0001||95.0|-29.09|-11.46||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-11.46|-29.09|<.0001
95727091|NCT00294723|191424244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.92||||0.027||95.0|-18.7|-1.12||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.12|-18.70|0.0270
95727092|NCT00294723|191424244|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.36||||0.0223||95.0|-19.24|-1.48||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.48|-19.24|0.0223
95727093|NCT00294723|191424245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-17.79||||0.0003||95.0|-27.48|-8.09||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-8.09|-27.48|0.0003
95727094|NCT00294723|191424245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-11.33||||0.0217||95.0|-20.99|-1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-1.66|-20.99|0.0217
95729106|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.9||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.29|1.51|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.51|0.29|0.004
95727095|NCT00294723|191424245|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.46||||0.1942||95.0|-16.23|3.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.30|-16.23|0.1942
95727096|NCT00294723|191424246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-16.63||||0.0007||95.0|-26.19|-7.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-7.06|-26.19|0.0007
95727097|NCT00294723|191424246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.02||||0.0395||95.0|-19.56|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.56|0.0395
95727098|NCT00294723|191424246|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1789||95.0|-16.24|3.03||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline FPG as covariate.||3.03|-16.24|0.1789
95727099|NCT00294723|191424247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.9||||0.0038||95.0|-21.6|-4.2||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-4.2|-21.6|0.0038
95727100|NCT00294723|191424247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.3||||0.1616||95.0|-15.0|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.5|-15.0|0.1616
95727101|NCT00294723|191424247|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-6.6||||0.1319||95.0|-15.3|2.0||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||2.0|-15.3|0.1319
95727102|NCT00294723|191424248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-12.3||||0.0105||95.0|-21.71|-2.89||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-2.89|-21.71|0.0105
95727103|NCT00294723|191424248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.49||||0.606||95.0|-11.95|6.98||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||6.98|-11.95|0.6060
95727104|NCT00294723|191424248|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.81||||0.0392||95.0|-19.14|-0.49||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-0.49|-19.14|0.0392
95727105|NCT00294723|191424249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-10.98||||0.0227||95.0|-20.42|-1.54||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||-1.54|-20.42|0.0227
95727106|NCT00294723|191424249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.83||||0.7047||95.0|-11.33|7.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||7.66|-11.33|0.7047
95727107|NCT00294723|191424249|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-9.15||||0.0553||95.0|-18.51|0.21||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial glucose (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline PPG as covariate.||0.21|-18.51|0.0553
95727108|NCT00294723|191424250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.55|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.77|-0.34||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.34|-0.77|<0.0001
95727109|NCT00294723|191424250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference \[liraglutide - glimepiride\] was estimated. Liraglutide was shown to be non-inferior to glimepiride if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference was below 0.4% and superior if the complete CI was below 0%. Superiority of 1.2 mg liraglutide was only tested if 1.2 mg liraglutide was non-inferior to glimepiride and 1.8 mg liraglutide was superior to glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0122||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||The statistical analysis of the primary endpoint was done in a hierarchal manner due to multiple comparisons. No other adjustments were made for multiplicity. 2-sided significance level was 5%.|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0122
95727110|NCT00294723|191424250|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A test for superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg to liraglutide 1.2 mg was performed to compare the two doses. Superiority of liraglutide 1.8 mg was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (liraglutide 1.8 mg - liraglutide 1.2 mg) was below 0%.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.28||||0.0123||95.0|-0.49|-0.06||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country, and previous oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c as covariate.||-0.06|-0.49|0.0123
95727111|NCT00294723|191424251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-4.0||||0.1396||95.0|-9.4|1.3||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.3|-9.4|0.1396
95727112|NCT00294723|191424251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-2.9||||0.2968||95.0|-8.3|2.5||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in mean prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.5|-8.3|0.2968
95727113|NCT00294723|191424251|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-1.2||||0.6639||95.0|-6.5|4.1||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in postprandial (PPG) from baseline to end of treatment at 52 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||4.1|-6.5|0.6639
95727114|NCT00294723|191424252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.81||||0.172||95.0|-9.28|1.66||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.66|-9.28|0.1720
95727115|NCT00294723|191424252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-0.33||||0.906||95.0|-5.82|5.16||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.16|-5.82|0.9060
95727116|NCT00294723|191424252|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2089||95.0|-8.91|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 104 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.91|0.2089
95727117|NCT00294723|191424253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.04||||0.2749||95.0|-8.51|2.42||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||2.42|-8.51|0.2749
95727118|NCT00294723|191424253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.2 mg and glimepiride was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that the given dose of liraglutide was better than glimepiride.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|0.43||||0.8765||95.0|-5.05|5.92||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||5.92|-5.05|0.8765
95727119|NCT00294723|191424253|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|A two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference between liraglutide 1.8 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg was calculated. If the upper limit of the 95% CI was below 0 mg/dL, it was concluded that liraglutide 1.8 mg was better than liraglutide 1.2 mg.|Estimated treatment difference, LS Mean|-3.48||||0.2088||95.0|-8.9|1.95||2-sided significance level 5%|ANCOVA|||Change in prandial increments of plasma glucose from baseline to end of treatment at 156 weeks was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, country and previous anti-diabetic treatment as fixed effects and baseline value as covariate.||1.95|-8.90|0.2088
95727120|NCT01412541|191424263|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|The evaluable sample size required for 90% power is 150 (50 Control plus 100 Test). This endpoint is not the sample-size driver of the study. Randomization of 476 subjects is expected to provide at least 405 evaluable subjects, after adjustment for up to 15% censoring) and approximately 99% power.||||||0.025|||||||Farrington and Manning|||"To assess if proportion of subjects with at least one safety event\* in the Test group is inferior or not inferior to that of Control group through 12-months Post index procedure (PPI) H0: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically inferior to that of the Control group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with safety events in the Test group through 12-months PPI is clinically non-inferior to that of the Control group."||||0.025
95727121|NCT01412541|191424264|EQUIVALENCE|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test at α=0.05. The response variable in each subject will be the presence or absence of at least one efficacy event from the time following the index procedure through 12 months. The study evaluable sample size required for 90% power is approximately 405 subjects. After adjustment for 15% censoring through 12 months, the study size is 476.||||||0.05|||||||Chi-squared|The statistical analysis is a likelihood ratio chi-square test for inequality of binomial proportions; the test is a two-sided test.||"To assess whether the proportion of subjects with at least one efficacy event\* in the Test group is equal or not to that of Control group through 12-months post-index procedure.~H0: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is equal to that of the Test group.~H1: The proportion of subjects with efficacy events in the Control group through 12-months post-index procedure is not equal to that of the Test group."||||0.05
95727122|NCT02927847|191424351|OTHER||t-value|0.138||||0.891|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.891
95727123|NCT02927847|191424352|OTHER||t-value|-0.575||||0.571|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.571
95727124|NCT02927847|191424353|OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.17||||0.739|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Cox|||||||0.739
95727125|NCT02907203|191424382|NON_INFERIORITY|Compared with the Performance Goal: 0.9mm|Mean Difference (Net)|-0.17|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.98||0|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.5|0.152|||t-test, 2 sided|||||0.152|-0.5|0.000
95727126|NCT00252187|191424402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.004||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in end systolic LV volume index compared between two groups||||0.004
95727127|NCT00252187|191424402|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||Change in LV end diastolic volume was compared between two groups||||0.001
95727128|NCT00252187|191424403|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.001
95727129|NCT00252187|191424405|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.14||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.14
95727130|NCT00252187|191424406|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.006||95.0|||||Chi-squared|||||||0.006
95727131|NCT03764059|191424410|NON_INFERIORITY|The test for non-inferiority is based on a 95% CI of the difference between the investigational and control groups with respect to the rate of clinically acceptable restorations at 1-year post placement. The non-inferiority margin was 7%. To establish non-inferiority the lower limit has to be \> -7%|Risk Difference (RD)|4.2|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0||9.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||9.2|- 0.6|< 0.0001
95727132|NCT00769015|191424425|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.54||||0.067|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.27|1.06||Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. The p-value refers to the overall test of between group differences in rates of depression.|Mantel Haenszel|||||1.06|.27|.067
95727133|NCT00769015|191424426|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.81||||0.75|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.92|4.3|||Linear Mixed effects model|||||4.30|-5.92|.75
95727134|NCT00769015|191424427|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Change in least squares mean|3.47||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-12.22|5.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||5.29|-12.22|.68
95727135|NCT00769015|191424428|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.42||||0.34|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|7.41|||Least squares mean|||||7.41|-2.58|.34
95727136|NCT00769015|191424429|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.02||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.8|5.76|||Least squares mean|||||5.76|-9.80|.68
95727137|NCT00769015|191424430|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.39||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.04|6.82|||Least squares mean|||||6.82|-4.04|.68
95727138|NCT00769015|191424431|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.62||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-5.94|9.17|||Least squares mean|||||9.17|-5.94|.68
95727139|NCT01086215|191424464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
95727140|NCT01086215|191424464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
95727141|NCT01086215|191424464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
95727142|NCT01086215|191424464|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|Alternative hypothesis is change in occlusion \>0||||||<0.0001
95727143|NCT02524106|191424467|OTHER||percentage difference|61.0||||0.028|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.028
95727144|NCT02524106|191424468|OTHER||percentage difference|39.0||||0.096|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.096
95727145|NCT01121900|191424469|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter Cmax is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|39.8|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|34.4|46.0|||||Test/reference (%)|||46.0|34.4|
95727146|NCT01121900|191424470|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-tlast) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|80.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|74.2|88.3|||||Test/reference (%)|||88.3|74.2|
95727147|NCT01121900|191424471|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Bioequivalence is established when the ratio of geometric Least Squares means (LSmeans) and confidence interval calculated from the exponential of the difference between the Test and Reference product for the ln-transformed parameter AUC(0-∞) is between 80% and 125%.|Mean ratio|83.5|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|76.5|91.1|||||Test/reference (%)|||91.1|76.5|
95727148|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.151|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.72|9.89|||||Confidence interval (CI), estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for pre dose|||9.89|2.72|
95727149|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.43|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.059|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|3.0|9.87|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 1 hour post dose|||9.87|3.00|
95727150|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|7.71|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|1.734|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.82|10.6|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 2 hour post dose|||10.60|4.82|
95727151|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.42|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.085|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.94|9.89|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 3 hour post dose|||9.89|2.94|
95727152|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|6.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.434|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|2.54|10.65|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 4 hour post dose|||10.65|2.54|
95727153|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.86|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.573|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.57|10.14|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 6 hour post dose|||10.14|1.57|
95727154|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|4.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.735|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.35|9.47|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 8 hour post dose|||9.47|0.35|
95727155|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|8.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.8|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.08|13.42|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 10 hour post dose|||13.42|4.08|
95727156|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.76|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.759|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.16|10.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 12 hour post dose|||10.36|1.16|
95727157|NCT01328054|191424476|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|2.164|||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.15|7.36|||||CI, estimated value and dispersion value of is presented for 24 hour post dose|||7.36|0.15|
95727158|NCT00291330|191424506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 2.75 for the HR analysis|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05|||<|0.0001||95.0|0.65|1.7||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.70|0.65|<0.0001
95727159|NCT00291330|191424506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Non inferiority margin was set up to 3.6% for the risk difference based on KM estimates|Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.4|||<|0.0001||95.0|-0.8|1.5||Non-inferiority P-Value. Two Statistical analyses performed on primary endpoint. Both non inferiority for the risk difference and for the hazard ratio analyses to be reached in order to conclude positively on the primary endpoint.|Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death related to VTE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.50|-0.80|<0.0001
95727160|NCT00291330|191424506|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.1||||||95.0|0.65|1.84|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at day 180||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and the day 180). The time to first occurrence of the primary endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.84|0.65|
95727161|NCT00291330|191424507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.622||95.0|-1.0|1.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with VTE or death at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.70|-1.00|0.6220
95727162|NCT00291330|191424507|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.0||||0.9844||95.0|0.69|1.46|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.46|0.69|0.9844
95727163|NCT00291330|191424508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.2||||0.6466||95.0|-1.1|0.7|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic DVT at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.70|-1.10|0.6466
95727164|NCT00291330|191424508|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.76||||0.385||95.0|0.4|1.42|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.42|0.40|0.3850
95727165|NCT00291330|191424509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|0.3||||0.2981||95.0|-0.3|1.0|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients with symptomatic non-fatal PE at 6 months. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||1.00|-0.30|0.2981
95727166|NCT00291330|191424509|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|2.0||||0.1092||95.0|0.86|4.68|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||4.68|0.86|0.1092
95727167|NCT00291330|191424510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.3||||0.5327||95.0|-1.2|0.6|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died due to VTE . Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.60|-1.20|0.5327
95727168|NCT00291330|191424510|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.33||||0.3332||95.0|0.03|3.15|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||3.15|0.03|0.3332
95727169|NCT00291330|191424511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (Percentage)|-0.1||||0.8018||95.0|-1.0|0.8|||Kaplan Meier weighted estimates|||Risk difference at 6 months vs. Warfarin for Proportion of patients who died from any cause. Point estimate and 95% CI for the overall risk difference obtained based on the Kaplan Meier (KM) estimates at 6 months (180 days) after adjusting for the stratification factors active cancer at baseline and symptomatic PE at baseline.||0.80|-1.00|0.8018
95727170|NCT00291330|191424511|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.8203||95.0|0.54|1.63|||Regression, Cox|Patients without events are censored at the end of post treatment period (day 224)||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin (events occurring between randomisation and end of post treatment period). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.63|0.54|0.8203
95727171|NCT00291330|191424512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.82||||0.5063||95.0|0.45|1.48|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category major bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||1.48|0.45|0.5063
95727172|NCT00291330|191424512|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.71||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.59|0.85|||Regression, Cox|||Hazard ratio vs. Warfarin for the category of any bleeding events (events occurring between 1st intake of study drug and last intake of study drug + 6 days). The time to first occurrence of the endpoint was compared between treatment groups using the Cox proportional hazards (PH) model, including the factors treatment, active cancer at baseline, symptomatic PE at baseline, and the interaction between active cancer and symptomatic PE.||0.85|0.59|0.0002
95727173|NCT00566709|191424515|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.03|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.03
95727174|NCT00566709|191424516|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.07|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.07
95727175|NCT00566709|191424517|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.56|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.56
95727176|NCT00566709|191424518|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.79|TWO_SIDED||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||0.79
95727177|NCT00566709|191424519|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.77|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.77
95727178|NCT00566709|191424520|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.22|TWO_SIDED||||||Chi-squared, Corrected|||||||0.22
95727179|NCT03443869|191424524|NON_INFERIORITY|LET was concluded non-inferior to VGCV if the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for difference in percentage of participants with adjudicated CMV disease (LET - VGCV) was no higher than 10%|Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.5|3.8|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||3.8|-6.5|
95727180|NCT03443869|191424525|OTHER||Stratum-adjusted Treatment Difference|-1.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.1|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|The Observed failure (OF) approach was used to handle missing values, that is participants who had discontinued prematurely from the study for any reason were not considered failures||0.1|-3.4|
95727181|NCT03443869|191424527|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-0.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-4.4|4.2|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||4.2|-4.4|
95727182|NCT03443869|191424528|OTHER||Difference in Percentages|-3.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-7.0|-0.9|||||Difference = LET minus VGCV|||-0.9|-7.0|
95727183|NCT00931385|191424536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
95727184|NCT00931385|191424536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.148|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.113|0.183|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.183|0.113|<0.0001
95727185|NCT00931385|191424536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.141|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.106|0.177|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.177|0.106|<0.0001
95727186|NCT00931385|191424537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.109|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.073|0.146|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.146|0.073|<0.0001
95727187|NCT00931385|191424537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.127|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.091|0.164|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.164|0.091|<0.0001
95727188|NCT00931385|191424537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.172|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.209|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.209|0.135|<0.0001
95727189|NCT00931385|191424538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.128|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.094|0.163|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.163|0.094|<0.0001
95727190|NCT00931385|191424538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.137|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.017|<|0.0001||95.0|0.103|0.172|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.172|0.103|<0.0001
95727191|NCT00931385|191424538|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.156|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.018|<|0.0001||95.0|0.122|0.191|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.191|0.122|<0.0001
95727192|NCT00931385|191424539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.126|0.201|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.201|0.126|<0.0001
95727193|NCT00931385|191424539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.164|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.202|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.202|0.127|<0.0001
95727194|NCT00931385|191424539|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.198|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.019|<|0.0001||95.0|0.16|0.236|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.236|0.160|<0.0001
95727195|NCT00931385|191424540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.174|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.135|0.214|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.214|0.135|<0.0001
95727196|NCT00931385|191424540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.166|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.127|0.206|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.206|0.127|<0.0001
95727197|NCT00931385|191424540|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.218|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.02|<|0.0001||95.0|0.178|0.257|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.257|0.178|<0.0001
95727198|NCT00931385|191424541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.106|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.064|0.147|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.147|0.064|<0.0001
95727199|NCT00931385|191424541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.113|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.072|0.155|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.155|0.072|<0.0001
95727200|NCT00931385|191424541|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.133|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.021|<|0.0001||95.0|0.092|0.175|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.175|0.092|<0.0001
95727201|NCT00931385|191424542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.226|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.167|0.284|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.284|0.167|<0.0001
95727202|NCT00931385|191424542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.229|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.17|0.287|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.287|0.170|<0.0001
95727203|NCT00931385|191424542|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.203|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.144|0.262|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.262|0.144|<0.0001
95727204|NCT00931385|191424543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.147|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.207|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.207|0.087|<0.0001
95727205|NCT00931385|191424543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.171|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.112|0.231|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.231|0.112|<0.0001
95727206|NCT00931385|191424543|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.251|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.03|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.311|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.311|0.191|<0.0001
95727207|NCT00931385|191424544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.186|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.132|0.241|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.241|0.132|<0.0001
95727208|NCT00931385|191424544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.145|0.254|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.254|0.145|<0.0001
95727209|NCT00931385|191424544|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.227|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.028|<|0.0001||95.0|0.172|0.282|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.282|0.172|<0.0001
95727210|NCT00931385|191424545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.261|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.035|<|0.0001||95.0|0.191|0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.330|0.191|<0.0001
95727211|NCT00931385|191424545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.252|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.183|0.322|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.322|0.183|<0.0001
95727212|NCT00931385|191424545|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.302|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.036|<|0.0001||95.0|0.232|0.372|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.372|0.232|<0.0001
95727213|NCT00931385|191424546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.087|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 5 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.087|<0.0001
95727214|NCT00931385|191424546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.154|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.086|0.221|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Olo 10 mcg qd minus Placebo|||0.221|0.086|<0.0001
95727215|NCT00931385|191424546|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.183|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.034|<|0.0001||95.0|0.115|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|Adjusted using a mixed model with center, treatment and period as fixed effects and patients within center as random effect.|Form 12 mcg bid minus Placebo|||0.250|0.115|<0.0001
95727216|NCT02033876|191424548|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.43|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.43
95727217|NCT02033876|191424549|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.65|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.65
95727218|NCT02033876|191424551|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.37|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.37
95727219|NCT02033876|191424552|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.51|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.51
95727220|NCT02033876|191424553|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.4|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.4
95727221|NCT02033876|191424554|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.8|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.8
95727222|NCT02033876|191424555|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.006|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.006
95727223|NCT01360632|191424559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0925|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.58|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||0.2|-2.58|0.0925
95727224|NCT01360632|191424559|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.0327|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.92|-0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||The primary analysis was performed on the Efficacy Sample by fitting a MMRM analysis with an unstructured variance covariance structure in which the change from the end of Phase A (Week 8) in MADRS Total Score (at Weeks 9 to 14) was the dependent variable. The model included fixed class effect terms for treatment, trial site, visit week, and an interaction term of treatment by visit week.||-0.13|-2.92|0.0327
95727225|NCT01360632|191424560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.3||||0.0737|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.73|0.13|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.13|-2.73|0.0737
95727226|NCT01360632|191424560|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.95||||0.0079|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|-0.51|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.51|-3.39|0.0079
95727227|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.06||||0.0096|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.86|-0.26|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.26|-1.86|0.0096
95727228|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.33||||0.4137|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.47|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.47|-1.14|0.4137
95727229|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.44||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.47|-0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.4|-2.47|0.0065
95727230|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.0914|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.93|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.14|-1.93|0.0914
95727231|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.39||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.5|-0.28|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.28|-2.5|0.0139
95727232|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.71||||0.2097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.82|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.4|-1.82|0.2097
95727233|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.56||||0.0099|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.75|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.38|-2.75|0.0099
95727234|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.29||||0.034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.48|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.1|-2.48|0.034
95727235|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.53||||0.0177|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.8|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.27|-2.8|0.0177
95727236|NCT01360632|191424561|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.71||||0.0085|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.98|-0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.44|-2.98|0.0085
95727237|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.92||||0.0286|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.74|-0.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.1|-1.74|0.0286
95727238|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.3173|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.24|0.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.4|-1.24|0.3173
95727239|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.17||||0.0313|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|-0.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.11|-2.23|0.0313
95727240|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.97||||0.0732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.04|0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.09|-2.04|0.0732
95727241|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.36||||0.0206|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.51|-0.21|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.21|-2.51|0.0206
95727242|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.91||||0.1233|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.06|0.25|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.25|-2.06|0.1233
95727243|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.61||||0.0097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.84|-0.39|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.39|-2.84|0.0097
95727244|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.86|-0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.41|-2.86|0.0092
95727245|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0139|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.94|-0.33|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.33|-2.94|0.0139
95727246|NCT01360632|191424562|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.12||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.42|-0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.81|-3.42|0.0015
95727247|NCT01360632|191424563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.23|-0.87|0.0008
95727248|NCT01360632|191424563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.5792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|0.23||MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B||0.23|-0.41|0.5792
95727249|NCT01360632|191424563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0091|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.12|-0.87|0.0091
95727250|NCT01360632|191424563|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.0474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.73|0.0474
95727251|NCT01360632|191424564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.58||||0.0015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.22||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.22|-0.94|0.0015
95727252|NCT01360632|191424564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.2627|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.56|0.15||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate|Mixed Models Analysis|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.15|-0.56|0.2627
95727253|NCT01360632|191424564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0158|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3||-0.09|-0.89|0.0158
95729107|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.39||||0.078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.04|0.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.82|-0.04|0.078
95727254|NCT01360632|191424564|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0191|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.08|-0.88|0.0191
95727255|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.45||||0.0377|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.88|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||-0.03|-0.88|0.0377
95727256|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0741|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.91|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis||-0.43|For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.04|-0.91|0.0741
95727257|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.37||||0.0966|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.81||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 11||0.81|-0.07|0.0966
95727258|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.4774|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.66|0.31|||Mixed Models Analysis|||For Item: Work/School: Week 14||0.31|-0.66|0.4774
95727259|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.41||||0.0263|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.76|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.05|-0.76|0.0263
95727260|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0214|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.89|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.07|-0.89|0.0214
95727261|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.04||||0.8281|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|0.32||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.32|-0.40|0.8281
95727262|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.4||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||0.01|-0.80|0.0540
95727263|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|-0.63||||0.0008|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|-0.26||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.26|-0.99|0.0008
95727264|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.0093|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.97|-0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.14|-0.97|0.0093
95727265|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.2182|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.59|0.14|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.14|-0.59|0.2182
95727266|NCT01360632|191424565|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.48||||0.0256|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.06|-0.90|0.0256
95727267|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.53||||0.0341|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||-0.04|-1.01|0.0341
95727268|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.46||||0.0816|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.99|0.06||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||School/work: Week 14||0.06|-0.99|0.0816
95727269|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.29||||0.2561|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.21|0.78||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 11||0.78|-0.21|0.2561
95727270|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.29||||0.2952|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Work/school: Week 14||0.25|-0.82|0.2952
95727271|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.43||||0.0331|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.82|-0.03||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||-0.03|-0.82|0.0331
95727272|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.47||||0.0352|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.03|-0.90|0.0352
95727273|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.486|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.54|0.25||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 11||0.25|-0.54|0.4860
95727274|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.0282|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|-0.05||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Social life: Week 14||-0.05|-0.93|0.0282
95727275|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.62||||0.0016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.01|-0.24||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||-0.24|-1.01|0.0016
95727276|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.51||||0.0186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.94|-0.09|||Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.09|-0.94|0.0186
95727277|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.35||||0.0824|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|0.04||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 11||0.04|-0.73|0.0824
95727278|NCT01360632|191424566|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.59||||0.0077|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.02|-0.16||MMRM method was used with trial site; treatment group-visit; Baseline-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Family life: Week 14||-0.16|-1.02|0.0077
95729108|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.3||||0.172|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.13|0.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.74|-0.13|0.172
95727279|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.0436|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.18|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.18|0.0436
95727280|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.06||||-0.06|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.15|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.03|-0.15|-0.06
95727281|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.08|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.08|-0.34|0.0012
95727282|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0266
95727283|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0034|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|-0.07|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.07|-0.33|0.0034
95727284|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.3053|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.2|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.2|0.3053
95727285|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0541|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0|-0.29|0.0541
95727286|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.0912|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.28|0.0912
95727287|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.12||||0.1553|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.04|-0.28|0.1553
95727288|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.1855|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.05|-0.27|0.1855
95727289|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.2015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.28|0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.06|-0.28|0.2015
95727290|NCT01360632|191424567|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0852|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.02|-0.32|0.0852
95727291|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.0817|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.17|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.17|0.0817
95727292|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.07||||0.1406|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.16|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.16|0.1406
95727293|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.17||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-0.29|0.011
95727294|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|-0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.02|-0.27|0.0287
95727295|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0071|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|-0.05|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.05|-0.32|0.0071
95727296|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.08||||0.2503|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|-0.06|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.06|-0.22|0.2503
95727297|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.0539|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-0.3|0.0539
95727298|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0398|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.31|-0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.01|-0.31|0.0398
95727299|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.13||||0.1168|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.3|0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.03|-0.3|0.1168
95727300|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0621|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.01|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.01|-0.32|0.0621
95727301|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.15||||0.089|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.32|0.02|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.02|-0.32|0.089
95727302|NCT01360632|191424568|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0213|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.03|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.03|-0.38|0.0213
95727303|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.28||||0.0228|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.37|-0.18|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.18|-2.37|0.0228
95727304|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.37||||0.5081|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.47|0.73|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.73|-1.47|0.5081
95727305|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.86||||0.0064|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.2|-0.53|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.53|-3.2|0.0064
95727306|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.89||||0.1898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.23|0.44|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.44|-2.23|0.1898
95727307|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.09||||0.0074|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.62|-0.56|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.56|-3.62|0.0074
95727308|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.42||||0.5935|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.95|1.11|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||1.11|-1.95|0.5935
95727309|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0211|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.52|-0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||-0.29|-3.52|0.0211
95727310|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.1031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.96|0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.27|-2.96|0.1031
95727311|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.1366||||0.1366|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.02|0.41|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.41|-3.02|0.1366
95727312|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.96||||0.2709|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.68|0.75|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.75|-2.68|0.2709
95727313|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.6||||0.0812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.4|0.2|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.2|-3.4|0.0812
95727314|NCT01360632|191424569|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.52||||0.1001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.33|0.29|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B.||0.29|-3.33|0.1001
95727315|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.12||||0.0496|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.24|0.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0|-2.24|0.0496
95727316|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.49||||0.387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.61|0.63|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.63|-1.61|0.387
95727317|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.75||||0.0125|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.13|-0.38|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.38|-3.13|0.0125
95727318|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.19||||0.0898|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.57|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.19|-2.57|0.0898
95727319|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.31||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.88|-0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.74|-3.88|0.004
95727320|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.83||||0.301|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.4|0.74|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.74|-2.4|0.301
95727321|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.15||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.82|-0.48|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.48|-3.82|0.0118
95727322|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.87||||0.0287|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.54|-0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.19|-3.54|0.0287
95727323|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.63||||0.0686|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.39|0.12|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.12|-3.39|0.0686
95727324|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.72||||0.056|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.47|0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||0.04|-3.47|0.056
95727325|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.9||||0.0448|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.75|-0.04|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.04|-3.75|0.0448
95727326|NCT01360632|191424570|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-2.13||||0.0251|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-3.98|-0.27|||Mixed Models Analysis|MMRM method was used with trial site, treatment group, visit, treatment group-by-visit and Baseline-by-visit interaction as an unstructured covariate.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3.||-0.27|-3.98|0.0251
95727327|NCT01360632|191424571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.67||||0.1732|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.63|0.29|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||0.29|-1.63|0.1732
95727328|NCT01360632|191424571|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.34||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.31|-0.37|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.||-0.37|-2.31|0.0066
95727329|NCT01360632|191424572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.78||||0.1226|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.78|0.21|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.21|-1.78|0.1226
95727330|NCT01360632|191424572|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.69||||0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.69|-0.68|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.68|-2.69|0.001
95727331|NCT01360632|191424573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.8164|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.93|0.73|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.73|-0.93|0.8164
95727332|NCT01360632|191424573|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.55||||0.1939|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|0.28|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.28|-1.39|0.1939
95727333|NCT01360632|191424574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.5192|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.14|0.57|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.57|-1.14|0.5192
95727334|NCT01360632|191424574|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.88||||0.0443|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.75|-0.02|||ANCOVA|||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-1.75|0.0443
95727335|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.26|0.0248
95727336|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.1||||0.1334|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.03|-0.22|0.1334
95727337|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
95727338|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0019|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.38|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean scores statistics controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.38|0.0019
95727339|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.0009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.42|0.0009
95727340|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.18||||0.0254|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|-0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.02|-0.34|0.0254
95727341|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0035|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.41|0.0035
95727342|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0152|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.39|0.0152
95727343|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.08|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.08|-0.42|0.004
95727344|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.23||||0.013|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.013
95727345|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.16||||0.0755|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.33|0.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.02|-0.33|0.0755
95727346|NCT01360632|191424575|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.2||||0.0527|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|0.0|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0|-0.39|0.0527
95727347|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.14||||0.0275|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|-0.01|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.01|-0.26|0.0275
95727348|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.09||||0.1583|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.04|-0.22|0.1583
95727349|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.41|0.0021
95727350|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0018|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.4|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.4|0.0018
95727351|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.43|-0.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.11|-0.43|0.0011
95727352|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.19||||0.0235|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.36|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.36|0.0235
95727353|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.27||||0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.10|-0.44|0.0021
95727354|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.24||||0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.42|-0.05|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.05|-0.42|0.0111
95727355|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.26||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.44|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.44|0.0030
95727356|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.28||||0.0046|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.47|-0.09|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.09|-0.47|0.0046
95727357|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.21||||0.0237|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.39|-0.03|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.03|-0.39|0.0237
95727358|NCT01360632|191424576|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.25||||0.0171|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.45|-0.04|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|P-value and treatment difference (CI) are derived from CMH row mean score differ test controlling for study center.||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||-0.04|-0.45|0.0171
95727359|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.5279|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.51|3.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.68|0.51|0.5279
95727360|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
95729109|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.51||||0.098|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.13|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.13|-0.10|0.098
95727361|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.92||||0.0484|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.72|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.72|0.99|0.0484
95727362|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.5813|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.60|0.5813
95727363|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.1236|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|2.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.54|0.90|0.1236
95727364|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.21||||0.4998|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|2.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.10|0.70|0.4998
95727365|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.64||||0.0365|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.61|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.61|1.03|0.0365
95727366|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.52||||0.0822|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.95|2.43|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.43|0.95|0.0822
95727367|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.4049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|1.78|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.78|0.79|0.4049
95727368|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.23||||0.2951|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.84|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|0.84|0.2951
95727369|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.53||||0.0248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|2.2|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.20|1.06|0.0248
95727370|NCT01360632|191424577|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0326|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.03|2.21|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.21|1.03|0.0326
95727371|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.87||||0.7993|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.3|2.55|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.55|0.30|0.7993
95727372|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
95727373|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.2825|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.71|3.16|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.16|0.71|0.2825
95727374|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.2||||0.6375|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.58|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|0.58|0.6375
95727375|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.0923|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.92|0.0923
95727376|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.29||||0.3812|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.3|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.30|0.73|0.3812
95727377|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.63||||0.0464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|1.00|0.0464
95727378|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.049|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.64|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.64|1.00|0.0490
95727379|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.32||||0.2124|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.06|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.06|0.85|0.2124
95727380|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.1078|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.93|2.14|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.14|0.93|0.1078
95727381|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.69||||0.0094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.14|0.0094
95727382|NCT01360632|191424578|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.65||||0.0162|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.09|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.09|0.0162
95727383|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of remission rate|1.03||||0.9498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|2.9|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.90|0.37|0.9498
95727384|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.13||||0.0141|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|0.94|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.94|0.02|0.0141
95727385|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.93||||0.8609|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.17|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.17|0.40|0.8609
95727386|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.2846|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.22|0.2846
95727387|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.5||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.99|0.75|0.2480
95727388|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.13||||0.7513|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.54|0.7513
95727389|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.82||||0.0554|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|3.35|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.35|0.99|0.0554
95727390|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2409|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.87|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.87|0.76|0.2409
95727391|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.5538|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.02|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.02|0.69|0.5538
95727392|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.44||||0.1743|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.85|0.1743
95727393|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.3||||0.2843|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|0.81|0.2843
95727394|NCT01360632|191424579|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.19||||0.464|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.92|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.92|0.74|0.4640
95727395|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.18|1.97|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.97|0.18|0.3867
95727396|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.11||||0.0118|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.93|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||0.93|0.01|0.0118
95727397|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.59||||0.32|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.21|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|0.21|0.3200
95727398|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|0.6||||0.3266|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.23|1.62|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.62|0.23|0.3266
95727399|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.47||||0.3027|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.7|3.1|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.10|0.70|0.3027
95727400|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.17||||0.696|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.54|2.52|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.52|0.54|0.6960
95727401|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.62||||0.1368|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|3.07||CMH general association test controlling for trial site|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12 All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||3.07|0.86|0.1368
95727402|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.48||||0.2387|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.76|2.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.89|0.76|0.2387
95727403|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.26||||0.4498|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.69|2.28|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.28|0.69|0.4498
95727404|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.6||||0.1009|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.91|2.82|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.82|0.91|0.1009
95727405|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.45||||0.1499|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.87|2.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.41|0.87|0.1499
95727406|NCT01360632|191424580|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3012|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.78|2.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.18|0.78|0.3012
95727407|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.2873|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|2.65|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.65|0.75|0.2873
95727408|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.2677|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.36|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.36|0.79|0.2677
95727409|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.8||||0.0031|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.21|2.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.68|1.21|0.0031
95729110|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.6||||0.054|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.01|1.21|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||1.21|-0.01|0.054
95729111|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.692|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|0.34|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-2 hours||0.34|-0.52|0.692
95727410|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.7||||0.0066|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.15|2.5|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.50|1.15|0.0066
95729112|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.87|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.86|2.88|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.88|0.86|< 0.001
95729113|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.61||||0.094|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|1.33|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.33|-0.10|0.094
95729114|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.45||||0.217|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|1.17|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||1.17|-0.27|0.217
95727411|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.34||||0.0665|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.98|1.83|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.83|0.98|0.0665
95727412|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.025|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.91|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.91|1.05|0.0250
95727413|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.18||||0.2224|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9|1.54|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.54|0.90|0.2224
95727414|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.0369|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.01|1.68|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.68|1.01|0.0369
95727415|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.36||||0.0179|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.75|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.75|1.05|0.0179
95727416|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.49||||0.0011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|1.89|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.89|1.17|0.0011
95727417|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.12||||0.3249|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.89|1.41|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.41|0.89|0.3249
95727418|NCT01360632|191424581|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.33||||0.0122|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.66|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 14. The Efficacy Sample Set included all participants who had received at least one dose of study treatment and had both an end of Phase A (Week 8) value and at least 1 post randomization efficacy evaluation for MADRS Total Score in Phase B. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.66|1.06|0.0122
95727419|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.5836|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.6|2.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.49|0.60|0.5836
95727420|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.31||||0.3792|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.73|2.37|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 9. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.37|0.73|0.3792
95727421|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.77||||0.0101|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.14|2.74|||Ratio of response rate|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.74|1.14|0.0101
95727422|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.75||||0.0065|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.17|2.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 10. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.63|1.17|0.0065
95727423|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.41||||0.0526|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|1.99|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.99|1.00|0.0526
95727424|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.51||||0.0156|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.08|2.11|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 11. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.11|1.08|0.0156
95727425|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.22||||0.1689|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.92|1.63|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.63|0.92|0.1689
95727426|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.37||||0.0231|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.04|1.8|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 12. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.80|1.04|0.0231
95729115|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|1.26||||0.015|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.24|2.27||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.27|0.24|0.015
95727427|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.4||||0.0175|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.06|1.84|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 1 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||1.84|1.06|0.0175
95727428|NCT01360632|191424582|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Ratio of response rate|1.59||||0.0004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.22|2.07|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|CMH general association test controlling for trial site||Statistical analysis 2 at Week 13. All participants in the Efficacy Sample who met the revised randomization criteria for incomplete response as defined in Protocol Amendment 3. The LOCF method was used to impute missing data.||2.07|1.22|0.0004
95729116|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.42||||0.006|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4|2.44|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||2.44|0.40|0.006
95729117|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.16||||0.659|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|0.55|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-4 hours||0.55|-0.87|0.659
95729118|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.62|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.16|4.08|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||4.08|1.16|< 0.001
95729119|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.79||||0.135|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.25|1.82|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.82|-0.25|0.135
95727836|NCT00185211|191425156|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.797||||0.1265||95.0|0.595|1.066||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|Andersen-Gill Model|Covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Hazard Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|The time to recurrent relapses was modelled by an extension of Cox's PH regression model (Andersen-Gill Model) for recurrent events with the following covariates: treatment group, steroid use during first event (yes vs. no), onset of disease (monofocal vs. multifocal) and number of T2 lesions at screening (2-4, 5-8 and at least 9 T2 lesions). The null hypothesis was: Initial IFNB-1b and initial placebo do not differ with regard to the hazard for recurrent relapses, i.e. hazard ratio = 1.||1.066|0.595|0.1265
95727837|NCT00185211|191425157|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.7971||||0.0141||95.0|0.665|0.9554||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear Poisson regression|covariate adjustment: steroid use during first event, onset of disease, categorized number of T2 lesions at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b (numerator) versus initial placebo (denominator), i.e. the Risk Ratio represents the relative risk of initial IFNB-1b treatment compared to initial placebo treatment.|Relapse rate was analyzed by a generalized linear Poisson regression model with individual relapse counts as dependent variable, covariates: treatment arm, steroid use during first event, onset of disease and categorized number of T2 lesions at screening and offset variable natural log of time (in years) as difference between last clinical visit and baseline visit. The treatment effect on the relapse rate was of primary interest.||0.9554|0.6650|0.0141
95727838|NCT00185211|191425158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6078||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The distribution of MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score is not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6078
95727839|NCT00185211|191425158|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8245||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: MSFC Z-scores measured at baseline||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are identical for both treatment arms was tested against the alternative hypothesis HA: The mean MSFC Z-scores at month 60 adjusted for baseline MSFC Z-score are not the same in the two treatment groups based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8245
95727840|NCT00185211|191425159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0062||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 adjusted for the number of Gadolinium (Gd)-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.0062
95727841|NCT00185211|191425159|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Relative effect size|0.7351||||0.0435||95.0|0.5436|0.994||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|generalized linear model|Distribution: negative binomial distribution; covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at screening|The direction of comparison is initial IFNB-1b versus initial placebo.|Assuming that the cumulative number of newly active lesions at month 60 follows a negative binomial distribution, a generalized linear model (logarithmic link function, covariate: number of Gd-enhancing lesions on T1 at BENEFIT screening) was set up in order to analyze the treatment effect on that MRI outcome.||0.9940|0.5436|0.0435
95727842|NCT00185211|191425160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.7801||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.7801
95727843|NCT00185211|191425160|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9408||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: T2 lesion volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of T2 lesion volume at month 60 adjusted for the T2 lesion volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.9408
95727844|NCT00185211|191425161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6619||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.6619
95727845|NCT00185211|191425161|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.8558||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Volume of black holes at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The mean absolute change of volume of black holes at month 60 adjusted for the volume of black holes at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.8558
95727846|NCT00185211|191425162|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1208||95.0||||The two-sided error level for the exploratory analysis of the secondary outcome measures was of 0.05.|non-parametric ANCOVA|Variable used as covariate: Brain volume at screening||"The null hypothesis H0: The distribution of the percentage change of brain volume at month 60 adjusted for the brain volume at screening is identical for both treatment arms. was tested against the corresponding two-sided alternative hypothesis based on a non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)."||||0.1208
95728567|NCT01644890|191426380|NON_INFERIORITY|The primary PFS analysis was confirmed whether or not the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) for NK105 relative to PTX fell below the non-inferiority margin of 1.215 (\<1.215) by fitting a Cox proportional hazards model that included allocation adjustment factors other than the study site as covariates.|Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.255|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.989|1.592|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|Based on the results of previous studies, the expected median PFS was 5.5 months for PTX and 6.35 months for NK105. Assuming a randomization period of 18 months, a follow-up period of 12 months, a one-sided significance level of 2.5%, a power of 85% and the non-inferiority margin of 1.215, the number of patients was estimated to 172 pts per group, a total of 344 patients. Considering an expected withdrawal/dropout rate of approximately 20%, the target sample size was set at 414.||1.592|0.989|
95728568|NCT01644890|191426381|OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.885|1.62|||||History of chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent breast cancer (yes/no), History of treatment using a taxane anticancer drug (yes/no), ER status \[(+) or (-)\], and Disease free interval (\<12 months or ≥12 months) were covariates for adjustment.|||1.620|0.885|
95728569|NCT01644890|191426382|OTHER||Difference in ORR (%)|-7.5|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-17.4|2.7||||||||2.7|-17.4|
95728570|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.74|||||ONE_SIDED||||||||GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"||||
95728571|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.76|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728572|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.15|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728573|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728574|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.52|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728575|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728576|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|2.48|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728577|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~QUADRIVALENT~Male and female, all age groups:~Merck Pub 9883616 (Gardasil Package Insert, April 2011, pp 24-26)"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728578|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI GMT ratio|1.23|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728579|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.12|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Girls 9-15, Boys 9-15, Women 16-26:~Petersen LK, Restrepo J, Moreira ED, Jr., et al. Impact of baseline covariates on the immunogenicity of the 9-valent HPV vaccine - A combined analysis of five phase III clinical trials. Papillomavirus Res. 2017;3:105-115;"|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95728580|NCT01492582|191426405|NON_INFERIORITY|Non-inferiority required that the lower bound of the one-sided 99.688% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio was \>0.5.|lower bound one-sided CI of GMT ratio|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|||||||||"Historical Healthy Population Reference:~NONAVALENT~Men 16-26:~Castellsague X, Giuliano AR, Goldstone S, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in men. Vaccine. 2015;33(48):6892-6901. (HM data)."|GMT ratio = GMT (cancer survivor) / GMT (historical healthy population)|||
95729120|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|0.7||||0.186|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.34|1.74|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||1.74|-0.34|0.186
95728628|NCT04041570|191426583|OTHER|t-tests were only employed to determine which individuals were responders. Response rates with 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals were reported within group.||||||0.05||||||The p-value was not adjusted for multiple comparisons and was only used to assess whether participants had a positive response or not.|t-test, 1 sided|This test was only used to determine whether participants were positive responders or not.||Statistical testing was performed within group and not between groups. Positivity for an individual was determined if there was a significant (p-value\<0.05) increase (one-sided test) in the ELISA titers at week 4 when compared to those at baseline. For each participant a t-test was performed to compare the triplicate baseline titers to their triplicate week 4 titers. The proportion of positive responses and associated Clopper-Pearson 95% was calculated within group.|For each participant, a positive response was defined as a significant increase in ELISA titer post vaccination (Week 4) from baseline (Week 0). Within each participant, a t-test is performed to compare the triplicate readings (replicates 1-3) post vaccination versus the triplicate readings at baseline. A participant is defined as a positive responder if one-sided t-test has p-value \< 0.05. The proportion of responders and associated 95% Clopper-Pearson Confidence Intervals were calculated.|||0.05
95728629|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.35||||0.021|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.41|7.95|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||7.95|1.41|0.021
95728630|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|9.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.6|14.6||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.6|1.6|
95728631|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY|The study was powered for formal statistical testing of the abrilumab 70 mg and 210 mg groups. To account for multiplicity of statistical testing, primary and key secondary end points for the 2 highest doses of abrilumab (70 and 210 mg) were tested at the end of the 8-week induction period under a sequential framework at a 2-sided significance level of 0.10 using the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.33||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.34|8.26|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||8.26|1.34|0.030
95728632|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|8.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8|14.9||||||The difference in remission rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||14.9|0.8|
95728633|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.64||||0.64|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|3.17|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.17|0.13|0.64
95728634|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.2|5.5||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.5|-5.2|
95728635|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.34||||0.49|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.03|4.33|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher remission rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using remission rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.33|0.03|0.49
95728636|NCT01694485|191426602|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Remission Rates|-2.9|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-5.5|5.4||||||The difference in remission rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.4|-5.5|
95728637|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.78|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.71|4.52|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.52|1.71|<0.001
95728638|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|23.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|11.8|33.2||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||33.2|11.8|
95728639|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.57||||0.003|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.53|4.31|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.31|1.53|0.003
95728640|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.4|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|9.0|31.8||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||31.8|9.0|
95728641|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.54||||0.024|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.29|5.02|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||5.02|1.29|0.024
95728642|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|21.2|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.9|34.1||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||34.1|4.9|
95728643|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 7 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.4||||0.18|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.13|1.22|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher response rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using response rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.22|0.13|0.18
95728644|NCT01694485|191426603|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Response Rates|-13.7|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-24.4|2.7||||||The difference in adjusted response rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline total Mayo Score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||2.7|-24.4|
95728645|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.34||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.35|4.07|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors.|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||4.07|1.35|0.011
95728646|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|15.3|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|4.8|24.0||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||24.0|4.8|
95728647|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY|If both comparisons of the primary endpoint reached statistical significance at 0.10, results from the 2 key secondary endpoints (response and mucosal healing at week 8) were to be sequentially (70 mg vs placebo then 210 mg vs placebo) tested at significance level of 0.05 independently of each other, according to the Bonferroni-based chain procedure.|Odds Ratio (OR)|2.1||||0.041|TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.15|3.82|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||3.82|1.15|0.041
95728648|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|13.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.7|22.1||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||22.1|1.7|
95728649|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY|Comparisons of abrilumab 21 mg with placebo were not included in the hypothesis testing procedure and were not adjusted for multiplicity.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.8||||0.68|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.32|1.97|||Regression, Logistic|Adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors|An odds ratio \> 1.0 indicates a higher healing rate for the abrilumab treatment group relative to placebo.|Comparisons between treatment groups were made using healing rates from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||1.97|0.32|0.68
95728650|NCT01694485|191426604|SUPERIORITY|Analysis was not part of the formal testing.|Difference in Adjusted Healing Rates|-3.0|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|-11.9|9.4||||||The difference in adjusted healing rates, estimated from a logistic regression model adjusted for baseline rectosigmoidoscopy score and stratification factors (prior vs no prior TNF antagonist use and enrollment pre- vs post-protocol amendment).||9.4|-11.9|
95729121|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.83||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.37|3.29|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.29|0.37|0.014
95728752|NCT01851590|191427204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for negative KOH staining, negative cultures, and a combination of these at 4- and 10-month time points. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel and χ2-tests were used to analyse efficacy criteria.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||The sample size was estimated according to complete mycological cure at 10 months. Estimation was based on the design of a binary-outcome head-to-head superiority trial. Orally administered terbinafine treatment was considered the active control. Approximately 25 patients / arm were required to have 80% power (β=0.2) at a two-sided α=0.05 significance level to detect a decrease in primary outcome from 50% in the terbinafine arm to 15% in the amorolfine or resin lacquer treatment arms.||||<0.05
95728753|NCT01851590|191427205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95728754|NCT01851590|191427206|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95728755|NCT01851590|191427207|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Differences between quantitative data were assessed with one-way analysis of variances, and pairwise comparisons were performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test.|ANOVA|||||||<0.05
95728756|NCT01851590|191427208|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|||||Qualitative data are expressed as frequencies and percentages, and differences between parallel groups were compared with the χ2-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.|Chi-squared|||||||<0.05
95728757|NCT00696709|191427211|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
95728758|NCT00696709|191427212|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
95728759|NCT00696709|191427213|OTHER||||||<|0.0001||||||The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|Longitudinal regression (LR)|Calculated based on LR model (adjusting for pre-vaccination immunogenicity level and incomplete data) with visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
95728760|NCT00696709|191427214|OTHER|The statistical criterion for significance requires that the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval of the geometric mean fold rise in vaccine recipients is \>1.0.|||||<|0.0001|||||||Longitudinal data analysis (LDA)|LDA with log-transformed VZV responses at each visit as response variables and visit as covariate.||||||<0.0001
95728761|NCT00696709|191427215|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
95728762|NCT00696709|191427215|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||8.8|-9.2|
95728763|NCT00696709|191427216|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|35.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|15.2|52.6|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||52.6|15.2|<0.001
95728764|NCT00696709|191427216|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|40.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.6|57.0|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||57.0|19.6|<0.001
95728765|NCT00696709|191427217|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|-4.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-25.3|16.1|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||16.1|-25.3|
95728766|NCT00696709|191427217|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|4.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.9|24.9|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||24.9|-16.9|
95728767|NCT00696709|191427218|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.48|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.3|8.4|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.4|-9.3|0.480
95728768|NCT00696709|191427218|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|1.6||||0.469|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|8.8|||Miettinen & Nurminen|||||8.8|-9.2|0.469
95728769|NCT00696709|191427219|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|5.7|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||5.7|-10.8|
95728770|NCT00696709|191427219|OTHER||Difference in Percentage|0.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.8|6.0|||||Miettinen \& Nurminen|||6.0|-10.8|
95728771|NCT01261325|191427235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|22.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.3|31.2||"Type I error rate of 0.05 based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure would be considered statistically significant or similar, as accurate and appropriate."|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.2|13.3|<0.001
95728772|NCT01261325|191427235|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Percent reduction over PBO|23.2|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|13.8|31.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|ANCOVA|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||31.6|13.8|<0.001
95728773|NCT01261325|191427236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.39|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|3.6||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.6|1.6|<0.001
95728774|NCT01261325|191427236|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds ratio (BRV versus PBO)|2.19|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.5|3.3||Statistically significant with control of Type I error rate based on a Hochberg multiple comparison procedure.|Regression, Logistic|Effects of treatment, country, combination of LEV status and number of previous AEDs, and log-transformed baseline seizure frequency are in the model.||||3.3|1.5|<0.001
95728775|NCT01261325|191427237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|15.8|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|7.6|24.2||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||24.2|7.6|<0.001
95728776|NCT01261325|191427237|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Median difference vs placebo|18.1|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|26.4||Statistically significant at a nominal 0.050 significance level.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)||Hodges-Lehmann non-parametric effect estimates and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals are provided above.|||26.4|10.4|<0.001
95728783|NCT04147715|191427258|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9913|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9232|1.0645|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) fit with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log (ln)-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% confidence interval (CI) between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0645|0.9232|
95728784|NCT04147715|191427258|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9754|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8916|1.0671|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed by an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0671|0.8916|
95728785|NCT04147715|191427260|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0353|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9421|1.1377|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1377|0.9421|
95728786|NCT04147715|191427260|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9096|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8791|0.9411|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||0.9411|0.8791|
95728787|NCT04147715|191427261|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0071|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9679|1.0479|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0479|0.9679|
95728788|NCT04147715|191427261|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of S-648414 were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9852|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9605|1.0105|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / S-648414|The effect of dolutegravir on the PK of S-648414 was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of S-648414 + dolutegravir and S-648414 alone were estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0105|0.9605|
95728789|NCT04147715|191427263|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1806|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1171|1.2477|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2477|1.1171|
95728790|NCT04147715|191427263|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.048|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9656|1.1373|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1373|0.9656|
95728791|NCT04147715|191427265|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.3445|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2352|1.4636|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.4636|1.2352|
95728792|NCT04147715|191427265|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0769|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.0137|1.1441|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed Cτ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cτ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1441|1.0137|
95728793|NCT04147715|191427266|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.1939|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.1176|1.2754|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.2754|1.1176|
95728794|NCT04147715|191427266|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, Cτ, and AUC0-τ of dolutegravir were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0482|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9881|1.1119|||||Ratio = S-648414 + Dolutegravir / Dolutegravir|The effect of S-648414 on the plasma PK of dolutegravir was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with the natural log-transformed AUC0-τ as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-τ of dolutegravir plus S-648414 and dolutegravir alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.1119|0.9881|
95728795|NCT04147715|191427268|OTHER||Slope|0.9857|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9341|1.0373||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(Cmax) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0373|0.9341|
95728796|NCT04147715|191427268|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8786|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7705|1.0019|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|"The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed state and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect.~The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed Cmax were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.0019|0.7705|
95728797|NCT04147715|191427270|OTHER||Slope|1.0252|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.984|1.0665||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-last) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0665|0.9840|
95728798|NCT04147715|191427270|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9598|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8585|1.073|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-last were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0730|0.8585|
95728799|NCT04147715|191427271|OTHER||Slope|1.028|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.9866|1.0695||||||The dose proportionality of plasma PK parameters of S-648414 was examined for all fasted groups in Part 1 using the power model. The power model assumes a linear relationship between the ln-transformed parameter and ln-transformed dose where ln(AUC0-inf) = Intercept + Slope × ln(Dose) + Random error||1.0695|0.9866|
95728800|NCT04147715|191427271|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9646|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8643|1.0766|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed AUC0-inf were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0766|0.8643|
95728801|NCT04147715|191427272|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0272|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9949|1.0606|||||Ratio = Fed / Fasted|The effect of food on the plasma PK of S-648414 was examined after a single dose of 100 mg S-648414 in the fed and fasted state using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model, with ln-transformed t1/2,z as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the fed and fasted state ln-transformed t1/2,z were estimated, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI.||1.0606|0.9949|
95728802|NCT04147715|191427279|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.5167|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.2654|1.818|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after a single dose of S-648414 (Day 1) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||1.8180|1.2654|
95728803|NCT04147715|191427279|OTHER||Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.8372|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|1.5696|2.1506|||||Ratio = 50 mg / 30 mg|"The dose proportionality of plasma S-648414 Cmax after multiple doses of S-648414 (Day 14) was assessed using an ANOVA model fitted to the ln-transformed Cmax, with dose group fitted as a fixed factor.~The point estimates and 90% CIs were generated for the ratios of the 50 mg dose to 30 mg dose ln-transformed Cmax, then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratio and 90% CI."||2.1506|1.5696|
95729122|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|1.92||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.45|3.39|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||3.39|0.45|0.011
95728810|NCT04147715|191427288|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.9241|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.8057|1.06|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0600|0.8057|
95728811|NCT04147715|191427288|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|1.0303|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.9299|1.1415|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed Cmax as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed Cmax of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.1415|0.9299|
95728812|NCT04147715|191427290|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.842|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6628|1.0696|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0696|0.6628|
95728813|NCT04147715|191427290|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8542|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7185|1.0155|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-last as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-last of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0155|0.7185|
95728814|NCT04147715|191427291|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8377|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.6645|1.0561|||||Ratio = 30 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0561|0.6645|
95728815|NCT04147715|191427291|OTHER|The drug interaction was assessed by whether the 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0-last, and AUC0-inf of midazolam were completely contained within the range of 0.8000 to 1.2500.|Geometric Least Squares Mean Ratio|0.8529|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.7213|1.0085|||||Ratio = 50 mg S-648414 + Midazolam / Midazolam|The effect of S-648414 on the PK of midazolam (a CYP3A substrate) was assessed using an ANOVA fitted with a linear mixed effect model with ln-transformed AUC0-inf as the dependent variable, treatment as a fixed effect, and participant as a random effect. The difference and 90% CI between the ln-transformed AUC0-inf of midazolam plus S-648414 and midazolam alone was estimated then back-transformed to obtain the corresponding geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs.||1.0085|0.7213|
95728816|NCT04128696|191427406|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.51||||0.973|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.99|2.29||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||2.29|0.99|0.973
95728817|NCT04128696|191427407|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|4.44|||>|0.999|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.01|9.82||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the one-sided log-rank test, stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||9.82|2.01|>0.999
95728818|NCT04128696|191427408|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.4||||0.989|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.05|1.86||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the Cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).||1.86|1.05|0.989
95728819|NCT04128696|191427409|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.48||||0.996|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|1.99||Nominal p-value was calculated based on the log-rank test, stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx).|Stratified Cox proportional hazard model|||The hazard ratio and 2-sided 95% CI was calculated from the cox regression model with Efron's method of tie handling, a treatment covariate and stratified by PD-L1 expression (CPS ≥20 vs. 1≤ CPS \<20) and HPV status (oropharynx HPV positive vs oropharynx HPV negative/unknown and non-oropharynx)||1.99|1.10|0.996
95728899|NCT03280537|191427741|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.23||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.05|-0.12||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NPS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.12|-1.05|0.0140
95728900|NCT03280537|191427742|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.15||0.0017|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|-0.19||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level. There was no adjustment for multiplicity for the co-primary outcome measures.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The primary analysis tested the null hypothesis that no treatment group difference existed for change from baseline in NCS at Week 24. As NPS and NCS are co-primary outcome measures, both null hypotheses for NPS and NCS must be rejected, with parameter estimates indicating a benefit of omalizumab over placebo, for the study to be deemed positive.||-0.19|-0.80|0.0017
95728901|NCT03280537|191427743|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.45|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.73|-0.16||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline SSS, treatment and baseline SSS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Sense of Smell Score (SSS) at Week 24.||-0.16|-0.73|0.0024
95728902|NCT03280537|191427744|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14||0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.81|-0.27||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline PRS, treatment and baseline PRS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Posterior Rhinorrhea Score (PRS) at Week 24.||-0.27|-0.81|0.0001
95728903|NCT03280537|191427745|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.91|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.24||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.39|-0.44||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NPS, treatment and baseline NPS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the NPS at Week 16.||-0.44|-1.39|0.0002
95728904|NCT03280537|191427746|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.59|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.87|-0.3||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline NCS, treatment and baseline NCS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily NCS at Week 16.||-0.30|-0.87|<0.0001
95728905|NCT03280537|191427747|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-15.04|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|3.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-21.26|-8.82||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline, treatment and baseline by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the SNOT-22 score at Week 24.||-8.82|-21.26|<0.0001
95728906|NCT03280537|191427748|SUPERIORITY||Difference in Least Squares Means|-0.63|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.14|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.9|-0.35||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Mixed-Effect Model of Repeated Measures|Adjustments: geographic region, asthma/aspirin sensitivity, treatment, timepoint, baseline ARS, treatment and baseline ARS by timepoint interactions.|Difference in least squares means: Omalizumab arm minus Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for change from baseline in the average daily Anterior Rhinorrhea Score (ARS) at Week 24.||-0.35|-0.90|<0.0001
95728907|NCT03280537|191427749|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue medication through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
95728908|NCT03280537|191427750|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|20.61||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Fisher Exact|Unadjusted|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for having had surgery for nasal polyps through Week 24.||20.61|0.00|1.0000
95728909|NCT03280537|191427751|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.04||||0.0396|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.07|15.25|||Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for Baseline AQLQ, geographic region, and aspirin sensitivity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for number of participants with a change from baseline in AQLQ score of ≥0.5 at Week 24.||15.25|1.07|0.0396
95728910|NCT03280537|191427752|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.2||||0.1594|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|1.89||Tested at the two-sided 0.05 significance level.|Wald Chi-Square|Adjusted for geographic region and asthma/aspirin sensitivity comorbidity status.|Odds ratio is comparing Omalizumab arm to Placebo arm.|The null hypothesis was that no difference exists between the treatment groups for requirement of rescue treatment through Week 24.||1.89|0.02|0.1594
95729123|NCT02761980|191428326|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|-0.09||||0.865|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.12|0.94|||ANCOVA|||WSTD 0-6 hours||0.94|-1.12|0.865
95728949|NCT02909673|191427889|EQUIVALENCE|Null Hypothesis: No difference between Fourth R Treatment and Control treatment in the rate of Physical DV perpetration. Power analyses were conducted to ensure adequate statistical power to detect minimum detectible differences of 3-6%. An intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.01 was assumed among observations of students attending the same school and was accounted for in the power estimation though the use of a variance inflation factor (VIF)|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.43|1.0||P-value was not adjusted for multiple test. ICC was estimated at 0.006. Type I error rate was set at 0.05|Regression, Logistic|Multilevel logistic regression used to adjust for the clustered sample design (students nested within schools).|Odds of Physical DV perpetration in the control group relative to the treatment group|||1.00|0.43|0.05
95728950|NCT00384033|191427894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.1||||0.198|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|2.7||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||2.70|-0.60|0.198
95728951|NCT00384033|191427894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.8||||0.028|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.2|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided. Global F-test was used to adjust for multiplicity. If global F-test was significant at 0.05 level, pair wise analysis was interpreted without any further p-value adjustment.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.20|0.028
95728952|NCT00384033|191427894|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.047|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|3.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, HAM-D17 total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline HAM-D17 score as the covariate.||3.40|0.00|0.047
95728953|NCT00384033|191427895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.110
95728954|NCT00384033|191427895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.009
95728955|NCT00384033|191427895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008|TWO_SIDED|||||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-I was evaluated using CMH test with treatment as a factor and controlling for center.||||0.008
95728956|NCT00384033|191427896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2||||0.248|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.1|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.10|0.248
95728957|NCT00384033|191427896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.011|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.10|0.011
95728958|NCT00384033|191427896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Median Difference (Final Values)|0.3||||0.026|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.0|0.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, CGI-S was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline CGI-S score as the covariate.||0.60|0.00|0.026
95728959|NCT00384033|191427897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.7||||0.149|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|4.0||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||4.00|-0.60|0.149
95728960|NCT00384033|191427897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.3||||0.004|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.6||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.60|1.10|0.004
95728961|NCT00384033|191427897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|3.4||||0.005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.1|5.8||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, MADRS total score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline MADRS score as the covariate.||5.80|1.10|0.005
95728962|NCT00384033|191427898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12||||0.473|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.22|0.46||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 50 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.46|-0.22|0.473
95728963|NCT00384033|191427898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.27||||0.119|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.07|0.61||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For DVS SR 100 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.61|-0.07|0.119
95728964|NCT00384033|191427898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.06||||0.71|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.27|0.4||The analysis was done at a significance level of alpha = 0.05, 2-sided, without any adjustments for multiple comparisons.|ANCOVA|||For Duloxetine 60 mg, lassitude item of the MADRS score was evaluated using ANCOVA with treatment and site as factors and baseline lassitude item of the MADRS score as the covariate.||0.40|-0.27|0.710
95729124|NCT02761980|191428327|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.449||||||Generalized log-rank test based on interval-censored survival analysis using nonparametric survival method.|Log Rank|||||||0.449
95729089|NCT00094302|191428304|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.94||||0.25|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.85|1.04||No covariate adjustment|Log Rank|Two-sided log rand test (0.05 Type 1 error)|Spironolactone compared to Placebo|"This endpoint was compared by trial arm (spironolactone vs. placebo) using a logrank test of time to first event from the time of randomization. Subjects who did not experience this endpoint were censored at the time of their last contact.~There were a total of 1558 subjects (766 subjects in the Spironolactone group and 792 subjects in the Placebo) who were hospitalized for any cause while on study. This endpoint was not adjudicated by the TOPCAT clinical endpoints committee."||1.04|0.85|0.25
95729090|NCT00094302|191428305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.27|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.27
95729091|NCT00094302|191428305|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
95729092|NCT00094302|191428306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.53
95729093|NCT00094302|191428306|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
95729094|NCT00094302|191428307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.11|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.11
95729095|NCT00094302|191428307|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||<0.01
95729096|NCT00094302|191428308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.59
95729097|NCT00094302|191428308|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.54|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.54
95729098|NCT00094302|191428309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.98|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||A generalized linear model was fit, with the post-baseline laboratory value as the dependent variable, and the baseline laboratory value, treatment group, month of visit, and the interaction between treatment group and month of visit as predictor variables. This tests whether the slope of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.98
95729099|NCT00094302|191428309|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Regression, Linear|||Since the p-value for the preceding test (Statistical Analysis 1) was not significant at the 0.05 level, another generalized linear model was fit, omitting the interaction between treatment group and month of visit. This tests whether the value of the post-baseline laboratory parameter differs by treatment group, taking into account that measurements in the same subject over time may be correlated.||||0.02
95729100|NCT02761980|191428325|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|3.14||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.13|5.15|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) were based on Least Square Mean (LSM) from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||5.15|1.13|0.002
95729101|NCT02761980|191428325|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.91||||0.21|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.52|2.33|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.33|-0.52|0.210
95729102|NCT02761980|191428325|SUPERIORITY||LSM difference|0.79||||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.64|2.21|||ANCOVA|||Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.||2.21|-0.64|0.280
95729103|NCT02761980|191428325|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.23||||0.03|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|4.25|||ANCOVA|||||4.25|0.22|0.030
95729104|NCT02761980|191428325|SUPERIORITY|Treatment difference and 95 % CI were based on LSM from ANCOVA with treatment, and covariates time from the first RSE full dose to randomization, and baseline temperature.|LSM difference|2.35||||0.023|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.33|4.37|||ANCOVA|||||4.37|0.33|0.023
95729139|NCT00101582|191428341|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|4.1764||||0.041||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed as having WHO grade 3 or 4 oral mucositis in hypothesis testing.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||Sample size calculations were based on the number of participants needed to detect, with 90% power and 5% type 1 error rate, at least a 25% difference in the incidence of severe OM between the treatment groups. A 25% absolute reduction in the incidence of severe OM from the placebo group was considered by investigators as clinically meaningful in this clinical setting.||||0.0410
95729140|NCT00101582|191428342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|5.8002||||0.016||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0160
95729141|NCT00101582|191428342|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1122||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||To protect the overall type 1 error, the Hochberg procedure was used to adjust for multiple statistical testing of the secondary efficacy endpoints.||||0.1122
95729142|NCT00101582|191428343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.6603||||0.0261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.4546|0.9592|||Stratified Log-Rank test|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).|Hazard ratio of palifermin over placebo based on Stratified Cox proportional hazard model.|||0.9592|0.4546|0.0261
95729143|NCT00101582|191428343|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.1566||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Stratified Log-Rank test|||||||0.1566
95729144|NCT00101582|191428344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.9715||||0.0463||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association. Participants having no assessment were assumed to have the event.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0463
95729145|NCT00101582|191428344|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2314||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2314
95729146|NCT00101582|191428345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|3.2548||||0.0712||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.0712
95729147|NCT00101582|191428345|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.2849||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.2849
95729148|NCT00101582|191428346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|1.3901||||0.2384||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for mean score difference using modified ridit score.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.2384
95729149|NCT00101582|191428346|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
95729150|NCT00101582|191428347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.9039||||0.3417||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.3417
95729151|NCT00101582|191428347|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.6835||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.6835
95729152|NCT00101582|191428348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Chi-Square Statistic|0.0027||||0.9587||95.0||||Generalized Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for general association.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by disease stage (III versus IV) and primary anatomical tumor location (oral cavity / oropharynx vs. nasopharynx vs. hypopharynx / larynx).||||||0.9587
95729153|NCT00101582|191428348|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.9587||95.0||||Adjusted p-value was based on Hochberg procedure to control for the Type 1 error.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|||||||0.9587
95729154|NCT01907087|191428349|OTHER|Inference is by an exact binomial test of the null hypothesis H0: Prob(response) \<= 0.50 vs. the alternative hypothesis H1: Prob(response) \> 0.50, where Prob(response) denotes the population probability of a response. The confidence interval is an exact interval with significance level α=0.05.|Proportion of responders|0.87||||0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.66|0.97|||exact binomial test|||"Responder Analysis using ITT Population: Proportion of Subjects without an Unreversed Two-point Decline or Score of 0 in ML Scale Score at 48 Weeks.~A 'response' is defined as the absence of an unreversed two-point decline or score of 0 in the 0-to-6 point CLN2 score at 48 weeks."||0.97|0.66|0.0002
95729155|NCT01907087|191428349|OTHER|"Subject rate of decline per 48 weeks is estimated: (baseline CLN2 score - last CLN2 score)/(time elapsed in units of 48 weeks).~P-value computed as a two-sided t-test for the hypothesis H0: Rate=2.0 points lost/48 weeks vs. H1: Rate not equal 2.0 points lost/48 weeks."|Slope|0.4|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.809|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.05|0.75|||t-test, 2 sided|||Slopes Analysis using ITT Population: Estimated Rate of Decline (300 mg Dosing Period).||0.75|0.05|<0.0001
95729156|NCT01919190|191428357|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||||||>|0.8|TWO_SIDED||||||ANCOVA|||||||>0.8
95729157|NCT01919190|191428358|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.0456|TWO_SIDED||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||||||0.0456
95729158|NCT01767597|191428363|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.5||||||No p-value adjustments for multiple comparisons were required. Significance was determined using a p-value \<0.05.|Chi-squared|||Power calculations were performed to detect \>15% difference in immediate linkage-to-care and vaccination. We hypothesized from discussions with an expert panel that \~30% of participants would have appropriate care with standard HBV serology. Assuming type 1 error=0.05 and power=80%, 152 participants per arm would be needed. As \~40% of the population would be nonimmunized or HBsAg-positive from previous data, a minimum 375 participants per arm would be required.||||0.5
95729159|NCT04583579|191428396|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.78|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.78
95729160|NCT01082952|191428443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated for the results of ASM proliferation following incubation with eosinophils isolated from patients in each group. p\< 0.05 was considered significant.|ANOVA|Proliferation data was evaluated using two-way factorial ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test.||||||<0.05
95729174|NCT03093454|191428458|EQUIVALENCE|Linear mixed effects models were used to investigate HADS scores (total, anxiety, and depression), sleep scores, and pain scores. Variables for time point (preoperative/Post-op Day 1/final Post-op Day) \& arm were analyzed. Adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons used the Scheffe method. Analyses were conducted based on the intent to treat principle. P-values\<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Each time point, the mean and corresponding 95% confidence interval has been plotted.|Odds Ratio (OR)|95.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.0||0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0||||The p value is calculated and adjusted for multiple comparisons.|Fisher Exact|||Lavender group compared to control group||||0.05
95729175|NCT02743702|191428482|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.001
95729176|NCT01884025|191428501|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.59|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t-Value: 0.55||Change in total BADS score.||||0.59
95729177|NCT01884025|191428501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.98|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.03||Change in Activation Subscale||||0.98
95729178|NCT01884025|191428501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|"DF: 18~1 Value: -0.04"||Change in Avoidance/Rumination Subscale||||0.96
95729179|NCT01884025|191428501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.21|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.31||Change in Work/School Impairment Subscale||||0.21
95729180|NCT01884025|191428501|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.34|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.99||Change in Social Impairment Subscale||||0.34
95729181|NCT01884025|191428502|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.75|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.33||||||0.75
95729182|NCT01884025|191428503|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||Change in overall physical activity frequency were compared between the two groups.||||0.72
95729183|NCT01884025|191428503|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.39||Change in moderate physical activity frequency between the two groups.||||0.70
95729184|NCT01884025|191428504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.77||Change in the physical health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
95729185|NCT01884025|191428504|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.45|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.76||Change in the mental health scale of the RAND 12 were compared.||||0.45
95729186|NCT01884025|191428505|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.72|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: -0.36||||||0.72
95729187|NCT01884025|191428506|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.88|||||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 0.15||||||0.88
95729188|NCT01884025|191428507|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08|ONE_SIDED|95.0|||||t-test, 2 sided|t Value: 1.83||||||.08
95729189|NCT01884025|191428508|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.16||||||Chi Squared 1.98|Chi-squared|||||||.16
95729190|NCT01884025|191428509|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.85||||||t value: .19|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.85
95729191|NCT01884025|191428510|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.6||||||t value: .54|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.60
95729192|NCT01884025|191428511|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.26||||||t value: -1.17|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.26
95729193|NCT01884025|191428512|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.08||||||t value: 1.85|t-test, 2 sided|||||||.08
95729194|NCT01176448|191428514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|With 12 scars (or pairs to compare), our power calculation had a 95 percent probability that the study will detect a treatment difference at a two-sided 0.05 percent significance level, if a significant difference between treatments is 1.5 units (based on a 0-4 scale as mentioned above). This is based on the assumption that the within-patient standard deviation of the response variable is 0.5 units.||||||0.77||95.0||||Appropriately powered, this study failed to reject the null hypothesis that fraxel achieves a similar cosmetic result at 3 months when compared to dermabrasion.|Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||efficacy outcomes analyzed by 3 surgeons blinded to the treatment and scars evaluated by halves comparing pre-treatment photos to 3-month photos and given a score on the quartile scale described in table 1. The ordinal rater scores of each evaluator were then averaged, and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks performed on the group's scores. (table 5) There were 4 Fraxel winners, 4 Dermabrasion winners, and 4 ties. There was a p value of 0.77 indicating no significant difference between the categories||||.77
95729195|NCT00662025|191428534|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|30.2|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|19.2|43.0||||||||43.0|19.2|
95729196|NCT00662025|191428535|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Objective Response Rate (percentage)|27.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|16.6|39.7||||||||39.7|16.6|
95729197|NCT00662025|191428536|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|50.8|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|37.9|63.6||||||||63.6|37.9|
95729198|NCT00662025|191428537|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||CBR Rate (percentage)|52.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|39.4|65.1||||||||65.1|39.4|
95729199|NCT01288859|191428553|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|The results from LC-MS/MS analysis of parent polyphenols were analyzed and expressed as the absolute changes from the baseline to reduce possible effects of inter-subject fasting variability|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.1||0.02|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.02
95729200|NCT01288859|191428554|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows (version15). By the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures the subjective time curves for all measured compounds were compared and tested for the effect of treatment and of time as factors. For all tests, following a significant main effect in the ANOVA, individual means were compared using the Bonferroni test (p \< 0.05). Results were considered significant at p \< 0.05.||||0.01
95729201|NCT01288859|191428555|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.01||0.04|TWO_SIDED|95.0|||||ANOVA|||||||0.04
95729202|NCT01832090|191428602|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95729203|NCT01832090|191428603|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95729204|NCT01832090|191428604|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<0.0001
95729205|NCT01832090|191428605|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95729206|NCT01832090|191428606|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95729207|NCT01832090|191428607|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.05|||||||Fisher Exact|||||||>0.05
95729208|NCT01832090|191428610|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95729209|NCT01832090|191428611|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.0001|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||<0.0001
95729210|NCT00543439|191428616|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of arithmetic means|0.03||||0.002|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.08|||Paired t-test|||Ratio of the arithmetic means of the ABR for OD cohort: OD therapy to OD cohort: RP therapy 25 IU/kg was calculated. One-sided 95% CI for this ratio was reported.||0.08||0.0020
95729241|NCT02780661|191428762|OTHER||Least square (LS) mean difference|-0.86||||0.0144|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.53|-0.196||Log10 change from baseline in aerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||-0.196|-1.530|0.0144
95729242|NCT02780661|191428763|OTHER||LS mean difference|-0.48||||0.1879|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.23|0.261||Log10 change from baseline in anaerobic bacteria microbial count as response variable, treatment and period as fixed effect, participant level and period level pre-treatment microbial count as covariates and participant as random effect.|ANCOVA||Difference is first named treatment minus second named treatment in log10{(count+1)/(baseline+1)} such that a negative difference favors the first named treatment.|H0: There is no treatment difference between daily and weekly product use. H1: There is a treatment difference between daily and weekly product use.||0.261|-1.230|0.1879
95729243|NCT01806688|191428775|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
95729244|NCT01806688|191428776|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
95729245|NCT01806688|191428778|EQUIVALENCE|The study is designed to detect a 10.0% difference in area under the curve (AUC) appetite ratings between foods. The required number of Participants is 38.|||||<|0.05|||||||ANCOVA|Sources of variation included in the model: snack, visit number, baseline score, visit number × snack, and snack × overweight.||Items #1 were compared to each other and Items #2 were compared to each other||||<0.05
95729246|NCT02261428|191428795|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|3.95|||<|0.05|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.79|8.73|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.73|1.79|<0.05
95729247|NCT02006706|191428802|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.98|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.606|<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.73|4.22|||t-test, 2 sided||The null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the DAS28 at baseline and DAS28 after 24 weeks of follow-up|||4.22|1.73|<0.001
95729248|NCT02006706|191428803|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||||||<0.001
95729249|NCT03679741|191428827|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|1.9|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.99|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.9|5.8|||Bayesian multivariate normal random-effe|A 95% Credible Interval for the Posterior mean difference between the Test and Control was used to test for non-inferiority.|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|It was calculated that 30 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect a 5 point difference between the test and control lenses with respect to overall comfort at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's Method (alpha=0.05).||5.8|-1.9|
95729250|NCT03679741|191428828|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|3.97|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.138|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.27|6.62|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects mode|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||6.62|2.27|
95729251|NCT03679741|191428829|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.022|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0074|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.037|-0.008|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effects|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the low luminance high contrast lighting condition.||-0.008|-0.037|
95729252|NCT03679741|191428829|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of 0.05 logMAR was used. This margin corresponds to a half line difference. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 0.05 logMAR.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.034|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.0075|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.049|-0.02|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|with random effect|Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control|It was calculated that 4 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens types would have at least 80% power to detect non-inferiority with respect to visual acuity (logMAR) at the 2-week follow-up. Sample size was determined using Stroup's method. The analysis presented below, summarizes the high illumination low contrast lighting condition.||-0.020|-0.049|
95729253|NCT03679741|191428830|SUPERIORITY|A superiority margin of 90% was used. Superiority was concluded if the lower limit of the 95% credible interval was above 90%|Mean Percentage of eyes|100.0|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.002|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|99.0|100.0|||Bayesian beta- binomial model|for correlated binary data||It was calculated that 65 participants were required to show that the acceptable lens fitting for the Test lens would be superior to 90% with at least 80% power. Sample size was determined using simulations methods for repeated measures.||100.0|99.0|
95729274|NCT00320593|191428939|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|0.28|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.01|0.55|||ANCOVA|||The primary analysis was a comparison of treatment groups using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model in which myopia at 3 years was adjusted for myopia at baseline and prior SVL wear. The sample size was computed to reach a 90% power and type I error rate of 5%, so that a difference in 3-year myopia progression between treatment groups would be detected if the true difference was at least 0.60 D, assuming a standard deviation of 0.85 D in each group and loss of follow up of 10%.||0.55|0.01|
95729254|NCT03679741|191428831|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority cumulative odds ratio margin of 2 was used. This margin corresponds to no more than a 5% difference between the Test and Control lenses assuming the Control reference rate does not exceed 5%. Non-inferiority was declared if the upper bound of the 95% credible interval was below 2.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.001|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.003|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.004|0.008|||Bayesian beta-binomial hierarchical||Mean difference was calculated as Test minus Control.|It was calculated that 50 participants randomized in a 1:1 fashion between the two lens wear sequences would have at least 80% power to detect 5% difference between the Test and Control lens with respect to the proportion of eyes with Grade 3 or higher slit lamp findings across all study visits. Sample size was determined using simulations methods.||0.008|-0.004|
95729255|NCT03679741|191428832|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|5.6|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.29|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.1|8.1|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||8.1|3.1|
95729256|NCT03679741|191428833|NON_INFERIORITY|A non-inferiority margin of -5 points was used. This margin is based on a 10% shift in the distribution of CLUE scores.|Mean Difference (Final Values)|2.5|STANDARD_DEVIATION|1.56|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|5.5|||Bayesian multivariate normal model|for random effects|Mean difference was calculated as test minus control|Sample size was based on primary endpoints only.||5.5|-0.6|
95729257|NCT03679741|191428834|NON_INFERIORITY|A cumulative odds ratio non-inferiority margin of 0.67 was used. This margin is based on no more than a 10% difference in proportion between the Test and the Control lenses. The odds ratio represents the cumulative odds ratio of having a higher rating/experience of the Test lens compared to the Control lens.|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.73|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.459|||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.0|2.82|||Bayesian multinomial random-effects|A 95% Credible Interval for the odds ratio, was used to test for non-inferiority.|Odds ratio was calculated as test over control|||2.82|1.00|
95729258|NCT01700621|191428840|NON_INFERIORITY|A noninferiority margin of -10% was chosen as the maximal absolute reduction in proportion seroprotection allowed in the concomitant measles-rubella and rotavirus vaccine group as compared to the measles-rubella vaccine alone group.|Seroconversion proportion difference|1.1|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-6.9|9.0||||||||9.0|-6.9|
95729259|NCT00948675|191428895|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.176||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.176
95729260|NCT00948675|191428896|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.61||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.610
95729261|NCT00948675|191428897|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.615||95.0|||||Log Rank|||||||0.615
95729262|NCT00948675|191428898|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.414||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.414
95729263|NCT00948675|191428899|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.575||95.0|||||Pearson Chi-square Test|||||||0.575
95729264|NCT04128007|191428929|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|14.65|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.64|32.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|S-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||32.32|6.64|<0.0001
95729265|NCT04128007|191428930|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|8.8|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|3.65|21.18|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|B-IGA Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||21.18|3.65|<0.0001
95729266|NCT04128007|191428931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|4.06|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.14|7.71|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 2 Odds Ratio||7.71|2.14|<0.0001
95729267|NCT04128007|191428931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|5.36|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.93|9.78||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 4 Odds Ratio||9.78|2.93|<0.0001
95729268|NCT04128007|191428931|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.74|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.02|18.89||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|SI-NRS Success at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.89|5.02|<0.0001
95729269|NCT04128007|191428932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-19.6|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.4|-11.8|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 4 Change from Baseline||-11.8|-27.4|<0.0001
95729270|NCT04128007|191428932|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-27.5|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-35.5|-19.5|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|ANCOVA with country; treatment; and baseline S-IGA, B-IGA, and PSD scores as independent variables with multiple imputation of missing data.|Comparison of Week 8 Change from Baseline||-19.5|-35.5|<0.0001
95729271|NCT04128007|191428933|SUPERIORITY||Hazard Ratio (HR)|3.94|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.764|5.616||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Log Rank||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization.|Time to PSSI-50 Hazard Ratio||5.616|2.764|<0.0001
95729272|NCT04128007|191428934|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.46|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|4.81|18.61||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel||Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-75 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||18.61|4.81|<0.0001
95729273|NCT04128007|191428935|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|34.45|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.49|139.77|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|Stratified by country, baseline S-IGA, and baseline B-IGA per randomization with multiple imputation of missing data.|PSSI-90 at Week 8 Odds Ratio||139.77|8.49|<0.0001
95729278|NCT02110706|191428948|OTHER|"A futility (non-superiority) design is a screening tool to identify whether agents should be candidates for phase III trials while minimizing costs/sample size If futility is declared, results would imply not cost effective to conduct a future phase III clinical trial If futility is not declared, suggests that there could be a clinically meaningful effect - supports exploration in a larger, phase III trial"|Odds Ratio (OR)|1.14||||0.03|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.41|||Regression, Logistic|||"This futility design tests the following hypothesis:~H0: Rituximab improves outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP ≥ 0.30 - not futile) versus HA: Rituximab does not improve outcome by at least 30% compared to placebo (pR - pP \< 0.30 - futile)"||2.41||0.03
95729279|NCT02110706|191428949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.72||||0.63|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.23|2.21|||t-test, 2 sided|||% of study participants with treatment related AEs||2.21|0.23|0.63
95729280|NCT02110706|191428949|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.75||||0.65|TWO_SIDED|90.0|0.27|2.11|||t-test, 2 sided|||% study participants with treatment related SAEs||2.11|0.27|0.65
95729281|NCT02110706|191428950|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.11||||0.93|ONE_SIDED|90.0||2.02|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the MGC. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline MGC scores.||2.02||0.93
95729282|NCT02110706|191428951|OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.09||||0.39|ONE_SIDED|90.0||1.03|||Regression, Linear|||This objective was assessed longitudinally by comparing the final score at the end of the study to the score obtained at baseline. The outcome was defined as the change from baseline to week 52 in the QMG. This hypothesis was assessed using a linear regression model, adjusted for differences in baseline QMG scores.||1.03||0.39
95729283|NCT01227668|191428965|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.57||||0.097|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|1.12|||Stratified log rank|||||1.12|0.28|0.097
95729284|NCT01227668|191428966|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-4.4||||0.051|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.82|0.02||For secondary endpoints, hierarchical testing aimed to keep the overall experiment-wise type I error rate to \<=0.05. Difference in chg from BL was tested at 0.05 significance only if APR arm significantly differed vs placebo from primary analysis.|ANCOVA|||||0.02|-8.82|0.051
95729285|NCT01227668|191428967|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-0.6||||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.3|0.1||Treatment diff in chg from BL to endpnt in IS score was tested at 0.05 signif only if ARP arm signif differed vs pb from PA. Thus, if ARP arm signif differed vs pb in IS score, treatment diff in mean CGI-I score at endpnt was tested at 0.05 signfnce.|ANCOVA|||||0.1|-1.3|0.090
95729286|NCT00947427|191428982|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY|||||||0.86|||||||ANCOVA|||||||0.86
95729287|NCT00249821|191428983|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.001||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: Analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.001
95729288|NCT00249821|191428984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.012||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.012
95729289|NCT00249821|191428984|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
95729290|NCT00249821|191428985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.022||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.022
95729291|NCT00249821|191428985|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.002||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.002
95729292|NCT00249821|191428986|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.029||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.029
95729293|NCT00249821|191428987|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.972||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Change at Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.972
95729294|NCT00249821|191428988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.058||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.058
95729295|NCT00249821|191428988|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.026||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.026
95729296|NCT00249821|191428989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.793||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 6: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.793
95729297|NCT00249821|191428989|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.055||95.0|||||ANCOVA|||"Month 12: ANCOVA method with covariates height and age at baseline was used to calculate presented p-value."||||0.055
95729298|NCT00717977|191428998|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.009||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.009
95729299|NCT00717977|191428999|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.04||95.0||||Adjusted for CGM device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||0.04
95729300|NCT00717977|191429000|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001||95.0||||Adjusted for device type. Age was analyzed as continuous.|Regression, Linear|||The associations of mean sensor glucose and glucose variability measures with age were assessed using least-squares regression models adjusting for device type.||||<0.001
95729301|NCT04567615|191429039|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-2.7|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-10.7|5.3|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||5.3|-10.7|
95729302|NCT04567615|191429042|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
95729303|NCT04567615|191429043|SUPERIORITY||Strata adjusted difference in ORR|-0.9|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-9.2|7.4|||||Difference in ORR of Treatment B over ORR Treatment A|||7.4|-9.2|
95729304|NCT04567615|191429046|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.0|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.75|1.33|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.33|0.75|
95729305|NCT04567615|191429047|SUPERIORITY||Cox proportional hazard model|1.05|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.74|1.49|||||HR of Treatment B over HR of Treatment A|||1.49|0.74|
95729445|NCT00585780|191429135|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing HDD% among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.23||||0.016|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.1|0.55||This is for the apriori hypothesis of significant AWX Treatment X Time effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|Simple effects were conducted to assess source of the interaction.||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.55|0.1|0.016
95729446|NCT00585780|191429136|OTHER|Expected outcome was that Prazosin will be better than placebo in reducing percent of drinking days (DD%) among High AW individuals but no differences by medication treatment in the Low AW individuals.|Odds Ratio (OR)|0.5||||0.002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.28|0.92||This is for apriori hypothesized significant AW X Treatment X Post-full dose time interaction effect.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses with baseline AW severity (mean-centered continuous CIWA-Ar scores) as a moderator of Time (Pre-Full Dose(FD): weeks 1-2; Post FD: weeks 3-12) were conducted with linear or generalized linear mixed effect (LME/GLME) piecewise growth models for continuous and binary outcomes. Control variables that were modeled in all analyses. As hypothesized, significant interactions were tested using AW median cut-offs for high and Low AW groups.||0.92|0.28|0.002
95729447|NCT01716754|191429174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.79||||0.576|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.35|1.78|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.78|0.35|0.576
95729448|NCT01716754|191429174|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.84||||0.556|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.46|1.52|||Regression, Logistic|||||1.52|0.46|0.556
95729449|NCT01716754|191429176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.32||||0.483|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.61|2.86|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.86|0.61|0.483
95729450|NCT01716754|191429176|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.39||||0.261|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.79|2.44|||Regression, Logistic|||||2.44|0.79|0.261
95729451|NCT01716754|191429178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.604|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.604
95729452|NCT01716754|191429178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.26|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Morning||||0.260
95729453|NCT01716754|191429178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.937|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.937
95729454|NCT01716754|191429178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.88|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Evening||||0.880
95729455|NCT01716754|191429178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.762|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.762
95729456|NCT01716754|191429178|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.408|||||||Repeated measures mixed model|||Overall daily||||0.408
95729457|NCT00481247|191429179|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.0056||||||A priori threshold for statistical significance=0.05.|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test stratified by Hasford Score.||||||0.0056
95729458|NCT00481247|191429180|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|0.79|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.55|1.13||||||||1.13|0.55|
95729459|NCT00481247|191429182|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.46|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.2|1.77||||||Hazard Ratio and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.77|1.20|
95729460|NCT00481247|191429183|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.54|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.25|1.89||||||Hazard Ratio, and Confidence Interval were based on analyses on all randomized subjects||1.89|1.25|
95729461|NCT02970669|191429192|SUPERIORITY||Ratio of Geometric Means (SacVal/Ena)|0.9456||||0.0895|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.8863|1.0088|||ANCOVA|model for a log-scaled response with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value in logarithmic scale as a continuous covariate.||||1.0088|0.8863|0.0895
95729462|NCT02970669|191429193|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|293.6||||0.6316|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-916.5|1503.8|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||1503.8|-916.5|0.6316
95729463|NCT02970669|191429195|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.038||||0.057|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.062|4.138|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.138|-0.062|0.0570
95729464|NCT02970669|191429196|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|2.478||||0.0121|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.553|4.403|||ANCOVA|model with treatment group as a class variable and the baseline value as a continuous covariate.||||4.403|0.553|0.0121
95729465|NCT01714505|191429223|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.003|||||||t-test, 1 sided|Paired t-tests: compare LBGI, carbohydrates for hypoglycemia treatment, % of time in range and average BG on CLC vs OL.||||||0.003
95729466|NCT01714505|191429224|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||>|0.1|||||||t-test, 1 sided|||||||>0.1
95729467|NCT01714505|191429225|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.02|||||||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||||0.02
95729468|NCT04281485|191429241|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|0.09|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.78|=|0.9116|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.46|1.64|||Mixed Models Analysis||||The Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) model contained fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction with additional fixed effects for baseline value (continuous variable), screening age (continuous variable), baseline value by visit interaction, and screening age by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|1.64|-1.46|=0.9116
95729469|NCT04281485|191429242|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|85.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|17.17|=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|49.15|122.35|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||122.35|49.15|=0.0002
95729470|NCT04281485|191429243|SUPERIORITY||Least Square Mean Difference|51.46|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.49|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|31.43|71.49|||ANCOVA|The ANCOVA model contained treatment group (categorical variable) and screening age (continuous variable).||||71.49|31.43|<0.0001
95729471|NCT04281485|191429244|SUPERIORITY||Geometric Ratio of LS Means|0.64|||=|0.0002|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.5|0.81|||Mixed Models Analysis||||MMRM approach for log transformed data including visits through Week 52 where serum CK concentration was assessed with fixed effects for treatment group (categorical variable), visit (ordered categorical variable), and treatment group by visit interaction, and with additional fixed effects for natural log of baseline (continuous variable), screening age covariate (continuous variable), natural log of baseline by visit interaction, and screening age covariate by visit interaction with an unstructured variance-covariance matrix.|0.81|0.50|=0.0002
95854239|NCT00303069|191668280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|30.9|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|17.2|48.3||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 90 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||48.3|17.2|<0.001
95854240|NCT00303069|191668280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|14.4|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.6|32.1||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 30 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||32.1|1.6|<0.001
95854241|NCT00303069|191668280|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Difference (RD)|3.5|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-8.2|16.9||P-value \< 0.025 considered significant.|Chi-squared|Normal approximation for testing 2 independent binomial proportions, stratified by age group (\<40 yrs, ≥40 yrs)|Risk Difference is 5 μg minus Placebo and is expressed in percentage points, confidence intervals were computed using the stratified method given by Miettinen and Nurminen|Testing was performed in a sequential manner. First, the response rate of the 90-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance (using a 1-tailed α=0.025). If significant, the response rate of the 30-μg group was compared to placebo and assessed for significance. The testing continued sequentially until a non-significant result was observed or until all V710 groups had been compared with placebo.||16.9|-8.2|<0.001
95854242|NCT03175367|191668305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-38.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.5|-20.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-20.6|-56.5|< .0001
95854243|NCT03175367|191668305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-52.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-70.7|-35.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.1|-70.7|< .0001
95854244|NCT03175367|191668305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-56.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.7|-38.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.3|-73.7|< .0001
95854245|NCT03175367|191668305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-24.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.3|=|0.0109|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-42.6|-5.7||P-Value is not adjusted for multiplicity|Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.7|-42.6|= 0.0109
95854246|NCT03175367|191668305|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.0|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.4|-32.6|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-32.6|-68.4|< .0001
95854247|NCT03175367|191668306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-26.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.2|=|0.0003|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-40.9|-12.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-12.4|-40.9|= 0.0003
95854248|NCT03175367|191668306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-42.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.1|-27.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-27.9|-56.1|< 0.0001
95854249|NCT03175367|191668306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-45.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.1|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-59.5|-31.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-31.5|-59.5|< 0.0001
95854250|NCT03175367|191668306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-16.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.6|=|0.0132|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-29.7|-3.5|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-3.5|-29.7|= 0.0132
95854251|NCT03175367|191668306|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|6.4|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-52.0|-26.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-26.8|-52.0|< 0.0001
95854252|NCT03175367|191668307|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-21.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.4|=|0.0111|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-38.4|-5.1|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-5.1|-38.4|= 0.0111
95854253|NCT03175367|191668307|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-40.4|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.2|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-56.7|-24.0|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.0|-56.7|< 0.0001
95854254|NCT03175367|191668308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-39.3|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-54.4|-24.3|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-24.3|-54.4|< 0.0001
95854255|NCT03175367|191668308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-53.8|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.6|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-68.8|-38.9|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-38.9|-68.8|< 0.0001
95854256|NCT03175367|191668308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-58.5|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-43.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-43.7|-73.4|< 0.0001
95854257|NCT03175367|191668308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-23.7|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|8.1|=|0.0042|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-39.7|-7.7|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-7.7|-39.7|= 0.0042
95854258|NCT03175367|191668308|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-50.9|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.8|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-66.4|-35.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.4|-66.4|< 0.0001
95854259|NCT03175367|191668309|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-30.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.7|=|0.0021|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-49.8|-11.4|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-11.4|-49.8|= 0.0021
95854260|NCT03175367|191668309|SUPERIORITY||Least Squares Mean Difference|-54.6|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|9.5|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-73.4|-35.8|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||-35.8|-73.4|< 0.0001
95854261|NCT03175367|191668310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|19.4|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|5.1|72.8|||Regression, Logistic|||||72.8|5.1|< 0.0001
95854262|NCT03175367|191668310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|23.9|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.4|89.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||89.2|6.4|< 0.0001
95854263|NCT03175367|191668310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|22.1|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|6.0|80.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||80.5|6.0|< 0.0001
95854264|NCT03175367|191668310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|8.5|||=|0.0007|TWO_SIDED|95.0|2.5|29.2|||Regression, Logistic|||||29.2|2.5|= 0.0007
95854265|NCT03175367|191668310|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio, log|42.3|||<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|10.4|172.3|||Regression, Logistic|||||172.3|10.4|< 0.0001
95854266|NCT03175367|191668311|SUPERIORITY||Odds Ratio (OR)|9.6|||=|0.01|TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.7|53.5|||Regression, Logistic|||||53.5|1.7|= 0.0100
95854299|NCT02851615|191668320|SUPERIORITY|Power analyses were calculated on the PAM-13, our primary outcome measure. Analyses were conducted using the internal Monte Carlo simulation capabilities of Mplus (Version 1.20). Based on the effect size obtained from published pilot data, we expected the change in baseline/posttreatment Behavioral Activation for the SCThrive intervention group to be n2 = .14 (large effect). Based on these assumptions, the desired sample size was 54 participants (N = 27 per group) to achieve power of .80.|Mean Difference (Net)|7.75|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|13.14||0.09|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.27|19.22||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the PAM-13.||19.22|-1.27|.09
95854300|NCT02851615|191668321|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.15|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.55||0.28|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.19|0.66||The threshold for significance was p =.05|ANCOVA|||We conducted separate mixed ANOVA analyses to assess for the effects of group (SCThrive/SCHealthEd), time (baseline/post-treatment), and group x time interaction for the TRAQ-5||.66|-.19|.28
95854301|NCT02851615|191668322|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Net)|0.02|STANDARD_DEVIATION|0.13||0.27|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.018|0.06||The threshold for statistical significance was p =.05|t-test, 2 sided|||We conducted a paired-samples t-test to assess for the effects of time (baseline/post-treatment) for participants (n=16) in the SCThrive intervention arm for the UNC TRxANSITION Scale.||.06|-.018|.27
95854302|NCT01389596|191668352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.1|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.092||0.2577|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.29|0.08|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||0.08|-0.29|0.2577
95854303|NCT01389596|191668352|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||LS Mean Difference|-0.22|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.094||0.0185|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.41|-0.04|||ANCOVA|||Linear Model With Log transformed baseline seizure rate as continuous covariate and geographic regions, treatment groups and weight as fixed effects.||-0.04|-0.41|0.0185
95854304|NCT01389596|191668353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.036||||0.8024|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.528|2.03|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||2.030|0.528|0.8024
95854305|NCT01389596|191668353|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER_LEGACY||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.636||||0.0092|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.851|3.147|||Regression, Logistic|||P-values were from a Logistic Regression Model including fixed effects for treatment, weight group, and geographical region.||3.147|0.851|0.0092
95854306|NCT00565084|191668375|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Difference in LS Means|0.06||||0.743||90.0|-0.23|0.35|||ANOVA|||Primary efficacy endpoint was assessed by an ANOVA model with terms for treatment, period, sequence, and patients within sequence. Efficacy advantage over placebo was assessed via the treatment difference in the least-squares (LS) means (ibuprofen vs. average of the 2 placebo treatments) from the ANOVA model and the 90% confidence interval (CI; one-sided alpha=0.05) of the LS mean difference will be assessed.||0.35|-0.23|0.743
95854307|NCT01181349|191668381|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.169|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.169
95854308|NCT01181349|191668383|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.01|||||||Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test|||Cross tables were performed between TOF ratio and medications administered. Statistical significance was evaluated using Chi-square test or Fisher's Exact Test. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05.||||=0.01
95854309|NCT00408317|191668439|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Net)|34.74|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CFA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects; participant identification (ID) as random effect.||||<0.0001
95854310|NCT00408317|191668440|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|25.68|||<|0.0001|||||||Mixed Models Analysis|||P-values are from a semi-parametric mixed model on ranked CNA% values including sequence, period, and treatment group as fixed effects, and participant ID as random effect.||||<0.0001
95854311|NCT01337960|191668443|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.01|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||< 0.01
95854312|NCT01337960|191668444|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.02|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||<.02
95854313|NCT01337960|191668445|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.17|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.17
95854314|NCT01337960|191668446|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.35|TWO_SIDED||||||Fisher Exact|||||||=0.35
95854315|NCT03763877|191668449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|0.12|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.926||0.9883|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.42|15.66|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in Least Squares (LS) Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||15.66|-15.42|0.9883
95854316|NCT03763877|191668449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.14|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.609||0.0842|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.06|1.78|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.78|-28.06|0.0842
95854317|NCT03763877|191668449|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.54|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.636||0.0763|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-28.51|1.43|||ANCOVA|ANCOVA model using a multiple imputation procedure based on the fully conditional specification method.|Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.43|-28.51|0.0763
95854318|NCT03763877|191668450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-1.58|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.265||0.8283|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-16.01|12.85|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||12.85|-16.01|0.8283
95854319|NCT03763877|191668450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-13.25|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.221||0.0698|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-27.6|1.1|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||1.10|-27.60|0.0698
95854320|NCT03763877|191668450|SUPERIORITY||Mean Difference (Final Values)|-17.31|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|7.207||0.0184|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-31.63|-2.99|||ANCOVA||Mean difference (final values) is the difference in LS Means estimated in the ANCOVA model.|||-2.99|-31.63|0.0184
95854321|NCT03763877|191668451|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-4.22||||0.5537|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-15.64|8.65|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||8.65|-15.64|0.5537
95854322|NCT03763877|191668451|SUPERIORITY||Location Shift|-13.64||||0.1005|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-26.19|1.88|||Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)|||||1.88|-26.19|0.1005
95854692|NCT00198822|191669121|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Risk Ratio (RR)|0.65||||0.05|ONE_SIDED|95.0||0.99||We set an a priori level of statistical significance of p equal to 0.05.|generalized estimating equations|RR with 95% CIs were estimated by GEE binomial regression, with a log link function and exchangeable correlation appropriate for binary data.|The vitamin A group and the Beta-carotene group were compared to the placebo group.|Sample size was based on an expected placebo group MR of 600/100,000 pregnancies, requiring 18,000 pregnancies to detect a 35% reduction in all-cause mortality, with a 5% type I error, 80% power, 1.21 design effect, 15% early pregnancy loss and 10% loss to follow-up. A mid-study DSMB analysis suggested a lower MR, leading the SS to be increased to 67,740. However, with no mortality difference evident at a DSMB meeting in Dec 2006, the trial was halted leaving 59,721 in the trial cohort.||0.99||0.05
95854693|NCT01409707|191669125|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.068||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p = .05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no differences between groups at posttreatment on posttraumatic stress disorder measures or alcohol use measures.||||=.068
95854694|NCT01409707|191669126|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||=|0.39||95.0||||The a priori threshold for statistical significance was set at p=.05.|Mixed Models Analysis|||Multilevel mixed modeling was employed. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences in alcohol use at posttreatment.||||= 0.39
95854695|NCT01294553|191669127|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Percentage of participants|15.4|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|12.8|18.1|||||The estimated value represents the percentage of participants with an adverse event.|||18.1|12.8|
95854696|NCT05810740|191669148|OTHER||LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|96.43|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|92.57|100.46||||||||100.46|92.57|
95854697|NCT05810740|191669149|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|97.19|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|93.47|101.06||||||||101.06|93.47|
95854698|NCT05810740|191669150|OTHER||Geometric Mean Ratio|94.02|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|87.25|101.33||||||||101.33|87.25|
95854699|NCT00737672|191669192|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.53|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.530
95854700|NCT00737672|191669195|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.475|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.475
95854701|NCT00737672|191669198|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.008||||||P-value was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methodology with 24-month follow-up data.|Log Rank|||||||0.008
95854702|NCT00737672|191669199|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|One-sided test of non-inferior proportions with delta = 0.15.|||||<|0.001|||||||Z-test|One-sided.||||||<0.001
95854703|NCT00737672|191669200|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||0.035|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.035
95854704|NCT00737672|191669203|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER|||||||1|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||1.000
95854705|NCT00737672|191669204|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
95854706|NCT00737672|191669205|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||||||<|0.001|||||||Fisher Exact|Two-tailed.||||||<0.001
95854707|NCT02735863|191669214|SUPERIORITY|||||||0.5352|||||||Log Rank|||||||0.5352
95854708|NCT00829426|191669215|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|102.56|||||TWO_SIDED|90.0|98.74|106.52|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls withi 80-125.|||106.52|98.74|
95854709|NCT00829426|191669216|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|92.88||||||90.0|90.34|95.48|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||95.48|90.34|
95854710|NCT00829426|191669217|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE_LEGACY|An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on each of the pharmacokinetic parameters using SAS® software.|Geometric Test/Ref Ratio x 100|93.92||||||90.0|91.47|96.44|||||Bioequivalence is established when 90% Confidence Interval falls within 80 - 125|||96.44|91.47|
95854711|NCT03955146|191669218|OTHER||LS Mean Difference|0.07|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.062||0.2926|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.06|0.19|||Mixed Models Analysis|||||0.19|-0.06|0.2926
95854712|NCT01436526|191669226|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.35||||0.0438||90.0|101.59|115.57|||ANOVA|||||115.57|101.59|0.0438
95854713|NCT01436526|191669227|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|108.19||||0.0514||90.0|101.31|115.54|||ANOVA|||||115.54|101.31|0.0514
95854714|NCT01436526|191669228|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|Using an estimated intra-subject coefficient of variation of less than 20% for AUC and Cmax, and a level of significance of 5%, a sample size of 25 completers was considered sufficient to conclude bioequivalence between 2\*5 mg and 1\*10 mg rivaroxaban with 90% power, if the 2 treatment means differed by 5%.|LS-Mean Ratio, Percent|111.64||||0.0685||90.0|101.14|123.23|||ANOVA|||||123.23|101.14|0.0685
95854715|NCT03605667|191669234|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.93||0.9809|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.8|1.8|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) randomization stratification, apolipoprotein E (APoE) status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||1.8|-1.8|0.9809
95854716|NCT03605667|191669235|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|-0.2|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.28||0.4474|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.8|0.3|||Mixed model with repeated measures|||Model based summary statistics are from a mixed model with repeated measures, including fixed effects for pooled site ID, treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, baseline, baseline-by-visit interaction, MMSE randomization stratification, APoE status (carrier/non carrier), as covariates, and repeated measures for visit within participant.||0.3|-0.8|0.4474
95854717|NCT03605667|191669236|SUPERIORITY|Unstructure covariance structure.|Least square mean difference|0.0|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.26||0.867|TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.6|0.5|||ANCOVA|||Model based summary statistics were from an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with baseline MMSE total score as covariate.||0.5|-0.6|0.8670
95855240|NCT00911170|191670055|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.41||||0.014|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.19|0.86|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is adjusted for the randomization stratification factors (chemotherapy regimen, geographic region, disease stage).|Odds ratio adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|The primary hypothesis was that the percentage of participants treated with study chemotherapy and bevacizumab who experience grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (FN) would be lower in participants randomized to the pegfilgrastim arm compared to placebo arm. The study was designed to have at least 90% power at the 2-sided 0.05 significance level to detect a 6% difference in incidence of grade 3/4 FN from 9% to 3%, which is approximately a 66.7% relative reduction.||0.86|0.19|0.014
95855241|NCT00911170|191670056|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.704|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.36|||Log Rank|P-values based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.36|0.81|0.704
95855242|NCT00911170|191670057|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.05||||0.552|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.26|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.26|0.88|0.552
95855243|NCT00911170|191670058|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Hazard Ratio (HR)|1.07||||0.502|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.88|1.29|||Log Rank|P-values are based on the log-rank test statistic from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis stratified by the 3 randomization factors.|Based on Cox proportional Hazard model stratified by chemotherapy regimen, region and disease status. A HR\< 1.0 indicates a lower average event rate and a longer survival time for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.29|0.88|0.502
95855244|NCT00911170|191670059|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|1.06||||0.683|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.81|1.39|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \> 1.0 indicates a higher event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.39|0.81|0.683
95855245|NCT00911170|191670060|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.66||||0.312||95.0|0.29|1.49|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||1.49|0.29|0.312
95855246|NCT00911170|191670061|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.18|||<|0.001||95.0|0.1|0.32|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.32|0.10|<.001
95855247|NCT00911170|191670062|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Odds Ratio (OR)|0.27|||<|0.001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.13|0.56|||Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel|The p-value is from the Cochran Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test adjusting for the randomization stratification factors.|Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for the randomization stratification factors. An OR \< 1.0 indicates a lower event rate for the pegfilgrastim arm relative to the placebo arm.|||0.56|0.13|<.001
95855248|NCT03593044|191670066|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Photopic pupil size||||0.002
95855249|NCT03593044|191670066|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Mesopic pupil size||||0.66
95855250|NCT03593044|191670067|OTHER|||||||0.96|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast distance visual acuity||||0.96
95855251|NCT03593044|191670067|OTHER|||||||0.77|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||High contrast near visual acuity||||0.77
95855252|NCT03593044|191670067|OTHER|||||||0.82|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Low contrast distance visual acuity||||0.82
95855253|NCT03593044|191670068|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative amplitude||||0.10
95855254|NCT03593044|191670068|OTHER|||||||0.66|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative lag||||0.66
95855255|NCT03593044|191670068|OTHER|||||||0.24|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Accommodative facility||||0.24
95855256|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Glare||||0.3
95855257|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.5|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Ghost images||||0.5
95855258|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Strain/tiredness||||0.9
95855259|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.9|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Changing vision||||0.9
95855260|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Headache frequency||||0.3
95855261|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Distance clarity||||0.7
95855262|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.3|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Computer clarity||||0.3
95855263|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Small print clarity||||0.1
95855264|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||1|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Vision during sports/hobbies||||1.0
95855265|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.2|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Overall vision||||0.2
95855266|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.7|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Light sensitivity||||0.7
95855267|NCT03593044|191670069|OTHER|||||||0.002|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Discomfort during bright light||||0.002
95855268|NCT03593044|191670070|OTHER|||||||0.001|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Right eye intraocular pressure||||0.001
95855269|NCT03593044|191670070|OTHER|||||||0.05|||||||t-test, 2 sided|||Left eye intraocular pressure||||0.05
95855270|NCT00554216|191670072|SUPERIORITY_OR_OTHER||Mean Difference (Final Values)|9.36|STANDARD_ERROR_OF_MEAN|0.476|<|0.0001|TWO_SIDED|95.0|8.43|10.3||Intersection-union method applied in a step-down testing approach|ANCOVA|||With at least 250 subjects in each of the 3 arms in this trial, the trial has more than 90% power to detect a difference of at least 3.1% between combination and placebo treatment assuming a standard deviation of 5.3% and a significance level of 0.05.||10.30|8.43|<0.0001
95855372|NCT00541658|191670499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.135|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.504|0.234|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.234|-0.504|
95855373|NCT00541658|191670499|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.072|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.437|0.294|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.294|-0.437|
95855374|NCT00541658|191670500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.321|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.724|0.082|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.082|-0.724|
95855375|NCT00541658|191670500|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.692|0.112|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.112|-0.692|
95855376|NCT00541658|191670501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.288|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.682|0.106|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.106|-0.682|
95855377|NCT00541658|191670501|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.29|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.681|0.101|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.101|-0.681|
95855378|NCT00541658|191670502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.644|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.179|-0.11|||ANOVA|||||-0.110|-1.179|
95855379|NCT00541658|191670502|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.587|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.116|-0.059|||ANOVA|||||-0.059|-1.116|
95855380|NCT00541658|191670503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.03|-0.014|||ANOVA|||||-0.014|-1.030|
95855381|NCT00541658|191670503|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.468|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.973|0.037|||ANOVA|||||0.037|-0.973|
95855382|NCT00541658|191670504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.731|0.201|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.201|-0.731|
95855383|NCT00541658|191670504|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.126|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.588|0.336|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.336|-0.588|
95855384|NCT00541658|191670505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.328|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.811|0.156|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.156|-0.811|
95855385|NCT00541658|191670505|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.563|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.045|-0.08|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center, anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.080|-1.045|
95855386|NCT00541658|191670506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.327|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|0.138|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.138|-0.793|
95855387|NCT00541658|191670506|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.537|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.0|-0.074|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.074|-1.000|
95855388|NCT00541658|191670507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.578|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.189|0.032|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.032|-1.189|
95855389|NCT00541658|191670507|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.799|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.403|-0.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.194|-1.403|
95855390|NCT00541658|191670508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.128|0.018|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.018|-1.128|
95855391|NCT00541658|191670508|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.616|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|-0.046|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.046|-1.185|
95855392|NCT00541658|191670509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.249|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.86|0.363|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.363|-0.860|
95855393|NCT00541658|191670509|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.265|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.871|0.342|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.342|-0.871|
95855394|NCT00541658|191670510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.557|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.185|0.071|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.071|-1.185|
95855395|NCT00541658|191670510|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.522|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.149|0.105|||ANOVA||LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.105|-1.149|
95855396|NCT00541658|191670511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.546|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.17|0.078|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.078|-1.170|
95855397|NCT00541658|191670511|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|-0.579|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.199|0.042|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||0.042|-1.199|
95855398|NCT00541658|191670512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.095|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.861|-0.329|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.329|-1.861|
95855399|NCT00541658|191670512|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.19|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.948|-0.432|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.432|-1.948|
95855400|NCT00541658|191670513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-0.919|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.655|-0.184|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.184|-1.655|
95855401|NCT00541658|191670513|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|-1.056|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.787|-0.326|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||-0.326|-1.787|
95855402|NCT00541658|191670514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.771|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.885|8.427|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.427|-0.885|
95855403|NCT00541658|191670514|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.826|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.819|7.471|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.471|-1.819|
95855404|NCT00541658|191670515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.63|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.171|7.431|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||7.431|-2.171|
95855405|NCT00541658|191670515|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.617|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.152|9.386|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.386|-0.152|
95855406|NCT00541658|191670516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.04|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.091|9.989|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.989|0.091|
95855407|NCT00541658|191670516|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.64|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.293|9.574|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.574|-0.293|
95855408|NCT00541658|191670517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.372|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.329|11.414|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.414|1.329|
95855409|NCT00541658|191670517|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.403|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.619|9.425|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.425|-0.619|
95855410|NCT00541658|191670518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.739|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.793|10.271|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.271|-0.793|
95855411|NCT00541658|191670518|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.999|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.518|9.515|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.515|-1.518|
95855412|NCT00541658|191670519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|4.817|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.693|10.327|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.327|-0.693|
95855413|NCT00541658|191670519|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.192|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-2.295|8.68|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.680|-2.295|
95855414|NCT00541658|191670520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.45|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.26|9.16|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.160|-0.260|
95855415|NCT00541658|191670520|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|3.723|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.975|8.421|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||8.421|-0.975|
95855416|NCT00541658|191670521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.798|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.195|9.79|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.790|-0.195|
95855417|NCT00541658|191670521|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.972|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.02|9.924|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||9.924|0.020|
95855418|NCT00541658|191670522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|4.775|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.514|10.065|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.065|-0.514|
95855419|NCT00541658|191670522|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.638||||||95.0|0.356|10.92|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.920|0.356|
95855420|NCT00541658|191670523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|6.552|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.162|11.942|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||11.942|1.162|
95855421|NCT00541658|191670523|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|5.531|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.164|10.897|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||10.897|0.164|
95855422|NCT00541658|191670524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.83|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.175|14.485|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.485|1.175|
95855423|NCT00541658|191670524|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|8.383|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.757|15.01|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled centers and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||15.010|1.757|
95855424|NCT00541658|191670525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.802|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|1.385|14.22|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||14.220|1.385|
95855425|NCT00541658|191670525|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|7.301|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.911|13.69|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||13.690|0.911|
95855426|NCT00541658|191670526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.755|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.145|4.655|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.655|-1.145|
95855427|NCT00541658|191670526|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.805|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.087|4.698|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.698|-1.087|
95855428|NCT00541658|191670527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|2.407|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.502|5.316|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.316|-0.502|
95855429|NCT00541658|191670527|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.309|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.576|4.194|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.194|-1.576|
95855430|NCT00541658|191670528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.555|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.617|4.727|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.727|-1.617|
95855431|NCT00541658|191670528|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.612|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.556|4.779|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.779|-1.556|
95855432|NCT00541658|191670529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.434|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.652|4.521|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.521|-1.652|
95855433|NCT00541658|191670529|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Least Squares Mean Difference|1.462|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.611|4.535|||ANOVA|Fixed effect for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||4.535|-1.611|
95855434|NCT00541658|191670530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.749|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.938|6.436|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||6.436|-0.938|
95855435|NCT00541658|191670530|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|3.416|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-0.255|7.087|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus daily treatment.|||7.087|-0.255|
95855436|NCT00541658|191670531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.197|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.318|5.711|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.711|-1.318|
95855437|NCT00541658|191670531|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|LS Mean Difference|2.251|||||TWO_SIDED|95.0|-1.248|5.751|||ANOVA|Fixed effects for treatment, pooled center and anticoagulant use.|LS Mean Difference is 5 mg daily minus weekly treatment.|||5.751|-1.248|
95855438|NCT00541658|191670532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.0||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.14|7.05|||Fisher Exact|||||7.05|0.14|1.0000
95855439|NCT00541658|191670532|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.5||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.9|||Fisher Exact|||||8.90|0.25|1.0000
95855440|NCT00541658|191670533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.03||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.15|7.29|||Fisher Exact|||||7.29|0.15|1.0000
95855441|NCT00541658|191670533|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|1.49||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.25|8.87|||Fisher Exact|||||8.87|0.25|1.0000
95855442|NCT00541658|191670534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.42||||0.4505|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.08|2.14|||Fisher Exact|||||2.14|0.08|0.4505
95855443|NCT00541658|191670534|NON_INFERIORITY_OR_EQUIVALENCE|To establish the non-inferiority at one-sided α of 2.5% with 90% power, 651 patients (217 per treatment group) was required to complete at least 52 weeks of the study. Adjusting for 20% dropouts, 272 patients per group were required for randomization. This calculation was based on a non-inferiority margin of 1.5%, a true mean difference (μIR - μDR) of 0.25%, and a common standard deviation of the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Week 52 of 4.0%.|Relative Risk|0.82||||1|TWO_SIDED|95.0|0.22|3.03|||Fisher Exact|||||3.03|0.22|1.0000
